|
|
Post by A60stock on Oct 31, 2014 23:17:31 GMT
Out of interest, why wasnt the victoria line built to national rail/sub surface line gauge? I ask because the line was constructed from entirely new, and therefore with full sized trains, it would have helped tackle rising passenger numbers with larger trains!
Please do give your opinions on this as i am sure there's a good reason it wasnt constructed to mainline size
|
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Oct 31, 2014 23:27:28 GMT
Out of interest, why wasnt the victoria line built to national rail/sub surface line gauge? I ask because the line was constructed from entirely new, and therefore with full sized trains, it would have helped tackle rising passenger numbers with larger trains! Please do give your opinions on this as i am sure there's a good reason it wasnt constructed to mainline size Two reason I can offer-1) costs of tunnelling. 2)stock transfer between lines when ATO was all the rage? |
|
gantshill
I had to change my profile pic!
Posts: 1,344
|
Post by gantshill on Oct 31, 2014 23:29:51 GMT
I seem to recall from reading The Story of the Victoria line that a larger tunnel diameter was considered, but there was not enough space at Kings Cross below the Metropolitan and above the Piccadilly for any larger tunnels.
|
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Nov 1, 2014 11:12:58 GMT
Out of interest, why wasnt the victoria line built to national rail/sub surface line gauge? I ask because the line was constructed from entirely new, and therefore with full sized trains, it would have helped tackle rising passenger numbers with larger trains! Please do give your opinions on this as i am sure there's a good reason it wasnt constructed to mainline size Two reason I can offer-1) costs of tunnelling. 2)stock transfer between lines when ATO was all the rage? Don't forget in the early 1960s people (and gov't in particular) thought trains were relics of the 19th century. The Victoria Line was built only after many years of wrangling and delay, and at absolute minimum cost. LT was coping all the time with reduced demand, so spending millions more on larger capacity on the VL would have been a non-starter. Even the bit north of Hoe St to surface at Wood St, which would have given easier interchange with BR, was deleted.... |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Nov 1, 2014 13:46:29 GMT
The whole line was built on the cheap.
The platforms and passages are smaller than common sense would have made them.
Tunnelling pre-dates boring machines so bigger would have cost more.
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Nov 3, 2014 22:22:33 GMT
And how they've regretted it ever since because of the money that has been needed to add extra capacity. Having said that, I don't think anyone could imagine back then that the downward trend of the use of public transport would reverse, let alone the degree to which it has.
|
|
|
|
Post by programmes1 on Nov 4, 2014 12:20:57 GMT
Out of interest, why wasnt the victoria line built to national rail/sub surface line gauge? I ask because the line was constructed from entirely new, and therefore with full sized trains, it would have helped tackle rising passenger numbers with larger trains! Please do give your opinions on this as i am sure there's a good reason it wasnt constructed to mainline size Two reason I can offer-1) costs of tunnelling. 2)stock transfer between lines when ATO was all the rage? I agree with point one but not point 2, ATO was not all the rage like today's world. |
|
|
|
Post by programmes1 on Nov 4, 2014 12:22:27 GMT
The whole line was built on the cheap. The platforms and passages are smaller than common sense would have made them. Tunnelling pre-dates boring machines so bigger would have cost more. I thought they had boring machines in the days the Vic was constructed, if they hand dug the whole line well done to them. |
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Nov 4, 2014 13:45:20 GMT
Two reason I can offer-1) costs of tunnelling. 2)stock transfer between lines when ATO was all the rage? I agree with point one but not point 2, ATO was not all the rage like today's world. That's why I added a '?' at the end. It was just a suggestion for others, like your good self to hypothesise about  |
|
|
|
Post by programmes1 on Nov 4, 2014 14:01:34 GMT
But you mentioned stock transfer which would have been well difficult?
|
|
|
|
Post by programmes1 on Nov 4, 2014 14:03:13 GMT
Two reason I can offer-1) costs of tunnelling. 2)stock transfer between lines when ATO was all the rage? Don't forget in the early 1960s people (and gov't in particular) thought trains were relics of the 19th century. The Victoria Line was built only after many years of wrangling and delay, and at absolute minimum cost. LT was coping all the time with reduced demand, so spending millions more on larger capacity on the VL would have been a non-starter. Even the bit north of Hoe St to surface at Wood St, which would have given easier interchange with BR, was deleted.... Does not the same apply with Crossrail after all those years. I am almost sure there were other reasons that the line did not end up going to Wood Street. |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Nov 4, 2014 16:50:23 GMT
The whole line was built on the cheap. The platforms and passages are smaller than common sense would have made them. Tunnelling pre-dates boring machines so bigger would have cost more. I thought they had boring machines in the days the Vic was constructed, if they hand dug the whole line well done to them. Did nobody on here watch Blue Peter, then? |
|
|
|
Post by programmes1 on Nov 4, 2014 17:00:30 GMT
I liked Magpie especially Susan Stranks.
|
|
|
|
Post by revupminster on Nov 4, 2014 17:05:49 GMT
It was cost that determined the size of tunnel. The link between bus and tube fares was broken in the sixties so that tube fares reflected the higher cost of maintaining a railway. The sixties was also the time the buses declined as the senior service within London Transport and began to lose money. The tube suffered from chronic staff shortages in the seventies and fewer service (Sunday service to Upminster was 12 minutes; to Ealing Common every 24 minutes). No one predicted how London would expand with thousands of white collar jobs as manufacturing declined (London used to be the biggest manufacturing city in the UK).
The creation of the GLC was a turning point for London.
|
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Nov 4, 2014 17:07:14 GMT
The line was built with tunnelling shields not boring machines.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Nov 4, 2014 17:08:28 GMT
The whole line was built on the cheap. The platforms and passages are smaller than common sense would have made them. Tunnelling pre-dates boring machines so bigger would have cost more. I thought they had boring machines in the days the Vic was constructed, if they hand dug the whole line well done to them. Much of the Victoria Line running tunnels were built using rotary diggers, the main exceptions being station tunnels and other short lengths of tunnel where it was not economical to bear the cost and time of setting up a rotary digger. Regarding the size of tunnels on the Victoria Line, I believe building a larger diameter tunnel was considered but rejected, I seem to recall the main factors were cost (cost increases more than proportional to size), and also I believe there physically wasn't room to fit in a mainline size tunnel at King's Cross, in the space available below the Piccadilly Line and above the Northern Line. There were also a couple of short lengths of tunnel around Finsbury Park where existing Piccadilly Line tunnel were re-used, although presumably this wasn't a major issue as these were only very short lengths. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,388
|
Post by Chris M on Nov 4, 2014 17:45:24 GMT
]Did nobody on here watch Blue Peter, then? I did, but as a child of the 1980s-90s they didn't feature construction of the Victoria Line when I was watching. |
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Nov 4, 2014 17:56:00 GMT
I thought they had boring machines in the days the Vic was constructed, if they hand dug the whole line well done to them. Did nobody on here watch Blue Peter, then?
So it was built of loo rolls and sticky backed plastic then? |
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Nov 4, 2014 19:42:45 GMT
Did nobody on here watch Blue Peter, then?
So it was built of loo rolls and sticky backed plastic then? Or elephant ****. It's either that or the Acton geezer was implying that Susan Stranks was built to full size loading gauge. I have to admit to bring totally confused!  Theres some video stuff on the web about the construction of the Victoria Line. Believe it or not, my first trip on the line was in 1972, aged 7 with a friend of mine, also aged 7. Doesn't it say it all that both of us were quite happily allowed out onto the underground without fear of being abducted back then? By the time we were both 9 we'd covered most of the network without incident without customer announcements or reliable station destination indicators; we just looked at the front of the trains to tell us where we were going. Nowadays, both our parents would probably be prosecuted! Oh and I still think, as we both did on first encounter in 1972, the Victoria Line is without exception the most boring underground railway ride in London........total waste of our pocket money we agreed! We did however enjoy the (then single deck) 275 bus from Woodford to Walthamstow there and back. Nice bit of inner suburban countryside. |
|
