One of the commonest explanations you hear for the lack of tube lines
south of the river is that the soil is unsuitable for the tunnelling
equipment in use in the early years of the 20th century. If that's
the case, though, how did the Morden end of the Northern Line get
built?

Patrick

"The Only Living Boy in New Cross" wrote in
message m...
One of the commonest explanations you hear for the lack of tube lines
south of the river is that the soil is unsuitable for the tunnelling
equipment in use in the early years of the 20th century. If that's
the case, though, how did the Morden end of the Northern Line get
built?

I tend to beleive the more probably explanation that the Southern Railway
took suburban commuters seriously as a market, and provided frequent,
electric commuter trains. The other 3 of the big 4 basically ignored this
market, and the system that became London Underground built the lines
instead. This leaves us now with London Underground extending way out to
the north, east and west, but the railways doing the job to the south.

Robin

"The Only Living Boy in New Cross" wrote in
message m...

One of the commonest explanations you hear for
the lack of tube lines south of the river is that the
soil is unsuitable for the tunnelling equipment in
use in the early years of the 20th century. If that's
the case, though, how did the Morden end of the
Northern Line get built?

It got built at high cost, that's how. Nobody said that it was impossible.
It was the difficult and expensive experience of building the Northern Line
that deterred anyone from putting any more tubes in South London.

In any location and era, building a railway on the surface costs a certain
amount, and building it in a tunnel costs a different amount. Over the
years, land values change, and tunnelling technology improves, and safety
legislation affecting tunnelling becomes stiffer, and political opposition
to demolition changes, so there is no reason why the cheaper option couldn't
switch between overground and underground every decade or so.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

In m,
The Only Living Boy in New Cross typed:

One of the commonest explanations you hear for the lack of tube lines
south of the river is that the soil is unsuitable for the tunnelling
equipment in use in the early years of the 20th century. If that's
the case, though, how did the Morden end of the Northern Line get
built?


Well, as far as the City Branch is concerned, I guess that they heard that
the equipment was going to be unsuitable for use in the early years of the
20th century - and so built it in the 19th century instead.



Bob

(The Only Living Boy in New Cross) wrote in message om...
One of the commonest explanations you hear for the lack of tube lines
south of the river is that the soil is unsuitable for the tunnelling
equipment in use in the early years of the 20th century. If that's
the case, though, how did the Morden end of the Northern Line get
built?

Patrick

According to our friend Clive, http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/northern.html
says that services between Clapham Common and Morden were inaugurated in 1926.
IIRC there were tunnels in the King William Street area, of a size for Tube
stock in the 1890s (I may be very wrong on this), so the tunnelling equipment
itself may not have been an issue.

Checking this site, http://www.btinternet.com/~ptaffs/pe.../personal.html,
shows that Morden is located near a narrower portion of the Thames, which meant
that sending tunnels under the riverbed would have been a bit easier due to
simply having less water to worry about.

Either way, this won't be much of an issue for south/southeast London much
longer - as long as no one else tries to screw things up, the East London Line
extensions will be open in 2005 (?) and those parts of London will have tube
service. http://www.ellp.co.uk/route_map.htm is a map of what the line will
look like when it opens.

Hope I helped,

Brad

(TheOneKEA) wrote the following in:
om

Either way, this won't be much of an issue for south/southeast
London much longer - as long as no one else tries to screw things
up, the East London Line extensions will be open in 2005 (?) and
those parts of London will have tube service.
http://www.ellp.co.uk/route_map.htm is a map of what the line will
look like when it opens.

I thought that the ELLE was going to be handed over to National Rail,
who will probably turn it into a North London Line style backwater with
1 frequently delayed train every few days or so.

--
message by Robin May, enforcer of sod's law.
The Hutton Report is a whitewash! Long live the BBC!

Crime is confusing.

In om,
TheOneKEA typed:
(The Only Living Boy in New Cross) wrote in
message om...

According to our friend Clive,
http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/northern.html
says that services between Clapham Common and Morden were inaugurated
in 1926.
IIRC there were tunnels in the King William Street area, of a size
for Tube
stock in the 1890s (I may be very wrong on this), so the tunnelling
equipment
itself may not have been an issue.

King William Street to Stockwell was opened in 1890


Checking this site,
http://www.btinternet.com/~ptaffs/pe.../personal.html,
shows that Morden is located near a narrower portion of the Thames,
which meant
that sending tunnels under the riverbed would have been a bit easier
due to
simply having less water to worry about.

I'm not sure how that has any relevance. Neither of the two Northern Line
crossings of the Thames is anywhere near Morden.


Bob

"Robin Payne" wrote in message
...
"The Only Living Boy in New Cross" wrote in
message m...

One of the commonest explanations you hear for the lack of tube lines
south of the river is that the soil is unsuitable for the tunnelling
equipment in use in the early years of the 20th century. If that's
the case, though, how did the Morden end of the Northern Line get
built?

I tend to beleive the more probably explanation that the Southern Railway
took suburban commuters seriously as a market, and provided frequent,
electric commuter trains. The other 3 of the big 4 basically ignored this
market, and the system that became London Underground built the lines
instead. This leaves us now with London Underground extending way out to
the north, east and west, but the railways doing the job to the south.

I always understood that the reason for the lack of tube lines, south of the
river, was due to the intensive network of tram lines operated by the local
councils down there. The main line railways set up a network of electric
trains in competition with the trams, which meant that the case for tube
lines was not strong.
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

Robin Payne:
I tend to beleive the more probably explanation that the Southern
Railway took suburban commuters seriously as a market, and provided
frequent, electric commuter trains. The other 3 of the big 4
basically ignored this market...

I tend to believe this one as well. And I'll add that the reason behind
the reason is that London is in the southeast of Great Britain -- so that
lines running north or west from London could carry lucrative long-distance
traffic, but other lines could not, because there were no long distances.
The southern railways, and later the Southern Railway, *had* to concen-
trate on short- and middle-distance traffic, because except for one line
to Exeter that competed with the GWR, that was all there was.

The GNR, of course, not only had its long-distance traffic, but *did*
go after suburban traffic in a big way as well, building branch lines
in north London -- and they came to regret it, calling these services
their suburban incubus". In the end, this added to the growth of tube
lines in north London. First the GN&CR and GN&SR were successively
promoted as ways to relieve the GNR, then abandoned to eventually become
parts of the Underground (also the former, of course, didn't stay one);
then some of the branches were handed over to the Underground as extensions
of the Northern Line.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "'Run me,' Alice?"
-- Tom Neff

My text in this article is in the public domain.

"Bob Wood" wrote in message ...
In om,
TheOneKEA typed:
(The Only Living Boy in New Cross) wrote in
message om...

According to our friend Clive,
http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/northern.html
says that services between Clapham Common and Morden were inaugurated
in 1926.
IIRC there were tunnels in the King William Street area, of a size
for Tube
stock in the 1890s (I may be very wrong on this), so the tunnelling
equipment
itself may not have been an issue.

King William Street to Stockwell was opened in 1890


Checking this site,
http://www.btinternet.com/~ptaffs/pe.../personal.html,
shows that Morden is located near a narrower portion of the Thames,
which meant
that sending tunnels under the riverbed would have been a bit easier
due to
simply having less water to worry about.

I'm not sure how that has any relevance. Neither of the two Northern Line
crossings of the Thames is anywhere near Morden.

The parent poster was asking about whether or not the primitive tunnel-digging
technology of the early 20th century was what prevented the LUL engineers of
the day from digging tunnels beneath the Thames and building Tube stations
south of the river. IMVHO Morden's location is irrelevant; what is relevant
is that it wasn't opened until 1926 - approx. thirty years after the first
LUL tunnels were ever dug, which meant that the technology had time to improve.



Bob

Brad