South London has many transport options, none of them good. For the real fun, try going from SE London to SW London... Make sure you have a couple of days to spare.
@@fiddley that is crazy lol, but when I think of the train journey if you mess up catching the overground train at Clapham Junction you're in for a world of pain lol I joke with my sister I can get to the bank faster at clapham common than at Brixton from Peckham even though Brixtion is significantly closer due to the idiosyncrasies of South London train transportation. If there's one thing us south Londoners know it's the train timetable! Imagine showing up to a station without a clue in the world when the train is coming must be a north of the river thing
Thanks Jago. You are a star. Contrary to my youtube name, I too live south of the river. Getting home after late nights out turn into very Heath Robinson affairs. Tube, train, bus and walks over Thames footbridges accompanied only by the sound of hooting owls. Now if only South West Railway could be persuaded to run a night train service. I won't hold my breath on that one.
@@highpath4776 au contraire, the introduction of bus lanes and increased night buses have made the service far more accessible and in fact a lot quicker. Credit where credit is due. TFL have done well there
@@mushy3424 they were quicker(ish) , most do a convoulted route from Trafalgar Square to Elephant , (well the one I need does), it used to be quickish M-Thurs but the narrowing of carriageway has slowed the journey down slightly)
My grandfather lived in Camberwell. Once whilst digging in his vegetable patch he uncovered a sea shell and when he put it to his ear he swore he could hear a Bakerloo line train coming.
South London has lots of railways but they are an absolute mess to navigate (because of the history of inter-railway competition); the infrastructure is all there but it could really do with service simplification to get that tube-like ease of use
I'm thinking of a new devision of TfL, or a new company using the same strategies as TfL, maybe called TfL Rail (after crossrail opens), which would start to absorb all the metro services. Maybe it could use the same blue currently used for the current tfl rail?
The biggest problem living south of the river without tube lines, is that you can't get to other parts of central London without changing at Victoria, Charing Cross, Waterloo, London Bridge, Cannon Street etc. Which means a lot of walking through tunnels to the Underground, getting a taxi, queuing for the bus (or even walking to your final destination). Thus, there is a good case for extending tube lines out onto the railway lines in south London.
You must be new because when I used to get to Norwood / Croydon / Brixton or Streatham. Easy. Brixton (Victoria Line, Northern Line, District Line, South west; to get toStreatham (either 109,133). To get to Norwood, now you’vr got Overground, as well as Croydon. Thameslink now is much better can even get to Bedford / Nottingham simple. Before the Overground, it was hard. Now you change at Highbury, train to New Cross / West Croydon. But i’ve been in London 34 years. South was never an issue, it’s all about timing, which connection. If you live in the out lying Surrey areas then yes, but still. The connections are there. Just need fi find dem. When the overground opened it then slowly linked up Croydon with Peckham. Dalston Junction was pointless so now with Highbury & Islington and connections to Willesden. You can reach anywhere.
It's because in North London we have little blue plaques saying "Somebody famous lived here" and in South London you have big yellow signs saying "Did you witness this murder?"
There are a decent amount of stations in South London even if they're served by rail rather than underground. What we're missing is an "across" line that works like the central line linking east to west. Currently you have to go to London Bridge, which adds a huge amount of time to the journey. If you could get a line that links somewhere like Dartford to Twickenham with stops in the middle that would be great. Also I get that this video is about underground lines and the cells, but also the oyster zone spreads a lot further into the north, east and west of London and into the surrounding counties. It doesn't quite do the same in the Southeast especially which can be fruatrating. Any idea why that is?
I have heard that the Battersea Power Station extension of the Northern part Line may extend to Clapham Junction in the future, but I don’t see how they would do it.
@@OhSome1HasThisName Mostly, and only, because Wimbledon is full up and cannot process more trams - though I keep asking for the 7.5min service to run in the evenings too.
Yes, could be done. Morden is pretty close to a rail line that goes to Sutton and could head on down to Epsom downs fairly easily. (I used to live in Belmont!) There was also talk of extending the trams to Sutton too.... and they could also utilise the line to Epsom Downs.
Thank you great video! I've lived in both sides of the Thames and now reside near Crystal Palace and have always been amazed that no Tube exists between London and Croydon. The Overground is not an adequate substitute and the Tram is a local affair. The joy of a tube arriving every three or four minutes at Norwood Junction will remain a dream forever I fear :(
Growing up in south east London in the 60s and 70s where there was no underground apart from new cross (+gate) it was obvious to me that LT, as was, needed the space on the map for the index/key/legend!
So the reason The Krays never ventured into South London was not because of the vicious reputation of The Richardson gang but because they could not get the tube
I've moved from central London to South London recently and the difference is stark. It takes ages to get anywhere now. Walking to the train station, waiting for the train and swapping to the tube lines in Victoria. Before it was a quick five mins walk to a tube station and I could be wherever I wanted in 15-30 mins.
Verney Junction was named after Sir Harry Verney who was not only the chairman of the Aylesbury and Buckingham Railway Company but also lived at Claydon House. The railway station was built within the parish of Middle Clayton which was part of his family's estate so in my opinion it is an appropriate name and not simply due to his position as chairman of the company.
Until watching this video I hadn't given a thought to the origin of the name Verney Jnct - I just assumed it was a local name. One of the things I've learnt. Most grateful.
Verney have been a local family for centuries. They owned much of the land nearby. Verney junction was planned to be a major interchange with three lines, including the Varsity, Aylesbury and North Buckingham lines. It predated the underground expansion.
The Bakerloo Line extension, should it ever happen, would be a piece of p!ss to run from Lewisham to Hayes. It's crying out to be made a tube line. It's a scabby branch line currently run by Southeastern (well , not any more since they got caught with their hands in the till, but I digress). Change the signals, change the signage, et voila. It won't happen in my lifetime though. Because Bromley Council. In Bromley, the car is king. In Bromley, people go into a cold sweat at the sight of a TfL roundel because they like to think they are in Kent. They haven't been since 1965, but hey. Putting roundels up on those stations on the Hayes Line would have the local pitchfork wielders out, ready to repel invaders from "the Sharm". Of course, the trains already run that way, but if you had 12 per hour that's a different matter. Actually, I reckon that's what's really at the heart of it. The councillors for West Wickham and Hayes don't fancy 12 trains an hour in each direction going past the end of their gardens while they're having a Pimms in their sex ponds on a balmy summer evening. One could, of course, point out the impact of having a tube line nearby on local house prices... But that doesn't seem to wash. It may happen one day. Not in my lifetime though.
The problem of getting Tube lines south of the Thames is there is nobody at the Top 0f the Underground like Yerkes with both hands and feet in the till and looking for new investors
I've lived half my life in Bromley having settled here in 1985 and I assure you I don't think of it as Kent, though had I lived here all my life perhaps I would
Jago: "...but that's a whole other story..." Me: "Wonderful, can't wait to hear about it!" Geoff Marshall: "Actually, everything's 15 storeys..." Me: "Wonderful, can't wait to hear about it!"
Thanks Jago for another slice of history. I had always assumed South London didn't get much tube love due to the soil. Glad you pointed out the other reasons.Before the night busses were a thing I used to hate going south from Muswell Hill to see people because I would have to cut the time short before heading home. --- Yes I know I'm showing my age !
Jago didnt mention - and I asked Geoff Marshall too - to consider the length of national rail (south of the river) that runs in tunnels/ underground. There is quite a bit - mainly around the hill that Crystal Palace sat on.
If the Northern Heights extension to Alexander Palace was completed, you could have got a Northern line tube train from Muswell Hill station to take you to South London.
I think the best method of giving South and SE London "tube" lines would be to convert existing commuter routes into something similar to London Overground or Tfl Rail. I believe this is the other option for adding places like Hayes and Beckenham Junction to the tube network which seems way more realistic tbh but it just depends on whether the government will allow it.
That's exactly what the government wants to do by turning NR into GBR - "franchises" will become "concessions" (as in LO). But ideally Greater London railways need to be managed by TfL - London Overground would hopefully take over the northern sections of Southeastern (e.g. to Orpington and Sevenoaks) and other routes. This way there would be a direct connection, operational consistency and reliable performance regime.
As someone who's lived in the SE London, I wondered this every day! We aren't even getting the bakerloo line we were promised, not until i'm too older anyway :(
Growing up in south west London, I was used to railway stations everywhere. It came as a surprise to discover how relatively few there are on this side of the Thames. Separately, again when I was a boy, I understood that the R Effra was a significant obstacle to underground lines south of Brixton?
I was aware/under the impression that the geology of the ground south of the river had issues regarding the viability and cost of digging into sandy earth, so you could happily say it's a bit of a 'boring' topic. I'll get me coat. Again.
Surely topography was crucial. North London is hilly. Not enough to hinder urban development, but enough to hinder the kind of dense surface-rail network needed to serve it.
The surface rail network was possibly more extensive than you may think, as many of the tube extensions to North London were, with a few exceptions, over the existing lines of the railway companies-LNER, LMS and GWR. It is a pity that the Alexandra Palace branch was not completed as that would likely have covered some of the area where TfL want Crossrail 2. I could have walked there, but had to get a bus to either Highgate or Bounds Green in order to catch a tube. I did sometimes walk to New Southgate & Friern Barnet station (now just New Southgate) for the main line, which is the intended terminus of Crossrail 2. The Piccadilly line extension to Cockfosters, as an exception, was a new route mostly on the surface but had to bore under Old Southgate before re-emerging on the surface, so that bit of topography was not ideal for a surface line.
Hey, I'd have no issue using trains, if there were about double the numbers there are now running! :-) The wait can be tedious indeed, rather than the knowledge that there will almost certainly be another tube along in 2-3 minutes.
Of course a problem from the competing lines. So catford gets every 30 mins, and catford bridge every 30 and you walk between them to find the next train or give up and get the bus.
So take the Hays Branch (though catford) TfL keep asking to take it over and put down but in order to do so they would have to kick the one per 30 minuet delayed (at/near Lewisham) South Eastern trains off, on account of the never running on time (because of the bottle necks at London Bridge and Lewisham) This would let you have 12 to18 trains (so 3 to 5 minuet headway (Bakerloo line proposal Oct19 TfL)) from Hays that could go to the Bakerloo (runing though Westminster and 4 main line Terminus) or the DLR (to Canary Wharf and Bank) but LB Bromley kick up a fuss about having to change to get to London Bridge (DLR proposal wich would have been 12 trains to Bank)
@@hens0w @jago, this proposal seems to have legs (so to speak as it went thru Catford)(sorry very bad pun). Have you done a vlog on this? It seems to be a good way to extend the Bakerloo to the south.
Thinking about it, I think the over abundance of mainline commuter services kinda undermined the need for underground lines south of the Thames. Just going back before 1948, there was the Southern Electric suburban network, the electrified Brighton line, and the line to Portsmouth. Sure they weren’t underground, but they were still electric. Clean and fast trains, just as the deep level lines were promoting. I think the only non-LT railway prior to WWII that had an electric London commuter service was the LNWR and later LMS
If you look at South London then only a handful of peripheral branches (eg Chessington, Tattenham Corner, Wimbledon-Sutton) opened after about 1890, so there just wasn't the same need or opportunity for new Underground lines. Why North London was relatively poorly served by the early railways is a different question.
@@stevieinselby I'd say it links to the aforementioned land value. More expensive land would mean it is more expensive to build a railway in the north.
Exactly, and even the LNWR/LMS electric service to Watford Junction was shared with the Bakerloo until 1982. Partly due to 1930s rebates of Rail Passenger Duty by the Government if railways invested the money saved. The Southern spent theirs on electrification, the others on signalling etc. So the LNER suburban lines remained steam-worked and they were glad to hand some over to LT under the New Works Programme. I lived in Portsmouth for years and my Dad never bothered buying a car - buses in the city and trains further afield got us everywhere we wanted to go. I soon discovered this didn't work elsewhere, even in Oxfordshire and Hertfordshire, let alone further out.
@@stevieinselby In fact, looking at a map, the density was not that different. But they got neglected in the 20th century, some closed (Ally Pally, Palace Gates), some went to LT, some were main lines. The Blackwall and Hackney lines succumbed to tram competition but then made a 21st century comeback with DLR and Overground.
The Bakerloo needs to be extended. It's a no-brainer. If a full extension to Hayes via Lewisham happens, ill happily pay a slightly higher tax/fare for benefit of those areas, even though I live nowhere near any of the preposed stations! another great in-depth video though, really enjoyed this one
As a near end of line Hayes line resident, I'm worried that the added old kent road and elephant and castle stations would make my commute even longer! Also don't want to lose the direct cannon st line. I think the extension to lewisham would be really good though. The extension needs to be fast enough that getting to charing cross doesn't take the 48 minutes it already does even with the added stops.
But why? Sure to Old Kent Rd it will be very good for the residents there to have a local station but anything beyond is already served. There is already a train line that goes to Hayes. I don't see the fuss about having the tube there, south London already has plenty of railways.
@@jeff4362 Seriously? The tube brings growth. Hayes station is falling apart, tfl would invest in all of it greatly, it would boost passengers on the line e.c.t
@@Southlondonrider92 More like because it will cause more congestion, gridlock and pollution. Everywhere you put a translation you might as well have three slip fulls of rubbish dumped there every week. Stations are outright disgusting awful placez
I go through Verney Junction from time to time and I always thought it was rather cool that the Metropolitan Railway reached all the way out to meet the LNWR in deepest Buckinghamshire. These days the branches to Baker Street and Buckingham are mostly occupied by cows but the main line should be open Real Soon Now.
I grew up in Croydon and didn't miss the Tube. East Croydon has a fast train service to central London; you don't get that on any of the Underground lines except the Metropolitan. Who would prefer a long, dark, noisy, slow journey to that? By the way, I'm pretty sure that when lines passed under properties, they would have to pay a fee (wayleaves) to the owners, which is why most deep Tube lines follow streets.
I live in the South of London and my commute brings me to Central London daily, yet I live within walking distance of 2 train stations but not any tube stations. It's honestly a pain in the ass due to the long wait times for trains compared to the constant train departures of the Victoria Line. If I miss my train it's a 45minute wait for the next at one train station or around 20minutes at the other. Sometimes I travel to the East of London just to get to the Tube in Central London.
Very interesting. I remember reading an article or watching a video about it that basically said that the soil type was just not suitable - like you said toward the end. But you gave many more reasons I didn't know!
@@paulchoccyt1303 Well, in the light of the Battersea Power Station extension, thoughts turn once more to the splitting of the Northern Line (two branches through central London makes it particularly confusing for visitors) So the BPS branch stays as the Northern Line and the Morden branch... the Southern Line obvs! 😉
Being a Norf Londoner (Holloway) I always thought it was normal to walk short distances to a tube station. Travelling north, south east or west never seemed a problem. Now with much more integration between public transport, using it south of the river is no longer such an issue. I still get a little frustrated when in Wandsworth though.
Fascinating video as always! It is interesting to see how a city's growth progression leads to distinct differences like this for one reason or another. I see that a map of London from 1800 has very limited urban area south of the Thames but by 1900 both the North and South in terms of scale anyway, look pretty well even.
2:52 Someone really needs to get a pot of green Hammerite (other brands may be available?) on the corner of that bridge. I've noticed it before. And yes, I thought the problem was mostly related to the geology, with the material for digging through being much more tricky south of the river. But I suspect it's mostly the economics, land in south London being much cheaper, and even viaducts being much cheaper the tunnels.
Like Jago said, the geology contributed to the economics of the lines. That said, in light of the New Works Program taking over several formerly private northern lines, has anyone ever suggested some southern rail lines being taken over by the Tube?
Those 19th century engravings of London having tube lines installed look like an even worse version of the streets of Edinburgh when they were laying their new tram. It must have been hellish. Glad to see your acknowledgement of a really interesting question. Not at all boring. Ever.
Sounds absolutely right, apparently there was a huge amount of disruption and opposition. Which was why after the Met, District and Circle lines were built in the 1860s to 1880s, no more cut-and-cover lines were constructed at all.
Interestingly, if you make the dividing line the Central Line (as it runs through the centre of the City), you get 108 stations north of it and 110 south, which is pretty even!
Thank you for this video. I knew about the geological reasoning behind the lack of tubes south of the river but very little of the history. It’s interested me for years and I’ve always meant to research it but never got around to it. You’ve done that for me now and it was very fascinating.
North of London lines weren't just interested in freight, they wanted long distance passengers (ideally first class and not suburban hoi polloi) which option was really not available south of the river (due to the Channel!)
Other soils types are available namely; blackheath beds ( nightmare soil, round pebbles mixed with a fine silt that is like concrete when compacted, historically a riverbed soil) , flint and clay for 'southeastern' unlike 'southern with their alkaline chalk/flint soils. Joking aside, a very good point concerning tunnelling.
As a person who lives in South London, I have to say that the regularity of the Tube and railway trains are incomparable... There is a tube every 3-4 minutes, but only 2-8 trains in an hour - depending on how close the station is to Central. On a map the lines looks evenly distributed, but if you consider the time it takes to get around in the North compared to in the South, the difference is still big. I feel like this is something you didn't mention in this video.
I was in London maybe 5 years before I discovered the regular rail stuff and ventured south, I spent another 5 years exploring these places. There really is a 2nd half to the city! Very little of it is historical in the well known sense but I loved visiting places like Crystal Palace and Bermondsey (especially the beer crawl via the breweries under the ever-increasingly wide viaducts leading into London Bridge)
Fantastic information as always. 5:09 signs are located in the Buckinghamshire railway centre in Quainton, well worth a visit lots of underground relics to see there.
Good stuff Jago, quiet balanced for a south Londoner and glad that most of the facts of geology , surface lines , trams and railway politics listed . Most manufacturing and labour requirements took place north of the river , with the exceptions of the Woolwich Arsenal and some ribbons of manufacturing to the South West of the City, with surface lines coming into London Bridge , Cannon St , Blackfriars , Victoria and Waterloo connected by the Drain. All the North London termini north of the New Road could only really be connected by in Underground. The real issue is East - West. This has only recently been corrected with the DRL Jubilee line extension and the growth of well managed Overground lines in the North East . the debate North South, will continue , but in terms of cultural and sporting hubs , most are clearly North of the river , unless you don't take into account the South Bank complex and Greenwich. Much as I love the Elephant and Clapham , they are hardly destinations .
The Crystal Palace was a South-side cultural and sporting hub for the best part of 80 years, well served by railways (partly underground, as someone above said, but not Underground).
I tend to find that the national rail north of london does not really want commuters ( maybe with the exception of Potters Bar) , with dull ill lit stations and a lack of ticket staff etc. The southern stations are relatively open and welcoming ( compare Earlsfield with Upper Clapton say)
Slight correction, Jago. The early tube lines also followed the streets, as landowners used to own the land "all the way down" and would want compensation, much to Mr. Yerkes' displeasure. That explains the sharp curves on parts of the Central line. The law regarding that was changed (I don't know when) so that newer lines could be built under existing buildings. I don't know "how far down" I, a house owner, now own but suspect it isn't very far. I think part of the reason for the change in the law was to do with mining, oil and gas rights.
IANAL* (and I'm American), but I suspect property owners still _do_ own their land "all the way down". It's just laws have been passed to allow easements for underground utilities and subway tunnels. Especially if they're deep enough to avoid disturbing foundations and such. *edit: I Am Not A Lawyer
One of the early hurdles of airplane traffic was the legal right to cross private land: landowners, obviously, had full rights to control trespassing on their land all the way up.
@@AaronOfMpls IANAL too, but in the UK, if you discover oil beneath your land, Clampits style, the oil doesn't belong to you, it belongs to the government.
I've been in South London for 25 years now and love it. The new tube stations Nine Elms and Battersea Power Station are a god send. Trying to get onto the Northern Line at Stockwell in the morning is a nightmare because it's packed solid from about 7.30 - 9am, but now I can walk to Nine Elms and get a seat each morning. Apparently they're going to extend the extension to Clapham Junction at some point too,
I'm not sure that would work as well as people might thing given how massively busy Clapham Junction already is. They'd need a massive station to handle all that traffic and it'd clog things up for the next few stations along the line. How it is now means people will jump on at different points rather than all in one spot. Now, if as part of that plan they also had other lines to take some of that mass of people and filter it all out more that would be a more ideal solution, though it'd cost a lot more and take much longer. I think that's kind of the long term plan though, but you know what government is like with long term phased plans lol.
@@TalesOfWar Yep, they'll drag it out in the most expensive way possible to ensure they get the most profit in their own pockets. If they do extend to the Junction, the northern line should come up to ground, like the District line in Richmond. That way they'll only need a new platform or 2. No stops inbetween, just direct from the Power Station to Clapham Junction. But then i know absolutely nothing about engineering, so that whole idea might be completely unfeasible!
Just an idea. There’s much murmuring afoot about the fact that thecNorthern Line stopped short of continuing its merry way to Clapham Jtn, for many of the passengers to disembark to the tube hence filling it to capacity before it had left its terminus. I had an idea and that was for it to loop back to Ballham joining with the existing Northern Line there and then having like a Heathrow loop on the northern line. This still leaves possible extensions to lines that run thru Clapham Jtn down the track. It was just a hairbrained scheme from some one who lives just outside Melbourne in Australia who doesn’t yet have a true metro. I can see some merrit in it though. I lived in London in its 1980s heydays. What fun they were!
Thing is Heathrow is pretty far from Morden which is the southern terminus of the Northern Line, about 14 miles roughly. So extending the line out there would take many many years. And then there's the issue of navigating the line around the Heathrow loops. In other words there would have to be an extremely high demand for it to be worth it. An extension to join the Morden branch sounds good though.
I remember after a night out I woke up at a bird's house in Lewisham, I woke her up to ask where was the nearest tube station and she just laughed and went back to sleep. after catching two buses to get to the nearest railway station i vowed to never leave north london hahah
The biggest problem in North London is the lack of west to east links. Most of the time, living in London, I would have to go into London and come back out in order to reach another destination that isn’t even too far away. Compared to South London, they don’t have this problem so much due to the trams and the extensive rail links that go somewhat east to west.
Mr H, another captivating and informative video. And as you can make tubes-n-trams in Sarf London sound entertaining, you are indeed a star. Thanks, Simon T
I never really thought about all the other services in South London even though I take them, I suppose depending where you live in south London, A DLR would be easier to take if your in Lewisham, Depford,or a Tram if you're in Croydon, Beckenham etc. some the overground while others a Tube if your in Bermondsey, Elephant & Castle, Oval, Clapham, Brixton etc.
North London railways frequently run in tunnels due to the height of the land South London trains run high up on embankments to keep them out of the south London marsh
Most of the southern bulwarks ran out into the thames as a set of marshy islands from the rivers running from the rising hills of the northern most downs
Not to mention the District Line heading East to Upminster where it connects with the GE line to Romford and the LT&S lines (Now C2C) to Shoeburyness, Grays and Tilbury while also providing the "suburban" part of the LT&S enabling 'express' services from Fenchurch St.
At last! I'd long heard an urban legend that there was once a plan for the Underground to reach Oxford and now the (distorted) truth behind the rumour is apparently revealed.
As a former Londoner, the capital is spoilt for choice. I spent most of my life living in the south west in Kingston/Surbiton/Wimbledon and now I live an hour out of the city I realise just how great the public transport in the city really was, even in the south west. For me, where I live, well I'm just hoping they bring back the peak time fast EMR to St Pancras.
Ive always thought it weird that the District Line goes OVER the Thames and stays above ground all the way to the terminus at Wimbledon. Yet is still "The Underground" :) Plus the added quirk.... that in East Putney, the underground railway crosses over the overground railway :D
Also worth remembering that when the Met opened most of London WAS North of the river. The city spread along railway lines in many cases.... A bit like the Met. Also, where there's no houses there's nothing to go under hence a surface (or in the case of the L&G) a raised railway!
Hey Jago, I have a question mostly related to lines in the north. As many were built by competing companies, there were many instances of places where there could have been interchanges, but the chance was lost. In particular on the North London Line/Overground which inconveniently floats slowly over a whole bunch of other lines without interchanges, but also in places near Bounds Green between the Great Northern and the Piccadilly. The question is... Are there any places where this could easily be fixed, and are there any areas where a bit more effort + money to create a more expensive interchange could be a good idea?
Very good point, and it's also true of South London. The "Gloucester Road" junction north of Croydon (not the Kensington one) would have made a good hub and effectively doubled the services on some routes. West Hampstead was under-utilised for years and even now lacks Chiltern Line platforms. Willesden Junction likewise; the removal of the through platforms was short-sighted. They could still be reinstated with an effort. The Hackney Downs / Hackney Central walkway was a useful step forward, as were Blackhorse Road improvements (it wasn't an interchange when the Victoria Line was first opened; BR re-sited their station in 1981).
I must admit, despite the visuals being rather incoherrent in this video. It was very enjoyable to see a bit of everything. Definitely would appreciate a few more videos like this covering in style and subject (in the sense of a broader question).
Just watching and listening again Jago, and I have to follow up my earlier comment from a few months back by adding that as well as having the pleasure of your videos, your knowledge is so encyclopaedic. Thanks very much again for another amazing video 📹 👏🏾⭐
A more coherent video then you give your self credit for. If I may suggest a topic for a video, There is a lot to take in on that Metropolitan logo. Surely there must be a story or 2 behind that. Keep up the good work!
It is all done with mirrors. The river is just a really shallow part of the ocean with fresh water. Nothing south of the river until you get to France.
Manchester had a far better idea. Rip up the old heavy rail lines and put down light rail tram lines instead. Instead of passenger traffic in the morning and evening travelling on worn out equipment, interspersed with the odd goods train. The lines have come back to life with regular tram services. What better way to recycle/reuse old routes.
Good to see Manchester outdoing London in both public and private transport. They also have a (relatively) proper orbital motorway while London has to stick with a very close-to-circle "C" shaped motorway.
Fun fact. The old lines weren't ripped out until very recently (I want to say 2010 or so when they were doing the last big line extension with new rolling stock). The original run from Bury to Manchester used the old track that was left over after the Beeching cuts as a cost saving measure, as a result they were rather wonky and not at all smooth lol. Central government decided they didn't want to pay for it any more quite late into the planning stage so a big chunk of funding vanished over night. Only Manchester and Bury councils put the money in so they had to make savings somewhere after Rochdale decided not to bother either. In hindsight, Rochdale fucked themselves royally by pulling out given the massive decline it went into in the early 90's (which really began in the 80's) and it hasn't really recovered from it. On the other hand, Bury and Manchester saw a massive boost in their economies thanks in no small part to the easy transport links they invested in. Rochdale got the trams 20 years later, far too late though sadly.
I am fascinated how much this mirrors my city Frankfurt for much different reasons. North of the river Main is a lot of U-Bahn, as a matter of fact the U-Bahn has only two stations south of the river, but the tram network is much more extensive south of the Main.
I visited London in 1978 and rode on the Piccadilly and District Lines. Back then, the District Line still used 1920s rolling stock with spur-cut bull and pinion gears, which sounded a lot like the prewar subway trains in New York.
Even later stock such as the A60/A62 and C69/C77 and the 1959 and 1962 tube stock sounded a lot like the older New York subway trains although not quite as loud as for example the IND R1-9 or the IRT Lo-V cars. The 1940 English Electric cars used on the Waterloo-Bank "drain" sounded like the older NY cars too.
South London as a whole is difficult to navigate, by rail. By Bus it is longer but there’s more buses in South London, the frequencies especially are better than North, or was. I think its an even keel now
Why did COVID put the Bakerloo Line extension on hold? In some other countries, the lack of traffic and other interference occasioned by the pandemic actually accelerated several rail capital projects.
I don't think there is a need to be politically hyper-partisan or to slag anyone off. Put simply, Covid increased council and government expenditure, but decreased their income, so they have to cut back on things a bit. It's the same as if a normal person has a rent increase at the same time as their wages are cut. They can sort of manage, but all spending on the non essentials has to be cut until things get back to normal.
@@Dave_Sisson There is also the possiblitly that Covid has changed how and where people work and have leisure interests such that the viability in the future is less (CR2 also impacted), unless the people of Bromley want large flatted residential developments in West Wickham to generate large passenger flows the nice to have line becomes the no one is using it one. Financial Funding - assuming no more pandemics in 100 years could be done with 40/50/80 year bonds at a notional 3percent return sold as Covid Recovery Bonds and London Transport Infrastructure Bonds one of which would pay for 600 flats on that Hayes Station Car Park site
@@highpath4776 Oh I agree that Covid has affected everything and the knock on effects are going to be very complex. It will be years before everything is clear. That's the point I was trying to make to the person who was using the pause to insult the government without any evidence. (BTW I've never voted Tory, but there's no excuse to make insulting stuff up.)
@@Dave_Sisson there are enough smoking guns, but as to if it was cock up (lack of planning by Govt in the past) , or conspiratorial opportunities , I have my way of concluding from the evidence thus far.
As ever, very enjoyable. Having decent rail connections is now bad thing. Chesham has two trains an hour to London taking around an hour to the city. My closest proper main line railway station (Redhill) has 4 trains an hour taking you to the city or west end in less than 40 minutes. Having a tube station isn’t the be all and end all when you are this far out!
There's another factor that's common in the U.S. and may be a factor in London. Neighborhoods, rich and poor, don't like above-ground trains. They're noisy and disrupt traffic. They prefer those lines to run underground. But while wealthy neighbors have the money and connections to drive surface transport underground, poor neighborhoods do not. Madrid has an interesting variation. On my first visit there, I thought the rail and subway system was insane. To get from a train station on the east side to the west side I had to walk about a mile from the subway to the station. Only on my second visit did I discover that the rail system had its own independent underground connecting just the rail stations. Crazy, but I guess it generated a lot of jobs.
I guess the question is rather, why weren't some of the railways in the South turned into underground lines? To Orpington, Croydon, Surbiton, Places like these.
When I visit my friend in Balham (Gateway to the South) If I was travelling south or out of town the railway is often better than the underground and the services are frequent on the railway. The journey to Huddersfield was Clapham Junction, Milton Keynes, Manchester, Huddersfield
I have also wondered about the lack of tube lines in south london thanks for filling me in. I'm from new cross (see 8:50 for new cross station) and originally there was a tube line with old tube stock that went up to white chapel and Shoreditch. This was extended down to crystal palace and west to clapham junction and replaced with the overground. New cross station is quite good for getting around London because the overground takes me to canada water where I can get the Jubilee line basically anywhere and whitechapel where I can get on the hammersmith and city line as well as the elizabeth line and the district line. The commuter trains (as mentioned in the video) that go through New Cross are very frequent (often more frequent than the overground service) and get to London Bridge and Cannon street in under 10 minutes.
You mention the New Works Northern Line extension. I've just acquired a book of photographs by Jim Blake - London's Railways 1967-1977, which covers some of the stations that were built and then abandoned. Looks like it could be an area ripe for exploration.
So, we're here because. If you look at the tube system, they ran from out-of-town to out-of-town, making turn-round a non-story. You have a terminus, and you've got to clear the passengers, get the driver to the other end, and load the next lot. That's why it's normally one service every half hour, not one every two-three minutes. The Northern Line even has a turning loop at Kennington. The Northern Piccadilly uses Arnos Grove, Oakwood, and Cockfosters as termini, with Oakwood being the depot.
Do we really need the tube in South London? The tube can be painfully slow, mainly because stations are usually spaced as close as half a mile apart, so you'd be doing quite well to average 20mph. To take the example of my local station (Purley) we have eight trains an hour to London, which is getting on for tube frequency, taking as little as 22 minutes for just over 13 miles, with just two or three stops and an average speed of close on 40mph, which is really flying by London standards. If there was a tube line to Purley, the journey would take around 40 minutes. And rather than the reasonable comfort of a spacious main line train, you'd be stuck in a ratty, bouncy little tube carriage for all that time.
LB Bromley, we want a high frequency tube service to central london, Also LB Bromley but not if we have to give up our delay ridden 2 train service to er southwark cathedral and a long bridge. you could give the Hays branch a mix of DLR (to Canary Wharf and Bank); and the Bakerloo (runing though Westminster and 4 main line Terminus) but the LB will object to having to change at Lewisham for what a cathedral and one office tower.
Agreed the hayes line can't just have the bakerloo alone, it would take over an hour to get to charing X! Interesting idea with the DLR, but I think extending the overground line from New Cross would make better local connections and an easier ride to the nightlife in Shoreditch which at the moment I have to avoid or crash at someone else's, and overall would be a shorter and less costly extension
Some of the modern bus routes are part of the original tram routes, which were switched to bus use after the old tram system was removed. The 18 bus route that originally went between Sudbury near Harrow through to London Bridge, but the bus route that replaced it was stopped first at Kings Cross and now Euston. Some parts of the modern tram system in the Croydon area use old rail track beds. So there's always changes of mind over transport facilities. An attempt was made after the Second World War to build a route across the top of London from North West to East, and all that's left of that is an abandon set of tunnels in North East London. Crossrail was first introduced as an idea, in the late 80s. I have advertising colouring book made to promote it, it's three times the size of the leaflet that advertised the final go ahead, a decade later. So clearly finances have always caused trouble with building a London transportation network.
![OsamaSon - ik what you did last summer [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4DIQDnu3mr4/mqdefault.jpg)
South London has many transport options, none of them good. For the real fun, try going from SE London to SW London... Make sure you have a couple of days to spare.
SE to SW train wise can be so awkward sometimes buses is faster than trains real pain in the backside
Battersea to Erith. No journey in London should be faster by car, but here we are.
@@Jablicek hopefully the London Overground expansion has helped things somewhat. SE London still criminally underserved/shut out mind you.
Earlsfield to Clapham Common, only 2.5 miles so almost next door to each other yet it's an eyewatering 40 minute journey. Slower than walking for me!
@@fiddley that is crazy lol, but when I think of the train journey if you mess up catching the overground train at Clapham Junction you're in for a world of pain lol
I joke with my sister I can get to the bank faster at clapham common than at Brixton from Peckham even though Brixtion is significantly closer due to the idiosyncrasies of South London train transportation.
If there's one thing us south Londoners know it's the train timetable! Imagine showing up to a station without a clue in the world when the train is coming must be a north of the river thing
Thanks Jago. You are a star. Contrary to my youtube name, I too live south of the river. Getting home after late nights out turn into very Heath Robinson affairs. Tube, train, bus and walks over Thames footbridges accompanied only by the sound of hooting owls. Now if only South West Railway could be persuaded to run a night train service. I won't hold my breath on that one.
I find the night buses generally were not much slower than the tubes/ trains (until TfL messed up roads for cycles and lights phasings)
@@highpath4776 au contraire, the introduction of bus lanes and increased night buses have made the service far more accessible and in fact a lot quicker. Credit where credit is due. TFL have done well there
@@mushy3424 they were quicker(ish) , most do a convoulted route from Trafalgar Square to Elephant , (well the one I need does), it used to be quickish M-Thurs but the narrowing of carriageway has slowed the journey down slightly)
@N17 are you from N17?
@@psalms519 I am not. The name is purely due to sporting affiliations.
My grandfather lived in Camberwell. Once whilst digging in his vegetable patch he uncovered a sea shell and when he put it to his ear he swore he could hear a Bakerloo line train coming.
South London has lots of railways but they are an absolute mess to navigate (because of the history of inter-railway competition); the infrastructure is all there but it could really do with service simplification to get that tube-like ease of use
Precisely. That’s why I’m looking forward to TfL’s plans to take over the lines and integrate them into London Overground.
@@KiranEvans and the best of luck to TfL in doing that
Also a service that's more frequent than every 15/30 mins.
Don’t live south of the river then 🤣 the cab drivers can’t all be wrong!
I'm thinking of a new devision of TfL, or a new company using the same strategies as TfL, maybe called TfL Rail (after crossrail opens), which would start to absorb all the metro services. Maybe it could use the same blue currently used for the current tfl rail?
The biggest problem living south of the river without tube lines, is that you can't get to other parts of central London without changing at Victoria, Charing Cross, Waterloo, London Bridge, Cannon Street etc. Which means a lot of walking through tunnels to the Underground, getting a taxi, queuing for the bus (or even walking to your final destination). Thus, there is a good case for extending tube lines out onto the railway lines in south London.
or putting those suburban railway services into new mainline tunnels, as Crossrail 2 would do with a hole bunch of the lines from SW into Waterloo
Excellent point!
And paying extra when you change from trains to underground
Maybe making it a part of the overground?
You must be new because when I used to get to Norwood / Croydon / Brixton or Streatham. Easy.
Brixton (Victoria Line, Northern Line, District Line, South west; to get toStreatham (either 109,133). To get to Norwood, now you’vr got Overground, as well as Croydon. Thameslink now is much better can even get to Bedford / Nottingham simple. Before the Overground, it was hard. Now you change at Highbury, train to New Cross / West Croydon. But i’ve been in London 34 years. South was never an issue, it’s all about timing, which connection. If you live in the out lying Surrey areas then yes, but still. The connections are there. Just need fi find dem.
When the overground opened it then slowly linked up Croydon with Peckham. Dalston Junction was pointless so now with Highbury & Islington and connections to Willesden. You can reach anywhere.
It's because in North London we have little blue plaques saying "Somebody famous lived here" and in South London you have big yellow signs saying "Did you witness this murder?"
Much lols much lols indeed you Toby
Honestly.
Christopher wren lived in Hampton right by the river
@@Genericuser_2 North thereof.
I think I just witnessed another murder.
There are a decent amount of stations in South London even if they're served by rail rather than underground. What we're missing is an "across" line that works like the central line linking east to west. Currently you have to go to London Bridge, which adds a huge amount of time to the journey. If you could get a line that links somewhere like Dartford to Twickenham with stops in the middle that would be great.
Also I get that this video is about underground lines and the cells, but also the oyster zone spreads a lot further into the north, east and west of London and into the surrounding counties. It doesn't quite do the same in the Southeast especially which can be fruatrating. Any idea why that is?
Pretty sure it's because of posh twats in places like epsom not wanting to be a part of London
I wouldn't mind the Northern Line extending to Sutton, they might even consider Terminating it at Epsom Downs (Hint Hint)
I have heard that the Battersea Power Station extension of the Northern part Line may extend to Clapham Junction in the future, but I don’t see how they would do it.
they're building a tram link to colliers wood instead - cheaper but far less useful :/
@@OhSome1HasThisName I never heard that, I only know about the extension since Battersea Power Station opened.
@@OhSome1HasThisName Mostly, and only, because Wimbledon is full up and cannot process more trams - though I keep asking for the 7.5min service to run in the evenings too.
Yes, could be done. Morden is pretty close to a rail line that goes to Sutton and could head on down to Epsom downs fairly easily. (I used to live in Belmont!) There was also talk of extending the trams to Sutton too.... and they could also utilise the line to Epsom Downs.
Why do people keep protesting to Noah Vale? He never does anything about it.
"Helen Waite is our credit manager. If you need credit, go to Helen Waite."
Your remark reminded me of that shop sign....
You mean No avail right?
@@drdewott9154 You just killed comedy. Well done
@@davidbull7210 shoot I only just now realise the pun and punchline. God being up this late and commenting was a mistake
@@drdewott9154 I sympathise. Same shit's happened to me. My excuse is alcohol.
Thank you great video! I've lived in both sides of the Thames and now reside near Crystal Palace and have always been amazed that no Tube exists between London and Croydon. The Overground is not an adequate substitute and the Tram is a local affair. The joy of a tube arriving every three or four minutes at Norwood Junction will remain a dream forever I fear :(
Growing up in south east London in the 60s and 70s where there was no underground apart from new cross (+gate) it was obvious to me that LT, as was, needed the space on the map for the index/key/legend!
So the reason The Krays never ventured into South London was not because of the vicious reputation of The Richardson gang but because they could not get the tube
Nor a taxi…
Taxi to South London..Never heard of the place
Or as an acquaintance of mine said once :
" I haven't got anything against South London it is just I can't see the point of it".
@@Marvin-dg8vj We South Londoners think anything north of Baker Street is Hertfordshire.
I've moved from central London to South London recently and the difference is stark. It takes ages to get anywhere now. Walking to the train station, waiting for the train and swapping to the tube lines in Victoria. Before it was a quick five mins walk to a tube station and I could be wherever I wanted in 15-30 mins.
Move back then
Move further south to Croydon and you'll zoom into London (and beyond). Fast trains AND Thameslink!
Verney Junction was named after Sir Harry Verney who was not only the chairman of the Aylesbury and Buckingham Railway Company but also lived at Claydon House. The railway station was built within the parish of Middle Clayton which was part of his family's estate so in my opinion it is an appropriate name and not simply due to his position as chairman of the company.
Until watching this video I hadn't given a thought to the origin of the name Verney Jnct - I just assumed it was a local name. One of the things I've learnt. Most grateful.
"Today, Verney Junction. Tomorrow, the world!"
You gotta admire the ambition at least.
The met is pink-ish. One of the lab rats is called pinky. Coincidence?
Verney have been a local family for centuries. They owned much of the land nearby. Verney junction was planned to be a major interchange with three lines, including the Varsity, Aylesbury and North Buckingham lines. It predated the underground expansion.
The Bakerloo Line extension, should it ever happen, would be a piece of p!ss to run from Lewisham to Hayes. It's crying out to be made a tube line. It's a scabby branch line currently run by Southeastern (well , not any more since they got caught with their hands in the till, but I digress). Change the signals, change the signage, et voila.
It won't happen in my lifetime though. Because Bromley Council.
In Bromley, the car is king. In Bromley, people go into a cold sweat at the sight of a TfL roundel because they like to think they are in Kent. They haven't been since 1965, but hey.
Putting roundels up on those stations on the Hayes Line would have the local pitchfork wielders out, ready to repel invaders from "the Sharm". Of course, the trains already run that way, but if you had 12 per hour that's a different matter.
Actually, I reckon that's what's really at the heart of it. The councillors for West Wickham and Hayes don't fancy 12 trains an hour in each direction going past the end of their gardens while they're having a Pimms in their sex ponds on a balmy summer evening.
One could, of course, point out the impact of having a tube line nearby on local house prices... But that doesn't seem to wash.
It may happen one day. Not in my lifetime though.
The problem of getting Tube lines south of the Thames is there is nobody at the Top 0f the Underground like Yerkes with both hands and feet in the till and looking for new investors
I've lived half my life in Bromley having settled here in 1985 and I assure you I don't think of it as Kent, though had I lived here all my life perhaps I would
I just think everything inside the M25 should be considered London. It would allow for much common sense approach to many issues I suspect.
I think people oppose the Bakerloo extension to Hayes because Southeastern trains would be faster than underground trains.
Jago: "...but that's a whole other story..."
Me: "Wonderful, can't wait to hear about it!"
Geoff Marshall: "Actually, everything's 15 storeys..."
Me: "Wonderful, can't wait to hear about it!"
How many steps
If you see something like that that doesn’t make sense then a Yerkes did it.
@@mister_M.
Douglas Adams: 42
@@mister_M. Radiohead: 15
My thoughts exactly! 😄
Thanks Jago for another slice of history. I had always assumed South London didn't get much tube love due to the soil. Glad you pointed out the other reasons.Before the night busses were a thing I used to hate going south from Muswell Hill to see people because I would have to cut the time short before heading home. --- Yes I know I'm showing my age !
Jago didnt mention - and I asked Geoff Marshall too - to consider the length of national rail (south of the river) that runs in tunnels/ underground. There is quite a bit - mainly around the hill that Crystal Palace sat on.
If the Northern Heights extension to Alexander Palace was completed, you could have got a Northern line tube train from Muswell Hill station to take you to South London.
@@johnchurch4705 I didn't know the Palace had had a sex change.
@@rayfisher3921 my bad lol 😂.
I think the best method of giving South and SE London "tube" lines would be to convert existing commuter routes into something similar to London Overground or Tfl Rail. I believe this is the other option for adding places like Hayes and Beckenham Junction to the tube network which seems way more realistic tbh but it just depends on whether the government will allow it.
That's exactly what the government wants to do by turning NR into GBR - "franchises" will become "concessions" (as in LO). But ideally Greater London railways need to be managed by TfL - London Overground would hopefully take over the northern sections of Southeastern (e.g. to Orpington and Sevenoaks) and other routes. This way there would be a direct connection, operational consistency and reliable performance regime.
Look up "Strategic case for metroisation in south and southeast London"
Simple answer from Mark K: "south of the river you stop and hold everything."
In fact there is a Jago Hazzard video about that!
Maybe Mr Knopfler will be Southbound Again (one day)
@@dangerousandy He has started poultry farming now, 'cos he gets chicks for free.
As someone who's lived in the SE London, I wondered this every day! We aren't even getting the bakerloo line we were promised, not until i'm too older anyway :(
They've been proposing to extend the Bakerloo line south from the Elephant since at least 1931. @Steve McMillen don't hold your breath!
Growing up in south west London, I was used to railway stations everywhere. It came as a surprise to discover how relatively few there are on this side of the Thames. Separately, again when I was a boy, I understood that the R Effra was a significant obstacle to underground lines south of Brixton?
I was aware/under the impression that the geology of the ground south of the river had issues regarding the viability and cost of digging into sandy earth, so you could happily say it's a bit of a 'boring' topic.
I'll get me coat.
Again.
Dagnabbit, of course I typed that long before you mentioned it (the most important aspect, to boot) at just past seven minutes.
Shared this with my mum and sister, who are both geographers. Fascinating video!!
Surely topography was crucial. North London is hilly. Not enough to hinder urban development, but enough to hinder the kind of dense surface-rail network needed to serve it.
South London is also pretty hilly but I suppose those hills are a bit further out tbf
The surface rail network was possibly more extensive than you may think, as many of the tube extensions to North London were, with a few exceptions, over the existing lines of the railway companies-LNER, LMS and GWR.
It is a pity that the Alexandra Palace branch was not completed as that would likely have covered some of the area where TfL want Crossrail 2. I could have walked there, but had to get a bus to either Highgate or Bounds Green in order to catch a tube. I did sometimes walk to New Southgate & Friern Barnet station (now just New Southgate) for the main line, which is the intended terminus of Crossrail 2.
The Piccadilly line extension to Cockfosters, as an exception, was a new route mostly on the surface but had to bore under Old Southgate before re-emerging on the surface, so that bit of topography was not ideal for a surface line.
Yes. Cycling was HUGE when tubes were built and before cars started killing people.
@@weetikissa I love that people always forgot that everyone in the UK used to cycle places before cars made it unsafe
Both north and south have a lot of hilly areas. Only east is mainly flat.
Hey, I'd have no issue using trains, if there were about double the numbers there are now running! :-)
The wait can be tedious indeed, rather than the knowledge that there will almost certainly be another tube along in 2-3 minutes.
Of course a problem from the competing lines. So catford gets every 30 mins, and catford bridge every 30 and you walk between them to find the next train or give up and get the bus.
So take the Hays Branch (though catford) TfL keep asking to take it over and put down
but in order to do so they would have to kick the one per 30 minuet delayed (at/near Lewisham) South Eastern trains off, on account of the never running on time (because of the bottle necks at London Bridge and Lewisham)
This would let you have 12 to18 trains (so 3 to 5 minuet headway (Bakerloo line proposal Oct19 TfL)) from Hays that could go to the Bakerloo (runing though Westminster and 4 main line Terminus) or the DLR (to Canary Wharf and Bank) but LB Bromley kick up a fuss about having to change to get to London Bridge (DLR proposal wich would have been 12 trains to Bank)
Try waiting 2 hours for a train then in Mid Wales.
@@johndufton9686 anything more than 5mins at my local tube and I am annoyed.
@@hens0w @jago, this proposal seems to have legs (so to speak as it went thru Catford)(sorry very bad pun). Have you done a vlog on this? It seems to be a good way to extend the Bakerloo to the south.
Thinking about it, I think the over abundance of mainline commuter services kinda undermined the need for underground lines south of the Thames. Just going back before 1948, there was the Southern Electric suburban network, the electrified Brighton line, and the line to Portsmouth. Sure they weren’t underground, but they were still electric. Clean and fast trains, just as the deep level lines were promoting. I think the only non-LT railway prior to WWII that had an electric London commuter service was the LNWR and later LMS
If you look at South London then only a handful of peripheral branches (eg Chessington, Tattenham Corner, Wimbledon-Sutton) opened after about 1890, so there just wasn't the same need or opportunity for new Underground lines. Why North London was relatively poorly served by the early railways is a different question.
@@stevieinselby I'd say it links to the aforementioned land value. More expensive land would mean it is more expensive to build a railway in the north.
Exactly, and even the LNWR/LMS electric service to Watford Junction was shared with the Bakerloo until 1982. Partly due to 1930s rebates of Rail Passenger Duty by the Government if railways invested the money saved. The Southern spent theirs on electrification, the others on signalling etc. So the LNER suburban lines remained steam-worked and they were glad to hand some over to LT under the New Works Programme. I lived in Portsmouth for years and my Dad never bothered buying a car - buses in the city and trains further afield got us everywhere we wanted to go. I soon discovered this didn't work elsewhere, even in Oxfordshire and Hertfordshire, let alone further out.
@@stevieinselby In fact, looking at a map, the density was not that different. But they got neglected in the 20th century, some closed (Ally Pally, Palace Gates), some went to LT, some were main lines. The Blackwall and Hackney lines succumbed to tram competition but then made a 21st century comeback with DLR and Overground.
The Bakerloo needs to be extended. It's a no-brainer. If a full extension to Hayes via Lewisham happens, ill happily pay a slightly higher tax/fare for benefit of those areas, even though I live nowhere near any of the preposed stations! another great in-depth video though, really enjoyed this one
As a near end of line Hayes line resident, I'm worried that the added old kent road and elephant and castle stations would make my commute even longer! Also don't want to lose the direct cannon st line. I think the extension to lewisham would be really good though. The extension needs to be fast enough that getting to charing cross doesn't take the 48 minutes it already does even with the added stops.
But why? Sure to Old Kent Rd it will be very good for the residents there to have a local station but anything beyond is already served. There is already a train line that goes to Hayes. I don't see the fuss about having the tube there, south London already has plenty of railways.
@@emilyclarke8222 you don't want people in certain areas to have a station because it might inconvenience you for a couple minutes 🤣🤣🤦♂️🤦♂️
@@jeff4362 Seriously? The tube brings growth. Hayes station is falling apart, tfl would invest in all of it greatly, it would boost passengers on the line e.c.t
@@Southlondonrider92 More like because it will cause more congestion, gridlock and pollution. Everywhere you put a translation you might as well have three slip fulls of rubbish dumped there every week. Stations are outright disgusting awful placez
And there's me thinking it was because the monsters and vampires lived south of the river.
Things are always more complicated than you think.
Ah that must also be the reason taxis don't go south of the river as well!
They still do, but disguised as Millwall fans.
Not to mention the dinosaurs in Crystal Palace Park.
I go through Verney Junction from time to time and I always thought it was rather cool that the Metropolitan Railway reached all the way out to meet the LNWR in deepest Buckinghamshire. These days the branches to Baker Street and Buckingham are mostly occupied by cows but the main line should be open Real Soon Now.
I grew up in Croydon and didn't miss the Tube. East Croydon has a fast train service to central London; you don't get that on any of the Underground lines except the Metropolitan. Who would prefer a long, dark, noisy, slow journey to that?
By the way, I'm pretty sure that when lines passed under properties, they would have to pay a fee (wayleaves) to the owners, which is why most deep Tube lines follow streets.
I live in the South of London and my commute brings me to Central London daily, yet I live within walking distance of 2 train stations but not any tube stations. It's honestly a pain in the ass due to the long wait times for trains compared to the constant train departures of the Victoria Line. If I miss my train it's a 45minute wait for the next at one train station or around 20minutes at the other. Sometimes I travel to the East of London just to get to the Tube in Central London.
Was hoping Jago would sign off with "You are the Metropolitan Railway to my Verney Junction".
"Ooooooh me Verney Junction"
Very interesting. I remember reading an article or watching a video about it that basically said that the soil type was just not suitable - like you said toward the end. But you gave many more reasons I didn't know!
Northern Line should have at least reached Clapham Junction and Maybe even as far as Sutton on that new line via Croydon.
South Northern Line :-D
@@paulchoccyt1303 Well, in the light of the Battersea Power Station extension, thoughts turn once more to the splitting of the Northern Line (two branches through central London makes it particularly confusing for visitors) So the BPS branch stays as the Northern Line and the Morden branch... the Southern Line obvs! 😉
Being a Norf Londoner (Holloway) I always thought it was normal to walk short distances to a tube station. Travelling north, south east or west never seemed a problem.
Now with much more integration between public transport, using it south of the river is no longer such an issue.
I still get a little frustrated when in Wandsworth though.
Wandsworth: you're not the only one.
Fascinating video as always! It is interesting to see how a city's growth progression leads to distinct differences like this for one reason or another. I see that a map of London from 1800 has very limited urban area south of the Thames but by 1900 both the North and South in terms of scale anyway, look pretty well even.
2:52 Someone really needs to get a pot of green Hammerite (other brands may be available?) on the corner of that bridge. I've noticed it before.
And yes, I thought the problem was mostly related to the geology, with the material for digging through being much more tricky south of the river. But I suspect it's mostly the economics, land in south London being much cheaper, and even viaducts being much cheaper the tunnels.
Like Jago said, the geology contributed to the economics of the lines. That said, in light of the New Works Program taking over several formerly private northern lines, has anyone ever suggested some southern rail lines being taken over by the Tube?
@@andyjay729 it’ll be the Overground taking them over now, but, yes, there’s been a fair bit of talk about that
Those 19th century engravings of London having tube lines installed look like an even worse version of the streets of Edinburgh when they were laying their new tram. It must have been hellish.
Glad to see your acknowledgement of a really interesting question. Not at all boring. Ever.
Sounds absolutely right, apparently there was a huge amount of disruption and opposition. Which was why after the Met, District and Circle lines were built in the 1860s to 1880s, no more cut-and-cover lines were constructed at all.
Interestingly, if you make the dividing line the Central Line (as it runs through the centre of the City), you get 108 stations north of it and 110 south, which is pretty even!
Thank you for this video. I knew about the geological reasoning behind the lack of tubes south of the river but very little of the history. It’s interested me for years and I’ve always meant to research it but never got around to it. You’ve done that for me now and it was very fascinating.
North of London lines weren't just interested in freight, they wanted long distance passengers (ideally first class and not suburban hoi polloi) which option was really not available south of the river (due to the Channel!)
@ger du Where have you been since 1832?
Other soils types are available namely; blackheath beds ( nightmare soil, round pebbles mixed with a fine silt that is like concrete when compacted, historically a riverbed soil) , flint and clay for 'southeastern' unlike 'southern with their alkaline chalk/flint soils. Joking aside, a very good point concerning tunnelling.
As a person who lives in South London, I have to say that the regularity of the Tube and railway trains are incomparable... There is a tube every 3-4 minutes, but only 2-8 trains in an hour - depending on how close the station is to Central.
On a map the lines looks evenly distributed, but if you consider the time it takes to get around in the North compared to in the South, the difference is still big. I feel like this is something you didn't mention in this video.
I was in London maybe 5 years before I discovered the regular rail stuff and ventured south, I spent another 5 years exploring these places. There really is a 2nd half to the city! Very little of it is historical in the well known sense but I loved visiting places like Crystal Palace and Bermondsey (especially the beer crawl via the breweries under the ever-increasingly wide viaducts leading into London Bridge)
Fantastic information as always.
5:09 signs are located in the Buckinghamshire railway centre in Quainton, well worth a visit lots of underground relics to see there.
Good stuff Jago, quiet balanced for a south Londoner and glad that most of the facts of geology , surface lines , trams and railway politics listed . Most manufacturing and labour requirements took place north of the river , with the exceptions of the Woolwich Arsenal and some ribbons of manufacturing to the South West of the City, with surface lines coming into London Bridge , Cannon St , Blackfriars , Victoria and Waterloo connected by the Drain. All the North London termini north of the New Road could only really be connected by in Underground. The real issue is East - West. This has only recently been corrected with the DRL Jubilee line extension and the growth of well managed Overground lines in the North East . the debate North South, will continue , but in terms of cultural and sporting hubs , most are clearly North of the river , unless you don't take into account the South Bank complex and Greenwich. Much as I love the Elephant and Clapham , they are hardly destinations .
The Crystal Palace was a South-side cultural and sporting hub for the best part of 80 years, well served by railways (partly underground, as someone above said, but not Underground).
What I learned from this video: It's diffitult to built a tunnel through Jago Hazzard.
I tend to find that the national rail north of london does not really want commuters ( maybe with the exception of Potters Bar) , with dull ill lit stations and a lack of ticket staff etc. The southern stations are relatively open and welcoming ( compare Earlsfield with Upper Clapton say)
Similar situation in Berlin- Lots of U-Bahn lines running through former West Berlin, very few in East Berlin where trams dominate instead
Slight correction, Jago. The early tube lines also followed the streets, as landowners used to own the land "all the way down" and would want compensation, much to Mr. Yerkes' displeasure. That explains the sharp curves on parts of the Central line. The law regarding that was changed (I don't know when) so that newer lines could be built under existing buildings. I don't know "how far down" I, a house owner, now own but suspect it isn't very far. I think part of the reason for the change in the law was to do with mining, oil and gas rights.
The same with churches, they apparently own the land below them all the way down.
IANAL* (and I'm American), but I suspect property owners still _do_ own their land "all the way down". It's just laws have been passed to allow easements for underground utilities and subway tunnels. Especially if they're deep enough to avoid disturbing foundations and such.
*edit: I Am Not A Lawyer
One of the early hurdles of airplane traffic was the legal right to cross private land: landowners, obviously, had full rights to control trespassing on their land all the way up.
@@AaronOfMpls IANAL too, but in the UK, if you discover oil beneath your land, Clampits style, the oil doesn't belong to you, it belongs to the government.
So that's why there are so few tube lines in New Zealand!
I've been in South London for 25 years now and love it. The new tube stations Nine Elms and Battersea Power Station are a god send. Trying to get onto the Northern Line at Stockwell in the morning is a nightmare because it's packed solid from about 7.30 - 9am, but now I can walk to Nine Elms and get a seat each morning. Apparently they're going to extend the extension to Clapham Junction at some point too,
I'm not sure that would work as well as people might thing given how massively busy Clapham Junction already is. They'd need a massive station to handle all that traffic and it'd clog things up for the next few stations along the line. How it is now means people will jump on at different points rather than all in one spot. Now, if as part of that plan they also had other lines to take some of that mass of people and filter it all out more that would be a more ideal solution, though it'd cost a lot more and take much longer. I think that's kind of the long term plan though, but you know what government is like with long term phased plans lol.
@@TalesOfWar Yep, they'll drag it out in the most expensive way possible to ensure they get the most profit in their own pockets. If they do extend to the Junction, the northern line should come up to ground, like the District line in Richmond. That way they'll only need a new platform or 2. No stops inbetween, just direct from the Power Station to Clapham Junction. But then i know absolutely nothing about engineering, so that whole idea might be completely unfeasible!
Sore point making Battersea Power Station Zone 1.
Just an idea. There’s much murmuring afoot about the fact that thecNorthern Line stopped short of continuing its merry way to Clapham Jtn, for many of the passengers to disembark to the tube hence filling it to capacity before it had left its terminus.
I had an idea and that was for it to loop back to Ballham joining with the existing Northern Line there and then having like a Heathrow loop on the northern line. This still leaves possible extensions to lines that run thru Clapham Jtn down the track. It was just a hairbrained scheme from some one who lives just outside Melbourne in Australia who doesn’t yet have a true metro. I can see some merrit in it though. I lived in London in its 1980s heydays. What fun they were!
Thing is Heathrow is pretty far from Morden which is the southern terminus of the Northern Line, about 14 miles roughly. So extending the line out there would take many many years. And then there's the issue of navigating the line around the Heathrow loops. In other words there would have to be an extremely high demand for it to be worth it. An extension to join the Morden branch sounds good though.
"the odd deposit of pete" - well "pete" should be made to clear his deposits up!!! ;-)
I remember after a night out I woke up at a bird's house in Lewisham, I woke her up to ask where was the nearest tube station and she just laughed and went back to sleep. after catching two buses to get to the nearest railway station i vowed to never leave north london hahah
The biggest problem in North London is the lack of west to east links. Most of the time, living in London, I would have to go into London and come back out in order to reach another destination that isn’t even too far away. Compared to South London, they don’t have this problem so much due to the trams and the extensive rail links that go somewhat east to west.
Of course if we just moved the Thames up a bit, say to the regents canal and brentford extension we would have more tube stations south of the thames,
What a wonderful idea! I'll buy a shovel tomorrow and make a start.
@@ianthomson9363 That's the spirit!
@@ianthomson9363 I've got a spade we can use
@@nathanw9770 Too late, I've already bought one. Still, with two of us digging, we should get the job done before Crossrail's finished!
I'm a tourist when I come to London and I feel a bit lost venturing away from the comfort of the tube lines so I have not ventured south much.
You haven’t missed much: it’s full of overground railway lines.
Not much to see for a tourist, apart from Greenwich tbh
Kew Gardens and Hampton Court are also pretty cool - and sort of accessible by tube.
Mr H, another captivating and informative video. And as you can make tubes-n-trams in Sarf London sound entertaining, you are indeed a star. Thanks, Simon T
Your videos are always a delight to watch. Witty and informative. Thank you.
I never really thought about all the other services in South London even though I take them, I suppose depending where you live in south London, A DLR would be easier to take if your in Lewisham, Depford,or a Tram if you're in Croydon, Beckenham etc. some the overground while others a Tube if your in Bermondsey, Elephant & Castle, Oval, Clapham, Brixton etc.
Although the first deep level tube was south of the river apart from its terminus at King William Street.
and of course half of the waterloo and city
Never in human history has any man made tube and railway history interesting... yet somehow you have! Thanks for another interesting foray.
Ta!
North London railways frequently run in tunnels due to the height of the land
South London trains run high up on embankments to keep them out of the south London marsh
I find South London more relaxing than the North, but travelling in the North is a lot easier than the south, where you need to 'bus it' or 'Uber'.
I felt I was taking my life in my hands when I rode the buses around NW London last year.
Have you seen a pre Edwardian map of south London? South of Clapham it was all farms.
Most of the southern bulwarks ran out into the thames as a set of marshy islands from the rivers running from the rising hills of the northern most downs
MANY YEARS AGO I USE TO BE A MINI CAB DRIVER OPERATING OUT OF VICTORIA COACH STATION AND ONLY LONG TRIP WE GOT WERE TO SOUTH LONDON
Not to mention the District Line heading East to Upminster where it connects with the GE line to Romford and the LT&S lines (Now C2C) to Shoeburyness, Grays and Tilbury while also providing the "suburban" part of the LT&S enabling 'express' services from Fenchurch St.
The District Line used to run to Southend and to Windsor.
@@RJSRdg Sorry, but it didn't
My nan 👵 ( RIP 🪦) remembered when Barking station had a level crossing, she was born in 1898.
@@johnchurch4705 So do I and I was born in 1941
@@alejandrayalanbowman367 I’ve only seen photos of the crossing.
At last! I'd long heard an urban legend that there was once a plan for the Underground to reach Oxford and now the (distorted) truth behind the rumour is apparently revealed.
As a former Londoner, the capital is spoilt for choice. I spent most of my life living in the south west in Kingston/Surbiton/Wimbledon and now I live an hour out of the city I realise just how great the public transport in the city really was, even in the south west. For me, where I live, well I'm just hoping they bring back the peak time fast EMR to St Pancras.
Quainton is now a heritage rail line. Well worth a visit
Geology!
We got there eventually. Great vid. Thank you.
Ive always thought it weird that the District Line goes OVER the Thames and stays above ground all the way to the terminus at Wimbledon. Yet is still "The Underground" :)
Plus the added quirk.... that in East Putney, the underground railway crosses over the overground railway :D
Also worth remembering that when the Met opened most of London WAS North of the river. The city spread along railway lines in many cases.... A bit like the Met. Also, where there's no houses there's nothing to go under hence a surface (or in the case of the L&G) a raised railway!
Jago - you're very coherent! (07:18) 😉 Great video which answers one of the questions which is asked so many times. 👍🏾
Hey Jago, I have a question mostly related to lines in the north.
As many were built by competing companies, there were many instances of places where there could have been interchanges, but the chance was lost. In particular on the North London Line/Overground which inconveniently floats slowly over a whole bunch of other lines without interchanges, but also in places near Bounds Green between the Great Northern and the Piccadilly.
The question is... Are there any places where this could easily be fixed, and are there any areas where a bit more effort + money to create a more expensive interchange could be a good idea?
Very good point, and it's also true of South London. The "Gloucester Road" junction north of Croydon (not the Kensington one) would have made a good hub and effectively doubled the services on some routes. West Hampstead was under-utilised for years and even now lacks Chiltern Line platforms. Willesden Junction likewise; the removal of the through platforms was short-sighted. They could still be reinstated with an effort. The Hackney Downs / Hackney Central walkway was a useful step forward, as were Blackhorse Road improvements (it wasn't an interchange when the Victoria Line was first opened; BR re-sited their station in 1981).
I am a huge fan of your quick voiceover edits such as at 6:07 when things start to go round in circles
I must admit, despite the visuals being rather incoherrent in this video. It was very enjoyable to see a bit of everything. Definitely would appreciate a few more videos like this covering in style and subject (in the sense of a broader question).
I'm astonished that the Tube went all the way out to and beyond the town I grew up in (Aylesbury)!
Just watching and listening again Jago, and I have to follow up my earlier comment from a few months back by adding that as well as having the pleasure of your videos, your knowledge is so encyclopaedic. Thanks very much again for another amazing video 📹 👏🏾⭐
A more coherent video then you give your self credit for.
If I may suggest a topic for a video, There is a lot to take in on that Metropolitan logo. Surely there must be a story or 2 behind that.
Keep up the good work!
Does anyone actually believe this "South Of The River" place actually exists? I'm yet to see any conclusive evidence.
not on the taxi map of london
You stop and hold everything
It's just nonsense, believed only by foreigners and communists.
It is all done with mirrors. The river is just a really shallow part of the ocean with fresh water. Nothing south of the river until you get to France.
I'm pretty sure it goes London, the Thames, , then Brighton. Croydon is just a green screen, hence the "fictitious" tram colours.
Manchester had a far better idea. Rip up the old heavy rail lines and put down light rail tram lines instead. Instead of passenger traffic in the morning and evening travelling on worn out equipment, interspersed with the odd goods train. The lines have come back to life with regular tram services. What better way to recycle/reuse old routes.
Then Glasgow decided to one-up everybody else and installed a bunch of cable trams. Underground, that is.
Good to see Manchester outdoing London in both public and private transport. They also have a (relatively) proper orbital motorway while London has to stick with a very close-to-circle "C" shaped motorway.
Fun fact. The old lines weren't ripped out until very recently (I want to say 2010 or so when they were doing the last big line extension with new rolling stock). The original run from Bury to Manchester used the old track that was left over after the Beeching cuts as a cost saving measure, as a result they were rather wonky and not at all smooth lol. Central government decided they didn't want to pay for it any more quite late into the planning stage so a big chunk of funding vanished over night. Only Manchester and Bury councils put the money in so they had to make savings somewhere after Rochdale decided not to bother either. In hindsight, Rochdale fucked themselves royally by pulling out given the massive decline it went into in the early 90's (which really began in the 80's) and it hasn't really recovered from it. On the other hand, Bury and Manchester saw a massive boost in their economies thanks in no small part to the easy transport links they invested in. Rochdale got the trams 20 years later, far too late though sadly.
I am fascinated how much this mirrors my city Frankfurt for much different reasons. North of the river Main is a lot of U-Bahn, as a matter of fact the U-Bahn has only two stations south of the river, but the tram network is much more extensive south of the Main.
I visited London in 1978 and rode on the Piccadilly and District Lines. Back then, the District Line still used 1920s rolling stock with spur-cut bull and pinion gears, which sounded a lot like the prewar subway trains in New York.
Even later stock such as the A60/A62 and C69/C77 and the 1959 and 1962 tube stock sounded a lot like the older New York subway trains although not quite as loud as for example the IND R1-9 or the IRT Lo-V cars. The 1940 English Electric cars used on the Waterloo-Bank "drain" sounded like the older NY cars too.
South London as a whole is difficult to navigate, by rail. By Bus it is longer but there’s more buses in South London, the frequencies especially are better than North, or was. I think its an even keel now
Why did COVID put the Bakerloo Line extension on hold? In some other countries, the lack of traffic and other interference occasioned by the pandemic actually accelerated several rail capital projects.
cos the tories splashed all the cash on their mates for non existent supplies to the NHS.
I don't think there is a need to be politically hyper-partisan or to slag anyone off. Put simply, Covid increased council and government expenditure, but decreased their income, so they have to cut back on things a bit. It's the same as if a normal person has a rent increase at the same time as their wages are cut. They can sort of manage, but all spending on the non essentials has to be cut until things get back to normal.
@@Dave_Sisson There is also the possiblitly that Covid has changed how and where people work and have leisure interests such that the viability in the future is less (CR2 also impacted), unless the people of Bromley want large flatted residential developments in West Wickham to generate large passenger flows the nice to have line becomes the no one is using it one. Financial Funding - assuming no more pandemics in 100 years could be done with 40/50/80 year bonds at a notional 3percent return sold as Covid Recovery Bonds and London Transport Infrastructure Bonds one of which would pay for 600 flats on that Hayes Station Car Park site
@@highpath4776 Oh I agree that Covid has affected everything and the knock on effects are going to be very complex. It will be years before everything is clear. That's the point I was trying to make to the person who was using the pause to insult the government without any evidence. (BTW I've never voted Tory, but there's no excuse to make insulting stuff up.)
@@Dave_Sisson there are enough smoking guns, but as to if it was cock up (lack of planning by Govt in the past) , or conspiratorial opportunities , I have my way of concluding from the evidence thus far.
As ever, very enjoyable. Having decent rail connections is now bad thing. Chesham has two trains an hour to London taking around an hour to the city. My closest proper main line railway station (Redhill) has 4 trains an hour taking you to the city or west end in less than 40 minutes. Having a tube station isn’t the be all and end all when you are this far out!
There's another factor that's common in the U.S. and may be a factor in London. Neighborhoods, rich and poor, don't like above-ground trains. They're noisy and disrupt traffic. They prefer those lines to run underground. But while wealthy neighbors have the money and connections to drive surface transport underground, poor neighborhoods do not.
Madrid has an interesting variation. On my first visit there, I thought the rail and subway system was insane. To get from a train station on the east side to the west side I had to walk about a mile from the subway to the station. Only on my second visit did I discover that the rail system had its own independent underground connecting just the rail stations. Crazy, but I guess it generated a lot of jobs.
I guess the question is rather, why weren't some of the railways in the South turned into underground lines? To Orpington, Croydon, Surbiton, Places like these.
When I visit my friend in Balham
(Gateway to the South)
If I was travelling south or out of town
the railway is often better
than the underground
and the services are frequent on the railway.
The journey to Huddersfield
was Clapham Junction, Milton Keynes, Manchester, Huddersfield
I have also wondered about the lack of tube lines in south london thanks for filling me in. I'm from new cross (see 8:50 for new cross station) and originally there was a tube line with old tube stock that went up to white chapel and Shoreditch. This was extended down to crystal palace and west to clapham junction and replaced with the overground. New cross station is quite good for getting around London because the overground takes me to canada water where I can get the Jubilee line basically anywhere and whitechapel where I can get on the hammersmith and city line as well as the elizabeth line and the district line.
The commuter trains (as mentioned in the video) that go through New Cross are very frequent (often more frequent than the overground service) and get to London Bridge and Cannon street in under 10 minutes.
Superb video. Love your delivery style too, thank you
You mention the New Works Northern Line extension. I've just acquired a book of photographs by Jim Blake - London's Railways 1967-1977, which covers some of the stations that were built and then abandoned. Looks like it could be an area ripe for exploration.
So, we're here because. If you look at the tube system, they ran from out-of-town to out-of-town, making turn-round a non-story. You have a terminus, and you've got to clear the passengers, get the driver to the other end, and load the next lot. That's why it's normally one service every half hour, not one every two-three minutes. The Northern Line even has a turning loop at Kennington. The Northern Piccadilly uses Arnos Grove, Oakwood, and Cockfosters as termini, with Oakwood being the depot.
Do we really need the tube in South London? The tube can be painfully slow, mainly because stations are usually spaced as close as half a mile apart, so you'd be doing quite well to average 20mph. To take the example of my local station (Purley) we have eight trains an hour to London, which is getting on for tube frequency, taking as little as 22 minutes for just over 13 miles, with just two or three stops and an average speed of close on 40mph, which is really flying by London standards. If there was a tube line to Purley, the journey would take around 40 minutes. And rather than the reasonable comfort of a spacious main line train, you'd be stuck in a ratty, bouncy little tube carriage for all that time.
They should expand tube in South London on elevated railways, like the overground railways and share the tracks with the overground
LB Bromley, we want a high frequency tube service to central london, Also LB Bromley but not if we have to give up our delay ridden 2 train service to er southwark cathedral and a long bridge.
you could give the Hays branch a mix of DLR (to Canary Wharf and Bank); and the Bakerloo (runing though Westminster and 4 main line Terminus) but the LB will object to having to change at Lewisham for what a cathedral and one office tower.
this has to happen
Agreed the hayes line can't just have the bakerloo alone, it would take over an hour to get to charing X! Interesting idea with the DLR, but I think extending the overground line from New Cross would make better local connections and an easier ride to the nightlife in Shoreditch which at the moment I have to avoid or crash at someone else's, and overall would be a shorter and less costly extension
@@emilyclarke8222 TFL reconds it would take 35 minuets compared to 45 at present
You are exactly the problem I was talking about
Some of the modern bus routes are part of the original tram routes, which were switched to bus use after the old tram system was removed. The 18 bus route that originally went between Sudbury near Harrow through to London Bridge, but the bus route that replaced it was stopped first at Kings Cross and now Euston. Some parts of the modern tram system in the Croydon area use old rail track beds. So there's always changes of mind over transport facilities.
An attempt was made after the Second World War to build a route across the top of London from North West to East, and all that's left of that is an abandon set of tunnels in North East London. Crossrail was first introduced as an idea, in the late 80s. I have advertising colouring book made to promote it, it's three times the size of the leaflet that advertised the final go ahead, a decade later. So clearly finances have always caused trouble with building a London transportation network.