Was the GWR really so conservative?

[wasabi]

The post from Keith HC says it all to me - the GWR was the only one paying a dividend after the war.,  The railway companies were there to provide a return to their shareholders and without that would not have been able to raise more capital to restore war damage, let alone pay a dividend - hence nationalisation was almost inevitable.  I would like to see comparisons of who provided the best returns to shareholders (capital plus any dividends) rather than who had the fastest locomotives.  Is there any record anywhere of how profitable the Cheltenham Flyer actually was?  (The publicity value would have been good, but who costed that in those times?).

 

The best locomotives for the shareholders were not the ones with the most advanced superheaters but those that shifted the most tonnage at the lowest cost. 

[LMS2968]

39 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

Frequently lost to the casual observer or fan, but the people running things really don't necessarily go for change for the sake of change.  If the goal is to run the business efficiently (whether that is to make a profit, or to minimize subsidies) you have to consider not only if the potential improvements improve the balance sheet, but whether the resources spent could have achieved better results being spent on improving other parts of the business

This was very much the case from the Traffic's point of view: it works alright so let's have some more of the same. It isn't, or shouldn't be, the point of view from the Engineers' perspective, which should be: we've got something that works; lets try to make it better.

[Denbridge]

20 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

 

Locomotive-wise, that's probably a fair comment, especially in the mid-1930s, where loco design did start to stagnate. But then, a valid question is, what was there traffic-wise that demanded a new approach?

 

For coaches however, Collett was a revelation compared to the bizarre concoctions of Churchward.

 

Since the Churchward design formulae was at least 30 years ahead of everyone else, did Swindon really stagnate? It's designs from both Churchward and Collett did everything required of them, efficiently and reliably. Swindon built locomotives ran more miles between overhauls than any in the UK. Indeed, a GW engine stopped for attention would still have closer tolerances than Crewe or Doncaster could build new.

It was only with the onset of WW2 and after, when the GW could no longer rely on the availability of Good quality Welsh coal, that apparent shortcomings were highlighted. This shouldn't be taken as stagnation. Had those designs been able to use the fuel they were designed for, they would not have recieved any justifiable criticisms.  No, in the kings and castles,  they had the perfect tools for the job, so why change?

[JimC]

2 minutes ago, wasabi said:

 (The publicity value would have been good, but who costed that in those times?).

The GWR for one. Felix Pole's (general manager of the GWR in the 1920s) book is full of the importance he places on what he calls (jarringly to modern ears)  propaganda.

[mdvle]

1 minute ago, LMS2968 said:

This was very much the case from the Traffic's point of view: it works alright so let's have some more of the same. It isn't, or shouldn't be, the point of view from the Engineers' perspective, which should be: we've got something that works; lets try to make it better.

 

I'm not disagreeing, but rather even the Engineer is at the end of the day constrained by budgets.

 

Is it better to try and get some small improvements out of a loco, or do you as the person in charge use your resources to improve say the coaches (as mentioned earlier in this thread) which at the time presented the company with a better return on investment of company resources?

 

I am sure they kept thinking about and perhaps even doing some experiments in the shops, but at the end of the day the company had other things to fund that provided a far better return.

[Denbridge]

2 hours ago, kevinlms said:

My understanding is that Stanier, specifically didn't want to just Great Westernise the LMS.

 

He could easily have done so, but made a point of ordering the original copper topped top feed cover of his first LMS loco class the 2-6-0, to be removed.

 

No, he wanted some features of GWR practice (notably the tapered boilers), but much was of different designs, especially drive layouts.

 

But let's face it, there was a lot wrong with LMS locomotive practice in 1932, of which Stamp was fully aware and headhunted Stanier (to use a modern term), specifically to address these issues.

 

It has to be said, Stanier did a terrific job for the LMS and largely his ideas were used right to the end of steam construction by BR. Would he have been able to achieve the same on the GWR, probably not.

Where it mattered ie beneath the pretty bits, Stanier did indeed  Swindonise the LMS. His designs unashamedly were Churchward in the areas that really mattered. A fact that Stanier credited at every opportunity. 

[JimC]

I guess as big an argument as anything against excess conservatism on the GWR is ATC.  How many preventable accidents were there on other lines?

[Edwin_m]

The GWR was the only one to get a significant number of diesel railcars into service.  

[D9020 Nimbus]

The GWR was also the only railway not to have any electrification at Nationalisation—ATC was incompatible with electrified lines. The LNER and LMS were collaborating on the development of the Hudd system—which after further development became the standard AWS system.

[Steamport Southport]

29 minutes ago, Denbridge said:

Where it mattered ie beneath the pretty bits, Stanier did indeed  Swindonise the LMS. His designs unashamedly were Churchward in the areas that really mattered. A fact that Stanier credited at every opportunity. 

 

The only thing Stanier brought from the GWR was the taper boilers. Most Stanier designs were just improved LMS designs. Even then they were redesigned by Crewe to get rid of the deficiencies especially when it came to draughting and superheating.

 

Jubilee was an improved Patriot which had it's origins from the LNWR. Stanier Mogul was an improved Crab which led to a Black Five. Rebuilt Scot was a Scot with a taper boiler. The Princess had already been mooted by Fowler (albeit with a parallel boiler). 2-6-2Ts and 2-6-4Ts were Fowler designs with taper boilers.

 

 

Besides most GWR "innovations" were nicked from the French, Belgians and Americans. The "ground breaking" Churchward 2-6-0 was a pure copy of an American design which had been used for decades.

 

GWR thirty years ahead? Total nonsense. 

 

 

 

Jason

Edited November 14, 2019 by Steamport Southport

[LMS2968]

31 minutes ago, JimC said:

I guess as big an argument as anything against excess conservatism on the GWR is ATC.  How many preventable accidents were there on other lines?

But the other lines went for colour light signals, especially at the distants, while the GWR stayed with semaphores. Colour lights were easier to see and interpret so less likely to be overrun, reducing the need for ATC. And before it is said, even the BR AWS did not eliminate SPADs.

 

But we can go on like this forever - and probably will - showing how each chosen company was - in some small way - superior to all the others.

[JimC]

1 hour ago, LMS2968 said:

But we can go on like this forever - and probably will - showing how each chosen company was - in some small way - superior to all the others.

 

For sure. And everyone will have their own slant, some more credible than others. Its enough to say that under Collett the GWR was notably progressive in engineering matters, but less so in designing new locomotives.

[Nearholmer]

KeithHC

 

what is your source for your statement about dividends?

 

I ask, because it doesn’t ring true, but I may be suffering from false memory syndrome.

 

Another thing to question, incidentally, is which of the big four was looked upon well enough as a business prospect to allow it to raise new capital after WW2.

 

The GWR wasn’t wholly conservative, and they had some good business plans in the late 1940s, but they certainly don’t seem to have been as nippy on their feet as was the SR under Walker, possibly because they were a primarily goods railway (check the figures), which was a sorely difficult market to be in, much worse than having a large lump of spreading suburbia to serve with passenger trains.

[Denbridge]

2 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

The only thing Stanier brought from the GWR was the taper boilers. Most Stanier designs were just improved LMS designs. Even then they were redesigned by Crewe to get rid of the deficiencies especially when it came to draughting and superheating.

 

Jubilee was an improved Patriot which had it's origins from the LNWR. Stanier Mogul was an improved Crab which led to a Black Five. Rebuilt Scot was a Scot with a taper boiler. The Princess had already been mooted by Fowler (albeit with a parallel boiler). 2-6-2Ts and 2-6-4Ts were Fowler designs with taper boilers.

 

 

Besides most GWR "innovations" were nicked from the French, Belgians and Americans. The "ground breaking" Churchward 2-6-0 was a pure copy of an American design which had been used for decades.

 

GWR thirty years ahead? Total nonsense. 

 

 

 

Jason

Stanier cylinder design was entirely Churchward in the design of the steam passages. His valve gear was Churchward in regard of lap and lead. His draughting and the free flow of exhaust gases were also pure Churchward.  Yes Churchward took ideas from other countries and designers as any engineer would. His genius was refining and improving those elements and then combine them to create the finest machines the railways had seen up to that point. And, indeed for many years following. Where Churchward led, others followed. A fact acknowledged by every CME. It is only enthusiasts who dispute the reality.

[Bernard Lamb]

2 hours ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

The GWR was also the only railway not to have any electrification at Nationalisation—ATC was incompatible with electrified lines. The LNER and LMS were collaborating on the development of the Hudd system—which after further development became the standard AWS system.

Why would you even think about electricity as a power source when you had an endless supply of very good cheap Welsh coal?

Bernard

[Nearholmer]

Technically, and very being very picky, the GWR did have one electrified Line: the Hammersmith Branch.

 

Electrification needed, still does need, heavy/dense/high-earnings traffic to cover the capital cost, and there wasn’t a single bit of truly busy, high-earning and choked, main-line on the GWR.
 

Their London suburban traffic was not dense enough to justify it either; I’m less sure about Birmingham suburban, because I don’t know the area so well.

 

To me, the GWR c1946 was perfect diesel, not electric (or gas turbine!) territory, and they might have done well to follow-through on a proto-HST, or proto-midland Pullman, idea that they explored in the 1930s, using diesel-electric power cars.

 

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Denbridge]

2 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

The only thing Stanier brought from the GWR was the taper boilers. Most Stanier designs were just improved LMS designs. Even then they were redesigned by Crewe to get rid of the deficiencies especially when it came to draughting and superheating.

 

Jubilee was an improved Patriot which had it's origins from the LNWR. Stanier Mogul was an improved Crab which led to a Black Five. Rebuilt Scot was a Scot with a taper boiler. The Princess had already been mooted by Fowler (albeit with a parallel boiler). 2-6-2Ts and 2-6-4Ts were Fowler designs with taper boilers.

 

 

Besides most GWR "innovations" were nicked from the French, Belgians and Americans. The "ground breaking" Churchward 2-6-0 was a pure copy of an American design which had been used for decades.

 

GWR thirty years ahead? Total nonsense. 

 

 

 

Jason

Swindon superheating wasnt deficient. It was perfect for the lubrication of the era .in fact Castles, amongst others, when fitted with four row high temp superheaters suffered more in service failures than their un-modified counterparts. 

The jubilees original draughting had to be redesigned because they were strangled by the exhaust. The original draughting was changed from what had previously been successful. The modified engines bore a marked resemblance to Churchward principles.

[Metropolitan H]

18 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

KeithHC

 

what is your source for your statement about dividends?

 

I ask, because it doesn’t ring true, but I may be suffering from false memory syndrome.

 

Another thing to question, incidentally, is which of the big four was looked upon well enough as a business prospect to allow it to raise new capital after WW2.

 

The GWR wasn’t wholly conservative, and they had some good business plans in the late 1940s, but they certainly don’t seem to have been as nippy on their feet as was the SR under Walker, possibly because they were a primarily goods railway (check the figures), which was a sorely difficult market to be in, much worse than having a large lump of spreading suburbia to serve with passenger trains.

K,

 

"History of the Great Western Railway" - Peter Semmens - 3 (slim) Volumes -

- 1 - Consolidation 1923-29.

- 2 - The Thirties 1930 - 39.

- 3 - Wartime and the Final Years 1939-48.

 

They give a very informative and balanced view - including how the money was earned and spent - along with dividends etc. It is clear that the GWR shareholders did much better in 1946 and in the buy-out on Nationalisation.

 

I have the set here - having received them from the same source as the Chilterns and Cotswolds book. They will be passed to you for study (with homework) shortly.

 

Regards

Chris H

[Nearholmer]

And that compares dividends with the others? K

[Metropolitan H]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

And that compares dividends with the others? K

Yes.

[LMS2968]

17 hours ago, Denbridge said:

Since the Churchward design formulae was at least 30 years ahead of everyone else, did Swindon really stagnate? It's designs from both Churchward and Collett did everything required of them, efficiently and reliably. Swindon built locomotives ran more miles between overhauls than any in the UK. Indeed, a GW engine stopped for attention would still have closer tolerances than Crewe or Doncaster could build new.

It was only with the onset of WW2 and after, when the GW could no longer rely on the availability of Good quality Welsh coal, that apparent shortcomings were highlighted. This shouldn't be taken as stagnation. Had those designs been able to use the fuel they were designed for, they would not have recieved any justifiable criticisms.  No, in the kings and castles,  they had the perfect tools for the job, so why change?

Spoken like a true Traffic man!

 

Sorry, but there is no such thing as 'perfect'; there is always room for improvement. The true engineer knows this and strives for better things, sometimes hindered by a complacent Traffic Department. The Midland was very good at that, but it wasn't alone.

[Zomboid]

Engineering is about providing the most efficient solution to meet a given spec.

You can nearly always get better performance, but if it's not needed then a decent engineer won't produce something more expensive/ complex for the sake of it.

 

However, operations departments are usually not the ones driving innovation or enhancement, and unambitious specification leads to stagnant technology. In my experience and engineer needs to strive for better, understand what problems their latest developments solve/ ease, and be able to sell that improvement to operations departments who are often reluctant to change away from what they know and understand. A balance needs to be struck...

[Compound2632]

21 hours ago, Aire Head said:

Absolutely if the Great Western was conservative it's fair to say the Midland was Conservative with a capital C!

 

I think that statement is hard to justify. Both railways (all railways) invested money where there was the prospect of it giving an adequate return. In the case of the Midland in the last 20 years of its existence, money was put into renewing the locomotive fleet to operate the railway economically withing the infrastructure constraints and changing traffic conditions - so the superheated 483 Class 4-4-0s and G7-boilered Class 3 goods engines went hand-in-hand with underbidge renewal, centralised traffic control, and traffic pooling agreements with other companies - particularly the LNWR. Other companies reacted to the harsher trading conditions of the early to mid 20th century in their own ways. 

[Legend]

I've always thought of the GWR as being more cohesive than conservative .  Green locos with clear familly resemblance, Choc and Cream coaches etc .  But this was the company that gave us Autocoaches for branchlines, trying to reduce costs long before Beeching . And along similar lines  they had the most succesful diesel railcars , Art Deco styling .  Didn't they also have a plan to electrify their main line . Vaguely remember that from an article in a Railway World Annual . So not sure I'd agree with conservative .

[Aire Head]

37 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I think that statement is hard to justify. Both railways (all railways) invested money where there was the prospect of it giving an adequate return. In the case of the Midland in the last 20 years of its existence, money was put into renewing the locomotive fleet to operate the railway economically withing the infrastructure constraints and changing traffic conditions - so the superheated 483 Class 4-4-0s and G7-boilered Class 3 goods engines went hand-in-hand with underbidge renewal, centralised traffic control, and traffic pooling agreements with other companies - particularly the LNWR. Other companies reacted to the harsher trading conditions of the early to mid 20th century in their own ways. 

 

The comment was made in the context of Locomotive design with reference to how the Midland dominance in that department certainly hindered the LMS in terms of modernisation aswell.

 

The midland was certainly very progressive in certain respects - the abolition of 2nd class, introduction of pullmans and running more frequent services.

 

Locomotive design certainly was conservative.