Connections
I’m a big one for connections that allow interchanges to be made as easily and seamlessly as possible. That’s where the Circle Line is a good idea, given that mainline railways were never allowed to run directly through the centre of London. But, it is better if these are direct connections, with one transport mode (such as a light rail system) sharing a station complex with another (a heavy rail operator), thus meaning that, essentially, all passenger X needs to do is walk up or down the stairs to reach the next part of his or her journey. Now, Vancouver has two major railway stations serving the city, Waterfront Station, which was the old Canadian Pacific terminal, and Pacific Central Station. Today, Pacific Central is the city’s main intercity station, with VIA Rail’s Canadian service to Toronto and Amtrak’s Cascades service to Seattle and Eugene both terminating there, while Waterfront is the primary commuter station, with all three of the city’s SkyTrain lines and the West Coast Express commuter line terminating there. SkyTrain is the city’s major rapid transit system, serving the same role as the London Underground, Paris Metro et al. Waterfront Station is the focus, but, in spite of it being just 25 years old, and undergoing significant expansion over that time, there is no direct connection to SkyTrain at Pacific Central, with instead Main Street-Science World Station serving as the interchange. This would be most useful, as Pacific Central, in addition to being the city’s main intercity railway station, also serves as a major bus terminal, with Greyhound Canada and Pacific Coach Lines services operating there. This is the kind of joined up thinking that other cities have done in terms of its integration of rail, so it surprises me that the Canadians, who always strike me as more practical in such things than their neighbours, haven’t thought of this.
Chairman Pip's Railway Thoughts 
Why were mainline railways never allowed to run directly through the centre of London?
What sort of connection to SkyTrain are you thinking of for Pacific Central?
When railways first began to be built, Parliament legislated against them going through the centre of London, as it was felt (perhaps rightly) that they would be an unsightly nuisance. The early rail companies got around this by putting railways in tunnels, hence why we have the Underground.
As the nearest SkyTrain line was the first one built, it would have been relatively easy at the planning stage to have the route connect directly to Pacific Central station; essentially make Pacific Central a station on the SkyTrain, which it isn’t at the moment. According to what I have read, there are tentative plans to extend the Millenium Line westward, thus making what I see as an ideal branch that could connect directly to the railway station
Another consideration about trains running through Central London is that there simply isn’t the space, of course! I thought it was the lack of space that led to the Underground.
BTW, do you know whether the C of ‘Central London’ should be capitalised or not? It tends to be but it isn’t an official name, is it? So it seems like a lower case job to me, but it always looks wrong.
Oh, bum, I’ve put my comment in the wrong place again, sorry; should have been replying to your reply.
True, but trains do run through the centre of other cities. Don’t forget that London was still growing when the railways began to be built.
Yes but London is especially densely built up and has been for centuries. It has grown outwards but the centre hasn’t changed a great deal. You only need to look at all the narrow streets and small buildings to get an idea of the age of many of the areas. It really would have been difficult to build a railway through the centre. Whoever thought of the Underground, though, was a genius, and, with today’s traffic congestion, it has more use than ever before.
Yes, London was densely built up, but what you need to remember is that in the 19th century, the march of progress stopped for no one, especially those without money. Had it been allowed, railway developers would have purchased huge swathes of slums, and flattened them to build their railway through the centre of London, not caring a hoot for those displaced, whether they be the poor evicted from their houses, or small businesses thrown out of their premises. Undoubtedly this would have eventually occured, as it was obvious rail travel to London would not be able to succeed with the rail termini so far from the centre. It was only the Royal Commission of 1846, and thus by extension the will of Parliament, that stopped the railways going straight through London on the surface, and led to advocates of taking the railway underground, such as Charles Pearson, to be listened to as more than just hair brained schemes.
I’m glad it was made law to preserve London’s history, not to mention the thought of the awful consequences for the poor residents and business owners whose homes and premises would have been knocked down. Plus, the underground rail system provides an easy means of getting to rail termini that aren’t in the actual centre. 🙂 OK, question: which is the most central mainline railway station in London?
Given that the centre of London is classed as being on the forecourt of Charing Cross, I think you can make an educated guess 😛