Beeching closures

[Journeyman]

When I read Christian Woolmar's book on the history of Britain's railways I recall reading that in the 19th century there was an unregulated railway building boom where vast numbers of line were built. Is it the case that far more railway lines were built than necessary even when railways had a monopoly as a means of transport prior to motor vehicles becoming commonplace. Where there cases of line being under used even when motor vehicles were not available as an alternative.

Absolutely. Loads of lines were built simply to try and deprive rivals of traffic, or to provide dedicated facilities in really odd places. The GC London extension is a classic example, and did absolutely nothing to the overall effectiveness of the rail network.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Absolutely. Loads of lines were built simply to try and deprive rivals of traffic, or to provide dedicated facilities in really odd places. The GC London extension is a classic example, and did absolutely nothing to the overall effectiveness of the rail network.

Did it not? Could the freight traffic have been handled by the GN and Midland? (Genuine question.) And the heavy summer weekend cross-country traffic running via Woodford and Banbury?

And what about wartime? Something tells me the military planners were very pleased to use some otherwise lightly used lines then, like the Didcot & Southampton. I suspect they were very pleased to have - and needed - the GC in both WW1 and 2. Ditto the S&C which, in truth, even the Midland, its owner, did not want to build!

The GC/Marylebone was also a jolly useful diversionary route when electrifying the WCML.

 

[A0wen]

The GC/Marylebone was also a jolly useful diversionary route when electrifying the WCML.

To a point, but alot of slack was also picked up by the GW route from Birmingham to Paddington, the Midland from Manchester through Millers Dale also took alot of the load, probably more than the GC did.

 

[yorksrob]

To a point, but alot of slack was also picked up by the GW route from Birmingham to Paddington, the Midland from Manchester through Millers Dale also took alot of the load, probably more than the GC did.

It's obvious that both of these routes were useful during the upgrade, and it should have been clear to anyone with the most rudimentary knowledge of how railways work, that the WCML would need upgrading again at some stage in the future.

 

[70014IronDuke]

To a point, but alot of slack was also picked up by the GW route from Birmingham to Paddington, the Midland from Manchester through Millers Dale also took alot of the load, probably more than the GC did.

I am fully aware of that. Pad became the main route to the W Midlands and St Pancras the main route for Manchester. But that still left Liverpool, Glasgow, Preston and N Wales, plus, of course, there were still some trains on the Brum and Manchester routes. And you had the locals from Rugby, Northampton and Bletchley.

I really can't remember to what extent Marylebone was used - I think some of the sleepers were regularly sent via Claydon (didn't Annesley get an allocation of Scots for those jobs?) and I suspect there were weekends when trains were sent that way with near total blocks south of Bletchley. But that wasn't the point of my post.

Journeyman wrote the GC "did absolutely nothing to the overall effectiveness of the rail network."

Obviously you could not justify building the GC purely as a diversionary route, but it did contribute significantly to the rail network in this way.

 

[Bald Rick]

Absolutely. Loads of lines were built simply to try and deprive rivals of traffic, or to provide dedicated facilities in really odd places. The GC London extension is a classic example, and did absolutely nothing to the overall effectiveness of the rail network.

Some lines were built simply because rail companies were regulated in the profits they could make as a % of revenue. Rather than handing over the surplus profits to Government, they spent the money on branch lines to (nearly) nowhere to bump up their cost base and chase marginal revenue.

 

[The Ham]

Some lines were built simply because rail companies were regulated in the profits they could make as a % of revenue. Rather than handing over the surplus profits to Government, they spent the money on branch lines to (nearly) nowhere to bump up their cost base and chase marginal revenue.

It would therefore mean that their revenue was higher meaning that they could keep a larger total amount of money.

 

[Journeyman]

Did it not? Could the freight traffic have been handled by the GN and Midland? (Genuine question.) And the heavy summer weekend cross-country traffic running via Woodford and Banbury?

And what about wartime? Something tells me the military planners were very pleased to use some otherwise lightly used lines then, like the Didcot & Southampton. I suspect they were very pleased to have - and needed - the GC in both WW1 and 2. Ditto the S&C which, in truth, even the Midland, its owner, did not want to build!

The GC/Marylebone was also a jolly useful diversionary route when electrifying the WCML.

I'm pretty convinced that the GC wasn't essential to the handling of just about all the traffic that ran over it, and if it hadn't been built, plenty of other alternative options were available, certainly before connections to and from the MML were downgraded or closed.

Journeyman wrote the GC "did absolutely nothing to the overall effectiveness of the rail network."

Obviously you could not justify building the GC purely as a diversionary route, but it did contribute significantly to the rail network in this way.

Of course, it could have been useful for engineering work diversions, but I'm not convinced it was used much for WCML diversions, as I've never seen much evidence that it was - the MML tended to get used quite a lot instead, as it did recently.

It's obvious that both of these routes were useful during the upgrade, and it should have been clear to anyone with the most rudimentary knowledge of how railways work, that the WCML would need upgrading again at some stage in the future.

I can just imagine how well that crazy idea would go down. "Hmm, we run three trains a day out of Marylebone, some of which have no passengers on them at all, but we'd better not close this huge loss-maker in case someone needs it for a few months in fifty years' time."

 

[A0wen]

It's obvious that both of these routes were useful during the upgrade, and it should have been clear to anyone with the most rudimentary knowledge of how railways work, that the WCML would need upgrading again at some stage in the future.

Though that wouldn't justify 3 alternatives being retained - during the recent WCML upgrades the slack was picked up again by the MML (Project Rio) and the Chiltern Line.

Unfortunately your rose-tinted glasses don't stand scrutiny with hard facts - and much as I think closing the GC was a mistake, if only because the MML is inferior in so many ways - the reality is two mainlines serving primarily Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield wasn't viable 50 years ago and still wouldn't have been today.

 

[Journeyman]

Though that wouldn't justify 3 alternatives being retained - during the recent WCML upgrades the slack was picked up again by the MML (Project Rio) and the Chiltern Line.

Unfortunately your rose-tinted glasses don't stand scrutiny with hard facts - and much as I think closing the GC was a mistake, if only because the MML is inferior in so many ways - the reality is two mainlines serving primarily Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield wasn't viable 50 years ago and still wouldn't have been today.

Absolutely. The MML is busy south of Bedford, but there's very little in the way of capacity problems elsewhere, and it can easily cope alone with demand for key destinations.

Although much of the GC was very well-engineered, that only applies to the new-build parts. The approaches to London, sharing track with the GW and Met, were operationally very challenging and would be an absolute nightmare now, with a requirement for frequent long-distance services.

 

[edwin_m]

Absolutely. The MML is busy south of Bedford, but there's very little in the way of capacity problems elsewhere, and it can easily cope alone with demand for key destinations.

Although much of the GC was very well-engineered, that only applies to the new-build parts. The approaches to London, sharing track with the GW and Met, were operationally very challenging and would be an absolute nightmare now, with a requirement for frequent long-distance services.

The Midland also picks up a lot of traffic from Wellingborough, Kettering, Corby and Market Harborough, none of which ever had any other main line to London. But it's arguable that without the MML these places would never have grown up as they have, so the passengers wouldn't have been there.

However south of Leicester the only place served only by the GC was famously Lutterworth, and between Leicester and the connections with the Met and GW it passed through a relatively unpopulated area, with the only major place being Rugby which had better London services via the WCML. There's little sign that the GC (where distinct from the Met) triggered any growth of the towns it served. Thus if the GC had been adopted as the main route for the East Midlands the fast trains would have had a fairly clear run on this section, but would have had to justify all the infrastructure costs.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm pretty convinced that the GC wasn't essential to the handling of just about all the traffic that ran over it, and if it hadn't been built, plenty of other alternative options were available, certainly before connections to and from the MML were downgraded or closed.



Of course, it could have been useful for engineering work diversions, but I'm not convinced it was used much for WCML diversions, as I've never seen much evidence that it was - the MML tended to get used quite a lot instead, as it did recently.



I can just imagine how well that crazy idea would go down. "Hmm, we run three trains a day out of Marylebone, some of which have no passengers on them at all, but we'd better not close this huge loss-maker in case someone needs it for a few months in fifty years' time."

Though that wouldn't justify 3 alternatives being retained - during the recent WCML upgrades the slack was picked up again by the MML (Project Rio) and the Chiltern Line.

Unfortunately your rose-tinted glasses don't stand scrutiny with hard facts - and much as I think closing the GC was a mistake, if only because the MML is inferior in so many ways - the reality is two mainlines serving primarily Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield wasn't viable 50 years ago and still wouldn't have been today.

I was referring to the Great Western route via Banbury and the MML via Millers Dale.

 

[Taunton]

I really can't remember to what extent Marylebone was used - I think some of the sleepers were regularly sent via Claydon (didn't Annesley get an allocation of Scots for those jobs?)

Annesley did get some Royal Scots, but they were more for the three daily remaining Marylebone trains and the handful of other long distance services. They were in dreadful condition when they arrived and were worse than a Black 5, so didn't get a lot of use. Annesley shed, near Mansfield, is about 100 miles away from where the services into Marylebone turned off the WCML via Claydon, so weren't used for those.

The principal usage of the GC line for much of its time was coal from the East Midlands to the South. Much of this turned off at Woodford to Banbury and the GWR. Quite obviously this traffic has completely disappeared; it ran down very heavily when the London smokeless zone came after the 1950s smogs.

 

[A0wen]

The Midland also picks up a lot of traffic from Wellingborough, Kettering, Corby and Market Harborough, none of which ever had any other main line to London. But it's arguable that without the MML these places would never have grown up as they have, so the passengers wouldn't have been there.

That's a bit of a recent phenomenon though - mainly driven by the service improvements since privatisation. Don't forget in BR days those stations (Corby excepted) received an inconsistent service (i.e. not always clockface or consistent stopping patterns) - it improved when MML introduced the Turbostars to provide additional services, later replaced by the Meridians.

Had the GC been retained and the MML sacrificed its an interesting debate where or what would have been removed. I suspect that it might have survived from Bedford - Manton Jnc, not least to provide freight and possibly from Melton - Nottingham.

 

[edwin_m]

Also the GC had far less connectivity to other routes in the East Midlands - a route between Nottingham and Birmingham would have been pretty convoluted for example.

 

[HSTEd]

Its worth noting that a chord at Rugby would have provided access to the northern bits of the GC without maintaining a route through the middle of nowhere. And allowed the conversion of services to partial electric traction.

You can also fairly cheaply route the existing lines into Nottingham Victoria, which is almost certainly a much better station than Midland, and use Derby Friargate instead of the Midland station.
I really don't think it's as simple as "axe Midland, keep GC" - you could make a far better network than the one we have today using parts of both.

Also the GC had far less connectivity to other routes in the East Midlands - a route between Nottingham and Birmingham would have been pretty convoluted for example.

I am not sure the route via Derby Friargate to the Cross Country route is really much more convoluted than the current one.

 

[Dyncymraeg]

Absolutely. Loads of lines were built simply to try and deprive rivals of traffic, or to provide dedicated facilities in really odd places. The GC London extension is a classic example, and did absolutely nothing to the overall effectiveness of the rail network.

Is it the case that lines would have been cut even if there was no competition from motor vehicles.

 

[A0wen]

Is it the case that lines would have been cut even if there was no competition from motor vehicles.

Yes - because some of the duplications meant the lines were competing with each other.

Beeching's closures mainly dealt with branch lines where initially bus services but later cars meant that the use of the branch line was diminishing - loads of examples around of those.

But to use the GCR as an example - it's route was Sheffield > Chesterfield > Nottingham > Loughborough > Leicester - the Midland did exactly the same (in some cases less than a mile away). After Leicester the GCR then headed to Rugby via Lutterworth and south of Rugby it served very minor places until it reached Brackley - even now a small town - before heading through a bunch of other small places until it got to either Aylesbury or Princes Risborough (depending on which route it took).

 

[yorksrob]

Yes - because some of the duplications meant the lines were competing with each other.

Beeching's closures mainly dealt with branch lines where initially bus services but later cars meant that the use of the branch line was diminishing - loads of examples around of those.

But to use the GCR as an example - it's route was Sheffield > Chesterfield > Nottingham > Loughborough > Leicester - the Midland did exactly the same (in some cases less than a mile away). After Leicester the GCR then headed to Rugby via Lutterworth and south of Rugby it served very minor places until it reached Brackley - even now a small town - before heading through a bunch of other small places until it got to either Aylesbury or Princes Risborough (depending on which route it took).

I'd dispute the idea that Beechings closures mainly dealt with 'branch lines'.

If you read through what he listed, it included most of what he felt was unprofitable, including branch lines, secondary routes, rural cross country routes and some suburban lines.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Annesley did get some Royal Scots, but they were more for the three daily remaining Marylebone trains and the handful of other long distance services. They were in dreadful condition when they arrived and were worse than a Black 5, so didn't get a lot of use.

I don't think the Scots were allocated to Annesley for the Marylebones. They were only four or five carriages - I can't believe they were tightly timed, so they surely did not need anything more than a Black 5.. In fact, a Standard 4 could probably have done the job.

Of course, they did work the London trains at times, I agree, but there were only two diagrams IIRC, as the first down service was a DMU from 1961 or 62, and that worked back on the 12.48 from Nottingham.

Annesley shed, near Mansfield, is about 100 miles away from where the services into Marylebone turned off the WCML via Claydon, so weren't used for those.

Yup, I know where Annesley is (was), and I agree. Even as I originally typed it out, I was thinking this doesn't fit. But ISTR reading that the Scots were allocated to Annesely for some diverted workings, but probably not anything sent via Calvert.

The principal usage of the GC line for much of its time was coal from the East Midlands to the South. Much of this turned off at Woodford to Banbury and the GWR. Quite obviously this traffic has completely disappeared; it ran down very heavily when the London smokeless zone came after the 1950s smogs.

Where did the coal go on the GWR? Surely the GWR had S Wales (and maybe some Mendips) coal by the trainload? Or was the E Midland stuff lower calorific value, and therefore cheaper, with the S Wales stuff mainly for export?

 

[70014IronDuke]

That's a bit of a recent phenomenon though - mainly driven by the service improvements since privatisation. Don't forget in BR days those stations (Corby excepted) received an inconsistent service (i.e. not always clockface or consistent stopping patterns) -

Sorry, but I believe this is misleading. From 1966 to 1975 the Midland had a 2 TPH each way, clock- face timetable throughout the day allowing a VERY consistent hourly service from everywhere to everywhere either directly, or via cross-platform connections at Leicester. (Except for Loughborough and Long Eaton in the northbound direction, and the Erewash Valley, which meant Alfreton in those days.) The odd extra train in the peaks, of course.

This was subject to cuts in the financially hard times from Autumn 75, and when traffic began building up, BR did not want to have their shiny new HSTs sitting at Leicester awaiting connections. So yes, from 75 to about 1996 ? or so when Turbostars were introduced, the intermediate stations did get inconsistent services.

Of course, passenger traffic from Wellingboro/Kettering/Mkt Harboro was far less in the past than it is today - but that was the same everywhere. (For comparison, I remember in 1966 the first northbound InterCity train from Bletchley - no MK in those days - on the super-duper electrified line was something like 09.47, a Blackpool/Barrow I think)

While not serving any substantial cities, the MML clearly had far more traffic generators than the GC all the way south of Leicester, especially if Rugby passsengers normally chose the LNWR route to London (which is as I understand they did, even before the cutbacks on the GC in 1960).

With this effective void in population between Aylesbury and Leicester, if one route had to go between the Midland and GC, there was surely no contest - it had to be the GC.

 

[Spamcan81]

I think the railbuses left in late 59 or 60. Interestingly, reports say they boosted traffic so much they had to put on a relief steam worked push-pull on Satudays. They were replaced by 2 Car Derby lightweights - Cl 108? - and steam. IIRC, it was steam-worked at the end. But yes, of course loads were not normally heavy.



I'm not in disagreement with most of what you write. I don't think Bedford - Hitchen could have survived even it YorksRob had been Minister of Transport c 1961-65.

And yes, even anyone living in west Hitchen (or Stevenage, or area) seeking to go to Wellingborough in 1961 may have taken the bus to Luton, then train for better connections. (And at Luton, the bus station was conveniently sited for onward rail travel.)

And yes, apart from odd days when a scout troop* decided to travel that way, I suspect the number of people using Bedford as an interchange to/from the Midland from/to the Hitchen line (and ditto Hitchen with the GN) was probably never more than ten-twelve per day, if that. Not an economically significant number.

* Yes, I know there was military passenger traffic to/from Henlow, but I believe that was usually catered for by specials.

But you misunderstand my point, intended for the OP. There were closures all over the network which effectively destroyed hundreds, if not thousands, of similar journey possibilities by rail because the replacement bus services were not designed to link in to remaining rail stations or services.

And, unlike today, with no internet, trying to work out an intinery from (say) Stevenage to Kettering once the Hitchen branch went would have been a pain, phoning bus and railways for timetable information. Or finding it in the local library. Yes, perhaps only 5 passengers a week would want to undertake such a journey, and yes, for a time there were other alternatives, of sorts (even by rail, for a few years you could go to Sandy, change for Bedford St Johns and bus it to Midland Road, then continue by rail - but who, apart from the odd hard-core travel enthusiast, would do that?)

Added up, all over the country, this only excacerbated the trend towards the car.

And what do we have left running east-west between London and Leicester - 100 miles which once had a slew of possible cross-platform, east-west interchanges - Luton (via the adjacent Bute St), Bedford, Wellingboro, Kettering (only east - and very poor, agreed) and Mkt Harboro?

Nothing, except the Marston Vale rump.

EDIT - Apologies to the Doctor - many of the closures mentioned here were not due to Beeching, of course.

It’s not Hitchen, it’s Hitchin. Grrr!

 

[Bevan Price]

Its worth noting that a chord at Rugby would have provided access to the northern bits of the GC without maintaining a route through the middle of nowhere. And allowed the conversion of services to partial electric traction.

You can also fairly cheaply route the existing lines into Nottingham Victoria, which is almost certainly a much better station than Midland, and use Derby Friargate instead of the Midland station.
I really don't think it's as simple as "axe Midland, keep GC" - you could make a far better network than the one we have today using parts of both.



I am not sure the route via Derby Friargate to the Cross Country route is really much more convoluted than the current one.

The GN route between Nottingham & Derby was a bit longer than the still-existing Midland route. But perhaps more important was that Derby Friargate was a pretty basic station - not really designed to cater for large numbers of passengers.

 

[randyrippley]

Where did the coal go on the GWR? Surely the GWR had S Wales (and maybe some Mendips) coal by the trainload? Or was the E Midland stuff lower calorific value, and therefore cheaper, with the S Wales stuff mainly for export?

Different grades of coal had different uses
Welsh anthracite went to the GWR and Royal Navy for steam raising, but burnt too hot for domestic use - it burnt the fire grates
Somerset coal was too soft and burnt slowly, but was ideal for gasworks use.
Teeside coal was used for coke, other northeastern pits produced steam coal (different from anthracite), midland coal was extensively used in homes.
That is a gross simplification, but gives an idea of the complexity. Of course the GWR were going to do their best to avoid routing midland sourced coal via the MR or LMS given their shared route cooperation with the GC

 

[Taunton]

The coal that went onto the GWR at Banbury then went all over the system, to West London, Bristol, onto the Southern, etc. As described, Notts/Yorkshire coal was the one preferred by coal merchants for domestic use. It may have even gone to Cardiff.

An account by an Annesley locoman of the period said that the Scots that arrived were a useless set, the worst around, and had Black 5s sent out in their place as much as possible. Annesley had never really been a passenger service depot, in the days up to 1960 when there were more GC line through services the main passenger depots were Neasden, Leicester and Sheffield Darnall, locos being changed at the Leicester halfway point.

 

[HSTEd]

The GN route between Nottingham & Derby was a bit longer than the still-existing Midland route. But perhaps more important was that Derby Friargate was a pretty basic station - not really designed to cater for large numbers of passengers.
View attachment 66720

Well in this world, the railway network in the area would be far more focussed on Nottingham Victoria than on Derby, as it is in our world.
London-Sheffield trains would run via Nottingham, and the primary traffic through Derby would likely be Birmingham-Nottingham (Cross Country) and Nottingham local services to Crewe et al. With a few Derby-London trains that are probably extensions of Nottingham terminators (stops at Leicester et al?)
Unlikely to be that many interchange passengers.

And it still had four platforms according to Wiki!
If anything a lighter weight station might improve the economics of the lines in the tough times after Beeching.

EDIT:
Not sure how you would route the Cross Country route, there is an West-to-North chord north of Victoria station on the 1960 Nottingham OS map.

Not sure that is optimal since it doesn't run through Nottingham but short of a loop around the Suburban or reversing in Victoria I got nothing. (Loop through Gedling adds 12km to a Nottingham stop but avoids the reversal) Although skipping the Nottingham call entirely doesn't really make you any worse off than the current alignment which goes from Derby to Chesterfield directly and avoids Nottingham

While not serving any substantial cities, the MML clearly had far more traffic generators than the GC all the way south of Leicester, especially if Rugby passsengers normally chose the LNWR route to London (which is as I understand they did, even before the cutbacks on the GC in 1960).


With this effective void in population between Aylesbury and Leicester, if one route had to go between the Midland and GC, there was surely no contest - it had to be the GC.

Thing is, if you retain the GC as far south as rugby then there is no need to go further south. One chord puts you on the newly electric line to Euston.


A wooden platformed "Rugby East" for the loco change and you can axe the MML north of Bedford and it becomes a sort of Aylesbury line on a bigger scale.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Different grades of coal had different uses
Welsh anthracite went to the GWR and Royal Navy for steam raising, but burnt too hot for domestic use - it burnt the fire grates
Somerset coal was too soft and burnt slowly, but was ideal for gasworks use.
Teeside coal was used for coke, other northeastern pits produced steam coal (different from anthracite), midland coal was extensively used in homes.
That is a gross simplification, but gives an idea of the complexity. Of course the GWR were going to do their best to avoid routing midland sourced coal via the MR or LMS given their shared route cooperation with the GC

There was market segmentation for coal ! - Welsh anthracite the very best quality , high carbon, low arsenic , 100% smokeless was mainly for central heating , food industry use (especially malting) , domestic use. Big export traffic to continental Europe for space heating (particularly France and Holland) - West Wales and Pembroke. High value meant it could stand (expensive) rail haulage compared to sea shipping.

Welsh (Dry) Steam coal - from the mid- east part of the coalfield was the ultimate loco and shipping firing fuel - bit slow to burn through but once going , it burns very hot. Mainly moved via the docks - even GW loco coal went partly by sea. A side product was coking coal , which was generally consumed "locally" - about 90 million tons a year mined pre 1913.

The Nottingham coal , from a landlocked coalfield , had to go by rail - (competition of course from the Midland and GN routes) , and was presumably largely for gas works and domestic use in the Home Counties. Once this market was dented by the Clean Air Act post the 1952 smog and the move towards Natural Gas , the GC "coal conveyor belt" was doomed. (as indeed was Woodhead - but let us not go there)

 

[ac6000cw]

Thing is, if you retain the GC as far south as rugby then there is no need to go further south. One chord puts you on the newly electric line to Euston.

A wooden platformed "Rugby East" for the loco change and you can axe the MML north of Bedford and it becomes a sort of Aylesbury line on a bigger scale.

I think BR (or maybe it was the LMS) did look at diverting MML London services onto the WCML via the Market Harborough - Northampton line, basically to allow the closure of St. Pancras (I can't remember where the Bedford-London suburban services were meant to to go). In the end, they found that the WCML/Euston didn't really have the capacity for the extra traffic so nothing came of it.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I think BR (or maybe it was the LMS) did look at diverting MML London services onto the WCML via the Market Harborough - Northampton line, basically to allow the closure of St. Pancras (I can't remember where the Bedford-London suburban services were meant to to go). In the end, they found that the WCML/Euston didn't really have the capacity for the extra traffic so nothing came of it.

It certainly was an idea - thankfully not proceeded with , along with diverting the full Bedford sububan services into Moorgate !. I dare say there are archives at Kew that could elaborate on this policy.

 

[70014IronDuke]

The coal that went onto the GWR at Banbury then went all over the system, to West London, Bristol, onto the Southern, etc. As described, Notts/Yorkshire coal was the one preferred by coal merchants for domestic use. It may have even gone to Cardiff.

But why did most of it go onto the WR, rather than directly to Neasden (or wherever the GC coal yard was) in London - surely the biggest single market? Or Neasden and then on from there? Was it because the Midland (or GN) routes were cheaper for the coal merchants, so most went to Brent or Hornsey?

An account by an Annesley locoman of the period said that the Scots that arrived were a useless set, the worst around, and had Black 5s sent out in their place as much as possible. Annesley had never really been a passenger service depot, in the days up to 1960 when there were more GC line through services the main passenger depots were Neasden, Leicester and Sheffield Darnall, locos being changed at the Leicester halfway point.

Sure. I think we've probably read the same account by the Annesley fireman. But why were the Scots sent there? I'm sure there was a theoretical set of diagrams for them, but I've forgotten what it was.