Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2014 9:30:08 GMT
There is much discussion on the alignment of London's underground railway tunnels and why they were constructed, where and how they were. There are also many misconceptions as to why the tunnels take the alignments that they do, one example being the alignment of the Piccadilly line east of South Kensington, where the alignment has two double curves. If one considers Wikipedia and its claim for this anomaly, it would have you believe that it was to avoid a plague pit, which was too full of bones to economically tunnel through. No. What Wikipedia fails to tell the reader is that the tunnels here are between 17 and 20 metres deep! So unless the people digging the graves were using JCBs that misconception is, well, a misconception.
Misconceptions such as this come about becasue there appears to be very little actual conclusive academic research on such a topic or other matters relating to London's Underground Railways and Land Use. If one considers publications such as Rails Though the Clay by Croome and Jackson, they do refer to changes to tunnel alignment, but they do not go deeper to explain the why's and wherefores beyond 'it was cheaper to go under the road'. But why was it and what affect did property have on the design on the raiwlays and vice versa?
As such, I present to you a brief introduction on how and why London Underground's tunnels were constructed in the locations they were, based on evidence accumulated through legislation, legal documents such as agreements and easements and papers from the constructing engineers themselves.
I hope that you will find it interesting!
There are distinct events affecting how the underground railway companies, between 1850 and 1999, undertook land acquisition in the metropolis. These events were legislative, technological, economic and protective, stimulated by a demand for improving and streamlining the process of property purchase, changes to tunnel construction, improvements to the network and to ensure that new property development (especially from the 1950s onwards) did not adversely affect the presence of the railway. We are talking about tunnels constructed in the densely developed city centre after all!
These events were:
• (1845-1892) The national move to railway construction in the 1840s saw the passing of the Land Clauses Consolidation (LCC) and Railway Clauses Consolidation (RCC) Acts of 1845. These required railway companies to purchase the whole of a plot of land where the owner required it, even if only a small proportion was needed for the purposes of the railway. The effect this had on the sub-surface railways, the authorising acts for which included these clauses, was that they had to purchase whole properties and buildings rather than those portions of land they required. The Metropolitan line tunnels between Kings Cross Road and Lloyd Baker Road, being one such example.
There were, however, ways round this, especially where agreement could be reached with landowners, which resulted in only the sub-soil being purchased and the railway tunnelling under property with remedial works to property to ensure their safety (e.g. underpinning).
A benefit of purchasing more land and property than required was the ability for the railway company to recoup some of the financial losses caused by the processes for the railways construction, by selling or leasing surplus lands. Additionally the railway company could impose restrictions on it to ensure the safety of the railway. It was also possible, once electrification had been undertaken to sell that air-space above the railway which until that time had been utilised as ventilation, whether between stations or at stations.
• (1892-1955) With the development of the deep tube railways from 1890 onwards, only the sub-soil of property was needed for the presence of the tunnels. As the new railways did not adversely affect the structure of property or property interests at the depths the tunnels were intended to be, their promoters argued that it was unfair for them to have to pay for the whole of a property where only an easement was required (1892 commission on cable and electric railways). This resulted in sections included in their authorising acts varying the LCC condition for property purchase and the acquirement of an easement instead. Despite this, they predominantly followed the alignment of the public highways where the easements were agreed with local authorities through provision of social benefits such as workingmen’s trains, due to the high cost of easement purchase under property. With the availability of funds from government coffers, in the 1920s and 1930s, the companies did under take extensions of their lines under property, thus making use of the capacity in the authorising acts for these extensions, to compulsorily purchase easements.
• (1955-1966) With the proposals for the construction of the Victoria line, and its benefit to Londoners and commuters, the BTC were granted parliamentary provision, through the authorising acts, for the new lines construction to take that land and property required for the purposes of the railway. This reduced property purchase costs, with minimal compensation paid to those parties who already had re-development plans underway before a specific date (1955 BTC Act). This resulted in the Victoria line cutting across the street pattern for its entire length, unlike its predecessors, which had only passed under property for any prolonged distance by need, or for their extensions.
• (1966-present) Whilst the location of the tubes under property was beneficial in the years from 1890 up to WW2, when there was minimal use for the deep sub-soil under property, after the war, and especially from the 1950s, there was a move to the development and construction of denser housing in the form of high-rise buildings. Due to the foundations being piled to a greater depth than lower density buildings these posed a serious risk to the safe presence of the tunnels, which had no legal protection other than the fact that they were there.
With the extension of the Victoria line to Brixton, and presumably because of the growing use of piled foundations for high-rise buildings in the metropolis, LT were granted permission, under the authorising act for the extension (1965), to take that land they required for the purposes of the railway and a quantity around the tunnels for their protection. This resulted in the provision of a limited sleeve around the tunnels at even more limited locations, to ensure that the organisation had a legal right to limit use of the sub-soil surrounding its assets. This principle was also reflected in the 1992 act authorising the construction of the Jubilee line, between Green park and Canning Town, and the subsequent amendment act of 1993. Whilst these provisions were made for both lines, there were, as is common with such instances, a good many locations where such provisions were not made, to mitigate objection to the tube construction schemes.
• There is at least one, and possibly more, exclusion from the above developmental process of property purchase. This was the Great Northern and City Railway, especially at East Road, north of Old Street. At this location, and it must be determined whether this was a common pattern, the sub-soil was purchased by the company rather than an easement taken. Why this was the case is currently undetermined, however, it may have been because it was excluded from the discussions regarding the best method of constructing tube railways by the Joint Select Committee of the house of Lords and House of Commons on the Electric and Cable Railways (Metropolis), 1892 and was determined under the then existing precedents and legislation. With the development of a new high rise housing development on East Road in the 1960s, another variation to the common paradigm was also developed. This was the Board objecting to the scheme, by the local authority, unless protective provisions around the tunnels were incorporated within the building development. This created a protective region around the tunnels which was potentially the fore-runner to that outlined in the 1965 for the inclusion of taking land to ensure the safety of the tunnels on the Victoria line extension. This does, however, also raise the possibility of this occurring at other places on the network, that have, as yet, been identified.
Over to you!
Thoughts, questions, arguments...
|
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Jan 8, 2014 10:01:31 GMT
There is much discussion on the alignment of London's underground railway tunnels and why they were constructed, where and how they were. There are also many misconceptions as to why the tunnels take the alignments that they do, one example being the alignment of the Piccadilly line east of South Kensington, where the alignment has two double curves. If one considers Wikipedia and its claim for this anomaly, it would have you believe that it was to avoid a plague pit, which was too full of bones to economically tunnel through. No. What Wikipedia fails to tell the reader is that the tunnels here are between 17 and 20 metres deep! So unless the people digging the graves were using JCBs that misconception is, well, a misconception.
Misconceptions such as this come about becasue there appears to be very little actual conclusive academic research on such a topic or other matters relating to London's Underground Railways and Land Use. If one considers publications such as Rails Though the Clay by Croome and Jackson, they do refer to changes to tunnel alignment, but they do not go deeper to explain the why's and wherefores beyond 'it was cheaper to go under the road'. But why was it and what affect did property have on the design on the raiwlays and vice versa?
As such, I present to you a brief introduction on how and why London Underground's tunnels were constructed in the locations they were, based on evidence accumulated through legislation, legal documents such as agreements and easements and papers from the constructing engineers themselves.
I hope that you will find it interesting!
There are distinct events affecting how the underground railway companies, between 1850 and 1999, undertook land acquisition in the metropolis. These events were legislative, technological, economic and protective, stimulated by a demand for improving and streamlining the process of property purchase, changes to tunnel construction, improvements to the network and to ensure that new property development (especially from the 1950s onwards) did not adversely affect the presence of the railway. We are talking about tunnels constructed in the densely developed city centre after all!
These events were:
• (1845-1892) The national move to railway construction in the 1840s saw the passing of the Land Clauses Consolidation (LCC) and Railway Clauses Consolidation (RCC) Acts of 1845. These required railway companies to purchase the whole of a plot of land where the owner required it, even if only a small proportion was needed for the purposes of the railway. The effect this had on the sub-surface railways, the authorising acts for which included these clauses, was that they had to purchase whole properties and buildings rather than those portions of land they required. The Metropolitan line tunnels between Kings Cross Road and Lloyd Baker Road, being one such example.
There were, however, ways round this, especially where agreement could be reached with landowners, which resulted in only the sub-soil being purchased and the railway tunnelling under property with remedial works to property to ensure their safety (e.g. underpinning).
A benefit of purchasing more land and property than required was the ability for the railway company to recoup some of the financial losses caused by the processes for the railways construction, by selling or leasing surplus lands. Additionally the railway company could impose restrictions on it to ensure the safety of the railway. It was also possible, once electrification had been undertaken to sell that air-space above the railway which until that time had been utilised as ventilation, whether between stations or at stations.
• (1892-1955) With the development of the deep tube railways from 1890 onwards, only the sub-soil of property was needed for the presence of the tunnels. As the new railways did not adversely affect the structure of property or property interests at the depths the tunnels were intended to be, their promoters argued that it was unfair for them to have to pay for the whole of a property where only an easement was required (1892 commission on cable and electric railways). This resulted in sections included in their authorising acts varying the LCC condition for property purchase and the acquirement of an easement instead. Despite this, they predominantly followed the alignment of the public highways where the easements were agreed with local authorities through provision of social benefits such as workingmen’s trains, due to the high cost of easement purchase under property. With the availability of funds from government coffers, in the 1920s and 1930s, the companies did under take extensions of their lines under property, thus making use of the capacity in the authorising acts for these extensions, to compulsorily purchase easements.
• (1955-1966) With the proposals for the construction of the Victoria line, and its benefit to Londoners and commuters, the BTC were granted parliamentary provision, through the authorising acts, for the new lines construction to take that land and property required for the purposes of the railway. This reduced property purchase costs, with minimal compensation paid to those parties who already had re-development plans underway before a specific date (1955 BTC Act). This resulted in the Victoria line cutting across the street pattern for its entire length, unlike its predecessors, which had only passed under property for any prolonged distance by need, or for their extensions.
• (1966-present) Whilst the location of the tubes under property was beneficial in the years from 1890 up to WW2, when there was minimal use for the deep sub-soil under property, after the war, and especially from the 1950s, there was a move to the development and construction of denser housing in the form of high-rise buildings. Due to the foundations being piled to a greater depth than lower density buildings these posed a serious risk to the safe presence of the tunnels, which had no legal protection other than the fact that they were there.
With the extension of the Victoria line to Brixton, and presumably because of the growing use of piled foundations for high-rise buildings in the metropolis, LT were granted permission, under the authorising act for the extension (1965), to take that land they required for the purposes of the railway and a quantity around the tunnels for their protection. This resulted in the provision of a limited sleeve around the tunnels at even more limited locations, to ensure that the organisation had a legal right to limit use of the sub-soil surrounding its assets. This principle was also reflected in the 1992 act authorising the construction of the Jubilee line, between Green park and Canning Town, and the subsequent amendment act of 1993. Whilst these provisions were made for both lines, there were, as is common with such instances, a good many locations where such provisions were not made, to mitigate objection to the tube construction schemes.
• There is at least one, and possibly more, exclusion from the above developmental process of property purchase. This was the Great Northern and City Railway, especially at East Road, north of Old Street. At this location, and it must be determined whether this was a common pattern, the sub-soil was purchased by the company rather than an easement taken. Why this was the case is currently undetermined, however, it may have been because it was excluded from the discussions regarding the best method of constructing tube railways by the Joint Select Committee of the house of Lords and House of Commons on the Electric and Cable Railways (Metropolis), 1892 and was determined under the then existing precedents and legislation. With the development of a new high rise housing development on East Road in the 1960s, another variation to the common paradigm was also developed. This was the Board objecting to the scheme, by the local authority, unless protective provisions around the tunnels were incorporated within the building development. This created a protective region around the tunnels which was potentially the fore-runner to that outlined in the 1965 for the inclusion of taking land to ensure the safety of the tunnels on the Victoria line extension. This does, however, also raise the possibility of this occurring at other places on the network, that have, as yet, been identified.
Over to you!
Thoughts, questions, arguments...
Very interesting, you've certainly done your homework. I remember reading years ago that when the tube tunnels were being proposed, the owners of the adjacent properties were concerned by the possible vibrations and subsequent damage to their properties, so the tunnels followed the alignment of the roads above. This was the reason I read for the severe bends around South Kensington, and those between the Bank and Liverpool Street. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2014 10:08:41 GMT
Ah, now, you raise an interesting point there about Bank to Liverpool Street.
At St Paul's the tunnels are on top of each other, to minimise incursion on privtae propety! hence the design of the station.
You are exactly right about the issue of vibration as well, people were concerned about it, but it was going to happen regardless, especially where there are tight curves etc, as the wheel track interface is the principle cause, I believe. This is then transmittedd in to the sub-soil and depending on its nature (clay, sand and gravel etc.) it gets carried further. The type of building and foundations also do not neccessarily help as the vibration can be transmitted through the foundations.
Just to clarify, I believe this is very rare!
|
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Jan 8, 2014 12:09:33 GMT
Ah, now, you raise an interesting point there about Bank to Liverpool Street. At St Paul's the tunnels are on top of each other, to minimise incursion on privtae propety! hence the design of the station. You are exactly right about the issue of vibration as well, people were concerned about it, but it was going to happen regardless, especially where there are tight curves etc, as the wheel track interface is the principle cause, I believe. This is then transmittedd in to the sub-soil and depending on its nature (clay, sand and gravel etc.) it gets carried further. The type of building and foundations also do not neccessarily help as the vibration can be transmitted through the foundations. Just to clarify, I believe this is very rare![/u][/i][/b][/font] That should give the residents of Buck House some reassuance what with the Victoria Line passing beneath  |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jan 8, 2014 12:37:33 GMT
There is at least one, and possibly more, exclusion from the above developmental process of property purchase. This was the Great Northern and City Railway, especially at East Road, north of Old Street. Isn't this where someone managed to drill right into the tunnel not long ago? Is there any connection between this incident and the unusual ownership situation? South Kensington - the line is surely far more bendy than would be necessary to follow the street pattern - I susepct that the explanatoins is that SK is the point at which two quite separate proposals for tube railways (Picadilly & Brompton, and Deep level District), planned to run roughly parallel to each other, were cobbled together into what we now know as the Picadilly Line, and joining up the two loose ends was legally easier than getting authorisation for a new, easier alignment and abandoning a short section of the original proposal. (After all, the same company found it easier to build the Aldwych stub rather than get permission not to have to, once it was decided the main line would turn right at Holborn to join up with the Picadilly and Brompton Railway). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2014 13:01:16 GMT
With regard to the GNCR, that is a distinct possibility, we shall have to wait for the RAIB report for that one  but I suggest that was more down to lack of due process of the piling contractor than anything. The report may cover the issue of ownership and the oddity of the alignment in more detail. South Kensington, yes, I agree with your suggestion regarding the two lines being connected, but the tube alignment curves round from Brompton Road Disused, under Brompton Road, and then just clips 5 properties in Alexander Place as it curves west. Otherwise it would have had to continue further towards the District alignment and then a large north-west curve passing under more properties (namely those situated in the block bounded by SouthTerrace, Alexander Square, Alexander Place and Thurloe Square. Now what I would have thought oppurtune would have been for the line to connect with the constructed deep level tube station tunnel that was built, rather than constructing new ones. With regard to Aldwych, I am not sure if it was as simple as that, bearing in mind the area at that time was hugely popular with theatre goers who needed a means to get home apart from by main line train or omnibus and the changing and waiting for trains or buses that would require. There are plenty of occassions where assets have been constructed and abandoned when they have become superflous, some without even being used! |
|
|
|
Post by JR 15secs on Jan 8, 2014 13:07:59 GMT
Ah, now, you raise an interesting point there about Bank to Liverpool Street. At St Paul's the tunnels are on top of each other, to minimise incursion on privtae propety! hence the design of the station. You are exactly right about the issue of vibration as well, people were concerned about it, but it was going to happen regardless, especially where there are tight curves etc, as the wheel track interface is the principle cause, I believe. This is then transmittedd in to the sub-soil and depending on its nature (clay, sand and gravel etc.) it gets carried further. The type of building and foundations also do not neccessarily help as the vibration can be transmitted through the foundations. Just to clarify, I believe this is very rare!That should give the residents of Buck House some reassurance what with the Victoria Line passing beneath [/quote] The Vic line don't go under Buckingham Palace, and there is no special station either. |
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Jan 8, 2014 14:06:03 GMT
That should give the residents of Buck House some reassurance what with the Victoria Line passing beneath .[/quote] Yes that was a myth going 'round to get Madge out in the event of insurrection or nuclear war  |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jan 8, 2014 14:09:09 GMT
South Kensington, yes, I agree with your suggestion regarding the two lines being connected, but the tube alignment curves round from Brompton Road Disused, under Brompton Road, and then just clips 5 properties in Alexander Place as it curves west.! From the train it appears to make two S-bends, not just one, and I would have thought that a route following the line of Brompton Road and Pelham Street, even if it meant relocating the platforms (but not the surface buildings) of the (at that time still unbuilt, so easy to modify) Brompton Road station, would have been a tidier solution, albeit it meant abandoning a short stretch of the alignment as originally proposed. I have always assumed the original P&B alignment was built with a view to extension west along Cromwell Road. (I am also inrigued as to where the depot would have been for this line when it was a standalone proposal - neither the natural Hoistory Museum nor Picadilly Circus having much suitable land available even in 1905!) Now what I would have thought oppurtune would have been for the line to connect with the constructed deep level tube station tunnel that was built, rather than constructing new ones..! It did - there is a step plate junction at the east end of the eastbound, and another at the west end of the westbound, ready and waiting for the DLD "main line to join up. The disused westbound tunnel was to have been for the DLD - separate platforms being planned in the converging direction so that trains waiting for the junction to clear could do so at a platform. (I think the same arrangment was used at Baker Street (Bakerloo) between 1939-78, and is also the reason Camden Town's platforms are north of the junction (bearing in mind the City branch is a later addition). There are plenty of occassions where assets have been constructed and abandoned when they have become superflous, some without even being used! South Kensington's extra platform tunnel in fact being a very good example! |
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Jan 8, 2014 14:10:30 GMT
There is at least one, and possibly more, exclusion from the above developmental process of property purchase. This was the Great Northern and City Railway, especially at East Road, north of Old Street. Isn't this where someone managed to drill right into the tunnel not long ago? Is there any connection between this incident and the unusual ownership situation? I remember when the A406 flyover at Redbridge was being built, not only did they drill thru' the tunnel but managed to hit a train as well. |
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Jan 8, 2014 15:34:34 GMT
South Kensington, yes, I agree with your suggestion regarding the two lines being connected, but the tube alignment curves round from Brompton Road Disused, under Brompton Road, and then just clips 5 properties in Alexander Place as it curves west.! From the train it appears to make two S-bends, not just one, and I would have thought that a route following the line of Brompton Road and Pelham Street, even if it meant relocating the platforms (but not the surface buildings) of the (at that time still unbuilt, so easy to modify) Brompton Road station, would have been a tidier solution, albeit it meant abandoning a short stretch of the alignment as originally proposed. I have always assumed the original P&B alignment was built with a view to extension west along Cromwell Road. (I am also inrigued as to where the depot would have been for this line when it was a standalone proposal - neither the natural Hoistory Museum nor Picadilly Circus having much suitable land available even in 1905!) It was when the line terminated at Hammersmith what is now the Lillie bridge depot. There are photos showing the shunting neck and sidings outside the Whitley depository. The A4 now covers the track bed. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jan 8, 2014 17:18:27 GMT
I have always assumed the original P&B alignment was built with a view to extension west along Cromwell Road. (I am also inrigued as to where the depot would have been for this line when it was a standalone proposal - neither the natural Hoistory Museum nor Picadilly Circus having much suitable land available even in 1905!) It was when the line terminated at Hammersmith what is now the Lillie bridge depot. There are photos showing the shunting neck and sidings outside the Whitley depository. The A4 now covers the track bed. Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. The original Picadilly depot was indeed at Lillie Bridge. But the Picadilly Line as built started out as three separate railways, independant of each other (in every sense of the word): the Great Northern & Strand Railway (Finsbury Park to Strand (later renamed Aldwych); the Brompton & Picadilly Circus Railway (Picadilly Circus to Brompton Road - sorry I got the name back to front in my earlier post)) and the deep-level District (Mansion House to Hammersmith). Only after Yerkes took over all three operations were short links between them authorised to generate the core of the GNP&BR as actually built. As origianlly planned: - Presumably the GN&S would have had a depot somewhere near Finsbury Park - Presumably the DLD would have had a depot at or near Lillie Bridge - But where would the B&PCR's depot have been? |
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Jan 8, 2014 19:18:21 GMT
It was when the line terminated at Hammersmith what is now the Lillie bridge depot. There are photos showing the shunting neck and sidings outside the Whitley depository. The A4 now covers the track bed. Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. The original Picadilly depot was indeed at Lillie Bridge. But the Picadilly Line as built started out as three separate railways, independant of each other (in every sense of the word): the Great Northern & Strand Railway (Finsbury Park to Strand (later renamed Aldwych); the Brompton & Picadilly Circus Railway (Picadilly Circus to Brompton Road - sorry I got the name back to front in my earlier post)) and the deep-level District (Mansion House to Hammersmith). Only after Yerkes took over all three operations were short links between them authorised to generate the core of the GNP&BR as actually built. As origianlly planned: - Presumably the GN&S would have had a depot somewhere near Finsbury Park - Presumably the DLD would have had a depot at or near Lillie Bridge - But where would the B&PCR's depot have been? Try a copy of "The Piccadilly Tube-the first 100 years" written by Mike Horne, published by Capital Transport. |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jan 8, 2014 19:18:25 GMT
Regardless of sub soil part above, the old London Transport Executive had a very large property portfolio of buildings around stations.
This used to provide a very good annual income which supported services.
Unfortunately a previous government ordered a massive sell off for short term gain.
The drilling incident near Old Street was south of the roundabout and on the Great Northern tracks. The Redbridge incident caused severe damage to the cabs of two trains.
|
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jan 8, 2014 21:12:00 GMT
(I am also inrigued as to where the depot would have been for this line when it was a standalone proposal - neither the natural Hoistory Museum nor Picadilly Circus having much suitable land available even in 1905!) It would have been at the south-east end of Yeoman's Row in Brompton, and would be reached by a small branch diverging at Cottage Place. [ London's Lost Tube Schemes, p71] It did - there is a step plate junction at the east end of the eastbound, and another at the west end of the westbound, ready and waiting for the DLD "main line to join up. The disused westbound tunnel was to have been for the DLD - separate platforms being planned in the converging direction so that trains waiting for the junction to clear could do so at a platform. (I think the same arrangment was used at Baker Street (Bakerloo) between 1939-78, and is also the reason Camden Town's platforms are north of the junction (bearing in mind the City branch is a later addition). There is an isometric diagram of this, also in London's Lost Tube Schemes, on p219. - Presumably the GN&S would have had a depot somewhere near Finsbury Park - Presumably the DLD would have had a depot at or near Lillie Bridge - But where would the B&PCR's depot have been? The GN&S maintenance depot was to have been at Wood Green, and its power station would have been on GNR land near the Gillespie Road/Drayton Park road junction. I don't know about the DLD, but suspect that it would have shared facilities with the District as they connected at Earl's Court and Lillie Bridge depot was to the west of this. See above for the B&PCR answer! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2014 22:11:27 GMT
With regard to the location of the Piccadilly station at South Kensington, this has a very simple explanation. It minimised the need for the purchase of property or easements, and smoothed interchange between the two railways.
Even while both were separate concerns, it was cheaper for the the Piccadilly Company to take an easement under the Metropolitan District freehold land rather than under private property, which would cost considerably more and would need the purchase of the whole of the freehold to accommodate station facilities as well. This is also why the Piccadilly is directly below the alignment of the District for some distance before veering of in a NW direction under the public highway.
By passing through the Metropolitan District Freehold sub-soil, it did not need to buy new easements from private property owners. It also enable the line to gain access to the public highway where, again, it did not require the purchase of an easement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2014 22:24:06 GMT
Regardless of sub soil part above, the old London Transport Executive had a very large property portfolio of buildings around stations. This used to provide a very good annual income which supported services. Unfortunately a previous government ordered a massive sell off for short term gain. The drilling incident near Old Street was south of the roundabout and on the Great Northern tracks. The Redbridge incident caused severe damage to the cabs of two trains. A couple of slight corrections, if I may. 1). The auger came through the roof of the GNCR north of the Old Street roundabout, on East Street, where the northbound tunnel passes under what was then an empty plot of land. The southbound is under the road here. 2). The predecessor companies of LU had the benefit of being able to retain land for leasing or development once their railways were constructed, unlike the main line railways, which were required by law to dispose of such plots. As you can imagine these could be quite substantial. The reason for this was that in and around the city, the land through which the railway was constructed, would be blighted by the corresponding railway assets, which were considerably more than those of the main line railways, located outside the Circle line, where land was cheaper. For example where a row of buildings were demolished to allow passage of the railway, the company could lease the land above the retaining walls for re-development, or in some cases, sell the ground and air space but retain the subsoil and the railway structure. Covenants would often be placed on these new properties ensuring no work or development was undertaken that would affect the safety of the railway. Where tube stations were concerned, these were designed to accommodate development above, as such the companies needed the ability to sell or lease the air space above the station for development. TfL is still one of the biggest freehold ownership organisations in London with a large commercial property portfolio not only at and adjacent to stations and depots, but also along the alignment of the railway, within and without the city centre and suburbs. This helps keep fares down, believe it or not. With regard to land disposal, this is a common event, especially when a good return can be made rather than through leasing land. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 2:59:25 GMT
they predominantly followed the alignment of the public highways where the easements were agreed with local authorities through provision of social benefits such as workingmen’s trains, due to the high cost of easement purchase under property.
The reason to stay under public roads was actually even simpler. Because existing trade vehicles - eg milk and meat deliveries as well as buses and taxis - did not pay anything for the use of the road it was argued, successfully, that a train following the same route should not pay anything either. The fact that they were below the road level was just an extra ;-0 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 11:10:50 GMT
they predominantly followed the alignment of the public highways where the easements were agreed with local authorities through provision of social benefits such as workingmen’s trains, due to the high cost of easement purchase under property.
The reason to stay under public roads was actually even simpler. Because existing trade vehicles - eg milk and meat deliveries as well as buses and taxis - did not pay anything for the use of the road it was argued, successfully, that a train following the same route should not pay anything either. The fact that they were below the road level was just an extra ;-0 Hello, it was the utiltiy companies really, who had free use of the under surface of the highway (Royal Commission on Cable and Electric Railways, 1892), but essentially that was an argument for the aquirement of easements, rather than the actual reasoning for the request However, this does raise a few more discursive matters on this, especially when it comes down to sub-soil ownership under the public highway. I can always go in to more detail on this if you would find that interesting? |
|
but I suggest that was more down to lack of due process of the
