Angel - Southbound
 

Anyone know why the platform is so large?

Angel - Southbound
 

On Feb 4, 5:26 pm, wrote:
Anyone know why the platform is so large?



The widened station tunnel which previously contained both tracks and
the island platform (which was considered to be dangerously cramped)
would still exist, so now it presumably contains one track and one
platform in the same space, while a new tunnel containing the other
track and the other platform has been built adjacently to it.

Something similar was done at London Bridge, except that there were
two narrower station tunnels a few feet apart. One of them became the
passageway between the remaining one and a new one.

Angel - Southbound
 

On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 17:26:53 GMT, wrote:

Anyone know why the platform is so large?

Angel station used to have lift access and a small island platform -
like Clapham Common. The station was very overcrowded as development in
the Islington area generated much more traffic.

It was rebuilt in the 1990s (?) with the new ticket hall and escalators.
The northbound track and platform stayed where it was and a brand new
tunnel was constructed for the southbound direction. The old southbound
platform and trackbed was filled in. The Southbound platform is
constructed to modern standards to cater for the demand at Angel.

A similar approach was used at London Bridge IIRC and the platforms here
are different sizes for the Northern Line. All done when the Jubilee
Line extension was built.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Angel - Southbound
 

wrote:

Anyone know why the platform is so large?

As MIG posted the station was rebuilt. There is more about it he
http://www.pendar.pwp.blueyonder.co....l_station.html

--
Olof Lagerkvist
ICQ: 724451
Web: http://here.is/olof

Angel - Southbound
 

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 17:26:53 GMT, wrote:

Anyone know why the platform is so large?

Angel station used to have lift access and a small island platform -
like Clapham Common. The station was very overcrowded as
development in the Islington area generated much more traffic.

It was rebuilt in the 1990s (?) with the new ticket hall and
escalators. The northbound track and platform stayed where it was
and a brand new tunnel was constructed for the southbound
direction. The old southbound platform and trackbed was filled in.
The Southbound platform is constructed to modern standards to cater
for the demand at Angel.

The date was 1992, but you've got southbound and northbound mixed up.
As the thread subject indicates, it's the southbound platform that
stayed where it was, and was widened to cover the space previously
occupied by the northbound track. The new tunnel and platform are for
the northbound.

There is a photo of the original island platform at
http://www.piccadilly-line.org.uk/1959q.jpg
I'd forgotten how very narrow it was!

A similar approach was used at London Bridge IIRC and the platforms
here are different sizes for the Northern Line. All done when the
Jubilee Line extension was built.

Similarly at Euston, where there used to be an island platform on the
Bank branch. The arrangement was altered when the Victoria Line was
built, and the southbound platform (Northern Line, Bank branch) is wider
than normal as a result. Diagram of the changes at
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ion_layout.png

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

Angel - Southbound
 

Angel station used to have lift access and a small island platform -
like Clapham Common. The station was very overcrowded as
development in the Islington area generated much more traffic.



Similarly at Euston, where there used to be an island platform on the
Bank branch. The arrangement was altered when the Victoria Line was
built, and the southbound platform (Northern Line, Bank branch) is wider
than normal as a result. Diagram of the changes athttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c7/Euston_tube_stati...

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


So Angel and Euston used to have island platforms, and Clapham Common
and Clapham North still do: were there any other?

Angel - Southbound
 

On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 17:57:22 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 17:26:53 GMT, wrote:

Anyone know why the platform is so large?

Angel station used to have lift access and a small island platform -
like Clapham Common. The station was very overcrowded as
development in the Islington area generated much more traffic.

It was rebuilt in the 1990s (?) with the new ticket hall and
escalators. The northbound track and platform stayed where it was
and a brand new tunnel was constructed for the southbound
direction. The old southbound platform and trackbed was filled in.
The Southbound platform is constructed to modern standards to cater
for the demand at Angel.

The date was 1992, but you've got southbound and northbound mixed up.

How embarrassing ;-) I knew my brain wasn't functioning properly and
this proves it.

As the thread subject indicates, it's the southbound platform that
stayed where it was, and was widened to cover the space previously
occupied by the northbound track. The new tunnel and platform are for
the northbound.

There is a photo of the original island platform at
http://www.piccadilly-line.org.uk/1959q.jpg
I'd forgotten how very narrow it was!

That's certainly a good reminder. Getting down the staircase and onto
the platform was the "fun" bit.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Angel - Southbound
 

Richard J. wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 17:26:53 GMT, wrote:

Anyone know why the platform is so large?

Angel station used to have lift access and a small island platform -
like Clapham Common. The station was very overcrowded as
development in the Islington area generated much more traffic.

It was rebuilt in the 1990s (?) with the new ticket hall and
escalators. The northbound track and platform stayed where it was
and a brand new tunnel was constructed for the southbound
direction. The old southbound platform and trackbed was filled in.
The Southbound platform is constructed to modern standards to cater
for the demand at Angel.

The date was 1992, but you've got southbound and northbound mixed up. As
the thread subject indicates, it's the southbound platform that stayed
where it was, and was widened to cover the space previously occupied by
the northbound track. The new tunnel and platform are for the northbound.

There is a photo of the original island platform at
http://www.piccadilly-line.org.uk/1959q.jpg
I'd forgotten how very narrow it was!

What a fantastic photo... quite frankly, it looks terrifying to use.

For those unfamiliar with modern Angel, here's a photo of the widened
platform:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ricksphotos101/191977310/


--
Dave Arquati
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Angel - Southbound
 

On 4 Feb, 18:03, "brixtonite" wrote:
Angel station used to have lift access and a small island platform -
like Clapham Common. The station was very overcrowded as
development in the Islington area generated much more traffic.

Similarly at Euston, where there used to be an island platform on the
Bank branch. The arrangement was altered when the Victoria Line was
built, and the southbound platform (Northern Line, Bank branch) is wider
than normal as a result. Diagram of the changes athttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c7/Euston_tube_stati...

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

So Angel and Euston used to have island platforms, and Clapham Common
and Clapham North still do: were there any other?


Are there similar worries about safety at Clapham Common or Clapham
North? I use them both with a fair frequency but haven't ever done so
during the height of the rush hour. I still find that walking down the
narrow island platform at either station a somewhat strange and
unfamiliar experience (I'd say they're both about the same width as
the Angel platform looks like in the photo). Presumably the station
staff at the Claphams are well on the ball about monitoring potential
overcrowding on the platforms.

Angel - Southbound
 

"Richard J." wrote in message
...
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 17:26:53 GMT, wrote:

Anyone know why the platform is so large?

Angel station used to have lift access and a small island platform -
like Clapham Common. The station was very overcrowded as
development in the Islington area generated much more traffic.

It was rebuilt in the 1990s (?) with the new ticket hall and
escalators. The northbound track and platform stayed where it was
and a brand new tunnel was constructed for the southbound
direction. The old southbound platform and trackbed was filled in.
The Southbound platform is constructed to modern standards to cater
for the demand at Angel.

The date was 1992, but you've got southbound and northbound mixed up. As
the thread subject indicates, it's the southbound platform that stayed
where it was, and was widened to cover the space previously occupied by
the northbound track. The new tunnel and platform are for the northbound.

There is a photo of the original island platform at
http://www.piccadilly-line.org.uk/1959q.jpg
I'd forgotten how very narrow it was!

A similar approach was used at London Bridge IIRC and the platforms
here are different sizes for the Northern Line. All done when the
Jubilee Line extension was built.

Similarly at Euston, where there used to be an island platform on the Bank
branch. The arrangement was altered when the Victoria Line was built, and
the southbound platform (Northern Line, Bank branch) is wider than normal
as a result. Diagram of the changes at
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ion_layout.png

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




Didnt realise the electronic information boards were around in the 1950's

Angel - Southbound
 

On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 19:53:18 GMT, wrote:


"Richard J." wrote in message
k...

There is a photo of the original island platform at
http://www.piccadilly-line.org.uk/1959q.jpg
I'd forgotten how very narrow it was!

Didnt realise the electronic information boards were around in the 1950's

They weren't. The 1959 refers to the age of the train shown in the
picture. 1959 stock ran on the Northern Line together with 1938 (for a
while), 1960 (only a couple of trains) and 1972 Mk1.

IIRC the Dot Matrix Indicators were introduced in the 1980s and the very
first trial ones were at St James's Park.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Angel - Southbound
 

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 19:53:18 GMT, wrote:


"Richard J." wrote in message
. uk...

There is a photo of the original island platform at
http://www.piccadilly-line.org.uk/1959q.jpg
I'd forgotten how very narrow it was!

Didnt realise the electronic information boards were around in the 1950's

They weren't. The 1959 refers to the age of the train shown in the
picture. 1959 stock ran on the Northern Line together with 1938 (for a
while), 1960 (only a couple of trains) and 1972 Mk1.

IIRC the Dot Matrix Indicators were introduced in the 1980s and the very
first trial ones were at St James's Park.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Well some stations do not have them yet or just show the time and not show
any trains on the board.

Angel - Southbound
 

On 4 Feb 2007 11:17:03 -0800, "Mizter T" wrote:

Are there similar worries about safety at Clapham Common or Clapham
North? I use them both with a fair frequency but haven't ever done so
during the height of the rush hour.

I used to pass through there in both rush hours, and it never looked
dangerously busy to me, though this was a few years ago.

But in 21st-century Britain, if there were any hint at all that they
might get sued, they'd close the station.

Angel - Southbound
 

"Olof Lagerkvist" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Anyone know why the platform is so large?

As MIG posted the station was rebuilt. There is more about it he
http://www.pendar.pwp.blueyonder.co....l_station.html

--
Olof Lagerkvist
ICQ: 724451
Web: http://here.is/olof


This is a good website just looking at the other pics

http://richardrandall.fotopic.net/p15383925.html

what line did this train used to be on? Its now used on the IOW

Angel - Southbound
 

Not too dissimilar to a few Paris Metro stations that I have seen.

"Richard J." wrote in message
...
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 17:26:53 GMT, wrote:

Anyone know why the platform is so large?

Angel station used to have lift access and a small island platform -
like Clapham Common. The station was very overcrowded as
development in the Islington area generated much more traffic.

It was rebuilt in the 1990s (?) with the new ticket hall and
escalators. The northbound track and platform stayed where it was
and a brand new tunnel was constructed for the southbound
direction. The old southbound platform and trackbed was filled in.
The Southbound platform is constructed to modern standards to cater
for the demand at Angel.

The date was 1992, but you've got southbound and northbound mixed up. As
the thread subject indicates, it's the southbound platform that stayed
where it was, and was widened to cover the space previously occupied by
the northbound track. The new tunnel and platform are for the northbound.

There is a photo of the original island platform at
http://www.piccadilly-line.org.uk/1959q.jpg
I'd forgotten how very narrow it was!

Angel - Southbound
 

On Feb 4, 11:09 pm, wrote:
"Olof Lagerkvist" wrote in message

...

wrote:

Anyone know why the platform is so large?

As MIG posted the station was rebuilt. There is more about it he
http://www.pendar.pwp.blueyonder.co....l_station.html

--
Olof Lagerkvist
ICQ: 724451
Web:http://here.is/olof

This is a good website just looking at the other pics

http://richardrandall.fotopic.net/p15383925.html

what line did this train used to be on? Its now used on the IOW


I would assume that it was on the Bakerloo immediately before, but the
most serviceable 1938 stock from the Northern and Bakerloo was
probably gathered on the Bakerloo before withdrawal, so it could have
been around a bit.

Angel - Southbound
 

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

Didnt realise the electronic information boards were around in the
1950's

They weren't. The 1959 refers to the age of the train shown in the
picture. 1959 stock ran on the Northern Line together with 1938
(for a while), 1960 (only a couple of trains) and 1972 Mk1.

That's 1962 not 1960 stock. Earlier the Northern Line had 1972 MkII stock
too before it replaced the Bakerloo's 1938 stock.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Angel - Southbound
 

On Feb 5, 12:07 am, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article ,

(Paul Corfield) wrote:
Didnt realise the electronic information boards were around in the
1950's

They weren't. The 1959 refers to the age of the train shown in the
picture. 1959 stock ran on the Northern Line together with 1938
(for a while), 1960 (only a couple of trains) and 1972 Mk1.

That's 1962 not 1960 stock. Earlier the Northern Line had 1972 MkII stock
too before it replaced the Bakerloo's 1938 stock.



As the 1973 stock was introduced, the (mainly) 1959 stock was
gradually transferred from the Piccadilly to replace the 1938 on the
Northern, but there wasn't enough of it to cover the Northern, so the
1972 Mark 1 was ordered to make up the numbers. The 1972 Mark 2,
built for the Jubilee which wasn't open yet, allowed the 1938 to be
withdrawn sooner.

The stuff transferred from the Piccadilly included the only unit of
1962 stock built as a three-car and which, as far as I know, never did
anything before that but run the Aldwych shuttle and go to Northfields
and back at weekends. There other odd bits of 1962 borrowed from the
Central at different times.

I never understood why the Aldwych line had a dedicated unit, and it
ended up running interchangeably all over the Northern line.

It's just possible that for a time there were six kinds of stock on
the Northern simultaneously.

Definitely 1938, 1959, 1972 Mark 1 and 1972 Mark 2, but also possibly
at the same time 1956 (subdivided into three) and 1962. Depends on
whether 1956 and 1962 stock was among what transferred over before the
last of the 1938 was withdrawn.

The 1972 Mark 2 stock was actually for the Jubilee. After the
Northern, it ran on the Bakerloo for a while, but mainly on the
Stanmore branch which was about to become the Jubilee.

Then much later it was displaced back to the Bakerloo by the short-
lived 1986 stock on the Jubilee. Some 1959 stock ran on the Bakerloo
for a while with the 1938, but I can't work out how that was released
from the Northern Service reductions? I think Highgate depot closed
for that reason (now reopened).

Angel - Southbound
 

In article .com,
(MIG) wrote:

I never understood why the Aldwych line had a dedicated unit, and it
ended up running interchangeably all over the Northern line.

Was it dedicated to the Aldwych shuttle when on the Piccadilly? It was
ordered with the 1962 stock because they were previously going to keep
sing standard stock for Aldwych, I thought?

It's just possible that for a time there were six kinds of stock on
the Northern simultaneously.

Definitely 1938, 1959, 1972 Mark 1 and 1972 Mark 2, but also
possibly at the same time 1956 (subdivided into three) and 1962.
Depends on whether 1956 and 1962 stock was among what transferred over
before the last of the 1938 was withdrawn.

As the 19838 stock made a comeback, surely it had to overlap the whole
1956/59/62 family?

The 1972 Mark 2 stock was actually for the Jubilee. After the
Northern, it ran on the Bakerloo for a while, but mainly on the
Stanmore branch which was about to become the Jubilee.

Then much later it was displaced back to the Bakerloo by the short-
lived 1986 stock on the Jubilee. Some 1959 stock ran on the
Bakerloo for a while with the 1938, but I can't work out how that was
released from the Northern Service reductions? I think Highgate
depot closed for that reason (now reopened).

There were some incredibly short term cutbacks after the failure of Fairs
Fare in 1982.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Angel - Southbound
 

On Feb 5, 11:34 am, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article .com,

(MIG) wrote:
I never understood why the Aldwych line had a dedicated unit, and it
ended up running interchangeably all over the Northern line.

Was it dedicated to the Aldwych shuttle when on the Piccadilly? It was
ordered with the 1962 stock because they were previously going to keep
sing standard stock for Aldwych, I thought?


It was dedicated to the Aldwych on the Piccadilly as far as I know and
was ordered for the purpose; it could be seen parked at Northfields
every weekend. But it had route maps for the whole line inside.

But given that it was interchangeable, I don't know why it wasn't just
part of the general 1959 stock fleet.

I know that once it was on the Northern, because stuff needed to stay
coupled a certain way because of the Kennington loop, the inner cabs
weren't fully equiped on the 1959 stock. I didn't think that had been
the case on the Piccadilly, but maybe they kept only one unit properly
drivable from both ends?

The only other reason I can possibly think of was maybe some
advertisers paid for dedicated material to be displayed inside. I
think it was replaced by 1973 stock till closure but not with a
dedicated unit. Then again, like most people, I wasn't using the
line ...



It's just possible that for a time there were six kinds of stock on
the Northern simultaneously.

Definitely 1938, 1959, 1972 Mark 1 and 1972 Mark 2, but also
possibly at the same time 1956 (subdivided into three) and 1962.
Depends on whether 1956 and 1962 stock was among what transferred over
before the last of the 1938 was withdrawn.

As the 19838 stock made a comeback, surely it had to overlap the whole
1956/59/62 family?


True, but the 1972 Mark 2 had gone by then.



The 1972 Mark 2 stock was actually for the Jubilee. After the
Northern, it ran on the Bakerloo for a while, but mainly on the
Stanmore branch which was about to become the Jubilee.

Then much later it was displaced back to the Bakerloo by the short-
lived 1986 stock on the Jubilee. Some 1959 stock ran on the
Bakerloo for a while with the 1938, but I can't work out how that was
released from the Northern Service reductions? I think Highgate
depot closed for that reason (now reopened).

There were some incredibly short term cutbacks after the failure of Fairs
Fare in 1982.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Angel - Southbound
 

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 00:07 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

Didnt realise the electronic information boards were around in the
1950's

They weren't. The 1959 refers to the age of the train shown in the
picture. 1959 stock ran on the Northern Line together with 1938
(for a while), 1960 (only a couple of trains) and 1972 Mk1.

That's 1962 not 1960 stock. Earlier the Northern Line had 1972 MkII stock
too before it replaced the Bakerloo's 1938 stock.

Sorry Colin - I meant 1956 stock - the ones with the rather odd 5
headlamps.

I should know better than to be imprecise on matters such as rolling
stock!
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Angel - Southbound
 

On 4 Feb 2007 15:52:48 -0800, "MIG" wrote:

On Feb 4, 11:09 pm, wrote:

This is a good website just looking at the other pics

http://richardrandall.fotopic.net/p15383925.html

what line did this train used to be on? Its now used on the IOW

I would assume that it was on the Bakerloo immediately before, but the
most serviceable 1938 stock from the Northern and Bakerloo was
probably gathered on the Bakerloo before withdrawal, so it could have
been around a bit.

I'm probably going to get this completely wrong but the 1938 stock was
used primarily on the Bakerloo Line in the 1980s. I recall travelling on
the last unit in service and catching it at Stonebridge Park. Now
although they were supposed to be withdrawn from all LU use ISTR that a
few trains made it across to the Northern Line and ran there for a
further while until other stock could be spared - 62 stock from the
Central??

I think 38 stock left the Northern before the fleet was transferred to
Alstom control as part of the Northern Line PFI deal. 1938 stock was
then transferred to the Isle of Wight to replace pre-38 stock (1923
stock?) that was running on the line.

Now someone can come and correct the above ...... ;-)
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Angel - Southbound
 

On Feb 5, 7:08 pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
On 4 Feb 2007 15:52:48 -0800, "MIG" wrote:

On Feb 4, 11:09 pm, wrote:
This is a good website just looking at the other pics

http://richardrandall.fotopic.net/p15383925.html

what line did this train used to be on? Its now used on the IOW

I would assume that it was on the Bakerloo immediately before, but the
most serviceable 1938 stock from the Northern and Bakerloo was
probably gathered on the Bakerloo before withdrawal, so it could have
been around a bit.

I'm probably going to get this completely wrong but the 1938 stock was
used primarily on the Bakerloo Line in the 1980s. I recall travelling on
the last unit in service and catching it at Stonebridge Park. Now
although they were supposed to be withdrawn from all LU use ISTR that a
few trains made it across to the Northern Line and ran there for a
further while until other stock could be spared - 62 stock from the
Central??

I think 38 stock left the Northern before the fleet was transferred to
Alstom control as part of the Northern Line PFI deal. 1938 stock was
then transferred to the Isle of Wight to replace pre-38 stock (1923
stock?) that was running on the line.

Now someone can come and correct the above ...... ;-)


Ah, you mean that the stuff that was revived for the Northern was the
stuff that went to the IOW? By then it had all been withdrawn from
the Bakerloo, so was probably ex-Bakerloo rather than ex-Northern
(originally having all left the Northern by about 1977).

But I don't know if the timing is right for that. I thought the IOW
had got its trains straight from the Bakerloo much earlier.

Angel - Southbound
 

On 5 Feb, 19:24, "MIG" wrote:
On Feb 5, 7:08 pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
I'm probably going to get this completely wrong but the 1938 stock was
used primarily on the Bakerloo Line in the 1980s. I recall travelling on
the last unit in service and catching it at Stonebridge Park. Now
although they were supposed to be withdrawn from all LU use ISTR that a
few trains made it across to the Northern Line and ran there for a
further while until other stock could be spared - 62 stock from the
Central??

I think 38 stock left the Northern before the fleet was transferred to
Alstom control as part of the Northern Line PFI deal. 1938 stock was
then transferred to the Isle of Wight to replace pre-38 stock (1923
stock?) that was running on the line.

Now someone can come and correct the above ...... ;-)

Ah, you mean that the stuff that was revived for the Northern was the
stuff that went to the IOW? By then it had all been withdrawn from
the Bakerloo, so was probably ex-Bakerloo rather than ex-Northern
(originally having all left the Northern by about 1977).

But I don't know if the timing is right for that. I thought the IOW
had got its trains straight from the Bakerloo much earlier.- Hide quoted text -

From what I remember (memory may be faulty!) the 1983 (Batch 1) stock
displaced around 15 trains of 1972MkII from the Jubilee to the
Bakerloo, enabling withdrawal of all 1938 stock. This would have been
between 1984-5, and would have left the Jubilee with mixed
1983/1972MkII; Bakerloo mixed 1959/1972MkII; Northern mixed
1959/1972MkI/the few 1956 and a couple of 1962; IOW with Standard
Stock.

Around 1986 passenger numbers were rising and 1983 Batch 2 was ordered
from Metro-Cammell. As a short-term measure around half-a-dozen of the
1938 trains withdrawn, but still in bascially operational condition,
were refreshed and put in service on the Northern as that was short of
other suitable stock, I think in early 1987 - thus there had been a
year or two without any 1938 stock running anywhere.

When 1983 Batch 2 started to arrive stock was cascaded on a one-for-
one basis: 1983 B 2 into service on Jubilee = 1972 Mk II to the
Bakerloo = 1959 to the Northern = 1938 withdrawn. The last of the 1938
was finally withdrawn in Spring 1988 IIRC. Network SouthEast expressed
interest in 1938 stock as this was happening, and the equivalent of 3
or 4 (LU formation) trains of 1938 stock went for comprehensive
refurbishment resulting in 8/9 2-car NSE formations entering service
on the Isle of Wight in 1990/1.

The number of 1983 Batch 2 trains ordered was more than the 1938 stock
to be replaced, and thus enabled some cars of 1972 Mk I to be taken
from the Northern line and inserted in the middle of 1967 stock on the
Victoria (where the lack of ATO equipment was not a problem), and with
the reformation of the 1967 stock like this around 4 or 5 extra trains
were added to the Victoria line fleet, and extra sheds/sidings added
on the east side of Northumberland Park depot.

Hope this confirms, clarifies and adds to the points already covered
above - a little time-lapse animation would probably be the best way
of explaining this quickly!

Angel - Southbound
 

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 00:07 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

Didnt realise the electronic information boards were around in
the 1950's

They weren't. The 1959 refers to the age of
the train shown in the picture. 1959 stock ran on the Northern Line
together with 1938 (for a while), 1960 (only a couple of trains)
and 1972 Mk1.

That's 1962 not 1960 stock. Earlier the Northern Line had 1972
MkII stock too before it replaced the Bakerloo's 1938 stock.

Sorry Colin - I meant 1956 stock - the ones with the rather odd 5
headlamps.

I should know better than to be imprecise on matters such as rolling
stock!

:-))

Ah, missed that you'd omitted them. There was the 1962 Aldwych unit and
regular refugees from the Central Line though.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Angel - Southbound
 

In article .com,
(MIG) wrote:

On Feb 5, 7:08 pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
On 4 Feb 2007 15:52:48 -0800, "MIG"
wrote:

On Feb 4, 11:09 pm, wrote:
This is a good website just looking at the other pics

http://richardrandall.fotopic.net/p15383925.html

what line did this train used to be on? Its now used on the IOW

I would assume that it was on the Bakerloo immediately before,
but the most serviceable 1938 stock from the Northern and Bakerloo
was probably gathered on the Bakerloo before withdrawal, so it could

have been around a bit.

I'm probably going to get this completely wrong but the 1938
stock was used primarily on the Bakerloo Line in the 1980s. I recall
travelling on the last unit in service and catching it at
Stonebridge Park. Now although they were supposed to be withdrawn
from all LU use ISTR that a few trains made it across to the
Northern Line and ran there for a further while until other stock
could be spared - 62 stock from the Central??

I think 38 stock left the Northern before the fleet was
transferred to Alstom control as part of the Northern Line PFI deal.
1938 stock was then transferred to the Isle of Wight to replace
pre-38 stock (1923 stock?) that was running on the line.

Now someone can come and correct the above ...... ;-)

The IoW standard stock dated from 1923 to 1934.

Ah, you mean that the stuff that was revived for the Northern was
the stuff that went to the IOW? By then it had all been withdrawn from
the Bakerloo, so was probably ex-Bakerloo rather than ex-Northern
(originally having all left the Northern by about 1977).

But I don't know if the timing is right for that. I thought the IOW
had got its trains straight from the Bakerloo much earlier.

Paul is right that the Northern 1938 revival followed its withdrawal from
the Bakerloo. However I don't think all the stock converted for the IoW
came from the Northern.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Angel - Southbound
 

On Feb 4, 7:17 pm, "Mizter T" wrote:
On 4 Feb, 18:03, "brixtonite" wrote:

Angel station used to have lift access and a small island platform -
like Clapham Common. The station was very overcrowded as
development in the Islington area generated much more traffic.

Similarly at Euston, where there used to be an island platform on the
Bank branch. The arrangement was altered when the Victoria Line was
built, and the southbound platform (Northern Line, Bank branch) is wider
than normal as a result. Diagram of the changes athttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c7/Euston_tube_stati...

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

So Angel and Euston used to have island platforms, and Clapham Common
and Clapham North still do: were there any other?

Are there similar worries about safety at Clapham Common or Clapham
North? I use them both with a fair frequency but haven't ever done so
during the height of the rush hour. I still find that walking down the
narrow island platform at either station a somewhat strange and
unfamiliar experience (I'd say they're both about the same width as
the Angel platform looks like in the photo). Presumably the station
staff at the Claphams are well on the ball about monitoring potential
overcrowding on the platforms.

A friend of mine worked for the firm that designed the air
conditioning for the new Angel station. He had a big hand in it and
wnet down there many times while the work was in progress. I kept
telling him to take a camera, but he never did.

Neill

Angel - Southbound
 

In message , Paul Corfield
writes
A similar approach was used at London Bridge IIRC and the platforms here
are different sizes for the Northern Line. All done when the Jubilee
Line extension was built.
The only tube island platforms on the Northern line in the 60s were
Angel, Clapham North and Clapham Common. London Bridge didn't have an
island platform, so were the distances between the wall and track not
enough to give a full platform depth?
--
Clive.

Angel - Southbound
 

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:46:16 +0000, "Clive Coleman."
wrote:

In message , Paul Corfield
writes
A similar approach was used at London Bridge IIRC and the platforms here
are different sizes for the Northern Line. All done when the Jubilee
Line extension was built.
The only tube island platforms on the Northern line in the 60s were
Angel, Clapham North and Clapham Common. London Bridge didn't have an
island platform, so were the distances between the wall and track not
enough to give a full platform depth?

There are loads of stations with island platforms - it's just that most
of them have a huge chunk of structure or space between the platforms. I
appreciate I'm being a tad pedantic here but they are conceptually the
same as Angel and the Claphams. This is opposed to side platforms such
as Snaresbrook or Warren St for the Northern Line. You then have tiered
side platforms at places like Westminster (Jubilee Line) and Notting
Hill Gate (Central Line).

The reference to London Bridge was to say that the concept of creating a
new tunnel and platform was used there in the same way as at Angel.
London Bridge was woefully under capacity when only served by the
Northern. Adding in the Jubilee Line derived interchange traffic would
have made it unworkable so it was essential that more space was provided
at the Northern Line level (as well as at ticket hall and circulating
areas).

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Angel - Southbound
 

On 8 Feb, 17:09, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:46:16 +0000, "Clive Coleman."

wrote:
In message , Paul Corfield
writes
A similar approach was used at London Bridge IIRC and the platforms here
are different sizes for the Northern Line. All done when the Jubilee
Line extension was built.
The only tube island platforms on the Northern line in the 60s were
Angel, Clapham North and Clapham Common. London Bridge didn't have an
island platform, so were the distances between the wall and track not
enough to give a full platform depth?

There are loads of stations with island platforms - it's just that most
of them have a huge chunk of structure or space between the platforms. I
appreciate I'm being a tad pedantic here but they are conceptually the
same as Angel and the Claphams. This is opposed to side platforms such
as Snaresbrook or Warren St for the Northern Line. You then have tiered
side platforms at places like Westminster (Jubilee Line) and Notting
Hill Gate (Central Line).

The reference to London Bridge was to say that the concept of creating a
new tunnel and platform was used there in the same way as at Angel.
London Bridge was woefully under capacity when only served by the
Northern. Adding in the Jubilee Line derived interchange traffic would
have made it unworkable so it was essential that more space was provided
at the Northern Line level (as well as at ticket hall and circulating
areas).



At London Bridge (and still at Bank) the wall between (or in the
middle of the island) platorms was much thinner than at most similar
stations. The difference at Angel was that both tracks and the island
platform were in the same tunnel/arch, which seems to have remained in
place, making the very wide platform that was first referred to.
Something similar must have existed at Euston, but I never saw it.

At London Bridge, you now have three similar tunnels rather than a big
one and a small one (the middle one now being the passage).

Angel - Southbound
 

In message .com, MIG
writes

At London Bridge (and still at Bank) the wall between (or in the
middle of the island) platorms was much thinner than at most similar
stations.

In the case of London Bridge, the gap between the tunnels was small
because there was no station there at all on the original line -
presumably the City and South London thought that people would find it
quicker to walk over London Bridge than take a very short one-stop
journey to their King William Street terminus at the north end of the
bridge.

--
Paul Terry

Angel - Southbound
 

Paul Terry wrote:

At London Bridge (and still at Bank) the wall between (or in the
middle of the island) platorms was much thinner than at most similar
stations.

In the case of London Bridge, the gap between the tunnels was small
because there was no station there at all on the original line -
presumably the City and South London thought that people would find it
quicker to walk over London Bridge than take a very short one-stop journey
to their King William Street terminus at the north end of the bridge.

I thought London Bridge was on the replacement tunnel when it was decided to
extend the line north and abandon King William Street? Isn't the original
tunnel directly above, providing ventilation?

Angel - Southbound
 

On 9 Feb, 10:16, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:
Paul Terry wrote:
At London Bridge (and still at Bank) the wall between (or in the
middle of the island) platorms was much thinner than at most similar
stations.
In the case of London Bridge, the gap between the tunnels was small
because there was no station there at all on the original line -
presumably the City and South London thought that people would find it
quicker to walk over London Bridge than take a very short one-stop journey
to their King William Street terminus at the north end of the bridge.

I thought London Bridge was on the replacement tunnel when it was decided to
extend the line north and abandon King William Street? Isn't the original
tunnel directly above, providing ventilation?


That's more plausible. It if had been just running tunnels there
would be no room for platforms at all. They'd have to be on the
outside, as when a new station was built round the running tunnels at
Holborn on the Central.

Incidentally, most of the Bakerloo stations were built without island
platforms, perhaps because the whole thing was done on the cheap,
except at Paddington, Elephant and Trafalgar Square.

The first two may have been different because they were termini, but I
wonder why Trafalgar Square was built differently from the others?

Angel - Southbound
 

On 9 Feb, 13:37, "MIG" wrote:
On 9 Feb, 10:16, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:

Paul Terry wrote:
At London Bridge (and still at Bank) the wall between (or in the
middle of the island) platorms was much thinner than at most similar
stations.
In the case of London Bridge, the gap between the tunnels was small
because there was no station there at all on the original line -
presumably the City and South London thought that people would find it
quicker to walk over London Bridge than take a very short one-stop journey
to their King William Street terminus at the north end of the bridge.

I thought London Bridge was on the replacement tunnel when it was decided to
extend the line north and abandon King William Street? Isn't the original
tunnel directly above, providing ventilation?

That's more plausible. It if had been just running tunnels there
would be no room for platforms at all. They'd have to be on the
outside, as when a new station was built round the running tunnels at
Holborn on the Central.

Incidentally, most of the Bakerloo stations were built without island
platforms, perhaps because the whole thing was done on the cheap,
except at Paddington, Elephant and Trafalgar Square.

The first two may have been different because they were termini, but I
wonder why Trafalgar Square was built differently from the others?


Why does the Bakerloo not having island platforms mean it was done on
the cheap? It's not like a passenger needs cross-platform interchange
just so they can go back the other way (though obviously it's useful
if you miss your stop but that's not a primary design consideration).

...a few moments of thought...

I guess an island platform can mean that an escalator can scoop people
up directly without them having to climb any stairs to a lobby, which
I guess makes the whole experience of entering and exiting a station a
bit more seamless.

Island platforms on the Bakerloo was Angel - Southbound
 

On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Mizter T wrote:

On 9 Feb, 13:37, "MIG" wrote:

Incidentally, most of the Bakerloo stations were built without island
platforms, perhaps because the whole thing was done on the cheap,
except at Paddington, Elephant and Trafalgar Square.

The first two may have been different because they were termini, but I
wonder why Trafalgar Square was built differently from the others?

Why does the Bakerloo not having island platforms mean it was done on
the cheap?

This doesn't make sense to me either. I can't think of any reason an
island platform would be more expensive - rather, it should be cheaper,
since you need to build half as many stairways, chocolate machines, etc.

It's not like a passenger needs cross-platform interchange just so they
can go back the other way (though obviously it's useful if you miss your
stop but that's not a primary design consideration).

...a few moments of thought...

I guess an island platform can mean that an escalator can scoop people
up directly without them having to climb any stairs to a lobby, which
I guess makes the whole experience of entering and exiting a station a
bit more seamless.

Another benefit of an island is that in the same space as two separate
platforms each with a narrow staircase, you can have an island with one
wide staircase. Since trains tend not to arrive simultaneously at both
platforms, that means each arriving trainload of passengers has a nice
wide staircase to escape the platforms, rather than a narrow one.

tom

--
inspired by forty-rod whiskey

Island platforms on the Bakerloo was Angel - Southbound
 

On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, MIG wrote:

Incidentally, most of the Bakerloo stations were built without island
platforms, perhaps because the whole thing was done on the cheap, except
at Paddington, Elephant and Trafalgar Square.

The first two may have been different because they were termini, but I
wonder why Trafalgar Square was built differently from the others?

Perhaps because it was expected to be the busiest station? I'm guessing,
but if Trafalgar Square was more of a destination than the Oxford or
Piccadilly Circenses at the time, that could be an explanation.

tom

--
inspired by forty-rod whiskey

Island platforms on the Bakerloo was Angel - Southbound
 

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Mizter T wrote:
On 9 Feb, 13:37, "MIG" wrote:

Incidentally, most of the Bakerloo stations were built without
island platforms, perhaps because the whole thing was done on the
cheap, except at Paddington, Elephant and Trafalgar Square.

The first two may have been different because they were termini,
but I wonder why Trafalgar Square was built differently from the
others?

Why does the Bakerloo not having island platforms mean it was done on
the cheap?

This doesn't make sense to me either. I can't think of any reason an
island platform would be more expensive - rather, it should be
cheaper, since you need to build half as many stairways, chocolate
machines, etc.

I'm guessing that it's to do with the fact that you had to remain under
public ground or pay wayleaves to the land owners above. Outside platforms
only require rectangular pieces of land either side of the running tunnels,
whereas an island platform requires a long javelin-shaped piece of land
which includes unused triangles between the platform ends and the point
where the running tunnels come together. If the line was running under a
wide road, then an island platform would be cheapest, but under a narrow
road, outside platforms would be cheaper.

Angel - Southbound
 

On 9 Feb, 14:48, "Mizter T" wrote:
On 9 Feb, 13:37, "MIG" wrote:





On 9 Feb, 10:16, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:

Paul Terry wrote:
At London Bridge (and still at Bank) the wall between (or in the
middle of the island) platorms was much thinner than at most similar
stations.
In the case of London Bridge, the gap between the tunnels was small
because there was no station there at all on the original line -
presumably the City and South London thought that people would find it
quicker to walk over London Bridge than take a very short one-stop journey
to their King William Street terminus at the north end of the bridge.

I thought London Bridge was on the replacement tunnel when it was decided to
extend the line north and abandon King William Street? Isn't the original
tunnel directly above, providing ventilation?

That's more plausible. It if had been just running tunnels there
would be no room for platforms at all. They'd have to be on the
outside, as when a new station was built round the running tunnels at
Holborn on the Central.

Incidentally, most of the Bakerloo stations were built without island
platforms, perhaps because the whole thing was done on the cheap,
except at Paddington, Elephant and Trafalgar Square.

The first two may have been different because they were termini, but I
wonder why Trafalgar Square was built differently from the others?

Why does the Bakerloo not having island platforms mean it was done on
the cheap? It's not like a passenger needs cross-platform interchange
just so they can go back the other way (though obviously it's useful
if you miss your stop but that's not a primary design consideration).

...a few moments of thought...

I guess an island platform can mean that an escalator can scoop people
up directly without them having to climb any stairs to a lobby, which
I guess makes the whole experience of entering and exiting a station a
bit more seamless.-


There is certainly now a handy step-free exit at Paddington, since the
escalator to the concourse. Sadly, you still have to do steps at
Trafalgar Square.

The thing about on the cheap: I don't know why. We know that the
Bakerloo was done relatively on the cheap (short platforms later
having to be extended etc), and also that it didn't mostly have island
platforms, like most of the Central did. I was guessing that there
might be a link between the two.

One possibility is the engineering requirements of moving the tunnels
apart rather than keeping them adjacent. I don't think they had the
slight rise at stations that the Central had either.

Angel - Southbound
 

In article ,
Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:

I thought London Bridge was on the replacement tunnel when it was decided to
extend the line north and abandon King William Street? Isn't the original
tunnel directly above, providing ventilation?

Yes - see pics from before the tunnels were servered at
http://www.leverton.org/tunnels/cslr/ though unfortunately I didn't
capture the actual slots in the floor(CSLR)/roof(Northern), and nor has
anyone else that I can find on a quick Google.

The former southbound Northern line platform is seen here on Richard
Griffin's site after conversion to pedestrian use but before it was
completely panelled over: http://www.squarewheels.org.uk/rly/LUgenPhots/

I have read that you can still see up the ventilation slots from the
Northbound platform, but I rarely visit London these days so haven't
checked for myself. I imagine it must need a very tightly focussed
Maglight to reach the upper tunnel roof.

If anyone ever gets any hint of another visit to the CSLR, please please
please let me know ! :-)

Nick
--
http://www.leverton.org/ ... So express yourself

Island platforms on the Bakerloo was Angel - Southbound
 

On 9 Feb, 17:41, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Mizter T wrote:
On 9 Feb, 13:37, "MIG" wrote:

Incidentally, most of the Bakerloo stations were built without
island platforms, perhaps because the whole thing was done on the
cheap, except at Paddington, Elephant and Trafalgar Square.

The first two may have been different because they were termini,
but I wonder why Trafalgar Square was built differently from the
others?

Why does the Bakerloo not having island platforms mean it was done on
the cheap?

This doesn't make sense to me either. I can't think of any reason an
island platform would be more expensive - rather, it should be
cheaper, since you need to build half as many stairways, chocolate
machines, etc.

I'm guessing that it's to do with the fact that you had to remain under
public ground or pay wayleaves to the land owners above. Outside platforms
only require rectangular pieces of land either side of the running tunnels,
whereas an island platform requires a long javelin-shaped piece of land
which includes unused triangles between the platform ends and the point
where the running tunnels come together. If the line was running under a
wide road, then an island platform would be cheapest, but under a narrow
road, outside platforms would be cheaper.


Which sounds like a good bit of reasoning to me.

Perhaps foolishly I'm now going to ask what I guess amounts to a
rather big question - when were the wayleave laws changed? I
understand the basic concept of wayleaves, and also that they don't
apply to Underground railways anymore in the UK - at least not to deep-
level tube railways (as evidenced by the Jubilee and Victoria lines,
and the DLR and CTRL tunnels).

This perhaps speaks for the fact that I'm not in possession of a
library of reference books on the Underground system - I shall take a
look at the bibliography of CULG and pick out a few appropriate books
to obtain.