Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
 

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:10:01 -0700 (PDT), Mr Thant
wrote:

On 10 Apr, 19:25, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Were Railtrack really able to make a permanent decision back then that there
would be no further rail use? *I guess 10 years ago another two platforms at
Marylebone weren't on the agenda either...

They're on a 999 year lease:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mai.../sclord110.xml

It would appear there are three double track tunnels:
http://prints.leics.gov.uk/low.php?xp=media&xm=670835

One is obviously still in use, and the other two must have been for
when there was a big freight operation at Marylebone.

I can't see any use for them now - you'd need more platforms at
Marylebone and a way of four tracking at least to Neasden.

U

Another picture of the three tunnels at Lords being built is at
http://www.railwayarchive.org.uk/map...=1&mp=3&all=no
and at St Johns Wood
http://www.railwayarchive.org.uk/map...=1&mp=3&all=no
and another at the Canfield Place end is at
http://www.railwayarchive.org.uk/map...=1&mp=3&all=no
Both these tunnel entrances still exist but the right hand one is
bricked up.
Anyone with a passing interest in the GCR ought to know about this
website - well worth exploring.

Guy Gorton

Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
 

"Colin McKenzie" wrote

Hmm. From a state of ignorance:
- how hard would it be to quadruple to Neasden?
I know there's spare space between the platforms at Wembley Stadium,
and IMO the potential traffic would justify quadrupling at least to
West Ruislip, if not to High Wycombe.
- are the two extra Marylebone platforms mentioned by Paul feasible?

I suspect that the easiest way to increase capacity on the Chiltern Met Line
would be to extend platforms to allow 8 coach trains. If capacity for more
trains into Central London from the Joint Line is needed then Old Oak to
Northolt Junction should be redoubled and the linespeed brought back to
90/100 mph. There should be platform capacity at Paddington when Crossrail
opens, and there are tentative plans for additional platforms if needed.

Marylebone of course has two extra platforms already, but I don't think
there is scope for any more.

Peter

Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
 

On 11 Apr, 12:09, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Colin McKenzie" wrote

Hmm. From a state of ignorance:
- how hard would it be to quadruple to Neasden?
I know there's spare space between the platforms at Wembley Stadium,
and IMO the potential traffic would justify quadrupling at least to
West Ruislip, if not to High Wycombe.
- are the two extra Marylebone platforms mentioned by Paul feasible?

I suspect that the easiest way to increase capacity on the Chiltern Met Line
would be to extend platforms to allow 8 coach trains. If capacity for more
trains into Central London from the Joint Line is needed then Old Oak to
Northolt Junction should be redoubled and the linespeed brought back to
90/100 mph. There should be platform capacity at Paddington when Crossrail
opens, and there are tentative plans for additional platforms if needed.

Marylebone of course has two extra platforms already, but I don't think
there is scope for any more.

Given what's happening with the ELL (which should have simply been
reextended into Liverpool Street to use capacity freed by Crossrail),
they'd probably divert trains away from Marylebone to terminate at
West Brompton or something.

Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
 

On 11 Apr, 11:03, Colin McKenzie wrote:
- how hard would it be to quadruple to Neasden?
I know there's spare space between the platforms at Wembley Stadium,
and IMO the potential traffic would justify quadrupling at least to
West Ruislip, if not to High Wycombe.

A quick scroll through Google Earth will tell you quite easy for the
first few miles, then you start having to build new viaducts and
demolish long rows of houses. Tunnelling would probably be easier.

- are the two extra Marylebone platforms mentioned by Paul feasible?

Not just feasible, already built. But you'd need many more platforms
to make use of four tracks. Again a tunnel into central London would
be a better option.

(you might like to check out Crossrail plans ca. 2001)

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
 

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Adrian wrote:

On Apr 10, 3:59*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, MIG wrote:
On Apr 10, 9:15*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Mr Thant wrote:
On 10 Apr, 19:25, "Paul Scott" wrote:

Were Railtrack really able to make a permanent decision back then that there
would be no further rail use?

I can't see any use for them now - you'd need more platforms at
Marylebone and a way of four tracking at least to Neasden.

Yes.

Completely random question, but where do the Chiltern and Metropolitan
alignments separate?

As far as I can see, they emerge from tunnel under Lodge Road, then
cross the canal on separate, slightly diverging bridges, and then go
either side of buildings south of the canal.

Okay. So there's a separate tunnel for the Met, next to the three-bore GC
tunnel? That's a lot of tunnels.

Indeed so, and don't forget the Bakerloo down below.

Indeed!

At one point the Met. considered building a mainline size tube to link
their "Main Line" to Edgware Road Station.

To join up with the Circle heading west, you mean? Or as a terminus?
Neither of those sound like brilliant ideas to me, i have to say!

tom

--
Ed editor textorum probatissimus est -- Cicero, De officiis IV.7

Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
 

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Adrian wrote:

On Apr 10, 3:59*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, MIG wrote:
On Apr 10, 9:15*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Mr Thant wrote:
On 10 Apr, 19:25, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Were Railtrack really able to make a permanent decision back
then that there would be no further rail use?

I can't see any use for them now - you'd need more platforms at
Marylebone and a way of four tracking at least to Neasden.

Yes.

Completely random question, but where do the Chiltern and
Metropolitan alignments separate?

As far as I can see, they emerge from tunnel under Lodge Road, then
cross the canal on separate, slightly diverging bridges, and then
go
either side of buildings south of the canal.

Okay. So there's a separate tunnel for the Met, next to the
three-bore GC tunnel? That's a lot of tunnels.

Indeed so, and don't forget the Bakerloo down below.

Indeed!

At one point the Met. considered building a mainline size tube to
link their "Main Line" to Edgware Road Station.

To join up with the Circle heading west, you mean? Or as a
terminus? Neither of those sound like brilliant ideas to me, i have
to say!

To join up with the Circle line heading East, actually. The layout at
Edgware Road was rebuilt with that link in mind and is still that way
today.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
 

Colin McKenzie wrote:
Mr Thant wrote:
On 10 Apr, 19:25, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
Were Railtrack really able to make a permanent decision back then
that there would be no further rail use? I guess 10 years ago
another two platforms at Marylebone weren't on the agenda either...

It would appear there are three double track tunnels:
http://prints.leics.gov.uk/low.php?xp=media&xm=670835


Hmm. From a state of ignorance:
- how hard would it be to quadruple to Neasden?
I know there's spare space between the platforms at Wembley Stadium,
and IMO the potential traffic would justify quadrupling at least to
West Ruislip, if not to High Wycombe.
- are the two extra Marylebone platforms mentioned by Paul feasible?

They are already there - what I was noting was that the decision to sell the
spare tunnel must have been taken well before the decision to provide more
capacity at Marylebone, ie the 2 recently opened. Just wondering aloud if
the sale would still have gone ahead if the 'Evergreen 2' improvements had
been agreed...

Paul

Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
 

"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...
Colin McKenzie wrote:
Mr Thant wrote:
On 10 Apr, 19:25, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
Were Railtrack really able to make a permanent decision back then
that there would be no further rail use? I guess 10 years ago
another two platforms at Marylebone weren't on the agenda either...

It would appear there are three double track tunnels:
http://prints.leics.gov.uk/low.php?xp=media&xm=670835


Hmm. From a state of ignorance:
- how hard would it be to quadruple to Neasden?
I know there's spare space between the platforms at Wembley Stadium,
and IMO the potential traffic would justify quadrupling at least to
West Ruislip, if not to High Wycombe.
- are the two extra Marylebone platforms mentioned by Paul feasible?

They are already there - what I was noting was that the decision to sell
the
spare tunnel must have been taken well before the decision to provide more
capacity at Marylebone, ie the 2 recently opened. Just wondering aloud if
the sale would still have gone ahead if the 'Evergreen 2' improvements had
been agreed...

I suspect that it went to the BR Property Board, rather than to Railtrack,
at privatisation. I don't think there were any controls to stop BR Property
Board selling off assets, as they had been determined in BR days to be
irrelevant to the operational railway.

Peter

Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
 

On Apr 11, 3:03*am, Colin McKenzie wrote:
Mr Thant wrote:
On 10 Apr, 19:25, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Were Railtrack really able to make a permanent decision back then that there
would be no further rail use? *I guess 10 years ago another two platforms at
Marylebone weren't on the agenda either...
It would appear there are three double track tunnels:
http://prints.leics.gov.uk/low.php?xp=media&xm=670835

One is obviously still in use, and the other two must have been for
when there was a big freight operation at Marylebone.

I can't see any use for them now - you'd need more platforms at
Marylebone and a way of four tracking at least to Neasden.

Hmm. From a state of ignorance:
- how hard would it be to quadruple to Neasden?
I know there's spare space between the platforms at Wembley Stadium,
and IMO the potential traffic would justify quadrupling at least to
West Ruislip, if not to High Wycombe.
- are the two extra Marylebone platforms mentioned by Paul feasible?

That would probably much easier than increasing capacity on any other
line into the Metropolis. I am not sure how much land has been sold
off over the years. Between Ruislip and Wycombe some of the stations
have been rebuilt in a less than helpful manner. There is nothing
that cannot be reversed.

One has to question whether Marylebone would be the best terminus for
an expanded service on the GW Birmingham route.

Paddington may have some capacity post crossrail. Euston could be
reached by a new link close to Old Oak and it certainly has scope.


Adrian

Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
 

On Apr 11, 3:20*am, Guy Gorton
wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:10:01 -0700 (PDT), Mr Thant





wrote:
On 10 Apr, 19:25, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Were Railtrack really able to make a permanent decision back then that there
would be no further rail use? *I guess 10 years ago another two platforms at
Marylebone weren't on the agenda either...

They're on a 999 year lease:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mai...2008/04/10/scl....

It would appear there are three double track tunnels:
http://prints.leics.gov.uk/low.php?xp=media&xm=670835

One is obviously still in use, and the other two must have been for
when there was a big freight operation at Marylebone.

I can't see any use for them now - you'd need more platforms at
Marylebone and a way of four tracking at least to Neasden.

U

Another picture of the three tunnels at Lords being built is athttp://www.railwayarchive.org.uk/map/getobjectmap.php?rnum=L1341&mapi...
and at St Johns Woodhttp://www.railwayarchive.org.uk/map/getobjectmap.php?rnum=L1637&mapi...
and another at the Canfield Place end is athttp://www.railwayarchive.org.uk/map/getobjectmap.php?rnum=L1509&mapi...
Both these tunnel entrances still exist but the right hand one is
bricked up.
Anyone with a passing interest in the GCR ought to know about this
website - well worth exploring.

Guy Gorton

I agree, that is a great site.

Adrian