If you could go back in time and build Britain's railways from scratch...

[Route115?]

Randon thoughts

There are plenty of examples where there is more infrastructure in some locations and not enough in another. Do we need six tracks betweem Harrow on the Hill & Neasden? If you could magically relocate it to West Ruislip - Gerrads X it would be great. Just a local example.

There was an Act that prevented lines coming into central London hence main line termini all around the circle line. It would be have been great to have a mega terminal under lets say Hyde Park which would improve transfers. (I wrote a thesis on the feasibility of a central London station. It would require a LOT of building!)

I suspect that there are many locations where a single centralises station in a town would have helped. We can all come up with examples.

Historically Northampton would have benefitted if the WCML went through it (but if you read the history books that wasn't going to happen).

In many cases it would have been nice to spend a bit more to avoid annoying curves, but the history of land acquisition would have made it hard at the time. Its interesting how the ECML was straightened out over time.

One recent example. Couldn't Stratford International have been built in a tunnel under Stratford Regional which would have facilitated interchange.

 

[Dr Hoo]

One recent example. Couldn't Stratford International have been built in a tunnel under Stratford Regional which would have facilitated interchange.

Didn't Stratford International have to be in a 'box', built essentially in the open on a brownfield site, to accommodate its multiple tracks, platforms and link to Temple Mills depot? I can't really imagine boring all that lot out.

I suppose that you could have closed the GEML, North London, Central Line, DLR and Jubilee at Stratford for a few years, lifted them all, dug a box out and put a lid on afterwards but it would probably have been more disruptive and delayed the Olympics.

Would the improved interchange have justified that?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I'm surprised that it took until post #31 for the London issue to be mentioned. Had there been a central guiding mind in the 1820s perhaps some priority would have been given to ensuring a joined up approach to the concept of a national network, by whatever means of finance, and this might have foreseen the need for cross-London routes and thus pushed back against the NIMBY opposition to railway encroachment on central London. Given the limited construction techniques available back then this would almost certainly have led to elevated lines across the capital much like Berlin or the metro in Chicago both of which penetrate the heart of their respective cities. South of the Thames the earliest lines very much depended on long stretches of brick-built viaducts eventually creating lots of business premises "under the arches".

And such an approach could have avoided the fragmented development of networks in many other places and which still causes issues today. most notably in Manchester and Glasgow, as well as providing a better foundation for local service development in places like Nottingham, Sheffield, Liverpool, etc.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I'm surprised that it took until post #31 for the London issue to be mentioned. Had there been a central guiding mind in the 1820s perhaps some priority would have been given to ensuring a joined up approach to the concept of a national network, by whatever means of finance, and this might have foreseen the need for cross-London routes and thus pushed back against the NIMBY opposition to railway encroachment on central London. Given the limited construction techniques available back then this would almost certainly have led to elevated lines across the capital much like Berlin or the metro in Chicago both of which penetrate the heart of their respective cities. South of the Thames the earliest lines very much depended on long stretches of brick-built viaducts eventually creating lots of business premises "under the arches".

And such an approach could have avoided the fragmented development of networks in many other places and which still causes issues today. most notably in Manchester and Glasgow, as well as providing a better foundation for local service development in places like Nottingham, Sheffield, Liverpool, etc.

Although the 'problem' with London was that (a) the centre was already a well-established city (unlike, say, Chicago) and (b) many of the buildings were actually quite 'new' having been built in the 18th century and in the wake of the Great Fire without having left suitably-dimensioned transport corridors.

 

[21C195 Brentor]

I'm surprised that it took until post #31 for the London issue to be mentioned. Had there been a central guiding mind in the 1820s perhaps some priority would have been given to ensuring a joined up approach to the concept of a national network, by whatever means of finance, and this might have foreseen the need for cross-London routes and thus pushed back against the NIMBY opposition to railway encroachment on central London. Given the limited construction techniques available back then this would almost certainly have led to elevated lines across the capital much like Berlin or the metro in Chicago both of which penetrate the heart of their respective cities. South of the Thames the earliest lines very much depended on long stretches of brick-built viaducts eventually creating lots of business premises "under the arches".

And such an approach could have avoided the fragmented development of networks in many other places and which still causes issues today. most notably in Manchester and Glasgow, as well as providing a better foundation for local service development in places like Nottingham, Sheffield, Liverpool, etc.

I am very grateful that London didn't end up like Liverpool, New York or Berlin... whatever mess has been made of London, especially since WW2, at least it is not scarred by a mass of elevated iron viaducts through the West End and Square Mile. While there could be an argument for a Union Terminal, Brunel argued against just such an idea on the basis - entirely correct, as it turned out - that the amount of cross-London traffic would be a tiny fraction of the size of that for which the capital was the destination in itself. The cross-London lines that were built saw very little traffic until well into the modern era. What one could argue for is a joint GNR/Midland/LNWR terminus in the Bloomsbury/Holborn area, and likewise perhaps a single giant terminus for the various Southern lines... but the GWR and GER would probably need their own terminii. If the NLR came into being, they could share a larger Liverpool Street with the GER rather than building next door at Broad Street.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Definitely less terminus stations in London.

 

[mike57]

There was an Act that prevented lines coming into central London hence main line termini all around the circle line. It would be have been great to have a mega terminal under lets say Hyde Park which would improve transfers. (I wrote a thesis on the feasibility of a central London station. It would require a LOT of building!)

There were plans to create a large station in the Farringdon area, but the idea neve progressed beyond plans. Jago Hazzard made a good video about it.

 

[yorksrob]

I am very grateful that London didn't end up like Liverpool, New York or Berlin... whatever mess has been made of London, especially since WW2, at least it is not scarred by a mass of elevated iron viaducts through the West End and Square Mile. While there could be an argument for a Union Terminal, Brunel argued against just such an idea on the basis - entirely correct, as it turned out - that the amount of cross-London traffic would be a tiny fraction of the size of that for which the capital was the destination in itself. The cross-London lines that were built saw very little traffic until well into the modern era. What one could argue for is a joint GNR/Midland/LNWR terminus in the Bloomsbury/Holborn area, and likewise perhaps a single giant terminus for the various Southern lines... but the GWR and GER would probably need their own terminii. If the NLR came into being, they could share a larger Liverpool Street with the GER rather than building next door at Broad Street.

The southern companies generally wanted a station for the West End and a station for the City, hence Charing Cross/Cannon Street for the South Eastern Railway, Holborn Viaduct/Victoria for the Chatham and Victoria/London Bridge for the Brighton.

All leaves us with the jolly old jumble of lines we enjoy today !

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Four track main lines under major cities such as in Zurich or Berlin. Principles of major out of town parkway-type stations.

Four track main lines between said major cities. Examples Bristol - Birmingham - Leeds, Sheffield - Manchester - Liverpool and the like.

 

[Kingston Dan]

There are a number of routes which would never have been built, in all likelihood. The S&C and Great Central London Extension come to mind. But equally there probably wouldn't be the nonsense Birmingham having two separate networks which only have one minor station in common (Smethwick GB), or Manchester and Glasgow having two separate main stations.

Except both Manchester and Glasgow originally had four (five if you count Oxford Road Manchester) major stations - most cities had competing stations and many now suffer from terminal capacity problems following rationalisation in the 1960s/70s. I guess the issue is what you use rail for - would a system of central 'hauptbahnofs' with metro/light rail connections could have been developed?

 

[Mikey C]

A London with fewer larger terminuses would be an improvement. And along with that avoiding some of the unnecessary duplication across the country, with towns and cities still having separate lines and stations which don't interchange.

The impossibly complicated south London rail network, with all its loops and junctions could surely be much improved upon, with a clean sheet of paper!

 

[miklcct]

I would build every main line with 4 tracks.

 

[AM9]

I would build every main line with 4 tracks.

In the early days that would seem like a bit of a gamble.

 

[Bald Rick]

Didn't Stratford International have to be in a 'box', built essentially in the open on a brownfield site, to accommodate its multiple tracks, platforms and link to Temple Mills depot? I can't really imagine boring all that lot out.

indeed so. It is also below the water table and ‘floats’. A deep mined tunnel there would be, err, interesting. It couldn’t be a mined cavern.

I suppose that you could have closed the GEML, North London, Central Line, DLR and Jubilee at Stratford for a few years, lifted them all, dug a box out and put a lid on afterwards but it would probably have been more disruptive and delayed the Olympics.

Probably 10 years. See Old Oak Common.

 

[Gostav]

I would build every main line with 4 tracks.

In many countries they even started from build single line and then doubled or more when the traffic demand becomes reasonable. In Beijing, China, there are two mainlines are still single line. Kowloon–Canton Railway also begin from a single line.

Here is an example of developing of JR network in Tokyo, you can see how the lines changed from single to double, four, six and even more tracks.

 

[MattRat]

If I could meddle with something like this, I'd make everything Brunel's broad guage, just to see how successful it could actually be.

 

[faltskog36abba]

Except both Manchester and Glasgow originally had four (five if you count Oxford Road Manchester) major stations - most cities had competing stations and many now suffer from terminal capacity problems following rationalisation in the 1960s/70s. I guess the issue is what you use rail for - would a system of central 'hauptbahnofs' with metro/light rail connections could have been developed?

Manchester had six If you Add Mayfield, 1910- 1960- Which was an overflow station to take pressure off Piccadilly nearby.

 

[randyrippley]

I would build every main line with 4 tracks.

would have been totally unaffordable

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

would have been totally unaffordable

The premise of the OP was that respondents have free reign to impose their vision in almost any way they see fit. Of course railways in this country were nearly all built at the behest of private companies looking to make money with almost no input from government although those with wealth, and therefore influence, could block or amend individual railway bills in Parliament. But in an imaginary scenario where laissez-faire management of the economy by government is replaced by a centralised strategic direction, including the possibility of public-sector financial involvement, why should four-tracking of routes be automatically "totally unaffordable"? Four tracks over Sugar Loaf would clearly be a nonsense but on radial routes from main urban centres, such as they were at the time, seems perfectly reasonable in the scenario encompassed by this thread. No need for business cases or CBAs!

 

[cle]

The tricky part of this question is the assumption that places of note and demand are the same - as many of these grew due to the railway being as it was.

For example, if you re-routed the WCML through Northampton on the main - it would be a very different place today. Maybe to the expense of MK.

Or if the ECML ran up through Leeds, for example - York would not the the same hub it is. Others like Crewe could have similar fates.

Not to be fiddly for the sake of it, but the railway and urban history/development are entirely co-dependent. Different railway, different placemaking.

 

[zwk500]

The tricky part of this question is the assumption that places of note and demand are the same - as many of these grew due to the railway being as it was.

For example, if you re-routed the WCML through Northampton on the main - it would be a very different place today. Maybe to the expense of MK.

Or if the ECML ran up through Leeds, for example - York would not the the same hub it is. Others like Crewe could have similar fates.

Not to be fiddly for the sake of it, but the railway and urban history/development are entirely co-dependent. Different railway, different placemaking.

Arguably, the ECML routing via Leeds not Doncaster with a branch to York and Hull would be a much better railway than what we have. Alas for hills, the geography north of Leeds being decidedly unfavourable to early locomotives whereas the Vale of York provided a lovely low-profile route up to Northallerton or so.

 

[iainbhx]

One of my interests aside from railways is Alternate History, and particularly "Alien Space Bats" scenarios involving a particular person, location or collection of items being projected back through town. One of the best was written by a then Birmingham City Councillor, Iain Bowen, on Thatcher's Britain finding itself back in the 1730s (rest of the world). He also did a rather good one (much shorter) on an alternative development of British Railways from the 1950s onwards.

I feel seen But thank you for your kind words.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Or if the ECML ran up through Leeds, for example - York would not the the same hub it is. Others like Crewe could have similar fates.

York was well established as an important centre long before the railways came along. If anything the early part of the industrial revolution is what allowed other centres in Yorkshire (particularly Leeds, Bradford and Sheffield) to grow to eclipse York. That said, I can certainly imagine a "parallel universe" where the main route up the east side of the island would omit Doncaster and York in favour of Sheffield and Bradford or Leeds.

Crewe on the other hand, without the railway (and especially without the railway works) would still be a sleepy rural village. Given the number of routes that do converge there in our timeline though, there's every chance that in said parallel universe at least one of those would pass close enough to Crewe that a more modest station would be provided. Depending on how Crewe ended up growing (or not) without a major railway interchange, it would possibly close for a big chunk of the 20th century before being reopened around the start of the 21st.

 

[NoRoute]

Not to be fiddly for the sake of it, but the railway and urban history/development are entirely co-dependent. Different railway, different placemaking.

That co-dependency operated up until the early 1930s or possibly 1940s but has been steadily breaking down, some towns and cities are entirely new or have grown substantially since the 1970s but the rail network hasn't changed much in the last 60 years after Beeching. You look at the rail network today and the levels of connectivity which towns and cities have, the links between adjacent cities and towns and the outcome is pretty random, parts of the rail network don't reflect modern urban development.

 

[cle]

That co-dependency operated up until the early 1930s or possibly 1940s but has been steadily breaking down, some towns and cities are entirely new or have grown substantially since the 1970s but the rail network hasn't changed much in the last 60 years after Beeching. You look at the rail network today and the levels of connectivity which towns and cities have, the links between adjacent cities and towns and the outcome is pretty random, parts of the rail network don't reflect modern urban development.

Other than London and the big traditional/ex-industrial cities - which are some smaller cities which have thrived economically or at least improved in stature, and grown in status, in the last, say 10-20 years?

Reading, Milton Keynes, Oxford, Cambridge, Peterborough, Brighton - are just some. Up north, I think most growth has been in those larger cities, nothing has stood out in the same way. Possibly Chester? Preston at a push?

But what they all have in common is great rail links, and rail improvements (as well as the existing network) - investing in railways improves cities' and towns' economies and prospects.

"parts of the rail network don't reflect modern urban development." - can you give some examples? I would argue the opposite. Places off the rail map might as well not exist, and are dormitory/dependent in nature, and unknown, parochial bubbles - Leigh, Skem, Washington... obscure to those not close or very familiar.

 

[NoRoute]

Reading, Milton Keynes, Oxford, Cambridge, Peterborough, Brighton - are just some. Up north, I think most growth has been in those larger cities, nothing has stood out in the same way. Possibly Chester? Preston at a push?

But what they all have in common is great rail links, and rail improvements (as well as the existing network) - investing in railways improves cities' and towns' economies and prospects.

"parts of the rail network don't reflect modern urban development." - can you give some examples? I would argue the opposite. Places off the rail map might as well not exist, and are dormitory/dependent in nature, and unknown, parochial bubbles - Leigh, Skem, Washington... obscure to those not close or very familiar.

Ok so take Milton Keynes, major city south is Luton, can you get a train there? No, route is so slow as to be unviable. Major towns and cities heading north are Northampton and then Leicester and Nottingham, you can get to Northampton but there's no service to Leicester and Nottingham, rail times are uncompetitive with the M1. Fancy going from Milton Keynes or Northampton over to Peterborough or across to Oxford, by rail forget it. They all have rail links to London, or heading away from London, but the rail connectivity anywhere else is non-existent.

It isn't the rail network which has helped these towns and cities but their connection to the motorway network, to the M1, the M4, the M40.

 

[AM9]

Ok so take Milton Keynes, major city south is Luton,

I don't disagree with your general comments but Luton certainly isn't a city.

 

[cle]

Ok so take Milton Keynes, major city south is Luton, can you get a train there? No, route is so slow as to be unviable. Major towns and cities heading north are Northampton and then Leicester and Nottingham, you can get to Northampton but there's no service to Leicester and Nottingham, rail times are uncompetitive with the M1. Fancy going from Milton Keynes or Northampton over to Peterborough or across to Oxford, by rail forget it. They all have rail links to London, or heading away from London, but the rail connectivity anywhere else is non-existent.

It isn't the rail network which has helped these towns and cities but their connection to the motorway network, to the M1, the M4, the M40.

Or the 30 minute non stop rail service to Central London?

Imagine thinking Milton Keynes’s growth/success is predicated on proximity to Luton or Leicester via M1. Likewise for the others.

Nowhere small or medium sized (besides rail towns like Crewe, Doncaster, Preston) has services radiating in all directions. MK doesn’t need services to Peterborough. Watford doesn’t need services to Welwyn. They don’t relate to one another.

 

[NoRoute]

Or the 30 minute non stop rail service to Central London?

Imagine thinking Milton Keynes’s growth/success is predicated on proximity to Luton or Leicester via M1. Likewise for the others.

Look at any statistics for transport and rail's share of trips and journeys is a small proportion of transport activity compared to road transport (2% of trips by rail, 9% distance by rail, pre-pandemic). Sure Milton Keynes has London commuters, but its dependence on road transport will be similar, and most of the local employment is in office, retail and logistics types roles, with people travelling into and around MK from surrounding areas. MK and Northampton both have extensive employment in logistics, all built upon their location and proximity to motorway and major road routes.

Nowhere small or medium sized (besides rail towns like Crewe, Doncaster, Preston) has services radiating in all directions. MK doesn’t need services to Peterborough. Watford doesn’t need services to Welwyn. They don’t relate to one another.

And I would not expect a railway mania of routes and services radiating outward in all directions, but if you were building a railway network from scratch, designed to meet the needs of 2022 rather the 1880, then you would certainly connect MK to Luton. You would certainly mirror the route of the M1 Motorway to link MK and Northampton to Leicester and Nottingham. You would likely fill-in the gaps to have a route along the Nene Valley, to connect Northampton, Wellingborough, Kettering, Corby and Peterborough.

 

[Mogz]

As a general principle, siting the station as near as possible to each town or village’s main thoroughfare or High Street.

One of the problems with many lines and stations was (still is in some cases) that they were too far away from the populations they purported to serve, often because landowners insisted on their re-routing so as to stop the line spoiling the view.

One example is the Hooton-West Kirby branch line on the Wirral.

The original plan was for this to have been built further inland, which would have meant better serving the towns and villages they passed through, as well as being close to the main road that runs down the west coast of the Wirral. As it was, the local landowner didn’t like this and so the line was re-routed and never reached its potential.

Another is a true London orbital railway linking all the mainlines without having to go into central London.