|
Post by alicarr on May 21, 2018 11:54:52 GMT
I've got a new Tube Map This is based on 1946 proposals which you can read the text of here. It's cool to see early versions of the Victoria line, Crossrail, Crossrail 2 and Thameslink, but there's a lot that's very different - in particular, London Bridge demolished and replaced by five Crossrail-like tunnels. Let me know what you think!
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on May 21, 2018 12:55:45 GMT
alicarr , Thank you for sharing this, it's an absolute gem to look at. Also fascinating to see what could have been and what ironically is coming to fruition now over half a century later. I never realised the historic origins of some of our most recent and forthcoming rail projects.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on May 21, 2018 17:28:20 GMT
Cracking, alicarr! Let us know when the screensaver version is ready-would like this on my desktop, too!
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on May 21, 2018 20:50:37 GMT
Sorry but I have a few queries. I don't recall reading about a proposal to link trains to Enfield with the Northern City Line (Moorgate - Finsbury) Park route. Instead I thought the plan was for Northern Line trains from Moorgate to travel via Finsbury Park and Highgate High Level to: a) Alexandra Palace b) East Finchley (middle platforms) - Mill Hill - Edgware - Bushey Heath c) East Finchley (middle platforms) - High Barnet (Mon- Fri rush hours only). In addition, the shuttle service to Finsbury Park (deep level tube platforms) would continue too, albeit only in the rush hours. As an aside, the track layout at Edgware was designed so that the main service to Bushey Heath would be travel via Mill Hill. Whilst trains via Golders Green could reach Bushey Heath the plans were that they would terminate at Edgware. Also, route D is missing. This is the tube line to Yeading that was also to serve Kensington Olympia. See here... districtdavesforum.co.uk/post/450026/threadSimon
|
|
|
Post by alicarr on May 22, 2018 6:18:50 GMT
Sorry but I have a few queries. I don't recall reading about a proposal to link trains to Enfield with the Northern City Line (Moorgate - Finsbury) Park route. Instead I thought the plan was for Northern Line trains from Moorgate to travel via Finsbury Park and Highgate High Level to: a) Alexandra Palace b) East Finchley (middle platforms) - Mill Hill - Edgware - Bushey Heath c) East Finchley (middle platforms) - High Barnet (Mon- Fri rush hours only). In addition, the shuttle service to Finsbury Park (deep level tube platforms) would continue too, albeit only in the rush hours. As an aside, the track layout at Edgware was designed so that the main service to Bushey Heath would be travel via Mill Hill. Whilst trains via Golders Green could reach Bushey Heath the plans were that they would terminate at Edgware. Also, route D is missing. This is the tube line to Yeading that was also to serve Kensington Olympia. See here... districtdavesforum.co.uk/post/450026/threadSimon Regarding the Northern City Line proposal, this is the passage in the 1946 report I'm working from: "Route 1: Would proceed from Tower Bridge Road under the river to Fenchurch Street and Moorgate, where it would be linked with the L.P.T.B. Northern-City line, the latter being connected at its Finsbury Park terminus with the L.N.E.R. suburban system. It is considered that the Alexandra Palace and Enfield Town branches of the L.N.E.R. might appropriately be connected with the new railway at Finsbury Park, but it must be pointed out that such a connection would involve some alteration of the scheme for dealing with the projection of the Northern-City line trains to Alexandra Palace under the New Works Programme, 1935/40." In a later table listing termini for each route, the only northern termini listed for Route 1 are "Alexandra Palace and Enfield Town, L.N.E.R." The proposals in the thread you linked, which include the Olympia - Yeading tube line, seem to come from later. I worked off these 1946 proposals because it was easy to get hold of the text in detail. Perhaps if I have more time I'll do a different tube map for the 1949 proposals, and perhaps another one for the 1965 proposals as well. I didn't know about the plans for services to Bushey Heath - I'll update the map to reflect that
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on May 22, 2018 8:44:37 GMT
Bakerloo Line to Camberwell ?
|
|
|
Post by holborncentral on May 22, 2018 9:35:12 GMT
Love this, it's very interesting to look and consider what the tube might have been like if those planned lines/stations had been built. One thing - the planned Bakerloo line Camberwell extension is not on it.
|
|
|
Post by alicarr on May 22, 2018 11:19:10 GMT
Bakerloo Line to Camberwell ? Love this, it's very interesting to look and consider what the tube might have been like if those planned lines/stations had been built. One thing - the planned Bakerloo line Camberwell extension is not on it. Interestingly the 1946 proposal doesn't mention anything about extending the Bakerloo line. I'd be reluctant to include it to avoid too much mix-and-matching of different sources, but I could perhaps put some text in noting that this was (and still is) often proposed.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on May 22, 2018 11:32:28 GMT
The Camberwell proposal surfaced first in 1912/13. Then in 1926 & 1933 as well!! However, in the context of your splendid map, the proposal is irrelevant, because it next resurfaces in 1949. The original proposals all mooted an intermediate station at Wandsworth Road and a terminus at Denmark Hill--from your point of view, as it were, that changed to a possible intermediate station at Albany Road & now a terminus at Camberwell Green respectively from 1949, if that helps with the next map! Says he, born & bred in SE5
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on May 25, 2018 22:21:32 GMT
Sorry but I have a few queries. I don't recall reading about a proposal to link trains to Enfield with the Northern City Line (Moorgate - Finsbury) Park route. Instead I thought the plan was for Northern Line trains from Moorgate to travel via Finsbury Park and Highgate High Level to: a) Alexandra Palace b) East Finchley (middle platforms) - Mill Hill - Edgware - Bushey Heath c) East Finchley (middle platforms) - High Barnet (Mon- Fri rush hours only). In addition, the shuttle service to Finsbury Park (deep level tube platforms) would continue too, albeit only in the rush hours. As an aside, the track layout at Edgware was designed so that the main service to Bushey Heath would be travel via Mill Hill. Whilst trains via Golders Green could reach Bushey Heath the plans were that they would terminate at Edgware. Also, route D is missing. This is the tube line to Yeading that was also to serve Kensington Olympia. See here... districtdavesforum.co.uk/post/450026/threadSimon Regarding the Northern City Line proposal, this is the passage in the 1946 report I'm working from: "Route 1: Would proceed from Tower Bridge Road under the river to Fenchurch Street and Moorgate, where it would be linked with the L.P.T.B. Northern-City line, the latter being connected at its Finsbury Park terminus with the L.N.E.R. suburban system. It is considered that the Alexandra Palace and Enfield Town branches of the L.N.E.R. might appropriately be connected with the new railway at Finsbury Park, but it must be pointed out that such a connection would involve some alteration of the scheme for dealing with the projection of the Northern-City line trains to Alexandra Palace under the New Works Programme, 1935/40." In a later table listing termini for each route, the only northern termini listed for Route 1 are "Alexandra Palace and Enfield Town, L.N.E.R." The proposals in the thread you linked, which include the Olympia - Yeading tube line, seem to come from later. I worked off these 1946 proposals because it was easy to get hold of the text in detail. Perhaps if I have more time I'll do a different tube map for the 1949 proposals, and perhaps another one for the 1965 proposals as well. I didn't know about the plans for services to Bushey Heath - I'll update the map to reflect that Ali, thanks for your reply.
Maps showing the 1949 and 1965 proposals would be great.
As an aside, the London Evening Standard has a web page about your map.
I have commented on a few things there, although the comments are a bit of a mess as whilst some messages showed up immediately others took three days to appear, by which time slightly differently worded messages saying basically the same thing had been submitted. Their comments system does not include options to either edit or delete messages.
Simon
|
|
|
Post by alicarr on May 26, 2018 7:42:08 GMT
Ali, thanks for your reply.
Maps showing the 1949 and 1965 proposals would be great. As an aside, the London Evening Standard has a web page about your map. I have commented on a few things there, although the comments are a bit of a mess as whilst some messages showed up immediately others took three days to appear, by which time slightly differently worded messages saying basically the same thing had been submitted. Their comments system does not include options to either edit or delete messages.
Simon
I'll definitely put the 1949/1965 maps on my list of future projects. I'm considering making a blog where I could put everything up, but I always get worried that no one will ever want to read it. Do you (or anyone) know where I can access the full text of the plans from 1949 or 1965 (or indeed any other fun ones that I could do)? A nice advantage of the 1946 plans was the text is freely available, in full online which helps a lot with understanding the details and the historical background.
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on May 26, 2018 16:27:31 GMT
There had been LMS passenger service into the Docklands, using a number of the alignments that would later be used by the DLR, until 1941, when air raids put the stations out of use, not to be reopened.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on May 26, 2018 19:58:16 GMT
Ali, thanks for your reply.
Maps showing the 1949 and 1965 proposals would be great. As an aside, the London Evening Standard has a web page about your map. I have commented on a few things there, although the comments are a bit of a mess as whilst some messages showed up immediately others took three days to appear, by which time slightly differently worded messages saying basically the same thing had been submitted. Their comments system does not include options to either edit or delete messages.
Simon
I'll definitely put the 1949/1965 maps on my list of future projects. I'm considering making a blog where I could put everything up, but I always get worried that no one will ever want to read it. Do you (or anyone) know where I can access the full text of the plans from 1949 or 1965 (or indeed any other fun ones that I could do)? A nice advantage of the 1946 plans was the text is freely available, in full online which helps a lot with understanding the details and the historical background. Well, you can either track a copy down as I did (£85!) of the bound plans with maps. Or, if it's just the text from the schedule to the report, the report itself and its' recommendations & finally the appendices, including London population distribution, we are talking 30 pages which I will willingly photocopy & send you via email or a series thereof, message me if you want to & I'll get something started.
|
|
|
Post by alicarr on May 27, 2018 8:01:13 GMT
Well, you can either track a copy down as I did (£85!) of the bound plans with maps. Or, if it's just the text from the schedule to the report, the report itself and its' recommendations; finally the appendices, including London population distribution, we are talking 30 pages which I will willingly photocopy; send you via email or a series thereof, message me if you want to; I'll get something started. Wow, that's a very generous offer! I might take you up on that at some point in the future, once I have time to do the map justice
|
|
|
Post by holborncentral on May 27, 2018 20:38:08 GMT
Ali, thanks for your reply.
Maps showing the 1949 and 1965 proposals would be great. As an aside, the London Evening Standard has a web page about your map. I have commented on a few things there, although the comments are a bit of a mess as whilst some messages showed up immediately others took three days to appear, by which time slightly differently worded messages saying basically the same thing had been submitted. Their comments system does not include options to either edit or delete messages.
Simon
I'll definitely put the 1949/1965 maps on my list of future projects. I'm considering making a blog where I could put everything up, but I always get worried that no one will ever want to read it. Do you (or anyone) know where I can access the full text of the plans from 1949 or 1965 (or indeed any other fun ones that I could do)? A nice advantage of the 1946 plans was the text is freely available, in full online which helps a lot with understanding the details and the historical background. You should start a blog! Plenty of people would want to read it. All us tube enthusiasts would Just try and make people aware of it. Are you on Twitter by any chance? As for the 1949 or 1965 plans, I wouldn't know where you could easily find them online, but good luck with your search.
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on May 31, 2018 20:24:31 GMT
I'd definitely like a blog.
|
|
|
Post by waysider on Jun 10, 2018 23:01:01 GMT
sorry ...what am I doing wrong that's stopping me from zooming in on the map?
|
|
|
Post by alicarr on Jun 11, 2018 7:33:43 GMT
sorry ...what am I doing wrong that's stopping me from zooming in on the map? It depends on what platform you're viewing the forum on, but I find the best thing is to open the image in a new tab, which then lets you zoom in. Edit: Also try this direct link.
|
|
|
Post by waysider on Jun 11, 2018 12:02:14 GMT
oh, the direct link is perfect - cheers mate
|
|
|
Post by waysider on Jun 11, 2018 22:21:16 GMT
so even in 1946, there was no future for the Palace Gates line or Crystal Palace High Level?
|
|
|
Post by alicarr on Jun 12, 2018 7:56:55 GMT
so even in 1946, there was no future for the Palace Gates line or Crystal Palace High Level? I don't think the report refers explicitly to these lines either as needing to stay open or needing to close; they're omitted from this map because no services over these lines were planned to run through the new tunnels (although the report was relatively vague on how exactly the tunnelled lines would take over suburban services).
|
|