|
|
Post by countryman on Aug 8, 2018 15:00:58 GMT
I found this article about disused tunnels under Lord's. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43993471Can anyone shed any light on this? I now the Met tunnels run in ths area, but they are hardly disused! |
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Aug 8, 2018 15:30:24 GMT
I found this article about disused tunnels under Lord's. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43993471Can anyone shed any light on this? I now the Met tunnels run in ths area, but they are hardly disused! The Metropolitan passes directly under Wellington Road. The Jubilee Line tunnels are directly under the MET at that point. Two other tunnel vaults are shown on maps, to the south-east of Wellington Road, parallel to the MET. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2018 15:55:59 GMT
There's nothing disused there - these are tunnels from Marylebone station, very much in use. Met might also cut a bit at the south-east corner of the site.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Aug 8, 2018 16:20:53 GMT
There's nothing disused there - these are tunnels from Marylebone station, very much in use. Met might also cut a bit at the south-east corner of the site. Take a look at this OS map from 1940 overlayed onto the modern footprint of the tracks at Marylebone and you can see two pairs of dead ended tracks, these tunnels came into the open just North of Wellington street on a plot that has since been rafted over by the Wellington Hospital. Two pairs of tracks that was passive provision by the GCR for any increase in traffic but in the end only saw four tracks used for the final approach to Marylebone. Following rationalisation of Chiltern to a predominantly two track railway, there is indeed a abandoned piece of railway in NW8. This image shows that very opening under construction in 1897. |
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Aug 8, 2018 16:28:33 GMT
There's nothing disused there - these are tunnels from Marylebone station, very much in use. Met might also cut a bit at the south-east corner of the site. Looking at maps again, there is a disused vault that extends from Lodge Road to Wellington Place - directly under the Nursery Pavillions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2018 19:21:03 GMT
That makes sense! I had no idea...
What makes no sense is selling them - any potential rail capacity in central London has to be preserved.
|
|
|
|
Post by greggygreggygreg on Aug 8, 2018 20:14:44 GMT
They're selling the ground above the tunnels. Not the tunnels themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Aug 8, 2018 20:35:32 GMT
That makes sense! I had no idea... What makes no sense is selling them - any potential rail capacity in central London has to be preserved. With the benefit of hindsight, it's more obvious to us that parcelling of leases along rail routes that have come to flourish in the new millenia was a poor one lacking any foresight, but I'm sure later down the line, the same thing will be said about today's offloading of land that the Mayor keeps on saying TFL has got to spare. Railtrack was by no means having it easy by the end of 99, the high profile fatal accidents at Southall and Ladbroke Grove showed how the organization was failing to fund and adequately maintain an increasingly antiquated infrastructure no longer under the wings of central government funding. In the aftermath of these tragedies, spending on maintaining the network understandably was going to have to be a priority even if the financial state of Railtrack by this point was already ringing alarm bells. In such a dire state, having surplus land in prime locations such as NW8 was obviously seen as a no brainer at a time when the very daily existence of the company was being put on the line, the future would have to dealt with later. I worry that TFL and/or Network Rail may come to make the same mistakes, both are required to pour in record sums to maintain and upgrade networks that continue to grow off aging trains and infrastructure whilst balancing this with the unforgiving and often biased political commitments of those hoping to sway the electorate. They're selling the ground above the tunnels. Not the tunnels themselves. That's true, but the costs of bringing these tunnels back into use will now be significantly inflated and face much more vocal opposition reducing the practical viability of ever using these tunnels again for trains. |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Aug 8, 2018 22:40:13 GMT
If the tunnel is in good condition it might prove useful when the Chiltern services are electrified. Working in a tunnel that is not in use will make life a lot easier, safer and faster. It might also be that there will be greater headroom for the wires if tunnels became single track with the running lines following the centre - which usually has greater headroom.
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by toby on Aug 9, 2018 6:50:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by principlesdesigner on Aug 9, 2018 8:22:09 GMT
I could be wrong as it is many years since I have been in the SJW tunnels, 1989 ish, but I seem to recall that they were only headshunts.
SJW = St Johns Wood
|
|
|
|
Post by howda62 on Aug 9, 2018 9:27:00 GMT
This early 1950s map seems to indicate that two of the three tunnels built out of Marylebone and under Lords merely provide siding/shunting space: Link to nls map siteUse the overlay slider to compare to current day. It's amazing on that map to see how large the railway site used to be at Marylebone with the carriage shed to the east and all the parcels and goods yards and coal depot to the west. There's a wealth of old photos of the Great Central line construction around Marylebone to have a browse around on this site: Link to railwaysarchive siteHere is one showing the tunnels being built at Lords: LinkAnd here is one showing the tunnel portals being built at Canfield Place: LinkI can't find any reference to line construction over the West Coast Main Line apart from the 2 track girder bridge, so it seems from just beyond Lords the line was only ever two track. Where the line surfaces at Canfield Place there are two tunnel portals apparent with only one in use but I seem to recall reading somewhere a while back that the other tunnel only went back a few yards, probably just created with potential future expansion in mind. |
|
|
|
Post by nickf on Aug 9, 2018 10:50:31 GMT
Quite a useful discussion HERE |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 9, 2018 12:21:58 GMT
This early 1950s map seems to indicate that two of the three tunnels built out of Marylebone and under Lords merely provide siding/shunting space: Link to nls map siteUse the overlay slider to compare to current day. It's amazing on that map to see how large the railway site used to be at Marylebone with the carriage shed to the east and all the parcels and goods yards and coal depot to the west. There's a wealth of old photos of the Great Central line construction around Marylebone to have a browse around on this site: Link to railwaysarchive siteHere is one showing the tunnels being built at Lords: LinkAnd here is one showing the tunnel portals being built at Canfield Place: LinkI can't find any reference to line construction over the West Coast Main Line apart from the 2 track girder bridge, so it seems from just beyond Lords the line was only ever two track. Where the line surfaces at Canfield Place there are two tunnel portals apparent with only one in use but I seem to recall reading somewhere a while back that the other tunnel only went back a few yards, probably just created with potential future expansion in mind.
The Great Central learnt the lessons of other railway builders (most of whom had to undertake extensive rebuilding works to widen their London approaches once traffic built up) and thus the GC made passive provision for effectively doubling all aspects of the line between Finchley and Marylebone.
Starting at Cranfield Place, the wider cutting than necessary plus a second portal (and few feet of tunnel) was built to facilitate the digging of an extra bore
Crossing the WCML - while only a double track bridge was constructed the abutments and foundations at WCML level look suspiciously like they would be able to support able to support a 4 track bridge.
Then we have the tunnels under Lords which were built for 6 tracks (although only 2 were ever used for the mainline, the others being used as sidings) - but what few may realise is that these were only built to get round the opposition of the MCC. When the GC tried to get parliamentary approval for their first London extension bill, the MCC called for every single cricket fan in the country to lobby their MP to vote against it - even though only a tiny part of the MCC grounds would be affected and the actual pitch would not have been touched. History shows that the MCC (and indeed others) were successful and MPs rejected the GCs bill in Parliament. Undeterred the GC returned in the next year with an improved bill which amongst other things sought to pacify the MCC by not only putting the line in a covered way, but also extended the MCC grounds over them rather than replacing the property the GC had demolished.
Then at Marylebone, Rosmore Road bridge is far longer than needed for the as built station - if you examine the NLS map you can see the turntable is actually built on what would be the approach to the unbuilt Western half of Marylebone station and the concourse extends much further west than necessary for the as built station. In other words the GC planned for the fully finished station site to occupy the land right up to Harewood Avenue!
|
|
|
|
Post by jacko1 on Aug 14, 2018 22:13:36 GMT
Not sure if it was the case, but I was told that these tunnels were built with the idea that it would be route that would cross London, and a route towards the English channel, and a proposed tunnel across to France. As I said, not sure how true.
|
|
|
|
Post by principlesdesigner on Aug 15, 2018 0:28:13 GMT
jacko1 That is correct! The GC was built to continental loading gauge, it was part of a master plan by Edward Watkin, who was chairman of the Met & GC
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Aug 15, 2018 6:58:20 GMT
Edward Watkin, who was chairman of the Met & GC ….and the South Eastern, and the Submarine Railway Compnay, and also on the board of the Chemin de Fer du Nord. |
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Aug 15, 2018 9:33:05 GMT
jacko1 That is correct! The GC was built to continental loading gauge, it was part of a master plan by Edward Watkin, who was chairman of the Met & GC Unfortunately, that is a myth. |
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Aug 15, 2018 10:35:06 GMT
jacko1 That is correct! The GC was built to continental loading gauge, it was part of a master plan by Edward Watkin, who was chairman of the Met & GC Unfortunately, that is a myth. Which part is a myth? |
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Aug 15, 2018 11:59:57 GMT
Unfortunately, that is a myth. Which part is a myth? That the GC (actually, the London Extension) was built to continental loading gauge. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Aug 15, 2018 13:56:18 GMT
It would not have been possible to build the GC line to "European gauge" in 1899 as there was no standard loading gauge in Europe until "Berne Gauge" (Gabarit PassePartout International - PPI) was agreed by the UIC in 1913. This was larger than the standard French loading gauge of the time, but smaller than the German one.
The GC line was built to a more generous loading gauge than most British lines (possibly close to the French one), which allowed Networker Turbos (class 165) built for that line and the similarly generously-proportioned GW main line to be built wider than most DMUs.
Some confusion is caused by the nomenclature used for the set of UIC standard loading gauges, which include designations GB and GC. However, these have nothing to do with Great Britain or the Great Central Railway. GA is slightly larger than Berne/PPI. GB is the one generally used in France, GB+ is slightly larger to take standard UIC containers and GC, the biggest, covers most of Central Europe). Apart from HS1 (GC gauge) and some lines converted to GB+ for container traffic, few if any lines in the UK even meet GA dimensions
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 18, 2018 16:45:10 GMT
Not sure if it was the case, but I was told that these tunnels were built with the idea that it would be route that would cross London, and a route towards the English channel, and a proposed tunnel across to France. As I said, not sure how true. Whoever told you that is talking rubbish.
The ONLY reason the GC built 3 double track tunnels where one would have sufficed was to avoid the need to get into more rows with MCC whose objections (given the importance of Cricket to the Governing classes at the time) could easily sink any parliamentary bill to widen the Marylebone approaches)
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Aug 18, 2018 19:08:15 GMT
There was a plan for the GCML to form part of a grand route from Manchester to Paris, but the extra tunnels under Lords were not specifically provided as part of that plan. I do not know if Watkin's dream involved international trains running through Great Portland Street (!) or whether he would expect passengers to change from one to another (all of them controlled by him) at various points en route.
|
|
