London Underground superlatives: the oldest … the largest?
 

Extract:

"The London Underground celebrates its much-publicised 150th birthday this
week. The system is the oldest in the world – nearly four decades older
than any of the world’s other large metro systems – and has been lauded as
a model of public infrastructure investment. But how does it measure up to
its younger imitators?

In passenger and station numbers, it’s dwarfed by some of the new kids on
the block."

Full article in
http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2013/01/1...st-the-largest

London Underground superlatives: the oldest … the largest?
 

"The London Underground celebrates its much-publicised 150th birthday this
week. The system is the oldest in the world – nearly four decades older
than any of the world’s other large metro systems – and has been lauded as
a model of public infrastructure investment. But how does it measure up to
its younger imitators?

In passenger and station numbers, it’s dwarfed by some of the new kids on
the block."



Also remember, away from the centre, large parts of the Underground
were originally main line railways.

Indeed, so were some in the centre.

The amount of actual new build Underground is quite small.

How does that compare to elsewhere did other cities incorporate
existing main lines into their Metro systems?

I'm sure the answer to that is yes but wonder what would be the
largest genuine Metro system, all built from day one as Metro.

London Underground superlatives: the oldest … the largest?
 

In message
,
allantracy wrote:
Also remember, away from the centre, large parts of the Underground
were originally main line railways.

Indeed, so were some in the centre.

The amount of actual new build Underground is quite small.

Let's see. Numbers in km but rounded since I couldn't be bothered to do
the exact arithmetic:

Bakerloo: 11 new, 23 shared [1]
Central: 26 new, 55 takeover
Circle: 1 new [2]
District: 30 new, 28 takeover, 8 licenced [3]
H&C: 9 new, 7 takeover
Jubilee: 31 new [4]
Metropolitan: 81 new, 37 bought [5]
Northern: 48 new, 10 takeover
Piccadilly: 38 new [5][6]
Victoria: 22 new
Waterloo: 2 new

Totals: 299 new, 100 takeover, 37 bought, 23 shared, 8 licenced

So out of 467 km, either 307 km or 330 km, depending on how you count,
were new build. So that's between 65% and 71%.

[1] The section north of Queen's Park was built by the LNWR with the
intention of being shared with the Bakerloo.
[2] Two short sections not shared with any other line.
[3] Lines built by the LSWR and LTSR for the dedicated use of the
District.
[4] Excluding the section shared with the Metropolitan.
[5] Companies purchased by the Metropolitan.
[6] Excluding the section shared with the District.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

London Underground superlatives: the oldest … the largest?
 

Bakerloo: * * 11 new, 23 shared [1]
Central: * * *26 new, 55 takeover
Circle: * * * *1 new [2]
District: * * 30 new, 28 takeover, 8 licenced [3]
H&C: * * * * * 9 new, *7 takeover
Jubilee: * * *31 new [4]
Metropolitan: 81 new, 37 bought [5]
Northern: * * 48 new, 10 takeover
Piccadilly: * 38 new [5][6]
Victoria: * * 22 new
Waterloo: * * *2 new

Totals: 299 new, 100 takeover, 37 bought, 23 shared, 8 licenced

So out of 467 km, either 307 km or 330 km, depending on how you count,
were new build. So that's between 65% and 71%.

[1] The section north of Queen's Park was built by the LNWR with the
intention of being shared with the Bakerloo.
[2] Two short sections not shared with any other line.
[3] Lines built by the LSWR and LTSR for the dedicated use of the
District.
[4] Excluding the section shared with the Metropolitan.
[5] Companies purchased by the Metropolitan.
[6] Excluding the section shared with the District.


Nice figures though I guess there's room for some debate.

I'll start by querying that Northern Line figure wasn't all of the
Northern north of Camden originally part of the GN, certainly High
Barnet and Mill Hill East but confess I'm not sure about Edgware?

Was the West Ruislip (Central Line) new build or obtained from the GW.

London Underground superlatives: the oldest … the largest?
 

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 12:34:18 -0800 (PST), allantracy
wrote:


Bakerloo: * * 11 new, 23 shared [1]
Central: * * *26 new, 55 takeover
Circle: * * * *1 new [2]
District: * * 30 new, 28 takeover, 8 licenced [3]
H&C: * * * * * 9 new, *7 takeover
Jubilee: * * *31 new [4]
Metropolitan: 81 new, 37 bought [5]
Northern: * * 48 new, 10 takeover
Piccadilly: * 38 new [5][6]
Victoria: * * 22 new
Waterloo: * * *2 new

Totals: 299 new, 100 takeover, 37 bought, 23 shared, 8 licenced

So out of 467 km, either 307 km or 330 km, depending on how you count,
were new build. So that's between 65% and 71%.

[1] The section north of Queen's Park was built by the LNWR with the
intention of being shared with the Bakerloo.
[2] Two short sections not shared with any other line.
[3] Lines built by the LSWR and LTSR for the dedicated use of the
District.
[4] Excluding the section shared with the Metropolitan.
[5] Companies purchased by the Metropolitan.
[6] Excluding the section shared with the District.


Nice figures though I guess there's room for some debate.

I'll start by querying that Northern Line figure wasn't all of the
Northern north of Camden originally part of the GN, certainly High
Barnet and Mill Hill East but confess I'm not sure about Edgware?

The (current) Edgware branch has only ever been part of the
Underground or its predecessors. The other Edgware branch along with
High Barnet was IIRC GN from Highgate northward.

Was the West Ruislip (Central Line) new build or obtained from the GW.

London Underground superlati
 

"allantracy" wrote

Was the West Ruislip (Central Line) new build or obtained from the GW.

Ealing Broadway to Shepherds Bush was promoted by the GW, who originally
intended a suburban terminus at Shepherds Bush with interchange there with
the Central London Railway (Twopenny Tube, Central Line). In the event,
after a WW1 delay, the line did not get passenger trains until 1920 when
tube trains were projected to Ealing Broadway. The additional tracks from
North Acton to West Ruislip were built by the GWR but always intended for
the Central Line, and when they were opened in 1947 the GWR local servicewas
withdrawn (though Greenford Main Line station had one up train a day as late
as 1964).

Peter

London Underground superlatives: the oldest … the largest?
 

In message
,
allantracy wrote:
Bakerloo: * * 11 new, 23 shared [1]
Central: * * *26 new, 55 takeover
Circle: * * * *1 new [2]
District: * * 30 new, 28 takeover, 8 licenced [3]
H&C: * * * * * 9 new, *7 takeover
Jubilee: * * *31 new [4]
Metropolitan: 81 new, 37 bought [5]
Northern: * * 48 new, 10 takeover
Piccadilly: * 38 new [5][6]
Victoria: * * 22 new
Waterloo: * * *2 new

Nice figures though I guess there's room for some debate.

Please try.

I'll start by querying that Northern Line figure wasn't all of the
Northern north of Camden originally part of the GN, certainly High
Barnet and Mill Hill East but confess I'm not sure about Edgware?

East Finchley and north of there only. That's the 10km. The rest was all
new build - the original northern termini were Golders Green and
Archway, and it was the LER (IIRC) that built the line to Edgware. (The
GN had a separate Edgware station at the end of what's now the Mill Hill
East branch).

Was the West Ruislip (Central Line) new build or obtained from the GW.

The latter; it's part of the 55km of takeover. The new build is from a
point west of White City to Leyton, then Leytonstone to Newbury Park.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

London Underground superlatives: the oldest … the largest?
 

In message , Peter Masson
wrote:
The additional tracks from North Acton to West Ruislip were built by
the GWR but always intended for the Central Line, and when they were
opened in 1947 the GWR local servicewas withdrawn (though Greenford
Main Line station had one up train a day as late as 1964).

I've classed these, and the similar tracks of the District Line running
beside the LTSR, as "takeover".

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

London Underground superlatives: the oldest … the largest?
 

On Friday, January 11, 2013 11:52:08 PM UTC, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In message , Peter Masson

wrote:

The additional tracks from North Acton to West Ruislip were built by

the GWR but always intended for the Central Line, and when they were

opened in 1947 the GWR local servicewas withdrawn (though Greenford

Main Line station had one up train a day as late as 1964).



I've classed these, and the similar tracks of the District Line running

beside the LTSR, as "takeover".



--

Clive D.W. Feather | Home:

Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org

Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

I disagree. All the Central line western extension was built alongside and in addition to the GW: no infrastructure was taken over, so IMV it should all be classed as new build. Admittedly the train service replaced the existing GW one, but on entirely new tracks.

StuartJ

London Underground superlatives: the oldest … the largest?
 

In message ,
wrote:
On Friday, January 11, 2013 11:52:08 PM UTC, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
The additional tracks from North Acton to West Ruislip were built by
the GWR but always intended for the Central Line, and when they were
opened in 1947 the GWR local servicewas withdrawn (though Greenford
Main Line station had one up train a day as late as 1964).
I've classed these, and the similar tracks of the District Line running
beside the LTSR, as "takeover".
I disagree.

Fine. Do your own analysis.

All the Central line western extension was built alongside and in
addition to the GW: no infrastructure was taken over, so IMV it should
all be classed as new build. Admittedly the train service replaced the
existing GW one, but on entirely new tracks.

It was a takeover of the route, so I classed it as that. The original
claim was that there was very little "new build", so I did the numbers
using a conservative definition. Nothing stops you doing the
calculations with your own definition - all the information I used is on
my web site.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: