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

[Zomboid]

I didn't think everything was planned to stop at Interchange, but with 4 platforms, 2 through lines and no full reversion to 2 track to the north until beyond the delta junction it wouldn't have created any issues.

 

[stevieinselby]

I had not realised everything on HS2 was stopping at Birmingham Interchange.

Ah, I take it back, you're right, only about 6tph were planned to stop there. Still, that means the majority of trains would be non-stop from Old Oak Common to the divergences north of Interchange, and the whole design of the stations and service pattern was based on facilitating that 17tph so the timing of trains stopping there would have been carefully planned. That's still a very different kettle of fish from a line like WCML, ECML or GCML had it remained open that has developed organically over time with several intermediate stations and all sorts of different service patterns.

 

[Topological]

Ah, I take it back, you're right, only about 6tph were planned to stop there. Still, that means the majority of trains would be non-stop from Old Oak Common to the divergences north of Interchange, and the whole design of the stations and service pattern was based on facilitating that 17tph so the timing of trains stopping there would have been carefully planned. That's still a very different kettle of fish from a line like WCML, ECML or GCML had it remained open that has developed organically over time with several intermediate stations and all sorts of different service patterns.

Yes. I think it is only a minor detail of whether everything stops at Birmingham Interchange.

Possibly the new layout of Rugby provides similar resilience to the WCML fasts though? So we are only talking about trains on the fasts calling at Milton Keynes and Watford Junction, plus the speed differentials associated with LNWR* using the fasts.

 

[Zomboid]

Doesn't the WCML also have shorter distance trains moving fast to slow at Linslade etc, across flat junctions. That kind of thing can eat capacity, too.

 

[The Planner]

Let's see. Now the WCML is at capacity, which is the main justification for proposing HS2 in the first place, apparently. So how many trains use the WCML fast lines each way in a daytime hour? 10 or maybe 11? So this leaves three options, namely that I have miscalculated (or misread the timetable), or that the WCML isn't actually anywhere near capacity at all, or that HS2 stood no chance of running 17 trains per hour. Where is the error in this?

14tph in some hours between Euston and Ledburn Jn when Lumo to Stirling start and the second Avanti Liverpool starts. 2 x Birmingham, 1 x Scotland via the West Mids, 3 x Manchester, 2 x Liverpool, 1 x Chester, 1 x Glasgow, 2 x LNWR Birmingham via Northampton (both crossing at Ledburn), 1 x LNWR to Crewe, 1 x Lumo to Stirling

 

[eldomtom2]

Ah, I take it back, you're right, only about 6tph were planned to stop there.

Which is very odd to my mind - I'd like to hear the reasoning for that.

 

[yorksrob]

Railway lines do well serving scattered settlements they pass close to, but not other scattered settlements.

No line is built based on scattered settlements. The Cumbrian Coast is about Barrow, Workington, Whitehaven and Carlisle (with apologies to any others missed out) and the stations in other villages are on the route.

I doubt anyone would build the Cumbrian Coast line if it did not exist.

I think the issue is that there weren't that many railways closed in the 1960's that just went through scattered settlements and ended in a scattered settlement. Most of them either went through substantial settlements (e.g. Hailsham, Heathfield on the Cuckoo line), linked substantial settlements (Brighton/ Lewes with Crowborough/Tunbridge Wells on the Uckfield line) or linked substantial settlements to the main line (e.g. Padstow and Wadebridge to Bodmin).

There should have been some inkling that some of these would one day be important, but for the blinkered obsession with motor transport.

 

[Falcon1200]

It's just bad practice to close a rail route without proper assessment of the likelihood of it ever being used in future years.

Does that apply to all closed rail routes? Actually, in a few cases, I believe it should, or rather should have; The short extension of the Paisley Canal line to connect with the Ayr main line at Elderslie, for example, although that particular closure and obstruction by buildings came many years after the GCR closure. However the GCR is a very different case, money which would have had to be spent maintaining and preventing from obstruction its route would have been far better spent on the Midland Main line, which performs much the same transport function as the GCR and is far better suited to investment (electrification, hopefully, one day.....)

 

[A S Leib]

Would services on any other lines look particularly different if Lisburn – Antrim had stayed open for passenger services, presunably (hopefully) with a station closer to Belfast International?

 

[Zomboid]

Would services on any other lines look particularly different if Lisburn – Antrim had stayed open for passenger services, presunably (hopefully) with a station closer to Belfast International?

That was only closed relatively recently wasn't it, and Bleach Green to Antrim was reopened to replace it. Or have I remembered something that never happened?

 

[stevieinselby]

Which is very odd to my mind - I'd like to hear the reasoning for that.

Presumably the thinking was that any more than that would be overkill, and would add unnecessary time and cost for longer journeys heading north for minimal benefit. There would still have been frequent services to London and Birmingham, and hourly north-facing services to Manchester, Preston/Carlisle/Glasgow/Edinburgh and East Midlands/Leeds, which should be sufficient for the demand.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jul 2025 ==

I was presuming the argument was that the GCML would relieve freight traffic from the WCML.

Most freight runs at night, there are generally only at most a couple of freight trains per hour each way on the WCML. While providing more capacity for freight is in and of itself a good thing, it isn't the usage of WCML and ECML by freight trains that could alternatively be running up the GCML that is the limiting factor on those lines. Any contribution the GCML could have made would have been minimal, and again would barely make a dent in the need to run an extra ~17tph passenger services from London to the Midlands, the North and Scotland.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Most freight runs at night, there are generally only at most a couple of freight trains per hour each way on the WCML. While providing more capacity for freight is in and of itself a good thing, it isn't the usage of WCML and ECML by freight trains that could alternatively be running up the GCML that is the limiting factor on those lines. Any contribution the GCML could have made would have been minimal, and again would barely make a dent in the need to run an extra ~17tph passenger services from London to the Midlands, the North and Scotland.

The situation when I worked in freight marketing (and I can't see how it would change) was that daytime loading and unloading at terminals was usually a requirement of planning permission for fairly obvious reasons. Running trains at night is for railway operations convenience not customer requirement.

 

[Shrop]

14tph in some hours between Euston and Ledburn Jn when Lumo to Stirling start and the second Avanti Liverpool starts. 2 x Birmingham, 1 x Scotland via the West Mids, 3 x Manchester, 2 x Liverpool, 1 x Chester, 1 x Glasgow, 2 x LNWR Birmingham via Northampton (both crossing at Ledburn), 1 x LNWR to Crewe, 1 x Lumo to Stirling

Would be nice if it could work, however given the amount of delays and knock-on effects that happen throughout the network already, please forgive me for having serious doubts about punctuality prospects at these headways. We've already proved in the UK that we're just not very good at living up to our promises about delivering great rail punctuality

 

[swt_passenger]

Short-sighted? You can only judge by the standards of the time - and at the time there was route duplication, a rapidly declining use of rail and growth of motoring. It’s also worth pointing out that we have managed perfectly well in the near 60 years since without it.

There’s a mythology around the GC that isn’t supported by the reality. Enthusiasts go all misty-eyed over it, for little reason that I can see.

Usually they go misty eyed about it being built to ‘continental gauge’, and that’s been completely debunked in a few previous threads…

 

[AndrewE]

Usually they go misty eyed about it being built to ‘continental gauge’, and that’s been completely debunked in a few previous threads…

I thought it was interesting (and quite far-sighted) that the GC was built with the initial lines passing island platforms (as on the preserved railway at Rothley etc) with the intention that if traffic grew to the point where quadrupling was justified they could just put the fast lines on the outside of the slows with no need to alter station platforms. Presumably goods yard access would have been complicated., involving crossing the fast line, but we forget how infrequent trains used to be...

 

[swt_passenger]

I thought it was interesting (and quite far-sighted) that the GC was built with the initial lines passing island platforms (as on the preserved railway at Rothley etc) with the intention that if traffic grew to the point where quadrupling was justified they could just put the fast lines on the outside of the slows with no need to alter station platforms. Presumably goods yard access would have been complicated., involving crossing the fast line, but we forget how infrequent trains used to be...

I think it’s also been said that’s a modern interpretation, and not the original purpose, which was to simplify access by only having one set of steps up from street level. But probably a digression…

 

[Zomboid]

From an enthusiast view it did give the line some of its unique character, though.

 

[The Planner]

Would be nice if it could work, however given the amount of delays and knock-on effects that happen throughout the network already, please forgive me for having serious doubts about punctuality prospects at these headways. We've already proved in the UK that we're just not very good at living up to our promises about delivering great rail punctuality

Which is why the other OA applications were refused.

 

[Falcon1200]

if traffic grew to the point where quadrupling was justified

Which of course it never was, whereas the Midland Main Line was quadrupled. Perhaps another explanation of why one line survived and one did not.

 

[yorksrob]

There's no doubt the Midland was the better of the main routes. Quadruple track, numerous diversions etc.

Yet the GC could have proven useful as a NE/SW artery. Imagine a cross country with an East Midlands option as well as a West Midlands one.

 

[quantinghome]

Perhaps the most realistic counterfactual for the GCR would have been it staying open but downgraded to a minimal service, as happened to the Chiltern Main Line which is kind of a sister line to it. Rising demand would then have pushed a service increase as per Chiltern.

However, it's notable that the CML Evergreen upgrades, although functioning as a relief the WCML, have not eliminated the need for HS2. So it's doubtful that a retained and rejuvenated GCR would have done so either.

 

[321362]

This might have actually been a better outcome in the long term, since a vacant St Pancras would have been able to host HS2, bringing costs down over building a new terminus at Euston.

That's what I was thinking, swapping the MML and HS2 termini to allow HS1 and HS2 through-running, with the possibilities of Eurostar to Brum and further north.

Could this still in theory work, other than that I doubt St Pancras has enough platforms for HS2?

Either with the Northampton link, or just a new line connecting the MML and WCML near Camden (is there already one?)

Via the GOB would be such a long way round though, via South Tottenham, Coppermill Jn and Clapton presumably?

Yes please, a direct service from Clapton to the Midlands would be lovely, thanks!

 

[The exile]

Does that apply to all closed rail routes?

Yes it does. The result of that assessment might still be “Nah - never in a thousand years “ which might or might not be right but at least it will have been done. As far as I know, most of the Beeching calculations were based on “as is” with no assessment of “what might be if we provided a usable service” let alone “what will be once New town A is built in 5 - 10 years’ time”.

 

[quantinghome]

That's what I was thinking, swapping the MML and HS2 termini to allow HS1 and HS2 through-running, with the possibilities of Eurostar to Brum and further north.

Could this still in theory work, other than that I doubt St Pancras has enough platforms for HS2?

Either with the Northampton link, or just a new line connecting the MML and WCML near Camden (is there already one?)

St. Pancras has 4 platforms for MML services, each I think 240m long. So no, not enough.

 

[Matt P]

Cross Country services if the WR Wolverhampton Low Level to Birmingham Snow Hill hadn't closed. This would provide an alternative route for NW-SE services.

 

[Topological]

Cross Country services if the WR Wolverhampton Low Level to Birmingham Snow Hill hadn't closed. This would provide an alternative route for NW-SE services.

Presumably the Shrewsbury services would be that way as well, allowing more capacity on the Birmingham New Street to Wolverhampton High Level. There are many ways in which that extra capacity would be valuable.

I was trying to think of what else can be done with the various junctions. Until the Bordesley chords are built the current situation for services running through Snow Hill are a little limited.

 

[Matt P]

Presumably the Shrewsbury services would be that way as well, allowing more capacity on the Birmingham New Street to Wolverhampton High Level. There are many ways in which that extra capacity would be valuable.

I was trying to think of what else can be done with the various junctions. Until the Bordesley chords are built the current situation for services running through Snow Hill are a little limited.

It would probably depend upon a few other 'what ifs'. If the line was kept open for local traffic as well as some long distance, then capacity would be dependent upon the frequency of the local services. If value had been seen in local services in the 1960s then it is not impossible that Birmingham to Dudley would have been retained, and possibly Wolverhampton LL to Dudley. Making Snow Hill the focal point of the the whole Cross-country network would be difficult without some additional connections between the LMR and WR routes though.

Retaining the Low Level to Snow Hill route would provide an alternative option for London services to Shropshire and Wrexham that would not be hampered by WCML capacity.

That said, retaining the route would need quite a radically different outlook towards public transport generally in the 1960s, which would have influenced what BR looked like into the 70's and 80's.