• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Earliest High-Speed Rail in the UK?

Simon

Oblivious
What's the earliest people think you could reasonably get high-speed rail in the UK? The easiest option I can think of is an Anglo-French treaty in the late 1960s or early 1970s to build a Channel tunnel that includes clauses requiring lines linking it to London (HS1) and Paris, and similar ones to the Concorde treaty's cancellation penalties making it almost impossible to withdraw.

That potentially knocks a couple of decades off but doesn't get you a wider network. Really I think you probably need a point of departure much earlier with better decisions early on in nationalisation so that whilst passenger numbers fall they don't go as low as our timeline and start to increase faster.
 
Last edited:
Easiest PoD is Heath winning re election in 1974, not just the original Channel Tunnel survives but the ethos and drive for those sorts of megaprojects continue.

Some of the original plans for the channel tunnel rail link involved a terminal in west London just north of Kensington Olympia adjacent to the West Coast Main Line. Additionally a high speed rail line was proposed to link Maplin Sands Airport with central London. The former is more likely than the latter to be completed, but I think the momentum for further high speed railway lines would be there.
 
Easiest PoD is Heath winning re election in 1974, not just the original Channel Tunnel survives but the ethos and drive for those sorts of megaprojects continue.

Some of the original plans for the channel tunnel rail link involved a terminal in west London just north of Kensington Olympia adjacent to the West Coast Main Line. Additionally a high speed rail line was proposed to link Maplin Sands Airport with central London. The former is more likely than the latter to be completed, but I think the momentum for further high speed railway lines would be there.

At this point I think British Rail would be in too deep with the APT and HST projects (and the resultant infighting) that would sap any will for dedicated high-speed lines. A Heathite continuity probably wouldn't push a rushed APT into service like the Thatcher government did, but the time and money spent on the project would already be sidelining the allocation of any political and financial capital to dedicated domestic HSR. Maybe the stars could align with the earlier Channel Tunnel proving a success alongside the HST convincingly demonstrating that rail isn't dead to rekindle the interest in proper HSR, but this would only be on the cusp of the rebound from BR's lowest point in ridership in the early 1980s.
 
Easiest PoD is Heath winning re-election in 1974, not just the original Channel Tunnel survives but the ethos and drive for those sorts of megaprojects continue.
Main problem I could see there is that the 1970s weren't really a great time for large capital intensive infrastructure projects.
 
Ignoring butterflies for a minute.
  • British Rail handle things slightly better in the 1950s, whilst passenger numbers still drop drastically the nadir isn't as deep as our timeline.
  • Heath signs a treaty agreeing construction of a Channel railway tunnel and connecting high-speed lines in the early 1970s.
  • Major decides not to try and recreate the Big Four but change British Rail to an independent arms-length operation, to sweeten the pill – and other reasons – he approves what is essentially HS2.
  • Phase 1 and Phase 2A open in the late 2000s.

I can't imagine that the Treasury will be all that pleased with the amount of spending, and once the financial crisis hits it will be a big target. Even if Labour have committed to completing Phase 2B whilst campaigning in say the mid-2000s do people think they'd follow through, cancel it, push out the completion date and/or cut back the plans to save money in the short-term, or something else under Brown?
 
Main problem I could see there is that the 1970s weren't really a great time for large capital intensive infrastructure projects.
Tyne and Wear Metro was proposed in 1971, funding agreed in 1972 and construction began in 1974 and the first stage opened to revenue service in 1980, (a year late, caused by the financial freeze of 1977) so it wasn't impossible. At the time, it was Britain’s largest urban transport project of the 20th Century, so an earlier HS2 would probably have been at the cost of the Metro system.

One option might be if the post-war Labour government manages to stay in power for longer, so creating a political climate more sympathetic to large scale public projects. BR would still need to do a better job than they did.

Another possibility is avoiding Marple as Minister of Transport. Find someone with financial interests in heavy engineering perhaps...
 
Even without the Metro itself you would still have a decent service on the loop, if not the additional stations in town and frequency of the service as far as South Gosforth, so it's just OTL for those of us on the Coast. You'd also see a more frequent and faster service to Sunderland. I doubt it would be closed but the South Shields line would probably be left to rot.
 
Even without the Metro itself you would still have a decent service on the loop, if not the additional stations in town and frequency of the service as far as South Gosforth, so it's just OTL for those of us on the Coast. You'd also see a more frequent and faster service to Sunderland. I doubt it would be closed but the South Shields line would probably be left to rot.
Possibly. The units in service in the 70s were reaching the end of their life and there was a 20-30 min service interval. The Metro made i feasible to just turn up and go, without needing to worry about timetables. That plus increased capacity in the Metro rolling stock helped boost passenger levels on the Metro to something like 25% of all public transport use. Deregulation hit that badly but without the Metro, I suspect the service north and south of the river would have gone - or switched to Pacers. The service to Sunderland was operated by Pacers for a while.
 
Possibly. The units in service in the 70s were reaching the end of their life and there was a 20-30 min service interval. The Metro made i feasible to just turn up and go, without needing to worry about timetables. That plus increased capacity in the Metro rolling stock helped boost passenger levels on the Metro to something like 25% of all public transport use. Deregulation hit that badly but without the Metro, I suspect the service north and south of the river would have gone - or switched to Pacers. The service to Sunderland was operated by Pacers for a while.
The 'turn up and go' thing isn't really true; I live a quarter of a mile from a station and routinely end up checking the times when heading into Newcastle, to not even mention how bad things get when the system falls apart as it commonly does. In some ways a system run by Northern would be an improvement.
 
The 'turn up and go' thing isn't really true; I live a quarter of a mile from a station and routinely end up checking the times when heading into Newcastle, to not even mention how bad things get when the system falls apart as it commonly does. In some ways a system run by Northern would be an improvement.
It was true for me. I lived the same distance as you from a station (Monkseaton) and never bothered about timetables. It was always a good service when I was using it to get into Gateshead. I've only used it a few times since I left the area, though. Where I live now, you have to check the day of the week to see if there's a bus!
 
Ignoring butterflies for a minute.
  • British Rail handle things slightly better in the 1950s, whilst passenger numbers still drop drastically the nadir isn't as deep as our timeline.
What exactly *did* BR screw up in our TL? Besides Beeching I mean.
 
What exactly did BR screw up in our TL? Besides Beeching I mean.
There are a number of more knowledgeable board members but off the top of my head stayed with steam traction too long, the switch to diesel was messy with development contracts given to too many companies, then orders placed without enough testing to see which were decent, and money invested in freight infrastructure as it was switching to the roads. Whilst Beeching cut more than he probably should have in places, and didn't give enough weight to lines acting as feeders into others, a lot of what he did was actually needed.
 
@Edmund and @IanBertram both have points about the Metro. Partly, it might be down to differing ages. My dad started using the Loop in 1970 when at college in Newcastle and living in Whitley Bay, and my brother still uses it to get to work now - including literally today, from Fellgate to Northumberland Park - so our familial memory covers some ground.

The diesel multis being used in the 1970s were pretty knackered, and not really suitable for the route. They didn't have the acceleration to get to speed between the closely packed stations. This made them slow, and caused reliability issues. Plus, the stations were falling to bits, especially the Tynemouth/Whitley Bay/Cullercoats trio on the coast. But all of them were grotty and run down. The Metro changed all of that. Services were faster, more frequent (every 8-10 minutes, rather than every 20-30), cleaner, and went to stations that weren't derelict. The whole thing was a vast improvement. Especially before bus deregulation, as the transfare system fed bus passengers into the system at places like Heworth and Gateshead in an integrated fashion.

But that's 40 years ago. During the later 90s, the bus system stopped working with the Metro for the greater good. The next blow was when the Sunderland/South Hylton extension opened in 2002(?), they had no new units, so service frequency went down. To every 12 minutes, on average. Which meant every 6 between South Gosforth and Pelaw, where both lines run. 5 an hour isn't really enough for "just turn up" on the bits outside that core stretch, so it's no longer as good as it once was in place like the North Tyneside loop or the South Shields branch.

However, I (just about) remember the service on Pelaw- Sunderland before the Metro. We'd either walk to Brockley Whins and get the train to town or drive to Jarrow and use the metro. I believe the trains were four an hour. But two of those only stopped at Heworth between Newcastle and Sunderland. Which means Brockley Whins, East Boldon and Seaburn got two an hour. Pacers, in the main. And good lord, if ever there was track not designed for pacers, it was the curves at the Gateshead end of the bridges over the Tyne. Noisy, smelly, scruffy, poor ride, bus seats (until a refurb in the early 2000s, I think, but even then the seats were crap). Plus, had they been running what were now Metro lines, they would have still had the poor acceleration issues that plagued the DMUs.They would not have been an improvement on anything the Metro was offering North of the river, or to Shields. Indeed, very few on the Sunderland line (even ignoring those who use the additional stations like Fellgate, St Peter's and SoL, or beyond Sunderland to Hylton) would say that it was better when it was heavy rail.

Of course, the Metro stock is now 40 years old, and struggling. As is some of the infrastructure. But 40 year old Metro stock is a better ride in pretty much every way than 20 year old pacers were. And those buggers lasted until forty elsewhere.

I believe there's infrastructure investment to accompany the new units arriving from Switzerland. Hopefully that will help to improve reliability and stop the fatal "all fall down" problems which seem to be ticking upwards.
 
Last edited:
I'm just puzzled by "metro" and "diesel" in the same sentence.
The Tyne and Wear Metro is the light rail system serving comuters in the area of Newcastle and Sunderland. The vast majority of it was converted from heavy rail, although a new underground section was dug in central Newcastle and Gateshead. These are electric, powered by overhead wires (aka knitting)

In the context I'm using it, a diesel is a "diesel multiple unit", or DMU. Two-three coaches, cab at each end. These were what ran the heavy rail lines in the seventies, before the Metro began to take lines over from them.
 
Last edited:
The Tyne and Wear Metro is the light rail system serving comuters in the area of Newcastle and Sunderland. The vast majority of it was converted from heavy rail, although a new underground section was dug in central Newcastle and Gateshead. These are electric, powered by overhead wires (aka knitting)

In the context I'm using it, a diesel is a "diesel multiple unit", or DMU. Two-three coaches, cab at each end. These were what ran the heavy rail lines in the seventies, before the Metro began to take lines over from them.

Ahh OK, so like STL's MetroLink? That makes more sense, I was picturing a fully diesel metro system and went "huh"
 
To steer things back to the original topic, one thing I am wondering is what an earlier high-speed railway would entail for London's railway terminals, and indeed the same for other cities' main stations. Let's assume the proto-HS1 of the 70s is built like what @Callan suggested. How feasible is the plan for a Kensington (Olympia) rail hub? It seems like it'd still get pushed to St. Pancras or another northern station. If they were intent on a cross-city connection it seems easier to shift the works east to run trains through a revamped Snow Hill Tunnel.
 
Back
Top