On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 21:17:22 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 15/09/2020 10:36, wrote:

Meanwhile the germans and
french rebuilt like for like and now plenty of the formally bombed out towns
are tourists attractions.

Not really, other than a few cases like Luebeck. In many cases in
Germany there is the restored Dom, the Rathaus, the birthplace of
someone locally famous, and maybe one random building the RAF missed,
plus a lot of generic post-war buildings and concrete.

Cologne has some old churches and then modern stuff, Frankfurt has one
block of nice buildings and modern stuff, Dresden has one square and
modern stuff, Berlin had pretty much everything the C20th could throw at

Dresden had its cathedral rebuilt. We didn't bother with fripperies like
that here, instead putting up something that resembled a large toilet block
in its place.

On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 09:15:18PM -0000, Recliner wrote:

There's bound to be some noisy heritage lobby that would be up in arms at
any suggestion ...

Of course. It's a listed building for no apparent reason.

--
David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic

In Victorian times, when every man wore a beard the size of a yew,
Britain ruled the world. In the early 20th century, when the beard
was trimmed to a moustache, we scraped through two world wars but
lost an empire. Today, when Mach3 Turbo multi-blades are the norm,
our national pride derives largely from beating the Swedes at
Olympic cycling.

Grow a beard. Your country needs you.

Recliner wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 15:25:49 +0100
Graham Harrison wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 09:54:05 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:
There's only one faux old bridge on the Thames, that was
deliberately built to look much older than it was: Tower Bridge.
And that's the one everyone admires and wants in their pictures.

The brutalist architecture is generally agreed to be unacceptable.
But we've moved on. Is all modernistic architecture good? No. But
that's not to say there isn't some which has much to recommend it.
The real issue is the constant demand to build on the cheap.

And that won't change. Victorian grand project developers valued
aesthetics a lot more than 21st century ones. A modern hammersmith
bridge would almost certainly be your standard concrete arch job
with all the aesthetic appeal of a breeze block.

It's not a large bridge, so they could certainly knock up a standard,
low key modern concrete or steel bridge very quickly.

What might be fun is if they copied to the ideas of the original
London Bridge, Rialto or the Ponte Vecchio, with two or three storeys
of over-river ornate shops, offices and/or flats on each side. The
top floor could cover partly cover the bridge. Make the whole thing
wide and strong, and let the developer pay for the whole thing.

If you're contemplating grand schemes, you might as well include an
extension of the H&C Underground to south of the river.

On 16/09/2020 12:28, David Jones wrote:
Recliner wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 15:25:49 +0100
Graham Harrison wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 09:54:05 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:
There's only one faux old bridge on the Thames, that was
deliberately built to look much older than it was: Tower Bridge.
And that's the one everyone admires and wants in their pictures.

The brutalist architecture is generally agreed to be unacceptable.
But we've moved on. Is all modernistic architecture good? No. But
that's not to say there isn't some which has much to recommend it.
The real issue is the constant demand to build on the cheap.

And that won't change. Victorian grand project developers valued
aesthetics a lot more than 21st century ones. A modern hammersmith
bridge would almost certainly be your standard concrete arch job
with all the aesthetic appeal of a breeze block.

It's not a large bridge, so they could certainly knock up a standard,
low key modern concrete or steel bridge very quickly.

What might be fun is if they copied to the ideas of the original
London Bridge, Rialto or the Ponte Vecchio, with two or three storeys
of over-river ornate shops, offices and/or flats on each side. The
top floor could cover partly cover the bridge. Make the whole thing
wide and strong, and let the developer pay for the whole thing.

If you're contemplating grand schemes, you might as well include an
extension of the H&C Underground to south of the river.


East Peasy, run H&C trains through to either Wimbledon or Richmond.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 16/09/2020 09:50, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 21:17:22 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 15/09/2020 10:36, wrote:

Meanwhile the germans and
french rebuilt like for like and now plenty of the formally bombed out towns
are tourists attractions.

Not really, other than a few cases like Luebeck. In many cases in
Germany there is the restored Dom, the Rathaus, the birthplace of
someone locally famous, and maybe one random building the RAF missed,
plus a lot of generic post-war buildings and concrete.

Cologne has some old churches and then modern stuff, Frankfurt has one
block of nice buildings and modern stuff, Dresden has one square and
modern stuff, Berlin had pretty much everything the C20th could throw at

Dresden had its cathedral rebuilt.

Yes, but rebuilding another church which is not the cathedral (although
might be the building you are thinking of?) took a lot longer and was
quite controversial.

And Dresden lost its World Heritage listing because they built...
....a new bridge.


We didn't bother with fripperies like
that here, instead putting up something that resembled a large toilet block
in its place.

Were any cathedrals other than Coventry destroyed? As is often pointed
out, the problem with British towns was not what the Luftwaffe knocked
down, it was what British architects and planners put in its place.



--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 16/09/2020 12:28, David Jones wrote:

If you're contemplating grand schemes, you might as well include an
extension of the H&C Underground to south of the river.


East Peasy, run H&C trains through to either Wimbledon or Richmond.


For the Richmond route Met trains did use it at intervals in the 19th and
early 20th century using a connection via Hammersmith Grove Road which was
on the LSWR route from Kensington Addison to Richmond, the District Railway
later joined from its Hammersmith Station via Studland Road junction and
continued on its own metals after Turnham Green and using running powers to
Richmond. The LSWR later made it a four track formation in 1911 to cope
with the amount of DR trains but found its own patronage rapidly dwindled
so Grove Road closed in 1916, the former LSWR tracks lay abandoned until
1932 when the Piccadilly was extended westwards from Hammersmith(LER) .
Despite the owning company having left the section between Studland Road
Junction and Gunnersbury remained with the LSWR and was transferred to the
Southern and I remember the Bridge at Turnham Green still had Southern
Railway ownership plates on it up to the 1970’s and possibly later.
I wonder if the Southern ever ran an inspection train or was this a
Southern line never visited by a Southern train?
LT finally got ownership in 1948.
There is still some evidence of the old route, mainly the viaduct at
Hammersmith complete with repairs to WW2 bomb damage even though it was
long disused at the time though you now have to
imagine the curve around and where Grove Road Station was.

Dropped pin
https://goo.gl/maps/Zgu29rveGfCa5sNj7

And the widened section of H+C viaduct where the spur came off is still
there.
Dropped pin

https://goo.gl/maps/bMmg3FeL5o4Hcq5C6

The LSWR route to Addison road and its Shepherds Bush station has been
well obliterated though one bridge parapet at the latter survives but
unrecognised.

https://goo.gl/maps/nN6kq6xmAmKNWuZs9

Grove road Station was to the West of Hammersmith H+C station and linked
by a walkway which is why there is a footbridge at the platform end of
this terminus station today,
it wasn’t built for passengers arriving by mistake to nip over to the
other platforms rather than go via the concourse to catch a train back out,
originally it lead through the wall to the walkway and to the LSWR station
which lay derelict to the 1950’s


GH

"Arthur Figgis" wrote in message
...
On 16/09/2020 09:50, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 21:17:22 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 15/09/2020 10:36, wrote:

Meanwhile the germans and
french rebuilt like for like and now plenty of the formally bombed out
towns
are tourists attractions.

Not really, other than a few cases like Luebeck. In many cases in
Germany there is the restored Dom, the Rathaus, the birthplace of
someone locally famous, and maybe one random building the RAF missed,
plus a lot of generic post-war buildings and concrete.

Cologne has some old churches and then modern stuff, Frankfurt has one
block of nice buildings and modern stuff, Dresden has one square and
modern stuff, Berlin had pretty much everything the C20th could throw at

Dresden had its cathedral rebuilt.

Yes, but rebuilding another church which is not the cathedral (although
might be the building you are thinking of?) took a lot longer and was
quite controversial.

And Dresden lost its World Heritage listing because they built...
...a new bridge.


We didn't bother with fripperies like
that here, instead putting up something that resembled a large toilet
block
in its place.

Were any cathedrals other than Coventry destroyed? As is often pointed
out, the problem with British towns was not what the Luftwaffe knocked
down, it was what British architects and planners put in its place.


St George's, Southwark

--
DAS

On 16 Sep 2020 23:44:37 GMT
Marland wrote:
There is still some evidence of the old route, mainly the viaduct at
Hammersmith complete with repairs to WW2 bomb damage even though it was
long disused at the time though you now have to
imagine the curve around and where Grove Road Station was.

It seems a very strange decision to remove that link. What possible
advantage could there be in NOT having it?

wrote:
On 16 Sep 2020 23:44:37 GMT
Marland wrote:
There is still some evidence of the old route, mainly the viaduct at
Hammersmith complete with repairs to WW2 bomb damage even though it was
long disused at the time though you now have to
imagine the curve around and where Grove Road Station was.

It seems a very strange decision to remove that link. What possible
advantage could there be in NOT having it?



Well it was over a 100 years ago now so the decision makers are long gone
and in the 1900’s the Met and District and the GWR and LSWR were still
competitors in the main. Perhaps if it had survived into the LPTB era it
might have been a good link to get stock to Acton works and downgrade
Hammersmith Depot but you can’t really get away from the reason that the
LSWR route to Kensington was usurped by the District Railway taking the
more direct route from Earls Court via Hammersmith who once they connected
and started running to Richmond over the LSWR and building their own route
to Acton from TG westwards proved far more attractive to passengers who
preferred a District train to stations along the embankment to a LSWR one
that eventually via Kensington Addison road ,the West London line through
Battersea and a curve North took them to Waterloo on the wrong side of the
river.

The Met and GWR services that joined at Hammersmith had already dwindled in
the early 1900’s and after the H+C was electrified the steam services got
in the way.
These convoluted routes were also up against electric trams then running on
roads still relatively uncongested ,Londons first electric trams started
from the (still standing) Chiswick depot and power house in 1901 and
covered the same ground and were more convenient to use.

There was also the proposal that was seriously considered for quite a time
to extend the Central London from its Shepherds Bush terminus in tube
including a station at Turnham Green and then link on to the Richmond route
so it wasn’t worth the LSWR investing in a line whose traffic had died
away.
In the end its demise enabled the Piccadilly extension West from
Hammersmith with good cross platform interchange with the District for
Richmond bound passengers and the express service we know today heading for
Acton Town with a few periods where they stop at Turnham Green and the
Central went off with the help of the GWR to Ealing Broadway.
Grove Road was not the only railway casualty in the area ,there was also
the Hammersmith and Chiswick which gave up passengers in 1917 though as a
kid I remember it still used for coal up till the mid 60’s.
Hard to imagine now but there were still market gardens in operation until
the 1920’s around there and though around Chiswick and Turnham Green
streets of houses had been built from the 1880’s there was still a lot of
open land.
Once the the 4 tracks were altered for the Piccadilly to run grade
separated between the District at Hammersmith and Turnham Green bringing
trains off the viaduct would have been awkward and meant retaining flat
junctions with the conflict they would have brought as well and interfered
with the busy services of the District and Piccadilly lines , it was hard
enough to accommodate the LMS Coal trains which joined at Gunnersbury from
the North London line up through their own underpass onto the east bound
Piccadilly then into a refuge loop to the east of Turnham Green from where
they could be slotted onto the District to serve Coal Yards at West and
High Street Kensington stations an operation that lasted until the mid
1960’s. They took a lot of track occupancy as with a train of unfitted
wagons they could not follow an LT train too closely especially on the
gradient down into Hammersmith.

The abandoned stations site has some good info and pictures of the routes
including some of what the routes look like in recent times.

LSWR route.

http://www.abandonedstations.org.uk/...rove_Road.html

Hammersmith and Chiswick

http://www.abandonedstations.org.uk/..._Chiswick.html


GH

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8743169/Pupils-39-000-year-St-Pauls-School-ferried-Thames-BOATS-bridge-shuts.html