TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

I don't know if this programme is new to UK TV or a repeat, and even
if it is new, whether any of the content will be new to denizens of
this group, but Channel 5 has a documentary entitled "Building The
London Underground" at 8pm this Wednesday. It's described as, "A
fascinating look at the great engineering leaps that built the London
Underground, the biggest metro system in the world." The picture used
is certainly up-to-date:
http://www.channel5.com/shows/big-bi...on-underground

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 23:34:04 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 21:26:31 +0100, Recliner
wrote:

I don't know if this programme is new to UK TV or a repeat, and even
if it is new, whether any of the content will be new to denizens of
this group, but Channel 5 has a documentary entitled "Building The
London Underground" at 8pm this Wednesday. It's described as, "A
fascinating look at the great engineering leaps that built the London
Underground, the biggest metro system in the world." The picture used
is certainly up-to-date:
http://www.channel5.com/shows/big-bi...on-underground

It's not possible to tell from the blurb about this programme but I
have a sneaking suspicion that is actually a Discovery channel show.
It does have some recent footage if it is the programme I think it is.
I'll say no more to avoid spoiling it for others.

Yes, that's what I suspected. Channel 5 doesn't make its own
programmes, and this isn't the sort of thing it's likely to commission
under Desmond's ownership, so a second-hand Discovery programme seems
the likely origin. Anyway, I've not seen it before, so will watch it
and hope for the best.

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:38:22 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:17:04 +0100, Recliner
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 23:34:04 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 21:26:31 +0100, Recliner
wrote:

I don't know if this programme is new to UK TV or a repeat, and even
if it is new, whether any of the content will be new to denizens of
this group, but Channel 5 has a documentary entitled "Building The
London Underground" at 8pm this Wednesday. It's described as, "A
fascinating look at the great engineering leaps that built the London
Underground, the biggest metro system in the world." The picture used
is certainly up-to-date:
http://www.channel5.com/shows/big-bi...on-underground

It's not possible to tell from the blurb about this programme but I
have a sneaking suspicion that is actually a Discovery channel show.
It does have some recent footage if it is the programme I think it is.
I'll say no more to avoid spoiling it for others.

Yes, that's what I suspected. Channel 5 doesn't make its own
programmes, and this isn't the sort of thing it's likely to commission
under Desmond's ownership, so a second-hand Discovery programme seems
the likely origin. Anyway, I've not seen it before, so will watch it
and hope for the best.

It is the programme I expected. Watching it again I was reminded of
the interesting "stock transfer" continuity problem in the programme!

Yes, indeed, but I suppose it made for much better graphics showing
the 1992 W&C stock being carefully craned in at Waterloo, rather than
the 2009 stock we'd seen being built simply arriving on the surface at
Northumberland Park Depot. I also noticed they described the JLE
tunnels as sprayed concrete, but then showed the usual tunnel segments
(some of the stations might be sprayed concrete, however). The early
cut and cover tunnels were shown as being built under Victorian London
streets with horse-drawn traffic running on the right (obviously the
computer graphics were created in the US and therefore tended to
include US cars, etc). They also seemed to suggest that the complex
body panels of the 2009 stock were fabricated from aluminium sheets,
rather than extruded, but perhaps I'm being too picky here.

Nevertheless, overall it was better than I expected, and was made for
Channel 5 in conjunction with National Geographic, rather than just
being a US import. Over-simplified, yes, but not rubbish, and I did
learn stuff about the Paris Metro. Was it previously shown on the
Discovery Channel on Sky?

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

Interesting to watch, yes, but had I known nothing about tube
beforehand I would have learned:-

1. There were no underground railways in London before the City and
South London Tube
2. This line was build using cut and cover methods
3. It was steam powered.

Yes, the Paris section was interesting, and new to me, but given the
above I am not sure how complete a picture it is.

Peter

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 00:47:21 -0700 (PDT)
peter wrote:
Interesting to watch, yes, but had I known nothing about tube
beforehand I would have learned:-

1. There were no underground railways in London before the City and
South London Tube
2. This line was build using cut and cover methods
3. It was steam powered.

Yes, the Paris section was interesting, and new to me, but given the
above I am not sure how complete a picture it is.

Or how much of it was true given the howlers in the parts about LU.

Was the NYC the first to use electric traction (I doubt that) or the first
to use EMUs (which I might believe)?

B2003

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

"peter" wrote in message
...
Interesting to watch, yes, but had I known nothing about tube
beforehand I would have learned:-

1. There were no underground railways in London before the City and
South London Tube
2. This line was build using cut and cover methods

You must have watched a different program to me, because the one that I
watched clearly said that CSL was tunnelled (by hand)

tim

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:48:38 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 00:47:21 -0700 (PDT)
peter wrote:
Interesting to watch, yes, but had I known nothing about tube
beforehand I would have learned:-

1. There were no underground railways in London before the City and
South London Tube
2. This line was build using cut and cover methods
3. It was steam powered.

Yes, the Paris section was interesting, and new to me, but given the
above I am not sure how complete a picture it is.

Or how much of it was true given the howlers in the parts about LU.

Was the NYC the first to use electric traction (I doubt that) or the first
to use EMUs (which I might believe)?

The C&SLR was electric loco-hauled from its inception in 1890, as was
the CLR from 1900. Both switched to EMUs in due course, and I think
the NY Subway was a pioneer of those (certainly the London sub-surface
lines adopted US technology for their EMUs).

One other mistake in the programme was to suggest that the early EMUs
had all axles powered; in fact, most were unpowered. It's only
recently (starting with the 1992 stock, and now with the 2009 and S
stocks) that LU has had trains with all axles powered. I don't know
about US practice, but would doubt that their early electric trains
had even a majority of axles powered.

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:22:50 +0100, "tim...."
wrote:


"peter" wrote in message
...
Interesting to watch, yes, but had I known nothing about tube
beforehand I would have learned:-

1. There were no underground railways in London before the City and
South London Tube
2. This line was build using cut and cover methods

You must have watched a different program to me, because the one that I
watched clearly said that CSL was tunnelled (by hand)

Indeed, that segment was all about the Greathead shield.

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

"peter" wrote in message
...
Interesting to watch, yes, but had I known nothing about tube
beforehand I would have learned:-

1. There were no underground railways in London before the City and
South London Tube
2. This line was build using cut and cover methods

....

Indeed. By far the best method when tunnelling beneath the Thames.

....


3. It was steam powered.

Yes, the Paris section was interesting, and new to me, but given the
above I am not sure how complete a picture it is.

Peter


michael adams

....

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

In message , at 11:17:04 on
Tue, 10 Jul 2012, Recliner remarked:

I don't know if this programme is new to UK TV or a repeat, and even
if it is new, whether any of the content will be new to denizens of
this group, but Channel 5 has a documentary entitled "Building The
London Underground" at 8pm this Wednesday. It's described as, "A
fascinating look at the great engineering leaps that built the London
Underground, the biggest metro system in the world." The picture used
is certainly up-to-date:
http://www.channel5.com/shows/big-bi...on-underground

It's not possible to tell from the blurb about this programme but I
have a sneaking suspicion that is actually a Discovery channel show.
It does have some recent footage if it is the programme I think it is.
I'll say no more to avoid spoiling it for others.

Yes, that's what I suspected. Channel 5 doesn't make its own
programmes, and this isn't the sort of thing it's likely to commission
under Desmond's ownership, so a second-hand Discovery programme seems
the likely origin. Anyway, I've not seen it before, so will watch it
and hope for the best.

That's number 3 in a series. Number 6 is about TGVs (others are about
non-rail projects). Is C5 showing he whole series?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big,_Bi...s_3_.282011.29
http://www.windfallfilms.com/show/19...-Series-3.aspx

ps I haven't watched it yet - what is the $26bn expansion, 30 new
stations etc?
--
Roland Perry

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:17:04 on
Tue, 10 Jul 2012, Recliner remarked:

I don't know if this programme is new to UK TV or a repeat, and even
if it is new, whether any of the content will be new to denizens of
this group, but Channel 5 has a documentary entitled "Building The
London Underground" at 8pm this Wednesday. It's described as, "A
fascinating look at the great engineering leaps that built the London
Underground, the biggest metro system in the world." The picture used
is certainly up-to-date:
http://www.channel5.com/shows/big-bi...on-underground

It's not possible to tell from the blurb about this programme but I
have a sneaking suspicion that is actually a Discovery channel show.
It does have some recent footage if it is the programme I think it is.
I'll say no more to avoid spoiling it for others.

Yes, that's what I suspected. Channel 5 doesn't make its own
programmes, and this isn't the sort of thing it's likely to commission
under Desmond's ownership, so a second-hand Discovery programme seems
the likely origin. Anyway, I've not seen it before, so will watch it
and hope for the best.

That's number 3 in a series. Number 6 is about TGVs (others are about
non-rail projects). Is C5 showing he whole series?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big,_Bi...s_3_.282011.29
http://www.windfallfilms.com/show/19...-Series-3.aspx

ps I haven't watched it yet - what is the $26bn expansion, 30 new stations
etc?
--
Roland Perry

It hopelessly confuses the Crossrail and the TfL systems. A lot of banging
and crashing "music" and voice-of-doom commentary. I suppose that they are
using "London Underground" in a generic sense.

PA

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

It hopelessly confuses the Crossrail and the TfL systems. *A lot of banging
and crashing "music" and voice-of-doom commentary. *I suppose that they are
using "London Underground" in a generic sense.


I watched the first and got fed up, it’s very shall we say
‘introductory level’.

Nothing wrong with that but I would imagine most here would have heard
it all before.

It’s a program aimed at the kind of normal that probably believes
trains have steering wheels.

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

allantracy wrote:
It's a program aimed at the kind of normal that probably believes
trains have steering wheels.


Aimed at people like Richard Branson, then. ;-)

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

allantracy writes:

It hopelessly confuses the Crossrail and the TfL systems. *A lot of banging
and crashing "music" and voice-of-doom commentary. *I suppose that they are
using "London Underground" in a generic sense.


I watched the first and got fed up, it.s very shall we say
.introductory level..

Nothing wrong with that but I would imagine most here would have heard
it all before.

I hadn't heard before how they built the Paris Metro stations as boxes
above ground and then sank them into the squidgy soil...

(S)

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

On Jul 14, 2:58*pm, allantracy wrote:
It hopelessly confuses the Crossrail and the TfL systems. *A lot of banging
and crashing "music" and voice-of-doom commentary. *I suppose that they are
using "London Underground" in a generic sense.

I watched the first and got fed up, it’s very shall we say
‘introductory level’.

Nothing wrong with that but I would imagine most here would have heard
it all before.

It’s a program aimed at the kind of normal that probably believes
trains have steering wheels.

IMHO, not a good program. It was simplistic tothose with some
knowledge of the subject. It was misleading to those without. The
graphics were not bad.

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 04:36:37 -0700 (PDT), 77002
wrote:

On Jul 14, 2:58*pm, allantracy wrote:
It hopelessly confuses the Crossrail and the TfL systems. *A lot of banging
and crashing "music" and voice-of-doom commentary. *I suppose that they are
using "London Underground" in a generic sense.

I watched the first and got fed up, it’s very shall we say
‘introductory level’.

Nothing wrong with that but I would imagine most here would have heard
it all before.

It’s a program aimed at the kind of normal that probably believes
trains have steering wheels.

IMHO, not a good program. It was simplistic tothose with some
knowledge of the subject. It was misleading to those without. The
graphics were not bad.

It looked like it was intended for the US market, for which it would
presumably be regarded as rather high brow?

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

Recliner wrote:

It looked like it was intended for the US market, for which it would
presumably be regarded as rather high brow?

The credits showed that funding was provided by the History Channel - one of the
US A&E cable programming providers. As to high brow - I'm not sure. This is the
same company that produces Ice Road Truckers.

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

On Jul 16, 2:01*pm, Robert Neville wrote:
Recliner wrote:
It looked like it was intended for the US market, for which it would
presumably be regarded as rather high brow?

The credits showed that funding was provided by the History Channel - one of the
US A&E cable programming providers. As to high brow - I'm not sure. This is the
same company that produces Ice Road Truckers.

The poster "Recliner" is clearly not familiar PBS (US Public
Broadcastor) Output. Now their documentaries *are* highbrow. PBS
news output is presented with the decorum and dignity that the BBC
lost many years back.

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

In article ,
(Owen Dunn) wrote:

allantracy writes:

It hopelessly confuses the Crossrail and the TfL systems. *A lot of
banging and crashing "music" and voice-of-doom commentary. *I suppose
that they are using "London Underground" in a generic sense.

I watched the first and got fed up, it.s very shall we say
.introductory level..

Nothing wrong with that but I would imagine most here would have heard
it all before.

I hadn't heard before how they built the Paris Metro stations as boxes
above ground and then sank them into the squidgy soil...

Only to get under the Seine, surely?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

In message , at 18:32:46
on Mon, 16 Jul 2012, remarked:

I hadn't heard before how they built the Paris Metro stations as boxes
above ground and then sank them into the squidgy soil...

Only to get under the Seine, surely?

In Seine, as we say.
--
Roland Perry

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:34:04 +0100, Owen Dunn wrote:

Nothing wrong with that but I would imagine most here would have
heard it all before.

I hadn't heard before how they built the Paris Metro stations as
boxes above ground and then sank them into the squidgy soil...

Yes there was a lot of interesting technical stuff in the prog.

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

"mechanic" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:34:04 +0100, Owen Dunn wrote:

Nothing wrong with that but I would imagine most here would have
heard it all before.

I hadn't heard before how they built the Paris Metro stations as
boxes above ground and then sank them into the squidgy soil...

Yes there was a lot of interesting technical stuff in the prog

I thought it was a good programme. Fairly simplistic to those who work in
the rail industry or take a serious interest in it, but still informative.
And Jem Stansfield's illustrations of the principles were good.

Some people have moaned that it blurred the line between TfL and Crossrail,
but they are both "underground" systems with many similarities (eg stations
in tunnels underground) and a lot of the construction principles will be the
same for either. The precise ownership of the projects is of lesser
importance, other than to pedants.

At least it concentrated on the engineering instead of getting side-tracked
on the personalities and personality clashes of the engineers, which was the
case for the (BBC?) series a year or so ago about the conversion of St
Pancras for Eurostar services.

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

"77002" wrote in message
...
On Jul 14, 2:58 pm, allantracy wrote:
It hopelessly confuses the Crossrail and the TfL systems. A lot of
banging
and crashing "music" and voice-of-doom commentary. I suppose that they
are
using "London Underground" in a generic sense.

I watched the first and got fed up, it’s very shall we say
‘introductory level’.

Nothing wrong with that but I would imagine most here would have heard
it all before.

It’s a program aimed at the kind of normal that probably believes
trains have steering wheels.

IMHO, not a good program. It was simplistic tothose with some
knowledge of the subject. It was misleading to those without. The
graphics were not bad.

What was misleading about it? Other than that it mentioned TfL and Crossrail
projects in the same breath rather than making it clear that Crossrail is
not part of TfL or "the London Underground system".

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

On 17/07/2012 21:49, Mortimer wrote:

What was misleading about it? Other than that it mentioned TfL and
Crossrail projects in the same breath rather than making it clear that
Crossrail is not part of TfL or "the London Underground system".

Crossrail Ltd is a fully owned subsidiary of TfL.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 21:49:09 +0100, "Mortimer" wrote:



"77002" wrote in message
...
On Jul 14, 2:58 pm, allantracy wrote:
It hopelessly confuses the Crossrail and the TfL systems. A lot of
banging
and crashing "music" and voice-of-doom commentary. I suppose that they
are
using "London Underground" in a generic sense.

I watched the first and got fed up, it’s very shall we say
‘introductory level’.

Nothing wrong with that but I would imagine most here would have heard
it all before.

It’s a program aimed at the kind of normal that probably believes
trains have steering wheels.

IMHO, not a good program. It was simplistic tothose with some
knowledge of the subject. It was misleading to those without. The
graphics were not bad.

What was misleading about it? Other than that it mentioned TfL and Crossrail
projects in the same breath rather than making it clear that Crossrail is
not part of TfL or "the London Underground system".

In fact, the Crossrail project is becoming more of a TfL project than
ever, so I think it's quite fair to blur the organisational
distinction in an international programme like this. Also, we don't
tend to get hung up today on the differences between the early London
underground railway companies (ie, the Met, District, CSLR, LER,
UERL), so in years to come, will there be much perceived difference
between, say, the Met and Crossrail?

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

In message , at
21:46:43 on Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Mortimer remarked:
At least it concentrated on the engineering instead of getting
side-tracked on the personalities and personality clashes of the
engineers, which was the case for the (BBC?) series a year or so ago
about the conversion of St Pancras for Eurostar services.

Ah yes, the architect who was apparently in tears because his glass
panels alongside the escalators didn't line up exactly, but who managed
to perpetrate toilet facilities which have been blocked/flooded ever
since, and no end in sight.
--
Roland Perry

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:03:59 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at
21:46:43 on Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Mortimer remarked:
At least it concentrated on the engineering instead of getting
side-tracked on the personalities and personality clashes of the
engineers, which was the case for the (BBC?) series a year or so ago
about the conversion of St Pancras for Eurostar services.

Ah yes, the architect who was apparently in tears because his glass
panels alongside the escalators didn't line up exactly, but who managed
to perpetrate toilet facilities which have been blocked/flooded ever
since, and no end in sight.

Isn't that a mandatory requirement in all Eurostar stations?

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

On Jul 17, 9:49*pm, "Mortimer" wrote:
"77002" wrote in message

...





On Jul 14, 2:58 pm, allantracy wrote:
It hopelessly confuses the Crossrail and the TfL systems. *A lot of
banging
and crashing "music" and voice-of-doom commentary. *I suppose that they
are
using "London Underground" in a generic sense.

I watched the first and got fed up, it’s very shall we say
‘introductory level’.

Nothing wrong with that but I would imagine most here would have heard
it all before.

It’s a program aimed at the kind of normal that probably believes
trains have steering wheels.

IMHO, not a good program. *It was simplistic tothose with some
knowledge of the subject. * It was misleading to those without. *The
graphics were not bad.

What was misleading about it? Other than that it mentioned TfL and Crossrail
projects in the same breath rather than making it clear that Crossrail is
not part of TfL or "the London Underground system".

The City & South London was the first subway line? Whatever happened
to the Met? Apparently steam motive pwer was considered! (On a tube
line). Greathead was the first to tunnel with a shield! What was
Marc Brunel utilizing (OK, not so refined, but still the same
principle).

The program was simplistic and lacked detail, even for "normals".

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 23:56:08 -0700 (PDT), e27002
wrote:



IMHO, not a good program. *It was simplistic tothose with some
knowledge of the subject. * It was misleading to those without. *The
graphics were not bad.

What was misleading about it? Other than that it mentioned TfL and Crossrail
projects in the same breath rather than making it clear that Crossrail is
not part of TfL or "the London Underground system".

The City & South London was the first subway line? Whatever happened
to the Met? Apparently steam motive pwer was considered! (On a tube
line). Greathead was the first to tunnel with a shield! What was
Marc Brunel utilizing (OK, not so refined, but still the same
principle).

The program was simplistic and lacked detail, even for "normals".

Yes, it was simplistic and lacked detail, being intended for the US
market, although it apparently still required a longer attention span
than you could muster. It made quite clear the difference between the
Met's cut and cover tunnels (complete with horse-drawn carriages
driving on the right) and the pioneering deep tube tunnels used by the
C&SLR. It separately explained that multiple-unit electric trains (as
pioneered in NYC) had better traction than steam loco-hauled trains,
though it didn't mention the intermediate option of electric locos, as
used initially by the C&SLR.

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

In article
,
(e27002) wrote:

The City & South London was the first subway line? Whatever happened
to the Met? Apparently steam motive pwer was considered! (On a tube
line). Greathead was the first to tunnel with a shield! What was
Marc Brunel utilizing (OK, not so refined, but still the same
principle).

The program was simplistic and lacked detail, even for "normals".

The C&SLR was the first deep level tube line. The programme made that clear.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 23:56:08 -0700 (PDT), e27002
wrote:



IMHO, not a good program. It was simplistic tothose with some
knowledge of the subject. It was misleading to those without. The
graphics were not bad.

What was misleading about it? Other than that it mentioned TfL and
Crossrail
projects in the same breath rather than making it clear that Crossrail
is
not part of TfL or "the London Underground system".

The City & South London was the first subway line? Whatever happened
to the Met? Apparently steam motive pwer was considered! (On a tube
line). Greathead was the first to tunnel with a shield! What was
Marc Brunel utilizing (OK, not so refined, but still the same
principle).

The program was simplistic and lacked detail, even for "normals".

Yes, it was simplistic and lacked detail, being intended for the US
market, although it apparently still required a longer attention span
than you could muster. It made quite clear the difference between the
Met's cut and cover tunnels (complete with horse-drawn carriages
driving on the right) and the pioneering deep tube tunnels used by the
C&SLR. It separately explained that multiple-unit electric trains (as
pioneered in NYC) had better traction than steam loco-hauled trains,
though it didn't mention the intermediate option of electric locos, as
used initially by the C&SLR.

Wasn't the better traction caused by the multiple driving wheels distributed
along the train rather than the use of electricity as opposed to steam?
Wouldn't an electric loco (with the same number of driving wheels as a steam
loco) have the same traction problems? Wouldn't a diesel multiple unit (or a
"steam multiple unit", if such things existed) be as good as an EMU?

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:58:05 +0100, "Mortimer" wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 23:56:08 -0700 (PDT), e27002
wrote:



IMHO, not a good program. It was simplistic tothose with some
knowledge of the subject. It was misleading to those without. The
graphics were not bad.

What was misleading about it? Other than that it mentioned TfL and
Crossrail
projects in the same breath rather than making it clear that Crossrail
is
not part of TfL or "the London Underground system".

The City & South London was the first subway line? Whatever happened
to the Met? Apparently steam motive pwer was considered! (On a tube
line). Greathead was the first to tunnel with a shield! What was
Marc Brunel utilizing (OK, not so refined, but still the same
principle).

The program was simplistic and lacked detail, even for "normals".

Yes, it was simplistic and lacked detail, being intended for the US
market, although it apparently still required a longer attention span
than you could muster. It made quite clear the difference between the
Met's cut and cover tunnels (complete with horse-drawn carriages
driving on the right) and the pioneering deep tube tunnels used by the
C&SLR. It separately explained that multiple-unit electric trains (as
pioneered in NYC) had better traction than steam loco-hauled trains,
though it didn't mention the intermediate option of electric locos, as
used initially by the C&SLR.

Wasn't the better traction caused by the multiple driving wheels distributed
along the train rather than the use of electricity as opposed to steam?
Wouldn't an electric loco (with the same number of driving wheels as a steam
loco) have the same traction problems? Wouldn't a diesel multiple unit (or a
"steam multiple unit", if such things existed) be as good as an EMU?

Yes, exactly. They were explaining why distributed traction is better,
though they wrongly implied that every axle is driven (it is in some
modern stock, but in older units, typically only between one third and
two thirds of the axles are driven). I'm not aware of any DMUs with
all axles driven, but it would be possible.

Of course an electric loco would still provide better traction than a
steam loco, as all of its weight would be carried by driven axles,
which is not the case with larger steam locos (ie, anything larger
than a small 0-6-0T).

Locos have another problem which the programme didn't mention, which
is their high axle loading, with particularly high unsprung weight if
the motors are axle-mounted. This caused serious problems for the CLR
when it opened in 1900, as the vibration from the heavy early
(US-built) locos disturbed the occupants of the buildings above. The
trains had to be hurriedly converted from loco-hauled to multiple
units, which was completed by mid 1903 (imagine how much longer such a
change would take today).

This was before the New York Subway's first underground line opened in
1904, so perhaps the programme could be criticised for wrongly
crediting the NY Subway with pioneering underground EMUS, when the CLR
actually beat them to it by more than a year. Of course, EMUs had been
used above ground before then: the Liverpool Overhead Railway had used
EMUs, including into its underground terminus from 1893, so perhaps it
deserves the credit. Either way, this US-made programme could be
credited with giving more credit for this particular innovation to the
New York Subway than it actually deserves.

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

In message , at 06:29:41
on Wed, 18 Jul 2012, remarked:

The C&SLR was the first deep level tube line. The programme made that clear.

It was also built in too small a tube, with too steep a slope at the
northern end. They learnt from that.
--
Roland Perry

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

On 18/07/2012 12:58, Mortimer wrote:

Wouldn't a diesel multiple unit (or a "steam multiple unit", if such
things existed)

http://www.brc-stockbook.co.uk/smu.htm

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

In article ,
(Mortimer) wrote:

Wasn't the better traction caused by the multiple driving wheels
distributed along the train rather than the use of electricity as
opposed to steam? Wouldn't an electric loco (with the same number of
driving wheels as a steam loco) have the same traction problems?
Wouldn't a diesel multiple unit (or a "steam multiple unit", if such
things existed) be as good as an EMU?

Not on the C&SLR. That used two-axle locos from 1890 until closed for tunnel
enlargement and integration into what became the Northern Line in the early
1920s. The only major enhancement was suspending the motors which were
initially mounted directly on the axles.

The Central London had much larger bogie locomotives on opening in 1900. The
much larger unsprung mass caused vibration problems, hence the rapid switch
to distributed power.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

On 17/07/2012 22:03, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
21:46:43 on Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Mortimer remarked:
... the (BBC?) series a year or so ago
about the conversion of St Pancras for Eurostar services.

Ah yes, the architect who was apparently in tears because his glass
panels alongside the escalators didn't line up exactly, but who managed
to perpetrate toilet facilities which have been blocked/flooded ever
since, and no end in sight.

The function of architecture is to create buildings that look
good in architecture journals and win architecture awards.

Creating buildings that work for their users is optional.


--
Graham Nye
news(a)thenyes.org.uk

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

"Graham Nye" wrote in message
...
On 17/07/2012 22:03, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
21:46:43 on Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Mortimer remarked:
... the (BBC?) series a year or so ago
about the conversion of St Pancras for Eurostar services.

Ah yes, the architect who was apparently in tears because his glass
panels alongside the escalators didn't line up exactly, but who managed
to perpetrate toilet facilities which have been blocked/flooded ever
since, and no end in sight.

The function of architecture is to create buildings that look
good in architecture journals and win architecture awards.

Creating buildings that work for their users is optional.

I think architects get points *deducted* if their buildings work for their
users :-)

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:44:56 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

On 18/07/2012 12:58, Mortimer wrote:

Wouldn't a diesel multiple unit (or a "steam multiple unit", if such
things existed)

http://www.brc-stockbook.co.uk/smu.htm

Not a multiple-unit, more a steam carriage with through control from
the far end of the semi-permanently attached trailers.

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:44:56 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

On 18/07/2012 12:58, Mortimer wrote:

Wouldn't a diesel multiple unit (or a "steam multiple unit", if such
things existed)

http://www.brc-stockbook.co.uk/smu.htm

Not a multiple-unit, more a steam carriage with through control from
the far end of the semi-permanently attached trailers.

And therefore not actually changing much in terms of traction because it
doesn't dramatically increase the number of driven axles or distribute them
along the whole length of the train.

TV Alert: Building The London Underground
 

On Jul 18, 9:22*pm, "Mortimer" wrote:
"Graham Nye" wrote in message

...

On 17/07/2012 22:03, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
21:46:43 on Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Mortimer remarked:
... the (BBC?) series a year or so ago
about the conversion of St Pancras for Eurostar services.

Ah yes, the architect who was apparently in tears because his glass
panels alongside the escalators didn't line up exactly, but who managed
to perpetrate toilet facilities which have been blocked/flooded ever
since, and no end in sight.

The function of architecture is to create buildings that look
good in architecture journals and win architecture awards.

Creating buildings that work for their users is optional.

I think architects get points *deducted* if their buildings work for their
users :-)

Although I have worked in some designer building that have function
well, The SunAmerica Building in Century City, The Gas Company Tower,
in downtown Los Angeles, and especially the original Gateway House
(Now Louis Mountbatten House, I believe) in Basingstoke. All were
pleasant work spaces.