|
Post by abe on Sept 1, 2008 7:42:03 GMT
Wouldn't it be possible to rebuild Holborn so that trains could run through by building a tunnel from south of Holborn WB platform, joining on to the SB Aldwich tunnel? It would be very difficult, because of the levels. In effect, you'd be abandoning the bay platform at Holborn, and the constructing a new step-plate junction in the eastern (i.e., SB) tunnel south of the existing crossover tunnel, which would remain plain-lined. The branch from the step-plate would then need to descend around 20 ft into a new SB platform tunnel. Given that this would have to be level (H&S requirements), and the incline couldn't be too steep (as it would be for trains departing a station), the connection into the EB tunnel would probably be a fair way down the branch tunnel (although the general falling gradient towards Aldwych would help here). A new step-plate junction would have to be built around the WB main line north of the station, which would be expensive and disruptive. The existing branch platform (No. 5) at Holborn is now shorter than when built, because of various works at the north end, so full-length trains could never easily be operated. None of the plans for extending the Aldwych branch to Waterloo (except for the Chelsea-Hackney proposal) ever proposed making a two-way connection at Holborn because of the difficulties described.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Sept 1, 2008 7:35:49 GMT
It's interesting that the Jubilee is shown as far as Aldwych, but no further. Why would they show that much and not any of the rest of the next phase of the line? I suspect that it's giving the reference number for the overrun/siding tunnels east of Charing Cross. It does connect to the dot for Aldwych, but then the tunnels do almost make it to that point. They show the JLE as constructed, so presumably no point in showing the original Fleet/River line east of what was built.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 29, 2008 7:02:02 GMT
I'll post on this forum as soon as I have date, title, cost etc. confirmed. It's been a long time in the making!
The 'code map' gives the British Reference System (BRS) references for each station and section of line. It's interesting that these values have been assigned to extensions that were proposed and rejected/abandoned (Northern heights, Aldwych - Waterloo, Camberwell, Streatham). It would be interesting to know the logic behind the choice of what is shown.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 28, 2008 12:26:41 GMT
No, because the Underground didn't produce lots of speculative maps for internal use in those days, like they do now. There will be a geographically-accurate map of the extension showing platform and concourse tunnels, and the relation to the other lines. There will also be a excerpt from a hand-drawn map from the late 1950s showing a rather interesting plan for Aldwych.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 27, 2008 9:55:10 GMT
Title hasn't been decided yet (there are a couple to choose between). Cost likely to be £19.95 (but again, not certain). It will be a hardback book with colour photos etc. Publisher is Capital Transport.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 26, 2008 9:13:27 GMT
The extension has never appeared on a public map. The 1960s powers were kept alive for a while, and then lapsed - the worsening financial situation of the late 1960s killed off the extension, and instead the Brixton extension of the Victoria line occurred.
There'll be a book with the full history of the Aldwych branch coming out later this year. Lots of details, maps, and photographs.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 22, 2008 10:05:11 GMT
A bit more on the armour plating...
Due to the lack of steel in WWI, it was only in 1919 that the plating was fitted. A 540 ft length of the SB tunnel, and 480 ft length of the NB tunnel had ½-inch steel plate installed. Below the tracks the plate was ¾-in thick, with concrete grout below. To accommodate this and keep the trains at the right height the track was replaced by bridge rails on longitudinal sleepers.
By WWII, water ingress had affected the invert concrete, and the tunnels were closed for 11 days to remove the invert plates and concrete, and putting standard track back in. The upper portion of the armour plating was left in position, supported on new corbel plates. The floodgates at the north end of Charing Cross station were closed, and a temporary waterproof diaphragm installed at Waterloo.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 20, 2008 19:42:30 GMT
There are definitely two lifts in two shafts at the station - or at least there were a few months ago when I was able to have a look around the place. The two lifts are in one shaft, and have a trapezoid floorplan. Together they form a hexagonal shape, making efficient use of the circular shaft. The centre shaft was floored over in the late 1980s, having never been used, and the UTS ticket office was constructed above it. The eastern shaft remains unused.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 20, 2008 19:23:10 GMT
No, I *think* it was removed, the new concrete being deemed acceptable for protection.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 19, 2008 19:45:15 GMT
The cement behind the armour plating had turned to mush. In addition, the tunnels were so close to the river bed that there was a concern that, were a boat to sink and hit them that they would be ruptured.
The work involved concrete piles being sunk alongside the tunnels, and a concrete cap being placed above the tunnels. The tunnels were sealed either side of the work, but I'm not sure that this involved the WWII floodgates. Other work (e.g., Elephant crossovers) might have been done at the same time, but the principal reason for the closure was the tunnel work.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 15, 2008 8:08:09 GMT
There were also three lift shafts constructed - although only two were ever used. Only one of the shafts (the westernmost) was ever used; the other two have remained empty for their entire existence. There was a proposal to move the lifts into the centre shaft in the late 1960s, and let King's College take over the western part of the station for their redevelopment.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 12, 2008 7:41:32 GMT
Cutty Sark was very nearly not built because of planning concerns - it sits in the heart of a conservation area. There were a lot of complaints about the building demolition required to construct it, and what would be put on the site around the station (a bit like the Camden Town débâcle). I seem to recall that this caused the platforms to be shorter than would otherwise have been liked.
I'm fairly certain that for Bank it just made sense to build longer platforms in one go, as the cost of extending later would have been substantially more. Nice to see some forward planning for once.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 12, 2008 7:36:16 GMT
Yes, for many years. I presume that it was introduced at the same time as OPO on the main Piccadilly line, otherwise there would have been a few lonely guards being driven insane through repeated shuttling between Holborn and Aldwych!
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 12, 2008 7:34:20 GMT
Most (if not all) of the shelters had a staircase connecting with the station above. These linked up with cross-passages between the platforms. They weren't designed to be an easy link via escalators. They were bricked up years ago to clearly separate the public areas (i.e., the station) from the shelters. I suspect that it might have been as early as the late 1950s, following the Goodge Street shelter fire, in which smoke from the blaze poured into the station via the staircase.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 12, 2008 7:25:17 GMT
That's darn near the station! That's practically IN the station It's further than you think - 250m / 840 ft. Remember, Aldwych has it's platforms under the Strand/Surrey Street junction, just clipping the corner of the buildings. There is the whole of King's College, and then Somerset House before Lancaster Place (under which the Jubilee tunnels end) is reached.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 11, 2008 9:37:53 GMT
No, like many of the Yerkes stations the shafts stopped above the level of the platforms. A long, sloping corridor led down to the level of the footbridge across the platforms; flights of steps then led down to the platforms.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 11, 2008 7:43:09 GMT
The Bakerloo diagrams never (I think) showed interchange with the Northern at Charing Cross, because it was a very long walk between the two. Embankment is very close, and the walk somewhat less, so interchange was indicated there. I can't recall, but imagine that the reverse was also true, i.e., Northern not showing Bakerloo interchange at Charing Cross.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jul 25, 2008 7:33:17 GMT
Of course, for reasonably detailed plans showing where the tunnels were built, many of the archives in London (e.g., House of Lords, LMA, NA, etc.) have copies of the original Parliamentary deposit plans. I'm certain that at least one of these would have the original GN&CR plans. They won't, of course, have the very detailed LUL plans, and don't show bolt-holes or any other details. They also won't show access to the disused tunnels as they don't get amended retrospectively.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jul 1, 2008 8:01:43 GMT
Probably not, because the lift shafts don't come down in the right place. As I remember, there was a curved passageway from the lower lift landing to the stairs that led down onto the platforms. Even if the shafts were deepened, they would not come out between the platforms. Unless completely new shafts were sunk, one possibility would be to add a short lift shaft from platform level to the level of the old lower lift landing, and connect them with a new passageway - a bit like the current plans for Archway.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jul 1, 2008 7:58:24 GMT
Only the eastern half of the bay platform was filled in originally. For many years prior to the construction of the Western Ticket Hall there was still a single, unelectrified track connected to the inner rail; this ran for some way along the bay. Most of the rest was filled in as part of the recent works to extend the concourse and add the new steps.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jun 27, 2008 9:47:44 GMT
Worth noting that Angel had a higher number of blind and visually impaired people using the station, which was a driver for the rebuilding. I recall that they trialled some technology called 'BlindMinder' at the station, and I *think* that it was one of the first places to use the tactile strip on the platform edge.
At Stockwell some of the original white tiling remains in the old platform (now crossover) tunnel.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jun 27, 2008 9:23:58 GMT
I suspect that it's not too much about the platforms, but about the loading. Chiltern trains are always heavily loaded in the peak hours, and this way it helps keep more capacity available for stations north of Amersham. It also reduces the journey time for these trains by a couple of minutes. There are a couple of Chiltern trains each evening rush hour that skip all stations until Amersham, even Harrow. That's in addition to those that have Great Missenden as their first call.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jun 26, 2008 6:54:36 GMT
We're going OT, but as a regular user of the Met I refute the statement that people don't sit three abreast, even in the rush hour. They do - it's the only way to fit the people on the trains. OK, there's generally one or two of the 'middle' places free at any one time, but the vast majority are in use, generally as far out as Harrow, on the Amersham trains.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jun 5, 2008 7:24:01 GMT
This month's Underground News has a few pages of letters on this topic. One of the writers has gone back through a couple of the Capital Transport books about the history of the maps, and reports on their observations.
|
|
|
Post by abe on May 15, 2008 8:54:41 GMT
They were used for the Northern Line Project, although the exact purposes have not been given.
|
|
|
Post by abe on May 15, 2008 8:52:15 GMT
I recall reading somewhere that J. Graeme Bruce thought that not arguing harder for the Heathrow extension to allow surface stock was one of his biggest regrets.
|
|
|
Post by abe on May 15, 2008 8:50:21 GMT
2. The Bakerloo had a building on Baker Street, roughly opposite Melcombe St (the road to Marylebone). It was a standard ox-blood terracotta Leslie Green station with lifts down to the platforms. It connected to the Met line platforms at Baker Street East via the footbridge at the north end (still in use, but just to link platforms 1&2 with 3&4). I don't think that Baker Street East ever had a separate entrance. However, the Circle/H&C platforms had their original entrance at the junction with Baker Street, where the subway now crosses under Marylebone Road, at the west end of the station. 3. I'm not sure whether Baker Street East was ever an official name - more of a designation for some platforms that were slightly further away. As such, there wasn't ever a renaming.
To answer your last e-mail, there are three gatelines at Baker Street. One is in the Bakerloo/Jubilee ticket hall (west end of the station, leading to the escalators). Another is in the Met ticket hall (central part of the station, under Chiltern Court), and the third is south of the Marylebone Road in the subway entrance to the station. This latter leads into the footbridge over the east end of the Circle/H&C platforms. I don't ever recall an extra set of barriers (King's Cross certainly had these though). The Circle and H&C platforms were the original ones on the Metropolitan Railway, and date to 1863. You are right in stating that the current Met line platforms are on the site of the original Metropolitan & St John's Wood Railway platforms (although the layout has changed a lot over the years).
|
|
|
Post by abe on Nov 27, 2007 8:49:44 GMT
Doug Rose has published his book on the tiling of Yerkes stations. My copy arrived yesterday, and it is a magnificent publication. One very large hardback book, together with a box containing large illustrations of entire platforms on folded sheets, all contained in a slipcase. It's not cheap at £50, but it is a beautiful publication. It is available from the author, post free, or from the LT Museum, or from the Capital Transport ordering line 020 8407 3535 (24-hr answering service). I hasten to add that I'm not connected with the book, but just making an effusive recommendation for a fellow author's new publication. I've been waiting a while for this to come out. More details, and pictures, at www.dougrose.co.uk/. Highly recommended.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Nov 27, 2007 17:18:50 GMT
Looking again at the map it appears that you've split the Northern Line. If this is to happen I think the CHX branch should retain the black colour as the map is centred around the bold red and black crossing at Tottenham Court Road. Historically the black colour was used by the C&SLR; the Hampstead Tube only used black when the links with the C&SLR were under construction. Prior to this the colour most often used by the Hampstead Tube was a purply-red (the colour used for the cover of the recent book about the line).
|
|
|
Post by abe on Apr 10, 2007 8:04:51 GMT
Rather closer to home, Chris M's idea is used on the DLR.
When the 2009 TS was shown at Euston (or rather, the special cut-down car!), I asked about walk-through connections and was told that they couldn't be used on the tube unless air-conditioning was provided, as the end doors help pull in 'fresh' air from the tunnels. This wouldn't happen if walk-through connections were provided, and since AC is unlikely to appear in the deep-level tubes they won't be provided. Can anyone confirm/deny this?
|
|