Alternate 1923 British Railways Groupings

Kevin C. Smith

I have been toying with some different post WWI groupings of British Railways-no TL or anything, just having fun. A few requests for information from those familiar with them:

  • What was the mileage of the Great Western and Great Central Joint Railway?
  • In the 1923 grouping, the east coast route (LNER) included the Great North of Scotland Railway, while the west coast (LMS) included the Highland Railway. Is there any reason why those could not be reversed?
  • If the Great Western and the Great Eastern were to be included in the same combination, is it realistic to ask that the L&NW's "varsity line" (the branches that ran to Oxford and to Cambridge) be transferred or are there corporate or physical objections that make it unworkable?
Where can I find (online) the financial reports of the pre-grouping railways (1922 would be the ideal year)? I would like at the least to know the total investment value; operating income, before expenses and after; and the net income after all expenses. The annual ton miles and passenger miles, too, if possible.
 

Devvy

Donor
Kevin C. Smith said:
What was the mileage of the Great Western and Great Central Joint Railway?
Click to expand...

Not far; it was only from Ashendon junction to Northolt junction. Somewhere around 35 miles at an estimate.

Kevin C. Smith said:
In the 1923 grouping, the east coast route (LNER) included the Great North of Scotland Railway, while the west coast (LMS) included the Highland Railway. Is there any reason why those could not be reversed?
Click to expand...

Not sure, but I think I remember LNER as being designated to run up the entire east coast of GB, so it'll depend if suitable connections can operate to reverse the selection.

Kevin C. Smith said:
If the Great Western and the Great Eastern were to be included in the same combination, is it realistic to ask that the L&NW's "varsity line" (the branches that ran to Oxford and to Cambridge) be transferred or are there corporate or physical objections that make it unworkable?
Click to expand...

Firstly, why would you put the GW and GE together? The point of grouping was to rationalise the companies, and make them better integrated and streamlined companies. The GW and GE have no mutual interests, they can't share track or rolling stock, or share maintenance facilities due to geography. They will be 2 completely separate railways owned by the same company. Varsity Line wise, most of it is quite separate from the main line radial routes, although I'm not sure about at Sandy. The Varsity Line will only be good for lugging goods across; passengers will probably find it quicker to travel via London via express then around the Varsity route.
 

Lindseyman

My sixpennorth on this is as follows
1. GER,LBSC,SECR together as a London commuter Railway plus GCR
2.LSWR merged with GWR plus south welsh railways such as the Barry
3. LNWR,Caledonian and Highland plus Cambrian
4.Midland, GSWR,GNSR
5. GNR,NER,NBR

This is so there is more competition on the Northern Routes.
 
iainbhx

iainbhx

Lindseyman said:
My sixpennorth on this is as follows
1. GER,LBSC,SECR together as a London commuter Railway plus GCR
2.LSWR merged with GWR plus south welsh railways such as the Barry
3. LNWR,Caledonian and Highland plus Cambrian
4.Midland, GSWR,GNSR
5. GNR,NER,NBR

This is so there is more competition on the Northern Routes.
Click to expand...

You've got no link or running powers between the GWSR and the GNoSR, the tiny GNoSR has to go with the Highland or the NBR.

With that set up, I wouldn't allow the L&Y to merge with the LNWR and then you give them to your No 4 group.
 

torten

Lindseyman said:
My sixpennorth on this is as follows
1. GER,LBSC,SECR together as a London commuter Railway plus GCR
2.LSWR merged with GWR plus south welsh railways such as the Barry
3. LNWR,Caledonian and Highland plus Cambrian
4.Midland, GSWR,GNSR
5. GNR,NER,NBR

This is so there is more competition on the Northern Routes.
Click to expand...

1 is a big company with control of the south east commuter belt. It will also be spilt in Three as the GER and Great central have no links between each other, and the great eastern doesn't connect with the SECR

LSWR and GWR - the greater western railway will have told control of the west country all the way to Southampton. This is a oversized company.

The groupings which actually got used were the most practical. Their was talk of Nationalisation In 1923. Also remember that the Big four all lost money after 1931, apart from the southern.
 
iainbhx

iainbhx

torten said:
1 is a big company with control of the south east commuter belt. It will also be spilt in Three as the GER and Great central have no links between each other, and the great eastern doesn't connect with the SECR
Click to expand...

Oh, the GE and GC do, just probably not where you think. The answer is Lincoln via the GN/GE joint line. Similarly, the East London Railway connects the GER and the SECR.

Tend to agree with you that 1 & 2 won't work and that with some fiddling aroun d the edges, Grouping was the best it could be. Now give the GCR to the GWR and we could have some fun.
 
Simon

Simon

torten said:
Also remember that the Big four all lost money after 1931, apart from the southern.
Click to expand...
IIRC a fair amount of that was thanks to the government taking control of the railways during the war then carrying out little in the way of maintenance whilst seeing a massive increase in usage and screwing the companies over when it came to financial recompense to top it all off.
 

Devvy

Donor
iainbhx said:
Now give the GCR to the GWR and we could have some fun.
Click to expand...

I'd argue for a continued independent GCR post-grouping, with control acquired of the GWR assets that are now the Chiltern Main Line through Birmingham and up to Birkenhead (and complete the other half of Marylebone station). That's a rail group that is primed to focus on and capitalise on fast freight and passenger expresses. Also provides steady competition with LMS and LNER to the other main English cities (and potentially maybe Edinburgh if it takes the Settle-Carlisle line and Waverley Line, thus providing a 3rd slower Anglo-Scottish route).
 

torten

Devvy said:
I'd argue for a continued independent GCR post-grouping, with control acquired of the GWR assets that are now the Chiltern Main Line through Birmingham and up to Birkenhead (and complete the other half of Marylebone station). That's a rail group that is primed to focus on and capitalise on fast freight and passenger expresses. Also provides steady competition with LMS and LNER to the other main English cities (and potentially maybe Edinburgh if it takes the Settle-Carlisle line and Waverley Line, thus providing a 3rd slower Anglo-Scottish route).
Click to expand...

But that would involve breaking up the north British railway. Breaking up railways would be harder than sticking them together.

What about the great central, midland and Glasgow and south western. That might work as the London , Central and Scottish railways. LCSR
OTL West Coast Railway would be renamed the London, Western and Scottish Railway LWSR
 

sonofpegasus

You also have to remember who gets which Engine/ wagon Works and depots. If you put all the major Engines shops in one Comoany for instance that allows them to squeese other operators.
 

Lindseyman

Lets take it up to a shilling!:D
1. GNR,NER,NBR already so closely connected that any realistic grouping is going to put those three together. Similarly the LNWR and Caley (Not that stopped someone suggesting a Scottish Railway in the planning for grouping).
2. If you prevent the L&Y amalgamating with the LNWR pre grouping, then it does fit with the GCR (which WAS the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway pre Watkin and the London extension).
3. Merge the Midland with the GSWR.
You then have 3 companies competing for the north-south traffic.
4. The GWR virtually has to take over the Welsh Railways (apart from the Cambrian which can go to either the LNWR/Caley or the Midland/GSWR probably the former is the better fit.
5. The "problems" are the GER (which nearly did merge with the GNR in the early 1900s so probably goes with 1)and the railways that went in the OTL Southern. The LSWR mainline to Cornwall is not really a good fit with the rest which is London commuter land. (My original idea was to create a London Commuter Railway which could all be electrified but then East Anglia also does not fit!)
6. What to do with the Highland and GNSR? (Probably what was done OTL).

Splitting the existing railways is not a good idea UNLESS you go for Nationalisation in 1923 and then create regions as per OTL 1948 Nationalisation. That would be interesting a Conservative Government undertaking the first Nationalisation (They nearly did OTL with the Southern)
 

Kevin C. Smith

My goodness! I expected my (rather obscure) questions to drive off any larger discussion of alternate proposals. Thanks all! Any other ideas proposals, suggestions out there?

Unfortunately, I know little enough of British geography to know the traffic flows and densities. The lines on a map all look the same-but I know that great differences lie hidden therein. That's why I was trying to get some financial and traffic statistics-to see a fuller appearance of what my misbegotten efforts have resulted in!
 

Kevin C. Smith

Lindseyman said:
Lets take it up to a shilling!:D
1. GNR,NER,NBR already so closely connected that any realistic grouping is going to put those three together. Similarly the LNWR and Caley (Not that stopped someone suggesting a Scottish Railway in the planning for grouping).
2. If you prevent the L&Y amalgamating with the LNWR pre grouping, then it does fit with the GCR (which WAS the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway pre Watkin and the London extension).
3. Merge the Midland with the GSWR.
You then have 3 companies competing for the north-south traffic.
4. The GWR virtually has to take over the Welsh Railways (apart from the Cambrian which can go to either the LNWR/Caley or the Midland/GSWR probably the former is the better fit.
5. The "problems" are the GER (which nearly did merge with the GNR in the early 1900s so probably goes with 1)and the railways that went in the OTL Southern. The LSWR mainline to Cornwall is not really a good fit with the rest which is London commuter land. (My original idea was to create a London Commuter Railway which could all be electrified but then East Anglia also does not fit!)
6. What to do with the Highland and GNSR? (Probably what was done OTL).

Splitting the existing railways is not a good idea UNLESS you go for Nationalisation in 1923 and then create regions as per OTL 1948 Nationalisation. That would be interesting a Conservative Government undertaking the first Nationalisation (They nearly did OTL with the Southern)
Click to expand...

If I may toss my two cents worth of idea in?

It seems to me that more than four mainline railways would negate much of the advantages of larger combinations, while fewer that four risks lessened competition and redundant trackage. Also, the greater the geographical spread, the more varied the traffic base and any economies to be gained in length of haul. So,
  • Similar to your suggestion, I combined the existing (major) east and west coast routes, with a Scottish line to the each of them. That's why I was wondering about the GNS/Highland-it seems that trackage rights for the North British from Perth to the Highland would be less of a deal than the rights from Montrose to Aberdeen.
  • Midland with GSW for the "3rd route" between London and Scotland. To make up for the lack of access to traffic north of Glasgow and to take advantage of the Midland's route to Bristol and Bournemouth, I added the L&SW to it.
  • The Great Western's writ running at right angles to the predominant axis of traffic, I was going to add the Great Central and Great Eastern to extend that system across England (as opposed to the length of it), with its predominance in Wales. Hence the question about the "varsity line" to provide a more direct connection.
  • The question remains of what to do with the London-Channel routes (LB&CS and SE&C). One part of me would combine them with the L&SW group as OTL but I don't know if I want to preclude the east and west coast combinations of sharing in such direct access to the continent (I kept the London, Tilbury & Southend with the Midland). Another part says to add them with the expanded Great Western combine to assure that company a share in a traffic dense region. Finally, I decided to allocate one each (rather arbitrarily) to the east and west coast combines, not so much to get direct connections but to share in the overall traffic and profits.
  • I thought of combining the Welsh coal hauling lines into a common joint line, to be owned by the Great Western-Eastern and the West Coast companies.
So, the final tally (roll?) would be:

1) Great Western-Eastern
Great Western
Great Central
Great Eastern
Hull & Barnsley
GW&GC Joint
With a 1/2 share of the Cheshire Lines and 1/2 of the Welsh Coal Lines
Mileage: Appox. 5,190 exclusive; 5,890 including jointly owned companies.

2) East Coast
North Eastern
Great Northern
Highland
North British
London, Brighton and South Coast
Mileage: Appox. 5,150.

3) West Coast
London & North Western (with Lancashire & Yorkshire)
Caledonian
Great North of Scotland
South Eastern & Chatham
1/2 share in the Welsh Coal Lines
Mileage: Appox. 4,754 exclusive; 5,312 including jointly owned companies.

4) Midland
Midland
Furness
North Staffordshire
Glasgow & South Western
London & South Western
Somerset & Dorset Joint
Midland & Great Northern Joint
1/2 share of the Cheshire Lines
Mileage: Appox. 4,351 exclusive; 4,493 including jointly owned companies.

Now, I'm not saying it is the best or even an improvement OTL. But is it entirely misbegotten? Please, now-be kind...

Oh, and of course, we would need better names.
 
Last edited:

Kevin C. Smith

Does anyone have any ideas/speculations about what shape railway mergers would have taken had there been no WWI and subsequent grouping by legislation? I'm not familiar enough with British railway history to know what the trends were (if any).

And/or, given our various (or OTL's) groupings, is there any way we can butterfly away post WWII nationalization and keep our (or OTL's) grouping intact for at least a decade longer? The only way I can think of is that the companies are all owned by the government but kept separate and the operations are leased out on concessions. Bur from what I understand, the Labor government was fully committed to all in public ownership of all basic industries.
 

Devvy

Donor
Kevin C. Smith said:
Does anyone have any ideas/speculations about what shape railway mergers would have taken had there been no WWI and subsequent grouping by legislation? I'm not familiar enough with British railway history to know what the trends were (if any).

And/or, given our various (or OTL's) groupings, is there any way we can butterfly away post WWII nationalization and keep our (or OTL's) grouping intact for at least a decade longer? The only way I can think of is that the companies are all owned by the government but kept separate and the operations are leased out on concessions. Bur from what I understand, the Labor government was fully committed to all in public ownership of all basic industries.
Click to expand...

The grouping was somewhat inevitable. The mess of different companies before hand led to major inefficiencies and expenses of hauling freight across the whole country. WWI delayed maintenance on the railways which showed this up, finally resulting in rationalisation of the administration and the grouping. I'm open as to whether it should of ended with 4, 5 or 6 companies in the end, but I'm certain that major grouping was needed.

From WWII, there was even more delayed maintenance, with the railways run into the ground during the war, so nationalisation afterwards was near on certain whoever was in power; especially with the growing levels of road usage, and the switch to the car.

Without a WWII, the grouped companies would remain in business longer, and some would have likely been able to ride out the switch to the car - it's only good until everyone has a car, and then it's major congestion leading towards a switch back to rail again. No WWII means less delayed maintenance, longer running grouping; and also importantly, less death leading to slightly higher levels of population which will help sustain rail transport. I think with no WWII, you're looking at nationalisation around 1955-1960 - not massively later, but maybe a crucial few years. It massively depends when car usage begins it's rapid adoption; no WWII means no devotion to the war effort, but also means that the country doesn't get all the ex-military vehicles sold into the civilian market.

Maybe more electrification which will make transport costs lower with no WWII, especially if the GCML extends it from Sheffield to Marylebone; that's a massive investment but could also make a massive difference to operating costs. Southern Railways will probably complete more third rail electrification. If rail companies can form meaningful partnerships with road haulage for the final 5-10 miles collection/delivery and embrace concepts like containerisation, then the future looks no where near as bad as it turned out in OTL. OTL BR wasted money galore until the 1970s when things became more business like and streamlined. London Underground develops differently as well.

If or when the government nationalises the railways though, I can't see anything but ending up with a central "British Railways".
 

torten

You might find this useful
http://www.railmaponline.com/UKIEMap.php
Got a zoomable map of all the pre grouping railways
My groupings

1. Southern railways - OTL
2 London and east coast Railway - GER, NER, GNR, NBR
3.London, Western and Scottish railway - LNWR, CR, GNSR, HR, LYR, Cambrian and some of the Welsh lines
4. Midland, Central and Scottish Railway- Midland, GSWR, GCR, HBR, NSR and MSWJR
5. Greater Western railway - Great western and Some welsh lines
This gives you 3 Company's up north to Compete and the south is left reasonably unchanged. The LECR could be slightly too big, So you could shift around the GER to join with the southern, and then move the LSWR, to the MCSR, and then rename it the Southern, Midland and Scottish Railway but that might mean that the southern Group would not have the modernising influence of the LSWR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top