Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
11:22:24 on Fri, 22 May 2015, Offramp remarked:
Tuffers was one of those stations that had a rather annoying lift/escalator
characteristic.

The former is usually because there needs to be a mini concourse which
has access to both platforms, and it can't be any lower because the
tracks are in the way. I'll speculate that the latter is so that the
lift's machinery room can be at ground level.

Aye. That does make sense. But at stations such as the Claphams North & Common,
at the bottom, platform end there is only one platform at the end of the escalator,
and a flight of stairs to reach them.

Even with an island platform, the tracks would have to diverge in order
to fit around the bottom of escalators, and diverge enormously to get
past lift shafts and their circulating areas.

Were any of the island-platform stations originally built with
escalators? Angel had lifts, and the entrance was moved round the corner
during the rebuild to accommodate the horizontal reach of the new escalators.

If you mean island platform stations in a single platform tunnel, I very
much doubt that any had escalators. These were mainly Yerkes stations from
1906 or so, and those early Tube stations didn't have escalators.

There are stations like Green Park that now have escalators, but the
platforms are in separate tunnels.

In message
-septemb
er.org, at 08:00:18 on Sat, 23 May 2015, Recliner
remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
11:22:24 on Fri, 22 May 2015, Offramp remarked:
Tuffers was one of those stations that had a rather annoying
lift/escalator
characteristic.

The former is usually because there needs to be a mini concourse which
has access to both platforms, and it can't be any lower because the
tracks are in the way. I'll speculate that the latter is so that the
lift's machinery room can be at ground level.

Aye. That does make sense. But at stations such as the Claphams
North & Common,
at the bottom, platform end there is only one platform at the end of
the escalator,
and a flight of stairs to reach them.

Even with an island platform, the tracks would have to diverge in order
to fit around the bottom of escalators, and diverge enormously to get
past lift shafts and their circulating areas.

Were any of the island-platform stations originally built with
escalators? Angel had lifts, and the entrance was moved round the corner
during the rebuild to accommodate the horizontal reach of the new escalators.

If you mean island platform stations in a single platform tunnel, I very
much doubt that any had escalators.

Having a single platform tunnel constrains the running tracks to be very
close together, so there's no room for lift shafts between them, or if
rebuilt later the bottom of the escalator shaft.

Even if there are separate platform tunnels they are often quite close
together, because the original lines were mainly constrained to be under
the footprint of the roads above.

These were mainly Yerkes stations from
1906 or so, and those early Tube stations didn't have escalators.

There are stations like Green Park that now have escalators, but the
platforms are in separate tunnels.

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
03:48:57 on Fri, 22 May 2015, Offramp remarked:
I just noticed that Tufnell Park is shut because the lifts are being
replaced.

So I suppose closing the existing entrance and building a new
Underground / Overground interchange at Station Road with escalators
cutting diagonally down to the existing Northern Line platforms is off
the menu for another 40 years.

Tuffers was one of those stations that had a rather annoying lift/escalator
characteristic. At the top landing the lift goes almost to street
level. There is a further flight of about 10 steps. At the lower level
the lift goes almost to platform level - there is a flight of about 20
steps. Lots of other stations have this charming idiosyncracy. It's a major design flaw.

The former is usually because there needs to be a mini concourse which
has access to both platforms, and it can't be any lower because the
tracks are in the way. I'll speculate that the latter is so that the
lift's machinery room can be at ground level.

They managed it at Caledonian Road.

In article ,
(Lew 1) wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
03:48:57 on Fri, 22 May 2015, Offramp
remarked:
I just noticed that Tufnell Park is shut because the lifts are being
replaced.

So I suppose closing the existing entrance and building a new
Underground / Overground interchange at Station Road with escalators
cutting diagonally down to the existing Northern Line platforms is off
the menu for another 40 years.

Tuffers was one of those stations that had a rather annoying lift/
escalator characteristic. At the top landing the lift goes almost to
street level. There is a further flight of about 10 steps. At the
lower level the lift goes almost to platform level - there is a flight
of about 20 steps. Lots of other stations have this charming
idiosyncracy. It's a major design flaw.

The former is usually because there needs to be a mini concourse which
has access to both platforms, and it can't be any lower because the
tracks are in the way. I'll speculate that the latter is so that the
lift's machinery room can be at ground level.

They managed it at Caledonian Road.

No constraint to be under roads there, though. The Piccadilly runs under the
much wider GN Main Line.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 03:28:02
on Sun, 24 May 2015, remarked:
Tuffers was one of those stations that had a rather annoying lift/
escalator characteristic. At the top landing the lift goes almost to
street level. There is a further flight of about 10 steps. At the
lower level the lift goes almost to platform level - there is a flight
of about 20 steps. Lots of other stations have this charming
idiosyncracy. It's a major design flaw.

The former is usually because there needs to be a mini concourse which
has access to both platforms, and it can't be any lower because the
tracks are in the way. I'll speculate that the latter is so that the
lift's machinery room can be at ground level.

They managed it at Caledonian Road.

No constraint to be under roads there, though. The Piccadilly runs under the
much wider GN Main Line.

While the Piccadilly Line is constrained to being under roads through
most of Central London it breaks away just south of Russell Square and
all the way to Kings Cross. The line is in fact a merger of routes: from
Finsbury Park to Holborn and Hammersmith to Piccadilly, joined with a
third stretch from Piccadilly Circus to Holborn.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 03:28:02
on Sun, 24 May 2015, remarked:
Tuffers was one of those stations that had a rather annoying lift/
escalator characteristic. At the top landing the lift goes almost to
street level. There is a further flight of about 10 steps. At the
lower level the lift goes almost to platform level - there is a flight
of about 20 steps. Lots of other stations have this charming
idiosyncracy. It's a major design flaw.

The former is usually because there needs to be a mini concourse which
has access to both platforms, and it can't be any lower because the
tracks are in the way. I'll speculate that the latter is so that the
lift's machinery room can be at ground level.

They managed it at Caledonian Road.

No constraint to be under roads there, though. The Piccadilly runs under the
much wider GN Main Line.

While the Piccadilly Line is constrained to being under roads through
most of Central London it breaks away just south of Russell Square and
all the way to Kings Cross. The line is in fact a merger of routes: from
Finsbury Park to Holborn and Hammersmith to Piccadilly, joined with a
third stretch from Piccadilly Circus to Holborn.

That was the legal basis, but were the tunnels themselves constructed as
though for three railways that had already been combined before
construction started?

In message
-septembe
r.org, at 10:02:29 on Sun, 24 May 2015, Recliner
remarked:
Tuffers was one of those stations that had a rather annoying lift/
escalator characteristic. At the top landing the lift goes almost to
street level. There is a further flight of about 10 steps. At the
lower level the lift goes almost to platform level - there is a flight
of about 20 steps. Lots of other stations have this charming
idiosyncracy. It's a major design flaw.

The former is usually because there needs to be a mini concourse which
has access to both platforms, and it can't be any lower because the
tracks are in the way. I'll speculate that the latter is so that the
lift's machinery room can be at ground level.

They managed it at Caledonian Road.

No constraint to be under roads there, though. The Piccadilly runs under the
much wider GN Main Line.

While the Piccadilly Line is constrained to being under roads through
most of Central London it breaks away just south of Russell Square and
all the way to Kings Cross. The line is in fact a merger of routes: from
Finsbury Park to Holborn and Hammersmith to Piccadilly, joined with a
third stretch from Piccadilly Circus to Holborn.

That was the legal basis, but were the tunnels themselves constructed as
though for three railways that had already been combined before
construction started?

It think it was constructed as one line, but maybe the two main sections
had previously gained Parliamentary approval with different rules about
being constrained to "under roads" or not.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message -septembe
r.org, at 10:02:29 on Sun, 24 May 2015, Recliner remarked:
Tuffers was one of those stations that had a rather annoying lift/
escalator characteristic. At the top landing the lift goes almost to
street level. There is a further flight of about 10 steps. At the
lower level the lift goes almost to platform level - there is a flight
of about 20 steps. Lots of other stations have this charming
idiosyncracy. It's a major design flaw.

The former is usually because there needs to be a mini concourse which
has access to both platforms, and it can't be any lower because the
tracks are in the way. I'll speculate that the latter is so that the
lift's machinery room can be at ground level.

They managed it at Caledonian Road.

No constraint to be under roads there, though. The Piccadilly runs under the
much wider GN Main Line.

While the Piccadilly Line is constrained to being under roads through
most of Central London it breaks away just south of Russell Square and
all the way to Kings Cross. The line is in fact a merger of routes: from
Finsbury Park to Holborn and Hammersmith to Piccadilly, joined with a
third stretch from Piccadilly Circus to Holborn.

That was the legal basis, but were the tunnels themselves constructed as
though for three railways that had already been combined before
construction started?

It think it was constructed as one line, but maybe the two main sections
had previously gained Parliamentary approval with different rules about
being constrained to "under roads" or not.

Was the constraint about lines not running under buildings a legal
limitation, or a prudent decision by the tunnellers to minimise the chances
of being subsequently sued by building owners over cracks that developed
once the trains were running?

In message
-septem
ber.org, at 10:28:37 on Sun, 24 May 2015, Recliner
remarked:
While the Piccadilly Line is constrained to being under roads through
most of Central London it breaks away just south of Russell Square and
all the way to Kings Cross. The line is in fact a merger of routes: from
Finsbury Park to Holborn and Hammersmith to Piccadilly, joined with a
third stretch from Piccadilly Circus to Holborn.

That was the legal basis, but were the tunnels themselves constructed as
though for three railways that had already been combined before
construction started?

It think it was constructed as one line, but maybe the two main sections
had previously gained Parliamentary approval with different rules about
being constrained to "under roads" or not.

Was the constraint about lines not running under buildings a legal
limitation, or a prudent decision by the tunnellers to minimise the chances
of being subsequently sued by building owners over cracks that developed
once the trains were running?

Whichever one dominated the decision, it clearly made differently for
the two halves.
--
Roland Perry