MML vs GCML

[Falcon1200]

Closing the GC in the 60s also made a mockery of the (LNER-initiated) Woodhead electrification

I wouldn't say a 'mockery' .

Nor would I; Woodhead was not electrified for the main purpose of Manchester/London passenger trains!

 

[zwk500]

Is it just a case of nostalgia ?

Yes

 

[D6130]

Nor would I; Woodhead was not electrified for the main purpose of Manchester/London passenger trains!

Agreed, but the 90 mph EM2 (class 77) locos weren't designed for the 60 mph Woodhead line in the long term.

 

[Falcon1200]

Agreed, but the 90 mph EM2 (class 77) locos weren't designed for the 60 mph Woodhead line in the long term.

Very true, but once the railway was nationalised I doubt any more of the GCR was ever going to be electrified, and of course 1500v dc was ditched anyway.

 

[tbtc]

The GC will still be a source of fascination in decades to come

I’ve mentioned before the situation at Skipton, where the SELRAP campaign suggest a hugely busy route if only the Colne line hadn’t been closed (electrified, three passenger trains an hour, direct services to Hull/ Manchester airport/ Liverpool etc, hourly freight) which sounds a lot more that the lines from Skipton to Lancaster/ Carlisle (which see a Sprinter every couple of hours and precious little freight nowadays, a few stations in the “Just one departing passenger per service” category, a long time since WCML expresses were diverted over Ribblehead!)

It’s more fun to dwell on what would have happened “if only” a line had survived, much more interesting that the mundane reality of underperforming lines

For example, the other lines that cross between the southern sections of the ECML/ MML/ WCML are fairly quiet:

Leicester to Peterborough gets a Turbostar an hour (Admittedly there’s a second service per hour East of Leicester towards Nuneaton/ Nottingham, albeit with no Coventry service these days)

The little mentioned Marston Vale line swapped single 150/153s for 230s. Justb one train per hour

St Albans to Watford is a relative backwater, despite being in a busy part of the country

But if any of these had closed, we’d see reopening campaigns suggesting they’d have frequent services and long distance trains etc etc

It’s human nature. Football fans will still be arguing about the bright future that could have been if that player hadn't been sold/ injured at a young age (because it’s more interesting than the underwhelming career of someone who stayed fit/ at the club but slowly fizzled out

Same in the rest of the UK. Carmarthen to Aberystwyth will always be a source of fascination even though existing routes like the Heart Of Wales aren’t exactly busy… Dumfries to Stranraer is more interesting than the trickle of passengers on the line from Stranraer towards Ayr/ Glasgow… There’ll be threads about the GC on the Forum long after I’m pushing up daisies!

 

[L+Y]

I’ve mentioned before the situation at Skipton, where the SELRAP campaign suggest a hugely busy route if only the Colne line hadn’t been closed (electrified, three passenger trains an hour, direct services to Hull/ Manchester airport/ Liverpool etc, hourly freight) which sounds a lot more that the lines from Skipton to Lancaster/ Carlisle (which see a Sprinter every couple of hours and precious little freight nowadays, a few stations in the “Just one departing passenger per service” category, a long time since WCML expresses were diverted over Ribblehead!)

To be fair to SELRAP, west of Colne the line does pass through far more densely populated areas than either the Little North Western or S&C. I'd imagine that had just one line north of Skipton survived to the present day, a hypothetical Leeds-Preston via Skipton service might do better takings than Leeds-Lancaster and Leeds-Carlisle put together.

 

[Mag_seven]

Just a gentle reminder to stay on the topic of MML vs GCML.

Thanks

 

[Revaulx]

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.

Did it?

How much of the Woodhead traffic made its way onto the London Extension? I would have thought very little.

Surely most of the large amount of freight passing through Woodford Halse was coal from the Notts/East Derbyshire coalfield?

Had the LNER survived I have no doubt that the Woodhead electrification would have been extended eastwards and westwards; if it had gone on to London it would have been via the ECML, not the GC. Pasenger-wise, the latter had started to be downgraded immediately following the Grouping.

 

[Magdalia]

Surely most of the large amount of freight passing through Woodford Halse was coal from the Notts/East Derbyshire coalfield?

The Great Central Railway, like most railways, was predominantly about moving freight not passengers. Coal was the most important commodity, but the GCR had steel at Sheffield and Scunthorpe and ports at Grimsby and Immingham.

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.

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).

Electric trains over Woodhead moved huge amounts of coal and steel for 40 years. The line closed because of the decline in that traffic. If anything, the passenger trains were a bit of a nuisance that got in the way of the freight traffic.

How much of the Woodhead traffic made its way onto the London Extension? I would have thought very little.

Most GCR freight traffic originated in the Sheffield/Notts/Derbyshire area and radiated out from there.

The London extension was more important for freight than passengers: the hourly "runners" from Annesley to Woodford Halse were not conveying fresh air! However, I'm not clear how much of this traffic then continued towards London.

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

The one advantage the London Extension had over the Midland Main Line was that it had fewer speed restricting curves

There was a very rational reason for the London Extension going the way it did, which was a huge financial advantage for the GCR. The key was the short line from Woodford Halse to Banbury, which enabled the GCR to exchange traffic with the GWR without going through the Midland or the LNWR. This continued to apply after grouping with the LNER and GWR exchanging traffic without going through the LMS. That's why the GCR had a huge marshalling yard in the middle of nowhere at Woodford Halse.

The steel traffic between Scunthorpe and South Wales ran via the GCR until dieselisation in 1963. The Grimsby and Hull fish traffic to the West of England ran via the GCR until it finished in 1965. The GCR also ran a large number of fast freights between York Dringhouses and Woodford Halse but I have never worked out what they conveyed.

 

[Revaulx]

The Great Central Railway, like most railways, was predominantly about moving freight not passengers. Coal was the most important commodity, but the GCR had steel at Sheffield and Scunthorpe and ports at Grimsby and Immingham.

Electric trains over Woodhead moved huge amounts of coal and steel for 40 years. The line closed because of the decline in that traffic. If anything, the passenger trains were a bit of a nuisance that got in the way of the freight traffic.

Most GCR freight traffic originated in the Sheffield/Notts/Derbyshire area and radiated out from there.

The London extension was more important for freight than passengers: the hourly "runners" from Annesley to Woodford Halse were not conveying fresh air! However, I'm not clear how much of this traffic then continued towards London.

There was a very rational reason for the London Extension going the way it did, which was a huge financial advantage for the GCR. The key was the short line from Woodford Halse to Banbury, which enabled the GCR to exchange traffic with the GWR without going through the Midland or the LNWR. This continued to apply after grouping with the LNER and GWR exchanging traffic without going through the LMS. That's why the GCR had a huge marshalling yard in the middle of nowhere at Woodford Halse.

The steel traffic between Scunthorpe and South Wales ran via the GCR until dieselisation in 1963. The Grimsby and Hull fish traffic to the West of England ran via the GCR until it finished in 1965. The GCR also ran a large number of fast freights between York Dringhouses and Woodford Halse but I have never worked out what they conveyed.

Thanks for that. Not only really interesting, but it’s always good to have one’s suppositions confirmed

I believe that a lot more of the southbound traffic through Woodford Halse headed towards Banbury and Oxford than London.

I do think it’s interesting to speculate on how the MSW electrification would have grown had the LNER survived and the government not filched all the Marshall Aid money. CLC to Liverpool? Eastwards: certainly to Doncaster and maybe to Inmmingham/Grimsby and Hull.

 

[Magdalia]

I do think it’s interesting to speculate on how the MSW electrification would have grown had the LNER survived and the government not filched all the Marshall Aid money. CLC to Liverpool? Eastwards: certainly to Doncaster and maybe to Inmmingham/Grimsby and Hull.

The MSW electrification is before my time, even for railway research. But I do have the third and last part of Bonavia's LNER history. This does not go into much detail, but suggests that electrification was specifically for operation through the Woodhead Tunnels. Bonavia does mention traincrew suffering from smoke inhalation because of poor ventilation: the service was so intensive that the next train entered the tunnel before the previous train had exited (presumably there was signalling inside the tunnels).

And contrary to what it says on Wikipedia, Bonavia gives the impression that the original electrification proposal used the old single bore tunnels. But these deteriorated badly during WWII and the decision to build a new tunnel only came after WWII was over.

Bonavia does not say anything about plans to extend electrification, so there may not have been any! Other than over Woodhead the LNER were probably content to continue with steam traction. Given that electrification was primarily for freight traffic I think the most logical extension would have been to Annesley, but no further.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

There was a very rational reason for the London Extension going the way it did, which was a huge financial advantage for the GCR. The key was the short line from Woodford Halse to Banbury, which enabled the GCR to exchange traffic with the GWR without going through the Midland or the LNWR. This continued to apply after grouping with the LNER and GWR exchanging traffic without going through the LMS. That's why the GCR had a huge marshalling yard in the middle of nowhere at Woodford Halse.

The steel traffic between Scunthorpe and South Wales ran via the GCR until dieselisation in 1963. The Grimsby and Hull fish traffic to the West of England ran via the GCR until it finished in 1965. The GCR also ran a large number of fast freights between York Dringhouses and Woodford Halse but I have never worked out what they conveyed.

Thank you for that. There was therefore a rational reason to extend the GC network as far as Banbury and avoiding Daventry, if the freight revenues justified the construction and operating costs. The continuation to London and in particular the failure to do so in way that maximised the commercial potential remains questionable.

 

[D6130]

The continuation to London and in particular the failure to do so in way that maximised the commercial potential remains questionable.

IIRC, the London extension was built to connect the North of England and the East Midlands with the proposed Channel Tunnel. Sir Edward Watkin, the prolific nineteenth century railway entrepreneur, was chairman of - amongst others - the South Eastern Railway, the Metropolitan Railway and the Manchester Sheffield & Lincolnshire Railway (which was renamed the Great Central Railway on completion of the London extension)....as well as the ill-fated Channel Tunnel company. It was all part of his grand plan for through trains from Manchester to Paris and beyond. Plus ca change!

 

[daodao]

I believe that a lot more of the southbound traffic through Woodford Halse headed towards Banbury and Oxford than London.

The Banbury link was also useful for long distance passenger trains, e.g. from Newcastle-upon-Tyne to Barry via Bourton-on-the-Water.

The “Ports-to Ports” Express​

Through Running over the LNER and GWR Systems

The Ports to Ports Express - Railway Wonders of the World

The Ports to Ports express

www.railwaywondersoftheworld.com

 

[D6130]

The Banbury link was also useful for long distance passenger trains, e.g. from Newcastle-upon-Tyne to Barry via Bourton-on-the-Water.

....and also York to Poole.

 

[midland1]

The MSW electrification is before my time, even for railway research. But I do have the third and last part of Bonavia's LNER history. This does not go into much detail, but suggests that electrification was specifically for operation through the Woodhead Tunnels. Bonavia does mention traincrew suffering from smoke inhalation because of poor ventilation: the service was so intensive that the next train entered the tunnel before the previous train had exited (presumably there was signalling inside the tunnels).

And contrary to what it says on Wikipedia, Bonavia gives the impression that the original electrification proposal used the old single bore tunnels. But these deteriorated badly during WWII and the decision to build a new tunnel only came after WWII was over.

Bonavia does not say anything about plans to extend electrification, so there may not have been any! Other than over Woodhead the LNER were probably content to continue with steam traction. Given that electrification was primarily for freight traffic I think the most logical extension would have been to Annesley, but no further.

Just had a look at Bonavia's book and I cannot see anywhere he say's that two trains were in the tunnel at the same time, it looks very unlikely to me given the conditions inside the tunnel.

 

[jfollows]

Just had a look at Bonavia's book and I cannot see anywhere he say's that two trains were in the tunnel at the same time, it looks very unlikely to me given the conditions inside the tunnel.

The existence of a signal box inside the tunnel implies to me that there was more than one block section and therefore there could be more than one train in the tunnel in the same direction at the same time. I could be wrong. The signal box inside the tunnel was not popular to say the least and only lasted a little time around the turn of the twentieth century, see https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/worst-job-in-history-woodhead.48451/

 

[Magdalia]

Just had a look at Bonavia's book and I cannot see anywhere he say's that two trains were in the tunnel at the same time, it looks very unlikely to me given the conditions inside the tunnel.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting this sentence:

"The tunnel had always been dreaded by enginemen who, with a heavy freight on a rising gradient and the tunnel full of smoke from the previous train, could experience 10-15 minutes of near asphyxiation."

The tunnel was 3 miles long, and it would take a heavy freight train 10-15 minutes to travel that distance. If there was only one train in the tunnel at a time that would restrict line capacity to 5 or 6 trains per hour. Increasing that capacity by electrification would have looked a good investment at that time.

 

[midland1]

The existence of a signal box inside the tunnel implies to me that there was more than one block section and therefore there could be more than one train in the tunnel in the same direction at the same time. I could be wrong. The signal box inside the tunnel was not popular to say the least and only lasted a little time around the turn of the twentieth century, see https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/worst-job-in-history-woodhead.48451/

Just had a look at the Sig. Rec. Soc. The Signal Box Register Vol 3, It say's "Woodhead Tunnel No 12 Manhole" open from ?/11/1899 till about 1906 the closure date has been updated from 1909. So there was a box how loco crew's got to see or hear the sigs. is anybody's guess the short time it was open perhaps say it all

 

[Bevan Price]

Initially proposed before WW2 (but delayed by the war), I think that to some extent, Woodhead electrification was regarded as a test bed for possible further electrification of LNER main lines.

As for GC versus MML, I still think that the GC section between Sheffield & Nottingham could have still been useful for a semi-fast service calling at the larger intermediate stations, and it would have been useful to retain an alternative route via Woodford Halse to Banbury. However, as a through "express" route to London, it would have been totally uncompetitive with MML.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

IIRC, the London extension was built to connect the North of England and the East Midlands with the proposed Channel Tunnel. Sir Edward Watkin, the prolific nineteenth century railway entrepreneur, was chairman of - amongst others - the South Eastern Railway, the Metropolitan Railway and the Manchester Sheffield & Lincolnshire Railway (which was renamed the Great Central Railway on completion of the London extension)....as well as the ill-fated Channel Tunnel company. It was all part of his grand plan for through trains from Manchester to Paris and beyond. Plus ca change!

That was the "spiel" peddled by Edward Watkin to his shareholders. There is no reason to believe it was true. The route to London was constructed to a slightly larger gauge than the UK norm and this was incorrectly claimed to be the Continental gauge. There was no provision at Marylebone for an extension through London towards the south coast.

I've made this point before but it bears repeating: it's instructive to compare how the Midland Railway carried out its London extension from Bedford to St. Pancras and Somers Town with how the Great Central did its own. In addition to its new trunk route, the Midland constructed a route to the west from Cricklewood to Acton Wells, an eastwards spur to the Tottenham & Hampstead Railway plus an extension south to Blackfriars. In other words, the Midland was determined to maximise the commercial potential of its new route into London.

The Great Central built only a spur from Neasden South Junction to Neasden Junction. A railway company that did a substantial amount of trade to and from ports and which had constructed a splendid route from Sheffield to Grimsby specifically for that kind of traffic, was not interested in gaining access to the biggest port in the country when it came to London. Instead, it concentrated on providing extra revenue to The Metropolitan Line whose shareholders included a certain Edward Watkin.

 

[edwin_m]

That was the "spiel" peddled by Edward Watkin to his shareholders. There is no reason to believe it was true. The route to London was constructed to a slightly larger gauge than the UK norm and this was incorrectly claimed to be the Continental gauge. There was no provision at Marylebone for an extension through London towards the south coast.

I've made this point before but it bears repeating: it's instructive to compare how the Midland Railway carried out its London extension from Bedford to St. Pancras and Somers Town with how the Great Central did its own. In addition to its new trunk route, the Midland constructed a route to the west from Cricklewood to Acton Wells, an eastwards spur to the Tottenham & Hampstead Railway plus an extension south to Blackfriars. In other words, the Midland was determined to maximise the commercial potential of its new route into London.

The Great Central built only a spur from Neasden South Junction to Neasden Junction. A railway company that did a substantial amount of trade to and from ports and which had constructed a splendid route from Sheffield to Grimsby specifically for that kind of traffic, was not interested in gaining access to the biggest port in the county when it came to London. Instead, it concentrated on providing extra revenue to The Metropolitan Line whose shareholders included a certain Edward Watkin.

I assume the Metropolitan would have provided the route across London, had the Continental scheme come off. Not sure how workable that would have been in practice, but the Met always saw itself as a main line railway that happened to have a busy section in London - to the extent of running Pullman cars.

Connecting to the Met at Quainton Road could equally be regarded as a prudent measure by a fairly cash-strapped company to avoid the huge potential cost of building a new line into London - where there would have been much less open land available than when the other companies had been building. The common shareholding might have helped with working together, though that didn't work out in practice, perhaps just because the Met was getting too successful to have capacity available for GCR expresses. The GC then got into bed with the GWR to build the joint line via Ruislip, another relatively cost-effective solution, but neither company had much luck in tapping into London docks traffic.

 

[zwk500]

That was the "spiel" peddled by Edward Watkin to his shareholders. There is no reason to believe it was true. The route to London was constructed to a slightly larger gauge than the UK norm and this was incorrectly claimed to be the Continental gauge. There was no provision at Marylebone for an extension through London towards the south coast.

Given Watkin's record for thinking big, I don't think it is possible to say he never intended to connect to France. Also the point on the 'continental' loading gauge is relevant - Berne Gauge wasn't agreed and adopted until well after the GCR was constructed, so how it compares to contemporary Chemin de Fer de Nord loading gauge I don't know but would be interesting.

I've made this point before but it bears repeating: it's instructive to compare how the Midland Railway carried out its London extension from Bedford to St. Pancras and Somers Town with how the Great Central did its own. In addition to its new trunk route, the Midland constructed a route to the west from Cricklewood to Acton Wells, an eastwards spur to the Tottenham & Hampstead Railway plus an extension south to Blackfriars. In other words, the Midland was determined to maximise the commercial potential of its new route into London.

The Great Central built only a spur from Neasden South Junction to Neasden Junction. A railway company that did a substantial amount of trade to and from ports and which had constructed a splendid route from Sheffield to Grimsby specifically for that kind of traffic, was not interested in gaining access to the biggest port in the county when it came to London. Instead, it concentrated on providing extra revenue to The Metropolitan Line whose shareholders included a certain Edward Watkin.

Was the GC not interested or simply too late? Not only was most of the traffic already spoken for, but the shareholders of the other major lines would have had considerable weight in parliament to prevent competing lines and services being started. As @edwin_m mentions, the Met may well have intended to provide a cross-london Link not unlike that which Snow Hill tunnel offered, but just became a victim of it's own success.

 

[Helvellyn]

I wonder what would have happened had Grouping gone a different way, either the Midland and Great Central being merged to provide a third Anglo-Scots route, or if the Midland had merged with the Great Northern/North Eastern and the Great Central with the LNWR/L&Y.

 

[eldomtom2]

Instead, it concentrated on providing extra revenue to The Metropolitan Line whose shareholders included a certain Edward Watkin.

If Watkin was focusing on robbing Great Central Peter to pay Metroplitan Paul, why build the GW & GC Joint?

 

[Peterthegreat]

I wonder if the GC mainline had survived a few more years whether there would have been some rationalisation and investment. For example a connection to the Nuneaton to Leicester line in the Narborough area would have allowed the most duplicated part of the line north of Leicester to be abandoned. Perhaps an hourly semi-fast service from Marylebone to Leicester calling at High Wycombe, Princes Risborough, Aylesbury, Calvert, Brackley, Woodford Halse, Rugby Central and Lutterworth would have been possible. If the line from Banbury to Woodford Halse had been retained then maybe a cross country service would be provided. It would also have permitted freights from the Southampton to avoid the Birmingham area.

 

[zwk500]

I wonder if the GC mainline had survived a few more years whether there would have been some rationalisation and investment.

I highly doubt we'd have seen anything markedly different 10 years later.

For example a connection to the Nuneaton to Leicester line in the Narborough area would have allowed the most duplicated part of the line north of Leicester to be abandoned.

There was such a connection, and it didn't help. (Blaby Junction, between Narborough and Wigston)

Perhaps an hourly semi-fast service from Marylebone to Leicester calling at High Wycombe, Princes Risborough, Aylesbury, Calvert, Brackley, Woodford Halse, Rugby Central and Lutterworth would have been possible. If the line from Banbury to Woodford Halse had been retained then maybe a cross country service would be provided. It would also have permitted freights from the Southampton to avoid the Birmingham area.

All the connections face the wrong way. Southampton freight is heading to either Manchester, Scotland or Birmingham, so the GC wouldn't really have helped even if you did build the chords. Such traffic can avoid Birmingham today by Leamington-Coventry-Nuneaton if it doesn't want to go via London.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I assume the Metropolitan would have provided the route across London, had the Continental scheme come off. Not sure how workable that would have been in practice, but the Met always saw itself as a main line railway that happened to have a busy section in London - to the extent of running Pullman cars.

Connecting to the Met at Quainton Road could equally be regarded as a prudent measure by a fairly cash-strapped company to avoid the huge potential cost of building a new line into London - where there would have been much less open land available than when the other companies had been building. The common shareholding might have helped with working together, though that didn't work out in practice, perhaps just because the Met was getting too successful to have capacity available for GCR expresses. The GC then got into bed with the GWR to build the joint line via Ruislip, another relatively cost-effective solution, but neither company had much luck in tapping into London docks traffic.

I have no quarrel with using the Metropolitan Line from Quainton Road to the Wendover area because the formation enables fast running. South of Wendover the alignment runs sinuously through the Buckinghamshire hills and high speeds are not possible, even today. As the passenger market between the Midlands and London was already catered for, to be competitive the Great Central could not afford to dawdle between Wendover and the junction to Uxbridge and they should have built a new stretch of railway.

Given Watkin's record for thinking big, I don't think it is possible to say he never intended to connect to France. Also the point on the 'continental' loading gauge is relevant - Berne Gauge wasn't agreed and adopted until well after the GCR was constructed, so how it compares to contemporary Chemin de Fer de Nord loading gauge I don't know but would be interesting.

Was the GC not interested or simply too late? Not only was most of the traffic already spoken for, but the shareholders of the other major lines would have had considerable weight in parliament to prevent competing lines and services being started. As @edwin_m mentions, the Met may well have intended to provide a cross-london Link not unlike that which Snow Hill tunnel offered, but just became a victim of it's own success.

I think it's clear the Great Central were too late for the passenger market, and I've read somewhere that they were told this when their scheme was first announced. If, for whatever reason, they were unlikely to be able to compete properly, they should have abandoned their London project.

If Watkin was focusing on robbing Great Central Peter to pay Metroplitan Paul, why build the GW & GC Joint?

Post 82 provides most of the answer. Almost certainly, the route shared with the Metropolitan did not provide enough capacity for Great Western freight traffic and the GW saw the potential of taking over an existing small railway in the High Wycombe area and constructing a new line.

 

[Revaulx]

If Watkin was focusing on robbing Great Central Peter to pay Metroplitan Paul, why build the GW & GC Joint?

Watkin died in 1901. He retired as a director of the Met having suffered a stroke in 1894. I’m not sure about the GC but I imagine he’d gone from them around the same time.

Right at the end of the 19th century the GW embarked on a number of projects aimed at shortening key routes, thus enabling its Great Way Road epithet to be buried. The Chipping Sodbury cut-off, Berks & Hants and New North Line were all results of this.

With Watkin gone, the Met made no secret of their dissatisfaction with having GC traffic fouling up their tracks. Presumably the GW wasted no time persuading the GC that it would be to their mutual advantage to go halves on a new line. It would get the GC out of the way of the pesky Met, as well as massively shorten its own route to Birmingham.

 

[Bevan Price]

I wonder what would have happened had Grouping gone a different way, either the Midland and Great Central being merged to provide a third Anglo-Scots route, or if the Midland had merged with the Great Northern/North Eastern and the Great Central with the LNWR/L&Y.

We will never know. But if Vincent Raven (NER) had been younger in 1923, he might have become LNER Chief Mechanical Engineer (instead of Nigel Gresley), and have pursued ECML electrification fairly quickly. NER had thought about electrifying its part of ECML, but WW1 came before they could take any action. Whether GCR electrification might have followed is just guesswork.