On May 22, 12:57*pm, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2012\05\22 10:47, Jamie Thompson wrote:



I doubt those tunnels would be of much use. In truth, the 3 mile
shortest option between Euston and Waterloo is the minimal case. The
greatest benefits would
probably be to tunnel between Willesden and Clapham Junctions as it
would relieve the terminal approaches as well as the platforms.

If there is that much need to relieve Waterloo, why are the Eurostar
platforms sitting there gathering dust?

I think the main issue is that the need to relieve Waterloo mainly
affects the 'main' (ie via Woking etc) lines rather than the
'Windsor' (ie via Richmond or Houslow) lines.

Transferring these services to the former Eurostar platforms would
involve crossing the Windsor lines on the level (if the pointwork
allows it).

I gather that transferring them to the Windsor Lines platforms and
transferring the Windsor Lines services to the former Eurostar
platforms would mean some platform length issues, as many of the
services on the main lines are 12-car and the Windsors are only 8
(currently in the process of being lengthened to 10?)

That's not necessarily to say that it couldn't (or shouldn't) have
been done by now, but it's not a trivial change.

AFAIK the approaches to Waterloo
are underused: the Richmond lines have hardly any trains on them.

They might not be the heaviest used of lines, but I'm not sure I'd
call it 'hardly any' - every half hour, off-peak, there are trains on
these lines from Waterloo to Reading, Weybridge, Windsor, Kingston
loop service, and one each way round the Houslow loop. There are some
extras in the peak.

Martin L

On May 22, 10:48*am, 77002 wrote:

Your Euston, TCR, Waterloo tunnel is optimistic. *The WCML descends
steeply down Camden Bank, your tunnel would have pass below the H&C.
I am not saying this is not doable. *But, a survey might throw up some
interesting challenges. *That said, bits of this route already exist.
During WW2 a start was made on a main line gauge tube paralleling the
Northern line,

Details? First I've heard of such a scheme. There was the deep level
express lines, tube gauge tunnels bypassing Northern line stations
with the idea of introducing skip-stop type working, but that was a
pre-war plan and definitely not main line sized.

Robin

On May 22, 3:07*pm, bob wrote:
On May 22, 10:48*am, 77002 wrote:

Your Euston, TCR, Waterloo tunnel is optimistic. *The WCML descends
steeply down Camden Bank, your tunnel would have pass below the H&C.
I am not saying this is not doable. *But, a survey might throw up some
interesting challenges. *That said, bits of this route already exist.
During WW2 a start was made on a main line gauge tube paralleling the
Northern line,

Details? *First I've heard of such a scheme. *There was the deep level
express lines, tube gauge tunnels bypassing Northern line stations
with the idea of introducing skip-stop type working, but that was a
pre-war plan and definitely not main line sized.

This was a WW2 program. The idea being that during hostilities the
tunnels would be utilized as bunkers. I believe there are surface
buildings visible along the Charing Cross branch.

On May 22, 4:42*pm, 77002 wrote:
On May 22, 3:07*pm, bob wrote: On May 22, 10:48*am, 77002 wrote:

Your Euston, TCR, Waterloo tunnel is optimistic. *The WCML descends
steeply down Camden Bank, your tunnel would have pass below the H&C.
I am not saying this is not doable. *But, a survey might throw up some
interesting challenges. *That said, bits of this route already exist.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:40:29 +0100
"Peter Masson" wrote:
Not the day after. The platforms would have had to be raised. And I
suspect

I don't remember them being low. Were they? Don't see the point if they
were,
there was no chance of a UIC guage train ever getting there.

Yes. E* platforms are lower than National Rail standard (though the NoL E*s
seemed to manage OK with standard height platforms, e.g. on the White Rose
service on the ECML). The International platforms at Stratford have been
temporarily heightened for use by the Javelin service.

Peter

*The only explanation that makes sense to me is that the
plan was to build some bunkers, in locations that were accessible
(because of the existing stations), with no particular plan beyond
that.

Robin

I think the most plausible answer is that while they were first and
foremost shelters, LT took advantage of their construction as a way to
make a start on the express lines - they were built as running tunnels
on a suitable alignment under stations they didnt expect the express
line to serve. There may be one or two exceptions, but i think its
pretty clear they werent built without an eye to a future use.

Chris

During WW2 a start was made on a main line gauge tube paralleling the
Northern line,

Details? First I've heard of such a scheme. There was the deep level
express lines, tube gauge tunnels bypassing Northern line stations
with the idea of introducing skip-stop type working, but that was a
pre-war plan and definitely not main line sized.

The Northern line *had* skip-stop working before the war.

This was a WW2 program. The idea being that during hostilities the
tunnels would be utilized as bunkers. I believe there are surface
buildings visible along the Charing Cross branch.

Doing a bit of googling suggests this is the same scheme, namely one
to build a bunch of underground bunkers,

This is correct.

which aquired a variety of urban-legend type peacetime justifications.

Not an urban legend. The bunkers were positioned so that *if* it was
decided to build a main-line gauge express line, *then* they could be
joined up as part of the tunnel.

None of the justifiations seems to stack up particularly well. If
the plan was for a mainline sized Northern line parallel, then why
were the tunnels only built at stations

I've always assumed it was so that access could be provided through the
existing stations if desired.

(and then not all stations)?

Obviously they were built only at locations where there wouldn't be
stations on the express line. And the number built was only as many
as were needed or could be afforded.

And why were some also built on the Central line?

Presumably shelters were needed there also.

If the plan was to allow for express services on the Northern line,
why were the tunnels built to a larger-than-tube sized bore?

To allow for a separate express route with main-line size trains,
as stated.

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that the plan was
to build some bunkers, in locations that were accessible (because
of the existing stations), with no particular plan beyond that.

And the authors of "Rails Through the Clay" were taken in by an
urban legend? I don't think so.
--
Mark Brader | In order that there may be no doubt as to which is the
Toronto | bottom and which is the top ... the bottom of each
| warhead [will] immediately be labeled with the word TOP.
--British Admiralty regulation, c.1968

My text in this article is in the public domain.

In message , Mark Brader
writes
The Northern line *had* skip-stop working before the war.
According to an LT booklet entitled 60years of the Northern published in
1967, Fig.23 shows a train on the passing loop at Brent. It says "This
service ran from 13 June 1927. The passing loops (at Brent) were taken
out of service on the 22 August 1936.
--
Clive

On May 22, 7:50*pm, Neil Williams
wrote:
77002 wrote:
The mainline platforms at Euston are at street level. *It is the
Headhouse that is raised on an artificial plinth. *It is arty, 1960s
concrete commie stupidity.

It is a very practical station with a fine, high ceilinged, cool in summer,
warm in winter Great Hall. *Shame the late Mr Breen is no longer around to
add to my defence of it.

You would presumably prefer the freezing cold, stinking of diesel
Paddington, with its IMO not at all tasteful combination of old and new?

No Paddington has been ruined. The degradation started with the
carbuncle on the north side.

Liverpool Street is rather good.

Why the dumb plinth at Euston. One has to climb steps to enter, only
to descend ramps to the platforms.

On May 22, 5:31*pm, Chris Sanderson wrote:
*The only explanation that makes sense to me is that the

plan was to build some bunkers, in locations that were accessible
(because of the existing stations), with no particular plan beyond
that.

Robin

I think the most plausible answer is that while they were first and
foremost shelters, LT took advantage of their construction as a way to
make a start on the express lines - they were built as running tunnels
on a suitable alignment under stations they didnt expect the express
line to serve. There may be one or two exceptions, but i think its
pretty clear *they werent built without an eye to a future use.

That has always been my understanding.