Why are the Jubilee, Piccadilly and Victoria line platforms at Green
Park so far apart from each other. I understand why this is the case
at Charing Cross (two stations being merged) - is it the same thing at
Green Park?


Matt Ashby

www.mattashby.com

"Matt Ashby" wrote in message
om
Why are the Jubilee, Piccadilly and Victoria line platforms at Green
Park so far apart from each other. I understand why this is the case
at Charing Cross (two stations being merged) - is it the same thing at
Green Park?

It's a good point -- the two newer lines were built relatively recently,
by LU, so there are none of the issues of having to connect old lines
originally built by different companies. And, of course, the current
surface buildings aren't the original ones that were in operation when
lifts were in use. At other locations, great pains were taken to provide
very convenient interchanges when the Victoria line was built, but for
some reason, not at Green Park.

I'm assuming it was because it was necessary to build the Vic and
Jubilee platforms under the park, whereas the Picc line runs under the
road. As it has single escalator flights, the Picc platforms are some
horizontal distance to the east of the station, rather than being more
or less directly underneath, which is what happens with other former
lift stations where the surface buildings remained intact. They did a
similar arrangement with two the newer lines, whose platforms are to the
south of the station, so all sets of platforms are away from the
station, and the two new lines are therefore not close to the original
Picc line platforms (but the Victoria and Jubilee platforms are quite
close to each other).

Nigel Pendse wrote:
"Matt Ashby" wrote in message
om

Why are the Jubilee, Piccadilly and Victoria line platforms at Green
Park so far apart from each other. I understand why this is the case
at Charing Cross (two stations being merged) - is it the same thing at
Green Park?


It's a good point -- the two newer lines were built relatively recently,
by LU, so there are none of the issues of having to connect old lines
originally built by different companies. And, of course, the current
surface buildings aren't the original ones that were in operation when
lifts were in use. At other locations, great pains were taken to provide
very convenient interchanges when the Victoria line was built, but for
some reason, not at Green Park.

I suspect it had something to do with the orientation of the Piccadilly
Line - the planners must have assumed, and rightly so, that adding a
pair of 90 degree turns at Green Park to provide cross-platform
interchange with the Picc, or building the Vic platforms directly
underneath the Picc platforms, would have been dangerous and unsuitable.


I'm assuming it was because it was necessary to build the Vic and
Jubilee platforms under the park, whereas the Picc line runs under the
road. As it has single escalator flights, the Picc platforms are some
horizontal distance to the east of the station, rather than being more
or less directly underneath, which is what happens with other former
lift stations where the surface buildings remained intact. They did a
similar arrangement with two the newer lines, whose platforms are to the
south of the station, so all sets of platforms are away from the
station, and the two new lines are therefore not close to the original
Picc line platforms (but the Victoria and Jubilee platforms are quite
close to each other).


Close is relative - IMO all three platform groups are nearly the same
distance away from one another at crosspassage level. From my own
personal experience, it seems to take the same amount of time to do
Picc-Jubilee and Picc-Vic at the deep level, and Jubilee-Vic at
the deep level. And I walk very fast.

Besides, building under the park was probably the cheapest method of
construction, for both lines.

Brad

Yes, building under the Park would certainly have saved effort and
money. When Oxford Circus station was being rebuilt for the Victoria
Line, the surrounding streets could not be closed to traffic, and
chief engineer HG Follenfant had to use raised platforms -- which he
called the Umbrella -- to lighten the traffic loads on the road
surface. It was that or have a lorry nose-dive into the new ticket
hall.

Another factor in the case of Green Park is that the station at
platform level is actually the old Dover Street. As the name suggests,
the original street level buildings were in Dover Street, with the
platforms not a huge distance away, horizontally. When the station was
re-built to incorporate escalators, the architects threw out not only
the lifts but the rest of the street-level station as well, moving the
exits to their current homes.

There is also the question of What's Down There. Subterranean London
is not unoccupied. It's a matter of legend that LU have only three
shots at goal when it comes to the exact positioning of a tunnel or
other excavation. If they're turned down, no reason is ever given.
They must simply guess again. If they're turned down three times, they
may not re-submit. So it's possible that this was a factor with the
new tunnels at Green Park. It's worth bearing in mind that the old
Down Street station isn't far away, and while there isn't any secret
infrastructure there now, there could be tunnels associated with it
that are deemed Not To Be Mashed Up.

Simon

Simon Harvey wrote in
s.com:

There is also the question of What's Down There. Subterranean London
is not unoccupied. It's a matter of legend that LU have only three
shots at goal when it comes to the exact positioning of a tunnel or
other excavation. If they're turned down, no reason is ever given.
They must simply guess again. If they're turned down three times, they
may not re-submit.

Hmmm you state this is "a matter of legend". Is it just that, or is
there any anecdotal -- or even hard -- evidence to back this up? And
have they ever hit the "three strikes and you're out" wall and had to
abandon plans for a proposed station?

You've piqued my curiousity now!

Iain

Hi Iain

All I can recall about this is that it came from one (no more than
one, I'm certain) of the many books I've read about subterranean
London. I'm hypersensitive to rubbish — a book goes back to the
library smartish if I whiff bull****. I've been a desk editor for a
large publisher and I can /usually/ tell when someone's making
something up. Which is not much reassurance, of course. We need a
knowledgeable third party to settle the matter...

Simon


On Wed, 26 May 2004 21:26:45 GMT, Iain
wrote:

Simon Harvey wrote in
ws.com:

There is also the question of What's Down There. Subterranean London
is not unoccupied. It's a matter of legend that LU have only three
shots at goal when it comes to the exact positioning of a tunnel or
other excavation. If they're turned down, no reason is ever given.
They must simply guess again. If they're turned down three times, they
may not re-submit.

Hmmm you state this is "a matter of legend". Is it just that, or is
there any anecdotal -- or even hard -- evidence to back this up? And
have they ever hit the "three strikes and you're out" wall and had to
abandon plans for a proposed station?

You've piqued my curiousity now!

Iain