CHAPTER IX

_LONDON’S TANGLED TUBES_

“Tangled in the fold of dire necessity.”--MILTON.

THE TANGLE

To inflict upon the readers of this book a map of existing and projected railways in London would be cruel; and for them to try to master it would be torture worthy of the Inquisition, with loss of reason as the inevitable result.

Roughly speaking, the lines above and below ground stream inwards from the outskirts, after the fashion of the tramways; with this marked difference that there is a direct communication from east to west by the Central Railway, and an Inner Circle route engirdling the middle portion of Greater London.

As with the tramways, the routes of nearly all these lines appear to have been adopted happy-go-luckily. “Here are Highgate, Walthamstow, Beckenham, Kew, Hendon,” say the promoters; “what we have to do is to make a railway from these suburbs, and, somehow or other, get as near the metropolitan centres as possible, and dump down our passengers. The problem of intercommunication is not our business. We leave that to others.” So the lines of the various companies meander away, often by the most indirect routes, and finally arrive more or less near their objective destinations, Charing Cross, or the Bank of England.

If Napoleon the Great with prophetic glance could have foreseen London linked to distant villages in every direction, these hamlets growing into towns, and as population increased, being irresistibly drawn into Greater London’s maelstrom of brick and mortar, even he would have been appalled by the problem of how to give ready means of access from one part to the other. Anticipating railways and electric tubes, he would probably, with the marvellous fertility of resource that distinguished him, have formulated a plan whereby a given circular space in the metropolis would be divided into sections, a mile square, with a station in the centre and at each corner, so that all within that area would have access to a railway, at no point more than half a mile distant, the tube railways below the surface, and others above, converging at a great central depôt. On reaching the limit of the circle, the lines (that would necessarily cross under and over one another) would, by means of loops, return and keep up a continued circulation of traffic from rim to rim of the circle, which, as the city grew bigger and bigger, could be enlarged, and the lines extended, the process continuing _ad infinitum_.

This, of course, would have been an impossibility; the characteristic British love of half measures and of temporising being opposed to any really comprehensive and imperial scheme, and local jealousy would not have tolerated the necessarily masterful, though wise, domination of a One Man Power in carrying out the plan.

Therefore the great railways and the suburban railways were allowed to do pretty much as they liked, as seen in the entire absence of system in approaching London, and in dealing with its vast traffic.

To meet the difficulty a central station has often been mooted, and much good would ensue therefrom if it accommodated _all_ the lines. Recently, in connection with the Great Western Railway, the idea has been revived, and the site of Christ’s Hospital suggested. In fact, it is an open secret that overture upon overture has been made on the subject, but the enormous price demanded by the old school authorities has always been the bugbear.

The feasibility of an Inner Circle Tube, however, linking together all the lines, with ramifications to serve the suburbs, worked jointly under a pooling arrangement by the various companies, has commended itself to certain experts.

It is true that four of the great trunk lines are already connected by subways with the Inner Circle Railway--the Great Eastern at Liverpool Street; the Great Western at Praed Street; the London, Brighton, and South Coast at Victoria; and the South Eastern and Chatham at Cannon Street, Blackfriars, and Victoria. The Brighton Company has already a subway connection between London Bridge and the City and South London Tube Station there, and the Mansion House subway will by-and-by be similarly connected with the City and South London Bank Station.

Also there are the purely suburban lines to be considered, such as the South London Railway, worked by the Brighton Company; the Metropolitan Extension, a part of the Chatham Company’s local system; the West London Railway, which gives a north-to-south connection at Chelsea for several companies; the Hammersmith and City Railway; the Hampstead Junction Railway (from Willesden to Tottenham); and the local services of the London and North Western; the Great Northern Railway (already committed to a tube); and the Midland Railway, which, with the Great Northern, has access to the south of London, _viâ_ Ludgate Hill.

But the matter now engaging public attention is not Subways, but Tubes--how to disentangle the different schemes, and evolve order out of chaos.

The Tubes open for traffic are the Waterloo and City Railway; the City and South London Railway; Clapham Common to the “Angel,” Islington; and the Central London from the Bank to Shepherd’s Bush. While those in progress more or less advanced, are the Great Northern and City Railway; the Brompton and Piccadilly Circus Railway; the Bank to Finsbury Park; the Baker Street and Waterloo Railway; Paddington to Waterloo, and thence _viâ_ St. George’s Circus, Southwark, to the Elephant and Castle.

All last session members of the House of Commons were, so to speak, overwhelmed with Tubes.

Tubes to the right of them, Tubes to the left of them, Tubes in front of them, Volley’d and thundered!

But the Select Committees fared worse, the task before them being even more arduous. There were promoters who sought for powers to construct Tubes to cross and recross proposed and existing lines, and even to bore parallel with others, while some wanted to create isolated and disconnected sections, leading apparently nowhere. Petitions and protests against the various schemes poured in from innumerable sources; from every quarter petitions in favour were also laid down at their feet. Truly, the members of the Committees found that of making many Tubes (as of books) there was no end, and that much railway promoting was a weariness of the flesh.

Long and loud waged the conflict of the various aspirants to bore through the foundations of London. The smaller promoters’ attention finally became fixed upon the financial and legislative duel of two magnates, each representing a similar and important scheme for joining together the existing unlinked metropolitan tube lines.

It was as if through some narrow gorge leading to desirable pasturage, the smaller denizens of wood and forest tumultuously endeavoured to force a passage, and falling out by the way, their strife was suddenly arrested to watch the single combat of two rival antlered monarchs of the glen, who fought to the death to obtain the sole right of way.

Out of the Parliamentary hurly-burly emerged triumphant the well-known Yerkes group with its comprehensive scheme (the first in the list given below) the only very important one sanctioned.

Thus closed the session of 1902, and in the Railway Committee Rooms, for a time at least, the

“Fiery fight is heard no more, And the storm has ceased to blow.”

The following Tube Railways were authorised:--Brompton and Piccadilly Circus Railway (Acts 1897, 1899, 1902), that of 1902 authorising _inter alia_ its amalgamation with the Great Northern and Strand. The Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway to be continued to Edgware by a previously authorised line (Acts 1893 to 1900 and 1902). The City and Brixton Railway, to cross the Thames independently of the City and South London Tube, and to have stations at St. George’s Circus, Southwark, and at Kennington Oval (Act 1897), with a new City station communicating with the South London Railway (electric). The Great Northern and City Railway, Finsbury Park to the Bank. The Metropolitan District Railway (Act 1897), a Deep-level Electric to work with the Brompton and Piccadilly Tube. The North West London Railway (Act 1899) from the Marble Arch to Cricklewood.

THE ROYAL COMMISSION

For some time past it had been made clear that no Select Committee of the Houses of Parliament, however efficient, could be expected to cope with the problem of metropolitan combined tubes, tramways and vehicular street traffic; and in view of the probability of other Tube Bills being promoted during the session of 1903, it was strongly urged upon the Government to consent to a Royal Commission on the matter.

So, before the meeting of this year’s Parliament, a Royal Commission was appointed with a most comprehensive programme of arduous work.

General satisfaction seems to have been expressed with the composition of the Commission. No better chairman could have been found than Sir David M. Barbour, whose acquaintance with official inquiries is probably greater than that of anyone else in Great Britain, he having been associated with several Royal Commissions. Special knowledge bearing on the peculiar problems to be solved, characterises most of the members. Sir John Wolfe Barry is perhaps the best-known consulting railway engineer in the country, having acted in this capacity to many of the leading railway companies, and, in 1901, having taken part in the inquiry respecting vibration on tube railways. Sir George Trout Bartley has represented North Islington in the House of Commons for nearly eighteen years, and from lifelong residence in London has a wide knowledge of its needs. Earl Cawdor has been Chairman of the Great Western Railway for the last eight years. Viscount Cobham has been a Railway Commissioner since 1891, and prior to that, was temporarily Deputy-Chairman of the Great Western Railway. Sir Joseph Dimsdale, being a banker, has had wide experience as a financier. Ex-Lord Mayor, and City Chamberlain, he represents in the House of Commons the City of London, which is vitally concerned in the question of efficient transit. Mr. G. S. Gibb, the General Manager of the North Eastern Railway for the past twelve years, is a railway expert of great experience. As Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade, Sir Francis J. S. Hopwood has a specially trained mind, and an intimate acquaintance with railway matters, having been formerly Secretary of the Railway Department. Mr. C. S. Murdoch, C.B., has been for many years in the Government service, and has acted, since 1896, as Assistant Under-Secretary of the Home Department. Sir John P. Dickson-Poynder is a member for the Chippenham Division of Wiltshire, and represents St. George’s, Hanover Square, at the County Council. Sir Robert T. Reid, K.C., member for Dumfries since 1886, was Attorney-General in the last Liberal Government, and may be regarded as the official representative of the Opposition on the Commission. Lord Ribblesdale, a member of the London County Council, was Chairman of the Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons on Tube Railways in 1901.

Soon after the appointment of the Commission it was suggested that the labour would be considerably lightened if the subject of pedestrian and vehicular traffic included in their programme were eliminated or, at any rate, indefinitely postponed, and attention concentrated upon Tubes and Railways, making--as they have the power to do--an interim report; and thus avert disastrous delay in the realisation of the Tube Schemes before the Parliament of 1903.

Early in the session a somewhat significant announcement was made in the House of Commons, in reference to these schemes; only two of which were very important, viz., the Central London’s proposal to complete the circle; and the North-East London Railway scheme, which (if passed) will embrace twenty-two miles--nine being in tubes--tapping the traffic between the City and Leyton and Walthamstow, whose combined population is over two hundred thousand people.

The following is the statement made on the 2nd of March by Mr. Jeffreys, as Deputy-Chairman of Committees, who said he had had the advantage of a conference with the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords and the President of the Board of Trade, and they had come to the conclusion that certain of the bills connected with London traffic ought to be postponed until the result of the Commission dealing with this matter had been reported. The deep-level railways which they thought ought to await the completion of this inquiry were the Central London Railway; Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton (New Lines and Extensions) Bill; North-West London (Marble Arch to Victoria) Railway Bill; Clapham Junction to Marble Arch Railway (Nos. 1 and 2) Bill; Metropolitan District Railway Works Bill. There were certain other Bills which they thought might go to Committees, viz.: Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill; Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway (Various Powers) Bill; Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Transfer Bill; and the City and North-East Suburban Electric Railway Bill.

There were, besides, certain other railway measures which were doubtful, and these, they thought, ought to be held over until the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, the President of the Board of Trade, and himself had considered them. These Bills were the City and South London Railway (Angel and Islington) Bill, and the Metropolitan District Railway (Various Powers Bill).

But the Royal Commission is, after all, only a temporary expedient; and the question remains, as to what shall be the Governing Power of London’s railway traffic; for it must be taken for granted that both the City Corporation and the London County Council frankly admit that the underground locomotion of the metropolis has become so complicated that the general supervision of some great public department is necessary. Is it to be the London County Council, the Board of Trade, some new body resembling the Light Railways Commission, or a joint committee of members of both Houses of Parliament, appointed each session, to consider all questions affecting locomotion in or near London?

Here we are reminded that the London County Council has been considering whether or not to apply for parliamentary powers to take over the burden of linking together the various districts of London by a series of tubes. A colossal undertaking, involving, it is said, a capital of fifty millions!

Whether it be advisable for the Council, in addition to its other heavy responsibilities, to extend its municipal trading on so vast a scale, is doubtful; for it has the ratepayers to consider.

If it be the fact that mercantile enterprise cannot grapple with the task, then there would be good and sufficient reason for the Council or the Government to attempt it. But private capital is generally obtainable for a really promising scheme.

Besides, such gigantic undertakings obviously require men of good business capacity and considerable railway experience to devote their time exclusively to the work. One would think that county councillors (as such), efficient as they may be, have already as much work as they can readily get through, from one week’s end to another.