On May 22, 8:24*pm, (Mark Brader) wrote:
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.

Thank you Mark.

On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:52:13 -0700 (PDT), 77002 put finger to keyboard and
typed:

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.

It's to provide space under the concourse for service access and utilities.
It also allows direct access from the commuter platforms to the underground
via a passage which passes under the concourse, thus minimising congestion
at concourse level.

Functionally, Euston is very well designed. It hasn't been particularly
well used; the concourse has been cluttered by too many retail kiosks
(although they are now realising that's a bad thing and removing them) and
the tendency to leave platform announcements until close to departure times
creates too much of a scrum. Neither of those, though, are the fault of the
original planners. Visually, it's typical 1960s municipal modern with
piecemeal 1970s and 1980s additions, and is definitely showing its age now.

I think it will look a lot better once the planned refurbishment is
completed - looking at the artist's impressions, it will take it back a bit
to the original openness while at the same time updating the facilities. I
don't think Euston will ever be considered classic architecture, but,
provided they can carry out the makeover without negatively affecting the
functional aspects, it has the advantage that nobody is going to complain
that they've made it worse!

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

"Mark Goodge" wrote

the tendency to leave platform announcements until close to departure
times
creates too much of a scrum.

When the West Midlands service went to half-hourly (1974?) the principle was
established that these trains would leave alternately from either side of an
island platform, and that as far as possible each train would be open for
boarding as soon as the previous train had left. With the Virgin high
frequency service it should be possible to extend this principle to
Manchester as well as the West Midlands. This could halve the number of
passengers who need to wait on the concourse, though it would also be
necessary to come up with a new approach to Advance tickets, which encourage
passengers to arrive very early even when trains are at 20 minute frequency,
for fear of missing the one train their ticket is valid on and having to buy
a much more expensive new ticket.

Peter

On May 22, 10:01*pm, Neil Williams
wrote:
77002 wrote:
Why the dumb plinth at Euston. *One has to climb steps to enter, only
to descend ramps to the platforms.

Does it matter? *Most people probably enter via the Tube.

Several times in the last couple of years I have utilzed the station
as a pedestrian. It is downright hostile. It is far from Euston
Road, behind another building, and up steps. Clearly designed by an
idiot with a grudge.

On May 22, 10:48*pm, Mark Goodge
wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:52:13 -0700 (PDT), 77002 put finger to keyboard and
typed:





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.

It's to provide space under the concourse for service access and utilities.
It also allows direct access from the commuter platforms to the underground
via a passage which passes under the concourse, thus minimising congestion
at concourse level.

Functionally, Euston is very well designed. It hasn't been particularly
well used; the concourse has been cluttered by too many retail kiosks
(although they are now realising that's a bad thing and removing them) and
the tendency to leave platform announcements until close to departure times
creates too much of a scrum. Neither of those, though, are the fault of the
original planners. Visually, it's typical 1960s municipal modern with
piecemeal 1970s and 1980s additions, and is definitely showing its age now.

I think it will look a lot better once the planned refurbishment is
completed - looking at the artist's impressions, it will take it back a bit
to the original openness while at the same time updating the facilities. I
don't think Euston will ever be considered classic architecture, but,
provided they can carry out the makeover without negatively affecting the
functional aspects, it has the advantage that nobody is going to complain
that they've made it worse!

So it is no longer coming down as part of HS2? That, and the link to
OOC and the GW line to Birmingham were the best parts of HS2. I was
look forward to a decent looking station closer to Euston Road and
linked to Euston Square.

On Tue, 22 May 2012 23:12:48 +0100, Peter Masson put finger to keyboard and
typed:



"Mark Goodge" wrote

the tendency to leave platform announcements until close to departure
times
creates too much of a scrum.

When the West Midlands service went to half-hourly (1974?) the principle was
established that these trains would leave alternately from either side of an
island platform, and that as far as possible each train would be open for
boarding as soon as the previous train had left. With the Virgin high
frequency service it should be possible to extend this principle to
Manchester as well as the West Midlands. This could halve the number of
passengers who need to wait on the concourse, though it would also be
necessary to come up with a new approach to Advance tickets, which encourage
passengers to arrive very early even when trains are at 20 minute frequency,
for fear of missing the one train their ticket is valid on and having to buy
a much more expensive new ticket.

That's part of the reason behind providing new catering outlets on a new
mezzanine level: it will be a place where people can go and sit down while
waiting to board a train rather than hanging around the main concourse.
Obviously, that has financial benefits to the operator as well, as it
increases their income from concessions. But it is of genuine value to
travellers who can arrive at the station in good time and relax a bit once
they're there.

It's also useful for those of us who typically travel on off-peak tickets.
Having somewhere at the station where I can pass the time between when my
meeting ended and the first train I can catch to get home is useful. Also,
given that the first post-restrictions train is usually chocka, I'm often
perfectly happy to wait for the next one if the frequency is high enough
(which, on London to points north on the WCML, it usually is). But I'm more
likely to do that if I can find somewhere comfortable to sit rather than
hang around on the concourse.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

Mark Brader:
And the authors of "Rails Through the Clay" were taken in by an
urban legend? I don't think so.

Specifically, what the book says is:

# GOVERNMENT DEEP SHELTERS
#
# The bombings of 1940, and intelligence reports of more powerful
# bombs and more efficient delivery systems, forced a reappraisal
# of the deep-shelter policy. At the end of October the government
# decided to construct a system of deep shelters linked to existing
# tube stations. London Transport was consulted about the sites,
# and was required to build the tunnels at the public expense[1],
# with the understanding that it was to have the option of taking
# them over for railway use after the war. With the latter point
# in mind, sites were examined on the routes of possible north-south
# and east-west express tube railways, as discussed in the previous
# chapter[2], but now comprising Bank--Holborn, Camden Town --
# Tottenham Court Road and Kennington--Balham.
#
# It was decided that each shelter would consist of two parallel
# tubes of 16ft 6in internal diameter and 1,400ft in length, with
# about two-thirds of its length lined with precast concrete and
# one-third with cast iron.

The book goes on to talk in some detail about the tunnels and
their use or non-use as shelters at different stages of the war and
afterwards, then the possible use for trains comes up one more time.
On the night of 21 May 1955 the deep shelter at Goodge Street,
now in use as an Army Transit Centre, was damaged by fire, and:

# The fire coincided with parliamentary consideration of a government
# Bill seeking to take over the shelters, (the Underground Works
# (London) Bill), and the Minister of Works assured the Commons
# they would not again be used for human occupation in peacetime
# (although no one was killed, the fire had caused some alarm and
# was difficult to extinguish). During the progress of the Bill, it
# was revealed that the option for railway use had been retained only
# on the three Clapham shelters and the adjacent one at Stockwell.

Okay?

This section of the book has footnotes referring to three Public
Record Office files, but the footnote marks are placed on sentences
that relate to specific shelter locations and the sentences referring
to future rail use aren't footnoted. However, for what it's worth,
the files a MT 6/2728, RAIL 1124/252, and HO 205/266.

Googling on "MT 6/2728", I find that www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
knows it under the title of "Air Raid Precautions: Deep level shelters:
London Underground Railways. File No: ZR.5/6/47". It can be viewed
at the records office in Kew, and print and digital copies can be
ordered but they won't quote a cost unless you contact them to ask
for it.

Searching on the same web site, I find that RAIL 1124/252 is a
"Highway development survey (Greater London): report by Sir Charles
Bressey and Sir Edwin Lutyens", while and HO 205/266 is "Shelters in
underground railways in London: contracts and costs." So it's
MT 6/2728 that's most likely to be the interesting one.


[1] The distinction is meaningful because from 1933 until 1947,
although London Transport had been forcibly unified and brought
under public control, its ownership was still private.

[2] Over the period 1936-39, a considerable number of plans were
examined for express tube lines generally paralleling existing routes.
--
Mark Brader | "You read war books -- people shooting each other,
Toronto | people bombing each other, people torturing each
| other. I like to look at people doing, uh, naughty
| things to each other!" -- Ria, "Butterflies"

My text in this article is in the public domain.

On May 23, 7:55*am, Mark Goodge
wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 23:12:48 +0100, Peter Masson put finger to keyboard and
typed:







"Mark Goodge" wrote

the tendency to leave platform announcements until close to departure
times
creates too much of a scrum.

When the West Midlands service went to half-hourly (1974?) the principle was
established that these trains would leave alternately from either side of an
island platform, and that as far as possible each train would be open for
boarding as soon as the previous train had left. With the Virgin high
frequency service it should be possible to extend this principle to
Manchester as well as the West Midlands. This could halve the number of
passengers who need to wait on the concourse, though it would also be
necessary to come up with a new approach to Advance tickets, which encourage
passengers to arrive very early even when trains are at 20 minute frequency,
for fear of missing the one train their ticket is valid on and having to buy
a much more expensive new ticket.

That's part of the reason behind providing new catering outlets on a new
mezzanine level: it will be a place where people can go and sit down while
waiting to board a train rather than hanging around the main concourse.
Obviously, that has financial benefits to the operator as well, as it
increases their income from concessions. But it is of genuine value to
travellers who can arrive at the station in good time and relax a bit once
they're there.

It's also useful for those of us who typically travel on off-peak tickets..
Having somewhere at the station where I can pass the time between when my
meeting ended and the first train I can catch to get home is useful. Also,
given that the first post-restrictions train is usually chocka, I'm often
perfectly happy to wait for the next one if the frequency is high enough
(which, on London to points north on the WCML, it usually is). But I'm more
likely to do that if I can find somewhere comfortable to sit rather than
hang around on the concourse.

Good points.

On May 23, 8:06*am, Neil Williams wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 May 2012 07:46:35 UTC+2, e27002 *wrote:
So it is no longer coming down as part of HS2? *That, and the link to
OOC and the GW line to Birmingham were the best parts of HS2. *I was
look forward to a decent looking station closer to Euston Road and
linked to Euston Square.

If it's a big ugly on the outside (which it is to a fair extent) why not just put a new facade on it? *It's an extremely practical station. *Don't wreck it.

A new facade would be good. That does not help the location.

Would you really rather have, say, a duplicate of the domestic shed at St P? *I hope not.

Credut me with some taste, please!

On May 23, 9:00*am, (Mark Brader) wrote:
Mark Brader:

And the authors of "Rails Through the Clay" were taken in by an
urban legend? *I don't think so.

Specifically, what the book says is:

# *GOVERNMENT DEEP SHELTERS
#
# *The bombings of 1940, and intelligence reports of more powerful
# *bombs and more efficient delivery systems, forced a reappraisal
# *of the deep-shelter policy. *At the end of October the government
# *decided to construct a system of deep shelters linked to existing
# *tube stations. *London Transport was consulted about the sites,
# *and was required to build the tunnels at the public expense[1],
# *with the understanding that it was to have the option of taking
# *them over for railway use after the war. *With the latter point
# *in mind, sites were examined on the routes of possible north-south
# *and east-west express tube railways, as discussed in the previous
# *chapter[2], but now comprising Bank--Holborn, Camden Town --
# *Tottenham Court Road and Kennington--Balham.
#
# *It was decided that each shelter would consist of two parallel
# *tubes of 16ft 6in internal diameter and 1,400ft in length, with
# *about two-thirds of its length lined with precast concrete and
# *one-third with cast iron.

The book goes on to talk in some detail about the tunnels and
their use or non-use as shelters at different stages of the war and
afterwards, then the possible use for trains comes up one more time.
On the night of 21 May 1955 the deep shelter at Goodge Street,
now in use as an Army Transit Centre, was damaged by fire, and:

# *The fire coincided with parliamentary consideration of a government
# *Bill seeking to take over the shelters, (the Underground Works
# *(London) Bill), and the Minister of Works assured the Commons
# *they would not again be used for human occupation in peacetime
# *(although no one was killed, the fire had caused some alarm and
# *was difficult to extinguish). *During the progress of the Bill, it
# *was revealed that the option for railway use had been retained only
# *on the three Clapham shelters and the adjacent one at Stockwell.

Okay?

This section of the book has footnotes referring to three Public
Record Office files, but the footnote marks are placed on sentences
that relate to specific shelter locations and the sentences referring
to future rail use aren't footnoted. *However, for what it's worth,
the files a MT 6/2728, RAIL 1124/252, and HO 205/266.

Googling on "MT 6/2728", I find thatwww.nationalarchives.gov.uk
knows it under the title of "Air Raid Precautions: Deep level shelters:
London Underground Railways. *File No: ZR.5/6/47". *It can be viewed
at the records office in Kew, and print and digital copies can be
ordered but they won't quote a cost unless you contact them to ask
for it.

Searching on the same web site, I find that RAIL 1124/252 is a
"Highway development survey (Greater London): report by Sir Charles
Bressey and Sir Edwin Lutyens", while and HO 205/266 is "Shelters in
underground railways in London: contracts and costs." * So it's
MT 6/2728 that's most likely to be the interesting one.

[1] The distinction is meaningful because from 1933 until 1947,
although London Transport had been forcibly unified and brought
under public control, its ownership was still private.

[2] Over the period 1936-39, a considerable number of plans were
examined for express tube lines generally paralleling existing routes.
--
Excellent research Mark. Many thanks.