Post by burkitt on Feb 28, 2022 16:35:12 GMT
While doing some research for my Roundel Round We Go podcast, I discovered what I think is the earliest ancestor of Crossrail. This was proposed in a 1919 report by Frank Pick considering options for handling the 70% increase in tube traffic which had occurred during WWI, which is mentioned in Jackson and Croome's "Rails through the Clay" and MAC Horne's "London's District Railway".
Among other ideas was an east-west route, intended to connect the then-disused LSWR tracks from Turnham Green to Ravenscourt Park and Hammersmith Grove Road, then through a new tunnel under central London, branching to run via Liverpool Street and over the GER to Ongar and Brentwood, and also via London Bridge to run over the SECR to Dartford and Sevenoaks.
Ultimate western destinations were not defined, but likely candidates to balance the east would be both existing District line destinations, as well as running over LSWR lines to Twickenham and beyond, which had previously been considered for an extension of the Central London Railway.
To my knowledge, this was the first remotely serious plan for a new tube railway through central London since the boom that ended with the opening of the Hampstead line in 1907, and the earliest proposal for both the Crossrail concept of a tube railway connecting existing mainlines either side of the capital, and the approximate Crossrail route orientation.
I found this proposal sufficiently interesting that I've created a couple of maps to illustrate what this route would look like. The first map shows the proposed east-west route on the network as it may have looked had the line been completed around the early 1930s. The only other addition beyond the 1919 status is the Bank-Monument link, which I've assumed would have been completed as planned following the CSLR upgrade.
High Resolution Map
Something I find particularly intriguing is the joint stations at Trafalgar Square - Strand, Holborn - British Museum, and Bank - Mansion House. This foretells not only later developments to link two of those pairs, but also the joint stations at Farringdon - Barbican and Liverpool Street - Moorgate on the actual Elizabeth line.
The second map shows how the 2022 network might look with the Elizabeth line, 1919 east-west line, and a north-south route also proposed in the 1919 report.
High Resolution Map
Of course, had either of the 1919 routes come to fruition, the modern network would likely be very different. Most obviously, the east - west route used what later became the western extension of the Piccadilly line, and the eastern extension of the Central line, so each of those would have to take other directions or remain more central.
No tunnel and stock size was specified in the proposals, but the long eastern branches indicates mainline gauge would be most logical (though the same report suggested running the Hampstead tube over the Midland Railway to Harpenden!). Had the 1919 east-west line been a success as a mainline profile tube connection between existing railways, I'd think the later expansion under the New Works Programme might have taken the same format, rather than making the long extensions of deep tube profile lines into outer suburbia that actually took place. The early deep tubes could have been confined to inner suburbia, similar to the Paris metro.
What (if any) form the Victoria, Jubilee and Elizabeth lines would have taken is impossible to reasonably judge!
In reality, the Underground Group had no ability to fund any of the report's proposals independently. Sufficient investment for major infrastructure work could not be obtained until the Trade Facilities Act of 1921, with schemes supported by the Treasury, who would only tolerate a much lower level of risk than this exceptionally ambitious proposal would entail.
Among other ideas was an east-west route, intended to connect the then-disused LSWR tracks from Turnham Green to Ravenscourt Park and Hammersmith Grove Road, then through a new tunnel under central London, branching to run via Liverpool Street and over the GER to Ongar and Brentwood, and also via London Bridge to run over the SECR to Dartford and Sevenoaks.
Ultimate western destinations were not defined, but likely candidates to balance the east would be both existing District line destinations, as well as running over LSWR lines to Twickenham and beyond, which had previously been considered for an extension of the Central London Railway.
To my knowledge, this was the first remotely serious plan for a new tube railway through central London since the boom that ended with the opening of the Hampstead line in 1907, and the earliest proposal for both the Crossrail concept of a tube railway connecting existing mainlines either side of the capital, and the approximate Crossrail route orientation.
I found this proposal sufficiently interesting that I've created a couple of maps to illustrate what this route would look like. The first map shows the proposed east-west route on the network as it may have looked had the line been completed around the early 1930s. The only other addition beyond the 1919 status is the Bank-Monument link, which I've assumed would have been completed as planned following the CSLR upgrade.
High Resolution Map
Something I find particularly intriguing is the joint stations at Trafalgar Square - Strand, Holborn - British Museum, and Bank - Mansion House. This foretells not only later developments to link two of those pairs, but also the joint stations at Farringdon - Barbican and Liverpool Street - Moorgate on the actual Elizabeth line.
The second map shows how the 2022 network might look with the Elizabeth line, 1919 east-west line, and a north-south route also proposed in the 1919 report.
High Resolution Map
Of course, had either of the 1919 routes come to fruition, the modern network would likely be very different. Most obviously, the east - west route used what later became the western extension of the Piccadilly line, and the eastern extension of the Central line, so each of those would have to take other directions or remain more central.
No tunnel and stock size was specified in the proposals, but the long eastern branches indicates mainline gauge would be most logical (though the same report suggested running the Hampstead tube over the Midland Railway to Harpenden!). Had the 1919 east-west line been a success as a mainline profile tube connection between existing railways, I'd think the later expansion under the New Works Programme might have taken the same format, rather than making the long extensions of deep tube profile lines into outer suburbia that actually took place. The early deep tubes could have been confined to inner suburbia, similar to the Paris metro.
What (if any) form the Victoria, Jubilee and Elizabeth lines would have taken is impossible to reasonably judge!
In reality, the Underground Group had no ability to fund any of the report's proposals independently. Sufficient investment for major infrastructure work could not be obtained until the Trade Facilities Act of 1921, with schemes supported by the Treasury, who would only tolerate a much lower level of risk than this exceptionally ambitious proposal would entail.
