|
tube lines south of the river
One of the commonest explanations you hear for the lack of tube lines
south of the river is that the soil is unsuitable for the tunnelling equipment in use in the early years of the 20th century. If that's the case, though, how did the Morden end of the Northern Line get built? Patrick |
tube lines south of the river
"The Only Living Boy in New Cross" wrote in message m... One of the commonest explanations you hear for the lack of tube lines south of the river is that the soil is unsuitable for the tunnelling equipment in use in the early years of the 20th century. If that's the case, though, how did the Morden end of the Northern Line get built? I tend to beleive the more probably explanation that the Southern Railway took suburban commuters seriously as a market, and provided frequent, electric commuter trains. The other 3 of the big 4 basically ignored this market, and the system that became London Underground built the lines instead. This leaves us now with London Underground extending way out to the north, east and west, but the railways doing the job to the south. Robin |
tube lines south of the river
"The Only Living Boy in New Cross" wrote in
message m... One of the commonest explanations you hear for the lack of tube lines south of the river is that the soil is unsuitable for the tunnelling equipment in use in the early years of the 20th century. If that's the case, though, how did the Morden end of the Northern Line get built? It got built at high cost, that's how. Nobody said that it was impossible. It was the difficult and expensive experience of building the Northern Line that deterred anyone from putting any more tubes in South London. In any location and era, building a railway on the surface costs a certain amount, and building it in a tunnel costs a different amount. Over the years, land values change, and tunnelling technology improves, and safety legislation affecting tunnelling becomes stiffer, and political opposition to demolition changes, so there is no reason why the cheaper option couldn't switch between overground and underground every decade or so. -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
tube lines south of the river
In m,
The Only Living Boy in New Cross typed: One of the commonest explanations you hear for the lack of tube lines south of the river is that the soil is unsuitable for the tunnelling equipment in use in the early years of the 20th century. If that's the case, though, how did the Morden end of the Northern Line get built? Well, as far as the City Branch is concerned, I guess that they heard that the equipment was going to be unsuitable for use in the early years of the 20th century - and so built it in the 19th century instead. Bob |
tube lines south of the river
(The Only Living Boy in New Cross) wrote in message om...
One of the commonest explanations you hear for the lack of tube lines south of the river is that the soil is unsuitable for the tunnelling equipment in use in the early years of the 20th century. If that's the case, though, how did the Morden end of the Northern Line get built? Patrick According to our friend Clive, http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/northern.html says that services between Clapham Common and Morden were inaugurated in 1926. IIRC there were tunnels in the King William Street area, of a size for Tube stock in the 1890s (I may be very wrong on this), so the tunnelling equipment itself may not have been an issue. Checking this site, http://www.btinternet.com/~ptaffs/pe.../personal.html, shows that Morden is located near a narrower portion of the Thames, which meant that sending tunnels under the riverbed would have been a bit easier due to simply having less water to worry about. Either way, this won't be much of an issue for south/southeast London much longer - as long as no one else tries to screw things up, the East London Line extensions will be open in 2005 (?) and those parts of London will have tube service. http://www.ellp.co.uk/route_map.htm is a map of what the line will look like when it opens. Hope I helped, Brad |
tube lines south of the river
In om,
TheOneKEA typed: (The Only Living Boy in New Cross) wrote in message om... According to our friend Clive, http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/northern.html says that services between Clapham Common and Morden were inaugurated in 1926. IIRC there were tunnels in the King William Street area, of a size for Tube stock in the 1890s (I may be very wrong on this), so the tunnelling equipment itself may not have been an issue. King William Street to Stockwell was opened in 1890 Checking this site, http://www.btinternet.com/~ptaffs/pe.../personal.html, shows that Morden is located near a narrower portion of the Thames, which meant that sending tunnels under the riverbed would have been a bit easier due to simply having less water to worry about. I'm not sure how that has any relevance. Neither of the two Northern Line crossings of the Thames is anywhere near Morden. Bob |
tube lines south of the river
"Robin Payne" wrote in message
... "The Only Living Boy in New Cross" wrote in message m... One of the commonest explanations you hear for the lack of tube lines south of the river is that the soil is unsuitable for the tunnelling equipment in use in the early years of the 20th century. If that's the case, though, how did the Morden end of the Northern Line get built? I tend to beleive the more probably explanation that the Southern Railway took suburban commuters seriously as a market, and provided frequent, electric commuter trains. The other 3 of the big 4 basically ignored this market, and the system that became London Underground built the lines instead. This leaves us now with London Underground extending way out to the north, east and west, but the railways doing the job to the south. I always understood that the reason for the lack of tube lines, south of the river, was due to the intensive network of tram lines operated by the local councils down there. The main line railways set up a network of electric trains in competition with the trams, which meant that the case for tube lines was not strong. -- Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society http://www.omnibussoc.org E-mail: URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/ |
tube lines south of the river
Robin Payne:
I tend to beleive the more probably explanation that the Southern Railway took suburban commuters seriously as a market, and provided frequent, electric commuter trains. The other 3 of the big 4 basically ignored this market... I tend to believe this one as well. And I'll add that the reason behind the reason is that London is in the southeast of Great Britain -- so that lines running north or west from London could carry lucrative long-distance traffic, but other lines could not, because there were no long distances. The southern railways, and later the Southern Railway, *had* to concen- trate on short- and middle-distance traffic, because except for one line to Exeter that competed with the GWR, that was all there was. The GNR, of course, not only had its long-distance traffic, but *did* go after suburban traffic in a big way as well, building branch lines in north London -- and they came to regret it, calling these services their suburban incubus". In the end, this added to the growth of tube lines in north London. First the GN&CR and GN&SR were successively promoted as ways to relieve the GNR, then abandoned to eventually become parts of the Underground (also the former, of course, didn't stay one); then some of the branches were handed over to the Underground as extensions of the Northern Line. -- Mark Brader, Toronto "'Run me,' Alice?" -- Tom Neff My text in this article is in the public domain. |
tube lines south of the river
"Bob Wood" wrote in message ...
In om, TheOneKEA typed: (The Only Living Boy in New Cross) wrote in message om... According to our friend Clive, http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/northern.html says that services between Clapham Common and Morden were inaugurated in 1926. IIRC there were tunnels in the King William Street area, of a size for Tube stock in the 1890s (I may be very wrong on this), so the tunnelling equipment itself may not have been an issue. King William Street to Stockwell was opened in 1890 Checking this site, http://www.btinternet.com/~ptaffs/pe.../personal.html, shows that Morden is located near a narrower portion of the Thames, which meant that sending tunnels under the riverbed would have been a bit easier due to simply having less water to worry about. I'm not sure how that has any relevance. Neither of the two Northern Line crossings of the Thames is anywhere near Morden. 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. Bob Brad |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk