Richard J. wrote:
Clive Coleman. wrote:
In message , Tom
Anderson writes
Makes sense. What's the advantage of conventional construction
over this, then?
The railway as laid down by Brunel wasn't level but sagged between
pillars down into the earth to prevent movement. Frequent
sleepers stop this and hold the gauge correctly.

Interesting. Was this true of all Brunel's broad gauge lines? That
would have meant that high(ish) speeds on broad gauge wouldn't have
been compatible with the comfort (and possibly the safety) of
passengers. Do you know if Brunel realised that later?

Apparently he did. I've just realised that Brunel died (in 1859) four
years before the Met opened, so it's probably wrong to attach credit or
blame to him for the Met's tracks. I then discovered that there is
evidence that Brunel himself had modified the track design some years
previously:

"To rectify the shortcomings of the track, Brunel adopted the expedient
of cutting through the piles which supported the track-work, allowing
the track assembly to be supported by the ground, then re-packing with
ballast as necessary. When this work was done the track behaved as had
first been expected."
(from "The Broad Gauge Story" at
http://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/Rail...dG/BGHist.html )

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

"Richard J." wrote
When the line was built there were connections with the national
rail network, for through running from the Great Western suburban
stations. The four platforms in the suburban station were allocated
slightly differently. In the 1960s the national rail connections
were removed and the opportunity was taken to alter the platform
allocations, so that the Underground platforms were entirely
separate from the suburban platforms. This was effected by moving
the Underground (which used to use the middle two platforms) across
by one track, so that it used the two faces of the northernmost
island platform - the present arrangement. Cutting back the
suburban bays slightly also allowed a walkway from the end of the
northernmost mainline platform onto the suburban platforms to be
created, reducing movements on the footbridge.

That's not quite right. The Underground used the *outer* two platforms (13
& 16) but now use the northernmost island (15 & 16).

John Salmon wrote:

That's not quite right. The Underground used the *outer* two
platforms (13 & 16) but now use the northernmost island (15 & 16).

Whoops! That was mistake, not Richard's, John. The dangers of posting when
tired - I should have re-read the posting first (in all honesty I did spot
the mistake when someone posted a reply - but I thought that I'd got away
with it). ;-)

Evidence of the old arrangement is, of course, still quite clear at
Paddington. By standing on the suburban island you can clearly still see the
formation from the buffer stops at platform 13 across what is now the
walkway into the mainline station.

On Feb 10, 6:17 am, "Jack Taylor" wrote:
Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

The reason I'm asking is I'm having second thoughts now. It looks very
unspectacular, really just another platform in the main railway
station with LU logos. They could well have relocated the platform
used by Underground trains in all those years. Or is it still the
original place?

Yes and no. One face is still the original.

When the line was built there were connections with the national rail
network, for through running from the Great Western suburban stations. The
four platforms in the suburban station were allocated slightly differently.
In the 1960s the national rail connections were removed and the opportunity
was taken to alter the platform allocations, so that the Underground
platforms were entirely separate from the suburban platforms. This was
effected by moving the Underground (which used to use the middle two
platforms) across by one track, so that it used the two faces of the
northernmost island platform - the present arrangement. Cutting back the
suburban bays slightly also allowed a walkway from the end of the
northernmost mainline platform onto the suburban platforms to be created,
reducing movements on the footbridge.

- But destroying the convenience of crossplatform interchange with the
Underground.

Adrian

"Adrian" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 10, 6:17 am, "Jack Taylor" wrote:

When the line was built there were connections with the national rail
network, for through running from the Great Western suburban stations.
The
four platforms in the suburban station were allocated slightly
differently.
In the 1960s the national rail connections were removed and the
opportunity
was taken to alter the platform allocations, so that the Underground
platforms were entirely separate from the suburban platforms. This was
effected by moving the Underground (which used to use the middle two
platforms) across by one track, so that it used the two faces of the
northernmost island platform - the present arrangement. Cutting back the
suburban bays slightly also allowed a walkway from the end of the
northernmost mainline platform onto the suburban platforms to be
created,
reducing movements on the footbridge.

- But destroying the convenience of crossplatform interchange with the
Underground.

The cross platform interchange was very limited - only from trains which
arrived at platform 16 for onward travel by Underground towards the City,
and from the City to trains which departed from platform 13. When the layout
was altered, WR trains still used GWR AWS. To get to Paddington Suburban
involved running over track equipped with LT 3rd/4th rail electrification,
so the AWS shoe had to be hitched up out of the way. There was equipment to
do this between Westbourne Park and Royal Oak, but on average two or three
times a week it didn't work (or couldn't be proved to have worked). The
train had to be stopped; the driver had to phone the signaller; and a route
had to be set into Paddington Main (and trains were only scheduled into
Paddington Suburban when there wasn't a platform available in Paddington
Main). This all caused quite a lot of delay, and getting rid of these delays
outweighed the inconvenience caused to a few passengers by the loss of
cross-platform interchange.

Peter

On Feb 12, 10:10 am, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Adrian" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Feb 10, 6:17 am, "Jack Taylor" wrote:

When the line was built there were connections with the national rail
network, for through running from the Great Western suburban stations.
The
four platforms in the suburban station were allocated slightly
differently.
In the 1960s the national rail connections were removed and the
opportunity
was taken to alter the platform allocations, so that the Underground
platforms were entirely separate from the suburban platforms. This was
effected by moving the Underground (which used to use the middle two
platforms) across by one track, so that it used the two faces of the
northernmost island platform - the present arrangement. Cutting back the
suburban bays slightly also allowed a walkway from the end of the
northernmost mainline platform onto the suburban platforms to be
created,
reducing movements on the footbridge.

- But destroying the convenience of crossplatform interchange with the
Underground.

The cross platform interchange was very limited - only from trains which
arrived at platform 16 for onward travel by Underground towards the City,
and from the City to trains which departed from platform 13. When the layout
was altered, WR trains still used GWR AWS. To get to Paddington Suburban
involved running over track equipped with LT 3rd/4th rail electrification,
so the AWS shoe had to be hitched up out of the way. There was equipment to
do this between Westbourne Park and Royal Oak, but on average two or three
times a week it didn't work (or couldn't be proved to have worked). The
train had to be stopped; the driver had to phone the signaller; and a route
had to be set into Paddington Main (and trains were only scheduled into
Paddington Suburban when there wasn't a platform available in Paddington
Main). This all caused quite a lot of delay, and getting rid of these delays
outweighed the inconvenience caused to a few passengers by the loss of
cross-platform interchange.

Peter- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A more elegant solution MAY have been to simply swap the platform
utilization. e.g. LT would have used the middle lines, platforms 14
and 15, whilst BR used the outer ones, 13 and 16. Had 16 been
connected using a long single track from west of Royal Oak there would
have been no crossing of LT on the flat and no problems with AWS.

Adrian

On 12 Feb 2007 14:30:58 -0800, Adrian wrote:

The cross platform interchange was very limited - only from trains which
arrived at platform 16 for onward travel by Underground towards the City,
and from the City to trains which departed from platform 13. When the layout
was altered, WR trains still used GWR AWS. To get to Paddington Suburban
involved running over track equipped with LT 3rd/4th rail electrification,
so the AWS shoe had to be hitched up out of the way. There was equipment to
do this between Westbourne Park and Royal Oak, but on average two or three
times a week it didn't work (or couldn't be proved to have worked). The
train had to be stopped; the driver had to phone the signaller; and a route
had to be set into Paddington Main (and trains were only scheduled into
Paddington Suburban when there wasn't a platform available in Paddington
Main). This all caused quite a lot of delay, and getting rid of these delays
outweighed the inconvenience caused to a few passengers by the loss of
cross-platform interchange.

A more elegant solution MAY have been to simply swap the platform
utilization. e.g. LT would have used the middle lines, platforms 14
and 15, whilst BR used the outer ones, 13 and 16. Had 16 been
connected using a long single track from west of Royal Oak there would
have been no crossing of LT on the flat and no problems with AWS.

Or they could have just made gaps in the conductor rails for the AWS
shoes to pass through...

Wolfgang Schwanke:
The reason I'm asking is I'm having second thoughts now. It looks
very unspectacular, really just another platform in the main railway
station with LU logos. They could well have relocated the platform
used by Underground trains in all those years. Or is it still the
original place?

Yes, pretty much so.

Jack Taylor:
Yes and no. One face is still the original.

When the line was built there were connections with the national rail
network, for through running from the Great Western suburban stations. The
four platforms in the suburban station were allocated slightly differently...

Jack isn't going back far enough. In the *original* layout when the
Metropolitan Railway (earliest predecessor of the Hammersmith & City
Line) opened in 1863, its station was separate from the main Paddington
station. The Metropolitan station was then called Paddington (Bishop's
Road) or just Bishop's Road. It had two outside platforms, but three
tracks; I presume the middle track was for running the steam engines
around the trains.

West of the station, the Metropolitan tracks joined onto the GWR main line
to allow for through running as Jack describes, although these services
did not exist at first. In addition, the Metropolitan's original trains
were supplied by the GWR and these tracks were therefore needed to get
them onto the line.

In 1864 the Hammersmith & City Railway opened its line from Hammersmith.
Trains ran onto the GWR at a junction at what is now Westbourne Park,
then off the GWR and onto the Metropolitan. Later, separate tracks
were built for these to avoid conflicts with GWR trains. Trains from
GWT suburban stations ran onto the Metropolitan as well, including
broad-gauge trains until 1869.

The main Paddington station was expanded over the years and in 1933
Bishop's Road station was integrated into it and rebuilt with four
platform faces (two islands) serving four tracks. *This* is the
layout Jack is thinking of:

the Underground (which used to use the middle two platforms)

According to my source, "London's Termini" by Alan A. Jackson, this
is backwards: the two middle tracks were used by terminating GWR
(later BR) steam suburban trains, and the two outer ones (platforms 13
and 16 of the combined Paddington station) by the Metropolitan Line.
Metropolitan Line trains could still use the middle tracks if necessary,
until 1966 when the track connection east of the platforms was severed.
In 1967 the tracks were reconfigured again to put the Metropolitan
(later Hammersmith & City) Line onto the two northernmost tracks,
platforms 15 and 16, as already discussed.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pedantic and
that's just as good." -- D Gary Grady

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Clive Coleman:
I think it was discovered quite early on and most of the broad gauge
were converted to sleeper type track, on broad gauge.

No, it was just that they stopped having vertical piles. If the GWR
hadn't retained its longitudinal sleepers, they would have had a much
easier time when they finally abandoned the broad gauge in 1892.
As it was, they had to cut all the cross-transoms to allow one rail
*and* its longitudinal sleeper to be moved inward.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "This man must be very ignorant, for he answers
| every question he is asked." -- Voltaire

My text in this article is in the public domain.

In message
asdf wrote:

On 12 Feb 2007 14:30:58 -0800, Adrian wrote:

[snip]

A more elegant solution MAY have been to simply swap the platform
utilization. e.g. LT would have used the middle lines, platforms 14 and
15, whilst BR used the outer ones, 13 and 16. Had 16 been connected
using a long single track from west of Royal Oak there would have been no
crossing of LT on the flat and no problems with AWS.

Or they could have just made gaps in the conductor rails for the AWS shoes
to pass through...

IIRC the AWS shoes were on the centre line of the loco, where the negative
rail is on the underground.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html