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

[Nearholmer]

6 minutes ago, DenysW said:

We shall see whether the battery technology (and charging-point regulations) moves fast enough to meet expectations.

 

I bet it wont meet hopes!

 

Personally, I think the issue around long trips, which actually make up a very small percentage of all trips anyway, is soluble by vast improvement of charging provision at motorway service areas and similar nodes, because the range of car batteries already greatly exceeds that of human bladders, and driver attention spans.

 

 

[DenysW]

This neatly returns us to the OP. The steam-era UK government relied on private enterprise to develop railways and ended up with an incoherent bodge in many areas; the present one is doing the same with EV and charging points. We will live and learn whether the result is better.

[Mike 84C]

The phrase "light touch regulation" springs to mind and get the worst of outcomes.

[Nearholmer]

Government by wishful thinking.

[DenysW]

Government (in both cases) by Someone Else Paying.

[34116 Broadwoodwidger]

On 01/07/2022 at 00:13, Flying Pig said:

 

I like the Austin 7s.  With decent bearings, a proper cylindrical smokebox, a Horwich cab and sensibly sized tender, they'd have been fine for the job they were built for.

 

They'd have been fine... thirty years earlier. Over twenty years after the Churchward 2800s and also postdating the Gresley O2? Absolutely not fine. Add in the useless 1850s size bearings, short travel valves, poor steaming... they were garbage.

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, 34116 Broadwoodwidger said:

 

They'd have been fine... thirty years earlier. Over twenty years after the Churchward 2800s and also postdating the Gresley O2? Absolutely not fine. Add in the useless 1850s size bearings, short travel valves, poor steaming... they were garbage.

 

I believe the valve gear was actually rather good.  It was basically the axle bearings that let them down. Reused from the 4F - where they worked with Midland standards of maintenance but did not cope with LMS cost-cutting - they were not up to the increased piston thrusts.  That apart, the 7F was a perfectly adequate tool for the 19th century task of trundling small unbraked mineral wagons about.  Until the coal industry could get its act together, nothing more sophisticated was really needed.

[Poggy1165]

In Continental Europe the military function of railways was recognised at an early stage and strategic potential was absolutely key. Consequently, either the state ran the whole shebang from day 1, or it was heavily involved.

 

Here in the UK, sheltered by the water around us and a very powerful Navy, the military aspect of railways was not seen as key and a (broadly) laissez-faire approach was chosen. To have had anything different would have required a wholly different political culture.

 

Even in the 1900s, when thought turned to the strategic use of railways, it was all done on an informal basis right up until the Government took control in WW1. Though by about 1900 the railway companies had figured out that much competition was wasteful, and had started to co-operate more. The SER/LCDR working agreement was an extreme example of this. The GC/GN/GE worked together as far as Parliament would allow, and if the politicians had not stopped it would have had a near-merger in about 1908.

 

In some ways the British are a very atypical bunch, and it has consequences. 

[whart57]

On 26/06/2022 at 20:54, The Johnster said:

I would work on the principle that a central controlling committee resposnsible for allowing lines to be built would do so from two primary points of view and that, in the 1830s to 1850s, these would have been firstly military and secondly for the economic good of the nation.  Military lines would be from London to Dover, Portsmouth, Milford Haven, Holyhead, (the last two to put down Irish rebellions), and possibly Richborough, supplemented by lines from Leeds/Manchester to Holyhead and Glasgow to Stranraer.  The Severn Tunnel or a bridge would have been built much earlier, probably by 1850, to supply the Fleet at Portsmouth and Plymouth efficiently with Welsh Coal.  These military routes need not pass through more than a few  centres of population on the way.

 

The first (I think) public railway in Britain, the Surrey Iron Railway, was intended to be a military line. The ultimate purpose - and remember that the Napoleonic Wars were still going on when construction began - was to connect the navy base at Portsmouth with London. In the end the line only got as far as Merstham and was abandoned, never forming part of any later railway.

 

The SER's Ashford to Hastings branch was built because the Duke of Wellington pushed for it as part of the defensive infrastructure. Romney Marsh was seen by the early nineteenth century War Office as a likely place for a French invasion and in Napoleonic times Martello towers had been built along its coast and the Royal Military Canal dug as a defensive work. The railway was pushed for by Wellington as a means of getting troops to the site of a French invasion rapidly.

 

I think, but stand to be corrected, that the other SER white elephant - the Reading to Redhill line - was similarly desired by the military authorities.

 

As for a line to Richborough, that would have been the proposed Central Kent Railway, which competed in Parliament against the SER proposals in most sessions until 1847. Only they didn't call Richborough that. The term used was "Sandwich Haven" but the port was planned for the same place, namely the mouth of the River Stour.

[Nearholmer]

The Rye Harbour branch was a government “force in”. I can’t remember the precise details, but the SER had to build it in return for parliamentary powers to build something else, maybe the Ashford-Hastings line, again presumably for strategic reasons.

[whart57]

On 26/06/2022 at 19:24, Nearholmer said:

I wouldn’t go for the equivalent of the metre gauge network, which wasn’t actually a great success in France (zillions of kilometres of loss-makers that mostly lasted only forty or fifty years, many less), but would introduce the 1896 Light Railway provisions much, much earlier, early enough that nearly all feeder lines (interet local) would be built (to standard gauge) without the expense of a parliamentary act, under the view of commissioners, and would be permitted to operate to safety standards commensurate with light traffic.

 

I know quite a bit more about the Netherlands local railway systems than about the French but as a general rule the Dutch experience is that gauge made little difference to the viability of a feeder line. In fact the last two tramway systems to survive were narrow gauge, the 3'6" gauge RTM running south of Rotterdam and on the islands of the Maas delta and the 750mm gauge Gelderland system (
https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/125424-overseas-railways-worth-modelling/#comment-2822479).

 

A number of standard gauge lines had been taken over by Netherlands Railways in the late 1940s but their survival was only because they were there and the NS had the locos (the 200 class light diesels) to drag the half dozen wagons a day along what was effectively a long siding. Passenger transport had gone over to the bus.

 

In the Netherlands, and probably France too, that forty to fifty year life span was set by the longevity of equipment. Lines closed because they needed serious investment in renewing track and replacing locomotives, investment that couldn't be justified.

 

In and around Amsterdam and The Hague the NZH tram company invested in electrification. The NZH included the inter-urban from Amsterdam to Haarlem and Zandvoort which had been built as an electric line from the start and it electrified its remaining lines in the mid 1930s. Some lines were standard gauge, others were metre gauge. The gauge made no difference to how long they lasted, not more than a few years. The metre gauge lines closed in 1957, the standard gauge lines were gone by 1961. It was however the ultimatum from Amsterdam city council to the NZH to withdraw to the city boundary that was the reason for the metre gauge going first though, as only metre gauge lines served Amsterdam.

 

[Nearholmer]

I was thinking more about making exchange of goods traffic more practical, and hence cheaper, while the lines did remain open, than of prolonging their lives very much. The only way to do the latter would be to command the invention of lightweight internal combustion engines out of history.

Can our time travel do that sort of thing?

[The Johnster]

The requirements of the Army and Admiralty were strong factors in the development of Victorian railways in the UK.  There were two prime concerns, the French, and Irish rebellions.  Railways serving the English Channel ports and harbours were often supported by the governement and in some cases partly paid for by it as well with an eye to supplying the Fleet and getting troops to France or to support defence against a French invasion.  The Holyhead route was part-financed by the government in fear of Irish rebellions, an ever-present feature in stategic thinking, and might have been better used to supply food during the Great Famine than troops!  One of the first trains through the Severn Tunnel when it opened to goods traffic was a special coal train from the Naval colliery at Tonypandy to Portsmouth, less than 12 hours from the coal being cut to steam raised in battleships, and much publicsised should any foriegn power (which meant France in those days) be paying attention!

 

The Holyhead investment paid off militarily several times, notably in the 1916 uprising, but the French never invaded, just made us spend huge amounts of money in case they did.  When the inevitable European War came in 1914, it was not France but Germany that had to be contended with, and the east coast became the front line.  The result was that there more 'Jellicoe Specials' than use of the Severn Tunnel!

[whart57]

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I was thinking more about making exchange of goods traffic more practical, and hence cheaper, while the lines did remain open, than of prolonging their lives very much. The only way to do the latter would be to command the invention of lightweight internal combustion engines out of history.

Can our time travel do that sort of thing?

 The answer on the Gooische Stoomtram, a standard gauge tramway that ran from Amsterdam to Hilversum, Bussum and Laren, was to fit a buffer beam to a tramway loco.

 

 

I note the preserved line where this runs has now removed that as part of a project to make it more authentic as a tramway loco

 

Now granted, Holland is flat so these little engines were able to shift a couple of mainline goods wagons as there were barely any gradients. However the GS did find them underpowered and during the Occupation and immediately after when goods traffic was a lot higher because of shortages of petrol or even lorries, they hired some small locos form the NS.

 

 

Not a great success because even these tiddlers were too heavy for the GS tracks and had a habit of flattening the rails.

 

Same gauge does not necessarily mean same weight of rail, strength of bridges or firmness of foundations.

[Nearholmer]

Yes, I think that in my alternative universe the lowest of the low in terms of feeder railways might have a designed axle-loading not much more than is necessary for a fully laden goods wagon, with rungs on the ladder above that for lines that needed/wanted more powerful locomotives, typically those going further, so needing to be a bit quicker.

 

Many of these AULRs would be electrically powered as soon as technology permitted, of course, probably with picturesque little steeple-cab locos for the goods trains.

 

The Wantage Tramway was pretty close to ideal as a short branch line IMO, much more suitable than some of the frankly OTT things that got built to serve more or less the same function, so imagine that crossed with the Manx Electric on standard gauge, pretty much a US inter-urban, or the very early electrics in Austria.

 

In fact, I think when it comes to playing God with railway history, I’d like to leave mainlines to someone else, and focus on CFIL and high-density urban/suburban (more early electrics).

 

PS: is that Medemblik?

Edited July 6, 2022 by Nearholmer

[whart57]

If I had the means to be a "voice from the future" back in Williamite times then I would advise that it is not the distance between the rails that is important but the space around the track. I would get Parliament to reject the London to Bristol bill until the 7 foot gauge was removed and standard gauge substituted. On the other hand I would also advise Parliament to only approve railway bills with a generous loading gauge. By the mid 1830s the limitations of Tyler Hill tunnel on the Canterbury and Whitstable were already obvious and it shouldn't have taken much imagination to consider that tunnels and bridges would create limits on size even if improving technology meant trains could be made bigger.

 

The other thing I would whisper in ears is plan how the railways go in London. This is a map of London c1840

 

At this point it would be a lot easier to build the Metropolitan Railway linking Paddington and Euston with the City than it would be thirty years later, never mind building Crossrail, sorry Elizabeth line, now. Similarily south of the Thames, building a link line between the SE and SW lines

[2251]

On 27/06/2022 at 14:35, Nearholmer said:

A lot of sense, but the trouble is that by the 1950s the burden of Victorian Bloat, and Victorian legislation, had already been weighing the railways down for decades, and needed to be dealt with much before that.

 

How about we nationalise in 1923, as was seriously advocated by people from a surprising breadth of the political spectrum, and put Sir Herbert Walker in charge of the whole ruddy lot?

 

He was an arch moderniser, and a man who really understood how to take costs out of railway operation while still providing viable services.

 

If we give sufficient capital to permit real investment in “spend to save”, as well as in tapping emerging markets, which is what he secured on the SR, we might really get somewhere, but watch out for early use of motor lorries and buses, taking over local goods distribution and the least sensible branch lines. Some of the common carrier obligations will need to be lifted, and a lot of the capital will be in the form of low-interest, government-backed loans, aimed at maintaining employment in industry, through modernising the railways.

 

More taking a good set of pruning shears to the thing, and making sure it is properly fertilised and watered, than the axe that eventually had to be used because it was all too out of hand.

The man at the Southern whose role is grossly insufficiently appreciated is Robert Holland-Martin, chairman from 1935 until his death in 1944. A good deal of what people now tend to think of as distinctively "Southern", such as the use of Malachite green, was due to his influence.  

 

 

Edited July 13, 2022 by 2251

[jmh67]

Sitting back, looking at the map, and thinking a bit about the "big picture", I would not expect the network to look too different to what we have now. Population centres still are where they were in the first half of the 1800s. We'd still need lines between Manchester and Glasgow, between London and Leeds, between Cardiff and Birmingham. Duplication of routes has resolved itself after a fashion, anyway. Lines would still radiate from London just because it is the capital. Maybe the London termini could have been concentrated - e.g. a big "London North" station instead of Euston, St Pancras, and King's Cross, and "London South" combining Victoria, Charing Cross, Waterloo, and Cannon Street - , and we'd already have some more cross-London main line tunnels. Perhaps a few more cross-country lines should have remained in service (also for freight and relief purposes), such as the "Varsity Line" and the "Woodhead Line", likewise some branches such as the one to Ilfracombe, and the Grand Central line might have remained in service. Perhaps a direct Harwich - Holyhead line via Cambridge and Birmingham could have been built, and the railways up the Welsh valleys would (still) all connect to an Abergavenny-Swansea line. Some more local networks could have been electrified after the fashion of the South-Eastern or the continental S-Bahn systems (3rd rail or overhead, whichever fits the bill), such as in the Manchester-Liverpool area, in the West Midlands, and in West and South Yorkshire. Anything else would come down to local details, such as whether to run the London-Leicester trains via Stevenage or Luton, whether to serve Tadcaster, Cleobury, or Kelso by a railway, whether the Settle & Carlisle should be double-tracked and electrified ...

 

A more generous loading gauge has already been mentioned and would definitely make sense, perhaps also an earlier centralisation to avoid wasteful duplication, but otherwise? No idea beyond the above, and the wish to avoid the general road mania of the second half of the 20th century which, with hindsight, appears to be one of the roots of today's problems.

 

[whart57]

6 hours ago, jmh67 said:

Maybe the London termini could have been concentrated - e.g. a big "London North" station instead of Euston, St Pancras, and King's Cross, and "London South" combining Victoria, Charing Cross, Waterloo, and Cannon Street - , and we'd already have some more cross-London main line tunnels.

 

 

Kings Cross and St Pancras are side by side and Euston not so far down the road so a single London and the North terminus would not have been that difficult. The northern lines weren't keen on local traffic either - which is why the Underground network has most of it north of the Thames.

 

To the South though traffic was less long distance, Dover, Brighton and the Solent ports are all closer to London than Birmingham is, so passengers were much keener on being delivered somewhere close to where they wanted to be. The first railway in London was after all the line to Greenwich, a commuter line from the outset. The Southern railways needed both a City terminus (London Bridge, Cannon Street, Blackfriars) and a "West End" terminus (Charing Cross, Victoria). Waterloo was rather awkwardly neither one nor the other, hence that odd bit of the Underground, the Waterloo and City line.

Edited July 14, 2022 by whart57

[Nearholmer]

6 hours ago, jmh67 said:

No idea beyond the above, and the wish to avoid the general road mania of the second half of the 20th century which, with hindsight, appears to be one of the roots of today's problems.

It’s a curious thing that the steam locomotive and the railways to run it on created as much change as the internal combustion engines vehicle and the roads to run them on, both technologies were genuinely transformative, but at no stage do railways seem to have been looked upon as an insatiable monster that got badly out of hand in the same way that the car is.

 

The general drift of opinion, at the time and since, is that railways improved peoples lives, which I don’t think would sum-up opinion of cars. Society sort-of regrets the invention of cars, for all the positives they have, in a way that it doesn’t seem to regret the invention of trains.

[johnofwessex]

11 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

It’s a curious thing that the steam locomotive and the railways to run it on created as much change as the internal combustion engines vehicle and the roads to run them on, both technologies were genuinely transformative, but at no stage do railways seem to have been looked upon as an insatiable monster that got badly out of hand in the same way that the car is.

 

The general drift of opinion, at the time and since, is that railways improved peoples lives, which I don’t think would sum-up opinion of cars. Society sort-of regrets the invention of cars, for all the positives they have, in a way that it doesn’t seem to regret the invention of trains.

 

Of course the impact of building the railways was several lifetimes ago and much of it was subsequently 'undone' whereas the big post war road building programme is still remembered by many.

 

Similarly most of us are not affected by train noise but almost all of us are affected by road noise and anti social driving behaviour

[Michael Hodgson]

2 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

Similarly most of us are not affected by train noise but almost all of us are affected by road noise and anti social driving behaviour

 

Back in the early 1800s, you had to put with anti-social behaviour by horses leaving stinking piles in the middle of the road.

[johnofwessex]

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

Back in the early 1800s, you had to put with anti-social behaviour by horses leaving stinking piles in the middle of the road.

 

According to may father they still had that in Bayeux in 1944 and it wasnt horses...............

[rodent279]

On 27/06/2022 at 10:09, Nearholmer said:

The London Extension also didnt have a fantastically good approach to London, because it crashed into the Chilterns and squiggled and slogged through them by the Met & GC, and GW&GC routes, whereas the L&B route sliced bravely through at Tring.

 

The L&B route was very cleverly selected, and our time traveller might do well, if he or she has foresight, to select it, but go large, and make it a six or eight track super-highway as far as Rugby, then branch for Birmingham, Trent Valley, and the GC route to tap the various commercial and industrial areas, with the GC route being the way onwards towards Tyneside. Sort of the M1/M6 of railways.

 

In fact, here is my outline proposal for a sensible start to a railway network in 1830. I would add Holyhead, and Norwich, and finish the route to Brighton, cos I like Brighton, and Londoners deserve a day out at the seaside every now and then.

 

 

 

 

Looks a bit like the Serpell report.....