On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:56:52 -0000
"michael adams" wrote:
wrote in message
...
Are you autistic? Yes, built to as in straight tunnels of train size

Train size ?

From your own link

" Each shelter consisted of two parallel tunnels that were 16ft 6in
(approx. 4.9m) in diameter "

http://underground-history.co.uk/shelters.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground

"whereas the Great Northern and City Railway, which opened in 1904, was built
to take main line trains from Finsbury Park to a Moorgate terminus in the City
and had 16-foot (4.9 m) diameter tunnels."

Now run along and find some other straws to grasp.

--
Spud

wrote in message ...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:56:52 -0000
"michael adams" wrote:
wrote in message
...
Are you autistic? Yes, built to as in straight tunnels of train size

Train size ?

From your own link

" Each shelter consisted of two parallel tunnels that were 16ft 6in
(approx. 4.9m) in diameter "

http://underground-history.co.uk/shelters.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground

"whereas the Great Northern and City Railway, which opened in 1904, was built
to take main line trains from Finsbury Park to a Moorgate terminus in the City
and had 16-foot (4.9 m) diameter tunnels."

Now run along and find some other straws to grasp.

The stations in question Belsize Park, Camden Town, Goodge Steet, Stockwell,
Clapham North, Clapham Common, Clapham South are all deep level tubes
running through 11 feet 8 inches (3.56 m) tunnels.

The plan envisaged subsequently using the 16.ft 6in diameter shelters as
platform spaces, not as "train size" tunnels, as you claim above.

You really don't have a clue, do you ?


michael adams

....











--
Spud

On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 13:22:49 -0000
"michael adams" wrote:
wrote in message
...
"whereas the Great Northern and City Railway, which opened in 1904, was built
to take main line trains from Finsbury Park to a Moorgate terminus in the
City
and had 16-foot (4.9 m) diameter tunnels."

Now run along and find some other straws to grasp.

The stations in question Belsize Park, Camden Town, Goodge Steet, Stockwell,
Clapham North, Clapham Common, Clapham South are all deep level tubes
running through 11 feet 8 inches (3.56 m) tunnels.

The plan envisaged subsequently using the 16.ft 6in diameter shelters as
platform spaces, not as "train size" tunnels, as you claim above.

Are you arguing against yourself now? A few posts back you were saying they
were shelter designs, now you're saying they were stations. Make your mind up.
Personally I always assumed the express tube was going to be full size loading
gauge but there we go.

You really don't have a clue, do you ?

You have to love unwitting irony.

--
Spud

wrote in message ...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 13:22:49 -0000
"michael adams" wrote:
wrote in message
...
"whereas the Great Northern and City Railway, which opened in 1904, was built
to take main line trains from Finsbury Park to a Moorgate terminus in the
City
and had 16-foot (4.9 m) diameter tunnels."

Now run along and find some other straws to grasp.

The stations in question Belsize Park, Camden Town, Goodge Steet, Stockwell,
Clapham North, Clapham Common, Clapham South are all deep level tubes
running through 11 feet 8 inches (3.56 m) tunnels.

The plan envisaged subsequently using the 16.ft 6in diameter shelters as
platform spaces, not as "train size" tunnels, as you claim above.

Are you arguing against yourself now?

No. I'm merely quoting your own chosen link back at you

http://underground-history.co.uk/shelters.php

" work began in 1940 on building deep level shelters which were envisaged
to eventually become the platform tunnels for the express route.

This was the link, if you remember which you posted as offering
more accurate information than the information which I'd quoted from
SB and wikipaedia.

Anyone with any knowledge of this topic, apart from you at least,
will appreciate that there are conflicting accounts of the sequence of
events around the construction of these tunnels, which is hardly
helped by the absence of original source material, for all but
the most diligent of researchers at least.


Given which, labelling people who disagree with you as "autistic",
or "trolls", probably isn't the best way to react when its evident
you don't even read, or are incapable of fully comprehending, your
own linked material.


You really don't have a clue, do you ?

You have to love unwitting irony.

Indeed.


michael adams

....



--
Spud

On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 14:09:25 -0000
"michael adams" wrote:
wrote in message
Are you arguing against yourself now?

No. I'm merely quoting your own chosen link back at you

ITYF I said the plans already existed and these were based around them. Is
that still up for debate or have you via an incredibly roundabout route
conceded that point yet?

" work began in 1940 on building deep level shelters which were envisaged
to eventually become the platform tunnels for the express route.

This was the link, if you remember which you posted as offering
more accurate information than the information which I'd quoted from
SB and wikipaedia.

Well apparently you didn't read that far either so lets not pretend that
you had and it was part of your grand flourish to nail the point.

Given which, labelling people who disagree with you as "autistic",
or "trolls", probably isn't the best way to react when its evident
you don't even read, or are incapable of fully comprehending, your
own linked material.

Are you talking to yourself in the mirror again?

--
Spud

wrote in message ...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 14:09:25 -0000
"michael adams" wrote:
wrote in message
Are you arguing against yourself now?

No. I'm merely quoting your own chosen link back at you

ITYF I said the plans already existed

Not on here they didn't

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Works_Programme

(See below)

and these were based around them. Is
that still up for debate or have you via an incredibly roundabout route
conceded that point yet?

" work began in 1940 on building deep level shelters which were envisaged
to eventually become the platform tunnels for the express route.

This was the link, if you remember which you posted as offering
more accurate information than the information which I'd quoted from
SB and wikipaedia.

Well apparently you didn't read that far either

But I must have done, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to
point out your error to you, and the fact that you'd obviously
contradicted yourself, would I ?

It would seem that logic isn't exactly a strong point of yours
either.

The fact that I allowed the exchange to stretch to three posts
on your part

your first attempt - "they were train sized tunnels"

your second attempt - "they were going to use bigger trains"

your third and final attempt (the penny finally drops and all the previous
certainty vanishes in a puff of smoke ) " I thought they were going
to use bigger trains, anyway "

was done purely for my own entertainment, I must admit.

Whether they were going to use any trains at all, may be a moot point
in any case, given that no such express poposal seemed to have
featured in LT's "New Works Programme, 1935 – 1940"

quote

"London Underground

The Programme saw major reconstructions of many central area Underground
stations, with escalators being installed to replace lifts as well as
extensions of several tube lines, and connection to and electrification
of a number of suburban lines. These included:

Northern line (The Northern Heights Plan)

"transfer of the Metropolitan line's Great Northern & City (GN&C) branch
to Northern line operation
connection of the GN&C branch at Finsbury Park to the LNER's line to the
Edgware, High Barnet and Alexandra Palace
construction of new tunnels from Archway (then Highgate) to Highgate and
East Finchley to connect to the Edgware and High Barnet branches.
extension from Edgware to Bushey Heath"

quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Works_Programme


So that far from it being the case as your link suggested

" As congestion on the Northern Line increased in the '30s, a plan was
developed to build a second pair of tunnels"

http://underground-history.co.uk/shelters.php

that extra capacity was needed to cope with existing demand, rather
it appears the contrary was the case and extra capacity was being provided
to stimulate further demand.


Given which, labelling people who disagree with you as "autistic",
or "trolls", probably isn't the best way to react when its evident
you don't even read, or are incapable of fully comprehending, your
own linked material.


michael adams

....

In message , michael adams
wrote:
The stations in question Belsize Park, Camden Town, Goodge Steet, Stockwell,
Clapham North, Clapham Common, Clapham South are all deep level tubes
running through 11 feet 8 inches (3.56 m) tunnels.

The plan envisaged subsequently using the 16.ft 6in diameter shelters as
platform spaces, not as "train size" tunnels, as you claim above.

No, they weren't. 16'6" is too small for a platform tunnel.

From the various sources I've studied (*not* just The Web of a Million
Lies), the tunnels were explicitly designed as shelters, but put in
locations where they could be used as the basis for an express tube
after the war.

Such express tubes were under consideration from 1937 onwards (see
http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/victoria.html for some details) and at
some times were planned to be capable of carrying mainline stock. So
it's not surprising that a 16'6" *non* station tunnel size was chosen.

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

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
...
In message , michael adams wrote:
The stations in question Belsize Park, Camden Town, Goodge Steet, Stockwell,
Clapham North, Clapham Common, Clapham South are all deep level tubes
running through 11 feet 8 inches (3.56 m) tunnels.

The plan envisaged subsequently using the 16.ft 6in diameter shelters as
platform spaces, not as "train size" tunnels, as you claim above.

No, they weren't. 16'6" is too small for a platform tunnel.

There appears to be a misundertanding here. I'm not claiming anything
but merely quoting back material from a link posted by spud,

" work began in 1940 on building deep level shelters which were envisaged
to eventually become the platform tunnels for the express route.

http://underground-history.co.uk/shelters.php

which contradicts his earlier claim, supposedly based on the same source -

quote

wrote in message ...

Are you autistic? Yes, built to as in straight tunnels of train size

/quote

I'd originally posted material from Subterranea Brittanica and Wiki
which followed the genearally accepted line, that there was no
pre-war plan, and it was this, that spud was claiming was
nonsense.



From the various sources I've studied (*not* just The Web of a Million Lies), the
tunnels were explicitly designed as shelters, but put in locations where they could be
used as the basis for an express tube after the war.

Indeed. The only source which claims otherwise appears to be
spud's link

quote

"As congestion on the Northern Line increased in the '30s, a plan was
developed to build a second pair of tunnels in parallel with the Charing
Cross branch of the Northern Line

http://underground-history.co.uk/shelters.php

/quote

None of the original material available on the web, or the quoted
versions of it at least - the LTPB New Works Programms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Works_Programme

or scans of an undated but circa 1942 account of the construction
of the tunnels discovered by Mark Bennett and posted on the SB website
concerning the "shelters suggest otherwise. ...recently completed" (p 2)
....while on page 3, its explained that they were so arranged as to line
and level so as to be incorporated at a later date in a new system of
tube tunnels should further developement be necessary. But no mention
of any pre-exiting plans at all.

The very existence of such an account , which appears to be a
supplement from a Civil Engineering journal, the quality of the
production etc is somewhat surprising given the circumstances
under which it was produced. Presumably it would have had
positive propaganda value not only at home to counter claims
that not enough was being done but if it fell into enemy hands -
the extensive measures the UK Govt takes to protect
its own citizens. Even if by that stage, as it turned out
thankfully, the worst of the conventional bombing was over


Such express tubes were under consideration from 1937 onwards (see
http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/victoria.html for some details)


Indeed on the route of what became the Victoria line

"The first plan which was a recognisable precursor of the Victoria Line
appeared in 1937. A new express tube line would run from Victoria to
Finsbury Park "

whereas for the Northeren Line

"After World War II, a 1946 plan for London envisaged providing a completely
separate express route under the Northern Line, allowing the Victoria and
Finsbury Park route (now called "route 8") to serve new markets"

However plans are one thing, obtaining the necessary funding is another
which has been the story of the Underground since its inception really.
Had the whole thing been constructed during the course of a five year
plan using slave labour at the whim of some tyrant then presumably
its history wouldn't have been quite so interesting or given so
much scope for speculation.


and at some times were planned to be capable of carrying mainline stock. So it's not
surprising that a 16'6" *non* station tunnel size was chosen.



michael adams

Link added to otherwise identical previous post

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
...
In message , michael adams wrote:
The stations in question Belsize Park, Camden Town, Goodge Steet, Stockwell,
Clapham North, Clapham Common, Clapham South are all deep level tubes
running through 11 feet 8 inches (3.56 m) tunnels.

The plan envisaged subsequently using the 16.ft 6in diameter shelters as
platform spaces, not as "train size" tunnels, as you claim above.

No, they weren't. 16'6" is too small for a platform tunnel.

There appears to be a misundertanding here. I'm not claiming anything
but merely quoting back material from a link posted by spud,

" work began in 1940 on building deep level shelters which were envisaged
to eventually become the platform tunnels for the express route.

http://underground-history.co.uk/shelters.php

which contradicts his earlier claim, supposedly based on the same source -

quote

wrote in message ...

Are you autistic? Yes, built to as in straight tunnels of train size

/quote

I'd originally posted material from Subterranea Brittanica and Wiki
which followed the genearally accepted line, that there was no
pre-war plan, and it was this, that spud was claiming was
nonsense.



From the various sources I've studied (*not* just The Web of a Million Lies), the
tunnels were explicitly designed as shelters, but put in locations where they could be
used as the basis for an express tube after the war.

Indeed. The only source which claims otherwise appears to be
spud's link

quote

"As congestion on the Northern Line increased in the '30s, a plan was
developed to build a second pair of tunnels in parallel with the Charing
Cross branch of the Northern Line

http://underground-history.co.uk/shelters.php

/quote

None of the original material available on the web, or the quoted
versions of it at least - the LTPB New Works Programms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Works_Programme

or scans of an undated but circa 1942 account of the construction
of the tunnels discovered by Mark Bennett and posted on the SB website
concerning the "shelters suggest otherwise. ...recently completed" (p 2)
....while on page 3, its explained that they were so arranged as to line
and level so as to be incorporated at a later date in a new system of
tube tunnels should further developement be necessary. But no mention
of any pre-exiting plans at all.

http://www.subbrit.org.uk/rsg/featur...rs/photo2.html

The very existence of such an account , which appears to be a
supplement from a Civil Engineering journal, the quality of the
production etc is somewhat surprising given the circumstances
under which it was produced. Presumably it would have had
positive propaganda value not only at home to counter claims
that not enough was being done but if it fell into enemy hands -
the extensive measures the UK Govt takes to protect
its own citizens. Even if by that stage, as it turned out
thankfully, the worst of the conventional bombing was over


Such express tubes were under consideration from 1937 onwards (see
http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/victoria.html for some details)


Indeed on the route of what became the Victoria line

"The first plan which was a recognisable precursor of the Victoria Line
appeared in 1937. A new express tube line would run from Victoria to
Finsbury Park "

whereas for the Northeren Line

"After World War II, a 1946 plan for London envisaged providing a completely
separate express route under the Northern Line, allowing the Victoria and
Finsbury Park route (now called "route 8") to serve new markets"

However plans are one thing, obtaining the necessary funding is another
which has been the story of the Underground since its inception really.
Had the whole thing been constructed during the course of a five year
plan using slave labour at the whim of some tyrant then presumably
its history wouldn't have been quite so interesting or given so
much scope for speculation.


and at some times were planned to be capable of carrying mainline stock. So it's not
surprising that a 16'6" *non* station tunnel size was chosen.



michael adams

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:12:19 -0000
"michael adams" wrote:
which contradicts his earlier claim, supposedly based on the same source -

When someone has to post a 3 page response you know they've lost the argument.

--
Spud