|
Post by angelislington on Feb 12, 2008 21:40:02 GMT
While I was clearing out some files today I came across about 4 pages of scribbles, which I remembered to be drawings of all the lines intersecting at Camden Town. If I have a diagram to hand, I can see how the lines have been merged. If I don't and I try and scribble it out, I can't *ever* get it looking as neat - and certainly not only 6 lines (let alone even thinking in 3D!). So I am full of respect for the bod wot designed it, and then it occurred to me, does anyone know who it was?
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Feb 15, 2008 22:09:43 GMT
Do you mean this one? I got it from a 1927 book 'The Iron Road' and it is just credited to 'Underground Railways' as you can see.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2008 4:28:32 GMT
The diagram is incorrect: it has the Charing Cross and Moorgate lines the wrong way round!
The Euston terminus of the CSLR faced a bit south of west, under Euston Road. To get it to join up at Camden Town, it had to be taken in a loop to the west of Mornington Crescent, so its approach to the junctions is west of the West End line.
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Feb 16, 2008 7:33:56 GMT
The diagram is incorrect: it has the Charing Cross and Moorgate lines the wrong way round! Nick, you are absolutely right!!! In fact I used it as a quiz question a couple of years ago and the question was to spot what was wrong. Give that man a peanut!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Feb 16, 2008 8:45:00 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2008 13:54:46 GMT
Silly question. Are the platforms at the top of the picture?
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Feb 16, 2008 17:17:04 GMT
Phil - interesting pic - I have something very similar (published in a journal article 'Reconstruction of the C&SL Railway', dunno the publication name - MRFS42 will) which I've just found & scanned in: It's titled 'Reproduction of part of poster, showing arrangement of tubes at Camden Town' and goes on to say A: to/from Edgware; B: to/from Highgate; C: to/from Moorgate; D: to/from Charing Cross. So this image has the labelling the right way round, even though yours is clearly based on this one! Unless yours was the sketch that mine was based on? Hmm. At least yours has a name of sorts, but maybe it only refers to the illustrator. Somersetchris, you can see from the second picture (from "The Last Link" by Mike Horne) that the platforms are indeed at the top of the first pic. All interesting. Still no nearer to finding out the bloke who actually came up with this... dammit I'm jealous of his brain! Mine just *will* not work like this!
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Feb 16, 2008 17:28:15 GMT
Oh, I love the first one! In fact I love the three different types of stock we have going on here, the 95 and 59 on the image above, and the tinylil ?1907? one.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Feb 16, 2008 21:37:04 GMT
Hate to split hairs, but I think thats a 1972ts painted in corporate. The cab end doesnt look right for a 95ts
|
|
|
Post by abe on Feb 17, 2008 7:51:20 GMT
To answer the original question, the engineers who planned the extension from Euston to Camden Town, including all of the junctions, were Harley Hugh Dalrymple-Hay and Arthur R. Cooper. Dalrymple-Hay had a long association with the Underground - for example, he was the chap who surveyed the route of the Hampstead Tube with Yerkes, when the latter decided to extend to Golders Green.
I've created a 3D model of the junctions on the computer, and unfortunately they look nothing like the diagrams here. The illustrations have much shortening in order to fit the tunnels into a small area. The six tunnels actually run in parallel for about half-a-mile, which makes the 3D model very long and thin, and difficult to work out what is going on. My admiration also goes to the artists who drew these!
There's a lot more information about the construction of the junctions in both The Hampstead Tube and Reconstructing London's Underground.
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Feb 17, 2008 12:32:54 GMT
Oh, I love the first one! Yes, that shows quite clearly how difficult it is to get by foot from one branch to the other, and hence how ridiculous it is to suggest splitting the service (Barnet via CX and Edgware via Bank) on a permanent basis. A major rebuild (underground!) would be needed to make it feasible at any level.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Feb 17, 2008 17:26:07 GMT
An intersting thought occured to me to sort out the interchange. Split the line into Bank-Highgate and TCR-Edgeware sections through Camden Town. Reverse the polarity of the tracks north of Camden Town on the Highgate branch and just north of Euston on the Bank branch. Build a new platform connecting to Mornington Crescent on the Bank branch's former southbound line and connect it with wide passage ways to the northbound line to Golders Green. Likewise excavate wide passage ways between the northbound Edgeware and former southbound from Highgate line at Camden town (now both southbound platforms).
It would render the junction totally useless for diverting routes, and Mornington Crescent isnt too near the curve from C&SLR Euston branch, but it would allow far better and easier interchange between the lines if split.
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Feb 17, 2008 20:24:24 GMT
Hate to split hairs, but I think thats a 1972ts painted in corporate. The cab end doesnt look right for a 95ts I already have a head of split hairs (using hair straighteners too much does that), so I'll let you off. And, in my defence, I'd already had a vodka prior to a big night out ;D
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Feb 17, 2008 20:34:25 GMT
To answer the original question, the engineers who planned the extension from Euston to Camden Town, including all of the junctions, were Harley Hugh Dalrymple-Hay and Arthur R. Cooper. Dalrymple-Hay had a long association with the Underground - for example, he was the chap who surveyed the route of the Hampstead Tube with Yerkes, when the latter decided to extend to Golders Green. Smart, thanks for that. I wish I could have met either of them, but I'd prolly just bore them I've created a 3D model of the junctions on the computer, and unfortunately they look nothing like the diagrams here. The illustrations have much shortening in order to fit the tunnels into a small area. The six tunnels actually run in parallel for about half-a-mile, which makes the 3D model very long and thin, and difficult to work out what is going on. My admiration also goes to the artists who drew these! Yeah, comparing to the pic in the 'Last Link' book, I can see now there's been a *lot* of foreshortening going on. How long did it take you to create the model? And what did you use to do it? Interesting project!
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Feb 17, 2008 20:36:38 GMT
<...>Build a new platform connecting to Mornington Crescent on the Bank branch's former southbound line and connect it with wide passage ways to the northbound line to Golders Green. <...> If you're going to go down that route, then why not just let the Euston interchange be the only one? Is it not an efficient station? <racks memory for info, fails>
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2008 9:18:23 GMT
An intersting thought occured to me to sort out the interchange. Split the line into Bank-Highgate and TCR-Edgeware sections through Camden Town. Reverse the polarity of the tracks north of Camden Town on the Highgate branch and just north of Euston on the Bank branch. Build a new platform connecting to Mornington Crescent on the Bank branch's former southbound line and connect it with wide passage ways to the northbound line to Golders Green. Likewise excavate wide passage ways between the northbound Edgeware and former southbound from Highgate line at Camden town (now both southbound platforms). It would render the junction totally useless for diverting routes, and Mornington Crescent isnt too near the curve from C&SLR Euston branch, but it would allow far better and easier interchange between the lines if split. How about just rebuilding Camden Town station as planned? Your plan seems to over complicate everything!
|
|
|
Post by edwin on Feb 18, 2008 16:09:11 GMT
What is the plan? As far as i'm aware there is no plan to rebuild the station below ground, they're probably just designing a larger ticket hall to herd everyone like cattle before the platforms are clear.
I'm not for the rebuild myself, as it requires the demolition of local landmarks, I don't see why they can't do what they did in the 20s-40s or the 60s and build a new sub-surface ticket hall underneath the road junction. But that probably costs more.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Feb 18, 2008 17:26:59 GMT
I agree. I'm not for a rebuild either-nor am I in favour of splitting the Northern Line. I like the existing service pattern-it is very clear on the map which trains run to which destinations. Also the same staff and trains can be used without overcomplicating the current PPP/lease situation! If there are problems, trains can be re-routed over other branches-an advantage that would otherwise be lost.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2008 10:30:06 GMT
What is the plan? As far as i'm aware there is no plan to rebuild the station below ground, they're probably just designing a larger ticket hall to herd everyone like cattle before the platforms are clear. The plan is/was to build a hole in the ground style station, a la Jubilee Line Extension. This would allow for considerably easier same level interchange between lines. If there are problems, trains can be re-routed over other branches-an advantage that would otherwise be lost. If the line is split, the crossovers are still there, so the trains could be re-routed if need be.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Feb 19, 2008 10:42:14 GMT
True, but you know what LU is like.....
How would the line be split up? How many trains would go to which? Where would the depots be? Which staff would go where? Would any extra trains be built-can they still be built?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2008 17:16:07 GMT
There were new 96ts trains built a couple of years ago - so it is still possible to make them.
The Northern Line has quite a large number of spares - 106 trains for a 80-90 train service allows plenty of flexibility but when ATO arrives fewer will be available for maintenance.
For split services - the main depots are Morden and Golders Green. One of those would have to be on each service. So, a High Barnet - Morden via Bank could work (with Highgate Depot helping) and a Edgware to Kennington (loop) service could also work. I don't know whether there would be any conflicting movements at Camden though.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Feb 19, 2008 17:37:56 GMT
That's what I thought. If I remember rightly, the old C&SLR lines from Moorgate get to Euston and dive under the Hampstead Tube railways tracks that call at Mornington Cres. The confusing junction at Camden Town would allow this split up.
I would like the map to be altered to show separate running patterns rather than making new lines etc. An interchange can be shown at Kennington and Camden/Euston after the required works are complete. A similar situation could occur with the District lines Edgware Road branch. Peak hour trains could be extended from Kennington to Morden! The Kennington loop is difficult to turn round lots of trains an hour.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Feb 19, 2008 17:57:27 GMT
One wonders what the situation with regards to splitting the line would be like if the new works and express lines had been built for the northern, not to mention the extension to sutton! On topic though, how will building a big hole at Camden help interchange? Surely cross platform interchange would be the most useful, but I was under the impression that all platforms at camden are (roughly) on the same level. To respond to stephenk I was only trying to get around that and provide cross platform interchange both northbound and southbound, hence the convoluted layout
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Feb 19, 2008 18:09:53 GMT
The ticket hall is far too small and looks like it was built for only one line (which of course, it was). X platform interchange would be possible and essential.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2008 19:14:16 GMT
True, but you know what LU is like..... How would the line be split up? How many trains would go to which? Where would the depots be? Which staff would go where? Would any extra trains be built-can they still be built? The answer to all of this is that these things simply aren't necessary. Look at the H&C and Circle line. It's a case of 'rebranding'. In the case that something goes wrong, you could still allow trains to divert.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Feb 19, 2008 19:23:17 GMT
Ah yes-just what I wanted to hear!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2008 20:31:11 GMT
On topic though, how will building a big hole at Camden help interchange? Surely cross platform interchange would be the most useful, but I was under the impression that all platforms at camden are (roughly) on the same level. They are roughly on two levels due to the grade seperated junction south of the station.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2008 20:34:52 GMT
The Kennington loop is difficult to turn round lots of trains an hour. Only due to current operations such as tipping out. The Charing X branch has handled 30tph+ in the past.
|
|
|
Post by trc666 on Feb 19, 2008 20:57:48 GMT
Well as the loop is passenger signalled and trains return to Kennington anyway, why not do away with tipping out for trains going round the loop?
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Feb 22, 2008 1:11:30 GMT
Phil - interesting pic - I have something very similar (published in a journal article 'Reconstruction of the C&SL Railway', dunno the publication name - MRFS42 will) Railway Magazine, 1924 bound volumes - they're on the 'tram extension shelves' in the "non-LU operating publications" library the other side of the kitchen, about 8 yards from where Iam currently sat.
|
|