Imaginary Locomotives

[Suzie]

Grouping should have put the Midland with South Eastern to give a route from Scotland via Settle and Carlisle, all the way through Snow Hill tunnel to Dover. Might it have encouraged the Midland to build bigger engines? or would there be lots of double heading?

[Compound2632]

8 hours ago, DenysW said:

That gives you Manchester-Dover via Derby, and the Metropolitan Widened Lines. This brings forward the St. Pancras Low Level platforms (A and B) by 60-80 years as well. 

 

But that happened anyway, with through carriage working. The SECR built some first/third brake composites for these workings, which can be seen in some photos of Manchester expresses.

 

In the 19th century, the Midland's partner south of the Thames had been James Staats Forbes' LCDR, Watkin being a vigorous thorn in the Midland's side. There was also a strong spirit of cooperation with the LSWR in the west, outflanking the Great Western, though that was more a case of the Midland getting access to the South Coast, via the S&DJR and the M&SWJR. There were also strong "cultural" links with the Brighton, via the Johnson - Stroudley - Billinton network. So perhaps a Midland & Southern group would have been the thing? But at the other end, the Midland and the G&SWR did get very close to amalgamation in the early 1890s and cooperated closely with the NBR. So if one was to form a Midland group that really did justice to the pies in which it had fingers, one would have a railway extending from Southampton to Aberdeen (almost); from Liverpool to Great Yarmouth; from Plymouth to Hull (taking in the H&B); from Derry to Dover.

 

To counterbalance this Derby octopus, one would have to form a Crewe combine, with the LNWR absorbing the L&Y, Caledonian, NER, GER, GWR, and Cambrian. 

 

That would just leave the GNR and GCR - long-time partners - to struggle on together. 

[DenysW]

10 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

Tidier if the Gorton and Cleethorpes Railway was grouped separately with the SECR companies and the Metropolitan. 

Probably true on tidyness, but putting all the financially-dodgy ones into one Grouped company seems like a guarantee of bad headlines. But on that basis: add the Great Eastern as well.

[Flying Pig]

58 minutes ago, DenysW said:

Probably true on tidyness, but putting all the financially-dodgy ones into one Grouped company seems like a guarantee of bad headlines. But on that basis: add the Great Eastern as well.

 

Makes it cheap for the Nord to buy though.  Getting back on topic that means we could see French types infusing the lines of the English company.  Enormous tank engines in the London suburbs perhaps, with 1500 V overhead coming later.

[Murican]

On 10/09/2023 at 17:38, DenysW said:

I believe that particular ambition died with the departure of Watkin and the (slightly earlier) forced abandonment of the Channel Tunnel. There also wasn't a major connection for the Great Central to get south of the Thames without going via Olympia.

 

Well, let's suppose for the sake of the locomotive ideas that the GCR does get a better connection to south of London. Say maybe (for the sake of giving it to the SECR for the Dover connection), a link at London Victoria?

 

When floating this idea, my main focus was locomotive design. Assuming Maunsell stays in charge, I could see him not only build those S16 4-8-0s, but also build his Schools class as Atlantics and Lord Nelson class as Pacifics. Furthermore, if we go off my past LNER ideas, I could see Bulleid build some of his Pacifics as Mikados (maybe the Battle of Britain class) or Mountains (the Merchant Navies, like he wanted).

Edited September 12, 2023 by Murican

[Murican]

On 11/09/2023 at 02:49, Compound2632 said:

That would just leave the GNR and GCR - long-time partners - to struggle on together. 

I take it their partnership is party why the GCR became part of the LNER?

 

If so, what could have been done to make the GCR less of a burden?

[billbedford]

In 1911, the GNR, GCR and GER intended to amalgamate, but the plan was vetoed by parliament. 

 

The constituents of the LNER were mainly coal railways. After the war was over, the revenues from coal never really reached their pre-war levels. 'Peak coal' in the UK was in 1913. 

[Compound2632]

38 minutes ago, billbedford said:

In 1911, the GNR, GCR and GER intended to amalgamate, but the plan was vetoed by parliament. 

 

The constituents of the LNER were mainly coal railways. After the war was over, the revenues from coal never really reached their pre-war levels. 'Peak coal' in the UK was in 1913. 

 

Indeed, the Great Northern was all about stealing coal traffic from under George Hudson's nose.

 

You say "mainly"; the exception being the Great North of Scotland, I suppose.

Edited September 17, 2023 by Compound2632

[billbedford]

Neither the GNSR nor the GER had coal mines in their territories, though the GER had running rights on the LD&EC. 

[Compound2632]

12 minutes ago, billbedford said:

Neither the GNSR nor the GER had coal mines in their territories, though the GER had running rights on the LD&EC. 

 

But the GER was very much a coal railway, at first through its junctions with the LNWR and Midland at Peterborough, later with the addition of the GN & GE Joint Line. 

[Murican]

2 hours ago, billbedford said:

The constituents of the LNER were mainly coal railways. After the war was over, the revenues from coal never really reached their pre-war levels. 'Peak coal' in the UK was in 1913. 

Well, what could have helped the GCR under the LNER after that then?

[Willie Whizz]

Electrification not being interrupted (long-term) by WWII?
 

The GC was not intrinsically a “burden” as suggested, but suffered from being always cast as the Junior Partner in any version of the Grouping you care to define, plus a long-lasting collapse in the kinds of traffic it was built to cater for in the 1920s and 30s.

Blame that on the Government(s) of the era,  not the railway. 

[billbedford]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But the GER was very much a coal railway, at first through its junctions with the LNWR and Midland at Peterborough, later with the addition of the GN & GE Joint Line. 

 

The three southern railways also delivered coal, but no one would call them coal railways. 

 

The GER had slightly less than 3000 coal wagons, of which 901 were 20 T steel loco coal wagons. The number of open goods wagons appears to be in the order of 20,000. This seems to be remarkably few of the requisite wagons for a coal railway. 

Edited September 17, 2023 by billbedford

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

The three southern railways also delivered coal, but no one would call them coal railways. 

 

The GER had slightly less than 3000 coal wagons, of which 901 were 20 T steel loco coal wagons. The number of open goods wagons appears to be in the order of 20,000. This seems to be remarkably few of the requisite wagons for a coal railway. 

 

But that overlooks the many thousands of PO wagons running over its lines. One would need to look at the figures for revenue from coal traffic and tons of coal transported. The 1922 edition of the Railway Year Book, which I have as a PDF, only lists tonnage originating on the company's system, which doesn't give a true picture.

 

Compare the Taff Vale Railway which, according to that Year Book, in 1921, had a total stock of 2,372 goods vehicles and moved 7,798,860 tons of coal (originating on its system).

[DenysW]

16 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

The GC was not intrinsically a “burden” as suggested

I have to quibble about this. The GCR after 1900 was running on (probably illegal) levels of debt (i.e. greater than the 25% allowed by railway legislation), and had to pay for the London extension by issuing Preference 5% stock - that it never paid the Preference dividend on. 

 

It simply didn't get the extra traffic (passenger OR goods OR mineral) to make it viable after the London Extension. Even though it was running about a quarter of its train-miles on behalf of other companies (1912 basis).

 

Now I haven't checked the Grouping settlement, but on 1912 share prices it should have been valued at less than 20 p in the £ compared to the North Eastern.

[Murican]

What about under BR? What could have been done to at least make the Great Central Mainline still viable?

 

Personally I imagined the idea of the route being used as Britain's first freight-only main line starting in the 1960s. Enabling the WCML and Midland Mainline to avoid having long-distance freight clog their systems.

Edited September 19, 2023 by Murican

[rodent279]

18 hours ago, Murican said:

What about under BR? What could have been done to at least make the Great Central Mainline still viable?

 

Personally I imagined the idea of the route being used as Britain's first freight-only main line starting in the 1960s. Enabling the WCML and Midland Mainline to avoid having long-distance freight clog their systems.

Can't help thinking that if that had been a viable proposal, it would have happened. The GC was a bit of a problem child though, because it didn't really connect to any other railways south of about Nottingham, all to way through to Woodford Halse. There were connections to the Midland at Loughborough (during/post ww2?), & at Leicester (sometime in the 1960's?), but these were not designed for the exchange of traffic in quantity. There was no connection to the LNW at Rugby, so overall, the opportunities for diverting significant quantities of freight traffic would have been limited.

Remember also that the WCML electrification was intended to create a mixed-traffic electric railway, not a purely passenger one. The electric locos were designed to be equally at home on 100mph passenger as on 60-75mph freights, so there would have been a desire to do the opposite, and push freight traffic onto the WCML.

Edited September 20, 2023 by rodent279

[sir douglas]

Through the 1905 of Railway Magazine had a drawing in each issue of "what if so-and-so railway had a De Glehn", this one shown as an example was for the Great Eastern

[Flying Pig]

13 minutes ago, sir douglas said:

Through the 1905 of Railway Magazine had a drawing in each issue of "what if so-and-so railway had a De Glehn", this one shown as an example was for the Great Eastern

 

Hmm... as the original Clauds were running by 1905, they could have done a better job with the styling.  I think a two window cab and some lacework in the valances are called for.  

[DenysW]

On 19/09/2023 at 17:09, Murican said:

Personally I imagined the idea of the route being used as Britain's first freight-only main line starting in the 1960s

After a quick look at the map:

 

-   The Midland (old) mainline came into Rugby via Countesthorpe and massive Grade 2 listed viaducts. Scrapped by Beeching. Nightmare at Wigston Junction if made major again.

-   The two LNWR WCML branches (via and not-via Birmingham) join at Rugby

-  The GCR crosses the LNWR at right-angles in Rugby at a different level (both typical of the GCR, as @rodent279's comments above)

-  The implications of diverting both the MML's and the WCML's freight onto the GCR therefore involves hextupling the lines out of LNWR Rugby to a location south of the town, and then building a loop across Warwickshire to join up with the GCR.

 

So: Possible in 1910 but uneconomic and wouldn't have fitted with the GCR's self-image. Didn't fit with 1960s thinking (railways are obsolete Victorian technology). Might have made HS2 redundant in the 2010s if already constructed and capable of quadrupling all the way to London, but not otherwise.

[Flying Pig]

37 minutes ago, DenysW said:

After a quick look at the map:

 

-   The Midland (old) mainline came into Rugby via Countesthorpe and massive Grade 2 listed viaducts. Scrapped by Beeching. Nightmare at Wigston Junction if made major again.

-   The two LNWR WCML branches (via and not-via Birmingham) join at Rugby

-  The GCR crosses the LNWR at right-angles in Rugby at a different level (both typical of the GCR, as @rodent279's comments above)

-  The implications of diverting both the MML's and the WCML's freight onto the GCR therefore involves hextupling the lines out of LNWR Rugby to a location south of the town, and then building a loop across Warwickshire to join up with the GCR.

 

So: Possible in 1910 but uneconomic and wouldn't have fitted with the GCR's self-image. Didn't fit with 1960s thinking (railways are obsolete Victorian technology). Might have made HS2 redundant in the 2010s if already constructed and capable of quadrupling all the way to London, but not otherwise.

 

The GC crossed the Midland at Loughborough, so you could have diverted the Midland freight traffic onto it there.  Traffic from the North West might have found enough paths over a freight-only Woodhead to run via Sheffield, but it would probably have better continued its journey along the Midland via Barrow Hill and the Erewash Valley to Loughborough.  That way you could still close the northern part of the GCLE through Nottingham and keep Toton in use.  Of course once you got to Loughborough, why not just continue to Brent on the Midland goods lines?

[Northmoor]

54 minutes ago, DenysW said:

So: Possible in 1910 but uneconomic and wouldn't have fitted with the GCR's self-image. Didn't fit with 1960s thinking (railways are obsolete Victorian technology). Might have made HS2 redundant in the 2010s if already constructed and capable of quadrupling all the way to London, but not otherwise.

Many of us look to contrive reasons why the GCR should have survived and it's very probable that if it had, HS2 would not be built as an adapted GCR (with new curves at Rugby etc.) would be providing the capacity.  That's not to say it could provide an alternative to it now - rebuilding a railway abandoned for 50+ years is little different from building through green fields - and the idea of reopening it instead of HS2 has been comprehensively dismissed many times.  But if you hadn't had to rebuild it, only upgrade it.....

[rodent279]

10 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Many of us look to contrive reasons why the GCR should have survived and it's very probable that if it had, HS2 would not be built as an adapted GCR (with new curves at Rugby etc.) would be providing the capacity.  That's not to say it could provide an alternative to it now - rebuilding a railway abandoned for 50+ years is little different from building through green fields - and the idea of reopening it instead of HS2 has been comprehensively dismissed many times.  But if you hadn't had to rebuild it, only upgrade it.....

But major upgrades of existing main lines carrying revenue earning traffic are not cheap, or easy, either.

 

Edit: EWR is perhaps the nearest equivalent to our imaginary scenario of a freight only GC being upgraded to a passenger/high speed line, and that is effectively a new railway being built that just happens to be on an old formation. So the size of the task can be gauged from that.

Edited September 21, 2023 by rodent279

[AlfaZagato]

I'd imagine HS2 requires fully separated grading, as well.   I can't think dedicated fast lines do well with level crossings.

[PhilJ W]

21 minutes ago, AlfaZagato said:

I'd imagine HS2 requires fully separated grading, as well.   I can't think dedicated fast lines do well with level crossings.

There were few if any level crossings  on the GCR main line, certainly not on the London extension.