Beeching & beyond Lines that should have been kept open

[Midlandman]

How I absolutely agree with you. One case of under-investment is the Par - Newquay Line. I am aghast at the paucity of services on this line. I'd make a case to open the line from St Austell via Burngullow to St Colomb Road to improve services to Newquay.

In the not too distant past there was a plan to do just this. However it was more concerned with getting rid of the accident-prone 'Iron Bridge' over the A30 at Goss Moor than with improving the service to Newquay. Once a plan had been approved to dual the A30 on a new alignment avoiding Goss Moor, interest in diverting the branch seemed to just go away. It's been a while since I used the line but, last time I did, on a weekday in summer, the train was a 153/150 combination and they could probably have managed with the 153 alone.

 

[A0]

Ok, Basildon would have been a better newtown example,

Not really - Basildon was well served by two other stations in little over a mile either way from the new station - and Basildon's population was 100,000 in 2001. Compare that with Telford who's population had hit 100,000 in 1978 which had Oakengates station further away and Milton Keynes which would have been 100,000 around 1978 as well, where the two stations were easily 3 miles either way from the centre (Bletchley or Wolverton), and you'll see Basildon really wasn't badly served. Furthermore Basildon got its station in 1974 where MK had to wait until 1982.

However, with regard to the methodology, I don't think lack of time and unsophisticated survey methods can exonerate Beeching.

As the two cases studies I've mentioned show, he had enough facts and figures to show that the York - Beverley route was far from a basket case compared to some others. Geographically, the size of Market Weighton and Stamford Bridge should count less than these figures. The assumption that Beverley - York passengers would simply transfer to the other roundabout way is simply lazy. On what did he base this assumption?

Agree that it was less of a 'basket case' - but the fact remains there were two routes which could be viably used - and Beverley is hardly a significant place - even now it only has a population of 30,000. To put it in context that's half of Corby or a third of Mansfield, both of which lost their rail connections entirely for the best part of 20 years. Yes, it might have been nice to keep Beverley to York, but with a population of that size, you're not seriously claiming there's sufficient demand from Beverley to York to make reinstatement (or even retention at the time) viable?

Marples had his agenda, but would there have been anything to stop Beeching rationalising this route and using the new figures as a case study ? Of course not. He was chairman and paid hansomely for it, he would have had more than enough autonomy and time to try this approach, but he didn't because he had already decided the approach to take.

Not true - he was on secondment from ICI and was given a clear direction in terms of how long he had to make changes. Beeching was brought in to make change happen and fairly quickly. Yes some mistakes were made, but in many respects what he did left a more robust, manageable network in place.

But my point about "hardship" is that the Government already did end up subsidising routes on this basis. Thank goodness they did, as they are mainly thriving and providing a massive benefit to their local areas, however, using hardship alone as the basis for this has meant that we've ended up with a hotch potch of coverage of the country when a more considered approach of the benefits of such routes would have resulted in an even more useful network remaining.

It wasn't just 'hardship' which was used - the viability of running the route was a factor. If a route wasn't covering it's costs with the ticket sales, then it was right and proper to scrutinise it. If it was felt that it couldn't be made viable and the hardship case didn't apply, then it was a candidate for closure. Whether such routes are really 'thriving' now is debatable, some are, but not all - and if they still need a subsidy they're not financially viable, so, to play devil's advocate, shouldn't the question be what benefit do we gain from retaining them?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If Beeching's report condemned Preston Southport, was the Preston Ormskirk Liverpool line ever considered for closure ?

It was down for "Passenger Service to be Modified", as was Southport-Wigan Wallgate-Manchester
This usually meant closure of most of the intermediate stations.

But the following were down for complete closure:
Liverpool-Southport
Liverpool-Fazakerley-Wigan Wallgate
Liverpool-St Helens-Wigan NW

So Liverpool Exchange would have ended up with just the modified Preston service.
It's things like this that cast doubt on how well the closure plan was thought through, area by area.

 

[yorksrob]

Not really - Basildon was well served by two other stations in little over a mile either way from the new station - and Basildon's population was 100,000 in 2001. Compare that with Telford who's population had hit 100,000 in 1978 which had Oakengates station further away and Milton Keynes which would have been 100,000 around 1978 as well, where the two stations were easily 3 miles either way from the centre (Bletchley or Wolverton), and you'll see Basildon really wasn't badly served. Furthermore Basildon got its station in 1974 where MK had to wait until 1982.




Agree that it was less of a 'basket case' - but the fact remains there were two routes which could be viably used - and Beverley is hardly a significant place - even now it only has a population of 30,000. To put it in context that's half of Corby or a third of Mansfield, both of which lost their rail connections entirely for the best part of 20 years. Yes, it might have been nice to keep Beverley to York, but with a population of that size, you're not seriously claiming there's sufficient demand from Beverley to York to make reinstatement (or even retention at the time) viable?

Retention at the time, of course. The figures given at the time were for a fully staffed double track railway on which minimal rationalisation had taken place, and even then the case for closure was marginal - so much so that they had to assume passengers would go via a longer route (perhaps they might have conducted a survey after closure to see how many through passengers between Beverley - Hull and York had actually switched from the direct route. The fact that they didn't suggests that the Beeching regime wasn't too fussed about checking the validity of its assumptions).

As for reinstatement, that's not the point. The number of times I've posted on here about re-openings, and the answer always comes back, a route is a lot easier to keep open than too reinstate. Many times have I heard the argument "just because a route might have been viable today had it been kept open, that doesn't mean there is a business case to reopen it today". I reverse that argument and say, just because it might be financially difficult to reopen a line today, doesn't mean it wouldn't have been thriving had it remained, and that is what we're discussing. Bringing reinstatement into it is like comparing apples and oranges.

Not true - he was on secondment from ICI and was given a clear direction in terms of how long he had to make changes. Beeching was brought in to make change happen and fairly quickly. Yes some mistakes were made, but in many respects what he did left a more robust, manageable network in place.

Dr Beeching was appointed chairman in March 1961 and outlasted the Government into June 1965. He would have been there even longer had he not proved to be such a political liability. That's more than enough time to rationalise a route, do some further survey work and a bit of number crunching. Infact, Dr Beeching even found time to do another report (even though the conclusions were predicatably wrong).

It wasn't just 'hardship' which was used - the viability of running the route was a factor. If a route wasn't covering it's costs with the ticket sales, then it was right and proper to scrutinise it. If it was felt that it couldn't be made viable and the hardship case didn't apply, then it was a candidate for closure.

That the "viability" of running the route (if you mean the very narrowest definition of fare box revenue, rather than a true assessment of viability in terms of contributions to through journeys on the wider network) was considered isn't really in question. The fact is that neither that, nor the equally narrow consideration of "hardship" (even though hardship is better than nothing) could hope to capture the contribution that a passenger railway makes to the local economy and society

Whether such routes are really 'thriving' now is debatable, some are, but not all - and if they still need a subsidy they're not financially viable, so, to play devil's advocate, shouldn't the question be what benefit do we gain from retaining them?

Thinking through the list of services listed by Beeching but since reprieved, it's fairly apparent that the vast majority are thriving in terms of passenger usage. Where there is public subsidy, we should always question what benefit we gain from it, but in the case of local railways, we should ask the chambers of commerce, the local council's, local residents etc of places like Whitby, Rye and St Ives (cornwall) what benefit we gain from them. The local railways might not be quite up there with baby units and local schools, but I bet they'd be doing ok.

To turn your argument on its head, I'm not suggesting that Dr Beeching and the Governments of the day shouldn't have questioned the the benefit to be had from spending on these lines, just as no one is suggesting that none of the routes should have closed. I am just suggesting that they should have done it properly and taken into account network contributions and rationalisation opportunities (Beeching) and wider economic and social benefits (Governments of the day).

 

[Gareth Marston]

You'll spoil all of the conspiracy theory stuff with these facts...


Sounds about right.

Funny how many modern neo liberalists rail at our laisse fare ancestors for not centrally planing and designing the rail network.

Question if in 1860 your town or area did not have a railway what did you do, sit on your hands and say dont worry mass motor vehicle ownership will be here by the 1920's a lifetime away or do something about joining the modern world?


If you want one big reason why BR was loss making in the early 1960's look no further than the fact that the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts of the 1850's and 1880's were still law of the land. Sundry traffic and less than wagon load freight was loss making in the motor vehicle world the Big 4 tried to be freed from the yolk before WW2 but Government refused- most of the overmanning was associated with accommodating this. The Modernisation plan was about designing a diesel pick up goods service for sundry and less than wagon load freight that railway managers were obliged by law to provide. The railway was not loss making because of branch lines and duplication but because it was forced as a whole to carry unprofitable traffic by Government.

 

[tbtc]

Funny how many modern neo liberalists rail at our laisse fare ancestors for not centrally planing and designing the rail network.

Question if in 1860 your town or area did not have a railway what did you do, sit on your hands and say dont worry mass motor vehicle ownership will be here by the 1920's a lifetime away or do something about joining the modern world?

1860s civic pride wasn't sufficient justification to keep all of the duplicate routes open a hundred years later.

Beyond the routes that have re-opened (with different degrees of success), the routes that Beeching (and his contemporaries) is criticised for seem relatively marginal at best.

 

[yorksrob]

Beyond the routes that have re-opened (with different degrees of success), the routes that Beeching (and his contemporaries) is criticised for seem relatively marginal at best.

A large number of the routes that have reopened have relied heavily on the presence of a working freight route on the formation. I find it highly improbable that anywhere near all of the lines that didn't survive for freight would have been marginal.

 

[Helvellyn]

Alton-Winchester hasn't yet been mentioned (though I'm not sure if that was a result of Beeching? I believe the actual closure wasn't till the 1970's). Probably should have been electrified and merged with the London-Alton line to make an additional London-Southampton through route.

Could have been a useful diversionary route for the London-Southampton main line, and now would now be a significant commuter flow in its own right.

And a big chunk of the route was wanted for the A31 (just like there were plans to use a lot of the old Penrith-Keswick route for the A66 as a new alignment rather than just a renumbering of the A592).

Alton-Winchester was killed off by the fact that the third rail, extended to Alton by the SR in the 1930s, never made it further South. I agree it would be a popular route today, as would Fareham-Gosport (now a guided busway!)

The Great Central Main Line, if still around, would be an interesting alternative to HS2 if fully upgraded (possibly with tilting trains).
Marylebone - Rugby Central - Leicester Central - Nottingham Victoria - Sheffield Victoria - Manchester Piccadilly

 

[Penmorfa]

Fair point. It's all pie in the sky thinking now, but perhaps the solution would've been to use Woodhead for expresses and Hope Valley for locals? Seeing as even under Beeching both ended up being retained initially. Beeching turned out to have been short sighted of course, but the real villain of the period was Marples.

The big gain through closing the Woodhead route for passengers was that Sheffield could be served by one main station. To gain the Woodhead route from Sheffield Midland without a reversal would be well nigh impossible.

 

[A0]

And a big chunk of the route was wanted for the A31 (just like there were plans to use a lot of the old Penrith-Keswick route for the A66 as a new alignment rather than just a renumbering of the A592).

Alton-Winchester was killed off by the fact that the third rail, extended to Alton by the SR in the 1930s, never made it further South. I agree it would be a popular route today, as would Fareham-Gosport (now a guided busway!)

But the A31 didn't use the Arlesford - Winchester stretch and the stretch from Alton - Winchester was a fully fledged post-Beeching closure which happened in 1973.

Not sure about the Fareham - Gosport viability. It lost its passenger services long before Beeching in 1953. Fareham to Gosport isn't actually very far and Portsmouth is also accessible from Gosport and that has a fairly extensive service.

The Great Central Main Line, if still around, would be an interesting alternative to HS2 if fully upgraded (possibly with tilting trains).
Marylebone - Rugby Central - Leicester Central - Nottingham Victoria - Sheffield Victoria - Manchester Piccadilly

Now this one I agree with you on 100%. The GC lines suffered when responsibility was transferred from Eastern Region to London Midland. LM's management were ex-LMS for whom the GC was 'the enemy' and the way the GC was treated shows this. What should have happened was BR should have pushed ahead and electrified from Sheffield Victoria to Leicester initially and then London. OK, it would have been on 1500v DC but the equipment would have been usable for 25 years - that would have ensured the line's future until the early 1980s after which it could have been converted to 25kv. It's noticeable how the GC lines fortunes started to improve when they were transferred to Western region in the late 1980s.

The problem for the BR Midland people was if that had happened then the Midland Mainline would have inevitably suffered some closures - it's debatable what would have been retained north of Bedford.

 

[swt_passenger]

...as would Fareham-Gosport (now a guided busway!)

Nothing guided about it. It is a normal S2 road with limited access, as has been pointed out many times.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Now this one I agree with you on 100%. The GC lines suffered when responsibility was transferred from Eastern Region to London Midland. LM's management were ex-LMS for whom the GC was 'the enemy' and the way the GC was treated shows this. What should have happened was BR should have pushed ahead and electrified from Sheffield Victoria to Leicester initially and then London. OK, it would have been on 1500v DC but the equipment would have been usable for 25 years - that would have ensured the line's future until the early 1980s after which it could have been converted to 25kv. It's noticeable how the GC lines fortunes started to improve when they were transferred to Western region in the late 1980s.

The problem for the BR Midland people was if that had happened then the Midland Mainline would have inevitably suffered some closures - it's debatable what would have been retained north of Bedford.

The GC Extension should never have been built.
If the money had been spent on better MS&L access to improved Midland and GN routes we would have ended up with a better national network.
But that's a different story.
As it is we got a railway south of Nottingham with very poor links to other railways (except the GW) and very little network benefit.
Once its local traffic declined there was no hope.

 

[Buttsy]

The GC Extension should never have been built.
If the money had been spent on better MS&L access to improved Midland and GN routes we would have ended up with a better national network.
But that's a different story.
As it is we got a railway south of Nottingham with very poor links to other railways (except the GW) and very little network benefit.
Once its local traffic declined there was no hope.

I have always considered that if the GC had survived, it would have made an excellent freight route from London to the East Midlands, Sheffield, Manchester and Scotland via the S&C and GSW/Waverley route. Over time, appropriate links would have been added near Leicester to give access to Birmingham, etc. Accordingly, it would have been able to remove some freight from the WCML.

 

[The Ham]

But the A31 didn't use the Arlesford - Winchester stretch and the stretch from Alton - Winchester was a fully fledged post-Beeching closure which happened in 1973.

Quite if you look at the 1:50,000 OS mapping you can see the route of the dismantled railway line clearly north of the A31. (as shown on the link below)

http://binged.it/166iFLW

If you zoom in the mapping changes to 1:25,000 which shows the route even more clearly.

 

[A0]

The GC Extension should never have been built.
If the money had been spent on better MS&L access to improved Midland and GN routes we would have ended up with a better national network.
But that's a different story.
As it is we got a railway south of Nottingham with very poor links to other railways (except the GW) and very little network benefit.
Once its local traffic declined there was no hope.

I don't agree -the problem the MS&L would have had was getting access rights over the Midland or GN into London - it was the exact problem which led the Midland to build the line from Bedford to St Pancras.

In fact the GCR had problems in that respect with the Met - despite the fact Watkin had involvement in both - which led to them building the link to Ashendon Junction where it ran jointly with the GWR.

The GCR was better engineered than either the Midland Mainline or the ECML - it had only 1 level crossing on the whole route from Sheffield to London, the gradients and curves were kept to a minimum, it had room for expansion to a 4 track railway in most places and lastly was built to the Berne loading gauge.

It was just atavistic behaviour by ex-LMS managers which led to its run down and demise at the hands of BR LMR. Those who were involved should have been thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

 

[Tomnick]

I agree that it was inevitable that the GCR, as it became, would seek its own route to London - after all, its competitors would be unlikely to cooperate in providing decent running rights over much of the length of their own routes. I disagree that the route was built to Berne gauge though - as that didn't exist until some years later .

 

[Lankyline]

It was down for "Passenger Service to be Modified", as was Southport-Wigan Wallgate-Manchester
This usually meant closure of most of the intermediate stations.

But the following were down for complete closure:
Liverpool-Southport
Liverpool-Fazakerley-Wigan Wallgate
Liverpool-St Helens-Wigan NW

So Liverpool Exchange would have ended up with just the modified Preston service.
It's things like this that cast doubt on how well the closure plan was thought through, area by area.

Thanks for that, totally agree that there seems little in the way of logic applied to the closure plan, because if these were carried out, there would have been no direct connection from Liverpool to anywhere north !
On a separate note i wonder if auto barrier crossings would have helped save Preston - Southport given the number of crossings on the line ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Marple's name has cropped up a number of times during this thread, you've got to wonder how the Minister of Transport could own a road building company and get away with complete bias against the railways because of his own interests, the railways had no chance !

Imagine given todays politics & declarations of interests etc the outcry if the same situation happened.

 

[A0]

Thanks for that, totally agree that there seems little in the way of logic applied to the closure plan, because if these were carried out, there would have been no direct connection from Liverpool to anywhere north !

No - there would still have been Liverpool - Preston via Kirkby if I've understood what's been said elsewhere correctly.

Even then, Liverpool would still have potentially had services to destinations north via Lime Street and St Helens onto the WCML.

 

[Muzer]

Genuine question - if the GCR still existed, could we have done without HS2 (if you ignore any speed arguments and just go by capacity ones)? Or are there still routes/journeys/whatever that would have been over capacity?

 

[Gareth Marston]

1860s civic pride wasn't sufficient justification to keep all of the duplicate routes open a hundred years later.

Beyond the routes that have re-opened (with different degrees of success), the routes that Beeching (and his contemporaries) is criticised for seem relatively marginal at best.

A lot more than civic pride was at stake the railways really did have a game breaking impact on transport of goods and prices in the 19th century, everyone wanted "in" for fear of economic stagnation otherwise. The argument they shouldn't have been built ignores the economic realities of mid 19th century Britain. What you did with them in a changed world was the question. The scale of the losses racked up by British Railways were not caused by branch and rural lines but by archaic working practices to satisfy Victorian acts of parliament which were not fit for purpose by the mid 1930's. See the Big 4 "square deal" campaign of 1938 - they weren't screaming about loss making branch lines and lines that should never have been built but being allowed to carry freight at profitable rates and modernise free from common carrier status.

 

[L+Y]

It was down for "Passenger Service to be Modified", as was Southport-Wigan Wallgate-Manchester
This usually meant closure of most of the intermediate stations.

But the following were down for complete closure:
Liverpool-Southport
Liverpool-Fazakerley-Wigan Wallgate
Liverpool-St Helens-Wigan NW

So Liverpool Exchange would have ended up with just the modified Preston service.
It's things like this that cast doubt on how well the closure plan was thought through, area by area.

I've heard a (plausible-ish) theory that the Liverpool-Southport line was included so the Government could make a point of rejecting a closure, to show that Beeching wasn't dictating terms. Alternatively, it could be a typing error, which seems plausible enough to me: Beeching proposing withdrawing the Southport-Lime Street DMU service, rather than the Southport-Exchange EMU service. The DMUs were eventually withdrawn in 1976, iirc: there's a video of a ride behind one of them on YouTube.

As for Preston-Exchange, yep, that's what I'd heard. I imagine what was envisaged was the closure of the sparsely served station at Rufford (my local station now), and possibly Croston, Lostock Hall and Todd Lane Junction too. I suppose Burscough Junction could have been chopped, but that's less likely. What actually happened, rather oddly, is that the downgrading of the line in 1969/70 delivered a better service to the village stations, especially Rufford.

On a separate note i wonder if auto barrier crossings would have helped save Preston - Southport given the number of crossings on the line ?

Quite possibly. Singling between Crossens and (say) Penwortham would have helped too, as would the introduction of DMUs. I still think it might have been tricky though. The access the WLR had to Preston was via Whitehouse Junction and the ex ELR, after all. If Preston East Lancs had still shut in 1972 with a surviving WLR, trains from Southport would've been forced around a circuitous loop under and over the WCML before joining it again at Farington Curve Junction.

No - there would still have been Liverpool - Preston via Kirkby if I've understood what's been said elsewhere correctly.

Via Ormskirk, not Kirkby. The Kirkby line emerges at Wigan, with only a south-facing connection onto the WCML.

 

[The Ham]

Genuine question - if the GCR still existed, could we have done without HS2 (if you ignore any speed arguments and just go by capacity ones)? Or are there still routes/journeys/whatever that would have been over capacity?

On one hand maybe no, as there would have been an additional line to take the exra passengers.

On the other maybe yes, as there would lkely have been better rail connections meaning that there could have been more rail passengers using the existing lines. Which could then mean (with the higher starting passenger flows) that there could be even more need for another line in the timeframe of HS2.

It is one of those questions which is not easy to answer. Although one thing is for sure if there were more branch lines providing passengers to the main lines it is likel that there would have been need to do more to cater for the extra passengers sooner.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Genuine question - if the GCR still existed, could we have done without HS2 (if you ignore any speed arguments and just go by capacity ones)? Or are there still routes/journeys/whatever that would have been over capacity?

Pathing HS2 traffic over the Met would not be any better than Euston-Watford on the WCML.
The intermediate stations would also have got in the way.
Marylebone would not have done for an HS2 terminus.

The GC had no connections with the LNWR at Rugby and only served the north-west indirectly (and Yorkshire beyond Sheffield not terribly well, Birmingham not at all).
Essentially it was head-to-head with the Midland for the coal traffic to London.

Railway politics almost had an answer in 1858 when the LNWR and GN at one point agreed to jointly take over the MS&L, but the deal fell through.
The result was massive duplication of routes (eg the CLC), most of which did not survive Beeching.

 

[MrPosh]

The Grantham - Lincoln line, closed in 1965, but was originally destined to remain open - at the expense of the Nottingham - Lincoln (MR) route. These days however building encroachment, as in many other places, ensures that it would be difficult to reopen the line.

The Grantham to Lincoln line was right to close.

Ignoring the issues of getting in and out of Grantham - the engine having to run around if you want to extend the route to, say Nottingham - the line didn't serve anywhere on the route.

All of the stations, with the exception of Leadenham (and I suppose Honington, but it's really just a hamlet), were well out of the villages that they purported to serve - often up a very steep hill.

Admittedly, Waddington has since grown and would be a perfect commuter point for Lincoln, but it certainly wasn't well placed when the line was shut.

It would also, I guess, have been quite a trek getting into Lincoln, having to run all the way around to approach the station from the 'wrong' side.

It would, of course, been great to have kept capacity on the ECML north of Grantham to have allowed local services.

 

[Darren R]

I've heard a (plausible-ish) theory that the Liverpool-Southport line was included so the Government could make a point of rejecting a closure, to show that Beeching wasn't dictating terms. Alternatively, it could be a typing error, which seems plausible enough to me: Beeching proposing withdrawing the Southport-Lime Street DMU service, rather than the Southport-Exchange EMU service. The DMUs were eventually withdrawn in 1976, iirc: there's a video of a ride behind one of them on YouTube.

No, it was the Liverpool Exchange - Southport Chapel Street service that was to be axed. (Been a while since I read it, so had to check to be sure!) It's not a typo in the report as it quite specifically says Exchange and Chapel Street.

In fact I've just discovered the ex-CLC route into Southport Lord Street had already closed north of Gateacre in 1960 - we can't blame that on the good Doctor! The Liverpool Central - Gateacre/Warrington Central services were listed in Section 2 Passenger Services to be Modified. (Always did wonder what exactly he meant by that!)

 

[yorksrob]

The GCR was better engineered than either the Midland Mainline or the ECML - it had only 1 level crossing on the whole route from Sheffield to London, the gradients and curves were kept to a minimum, it had room for expansion to a 4 track railway in most places and lastly was built to the Berne loading gauge.

It was just atavistic behaviour by ex-LMS managers which led to its run down and demise at the hands of BR LMR. Those who were involved should have been thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Well, yes and no.

If you're looking at a comparison between the GCR and the Midland main line, then of course, the GCR was better engineered and better gauged. But by the same token, the Midland Main Line was quadruple track for a much longer distance (important for a mixed railway), it served a number of much larger settlements between Leicester and London, and of course, a large City like Derby wasn't out on a limb.

If you had to make the choice between the two, you would have to choose the Midland Main Line. Of course, whilst atavistic behaviour by LMS managers bears a lot of the blame for the routes run down, even if it hadn't been transferred (and the GCR had remained in the benevolent hands of the North Eastern Region), I doubt very much that two such lines side by side would have survived Dr Beeching's policy of eradicating duplicate main lines.

Far better that the route could have been rationalised, or, at the very least, the trackbed should have been safeguarded, but that would have been a world away from Beeching's philosophy.

 

[RPM]

Genuine question - if the GCR still existed, could we have done without HS2 (if you ignore any speed arguments and just go by capacity ones)? Or are there still routes/journeys/whatever that would have been over capacity?

A very good question. The answer is possibly. GCR route has little to offer in terms of local passenger traffic, but could maybe have been upgraded for high-ish speed long distance pax services. Alternatively GCR could have been developed as a freight spine to free up passenger paths on WCML. Either way, it would need electrifying. The snag, as others have said, is the southern end. As an independent line the GCR main line fizzles out in rural Bucks and both the joint lines it historically shared for the last 30-40 miles to London are chock-a-block already.

Whilst I deplore the closure of the GC main line, the balance of evidence convinces me that HS2 is a better option nonetheless.

There have been some slightly cranky proposals from anti-HS2 folks that advocate reopening the GCR main line instead. This is total dead duck territory. Not only would the resulting railway be inferior to HS2 but it would encounter far greater NIMBY opposition owing to its urban route sections. I doubt it would be much cheaper either.

 

[edwin_m]

HS2 already follows the GC alignment quite closely for a section north of Aylesbury. This is the only section where it makes sense to do so, especially considering that the initial objective for HS2 was Birmingham rather than Sheffield.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Well, yes and no.

If you're looking at a comparison between the GCR and the Midland main line, then of course, the GCR was better engineered and better gauged. But by the same token, the Midland Main Line was quadruple track for a much longer distance (important for a mixed railway), it served a number of much larger settlements between Leicester and London, and of course, a large City like Derby wasn't out on a limb.

If you had to make the choice between the two, you would have to choose the Midland Main Line. Of course, whilst atavistic behaviour by LMS managers bears a lot of the blame for the routes run down, even if it hadn't been transferred (and the GCR had remained in the benevolent hands of the North Eastern Region), I doubt very much that two such lines side by side would have survived Dr Beeching's policy of eradicating duplicate main lines.

Far better that the route could have been rationalised, or, at the very least, the trackbed should have been safeguarded, but that would have been a world away from Beeching's philosophy.

I carn't help but think that the GCR south of Leicester would be quite useful today at proving some useful links for passengers and freight between places that are poorly served today e.g. Banbury > Rugby > Leicester would be a useful cross country passenger and freight route between the south coast ports and the midlands. North of Leicester the MML served more places and was more useful. Had there been a link between the GCR and MML south of Leicester then I believe that the southern section should have remained open for freight and passenger services which could have continued onto the MML for northwards journeys.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There are many instances of triumphalism in BR history.
The Eastern Region downgraded Sheffield Victoria, not the LMR.
The WR shut down most of the Midland network on its patch, and then most of the LSWR bits.
I think Cheltenham Spa Lansdown was the only significant place where they closed the GWR facilities rather than "the opposition".

I'm not up on Scottish events but the Caledonian routes seemed to come off worst in the rationalisation.