|
Post by abe on Nov 3, 2014 9:39:21 GMT
The concrete plugs to prevent flooding were a temporary measure and were only used for the under-river tunnels on the Bakerloo and Northern lines, so this would be nothing to do with that.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Oct 23, 2014 8:20:32 GMT
Actually, putting in lifts to bypass the short flights of stairs between lower lift landings and platform level is complex and expensive. The space between the platform tunnels is extremely limited, and the tunneling works can cause distortion of the tunnels - not good for a train service. Where this has been done there have often been closures during the works (confined to weekends where possible, but see the recent protracted closures at Bond Street also), and the platform tunnel segments have had to be removed and replaced with 'straighter' sections to provide enough space. Then there is the difficulty of achieveing these works deep underground with no access to a surface site. All of the equipment, plant, and spoil has to come in and out by rail, which is more time-consuming than where it can be craned into and out of a shaft opening to the surface.
The most likely reason for Aldwych having been constructed with three lift shafts was that it was confidently expected in 1905 that the line would be extended southwards to Waterloo, and hence sufficient capacity for the expected traffic was provided. Had they needed to sink additional shafts once the station was open they would have risked distortion to the shaft with lifts. Similarly, the short section of platform tunnel constructed at South Kensington for the abortive deep-level District Railway was probably built to avoid damage to the lift shafts, this being why the section is adjacent to the shafts and not running from one or other end of the proposed platform site.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Oct 23, 2014 8:08:16 GMT
And if appearing on the "Tube map" boosts the number of people using a service (viz. London Overground) then it can't hurt to put the cable-car on - regardless of one's feelings about it as a mode of transport. It's not as if it clutters the map (unlike the wheelchair symbols), and TramLink would require more space at the bottom of the map.
TfL should really admit what the map is by renaming it a "TfL services map", and probably making it in a slightly larger format...
|
|
|
Post by abe on Oct 21, 2014 8:50:38 GMT
Interesting - I thought that the second picture was Draper's Fields Junction. Or was that another junction in the area? I'm sure that there was a temporary works depot called Draper's Fields in this area used for the electrification of the line prior to the extension of Central line services.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Oct 20, 2014 12:37:31 GMT
Suspect a reopening would involve escalators, too, even if only for museum use-the shop at LTM has both, as an example & that's just the shop! Um, no it doesn't. I can say this with certainty as I've just returned from the Museum. There are lifts for visitors to get to the 'start' of the displays, but the shop has a pair of staircases - one at the front right, and the other tucked away at the back.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Oct 16, 2014 8:39:17 GMT
The only foot crossing on the Underground is just north of Amersham - which means that although the track is owned and maintained by the Underground, only Chiltern Railways' trains pass over it.
There used to be a lot of level crossings on the LNER out to Epping, but these were closed as part of the conversion works when the Central line took over in the 1940s.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Oct 16, 2014 8:27:41 GMT
Also worth noting that the GN&CR had its own power station at Poole Street, which remained in operation until 1914, when the source of power was changed to Neasden power station (because of the Metropolitan Railway ownership).
The 'Drayton Park' roundel in the photo above is very odd - it's not in Johnston typeface. For that reason I'm not convinced that it is original. LT was very strict about the use of Johnston on roundels in the days that this would have been made. However, I'm prepared to stand corrected if it can be shown that this is from the line.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Oct 10, 2014 11:37:44 GMT
The NR railhead treatment train passed NB through Chalfont & Latimer this morning at about 06.25 with its usual roar of diesel engines and hiss from the sprays. At the south end was one of the red DB-branded locos, I think.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Oct 1, 2014 7:30:26 GMT
In Paris, when Line 1 was converted, the driverless trains were a variant of the driver-operated trains that already ran. The door spacing was the same, making the installation of PEDs rather easier. Once the PEDs were installed and working, the driver-operated trains were gradually withdrawn and replaced by the driverless. The PEDs aren't full-height like on the Jubilee line extension, which made fitting them rather easier. See www.ratp.fr/fr/ratp/r_108648/l-automatisation-de-la-ligne-1-un-projet-de-service/ for more detail (in French!)
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 30, 2014 8:38:40 GMT
They do have names, but a North London Line and an East London Line which both serve SW11(and one of which serves Richmond!) is slightly odd - not to mention potential confusion of the former with the Northern Line. Harlequin never really caught on. Harlequin was the name given to the Euston - Watford line whilst it was operated by BR in the 1980s. Apparently the naming of the large shopping centre at Watford was coincidence; I have read somewhere that the name for the line was contrived from it serving Harlesden and Queen's Park... if they perpetrated Silver Link in a name, then they would have to get names for the others. Silverlink was never a line name, just the name of the first franchise operator who ran the North London Line, West London Line, and Watford DC (Harlequin) line.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 16, 2014 20:50:19 GMT
It's a reversing mark for S stock. Another example is platform 5 at Harrow-on-the-Hill, which has an S|S mark for the regular stopping place, and then an S|R mark a little further in for trains reversing into the siding. I presume that this is because the longer S stock need to pull forward to clear either the points or the track circuit to allow the route to be set for the siding.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 13, 2014 9:53:07 GMT
Tim O'Toole indeed ordered their removal, on the grounds that they cluttered the platforms. There was also an incident around the same time in which one started producing smoke, and as I recall this hastened their demise.
Going back about 100 years, the Great Northern & City Railway introduced cigarette vending machines on board their trains; apparently they were very popular and required regular restocking. I have no information on how long they lasted though...
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 13, 2014 9:28:30 GMT
The Instruction Book and Rules for Sub-Station Attendants issued by the LER in 1919 notes that illuminated indicators are provided prior to section gaps in the current rails, and that if the section ahead is dead they will show a red light with a white band across. This suggests that the triangular plate with three red lights ('cherries') were a later development. Does anyone know when though?
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 13, 2014 8:09:06 GMT
I'm sure that part of the reason for not lengthening the bay platform is a reluctance from TfL to spend money on a service that isn't in London; see, for example, the similar reluctance to introduce a Chesham - Watford Junction shuttle once the Croxley Rail Link is completed. There are plans to move the junction closer to the point where the track to Chesham diverges from the main line, but this would involve removing the existing line as far as Chalfont (as well as the junction there), thus reducing flexibility rather than increasing it as suggested above.
Any passing loop would be needed near the mid-point of the branch, which would place it near Holloway Lane. The line is on an embankment here, so considerable earthworks would be needed. To confirm a point above, there has been a lot of work stabilizing the embankments here in recent months.
The residents of Chesham (or at least, the local newspaper) campaigned for years to have through trains rather than shuttles, without realizing that there would be a significant impact on their service at times of disruption. At least with the shuttle service there was usually the ability to reach Chalfont, where Chiltern trains were available. I believe that experience of the through service has now made Cheshamites reconsider; however, the new rolling stock means that there is no way back to a shuttle service. The original requests were used by TfL in their 'consultation', which allowed them to rearrange the services at the northern end of the line, and avoid spending on bay platform works, whilst being able to claim that they were responding to passenger requests.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jul 15, 2014 7:51:03 GMT
Off-peak fares are charged before 06.30, but they count towards the peak cap. All travel must start after 09.30* for the off-peak cap to be used.
*Earlier at certain stations in outlying zones, e.g., the Met line beyond Moor Park.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jul 14, 2014 15:43:58 GMT
For diagrams that show the evolution of the station layout, take a look at Mike Horne's excellent work here: www.metadyne.co.uk/Oxo.html
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jun 24, 2014 13:32:11 GMT
The latest issue of New Civil Engineer has a one-page article about this. It's the Post Office Railway tunnel at Liverpool Street.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jun 20, 2014 17:35:07 GMT
The earliest record that I have of this happening is from 1997. I'm fairly certain that it began after ownership of the station transferred to LUL (which was in 1994).
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jun 15, 2014 6:38:19 GMT
Agreed - it's just another history of the Underground. It should have had better proof-reading as well. There are quite a few errors and typos, as well as a paragraph of gobbledegook.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Feb 10, 2014 18:29:18 GMT
Every train sent to Charing Cross meant no train going to Stratford, so keeping CX open would have reduced capacity on the JLE and wasted the investment.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Feb 8, 2014 7:34:17 GMT
All the disused stations in Paris still have trains running through them, so this idea seems rather bizarre. There are two disused stations that aren't on open sections of line, but the tracks through them are used for access to stabling and inter-line transfers.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jan 8, 2014 21:12:00 GMT
(I am also inrigued as to where the depot would have been for this line when it was a standalone proposal - neither the natural Hoistory Museum nor Picadilly Circus having much suitable land available even in 1905!) It would have been at the south-east end of Yeoman's Row in Brompton, and would be reached by a small branch diverging at Cottage Place. [ London's Lost Tube Schemes, p71] It did - there is a step plate junction at the east end of the eastbound, and another at the west end of the westbound, ready and waiting for the DLD "main line to join up. The disused westbound tunnel was to have been for the DLD - separate platforms being planned in the converging direction so that trains waiting for the junction to clear could do so at a platform. (I think the same arrangment was used at Baker Street (Bakerloo) between 1939-78, and is also the reason Camden Town's platforms are north of the junction (bearing in mind the City branch is a later addition). There is an isometric diagram of this, also in London's Lost Tube Schemes, on p219. - Presumably the GN&S would have had a depot somewhere near Finsbury Park - Presumably the DLD would have had a depot at or near Lillie Bridge - But where would the B&PCR's depot have been? The GN&S maintenance depot was to have been at Wood Green, and its power station would have been on GNR land near the Gillespie Road/Drayton Park road junction. I don't know about the DLD, but suspect that it would have shared facilities with the District as they connected at Earl's Court and Lillie Bridge depot was to the west of this. See above for the B&PCR answer!
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jan 8, 2014 12:22:41 GMT
Not relating to the Piccadilly tunnels, but of possible relevance:
The GNR applied for an Act in 1903 for the construction of sidings (note plural!) for the GN&CR to the north of the station. The tunnel was to have been 356 yds in length. From a quick look at the plans, it would have had a short length of 16 ft diameter tunnel, but most would have been rather larger - perhaps a shade over 20 ft. The plans show the tunnel entirely beneath the GNR sidings; the centre line doesn't pass beneath any buildings, but there are several within the limits of deviation. No shafts to the surface shown though. It's interesting that the plans refer to sidings, but they don't make it clear whether this was one tunnel large enough for two parallel tracks or two parallel tunnels - and if the latter, why they needed to be so large. I can't see at present whether this became part of the GNR Act 1903, but it was certainly never constructed.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jan 6, 2014 20:41:59 GMT
The GN&CR platforms were built by the GNR, under the GNR No. 2 Act of 1902. The No. 1 Act of 1902 was for the parallel Great Northern & Strand Railway, which became the northern section of the original Piccadilly tube. By building both sets of platforms itself, the GNR felt it had more power to prevent either line from extending northwards and stealing its suburban traffic.
The platforms were constructed to be very similar, with the exception of the greater diameter required for the GN&CR. All four were constructed on a 'hump' profile, for reasons that have never been fully explained. At the southern end it would assist trains in decelerating into the station and accelerating away, but with no intention to extend northwards, why the descent at the northern ends?
As stated by others previously, the southbound Great Northern and westbound Piccadilly lines now use the GN&CR platforms, and the hump can still be seen on them. The earliest view I can find that shows the humped profile is on p72 of Rails Through the Clay, taken around the time of opening in 1904.
Changes were made to the décor and fittings of all the platforms when the Victoria line opened, and the photos shown earlier date from this era as said in earlier posts.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jan 4, 2014 9:44:47 GMT
You still haven't explained why you believe this to be the case, particularly in light of tridentalx's reply...
|
|
|
Post by abe on Nov 28, 2013 8:08:40 GMT
Lots of details about the station history, why the tunnels were laid out as they were, the train services, and proposed extensions in "The Aldwych Branch" (Capital Transport 2009).
|
|
|
Post by abe on Nov 20, 2013 14:05:16 GMT
I believe that a lot of the work will be done in parallel. The problem is that all of the escalators are single machines in single shafts, making the process rather more cramped and time-consuming.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Oct 21, 2013 7:23:08 GMT
Very nicely done. Maybe I'm being dense, but is there a reason why York Road is missing on the Picc? Given that the map shows the 1935/40 New Works Programme extensions, it is showing the network around a hypothetical 1940. York Road (as well as Brompton Road and Down Street) all closed in the early 1930s.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Oct 1, 2013 6:46:27 GMT
The S Stock is, as others have noted, a lot more crowded. The air conditioning was great in the summer, and I've found that I don't dislike the longitudinal seats as much as I expected. However, on the rare occasions I need to catch one in the rush hour from King's Cross to Amersham it's not unusual to be standing as far as Wembley Park or even Harrow. I've also found that in the section immediately behind the drivers cab the handrails are placed closer to the sides of the car, making it actually painful to use them (and I'm quite tall). If these could be repositioned in line with the other handrails it would be rather better.
Overall, I don't really have a problem with the S Stock. My main problem remains the ridiculous service pattern, particularly the absence of fast trains before 06.30 (the Chiltern service is surprisingly crowded at this time), and charging a peak fare for an off-peak service between 16.00 and 16.30ish.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Sept 23, 2013 9:28:25 GMT
It was a very well organized event, and hosted by some very helpful and knowledgeable members of staff. The booklet that they gave out was also well-produced and full of detail. I really appreciated them taking the time to run this - it was a credit to LU and the Open House event.
|
|