grumpyoldman01
Member
I'd like to pick up on a lot of the comments posted; sorry if mine lacks structure.
Firstly, it's worth noting that its due to the DfT that we don't know if the GC Main Line could be reopened, what it would cost, etc; if you look in Atkins' investigation into strategic alternatives to HS2, you will see that their remit specifically prohibited them from considering the re-opening of closed lines, and that therefore they did not even consider the potential possibilities of this route.
Secondly, speed. Francis Douglas Fox was the Resident Engineer for the construction of the southern division of the GC Main Line, and he presented a paper to the Institution of Civil Engineers during its 1899 – 1900 session; Paper no: 3209, 'The Great Central Railway Extension: Southern Division, states that – apart from one curve having a radius of 60 chains – the normal radius of all others is one mile. Adtranz Sweden published a leaflet about its X2000 train, and a diagram is comprised within it which shows that for a 1500m radius curve (just short of a mile), the maximum speed for a non tilting train is 200kph/125mph, but for a tilting one its 250kph/155mph. Hopefully, this helps the debate about what speeds can be achieved on the GC Main Line.
Thirdly, could it be reconstructed? Of course anything can be done if cost doesn't matter, but if the GC Main Line is considered sensibly, it can be split into two sections, the dividing line being the intersection with the Leicester – Burton line in Leicester; north of that intersection, forget it as it falls into both the too difficult and too expensive bracket, but south of the line it is reasonably intact. There are major obstructions in Whetstone (see the Disused Stations website for more information) and at Brackley, and lesser ones at Rugby (mainly a few industrial units east of the WCML) and elsewhere; at Whetstone, a deviation to the west looks possible, meaning the worst case is to demolish about 80 houses if the original route is used, and between Calvert and just north of Brackley, the easiest option seems to be to “four-track” HS2.
Grendon Underwood to Ashendon Junction also seems relatively free of obstructions; however, I think a deviation from the original at Grendon Underwood would be needed to maximise speed for trains travelling to/from Ashendon Junction. This junction, of course, post-dates Fox's paper, so his statement about curvatures doesn't apply. Woodford Halse – Banbury also seems possible without too many “problems”, but a bridge beneath the M40 would be necessary at the Banbury end of the route.
There was an article in the December 1960 issue of 'Trains Illustrated' by the late Brian Perrin entitled ''The role of the Great central – present and future'; Perrin was noted for his meticulous research, and if he said that the GC Main Line had a future, then sure as eggs is eggs, he had been told by someone in authority that it did, in fact, have a future. But it was not as a passenger route – Perrin accurately forecast that passenger services north of Aylesbury didn't have any future and were subsequently withdrawn in 1966 – but for freight as part of the north east – south west trunk; congestion and staff shortages in the Derby and West Midlands area meant that the Sheffield – Banbury section of the GC Main Line was part of this route, and Perrin states that in 1960 there were 42 departures south from Woodford Halse each day, some going west over the S&MJR to reach South Wales via the recently constructed connection at Stratford upon Avon onto the former GWR Birmingham – Cheltenham line.
At the same time, there were reports in the railway press that junctions between the GC Main Line and other routes were to be constructed to enable the former to be used as a major route for parcels trains; however, I can't remember anything more detailed than general statements about the construction of such junctions for parcels trains ever being published at that time.
Beeching's two reports followed after Perrin's article, and by the time of his second one there wasn't any mention at all about the GC Main Line being used as a major freight trunk route; so over a very short period of time, the GC Main Line went from being something with a very strong future to being closed (in 1966).
So what demand is there for a reconstructed GC Main Line now? And – perhaps more importantly – what interventions would be needed elsewhere to enable a reconstructed GC Main Line to reach its full potential?
If you look at Banbury's train movements for a period of 24 hours on Realtime Trains, there aren't any freight services which can easily be transferred to use a reconstructed GC Main Line; the option of restoring it as a major freight carrier can, therefore, be discounted immediately.
So if you use it for passenger services, what sort should they be, and can the existing infrastructure accommodate any extra services?
In simple terms, Marylebone is “full” so the only way to serve the GC Main Line from that station is to extend some services northwards; but there aren't any major population centres north of Aylesbury or Princes Risborough that aren't already served by rail. Brackley (with a population of about 13,000 has been mentioned), but that alone is insufficient to justify the reconstruction. Moreover, a Marylebone – Leicester service created by extending an existing Chiltern service would be too slow to attract reasonable amounts of traffic
But what if the GC Main Line is considered as part of a “grand plan” to reshape England's railways?
Atkins did some excellent work reviewing the possibilities of using the GW&GC Joint to provide extra capacity as an alternative to HS2, and they discovered that, by alignment, much of it is suitable of speeds between 250kph and 300kph; moreover, not only is sufficient land already in Network Rail ownership to enable the GW&GC Joint to be “four tracked” most of the overbridges were constructed with “four-tracking' in mind. However, there is a “bendy-bit” through High Wycombe and Princes Risborough, and Atkins identified a potential alternative route (much in tunnel) which by-passed this bit. So, by taking Atkins' work into account, it's possible to construct a high speed railway using existing infrastructure as its base between Paddington and Ashendon Junction; moreover, much of it could probably be built using existing Acts of Parliament!
The GC Main Line could then be used as a high speed passenger line as far as the intersection with the Leicester – Burton line. Then a major intervention; a tunnel to form a connection between the GC Main Line at MML at Leicester London Road.
Sir Patrick Abercrombie's County of London Plan of 1943 and the work undertaken by the committee chaired by Sir Charles Inglis (which reported in 1946) both proposed deep level underground lines in the capital, and one connecting Paddington with the King's Cross/St Pancras area via Marylebone was suggested by Abercrombie; so why not build this – at last! - and divert MML fast services to run via the tunnel, the GW&GC Joint, the GC Main Line, and the new Leicester connection to reach Leicester with just one stop at OOC? It's longer than the MML, but with continuous high speed running would it be quicker?
But what about some connections from the GC Main Line? In the second volume of George Dow's trilogy recording the history of the MS&LR/GCR, he shows diagrams of connections authorised but not built in the Rugby area; if these were built, a new Leicester – Rugby – Coventry – Birmingham International – New Street corridor could be established, thereby restoring direct connections between Leicester and Rugby and Leicester and Coventry.
If the Leicester “fasts” are being removed from the MML, how best to use the six paths for long distance services? What about reconstructing the Bedford – Northampton line and building a new south-to-north connection between the north end of the Northampton loop and the GC Main Line so that some “stoppers” can run between St Pancras and Leicester (and north thereof) via Northampton? This could provide some relief to the WCML by abstracting some Northampton – London traffic from it to the MML (perhaps even some Thameslink extensions beyond Bedford).
The what about either a connection at Manton or by using part of the Seaton Junction – Luffenham line to extend London – Corby services to Stamford and Peterborough, thereby giving a direct connection between Luton Airport and ECML?
And having built that connection, what about another north-to-east one at Grendon to enable trains to run directly between Leicester and Corby? Container trains between the Haven Ports and the WCML at Nuneaton could use the route, thereby avoiding Leicester. And if the Leicester – Burton line was upgraded and a west-to-north connection constructed near North Stafford Junction (Willington), could container trains between the north west/western Scotland and Felixstowe use the route, also avoiding more of the WCML or the Trent area?
What about a west-to-north chord near Newark to enable the trains between London and Nottingham via the GC Main Line to be extended north up the ECML, thereby giving places of significant size such as Doncaster or Hull direct connections to OOC (for Heathrow Airport)?
This can go on; but the point I'm trying to make is that – if considered on its own – the reconstruction of the GC Main Line is really a complete waste of money. But because of its excellent alignment, even if tilting trains have to be used a 250kph route between London and Leicester can be constructed, and with a further intervention at Newark a route which provides an alternative to the southern section of the ECML as well as the MML can be provided. Then by taking the “fasts” off the MML, better use of capacity south of Bedford might be possible; perhaps even a new connection between the MML and the Bedford – Bletchley line might be possible to abstract some Milton Keynes traffic off the WCML.
This is, of course, a big money project, and cannot provide speeds as high as will be possible with HS2; but – if Atkins had been able to consider reconstructing lines – they MIGHT have been able to suggest alternatives to HS2 which provided additional capacity using the GC Main Line and centre-to-centre journey times comparable with those which will come from HS2 (and in the case of Leicester, Derby, and Nottingham, shorter journey times to/from London than will be possible with HS2).
Discuss !!!
And sorry about the length!
Firstly, it's worth noting that its due to the DfT that we don't know if the GC Main Line could be reopened, what it would cost, etc; if you look in Atkins' investigation into strategic alternatives to HS2, you will see that their remit specifically prohibited them from considering the re-opening of closed lines, and that therefore they did not even consider the potential possibilities of this route.
Secondly, speed. Francis Douglas Fox was the Resident Engineer for the construction of the southern division of the GC Main Line, and he presented a paper to the Institution of Civil Engineers during its 1899 – 1900 session; Paper no: 3209, 'The Great Central Railway Extension: Southern Division, states that – apart from one curve having a radius of 60 chains – the normal radius of all others is one mile. Adtranz Sweden published a leaflet about its X2000 train, and a diagram is comprised within it which shows that for a 1500m radius curve (just short of a mile), the maximum speed for a non tilting train is 200kph/125mph, but for a tilting one its 250kph/155mph. Hopefully, this helps the debate about what speeds can be achieved on the GC Main Line.
Thirdly, could it be reconstructed? Of course anything can be done if cost doesn't matter, but if the GC Main Line is considered sensibly, it can be split into two sections, the dividing line being the intersection with the Leicester – Burton line in Leicester; north of that intersection, forget it as it falls into both the too difficult and too expensive bracket, but south of the line it is reasonably intact. There are major obstructions in Whetstone (see the Disused Stations website for more information) and at Brackley, and lesser ones at Rugby (mainly a few industrial units east of the WCML) and elsewhere; at Whetstone, a deviation to the west looks possible, meaning the worst case is to demolish about 80 houses if the original route is used, and between Calvert and just north of Brackley, the easiest option seems to be to “four-track” HS2.
Grendon Underwood to Ashendon Junction also seems relatively free of obstructions; however, I think a deviation from the original at Grendon Underwood would be needed to maximise speed for trains travelling to/from Ashendon Junction. This junction, of course, post-dates Fox's paper, so his statement about curvatures doesn't apply. Woodford Halse – Banbury also seems possible without too many “problems”, but a bridge beneath the M40 would be necessary at the Banbury end of the route.
There was an article in the December 1960 issue of 'Trains Illustrated' by the late Brian Perrin entitled ''The role of the Great central – present and future'; Perrin was noted for his meticulous research, and if he said that the GC Main Line had a future, then sure as eggs is eggs, he had been told by someone in authority that it did, in fact, have a future. But it was not as a passenger route – Perrin accurately forecast that passenger services north of Aylesbury didn't have any future and were subsequently withdrawn in 1966 – but for freight as part of the north east – south west trunk; congestion and staff shortages in the Derby and West Midlands area meant that the Sheffield – Banbury section of the GC Main Line was part of this route, and Perrin states that in 1960 there were 42 departures south from Woodford Halse each day, some going west over the S&MJR to reach South Wales via the recently constructed connection at Stratford upon Avon onto the former GWR Birmingham – Cheltenham line.
At the same time, there were reports in the railway press that junctions between the GC Main Line and other routes were to be constructed to enable the former to be used as a major route for parcels trains; however, I can't remember anything more detailed than general statements about the construction of such junctions for parcels trains ever being published at that time.
Beeching's two reports followed after Perrin's article, and by the time of his second one there wasn't any mention at all about the GC Main Line being used as a major freight trunk route; so over a very short period of time, the GC Main Line went from being something with a very strong future to being closed (in 1966).
So what demand is there for a reconstructed GC Main Line now? And – perhaps more importantly – what interventions would be needed elsewhere to enable a reconstructed GC Main Line to reach its full potential?
If you look at Banbury's train movements for a period of 24 hours on Realtime Trains, there aren't any freight services which can easily be transferred to use a reconstructed GC Main Line; the option of restoring it as a major freight carrier can, therefore, be discounted immediately.
So if you use it for passenger services, what sort should they be, and can the existing infrastructure accommodate any extra services?
In simple terms, Marylebone is “full” so the only way to serve the GC Main Line from that station is to extend some services northwards; but there aren't any major population centres north of Aylesbury or Princes Risborough that aren't already served by rail. Brackley (with a population of about 13,000 has been mentioned), but that alone is insufficient to justify the reconstruction. Moreover, a Marylebone – Leicester service created by extending an existing Chiltern service would be too slow to attract reasonable amounts of traffic
But what if the GC Main Line is considered as part of a “grand plan” to reshape England's railways?
Atkins did some excellent work reviewing the possibilities of using the GW&GC Joint to provide extra capacity as an alternative to HS2, and they discovered that, by alignment, much of it is suitable of speeds between 250kph and 300kph; moreover, not only is sufficient land already in Network Rail ownership to enable the GW&GC Joint to be “four tracked” most of the overbridges were constructed with “four-tracking' in mind. However, there is a “bendy-bit” through High Wycombe and Princes Risborough, and Atkins identified a potential alternative route (much in tunnel) which by-passed this bit. So, by taking Atkins' work into account, it's possible to construct a high speed railway using existing infrastructure as its base between Paddington and Ashendon Junction; moreover, much of it could probably be built using existing Acts of Parliament!
The GC Main Line could then be used as a high speed passenger line as far as the intersection with the Leicester – Burton line. Then a major intervention; a tunnel to form a connection between the GC Main Line at MML at Leicester London Road.
Sir Patrick Abercrombie's County of London Plan of 1943 and the work undertaken by the committee chaired by Sir Charles Inglis (which reported in 1946) both proposed deep level underground lines in the capital, and one connecting Paddington with the King's Cross/St Pancras area via Marylebone was suggested by Abercrombie; so why not build this – at last! - and divert MML fast services to run via the tunnel, the GW&GC Joint, the GC Main Line, and the new Leicester connection to reach Leicester with just one stop at OOC? It's longer than the MML, but with continuous high speed running would it be quicker?
But what about some connections from the GC Main Line? In the second volume of George Dow's trilogy recording the history of the MS&LR/GCR, he shows diagrams of connections authorised but not built in the Rugby area; if these were built, a new Leicester – Rugby – Coventry – Birmingham International – New Street corridor could be established, thereby restoring direct connections between Leicester and Rugby and Leicester and Coventry.
If the Leicester “fasts” are being removed from the MML, how best to use the six paths for long distance services? What about reconstructing the Bedford – Northampton line and building a new south-to-north connection between the north end of the Northampton loop and the GC Main Line so that some “stoppers” can run between St Pancras and Leicester (and north thereof) via Northampton? This could provide some relief to the WCML by abstracting some Northampton – London traffic from it to the MML (perhaps even some Thameslink extensions beyond Bedford).
The what about either a connection at Manton or by using part of the Seaton Junction – Luffenham line to extend London – Corby services to Stamford and Peterborough, thereby giving a direct connection between Luton Airport and ECML?
And having built that connection, what about another north-to-east one at Grendon to enable trains to run directly between Leicester and Corby? Container trains between the Haven Ports and the WCML at Nuneaton could use the route, thereby avoiding Leicester. And if the Leicester – Burton line was upgraded and a west-to-north connection constructed near North Stafford Junction (Willington), could container trains between the north west/western Scotland and Felixstowe use the route, also avoiding more of the WCML or the Trent area?
What about a west-to-north chord near Newark to enable the trains between London and Nottingham via the GC Main Line to be extended north up the ECML, thereby giving places of significant size such as Doncaster or Hull direct connections to OOC (for Heathrow Airport)?
This can go on; but the point I'm trying to make is that – if considered on its own – the reconstruction of the GC Main Line is really a complete waste of money. But because of its excellent alignment, even if tilting trains have to be used a 250kph route between London and Leicester can be constructed, and with a further intervention at Newark a route which provides an alternative to the southern section of the ECML as well as the MML can be provided. Then by taking the “fasts” off the MML, better use of capacity south of Bedford might be possible; perhaps even a new connection between the MML and the Bedford – Bletchley line might be possible to abstract some Milton Keynes traffic off the WCML.
This is, of course, a big money project, and cannot provide speeds as high as will be possible with HS2; but – if Atkins had been able to consider reconstructing lines – they MIGHT have been able to suggest alternatives to HS2 which provided additional capacity using the GC Main Line and centre-to-centre journey times comparable with those which will come from HS2 (and in the case of Leicester, Derby, and Nottingham, shorter journey times to/from London than will be possible with HS2).
Discuss !!!
And sorry about the length!
