The success of the Metropolitan Line, and Londoners' positive reaction, prompted a flurrry of applications for new railways in London to Parliament, with 250 in 1864 alone. A select committee established by the House of Lords recommended that an ‘inner circuit of railway that should abut, if not actually join, nearly all of the principal railway termini in the Metropolis'.
Click to enlarge District Line map
Rivalry
The Metropolitan's early success prompted a flurry of applications for new railways in London to parliament, with 250 alone submitted in 1864. A select committee established by the House of Lords recommended that an ‘inner circuit of railway that should abut, if not actually join, nearly all of the principal railway termini in the Metropolis". Proposals to extend the Metropolitan were therefore accepted, and a new company named the Metropolitan District Railway (commonly known as the District Railway) was formed to complete the circuit.
Initially, the District and the Metropolitan were closely associated, with the intention being that they would merge upon completion of the Inner Circle. These intentions are highlighted by construction works for all extensions let by a single contract. The close relationship between the two companies is demonstrated by the Met’s chairman and three directors sitting on the board of the District. The two railway companies also had the chief engineer in common, John Fowler. The District was only established as a separate company to enable funds to be raised independently of the Metropolitan, who initially operated all services. But the merger never went ahead, as struggling under the burden of high construction costs, the District's level of debt meant that merger was no longer attractive to the Metropolitan and its directors resigned from the District's board. To improve its finances, the District terminated the operating agreement and began running its own trains, causing significant friction between the two companies.
The election of bitter rivals James Staats Forbes and Sir Edward Watkin as chairmen of the two companies worsened this corporate animosity, as the two men embraced differing styles and visions. Watkin saw the Metropolitan as a mainline railway and made no secret of his ambitions, which included building a link to France through a Channel tunnel, while Forbes favoured shorter extensions largely constructed in partnership with other companies such as the London and South Western Railways. Rivalry and legal action continued between the two companies throughout the 1870s and 1880s, causing significant delays and expense to finishing the inner circle, eventually only being completed after 20 years, largely as a result of Government pressure.
Construction
To ensure ventilation, the line west of Gloucester Road was carried in open cuttings, the rest mainly in a cut and cover tunnel 25 feet (7.6 m) wide and 15 feet 9 inches (4.80 m) deep, similar to that of the Metropolitan Railway. But, unlike the Metropolitan Railway, the route did not follow existing roads, and passed through some of the most valuable real estate in Britain, so compensation payments proved to be enormous.
Workers construct section of the District Line near Blackfriars
Even though by 1866 over 2000 navvies were employed on the line, assisted by 200 horses and fifty-eight steam cranes, and temporary kilns were constructed at Earls court to make the 140 million brick required for the cuttings, progress was painstakingly slow.
In part, delays resulted from the unreasonable demands by stakeholders, such as Lord Harrington banning ventilation shafts on his Kensington estates, along with engineering difficulties such as the channelling of the River Westbourne in a pipe over the platform at Sloane Square. These delays, combined with construction costs and compensation payments meant that the cost of the first section of the District from South Kensington to Westminster was £3 million, almost three times the cost of the Metropolitan’s original, longer line.
On 24 December 1868, the District opened its line from South Kensington to Westminster, with stations at South Kensington, Sloane Square, Victoria, St. James's Park and Westminster Bridge (now Westminster), the Metropolitan extending eastwards from Brompton to a shared station at South Kensington on the same day.
London Travel
Although a huge monetary failure, the enlarged underground rail network opened up new opportunities for travellers. The new links between rail termini offered by the Met and District facilitated suburban sprawl and wider travel patterns. In addition to those commuting in from the new suburbs, individuals used the network to travel across town rather than just between mainline termini as originally envisioned. By the mid 1870s the total number of passengers reached 60 million a year. This high patronage resulted in overcrowding on trains, which attracted much media coverage including published passenger letters covering a wide range of issues including the lack of seating allocations, to the common practice of third class passengers entering whichever carriage they liked.
Although the District Line did not create an iconic suburbia like Metroland, the line stimulated considerable growth in today’s west London. Despite the ongoing and potentially stifling rivalry with the Metropolitan the District managed to establish a popular dense network, which was arguable more conducive to London’s growth the Met’s single line expansion into the depths of the countryside.
References
- Underground: How the Tube Shaped London David Bownes, Oliver Green and Sam Mullins
- Wolmar. The Subterranean Railway. 2004.
- http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=1310408
- http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/district.html
- http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr23/F04_Armstrong.html
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_London_Underground
- http://www.ltmcollection.org/resources/index.html?IXglossary=Public+transport+in+Victorian+London%3A+Part+Two%3A+Underground
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_Railway
This article was written by ICE Graduate and Student members Nicole Badstuber and Christopher Brown.
Images are courtesy of ICE Archives and available on the ICE Image Library.