Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Jul 26, 2010 23:16:45 GMT
Its a redraw of a diagram from the London Rail study, 1974, of the central area routes taken by the proposed Fleet line and Chelney line. Possibly the only project I've completed fully and been happy with! This could belong in the Jubs section, Historical, photosites, RIPAS... So mods please move if another board is more appropriate! Anyhoo, did it with the intention of putting it on wiki, but havent managed to fathom the licensing thing yet. In time! benedict.fotopic.net/p65921757.html |
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jul 26, 2010 23:24:33 GMT
Thank-you for doing that - it's the best representation of the Chelney line I've yet seen.
I suspect it belongs better in Historical - which is to where I'm going to move it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikebuzz on Jul 30, 2010 19:30:47 GMT
That's very good Ben.
I have a good rendition of the Jubilee phases 1-3 in my Jubilee Line opening commemorative book (more like pamphlet) of 1979. Incidentally it shows phase 3 as the River line option only, with some differences to 1974.
St Katherine's loses the 'Docks' part, Isle of Dogs becomes Millwall (unlikely to have been chosen IMO), there is a station at Custom House, and the line doesn't reach Thamesmead East (which surely would come after Thamesmead Central in the list). From Custom House is a branch to Beckton.
As regards Chelsea-Hackney, I thought a connection between Aldwych and Temple was part of the plan of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 30, 2010 21:01:28 GMT
Isle of Dogs becomes Millwall (unlikely to have been chosen IMO), I thgink Mudchute (DLR) was originally to have been Millwall Park. The number of football supporters who would have ended up on the wrong side of the river as a result was suggested as one rreason for the change |
|
|
|
Post by ianvisits on Aug 1, 2010 16:44:10 GMT
At the time the Jubilee was being planned, the reason for putting the Isle of Dogs station down the south end was simply that the docks were wasteland, and everyone on the isle lived at the bottom of the isle.
Even the early proposals for the docklands redevelopment envisaged light offices and media firms - not the vast financial center that was later developed.
In a way, the delay was fortuitous, otherwise we'd have a Jubilee Line station that is in totally the wrong place.
|
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 2, 2010 9:27:36 GMT
The Chelsea-Hackney line would never have incorporated the Aldwych branch. Just look at the ridiculous path that it is forced to take across central London, just to incorporate a tiny bit of existing tunnel. Although the branch is two tunnels each 1/3 mile long, because at Holborn the C-H would have needed to dive at least 30 feet to pass beneath the WB Piccadilly line platform, the new line would have only been able to use the platforms at Aldwych, plus less than half the running tunnels northwards. As these are on an uphill gradient, it would have been a waste (as they would have to dive again), so in practice only the platforms could have been used. At 250 ft long, they would have required complete reconstruction. Despite researching the history of this proposal, it is still a mystery why such an ill-thought-out idea ever made it into the London Rail Study. The only benefit is providing a link between Victoria and Waterloo; however, it would have been better to then proceed north to Temple (perhaps with a subway to Aldwych, to provide a proper link), and then to Farringdon (perhaps with a double-ended station linking to Chancery Lane). Just two points about the map: it should be St Katherine's Dock, and maps are best saved in a format other than JPEG, as the JPEG format leads to blurring along the edges of lines, and is best for photos. That said, Ben's map is one of the best illustrations of the London Rail Study schemes, so well done!  |
|
|
|
Post by mikebuzz on Aug 4, 2010 19:49:32 GMT
The Chelsea-Hackney line would never have incorporated the Aldwych branch. Just look at the ridiculous path that it is forced to take across central London, just to incorporate a tiny bit of existing tunnel. Although the branch is two tunnels each 1/3 mile long, because at Holborn the C-H would have needed to dive at least 30 feet to pass beneath the WB Piccadilly line platform, the new line would have only been able to use the platforms at Aldwych, plus less than half the running tunnels northwards. As these are on an uphill gradient, it would have been a waste (as they would have to dive again), so in practice only the platforms could have been used. At 250 ft long, they would have required complete reconstruction. Despite researching the history of this proposal, it is still a mystery why such an ill-thought-out idea ever made it into the London Rail Study. The only benefit is providing a link between Victoria and Waterloo; however, it would have been better to then proceed north to Temple (perhaps with a subway to Aldwych, to provide a proper link), and then to Farringdon (perhaps with a double-ended station linking to Chancery Lane) I think at the time going via Holborn was a real 'West Central' area that would have been considered worth going through, as opposed to missing out the West End altogether. As a destination point, the route in either direction was not convoluted but I agree it does look very kinked from Aldwych to Farringdon if looking at the line overall - a bit like judging the Picc from Russell Square to Leicester Square. I think the diagram does make it look more extreme than it would be - with the line curving slightly to the east of Holborn and making more of an s-bend through Farringdon, and entering Aldwych from the west of Temple on a less curved route between Waterloo and Holborn. A lesser example of this sort of kink though not involving an intermediate station or passing through the centre is the Vic between King's X and H&I, which of course made it to project completion. I don't know about diving under Holborn Picc unless involving cross-platform interchange. Unless I've misunderstood your quote or the plans of the time, I would have thought the branch could curve away to the east and miss the Picc at Holborn, and do so further north than halfway along the branch. Of course a more substantial option might have been to dive under Holborn and have the line take over the Picc north of Holborn with the Chelney line from Hackney taking over the Picc heading west. I also remember reading that there was some alternative to crossing at Farringdon, involving no interchange at all. At the time the Jubilee was being planned, the reason for putting the Isle of Dogs station down the south end was simply that the docks were wasteland, and everyone on the isle lived at the bottom of the isle. Even the early proposals for the docklands redevelopment envisaged light offices and media firms - not the vast financial center that was later developed. In a way, the delay was fortuitous, otherwise we'd have a Jubilee Line station that is in totally the wrong place. Or we'd have the Canary Wharf hub in a different place  |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Aug 4, 2010 20:06:41 GMT
I think at the time going via Holborn was a real 'West Central' area that would have been considered worth going through, as opposed to missing out the West End altogether. Remember that when these plans were first devised there was a direct partially underground (but not Underground) rail route between Holborn and Westminster, which was in line for closure - the Kingsway tram subway. Since its closure transport on that axis has never been as good: I don't think there are even any direct buses from Holborn to Westminster. The plans may well have included provision to compensate for the loss of service on this axis - as it is all we got was the Red Arrow bus services - many of which were intended as stop gaps until new tube lines were built: hence the closure of Route 500 when the Victoria Line had got established. Note that the only two Red Arrow routes still operating are the 507 (Victoria-Waterloo) and 521 , Waterloo- Holborn - St Pauls- (London Bridge) together closely shadowing the proposed Chelney alignment, along with part of the Fleet. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Aug 5, 2010 0:57:38 GMT
Many thanks for the praise and notes Fotopic saves all images uploaded as .jpg images, which is very annoying. The original was done as a vector graphic however. The kink at Holborn is as tight as that in the original graphic. I suspect that had the plan got off the ground at a time then envisaged (so c. 1990) the kink would have become slightly less extreme, however in terms of maximum average speed trains would be coming from a halt at Holborn or slowing to one anyway. I agonised over whether it was St. Katherine or not for a long time, however every reference I've found to it is 'St. Katherine', the medieval hospital being St. Katherine's. I should have put 'Docks' though  As for Thamesmead, well that was clearly a test.... *clears throat* ;D Btw if anyone wants to see a kink still proposed in chelney, take a look at the ridiculous path taken around Leyton. Also an oppertunity was missed not to run straight from Sloane Square to Victoria; instead it kinda follows the District above it. As to whether it was the right idea to take over Aldwych, well it would make something of an underused stub, allow cross platform interchange at Holborn, and was a natural progression of powers that existed at a similar time to take the Aldwych branch to Waterloo. Its not an ideal routing, but its a decent compromise of different ideas. Not sure it would have entailed such massive rebuiding of all the tunnels. The southbound is at a lower level there, so the northbound Chelney would veer east immediately after Holborn platform, crossing above the southbound Pic. The southbound Chelney however would need to dirvirge from the original tunnels and head lower to be level to Holborn Southbound pic. |
|
|
|
Post by ruislip on Aug 5, 2010 2:47:30 GMT
norbitonflyer, I always thought the Red Arrows were introduced to hive off longer, more established routes; and to begin a transition from RTs and Routemasters to OPO in the West End and City.
|
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 5, 2010 8:00:21 GMT
As to whether it was the right idea to take over Aldwych, well it would make something of an underused stub, allow cross platform interchange at Holborn, and was a natural progression of powers that existed at a similar time to take the Aldwych branch to Waterloo. Its not an ideal routing, but its a decent compromise of different ideas. Not sure it would have entailed such massive rebuiding of all the tunnels. The southbound is at a lower level there, so the northbound Chelney would veer east immediately after Holborn platform, crossing above the southbound Pic. The southbound Chelney however would need to dirvirge from the original tunnels and head lower to be level to Holborn Southbound pic. The problem is that the Central line passes over the Picc with no room to squeeze another line in between. In order to pass over the Central line the gradient up from the Thames would be undesirable (and would prevent any use of the Aldwych branch). Cross-platform interchange wouldn't work either. The SB tunnel could be adjacent to the existing Picc SB (to the east), but would then be lower than the Aldwych branch; continuing south on the level would mean much of the SB branch tunnel would be unused. NB the 'through' platform on the Aldwych branch at Holborn would be needed, which would require a major reconstruction of all of the tunnels south of Holborn. Remember that since the Victoria line was built the aim has been to achieve large-radius curves on tube lines. I'm not saying that this would have been impossible, but the amount of reconstruction work required at Holborn, plus extending the platforms at Aldwych, plus adding escalators would make any potential savings from reuse of the branch evaporate rapidly. |
|
|
|
Post by mikebuzz on Aug 5, 2010 8:30:56 GMT
The problem is that the Central line passes over the Picc with no room to squeeze another line in between. In order to pass over the Central line the gradient up from the Thames would be undesirable (and would prevent any use of the Aldwych branch). Cross-platform interchange wouldn't work either. The SB tunnel could be adjacent to the existing Picc SB (to the east), but would then be lower than the Aldwych branch; continuing south on the level would mean much of the SB branch tunnel would be unused. NB the 'through' platform on the Aldwych branch at Holborn would be needed, which would require a major reconstruction of all of the tunnels south of Holborn. Remember that since the Victoria line was built the aim has been to achieve large-radius curves on tube lines. I'm not saying that this would have been impossible, but the amount of reconstruction work required at Holborn, plus extending the platforms at Aldwych, plus adding escalators would make any potential savings from reuse of the branch evaporate rapidly. Maybe there was some plan to take over a section of the Picc 'mainline' and re-route it on a new alignment, or to divert the Central? The powers that be at the time seemed happy to majorly reconstruct stations and rearrange tunnels as was common on the Vic earlier than the proposal and happened on the Jub after. This was done when there wasn't any existing branch taken over... Would the route have been any different if the Aldwych branch didn't exist? Not necessary, as the route provides connections such as Victoria-Waterloo and Waterloo-Holborn (a long standing aim and a Northern line relief), plus connecting Hackney/Dalston with the West End without going through the cramped heart of it (i.e. going via Aldwych/Temple and Holborn instead of Charing X and TCR, or missing the West End by going via St. Paul's/Ludgate Circus or Chancery Lane). Alternatively if having one platform at a different height would save so much time, effort and money, it is unlikely LT would have gone to such costly lengths just to ensure same-level interchange in both directions, especially if it made such a large part of the central section unviable. I thought Aldwych had originally been planned for both through operation and as a bigger station above and below ground (as it is platform extension is a fraction of the cost a whole new station), but the escalator provision wouldn't have been considered any different for Aldwych than for a whole host of stations that had lifts at the time. As a Russell Square- or Covent Garden-type station Aldwych would not have needed escalators at the time. As a a Temple interchange it would have got escalators as part of the interchange works. The kink at Holborn is as tight as that in the original graphic. I suspect that had the plan got off the ground at a time then envisaged (so c. 1990) the kink would have become slightly less extreme, however in terms of maximum average speed trains would be coming from a halt at Holborn or slowing to one anyway... ...As to whether it was the right idea to take over Aldwych, well it would make something of an underused stub, allow cross platform interchange at Holborn, and was a natural progression of powers that existed at a similar time to take the Aldwych branch to Waterloo. Its not an ideal routing, but its a decent compromise of different ideas. Not sure it would have entailed such massive rebuiding of all the tunnels. The southbound is at a lower level there, so the northbound Chelney would veer east immediately after Holborn platform, crossing above the southbound Pic. The southbound Chelney however would need to dirvirge from the original tunnels and head lower to be level to Holborn Southbound pic. As I pointed out previously, the Aldwych end continues to the west of Temple and heading due south to Waterloo, making for more of a right-turn than a kink, as per Picc for example. I also think it likely the route would have curved away from Holborn more gently, and continued to arc toward the south east, then curve gently the other way towards the north west on an s-bend through Farringdon which would have allowed for farily high speed operaton. The no-Farringdon option would have allowed for a simpler trajectory to Old Street (perhaps under Mount Pleasant), or possibly Angel and even more rapid times. Using the branch would have had the advantage of not having to negotiate later sewers etc in the area. The powers thing is interesting too. Were powers granted (? 1959?) for the extension from Aldwych to Waterloo still extant c. 1974? |
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 6, 2010 13:26:33 GMT
The powers thing is interesting too. Were powers granted (? 1959?) for the extension from Aldwych to Waterloo still extant c. 1974? Yes; they finally lapsed in December 1983. |
|
