|
Cockfosters depot WW2 pillbox
Saw this as I took a rare trip up to cockfosters today, never noticed it
before - must have been behind vegetation. There's very little about in online other than it was meant to defend the depot. I'm no military expert but I can't really see what its purpose would have been. If the germans had got to cockfosters then it would have been game over for the tube and probably the country so what was the point? Anyway here's a google maps link: https://goo.gl/maps/i4A26d931KctSoVy7 |
Cockfosters depot WW2 pillbox
On 23/06/2019 13:44, wrote:
Saw this as I took a rare trip up to cockfosters today, never noticed it before - must have been behind vegetation. There's very little about in online other than it was meant to defend the depot. I'm no military expert but I can't really see what its purpose would have been. If the germans had got to cockfosters then it would have been game over for the tube and probably the country so what was the point? Anyway here's a google maps link: https://goo.gl/maps/i4A26d931KctSoVy7 That looks like Type 27, with the hole in the middle for an anti-aircraft gun. Would that perhaps have been useful in context? -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Cockfosters depot WW2 pillbox
On 23/06/2019 18:17, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 23/06/2019 13:44, wrote: Saw this as I took a rare trip up to cockfosters today, never noticed it before - must have been behind vegetation. There's very little about in online other than it was meant to defend the depot. I'm no military expert but I can't really see what its purpose would have been. If the germans had got to cockfosters then it would have been game over for the tube and probably the country so what was the point? Anyway here's a google maps link: https://goo.gl/maps/i4A26d931KctSoVy7 That looks like Type 27, with the hole in the middle for an anti-aircraft gun. Would that perhaps have been useful in context? Also, is it close enough to the POW interrogation site at Trent Park to perhaps be linked to activities there? -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Cockfosters depot WW2 pillbox
On 23/06/2019 18:21, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 23/06/2019 18:17, Arthur Figgis wrote: On 23/06/2019 13:44, wrote: Saw this as I took a rare trip up to cockfosters today, never noticed it before - must have been behind vegetation. There's very little about in online other than it was meant to defend the depot. I'm no military expert but I can't really see what its purpose would have been. If the germans had got to cockfosters then it would have been game over for the tube and probably the country so what was the point? Anyway here's a google maps link: https://goo.gl/maps/i4A26d931KctSoVy7 That looks like Type 27, with the hole in the middle for an anti-aircraft gun. Would that perhaps have been useful in context? Also, is it close enough to the POW interrogation site at Trent Park to perhaps be linked to activities there? Unlikely, the committee that decided where to position such things wouldn't have known about interrogation sites. An anti-aircraft site to protect the depot is more likely -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Cockfosters depot WW2 pillbox
On 23/06/2019 18:27, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 23/06/2019 18:21, Arthur Figgis wrote: On 23/06/2019 18:17, Arthur Figgis wrote: On 23/06/2019 13:44, wrote: Saw this as I took a rare trip up to cockfosters today, never noticed it before - must have been behind vegetation. There's very little about in online other than it was meant to defend the depot. I'm no military expert but I can't really see what its purpose would have been. If the germans had got to cockfosters then it would have been game over for the tube and probably the country so what was the point? Anyway here's a google maps link: https://goo.gl/maps/i4A26d931KctSoVy7 That looks like Type 27, with the hole in the middle for an anti-aircraft gun. Would that perhaps have been useful in context? Also, is it close enough to the POW interrogation site at Trent Park to perhaps be linked to activities there? Unlikely, the committee that decided where to position such things wouldn't have known about interrogation sites. An anti-aircraft site to protect the depot is more likely Presumably someone would have known it was being used for some kind of military purpose (if it was at the time). -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Cockfosters depot WW2 pillbox
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 20:46:45 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote: On 23/06/2019 18:27, Graeme Wall wrote: On 23/06/2019 18:21, Arthur Figgis wrote: On 23/06/2019 18:17, Arthur Figgis wrote: On 23/06/2019 13:44, wrote: Saw this as I took a rare trip up to cockfosters today, never noticed it before - must have been behind vegetation. There's very little about in online other than it was meant to defend the depot. I'm no military expert but I can't really see what its purpose would have been. If the germans had got to cockfosters then it would have been game over for the tube and probably the country so what was the point? Anyway here's a google maps link: https://goo.gl/maps/i4A26d931KctSoVy7 That looks like Type 27, with the hole in the middle for an anti-aircraft gun. Would that perhaps have been useful in context? Also, is it close enough to the POW interrogation site at Trent Park to perhaps be linked to activities there? Unlikely, the committee that decided where to position such things wouldn't have known about interrogation sites. An anti-aircraft site to protect the depot is more likely Presumably someone would have known it was being used for some kind of military purpose (if it was at the time). Military sites were hardly uncommon during the War! |
Cockfosters depot WW2 pillbox
On 24/06/2019 13:41, Recliner wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 20:46:45 +0100, Arthur Figgis wrote: On 23/06/2019 18:27, Graeme Wall wrote: On 23/06/2019 18:21, Arthur Figgis wrote: On 23/06/2019 18:17, Arthur Figgis wrote: On 23/06/2019 13:44, wrote: Saw this as I took a rare trip up to cockfosters today, never noticed it before - must have been behind vegetation. There's very little about in online other than it was meant to defend the depot. I'm no military expert but I can't really see what its purpose would have been. If the germans had got to cockfosters then it would have been game over for the tube and probably the country so what was the point? Anyway here's a google maps link: https://goo.gl/maps/i4A26d931KctSoVy7 That looks like Type 27, with the hole in the middle for an anti-aircraft gun. Would that perhaps have been useful in context? Also, is it close enough to the POW interrogation site at Trent Park to perhaps be linked to activities there? Unlikely, the committee that decided where to position such things wouldn't have known about interrogation sites. An anti-aircraft site to protect the depot is more likely Presumably someone would have known it was being used for some kind of military purpose (if it was at the time). Military sites were hardly uncommon during the War! in 1940 the whole of the south of England was a military site. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Cockfosters depot WW2 pillbox
Guy Gorton wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 18:17:42 +0100, Arthur Figgis wrote: On 23/06/2019 13:44, wrote: Saw this as I took a rare trip up to cockfosters today, never noticed it before - must have been behind vegetation. There's very little about in online other than it was meant to defend the depot. I'm no military expert but I can't really see what its purpose would have been. If the germans had got to cockfosters then it would have been game over for the tube and probably the country so what was the point? Anyway here's a google maps link: https://goo.gl/maps/i4A26d931KctSoVy7 That looks like Type 27, with the hole in the middle for an anti-aircraft gun. Would that perhaps have been useful in context? Certainly some sort of gun emplacement. It is not a pillbox (one still in existence by the Thames at Gatehampton Bridge attached). Guy, This isn't a binary group, so most people won't have seen your bridge photo attachment, which isn't permitted in text-only groups. You need to provide a link to the photo hosted on a web site. |
Cockfosters depot WW2 pillbox
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:38:00 GMT, Recliner
wrote: Guy Gorton wrote: On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 18:17:42 +0100, Arthur Figgis wrote: On 23/06/2019 13:44, wrote: Saw this as I took a rare trip up to cockfosters today, never noticed it before - must have been behind vegetation. There's very little about in online other than it was meant to defend the depot. I'm no military expert but I can't really see what its purpose would have been. If the germans had got to cockfosters then it would have been game over for the tube and probably the country so what was the point? Anyway here's a google maps link: https://goo.gl/maps/i4A26d931KctSoVy7 That looks like Type 27, with the hole in the middle for an anti-aircraft gun. Would that perhaps have been useful in context? Certainly some sort of gun emplacement. It is not a pillbox (one still in existence by the Thames at Gatehampton Bridge attached). Guy, This isn't a binary group, so most people won't have seen your bridge photo attachment, which isn't permitted in text-only groups. You need to provide a link to the photo hosted on a web site. Silly of me! A moment's inattention. This website shows Gatehampton pillbox in a much better photo than I could take:- https://www.derelictplaces.co.uk/mai...l#.XRIu-LjpUyI Guy Gorton |
Cockfosters depot WW2 pillbox
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 15:28:01 +0100, Guy Gorton
wrote: On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:38:00 GMT, Recliner wrote: Guy Gorton wrote: On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 18:17:42 +0100, Arthur Figgis wrote: On 23/06/2019 13:44, wrote: Saw this as I took a rare trip up to cockfosters today, never noticed it before - must have been behind vegetation. There's very little about in online other than it was meant to defend the depot. I'm no military expert but I can't really see what its purpose would have been. If the germans had got to cockfosters then it would have been game over for the tube and probably the country so what was the point? Anyway here's a google maps link: https://goo.gl/maps/i4A26d931KctSoVy7 That looks like Type 27, with the hole in the middle for an anti-aircraft gun. Would that perhaps have been useful in context? Certainly some sort of gun emplacement. It is not a pillbox (one still in existence by the Thames at Gatehampton Bridge attached). Guy, This isn't a binary group, so most people won't have seen your bridge photo attachment, which isn't permitted in text-only groups. You need to provide a link to the photo hosted on a web site. Silly of me! A moment's inattention. This website shows Gatehampton pillbox in a much better photo than I could take:- https://www.derelictplaces.co.uk/mai...l#.XRIu-LjpUyI Guy Gorton The only links Gatehampton has with transport.London is that the Thames is flowing towards London and the railway is running away from Paddington! But that is my excuse for mentioning this lovely viaduct by Brunell which was built at two diffrent times, using different brickwork techniques, the two being attached to each other their full length. Guy Gorton |
Cockfosters depot WW2 pillbox
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 04:02:38PM +0100, Guy Gorton wrote:
The only links Gatehampton has with transport.London is that the Thames is flowing towards London and the railway is running away from Paddington! But that is my excuse for mentioning this lovely viaduct by Brunell which was built at two diffrent times, using different brickwork techniques, the two being attached to each other their full length. The Grosvenor bridges crossing the Thames outside Victoria were built similarly, one track at a time, so that the old structure could be replaced without having to close Victoria station. -- David Cantrell | Pope | First Church of the Symmetrical Internet All principles of gravity are negated by fear -- Cartoon Law IV |
Cockfosters depot WW2 pillbox
On 27/06/2019 11:48, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 04:02:38PM +0100, Guy Gorton wrote: The only links Gatehampton has with transport.London is that the Thames is flowing towards London and the railway is running away from Paddington! But that is my excuse for mentioning this lovely viaduct by Brunell which was built at two diffrent times, using different brickwork techniques, the two being attached to each other their full length. The Grosvenor bridges crossing the Thames outside Victoria were built similarly, one track at a time, so that the old structure could be replaced without having to close Victoria station. I've always wondered if there is any advantage in having a multi-track bridge as opposed to several single track bridges with inch gaps between them. You'd think narrow bridges would be preferable with respect to maintenance, and also preferable in most conceivable catastrophes, but one wide bridge seems to be the usual choice. -- Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to Richard H. Kirk - Step Write Run.. Alphaphone Vol 1 |
Cockfosters depot WW2 pillbox
Basil Jet wrote:
On 27/06/2019 11:48, David Cantrell wrote: On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 04:02:38PM +0100, Guy Gorton wrote: The only links Gatehampton has with transport.London is that the Thames is flowing towards London and the railway is running away from Paddington! But that is my excuse for mentioning this lovely viaduct by Brunell which was built at two diffrent times, using different brickwork techniques, the two being attached to each other their full length. The Grosvenor bridges crossing the Thames outside Victoria were built similarly, one track at a time, so that the old structure could be replaced without having to close Victoria station. I've always wondered if there is any advantage in having a multi-track bridge as opposed to several single track bridges with inch gaps between them. You'd think narrow bridges would be preferable with respect to maintenance, and also preferable in most conceivable catastrophes, but one wide bridge seems to be the usual choice. Cheaper, lighter? Probably less maintenance required? |
Cockfosters depot WW2 pillbox
Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote: On 27/06/2019 11:48, David Cantrell wrote: On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 04:02:38PM +0100, Guy Gorton wrote: The only links Gatehampton has with transport.London is that the Thames is flowing towards London and the railway is running away from Paddington! But that is my excuse for mentioning this lovely viaduct by Brunell which was built at two diffrent times, using different brickwork techniques, the two being attached to each other their full length. The Grosvenor bridges crossing the Thames outside Victoria were built similarly, one track at a time, so that the old structure could be replaced without having to close Victoria station. I've always wondered if there is any advantage in having a multi-track bridge as opposed to several single track bridges with inch gaps between them. You'd think narrow bridges would be preferable with respect to maintenance, and also preferable in most conceivable catastrophes, but one wide bridge seems to be the usual choice. Cheaper, lighter? Probably less maintenance required? Meldon Viaduct on Dartmoor is an interesting one. The name suggests it is a single Viaduct but it is really two built at different dates but with a degree of integration between the two. From a distance the combined structure looks fairly uniform but on closer examination there are a few differences between the two. https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Meldon_Viaduct GH |
Cockfosters depot WW2 pillbox
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 13:38:13 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote: On 27/06/2019 11:48, David Cantrell wrote: On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 04:02:38PM +0100, Guy Gorton wrote: The only links Gatehampton has with transport.London is that the Thames is flowing towards London and the railway is running away from Paddington! But that is my excuse for mentioning this lovely viaduct by Brunell which was built at two diffrent times, using different brickwork techniques, the two being attached to each other their full length. The Grosvenor bridges crossing the Thames outside Victoria were built similarly, one track at a time, so that the old structure could be replaced without having to close Victoria station. I've always wondered if there is any advantage in having a multi-track bridge as opposed to several single track bridges with inch gaps between them. You'd think narrow bridges would be preferable with respect to maintenance, and also preferable in most conceivable catastrophes, but one wide bridge seems to be the usual choice. Brunel used both. Maidenhead is the first going west and it was made by extending the existing spans on both sides. Very interesting to look at from underneath the river arch. Quite distinct differences in the constructon techniques. Gatehampton is two bridges glued together so that at rail level there is no break. The next set is at Moulsford where there are two independent viaducts with some construction differences and some connecting mini-arches. Other Brunel bridges over the Thames demonstrate his versatility - wrought iron at Windsor, steel on the Henley branch, steel(?) at Bourne End, although the last-named is probably before his time, it being on the Wycombe Railway. Guy Gorton |
Cockfosters depot WW2 pillbox
On 27/06/2019 18:52, Guy Gorton wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 13:38:13 +0100, Basil Jet wrote: On 27/06/2019 11:48, David Cantrell wrote: On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 04:02:38PM +0100, Guy Gorton wrote: The only links Gatehampton has with transport.London is that the Thames is flowing towards London and the railway is running away from Paddington! But that is my excuse for mentioning this lovely viaduct by Brunell which was built at two diffrent times, using different brickwork techniques, the two being attached to each other their full length. The Grosvenor bridges crossing the Thames outside Victoria were built similarly, one track at a time, so that the old structure could be replaced without having to close Victoria station. I've always wondered if there is any advantage in having a multi-track bridge as opposed to several single track bridges with inch gaps between them. You'd think narrow bridges would be preferable with respect to maintenance, and also preferable in most conceivable catastrophes, but one wide bridge seems to be the usual choice. Brunel used both. Maidenhead is the first going west and it was made by extending the existing spans on both sides. Very interesting to look at from underneath the river arch. Quite distinct differences in the constructon techniques. Gatehampton is two bridges glued together so that at rail level there is no break. The next set is at Moulsford where there are two independent viaducts with some construction differences and some connecting mini-arches. Other Brunel bridges over the Thames demonstrate his versatility - wrought iron at Windsor, steel on the Henley branch, steel(?) at Bourne End, although the last-named is probably before his time, it being on the Wycombe Railway. Wasn't he the consulting engineer for the Wycombe Railway? -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Cockfosters depot WW2 pillbox
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 19:05:03 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote: On 27/06/2019 18:52, Guy Gorton wrote: On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 13:38:13 +0100, Basil Jet wrote: On 27/06/2019 11:48, David Cantrell wrote: On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 04:02:38PM +0100, Guy Gorton wrote: The only links Gatehampton has with transport.London is that the Thames is flowing towards London and the railway is running away from Paddington! But that is my excuse for mentioning this lovely viaduct by Brunell which was built at two diffrent times, using different brickwork techniques, the two being attached to each other their full length. The Grosvenor bridges crossing the Thames outside Victoria were built similarly, one track at a time, so that the old structure could be replaced without having to close Victoria station. I've always wondered if there is any advantage in having a multi-track bridge as opposed to several single track bridges with inch gaps between them. You'd think narrow bridges would be preferable with respect to maintenance, and also preferable in most conceivable catastrophes, but one wide bridge seems to be the usual choice. Brunel used both. Maidenhead is the first going west and it was made by extending the existing spans on both sides. Very interesting to look at from underneath the river arch. Quite distinct differences in the constructon techniques. Gatehampton is two bridges glued together so that at rail level there is no break. The next set is at Moulsford where there are two independent viaducts with some construction differences and some connecting mini-arches. Other Brunel bridges over the Thames demonstrate his versatility - wrought iron at Windsor, steel on the Henley branch, steel(?) at Bourne End, although the last-named is probably before his time, it being on the Wycombe Railway. Wasn't he the consulting engineer for the Wycombe Railway? Might well have been. Wycombe Railway was one of those oddities - as far as I know, never ran a train of their own on their track. There are still some remnants of Wycombe Railway buildings at High Wycombe. Lots of rather odd railway history round High Wycombe and westwards. And east for that matter - GW&GC joint, avoiding Metropolitan obstruction. Don't get me started! Guy Gorton |
Cockfosters depot WW2 pillbox
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:52:37 +0100, Guy Gorton
wrote: On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 13:38:13 +0100, Basil Jet wrote: On 27/06/2019 11:48, David Cantrell wrote: On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 04:02:38PM +0100, Guy Gorton wrote: The only links Gatehampton has with transport.London is that the Thames is flowing towards London and the railway is running away from Paddington! But that is my excuse for mentioning this lovely viaduct by Brunell which was built at two diffrent times, using different brickwork techniques, the two being attached to each other their full length. The Grosvenor bridges crossing the Thames outside Victoria were built similarly, one track at a time, so that the old structure could be replaced without having to close Victoria station. I've always wondered if there is any advantage in having a multi-track bridge as opposed to several single track bridges with inch gaps between them. You'd think narrow bridges would be preferable with respect to maintenance, and also preferable in most conceivable catastrophes, but one wide bridge seems to be the usual choice. Brunel used both. Maidenhead is the first going west and it was made by extending the existing spans on both sides. Very interesting to look at from underneath the river arch. Quite distinct differences in the constructon techniques. Gatehampton is two bridges glued together so that at rail level there is no break. The next set is at Moulsford where there are two independent viaducts with some construction differences and some connecting mini-arches. Other Brunel bridges over the Thames demonstrate his versatility - wrought iron at Windsor, steel on the Henley branch, steel(?) at Bourne End, although the last-named is probably before his time, it being on the Wycombe Railway. I think it's quite common to have a separate structure when the formation is widened (eg from one track to two, or two to four). But if building a two-track bridge from scratch, I can't see any benefit from building it as two physically separate, adjacent single track bridges. That would almost certainly cost more, be heavier, and require more maintenance. In particular, it might be very hard to get maintenance access to the structures that are only an inch apart. How would they be inspected, painted or repaired? |
Cockfosters depot WW2 pillbox
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 12:10:09 +0100, Recliner
wrote: On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:52:37 +0100, Guy Gorton wrote: On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 13:38:13 +0100, Basil Jet wrote: On 27/06/2019 11:48, David Cantrell wrote: On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 04:02:38PM +0100, Guy Gorton wrote: The only links Gatehampton has with transport.London is that the Thames is flowing towards London and the railway is running away from Paddington! But that is my excuse for mentioning this lovely viaduct by Brunell which was built at two diffrent times, using different brickwork techniques, the two being attached to each other their full length. The Grosvenor bridges crossing the Thames outside Victoria were built similarly, one track at a time, so that the old structure could be replaced without having to close Victoria station. I've always wondered if there is any advantage in having a multi-track bridge as opposed to several single track bridges with inch gaps between them. You'd think narrow bridges would be preferable with respect to maintenance, and also preferable in most conceivable catastrophes, but one wide bridge seems to be the usual choice. Brunel used both. Maidenhead is the first going west and it was made by extending the existing spans on both sides. Very interesting to look at from underneath the river arch. Quite distinct differences in the constructon techniques. Gatehampton is two bridges glued together so that at rail level there is no break. The next set is at Moulsford where there are two independent viaducts with some construction differences and some connecting mini-arches. Other Brunel bridges over the Thames demonstrate his versatility - wrought iron at Windsor, steel on the Henley branch, steel(?) at Bourne End, although the last-named is probably before his time, it being on the Wycombe Railway. I think it's quite common to have a separate structure when the formation is widened (eg from one track to two, or two to four). But if building a two-track bridge from scratch, I can't see any benefit from building it as two physically separate, adjacent single track bridges. That would almost certainly cost more, be heavier, and require more maintenance. In particular, it might be very hard to get maintenance access to the structures that are only an inch apart. How would they be inspected, painted or repaired? Brunell's bridges over the Thames that I mentioned are a mixed lot. At Windsor, the bridge carried two tracks but a long time ago it was reduced to single line but the bridge is unchanged. Wargrave was also double track, now single, and half the bridge was removed. Tha main line bridges all started as double track when built in 1839 and all were widened to 4 tracks in 1890. Maidenhead was widened on both sides and the two new arches are slightly different from the original arches - they have a slightly wider span at river level. Whether there is anything left of the orginal parapets underneath the ballast, I would not know. At Gatehampton, the additionial structure is entirely on the Down side of the line. There is no visible structure berween the old and new spans which are of exactly the same dimensions. The old span uses skew-brickwork, the new straight brickwork, so the change is very visible. Again, I would not know if there are any remnants of the original parapet under the ballast. At Moulsford there are two seperate viaducts over the flood plain and the river. This time, the original viaduct is on the Down side. There are different construction techniques used on the two structures but they have essentially the same dimensions. Brunel was a versatile man! You may well ask why I have all this somewhat trivial knowledge. The answer is that back in 1999 I decided that Thames bridges were an interesting topic so I set about taking photos of all of them from Albert Bridge, Windsor to Wallingford, (OS map 175 plus a bit at the west side). 26 bridges used by the public. The Powerpoint show has been given to many groups with a wide range of interests so I had to develop talks to suite the interests of the groups. Guy Gorton |
Cockfosters depot WW2 pillbox
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 01:38:13PM +0100, Basil Jet wrote:
I've always wondered if there is any advantage in having a multi-track bridge as opposed to several single track bridges with inch gaps between them. You'd think narrow bridges would be preferable with respect to maintenance, and also preferable in most conceivable catastrophes, but one wide bridge seems to be the usual choice. I would expect one wide bridge to do a better job of distributing load. Here http://www.semgonline.com/RlyMag/ReconstructionOfGrosvenorBridge.pdf is a non-technical article about how the current bridge(s) was built. If you can get access then there are a lot more details he https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/10.1680/iicep.1967.8471 -- David Cantrell | top google result for "topless karaoke murders" engineer: n. one who, regardless of how much effort he puts in to a job, will never satisfy either the suits or the scientists |
Cockfosters depot WW2 pillbox
On 23/06/2019 13:44, wrote:
Saw this as I took a rare trip up to cockfosters today, never noticed it before - must have been behind vegetation. There's very little about in online other than it was meant to defend the depot. I'm no military expert but I can't really see what its purpose would have been. If the germans had got to cockfosters then it would have been game over for the tube and probably the country so what was the point? Anyway here's a google maps link: https://goo.gl/maps/i4A26d931KctSoVy7 I doubt that it was railway-related. There were many pillboxes nearby, forming part of a defensive ring around London. Tank traps, too. There were three in nearby Trent Park, alone. The one you've seen's only railway link is probably that, because it is surrounded by railway tracks, it hasn't been demolished ! PA |
Cockfosters depot WW2 pillbox
"David Cantrell" wrote in message
k... On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 04:02:38PM +0100, Guy Gorton wrote: The only links Gatehampton has with transport.London is that the Thames is flowing towards London and the railway is running away from Paddington! But that is my excuse for mentioning this lovely viaduct by Brunell which was built at two diffrent times, using different brickwork techniques, the two being attached to each other their full length. The Grosvenor bridges crossing the Thames outside Victoria were built similarly, one track at a time, so that the old structure could be replaced without having to close Victoria station. The current London Bridge was built as four bridges: the outer spans were built first, either side of the old bridge, and the traffic was transferred onto them. Then the old bridge was dismantled and the inner spans built to fill the gap. -- DAS |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk