MML vs GCML

[RT4038]

Like "The Titfield Thunderbolt"; shiny new road coach vs 14xx and dusty old coaches.

Quite. And no Stanley Holloway to the rescue. But you are right, and that film is a real bit of social and transport history. (A crew operated Bedford OB as well !)

 

[daodao]

Trains ran much less frequently then, but it was generally faster by MML - often by quite a margin. [MML Nottingham trains ran via Melton and Sheffield trains via Erewash Valley]. However, because of the relative infrequency, a GC line train may have been more convenient at the time you wanted to travel.

Historically, there wasn't much difference in the time taken for London to Sheffield by the 3 different principal routes, which all had some variations themselves. The April 1910 Bradshaw guide shows 6 restaurant car expresses (Sundays excepted) from London to Sheffield taking less than 200 minutes:

• 0130 pm St Pancras to Sheffield Midland arriving 0435 pm, calling at Leicester London Road.
• 0315 pm Marylebone to Sheffield Victoria arriving 0612 pm, non-stop but slipping a coach at Leicester for Lincoln Central via Edwinstowe.
• 0330 pm St Pancras to Sheffield Midland arriving 0645 pm, calling at Kettering and Nottingham Midland and slipping a coach at Chesterfield Midland
• 0600 pm St Pancras to Sheffield Midland arriving 0910 pm, calling at Trent Junction to pick up for Belfast only (this was the Heysham boat train)
• 0605 pm King's Cross to Sheffield Victoria arriving 0905 pm, calling at Grantham
• 0620 pm Marylebone to Sheffield Victoria arriving 0934 pm, slipping a coach at Woodford Halse for Stratford-upon-Avon (arr 0826 pm) and calling at Leicester Central and Nottingham Victoria.

It reveals some interesting connections via long-closed routes and the journey time from Marylebone to Stratford-upon-Avon (SMJR) of 126 minutes is not much longer than today's fastest time for this journey. The fastest service from London to Sheffield was via the GC main line and the second fastest by the EC main line. Some of the faster Midland expresses to Leeds and Scotland ran via the "Old Road" and bypassed Sheffield Midland station.

In subsequent years, journey times were adversely affected by mining subsidence, and they only improved significantly with the introduction of the Inter-City 125 trains; the fastest trains now take 118 minutes from St Pancras to Sheffield Midland.

 

[didcotdean]

In Leicester even in the early 1950s, for going to London the choice of Leicester Central or London Road was often simply which side of the city centre you lived on, ie which station was quicker to get to..

 

[DerekC]

I suspect that was because the trains had long ceased to have any real relevance to local transport needs, and were basically running around empty. Northants. was not by any means unusual in this regard. The closed lines to the west of Northampton (Leamington, Banbury, Stratford) were all early closures running through empty countryside with little discernable passenger movement [save for Daventry, which had a splendid frequent omnibus service direct to Northampton] , and without direct train service to Northampton. The Northampton-Bedford and Kettering-Cambridge trains were empty, the Northampton-Wellingborough and Wellingborough-Higham Ferrers lines were very well served by buses (and Wellingborough Station is well out of the town) , as was Kettering-Corby. The Northampton-Market Harborough line only had inconveniently sited local stations, with more convenient buses. In suspect that the Northampton-Peterborough service [and the Rugby-Peterborough where it touched Northants] were pretty poorly used except for holiday trains.

What competition did a dirty steam train down at Castle or Bridge Street stations give to a splendid Lodekka to & from the Derngate bus station? !!!! (in those days of little traffic congestion, by passes, roundabouts etc.....)

I think you over-emphasise the role of buses in killing off rural railways. My memory of buses in the 50s and 60s is that they were slow, smelly and noisy. And there was plenty of traffic congestion. Don't forget that most major roads ran through the centre of towns. The real killer was the private car. The only times I used a bus to travel more than 5-10 miles was, ironically, the Oxford - Cambridge railway replacement after that line closed but before I passed my driving test. After that my £50 Austin A30 took me pretty much everywhere! It was slow, smelly and noisy too, but it ran where and when I wanted.

 

[chorleyjeff]

I think you over-emphasise the role of buses in killing off rural railways. My memory of buses in the 50s and 60s is that they were slow, smelly and noisy. And there was plenty of traffic congestion. Don't forget that most major roads ran through the centre of towns. The real killer was the private car. The only times I used a bus to travel more than 5-10 miles was, ironically, the Oxford - Cambridge railway replacement after that line closed but before I passed my driving test. After that my £50 Austin A30 took me pretty much everywhere! It was slow, smelly and noisy too, but it ran where and when I wanted.

I used to be dragged from Preston to Halifax by service bus with a change at Burnley. But because we lived close to the bus route and the far side of town from the railway station and the train was a slow change at Todmorden journey the times were not much different door to door, and there was the drag from Halifax station to the bus station to get the bus to Shibden valley. Also the bus was cheaper and there was one every hour even on Sunday evenings to get home. Don't think there was much of a train service on Sundays. On the other hand I didn't get travel sick on trains.

 

[778]

Historically, there wasn't much difference in the time taken for London to Sheffield by the 3 different principal routes, which all had some variations themselves. The April 1910 Bradshaw guide shows 6 restaurant car expresses (Sundays excepted) from London to Sheffield taking less than 200 minutes:

• 0130 pm St Pancras to Sheffield Midland arriving 0435 pm, calling at Leicester London Road.
• 0315 pm Marylebone to Sheffield Victoria arriving 0612 pm, non-stop but slipping a coach at Leicester for Lincoln Central via Edwinstowe.
• 0330 pm St Pancras to Sheffield Midland arriving 0645 pm, calling at Kettering and Nottingham Midland and slipping a coach at Chesterfield Midland
• 0600 pm St Pancras to Sheffield Midland arriving 0910 pm, calling at Trent Junction to pick up for Belfast only (this was the Heysham boat train)
• 0605 pm King's Cross to Sheffield Victoria arriving 0905 pm, calling at Grantham
• 0620 pm Marylebone to Sheffield Victoria arriving 0934 pm, slipping a coach at Woodford Halse for Stratford-upon-Avon (arr 0826 pm) and calling at Leicester Central and Nottingham Victoria.

It reveals some interesting connections via long-closed routes and the journey time from Marylebone to Stratford-upon-Avon (SMJR) of 126 minutes is not much longer than today's fastest time for this journey. The fastest service from London to Sheffield was via the GC main line and the second fastest by the EC main line. Some of the faster Midland expresses to Leeds and Scotland ran via the "Old Road" and bypassed Sheffield Midland station.

In subsequent years, journey times were adversely affected by mining subsidence, and they only improved significantly with the introduction of the Inter-City 125 trains; the fastest trains now take 118 minutes from St Pancras to Sheffield Midland.

If the Great Central had not closed, would it have had HSTs like the Midland Main Line?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If the Great Central had not closed, would it have had HSTs like the Midland Main Line?

Even the MML only got second hand HSTs when InterCity prized some away from the WR, who by 1983 were running them on secondary and even local services.
The GC, by then a 75mph secondary route, would not have figured high on the priority list, and would probably have gone down the Chiltern route with DMUs, or possibly LHCS like XC, in the 1980s.
It might have become a 158-serviced route perhaps, maybe feeling like today's LSWR Waterloo-Exeter route.
How far it went beyond Sheffield would have depended on the fate of Woodhead, which lost out to the Hope valley route as the main route to Manchester.
The MML has had significant upgrades from its 90mph since HSTs were introduced, making 125mph stock worthwhile.
It's hard to see the GC line receiving anything like those upgrades.

Edit: In fact, BR pursued a singling policy on downgraded main lines, like Salisbury-Exeter, Oxford-Worcester-Hereford and (close by) Princes Risborough-Aynho Jn.
So I'd expect the GC would have been singled north of Aylesbury, or perhaps Calvert.
That in itself would have extended journey times, especially if token exchange was used as it was on Moreton-in-Marsh-Evesham-Norton Jn for 40 years.

Then there's the uses to which the GC trackbed has been put over the years.
I'm not familiar with the area but new roads (M1 was it?) and things like the Nottingham trams would not have been able to reuse the GC route.
No shopping centre at Nottingham Victoria either.
The Yorks/Notts colliery closures in the 1980s would have impacted freight services on the line.

 

[70014IronDuke]

If the Great Central had not closed, would it have had HSTs like the Midland Main Line?

I see @LNW-GW Joint has largely written what I was going to say.

I'm not sure about the track geometry around the island platforms, but assuming the smaller stations had been closed, I think the GC could have been largely brought up to a 100 or 110 mph main line, if the investment had been made. However, it could never have been justified, unless the Midland had been relegated to a secondary line - and that was never going to happen in favour of the GC.

What the GC needed was some sizeable populations not served by the LNW or Midland, and then in a best case scenario it might have survived as a sort of Salisbury - Exeter line. It needed places like Ruddington, one of the small stops between Loughboro and Leicester, Lutterworth and, especially, Brackley to be three-four times as large. With some singling, it might then have supported a 1 TPH Marylebone - Aylesbury - all major shacks to Nottingham service. But with investment £s as ever being tight in the mid-60s, even that would have been a tough call.

 

[RT4038]

I think you over-emphasise the role of buses in killing off rural railways. My memory of buses in the 50s and 60s is that they were slow, smelly and noisy. And there was plenty of traffic congestion. Don't forget that most major roads ran through the centre of towns. The real killer was the private car. The only times I used a bus to travel more than 5-10 miles was, ironically, the Oxford - Cambridge railway replacement after that line closed but before I passed my driving test. After that my £50 Austin A30 took me pretty much everywhere! It was slow, smelly and noisy too, but it ran where and when I wanted.

Local railways lost much of their passenger traffic in the late 20s/early 30s to the buses, mostly because the buses stropped closer to where the passengers wanted go and come from, and were often cheaper too. You are right about private cars - they took much of the (fairly small remaining) longer distance traffic on local lines, plus traffic from the buses. Most passenger journeys at that time only went up to 10 miles anyway. Buses were slower, but usually more frequent and much more likely to have convenient stops so overall journey times often compared favourably with a rail journey probably up to about 25-30 miles or so.

 

[Dr_Paul]

The Midland Railway's Leicester - Bedford section was built very much down to a price (the contractor bidding the lowest price was then told to reduce it considerably more) and wasn't a fast alignment as a result. It twists around to avoid hills (and, possibly, expensive landowners) except the unavoidable ones at Desborough and Sharnbrook.

I didn't travel on the Midland main line (London to Sheffield) until several years after travelling the East Coast and West Coast main lines and the Great Western main line, and was surprised at how slow it was in comparison to them. I travelled on an HST and it didn't seem to go anything as fast as the ones on which I had travelled on the ECML.

 

[A0wen]

Even the MML only got second hand HSTs when InterCity prized some away from the WR, who by 1983 were running them on secondary and even local services.
The GC, by then a 75mph secondary route, would not have figured high on the priority list, and would probably have gone down the Chiltern route with DMUs, or possibly LHCS like XC, in the 1980s.
It might have become a 158-serviced route perhaps, maybe feeling like today's LSWR Waterloo-Exeter route.
How far it went beyond Sheffield would have depended on the fate of Woodhead, which lost out to the Hope valley route as the main route to Manchester.
The MML has had significant upgrades from its 90mph since HSTs were introduced, making 125mph stock worthwhile.
It's hard to see the GC line receiving anything like those upgrades.

Edit: In fact, BR pursued a singling policy on downgraded main lines, like Salisbury-Exeter, Oxford-Worcester-Hereford and (close by) Princes Risborough-Aynho Jn.
So I'd expect the GC would have been singled north of Aylesbury, or perhaps Calvert.
That in itself would have extended journey times, especially if token exchange was used as it was on Moreton-in-Marsh-Evesham-Norton Jn for 40 years.

Then there's the uses to which the GC trackbed has been put over the years.
I'm not familiar with the area but new roads (M1 was it?) and things like the Nottingham trams would not have been able to reuse the GC route.
No shopping centre at Nottingham Victoria either.
The Yorks/Notts colliery closures in the 1980s would have impacted freight services on the line.

Bit in bold - the M1 didn't use the GCR trackbed - in fact the bridge over the M1 near Blaby is still there, as is the bridge over the M45 near Dunchurch. The M1 was built whilst the GC was still open.

The one bit of the GCR which was turned over to a road is the GC's loop through Chesterfield which is now part of the A61 through there.

 

[edwin_m]

Bit in bold - the M1 didn't use the GCR trackbed - in fact the bridge over the M1 near Blaby is still there, as is the bridge over the M45 near Dunchurch. The M1 was built whilst the GC was still open.

The one bit of the GCR which was turned over to a road is the GC's loop through Chesterfield which is now part of the A61 through there.

Indeed. The GC trackbed and the occasional bridge is still just about discernable on the western side of the M1, northwards from Lutterworth towards Leicester.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Indeed. The GC trackbed and the occasional bridge is still just about discernable on the western side of the M1, northwards from Lutterworth towards Leicester.

In the early to mid 1980s, I used to drive on the M1 frequently. In those days the track bed etc. was very conspicuous and was not at all concealed by vegetation as it is today.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

If the Great Central had not closed, would it have had HSTs like the Midland Main Line?

If the GCML had not closed, I imagine it would have been reduced to a sleepy cross-country line from Banbury to Nottingham. I doubt any London services would still exist.

 

[Poolie]

I would love to see photos of the Nottingham semi fasts running alongside the M1.

 

[ChrisC]

I'm not sure about the track geometry around the island platforms, but assuming the smaller stations had been closed, I think the GC could have been largely brought up to a 100 or 110 mph main line, if the investment had been made. However, it could never have been justified, unless the Midland had been relegated to a secondary line - and that was never going to happen in favour of the GC.

I know it was never going to happen but I often wonder what journey times on the GC would have been like if it had been upgraded to 100 mph or above and HSTs used. Would it have been quicker than the MML from Sheffield, Nottingham and Leicester to London. Mining subsidence north of Nottingham wouldn’t have helped or the constraints of running into Marylebone sharing tracks with other trains.

 

[Harvester]

I would love to see photos of the Nottingham semi fasts running alongside the M1.

There doesn’t seem to be many published! Also the time window between the M1 extension from Lutterworth to Leicester (1965) and the end of the steam hauled Nottingham-Marylebone semi-fasts (1966) was relatively short.

 

[edwin_m]

When considering which of the MML and GCML to keep, an important consideration was connectivity to destinations other than London. The GC/GN was particularly poor to the west from Nottingham, being fairly indirect to Derby and even more so to Birmingham, with no easy way to make it connect to the Midland route westwards in either Nottingham or Derby. Hence it was a fairly easy decision to retain the core of the Midland network (excluding Nottingham to Melton).

Removing the GC services duplicated by this network left it with only Nottingham to Rugby, which was never going to carry enough people to sustain the infrastructure (and if such a service was needed then it would have been better to keep the Midland Leicester-Rugby route which had better connectivity at both ends).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Removing the GC services duplicated by this network left it with only Nottingham to Rugby, which was never going to carry enough people to sustain the infrastructure (and if such a service was needed then it would have been better to keep the Midland Leicester-Rugby route which had better connectivity at both ends).

And yet the Midland Rugby-Leicester route (part of the original Midland Counties Railway) closed pre-Beeching in 1962.
Part of that closure proposal would have been the complexities of the junctions at Rugby and Wigston, especially at Rugby with electrification in progress.
There's a piece here which shows the GC route alongside the M1 (no trains, though), describing a local bid to reopen the line.

New stations planned in bid to re-open lost railway line

The Rugby to Leicester line was scrapped during the 1960s cuts

www.leicestermercury.co.uk

Now however sustainable Transport Northamptonshire would seek to reconnect the old railway line and include two new passenger stations at Lutterworth, Cosby and possibly another at Broughton Astley.
The route could also operate services between Northampton and Nottingham with a plan to link up the Magna Park logistics hub near Lutterworth.
The project would see the railway line following its original position on the Great Central railway adjacent to the M1 motorway before linking up with the Birmingham to Leicester line near the existing Narborough station.

I can't think NR would welcome the route back to Rugby, given how it has been optimized for 125mph through traffic.

 

[Mat17]

Is it still possible to travel from Sheffield to Marylebone (just out of interest) not using the Underground? I assume change at Brum?

I've always fancied travelling on the bits that are left of the GC - and it ain't much.

 

[D6130]

That photo must have been taken shortly after closure in 1969, judging by the rusty state of the rails. Look at how few vehicles are on the M1 compared to today's traffic levels.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I know it was never going to happen but I often wonder what journey times on the GC would have been like if it had been upgraded to 100 mph or above and HSTs used. Would it have been quicker than the MML from Sheffield, Nottingham and Leicester to London. Mining subsidence north of Nottingham wouldn’t have helped or the constraints of running into Marylebone sharing tracks with other trains.

I think there are so many "what ifs" involved here - mainly linked to what if BR had invested £x million in eradicating this or that psr - that it is impossible to give a definitive answer.

What would have been interesting is if the GC had stuck to its original plan - at least as I have read - which was to make Marylebone a 'temporary' terminus prior to tunnelling under the Thames and joining the GC up to the SECR (I don't know where, presumably somewhere like London Bridge - Bricklayers Arms) and creating a "Thameslink" service to Dover/Folkestone before WW1.

Presumably such a link would have made a massive impact on the choice of route to London, or rather beyond London, to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of passengers annually wanting a direct serice into Kent and Sussex destinations, and v v.

And surely it would have meant the continued existence of the GC beyond 1966, in all probability to the detriment of the Midland route.

 

[Class800]

Is it still possible to travel from Sheffield to Marylebone (just out of interest) not using the Underground? I assume change at Brum?

I've always fancied travelling on the bits that are left of the GC - and it ain't much.

It is possible will need to change there are several options where including Birmingham but involves a change of station, Banbury and Birmingham with no change of station or even Banbury and Manchester

 

[Harvester]

There are a couple of daily CrossCountry services running direct from Sheffield to Banbury via New Street. So Marylebone can be reached from Sheffield by one change of train.

 

[Matt P]

Given the MML seems to have been the more competitive route and added to that provided better connectivity, why is the loss of GCML evoke so much interest (I am being slightly hypocritical here, I enjoy a good 'what if' debate)?

What would the GCML give us today that don't have, either if it hadn't closed or if the full formation remained intact and could easily be reopened?

In terms of higher speed, then even the London Extension would be considered comparatively slow by new-build standards. Even with upgrades and some alignment the concensus seems to be it would be a 125mph route rather than 155mph or 186mph. Achieving the latter would result probably not have been acheiveable had the route stayed open. My reason for that is it it had, it would have had to have had or considered likely to have sufficient traffic to be retained, so extensive rebuilding would have distrusted it. That traffic may also not have been compatible with higher speed trains, at least not without extensive four tracking.

Whilst the London Extension gives an additional pair of tracks most of the way to London, this is only true as far as Ashendon jcn or Aylesbury depending on the route to Marylebone. So the benefits of additional capacity are not really there unless quadrupling of the southern sections is undertaken.

The main benefits to me would seem to be some connectivity that doesn't exist today. But this comes via the Banbury link rather than the full route. However I am not sure how much capacity is gained elsewhere (e.g. Birmingham New Street) by the potential for some Cross Country services to operate that effectively bypass Birmingham. However I suspect this would, at best, reduce the number of trains travelling through Birmingham by a handful per day. Indeed capacity in the West Midlands would seem to be better suited to another 'What If', i.e not closing Snow Hill to Wolverhampton Low Level and possibly the exGWR routes to Dudley from Wolves and Brum, which seem to be to be far greater losses both in terms of capacity and connectivity.

The other issue with connectivity is that the GCML lack connections to the WCML and to Birmingham so being a major diversionary or supplementary route to the WCML was never an option.

Is it just a case of nostalgia ?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Given the MML seems to have been the more competitive route and added to that provided better connectivity, why is the loss of GCML evoke so much interest (I am being slightly hypocritical here, I enjoy a good 'what if' debate)?

What would the GCML give us today that don't have, either if it hadn't closed or if the full formation remained intact and could easily be reopened?

In terms of higher speed, then even the London Extension would be considered comparatively slow by new-build standards. Even with upgrades and some alignment the concensus seems to be it would be a 125mph route rather than 155mph or 186mph. Achieving the latter would result probably not have been acheiveable had the route stayed open. My reason for that is it it had, it would have had to have had or considered likely to have sufficient traffic to be retained, so extensive rebuilding would have distrusted it. That traffic may also not have been compatible with higher speed trains, at least not without extensive four tracking.

Whilst the London Extension gives an additional pair of tracks most of the way to London, this is only true as far as Ashendon jcn or Aylesbury depending on the route to Marylebone. So the benefits of additional capacity are not really there unless quadrupling of the southern sections is undertaken.

The main benefits to me would seem to be some connectivity that doesn't exist today. But this comes via the Banbury link rather than the full route. However I am not sure how much capacity is gained elsewhere (e.g. Birmingham New Street) by the potential for some Cross Country services to operate that effectively bypass Birmingham. However I suspect this would, at best, reduce the number of trains travelling through Birmingham by a handful per day. Indeed capacity in the West Midlands would seem to be better suited to another 'What If', i.e not closing Snow Hill to Wolverhampton Low Level and possibly the exGWR routes to Dudley from Wolves and Brum, which seem to be to be far greater losses both in terms of capacity and connectivity.

The other issue with connectivity is that the GCML lack connections to the WCML and to Birmingham so being a major diversionary or supplementary route to the WCML was never an option.

Is it just a case of nostalgia ?

Of course, it's primarily a matter of nostalgia.

There was never a rational reason to build the London Extension and it was not done as a serious business venture. A sensible, profit-oriented approach would have been to veer east south of Rugby, taking in Daventry and Buckingham, both important towns in the 1890s, using only the northern most few miles of the Metropolitan Line format, constructing an entirely new route between Wendover and Moor Park and, most of all, building a spur providing freight access east to the Port Of London.

When in the 1960s British Rail had to close one of the various routes heading north from London, the ex Great Central route was the obvious choice. South of Rugby, it served nowhere substantial, its major passenger destinations could be served from Euston or St. Pancras and its use as a freight route was limited to traffic which could access Acton Wells Junction from the west.

The one advantage the London Extension had over the Midland Main Line was that it had fewer speed restricting curves, and it is this element that excites the nostalgics. With the minor stations closed, their island platfoms bulldozed away and new track laid, the route could have been faster than the MML . . . . until it reached south Buckinghamshire.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Arguably, the lost opportunity was in 1846 when the Oxford & Rugby Railway decided, under GWR influence, to head for Birmingham directly instead.
Combined with the Midland's Leicester-Rugby line, there would have been no need for an extra route across the east/south midlands.

Closing the GC in the 60s also made a mockery of the (LNER-initiated) Woodhead electrification, which lasted only 25 years beyond Hadfield (15 in passenger use).
How much better if one of the "LMS" routes had been wired instead (Standedge, probably).
We are still struggling to electrify a trans-Pennine route to link the WCML and ECML.

 

[RT4038]

I would love to see photos of the Nottingham semi fasts running alongside the M1.

With all of these daytime trains stopping at both Lutterworth and Ashby Magna, I wouldn't think it was particularly impressive on the speed front. My one trip before closure (on a 4-car London area DMU) it was pretty much a plod!

Given the MML seems to have been the more competitive route and added to that provided better connectivity, why is the loss of GCML evoke so much interest (I am being slightly hypocritical here, I enjoy a good 'what if' debate)?


Is it just a case of nostalgia ?

A bit like the Somerset & Dorset, interest is in inverse proportion to the number of passengers using the line in the years prior to closure!

Closing the GC in the 60s also made a mockery of the (LNER-initiated) Woodhead electrification, which lasted only 25 years beyond Hadfield (15 in passenger use).

I wouldn't say a 'mockery' . The North Eastern Railway electrified the Shildon-Newport (Middlesbrough) line in about 1919 to move the considerable freight traffic more economically. When the coal export trade collapsed (due largely to the 1926 miners strike, and subsequent depression) the line was de-electrified in about 1935 and subsequently much closed completely. As it happened passenger trains were never routed on this line. A similar fate has befallen the freight traffic on the Woodhead route, and the (relatively minor) passenger flows easily diverted on a parallel line. Traffic patterns change - the electrification on both lines lasted a similar amount of time, give or take a few years.

 

[6Gman]

A bit like the Somerset & Dorset, interest is in inverse proportion to the number of passengers using the line in the years prior to closure!

(coughs)

Aberystwyth-Carmarthen reopening.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Closing the GC in the 60s also made a mockery of the (LNER-initiated) Woodhead electrification, which lasted only 25 years beyond Hadfield (15 in passenger use).

Electrification of Woodhead solved the difficulty of steam-working through the tunnels and over the precipitous Worsbrough incline - the coal traffic was extremely heavy and a very valuable revenue stream for the LNER. It was never the intention to electrify the GC Extension, but instead continue to Retford and eventually the ECML to KX. All the Transpennine routes were operating at full capacity at the time of nationalisation, with endless coal trains clanking their way over - it was not realised how quickly it would all disappear.