GCR Line to Birmingham?

[1165Valour]

Does anyone know if there were any proposals for the GCR to reach Birmingham? I'm aware of their plans involving the Stratford-upon-Avon and Midland Railway, but I wanted to know if there were any others. 

[TheSignalEngineer]

My reading of the various things that happened around the end of the 19th  start of the 20th century was that they had thoughts of taking over the North Warwickshire Railway when it ran out of money during its construction. It was around the time that they opened the London Extension so they may have been distracted and the GWR stepped in. They also looked at the SMJ which was permanently cash-strapped, with the intention of linking their new line to Stratford and Birmingham.

Edited December 4, 2019 by TheSignalEngineer

[1165Valour]

I had originally considered the feasibility of a GCR line linking Birmingham and Peterborough via Leicester. I hoped this one could be a bit more direct than the real line following this route.

[fezza]

Brackley was planned as a junction station for a line towards Stratford (and a link to Birmingham). None of the GCR histories are clear about why it was dropped, although I imagine changing  relations with the GWR were a factor. It may have been proposed to get leverage over the GWR on other issues. 

[1165Valour]

It seems that being acquired by the GCR might have saved the SMJR from obscurity, but does the line allow for the fast running the GCR would have needed?

[Nearholmer]

Related things have come up in my thread https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/149083-buckingham-branches-by-bike/ , which in turn relates closely to your Varsity Line thread.

 

 

I think that the "back door to Birmingham" manoeuvrings relate more to Watkin as an individual than to the GCR as emerged after he'd largely left the scene. My impression is that the GCR would have had trouble raising capital for anything exciting once the London Extension was built, because that turned out to be poor investment for shareholders.

 

 

Edited December 3, 2019 by Nearholmer

[1165Valour]

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Related things have come up in my thread https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/149083-buckingham-branches-by-bike/ , which in turn relates closely to your Varsity Line thread.

 

 

I think that the "back door to Birmingham" manoeuvrings relate more to Watkin as an individual than to the GCR as emerged after he'd largely left the scene. My impression is that the GCR would have had trouble raising capital for anything exciting once the London Extension was built, because that turned out to be poor investment for shareholders.

 

 

Hmm, this is likely the most realistic understanding of things. Of course, that has never held back the modeller's fancies...

 

@James Harrison, care to join on the GCR speculation?

Edited December 4, 2019 by GWRSwindon

[DavidB-AU]

On 16/11/2019 at 06:39, TheSignalEngineer said:

My reading of the various things that happened around the end start of the 20th century was that they had thoughts of taking over the North Warwickshire Railway when it ran out of money during its construction. It was around the time that they opened the London Extension so they may have been distracted and the GWR stepped in. They also looked at the SMJ which was permanently cash-strapped, with the intention of linking their new line to Stratford and Birmingham.

 

A Bill was introduced in 1894 to build the Birmingham, North Warwickshire & Stratford-on-Avon Railway, connecting at Stratford-on-Avon with the East & West Junction Railway to Moreton Pinkney on the London extension of the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway.

 

Watkin tried to do it even earlier than that in conjunction with the Met. From the Railway Times of 1 June 1878. 

 

 

Cheers
David

[Nearholmer]

The whole business of the London Extension, the various proposals that preceded it, and which were Watkin's personal hobbyhorses and which had genuine support from even the companies promoting them is very tangled, and I'm not sure that any of the books that I've looked at really explains it all in a way that ties-up with all of the tantalising bits of evidence that can be found.

 

Even the one solid biography of Watkin that I've looked at doesn't really tie it all up properly.

 

The way I've explained it to myself is to assume that Watkin was pretty well obsessed with creating a new N-S high-speed main-line, plus as many connections to potential traffic centres as was possible, and that he pursued this obsession by every possible method, sometimes moving forward by persuading what would be rival railways, notably the GN, to take a stake, persuading the boards of whichever companies he was a member of to promote schemes, even when it wasn't in their interests and their hearts weren't in it, attempting to use "starvling" railways as vehicles etc etc.

 

This way of looking at it at least explains why the same proposals were put forward sequentially by different companies, the obsession being passed around like a baton, and why some proposals put before parliament seem to include routes in parallel (the hope being that one would get through!).

 

It becomes quite clear that after Watkin became too ill to bash away at all this himself, things became cooler, more moderate, as people realised that "network building" on a grand scale might seem logical, but wasn't by any means a good way to make money.

 

The question this all poses is why Watkin had this obsession. Was he a cynic, who had worked out that he could personally benefit by creating great rivers of money flowing into construction, and tapping a tiny percentage of that in the form of salaries? Or, and I think this more likely, was he driven by a sort of public-spirited desire to get the best for Manchester? Or, what?

 

 

 

 

Edited December 4, 2019 by Nearholmer

[James Harrison]

17 hours ago, GWRSwindon said:

Hmm, this is likely the most realistic understanding of things. Of course, that has never held back the modeller's fancies...

 

@James Harrison, care to join on the GCR speculation?

 

I forget which volume it is, but Dow mentions that Watkin struck a deal with the LNWR.  They would drop objections to the London Extension, and he would drop any ambitions of extending to Birmingham, was about the top and bottom of it if I recall correctly.  Of course, the Stratford upon Avon and Midland Junction connected with the GCR at Woodford Halse and with the GWR at Stratford, so a through route to Birmingham (Snow Hill) did technically exist even if it were never used as such.  By the time it existed too, the GCR had other things on its mind (namely, servicing the debts it incurred building to London, and paying its share of the GC/GW joint line). 

 

Basically, by the time the GCR was placed to build to Birmingham, there were compelling financial and political reasons not to; the GWR being a rare ally.  The Birmingham traffic would not have been worth turning the GWR against them. 

[Butler Henderson]

The index of Vol 2 of Dow gives four page entries for Birmingham, access to but the last of those is a page with no reference to Birmingham on it, One of the correctly indexed pages references a cooling down over the matter due to the new arrangements with the GWR.

[1165Valour]

Assuming the GCR had somehow managed to acquire the lines to Birmingham, where would they site their terminus? Access to Snow Hill doesn't seem likely, so a "Birmingham Central" will need to be put somewhere else.

[TravisM]

When I worked on LT in the late 70’s/early 80’s, we had a old Met steam driver who was well up on the Great Central and if I remember rightly, when the London extension was built, Watkins grand plan was to have the whole route electrified to give the travelling public “a clean and fast railway to London”.  I’m not sure by what means it was going to be electrified, 3rd or 4th rails or OHLE.

 

You also have to remember that the London extension was only part of Watkins grand plan.  The line was originally built to be “converted” quickly from UK to Berne gauge as he wanted to continue south to the Kent coast, build a tunnel under the channel and continue to Paris.

 

I think the links to Birmingham were quietly dropped as with the idea of electrifying and extending to Paris, as the London extension had drained the GCR’s coffers significantly.

Edited February 10, 2020 by jools1959

[DavidB-AU]

The Bill (which reached the House of Lords) would give them running rights over the North Warwickshire Line as far as Tyseley. Looking at the 1890 OS map, the easiest option I can see is 2 extra tracks from Tyseley to Moor St and additional platforms there.

 

EDIT: So Moor St could have at least been a temporary terminus with a possible central underground station later. As mentioned above, Watkin had previously attempted a new route to Birmingham in connection with the Metropolitan Railway so a Moorgate-like station could have been a possibility even before electrification.

 

Cheers

David

Edited February 10, 2020 by DavidB-AU

[Nearholmer]

5 hours ago, jools1959 said:

 I’m not sure by what means it was going to be electrified, 3rd or 4th rails or OHLE.

 

Can you cite a source for the electrification plan/idea?

 

I'd like to follow it up, if I can, because it would be a nice early example of a "main line" scheme being considered in Britain.

 

A low(ish) voltage DC system with ground-level conductors would be highly unlikely for a long-distance main-line, and depending upon the exact date it might have been envisaged as 3-phase HV ac (1895-1905), single-phase HV ac (c1905 onwards), or 1500/3000V dc (c1914 onwards). The "tech" progressed very quickly, and everyone was dancing about trying to decide which was the most practicable. It is highly suggestive that the Met favoured 3-phase HV, which was a strange idea for electrifying the Circle Line (and got over-ruled accordingly by a BoT arbiter), but makes perfect sense in the context of the times for long-distance electrification.

 

Mind you, Watkin was pretty well known for "putting ideas out there", before the detail had been examined ......... leading from the front, or pipe-dreaming, depending upon how you look at it, so the tech option may not have been settled.

[TheSignalEngineer]

6 hours ago, GWRSwindon said:

Assuming the GCR had somehow managed to acquire the lines to Birmingham, where would they site their terminus? Access to Snow Hill doesn't seem likely, so a "Birmingham Central" will need to be put somewhere else.

Trying to re-activate brain cells from local history research about 40 years ago so bear with me if it isn't 100%, we didn't have the internet then and had to trawl through the local library.

 

IIRC the BNW originally proposed a separate line into its Birmingham terminus. Where the present line turns NE to get from Hall Green to Tyseley It was going to continue down the Cole Valley to a point near where Tyseley Shed was built then roughly follow the Warwick Road/ canal to the east of Sparkbrook, below Camp Hill then on to Moor Street.

When the GWR bought out the BNW c1903 they changed the route through Hall Green to meet with their existing line at Tyseley and took advantage of the already-proposed Moor Street site for their own south side local trains.

 

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Trying to re-activate brain cells from local history research about 40 years ago so bear with me if it isn't 100%, we didn't have the internet then and had to trawl through the local library.

 

IIRC the BNW originally proposed a separate line into its Birmingham terminus. Where the present line turns NE to get from Hall Green to Tyseley It was going to continue down the Cole Valley to a point near where Tyseley Shed was built then roughly follow the Warwick Road/ canal to the east of Sparkbrook, below Camp Hill then on to Moor Street.

When the GWR bought out the BNW c1903 they changed the route through Hall Green to meet with their existing line at Tyseley and took advantage of the already-proposed Moor Street site for their own south side local trains.

 

Basically yes.  And to take the story of the BNW&SoA a bit further I think we can rule the MS&LR/GCR p out of the picture based on what MacDermott has to say.  In 1898 the GWR Chairman, Lord Cawdor, pledged that the company would construct a new route  from Cheltenham to Honeybourne (where it would connect with an existing branch to Stratford-On-Avon) to 'better serve the Vale of Evesham' than the proposed Andoversford and Stratford-On-Avon Railway which would be worked by the MSWJtR and connect with the BNW&SoA at Stratford.

 

So having secured the end of the A&SoAR bill the GWR proceed with obtaining powers for the route it had promised obtaining them in 1899 intending to link with the BNWSoA at Bearley.  But in the same year the latter company came to terms with the GWR and obtained its own Bill which authorised it to abandon its independent line into Birmingham and make junctions with the GWR at Stratford and Tyseley.  In July 1900 the powers previously granted to the BNW&SoA were transferred to the GWR.

 

I doubt the GCR was involved in any way in all this. The GWR & GCR Joint Committee was also formed in 1899 and the GWR had already loaned the GCR the capital to build its connection to the GWR at Banbury.  So not so much the GCR at Birmingham but maybe L&SWR through trains from Southampton to Brmingham

[1165Valour]

42 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Basically yes.  And to take the story of the BNW&SoA a bit further I think we can rule the MS&LR/GCR p out of the picture based on what MacDermott has to say.  In 1898 the GWR Chairman, Lord Cawdor, pledged that the company would construct a new route  from Cheltenham to Honeybourne (where it would connect with an existing branch to Stratford-On-Avon) to 'better serve the Vale of Evesham' than the proposed Andoversford and Stratford-On-Avon Railway which would be worked by the MSWJtR and connect with the BNW&SoA at Stratford.

 

So having secured the end of the A&SoAR bill the GWR proceed with obtaining powers for the route it had promised obtaining them in 1899 intending to link with the BNWSoA at Bearley.  But in the same year the latter company came to terms with the GWR and obtained its own Bill which authorised it to abandon its independent line into Birmingham and make junctions with the GWR at Stratford and Tyseley.  In July 1900 the powers previously granted to the BNW&SoA were transferred to the GWR.

 

I doubt the GCR was involved in any way in all this. The GWR & GCR Joint Committee was also formed in 1899 and the GWR had already loaned the GCR the capital to build its connection to the GWR at Banbury.  So not so much the GCR at Birmingham but maybe L&SWR through trains from Southampton to Brmingham

Hmm, interesting. I'll have to wait to check my copy of Dow, but I remember reading that Pollitt was given the money to buy shares in the BNW and E&WJR. Watkin seemed to like the idea, but then Watkin never saw a mad scheme he didn't like (except for the LD&ECR mind).

 

By the way, is MacDermott's GWR trilogy worth the cost?

Edited February 10, 2020 by GWRSwindon

[The Stationmaster]

MacDermott is well worth the money if you are interested in the subject.  I have both the Ian Allan reprint (they don't seem to go for much) and a set of first editions I found at auction a few years back, the latter has some fixing on the edges of some pages but they had been rebound and the binding is in superb condition.  To get real value out of them they should ideally be used in conjunction the GWR Analysis book - reprinted (without the map) in 1986 by Avon  Anglia from the 1928 original with the title page 'THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY  Routes, Statutes, Opening dates & Other Particulars'. which is very useful for exactly what it says on the cover.  I've also got a copy of the original version published by the GWR and while the map is useful it definitely isn't essential if you've got a reasonable idea of GWRT geography.

[Trog]

13 hours ago, jools1959 said:

 

You also have to remember that the London extension was only part of Watkins grand plan.  The line was originally built to be “converted” quickly from UK to Berne gauge as he wanted to continue south to the Kent coast, build a tunnel under the channel and continue to Paris.

 

 

That was very forward thinking of them as the Berne gauge was not agreed until a conference held about a dozen years after the GC London Extension was built. I am interested in how they were going to quickly increase the loading gauge of the bridges and tunnels, did they use rubber bricks perhaps? 

[TravisM]

12 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

Can you cite a source for the electrification plan/idea?

 

I'd like to follow it up, if I can, because it would be a nice early example of a "main line" scheme being considered in Britain.

 

A low(ish) voltage DC system with ground-level conductors would be highly unlikely for a long-distance main-line, and depending upon the exact date it might have been envisaged as 3-phase HV ac (1895-1905), single-phase HV ac (c1905 onwards), or 1500/3000V dc (c1914 onwards). The "tech" progressed very quickly, and everyone was dancing about trying to decide which was the most practicable. It is highly suggestive that the Met favoured 3-phase HV, which was a strange idea for electrifying the Circle Line (and got over-ruled accordingly by a BoT arbiter), but makes perfect sense in the context of the times for long-distance electrification.

From what I can remember being told, Watkins looked at the Metropolitan Railways 4th Rail electrification and other 3rd rail systems as they were quite well established but he was also interested in the LB&SC’s overhead system.

 

It’s a well known fact that the London extension was built so that continental stock could be run from mainland Europe.  As I said in my previous post, Watkins wanted to extend the London extension down to the Kent coast, either build a bridge or tunnel to cross the channel and onto Paris.  All the tunnels, bridges and platforms were built with extra clearance to accommodate this.

[DavidB-AU]

It's important to remember just how many pies his fingers reached. As well as the MS&L/GCR he was a director of 9 other British railway companies and Chairman of the Metropolitan and South Eastern, and on the board of the Chemin de Fer du Nord. One of the issues of Railway Times said he had met with Werner von Siemens in 1880, a year after Siemens demonstrated the first electric railway in Berlin and around the time the tunnel was started. There were electric railways operating or under construction in London and Liverpool within a decade so it would not have been impossible for there to have been a slidey rail main line from Manchester and Birmingham to at least Calais.

 

Another interesting link, he was friends with Leopold and Alfred de Rothschild. Rothschild & Co were part owners of CF du Nord.

 

Cheers

David

[TheSignalEngineer]

6 hours ago, Trog said:

That was very forward thinking of them as the Berne gauge was not agreed until a conference held about a dozen years after the GC London Extension was built.

Yes, they must have had a good crystal ball. Construction of the London Extension started in 1894, the Berne Guage wasn't agreed until 1912.

 

I have seen quoted that the loading gauge in the documentation for the London Extension was 13'5" high by 9'3" wide. This is fractionally higher than the current NR W6A gauge. Berne Gauge is 14' 1/2" high by 10'4" wide. The only British gauge larger than this would have been GWR Broad Gauge which was 15'0" high by 11'6" wide.

[DavidB-AU]

The Berne spec is moot at that point. It's important to remember that many French railways did not meet the Berne spec when it was first drafted in 1891.

 

CF du Nord was built to a very similar loading gauge to Britain and had British height platforms.

 

PLM was 2830 mm (9'3") wide at the time. Locos were up to 4295 mm (14'1") high but had very tall funnels and the stock was somewhat shorter.

 

So yes, the bulk of French stock at the time could have run through on the London Extension.

 

EDIT: And CF de l'État Belge/Belgische Staatsspoorwegen stock too. Slightly narrower than PLM and funnels up to 4300 mm high but the roof line was well within the London Extension limits.

 

Cheers

David

Edited February 11, 2020 by DavidB-AU

[Trog]

9 hours ago, jools1959 said:

 

It’s a well known fact that the London extension was built so that continental stock could be run from mainland Europe.  As I said in my previous post, Watkins wanted to extend the London extension down to the Kent coast, either build a bridge or tunnel to cross the channel and onto Paris.  All the tunnels, bridges and platforms were built with extra clearance to accommodate this.

 

Well known fact or not it just is not true, the GC extension was built to a middle of the road British loading gauge, and was nothing special.

 

Building the GC to a large loading gauge at that time for cross channel use would have been pointless because as others have pointed out the railways of Northern France were not built to take advantage of it, and the plans to enlarge them would not emerge until years in the future.

 

The business of the island platforms being built to facilitate the use by Berne Gauge trains also ignores the fact that the same thing could have been achieved by building ordinary pairs of platforms with a wide six foot. Except that in both cases if you slued the track away from the platform to allow Berne Gauge use there would then be a dangerous gap when used with UK stock. So even IF you enlarged all the bridges and tunnels to give Berne Gauge clearance, you would probably have needed to build separate Berne Gauge and UK platforms.