On Oct 15, 10:21 pm, MIG wrote:
On Oct 15, 8:14 pm, wrote:



On Oct 15, 7:54 pm, MIG wrote:

On Oct 14, 7:24 pm, wrote:

On Sep 30, 7:18 pm, wrote:

I've just seen this website -http://winstainforth10.foliosnap.com/?goto=eustonstationabandonedtunn...
with pictures of some of the abandoned bits of Euston. But there's one
photo -http://winstainforth10.foliosnap.com/?goto=eustonstationabandonedtunn...
- which says that there was originally a bridge onto the old island
platform for the city branch. I've been to euston, and the "other
side" of that photo is half way along the platform. Supposedly its the
original way onto the platforms rather than the 1910s-1960s entrance
at the west end of the platform, which was shared with the Charing
Cross branch.

The only photos I've seen of the island platform are ones showing the
stairs at the west end of the platform. Does anyone have any old
photos/postcards showing the bridge?

Hello, I'm the photographer who took the photos of the Euston tunnels,
I must say a lot of completely wrong information has been written in
this post.

I've put together a page which will hopefully clear things up, just to
be clear things up.

http://www.robertsphotos.co.uk/desktop.htm

Cheers

Robert Stainforth

Thanks; this confirms a lot. The first of your pictures shows the
second hole quite close to the first, and shows it to be in the groove
I referred to elsewhere.

In the photo where you say one of the bridges can be seen, the
structure is much further from the hole that can be seen. The groove
which is hiding the second hole can be seen, although the hole can't,
so I am still sure that that structure is not a bridge associated with
the passageways in question.

Hi, I'd disagree with you on that, the old photo is taken from a
completely different perspective than the new shots. I'd say the
bridge looks in just the right place, also look how small the chap is
sitting on the far bench. The distance is further than you may think.

That's what I'm saying: it's too far. In your first photo you can see
that the hole in the groove is quite close to the one not in the
groove.

In the old photo, you can see the groove just beyond the visible
hole. The structure running across is much further away.

Looks right to me, anyone else have an opinion?

Rob