Jump to content
 

UK railways with a different WW2


DavidB-AU
 Share

Recommended Posts

Following on from UK Railways Without the Great War, I thought about what might have happened to the the railways without WW2. I can't actually see an alternate history without some sort of war but here's a what if: France stands up the occupation of the Rhineland in 1936 (which was a huge bluff on Germany's part) and Germany turned its focus to the east. The war starts with Operation Barbarossa in 1941, Italy makes a move on Egypt at the same time, the Pacific happens anyway in December. The big differences are no hot war in western or northern Europe (maybe a tense cold war along Germany's western border), no Railway Executive Committee, no Blitz, no North Atlantic campaign, no American involvement in Europe (only in the Pacific).

 

First thing I can see is the Salter Report might be implemented in full. Some more cooperation between the railway companies to keep long-haul goods off the roads, but possibly some branch line closures and replaced with local road traffic. This might have improved the financial positions of the railways in general.

 

I can see some increase in traffic anyway. The BEF may still be in France and Belgium, there would be troop transport and munitions for Egypt and the Pacific, and possibly munitions for Russia. But there probably wouldn't have been mass evacuations, fewer places "closed for the duration" and people would probably still go on holidays. Railway workshops may not have been taken over to produce war materials, or just spare capacity may have been used.

 

What projects that were delayed or abandoned because of the war might have gone ahead? Would GWR have got its diesels earlier and started electrification of the Devon Banks? Would the LNER and LMS have kept pushing speed records? Would SR have spread slidey rail further and got new express passenger locomotives? Would the Northern Heights project have gone ahead?

 

Would nationalisation have gone ahead?

 

Cheers

David

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

What was the Northern Heights project?

 

I guess one easy win is that M-SW and Shenfield electrification might have been completed earlier, say mid to late 1940's. M-SW may have been extended further west, to Old Trafford, and East to Doncaster, as I believe was originally contemplated.

Not sure about the GW electrifying the South Devon hills, but Dawlish may have got it's inland diversion, as I believe that had actually got as far as taking possession of some land before war intervened.

Euston may have had a major rebuilding, and commuter services on the Midland diverted to the new station, as this was planned by the LMS, along with new open plan sliding door EMU's for the DC lines.

I think nationalisation would have happened anyway eventually, as the Big 4 weren't in a great place even before the war.

Edited by rodent279
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

What was the Northern Heights project?

 

London Passenger Transport Board taking over the LNER line from Finsbury Park to Edgware and an extension to Bushey Heath.

 

Here's a great video about it.

 

 

Cheers

David

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't you have to first look at how far the truck/car developed during the war years as opposed to how quickly they would have developed otherwise.
Just that alone would have a big bearing on how the railways developed and/ or lost traffic after the war!

Khris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pity he didn't include the other unfinished bit, Finsbury Park to AllyPally and Finchley to link the Northern City Line to the Northern Heights. that was actually electrified but never saw an electric train except when stock was being transferred and being hauled by battery locos.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SR would have finished the Chessington branch through Ashtead North to Leatherhead. 

Railway nationalisation would have surely happened the next time a radical Labour government was elected.

Edited by JimC
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, kandc_au said:

Wouldn't you have to first look at how far the truck/car developed during the war years as opposed to how quickly they would have developed otherwise.
Just that alone would have a big bearing on how the railways developed and/ or lost traffic after the war!

 

Enough of the war was left in elsewhere that the truck/car development wouldn't have been significantly delayed (at least from a world perspective).  Which only leaves how much of the technology would have arrived and when to the UK.

 

Really the likely biggest change given the parameters wouldn't be on land but at sea - no U-boat wolfpacks sinking shipping as with the shift to the east there is no need to prevent shipments from the US - and without any direct threats to western Europe it likely ends up easier to keep the US from supplying much anyway.

 

This in turn opens up the possibility of the UK exporting during this era, and with a thriving industrial sector this in turn leads to short term good news for the railways in goods traffic, but also likely hastens the investment in roads and vehicles as industry demands the efficiencies they provide.

 

Which means at some point nationalization is coming, though perhaps delayed a bit, as the railways inevitably move to the money-losing passenger focus - and still have to deal with the inherent conflicts of far too much in the way of lines and infrastructure for a road focused era and the desires for individual towns/communities to have (government mandated) competition or regulated fares.

 

But in the process you perhaps end up leaving BR with a healthier system to inherit as the pre-ww2 depression era government funded projects to modernize the railways don't get interrupted.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DavidB-AU said:

Following on from UK Railways Without the Great War, I thought about what might have happened to the the railways without WW2. I can't actually see an alternate history without some sort of war but here's a what if: France stands up the occupation of the Rhineland in 1936 (which was a huge bluff on Germany's part) and Germany turned its focus to the east. The war starts with Operation Barbarossa in 1941, Italy makes a move on Egypt at the same time, the Pacific happens anyway in December. The big differences are no hot war in western or northern Europe (maybe a tense cold war along Germany's western border), no Railway Executive Committee, no Blitz, no North Atlantic campaign, no American involvement in Europe (only in the Pacific).

....................................

Cheers

David

 

 

I don't think your alternate time line works OK France and Britain could have stood up to Germany in 1936, which would perhaps have toppled Hitler from power and prevented WW2. But if he survived in power that then leaves a problem with operation Barbarossa in that the only sensible route into Russia from Germany is through Poland, and we all know what happens if Germany invades Poland.

 

Even with the British Army distracted by Dunkirk and unfriendly Germany tourists lining the French Channel coast, the British forces defending Egypt went through the invading Italian troops like a hot knife through butter. I doubt Italy would have dared to go to war with a Britain that they did not think had already been beaten by Germany, and if they did without German interference the Royal Navy would have closed the Mediterranean to Italian shipping overnight.  The Italian advance into Egypt would probably have got about as far as Rome in six months.

 

Without a war in the West the Dutch and British would then have been able to heavily reinforce their possessions in the Far East, and the American Pacific fleet not having to provide so many ships in the Atlantic would also have been stronger. So the Japanese would have had to consider that they would have much stronger opposition than in the real world, and we know that many in Japan were warning that the USA alone would steam roller Japan under with its industrial power. Without a war in the West there would also have been no Taranto so the Japanese might not have got the idea for the attack on Pearl Harbour. Then without a cunning plan to beat America on day one of the war the Japanese would have had to further consider their chances in a slogging war against the USA, British Empire and the Dutch. Bearing in mind that one of the things that drove the Japanese into war was that the Americans cut off their oil supply, Japan being very short of domestic energy supplies. The prospect of a long drawn out naval war against the odds and starting out with no fuel reserves would probably have made even the Japanese think twice.

 

So I think the WW2 alternatives are no WW2, as it happened or Hitler being wise enough not to attack Russia while Britain was unbeaten. With the third option probably ending with the name Berlin replacing Hiroshima in our history books.

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DavidB-AU said:

Following on from UK Railways Without the Great War, I thought about what might have happened to the the railways without WW2. I can't actually see an alternate history without some sort of war but here's a what if: France stands up the occupation of the Rhineland in 1936 (which was a huge bluff on Germany's part) and Germany turned its focus to the east. The war starts with Operation Barbarossa in 1941, Italy makes a move on Egypt at the same time, the Pacific happens anyway in December. The big differences are no hot war in western or northern Europe (maybe a tense cold war along Germany's western border), no Railway Executive Committee, no Blitz, no North Atlantic campaign, no American involvement in Europe (only in the Pacific).

 

 

 

 

How could Operation Barbarossa be the start of your alternative war? For that to happen the Nazis would already have had to invade Poland, which would bring the French and British into the war, just as it did in reality.

 

As soon as Italy moved into Egypt, Britain would have declared war on Italy to protect its interest in the Suez Canal, and as Italy and Germany were allied in the 'Pact Of Steel', in May 1941, that would mean war with Germany. There are all sorts of scenarios that could have come from that.

 

The whole idea is silly because everything in history is so interlinked - cause and effect. You can't change something as major as Fascism taking over half of the world and think that plans for railways in Britain would have still gone ahead.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...