On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:20:51 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message
"Brian Watson" wrote:

A contributor to The Robert Elms Show on BBC Radio London has just claimed
there are secret underground train lines between Buckingham Palace and
various other London sites.

Nifty conspiracy theory, or fact?


There are certainly tunnels connecting a large number of sites in Central
London but none of the maps I have access to show them connecting to Buck
House. Some of them are PO (now BT) cable tunnels and others connect the
various government 'citadels' under the various ministry buildings. However
to the best of my knowledge non are equipped with rails.

The usual source of these stories is that someone has heard of these tunnels
and also of the Post Office railway and put 2 and 2 together and made 5.

The Victoria Line passes under Buck House. I have heard stories of
there being an access for mergencies.

As to the story of evacuating the Royal Family in an emergency there are two
runways in Central London capable of taking an aircraft of the Queens Floght
assuming the latter still exists.

The Broad Walk in Kensington Gardens is the obvious one.

"Christopher A.Lee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:20:51 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message
"Brian Watson" wrote:

A contributor to The Robert Elms Show on BBC Radio London has just
claimed
there are secret underground train lines between Buckingham Palace and
various other London sites.

Nifty conspiracy theory, or fact?


There are certainly tunnels connecting a large number of sites in Central
London but none of the maps I have access to show them connecting to Buck
House. Some of them are PO (now BT) cable tunnels and others connect the
various government 'citadels' under the various ministry buildings.
However
to the best of my knowledge non are equipped with rails.

The usual source of these stories is that someone has heard of these
tunnels
and also of the Post Office railway and put 2 and 2 together and made 5.

The Victoria Line passes under Buck House. I have heard stories of
there being an access for mergencies.

Having been around when the Victoria line was being built I remember the
discussions in the Press of the time. The story was that the direct route
under Buck House was turned down and the line actually makes a big (and
expensive) curve around it. Phil is alleged to have said, " I'm not having
their bloody trains run under my house, thank you!"

Bill




As to the story of evacuating the Royal Family in an emergency there are
two
runways in Central London capable of taking an aircraft of the Queens
Floght
assuming the latter still exists.

The Broad Walk in Kensington Gardens is the obvious one.

On 21 Feb, 18:22, "Bill Again" wrote:
"Christopher A.Lee" wrote in message

...



On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:20:51 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message
"Brian Watson" wrote:

A contributor to The Robert Elms Show on BBC Radio London has just
claimed
there are secret underground train lines between Buckingham Palace and
various other London sites.

Nifty conspiracy theory, or fact?

There are certainly tunnels connecting a large number of sites in Central
London but none of the maps I have access to show them connecting to Buck
House. Some of them are PO (now BT) cable tunnels and others connect the
various government 'citadels' under the various ministry buildings.
However
to the best of my knowledge non are equipped with rails.

The usual source of these stories is that someone has heard of these
tunnels
and also of the Post Office railway and put 2 and 2 together and made 5.

The Victoria Line passes under Buck House. I have heard stories of
there being an access for mergencies.

Having been around when the Victoria line was being built I remember the
discussions in the Press of the time. The story was that the direct route
under Buck House was turned down and the line actually makes a big (and
expensive) curve around it. Phil is alleged to have said, " I'm not having
their bloody trains run under my house, thank you!"

Bill


Ha! A quite believable story.

However I wonder whether it is true. If you take a look at the
Victoria line's route as marked on the central London bus map then it
is shown as passing under the Buck House garden but not the building
itself - this makes sense as the line needs to turn so as to be
aligned to run southeast from Victoria station towards Pimlico and
Vauxhall.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/buses/pdfdocs/centlond.pdf

Of course this alignment may have been chosen to specifically avoid
running under the palace (or the map could be wrong!). However, taking
a look at a street map, even if the options were to take a direct
route under the western corner of the building and taking a deviating
course to avoid the palace, the deviation would not need to be "a big
(and expensive) curve around it [the palace]" but a slight kink.


As to the story of evacuating the Royal Family in an emergency there are
two
runways in Central London capable of taking an aircraft of the Queens
Floght
assuming the latter still exists.

The Broad Walk in Kensington Gardens is the obvious one.

I wonder if that's one of the two that Christopher has in mind -
perhaps he might share his thoughts with us...

On Feb 21, 7:39 pm, "Mizter T" wrote:
On 21 Feb, 18:22, "Bill Again" wrote:





"Christopher A.Lee" wrote in message

.. .

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:20:51 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message
"Brian Watson" wrote:

A contributor to The Robert Elms Show on BBC Radio London has just
claimed
there are secret underground train lines between Buckingham Palace and
various other London sites.

Nifty conspiracy theory, or fact?

There are certainly tunnels connecting a large number of sites in Central
London but none of the maps I have access to show them connecting to Buck
House. Some of them are PO (now BT) cable tunnels and others connect the
various government 'citadels' under the various ministry buildings.
However
to the best of my knowledge non are equipped with rails.

The usual source of these stories is that someone has heard of these
tunnels
and also of the Post Office railway and put 2 and 2 together and made 5.

The Victoria Line passes under Buck House. I have heard stories of
there being an access for mergencies.

Having been around when the Victoria line was being built I remember the
discussions in the Press of the time. The story was that the direct route
under Buck House was turned down and the line actually makes a big (and
expensive) curve around it. Phil is alleged to have said, " I'm not having
their bloody trains run under my house, thank you!"

Bill

Ha! A quite believable story.

However I wonder whether it is true. If you take a look at the
Victoria line's route as marked on the central London bus map then it
is shown as passing under the Buck House garden but not the building
itself - this makes sense as the line needs to turn so as to be
aligned to run southeast from Victoria station towards Pimlico and
Vauxhall.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/buses/pdfdocs/centlond.pdf



I think the alignments in the bus maps bear little relation to the
geography. They are just showing that an Underground line links the
places. Look how they've drawn the Bakerloo, which we know exactly
follows all the kinks of Haymarket and Regent Street.

I've got no opinion on where the Victoria line goes though.

In message .com, MIG
writes
Look how they've drawn the Bakerloo, which we know exactly
follows all the kinks of Haymarket and Regent Street.

I've got no opinion on where the Victoria line goes though.
I remember this item when the Victoria line was being built. It was
said that to compensate all the home owners for subsidence if anything
happened was so great that the roads were followed and houses were not
run under, but when the Vic. Line was built such was the cost that the
situation had reversed and it was cheaper to pay a subsidence bill than
follow street plans.
--
Clive.

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:41:40 +0000, "Clive Coleman."
wrote:

In message .com, MIG
writes
Look how they've drawn the Bakerloo, which we know exactly
follows all the kinks of Haymarket and Regent Street.

I've got no opinion on where the Victoria line goes though.
I remember this item when the Victoria line was being built. It was
said that to compensate all the home owners for subsidence if anything
happened was so great that the roads were followed and houses were not
run under, but when the Vic. Line was built such was the cost that the
situation had reversed and it was cheaper to pay a subsidence bill than
follow street plans.

Early tube lines weren't very deep at all (IIRC the remnants of the
disused CSLR tunnels actually pass through some newer foundations) and
the relative lack of separation probably made subsidence claims more
likely to arise. The Victoria Line is generally somewhat deeper with a
far greater separation from buildings by undisturbed soil.

In message , at 22:40:31 on
Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Charles Ellson remarked:
Early tube lines weren't very deep at all (IIRC the remnants of the
disused CSLR tunnels actually pass through some newer foundations)

The CSLR is immediately above the Northern Line at London Bridge, so
quite deep (it has to get under the river, after all). The northern
terminus station was a little shallower, and did get caught up in the
building of new foundations above it, though.
--
Roland Perry

In message
"Clive Coleman." wrote:

In message .com, MIG
writes
Look how they've drawn the Bakerloo, which we know exactly
follows all the kinks of Haymarket and Regent Street.

I've got no opinion on where the Victoria line goes though.
I remember this item when the Victoria line was being built. It was
said that to compensate all the home owners for subsidence if anything
happened was so great that the roads were followed and houses were not
run under,

The other reason was that the legal situation of running under private
property was unclear when the early lines were built. To avoid potential law
suits the lines followed the roads.

but when the Vic. Line was built such was the cost that the
situation had reversed and it was cheaper to pay a subsidence bill than
follow street plans.

More to the point, the Victoria line was deep enough that subsidence was not
though to be a problem. Also the legal situation had been clarified. ie you
don't own the land under your property, unlike the USA. This enables the
Government to sell off the mineral rights.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

On Feb 21, 11:38 pm, Graeme Wall wrote:
In message
"Clive Coleman." wrote:

In message .com, MIG
writes
Look how they've drawn the Bakerloo, which we know exactly
follows all the kinks of Haymarket and Regent Street.

I've got no opinion on where the Victoria line goes though.
I remember this item when the Victoria line was being built. It was
said that to compensate all the home owners for subsidence if anything
happened was so great that the roads were followed and houses were not
run under,

The other reason was that the legal situation of running under private
property was unclear when the early lines were built. To avoid potential law
suits the lines followed the roads.

but when the Vic. Line was built such was the cost that the
situation had reversed and it was cheaper to pay a subsidence bill than
follow street plans.

More to the point, the Victoria line was deep enough that subsidence was not
though to be a problem. Also the legal situation had been clarified. ie you
don't own the land under your property, unlike the USA. This enables the
Government to sell off the mineral rights.


The Victoria is not generally deeper than other lines, more the
opposite, although it does go up and down a lot. At Oxford Circus,
the Victoria and Bakerloo go over the Central, and then the northbound
Victoria actually seems to go over the Bakerloo before diving miles
down to go under the Northern at Warren Street, which itself goes
under the Central at Tottenham Court Road.

The Victoria goes over the Northern and Piccadilly at Kings Cross and
goes over the Picadilly and Jubilee at Green Park and goes under the
Northern at Stockwell.

At Finsbury Park it's barely below ground.

"Graeme Wall" wrote

More to the point, the Victoria line was deep enough that subsidence was
not
though to be a problem. Also the legal situation had been clarified. ie
you
don't own the land under your property, unlike the USA. This enables the
Government to sell off the mineral rights.

AIUI you do own the land under your property. But parliament has
nationalised mineral rights, so you don't own those, and is willing to grant
compulsory purchase powers for a wayleave for a new underground railway. If
it goes under your property you'll be paid for the wayleave, but it won't be
very much as it will be assumed you don't have any other use for the land.

Peter