|
|
Post by metrailway on May 29, 2012 7:42:06 GMT
I have managed to find volumes 1 to 6 of 'Locomotive and Train Working in the Latter Part of the Nineteenth Century' by E.L. Ahrons in the bowels of my university library. Initially written for Railway Magazine in the 1910s and 1920s, it was published as an anthology posthumously between 1951 and 1954. It is brilliant and details of Met Rly and District Rly workings are in volume 5. He starts off the section with " In the latter part of the nineteenth century both the Metropolitan and the District were really railways; now, alas! they appear to be glorified overcrowded electric tramways." ;D ;D ;D Anyway back to my question, he mentions that the section of the St John's Railway between Swiss Cottage and Hampstead ' which included the very steep gradient of 1 in 27, had been for the time abandonded.' My first question is the line mentioned the line to Hampstead shown in blue in this map of London in 1868? If so, does this tunnel still exist? Finally, was there any reason for it's disuse? Thanks  P.S. Interestingly, Ahrons also mentioned that ' Until 1885 the colour of the Metropolitan engines had been a medium green.' He mentioned that Mr Hanbury, from the Midland Railway changed this introducing the red colour. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2012 10:19:56 GMT
I think he meant "abandoned" in the sense that a line authorised by Parliament was not built. The Met never went to Hampstead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2012 16:52:19 GMT
I think he meant "abandoned" in the sense that a line authorised by Parliament was not built. The Met never went to Hampstead. But fascinating to imagine how it would be (and have been) if it had. And looking at Robbins, I see that the St John's Wood Railway's other branch was to Finchley Road on the Hampstead Junction Railway (now ~ & Frognal on LO North London Line - which raises all sorts of other possible might have beens. |
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on May 29, 2012 17:09:53 GMT
I think he meant "abandoned" in the sense that a line authorised by Parliament was not built. The Met never went to Hampstead. That's what I thought initially but then why did he mention the gradient of 1 in 27 if it wasn't built? And why does the line seem to be on the map as well? Surely it can't be a coincidence. Before the section I quoted above, he writes "In 1868 there was also opened the branch line from Baker Street, then known as the St. John's Wood line, but at that period this extended only as far as Swiss Cottage, and it was not until 1879-80 that it was extended to Harrow."
"For the St. John's Wood railway, which has severe gradients of 1 in 27, 1 in 44 and 1 in 60 to 1 in 90, special engines were built."The first sentence indicates that there was no line beyond Swiss Cottage but the second sentence again includes the gradient 1 in 27. According to a copy of Met gradients from 1921 I hold this gradient is not between Baker St and Swiss Cottage, so I'm presuming he is referring to the Hampstead section. Very confusing  |
|
|
|
Post by bassmike on May 30, 2012 1:08:10 GMT
H.V.Borley "The memories and writings of a London railwayman"mentions this but still leaves confusion about the tunnel which he says emerged roughly where the present Finchley road station now is, and that the present tunnels were to the west of the disused tunnel.I can only think that it was eliminated when Finchley Road was widened and re-built when the bakerloo extension came about. Also the Railway Magazineof October 1917 has a few paragraphs by H.Cottell about this but still no definite conclusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on May 30, 2012 8:43:47 GMT
Alan Jackson, in his book 'London's Metropolitan Railway' states:
'As the proposed Hampstead branch was to have stretches of 1 in 27 and as there was also a climb at 1 in 44 to get over the Regent's Canal, Burnett had designed condensing locomotives more powerful than the Beyer Peacocks.'
|
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on May 30, 2012 16:31:17 GMT
....... The first sentence indicates that there was no line beyond Swiss Cottage but the second sentence again includes the gradient 1 in 27. According to a copy of Met gradients from 1921 I hold this gradient is not between Baker St and Swiss Cottage, so I'm presuming he is referring to the Hampstead section. Very confusing The steepest gradient between Baker St and Finchley Road is the 1 in 44 on the up side of the Canal Bridge. |
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on May 30, 2012 18:54:21 GMT
Alan Jackson, in his book 'London's Metropolitan Railway' states: 'As the proposed Hampstead branch was to have stretches of 1 in 27 and as there was also a climb at 1 in 44 to get over the Regent's Canal, Burnett had designed condensing locomotives more powerful than the Beyer Peacocks.'If the Hampstead branch was not built, then I guess planning of the line was at a very advanced stage if the gradients of the branch was known? Was there any reason for not extending to Hampstead? Since Hampstead was more populous, a station there would presumably generate more revenue than a station on the Finchley Road or at West End? |
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on May 30, 2012 19:12:58 GMT
Alan Jackson, in his book 'London's Metropolitan Railway' states: 'As the proposed Hampstead branch was to have stretches of 1 in 27 and as there was also a climb at 1 in 44 to get over the Regent's Canal, Burnett had designed condensing locomotives more powerful than the Beyer Peacocks.'If the Hampstead branch was not built, then I guess planning of the line was at a very advanced stage if the gradients of the branch was known? Was there any reason for not extending to Hampstead? Since Hampstead was more populous, a station there would presumably generate more revenue than a station on the Finchley Road or at West End? I think it was a lack of money that prevented construction to Hampstead. Jackson refers to a banking crisis as the cause of investment funds drying up on this and other schemes. |
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jun 4, 2012 9:44:27 GMT
When heading NB on the Met, just beyond the site of Swiss Cottage station the tunnel widens on the far side (i.e., adjacent to the SB line), as if at the site of a junction. I've always wondered if this was built like this to accommodate the extension to Hampstead, or if it is an artefact from when the StJW Rly terminated at Swiss Cottage. Any ideas?
|
|
