If you could go back in time and build Britain's railways from scratch...

[21C195 Brentor]

One of my interests aside from railways is Alternate History, and particularly "Alien Space Bats" scenarios involving a particular person, location or collection of items being projected back through town. One of the best was written by a then Birmingham City Councillor, Iain Bowen, on Thatcher's Britain finding itself back in the 1730s (rest of the world). He also did a rather good one (much shorter) on an alternative development of British Railways from the 1950s onwards.

My interest, however, sparked by watching many Jago Hazzard videos about the nonsensical petty rivalries and pyramid schemes behind many of Britain's railways, plus the knowledge that many routes were poorly planned and almost all suffer moderately or even severely restricted loading gauges, leads me to ask, suppose you were moved back in time (whether involuntarily or via elective time travel) to the 1820s, or possibly earlier, how would you go about planning, designing and building a network fit not only for its time but for all time? Stuff that would make that alternate timeline's Jago Hazzard marvel at how the founding fathers of Britain's railways really got it absolutely right first time, while at the same time probably meaning he'd have far fewer stories to tell, because let's face it, cock-ups, con artists and willy-waving enmities are far more entertaining than sensible success.

Would you opt for pre-emptive nationalisation, with some kind of centralised rail executive having the final say on all route planning and construction as part of a nationwide strategy?

What track and loading gauge would you go for? I'm thinking that the main line gauge throughout Britain, Europe and the colonies should be 5ft 6in, with a 16ft x 12ft loading gauge. This brings so many benefits, not least the ability to have corridor/compartment stock that isn't hideously cramped... I'd permit the use of narrow gauge for smaller feeder lines (as well as entire systems such as Man and Wight), but even then, I would propose a single gauge of 2ft 9in (being exactly half the main line gauge), with goods wagons designed with quick-release bodies of which four could be craned onto a suitable broad-gauge wagon chassis for quick and easy transshipment - a form of proto-containerisation, if you will. Such lines would need to have a very specific geographical, topographical and economic justification for not being full size broad gauge main lines - doing it just because it's cheap would not in itself be a justification. Clearly, you couldn't realistically run a broad gauge line up the Ffestiniog, not even if it was single-track, but sillinesses like Southwold would not be permitted.

How would the routes chosen in this timeline differ from those we know today, or which were lost to closure? For instance, I would envisage the Great Western Railway being routed via Windsor, Newbury, Marlborough and Calne, with a Bath to Taunton direct line via Wells and Glastonbury. The Southampton to Dorchester route could also be extended to Exeter, potentially obviating all those little north-south branch lines along the East Devon coast. A better solution to the Exeter to Plymouth route would need to be found - I favour a route up the gorge of the River Teign from Dunsford to Chagford then across the wild open moor to Princetown and Plymouth (possibly calling at Yelverton), but then that's just because I love Dartmoor and wish we had a railway to exploit those grand views in the way the Settle & Carlisle does, for example.

I would also route the Salisbury and Southampton lines via Winchester, Alton, Farnham, Guildford, Kingston and Roehampton, bypassing Andover and Basingstoke, neither of which is likely to develop the importance they gained in the 20th century.

Gloucester would be served via a main line leaving the GWML at Windsor, heading through the Chilterns via Maidenhead, Henley and Wallingford to Oxford then crossing the Cotswolds via Witney, Burford and Northleach - I looked at an alternative routing via Cirencester and Stroud but it's ten miles longer. Oxford to Birmingham via Woodstock, Chipping Norton and Stratford-upon-Avon is a possibility, perhaps as well as rather than instead of the existing route via Banbury.

A fast direct London to Norwich route via Bury St Edmunds would also be useful.

ECML I'd route from Peterborough via Lincoln and Gainsborough to York, with Stamford-Grantham-Newark-Doncaster-Retford-Selby as a relief route. The main Newcastle to Edinburgh route would be inland via Jedburgh rather than faffing round via Berwick, you'd save twenty miles and hopefully avoid all those sharp curves in the Morpeth/Alnwick area. Not to say the coastal route couldn’t be useful...

I'd also be tempted to build a York to Carlisle route via Ripon, Leyburn and Appleby, perhaps more useful than the S&C or Stainmore routes...

Regarding locomotive policy, I'd be tempted to avoid the competition between different companies or BR regions and impose a BESA group of standard classes as was done in India, and just contract them out to independent builders like Stephensons, or maybe even have just one or two national locomotive workshops, maybe one in the North producing heavy goods locos and one further south focusing on fast passenger locos, but using the maximum of common parts. The amount of money that got wasted on bad locomotive designs... competition seemed just to result in backward parochialism rather than innovation most of the time.

Anyway, your thoughts?

 

[Magdalia]

There are three key factors here that need to be taken account of. These are technology, topography and finance. Railway construction was constrained by construction methods, basically an army of navvies digging by hand. It was also constrained by locomotive haulage capability, which was very limited in the early days. So early railways tried to avoid deep cuttings, high embankments, steep gradients, tunnels and viaducts. And new railway construction couldn't happen without money to pay for it: more financial backing makes grander engineering more affordable. Finance came mainly from freight, not passengers, especially movement of coal and agricultural produce.

In the early days the Chilterns and the Cotswolds were almost insurmountable obstacles. Going over the top, or tunnelling through, was very expensive.

To take the GWR example, the main line goes through the Goring Gap, which is the only place to get through the Chilterns without lots of earthworks or steep gradients beyond locomotive capacity available at the time.

The GNR's original main line route to York was via Boston and Lincoln, because of the friendlier topography. The route via Grantham came later when locomotives were sufficiently powerful to haul trains over Stoke Summit. But all of the heavy freight, especially coal, continued to go via Lincoln.

The original proposed route to Norwich followed what became the A11, via Newmarket and Thetford. The railway was constructed from Great Chesterford to Newmarket, but it ran out of money and routes to Norwich could only get sufficient financial backing by including Cambridge or Ipswich. The Great Chesterford to Newmarket line was one of the earliest railway closures.

A bit of central planning at the outset might have prevented a few marginal schemes, and some duplication, but would have made very little difference to the network we have today.

 

[21C195 Brentor]

@Magdalia

Early tunnel boring machines existed by then, Marc Brunel had devised the first for the Thames Tunnel. Explosives were also around - not sure when dynamite was invented, I forget. Yes, it all costs more, but with the political will there to do the job properly once and for all, I'm sure a vastly better network could have been built.

 

[xotGD]

The main route to the North should have gone London - Leicester - Nottingham - Sheffield - Leeds - Newcastle

Major population centres all the way. Instead we are left with a network where there are no direct trains from the north east to Nottingham or Leicester, or from Leeds to Leicester, and Leeds/Sheffield to Nottingham is ridiculously slow.

And with the cutbacks of HS2, it still won't be remedied.

 

[Magdalia]

Early tunnel boring machines existed by then, Marc Brunel had devised the first for the Thames Tunnel.

That wasn't a boring machine, it was only a shield. The earth still had to be excavated by hand. Proper tunnel boring machines came much later, developed for tunnelling through the Alps, after much of Britain's railway network had already been constructed.

not sure when dynamite was invented

Patented in 1867, again too late for most of Britain's railway network.

The main route to the North should have gone London - Leicester - Nottingham - Sheffield - Leeds - Newcastle

Major population centres all the way.

It could be argued that this was what George Hudson was after, with his extensive involvement in the Midland Railway and various companies that ended up part of the North Eastern Railway. But it took until 1868 for the Midland to reach London.

 

[ac6000cw]

The main route to the North should have gone London - Leicester - Nottingham - Sheffield - Leeds - Newcastle

That route (at least as far as Leeds) existed as part of the Midland Railway system - it's just that the GNR + NER route (todays ECML) is/was straighter, flatter and hence faster/cheaper to operate so it became the dominant passenger route to York, Newcastle and beyond. It's geography/topography/construction cost in relation to the poor hill-climbing ability of railways again...

 

[Magdalia]

One interesting bit of speculation is how different things would have been if, in the early 20th century, the GNR had decided to quadruple the main line instead of building the Hertford loop. Without the Welwyn bottleneck I think that, in the 1960s, BR would have diverted Sheffield and Nottingham express trains to Kings Cross. That would have made it even more difficult for St Pancras to survive.

 

[ac6000cw]

One interesting bit of speculation is how different things would have been if, in the early 20th century, the GNR had decided to quadruple the main line instead of building the Hertford loop. Without the Welwyn bottleneck I think that, in the 1960s, BR would have diverted Sheffield and Nottingham express trains to Kings Cross. That would have made it even more difficult for St Pancras to survive.

I wonder if relations between the Midland and GNR had been more cordial in the longer term (so that Midland trains had continued to operate into London via Hitchin using running powers over GNR) that might have resulted in the Midland helping to pay for quadrupling instead of building their own route into London.

It feels like the Midland was happy with being a joint owner of lines e.g. the M&GN and Somerset & Dorset routes, but wasn't so keen on just having running powers where they had little real control. That problem resulted in the building of the Settle & Carlisle, which in a rational world would never have been built (not much 'on-line' traffic potential, and difficult terrain) - paying the LNWR to expand capacity over Shap I suspect would have been somewhat cheaper and more sensible, if they could have (or wanted to have) negotiated it .

 

[yorksrob]

The main route to the North should have gone London - Leicester - Nottingham - Sheffield - Leeds - Newcastle

Major population centres all the way. Instead we are left with a network where there are no direct trains from the north east to Nottingham or Leicester, or from Leeds to Leicester, and Leeds/Sheffield to Nottingham is ridiculously slow.

And with the cutbacks of HS2, it still won't be remedied.

The GCR joining the ECML at Tuxford provided a viable route between the East Midlands and the North East, however it was never developed.

 

[AM9]

That route (at least as far as Leeds) existed as part of the Midland Railway system - it's just that the GNR + NER route (todays ECML) is/was straighter, flatter and hence faster/cheaper to operate so it became the dominant passenger route to York, Newcastle and beyond. It's geography/topography/construction cost in relation to the poor hill-climbing ability of railways again...

It's ironic that the situation you describe is exactly what HS2 should achieve between London and Birmingham: the classic line went through many towns and cities, (Watford, Rugby and Coventry), and an express line takes a far straighter route where there's nowhere important to stop. The GNR route would, with its moderate gradients and gentle curves made a perfect bypass for express trains.
Another early alignment that was successful is the SWML from Waterloo to Eastleigh. Quite straight and level allowing competitive speeds, (that was until recently when 3rd rail really started holding speeds down compared to modern electrification methods).

 

[PTR 444]

I suspect that to build a network as the OP describes would have needed to have waited several decades before technology improved to the point where topographical issues as @Magdalia explains could be resolved. Even then, financing might have still be an issue and co-operation between companies would have been required to enable a joined-up network. If progressed with, some major towns/cities may not have seen a rail link until well into the late 19th century, while other towns which developed as a consequence of the railway being there, such as Basingstoke, Swindon, Crewe and Doncaster, probably wouldn’t have existed at all*.

*As in the major hubs they are today, rather than the much smaller settlements they evolved from.

 

[The exile]

Two things - one going back to construction - ie build to whatever the current largest required loading gauge is (to allow for electrification clearance, double-deck stock and piggy-back freight). The other would be a 50 year moratorium in selling off or obstructing track bed and loading profile after closure.

 

[mike57]

Its an interesting concept. The problem is railways didn't just happen overnight, they were developments of previous technology, going back well before the first 'Inter City' railway opened in 1830. The loading gauge and track gauge were based on previous developments in waggonways. Also looking at things from an 1830 viewpoint (because to my mind thats when railways broke out of the local mainly goods or other single purpose operation) not everyone was convinced that railways would be the next big transport revolution, and until that was appearent there would be no reason to create a national set of standards and control. By the time it became apparent there were two main standards 7ft GWR and 4ft 8in for just about everything else, and the genie was already well and truly out of the bottle. I also suspect that the political landscape at that time would not have been open to more central control.

I know its been done to death previously, but Brunel's decisions regarding track and loading gauge were more forward thinking, but like the VCR format arguements in the 70s and 80s the widest adopted system won out over the best engineered solution.

In terms of routes, a lot of places which are now significant were brought to that state by the railways, if routes had been different then I would argue that the industrial centres may be different in a lot of cases. On the otherhand the location of natural resources is fixed, and railways would have been needed to distribute them.

In order to make a major difference the decisions would have to have been taken at the end of the 18th century, and at this point apart from possibly a few individuals I dont think anyone in a position of power would have been able to foresee the developments and guide them on the best path, because at that point the technology hadn't progressed sufficently to show what was possible. As with a lot of things, the technology advances and entrepreneurs then find applications and develop them.

 

[randyrippley]

.............. For instance, I would envisage the Great Western Railway being routed via Windsor, Newbury, Marlborough and Calne, with a Bath to Taunton direct line via Wells and Glastonbury. The Southampton to Dorchester route could also be extended to Exeter, potentially obviating all those little north-south branch lines along the East Devon coast. A better solution to the Exeter to Plymouth route would need to be found - I favour a route up the gorge of the River Teign from Dunsford to Chagford then across the wild open moor to Princetown and Plymouth (possibly calling at Yelverton), but then that's just because I love Dartmoor

Just in that one paragraph you show why it would cost too much - and why it never happened

Bath-Taunton via Wells & Glastonbury? Are you really going to run an express route over the Mendips followed by the Somerset wetlands?
Dorchester-Exeter. That would mean bridging all those north-south river valleys with viaducts, extensive tunnelling through the unstable chalk of the Dorset Downs and some severe gradients
Princetown? That would make the S&C look easy

 

[Helvellyn]

If you want to look for "what ifs" you probably need to look at the following for the first half of the nineteenth century:

• Major population centres
• Major Market towns
• Existing mail routes/toll roads
• Existing canal/river routes
• Geography

Not sure you'd change much from the early days. For example, look at the proposals for the Lancaster and Carlisle railway versus what was built (and why).

Where a guiding hand might have assisted was in the latter half of the nineteenth century to avoid duplication and spoiler routes. But again, that doesn't align with what either the Conservative or Liberal parties were about at the time.

 

[uvarvu]

I would have ensured that broad gauge won...

 

[randyrippley]

I would have ensured that broad gauge won...

which would probably have at least doubled the capital outlay due to wider tunnel bores, more land required for the trackbed (for instance doubling the width of embankments and bridges), enforced larger radius curves which have prevented optimal routing and required more earthworks.
Many railways would never have been built: partly due to increased cost, partly due to difficulties in finding a route

 

[Irascible]

which would probably have at least doubled the capital outlay due to wider tunnel bores, more land required for the trackbed (for instance doubling the width of embankments and bridges), enforced larger radius curves which have prevented optimal routing and required more earthworks.
Many railways would never have been built: partly due to increased cost, partly due to difficulties in finding a route

Yes, we'd have got the *really viable* ones. I suspect we'd have had narrow-gauge ( well at that point narrow gauge ) metro systems still.

Probably wouldn't have increased branch line cost by much, to be honest.

Edit: what's the minimum curve radius for 7' BG? how often was the min radius for standard gauge used outside of yards, anyway?

 

[etr221]

I think the great problem with the development of Britain's railways was that they were built - initially at least - by a mass of seperate companies, all trying to work out what they were doing - after all, it hadn't been done before.

If - back in the 1820s - there been some study/report on railways, showing what they would become (in various countries) - in the 1850s, 1920s, 2020s - then things would have been differently, in three spheres: (1) legal/commercial/social environment; (2) track and loading guage, and basic technical standards; and (3) network - and to some extent thess would interact.

In turn: (1) I would hope a nationally planned system - either a single state railway; or a series of concessions (essentially as in France); answering the fundamental question - is the railway a public service, or a commercial opportunity with the former, which would run as single (national) institution. But - as they did - politics may have dicatated otherwise.
(2) Basic standards: for day passenger coaches, essentially 5 aside + gangway, 50 cm seat width; night coaches, 2 m transverse berths, and 1 m corridor; for goods traffic, matching road vehicle width of 2.5 - 3 m: these all lead to a rail vehicle (loading gauge width) of about 3.2m; if track gauge is half that, then 1.6m. Vehicle length - up to 20-25 m seems about right, maybe 30m. Canal boats were 70 ft, say 21m - something to correspond with this? Height: with 1m height floor above rail level, 2m people and 1m roof, we have 4m for single deck, or 6m for double deck - what would been gone for? Overall, not that much bigger than what we had (have)

(3) a completely different network, as a single system with single line to everywhere. Professor Mark Casson - in 'The World's First Railway system' - devised an integrated counterfactual network, totalling about 13,000 route miles and aiming to give the same coverage is the actual sytem that developed by 1914, totalling about 20,000 miles.

 

[Gostav]

I found a feature of UK rail system is that there are many flat junctions, compared to Japan, a similar island nation where has a complex rail network, it seems there are too many flat junctions in UK.

 

[mike57]

If - back in the 1820s - there been some study/report on railways, showing what they would become (in various countries) - in the 1850s, 1920s, 2020s

I think the issue is that if you say 1825 is the year the report is written, I dont think anyone would have been able to predict the situation in 1850, let alone 100 years later or 200 years later. It would be more about being able to predict the advances in technology, and that has proven notoriously difficult over the years.

Think about the situation in 1825, steam haulage was only just becoming practical and other ulimately doomed technologies like atmospheric and cable haulage were still being considered and used (and for certain applications cable haulage was the best choice for many decades), steel production techniques for rail production were also in their infancy. Electrical propulsion wasn't even a concept and the same for internal combustion. I dont see how anyone in 1825 could have foreseen the various advances in technology that would enable routes which in 1825 would have seemed impossible to be built, but were built and successful in the 1840-60s which was only 15 to 35 years away.

I suspect if your 1825 report stated that by the year 2020 trains would be travelling at 200mph in regular service, using a form of propulsion not even conceived of, carrying upto 1000 people in the case of a dual TGV duplex set, you would have been locked up in the nearest lunatic asylum.

 

[AM9]

I think the issue is that if you say 1825 is the year the report is written, I dont think anyone would have been able to predict the situation in 1850, let alone 100 years later or 200 years later. It would be more about being able to predict the advances in technology, and that has proven notoriously difficult over the years.

Think about the situation in 1825, steam haulage was only just becoming practical and other ulimately doomed technologies like atmospheric and cable haulage were still being considered and used (and for certain applications cable haulage was the best choice for many decades), steel production techniques for rail production were also in their infancy. Electrical propulsion wasn't even a concept and the same for internal combustion. I dont see how anyone in 1825 could have foreseen the various advances in technology that would enable routes which in 1825 would have seemed impossible to be built, but were built and successful in the 1840-60s which was only 15 to 35 years away.

I suspect if your 1825 report stated that by the year 2020 trains would be travelling at 200mph in regular service, using a form of propulsion not even conceived of, carrying upto 1000 people in the case of a dual TGV duplex set, you would have been locked up in the nearest lunatic asylum.

Surely, the main thrust of this thread is would the routes that rail links take might have been different which with hindsight would be almost certainly, - witness the networks in countries that were later to the game than the UK. The UK doesn't have a particularly good record of catering for future technology in infrastructure projects as there's always some objection on priority of costs or the NIMBY arguments, and that applies to road, water and sewage and (well off topic but dare I say it to illustrate the point), insulation in buildings.

 

[Watershed]

There are a number of routes which would never have been built, in all likelihood. The S&C and Great Central London Extension come to mind. But equally there probably wouldn't be the nonsense of Birmingham having two separate networks which only have one minor station in common (Smethwick GB), or Manchester and Glasgow having two separate main stations.

 

[Revaulx]

There are a number of routes which would never have been built, in all likelihood. The S&C and Great Central London Extension come to mind. But equally there probably wouldn't be the nonsense Birmingham having two separate networks which only have one minor station in common (Smethwick GB), or Manchester and Glasgow having two separate main stations.

At least in Birmingham bitter rivals the LNW and Midland were able to share a station!

The LNW and Great Western were perfectly capable of cooperating in other places (Chester; Shrewsbury).

 

[Magdalia]

I found a feature of UK rail system is that there are many flat junctions, compared to Japan, a similar island nation where has a complex rail network, it seems there are too many flat junctions in UK.

I know very little about the history of railways in Japan, this is an interesting assertion. Did they build flying junctions at the start or add them later?

In Britain one route stands out here and that's the main line out of Waterloo, which has lots of grade separation, but not at Woking or Basingstoke, where perhaps it is most needed.

 

[AM9]

I know very little about the history of railways in Japan, this is an interesting assertion. Did they build flying junctions at the start or add them later?

In Britain one route stands out here and that's the main line out of Waterloo, which has lots of grade separation, but not at Woking or Basingstoke, where perhaps it is most needed.

It is only "most needed" because all the other important junctions already have flying junctions.

 

[Pinza-C55]

If you went back in time many of the lines would be the same as they were. The Stainmore for instance carried vast quantities of coke to the Furness ironworks and iron ore to Cleveland. If the question was "If you went back in time with hindsight would you build the lines differently ?" they would still need to built in some form because the traffic flows they served would still exist.

 

[swt_passenger]

In Britain one route stands out here and that's the main line out of Waterloo, which has lots of grade separation, but not at Woking or Basingstoke, where perhaps it is most needed.

Woking was about to be done before WW2, land had been bought. Explanation is usually that they ran out of cash, but then the war possibly got in the way anyway.

I don’t think the Basingstoke station area itself was ever in the plans, it would have likely had a much different service at that time.

 

[stuu]

I know very little about the history of railways in Japan, this is an interesting assertion. Did they build flying junctions at the start or add them later?

They spent an astronomical sum rebuilding main lines around the biggest cities in the 1960s and 70s, adding extra tracks and all sorts of flying junctions to enable different services to have their own tracks

 

[Helvellyn]

In Britain one route stands out here and that's the main line out of Waterloo, which has lots of grade separation, but not at Woking or Basingstoke, where perhaps it is most needed.

Woking was about to be done before WW2, land had been bought. Explanation is usually that they ran out of cash, but then the war possibly got in the way anyway.

I don’t think the Basingstoke station area itself was ever in the plans, it would have likely had a much different service at that time.

Woking made sense because third rail electrification already ran to Portsmouth via Guildford and Alton via Brookwood, both part of the "Southern Electric" routes and thus there was a more intensive service (interestingly Pirbright Junction where the Alton Line branches off was grade separated, probably because you wouldn't want to risk slowing the Expresses to Southampton Docks, Bournemouth or the West Country).

Basingstoke, however, probably had very little traffic with conflicting movements because you had the S&D route to Bournemouth, plus the Didcot-Newbury-Winchester route - so little traffic probably came off the GWR Reading route and continued South. Don't forgot no Freightliner traffic to Southampton either. Again, look at where a grade separated junction was in place - Worting, to separate the Southampton and Salisbury routes where expresses/freights could have been in conflict.