Electric train staff equipment had been brought into use between Blisworth and Towcester by 9 August 1910 (date of SMJR minute 451 (TNA file RAIL 674/3)) and presumably the new signal box at Blisworth appeared at the same time. In that this was so…Continue
Started by Richard Maund on Saturday.
SMJ board minute 1474 of 13 April 1921 (TNA file RAIL 674/4) approved that “the following expenditure be charged to Capital” for year 1920: “Blisworth: Signalling and alterations to Permanent Way, Improvements and additional signalling: £800”. In…Continue
Started by Richard Maund on Saturday.
Did this railway (as opposed to the East & West Junction Railway) go into receivership - if so, when. And when did it come out of receivership?Continue
Started by Richard Maund. Last reply by Richard Maund Feb 11.
Shall we bring this discussion under the proper heading!So far as the OS plan surveyed 1885, published 1886, is concerned: the OS liked - wherever they could - to have text running parallel to the top and bottom borders. When they came to add the…Continue
Started by Richard Maund. Last reply by Richard Maund Feb 10.
Tags:
Jim,
I totally agree that there was plenty of room for an extra track, not only on the down side as you point out but also on the up side, which was built as a siding on which the redundant Starlight Special coaches were stored in the early sixties.
In fact, it looks to me as if the GCR made provision for through of by-pass lines in both directions, so that --- if traffic levels increased --- expresses could rush through Brackley uninhibited by the 'turnback' trains that terminated at Brackley. From an operational perspective, this all made perfect sense.
On the other hand, if the GCR had even the slightest intention to make Brackley a junction station, it would have made provision for a means for passengers to reach this notional extra platform. As things were, there was not any room to spare at upper level to create a landing for an additional staircase. The circulating area was quite modest, with the booking office and the SM's office on your right and the lockup 'cage' for parcels and bicycles on the left. Straight ahead was the footbridge.
To create a 'Northampton platform' would have involved major reconstruction to the station building, whilst at track level the GCR would have had to make vast excavations for the diverging tracks to Northampton in the cutting north of the station.
And to what avail? Northampton was already served by two LNW stations and one Midland Railway, providing a direct service to London with frequent trains. The GCR could not realistically hope to tap off any of this traffic along a longer, roundabout route to London via Brackley, involving a change of trains and a wait at a station that had neither a refreshment room or a bookstall. Local traffic between Brackley and Northampton would not be great; most locals looked to Buckingham and Banbury for doing shopping that Brackley shops could not handle (the bottom station in Brackley offered a direct service to those two towns).
By and large, the GCR was interested in the bigger and more lucrative picture of' long-distance passenger and freight traffic in the 1890/1900 era. Why would be interested in a tuppenny-hapenny feeder service from Northampton, especially one constructed through quite heavy terrain?
I am not trying to be a contrarian or trying to stop discussion of might-have-beens. But I feel I must emphasize that the Northampton platform story is a myth (the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brackley_Central_railway_station also points out that the so-called platform t it appears to be located on the "wrong side" of the station, since Northampton-bound trains would have had to cross the main running lines in order to access the branch). It was just a schoolboy joke made to impress his friends!
Sincerely,
Andrew Emmerson.
Jim Goodman said:
© 2024 Created by Andy Thompson. Powered by