Charing Cross - why so small?

[Sad Sprinter]

Thanks for the replies. So I’m guessing there was no point in the late 19th Century when expansion of Charing Cross was considered?

Charing Cross is also handy for a stroll from the Northern terminals. It really is a great little station.

Ah, unless you’re one of us Victoria folk, then it was a strange, foreign land.

 

[yorksrob]

Thanks for the replies. So I’m guessing there was no point in the late 19th Century when expansion of Charing Cross was considered?




Ah, unless you’re one of us Victoria folk, then it was a strange, foreign land.

Growing up in Kent, I have "dual citizenship" of both Charing Cross and Victoria. That said, Victoria has the benefit of the Victoria line for going North.

 

[Wolfie]

Growing up in Kent, I have "dual citizenship" of both Charing Cross and Victoria. That said, Victoria has the benefit of the Victoria line for going North.

Last time l looked the Northern and Bakerloo lines both went north.... Just sayin' lol

 

[yorksrob]

Last time l looked the Northern and Bakerloo lines both went north.... Just sayin' lol

They do require that pesky mid -way change at Oxford Circus to get to Kings Cross though !

 

[Wolfie]

They do require that pesky mid -way change at Oxford Circus to get to Kings Cross though !

'Tis true (at least for the Bakerloo) but the Oxford Circus change is just about the easiest on the whole of LU. I did it, closures permitting, every day for over 20 years albeit in the other direction (Highbury & Islington to Charing Cross).

 

[Ianno87]

'Tis true (at least for the Bakerloo) but the Oxford Circus change is just about the easiest on the whole of LU. I did it, closures permitting, every day for over 20 years albeit in the other direction (Highbury & Islington to Charing Cross).

I treat the cross-platform interchanges on the underground as de-facto through services.

 

[John Webb]

Given that the first Hungerford Bridge was a road bridge, perhaps it was a case of sour grapes !

Hurrah that the motor lobby were defeated by their own lack of agreement !

According to Alan Jackson's "London Termini" book (David and Charles, 2nd Ed 1985) the original Hungerford bridge was a suspension footbridge. On the building of the railway bridge the chains were sold off and eventually reused in the Clifton Suspension bridge at Bristol.
The railway included a footbridge built onto the north side of the railway bridge as a replacement for the original - that in turn has been replaced by the modern footbridges.

 

[yorksrob]

'Tis true (at least for the Bakerloo) but the Oxford Circus change is just about the easiest on the whole of LU. I did it, closures permitting, every day for over 20 years albeit in the other direction (Highbury & Islington to Charing Cross).

True, but you don't get that swift "White heat of technology" vibe that you do with the Victoria line.

According to Alan Jackson's "London Termini" book (David and Charles, 2nd Ed 1985) the original Hungerford bridge was a suspension foot bridge. On the building of the railway bridge the chains were sold off and eventually reused in the Clifton Suspension bridge at Bristol.

Ah, my mistake. It's a while since I read it.

 

[DerekC]

Indeed. I don't know why Hungerford Bridge was singled out for criticism. With the exception of Tower Bridge they're all pretty non-descript.

I seem to recall reading about a scheme in the 1950's to replace Waterloo and Charing Cross with a super terminal South of the Thames. Strikes me as a waste of money as well as a worse transport network, so I'm not surprised it never went ahead !

According to John Fareham's "The History of Waterloo Station" the LSWR in 1855 promoted a scheme which would have seen the South Western Main Line terminate north of the Hungerford footbridge, which would have been demolished to suit. Four years later the LSWR was asked to join the Charing Cross Railway scheme, then being promoted to extend the SER from London Bridge. If they had accepted, Waterloo would have closed and the SER and LSWR would have merged at a triangular junction just south of the river, with a much larger Charing Cross serving both railways. If only .... And then, of course, there was the scheme to build a link from Charing Cross to Euston. What better connected railways we might have had!

According to Alan Jackson's "London Termini" book (David and Charles, 2nd Ed 1985) the original Hungerford bridge was a suspension footbridge.

Indeed it was, and here is a very early photograph of it:

https://thames.me.uk/s00120.htm##

 

[Bald Rick]

According to John Fareham's "The History of Waterloo Station" the LSWR in 1855 promoted a scheme which would have seen the South Western Main Line terminate north of the Hungerford footbridge, which would have been demolished to suit. Four years later the LSWR was asked to join the Charing Cross Railway scheme, then being promoted to extend the SER from London Bridge. If they had accepted, Waterloo would have closed and the SER and LSWR would have merged at a triangular junction just south of the river, with a much larger Charing Cross serving both railways. If only .... And then, of course, there was the scheme to build a link from Charing Cross to Euston. What better connected railways we might have had!


Indeed it was, and here is a very early photograph of it:

https://thames.me.uk/s00120.htm##

Hungerford (Charing Cross) Railway Bridge & Footbridges - WHERE THAMES SMOOTH WATERS

I do wonder how many of the proposals listed in railway history books are effectively the equivalent of today’s crayoning.

 

[yorksrob]

I do wonder how many of the proposals listed in railway history books are effectively the equivalent of today’s crayoning.

I suspect the answer is "lots".

 

[DerekC]

I do wonder how many of the proposals listed in railway history books are effectively the equivalent of today’s crayoning.

I think the difference is that the network was at a very early stage of formation, and almost anything might have happened if the dice had rolled differently. If you like, pretty much everything was in crayon!

 

[stuu]

I do wonder how many of the proposals listed in railway history books are effectively the equivalent of today’s crayoning.

A fair few railways which were actually built were the equivalent of crayoning

 

[Watershed]

True, but you don't get that swift "White heat of technology" vibe that you do with the Victoria line.

Yes, it's really quite something when you see a train barrel into the platform at full speed, 40 odd seconds after the previous departure!

The Bakerloo is a nice museum on wheels but the Northern line is just bland.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, it's really quite something when you see a train barrel into the platform at full speed, 40 odd seconds after the previous departure!

The Bakerloo is a nice museum on wheels but the Northern line is just bland.

Yes. I like the other lines, but the VIC just feels modern (enough).

And they've stopped the light blue tiles falling off the walls now which helps !

 

[edwin_m]

I do wonder how many of the proposals listed in railway history books are effectively the equivalent of today’s crayoning.

Also trains in the early era were much less frequent than today, and people probably didn't understand the issue of rail capacity much. I suspect if the early companies had combined in a station at Charing Cross, even if much bigger than it actually became, then within a few years it would have been too small and the outward expansion of London that generated that demand would have swallowed up any possible alternative site. That might have been OK with a Euston link, as trains could run through Thameslink-style, but otherwise there would have been the choice of a hugely expensive buy and demolish as happened with later stations such as Nottingham Victoria, or a serious constraint to commuter capacity and the development of the city as a whole.

 

[mmh]

Not been through there since the fairly recent re-build.

Platforms 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are now the terminating platforms. All are capable of berthing twelve car multiple units.

Prior to the rebuild, London Bridge had nine terminating platforms, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, but platform 8, and the latter three, 14, 15 and 16 could only cope with eight car multiple units.

I believe the current London Bridge platform 15 is limited to 10 car due to the track layout, with passive provision for extending it if the signal box was ever removed.

 

[Ianno87]

I believe the current London Bridge platform 15 is limited to 10 car due to the track layout, with passive provision for extending it if the signal box was ever removed.

AIUI the signalling is positioned at 12-car, but the box is in the way of where the platform would go. As and when the box gets demolished, that gives the space for the extension.

 

[Bald Rick]

I believe the current London Bridge platform 15 is limited to 10 car due to the track layout, with passive provision for extending it if the signal box was ever removed.

AIUI the signalling is positioned at 12-car, but the box is in the way of where the platform would go. As and when the box gets demolished, that gives the space for the extension.

Is the right answer. If you look at google maps you can see the length of train it can accommodate is definitely 12 car. Also the signal design drawings show it too - specifically, Platform 15 has a usable length of 239.4m (extendable to 252m after the signalbox is demolished)

 

[DerekC]

Also trains in the early era were much less frequent than today, and people probably didn't understand the issue of rail capacity much. I suspect if the early companies had combined in a station at Charing Cross, even if much bigger than it actually became, then within a few years it would have been too small and the outward expansion of London that generated that demand would have swallowed up any possible alternative site. That might have been OK with a Euston link, as trains could run through Thameslink-style, but otherwise there would have been the choice of a hugely expensive buy and demolish as happened with later stations such as Nottingham Victoria, or a serious constraint to commuter capacity and the development of the city as a whole.

This map extract from about 1872 shows the extent of the station as-built. Northumberland House, at the south east corner of Trafalgar Square, was demolished in 1874 and and Northumberland Avenue and the large buildings along it built in its gardens. Conversion of Northumberland House into a station, with a frontage on Trafalgar Square - now that would have been something! To the east of the station the buildings on the site of York House (demolished in 1672) were relatively small commercial and residential premises which survived until the 1960s, I think. So when Charing Cross was built in the 1860s a station of double the size would have been feasible given the money, and later expansion eastwards not impossible.

As regards the Euston link - that sounds like another thread - unless there already is one!

 

[S&CLER]

Rummaging through my collection of railway-theme pages from the Illustrated London News, I've come across page 161 for 13 Feb. 1864, which has an account of the station as it opened, with 3 engravings, the temporary entrance to the station from Villiers Street, the covered way leading to the platforms and the signal station on the north end of the bridge (the latter has been reproduced in several books). It gives an idea of the work involved in the contract for the line from London Bridge: 2 miles of line, 17 bridges, 190 brick arches, a 404 foot long iron viaduct at Borough Market, and the station itself, the roof weighing 1200 tons, while the bridge involved 5000 tons of wrought iron and 2000 tons of cast iron. It goes on to say "at present trains run ... every quarter of an hour [from] 7.10 a.m. up to 25 past 12 at night;and there are 140 journeys made daily to and from Greenwich, and 34 on the Mid-Kent line. On the 1st of March the line ... will be open for North Kent traffic; and upon the 1st of May will be in working order ... for South Eastern and Continental business". These trains "will be supplemented in a year or so by another series, in itself requiring an every five-minute traffic ... that to Cannon Street, for which at present there is only a single line of rails provided."

The station was built on the site of the old Hungerford Market, described as "the west end Billingsgate". There was a Hungerford Music Hall too.

Another page, p. 317, for 31 March 1860, is a full page illustration of the proposed bridge before it was built (too big to scan unfortunately, as the ILN pages were nearly A3 in size).

On page 162 for 13.2 64 , there is a paragraph about railway schemes in the City of London; there were no less than 23 proposals for lines affecting the City, almost a second Mania. I wonder what the North and South London High Level Junction, for example, was?

All this area has nostalgic memories of the 1970s for me, when I used to meet a friend frequently in the Archduke wine bar, in one of the arches under the south approach to Hungerford Bridge, near the Royal Festival Hall.

 

[edwin_m]

This map extract from about 1872 shows the extent of the station as-built. Northumberland House, at the south east corner of Trafalgar Square, was demolished in 1874 and and Northumberland Avenue and the large buildings along it built in its gardens. Conversion of Northumberland House into a station, with a frontage on Trafalgar Square - now that would have been something! To the east of the station the buildings on the site of York House (demolished in 1672) were relatively small commercial and residential premises which survived until the 1960s, I think. So when Charing Cross was built in the 1860s a station of double the size would have been feasible given the money, and later expansion eastwards not impossible.

As regards the Euston link - that sounds like another thread - unless there already is one!

View attachment 97157

I agree it's quite possible a bigger station could have been built at that time. My query is whether anyone would have thought to do so, until the traffic had grown up but all sites had been built on and could not be used other than at great expense.

 

[30907]

I agree it's quite possible a bigger station could have been built at that time. My query is whether anyone would have thought to do so, until the traffic had grown up but all sites had been built on and could not be used other than at great expense.

And you have to remember that the SER wasn't flush with money.

 

[DerekC]

Reading a bit more from John Fareham's "The History of Waterloo Station" the history seems to have been as follows:

Waterloo Bridge (as it was then called) was opened in 1848 was never intended to be a terminus - in fact (as can still be seen from the curvature of the platforms) it was laid out on an alignment which curved into the route to Cannon Street and London Bridge, even though that line wasn't built for another fifteen years.

In 1855 (ten years before Charing Cross was built) the LSWR proposed a scheme for an extension from Waterloo to Hungerford Bridge, which would seem to have involved a terminus actually on a new bridge replacing the Hungerford footbridge, with entrances north and south of the river (like the modern Blackfriars), but the Parliamentary Commission to whom it was submitted didn't like the idea.

In 1859 the Charing Cross Railway Act was passed. The company promoting it was nominally independent but heavily under the influence of the SER. In course of process through Parliament the LSWR proposed clauses which would have allowed them to make a connection from Waterloo Bridge into the new station, with a financial contribution to the cost. This was rejected, but the Charing Cross company subsequently asked the LSWR to become shareholders, which the LSWR turned down. The Act did, however, provide for the east-facing connection at Waterloo Junction, completing the route originally planned to Cannon Street and London Bridge.

I think it's therefore true to say that. had inter-company rivalry been a bit less intense there might well have been a joint, larger, LSWR/SER station at Charing Cross with the LSWR sharing the cost.

 

[frodshamfella]

I used Charing Cross to commute to a lot as a lad, plus for leisure purposes. I always liked the station then, now its gone all subterranean over the platforms with is unpleasant.

I used to enjoy hearing the the Hastings thumper fire up.

 

[Bald Rick]

I used Charing Cross to commute to a lot as a lad, plus for leisure purposes. I always liked the station then, now its gone all subterranean over the platforms with is unpleasant.

It’s been like that for around 30 years!

 

[DarloRich]

May I refer the house to the book published in 2020 by Christian Wolmar :

Cathedrals of Steam: How London’s Great Stations Were Built – And How They Transformed the City

 

[Revaulx]

It’s been like that for around 30 years!

I preferred it before the platforms got built over, but don’t think it’s that bad. It doesn’t feel anything like as oppressive as the Brighton side of Victoria, or even Euston.

 

[Snow1964]

Given that the first Hungerford Bridge was a road bridge, perhaps it was a case of sour grapes !

Hurrah that the motor lobby were defeated by their own lack of agreement !

It was a chain suspension bridge, even now the two big piers for the towers are obvious. I believe the Charing Cross Railway (later absorbed into South Eastern Railway) bought it and the chains were reused for Clifton Bridge.

The river bridge originally had 4 tracks, it was widened on upstream side in 1887 and another 3 tracks added

The reason for lack of land was site was the original bridge approach and that of Hungerford market. From 1880s widening was proposed and a number of free holds purchased in both Craven and Villiers Streets (but widening never happened)

The Approach viaduct was originally 3 tracks on south side of river (up, down, up) the southern most track has different bridges and brickwork at most viaduct arches, and is obvious if anyone walks under them. This extra track wasn’t completed until 1901

Re the slightly off topic discussion on London Bridge station, the LBSCR put overhead wires into platforms 17-22 (there were 21 platforms, but no 5 which was a through road). This was removed in 1952 as part of extension of platforms 3&4 during 10car scheme

 

[Mikey C]

I preferred it before the platforms got built over, but don’t think it’s that bad. It doesn’t feel anything like as oppressive as the Brighton side of Victoria, or even Euston.

As a commuter railway, it's not as if anyone spends long on the platforms anyway, you wait on the concourse then rush for your train. And it's open at the other end anyway, so you can always stand there if you want some fresh air!

I also rather like Embankment Place, the building above it, which manages to fit in with the surroundings, but also stand out. The arched roof on it, is a nice visual connection to the original roof (that collapsed in 1905)