Putting roof-level railways underground?
 

It is a fairly obvious feature of railways south of the river that
many run at roof level.

I once got into correspondence with somebody who said "It is the
long-term objective to put these routes underground".

I felt like asking "Are you on the same planet as me? The cost
would be astronomical, and for what benefit?", but I let it drop.

Is this REALLY a serious proposition?

Michael Bell

--

Putting roof-level railways underground?
 

Michael Bell wrote:
It is a fairly obvious feature of railways south of the river that
many run at roof level.

I once got into correspondence with somebody who said "It is the
long-term objective to put these routes underground".

I felt like asking "Are you on the same planet as me? The cost
would be astronomical, and for what benefit?", but I let it drop.

Is this REALLY a serious proposition?

I would say, with a high level of confidence, no! As you point out, the
cost would be absolutely astronomical. Some could be recouped by
developing the land above the newly-submerged railway, but the
disruption would be ridiculous.

I think TPTB have their sights set on other long-term objectives - such
as making the railways work properly - first.

Perhaps the person you were talking to was thinking of replication of
some overground routes with tunnelled ones, such as for Crossrail 2
which would replicate services between Clapham Junction and Victoria
using a tunnel.


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Putting roof-level railways underground?
 

In article , Michael Bell
writes
It is a fairly obvious feature of railways south of the river that
many run at roof level.

I once got into correspondence with somebody who said "It is the
long-term objective to put these routes underground".

This was certainly the plan around the time of WW2. People in authority
thought the railway bridges across the Thames were ugly, and so the plan
was to remove them and put the SR routes underground.

--
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:

Putting roof-level railways underground?
 

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Michael Bell wrote:

It is a fairly obvious feature of railways south
of the river that many run at roof level.

I once got into correspondence with somebody
who said "It is the long-term objective to put these
routes underground".

Is this REALLY a serious proposition?

I would say, with a high level of confidence, no!

Although it did happen in the 1980s at Ludgate Circus

--
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

Putting roof-level railways underground?
 

John Rowland wrote:
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

Michael Bell wrote:

It is a fairly obvious feature of railways south
of the river that many run at roof level.

I once got into correspondence with somebody
who said "It is the long-term objective to put these
routes underground".

Is this REALLY a serious proposition?

I would say, with a high level of confidence, no!


Although it did happen in the 1980s at Ludgate Circus

A rather unique case.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Putting roof-level railways underground?
 

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Michael Bell wrote:
It is a fairly obvious feature of railways south of the river that
many run at roof level.

I once got into correspondence with somebody who said "It is the
long-term objective to put these routes underground".

I felt like asking "Are you on the same planet as me? The cost
would be astronomical, and for what benefit?", but I let it drop.

Is this REALLY a serious proposition?

I would say, with a high level of confidence, no! As you point out, the
cost would be absolutely astronomical. Some could be recouped by
developing the land above the newly-submerged railway, but the
disruption would be ridiculous.

I think TPTB have their sights set on other long-term objectives - such
as making the railways work properly - first.

Perhaps the person you were talking to was thinking of replication of
some overground routes with tunnelled ones, such as for Crossrail 2
which would replicate services between Clapham Junction and Victoria
using a tunnel.


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

The following historical perspective may be of interest:

From http://www.bopcris.ac.uk/bop1940/ref134.html

"Railway (London Plan) Committee: report to the Ministry of War Transport
twenty-first January, 1946
Short title: Railway (London plan): report
Corporate author: Railway (London Plan) Committee; Ministry of War Transport
Chairman: Inglis, C.E.

Abstract: 'To investigate and report upon the technical and operational
aspects of those suggestions made in the County of London Plan of 1943 which
relate to the main line and suburban railway system of London, both surface
and underground, bearing in mind that these suggestions are intended to
contribute towards and form part of a comprehensive scheme for the
re-development of the area in question...'

The County of London Plan proposed amongst other works to remove the bridges
and viaducts between Westminster Bridge and London Bridge, and to dispense
with the need for them by two deep level loops, one of which would connect
Waterloo Junction , Charing Cross, Blackfriars, Cannon Street and London
Bridge. The cost of the civil engineering work only would at post-war prices
be about £180mn.

The Committee does not agree with many of the Plan's strictures on the
railway system, but many of the inner areas are poorly served with railway
facilities and the main line terminals are congested. It endorses
electrification or the use of diesel on all railways in London, the
underground system should be separated from the main line track as far as
inter-running is concerned, and it is possible to project urban traffic
across London in tunnels.

The proposed deep level stations for long distance main traffic are not
practicable; Charing Cross and Cannon Street should not be removed until
alternative facilities are provided. The volume of traffic both in journeys
and passenger miles will increase.

Its own proposals are (I) to facilitate the planning of the South Bank, five
lines in tunnel, two north and south lines in tunnel and a terminal station
reconstruction; (2) five new routes to meet immediate traffic requirements.
The removal of Blackfriars and Holborn Viaduct stations would take place in
the first stage, the removal of Charing Cross and the construction of a new
terminal at Waterloo Junction in the third, and the removal of Cannon Street
in the fourth. The cost, excluding electrification and work outside tunnels,
would be £139mn., or £232 mn. if post war prices exceed pre-war levels by 65
per cent. The work would take 30 years.

The final report deals with improvements in the northern main line
terminals. For goods traffic an early decision on the location of the main
markets is desirable, but the adoption of the proposals for the South Bank
and for the elimination of the three cross-river bridges as working
principles is necessary if the detailed investigations are to be started
without delay."

David Fairthorne.

Putting roof-level railways underground?
 

Michael Bell wrote:
It is a fairly obvious feature of railways south of the river that
many run at roof level.
I once got into correspondence with somebody who said "It is the
long-term objective to put these routes underground".

I felt like asking "Are you on the same planet as me? The cost
would be astronomical, and for what benefit?", but I let it drop.


Well yes and no, they run at a relatively flat uniform level it's the
land around it that determines whether the line is level with roofs. SO
most railways I can think of alternate between being on embankments and
in cuttings

Surely his idea s flawed by the fact that it would be difficult enough
to put a 'roof level' railway underground, let alone lowereing a railway
line in a cutting by the same amount

Putting roof-level railways underground?
 

John Rowland wrote:
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Michael Bell wrote:

It is a fairly obvious feature of railways south
of the river that many run at roof level.

I once got into correspondence with somebody
who said "It is the long-term objective to put these
routes underground".

Is this REALLY a serious proposition?

I would say, with a high level of confidence, no!

Although it did happen in the 1980s at Ludgate Circus

Except that the "underground" line was already there.

Putting roof-level railways underground?
 

In article , David Fairthorne
wrote:

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Michael Bell wrote:
It is a fairly obvious feature of railways south of the river that
many run at roof level.

I once got into correspondence with somebody who said "It is the
long-term objective to put these routes underground".

I felt like asking "Are you on the same planet as me? The cost
would be astronomical, and for what benefit?", but I let it drop.

Is this REALLY a serious proposition?

I would say, with a high level of confidence, no! As you point out, the
cost would be absolutely astronomical. Some could be recouped by
developing the land above the newly-submerged railway, but the
disruption would be ridiculous.

I think TPTB have their sights set on other long-term objectives - such
as making the railways work properly - first.

Perhaps the person you were talking to was thinking of replication of
some overground routes with tunnelled ones, such as for Crossrail 2
which would replicate services between Clapham Junction and Victoria
using a tunnel.


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

The following historical perspective may be of interest:

From http://www.bopcris.ac.uk/bop1940/ref134.html

"Railway (London Plan) Committee: report to the Ministry of War Transport
twenty-first January, 1946
Short title: Railway (London plan): report
Corporate author: Railway (London Plan) Committee; Ministry of War Transport
Chairman: Inglis, C.E.

Abstract: 'To investigate and report upon the technical and operational
aspects of those suggestions made in the County of London Plan of 1943
which relate to the main line and suburban railway system of London, both
surface and underground, bearing in mind that these suggestions are
intended to contribute towards and form part of a comprehensive scheme for
the re-development of the area in question...'

The County of London Plan proposed amongst other works to remove the
bridges and viaducts between Westminster Bridge and London Bridge, and to
dispense with the need for them by two deep level loops, one of which would
connect Waterloo Junction , Charing Cross, Blackfriars, Cannon Street and
London Bridge. The cost of the civil engineering work only would at
post-war prices be about £180mn.

The Committee does not agree with many of the Plan's strictures on the
railway system, but many of the inner areas are poorly served with railway
facilities and the main line terminals are congested. It endorses
electrification or the use of diesel on all railways in London, the
underground system should be separated from the main line track as far as
inter-running is concerned, and it is possible to project urban traffic
across London in tunnels.

The proposed deep level stations for long distance main traffic are not
practicable; Charing Cross and Cannon Street should not be removed until
alternative facilities are provided. The volume of traffic both in journeys
and passenger miles will increase.

Its own proposals are (I) to facilitate the planning of the South Bank,
five lines in tunnel, two north and south lines in tunnel and a terminal
station reconstruction; (2) five new routes to meet immediate traffic
requirements. The removal of Blackfriars and Holborn Viaduct stations would
take place in the first stage, the removal of Charing Cross and the
construction of a new terminal at Waterloo Junction in the third, and the
removal of Cannon street in the fourth. The cost, excluding electrification
and work outside tunnels, would be £139mn., or £232 mn. if post war prices
exceed pre-war levels by 65 per cent. The work would take 30 years.

The final report deals with improvements in the northern main line
terminals. For goods traffic an early decision on the location of the main
markets is desirable, but the adoption of the proposals for the South Bank
and for the elimination of the three cross-river bridges as working
principles is necessary if the detailed investigations are to be started
without delay."

David Fairthorne.

It's fascinating to read this, but I haven't the historical and local
knowlege to understand it all. What were these two "deep level loops"? I
notice that the one going Waterloo junction - London Bridge would do
underground what I would like to at roof level: knock out the fronts of
London Bridge station and Waterloo station making them through stations and
join them by multiple roof-level tracks. It will never happen!

Michael Bell

--

Putting roof-level railways underground?
 

It's fascinating to read this, but I haven't the historical and local
knowlege to understand it all. What were these two "deep level loops"? I
notice that the one going Waterloo junction - London Bridge would do
underground what I would like to at roof level: knock out the fronts of
London Bridge station and Waterloo station making them through stations
and
join them by multiple roof-level tracks. It will never happen!

Michael Bell

--


My memories are clouded, but the general idea was to replace the viaducts
and bridges on the south bank by tunnels.

Probably the most that can be expected nowadays is that under the Thameslink
2000 plan the Borough Market viaduct would be duplicated and London Bridge
station would have nine through tracks instead of seven (one with no
platform).

David

Putting roof-level railways underground?
 

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
...

This was certainly the plan around the time of WW2.
People in authority thought the railway bridges across
the Thames were ugly, and so the plan was to
remove them and put the SR routes underground.

Amazing. Surely it would have been cheaper to just replace the bridges with
prettier ones.

--
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

Putting roof-level railways underground?
 

In the message de ...
Stuart" wrote :

Michael Bell wrote:
It is a fairly obvious feature of railways south of the river that
many run at roof level.
I once got into correspondence with somebody who said "It is the
long-term objective to put these routes underground".

I felt like asking "Are you on the same planet as me? The cost
would be astronomical, and for what benefit?", but I let it drop.


Well yes and no, they run at a relatively flat uniform level it's the
land around it that determines whether the line is level with roofs. SO
most railways I can think of alternate between being on embankments and
in cuttings

SNIP

Surprisingly, perhaps, railways in notoriously flat countries like the
Netherlands and northern Belgium have numerous 'roof-level' and underground
sections. In many cases these replace tracks that were previously at ground
level, so as to eliminate the nuisance of frequent level crossings. To avoid
long interruption to train services, the new tracks may have to be on a
different alignment.

An interesting example in this context is Antwerp, where the original
ground-level approach to Central station was replaced by a viaduct circa
1873 (when Central station became a terminus and its northern approach from
Antwerp Dam was diverted to run on viaduct alongside the city's eastern
wall).

Now new twin tunnels have been excavated or bored beneath the southern
approach viaduct and onwards to Antwerp Dam, in the context of the work on
the Antwerp - Amsterdam high-speed line; they will be used by all the
passenger trains that now run on the viaduct, thereby saving about 2.5 km.
For details, see my Web page at the URL:
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin02722/antwerp.htm
--
Regards,

- Alan (in Brussels)

Putting roof-level railways underground?
 

In message , at 20:20:01 on Tue, 14
Dec 2004, Brimstone remarked:
Although it did happen in the 1980s at Ludgate Circus

Except that the "underground" line was already there.

No it wasn't. The lines went over Ludgate Hill on a bridge, and only
(some of them) went underground north of that. All the route between the
north end of Blackfriars station and the north end of City Thameslink
station is newly constructed.

http://www.pendar.pwp.blueyonder.co....rnViaduct.html
--
Roland Perry

Putting roof-level railways underground?
 

I thought the reason underground tube lines were less common south of the river
was the number of underground streams?
(Please don't tell me this was an urban myth!)
It might be less of a problem with more modern tunneling techniques and deeper
lines, but the cost would surely not be justified by any useful purpose?
Don't know about you but I prefer riding at roof level - you can look out of
the window, and get some ventilation.
Regarding consideration at the time of World War II, there might have been an
obvious reason then for wanting to put everything underground.

Putting roof-level railways underground?
 

In article , CharlesPottins
wrote:
I thought the reason underground tube lines were less common south of the
river was the number of underground streams? (Please don't tell me this was
an urban myth!)

I always thought it was because the Southern Railway was so efficient at
surface transport.

Michael Bell
--

Putting roof-level railways underground?
 

In article , Michael Bell
writes
In article , CharlesPottins
wrote:
I thought the reason underground tube lines were less common south of the
river was the number of underground streams? (Please don't tell me this was
an urban myth!)

I always thought it was because the Southern Railway was so efficient at
surface transport.

Michael Bell
Reading Christian Wolmar's book, he suggest the reasons were that land
was cheaper south of the river and there were no interested parties to
insist on deviations, etc. Additionally, the ground was less suited to
the cut and cover method of the early underground lines.

--
John Alexander,

Putting roof-level railways underground?
 

"CharlesPottins" wrote in message
...
I thought the reason underground tube lines were less common south of the
river
was the number of underground streams?
(Please don't tell me this was an urban myth!)
It might be less of a problem with more modern tunneling techniques and
deeper
lines, but the cost would surely not be justified by any useful purpose?
Don't know about you but I prefer riding at roof level - you can look out
of
the window, and get some ventilation.
Regarding consideration at the time of World War II, there might have been
an
obvious reason then for wanting to put everything underground.

According to a couple of TV programs I saw recently the problem is the soil
through which the tunnels would have to be excavated. Apparently it had no
structural integrity and would crumble too easily compared with London Clay
which stays in place long enough for the tunnel segments to be fixed in
place.
Cheerz,
Baz
Happy New Year !!

Putting roof-level railways underground?
 

In article ,
CharlesPottins writes
I thought the reason underground tube lines were less common south of the river
was the number of underground streams?

No. Three main reasons:

(1) The Blue Clay is not such a convenient layer south of the river,
though it does exist (see the Northern Line as an example).

(2) The various surface railways south of the river were much more
interested in competing for local traffic compared with those to the
north.

(3) Parliament created a "no-go zone" for surface railways; this covered
roughly the area inside the present Circle Line. While there were
exceptions - termini for routes extended over the river, and of course
Thameslink - to a large extent it left a region for the tubes to develop
with no effective competition.

--
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: