Very clear graphics from 1956, when the whole country was serviced by a dense network of rail lines. Even Norfolk.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One of my favourite ever naked dudes
Louche, laid-back man showing us all his talents
Send me good stuff
No blog of mine could be complete without a picture of my favourite locomotive
A North-Eastern Railway electric Bo-Bo design from 1903, ES no. 1
Number of visitors since February 2011
And another of my favourite ever naked dudes
Mr Smiley-Face Man, in all his delirious loveliness:
i am in love
Staggeringly erotic. Oh yes.
About Me
- LeDuc
- London, England
- Freaky old fart or dashing young blade. Er... I think I may have given it away.
5 comments:
Well done somebody! I'm a bit of a squirrel but I don't go back that far
bg
Just a question from a rail impaired Yankee. (Who has been a long time fan of your blogs and will miss them.) It looks like Norwich is at the intersection of 2 major rail lines, and if the type size indicates population size - they seem to show Yarmouth and Norwich as 'similar' in size. Doesn't Norwich then have more main connections (4) then Yarmouth (3)?
Oh hell, seen any nice small winkies lately?
My own PS: Been watching some British soaps (gay storylines) on Youtube. Revising seems to mean studying. Whereas revising in the states would indicate making changes. Does it have dual meanings in the UK or am I not understanding the use.
Typesize and capitalization are only loosely connected to population: Norwich is still at least twice the population of Yarmouth, and even larger, proportionately, when you consider the two economies. King's Lynn is roughly the same size as Yarmouth -- actually a little smaller, but with a much bigger hinterland. Cromer is around 1/10th the size of Lynn, despite having the same size/weight of type. Peterborough is economically much more significant than Yarmouth, and I struggle to believe its population was much smaller back then (it's much, much bigger now).
The two lines entering Norwich from the S/SW are the main ones, both from London (the SW is via Cambridge which, for a long time, was considered the premier line; the S one is via Ipswich which, today, is easily the fastest route). The line northwards via North Walsham to Cromer was never particularly significant other than six weeks of holiday traffic and, in the late Victorian era, weekend commuting for a few very rich people.
But what I do find odd is that Cromer-Sheringham-Melton Constable appears as a mainline, whereas Norwich-Melton Constable is a tiny branch. It says much for the mindset that, ultimately, led to the destruction of the whole M&GN system. What economists call (sort of) "path dependency", where early actions can lock in something which is not necessarily either logical or optimal.
Here endeth tonight's lesson...
PS: Except for this ps, of course. Yes, revising in the UK has both meanings -- to study something (again), usually for an exam (in the sense of refreshing your memory); and to make changes (I'm going to revise one of my blog posts).
Gosh, thanks for the fast answers. Much appreciated!
Just realised I might have assumed too much -- most of the railway lines in East Anglia were operated by the Great Eastern Railway company (including all four mainlines into Norwich).
The M&GN was a tiny, upstart competitor which tried to break the GER's monopoly: it concentrated hard on those areas where it had a competitive advantage over the GER (such as Yarmouth fish trains to the Midlands, or coal from Nottingham into Norfolk, or fast agricultural goods expresses from the fertile Fens to London or the Midlands). The M&GN was also much more concerned with freight than passenger traffic.
The net result (and the inherent conservatism of railway operations) meant it treated Norwich as a slow, meandering branchline (Melton Constable-Norwich only) with a very occasional through-carriage to more distant parts.
Since it was then thought of as being not part of the "main" M&GN network, longer-distance passenger services were not properly developed -- and since, for railways, these were increasingly where the money was at as the twentieth century progressed, the M&GN's reliance on freight traffic and focus on the "wrong" cities effectively signed its death warrant.
Post a Comment