• 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

  • Thank you to everyone who reached out with concern about the upcoming UK legislation which requires online communities to be compliant regarding illegal content. As a result of hard work and research by members of this community (chiefly iainbhx) and other members of communities UK-wide, the decision has been taken that the Sea Lion Press Forum will continue to operate. For more information, please see this thread.

Callan's Graphics and Things

Reader mode
1964-1969: Harold Wilson (Labour)
1964: Alec Douglas-Home (Conservative), Jo Grimond (Liberal)
1966: Edward Heath (Conservative), Jo Grimond (Liberal)
1969-1971: Roy Jenkins (Labour)
1971-1976: Edward Heath (Conservative)
1971: Roy Jenkins (Labour), Jeremy Thorpe (Liberal)
1976-: Barbara Castle (Labour)
1976: Edward Heath (Conservative), William Wolfe (SNP) , Eric Lubbock (Liberal)
 
AH British Rail timeline (Part 1):

  • A streamlined Modernization Plan. A smaller number of diesel classes, the need to show off British industry with a large number of different models is not put upon BR. A greater emphasis on electrification. Far fewer disastrous prototypes and the large financial loss is avoided. BR subsequently has stronger relations with the Treasury and is trusted with money much more going forward.
  • East Coast Main Line electrification is approved at the same time as West Coast Main Line electrification: wires reach Leeds 1969, Edinburgh via Carstairs 1973, via Newcastle in 1974.
  • The Modernization Plan being less of a financial disaster means the Richard Beeching is never commissioned to write a report into the future of British Railways - but slow process of closures of lesser used lines and stations continues on slow, rolling basis through the 1960s and 1970s which are only occasionally controversial. The most notable closures during this period the Great Central Line north of Aylesbury in 1968, London’s Broad Street and Manchester’s Central stations in 1972 and the Carlisle-Edinburgh Waverley Route in 1973.
  • A rail link to Heathrow Airport (from Victoria, via Barnes and Feltham) is approved in 1969 and opens in 1976. However, as it travels on highly congested suburban lines capacity is limited from the start and additional rail links via the London Underground and the Great Western Main Line in the following decades.
  • The Channel Tunnel gains approval and funding in 1964. The tunnel opens in 1972 to freight traffic and car shuttles. Cross channel trains - under the BR-SNCF joint venture “Cordiale Express” - start running from Victoria in 1972. The initial service pattern is eight trains a day to Paris and a daily sleeper service to Amsterdam, although this is soon expanded and outstrips the capacity available at Victoria.
  • International trains are moved to a purpose built terminal at White City in 1975, using conventional trackage between London and the tunnel. Most of these services are hauled by dual voltage locomotives but a small number of APT units are fitted with third rail shoes to enable their use on international services (which prove to be very unreliable).
  • The Picc-Vicc Tunnel (later known as the Manchester Crossrail) is authorized in 1973 and opens in 1981.
  • The Advanced Passenger Train project launches in the sixties, but with a larger amount of electrified lines (built for the WCML and ECML, the latter of which does not need tilting), the tilting aspect that was most problematic and caused the most delays OTL is dropped by around 1972. This means that a high speed EMU (branded as the High Speed Train) is able to go into service around 1977, immediately and dramatically slashing journey times, especially on the East Coast Main Line. Though achieving a maximum speed of around 160MPH, it only ever reaches speeds of 125 MPH in revenue service due to the limitations of signalling and trackage, especially on the West Coast Main Line.
  • Despite advances in certain sectors (FreightLiner and InterCity most prominently) and piecemeal closures and rationalizations, BR’s losses continue to mount through the 1960s and 1970s. As a result 1979 sees the publication a wide-ranging review of the rail industry by veteran civil servant Dame Evelyn Sharp. Though criticized as a right wing attack on a beloved state industry, the report was originally commissioned by the 1964-1977 Labour government and the report was widely accepted by the Labour Party at the time. The majority of its findings and proposals were implemented over the next fifteen years.
  • It proposed wholesale reform of British Rail. The regions would be re-organized and each one would have clear targets for revenue and other performance indicators. Each region would also be operated with “the social railway” and the “commercial railway” being made distinct in operations and operational goals. It suggested that many British Rail organizations (like FreightLiner and SeaLink) be spun off into their own sectors and that Passenger Transport Executives be treated as “mini-regions” with greater responsibility for infrastructure and services. It also recommended a large number of trunk routes being singled out for “development” in terms of investment and infrastructure upgrades, such as rolling electrification and new rolling stock, as well as suggesting “new trunk routes” in the form of TGV/Shinkansen-esque high speed railway lines between London and the north of England and London and the Channel Tunnel. Sharp does not suggest what should happen to the routes and networks not singled out for “development”, though she emphasized the massive duplication in the British railway system and some rationalization was inevitable to enable a modernization. The financial and political pressures put on the re-organized regions would inevitably mean significant cuts would be made in the decades that followed.
 
Callan said:
A rail link to Heathrow Airport (from Victoria, via Barnes and Feltham) is approved in 1969 and opens in 1976.
Click to expand...
Is this based on an OTL proposal? IIRC everything west of Barnes is double track which must be fun for knitting...

The Staines/West Drayton line should still be fully intact around this time, I've always wondered if they could just reuse that and drill through the apron to get to the terminal.
 
Conster said:
Is this based on an OTL proposal? IIRC everything west of Barnes is double track which must be fun for knitting...

The Staines/West Drayton line should still be fully intact around this time, I've always wondered if they could just reuse that and drill through the apron to get to the terminal.
Click to expand...



There's not a whole lot of information on the scheme in a single place, but I think this is it. It seems that the implication of a surviving British Transport Commission led to the BR proposal being chosen over the LT one.
 
Conster said:
Is this based on an OTL proposal? IIRC everything west of Barnes is double track which must be fun for knitting...

The Staines/West Drayton line should still be fully intact around this time, I've always wondered if they could just reuse that and drill through the apron to get to the terminal.
Click to expand...
Bonniecanuck said:


There's not a whole lot of information on the scheme in a single place, but I think this is it. It seems that the implication of a surviving British Transport Commission led to the BR proposal being chosen over the LT one.
Click to expand...

Yeah, OTL it was one of the original proposals for a rail link to Heathrow from the late 1960s. There’s little info on it but it almost certainly would’ve used third rail infrastructure and rolling stock similar to those used on the fast trains out of Waterloo and Victoria at the time. The Piccadilly Line extension was chosen instead because it was cheaper and could be built faster.

IainVisits also mentions it in an article, which has this diagram:

1748551833291.png

The route was and still is very congested with commuter traffic and I think would’ve a) been subject to constant disruption and b) struggled to do more than 3 trains an hour. The capacity constraints would’ve meant it would’ve inevitably gotten supplemented by another rail link in the following decades.
 
Callan said:
Yeah, OTL it was one of the original proposals for a rail link to Heathrow from the late 1960s. There’s little info on it but it almost certainly would’ve used third rail infrastructure and rolling stock similar to those used on the fast trains out of Waterloo and Victoria at the time. The Piccadilly Line extension was chosen instead because it was cheaper and could be built faster.

IainVisits also mentions it in an article, which has this diagram:

View attachment 97262

The route was and still is very congested with commuter traffic and I think would’ve a) been subject to constant disruption and b) struggled to do more than 3 trains an hour. The capacity constraints would’ve meant it would’ve inevitably gotten supplemented by another rail link in the following decades.
Click to expand...

In isolation, Victoria wasn't a bad choice to put the terminal for the airport link since it had the in-town check-in facilities, but taken as a whole the capacity would be seriously constrained without the addition of more tracks or removal of some commuter trains. It's not surprising that later takes on a southern rail link have a) placed Waterloo as the city terminus instead of Victoria, and b) emphasised a commuter service over limited/non-stop express trains.
 
Bonniecanuck said:
In isolation, Victoria wasn't a bad choice to put the terminal for the airport link since it had the in-town check-in facilities, but taken as a whole the capacity would be seriously constrained without the addition of more tracks or removal of some commuter trains. It's not surprising that later takes on a southern rail link have a) placed Waterloo as the city terminus instead of Victoria, and b) emphasised a commuter service over limited/non-stop express trains.
Click to expand...
For quite a while Victoria was the international station for London, as most boat trains for the continent terminated there (monarchs regularly met foreign dignitaries at Victoria) and later on it had direct services to Gatwick. Until the 1990s British Rail had an international travel centre there. For similar reasons the 1960s/70s proposals for the Channel Tunnel shortlisted Victoria as the London terminus for the rail link. I think it could’ve taken the originally planned daily schedule of eight day trains and a sleeper but not much more than that.

That said OTL the station was very heavily rebuilt in the 1980s and it’s easy to imagine a reconstruction involving greater expansion and/or diversion of a lot of the commuter services.
 
shearsforest said:
To be fair, I somewhat recall the consensus after the 2025 Aussie election was that Peter Dutton was unelectable anyways, and his campaign associating themselves with Trump only drove another nail into his coffin.
Click to expand...
The 2025 election literally happened a couple of weeks ago and the list you guys are splitting hairs over was written [checks notes] five years ago.
 
BigVic_1994 said:
You have Dutton as PM in one of your posts here but he is out of office OTL and lost his seat in the recent Federal Election
Click to expand...
shearsforest said:
To be fair, I somewhat recall the consensus after the 2025 Aussie election was that Peter Dutton was unelectable anyways, and his campaign associating themselves with Trump only drove another nail into his coffin.
Click to expand...
Whoever is seeming unelectable today, may not be the case yesterday and tomorrow. There’s many lists that utalise Pat Buchanan, Bo Gritz and David Duke as viable electoral candidates and we know there all political defective Fascists of varying stripes. In comparison, Dutton is as viable as any of them could be and his loss is just as much down to ‘events’ as it is down to him.
 
I remember when someone said the same about me using Kyrsten Sinema in "Tenacity of Hope" (shameless plug) when she'd just said she wasn't running for re-election. I retorted that I'd (mistakenly) thought she'd already said that and that's why I was using her, to explore something more different to OTL!

It also occurs to me that in any TL where history 2010-2022 was similar to ours, but Liz Truss never became PM, absolutely nobody in that seemingly adjacent TL would believe our account of how it went. "But she was foreign secretary, a serious politician, not some untried neophyte!" There is more in heaven and earth etc. etc. which is what makes AH so fascinating and debatable.
 
Candidates in the 2023 Liberal Party of Canada leadership election:

- Leela Aheer, Member of Parliament for Edmonton East (2017-2021)

- Mark Marrissen, Mayor of Vancouver (2010-2018), MP for Vancouver Quadra (2002-2010)

- Caroline Mulroney, Member of Parliament for Laval, (2017-), daughter of former Premier of Quebec Brian Mulroney


Disqualified by the Liberal National Committee prior to nomination deadline:

- Patrick Brown, former Leader of the Liberal Party (2018-2021) former Member of Parliament for Brampton Centre (2009-2021), former Minister of Health (2015-2017). (Did not make endorsement)


Declined to run:
  • Laurie Blakeman, former Premier of Alberta (2014-2021), MLA for Edmonton Centre (1998-2021). (Endorsed Aheer)
  • Brad Bradford, MP for Kitchener South (2021-) (endorsed Mulroney)
  • Denis Coderre, Senator for Quebec (2006-2021), Minister of Industry (2011-2013), (Endorsed Mulroney)
  • Chrystia Freeland, journalist, activist, former Editor of the Financial Times and former president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress (endorsed Marrissen)
  • Dominic LeBlanc, former MP for Beauséjour (1998-2017), Minister of Finance (2007-2010), Minister of Foreign Affairs (2010-2015), candidate in the 2011 Liberal leadership election (endorsed Mulroney)
  • Thomas Mulcair, former Minister of Justice (2001-2006), former MP for Vimy (1994-2009) and candidate in the 1999 and 2011 Liberal leadership elections (endorsed Marrissen)
  • Belinda Stronach, Mayor of Toronto (2018-present), daughter of former Prime Minister Frank Stronach (endorsed Marrissen)
  • Ginette Petipas Taylor, interim leader of the Liberal Party, MP for Moncton-Dieppe, (2013-) (did not make an endorsement)
  • Richard Wagner, interim leader of the Liberal Party (2021), Minister of Justice (2015-2017), Minister of International Trade (2013-2015), MP for Outremont (2013-2021), son of former prime minister Claude Wagner (endorsed Mulroney)
  • Andrew Weaver, Premier of British Columbia (2022-), Leader of the BC Centre Party (2019-), MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (2016-), (did not make an endorsement)
 
Callan said:
The very same.
Click to expand...
Fun, something that just pop into my head is the realisation that John Paul Harney would probably govern and act similar to Ed Broadbent, both being intellectual socialist types.

I think he would though have an easier relationship with Quebec than Broadbent did (to a point).
 
"...The new prime minister Craig Sauvé unveiled a new cabinet today that lived up to his promise of 'fresh faces and new ideas'. The new cabinet sees several of the most familiar faces of the outgoing Stiles cabinet dismissed and younger and more diverse figures taking the most senior positions.

Most notable of the departures is Finance Minister Gregor Robertson, who Sauvé beat to the NDP leadership and post of prime minister earlier this month; yesterday he announced that he would not only not be part of the new cabinet but would not be running for re-election at the next federal election. Sources close to Robertson and close to Sauvé suggested that Robertson was offered the post of Minister of External Affairs, but that he declined. Many other senior figures in the last government, such as Robert Chisholm, Dominic Cardy and Francoise Boivin are also leaving cabinet; all three announced in Minitel statements that they would stepping back front frontline roles and not running for re-election yesterday or earlier today. Other heavy hitters, such as former Defence Minister Don Davies, see themselves demoted. Davies, Cardy, Chisholm and Boivin all supported Robertson in the leadership election.

In their place, Sauvé has rewarded his supporters, who notably skewed much younger than those of his chief opponent and had mostly lingered on the sidelines for most of the previous seven years of NDP government. Six of the new ministers are backbenchers; many senior figures only held relatively junior posts in the previous government. Notable entrants include Robert Falcon-Oulette, who becomes the first Aboriginal Minister of National Defence and Gurratan Singh, the new Minister of Finance. Singh becomes the first Indo-Canadian Finance Minister and, at 41, the youngest. Both are a reflection of the diversity and relative youth Sauvé committed to during his leadership campaign.

...While Sauve used the word "renewal" 24 times in his remarks to the media after the swearing-in ceremony, many commentators and critics are already wondering if renewal may be a double-edged sword. Leader of the Opposition and leader of the Conservative Party Danielle Smith criticized the new ministers as an "socialist echo chamber" which lacked experience especially in senior posts, while others like Liberal leader Caroline Mulroney have criticized the number of high-profile women dismissed from the previous cabinet..."

The Cabinet, as composed under the 28th Canadian Ministry of The Rt. Hon. Craig Sauvé, October 2024:

Prime Minister: Craig Sauvé MP for Laurier
Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Justice and Attorney General: Rakhi Pancholi, MP for Edmonton Centre
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons: Monique Taylor, MP for Hamilton Mountain
Leader of the Government in the Senate: Jenny Kwan, Senator for British Columbia
Minister of Aboriginal Relations and the North: Steve Ashton, Senator for Manitoba
Minister of Aboriginal Services: Buckley Belanger, MP for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River
Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries: The Hon. Mary Shorthall, MP for St Johns East
Minister of Culture and Communications and Minister for the Status of Women: Helene LeBlanc, MP for LaSalle—Émard
Minister of Energy and Natural Resources: Kevin Chief, MP for Winnipeg North
Minister of the Environment: The Hon. Jonathan Pedneault, MP for Longueuil
Minister of External Affairs: Jennifer Hollett, MP for Broadview-Greenwood
Minister of Finance: Gurratan Singh, MP for Brampton East
Minister of Health and Welfare: The Hon. Mona Fortier, MP for Orleans
Minister of Immigration and Citizenship: Don Davies, MP for Vancouver Kingsway
Minister of Industry and Economic Development: Jennifer French, MP for Oshawa
Minister of Inter-Governmental Relations and Minister of Infrastructure: Brian Masse, MP for Windsor West
Minister of International Aid and la Francophonie: Maria Mourani, MP for Ahuntsic
Minister of International Trade: Michael Byers, MP for Vancouver Centre
Minister of Labour: Dean Constable, MP for Charlottetown
Minister of National Defence and Minister for Veteran's Affairs: Robert-Falcon Ouellette, MP for Quebec Centre
Minister of National Revenue: Rathika Sitsabaiesa, MP for Scarborough-Rouge River
Minister of Regional Development: Kendra Coombes, MP for Sydney-Victoria
Minister of Public Services: Susan Cadell, MP for Kitchener Centre
Minister of Security and Solicitor-General: Chandra Pasma, MP for Nepean
Minister of Transport: Pierre-Luc Dusseault, MP for Sherbrooke
President of the Treasury Board: Wayne Mason, MP for Halifax
 
Thinking about PoDs and subtle but significant one I think is Pierre Poilievre losing his seat... ten years earlier than OTL.

In 2015 Poilievre only held his seat by 1,800 votes, in an election where the Tories saw a big swing against them in Ontario and many safe Conservative seats were only held by small margins. See below:

IMG_3553.jpeg

On the one hand you can argue that this wouldn’t have much impact at all in the long run. Poilievre, well-connected and well-liked by the party’s base of supporters, with no professional life or background outside of politics, would attempt a comeback very quickly. While I don’t think he gets involved in the Ontario PCs (a party he has never had any connection to) he very likely runs again in Carleton in 2019 and quite plausibly wins the seat back.

On the other I think it potentially changes a lot. OTL Poilievre was very influential on the conservative opposition even before he became leader. He was shadow Finance Minister under but Andrew Scheer and Erin O’Toole and was by far the most prominent surrogate for both leaders. His aggressive, hyper-partisan approach (doubling down on Stephen Harper’s modus operandi in many ways) set the tone for how the Tories conducted themselves in opposition after 2017. After two years of Rona Ambrose as interim leader trying to envision a kinder, gentler party. which informed their rhetoric, policy stances and the increasingly questionable and extreme figures the party chose support and empower. So much so that when he finally ran for leader and became leader this style and approach was entirely normalized. I think without his presence in parliament after 2015 the Conservative Party is likely much less hardline or much more divided in approach. And that may not necessarily be to the party’s benefit - OTL this approach caused the Liberals a lot of problems in how scandals refused to go away and their ability to maintain control of legislation and parliamentary committees.

And I don’t things would be convergent for Poilievre either. If Carleton is a Liberal gain in 2015, that is one of the biggest stories of the night. By 2015 Poilievre was one of the most prominent Tory MPs and was both well-connected to the media and a hate figure for liberal and left-wing partisans both in politics and social media. It would be a true humiliation for a figure long seen as both the future and the id of the party, one that would not be easily forgotten. The Liberals would not let him forget it and for many Tories his defeat would be proof that the kind of politics he represented should be left behind. If he tried to run again he would certainly represent a liability for the party - an embodiment of its past and its past humiliations - and it’s easy to imagine the Tory leadership trying to block his running. And he might be able to - humiliated and being outside the House of Commons for four years, he almost certainly does not garner the following he gained in the same period OTL. If he does make it back into parliament it’s hard to imagine him gaining a prominent position in the shadow cabinet or caucus, nor being seen as a future leader.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top