There appears to be work going on beside Holloway Road tube station, on
some old railway land. Does anyone know what that apparent old alignment
was? Were there plans for a high-level station at any point?

http://www.islington.gov.uk/Council/...road_brief.asp

ESB

In article , (Ernst S Blofeld) wrote:

There appears to be work going on beside Holloway Road tube
station, on some old railway land. Does anyone know what that
apparent old alignment was? Were there plans for a high-level
station at any point?

http://www.islington.gov.uk/Council/...tation/current
consultations/holloway_road_brief.asp

These were extra tracks for freight towards Finsbury Park, surely? This site is the other side oft he ECML from the tube station.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

These were extra tracks for freight towards Finsbury Park, surely? This site is the other side oft he ECML from the tube station.

It was Holloway Carriage Sidings. There was an additional bridge span
for the exit, and the buffer stops were more or less at the end of
Stock Orchard Street. Stock would be drawn out and taken past Holloway
North Down box to Finsbury Park No. 2 (just outside Finsbury Park
depot, next to the Down Moorgate line), where the loco would run round
before taking the stock beneath the ECML and up into Kings Cross.

During the 1970s the stock of the Yorkshire and Hull pullmans stabled
there, with ETH supplied by an old BTH-Paxman type 1.

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

These were extra tracks for freight towards Finsbury Park, surely? This site is the other side oft he ECML from the tube station.

It was Holloway Carriage Sidings. There was an additional bridge span
for the exit, and the buffer stops were more or less at the end of Stock
Orchard Street. Stock would be drawn out and taken past Holloway North
Down box to Finsbury Park No. 2 (just outside Finsbury Park depot, next
to the Down Moorgate line), where the loco would run round before taking
the stock beneath the ECML and up into Kings Cross.

During the 1970s the stock of the Yorkshire and Hull pullmans stabled
there, with ETH supplied by an old BTH-Paxman type 1.

How extraordinary. Surely it can't have been a very big sidings? Amazing
to think there was a little rooftop depot right next to where i used to
live!

tom

--
THE DRUMMER FROM DEF LEPPARD'S ONLY GOT ONE ARM!

Tom Anderson wrote:

How extraordinary. Surely it can't have been a very big sidings? Amazing
to think there was a little rooftop depot right next to where i used to
live!

Like many urban sidings, it was larger than you'd think. There isn't
much online about Holloway Carriage sidings, but I've found two images:

http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/r...image=10443326

and:

http://www.ingenious.org.uk/See/Transport/Railways/?target=SeeLarge&ObjectID={1D16F73A-AC28-28D3-B4ED-06543BAB1423}&viewby=images

There's also a reference in a railway accident report from 1951:

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/doc...ingdon1951.pdf

This states that the 14-coach train was examined at Holloway Carriage
Sidings, which gives you some idea of the length of train that could be
accommodated.

There were about ten roads in there, IIRC. Holloway declined in
importance after Ferme Park and Hornsey became carriage sidings. It
was used for the Pullmans, and, along with Finsbury Park carriage
sidings, the non-corridor stock for the suburban services that were
replaced by the GN electrics. Finsbury Park carriage sidings closed
with the electrification, but Holloway remained open for at least a few
more years.

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

How extraordinary. Surely it can't have been a very big sidings?
Amazing to think there was a little rooftop depot right next to where i
used to live!

This states that the 14-coach train was examined at Holloway Carriage
Sidings, which gives you some idea of the length of train that could be
accommodated.

Length is perhaps not the surprising thing, given that railways are long
and thin anyway, so much as ...

There were about ten roads in there, IIRC.

The width! Ten roads would be about fifty metres across, wouldn't it?
That's a decent amount of space - a row or two of houses, i'd say.

tom

--
I do not think we will have to wait for long.

Ernst S Blofeld wrote:
There appears to be work going on beside Holloway Road tube station,
on some old railway land. Does anyone know what that apparent old
alignment was? Were there plans for a high-level station at any point?

http://www.islington.gov.uk/Council/...road_brief.asp

The Piccadilly stations between Kings Cross and Finsbury Park (including
York Road) were replacements for surface stations which shut as soon as (I
think) the underground stations opened.

The economics of closing 4 existing surface stations and building
underground ones have never entirely made sense to me, when they could have
built a pair of (larger) tunnels for GN trains and given over two surface
tracks, with stations, to the Piccadilly.

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, John Rowland wrote:

Ernst S Blofeld wrote:

There appears to be work going on beside Holloway Road tube station,
on some old railway land. Does anyone know what that apparent old
alignment was? Were there plans for a high-level station at any point?

http://www.islington.gov.uk/Council/...road_brief.asp

The Piccadilly stations between Kings Cross and Finsbury Park (including
York Road) were replacements for surface stations which shut as soon as (I
think) the underground stations opened.

The economics of closing 4 existing surface stations and building
underground ones have never entirely made sense to me, when they could
have built a pair of (larger) tunnels for GN trains and given over two
surface tracks, with stations, to the Piccadilly.

Perhaps because bigger tunnels would have cost rather a lot more, could
not have been worked by steam trains, and would have required some
complicated portal shenanigans at King's Cross to bring the big trains up
to the station whilst the little trains dived down to go to Russell
Square.

That said, i wonder if it was also a cultural thing - the idea of putting
suburban railways in tubes was already popular, but nobody had done it for
a main line. Indeed, we still haven't - not until the CTRL opens!

tom

--
THE DRUMMER FROM DEF LEPPARD'S ONLY GOT ONE ARM!

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, John Rowland wrote:

The economics of closing 4 existing surface stations and building
underground ones have never entirely made sense to me, when they
could have built a pair of (larger) tunnels for GN trains and given
over two surface tracks, with stations, to the Piccadilly.

Perhaps because bigger tunnels would have cost rather a lot more,

More than 4 underground stations?

could not have been worked by steam trains, and would have required
some complicated portal shenanigans at King's Cross to bring the big
trains up to the station whilst the little trains dived down to go to
Russell Square.

That said, i wonder if it was also a cultural thing - the idea of
putting suburban railways in tubes was already popular, but nobody
had done it for a main line. Indeed, we still haven't - not until the
CTRL opens!

There were already numerous mainline steam railways in tubes.... or do you
think the Severn Tunnel was cut-and-cover and electrified? I think there are
two lots of tube tunnels on the mainline between Kings Cross and Caledonian
Road anyway.

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, John Rowland wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, John Rowland wrote:

The economics of closing 4 existing surface stations and building
underground ones have never entirely made sense to me, when they
could have built a pair of (larger) tunnels for GN trains and given
over two surface tracks, with stations, to the Piccadilly.

Perhaps because bigger tunnels would have cost rather a lot more,

More than

More than the Picc tunnels. I meant that the marginal cost of the wider
tunnels, plus the costs associated with the factors i mentioned in the
rest of that paragraph, might have come to more than the cost of ...

4 underground stations?

After all, what's an underground station but a section of bigger tunnel
with some nice tiling and a few bits of furniture?

could not have been worked by steam trains, and would have required
some complicated portal shenanigans at King's Cross to bring the big
trains up to the station whilst the little trains dived down to go to
Russell Square.

That said, i wonder if it was also a cultural thing - the idea of
putting suburban railways in tubes was already popular, but nobody
had done it for a main line. Indeed, we still haven't - not until the
CTRL opens!

There were already numerous mainline steam railways in tubes.... or do
you think the Severn Tunnel was cut-and-cover and electrified?

Oh, as far as i'm concerned, the west country was, and remains, entirely
fictional. Certainly didn't seem very convincing when i was last there.

I think there are two lots of tube tunnels on the mainline between Kings
Cross and Caledonian Road anyway.

Point taken. Forgive my ignorance.

Although out of interest - where? Tunnels yes, but i'd never realised they
were tubes. When was the GN built? Was there an on- or near-surface
alignment to begin with, or was it tubes from the start?

tom

--
Orange paint menace