| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
On May 21, 7:58*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On May 21, 1:11*pm, Steve Broadbent wrote: In article , *Michael Bell wrote: Brighton Main Line 2. I was tickled by an article on this in RAIL No 696 *page 11. I had heard of re-instating the Oxford Cambridge line, heard of it may be too often, but I had never heard of BML2!. And page 68, talk of diverting WCML MK - Watford into Crossrail. Isn't Crossrail going to be full enough? And talk of building a wholly new route across "relatively hilly country" (really steep country and very pretty) from near Luton to Stevenage as part of an East-West route. If we have the trouble we have to get a *major* route through the Chilterns, what chances of getting a minor route through the eastern end of the Chilterns? What "traction" do these ideas have? Michael Bell -- I am very pleased to hear I have tickled you... I have done a lot on BML2 over the past year or more, and the related Lewes-Uckfield opening, in RAIL. To put BML2 in context, it is a proposal by an enthusiastic campaign group keen t see a resolution of the Uckfield and Brighton Main Line problems, and they can hardly be blamed for trying. The latest idea, connecting through to Stratford, came, they say, directly as a result of talking with the rail minister. Thanks to ardent campaigning BML2 does seem to be gaining real traction, as you put it, even if it is costly and far off, but is there any other solution. I see you also mention the possibility of putting Milton Keynes-Euston services onto Crossrail at Old Oak Common, again this has ben related several times in RAIL, although it does not appear to be very active. Those who support it see it being, inter alia, a relief for Euston when HS2 starts to be built. On the other hand, the suggestion of a Luton-Stevenage link was one being looked at by the councils-backed East West Rail group, and yes, it would be ambitions, but to secure a line from Bedford to Cambridge, you have to look at ALL options..... SB I'm firmly of the position that upgrading the Chiltern line as Crossrail's second western branch would provide much greater benefits than sending the Tring stoppers down it. The Chiltern main line has huge potential for growth, somewhat hampered by the infrastructure available. Wiring it up, extending the platforms and widening the inner section to 4 tracks so an intensive service could be provided would do wonders for that slice of the world. Conversely, the best the WCML option can offer is relief to Euston (which doesn't really need any for NR services at least), and better connections to OOC. The two are worlds away in terms of benefits. Additionally, diverting the suburban services away from Marylebone actually relives a terminal station with SEVERE capacity problems, unlike Euston. The released capacity could then be used to enhance the new Chiltern mainline services or indeed their services via Amersham. As pointed out here before, the southern WCML slow lines could possibly be squeezed a bit more than they are - I don't have the actual numbers to hand, but IIRC it's only 2tph to Tring, with 1tph to MK, 1tph to Northampton, Southern's 2tph to MK (plus 1tph to Crewe and 1tph to BNS), some of which actually move onto the fast lines at Leighton Buzzard. The 12-car trains are busy, but they're only really crush loaded during disruption. You could probably squeeze a couple more tph down there without impacting the freight paths to Wembley too much, but it's pretty much a mature market with little scope for growth. I'm more inclined that if you /really/ felt the need to relieve Euston to free up platforms, then a short 2-3 mile tunnel (Euston LL-TCR-Waterloo LL) would do well as you would have the interchange to Crossrail at TCR, and could link up with the SWT suburban services, relieving Waterloo NR as well. Additional, by removing the Southern service from the West London Line you free up paths for LO. Throw in a short tunnel from South Hampstead/Camden to Neasden and you can also pull the main Chiltern lines from the Met route and take over the fast services via HotH & Moor Park, freeing up even more capacity at Marylebone for more mainline services.- Hide quoted text - You make a very good case. Unfortunately the difference in price tag would be enormous. Utilizing the Chiltern mainline would entail widening, electrification, signal immunization, platform lengthening, etc., etc. The WCML slow AC pair connection would be a link across railway owned land at OOC. 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, |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
On May 22, 9:48*am, 77002 wrote:
On May 21, 7:58*pm, Jamie *Thompson wrote: On May 21, 1:11*pm, Steve Broadbent wrote: In article , *Michael Bell wrote: Brighton Main Line 2. I was tickled by an article on this in RAIL No 696 *page 11. I had heard of re-instating the Oxford Cambridge line, heard of it may be too often, but I had never heard of BML2!. And page 68, talk of diverting WCML MK - Watford into Crossrail. Isn't Crossrail going to be full enough? And talk of building a wholly new route across "relatively hilly country" (really steep country and very pretty) from near Luton to Stevenage as part of an East-West route. If we have the trouble we have to get a *major* route through the Chilterns, what chances of getting a minor route through the eastern end of the Chilterns? What "traction" do these ideas have? Michael Bell -- I am very pleased to hear I have tickled you... I have done a lot on BML2 over the past year or more, and the related Lewes-Uckfield opening, in RAIL. To put BML2 in context, it is a proposal by an enthusiastic campaign group keen t see a resolution of the Uckfield and Brighton Main Line problems, and they can hardly be blamed for trying. The latest idea, connecting through to Stratford, came, they say, directly as a result of talking with the rail minister. Thanks to ardent campaigning BML2 does seem to be gaining real traction, as you put it, even if it is costly and far off, but is there any other solution. I see you also mention the possibility of putting Milton Keynes-Euston services onto Crossrail at Old Oak Common, again this has ben related several times in RAIL, although it does not appear to be very active. Those who support it see it being, inter alia, a relief for Euston when HS2 starts to be built. On the other hand, the suggestion of a Luton-Stevenage link was one being looked at by the councils-backed East West Rail group, and yes, it would be ambitions, but to secure a line from Bedford to Cambridge, you have to look at ALL options..... SB I'm firmly of the position that upgrading the Chiltern line as Crossrail's second western branch would provide much greater benefits than sending the Tring stoppers down it. The Chiltern main line has huge potential for growth, somewhat hampered by the infrastructure available. Wiring it up, extending the platforms and widening the inner section to 4 tracks so an intensive service could be provided would do wonders for that slice of the world. Conversely, the best the WCML option can offer is relief to Euston (which doesn't really need any for NR services at least), and better connections to OOC. The two are worlds away in terms of benefits. Additionally, diverting the suburban services away from Marylebone actually relives a terminal station with SEVERE capacity problems, unlike Euston. The released capacity could then be used to enhance the new Chiltern mainline services or indeed their services via Amersham. As pointed out here before, the southern WCML slow lines could possibly be squeezed a bit more than they are - I don't have the actual numbers to hand, but IIRC it's only 2tph to Tring, with 1tph to MK, 1tph to Northampton, Southern's 2tph to MK (plus 1tph to Crewe and 1tph to BNS), some of which actually move onto the fast lines at Leighton Buzzard. The 12-car trains are busy, but they're only really crush loaded during disruption. You could probably squeeze a couple more tph down there without impacting the freight paths to Wembley too much, but it's pretty much a mature market with little scope for growth. I'm more inclined that if you /really/ felt the need to relieve Euston to free up platforms, then a short 2-3 mile tunnel (Euston LL-TCR-Waterloo LL) would do well as you would have the interchange to Crossrail at TCR, and could link up with the SWT suburban services, relieving Waterloo NR as well. Additional, by removing the Southern service from the West London Line you free up paths for LO. Throw in a short tunnel from South Hampstead/Camden to Neasden and you can also pull the main Chiltern lines from the Met route and take over the fast services via HotH & Moor Park, freeing up even more capacity at Marylebone for more mainline services.- Hide quoted text - You make a very good case. *Unfortunately the difference in price tag would be enormous. *Utilizing the Chiltern mainline would entail widening, electrification, signal immunization, platform lengthening, etc., etc. Indeed. A good follow on project, but it's one of the few things that annoys me about the HS2 plans to surface west of OOC then descend at Northolt means it can't be considered in the future for the sake of a few miles of surface running. Ultimately, these works will eventually need to happen to the Chiltern line within the next 10-20 years, planning ahead just makes sense as all you'd need to do is construct the earthworks for the flying junction west of OOC and leave HS2 in tunnel between OOC and Northolt. Handily the HS2 alternatives docs for rail package 2 and its ilk provide good data on what's possible. To me at least they're not so much alternatives - the only option is which you build first. The WCML slow AC pair connection would be a link across railway owned land at OOC. It will have to be very windy (read: slow), and would have a set of platforms quite far away from the main OOC platforms unless the route essentially did a 90 degree chicane to squeeze alongside the GWML/HS2 platforms. I'd prefer reinstating (though with better arrangements than previously) Willesden Junction's mainline platforms. A pair of islands on the slow lines serving each direction would provide enough capacity to prevent the additional stop being detrimental, and a single (lockable) island for the fast lines would be useful for use during disruptions. Another island for the WLL services would complete the picture (with a turnback siding beyond), but removal of the Southern services due to the other CR3 proposal would make it unnecessary. Access to OOC woudl be provided by the frequent LO service. 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, 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. I suspect it would be more than fine though - after all, BR's 1980's Crossrail proposal had a tunnel from Euston to Victoria planned, so I'm confident things would be viable. Not to mention, the existing platforms are roughly on the same level as the SSL lines, themselves very shallow under the surface. The new tunnel would probably only have to descend 5-6 metres more to clear it. Of far more concern would be everything else down there ;) - Though, that said, Crossrail at Paddington is in exactly the same boat and again it doesn't seem to be an issue. |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
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? AFAIK the approaches to Waterloo are underused: the Richmond lines have hardly any trains on them. |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
On May 22, 10:47*am, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On May 22, 9:48*am, 77002 wrote: On May 21, 7:58*pm, Jamie *Thompson wrote: On May 21, 1:11*pm, Steve Broadbent wrote: In article , *Michael Bell wrote: Brighton Main Line 2. I was tickled by an article on this in RAIL No 696 *page 11. I had heard of re-instating the Oxford Cambridge line, heard of it may be too often, but I had never heard of BML2!. And page 68, talk of diverting WCML MK - Watford into Crossrail. Isn't Crossrail going to be full enough? And talk of building a wholly new route across "relatively hilly country" (really steep country and very pretty) from near Luton to Stevenage as part of an East-West route. If we have the trouble we have to get a *major* route through the Chilterns, what chances of getting a minor route through the eastern end of the Chilterns? What "traction" do these ideas have? Michael Bell -- I am very pleased to hear I have tickled you... I have done a lot on BML2 over the past year or more, and the related Lewes-Uckfield opening, in RAIL. To put BML2 in context, it is a proposal by an enthusiastic campaign group keen t see a resolution of the Uckfield and Brighton Main Line problems, and they can hardly be blamed for trying. The latest idea, connecting through to Stratford, came, they say, directly as a result of talking with the rail minister. Thanks to ardent campaigning BML2 does seem to be gaining real traction, as you put it, even if it is costly and far off, but is there any other solution. I see you also mention the possibility of putting Milton Keynes-Euston services onto Crossrail at Old Oak Common, again this has ben related several times in RAIL, although it does not appear to be very active. Those who support it see it being, inter alia, a relief for Euston when HS2 starts to be built. On the other hand, the suggestion of a Luton-Stevenage link was one being looked at by the councils-backed East West Rail group, and yes, it would be ambitions, but to secure a line from Bedford to Cambridge, you have to look at ALL options..... SB I'm firmly of the position that upgrading the Chiltern line as Crossrail's second western branch would provide much greater benefits than sending the Tring stoppers down it. The Chiltern main line has huge potential for growth, somewhat hampered by the infrastructure available. Wiring it up, extending the platforms and widening the inner section to 4 tracks so an intensive service could be provided would do wonders for that slice of the world. Conversely, the best the WCML option can offer is relief to Euston (which doesn't really need any for NR services at least), and better connections to OOC. The two are worlds away in terms of benefits. Additionally, diverting the suburban services away from Marylebone actually relives a terminal station with SEVERE capacity problems, unlike Euston. The released capacity could then be used to enhance the new Chiltern mainline services or indeed their services via Amersham. As pointed out here before, the southern WCML slow lines could possibly be squeezed a bit more than they are - I don't have the actual numbers to hand, but IIRC it's only 2tph to Tring, with 1tph to MK, 1tph to Northampton, Southern's 2tph to MK (plus 1tph to Crewe and 1tph to BNS), some of which actually move onto the fast lines at Leighton Buzzard. The 12-car trains are busy, but they're only really crush loaded during disruption. You could probably squeeze a couple more tph down there without impacting the freight paths to Wembley too much, but it's pretty much a mature market with little scope for growth. I'm more inclined that if you /really/ felt the need to relieve Euston to free up platforms, then a short 2-3 mile tunnel (Euston LL-TCR-Waterloo LL) would do well as you would have the interchange to Crossrail at TCR, and could link up with the SWT suburban services, relieving Waterloo NR as well. Additional, by removing the Southern service from the West London Line you free up paths for LO. Throw in a short tunnel from South Hampstead/Camden to Neasden and you can also pull the main Chiltern lines from the Met route and take over the fast services via HotH & Moor Park, freeing up even more capacity at Marylebone for more mainline services.- Hide quoted text - You make a very good case. *Unfortunately the difference in price tag would be enormous. *Utilizing the Chiltern mainline would entail widening, electrification, signal immunization, platform lengthening, etc., etc. Indeed. A good follow on project, but it's one of the few things that annoys me about the HS2 plans to surface west of OOC then descend at Northolt means it can't be considered in the future for the sake of a few miles of surface running. Ultimately, these works will eventually need to happen to the Chiltern line within the next 10-20 years, planning ahead just makes sense as all you'd need to do is construct the earthworks for the flying junction west of OOC and leave HS2 in tunnel between OOC and Northolt. Handily the HS2 alternatives docs for rail package 2 and its ilk provide good data on what's possible. To me at least they're not so much alternatives - the only option is which you build first. The WCML slow AC pair connection would be a link across railway owned land at OOC. It will have to be very windy (read: slow), and would have a set of platforms quite far away from the main OOC platforms unless the route essentially did a 90 degree chicane to squeeze alongside the GWML/HS2 platforms. I'd prefer reinstating (though with better arrangements than previously) Willesden Junction's mainline platforms. A pair of islands on the slow lines serving each direction would provide enough capacity to prevent the additional stop being detrimental, and a single (lockable) island for the fast lines would be useful for use during disruptions. Another island for the WLL services would complete the picture (with a turnback siding beyond), but removal of the Southern services due to the other CR3 proposal would make it unnecessary. Access to OOC woudl be provided by the frequent LO service. 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, 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. I suspect it would be more than fine though - after all, BR's 1980's Crossrail proposal had a tunnel from Euston to Victoria planned, so I'm confident things would be viable. Not to mention, the existing platforms are roughly on the same level as the SSL lines, themselves very shallow under the surface. The new tunnel would probably only have to descend 5-6 metres more to clear it. Of far more concern would be everything else down there ;) - Though, that said, Crossrail at Paddington is in exactly the same boat and again it doesn't seem to be an issue. 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. But, I take the point that if BR thought they could take a mainline tube below the H&C and on the Victoria, it is probably doable. |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
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? AFAIK the approaches to Waterloo are underused: the Richmond lines have hardly any trains on them. Bringing the Windsor side of Waterloo back is taking an inordinate amount of time. |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
On Tue, 22 May 2012 12:57:37 +0100
Basil Jet wrote: If there is that much need to relieve Waterloo, why are the Eurostar platforms sitting there gathering dust? AFAIK the approaches to Waterloo Good question. Idiot politics no doubt. They could have been switched to local trains the day after eurostar moved out. B2003 |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
On May 22, 1:58*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 12:57:37 +0100 Basil Jet wrote: If there is that much need to relieve Waterloo, why are the Eurostar platforms sitting there gathering dust? AFAIK the approaches to Waterloo Good question. Idiot politics no doubt. They could have been switched to local trains the day after eurostar moved out. I suspect, at the very least, some signalling changes would have been in order. There may have been a need for PIS changes. I am not sure about track changes. |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
wrote in message ... On Tue, 22 May 2012 12:57:37 +0100 Basil Jet wrote: If there is that much need to relieve Waterloo, why are the Eurostar platforms sitting there gathering dust? AFAIK the approaches to Waterloo Good question. Idiot politics no doubt. They could have been switched to local trains the day after eurostar moved out. Not the day after. The platforms would have had to be raised. And I suspect that passengers would have been infuriated at the tortuous route between the concourse and those platforms. Peter |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
On May 22, 2:40*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Tue, 22 May 2012 12:57:37 +0100 Basil Jet wrote: If there is that much need to relieve Waterloo, why are the Eurostar platforms sitting there gathering dust? AFAIK the approaches to Waterloo Good question. Idiot politics no doubt. They could have been switched to local trains the day after eurostar moved out. Not the day after. The platforms would have had to be raised. And I suspect that passengers would have been infuriated at the tortuous route between the concourse and those platforms. Thanks Peter, I had forgotten about the platform height. I still have to believe that putting the Windsor line services back on their own side of the station would be a good thing. |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
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. that passengers would have been infuriated at the tortuous route between the concourse and those platforms. Not as infuriated as not having a train to get on because there's no free platform. B2003 |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
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 |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
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 |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
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. |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
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. |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
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 |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
*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 |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
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. |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
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 |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
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. |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
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. |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
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. |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
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 |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
"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 |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
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. |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
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. |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
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 |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
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. |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
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. |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
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! |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
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. |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:20:36 +0100
"Peter Masson" wrote: 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 Wierd. I wonder what numpty thought that was a good idea. B2003 |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
On May 22, 6:20*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
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. While the stations associated with HS1 definitely have UIC platforms for Eurostar, my memory of Waterloo International is that it had UK type rather than UIC type platforms. Looking at some photos online, it certainly gives the impression of having UK type platforms, but I can't find a definite reference. Anyone have chapter-and-verse on this? Robin |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
|
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
"bob" wrote in message
... While the stations associated with HS1 definitely have UIC platforms for Eurostar, my memory of Waterloo International is that it had UK type rather than UIC type platforms. Looking at some photos online, it certainly gives the impression of having UK type platforms, but I can't find a definite reference. Anyone have chapter-and-verse on this? They aren't quite the same as NR standard. The 2005 SRA/Arup report on Waterloo International re-use discusses this in great detail, but unfortunately I cannot find a live link to it. This is the summary: "5.5.2 Platform Clearances Stepping distances for passengers between platform and trains are a critical safety factor. The platforms are designed and maintained to suit the Eurostar trains. The main sections of the platforms form part of the station structure. There were concerns that with this form of construction combined with platform curvature the different platform clearances and stopping distances required to meet Network Rail standards with domestic trains may be difficult to achieve. "NR provided some limited gauging information for several of the WIT platforms. Although somewhat out of date it provided an opportunity to determine the likely extent of any problems. It indicated that the platform edges did not fully comply with NR standards and that work would be required. However, the variations in dimensions were quite small. The platform edges have conventional coping stones which can quite easily be taken up and reset to meet future requirements. Therefore, platform clearances do not appear to be a significant issue in conversion of WIT to domestic use. "As part of any conversion scheme, a detailed gauging survey will be required, together with work to realign and reset the platform edge copers to NR standards." I believe the copings were adjusted on P20 when it was (theoretically) made available to SWT a couple of years back.. Paul |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
On Thu, 24 May 2012 14:56:37 +0100
"Paul Scott" wrote: structure. There were concerns that with this form of construction combined with platform curvature the different platform clearances and stopping distances required to meet Network Rail standards with domestic trains may be difficult to achieve. Sounds like the typical british can't-do attitude these days. Unless the eurostar trains are smaller than normal UK stock which is highly unlikely then a uk profile train will fit and its just a matter of whether the step from door to platform is too great which can be discovered by driving various train types in there and having a look. B2003 |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
|
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
"Recliner" wrote in message
... I didn't think the platforms were the main issue. Precisely - but the only point I was making is that the platforms are not quite to NR standards, which was what 'bob' wanted to know earlier. Paul |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
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. I think its safe to say that Euston will be rebuilt - there were plans to do so anyway, but HS2 will make sure of it. Chris |
BML2/Crossrail Western Extensions.
On May 24, 9:09*pm, Chris Sanderson 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. I think its safe to say that Euston will be rebuilt - there were plans to do so anyway, but HS2 will make sure of it. Chris Let's hope they put it in the right place, about 50% closer to Euston Road. And we need a station on the Circle Line, either an enlarged and connected Euston Square, or a new one. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:58 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk