About Us

[email protected] · May 24th 15, 04:33 PM posted to uk.transport.london

In article
-september.
org, (Recliner) wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message

g, 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.

I think the history was why the Aldwych branch was constructed as double
track.

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?

The issue was probably one of obtaining wayleaves. The owners of property
own the land below to the centre of the earth, with certain limitations,
e.g. for mineral rights. So maybe the GNPBR was able to negotiate some
wayleaves but only on that one section?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Roland Perry · May 24th 15, 04:44 PM posted to uk.transport.london

In message , at 11:33:37
on Sun, 24 May 2015, remarked:
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.

I think the history was why the Aldwych branch was constructed as double
track.

Which is presumably under the road 90% of the way, but not the final 10%

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?

The issue was probably one of obtaining wayleaves. The owners of property
own the land below to the centre of the earth, with certain limitations,
e.g. for mineral rights. So maybe the GNPBR was able to negotiate some
wayleaves but only on that one section?

They were only responsible for Holborn northwards. And yes, they had
clearly gained permission for the most egregious non-road section from
Russell Square to Kings Cross.
--
Roland Perry

[email protected] · May 24th 15, 06:29 PM posted to uk.transport.london

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
11:33:37 on Sun, 24 May 2015, remarked:
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.

I think the history was why the Aldwych branch was constructed as double
track.

Which is presumably under the road 90% of the way, but not the final
10%

It was built while Kingsway was being constructed, so presumably had
wayleaves where not under the new road.

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?

The issue was probably one of obtaining wayleaves. The owners of property
own the land below to the centre of the earth, with certain limitations,
e.g. for mineral rights. So maybe the GNPBR was able to negotiate some
wayleaves but only on that one section?

They were only responsible for Holborn northwards. And yes, they had
clearly gained permission for the most egregious non-road section
from Russell Square to Kings Cross.

Ah, yes. That section was the GN&S. But the construction was by the LER
which had consolidated all the Yerkes tubes by then.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Tufnell Park	Basil Jet[_4_]	London Transport	19	May 24th 15 10:47 AM
Finsbury Park cycle park ready	TravelBot	London Transport News	0	March 24th 06 08:23 AM
Tufnell Park	CharlesPottins	London Transport	1	December 27th 04 09:40 PM
Tufnell Park Station	Ben Robert Smith	London Transport	2	December 23rd 04 07:42 PM
Tufnell Park Modernisation	Chz	London Transport	0	October 31st 03 11:16 AM

Menu

About Us