Jump to content

Talk:Cobble Hill Tunnel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Construction

[edit]

the photo in the article indicates that the roof of the tunnel is built in brick masonry, while the straight portion of the side walls is constructed from natural stone. Could anyone precise the building method and materials? What is the geology of Cobble Hill? And if there are any known sources: what were the conditions and methods used for construction? --Himbeerkuchen (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was planned and built as a cutting and lined with stone. Then after 5 years they covered the cutting making it a tunnel. Hence the two different construction materials. 90.220.27.146 (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

In metro it says:

In 1850 the Long Island Rail Road bricked over the Atlantic Avenue Tunnel (which had been an open cut), carrying its line for about 500 m under the streets of Brooklyn (now part of New York City). Although sometimes called the "world's oldest subway tunnel", this had no stations and was used for long-distance as well as suburban trains.

Does anyone know when the tunnels on the New York and Harlem Railroad were made tunnels (if they were open cuts)? --SPUI (talk) 00:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1872–1876, according to Joe Brennan. Choess 14:50, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I really think that this tunnel is more like ones that go through a mountain, not ones that are built to take trains off the street. Subways, IMO, are tunnels that are built specifically due to congestion/lack of room on the surface, and not because of topography.

From the article: It was built to reduce the grade of the railroad line. Jason McHuff 22:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

I changed "oldest in the world" to "oldest in N.A.", the (now commented out) Ref it was cited from is a PhotoBlog and Blogs just are not as reliable as the London Transport Museum. May I also ask for a second opinion of the NRIS reference, for the life of me I cannot get it to find Cobble Hill by NRHP Reference#: 76001225 (I believe they have changed their database). Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 08:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claim of priority

[edit]

Can somebody explain what "subway tunnel" actually means in the context of the claim that this is the oldest in the world. My reading of it (based on my knowledge of the American use of "subway") would be that this covers urban, underground tunnels caring passenger trains but excludes railroad tunnels bored through hills or tunnels that only carry goods trains. If so, the claim of priority would seem to be incorrect. If you read Tunnel#In history you will see that there were many railway tunnels prior to 1844. It seems likely that one or more of the three tunnels under Liverpool serving the Liverpool and Manchester Railway has priority. These are dated 1829 to 1836. It may well be that Cobble Hill does have some distinct claim to being the first of a certain sort of tunnel but this needs to be more clearly expressed and well referenced. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've always understood it, a "subway" tunnel is one that can only be used by specifically-designed passenger transit trains. A standard railroad train could not use a subway tunnel due to clearances and regulations, even if it were a passenger train. Subways are not connected to the national rail network (although some may have a rarely used connecting track for equipment deliveries and maintenance vehicles). A railroad tunnel connected to the national rail network running under a city would not be a subway, it would simply be a railroad tunnel. Parcanman (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A subway has station(s) in it. This is just a tunnel. 188.222.174.87 (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, you are right this interesting tunnel has no claim to any world first. You hit it with the two Liverpool rail tunnels that were built in 1830. The short 291 yd Crown Street tunnel, which serviced Crown Street station, with the first Edge Hill station at the other portal, and the Wapping Tunnel were both bored under streets and houses with the 1.26 mile long Wapping Tunnel being the first to be bored right under a Metropolis. Both were used until 1972 - a 132 years. The world's first underground station was Baker St in London. However Liverpool has a partially underground metro, which has the oldest part used dating to 1836 and an 1836 tunnel which urban trains run through. As London underground was a merging of a collection of separate railways, as was Liverpool's Merseyrail, that makes Liverpool Merseyrail the oldest urban railway in the world. The 1830 Wapping Tunnel is proposed to be reused on Merseyrail, which would make it the oldest underground section of any urban railway in the world. If you are into early railways Liverpool is fascinating. cheers. 188.222.101.236 (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Underground London (discussion moved from User Talk:DanielRigal)

[edit]

moved to Talk:London Underground

[edit]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/ny-history-hs515d,0,7913634.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.47.96 (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cities of the Underworld episode mentioned in the article is available on Hulu at http://www.hulu.com/watch/79486/cities-of-the-underworld-new-york-secret-societies. The "lost subway tunnel" segment starts at the 18:26 mark. I'll leave this to more experienced editors to add to "External links" in the main article if they think it's appropriate. 69.14.60.215 (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cobble Hill Tunnel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cobble Hill Tunnel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Subway" nonsense redux

[edit]

It seems that over last couple of years - since the idea was previously thrashed to death both above and elsewhere - other editors have tried to reintroduce the nonsense idea of Cobble Hill being, a) a "subway," and b) the first such in the world. One very pertinent detail is missing from the page, namely that it was originally built as an open cutting, and not actually roofed over until five years after it first opened. This is clearly explained in this source, which has long been cited on the page.

So, no, it was not a tunnel "constructed under/following a street" at all, but then that isn't an inherent definition of what constitutes a "subway" in the implied context, anyway. Whilst similar in principle, it's debatable whether the construction can be properly described as "cut-and-cover" in the same sense as the method used for the original sections of the London Underground. Seriously, a "subway" in the sense implied is a system of tunnels and stations beneath a town/city, not a regular - and relatively short - railway tunnel sans stations, however it is constructed.

Given that Cobble Hill did not become a tunnel until 1850, even the railway tunnel under Royal Tunbridge Wells - with a station in a cutting at the end, opening in 1846 - beats it. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this tunnel is from 1850 not 1844. There are many tunnels under streets before this tunnel. Even in Liverpool, which had the first, there are 5 tunnels under streets before the Cobble Hill tunnel. And yes the Tunbridge Wells station is a 'below ground' station, being below grade level but open to the atmosphere with a tunnel at either end. This was the same with the first 1830 Edge Hill station at Liverpool, below grade in a cutting with a tunnel to one side not two. 2.216.91.243 (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The novelty of Cobble Hill Tunnel is that it was the first shallow tunnel or cutting to be deliberately placed down the centre of a street in a built-up city, in order to bring a railway line through that city without having to tunnel beneath the foundations of buildings. It was the first tunnel to do so, it was roofed over as a cut-and-cover before any other similar tunnels. With the later development of urban subways, this would become an important technique.
This was not the first railway tunnel to cross beneath a road (that probably was Crown Street, although those tunnels are deeper and through strong but easily-tunnelled sandstone). This was certainly not the first subway. However it was the first railway tunnel to use the trick of following an existing roadway alignment in order to avoid the problem of undermining existing buildings (and the first to do so by cut and cover). This is novel, significant and bears recording - although copyediting to clarify this is obviously needed. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Liverpool tunnels went under streets and houses. What you are saying that the Cobble Hill tunnel is the first cut and cover rail tunnel. Is that so? 2.216.91.243 (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "it was the first shallow tunnel or cutting to be deliberately placed down the centre of a street in a built-up city, in order to bring a railway line through that city without having to tunnel beneath the foundations of buildings."
If you wish to run a tunnel through a city, this is difficult. Some cities, like Liverpool, are lucky in that they are on solid rock which allows close-spaced tunneling. You can also undermine a building on such solid rock without it collapsing. That said, it was a long time before Liverpool had a city centre station - Crown Street was well away from the developed area of the time. In general, it's hard to put a tunnel through a city because the building foundations will be undermined - at a time before the development of steel piling techniques etc. So a solution, invented for Cobble Hill and then crucial for metro systems in London, Paris and so on, was to align tunnels deliberately with the centre of roads and away from the buildings. This is why Cobble Hill matters. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim for a first for this tunnel is scraping the barrel for sure. If you are claiming this is the first cut & cover, and it is then that is first. Following the line of a street or road is a first? London's first railway tunnel in 1838 was the Primrose Hill tunnel. It followed the line of Adelaide Road. Not cut and cover but followed the line of road on top. No one would say that is a first of any note. If Cobble Hill is the first ever cut and cover rail tunnel, then it has a first. But that has to be proven. Otherwise there is no first to this tunnel. Although not designed as a cut & cover tunnel it is one, and if you can prove it then it is a notable first.
Edge Hill in Liverpool was built up in 1830. The 1830 Liverpool 1.26 mile Wapping tunnel (freight only) and the short Crown St tunnel (passengers and freight) were under houses and streets. As was the 1.2 mile Lime St tunnel (1836) and the over 2 mile Victoria/Wapping tunnel (1849). And a second Crown St tunnel was bored under streets in 1846. All before this Cobble Hill tunnel. The Cobble Hill tunnel was designed to be a cutting, being a tunnel was an afterthought 5 years later. Gerrards Cross railway station was designed and built to be in a cutting, but also as an afterthought made that into a tunnel 100 years later.
https://localwiki.org/liverpool/Liverpool%27s_Historic_Rail_Tunnels/
"So a solution, invented for Cobble Hill and then crucial for metro systems in London, Paris and so on, was to align tunnels deliberately with the centre of roads and away from the buildings."
Cobble Hill was not designed as a tunnel. To say it was is disingenuous. The tunnel following the street is rather accidental. 2.216.91.243 (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I recall the Liverpool Waterloo Tunnel was near the surface near to Waterloo Dock. On cutting the tunnel buildings above subsided and had to be demolished opening up the tunnel below. At this point it was cut and covered. All by accident and not intended, but it is cut & cover. So even the Waterloo Tunnel beats the Cobble Hill tunnel in this respect. And it appears a section of the Waterloo tunnel is the first cut & cover tunnel. 2.216.91.243 (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Primrose Hill tunnel was built on a greenfield site. The biggest problem in its building was in making the portals impressive enough to satisfy Eton College, who were the landlords.
Once again, the Liverpool tunnels were cut randomly through the sandstone without regard to the layout above. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Liverpool tunnels were not randomly cut. They knew exactly what they were doing and which way the tunnels were heading. At Cobble Hill, what followed the street was a cutting. The tunnel (covering the cutting) was an after thought. You are saying that the Cobble hill tunnel was pre planned. It was not. They planned and built a cutting. 90.220.27.146 (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most references state that the reason for the original 1844 cutting was grade separation, and to overcome a hump in the local topography that the locomotives at the time had difficulty getting over on the surface, rather than a desire to avoid conventional tunneling deeper down or under buildings. As 2.216.91.243 says, it's disingenuous to claim this as a first cut-and-cover tunnel, because it wasn't intended as such, and in any case part of the earlier Waterloo Tunnel is similarly "accidentally" cut-and-cover.
I think another important consideration is that - contrary to assertions - there appears to be no connection whatsoever between what was eventually done to Cobble Hill, and the method adopted by the Metropolitan Railway from the outset. Cobble Hill was not a widely-known novelty that directly or even indirectly informed the building of the Metropolitan line. Amongst everything that is known about the inception of the Met, it is all about them essentially starting from scratch, taking no inspiration from anywhere else.
Ultimately, while it is understandable that the passionate enthusiasts of this tunnel want to big it up and claim it as the world's "first subway," that just doesn't stand. It was just a somewhat novel solution to a local problem on a regular railway, and categorically not a conscious desire to created an underground urban rail network - i.e. a subway. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cobble Hill Tunnel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cobble Hill Tunnel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cobble_Hill_Tunnel&oldid=1245403413"