In message , Marratxi
writes

Its hard to believe that there were three stations in what seems quite
a short trip from Blackfriars to Farringdon,

There were actually only two stations, Ludgate Hill and Snow Hill
(renamed Holborn Viaduct Low Level in 1912 and closed in 1916) on the
route you mention. The main Holborn Viaduct station was a terminus on a
short branch off that route.

can anybody point me to a map showing that part of the rail system ?

http://www.londonrailways.net/snowhill.htm

--
Paul Terry

"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...
In message , Marratxi
writes

can anybody point me to a map showing that part of the rail system ?

http://www.londonrailways.net/snowhill.htm

--
Paul Terry

Thanks !! I'd love to be able to do a tour of the area and explore all the
old tunnels, sidings, etc. The positioning of the (now) Thameslink line to
the East of St. Pancras station is surely wrong, though.
Cheerz,
Baz

In message , Marratxi
writes

"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...

http://www.londonrailways.net/snowhill.htm

Thanks !! I'd love to be able to do a tour of the area and explore all the
old tunnels, sidings, etc. The positioning of the (now) Thameslink line to
the East of St. Pancras station is surely wrong, though.

Yes. Although it comes in from the east, it curves under the St Pancras
platforms and then heads north under Midland Road.

--
Paul Terry

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Paul Terry wrote:

In message , Marratxi
writes

Its hard to believe that there were three stations in what seems quite
a short trip from Blackfriars to Farringdon,

There were actually only two stations, Ludgate Hill and Snow Hill
(renamed Holborn Viaduct Low Level in 1912 and closed in 1916) on the
route you mention. The main Holborn Viaduct station was a terminus on a
short branch off that route.

Why were there two Holborn Viaduct stations, then? AIUI, the low level
station was the first to be built, so why did someone see the need for
another station in more or less the same place? Was it just to provide
more capacity? I can imagine that reversing lots of LCDR trains at the
low-level station would make it rather hard to run a high-frequency
through service as well.

I can't imagine a London where there was the space to go round building
stations willy-nilly like that!

tom

--
Gin makes a man mean; let's booze up and riot!

In message ,
Tom Anderson writes

Why were there two Holborn Viaduct stations, then? AIUI, the low level
station was the first to be built,

The high level terminus was opened on 2 March 1874; the low level
through station (Snow Hill) was opened 1 August 1874. Basically they
were planned as a complementary pair of stations.

so why did someone see the need for another station in more or less the
same place?

Essentially, the High Level was intended as a terminus for LCDR mainline
services, including various boat trains to the continent, while the Low
Level was primarily for suburban services, many terminating at Moorgate.
The High Level was actually very small - just 4 platforms designed for
half-length trains. The other half of each train was a West End portion
(for Victoria) with the portions being split or combined at Herne Hill.

Was it just to provide more capacity?

That too. In order to finance the line the LCDR sold running powers to
the GNR, Midland and the LSWR, so there was an enormous range of
services on the line - trains from Kingston/Richmond/Wimbledon
(terminating at Ludgate Hill), Herne Hill to King's Cross and Barnet,
GNR services from Hatfield to Ludgate Hill, Muswell Hill to Woolwich,
Midland services between Hendon and Victoria via Ludgate Hill, etc.

I can imagine that reversing lots of LCDR trains at the low-level
station would make it rather hard to run a high-frequency through
service as well.

I don't think they ever reversed at the Low Level station - trains on
the Snow Hill line would either continue north via Farringdon or would
terminate at Moorgate. Congestion was so bad at the latter that it was
often quicker to walk from Snow Hill in the late 19th century.

I can't imagine a London where there was the space to go round building
stations willy-nilly like that!

I don't think it was the LCDR's wish to end up with three tiny terminals
in close proximity (Ludgate Hill, Holborn Viaduct and St Paul's - the
last of these later being renamed Blackfriars). Basically, they had been
bankrupted by the cost of their City extension and with property prices
so high in the area, all they could manage was to build very small and
mean stations whenever an opportunity arose.
--
Paul Terry

While we are on this subject, could someone please tell me why, when it
first opened, City Thameslink Station was called "St Paul's Thameslink";
or was the latter only a temporary station while the City Thameslink was
building?
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 26 September 2004

"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
news
While we are on this subject, could someone please tell me why, when it
first opened, City Thameslink Station was called "St Paul's Thameslink";

To avoid confusion with St Paul's Underground station. Not that confusing
repetition of station names seems to bother LU.

Dave.

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:02:36 +0100, "Dave Liney"
wrote:


"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
news
While we are on this subject, could someone please tell me why, when it
first opened, City Thameslink Station was called "St Paul's Thameslink";

To avoid confusion with St Paul's Underground station. Not that confusing
repetition of station names seems to bother LU.

But there was a plan to link the two St Paul's's at one stage which
would have made the names sensible.
--
Peter Lawrence

In message , at 17:28:34 on
Wed, 29 Sep 2004, Peter Lawrence remarked:
But there was a plan to link the two St Paul's's

tricky one... "two St Paul's" as a contraction of "two St Paul's
stations"?

Where's Lynne Truss when you need her :-)

at one stage which
would have made the names sensible.

Someone recently speculated about the possibility of linking the
northern end of City Thameslink with a new station under Holborn Viaduct
(the street east of the bridge itself). Isn't it rather a long way
otherwise?
--
Roland Perry

In message , Annabel Smyth
writes

While we are on this subject, could someone please tell me why, when it
first opened, City Thameslink Station was called "St Paul's Thameslink";
or was the latter only a temporary station while the City Thameslink was
building?

It was changed because apparently people confused it with St Paul's on
the Central line and assumed there was a convenient interchange between
the two.

In fact, the original St Paul's station was what is now Blackfriars
(Thameslink) - the name was changed in 1937 when LT renamed "Post
Office" on the Central Line as "St Paul's".
--
Paul Terry