Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Probably about as bad as Bedford-Bletchley. Way too many miles added on, and you had the problem of routing more trains across Wellyn Viaduct. With diesel haulage.
Remember the point was - at the time - to use up spare paths and expensive catenery, signalling and cwr out of EUSTON!
When the electric services started in 66 the frequency of trains was simply nothing like today. The Liverpools and Manchesters were every two hours, except in the peaks. The Birmingham-Wolverhamptons 1 TPH. The Glasgows were 1 TP2 hours, alternating with Blackpool/Barrows and Prestons at 1 TP2h. Then you had the odd Holyhead and ... not much else. Chief Planner would have been smoking cigars most shifts, it was that easy - if he wasn't made redundant, that is
Sorry to comment on my own post! I managed to conflate two things here. As Iron Duke says, the Beeching II proposal was indeed for running from Leicester via Nuneaton, though I'm not entirely clear whether the idea was to build a new curve or to reverse in Nuneaton station. The maps with that report shew this clearly. The scheme for restoring the WW1 connection where the South Leicestershire line crosses the Great Central line and building a new curve at Rugby came a little later, and sounds as if it must have been round about the same time as the idea of running via Northampton (and thanks to Merle Haggard for the information about the coal traffic there). The story of how the LNW got into the Nottinghamshire coalfield is a really interesting one—part of the great competition to build in East Leicestershire in the 1870s.
Just supposing the South Midland Counties line of the 1830s had been built, there would have been a very fast line from Leicester via Northampton to Euston (as the route via Rugby could have been very fast). But think of the capacity problems on the WCML and at Euston when traffic began to grow again!
I wonder if there's any record anywhere of all the notions of clsing St Pancras. I think the idea was first floated in the 1930s in connection with the planned re-building of Euston, and as we've all been discussing, it came up a number of times in BR days.
Historically, there's a whole series of might-have-beens.
When the G.C. was running out of money for the London extension thought was given to saving costs by running powers over the LNW Market Harboro' - Northampton line (presumably having run on their own line to there from Leicester). I'm not sure what the plan South from Northampton was.
The LNWR/GN line history is very complex, with competitive applications by the GN, Midland and possibly the GC to tap the area. The LNWR convinced the then-hard up GN that they could help. In the event, the joint line was of little use to the GN (it ran, for a bit, a desultory passenger service to Northampton - I've seem a photo of a GN passenger loco on Northampton shed) but it was very profitable for the LNWR; as well as accessing the Notts. coal field, by reciprocal running powers it reached York with its own trains, and then managed running powers northwards over the NER. Super Ds got everywhere! It also elevated the Northampton - Mkt Harboro line from tactical backwater (see below) to a link in a highly profitable route.
The problem with the Market Harborough - Northampton line was that it was built by the LNWR as a tactical route* and, as a result, was very cheaply built, along the Nene and Welland valleys and crossing and re-crossing the road between the two towns on the level. By the time of the proposed re-routing, it was pretty well life expired. When the Sleeper ran, there were speed restrictions because of condition of track (i.e., rotten sleepers in the cuttings) and once when I travelled on the up one, considerable delay was caused by a block signalling/telegraph pole falling across the line in front, the post having rotted away at ground level. Crumbling edge indeed.
*i.e. to make it more difficult for a competitor to enter the area when such things were ultimately decided by parliamentary approval, rather than primarily to serve new markets.
Yes indeed, there was previously some Nottinghamshire - London coal traffic via Mkt Harborough - Northampton, dating back to pre-grouping, when the LNWR's access to that market was via Colwick and the LNWR and GN Joint Committee line (via John O'Gaunt). Colwick WDs clanged up to N'pton 'til that line closed, about 1962. They then ran via the new connection to the MR (I think that was put in then, might not have been 'til '66) and Trent.
I salvaged some old freight WTTS - I'll have a look at them to see if I can add any more.
And the sleeper diversion, I agree, it was as you say to concentrate resources and enable the closure of St. Pancras sleeper depot, , but the fact that this route was chosen (rather than via Nuneaton) possibly suggests some underlying policy. On the occasion of using a brake van pass to Cranford about 1967 the ops assistant at Kettering was very certain about the re-routing (and total closure Kettering - Mkt Harboro'), for what that's worth - he had an obvious interest.
Hmmmm. I'd never thought about why they routed the sleeper via Harboro and not Nuneaton. That's an interesting one.
At first sight, it would seem FAR more sensible to route it via Nuneaton. Significantly more electric/less diesel haulage. Unless the early morning up train left Leicester before Wigston - Nuneaton was open?
There again, route knowledge of Harboro - Northampton would surely have been more limited than the Nuneaton route? And how did they get the crews back in any case? I suppose they were Nottingham men who did the up turn. Would they have come back on a freight working, or on cushions via Nuneaton. And what about the down turn, needing a crew at Northampton at about 22.30 each evening. Gosh, it all sounds very messy and inefficient. Methinks the manager responsible for the Midland was trying desperately hard to keep the sleeper working. (Good for him or her!). But ultimately, all in vain.
Interesting anecdote regarding the ops manager. I always thought that they were going to retain St Pancras - Leicester as a "withered arm" type operation north of Bedford, ie with Kettering - Mkt Harbor intact, albeit singled. But I suspect there were multiple options on the table.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I like Euston too - it's a classic example of the architecture of the time, and it's a practical and fairly user-friendly station. Given how much the WCML electrification transformed services, keeping the old station wasn't an option.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Would the line north of Wellingborough have stayed open for through traffic?
I liked Euston as orginally rebuilt. The last time I was there, however, it seemed shops had been opened everywhere, and there was nowhere to sit.
North of Wellingboro to Kettering, yes - Kettering to Mkt Harboro seems to have been more on a knife edge. Personally, I don't think they'd have got parliamentary approval. I think it would have been an hourly Moorgate - Leicester DME stopping Luton, Bedford, Well, Ket, M Harborough, Leicester.
Maybe an extra fast to Kettering in the peak.
One small positive might have been that Desboro would have survived.
Then they added all the retail units and pods. I almost wish it was a car park again
The changes to Wakefield Kirkgate were good; the old station building brought back into use, the redundant spine wall cut back and the bricks reused, canopies removed and replaced. The heritage people weren't always happy (especially about the spine wall), which is the way of heritage people sometimes. But we have to move on and make a railway fit for the people who use it, taking people to where they want and need to be - not recreating what we had 100 years ago "because it was like that then".
Hmmmm. I'd never thought about why they routed the sleeper via Harboro and not Nuneaton. That's an interesting one.
At first sight, it would seem FAR more sensible to route it via Nuneaton. Significantly more electric/less diesel haulage. Unless the early morning up train left Leicester before Wigston - Nuneaton was open?
There again, route knowledge of Harboro - Northampton would surely have been more limited than the Nuneaton route? And how did they get the crews back in any case? I suppose they were Nottingham men who did the up turn. Would they have come back on a freight working, or on cushions via Nuneaton. And what about the down turn, needing a crew at Northampton at about 22.30 each evening. Gosh, it all sounds very messy and inefficient. Methinks the manager responsible for the Midland was trying desperately hard to keep the sleeper working. (Good for him or her!). But ultimately, all in vain.
Interesting anecdote regarding the ops manager. I always thought that they were going to retain St Pancras - Leicester as a "withered arm" type operation north of Bedford, ie with Kettering - Mkt Harbor intact, albeit singled. But I suspect there were multiple options on the table.
Funnily enough, there's a gentleman who often has a stand selling photos. at railwayana auctions. As well as buying from him, I've been tapping him for memories, as he was a Colwick fireman (on the WDs to Northampton) before transferring to Nottingham Midland. At the latter depot, he was often booked as 2nd man to take over the sleeper at Northampton. Passenger to M Harboro', then UCOC bus to Northampton. Neither the M.H. nor the then Northampton Derngate bus stations were close or convenient to the respective railway stations; finding the way across Northampton in the late evening must have been a challenge. But, in those days, UCOC buses always ran
Because the sleeper went indirectly and slowly South, it was shown on the departure boards at Glasgow (and, I think, in some timetables) as being for Northampton. It reversed at Nottingham and Leeds; I think that the engine ran round in each case (rather than slip working) - can remember the sound of a furiously-accelerating light engine disturbing my dozing. Overnight trains always seemed to switch between furious activity and high speed running, and waits with nothing much happening - apart from someone whistling loudly and tapping the side of the coach, possibly on the basis 'I have to be awake, so you should be too'. All gone now (almost).
Then they added all the retail units and pods. I almost wish it was a car park again
The changes to Wakefield Kirkgate were good; the old station building brought back into use, the redundant spine wall cut back and the bricks reused, canopies removed and replaced. The heritage people weren't always happy (especially about the spine wall), which is the way of heritage people sometimes. But we have to move on and make a railway fit for the people who use it, taking people to where they want and need to be - not recreating what we had 100 years ago "because it was like that then".
I think the North concourse in Leeds is one of the best public spaces in the country. A real gem. And the retail units are quite handy !
If you look at the mechanics of it, the current Euston works quite well. A large circulating area, light and sheltered from the elements. Mezzanine space to wait. Providing they don't fill the concourse with clutter again, it is fit for the people that use it.
Hmmmm. I'd never thought about why they routed the sleeper via Harboro and not Nuneaton. That's an interesting one.
At first sight, it would seem FAR more sensible to route it via Nuneaton. Significantly more electric/less diesel haulage. Unless the early morning up train left Leicester before Wigston - Nuneaton was open?
There again, route knowledge of Harboro - Northampton would surely have been more limited than the Nuneaton route? And how did they get the crews back in any case? I suppose they were Nottingham men who did the up turn. Would they have come back on a freight working, or on cushions via Nuneaton. And what about the down turn, needing a crew at Northampton at about 22.30 each evening. Gosh, it all sounds very messy and inefficient. Methinks the manager responsible for the Midland was trying desperately hard to keep the sleeper working. (Good for him or her!). But ultimately, all in vain.
Interesting anecdote regarding the ops manager. I always thought that they were going to retain St Pancras - Leicester as a "withered arm" type operation north of Bedford, ie with Kettering - Mkt Harbor intact, albeit singled. But I suspect there were multiple options on the table.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I liked Euston as orginally rebuilt. The last time I was there, however, it seemed shops had been opened everywhere, and there was nowhere to sit.
North of Wellingboro to Kettering, yes - Kettering to Mkt Harboro seems to have been more on a knife edge. Personally, I don't think they'd have got parliamentary approval. I think it would have been an hourly Moorgate - Leicester DME stopping Luton, Bedford, Well, Ket, M Harborough, Leicester.
Maybe an extra fast to Kettering in the peak.
One small positive might have been that Desboro would have survived.
I would guess that Kettering-Market Harborough would have survived as a single track line, with a service as you suggest, a bit like north of Princes Risborough on the GW route to Birmingham. For freight trains, the routing via Oakham, Manton Junction and Corby would have been available too.
We of course, forget that Paddington almost never happened , and there were ideas of terminating the GWR in Euston Square. Things might have been different then.
Yes - the Arch was a symbolic (but operationally useless feature - surrounded by indifferent later development) - and the Great Hall was impressive , but plagued one gathers by dry rot , and again not a great asset for the "white hot" development of 1960's Britain , when compared to new airports and motorways. Old adage of respect the past , but look forward.
The original proposals for the Great Western were certainly that it should share a terminal (Euston) with the L&BR - this manifested in two ways: its route running very close to the L&BR in the Willesden area (where it would have connected); and in the design of Euston - the 'Great Hall' block was built between what would have been the L&B (to the east) and GW (to the west) platforms.
End now it looks like Euston will be re-built again for HS2 ?. The main layout of the current Euston has already been ruined by filing the large concourse hall with retail opportunities. It is beginning to get cramped.
Back to the OP there was probably an approximately ten year window of opportunity for dispensing with StPancras. From when Beechings cuts were happening until the WCML was getting too full. Sir John Betjemans efforts to protect StPancras helped bridge that gap. The StPancras site would otherwise have been a non-rail development opportunity.
Compare to Marylebone in the 1990 (iirc ?) where even as Privatisation took over there was talk of converting the line into a guided bus way. Even then a few platforms were lost to office development on the west side.
Compare to Marylebone in the 1990 (iirc ?) where even as Privatisation took over there was talk of converting the line into a guided bus way. Even then a few platforms were lost to office development on the west side.
Yet back in the mid-1980s under-utilization of the route led to proposals to convert the line into a dedicated bus route, with the site of Marylebone station being converted into a bus station, or sold off to raise an estimated £10 million. Today this proposal and others like it – such as a plan to convert much of what now forms London Overground north of the river into roads – are mostly forgotten. Yet for a time the possibility was very real, and London may have been left with a rail landscape very different from that which exists today.
North of Wellingboro to Kettering, yes - Kettering to Mkt Harboro seems to have been more on a knife edge. Personally, I don't think they'd have got parliamentary approval. I think it would have been an hourly Moorgate - Leicester DME stopping Luton, Bedford, Well, Ket, M Harborough, Leicester.
Maybe an extra fast to Kettering in the peak.
I guess a lot of it would have depended on the amount of local traffic heading north, most likely connecting into longer distance services at MH. I'm guessing that volume at the time was fairly low, and also that the volume of traffic between Kettering, Wellingborough and London would be tiny compared to today.
Back to the OP there was probably an approximately ten year window of opportunity for dispensing with StPancras. From when Beechings cuts were happening until the WCML was getting too full.
I think if it had happened, we'd have ended up very deep in the brown stuff capacity-wise almost as soon as it had happened. The Midland Main Line has never been very full, but the MH to Northampton line, and the remainder of the loop back to the WCML proper, would have formed a capacity bottleneck, and growing demand on both lines would have caused enormous problems with capacity at Euston.
It was when it opened. Spoiled in the 80s by being cluttered up with nasty “retail units”. These have fortunately now all been removed, but the mezzanine squeezed in to increase retail space has destroyed the feeling of spaciousness and blocks out a lot of the natural light it used to have in abundance.
It was when it opened. Spoiled in the 80s by being cluttered up with nasty “retail units”. These have fortunately now all been removed, but the mezzanine squeezed in to increase retail space has destroyed the feeling of spaciousness and blocks out a lot of the natural light it used to have in abundance.
Oh I agree. More use could have been made of the bleak and windswept “piazza” from the time it was built, rather than encroaching on the concourse. Obviously a way needed to have been found to make it less bleak and windswept!
It was when it opened. Spoiled in the 80s by being cluttered up with nasty “retail units”. These have fortunately now all been removed, but the mezzanine squeezed in to increase retail space has destroyed the feeling of spaciousness and blocks out a lot of the natural light it used to have in abundance.
I agree about the mezzanine, and there's something that puzzles me.
HS2 will speed up journey times, and to suggest that speed isn't important is seen by some as heresy. A reduction of half-an-hour is seen as a massive improvement well worth spending billions to achieve.
Meanwhile, at least some passengers are happy to have the present journey time increased by visiting the mezzanine and even using, for instance, the well known chain of chicken restaurants for a sit-down meal lasting, perhaps, half an hour.
Of course, this provides empirical evidence that destroys my own criticism of the time taken to reach the MML platforms at St. Pancras; possibly some passengers really do prefer to spend time in the 'retail units' and admire the architecture rather than catching the next train. But, if speed isn't important, it does raise a question about the validity of some railway investment decisions.
End now it looks like Euston will be re-built again for HS2 ?. The main layout of the current Euston has already been ruined by filing the large concourse hall with retail opportunities. It is beginning to get cramped.
Back to the OP there was probably an approximately ten year window of opportunity for dispensing with StPancras. From when Beechings cuts were happening until the WCML was getting too full. Sir John Betjemans efforts to protect StPancras helped bridge that gap. The StPancras site would otherwise have been a non-rail development opportunity.
Compare to Marylebone in the 1990 (iirc ?) where even as Privatisation took over there was talk of converting the line into a guided bus way. Even then a few platforms were lost to office development on the west side.
Marylebone only ever had four platforms, so none were lost when the original 3 and 4 were closed and redeveloped as the cab road between 1 and 2 was dug out to provide two "new" platforms (the new 2 and 3 with the original 2 becoming 4), Later the country ends of the old 3 and 4 were reinstated to provide the current six platforms.
Marylebone only ever had four platforms, so none were lost when the original 3 and 4 were closed and redeveloped as the cab road between 1 and 2 was dug out to provide two "new" platforms (the new 2 and 3 with the original 2 becoming 4), Later the country ends of the old 3 and 4 were reinstated to provide the current six platforms.
Remembering that the Great Central built the concourse big enough for many more platforms, but until recent years there was never enough traffic to justify them.
Marylebone only ever had four platforms, so none were lost when the original 3 and 4 were closed and redeveloped as the cab road between 1 and 2 was dug out to provide two "new" platforms (the new 2 and 3 with the original 2 becoming 4), Later the country ends of the old 3 and 4 were reinstated to provide the current six platforms.
The biggest flaw in the GC London extension, though, was the complex access to Marylebone, requiring extensive track-sharing with the Metropolitan Railway. It was never much of an issue when the Met ran fairly sparse services along the shared tracks, and operated much as main line railways did, but now it's a high-frequency metro system, fitting in any more trains, or attempting to run them at higher speeds, would be a major issue. It seems to be overlooked by those who advocate reopening the GC as the answer to all our capacity problems.
A possibility for MML traffic that occurred to me would have been to keep the Bedford-Hitchin link (closed in 1964, I think) and run the passenger traffic into Kings Cross that way.
A possibility for MML traffic that occurred to me would have been to keep the Bedford-Hitchin link (closed in 1964, I think) and run the passenger traffic into Kings Cross that way.
It depends what standards these lines were built to, in terms of loading gauge, curvature, gradients, double/single track etc. Northampton to Market Harborough looked pretty good in that regard, so presumably didn't need much investment.
The biggest flaw in the GC London extension, though, was the complex access to Marylebone, requiring extensive track-sharing with the Metropolitan Railway. It was never much of an issue when the Met ran fairly sparse services along the shared tracks, and operated much as main line railways did, but now it's a high-frequency metro system, fitting in any more trains, or attempting to run them at higher speeds, would be a major issue. It seems to be overlooked by those who advocate reopening the GC as the answer to all our capacity problems.
There were disputes between the GCR (or rather, still the MS&LR at that point) and the Metropolitan during the construction phase - which led to the GCR partnership with the GWR and the 'joint line' through High Wycombe, as a 'get around' to running over the Met., even before the GC's London Extension was completed: I'm not sure which the GCR regarded as its principle entry to London. And had it been necessary, extra tracks could and would have been built North of Harrow (going beyond, as was done, the Watford junctions).
To my mind, the greatest flaw was the lack of connections between the GC and other lines, for, e.g. access to the Docks...
Interesting that Heathrow T1, built at much the same time as the new Euston and by the same contractors and with similar design features, has already closed and is due to be redeveloped.
The St Pancras planned closure was also part of the "Euston only for the north" idea.
That would have seen the ECML downgraded north of Newcastle and Anglo-Scottish traffic concentrated at Euston.
One remnant of this plan was implemented, ie the transfer of all sleepers to Euston.
The ECML got its own back after its upgrade to 125mph to take London-Stirling/Perth/Aberdeen/Inverness and even some Glasgow traffic off the (by then) slower WCML.
HS2b essentially resurrects the original Euston plan, but via a new line to Yorkshire.
It depends what standards these lines were built to, in terms of loading gauge, curvature, gradients, double/single track etc. Northampton to Market Harborough looked pretty good in that regard, so presumably didn't need much investment.
The two that would have been pretty good would have been Wigston to Rugby (continuation south of the Midland Counties Railway, no serious curvature and very easyn gradients) and Bedford to Hitchin (the southern end of the Leicester & Hitchin, no serious curvature, a 2½-mile climb up to and through Southill tunnel southbound). The route via Nuneaton would have involved consdierable extra distance, and that via the GC line a very poor junction at the northern end and a difficult one at the southern end. The line from Market Harborough to Northampton was built broadly on the route surved for schemes proposed first in 1836 and then again in in 1845 and 1846 during the Mania, but as a single line and to much-inferior standards. When it was doubled there were no re-alignments: it would never have been a fast line (and then of course you have the severe check to speed created when the new line from Roade was brought into the south end of Northampton).
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
