On May 24, 9:29*pm, e27002 wrote:
Let's hope they put it in the right place, about 50% closer to Euston
Road. *And we need a station on the Circle Line, either an enlarged
and connected Euston Square, or a new one.

....and I would hope that if they did decide to move the SSL platforms
in front of the NR station that they would rebuild them as a S8-length
four-platform station to handle the increased dwell times London's HS2/
WCML terminus will surely cause.

On May 25, 9:00*am, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On May 24, 9:29*pm, e27002 wrote:

Let's hope they put it in the right place, about 50% closer to Euston
Road. *And we need a station on the Circle Line, either an enlarged
and connected Euston Square, or a new one.

...and I would hope that if they did decide to move the SSL platforms
in front of the NR station that they would rebuild them as a S8-length
four-platform station to handle the increased dwell times London's HS2/
WCML terminus will surely cause.

Good thinking. I like it.

On May 25, 9:39*pm, mark townend wrote:
On May 25, 9:18*pm, Jamie *Thompson wrote:





On May 25, 12:53*pm, Neil Williams
wrote:

Jamie *Thompson wrote:

...and I would hope that if they did decide to move the SSL platforms
in front of the NR station

They already are. *The entrance is just in the wrong place.

Not really. One end of them might well be, but if you put a tunnel in
it'd be so ridiculously overloaded it'd be nigh on unusable. Really
you need two passenger tunnels to the NR station, one on each end of
the SSL platforms to prevent overloading them (see: Crossrail design
principles).

Extending the platforms eastwards by the equivalent of 3-4 car lengths
would probably be enough to achieve this, and you could then wall up
the current western end of the platforms as you'd only need S8 lengths
and then use these as utility rooms or some such.

So a new subway entrance from Euston mainline concourse connecting to
the extended eastern end of the Met station and 'relief tunnels' at
least partway alongside the platforms with additional cross-passage
accesses to them. Perhaps the platforms could be widened instead to
achieve a similar capacity. Are the existing platforms not full S8
length and if so do they operate using some sort of SDO system?

It would probably mean a rebuild of Euston Square Station. But, it
really is an omission not to have a Circle Line Station connected to
Euston. It was also gross stupidity to rebuild Euston so far back
from Euston Road. When Euston Square (Gower Street) was built the
LNWR and Met. were competitors. They did not make interchange easy
for their passengers. Today, Euston needs better access. Compare the
number of Subway lines at Euston to the number serving Kings Cross/
Saint Pancras.

Let's hope they put it in the right place, about 50% closer to Euston
Road. *And we need a station on the Circle Line, either an enlarged
and connected Euston Square, or a new one.

Again, this really isnt in any doubt - the combined WCML/HS2 station
will be extended up to the Euston Road to allow for 400m platforms on
the west side, and to make full use of the station footprint for
existing services on the east side.

Whether the existing Euston station would be rebuilt depends entirely
on whether there's a business case to do so - hard to judge without
knowing whether, and in what form, proposed lines such as Crossrail 2
and a DLR extension might take and their impact on Euston and the
other lines that serve it.

Chris

On Sat, 26 May 2012 02:07:31 -0700 (PDT), e27002
wrote:

On May 25, 9:39*pm, mark townend wrote:
On May 25, 9:18*pm, Jamie *Thompson wrote:





On May 25, 12:53*pm, Neil Williams
wrote:

Jamie *Thompson wrote:

...and I would hope that if they did decide to move the SSL platforms
in front of the NR station

They already are. *The entrance is just in the wrong place.

Not really. One end of them might well be, but if you put a tunnel in
it'd be so ridiculously overloaded it'd be nigh on unusable. Really
you need two passenger tunnels to the NR station, one on each end of
the SSL platforms to prevent overloading them (see: Crossrail design
principles).

Extending the platforms eastwards by the equivalent of 3-4 car lengths
would probably be enough to achieve this, and you could then wall up
the current western end of the platforms as you'd only need S8 lengths
and then use these as utility rooms or some such.

So a new subway entrance from Euston mainline concourse connecting to
the extended eastern end of the Met station and 'relief tunnels' at
least partway alongside the platforms with additional cross-passage
accesses to them. Perhaps the platforms could be widened instead to
achieve a similar capacity. Are the existing platforms not full S8
length and if so do they operate using some sort of SDO system?

It would probably mean a rebuild of Euston Square Station. But, it
really is an omission not to have a Circle Line Station connected to
Euston. It was also gross stupidity to rebuild Euston so far back
from Euston Road.

Look at a pre-1960s map. Euston station was rebuilt in the roughly the
same place.

When Euston Square (Gower Street) was built the
LNWR and Met. were competitors. They did not make interchange easy
for their passengers. Today, Euston needs better access. Compare the
number of Subway lines at Euston to the number serving Kings Cross/
Saint Pancras.

One subway under Euston Road and one under Pancras Road, n'est ce pas?

Whether the existing Euston station would be rebuilt depends entirely
on whether there's a business case to do so - hard to judge without
knowing whether, and in what form, proposed lines such as Crossrail 2
and a DLR extension might take and their impact on Euston and the
other lines that serve it.

Chris

Sorry - that should read "Whether the existing Euston *Square* Met/
Circle/H&C station would be rebuilt..."

Last week, I (Mark Brader) wrote:
The distinction is meaningful because from 1933 until 1947,
although London Transport had been forcibly unified and brought
under public control, its ownership was still private.

And Charles Ellson responded:
There was no ownership, it was a statutary corporation.

It was a statutory corporation, but it issued dividend-paying stock,
and the owners of the previous private transport companies received
shares of LPTB stock in place of their shares in their former
companies. There were several classes of preference shares and then
there were the ordinary or "C" shares, which were intended to pay 5%
for the first 2 years and then 5.5½%. If this was not met over a
three-year period, the stockholders had the right to put the
corporation into receivership#. To me that adds up to ownership
even if they didn't have the right to control the LPTB's actions.

#-It wasn't, but they didn't. The full dividends on the preference
shares were paid, but after that there was only enough to pay
dividends of 3.5½%, 4%, 4%, 4¼%, 4%, and 1½% on C shares in the
6 years 1933-34 through 1938-39. The stockholders held a meeting
but there was no consensus that a receiver was warranted. And then
the war came and the government took control.

See "A History of London Transport", vol. 2, chapters 15-16, and
"Rails Through the Clay", 1993 edition, chapter 11.
--
Mark Brader | "...it's always easier to see the mud when it's
Toronto | coming toward your side rather than from your side."
| --Mike Kruger

My text in this article is in the public domain.

On May 29, 7:59*am, (Mark Brader) wrote:
Last week, I (Mark Brader) wrote:

The distinction is meaningful because from 1933 until 1947,
although London Transport had been forcibly unified and brought
under public control, its ownership was still private.

And Charles Ellson responded:

There was no ownership, it was a statutary corporation.

It was a statutory corporation, but it issued dividend-paying stock,
and the owners of the previous private transport companies received
shares of LPTB stock in place of their shares in their former
companies. *There were several classes of preference shares and then
there were the ordinary or "C" shares, which were intended to pay 5%
for the first 2 years and then 5.5 %. *If this was not met over a
three-year period, the stockholders had the right to put the
corporation into receivership#. *To me that adds up to ownership
even if they didn't have the right to control the LPTB's actions.

#-It wasn't, but they didn't. *The full dividends on the preference
shares were paid, but after that there was only enough to pay
dividends of 3.5 %, 4%, 4%, 4 %, 4%, and 1 % on C shares in the
6 years 1933-34 through 1938-39. *The stockholders held a meeting
but there was no consensus that a receiver was warranted. *And then
the war came and the government took control.

See "A History of London Transport", vol. 2, chapters 15-16, and
"Rails Through the Clay", 1993 edition, chapter 11.

Thank you, that was VERY informative. It filled a gap in my
understanding of the LTPB.

On May 26, 6:49*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2012 02:07:31 -0700 (PDT), e27002





wrote:
On May 25, 9:39*pm, mark townend wrote:
On May 25, 9:18*pm, Jamie *Thompson wrote:

On May 25, 12:53*pm, Neil Williams
wrote:

Jamie *Thompson wrote:

...and I would hope that if they did decide to move the SSL platforms
in front of the NR station

They already are. *The entrance is just in the wrong place.

Not really. One end of them might well be, but if you put a tunnel in
it'd be so ridiculously overloaded it'd be nigh on unusable. Really
you need two passenger tunnels to the NR station, one on each end of
the SSL platforms to prevent overloading them (see: Crossrail design
principles).

Extending the platforms eastwards by the equivalent of 3-4 car lengths
would probably be enough to achieve this, and you could then wall up
the current western end of the platforms as you'd only need S8 lengths
and then use these as utility rooms or some such.

So a new subway entrance from Euston mainline concourse connecting to
the extended eastern end of the Met station and 'relief tunnels' at
least partway alongside the platforms with additional cross-passage
accesses to them. Perhaps the platforms could be widened instead to
achieve a similar capacity. Are the existing platforms not full S8
length and if so do they operate using some sort of SDO system?

It would probably mean a rebuild of Euston Square Station. *But, it
really is an omission not to have a Circle Line Station connected to
Euston. *It was also gross stupidity to rebuild Euston so far back
from Euston Road.

Look at a pre-1960s map. Euston station was rebuilt in the roughly the
same place.

It was actually extended something like 50 yards towards Euston Road.
Drummond Street used to run right across the front of the old station.
It was cut into two by the construction of the new station; what is
now Doric Way (presumably named after the Doric portico which was
demolished during the station rebuilding works) was formerly the
eastern end of the same street.

If I remember rightly, on one side of the station there's some kind of
goods vehicle underpass that dives under the new station roughly on
the line of the missing part of Drummond Street.

Martin L

On Tue, 29 May 2012 06:52:08 -0700 (PDT), Martin L
wrote:

On May 26, 6:49*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2012 02:07:31 -0700 (PDT), e27002





wrote:
On May 25, 9:39*pm, mark townend wrote:
On May 25, 9:18*pm, Jamie *Thompson wrote:

On May 25, 12:53*pm, Neil Williams
wrote:

Jamie *Thompson wrote:

...and I would hope that if they did decide to move the SSL platforms
in front of the NR station

They already are. *The entrance is just in the wrong place.

Not really. One end of them might well be, but if you put a tunnel in
it'd be so ridiculously overloaded it'd be nigh on unusable. Really
you need two passenger tunnels to the NR station, one on each end of
the SSL platforms to prevent overloading them (see: Crossrail design
principles).

Extending the platforms eastwards by the equivalent of 3-4 car lengths
would probably be enough to achieve this, and you could then wall up
the current western end of the platforms as you'd only need S8 lengths
and then use these as utility rooms or some such.

So a new subway entrance from Euston mainline concourse connecting to
the extended eastern end of the Met station and 'relief tunnels' at
least partway alongside the platforms with additional cross-passage
accesses to them. Perhaps the platforms could be widened instead to
achieve a similar capacity. Are the existing platforms not full S8
length and if so do they operate using some sort of SDO system?

It would probably mean a rebuild of Euston Square Station. *But, it
really is an omission not to have a Circle Line Station connected to
Euston. *It was also gross stupidity to rebuild Euston so far back
from Euston Road.

Look at a pre-1960s map. Euston station was rebuilt in the roughly the
same place.

It was actually extended something like 50 yards towards Euston Road.
Drummond Street used to run right across the front of the old station.

Didn't the original cluster of buildings which formed the station go
further south than the arch so that Drummond Street effectively ran
through the station ?

It was cut into two by the construction of the new station; what is
now Doric Way (presumably named after the Doric portico which was
demolished during the station rebuilding works) was formerly the
eastern end of the same street.

If I remember rightly, on one side of the station there's some kind of
goods vehicle underpass that dives under the new station roughly on
the line of the missing part of Drummond Street.

Martin L