Plenty of space to add an extra pair of tracks, which then saves loads of money compared to building HS2. Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?Were there ever any plans for a bore in-between the 2nd and 4th bores, or was it always just designed to have 3 bores?
The London & Birmingham Railway just designed it with the central twin-track tunnel. The two outer bores came later when the route was four-tracked. That the right-hand bore is so far away from the original tunnel may just have been due to the geological conditions encountered by the engineers.Were there ever any plans for a bore in-between the 2nd and 4th bores, or was it always just designed to have 3 bores?
They are indeed fancy, but the Trent Valley Railway was a later and (initially) separate endeavour to the London & Birmingham Railway.
Might it have been that the last tunnel was built to a slightly straighter alignment, as train speeds had increased from the days of the earlier bores? I suppose it depends whether line speed on 5he down fast is greater than the up fast or not.
Thanks, pretty marginal difference then and unlikely to have been of any significance when it was built.
What is so critical about that overhead structure, which has multiple ladder accesses but seems to have nothing mounted on it.
It's a signalling gantry with at least one signal attached to it. Signals are usually considered critical to railways
The middle bore is the original one, with the single line bores being added later as traffic increased. The bore further out is the down fast, so it's possible that the LNWR were trying to straighten out the bend slightly for non-stop trains. Or just local geology forced the wider bore. The south portal has 2 separate portals, rather than one continuous structure.
I think @Taunton's tongue-in-cheek comment was that a 'modern' railway would be using in-cab signalling.
That was to suit the then Earl Lichfield of Shugborough Hall (Viscount Anson).
Surely they'd have done that before the engineering posession was over. I'm also of the opinion that modern architecture on the railways is duller than a polished turd. That includes tunnels.
Based on their previous posts I'm prepared to bet actual money that it was certainly not meant that way.
Yes, the point being that you have to extend the possession to include the drying period. That costs money both in real terms (loss of track access payments, or payments back to TOCs for access not available) and general terms (loss of economic activity). And you have to pay somebody to sit there making sure it's all safe.
Evidence of the power and influence of the local aristocracy, just like the tunnel at Haddon on the old Midland line to Manchester. And if you look at some of the very early reports on a route for the London & Birmingham line you'll see the care taken to avoid a couple of major estates not too far away from London. Not disturbing "the seats of gentlemen" does seem to have been quite an important early considerstion! It could all get quite nasty, as the Battle of Saxby (on the Syston & Peterborough line) shewed, as just one example.
To be fair to the early railway companies, many of said aristocracy not only had seats in the House of Lords for themselves but had a fair hand in the consituency MP that was returned to the commons, so you can understand why consideration was given to their views.
Hmm, I think being in a curved tunnel (hence you can’t actually see the headlight(s) on the train from any significant distance) on foot, then realising that there’s a train coming (the sound and the sudden change in air pressure and ‘wind’) and then rapidly looking for a refuge ‘hole’ when they are irregularly spaced is a little bit more thrilling…
19th Century railway engineers built tunnels with imposing portals to calm the nerves of passengers. They though that an imposing portal gave comfort that the whole tunnels was strong enough to avoid collapses.
