Great Central Main Line: Could it ever be reopened?

[Jorge Da Silva]

I have always wondered whether the GCML could reopen as far as Whetstone and run to Leicester London Road (now Leicester). I would reopen, Brackley to the east of the original site as the original is now a housing estate. Reopening Woodford Halse (with a link to Banbury), Charwelton, Rugby Central and a new station at Rugby North with a reopened route to Lutterworth then joining the existing line to Leicester. I know HS2 uses 12 miles of the route but would it be possible to run alongside it?

 

[Journeyman]

I have always wondered whether the GCML could reopen as far as Whetstone and run to Leicester London Road (now Leicester). I would reopen, Brackley to the east of the original site as the original is now a housing estate. Reopening Woodford Halse (with a link to Banbury), Charwelton, Rugby Central and a new station at Rugby North with a reopened route to Lutterworth then joining the existing line to Leicester. I know HS2 uses 12 miles of the route but would it be possible to run alongside it?

It would just about be possible, but it would be enormously expensive and it would still be as useless as it was when it closed. The GC either served towns already connected to each other by rail or tiny places unable to generate much traffic. In its final few years it was quite common for trains to leave Marylebone without a single passenger on board.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

It would just about be possible, but it would be enormously expensive and it would still be as useless as it was when it closed. The GC either served towns already connected to each other by rail or tiny places unable to generate much traffic. In its final few years it was quite common for trains to leave Marylebone without a single passenger on board.

Surely it would be useful for an Old Oak Common-Aylesbury-Rugby-Leicester service which would allow some services to continue to Nottingham and provide an alternative competing route?. HS2 doesn’t serve Rugby, Leicester or Nottingham (except for a change at the East Midlands Hub).

 

[backontrack]

I think that a new line from Rugby (WCML) to Leicester via Lutterworth might have legs, but it would likely be hideously expensive.

 

[Journeyman]

Surely it would be useful for an Old Oak Common-Aylesbury-Rugby-Leicester service which would allow some services to continue to Nottingham and provide an alternative competing route?. HS2 doesn’t serve Rugby, Leicester or Nottingham (except for a change at the East Midlands Hub).

It absolutely wouldn't be useful for the tiny number of people that might benefit.

 

[backontrack]

Surely it would be useful for an Old Oak Common-Aylesbury-Rugby-Leicester service which would allow some services to continue to Nottingham and provide an alternative competing route?. HS2 doesn’t serve Rugby, Leicester or Nottingham (except for a change at the East Midlands Hub).

Rugby doesn't need HS2 - it has the WCML.

I can see why you'd want a high-speed line to reach Leicester and Nottingham...but why spend so much money on reopening the Great Central when you can just electrify the MML instead?

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Surely Brackley would be useful to serve.

 

[Journeyman]

Surely Brackley would be useful to serve.

I doubt it. You'd have to do extensive rebuilding of a long stretch of line to serve a town with 13,000 inhabitants. It has good bus services and the nearest station is only six miles away.

 

[backontrack]

Surely Brackley would be useful to serve.

Brackley has a population of around 13,000. That's not completely insignificant - as some on here would argue - but Brackley is also fairly isolated. There are many English towns with much better cases for receiving a new rail line - among them Coalville/Ashby-de-la-Zouch, Wisbech, Skelmersdale, Ashington, Haverhill, Washington, Ripon, Keswick, Cranleigh plus many more in Scotland and Wales - plus lines such as York-Beverley, Colne-Skipton and BML2 - that have much better arguments for reopening in favour of them.

It's a long way south from Brackley before you hit significant population (Aylesbury) - you'd need to loop round via Buckingham to make any reopening worthwhile. Even then, it would be prohibitively expensive to build.

 

[A0]

Had the Brackley viaduct not been demolished in the 1970s - reinstating the GC from Aylesbury to Rugby and potentially Leicester would have been fairly straightforward - but sadly not any longer.

The GC was quicker from the East Mids to London than the MML - electrifying the MML won't on it's own improve journey times, it actually needs some re-engineering such as at Market Harborough (which is happening) to improve the poor linespeeds.

 

[randyrippley]

Surely it would be useful for an Old Oak Common-Aylesbury-Rugby-Leicester service which would allow some services to continue to Nottingham and provide an alternative competing route?. HS2 doesn’t serve Rugby, Leicester or Nottingham (except for a change at the East Midlands Hub).

What is the point of a competing route?
What we need are complementary services, not competing ones

 

[Matt P]

I think reopening is feasible if there was the political will/desire to do it. But I think the question of finding it a use first would be necessary.

It is occasionally touted as a HS2 alternative, and perhaps it would offer some advantage to Leicester if it joined the MML at Wigston compared to HS2. Reinstating the GC Banbury branch would also then perhaps provide some opportunities for cross-country services without going via Birmingham. But reinstating the route would only make sense (in my opinion) if a new build link were built from somewhere north of Woodford Halse to connect to the WCML and to Birmingham. That way you provide a WCML and MML cut off to take the intercity services off those routes, taking advantage of the fact that there arent many places worth stopping at on the GCML south of Rugby.

However one you get to Ashendon Junction or Aylesbury you'd end up with capacity issues so would have to probably still build the first section of HS2 from London through the Chilterns as currently proposed. With other sections of new build mentioned (including the MML link), which you have to design to tie into a 19th century route, questions would be soon asked is if an entire new route is a better idea instead of being constrained by the route of an abandoned railway line. Then you'd find that someone beat you to it and called it HS2.

 

[LLivery]

I've always said Brackley could've been a HS2 station, similar to the rural TGV stations.

As for the GC, it would've been useful if it had never been closed but I can't see any economic sense in reopening it.

 

[Tobbes]

Clearly with CPO powers, a large number of bulldozers and an unlimited budget, the answer is yes, of course.

The more realistic answer is "Why?" As has already been noted, south of Rugby the GC ran through lots of very pretty countryside with limited population.

But this also provides the answer to "Why?". If you were serious about building lots (and I mean lots - like towns of 100k people) of houses in places convenient to commute to London or the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, then a revived GC south could be a good option. If Brackely add 30,000 houses (say plus 90k population) and it was an hour to Marylebone, an infrastructure charge of £40k per new house gives you £1.2bn to play with. Do that 5 times along the route and a £5bn investment (allowing for schools etc) becomes doable. Cost of reinstatement from Ashendon to Rugby - no idea - but you'd need to have at least five new towns (eg Calvert, Finmere, Brackley, Helmdon, Charwelton) of 100k people for this to get to credible, I think.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Clearly with CPO powers, a large number of bulldozers and an unlimited budget, the answer is yes, of course.

The more realistic answer is "Why?" As has already been noted, south of Rugby the GC ran through lots of very pretty countryside with limited population.

But this also provides the answer to "Why?". If you were serious about building lots (and I mean lots - like towns of 100k people) of houses in places convenient to commute to London or the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, then a revived GC south could be a good option. If Brackely add 30,000 houses (say plus 90k population) and it was an hour to Marylebone, an infrastructure charge of £40k per new house gives you £1.2bn to play with. Do that 5 times along the route and a £5bn investment (allowing for schools etc) becomes doable. Cost of reinstatement from Ashendon to Rugby - no idea - but you'd need to have at least five new towns (eg Calvert, Finmere, Brackley, Helmdon, Charwelton) of 100k people for this to get to credible, I think.

I think this is perhaps the most feasible investment case for the reopening of such lines. There will always be NIMBYs that complain about housing being built, but ultimately a large increase in housing stock is what's needed to deal with the problems seen in the London/Southeast housing market.

However, I would still see any construction work on the line at least about 10-20 years away, even if the project were mooted and generally in public favour now. There are even vague plans yet!

 

[Senex]

The GC was quicker from the East Mids to London than the MML - electrifying the MML won't on it's own improve journey times, it actually needs some re-engineering such as at Market Harborough (which is happening) to improve the poor linespeeds.

I've never seen any evidence that the GC was quicker — what can you cite? It had a longer route to Leicester, by four or five miles using the Aylesbury line and by eight or nine miles using the joint line, and on the Aylesbury route there was no fast running until the London Extension was reached. There was then a good fast railway to Nottingham, but I don't think the GC/LNER ever equalled the 99 minutes to Leicester or the 123 minutes to Nottingham that the LMS was offering on the Midland by 1939. Trains running via Ashendon Jn had a much faster route, but never overcame the penalty of the extra distance. North of Nottingham the GC line in BR days was a diaster because of the mining subsidence (so was the Midland through the Erewash Valley, of course, but there was the much less affected route vua Ambergate.)
It's excellent that the Market Harborough job is being done on the Midland but a pity that the chance to deal with Wellingborough has apparently been lost for ever. Nevertheless, a 60-minute time from London to Leicester is within sight. How do you think such a timing might have been achieved on the GC?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I've never seen any evidence that the GC was quicker — what can you cite? It had a longer route to Leicester, by four or five miles using the Aylesbury line and by eight or nine miles using the joint line, and on the Aylesbury route there was no fast running until the London Extension was reached. There was then a good fast railway to Nottingham, but I don't think the GC/LNER ever equalled the 99 minutes to Leicester or the 123 minutes to Nottingham that the LMS was offering on the Midland by 1939. Trains running via Ashendon Jn had a much faster route, but never overcame the penalty of the extra distance. North of Nottingham the GC line in BR days was a disaster because of the mining subsidence (so was the Midland through the Erewash Valley, of course, but there was the much less affected route vua Ambergate.)
It's excellent that the Market Harborough job is being done on the Midland but a pity that the chance to deal with Wellingborough has apparently been lost for ever. Nevertheless, a 60-minute time from London to Leicester is within sight. How do you think such a timing might have been achieved on the GC?

YouTube videos indicate that The Metropolitan Railway route was suitable for high speed running from several miles south of Aylesbury up to the connection point just north of Quainton Road Station. The Great Central's route was far better than the Midland Route north of Bedford but high speed running was pre-empted by the idiotic Great Central policy of island platforms.

If there had ever been a business case for the London Extension, and if the line still existed, converting it to a 125mph railway would not have cost a vast amount.

 

[swt_passenger]

There’s nowhere to terminate extra trains at the London end.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

There’s nowhere to terminate extra trains at the London end.

As we're in a world of make-believe here, let's pretend it could terminate at the new mega-expensive, all-dancing HS2 Euston.

 

[Matt P]

YouTube videos indicate that The Metropolitan Railway route was suitable for high speed running from several miles south of Aylesbury up to the connection point just north of Quainton Road Station. The Great Central's route was far better than the Midland Route north of Bedford but high speed running was pre-empted by the idiotic Great Central policy of island platforms.

If there had ever been a business case for the London Extension, and if the line still existed, converting it to a 125mph railway would not have cost a vast amount.

Surely the problem with The Met is going to be capacity trying to fit in the existing Chiltern services, the existing Met services and125mph expresses. If the money was available and speed between the East Midlands and London is the issue we want to address , would not the money be better spent on ironing out some of the more severe sections of the MML south of Leicester with some cut-off suitable for higher speeds, much as BR toyed with as part of the abandoned IC250 scheme for the WCML - after ruling out using the GCML as a WCML cut off that is!!!

 

[The Planner]

Didnt we do this one to death earlier in the year, Im expecting some tenuous links for freight to come up again soon.

 

[Tobbes]

If you were talking about 500,000 houses over a decade (bear in mind that we need about 300,000 per year to keep up with demand), then this sort of mega project becomes feasible. As do others, e.g., opening up the A10 corridor by relaying the Buntingford branch and extending it north to Royston to allow new housing to serve London and Cambridge. **BUT** these require a level of long-term policy coordination that the UK has never been very good at.

 

[swt_passenger]

Didnt we do this one to death earlier in the year, Im expecting some tenuous links for freight to come up again soon.

I haven’t looked for recent repeats but it has come up most years, for a long time it was being pushed by armchair experts as the obvious alternative to building HS2, despite all the online evidence.
The OP has only been here a few months, so won’t know that of course.

 

[Helvellyn]

It's excellent that the Market Harborough job is being done on the Midland but a pity that the chance to deal with Wellingborough has apparently been lost for ever.

What needs done at Wellingborough, and how has it been "lost"?

 

[tbtc]

On threads like this, the "it'd be useful if it was still open" argument needs to be separated from the "is it worth actually rebuilding nowadays"

Maybe if it had remained open it'd provide some useful links, but those "useful" links would be very expensive to recreate now.

Maybe BR should have kept it open, maybe there was some great LNER/LMS conspiracy that meant the GC was closed but The Powers That Be didn't have the resources to properly fund the MML during this period (e.g. every ninety minutes from London to Nottingham/ Derby), so I'm not convinced by the idea that they'd have been able to maintain two lines from London to the East Midlands (stretching resources even further).

Regardless, it's the past, can't change it, can only deal with the reality of whether it's worth re-opening an old line versus investing in existing lines (e.g. electrifying the MML) or building a brand new line (e.g. HS2). I suspect that a significant number of enthusiasts will always prefer re-opening an old line, of course, but that doesn't necessarily make it the right answer.

why spend so much money on reopening the Great Central when you can just electrify the MML instead?

This!

If we can't find the money to do something as simple/ basic/ necessary as upgrade an existing route - and I'd wire up the MML without question - then we shouldn't be daydreaming about the Nice To Have things like the GC.

There’s nowhere to terminate extra trains at the London end.

Agreed - unless a scheme involves costing the massively expensive disruption of constructing new lines into central London (e.g. HS2) then I find it hard to overlook the lack of platform capacity in the capital (e.g. "BML2", Grand Central).

 

[Warwick]

The Beeching report refers. No-one was using it, it simply mirrored what was already there, no GCR passenger train ever made money. All the passenger trains were being subsidised by the enormous number of coal trains using the route. Coal died and so did the G.C. main line.

 

[Senex]

What needs done at Wellingborough, and how has it been "lost"?

This came up the last time we had this MR/GC discussion some months ago. As originally planned, the Leicester & Hitchin line would have been significantly to the east of its present site in passing Wellingborough. It was moved west to bring it closer to the own by George Hudson to help win support, and the move resulted in much sharper curvature than originally intended. There was talk of improvement some years ago when all the land was still open, but there have been significant plans for building since then.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Surely the problem with The Met is going to be capacity trying to fit in the existing Chiltern services, the existing Met services and125mph expresses. If the money was available and speed between the East Midlands and London is the issue we want to address , would not the money be better spent on ironing out some of the more severe sections of the MML south of Leicester with some cut-off suitable for higher speeds, much as BR toyed with as part of the abandoned IC250 scheme for the WCML - after ruling out using the GCML as a WCML cut off that is!!!

Great Central Railway's London Extension is closed so the entire debate is academic. Your question - and ones similar- are those B. R asked themselves, and this is the main reason they closed the route: because it duplicated the Midland Main Line and, to a smaller degree, also the West Coast Mainline. B. R.'s view, and undoubtedly correct, was it made more sense to invest in the alternatives.

The hard, ugly truth is that the London Extension should never had been built because there was never a business case for it. The tragedy is that because it was the last main line, lessons learned from previous railway building experience could be drawn on, and the line was therefore better than many other main lines: very few level crossings, very few tunnels, fewer bridges, straight track, easy curves etc.

 

[edwin_m]

The hard, ugly truth is that the London Extension should never had been built because there was never a business case for it. The tragedy is that because it was the last main line, lessons learned from previous railway building experience could be drawn on, and the line was therefore better than many other main lines: very few level crossings, very few tunnels, fewer bridges, straight track, easy curves etc.

However, I do wonder if this greater understanding led them to design it for the 80-90mph speed of express trains at the time - and no better. A quick skim of the route shows various curves of the sort of radius which wouldn't have constrained a train of the 1900s but would have been very difficult to improve later. In a lot of cases the curve has long straights before and after, and it looks as if a longer but gentler curve could have been put in at a similar cost. Of course the Midland has similar issues for different reasons, but at least doesn't suffer from the island platforms someone mentioned further back. Increasing speeds through any stations left open would have required a total rebuild of the platforms and probably of the road bridges at the platform ends too.

 

[Matt P]

However, I do wonder if this greater understanding led them to design it for the 80-90mph speed of express trains at the time - and no better. A quick skim of the route shows various curves of the sort of radius which wouldn't have constrained a train of the 1900s but would have been very difficult to improve later. In a lot of cases the curve has long straights before and after, and it looks as if a longer but gentler curve could have been put in at a similar cost. Of course the Midland has similar issues for different reasons, but at least doesn't suffer from the island platforms someone mentioned further back. Increasing speeds through any stations left open would have required a total rebuild of the platforms and probably of the road bridges at the platform ends too.

If we assumed for a moment that we are 1960's BR managers faced with the same political pressures to cut losses as BR actually was, but we depart from history slightly and assume that the government is more open minded to the benefits of the type of route upgrade being carried out on the WCML so is prepared to fund something similar to it, but force us to choose between the GCML or the MML. We'd probably go for the MML because it serves more settlements south of Leicester, meaning any route upgrade is more likely to increase revenues. In fact, in order to help pay for it we probably take an even more enthusiastic view regarding the complete closure of the route - so we make a concerted effort to withdraw the residual services to Rugby in 1966.