Talk:Great Central Railway

What are the Wicker Arches?

The Manchester, Sheffield & Lincolnshire Railway Co viaduct in Sheffield, at the site of Sheffield Victoria Station was named the Victoria Viaduct. No entry for this can be found in Wikipeadia. In Sheffield it is almost universally referred to as the Wicker Arches and has a wiki page of that name. I am suggesting changes to Wikipeadia articles and references to this structure. Please post all comments and opinions on the Talk:Sheffield page.

--Waugh Bacon (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Early discussion

Just wondering, should this be moved to Great Central Railway London Extension seem as its about the main line rather than the company. I have no particular opinion myself but I just wondered what anyone else thought G-Man 22:05, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to leave it where it is. I agree that the article as it stands is about the Extension rather than the GCR company, though I think most "Great Central Railway" is a more likely title that someone will enter when looking for something about the line, than "Great Central London Extension" — to tell the truth, I wouldn't have thought of that title! It would be nice if the article could be expanded to include more on the MS&L / GCR company, though. Arwel 21:55, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I surpose, I have written an article about the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway I surpose it makes sense to have information about the company there. Actually I think the term Great Central Railway is most commonly associated with the main line rather than the company. G-Man 22:04, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think this page should be split into seperate articles about the railway and the company (e.g. "Great Central Railway (London Extension)" and "Great Central Railway (Company)", as it is confusing as it stands.--NicholasJones 12:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, this should be about the railway company, it comes at a slightly different angle to the MS&LR. Anything on the London Externsion per se should go at Great Central Main Line. Dunc|☺ 15:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I disagree - see below Peter Shearan 15:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Map

An article on a specific railway needs a map!

Preferably showing the remaining bits, the closed bits, and the freight only bits in diferent colours.

Hello,

if you are still looking for a map, have a look at Trainspotting Bükkes. Even if you may not publish a modified version of the map under GNU FDL, he perhaps publishes it himself. --Sascha Claus ✉ 14:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

the problem with the map is that only shows the modern railway system and therefore not the GCR as it existed pre-grouping Peter Shearan 15:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I will in the near future create a map of the GCR's former network, encompassing all its network and including THE GCR's main line. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 16:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou!Peter Shearan 12:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The Great Central Railway

That is the title of the article and that is what it should be about. It took on that title in 1897, from the MS&LR, and shortly afterwards opened its "London Extension" (1898: coal traffic; 1899 passenger (March) and freight (April); the alternative main line (Grendon Underwood to Neasden) came in 1906. From 1905 onwards it began to extend further into NW England, always looking for more coal traffic, and took over various lines in Lancashire and Cheshire, using its part-ownership of the CLC to get there. The somewhat overwhelming section about the London extension should without doubt remain here as part of its history: what the GCR did during its existence; and just because it ran to London does not necessarily mean that that part of the main line is all that there was - after all the GCR began with a main line crossing England from east to west. Peter Shearan 15:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC

Here is the answer: the article should not take up so much space discussing happenings after 1923, when the GCR ceased to exist. There should be much more given up to describing the system as it was. The map can then show all the connecting lines across Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cheshire, as well as the single line to the south. It should also mention such matters as important railway stations (eg Manchester London Road, Sheffield, Lincoln, Chesterfield et al; its locomotives and rolling stock; its docks; its tunnels & other earthworks where important enough; etc etc. Peter Shearan 15:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the bull by the horns and am beginning to rewrite this and the MS&LR articles to keep what happened to each during that company's time of existence. I have referred anything that occurred before 1897 to the MS&LR article, adding as much detail as I can find about the Railway. The same thing must now be done with this article, as I suggested above. The fact of the Beeching cuts should only deserve a brief mention in this article too: it happened long after 1923 when the GCR ceased to exist.

Cleanup-rewrite

As I work through this article it appears more and more London-extension-centric! The long "Geography" section is very POV in particular. Having said that Watkin was after greater things - even considering the Channel Tunnel link (and later when he got to the South Eastern Railway he started to build a tunnel, perhaps with his GCR in mind!!) - the writer seems to believe that, just because the railway extension was through "sparsely populated countryside" running through "small towns", "smaller communities" and even "villages" en route, that that was the reason for its downfall. But Watkin wasn't after intermediate traffic, surely - he had his sights much further. Let the Midland take those places, but let us strive for Europe was his motto.

Apart from that, the article ignores much of the rest of the system - and particlar the buying out of the LD&ECR, and the interworking with many other lines. The South Yorks Joint, to take just one, was used by no fewer than five railways jointly, almost a record! and the GCR's joint working with all the major lines across the north isn't mentioned either.

It will be!

Peter Shearan 19:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ive added a note to Talk:Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Chevin 17:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Railway

The relatively small population centres served by the line was certainly a factor in its downfall. As most of the towns and villages served by the london extension were already served by other lines, and the remainder were mostly very small, it thus fell into the 'duplicate route' criteria, which beeching used to justify its closure. G-Man * 16:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

of course - but this nothing to do with the article, which is only about the GCR! Taking the system as a whole, which relied heavily on the transport of coal - and the inevitable losses once that started to decline earlier than the Beeching cuts - it was only a matter of time before someone started closures Peter Shearan 13:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Completion of rewrite

This article now concerns the GCR era only. There is ample space in other articles to discuss what happened after the LNER took over, what happened in the Beeching era; and what services run today. None of that should appear in this article, ao I have deleted them. I hope that the promised map emerges soon, so that the article can then make sense. Peter Shearan 13:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. Where else should this information appear? And if there is somewhere else, MOVE the information there, don't DESTROY it!

Exile 11:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A very nice rewrite it is too! You might want to add the Grimsby & Immingham Electric Railway which was also a GCRism. I have promissed a map of the GCR and so I shall make it... This weekend hopfully. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've added the clean-up tag to this, even though I see from here that it has already supposedly been cleaned up. IMHO, there's too much use of headings and not enough historical narrative in the article. The structure is also rather disjointed. BaseTurnComplete 11:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Why split?

I'm sorry but I still dont quite understand the logic of splitting this from Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway. The MS&LR and the GCR were the same company just renamed when the London extension was opened. Personally I think they should be re-merged, with MS&LR redirecting to Great Central Railway. I already said this on the MS&LR talk page but no one has taken any notice. G-Man * 18:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well seem as no-one's commented on this. I'll at some point get round to re-merging the articles. G-Man * 18:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge 'em back together and redirect Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway to Great Central Railway adding a chapter/section on the company's renaming. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Support for the current split

While it's strictly correct to say the MS&LR and GCR were the same company just renamed, that does rather miss the point that the ethos of the company and the public's perception of it changed with the inception of the London Extension. So it's quite reasonable to have these in separate articles, including as they do clear links to each other. The later history of the GCR should be expanded in its own article. The London Extension subsection does rather repeat information which is available in the separate article of the Great Central Main Line, but should probably be left as a summary.

As for the London Extension itself, again I think this is an enterprise sufficiently historic to deserve an article of its own. I have plans to expand the coverage of the building and technical features of the line. Also there are proposals to reopen parts of the main line

• as part of a dedicated international goods line (Central Railway)
• as one branch of the western section of the East West Rail Consortium

Neither of these proposals have anything to do with the historical railway company, and would sit badly there, but are natural links from a The Future section.

Ivanberti 10:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why was the line closed?

From the article, the Great Central Railway was "...one of the shortest-lived intercity railway lines. Expresses from London to destinations beyond Nottingham were withdrawn in 1960, and the line was completely closed to passenger trains between Aylesbury and Rugby on 3 September 1966, leaving villages such as Woodford Halse without a railway. A diesel multiple unit service ran between Rugby Central and Nottingham (Arkwright Street) until it was also withdrawn on 5 May 1969."

Why did it close? This is not made clear. Was it lack of demand / lack of investment / increasing competition from the M1 motorway? It would be nice to have clarification in the article. 91.84.208.36 (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

A somewhat educated guess is due to competition with the Midland Railway and LNWR's routes - once the BR controlled these and a number of other routes, these routes was essentially competing within the company - Aylesbury, Rugby and Nottingham were (and still are) all served by major routes of other companies. The closure of the GCR's Woodhead Line in favour of the MR's Hope Valley Line was one of the more controversial closures, due to the recent modernisation of the Woodhead Line (showing the GCR's routes had indeed been invested in). As you suggest, falling passenger numbers mainly due to road travel certainly weren't an aid to the GCR.

The Great Central Main Line has a better article on it - and seeing as the closure related to the line, rather than the actual company (which would have been absorbed in 1923), I think it's better to keep the majority of it there.

--92.26.186.50 (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Loading gauge of the London Extension

The engineering drawings of the London Extension clearly show that it was not built to a continental loading gauge. (The gauge was in fact smaller than the GNR loading gauge.) The continental gauge myth had its origins only in 1965. See Anthony West, 'A gauge of opinion', Forward no. 108 (Sep 1996) pp. 8-12 and Grahame Boyes, 'The origins of a modern myth', Journal of the Railway & Canal Historical Society vol.35 no. 10 (Dec. 2007) pp. 780-2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahame38 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Robinson 2-6-2T

Robinson designed no 2-6-2Ts, surely? The L1/3 (LNER classification) was a freight 2-6-4T, apparently for the pre-World War I Hull coal traffic, which fell off with the war, which lasted until the 1950s and the A5 (LNER classification) was a 4-6-2T, originally for the Marylebone suburban traffic, which also cascaded to, among other places, the Manchester-Hayfield line in the mid 1950s. Correction seems in order.Delahays (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

True, so fixed. Please use the "New section" tab to start a new topic, rather than appending to an existing unrelated thread (more at WP:TALKNEW). --Redrose64 (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Biased anti-HS2 rubbish

I have removed a section that was hastily added today that included half-baked assertions like "the GCR could be reopened at a fraction of the current price of HS2", without citing any sources or evidence whatsoever. Don't use Wikipedia to further your narrow-minded anti-HS2 agenda, stick to the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.10.101 (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2013‎

I removed the rest, since this article is about the pre-1923 company, not the Great Central Main Line, where similar information has also been added. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Central Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20121205134522/http://217.158.157.207/railways/GCRN/index.htm to http://217.158.157.207/railways/GCRN/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)