I believe the original route was out on the GEML to Stratford, thence north from there, all of which eventually was 4-track, including from Stratford up the Lea Valley. It was later that express services got routed on the curving suburban lines short-cut-that-isn't through Hackney Downs (essentially making it 6 tracks out to Lea Bridge).
-
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!
Lines that should have been mainlines
- Thread starter Sad Sprinter
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
leytongabriel
Member
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 590
Barking to the junction with the GE at Manor Park might do with a couple of more tracks. Parts of the NLL were 4 track, a few bits still are
or three track), but if more 4 track was available wouldn't it help with some capacity problems at least as far west as Camden? And now with the Stanstead Express, 4 track up the Lea Valley to Broxbourne, rather than just the siding as far as Meridian Water please?
or three track), but if more 4 track was available wouldn't it help with some capacity problems at least as far west as Camden? And now with the Stanstead Express, 4 track up the Lea Valley to Broxbourne, rather than just the siding as far as Meridian Water please?
4-track on the NLL would be of limited use without sorting out the junctions at either end. The capacity problem isn't trains needing to overtake, it's the conflicting moves on and off the line.
paul1609
Established Member
South of Horsham the line wasn't aiming for Barnham as the coastal strip already had the coastway line and was at that time rural and relatively unpopulated. It was aiming for the major market towns of Petworth and Midhurst with their country estates at Petworth House and Cowdray Park. The original plan was to continue to Petersfield before the LSWR opened their Midhurst Branch. Hardham Junction (south of Pulborough) was where the new cut off diverged through to Ford via Arundel. Its still a very obvious curve today in the Arun Valley Line with a 60 mph restriction.
The Maidstone Line was really only a branch loop between two main lines. . Its four track as far as Swanley where it branches off the main line to Dover via the Medway Towns and Canterbury which were both more important towns than Maidstone and Ashford. Ashford even in my lifetime was only a major railway junction and a small market town.
contrex
Member
You do have that in a way, don't you, only the other two go via Catford?
True, and the loop does take a lot of longer distance services, however there's nothing like a set of fast lines !
Revaulx
Member
Oh does it? When I was a regular along there in the late 70s it was only used for diversions, as far as I can remember.
I suppose the Shortlands grade separation has made things much more flexible?
That's helped, but I can remember going around it in the Ashford stopper in the 90's as well.
In the mid 70s most of the fasts went via Herne Hill but from memory the xx14 and xx50 stoppers offpeak went Loop, and there was a frequently-used xx44 boat train path.
The traditional operating pattern was (infrequent for London) stopping services that left Victoria alternately via Herne Hill and via the Catford Loop. Fasts also left Victoria frequently, especially when boat trains and all their reliefs were running; if the preceding stopper was via Herne Hill the fast went via Catford, overtaking it, and the reverse applied if the preceding stopper was by Catford. The Catford Loop is actually only a couple of minutes slower. I even did it in Eurostar once, but it was done like this from way back. Although the working timetables showed which route was expected, particularly in the Up direction it was a decision for the signalbox at Shortlands to determine by the minute the best route for a fast.
Pedantically, the Catford Loop was always served from Holborn/Blackfriars (except for a few years of weekend trains).
Yes, the offpeak service was relatively infrequent, but in latter years one of the factors cited was the need for fast paths (yorksrob had a point there!). Other factors will have been the presence of alternative routes (ex LBSC, ex SER) and the relatively low density of housing on parts of both routes (ie it was always relatively posh).
I think the frequency (often half-hourly) on the two Bromley lines had always been driven by the need to get the fasts through. I also must say that in many a nonstop out to Bromley etc over the years (even on Eurostar) I never once had any delay from a stopper ahead, though it was always an interesting point on an Up service which way you were going to lurch at Shortlands. Even for such a backwater line, the signalling headway possible on Peckham Rye to Shortlands seemed to allow headways of just a couple of minutes as the fasts were flighted through; the tracks always looked fully up to main line standards, although intermediate station structures (Ravensbourne, looking at you) long looked like a country wayside station.
It was signalled - and pwayed - same as the main line, and as far as Nunhead it was just as busy in the peaks (especially before 1954 when Palace HL closed). And yes, Ravensbourne was pretty quiet back in the day (it and Beckenham Hill lost their evening and Sunday trains mid 70s).
Sad Sprinter
Established Member
I'm actually surprised the Catford Loop stations survived Beeching. After all, it roughly parallels to Hayes Line for much of its route which serves the City and West End.
"between Bellingham and Catford" I think you mean. Interesting thought - but the Mid Kent back then was extremely busy (19 Up trains 7-9am at Elmers End in 1958, compared with 12 in 1978) and couldn't have taken the extra traffic even from those 2 stations.
Ravensbourne was pretty quiet back then, I admit, with relatively small numbers within walking distance (though that was already changing in the 60s), but that's the exception.
And it was always the second choice route for fasts as it was 3min slower from Victoria.
That would make sense to me - though I have not travelled this line (north of Ockley, anyhow) a look at the timetable suggests the congestion is from the Epsom/Sutton area northwards. In the Dorking area you'd probably only need at maximum two fasts and two slows an hour, even at peak, so no need for 4-tracks.
This is also presumably the reason why Dorking, which is a fair size, gets such a slow service to London compared to other towns of similar distance to London of similar size. There is no capacity to run the trains fast, so it has to stop at the majority of stations into London.
The Waterloo-Reading could also benefit from 4-tracks out to say Staines, that's similar to the Dorking route in the sense that places like Bracknell and Wokingham get a very slow service to London. Nonetheless, maybe with careful timetabling they could squeeze in more fast trains. From at least 1981 (perhaps earlier) to May 1985 there were eight trains an hour to Ascot in the peak, and four of those were limited stop. And that was with what looks like a frequent suburban service - maybe they were just very clever with the pathing, ensuring that fasts overtook slows in the Wandsworth Town-Putney-Barnes area (four-tracked).
Yes, that's the other one that comes to mind, and that is a genuine main line (while say Dorking and Bracknell are commuter routes with a lot of traffic which could do with 4-tracking in parts to allow faster mid-distance commuter services).
In contrast to the other examples though, it seems to be the suburban services, rather than the main line (which all or mostly go fast to Bromley South) which suffer, with the all-stations services on this route not as frequent as one would otherwise expect in suburban London.
And of course this route had to, at one time, handle Eurostar too. Not sure exactly how they managed... though I do remember Eurostar crawling thrrogh Penge, Beckenham and the rest before accelerating as it switched to the Charing Cross line...
Last edited:
Dr_Paul
Established Member
- Joined
- 3 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 1,357
When Richmond was updated in the 1930s, the Windsor lines platforms were rebuilt in such as a way as to enable them to become two island platforms serving two up and two down lines. Twickenham was rebuilt with the potential of having four through lines (and, as I've noted in another thread, the up bay could still be turned into a through platform).
To have quadrupled from Barnes through Richmond and beyond would have necessitated taking over one of the two parallel roads and some demolition of property between White Hart Lane and Mortlake station (and a fair bit of 'garden trimming' after that), demolition of some buildings and the rebuilding of over-bridges in Richmond and of the railway bridge over the river. Mortlake and St Margarets could have been rebuilt to resemble North Sheen: an island platform serving just the slow lines. As for Whitton, which was being heavily developed at that time, I imagine that if the Southern had been serious about quadrupling the line, they would have cooperated with developers to ensure that construction around the station would have allowed space for quadrupling, and the station would have been built to accommodate four lines.
Every 15 in normal times - pretty standard.
That's because the linespeed changes at Petts Wood Jn from 60 to 90(?).
QJ
Member
Not sure I follow your thinking. Until 1967 Forfar was a through station on the line from Perth hosting Glasgow to Aberdeen expresses. The line veered off the Highland main line at Stanley Junction and connected with the Edinburgh to Aberdeen line just north of Montrose at Kinnaber Junction. Brechin was a branch off this line (still open as a heritage line). In the 1960s era of track rationalising and increasing car ownership it was thought better to route the Glasgow to Aberdeen expresses via Dundee with Dundee having a much bigger population.
With all the proposals for rail re-openings in Scotland I haven't noticed a strong clamour for Forfar to be reconnected to the rail network.
randyrippley
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Feb 2016
- Messages
- 5,132
If the S&DJR had been four-tracked it would have made a fine express freight route from Southampton to the midlands and north. Would have been a prime candidate in the 1950's for electrification, probably at 1500V dc. Continuing electrification to Birmingham would have made sense as well - especially for freight on the Lickey.
Would have been a perfect route totally avoiding London and the southeast commuter zone
Would have been a perfect route totally avoiding London and the southeast commuter zone
Well that would have solved the problem of the fume-filled tunnels at the Bath end
Double track would have been enough as the passenger traffic wasn't heavy (except summer Saturdays when you couldn't have run any freight through Brockenhurst anyway). Reinstate Wimborne-Corfe Mullen.
End of fantasy - if you wanted a freight route north from Southampton, the DNS (Didcot Newbury and Southampton) was much more direct; indeed it survived closure to passengers for a couple of years for that reason.
Why would running via Poole be a direct route between Southampton and the Midlands? The S&D was twisty as anything and didn't exactly have generous gradients, so would be totally unsuitable for today's freight. It would be like having a second Heart of Wessex line if it had survived today. As has been mentioned, the DN&S would have made sense to retain as a secondary route to relieve Basingstoke, but even that wouldn't have needed to be built as a 'Main Line'
Well that would have solved the problem of the fume-filled tunnels at the Bath end
Double track would have been enough as the passenger traffic wasn't heavy (except summer Saturdays when you couldn't have run any freight through Brockenhurst anyway). Reinstate Wimborne-Corfe Mullen.
End of fantasy - if you wanted a freight route north from Southampton, the DNS (Didcot Newbury and Southampton) was much more direct; indeed it survived closure to passengers for a couple of years for that reason.
I'm not sure that you could justify retaining a route purely on the basis of being a back up route. Ideally you'd need passenger potential as well, and I think the S&D would have been betterfor this, albeit I agree fully doubled would have sufficed.
Certainly keeping at least the southern part of the S+D open would make a lot of sense; places like Wimborne and Blandford are surely big enough, and near enough conurbations (Bournemouth-Poole), to warrant a passenger service. The northern part seems to head through more remote country, but I guess linking to the main line at Templecombe, and a link at Yeovil onto the Pen Mill line (and on to Frome, Westbury etc), would have allowed S+D trains to use still-open lines for much of their route and still provide Bournemouth-Bristol through services. Would also allow Bournemouth-Exeter of course, for which the only available routes are extremely roundabout.
The D, N and S could have been used as a main line arguably, as it would considerably speed up direct services from the south coast to Oxford, Birmingham and further north so that it would feel like a genuine inter-city route.
You could have ended up eventually with two trains an hour Birmingham to Oxford, one going on to Reading and one to Bournemouth, with the Bournemouth train being the one routed via Solihull to further increase the 'express' nature of the service. It would have disadvantages, only one train an hour Reading-Birmingham (but perhaps it could be double-length) and you'd also then need an additional Southampton-Reading limited stop service to make up for the lost XC - but it would turn the route into a genuine 'InterCity' grade route.
Last edited:
That was actually in hand in WW2, Didcot to Newbury was doubled plus the first section south of Newbury, by US Army engineers, then the Southern stepped in and stopped it as they didn't want a GWR main line at Southampton.
It came in to the main line at Didcot right at the east end of the station, and getting to the Oxford avoiding line meant crossing all four tracks at once; ideally a flyover should have been provided there.
In any event there wasn't a lot of traffic from Southampton docks to the North at that time; outside wartime most Southampton traffic went to London, and most northern traffic was shipped to Liverpool.
I can imagine an American themed marketing opportunity had that survived. "The Stars and Stripes line"
Not secondary lines but would have benefitted from being built wider: LNWR Coventry to Wolverhampton must have been terribly congested in the 50s and 60s. Quadrupling from Coventry to Stechford might have had benefits both then and now, as stoppers could be overtaken by WCML expresses, XC, fast LNW services etc. The Midland was 4 track from Barnt Green to Kings Norton and from Saltley to Water Orton, as a comparison.
PaulLothian
Member
The major problem with the line through Strathmore was that it missed most of the (small) towns along the way, and didn't easily connect them to Dundee, where the majority of travellers were needing to go.
- Status