Tube geek (3)North and South
Tube stations are spread out very unfairly across London. North of the Thames there are 242 tube stations, for example, whereas there are only 33 to the south. Disturbingly, most of those 33 southern stations are on the so-called Northern Line. South London does have far more Network Rail lines than the north, but the trains running on the overground are older, shabbier, less reliable and far less frequent, so they don't really count. Connex and South West Trains are names that bring daily misery to millions, far more depressing than anything the District or Victoria lines could ever conjure up. And remember that it was councils south of the river that scuppered Ken Livingstone's Fares Fair policy back in the the early 1980s, because local taxes were being frittered away on tube services that nobody in their boroughs could actually use.
I've been busy with a large map of the capital counting the number of tube stations in each London borough. (Because I can, OK?) Here's the list in rank order, with the boroughs south of the river coloured in blue:
You might expect the central London borough of Westminster to be top of the list, and it is, but after that it's north and west London that fare best, by far. South of the river there are five boroughs with no tube stations at all, and only Southwark and Lambeth reach a vaguely reasonable total. The one glaring exception to the north-south rule is Hackney with a miserable one tube station (and that's only Manor House, in the top-left corner of the borough, right on the border with neighbouring Haringey). Hackney's total should increase to 4 when the East London line is extended in five years time, but it'll still be a grim place to live, tube-wise at least. But not quite as bad as living in south London.
Tube geek (3) North and South
