Haut de page
Baker, B., (1885), ‘The Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railways’, J. Forrest (Ed.) The Metropolitan Railways, London.
Barlow’s, P.W., (1864), patent No. 2207 of 9 September, London Transport Museum.
Bienvenüe, F., (1896), ‘Chemins de Fer Urbains à traction électrique. Devis descriptif et estimatif’, Paris.
Chrétien, J., (1881), Chemin de Fer Électrique des Boulevards à Paris, Paris.
Conseil Municipal de Paris, (1883-1907), Rapports et Documents, Imprimerie Municipale, Paris.
Conseil Municipal de Paris, (1896-1900), Procès verbal, Imprimerie Municipale, RATP, Paris.
Conseil Municipal de Paris, Commission du Métropolitain. Procès-Verbaux de 1895 à 1907. RATP.
Conseil Municipal de Paris, (1894-1900), (Bound volume including reports, notices, deliberations, etc.). RATP.
Beauregard (de), T., (1883), Chemin de Fer Métropolitain Parisien. Comparaison des Deux Principaux Projets, Paris.
Greathead, J., (1896), The City and South London Railway ; with some Remarks upon Subaqueous Tunnelling by Shield and Compressed Air, London.
Huet, E., (1896), « Métropolitain urbain à traction électrique : Rapport du Directeur Administratif des Travaux. Paris », plus « Annexe au rapport », Paris.
The Metropolitan District Electric Traction Company Limited, (1901), Directors Minute Book, London Metropolitan Archives.
Report from the Joint Select Committee on London Underground Railways, (1901), London.
Report of the Joint Select Committee on Electric and Cable Railways, (1892), London.
Reverard, P., (1905), Des Conditions d’Exploitation du Chemin de Fer Métropolitain de Paris, Paris.
Sekon, G.A., (1899),‘Illustrated Interviews, Mr. Thomas Chellew Jenkin’, The Railway Magazine Vol. V.
Villain, P., (1887), Le 107ème Projet de Chemin de Fer Métropolitain, extract from Annales Industrielles 30 October 1887, Paris.
Barker, T. and Robbins, M., (1963, 1974), A History of London Transport. Passenger travel and the development of the metropolis 2 Vols, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London.
Beltran, A., (1988), ‘Une Victoire Commune. L’alimentation en énergie électrique du Métropolitain (1ère moitie du XXe siècle)’, Métropolitain. L’autre dimension de ville, Mairie de Paris, Paris.
Bocquet, D., (2006), ‘Les réseaux d’infrastructures urbaines au miroir de l’histoire : acquis et perspectives’, Flux, 65.
Caron, F. and Cardot, F., (1991), (dir.), Histoire Générale de l’Électricité en France. Tome Premier Espoirs et Conquêtes 1881-1918, Fayard.
Evenson, N., (1979), Paris : A Century of Change, 1878 – 1978, Yale University Press, New Haven and London.
Halliday, S., (2001), Underground to Everywhere. London’s underground railway in the life of the capital, Sutton Publishing London’s Transport Museum, London.
Hughes, T.P., (1983), Networks of Power : electrification in Western society, 1880-1930, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Larroque, D., (2002), ‘Le Métropolitain : histoire d’un projet’, Larroque, D., Margairaz, M., Zembri, P., (2002), Paris et ses transports XIXe – XXe siècles. Deux siècles de décisions pour la ville et sa région, Éditions Recherches, Paris.
Lee, C., (1973), The Bakerloo Line. A Brief History, London.
Mitchell, A., (2003), ‘Le métro : bataille technologique’, Bowie, K. and Texier, S., (sous la direction de), Paris et ses Chemins de Fer, Action Artistique de la Ville de Paris, Paris.
Robbins, M., (1958), ‘Lord Kelvin on Electric Railways’, Journal of Transport History Vol. III No. 4, pp. 235-238.
Robert, J., (1967), Notre Métro, Paris.
Rose, D., (1999), The London Underground. A Diagrammatic History, Douglas Rose, Middlesex.
Simmons, J., (1966), ‘The pattern of Tube railways in London. A Note on the Joint Select Committee of 1892’, Journal of Transport History, Vol. VII, No. 4, pp. 234-240.
Simmons, J., (1995), The Victorian Railway, Thames & Hudson, London.
Wolmar, C., (2004), The Subterranean Railway. How the London underground railway was built and how it changed the city forever, Atlantic Books, London.
Young, K. and Garside, P., (1982), Metropolitan London. Politics and Urban Change 1837 – 1981, Edward Arnold, London.
The Engineer, 7 November 1890, quoted in T. Barker and M. Robbins, A History of London Transport. Passenger travel and the development of the metropolis. Vol 1 (London : George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1963), 309-10.
B. Baker, ‘The Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railways’, J. Forrest (Ed.) The Metropolitan Railways (London, 1885), 8.
For a contemporary account see ‘Metropolitan subterranean railway’, The Times 23 January 1863, 5.
The literature on the historical development of electricity is extensive. See, for example, T.P. Hughes, Networks of Power: electrification in Western society, 1880-1930 (Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983). For a discussion of Hughes’s work in the context of historical studies of technological networks, cities and societies see D. Bocquet, ‘Les réseaux d’infrastructures urbaines au miroir de l’histoire: acquis et perspectives’, Flux 65 (2006), 6-16.
See for example, the interview to the general manager of the City and South London, as the company would later be called, in G.A. Sekon, ‘Illustrated Interviews, Mr. Thomas Chellew Jenkin’, The Railway Magazine Vol. V (July to December 1899), 2. For a concise description of the early years of the City of London and Southwark Subway see also T. Barker and M. Robbins 1963, 305-7.
London Transport Museum, P.W. Barlow’s patent No. 2207 of 9 September 1864, 2.
P.W. Barlow 1864, 1-3. An addition to this patent was made in March 1868 in response to a possible water break into the tunnel, providing the means to solve it.
J. Simmons, The Victorian Railway (London: Thames & Hudson, 1995), 94.
T. Barker and M. Robbins 1963, 312-3.
J. Greathead, The City and South London Railway ; with some Remarks upon Subaqueous Tunnelling by Shield and Compressed Air (London, 1896), 17-8.
As Greathead explained : ‘Except where it passes under the Thames and one property on its south bank, the railway is under the public thoroughfares throughout.’ J. Greathead 1896, 6.
T. Barker and M. Robbins 1963, 314.
See D. Rose, The London Underground. A Diagrammatic History (Middlesex: Douglas Rose, 1999).
For a detailed discussion of the political and administrative dimensions of London’s government see K. Young & P. Garside, Metropolitan London. Politics and Urban Change 1837 – 1981 (London : Edward Arnold, 1982).
Report of the Joint Select Committee on Electric and Cable Railways (London, 1892), v. For a discussion of the report see J. Simmons, ‘The pattern of Tube railways in London. A Note on the Joint Select Committee of 1892’, Journal of Transport History Vol. VII No. 4 (Nov. 1966), 234 – 240.
See JSC on Electric and Cable Railways 1892, pp. v-vi.
See Martha S. Vogeler, ‘Harrison, Charles (1835–1897)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [http://0-www.oxforddnb.com.catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk:80/view/article/38891, accessed 23 Sept 2008.
See the memorandum submitted by Harrison, included as an appendix to the report of the JSC on Electric and Cable Railways 1892, ‘Electric and Cable Railways (Metropolis)’, 137-9; this quote, p. 138.
J. Greathead, evidence of the 1892 report, quoted in J. Simmons 1966, 236.
See Thomson’s letter to the chairman of the Central London Railway Co., the dated 6 January 1893, reproduced in M. Robbins, ‘Lord Kelvin on Electric Railways’ in Journal of Transport History Vol. III No. 4 (Nov. 1958), 235-238.
As F. Caron affirms in relation to the French context, which never the less applies to the case of Britain, these were theoretical benefits which were constantly confronted with the limits of the applicability of a new technology; see F. Caron and F. Cardot (dirs.), Histoire Générale de l’Électricité en France. Tome Premier Espoirs et Conquêtes 1881-1918 (Fayard, 1991), 448-51. Blondel was the first engineer to take up the ‘chair of applied electricity’ at the École des Ponts et Chaussées, created by decree of 20 July 1893, see ibid., 275.
This was concerning the choice of electric traction by the Central London around 1900; quoted in S. Halliday, Underground to Everywhere. London’s underground railway in the life of the capital. (London: Sutton Publishing London’s Transport Museum, 2001), 53.
The director of General Electric, Darius Orgson, figured as one of the large shareholders of the fourth city railway company, the Central London, in a markedly international composition of interests. See T. Barker and M. Robbins, A History of London Transport. Passenger travel and the development of the metropolis. Vol 2 (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1974), 46-7; for the list of shareholders see ibid., 42.
The clearest illustration of the problems between the Metropolitan and District was the completion of the ‘Inner Circle’ finally accomplished in 1884. For a contemporary reference to the conflict see the Select Committee on Railway Bills 1876, particularly the evidence of Mr. Pope in, for example, p. 37.
See Theo Barker, ‘Yerkes, Charles Tyson (1837–1905)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [http://0-www.oxforddnb.com.catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk:80/view/article/49515, accessed 18 March 2009].
One of the sections of the line as presented in 1901 proposed to go as far as Kentish Town, connecting the Midland, and continued via Archway to meet the Great Northern’s branch in Highgate and Edgware. See the evidence of the Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway, Report from the Joint Select Committee on London Underground Railways (London, 1901), 79.
After the opening of Shaftesbury Avenue in 1886, new theatres and shops would expand the entertainment district in and around Leicester Square. See Survey of London Vol. 40.
For a description of the various stages of Yerkes and his financial interests see chapter four of T. Barker and M. Robbins 1974, 61-84. For a concise description of the works of the Bakerloo from the beginning in 1898 until the taking over by Yerkes’s consortium see C. Lee, The Bakerloo Line. A Brief History (London, 1973), 7-9.
Experiments in the section between High Street Kensington and Earl’s Court had been carried out in June 1900. See ‘Electric Traction on the Underground’, The Builder 2 June 1900, 535.
London Metropolitan Archives, The Metropolitan District Electric Traction Company Limited. Directors Minute Book, 1901-02, see the clause 1 of the agreement between the District and the MDET, dated 18 July 1901; affixed to p. 14.
MDET Minute Book 1901-2, see clause 2 of the agreement, p .1; for details of the financial, technical, and legal aspects of the agreement between the two companies see clauses 3 to 15, pp. 1-5. The railways were divided into eight different sections: (1) Mansion House to Earl’s Court; (2) Earl’s Court to High Street Kensington; (3) Gloucester Road to High Street Kensington via Cromwell Curve; (4) Earl’s Court to Putney Bridge; (5) Earl’s Court to Studland Road Junction; (6) Studland Road Junction to Turham Green Junction (LSW); (7) Turham Green Junction to Ealing; (8) Whitechapel Mile End Station and Line leading therefrom to boundary of City Lines and Extensions Railways near St Mary’s Station; see clause 16, p. 5.
See the letter affixed in minute book, pp. 56-7. A notice calling for an extraordinary meeting on 8 August 1902 was to give the details of the liquidation of the company; see minute book, p. 75.
Quoted in C. Wolmar, The Subterranean Railway. How the London underground railway was built and how it changed the city forever (London: Atlantic Books, 2004), 176.
Quoted in C. Wolmar 2004, 177.
The transformation was gradual according to certain sections of the line; Metropolitan trains running the inner circle, for example, were operated by electric traction before the District’s. See T. Barker and M. Robbins 1974, 106-09.
Lloyd George’s remark was a letter read in his absence; both remarks quoted in C. Lee 1973, 10.
See A. Mitchell, ‘Le métro: bataille technologique’, K. Bowie and S. Texier (sous la direction de), Paris et ses Chemins de Fer (Paris: Action Artistique de la Ville de Paris, 2003), 128-9.
A. Mitchell 2003, 138, 142.
The sections were, in order: (1) an external line penetrating Paris; (2) an internal line; (3) the line of Bois de Boulogne; (4) three funiculars: Gare de l’Est to Châtelet, Gare St Lazare to College Chaptal, and Gare Montparnasse to Rue du Louvre; (5) a central station, next to the Hotel de Ville, between the Rue de Rivoli and the river embankments, dedicated to post services and passengers only; (6) a line linking the central station, the Halles, and the Hotel des Postes, for goods traffic only and entirely underground; an additional goods terminal was planned in the Canal St. Martin, between the Rue de Faubourg du Temple and the Avenue de la Republique; (7) junctions with main line railways. For a description of each element see P. Villain, Le 107me Projet de Chemin de Fer Métropolitain (Paris, 1887, extract from Annales Industrielles 30 October 1887). 8-13; the design of the central station was based on the model of the new ‘mailing terminal’ (gare aux messageries) of the Compagnie d’Ouest, see ibid., 17-8.
J. Chrétien, Chemin de Fer Électrique des Boulevards à Paris (Paris, 1881), 22. For a general presentation see ‘Expose du projet’, 15 – 18.
J. Chrétien 1881, 31.
J. Chrétien 1881, 32-3; see also plate opposite p. 59.
This point would constitute a delicate point for the concession which Chrétien solved by having the basic estimate as the foundation for the opening to concessionaries. J. Chrétien 1881, 44, 48.
J. Chrétien 1881, 47.
Chrétien’s optimistic estimate of trains in his system appeared to be misleading, particularly when compared with the frequency of the Auteuil line, worked by the Compagnie de l’Ouest: trains with 6,000 passengers per hour in both directions in Chrétien’s system against 20,000 of the main line. See T. de Beauregard, Chemin de Fer Métropolitain Parisien. Comparaison des Deux Principaux Projets (Paris, 1883), 17-8.
J. Chrétien 1881, 49.
Quoted in D. Larroque, ‘Le Métropolitain: histoire d’un projet’, D. Larroque, M. Margairaz, P. Zembri, Paris et ses Transports XIXe – XXe siècles. Deux siècles de décisions pour la ville et sa région (Paris: Éditions Recherches, 2002), 71.
N. Evenson, Paris: A Century of Change, 1878 – 1978 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1979), 105. Contrary to Evenson’s assertion, Larroque affirms that Berlier’s project only reached Parliament in March 1893 and was never considered by ‘the vote of the national representation’. D. Larroque 2002, 71.
N. Evenson 1979, 109.
For a summary of projects produced under the ‘private initiative’ see P. Reverard, Des Conditions d’Exploitation du Chemin de Fer Métropolitain de Paris (Paris, 1905), 72-8.
CMP procès-verbal, 5 July 1889; quoted in A. Mitchell 2003, 133, and D. Larroque 2002, 70.
According to Larroque, the debate around the city railway and its interest initiated again in 1889 was determined by a more structural question in the political context than the choice between a local and a general interest. This question presented two options: ‘the Republic or an authoritarian regime’. D. Larroque 2002, 69.
See Régie Autonome des Transports Parisiens, Conseil Municipal de Paris, 1894 – 1900 (bound volume including reports, notices, deliberations, etc.), E. Huet, ‘Métropolitain urbain à traction électrique : Rapport du Directeur Administratif des Travaux. Paris, 2 March 1896’, plus ‘Annexe au rapport’, Paris, 23 March 1896.
E. Huet 1896, 1-2.
E. Huet 1896, 2-3.
Huet’s report gives a relatively detailed account of the gauge and affectation to the existing spaces and structures (largeur de la voie); the layout (tracé); typical sections (profiles types); stations; rolling stock and its organisation in terms of power supply (exploitation du matériel); traction (force motrice); estimate of expenditure (estimation des dépenses); and operational costs (frais d’exploitation). Figures of the City and South London and the Liverpool elevated railway were presented in connection with the last point. See E. Huet 1896.
Conseil Municipal de Paris, 1894 – 1900, F. Bienvenüe, ‘Chemins de Fer Urbains à traction électrique. Devis descriptif et estimatif’, Paris, 20 February 1896, 2, 6.
The circuits served the following sections: the circuit ouest supplied the junction at Rue du Dunkerque and sections of the circular and north south lines; the circuit est supplied the junction at Rue Turbigo and sections of all three lines; the circuit nord supplied the junctions at Rue Spinoza and Rue de Rome and sections of the circular and west east lines; the Porte Maillot (circulaire Nord) supplied the junction at Rue Spinoza and sections of the circular and east west lines; the Porte Maillot (circulaire Sud) supplied the junction at Avenue Kleber and sections of the circular and east west lines; and the Diametre Nord-Sud supplied the north south, including the sections common with the circular. F. Bienvenüe 1896, 7.
F. Bienvenüe 1896, 8.
F. Bienvenüe 1896, 9.
F. Bienvenüe 1896, 9-10.
E. Huet 1896, appendix to report (23 March), 2.
E. Huet 1896, appendix to report (23 March), 2.
E. Huet 1896, appendix to report (23 March), 3. Another point in which Huet was explicitly cautious was in connecting the execution of works with the opening of the 1900 exhibition; ‘it is prudent’, he wrote, ‘not to count on [the Métropolitain’s] capacity of transport for the service of the exhibition’. See ibid., 4.
For a detailed account of the process prior to the decision see D. Larroque 2002, 80-87.
See D. Larroque 2002, 87-8; see also J. Robert, Notre Métro (Paris, 1967), 25.
For the prefect’s statement see CMP Procès verbal, 30 March 1898, 357; for Berthelot’s report and the reaction of the councilors see pp. 347 – 62. For further illustration of the conflicting process even after decisions had been taken see, for example, another report by Berthelot concerning the financing of one of the additional lines, ‘Etablissement d’une ligne métropolitain complémentaire […]’, CMP Procès verbal, 1 July 1898, 54 – 7.
D. Larroque 2002, 78.
The terms of the transition between the initial concessionaire and the CFMP were considered and adopted by the city council during the session of 27 June 1898. See Berthelot’s report ‘Constitution de la Société concessionnaire du Métropolitain’, CMP Procès verbal, 27 June 1898, 835; and the subsequent deliberation during the same session, CMP Délibérations, 27 June 1898, 463 – 64.
For a brief discussion of Empain’s role in the provision of electricity for the Métropolitain network see A. Beltran, ‘Une Victoire Commune. L’alimentation en énergie électrique du Métropolitain (1re moitie du XXe siècle)’, Métropolitain. L’autre dimension de ville (Paris: Mairie de Paris, 1988), 115-17.
The extension of the Compagnie d’Ouest from St. Lazare to Champ de Mars served the exhibition grounds instead. It opened on April 12, and the junction between Champ de Mars and Invalides, operated by electric traction, two days later. J. Robert 1967, 34.
For a contemporary account prior to the opening see ‘L’ouverture du Métropolitain’, L’Illustration, 14 July 1900, 22-23; see also the brief note in The Builder, 28 July 1900, p. 72.
See J. Robert 1967, 35. For changes in the name of all stations in the network see the appendix ‘Stations ayant change de nom depuis 1900’, ibid., 302.
A similar situation could be observed in the case of the effective introduction of the electric telegraph in Britain, see J. Simmons 1995, 75-6; for the specific case of electric railways see ibid., 93-4.
P. Reverard 1905, 81.Haut de page