castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Nov 3, 2019 21:24:08 GMT
A few members were part of a private discussion a couple of years back regarding what eventually became the M11 ("London to lmmingham strategic trunk route" was. l think. its original title), and retaining the Central Line to North Weald as a means of taking pressure away from Epping. Taking through trains away from Grange Hill - Woodford - London, must put more pressure on the Central elsewhere.
Do those who were involved in that discussion still have the info?
|
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Nov 3, 2019 22:02:38 GMT
A few members were part of a private discussion a couple of years back regarding what eventually became the M11 ("London to lmmingham strategic trunk route" was. l think. its original title), and retaining the Central Line to North Weald as a means of taking pressure away from Epping. Taking through trains away from Grange Hill - Woodford - London, must put more pressure on the Central elsewhere. Do those who were involved in that discussion still have the info? I certainly wasn't a member of that group, thought I'd have like to have been. What on earth would be the point of a large park and ride at North Weald when there is no spare capacity on the Central Line as it is? Immingham? Do you mean Ipswich? Under the labour govt c 1999 there was a modal study called LOIS London-Ipswich), that postulated returning the Central Line to main line standards, and extending it across open country to east of Chelmsford. Bit of a fantasy, I thought, especially as quadrupling south of Loughton would have been envisaged, on the District Line/LTS model, with Loughton the "Upminster" exchange point. A pity about the thousand demolitions that quadrupling would have required! |
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Nov 4, 2019 8:43:24 GMT
No stapler, l'm going back to the early/mid '60s around the time of Wilson's first government.
It was definitely lmmingham
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 4, 2019 9:12:02 GMT
Ipswich would have been the M12. The M11 was originally proposed to run to the Humber Bridge - as of now it only gets as far as Cambridge.
|
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Nov 4, 2019 22:46:29 GMT
No stapler, l'm going back to the early/mid '60s around the time of Wilson's first government. It was definitely lmmingham But in the days of Harold Wilson,the Central Line still served North Weald..... |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Nov 5, 2019 1:21:29 GMT
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Nov 5, 2019 10:25:43 GMT
@ stapler. Yes l know the Central served North Weald back in the '60s @ Ben Dec 2016 would be about the time of the conversation l refer to, and the thread you have linked to is very relevant. Thank you for finding it. From memory, the group conversation l refer to was contemporaneous with that thread. When l get back on Sunday, l might have time to find the original group conversation However, l am now fearful of this going off topic *
* castlebar, your fear is palpable but not necessary. A jolly good idea so that's what I've done.  |
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Nov 5, 2019 23:08:48 GMT
How would North Weald "take pressure" off Epping? It'd just encourage long distance drivers. The whole of Epping has now bee CPZ'd out, and the District Council are doing a "parking charge review", so those driving in and using council CPs intended for shoppers are likely to get a shock in the wallet...
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Nov 6, 2019 7:44:03 GMT
@ stapler
It was soon realised that it wouldn't. In fact it was realised that it would create more problems than it solved. That (and cost) is why the whole idea was quickly aborted.
This was about 1966(ish)
|
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Nov 6, 2019 8:14:42 GMT
@ stapler It was soon realised that it wouldn't. In fact it was realised that it would create more problems than it solved. That (and cost) is why the whole idea was quickly aborted. This was about 1966(ish) Thanks vm castlebar. It applies today to those simplistic persons who are advocating a massive P&R at North Weald aerodrome... |
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Nov 6, 2019 9:59:48 GMT
When I worked at English Heritage from 1984-89, I finished up in charge of the filing system. There were dozens of files about the effects of proposed motorways on scheduled ancient monuments and archaeological sites. The M2 Folkestone to Cheriton Trunk Road for example. And as for what castlebar said, one called: The M11 London to Immingham Strategic Trunk Route. This later morphed into Stratford to Immingham and back again to London to Immingham. The only bits I can recall from the files were not of Tube interest but were: where it should start from in London, and had things ever gotten underway, the Docklands Light Railway might never have been built whether Immingham was the correct destination. |
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Nov 6, 2019 15:03:38 GMT
Thanks ferret
I seem to remember you were part of the group dialogue we had 3 years ago.
.......and l think it was those files you had seen, which gave confirmation that the original destination was indeed Immingham
@ stapler
you are right. The idea was soon dismissed as a non-starter way back then and there is no reason whatsoever why it is any different now.
|
|
|
|
Post by ted672 on Nov 6, 2019 16:41:34 GMT
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Nov 6, 2019 17:11:59 GMT
Thank you ted 672
It states that it has been on the drawing board since the 1970s
I think (ferret can confirm) the North Weald parkway "idea" never got to drawing board stage as it was briefly aired in the '60s and never got to the drawing board because it was impractical. There is SO much more on this, and l wonder if ferret knows if those files still exist?
And would you believe that one of the reasons the M11 (as it eventually became) never went to Immingham was a perceived security threat!! It was considered by some in the civil service that the Russians might invade via Immingham and head straight down the purpose built new motorway and occupy London!! (The Daily Express was a much more influential newspaper in those days)
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Nov 6, 2019 18:18:45 GMT
Thank you ted 672 It states that it has been on the drawing board since the 1970s I think (ferret can confirm) the North Weald parkway "idea" never got to drawing board stage as it was briefly aired in the '60s and never got to the drawing board because it was impractical. There is SO much more on this, and l wonder if ferret knows if those files still exist? And would you believe that one of the reasons the M11 (as it eventually became) never went to Immingham was a perceived security threat!! It was considered by some in the civil service that the Russians might invade via Immingham and head straight down the purpose built new motorway and occupy London!! (The Daily Express was a much more influential newspaper in those days) That was also given as the reason why the A11 took so long to get dualled all the way to Norwich. |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Nov 6, 2019 21:23:14 GMT
re: the thread title....
1) an extension from Ongar to Chelmsford would have been better
2) plus incorporation of the Epping route into Crossrail 2, with faster and longer trains - for good measure the route to Grange Hill could also have been included in the conversion (to provide a short working point and solve the issue of the shared section of line just north of Woodford station) with the Central line retaining the section between Grange Hill and Hainault. Grange Hill could have been rebuilt in a style similar to Greenford, albeit in reverse with Crossrail 2 termination on the outer platforms and Central line having cross platform interchange with both Crossrail platforms. This would minimise any convenience for passengers making through journeys.
Most (if not all) of the stations on this route were built for trains longer than Central line tube trains, so (apart from Grange Hill) the stations would not have needed massive rebuilding.
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Nov 6, 2019 21:33:11 GMT
This thread has become a bit of a mix and match, but as it is based on a historical proposal, that’s where it’s going!
|
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Nov 8, 2019 11:59:45 GMT
IIRC the original intention of the GER was to run through to Chelmsford. These days Chelmsford is a destination in its own right much like Watford but I have my own FRIPAS ideas about that.
The last discussion that I saw about reopening to North Weald was in connection with proposals for a massive housing development on the airfield site.
|
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Nov 8, 2019 17:02:33 GMT
The proposal to put a mini-new-town on the aerodrome was withdrawn c2004, but under the EF Local Plan, undergoing examination now, some 1000 dwellings are proposed for non-airfield sites in NW.
So far as I'm aware, the GER **never** intended to extend from Ongar to Chelmsford. There were proposals for Ongar-Dunmow-Great Bardfield, a Mid-Essex Light Railway
|
|
|
|
Post by moquette on Nov 8, 2019 20:31:37 GMT
Yes, there have been a few 'plans' re the Epping/Ongar branch and apart from those already mentioned I had, in the past, seen two other really vague proposals in post-WW2 years but sadly no longer have access to the various documents. One was in conjunction with the County of London plan to site "Harlow" new town at Ongar with a vague idea to double the branch and construct a link in to the main line at Brentwood, a real 'outer' ring a la Hainault. One of the reasons I suspect Harlow went to Harlow was that the railway conenction was already more attractive. The other(s) were yes, the Crossrail proposal with the tunnels coming up around Leytonstone and taking the Epping branch off the Central along with some vague daydreaming about a north-eastern extension of the Victoria line. This would have ignored the abandoned proposal to surface the tunnels at Wood St and take the Chingford branch over but taken tunnels north-east to the Snaresbrook - South Woodford area and connect with the Central there. I have to say we are talking about 25/30 years ago when I saw some of the paperwork in LT about this so if some of this stuff was ever formally recorded I don't know.
|
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Nov 9, 2019 8:14:44 GMT
Wood Steet would have been the terminus of the Victoria Line under the first proposals for the VL, but there was never any serious idea of taking over the remainder of the Chingford branch, which had just been electrified at 6250v OHLE when the Act for the Victoria Line went through...
|
|
|
|
Post by moquette on Nov 9, 2019 13:37:15 GMT
Wood Steet would have been the terminus of the Victoria Line under the first proposals for the VL, but there was never any serious idea of taking over the remainder of the Chingford branch, which had just been electrified at 6250v OHLE when the Act for the Victoria Line went through... You are right in that by the time of the 1955, 1956 and '57 BTC Acts the route of the Victoria line as it would become had been 'fixed' but it is worth recalling the debates around the 1943 County of London Plan, the 1944 "Abercrombie" Greater London Plan and the 1946/8 London Railway plans that developed ideas around "Route C" (that formed the basis of the Victoria line) and "Route D" that would have seen the Chingford branch integrated into the "tube" network. The 'ideas' during the 1940s and '50s about what may happen were fluid and I recall interviewing ex-LT staff when I started with the company in the early 1990s who certainly had been involved in looking at the possibility of integrating the Chingford branch into the Victoria. The main concern, to paraphrase, was the lessons learnt from the Central line extensions beyond Stratford where the ex-LNER lines had been taken over (back to the very original question!) and the feeling in LT that 'never again' would they do this given the issues of overcrowding and trains from 'outer suburban' stations presenting themselves at "inner suburban" ones already full - ie that a tube train from Chingford would arrive at say Seven Sisters already full. Anyhow, now I've had a wee think the Ongar - Brentwood-ish proposal appears in the 1944 "Abercrombie" report and as late as 1963 questions were being asked in the House of Commons about the "proposal to extend the Victoria line from Walthamstow Hoe St to South Woodford or Woodfors ... to relieve overcrowding on that line ... was still being considered by the London Passenger Transport Committee". |
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Nov 9, 2019 21:58:44 GMT
<<the feeling in LT that 'never again' would they do this given the issues of overcrowding and trains from 'outer suburban' stations presenting themselves at "inner suburban" ones already full - ie that a tube train from Chingford would arrive at say Seven Sisters already full.>>
I was an officer in the 70s of the Chingford Line Commuters' Association.The CLCA had in its constitution the aim to have the line north of Hoe St incorporated into the Tube network.I spent much time persuading people that this was a Bad Idea, and in fact both BR and LT officers confirmed that.
Central Line -In the 30s, it might have been possible to "do an Upminster" and quadruple the formation from Leyton to Woodford or Loughton,with LNER trains continuing to Epping (or beyond) but not afterwards..
Prof H P White (Regional History of the Railways of GB,vol 4,1963)pointed out how unsuitable the all-stations tube format was to places like Epping...
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Nov 10, 2019 11:54:27 GMT
@ stapler,
Yes you are right.
AND the well respected Gerard FIENNES, in his book "I tried to run a railway", states that "he would have four-tracked the Central Line"
The one idea of his that would have had an "HS2" type budget and could have caused more problems than it solved
|
|
|
|
Post by tjw on Nov 10, 2019 18:12:08 GMT
... AND the well respected Gerard FIENNES, in his book "I tried to run a railway", states that "he would have four-tracked the Central Line" The one idea of his that would have had an "HS2" type budget and could have caused more problems than it solved Do you have any examples of 4 tracked railways that have been a failure in London. I will not count the NNML * as an example or the line from Broadstreet! The whole idea of a 4 tracked railway is to allow fast and slow trains, so it can be long distance and short distance. See the LBSCR * north of Redhill of the LSWR * South of Clapham Junction. In London we have another problem with increasing commuting distances that we really need a 6 tracked railway, Long Distance, fast commuter trains and slow commuter trains. To get an idea how this would work see the railway from Finchley Road to Harrow on the Hill. As for cost if a Government want to build Railways, they should first make sure they can afford it and more importantly, that they have not created a system that makes building railways exorbitantly expensive. Key: * NNML = New North Main Line, LBSCR = London, Brighton and South Coast Railway and LSWR = London and South Western Railway. In the first instance, please try and include the full names of these abbreviations as it helps those with less knowledge to learn without having to do a search. We do try and adhere to this convention when we can!  |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Nov 10, 2019 23:34:32 GMT
The main concern, to paraphrase, was the lessons learnt from the Central line extensions beyond Stratford where the ex-LNER lines had been taken over (back to the very original question!) and the feeling in LT that 'never again' would they do this given the issues of overcrowding and trains from 'outer suburban' stations presenting themselves at "inner suburban" ones already full Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear Never ever again? They have committed *the* cardinal sin of knowing, from real-world experience, what does not work well and hence they do not want to do again - and then once the lessons of history have been forgotten they are copying the same thing that was previously found wanting. Bakerloo line extension to Hayes, Kent anyone? Who wants to remind TfL? (Lewisham is a different story - Bromley North with some intermediate stations would also be a different story, as this line is not too busy.) btw, what about the segments of the Northern line which were completed - did they not have a similar problem here too? |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,763
|
Post by Chris M on Nov 10, 2019 23:51:24 GMT
It's more Crossrail 2 attempting to be an outer suburban railway, an inner suburban railway and a tube line all at the same time that strikes me as contrary to that mantra
|
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Nov 11, 2019 8:17:11 GMT
@ stapler, Yes you are right. AND the well respected Gerard FIENNES, in his book "I tried to run a railway", states that "he would have four-tracked the Central Line" The one idea of his that would have had an "HS2" type budget and could have caused more problems than it solved Thanks CB. I once heard a lecture by Mr Gerard Francis Gisborne Twistleton-Wykeham-Fiennes. (to give his full names!) His operating knowledge did include what became the Central Line NE extension, as I think he ran the line during the war; he was responsible for its use as a GEML diversionary route (via Woodford, Fairlop, and Seven Kings). Certainly he said, a mistake to give over the GE metals to tube trains. The Central Line was of course a great democratisation of the Loughton branch, where the GE and LNER had always sought to preserve the development as exclusive. In 1935 there had been no 3rd class season tickets, 1st and 2nd classes, separate waiting rooms, fast trains from Loughton and Buckhurst Hill, and porters to keep the hoi-polloi out of 2nd and 1st class cars. A bit different from post war, when the bowler hatted tea broker from Mincing Lane had to sit or stand next to his charlady or a workman from Debden on the Standard stock...until he moved to Buckinghamshire! |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 11, 2019 21:02:27 GMT
@ stapler, Yes you are right. AND the well respected Gerard FIENNES, in his book "I tried to run a railway", states that "he would have four-tracked the Central Line" The one idea of his that would have had an "HS2" type budget and could have caused more problems than it solved Thanks CB. I once heard a lecture by Mr Gerard Francis Gisborne Twistleton-Wykeham-Fiennes. (to give his full names!) His operating knowledge did include what became the Central Line NE extension, as I think he ran the line during the war; he was responsible for its use as a GEML diversionary route (via Woodford, Fairlop, and Seven Kings). Certainly he said, a mistake to give over the GE metals to tube trains. It rather depends on what position within the LNER you held...
Despite the exploits of Mallard and having legendary trains like the 'Flying Scotsman', the LNER was by far the poorest of the 'big 4' companies. Shareholders in the company suffered considerably during and after the Great depression and expert analysis in later years has shown that if it wasn't for WW2 then the LNER would have ended up going brankrupt by the mid 1940s
The LNER board were very much aware that they had to do something about their London suburban operations (which were very inefficient compared to the electrified Newcastle system or the vast southern Railway 3rd rail network), but there simply wasn't the capital available to do so. When some finance did become available thanks to Government grants the LNER quite sensibly allocated what they had into GEML mainline electrification - which in the longer term could also be used by express trains
So while handing the Fairlop loop to LU may have made things a liitle awkward for Mr Feinnes, for the LNER as a whole it was undoubtedly a very necessary measure.
|
|
|
|
Post by moquette on Nov 11, 2019 21:04:59 GMT
The main concern, to paraphrase, was the lessons learnt from the Central line extensions beyond Stratford where the ex-LNER lines had been taken over (back to the very original question!) and the feeling in LT that 'never again' would they do this given the issues of overcrowding and trains from 'outer suburban' stations presenting themselves at "inner suburban" ones already full Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear Never ever again? They have committed *the* cardinal sin of knowing, from real-world experience, what does not work well and hence they do not want to do again - and then once the lessons of history have been forgotten they are copying the same thing that was previously found wanting. Bakerloo line extension to Hayes, Kent anyone? Who wants to remind TfL? (Lewisham is a different story - Bromley North with some intermediate stations would also be a different story, as this line is not too busy.) btw, what about the segments of the Northern line which were completed - did they not have a similar problem here too? It is an interesting and pertinent debate regarding the Bakerloo's proposed extensions and that about the potential running of Crossrail 2 - the age old question of 'where does it make sense to stop' before you cease to be a true inner urban metro line and become a weird mixture of inner and outer suburban as, we've already discussed, happened to the Central with all the concomitant problems. Thinking back to the various discussions I've been involved in, and those I've heard tell of, one of the great qualifiers has always been at what point and where do you 'design' interchanges between the various lines with their different modal 'natures'? Looking at the Central east end, Stratford's cross platform interchanges were seen as the bees-knees but now have been swamped by sheer numbers and the almost impossible task of re-engineering those platforms (ones I ended up avoiding myself latterly as it feels somewhat unsafe in peak hour) and likewise, Mile End. Equally, the transfer from mainline to Central as a distributor at Liverpool St (and vice-versa) - the very thing that the design intention at Stratford was intended to avoid - is somewhat challenging in peak hours. The odd thing here is that Crossrail/Elizabeth line effective overlays that whole 1930s debate again - intended to to partially allieviate the issues that the New Works Programme has unwittingly unleashed and yet, one sometimes thinks as you look at the distances the Elizabeth will now cover, simply sorting the issue in some places to create similar but 'new' pinch points elsewhere? Obviously the sheer spatial design of the new works is intended to assist - and that is great where you have it as totally 'new works' but I'm sitting here thinking of some of the interchanges that have been designed and constructed at at Paddington or Bond St and thinking 'hmm...'. We shall see. But yes the pressure to 'keep going' towards the glorious sunlit uplands of outer suburbia is not new - as some one has mentioned, what about the Northern line New Works Programme extensions? Nailed 'officially' due to post-war austerity and Green Belt but every LT transport planner I ever spoke to, well you could see the look of relief that they were 'stopped' given what they may have been unleashed on service patterns and use, with issues that would have taken an awful lot of sorting out. I shall leave this evening with two thoughts for people to ponder; Crossrail 2 - more sensible to have a simple end-to-end line with middle suburban termini than a complex multi-branch hydra, particularly on the south side (and what is the betting that the pressure will be on in the north to tie Stansted in a la all those 'thoughts of yore' to do the same with the Central beyond Epping) and the condundrum of a tube line to serve Clapham Junction - a through line that is already full on the north bound, a terminus of a tube line and how would you physically move the interchanging passengers). Interesting, and I'm just thinking across the Channel to the Paris and RER debates of 50 years ago. (At this rate this will be a thread on its own). |
|
