If the Great Central had Survived Beeching.... Would it be Useful Today?

[Mordac]

Note this isn't a "Let's Reopen the Great Central" thread. I can think of a few lines that would be useful today if they hadn't closed, but definitely don't justify the expense of reopening now.

Would the Great Central be one of them, though? I confess this is one of the lines I feel more sorry about Beeching, but is that just the romantic in me talking, or would the line add operational benefits if it was still around today?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not entirely sure. Possibly the GC or the MML but not both. It's a bit like it was sort-of Woodhead or Hope Valley but not both.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Yes. HS2 is being built for capacity reasons rather than speed. Ministers especially Grayling talk about disruption. With this line still open you could close it for a longish period and speed up and electrify knowing you had all the other routes available. I would go as far as saying that we would not need to spend all the money on HS2 if we still had the Great Central Main Line.

 

[Bevan Price]

I think the GC London Extension would have been a useful route - mainly to divert freight away from the southern part of WCML. Use for passenger traffic would be of secondary importance, mainly to provide services between the likes of Aylesbury, Brackley & Rugby to the East Midlands & North East. For London traffic, it offered no improvement over MML for Leicester, Nottingham or Sheffield.

It was being run down even before Beeching - the section between Nottingham & Sheffield was badly affected by mining subsidence, and very slow; most of the intermediate stations had closed before the Beeching report was published - but some could have been useful if they were still open, - mainly to serve commuting into Nottingham or Sheffield.

 

[yorksrob]

It could have formed a useful NE/SW cross country passenger route via Leicester and Nottingham, rather than Birmingham.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It could be useful as a freight route, but it had very poor connections from south and east of London, which doesn't help.
At the northern end, you'd have to resurrect all the CLC/GC link routes around Manchester.
It would at least have solved the headache of reaching Trafford Park by avoiding the South Junction line.
But it's not coming back.
As a passenger route, it didn't have a good business case in 1899, and it doesn't now.

 

[InOban]

I thought that the main advantage of the GC was that it was built to European gauge.

 

[The Planner]

Chiltern would be a very different route if it was still open, but I can't see what benefit it would provide now if it was still there as it doesnt allow you to do anything different. It certainly doesnt solve HS2.

 

[ashworth]

I think the GC London Extension wbeen a useful route - mainly to divert freight away from the southern part of WCML. Use for passenger traffic would be of secondary importance, mainly to provide services between the likes of Aylesbury, Brackley & Rugby to the East Midlands & North East. For London traffic, it offered no improvement over MML for Leicester, Nottingham or Sheffield.

It perhaps didn’t offer any improvement over the MML for Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield to London in its day especially during many years of being run down, but if it had been retained and upgraded for 125mph running, could it have offered an improvement over what we have now on the MML?

Now that the MML is not going to be electrified north of Kettering there’s much talk of speeding up services by more trains omitting stations south of Leicester to improve journey times to Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield. One of the main arguments why the GC closed was that it didn’t serve many major centres of population south of Leicester. Now with the introduction of electrified services to Corby there is the possibility that many more MML trains will run non stop from Leicester to London. Could the GC have been a faster route for this type of service?

 

[satisnek]

One thing that has crossed my mind is: if the GC was still open today, what kind of speed would be possible? Yes, it was built with no level crossings, but looking at old maps it doesn't otherwise seem to be anything special. Indeed, the original Midland Counties route from Rugby to Nottingham appears to be a superior alignment on paper. So would we be looking at a 125mph route, perhaps with the potential to go higher, or nothing more than 100mph?

 

[Bevan Price]

Many of the stations on the London extension were island platforms with slightly curved approaches - as seen on the heritage Great Central at Loughborough, Quorn, Rothley.

So, possibly 75 to 90 mph through the stations, but 100+ mph eleswhere was probably feasible.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's reasonable to assume that if it was still open, the town of Brackley would be a rather different place today. It is also entirely possible that much of the development that occurred in MK would have been instead done on a greenfield site somewhere along the GC.

I'm not sure it would be too useful for freight, at least not without some new links in London and Rugby.

 

[HSTEd]

I sometimes wonder if the minimum railways introduced in the eighties might have been enough to save these routes.

Paytrain and shortDerby Lightweight formations

 

[absolutelymilk]

While it doesn't serve many intermediate stations with large populations, that doesn't mean that if it had survived we couldn't have built some new commuter towns along the route!

 

[PeterC]

While it doesn't serve many intermediate stations with large populations, that doesn't mean that if it had survived we couldn't have built some new commuter towns along the route!

Woodford Halse New Town perhaps?
With regard to existing settlements now ripe for expansion the L&NW branch from Verney Junction to Banbury might have been more useful serving Buckingham and Brackley which could both be expanded with links towards the midlands, Oxford and London.

 

[mallard]

Retaining the line south of Leicester (e.g. to a junction at Whetstone where it passed over the Leicester-Nuneaton line) would have greatly improved the rather poor connectivity of Leicester. I don't see any particular need for through services to London over the route (although I wouldn't rule this out), but it would definitely improve journeys between the East Midlands and South Midlands (and even the South West).

Services like Oxford-Bicester-Rugby-Leicester or Northampton-Rugby(with a suitable WCML-GCML junction)-Leicester would be very useful. Some services could also be extended to Nottingham over the MML.

 

[RPM]

I thought that the main advantage of the GC was that it was built to European gauge.

That's a myth, albeit a widely believed and very persistent one. The structure gauge was on the generous side for the UK, but fell short of contemporary European standards.

 

[A0wen]

It perhaps didn’t offer any improvement over the MML for Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield to London in its day especially during many years of being run down, but if it had been retained and upgraded for 125mph running, could it have offered an improvement over what we have now on the MML?

Now that the MML is not going to be electrified north of Kettering there’s much talk of speeding up services by more trains omitting stations south of Leicester to improve journey times to Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield. One of the main arguments why the GC closed was that it didn’t serve many major centres of population south of Leicester. Now with the introduction of electrified services to Corby there is the possibility that many more MML trains will run non stop from Leicester to London. Could the GC have been a faster route for this type of service?

The reduction in stops south of Leicester is being driven by the upgrades to the Corby services - nothing to do with the electrification decision or anything else. There's long been aspirations to speed up journey times to Leicester, Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield - in fact EMT did part of that by putting the quicker accelerating Meridians on the Sheffield turns to improve journey times.

 

[A0wen]

Services like Oxford-Bicester-Rugby-Leicester or Northampton-Rugby(with a suitable WCML-GCML junction)-Leicester would be very useful. Some services could also be extended to Nottingham over the MML.

No they wouldn't be "very useful" - why do people wanting to travel from Oxford to Leicester need to go via Bicester and Rugby? Or Northampton - Leicester via Rugby?

Neither would offer a journey time improvement over the current routes for these journeys.

Northampton to Leicester - if there was the demand - could have been better handled by retaining Northampton - Harborough (which survived as a through route until the early 80s) or by connecting Northampton - Wellingborough.

 

[A0wen]

It could have formed a useful NE/SW cross country passenger route via Leicester and Nottingham, rather than Birmingham.

A journey which could still be done today on existing routes i.e. via Nuneaton, Coventry and Leamington. The fact that even under BR this wasn't pursued as an option tells you that via Birmingham is the preferred route because it attracts the most custom.

 

[A0wen]

I sometimes wonder if the minimum railways introduced in the eighties might have been enough to save these routes.

Paytrain and shortDerby Lightweight formations

The GC was killed because of BR LM management - it wasn't really a Beeching closure.

The problem was the BR LM management were ex-LMS management, therefore the GC was viewed as the 'upstart competitor' and never wanted.

You can see this as the GC's decline really took hold after it was transferred from BR (Eastern Region) where the ex LNER management viewed the route more benevolently.

Again - the remaining element from Marylebone was much neglected when it was part of BR Midland - when it was transferred to Western Region in the mid-80s it gained a new lease of life, with new stock, upgrades to the infrastructure and increases to the services - initially Banbury but soon extended back into Birmingham.

 

[mallard]

No they wouldn't be "very useful" - why do people wanting to travel from Oxford to Leicester need to go via Bicester and Rugby? Or Northampton - Leicester via Rugby?

Far more direct than travelling via Birmingham or Nuneaton with a change in trains...

Neither would offer a journey time improvement over the current routes for these journeys.

Current journeys between Oxford and Leicester take over 2 hours (apparently it's faster to use the Coventry-Nuneaton dogbox than the single change at Birmingham New Street). The GCR took around 2 hours from Calvert to Leicester in 1950, with steam locomotives and many more stops than would exist now; that's already a competitive time!

 

[70014IronDuke]

Many of the stations on the London extension were island platforms with slightly curved approaches - as seen on the heritage Great Central at Loughborough, Quorn, Rothley.

So, possibly 75 to 90 mph through the stations, but 100+ mph eleswhere was probably feasible.

I'm pretty sure that the curves leading into the island platforms were very generous - It was built as an express route. I'm sure 90 mph would not have been a problem, and quite possibly 100 mph plus.

 

[DarloRich]

Had the line survived I am sure it would have been a useful, if simplified secondary/freight route. But it didn't survive and it didn't survive for a reason. It was a duplication of other routes and served few individual large settlements. Despite spotterish nostalgia and rose tinted spectacle wearing it ran through the middle of nowhere, served few towns not already served, faster, by other routes and was a wasteful duplicate. By the time it closed the main freight usage, coal, from the north to London was declining ( and wouldn't exist today) and the line went before containerisation really began.

It's reasonable to assume that if it was still open, the town of Brackley would be a rather different place today. It is also entirely possible that much of the development that occurred in MK would have been instead done on a greenfield site somewhere along the GC.

I'm not sure it would be too useful for freight, at least not without some new links in London and Rugby.

The site of MK had been chosen before the line was closed.

 

[70014IronDuke]

The GC was killed because of BR LM management - it wasn't really a Beeching closure.

The problem was the BR LM management were ex-LMS management, therefore the GC was viewed as the 'upstart competitor' and never wanted.
...

Oh dear. This is the same kind of conspiracy theory that fans of the LSWR get into in their frustrations with the copper-capped lot over the winding down of the LSWR route to Plymouth.

I am a fan of both the LSWR and GC - but I don't believe the rundowns of ether route had anything directly to do with the whims of either BR(W) or BR(LM) when the lines were transferred - that is, not in the sense you mean.

I do accept that BR(W) and BR(LM) management did neglect/run down both lines - yes - but I see it that that was because they were under instructions from the BRB to do so. And it made sense to make the transfers so that former management were free of the awkward burden of running down the routes after working hard for years to get the best out of them.

 

[70014IronDuke]

...
The site of MK had been chosen before the line was closed.

Thank you. Saved me posting this.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I sometimes wonder if the minimum railways introduced in the eighties might have been enough to save these routes.

Paytrain and shortDerby Lightweight formations

Indeed. Had BR introduced, say, an hourly stopping service Notthingham-Rugby, followed by 1 train per two hours Nottingham-Marylebone (fast from either Aylesbury or High Wycombe) alternating with 1 train per two hours Nottingham - Woodford - Banbury - Oxford with first gen DMUs I think it mght have worked on an operating costs basis.

But I think the run down in freight and the simple lack of capital (or greater need for capital elsewhere - look at how the Midland failed to get access to cap ex for so many years) was the death knell for the GC. Oh, that and the thought of filthy lucre from the sale of land in central Nottingham and Leicester.

 

[A0wen]

Oh dear. This is the same kind of conspiracy theory that fans of the LSWR get into in their frustrations with the copper-capped lot over the winding down of the LSWR route to Plymouth.

I am a fan of both the LSWR and GC - but I don't believe the rundowns of ether route had anything directly to do with the whims of either BR(W) or BR(LM) when the lines were transferred - that is, not in the sense you mean.

I do accept that BR(W) and BR(LM) management did neglect/run down both lines - yes - but I see it that that was because they were under instructions from the BRB to do so. And it made sense to make the transfers so that former management were free of the awkward burden of running down the routes after working hard for years to get the best out of them.

A now late, former neighbour of mine, worked for BR LM in various roles from the 60s through to the 80s - he confirmed the LM management was still 'anti GC' even then.

The LSWR route to Plymouth was much more clear cut by comparison - even now when this one comes up as a 'possible diversion for Dawlish' you only need to look at a map to see the complete lack of places that were served by that route.

Add in some of the branches were duplicates and others were simply not viable. So I don't buy the same argument for the LSWR branches.

But the GC was a well engineered route, designed for relatively high-speed running. No it wasn't perfect, but the LM management were much more parochial during that time - and protecting the ex LMS routes were their priority.

 

[ashworth]

The reduction in stops south of Leicester is being driven by the upgrades to the Corby services - nothing to do with the electrification decision or anything else. There's long been aspirations to speed up journey times to Leicester, Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield - in fact EMT did part of that by putting the quicker accelerating Meridians on the Sheffield turns to improve journey times.

I think I worded my post a bit wrongly.
What I was really trying to say was if the GC had remained open and upgraded to 125 mph running where possible, would it now be a faster route from Sheffield, Nottingham and Leicester to London, with non stop running south of Leicester. I’m sure that it was a much straighter route than the MML for higher speed running over longer distances.

 

[Western Lord]

I think I worded my post a bit wrongly.
What I was really trying to say was if the GC had remained open and upgraded to 125 mph running where possible, would it now be a faster route from Sheffield, Nottingham and Leicester to London, with non stop running south of Leicester. I’m sure that it was a much straighter route than the MML for higher speed running over longer distances.

The GC reached London via the Metropolitan Line, or via a longer detour through High Wycombe. It was in no way a high speed line at the London end and for that reason alone completely uncompetitive with the MML. Neither was it a straighter route, Marylebone to Leicester via Aylesbury was 103 miles (108 miles via High Wycombe), St. Pancras to Leicester is 99 miles.