Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
I've always thought that the inclusion of the Great North of Scotland Railway in the LNER was a bit of a strange choice geographically as it was effectively isolated from the rest of the system. Historically the GNOSR and the Highland Railway were bitter enemies, but latterly had even got to the stage of considering amalgamation!
I've always thought that the inclusion of the Great North of Scotland Railway in the LNER was a bit of a strange choice geographically as it was effectively isolated from the rest of the system. Historically the GNOSR and the Highland Railway were bitter enemies, but latterly had even got to the stage of considering amalgamation!
I wonder if they were the two that nobody wanted, so once it was down to two companies in Scotland, it was just ‘one each and tough’. In some ways it might have been more logical to give the Highland to the LNER, what with the NBR getting as far as Hilton Junction, but it might have been felt that would hardly be equitable as they already were lumbered with the Mallaig line.
One of the weaknesses of the grouping was that companies were simply amalgamated and all the arrangements for running powers, joint lines etc were preserved in aspic. There was no attempt to eliminate wasteful duplication or swap detached lines to achieve a more efficient network. This was left to BR by which time it was far too late.
The Southern did sort out the Isle of Thanet and concentrate boat trains on Victoria. It also opened negotiations with the GWR in Devon and Cornwall - was there really a need for rival stations in Barnstaple, Bodmin or Launceston?
One of the weaknesses of the grouping was that companies were simply amalgamated and all the arrangements for running powers, joint lines etc were preserved in aspic. There was no attempt to eliminate wasteful duplication or swap detached lines to achieve a more efficient network. This was left to BR by which time it was far too late.
The Southern did sort out the Isle of Thanet and concentrate boat trains on Victoria. It also opened negotiations with the GWR in Devon and Cornwall - was there really a need for rival stations in Barnstaple, Bodmin or Launceston?
Reading the 1920 White Paper there seems to be an expectation by Government that the new companies would take their own actions to eliminate duplication and reduce running costs to ensure their economic working as a matter of self-interest. (?)
The questionable part of the grouping seems to have been the LNWR and Midland merger- both lines with routes from London to many of the major cities in that part of the country. I think five companies, with the L and Y joining the Midland (due to the Midland not having it's own Manchester-Leeds line) would have been the most sensible answer. Obviously, an LNWR-Lancashire and Yorkshire merger had been carefully investigated just before grouping.
One of the weaknesses of the grouping was that companies were simply amalgamated and all the arrangements for running powers, joint lines etc were preserved in aspic. There was no attempt to eliminate wasteful duplication or swap detached lines to achieve a more efficient network. This was left to BR by which time it was far too late.
Presumably there was nothing to prevent the amalgamated companies to enter into negotiations to eliminate duplications or swap routes had here been an appetite to do so.
The Southern did sort out the Isle of Thanet and concentrate boat trains on Victoria. It also opened negotiations with the GWR in Devon and Cornwall - was there really a need for rival stations in Barnstaple, Bodmin or Launceston?
The Southern did manage to sort out some minor internal duplications. For example the LSW station in Leatherhead was closed, as was the LBSC station in Epsom..
The questionable part of the grouping seems to have been the LNWR and Midland merger- both lines with routes from London to many of the major cities in that part of the country. I think five companies, with the L and Y joining the Midland (due to the Midland not having it's own Manchester-Leeds line) would have been the most sensible answer. Obviously, an LNWR-Lancashire and Yorkshire merger had been carefully investigated just before grouping.
One problem that may not have been taken into account by the Government was the continued loyalty to the individual companies. This was particularly true of the LNWR and MR merger - it seems that it wasn't until Sir Josiah Stamp came in from outside industry and became Chairman that these two railways started to become more united. It was Stamp, of course, who brought in Stanier from the GWR to successfully overcome the MR's policy of 'small engines' they had persisted with for many years before the Grouping and tried to continue with afterwards.
Presumably there was nothing to prevent the amalgamated companies to enter into negotiations to eliminate duplications or swap routes had here been an appetite to do so.......
There wasn't anything to prevent the amalgamated companies from such actions; just that many of them seemed to be wary of grasping such nettles, possibly because of the company loyalties I mention above!
A MR/GCR combination to create a fifth company would have been fascinating, especially if it had also got the GSWR. I do wonder if route rationalisation would then have started across the Midlands.
That could have left the LNWR, with the L&Y and Caledonian, to have also taken the Cambrian as originally proposed.
As for the LNER I always wondered why they never considered GNER, given that Great was already in the GER, GNR and GCR.
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,
I think it had to be done that simple way because they lacked any systems to monitor which way wagons actually went. Gerry Fiennes, from his early days with LNER, wrote of every depot receiving strings of telegrams each morning to look for wagons that had become unaccounted for.
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)
A friend and senior railway historian with a strong interest in the NER told me the Raven proposal to electrify to Scotland encountered issues of corruption in the NBR boardroom
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
One problem that may not have been taken into account by the Government was the continued loyalty to the individual companies. This was particularly true of the LNWR and MR merger - it seems that it wasn't until Sir Josiah Stamp came in from outside industry and became Chairman that these two railways started to become more united. It was Stamp, of course, who brought in Stanier from the GWR to successfully overcome the MR's policy of 'small engines' they had persisted with for many years before the Grouping and tried to continue with afterwards.
There wasn't anything to prevent the amalgamated companies from such actions; just that many of them seemed to be wary of grasping such nettles, possibly because of the company loyalties I mention above!
Three of the four were quite amicable, no hard feelings, imagine the cash-strapped Cambrian entering the save haven of the GWR.
The LMS the issue, LNWR, L&Y , the Midland, cats and dogs trapped in a kennel, the Midland won control, wily barrister Sir Guy Granet at the top, some of the casualties such as CME's the gifted Richard Deeley, and George Hughes, Hughes of the L&Y hatching a scheme to electrify the LNWR's Crewe to Carlisle line over Shap, all too much, he became a casualty, later the LMS ran into issues, the legacy of Sir Guy, Stanier to thevrescue
One of the weaknesses of the grouping was that companies were simply amalgamated and all the arrangements for running powers, joint lines etc were preserved in aspic. There was no attempt to eliminate wasteful duplication or swap detached lines to achieve a more efficient network. This was left to BR by which time it was far too late.
The Southern did sort out the Isle of Thanet and concentrate boat trains on Victoria. It also opened negotiations with the GWR in Devon and Cornwall - was there really a need for rival stations in Barnstaple, Bodmin or Launceston?
The questionable part of the grouping seems to have been the LNWR and Midland merger- both lines with routes from London to many of the major cities in that part of the country. I think five companies, with the L and Y joining the Midland (due to the Midland not having it's own Manchester-Leeds line) would have been the most sensible answer. Obviously, an LNWR-Lancashire and Yorkshire merger had been carefully investigated just before grouping.
I have wondered why the LMS did not concentrate London - Manchester traffic on the LNW route, which surely must have been faster (and shorter?) most, if not all years throughout LMS ownership. It came in useful to have the Midland route in 57-66 of course, when electrifying the West Coast.
One wonders how popular versus the Euston line trains the Midland trains to Manchester were in LMS years. Of course, there were also Marylebone - Manchester trains then too - but they were surely not competitive when it came to schedules.
St Pancras even had Scottish relief trains to Glasgow as late as 62 or even 63 in the summer.
I have wondered why the LMS did not concentrate London - Manchester traffic on the LNW route, which surely must have been faster (and shorter?) most, if not all years throughout LMS ownership. It came in useful to have the Midland route in 57-66 of course, when electrifying the West Coast.
One wonders how popular versus the Euston line trains the Midland trains to Manchester were in LMS years. Of course, there were also Marylebone - Manchester trains then too - but they were surely not competitive when it came to schedules.
St Pancras even had Scottish relief trains to Glasgow as late as 62 or even 63 in the summer.
I guess there was the East Mids. to Manchester market still to serve and it made sense to continue with through services rather than split them. Even the LNE ( GC) route from Nottingham to Manchester was competitive, despite the many speed (mining subsidence) restrictions to Sheffield.
The LMS by the late '30s did abandon express services to Halifax and Bradford (Ex) via the aborted 'West Riding Lines' (Royston to Thorhill). It also pretty much gave up competing with the LNE on Manchester to Sheffield - by early BR days there was just a stopping service from Chinley to Sheffield (Mid).
Reading the 1920 White Paper there seems to be an expectation by Government that the new companies would take their own actions to eliminate duplication and reduce running costs to ensure their economic working as a matter of self-interest. (?)
I have wondered why the LMS did not concentrate London - Manchester traffic on the LNW route, which surely must have been faster (and shorter?) most, if not all years throughout LMS ownership. It came in useful to have the Midland route in 57-66 of course, when electrifying the West Coast.
One wonders how popular versus the Euston line trains the Midland trains to Manchester were in LMS years. Of course, there were also Marylebone - Manchester trains then too - but they were surely not competitive when it came to schedules.
St Pancras even had Scottish relief trains to Glasgow as late as 62 or even 63 in the summer.
I would imagine management had their hands full with other problems. Changing passenger routing would generate had news.. In any event, freight was the money earner and had plenty of problems that needed addressing.
I have wondered why the LMS did not concentrate London - Manchester traffic on the LNW route, which surely must have been faster (and shorter?) most, if not all years throughout LMS ownership. It came in useful to have the Midland route in 57-66 of course, when electrifying the West Coast.
One wonders how popular versus the Euston line trains the Midland trains to Manchester were in LMS years. Of course, there were also Marylebone - Manchester trains then too - but they were surely not competitive when it came to schedules.
St Pancras even had Scottish relief trains to Glasgow as late as 62 or even 63 in the summer.
I would think that the railway’s habit of ‘we’ve always done it that way’ was probably a factor. A second could have been that with Derby having defeated Crewe, the Midland route wasn’t going to be downgraded.
I would suspect that passengers’ preferences didn’t change and via Rugby was still seen by most as the natural way to Manchester and Scotland. The Midland route, despite all the efforts, never really achieved the public status of The Premier Line for places they both served.
One thing that surprises me was that the Hull & Barnsley Railway (H&BR), built to compete with the North Eastern Railway (NER), became part of the LNER along with that same NER! Would the H&BR not have been better as part of the LMS, especially given its link with the Midland Railway at Cudworth?
One thing that surprises me was that the Hull & Barnsley Railway (H&BR), built to compete with the North Eastern Railway (NER), became part of the LNER along with that same NER! Would the H&BR not have been better as part of the LMS, especially given its link with the Midland Railway at Cudworth?
The White Paper explicitly wanted the grouping to be based on 'operating economy' and aimed to eliminate 'direct competition'. The aim was regulated regional monopolies. The Hull and Barnsley would not fit in to that.
Perhaps typically, parts of it were already out-of-date from the beginning. They wanted to stimulate the development of light railways to extend the reach of the railway when the growth of road transport after WW1 was making them unnecessary.
One thing that surprises me was that the Hull & Barnsley Railway (H&BR), built to compete with the North Eastern Railway (NER), became part of the LNER along with that same NER! Would the H&BR not have been better as part of the LMS, especially given its link with the Midland Railway at Cudworth?
I have always understood that the inclusion of the Lancashire & Yorkshire in the London & North Western and that of the Hull & Barnsley in the North Eastern were just part of the Grouping. Although the official date was 1 January 1923, the companies were left to get on with it once ‘who amalgamated with who’ was settled and if the railway management were happy to ‘jump the gun’, then the government wasn’t going to interfere. The same presumably applies to all the Welsh constituents of the Great Western. Such was the complexity of the amalgamations, several companies, notably the Caledonian and North Staffordshire didn’t complete until well after 1 January 1923. Due to the mess it was in it was well into 1924 that the Mid-Suffolk was finally grouped.
I have always understood that the inclusion of the Lancashire & Yorkshire in the London & North Western and that of the Hull & Barnsley in the North Eastern were just part of the Grouping. Although the official date was 1 January 1923, the companies were left to get on with it once ‘who amalgamated with who’ was settled and if the railway management were happy to ‘jump the gun’, then the government wasn’t going to interfere. The same presumably applies to all the Welsh constituents of the Great Western. Such was the complexity of the amalgamations, several companies, notably the Caledonian and North Staffordshire didn’t complete until well after 1 January 1923. Due to the mess it was in it was well into 1924 that the Mid-Suffolk was finally grouped.
The 1921 Act explicitly allowed companies to put forward 'preliminary schemes' for mergers or takeovers within a group in advance of the main scheme. Everything had to be approved by the Amalgamation Tribunal.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
