(TheOneKEA) wrote in message om...
The parent poster was asking about whether or not the primitive tunnel-digging
technology of the early 20th century was what prevented the LUL engineers of
the day from digging tunnels beneath the Thames and building Tube stations
south of the river. IMVHO Morden's location is irrelevant; what is relevant
is that it wasn't opened until 1926 - approx. thirty years after the first
LUL tunnels were ever dug, which meant that the technology had time to improve.

I wasn't specifically asking about tunnelling underneath the river. I
was asking about tunnelling in south London because, as I said in the
first post, an explanation you often see for the lack of tube in south
London is that the soil is unsuitable. This explanation completely
ignores the existence of the line to Morden, so I was looking for some
clarification on that point.

Patrick

"The Only Living Boy in New Cross" wrote in
message om...
(TheOneKEA) wrote in message
om...

I wasn't specifically asking about tunnelling underneath the river. I
was asking about tunnelling in south London because, as I said in the
first post, an explanation you often see for the lack of tube in south
London is that the soil is unsuitable. This explanation completely
ignores the existence of the line to Morden, so I was looking for some
clarification on that point.



That tunnels through South London soil are more expensive than those in the
North?

Jonn

In article , The Only
Living Boy in New Cross writes
(TheOneKEA) wrote in message
. com...
The parent poster was asking about whether or not the primitive
tunnel-digging
technology of the early 20th century was what prevented the LUL engineers of
the day from digging tunnels beneath the Thames and building Tube stations
south of the river. IMVHO Morden's location is irrelevant; what is relevant
is that it wasn't opened until 1926 - approx. thirty years after the first
LUL tunnels were ever dug, which meant that the technology had time
to improve.

I wasn't specifically asking about tunnelling underneath the river. I
was asking about tunnelling in south London because, as I said in the
first post, an explanation you often see for the lack of tube in south
London is that the soil is unsuitable. This explanation completely
ignores the existence of the line to Morden, so I was looking for some
clarification on that point.

Whilst often quoted as an explanation, the actual reason is that South
London was already served with an extensive rail network, some of which
was electrified - and a large tram network, with workmens fares.

Too much competition.
--
Steve
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/B$ d++(-) s+:+ a+ C++ UL++ L+ P+ W++ N+++ K w--- O V
PS+++ PE- t+ 5++ X- R* tv+ b+++ DI++ G e h---- r+++ z++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------