How could London Marylebone capacity be increased?

[A0]

The minister for transport at the time, Ernest Marples, had a bias for road, it happens that he had a tarmac business.

It was actually a construction business, which built among other things power stations, ports and dams - they were more than a road builder.

The accusation levelled at Marples was he brought in Beeching with a mandate to run down the railways so roads could be built. That's stretching credibility quite alot - what Marples did do was abolish the BTC because it was in financial trouble, which in turn paved the way for the establishment of the British Railways Board. Arguably that gave the railways more autonomy than they'd had since nationalisation in 1948.

And Beeching was recommended to Marples by Frank Ewart Smith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Ewart_Smith when Ewart Smith had been approached to sit on the Stedeford Committee which had been tasked with dealing with the BTC's dire financial problems. Beeching had worked for Ewart Smith, who rated his ability to analyse and solve problems highly. It's worth remembering that in 1960 the BTC had accumulated a £ 350m deficit ( £ 6,725 m in 2021 prices assuming only inflation) with a further £ 80m deficit (£ 1,543m in 2021 prices assuming only inflation).

Beeching's proposals were about making the rail network financially stable - the rate of increase being shown there was unsustainable and changes would have been needed whoever was in power.

If you want a genuine example of a politician abusing his position for personal gain, I suggest you read up about T Dan Smith.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The accusation levelled at Marples was he brought in Beeching with a mandate to run down the railways so roads could be built. That's stretching credibility quite alot - what Marples did do was abolish the BTC because it was in financial trouble, which in turn paved the way for the establishment of the British Railways Board. Arguably that gave the railways more autonomy than they'd had since nationalisation in 1948.

There's also that many if not most lines that closed were basket-cases, and building a road to replace them would be entirely unnecessary because existing roads would take the slack just fine.

If you pick the classic existing basket case, the Conwy Valley, the development of the adjacent main road has nothing to do with the presence or otherwise of the railway, nor would any change need to be made to the road purely to put on buses instead. Similarly, the upgraded A421 was necessary whether the Marston Vale existed or not.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Thinking freight- not part of my original thoughts- I recall a proposal for some kind of massive 'facility' at Denham, but Googling gets me nowhere. Anyone anything on this?

There was an era when a ring of Strategic Rail Freight Interchanges were envisaged around the M25. Sites at Radlett, Howbury Park (near Dartford), Enfield and Langley were mentioned quite a lot and a proposal for Denham Aerodrome got a passing mention in the DfT's National Policy Statement for National Networks. However the site was deemed to be too unsatisfactory in terms of both road and rail access and never got any serious traction.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

The Beeching report was published in 1963, and whilst the highest number of miles closed in a single year was 1058 in 1964, the Labour government was elected on the basis of "reversing Beeching" which it did nothing of the sort - the total mileage closures in the period 1965-70 was over 2500 miles - or the same amount closed in the 1952-1962 period (Pre Beeching.).

It was only in 1971, under a Conservative government, did the closures slow right down and between 1971 and 73 there was no more than 50 miles closed in any one year.

So to claim the change in government led to the abandonment of Beeching's ideas - both among the government of the day or BR management - is utter balderdash.

You have completely missed my point. Dr. Beeching did not believe in closing lines where the case for closure was still uncertain. Hence, the GC main line was not itemised for closure. When the Labour Government came in lines were closed far more casually, including several others that Dr. Beeching had not listed for closure and consequently the route mileage closed in any one year was higher than in any under the previous Government.

 

[A0]

You have completely missed my point. Dr. Beeching did not believe in closing lines where the case for closure was still uncertain. Hence, the GC main line was not itemised for closure. When the Labour Government came in lines were closed far more casually, including several others that Dr. Beeching had not listed for closure and consequently the route mileage closed in any one year was higher than in any under the previous Government.

Not at all - to reiterate you stated "Dr. Beeching left BR in 1965 and the abandonment of many of his ideas was caused primarily by the October 1964 change in government and the trenchant anti-railway bias at the Department Of Transport."

There was no such change due to the change of government in 1964 - whilst the Wilson govt was elected claiming it would 'stop Beeching' the evidence is quite the opposite and some of the most notable closures, including some non-Beeching proposed ones - took place under the Wilson government, the GCR being one.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Not at all - to reiterate you stated "Dr. Beeching left BR in 1965 and the abandonment of many of his ideas was caused primarily by the October 1964 change in government and the trenchant anti-railway bias at the Department Of Transport."

There was no such change due to the change of government in 1964 - whilst the Wilson govt was elected claiming it would 'stop Beeching' the evidence is quite the opposite and some of the most notable closures, including some non-Beeching proposed ones - took place under the Wilson government, the GCR being one.

I stand by what I said and please notice I said "many of his ideas." I did not say all his ideas. As this is off-topic, I'll mention only the examples I can recall off hand.

1) Dr. Beeching worked within the framework of the 1962 Transport Act which required BR to cut its losses and which removed BR's duty to consider social issues. A central part of his policy was to close loss-making branch lines. Barbara Castle's Transport Act of 1968 changed that. It placed financial responsibility for the losses with the government and arranged for a specific subsidy to be paid for each individual line. So Dr. Beeching's policy was abandoned by the Labour Government.

2) Dr. Beeching's trunk route plan stipulated heavy investment in those lines. This was abandoned by the Labour Government and several routes itemised as truck routes did not receive heavy investment: Crewe to Chester, Cardiff to Swansea, Preston to Bradford, Bristol to Plymouth, Ashford to Guildford.

3) Dr. Beeching's policy was to bring in outsiders with particular commercial expertise but these appointments were not imposed on British Rail by politicians or civil servants. Barbara Castle abandoned that element of the policy and she appointed Stewart Joy as BR's Chief Economist.

4) Stewart Joy was a transport economist who believed that more cost savings could be achieved by reducing track capacity on main lines than by closing branch lines. Due to his influence, many 4 track sections were reduced to 2 track and numerous 2 tracks were singled which had not happened previously. For example, the route between Salisbury and Exeter was not singled until after Dr. Beeching had gone.

5) During the Beeching period, BR reduced very considerably the number of depots handling sundries traffic. The policy was to keep costs to a minimum but to retain the best parts of the business. The 1968 Transport Act abandoned that policy and transferred the sundries business to the National Freight Corporation.

To bring this back on topic, whereas Dr. Beeching was cautious about closing routes where the profit/loss situation was not self evident, under the Labour Government there were several closures which were highly contentious even to those who recognised the need for rationalisation; the Varsity Line being a prime example. I recall a BBC news programme in the '60s after more closures had been announced. A senior railway man commented "Until now we've been closing branch lines but now we're eating into the system itself."

 

[MarkyT]

Not at all...

I stand by what I said...

Seems to me that you're violently agreeing, at least on many of the outcomes!

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Seems to me that you're violently agreeing, at least on many of the outcomes!

Nothing violent about my posts!

 

[Bevan Price]

The Wilson government had little choice in the matter of rail closures.
The economy was getting into a mess. There was worry about the "balance of payments" (imports v. exports)***, and there was great pressure from international money markets (and the treasury) to reduce "public spending". Closing railways was seen as contributing to the reduction of public spending, so Wilson was left with little option but to allow closures - otherwise the "money market" might make the economic situation a lot worse.

*** - The media & money markets paid much more attention to "balance of payments" problems than they do now.

 

[adrock1976]

The minister for transport at the time, Ernest Marples, had a bias for road, it happens that he had a tarmac business.

Was Marples the one who got done for tax fraud, or am I getting muddled up with someone else at that time?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Was Marples the one who got done for tax fraud, or am I getting muddled up with someone else at that time?

Marples 'fled the country' because of tax issues and lived in France for years.

I have no time for tax dodgers but that doesn't mean that many of his ideas for transport - like applying cost-benefit analysis, taking a multi-modal approach in major conurbations (proto-PTEs), getting a big hitter in to give fresh insights on a struggling rail industry, getting the 'Traffic in Towns' report published and so on were bad.

 

[Bevan Price]

Was Marples the one who got done for tax fraud, or am I getting muddled up with someone else at that time?

When appointed, ministers are supposed to dispose of any "financial interests" that might clash with their ministerial job.
Mr Marples sold his business interests - to his wife.....

 

[The Ham]

The Wilson government had little choice in the matter of rail closures.
The economy was getting into a mess. There was worry about the "balance of payments" (imports v. exports)***, and there was great pressure from international money markets (and the treasury) to reduce "public spending". Closing railways was seen as contributing to the reduction of public spending, so Wilson was left with little option but to allow closures - otherwise the "money market" might make the economic situation a lot worse.

*** - The media & money markets paid much more attention to "balance of payments" problems than they do now.

The thing with balance of payments is that it appears not to pick up all the flow of all the money, as otherwise countries like ours would be left with no money.

In reality the way economies work is different to the way personal finances work, however most people think that it should and so get upset by things which mostly don't matter as much as they think that it should (balance of payments, debt, etc.).

That's not too say that they don't matter, just that as they work differently to personal finances and shouldn't be viewed in the same way.

For example if I was buying more stuff than I was selling then that would be a problem, however in the economy it's not that simple as there'll be tourism which will bring money back into the country, likewise people (or pension companies) holding shares in overseas companies or other investment schemes. Both of which are difficult to track and apply a value to.

 

[Bald Rick]

The thing with balance of payments is that it appears not to pick up all the flow of all the money, as otherwise countries like ours would be left with no money.



For example if I was buying more stuff than I was selling then that would be a problem, however in the economy it's not that simple as there'll be tourism which will bring money back into the country, likewise people (or pension companies) holding shares in overseas companies or other investment schemes. Both of which are difficult to track and apply a value to.

Tourism foreign exchange is actually relatively easy to track and is included in the balance of payments figures.

 

[BrianW]

Tourism foreign exchange is actually relatively easy to track and is included in the balance of payments figures.

At risk of going off-target on 'my own thread' (!) we don't hear anything about Public Sector Borrowing Requirement (PSBR) these days either, or 'Endogenous growth' ...

Says a lot about the changing context/ concerns of the times.

 

[Bald Rick]

we don't hear anything about Public Sector Borrowing Requirement (PSBR)

We do, as recently as yesterday. It’s been rebranded!

How much money does the UK government borrow, and does it matter?

The UK government borrows to fund day-to-day spending as well as long-term infrastructure projects.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[MarlowDonkey]

We do, as recently as yesterday. It’s been rebranded!

Regarding that BBC report, the Government are in effect borrowing from themselves, given that they control the Bank of England. Previously such large amounts of borrowing would have forced interest rates higher, hence all the historic worries about the level of PSBR.

Some also end up being bought by the Bank of England as part of its current attempts to boost spending and investment in the economy.
Under this policy - known as "quantitative easing" - the Bank has so far bought £875bn of government bonds.

 

[Bald Rick]

Regarding that BBC report, the Government are in effect borrowing from themselves, given that they control the Bank of England. Previously such large amounts of borrowing would have forced interest rates higher, hence all the historic worries about the level of PSBR.

Only some of the borrowing is via QE. QE is also a driver of inflation, but that hasn’t really happened in the last decade or so it has been deployed, at least not in terms of retail prices. It has, however, been a factor in asset price growth, which is the public mostly experience through house prices.

 

[BrianW]

Regarding that BBC report, the Government are in effect borrowing from themselves, given that they control the Bank of England. Previously such large amounts of borrowing would have forced interest rates higher, hence all the historic worries about the level of PSBR.

Ah yes, printing money? for the 'magic money tree'?
I guess 'where there's a will there are words to justify it'?
I was said to be the case that Sir Peter Parker's proximity to and use of Charlbury Station had some 'influence' in the consideration/ retention/ development of the Cotswold Line.
I note that the Secretary of State's constituency is Welwyn-Hatfield and that neighbouring St Albans is Lib-Dem.
Maybe more interest in 'England's Economic Heartland'? eg East-West Rail??

 

[Dr Hoo]

We seem to be drifting away from capacity at Marylebone.

My take on the original question (which is never going to happen) is a complete makeover and re-imagination:

- Electrification at 25kV (obviously), with some sort of dual voltage DC capability for the stock using the LUL route via Harrow;
- Grade separated junction at Neasden;
- Biting the bullet in terms of residential property acquisition and demolition for a massive rebuild at West Hampstead to make it the equivalent of Stratford or Clapham Junction (possibly even including six platforms on the St Pancras Line into the bargain as well as Metropolitan Line platforms);
- Closure of Marylebone as a terminal and excavation of a Crossrail #X through to Victoria;
- Replacement sub-surface station at Marylebone, possibly with subterranean links to Baker Street for better LUL connectivity (although that would be provided by West Hampstead to some extent);
- Given the relatively low concentration of employment in the West End probably only one intermediate station on the Crossrail #X line, around Marble Arch; and
- Given the limitations of potential through suburban routes at Victoria in terms of feasible platform lengths probably a focus on 8-car capability although longer-distance services such as Oxford and Birmingham to Eastbourne, Dover or wherever might be worth looking at for longer trains.

This lot would probably require closure of Marylebone for several years during the works.

 

[Watershed]

- Given the limitations of potential through suburban routes at Victoria in terms of feasible platform lengths probably a focus on 8-car capability although longer-distance services such as Oxford and Birmingham to Eastbourne, Dover or wherever might be worth looking at for longer trains.

The cost of platform extensions would be small change on a project like that!

 

[Bald Rick]

Given the relatively low concentration of employment in the West End

Although broadly as many people work in the West End as work in the City... it is a bigger area of course and has a wider spread of hours worked over the day / week.

 

[cle]

- Given the relatively low concentration of employment in the West End probably only one intermediate station on the Crossrail #X line, around Marble Arch; and

That's a massively incorrect take. Even worse than the 'Paddington is basically the suburbs' stuff.

And the Victoria line begs to differ. Those folks queuing at Vauxhall, Victoria and Euston are not shoppers, and shock horror - may not work in financial services either!

 

[Dr Hoo]

That's a massively incorrect take. Even worse than the 'Paddington is basically the suburbs' stuff.

And the Victoria line begs to differ. Those folks queuing at Vauxhall, Victoria and Euston are not shoppers, and shock horror - may not work in financial services either!

Fair enough. (I retired from working in London a few years ago. It would be interesting to see some figures.)

My take on it is that quite a lot of the surrounding area to the conceptual line is parks that are never going to be built on (and may well be necessary to route underneath to avoid deep foundations). Furthermore there is unlikely to be a new development of tall buildings as seen around the City and in Docklands (let alone what happens to offices with 'working from home'). Plus Marylebone to Victoria isn't exactly that far.

But if you want to have stations as close as Farringdon-City Thameslink-Blackfriars then best of luck. It isn't really a Marylebone issue per se.

I am assuming that other suggestions up thread, like dynamic overtaking loops around Wembley, Sudbury, the Ruislips, Denham, Gerrards Cross, Wycombe or wherever would also be provided.

It depends which routes out of Victoria were switched to Crossrail #X but my thoughts on 8-car working were more driven by junction spacing, tunnels, viaducts and whatnot. E.g. Herne Hill, Tulse Hill, Brixton and Battersea Park.

Thanks for the comments so far.

 

[Bald Rick]

Fair enough. (I retired from working in London a few years ago. It would be interesting to see some figures.)

A couple of years old, but this doc shows there are more jobs in Westminster than the City of London.

Jobs and Job Density, Borough

Data shows the number of jobs and job density by borough. The number of jobs in an area is composed of jobs done by residents (of any age) and jobs done by workers (of any age) who commute into the a…

data.london.gov.uk

 

[BrianW]

We seem to be drifting away from capacity at Marylebone.

My take on the original question (which is never going to happen) is a complete makeover and re-imagination:

- Electrification at 25kV (obviously), with some sort of dual voltage DC capability for the stock using the LUL route via Harrow;
- Grade separated junction at Neasden;
- Biting the bullet in terms of residential property acquisition and demolition for a massive rebuild at West Hampstead to make it the equivalent of Stratford or Clapham Junction (possibly even including six platforms on the St Pancras Line into the bargain as well as Metropolitan Line platforms);
- Closure of Marylebone as a terminal and excavation of a Crossrail #X through to Victoria;
- Replacement sub-surface station at Marylebone, possibly with subterranean links to Baker Street for better LUL connectivity (although that would be provided by West Hampstead to some extent);
- Given the relatively low concentration of employment in the West End probably only one intermediate station on the Crossrail #X line, around Marble Arch; and
- Given the limitations of potential through suburban routes at Victoria in terms of feasible platform lengths probably a focus on 8-car capability although longer-distance services such as Oxford and Birmingham to Eastbourne, Dover or wherever might be worth looking at for longer trains.

This lot would probably require closure of Marylebone for several years during the works.

Loving it- a visionary 'grand project'.
I had a notion (some years ago now, probably before HS1 let alone HS2?) of a kind of Hauptbahnhof under Hyde Park (Marble Arch End!) with tunnels below e.g. (a selecton of?) Edgware Road, Oxford Street, Vauxhal Bridge Road, Brompton Rd, Kensington Gore, Bayswater Rd, a linking to eg Dover (Chunnel?), Brighton (?), Portsmouth/ Southampton, Bristol/ Cardiff, Birmingham and NW, Yorks and NE, maybe Glasgow.
All at 100/ 125 mph, serving only cities (like HS2?), maybe also with a 'Parkway'.
'Tube' like, A-B, C-D, A-D by changing at London (Great) Central; thus freeing capacity on the 'Classic' lines and more 'semi-fasts etc; clockface of course.
So a bit like Thameslink but Express!
Response from DoT- 'thank you' ...
Thank you.

 

[cle]

I am assuming that other suggestions up thread, like dynamic overtaking loops around Wembley, Sudbury, the Ruislips, Denham, Gerrards Cross, Wycombe or wherever would also be provided.

These 'country-end' improvements I think are more important than any changes at Marylebone. There frankly isn't the demand for huge growth, at least before the longest trains are run. Maybe a new shorter platform at Marylebone could be wedged in, but six is decent. It is the two-track railway, with a big mix of stopping patterns and diesel (through a range of hills!) which hampers higher frequency. But also, plain demand.

Many of these places are sleepy. Bicester keeps/kept this line afloat on weekends, now there is Oxford so that is good. But as I said in my post, growth here will come from population growth (Bicester, Aylesbury, HW etc development) as well as Oxford's economy, especially once the various station and infra works come to fruition there.

The true country-end, where it morphs into a Birmingham commuter network, may also have growth potential. And if Stratford had better train services, it might be as popular as Bath say.

 

[BrianW]

We seem to be drifting away from capacity at Marylebone.

Thank you to all who have contributed on this thread - I have learned a lot.
Prompted by this and other contributions, I'm proposing to start a new thread on something like London Great Central, while not proposing to close this one.
Thank you.

 

[60019]

The obvious cross-London link would be out to Charing Cross or London Bridge, to provide Northwest - Southeast connections. Charing Cross also has a similar number of platforms as Marylebone, so that might make traffic flows easier to manage; it's not as though you are trying to squeeze all of Victoria's terminators through a tunnel to Marylebone. However, Charing Cross traffic is also accommodated by Thameslink, so would the need for a Thameslink-type service via Marylebone also be required?

Aiming southeast to somewhere near the mint to take over services from Fenchurch Street might be a better balance for the twin tracks, especially as it would allow the DLR to extend into Fenchurch Street from Tower Gateway, or the station closed and sold.There's also a cramped but probably workable launch-site adjacent to Pinchin Street if a few old towers and the arches that once lead to the LTSR Commercial Road Goods Depot, though Christian Street would be blocked by the gradient up to the viaduct. The old Bow Common gasworks would have been better, and would release more land for development, but it has just been redeveloped, and other than that the only practical worksites are on green spaces and allotments.

Heading south, it is hard to see where a launch site could be dug or which two-track route could be taken over.

It might also be worth taking over some of the Met services as well, and pairing with a 4-track route.

 

[BayPaul]

I think that a crossrail from Marylebone is a solution looking for a problem. There's 6 platforms, which is about right for a two track railway, which is about right for the demand from the areas it goes through. Lengthen trains, electrify, improve signalling so trains can run closer, build a new interchange at West Hampstead, provide some 4-track sections to allow long distance services to overtake a higher frequency Chiltern Metro, but I suspect that the existing Marylebone can accommodate that just fine with minor improvements. What does a mega-project crossrail actually provide? At other stations it could free up platforms badly needed for other services, but I don't see any point to that here.