Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why are there so many tunnels under London?

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 73 posts

Re: Why are there so many tunnels under London?

#61

Post by Theodores »

VLM wrote: post #44

Nobody else caught on to the "its booming economy provided the financing." bit? To say a tunnel is capital intensive is an understatement. So you need rule of law, stable and very large financial markets, relatively low corruption. In comparison, there are other large cities built on good tunneling dirt that are perfectly unsuitable for a tunneling project for purely human reasons. Manhattan is no picnic to dig a tun…

In London the easy bits of the 'swiss cheese' were tunnelled through first. Hence North London where the easy clay is in greater abundance has the earlier and more extensive tube trains (and more expensive house prices).

South of the river, e.g. to Brixton, took a lot longer to arrive and the tunnel work was a lot harder with former rivers and earth more substantial than clay to get through.

So yes, anything is possible given money, however, geology still gets in the way.

Re: Why are there so many tunnels under London?

#62

Post by Kell »

dredmorbius wrote: post #57
VLM wrote: post #44

Nobody else caught on to the "its booming economy provided the financing." bit? To say a tunnel is capital intensive is an understatement. So you need rule of law, stable and very large financial markets, relatively low corruption. In comparison, there are other large cities built on good tunneling dirt that are perfectly unsuitable for a tunneling project for purely human reasons. Manhattan is no picnic to dig a tun…

Excellent point. I've been looking at economics as a discipline, and what it does and doesn't take into account. Three of those factors are stability (which allows complex and advanced concepts to flourish, including advanced infrastructure), risk (and who bears it), and power relationships (again, who has power over whom). Another example would be religious catacombs -- underground structures with religious signific…

The Church had almost nothing to do with the catacombs in Paris (I don't know about the others, but IIRC in Rome it's also more complicated since they were created at a time where the Church had almost no political power and not very much wealth... but I could be mistaken for Rome). The Parisian "catacombs" were created in preexisting tunnels. And actually weren't catacombs at all, because people never wanted to be buried there, it's not a necropolis. The catacombs were created because the monarchy in France was pissed with the old Innocent Cemetery which was in the very center of Paris, just north of the City Island and was spreading diseases, wasting real estate and serving as a harbor to criminals etc. Also the graveyard was literally overflowing (yep, literally, basement walls in houses nearby had started to crumble under the pressure of the accumulated bones). So by a royal edict of 1785 the bones in the Innocent Cemetery where moved to an underground ossuary, that became known as the Catacombs of Paris. The Church only did the praying and rituals allowing for the transfer of the dead.

But the tunnels where actually the old Parisian quarries.. And people dug those for centuries, at times of war and peace, with rules or without. It was everything but based on a large, stable and wealthy institution. Damn, even during the Revolution people still worked in those tunnels. And miners who worked in the 16th and 17th century were pretty much free workers who lived by selling building material that they mined underground.

Re: Why are there so many tunnels under London?

#63

Post by dredmorbius »

graeme wrote: post #60
dredmorbius wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excellent point. I've been looking at economics as a discipline, and what it does and doesn't take into account. Three of those factors are stability (which allows complex and advanced concepts to flourish, including advanced infrastructure), risk (and who bears it), and power relationships (again, who has power over whom). Another example would be religious catacombs -- underground structures with religious signific…

I agree with your point in general, however I think the catacombs were built because the early christian's were lower class social outcasts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catacombs_of_Rome#Christian_cat... What's that about cricket, stiff upper lip, jolly good? I'm curious.

The cricket and such are explained in the Burke segment I posted. "Sound mind, sound body" movement growing out of the German spa tradition.

Re: Why are there so many tunnels under London?

#64

Post by ColinWright »

batbomb wrote: post #58
ColinWright wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between America and England is that the Americans think 100 years is a long time, whereas the English think 100 miles is a long way. Just for reference ... My house was built in 1903. The college I went to was founded in 1352. The city my wife grew up in was occupied by the Romans sometime between 70 and 80 AD.

Maybe it's a little different because I grew up in New Mexico next to the Navajo reservation, right smack in the middle of tons of pueblos, but you have a very euro-centric view of the world if you think everybody in America thinks 100 years ago was a long time ago. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoma_Pueblo

Nor does everybody in England think 100 miles is a long way. It's possible to talk about majority views and refer to 90% of people without ignoring and trivialising the knowledge and experience of the minority.

Are you suggesting that the majority of people in America think 100 years is a comparatively short time span? Probably not.

I freely acknowledge and agree that there are Americans who think 100 years is a short time, and Englanders who think 100 miles is a short distance.

Re: Why are there so many tunnels under London?

#65

Post by ceejayoz »

maratd wrote: post #59
VLM wrote: post #44

Nobody else caught on to the "its booming economy provided the financing." bit? To say a tunnel is capital intensive is an understatement. So you need rule of law, stable and very large financial markets, relatively low corruption. In comparison, there are other large cities built on good tunneling dirt that are perfectly unsuitable for a tunneling project for purely human reasons. Manhattan is no picnic to dig a tun…

> Manhattan is no picnic to dig a tunnel thru That's an understatement. It's solid bedrock. Great for skyscrapers. Really bad for tunnels.

I'd imagine it has its benefits, like not having to worry so much about leaks and collapsing the buildings above into your hole.

Re: Why are there so many tunnels under London?

#66

Post by dredmorbius »

Similar: NYC is absolutely riddled with tunnels and underground infrastructure: subways, power, sewage, and as I recall, deepest of all the projects which transport Catskills water into the city.

I seem to recall a graphic which showed these tunnels at various depths, but have been unable to find it via numerous searches.

There is a pretty cool spread at Gizmodo showing the East Side Access project for the LIRR though. The scale of this is simply staggering:

http://gizmodo.com/5985618/incredible-images-of-the-new-mass...

Re: Why are there so many tunnels under London?

#67

Post by dredmorbius »

Kell wrote: post #62
dredmorbius wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excellent point. I've been looking at economics as a discipline, and what it does and doesn't take into account. Three of those factors are stability (which allows complex and advanced concepts to flourish, including advanced infrastructure), risk (and who bears it), and power relationships (again, who has power over whom). Another example would be religious catacombs -- underground structures with religious signific…

The Church had almost nothing to do with the catacombs in Paris (I don't know about the others, but IIRC in Rome it's also more complicated since they were created at a time where the Church had almost no political power and not very much wealth... but I could be mistaken for Rome). The Parisian "catacombs" were created in preexisting tunnels. And actually weren't catacombs at all, because people never wanted to be b…

There's power and wealth, and there's stability, of purpose and project if not of institutions (taking your point on Paris under advisement). Simply existing for a long time (and having a long-term vision) will get you some of the way there. What modern times offers is the ability to complete massive undertakings quickly by devoting vast resources to them all at once. What ancient times had was fewer resources but often a much, much longer time horizon. What current projects are undertaken with even a 10-20 year time horizon, let alone several centuries?

Re: Why are there so many tunnels under London?

#68

Post by claudius »

ColinWright wrote: post #27
claudius wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I am very thankful that the undergrounds in the cities where I spent most of my time were built much later: Tunnelling techniques evolved quickly during the late 18th and early 19th century, allowing for much more ‘comfortable’ tunnel diameters – there is a reason the London Underground is called the tube, it’s difficult to stand in most of its trains.

How tall are you? I'm 5'11", or 1.80 m, and I have no trouble at all standing in trains on the London underground.

Roughly 1.95m and while standing in the very middle is possible, it does feel more like an airplane rather than a train. Admittedly, I also like to have some space above my head and don’t always feel perfectly comfortable in tight spaces, so that might well contribute to a (perceived) lack of space.

Re: Why are there so many tunnels under London?

#69

Post by claudius »

quarterto wrote: post #51
claudius wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I am very thankful that the undergrounds in the cities where I spent most of my time were built much later: Tunnelling techniques evolved quickly during the late 18th and early 19th century, allowing for much more ‘comfortable’ tunnel diameters – there is a reason the London Underground is called the tube, it’s difficult to stand in most of its trains.

> late 18th and early 19th century The first underground lines were in 1863. That's the mid 19th century. The first deep level train (what's actually the Tube) was the City & South London Railway, opened in 1890 (late 19th century). Check yo fax. > it’s difficult to stand in most of its trains Not unless you're like 6' 6" (and thus taller than 99.5% of males). http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/62018000/jpg/_62018…

> > late 18th and early 19th century

> opened in 1890 (late 19th century). Check yo fax.

HN, of all communities, should be familiar with off-by-one errors. My apologies for the confusion; you are right, I was referring to the late 19th and early 20th century.

Re: Why are there so many tunnels under London?

#70

Post by hundchenkatze »

dredmorbius wrote: post #66

Similar: NYC is absolutely riddled with tunnels and underground infrastructure: subways, power, sewage, and as I recall, deepest of all the projects which transport Catskills water into the city. I seem to recall a graphic which showed these tunnels at various depths, but have been unable to find it via numerous searches. There is a pretty cool spread at Gizmodo showing the East Side Access project for the LIRR thoug…

I believe this maybe the image you're referring to. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/nyunderground/docs/nymain....
Post reply on HN