Would the grouping work today?

[778]

There are a lot of discussions on this forum about whether the railways should be nationalised again, or if privitisation has been a success, but could something like the grouping (1923-1948) work well today?

The grouping of 1923 (LMS, LNER, GWR and Southern), came about to stop losses being made by the many different railway companies. It is mentioned on wikipedia that nationalisation was ruled out by the transport minister because he viewed that "pre-war competition was wasteful, but was opposed to nationalisation on the grounds that it led to poor management, as well as a mutually corrupting influence between railway and political interests".

Many people think that the 20s and 30s was the best time for the railways in this country. Maybe if the railways had not been nationalised we would still have the big 4 companies today?

I am sure that there are good reasons why the grouping the railways into 4 companies might not work as well today as it did from 1923-1948, but it does seem like the grouping was a happy medium between nationalisation and privitisation.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

There are a lot of discussions on this forum about whether the railways should be nationalised again, or if privitisation has been a success, but could something like the grouping (1923-1948) work well today?

The grouping of 1923 (LMS, LNER, GWR and Southern), came about to stop losses being made by the many different railway companies. It is mentioned on wikipedia that nationalisation was ruled out by the transport minister because he viewed that "pre-war competition was wasteful, but was opposed to nationalisation on the grounds that it led to poor management, as well as a mutually corrupting influence between railway and political interests".

Many people think that the 20s and 30s was the best time for the railways in this country. Maybe if the railways had not been nationalised we would still have the big 4 companies today?

I am sure that there are good reasons why the grouping the railways into 4 companies might not work as well today as it did from 1923-1948, but it does seem like the grouping was a happy medium between nationalisation and privitisation.

It is worth adding that the losses you refer to were almost entirely due to the various railway companies having to do the government's bidding without proper recompense during WW1. Maintenance had also been curtailed somewhat meaning that by war's end just about all the railway companies were in some sort of financial difficulty.

Of course in most European countries nationalised railways were very much the norm. But this country's politics was still shaking off the largely successful Victorian practice of laissez-faire economic management so nationalisation would have been perceived as a step too far. It took another world war and even worse conditions for railway operations before the penny dropped.

As for the 1920s and 1930s being considered as this country's golden age for railways that is surely due largely to the fondness for the significant steam locomotive types developed in that period. In fact railway finances were already going downhill as evidenced by the number of line closures which occurred. In practice any golden age was surely from 1899-1914 ie the time of largest geographic spread and before the beginning of long-term financial decline kicked off by WW1.

In conclusion the conditions which led to the Grouping were not really comparable to those of today so the question is somewhat moot in my view. The important question is more about how we provide for personal mobility in a decarbonised society and whether or not ownership of private road vehicles will or should continue along current lines. Railways will continue to be part of the overall mobility provision but the shape of the network and the pattern of services operating on it could well be rather different to what exists today.

 

[tbtc]

It’d make a change from people worrying about a “monopoly” when two TOCs that overlapped slightly were being run by the same firm - one company handling everything South of the Thames (or everything in the West Midlands etc) might ruffle a few feathers

What about XC? The “big four” existed in an era before modern services that don’t fit neatly into the historic boundaries (Thameslink, Crossrail). What about the current local control in wales/ Merseyside?

But more importantly, given that at least three of the four would need big subsidies (Southern might not need too bad, longer term, assuming commuter demand returns one day, which Certainly isn’t guaranteed…), who’d pay for all of this?

Are you taking about a franchising model with freedom/ flexibility? Or a “contract” like current firms have with the government proscribing everything?

Given that there’d be only four contracts, do you allow one firm to hold more than one at the same time? Because, some firms are likely to abandon their Heavy Rail division if they no longer hold any franchises, so there might not be many bidders when a franchise comes up for renewal.

So would there be much incentive for the incumbent firm to ensure that their bid was competitive if they know that the firms who hold the other three contracts aren’t allowed to bid (to avoid monopolies) but there’d not be any/ many other firms bidding who were score to demonstrate their recent expertise in handling a railway contract, since there were only four contracts in the UK?

Do you include all light rail in the area too, to ensure integration? Buses?

Something certainly needs to be done, the current set up is failing passengers, the government are judge/ jury/ executioner with no accountability or justification necessary

any future railway “model” needs to combine secure medium term subsidies with some flexibility/ guarantees - how do you get the government to relinquish the control they have whilst still urgently needing the huge subsidies required to maintain the “provincial” network?

The more I think about it, the better the decade before Covid looks - five year NR control periods that guaranteed the infrastructure investments, franchises long enough to reward investments without going stale, minimum levels of service etc guaranteed in the tender specifications - but given how much worse things are in 2022, I’d be willing to try something radical if I thought it could work, I’m not automatically against the “big four” idea (in fact, when compared to some of the suggestions on here recently - replacing trains with canal boats… replacing a “parliamentary” service with a half hourly shuttle… building bespoke stock on heavily loss making lines that ought to be closed down instead… even something really strange like opening a railway from okehampton to Tavistock, but I presume that last one was tongue in cheek)

 

[778]

It’d make a change from people worrying about a “monopoly” when two TOCs that overlapped slightly were being run by the same firm - one company handling everything South of the Thames (or everything in the West Midlands etc) might ruffle a few feathers

What about XC? The “big four” existed in an era before modern services that don’t fit neatly into the historic boundaries (Thameslink, Crossrail). What about the current local control in wales/ Merseyside?

But more importantly, given that at least three of the four would need big subsidies (Southern might not need too bad, longer term, assuming commuter demand returns one day, which Certainly isn’t guaranteed…), who’d pay for all of this?

Are you taking about a franchising model with freedom/ flexibility? Or a “contract” like current firms have with the government proscribing everything?

Given that there’d be only four contracts, do you allow one firm to hold more than one at the same time? Because, some firms are likely to abandon their Heavy Rail division if they no longer hold any franchises, so there might not be many bidders when a franchise comes up for renewal.

So would there be much incentive for the incumbent firm to ensure that their bid was competitive if they know that the firms who hold the other three contracts aren’t allowed to bid (to avoid monopolies) but there’d not be any/ many other firms bidding who were score to demonstrate their recent expertise in handling a railway contract, since there were only four contracts in the UK?

Do you include all light rail in the area too, to ensure integration? Buses?

Something certainly needs to be done, the current set up is failing passengers, the government are judge/ jury/ executioner with no accountability or justification necessary

any future railway “model” needs to combine secure medium term subsidies with some flexibility/ guarantees - how do you get the government to relinquish the control they have whilst still urgently needing the huge subsidies required to maintain the “provincial” network?

The more I think about it, the better the decade before Covid looks - five year NR control periods that guaranteed the infrastructure investments, franchises long enough to reward investments without going stale, minimum levels of service etc guaranteed in the tender specifications - but given how much worse things are in 2022, I’d be willing to try something radical if I thought it could work, I’m not automatically against the “big four” idea (in fact, when compared to some of the suggestions on here recently - replacing trains with canal boats… replacing a “parliamentary” service with a half hourly shuttle… building bespoke stock on heavily loss making lines that ought to be closed down instead… even something really strange like opening a railway from okehampton to Tavistock, but I presume that last one was tongue in cheek)

Yes, good point about services that do not fit into historic boundaries. When the railway Act was passed in 1921, there was another suggestion for six english groups (Eastern, North Eastern, North Western, Southern, Western and a London Passenger Group), as well as groups for Ireland (Northern Ireland?) and Scotland. Maybe something like this would be more relavent for the Modern era.

You could have five english groups North Western, North Eastern, Western a South East Group (along the lines of Network South East), and a Freight group. Keep Scotrail and Transport for Wales as they are today as well as Merseyrail. Thameslink would be part of the South East group, but Crossrail and the Overground would stay under TFL control. Cross Country services could be run jointly like the Somerset and Dorset used to be. I would also keep open access operators.

This is just a suggestion, there are probably good reasons that I have not thought of why this could not work.

 

[Grecian 1998]

AIUI the GWR, LMS and LNER made most of their profits through freight - passenger services were never particularly profitable. That type of freight traffic isn't there anymore given that our economy is now more service than manufacturing orientated.

The Southern didn't have a big freight market so was less profitable. This led to practices such as recycling components which was still done many decades after the SR had ceased to exist e.g. the 442s had many components taken from their predecessors the 4REPs.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Of course in most European countries nationalised railways were very much the norm. But this country's politics was still shaking off the largely successful Victorian practice of laissez-faire economic management so nationalisation would have been perceived as a step too far. It took another world war and even worse conditions for railway operations before the penny dropped.

FS was indeed formed in 1905.
SNCF was not formed until 1938 after a period of amalgamations, Renfe not till 1940 (largely to reconstruct Spanish railways after the civil war).
DR was formed in 1920 but was notionally a private company between 1924 and 1937 (with the state as the sole shareholder).
German Railways continued the former state (Land) operations for many years, and have essentially gone back that way more recently
Austria had to reconstruct its state railway (formerly a mix of public and private) within sharply reduced borders after 1918.
One of its early policy decisions was to electrify rapidly as it had lost its coal reserves, mainly to Czechoslovakia, and had no oil.

I would agree that the grouping was not really a railway golden age, despite some technical advances.
The peak for GB railways was the Edwardian period up to 1914, when the world changed.