Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Epsom Downs shelter

334 views
Skip to first unread message

Fred Enaj

unread,
Oct 29, 2005, 2:53:19 PM10/29/05
to
Hello Subrit. Does anybody know anything about the deep shelter under
the golf course on Epsom downs? this shelter was built around the same
time and to a similer design as the Ashley road shelter, there are many
rumours associated with this a site included vehicles and other
interesting stuff being buried at the time it was sealed. I imagine
that most of that is open to speculation, but there definatly good
evidence pointing to a rather large(at least the size of Ashley road
shelter,1500+ capacity) underground structure. I have included an
aerial photo of the general location. This shelter is rousing much
interest in our local history group and local museam, and hopefully
some sort of official visit may be arranged.
I visited the site this morning, its actually very difficult to
tell that anything has been constructed there, the golf course has
eradicated all obvious traces. The site seems to be a "cut and fill"
type structure with apparently very thick roof that now has very dense
shrubby type vegetation on it,I did not see any signs of vents of other
surface remains, there are a few fence posts about, remains of barbed
wire, and a rather large bag full of rotten nappies or something so
gross I shudder.
The most interesting thing I found was an apparent attempt to gain
access,they must have spent a while digging and drinking lots and lots
of beer, there are many cans of fosters lager, plastic sheets and piles
of excavated soil. they seem to have revealed a 1 meter thick slab of
concrete,that appears to extend quite someway into the small hill.
Other smaller excavations are dotted about the area. I will post some
hotos this week..
To view an aerial view of the location please click on the
following
link....http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&X=522500.15498879&Y=159500.553567818&width=700&height=400&gride=522631.15498879&gridn=159578.553567818&srec=0&coordsys=gb&db=freegaz&addr1=&addr2=&addr3=&pc=&advanced=&local=&localinfosel=&kw=&inmap=&table=&ovtype=&zm=0&scale=10000&multimap.x=301&multimap.y=260
and this one too
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=522375&y=159305&z=3&sv=522500,159500&st=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf
I hope the links work... pictures to follow next couple of days..

Nick Catford

unread,
Oct 29, 2005, 5:26:13 PM10/29/05
to

--
Please do not reply to this email address use my new one
: ni...@catford.fsbuisness.co.uk

"Fred Enaj" <berti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130611999....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


I was part of the digging party and can assure you that we didn't leave any
rubbish of any kind on the site.

Having studied local large scale maps which clearly show the shelter and
it's approach cutting we approached the golf course for permission to dig
into the shelter which we received. We allocated a weekend last year and
arrived early on Saturday morning with a mini digger. We had exposed the
concrete slab during an exploratory visit some weeks earlier but this is too
high up the slope to be part of the shelter and is probably a blast cap some
distance above the entrance. Like Ashley Road the shelter the shelter is
approached by a deep cutting. The cutting was completely infilled with
rubbish during the 1970's and there is no avoidance of the cutting today.

A WW2 plan of the shelter clearly shows two entrances from the cutting so we
started digging above what we hoped (through measurement) was one of the
entrances. Having removed the top soil we soon came to the rubbish, buts of
car, washing machines, builders rubble which we took out in large
quantities. I think we got down about 16 feet but with a mini digger it's
very slow going especially as you get deeper and beyond the reach of the
digger. We had to excavate a slope down to a lower platform for the digger.

After two days we ran out of time. I feel that if we could use a bigger
digger (JCB or something similar) we would be able to get in with little
difficulty. We suggested this to the golf course and initially they were
enthusiastic but it had to be discussed by the committee and that is as far
as we got.

We financed the hire of the digger but a JCB would be a lot more expensive
and we asked the club to cover the cost. It may have been that that put
them off, I don't know.

If you want to open up new communications with the club if you can get
permission for another dig with a JCB then I'm sure we will get in. We know
exactly where to dig.

The gold club were hoping to use the shelter as a store which is why they
were so helpful.

I've put a picture on a web page:
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/sites/s/special_events/index4.shtml

Nick


Fred Enaj

unread,
Oct 29, 2005, 6:35:05 PM10/29/05
to
Thanks for the speedy reply Nick, I suppose it did sound like I was
suggesting that it was you guys that made the mess, I apologise. It
looks like others have been active,as the slab appears to be undermined
somewhat.
I spoke today with a couple of guys from the local history group one
of them suggested that a local guy, I have his name and addy if your
interested, entered the site on several occasions whilst it was open
and recalls ambulences being sealed in there. it sounds a bit difficult
for me to imagine they would have an access that large, either way
thats what the gent says.
I apologise again for associating you with the rubbish.it was most
likely a couple a winos that spent the afternoon there.

john.locke

unread,
Oct 29, 2005, 7:34:20 PM10/29/05
to

"Fred Enaj" <berti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130625305....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Ambulances being sealed in a shelter, sounds rather urban myth to many -
your correct to assume that a large truck size portal would be required for
such a venture, which would also mean a hard track or roadway would have to
be constructed for vehicle traffic. Without sounding niave, a polite enquiry
of the gentleman as to make & model type COULD clear matters up.

John Locke.


Nick Catford

unread,
Oct 30, 2005, 1:16:02 AM10/30/05
to


No definitely no ambulances unless they were midget ones, the guy has a
vivid imagination. I have a plan of the place and now the width of all the
tunnels.

I have spoken to a number of people who can remember it before it was
demolished although they didn't go inside.

Nick


peter...@seaford2.freeserve.co.uk

unread,
Oct 30, 2005, 4:25:39 AM10/30/05
to
>>
> No definitely no ambulances unless they were midget ones, the guy has a
> vivid imagination. I have a plan of the place and now the width of all the
> tunnels.
>
> I have spoken to a number of people who can remember it before it was
> demolished although they didn't go inside.
>
> Nick

Ambulances-makes a change from Sherman tanks !
Pete

Nick Catford

unread,
Oct 30, 2005, 5:56:07 AM10/30/05
to


I've heard the ambulance theory at other sites, it wasn't true there either.
It's amazing what tall stories people come up with.

Many many years ago someone came up to me at a meeting not knowing who I was
and told me he was me. I soon put him straight!!!!

Nick


Fred Enaj

unread,
Oct 30, 2005, 10:16:29 AM10/30/05
to
I must admit to having the feeling that I had heard this type of story
before, I imagine he was quite young at the time. One thing of note is
that he lived and still lives and trades in the area, and is considered
a straight guy.
Its all good stuff and definatly makes good conversation, what about
the wells under or near the grandstand? large caverns apparently !!
Nick if you or someone else is interested in following up about the
shelter I can send you details of the local fella.

Aaron Borbora

unread,
Dec 10, 2005, 6:13:52 PM12/10/05
to

"Nick Catford" <Ni...@Swanley1.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dk28sb$e4t$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...

>
>> >>
>> > No definitely no ambulances unless they were midget ones, the guy has a
>> > vivid imagination. I have a plan of the place and now the width of all
> the
>> > tunnels.
>> >
>> > I have spoken to a number of people who can remember it before it was
>> > demolished although they didn't go inside.
>> >
>> > Nick
>>
>> Ambulances-makes a change from Sherman tanks !
>> Pete
>
>
> I've heard the ambulance theory at other sites, it wasn't true there
> either.
> It's amazing what tall stories people come up with.
>
why would anyone want to seal up ambulances?


alexand...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 11, 2005, 12:07:49 AM12/11/05
to


Same bloke on the other forum, manley, who claimed to have invented the
hovercraft and knew everything about everything??

Nick Catford

unread,
Dec 22, 2005, 1:28:39 PM12/22/05
to

Strangely I had an e-mail today that tends to add weight to the theory of an
ambulance.

Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:40:01 +0000
> To: <mark.b...@imperial.ac.uk>
> Subject: Underground: Epsom Downs?
>
> Hi Mark,
> In the section of the S.B. site, regarding RAF Wartling, mention is
> made of an air-raid shelter on Epsom Downs.
> I've heard stories for a long time about there being an underground
> hospital there. This has just been confirmed by a (retired) work
> colleague who says that his father used to work for Epsom Council and
> one of his jobs was to periodically open the bunker and check its
> condition. The father even remembers it being built and the concrete
> tunnels being tested for resistance to bombing with explosives (!),
> prior to the tunnels being buried. He also said there was more than one
> operating theatre in the tunnels.
> Hope this is of interest,
>
> Nick Brigden


alexand...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 17, 2006, 5:00:38 AM1/17/06
to

Eh?

is this the locale in question?

http://www.sub-urban.com/sds4.htm

Optical lens grinding company?

MartinM

unread,
Jan 17, 2006, 5:20:54 AM1/17/06
to

no that's Coulsdon, going there Thurdsay

alexand...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 17, 2006, 7:57:39 PM1/17/06
to

Ah Coulsdon, the other free to all bunker, open to anyone!

That site is also most interesting, and the second site that cannot be
denied access, after merstham.

Jules

unread,
Jan 18, 2006, 7:37:28 AM1/18/06
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:57:39 -0800, alexander.mills wrote:

>
> Ah Coulsdon, the other free to all bunker, open to anyone!
>
> That site is also most interesting

Is that the one with all the machinery inside, or is that Epsom? I get
the two mixed up...

cheers

Jules

MartinM

unread,
Jan 18, 2006, 5:49:36 PM1/18/06
to

the motor and motorcycle parts (and machinery) are in Coulsdon; Epsom
has (had) very little remaining bar the old kitchen and some wiring.

alexand...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 18, 2006, 9:09:06 PM1/18/06
to

Yes. Coulsdon has loads of remaning junk. IIRC isn't there still some
farming machinery leftover from when a farmer used it for storage? Or
is it all just motor parts?

Jules

unread,
Jan 19, 2006, 6:54:48 AM1/19/06
to

There's still a tractor in there (or was when I last visited at the end of
last summer) - engine block is in the main corridor and the back end
(solid metal wheels rather than tyres) is down a side passage. I think I
remember seeing the seat in there somewhere...

Lots of VW Beetle parts down there too, including a couple of engines.
Plus what looks to be the remains of a large drill press, and many other
odds and ends.

Looking through the junk was possibly more interesting than the shelter
itself :)

cheers

Jules

MartinM

unread,
Jan 20, 2006, 12:25:25 PM1/20/06
to

there is a film here of its use as a telescope factory;

http://www.britishpathe.com

search for cp 312, you need to "purchase" the free preview to see it.

alexand...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 21, 2006, 2:27:56 AM1/21/06
to

why do we need to purchase a preview to see it?

Whats wrong with actually going to the site itself? It is open to all?

Nick Catford

unread,
Jan 21, 2006, 9:21:00 AM1/21/06
to

>
> Whats wrong with actually going to the site itself? It is open to all?

Not any more.


MartinM

unread,
Jan 21, 2006, 2:26:58 PM1/21/06
to

alexand...@gmail.com wrote:
> why do we need to purchase a preview to see it?

because it's a very nice bit of archive film in which shows its former
use


> Whats wrong with actually going to the site itself? It is open to all?

at the moment, yes

Jules

unread,
Jan 21, 2006, 3:46:42 PM1/21/06
to
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:25:25 -0800, MartinM wrote:

>
> Jules wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 18:09:06 -0800, alexander.mills wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Yes. Coulsdon has loads of remaning junk. IIRC isn't there still some
>> > farming machinery leftover from when a farmer used it for storage? Or
>> > is it all just motor parts?
>>
>> There's still a tractor in there (or was when I last visited at the end of
>> last summer) - engine block is in the main corridor and the back end
>> (solid metal wheels rather than tyres) is down a side passage. I think I
>> remember seeing the seat in there somewhere...
>>
>> Lots of VW Beetle parts down there too, including a couple of engines.
>> Plus what looks to be the remains of a large drill press, and many other
>> odds and ends.
>>
>> Looking through the junk was possibly more interesting than the shelter
>> itself :)
>
> there is a film here of its use as a telescope factory;

That's interesting - I wonder if the two strange machines lurking down
there are anything to do with those days (they look like some sort of
mixing centrifuge type thingies with vacuum pumps in the bases - but I
couldn't figure out what they *actually* were)

cheers

Jules

MartinM

unread,
Jan 21, 2006, 4:14:09 PM1/21/06
to

almost certainly; we were taken down there by a man who claimed to have
been the telescope man's son and he said that's what they were for; I
noticed last week that they are French with Dymo labels stuck on the
switches.

alexand...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 22, 2006, 1:43:28 AM1/22/06
to

French dymo labels?

Nick Catford

unread,
Jan 22, 2006, 3:04:02 AM1/22/06
to

> at the moment, yes

I didn't think it would be long before it was opened up again. It has been
sealed before and that didn't last long either. Is the new access in the
same place ?

Nick


alexand...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 22, 2006, 3:40:06 AM1/22/06
to

So if it is open, someone else has re-opened it, which means it is ok
for others to go.

I honestly wouldn't worry about it Nick.

Nick Catford

unread,
Jan 22, 2006, 4:12:56 AM1/22/06
to

> So if it is open, someone else has re-opened it, which means it is ok
> for others to go.
>
> I honestly wouldn't worry about it Nick.

I'm not worrying about it, I might want to visit!
I am perfectly happy for it to be open.

Nick


MartinM

unread,
Jan 22, 2006, 5:00:58 AM1/22/06
to

yes, very poorly sealed by the look of it; whoever broke it open did
not think of the safety of anyone who might be walking around there;
have placed a cover over it.

alexand...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 22, 2006, 11:30:41 PM1/22/06
to
yes, very poorly sealed by the look of it; whoever broke it open did
not think of the safety of anyone who might be walking around there;
have placed a cover over it.


Placing a cover is a responsible act on your behalf.

However, bolting down a cover, or padlocking something shut, to which
only one person has the key is reprehensible however.

MartinM

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 4:19:14 AM1/23/06
to

Not if it is; a. the owner b. the council or whoever acting on the
owner's behalf
I agree locking a system up for your own personal use without
consulting the landowner is fairly selfish (but it does retain access
if you happen to know who has the key)

alexand...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 4:27:47 AM1/23/06
to

If it is the owner then I respect that. The council acting on the
owners behalf, while I can't accept it, I can understand their
liability concerns. I just hate councils sticking their nose in and
gating sites, usually after busybodies with nothing better to do with
their time, whinge and complain about it being a danger.

Locking up a system for your own personal use whether public or private
is definitely wrong. As for retaining access, it then means you have to
barter/beg/plead for the key, some people won't, which is why sites get
broken into, aka merstham.

MartinM

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 8:25:37 AM1/23/06
to

alexand...@gmail.com wrote:
> If it is the owner then I respect that. The council acting on the
> owners behalf, while I can't accept it, I can understand their
> liability concerns. I just hate councils sticking their nose in and
> gating sites, usually after busybodies with nothing better to do with
> their time, whinge and complain about it being a danger.

IIRC one such site was locked up extremely securely after someone set
light to themselves and they couldn't find a way in to get them out;
seems a fairly good reason for not wanting all and sundry in there
trashing the place and themselves and then claiming against the council
for allowing them to climb in through a hole in the wall via a
home-made scaffold.

alexand...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 11:32:29 PM1/23/06
to
IIRC one such site was locked up extremely securely after someone set
light to themselves and they couldn't find a way in to get them out;
seems a fairly good reason for not wanting all and sundry in there
trashing the place and themselves and then claiming against the council

for allowing them to climb in through a hole in the wall via a
home-made scaffold.

But do you really believe that all and sundry would choose to set
themselves on fire in an enclosed underground environment?
While I accept there are plenty of peabrainers out there, most people
who go underground tend to be responsible, safety minded adults. But I
do accept why incidents like this cause the council concern.

But then what is the council? A wholly undemocratically formed
government body, that exists solely on the basis of the taxpayer, and
so any claim against the council, means they don't really pay, it is
the taxpayers who pay surely?

Nick Catford

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 2:27:35 AM1/24/06
to

>
> But do you really believe that all and sundry would choose to set
> themselves on fire in an enclosed underground environment?
> While I accept there are plenty of peabrainers out there, most people
> who go underground tend to be responsible, safety minded adults. But I
> do accept why incidents like this cause the council concern.
>

I disagree with this, many people who go underground are inexperienced
children with no idea of safety. This is especially true where something is
left open in an urban area. You can be sure the local kids will find out
about it and tell all their friends who will then go and explore, probably
totally ill equipped, an accident just waiting to happen. I know what I was
like as a 12 year old back in the 1960's (riding round on the sprinklers at
the local sewage works until the arm fell off!!), I'm sure nothing has
changed.

I have been on a number of cave rescues at Merstham (Bedlams Bank) in the
past and it usually comes down to people who were ill equipped to be there
in he first place. This even included the fire brigade on one occasion. We
found the lost scouts quite quickly but the lost firemen took a lot longer.
That taught them not to go blundering in in full fire fighter gear without a
clue of where they were going - there are 11 miles of tunnels there and only
one easily accessible entrance.

I also remember another time at Castle Hill in Dudley meeting up with a
party of 10 very young teenagers with only one small torch between them. I
wonder what would have happened if that torch had failed.

No most who go underground are not 'responsible safety minded adults'.

Nick


TonyL

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 5:40:37 AM1/24/06
to
> This even included the fire brigade on one occasion. We
> found the lost scouts quite quickly but the lost firemen took a lot
> longer.
> That taught them not to go blundering in in full fire fighter gear without
> a
> clue of where they were going - there are 11 miles of tunnels there and
> only
> one easily accessible entrance.
I remember being shown the loop of plastic tags they used to help find the
way out when we were shown the rescue tender a few years ago. Being a caver
and aware of unit 2 and local cave rescue I had to have a quite smile and
wonder why they even bothered. No disrespect to the lads, they don't set
policy.


Jules

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 7:03:53 AM1/24/06
to
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:27:35 +0000, Nick Catford wrote:

> I know what I was
> like as a 12 year old back in the 1960's (riding round on the sprinklers at
> the local sewage works until the arm fell off!!)

ha ha - thanks for that image! :-)

> No most who go underground are not 'responsible safety minded adults'.

I don't know about most, but there certainly seems to be a lot of evidence
of kids having been in many of the underground sites. Which is a shame,
because if it were just adults you could take the line that they're
responsible for their own actions and it's their own darn fault if they
get hurt or whatever within a site...

cheers

Jules

Nick Catford

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 7:03:24 AM1/24/06
to

After that incident there was a joint training exercise with Cave Rescue and
the Fire Brigade. As far as I know they now wait until Cave Rescue turn up
before entering the system. I've been called out a couple of times around
midnight.

Nick


TonyL

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 10:40:38 AM1/24/06
to
> After that incident there was a joint training exercise with Cave Rescue
> and
> the Fire Brigade. As far as I know they now wait until Cave Rescue turn up
> before entering the system. I've been called out a couple of times around
> midnight.
It was 15 years or so ago I was shown there kit, so I am a bit out of date.


alexand...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 7:43:42 PM2/2/06
to

Most important, one can't help but wonder where that kit is kept! LOL!

Locked in a cabin somewhere, no doubt. ROFL some more.

0 new messages