London Underground / Historic London Suburbs TV Show Recommendations

[Sir TophamHatt]

Can anyone recommend any TV shows about the London Underground and how it influenced house building?

I'm specifically looking for ones that are about the history, more so about the beginnings of the network.

 

I was fascinated with a programme by Tim Dunn (I assume his Architecture series) about how whole villages / towns / suburbs were built and sold as the "living out of London" dream to be connected with the Underground Network to provide a quick journey into the centre of London.

 

Cheers

[Nearholmer]

The Metropolitan Railway in its independent days was often called “a property development company that happened to run trains”.

 

‘Metroland’ by/with John Betjeman is a sort of history of all this, but more a celebration. I think it’s on either bbc iPlayer or YouTube. [Ah! Although it is posted on iPlayer, it is shown as "not currently available", which seems a bit unfair!]

 

Off-hand, I can’t think of a film/tv piece that covers the railway-driven/enabled expansion of London in the round, rather than specifically the influence of the Met.

Edited April 4, 2021 by Nearholmer

[phil_sutters]

One source of documentary films is the BFI library - there are several films on the development of specific suburbs like this one https://player.bfi.org.uk/free/film/watch-making-of-woking-1985-online  or this one about Bromley https://player.bfi.org.uk/free/film/watch-semi-detached-suburban-1977-online . These are in the free-to-view section. Neither of these is on the Underground however, but there may be others in their files that are, like this one https://player.bfi.org.uk/free/film/watch-london-tube-extension-to-hainault-1948-online and there are a few mentions of LU in this one https://player.bfi.org.uk/free/film/watch-british-home-design-1935-1935-online

Edited April 4, 2021 by phil_sutters

[Jeff Smith]

Not a tv programme but a useful book, London's Underground Suburbs by Dennis Edwards and Ron Pilgrim, 1986, ISBN 0 85936 294 9, published by Baton Transport.

[Sir TophamHatt]

Thanks, I'll take a look into these

[phil_sutters]

I have just noticed this book in the World of Books listing

London's Underground Suburbs by Dennis Edwards - price £10.49 inc p&p - 2 copies remain

Apart from seeing the title, I have no knowledge of the book, but it may be of interest to you. There are no details about the content, but an online search might give you some info.

[Jeff Smith]

The book is large format hard cover 137 pages.  The four sections deal with pre-WW1, The Northern Heights, Metroland and the West London area.  Each section has several pages of text followed by many pictures.

[5050]

'The Subterranean Railway' by Christian Wolmar.  A nicely thick paperback full of the history of the underground from the earliest days.  I found it fascinating - even though I detest London as a place to visit.  And don't forget there is a TV series coming soon on Yesterday - see the thread on here.

[HonestTom]

Not a TV series, but there is a set of books on Metroland by Dennis Edwards and Ronald Pigram: 'The Romance of Metro-Land,' 'Metro Memories' and 'London's Underground Suburbs.' They're very picture-heavy, but pretty comprehensive. You can find them very cheaply second-hand.

[GoingUnderground]

I can't recall any specific TV programmes other than Sir John Betjeman's "Metroland" and Tim Dunn's recent forays into the subject in Amersham, and Ickenham.

 

But the effect of the building of the Metropolitan and Northern Lines in particular was enormous.

 

Most folks think of "Metroland" as being in the Chilterns, but that isn't correct. Most of it was in Middlesex, and accounts for the extensive housebuilding along the route of the Metropolitan "Main Line" and along the Uxbridge branch. For instance, on the Uxbridge branch the only station between Harrow and Uxbridge when the line opened in 1904 was Ruislip, a village that is mentioned in the Domesday Book. Stations were added at West Harrow (1913), Rayners Lane (1906), Eastcote (1906), Ickenham (1905), and Hillingdon (1923). On the Metropolitan "Main Line" as houses were built so were the stations to serve them, North Harrow (1915) , Northwood Hills (1933). For example, the following estates in Middlesex are part of Metroland:

Chalk Hill, Wembley Park

Woodcock Dell, Northwick Park

Eastcote Hill, Eastcote 

Harrow Garden Village

Manor Farm, Ruislip

Hillingdon Mount, Hillingdon

Grange & Cecil Park, Pinner

 

The earliest development was the Willesden Park Estate in the 1880s-1890s. But the Metropolitan didn't build every house in "Metroland". If you can find it, the LT Museum produced a reprint in 1987 of the 1932 edition of "Metro-Land" ISBN 0948353090 which has adverts from many of the builders such as Cutlers who built the Ridgeway estate in North Harrow; Haymills for the Barn Hill Estate, Wembley Park; Tudor Housing  for the Highfields Estate in Hillingdon, and Costins who built much of Kenton. In fact, the majority of the adverts are for estates in Middlesex, with only a few for Rickmansworth and beyond.

 

Likewise the building of the Hampstead line which initially ran through fields, again in Middlesex. There are some pictures in various books showing Golders Green station surrounded by fields, and Hendon station under construction in a field.

 

Some say that modern London north of the Thames owes its existence to the building of the Underground network.

[Jeff Smith]

Most of which in fact was Overground, either full size loading gauge in the case of the Metropolitan or tube loading gauge for Northern Line etc.

[GoingUnderground]

3 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

Most of which in fact was Overground, either full size loading gauge in the case of the Metropolitan or tube loading gauge for Northern Line etc.

"Overground"? I don't think so, that name was only created relatively recently (2007) to refer to the former NLR and Watford DC lines brought under the control of Transport for London and applied to other connected lines where control was passed to TfL. I think you mean "on the surface" or "above ground",  or "overground", which was not surprising as that is the cheapest way to build a line in open countryside between towns and villages. The Metropolitan and Northern tracks came first, so there was no need to tunnel below green fields, and the houses followed.

 

It is called the "Underground" because Charles Tyson Yerkes company, the "Underground Electric Railways Company of London" company, "UERL" acquired the Metropolitan District Railway (District Line), the partly-built the Bakerloo Line, and built the Piccadilly and Hampstead Lines in the 1900s, going on to take over the Central London Railway (Central Line) and the City & South London Railway ( the southern end of the Northern Line) in the 1910s. The only line it didn't control was the Metropolitan. But it was the UERL that formed the nucleus of the LPTB and provided the key management team (Ashfield & Pick) which in reality gained control of the Metropolitan on the founding of the LPTB.

 

Much of the signage used, and even today still uses, the word "Underground" a contraction of "Underground Electric Railways of London" and it was entirely natural to still call it the "Underground" on the extensions built above ground, notably the extension to Edgware and the Piccadilly line extension to Cockfosters. An example of this signage is found at Rayners Lane, a station originally built by the Metropolitan as I noted earlier,

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rayners_Lane_stn_entrance.JPG which is very definitely at ground level. The building there is a classic 1930s "Holden" brick box with a concrete lid design from the LPTB "New Works" era. 

[Jeff Smith]

Obviously I should not have capitalized......but the history is interesting.  The American influence resulted in US terminology, ie coaches are cars, etc.

Edited April 10, 2021 by Jeff Smith

[Suzie]

Mike Hall's 'Lost Railways of Middlesex' is a book with a lot of history in it.

[GoingUnderground]

15 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

Obviously I should not have capitalized......but the history is interesting.  The American influence resulted in US terminology, ie coaches are cars, etc.

The American influence only atrrived with Yerkes. who was an American involved in public transport in Chicago., see wikipedia for more details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Yerkes However he died before any of his 3 tube lines opened.

 

It became more entrenched when an Englishman from Derbyshire, Albert Knattriess, known as Albert Stanley when the family changed its name in the 1890s after emigrating to the USA in the 1880s. Stanley started work for a tram company in Detroit, and after various moves ended up as running the New Jersey system. He was brought in by UERL to rescue the company in 1910. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stanley,_1st_Baron_Ashfield and when awarded a perage took the title Lord Ashfield, a name by which he is probably best known.

 

The other key American in the UERL was William Graff-Baker whose family had built public transport systems in both the US and the UK. Born in the USA, Graff-Baker grew up in the UK, and rose within the UERL to become CME of the LPTB, and is largely responsible for the 1938 Tube Stock and the O/P/Q stock and through them the 1959/62 Tube Stock and R Stock.

 

But it doesn't end there. an American Frank J. Sprague was an electrical engineer who was deeply involved in the development of electric traction and invented the first practical method of multiple unit control. His company also provided the lifts for the Central London Railway.

 

But back on topic. I'm not sure that a TV programme devoted to the urbanisation of Middlesex would be hugely interesting, and I say that as a former resident of Middlesex back in the days before it was abolished due to the formation of the GLC. Also, I say Middlesex as the Southern Railway was successful at keeping the UERL out of its territory, which is why the Underground is mostly north of the Thames. The majority of the houses are of a similar age and design, going up in the 20+ years between 1918 and 1939, although there was further building up to the Green Belt boundary in the 1940s and 1950s.

 

It was the Abercrombie report in 1939 Green Belt Act in 1938 and the Abercrombie Greater London Plan of 1944 that put a stop to the continuing expansion of suburban London into the remaing green fields of Middlesex, and Surrey and Essex, and with it the abandonment of the extension of the Northern Line beyond Edgware through fields to Bushey Heath adjacent to what is now Aldenham Reservoir. without the new housing in the Brockley Hill, and Elstree areas to create passenger numbers, there was little point in extending the line beyond Edgware as it was already close to the Green Belt boundary. For the same reason the extension of the Central Line beyond West Ruislip to Harefield and Denham never took place. From a railway perspective, the extensions that didn't get built are more interesting.

Edited April 10, 2021 by GoingUnderground

[Darius43]

On 10/04/2021 at 00:03, GoingUnderground said:

"Overground"? I don't think so, that name was only created relatively recently

 

Au contraire, I seem to recall it’s use in a song about some of the residents of Wimbledon Common in the 1970s.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

[GoingUnderground]

On 18/04/2021 at 06:06, Darius43 said:

 

Au contraire, I seem to recall it’s use in a song about some of the residents of Wimbledon Common in the 1970s.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

i think you'll find that was "overground", https://www.songlyrics.com/the-wombles/the-wombling-song-lyrics/ not "Overground".

[Darius43]

2 minutes ago, GoingUnderground said:

i think you'll find that was "overground", https://www.songlyrics.com/the-wombles/the-wombling-song-lyrics/ not "Overground".

I think you need to get out (in the daylight) more.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

[Dublodad]

I seem to remember seeing photos of London buses from the 1920's or 30's marked with Overground.

[GoingUnderground]

5 hours ago, Darius43 said:

I think you need to get out (in the daylight) more.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

That's a bit difficult on the Victoria Line 

 

But that's the cross I have to bear for modelling the Underground, ripping up the floorboards  if I want to watch the trains go by.

[GoingUnderground]

4 hours ago, Dublodad said:

I seem to remember seeing photos of London buses from the 1920's or 30's marked with Overground.

There are, https://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/collections/collections-online/photographs/item/1998-66127 but given the logo, OvergrounD, and its similarity with the UndergroundD one and the fact that at least some of the photos seem to have been taken in LGOC (London General Omnibus Company) bus garages, they may have been part of the LGOC.

 

But the point that I was making was the risk of confusion between the "sub-surface" District and Metropolitan Lines which are part of the Underground network and have been for over 100 years, and the TfL created Overground rail network which only came into existence in 2007 with the transfer to TfL of the Watford-Euston, Stratford- Richmond, Gospel Oak - Barking and Willesden Junction - Clapham Junction services. The East London Line, once part of the Metropolitan routes, was added in 2010, with subsequent additions. 

 

The Underground and Overground have separate branding, the Underground using the traditional "Bullseye" or roundel in red and blue, whilst the Overground uses the same "Bullseye", but with the the circle in orange instead of red and the word OVERGROUND in the blue bar, replacing the word UNDERGROUND. Both use the New Johnson typeface. There are stations, such as Harrow & Wealdstone, where both logos appear https://i2-prod.mylondon.news/incoming/article13366621.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200/SDP_WTL_NL20149094_02.jpg. The liveries are similar, with the doors painted red on Underground stock, and orange on Overground stock.

 

Incidentally, the roundel itself was first used by the LGOC, the LGOC being acquired in 1912 by the UERL followed in 1913 by an interest in MET, LUT and SMET tram systems, and this monolith with a virtual monopoly on public transport in London, apart from the LCC Trams and the Metropolitan Railway, was sometimes referred to as "The Combine", before the formation of the LPTB.

 

The key difference between the Underground and the Overground is that the Underground network is owned and run by TfL and refers not just to the trains but also the track and stations, with some exceptions where services are operated over Network Rail track where running rights were obtained by the Underground over pre-grouping companies' lines., such as the Bakerloo beyond Queens Park. The Overground refers only to the services and the rolling stock as it runs over tracks and uses stations still owned and maintained by Network Rail. Also the Underground is exclusively 4th rail 630V DC whereas the Overground is a mix of 3rd rail 650/750V DC and 25kV AC catenary, the Overground rolling stock being dual voltage. Between Queens Park and Harrow & Wealdstone (Bakerloo) and Gunnersbury and Richmond (District) the same tracks are used by both Underground and Overground trains with a modified version of the 4th rail system, where the centre rail is bonded to the running rail so that it can be used by both 3rd rail and 4th rail rolling stock.

 

Here endeth today's sermon. 

[Jeff Smith]

On 09/04/2021 at 13:29, Jeff Smith said:

Most of which in fact was Overground, either full size loading gauge in the case of the Metropolitan or tube loading gauge for Northern Line etc.

 

On 09/04/2021 at 20:25, Jeff Smith said:

Obviously I should not have capitalized......but the history is interesting.  The American influence resulted in US terminology, ie coaches are cars, etc.

An interesting diversion, and all because I inadvertently used a capital O.  The original point I was making was that some Underground lines actually ran for part of their journeys on the surface.  I lived between Mill Hill East and Finchley Central growing up and I always remember the long last tunnel between Highgate and East Finchley and popping out still in daylight......and the mystery of where the central two surface tracks between the tunnel portals went......

[Jeff Smith]

On 09/04/2021 at 13:29, Jeff Smith said:

 

 

On 09/04/2021 at 20:25, Jeff Smith said:

 

Edited April 19, 2021 by Jeff Smith
Duplicate post deleted

[GoingUnderground]

14 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

 

An interesting diversion, and all because I inadvertently used a capital O.  The original point I was making was that some Underground lines actually ran for part of their journeys on the surface.  I lived between Mill Hill East and Finchley Central growing up and I always remember the long last tunnel between Highgate and East Finchley and popping out still in daylight......and the mystery of where the central two surface tracks between the tunnel portals went......

I fully understood the point that you were making, I was simply trying to avoid confusion between the Underground and the Overground networks.

 

All the Underground lines have revenue earning sections above ground, apart from the Victoria and the relatively recently added Waterloo & City. So it's the majority of the lines have revenue earning extensions on the surface, not just some of them. And some of those extensions resulted in the building of the suburbs, which is where we came in.

 

 As I said before, lines are only in tunnel or cuttings where it was too expensive or invasive to demolish buildings to build the lines or too disruptive to repeat the cut & cover method used for the Metropolitan. According to Wikipedia, 55% of the system is above ground even though every Underground line started out as being below ground with only the depots, Waterloo & City excepted, being above ground.

 

In some cases, the routes use surface lines built by other railway companies which were transferred to the Underground as part of the 1930s New Works programme, as is the case with the eastern and western (West Ruislip branch) ends of the Central Line and the High Barnet/Mill Hill branch of the Northern Line, or over which running rights were obtained by UERL in the past in the case of the District and Bakerloo Lines, or built jointly with a main line company as is the case with the Hammersmith & City beyond Paddington. 

 

Visitors to London tend only to see the central area, whereas someone like me who hails from NW London knew the Underground as the surface railway that was my daily commute to school from 1960. What I do remember is how noisy the underground sections were on the occasional trips into Central London as a child with my mother, almost painful to my ears as I recall.

 

But I've bored you all too much. I'll shut up now.  

[Jeff Smith]

Yes, I was going to add, exiting the tunnel just before East Finchley at night the sudden drop in sound indicated the exit but still dark until out of the cutting!