Great Central Main Line: Could it ever be reopened?

[satisnek]

The GC London Extension had only two benefits: it cut through the centre of Nottingham and it cut through the centre of Leicester. Both cities were well developed by the 1890s and so construction of the line required extensive property acquisition - euphemistically or otherwise called 'slum clearance' at the time. Unless we're prepared to do the same thing again today - with the appropriate multiplier on the cost - we might as well build a brand new line and call it HS2.

 

[edwin_m]

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.

For Nottingham, the GC was probably a slightly better route than the Midland via Trent and also put it on the though route to Sheffield instead of on a branch where through trains northwards had to reverse. The Midland via Melton did both but that was closed as well.

However the GC didn't provide a good London service for Derby and linked to far fewer places than the well-developed Midland network (Nottingham to Birmingham would have been very convoluted for example, even if there was funding to build a few connecting curves). So despite suspecting that BR favoured Derby unreasonably over Nottingham due to so many railway people being based there, I do think that the GC was the right route to close if one of them had to.

 

[Rob F]

For Nottingham, the GC was probably a slightly better route than the Midland via Trent and also put it on the though route to Sheffield instead of on a branch where through trains northwards had to reverse. The Midland via Melton did both but that was closed as well.

However the GC didn't provide a good London service for Derby and linked to far fewer places than the well-developed Midland network (Nottingham to Birmingham would have been very convoluted for example, even if there was funding to build a few connecting curves). So despite suspecting that BR favoured Derby unreasonably over Nottingham due to so many railway people being based there, I do think that the GC was the right route to close if one of them had to.

But the main route to St Pancras on the Midland from Nottingham was not via Trent but via Melton, which also meant there were no reversals for trains going further north. It could be argued that Nottingham had three routes to London and that the only one to be retained was the worst.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

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.

Undoubtedly the line was designed with a view to the next 50 years, not 150 years. Hence: island platforms. On the other hand even the ECML, the best race track on Britain's railways, (until HS1) had several speed impediments until a long term strategy to remove them was implemented. I am not aware of the route configuration of the London Extension being inferior to other main lines.

It's instructive to look at the route layout of the WCML at Berkhamstead and to compare it the configuration of the neighbourly GC route between Quainton Road and Claydon Junction.

 

[edwin_m]

But the main route to St Pancras on the Midland from Nottingham was not via Trent but via Melton, which also meant there were no reversals for trains going further north. It could be argued that Nottingham had three routes to London and that the only one to be retained was the worst.

Yes indeed, but the Melton route avoided Leicester - which wouldn't be acceptable even with today's frequencies and certainly wasn't when the total long-distance service out of St Pancras by all routes were no better than hourly.

 

[HSTEd]

The choice is not neccesarily between the MML and the GC, which unfortunately was the choice that was made.

You could build a superior network to the one we were left with by merging bits of the MML and the GC.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

The choice is not neccesarily between the MML and the GC, which unfortunately was the choice that was made.

You can build a superior network to the one we were left with by merging bits of the MML and the GC.

Can or could have?

 

[HSTEd]

Can or could have?

Well could have, it's much too late now.

We are left with an MML that is not really fit for purpose and is not the railway any sane person would have chosen to have from the mass of tracks that were available.

 

[B&I]

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.

True. I find it amazing that no-one thought to base the postwar new towns, and postwar development more generally, around railwaya. Instead, we went out of our way to develop thinga in a way as unfriendly to public transport aa s possible.

I wonder if the southern part of the GC would have survived had somewhere on its route been designated a London overspill town. But then looking at, for example, Skelmersdale, where new town status did not save the railway, I suspect even that would not have guaranteed it.

 

[B&I]

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).

Perhaps the question is less what new railways should we be building in London, and more is it sensible to keep concentrating all economic growth there ?

 

[Dr_Paul]

Another factor favouring the Midland line is that it is four tracks from Kettering southwards, whereas the Great Central was double all the way down to London, with some stations having avoiding lines. Also, the connections from the Midland across to the docks and depots in London were better than the Great Central's. These factors were still important in the early 1960s with the amount of freight still being carried on the railways.

 

[PeterC]

Given some major development (like a couple of new towns) on the Aylesbury - Brackley - Rugby corridor then it would prove a valuable regional route.

As a reinstated inter-city route - no chance.

 

[HSTEd]

Another factor favouring the Midland line is that it is four tracks from Kettering southwards, whereas the Great Central was double all the way down to London, with some stations having avoiding lines. Also, the connections from the Midland across to the docks and depots in London were better than the Great Central's. These factors were still important in the early 1960s with the amount of freight still being carried on the railways.

The freight was axed rather rapidly though, so I am not entirely sure that was a good plan.

Really, building the proposed connecting chord between the WCML and GCML at Rugby would allow traffic to be routed over the electric route to London.
The section south of Rugby is superfluous but it is not the same for all of it.

 

[B&I]

The choice is not neccesarily between the MML and the GC, which unfortunately was the choice that was made.

You could build a superior network to the one we were left with by merging bits of the MML and the GC.

Being me, with an ideal alternative world where postwar explosion in private vehicle use never happened, I would have liked to see everything kept open to towna of any size to provide local connections. However, I can see the sense in using the best bits of the combined network for expresses.

What did you have in mind ? I would suggest Midland from London to somewhere south of Leicester, a connection into the GC and then continuing via GC metals to as far north of Nottingham as the state of the line made sensible, then connecting back to the Midland through Chesterfield into Sheffield.

Derby could have been served by a connection to the MML around Loughborough, maybe with services continuing to Crewe and the northwest to link them to the southern half of the East Midlands. Or the Derby trains xould have continued via Leicester London Road to minkmise the disadvantage of poorer connections at Leicester Victoria (without a substantial rejig of lines around Leicester).

The Aylesbury-Leicester section of the GC, and the Midland from Alfreton through Nottingham to the far side of Leicester, would still have been useful for local services.

 

[HSTEd]

What did you have in mind ? I would suggest Midland from London to somewhere south of Leicester, a connection into the GC and then continuing via GC metals to as far north of Nottingham as the state of the line made sensible, then connecting back to the Midland through Chesterfield into Sheffield. Derby could have been served by a connection to the MML around Loughborough, maybe with services continuing to Crewe and the northwest to link them to the southern half of the East Midlands. The Aylesbury-Leicester section of the GC, and the Midland from Alfreton through Nottingham to the far side of Leicester, would still have been useful for local services.

Certainly Nottingham Victoria should be the station that is retained and Midland should be closed, with, if possible, a chord being constructed through the remains of the eastern half of Midland station connecting the Midland Lines that are to be retained to the GNR Grantham-Nottingham line north to Victoria (near London Road High Level).
There is a chord that would allow trains to leave out of Nottingham Victoria northbound and proceed to Derby Friargate and on to Crewe.
Meanwhile you would piece a route together that would take trains north out of Victoria and back to the Midland Main Line further north (as Sheffield Victoria is an inferior station).
Easiest route would be to send the trains through Langley Mill

(This allows the MML through Derby to be Dismantled)
The Newark Line could be connected to the GNR Grantham line in much the same way as they were connected in reality, but in reverse, so Newark Trains would also go into Victoria.

If we ignore the social use demands for the Hope Valley I think the Woodhead would be the one retained, and we would have to wrangle a route north out of Sheffield Midland to the Woodhead route.

South of Nottingham I can see an argument for using the GCML south to Rugby and then routing trains onto the WCML, which would reduce the MML to a freight only system north of Bedford.

 

[Senex]

Really, building the proposed connecting chord between the WCML and GCML at Rugby would allow traffic to be routed over the electric route to London.

I remember a talk given to the Oxford University Railway Society in the early 1960s by one of the senior electrification engineers then working on the EML scheme. He said in passing that passive provision had been made in the design work for electrified links at two places, at Rugby for the Midland line towards Leicester and at Berkswell for the line towards Kenilworth. Obviously nothing came of either of these suggestions and both lines in question were soon closed. In the case of the Midland line, the closure notices pointed to alternative services available on the Great Central route! Then came Beeching II, and that's where the idea of using the Rugby to Leicester section of the GC came up to get from the WCML to the MML. However, the published route in the end was via Nuneaton. But the first version of the National Route Code Catalogue shews both Hillmorton Jn, where the connection south of Rugby into the GC would have been, and Whetstone Jn, where the connection back from the GC into the LNW Nuneaton-Wigston line would have been. More 1960s might-have-beens!

 

[backontrack]

Being me, with an ideal alternative world where postwar explosion in private vehicle use never happened, I would have liked to see everything kept open to towna of any size to provide local connections. However, I can see the sense in using the best bits of the combined network for expresses.

What did you have in mind ? I would suggest Midland from London to somewhere south of Leicester, a connection into the GC and then continuing via GC metals to as far north of Nottingham as the state of the line made sensible, then connecting back to the Midland through Chesterfield into Sheffield.

Derby could have been served by a connection to the MML around Loughborough, maybe with services continuing to Crewe and the northwest to link them to the southern half of the East Midlands. Or the Derby trains xould have continued via Leicester London Road to minkmise the disadvantage of poorer connections at Leicester Victoria (without a substantial rejig of lines around Leicester).

I think that it would have been sensible to close parts of the MML and GCML rather than the whole of the GCML, with new connections built between the different sections.

In an ideal world, the MML that we'd be left with would run as it does now north until Barrow-upon-Soar, then cross the A6 north of Quorn to connect with the GCML south of Loughborough Central. It would then link back to the MML at Chesterfield. The Derby-Ilkeston-Nottingham and Chesterfield/Matlock-Belper-Derby-Long Eaton-Loughborough lines would be retained, as would Long Eaton-Nottingham (for CrossCountry access).

Then you could have services running St Pancras-Nottingham-Sheffield and St Pancras-Derby-Stoke.

This way, all MML services to Sheffield could be routed via Nottingham, there'd be faster services from London to Nottingham, and trains would still run to West Bridgford.

It's a theoretical situation - and not something that should be rectified now - but it would have been a good option nevertheless.

(Oh, and Woodhead wouldn't have closed. That is something we can rectify...)

 

[tbtc]

Perhaps the question is less what new railways should we be building in London, and more is it sensible to keep concentrating all economic growth there ?

This is pertinent to the "what are the railways for" thread - are the railways there to deal with actual demand (i.e. mass transportation is going to be more efficient in areas of heavy population density in significant urban areas, and less efficient on rural branch lines) or are the railways there to shape demand (in a kind of "If You Build It They Will Come" / SimCity way)?

Maybe if Milton Keynes (the flagship "new town") had been built around the GC route (rather than on the WCML) the line would have been saved, but what happened happened.

The underwhelming frequency on "non London" routes (e.g. only hourly from Birmingham/ Leicester to Peterborough/ Cambridge, only hourly from Bedford to Bletchley, only every forty five minutes from St Albans to Watford) make me sceptical about how busy a new (or reinstated) line would be - Rugby to Leicester would certainly have its uses if around nowadays but how much would we have to pay for that privilege (when we don't have the money to wire the MML)?

Keep it simple. Wire the MML and give us some proper length trains (rather than four/five coach 222s).

If we ignore the social use demands for the Hope Valley I think the Woodhead would be the one retained, and we would have to wrangle a route north out of Sheffield Midland to the Woodhead route

Even if there's space to climb from Midland Station (which was built directly above the River Sheaf, i.e. bottom of the valley) towards the Woodhead line (e.g. the height of Wicker Arches), the line further west would be too much of a bottleneck.

You've got half hourly stoppers from Dinting to Piccadilly taking around half an hour to cover a dozen or so miles, with no easy room for overtaking (little scope speeding them up as 323s are about as fast accelerating an EMU as there is), so any services from the Woodhead line are going to be severely constrained.

Whereas the four track through Stockport mean that the current Sheffield - Manchester services can be segregated from "local" trains.

 

[backontrack]

Perhaps the question is less what new railways should we be building in London, and more is it sensible to keep concentrating all economic growth there ?

This is pertinent to the "what are the railways for" thread - are the railways there to deal with actual demand (i.e. mass transportation is going to be more efficient in areas of heavy population density in significant urban areas, and less efficient on rural branch lines) or are the railways there to shape demand (in a kind of "If You Build It They Will Come" / SimCity way)?

To be fair @tbtc, I think there's definitely demand outside London!

 

[HSTEd]

You've got half hourly stoppers from Dinting to Piccadilly taking around half an hour to cover a dozen or so miles, with no easy room for overtaking (little scope speeding them up as 323s are about as fast accelerating an EMU as there is), so any services from the Woodhead line are going to be severely constrained.

Whereas the four track through Stockport mean that the current Sheffield - Manchester services can be segregated from "local" trains.

However the woodhead route gets you electric operation for free, which will reduce operating costs significantly.
Even ow the route out to Glossop is only two trains per hour, and you avoid the bottleneck that is Stockport completely.

 

[Aictos]

Could the GCML ever be reopened? No, I don't think it ought to be because I rather see the Chiltern Mainline and the Midland Mainline electrified then a route which has reasonable alternatives available to use.

Besides if there's little chance of seeing St Pancras to Manchester or St Pancras to Carlisle services then there's no chance in hell of seeing the GCML reopened to National Rail services.

 

[edwin_m]

I think that it would have been sensible to close parts of the MML and GCML rather than the whole of the GCML, with new connections built between the different sections.

In an ideal world, the MML that we'd be left with would run as it does now north until Barrow-upon-Soar, then cross the A6 north of Quorn to connect with the GCML south of Loughborough Central. It would then link back to the MML at Chesterfield. The Derby-Ilkeston-Nottingham and Chesterfield/Matlock-Belper-Derby-Long Eaton-Loughborough lines would be retained, as would Long Eaton-Nottingham (for CrossCountry access).

Then you could have services running St Pancras-Nottingham-Sheffield and St Pancras-Derby-Stoke.

This way, all MML services to Sheffield could be routed via Nottingham, there'd be faster services from London to Nottingham, and trains would still run to West Bridgford.

It's a theoretical situation - and not something that should be rectified now - but it would have been a good option nevertheless.

(Oh, and Woodhead wouldn't have closed. That is something we can rectify...)

So what would actually have closed under this suggestion?

Incidentally West Bridgford never had a station either on the Midland line that ran right through the centre or on the GC that was a mile or so to the west.

 

[backontrack]

So what would actually have closed under this suggestion?

Incidentally West Bridgford never had a station either on the Midland line that ran right through the centre or on the GC that was a mile or so to the west.

The Great Central would have closed between London Marylebone and Wigston, and between Banbury and Woodford Halse.
The Midland Main Line would have closed between Nottingham and Chesterfield.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Could the GCML ever be reopened? No, I don't think it ought to be because I rather see the Chiltern Mainline and the Midland Mainline electrified then a route which has reasonable alternatives available to use.

Besides if there's little chance of seeing St Pancras to Manchester or St Pancras to Carlisle services then there's no chance in hell of seeing the GCML reopened to National Rail services.

Whilst I am generally in favour of electrification for the environmental and human health benefits, I would generally prefer adding more services over electrifying existing lines. If the truth be told, electrification is no longer necessary to deliver a fast or a frequent service - see the GWML which was virtually entirely unelectrified until a few years ago, and yet which has seen 125mph operation for nearly 40 years.

 

[B&I]

Certainly Nottingham Victoria should be the station that is retained and Midland should be closed, with, if possible, a chord being constructed through the remains of the eastern half of Midland station connecting the Midland Lines that are to be retained to the GNR Grantham-Nottingham line north to Victoria (near London Road High Level).
There is a chord that would allow trains to leave out of Nottingham Victoria northbound and proceed to Derby Friargate and on to Crewe.
Meanwhile you would piece a route together that would take trains north out of Victoria and back to the Midland Main Line further north (as Sheffield Victoria is an inferior station).
Easiest route would be to send the trains through Langley Mill

(This allows the MML through Derby to be Dismantled)
The Newark Line could be connected to the GNR Grantham line in much the same way as they were connected in reality, but in reverse, so Newark Trains would also go into Victoria.

If we ignore the social use demands for the Hope Valley I think the Woodhead would be the one retained, and we would have to wrangle a route north out of Sheffield Midland to the Woodhead route.

South of Nottingham I can see an argument for using the GCML south to Rugby and then routing trains onto the WCML, which would reduce the MML to a freight only system north of Bedford.

Assuming local services would continue to have run from the west towards Midland, you might as well have kept part of it open and put platforms on the Great Central above to allow connections into Victoria.

 

[B&I]

To be fair @tbtc, I think there's definitely demand outside London!

Not as much as the ever-growing maw of travel into London, but there's a degree of chicken and egg - better transport links might assist with growth outside London.

Really, though, it's not so much a question of what the railways are for, and more a question of what nationwide economic planning ia for. The answer currently seems to be 'very little'. London's railways have passed peak economic use and, like the city as a whole, are now so congested that it interferes with their efficiency

 

[B&I]

However the woodhead route gets you electric operation for free, which will reduce operating costs significantly.
Even ow the route out to Glossop is only two trains per hour, and you avoid the bottleneck that is Stockport completely.

Plus, re-install 4 tracks to Guide Bridge and the bottleneck shortens somewhat. Guide Bridge to Hadfield or Tintwhistle (" 'tis a whistle ") should be relatively easy to bypass, if necessary.

 

[snowball]

That last bit is a slight exaggeration. From Guide Bridge to Godley the line mostly has buildings close to it on both sides.

 

[tbtc]

This is pertinent to the "what are the railways for" thread - are the railways there to deal with actual demand (i.e. mass transportation is going to be more efficient in areas of heavy population density in significant urban areas, and less efficient on rural branch lines) or are the railways there to shape demand (in a kind of "If You Build It They Will Come" / SimCity way)?

To be fair @tbtc, I think there's definitely demand outside London!

I don't *think* I mentioned London (did I?)?

I was talking about "areas of heavy population density in significant urban areas" versus "rural branch lines" and suggesting that the former may be better for mass transportation (i.e. heavy rail) than the latter (despite the obsession with branch lines in Devon/ Highlands/ Lincolnshire/ Shropshire etc on the Forum).

There are demands outside London, obviously, but are these significant enough demands to warrant building heavy rail lines? (and, given modern standards/ requirements, it matters little if we are "re-opening" or "building brand new" - it'll be expensive whichever way you do it)

Some people take the approach that we should build tens of thousands of houses to justify keeping a railway line open (and that the economy should be based around the railway) - I take the approach that the railway should deal with actual demand.

However the woodhead route gets you electric operation for free, which will reduce operating costs significantly.
Even ow the route out to Glossop is only two trains per hour, and you avoid the bottleneck that is Stockport completely.

It's not exactly "free", given that you'd need to wire up Midland Station (after building a chord linking it to the Deepcar line)... and then deal with the fact that most Manchester - Sheffield services run beyond Sheffield (i.e. are you wiring up to Cleethorpes or wherever?).

At least there's space in the Hope Valley for passing loops (as long as you can convince the planners...). Trying to fit loops into the line west of Dinting (to avoid the thirty-mile-per-hour stopper) would be a lot more expensive.

Plus then there's freight - do you close the Hope Valley route (and the spur to the Cement Works)? The Woodhead line had plenty of heavy freight but that was drying up by the early '80s - and with no freight the passenger demand was pretty thin.

The Woodhead is usually a Solution In Need Of A Problem.

 

[backontrack]

I don't *think* I mentioned London (did I?)?

Perhaps the question is less what new railways should we be building in London, and more is it sensible to keep concentrating all economic growth there ?

This is pertinent to the "what are the railways for" thread - are the railways there to deal with actual demand (i.e. mass transportation is going to be more efficient in areas of heavy population density in significant urban areas, and less efficient on rural branch lines) or are the railways there to shape demand (in a kind of "If You Build It They Will Come" / SimCity way)?

I assumed that you were suggesting that only London and its environs had 'actual demand' (it seemed to read that way). My mistake.