I was in Berlin recently and of course took some time to admire the new
Hauptbahnhof. Reading up about it, I discovered that pre-WW2, Berlin
had the same situation as London regarding mainline termini, i.e. a
number of them in a circle around the city, depending on which part of
the country you were travelling to. As part of reunification, a
decision was made to build a Berlin Hauptbahnhof where all mainline
trains to the city would halt.

My question is, was something similar ever considered for London in the
immediate postwar period? The area where the Barbican now is was
flattened, so would it have been possible for the lines from Euston,
King's Cross/St Pancras, Moorgate, Fenchurch Street, Cannon
Street/London Bridge and Waterloo to have been extended somehow to
build a London "Hauptbahnhof" on a site in that area? I know it would
have left out Victoria & Paddington, and would have meant a lot of
demolition, but the postwar nationalisation period would seem to have
been the natural time for such a big project if the idea were ever
mooted.

Patrick

In message . com,
writes

My question is, was something similar ever considered for London in the
immediate postwar period? The area where the Barbican now is was
flattened, so would it have been possible for the lines from Euston,
King's Cross/St Pancras, Moorgate, Fenchurch Street, Cannon
Street/London Bridge and Waterloo to have been extended somehow to
build a London "Hauptbahnhof" on a site in that area?

One of the loopier (literally) ideas emanating out of County Hall was
the LCC's post-war plan (concocted in 1943) for four mainline railway
loops in deep-level tunnels that would link existing terminii.

One (starting from Bermondsey) passed through London Bridge and
Waterloo, then crossed the Thames beneath Westminster Bridge and
returned through Charing Cross, Blackfriars, Cannon Street and back out
round to London Bridge.

Another ran roughly under the N, E and S parts of the Circle line - but
when it got to Victoria cut straight up under Hyde Park to get to
Paddington.

The other two linked various parts of these two main loops.

So, not one central station - but a scheme that would have been at least
as costly!

--
Paul Terry

wrote:
I was in Berlin recently and of course took some time to admire the new
Hauptbahnhof. Reading up about it, I discovered that pre-WW2, Berlin
had the same situation as London regarding mainline termini, i.e. a
number of them in a circle around the city, depending on which part of
the country you were travelling to. As part of reunification, a
decision was made to build a Berlin Hauptbahnhof where all mainline
trains to the city would halt.

My question is, was something similar ever considered for London in the
immediate postwar period? The area where the Barbican now is was
flattened, so would it have been possible for the lines from Euston,
King's Cross/St Pancras, Moorgate, Fenchurch Street, Cannon
Street/London Bridge and Waterloo to have been extended somehow to
build a London "Hauptbahnhof" on a site in that area? I know it would
have left out Victoria & Paddington, and would have meant a lot of
demolition, but the postwar nationalisation period would seem to have
been the natural time for such a big project if the idea were ever
mooted.

Euston, Kings Cross, Paddington, Waterloo, Liverpool Street and
Marylebone all have direct links to Oxford Circus via one of the 3
lines that uses that station. Although Moorgate doesn't, you can alight
either at Kings Cross or Highbury & Islington (or Finsbury Park) from
any of the mainline trains before it reaches that station so you can
get to Oxford Circus that way.

London Bridge is not a terminus.

That leaves only Cannon Street and Fenchurch Street lacking the direct
link.

Perhaps now there's a congestion charge and internet shopping and all
the shops in Oxford Street are doing so badly, we should bulldoze is
all down to make that the common London terminus then?

(Of course Smithfield might make a more sensible location, do we really
need a meat market there?)

On 24 Oct 2006 08:40:15 -0700, Earl Purple wrote:

London Bridge is not a terminus.

In the same way that Paddington isn't a terminus?

I think that there was a suggestion, round about 1870, that
Farringdon be such a thing. Didn't the Circle Line have broad gauge
tracks, as well as standard, at one time?

The only thing I remember about the Abercrombie plan of 1943 was that
it proposed to abolish Waterloo.

I liked its plan to have aeroplane landing strips on the roof of all
the main line terminals, for the taxi planes bringing people into
town from the long-haul airports.

Jeremy Parker

i don't see the point in this. There is so much congestion on stations
already that we should work on actually spreading people around more
stations, not trying to centralise it. As long as the termini are
interconnected I think you're fine. And of course Crossrail schemes can
help with that as well.

asdf wrote:
On 24 Oct 2006 08:40:15 -0700, Earl Purple wrote:

London Bridge is not a terminus.

In the same way that Paddington isn't a terminus?

No.

sweek wrote:
i don't see the point in this. There is so much congestion on stations
already that we should work on actually spreading people around more
stations, not trying to centralise it. As long as the termini are
interconnected I think you're fine. And of course Crossrail schemes
can help with that as well.

Actually, it's best if all main lines passed through London, and all lines
interchanged with each other and with all tube lines, but not too many lines
interchanging at the same station. That way a terrorist strike on a single
station causes minimal disruption. A single London Central station has no
benefits and huge disbenefits.

Earl Purple wrote:

London Bridge is not a terminus.

Yes it is - it just isn't a terminus for every service that uses it,
same as Blackfriars.

--

Stephen

The Doctor: Must be a spatial temporal hyperlink.
Mickey: What's that?
The Doctor: No idea. Just made it up. Didn't want to say 'magic door'.

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, John Rowland wrote:

sweek wrote:

i don't see the point in this. There is so much congestion on stations
already that we should work on actually spreading people around more
stations, not trying to centralise it. As long as the termini are
interconnected I think you're fine. And of course Crossrail schemes can
help with that as well.

Actually, it's best if all main lines passed through London, and all
lines interchanged with each other and with all tube lines, but not too
many lines interchanging at the same station.

Right - this spreads interchange out, rather than having massive traffic
in a small number of places.

That way a terrorist strike on a single station causes minimal
disruption.

John, are you seriously suggesting we plan transport infrastructure around
terrorism? Have you been completely taken in by what the government's told
you in the papers?

A single London Central station has no benefits and huge disbenefits.

I'd say 'no benefits' is a bit harsh: it would be much cheaper to build
one Great Central Station than N-squared mini-interchanges. I reckon it'd
make sense to handle the long-distance lines like this, but to put the
suburban lines into a system like you describe, RER style.

IIRC, there were moves to build something like a London Central in the
Victorian era, but they were blocked by parliament, who didn't like the
idea of smelly steam trains rushing around in their beautiful city.

tom

--
see im down wid yo sci fi crew