"Ian Jelf" wrote in message

In message , Tom
Anderson writes
Conversely, London never had the el-to-subway transition that built a
lot of the NYC system (there are one or two examples of this
happening in London, though).

I'll probably kick myself when you answer this.......but where are
there any examples of this happening in London?

How about where the District and Picc climb out of their subsurface and
deep level tunnels at Earl's Court to just below ground level at
Hammersmith and then up a steep gradient on to the viaduct by
Ravenscourt Park? Or where the Wimbledon Line climbs on to a quite high
viaduct in Fulham? And the Central west of White City?

In each of these cases, we have an Underground line climbing from a
tunnel to viaduct level, and staying at viaduct level for at least a few
stations.

"Nigel Pendse" a écrit dans le message de
...
"Ian Jelf" wrote in message

In message , Tom
Anderson writes
Conversely, London never had the el-to-subway transition that built a
lot of the NYC system (there are one or two examples of this
happening in London, though).

I'll probably kick myself when you answer this.......but where are
there any examples of this happening in London?

How about where the District and Picc climb out of their subsurface and
deep level tunnels at Earl's Court to just below ground level at
Hammersmith and then up a steep gradient on to the viaduct by
Ravenscourt Park? Or where the Wimbledon Line climbs on to a quite high
viaduct in Fulham? And the Central west of White City?

In each of these cases, we have an Underground line climbing from a
tunnel to viaduct level, and staying at viaduct level for at least a few
stations.

Yes and no, because although those are indeed examples of what the OP of the
text meant, what he actually wrote (as he clarified subsequently) referred
to the construction of tunnels *to replace* surface or elevated lines. The
only cases I can think of are on the Central Line between Stratford and
Leyton, a short length of the NLR North Woolwich branch and the Kingsway
tram tunnel (at least partly). In London, unlike NYC, there are several
examples of the opposite situation, eg parts of the DLR (Sivertown tramway)
where new elevated sections replace surface lines formerly serving the
docks...

Regards,

- Alan (in Brussels)

Alan (in Brussels) wrote:
"Nigel Pendse" a écrit dans le message de
...

"Ian Jelf" wrote in message


In message , Tom
Anderson writes

Conversely, London never had the el-to-subway transition that built a
lot of the NYC system (there are one or two examples of this
happening in London, though).

I'll probably kick myself when you answer this.......but where are
there any examples of this happening in London?

How about where the District and Picc climb out of their subsurface and
deep level tunnels at Earl's Court to just below ground level at
Hammersmith and then up a steep gradient on to the viaduct by
Ravenscourt Park? Or where the Wimbledon Line climbs on to a quite high
viaduct in Fulham? And the Central west of White City?

In each of these cases, we have an Underground line climbing from a
tunnel to viaduct level, and staying at viaduct level for at least a few
stations.


Yes and no, because although those are indeed examples of what the OP of the
text meant, what he actually wrote (as he clarified subsequently) referred
to the construction of tunnels *to replace* surface or elevated lines. The
only cases I can think of are on the Central Line between Stratford and
Leyton, a short length of the NLR North Woolwich branch and the Kingsway
tram tunnel (at least partly). In London, unlike NYC, there are several
examples of the opposite situation, eg parts of the DLR (Sivertown tramway)
where new elevated sections replace surface lines formerly serving the
docks...

Also on the DLR, the previously elevated Island Gardens was replaced by an
underground station when the line was extended across the Thames to Greenwich
and Lewisham (Mudchute, also, was originally an elevated station, and was
rebuilt, though it is not now underground - it's just north of the tunnel portal).

--

Stephen

I think she periodically makes a whirring noise and then just shuts down.

"Stephen Farrow" wrote in message

Alan (in Brussels) wrote:
"Nigel Pendse" a écrit dans le
message de ...

"Ian Jelf" wrote in message


In message , Tom
Anderson writes

Conversely, London never had the el-to-subway transition that
built a lot of the NYC system (there are one or two examples of
this happening in London, though).

I'll probably kick myself when you answer this.......but where are
there any examples of this happening in London?

How about where the District and Picc climb out of their subsurface
and deep level tunnels at Earl's Court to just below ground level at
Hammersmith and then up a steep gradient on to the viaduct by
Ravenscourt Park? Or where the Wimbledon Line climbs on to a quite
high viaduct in Fulham? And the Central west of White City?

In each of these cases, we have an Underground line climbing from a
tunnel to viaduct level, and staying at viaduct level for at least
a few stations.


Yes and no, because although those are indeed examples of what the
OP of the text meant, what he actually wrote (as he clarified
subsequently) referred to the construction of tunnels *to replace*
surface or elevated lines. The only cases I can think of are on the
Central Line between Stratford and Leyton, a short length of the NLR
North Woolwich branch and the Kingsway tram tunnel (at least
partly). In London, unlike NYC, there are several examples of the
opposite situation, eg parts of the DLR (Sivertown tramway) where
new elevated sections replace surface lines formerly serving the
docks...

Also on the DLR, the previously elevated Island Gardens was replaced
by an underground station when the line was extended across the
Thames to Greenwich and Lewisham (Mudchute, also, was originally an
elevated station, and
was rebuilt, though it is not now underground - it's just north of
the tunnel portal).

I know it's not exactly the same, but the replacement of High Holborn by
Thameslink means that commuter trains now tunnel under Ludgate Hill
rather than crossing over it (and obscuring the view of St Paul's in the
process). Of course, the Snow Hill tunnel had been there all along, but
had been abandoned for decades before being brought back into service
again.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 14:19:45 +0200, "Alan \(in Brussels\)"
wrote:

Yes and no, because although those are indeed examples of what the OP of the
text meant, what he actually wrote (as he clarified subsequently) referred
to the construction of tunnels *to replace* surface or elevated lines.

The Circle line through Barbican almost fits this description - it was
in open cutting before being rebuilt in tunnel when the Barbican
Centre was built.

"asdf" wrote in message

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 14:19:45 +0200, "Alan \(in Brussels\)"
wrote:

Yes and no, because although those are indeed examples of what the
OP of the text meant, what he actually wrote (as he clarified
subsequently) referred to the construction of tunnels *to replace*
surface or elevated lines.

The Circle line through Barbican almost fits this description - it was
in open cutting before being rebuilt in tunnel when the Barbican
Centre was built.

Did they lower the level of the tracks when they built the Barbican
Centre? Or did they just use the valuable air space over the tracks in
the cutting? I assumed it was the latter. In which case, there are
many other examples of such exploitation of air rights, and not just on
the Underground.

The most recent, of course, is the tunnel fiasco at Gerard's Cross,
where the Chiltern line now runs through a (fragile) tunnel, without
changing its level in the slightest. Other fairly recent examples of
building over formerly open lines include Fulham Broadway, Gloucester
Road and perhaps South Ken to come.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:42:25 +0100, "Nigel Pendse"
wrote:

The Circle line through Barbican almost fits this description - it was
in open cutting before being rebuilt in tunnel when the Barbican
Centre was built.

Did they lower the level of the tracks when they built the Barbican
Centre? Or did they just use the valuable air space over the tracks in
the cutting?

Neither - the line was completely re-routed, the new route being in
tunnel.

The Circle line through Barbican almost fits this description - it was
in open cutting before being rebuilt in tunnel when the Barbican
Centre was built.

Did they lower the level of the tracks when they built the Barbican
Centre? Or did they just use the valuable air space over the tracks in
the cutting?

Neither - the line was completely re-routed, the new route being in
tunnel.

Contrariwise: they just used the air space over the tracks. See, for
example, this history from David Leboff's "London Underground Stations
abc":

# The original station building was a single-storey,
# light-coloured brick structure which was rather plain
# compared with many of the stations constructed at around
# that time. It was severely damaged during World War 2 and
# finally demolished around 1955, along with the standard
# overall roof which extended over the platforms and tracks.
# During the early 1960s, the entrance and a new sub-surface
# ticket hall were incorporated into an office development,
# which was subsequently rebuilt around 1990. At platform
# level, the station has kept its high brick retaining walls,
# which have been cleaned in recent years.

(The changes of name are mentioned in a separate paragraph.)
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "I seem to have become a signature quote."
-- David Keldsen

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 23:01:35 -0000, (Mark Brader) wrote:

The Circle line through Barbican almost fits this description - it was
in open cutting before being rebuilt in tunnel when the Barbican
Centre was built.

Did they lower the level of the tracks when they built the Barbican
Centre? Or did they just use the valuable air space over the tracks in
the cutting?

Neither - the line was completely re-routed, the new route being in
tunnel.

Contrariwise: they just used the air space over the tracks. See, for
example, this history from David Leboff's "London Underground Stations
abc":

I've just checked, and it looks like I was wrong in saying "the line
through Barbican" - it appears the station itself was not affected.

CULG[1] says the following:

"Between 1963 and 1965 a new shorter route was built for the line
between Barbican and Moorgate, south of and lower than the previous
alignment. While the old route was in the open, the deviation line was
placed in tunnels ready for the Barbican Centre to be built over it."


[1]
http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/hammersmith.html

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Alan (in Brussels) wrote:

"Nigel Pendse" a écrit dans le message de
...
"Ian Jelf" wrote in message

In message , Tom
Anderson writes

Conversely, London never had the el-to-subway transition that built a
lot of the NYC system (there are one or two examples of this
happening in London, though).

I'll probably kick myself when you answer this.......but where are
there any examples of this happening in London?

How about where the District and Picc climb out of their subsurface and
deep level tunnels at Earl's Court to just below ground level at
Hammersmith and then up a steep gradient on to the viaduct by
Ravenscourt Park? Or where the Wimbledon Line climbs on to a quite
high viaduct in Fulham? And the Central west of White City?

Yes and no, because although those are indeed examples of what the OP of
the text

Is that me?

meant, what he actually wrote (as he clarified subsequently) referred to
the construction of tunnels *to replace* surface or elevated lines.

That's exactly what i meant - tearing down elevated lines and digging
tunnels along the route.

tom

--
Osteoclasts = monsters from the DEEP -- Andrew