"Richard J." wrote in message
news
*In* the Thames?? Do you mean near the Thames, e.g. on the riverbank?

Being something of a perfectionist I most certainly meant "In"! All three
railways had stages/piers built out some distance from the bank from where
shafts went down to the level of the tunnel. The C&SLR's was slightly east
of London Bridge, near Swan Lane Pier, at the south end of Swan Lane. The
W&CR's were slightly east of Blackfriars Bridge, and the B&SWRs was slightly
east of Hungerford Bridge.

There are certainly substantial tunnel-level remains of the Swan Lane shaft;
can't remember for the other two.

"David Splett" wrote in message
...

*In* the Thames?? Do you mean near the Thames, e.g. on the riverbank?

Being something of a perfectionist I most certainly meant "In"! All three
railways had stages/piers built out some distance from the bank from where
shafts went down to the level of the tunnel. The C&SLR's was slightly east
of London Bridge, near Swan Lane Pier, at the south end of Swan Lane. The
W&CR's were slightly east of Blackfriars Bridge, and the B&SWRs was
slightly
east of Hungerford Bridge.

Was there/has there ever been a plan to put a station at Blackfriars on the
W&C given how close it runs to Blackfriars? I guess the cost would be high,
but I'm just wondering....

Angus

W&C was originally part of the rail network, and for getting people to
the city from routes that came into waterloo. The routes that came into
blackfriars were a rival to the waterloo-w&c option, so I doubt the
people who ran either line would have been too keen on those, in a
similar way to the fact that the circle/metropolitan line doesn't go to
euston (a rival route to the backers of the original line from kings
cross).

It only became part of the tube recently, so I guess they haven't had
much time for that, but maybe they might be planning something like
this when they demolish Blackfriars and move the station to the bridge
instead?

In article .com,
lonelytraveller writes
in a
similar way to the fact that the circle/metropolitan line doesn't go to
euston (a rival route to the backers of the original line from kings
cross).

Excuse me? What gives you this idea?

It only became part of the tube recently, so I guess they haven't had
much time for that, but maybe they might be planning something like
this when they demolish Blackfriars and move the station to the bridge
instead?

I doubt it. The Circle Line station won't be moving, only the
Thameslink/Southern one.

--
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:

David Splett typed:
"Richard J." wrote in message
news
*In* the Thames?? Do you mean near the Thames, e.g. on the
riverbank?

Being something of a perfectionist I most certainly meant "In"!

I should have realised that! But to me it had seemed unlikely that they
would go to the trouble and risk of digging shafts in the river bed
rather than sink them on the adjacent dry land. Did they decide to do
the former (a) because they couldn't dig the tunnels unless they had
shafts less than x yds apart (where x is shorter than the width of the
river), or (b) because they couldn't gain access to suitable shaft sites
on land?

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

its cheaper to dig in the water, there isn't as far to dig

On 8 May 2005, lonelytraveller wrote:

its cheaper to dig in the water, there isn't as far to dig

Plus, spades etc go through it like nobody's business.

tom

--
Transform your language.

In message , Richard J.
writes

I should have realised that! But to me it had seemed unlikely that
they would go to the trouble and risk of digging shafts in the river
bed rather than sink them on the adjacent dry land. Did they decide to
do the former (a) because they couldn't dig the tunnels unless they had
shafts less than x yds apart (where x is shorter than the width of the
river), or (b) because they couldn't gain access to suitable shaft
sites on land?

(c) It is much easier and cheaper to shift bulk excavated material away
from the site by river than by loading it all onto small horse-drawn
carts and driving it away along the then even narrower streets of
London.

I suspect that sites in the river were also very much easier to find and
cheaper than anything on land.

--
Paul Terry

"Richard J." wrote in message
. uk...
I should have realised that! But to me it had seemed unlikely that they
would go to the trouble and risk of digging shafts in the river bed rather
than sink them on the adjacent dry land. Did they decide to do the former
(a) because they couldn't dig the tunnels unless they had shafts less than
x yds apart (where x is shorter than the width of the river), or (b)
because they couldn't gain access to suitable shaft sites on land?

I don't think (a) holds true as the distance from Borough to King William
Street wasn't particularly long, and certainly much longer sections of the
C&SLR were built without intermediate shafts (e.g. Oval to Stockwell). I
think (b) is the more plausible, combined with the possible ease of removal
of spoil by barge and the lack of disruption to streets (remember that the
earliest Tubes had to follow the streets). I seem to remember reading
somewhere that no working sites were permitted within the City of London,
but that might have been in respect of the W&CR.

Looking through some books...
For the sake of ready disposal of the excavated material, and to avoid
the delay generally attending the acquisition of property, it was determined
to commence the tunnels in the river itself from a temporary shaft sunk into
the bed, clear of the foreshore and wharves. Piles were driven into the
gravel overlying the clay; and a working stage having been formed 100 feet
long by 35 feet wide, the iron rings of a 13-foot diameter shaft were bolted
together and sunk, without pumping, through the fravel and into the clay by
means of a grab. To maintain a uniform level between the water in the shaft
and that of the river, which rose and fell with the tide about 19 feet, a
valve was provided in the shaft lining below low-water level. In this way
the material surrounding the shafr was not disturbed by the inflow and
outflow of water during the sinking, and the valve was not closed uintil the
shaft was well into the solid clay. The lower portion of ths shaft was
completed in brickwork in cement with four openings of "eyes" from which to
start the two tunnels northwards and southwards. [...] The temporary shaft
was sunk to a total depth of 82 feet below high water; and the lower 9 feet
of the shaft were and are used as a sump for the collection of the drainage
from the two tunnels, both northwards and southwards. The upper portion
above the bed of the river was removed after the length immediately over the
tunnels had been closed and made watertight with concrete, asphalt and
puddle.
(Greathead, James "Greathead on City and South London Railway" in Minutes
of the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers (don't have volume
number). Paper No. 2873, 19 November 1895.)

By choosing the river to sink a shaft, Greathead was able to avoid the
outcry that would have ensued had ha attempted to dig up a public highway.
In the City of London, such an act would have been impossible as the narrow
streets were so tiny that they would have been entirely blocked by any shaft
that was dug within them. North of the river, the only highway of any size
which the railway passed beneath was King William Street, and as this formed
part of the main approach to London Bridge the City Fathers would obviously
have obstructed any plans to block it. The river also offered one other
advantage in that spoil from the works could be removed by boat thus
avoiding an increase in traffic on the streets. Later, additional shafts
were constructed on the sites of stations but when work commenced the
purchase of these sites had not been finalised and they were not available
for use."
(Holman, Printz "The Amazing Electric Tube", London Transport Museum).

Hope that's of interest.

DS.

What I always wanted to know about King William Street was why they
built the station on such a stupid alignment, with a sharp right angle
just before it, rather than locate it just after the tunnel reaches
land on a nice straight alignment.