The Naming of the 'Big Four' - who decided and how? Controversial?

70014IronDuke · 4 Jul 2026

For some random reason when mixing my yoghurt shake earlier today, I wondered why the LNER (I mean, the original one, at the post WWI grouping) was so named, given that arguably its main claim to fame then and even now was that it was the principal route from London to Edinburgh. (See also current thread on GB's 'premier line'.)

Unlike the LMS, there simply no reference to the Scottish links in its services. Nothing to really indicate it inherited the North British Railway (other than 'North' in North-Eastern) and certainly nothing to do with the GNoSR, tiny operation though that was in the big mix of things. But was "Great North-eastern Railway" ever considered (since it would also give a nod to the GER)?

And of course, it leads on to the others. The Southern was relatively simple and kind of gave a nod to all its constituent members.

Over at Paddington, one assumes the directors told the Cambrian, Barry etc to quietly get lost on the grounds that re-branding to accommodate their historical interests would be absurd and absurdly expensive - and anyway, they should be humbly grateful that they could take on the GWR mantle in the first place.

As for the LMS, well London was in there for the LNWR, Midland was in there, apologies to the L&Y, and the Caledonian and GSWR would have to be content with "Scottish". (As for the North Staffs, Furness and Maryport and Carlisle ... don't be silly?)

Is there any record of how the names for the 'Big Four' were chosen, and any consultation beforehand? Was there any public discussion in the press? Any big voices of protest and dissent?

RailUK Forums

The exile · 4 Jul 2026

Think the GWR can be quickly dealt with as , far more than the others, it was made up of one “giant” and lots of subsidiary companies - all the others involved melding several comparably sized rival companies. Except in a few specialist areas in South Wales, the “new” GWR contained none of the old one’s rivals.

John Webb · 4 Jul 2026

It was presumably the Government of the day who chose the names in their Railways Act 1921, which amalgamated around 120 railways into the 'Big Four' from 1st January 1923.
There were some omissions - notably the Talyllyn Railway and some other narrow-gauge lines, plus a number of standard-gauge privately-operated industrial lines.

Sir Felix Pole · 4 Jul 2026

O.S. Nock claimed one of the reasons for 'LNER' was that the NER had the largest wagon fleet of the constituent companies and thus could simply remain adorned with 'NE'.

Initially a separate 'Scottish' company was planned, but rejected as not viable at a late stage, so there may have been some hasty changes to the proposed names.

6Gman · 4 Jul 2026

The 1921 Railways Act simply required the formation of four companies identified as The Southern Group, The Western Group, The North Western, Midland and West Scottish Group and The North Eastern, Eastern and East Scottish Group.

The Act also set out the formation of the original (large) Boards of Directors (up to 28 for the larger groups) and presumably they would then have determined the company names going forward.

stuving · 4 Jul 2026

6Gman said:
The 1921 Railways Act simply required the formation of four companies identified as The Southern Group, The Western Group, The North Western, Midland and West Scottish Group and The North Eastern, Eastern and East Scottish Group.

The Act also set out the formation of the original (large) Boards of Directors (up to 28 for the larger groups) and presumably they would then have determined the company names going forward.

Quite so. The public found out the new names only after the announcement in the Financial Times at the start of January 1923 of the entry of the new companies onto the stock exchange. Before that there had been a lot of public speculation, and suggestions for names (such as from public meetings to choose them), starting in 1921.

There were also leaks and definitive news items saying what the names would be - all wrong, as far as I can see. But while the companies chose their own names, I guess the Government, having decreed that the mergers should happen, offered the new companies their "advice" during the process.

Gloster · 4 Jul 2026

I think, based on odd bits of reading, that the newly formed boards of directors chose the names, possibly after gaining the approval of the Ministry of Transport. Despite it being a forced grouping, the spirit of laissez-faire politics and non-intervention was strong.

geoffk · 4 Jul 2026

Don't forget the LNER also served the north-east corner of Wales! Although three of the four new companies served Wales, there was no recognition of that in their titles, except the GWR indirectly.

oldman · 4 Jul 2026

For the Western group the GWR carried on as a company with new shares being created for the shareholders in the other companies, which were wound up. The names of the three new companies appeared in the press late in 1922. In November the LMS was originally announced as the London, Midland and Northern Railway, but by December Northern had become Scottish.

John Webb said:
There were some omissions - notably the Talyllyn Railway and some other narrow-gauge lines, plus a number of standard-gauge privately-operated industrial lines.

The 1920 White Paper excluded independent narrow-gauge and 'light' railways, such as the Derwent Valley and North Sunderland.

In each case the new group would absorb the smaller and independent broad gauge [sic] lines within its area, but railways which may be classified as “ light,” whether existing or future, will be wholly excluded from this grouping arrangement

Martyr · 5 Jul 2026

Gloster said:
I think, based on odd bits of reading, that the newly formed boards of directors chose the names, possibly after gaining the approval of the Ministry of Transport. Despite it being a forced grouping, the spirit of laissez-faire politics and non-intervention was strong.

According to Cecil J. Allen in his history of the LNER that's basically what happened with that company. He quotes from correspondence in late 1922 between certain of the chairmen and general managers of the constituent companies in which the following names were considered before the final name was decided upon:

North and Eastern Railway
Great North Railway
East Coast Railway
North East Railway

Rescars · 5 Jul 2026

It may be relevant that the first Minister of Transport who was in post until 1921 whilst the Act what being drafted was Sir Eric Geddes, who had been Deputy General Manager of the NER. His name was put forward to be the first chairman of the LNER, but in the end William Whitelaw was appointed. Whitelaw had previously been chairman of both the HR and then the NBR.

Falcon1200 · 5 Jul 2026

London was part of the name of two of the four companies, logically should it not have been applied throughout? So;

LM&SR, L&NER, as was;
London & Western Railway
London & Southern Railway

Cowley · 5 Jul 2026

Falcon1200 said:
London was part of the name of two of the four companies, logically should it not have been applied throughout? So;

LM&SR, L&NER, as was;
London & Western Railway
London & Southern Railway

If you look at it from the point of view that each area (if you’re willing to call Wales the west) is mentioned in the four names, it is quite pleasing.

Mentioned are:
North
East
South
West
Midlands
Scotland
And London twice (hinting at its importance).

jadmor · 5 Jul 2026

how close did we get at this time to having not 4 big companies, but one very big company?

Rescars · 5 Jul 2026

jadmor said:
how close did we get at this time to having not 4 big companies, but one very big company?

AIUI, Geddes' original proposals were for five companies in England, plus separate arrangements for London, Scotland and Ireland. Although committed to worker participation on boards, he was opposed to nationalisation because he considered it would lead to bad management as well as conflicts between operational and political interests. Interesting observations on which to reflect as GBR comes into being perhaps?

Taunton · 5 Jul 2026

oldman said:
The 1920 White Paper excluded independent narrow-gauge and 'light' railways, such as the Derwent Valley and North Sunderland.

I've wondered how the Mersey Railway managed to evade being rolled into the LMS, while the Wirral Railway, whose only significant contact was with the Mersey, got included.

Gloster · 5 Jul 2026

I believe that the most touted proposal for a fifth English company during the period that splitting the Scottish companies off was still active was for an amalgamation of the Midland and Great Central. I also have a vague recollection of reading of an amalgamation of the North Eastern and Great Central being considered, but (very vague recollection) this was abandoned early on.

Which brings me to wonder if the Great Central was regarded as a poisoned chalice. I also wonder if the Ministry of Transport saw things in a London-centric way and expected all five to have a terminus in London.

Rescars · 5 Jul 2026

Gloster said:
Which brings me to wonder if the Great Central was regarded as a poisoned chalice.

Is there something jinxed about building railways through the Chilterns?

Taunton · 5 Jul 2026

Rescars said:
Is there something jinxed about building railways through the Chilterns?

i believe the GCR London Extension was all done with borrowed money, as the predecessor MS&L (alias Money Sunk & Lost) didn't have the reserves or the capital to do it. They just about paid the interest but the capital amount was still outstanding in 1923, was passed to the LNER, and in no small part kept the latter financially impoverished until 1948 (there were genuine concerns at government level in the 1930s that the LNER might go bankrupt).

But yes, roll on 125 years and a not dissimilar situation. If HS2 were a fully private investment they would be shut down by now, out of cash.

MarlowDonkey · 5 Jul 2026

Gloster said:
Which brings me to wonder if the Great Central was regarded as a poisoned chalice. I also wonder if the Ministry of Transport saw things in a London-centric way and expected all five to have a terminus in London.

I believe I have read that Geddes was in favour of regional monopolies. Had he been in favour of retaining competition wherever possible, the Midland could have retained independence as a fifth national operator. It already had a finger in the London commuter pie with ownership of the LTs and part owned the S&D and M&GN. Think of it as a proto- Provincial Railways running two, three or four car trains all over the place.

As far as the Great Central in concerned, I believe there had been discussions, possibly before WW1, about amalgamating with the GNR and GER. Another possibility might have been to fold it into the GWR which would have given the GWR more lines to the Midlands and Yorkshire, increasing competition.

Rescars · 5 Jul 2026

MarlowDonkey said:
Think of it as a proto- Provincial Railways running two, three or four car trains all over the place.

Well, the Midland certainly had plenty of small engines, no doubt suited to small trains, though the proposition would have held little appeal for Sir Guy Granet, I'd guess.

Martyr · 5 Jul 2026

MarlowDonkey said:
As far as the Great Central in concerned, I believe there had been discussions, possibly before WW1, about amalgamating with the GNR and GER.

In 1909, but parliament resisted as it was considered it would be too much of a monopoly. (as per Cecil J. Allen again).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jul 2026 ==

In another book - The Great Northern Railway Volume III by John Wrottesley, the author states that in July 1920 a government White Paper proposed seven groups:

Southern
Western
North-Western
Eastern (made up of GNR, GCR and GER)
North Eastern (NER and NBR)
Scottish
London (unclear if it was meant to be just Metropolitan Railway and the Underground or whether suburban lines were included)

A year later the eventual four groups were agreed upon.

oldman · 5 Jul 2026

Martyr said:
In another book - The Great Northern Railway Volume III by John Wrottesley, the author states that in July 1920 a government White Paper proposed seven groups:

Southern
Western
North-Western
Eastern (made up of GNR, GCR and GER)
North Eastern (NER and NBR)
Scottish
London (unclear if it was meant to be just Metropolitan Railway and the Underground or whether suburban lines were included)

The North Eastern group was NER and HBR (Hull and Barnsley), not NBR. The text of the white paper is here.

LNW-GW Joint · 5 Jul 2026

The exile said:
Think the GWR can be quickly dealt with as , far more than the others, it was made up of one “giant” and lots of subsidiary companies - all the others involved melding several comparably sized rival companies. Except in a few specialist areas in South Wales, the “new” GWR contained none of the old one’s rivals.

Allegedly the Cambrian was due to become part of the LMS (with more connections than with the GWR).
However the LMS was regarded as already "too big" to absorb the Cambrian, so it went to GWR.

More than 100 years on, the way Network Rail is organised means that the "Midland" has become part of the "LNER" group (Eastern Region) rather than the "LMS" group (North West & Central).
In the 1850s, more or less any combination of the big companies was possible, and proposed, but implementation usually failed.

Falcon1200 · 6 Jul 2026

I remember reading somewhere that a stand-alone Scottish company was discounted because it would be hopelessly uneconomic!

mike57 · 6 Jul 2026

Taunton said:
They just about paid the interest but the capital amount was still outstanding in 1923, was passed to the LNER, and in no small part kept the latter financially impoverished until 1948

I also understand that NER plans for ECML electrification were pretty much sunk by the LNER being short of money. (And a lack of enthusiasm from the new CME, but was this related to a realisation that it wasn't financially viable after grouping)

Taunton · 6 Jul 2026

In the USA, which has a huge long history of rail mergers, they are characterised as either "side-by-side", or "end-to-end". The first (supposedly) gives efficiency by allowing duplications to be merged, the latter by allowing longer hauls by one company. It's interesting to consider mergers in Britain from this view. The 1923 amalgamations are inevitably a combination of the two approaches, the LNER more end-to-end, apart from the Great Central, the LMS more side-by-side, as it was the one where two strong companies, LNWR and Midland, which both served all the major industrial cities in England, were merged.

Given their geographical sectors radiating from London, it's notable what efforts were made after 1923 on cross-company freight to 'cut out the middleman' on longer flows. Traffic from LMS to Southern was often routed to avoid the GWR, and the Somerset & Dorset benefitted from this substantially, while traffic from the LNER to the GWR was in turn routed where possible via Banbury, helping the ex-Great Central side at the expense of the LMS.

Rescars · 6 Jul 2026

Was avoiding duplication at least part of the attraction for merging the L&Y with the LNWR? Would this have happened anyway, even if there had been no 1921 Act?

Cutting out the middleman, by sending freight via a circuitous route to avoid losing revenue by forwarding traffic over joint lines appeared to be a feature of railway operating pre-1923.

Taunton · 6 Jul 2026

Rescars said:
Cutting out the middleman, by sending freight via a circuitous route to avoid losing revenue by forwarding traffic over joint lines appeared to be a feature of railway operating pre-1923.

Although circuitous, much of the cost of freight transit goes in terminal costs, and, where there are multiple intermediaries, in the transition from one railway to the next.

It was what made the LT&S attractive to the Midland in 1912. Not to do with their commuter and local passenger traffic, it was freight to and from the new and developing Tilbury Docks, where the Midland could now offer direct transit from not only Derby and Sheffield, but Bristol, Liverpool, Cambridge, Swansea - they went everywhere. In those times companies did not know what was coming from another railway until it was shunted into the exchange sidings.

And the rather simplistic way the Railway Clearing House divided up freight revenue, on the basis of mileage, didn't help. So if a wagon from say Tilbury to Liverpool was charged at say £25, for 250 miles, and the LT&S handed it over to the LNWR in London, that could be just £2 for the LT&S and £23 for the LNWR. Now the Midland took it all the way that's £25 all for them. A bit more mileage, but freight rate distance was by the shortest route, regardless of which way it actually went, with any division of revenue was by proportion of distances to the exchange point.

Ianigsy · 6 Jul 2026

Taunton said:
I've wondered how the Mersey Railway managed to evade being rolled into the LMS, while the Wirral Railway, whose only significant contact was with the Mersey, got included.

I suspect that being a suburban electric system with two routes and only seven stations, the Mersey Railway was considered more akin to the likes of the Liverpool Overhead Railway or the Metropolitan and best managed locally. The Wirral Railway was steam operated and had access to Birkenhead Docks - in fact in its later days, the Wirral system was using second hand Coal Tanks bought from the LNWR, which ended up being taken into LMS stock and transferred back to former LNWR sheds once the first LNS tanks arrived on the Wirral.

The Naming of the 'Big Four' - who decided and how? Controversial?

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member