LU - Why Victoria Line was built in deep tube size though it was a new project during WWII

[Dr Hoo]

Go and stand on the platform at Hammersmith on a busy peak, and compare the District to the Picaddilly trains. The S stock just swallow people, compared to having to squeeze past each other to get on and off the Pic trains.

That says far more about the relative size of the 'standbacks' in my view. Also Piccadilly trains tend to be more cluttered up with luggage and 'occasional' travellers (largely airport related) than regular commuters from Chiswick Park or Gunnersbury.

(I have not seen things at Hammersmith since Covid began.)

 

[D365]

A similar question is why was the Heathrow extension small bore? In hindsight perhaps it should have been full size and an extension of the District line rather than Piccadilly. Probably a hard question to answer at the time, and perhaps impossible now. Times change.

It has been noted in various sources that at least one of the officials in charge of the Heathrow extension has expressed regret at the decision.

 

[stuu]

That says far more about the relative size of the 'standbacks' in my view. Also Piccadilly trains tend to be more cluttered up with luggage and 'occasional' travellers (largely airport related) than regular commuters from Chiswick Park or Gunnersbury.

(I have not seen things at Hammersmith since Covid began.)

When you are on a busy tube, or on the platform waiting, it's pretty obvious that people struggle to get on and off, on all the deep level lines. This is much less of an issue on the SSL

 

[Dr Hoo]

When you are on a busy tube, or on the platform waiting, it's pretty obvious that people struggle to get on and off, on all the deep level lines. This is much less of an issue on the SSL

People often seem to ‘struggle’ to join and alight from SSL at busy stations like Victoria and Edgware Road (Eastbound Hammersmith & City) in my experience. The SSLs now mainly have a level interface too. It isn’t a like-for-like comparison.

 

[edwin_m]

Also the deep tubes access the densest part of the city which the SSL mostly skirts round, so you'd expect the deep tubes to be busier in general.

 

[DerekC]

I used to have a copy of a 1940s plan for transport in London post-WWII - lent to someone and never returned - and the Victoria Line was clearly going to be a main line size cross-London link. From memory, it linked the Lea Valley lines in the north with the LBSC route at Tulse Hill, but I am less sure about the latter. I also recall reading somewhere that it became a "deep tube" sized line because London Underground politicked to take it over by offering the Treasury a big reduction in cost.

 

[londontransit]

On Day 1 the line opened between Walthamstow and Highbury, and there was definitely no capacity issue. Even after the line was open to Victoria there was no real capacity issue; south of Oxford Circus it was quite quiet until the Brixton extension opened. I should imagine overcrowding really started in the 1990s as the tube became busier.

The Victoria Line took a long time to get authorised, as the country was cash strapped in the 1950s when it was first proposed. Digging tube tunnels would have been cheaper than full size tunnels - if they had held out for that kind of money it would have just been seriously delayed (it was delayed enough as it was)

Yes I remember it was like that. I skipped school to take a ride on the brand new Victoria Line just a few days after it had opened Walthamstow to Highbury and there was barely anyone using it.

It did start getting well used once it had reached Oxford Circus/Green Park/Victoria. But of course nothing like the passenger loadings seen in recent years.

 

[OVS Flatbottom]

I used to have a copy of a 1940s plan for transport in London post-WWII - lent to someone and never returned - and the Victoria Line was clearly going to be a main line size cross-London link. From memory, it linked the Lea Valley lines in the north with the LBSC route at Tulse Hill, but I am less sure about the latter. I also recall reading somewhere that it became a "deep tube" sized line because London Underground politicked to take it over by offering the Treasury a big reduction in cost.

The Railway (London Plan) Committee report of 1946, which sounds like what you're referring to, is available in various formats at archive.org: https://archive.org/details/railways00609132.

Paragraph 44 of the report is titled "Route 8 - A South to North Link - East Croydon to Finsbury Park" and states:

In order to provide improved rail facilities between Victoria, the West End, Euston and King's Cross, and to meet the needs of the outer zone by the electrification of the L.N.E.R. lines via Potter's Bar and via Cuffley, this route provides for a new in-town line from Victoria to Finsbury Park, with intermediate stations at Hvde Park Corner, Bond Street, Euston and King’s Cross. North of Finsbury Park the new line is linked with the L.N.E.R. system to Hitchin via Potters Bar and via Cuffley.
There is a heavy traffic carried by road services from the Streatham and Norbury district to Westminster and the West End, and the new line is projected south of Victoria as far as Croydon,
thus giving relief to the congested Balham and Victoria section of the Southern Railway. The route from Victoria might be Vauxhall, Stockwell (where interchange facilities would be available with
the Northern Line to the Leicester Square and Tottenham Court Road areas as well as to the City),Brixton, and thence via Streatham and Norbury to East Croydon.

 

[hkstudent]

Which

I used to have a copy of a 1940s plan for transport in London post-WWII - lent to someone and never returned - and the Victoria Line was clearly going to be a main line size cross-London link. From memory, it linked the Lea Valley lines in the north with the LBSC route at Tulse Hill, but I am less sure about the latter. I also recall reading somewhere that it became a "deep tube" sized line because London Underground politicked to take it over by offering the Treasury a big reduction in cost.

Yeah, I guess at the time LCC can only build underground to take over a mainline project. If building mainline, guess that will stull be under central government

It has been noted in various sources that at least one of the officials in charge of the Heathrow extension has expressed regret at the decision.

And hence caused Crossrail need to take over Heathrow Connect

 

[Lucan]

LT had a policy of sending all Underground trains to Acton works for overhauls. The Victoria lines has a link to the Piccadilly Line to allow such moves. If the trains were larger, they would not fit through the Piccadilly line tunnels

They could have made a connection between the Victoria and the Met in the Gt Portland St area perhaps. It does not look from the map as if it would have been very hard, but maybe that is deceptive.

A similar question is why was the Heathrow extension small bore? In hindsight perhaps it should have been full size and an extension of the District line rather than Piccadilly.

The Piccadilly was nearly at Heathrow already. It was also the express service between Earls Court and Acton Town, while the District has several extra stops along there. That could have been reversed but that would have introduced some conflicts unless some serious civil engineering were done.

A District extension might have been made from either Richmond or Ealing Broadway, both continuing along or alongside mainlines and then branches from them into Heathrow. Richmond would have involved a new Thames bridge in a sensitive area. It has since been done of course with the Heathrow Express

 

[Dstock7080]

The Piccadilly was nearly at Heathrow already. It was also the express service between Earls Court and Acton Town, while the District has several extra stops along there. That could have been reversed but that would have introduced some conflicts unless some serious civil engineering were done.

The original idea was to extend the District as there were no serious civil engineering to be undertaken on existing network, Northfields had been reconfigured in the 1930s.
The additional cost of the sub-surface tunnels into Heathrow scrapped the proposals.

 

[etr221]

They could have made a connection between the Victoria and the Met in the Gt Portland St area perhaps. It does not look from the map as if it would have been very hard, but maybe that is deceptive.

In the process of developing what became the Victoria line from the original Crossrail like large diameter tunnels of the London Plan into something that could actually be agreed, afforded and authorised, it changed from a main line (Big 4/BR) through working system to a 'conventional' LT 'tube' line - which at the time (and still, AIUI) means 'small' diameter tunnels for tube trains - so that was how it was built.

Nowadays, with Crossrail 1 & 2, it has been accepted that through running from National Rail is the thing, and hence large tunnels. But note that at an earlier stage Crossrail 2 was proposed as a new 'tube' line - with small tunnels - the reverse of the Victoria line process.

The Piccadilly was nearly at Heathrow already. It was also the express service between Earls Court and Acton Town, while the District has several extra stops along there. That could have been reversed but that would have introduced some conflicts unless some serious civil engineering were done.

A District extension might have been made from either Richmond or Ealing Broadway, both continuing along or alongside mainlines and then branches from them into Heathrow. Richmond would have involved a new Thames bridge in a sensitive area. It has since been done of course with the Heathrow Express

Into the 1960s (if not later) there were District line trains to Hounslow West. My undertstanding as to the regrets expressed within LU/TfL as to the Heathrow extension being tube, rather than surface stock, gauge, is that they precluded that flexibility. How it might have been used is another matter. The bottom line is that the Piccadilly Heathrow extension was the cheap, hence affordable, way of getting a rail line to Heathrow.

Whether some reorganisation of the various ex MDR branches west of Earl's Court and Hammersmith, and reallocation of them between the Piccadilly and District, would be (or would have been) practicable, and provide better options, is a matter of opinion.

 

[edwin_m]

The Piccadilly was nearly at Heathrow already. It was also the express service between Earls Court and Acton Town, while the District has several extra stops along there. That could have been reversed but that would have introduced some conflicts unless some serious civil engineering were done.

A District extension might have been made from either Richmond or Ealing Broadway, both continuing along or alongside mainlines and then branches from them into Heathrow. Richmond would have involved a new Thames bridge in a sensitive area. It has since been done of course with the Heathrow Express

The line out to Hounslow was built as part of the District, and at the time of construction of the Heathrow branch it was almost certainly still compatible with sub-surface stock. It isn't now, at least when carrying passengers, as platforms have been lowered to give level boarding to Tube stock.

The reason to make it Piccadilly rather than District was probably because the former serves a better range of destinations in central London, including the area around Russell Square where there are many hotels. Having made that decision, going for sub-surface gauge to Heathrow would have been seen as a waste of money.

Even now it's easier to access that area that way than via Paddington, if you don't mind the limited space on board the Tube stock. Crossrail changes that of course, and ironically if it had been built to the right dimensions there would now be a good case for making Heathrow Piccadilly part of the District instead, serving the areas near the Thames that Crossrail misses.

 

[hkstudent]

The line out to Hounslow was built as part of the District, and at the time of construction of the Heathrow branch it was almost certainly still compatible with sub-surface stock. It isn't now, at least when carrying passengers, as platforms have been lowered to give level boarding to Tube stock.

The reason to make it Piccadilly rather than District was probably because the former serves a better range of destinations in central London, including the area around Russell Square where there are many hotels. Having made that decision, going for sub-surface gauge to Heathrow would have been seen as a waste of money.

Even now it's easier to access that area that way than via Paddington, if you don't mind the limited space on board the Tube stock. Crossrail changes that of course, and ironically if it had been built to the right dimensions there would now be a good case for making Heathrow Piccadilly part of the District instead, serving the areas near the Thames that Crossrail misses.

But in another way, District Line is difficult to cope with the demand on Wimbledon, Richmond and Ealing Broadway branches, with the potential to cut the Ealing Broadway branch service and divert to Wimbledon and Richmond.
If District Line had served Heathrow, there may be a great issue with District Line capacity, as well as reducing the potential of having a mainline branch spur off from Great Western Mainline to Heathrow as there will be less passenger capacity issue on a District Line sub-surface train.

 

[edwin_m]

But in another way, District Line is difficult to cope with the demand on Wimbledon, Richmond and Ealing Broadway branches, with the potential to cut the Ealing Broadway branch service and divert to Wimbledon and Richmond.
If District Line had served Heathrow, there may be a great issue with District Line capacity, as well as reducing the potential of having a mainline branch spur off from Great Western Mainline to Heathrow as there will be less passenger capacity issue on a District Line sub-surface train.

One of the other District branches could have been converted to Piccadilly to address the capacity issue.

 

[coppercapped]

The Victoria line was very nearly not built at all since the population of London was falling at the time the decisions were being made.

In 1939 London' population was estimated to be around 8.5 million people, the last census being in 1931. From 1940 onwards the population of London started declining, initially due to evacuation from the bombing threat and after the war people were moved out to the New Towns as Dr Hoo pointed out in post #20 above. The population of the city dropped by nearly 2 million from its pre-war estimates to 6.6 million by the mid-1980s, in other words between 1931 and 1981 there had been half a century of decline.

The building of the line was justified using 'Total Social Benefit Studies' (now evolved into 'Cost-Benefit' analyses) of the kind which were being explored by the Ministry of Transport under Ernest Marples in the early 1960s. This was the first use of such analysis in anger on a large project; part of the argument was that it was also hoped that its construction might alleviate the increasing unemployment in London which was becoming evident in the late 1950s.

It was difficult enough to justify any new tube line in London, let alone one built to a larger diameter. The quantity of muck which has to be shifted increases as the square of the radius of the tunnel so the costs of any larger tunnel would have made the thing totally unaffordable.

 

[edwin_m]

It was difficult enough to justify any new tube line in London, let alone one built to a larger diameter. The quantity of muck which has to be shifted increases as the square of the radius of the tunnel so the costs of any larger tunnel would have made the thing totally unaffordable.

Many of the other cost drivers are of course less (or not at all) dependent on the tunnel diameter, so the total cost will vary by much less than the square of the radius. Also a full-sized tunnel that can link otherwise terminating suburban services, like Thameslink or Crossrail, can reduce operating cost and fleet size by avoiding layovers, and may even allow sell-off of expensive central London land occupied by terminus platforms. So was this decision sound on a whole-life basis or based on misleading simplistic capital cost estimates?

 

[Ken H]

Many of the other cost drivers are of course less (or not at all) dependent on the tunnel diameter, so the total cost will vary by much less than the square of the radius. Also a full-sized tunnel that can link otherwise terminating suburban services, like Thameslink or Crossrail, can reduce operating cost and fleet size by avoiding layovers, and may even allow sell-off of expensive central London land occupied by terminus platforms. So was this decision sound on a whole-life basis or based on misleading simplistic capital cost estimates?

Based on getting it past the treasury bean counters.

 

[coppercapped]

Many of the other cost drivers are of course less (or not at all) dependent on the tunnel diameter, so the total cost will vary by much less than the square of the radius.

I never suggested that the total cost was proportional to the square of the tunnel radius - I would have thought that the context made it clear that I was refering to the running tunnels.

As I wrote previously - with the background of a falling population trying to justify the building of a new tube line was almost impossible. Certainly the initial concepts ('concepts' not 'plans' or 'projects') were developed during the war but in the meantime many people were being rehoused in Crawley and Stevenage, Harlow and Bracknell and all the other 'New Towns' around London. Between the 1940s and the years around 1960 the potential market had changed dramatically.

Also a full-sized tunnel that can link otherwise terminating suburban services, like Thameslink or Crossrail, can reduce operating cost and fleet size by avoiding layovers, and may even allow sell-off of expensive central London land occupied by terminus platforms. So was this decision sound on a whole-life basis or based on misleading simplistic capital cost estimates?

You are making the common mistakes of judging decisions made long ago without understanding the constraints of the period and also assuming that todays issues can be directly transferred to the past.

I remind you again, the population was falling and the concept of 'expensive central London land' in the 1960s is oxymoronic. This was the heyday of the 'Location of Offices Bureau', set up in 1963 as part of the Government's policy of dispersing office jobs from the centre of London; developers were required to obtain permits from the Bureau in order to be allowed to build new offices. Between 1963 and 1969 some 140,000 to 150,000 office working spaces were sited outside central London.

It took another 20 years after the decision to build the Victoria line had been made for the population to start growing again. If you replaced terminal platforms in 1965 with an underground line, would the 'Location of Offices Bureau' have issued permits for the construction of offices in the space made available? The evidence suggests not.

 

[edwin_m]

I never suggested that the total cost was proportional to the square of the tunnel radius - I would have thought that the context made it clear that I was refering to the running tunnels.

As I wrote previously - with the background of a falling population trying to justify the building of a new tube line was almost impossible. Certainly the initial concepts ('concepts' not 'plans' or 'projects') were developed during the war but in the meantime many people were being rehoused in Crawley and Stevenage, Harlow and Bracknell and all the other 'New Towns' around London. Between the 1940s and the years around 1960 the potential market had changed dramatically.

You are making the common mistakes of judging decisions made long ago without understanding the constraints of the period and also assuming that todays issues can be directly transferred to the past.

I remind you again, the population was falling and the concept of 'expensive central London land' in the 1960s is oxymoronic. This was the heyday of the 'Location of Offices Bureau', set up in 1963 as part of the Government's policy of dispersing office jobs from the centre of London; developers were required to obtain permits from the Bureau in order to be allowed to build new offices. Between 1963 and 1969 some 140,000 to 150,000 office working spaces were sited outside central London.

It took another 20 years after the decision to build the Victoria line had been made for the population to start growing again. If you replaced terminal platforms in 1965 with an underground line, would the 'Location of Offices Bureau' have issued permits for the construction of offices in the space made available? The evidence suggests not.

I'm not questioning the decision by the criteria of the time. Just wondering if that would be seen as the right one if other factors had been taken into account as they are today.

 

[quantinghome]

The other factor may be simply that London Underground was protective of its 'turf' and small tunnels meant it would never be taken over by BR.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

London Transport was completely starved of investment for new works post war and immediately after for a good decade.

Lucky to get the Victoria line scheme authorized (and funded) when it was.

 

[Taunton]

London Transport was completely starved of investment for new works post war and immediately after for a good decade.

Lucky to get the Victoria line scheme authorized (and funded) when it was.

As ever, not wholly true. They had the money post-war to buy something like 7,000 new buses, completely replace their tram, trolleybus, and old bus systems, build a whole string of new bus garages and overhaul works, etc. When done with that they got stuck into the Underground, completely replacing the rolling stock on Metropolitan, Central and Piccadilly all at once. These things normally go round in cycles between different areas of a business.

One of the issues an all-encompassing transport operation like London Transport has once established is that a major new route investment doesn't so much give any equivalent increase in revenue, because there is a lot of diversion from existing journeys, paying the same. The Victoria Line did pick off revenue from BR at Walthamstow, draining this from the Chingford line, but elsewhere it was more a rearrangement of routings for the passengers.

 

[Ken H]

As ever, not wholly true. They had the money post-war to buy something like 7,000 new buses, completely replace their tram, trolleybus, and old bus systems, build a whole string of new bus garages and overhaul works, etc. When done with that they got stuck into the Underground, completely replacing the rolling stock on Metropolitan, Central and Piccadilly all at once. These things normally go round in cycles between different areas of a business.

One of the issues an all-encompassing transport operation like London Transport has once established is that a major new route investment doesn't so much give any equivalent increase in revenue, because there is a lot of diversion from existing journeys, paying the same. The Victoria Line did pick off revenue from BR at Walthamstow, draining this from the Chingford line, but elsewhere it was more a rearrangement of routings for the passengers.

Part of the justification was to relieve other lines like the piccadilly and district.

 

[RT4038]

As ever, not wholly true. They had the money post-war to buy something like 7,000 new buses, completely replace their tram, trolleybus, and old bus systems, build a whole string of new bus garages and overhaul works, etc. When done with that they got stuck into the Underground, completely replacing the rolling stock on Metropolitan, Central and Piccadilly all at once. These things normally go round in cycles between different areas of a business.

One of the issues an all-encompassing transport operation like London Transport has once established is that a major new route investment doesn't so much give any equivalent increase in revenue, because there is a lot of diversion from existing journeys, paying the same. The Victoria Line did pick off revenue from BR at Walthamstow, draining this from the Chingford line, but elsewhere it was more a rearrangement of routings for the passengers.

They also quadrupled the track between Harrow-on-the-Hill and Moor Park. This and the bus/train rolling stock replacement represented a lot of money in the cash strapped times after the second world war, when lots of the rest of the country were crying out for investment too, and it is understable why the Victoria Line took so long to get authorised and was constructed cheaply.

I'm not questioning the decision by the criteria of the time. Just wondering if that would be seen as the right one if other factors had been taken into account as they are today.

It doesn't really matter whether it was or not, unless the purpose is to castigate our predecessors for not having the right size crystal ball. Paying out more money initially, to save money 50 years later, is only any use if the money was available at that point, which it was not.

 

[BahrainLad]

As an illustration of the cost differential between small bore and large bore underground railways, and all their associated development, it is claimed that the cost of building just three stations on the Paris RER was the same as the entire cost of building the Victoria line.

Some controversy followed the construction of the Line A. Using the model of the existing Métro, and unlike any other underground network in the world, engineers elected to build the three new deep stations (Étoile, Auber and Nation) as single monolithic halls with lateral platforms and no supporting pillars. A hybrid solution of adjacent halls was rejected on the grounds that it "completely sacrificed the architectural aspect" of the oeuvre.[8]: 31 [Notes 1] The scale in question was vast: the new stations cathédrales were up to three times longer, wider and taller than Métro stations, and hence 20 or 30 times more voluminous. Most importantly, unlike the Métro they were to be constructed deep underground. The decision turned out to be expensive: around 8 billion francs for the three stations, equivalent to €1.2 billion in 2005 terms, with the two-level Auber the costliest of the three.[8]: 34  The comparison was obvious and unfavourable with London's Victoria line, a deep line of 22 km (14 mi) constructed during the same period using a two-tunnel approach at vastly lower cost.

Réseau Express Régional - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Taunton]

and unlike any other underground network in the world, engineers elected to build the three new deep stations (Étoile, Auber and Nation) as single monolithic halls with lateral platforms and no supporting pillars.

That's a nonsense. For example, the Mersey Railway deep underground stations at James Street and Hamilton Square were built exactly like that in 1900. Plenty of others.

 

[edwin_m]

As an illustration of the cost differential between small bore and large bore underground railways, and all their associated development, it is claimed that the cost of building just three stations on the Paris RER was the same as the entire cost of building the Victoria line.

Réseau Express Régional - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That doesn't really tell us anything about the cost impacts of tunnel size. The Victoria Line had small tunnels and simple cheap stations. The RER had large tunnels and large expensive stations. To draw any meaningful conclusion it would be necessary to find two systems with similar types of station (and everything else), differing only in tunnel size.

 

[Taunton]

Any civil engineer will tell you that a principal driver of cost of tunneling is ... what sort of strata you are tunneling through.

 

[hkstudent]

And now, thanks to Victoria Line was build as tube size, we now need to think of Crossrail 2.