A perennial and fairly meaningless question that is often asked is ‘what are the origins of Crossrail?’ It inevitably depends on how far you want to go back in time but one contender could be the groundbreaking scheme developed in the 1930s to electrify the Great Eastern (GE) Main Line from Liverpool Street to Shenfield with the intention of providing an intensive electric service to many suburbs of East London.
The 1930s were in the middle of the era where the railways of Britain were in the hands of the ‘Big Four’ privately owned railway companies. In 1923 the Great Eastern main line became part of the LNER (London & North Eastern Railway). It was, and is, the main line to Chelmsford, Ipswich and Norwich.
Why Electrify as far as Shenfield?
Shenfield was the logical choice for the eastern end of a suburban electrification scheme. The major centre of Romford would be included and beyond were the towns of Harold Wood and Brentwood. Shenfield was, and is, effectively a district within the urban sprawl of Brentwood. Beyond the outer boundary of Brentwood there was widespread countryside – too far from London to justify an intensive urban railway and also too distant to significantly alter the existing land use with a stopping service.
More to the point, the Great Eastern main line was already four-tracked as far as Shenfield with the lines beyond Shenfield being two-track. The branch to Southend Victoria turned off the main line just north of Shenfield, making Shenfield a notable railway junction and the location where passenger density reduced.
Part of Something Bigger
Shenfield Electrification was really part of a larger comprehensive scheme for East London involving main line electrification, resignalling, new rolling stock, a new railway depot and closing a short section of railway. The larger scheme also involved building new tube tunnels and transferring part of the existing network in North East London to the London Passenger Transport Board (LPTB) so that they could extend the Central London line into the North East suburbs of London (and beyond). This in turn meant that the Central London line required new rolling stock and new depots.
The Central London line Factor in the West
Additionally, an extension of the Central London line to the west of London by means of a separate branch from Wood Lane to West Ruislip (later to Denham) was proposed as an integral part of the scheme.
The scheme’s purpose in West London was two-fold. One was to enable a large depot to be built at Ruislip, in order to supplement the proposed eastern tube depot at Hainault which could not, on its own, provide enough trains for the whole line. Clearly the existing Central London line depot located at Wood Lane would be totally inadequate to serve the considerable extensions. Furthermore, it was limited to 6-car trains rather than 8-car trains which would be provided as part of the Central London line enhancement.
A second reason for the western extension, which was to be built by the Great Western Railway, was to provide two balances:
- Operationally, so that trains from the east had somewhere else useful to run to on the west side of London, in order to provide a more balanced service over the whole line making better use of line and train capacities.
- Financially, to help develop new suburbs which were expected to generate more profitable off-peak travel than the eastern suburbs.
A Lengthened and Renamed Central London line
If things went as planned the Central London line would be transformed from a relatively short simple Underground line between Ealing Broadway and Liverpool Street totalling just 11 miles into a major Underground line totalling approximately 57 route miles.
To give some idea of just how extensive the Central line would be we have shown in a map below the extent of the planned and authorised Central line. This includes a short section from West Ruislip to Denham which was never built. By comparison, the map also shows the extent of Crossrail at the time of it being authorised which is shown in purple and lime green. The originally authorised Crossrail scheme appears to be more extensive but not by any considerable extent. Maidenhead is further from Paddington in terms of route miles than Liverpool Street is from Ongar but by less than one mile. West Ruislip is just over 13½ miles from Lancaster Gate (close to Paddington) which is almost exactly two-thirds of the distance of Shenfield from Paddington.
It was clear that ‘Central London’ would become a complete misnomer for the name of this geographically spread railway. A consequence of all these plans was that during this period the name was simplified, to become the Central line.
A Tube to Bucks and Essex
The Central line would have two branches, both owned by the GWR, on the west side of London, with the existing line to Ealing Broadway, and the new route extending via the length of Middlesex into Buckinghamshire at Denham. On the eastern side, the main route would extend way beyond the London County Council border, and end at Ongar only 10 miles from the heart of Essex (Chelmsford). A large loop (the Fairlop/Hainault line), partially converted from an existing LNER line and partially in new tunnels under Eastern Avenue, would be wholly within the 1930s Essex.
The planned extension into 1930s Essex ultimately helped redefine where the outer edge of London lay and, once redefined, did much to determine where it would be for evermore.
A Complex and Many-Faceted Scheme
The outcome of these consolidated proposals meant that a scheme primarily designed and initiated in order to improve transport in East and North East London became dependent on developments many miles away.
As if all that wasn’t enough, due to the extra traffic and longer trains anticipated, existing Central London line platforms would be lengthened to take eight carriages and this involved lengthening the platforms at all 14 underground stations between Liverpool Street and Shepherds Bush. There was also to be an expansion of passenger-handling capacity at some stations, such as at Chancery Lane and St. Paul’s.
Nearly an early Crossrail equivalent?
Under normal circumstances such extensive station works would be considered a major project, not just a small component in a much bigger project. So, the combination of extending and upgrading the Central London line, and the joint involvement of main line railways both west and east of London, was really a large-scale Crossrail-style project in its own right, albeit with tube-sized not main-line sized trains.
New space-efficient tube trains with under-floor equipment were trialled by LPTB in 1935. These meant that, for the first time in multiple-unit tube stock, passengers had access to all of the carriages with the exception of the driving cabs. These trains were originally intended for the Central London line. When the production version was introduced, it was regarded as a significant advance in tube train design and the latest thing in modernity. If these trains had been introduced on the Central line, the revitalised and hugely extended tube line would have exhibited remarkable parallels (literally and figuratively) with today’s Elizabeth line.
However, for various complex reasons, the plans changed, and the production version of the new tube trains (the 1938 tube stock) saw use in central London on all London Transport tube lines except for the Central line, which made do with ‘standard’ tube stock shuffled mainly from the Bakerloo and Morden-Edgware (subsequently renamed ‘Northern’) lines. The result may have been more beneficial for Londoners overall but the opportunity to present London with a modern-looking and extended tube line was missed.
The Level Crossings Issue
A further element of the combined scheme was the requirement to close various highway level crossings on existing LNER tracks as it was deemed unacceptable to have level crossings with frequent tube services.
Apart from any policy considerations, it was clear that the potential intensive service level would make most level crossings unworkable for road traffic. Whilst this might sound a minor issue, it was actually a major challenge. Most of the crossings involved were located in suburbs of London which had already seen substantial 1930s development. It was also a task more appropriate for a highway authority to implement rather than one to be left to railway contractors as part of a bigger construction project. For this reason, at the time this was considered to be a third element of the scheme to complement Shenfield electrification and Central line extension.
The Scheme Almost without a Name
Much has been written about the Shenfield Electrification project. Much has also been written about the enhancement of the Central line in the 1940s including the newly built tunnels under Eastern Avenue being temporarily used as a factory for war output. However, rather less has been written about how absolutely interdependent these schemes were. One reason for that may be that the scheme never really had a commonly-used name encompassing all the features involved. The scheme did appear to have a formal name of the Central Line Extensions and Shenfield Electrification Scheme but this seems to have been rarely used. For convenience and brevity we will sometimes refer to the schemes as the ‘combined scheme’.
If the scheme gets mentioned by name at all, it tends to either get described by its component parts or by referring to it as part of the 1935-40 New Works Programme. The latter was an all-encompassing package of planned measures, most of which were implemented (although much was completed after World War II). In the case of the Northern Heights scheme within the New Works Programme, the less rewarding parts were abandoned post-war, even though parts of those had been close to completion pre-war.
Perceived Importance
It probably reflects on the potential benefits of the schemes (Central line extensions and Shenfield Electrification) that these were completed when other New Works Programme component schemes floundered. After World War II a shortage of steel, money and, possibly more important still, labour desperately needed to build new housing stock caused unfinished schemes to be delayed or abandoned. However, it is noticeable how considerable priority was given to completing both schemes although the post-war Labour Cabinet did debate on whether to stop Central line electrification at Loughton or at the new LCC housing estate at Debden.
The importance given to Shenfield Electrification and Central line works immediately after World War II is in marked contrast with, for example, the proposed extension of the Bakerloo line from Elephant & Castle to Camberwell which came to nothing despite a clear need at the time and previously. This latter scheme was considered important in order to increase capacity on the Bakerloo line by means of enabling more trains to be turned around at its southern end by providing a three-platform terminus.
The Contrasting Failure to Prioritise Bakerloo line Problems
Nowadays it is hard to believe that the Bakerloo line was the most overcrowded tube line but by 1940 it had two northern branches – one all the way from Baker Street to Watford Junction via Harrow & Wealdstone and one (a New Works Programme scheme) from Baker Street to Stanmore. The newly acquired Stanmore branch was found to have just too many passengers for the line to operate efficiently and give users a reasonably satisfactory journey.
Along with the proposed Bakerloo branch to Stanmore, there was a pre-war plan to extend existing Bakerloo line platforms to cater for 8-car trains. This turned out to be challenging due to the line gradients and curves in the vicinity of underground stations. This, combined with costs, meant that eventually platforms were only extended to accommodate one extra carriage. It was 1946 before they were utilised.
The failure to implement fully the scheme to increase capacity is one which created significant problems until 1979 when the first stage of the Jubilee line was opened and took over the Stanmore branch. However, use of 1938 stock with its higher passenger capacity than the previous ‘standard’ stock gave some relief to Bakerloo crowding.
The planners and the government of the day were probably not remiss when it came to abandoning the Bakerloo line extension which would have enabled a higher frequency of service and hence greater capacity due to the proposed three-platform terminus at Camberwell. Faced with practical issues involving shortage of many things, including money, something had to give. Schemes had to be prioritised and improvements in East London were considered an even higher priority.
Post-War Priorities Within the Scheme
After the Second World War, with Cabinet support, authorisation was made for the combined scheme to proceed with all possible haste – shortages of labour and materials notwithstanding.
The eastern side of London appeared to be treated with more urgency than the western side. However, this may have been a simple case of construction priorities due to the considerable amount of work required in East London.
For example, just to remove the concrete floor from the recently-built Central line tunnels used as an armaments factory during the war was reported to have taken eight months, as the concrete was considerably harder than anticipated and only once that was done could the tunnels be fitted out to be used as a railway. Also, only when Central line trains reached Leytonstone (in May 1947) and enabled the through LNER service to be withdrawn, could the LNER get on with reconstruction and reorganisation of the main lines between Stratford and Liverpool Street.
Nevertheless, the western extension, now curtailed back to West Ruislip, could not be ignored because the rolling stock from the Ruislip depot would be vital for providing the extended service over the entire line. The depot had to be functioning and it had to be linked to the existing Central line. Whether a public service was initially provided on the new western extension or not was less critical.
In the event, both the eastern as far as Loughton and the western extension to Ruislip opened on the same date although staged progress had been made prior to then. However, many stations on the western extension were reported to have been in far from a finished state on their opening day.
The Steam Age Forerunner of Crossrail’s Shenfield Branch
The railway line out of Liverpool Street Station to Romford and beyond has been exceptionally busy for at least the past hundred years. Whilst built much earlier, it really started to become intensive around the beginning of the 20th century with housing developments in Forest Gate and Ilford. From then development moved outward from the centre of London along the route of The High Road (the former Roman Road) between London and Colchester and with that came more demand still for trains on the London-Shenfield route.
In steam days the service on the London-Shenfield line was reputed to be the most intensively run steam-operated service in the world. There are various accounts of the slick operation necessary to carry the number of passengers using it. In general, they report wonder at how such an intensive service could have been operated with carriages pulled by steam engines. Somewhat perversely, the LNER, judging it could not afford to electrify, seemed to have a policy of aiming to increase further the intensity of trains run – as if to show their critics what could be achieved without electrification.
The reality was that LNER was thinking too much with a view to making a steady, if small, profit rather than a visionary approach that could transform the company. It wanted to electrify but it was a company whose first obligation was to its shareholders and, however hard they looked at the figures, they could not show a predicted return of 5% early on, which at the time was the generally accepted requirement before one could rationally invest in a project – and raise finance from new share issues.
Failure to Attract Off-Peak Traffic
One of the fundamental problems with getting a good return on what seemed like an obviously good economic investment was the minimal off-peak traffic. And, worse still, the peak periods were heavily peaked. One cannot blame the LNER for not trying to attract off-peak traffic as the publicity below clearly shows that they did try. Despite the efforts that they made, they were clearly unsuccessful.
The Problem of Financially Justifying Electrification
This was put very bluntly in a December 1933 report submitted to the Ministry of Transport using wording and sentiment that probably would not be so blatantly used today.
One result of the traffic being mainly working class in character is that it travels for business purposes only. This creates heavy traffic loads at the peak hours and far too light traffic loads at slack hours, as the population has neither the resources nor the aptitude to seek its pleasures and shopping other than locally. On the Upminster line some 40 per cent and on the Shenfield line some 35 per cent of the total daily traffic in either direction is carried within a single hour. Elsewhere on the Underground System of Railways the highest percentage of movement for a single hour is 26 per cent.
Extract from Report on The Traffic Problem in the North-East Sector of London 30/12/33
That paragraph probably needs analysing in some detail taking into account the language and social conditions of the day. “Business purposes” clearly meant ‘commuting’ but that term was not used in those days as it originated in America to describe someone with a season ticket (a ‘commuted’ fare) and the term was not in common use in Britain until the 1960s. An alternative way of describing the situation at the time would be to refer to the inhabitants as an ‘industrial population’.
The term “slack hours” was a common one in those days but is not much in use now. ‘Off-peak’ is now favoured as the ‘slack hours’ are often anything but slack.
35% of all traffic in either direction being in a single peak hour might not sound too bad but further analysis shows just how terribly peaked the traffic is. That means that the rest of the railway operating day accounts for the remaining 65% of traffic. The Liverpool Street lines then ran a 20 hour ‘traffic’ day – there were a few night services as well. That means that the passenger volume in an average ‘slack’ hour was only 3-4% of the daily passengers, and just one-tenth of the crowded peak hour.
The “business purposes” (commuting) importance of the NE London-North Woolwich corridor should be noted as should the radial routes from Liverpool Street. The former is highlighted by the design of the diagrammatic map displayed above (“Day Return Tickets at Single Fares”) showing a strategic travel corridor SE to the river. However, direct trains to the Docks and Thameside industries via Stratford also came from multiple suburban lines in North and North East London. Omitted from the LNER map also is a busy link via Stratford from Victoria Park interchange on North London railway owned by the London Midland and Scottish Railway (LMSR).
Without widespread electrification in NE London, it was probably not worth thinking of electrifying the Stratford-North Woolwich line as many local trains would remain steam-hauled. North Woolwich electrification wasn’t mentioned in LNER proposals of the period. Basically, if one were to electrify anywhere in East London then only Liverpool St-Shenfield made sense as an initial scheme.
Prudently, the official writing the earlier quoted paragraph did not mention either the situation at other railway companies nearby or the comparable South Eastern suburban lines of the Southern Railway (SR). The latter suburban lines had a similar peak demand, including Woolwich Arsenal as a destination, and limited travel during slack hours, yet were largely electrified in the mid-1920s. They also had a significant number of lines operated using colour-light signalling, which aided greater operating efficiency.
Lessons to be learnt from LTSR/District Southend Services?
Outside peak times, the LNER had two main options to stimulate additional travel, other than the obvious ones of more frequent services or strong marketing. One was to offer through trains to key ‘attractor’ destinations,
the other was to offer easy interchange to frequent services on lines which reached those destinations. It is instructive to see what was happening on the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway (LTSR, today’s c2c).
Heading away from London on the LNER and LTSR/Midland corridors into Essex, a key destination opportunity was Southend, and both main line companies strove to grow that off-peak market, with occasional through trains to Southend Victoria (LNER) and Southend Central (LTSR) from their suburban lines in Middlesex, Essex, and North and North East London. Towards the capital, the key destination was the heart of Central London beyond the City termini, particularly the West End, and this was a large enough destination to justify considerable investment in through services or interchanges.
A pre-WW2 example of an alternative to providing a good interchange which may have been in the minds of decision-makers, could be the joint running of trains from 1910 between the LTSR and the District Railway across Central London. This was intended to take advantage of spare off-peak capacity with attractive destinations in each direction. This was a through service from Ealing Broadway via Central London to Southend, and vice-versa, hauled by District electric locos to Barking and then a change to steam to Southend.
Conceptually the Ealing Broadway – Southend service was a bit like today’s Crossrail. However the initial service was only three through trains daily, enough for a day journey to the seaside and a shopping expedition or an evening in London’s theatreland but not enough to stimulate a strong travel volume.
The Midland Railway (the LTSR owner from 1913) had a medium-term plan pre-WW1 to electrify to Southend, which would have provided strong stimulus for more through electric services. This never reached Southend under Midland ownership but, unlike the LNER, they did make significant progress when it came to electrification.
A Neighbour shows up the LNER
If early South Eastern electrification in the 1920s represented a comparable operator’s commentary on LNER’s shortcomings, it must have been even more galling for LNER’s own passengers to subsequently see the closely neighbouring, indeed parallel railway, the LMSR, investing in its own lines in the early 1930s.
When the London, Midland and Scottish Railway took over the Midland Railway in 1923 as one of the ‘big four’ companies, they declined to electrify the LTSR all the way, and instead focused on four-tracking and electrification of its stopping services east of Barking. This enabled the extension of UERL District Railway services to Upminster in 1933, to serve the new large-scale LCC Becontree housing estate and expanded industries along the north side of the River Thames.
However it was a LMSR-funded project, so pointedly showed up the LNER steam services, as one main line to another! A little later, the through Ealing-Southend trains were reduced (in 1938), and ceased in 1939.
The new Becontree LCC estates were also close to the LNER Shenfield services. On the LNER 1932 off-peak map on the back page of the Winter 1932-33 LNER suburban timetable, shown above (“Day Return Tickets at Single Fares”), Chadwell Heath station is labelled as ‘Chadwell Heath for Becontree’. This appears to be the only acknowledgement by the LNER of the existence of this massive new housing estate so, presentationally, it would puzzle residents and local councils why the LNER was not upgrading or investing in any significant improvements, even if not electrification.
Southern Contrasts
Based on a comparison between LNER and progress made by near neighbours, it is difficult to understand just how remiss the LNER was in failing to electrify at least some of its suburban services by the time of the previously quoted report. Rather than continue to dwell on the failings of LNER in East London, a comparison with how Southern Railway progressed with electrification and its wider London commuting development in the years since its creation in 1923 perhaps illustrates a clearer picture of just how far behind LNER was with what could have been achieved.
The Southern Railway already had an excellent starting point with the pre-WW1 suburban electrifications authorised on the LSWR (London & South Western Railway) from Waterloo, and LBSCR (London Brighton & South Coast Railway) from Victoria and London Bridge. Their networks were well positioned for peak and off-peak travel, with access both to the West End and the City, by tube and the sub-surface lines. LBSCR’s ‘Elevated Electric’ had even been promoted on Underground maps and other marketing pre-WW1.
The South Eastern sector (formerly the South Eastern & Chatham Railway) had not been electrified and historically its parent company, LNER-like, had struggled to finance improvements. However the SR wasted no time from its inception in implementing a massive electrification programme, including conversion of the LBSCR overhead electrification system to a standardised third-rail scheme as already on the LSWR and also expanded to the SECR.
Meanwhile, LNER had no lines whatsoever in the London area that were electrified despite their suburban services being an obvious candidate for an electrification scheme. None of the lines from Liverpool Street had colour light signalling although a slow start was made in 1935 when some sections of suburban railway, not on the route to Shenfield, had semaphore signals replaced with colour light ones.
‘Southern Electric’
By 1926 most of the SR’s three suburban networks were electrified and more schemes were under way. Electrification had reached beyond the suburban area to reach Dorking and Guildford. The rest of the decade was spent concentrating on filling in gaps in the existing suburban network. By 1930 the lines to Gravesend, Windsor and even the lightly used Wimbledon – West Croydon line had been electrified.
The early 1930s saw Southern electrification efforts concentrated on extending ‘Southern Electric’ to Brighton, Worthing and much of the South Coast (to Portsmouth by 1937), and with outer suburban services established for the intervening communities. As the Southern Railway was not one for half-measures, this included resignalling with colour light signalling wherever appropriate – all the way from Purley to Brighton by 1933, where the first electric train in public service ran from London to Brighton on 1st January 1933.
There was large-scale promotion of new housing and living opportunities in the same style as ‘Metroland’, with similar ‘Southern Electric’ marketing books and brochures. The South Eastern network, comparable in travel habits to the former Great Eastern lines, had been electrified as far as Sevenoaks by 1935, and to Gillingham (Kent) and Maidstone by 1939.
Southern’s ‘Electroland’
SR was keen to promote its investment and to stimulate more travel and more dormitory housing. There was an equivalent brochure to ‘Metroland’ – Country Homes (with various titles) – and visions of quality life on their improved railway network. Simultaneously the South Coast towns were promoted through marketing of longer distance electric services. Some examples are shown below.
Not entirely surprisingly, by way of contrast, LNER failed to produce any suburban marketing – although they might have felt they had too many passengers already for a steam age. We’re unsure what any ‘Live in Essex’ slogan might have stimulated.
A short-sighted LNER Board?
The reasons for this variance between the LNER and other main line companies are numerous and complex, but we would suggest a simple comparison is made between the LNER’s concern for day-to-day finances versus the Southern Railway’s Sir Herbert Walker’s vision to maximise line capacity involving all means, and the SR’s better financial base.
Given the short-term thinking and lack of access to capital, it is no wonder LNER couldn’t show how an investment in electrification would make a decent profit. To them it would seem to be a much better financial strategy to make do with what one had knowing in particular that one’s peak-hour travellers had very little choice and were a captive market rather than pursue a large investment in equipment that, in the prevailing travel mood, was only sensibly utilised for a couple of hours for six days of the week.
Lack of Suburban Development in Early 20th Century
When looking at suburban expansion in East London in early decades of the twentieth century, a slightly surprising contrast emerges. Heading more east than north, there was little development away from the route of The High Road and the railway to Romford. The line had no real rival nearby so much of East London was dependent on it. By 1932 the line was four tracked all the way to Shenfield leaving one pair of those tracks available for suburban use.
Eventually, the surrounding land which had been dominated by market gardening made way to urbanisation. What is surprising though is how the Fairlop loop (to become the Central line’s Hainault loop) failed to develop the expected population growth that the railway had relied on when extending to these parts. One possible reason for the failure to trigger a housing growth could be the desultory frequency which may have been accentuated by poor connections. To this day the Hainault loop is relatively lightly used and this cannot be entirely explained by the Green Belt.
The LNER’s failure to promote potential suburbs has to be one reason. Another might be the City of London’s 1930s interest in promoting a new City airport on Fairlop Plain – this was approved by a public inquiry in 1935 and was intended to open in 1942. That area subsequently became part of the Green Belt after a period as an RAF fighter station.
One area where there was considerable development was around Leyton and Leytonstone, which extended to a greater or lesser extent all the way to Loughton. This would have been centred around the railway line from Ongar, Epping and Loughton, whose trains went to the Fenchurch Street terminus as well as Liverpool Street.
Eastern Avenue in the 1930s
Eventually the pressures of the 1930s meant that housing spread further onto Essex fields. Much of this was centred around a 1920s-built arterial bypass road called Eastern Avenue, numbered the A106 in the 1920s (it’s now the A12). It mostly paralleled the existing built-up area based on The High Road and the Liverpool Street – Shenfield line, and created a new corridor from Leytonstone through Wanstead, Gants Hill, Newbury Park and Little Heath (north of Chadwell Heath). It then passed north and north east of Romford, to rejoin the A12 at the point where a new Southend Arterial Road began (the A127).
It wasn’t very far away (about a mile distant) from The High Road, meaning the effect was to bring additional passengers into the catchment area of the Shenfield line and increase intensity on the line rather than spread the load to other areas.
It is clear from what subsequently transpired that the developments around Eastern Avenue and their lack of direct rail services were of great interest to the Underground Group and then the newly-created LTPB who wasted no time in looking for potential solutions.
The Causes of the Demand for Travel
As mentioned earlier, travel in East London was mostly for work purposes. There were really two main areas with employment opportunities. One was central London. The other was the vicinity of the north bank of the Thames. A dominant source of employment was the Docks, while their close proximity to the Thames spawned numerous other industries.
The ability to unload raw materials made the surrounding area attractive to industry and warehousing. The Thames, being both a source of water and a place to dispose of it once used, also attracted manufacturing industry, for example sugar refining and syrup production. The combination of the two river features proved alluring to other businesses with a significant likelihood of causing effluents, which in turn made the locality less attractive for residential use. Hence a desire by some to live away from the area and possibly travel considerable distances to and from work.
The reality was that London as a whole was a major manufacturing centre, with extensive industries throughout inner London and along the length of the Thames and Lea riversides (and part of the Wandle), and with the Docks being a further stimulus for industries to locate nearby. Ford continued that heritage at Dagenham, while there was also intensive employment for East Londoners at the Royal Arsenal munitions factory at Woolwich and its offshoots (e.g. at Silvertown).
Central London based employment should not be thought of as just ‘the City’. The West End had become a large employment zone since 1900, while Westminster was the centre of Government.
Not relevant to Shenfield electrification but important when looking at the western extension of the Central line are locations such as Park Royal and Greenford that had sprung up as industrial centres during World War I. These locations, and others further down the GWR main line, were subsequently stimulated by rail and road access which had previously been missing or underdeveloped.
East London Travel in the 1930s
By changing at Stratford, Eastenders and East Londoners (i.e. those east of Bromley-by-Bow/Stratford) could make their way towards the Docks and other riverside industries. Their journey could continue from Stratford by either changing trains (some trains went within the PLA Docks area), or by using the then extensive East London tram network. Coborn Road, Leyton, Maryland and Manor Park were also rail/tram interchanges to reach various Dock gates and the local industries.
In many ways the comprehensive transport network that enabled workers to reach their places of employment would be considered exemplary. However, for many people, the bulk of the journey, distance-wise, largely relied on the intensively-worked, steam-operated trains that shuttled back-and-forth on the Liverpool St – Shenfield and Loughton routes.
A Railway Needing Change
Whilst the focus here is on the line from Liverpool Street to Shenfield, this was only one service that called at Stratford station. The range of travel origins to the Docks and riverside industry zones has already been highlighted, with through trains from both Central London and North and North East London, and they partly used the same London commuter tracks which were also used by Ongar and Loughton line trains. Further operational complexity existed with the presence of direct commuter trains to Fenchurch Street from the Ongar and Loughton line, which crossed the entire group of main lines in and out of Liverpool Street! This was a railway network in need of major operational reorganisation and the benefits of such a reorganisation would be felt over a large area.
Proposals to Improve Matters
The government in the 1930s was well aware of the importance of providing a decent railway service in East London. This had been highlighted by two major public inquiries by the London & Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee in the mid-1920s, focused on East London and North-East London. Unfortunately, little had been done to address the basics, though there were plans which overlapped.
By now the LNER was one of the ‘big four’. They had proposed an electrification scheme at 1500V DC which would electrify much of the GE suburban network including to Shenfield, and the Ongar, Loughton and Fairlop Loop lines. A separate proposal was made by the Underground Group (still then a private company) to supposedly complement the LNER scheme and provide passenger relief to the LNER lines. In practice it competed with the LNER scheme.
In the above image, the base map shows urban development in 1923 which preceded the construction of Eastern Avenue. There are also 6, 9, 12 and 17 mile rings from Charing Cross and also M25 shown for modern-day comparison.
The Underground Group proposed a Central London line tube extension from Liverpool Street to Stratford Broadway (note: Broadway, not the main line station), which would then continue under Leytonstone High Street and along Eastern Avenue. The intended terminus was a small village called Little Heath which in those days was not yet part of the general urban sprawl.
Today, these plans were largely forgotten about. A critical weakness of them was their explicit competitiveness resulting in missed interchange opportunities and a poor commercial case. In fact, interchange opportunities were almost non-existent and even at Newbury Park it is not clear if there was any intention to provide interchange with the LNER station there (now part of the Central line).
The Original Plans are Abandoned
A Central London line station located beneath Stratford Broadway wasn’t going to provide any interchange with the main line station at Stratford. Not only would there have been at least a 300m walk, there was the fact that exiting the underground platform in Broadway would necessitate not only reaching surface level but then climbing further stairs at the main line station to reach the elevated platforms.
The proposed Underground extension was comparable with the Piccadilly Line extension northwards from Finsbury Park, which had just opened under the roads to central Wood Green and into new development territory in outer North London, paralleling but not integrated with the LNER Great Northern network. The Piccadilly tube was an alternative railway (in areas where passengers had a choice of local stations), rather than a network offering good interchanges between operators. In the case of East London, Liverpool Street would have continued to handle all the transfer flows between the LNER and the Underground.
It is probable that neither the East nor North East London schemes could be justified by their partly duplicated demands on capital investment, in a part of London where off-peak travel was so discouraging, and where even the finally approved scheme needed other, more profitable schemes to go ahead, to provide sufficient assurance of an acceptable rate of return.
A Basis for a Realistic Scheme
The formation of the London Passenger Transport Board (LPTB, London Transport, LT) in 1933 and particularly the Standing Joint Committee of LT and the main line railways, was a means to force joint railway planning to take place, in return for which the Government would be willing to provide financial backing for an integrated set of railway development plans.
The Standing Joint Committee brought together the competitive proposals by the LNER and the Underground Group for schemes to relieve travelling conditions in East and North East London.
In actuality, the December 1933 report prepared the political ground for the works that were finally authorised for the 1935-40 New Works Programme. Subsequently, by putting heads together both the LPTB and LNER eventually saw ways to merge the different schemes and make a stronger combined proposal.
A Revision is Needed
One can see the problems with the original schemes. There was limited capacity at the London termini so there just would not be the enabled service expansion that would permit the LNER scheme to pay its way. From the LNER’s viewpoint, if it divested the Ongar, Loughton and Fairlop Loop lines to London Transport then its immediate capital costs would go down, yet there was a substantial probability of passenger numbers after electrification being around the same, or even higher, despite the loss of some passenger lines.
After 15 years, the amortised charges of the Central line’s eastern extensions would also would be loaded onto LNER shareholdings, in proportion to the share of LNER trackage operated over by the LPTB, but by then the passenger traffic should have grown enough to pay for the new works. Such a scheme must have appeared far more profitable to the LNER than the original one proposed.
The possibility also must have occurred to LNER that, if the Great Eastern Main Line were already electrified on the main lines (the former ‘through’ lines) as far as Gidea Park, as planned, there would be the opportunity to build on that in future and possibly extend towards Southend Victoria and Chelmsford. Both were beyond the London region’s shared revenue ‘Pool’, but not by far. Outer suburban electrification would be expected to be considerably cheaper than that in the urban areas on a cost per mile basis due to less need for bridge reconstruction and, furthermore, could take advantage of lines already electrified in the urban area.
One could argue that the fledgling London Transport (formally the LPTB, of course) was still finding its way as to its real purpose during this period. As a public corporation as well as a Pool member, its role should be one of finding the best transport solutions regardless of which company or public body implemented them. The previous competitive stance needed to be modified to enable co-operation to produce a better solution that could realistically be implemented.
Eventually, a revised scheme was developed in conjunction with London Transport to extend the Central London line into suburban development areas. This was expected to show adequate investment returns to the ‘London Passenger Transport Pool’ (the pooled income from LT and the four main line companies) from the resulting travel growth – here considering the LPTB and LNER revenues – once the eastern areas had been developed and balancing suburban areas had emerged in the west.
A consequence of the ‘Pool’ scheme was that companies would be less concerned with protecting ‘their’ revenue. Rather than fighting for their share of the cake the emphasis was on producing a bigger cake so everyone had a larger slice. This became significant at Stratford where easy interchange between the LNER and Central line was regarded as “essential”.
A Stratford interchange would make journeys to central London and beyond from the Ilford, Romford and Shenfield corridor more attractive and, it was hoped, more generally lead to the much-desired gains in off-peak travel, by offering a simple, high-quality cross-platform interchange with trains direct to the West End. So a Stratford Interchange scheme was included in the 1935-40 New Works Programme, which along with many other New Works was approved through Parliamentary Acts.
1935-40 New Works Programme (and subsequent Acts)
As well as providing the railways (LPTB, LNER and the GWR) with a trajectory for growth, there were wider public policy reasons for this agreed programme. In order to stimulate the economy during a time of financial depression, and to provide employment opportunities, the Government in the 1930s was prepared to underwrite advance funding for railway improvements that benefitted the economy in general but weren’t immediately profitable on their own.
It raised £40m (now around £40 billion) in a government-backed shares offer, to fund the 1935-40 New Works, with the shares to be transferred to LPTB and the railway companies after a 15-year period of investment and consequential area development. This was hoped to be long enough for the shares to earn their long-term worth.
The above map shows the 1935-40 New Works Programme as finally approved and implemented. Existing lines to be electrified are shown in lime green and consists of:
- Liverpool St – Shenfield (1500V DC overhead)
- Most of the Fairlop loop (630V DC standard LT fourth rail)
- the Ongar line as far as Epping (most of it off the map, 630V DC standard LT fourth rail)
- Fenchurch St – Stratford (1500V DC overhead)
There is a flyover to swap the pairs of lines which is just visible to the west of Ilford which will be explained in a later article.
The new Central line tunnels are shown in red outline and consist of:
- New tunnels from Liverpool St (extending the existing Central line) to Stratford where they surface at Stratford station.
- New tunnels between Stratford station and Leyton station along a route which consists of an awkward ‘S’ bend to join these locations.
- New tunnels under Eastern Avenue from Leytonstone to Newbury Park featuring a substantial curve south of Newbury Park in order to change from an West-East alignment to a South-North one in order to take over services on the Fairlop (now the Hainault) loop.
More Detail
This article provides a background of the planning rationale for the Shenfield Electrification Scheme and related schemes that this electrification depended on. In the next article we will look at in detail as to what this actually meant on the ground, what was involved in implementing the scheme, and how close the eventual result matched the pre-war plans.
Thank you, Jonathan, for bringing all this together. A very wide-ranging summary of the background to how the world we have always known came about.
I wonder if Little Heath was intended as a terminus like Cockfosters, leaving open ground for a double-ended depot, also like plans for Elstree.
I don’t know the specific answer to that, though that design seemed to be the UERL/LPTB fashion as it gave versatility and scope for further line development in due course. The same actually applied at Ruislip and Hainault depots. When possible closure of the weakest part of the Loop line between Woodford and Hainault was mooted by LT in 1969 under a review of ‘less remunerative rail services’, it was proposed to keep Grange Hill station open and continue to operate Hainault depot as a double-ended arrangement. So there is a strong probability that it was in the Little Heath scheme’s DNA !
@JR
Thanks for this, very helpful in understanding why the Central Line makes so much track noise in 2024 going round those improbable curves. Also, I guess, the 1953 Stratford disaster?
Quick question, “Dock Lines (Closed 1926)” on the final diagram, is that the London and Blackwall Railway which remained in freight operation until 1968 and now forms a route of the DLR?
Looking forward the next part(s).
Shenfield …
I recommend chapter 5 of Gerry Feinnes’ book ( “I tried to run a Railway” ) which describes the Shenfield Electrification project.
As regards the origins of Cross-Rail, IIRC the same author, when asked about central London congestion said: “Simple – 4-track the Central Line” – this was before the Vic-line opened, mind you. Very far-sighted.
I also have a re-issued copy of the original track diagrams in hardcover-booklet form, originally issued to BTC (BR) staff on completion, with track diagram(s) – if I remember, I will bring it to next week’s pub meeting.
The mentioned LPTB’s massive pre-war “New Works Programme” –is itself worthy of several long articles.
As do the continuing travails of the poor old Bakerloo line, even with Stanmore now hived off as part of the Jubilee.
One minor niggle: The tube-tunnel factory, effectively between Leytonstone & Gants Hill was, in fact for Plessey electronics, manufacturing Radar sets, rather than any weapons, directly.
Finance: Again, IIRC, the LNER was permanently saddled with the accrued debt of the old Great Central Railway & was thus always short of cash, no matter how badly they needed to build new schemes & invest.
New Works Programme? Now I wonder who could write loads of newly researched stuff about that – especially the financing and how the LPTB ignored the LNER’s valuable advice. No wonder the LPTB ended up with several unfinished tube lines that accrued no benefit of any sort. My crystal ball indicates there might be something soon!
@ Brian Butterworth
The mapping only focuses on regular passenger services – it would have made for difficult viewing if all freight lines and spurs were highlighted as well! So indeed 1926 for the London & Blackwall….
Seems a shame to me that the Central ended up all the way to Ongar whilst the Camberwell and Northern Heights extensions were abandoned. Unlike Ongar, I believe these would have been well used and easily sustained today if they’d been completed to any degree (Edgware to Bushey Heath perhaps more questionable, but the rest without doubt).
@ Paul
The early versions of the 1935-40 New Works Programme did not include the Northern Heights programme, but included a Bakerloo extension to Camberwell.
What ousted the Bakerloo scheme was strong lobbying from the Finchley direction for a direct West End tube, which led to a Mk.1 Northern Heights project . This would have been a simple tube extension with underground stations joint with LNER at Highgate and (still underground) at East Finchley, with that tube surfacing halfway between East Finchley and Church End (now Finchley Central). The tube would have terminated there.
LNER lines would have been unaltered in that Phase 1, and only in a later Phase 2 would the LNER lines to Alexandra Palace and High Barnet have been electrified, on the 4-rail system. There would have been through LMSR electric trains from Broad Street via the Canonbury curve, and other through trains from Moorgate via a Great Northern & City connection near Finsbury Park. Tube trains would also then have run through to High Barnet, amid main line trains! The Finchley-Edgware line would have seen a more frequent steam or diesel shuttle but wouldn’t have been electrified.
This is all set out in a May 1935 London Passenger Transport Pool report which formed part of the basis for Treasury approval of the New Works Programme in June 1935. However the scope of the Northern Heights scheme was then revised and expanded considerably, at greater cost. The changes were set out in an October 1936 Pool report.
With hindsight, a less ambitious Northern Heights project might have resulted in more of the LNER network continuing in use!
Greg T,
The article only referred to war output. That includes everything from underwear for soldiers to compasses and maps. So radar sets would definitely be in this category. The factory was used for Plessey output for no other reason than they were already located in nearby Ilford. But the fact that the equipment produced was important enough to relocate the factory underground gives an indication of how critical radar was to the war.
[It has been pointed out there was a separate reference to armaments. I shall investigate. PoP]
Brian Butterworth,
It had also struck me long ago that those curves may have had some bearing on the Stratford disaster. Of course, if the driver (or motorman as he was called in those days) had followed the rulebook and was limiting his speed so he could stop on line of sight the collision wouldn’t have happened. But to be fair to the driver, it must be awfully hard to judge the maximum safe speed when confronted with continuous curves and an ‘S’ curve at that. On top of that, at least some of the line must be on a steep gradient.
@Paul: The LPTB could have completed the Northern Heights, indeed a near complete electrification of the routes was achieved. Instead the LPTB rejected that for several fag end tube lines that aren’t too terribly well utilised! One can only look back in Ongar at the attitude the LPTB had.
[Very witty PoP]
@Jonathan: The Shenfield electrification was first proposed just before WWI thus in some sense it already had a name it would be known by.
Paul,
My opinion differs from yours. People have a romantic image about the Northern Height extensions but I think in many ways it was a complete basket case from the outset and I wonder why it ever got approved. How such a network was supposed to be operated alone gives rise to doubt of the practicality of the scheme never mind the questionable need for such a service.
Bear in mind that the Ongar line already existed and was heavily used as far as Loughton. As Jonathan emphasises, converting it to London Underground was an essential integral part of the project. In fact, it was proposed to continue with an LNER steam service from Loughton northwards after the initial takeover as far as Loughton and that’s what happened for a while. Although the Central line got to Epping fairly soon afterwards, the line from Epping to Ongar was eventually electrified on the cheap in 1957. Famously the station lights at some stations dimmed as a train entered due to the station lamps being powered by the conductor rail. So I do not think saving money on the Ongar line, where it could be done, would have led to any improvement on the Bakerloo and certainly not helped with funding the Northern Heights project.
But yes, I have always thought it a pity the Bakerloo line extension did not happen post-war. Also, sad but understandable that they didn’t extend the station tunnels sufficiently to enable eight car trains to be run. By the way, a very good account of all this (by far the best in my opinion) is in the book The Bakerloo Line by Mike Horne sadly out of print but available quite cheaply on eBay and, no doubt, the usual secondhand book websites.
A very informative article highly relevant to a wider audience.
“Central line tunnels are show as red tramlines”
missing ‘n’ and use of terminology in article mentioning actual tramlines, perhaps ‘outlines’ this time.
[Corrected and modified. This was down to me attempting to be more descriptive when adding a legend to the map PoP]
“and how the close the eventual result” 2 x the
[Corrected. Original error was probably also down to me PoP]
The SR diagrams annotation could helpfully mention that electrified lines are in red and under electrification in bold grey.
[Legend added PoP]
Dec 1933 UERL scheme for separate competing tube to Little Heath – The Aldborough then Little Heath villages are served along the then new arterial Eastern Avenue on the southern edge of the City of London airport scheme.
@PoP mentioned twice differently
temporarily used as a factory for war output
Central line tunnels used as an armaments factory during the war
[Oops: I stand corrected. I must investigate PoP]
The Ongar service was necessary and had to be continued by LT as disconnected from other lines. It did not have any bearing on NWP investment. It was electrified cheaply in late 50s for operational efficiencies. Were it not so it would surely have been closed by 1968 instead of stayed for 2 more decades. Before severing the Ilford link the shuttle might have survived as a diesel rail car shuttle like the Emerson shuttle.
I look forward to the next part about operational difficulties for the Highgate ‘northern heights’. I was not aware of it being a Broad St scheme, logically it would connect to the Moorgate City. Having built it even operating as a Finsbury Park – Alexandra Palace link should have been worthwhile. Today connecting to the Overground would have been an option.
Great article!
Q: To what extent was the “outer” part of the Ilford – Newbury Park – Seven Kings triangle used, and how?
Btw, as radar manufacturing during WW2 is mentioned, this is an interesting story related to that. Can’t find any connection to Plessey though, but still:
https://www.dos4ever.com/EF50/EF50.html
@PoP: I agree that the initial suggested line/train schedule for the Northern Heights with mixed tube and mainline trains would had been a bad idea. But just running trains on all the parts, without intermixing different types of trains, seems like a decent idea. Just run mainline trains Finsbury Park – Alexandra Palace and tube trains like today except continue from Mill Hill East to Edgware. It’s silly that the section between Mill Hill East and Edgware was abandoned.
Re Epping-Ongar on the cheap – I would say that the dimming station lights when trains accelerated were rather due to there most likely not being electricity available in general in the area. Given that working class homes were connected to electricity when an area were electrified, it’s hard to believe that the underground would had saved a few pennies by not using a local electric network
I think this is an urban myth that the dimming was due to the electrification was made cheaply. Any lights powered by the third/fourth rails would dim when a train accelerates at full power, no matter how good the electrification were done. All this sounds more like an attempt of a technical interpretation by someone lacking knowledge of how electrification is done (both for railways and for the general grid).
MiaM
For a short while, the triangle N of “Ilford Car Sheds” was used for turning steam locomotives, & also for “rotating” electric stock – with a shunter attached, of course.
As an aside, there was a a daily Stratford – Loughton “BR” passenger service, via the old route, until about 1970 { I used it, once, shortly before closure ) And BR freight continued up to Loughton & Epping until some date in the late 1950’s, at least – principally for coal, of course.
Also, for a long time, Ilford hosted the solitary remaining ex-NER Bo-Bo electric locomotive 26510 – it disappeared when the operating voltage changed over to 25kV AC in 1960.
Generally [Snipped. Too keen to add political points PoP]
NiaM
I think the dimming lights thing is about Blake Hall, which was remote from dwellings of any class, with or without mains electricity. Probably in the “least used station category” before it became a YouTube industry.
The triangular junction south of Newbury Park allowed passenger trains to go back to Liverpool Street via Ilford. Going the other way it was an outlet for down freight trains, destined for East Anglia. During WW2 this was a useful way of avoiding any bomb damage and congestion, around Temple Mills and Stratford. I don’t think any passenger services went that way, but others here are clearly very clued up on these lines so can speak up.
You can still trace the line of the route south of Newbury Park, but the two sides of the junction were largely obliterated when the new depot for the electric feet was built
The LNER did inherit a small electrified network, in Tyneside, so the company would have had direct experience of the economics of electrification, by third rail at least. It took a very long time to add South Shields to the network, and I wonder whether the same forces that squashed the NER main line electrification plans instigated a generation of ambivalence towards electrification projects in general.
Reasonable off-peak services on the Shenfield line did not become a permanent feature until introduced by First Great Eastern, I believe, before then it was trains every 20 minutes. It would be interesting to know the effects on off-peak traffic of the introduction of genuine turn-up-and-go frequencies.
The triangular junction at Ilford didn’t exist – not in 1949 – they had been taken up by about 1947 for the purpose of constructing the new Ilford car sheds and sidings – thus there was no possibility of trains going to Liverpool Street by way of Ilford. The tracks did go towards the other way (towards Seven Kings) for the purpose of freight however as @TwopennyTube has stated. The track diagrams for 1949 denote this and those can be seen in railway magazines of the time.
If any freight or even passenger trains needed to attain the London direction (such as BR’s main line excursion services that were run to various parts of Britain – or even its handful of DMU services through to Loughton and Epping that ran until 1970) the way to do that was via Woodford and Leytonstone.
@ Miam/Twopenny Tube
As you will see from the extract of the 1946 Railway Gazette plan there should have been a substation near Blake Hill. I understand that equipment for that was stored in wartime then sent abroad for the war effort somewhere else, but the (possibly apocryphal) story is that the ship it was on was sunk in the Bay of Biscay – in which case there’s a corner of France which is forever Ongar!
I’d love to know if that story is true, anyhow no substation and effective power reducing by the mile from Epping sub station meant limitations on train length and significant dimming of the lights at Blake Hall station. I know, I was there in the Blake Hall booking office in early 1969 reviewing the local passenger season ticket records held at the station (yes, there were some regular commuters), as part of LT’s preparations to apply for closure of the Epping-Ongar line, when I prepared some of the evidence. I remember noting that the station light bulbs were an unusually large design, running at 630v… and they were a reliable indicator of when to expect the next train, as they dimmed when a train was leaving the previous station as that drained the power supply.
Use of the outer side of the Newbury Park triangle for passenger trains was very limited. I believe the main passenger user was occasional excursion trains from the Leyton-Woodford-Newbury Park section to Southend Victoria or equivalent coastal resorts further along the Essex coast. It was retained mainly for freight train working. There had been brief consideration of retaining a local non-electrified shuttle when the main service was to be transferred to the tube line, however LPTB replaced the Barkingside trams with trolleybuses in 1938 (route 691) so there was no need for a duplicate local train service.
MiaM: You were close to a genuine parallel world when you suggested that separating the main line and tube operations on the Northern Heights could have been a way forward. By mid/late 1937, LPTB was well aware that the £40 million New Works budget would be exceeded by a significant amount – partly because of inflation and higher basic costs caused by extra spending on major defence projects which responded to German re-armament, partly because of inadequate costings for the original 1935-40 works, plus scope creep. This meant that a severe review of project scope was conducted in 1937 on all schemes (where else have we come across that?…). A seriously probable option which was discussed, was to cancel LNER electrification and the GN&C link, keep the Highgate-Finchley tube extension and add 4-tracking between East Finchley and Finchley Central, with tubes running parallel to the existing steam line, then electrify back round to Edgware for the tube trains. Legal issues then supervened, and the formalised legal relationship between LPTB and LNER meant that contractual commitments had to be honoured, so works continued on the basis of the October 1936 Pool plans.
But all that is really by the way, the current article is about the Shenfield electrification and Central Line extension! No doubt other NWP articles can or will be written in due course.
City services from the Northern Heights lines in steam days – IIRC at various times there were services to both Broad Street via Canonbury and the NLR, and Moorgate via King’s Cross and the Widened Lines.
Can I say that I feel sorry for the 6,000+ people who live in North Weald who had their station taken away and yet Epping was kept.
I went to a Northern Hights display in a library near Edgware and they had a smart model display of the Edgware to Aldernam and they were of the opinion that the Town and Country Planning (aka Green Belt) Act of 1947 killed off this section.
I lived along Muswell Hill Road once and it was very, very disappointing to find that there had been a whole tube built to Muswell Hill. It needed it then and probably needs it now.
But yes, the Parkland Walk is lovely and the station on that line are all “up hill” as they say.
Max Roberts: “Reasonable off-peak services on the Shenfield line did not become a permanent feature until introduced by First Great Eastern, I believe, before then it was trains every 20 minutes. It would be interesting to know the effects on off-peak traffic of the introduction of genuine turn-up-and-go frequencies.”
From Shenfield to London, in BR (ER) days there were plenty of trains to and from Southend Victoria, maybe not quite “turn up and go”, albeit with the off-peak all stations from Liverpool Street terminating/starting at Gidea Park. Broadly, and with variations for summer and winter and for weekends, there would have been a 20 minute all stations Shenfield – Romford, (as per Max’s comment) then Ilford, Stratford and Liverpool Street; plus a 20 minute service Shenfield non-stop to Stratford/Liverpool Street.
Max Roberts
NO
My copy of the 1961 timetable shows 3 tph starting from Shenfield, but the “other” electric services from Southend & Chelmsford also stopped at Shenfield & then provided a limited-stop, significantly faster journey to Liverpool St.
Rog (LRB) – I stand corrected regarding the 3rd (NW) side of the old triangle.
2d Tube – Indeed, I can clearly remember, standing on Stratford in the early 1960’s, with the regular announcement going: “The next train on platform 8 is for Ilford, Romford & all stations to Southend”
@MiaM
radar manufacturing during WW2 is mentioned, this is an interesting story related to that. Can’t find any connection to Plessey though,
ltmuseum.co.uk/collections/stories/war/plessey-tubes-secret-wartime-underground-factory
Plessey made wireless sets – for bombers during ww2
Brian Butterworth,
I think the 6000 population refers to the entire parish of North Weald Bassett. The parish covers an area of 22.79km². A lot at a map shows the urban area around Epping as ‘obvious’ much bigger than that around North Weald (which is located entirely to the north of the railway line.
Furthermore, Epping is a major railhead largely because of the relatively low fares compared to Harlow. The demand may be artificially high but it is a demand nevertheless.
MiaM, Brian Butterworth
To me the Northern Heights plan was a load of ideas strung together without thought of the practicality of how it was going to work as a whole. Looking at the various contingents
Edgware – Bushey Heath: Killed off by the proposed green belt making it utterly pointless.
Mill Hill East – Edgware: Was only ever single track which probably says something about how useful it was. It is hard to see the benefit compared to Mill Hill Broadway with a direct service to St Pancras.
Highgate – Alexandra Palace: Closed 1954 due to lack of demand. It is hard to see how the Northern Heights scheme would have made much of a difference.
Finsbury Park – Highgate: This is probably the one section that might have made sense to save had the conditions been right. But it never realised its potential. As I understand it, trains generally terminated at Finsbury Park rather than go to Central London. The useful bit (Highgate – High Barnet) got transferred to the Northern line as part of the New Works Programme. The plan, I believe was to join up to Finsbury Park – Moorgate but I suspect engineering wise that was a challenge and very expensive. That, and the cost of electrification would have been awfully hard to justify for the sake of two stations (Stroud Green and Crouch End).
@ Greg T:”Indeed, I can clearly remember, standing on Stratford in the early 1960’s, with the regular announcement going: “The next train on platform 8 is for Ilford, Romford & all stations to Southend”
And after the witching hour, the added: “…. except Prittlewell.”
The branch traffic level is a function of road congestion. Muswell Hill is notoriously difficult.
The cost of electrification was largely spent with conductor rail fitted and substations built without equipment. Northern Line tube trains continued to use the line until 1970 (hauled by battery locos). Two minute shot of them at the Drayton Park train shed with maintenance performed at Highgate depot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZxk08n8Jag
The line was built to serve Alexandra Palace. By the 1930s half of that was rundown and taken over by the BBC for that new invention of TV studios and transmission until the 1950s. It was only after the line closure that large audience events like music concerts started in the 1960s.
Re Epping v.s. North Weald and also Epping vs Harlow:
How common/uncommon was it to include suggested/current fare levels in studies on the future of various rail lines?
If the fare was significantly higher from North Weald than Epping then many that were able to choose either would choose Epping even if it wasn’t the first hand choice from a convenience perspective.
This is an obvious case of artificial administrative borders artificially affecting “non-artificial” peoples everyday lives. I don’t know where I’m going with this though, just think it’s worth pointing out.
In general I think this is something that might be worth putting more focus in in various studies.
Also re studies: The fact that Alexandra Palace was rundown and had few visitors during this period, and then were revived, clearly shows that it’s a good idea to combine decisions on transport with decisions on land usage and usage of publicly owned assets. I would think that at least nowadays this is to some extent built into the process of studies at least here in Europe, but my impression is that in USA they still build a stadium in a place that has no public transport and then they are sad that it’s so expensive to build public transit to the stadium, instead of just starting with building it where it would be easy to connect to public transport.
Re Northern Heights:
If only the decision to build the Victoria Line had been taken before the remaining parts of the Northern Heights were scrapped. Edgwage – Highgate – Finsbury Park – Moorgate would probably had been a useful line. Or if it had been today it could be a fork of the Overground orbital route, diverting the East London Line away from it’s current Highbury&Islington terminus to Edgware via Finsbury Park and Highgate.
Re the greenbelt legislation (as that for obvious reasons ended the outer end of the Northern Heights): This is a really hot take, but I think that the green belt legislation should be revisited. Add exceptions along rail routes that can take more passengers, and as a compensation extend the green belt to areas further out that are hard to serve by public transport. Maybe also have some legislation that don’t allow roads for private vehicles to connect any new areas towards London, forcing private vehicles on a very long detour outwards, making public transport the only reasonable option, and thus making it green as in emission free.
Sure, having green areas, green as in vegetation rather than emissions free, is also nice, but the main driver for the green belt must had been to avoid increasing the smog levels, which isn’t as much an issue now as it was then.
A crayonista-of-sorts tangent: A company called The Watford and Edgware Railway stated in 1860 and never built anything but acquired right-of-way that eventually became part of the UERL. Not sure how much of the full intended line right of way was acquired, but today it would probably had been useful to combine a Northern Heights line via Bushey Heath up to Watford, and also extend the Jubilee line from Stanmore to whereever an interchange station would be useful. In combination with my hot take suggestion of amending the greenbelt legislation, this could be an area where a lot of new houses and whatnot could be built.
I suspect that large events at Ally Pally might have overloaded the hypothetical tube service and caused a lot of problems and ill-feeling, especially given the relative lack of bus services in the area.
@PhilE The Olympia tube used to be augmented for larger events. The large outdoor park events like Festivals, Fireworks, previous horse racecourse (last in London) were dispersed in all directions for buses and current GNR Station and previous Palace Gates.
@Miam, PoP
Fares and rail studies: It is obvious that predicted levels of income were vital for railway planning, when the projects had to show an adequate financial rate of return within the practical project timescale.
I hold most of the detailed demand and revenue planning assessments for the New Works Programme. Essentially there were projections about the foreseen change in passenger demand (for example with the arrival of a frequent tube to the West End compared to a less attractive steam service to the City), the new or improved railway’s stimulus to the scale of local population, and the projected average fare per journey. Major stadia and events venues were rarely included – Ally Pally wasn’t.
In the right circumstances there could be large increases in passenger demand at stations, and that is where I disagree with PoP about his deprecatory views of some New Works schemes. The numbers did stack up providing the assumptions remained valid long enough. Of course WW2 and the 1947 Green Belt caused other factors to come into play. Commuting demand into the City was reduced substantially because WW2 City bombing eliminated many offices there, which caused a permanent move of many businesses to the West End.
This undermined the previous demand levels on the Northern Heights approaches via Finsbury Park, not helped by its wartime reduction to an infrequent steam shuttle only as far as Finsbury Park, which contrasted poorly with local bus links to tube railheads. The rest is history.
Victoria Line planning in 1951 included provision for cross-platform interchange with the GN&C line at Highbury & Islington. I have a presentation by the LT Operating Manager (Railways) from that year which shows the Victoria Line interchanging with Alexandra Palace services, however it would be equally valid to have shown interchange with the GN suburban main line services (which when electrified were intended to use other spare capacity on the GN&C). This is what actually happened in 1976.
@Brian Butterworth, PoP, MiaM
North Weald vs Epping, etc: My data sets of LUL station counts show the following sequential AM peak entries for 0700-0930 at Ongar, Blake Hall, North Weald and Epping:- Autumn 1971: 299, 15, 180, 1538; Autumn 1981: 197, closed, 60, 1242; Autumn 1991: 83, closed, 37, 1360; then Epping only, Autumn 2001: 1519 (1629 if 0630-0930); Autumn 2006: 1883 (2152 if 0630-0930); Autumn 2011: 2390 (2788 if 0630-0930). Higher fares were also charged north of Woodford from the 1980s to early 2000s because of Essex’s disinterest in subsidising the Central Line.
Overall, the Epping-Ongar line didn’t pull its weight locally. It was at the wrong end of a slow all-stations and one-change service from London, and there are also other significant work destinations nearer by, such as Harlow, Chelmsford and Brentwood.
The outer end of the Loughton branch might have fared better in the long term if there had been a main line semi-fast service overlaid on an urban all-stations tube service (rather like the combined LMS/Bakerloo Watford DC timetable up to the 1950s). However the operational logistics would have been considerable and could have diminished the overall capacity benefits of the line’s segregation from the LNER.
MiaM, Jonathan Roberts
I just have a concern that there seems to be a feeling of ‘if only it were electrified’. We have an example in South London to show that this cannot be assumed.
The Alexandra Palace and Crystal Palace (High Level) branch have many similarities. I suspect both were built primarily to serve a major exhibition and entertainment centre (the Crystal Palace certainly was). Both were branch lines so had to pull their own weight – there was no contribution from longer distance traffic. Both suffered a decline and closed in 1954. The major difference was that the Crystal Palace branch was electrified in 1925 and the Alexandra Palace was steam-operated right up to its closure.
@PoP
While the Ally Pally and Crystal Palace branches might be outwardly comparable, they weren’t in practice, with the exception that both had City termini, so both were harmed by wartime changes in the City working population.
The Crystal Palace branch lost its main raison d’être with the Palace fire in 1936, as the intermediate station catchments either overlapped extensively with neighbouring Brighton Line stations (Honor Oak, Lordship Lane and Crystal Palace stations) which were better equipped to reach the City and the West End, or served an area of low density villas (Upper Sydenham). Lordship Lane was also served well by high frequency inner London trams/buses. The electrified service was also low frequency.
The Ally Pally line served high density suburbs, and would gain a West End tube interchange at Highgate. The high density suburbs did not have a Brighton Line equivalent – the Tottenham & Hampstead could hardly be called that – while the demand modelling for the New Works project had focused on estimated changes in residential volume and passenger demand, derived from LPTB/UERL’s previous experience with tube extensions in different contexts. The proposal was for a good frequency service. The usage of Ally Pally as a venue was not specially taken into account.
@Jonathan Roberts
I agree – intensive bus movements and road traffic around Muswell Hill demonstrate how it’s a densely populated suburb that would easily provide enough demand to support a tube service. Crouch End would similarly do well, and the intensive crowding of the Northern Line between Highgate and Moorgate surely shows us that an alternative route would see plenty of usage.
The Ally Pally station by itself would not sustain the line; however, with the line being supported by commuters, the off-peak traffic generated by the palace and the park would probably augment it well. The palace is not just about large scale events, but now home to attractions like the ice rink and theatre. Even after large events the mainline station, with a less frequent service than you’d expect from a tube line, manages just fine with a bit of queueing.
Anyway, this is all a “could have been” because there’s no appetite for reopening any of it at this stage. The point was simply that, with plenty of hindsight, LT selecting Ongar (population today ~6,000) over Muswell Hill/Crouch End (N10 alone has population today of ~27,000) was clearly a mistake.
Paul,
The point was simply that, with plenty of hindsight, LT selecting Ongar (population today ~6,000) over Muswell Hill/Crouch End (N10 alone has population today of ~27,000) was clearly a mistake
And I think that is the crux of the matter. It would have required remarkable insight in the 1950s to realise how this could have been an asset in the 2020s. You can’t look at decisions made in 1954 with 2024 glasses.
I always have a problem with this kind of speculation. Suppose, we have some really imaginative planners in 1954 who have quite a good guess at the future. And suppose they even anticipate the Elizabeth line – not that hard given it is an obvious route. Then maybe they think that there is no point in sending tiny trains in tiny tube tunnels over a complicated underground network and the Northern Heights scheme is spending good money after bad when a more radical solution is needed.
I suspect one of the problems of the failure to think forward (which is probably true for Beeching as well) was the lack of appreciation of how London would grow vertically both for homes and for offices. Had they been able to see and fully appreciate in the 1950s the impact of the high-rise buildings which started in the 1960s they would have realised that a 1950s liability could well turn into an asset in future decades as urban density increased.
@PoP/Paul: LT selected Ongar over Muswell Hill in what could be clearly described as a mistake. But it was more than that. The LNER tried to help LPTB to achieve its obligations in regards to the Northern Heights but LTPB threw that away – thus Muswell Hill, Mill Hill (The Hale) and the other bits had to be junked because the ‘Tubeway Army’ hadn’t completed their obligations. The Government was no longer keen as the ‘TA’ owned millions & millions spent on a hugely wasteful project.
In comparison Ongar (plus Hainault and West Ruislip etc) had merely been placed in abeyance. Since LNER (and GWR) had done loads of work and completed their side of the agreements the LTE was obliged to complete the contract and take these lines off the LNER (and the GWR) with the full backing of the Government. Thus the LTE ended up acquiring a line serving just a few thousand over one that served populations with many thousands of people.
Not the question being asked today. Having been largely mothballed why can’t a better use be made of it today. BR Research labs were opened at AllyPally station.
1960 New laboratories, built on the site of the former Alexandra Palace railway station at Muswell Hill, London, were formally opened last March by Sir Brian Robertson, chairman of the British Transport Commission. The new building contains laboratories and offices for the chemical services and completes the first stage in the reorganisation and expansion of the B.R. research department.
Could experimental driverless rail cars not been trialled on the isolated line?
Petition 2023 petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/639163
Reopen the railway between Finsbury Park and Alexandra Palace
@MiaM / @Greg T
The main issue with extending northwards from Stanmore , Edgware, Hatch End into the Golf (aka Green) Belt for new homes is that the border of Zone 5 is between 1km and 2km away. 2km is also the distance to the border from High Barnet.
The border between “Zone 5” and “Zone 6” is where the remit of the GLA ends.
I note with interest that over the border in Hertfordshire at Carpenters Park, there is now high quality high density housing. Even if only served by the Lioness Line every 15 minutes in each direction.
I think that a major factor in choosing to continue with the Central Line but abandoning much of the Northern Heights is that the investment in building the Leytonstone – Newbury Park tunnel was likely way bigger than the money spent on the parts of the Northern Heights that ended up being abandoned, so they could hardly abandon the Hainault Loop. And with the Central line connecting to that, it would had been weird having mainline trains, likely steam trains, sharing the line between Stratford and Leytonstone, so the central line more or less had to take over the line towards Loughton-Epping-Ongar in some shape or form, and it would also had been weird to have a mainline rail company (or later BR) run steam trains on the outer parts, so it all had to be part of the Underground, and when it eventually came to electrifcation Epping-Ongar I speculate that the finances looked better than they did just after WW had ended.
Also the tunnel from Liverpool Street to Stratford, and the shorter tunnel from Stratford almost to Leyton would also had been expensive. Surely if the Central Line hadn’t taken over the Ongar line and the Hainault loop they would still had ran trains to Stratford, but then they would either had to spend more money on building crossing tracks at Stratford for reversing trains, or for example add a third platform track at Leyton for underground trains to terminate and reverse at.
Re Alexandra Palace v.s. Crystal Palace, and the stub railways to each of those: A major difference is that Crystal Palace burned down in 1936, while Alexandra Palace still exists.
Also, I admit that I don’t know what the passenger flows was at the time, but the still existing Crystal Palace low level station is on a line that I think didn’t have that much passengers, while the existing Alexandra Palace station is on a busy main line, so at least in theory there might be more argument for relieving Alexandra Palace than Crystal palace.
Continuing on my crayonista-of-sorts thing:
Looking at the track maps and whatnot, if there is enough capacity on the current cargo track connecting the North London Line (Overground) with Finsbury Park for cargo trains, some of the East London Line Overground trains could use that (possibly with a flyover, perhaps between Dalston Junction and Canonbury) and use the existing bridge to reach a rebuilt Highgate high level. Not sure how useful that would be, but except for the local opposition that would lose their beloved place to take a stroll on, most of the infrastructure is already in place. Given how the opinion has swung re climate smart transport and whatnot, it would probably be a bit easier to actually put this in place than it ever has been during the last 50 years or so.
Not saying that this would be a good idea, just saying that it would be an idea, and also that it’s good enough that it’s worth studying.
Afaik that line has never been revisited since the Overground started running its orbital route(s). The original Nortern Heights program would kind of just had duplicated the ability to go from High Barnet and Edgware to the city, as both lines anyway are connected to Moorgate via Camden Town and being able to reach Moorgate via Finsbury Park would not add much benefit. However being able to go to Stratford and southwards would actually add a useful new link to the High Barnet branch (and given the traffic volumes and whatnot, it would probably make sense to have Mill Hill East take the East London Line trains, and the High Barnet branch take all existing underground trains (except any variations early in the morning and late at night and whatnot). Still not saying that it would be a good idea, only saying that I think it’s good enough that it’s worth a study.
Sure, what I suggest doing a study on is most likely already possible by taking a bus for part of the route, but still.
The tiniest crayonista thing, while speaking of the New Works and Overground: Although it isn’t a long walk, I think it would be a good idea to do a study of moving Leytonstone High Road and Leytonstone stations to allow easier transfers. Maybe that study has already been done?
Really going off on a tangent: The existing track bed from Edgware to Mill Hill Broadway could be a place to have a museum railway for mainline trains in London.
@Jonathan Roberts: It’s interesting that they made light bulbs for 630V. Thinking about it, that might had been a standard item on Underground trains? At a first thought I would had expected three 240V bulbs in series, but maybe it might end up badly when a bulb breaks, as the spark where the filament breaks would have to handle 630V, and to make things worse it’s DC rather than AC (sparks extinguish themself at way higher voltages with AC than DC, that is a reason for some antique light switches having way more insulation in their off position than “modern” switches (say post WW2 or so), as many many years ago some houses had DC electrification.
@MiaM Having done the uphill version of the Parkland Walk, there isn’t a connection to the tracks at Finsbury Park so you pick up the path at the corner of the park.
The Overground is in a tunnel under the section that went under Shroud Green station, so making a connection there would be impossible, the trackbed of the running line is 40 meters below the disused one.
Everything I have read says that the reason why the Northern Line was projected so far out was that LPTB wanted a large, modern depot to service the fleet for the massively expanded Mordern-Edgware Line and this was the only way to get it. They must have known – has Cockfosters ever shown signs of being anything more than a sleepy terminus in terms of passenger numbers – that an all-stations stopping service to London this far out was never going to generate high density commuter housing, not least because the depot would have gobbled up land that could not then be used for other development. There were also very few large settlements nearby to generate useful bus traffic. Bushey Heath might have become a minor railway town, rather like Woodford Halse, but not much more. It might be more accurate to say, not that the green belt killed off this section, but that the realisation that the large depot was not now needed killed off this section. Having to complete the line Bushey Heath as a consequence of extending to Alexandra Palace and Edgware via Mill Hill suddenly makes these then marginal lines seem a lot more expensive.
Of course, things might have been different if the air raid shelters had been converted into express tube lines as intended, and its maybe they would have fulfilled a key role given the shift towards developpment beyond the green belt after the war.
PoP:”I suspect one of the problems of the failure to think forward (which is probably true for Beeching as well) was the lack of appreciation of how London would grow vertically both for homes and for offices. Had they been able to see and fully appreciate in the 1950s the impact of the high-rise buildings which started in the 1960s they would have realised that a 1950s liability could well turn into an asset in future decades as urban density increased.”
Enter what nowadays, in another context, is called a “guiding mind” . In 1965 The Greater London Council (GLC) opened for business, with a strategic remit for the area covered by the 32 boroughs (themselves consolidated from the (very) old Rural District Council (RDC) and Urban District Council (UDC) structures). There was a “Greater London Development Plan (GLDP) with many hours of study into office space, and residential units actual and projected. As a schoolboy studying A Level British Constitution, we went on a field trip to County Hall around 1970. After a guided tour of the offices, in the afternoon we were in the public gallery for a bit of a snooze-fest, being the public inquiry into the GLDP. Memories and details are hazy, though as far as I recall, learned witnesses were being cross examined and as they drilled into detailed data about office space and population change and so on. The GLC did not have much, if any, direct influence on LT and BR strategies, and I have no idea at this distance what attention they paid to specific transport needs.
Then the GLC was scrapped (1985), and then after a few rudderless years the Mayor role was introduced (2000), with something of a rag bag of powers and responsibilities. Risking the moderators’ snip, I would suggest that the three mayors we have had since 2000 have tried, with varying degrees of enthusiasm and success, to get something out of the planning system, for the wider benefit of those who live and travel in the London area, in return for desecration of the skyline.
I guess that once it was found easier to lengthen Central Line platforms than other lines, they were bound to retain the older standard stock, which provided a 33% uplift from 6 to 8 cars. The other lines received new 7-car trains with all equipment underfloor, providing something like a 40% capacity uplift by loss of the old equipment compartments on motor cars.
@Taz
Yes indeed. Also LPTB wasn’t going to scrap non-life expired standard stock tube trains, so they had to go somewhere. The travel demand which arose following the early rounds of New Works also meant there weren’t enough 1938 stock trains to do the whole of the enlarged Northern Line and the Bakerloo, so that it was probable that more trains would require to be ordered. The 1949 Stock was one consequence.
@Brian Butterworth:
Maybe I was unclear, or maybe I forgot what I wrote, but what I meant is connecting the East London Line, that currently terminates at Highbury&Islington, via the freight connection Finsbury Park to the North London Line (to/from Canonbury), up to the disused track bed / viaduct to Highgate. Would require some rebuilding at Finsbury Park, but according to Carto metro there is a flyover over the Northern City Line tracks north of Drayton Park, and an underpass under the mainline southwards from Finsbury Park, so it would “only” conflict with whatever happens with what CartoMetro calls “Down Goods” south of Finsbury Park. And also, it likely would warrant a platform for track 9 at Finsbury Park, unless track 8 would do (which is the only track that is reachable from the cargo track).
I.E no track connection at Crouch Hill / Stroud Green
@MiaM BB you were quite clear. The Highgate branch was connected at Finsbury Park, that is how the Northern City trains were loco hauled to the depot. After those movements halted the Heights branch connecting flyover was removed, the right of way is still safeguarded.
The single goods line connection runs alongside the city Line at a raised level to the Overground east of Highbury.
Any extension of the Highbury terminators would be to Willesden LL for OOC when that becomes a thing. Keeps it isolated and no need for path crossing on a busy route.
There are other investment obstacles to reuse of the heights line. A business case would need to start small.
The Ally Pally section stations have schools on them. Post-war schools tend to be fabricated temporary structures and population collapse means disappearing enrolment.
Crossrail led London into a go BIG mindset. The success of DLR had us questioning whether the Fleet line was justifiable after all with the arguments about projects being cheaper if they had been built sooner. But the DLR in it’s day was affordable and revived a declining area reusing existing infrastructure.
The Heights line too can start small to prove a demand. As usage climbs so too can the investment. An automated tram shuttle is one option but cheaper still to start is an autonomous articulated tram style bus trailer.
A single path around the perimeter of the playgrounds could be glassed off. I would call it the Dino Line in a nod to Crystal Palace. Decorate each vehicle in a character identity – Barney etc. Turn the embankments into an educational Jurassic Park, have the animals wake up as a vehicle approaches. Teradactyls in the tunnels like a park ride. Entertain the kids and make it a destination.
Reinstating the Finsbury Park to Highgate line. Besides even trying to possibly squeeze extra platforms in, the idea wouldn’t work because considerable rationalisation of the main line would have to take place – and its something I don’t think would be accepted.
The amount of railway formation previously was twice as wide to allow the ramps and junction approaches to the flyovers for the Highgate line. With just half the land that is left available and seven tracks squeezed into this, it would be a major engineering task to avoid any compromising of the East Coast main line out of Kings Cross.
The only other alternative would be to buy back the railway land that now belongs to Finsbury Park.
How was the flyover used?
It seems to connect to the lines to Kings Cross, but on the other hand for example the disused-stations show a platform for track 8+9 (which there still seems to be some remains of today, I assume what remains is the stair case?). Did some trains use these platforms, terminating here, and others use the “mainline” platforms and ran through to/from Kings Cross?
TBH the land use at Finsbury Park seems not that optimized. Bridges across roads are where they are due to their positions making sense almost a century ago and it’s expensive to move them. In particular there is an empty bridge both north and south of the station that could house an additional track (of course after renovation, I assume that empty bridges are only maintained to the level that they don’t risk falling down on the road, while more works would be needed for them to safely carry the load of a train).
Especially if some sort of tram would be the selected vehicle type it would probably not be hard to move the existing westernmost track at Finsbury Park eastwards to the empty bridge span, and have the tram use the current westernmost road bridge track. I don’t think that a tram seems that great though, as it seems like a decent idea to run some trains Mill Hill East – Finsbury Park, and it would likely not fly mixing trams with underground trains.
Making a business case is the main problem 🙂
But, re business case: I think that we should put more value quality improvements in the form of making life more pleasant. TBH reinstating decent rail transport instead of buses is as much of a quality of life improvement as for example having public parks, or anything else that counts as recreation.
A tram shuttle (as indicated earlier) might work however it would only be single track on the west side on a ramp from Finsbury Park station to the Parkland route in order to avoid the costs of a flyover. The question here is one of viability for a rather short route.
Any extended London Overground service would no doubt need a flyover – and this no doubt requires additional land which has to come from somewhere.
TfL would never in a million years see a London Overground route that was merely a very long siding (eg entirely single track) from near Drayton Park through Finsbury Park and thence on a non flyover alignment on the west side to the Parkland Walk route as being viable. Unless maybe somehow a suitable double track section could be incorporated. I’m no planner or surveyor (well I was decades ago but not now) so can’t really elaborate anymore than this.
We have gone way beyond legitimate discussion of the article and have entered current-day crayonista territory
Whilst I was happy to let some discussion of the Northern Heights plan continue, mainly in the hope it would just naturally peter out, I think the time has come to be a lot stricter and require that comments focus on the background to Shenfield Electrification.
Further off-topic comments will be deleted
@Alek: Yes indeed. Anyway PoP said this was off topic and that no further discussions were to be made.
Originally posted, in error in Monday’s Friday Reads.
My apologies – what follows is a revised, updated & edited version, with thanks to Pedantic of Purley for the advice.
Returning to the discussion about the LNER being “shy” of electrification ….
They also had to pay attention to the doubts of their directors … who were { always, not just the LNER } usually chary of high-first-cost expenditure.
This still applies: Last week I attended a lecture by a high-profile TOC “General Manager” whose main line is “Not electrified enough” according to him, & he said that it was obvious to the operating staff that more “knitting” would be the best answer, but that the current equivalent of his board – the Treasury *(Note 1 ) – are still not convinced of this, so he is stuck with either the present part-electric units, carrying “surplus” diesel engines & fuel around, whilst under the wires. That, or going for the other heavy dual-mode option, i.e. batteries + OHLE
It would seem that the problems of 1935 *(Note 2) are still with us, 89 years later.
*(Note 1) – “The Treasury” – NOT – “the Government” – of any political persuasion.
In 1954/55 the Treasury was persuaded to spend very large sums of money on the BR Modernisation Plan, which included quite a bit of electrification, notably Euston/Manchester/Birmingham/Liverpool. Though most of it was spent on large numbers of unbuilt diesels, ordered off the drawing-board. As you probably now, it was a disaster .. the Treasury felt it had been badly burnt & it was only by a whisker that the Ex-LNW main line actually was electrified, rather than cancelling everything south of Crewe – shades of HS2 today.
For many years thereafter, it was like drawing teeth without anaesthetic in getting railway capital expenditure out of the Treasury. Ten years later came Marples & his hired hatchetman, Beeching. And then Serpell.
A few years ago, they were finally persuaded to invest in “GW electrification” – & we all know how mismanaged & botched that was, mostly due to the then local-area management incompetence. { e.g. Not knowing where their signalling cables were … }
*(note 2) – 1935: Government assistance for major rail projects, both as unemployment relief & long-term infrastructure investment.
It’s worth remembering that the Manchester – Sheffield/Wath electrification, also on the LNER was part of this government-assisted scheme. Like Shenfield, progress was, um “interrupted” by a certain Mr Hitler & finished after Nationalisation.
The mid 50s also gave us the hump yards, steam standard designs, and port schemes. The Shenfield extension scheme had the ‘future’ efficient factory electrification train crew that was to continue around the country with learning curve cost reductions to modernise our network. An idea that continues to be resurrected and never fulfilled. Every subsequent part project begins anew with all setup challenges.
In considering the LNER’s lack of investment in electrification, by comparison with the Southern, it is worth bearing in mind that it was financially the weakest of the Big Four. In his ‘History of the LNER’ Michael Bonavia wrote that the LNER had just over three-quarters of the LMS issued capital, 93 per cent of its route mileage, three-quarters of its staff, but only about two-thirds of LMS traffic receipts. The company paid lower dividends than the other companies, making it difficult to raise funds for capital work. It had been expected that the LNER would be supported financially by traffic generated by heavy industry in North East England, but recession meant that never came up to expectations and led to de-electrification of the Shildon line. Rather than delayed electrification, the greatest regret is that the LNER was persuaded by Gresley not to try out diesel traction on the ECML and to stick with steam – denying Britain some extensive early experience with diesel locomotives.
@Londoner in Scotland
Cumulatively, the 1926 General Strike and the 1920s-30s depression had a damaging effect on traditionally important wealth creating areas such as the North East – though industrial processes there could also be archaic and uncompetitive, having begun there a century previously.
As you say, the North Eastern Railway had been seen as the financial lynchpin for the future LNER, as that grouped railway was otherwise saddled (GN main lines excluded) with multiple low-earning lines and branches including many in Scotland and English shires, plus the dire finances of the Great Central London extension. The GCR had already concluded pre-WW1 that it would have been better off relying on the New North Main Line via Banbury rather than have its own tracks via Brackley.
The NER Chief Mechanical Engineer, Sir Vincent Raven, had concluded as a matter of financial economy and operating policy by 1921 to press the NER Board for electrification of most of its main and urban lines. At the time, the NER could afford those capital costs. However under the LNER, the capital was rationed, even though the NER had demonstrated to its own satisfaction that a electric loco fleet of half the numbers required for steam operation would be able to do a far more economical job – and do more mileage as well – so the financial returns would have justified the capital costs!
Nigel Gresley from the Great Northern Railway became the LNER’s CME in 1923, and is best known for his range of express steam engines, though he also oversaw the design of the Manchester-Sheffield-Wath 1500v DC electric locos. The LNER continued with electrification when it thought it could. Interestingly the precursor electrification to its 1933 Shenfield Loughton and Ongar scheme was the joint line shared with the LMSR south west from Manchester to Altrincham. The LMSR had the financial clout so undertook most of the works, while the LNER helped to underwrite the 1500v DC overhead electrification, to the then new national standard.
The LNER continued to suffer from its weak financial position, not helped by a general railway reluctance to shut down lines making really large losses – if the causes of those losses were properly understood. That had to wait for the British Transport Commission and then Beeching. LNER electrification of Manchester-Sheffield-Wath (1500v DC) and the Newcastle – South Shields third rail both relied on Government financial support though the 1935 Railway Facilities Act, which was a parallel funding scheme to the 1935-40 London New Works scheme.
You make an interesting comment about Gresley’s preference for express steam rather than progress with dieselisation. Gresley clearly aimed for lightweight passenger expresses for the premier services such as the Silver Jubilee and West Riding Limited, so as not to impair the top speeds of his streamliners. Diesel-powered premier services of the same period had much shorter formations, such as the Reichsbahn’s ‘Fliegende Züge’ expresses, while the USA had similar ‘Zephyr’-type lightweight expresses. See the accompanying Wikipedia link for more detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieselisation.
That article notes that it wasn’t until 1938 that General Motors had developed diesel locomotives with sufficient power for full-length passenger trains. This was at least five years too late for Gresley, with the LNER’s busiest lines and services requiring motive power capable of hauling such passenger and freight trains.
Finally, we need to return to the question of why the LNER could not see a reasonably quick return of at least 5% p.a. from its proposed electrification of the Shenfield Loughton and Ongar lines. The NER had majored on the economies of fewer locomotives with electrification, while the £½ million (in 1930 prices!) Manchester-Altrincham 9-mile electrification, achieved in 1931, had stimulated additional suburban development and resulted in an 89% increase in ridership within the first five years.
Some of that might have been a consequence of the Manchester-Altrincham tram service having been withdrawn in 1931 for different reasons. However If that scale of passenger response was achievable in a depression-struck Manchester, why was so little financial reward expected from electrification in an expanding London and suburbs?
The LNER estimated the net capital cost in 1931 for the bulk of the Great Eastern Suburban Lines would be roundly £7½ million. Train miles were proposed to increase from 1.7 million p.a. to nearly 3 million (+74%). Net annual operating costs were projected to increase from £260,000 to £355,000 (+37%), so would be significantly lower per train mile.
However forecast peak period passenger numbers were not expected to grow so rapidly, with limitations on the number of additional trains per hour capable of being accommodated in Liverpool Street terminus.
Forecast peak period travel from the Gidea Park, Grange Hill and Ilford direction , with 07:00-10:00 arrivals in Central London (1931 being 35,086), was an increase to 43,100 on completion of electrification, 48,400 in 5 years (38%), 51,900 in 10 years, and 55,700 in 15 years (59%), For the Loughton, Epping and Ongar direction the comparable estimate was (1931 being 15,759) an increase to 17,700 on completion of electrification, 19,300 in 5 years (22%), 20,100 in 10 years, and 20,900 in 15 years (33%).
So the greater gain would be seen on the Ilford and Gidea Park route, while the Loughton, Epping and Ongar route would see less peak time growth and also limited the expansion capability for Ilford and Gidea Peak. The LNER 1931 report notes that “It would, however, be possible at a future date to increase the Ilford Line and Liverpool Street service by six trains hour, if an independent line was constructed between Bow Junction and Stratford, a distance of approximately one mile, for the Fenchurch Street and Stratford local trains.” This was adopted in the final scheme.
If it had been marginal in 1931 whether the case for electrification could be made for the main Ilford and Gidea Park corridor, the case fell with the addition of the Loughton line which was less rewarding with its peak travel gains. The 1931 report concluded that with net receipts only growing by £65,000 in 5 years, £99,000 in 10 years, and £135,000 in 15 years, the return upon net capital expenditure of £7,520,000 “is estimated at 6.7% in 15 years”.
This small estimated revenue gain reinforces the perception that the LNER made no estimate about growth in off-peak travel, nor about the scale of additional suburban development which was likely to be stimulated – though the latter might have been allowed for in the with-peak-flow travel estimates. One is left to doubt whether the LNER gave serious thought to the potential for radical stimulation of travel habits, particularly in ‘slack hours’, along the lines adopted by the Southern.
With such limited assumptions, the case for electrification was not going to prevail! The subsequent emergence of the Central London line as an adoptive fairy godmother for the Loughton Epping and Ongar route must have been manna from heaven for the LNER.
I should also add that the 1931 electrification report included the costs of additional tracks between Liverpool Street and Bow Junction, and between Romford and Shenfield, so electrification per se cost less. In practice the LNER proceeded with the Romford-Shenfield widening, as better value in its own right, but the bulk of the works remained as not financeable using the LNER’s own judgement about the scope for net revenue growth.
Good point that Liverpool Street couldn’t handle more trains anyways!
This raises two questions:
How profitable were suburban commuter traffic for the railways in the 1930’s?
Also, could they at least in theory have electrified Straftord – Liverpool Street and just attached/detached electric locos at Stratford, to speed up operations at Liverpool Street and thus increase capacity?
If the trains were equipped with multiple control and drivers cabs at each end, they wouldn’t need to have the loco go around at Liverpool Street. They would still need some loco movements at Stratford (unless they would leave the electric locos attached as dead weight while using steam locos outside of Stratford), but that might had been easier to have capacity for. Or possibly even electrify a bit further out from Stratford and switch locos at suitable stations on each branch.
At the time this would probably had been too far out.
Btw re diesel locos – since afaik even those older locos were diesel electric, it seems to be just a question of having enough locos to power the train. I bet it was more a matter of diesel locos not having a better cost-benefit-factor than steam until later on. Combine that with that afaik the UK didn’t have much oil/diesel production domestically at the time while there were plenty of coal mining, and steam might had had a better cost-benefit in the UK than in USA in the 1930’s.
@MiaM
To reply to your first query, you need to consider what density the relevant suburbs would be! The example of ‘semi-detached London’ would imply at best, fair to middling density when it was sometimes a struggle to achieve adequate profitability to pay for significant new works at 5% annual rate of return. High densities should be better from that point of view, but London’s inner suburbs were losing some of their high densities during the 1930s. LPTB wanted to stimulate tube-dependent suburban catchments to sustain adequate profitability, with the capability to encourage significant additional off-peak travel. However this was something of an idealised situation, as car ownership and its suburban use also came with the piste.
On the second point, it would be a brave operator who created an hiatus at or around Stratford with change of traction, quite apart from the considerable operational risks and passenger-handling implications of only very short dwell times at Liverpool Street suburban platforms. An option to be avoided, I suggest.
MiaM, Jonathan Roberts
I would rather belatedly add that in general and at Liverpool Street in particular, eliminating steam trains and replacing with diesel locomotive-hauled trains only provides some of the needed benefits because you still have the ‘run round ‘ issue at the London terminus.
As I hope we will see eventually, one of the problems of Liverpool Street, prior to Shenfield electrification, is that the terminus was such a constrained site. Eliminating steam gets rid of coal stages, water columns and the need to refuel on longer distance services which removes some constraints but self-contained units or multiple units (diesel, electric or theoretically steam!) with an integrated cab at each end do a lot for operating efficiency.
@PoP:
In my weird suggestion I was thinking about locos that can be controlled from a cab at the other end of the train (in German: Wendezugsteurung), which would had been the major selling point. That would also had meant that at Stratford it would only had been in one direction that a loco would have to be replaced with another loco at the same end of the train. In the other direction a loco would uncouple at one end while another would couple at the other end, speeding up the process a lot. Which end for each train would be dictated by capacity availability and needs and whatnot.
I can’t understand why one would need a locomotive at either end of the trains used on the Shenfield electrification. It would have been labour intensive, and turn-around time at the London terminus was of absolute importance. Evidently partial electrification would have been a non-starter.
The route’s original stock in many ways (before modification in the very late fifties) constituted of a locomotive & pantograph in push-pull mode at one end – the same applied to the 506s built for Glossop/Hadfield. Its essentially what is known as an EMU. Electric locomotives were in fact seen on the Shenfield line in the late 1940s but that was only for testing before moving to the MSW.
There were proposals to electrify as far as Ipswich which might have possibly seen electric locomotives used, but in the event that didn’t happen (not until 1985 anyway). There’s no doubt locomotives would have been a burden more than anything else because the very intensive nature of the GER lines ensured dedicated EMUs were also built for express services.
In fact in the early days of the GER electrification to Ipswich and Norwich they had to do much the same as had been done in steam days, which was to have dedicated sidings at Liverpool Street, Ipswich and Norwich, where a locomotive could attach to the other end of the train ready for the return trip (or in the case of Ipswich a switch for the second stage of the onward trip). That was a time consuming process and employed quite a few extra crew including the staff needed to couple or uncouple the locomotives.
It was only a few short years after the use of push pull locomotives began eg Class 86s with DBSO’s. So it took more than forty years to even achieve that on the GER. Even so, the Cambridge route’s diesels soldiered on using the same labour intensive locomotive shuffle system until 1987 when electrification onward from Bishops Stortford was completed and EMUs were employed.
There was an electric shunter at Ilford Depot from NE Railway surplus 1500v DC. At Goodmayes there were large marshalling yards either side with a down slow slip road under the third bridge span on the north side. I visited during the Cross Rail closures and photographed the DC catenary fixings still in situ under the road deck. The line was converted to AC in 1960 with an 08 diesel shunter.
I remember a diesel loco station at Liverpool St maybe in place of the turntable, certainly looked like a fueling point.
Alek: The NE locomotive was restricted to shunting. It was taken OOU when 25kv AC commenced. Yes there was a diesel locomotive facility at Liverpool Street. In rationalised form it became the stabling point for Class 86s.
There’s lots of things I remember too – the 08s struggling up and down the steep incline at Mile End taking wagons to the Devonshire Street depot alongside the canal. That ended I think late 1970s and the incline was filled in and the main up and down tracks were slewed over the vacant space. Also the other rail served depot at roughly the same location on the opposite side which lasted util at least the early 1990s – and was the last freight point surviving so close to Liverpool Street. Another rail depot was that on the Upminster line but still adjacent to the GER. Many depots and railheads survived into GE electrification days including the Kelvedon and Tollesbury Light Railway.
There was a narrow gauge industrial railway which ran alongside the south side of the GER at Stratford it fascinated me as a kid and it was curious such a line ran so close to the main railway. Some years ago I discovered the tracks from this relatively little known system had been dumped in the Waterworks River.
The tracks at Goodmayes and Chadwell Heath were essentially one long marshaling yard both taking up considerable space on the southern side of the GER formation and passing both stations. The western end extended as far as a junction just to the east of Seven Kings station and the eastern extent almost as far as Whalebone Lane.
I used to spend hours at Seven Kings watching the trains including those coming in and out of Ilford Car sheds whose tracks started fanning out at the end of the platforms at Seven Kings. I have also described the Shenfield electrification a number of times in previous comments, including one aspect of it being how the early system affected my disability by way of the constant humming of the wires.
@Rog The electric yard was the other side at Goodmayes (Tesco) what traction served it?
At Romford did the branch yard from LTS outlast the extensive GER yards?
@Rog:
To clarify my “suggestion” of sorts, it’s targeted at an alternate reality where the goal would had been just to increase capacity at Liverpool Street, but there wouldn’t had been enough money to electrify all the way to Shenfield.
What I’m suggesting is a service where an electric loco makes the train act as an EMU between Liverpool Street and for example Stratford, and then a steam loco would be used outside Stratford. The part about which end to attach locos to was about how to optimize the changeover between electric and steam.
Now obviously the route to Shenfield was electrified all the way, so this was useless for that route. But it could had been used for other trains to/from Liverpool Street. Not sure where a suitable changeover point would be, I just took Stratford as an example.
=====================
A complete side track:
Suggestion for a future post topic: How to optimize track usage on terminus stations.
@Alek: The electric yards at Goodmayes (or rather Chadwell Heath and opposite the turnback sidings there) were officially Chadwell Heath Car sidings and used for stabling EMUs. They were also the last resting place for a number of 306s before scrapping. The other Goodmayes yard (Tescos) didn’t have any wires AFAIK.
The Romford-Upminster yard survived until quite possibly the 1980s. I wrote about that in
a much older post on my blog but here’s a picture for the sake of posterity. https://www.flickr.com/photos/david_christie/6031770264/
@Miam: I didnt realise that was what you were trying to achieve – well that could have happened had someone mis-stepped or slipped differently (or perhaps swatted the wrong butterfly) thus the wave function ensued the universe took on a totally different history.
But then again if there had been an alternative reality the problem then is Liverpool Street station or the GER might have not even existed!
@ROG The picture I had was of the Fyffes Banana ripening shed at Goodmayes south side no wires but I imagine catenary could have been taken down at the end of DC. Next along was Express Dairies. Chadwell Heath had more industrial sites, like Ford Motor’s Professional Paints Group (now Spectrum House with the flats cladding fire this year). Did not know about carriage storage as it’s on the fast side. The wires I photographed were at the entrance to ‘Tesco’s’, maybe just a through track. I understood the wagons were backed into the sidings so any wires need not have been continued. Was coal worked up to Romford from Upminster & Tilbury, or off the connection on the Anglia line?
Considering Liverpool Street’s current status and the ORR data, it’s loadings are as high as the 1920s. Doesn’t make sense so wondered about the Elizabeth Line being a new station. We are adding in Moorgate passengers, central line transfers previously counted separately, and Anglia lines exiting at Liverpool St and entering LivST LL/EL. With double counting it would be interesting to compare the usage trend of the Terminus itself. Waterloo pre-covid was expanded to add 30% capacity from the International Terminus, instead it’s total usage after Covid has fallen by 30%.
@MiaM “How to optimize track usage on terminus stations”
Join them together and don’t have terminus station in cities.
@Alek: Indeed the wires didn’t do into those areas, they may have gone under the first bridges originally (both north and south) but as I recall there wasn’t any extent of wires on the tracks on either side at Goodmayes – it was at the crossings east of Goodmayes where the OHLE fanned out into the Chadwell Heath sidings. As you say some installations might have been removed after conversion to AC.
According to Wikipedia the Romford yard was disconnected from the LTS in 1959 when the junction at Upminster was removed. The same Wikipedia says the goods yard, according to Jackson, had closed in 1974 so it may have been the picture I linked to showed it as a fully fledged road rather than rail depot. But railway histories can be inaccurate because for example the Kirkley Goods (Lowestoft) is cited as having part closed in 1966 and fully in 1972 – but surprise – I had a relative I regularly visited and they lived next to the branch – and the route was still operational in the 1980s! Similarly if I mention a branch to the east from Manningtree, people will think I’m referring to Harwich (and no its not the Mistley branch either) but it not those. Its actually a freight branch on the north side of the Stour in fact because I remember it. So far I’ve only been able to discover the name of the junction, nothing more, and there appears to be absolutely zilch on this particular line in railway history.
In terms of Liverpool Street, well in those days the commuter traffic was huge (the Jazz Trains for example) and also commuter traffic to the Essex towns. The traffic to the East Coast resorts too was enormous into the fifties and early sixties before the Eastern Region began slashing so many services and turning a number of the area’s mainline railways into minimum barebones branch lines before closing them altogether as I remember too well – and all that under the pretense of modernisation. So its taken a different sort of modernisation to elevate Liverpool Street once again – but it is disingenuous in a way because its not just Liverpool Street now that has hit the ratings as a result of that modernisation (eg the Elizabeth line) but its Moorgate et al too.
Not on the same exact subject but no doubt something that shows the railways (or maybe rather TfL/Elizabeth line) have a mentality when it comes to certain things – like cherry picking choices or possible answers – because there’s been advice given to disabled people who have just arrived at Liverpool Street (EL) and finding the lift is not working, is to go back to Paddington (EL) and then get the Circle/Hammersmith line from there back to Liverpool Street!
There’s no mention of the other lift (at Moorgate) on the same bloody platform where they can then get the Circle/Hammersmith/Met one stop to Liverpool Street – and that’s just one of a number of other options before even having to go back to Paddington!
Roger (LRB)
A stub freight branch to the “Xylonite works” shown on the OS 1″ maps, of the 1950’s??
It was just N of the Stour viaduct
@Greg: Thanks re the Xylonite works which used to take up a considerable stretch either side of the GER through which the Britannias (and the later Class 31s/37s/47s) continuously braked to reduce speed after a long downhill run in order to meet the restrictions across the Stour and the Manningtree junctions. The one I allude to was a little further up from the the Stour viaduct – 1.3km in fact and about here on Google Maps: https://maps.app.goo.gl/HSthuR8Xmosu5FAL8
The former railway alignment isn’t clear on Google however on Historic England’s modern aerials of greater quality it can be better seen and appears the branch served a building or facility of some sort which still exists in part. The track, long disconnected from the GER, was probably from the late 1890s/early 1900s and stuck in a time warp until about the 1970s when the rails were removed.
Rog (LRB)”According to Wikipedia the Romford yard was disconnected from the LTS in 1959 when the junction at Upminster was removed. The same Wikipedia says the goods yard, according to Jackson, had closed in 1974 so it may have been the picture I linked to showed it as a fully fledged road rather than rail depot.”
I think you were asking the wrong question. The Victoria Road goods sidings were serviced, in 1960s until their closure in 1970s via the connection at Romford, generally as I recall on Thursday evenings after the last passenger train from Upminster had arrived and then gone off on the main line to wherever it was stabled.
As to the the track connection at Upminster, used less and less during the 1950s, the opening of the DIstrict Line depot effectively triggered the severance.
Try to get hold of Alan A Jackson’s article in Railway World, December 1989, which is, as you’d expect from him, a well written summary of the history of the branch, up to the point as it turned out, just before the surprise electrification.
@Twopenny Tube: I do not know what sort of “wrong question” it was as you suggest. Yes the depot was served from the GER until the 1970s (the depot having been first connected to the GER in 1940 as a wartime measure). The closure date of the depot’s usage via the GER was implicit in the text when its said the yard was used until 1974 – if that is the correct date. How else would it have received coal by rail otherwise even though it had been severed from the LTS by at least 1959 – if not earlier. Jackson implies the direct connection at Upminster was last used regularly in 1956 when through services to Grays ended, although he does mention the west side connection, entailing a reversal no doubt, remained in place until 1959.
Just to add, Jackson wrote in the Railway World of December 1979 (not 1989) in relation to the Romford-Upminster-Grays line.
Being a regular user of the ER (as a small kid we lived next to a certain GER station that’s long vanished – the railway was shut in the name of ‘progress’) I’m aware certain information related to closed EA sidings, branches & cross country routes could be quite wrong, though I obviously can’t speak for every single inch of the system – and yes my memory could be off too.
Nevertheless I don’t want this to be a one man show about stuff that’s tentatively linked to the actual Shenfield electrification topic (we have been warned to keep on topic) so I won’t be making any further comments.
A lot of the work on the Central Line extension had been finished before the war – it was supposed to open in 1940. Pictures from the Plessey archives show that escalators had already been installed at Gants Hill and were used by workers to access the factory. The new subways at Eagle Lane, South Woodford and Woodford were complete, as were signal cabins etc. The LNER had built the new station at Loughton that opened in April 1940. All of which will have been considerations when choosing to complete it post-war – stuff like station buildings at Redbridge and Wanstead had to be built, as did the flyovers to allow level-crossing closure, power rail and signalling added.
Plessey was described on German maps as an ‘aircraft accessory factory’, and its wartime stats show it made 8 million shell and bomb cases, aircraft parts such as 11 million Breeze connectors, 28,000 aircraft pumps, 74,000 wiring harnesses and 23,000 engine cartridge starters, plus radio equipment such as the R1155 receiver and T1154 transmitter. Radio at Wanstead station, aircraft starter and fuel pump production at Redbridge, an automatic machine shop at Gants Hill. Goods lift shafts were added between Redbridge and Gants Hill.
Thank you for a very full explanation of the background to all this. Unless I’ve missed them in the text, a couple of other contemporary proposed schemes might be worthy of mention too.
1. In 1930, Messrs Mott, Hay & Anderson produced a report for the LNER entitled ‘Proposed Tube Railway – Liverpool Street to Ilford’. This would have run directly beneath the GER main line, with tube stations beneath the existing stations at Stratford, Maryland, Forest Gate, Manor Park and Ilford, where the tube line would have surfaced and connected to the main line.
2. In 1934, the Ilford & District Railway Users’ Association reported on ‘The Case for a Tube Railway and Electrification of the L&NER’. An original of this 48-page document is in the Essex Records Office at Chelmsford. The scheme proposed a tube line from Liverpool Street to Romford, with intermediate stations at Bow Road, Stratford Broadway, Thatched House, Green Man, Red House, Gantshill Cross, Ley Street and Barley Lane. From Gantshill Cross a branch would run north with stations at Maypole and Tomswood Hill. (Four of these stations would appear to be named after pubs!)
Rog (LRB) AND everybody else …
Of general interest for future historical references
Your specific case was a Stub Branch to Marsh Farm – Gravel Pit (disused) according to OS maps
For everybody else
A valuable historical resource, which, as far as I can see, I, possibly “Pedantic”, & certainly Johnathan Roberts are aware of…
Almost all old Ordnance Survey maps of the UK are now available online, at scales up to 1:2500 ( though the last not in remote/mountainous areas.)
START HERE: https://maps.nls.uk/os/
I recommend them to all our readers.
Brantham Xylonite works made Bakelite celluloid as in telephones
https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=17.2&lat=51.95384&lon=1.06246&layers=225&b=ESRIWorld&o=100
Marsh Farm gravel pit
https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=16.7&lat=51.95933&lon=1.07665&layers=173&b=ESRIWorld&o=100
There have actually been 3 Shenfield electrifications. The 1940s DC, the 1960 AC conversion and extension to Southend and Chelmsford, and the 2010s phase renewal of gantries and wiring for more intensive EL working.
The last part to be electrified was the Liberty Line. It was transferred from BR Midland to BR Eastern in 1949 but not disconnected from the LTS until the District Line extension in 1959. Slated to be Beechinged in 1964 it was finally electrified in 1986. By 2015 the line was included on the London tube map since when usage has increased by 300%.
Looking at the London Elizabeth line station usage in past 5 years passengers have increased in the range of 50% to 100%. Outside London station numbers are typically 20% lower. TfL studies have implied a 30% uplift from induced demand, new journeys not made previously. I would suggest converting the line to be accessible has attracted maybe 5% from road vehicles for luggage, shopping, buggies, prams, infirm, elderly, toddlers, and wheelchairs. Cyclists for part trips, migration from Bus, parallel central & LTS lines. The service is augmented with higher capacity, frequency, and alighting points as well as appearing on the tube map. ls there already confirmation that off-peak usage is proportionately higher? There was also suppressed demand during construction when service was often interrupted, disrupted, congested, and unpleasant.
If the actual trend from work at home and the recession of a 20% lower level will adjust over the next 5 years just in time for another 50% from OOC traffic management will be interesting.
@Alek: @Greg T: Yes that would have been it, as I mentioned earlier there appeared to be a building of some sort en route and it is marked on the maps (or rather on one map and not the other as I have just found) – not only that the branch may have been built 1930s/1940s and wasn’t in use for long. There’s no mention of this in history books however.
@Alek: The Upminster branch isn’t part of the Shenfield electrification (at least not in its original intent) so its difficult to see how the newly named Liberty would have been ‘the last part to be electrified.’ Its not the Elizabeth line even! I would think any last part of the original scheme had perhaps been the electrification of the long vanished outer platforms at Stratford as well as one additional through road (these forming the ‘V’ within which the Stratford power box once stood. I have loads of photographs of the original layout there before it was modded to the present arrangement.
Note: I’ve dropped the ‘line’ off Liberty for a reason! RIP to the pocket London tube map of September 2024!
The signalling and the new power boxes that accompanied the Shenfield electrification were also a major component and largely consisted of four aspect semi automatic signalling in order to maintain close headways. Although all of that has now gone, there are still some remnants including a few OHLE gantries from 1949 still in use, as well as Ilford flyover and the cuttings and retaining walls with their stylish concrete facing – a method which also used on some other lines under the 1935 New Works scheme. There appears to be some original 1949 cabling and posts too (not in use now however) between Gidea Park – Harold Wood.
Don’t forget London Reconnections’ Gidea Park Shorts article covered much ground re the Shenfield electrification – with many of us adding comments too! https://www.londonreconnections.com/2023/the-mysterious-case-of-the-gidea-park-shorts/
Is Liverpool Street station still the bottle neck for maximizing the capacity on the lines using it?
The mini crayonista-ish question:
Were/are branching off the Metropolitan and/or Hammersmith&City trains, currently terminating at Aldgate, ever considered?
Obviously the Central line was the best choice for an underground line to take over some Liverpool Services, but the second best choice seems to be the Aldgate terminators.
I’m not sure where to find actual time tables for various lines, but looking at the departure boards it seems like the slow lines Bethnal Green – Hackney Downs run 8tph (4thp Chingford, 4tph to Edmonton Green that splits into 2thp Enfield Town and 2tph Cheshunt). Also looking at the departure board for northbound Metropolitan trains at Aldgate, it’s a bit harder to determine what the time table looks like, but it’s easy to tell that there are more than 8tph terminating at Aldgate, probably something like 16tph but at a slightly more uneven interval.
Without knowledge of what hides beneath the surface along any possible route, it’s hard to come up with suggestions for a possible route, but given that the City widened lines east of Farringdon are afaik rarely used, it would probably make sense to shift the current actually used tracks between Barbican and Moorgate slightly to allow for a tunnel entrance to connect to each direction (either have two tunnel entrances on each side of the surface tracks, or have the surface tracks straddle a tunnel entrance) and then new below surface stations at Moorgate and/or Liverpool Street, and tunnel (or if space is available widen the current rail lines east of Liverpool Street) and somehow connect outside of the Bethnal Green overground station, replacing that with another station (to allow the existing station to be used for through trains that don’t run on the overground routes).
Possibly do something with the track configuration to allow this to take over the Shenfield Crossrail-ish trains that terminate at Liverpool Street too, more or less leaving Liverpool Street for longer distance trains only.
Still, I don’t know if freeing up capacity at Liverpool Street would be useful or not. This is just a possible way to do that. Having those overground routes becoming through trains would be a bonus.
MiaM,
Is Liverpool Street station still the bottle neck for maximizing the capacity on the lines using it?
No. Was it ever? I suspect it was in steam days but don’t know.
Platform 15, long enough for all Greater Anglia trains, has very few trains timetabled to use it so platform occupation is not the main issue. The issue is the lines between Stratford and Liverpool St. I don’t think it is an issue for the lines via Cambridge Heath.
For more details see option C7 in the 2010 draft Network Rail London and South East Route Utilisation Strategy.