Marylebone to the Continent…

[corfield]

So, Watkins had the GC London Extension built.

His objective as often stated was to the continent.

It generally seems to be assumed that this would be via the Met, Widened Lines and Snow Hill or ELL connections.

But those routes were full surely and hardly quick? No scope for long pax trains to wind through?

It also seems the very antithesis of Watkins’ approach that built the GC Extension and then the alternative route when sharing with the Met on its outer lines proved too difficult (which would have been far easier than sharing to and through central London with multiple companies!). Surely he had something new and rather more incredible in mind to get across London? This was the man who also started a significantly larger Eiffel tower after all.

So, what might have been alternatives drawing on that more ‘megalomanic’ approach?

* extend the widened lines to Myb with tunnels linking to Myb’s approaches?

* an early, mainline version of what became the Bakerloo, running from (nr) Myb/Baker St to CX, noting he was SER chair.

* or the more extreme, mainline tunnel from Myb approaches down to say Marble Arch, along Hyde Park, Grosvenor Pl and up into Victoria? (thus connecting to existing boat trains departure point and infra, and via an intermediate station capturing his priority of 1st class pax from Mayfair etc.). Noting that Victoria was LB&SCR/LCDR but by c1900 weren’t the SER & LCDR cooperating?

The last one is the one I like, very ambitious and leaves a Thameslink style legacy (lots of issues to do it though!). Interesting to consider a mainline station between/at one of, Marble Arch and Hyde Park and what that might have done to keep the GC going, offering Midlands/North direct from a well heeled and influential part of town.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

If I'm correct I think the plan was to just run down the Metropolitan to Farringdon and onto the Chatham system? Great question.

 

[30907]

Re Victoria - yes the SECR was formed v1899 but the SER ran boat trains from Charing X (and the LCD from Blackfriars etc) so it's not really relevant.

I doubt there was any definite plan.

 

[swt_passenger]

I suppose you have to think about the overall passenger capacity Watkins was aiming for. Cross channel demand would not have been anything like today‘s numbers. He might have only needed a few paths per day.

 

[RT4038]

I suppose you have to think about the overall passenger capacity Watkins was aiming for. Cross channel demand would not have been anything like today‘s numbers. He might have only needed a few paths per day.

Plus off peak [when the Continental trains would be most likely run] train Metropolitan and suburban train frequencies were probably a fraction of those today.

 

[corfield]

Plus off peak [when the Continental trains would be most likely run] train Metropolitan and suburban train frequencies were probably a fraction of those today.

True, but freight was far greater into the city goods yards? I can claim no real knowledge but from what I have read, these lines were pretty busy all the time?

It all just seems a bit ad hoc for a man whose vision/solution was pretty much always “build a new, specific and probably OTT thing” to any problem, real or perceived.

I suppose you have to think about the overall passenger capacity Watkins was aiming for. Cross channel demand would not have been anything like today‘s numbers. He might have only needed a few paths per day.

True, but wouldn’t he still want a nice place to embark/hold these continental travellers and the Met route omits using Myb for that?

Re Victoria - yes the SECR was formed v1899 but the SER ran boat trains from Charing X (and the LCD from Blackfriars etc) so it's not really relevant.

I doubt there was any definite plan.

True, that was me just looking for links as Victoria seems an easier place to get tunnels from Myb to, arguably a boat bound train coming into Victoria already half full from the north/midlands or just Myb/Mayfair may not have worked with those looking to embark at Victoria anyway.

 

[Gloster]

Nicholas Comfort’s book The Channel Tunnel and its High Speed Links (Oakwood, 2006) says that Watkin (N.b. no ‘s’ at the end) intended trains to run from Marylebone via Baker Street and the East London Line to the South Eastern Railway. Presumably they would have used St Mary’s Curve (good luck with that) and joined the SER at New Cross.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Nicholas Comfort’s book The Channel Tunnel and its High Speed Links (Oakwood, 2006) says that Watkin (N.b. no ‘s’ at the end) intended trains to run from Marylebone via Baker Street and the East London Line to the South Eastern Railway. Presumably they would have used St Mary’s Curve (good luck with that) and joined the SER at New Cross.

I knew you would know. That’s right it was the ELL, I think it was mentioned in a London Reconnections article a number of years ago.

 

[corfield]

Th

Nicholas Comfort’s book The Channel Tunnel and its High Speed Links (Oakwood, 2006) says that Watkin (N.b. no ‘s’ at the end) intended trains to run from Marylebone via Baker Street and the East London Line to the South Eastern Railway. Presumably they would have used St Mary’s Curve (good luck with that) and joined the SER at New Cross.

That’s what I’ve read (not the book, I think it also was the Reconnections article or something like it), it just seems very unlike his normal approach to things.

Given all of that route was busy it feels he’d be better off just surface moving pax from Myb to CX or going completely around Londonusing outer lines.

Also how would you “run from Myb via Baker St” given Myb is a dead end from what, Harrow-on-the-Hill? - even if a crossover did exist further south, there was no ability to turn Myb trains to Baker St? Or am I misunderstanding?

Did Baker St ever have capacity to hold/marshal boat trains?

Plus I love the idea of a Myb-Vict thameslink option!

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Th

That’s what I’ve read (not the book, I think it also was the Reconnections article or something like it), it just seems very unlike his normal approach to things.

Given all of that route was busy it feels he’d be better off just surface moving pax from Myb to CX or going completely around Londonusing outer lines.

Also how would you “run from Myb via Baker St” given Myb is a dead end from what, Harrow-on-the-Hill? - even if a crossover did exist further south, there was no ability to turn Myb trains to Baker St? Or am I misunderstanding?

Did Baker St ever have capacity to hold/marshal boat trains?

Plus I love the idea of a Myb-Vict thameslink option!

I suppose by the time The Great Central reached London in 1899, it was probably way too expensive to build another cut and cover railway. Especially through the West End down to Victoria. Baker Street was going to be the original terminus of the Great Central wasn’t it? How that would of worked I don’t know, but it’s clear why they opted for Marylebone was built.

One thing I have wondered recently, as a Great Central apologist, is the fairly large space available at Marylebone for future station enlargement and the space saves for another two pairs of tunnels under Lords. Where did they expect all this traffic to come from? Freight or passenger?

 

[etr221]

So, Watkins had the GC London Extension built.

His objective as often stated was to the continent.

It generally seems to be assumed that this would be via the Met, Widened Lines and Snow Hill or ELL connections.

Posters seem to have forgotten that Watkin was also Charirman of the South Eastern Railway, and that would have been the important part of the link.

Perhaps the best way of thinking about the Metropolitan's role was as a link between the far end of main lines from Manchester and Europe via the Channel Tunnel: viewed from that perspective, the link (whether via Blackfriars or the Thames Tunnel) was a minor element, to save the cab ride across London. As such the (at first probably very little) traffic could be squeezed onto the Met: had it developed sufficiently, then further projects would been developed...

As a through link, perhaps it might be characterised as the outcome of Watkin playing at being a crayonista...

 

[Gloster]

I have no knowledge of how the trains would be worked and it is quite possible that Watkin never got around to little details like that. An obvious possibility would be to detach through carriages from Great Central trains at Neasden and work them from there to New Cross, where they would be attached them to an SER boat train or Dover express. It would be easier to work two or three through coaches over the Metropolitan than a full length train. If they wanted to operate trains from Marylebone, which seems rather pointless (*), a portion could work out from Marylebone to Neasden and be attached to the through coaches there.

* - Why go up to Marylebone to take a train that will wander around the houses to get to New Cross when you can go to Charing Cross and be passing through New Cross in minutes?

 

[corfield]

I suppose by the time The Great Central reached London in 1899, it was probably way too expensive to build another cut and cover railway. Especially through the West End down to Victoria.

Oh I dont think my Myb-Vict idea is remotely realistic, but thats kinda the point - Watkin wasn’t someone who felt constrained by normal people’s view of “realistic”.

Baker Street was going to be the original terminus of the Great Central wasn’t it?

Was it? Myb as built had a huge goods yard, Baker St never had anything like it or the ability to terminate long pax trains. Myb even as cut back when built had long platforms, carriage access to the platform etc. to support all that, and the hotel.

How that would of worked I don’t know, but it’s clear why they opted for Marylebone was built.

One thing I have wondered recently, as a Great Central apologist, is the fairly large space available at Marylebone for future station enlargement and the space saves for another two pairs of tunnels under Lords. Where did they expect all this traffic to come from? Freight or passenger?

Both I assume, but the GCR’s freight traffic was mostly coal iirc, of which little went to London. Not sure how they expected to grow that?

It does seem a proper “build it and they’ll come”, not a business case backed venture!

I was hoping somewhere there’d be references or knowledge to Watkin’s ideas for Myb connecting to the Met/Circle, widended lines or more exotic. Although perhaps the London Extension and Myb were already several “bridges too far”in that sense!

I’ve wondered if the GC could have done better if some facts were different:

- Oxford to Rugby gets built joining GWR and LNWR. GWR still builds own line to Moor St eventually but when the GC arrived from the north it runs to this connection at Rugby rather than Woodford Halse, and creates a more united Rugby (High/Low levels) station complex.

- GC runs further east, picking up Daventry and Buckingham (vice Brackley) as intermediate stops.

- GC rebuilds Aylesbury to Princes Risborough as express twin track rather than the Grendon-Ashendon cut off.

Hence future trains have decent intermediate stops so total closure might be avoided albeit singled Aylesbury to Rugby.

- Quad tracking Myb-Neasden at least, ideally to Ruislip.

Posters seem to have forgotten that Watkin was also Charirman of the South Eastern Railway, and that would have been the important part of the link.

I think I mentioned that? Hence tying GCR services in with SER somehow.

Perhaps the best way of thinking about the Metropolitan's role was as a link between the far end of main lines from Manchester and Europe via the Channel Tunnel: viewed from that perspective, the link (whether via Blackfriars or the Thames Tunnel) was a minor element, to save the cab ride across London. As such the (at first probably very little) traffic could be squeezed onto the Met: had it developed sufficiently, then further projects would been developed...

As a through link, perhaps it might be characterised as the outcome of Watkin playing at being a crayonista...

All true, except it seems harsh to associate him with crayons given what he actually did do on the ground vs those of us who crayon today

I have no knowledge of how the trains would be worked and it is quite possible that Watkin never got around to little details like that.

Maybe, but with the alternative route, the grendon-ashenden cut off and so on, its clear the GC leadership did understand the details surely? The Myb tunnels for expansion also point to that? Such future proofing seems beyond our masters today…

An obvious possibility would be to detach through carriages from Great Central trains at Neasden and work them from there to New Cross, where they would be attached them to an SER boat train or Dover express. It would be easier to work two or three through coaches over the Metropolitan than a full length train. If they wanted to operate trains from Marylebone, which seems rather pointless (*), a portion could work out from Marylebone to Neasden and be attached to the through coaches there.

I’m not sure if they envisaged pax from the North/Midlands going direct to the continent? Being shunted around like that seems rather poor way to treat your premium pax?

I’d argue Myb offered holding factilities (waiting rooms, restaurant, hotel access) within GCR control which is what the entire thrust of Watkin London Extension was about - keeping direct control of what was being conveyed. Else they’d have sent them down one of the other lines.

* - Why go up to Marylebone to take a train that will wander around the houses to get to New Cross when you can go to Charing Cross and be passing through New Cross in minutes?

I’m actually coming to the conclusion it’d just have been a surface move from Myb, unless any of the early Baker St-CX tube routes/ideas had any support from Watkin?

I don’t suppose anyone would be able to advise if a sub surface tunnel at Hyde Park/Grosvenor Place could get past the district and rise into Victoria in an underground or semi underground platform there? To then rise to join the approaches and bridges south across the river? Speculative bordering on outright fantasy but I’m curious.

 

[HSTEd]

Wasn't the many tunnels under Lords a product of the Cricket Club demanding as many tunnels as possible so they would never have to undergo that disruption again?

 

[corfield]

Wasn't the many tunnels under Lords a product of the Cricket Club demanding as many tunnels as possible so they would never have to undergo that disruption again?

Yes aiui. So yes, the MCC forced their hand there but they acquired the land they needed around the station too. Although their foresight did extend to land purchases along the route to facilitate quad tracking as you can tell from the boundary fence locations even today both via Amersham and Wycombe. I wonder if they owned the land above the unfinished tunnels towards Finchley Rd also.

Although notably not in that Neasden-Finchely section which would have been critical and remains tight today - perhaps there they recognised it was too expensive unless going the whole hog and buying the properties? But there are also many other tight points on both GC routes where they also didnt acquire a full quad width. I assume they bought what they easily could and left the rest to fate.



With the express platforms at Myb on the East (aside the carriage road) and the main route having become the alterntive via Wycombe - I assume at some point grade seperation at Neasden or somewhere would be needed had the Wycombe route been quadtracked in order to put expresses on the north/eastern end of the station and locals/freight on the south/western end of the station? Or is that applying a 21C filter and they’d have done it on the flat?

Perhaps for this speculative approach Watkin would have acquired/used the land between Myb and Baker St to effect a connection to the Met/Circle and still offer platform and facilities.

The Bakerloo is deep so it seems likely one could tunnel under Myb from its approaches and stay above the Bakerloo. Perhaps to join the sub surface circle but probably not to get under that and head south as a new route?

 

[BrianW]

It's a fairly direct crayon line from Marylebone (ish) to Victoria (ish) passing under Bryanston or Montagu Square to Marble Arch, down Park lane and Grosvenor Place; and probably (?) with 1:178 gradients (as per GC); maybe with a great Hyde Park grandiose Grosvenor Great Central Station, not that far from a Great Exhibition Crystal Palace?

 

[ac6000cw]

Posters seem to have forgotten that Watkin was also Charirman of the South Eastern Railway, and that would have been the important part of the link.

Perhaps the best way of thinking about the Metropolitan's role was as a link between the far end of main lines from Manchester and Europe via the Channel Tunnel: viewed from that perspective, the link (whether via Blackfriars or the Thames Tunnel) was a minor element, to save the cab ride across London. As such the (at first probably very little) traffic could be squeezed onto the Met: had it developed sufficiently, then further projects would been developed...

As a through link, perhaps it might be characterised as the outcome of Watkin playing at being a crayonista...

I agree.

I suspect if you are trying to raise private investment on the scale needed to build the GC London Extension, I think 'talking it up' by promoting it as part of a future link to the Continent (rather than just a link between cities with already very well established railway services) would be almost essential, and part of the skill set of any serious entrepreneur, 'railway barons' included.

How one might route the 'continental' traffic through or around London I suspect might be a 'sweep of the hand' level of detail in that sort of situation - after all, the 'Grand Vision' parts of the sales pitch to potential investors would likely have been the London Extension and the Channel Tunnel.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

If Watkin really, really wanted to reach the Channel, the best route for the GC would have been to put the GC tracks on the north side of the Met from Neasden, and punch eastwards through Haversack Hill to Camden, and heading either by viaduct or tunnel towards the St. Pancras area where access to the Widened Lines and ultimately the SECR could be made. A grand London terminus could exist either at Ludgate, Blackfriars or some enlarged Holborn Viaduct Low level station. You could ditch Marylebone completely and turn the SER and GCR into one combined system with a London through station.

 

[Gloster]

If Watkin really, really wanted to reach the Channel, the best route for the GC would have been to put the GC tracks on the north side of the Met from Neasden, and punch eastwards through Haversack Hill to Camden, and heading either by viaduct or tunnel towards the St. Pancras area where access to the Widened Lines and ultimately the SECR could be made. A grand London terminus could exist either at Ludgate, Blackfriars or some enlarged Holborn Viaduct Low level station. You could ditch Marylebone completely and turn the SER and GCR into one combined system with a London through station.

Spellcheck again: I presume you mean Haverstock Hill? Haversack Hill is in Virginia, which would be a bit ambitious even for Watkin.

 

[317 forever]

Once the Bakerloo Line extension to Lewisham opens, trains could go from Marylebone to Lewisham, then onto Ashford, then onto the Continent via the Channel Tunnel