Why did the GCR run to London via Rugby?

[Sad Sprinter]

The route from London to Leicester on the GCR runs through some pretty sparse country. Were there any other routes considered for the London extension? I would have thought a Nottingham - Corby - Peterborough - Royston - Hertford - City route would have been better, especially that Marylebone is pretty remote from London's main commercial districts.

 

[swt_passenger]

Corby would have been a very small village in the late 1800s, it probably wouldn’t have been considered as a useful or necessary call.

 

[SargeNpton]

What was the GCs main purpose? Was it for the carriage of passengers or was it for freight? If freight, then perhaps the route into north-west London offered better opportunities than into north-east London - and without paying toi run over a competitor's tracks.

 

[Magdalia]

I would have thought a Nottingham - Corby - Peterborough - Royston - Hertford - City route would have been better,

The GCR already had a route like this via Lincoln and March.

If freight, then perhaps the route into north-west London offered better opportunities than into north-east London - and without paying toi run over a competitor's tracks.

Indeed, coal was much more lucrative than passengers.

The chosen route also had the huge advantage of direct exchange of traffic with the GWR via the Banbury link. That's why there was a huge freight yard in the middle of nowhere at Woodford Halse.

 

[507020]

What was the GCs main purpose? Was it for the carriage of passengers or was it for freight? If freight, then perhaps the route into north-west London offered better opportunities than into north-east London - and without paying toi run over a competitor's tracks.

It’s main purpose was to connect the networks of the MS&LR and the Metropolitan Railway (yes the one with tube trains on it) with a superbly engineered high speed link, because they were both owned by the same man, Edward Watkin, who also envisaged a Channel Tunnel.

This proved itself ridiculous so in the 20th century a deviation was opened as a joint venture with the GWR, now the Chiltern Main Line.

 

[The exile]

They were fairly hand in glove with the Metropolitan Railway (wasn’t Watkin Chairman of both - and also of a putative Channel Tunnel company?) so that gave them their route into London.

 

[30907]

The route from London to Leicester on the GCR runs through some pretty sparse country. Were there any other routes considered for the London extension? I would have thought a Nottingham - Corby - Peterborough - Royston - Hertford - City route would have been better, especially that Marylebone is pretty remote from London's main commercial districts.

Peterborough is North of Corby and was a modest-sized market town until the 70s, Corby's growth was when the steelworks opened in the 30s (IIRC) - and the route also runs through pretty sparse country that was well-provided with railways.

 

[Helvellyn]

The route from London to Leicester on the GCR runs through some pretty sparse country. Were there any other routes considered for the London extension? I would have thought a Nottingham - Corby - Peterborough - Royston - Hertford - City route would have been better, especially that Marylebone is pretty remote from London's main commercial districts.

If they wanted that route a joint venture/merger with the Great Northern would have made more sense, routing Nottingham to Grantham then down the ECML and perhaps funding four tracking at Welwyn.

But this about a London extension for the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway which was renamed as the Great Central Railway in 1897 and opened its London extension in 1899.

Now a MS&LR/GNR merger would be a fascinating "what if" thread, assuming no London extension (or maybe just the route to Banbury to link with the GWR).

 

[Bevan Price]

Some people would now think that the London Extension was mainly an ego trip for Watkin.
It would never have got Parliamentary approval if it had too closely duplicated the routes of other lines all the way between Nottingham and London. As the latecomer, that left the option of passing through a lot of lightly-populated areas.

 

[eldomtom2]

They were fairly hand in glove with the Metropolitan Railway (wasn’t Watkin Chairman of both - and also of a putative Channel Tunnel company?) so that gave them their route into London.

Of course the problems with that became apparent quickly, with the GC and Met learning that freight and commuter trains do not mix.

 

[etr221]

From the late 1850s the MS&L (later GCR) and GNR had fairly close relations, with through trains from Kings Cross to Manchester via Retford. But the MS&L (i.e. Watkin) always had a desire for greater access to London - initially through running powers over the GN. So later the MSL/GC London Extension - to a link with the Met at Quainton Road - came to be. For more details, see George Dow's three volume history of the Great Central.

And there were various amalgamation proposals between the MSL/GC and GN (sometimes including others, such as the GC), but none came off. I don't know what happened over Kings Cross-Retford-Sheffield (and beyond) expresses after the GC London extenson opened, but I think the LNER did run some; and under BR the East Coast modernisation plan electrification proposal of the 1950s, the main route from London to Sheffield was to be from Kings Cross via Retford.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The Railway Magazine in 1899 suggested that the GCR and the Metropolitan Railway amalgamate to give an unified service to Aylesbury.

The proud Met would have dismissed this in a micro-second.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Some people would now think that the London Extension was mainly an ego trip for Watkin.

. . . and some of us think it was a bit more sinister than that.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

. . . and some of us think it was a bit more sinister than that.

What was it?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

What was it?

We discussed this in another thread a few weeks ago. Very briefly, it's pretty obvious that the London Extension was not conceived as a sensible business venture and was implemented to line the pockets of Edward Watkin at the expense of his shareholders.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Very briefly, it's pretty obvious that the London Extension was not conceived as a sensible business venture and was implemented to line the pockets of Edward Watkin at the expense of his shareholders.

Where did the GWR fit into this? The line from Old Oak Common to Banbury was part of the same project. Indeed from Ruislip to somewhere near Banbury it was the GW & GC joint.

Had they sought and been given running powers, that could have give the GC another London terminus at Paddington. It even had a physical connection with the Met at Bishops Road.

Great Western and Great Central Joint Railway - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Where did the GWR fit into this? The line from Old Oak Common to Banbury was part of the same project. Indeed from Ruislip to somewhere near Banbury it was the GW & GC joint.

Had they sought and been given running powers, that could have give the GC another London terminus at Paddington. It even had a physical connection with the Met at Bishops Road.

Great Western and Great Central Joint Railway - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That came a few years later and was not part of the original London Extension project. Indeed, the fact that the two companies, not all in competition with each other, could come to such a sensible joint arrangement indicates that there was no real need for an entirely new and separate route via Aylesbury. Incidentally, the joint route did not in the first instance reach Banbury. It ran between Ashendon Junction and Northolt Junction with the GWR building its own route to Paddington and the GC constructing a link to Neasden.

 

[etr221]

The original MSL London Extension project (Act of 1893) was for lines Annesley-Quainton Road, and Canfield Place (Finchley Road)-Marylebone, also a couple of connections, with running powers over the Met from Quainton Road to Canfield Place. During the planning/construction phase, the Met agreed to build two new tracks for MSL use (exclusively) from Harrow to Canfield Place; and a new line was authorised from Woodford to a link with the GWR at Banbury, with a connection to the Met between Edgware Road and Baker Street being dropped. And the MSL dropping proposals that would conflict with the GW, including reaching Birmingham via Stratford (over the E&W Jcn, later SMJ, and North Warwickshire Lines), and - if it hadn't fallen by the wayside first - a connection to London & South Wales Railway.

The GW&GC proposals (culminating in Act of 1899) followed later, with new GC lines Neasden-Northolt and Ashenden-Grendon Underwood; and a joint line between them (and other GW lines).
Once the ensuing (or continuing) row with the Met had quietened down, and it been agreed that co-operation was better, the Met&GC Joint was established, taking over the Met lines from Harrow to the north, and the GC took over (long lease) 'its' Harrow- Canfield Place tracks.

One wonders might have happened had Watkin acquired a directorship of the GWR in the 1880s, and thought about that as a way into London.