Earlier Nationalisation

[PMN1]

When Nationalisation was suggested by Gladstone and again post WW1 were any plans developed or was it a case of suggestions that this would be a good idea?

 

[Bevan Price]

When Nationalisation was suggested by Gladstone and again post WW1 were any plans developed or was it a case of suggestions that this would be a good idea?

I think that railways were effectively under government control during part of WW1, and someone suggested that it would be a good idea to continue this. Instead, they chose compulsory amalgamation of lots of smaller companies to form the "Big 4".

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I think that railways were effectively under government control during part of WW1, and someone suggested that it would be a good idea to continue this. Instead, they chose compulsory amalgamation of lots of smaller companies to form the "Big 4".

Around a 120 companies into 4 (with a few exceptions) was a "half way house" which should have driven out economies - but very few were achieved on "competing" routes.

For example - the LMS continued express services over the Settle and Carlisle from London , whereas the ex LNWR main line provided much better end to end transits.

 

[Taunton]

For example - the LMS continued express services over the Settle and Carlisle from London , whereas the ex LNWR main line provided much better end to end transits.

This is something that civil servants could never get their head around, they feel that if a train/route runs from London St Pancras to Glasgow St Enoch, it only has passengers travelling between those two points. In fact, under a common organisation, they would have gone by the Euston route anyway. The couple of through trains on the S&C were carrying London to Kilmarnock, Sheffield to Glasgow, Leeds to Carlisle, and such like.

I used to think that the Min of Transport must surely have their sights on the traditional Circle Line on the London Underground, on the basis that nobody would ever go right round on it.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Ironically, Parliament blocked the proposed merger of the GC, GN and GE in 1908 and LNW, L&Y and Midland in 1909 - on competition grounds - only then to create the 'Big 4' as the situation post WW1 dramatically changed. Winston Churchill was reputedly in favour of nationalisation then - see Terry Gourvish 'BR 1948-73 - A Business History'.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

This is something that civil servants could never get their head around, they feel that if a train/route runs from London St Pancras to Glasgow St Enoch, it only has passengers travelling between those two points. In fact, under a common organisation, they would have gone by the Euston route anyway. The couple of through trains on the S&C were carrying London to Kilmarnock, Sheffield to Glasgow, Leeds to Carlisle, and such like.

I used to think that the Min of Transport must surely have their sights on the traditional Circle Line on the London Underground, on the basis that nobody would ever go right round on it.

Indeed - and their "Branch line business group" managed to shut about 200 years of redundant Welsh track in their first year - whilst even in the 1930's and before the Big 4 had deep concerns over the economics of many of the minor routes. It was only the 1939 War and intertia that kept the Beeching holocaust (and let us not get carried away with the rights and wrongs of that ) - away till the early / mid 1960's.

 

[Senex]

Ironically, Parliament blocked the proposed merger of the GC, GN and GE in 1908 and LNW, L&Y and Midland in 1909 - on competition grounds - only then to create the 'Big 4' as the situation post WW1 dramatically changed. Winston Churchill was reputedly in favour of nationalisation then - see Terry Gourvish 'BR 1948-73 - A Business History'.

But how could experienced railway managers dare to think up the LMS and the LNER (admittedly without their Scottish portions) before government came up with the idea? This is Britain -- the gentleman in Whitehall always knows best!