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.

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.

There have probably been changes to the platform buildings too since
1863. The Circle Line platforms at Baker Street give a better flavour
of the original look of the 1863 line. For example, ...
http://world.nycsubway.org/perl/show?54084

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

In message , Richard J.
writes

The Circle Line platforms at Baker Street give a better flavour of the
original look of the 1863 line. For example, ...
http://world.nycsubway.org/perl/show?54084

And it is interesting to compare that photo with this 1863 engraving:

http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/r...g=2&imagepos=1

--
Paul Terry

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Paul Terry wrote:

In message , Richard J.
writes

The Circle Line platforms at Baker Street give a better flavour of the
original look of the 1863 line. For example, ...
http://world.nycsubway.org/perl/show?54084

And it is interesting to compare that photo with this 1863 engraving:

http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/r...g=2&imagepos=1

Brilliant!

Two observations, though:

(1) Next train displays are a good idea
(2) Gignormous skirts are a good idea

And a question: why do there not appear to be any sleepers in the old
engraving?

tom

--
everything is temporary

On 10 Feb, 19:57, Tom Anderson wrote:

And a question: why do there not appear to be any sleepers in the old
engraving?

Because it's mixed gauge track, standard 4' 8.5" standard and 7' 0.25"
Great Western Broad Gauge. The GWR originally laid their rails on
longitudinal baulks of timber, with timber transoms and metal tie-bars
at intervals to hold them to the correct gauge. This form of track
construction is sometimes still used; I saw it in Paddington Station a
few years ago, and it's also sometimes used on bridges, possibly to
reduce the weight.

There's a picture of the mixed gauge trackwork at Didcot at the bottom
of this page:

http://www.didcotrailwaycentre.org.u...ormation.shtml

You can clearly see the construction of the trackwork. I did some of
the work on this track, about twenty years ago now.

On Feb 10, 7:57 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Richard J.
writes

The Circle Line platforms at Baker Street give a better flavour of the
original look of the 1863 line. For example, ...
http://world.nycsubway.org/perl/show?54084

And it is interesting to compare that photo with this 1863 engraving:

http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/r...302139&wwwflag...

Brilliant!

Two observations, though:

(1) Next train displays are a good idea
(2) Gignormous skirts are a good idea

And a question: why do there not appear to be any sleepers in the old
engraving?

tom

--
everything is temporary


Did not the Metropolitian Railway origionally have broad gauge track
as well as standard guage?
Broad gauge used longitudinal sleepers.


Peter

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 wrote:

On 10 Feb, 19:57, Tom Anderson wrote:

And a question: why do there not appear to be any sleepers in the old
engraving?

Because it's mixed gauge track, standard 4' 8.5" standard and 7' 0.25"
Great Western Broad Gauge. The GWR originally laid their rails on
longitudinal baulks of timber, with timber transoms and metal tie-bars
at intervals to hold them to the correct gauge.

Well i never. Thanks!

This form of track construction is sometimes still used; I saw it in
Paddington Station a few years ago, and it's also sometimes used on
bridges, possibly to reduce the weight.

Makes sense. What's the advantage of conventional construction over this,
then?

There's a picture of the mixed gauge trackwork at Didcot at the bottom
of this page:

http://www.didcotrailwaycentre.org.u...ormation.shtml

You can clearly see the construction of the trackwork. I did some of
the work on this track, about twenty years ago now.

Good job. Looks devilishly complicated. Don't suppose anyone ever made a
section of interlaced mixed-gauge track, did they?

tom

--
hypnopomp rapist

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.
--
Clive.

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

In message , Richard J.
writes
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?
I think it was discovered quite early on and most of the broad gauge
were converted to sleeper type track, on broad gauge.
--
Clive.