what if beeching closed the MML over the GCML?

[YourMum666]

What would’ve happened with the GCML if beeching took the MML over the GCML, and what would’ve been the state of the mainline today

 

[JonathanH]

What would’ve happened with the GCML if beeching took the MML over the GCML, and what would’ve been the state of the mainline today

There was probably little chance of the GCML being retained and the MML closed. It was more likely that both had closed, the MML being severed at Bedford, with connections maintained from Euston and Kings Cross as appropriate.

Some of the answers are here

MML vs GCML

I know the merits of the GCML as a HS2 alternative and various what if the GCML hadn't closed topics have been discussed here and elsewhere. By asking my question I am not intending to stray into either. What I am hoping to find out is which of the two routes afforded the quickest journeys to...

www.railforums.co.uk

Great Central mainline closure

Would you say it was the wrong decision to close the Great Central mainline south of Chesterfield, or was it the correct decision in hindsight? It provided a faster route to London from Sheffield and the northern reaches of the East Midlands than the Midland mainline did and this would...

www.railforums.co.uk

One of the obvious issues is what would Marylebone have become and would there be challenges about linespeed and capacity as a result.

 

[Irascible]

Paddington to Sheffield(!). And then Paddington being catastrophically full, only to find Marylebone sold off.

 

[D365]

Paddington to Sheffield(!). And then Paddington being catastrophically full, only to find Marylebone sold off.

Surely Kings Cross would have been the terminal for East Mids & Yorkshire.

 

[Irascible]

Surely Kings Cross would have been the terminal for East Mids & Yorkshire.

Well, where would you terminate GC services - this is actually a good question. I didn't put a huge amount of thought in, but Manchester's just been electrified & Paddington's just lost a lot of it's Birmingham route services. I guess you could stop at Nottingham.

 

[D365]

Well, where would you terminate GC services - this is actually a good question. I didn't put a huge amount of thought in, but Manchester's just been electrified & Paddington's just lost a lot of it's Birmingham route services. I guess you could stop at Nottingham.

My mistake - I misunderstood and thought you were continuing on from @JonathanH's post.

 

[edwin_m]

Major detriment to local services in the East Midlands, as the GC had far fewer useful connections to other routes than the Midland.

 

[Topological]

Perhaps we should all be happy that they did not look at links between Leicester and Rugby and think Nottingham and Derby could be branches off the WCML. (Northampton to Market Harborough is another option).

I always liked the idea of the GCML, but the fact that the MML sits neatly between the ECML and the WCML for the entire length has a geographic appeal. It feels like better coverage is achieved when lines radiate rather than cross each other.

 

[cactustwirly]

The MML isn't a huge amount slower than the WCML and ECML these days. A lot of money has been spent on electrification and increasing the line speed to 125mph

 

[70014IronDuke]

What if beeching [had] closed the MML over the GCML?​

What novel thought for a thread!

I don't think we've had one of these for at least, ... six weeks now?

 

[A0wen]

There was probably little chance of the GCML being retained and the MML closed. It was more likely that both had closed, the MML being severed at Bedford, with connections maintained from Euston and Kings Cross as appropriate.

I think the MML would have survived beyond Bedford to Kettering for passenger and then on to Corby because the steelworks were still a significant freight flow in the 1960s.

Perhaps we should all be happy that they did not look at links between Leicester and Rugby and think Nottingham and Derby could be branches off the WCML. (Northampton to Market Harborough is another option).

Nottingham and Sheffield could have been via the ECML, far more logical than the WCML. Grantham's closer than the WCML. Derby could have been covered either way.

 

[Topological]

I think the MML would have survived beyond Bedford to Kettering for passenger and then on to Corby because the steelworks were still a significant freight flow in the 1960s.



Nottingham and Sheffield could have been via the ECML, far more logical than the WCML. Grantham's closer than the WCML. Derby could have been covered either way.

True, I forget about the Nottingham to Grantham link. There would still have needed to be Leicester to Nottingham trains so keeping the MML for that seems logical. Presumably the logic then continues you need Nottingham to Sheffield and Birmingham to Nottingham, Birmingham to Sheffield and before you know it you have the MML as it currently is back. Presumably Erewash survives because of coal.

Really it is just Kettering to Leicester which has questions over it, and is that really more hassle to keep open than Leicester to Rugby with associated capacity issues on the WCML...

I think there is a strong enough case for the MML to have survived. It then makes sense that the MML did survive.

It is the Birmingham flows on the northern parts of the MML that make the case stronger for the MML than the GC.

 

[Merle Haggard]

There was a scheme around 1966/7 that seems to have been forgotten - and it was definitely a possibility that was seriously considered (the A.A.M. (Ops.), Kettering was definitely worried...).

The plan was to extend the St Pancras - Bedford d.m.u. service to Kettering, re-route the Inter City services to Leicester and beyond to Euston then Northampton - Market Harborough and close Kettering - Market Harborough completely. At the time, the south end of the newly-electrified West Coast was considered to be operating below capacity, with some of the 200 electric locos surplus, and Notts/Derbys - London coal trains already took the Northampton route.

As it happens, the proposed service plans do bear some resemblance to the present services.

 

[Tio Terry]

Beeching didn't close the GC, or any railway for that matter. He produced a report. It was Governments, from both main parties, that closed railways.

They didn't have to accept his report.

 

[The Planner]

Beeching didn't close the GC, or any railway for that matter. He produced a report. It was Governments, from both main parties, that closed railways.

They didn't have to accept his report.

You will be burned at the stake for suggesting that.

 

[Tio Terry]

You will be burned at the stake for suggesting that.

Maybe, but it's true.

 

[A0wen]

Beeching didn't close the GC, or any railway for that matter. He produced a report. It was Governments, from both main parties, that closed railways.

They didn't have to accept his report.

This forum so needs a like button.

You are, of course, spot on.

Beeching gets blamed for pre 1963 closures, which he had nothing to do with, along with things like Matlock - Buxton and Woodhead, both of which he recommended keeping.

 

[Philip]

The Woodhead route would have probably remained open, both because it was a through route to London from Manchester via Sheffield, and because the Hope Valley line would have likely been closed at the same time as the Midland mainline was closed.

 

[A0wen]

The Woodhead route would have probably remained open, both because it was a through route to London from Manchester via Sheffield, and because the Hope Valley line would have likely been closed at the same time that the Midland mainline was was closed.

The Woodhead route wasn't a Beeching closure in any case. Beeching recommended retaining Woodhead (for Manchester - Sheffield traffic) and Buxton - Matlock (for Derby - Manchester traffic) and closing the Hope Valley line.

BR did the opposite, closed the two Beeching said to keep and retained the Hope Valley.