Holborn Viaduct
 

Is there anything left there worth seeing ?
Regardz,
Baz

Holborn Viaduct
 

"Marratxi" wrote in message
...

Is there anything left there worth seeing ?

The northern entrance to City Thameslink was formerly the entrance to
Holburn Viaduct. It's not very old, probably 1960s.

--
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

Holborn Viaduct
 

"Marratxi" wrote in message
...
Is there anything left there worth seeing ?
Regardz,
Baz


Are you talking about the old station, or the Viaduct itself?

The viaduct is still very much there, and exactly what it says it is -
effectively a Victorian road bridge over the course of the River Fleet.
Nowadays it is surrounded by office buildings. It is painted in Corporation
colours and is quite prominent, but not really a tourist attraction.

The old station has been replaced by said office blocks, along with its
approach lines, although there is an entrance to the Northern end of the
City Thameslink under ground platforms at the eastern end of the Viaduct,
which is on the site of the old station.

See http://www.pendar.pwp.blueyonder.co....rnViaduct.html

Holborn Viaduct
 

"Colin" wrote in message
...
"Marratxi" wrote in message
...
Is there anything left there worth seeing ?
Regardz,
Baz


Are you talking about the old station, or the Viaduct itself?

The viaduct is still very much there, and exactly what it says it is -
effectively a Victorian road bridge over the course of the River Fleet.
Nowadays it is surrounded by office buildings. It is painted in
Corporation colours and is quite prominent, but not really a tourist
attraction.

The old station has been replaced by said office blocks, along with its
approach lines, although there is an entrance to the Northern end of the
City Thameslink under ground platforms at the eastern end of the Viaduct,
which is on the site of the old station.

See http://www.pendar.pwp.blueyonder.co....rnViaduct.html


An interesting thing to see underneath the viaduct is the space underneath
it. There's a wine seller there - have a look inside - it stretches for
quite a way.

Holborn Viaduct
 

wrote in message
...

An interesting thing to see underneath the viaduct is the space underneath
it. There's a wine seller there - have a look inside - it stretches for
quite a way.

Does he sell much? ;-)

Holborn Viaduct
 

In message , at 23:49:56
on Sun, 26 Sep 2004, Jack Taylor remarked:
An interesting thing to see underneath the viaduct is the space underneath
it. There's a wine seller there - have a look inside - it stretches for
quite a way.

Does he sell much? ;-)

What, from his cellar?
--
Roland Perry

Holborn Viaduct
 

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message k...
wrote in message
...

An interesting thing to see underneath the viaduct is the space underneath
it. There's a wine seller there - have a look inside - it stretches for
quite a way.

Does he sell much? ;-)

Well its an oddbins branch so yes I guess they do!:-)

Holborn Viaduct
 

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 22:27:43 +0100, "Colin"
wrote:

"Marratxi" wrote in message
...
Is there anything left there worth seeing ?
Regardz,
Baz


Are you talking about the old station, or the Viaduct itself?

The viaduct is still very much there, and exactly what it says it is -
effectively a Victorian road bridge over the course of the River Fleet.
Nowadays it is surrounded by office buildings. It is painted in Corporation
colours and is quite prominent, but not really a tourist attraction.

The old station has been replaced by said office blocks, along with its
approach lines, although there is an entrance to the Northern end of the
City Thameslink under ground platforms at the eastern end of the Viaduct,
which is on the site of the old station.

See http://www.pendar.pwp.blueyonder.co....rnViaduct.html

A most interesting site, and onward links. Many thanks for the URL.

David Bradley

Holborn Viaduct
 

"David Bradley" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 22:27:43 +0100, "Colin"
wrote:

"Marratxi" wrote in
message
...
Is there anything left there worth seeing ?
Regardz,
Baz


Are you talking about the old station, or the Viaduct itself?

The viaduct is still very much there, and exactly what it says it is -
effectively a Victorian road bridge over the course of the River Fleet.
Nowadays it is surrounded by office buildings. It is painted in
Corporation
colours and is quite prominent, but not really a tourist attraction.

The old station has been replaced by said office blocks, along with its
approach lines, although there is an entrance to the Northern end of the
City Thameslink under ground platforms at the eastern end of the Viaduct,
which is on the site of the old station.

See http://www.pendar.pwp.blueyonder.co....rnViaduct.html

A most interesting site, and onward links. Many thanks for the URL.

David Bradley

Thanks, guys. It was seeing the mentioned exit from City Thameslink and the
mentioned website which caused me to ask the question. I think I'll dust off
the old Freedom Card and go have a look myself. Its hard to believe that
there were three stations in what seems quite a short trip from Blackfriars
to Farringdon, can anybody point me to a map showing that part of the rail
system ?
Cheerz,
Baz

Holborn Viaduct
 

In message , at 22:37:25 on Mon, 27
Sep 2004, Marratxi
remarked:
Its hard to believe that
there were three stations in what seems quite a short trip from Blackfriars
to Farringdon, can anybody point me to a map showing that part of the rail
system ?

err, Surely there was just Ludgate Circus on the tunnel route, and
Ludgate Circus and Holborn Viaduct if you were terminating.
--
Roland Perry

Holborn Viaduct
 

In message , Marratxi
writes

Its hard to believe that there were three stations in what seems quite
a short trip from Blackfriars to Farringdon,

There were actually only two stations, Ludgate Hill and Snow Hill
(renamed Holborn Viaduct Low Level in 1912 and closed in 1916) on the
route you mention. The main Holborn Viaduct station was a terminus on a
short branch off that route.

can anybody point me to a map showing that part of the rail system ?

http://www.londonrailways.net/snowhill.htm

--
Paul Terry

Holborn Viaduct
 

"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...
In message , Marratxi
writes

can anybody point me to a map showing that part of the rail system ?

http://www.londonrailways.net/snowhill.htm

--
Paul Terry

Thanks !! I'd love to be able to do a tour of the area and explore all the
old tunnels, sidings, etc. The positioning of the (now) Thameslink line to
the East of St. Pancras station is surely wrong, though.
Cheerz,
Baz

Holborn Viaduct
 

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Paul Terry wrote:

In message , Marratxi
writes

Its hard to believe that there were three stations in what seems quite
a short trip from Blackfriars to Farringdon,

There were actually only two stations, Ludgate Hill and Snow Hill
(renamed Holborn Viaduct Low Level in 1912 and closed in 1916) on the
route you mention. The main Holborn Viaduct station was a terminus on a
short branch off that route.

Why were there two Holborn Viaduct stations, then? AIUI, the low level
station was the first to be built, so why did someone see the need for
another station in more or less the same place? Was it just to provide
more capacity? I can imagine that reversing lots of LCDR trains at the
low-level station would make it rather hard to run a high-frequency
through service as well.

I can't imagine a London where there was the space to go round building
stations willy-nilly like that!

tom

--
Gin makes a man mean; let's booze up and riot!

Holborn Viaduct
 

In message , Marratxi
writes

"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...

http://www.londonrailways.net/snowhill.htm

Thanks !! I'd love to be able to do a tour of the area and explore all the
old tunnels, sidings, etc. The positioning of the (now) Thameslink line to
the East of St. Pancras station is surely wrong, though.

Yes. Although it comes in from the east, it curves under the St Pancras
platforms and then heads north under Midland Road.

--
Paul Terry

Holborn Viaduct
 

In message ,
Tom Anderson writes

Why were there two Holborn Viaduct stations, then? AIUI, the low level
station was the first to be built,

The high level terminus was opened on 2 March 1874; the low level
through station (Snow Hill) was opened 1 August 1874. Basically they
were planned as a complementary pair of stations.

so why did someone see the need for another station in more or less the
same place?

Essentially, the High Level was intended as a terminus for LCDR mainline
services, including various boat trains to the continent, while the Low
Level was primarily for suburban services, many terminating at Moorgate.
The High Level was actually very small - just 4 platforms designed for
half-length trains. The other half of each train was a West End portion
(for Victoria) with the portions being split or combined at Herne Hill.

Was it just to provide more capacity?

That too. In order to finance the line the LCDR sold running powers to
the GNR, Midland and the LSWR, so there was an enormous range of
services on the line - trains from Kingston/Richmond/Wimbledon
(terminating at Ludgate Hill), Herne Hill to King's Cross and Barnet,
GNR services from Hatfield to Ludgate Hill, Muswell Hill to Woolwich,
Midland services between Hendon and Victoria via Ludgate Hill, etc.

I can imagine that reversing lots of LCDR trains at the low-level
station would make it rather hard to run a high-frequency through
service as well.

I don't think they ever reversed at the Low Level station - trains on
the Snow Hill line would either continue north via Farringdon or would
terminate at Moorgate. Congestion was so bad at the latter that it was
often quicker to walk from Snow Hill in the late 19th century.

I can't imagine a London where there was the space to go round building
stations willy-nilly like that!

I don't think it was the LCDR's wish to end up with three tiny terminals
in close proximity (Ludgate Hill, Holborn Viaduct and St Paul's - the
last of these later being renamed Blackfriars). Basically, they had been
bankrupted by the cost of their City extension and with property prices
so high in the area, all they could manage was to build very small and
mean stations whenever an opportunity arose.
--
Paul Terry

Holborn Viaduct
 

In article , Paul Terry
writes
Its hard to believe that there were three stations in what seems quite
a short trip from Blackfriars to Farringdon,
There were actually only two stations, Ludgate Hill and Snow Hill
(renamed Holborn Viaduct Low Level in 1912 and closed in 1916) on the
route you mention. The main Holborn Viaduct station was a terminus on a
short branch off that route.

From south to north, the layout in 1888 was:

* 8 tracks crossing Blackfriars Bridge.
* The eastern pair, plus a siding off the third, go into St.Pauls LCDR
where they terminate just south of Queen Victoria St.
* The other 6 rearrange into 4 on the bridge over QVSt, then go into
Ludgate Hill LCDR, which had two island platforms.
* The 4 tracks cross Ludgate Hill on a bridge, at which point there is a
large scissors crossover with slips.
* The eastern pair split into three pairs in Holborn Viaduct LCDR with
four "finger" platforms; they terminate south of Holborn Viaduct.
* The western pair descend to Snow Hill station, which is under the
viaduct and Snow Hill itself.
* Under the place at the southwest corner of Smithfield (I don't know
the name, but it's the westward extension of Long Lane) the tunnel
splits at a simple double junction.
* The western pair runs into Farringdon, the eastern pair into
Aldersgate, in both cases meeting the "Widened Lines" pair.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Holborn Viaduct
 

While we are on this subject, could someone please tell me why, when it
first opened, City Thameslink Station was called "St Paul's Thameslink";
or was the latter only a temporary station while the City Thameslink was
building?
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 26 September 2004

Holborn Viaduct
 

In message , Annabel Smyth
writes

While we are on this subject, could someone please tell me why, when it
first opened, City Thameslink Station was called "St Paul's Thameslink";
or was the latter only a temporary station while the City Thameslink was
building?

It was changed because apparently people confused it with St Paul's on
the Central line and assumed there was a convenient interchange between
the two.

In fact, the original St Paul's station was what is now Blackfriars
(Thameslink) - the name was changed in 1937 when LT renamed "Post
Office" on the Central Line as "St Paul's".
--
Paul Terry

Holborn Viaduct
 

"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
...
While we are on this subject, could someone please tell me why, when it
first opened, City Thameslink Station was called "St Paul's Thameslink";

To avoid confusion with St Paul's Underground station. Not that confusing
repetition of station names seems to bother LU.

Dave.

Holborn Viaduct
 

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:02:36 +0100, "Dave Liney"
wrote:


"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
...
While we are on this subject, could someone please tell me why, when it
first opened, City Thameslink Station was called "St Paul's Thameslink";

To avoid confusion with St Paul's Underground station. Not that confusing
repetition of station names seems to bother LU.

But there was a plan to link the two St Paul's's at one stage which
would have made the names sensible.
--
Peter Lawrence

Holborn Viaduct
 

In message , at 17:28:34 on
Wed, 29 Sep 2004, Peter Lawrence remarked:
But there was a plan to link the two St Paul's's

tricky one... "two St Paul's" as a contraction of "two St Paul's
stations"?

Where's Lynne Truss when you need her :-)

at one stage which
would have made the names sensible.

Someone recently speculated about the possibility of linking the
northern end of City Thameslink with a new station under Holborn Viaduct
(the street east of the bridge itself). Isn't it rather a long way
otherwise?
--
Roland Perry

Holborn Viaduct
 

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, Paul Terry wrote:

In message ,
Tom Anderson writes

Why were there two Holborn Viaduct stations, then? AIUI, the low level
station was the first to be built,

The high level terminus was opened on 2 March 1874; the low level
through station (Snow Hill) was opened 1 August 1874. Basically they
were planned as a complementary pair of stations.

Ah, i see. So, in a way, they're really just two sets of platforms in one
station.

tom

--
roger and kay payne, symmetry, piercing, archaeology, position, in ,,

Holborn Viaduct
 

Paul Terry writes:
In fact, the original St Paul's station was what is now Blackfriars
(Thameslink) - the name was changed in 1937 when LT renamed "Post
Office" on the Central Line as "St Paul's".

And the original Blackfriars station was a terminal station on the
south bank of the river.

The line was opened from Herne Hill to Elephant & Castle in 1862, then
extended to the original Blackfriars in 1864. Later the same year a
short branch was made from just before this station, crossing the
river to Ludgate Hill. This was originally a temporary terminus,
replaced in 1865 with a permanent station, which became a through station
when the Snow Hill Tunnel and the link to the Metropolitan Railway at
Farringdon were opened in 1866.

In 1874 the branch off this route to Holborn Viaduct was opened, and
the same year Snow Hill station was added to the through route, so
now there were four stations in the area, two through and two terminal.

In 1886 the branch to the original Blackfriars was closed, and yet
another short new branch crossed the Thames on a new bridge to reach
the new terminus of St. Paul's -- now Blackfriars. In 1910 this was
converted to a through station, allowing trains to continue from it
to Farringdon as they do now.

Snow Hill station, renamed Holborn Viaduct Low Level, closed in 1916
along with the through passenger services, which reappeared in 1988 as
Thameslink. With the closure, Ludgate Hill became a terminus again,
and it closed in 1929. In 1990 Holborn Viaduct closed and St. Paul's
Thameslink, now City Thameslink, opened on more or less the site of
Ludgate Hill station.
--
Mark Brader | lying
Toronto | abort reply.
| -- random words at end of a spam message

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Holborn Viaduct
 

In article , (Mark Brader) wrote:

And the original Blackfriars station was a terminal station on the
south bank of the river.

The line was opened from Herne Hill to Elephant & Castle in 1862, then
extended to the original Blackfriars in 1864. Later the same year a
short branch was made from just before this station, crossing the
river to Ludgate Hill. This was originally a temporary terminus,
replaced in 1865 with a permanent station, which became a through
station
when the Snow Hill Tunnel and the link to the Metropolitan Railway at
Farringdon were opened in 1866.

In 1874 the branch off this route to Holborn Viaduct was opened, and
the same year Snow Hill station was added to the through route, so
now there were four stations in the area, two through and two
terminal.

In 1886 the branch to the original Blackfriars was closed, and yet
another short new branch crossed the Thames on a new bridge to reach
the new terminus of St. Paul's -- now Blackfriars.

Wouldn't the 1864 LCDR station have been Blackfriars Bridge? - it opened
on 1st June, the same day as the extension from Elephant & Castle, and
closed 1st October 1885. There was also an SER Blackfriars, which only
lasted 5 years - 11/1/1864-1/1/1869.

--
Peter Beale

Holborn Viaduct
 

Peter Beale wrote:
In article , (Mark
Brader) wrote:

And the original Blackfriars station was a terminal station on the
south bank of the river.

The line was opened from Herne Hill to Elephant & Castle in 1862,
then extended to the original Blackfriars in 1864. Later the same
year a short branch was made from just before this station,
crossing the river to Ludgate Hill. This was originally a
temporary terminus, replaced in 1865 with a permanent station,
which became a through station when the Snow Hill Tunnel and the
link to the Metropolitan Railway at Farringdon were opened in 1866.

In 1874 the branch off this route to Holborn Viaduct was opened,
and the same year Snow Hill station was added to the through route,
so now there were four stations in the area, two through and two
terminal.

In 1886 the branch to the original Blackfriars was closed, and yet
another short new branch crossed the Thames on a new bridge to
reach the new terminus of St. Paul's -- now Blackfriars.

Wouldn't the 1864 LCDR station have been Blackfriars Bridge? - it
opened on 1st June, the same day as the extension from Elephant &
Castle, and closed 1st October 1885.

It was Blackfriars according to H.P. White, my source of London railway
history. His dates agree with those in Mark's post, and he implies that
the old Blackfriars was closed at the same time as St Paul's was opened
on 10 May 1886. Do you have a source for "Blackfriars Bridge" and the
October 1885 closure date?

Incidentally amongst many old drawings glazed into the tiles in the
pedestrian tunnel under Blackriars road bridge (part of the Thames Path
on the south bank), there is at least one which shows the old
Blackfriars station. IIRC it's a view of the opening of the road bridge
by Queen Victoria in 1869.

There was also an SER Blackfriars, which only lasted 5 years -
11/1/1864-1/1/1869.

According to H.P. White, that was Blackfriars Road, opened as a
temporary station on the Charing Cross line pending the completion of
Waterloo Junction (now Waterloo East).
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Holborn Viaduct
 

Richard J. writes:
It was Blackfriars according to H.P. White, my source of London railway
history. His dates agree with those in Mark's post...

Well, that would be because most of what I posted came from H.P. White;
some details were from the Oxford Companion to British Railway History.
It's not an independent confirmation that I was right. However, checking
the Oxford Companion, I see that it confirms the name Blackfiars for the
south bank station, but gives 1885 for its closure date.

Anyone have a copy of "London's Termini"? That'd be the best source
I know of for this sort of thing, but I've only seen library copies.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Mark is probably right about something,
| but I forget what" -- Rayan Zachariassen

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Holborn Viaduct
 

In message , Mark Brader
writes

Richard J. writes:
It was Blackfriars according to H.P. White, my source of London railway
history. His dates agree with those in Mark's post...

Well, that would be because most of what I posted came from H.P. White;
some details were from the Oxford Companion to British Railway History.
It's not an independent confirmation that I was right. However, checking
the Oxford Companion, I see that it confirms the name Blackfiars for the
south bank station, but gives 1885 for its closure date.

Anyone have a copy of "London's Termini"? That'd be the best source
I know of for this sort of thing, but I've only seen library copies.

London's Termini gives the closing date (for passenger services) as 30th
September 1885.

--
Paul Terry

Holborn Viaduct
 

In article , (Richard J.) wrote:

[I asked:]

Wouldn't the 1864 LCDR station have been Blackfriars Bridge? - it
opened on 1st June, the same day as the extension from Elephant &
Castle, and closed 1st October 1885.

It was Blackfriars according to H.P. White, my source of London railway
history. His dates agree with those in Mark's post, and he implies that
the old Blackfriars was closed at the same time as St Paul's was opened
on 10 May 1886. Do you have a source for "Blackfriars Bridge" and the
October 1885 closure date?

"A Southern Region Chronology and Record 1803-1965", R.H.Clark, Oakwood
Press, 1964 (sic - must have had prophetic powers for 1965!), p66. Also for
SER Blackfriars. Whether he or White is right I do not know; but Blackfriars
Bridge does seem a more appropriate name for a station south of the Thames,
when Blackfriars proper is north.

--
Peter Beale

Holborn Viaduct
 

In message , Peter
Beale writes

"A Southern Region Chronology and Record 1803-1965", R.H.Clark, Oakwood
Press, 1964 (sic - must have had prophetic powers for 1965!), p66. Also for
SER Blackfriars. Whether he or White is right I do not know; but Blackfriars
Bridge does seem a more appropriate name for a station south of the Thames,
when Blackfriars proper is north.

Clark does seem to be correct - I suddenly remembered that I have a LCDR
route map from 1870, showing the city line complete to Ludgate Hill (and
under construction north thereof). This clearly marks the south-bank
station as Blackfriars Bridge.

See also the contemporary quote from Cruchley at:
http://www.victorianlondon.org/thame...ndrabridge.htm

And finally, while Jackson's "London Termini" calls the station
"Blackfriars" on pages 155, 191 and 193, on page 192 he refers to "This
Blackfriars Bridge station".

--
Paul Terry

Holborn Viaduct
 

Paul Terry wrote:
In message ,
Peter
Beale writes

"A Southern Region Chronology and Record 1803-1965", R.H.Clark,
Oakwood Press, 1964 (sic - must have had prophetic powers for
1965!), p66. Also for SER Blackfriars. Whether he or White is
right I do not know; but Blackfriars Bridge does seem a more
appropriate name for a station south of the Thames, when
Blackfriars proper is north.

Clark does seem to be correct - I suddenly remembered that I have a
LCDR route map from 1870, showing the city line complete to Ludgate
Hill (and under construction north thereof). This clearly marks the
south-bank station as Blackfriars Bridge.

See also the contemporary quote from Cruchley at:
http://www.victorianlondon.org/thame...ndrabridge.htm

He calls the first Blackfriars railway bridge Alexandra Bridge. But
several other websites say that Alexandra Bridge was the one built by
the SER in 1863-66 to serve Cannon Street Station.

And finally, while Jackson's "London Termini" calls the station
"Blackfriars" on pages 155, 191 and 193, on page 192 he refers to
"This Blackfriars Bridge station".

I would have expected the LCDR to call it Blackfriars originally, in the
way that railway companies named stations after whatever place they were
expecting the traffic to serve, however far away it actually was.
Perhaps they changed it to Blackfriars Bridge after Ludgate Hill opened.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Holborn Viaduct
 

In article , (Richard J.) wrote:

I would have expected the LCDR to call it Blackfriars originally, in the
way that railway companies named stations after whatever place they
were expecting the traffic to serve, however far away it actually was.
Perhaps they changed it to Blackfriars Bridge after Ludgate Hill
opened.

Sounds quite likely. If so, Clark (who is a mine of information) has not
picked it up - in his section on station name changes the only one he
has is that of the current Blackfriars from St Paul's.

--
Peter Beale

Holborn Viaduct
 

"Peter Beale" wrote in message
o.uk...
In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:
I would have expected the LCDR to call it Blackfriars originally, in the
way that railway companies named stations after whatever place they
were expecting the traffic to serve, however far away it actually was.
Perhaps they changed it to Blackfriars Bridge after Ludgate Hill
opened.

Sounds quite likely. If so, Clark (who is a mine of information) has not
picked it up - in his section on station name changes the only one he
has is that of the current Blackfriars from St Paul's.
Peter Beale

Thanks to all you guys who responded. I went there today and:-
1. Holborn Viaduct itself was something of a disappointment - it was
probably a much more interesting feature before all the huge office blocks
were built.
2. The length of the platforms at City Thameslink is astonishing as is the
tiny distance between that station and Blackfriars. The train I caught there
today stretched almost all the way between the two stations !!
3. Apart from the sidings to the west of the line between City Thameslink
and Farringdon I couldn't see any trace of other lines.
4. I've bought a map of the area as at 1914 and will be scanning the area in
question - if anybody would like a copy please let me know.
5. Off topic, I know, but what is that awful building with what looks like a
great big square, grey chimney between Holborn Viaduct and Farringdon.
Cheerz,
Baz

Holborn Viaduct
 

In article ,
(Paul Terry) wrote:

In message , Marratxi
writes

Its hard to believe that there were three stations in what seems quite
a short trip from Blackfriars to Farringdon,

There were actually only two stations, Ludgate Hill and Snow Hill
(renamed Holborn Viaduct Low Level in 1912 and closed in 1916) on the
route you mention. The main Holborn Viaduct station was a terminus on a
short branch off that route.

can anybody point me to a map showing that part of the rail system ?

http://www.londonrailways.net/snowhill.htm

Why does that link ask me for a user name and password now?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Holborn Viaduct
 

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Paul Terry) wrote:
In message , Marratxi
writes
Its hard to believe that there were three stations in what seems quite
a short trip from Blackfriars to Farringdon,
There were actually only two stations, Ludgate Hill and Snow Hill
(renamed Holborn Viaduct Low Level in 1912 and closed in 1916) on the
route you mention. The main Holborn Viaduct station was a terminus on a
short branch off that route.
can anybody point me to a map showing that part of the rail system ?
http://www.londonrailways.net/snowhill.htm
Why does that link ask me for a user name and password now?
Colin Rosenstiel

Try it again - its OK now,
cheerz,
Baz

Holborn Viaduct
 

Colin Rosenstiel wrote to uk.transport.london on Thu, 14 Oct 2004:

http://www.londonrailways.net/snowhill.htm

Why does that link ask me for a user name and password now?

I don't know. It doesn't me.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 26 September 2004