"Anna Noyd-Dryver" <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote in message
news:td6e79$2jfar$2@dont-email.me...

>> As for "lowest" I'm minded to think there's almost a consensus here for
>> "feet above sea level of the tracks/platform" rather than "furthest
>> below surrounding surface level".
>
> That's for the people who were involved in the original discussion to
> define.

Yes. I'd use "lowest" to mean below some world-/country-wide datum such as
mean sea level, and "deepest" to mean below ground level at that point. But
that may not have been how the OP meant the question.

So (using London Transport examples, which I realise are not "National Rail"
or "main line") Hampstead is the deepest (below local ground level) but some
of the deep-level tube (ie not cut'n'cover) stations near the Thames (*) may
well be the lowest (below sea level), even though they are not as far below
local ground level. Even Embankment Circle Line is probably below the
surface level of the Thames, and a lot lower than Hampstead.

(*) Waterloo, Embankment on lines such as Bakerloo, Northern, Jubilee which
pass under the Thames

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "Anna Noyd-Dryver" <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote in message
> news:td6e79$2jfar$2@dont-email.me...
>
>>> As for "lowest" I'm minded to think there's almost a consensus here for
>>> "feet above sea level of the tracks/platform" rather than "furthest
>>> below surrounding surface level".
>>
>> That's for the people who were involved in the original discussion to
>> define.
>
> Yes. I'd use "lowest" to mean below some world-/country-wide datum such as
> mean sea level, and "deepest" to mean below ground level at that point. But
> that may not have been how the OP meant the question.
>
> So (using London Transport examples, which I realise are not "National Rail"
> or "main line") Hampstead is the deepest (below local ground level) but some
> of the deep-level tube (ie not cut'n'cover) stations near the Thames (*) may
> well be the lowest (below sea level), even though they are not as far below
> local ground level. Even Embankment Circle Line is probably below the
> surface level of the Thames, and a lot lower than Hampstead.

Yes, it's at sea level, so a few metres below mean river level. Hampstead
is 63m above sea level.

>
> (*) Waterloo, Embankment on lines such as Bakerloo, Northern, Jubilee which
> pass under the Thames
>
>

Yes, Jubilee Waterloo is 26m below sea level, which are, I think, the
lowest platforms on the LU network. I believe the lowest SSL station is
Victoria, with platforms 3m below sea level.

On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 21:50:13 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>"Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:td3plm$28rrp$2@dont-email.me...
>
>>> This thread began with a discussion elsewhere between two people; so in
>>> that context, the definition of 'mainline' is whatever they define it to
>>> be.
>>>
>>> I suspect it was simply being used as shorthand for 'NR', or more
>>> specifically 'not LU'.
>>
>> Yes, that would be my assumption, too.
>
>In which case, wouldn't parts of the Thameslink line (eg St Paul's
>Thameslink) be below sea level, since I think they are below the level of
>the Thames which is at sea level as long as the Thames Barrier is open. Or
>maybe the land slopes upward from the Thames enough even in half a mile that
>"below ground level" is still above sea level.
>
Sea level is not measured on the surface of the Thames, it is a mean
level measured at Newlyn :-
https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/newsroom/blog/how-do-you-measure-sea-level

On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 18:47:15 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <td3pf5$28r3n$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:40:05 on Thu, 11 Aug
>2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <td0p2b$1t10b$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:14:51 on Wed, 10 Aug
>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>> On 2022-08-10 15:41:44 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <td0foh$1s2u5$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:36:01 on Wed, 10 Aug
>>>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On 2022-08-10 13:38:07 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <td09rj$1rh5p$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:55:15 on Wed, 10
>>>>>>> Aug 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> which brings in the other set of contenders.
>>>>>>> What other set?
>>>>>> Stations that are significantly underground, in places of
>>>>>> not-very-high elevation. Two that come to mind are Wapping and
>>>>>> Rotherhithe.
>>>
>>>>> I don't think we are going to get much further until we decide on
>>>>> things like "which bit of Wapping Station", and "Is the Overground a
>>>>> mainline".
>>>>
>>>> Wapping and Rotherhithe each only have two bits: a ground level ticket
>>>> hall/gateline and a pair of platforms/lines. That offers the two
>>>> possibilities for defining height as the ground level or the track
>>>> level, unless you introduce some further odditiy like "highest point on
>>>> the roof" or similar.
>>>>
>>>> If a situation were to exist in which Shippea Hill does count and
>>>> Wapping and Rotherhithe do not count, I'd be interested in the
>>>> objective criteria you might propose that would permit that distinction
>>>> to be drawn.
>>>
>>> On that narrow point, I'd probably start looking at more precise
>>> definitions of "mainlines".
>>>
>>
>>This thread began with a discussion elsewhere between two people; so in
>>that context, the definition of 'mainline' is whatever they define it to
>>be.
>>
>>I suspect it was simply being used as shorthand for 'NR', or more
>>specifically 'not LU'.
>
>One fruitful line of enquiry might be to equate it with the concept of
>"heavy rail", but as ever our friend EL might or might not been seen by
>some as "TfL" ("London Underground" is a bit of an archaic term).
>
There is nothing archaic about "London Underground"; it is the entity
which owns and operates the system. Transport for London is the local
government body/ statutory corporation which (along with Transport
Trading Ltd) owns London Underground. TfL is much more than just the
Underground.
<snip>

In message <jAQtWO0kZp9iFAeX@perry.uk>, at 19:05:24 on Fri, 12 Aug 2022,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>In message <td4t78$2en2q$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:50:16 on Fri, 12 Aug
>2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>The Thames is 3 metres above sea level at Blackfriars. (Cue debate on
>>tides). This website should be useful for this thread:
>>
>>https://www.freemaptools.com/elevation-finder.htm
>
>FWIW that says the station site at Holme Moor is 6m.
>
>Shippea Hill station 0.0m and the surrounding land -1.0m
>
>But the River Great Ouse where I pictured the other day 4.0m (when the
>EA says it's around 0.5m - 0.487m actually right now) and the fields
>alongside 0.0m

This was obviously bothering my subconscious overnight, because when I
got up this morning I went and looked again at the EA measurements.

They are *not* based on "sea level", but a local datum. And the local
datum in question is "1m above Ordnance Survey datum", which as we know
is based on the historic tides at Newlyn (not today's tides at Kings
Lynn).

So the Ouse there is 1.5m above "sea level"(sic), and hence the side of
the flood banks might be 3.5m, which is more consistent with the earlier
pictured fall to the fields below at 0.0m

The freemaptools site is clearly doing some type of interpolation
between relatively coarse data they've scraped from various sources, so
fine details such as what might be described as a river aqueduct in
other settings, get slightly anomalous results.
--
Roland Perry

In message <lt9efh56bnavukvecejfrartthcp965jpm@4ax.com>, at 05:36:00 on
Sat, 13 Aug 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 18:47:15 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <td3pf5$28r3n$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:40:05 on Thu, 11 Aug
>>2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <td0p2b$1t10b$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:14:51 on Wed, 10 Aug
>>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>> On 2022-08-10 15:41:44 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <td0foh$1s2u5$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:36:01 on Wed, 10 Aug
>>>>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 2022-08-10 13:38:07 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <td09rj$1rh5p$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:55:15 on Wed, 10
>>>>>>>> Aug 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> which brings in the other set of contenders.
>>>>>>>> What other set?
>>>>>>> Stations that are significantly underground, in places of
>>>>>>> not-very-high elevation. Two that come to mind are Wapping and
>>>>>>> Rotherhithe.
>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think we are going to get much further until we decide on
>>>>>> things like "which bit of Wapping Station", and "Is the Overground a
>>>>>> mainline".
>>>>>
>>>>> Wapping and Rotherhithe each only have two bits: a ground level ticket
>>>>> hall/gateline and a pair of platforms/lines. That offers the two
>>>>> possibilities for defining height as the ground level or the track
>>>>> level, unless you introduce some further odditiy like "highest point on
>>>>> the roof" or similar.
>>>>>
>>>>> If a situation were to exist in which Shippea Hill does count and
>>>>> Wapping and Rotherhithe do not count, I'd be interested in the
>>>>> objective criteria you might propose that would permit that distinction
>>>>> to be drawn.
>>>>
>>>> On that narrow point, I'd probably start looking at more precise
>>>> definitions of "mainlines".
>>>>
>>>
>>>This thread began with a discussion elsewhere between two people; so in
>>>that context, the definition of 'mainline' is whatever they define it to
>>>be.
>>>
>>>I suspect it was simply being used as shorthand for 'NR', or more
>>>specifically 'not LU'.
>>
>>One fruitful line of enquiry might be to equate it with the concept of
>>"heavy rail", but as ever our friend EL might or might not been seen by
>>some as "TfL" ("London Underground" is a bit of an archaic term).
>>
>There is nothing archaic about "London Underground"; it is the entity
>which owns and operates the system.

It's separate entity from TfL, really? I know they tried to PFI much of
it off (in two, not one, tranches) but hasn't that all been walked back
by now.

>Transport for London is the local government body/ statutory
>corporation which (along with Transport Trading Ltd) owns London
>Underground. TfL is much more than just the Underground.

And "the Underground" is more than the bits which are under the ground.

Will this perennial pedantry never end?
--
Roland Perry

In message <td6e79$2jfar$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:46:33 on Fri, 12 Aug
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:

[snip]

>That's for the people who were involved in the original discussion to
>define.

Or perhaps the person who posed the original question?

Although he was seeking views on possible alternative interpretations,
and has got bucket-fulls of them.
--
Roland Perry

In message <td6if2$2js6q$2@dont-email.me>, at 21:58:58 on Fri, 12 Aug
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> "Anna Noyd-Dryver" <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote in message
>> news:td6e79$2jfar$2@dont-email.me...
>>
>>>> As for "lowest" I'm minded to think there's almost a consensus here for
>>>> "feet above sea level of the tracks/platform" rather than "furthest
>>>> below surrounding surface level".
>>>
>>> That's for the people who were involved in the original discussion to
>>> define.
>>
>> Yes. I'd use "lowest" to mean below some world-/country-wide datum such as
>> mean sea level, and "deepest" to mean below ground level at that point. But
>> that may not have been how the OP meant the question.
>>
>> So (using London Transport examples, which I realise are not "National Rail"
>> or "main line") Hampstead is the deepest (below local ground level) but some
>> of the deep-level tube (ie not cut'n'cover) stations near the Thames (*) may
>> well be the lowest (below sea level), even though they are not as far below
>> local ground level. Even Embankment Circle Line is probably below the
>> surface level of the Thames, and a lot lower than Hampstead.
>
>Yes, it's at sea level, so a few metres below mean river level. Hampstead
>is 63m above sea level.
>
>> (*) Waterloo, Embankment on lines such as Bakerloo, Northern, Jubilee which
>> pass under the Thames
>
>Yes, Jubilee Waterloo is 26m below sea level, which are, I think, the
>lowest platforms on the LU network.

Without wishing to complicate things further, LU here is a subset of
TfL, I presume? Where Overground and EL are different subsets.

>I believe the lowest SSL station is Victoria, with platforms 3m below
>sea level.

The diagrams accessible via The Londonist, say so, with Sloane Square
and St James Park tying for second place at -2m.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <td6if2$2js6q$2@dont-email.me>, at 21:58:58 on Fri, 12 Aug
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Anna Noyd-Dryver" <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote in message
>>> news:td6e79$2jfar$2@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>>> As for "lowest" I'm minded to think there's almost a consensus here for
>>>>> "feet above sea level of the tracks/platform" rather than "furthest
>>>>> below surrounding surface level".
>>>>
>>>> That's for the people who were involved in the original discussion to
>>>> define.
>>>
>>> Yes. I'd use "lowest" to mean below some world-/country-wide datum such as
>>> mean sea level, and "deepest" to mean below ground level at that point. But
>>> that may not have been how the OP meant the question.
>>>
>>> So (using London Transport examples, which I realise are not "National Rail"
>>> or "main line") Hampstead is the deepest (below local ground level) but some
>>> of the deep-level tube (ie not cut'n'cover) stations near the Thames (*) may
>>> well be the lowest (below sea level), even though they are not as far below
>>> local ground level. Even Embankment Circle Line is probably below the
>>> surface level of the Thames, and a lot lower than Hampstead.
>>
>> Yes, it's at sea level, so a few metres below mean river level. Hampstead
>> is 63m above sea level.
>>
>>> (*) Waterloo, Embankment on lines such as Bakerloo, Northern, Jubilee which
>>> pass under the Thames
>>
>> Yes, Jubilee Waterloo is 26m below sea level, which are, I think, the
>> lowest platforms on the LU network.
>
> Without wishing to complicate things further, LU here is a subset of
> TfL, I presume? Where Overground and EL are different subsets.

Stop being silly.

>
>> I believe the lowest SSL station is Victoria, with platforms 3m below
>> sea level.
>
> The diagrams accessible via The Londonist, say so, with Sloane Square
> and St James Park tying for second place at -2m.

Yes. It's not what I'd have guessed.

On 2022-08-12 17:47:15 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> In message <td3pf5$28r3n$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:40:05 on Thu, 11 Aug
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <td0p2b$1t10b$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:14:51 on Wed, 10 Aug
>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>> On 2022-08-10 15:41:44 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <td0foh$1s2u5$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:36:01 on Wed, 10 Aug
>>>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On 2022-08-10 13:38:07 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <td09rj$1rh5p$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:55:15 on Wed, 10
>>>>>>> Aug 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> which brings in the other set of contenders.
>>>>>>> What other set?
>>>>>> Stations that are significantly underground, in places of
>>>>>> not-very-high elevation. Two that come to mind are Wapping and
>>>>>> Rotherhithe.
>>>
>>>>> I don't think we are going to get much further until we decide on
>>>>> things like "which bit of Wapping Station", and "Is the Overground a
>>>>> mainline".
>>>>
>>>> Wapping and Rotherhithe each only have two bits: a ground level ticket
>>>> hall/gateline and a pair of platforms/lines. That offers the two
>>>> possibilities for defining height as the ground level or the track
>>>> level, unless you introduce some further odditiy like "highest point on
>>>> the roof" or similar.
>>>>
>>>> If a situation were to exist in which Shippea Hill does count and
>>>> Wapping and Rotherhithe do not count, I'd be interested in the
>>>> objective criteria you might propose that would permit that distinction
>>>> to be drawn.
>>>
>>> On that narrow point, I'd probably start looking at more precise
>>> definitions of "mainlines".
>>>
>>
>> This thread began with a discussion elsewhere between two people; so in
>> that context, the definition of 'mainline' is whatever they define it to
>> be.
>>
>> I suspect it was simply being used as shorthand for 'NR', or more
>> specifically 'not LU'.
>
> One fruitful line of enquiry might be to equate it with the concept of
> "heavy rail", but as ever our friend EL might or might not been seen by
> some as "TfL" ("London Underground" is a bit of an archaic term).

The London Underground has its own distinct set of things like
signalling systems and operating rules that mean that LU and
what-used-to-be-BR type trains can't operate over the same lines
withuot special provisions made to make the trains work with the
infrastructure and operating rules of the other. Overground and
Elizabeth operate on essentailly what-used-to-be-BR standards, and as
such can and do inter-operate with other trains without any special
measures.

Robin

On 2022-08-12 20:46:33 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:

> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <td3pf5$28r3n$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:40:05 on Thu, 11 Aug
>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <td0p2b$1t10b$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:14:51 on Wed, 10 Aug
>>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>> On 2022-08-10 15:41:44 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <td0foh$1s2u5$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:36:01 on Wed, 10 Aug
>>>>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 2022-08-10 13:38:07 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <td09rj$1rh5p$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:55:15 on Wed, 10
>>>>>>>> Aug 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> which brings in the other set of contenders.
>>>>>>>> What other set?
>>>>>>> Stations that are significantly underground, in places of
>>>>>>> not-very-high elevation. Two that come to mind are Wapping and
>>>>>>> Rotherhithe.
>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think we are going to get much further until we decide on
>>>>>> things like "which bit of Wapping Station", and "Is the Overground a
>>>>>> mainline".
>>>>>
>>>>> Wapping and Rotherhithe each only have two bits: a ground level ticket
>>>>> hall/gateline and a pair of platforms/lines. That offers the two
>>>>> possibilities for defining height as the ground level or the track
>>>>> level, unless you introduce some further odditiy like "highest point on
>>>>> the roof" or similar.
>>>>>
>>>>> If a situation were to exist in which Shippea Hill does count and
>>>>> Wapping and Rotherhithe do not count, I'd be interested in the
>>>>> objective criteria you might propose that would permit that distinction
>>>>> to be drawn.
>>>>
>>>> On that narrow point, I'd probably start looking at more precise
>>>> definitions of "mainlines".
>>>>
>>>
>>> This thread began with a discussion elsewhere between two people; so in
>>> that context, the definition of 'mainline' is whatever they define it to
>>> be.
>>>
>>> I suspect it was simply being used as shorthand for 'NR', or more
>>> specifically 'not LU'.
>>
>> One fruitful line of enquiry might be to equate it with the concept of
>> "heavy rail", but as ever our friend EL might or might not been seen by
>> some as "TfL" ("London Underground" is a bit of an archaic term).
>>
>
> I used LU rather than TfL for a very specific reason, thanks.
>
>> Being stricter, maybe something to exclude 'branch lines', which of
>> course then need defining (perhaps spurs/connecting lines of less than
>> 100km?)
>>
>
> I'm not one of the people involved in the original 'elsewhere' discussion,
> so I can't say for sure, but I strongly suspect that that's not what was
> intended in this case.
>
>>
>> As for "lowest" I'm minded to think there's almost a consensus here for
>> "feet above sea level of the tracks/platform" rather than "furthest
>> below surrounding surface level".
>
> That's for the people who were involved in the original discussion to
> define.

I deliberately did not include any of these details in my original post
as I wanted to see whether interpreting these terms differently might
produce interesting or different answers or discussion.

Robin

In message <td7qki$2q03i$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:24:34 on Sat, 13 Aug
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <td6if2$2js6q$2@dont-email.me>, at 21:58:58 on Fri, 12 Aug
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>>> "Anna Noyd-Dryver" <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:td6e79$2jfar$2@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>>>> As for "lowest" I'm minded to think there's almost a consensus here for
>>>>>> "feet above sea level of the tracks/platform" rather than "furthest
>>>>>> below surrounding surface level".
>>>>>
>>>>> That's for the people who were involved in the original discussion to
>>>>> define.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. I'd use "lowest" to mean below some world-/country-wide datum such as
>>>> mean sea level, and "deepest" to mean below ground level at that point. But
>>>> that may not have been how the OP meant the question.
>>>>
>>>> So (using London Transport examples, which I realise are not
>>>>"National Rail" or "main line") Hampstead is the deepest (below
>>>>local ground level) but some of the deep-level tube (ie not
>>>>cut'n'cover) stations near the Thames (*) may well be the lowest
>>>>(below sea level), even though they are not as far below local
>>>>ground level. Even Embankment Circle Line is probably below the
>>>>surface level of the Thames, and a lot lower than Hampstead.
>>>
>>> Yes, it's at sea level, so a few metres below mean river level. Hampstead
>>> is 63m above sea level.
>>>
>>>> (*) Waterloo, Embankment on lines such as Bakerloo, Northern, Jubilee which
>>>> pass under the Thames
>>>
>>> Yes, Jubilee Waterloo is 26m below sea level, which are, I think, the
>>> lowest platforms on the LU network.
>>
>> Without wishing to complicate things further, LU here is a subset of
>> TfL, I presume? Where Overground and EL are different subsets.
>
>Stop being silly.

What's silly about trying to bracket different bits of TfL in this way.
You did it yourself as soon as you mentioned SSL.

>>> I believe the lowest SSL station is Victoria, with platforms 3m below
>>> sea level.
>>
>> The diagrams accessible via The Londonist, say so, with Sloane Square
>> and St James Park tying for second place at -2m.
>
>Yes. It's not what I'd have guessed.

Sloane Square may be lower than otherwise as a result of having to fit
underneath the River Westbourne. St James's Park is a stone's throw from
Westminster and that line onwards east has to fit under the Victorian
Embankment, right next to the river.

Why Victoria is a further 1m deeper is something yet to be analyzed
here. It could be a result of needing to be sufficiently below some
other local infrastructure - perhaps the 'northern' ticket hall?
--
Roland Perry

In message <td7sav$2q5ag$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:53:35 on Sat, 13 Aug
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:

>The London Underground has its own distinct set of things like
>signalling systems and operating rules that mean that LU and
>what-used-to-be-BR type trains can't operate over the same lines
>withuot special provisions made to make the trains work with the
>infrastructure and operating rules of the other. Overground and
>Elizabeth operate on essentailly what-used-to-be-BR standards, and as
>such can and do inter-operate with other trains without any special measures.

The latter will come as a huge surprise to the signaling engineers who
still can't get their heads around the signaling technology required for
through-trains on the EL. (Despite having had at least three years
longer than originally expected, to achieve it).
--
Roland Perry

On 2022-08-13 09:59:06 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> In message <td7sav$2q5ag$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:53:35 on Sat, 13 Aug
> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>
>> The London Underground has its own distinct set of things like
>> signalling systems and operating rules that mean that LU and
>> what-used-to-be-BR type trains can't operate over the same lines
>> withuot special provisions made to make the trains work with the
>> infrastructure and operating rules of the other. Overground and
>> Elizabeth operate on essentailly what-used-to-be-BR standards, and as
>> such can and do inter-operate with other trains without any special
>> measures.
>
> The latter will come as a huge surprise to the signaling engineers who
> still can't get their heads around the signaling technology required
> for through-trains on the EL. (Despite having had at least three years
> longer than originally expected, to achieve it).

There are a number of different signalling systems used on "mainline"
railways, which have caused varying degrees of difficulty to get
working. Things like RETB for single line working, ETCS on the Cambrian
line (and soon the ECML) or TVM430 on HS1.

Robin

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 10:59:06 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <td7sav$2q5ag$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:53:35 on Sat, 13 Aug
>2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>
>>The London Underground has its own distinct set of things like
>>signalling systems and operating rules that mean that LU and
>>what-used-to-be-BR type trains can't operate over the same lines
>>withuot special provisions made to make the trains work with the
>>infrastructure and operating rules of the other. Overground and
>>Elizabeth operate on essentailly what-used-to-be-BR standards, and as
>>such can and do inter-operate with other trains without any special measures.
>
>The latter will come as a huge surprise to the signaling engineers who
>still can't get their heads around the signaling technology required for
>through-trains on the EL. (Despite having had at least three years
>longer than originally expected, to achieve it).

A classic example of technological overreach. As I said in another post a few
weeks back, having 3 seperate signalling systems for one line was just asking
for trouble. They should have used ETCS throughout apart from the branch to
shenfield then when the line was running retrofit ATC as and when appropriate.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <td7sav$2q5ag$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:53:35 on Sat, 13 Aug
> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>
>> The London Underground has its own distinct set of things like
>> signalling systems and operating rules that mean that LU and
>> what-used-to-be-BR type trains can't operate over the same lines
>> withuot special provisions made to make the trains work with the
>> infrastructure and operating rules of the other. Overground and
>> Elizabeth operate on essentailly what-used-to-be-BR standards, and as
>> such can and do inter-operate with other trains without any special measures.
>
> The latter will come as a huge surprise to the signaling engineers who
> still can't get their heads around the signaling technology required for
> through-trains on the EL. (Despite having had at least three years
> longer than originally expected, to achieve it).

345s have been operating on ex-BR lines since 2017.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 10:50:25 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <td7qki$2q03i$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:24:34 on Sat, 13 Aug
>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <td6if2$2js6q$2@dont-email.me>, at 21:58:58 on Fri, 12 Aug
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> "Anna Noyd-Dryver" <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:td6e79$2jfar$2@dont-email.me...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for "lowest" I'm minded to think there's almost a consensus here for
>>>>>>> "feet above sea level of the tracks/platform" rather than "furthest
>>>>>>> below surrounding surface level".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's for the people who were involved in the original discussion to
>>>>>> define.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. I'd use "lowest" to mean below some world-/country-wide datum such as
>>>>> mean sea level, and "deepest" to mean below ground level at that point. But
>>>>> that may not have been how the OP meant the question.
>>>>>
>>>>> So (using London Transport examples, which I realise are not
>>>>>"National Rail" or "main line") Hampstead is the deepest (below
>>>>>local ground level) but some of the deep-level tube (ie not
>>>>>cut'n'cover) stations near the Thames (*) may well be the lowest
>>>>>(below sea level), even though they are not as far below local
>>>>>ground level. Even Embankment Circle Line is probably below the
>>>>>surface level of the Thames, and a lot lower than Hampstead.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it's at sea level, so a few metres below mean river level. Hampstead
>>>> is 63m above sea level.
>>>>
>>>>> (*) Waterloo, Embankment on lines such as Bakerloo, Northern, Jubilee which
>>>>> pass under the Thames
>>>>
>>>> Yes, Jubilee Waterloo is 26m below sea level, which are, I think, the
>>>> lowest platforms on the LU network.
>>>
>>> Without wishing to complicate things further, LU here is a subset of
>>> TfL, I presume? Where Overground and EL are different subsets.
>>
>>Stop being silly.
>
>What's silly about trying to bracket different bits of TfL in this way.
>You did it yourself as soon as you mentioned SSL.

OK, if you really don't know this basic stuff:

TfL is the overall transport organisation for London. It is responsible for buses, Victoria coach station, licensing
taxis & minicabs, the Tube (LU), the Overground (LO), the Elizabeth Line, the DLR, [Croydon] Trams, cycling, the cable
car, the river buses and even walking routes.

The Tube is the least privatised of all of those, as the trains and tracks are owned by LU, and most of the staff are
employed by LU (some of the trains are maintained by the manufacturer). The other four rail operations, and the buses,
have private sector operators (operating under a very tight leash). The future of the cable car is uncertain, as the
Emirates sponsorship has finished; perhaps TfL will ground it as an economy measure?

>
>>>> I believe the lowest SSL station is Victoria, with platforms 3m below
>>>> sea level.
>>>
>>> The diagrams accessible via The Londonist, say so, with Sloane Square
>>> and St James Park tying for second place at -2m.
>>
>>Yes. It's not what I'd have guessed.
>
>Sloane Square may be lower than otherwise as a result of having to fit
>underneath the River Westbourne.

Yes, very likely.

> St James's Park is a stone's throw from
>Westminster and that line onwards east has to fit under the Victorian
>Embankment, right next to the river.

A good theory, except that St James' Park (2m below sea level) is a metre deeper than Westminster (1m below sea level) ,
and Embankment is a metre higher still (sea level)

>
>Why Victoria is a further 1m deeper is something yet to be analyzed
>here. It could be a result of needing to be sufficiently below some
>other local infrastructure - perhaps the 'northern' ticket hall?

That came 150 years later!

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 09:30:01 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <lt9efh56bnavukvecejfrartthcp965jpm@4ax.com>, at 05:36:00 on
> Sat, 13 Aug 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>There is nothing archaic about "London Underground"; it is the entity
>>which owns and operates the system.
>
> It's separate entity from TfL, really?

Yes - https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/corporate-
governance/subsidiary-companies

London Underground Limited (Company No: 01900907) is a subsidiary of
Transport Trading Limited (Company No: 03914810), which in turn is owned
by Transport for London (Statutory corporation). As limited companies
they're separate legal entities (to each other, the other subsidiaries,
and to TfL itself).

Mike

In message <131ffhlgv0ajg1qr45i0igqg4fc2p5quj0@4ax.com>, at 12:16:25 on
Sat, 13 Aug 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 10:50:25 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <td7qki$2q03i$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:24:34 on Sat, 13 Aug
>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <td6if2$2js6q$2@dont-email.me>, at 21:58:58 on Fri, 12 Aug
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> "Anna Noyd-Dryver" <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:td6e79$2jfar$2@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for "lowest" I'm minded to think there's almost a consensus here for
>>>>>>>> "feet above sea level of the tracks/platform" rather than "furthest
>>>>>>>> below surrounding surface level".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's for the people who were involved in the original discussion to
>>>>>>> define.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. I'd use "lowest" to mean below some world-/country-wide
>>>>>>datum such as mean sea level, and "deepest" to mean below ground
>>>>>>level at that point. But that may not have been how the OP meant
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So (using London Transport examples, which I realise are not
>>>>>>"National Rail" or "main line") Hampstead is the deepest (below
>>>>>>local ground level) but some of the deep-level tube (ie not
>>>>>>cut'n'cover) stations near the Thames (*) may well be the lowest
>>>>>>(below sea level), even though they are not as far below local
>>>>>>ground level. Even Embankment Circle Line is probably below the
>>>>>>surface level of the Thames, and a lot lower than Hampstead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it's at sea level, so a few metres below mean river level. Hampstead
>>>>> is 63m above sea level.
>>>>>
>>>>>> (*) Waterloo, Embankment on lines such as Bakerloo, Northern,
>>>>>>Jubilee which pass under the Thames
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, Jubilee Waterloo is 26m below sea level, which are, I think, the
>>>>> lowest platforms on the LU network.
>>>>
>>>> Without wishing to complicate things further, LU here is a subset of
>>>> TfL, I presume? Where Overground and EL are different subsets.
>>>
>>>Stop being silly.
>>
>>What's silly about trying to bracket different bits of TfL in this way.
>>You did it yourself as soon as you mentioned SSL.
>
>OK, if you really don't know this basic stuff:

I know it, but I wanted you to say which (railway) parts qualified in
your opinion as the colloquial "not London Underground" which might then
mean they were Mainline.

>TfL is the overall transport organisation for London. It is responsible
>for buses, Victoria coach station, licensing
>taxis & minicabs, the Tube (LU), the Overground (LO), the Elizabeth
>Line, the DLR, [Croydon] Trams, cycling, the cable
>car, the river buses and even walking routes.
>
>The Tube is the least privatised of all of those, as the trains and
>tracks are owned by LU, and most of the staff are
>employed by LU (some of the trains are maintained by the manufacturer).
>The other four rail operations, and the buses,
>have private sector operators (operating under a very tight leash). The
>future of the cable car is uncertain, as the
>Emirates sponsorship has finished; perhaps TfL will ground it as an
>economy measure?
>
>>>>> I believe the lowest SSL station is Victoria, with platforms 3m below
>>>>> sea level.
>>>>
>>>> The diagrams accessible via The Londonist, say so, with Sloane Square
>>>> and St James Park tying for second place at -2m.
>>>
>>>Yes. It's not what I'd have guessed.
>>
>>Sloane Square may be lower than otherwise as a result of having to fit
>>underneath the River Westbourne.
>
>Yes, very likely.
>
>> St James's Park is a stone's throw from
>>Westminster and that line onwards east has to fit under the Victorian
>>Embankment, right next to the river.
>
>A good theory, except that St James' Park (2m below sea level) is a
>metre deeper than Westminster (1m below sea level) ,
>and Embankment is a metre higher still (sea level)

That sounds to me like a gradual gradient upwards going east, from
Victoria. With Embankment being at the highest level possible given the
road above.

>>Why Victoria is a further 1m deeper is something yet to be analyzed
>>here. It could be a result of needing to be sufficiently below some
>>other local infrastructure - perhaps the 'northern' ticket hall?
>
>That came 150 years later!

? It's been there as long as I can remember, and is at the very least a
Yerkes-pastiche (although not one of his lines). Wikipedia suggests it
was rebuilt "at the beginning of the 20th Century", but only quotes a
print-book as a cite. The line would have to be avoiding whatever was
there originally.

As it was cut and cover, maybe the Transport Museum has some photos
which might help. Maybe a main sewer.
--
Roland Perry

In message <td7teq$2q8pr$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:12:42 on Sat, 13 Aug
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>On 2022-08-13 09:59:06 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> In message <td7sav$2q5ag$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:53:35 on Sat, 13 Aug
>>2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>
>>> The London Underground has its own distinct set of things like
>>>signalling systems and operating rules that mean that LU and
>>>what-used-to-be-BR type trains can't operate over the same lines
>>>withuot special provisions made to make the trains work with the
>>>infrastructure and operating rules of the other. Overground and
>>>Elizabeth operate on essentailly what-used-to-be-BR standards, and as
>>>such can and do inter-operate with other trains without any special measures.

>> The latter will come as a huge surprise to the signaling engineers
>>who still can't get their heads around the signaling technology
>>required for through-trains on the EL. (Despite having had at least
>>three years longer than originally expected, to achieve it).
>
>There are a number of different signalling systems used on "mainline"
>railways, which have caused varying degrees of difficulty to get
>working. Things like RETB for single line working, ETCS on the Cambrian
>line (and soon the ECML) or TVM430 on HS1.

It's the "do interoperate", rather than "we hope one day will" which is
just as germane.
--
Roland Perry

In message <td81tt$2qfn9$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:29:01 on Sat, 13 Aug
2022, Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> remarked:
>On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 09:30:01 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <lt9efh56bnavukvecejfrartthcp965jpm@4ax.com>, at 05:36:00 on
>> Sat, 13 Aug 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>There is nothing archaic about "London Underground"; it is the entity
>>>which owns and operates the system.
>>
>> It's separate entity from TfL, really?
>
>Yes - https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/corporate-
>governance/subsidiary-companies
>
>London Underground Limited (Company No: 01900907) is a subsidiary of
>Transport Trading Limited (Company No: 03914810),

I'm not getting into a protracted debate over the difference between
"separate" and "subsidiary".

> which in turn is owned
>by Transport for London (Statutory corporation). As limited companies
>they're separate legal entities (to each other, the other subsidiaries,
>and to TfL itself).

Despite the Crossrail [construction] company none leaps out at me as a
separate entity responsible for operating EL & Overground, so perhaps
both those are London Underground?

And hence fail the "Not London Underground" test.

Happy to accept suggestions.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 14:49:49 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <131ffhlgv0ajg1qr45i0igqg4fc2p5quj0@4ax.com>, at 12:16:25 on
>Sat, 13 Aug 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 10:50:25 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <td7qki$2q03i$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:24:34 on Sat, 13 Aug
>>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <td6if2$2js6q$2@dont-email.me>, at 21:58:58 on Fri, 12 Aug
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Anna Noyd-Dryver" <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:td6e79$2jfar$2@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As for "lowest" I'm minded to think there's almost a consensus here for
>>>>>>>>> "feet above sea level of the tracks/platform" rather than "furthest
>>>>>>>>> below surrounding surface level".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's for the people who were involved in the original discussion to
>>>>>>>> define.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes. I'd use "lowest" to mean below some world-/country-wide
>>>>>>>datum such as mean sea level, and "deepest" to mean below ground
>>>>>>>level at that point. But that may not have been how the OP meant
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So (using London Transport examples, which I realise are not
>>>>>>>"National Rail" or "main line") Hampstead is the deepest (below
>>>>>>>local ground level) but some of the deep-level tube (ie not
>>>>>>>cut'n'cover) stations near the Thames (*) may well be the lowest
>>>>>>>(below sea level), even though they are not as far below local
>>>>>>>ground level. Even Embankment Circle Line is probably below the
>>>>>>>surface level of the Thames, and a lot lower than Hampstead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, it's at sea level, so a few metres below mean river level. Hampstead
>>>>>> is 63m above sea level.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (*) Waterloo, Embankment on lines such as Bakerloo, Northern,
>>>>>>>Jubilee which pass under the Thames
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, Jubilee Waterloo is 26m below sea level, which are, I think, the
>>>>>> lowest platforms on the LU network.
>>>>>
>>>>> Without wishing to complicate things further, LU here is a subset of
>>>>> TfL, I presume? Where Overground and EL are different subsets.
>>>>
>>>>Stop being silly.
>>>
>>>What's silly about trying to bracket different bits of TfL in this way.
>>>You did it yourself as soon as you mentioned SSL.
>>
>>OK, if you really don't know this basic stuff:
>
>I know it, but I wanted you to say which (railway) parts qualified in
>your opinion as the colloquial "not London Underground" which might then
>mean they were Mainline.

Defining mainline as meaning 'Not London Underground' is perfectly clear and unambiguous. London Underground is a heavy
rail metro system, and an organisation, not a colloquial term.

>
>>TfL is the overall transport organisation for London. It is responsible
>>for buses, Victoria coach station, licensing
>>taxis & minicabs, the Tube (LU), the Overground (LO), the Elizabeth
>>Line, the DLR, [Croydon] Trams, cycling, the cable
>>car, the river buses and even walking routes.
>>
>>The Tube is the least privatised of all of those, as the trains and
>>tracks are owned by LU, and most of the staff are
>>employed by LU (some of the trains are maintained by the manufacturer).
>>The other four rail operations, and the buses,
>>have private sector operators (operating under a very tight leash). The
>>future of the cable car is uncertain, as the
>>Emirates sponsorship has finished; perhaps TfL will ground it as an
>>economy measure?
>>
>>>>>> I believe the lowest SSL station is Victoria, with platforms 3m below
>>>>>> sea level.
>>>>>
>>>>> The diagrams accessible via The Londonist, say so, with Sloane Square
>>>>> and St James Park tying for second place at -2m.
>>>>
>>>>Yes. It's not what I'd have guessed.
>>>
>>>Sloane Square may be lower than otherwise as a result of having to fit
>>>underneath the River Westbourne.
>>
>>Yes, very likely.
>>
>>> St James's Park is a stone's throw from
>>>Westminster and that line onwards east has to fit under the Victorian
>>>Embankment, right next to the river.
>>
>>A good theory, except that St James' Park (2m below sea level) is a
>>metre deeper than Westminster (1m below sea level) ,
>>and Embankment is a metre higher still (sea level)
>
>That sounds to me like a gradual gradient upwards going east, from
>Victoria. With Embankment being at the highest level possible given the
>road above.
>
>>>Why Victoria is a further 1m deeper is something yet to be analyzed
>>>here. It could be a result of needing to be sufficiently below some
>>>other local infrastructure - perhaps the 'northern' ticket hall?
>>
>>That came 150 years later!
>
>? It's been there as long as I can remember

You have a very short memory!

> and is at the very least a
>Yerkes-pastiche (although not one of his lines).

None of the Victoria LU station complex has anything to do with Yerkes or Leslie Green.

> Wikipedia suggests it
>was rebuilt "at the beginning of the 20th Century", but only quotes a
>print-book as a cite.

It opened on 16 January 2017, almost 150 years after the Metropolitan District Railway opened its Victoria station.
Here's some pictures I took a few days later:
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157678639061940>

> The line would have to be avoiding whatever was
>there originally.
>
>As it was cut and cover, maybe the Transport Museum has some photos
>which might help. Maybe a main sewer.

Yes, that's the most likely thing.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 11:29:01 -0000 (UTC)
Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 09:30:01 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <lt9efh56bnavukvecejfrartthcp965jpm@4ax.com>, at 05:36:00 on
>> Sat, 13 Aug 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>There is nothing archaic about "London Underground"; it is the entity
>>>which owns and operates the system.
>>
>> It's separate entity from TfL, really?
>
>Yes - https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/corporate-
>governance/subsidiary-companies
>
>London Underground Limited (Company No: 01900907) is a subsidiary of
>Transport Trading Limited (Company No: 03914810), which in turn is owned
>by Transport for London (Statutory corporation). As limited companies
>they're separate legal entities (to each other, the other subsidiaries,
>and to TfL itself).

Though the entity that owns you ultimately calls the shots as Ben & Jerrys
found out when they had a scrap with Unilever about selling in the occupied
territories in Isreal and were put in their place.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 14:49:49 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>? It's been there as long as I can remember, and is at the very least a
>Yerkes-pastiche (although not one of his lines). Wikipedia suggests it

If you want pastiche the current reopening of an old entrance to knightsbridge
station in Basil street is a good example.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 14:49:49 +0100
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> ? It's been there as long as I can remember, and is at the very least a
>> Yerkes-pastiche (although not one of his lines). Wikipedia suggests it
>
> If you want pastiche the current reopening of an old entrance to knightsbridge
> station in Basil street is a good example.
>

That's fair enough, as they're reopening the original entrance of an old
station, so why not restore the original appearance? But you wouldn't use
a Leslie Green pastiche on a new entrance to a station he had no hand in
designing.