What if James Allport remained manager of the MS&L?

[1165Valour]

In Volume 1 of his history of the MS&L/GCR, George Dow laments James Allport's departure from the MS&L for the Midland. Under Allport's leadership, the Midland became a major trunk line, and his forward-thinking led to the provision of third class on all trains, and the abolition of second class.

 

Had Allport stayed with the MS&L, how could the history of that company have been altered?

Edited May 15, 2020 by GWRSwindon

[PenrithBeacon]

One of the constant issues for the MS&L was the need to grow large enough to make it difficult for one or more of the larger railways to take it over. This caused Watkin to do what appear to be unnecessary and unprofitable  things but which added to the companies capital stock. It may well be that Allport wouldn't have adopted this approach but it is likely that the MS&L would have been leased (which nearly happened once) and then broken up by predators.

The 1890s extension to London and the subsuming of the LDECR made the GCR too big to take over. The LDECR was hugely profitable for the GCR (loads of coal) but the London extension much less so. Both the LNER and BR treated the extension beyond Banbury as an unprofitable branch line. 

Cheers

[Compound2632]

10 hours ago, GWRSwindon said:

Had Allport stayed with the MS&L, how could the history of that company have been altered?

 

Firstly, one has to remember that Allport started out on one of the Midland's constituents, as Goods Agent at Hampton on the B&DJR, living next door to Matthew Kirtley, who was Locomotive Foreman there. 

 

I suspect that if Allport had remained with the Sheffield company, we would now be looking back on it as the second-greatest of the pre-grouping companies, marvelling at the gothic splendour of its London terminus and the magnificence of its line to Carlisle.

[Compound2632]

When Allport left the Sheffield company for Derby in 1853, his successor as General Manager was Edward Watkin. Now Watkin had learned his trade on the Trent Valley and then LNWR as right-hand-man to the notorious Capt. Mark Huish, whereas Allport was from the camp of the (equally notorious) George Hudson - after the Midland amalgamation in 1844, he'd gone to the YN&B before the MS&L. So one might expect rather different styles of management, though both driven by ambition. In fact, during Allport's time on the Midland, relations between the two companies - which really didn't tread on each other's toes much in the 1850s/60s - seem to have been amicable enough, with considerable cooperation for mutual benefit in Lancashire, through the Midland & Sheffield Joint Committee and of course the Cheshire Lines Committee. It seem to me that it was only after Allport's retirement in 1880 that Watkin started to become particularly combative towards the Midland.