"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Michael Bell wrote:
It is a fairly obvious feature of railways south of the river that
many run at roof level.

I once got into correspondence with somebody who said "It is the
long-term objective to put these routes underground".

I felt like asking "Are you on the same planet as me? The cost
would be astronomical, and for what benefit?", but I let it drop.

Is this REALLY a serious proposition?

I would say, with a high level of confidence, no! As you point out, the
cost would be absolutely astronomical. Some could be recouped by
developing the land above the newly-submerged railway, but the
disruption would be ridiculous.

I think TPTB have their sights set on other long-term objectives - such
as making the railways work properly - first.

Perhaps the person you were talking to was thinking of replication of
some overground routes with tunnelled ones, such as for Crossrail 2
which would replicate services between Clapham Junction and Victoria
using a tunnel.


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

The following historical perspective may be of interest:

From http://www.bopcris.ac.uk/bop1940/ref134.html

"Railway (London Plan) Committee: report to the Ministry of War Transport
twenty-first January, 1946
Short title: Railway (London plan): report
Corporate author: Railway (London Plan) Committee; Ministry of War Transport
Chairman: Inglis, C.E.

Abstract: 'To investigate and report upon the technical and operational
aspects of those suggestions made in the County of London Plan of 1943 which
relate to the main line and suburban railway system of London, both surface
and underground, bearing in mind that these suggestions are intended to
contribute towards and form part of a comprehensive scheme for the
re-development of the area in question...'

The County of London Plan proposed amongst other works to remove the bridges
and viaducts between Westminster Bridge and London Bridge, and to dispense
with the need for them by two deep level loops, one of which would connect
Waterloo Junction , Charing Cross, Blackfriars, Cannon Street and London
Bridge. The cost of the civil engineering work only would at post-war prices
be about £180mn.

The Committee does not agree with many of the Plan's strictures on the
railway system, but many of the inner areas are poorly served with railway
facilities and the main line terminals are congested. It endorses
electrification or the use of diesel on all railways in London, the
underground system should be separated from the main line track as far as
inter-running is concerned, and it is possible to project urban traffic
across London in tunnels.

The proposed deep level stations for long distance main traffic are not
practicable; Charing Cross and Cannon Street should not be removed until
alternative facilities are provided. The volume of traffic both in journeys
and passenger miles will increase.

Its own proposals are (I) to facilitate the planning of the South Bank, five
lines in tunnel, two north and south lines in tunnel and a terminal station
reconstruction; (2) five new routes to meet immediate traffic requirements.
The removal of Blackfriars and Holborn Viaduct stations would take place in
the first stage, the removal of Charing Cross and the construction of a new
terminal at Waterloo Junction in the third, and the removal of Cannon Street
in the fourth. The cost, excluding electrification and work outside tunnels,
would be £139mn., or £232 mn. if post war prices exceed pre-war levels by 65
per cent. The work would take 30 years.

The final report deals with improvements in the northern main line
terminals. For goods traffic an early decision on the location of the main
markets is desirable, but the adoption of the proposals for the South Bank
and for the elimination of the three cross-river bridges as working
principles is necessary if the detailed investigations are to be started
without delay."

David Fairthorne.