|
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
The Times has an article today about a disused tunnel under the 'nursery
end' which is due for development, and has been owned by a third party since being sold by Railtrack 10 years ago. Apparently MCC only own the ground over it. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle3716497.ece 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... Paul |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle3716497.ece "The tunnel, which was part of the Marylebone to Aylesbury train line ..." Cough. |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
On 10 Apr, 19:37, Mark Annand
wrote: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle3716497.ece "The tunnel, which was part of the Marylebone to Aylesbury train line ..." Cough. What was it for? |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
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 -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
"m1ss_wh1te" wrote in message
... On 10 Apr, 19:37, Mark Annand wrote: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle3716497.ece "The tunnel, which was part of the Marylebone to Aylesbury train line ..." Cough. What was it for? Yes I'm not sure what Mark is objecting to, either. Maybe the use of "train line" instead of "railway line". Or maybe the fact that the GCR line originally went much further north than Aylesbury. Or maybe that there are also trains which use those tunnels which go to destinations such as Birmingham via the High Wycombe route. |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:10:01 +0100, Mr Thant wrote
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. IIRC the Lords tunnel was never used - or am I mistaken? |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
On 10 Apr, 20:10, 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 --http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London Did they ever see trains, or even tracks? I believe that at least one, and possibly two of the tunnel bores was never used, having been built for possible expansion at Marylebone, which never came. |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
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? tom -- Freedom, Beauty, Truth, and Love! |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
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. So, roughly where they cross the canal. |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
On Apr 10, 12:10*pm, 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 IIRC Two were double track tunnels and one was a triple track tunnel. One is obviously still in use, and the other two must have been for when there was a big freight operation at Marylebone. There were once extensive freight facilities at Marylebone. These included transshipment docks for the Regent's Canal. Most of the freight depot is now part of a public housing subdivision. 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. Marylebone was indented to have 10 platforms. Originally only four were build. U --http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London Great blog! |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
On Apr 10, 12:31*pm, Stimpy wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:10:01 +0100, Mr Thant wrote 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. IIRC the Lords tunnel was never used - or am I mistaken? IIRC a siding once entered one of the tunnels. |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
On Apr 10, 1:15*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? The GCML runs to the side of, but out of site, Finchley Road Station. At Swiss Cottage it is some distance from the Met. At that point The Met. and Bakerloo are under Finchley Road. The GC emerges to bridge the WCML. At the Regent's Canal they are again next to each other. The Met. turns slightly east on its approach to Baker Street Station on Marylebone Rd. El Gales Loco. |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
MIG wrote:
On Apr 10, 9:15 pm, Tom Anderson wrote: 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. So, roughly where they cross the canal. Looking at Google Earth there seems to be a disused bridge between the two routes that appears to be aligned with the Met lines and the NR tunnel mouth - was this ever used? The formation at either end of the present Chiltern tracks appears wide enough for at least 4 tracks - I'll have to have a look and see what's visible from the train in due course... Paul S |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
On Apr 10, 9:53*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote: MIG wrote: On Apr 10, 9:15 pm, Tom Anderson wrote: 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. So, roughly where they cross the canal. Looking at Google Earth there seems to be a disused bridge between the two routes that appears to be aligned with the Met lines and the NR tunnel mouth - was this ever used? *The formation at either end of the present Chiltern tracks appears wide enough for at least 4 tracks - I'll have to have a look and see what's visible from the train in due course... I've walked under those bridges loads of times, but not for a few years and I can't quite remember the width. I seem to vaguely remember an extra bit to the Metropolitan bridge. I think just north of the canal is where the Metropolitan Lords station was (partly in the tunnel and partly poking out), and the platforms would have been in the way of an extra track continuing. I wonder if it's the alignment of a track that once connected the Metropolitan with the Marylebone route? |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
On Apr 10, 1:53*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote: MIG wrote: On Apr 10, 9:15 pm, Tom Anderson wrote: 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. So, roughly where they cross the canal. Looking at Google Earth there seems to be a disused bridge between the two routes that appears to be aligned with the Met lines and the NR tunnel mouth - was this ever used? * No, which is surprisingly since historically the Met. was congested at this point. The formation at either end of the present Chiltern tracks appears wide enough for at least 4 tracks - I'll have to have a look and see what's visible from the train in due course... The GCR bought enough land to enable future quadrupling of the entire London Extension. |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
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. tom -- Freedom, Beauty, Truth, and Love! |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
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. At one point the Met. considered building a mainline size tube to link their "Main Line" to Edgware Road Station. |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
"Adrian" wrote At one point the Met. considered building a mainline size tube to link their "Main Line" to Edgware Road Station. and Watkin considered a spur from the GC to the Circle Line - he intended this to be used by his through expresses from Manchester to Paris via the W**dh**d and C*****l Tunnels. Peter |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
On Apr 10, 4:09*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Adrian" wrote At one point the Met. considered building a mainline size tube to link their "Main Line" to Edgware Road Station. and Watkin considered a spur from the GC to the Circle Line - he intended this to be used by his through expresses from Manchester to Paris via the W**dh**d and C*****l Tunnels. Peter Watkin certainly did. I guess that would have been as an alternative to utilizing Baker Street. In the event it is just as well he didn't. I mean without W**dh**d where could we keep the Str*t*g*c R*s*rv*? :-) Adrian |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
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? Colin McKenzie -- No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking. Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org. |
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
|
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 |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
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? tom -- Ed editor textorum probatissimus est -- Cicero, De officiis IV.7 |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
On Apr 11, 4:09*am, "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. That is true. Marylebone of course has two extra platforms already, but I don't think there is scope for any more. Not without reclaiming some of the area originally planned to have platforms but subsequently sold off for building. It would be a very expensive excersize. |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
On Apr 11, 5:40*am, 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! Edwarr Road would have function much like Baker Street, but in the opposite direction. No, it was not a brilliant idea. When LPTB took over they extended the Bakerloo (now Jubilee) instead. Adrian |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
On Apr 11, 8:08*am, "Paul Scott"
wrote: 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... Probably not. But, they were different times. Twice the closure of Marylebone was discussed. Second time round the effort started to look serious. |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
On Apr 11, 5:40*am, 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! Edgware Road would have functioned much like Baker Street, but in the opposite direction. No, it was not a brilliant idea. When LPTB took over it extended the Bakerloo (now Jubilee) instead. Adrian - |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
Paul Scott wrote:
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 I believe it is only part of the route which has multiple tunnels. I would imagine they built more in the Lords area so as not to have to disrupt Lords again. Although there are two tunnel entrances at the Canfield Place end, the second tunnel mouth is only a mouth, I don't think the tunnel was ever built. Certainly as the line crosses the WCML there is no evidence of a second tunnel either side. To put track into the extra Lords tunnels would require a very expensive additional tunnel / tunnels towards Finchley Road / Canfield Place. Past this area, houses would need to be knocked down for extra track, as it is, one can almost reach the houses if the window of the train was open! -- Matthew P Jones Amersham News & Views www.amersham.org.uk Metroland www.metroland.org.uk |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
|
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
On Apr 11, 11:59*am, Matthew Jones wrote:
Paul Scott wrote: 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 I believe it is only part of the route which has multiple tunnels. *I would imagine they built more in the Lords area so as not to have to disrupt Lords again. *Although there are two tunnel entrances at the Canfield Place end, the second tunnel mouth is only a mouth, I don't think the tunnel was ever built. *Certainly as the line crosses the WCML there is no evidence of a second tunnel either side. *To put track into the extra Lords tunnels would require a very expensive additional tunnel / tunnels towards Finchley Road / Canfield Place. *Past this area, houses would need to be knocked down for extra track, as it is, one can almost reach the houses if the window of the train was open! One has often wondered just how far those tunnels reach. I suspect you analysis is close to the truth. Something about the LNWR/WCML crossing gives the impression that two tracks were intended to be added on the western side of the ones actually build. I think it is the space between the tunnel mouths and the bridge. |
Lords Cricket Ground disused tunnel
On Apr 11, 11:59*am, Matthew Jones wrote:
Paul Scott wrote: 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 I believe it is only part of the route which has multiple tunnels. *I would imagine they built more in the Lords area so as not to have to disrupt Lords again. *Although there are two tunnel entrances at the Canfield Place end, the second tunnel mouth is only a mouth, I don't think the tunnel was ever built. *Certainly as the line crosses the WCML there is no evidence of a second tunnel either side. *To put track into the extra Lords tunnels would require a very expensive additional tunnel / tunnels towards Finchley Road / Canfield Place. *Past this area, houses would need to be knocked down for extra track, as it is, one can almost reach the houses if the window of the train was open! One has often wondered just how far those tunnels reach. I suspect your analysis is close to the truth. Something about the LNWR/WCML crossing gives the impression that two tracks were intended to be added on the western side of the ones actually build. I think it is the space between the tunnel mouths and the bridge. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:10 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk