Why is the terminus situation south of the Thames so complicated and why was it never rationalised?

[Transilien]

North of the river the terminus situation is much more simple with one main line having one London terminus. Why is this not the case south of the river? Also why had there been no effort to try to simplify the situation?

 

[The exile]

North of the river the terminus situation is much more simple with one main line having one London terminus. Why is this not the case south of the river? Also why had there been no effort to try to simplify the situation?

Not entirely simple even today from the North (Northern City Line) and in the past trains there were trans from both the WCML and ECML to Broad Street and ECML & MML to Moorgate (Widened Lines). Suburban traffic (which was the Southern companies’ bread and butter) wanted through trains to both city and west end. The exact location in London was of less significance the further you’d travelled from.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The underlying geography is completely different. Whether to stay south of the Thames - Waterloo and London Bridge - or cross the river for a start.
Then, London has quite a distinct east <> west split - City and West End where it was feasible to get very close to both. Whereas the northern termini could not readily achieve that split.

 

[A S Leib]

North of the river the terminus situation is much more simple with one main line having one London terminus

Except for Liverpool Street, which is two main lines having one London terminus. High speed lines at St. Pancras and (hopefully) Euston as well, but there were only so many places with onward connections they could be put.

 

[30907]

North of the river the terminus situation is much more simple with one main line having one London terminus. Why is this not the case south of the river?

To expand on The exile.
The contrast is more apparent than real: almost all the main lines had a second terminus to serve the City - Broad Street or Moorgate (the GNR/LNER used both!) - or a through service (GWR-Met). Admittedly, most of them were for suburban traffic only, though the LNWR ran Broad St-Birmingham.
Three of the four Southern companies had paired termini with more-or-less equal status, all bar London Bridge dating from the 1860s (and just North of the river BTW) ; the LSWR was stuck with Waterloo so built a tube line to the City.

Also why had there been no effort to try to simplify the situation?

There have been ideas, mainly to get rid of Hungerford Bridge (Charing X) for aesthetic reasons, but they would have been enormously expensive.

Essentially, there is no way you can simplify the situation without dumping passengers onto overloaded tube lines, and in any case there would be insufficient peak terminal capacity at remaining termini.

That said, Holborn Viaduct has closed (it was always relatively quiet, and might well have closed anyway without Thameslink), and without Thameslink Blackfriars would have been a backwater.

 

[yorksrob]

The companies wanted one terminus to serve the City, one for the West End.

South Eastern Railway:

City - Cannon Street
West End - Charing Cross

London, Chatham and Dover Railway:

City - Holborn Viaduct
West End - Victoria

London, Brighton & South Coast Railway:

City - London Bridge
West End - Victoria.

The London & South Western Railway was stranded away from the City and tried an arrangement at Cannon Street and later the Waterloo & City.

As to why have these never been rationalised ?

I suppose that Southern passengers have continued to require access to both the City and the West End ever since.

 

[dk1]

I think the original train companies make everything so much more interesting and the tube has been built to accommodate this. Everything evolves too in one way or another.

 

[Transilien]

I think the original train companies make everything so much more interesting and the tube has been built to accommodate this. Everything evolves too in one way or another.

It may make it interesting, but if you’re not familiar with the area it’s hard to know what station will get you where.

 

[yorksrob]

It may make it interesting, but if you’re not familiar with the area it’s hard to know what station will get you where.

The old NSE map used to differentiate with between the SE/Chatham/Brighton lines by colour, making things a bit easier.

 

[Railsigns]

It may make it interesting, but if you’re not familiar with the area it’s hard to know what station will get you where.

Having a separate London terminus for each main line only makes that easier for people with a knowledge of the rail network. Most rail enthusiasts know that the West Coast, Midland, and East Coast Main Lines start at Euston, St Pancras and King's Cross stations respectively, so they should know, for example, where to catch a direct train to Preston, Leicester or York. The average person wouldn't be expected to know this, which is fine as long as the necessary information is provided when they're planning or booking their journey.

 

[Harpo]

The Great Eastern had two termini, Liv St and Fenchurch Street. It also had two other routes into Liv St from the East London Line and (briefly) the Metropolitan.

The LTS never had it’s own terminus pre-BR and aside from it’s use of Fenchurch St., had also run to Liv St., Broad St (via Bromley), St. Pancras and over the district line via Embankment.

 

[Magdalia]

In pre-grouping days, and in the era of the Big Four, the customers for the City and the West End were very different. Bear in mind that traffic for the City was mostly for people coming up to London from outside, not people starting from London travelling out into the country.

This was perhaps most marked from Cambridge, where the Great Eastern Liverpool Street route was "town" and the Great Northern Kings Cross route was "gown". This still persisted to an extent right up to Great Northern electrification in 1978.

In pre grouping days the Great Eastern ran between Cambridge and St Pancras to try to compete for the West End traffic. This included the Royal Trains from/to Sandringham, which switched to Kings Cross after the grouping. Since the 1960s the Great Eastern route got its West End link back when the Victoria Line was built: that's why everything now stops at Tottenham Hale.

As has already been stated, the Great Northern had 2 routes into the City, Broad Street and Moorgate, in addition to Kings Cross. Moorgate survived electrification by taking over the Northern City line via Drayton Park. A feature of the post electrification Great Northern service is the interchange between City and West End trains at Finsbury Park, though this is less important now that Thameslink goes to and from City Thameslink.

 

[dk1]

In pre-grouping days, and in the era of the Big Four, the customers for the City and the West End were very different. Bear in mind that traffic for the City was mostly for people coming up to London from outside, not people starting from London travelling out into the country.

This was perhaps most marked from Cambridge, where the Great Eastern Liverpool Street route was "town" and the Great Northern Kings Cross route was "gown". This still persisted to an extent right up to Great Northern electrification in 1978.

In pre grouping days the Great Eastern ran between Cambridge and St Pancras to try to compete for the West End traffic. This included the Royal Trains from/to Sandringham, which switched to Kings Cross after the grouping. Since the 1960s the Great Eastern route got its West End link back when the Victoria Line was built: that's why everything now stops at Tottenham Hale.

As has already been stated, the Great Northern had 2 routes into the City, Broad Street and Moorgate, in addition to Kings Cross. Moorgate survived electrification by taking over the Northern City line via Drayton Park. A feature of the post electrification Great Northern service is the interchange between City and West End trains at Finsbury Park, though this is less important now that Thameslink goes to and from City Thameslink.

Fascinating stuff Thanks.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Another difference between North and South London is the geology, making tunnelling more difficult and expensive South of the Thames.

Hence why South London is a bit of a desert when it comes to Underground lines, with heavy rail providing a Metro style service.

 

[Snow1964]

A London map from 1820s or 1830s is your answer.
There were effectively two Londons, the City and a West End, and some companies wanted to serve both.

If you move forward to 1840s onwards will find lot of south bank and area between the city and west end was heavily built up, so to rationalise and build one central station without huge demolition wasn't an option.

Some companies did manage to move nearer, Great Eastern got from Bishopsgate to Liverpool Street. GWR moved from Bishops Bridge to Paddington. LSWR moved from Nine Elms (where had to get boat or horse drawn cab) to Waterloo (which initially was designed as a through station as wanted to get nearer the City, but subsequently decided not practical, and in 1899 decided to completely rebuild the jumble of piecemeal additions). Holborn Viaduct was another more central extension.

 

[Magdalia]

Another difference between North and South London is the geology, making tunnelling more difficult and expensive South of the Thames.

London is a basin of folded sedimentary rock strata, the geology north and south of the river is not very different, apart from the angle of the fold being steeper on the southern side. The North Downs and the Chilterns are the same layer of chalk but the North Downs are closer to London than the Chilterns.

The main reason for south of the river having few underground lines is the river itself, which can only be crossed by bridge or a deep tunnel.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Even without looking at early 19th century maps it does appear that the curve in the GWR line to reach Paddington was to allow potential projection of the line beyond Praed Street across/under Hyde Park and skirting Buckingham Palace grounds to reach Victoria. Service developments might have been very different if this had come to pass.

 

[Transilien]

Even without looking at early 19th century maps it does appear that the curve in the GWR line to reach Paddington was to allow potential projection of the line beyond Praed Street across/under Hyde Park and skirting Buckingham Palace grounds to reach Victoria. Service developments might have been very different if this had come to pass.

Is this part of the reason that the GWR got running powers into Victoria station when it first opened?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Is this part of the reason that the GWR got running powers into Victoria station when it first opened?

I don't know. But in my imagination it seems logical!

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Then, London has quite a distinct east <> west split - City and West End where it was feasible to get very close to both.

A London map from 1820s or 1830s is your answer.
There were effectively two Londons, the City and a West End, and some companies wanted to serve both.

Just to add to this with something you can still see today: Churches.

The church just outside Trafalgar Square, not far from Charing Cross station is called St Martin in the Fields.

The church near Centre Point Tower, not far from Tottenham Court Road station is called St Giles in the fields.

Why? Because there were literally fields in the area between the City and the West End. Even when all that land got built on the first thing to go up were slums (Seven Dials being the most notorious one). It took things like the coming of the railways to make people care about those areas which led to the slum clearances with the building of roads like New Oxford Street and Shaftsbury Avenue, complete with it’s theatres.

Now so much time as passed it’s easy to be unaware there were ever two Londons, but the fact that there was provided the need for different railway terminals and the railway terminals then facilitated the two Londons merging into each other.

 

[MCR247]

North of the river the terminus situation is much more simple with one main line having one London terminus. Why is this not the case south of the river? Also why had there been no effort to try to simplify the situation?

It may make it interesting, but if you’re not familiar with the area it’s hard to know what station will get you where.

I think the big question here is who would it ‘simplify’ things for? And simplify in what sense?


Many would see the ‘complexity’ as a positive rather than a negative. For example, South Eastern operate peak extras to/from Cannon St on services that usually only serve Victoria, because lots of commuters work (or worked) near the city. Obviously COVID and WFH have changed travel patterns, but if you’d tried to remove these services in 2019 to ‘simplify’ things I don’t think it’d have gone down well.

The ‘complexity’ also means that trains have options (sometimes multiple options) to divert when there is engineering work. It would get tricky trying to divert everything via the Catford loop when Sydenham tunnel was being worked on. Instead, you can simply divert some via Hither Green towards London Bridge. And vice versa when the works are else where.

If anything, I’d argue the south east is really lucky in this sense!

 

[norbitonflyer]

London is a basin of folded sedimentary rock strata, the geology north and south of the river is not very different, apart from the angle of the fold being steeper on the southern side. The North Downs and the Chilterns are the same layer of chalk but the North Downs are closer to London than the Chilterns.

The main reason for south of the river having few underground lines is the river itself, which can only be crossed by bridge or a deep tunnel.

The first Deep Tube line was almost entirely south of the river. Two of the next three went into south London too.

A significant factor in tghe relative frarity of Undergtound lines south of the river was that ny the 1860s there was already a dense network of suburban lines. There was never such an intendse network in north London (except east of the river Lea) because the northern and western companies had more profitable coal, and long-disatnce inter-city passengers, to carry. If anything tghey saw subrban services as an encumbrance. With no coal south of the Thames (until it was discovered in Kent in the 1920s) and few large cities (London is only 70 miles from the south coast), the southern companies had to fuind other sources of revenue, and in the competition for this built up a dense network - there are still many places in Kent and south London, and several in Surrey, which even now still have two competing routes to London.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

The Southern did make some attempts at rationalisation after the grouping, with all boat trains for Dover / Folkestone being concentrated at Victoria and the Brighton and Chatham sides being managed as one station. Cannon Street became peak hour only and closed on Sundays for many years. In the BR era Holborn Viaduct became less and less used until final closure.

 

[A S Leib]

Cannon Street became peak hour only and closed on Sundays for many years.

Were services diverted to Charing Cross or terminated at London Bridge when Cannon Street was closed, or were services too irregular to say?

 

[Magdalia]

Cannon Street became peak hour only and closed on Sundays for many years. In the BR era Holborn Viaduct became less and less used until final closure.

Were services diverted to Charing Cross or terminated at London Bridge when Cannon Street was closed, or were services too irregular to say?

For people not old enough to remember, it will be hard to comprehend what the City of London was like in the period just before financial deregulation in the 1980s.

It was dead at the weekend with very few pubs, restaurants and shops open.

This was also before licensing hours were deregulated and on weekdays the City of London pubs operated different hours to elsewhere, with evening opening 1700-2100 instead of 1900-2300.

As a result there was no need to run services to the City termini at weekends, or much after 2100 on weekdays. That's why Cannon Street closed early on weekdays and didn't open at all at weekends. Holborn Viaduct also didn't open at weekends. The Northern City line to/from Moorgate continued to operate like this until quite recently.

 

[Harpo]

For people not old enough to remember, it will be hard to comprehend what the City of London was like in the period just before financial deregulation in the 1980s.

It was dead at the weekend with very few pubs, restaurants and shops open.

This was also before licensing hours were deregulated and on weekdays the City of London pubs operated different hours to elsewhere, with evening opening 1700-2100 instead of 1900-2300.

Covid changed it yet again. The number of hospitality premises along The Minories that went out out of business was astonishing.

 

[Class 170101]

As a result there was no need to run services to the City termini at weekends, or much after 2100 on weekdays. That's why Cannon Street closed early on weekdays and didn't open at all at weekends. Holborn Viaduct also didn't open at weekends. The Northern City line to/from Moorgate continued to operate like this until quite recently.

Indeed Northern City services was diverted to Kings Cross at weekends as it was less busy and the Moorgate branch closed.

I also understand that the 'BR' lines with a few exceptions were not allowed to encroach north of the river, south of Euston Road nor east and west of their present positions as the disruption of construction was not considered acceptable.

 

[zwk500]

Even without looking at early 19th century maps it does appear that the curve in the GWR line to reach Paddington was to allow potential projection of the line beyond Praed Street across/under Hyde Park and skirting Buckingham Palace grounds to reach Victoria. Service developments might have been very different if this had come to pass.

I'm fairly sure the curve is to do with the Paddington Arm of the Regent's Canal (built 1801) and not reaching the West End. The GWR's running powers into Victoria were over what is now the West London Line, IIRC.

 

[Topological]

I'm fairly sure the curve is to do with the Paddington Arm of the Regent's Canal (built 1801) and not reaching the West End. The GWR's running powers into Victoria were over what is now the West London Line, IIRC.

Much more likely.

However, it does beg the question of what would happen if a tunnel was built from Victoria, to Paddington, then OOC and out to the WCML. A crossrail that skirts the edges of London perhaps, but would that permit greater connectivity to HS2 for people south of the river?

The crossing of all the lines in South London always just struck me as a result of competition between lines. The posts on here detailing that process are very informative.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

The Southern did make some attempts at rationalisation after the grouping,

They also inherited the outcome of the fierce competition between the London, Chatham & Dover and the South Eastern. This had resulted in duplicate lines all over South East London and Kent.

One of the might have been rationalisations could have been an amalgamation of Euston, St Pancras and Kings Cross into a single station along the lines of a German Hauptbahnhof. If it became really grandiose, throw in connections via Paddington and Liverpool Street. I think that would only have been even a remote possibility if thetre had been so much war daamge to the area that complete demolition and rebuild was a plausible option.