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

[The Planner]

But who in their right mind would propose going from London to Oxford via Didcot if they were starting from scratch? Before the railway the turnpike via Risborough and Thame was a serious alternative to going up or down Aston Hill (modern A40 between Stokenchurch and Lewknor).

You misunderstand, before deciding to build the chord at Bicester and rebuild down to Oxford, Chiltern were looking at going via Thame.

 

[JamesT]

You misunderstand, before deciding to build the chord at Bicester and rebuild down to Oxford, Chiltern were looking at going via Thame.

Presumably bits of Wheatley having been built on the former trackbed will have scuppered that fairly quickly.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

They also wanted to get to Oxford via Thame but then sobered up.

Particularly interesting in that Chiltern's Oxford extension appears to be thriving on London<->Bicester Village, London<->Oxford Parkway, and Oxford<->Bicester Village traffic. The Thame route would have had none of that. I wonder how much of Chiltern's decision to go via Bicester was engineering, and how much was that they'd identified the market to the north.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Perhaps, for once, we have reason to be thankful that they did close Wigston - Rugby, otherwise Beeching and his acolytes could have left us with even bigger problems than they eventually did.

Well, ironically enough, I think it could have proved to be a good thing in the end. Let's say the Midland route had survived until 1966. BR planners, wide eyed at the possible 'savings' to be made, suddenly realised that they could divert all Midland main line trains into Euston via the pre-1857 route. So they get the plans together to electrify at least to Leicester as a first stage (don't want to block up Rugby changing locos, and need a fast timing to Leicester to sell the move to the public).

The modernised, electrified Rugby - Leicester line opens in about 1971, and a 1TPH Sheffield - Euston and 1 TPH Nottingham-Euston (stopping at Leicester and Rugby) is initiated. Cl 45/1s take over trains at Leicester until Phase 2 - electrification to Nottingham and Sheffield is authorised.

But you can't actually close the 'old' Midland route to Bedford entirely. You have to maintain a 1 TPH Leicester-St Pancras service for the citizens of Mkt Harboro, Kettering etc. (Bedford to London is safe as a commuter line, of course.)

But you would go about singling Wigston-Bedford to save costs - in a Salisbury-Exeter like operation.

But this would take time. Meanwhile: the original 1966 WCML timetable - remember, outside the peaks, this was a mere 1 train per two hours to Liverpool and Manchester - has steadily attracted more traffic. By 1973 or so, you actually want to start 2 TPH Euston -Birmingham instead of just 1 TPH (I remember the shock on seeing that revolution!)

Before you know it, I could see plans being reversed, as BR realised that the WCML did not want to provide paths for the diverted Sheffield and Nottingham trains - it would need every path it could get for its traditional services. The rationalisation of Wigston-Bedford would be stopped, and, somewhat red-faced, BR would reinstate Sheffield-St Pancras trains, perhaps by c 1980-82.

Meanwhile, you would have a nice alternative, electrified route from Leicester to Rugby. OK, they might dismantle the overhead to wire some of the traditional Midland line, but I doubt they would have closed it. End result, you still have a well-maintained Liecester-Rugby line - even if only for a 1 TPH DMU shuttle back then.
?

 

[70014IronDuke]

You misunderstand, before deciding to build the chord at Bicester and rebuild down to Oxford, Chiltern were looking at going via Thame.

But if the Thame trackbed had been extant, it would have been the option to take, surely?

 

[Andyjs247]

But if the Thame trackbed had been extant, it would have been the option to take, surely?

Not necessarily. Princes Risborough - Bicester - Oxford Parkway is 100mph (apart from the new chord). Princes Risborough - Thame - Wheatley- Horspath - Oxford would never be that fast. Apart from which there is a significant chunk of trackbed missing around M40 junction 8/8a Oxford services and bats roosting in the tunnel at Horspath.

 

[edwin_m]

I agree. If BR had kept the GC as a main line, they would have worked to sort out the southern end. And semi-fast traffic to what became Chiltern's service today would have been a secondary concern.

I suspect they would have developed the route into Paddington via High Wycombe. Sharing track with the Metropolitan on the Aylesbury route wouldn't be compatible with a fast main line and the limited number of platforms at Marylebone would always have limited capacity on a route terminating there even if the western half had been built (when was the land for it sold off and built over?).

 

[AshlawnCutting]

It lasted until around 1970 I believe.

I can imagine a Banbury - Tuxford link would have been quite useful anyway.

The orphan GC closed in 1969, shortly after I was born, almost in sight of it

Film and photographs of the last days of Rugby to Nottingham suggest a surprising number of people using it. How many of them were only using it because it was about to close is a matter for conjecture.

I would have found the line very useful in the early 90s when I was commuting between Rugby and Leicester on the X40 bus, creeping through the rush hour jams in Leicester. The Midland route might have done the same job but would presumably have been slower (the level crossing on the A5 would have been entertaining, though).

 

[A0]

There was an article recently in one of the Chuffer Mags that detailed how the GC was killed off and it did appear to be at the doctrine of a duplicated route in spite of the fact that it was possibly running at a profit or nearly so.

What has also not been mentioned here was the madcap suggestion to close the line completely into Marylebone and turn the Line with the Station at Marylebone into a Coach Route and Bus Station. Imagine that chaos in the Chilterns now if that had happened. Thankfully it did not, but till Shooter got his hands in running the GC in the London Area it was mostly a forgotten backwater of a line. Or perhaps I should be saying these changes started during the period of NSE.
JonD

But it wasn't a proposal to close the line through the Chilterns.

As I recall what was proposed was the closure of Marylebone. Services on the Wycombe line would have been diverted into Paddington and Aylesbury to Amersham run as a shuttle with the Met running on as it does today.

The reality is only a couple of miles of track would actually have closed along with about 3 stations - those between West Ruislip and Marylebone in effect.

 

[Flying Phil]

The orphan GC closed in 1969, shortly after I was born, almost in sight of it

Film and photographs of the last days of Rugby to Nottingham suggest a surprising number of people using it. How many of them were only using it because it was about to close is a matter for conjecture.

I would have found the line very useful in the early 90s when I was commuting between Rugby and Leicester on the X40 bus, creeping through the rush hour jams in Leicester. The Midland route might have done the same job but would presumably have been slower (the level crossing on the A5 would have been entertaining, though).

Before it closed I took some photographs in May 1969.......

 

[swt_passenger]

Didn't Chiltern Railways put forward a proposal, a few years back, to re-open the GC as far as Rugby and make a Parkway station there?

AIUI, from previous discussions, they were required to research and provide a list of suitable projects, but it was never intended that they would all have to be taken forward.

 

[TBirdFrank]

Britain's first all electric main line - ran along the farm boundary when I was a kid - now there is a thirteen mile tramway to Hadfield - and you wonder why I question v(insa)anity projects like HS2!

The GC was killed by ex LNW men in BR(M) and ex GN men in BR NER) The old prejudices outlived the war and were there right through the modernisation years. If Gresley's ideas of DC electrification had got south of Sheffield who knows what would have happened? The GC ran from Liverpool to Hull as well as to London. The difference in distance from the Great Wen to Cottonopolis was nominal - four whole miles - but instead of going via esoteric places like Crewe and Stafford or Macclesfield and Stoke this line went via Chesterfield and Nottingham and Leicester. It did have connections or how else did the Bradford to Paigntons run? Its loss was a national tragedy and a badge of shame - but gone it is!

 

[RPM]

Not necessarily. Princes Risborough - Bicester - Oxford Parkway is 100mph (apart from the new chord). Princes Risborough - Thame - Wheatley- Horspath - Oxford would never be that fast. Apart from which there is a significant chunk of trackbed missing around M40 junction 8/8a Oxford services and bats roosting in the tunnel at Horspath.

Plus the fact that it is only single track formation. The Bicester chord option was the far superior option.

 

[HowardGWR]

Banbury to Leicester and Nottingham via the junction south of Woodford Halse would have been a useful XC connection avoiding Brum (if there was enough demand now for through traffic from SW to NE traffic, not wanting Brum - there probably is. One would need to see O/D data to know that.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The GC lived on freight traffic , principally coal from Notts area towards Banbury - and to an extent London. Once gas coal ceased to be needed , what little non coal traffic was left could easily be diverted onto the Midland lines. Whilst discussions were held with LT on not serving Aylesbury - maybe as far as Great Missenden , the MET/GC survived to be upgraded by NSE.

I struggle to find a real option for the GC - last in , first out , everywhere they went - there were more and older options , loadings from early days on the route were pretty low.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Meanwhile, you would have a nice alternative, electrified route from Leicester to Rugby. OK, they might dismantle the overhead to wire some of the traditional Midland line, but I doubt they would have closed it. End result, you still have a well-maintained Liecester-Rugby line - even if only for a 1 TPH DMU shuttle back then.
?

It was senseless to lose both Rugby-Leicester lines, and the Midland should have survived if only for the freight link between the WCML and MML.
It took nearly 40 years to get rid of the GC "birdcage" over the Euston line.
Today, how would you thread Euston-Leicester traffic through Rugby (LNW)?
I doubt if a fast route through Rugby would have been possible, and it would have been a bigger bottleneck than Norton Bridge.
There were 3 flyovers at Rugby, but not one towards Leicester.
The LMR planners and operating staff must have been very happy to get rid of the junction towards Leicester in 1962.
Imagine Rugby today also with traffic towards Leamington (closed 1959), and Peterborough (1966).

 

[yorksrob]

Well, ironically enough, I think it could have proved to be a good thing in the end. Let's say the Midland route had survived until 1966. BR planners, wide eyed at the possible 'savings' to be made, suddenly realised that they could divert all Midland main line trains into Euston via the pre-1857 route. So they get the plans together to electrify at least to Leicester as a first stage (don't want to block up Rugby changing locos, and need a fast timing to Leicester to sell the move to the public).

The modernised, electrified Rugby - Leicester line opens in about 1971, and a 1TPH Sheffield - Euston and 1 TPH Nottingham-Euston (stopping at Leicester and Rugby) is initiated. Cl 45/1s take over trains at Leicester until Phase 2 - electrification to Nottingham and Sheffield is authorised.

But you can't actually close the 'old' Midland route to Bedford entirely. You have to maintain a 1 TPH Leicester-St Pancras service for the citizens of Mkt Harboro, Kettering etc. (Bedford to London is safe as a commuter line, of course.)

But you would go about singling Wigston-Bedford to save costs - in a Salisbury-Exeter like operation.

But this would take time. Meanwhile: the original 1966 WCML timetable - remember, outside the peaks, this was a mere 1 train per two hours to Liverpool and Manchester - has steadily attracted more traffic. By 1973 or so, you actually want to start 2 TPH Euston -Birmingham instead of just 1 TPH (I remember the shock on seeing that revolution!)

Before you know it, I could see plans being reversed, as BR realised that the WCML did not want to provide paths for the diverted Sheffield and Nottingham trains - it would need every path it could get for its traditional services. The rationalisation of Wigston-Bedford would be stopped, and, somewhat red-faced, BR would reinstate Sheffield-St Pancras trains, perhaps by c 1980-82.

Meanwhile, you would have a nice alternative, electrified route from Leicester to Rugby. OK, they might dismantle the overhead to wire some of the traditional Midland line, but I doubt they would have closed it. End result, you still have a well-maintained Liecester-Rugby line - even if only for a 1 TPH DMU shuttle back then.
?

That assumes that Bedford - Leicester gets the Salisbury - Exeter treatment, rather than Exeter - Plymouth via Okehampton. Afterall, if Corby could do without a train service, why not Kettering and Market Harborough ?

Realistically I can't see cash strapped early 1980's BR redoubling a long main line. And even if a single track section had survived, would we be any more likely to see it redoubled now than Salisbury - Exeter ?

The other thing we have to consider is that had 1960's BR had its way with the route North of Bedford, it might also have found it easier to fulfill its other master plan of closing St Pancras, so in all likelihood, there would have been nowhere to terminate this rejuvenated InterCity service.

No, as a regular MML user I think we had a very lucky escape with that one !

 

[yorksrob]

The orphan GC closed in 1969, shortly after I was born, almost in sight of it

Film and photographs of the last days of Rugby to Nottingham suggest a surprising number of people using it. How many of them were only using it because it was about to close is a matter for conjecture.

I would have found the line very useful in the early 90s when I was commuting between Rugby and Leicester on the X40 bus, creeping through the rush hour jams in Leicester. The Midland route might have done the same job but would presumably have been slower (the level crossing on the A5 would have been entertaining, though).

Yes, even if only that section had survived, it would probably have been a thriving commuter route by now, particularly as Nottingham Arkwright Street was tantilisingly close to Midland. 1969/70 was a particularly disastrous couple of years for closures.

 

[aylesbury]

Passengers in the dying days of the GC were not plentiful I had to be on Aylesbury station regularily in the sixties and did not see that many seats occupied from the north .The main flow was to Marylebone and Baker St the latter a good service with a loco change at Ricky but things improved when we got diesels and better timings.I went to Nottingham on the 08.30 and return a dismal journey through derelication and demoralised staff all in all not a pleasant experience ,I asked a railman at Nottingham when next train back was and he barely could be bothered to answer so different now.

 

[satisnek]

Well, ironically enough, I think it could have proved to be a good thing in the end. Let's say the Midland route had survived until 1966. BR planners, wide eyed at the possible 'savings' to be made, suddenly realised that they could divert all Midland main line trains into Euston via the pre-1857 route. So they get the plans together to electrify at least to Leicester as a first stage (don't want to block up Rugby changing locos, and need a fast timing to Leicester to sell the move to the public).

The modernised, electrified Rugby - Leicester line opens in about 1971, and a 1TPH Sheffield - Euston and 1 TPH Nottingham-Euston (stopping at Leicester and Rugby) is initiated. Cl 45/1s take over trains at Leicester until Phase 2 - electrification to Nottingham and Sheffield is authorised.

But you can't actually close the 'old' Midland route to Bedford entirely. You have to maintain a 1 TPH Leicester-St Pancras service for the citizens of Mkt Harboro, Kettering etc. (Bedford to London is safe as a commuter line, of course.)

But you would go about singling Wigston-Bedford to save costs - in a Salisbury-Exeter like operation.

But this would take time. Meanwhile: the original 1966 WCML timetable - remember, outside the peaks, this was a mere 1 train per two hours to Liverpool and Manchester - has steadily attracted more traffic. By 1973 or so, you actually want to start 2 TPH Euston -Birmingham instead of just 1 TPH (I remember the shock on seeing that revolution!)

Before you know it, I could see plans being reversed, as BR realised that the WCML did not want to provide paths for the diverted Sheffield and Nottingham trains - it would need every path it could get for its traditional services. The rationalisation of Wigston-Bedford would be stopped, and, somewhat red-faced, BR would reinstate Sheffield-St Pancras trains, perhaps by c 1980-82.

Meanwhile, you would have a nice alternative, electrified route from Leicester to Rugby. OK, they might dismantle the overhead to wire some of the traditional Midland line, but I doubt they would have closed it. End result, you still have a well-maintained Liecester-Rugby line - even if only for a 1 TPH DMU shuttle back then.
?

I doubt it somehow, bearing in mind that the object of the exercise was to close St. Pancras. I would guess that suburban services to Luton and Bedford would have run into Moorgate via the Widened Lines, until Thameslink came along, while the line north of Bedford up through Corby would have been retained for freight traffic, probably with a sparse passenger service. Glendon to Market Harborough/Wigston (depending on which route to the WCML was used) would have closed. If the Midland route had been chosen then I think it would have been likely that Market Harborough would have disappeared off the railway map.

None of which affected the GC, which would have closed anyway.

 

[swt_passenger]

But if the Thame trackbed had been extant, it would have been the option to take, surely?

Very unlikely. There was evidence presented at the TWA Order inquiry that described how the Bicester route was found to be better for a number of reasons. We discussed it in a previous Evergreen 3 thread a couple of years ago.

 

[yorksrob]

Very unlikely. There was evidence presented at the TWA Order inquiry that described how the Bicester route was found to be better for a number of reasons. We discussed it in a previous Evergreen 3 thread a couple of years ago.

But you would have had a station within walking distance of Thame, rather than a parkway !

 

[xotGD]

Having 2 routes from Sheffield, Nottingham and Leicester to London would mean 2 operators and competition. Isn't that what privatisation is meant to be about?

 

[swt_passenger]

But you would have had a station within walking distance of Thame, rather than a parkway !

Nevertheless, the decision to go with Bicester rather than Thame had been decided as far back as 2003, in a report to the SRA. The TWA inspector's report has a short section about it:

There remained the Northern Corridor [via Bicester] and the Southern Corridor. [via Thame] These were further evaluated in a report by Chiltern to the former Strategic Rail Authority in 2003 (document CD/2.3). The report found that the Northern Corridor was better than the Southern Corridor in the following ways:
a) The Northern Corridor would largely use an existing railway whereas the Southern Corridor had to a significant extent been built over. The Northern Corridor would involve less construction and less disturbance.
b) The proposed Water Eaton Parkway station would have excellent links to Oxford city centre and (for example) other destinations such as the John Radcliffe hospital, and Kidlington. Car users from north and east Oxford and from north and west Oxfordshire could reach the railway without the present need to cross the city centre en route to Oxford station.
c) Extra revenue would result from improving the Bicester Town to Oxford commuter service with commensurate socio-economic benefits.
d) The Northern Corridor would support development of the East West Route, whereas the Southern Corridor would not.
e) Trains on the Southern Corridor would need to use the currently congested main line south of Oxford, whereas the Northern Corridor would use currently abandoned tracks to the north of Oxford, and those tracks could be reinstated to create extra capacity.
f) The Northern Corridor offered a higher benefit:cost ratio than the Southern Corridor.

I cannot find an online source to link to.

 

[mr_jrt]

The route via Thame would have been much shorter, but the line would have had to have been rebuilt as a double track line anyway, so you would have had to rip up anything left anyway. Aside from serving Thame and east Oxford directly the only benefit would be speed, but I don't know how fast a rebuilt line would have been able to manage compared to the fairly high speeds possible on the route via Bicester as-built.

As things panned out, the northern corridor will be served by EWR, so a southern corridor would have ended up providing more coverage to Oxford though.

 

[aylesbury]

When the East West route is built a revival of a section of the GC will be revived Aylesbury to Calvert will be double tracked and have regular passenger services. to MK .Also the freight to Clavert will continue and at the moment can be four a day with a 66 on the front so one bit of the GC will have passengers again.

 

[infobleep]

If the GC had survived, it would no doubt have received the same treatment as the Salisbury-Exeter line - singled, with a 2-hourly stopping service. Yes, some freight would no doubt have still used it (unlike the LSW line), but the infrastructure would have been very restrictive.

So today we would have a busy line, with operators trying to cram in more trains and calls for re-doubling.

We'd also have Network Rail saying thr business case for it doubling didn't exist and one or more members in thr House of Lords shaking their heads in disagreement with the NR findings.

Of very lucky, we might also have some more parliamentary services if it still existed.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Having 2 routes from Sheffield, Nottingham and Leicester to London would mean 2 operators and competition. Isn't that what privatisation is meant to be about?

That would have been the objective for the original construction, that and for the MS&L to avoid paying the Midland/GN to carry London traffic from its lines.
However, once competition damages the viability of one or both routes you just have two unprofitable lines with surplus capacity, which BR inherited.
The GC route was the one to lose out, and the Midland's economics improved as a result.
Many duplicate lines shared the same fate eg (Somerset & Dorset, Stratford-Cheltenham, M&GN, Harrogate-Northallerton, Ambergate-Chinley and many others).
BR was not in the competition game.
It could have been worse.
Apart from diverting Midland services to Euston, it could have sent Sheffield and Nottingham services into King's Cross via the ECML, pretty much destroying the Midland as a principal route.
The saviour there was the ECML not having the capacity to take the extra traffic, but even today you could have faster services that way if desired.

 

[Western Lord]

That would have been the objective for the original construction, that and for the MS&L to avoid paying the Midland/GN to carry London traffic from its lines.
However, once competition damages the viability of one or both routes you just have two unprofitable lines with surplus capacity, which BR inherited.
The GC route was the one to lose out, and the Midland's economics improved as a result.
Many duplicate lines shared the same fate eg (Somerset & Dorset, Stratford-Cheltenham, M&GN, Harrogate-Northallerton, Ambergate-Chinley and many others).
BR was not in the competition game.
It could have been worse.
Apart from diverting Midland services to Euston, it could have sent Sheffield and Nottingham services into King's Cross via the ECML, pretty much destroying the Midland as a principal route.
The saviour there was the ECML not having the capacity to take the extra traffic, but even today you could have faster services that way if desired.

When the GC rundown began, The Master Cutler was transferred to the ECML to run from Kings Cross to Sheffield via Retford, running this way from 1958 to 1968, after which all Sheffield traffic was concentrated on the MML.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I doubt it somehow, bearing in mind that the object of the exercise was to close St. Pancras. I would guess that suburban services to Luton and Bedford would have run into Moorgate via the Widened Lines, until Thameslink came along, while the line north of Bedford up through Corby would have been retained for freight traffic, probably with a sparse passenger service. Glendon to Market Harborough/Wigston (depending on which route to the WCML was used) would have closed. If the Midland route had been chosen then I think it would have been likely that Market Harborough would have disappeared off the railway map.

None of which affected the GC, which would have closed anyway.

Well put - the saving of St Pancras as a station was clearly down to the late Sir John Betjemann , who inadvertently from an architectural stance - saved the MML from truncation , - and whatever the petty gripes of today - the gentleman did well.

Difficult to imagine now the savage cuts considered in those days.