Platforms at Warren Street
 

Why are warren street's platforms for the northern line on the outside
of the tracks, with the platform entrance so far up to the ends?

Is this something they added for the victoria line, since there seems
to have been a lot of rebuilding - there is a blocked passageway by the
escalator that I would guess used to lead to the lifts, but shouldn't
there be two - one for getting to the platforms and one for leaving?

Or is it something they did recently - the tiling looks as if it has
recently been restored, and I guess that means there must have been
some modernising like blocking off a small passage at the interchange
level that curves to the left, I guess heading down to the victoria
line, that they must have replaced by the wider one with escalators
thats used now?

Platforms at Warren Street
 

On 29 Apr 2005 15:38:12 -0700,
wrote:

Why are warren street's platforms for the northern line on the outside
of the tracks, with the platform entrance so far up to the ends?

The platforms are probably placed like that because there were
restrictions - either engineering or legal - on the running tunnels
"parting" to allow them to be placed inbetween. The entrance will
have been so placed when the escalators were added - the original lift
landings being elsewhere and obviously directly below the station.

Is this something they added for the victoria line, since there seems
to have been a lot of rebuilding - there is a blocked passageway by the
escalator that I would guess used to lead to the lifts, but shouldn't
there be two - one for getting to the platforms and one for leaving?

There was certainly a lot of rebuilding in the 1930s when the
escalators were added, and then more in 1960s for the Victoria line.
This didn't, though, extend to any alteration of the Northern
platforms.

Or is it something they did recently - the tiling looks as if it has
recently been restored, and I guess that means there must have been
some modernising like blocking off a small passage at the interchange
level that curves to the left, I guess heading down to the victoria
line, that they must have replaced by the wider one with escalators
thats used now?

The tiling was replaced around 2000, but one segment with the original
"Euston Road" name has been retained within a wooden frame at platform
level.


--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

Platforms at Warren Street
 

wrote:
Why are warren street's platforms for the northern line on the
outside
of the tracks, with the platform entrance so far up to the ends?
The platforms are probably placed like that because there were
restrictions - either engineering or legal - on the running tunnels
"parting" to allow them to be placed inbetween.
The only thing I can think of is if the road narrowed by the station,
but it does the opposite - its wider here than at goodge street.

The entrance will
have been so placed when the escalators were added - the original
lift
landings being elsewhere and obviously directly below the station.

the bottom escalator landing is just south of being directly below the
station, and there is a blocked black door with grills in that heads
north from the landing, so that would be directly below the station,
but there is only one, and aren't there supposed to be two - one for
each direction, so that people don't get into a traffic jam after
leaving the lifts?

Or is it something they did recently - the tiling looks as if it has

recently been restored,
The tiling was replaced around 2000, but one segment with the original

"Euston Road" name has been retained within a wooden frame at platform

level.
I dont think ive seen that - is it southbound or northbound?

some modernising like blocking off a small passage at the
interchange
level that curves to the left,
Thinking about it, this must head due south, about half way down warren
street itself, (as the escalators to the victoria head south west)
which is totally bizarre - its the wrong direction to have been
something to do with the construction of the victoria line, the old
northern line lifts must be used for ventilation, and there isn't a
demolished building here anyway, so it cant be for that, so is there a
government bunker or something to the south of half way along warren
street, or maybe they just got the direction of the tunnel completely
wrong the first time, and didnt notice?

Platforms at Warren Street
 

wrote in message
ups.com...
Thinking about it, this must head due south, about half way down warren
street itself, (as the escalators to the victoria head south west)
which is totally bizarre - its the wrong direction to have been
something to do with the construction of the victoria line, the old
northern line lifts must be used for ventilation, and there isn't a
demolished building here anyway, so it cant be for that, so is there a
government bunker or something to the south of half way along warren
street, or maybe they just got the direction of the tunnel completely
wrong the first time, and didnt notice?

There is a former construction-shaft which surfaces on the north side of
Whitfield Place near the corner of Whitfield Street. This is now a
draught-relief shaft which comes down at the north end of the northbound
Victoria Line platform, and I suspect it is also connected with the passage
you mention.

Platforms at Warren Street
 

Oh, I thought they used bigger shafts than that.
Was it for all the dirt and stuff that they had to dig out?

Platforms at Warren Street
 

In article . com,
writes
wrote:
The platforms are probably placed like that because there were
restrictions - either engineering or legal - on the running tunnels
"parting" to allow them to be placed inbetween.
The only thing I can think of is if the road narrowed by the station,
but it does the opposite - its wider here than at goodge street.

Remember that the line does a zig-zag once it's crossed Euston Road;
keeping the tracks together may have assisted with that.

some modernising like blocking off a small passage at the
interchange
level that curves to the left,
Thinking about it, this must head due south, about half way down warren
street itself, (as the escalators to the victoria head south west)
which is totally bizarre

I asked about that passage a few years ago on this group and got an
answer; Google should be able to locate it (I'm off-line right now, so
can't).

--
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:

Platforms at Warren Street
 

I found that when I was looking, but on that reply, people said it was
heading towards euston square, which is completely wrong, as it goes in
the opposite direction.

Platforms at Warren Street
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
Oh, I thought they used bigger shafts than that.
Was it for all the dirt and stuff that they had to dig out?

Yes. The earlier Tubes were built mainly using the shafts at each station
which were later to become the lift shafts; the City & South London, Baker
Street & Waterloo Railway and Waterloo & City Railways additionally had
shaft(s) in the Thames.

With the advent of escalators, and with stations having ever more complex
layouts, it became necessary for most stations to be constructed using
temporary or permanent shafts - for personnel access, tunnelling and removal
of spoil. In the case of the Victoria Line every station has at least one,
and in addition much of the running-tunnel construction was carried out from
sites between stations. A few were backfilled (mainly those in sensitive
sites such as the squares of Fitzroy and Cavendish), but most remain as
ventilation or cable shafts, often connected to quite complex layouts of
purpose-built or surplus passageways. The sizes vary but a typical shaft
such as Whitfield Place would be 12ft in diameter and roughly 60ft deep.

Hope that answers your question!

Platforms at Warren Street
 

nDavid Splett typed:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Oh, I thought they used bigger shafts than that.
Was it for all the dirt and stuff that they had to dig out?

Yes. The earlier Tubes were built mainly using the shafts at each
station which were later to become the lift shafts; the City & South
London, Baker Street & Waterloo Railway and Waterloo & City Railways
additionally had shaft(s) in the Thames.

*In* the Thames?? Do you mean near the Thames, e.g. on the riverbank?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Platforms at Warren Street
 

No, he means in it. They put in iron walls around an area of the
thames, pumped the water out, then dug the shaft. Ive seen it done for
the jubilee line station at canary wharf.

Platforms at Warren Street
 

"Richard J." wrote in message
. uk...
*In* the Thames?? Do you mean near the Thames, e.g. on the riverbank?

Being something of a perfectionist I most certainly meant "In"! All three
railways had stages/piers built out some distance from the bank from where
shafts went down to the level of the tunnel. The C&SLR's was slightly east
of London Bridge, near Swan Lane Pier, at the south end of Swan Lane. The
W&CR's were slightly east of Blackfriars Bridge, and the B&SWRs was slightly
east of Hungerford Bridge.

There are certainly substantial tunnel-level remains of the Swan Lane shaft;
can't remember for the other two.

Platforms at Warren Street
 

"David Splett" wrote in message
...

*In* the Thames?? Do you mean near the Thames, e.g. on the riverbank?

Being something of a perfectionist I most certainly meant "In"! All three
railways had stages/piers built out some distance from the bank from where
shafts went down to the level of the tunnel. The C&SLR's was slightly east
of London Bridge, near Swan Lane Pier, at the south end of Swan Lane. The
W&CR's were slightly east of Blackfriars Bridge, and the B&SWRs was
slightly
east of Hungerford Bridge.

Was there/has there ever been a plan to put a station at Blackfriars on the
W&C given how close it runs to Blackfriars? I guess the cost would be high,
but I'm just wondering....

Angus

Platforms at Warren Street
 

W&C was originally part of the rail network, and for getting people to
the city from routes that came into waterloo. The routes that came into
blackfriars were a rival to the waterloo-w&c option, so I doubt the
people who ran either line would have been too keen on those, in a
similar way to the fact that the circle/metropolitan line doesn't go to
euston (a rival route to the backers of the original line from kings
cross).

It only became part of the tube recently, so I guess they haven't had
much time for that, but maybe they might be planning something like
this when they demolish Blackfriars and move the station to the bridge
instead?

Platforms at Warren Street
 

In article .com,
lonelytraveller writes
in a
similar way to the fact that the circle/metropolitan line doesn't go to
euston (a rival route to the backers of the original line from kings
cross).

Excuse me? What gives you this idea?

It only became part of the tube recently, so I guess they haven't had
much time for that, but maybe they might be planning something like
this when they demolish Blackfriars and move the station to the bridge
instead?

I doubt it. The Circle Line station won't be moving, only the
Thameslink/Southern one.

--
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:

Platforms at Warren Street
 

David Splett typed:
"Richard J." wrote in message
. uk...
*In* the Thames?? Do you mean near the Thames, e.g. on the
riverbank?

Being something of a perfectionist I most certainly meant "In"!

I should have realised that! But to me it had seemed unlikely that they
would go to the trouble and risk of digging shafts in the river bed
rather than sink them on the adjacent dry land. Did they decide to do
the former (a) because they couldn't dig the tunnels unless they had
shafts less than x yds apart (where x is shorter than the width of the
river), or (b) because they couldn't gain access to suitable shaft sites
on land?

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Platforms at Warren Street
 

its cheaper to dig in the water, there isn't as far to dig

Platforms at Warren Street
 

On 8 May 2005, lonelytraveller wrote:

its cheaper to dig in the water, there isn't as far to dig

Plus, spades etc go through it like nobody's business.

tom

--
Transform your language.

Platforms at Warren Street
 

In message , Richard J.
writes

I should have realised that! But to me it had seemed unlikely that
they would go to the trouble and risk of digging shafts in the river
bed rather than sink them on the adjacent dry land. Did they decide to
do the former (a) because they couldn't dig the tunnels unless they had
shafts less than x yds apart (where x is shorter than the width of the
river), or (b) because they couldn't gain access to suitable shaft
sites on land?

(c) It is much easier and cheaper to shift bulk excavated material away
from the site by river than by loading it all onto small horse-drawn
carts and driving it away along the then even narrower streets of
London.

I suspect that sites in the river were also very much easier to find and
cheaper than anything on land.

--
Paul Terry

Platforms at Warren Street
 

"Richard J." wrote in message
. uk...
I should have realised that! But to me it had seemed unlikely that they
would go to the trouble and risk of digging shafts in the river bed rather
than sink them on the adjacent dry land. Did they decide to do the former
(a) because they couldn't dig the tunnels unless they had shafts less than
x yds apart (where x is shorter than the width of the river), or (b)
because they couldn't gain access to suitable shaft sites on land?

I don't think (a) holds true as the distance from Borough to King William
Street wasn't particularly long, and certainly much longer sections of the
C&SLR were built without intermediate shafts (e.g. Oval to Stockwell). I
think (b) is the more plausible, combined with the possible ease of removal
of spoil by barge and the lack of disruption to streets (remember that the
earliest Tubes had to follow the streets). I seem to remember reading
somewhere that no working sites were permitted within the City of London,
but that might have been in respect of the W&CR.

Looking through some books...
For the sake of ready disposal of the excavated material, and to avoid
the delay generally attending the acquisition of property, it was determined
to commence the tunnels in the river itself from a temporary shaft sunk into
the bed, clear of the foreshore and wharves. Piles were driven into the
gravel overlying the clay; and a working stage having been formed 100 feet
long by 35 feet wide, the iron rings of a 13-foot diameter shaft were bolted
together and sunk, without pumping, through the fravel and into the clay by
means of a grab. To maintain a uniform level between the water in the shaft
and that of the river, which rose and fell with the tide about 19 feet, a
valve was provided in the shaft lining below low-water level. In this way
the material surrounding the shafr was not disturbed by the inflow and
outflow of water during the sinking, and the valve was not closed uintil the
shaft was well into the solid clay. The lower portion of ths shaft was
completed in brickwork in cement with four openings of "eyes" from which to
start the two tunnels northwards and southwards. [...] The temporary shaft
was sunk to a total depth of 82 feet below high water; and the lower 9 feet
of the shaft were and are used as a sump for the collection of the drainage
from the two tunnels, both northwards and southwards. The upper portion
above the bed of the river was removed after the length immediately over the
tunnels had been closed and made watertight with concrete, asphalt and
puddle.
(Greathead, James "Greathead on City and South London Railway" in Minutes
of the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers (don't have volume
number). Paper No. 2873, 19 November 1895.)

By choosing the river to sink a shaft, Greathead was able to avoid the
outcry that would have ensued had ha attempted to dig up a public highway.
In the City of London, such an act would have been impossible as the narrow
streets were so tiny that they would have been entirely blocked by any shaft
that was dug within them. North of the river, the only highway of any size
which the railway passed beneath was King William Street, and as this formed
part of the main approach to London Bridge the City Fathers would obviously
have obstructed any plans to block it. The river also offered one other
advantage in that spoil from the works could be removed by boat thus
avoiding an increase in traffic on the streets. Later, additional shafts
were constructed on the sites of stations but when work commenced the
purchase of these sites had not been finalised and they were not available
for use."
(Holman, Printz "The Amazing Electric Tube", London Transport Museum).

Hope that's of interest.

DS.

Platforms at Warren Street
 

What I always wanted to know about King William Street was why they
built the station on such a stupid alignment, with a sharp right angle
just before it, rather than locate it just after the tunnel reaches
land on a nice straight alignment.

Platforms at Warren Street
 

"lonelytraveller" wrote in
message ups.com...
What I always wanted to know about King William Street was why they
built the station on such a stupid alignment, with a sharp right angle
just before it, rather than locate it just after the tunnel reaches
land on a nice straight alignment.

Almost certainly because Swan Lane was/is too narrow to accommodate the
platform tunnels. Remember that the two Tubes run one on top of the other
between the River Thames and Arthur Street West.

I suspect that another complication was that the railway couldn't run
beneath the foundations of London Bridge, preventing a use of that
alignment.

King William Street (was: Platforms at Warren Street)
 

What I always wanted to know about King William Street was why they
built the station on such a stupid alignment, with a sharp right angle
just before it, rather than locate it just after the tunnel reaches
land on a nice straight alignment.

Almost certainly because Swan Lane was/is too narrow to accommodate the
platform tunnels... I suspect that another complication was that the
railway couldn't run beneath the foundations of London Bridge...

Besides which, probably they simply wanted the station further from the
river in order to be more convenient for as many passengers as possible.
Note that when it was replaced, they did extend the line further north
at the same time, opening Moorgate station as well as Bank (and London
Bridge, too).
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "No flames were used in the creation of
| this message." -- Ray Depew

King William Street (was: Platforms at Warren Street)
 

So why didn't they do the same on the W&C and have stations at
blackfriars and have the exits from the current bank platform as a lift
to mansion house station rather than a huge long set of steps barely
reaching bank?