When did the Tube become the Tube?

[BanburyBlue]

Hi all,

We were just watching an episode of Miss Marple (Joan Hickson) - Bertram’s Hotel. It is set in the 1960s. someone mentioned “The Tube”. Now, I remember as a kid, in the 1960/70s going to see my grandparents in Clapham, that my parents always said “the Underground”.

So, when did the term “the Tube” come into common parlance?

Thanks.

 

[David Goddard]

Probably about 1900. There were advert on the system then for the tuppenny tube when the Central line opened

 

[Dstock7080]

 

[Lucan]

I remember as a kid, in the 1960/70s going to see my grandparents in Clapham, that my parents always said “the Underground”.

They were not necessarily typical. Having grown up in South London myself, near to the Northern and District Lines, as did my parents, "tube" and "underground" were both used fairly interchangeably, possibly to best fit the cadence of the sentence. You might have said "tube train" as it rolls off the tongue, but OTOH say "There was a delay on the underground". "The Underground" tended to refer to the system as a whole. I don't think we ever referred to the District Line as either, for one thing the trains were bigger and looked more like boxes than tubes (think of R Stock), and for another they were not under the ground in that area. We just called it "The District".

 

[transmanche]

The 'tube' name may even have originated in the US.

What is now the PATH system, linking New York and New Jersey under the Hudson River, was originally known as the 'Hudson Tubes'. Although the first route didn't open until 1908, construction initially started back in 1873.

It would be interesting to know at what point they were actually named the 'Hudson Tubes'. Was it before or after the Central London Railway opened?


Cortlandt St BMT td 13 - Hudson Tubes
Tdorante10 / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)

 

[Wolfie]

The 'tube' name may even have originated in the US.

What is now the PATH system, linking New York and New Jersey under the Hudson River, was originally known as the 'Hudson Tubes'. Although the first route didn't open until 1908, construction initially started back in 1873.

It would be interesting to know at what point they were actually named the 'Hudson Tubes'. Was it before or after the Central London Railway opened?


Cortlandt St BMT td 13 - Hudson Tubes
Tdorante10 / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)

That's particularly interesting given the US ownership (Yerkes, who l believe was New York based at one point) of the system from the start of the 20th century.

 

[AM9]

That's particularly interesting given the US ownership (Yerkes, who l believe was New York based at one point) of the system from the start of the 20th century.

I was around when LT was celebrating the 60th anniversary of the line serving where I grew up, the Central Line. It was theren that I learnt of the 'tuppeny tube', although older relatives had been using the name 'Tube' since the '20s when they went up to the West End, and locally from 1948 when the line reached Hainault.
Charles Yerkes wasn't involved in the Central London Railway, and he died before his first London deep tunnel lines opened, the Great Northern Piccadilly & Brompton (Piccadilly Line) and the Baker Street & Waterloo (Bakerloo Line). I don't know whether it was used to promote his lines, but the 'tuppeny tube' certainly preceded the Yerkes openings.

 

[Wolfie]

I was around when LT was celebrating the 60th anniversary of the line serving where I grew up, the Central Line. It was theren that I learnt of the 'tuppeny tube', although older relatives had been using the name 'Tube' since the '20s when they went up to the West End, and locally from 1948 when the line reached Hainault.
Charles Yerkes wasn't involved in the Central London Railway, and he died before his first London deep tunnel lines opened, the Great Northern Piccadilly & Brompton (Piccadilly Line) and the Baker Street & Waterloo (Bakerloo Line). I don't know whether it was used to promote his lines, but the 'tuppeny tube' certainly preceded the Yerkes openings.

Ok, thanks. Looks like my speculation was offbeam.

 

[holborncentral]

I always thought it was since 1890, when the City and South London Railway (now part of the Northern line) first opened, and the tunnels were described as tube shaped. I've seen the early Central line posters and photos from the Yerkes era referring to the 'Hampstead Tube'. So I guess the name has been around since the early deep level lines

 

[AM9]

I always thought it was since 1890, when the City and South London Railway (now part of the Northern line) first opened, and the tunnels were described as tube shaped. I've seen the early Central line posters and photos from the Yerkes era referring to the 'Hampstead Tube'. So I guess the name has been around since the early deep level lines

Although planned in 1891, the Charing Cross, Euston & Hampstead Railway was delayed through lack of funds until Charles Yerkes purchased the CCE&HR in September 1900. The Central London Railway was opened to the public on 30th July of that year. As the line had a flat fare of 2d, the Daily Mail nicknamed it the Twopenny Tube the next month (August). The Yerkes railways opened in 1906/7, after Yerkes died in 1905. It is likely that he promoted his lines with the 'tyube' name following the Daily Mail christening of the CLR.

 

[hexagon789]

Some people used to distinguish - "underground" for the shallow cut-and-cover lines and "tube" for the deep-level lines

 

[Busaholic]

Some people used to distinguish - "underground" for the shallow cut-and-cover lines and "tube" for the deep-level lines

On my first day of being sent to work in the Underground Operating Dept in 1970/1 I was taught that all tube trains were underground trains but not all underground trains were tube trains. In those days, there was a definite feeling among some at the top (so I heard) that the Met was the jewel in the crown, and the District no. 2 with the tube lines very much the poor relations in status. The success of the Victoria Line (opened in stages from 1968) helped alleviate this, together with retirement of the 'old guard'. Buses weren't even in the equation, of course, being beyond the pale! It was this sort of attitude that the creation of a Traffic Management training course to encompass both cultures was set up under the new GLC ownership, and I was part of that initial intake and went on to work in both.

 

[AM9]

Some people used to distinguish - "underground" for the shallow cut-and-cover lines and "tube" for the deep-level lines

Yes I do but people are lazy and I gave up trying to put them right long ago.

 

[hexagon789]

On my first day of being sent to work in the Underground Operating Dept in 1970/1 I was taught that all tube trains were underground trains but not all underground trains were tube trains. In those days, there was a definite feeling among some at the top (so I heard) that the Met was the jewel in the crown, and the District no. 2 with the tube lines very much the poor relations in status. The success of the Victoria Line (opened in stages from 1968) helped alleviate this, together with retirement of the 'old guard'. Buses weren't even in the equation, of course, being beyond the pale! It was this sort of attitude that the creation of a Traffic Management training course to encompass both cultures was set up under the new GLC ownership, and I was part of that initial intake and went on to work in both.

It's interesting how such distinctions often well outlast the original companies and the subsequent mergers since when the various lines really were separate entities.

Yes I do but people are lazy and I gave up trying to put them right long ago.

I know the feeling!

 

[Busaholic]

Yes I do but people are lazy and I gave up trying to put them right long ago.

Me too, just as I have to admit defeat on the adjective 'disinterested' when the person almost certainly means 'uninterested'.

 

[Mag_seven]

tube" and "underground" were both used fairly interchangeably,

Likewise in Glasgow with the terms "Underground" and "Subway" being used interchangeably to describe the Glasgow Underground.

 

[AM9]

Likewise in Glasgow with the terms "Underground" and "Subway" being used interchangeably to describe the Glasgow Underground.

But there's only one line there and it undoubtedly qualifies as a 'tube'.

 

[Taunton]

Some people used to distinguish - "underground" for the shallow cut-and-cover lines and "tube" for the deep-level lines

In passing, it's notable how many major city systems around the world have two (or more) distinct elements to their overall system, with incompatible different sized trains, different electrical systems, etc, all mostly dating back to early days.

In New York City, for example, the IRT (numbered lines) have smaller cars etc than the BMT/IND (lettered lines). In Philadelphia the two principal lines have different gauges. Berlin is like London, with two train/tunnel sizes.

 

[AM9]

In passing, it's notable how many major city systems around the world have two (or more) distinct elements to their overall system, with incompatible different sized trains, different electrical systems, etc, all mostly dating back to early days.

In New York City, for example, the IRT (numbered lines) have smaller cars etc than the BMT/IND (lettered lines). In Philadelphia the two principal lines have different gauges. Berlin is like London, with two train/tunnel sizes.

Of those that still have a long-serving system that has a smaller structure gauge than their national rail network, the lowering cost of tunnel boring is likely to see any new infrastructure built bigger. It's the main reason why London has abandoned any new 12ft tube lines, despite the increasing difficulty threading in full sized tunnels through all the other gubbins underground.

 

[Taunton]

Of those that still have a long-serving system that has a smaller structure gauge than their national rail network, the lowering cost of tunnel boring is likely to see any new infrastructure built bigger. It's the main reason why London has abandoned any new 12ft tube lines, despite the increasing difficulty threading in full sized tunnels through all the other gubbins underground.

I'm sure the JLE would never have been built to Tube size were it not that it connected to the existing Jubilee north of Green Park, and that likely would not have been either in the 1970s were it not to connect into the onetime-Bakerloo on to Finchley Road.

 

[hexagon789]

In passing, it's notable how many major city systems around the world have two (or more) distinct elements to their overall system, with incompatible different sized trains, different electrical systems, etc, all mostly dating back to early days.

In New York City, for example, the IRT (numbered lines) have smaller cars etc than the BMT/IND (lettered lines). In Philadelphia the two principal lines have different gauges. Berlin is like London, with two train/tunnel sizes.

I think the original line on the Budapest system is the same - different dimensions to the later lines

 

[DerekC]

I'm sure the JLE would never have been built to Tube size were it not that it connected to the existing Jubilee north of Green Park, and that likely would not have been either in the 1970s were it not to connect into the onetime-Bakerloo on to Finchley Road.

In post-WWII planning the Victoria Line was originally intended to be to main line gauge and linked to the national network at both ends but suffered from an early round of cost cutting.

 

[swt_passenger]

In post-WWII planning the Victoria Line was originally intended to be to main line gauge and linked to the national network at both ends but suffered from an early round of cost cutting.

So almost 75 years ago the engineers and planners had effectively come to the conclusion that new tube lines were probably not a good idea. More recently the same discussion was had regarding Crossrail 2, and TfL published reports saying that full length main line gauge trains were the only way to go.

The only possible significant deep tube extension now can be the Bakerloo, and only because of its current one-ended nature.

 

[urbophile]

I'm sure the JLE would never have been built to Tube size were it not that it connected to the existing Jubilee north of Green Park, and that likely would not have been either in the 1970s were it not to connect into the onetime-Bakerloo on to Finchley Road.

Money I guess. The Bakerloo should never have been built to Tube gauge: both its northern branches (then Watford Jnc and Stanmore) were shared with mainline size trains.

 

[Domh245]

The Bakerloo should never have been built to Tube gauge: both its northern branches (then Watford Jnc and Stanmore) were shared with mainline size trains.

Of course, when they started building the Baker Street & Waterloo Railway in 1898, there wasn't any plan to run to Watford or Stanmore - Queens Park was only planned in 1911, and agreed running rights to Watford in 1917 (itself only gaining parliamentary approval in 1907). Running to Stanmore didn't come about until 1935. That'd need quite the foresight/optimism to build the core section to mainline gauge..

 

[Taunton]

Building urban metro systems to a smaller scale saves construction costs, but also prevents the main line railways getting running powers over them. This was a definite factor in some systems making themselves deliberately incompatible with the main line; the Paris Metro notably wanted smaller tunnels to prevent the main line companies getting running powers over their lines into and across Paris. In North America several cities had initially tramways of different actual track gauges, sometimes perpetuated to today, imposed on them to stop main line freight companies getting access and blocking up the streets with freight cars, which arises elsewhere across the country, and that has continued to some Metro systems in those same cities.

 

[AM9]

Building urban metro systems to a smaller scale saves construction costs, but also prevents the main line railways getting running powers over them. This was a definite factor in some systems making themselves deliberately incompatible with the main line; the Paris Metro notably wanted smaller tunnels to prevent the main line companies getting running powers over their lines into and across Paris. In North America several cities had initially tramways of different actual track gauges, sometimes perpetuated to today, imposed on them to stop main line freight companies getting access and blocking up the streets with freight cars, which arises elsewhere across the country, and that has continued to some Metro systems in those same cities.

I seem to remember that when the Victoria Line was being discussed, the reason given for the small diameter version was that tunneling costs were proportional to the square of the bore, meaning that the plain tunnel sections would cost 64% more if built to 16ft (the size of the GN line at Moorgate) compared rather than 12ft 6in as the Vic. line was built. Given that most of the line had stations which were interchanges with existing lines, and the expanded tunnel bore was the normal style of station, the difference in tunneling costs would certainly play a part in the decision.
More recently, not only has tunneling become a much more automated and organised business, but other infrastructure has become a greater proportion of the overall cost, compare the Vic line stations Oxford Circus and Victoria with the JLE schemes, e.g. Westminster and Canary Wharf.

 

[Dr_Paul]

Me too, just as I have to admit defeat on the adjective 'disinterested' when the person almost certainly means 'uninterested'.

I was filling in a sickness benefits claim form when I noticed the word 'disinterested' where it should have been 'uninterested'. I was going to cross it out and insert the correct word, but I felt that the benefits assessor would see me as a clever dick and make him less likely to view my claim sympathetically.

As for the thread's subject, I've always used the term 'Underground' for the system as a whole, for both sub-surface and tube routes, and consider that the 'Tube' is only those lines that use tube stock. I got that from my dad, a lifelong railway buff.

In post-WWII planning the Victoria Line was originally intended to be to main line gauge and linked to the national network at both ends but suffered from an early round of cost cutting.

I never knew that. Had it been so constructed, it would have been a potential Crossrail avant la lettre. It's a shame that this didn't happen.

 

[LUYMun]

I was reading my book "By Tube Beyond Edgware" where there was a section of the Hampstead & Burnt Oak Gazette dated 12 March 1937. The quote was from a resident's opposition to the Northern Heights Plan.

The situation at Tottenham Court Road is almost beyond words. We used to laugh at Parisians in their Metro. I don't think our Tube is a bit better.