Alternative universe Tube Map based on proposals from 1946

Discussion in 'London Underground' started by Ali.Carr, 21 May 2018.

  1. Ali.Carr

    Ali.Carr Member

    Messages:
    44
    Joined:
    17 Feb 2018
    Hi all! I've got another Tube Map :D

    [​IMG]

    The map is based on proposals which were drawn up in 1946; you can see the full text of the proposals here, and there's a nice explanation here.

    What I find particularly interesting is how on the one hand you can see early versions of Victoria line, Crossrail, Crossrail 2 and Thameslink, but on the other hand there are proposals here which today would be regarded as crazy (in particular demolishing London Bridge and replacing it with five versions of Crossrail).

    Let me know what you think! Also let me know if you spot any typos, they will definitely be around. ;)
     
    Last edited: 13 Jun 2018
  2. Registered users do not see these banners - join or log in today!

    Rail Forums

     
  3. rebmcr

    rebmcr Established Member

    Messages:
    2,839
    Joined:
    15 Nov 2011
    Location:
    London
    Interesting how the only real "missing" feature is the Jubilee line — there isn't even a hint of its planned Fleet Line alignment heading eastward via Fenchurch Street!
     
  4. Ali.Carr

    Ali.Carr Member

    Messages:
    44
    Joined:
    17 Feb 2018
    This is interesting!

    Perhaps if the "Bankbone" line had (with some track re-jigging) taken over the Stanmore branch of the Bakerloo, you would have ended up with something not too dissimilar to the original Fleet line - it would, like the Fleet line, have gone from Stanmore to Addiscombe and Hayes, but wouldn't have actually touched Fleet Street. But it's interesting that the 1946 committee makes no mention of congestion into Baker Street - they were much more concerned about the Northern line and (overwhelmingly) London Bridge.
     
  5. MatthewRead

    MatthewRead On Moderation

    Messages:
    1,279
    Joined:
    21 Nov 2014
    It's a shame the they never electrified the line to Aylesbury and kept the Metropolitan line service :(
     
  6. madjack

    madjack Member

    Messages:
    12
    Joined:
    27 Jul 2012
    Location:
    Ealing, London
    Looks fantastic :D

    A couple of typos I noticed so far:
    - St James's Park
    - Westbourne Park on the main line
    - Eltham Well Hall and Eltham Park instead of the one Eltham
    - Beckenham Junction
     
  7. randyrippley

    randyrippley Established Member

    Messages:
    1,998
    Joined:
    21 Feb 2016
  8. Ali.Carr

    Ali.Carr Member

    Messages:
    44
    Joined:
    17 Feb 2018
    Very many thanks for spotting these - I've corrected them :)

    It's interesting that the deep-level shelters don't get a mention in the 1946 report. They do note that they were largely thinking in terms of traffic and crowding rather than engineering feasibility, so perhaps the practical possibility of adapting the shelters was off their radar.

    I've also seen posted elsewhere that the enthusiasm for converting the shelters into underground lines might have been overestimated.

    Edit: I would also note that, had the Northern line been doubled from Kennington to Tooting Broadway, this probably would have made use of the shelters in Stockwell, Clapham North, Clapham Common and Clapham South in some form or another, even if the report doesn't refer to the shelters explicitly. Similarly if the Northern line had been doubled between Golders Green and Waterloo (as an alternative to building the "Golders" line), it would have probably have used the shelters at Belsize Park, Camden Town and Goodge Street.
     
    Last edited: 22 May 2018
  9. Mikey C

    Mikey C Established Member

    Messages:
    2,618
    Joined:
    11 Feb 2013
    Wow, you certainly can't accuse the planners of lacking ambition, those plans for the services into London Bridge are extraordinary! I can't imagine what that Tower Bridge Road station would have looked liked, with all those Crossrail type railways passing through it. It would have been an enormous underground construction, though it seems bizarre to build it separate from the existing London Bridge station.

    I love that Golders line (personally anyway), even if it's incredibly "crayonista"! A couple of intermediate stops would make it pretty useful, e.g one at Childs Hill (say at the Finchley Road/Hendon Way interchange) which is surprisingly cut off.
     
  10. pdeaves

    pdeaves Established Member

    Messages:
    2,255
    Joined:
    14 Sep 2014
    Location:
    Gateway to the South West
    Not so much a typo as a 'drawingo'. The junction in the 'Viking line' above right from Kings Cross isn't quite right compared to all the other parallel line route junctions. Nothing major. You may wish to make something good even better!
     
  11. Ali.Carr

    Ali.Carr Member

    Messages:
    44
    Joined:
    17 Feb 2018
    I think one of their motivations for moving away from the London Bridge terminus was to move the railway viaducts further from Southwark Cathedral. I can also imagine that building a whole new terminus, although expensive, would have given more flexibility when building an efficient interchange. This would have been crucial when, as you say, this would be the interchange between overground services and five Crossrail-style lines!

    I also wonder whether it would have been worth giving the Golders line an interchange with the Central line.

    Thanks for this - this should now be fixed! :)
     
  12. madjack

    madjack Member

    Messages:
    12
    Joined:
    27 Jul 2012
    Location:
    Ealing, London
    Very good job, except that Beckenham Junction should appear to the east of the Mid Kent Line.

    Have also spotted:
    • The map's missing Gloucester Road (was staring at that bit for ages trying to work it out!) and Angel
    • Croxley Green should read Croxley - the former is on the old branch line from Watford Junction.
    • Coulsdon Town should have the former name of Smitham.
    • The present Alexandra Palace was Wood Green but not an interchange with Picc Line Wood Green.
    I've been trying to think of any more stations that have shorter names than they did before - e.g. you already have Bushey & Oxhey for the present Bushey. Probably it should be Hanwell & Elthorne and definitely Totteridge & Whetstone

    I'm not sure I'd play the two Shepherd's Bush stations as an interchange - I recall them being separated in maps in my childhood? (not that that was in the 1940s :) and I had a look at very helpful map on Wikipedia of Shepherd's Bush/Wood Lane - seems that the BR interchange wouldn't have been correct as the former SB station (Uxbridge Road) closed in 1940).

    Is Watford High Street correct as BR interchange (because of the Croxley Green line) or did you mean Bushey which does have mainline platforms?
     
  13. Ali.Carr

    Ali.Carr Member

    Messages:
    44
    Joined:
    17 Feb 2018
    Thanks for all of these!

    I took many of the station names from this map (from 1948) - in particular Croxley Green, Alexandra Palace, and Totteridge on its own. I'm inclined to stick with Alexandra Palace and Croxley Green, especially since the latter also appears on the 1945 map, but I'll adjust Totteridge. I've also changed Coulsdown Town and Hanwell, shifted Beckenham Junction, and adjusted Shepherd's Bush. Angel and Gloucester Road were very careless omissions!

    Thank you again for your help :)
     
  14. Mikey C

    Mikey C Established Member

    Messages:
    2,618
    Joined:
    11 Feb 2013
    That map from 1948 features the closed "Finsmoor" Alexandra Palace station, the one still open on the "Viking" line is the one called Wood Green (Alexandra Palace) back then.

    They are quite a distance apart (the map below on Wiki is from 1900), so being picky not really a connection, The closed station was much nearer the Palace itself.

    [​IMG]
     
  15. Ali.Carr

    Ali.Carr Member

    Messages:
    44
    Joined:
    17 Feb 2018
    This does make sense. I'll have a think about what the best approach might be - putting in a second label, doing it Hammersmith-style, or fudging it and leaving it as it is.
     
  16. holborncentral

    holborncentral Member

    Messages:
    17
    Joined:
    23 May 2018
    I really like this. If these lines have built we would have a very different Underground network. I wonder if the DLR would have been built or the stations we now have on the JLE? I bet Bank's warren of horrors would have been worse with the extra lines though :lol: Just one thing - what about the Bakerloo extension to Camberwell?
     
  17. Ali.Carr

    Ali.Carr Member

    Messages:
    44
    Joined:
    17 Feb 2018
    My complete speculation:
    Given how little these plans do for the Docklands, I'd imagine that the DLR could still have been built almost the same as it was today. The Jubilee line could have been quite similar as well - there'd still be scope for taking over the Stanmore branch and then serving Green Park, Westminster and Waterloo (possibly Oxford Circus rather than Bond Street, since the former doesn't get the Victoria line) before heading through the Docklands to Straford. It might likely go to Tower Bridge Road rather than London Bridge.

    Regarding the Bakerloo extension, it's surprising, but the report which this map was based off doesn't mention it at all. It's an especially interesting omission because these plans would have left the above-ground tracks through Walworth and Camberwell disused (with the Elephant & Castle trains rerouted underground), so perhaps there'd be scope for a cheap above-group Bakerloo extension which took over that track.
     
    Last edited: 24 May 2018
  18. madjack

    madjack Member

    Messages:
    12
    Joined:
    27 Jul 2012
    Location:
    Ealing, London
    Me again, what about Ruislip Gardens?

    Otherwise those naming issues are more complicated than they look, I guess partly because the map combines a snapshot with hypothetical futures... I wonder also whether the station names were a bit more flexible than they are now? (e.g. suffixes in brackets which don't seem to have been used consistently and which you've sensibly avoided...)
     
  19. Ali.Carr

    Ali.Carr Member

    Messages:
    44
    Joined:
    17 Feb 2018
    Thanks for spotting Ruislip Gardens! I'll fix that :)

    It seems like the station names were a lot more flexible back then. I guess in some ways it's a shame there isn't the same flexibility now - it would offer the chance to clear up some station-name ambiguity (especially those stations which share the same name).
     
  20. etr221

    etr221 Member

    Messages:
    246
    Joined:
    10 Mar 2018
    One of the problems I think with the 1946 report is that it is - essentially - based on the rather idealistic wartime reconstruction plans for London, and that its proposals were consequently something of a first draft. Probably far more realistic is the London Plan Working Party report of 1949 (developed from the 1946 one) - which did - to a small extent - move towards realisation (the Victoria Line came out of it); but is unfortunately not available on line :(

    The other thing to be remembered is that these are 1940s reports, a very different era, when freight was the primary traffic on the railway; Docklands were full of docks and shipping; and air transport was still for the rich (yet to become the jet set). Construction of Heathrow airport had only just started, a large plane carried 100 passengers (most were in 30-40 bracket), while in 1950 BOAC had two daily flights from London: to Cairo (whence some days south into Africa, others east to India and Australia) and Gander (thence some days to Canada, others to USA). And everybody really expected things to remain that way - which they did for for about 20 years.
     
  21. Ali.Carr

    Ali.Carr Member

    Messages:
    44
    Joined:
    17 Feb 2018
    Two reasons I opted to work off the 1946 plans:
    • Their ambitious (verging on fantastical) nature made for a particularly exciting Tube map
    • It was easy to find the full text of the proposal and the accompanying maps online
    But I definitely could come back to the 1949 proposals and illustrate those, some time in the future ;)
     
  22. holborncentral

    holborncentral Member

    Messages:
    17
    Joined:
    23 May 2018
    When were the Docklands regeneration plans first drawn up? Wasn't it first planned in the 80s? I'd say if these original plans happened the original Jubilee line would have gone the route you mentioned, but maybe they would have gone with the original Fleet Line plans after Waterloo rather than going the route we have now. How would an above ground Bakerloo extension after Elephant and Castle work?
     
  23. Peter Mugridge

    Peter Mugridge Established Member

    Messages:
    10,144
    Joined:
    8 Apr 2010
    Location:
    Epsom
    It was; I have a picture of DLR construction under way in the Pudding Mill Lane area which i took on 14th June 1986.
     
  24. Ali.Carr

    Ali.Carr Member

    Messages:
    44
    Joined:
    17 Feb 2018
    Having looked at the maps, I think the answer is "it probably wouldn't" ;)

    The thought I had was that it'd be a shame for the whole strectch of track from Blackfriars Bridge to Loughborough Junction to be wasted, but I don't think there'd be any remotely practical way to connect the tracks 23 metres below ground to join a viaduct a kilometre south. The authors of the 1946 report probably preferred that the viaduct would be removed altogether.
     
  25. etr221

    etr221 Member

    Messages:
    246
    Joined:
    10 Mar 2018
    The preceding County of London plan (and pre-war plans) saw replacement/removal of the railway viaducts from the Central and South Bank areas (i.e. the SER lines west from London Bridge to Charing Cross and Canon Street, and the LCDR 'Metropolitan Extension' from L'boro Jn/Elephant & Castle to Holborn V./Farringdon) as a highly desirable objective (in general town planning terms): the Railway (London Plan) Committee accepted this for the LCDR link, with replacement tunnels as a high priority, while for the SER lines it was accepted as a desirable long term objective, once replacement facilities (for steam trains from Kent!) had been sorted out and been provided. So Blackfriars (Railway) Bridge - and approaching lines - were to go.

    The Bakerloo extension to Camberwell was - AIUI - always going to be tunnel all the way. Quite why it isn't in the 1946 report I don't know: something I recall reading was that the LPTB had its own study on going at the time, while the 1946 report refers to its terms of reference as considering the aspects of the "County of London Plan of 1943 which relate to the main line and suburban railway System of London", i.e. excluding the Underground.

    And - returning to the DLR/Docklands issue - a point to make is that, had the various 1944-49 plans happened as hoped, they would have been completed in the the 1970s, with much done earlier - well before Docklands regeneration started.
     
  26. Cowley

    Cowley Established Member

    Messages:
    6,265
    Joined:
    15 Apr 2016
    Location:
    Devon
    I must say Ali.Carr that although I don’t know enough about this subject to add to it in any way I have found it very interesting and I appreciate the work you’ve put into this map and the others that you’ve produced recently.
     
  27. Ali.Carr

    Ali.Carr Member

    Messages:
    44
    Joined:
    17 Feb 2018
    If there were any serious alternative proposals to the DLR, I'd be very interested in mapping those, as a further project - but there might not be much that's as detailed/ambitious as the alternative proposals in the 1946 report. My understanding is that the only main alternatives were a different route to the Jubilee/Fleet line and some slight adjustments to where the original DLR routes would terminate. But if there's anything interesting that can be mapped I'm always keen to give it a go ;)

    Thank you! :)
     
  28. holborncentral

    holborncentral Member

    Messages:
    17
    Joined:
    23 May 2018
    I get what you mean. If it was built it would probably end up as a sort of bizarre branch line, kind of like the old Aldwych branch.
     
  29. Taunton

    Taunton Established Member

    Messages:
    3,779
    Joined:
    1 Aug 2013
    The DLR came close to being done as a tramway, including turning west from Bow Church to Mile End tube station, along the main road with surface running, which would have prevented all the automatic operation that followed. This was a serious option. As a precursor a bus service was started in the early 1980s called the Docklands Clipper which ran along main roads from Island Gardens up to Mile End.

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=d...ILTAB#imgrc=oLtt4o4555Ol8M:&spf=1527434639794
     
  30. PeterY

    PeterY Member

    Messages:
    728
    Joined:
    2 Apr 2013
    I really enjoyed looking closely at your map. It must've taken you a long time but well done
     
  31. NorthKent1989

    NorthKent1989 Member

    Messages:
    574
    Joined:
    13 May 2017
    Umm can just say thanks first of all and secondly *sqeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeruuuuuuuuull*
    I’m actualy excited about this map, oh what could have been!!! And it’s only now seventy years later that only a handful of these schemes are coming to fruition!
     

Share This Page