London Banter - View Single Post

Robert Doyle · February 24th 04, 12:31 PM posted to uk.transport.london

(m.scharwies) wrote in message . com...
"Edward Cowling" wrote in message ...
"The Only Living Boy in New Cross" wrote in
message
m...
One of the commonest explanations you hear for the lack of tube lines
south of the river is that the soil is unsuitable for the tunnelling
equipment in use in the early years of the 20th century. If that's
the case, though, how did the Morden end of the Northern Line get
built?

Nasty how it sounds there may be a grain of salt in it. I don't recall
the author, but Metroland (the suburbs to the northwest) were quite
posh and could afford tube fares whereas the more proletarian southern
suburbs weren't as intersting for tube intvestors.
Matthias Scharwies

i)There was a better network of overground suburban rail services
across South London. These saw early electrification (The London
Brighton and South Coast Railway's lines had overhead electrification
before WW1 on the services on lines between Victoria, London Bridge
and Crystal Palace).

ii)Effective lobbying by the Southern Railway halted some tube plans
before they reached Parliament.

iii)The railway companies, took on the same role in promoting suburban
house building [in what are now the outer London boroughs/Surrey
hills]to develop additional commuter traffic that the Metropolitan
Railway did north of the river. It's just that they didn't market it
with a single "Metroland" identity that is still reproduced in
posters.