Tunnel Visits

jetset@dial.pipex.com (Nigel) wrote in message news:<3f8ee0f5.14731092@news.ntlworld.com>...
> I thought some of the readers maybe interested in the following
> updates whilst visiting several tunnels in the Northamptonshire &
> Leicestershire regions.
>
>
>
> Catesby Tunnel - 3,000 yards
>
> The south portal (Charwelton End) was visited and remains much the
> same, though I imagine the immediate approached will become wet and
> waterlogged when the rains arrive.
>
> Inside the tunnel the bore is clear and in good condition. Reasonably
> dry inside with just a few small waterfalls and cascades.
>
> This is a shallow tunnel and when one inspects the airshafts and
> realises how much of the airshaft is above ground, the tunnel can't be
> very deep under the ground it traverses through.
> Hope readers find this of interest.
>
Catesby was only dug because the landowner would not allow a cutting
IIRC.1 foot water depth at N end last Spring (2002)

Kilsby has enormous shafts because it was feared that pax would
suffocate in a tunnel this length at the time of construction so the
shafts were added to pacify these fears AIUI

Jonathan Morton wrote:


>
> Speaking of Brunel, the "suffocation" nonsense was surely the theory of Dr
> Dionysius Lardner (?sp?) about Box Tunnel, wasn't it?
>

While most of the fuss was about Box I believe it was a more general matter.
ISTR once reading something about a group examining the interior of
Primrose Hill tunnel (before trains were running of course) while
investigating the claims of the ridiculous Dr Lardner.

The message <_eBkb.340$427.189@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>
from "Roger H. Bennett" <roger.bennett85@ntlworld.com> contains these words:

> The version I have heard is that the large shafts were built to allow worn
> rails to be turned without having to carry them all the way to one end and
> back again. But of course that might be a myth too.

I heard the same reason many years ago. Sounds a reasonable story to me...

--
Dave,
Frodsham