|
Post by abe on Dec 27, 2006 20:16:48 GMT
The printout that I was given on the spot after being stopped includes the name and number of the officer. I am just weighing up whether to write to the BTP to ask them for clarification on their current policy. I have been taking photos of the Underground for many years, and barring an obnoxious supervisor a few years back, this is the first problem I have ever had. I would very much like to know if I, and other photographers, are going to be harassed going forward, or if this was a one-off because Boxing Day was otherwise rather dull for those concerned.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Dec 26, 2006 17:32:27 GMT
If you were taking photographs of the outside of a station than it would be reasonable to assume that you were not standing on railway property. As such the BTP technically have no jurisdiction at all. They think they do, and whether you would wish to challenge them on this is perhaps another matter. They do also have jurisdiction over anything "that may be prejudicial to the railway", but have to be able to justify such situations. This used to be the case, but the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 gave them the power to perform 'stop and search' anywhere under the Terrorism Act powers - i.e., no need for any reason. And to think that this legislation was brought in by the same government that keeps trumpeting that it gave us Human Rights laws.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Dec 26, 2006 15:20:32 GMT
To reply to Tomcakes, I agree - written permission isn't required. However, the situation is that the BTP have been granted the powers to stop and search without the need to suspect anything. They have been told that terrorists might take photos in order to plan attacks. If I had authorization from LU to take photos then it would be unlikely that I was a terrorist. I had no such authorization, therefore they decided to stop me for questioning. They checked me on the computer, I came up clear, and they decided not to perform a detailed search (other than looking at the photos I'd taken, as well as the ones of my Christmas lunch!).
I find it troubling that we live in a 'democracy', and yet our esteemed members of parliament allow such legislation to be passed...
|
|
|
Post by abe on Dec 26, 2006 15:12:29 GMT
That's a very fair point from A Good Cuppa. However, I've just been reading the Act and lots of information from a variety of sources about 'stop and search'. It would appear that the powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 have been authorized for the use of the BTP, and therefore they are quite withing their rights to stop anyone without needing any suspicion. Quote from the Home Office Stop and Search website: - The police must have reason to suspect you
- Except in cases of suspected terrorism
Since the powers have been authorized, this is the case. The officers concerned acted in accordance with the Police 'Stop and Search' manual (yes - I've even had a read through this now!). I can't fault them on how they handled the situation, and I was issued with the paperwork on the spot from a hand-held printer. What I object to here is the law - not its application. I had no valid reason to complain to the Police. I just don't like the fact that my freedom to take photographs of a building (or anything) can be taken away by an Act of Parliament that is written in such vague terms as to make all of us terrorism suspects.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Dec 26, 2006 14:45:11 GMT
The part relating to the powers is Section 45:
My camera was the article that was used (I could have been doing reconnaisance for a terrorist act). Subsection (b) means that they can stop you for no reason at all (in effect).
Yes - I could have challenged it. I worked on the principle that I have no criminal record, was not committing a criminal offence, and didn't want to spend my afternoon at Wembley Park BTP station. Remember, the recent Acts relating to Terrorism and investigation (e.g. RIPA) are some of the most severe legislation in the western world...
And just because LU, NR, etc., don't mind photos being taken doesn't mean that the Police do. But if you have a permit/pass/letter of permission then the Police know that you have a 'reason' for doing it.
Whether it's right or not, this can and does happen. I wanted to let people know so that they aren't taken by surprise (like me!)
|
|
|
Post by abe on Dec 26, 2006 14:07:09 GMT
It's probably worth my posting a warning in this thread. I've just been detained by the BTP for taking a photograph of a station (the front). Under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 this is a prohibited activity (as is, I was informed, photography of any critical national asset) without the permission of the property owner. My details were taken and checked, and I was told that a report will be sent to Special Branch, who would give me a home visit if the computer check found anything suspicious (it didn't - phew). The police were very friendly about the whole thing, and gave the impression that they didn't believe that I was up to no good, but that the law obliged them to check. Anyhow - let this be a warning. You need written permission from LUL/Network Rail to photograph any part of the railway.
|
|
|
Post by abe on May 6, 2007 7:21:56 GMT
TC12/2007 p3. Is the posting of scans here permitted?
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Nov 13, 2007 7:51:47 GMT
I think that a sub-surface ticket hall was considered a few years ago after one of the plans had been thrown out. However, it wasn't seen as being as user-friendly or accessible as having it at street level.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jul 30, 2007 7:28:03 GMT
The problem was that Camden's platform layout was unchanged from 1907 when the junction was rebuilt in 1924. It wouldn't have been cost effective to rebuild the platforms as well, especially given that at the time tube lines were still built under roads, and rebuilding with cross platform interchange would have required building under properties. . Absolutely right - given the alignment of the platforms it would involve lengthy curving tunnels under Camden to provide cross-platform interchange. It would probably be cheaper to build new platforms... Of course, one of the reasons that the platforms are arranged as they are is that the original plan was for the Highgate branch to be operated as a shuttle service, and therefore needed two platforms of its own; otherwise a single NB platform could have been provided south of the junction, rather like Baker Street (Bakerloo) before the Jubilee line. Another advantage of this layout was that it permitted the lifts to descend to a point between all four platforms, close to the apex of the junction, thus minimizing the length of the low-level subways. The CCE&HR was not particularly keen on operating the Highgate branch as a shuttle. The logic stemmed from the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on London Underground Railways of 1901, which was very concerned about passenger trains operating over junctions in tunnels. Around 1903 (after construction had started) the railway company decided to operate both northern branches with services to Charing Cross, and then engaged in a lengthy debate with the Board of Trade, who wanted catch points and overrun tunnels between the SB platforms and the junction to prevent trains from colliding. These demands were finally dropped when the stopping positions for SB trains was moved northwards (possible because the trains were shorter than the platforms). Even if the Highgate branch had been operated as a shuttle, cross-platform interchange would still have been useful. However, the streets just don't allow for it. If the platforms are under Camden High St and Kentish Town Rd (as they are) then you need a lot of tunnelling under properties to make it work - this would have been very expensive. The platforms could have been moved southwards, but Camden High St isn't wide enough to take four abreast. The NB and SB tunnels could have been placed at different levels, but I have a feeling that this would have made the gradients a problem. Given the desire to keep the tunnels beneath streets, it is difficult to find any easy solution - even with a single NB platform - that works with a straightforward access from a single surface station with lifts.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jun 18, 2007 9:19:11 GMT
The driver must have been confused/stressed to quite a degree, as the track layout on the North and South at platform 3 are radically different. Yes, accepting all I said earlier, didn't it cross the driver's mind that once in his cab he was closing the doors on the OPPOSITE side to previously (and the opposite to what he would expect)? He must have been well confused (and presumably totally p*ssed off since it wasn't his mistake but he was being made to take the long walk). When the driver left the train on the Barnet branch platform he would have had the platform on the left of the train. When he arrived at the Edgware branch platform he got onto the train at the end with the platform again on the left. But because the platforms at Camden Town are all on the 'inside' of the V layout, this would have placed him at the wrong end of the train. He would therefore have closed the doors on the same side... Given the maze of steps and tunnels he would have walked through to get between the platforms, the fact that he didn't notice that he'd walked the length of the train is not surprising.
|
|
|
Post by abe on May 30, 2007 7:04:50 GMT
Many thanks for all your help - and especially to Oracle for the photo. I've passed it on to the publishers who will have a chat with John Gillham.
|
|
|
Post by abe on May 18, 2007 13:16:25 GMT
I like the terminology "Barnet Branch". Are we going back to when the line to Edgware was the main line? No; I'd refer to the Edgware branch as well. I see them equally, but couldn't think of a more succinct way of describing that section. I certainly wasn't demeaning the Barnet branch!
|
|
|
Post by abe on May 17, 2007 20:34:34 GMT
I understand that some of the last freight workings on the Barnet branch were operated by diesel locomotives, rather than steam. They were introduced in 1960, and were used exclusively from 5 March 1961 (except when they broke down) until freight services were withdrawn in 1962.
Can anyone point me at a photograph of a diesel-hauled freight train on the branch, or supply one from their collection? Feel free to send a PM if you can't post an image here. It's for a forthcoming publication, so I need high quality if possible...
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jan 29, 2007 9:42:36 GMT
The Charing Cross loop opened in 1914. In 1925 the loop was closed so that the extension to Kennington could be built. Trains continued to run single-line from Strand to Charing Cross, switching at the crossover north of Strand. The loop immediately south of the platform at CX (where the NB line would join) was sealed off to allow the tunnelling; a section further round, where the new SB line severed the loop was sealed, the lining dismantled, and rubble inserted to support the tunnel. The tunnellers were then able to cut through in relative safety.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Feb 19, 2007 10:56:39 GMT
Lifts typically didn't go to platform level because the platform tunnels were closely spaced (just room for the staircase). If the platforms were further apart then more land was required, needing a greater wayleave (all shown on the Parliamentary plans, as a dotted 'limit of deviation' line). At King's Cross the platforms might be under existing railway land and therefore the C&SLR might have come to an arrangement with the GNR. Just a guess though...
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jun 22, 2007 8:54:41 GMT
Happy Birthday to the Hampstead Tube! It was opened 100 years ago today, with the public being admitted free of charge from 13.30.
Here's to the next 100 years!
(Do you think that the Queen will send it a telegram?)
|
|
|
Post by abe on Dec 18, 2006 12:59:06 GMT
There were two passing loops at Brent Cross, controlled by signalbox 'AA'. They were removed because of the complexity they introduced to the timetable and the fact that they were too short; any time saved by non-stopping the station via the loops was too small to make their presence worthwhile. Another reason was that they prevented the platforms being lengthened to take 9-car trains. These were seen as being more worthwhile than the marginal benefit of the loops, which were only used for a few peak-hour trains.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Dec 6, 2006 13:36:39 GMT
The problem is that Golders Green was unique, in that it was the only surface building provided anew for a Yerkes tube. The museum reckon that Leslie Green only had a passing involvement with its design. As such, with no other such canopies made, and with the colours on the other stations being provided by the 'ox-blood' terracotta, there appears to be no standard to use.
And this is part of a larger project - watch this space!
|
|
|
Post by abe on Dec 6, 2006 11:19:22 GMT
Does anyone know what colour the metal canopy on the front of Golders Green station was when it opened? The only pictures I have seen are in B&W. It doesn't appear to be dark enough for black... I've read various reports of the opening day, but none mention this. For reference, the LT Museum have a picture in there collection, here. All suggestions gratefully received - even more so if you can point me at some definitive evidence!
|
|
|
Post by abe on Nov 27, 2006 20:24:07 GMT
The platforms at Highgate were originally designed for 7-car trains. The decision to lengthen the platforms was only made once the tunnelling had actually started. The approval to lengthen the SB platform was made on 4 July 1937, and the NB on 18 October 1937. Both were then constructed to a length of 470 ft.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Dec 1, 2006 11:31:48 GMT
The really strange thing about Camden Town is that not only did the CCE&HR build two southbound platforms, to allow trains converging at the junction to wait appropriately, they also built two northbound platforms as well. I wonder why they thought that two northbound platforms would be desirable. The line to Hampstead was authorized in 1893; the Highgate branch was added to the plans in the early 1900s (can't remember the exact date) prior to construction. The Board of Trade, who had to approve the detailed designs, were against running junctions in deep-level tubes, and pressured the company to run Camden Town to Highgate as a separate shuttle service - hence both branches needed two platforms. They also demanded changes to the signalling at Camden to protect the junction. However, as the northbound and southbound are on different levels with no connection there were never any reversing facilities here. The plans to run as a shuttle were abandoned before the line opened; otherwise a crossover would have been needed on the Highgate branch. This answer now causes the following question: if they decided that the crossover wasn't needed because it wouldn't be a shuttle, why did they keep both northbound platforms. My suspicion is that the low-level station design had been completed (and was probably under construction) by this time, and the amount of replanning needed to move the nortbound platform south of the junction (or the junction north of the platform) would have been excessive. It was a lot easier to just leave out the crossover tunnel. Of course, others might have different views as to this, which I'd be keen to read. I have a particular interest in digging into this type of problem!
|
|
|
Post by abe on Oct 15, 2007 10:16:00 GMT
It was trialled on the Aldwych branch platform at Holborn (platform 5).
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jan 28, 2008 20:13:43 GMT
Yes, it does exist. It's an obscured glass sign which shows a black bar at 45 0 when the shunt is off. So it's still in place then? Do three-car trains ever use the siding since the demise of Aldwych? Any info you could supply would be great.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jan 27, 2008 11:35:44 GMT
Quick question about the signalling in the siding at Wood Green. I've read that in 1981 a repeating shunt signal was installed half-way along the siding. This was because all trains had to travel up to the FRLs at the end, and when the three-car Aldwych shuttle did this the driver could no longer see the exit shunt signal because of the tunnel curvature. There was a concern that if he motored towards the tunnel exit to see the signal, and it was at danger, then an overrun and possible derailment could occur.
Is this correct? Did this signal exist? If so, does anyone have any diagrams or photos?
Thanks,
ABE
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jan 4, 2008 8:46:49 GMT
So does anybody know about the original tilings? Leicester Square is the only station shown in Tiles of the Unexpected for which the tiling pattern is pretty much unknown. Given the amount of research that Doug Rose and co put into the book over 25 years or so, unless a cache of hidden photos miraculously turns up, I doubt that we will ever know. The book also has plans of the station (indeed, it covers tiling and plans for all the original Yerkes stations).
|
|
|
Post by abe on Sept 20, 2007 7:17:29 GMT
There are certainly abandoned tunnels south of Finsbury Pk; some realignment at the north end would be required to connect them with the Picc, but the problem is that they would only be effective for south-to-north reversing (otherwise a triple shunt would be needed).
At South Kensington the only disused tunnel was the ~120ft constructed for the deep-level District. This has been absorbed into the lower concourse for the escalators now, so there's nothing there worth talking about.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Feb 22, 2007 10:03:46 GMT
Why don't tfl publish a separate PDF that gives all the info on disruptions that passengers need to know? They do this for the posters that are all around the system, so the info must be compiled anyway. They do. If you register on the TfL website for Underground travel information then you'll be sent a weekly e-mail containing all of this information in summary form. It contains links to PDF files that contain all of the details of replacement bus services, a map, and sometimes the actual leaflet that can be found at stations.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Feb 2, 2007 12:31:52 GMT
I understood the problem to be that having promised a stack of money to the transport providers to improve all of the stations in the area (including major works at Holloway Road) some kind of planning delay has arisen. Islington Council were starting a study last September (!) and presumably this needs to report before work can be done. The transport providers are not the main problem here.
In short, the money has been offered but anything useful is being delayed by bureaucracy...
|
|
|
Post by abe on Sept 26, 2007 7:00:27 GMT
This is definitely wandering OT now from the original post, but it's worth pointing out that the covered way between Barbican and Moorgate runs beneath the elongated lake in the middle of the Barbican complex. There are special channels above the railway box to guide any water that might leak away from the railway.
|
|