What current train services would look different if certain railways hadn’t been closed?

[RT4038]

Is it perhaps only those single-track tunnels that meant keeping the present MML route was viable? I am applying government thinking where capital investment in Northampton-Market Harborough was seen as worse than the ongoing costs of keeping the route via Kettering.

Prior to VHF, there would have been scope to have the MML trains into Euston (since Manchester only had 1tph, there are 2 paths there for Nottingham and Sheffield) and Northampton semi-fasts could simply go to Nottingham/Sheffield as the current MML semi-fasts.

There are some other interesting knock-on questions about moving the MML fasts away from the present MML. Would there be the 4-track capability for Bedford Thameslink to overtake the stoppers near London? Would 4-tracking stop at St Albans? Would the line actually have been chopped at Bedford? Was there any mileage in keeping a freight capable line from Bedford towards Leicester/Nottingham?

If this was done tomorrow then all the MML trains would need to be extensions of the LNWR Northamptons, with the current Northampton extensions of LNWR terminating at Northampton. However, post HS2 when the fasts are off the WCML... Being the UK, the one part of the MML that has been electrified is the bit through Kettering.

I think the suburban trains would have run from Kettering to Moorgate. Possibly Market Harbrough? St Pancras would have been shut. The freight line through Corby would have remained open (Corby steel works was still open then) to access Manton Junction and then across to Syston for Leicester, Nottingham etc.

 

[Topological]

I think the suburban trains would have run from Kettering to Moorgate. Possibly Market Harbrough? St Pancras would have been shut. The freight line through Corby would have remained open (Corby steel works was still open then) to access Manton Junction and then across to Syston for Leicester, Nottingham etc.

That would perhaps explain why the whole route was saved. Aside from St Pancras, you would not be gaining any land for selling off. Even if closed, the section from Kettering to Market Harborough is not long. The offset against improvement work on the Market Harborough to Northampton route is not there.

Whether Bedford to Corby could have survived as freight only is a question. Had that been the case then maybe passenger services would have been restored to Kettering, but I suspect it would be on a 2-track railway if so.

 

[RT4038]

That would perhaps explain why the whole route was saved. Aside from St Pancras, you would not be gaining any land for selling off. Even if closed, the section from Kettering to Market Harborough is not long. The offset against improvement work on the Market Harborough to Northampton route is not there.

Whether Bedford to Corby could have survived as freight only is a question. Had that been the case then maybe passenger services would have been restored to Kettering, but I suspect it would be on a 2-track railway if so.

I don't think there was any plan to close Bedford to Kettering - the suburban diesel unit service would have been extended. Quite likely reduced to 2 track, probably Bedford-Luton too.
Selling off the land at St Pancras was the particular prize, but Sir John Betjeman put paid to that. There would have been land at Wellingborough and Bedford to be sold off too, but not so valuable in those days.

 

[Topological]

I don't think there was any plan to close Bedford to Kettering - the suburban diesel unit service would have been extended. Quite likely reduced to 2 track, probably Bedford-Luton too.
Selling off the land at St Pancras was the particular prize, but Sir John Betjeman put paid to that. There would have been land at Wellingborough and Bedford to be sold off too, but not so valuable in those days.

Taking it a little to the extreme, but could St Pancras have become a convention centre / venue in the mould of Manchester Central. It was complete with the attached hotel. Even just selling off the approaches up to the shed would have been valuable. I suppose that it was only later that Manchester Central became GMEX and that perhaps there was not the desire for such large spaces in the 1960s.

No doubt that would not appease Betjeman, but it would have ensured the train shed survived as well as the Midland Hotel (which would presumably have survived even if the train shed went).

 

[Falcon1200]

since a vacant St Pancras would have been able to host HS2, bringing costs down over building a new terminus at Euston.

Part of BR's plan was demolishing St Pancras (astonishing as that seems now) and flogging off the site, so it would not have been there for HS2, or HS1 for that matter!

 

[Zomboid]

I'd be surprised if demolition would have been permitted, even then a building as architecturally interesting as that would have attracted protection.

 

[Topological]

Relatedly, what if it had been deemed that Doncaster to Peterborough was unnecessary and that trains could run via Sheffield to London St Pancras? Newark and Grantham would still be connected to Nottingham. In this alternative reality many faster services would miss Derby and go via Toton.

In such a world Kings Cross would have become a suburban terminus with trains to Peterborough (and perhaps Lincoln via the Joint Line), Cambridge and a lot more of the inner London services.

CrossCountry would no doubt look very different too.

The saving factor for the present ECML is speed, but it is a sparsely populated route from Doncaster to Peterborough (and much of the population has grown because of the London trains).

 

[Falcon1200]

even then a building as architecturally interesting as that would have attracted protection.

Probably, but the Euston Arch could not be saved!

 

[billio]

Well done a thread on @

What current train services would look different if certain railways hadn’t been closed?​

has been turned into

What current train services would look different if certain railways had been closed?​

 

[A S Leib]

I wonder if Brampton could have had an hourly service to Carlisle and Haltwhistle if Alston had stayed open, as extra calls could be added there rather than on slowing down Newcastle services (although I don't know if that's the only reason why it's 1tp2h).

Had Aylesbury to Cheddington survived, I doubt there'd be nearly as much motivation to connect Aylesbury to East West Rail, as the only new connection it would really being would be Winslow to Aylesbury and High Wycombe (not insignificant for Winslow, but probably not justifying rebuilding a line).

 

[InTheEastMids]

Well done a thread on @

What current train services would look different if certain railways hadn’t been closed?​

has been turned into

What current train services would look different if certain railways had been closed?​

I agree this is a valid point and thread has digressed a bit into "what if St Pancras had closed?".

However in many cases - and particularly around the Beeching era - it seems there were some quite binary choices between different rationalisation options: Keeping X meant closing Y. Not always on the most robust evidence either. This is a more realistic way of thinking than "What if there'd been unlimited money/political will to retain <railway line>?"

But I think we're still on topic, because I and others have tried to play out the consequences of this type of decision to the present day

 

[Zomboid]

The likely consequence of line A remaining open is line B being closed instead. It's entirely on topic to discuss what would have happened if that had happened.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The current North and North-West Leeds commuter network is very busy. However, it would have been even busier (or made more complicated depending on your point of view) if the Arthington-Otley-Menston and Ilkley-Skipton lines had remained open and all lines remained double-track rather than some sections singled. I imagine it could have produced a useful freight route as well, as it would have provided a Pennines-ECML freight route without having to negotiate the Leeds station western approach.

Not much freight runs through Leeds now anyway, now that there isn't so much coal coming down from Scotland via Settle... but back when it was several trains a day, being able to avoid the Leeds station area entirely would certainly have been useful. However if we're working on the idea that pretty much every line that was built is retained, at least some of the Trans-Pennine traffic would probably have continued to run via the Cross Gates -:Wetherby - Harrogate line and therefore may conflict with the freight traffic that's avoiding central Leeds.

No doubt Bradford Council would still be pursuing their boondoggle of a new station away from the city centre, though they'd at least have an existing Bowling Curve to put it on! Of course there'd still be calls for a cross-city link, but with a much wider choice of routes beyond Exchange/Interchange it might actually make sense in this alternative future.

 

[Shrop]

If the Great Central hadn't been closed, then surely this would have been a superb candidate for the HS2 route. As I understand it, it wasn't quite built to continental loading gauge, but it was nevertheless a bigger gauge than other routes in the UK, and thus could well have offered a relatively cheap option to upgrade it to that gauge. It was also much flatter and straighter than most other routes, and could have been so much of a better route than the HS2 route that was eventually developed.

Trouble is, we have far too many politicians in positions of power who neither know nor care about rail development. Closing the GCR was blatantly short-sighted at the time, and yet our politicians still do the same time and time again, as Rishi Sunak demonstrated in spectacular fashion when he killed off HS2 Phase 2. But it's worse than that, he deliberately set out to sabotage any chance of Phase 2 being resurrected even if funding had been found elsewhere, such is his incompetence with transport development.

So although this thread is a nice exercise, sadly it seems we'll always be thwarted by clueless, disinterested and even blatantly anti-rail politicians when it comes to rail development.

 

[Topological]

If the Great Central hadn't been closed, then surely this would have been a superb candidate for the HS2 route. As I understand it, it wasn't quite built to continental loading gauge, but it was nevertheless a bigger gauge than other routes in the UK, and thus could well have offered a relatively cheap option to upgrade it to that gauge. It was also much flatter and straighter than most other routes, and could have been so much of a better route than the HS2 route that was eventually developed.

Trouble is, we have far too many politicians in positions of power who neither know nor care about rail development. Closing the GCR was blatantly short-sighted at the time, and yet our politicians still do the same time and time again, as Rishi Sunak demonstrated in spectacular fashion when he killed off HS2 Phase 2. But it's worse than that, he deliberately set out to sabotage any chance of Phase 2 being resurrected even if funding had been found elsewhere, such is his incompetence with transport development.

So although this thread is a nice exercise, sadly it seems we'll always be thwarted by clueless, disinterested and even blatantly anti-rail politicians when it comes to rail development.

Surely, if the Great Central had not closed, it would have normal services running on it? As a 2-track line it would not be much use for High-Speed?

The Great Central could only do so much for serving Birmingham and Manchester as well, to the point that a new alignment on the south section dedicated to High Speed would actually make sense even with HS2 there.

 

[Zomboid]

If the GCR hadn't closed there's probably no need for HS2

 

[A S Leib]

If the Grand Central had stayed open, I wonder if there would have been more concrete proposals for a Crossrail / Thameslink service from Marylebone. I doubt more Oxford services could have been ran into Paddington beyond extending the Didcot terminators*, and Bicester, Aylesbury etc. would all have had to have been served somehow.

*I can't remember; were they London to Oxford services and split when electrification past Didcot was cancelled?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2025 ==

If the GCR hadn't closed there's probably no need for HS2

It's a less important issue than WCML and ECML capacity, but I don't think any disused line would have given the speed benefits between Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds HS2 would have done; maybe there'd have been a new-build line from somewhere near central Birmingham to southern Manchester and Leeds, if not exactly HS2's route.

 

[Zomboid]

It's a less important issue than WCML and ECML capacity, but I don't think any disused line would have given the speed benefits between Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds HS2 would have done; maybe there'd have been a new-build line from somewhere near central Birmingham to southern Manchester and Leeds, if not exactly HS2's route

But HS2 is a capacity project.

I'd expect a surviving GCR to be the major freight artery between. London, and Yorkshire with maybe a stopping passenger service. Daventry would possibly have been built in a slightly different location (Lutterworth, maybe),

The significant reduction in freight on the ECML and WCML means the capacity issues that led to HS2 aren't so acute and and that do arise can be dealt with by smaller interventions.

 

[Topological]

But HS2 is a capacity project.

I'd expect a surviving GCR to be the major freight artery between. London, and Yorkshire with maybe a stopping passenger service. Daventry would possibly have been built in a slightly different location (Lutterworth, maybe),

The significant reduction in freight on the ECML and WCML means the capacity issues that led to HS2 aren't so acute and and that do arise can be dealt with by smaller interventions.

Possibly the freight would then go to the Settle and Carlisle and Dumfries to get to Scotland. Although it is likely there would still be capacity issues on the northern reaches of the WCML/ECML.

I am not sure you gain that much on the southern sections either since the fasts are currently segregated from the slows and WCML freight goes via Northampton (and hence is essentially on the slows).

More though, if there was no HS2 you would not gain from the quicker journey times between major cities that HS2 offers. Yes the reason for building something is capacity, but the reason for building HS is that HS offers more than a standard speed line. Removing the capacity constraints is more likely to then hold back the realisation of any HS benefits in the UK.

I think the retention of the Great Central would more likely be another motivation to reduce the Midland Mainline. Although a parallel universe may see a major development of the East Midlands fuelled by faster trains to London St Pancras enabled by no freight using the Midland Mainline in the south. Of course now very little freight does use the Midland Mainline in the south, but back then presumably some did.

 

[A S Leib]

Given that the MML's only around ten miles longer from Leicester to St. Pancras than a straight line (I don't know how that compares with the Great Central), I wonder how frequent a service it would have had north of Bedford.

4tph for Leicester to St. Pancras would almost certainly be overprovision in addition to Marylebone services, but I don't know which would have been faster for Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield. I'd guess that St. Pancras would have kept some Derby services, if with more stops than now.

 

[Topological]

Given that the MML's only around ten miles longer from Leicester to St. Pancras than a straight line (I don't know how that compares with the Great Central), I wonder how frequent a service it would have had north of Bedford.

4tph for Leicester to St. Pancras would almost certainly be overprovision in addition to Marylebone services, but I don't know which would have been faster for Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield. I'd guess that St. Pancras would have kept some Derby services, if with more stops than now.

Also worth remembering that for a long time the Midland Mainline service was only 2tph with one to Sheffield and one to Nottingham (with a few extras). It was only the coming of the Turbostars that started the whole 4tph between Leicester and London. It is highly unlikely such a service would have evolved with the Great Central still open.

Assuming that the Great Central is used for freight and a stopping service to London, the fasts on the Midland Mainline may have survived, but as noted earlier there would also be an incentive to move trains off the Midland Mainline (for example via the Market Harborough to Northampton route) such that St Pancras could close.

Possibly the only reason Marylebone survived, rather than losing a terminal when the Great Central main line closed, is that there is no equivalent of Thameslink/Moorgate to take the suburban trains.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Wasn't there a proposal in our timeline to convert one of Marylebone or St Pancras into a coach station? It isn't therefore beyond the realms of possibility that that's what St Pancras would have become in the event of the Great Central being retained.

There's a lot of mythology with the GCR though- it didn't have a significantly larger loading gauge, certainly not a continental-sized one... and it wasn't particularly fast either. Weren't quite a few of the stations rather poorly sited for the towns they purported to serve, too? Sheffield Victoria wasn't exactly convenient for the commercial heart of the city (not that Midland is that much better, being down in the valley bottom).

 

[The Ham]

A lot of the loss to the railway was due to the railway being less useful than it once was, due to not serving the number of places it once did.

There is therefore an argument that by keeping something like the GCR that actually the railway could be busier than it was/is.

For example with less freight on the WCML Liverpool and Scotland could have got to 2tph sooner (maybe even looking at 3tph now) likewise Manchester and Birmingham could be at 4tph (it's unlikely all could have fitted, but at least some).

However to get to that, it's going to mean either more city centre platform capacity, or reducing the local services to fit the king distance trains in.

As such passenger numbers would start from a higher base and so building a capacity increasing line similar to HS2 actually becomes less risky and actually could make underground through platforms more cost effective.

If you could use ARHS2 (Alternative Reality High Speed 2) to run:
- 5tph serving London, Birmingham, Manchester
- 3tph serving London, Birmingham, Liverpool
- 3tph serving London, Birmingham, Scotland

That would still leave 6tph to serve other places.

 

[Zomboid]

Possibly the only reason Marylebone survived, rather than losing a terminal when the Great Central main line closed, is that there is no equivalent of Thameslink/Moorgate to take the suburban trains

The Wycombe line could have gone to Paddington, whilst the Aylesbury line could have gone onto the met and terminated at Baker Street or Moorgate.

 

[Falcon1200]

Closing the GCR was blatantly short-sighted at the time

The GCR London extension was built by a private company to compete with other private companies, and served not one single place of any significance that did not already have, and indeed still does have, a railway and a station. Once the railways were nationalised its fate was sealed.

 

[Shrop]

The GCR London extension was built by a private company to compete with other private companies, and served not one single place of any significance that did not already have, and indeed still does have, a railway and a station. Once the railways were nationalised its fate was sealed.

By no means does this excuse the short-sightedness of closing it. Except in the eyes of the blinkered, who mistakenly believed that the car would provide the every land-based travel need for the entire population for the rest of time. This is Thatcherite thinking at it's worst, and I'm often dismayed that so many on this forum are so unsupportive of rail travel that they even entertain it.

 

[quantinghome]

If the Great Central hadn't been closed, then surely this would have been a superb candidate for the HS2 route. As I understand it, it wasn't quite built to continental loading gauge, but it was nevertheless a bigger gauge than other routes in the UK, and thus could well have offered a relatively cheap option to upgrade it to that gauge. It was also much flatter and straighter than most other routes, and could have been so much of a better route than the HS2 route that was eventually developed.

This is a myth. It was built to the prevailing standard loading gauge in place at the time, and it wasn't particularly straighter - curves were a minimum radius of a mile which would limit the linespeed to around 90mph.

We're also ignoring the fact that the southern part of the route never shut and is a very busy commuter route today. Good luck turning that over to a high speed route!

One last point to note is that HS2 IS using the GC route where it can. But only a short section of it because HS2 is (rightly) going to Birmingham, and the GC didn't go there.

 

[The Ham]

By no means does this excuse the short-sightedness of closing it. Except in the eyes of the blinkered, who mistakenly believed that the car would provide the every land-based travel need for the entire population for the rest of time. This is Thatcherite thinking at it's worst, and I'm often dismayed that so many on this forum are so unsupportive of rail travel that they even entertain it.

Indeed, just look at the amount of congestion there is in our roads because car use had grown so significantly in the last 20 years, even though the average milage undertaken per person has shrunk.

Often the counter is that we'll never get rid of all cars, the thing is we don't need to, we only need to see usage reduce a bit.

I've often said on here, and will say again, that if we (as a nation) could reduce our car usage by 10% (especially at peak times), people would see their journey times being closer to those seen in school holidays even when the schools are in.

A lot of that would need to be by bus (even a near empty bus with just 8 people is a net reduction in road congestion of at least 3 cars), however rail has a part to play.

If we got rid of the railways, car milage would increase by 10%, which would mean that road congestion would be so much worse.

Also, everyone using cars would be now expensive. If all buses and trains were paid by all tax payers the cost would be £1,000, the average cost of car ownership is £3,600, even allowing for people to be able to halve that to £1,800 and for them to only need one car between two tax payers (which is a fairly rare thing) they're still in a part of what it would cost to pay for all current bus and rail (even assuming that you don't count the current government subsidy).

Personally, I think that there's a need in perception from all tax is bad to, what services is this paying for which I don't have to pay from my wages?

As a household I'd rather not need to own a car but have to pay an extra £3,000 a year in taxes (even if that was more than car ownership) but then not need to have to drive kids to their clubs (when they are off a suitable age) as they could either get the bus (not currently an option) or be able to walk/cycle as the roads are significantly safer.

£3,000 is 50% more than the cost of the current rail and visa cost per tax payer and doesn't include the circa £400 per tax payer which is current government support, nor does it allow for the cost savings in not having to take payment for each journey. As such we could probably double the spend on public transport (a lot more busy and rail provision) allowing car use to potentially fall from 85% of miles to closer to 60% (maybe even lower).

 

[daodao]

The Wycombe line could have gone to Paddington, whilst the Aylesbury line could have gone onto the met and terminated at Baker Street or Moorgate.

That could still be a plan for the future, but would be easier to achieve if the Greenford-OOC line had been retained. The ex-GWR line could be electrified at 25kV AC as far as High Wycombe and local services run via OOC onto the Elizabeth line. Marylebone could then be closed, or turned into a coach station and the ex-GCR line as far as South Ruislip turned into a reserved bus/coach route linking central London to the A40/M40.
I am aware that this is not an original idea.

 

[Shrop]

This is a myth. It was built to the prevailing standard loading gauge in place at the time, and it wasn't particularly straighter - curves were a minimum radius of a mile which would limit the linespeed to around 90mph.

We're also ignoring the fact that the southern part of the route never shut and is a very busy commuter route today. Good luck turning that over to a high speed route!

One last point to note is that HS2 IS using the GC route where it can. But only a short section of it because HS2 is (rightly) going to Birmingham, and the GC didn't go there.

Of course the GCR wouldn't have been perfect for HS2, but it would certainly have provided adequate relief for the WCML, and if necessary a new link could have been built from Rugby to Birmingham to complete the capacity relief.
It always seems odd that when proposing a new high speed railway, people quickly pop up to say "Ah but it was mainly about WCML capacity relief". But these people keep ignoring the rebalancing need for the UK, which needs better links to the north. Such links are far more suited to high speed rail than the short London to Birmingham section is. HS2 does NOT rightly go to Birmingham.