Jump to content

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Edwardian said:

This even to the extent of not liking to re-name real places!

I understand your point of view, but I do find that camouflaging real place names is a useful dodge. Wolfringham instead of Wolferton sounds fine to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The caption says "Block of buildings, [...] required by the railway". Trying to work this out - presumably by the Great Northern, not the Midland - there were no Midland works east of Pancras Road; the tunnelling for the connection o the Widened Lines was complete some time before the hotel reached the stage of construction shown here - in fact services into Moorgate started before those into St Pancras, which also started before the completion of the hotel. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

The caption says "Block of buildings, [...] required by the railway". Trying to work this out - presumably by the Great Northern, not the Midland - there were no Midland works east of Pancras Road; the tunnelling for the connection o the Widened Lines was complete some time before the hotel reached the stage of construction shown here - in fact services into Moorgate started before those into St Pancras, which also started before the completion of the hotel. 

 

Kings Cross I guess?

 

Going to loose a few hours on that site. 

Do the "Advanced Search", with years from 1830 to 1900 and Railways as keyword! 

Edited by Shadow
Update
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shadow said:

Kings Cross I guess?

 

Well, yes of course, but what aspect of the development of the Kings Cross site? It looks as if these buildings may have been on the diagonal between the original station frontage and Euston Road. Compare the OS 1895 5 ft/mile plan and the earliest 25" survey on the NLS site, surveyed 1871, showing St Pancras Road curving round to pass directly in front off the Kings Cross frontage to the junction of Euston Road and Pentonville Road at King's Cross itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn’t that a view from south of the Thames, showing the line on viaduct heading north towards the bridge over the river, the on towards Holborn viaduct and snow hill tunnel? Artist somewhere in Southwark?

 

Or, is it the other way, looking from roughly the site of Holborn Viaduct station, down toward the river with Southwark beyond?

Edited by Nearholmer
Link to post
Share on other sites

All these last posts  and their hypothetical alternative versions of history  have been hugely entertaining and are making me rethink my planned layout based on  the station from the opening scenes of the  movie "Wake In Fright"

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

22 minutes ago, Shadow said:

Not St John the Baptist under construction, but St Pancras. (The London Picture Archive)

 

https://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/view-item?i=305816

 

image.png.0c9ce04aeacc2fdd9d45c5684a0e844e.png

 

My first thought was to question why the GN would be doing anything after those Johnny-come-latelies from Derby had broken ground, I'm not sure.  The Great Northern Hotel is to that side of King's Cross, but had opened by 1854, whereas the St Pancras Hotel opened in 1868.

 

Then I realised that these row of houses must have been on what is now part of the expansive forecourt to King's Cross, the GN Hotel is off the picture to the right. 

 

Essentially I think it's Weston Place (see map below) which ran at an angle. It's taken down, c.1871, and the road straightened.

 

 705302237_Kingscross03a.jpg.96a09a47751822ac092f7829a67a2311.jpg

 

 

We move from this ....

 

figure0745-085.gif.c4033b821a0373da16eaa1ba66a8f4f7.gif

 

To this ....

 

991017092_KingsCrosscourtesy_of_london_transport_museum_collection.jpg.a1adce05a73c3c36177311674f0adb55.jpg

 

 

Norwich West

 

As for tunneling, can I assume that by c.1880 we're no longer needing to rely upon cut-and-cover, but we can dig right under the Norwich housing? 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Isn’t that a view from south of the Thames, showing the line on viaduct heading north towards the bridge over the river, the on towards Holborn viaduct and snow hill tunnel? Artist somewhere in Southwark?

 

Or, is it the other way, looking from roughly the site of Holborn Viaduct station, down toward the river with Southwark beyond?

 

looking south towards the river, with St Brides on the right. If we were looking north from Southwark, St Pauls would be dominant in the distance.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So far, the best information I can find on the construction of St John the Baptist is

 

In 1877, Henry Fitzalan Howard, the 15th Duke of Norfolk, married Lady Flora Hastings, and he decided to commemorate the event in stone. In 1892 he would write a letter to the Mayor of Norwich, remembering the occasion. "When, shortly after my most happy marriage, I wished to build a church as a thank-offering to God, many places were suggested to me. Bearing in mind the title that I hold, I decided to build this church in Norwich, the chief city of Norfolk." A site had been purchased in Coslany, but before any clearance began, the 1827 city gaol came onto the market. This was also bought, and in 1881 the buildings on it were demolished. The Duke selected as architect for the new building George Gilbert Scott Junior, a convert to Catholicism. It would be dedicated to St John the Baptist, in memory of the chapel in Maddermarket Street. The style was to be Early English Gothic. The size would be immense. There seems to have been no competition. The foundation stone was laid on the 17th July 1884.

 

Construction proceeded smoothly until 1892, when it was discovered that there was no planning permission for the full length of the building. This was the occasion for the Duke's letter mentioned in the previous paragraph, throwing himself somewhat on the mercy of the Corporation. "After considerable hesitation", he wrote, "I venture to address you on the subject of the church I am building in Norwich. As you are aware, difficulties have arisen... and I fear that there is danger not only of the city and myself being driven to great expense in litigation, but of its appearing as if I was acting in a hostile spirit towards the Corporation of Norwich in my attempt to add one more to the beauties of their beautiful city. It is this last consideration which chiefly induces me to trouble you with this letter."

 

The Duke went on to observe that "I have now built half the church, and I do not think any member of the corporation will suggest that it is a building of which Norwich has any cause to be ashamed... Norwich has got half my church. If it does not want the other half, perhaps I had better build it in some place which will appreciate it more. To me, of course, the result will be a disappointment."

 

This combination of charm and bluff seemed to do the trick, and by 1894 the nave had been completed, and services were moved from the two smaller churches in the parish into St John the Baptist. Scott died in 1897, and the work was finished by his brother, John Oldrich Scott. And so, on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, December 8th 1910, the great church was opened with a Blessing and High Pontifical Mass celebrated by the Bishop of Northampton, Dr Keating. 

 

Norfolk Churches Site

 

If I ever tackled Norwich West, however, I think I might miss out the substantially complete RC church; it would take years.  Alan Downes once built a cathedral in 4mm, but I'm no Alan Downes!

 

967500931_s-l1600(1)-Copy.jpg.d0ecd193ad9a0c4d207fdd0b490f38a6.jpg

 

If the St J the B was modelled, then, logically, too I would need to build the other buildings fronting Unthank Road:

 

- The Baptist church next door, now no longer extant (a victim of '1950s-Knows-Best' syndrome), but here seen in a rare pre-war colour view; and,

 

608569756_UnthankRdBaptistchurchCOLOUR29681939-04-16.jpg.a755e01716eb7e79029755bb2ee7397b.jpg

 

- The four villas that follow

 

UnthankRd-hero.jpg.64d0ea5fd24c354166a7b6ed9bf8ac89.jpg

 

Now, much as I'd love to build all these, I  also have to think about the practicalities of a model.  

 

My thought is not have the baseboard front along the Unthank Road side of the station, i.e. the passenger platform side and not to model the full height of the cutting on that side in order to give access and nearer ground level views.

794494416_PlantationAerial1-Copy-Copy(2)-Copy.jpg.90f47d71da2d2654d8038d3931c1895a.jpg

The opposite side would be the backscene.  The cutting would be modelled to full height, with the half relief model of the Chester Place terrace to the rear.  

 

999645168_ChesterPlace1.jpg.1850ce1e3b43739c3a79301c61b6ea90.jpg

 

The station frontage and a short section of Earlham Road would be modelled, and a Norwich tram could be posed. 

 

(I realise tram No.2 isn't routed to go along Earlham Road!)

 

140880015_TramNo.2.jpg.2d3aa5efb9b6893ac0c26e0314bc4beb.jpg556986119_s-l1600(2)-Copy.jpg.939d9d9c2b4d439c0f362c5dcb3ee7bf.jpg

  • Like 6
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

The Duke went on to observe that "I have now built half the church, and I do not think any member of the corporation will suggest that it is a building of which Norwich has any cause to be ashamed... Norwich has got half my church. If it does not want the other half, perhaps I had better build it in some place which will appreciate it more. To me, of course, the result will be a disappointment."

 

967500931_s-l1600(1)-Copy.jpg.d0ecd193ad9a0c4d207fdd0b490f38a6.jpg

Do I spy the half-way point, three bays out from the tower? Definite change in the appearance of the roofing material.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't resist a look at the topography, and would suggest that a tunnel out under the houses in Clarendon, Neville, and Grosvenor Roads (They crop-up everywhere; were they the only road names that Victorian sign-founders catered for?) might be pushing your luck. To me, it looks much more likely that it would have been a cutting, and not all that deep either.

 

The idea of a close-to-centre station in a sunken garden quite appeals, because it is the reverse of Central Croydon, where the station closed ages ago and the site was turned into a sunken garden. It was never a very grand station, but it might provide you with a few ideas because the date is probably about right for you ...... key point is how few platforms it had. http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/c/central_croydon/

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I couldn't resist a look at the topography, and would suggest that a tunnel out under the houses in Clarendon, Neville, and Grosvenor Roads (They crop-up everywhere; were they the only road names that Victorian sign-founders catered for?) might be pushing your luck. To me, it looks much more likely that it would have been a cutting, and not all that deep either.

 

The idea of a close-to-centre station in a sunken garden quite appeals, because it is the reverse of Central Croydon, where the station closed ages ago and the site was turned into a sunken garden. It was never a very grand station, but it might provide you with a few ideas because the date is probably about right for you ...... key point is how few platforms it had. http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/c/central_croydon/

 

 

 

I think it would have been a cutting, had the terraces not already been built. EDIT: Post crossed with Shadow's; it all depends on when we reach Norwich, because a lot of housing was built between his survey (published 1873) and the 1880-1886 survey (which shows the gaol already cleared in preparation for the RC church (first stone laid 1884). 

 

Now, assuming the housing terraces are extant when the WNR reaches Norwich, there is the question of how much by way of foundations and cellars there were, and how much earth needs to be above the tunnel, however, I don't doubt there is enough height to fit a tunnel under street level. 

 

Look at this fellow on the steps.  If we assume he's 5'10" and stack him, he shows us that we have 29' between the ground and the top of the balustrade, though there is clearly more embankment behind, so we seem to be playing with a depth in excess of 30', say at least 35'

 

1604445824_the-plantation-garden-Copy.jpg.bcbd62ee187da8c4efb2c0830cf00d97.jpg

 

We need something like 14'6" above rail height for the tunnel portal. 

 

Using This Calculation, the distance above rail height required in 4mil is 59mm.

  

 

Thus, we seem to have over twice the height of the portal aperture to play with. Say the portal is 63mm above ground level, we have about 140mm up to street level. 

 

That would leave only 19' or so over the height of the portal.  How practical that would have been ....  As I say, only worth a tunnel if there is a reason you don't want a cutting, like streets and houses above.

 

Alternatively, if a tunnel is not feasible, we can knock a trackbed's worth (single or double?) of houses down and have a series of bridges where the roads cross. 

 

Wondering if we need a double track and lots of platform faces, as the traffic to Norwich may not be that intense. Quite liking Alnick, with loops either side of a wide central platform, so only two platform faces (arrival and departure?) under triple-roof train shed. 

 

alnwick(david_liddle)8.jpg.3424dd155942612ce2ca8e8384538fa7.jpg

887192787_Alnwick5.jpg.2c213a2bff6ed56cdbfa35110c5d0ea6.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Edwardian
  • Like 6
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

If I ever tackled Norwich West, however, I think I might miss out the substantially complete RC church; it would take years.

You could add it on the backscene, layered in cardboard for depth.

Edited by RedGemAlchemist
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

If I ever tackled Norwich West, however, I think I might miss out the substantially complete RC church; it would take years.

 

You could always model it as a dimly-hinted form behind masses of scaffold (note this would have been timber prior to the 1920s).  I don't think I ever saw Lincoln Cathedral fully unmasked, as it were, even once during my three years studying there. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

station4_big.jpg

 

Alnwick station 1887.

 

Now that is a very nice station James.  Being a little different to the usual kind of terminus with its central platform would make it a very interesting model to build indeed.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

That would leave only 19' or so over the height of the portal.  How practical that would have been ....  As I say, only worth a tunnel if there is a reason you don't want a cutting, like streets and houses above.

 

Alternatively, if a tunnel is not feasible, we can knock a trackbed's worth (single or double?) of houses down and have a series of bridges where the roads cross. 


I’m no civil engineer, but I think you could barely get away with a tunnel with houses on top - in rock, yes, but dicey in anything else I would think.

 

I certainly had in mind the narrow, brick-lined cutting with bridges.

 

You could pull the Leinster Gardens trick, and restore the terraces with false fronts.

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Annie said:

station4_big.jpg

 

Alnwick station 1887.

 

Now that is a very nice station James.  Being a little different to the usual kind of terminus with its central platform would make it a very interesting model to build indeed.

 

 

Indeed it is/will be.

And I need to get on and build my version!

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the GC tunnels through Nottingham was so shallow that it broke through the basements of the buildings above it, so there is precedent for very shallow tunnels, but for that situation I would expect other factors to be at play (ie, the sheer expense of buying all the property required for an open-air right of way through the middle of a large city).  It's the sort of thing that can be made to work but the complexities of it (not least of which is preventing the buildings above collapsing into the excavation) makes it not a favoured solution. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the proposed route.

 

It takes the survey of the city made 1880-1883. which, therefore, shows pretty much the exact state of development at the time the WNR dug through it; the story is that the WN was racing the Lynn & Fakenham to Norwich, and the L&F opened Norwich City in 1882, so, whoever won, the WN should hit Norwich within the period of the survey.

 

So now, the key thing is that there is no housing on the north side of, what by 1905, has become Clarendon Road (previously Grove Road).

 

683958138_1905Development.jpg.728cd9850ebf7c436650798854ada528.jpg

 

If we go to the 1880s survey, we see that there is the terrace on the south of Grove Road in the way and one beyond that.  To save these houses would require a tunnel, and they are problems and expenses associated with the lack of headroom, as correspondents have pointed out.  Still, I am persuaded that it is not impossible.

 

1149278596_1880-1883Survey-Copy.jpg.bb178d8c4017025d9439384cc00a5a26.jpg

 

What if we have a cutting?  Here the idea is that we can have bridges or short tunnels to get under roads, but not buildings.  Thus, any building in the way are demolished and there is a cutting there and through any open ground/garden grounds.  That produces the version below.

 

2002582360_1880-1883Survey-Copy-Copy.jpg.464c4e6ebe9a7cda677fb8f664424e13.jpg

 

The key point is that the tunnel would still start  in the same place, at the end of the chalk pit, some distance from Grove Street, to which level it slopes upward.  In the early '80s this is still waste ground, so can be tunneled under, and, indeed, would thus remain open ground.

 

So, from the point of view of the model, I still get my tunnel!!!

 

1100362006_1880sSurveydetail-Copy.jpg.c89d17561fed0e410cacd698d2d3a7c1.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Edwardian
spelling!
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good scheme.

 

There is a case exactly like that in the Medway Towns, where a shallow tunnel was never built over, makings its course clear as an empty strip through later development. My brain refuses to cough-up the exact location at the moment, but if/when it does I will illustrate - there was a used car lot on part of it last time I saw it.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.