|
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
|
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
In article 8cSdnZ5L0Zmsq2LanZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d@plusnet, Colin McKenzie
writes Hmm. From a state of ignorance: - how hard would it be to quadruple to Neasden? Very. For example, it would be useful to have platforms on either the Met. or the Chiltern lines at West Hampstead to allow a connection to Thameslink and the NLL, but there isn't even the room to do that. Adding two more tracks on that section is a non-starter. -- 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: |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article 8cSdnZ5L0Zmsq2LanZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d@plusnet, Colin McKenzie writes Hmm. From a state of ignorance: - how hard would it be to quadruple to Neasden? Very. For example, it would be useful to have platforms on either the Met. or the Chiltern lines at West Hampstead to allow a connection to Thameslink and the NLL, but there isn't even the room to do that. There may not be space to add bank platforms [1] outside the Met tracks, but isn't there space to rebuild the station as a pair of islands between the Met and Jubilee pairs? Doing this would of course be hopelessly expensive and inconvenient. You are of course right that there isn't room for platforms on the Chiltern tracks, at least not without demolishing the houses on the north side of Broadhurst Gardens or doing something equally ludicrous like rerouting the line through tubes under the station. tom [1] Not sure what the proper name for these is - platforms outside the tracks, as opposed to island platforms which are between them. -- Tubes are the foul subterranean entrails of the London beast, stuffed with the day's foetid offerings. -- Tokugawa |
Chiltern expansion, was Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
On Apr 15, 2:36*am, "Clive D. W. Feather" cl...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote: In article 8cSdnZ5L0Zmsq2LanZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d@plusnet, Colin McKenzie writes Hmm. From a state of ignorance: - how hard would it be to quadruple to Neasden? Very. For example, it would be useful to have platforms on either the Met. or the Chiltern lines at West Hampstead to allow a connection to Thameslink and the NLL, but there isn't even the room to do that. Adding two more tracks on that section is a non-starter. West Hampstead needs to be reconstructed as convenient rail interchange. Most services passing thru the complex should stop, inter city services excepted. |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
On Apr 15, 6:23*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Clive D. W. Feather wrote: In article 8cSdnZ5L0Zmsq2LanZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d@plusnet, Colin McKenzie writes Hmm. From a state of ignorance: - how hard would it be to quadruple to Neasden? Very. For example, it would be useful to have platforms on either the Met. or the Chiltern lines at West Hampstead to allow a connection to Thameslink and the NLL, but there isn't even the room to do that. There may not be space to add bank platforms [1] outside the Met tracks, but isn't there space to rebuild the station as a pair of islands between the Met and Jubilee pairs? Doing this would of course be hopelessly expensive and inconvenient. You are of course right that there isn't room for platforms on the Chiltern tracks, at least not without demolishing the houses on the north side of Broadhurst Gardens or doing something equally ludicrous like rerouting the line through tubes under the station. If this was a motorway expansion, you can be sure that a few houses and businesses would be allowed to stand in the way. Side platforms are not appropriate for this location. The Met. and Jubilee should have two island platforms. The GC pair could also use an island platform. All platforms should be linked by underground tunnel and escalators to the North London line and Thameslink. Adrian |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
On Apr 14, 5:14*pm, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article , (Adrian) wrote: On Apr 13, 6:27*am, Tom Anderson wrote: On Sun, 13 Apr 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article , (Tom Anderson) wrote: On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article , (Tom Anderson) wrote: On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article , (Tom Anderson) wrote: On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Adrian wrote: 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. Was this before the link to Baker Street, or the link from the platforms there to the Circle, went in, or am i missing something? Before the Bakerloo extension to Stanmore. I don't get it then. This link would have allowed trains to do Finchley Road - Edgware Road - Aldgate? While they could already do Finchley Road - Baker Street - Aldgate? Would the second link somehow have increased capacity and allowed both Metroland and Stanmore trains to run to Aldgate? Or was the idea to run Metroland trains to the City via Edgware Road, and use all the Baker Street platforms to terminate Stanmore trains? The Bakerloo relieved the same stretch of line, the tunnels between Baker St and Finchley Road. Aha. Now i'm starting to get my head round this. The situation at the time was four Met tracks north of Finchley Road, one fast pair heading to Metroland, and a slow pair heading to Stanmore, with a single pair south of there into Baker Street, is that right? The tube that Adrian mentioned would have run all the way from Finchley Road [1] to Edgware Road, allowing the Metroland trains to run to Edgware Road and then Aldgate (or wherever), leaving the Stanmore trains with exclusive the existing line to Baker Street. The new tube would presumably have been non-stop, whereas the Baker Street line then had the three now-closed stations at Swiss Cottage, Marlborough Road and Lords on it, so it made sense to use that route for the slows. Broadly speaking: Yes. *I read an account of this many years ago. *I do not remember the title of the book. *I thought the intention was to run Stanmore trains to High St Kensington and on thru Gloucester Rd. Colin Rosenstiel thinks otherwise, and I cannot argue with him. My source is "Steam to Silver" by J Graeme Bruce, first edition, 1970, pages 68 and 69. The relevant text reads: "The Metropolitan realised that some relief to the bottleneck between Finchley Road and Baker Street was required, especially as these two tracks carried the country service of the railway as well as catering for a local service calling at Swiss Cottage, Marlborough Road, and St. John's Wood. Plans were prepared for a connection from a point near Kilburn & Brondesbury to Edgware Road, in a 15 ft. 6 in. tube, so that a junction to the Circle Line would be made in the same direction as that arranged at Baker Street. In anticipation of this connection Edgware Road station was rebuilt in 1926 with four platforms as existing today, utilizing the space which had been vacated by moving the old Metropolitan Railway engine sheds to Neasden. The- train destination indicators placed on the' new platforms for many years contained descriptions such as 'Aylesbury Line' which were never required, because' the connection to Edgware Road was never built. The congestion in the bottleneck, however, grew so that the number of stopping trains between Finchley Road and Baker Street was severely limited and subsequently stops were not, in fact, made during the peak periods. Relief came under the 1935/40 New Works Programme by extending the Bakerloo tube to Finchley Road and re-arranging the tracks so that the Metropolitan fast lines were on the outside with the Bakerloo in the middle. The Bakerloo then took over the operation of the Stanmore branch, including the burrowing junction built north of Wembley Park which eliminated the problems created at this station by the previous expansion." Thank you for your clear, concise and helpful explanation. Adrian |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
In article , Tom
Anderson writes Very. For example, it would be useful to have platforms on either the Met. or the Chiltern lines at West Hampstead to allow a connection to Thameslink and the NLL, but there isn't even the room to do that. There may not be space to add bank platforms [1] outside the Met tracks, but isn't there space to rebuild the station as a pair of islands between the Met and Jubilee pairs? No. Probably the best you could manage is something like this: --------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- --\ ######## /------------------- \--------/ /--------\ ---------------/ ######## \------ --------------------------------- Doing this would of course be hopelessly expensive and inconvenient. As would that. -- 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: |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article , Tom Anderson writes Very. For example, it would be useful to have platforms on either the Met. or the Chiltern lines at West Hampstead to allow a connection to Thameslink and the NLL, but there isn't even the room to do that. There may not be space to add bank platforms [1] outside the Met tracks, but isn't there space to rebuild the station as a pair of islands between the Met and Jubilee pairs? No. Presumably, because platforms half the width of the existing platform, which is what there'd be space for, wouldn't be allowed? Probably the best you could manage is something like this: --------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- --\ ######## /------------------- \--------/ /--------\ ---------------/ ######## \------ --------------------------------- Ooh, i like that. You could add another island further to the left for the Chiltern lines! Any reason you've drawn it upside-down? tom -- There is no latest trend. |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:51:00 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote: On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Clive D. W. Feather wrote: In article , Tom Anderson writes Very. For example, it would be useful to have platforms on either the Met. or the Chiltern lines at West Hampstead to allow a connection to Thameslink and the NLL, but there isn't even the room to do that. There may not be space to add bank platforms [1] outside the Met tracks, but isn't there space to rebuild the station as a pair of islands between the Met and Jubilee pairs? No. Presumably, because platforms half the width of the existing platform, which is what there'd be space for, wouldn't be allowed? Probably the best you could manage is something like this: --------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- --\ ######## /------------------- \--------/ /--------\ ---------------/ ######## \------ --------------------------------- Ooh, i like that. You could add another island further to the left for the Chiltern lines! Any reason you've drawn it upside-down? There is possibly more room available at West Hampstead than is apparent at first sight. The GC lines used to have platforms, the odd-looking doorway at the back of one of the shops is the access from what was the station building so that side might not need a lot alteration of premises in Broadhurst Gardens to put in a new platform (but not necessarily so for the gap between the Up GC and the Down Met). On the other side, if nothing new has been built in the last few years then there is room for expansion to the north without knocking down too much. As for the station building it is IIRC one of a number built to a similar design so not desperately in need of preservation but past modernisation elsewhere seems to have been achieved without too much alteration to the outward appearance anyway. If the road bridge is still as inadequate WRT to weight-carrying as it was a few years ago then this would also be an opportunity/excuse to replace it and increase the available width of the railway formation below. |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
On Apr 15, 2:42*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:51:00 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote: On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Clive D. W. Feather wrote: In article , Tom Anderson writes Very. For example, it would be useful to have platforms on either the Met. or the Chiltern lines at West Hampstead to allow a connection to Thameslink and the NLL, but there isn't even the room to do that. There may not be space to add bank platforms [1] outside the Met tracks, but isn't there space to rebuild the station as a pair of islands between the Met and Jubilee pairs? No. Presumably, because platforms half the width of the existing platform, which is what there'd be space for, wouldn't be allowed? Probably the best you could manage is something like this: * *--------------------------------- * *--------------------------------- * *--------------------------------- * *--\ ######## /------------------- * * * *\--------/ * /--------\ * *---------------/ ######## \------ * *--------------------------------- Ooh, i like that. You could add another island further to the left for the Chiltern lines! There is possibly more room available at West Hampstead than is apparent at first sight. That is good to know! The GC lines used to have platforms, the odd-looking doorway at the back of one of the shops is the access from what was the station building so that side might not need a lot alteration of premises in Broadhurst Gardens to put in a new platform (but not necessarily so for the gap between the Up GC and the Down Met). Do you know the opening and closure dates for the GC platforms at West Hampstead? I ask, because IIRC part of the GC's agreement with the Met. was to have no stations south of Harrow. On the other side, if nothing new has been built in the last few years then there is room for expansion to the north without knocking down too much. As for the station building it is IIRC one of a number built to a similar design so not desperately in need of preservation but past modernisation elsewhere seems to have been achieved without too much alteration to the outward appearance anyway. If the road bridge is still as inadequate WRT to weight-carrying as it was a few years ago then this would also be an opportunity/excuse to replace it and increase the available width of the railway formation below. Question: If Met. trains were to commence stopping at new West Hampstead platforms, should they cease to call at Finchley Road? S. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:03 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk