• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Great Central mainline closure

Status
Not open for further replies.

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,180
Actually the Beeching Report did propose to close much of the Midland Mainline, many of the maps show it closed entirely south of Leicester, with Leicester connecting to the WCML via Nuneaton. And of course St Pancras was planned for demolition.
The Beeching Report did not propose to close much of the Midland Mainline. (I think only the Nottingham-Melton-Kettering section, excl Melton-Manton?) What you are referring to was a later plan.
As to why the GCR London extension was built, well it is for much the same reason as we are building HS2 today, it wasn't intended to stop at every town along the route, but to the provide fast, direct services between London and the North. And just as HS2 doesn't stop at every town along the route because it wouldn't make sense, neither did GCR.
The GCR London extension was primarily built to carry coal (and other freight) to London and the South [and the West/South Wales via Banbury]. The passenger service never competed with WCML or MML on speed.

I've never understood why they did this. What an earth was the rational for maintaining that Nottingham (Arkwright) - Leicester - Rugby shuttle? It didn't connect with any other services, interchange with other stations was hardly convenient and the passenger loadings were minimal.
Why didn't that section shut with the rest of if? What did BR think the shuttle service was neede for, and was it expected to remain running indefinitely?
Purely because it was believed that trying to shut the entire line at once would be too much of a political hot potato. So BR left a bit, which had a small amount of commuter traffic, and then applied for that closure after a decent interval (of about two and half years). No other reason. They knew what they were doing.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,531
Passenger services to London Marylebone could never have competed with MML, but it might have become a useful Cross Country route avoiding Birmingham, for the East Midlands (Nottingham / Leicester) to Oxford / Reading / South Coast via Woodford Halse & Banbury.
It is all very well suggesting that this could have been a useful Cross Country route but at what point would it have become useful? It wasn't a useful Cross Country route at the point of closure else it would have been a good reason to keep it open.

When would the bright spark of running Nottingham to Reading services have been realised?
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,180
It is all very well suggesting that this could have been a useful Cross Country route but at what point would it have become useful? It wasn't a useful Cross Country route at the point of closure else it would have been a good reason to keep it open.

When would the bright spark of running Nottingham to Reading services have been realised?
There was a daily except Sunday Nottingham-Reading (West) train each way up to the date of closure (York-Bournemouth [Newcastle-Poole in summer]). Presumably it didn't carry enough to warrant additional services and couldn't in itself pay for the line to be kept open.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,531
There was a daily except Sunday Nottingham-Reading (West) train each way up to the date of closure (York-Bournemouth [Newcastle-Poole in summer]). Presumably it didn't carry enough to warrant additional services and couldn't in itself pay for the line to be kept open.
Well no. It doesn't seem like it would have paid for the line and the journeys could still be made via Birmingham (although I note that it would be some years from then before a proper Cross Country network evolved from a handful of daily one off trains).

It is all very well to judge the usefulness of a route by modern traffic patterns but the reality is that those have developed over fifty years. There isn't much evidence of a high level of demand between the East Midlands and the Thames Valley / South Coast (although I note that more recent changes in fare setting discourage people from booking through journeys from which demand could be assessed).
 
Last edited:

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
3,910
Location
Hope Valley
Let's not forget the Woodhead part either. If this line had remained open then Manchester to Sheffield journey times would have been much quicker even then compared with now on the Chinley route.
At risk of veering off thread (because Woodhead isn't usually thought of as the GC Main Line) what is your basis for claiming this? The service was pretty pedestrian with occasional semi-fast services taking around 55 minutes from Manchester Piccadilly to poorly located Sheffield Victoria. Some trains took over an hour for the less than 42 miles. (Let alone the odd policy of running some trains from Manchester Central, looping round to Guide Bridge for a locomotive change. This could have been avoided.)

Getting back to the original question. Closure of the GC was absolutely the correct decision. It seems to be forgotten that the capacity and speed capability of WCML (followed by the ECML and Midland Main Line) was being massively increased by continuous welded rail, multiple aspect signalling, electrification and the elimination of slow, partially or un-braked freight trains. There was also a massive reduction in coal traffic to London following 'clean air' legislation.
 

Western Sunset

Established Member
Joined
23 Dec 2014
Messages
2,494
Location
Wimborne, Dorset
The beginning of the end for the GC really came in 1958 when it was transferred from the ER to the LMR. Through expresses largely ended at the start of 1960. There was talk of it being used just as a freight artery, but with a decline in goods traffic generally, the former ex-MR lines could accommodate all that the GC had carried.
 

Falcon1200

Established Member
Joined
14 Jun 2021
Messages
3,576
Location
Neilston, East Renfrewshire
it might have become a useful Cross Country route avoiding Birmingham, for the East Midlands (Nottingham / Leicester) to Oxford / Reading / South Coast via Woodford Halse & Banbury.

Given the importance of Birmingham, both as a destination in its own right and as a connecting point for other routes, I cannot see how there would be sufficient traffic for this GC route, either today or back in 1966, especially as the service via Birmingham would still be required.

with Victoria station right in the city centre and the north-south route straight through through the city, this could have allowed London to Sheffield services through Nottingham to be retained

But as mentioned before this would be a duplicate, competing service to the Midland, which would still be required.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
One of the big might-have-beens was the 1840s proposal for an Oxford & Rugby railway, linking the LNWR/GWR/Midland systems at Rugby.
This was changed to the Birmingham & Oxford Junction railway north of Fenny Compton, the GWR route we know today via Leamington.
If the route to Rugby had been built, there would have been no need for the GC London extension, and Rugby would be a key node on the network.
 
Last edited:

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,752
Location
York
One of the big might-have-beens was the 1840s proposal for an Oxford & Rugby railway, linking the LNWR/GWR/Midland systems at Rugby.
This was changed to an Birmingham & Oxford Junction railway north of Fenny Compton, the GWR route we know today via Leamington.
If the route to Rugby had been built, there would have been no need for the GC London extension, and Rugby would be a key node on the network.
That's one of the more interesting might-have-beens given the Midland Counties' line coming in at the "north" end of Rugby — very much a potential key node as you say. The point where the line towards Leamington diverged from the original route towards Rugby could still be clearly seen not so many years ago. I wonder if it remains visible.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
The only real advantage of the GC which wasn't matched by other lines was the link from Leicester to Banbury. That link could have been retained if a chord had been built at Ullesthorpe to allow direct running from Leicester Midland to Rugby Central.

Yes, that was the way the Newcastle-Poole used to go apparently, right up to the 60s. Retaining that could have benefited north-south connectivity, but it would have been helpful to route into LM Rugby too, for connections.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
The beginning of the end for the GC really came in 1958 when it was transferred from the ER to the LMR. Through expresses largely ended at the start of 1960. There was talk of it being used just as a freight artery, but with a decline in goods traffic generally, the former ex-MR lines could accommodate all that the GC had carried.

There is some truth in that.

Despite BR being a single entity much of the "old" company loyalties remained - and the LMR men were ex-LMS for whom the GCR was the "enemy" - their disdainful attitude to all things from Marylebone continued for many years and it was only when the responsibility for the Marylebone lines was transferred to BR Western Region in the mid 80s did things start to improve. Somebody posted on here previously that the signaling systems were condemned pretty much immediately by BR (W) as unsafe such was the level of neglect that BR (M) had shown.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,180
There is some truth in that.

Despite BR being a single entity much of the "old" company loyalties remained - and the LMR men were ex-LMS for whom the GCR was the "enemy" - their disdainful attitude to all things from Marylebone continued for many years and it was only when the responsibility for the Marylebone lines was transferred to BR Western Region in the mid 80s did things start to improve. Somebody posted on here previously that the signaling systems were condemned pretty much immediately by BR (W) as unsafe such was the level of neglect that BR (M) had shown.
Perhaps it was simply, all things considered, that the GCR was an inferior route, rather than the old 'conspiracy' theory. What is known for sure, in 1960 there were too many routes, the GCR passed through the least number of useful places, had the least number of interchanges and a sleepy, cramped London terminus.

Yes, that was the way the Newcastle-Poole used to go apparently, right up to the 60s. Retaining that could have benefited north-south connectivity, but it would have been helpful to route into LM Rugby too, for connections.
And who would be paying for the installation of all these cords and the remodelling / rebuilding of Rugby Midland and its environs? A cord to connect Rugby Midland with the south GC line, without conflicting main line movements would have been a major undertaking, as would building a route for northbound trains to stop at Rugby Midland and depart on the Midland route towards Leicester. Can't see any point in an Ullesthorpe curve in this circumstance - trains could have used the Midland line throughout. Oh, and a new bridge to eliminate the A5 level crossing too.
 

Western Sunset

Established Member
Joined
23 Dec 2014
Messages
2,494
Location
Wimborne, Dorset
Not sure in what way the GC was an "inferior route". The London Extension was very well-engineered and the alignment allowed high-speed running. There weren't any level crossings on it either, so in many respects, it could be seen as superior to the Midland line.
 

Railwaysceptic

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2017
Messages
1,408
The dominant thing is the connectivity with other lines, which the GCR main, almost more than any other comparable line, didn't do.
Particularly in London where no eastward link was constructed. The only spur is Neasden South to Neasden Junction enabling access to Acton Wells Junction. That a railway company with a very strong business in and out of ports on both the east and west coasts should build a new route to London and should not want a spur towards the biggest port in the country suggests that the company directors should have asked Edward Watkin what game he was playing.

It was the right decision. Arguably taken several years too late.
Arguably decades too late. Very soon after the re-grouping, the new LNER should have examined and rationalised the previously competing Great Northern and Great Central routes serving the Nottinghamshire collieries.
 
Last edited:

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,180
Not sure in what way the GC was an "inferior route". The London Extension was very well-engineered and the alignment allowed high-speed running. There weren't any level crossings on it either, so in many respects, it could be seen as superior to the Midland line.
It might have been well-engineered and the alignment allowed for high speed running, but the parallel lines WCML and MML were shorter and faster. The London extension served nowhere of note that did not have a faster passenger service by other lines, and the standalone places of Lutterworth and Brackley do not really cut it in importance of traffic to Market Harborough, Kettering, Wellingborough and Bedford. Luton possibly compares with High Wycombe, and Aylesbury is on the bit that is not well-engineered and aligned. The London terminus was sleepy, cramped and ill sited for an expansion of long distance traffic. The MML is/was not exactly well endowed with level crossings either.
The London Extension may have had some superior aspects, but in the round was the inferior route and correct to close when over capacity was being reduced.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
A few points:

1. It currently takes a 323 half an hour to do a dozen miles from Dinting to Piccadilly (and that's despite the 323s regularly being praised on here for their fast acceleration compared to other EMUs), so the idea that you'd manage to run a fast Sheffield - Penistone - Dinting - Manchester service seems a bit optimistic

2. Even in the 1990s, BR was still just running a service from London to Sheffield every ninety minutes and a service from London to Nottingham every ninety minutes (i.e. every forty five minutes from London to Leicester). Spreading that limited London - East Midlands demand between two separate main lines would have been incredibly costly

3. If people complain about how long the walk is from Euston to St Pancras for HS2 - HS1 connections then you're really going to hate the location of Marylebone

4. Similarly, if people complain about HS2 being at Curzon Street and not actually at New Street (or suggest that Wakefield needs an interchange station built on the viaduct to avoid the free bus from Westgate to Kirkgate, or that Manchester needs a Pic-Vic tunnel because the frequent trams and the Ordsall Chord trains aren't enough to link Victoria to Castlefield) then let's not pretend that a separate station at Leicester/ Nottingham/ Sheffield would have been better than all services at one "central" station in those cities

5. Beeching gets blamed for more things again, that were nothing to do with him - great

6. "it might have been useful" isn't going to convince Governments to continue heavily subsidising lines - it needs more than that

7. Whilst I appreciate that we are doomed to keep discussing certain "re-openings" from time to time, I don't mind the GC debates so much - at least it would be a line linking a number of places with large populations. I'm not saying I'd back re-opening (many of the "problems" that it'd solve could be tackled other ways, e.g. we aren't exactly running services at maximum length on the MML or from Sheffield to Manchester), but at least I can see that there are some everyday problems out there (rather than the SELRAP/ Dartmoor/ Bakewell "re-openings"). With the congestion at Trent Junction that we'll have once we try to squeeze a complicated pattern of Euston and St Pancras services through a bottleneck, I can see the benefit of running all London - Nottingham trains via the GC route (but I'm not complaining about the original decision to shut the line - it's a big old route that didn't offer many lines that couldn't be done on other lines, with the exception of the Leicester - Rugby bit, which BR did at least try to keep going, so I don't think we can blame them for any "slash and burn" approach). Probable deserved to be closed, but certainly more worth of occasionally discussing than some quaint old route through empty countryside of North Yorkshire/ Peak District/ Devon etc!
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
1. It currently takes a 323 half an hour to do a dozen miles from Dinting to Piccadilly (and that's despite the 323s regularly being praised on here for their fast acceleration compared to other EMUs)

And it takes an hour for a 350 to do 40-something miles from MKC to Euston with a far lower density of stations on a 100mph (slows) line. The thing that takes time is stops.

With an express just ahead of the stopper you'd get a very good run, particularly with linespeed improvements. It's not exactly bendy.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
A few points:

1. It currently takes a 323 half an hour to do a dozen miles from Dinting to Piccadilly (and that's despite the 323s regularly being praised on here for their fast acceleration compared to other EMUs), so the idea that you'd manage to run a fast Sheffield - Penistone - Dinting - Manchester service seems a bit optimistic

With 8 intermediate stops - assume a 2 minute time penalty for the slowing down, stand and acceleration time and that's half the journey time accounted for.

It's worth remembering that the Beeching report advocated closing the Hope Valley line and keeping Woodhead for Manchester - Sheffield services and Chinley - Matlock for Manchester - Derby services - BR closed both of those and kept the Hope Valley open.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
There is some truth in that.

Despite BR being a single entity much of the "old" company loyalties remained - and the LMR men were ex-LMS for whom the GCR was the "enemy" - their disdainful attitude to all things from Marylebone continued for many years and it was only when the responsibility for the Marylebone lines was transferred to BR Western Region in the mid 80s did things start to improve. Somebody posted on here previously that the signaling systems were condemned pretty much immediately by BR (W) as unsafe such was the level of neglect that BR (M) had shown.
Nevertheless, the Marylebone to Birmingham/Aylesbury route is still operationally within the same NR Route as Euston (LNW South), and included the "total route modernisation" Chiltern phase under BR and then the various Evergreen upgrades since.
Disdain, as you call it, was not unknown on the Western either, for ex-LM and ex-SR routes in their area.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
Nevertheless, the Marylebone to Birmingham/Aylesbury route is still operationally within the same NR Route as Euston (LNW South), and included the "total route modernisation" Chiltern phase under BR and then the various Evergreen upgrades since.
Disdain, as you call it, was not unknown on the Western either, for ex-LM and ex-SR routes in their area.

BIB - I assume you're referring to things like the LSW mainline, the S&D and the general closure of Southern branches in Devon & Cornwall.

Not quite the same - the choice between the LSW mainline and GW mainline west of Exeter was always an easy one - one served the main population areas, the other didn't.

The S&D really didn't serve a useful purpose - it ran through sparsely populated areas (and those areas are still fairly sparsely populated to this day).

The GW mainline was probably better engineered than any of the other long distance mainlines - a Brunel legacy. The quality of engineering between the Midland and GC though - the GC did have a 'better' route in terms of linespeed, obstructions and general engineering - the MML is a relatively slow, twisty line even today.
 

WesternLancer

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2019
Messages
6,996
There isn't much evidence of a high level of demand between the East Midlands and the Thames Valley / South Coast (although I note that more recent changes in fare setting discourage people from booking through journeys from which demand could be assessed).
Bit of a sweeping statement but one I'll bear in mind as I'm next stuck on the western section of the M25 heading for various points on the south coast or the Thames valley from the east mids....;)
Pre Thameslink (esp proper interchange and the recent widening of destinations) it was so tedious the demand was not going to be suppressed by fare setting issues alone - as in my case the 'fare' was often spent at the petrol station.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,180
The GW mainline was probably better engineered than any of the other long distance mainlines - a Brunel legacy. The quality of engineering between the Midland and GC though - the GC did have a 'better' route in terms of linespeed, obstructions and general engineering - the MML is a relatively slow, twisty line even today.
But as shown in post #4 trains on the MML were still substantially quicker than on the GC, possibly due to the greater GC distance. What does it matter if your line is slow and twisty if it still has the journey time advantage over the rival route which apparently is better in terms of linespeed, obstructions and general engineering?
 

Western Sunset

Established Member
Joined
23 Dec 2014
Messages
2,494
Location
Wimborne, Dorset
Much of the slowness was due to mining subsidence north of Nottm. With the will; could've been sorted.

The mixed-up planning of the early /mid-1960s saw the M1 constructed alongside the GC for many miles south of Leicester. A more integrated approach would have seen earlier abandonment of the GC, with the M1 being constructed actually on the formation of the old trackbed.

In effect, the GC was more of a cross-country route anyway, as most freight traffic diverged onto the WR after Woodford. It had good connections at the northern end, but precious little further south.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,018
The Midland line from Leicester to Rugby, part of the pioneer route from the East Midlands to London which was overtaken as the Midland main line was built on progressively southwards, was a right nuisance at Rugby after the station there was extended in late Victorian times, where it branched off right on the platform ends, with sharp diamond crossings over the Up WCML lines. Becoming ultimately just a country branch for a few stopping trains per day, one can see the 1950s pressure to get rid of it once the closely parallel GC line was part of the same organisation. But it was usefully connected to main line junction stations at both ends, unlike the GC. Some years after it was closed, the GC line was likewise.

The principal user of the GC line was freight, as it formed a useful connection from the LNER to the GWR without using the LMS at all (just like the S&D allowed the LMS and the SR to transfer through freight without giving anything to the GWR). The spur to Banbury carried more freight than the continuation to London. This applied even to the significant freight between anywhere on the LNER and South Wales, steel etc, routed via Didcot west curve. Once the need for this went in 1947, so did the GC's prime reason. Then, it also carried a lot of coal to London. Post-1950s smokeless regulations put paid to that.
The London Extension was very well-engineered and the alignment allowed high-speed running.
I think it was onetime BR manager Dick Hardy who wrote in his well-known autobiography that the central island platform stations (as they all were, even the wayside ones), with the running lines ballooned around them, looked from the footplate like the track was suddenly bending sideways. So not that brilliant a high-speed alignment.
 

Western Sunset

Established Member
Joined
23 Dec 2014
Messages
2,494
Location
Wimborne, Dorset
Indeed Taunton. South of Nottm, only Rushcliffe Halt (a later addition) had the more usual side platforms. But again, not an insurmountable problem if there had been the will to use that route for more high-speed traffic.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,018
Well I guess so, if you want to demolish all the stations. While at it, perhaps they could be sited somewhere more useful as well, instead of down obscure outskirts back roads (thinking particularly of Rugby, where the line passed overhead close to the end of the main station platforms, but the GC station might as well have been called Hillmorton, the next settlement, it was halfway between the two).
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
And it takes an hour for a 350 to do 40-something miles from MKC to Euston with a far lower density of stations on a 100mph (slows) line. The thing that takes time is stops.

With an express just ahead of the stopper you'd get a very good run, particularly with linespeed improvements. It's not exactly bendy.

..that'll be on the grade separated four track WCML, rather than a line where you try to put the non-stop services breathing down the neck of the stoppers?

With 8 intermediate stops - assume a 2 minute time penalty for the slowing down, stand and acceleration time and that's half the journey time accounted for

That's how long they take to clear the section from Dinting to Piccadilly though (with additional stoppers from Guide Bridge) - unless you are proposing to close several stations in Greater Manchester that's still going to make it very hard to provide a Sheffield - Penistone - Dinting - Manchester service that's much faster than the Hope Valley route (since the suggestion is that Woodhead would have been faster than the current route)

It's worth remembering that the Beeching report advocated closing the Hope Valley line and keeping Woodhead for Manchester - Sheffield services and Chinley - Matlock for Manchester - Derby services - BR closed both of those and kept the Hope Valley open.

True, and there was merit in his suggestion

If the Hope Valley route had closed back then, we'd probably have threads suggesting that Edale would sustain a train to Sheffield every ten minutes, if only they'd kept the route open

But, BR decided to close the Matlock route and the Woodhead route, so we have to deal with the consequences
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
That's how long they take to clear the section from Dinting to Piccadilly though (with additional stoppers from Guide Bridge) - unless you are proposing to close several stations in Greater Manchester that's still going to make it very hard to provide a Sheffield - Penistone - Dinting - Manchester service that's much faster than the Hope Valley route (since the suggestion is that Woodhead would have been faster than the current route)

I wasn't particularly advocating the reopening of Woodhead, simply making the point that it's not as simple as saying "it takes 'x' time to cover 'y' currently therefore journey 'z' would be even longer". A chunk of the MS&L line into Manchester used to be 4 track - you can see than from the OHL gantries which were reused and are bigger than necessary for a 2 track railway.

To give a different example Manchester Piccadilly - Macclesfield (17 miles) takes either 33 mins with a stopping train or 20 mins with a single stop at Stockport.

Hadfield - Deepcar - Sheffield was about 40 miles - an average speed of 60mph could mean that bit would be 40 mins "ish" and a further 20 or so to Manchester Piccadilly.

Time-wise probably neutral *unless* there were linespeed improvements - IIRC the Woodhead route was limited to 60 / 65 mph ?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
The best use for the GCR main line would have been as an alternative route for North/South freight. With a few new/modified connections, it could have carried much of the inter-modal freight traffic to & from Trafford Park and Yorkshire, releasing paths on much of the WCML (southern end) for more passenger services.

Passenger services to London Marylebone could never have competed with MML, but it might have become a useful Cross Country route avoiding Birmingham, for the East Midlands (Nottingham / Leicester) to Oxford / Reading / South Coast via Woodford Halse & Banbury. Whilst closing some of the less busy, there could have been a potentially useful semi-fast / commuting service between Sheffield and Nottingham or Leicester serving places like Staveley, Hucknall & Bulwell.
With the benefit of hindsight, the freight route would have been of value today, and perhaps domestic intermodal terminals could have been located along it instead of the WCML and branches. I'm less sure about the passenger service at the north end, as the Robin Hood Line sort of serves that purpose and could be connected to bits of the GC or other lines revived, if the will and the money was there for better links to the former coalfield. As already mentioned, the Midland was much better connected, mainly because it got there several decades sooner. The Victoria site is only close to the centre of activity in Nottingham today because of the shopping centre that replaced the station - if it had stayed open it would have been no better than Midland in this respect.

As for Leicester-Rugby, a corridor between the East Midlands and Oxford or beyond is something of a missing link. In the modern day this would ideally run via Northampton, MK and Bletchley instead of missing the major population centres as the GC did. At the Leicester end the Midland already connected and the GC could have connected to the Nuneaton line. At Rugby either the GC or the Midland could probably have terminated in their own platforms on the east side of the main station, but both would have been difficult to connect for through passenger services towards Northampton, thence Bletchley and Oxford. The Midland could have been less difficult, because at least it entered Rugby going in the right direction.
Actually the Beeching Report did propose to close much of the Midland Mainline, many of the maps show it closed entirely south of Leicester, with Leicester connecting to the WCML via Nuneaton. And of course St Pancras was planned for demolition.

As to why the GCR London extension was built, well it is for much the same reason as we are building HS2 today, it wasn't intended to stop at every town along the route, but to the provide fast, direct services between London and the North. And just as HS2 doesn't stop at every town along the route because it wouldn't make sense, neither did GCR.

While I can understand the logic of closing the GCR I think it was unfortunate that there wasn't more effort made to retain some of the good parts, after all the UK rail network is a patchwork quilt sewn together from different bits from different companies across the years. The GCR did have some good assets which should have been kept, particularly in Nottingham with Victoria station right in the city centre and the north-south route straight through through the city, this could have allowed London to Sheffield services through Nottingham to be retained which would have benefitted the city's connectivity in the long term, much better than the Midland station is was left with.
To re-use the GC as a high speed main line:

You need to go towards Birmingham so discard the bit north of where it turns eastwards.

The London end has commuter trains getting in the way, and Marylebone is too small to be the London terminus, so discard that bit too and use the GC-GW joint line instead. But there's no room in Paddington either.

You can't run close to homes, so go round or under any built-up areas.

You're left with the section between Brackley and Aylesbury exclusive. South of there it needs to go further west, why not add an interchange at, say, Old Oak Common, and head for Euston where there's a bit more space?
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,162
Not quite the same - the choice between the LSW mainline and GW mainline west of Exeter was always an easy one - one served the main population areas, the other didn't.
It’s very similar if you read this thread: the GC vs MML was also an easy one as the MML served far more significant places.

I really don’t get the GC love-in: it’s 50+ years since it closed and there’s no evidence that it was anything other than the right decision. You could go further and say that it should never have been built in the first place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top