Great Central Dieselisation - What if?

[The Stationmaster]

46 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

With 3 London-Manchester routes, 2 duplicated north of Rugby, the GC was always doomed from the moment of nationalisation.

Even if nationalisation hadn't happened, I think rationalisation would have happened anyway. The LNER & LMS would have come to some accommodation.

The decline of coal traffic also played its part.

[Butler Henderson]

As a bigger what if, what if mining subsidence had seriously affected the Midland aound Clay Cross to point of it beng reduced to very slow local freight traffic only and all traffic of any importance transferred to the GC. How would NE-SW via Birimingham have operated - via a chord at Loughborough to run via Leicester London Road and Nuneaton or via a rebuilt Nottm Suburban so serving both Nottingham Victoria and Derby Friargate before running to Burton on Trent via Egginton Junction.

Edited April 25, 2023 by Butler Henderson
Typos corrected

[john new]

5 hours ago, rodent279 said:

With 3 London-Manchester routes, 2 duplicated north of Rugby, the GC was always doomed from the moment of nationalisation.

Even if nationalisation hadn't happened, I think rationalisation would have happened anyway. The LNER & LMS would have come to some accommodation.

The sad part of the above is the emphasis on to/from London and the ignoring of places in between and what they might need. There is the assumption that London is the B All and End All of life. I used the GC from time to time back in the day on the Poole/Bournemouth  to York (boarding in Winchester) precisely because it was a through train, no changes and avoided the need to cross London. That said the GC was built IIRC with pax secondary to getting coal as fast as possible to London, it was the freight corridor hindsight suggests we should have kept but the decline in coal and post WW2 switch to road haulage killed off.

[The Johnster]

The brutal truth is that the MS&L London Extension was a noble but doomed attempt backed by Manchester business interests not aligned with the Midland or LNW, and it is surprising that passenger traffic lasted as long as it did on the route south of Sheffield.  I am dubious of the need to keep Woodhead Tunnels open post-grouping beyond providing the LNER with access to Manchester and Liverpool traffic, and BR should have abandoned the electrification and closed the route in 1948.  Marylebone is a suitable suburban terminus for commuter traffic out as far as Banbury or possibly Rugby, but there was never any need for it to supply trains to distant cities already served by the Midland or LNW.  Once it was tranferred to LMR it's pointlessness became obvious, and it didn't last long.

 

The route should have been retained for through freight working, though, in order to relieve congestion on the Midland and to a lesser extent the WCML, which would be very much appreciated in modern times.  By the time it was closed, the big power station at Didcot was under construction 100 miles from the nearest coalfield and MGRs could have replaced the Windcutters and Annesley Runners.  Any through passenger traffic may well have been in the hands of Class 123 Swindon Inter-City dmus, and reliability would have been a serious problem by the 70s.  The natural solution if such traffic were to be retained (and I really cannot see that it needed to be) would have been loco-hauled vacuum-braked steam-heated mk1s, with 47s and 37s being the most likely haulage. 

[The Stationmaster]

7 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

 

The route should have been retained for through freight working, though, in order to relieve congestion on the Midland and to a lesser extent the WCML, which would be very much appreciated in modern times.  By the time it was closed, the big power station at Didcot was under construction 100 miles from the nearest coalfield and MGRs could have replaced the Windcutters and Annesley Runners.  Any through passenger traffic may well have been in the hands of Class 123 Swindon Inter-City dmus, and reliability would have been a serious problem by the 70s.  The natural solution if such traffic were to be retained (and I really cannot see that it needed to be) would have been loco-hauled vacuum-braked steam-heated mk1s, with 47s and 37s being the most likely haulage. 

But don't firget that one of the reasons for closing the GC was to transfer the remaining, and steadily dwindling London bound freight - mainly coal - to the Midland main line which had more than enough capacity to handle it.  It was basically a toss up between the two routes about which one would be retained because as far as longer distance passenger traffic was concerned they largely duplicated each other and the same applied to a major part of the freight tonnage they carried.  

 

In simple terms, particularly ona railway under considerable financial pressure, there was no justification for retaining both routes.  And all else aside it was pretty obvious which one the LMR - which controlled a good part of the GC route - would keep.

[rodent279]

I wonder if, had there been a connection to the WCML at Rugby, retention of the southern part of the GC at least as far as Banbury would have been viable, as an alternative for freight off the WCML? Difficult to see where that connection would be though, without some major earthworks. 

The MML was the more obvious one to retain regardless of which region or company ran it (the GC), as after Rugby the only sizeable town that was not served by other routes was Brackley. Closing the MML would have deprived several sizeable towns of a through route to London.

Edited April 25, 2023 by rodent279

[Peter Kazmierczak]

When was the decision taken to scrap the idea of the GC as a major trunk freight artery (especially as far as Banbury)? Presumably, it was after transfer to the LMR in, what, 1958?

The MR always had the better connectivity in the East Midlands, especially after closure of Mapperley tunnel in 1960. It was clear that the GC was a goner. 

Ironically, it would've provided a better route for Freightliner traffic from the North/North East to Southampton. 

Edited April 25, 2023 by Peter Kazmierczak

[phil-b259]

15 hours ago, john new said:

The sad part of the above is the emphasis on to/from London and the ignoring of places in between and what they might need. There is the assumption that London is the B All and End All of life. I used the GC from time to time back in the day on the Poole/Bournemouth  to York (boarding in Winchester) precisely because it was a through train, no changes and avoided the need to cross London.

 

What 'places in between'?

 

Bournemouth - York direct trains still run via Birmingham & Derby!

 

The only real loss in terms of connectivity between large population centres I can think of is direct trains between stations south of Banbury and Leicester (which today requires a change at Birmingham)

[woodenhead]

1 hour ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Ironically, it would've provided a better route for Freightliner traffic from the North/North East to Southampton. 

I think this is why on a few occasions the GC route (and Woodhead) have been considered by venture companies to provide some sort of freight spine from the south to the north.

 

However they have always failed to take off beyond talk - a lot of the GC infrastructure is gone now meaning diversions from the original route for a private venture of uncertain returns as it needs the distribution companies on-side.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

What 'places in between'?

 

Bournemouth - York direct trains still run via Birmingham & Derby!

 

The only real loss in terms of connectivity between large population centres I can think of is direct trains between stations south of Banbury and Leicester (which today requires a change at Birmingham)

And Nottingham.   Interestingly I think the through trains going beyond the GC itself were probaly the best loaded of all the long distance passenger trains over the route especially once WSML electrification was mostly implemented.

[woodenhead]

22 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

And Nottingham.   Interestingly I think the through trains going beyond the GC itself were probaly the best loaded of all the long distance passenger trains over the route especially once WSML electrification was mostly implemented.

Still a lot of railway to retain just for the few services that would route that way between the outskirts of Sheffield and Banbury taking out connections at Sheffield, Derby and Birmingham only adding Nottingham and Leicester on a isolated railway i.e. devoid of connections with the MML.

[john new]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

What 'places in between'?

 

Bournemouth - York direct trains still run via Birmingham & Derby!

 

The only real loss in terms of connectivity between large population centres I can think of is direct trains between stations south of Banbury and Leicester (which today requires a change at Birmingham)

Nottingham was the biggest I recall. Re Bournemouth - York I wouldn’t use a Voyager if you paid me, due to lack of legroom but last time I did  look it up (admittedly a few years back) from where I live now it was a change at Bristol (going via Yeovil), Bham New St if leaving from Bournemouth or cross London. In the end I drove to Cheltenham and picked my daughter up from there off a southbound train as it was easier than going into Central Bristol.

[Northmoor]

5 hours ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

When was the decision taken to scrap the idea of the GC as a major trunk freight artery (especially as far as Banbury)? Presumably, it was after transfer to the LMR in, what, 1958?

The MR always had the better connectivity in the East Midlands, especially after closure of Mapperley tunnel in 1960. It was clear that the GC was a goner. 

Ironically, it would've provided a better route for Freightliner traffic from the North/North East to Southampton. 

Had the GC survived South of Leicester (link added near Wigston) another 5-6 years, the Channel Tunnel project would have been underway.  Presumably at least some freight for the North would not have gone via the WLL to Willesden and the WCML. but via a Redhill flyover, Guildford-Reading-Banbury, then traffic for the East Midlands and NE would have diverted to the GC. 

 

Or is that stretching credulity?  Like the S&D, Woodhead etc., perhaps we all have difficulty simply accepting that our favourite lines were actually shut for good reason at the time and not due to poor management or some grand conspiracy (don't get me started on the S&D; a line that gets vastly more attention than its real importance deserved, only because Ivo Peters photographed it so comprehensively and beautifully).

[Enterprisingwestern]

11 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Had the GC survived South of Leicester (link added near Wigston) another 5-6 years, the Channel Tunnel project would have been underway.  Presumably at least some freight for the North would not have gone via the WLL to Willesden and the WCML. but via a Redhill flyover, Guildford-Reading-Banbury, then traffic for the East Midlands and NE would have diverted to the GC. 

 

Or is that stretching credulity?  Like the S&D, Woodhead etc., perhaps we all have difficulty simply accepting that our favourite lines were actually shut for good reason at the time and not due to poor management or some grand conspiracy (don't get me started on the S&D; a line that gets vastly more attention than its real importance deserved, only because Ivo Peters photographed it so comprehensively and beautifully).

 

The problem with the lines you mention, and the DN&SR as well, is that it's a case of "if only we knew then what we know now" syndrome, as you say, they closed for a good reason at the time.

The greatest regret is that the routes and trackbeds were not "preserved" in the way the French do.

 

Mike.

[rodent279]

59 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

The problem with the lines you mention, and the DN&SR as well, is that it's a case of "if only we knew then what we know now" syndrome, as you say, they closed for a good reason at the time.

The greatest regret is that the routes and trackbeds were not "preserved" in the way the French do.

 

Mike.

Spot on. I've thought for a long time that the mistake was not so much in closing lines, as in ripping apart and destroying the infrastructure. Once it's gone, then unless every bridge, culvert, cutting and embankment is retained intact, you are more or less building a new railway-at which point, why stick rigidly with the old route?

A line across the countryside in Google maps is not a railway ready and waiting, just drop track in and off you go. What you can see (of an old railway) is perhaps 10% of what is needed to turn it back into a working railway again.

[MidlandRed]

12 hours ago, rodent279 said:

The MML was the more obvious one to retain regardless of which region or company ran it (the GC), as after Rugby the only sizeable town that was not served by other routes was Brackley. Closing the MML would have deprived several sizeable towns of a through route to London.

Absolutely - the idea that places like St Albans, Luton (and it’s airport), Bedford, Wellingborough, Derby and elsewhere beyond be sacrificed for the GC route to Leicester, Loughborough and Nottingham seems a bit bizarre.

 

10 hours ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

When was the decision taken to scrap the idea of the GC as a major trunk freight artery (especially as far as Banbury)? Presumably, it was after transfer to the LMR in, what, 1958?

Although some large scale and other closures occurred between the late 50s and Beeching (eg M and GNR) in an attempt to cut losses, it was Beeching which included eliminating parallel routes, hence the Midland being closed as a through route between Matlock and Manchester, and presumably the GC was included in this process for the connectivity reasons above, and the WCML modernisation. The latter did for the old GWR Paddington to Birkenhead via Birmingham as a through trunk route. In the area north of Nottingham there were up to four routes running parallel and little over, if even a mile apart, over some lengths! 
 

On 24/04/2023 at 19:09, The Stationmaster said:

The decline of coal traffic also played its part.

This is, of course, correct - the decline in coal for domestic consumption was huge after smokeless zones were introduced (late 50s, early 60s) - which impacted the huge coal flows to London on the ECML, MML and GC. No one at that time, could have predicted the increase in rail passenger use in years ahead, combined with the move to high capacity long distance coal from pit to power station MGR flows, which started in the later 60s. Hindsight is a quite accurate science, however in a scenario where an industry was haemorrhaging vast amounts of money, and which was desperately trying to modernise, the idea of retaining alignments for future use was probably the last thing on people’s minds. This did take place in some areas and particularly built up areas where local transport plans might have used them for road realignment (60s and 70s), and more recently, LRT and occasionally reopening. However for a route like the GC, this would require a whole series of local authorities to get together to incorporate a plan, or the DfT to include it in some national process - this is highly unlikely even if there’s a business case as it requires politicians to promote it, which the current crop seems to be incapable of doing - note HS2!!! Will East-West Rail actually achieve Oxford to Cambridge in our lifetimes??!!! 

Edited April 25, 2023 by MidlandRed

[Northmoor]

7 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

Although some large scale and other closures occurred between the late 50s and Beeching (eg M and GNR) in an attempt to cut losses, it was Beeching which included eliminating parallel routes, hence the Midland being closed as a through route between Matlock and Manchester,

The Midland main line through the Peak wasn't included in the Beeching report, although the stopping services were.  The main line was closed in 1968 in the continuing culture in BR at the time of chasing phantom savings in a declining overall business.

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Northmoor said:

The Midland main line through the Peak wasn't included in the Beeching report, although the stopping services were.  The main line was closed in 1968 in the continuing culture in BR at the time of chasing phantom savings in a declining overall business.

Lots of real savings in fact but many of them were, or would have been, future savings through avoided relaying costs due in the next 5 years or so.  Then add in land sales - a source of investment cash for BR - and staff savings (initially balanced by redundancy costs of course).  Then the potential/actual savings in train mileage costs (which were considerable in themselves although they weren't normally used in the calculations as far as I'm aware and definitely weren't used in later years).

 

The interesting thing which didn't seem to matter back then was the saving in wider overhead costs such as HQ staffing but that was later made through reorganisations and redundancies (usually almost entirely voluntary) as it was appreciated taht fewer people were needed to run a smaller railway. 

[Flying Pig]

On 25/04/2023 at 04:28, The Johnster said:

 I am dubious of the need to keep Woodhead Tunnels open post-grouping beyond providing the LNER with access to Manchester and Liverpool traffic, and BR should have abandoned the electrification and closed the route in 1948. 

 

A weird statement from a native of Cardiff when the answer is coal.  The Manchester-Wath route stayed open as long as there was significant coal traffic and was closed when that declined.

[woodenhead]

5 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

A weird statement from a native of Cardiff when the answer is coal.  The Manchester-Wath route stayed open as long as there was significant coal traffic and was closed when that declined.

Probably...

 

In 1940 it was coal, in 1950 it was coal but by the mid 60s it was probably more of a case of we need to make use of this big investment we made but really it could go via Standedge which we are about to transform from a 4 track mainline down to 2 lines.

 

I think once you got to Beeching then without the passenger services it remained a freight route more because it was already there and had received massive investment in the electrification, the locos and the new Woodhead tunnel.  But really they could simply route the trains from Wath to Healy Mills and then through Standedge.  The other factor which kept it afloat was probably a lack of replacement diesel locos at that time as they would have had to replace the 76s and there probably wasn't the surplus at the time to do it.  Then Standedge saw it's lines reduced to ease curves and it became a more constrained route through which to route all that coal and steel traffic.

 

By 1980 the 76s were getting on for 30 years old, there were spare diesels and traffic declining fast - so a no brainer to close and route via Standedge which itself was not so busy anymore.

[MidlandRed]

8 hours ago, Northmoor said:

The Midland main line through the Peak wasn't included in the Beeching report, although the stopping services were.  The main line was closed in 1968 in the continuing culture in BR at the time of chasing phantom savings in a declining overall business.

I didn’t realise that, thanks for correcting. However I guess dropping the local passenger service (Beeching) facilitated the opportunity for closure of the Matlock to Great Rocks section. The Midland Pullman and presumably some other through passenger services ceased as a result of the WCML scheme, which as already mentioned, permitted a range of rationalisation of duplicated services, and from the WCML scheme a huge cascade of stock and motive power (DMUs and diesel locos). The other thing is no doubt the freight originating in the Great Rocks area could be operated far more effectively and no doubt with increased capacity resulting from the lack of through and local traffic with which it would have to be mixed and operated. 
 

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Lots of real savings in fact but many of them were, or would have been, future savings through avoided relaying costs due in the next 5 years or so.  Then add in land sales - a source of investment cash for BR - and staff savings (initially balanced by redundancy costs of course).  Then the potential/actual savings in train mileage costs (which were considerable in themselves although they weren't normally used in the calculations as far as I'm aware and definitely weren't used in later years).

 

The interesting thing which didn't seem to matter back then was the saving in wider overhead costs such as HQ staffing but that was later made through reorganisations and redundancies (usually almost entirely voluntary) as it was appreciated taht fewer people were needed to run a smaller railway. 

I would think the closure of that section of route would yield significant maintenance cost given the civil engineering features through the Peak District, along with ongoing S and T savings and routine track and formation maintenance. 
 

The distinction between revenue and capital expenditure is often overlooked but generally the former is expenditure to keep existing assets functioning and fit for purpose (including staff costs, including management) and is funded from grants and income, whereas the latter is for expenditure on completely new equipment or facilities and is funded from borrowing. Occasionally the Government might intervene with one off funds, usually to pick up a backlog when it’s got to a catastrophic level (eg pot holes; Rail after the Railtrack debacle). 
 

Closure of significant lengths of rail route can yield large savings. 

Edited April 26, 2023 by MidlandRed

[phil-b259]

22 hours ago, john new said:

Nottingham was the biggest I recall. Re Bournemouth - York I wouldn’t use a Voyager if you paid me, due to lack of legroom

if the GC had survived then todays Bournemouth - Nottingham etc services would most likely be provided by either Voyagers or the Hatchi product.

 

As such these sorts of observations are irrelevant to the usefulness of the GC route

[65179]

4 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Probably...

 

In 1940 it was coal, in 1950 it was coal but by the mid 60s it was probably more of a case of we need to make use of this big investment we made but really it could go via Standedge which we are about to transform from a 4 track mainline down to 2 lines.

 

I think once you got to Beeching then without the passenger services it remained a freight route more because it was already there and had received massive investment in the electrification, the locos and the new Woodhead tunnel.  But really they could simply route the trains from Wath to Healy Mills and then through Standedge.  The other factor which kept it afloat was probably a lack of replacement diesel locos at that time as they would have had to replace the 76s and there probably wasn't the surplus at the time to do it.  Then Standedge saw it's lines reduced to ease curves and it became a more constrained route through which to route all that coal and steel traffic.

 

By 1980 the 76s were getting on for 30 years old, there were spare diesels and traffic declining fast - so a no brainer to close and route via Standedge which itself was not so busy anymore.

 

Don't forget the influence of where the coal came from and where it was going to. At the start of that period the S Yorks coalfield very effectively fed Wath, and Woodhead gave ready access to the coal-using industrial centres, small (relatively) power stations and other coal users in East Manchester, Trafford Park, the MSC and Liverpool. By the end of the period the S Yorks coalfield was contracting, the Selby coalfield was opening up (as the Wakefield pits contracted too) and coal west of the Pennines was predominantly MGRs for Fiddlers Ferry.  Those changes were rather more gradual despite the obvious '60s decline.

 

Simon

[MidlandRed]

The impact of the early 80s national economic Policies (moving away from manufacturing (resulting in massive manufacturing closures) and into a service economy) and in particular the effect on the coal industry, the S Yorkshire, Notts and Derbyshire being affected significantly and also the miner’s strike - which started in the first place because it was feared the Government planned to close the home produced industry and move to cheaper imports. 

Edited April 26, 2023 by MidlandRed

[woodenhead]

24 minutes ago, 65179 said:

 

Don't forget the influence of where the coal came from and where it was going to. At the start of that period the S Yorks coalfield very effectively fed Wath, and Woodhead gave ready access to the coal-using industrial centres, small (relatively) power stations and other coal users in East Manchester, Trafford Park, the MSC and Liverpool. By the end of the period the S Yorks coalfield was contracting, the Selby coalfield was opening up (as the Wakefield pits contracted too) and coal west of the Pennines was predominantly MGRs for Fiddlers Ferry.  Those changes were rather more gradual despite the obvious '60s decline.

 

Simon

But trains out of Wath could access Standedge via Healy Mills and once at Stalybridge re-gain access to Guide Bridge and then the route to Warrington via Woodley, Trafford Park and East Manchester - the route between Barnsley and Woodley could be avoided - all points in the west were still accessible for coal trains via Standedge and trains from Tinsley could have also got to Wath or gone via the Hope Valley route.

 

At the end of the day we are just musing alternative realities, but I think in the main that it was the class 76 that saved Woodhead in the 1960s, had it not been electrified it would have had less chance once the passenger services ended.