In 1986, when Heathrow Terminal 4 opened, the following ten stations only had one platform served by Underground trains:
Aldwych (closed 1994)
Chesham
Heathrow Terminal 4
Kensington (Olympia)
Mill Hill East
New Cross (closed 2007)
New Cross Gate (closed 2007)
North Weald (closed 1994)
Ongar (closed 1994)
Shoreditch (closed 2006)
Now only four remain.
Monday, 27 October 2008
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
Primitive journey planner
Heathrow Central tube station long ago had a primitive journey planner. Basically a huge (approx 6ft x 4ft) tube map mounted on a slanted table with little bulbs in place of the station ticks or interchange circles.
You had a set of push buttons, one for each tube station, and pressing one of these would cause a sequence of the lights to show you the best route to that station. Great fun for boys who liked playing with such things, and probably quite helpful for passengers as well!
Unfortunately I think this disappeared sometime around 1990.
You had a set of push buttons, one for each tube station, and pressing one of these would cause a sequence of the lights to show you the best route to that station. Great fun for boys who liked playing with such things, and probably quite helpful for passengers as well!
Unfortunately I think this disappeared sometime around 1990.
Tuesday, 21 October 2008
UERL: what's this about?
UERL :: Underground Eclectic Railways of London.
Anyone with a knowledge of the history of the London Underground will know that, in the early years before London Transport was formed, the majority of the Underground was already under common management - by the Underground Electric Railways Company of London.
Two eclectic things that persuaded me to name this blog: the variety and mixed history of railways that collectively make up the Underground; and the subject matter of my postings.
I can't guarantee to finish a series of posts quickly (or at all) as I may wander off on a tangent. As well as the Underground, I'll also cover the DLR, Overground and mainline railways if I feel like it. Hopefully you'll find something of interest here, though exploring the links on the right may prove more interesting!
Thus the name - hopefully easy(ish) to remember and makes sense.
Anyone with a knowledge of the history of the London Underground will know that, in the early years before London Transport was formed, the majority of the Underground was already under common management - by the Underground Electric Railways Company of London.
Two eclectic things that persuaded me to name this blog: the variety and mixed history of railways that collectively make up the Underground; and the subject matter of my postings.
I can't guarantee to finish a series of posts quickly (or at all) as I may wander off on a tangent. As well as the Underground, I'll also cover the DLR, Overground and mainline railways if I feel like it. Hopefully you'll find something of interest here, though exploring the links on the right may prove more interesting!
Thus the name - hopefully easy(ish) to remember and makes sense.
Acknowledgements
I have my father to thank for fostering my interest in the Underground, and my wider family and friends for indulging me on endless boring (for them) trips to obscure parts of London.
Much of my knowledge comes from the variety of interesting literature published over the years. Specifically I would recommend almost anything under the author/editorship of (in no particular order) Brian Hardy, Doug Rose, Alan A Jackson, J Graeme Bruce, Desmond Croome, Piers Connor, Mike Horne, John R Day, Bob Greenaway.
More recently we have the internet to share our knowledge and observations on a professional and amateur level, and to the right you'll find an expanding list of interesting and useful sites.
Much of my knowledge comes from the variety of interesting literature published over the years. Specifically I would recommend almost anything under the author/editorship of (in no particular order) Brian Hardy, Doug Rose, Alan A Jackson, J Graeme Bruce, Desmond Croome, Piers Connor, Mike Horne, John R Day, Bob Greenaway.
More recently we have the internet to share our knowledge and observations on a professional and amateur level, and to the right you'll find an expanding list of interesting and useful sites.
1996 to 2009: a big gap, no big change
The 13-year gap between the Jubilee line's 1996 stock and the Victoria line's new 2009 stock is the greatest in the history of tube stock classification.
2009
< 13 >
1996
< 1 >
1995
< 3 >
1992
< 6 >
1986
< 3 >
1983
< 10 >
1973
< 1 >
1972
< 5 >
1967
< 5 >
1962
< 2 >
1960
< 1 >
1959
< 3 >
1956
< 7 >
1949
< 11 >
1938
< 3 >
1935*
However, the 2009 stock is actually not hugely different in appearance from the 1986 stock, the Metro-Cammell trains in particular - despite the 23 year gap. Outside hung doors (single at car ends, two pairs at car thirds) rubber/lino flooring, swathes of white/off-white plastic, large non-opening windows, LED dot-matrix displays, all longitudinal seating.
Have we reached a point where there won't be any more significant advances in Tube profile stock? Compare the Gate with Standard, Standard with 1938, 1938 with 1960, 1960 with 1986. Each of them introduced new concepts, but I don't see any such change from a passenger's point of view with 2009 stock.
The space train concept put forward for the Victoria replacement stock seems to be firmly pushed to the back of the shelf - if there was going to be one line on which such a concept could have been tried surely this was it. Articulation, smaller wheels, more motors, different floor and door arrangements allowing better passenger circulation.
On the other hand perhaps it's not to the manufacturer's (or the operators) advantage to be too radical. I understand the Paris Metro is considering replacing the innovative stock used on line 7bis because they've proved too troublesome in just over ten years of service.
* Going back beyond 1935 (the prototype for the classic 1938 stock) gets tricky because of the number of variants of Standard (sic) Stock and Gate stock before that - I couldn't remember all the different types and years!
2009
< 13 >
1996
< 1 >
1995
< 3 >
1992
< 6 >
1986
< 3 >
1983
< 10 >
1973
< 1 >
1972
< 5 >
1967
< 5 >
1962
< 2 >
1960
< 1 >
1959
< 3 >
1956
< 7 >
1949
< 11 >
1938
< 3 >
1935*
However, the 2009 stock is actually not hugely different in appearance from the 1986 stock, the Metro-Cammell trains in particular - despite the 23 year gap. Outside hung doors (single at car ends, two pairs at car thirds) rubber/lino flooring, swathes of white/off-white plastic, large non-opening windows, LED dot-matrix displays, all longitudinal seating.
Have we reached a point where there won't be any more significant advances in Tube profile stock? Compare the Gate with Standard, Standard with 1938, 1938 with 1960, 1960 with 1986. Each of them introduced new concepts, but I don't see any such change from a passenger's point of view with 2009 stock.
The space train concept put forward for the Victoria replacement stock seems to be firmly pushed to the back of the shelf - if there was going to be one line on which such a concept could have been tried surely this was it. Articulation, smaller wheels, more motors, different floor and door arrangements allowing better passenger circulation.
On the other hand perhaps it's not to the manufacturer's (or the operators) advantage to be too radical. I understand the Paris Metro is considering replacing the innovative stock used on line 7bis because they've proved too troublesome in just over ten years of service.
* Going back beyond 1935 (the prototype for the classic 1938 stock) gets tricky because of the number of variants of Standard (sic) Stock and Gate stock before that - I couldn't remember all the different types and years!
King's Cross: old Metropolitan and Circle station
Some interesting photos have recently been published on Abandoned Tube Stations.
They show platform, concourse and street level views of the old station as it is today. Very interesting however are the pictures of the subway that went from the old station to the corner of Euston Road and York Way, at the south-eastern corner of King's Cross mainline station. I was vaguely aware of the existence of this subway, but this is the first detailed account of it that I know of.
They show platform, concourse and street level views of the old station as it is today. Very interesting however are the pictures of the subway that went from the old station to the corner of Euston Road and York Way, at the south-eastern corner of King's Cross mainline station. I was vaguely aware of the existence of this subway, but this is the first detailed account of it that I know of.
Monday, 20 October 2008
Decrepit? No, atmospheric!
What's the most decrepit - or, if you prefer, atmospheric - part of the London Underground?
I would wager that the old footbridge connecting the west end of the Circle & Hammersmith line platforms at Baker Street would give any other part of the network a good fight.
Have a look at it if you get the chance, as it will disappear in its current form with the Baker Street step-free access project.
I would wager that the old footbridge connecting the west end of the Circle & Hammersmith line platforms at Baker Street would give any other part of the network a good fight.
Have a look at it if you get the chance, as it will disappear in its current form with the Baker Street step-free access project.
Not so simple: Finsbury Park (Part I)
Manor House to Highbury & Islington - take the Piccadilly line for one stop, use the cross-platform interchange, and take the Victoria line for one stop? Yes... but it used to be rather different. I'll explain in a series of posts, this first dealing with the early history of the line from Finsbury Park to Moorgate.
Think about Finsbury Park station to start with. Underground there are four platforms - two for the Piccadilly line and two for the Victoria line - but they were all built in the early 1900's. Naturally this causes the first stirrings of curiosity: why were the Victoria line platforms built sixty-odd years before the line opened?
The reason is not advance planning - that's never been a strong point of London's transport system. When the underground station was built two platforms (those to the west side of the station, today's southbound platforms) were for the Piccadilly line, and two platforms (those to the east, today's northbound platforms) were for the Great Northern & City Railway.
The GNCR was associated with the Great Northern Railway (the company running services through the mainline station above) and the intention was for some of the GNR's steam hauled suburban services to be routed through the new GNCR tunnels to deep-level tubes at Moorgate station - very handy for the City of London. At Finsbury Park the GNR engine would have been removed and replaced with an electric loco for the tunnel passage.
Before the line was complete however the two companies fell out. The connections from the surface station at Finsbury Park to the GNCR at Drayton Park were never finished. Holed up in underground platforms the GNCR was left to run a pretty useless little stub of a line (with heavy bus and tramcar competition) running from an inner suburban station to a terminal which was really only of any great interest to city workers at the start and end of their working day.
Rather than using their planned direct route, GNR trains to the City reached it by two other routes: via Canonbury to the North London Railway's Broad Street station and via the connections at King's Cross to the Metropolitan Railway's 'Widened Lines', running alongside the Met and Circle line between King's Cross and sub-surface terminal platforms at Moorgate.
Nothing further came of the original plans for running through suburban trains from the GNR. Never an attractive proposition in isolation, the GNCR company was fairly soon taken over by the Metropolitan Railway - still an independent pseudo-mainline railway with country branches. The Met didn't implement any grand designs on the GNCR, and the line entered (along with the rest of the Met) London Transport ownership in 1933 fundamentally similar in structures, services and passengers to when it was built. Expansionist LT soon formulated ambitious plans for it however.
To be continued...
Think about Finsbury Park station to start with. Underground there are four platforms - two for the Piccadilly line and two for the Victoria line - but they were all built in the early 1900's. Naturally this causes the first stirrings of curiosity: why were the Victoria line platforms built sixty-odd years before the line opened?
The reason is not advance planning - that's never been a strong point of London's transport system. When the underground station was built two platforms (those to the west side of the station, today's southbound platforms) were for the Piccadilly line, and two platforms (those to the east, today's northbound platforms) were for the Great Northern & City Railway.
The GNCR was associated with the Great Northern Railway (the company running services through the mainline station above) and the intention was for some of the GNR's steam hauled suburban services to be routed through the new GNCR tunnels to deep-level tubes at Moorgate station - very handy for the City of London. At Finsbury Park the GNR engine would have been removed and replaced with an electric loco for the tunnel passage.
Before the line was complete however the two companies fell out. The connections from the surface station at Finsbury Park to the GNCR at Drayton Park were never finished. Holed up in underground platforms the GNCR was left to run a pretty useless little stub of a line (with heavy bus and tramcar competition) running from an inner suburban station to a terminal which was really only of any great interest to city workers at the start and end of their working day.
Rather than using their planned direct route, GNR trains to the City reached it by two other routes: via Canonbury to the North London Railway's Broad Street station and via the connections at King's Cross to the Metropolitan Railway's 'Widened Lines', running alongside the Met and Circle line between King's Cross and sub-surface terminal platforms at Moorgate.
Nothing further came of the original plans for running through suburban trains from the GNR. Never an attractive proposition in isolation, the GNCR company was fairly soon taken over by the Metropolitan Railway - still an independent pseudo-mainline railway with country branches. The Met didn't implement any grand designs on the GNCR, and the line entered (along with the rest of the Met) London Transport ownership in 1933 fundamentally similar in structures, services and passengers to when it was built. Expansionist LT soon formulated ambitious plans for it however.
To be continued...
Sunday, 19 October 2008
St John's Wood: no fish
St John's Wood is the only station name not to contain any of the letters of the word 'Mackerel'. There's also a similar factoid relating to Wapping - but I can't remember it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)