Why wasn't the Metropolitan Railway merged into one of the big four rail groups in 1923?

Question

Unlike the rest of London's underground railways, the Metropolitan Railway styled itself on a mainline railway with it's stock built to mainline specifications. It also carried freight, ran Pullman cars & it's services stertched as far as Verney Junction in Buckinghamshire (nearly twice as far from Central London as the current terminus at Amersham).

Answer 1

None of the Underground companies were merged into the big four. Although the 'Met' styled itself on a mainline railway, it was still seen as effectively part of London's Underground system. It wasn't the only underground railway to have stock 'built to mainline specifications' (actually, I'm not sure what they are, I think mainline size is a better way of putting it) - the District had similar sized stock. You are quite correct in saying it ran to Verney Junction (and also Brill) but, nevertheless, its main services were within the London conurbation and would not have sat well with any of the Big Four.

Answer 2

The District Railway also regarded itself as a mainline railway, operating trains from Richmond to Southend at one point.

The main reason is that the position with transport within the London conurbation has always been treated differently from the rest of England. Even in the 1920s there were plans for the re-organisation of transport in London, as witnessed by the Acts of 1925 and 1933.

Answer 3

check this link its good

http://buyingandsellingshares.blogspot.c...

.

Answer 4

Is there a chance that none of the "big four" wanted it?  In general passenger services don't pay very well, if at all.

Answer 5

The management of the Metropolitan were almost identical with that of the Great Central,  had it been included, it would have gone to the LNER.

The Metropolitan was kept out of grouping partly because it was providing a central London service, but also it didn't need the support grouping would have provided: It was wildly profitable, unlike the rival UERL group, which despite owning bus & tram operating (and bus, trolleybus  & tram building) interests and most other underground lines was barely covering its costs.

The reason for the Metropolitan's profitability was not the passenger revenue, especially in the inner section, where motorbuses were abstracting traffic; but the profits on land sales for the massive suburban development of Middlesex West  of London and into Hertfordshire along the line to Watford. "Metroland" as it became known.

The questioner is slightly wrong as one underground line actually was "grouped",  the Waterloo & City  line, known as "the drain", went from the LSWR to the Southern, then to BR, only moving to LT control in the 1990s.