TfL Route 395
 

In message . com,
writes

This is something that's always puzzled me - why does the Rotherhithe
Tunnel change direction?

To stop horses bolting ...

Surely, when it was being built, it would
have been cheaper and easier to just go in a straight line?

It was designed primarily with horse-drawn vehicles in mind
(construction started in 1904). These needed long, gentle inclines
either side, and the only space to build such long approaches and avoid
the many docks in the area was almost parallel to the river (even so a
lot of house demolition was necessary). They were constructed using the
relatively cheap cut-and-cover system.

Once down to final depth, the central part of the tunnel (the only part
needing expensive boring) crosses the river more directly, although
still a little obliquely, because the object was to connect the docks on
the south side of the river with those a little further downstream on
the northern side. The result is the characteristic zig-zag of the
tunnel.

The sharp bends wouldn't have been a problem for horse-drawn vehicles,
of course - in fact, they were deliberate because they prevented horses
seeing the light at the other end of the tunnel too soon and thus
possibly bolting.

--
Paul Terry

TfL Route 395
 

In article . com,
() wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
There are width restrictions at both entrances [to the
Rotherhithe Tunnel].
There are also very tight clearances where there the tunnel
changes direction.

This is something that's always puzzled me - why does the
Rotherhithe Tunnel change direction? Surely, when it was being built,
it would have been cheaper and easier to just go in a straight line?
Yet it twists and turns constantly.

I thought there were just two turns, from the approaches that are
closely parallel to the river to and from the stretch under the river.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TfL Route 395
 

Aidan Stanger wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

(snip)

Talking of diversions, I'm always amused to see instructions posted up
at Canada Water bus station on how to get to Canary Wharf by bus.
Obviously whilst route 395 was in operation the instructions were to
catch this bus and once north of the river alight on the Commercial
road for one of the buses to the Wharf - the notices gave an estimated
journey time of 45 minutes plus, and compared it to the 5 minute
journey on the Jubilee line.

Since the 395 has been withdrawn new notices advise people to travel
via the City, with an estimated journey time of an hour plus.

I joked with one of the bus station staff at Canada Water about this
once, and he said they were asked the "how do I get there by bus"
question so often they'd just put up the notices. He said that they
just weren't interested in going by Tube as they had a bus pass.

I can quite understand people being on a tight budget, but it's a great
shame they ain't figured out that a zones 2&3 weekly Travelcard costs
£14, a mere 50p cheaper that a weekly London Bus Pass.

But aren't they more likely to be on one day bus passes?


Good point. I guess in all likelyhood it's a mix of one-day and longer
bus passes. This is merely anecdotal evidence but when boarding buses
at Canada Water I've seen several weekly bus passes being brandished to
drivers (i.e. green paper tickets), though I've also seen a fair number
of one-day passes (i.e. red paper tickets).

If passengers were making irregular off-peak trips to Canary Wharf from
south of the river then they might want to consider buying a zones 2-6
off-peak Day Travelcard at £4.30 as opposed to a one-day bus pass at
£3.50. Indeed if they went for Oyster Pre-Pay then daily capping for
zones 2-6 would mean they'd pay no more than £3.80 off-peak - though
this should be compared to the £3 daily cap that kicks in if one is
just travelling by bus.

I hope that regular commuters to Canary Wharf from south of the river
(perhaps in particular those on lower wages) do find out about the
weekly Travelcard option - it would save many hours sitting on a bus
each week.


(Apols for the late response, I've only just noticed this thread is
still active.)

TfL Route 395