In article , Sam Holloway
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 00:08:08 +0100, Michael Bell
wrote:
An American called Yerkes (Rhymes with "Turkeys")

Is that true? I'd always assumed it was Yerkes, rhymes with Turks. But
then again I've never heard anyone speak it; only read the name.

Sam
It is authoritatively stated so in "Rails through the clay" By
Croom & Jackson (actually, I am not quite certain of the spelling of
Croom. Might be Croom, Croome, Croomb, Croombe etc)

--

Michael Bell

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:08:48 +0100, Paul Weaver
wrote:


On a similar note, what geological problems are there preventing massive
tube expansion?

It's usually impossible to get more than three deep tube lines running
through one place. Strictly speaking there are four deep tube lines
at Waterloo, but the Waterloo and City is in fact very shallow at that
point, and also terminates there which presumably is easier to
accommodate than a through line. That doesn't rule out tube expansion
completely but it does limit what could be achieved in Central London.

Tunnelling is a slow and labour-intensive process, so any investment
now in tube expansion would not yield benefits for quite a few years.

Why is no one investing in PRT (http://www.atsltd.co.uk/)?

Because it's incredibly speculative. Monorail, light rail, and other
such ideas have been around for decades. In practice very few have
been implemented successfully, and it's very hard to see how such a
system could ever be profitable.

I'm guessing the red tape involved in creating a private mass transit
system is prohibitive.

There would be prohibitive planning difficulties, but ultimately
that's because residents and businesses often don't like new elevated
structures being put along their roads.

Martin

In article , Martin Rich
wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:08:48 +0100, Paul Weaver
wrote:


Why is no one investing in PRT (http://www.atsltd.co.uk/)?

What problems does it solve to put a single-occupant vehicle
onto rails?

None whatsoever.

If the standard vehicle is going to be a 4-seater like a car
to allow for family outings, then it will take up the same space as a
car. If it is a single-seater, then if the crossection of the route is
reduced to make use of the small size, then 4-seaters will be too big.
Not likely to be acceptable.

Braking distances will be about the same as for rubber-tyred
vehicles, the examples in the Highway Code assumes a deceleration of
about 0.5g. In very good conditions a road vehicle can achieve 1.2g,
this is exceptional, but in rain etc 0.2g is all that can be achieved.
Rail vehicles can achieve 0.2 in normal conditions, with magnetic
track brakes they can achieve 0.5g. So safety distances will be about
the same. You can have automatic close-following, as on the French VAL
system, and there are plenty of systems for doing likewise with road
vehicles. This approach means you have to have short platoons of
close-following vehicles behaving as if they were a single vehicle,
with a normal safety-distance between platoons. You have to assemble
the platoons, run them through to near their destination, then
disperse them to their final destination.

It's all difficulty. And a lot of infrastructure. And what
will the return be? The sums have been done, many times, and the
prospects found not appealing.

It's not nice to stamp on enthusiasm and bright ideas, but
sometimes it has to be done.

--
Michael Bell

Unless I'm very much mistaken, it was Paul Terry
), in message
who said:
In message , Paul Weaver
writes

Looking at the history of the tube, the vast majority of it was built
between 1890 and the first world war.

Actually, comparatively little of today's tube network had been built
by then.


Hmm... if one includes all the bits that already existed under alternate
ownership, I'd guess that around two thirds of the current network was
already in place in 1914.


Obviously this was all entrepreneurs, capitalists that produced the
finest public transport system of its day.

On the contrary, limited capacity and over-crowding was a problem from
the outset, and private capital was insufficient to finance the
expansion needed. Even after the formation of LUR the company was
straddled with debt and couldn't pay a dividend on ordinary shares for
year after year after year - nationalisation came as a blessed relief.
It was not until the New Works programme of the 1930s that more
ambitious schemes could be financed.

Whats happened since the end of the second world war? Nothing.

Erm ...

Central line extended from Liverpool Street out to Epping/Ongar +
Hainault loop
Central line extended from North Acton to Ruislip
Victoria line constructed
Piccadilly line extended from Hounslow to Heathrow
Jubilee line - new construction from Baker Street to Stratford
plus, of course, the Docklands Light Railway network.


Of these, the only achievements of any great geographical scope were the
Vic, and the Jubilee extension.

BTN

In article , Michael Bell
writes
If you read Croom & Jackson's wonderful book "Rails through
the clay",

Your following text makes me wonder if *you* have read it.

An American called Yerkes (Rhymes with "Turkeys") started the
tube in the early 1890s as a string of separate railways,

No, he didn't.

The tube was started in the 1890s and 1900s as a string of separate
railways. Yerkes bought out five (CCE&HR, BS&WR, GN&SR, B&PCR, DLD[*])
but not the other four (CLR, C&SLR, GN&CR, W&CR).

They were going
to be cable-hauled in the manner of San Francisco cable cars, this
accounts for the small crosssection of the tube, but while the tunnels
were being dug, electric traction was developed, so the system was
finished as an electric railway.

This applies to exactly one of those nine (C&SLR).

It was still a city-centre system, in the 1920s and 30s, the
tube was extended into the suburbs, as unemployment relief.

No, it was extended for a range of reasons; government guarantees for
schemes that provided employment simply made the financing easier.

By the way, I was struck to read over the weekend that the
government now spends MORE money on railways than on roads.

Would this be because most of the latter is spent by local authorities?

--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address

Michael Bell wrote in message ...
In article , Sam Holloway
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 00:08:08 +0100, Michael Bell
wrote:
An American called Yerkes (Rhymes with "Turkeys")

Is that true? I'd always assumed it was Yerkes, rhymes with Turks. But
then again I've never heard anyone speak it; only read the name.

Sam
It is authoritatively stated so in "Rails through the clay" By
Croom & Jackson (actually, I am not quite certain of the spelling of
Croom. Might be Croom, Croome, Croomb, Croombe etc)

Actually, the other name should be pronounced Yaksown! :-)

In addition to the points already made concerning private enterprise,
it's worth bearing in mind that the tubes that were built in the
immediate wake of the City and South London Line sought to beat the
congestion in Central London caused by roads incapable of dealing with
the huge amount of horse-drawn traffic. In addition, they sought to
break into virgin suburbs in order to profit from suburban traffic.
However, the advent of the internal combustion engine lessened journey
times for all surface vehicles, making Central London sections much
less profitable, and the enormous capital sums required to build tube
lines were not compensated for by ticket receipts (railway companies
were banned from taking advantage of the appreciation in real estate
that resulted).

As a result, it became almost impossible to raise capital for tube
lines in the capital markets after about 1905. Edgar Speyer, a close
associate of Yerkes, informally broached the idea of selling the
Yerkes lines to the L.C.C. about this time, but nothing came of it.
All tube lines (and most other railway extensions, in London at least)
after 1915 and before nationalisation depended on the provision of
government assistance. This mostly consisted of loan guarantees.

In article ,
(Ben Nunn) wrote:

Unless I'm very much mistaken, it was Paul Terry
), in message
who said:
In message , Paul Weaver
writes

Looking at the history of the tube, the vast majority of it was built
between 1890 and the first world war.

Actually, comparatively little of today's tube network had been built
by then.

Hmm... if one includes all the bits that already existed under alternate
ownership, I'd guess that around two thirds of the current network was
already in place in 1914.

Not by route mileage. The 1914 tube network was a tiny fraction of today's
tubes. The surface (Circle/District/Hammersmith & City/Metropolitan/East
London) network was more of less complete by then, though.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Unless I'm very much mistaken, it was Colin Rosenstiel
), in message
who said:

In message , Paul
Weaver writes

Looking at the history of the tube, the vast majority of it was
built between 1890 and the first world war.

Actually, comparatively little of today's tube network had been
built by then.

Hmm... if one includes all the bits that already existed under
alternate ownership, I'd guess that around two thirds of the current
network was already in place in 1914.

Not by route mileage. The 1914 tube network was a tiny fraction of
today's tubes. The surface (Circle/District/Hammersmith &
City/Metropolitan/East London) network was more of less complete by
then, though.


Depends what you're counting as the 'network'. When talking about transport
policy and expansion plans, any technical distinction between different
types of line is largely irrelevant. Passengers getting a train service is
what matters, whether it's deep-level, cut and cover or overground.

But even it you're talking exclusively about tube tunnels - e.g. excluding
all cut and cover tunnels and overground running, it's still a lot more than
a 'tiny fraction'.

From memory, so might be slightly wrong, but it's roughly like this:

pre-1914:

Clapham Common-Archway
Golders Green-Charing X
Paddington-Elephant
Liverpool St-Wood Lane
Finsbury Park-Barons Court
Holborn-Aldwych
Waterloo-Bank
Finsbury Park-Moorgate


post-1914:

Finchley Road-Stratford
Brixton-Walthamstow Central
Clapham Common-Morden
Embankment-Kennington
Paddington-Queens Park
Finsbury Park-Arnos Grove
Liverpool St-Stratford
little bits of tunnel at Southgate, Hendon and Heathrow
a bit of Leytonstone-Newbury Park
little bit of DLR

BTN

Unless I'm very much mistaken, it was Clive D. W. Feather
), in message
who said:

But you should actually be comparing before- and after-1933, when the
system was nationalised.

New lines since 1933:

Central: all the bits east of Liverpool Street, and the West Ruislip
branch, were planned in the late 1930s and opened after WW2.


A large proportion of which ran over existing track which, funnily enough,
had been developed privately before nationalisation.


H&C: service between Aldgate East and Barking started in 1936.


Eh? That runs *entirely* over the existing network.

FFS, if that's going to be the line of logic, then TfL could introduce a
whole raft of new lines with new names, running over existing bits of the
network, and then claim expansion.


Jubilee: Baker Street to Finchley Road tunnels opened 1939 (the
private sector having failed to do anything about this bottleneck).
The line south/east of Baker Street is all 1979 or later.

Metropolitan: four-tracking north of Harrow-on-the-Hill and
electrification beyond Rickmansworth are 1960s.

Northern: the bits north of Archway were opened in the late 1930s or
early 1940s.


Over existing lines again.


Piccadilly: Heathrow extension is 1970s & 1980s.

Victoria Line: built in the 1960s.


The Vic and the Jubilee extension have been the only enhancements to the
system on a scale similar to the achievements of the 1863-1910 period.

BTN