Secrets Of The London Underground.

[D821]

The former Mersey Railway Signal Box located in the middle of the Mersey Railway Tunnel was known as River Cabin.

I've never heard of that before, when was it in use?

 

[Enthusiast]

I don't think that the passenger areas at FP changed much at all from when I first used them in the late 1950s or early '60s until the changes resulting from building works in the last few years.
There were three pedestrian tunnels roughly in the shape of a T: the "cross bar" tunnels ended on Seven Sisters Road and Wells Terrace, while the "stem" ended on Station Place. The platforms were reached by pairs of staircases going down either side of the stem tunnel. Obviously the services from each platform except northbound Piccadilly changed during the conversion from Northern Line branch to Victoria Line.
There were (and are) spiral staircases between tube platform level and the BR / NR station above, but I don't think they've changed either. However I've rarely used them, I was normally changing between tubes and the Wells Terrace buses.
The bus numbers changed though: the 212 became the W7 and the 233 became the W3. I remember the originals when they were operated by RFs and RTs .

The 212 was RF operated from 1953 until 1960 when the route was converted to RT operation. At the same time the “212 Express” (which stopped only at Crouch End Broadway and Alexandra Park Gates) was withdrawn. The 233 was RF operated from 1953 until 1955 when RTLs took over the Finsbury Park to Alexandra Park Gates section and RFs continued to cover the entire route to Northumberland Park. From 1959 the entire route was served by RTLs.

Don’t forget the 210 whose RFs ran from Golders Green to Wells Terrace (except Sundays from 1964, when it was extended to Leyton to cover the 236).

Happy Days!

 

[John Luxton]

I've never heard of that before, when was it in use?

During steam days. Apparently the supports in a recess of the tunnel wall are still there. A Merseyrail employee posted some photos on a FB group a year or two ago taken when maintenance work was in progress. This period engraving shows River Cabin https://images.app.goo.gl/udtLdEKq9NPX5FtD6

 

[D821]

During steam days. Apparently the supports in a recess of the tunnel wall are still there. A Merseyrail employee posted some photos on a FB group a year or two ago taken when maintenance work was in progress. This period engraving shows River Cabin https://images.app.goo.gl/udtLdEKq9NPX5FtD6

Thanks, I had seen that engraving before (I think it's on the Hamilton Square wikipedia page) but hadn't realised what it was.

 

[DelW]

The 212 was RF operated from 1953 until 1960 when the route was converted to RT operation. At the same time the “212 Express” (which stopped only at Crouch End Broadway and Alexandra Park Gates) was withdrawn. The 233 was RF operated from 1953 until 1955 when RTLs took over the Finsbury Park to Alexandra Park Gates section and RFs continued to cover the entire route to Northumberland Park. From 1959 the entire route was served by RTLs.

Don’t forget the 210 whose RFs ran from Golders Green to Wells Terrace (except Sundays from 1964, when it was extended to Leyton to cover the 236).

Happy Days!

Thanks for the detailed timescales. My earliest memory is probably from around 1959, as I definitely remember RFs on the 212, but not on the 233, which I always remember as double deckers (at that age I wouldn't have known the difference between RTs and RTLs). I hadn't forgotten the 210, but its number didn't change, then or since.

I have a faint memory of once having seen a trolley bus in north London, possibly somewhere around Highbury Corner, distinctive by its three axles. However I'm getting away from Tim's series here, even though Siddy did stretch "Underground" to cover the Kingsway tram tunnel .

 

[Mcr Warrior]

However I'm getting away from Tim's series here, even though Siddy did stretch "Underground" to cover the Kingsway tram tunnel

It was in London and it was certainly underground!

 

[Ashley Hill]

However I'm getting away from Tim's series here, even though Siddy did stretch "Underground" to cover the Kingsway tram tunnel

And describing Blake Hall as a former “tube station”. A normal viewer might think it had once been in a tunnel .
I suppose a former underground station would give the same impression. A former London Transport station seems to cover it.

 

[bluegoblin7]

To the layperson (whom the series is very much aimed at) ‘tube’ describes any Underground service.

Thankfully such pedantic criticisms have been largely absent from the series.

 

[Falcon1200]

To the layperson (whom the series is very much aimed at) ‘tube’ describes any Underground service.

Indeed, especially as huge parts of the network (maybe more than half the total mileage ?) are not underground !

 

[Busaholic]

The 212 was RF operated from 1953 until 1960 when the route was converted to RT operation. At the same time the “212 Express” (which stopped only at Crouch End Broadway and Alexandra Park Gates) was withdrawn. The 233 was RF operated from 1953 until 1955 when RTLs took over the Finsbury Park to Alexandra Park Gates section and RFs continued to cover the entire route to Northumberland Park. From 1959 the entire route was served by RTLs.

Don’t forget the 210 whose RFs ran from Golders Green to Wells Terrace (except Sundays from 1964, when it was extended to Leyton to cover the 236).

Happy Days!

Happy days indeed! To me, Finsbury Park was the place to see RFs, even though you had to cross the main road to get to the 236s almost all the time. Kingston had its place, but they could easily have been Country Area routes in the main if bus history had gone slightly differently. Chislehurst, near my home, had its special place in my affections too when the 227 and 228 were both charging round the Gordon Arms terminus side roads.

 

[jfollows]

I have a faint memory of once having seen a trolley bus in north London, possibly somewhere around Highbury Corner, distinctive by its three axles. However I'm getting away from Tim's series here, even though Siddy did stretch "Underground" to cover the Kingsway tram tunnel .

I found this interesting.
I used to cycle in London in the early 1980s, well before the hordes of cyclists who now terrorise me as a pedestrian, and I would always cycle through the tunnel northbound from Waterloo Bridge to Kingsway. I think this is now "frowned upon" or "forbidden" which is a shame, I have to say that I had no problems on the many occasions I cycled through the tunnel. However I was never familiar in any way with its continuation along Kingsway so I found the programme informative and interesting.

 

[swt_passenger]

I found this interesting.
I used to cycle in London in the early 1980s, well before the hordes of cyclists who now terrorise me as a pedestrian, and I would always cycle through the tunnel northbound from Waterloo Bridge to Kingsway. I think this is now "frowned upon" or "forbidden" which is a shame, I have to say that I had no problems on the many occasions I cycled through the tunnel. However I was never familiar in any way with its continuation along Kingsway so I found the programme informative and interesting.

Google Street view shows a “no cycling” sign on the right just before the entry ramp, although in their photo the red border has faded.

By the way, this site (link below) has a good set of alternative photos of the Kingsway tunnel, they go further along to a position right under the north end ramp of the modern vehicle underpass, and then through into the void alongside it, it turns out the new ramps don‘t use the whole width:

Underground History - Kingsway Underpass

 

[DelW]

I found this interesting.
I used to cycle in London in the early 1980s, well before the hordes of cyclists who now terrorise me as a pedestrian, and I would always cycle through the tunnel northbound from Waterloo Bridge to Kingsway. I think this is now "frowned upon" or "forbidden" which is a shame, I have to say that I had no problems on the many occasions I cycled through the tunnel. However I was never familiar in any way with its continuation along Kingsway so I found the programme informative and interesting.

Coincidentally I often used to drive through the Strand underpass in the late 1980s, when I lived in Camden Town (I commuted across the river by car for various reasons). I suspect the reason for discouraging cycling is that the sharp right and (especially) left turns in the tunnel mean that drivers have quite a limited forward view. I always used to watch out for any reflection of red lights in the tunnel lining panels, as that could give advance warning of a queue on the up ramp to Kingsway.

 

[ashkeba]

I suspect the reason for discouraging cycling is that the sharp right and (especially) left turns in the tunnel mean that drivers have quite a limited forward view.

That is believable. The UK approach seems to be to put extra restrictions on others, whether cyclists or railway, rather than speed limit and camera enforce motorists to stay within the law.

Relatedly, were trams blamed in car-tram collisions and did this hasten their disuse and the abandonment the Kinsway tunnel?

 

[Busaholic]

Relatedly, were trams blamed in car-tram collisions and did this hasten their disuse and the abandonment the Kinsway tunnel?

I think the short answer is 'no.' The decision to abandon trams and (mainly) replace with trolleybuses was taken before the Second World War and was well into implementation in late 1939. The Kingsway tunnel abandonment was the culmination of the programme to cull North London trams, and those tunnel routes were never going to be replaced by anything other than diesel buses.

 

[DelW]

IMO the demise of tram networks (in London and elsewhere) was mainly the result of the rapid and extensive spread of suburbia in the 1920s and '30s. Trams were good at serving densely populated inner suburbs, but the cost of extending tram lines into the new low-density outer suburbs was prohibitive, especially when those could be served by motor buses needing very little more than the normal road network. Those buses needed to go into town or city centres to avoid passengers having to change, and so the trams were left with a declining proportion of the total market even within the areas they served. In most cities they carried on while the existing fleet and infrastructure was usable, but once major replacement was needed, that money produced a better return if spent on buses instead.

 

[edwin_m]

IMO the demise of tram networks (in London and elsewhere) was mainly the result of the rapid and extensive spread of suburbia in the 1920s and '30s. Trams were good at serving densely populated inner suburbs, but the cost of extending tram lines into the new low-density outer suburbs was prohibitive, especially when those could be served by motor buses needing very little more than the normal road network. Those buses needed to go into town or city centres to avoid passengers having to change, and so the trams were left with a declining proportion of the total market even within the areas they served. In most cities they carried on while the existing fleet and infrastructure was usable, but once major replacement was needed, that money produced a better return if spent on buses instead.

Also, motor buses were pretty much non-existent when trams were first introduced around 1900. By the 1930s they were much more advanced, especially compared to the trams that were often many decades old by then. Few cities saw the need to invest in renewing trams and tramways when buses apparently offered a better and cheaper solution.

 

[swt_passenger]

Wasn’t the underground power pickup system of the inner London system becoming a bit of a maintenance nightmare?

 

[ashkeba]

IMO the demise of tram networks (in London and elsewhere) was mainly the result of the rapid and extensive spread of suburbia in the 1920s and '30s. Trams were good at serving densely populated inner suburbs, but the cost of extending tram lines into the new low-density outer suburbs was prohibitive, especially when those could be served by motor buses needing very little more than the normal road network. Those buses needed to go into town or city centres to avoid passengers having to change, and so the trams were left with a declining proportion of the total market even within the areas they served. In most cities they carried on while the existing fleet and infrastructure was usable, but once major replacement was needed, that money produced a better return if spent on buses instead.

If your opinion us true, why do trams in other countries serve outer suburbs and sometimes nearby villages? Were British trams different and more expensive? Were tram orators made to pay for the roads they used?

 

[DelW]

If your opinion us true, why do trams in other countries serve outer suburbs and sometimes nearby villages? Were British trams different and more expensive? Were tram orators made to pay for the roads they used?

I can't speak for other countries, but in Britain most tram systems were owned and operated by local authorities. Post WW2, their resources were very stretched rebuilding wartime bomb damage and rehousing residents, which meant less money available for transport networks.
Birmingham retained a route as far out as Rednal, and I think one of the cities in the north (Leeds?) maintained a tram route out into the countryside, plus Blackpool held on of course, but in most places buses were seen as being both cheaper and better. Traffic congestion wasn't a major problem then, and anyway would affect trams as well, since few routes had reserved track.
The 1940s and 50s were very different from today, and it's necessary to make allowances for that when judging the decisions made at the time.

 

[SCH117X]

The Nottinghamshire & Derbyshire Tramway had rights to construct 79 miles of tramway but only constructed a 11 mile stretch, a north west extension of the Nottingam City tramway so giving a 15 mile route from Nottingham to Ripley. It operated from 1913 to 1933 having been progressively replaced by trolleybuses from 1931 and which in turn were replaced by buses in 1953

 

[Busaholic]

IMO the demise of tram networks (in London and elsewhere) was mainly the result of the rapid and extensive spread of suburbia in the 1920s and '30s. Trams were good at serving densely populated inner suburbs, but the cost of extending tram lines into the new low-density outer suburbs was prohibitive, especially when those could be served by motor buses needing very little more than the normal road network. Those buses needed to go into town or city centres to avoid passengers having to change, and so the trams were left with a declining proportion of the total market even within the areas they served. In most cities they carried on while the existing fleet and infrastructure was usable, but once major replacement was needed, that money produced a better return if spent on buses instead.

I'm not disagreeing with your main point, but do feel it necessary to point out another important factor in the case of London, which doesn't necessarily apply to other cities with which I am less familiar. That factor is the deliberate decision to exclude tramways, and the later trolleybus network, from the bulk of both the West End and the City of London, meaning that handful of Kingsway Subway routes were the only ones that ran from south of the river through to the north of the river, whereas many of the major trunk bus routes served large areas of two different sides of London (e.g. routes 2,3,6,8 etc). Also, some London tram routes served Outer London, and the second most frequent London tram route in the 1930s was the Thornton Heath High Street to Croydon one! It should be stated too that there was a realisation in government, local government, academic and intellectual circles that another world war and threat of foreign invasion was on, or just over, the horizon, and tramways lose their appeal and effectiveness in wartime conditions, when their inflexibility is their worst enemy.

 

[Jimini]

It operated from 1913 to 1933

Very niche opening hours then

 

[Mcr Warrior]

The Nottinghamshire & Derbyshire Tramway had rights to construct 79 miles of tramway but only constructed a 11 mile stretch, a north west extension of the Nottingam City tramway so giving a 15 mile route from Nottingham to Ripley. It operated from 1913 to 1933 having been progressively replaced by trolleybuses from 1931 and which in turn were replaced by buses in 1953

Interesting, but in which district of London is that?

 

[SCH117X]

Interesting, but in which district of London is that?

its not but was replying to the question posed earlier of "why do trams in other countries serve outer suburbs and sometimes nearby villages? Were British trams different and more expensive?"

 

[mailbyrail]

Ashkeba asked whether British trams had to pay to use the road

That was indeed the case, the Tramways Act of 1871 required them to maintain the surface of the roadway between the rails and up to 18 inches (45cm) on either side of the track. Certainly a major additional expense. I don't know when that requirement changed - if it did.

 

[SCH117X]

Ashkeba asked whether British trams had to pay to use the road

That was indeed the case, the Tramways Act of 1871

Actually 1870.

 

[JD2168]

A new series of Secrets of the London Underground has been announced with a start date of 4th July 2023.

 

[75A]

Excellent

 

[Mcr Warrior]

A new series of Secrets of the London Underground has been announced with a start date of (Tuesday) 4th July 2023.

Ten episodes in this new Third Series.. First four as follows...

Episode 1 – Camden Town station, and the forgotten wartime shelter built beneath. Plus a station which hides a "lost" river.

Episode 2 – South Kensington and Marylebone:
A look at the disused areas of South Kensington station, and a visit to Marylebone to view the tube infrastructure hidden within the walls of a hotel.

Episode 3 – Green Park (Dover Street) and Down Street:

Episode 4 – British Museum and Leinster Gardens: