In article , John Youles
writes
In the 19th century the railway companies made a plan to
have a huge central London station, but Parliament stepped in and
forced them to stop at the edge of the city centre and join them
all using the circel line. It would be a very different London
today if that had not happened. Would it have been better? An
interesting question!.

Fascinating ! Would you happen to know any books, websites etc. on
the subject please ?

The above isn't quite right though it grasps many of the essentials.

There were many proposals for a central London interchange/terminus.
However, Parliament refused to allow railways to enter from the north
nearer than the "New Road", which is why Paddington, Euston, King's
Cross, St.Pancras, and Liverpool Street are where they are. The lines
from the south were given more leeway.

The Metropolitan was conceived as a way to link all these stations and
lines, at the same time carrying passenger and goods trains from the
first four to the City. The Euston link never happened, but the others
all did. Permission was granted to link the LC&DR in from Blackfriars as
well, forming what is now Thameslink.

The District (and later the Inner Circle) was based on a later proposal
to extend the Metropolitan south from Paddington and then east along the
north bank of the Thames to Liverpool Street to link the southern
termini into the Metropolitan (though with no connecting tracks).

--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address