Nottingham to London in 10 minutes: Great Central Railway flight simulation 

I agree. It was built to a very high standard of gauge and alignment and could have maybe saved most of the pain generated by the HS2 fiasco.

@@siobhanlewis2706 The Great Central was very very similar to HS2 in aims and type, and obviously at quite a few points they are going to be in the same place (like at Brackley). Both were express railways through mostly countryside with the aim of relieving overcrowded existing mainlines. I am of the belief that eventually people will realise the benefits of the later phases of HS2.. it's just a pointless delay to it now. As the first expensive phase has been built, from a value for money perspective it's ridiculous to not build the rest.

The Beeching report of the 1960s was a disaster but the governments of the day didn't have to implement it. They did and we can see the results.

​@@siobhanlewis2706 It was not demolished and destroyed enough. Now they are talking about extending it to the outskirts of Nottingham smh. Luckily, it was almost completely smashed up and built over in Nottingham and Leucester, so they won't be able to extend it any more.

thats what i was thinking, considering population and space available

Wonder if that was intended

Note that GCR needed urban demolition to get to central urban areas even first time around back then.

That’s a good thing. Why should the whole nation be destroyed to create cities of ethnic enclaves

Many trains still use various parts of the GCR alignment, thankfully! NET (Nottingham) Great Central Railway (Little Ruddington - Leicester North) HS2 (Finmere - Quainton Road) Chiltern's Aylesbury Line (Aylesbury Vale - London Marylebone) Metropolitan Line (Amersham - West Hampstead)

Around London the Great Central mainly ran on lines that already existed,so yes those lines were there before the Great Central and still exist after.

The Metropolitan Railway had built the lines at the London end before the GCR existed. Now they're operated by Chiltern Railways and Transport fot London.

Whilst the route up to Aylesbury does indeed run through the heart of Toryland, closing it would have meant encroaching on (then) London Transport turf, therefore the government would seriously have to argue that the Metropolitan line and other commuter routes weren't making any money. The 1960s was not today's era of culture wars, and a branch of the government starting a bad-faith fight with another public body would be a fast way to having some ministers resign in disgrace.

A comparable exercise for the jerry-built Midland Main Line between Nottingham Midland and London St. Pancras would reveal just how hilly and sinuous this main line is, even in comparison with the dismantled Great Central Railway. At the very end of the 19th Century the machinery needed to move huge quantities of earth and stone to create a true High Speed railway alignment simply didn't exist. Nor would the capital required to fund such an expensive enterprise have been readily available from the financial markets of late Victorian England.

Broadly speaking we need to stop looking at old lines with nostalgia. While it's depressing to see how much was scrapped and the loss in capacity/redundancy, just reopening lines or reversing Beeching isn't a good solution. Reconnecting communities would be better done with new lines for 21st Century needs in an integrated network, rather than relaying 19th Century alignments.

The line was conceived as a link from Manchester to Paris, so intermediate traffic, except for London, was of secondary importance. There was one exception; in the late nineteenth century, Nottingham City Council complained that the city lacked a centrally sited railway station, and gave the Great Central the go-ahead to build Victoria, especially as the site was a huge slum, which, presumably, the Great Central or its contractors paid for. There was a major civic ceremony when the station was opened. Ironically, the people who wanted the station were just as keen to get rid of it just over 60 years later! Several intermediate places have expanded considerably since the line closed, and the inhabitants of one of them are calling for a station. I will concede that the line was not dead straight, but it was mostly well-aligned. There were minor restrictions through the stations because of the curves round the island platforms. If the political situation in the early twentieth century had been less volatile, the Channel Tunnel might have been built then, and Edward Watkin's dream would have been realised.

@@kitfagan2027 If we were to build new railways, they would have to be substantially on the lines of those which were closed. To put, say, a branch terminus on a through route might mean having to build extensive earthworks. I think that the Victorian builders mostly got it right. There were problems when some landowners refused to have a railway built on their land, or did not wish to see a railway in the vicinity. (That is why Catesby Tunnel was built; the owner of Catesby Hall insisted that trains could not be seen from the hall.) A 2997 yard long tunnel through relatively flat terrain.

@@kitfagan2027 What should have been done when the new towns were built was expand their rail services. It has never occurred to anyone that the Stevenage businessman might have business in Birmingham, for instance. Not long after the GC closed, an article appeared in the railway press by a businessman who had to travel regularly between two cities just over 70 miles apart. The direct route was the GC, sometimes with a change at Woodford. When the GC closed, the only way involved a change miles off route, a 40-mile trip on a high-density DMU on an Inter-City route, and a journey of about 120 miles, with no co-ordination of connecting services. Of course, the passenger had to pay for the extra mileage. He also had to travel less frequently to another destination which once had a direct service via two routes. One was the GC; the other was partly closed, and now has no direct service, and a route some 20 miles longer. The current network is too London-based. Incidentally, if Beeching had not closed lines on the Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds corridor, there would not be any problems with line capacity today.

Thanks. These videos take time and effort but I'm usually pleased with the results

Pity about the music.

Don't say it. I love the old Great Central, but (1) it wasn’t built to continental loading gauge - in fact the GCR loading gauge wasn’t even all that big by British standards; and (2) it was a high-speed line *by the standards of the 1890s*. It was nothing like a high speed line today.

@JM-kr1tj I never said it was built to a continental loading gauge or say it was even close to todays high speed line specifications..... Just a comical comparison to HS2 a d the tragic waste and lack of forethought in this country that makes ambitions of 100 years ago only starting to reach reality today. But thanks for the ever useful comment demonstrating that you too can read the hundreds of forums and books that echo what you say relating to GCR engineering standards but need to for some reason try and demonstrate that you think you know more than everyone else.

@@rafchris Whatever you say, chief. You do you.

The nearest point to Broughton Astley on the GCR would have been 2 miles away at Ashby Magna. Broughton Astley had a station on the Midland Counties line, 1840-1962, an entirely separate disused railway which also linked Leicester and Rugby, so your confusion is quite understandable! I've traced that line in ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-XObPoT9Q_pA.html

@@flymuzza9205 Many thanks for that and for taking the time to find the line🙂

Thanks!

About 6:16. The branch to the right is now a road (apparently not a public route)

​@@flymuzza9205 Very many thanks for that information. Thanks again for a splendid video.

An earlier video follows this stretch of the line at a more sedate pace, with some features labelled: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-uOfbiPnleI4.html Grendon Underwood Jn is at 7:40 in that video

Imagine if this had been electrified all way from Manchester to London, seeing the EM2s arriving at Marylebone would have been amazing.

The current route is via Leicester and Kettering - the former Midland main line, operated by East Midlands Railways

well, not really. capacity wise it would be good to have it but high speed? direct? Competing with the metropolitan line for space? not serving the west midlands or west coast? it barely fulfils the same purpose as HS2 other than being 'a train line to the north'. To reiterate, extra links to the east Midlands is obviously good, a very underserved area by trains currently, but the WCML would be as crowded as ever and the low speeds and likely infrequent trains wouldn't drive the same modal shift. just my piece.

It's a myth that it was built to "continental loading gauge" as at the time the line was build there was no such thing. True it's built to a slightly larger loading gauge than most lines in the UK, but nowhere near what is used on modern high speed lines.

@@ChrisCooper312 Thank you for correcting me upon this, Chris. I do always aim to be as accurate as possible when commenting upon videos.

@@stuarthall6631 I used to spread the same (including that it was "Bern Gauge" despite the GCR being finished before the Bern Gauge came into existence), until corrected. That's the trouble with myths, they get so widespread that even people who think they know what they are talking about believe them without question. The GCR would have been good as a freight route though, since it wouldn't have needed the same gauge enhancements that the WCML needed to take containers, and would have been cheaper to electrify since less bridges would have needed rebuilding. The issue is that it wouldn't be suitable as a high speed route, or be able to take double deckers, which is what people tend to assume when people talk about "continental gauge".

@@ChrisCooper312 Thank you, Chris, for such a thorough and courteous response. Much appreciated! Have a good weekend!

In what way? It was 4 miles longer from Leicester to London, had no long sections of 4-track, had severe speed restrictions at High Wycombe or Rickmansworth / Harrow, shared tracks with other operators, had very poor connection options for freight, Marylebone was too small and was only served bu one tube line.

@@chris8405 - Gentle curves and easy gradients plus a loading gauge far more generous than that of the jerry-built Midland Main Line?

If you look at working timetables (the GCR Society has some, and so does the National Archive), you'll find that almost all GCR line expresses went via Aylesbury. In 1928 (the only one I can remember right off the top of my head) the only "express" that went via Wycombe was the Marylebone-Mansfield service, which was the least prestigious express you could imagine.

@@JM-kr1tj That's interesting. What was the point of the GCR investing in the joint line with the GWR then? Wasn't it to avoid having to share with the Metropolitan north of Amersham? The Met still served Verney Junction until 1936 and Aylesbury until 1961. Please show some respect for Mansfield (Central), please - I grew up in the town!

No need to rub it in Dr Beeching 😢😢😢

Are you serious? The GCR was a historical route to London which closed in the 1960's.

@@flymuzza9205 100 per cent I'm serious. I can tell you with absolute certainty you cannot get a train from Nottingham to London that goes via the Aylesbury to Marylebone Chiltern/ Metropolitan line If you don't believe me take a look at trains from Marylebone to Aylesbury and see where the train terminates I know this because I' travel part of this route all the time

@@alric8 what's beeching got to do with it