wrote in message ...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 13:22:49 -0000
"michael adams" wrote:
wrote in message
...
"whereas the Great Northern and City Railway, which opened in 1904, was built
to take main line trains from Finsbury Park to a Moorgate terminus in the
City
and had 16-foot (4.9 m) diameter tunnels."

Now run along and find some other straws to grasp.

The stations in question Belsize Park, Camden Town, Goodge Steet, Stockwell,
Clapham North, Clapham Common, Clapham South are all deep level tubes
running through 11 feet 8 inches (3.56 m) tunnels.

The plan envisaged subsequently using the 16.ft 6in diameter shelters as
platform spaces, not as "train size" tunnels, as you claim above.

Are you arguing against yourself now?

No. I'm merely quoting your own chosen link back at you

http://underground-history.co.uk/shelters.php

" work began in 1940 on building deep level shelters which were envisaged
to eventually become the platform tunnels for the express route.

This was the link, if you remember which you posted as offering
more accurate information than the information which I'd quoted from
SB and wikipaedia.

Anyone with any knowledge of this topic, apart from you at least,
will appreciate that there are conflicting accounts of the sequence of
events around the construction of these tunnels, which is hardly
helped by the absence of original source material, for all but
the most diligent of researchers at least.


Given which, labelling people who disagree with you as "autistic",
or "trolls", probably isn't the best way to react when its evident
you don't even read, or are incapable of fully comprehending, your
own linked material.


You really don't have a clue, do you ?

You have to love unwitting irony.

Indeed.


michael adams

....



--
Spud

On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 14:09:25 -0000
"michael adams" wrote:
wrote in message
Are you arguing against yourself now?

No. I'm merely quoting your own chosen link back at you

ITYF I said the plans already existed and these were based around them. Is
that still up for debate or have you via an incredibly roundabout route
conceded that point yet?

" work began in 1940 on building deep level shelters which were envisaged
to eventually become the platform tunnels for the express route.

This was the link, if you remember which you posted as offering
more accurate information than the information which I'd quoted from
SB and wikipaedia.

Well apparently you didn't read that far either so lets not pretend that
you had and it was part of your grand flourish to nail the point.

Given which, labelling people who disagree with you as "autistic",
or "trolls", probably isn't the best way to react when its evident
you don't even read, or are incapable of fully comprehending, your
own linked material.

Are you talking to yourself in the mirror again?

--
Spud

wrote in message ...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 14:09:25 -0000
"michael adams" wrote:
wrote in message
Are you arguing against yourself now?

No. I'm merely quoting your own chosen link back at you

ITYF I said the plans already existed

Not on here they didn't

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Works_Programme

(See below)

and these were based around them. Is
that still up for debate or have you via an incredibly roundabout route
conceded that point yet?

" work began in 1940 on building deep level shelters which were envisaged
to eventually become the platform tunnels for the express route.

This was the link, if you remember which you posted as offering
more accurate information than the information which I'd quoted from
SB and wikipaedia.

Well apparently you didn't read that far either

But I must have done, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to
point out your error to you, and the fact that you'd obviously
contradicted yourself, would I ?

It would seem that logic isn't exactly a strong point of yours
either.

The fact that I allowed the exchange to stretch to three posts
on your part

your first attempt - "they were train sized tunnels"

your second attempt - "they were going to use bigger trains"

your third and final attempt (the penny finally drops and all the previous
certainty vanishes in a puff of smoke ) " I thought they were going
to use bigger trains, anyway "

was done purely for my own entertainment, I must admit.

Whether they were going to use any trains at all, may be a moot point
in any case, given that no such express poposal seemed to have
featured in LT's "New Works Programme, 1935 – 1940"

quote

"London Underground

The Programme saw major reconstructions of many central area Underground
stations, with escalators being installed to replace lifts as well as
extensions of several tube lines, and connection to and electrification
of a number of suburban lines. These included:

Northern line (The Northern Heights Plan)

"transfer of the Metropolitan line's Great Northern & City (GN&C) branch
to Northern line operation
connection of the GN&C branch at Finsbury Park to the LNER's line to the
Edgware, High Barnet and Alexandra Palace
construction of new tunnels from Archway (then Highgate) to Highgate and
East Finchley to connect to the Edgware and High Barnet branches.
extension from Edgware to Bushey Heath"

quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Works_Programme


So that far from it being the case as your link suggested

" As congestion on the Northern Line increased in the '30s, a plan was
developed to build a second pair of tunnels"

http://underground-history.co.uk/shelters.php

that extra capacity was needed to cope with existing demand, rather
it appears the contrary was the case and extra capacity was being provided
to stimulate further demand.


Given which, labelling people who disagree with you as "autistic",
or "trolls", probably isn't the best way to react when its evident
you don't even read, or are incapable of fully comprehending, your
own linked material.


michael adams

....