Did Praed Street Junction exist when the Metropolitan Railway opened
between Paddington Bishop's Road and Farringdon Street in 1863? Or was
the junction only added when the line south to Gloucester Road opened
in 1868?

In books about the Metropolitan one often sees a picture of a broad
gauge steam locomotive going over the junction, dated as 1863. But why
would the junction be there at that time?

Dominic

In message , Dominic
writes

Did Praed Street Junction exist when the Metropolitan Railway opened
between Paddington Bishop's Road and Farringdon Street in 1863? Or was
the junction only added when the line south to Gloucester Road opened
in 1868?

The latter - 1868.

In books about the Metropolitan one often sees a picture of a broad
gauge steam locomotive going over the junction, dated as 1863. But why
would the junction be there at that time?

One of the classic early lithographs (but dated c. 1868) is ...

http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/r...image=10302307

Is that the one?

--
Paul Terry

Dominic F.:
Did Praed Street Junction exist when the Metropolitan Railway opened
between Paddington Bishop's Road and Farringdon Street in 1863? Or was
the junction only added when the line south to Gloucester Road opened
in 1868?

Paul Terry:
The latter - 1868.

In books about the Metropolitan one often sees a picture of a broad
gauge steam locomotive going over the junction, dated as 1863. ...

One of the classic early lithographs (but dated c. 1868) ...

Metropolitan trains themselves were always standard gauge from August
1863 when the GWR withdrew from the original arrangement to provide
them. But through trains from the GWR operated over the Met starting
later in 1863, and these were broad gauge until 1869. Evidently the
lithograph shows one of them.

What I never thought about until now is that the tracks in the *fore-
ground*, which now form the Circle and District Line tracks, are mixed
gauge in the lithograph. I have never seen anything to suggest that
broad-gauge trains used those tracks. Does anyone know how far toward
South Ken the broad-gauge rails ran, and whether they were ever used?
--
Mark Brader "You can't [compare] computer memory and recall
Toronto with human memory and recall. It's comparing
apples and bicycles." -- Ed Knowles

My text in this article is in the public domain.

In article , (Mark Brader)
wrote:

What I never thought about until now is that the tracks in the *fore-
ground*, which now form the Circle and District Line tracks, are mixed
gauge in the lithograph. I have never seen anything to suggest that
broad-gauge trains used those tracks. Does anyone know how far toward
South Ken the broad-gauge rails ran, and whether they were ever used?

They didn't, as can be seen if you take a look at the tunnel width at the
junction. The lithographer used artistic licence.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

Paul Terry wrote in message ...
In message , Dominic
writes

Did Praed Street Junction exist when the Metropolitan Railway opened
between Paddington Bishop's Road and Farringdon Street in 1863? Or was
the junction only added when the line south to Gloucester Road opened
in 1868?

The latter - 1868.

In books about the Metropolitan one often sees a picture of a broad
gauge steam locomotive going over the junction, dated as 1863. But why
would the junction be there at that time?

One of the classic early lithographs (but dated c. 1868) is ...

http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/r...image=10302307

Is that the one?

Yeah, that's it. I think in London's Metropolitan Railway by Alan
Jackson it's dated wrongly as 1863, which didn't help me when I was
trying to resolve that Bishop's Road is the original Paddington, and
Praed Street was added later. Thanks,
Dominic

Dominic F.:
... which didn't help me when I was trying to resolve that Bishop's
Road is the original Paddington, and Praed Street was added later.

An interesting point here is that the Praed Street station and junction
were actually in the plan for the Metropolitan at the time when the
terminus was first moved to Paddington. Then they realized that since
connecting tracks with the GWR main line were planned, it would be
cheaper to eliminate the junction and put the station on the connecting
tracks instead -- hence, Bishop's Road.

But you knew this, if you've read CULG http://www.davros.org/rail/culg
on the Hammersmith & City Line.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Ken doesn't spell very well. Fortunately,
he has other virtues." -- Dennis Ritchie

My text in this article is in the public domain.

"Paul Cummins" wrote in message
...
In article , (Mark Brader)
wrote:

What I never thought about until now is that the tracks
in the *fore-ground*, which now form the Circle and
District Line tracks, are mixed gauge in the lithograph.
I have never seen anything to suggest that broad-gauge
trains used those tracks. Does anyone know how far
toward South Ken the broad-gauge rails ran,
and whether they were ever used?

They didn't, as can be seen if you take a look at the tunnel
width at the junction. The lithographer used artistic licence.

Was there any device to prevent broad gauge trains attempting to go the
wrong way?

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

In article ,
(John Rowland) wrote:

Was there any device to prevent broad gauge trains attempting to go the
wrong way?

I would suggest that the lack of rail would have done the job most
effectively.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

In article , Paul Cummins
writes
Does anyone know how far toward
South Ken the broad-gauge rails ran, and whether they were ever used?

They didn't, as can be seen if you take a look at the tunnel width at the
junction. The lithographer used artistic licence.

It's not clear to me that the tunnel width is insufficient. Remember
that broad gauge trains overhung the rails far less than narrow gauge.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In article , John Rowland
writes
Was there any device to prevent broad gauge trains attempting to go the
wrong way?

No broad gauge rail. The track would be something like this:

\ \ \
\ \ C\
\ \ \\------------
\ \ \--C
-------X-------\--------------
\
\
\
------------------------------

Irrespective of the setting of the points, the check rail C would pull a
broad-gauge axle around the curve. If the common rail is on the other
side it's harder; one approach is to slew the standard-gauge track
across before the points:

\ \ \
\ \ C\
\ \ \\---------O------
\ \ \--C /C
-------X-------\---------//
\ C--/ /--C
\ //----
\ C/
---------------------------O------

Note that the locations marked O do *not* have a point blade; the
diverging rail ends short of the stock rail. Broad-gauge trains stay on
the stock rail, while standard gauge ones are pulled across by the check
rails.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: