If the Great Central had Survived Beeching.... Would it be Useful Today?

[HSTEd]

Well if the ECML electrification had been carried forward in the late 60s as was originally projected you could have seen all Sheffield traffic concentrated onto the ECML (via Retford), alongwith potentially the Nottingham/Derby traffic (via Grantham).

And that pretty much guts the case for MML investment stone dead.
It even gets rid of the annoying reversal and allows trains to serve both Nottingham and Derby.

On topic however I think the biggest tragedy on the loss of the GC was the loss of Nottingham Victoria - which I think would probably be in a much better location today than Midland, which is rather out in the middle of nowhere by itself.

 

[HowardGWR]

Agreed about Nott. Victoria, especially for local train services. One could still bore a 'hole' through the Vic Centre underground car park if one were so minded, as the northern exit through the tunnel is still there!

 

[Senex]

Well if the ECML electrification had been carried forward in the late 60s as was originally projected you could have seen all Sheffield traffic concentrated onto the ECML (via Retford), alongwith potentially the Nottingham/Derby traffic (via Grantham).

And that pretty much guts the case for MML investment stone dead.
It even gets rid of the annoying reversal and allows trains to serve both Nottingham and Derby.

On topic however I think the biggest tragedy on the loss of the GC was the loss of Nottingham Victoria - which I think would probably be in a much better location today than Midland, which is rather out in the middle of nowhere by itself.

So a half-hourly service to Sheffield via Retford and a half-hourly service to Nottingham/Derby via Grantham means four additional paths an hour on the southern end of the ECML, including over the two-track bottleneck of Welwyn Viaduct. How do you fit that into a practicable timetable, allowing not only for the Leeds and Scotland traffic but also for the GN outer suburban traffic?

 

[didcotdean]

On topic however I think the biggest tragedy on the loss of the GC was the loss of Nottingham Victoria - which I think would probably be in a much better location today than Midland, which is rather out in the middle of nowhere by itself.

Arguably that is the case in Leicester too, where Central would be much closer to the recent developments in the centre than London Road is - if it had still been in existence there probably would be a direct pedestrian access of some kind into Highcross.

 

[Dunnyrail]

But it wasn't a proposal to close the line through the Chilterns.

As I recall what was proposed was the closure of Marylebone. Services on the Wycombe line would have been diverted into Paddington and Aylesbury to Amersham run as a shuttle with the Met running on as it does today.

The reality is only a couple of miles of track would actually have closed along with about 3 stations - those between West Ruislip and Marylebone in effect.

Too true, but I believe the proposal was to use Baker Street for the Aylesbury/Risborough Line Trains with a bit of Paddington? How well that would have worked now!
JonD

 

[edwin_m]

Agreed about Nott. Victoria, especially for local train services. One could still bore a 'hole' through the Vic Centre underground car park if one were so minded, as the northern exit through the tunnel is still there!

I think I read somewhere that the original intention for the Victoria Centre allowed for a two-track freight line to be retained, but although freight continued to run through the station as it was demolished, this idea was abandoned before the shopping centre was built. I've no idea if it would be possible today without demolishing and rebuilding much of the shopping centre or whether there would be room for platforms (which if built would make New Street look like an oasis of calmness and fresh air...).

The tunnels were considered as part of the tram route but essentially were a solution in search of a problem, carrying the trams rapidly beneath the city centre which is people's main destination. The recent extensions to the Victoria have left room for a tramway round the side and down into the northern tunnel, but I can't see what purpose it would serve.

However it's largely irrelevant because beyond the tunnels virtually nothing survives of the Great Central within the Nottingham built-up area. The tram occupies much of the southern half but the only surviving structure is the arches just north of Midland Station, and to the north the cuttings are filled in and it's mostly built over so that someone who wasn't looking for it would never know it had existed.

 

[BantamMenace]

Surely a more useful link north of Aylesbury would be the line to Banbury via Buckingham and Brackley? Roughly 22 miles in length and serving two significant towns with large scope for redevelopment. Does anyone know if Chiltern has explored a reopening of this line?

Extending the Aylesbury trains to Banbury this way and diverting the MYB - Stratford trains this way would allow a half hourly services for the two aforementioned towns with only 1, possibly 2, additional diagrams required.

If combined with expansions of Brackley and Buckingham this link could be a prime contender for private funding from housing developers.

 

[Chester1]

Surely a more useful link north of Aylesbury would be the line to Banbury via Buckingham and Brackley? Roughly 22 miles in length and serving two significant towns with large scope for redevelopment. Does anyone know if Chiltern has explored a reopening of this line?

Extending the Aylesbury trains to Banbury this way and diverting the MYB - Stratford trains this way would allow a half hourly services for the two aforementioned towns with only 1, possibly 2, additional diagrams required.

If combined with expansions of Brackley and Buckingham this link could be a prime contender for private funding from housing developers.

Chiltern will not invest more money on infrastructure unless they have a very long franchise extension and I very much doubt that even if this happened that they would do any more than contribute towards East West Rail. They paid £130m to EWR phase 1 but rebuilding a single track branch line into a double track mainline is significantly less risky than reopening a line from scratch. The same applies to reopening Milton Keynes to Bicester and Aylesbury, the track bed is all intact, the track needs replacing and re-doubling, a signalling system built from scratch and level crossings removed but that is less risky than reopening a line that was ripped up 50 years ago.

 

[Ianigsy]

What the Great Central route would offer today would be an opportunity to go from the north-western Home Counties and south-western Midlands to the East Midlands and South and East Yorkshire without the need to change in either London or Birmingham. The main reason for its construction- carrying freight and particularly coal from the Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire coalfields to London- ceased to exist decades ago, but again it could take a lot of freight from busier main lines.

 

[The Planner]

Surely a more useful link north of Aylesbury would be the line to Banbury via Buckingham and Brackley? Roughly 22 miles in length and serving two significant towns with large scope for redevelopment. Does anyone know if Chiltern has explored a reopening of this line?

Extending the Aylesbury trains to Banbury this way and diverting the MYB - Stratford trains this way would allow a half hourly services for the two aforementioned towns with only 1, possibly 2, additional diagrams required.

If combined with expansions of Brackley and Buckingham this link could be a prime contender for private funding from housing developers.

You would need a reversal at Verney Jn for a start and fair chunks of it are built on in Buckingham, Brackley, the M40 is in the way and I expect a bit of encroachment in Banbury now.

 

[The Planner]

The main reason for its construction- carrying freight and particularly coal from the Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire coalfields to London- ceased to exist decades ago, but again it could take a lot of freight from busier main lines.

What freight though? The GC doesnt go where the freight needs to.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Surely a more useful link north of Aylesbury would be the line to Banbury via Buckingham and Brackley? Roughly 22 miles in length and serving two significant towns with large scope for redevelopment. Does anyone know if Chiltern has explored a reopening of this line?
Extending the Aylesbury trains to Banbury this way and diverting the MYB - Stratford trains this way would allow a half hourly services for the two aforementioned towns with only 1, possibly 2, additional diagrams required.
If combined with expansions of Brackley and Buckingham this link could be a prime contender for private funding from housing developers.

The Buckingham/Banbury branch from Verney Jn was of course served from Euston via Bletchley, long before the GC was dreamt up.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Surely a more useful link north of Aylesbury would be the line to Banbury via Buckingham and Brackley? Roughly 22 miles in length and serving two significant towns with large scope for redevelopment. Does anyone know if Chiltern has explored a reopening of this line?

Extending the Aylesbury trains to Banbury this way and diverting the MYB - Stratford trains this way would allow a half hourly services for the two aforementioned towns with only 1, possibly 2, additional diagrams required.

If combined with expansions of Brackley and Buckingham this link could be a prime contender for private funding from housing developers.

This won't happen, and would not have happened in the past either. I never went on it, but from what I remember crossing the liine c 1962-64, it was a meandering, lightly laid, single-track branch. And as others have commented, you would need to reverse at Verney Jcn.
At Brackley, the GC crossed the branch over the Brackley viaduct, IIRC. Must have been 50 feet above the branch.

 

[The Planner]

Not quite, it crossed near Mixbury in the middle of nowhere and the bridge is still there by the looks of Google Maps.

 

[daodao]

The section between north of Brackley, where HS2 deviates to the West, via Rugby to just south of Leicester, would be useful as a branch of HS2 to allow fast trains to run to Leicester and Nottingham.

 

[edwin_m]

The section between north of Brackley, where HS2 deviates to the West, via Rugby to just south of Leicester, would be useful as a branch of HS2 to allow fast trains to run to Leicester and Nottingham.

Please see my previous post regarding total obliteration of the GC in Nottingham. Leicester isn't much better. And all the paths on HS2 south of Birmingham are already spoken for.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Not quite, it crossed near Mixbury in the middle of nowhere and the bridge is still there by the looks of Google Maps.

Oh, thanks for the correction. I must have imagined it going under the viaduct, and then imprinted it on the brain as a memory. Gosh ..... the dangers of growing older!

 

[67018]

You would need a reversal at Verney Jn for a start and fair chunks of it are built on in Buckingham, Brackley, the M40 is in the way and I expect a bit of encroachment in Banbury now.

There’s been quite a lot of infill development between Banbury and the M40 recently, which indeed could get in the way. Loads of house building around Buckingham too.

As a fairly empty area not far from London, a massive house building programme might make sense, which would then need transport provision. It would need to be a government programme over a long period though - would certainly give the NIMBYs something other than HS2 to moan about!

The practical problem also arises that a service via Aylesbury would probably be unattractively slow and cause capacity conflicts with EWR services to MK, which is where Chiltern really want to go.

 

[70014IronDuke]

That assumes that Bedford - Leicester gets the Salisbury - Exeter treatment, rather than Exeter - Plymouth via Okehampton. Afterall, if Corby could do without a train service, why not Kettering and Market Harborough ?

Well, as far as I vaguely remember, they closed Corby on the grounds that Corby-ites could jump in a car or on a bus to go 'down the road' to Kettering. TBH, looking back, I'm surprised they were allowed to get away with closing Corby when they did, but I suppose at the time it was a rather self-contained town centred on its steelworks, ie it didn't generate much traffic, holidays to Strathclyde apart. Kettering is a much bigger place, and they would not have been able to close Kettering and Wellingborough.

Mkt Harboro might have been dodgy under this scenario, I agree. They could have kept Leicester - Harboro - Nothampton open as a single-track branch, and closed Harobor - Kettering complete. But I think there would have been an outcry from Luton, Bedford, Wellinboro etc at losing an outlet to the north, so I think it would have survived, but been singled (with loops, of course) Bedford - Wigston.

Realistically I can't see cash strapped early 1980's BR redoubling a long main line. And even if a single track section had survived, would we be any more likely to see it redoubled now than Salisbury - Exeter ?

Well, it's all conjecture, of course, but cash-strapped or not - Euston would have had trouble coping with an extra two expresses per hour by 1980 or so, I should think. And pressure would have come on to put these trains back on the Midland. It could have been done incrementally. Would not need all re-doubling, at least not all at once.

The other thing we have to consider is that had 1960's BR had its way with the route North of Bedford, it might also have found it easier to fulfill its other master plan of closing St Pancras, so in all likelihood, there would have been nowhere to terminate this rejuvenated InterCity service. ...

Actually, I did originally begin writing about this aspect [ie closure of St Pancras] but then deleted it, as I thought it would muddy the issue. But yes, it, ie a diversion of MML to Rugby (or Nuneaton, which was also supposed to have been considered) and singling north of Bedford probably would have added to the pressure on St Pancras.

However, although there were all sorts of plans mooted, I suspect that even at top managerial level there were thoughts that singling north of Bedford would be a "rationalisation" too far - especially after electrification on the WCML brought on such immeidate and significant growth. It would be really interesting to know how seriously these rationalisation proposals were taken. I mean, closing the GC was one thing - between Aylesbury and Rugby there were more cows than people - and it should have been obvious to everyone concerned that running three semi-fasts a day between Nottingham and Marylebone after 1960 was a joke, and obviously not a serious attempt in any way to attract passengers. So as freight traffic waned, the writing was on the wall for the GC. But you could not possibly get away with running down the Midland in the same way.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Oh, thanks for the correction. I must have imagined it going under the viaduct, and then imprinted it on the brain as a memory. Gosh ..... the dangers of growing older!

However, Helmdon viaduct did cross over the Banbury - Towcester line so that is maybe what you are thinking of?

What freight though? The GC doesnt go where the freight needs to.

Because there are no freight terminals in the vicinity of Rugby, Sheffield, Manchester or Liverpool and no freight to/from Southampton docks....?

You would need a reversal at Verney Jn for a start and fair chunks of it are built on in Buckingham, Brackley, the M40 is in the way and I expect a bit of encroachment in Banbury now.

Not if you reopen the Met from Quainton to Verney

 

[The Planner]

Except what currently comes out of DIRFT, Southampton, Trafford Park etc that would use it?

 

[70014IronDuke]

However, Helmdon viaduct did cross over the Banbury - Towcester line so that is maybe what you are thinking of? ...

Not impossible, but I do remember seeing Brackley viaduct on one or two occaions, and going through the town en route to Banbury. I don't ever remember going via Helmdon. It was an awful long time ago though - probably 61-62 time, and I was only around 10. If I'm honest, I think I wondered at some stage where the branch crossed the GC, guessed it might be under the viaduct, and .. warped memory-imagination function did the rest. But anyway, thanks for giving me a way out

 

[yorksrob]

Well, as far as I vaguely remember, they closed Corby on the grounds that Corby-ites could jump in a car or on a bus to go 'down the road' to Kettering. TBH, looking back, I'm surprised they were allowed to get away with closing Corby when they did, but I suppose at the time it was a rather self-contained town centred on its steelworks, ie it didn't generate much traffic, holidays to Strathclyde apart. Kettering is a much bigger place, and they would not have been able to close Kettering and Wellingborough.

Mkt Harboro might have been dodgy under this scenario, I agree. They could have kept Leicester - Harboro - Nothampton open as a single-track branch, and closed Harobor - Kettering complete. But I think there would have been an outcry from Luton, Bedford, Wellinboro etc at losing an outlet to the north, so I think it would have survived, but been singled (with loops, of course) Bedford - Wigston.



Well, it's all conjecture, of course, but cash-strapped or not - Euston would have had trouble coping with an extra two expresses per hour by 1980 or so, I should think. And pressure would have come on to put these trains back on the Midland. It could have been done incrementally. Would not need all re-doubling, at least not all at once.



Actually, I did originally begin writing about this aspect [ie closure of St Pancras] but then deleted it, as I thought it would muddy the issue. But yes, it, ie a diversion of MML to Rugby (or Nuneaton, which was also supposed to have been considered) and singling north of Bedford probably would have added to the pressure on St Pancras.

However, although there were all sorts of plans mooted, I suspect that even at top managerial level there were thoughts that singling north of Bedford would be a "rationalisation" too far - especially after electrification on the WCML brought on such immeidate and significant growth. It would be really interesting to know how seriously these rationalisation proposals were taken. I mean, closing the GC was one thing - between Aylesbury and Rugby there were more cows than people - and it should have been obvious to everyone concerned that running three semi-fasts a day between Nottingham and Marylebone after 1960 was a joke, and obviously not a serious attempt in any way to attract passengers. So as freight traffic waned, the writing was on the wall for the GC. But you could not possibly get away with running down the Midland in the same way.

I agree, it is all conjecture as to how close to adoption such schemes were, however there were a lot of rationalisations that were undertaken around that time, which have since proved to be problematic.

The fact is, whatever wheeze they might have come up with, you can rest assured that:

• It would have negatively impacted on capacity on all the North to South routes into the future.
• These rationalisations would have been expensive to rectify and therefore we would probably still be living with them now.
• Whatever they managed to come up with, it would have been substantially inferior to swooshing along the Midland Mainline at speed in the comfort of an InterCity 125.

Therefore, I stand by my assertion that we had a very lucky escape from these proposals.

 

[infobleep]

Presumably bits of Wheatley having been built on the former trackbed will have scuppered that fairly quickly.

Compulsory purchase order not possible?

 

[The Planner]

We have done this one before, loads of new build on top and with house prices around there it would be 10s of millions.

 

[67018]

Indeed, there's at least half a mile of houses on the line, not to mention the aforementioned issue of the M40, M40 J8A spur and Wheatley Services being in the way

 

[RPM]

Compulsory purchase order not possible?

It would have been possible, but expensive.

Indeed, there's at least half a mile of houses on the line, not to mention the aforementioned issue of the M40, M40 J8A spur and Wheatley Services being in the way

The Services don't actually encroach on the formation, and the M40 crossing was fairly straightforward. It was Wheatley village itself that made the project unaffordable.

 

[67018]

The Services don't actually encroach on the formation, and the M40 crossing was fairly straightforward. It was Wheatley village itself that made the project unaffordable.

That’s interesting, I was going by the OS 1:25,000 map which appears to show the disused alignment heading straight through the site of the services. Anyone know which side it actually passed?

 

[mr_jrt]

Try flipping between the background maps here: http://maps.nls.uk/geo/find/#zoom=15&lat=51.7417&lon=-1.1094&layers=39&b=7&point=51.7398,-1.1098

 

[67018]

Try flipping between the background maps here: http://maps.nls.uk/geo/find/#zoom=15&lat=51.7417&lon=-1.1094&layers=39&b=7&point=51.7398,-1.1098

Thanks. That explains it, the line goes through the perimeter of the services as shown on the modern map, but in reality it’s mostly service roads and misses the buildings.

That map does beautifully show the extent of the housing in the way in Wheatley.