Great Central mainline closure

[markindurham]

Just so. Do we know where and when this story about so-called "continental gauge" first started? The London Extension simply conformed, like other new construction of the time, to the then requirements of the Board of Trade.

I've no idea, but it's been doing the rounds for a few years now, and keeps being repeated 'ad nauseam'. Of course, it didn't help that the Norwegian mogul "King Haaken" ran on the <new> GCR for a few years in early preservation days - and folk assumed that that loco was built to Berne Gauge, therefore the GCR was built to Berne Gauge... wrong on both counts, of course, but there we go.

 

[Dr Hoo]

In an alternative history, if Fiddler's Ferry had never been built (it was a stupid location), then I suspect we would see today as Dr B. intended, with the Woodhead and Bakewell lines open and Hope Valley closed. Woodhead would have been converted to 25 kV AC (as was done with minimum fuss to the Hadfield stump) and a curve built between Victoria and Midland in Sheffield. All the necessary land was in railway ownership at that time (being former pre-grouping goods yards). Ah well.

Ah! Another popular myth that keeps being trotted out.

Whilst there were indeed some former goods yards loosely between the two Sheffield stations there were also public roads and 'private' buildings. But the real point is that given the levels, viaduct through Victoria, crossing the canal, plausible radii, gradients, the tunnel north of Midland and whatnot a South-to-West [corrected] curve for main line services would have been almost impossible and very expensive to construct, and probably taken Victoria with it.

 

[nw1]

A very slow link - and not one which could easily have been upgraded for higher speed running.



Another lightly used, heavily loss making line which was a no-hoper.

Not for the first time a line which had been built which probably shouldn't have been.

Maybe it was just that the chosen route was bad? It does seem a bit eccentric to leave the Avon Valley at Fordingbridge and cross the elevated heathland to the west. But I guess it predates Bournemouth's importance, which is perhaps the main reason the Bournemouth-Poole conurbation has so very poor northward or westward connectivity.

In theory, there is demand for a link from Bournemouth to Salisbury, otherwise the A338 wouldn't exist. I suspect a fast route straight up the Avon Valley, with three stations at Ringwood, Fordingbridge and Downton, would still be here even today.

Going back on topic to the GCR however, might it have made sense to retain the route south of Rugby and divert the services (e.g. an hourly DMU) into Rugby LM for connections? That way, the west Northamptonshire area, which seems very sparse for railways, would at least have a surviving route (e.g. Brackley has pop 13,000 - enough to retain a railway?) and Aylesbury would have links northwards. Also retain the Banbury link as mentioned above, and the Rugby LM - Leicester LM link (not GC admittedly) which would open up all sorts of opportunities e.g. Reading/Oxford to Leicester/Nottingham avoiding Birmingham, easing load on the stretched XC services.

 

[markindurham]

Ah! Another popular myth that keeps being trotted out.

Whilst there were indeed some former goods yards loosely between the two Sheffield stations there were also public roads and 'private' buildings. But the real point is that given the levels, viaduct through Victoria, crossing the canal, plausible radii, gradients, the tunnel north of Midland and whatnot a South-to-East curve for main line services would have been almost impossible and very expensive to construct, and probably taken Victoria with it.

Exactly so.

 

[Senex]

Ah! Another popular myth that keeps being trotted out.

Whilst there were indeed some former goods yards loosely between the two Sheffield stations there were also public roads and 'private' buildings. But the real point is that given the levels, viaduct through Victoria, crossing the canal, plausible radii, gradients, the tunnel north of Midland and whatnot a South-to-East curve for main line services would have been almost impossible and very expensive to construct, and probably taken Victoria with it.

A south-to-west connection up from the Midland, surely? The south-to-east connection is there and was built with the line (though for a long time not signalled as a through route), from Nunnery Main Line Junction up to the GC line out towards Beighton. I think you're right that if the west curve had ever been built, it would have taken Victoria with it (unless some extreme gradients had been accepted).

 

[A0]

Going back on topic to the GCR however, might it have made sense to retain the route south of Rugby and divert the services (e.g. an hourly DMU) into Rugby LM for connections? That way, the west Northamptonshire area, which seems very sparse for railways, would at least have a surviving route (e.g. Brackley has pop 13,000 - enough to retain a railway?) and Aylesbury would have links northwards. Also retain the Banbury link as mentioned above, and the Rugby LM - Leicester LM link (not GC admittedly) which would open up all sorts of opportunities e.g. Reading/Oxford to Leicester/Nottingham avoiding Birmingham, easing load on the stretched XC services.

I think connecting the GC to the LM at Rugby would have been a nightmare.

I'd have been more inclined to suggest connecting it to the Leicester - Nuneaton line which the GC crossed at Whetstone, then run into Leicester Midland.

 

[Dr Hoo]

A south-to-west connection up from the Midland, surely?

Thanks. Edited/Corrected.

 

[swt_passenger]

Just so. Do we know where and when this story about so-called "continental gauge" first started? The London Extension simply conformed, like other new construction of the time, to the then requirements of the Board of Trade.

We had a thread on this question a few years ago with links to some good references, I’ll try and find it. As you say it’s a railway myth that just doesn‘t ever give up…

I think this might be what I was thinking of:

GCR Loading Gauge

Hi all, I've read on other threads that contrary to received wisdom, the GCR was not built to "continental loading gauge". I'm wondering about the details of this. I have specific questions, but please do discuss around the topic. Is this only because the meaning of that term has changed...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[markindurham]

We had a thread on this question a few years ago with links to some good references, I’ll try and find it. As you say it’s a railway myth that just doesn‘t ever give up…

What's the railway equivalent for a silver crucifix, garlic & sunlight?

 

[RT4038]

Going back on topic to the GCR however, might it have made sense to retain the route south of Rugby and divert the services (e.g. an hourly DMU) into Rugby LM for connections? That way, the west Northamptonshire area, which seems very sparse for railways, would at least have a surviving route (e.g. Brackley has pop 13,000 - enough to retain a railway?) and Aylesbury would have links northwards. Also retain the Banbury link as mentioned above, and the Rugby LM - Leicester LM link (not GC admittedly) which would open up all sorts of opportunities e.g. Reading/Oxford to Leicester/Nottingham avoiding Birmingham, easing load on the stretched XC services.

West Northamptonshire is very rural, and would be unable to support a railway on its own generated traffic. Brackley looks to Banbury, and has a frequent bus service to the station there. In 1966 Brackley was much smaller than now. Northwards connection from Aylesbury is far better and more sensibly achieved via Bletchley/Milton Keynes [as in the E-W plan], rather than traversing 45 miles of traffic barren beautiful green fields and small villages.

The cost of running GC trains into Rugby (Midland) from the GC south would take all the likely revenue gained for the next 300 years - essentially a long arc of a chord from the former Barby Sidings around the east of Hillmorton and then a long and complicated flyover and junction with the WCML slow lines. Completely impractical. Slightly less expensive might have been a relocation of Rugby Central station onto a high level viaduct terminating over the south end bay platforms, without any physical connection. No way would that have been considered in 1966 !

 

[nw1]

West Northamptonshire is very rural, and would be unable to support a railway on its own generated traffic. Brackley looks to Banbury, and has a frequent bus service to the station there. In 1966 Brackley was much smaller than now. Northwards connection from Aylesbury is far better and more sensibly achieved via Bletchley/Milton Keynes [as in the E-W plan], rather than traversing 45 miles of traffic barren beautiful green fields and small villages.

Fair enough, though is it correct that the plan for a northwards connection from Aylesbury to Bletchley has now been abandoned? I'm sure that came up a few months ago.

Regarding Brackley, I always wonder what the 'threshold' population for a market town is for 'deserving' a rail station. I always think of towns the size of Romsey, Petersfield or Wimborne (Romsey pop. about 19,000; Petersfield pop. about 14.000; Wimborne, with no station, pop. about 15,000) as the threshold, so roughly around 10,000 to 15,000 up. But fair enough if Brackley was a smaller town at closure. It's unfortunate Beeching came when it did, because (not sure if this was the case for Brackley, but is the case for other areas) a lot of housing did seem to be built late 60s, early 70s, after lines had already been closed.

The cost of running GC trains into Rugby (Midland) from the GC south would take all the likely revenue gained for the next 300 years - essentially a long arc of a chord from the former Barby Sidings around the east of Hillmorton and then a long and complicated flyover and junction with the WCML slow lines. Completely impractical. Slightly less expensive might have been a relocation of Rugby Central station onto a high level viaduct terminating over the south end bay platforms, without any physical connection. No way would that have been considered in 1966 !

Ah ok. My suggestion about the Rugby connection was not based on intimate knowledge of the layout of the area I will admit, was mostly asking whether it would have been feasible.

 

[NoRoute]

What's the railway equivalent for a silver crucifix, garlic & sunlight?

Profit and loss statement ?

 

[RT4038]

Fair enough, though is it correct that the plan for a northwards connection from Aylesbury to Bletchley has now been abandoned? I'm sure that came up a few months ago.

If about 11 miles of line (from Aylesbury to Claydon) can't be justified at the moment, 45 miles from Aylesbury to Rugby certainly wouldn't. Iexpect the Aylesbury-Milton Keynes section will be rebuilt eventually.

Regarding Brackley, I always wonder what the 'threshold' population for a market town is for 'deserving' a rail station. I always think of towns the size of Romsey, Petersfield or Wimborne (Romsey pop. about 19,000; Petersfield pop. about 14.000; Wimborne, with no station, pop. about 15,000) as the threshold, so roughly around 10,000 to 15,000 up. But fair enough if Brackley was a smaller town at closure. It's unfortunate Beeching came when it did, because (not sure if this was the case for Brackley, but is the case for other areas) a lot of housing did seem to be built late 60s, early 70s, after lines had already been closed.

There probably isn't a definitive threshold, because it will depend on the circumstances. Romsey and Petersfield have stations because they are of a certain size situated on an (effectively) unduplicated main line between much larger places. Wimborne (and many other places of similar characteristics such as Brackley or Amesbury or Cirencester or Blandford) does not because it would be on a branch without any supporting 'overhead' traffic.

 

[edwin_m]

If about 11 miles of line (from Aylesbury to Claydon) can't be justified at the moment, 45 miles from Aylesbury to Rugby certainly wouldn't. Iexpect the Aylesbury-Milton Keynes section will be rebuilt eventually.

I think they are still building it, just not proposing to run a passenger service.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think they are still building it, just not proposing to run a passenger service.

I suspect HS2 will have to complete their alterations at the junction, and the only significant thing that seems to in doubt would then be the through platform at Aylesbury Vale?

 

[nw1]

If about 11 miles of line (from Aylesbury to Claydon) can't be justified at the moment, 45 miles from Aylesbury to Rugby certainly wouldn't. Iexpect the Aylesbury-Milton Keynes section will be rebuilt eventually.

To clarify I wasn't suggesting re-opening it now, but originally questioning the original closure. Perhaps one should question even more the original closure of the Oxford-Bletchley line and its link to Aylesbury, rather than trying to upgrade it back in the 60s. (I know the 1967 service pattern on this line was a bit rubbish, but if they had upgraded the line, kept only the principal stations open, and provided some sort of clock-face hourly service, then...)

There probably isn't a definitive threshold, because it will depend on the circumstances. Romsey and Petersfield have stations because they are of a certain size situated on an (effectively) unduplicated main line between much larger places. Wimborne (and many other places of similar characteristics such as Brackley or Amesbury or Cirencester or Blandford) does not because it would be on a branch without any supporting 'overhead' traffic.

Yes, that seems to be the pattern, one could argue this is where Beeching got it wrong as all those towns might be considered big enough to warrant rail 'of their own accord', at least nowadays. But as mentioned already, I suspect a lot of these places expanded significantly after closure, so at the time of Beeching they were not deemed big enough to keep a railway (whereas if Beeching had happened in 1975 instead, let's say, they might).

 

[gg1]

Whilst there were indeed some former goods yards loosely between the two Sheffield stations there were also public roads and 'private' buildings. But the real point is that given the levels, viaduct through Victoria, crossing the canal, plausible radii, gradients, the tunnel north of Midland and whatnot a South-to-West [corrected] curve for main line services would have been almost impossible and very expensive to construct, and probably taken Victoria with it.

The last point wasn't really an obstacle, IF Woodhead had remained open and IF such a curve was built, Victoria would then be superfluous.

No arguments about the expense and engineering challenges involved though.

I've no idea, but it's been doing the rounds for a few years now, and keeps being repeated 'ad nauseam'.

Decades rather than years. I'm sure I saw it in print somewhere (could have been either a book or a magazine) back in the 80s or 90s.

 

[BrianW]

Reading through this GCML thread and then comparing it to some of the HS2 threads makes for a really interesting contrast.

On here there's lot of criticism of the GCML because it didn't pass through and directly serve lots of the major towns and cities along its route, being limited to a trunk route between London and anywhere north of Leicester and bypassing everything in between, making it the inferior route compared to the Midland and so not worth keeping or even considering for re-opening.

Meanwhile on the HS2 threads, there's lots of posters discussing the superiority and necessity of a design with a trunk route which by-passes most of the towns and cities along the route, with it by-passing them being so wonderful because it ensures lots of capacity for fast services unaffected by freight and stopping services. Adding all of that essential capacity, relieving the WCML south of Rugby and the MML. The value of that direct, unimpeded trunk route being easily worth the £50+ Billions which it will cost to build, indeed it appears many posters would build it at any price.

Now granted times are different, in the 1960s it was about reducing the rail network to the bare minimum possible to service the major towns and cities, but I'm surprised there's not more admiration for the GCML which was built during the peak of the railways, when that vision of a direct, London trunk route was very much a valid approach. The GCML wasn't a white elephant by design, it was turned into one by the growth of the motorcar and the lorry. And for all we know, its successor in HS2 could be the same depending on what happens with working from home and video conferencing.

IIRC, when Justine Greening was in charge of transport she was picturing a possible route for HS2 that would have followed an 'old line'/ no longer used/ with capacity ie the Paddington- Banbury line and onward to the midlands, which could have served Birmingham (like Chiltern) and/or Leicester etc via GC. She was already conscious of costs and NIMBYs and was perhaps prescient, in hindsight.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Just so. Do we know where and when this story about so-called "continental gauge" first started? The London Extension simply conformed, like other new construction of the time, to the then requirements of the Board of Trade.

(120) GC loading gauge | RailUK Forums (railforums.co.uk)

A possible explanation

The confusion may arise from a misunderstanding. The UIC has a number of loading gauges known as GA, GB, GB+, GC in increasing size - the "G" standing for "gauge" ("gabarit" in French). As it happens, most German railways conform to GC and most French ones to GA, although TGV lines are built to GB. It is easy to see how GB and GC could be misunderstood to be, respectively, the dimensions used in Great Britain generally, and the Great Central Railway.

 

[6Gman]

Had the GC survived it would probably not have extended north of Nottingham.

In the privatisation era it would presumably have sat most comfortably with Chiltern (though if it extended to Nottingham it might have needed a different name ).

The question then is what role would it serve?

In transport terms a Nottingham - Banbury service plus the Marylebone - Aylesbury service extending to Woodford would have made sense, giving Nottingham, Leicester and Rugby links to Oxford, Reading etc. (I would assume connections via XC rather than through trains)

Commercially perhaps they would "do a Birmingham" by running Nottingham - Marylebone and trying to undercut the MML operator.

Either way I fear the overheads of separate stations would put a big hole in the finances.

(But a 168 from Nottingham to Banbury would have been an interesting and useful facility.)

 

[BrianW]

With 'rationalisation' the name of the game 'back-in-the-day', and Beeching in play, lines seen as 'duplication' had to go. So death to Paddington- Birmingham, Snow Hill, Great Central, Woodhead, Manchester Central and Exchange ... Marylebone nearly became a bus station, etc etc. Milton Keynes a future glint in the eye. Rail useage immediately pre-pandemic hugely more than back in that Beeching day. Such a change in context.
It had to go when it did.
I'm still picturing how it could have been HSGCTGV Manchester-Marseilles, Birmingham-Berli, Edinburgh-Edirne, Glasgow-Genoa, ...

 

[edwin_m]

Had the GC survived it would probably not have extended north of Nottingham.

In the privatisation era it would presumably have sat most comfortably with Chiltern (though if it extended to Nottingham it might have needed a different name ).

The question then is what role would it serve?

In transport terms a Nottingham - Banbury service plus the Marylebone - Aylesbury service extending to Woodford would have made sense, giving Nottingham, Leicester and Rugby links to Oxford, Reading etc. (I would assume connections via XC rather than through trains)

Commercially perhaps they would "do a Birmingham" by running Nottingham - Marylebone and trying to undercut the MML operator.

Either way I fear the overheads of separate stations would put a big hole in the finances.

(But a 168 from Nottingham to Banbury would have been an interesting and useful facility.)

Almost certainly Nottingham Victoria would have closed - I believe provision was made in the shopping centre construction for a double-track line through the basement, but a station here would have been like Birmingham New Street, only much worse. The Arkwright Street station could have been integrated with Midland in passenger terms, though probably with no track connection.

However, if a service between the East Midlands and secondary centres such as Banbury was enough to justify infrastructure, I'd say it was far more likely to have taken the form of a connection between the GC and the Leicester-Nuneaton line. This would have allowed abandonment of the duplicate lines and stations through and between Leicester and Nottingham.

But I really can't see the need even for this even today, let alone in the 1960s. The largest places on that axis with no decent rail link to Leicester and Nottingham are Northampton, MK, Oxford and beyond, which could be reached by improved connection between the Midland Leicester line and the Northampton line at Rugby. EWR would provide the MK-Oxford leg for this, but provides a route via Bedford that's nearly as good for much less cost, and avoids putting extra trains on the WCML. Even a through service by this route seems unlikely.

 

[Philip]

What about Leicester to Manchester demand? Is this a flow which has lost out as a result of the GC and Woodhead closures and the subsequent removal of direct trains? Or was it quicker changing at Derby or Sheffield via the Midland lines than the direct GC/Woodhead services?

 

[Dr Hoo]

There were really very few through services via the GC between Leicester and Manchester. The Midland was the well established link.

Back in the day such long distance passenger journeys were quite rare anyway.

I suggest that you look at some old timeables.

 

[daodao]

What about Leicester to Manchester demand? Is this a flow which has lost out as a result of the GC and Woodhead closures and the subsequent removal of direct trains? Or was it quicker changing at Derby or Sheffield via the Midland lines than the direct GC/Woodhead services?

Ease of travel from Leicester to Manchester was affected primarily by closure of the ex-MR High Peak line in 1968, having been run down over the previous 2 years. Two daily trains from Manchester to St Pancras via Sheffield operated for a few years after 1968 but were eventually withdrawn.
Through trains from Manchester to Leicester via the GC line ceased earlier and in any case were more roundabout and slower.

The simplest way to improve the connectivity from NW England to Leicester and Peterborough/East Anglia, would be to stop some London-Liverpool/Manchester expresses at Nuneaton. When the through NW England-Norwich trains cease, such a connection would be quite useful.

 

[RT4038]

There were really very few through services via the GC between Leicester and Manchester. The Midland was the well established link.

Back in the day such long distance passenger journeys were quite rare anyway.

I suggest that you look at some old timeables.

The summer 1956 timetable shows weekday through trains from Leicester (Central) at 6.45am, 7.32am, 12.52pm, 3.15pm, 5.46pm, 12.47am. Journey time 2h40 to 3h15
Whereas the Midland via Bakewell had departures at 7.8am, 9.47am, 11.3am, 12.11pm, 4.2pm, 6.3pm, 6.43pm, 8.48pm. Journey time 1h57-2h18
Some Saturday times varied by a few minutes.

These were the through trains. Both lines had a few other opportunities by changing at Sheffield (Victoria) [4.24pm, 7.4pm, 8.34pm] or Trent [8.30am]/Derby [1.50pm]

 

[trebor79]

Almost certainly Nottingham Victoria would have closed - I believe provision was made in the shopping centre construction for a double-track line through the basement, but a station here would have been like Birmingham New Street, only much worse.

I think this is an urban legend. If you go to the bottom floor if the car park, and know where to look, there is a nodescript door. If you peep through the keyhole you can see into Weekday Cross tunnel. There's no way there's enough headroom for trains in the car park, and there are concrete pillars all over the place too.
In any case, the tunnel was used as a route for the Victoria Centre heating pipes, which come from a boiler house some distance to the south east of Midland station.
Even if there was some way to thread trains through the car park, the tunnel is not useable.

 

[70014IronDuke]

The last point wasn't really an obstacle, IF Woodhead had remained open and IF such a curve was built, Victoria would then be superfluous.

No arguments about the expense and engineering challenges involved though.

Decades rather than years. I'm sure I saw it in print somewhere (could have been either a book or a magazine) back in the 80s or 90s.

The "Continental Loading Gauge" theory has been around longer than the 80s. I'm sure I first read it in one of the railway "annual" books that came out before Christmas each year in the 1960s - either Trains Illustrated Annual or Railway World Annual or some such. IIRC, there was a feature story on the GC and it was stated categorically in the piece - and it was not stressed as any kind of 'news' item - but as a 'fact' which 'every' GC expert knew, IYSWIM.

Ease of travel from Leicester to Manchester was affected primarily by closure of the ex-MR High Peak line in 1968, having been run down over the previous 2 years. Two daily trains from Manchester to St Pancras via Sheffield operated for a few years after 1968 but were eventually withdrawn.
Through trains from Manchester to Leicester via the GC line ceased earlier and in any case were more roundabout and slower.

The simplest way to improve the connectivity from NW England to Leicester and Peterborough/East Anglia, would be to stop some London-Liverpool/Manchester expresses at Nuneaton. When the through NW England-Norwich trains cease, such a connection would be quite useful.

With the closure of the Peak Forest route 1968, there were, IIRC, four (possibly five) trains daily e/w between St Pancras and Manchester Piccadilly, routed via Derby, Dore and the Hope Valley directly - not via Sheffield.

IIRC, ex-St Pancras these were 06.50, then approx 08.15, 12.15, 16.18, and I think 18.25, but that may have terminated at Derby.

These were gradually withdrawn from about 1972. Some may have gone via Sheffield Midland later - I don't know exactly, possibly on Sundays? But the original services most definitely were routed via the Dore south-west curve.

 

[nw1]

With the closure of the Peak Forest route 1968, there were, IIRC, four (possibly five) trains daily e/w between St Pancras and Manchester Piccadilly, routed via Derby, Dore and the Hope Valley directly - not via Sheffield.

IIRC, ex-St Pancras these were 06.50, then approx 08.15, 12.15, 16.18, and I think 18.25, but that may have terminated at Derby.

These were gradually withdrawn from about 1972. Some may have gone via Sheffield Midland later - I don't know exactly, possibly on Sundays? But the original services most definitely were routed via the Dore south-west curve.

Controversially, I do wonder whether there was a case for keeping the Peak route open (as well as, not as an alternative to, the Hope Valley - and I don't see the need for keeping Woodhead open).

Not to keep a local stopping service, but to use it for a limited-stop and potentially profitable service from Manchester to Derby, Leicester and Nottingham. Such a service could have been a typical 158-operated Regional Railways express service in recent times. One could keep Bakewell open as the only station between Buxton and Matlock (so you wouldn't need a separate stopping service), and have an hourly express calling only at Stockport, Buxton, Bakewell, Matlock and Derby - then perhaps alternate Leicester and Nottingham. Perhaps some Leicester services could then head for Norwich or Cambridge. (On the other hand there is no need for St Pancras through services really, as Euston is much quicker from Manchester). On top of that you could have had the surviving Piccadilly to Buxton and Matlock to Derby services.

Maybe the route would be too slow to make it worthwhile or profitable (I am aware of the rather twisty nature of the route and the high elevation reached), but there does seem to be a missing link between the northwest and East Midlands.

 

[JonathanH]

there does seem to be a missing link between the northwest and East Midlands.

Which can be resolved by connections on the following routes:
Leicester-Nuneaton-North West
Derby-Stoke/Crewe-North West
Nottingham-Sheffield-Manchester
if there genuinely is demand. The common view is that the demand is minimal.