Who owns the land on which Underground stations are sited?

[ForTheLoveOf]

I was wondering who exactly owns the land on which London Underground stations are located, and if it's not TfL/LUL, what legal rights they (or the original railway companies before then) originally used to construct the stations and track and to then run a train service across what is effectively someone else's land. I imagine there's somewhat of a disparity between the deep-level tubes, where I would have thought it's possibly a case of merely paying for an easement each year, and the cut and cover tubes (e.g. Metropolitan line) where they might even own any road that's on top.

Any info appreciated, I was suggested towards this sub forum when asking this question at a recent event!

 

[Bald Rick]

Generally speaking, up until the construction of the Victoria line, the promoters of the lines that became the London Underground had to negotiate with the owners of the land they dug or bored their tunnels under, to gain a ‘wayleave’ or similar to cross their land. (Land owners owning the soil beneath their properties). Hence why the majority of these lines were built beneath streets - the promoters then just had to deal with the street owner (typically the London Corporation or predecessors).

Station facilities (ticket offices etc) were usually built at street level, and to one side of the street. Interestingly, this is why many deep tube lines have platform arrangements where one is set slightly above the other - simply so that both platform tunnels could fit under the street and that passenger access was simplified via one lift shaft. I’m pretty sure that Bank was the first station to be built with facilities underground. Many others were subsequently rebuilt, eg Leicester Square, Piccadilly Circus, Oxford Circus, Kings Cross, etc.

From the Victoria line onwards, LU had powers to compulsorily purchase the soil they dug through, so pretty much went where they wanted to go, within reason.

 

[etr221]

My understanding is that, unless the highway authority has actually acquired (specifically) the land, 'ownership' of a highway is (normally) by those owning the land on either side (see https://www.bsdr.com/publication/highways-an-overview/ for more details). When railways were built, the enabling acts gave the companies powers to compulsorily acquire the necessary property, either by freehold purchase for 'surface' areas, or wayleaves (or similar), for underground sections, or otherwise, for the construction of the railway. Construction of the earlier underground railways under streets was a reflection of the fact that it was easier/cheaper to so do so, on the grounds that there was already a highway on the surface.

But I am no expert - an FOI request to TfL may produce more authoritative detail.

 

[edwin_m]

The report into the accident where somebody put piles into the Great Northern and City tunnel includes some discussion of the protections to prevent this happening.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...0f0b60241000157/R032014_140213_Old_Street.pdf

In 1902, two years before the railway opened, a conveyance transferred the sub-soil required for tunnel construction to the Great Northern and City Railway (GN&CR) who were building the line. This transfer means that the current Land Registry register of title for the site on East Street includes the phrase:

‘So much of the sub-soil as was vested in the Great Northern and City Railway is excluded from the registration.’


The GN&CR tunnels generally followed public highways, but a bend in East Road required a 280 metre length of the tunnels to be constructed in part beneath private property, and in part beneath Fairbank Street (figures 12, 13 and 14). This is one of the few locations on London’s underground railway network where the early tube tunnels (designed and constructed between 1884 and 1907) passed for some substantial distance under private property.

 

[etr221]

So that clarifies it somewhat - the railway did own the 'tunnelspace' within the sub-soil freehold, at least in the case of the GN&C, but probably most other tube railways.

I seem to recall there were issues over the land under Waterloo station required for what is now the Northern line, but don't remember any details.

 

[Bald Rick]

The book “ Building London’s Underground” by Anthony Badsey Ellis explains the situation reasonably well, and is also a fascinating study into tunnel construction through the ages.

 

[swt_passenger]

Wouldn’t many of the original surface sections have been built using fairly normal railway enabling Acts? The Metropolitan was just another railway company in the early years, and I’m thinking of the way much of the Central Line in the east took over existing mainlines?

It would be interesting if there was a map showing exactly which lengths of the modern LU were originally normal ‘railway lines’...

 

[plcd1]

I was wondering who exactly owns the land on which London Underground stations are located, and if it's not TfL/LUL, what legal rights they (or the original railway companies before then) originally used to construct the stations and track and to then run a train service across what is effectively someone else's land. I imagine there's somewhat of a disparity between the deep-level tubes, where I would have thought it's possibly a case of merely paying for an easement each year, and the cut and cover tubes (e.g. Metropolitan line) where they might even own any road that's on top.

Any info appreciated, I was suggested towards this sub forum when asking this question at a recent event!

Having had to fathom tube station land ownership issues it can be very complex. Some are on TfL owned land - the ownership inherited via multiple acts of parliaments which have changed the organisation responsible for London's transport over the decades. As others have said there are other instances where leases or wayleaves are in place. The Crown and related estates own vast tracts of land. I recall the property delineation for Charing Cross tube station being ridiculously complex. There are also other complex areas where Network Rail (former BR) and LU / TfL land butt up against each both vertically (where LU is under a mainline station) and horizontally (the former NLL line alignment south of Stratford (now DLR) being beside the Jubilee Line created a vast plethora of property and asset delineation issues (e.g. road bridges spanning both rail alignments!).

There isn't a simple answer because there is so much history and land ownership is not a simple issue in English law. Keeps lots of lawyers and property experts busy though!

 

[LU_timetabler]

If you get the Central line between Bank and Liverpool Street, you'll notice there are a lot of curves in the route, this is basically because it following the layout of streets above.

 

[sjoh]

If you get the Central line between Bank and Liverpool Street, you'll notice there are a lot of curves in the route, this is basically because it following the layout of streets above.

and the Bank of England weren't too keen on having a whopping great railway line in their valuable vault space.