Victorian tram routes around London

[whole diary]

[grahame]

From The Standard

Fascinating 19th century London tram map shows Victorian routes around capital

A fascinating new map shows the routes trams took across the capital in Victorian London.

The interactive map gives fresh insight into the late 19th century tram network which ceased running completely in 1952.

Experts have mapped the routes used in the Victorian era and revealed stark differences with major routes used in modern London.

Link within article to source data at http://sharemap.org/public/Trams_in_London#!html5

Suggestion is made that the modern tube network was based on where there was a lack of tram service - and with trams being so good south of the river, few tube lines came south - something that's left a mark to this day.

[ChrisB]

URL is http://sharemap.org/public/Trams_in_London#!html5

[SandTEngineer]

URL is http://sharemap.org/public/Trams_in_London#!html5

Warning: That link asks you to install some software that you might not want to do

[ChrisB]

hhm, it didn't for me.

[Tim]

Interesting thanks.  I thought that the lack of tubes South of the river had to do with geology with more gravel and less clay tunnelling was more difficult.   Interesting too to note that there were no trams in the centre.  Presumably this was the same prohibition that kept mainline rail out of the centre of the city. 

[ChrisB]

Suggestion in the article that there was a lot of money in the centre, thus all using private transport.

[stuving]

Interactive? Doesn't that mean it's meant to do something?

[didcotdean]

From 1870 tramways required the permission of the local authority to be built and after a 21-year concession period the local authority could purchase the complete undertaking. So the trams were built in London by private companies often avoided competing with the existing (sub-surface) underground lines from a matter of permissions and usage concerns.

[stuving]

This made me wonder whether there were any original tram maps digitised and on line (like the numerous railway and Underground ones). Apparently not; perhaps the network wasn't seen as a single entity to be mapped at the time. However, there is this site which you may find more informative. Indeed, it makes me wonder how much research was involved in making this new, less complete, one.

The GS Tram Site splits London over several maps, and the single map does have the merit of showing the overall coverage more clearly. The lack of trams in the City of London isn't a big surprise, given the very busy narrow streets, and the priority given to getting office workers in and out. The lines map pretty closely onto the commuting pattern of Charles Pooter and his class. The tram desert over the whole of the West End is very striking, and surprising too.

True, this was where the more affluent Londoners lived, including those who worked in the City. There may well have been class-based arguments ("you can't expect people like us to travel in trams"), though I doubt very many had their own carriages - they would use cabs, I think.  But by the time tube trains and electric trams arrive (1900s), I'm sure there were a lot of workers there needing to travel in and out. Of course the original underground lines did run through that area, but that big gap is still a bit odd.

Most of the Standard's comments are pretty silly. (Is there no explanation with that map?) I mean, only one crossing of the river? And by tunnel?

And how did the tram network affect building tubes south of the rirer? Only horse trams existed before the tubes were planned, and they were never a substitute for a railway. The first tube was open well before electric trams arrived, and getting under the river was one of the main reasons for going so deep. I prefer the traditional explanation - surface railways already covered the South pretty well (indeed, a lot of Southwark is carpeted with them).

The initial underground lines didn't reach there for the obvious reason; the early experiments with cut-and-cover construction across the Thames were a little disappointing. The first tube lines then did cross the river, and also the West End. The real question is why they didn't take over surface railway lines to go further out, as they did to the north, west, and east.

[didcotdean]

There was a very short period between all the various operating companies being brought together under the London Passenger Transport Board in 1933, and the start of the abandonment of trams from around 1935, albeit pre-war by trolleybuses so a full network (as opposed to operator-specific) map may never have been produced. Also like the situation today with buses they weren't seen so much as a network with connections etc.

The lack of investment in the southern London trams in the 30s, compared with the money put into the Underground in the north was a significant issue in municipal elections.