On Feb 17, 10:41*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message

.co.uk...

In article
,
(lonelytraveller) wrote:

At embankment station, there's a room behind/under the down escalator
leading to the northbound northern line platform .There's victorian
tiling on the right hand wall as you look in from the foot of the
escalator; why?

Given that the Northern Line opened in 1907, I doubt it's actually
Victorian. Edwardian I might believe.

Built using a stockpile of Victorian tiles? Perhaps they bought a job lot
cheap after Victoria's death... *But seriously, how quickly do architectural
styles/materials change?

Paul S

The Bakerloo would have opened first, and would have been abortively
built several years earlier, although I doubt if any tiling would have
been finished off.

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article
,
(lonelytraveller) wrote:

At embankment station, there's a room behind/under the down escalator
leading to the northbound northern line platform .There's victorian
tiling on the right hand wall as you look in from the foot of the
escalator; why?

Given that the Northern Line opened in 1907, I doubt it's actually
Victorian. Edwardian I might believe.

According to Tim Demuth's "The Spread of London's Underground" the
Charing Cross Euston & Hampstead Railway (later to be the Northern Line
Charing Cross branch) reached Embankment from Charing Cross (later
Strand) on 6/4/1914 - so not even Edwardian.

Peter Beale

In article
,
(MIG) wrote:

On Feb 17, 10:41*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message

.co.uk...

In article

,
(lonelytraveller)
wrote:

At embankment station, there's a room behind/under the down
escalator leading to the northbound northern line platform.
There's victorian tiling on the right hand wall as you look in
from the foot of the escalator; why?

Given that the Northern Line opened in 1907, I doubt it's actually
Victorian. Edwardian I might believe.

Built using a stockpile of Victorian tiles? Perhaps they bought a job

lot cheap after Victoria's death... *But seriously, how quickly do
architectural styles/materials change?

The Bakerloo would have opened first, and would have been abortively
built several years earlier, although I doubt if any tiling would have
been finished off.

The Bakerloo opened in 1906.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 17 Feb, 23:50, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article
,





(MIG) wrote:
On Feb 17, 10:41*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message

l.co.uk...

In article

,
(lonelytraveller)
wrote:

At embankment station, there's a room behind/under the down
escalator leading to the northbound northern line platform.
There's victorian tiling on the right hand wall as you look in
from the foot of the escalator; why?

Given that the Northern Line opened in 1907, I doubt it's actually
Victorian. Edwardian I might believe.

Built using a stockpile of Victorian tiles? Perhaps they bought a job
lot cheap after Victoria's death... *But seriously, how quickly do
architectural styles/materials change?

The Bakerloo would have opened first, and would have been abortively
built several years earlier, although I doubt if any tiling would have
been finished off.

The Bakerloo opened in 1906.

And I think the running tunnels would have been in place by 1901,
although probably not much station building. What I'm wondering is
whether there would have been any early work started on the layout of
the station that didn't take into account the Hampstead Tube, such
that, by the time the Bakerloo finally opened, passageways would have
had to be rearranged to take into account the Hampstead which would be
well on the way by then?

On 18 Feb, 09:55, MIG wrote:
On 17 Feb, 23:50, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:



In article
,

(MIG) wrote:
On Feb 17, 10:41 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message

l.co.uk...

In article

,
(lonelytraveller)
wrote:

At embankment station, there's a room behind/under the down
escalator leading to the northbound northern line platform.
There's victorian tiling on the right hand wall as you look in
from the foot of the escalator; why?

Given that the Northern Line opened in 1907, I doubt it's actually
Victorian. Edwardian I might believe.

Built using a stockpile of Victorian tiles? Perhaps they bought a job
lot cheap after Victoria's death... But seriously, how quickly do
architectural styles/materials change?

The Bakerloo would have opened first, and would have been abortively
built several years earlier, although I doubt if any tiling would have
been finished off.

The Bakerloo opened in 1906.

And I think the running tunnels would have been in place by 1901,
although probably not much station building. What I'm wondering is
whether there would have been any early work started on the layout of
the station that didn't take into account the Hampstead Tube, such
that, by the time the Bakerloo finally opened, passageways would have
had to be rearranged to take into account the Hampstead which would be
well on the way by then?

Well, what you'd have is two passages going east-west, right next to
each other, with one of them still in use, and the other being the now
hidden thing under the escalator.

The old bakerloo line exit, on the other hand, is still there. Its the
other staircase from the bakerloo line platforms. Take a look through
that door at the bottom of the steps to the northbound bakerloo - its
another staircase (the original staircase in fact), leading to the
other (now disused) bridge over the platforms.

The hidden thing under the escalator and the old bakerloo exit are on
completely opposite sides of the current northern-bakerloo passage, so
its unlikely that the hiding of the thing under/behind the escalator
was a result of changing the layout to accomodate the northern line..