What if? (may be a silly question)

[JimF51]

I'm asking on this sub forum as I suspect people modelling pre-grouping are likely to be familiar with the circumstances leading up to the grouping.

 

However, what if the railways had weathered WW I better, and other circumstances were better, and the grouping had not occured?

 

Would the railways have gone back to their pre-war liveries? Or perhaps more modified versions?

 

Thoughts?

 

Jim F

[buffalo]

Well, it's difficult to envisage better circumstances after such a major war that would have enabled many of the smaller companies to have survived. Without the enforced grouping, it's quite likely that many would have been absorbed by the larger companies in th following years. After all, absorbtion of smaller companies had been going on since the earliest days of the railways.

 

As to liveries, what happened on the GWR may give us some clues. Unlike the other three, the GWR maintained its identity and structure at the grouping, simply absorbing a number of smaller companies. After the war, the GWR reverted to a simplified form of its post-1906 engine livery with polished copper and brass limited to express passenger classes. It introduced a simplified form of its pre-1908 coach livery which was further simplified in several stages through and beyond the twenties. Goods stock appearance was also changed, though primarily in the reduction of size of company initials. Whilst the official documentation invariably presented these changes as cost saving -- how else do you present these things to the board? -- I think they also need to be seen in the context of contemporary style and fashion. Compared with the Edwardian era, fashions in art, architecture and clothing, for example, were much simplified in the twenties.

 

Of course, one might argue that such style changes were themselves products of the post war circumstances, so are not an independant factor in the argument...

 

Nick

[garethashenden]

One option, not exactly equivalent, would be to look at the American railroad system. The US railroads were nationalised between 1917 and 1919 into the USRA for the purpose of supporting the war effort. With the spread of road traffic branchlines dwindled, but it wasn't until the changes of the postwar (WW2) economy that things started to fall apart. By the late '60s/early '70s there were a large number of bankrupt roads leading to the wave of mergers that have resulted in the present arrangement of only a few companies surviving.

 

So yes, without the First World War, or without as much of a strain from it, things would have been different.

[ian@stenochs]

Hi.

 

Interesting question!

 

I can only speak from my knowledge of the G&SWR, which was one of the 2nd division companies, but no less important in its area. Prior to the war there had been attempts at amalgamation with the Midland and it was under constant threat and competition from its neighbour the Caledonian.  The Caley had access to all the major centres the G&SW served except Ayr and even it was subject to a planned extension from the Ayrshire and Lanarkshire line at Kilwinning.  If the war hadn't happened there would probably have been some rationalisation and perhaps amalgamations.  Indeed the G&SWR and Caledonian ferry services stopped direct head to head competition in 1912 realising that cut throat confrontation made little sense from an economic point.

 

However the war did happen and things changed for the worse. As with many of these small local railways its locomotive stock was tailored to its needs and traffic with the result that there were a number of different classes of locomotive all with relatively small numbers in them. As with most businesses after the war its assets were in very poor shape due to overuse and lack of maintenance. Government compensation was not generous and commercial repair prices were sky high due to demand and company workshops were inundated with the backlog of work.  

 

R H Whitelegg had been appointed as CME in august 1918 and immediately the war ended he undertook a rebuilding, renumbering and renewal programme of the motive power.  This was the correct thing to do but he was less than competent at it and many costly mistakes were made.  The standard boiler programme was excellent, even if the boilers themselves were lacking in steaming ability, but the mechanical tinkering was a disaster.  The later left many of the locomotives crippled with power outputs 2/3 their previous levels even with the new boilers.  What he did do was improve the crew facilities with better cabs replacing many of the old Stirling round top cutaway cabs with full full cabs reaching well back over the footplate.  He also spent money on very ornate lining which looked fantastic and was popular with the publicity department but did nothing for the efficiency.  Perhaps this was where his strengths lay as who has not heard about the G&SWR 'Baltic' Tanks!  Big, Bold and very photogenic and a tremendous asset to the public relations department but costly, £16,000 each in 1922, a Duchess 12 years later cost a lot less.   

 

However the railway never recovered its pre war profitability and there was never going to be enough investment to make it pay.  The LMS was the saviour and unfortunately the poor loco condition plus the small size of the fleet meant that rationalisation and standardisation was the only way to go and most of the small locos had gone by the early 30s leaving only the Drummond designs to soldier on.  The LMS in Scotland meant that the Caley took over. Because of the superior numbers, Caley locos became the standard goods engines on the G&SW, Highland and the Caley.  However the memory and loyalty of the loco men was not completely taken over and I still regularly see a retired driver who considers himself a Sou' West man despite the fact he only started on the railway in 1945!

 

We modellers have the best of it as we can recreate a perfect world.

 

Happy modelling,

 

Ian.

[coachmann]

Between 1949 and 1968 we saw the locomotive liveries of the GWR, LNWR and MR still in everyday existence, but only the simplified MR livery as applied by the LMS and simplified GWR livery survived on coaching stock. Teak too would have survived seeing as it did until the mid 1950s. The LSWR coach livery survived 1923 but was steadily reduced in decoration until its eventual demise. So I think we can surmise the pre-group companies would have started to cut back on costs around the depression of 1929. They had already been hit first by the electric tram in cities and towns and again by WW1. The 1930's would have almost certainly impacted as well as WW2 and post-war rationing. The LNWR had gone by 1922 absorbed into the LYR anyway so would the latter have adopted LNWR loco livery as a cost-cutting measure? And what would have happened to coaches? LNW white & plum did not lend itself to simplification as we saw in the 1948 experiments and the dowdy LYR tan and brown would almost certainly have been replaced at some point. When one considers the economics, I would think some lines simply grouped together. The GCR for example might have thrown its lot in with the GWR and some of the southern companies might have joined forces too. The disparate collection of lines in mid and north Wales involving the Cambrian, Midland, LNWR, GCR and GWR might have grouped together, and the mighty GWR would surely have absorbed almost all the south Wales companies in time and even perhaps LNW/LYR on some exchange agreement somewhere else. And how would the GNR, NER and NBR be working the east coast route by the 1930s? 

[MikeOxon]

One of the effects of war is the acceleration of certain technologies. In WW1, the aeroplane was a notable example and, with it, came huge advances in the internal combustion engine.  Without those advances, the railways might have retained a stronger position, since road transport would have been held back. 

 

Nevertheless, I suspect that many of the smaller railways would have been absorbed by the larger, while competition would have driven a search for operating economies.  It is possible that railways would have been stronger drivers for new technology, so that they could have adopted the internal combustion engine ahead of the roads!

 

As with all historical 'what-ifs', there are far too many variables to make sound predictions.  The only true answer is that things would have been different!

[Andy Hayter]

Would they have gone back to their pre-war liveries?  No.

 

Put simply, the loss in labour to engage in such activities as lining out, plus the impact of wartime inflation and its effect on labour costs, would mean that there would not be the people to apply complex liveries and even if labour could be sourced, it would cost too much.  You might be tempted to equate it to the state of our models today.

 

Would they have employed simplified versions of their pre-war liveries?  Possibly, but history both before and after the Great War suggests that many companies would have changed their livery.  It seems that each Senior Engineer had his own ideas for liveries and would have them applied to all new stock and later cascaded to older stock as it came through the shops. 

 

Some liveries (LNWR coach spilt milk for example) would be more prone to becoming dirty (as in visibly unclean) than others and with labour shortages and costs I could envisage them being replaced over time.   Against that of course you could cite the GWR use of cream on its coaches which persisted into BR days, so nothing is certain.

[Huw Griffiths]

The LNWR had gone by 1922 absorbed into the LYR anyway so would the latter have adopted LNWR loco livery as a cost-cutting measure? And what would have happened to coaches? LNW white & plum did not lend itself to simplification as we saw in the 1948 experiments and the dowdy LYR tan and brown would almost certainly have been replaced at some point.

 

Did the LYR absorb the LNWR - or was it the other way round? I'm not sure.

 

However, I seem to recall reading somewhere that, just before the enforced grouping, the LNWR had (on paper at least) taken over the LYR - in an effort to reduce the effectiveness of any Midland owerbase within the grouping.

 

I'm not sure how much (if any truth) there was in this.

 

 

Would they have gone back to their pre-war liveries?  No.

 

Put simply, the loss in labour to engage in such activities as lining out, plus the impact of wartime inflation and its effect on labour costs, would mean that there would not be the people to apply complex liveries and even if labour could be sourced, it would cost too much.  You might be tempted to equate it to the state of our models today.

 

Would they have employed simplified versions of their pre-war liveries?  Possibly, but history both before and after the Great War suggests that many companies would have changed their livery.  It seems that each Senior Engineer had his own ideas for liveries and would have them applied to all new stock and later cascaded to older stock as it came through the shops. 

 

Some liveries (LNWR coach spilt milk for example) would be more prone to becoming dirty (as in visibly unclean) than others and with labour shortages and costs I could envisage them being replaced over time.   Against that of course you could cite the GWR use of cream on its coaches which persisted into BR days, so nothing is certain.

 

I know that LNWR coach "spilt milk" might seem like a strange colour to use on railway carriages - but I suspect there might have been a reason for its adoption.

 

There was a lot of air pollution at the time (still is in some places) - there was also a lot of muck on railway tracks (no toilet retention tanks then). A lot of this stuff would have been thrown up onto the sides of railway carriages, staining them with a thin layer of yellowish brown sludge.

 

However, even with this deluge, the original (very pale blue) colour of the carriage sides would probably still have looked reasonably close to white (or something close enough to fool the eye).

 

 

I'm not sure about livery styles similar to LNWR coach livery (or something similar to it) disappearing too quickly, either - wasn't something very similar used on some LMS Royal Train stock? However, this was clearly an isolated example - I can't see mere plebs being allowed anywhere near stuff like this.

 

 

Simplified versions of the LNWR livery might have worked on more modern stock - especially smooth sided stock - and I'd love to see what it would look like in vinyl form on something like a HST, a Sprinter, or a Networker.

 

As for pre-WW1 stock - with all its beading etc, I'm not sure that simplified liveries would have worked at all. I see it as very much a case of completely plain or go the whole hog.

 

 

Obviously, this is all personal opinion - and supposition - so it'salso possible that things might have taken a completely different course (one that none of us has imagined).

 

 

Huw.

[Londontram]

Nothing to add I'm afraid but what a brilliant discussion. Steve

[James Harrison]

 what do you do with the GC/GN/GE tangle? They sometimes compete with each other, and other times are completely different.

 

The Great Northern, Great Central and Great Eastern did nearly merge in 1909- but the Government stepped in to stop it.   

 

If the Grouping hadn't gone ahead in 1923 I think that there would have been either a very close working arrangement between the three, the formation of a joint committee-styled management structure as-per the SER/ LCDR or an amalgamation as-per the LNWR/ LYR.

 

It's worth noting that as far as liveries are concerned, and how they were affected by WWI, the GCR didn't change*, the GNR IIRC went to a light grey finish on new locomotives (may be wrong on this but I did read something of the sort in O S Nock's history of the Great Northern) and the GER did likewise.

 

*With shortages of various pigments however it is worth pointing out that various locomotives saw out the GC with green frames and splashers rather than the usual claret.

 

Without Grouping in 1923 I would imagine the GCR would carry on as before, whilst the GN and GE would get to work putting their stock back into 1914 livery- neither of them being too ostentatious. 

 

If however there were to be an amalgamation between the three the GNR would be the senior partner:

 

1) Possesses the southern reaches of the ECML;

2) Arguably in the best financial shape;

3) Would Gresley become CME of the combine?- Robinson allegedly stepped aside and recommended him for the post of CME of the LNER.   

 

I would suggest in this context it would be a fairly minor leap to make that all locos of a GN/GC/GE amalgamation end up in GNR livery, or something very like it.   

[corneliuslundie]

In South Wales there had been several attempts at amalgamations, but they were thwarted by the colliery owners who didn't want a monopoly and by Parliament which also hated monopolies. But during the War the main companies worked together with a joint general manager, so I think an amalgamation would have happened, perhaps without the Barry which was a coal owners' line and a thorn in the flesh to the other companies. The peak for coal exports was 1913 and from then it was all down hill. By the 1930s I am not sure anyone would have wanted to amalgamate with them. I am pretty sure the GWR didn't realise what was going to happen.

Much earlier, the LNWR took a great interest in the Rhymney but later cooled when it got its own route to Merthyr, Swansea and West Wales. I am not sure that by the 1920s it would have been interested.

There was also speculation before the War that the GWR wanted to take over the South Wales companies but it never came to anything.

What would have been significant if the War had not intervened, not just in South Wales, would have been changing attitudes to amalgamation within the government. Without the War would there have been the volte face that occurred between 1910 and 1920?

Jonathan

[Poggy1165]

So much depends on politics.

 

Circa 1909, the GC, GN and GE wanted to merge, but Parliament, in its wisdom, would not allow it. It may be coincidence, but these three were the very first to introduce partial wagon pooling in 1915. It is arguable that the great days of 'pure competition' were over by about 1900, and soon after this date some companies started to co-operate more. Look at the train that became the Pines Express. It could have gone almost all the way on Midland or joint metals, but instead it ran over the LNWR to Birmingham and was (in effect) an LNW/Midland joint venture. There were also examples (certainly in the Manchester area) of common ticket availability, and with it (I assume) pooling of receipts on an agreed ratio. I suspect there was a mood among the private companies to make administrative cost savings via mergers - which the GC/GN/GE amalgamation would certainly have achieved.

 

The 1914-1918 war (among other things) pointed out the strategic advantages of the railways being under national control. (Many continental countries had figured this out long before 1914.) Post war there was some talk of outright nationalisation, and it was probably the rising power of the Conservatives that led to the grouping being substituted for this - a half way house solution typical of British compromise. I would suggest it was the return to national control during 1939-45 that led almost inevitably to the nationalisation of 1947.

[relaxinghobby]

As a additional point what about the buses, before WW1 some railway companies introduced their own bus routes especially in rural areas that acted as feeders to their  trains and meshed with the railway timetables, but the government stopped this and made the railways sell off their bus routes. Does this mean the railways had the chance to provide a combined rail/road transport system, especially saving costs in low populated areas, maybe even the chance to cut railway branches in favor of bus routes, economic streamlining but providing an integrated public transport system which could taken have advantages of advances in road transport instead of loosing out to them from the Edwardian era onwards. That is no rival and bus companies and less private motorist to take revenue from them.

 

The railways did develop ferry services to the continent and Ireland and later where pioneers of air services for both passengers and mail.

 

Back to livery I believe that the LSWR by 1920, with the introduction of new electric suburban railways and the Dreadnought smooth sided steel clad mainline coaching stock introduced a simplified all over green livery instead of the old two tone dark brown and salmon pink one.

[Londontram]

Way back to the second half of the 1800s the LNWR and the Caledonian were working close together with the building and operation of the WCJS (West coast joint stock) for the London to Scotland trains and if the grouping hadn't have happened then its possible there could have been closer cooperation or even a form of merger there in the 1920s.

      At the grouping the Caledonian board held out for more favorable terms for its share holders thus delaying there entry into the LMS by a few months, it has been quoted that if the Caledonian had joined at the same time as the other major companies such was its association with the forma LNWR that the joint strength of the LNWR/LY/Caledonian block could have meant the power base might have moved to Crewe and not Derby and not saddling the LMS with a small midland engine police for the first ten years of its existence.

    If that had happened then its possible there would have been a LNWR style livery which the LY and Caledonian was similar to any way rather than the midland inspired red for both coaches and locos that was predominant in the first ten years. Steve

[JimF51]

Nice discussion all. When I said 'weathered the war better', I was thinking, what if the government had not held them to remuneration at thier 1913 mark? What if a huge number of the lorries that came back, and were bought up by ex-servicemen had actually been left in Europe? The rail companies would have been in better shape financially, and there would have been less immediate threat from road fright hauling.

 

Yes, I know, 'what ifs', and we could go on from there to anywhere.

 

Thanks for not coming right out with "What a daft question!" LOL

 

Jim F

[Quarryscapes]

Nice discussion all. When I said 'weathered the war better', I was thinking, what if the government had not held them to remuneration at thier 1913 mark? What if a huge number of the lorries that came back, and were bought up by ex-servicemen had actually been left in Europe? The rail companies would have been in better shape financially, and there would have been less immediate threat from road fright hauling.

 

Yes, I know, 'what ifs', and we could go on from there to anywhere.

 

Thanks for not coming right out with "What a daft question!" LOL

 

Jim F

 

Well in that case what about all the locomotives sent over to France - do they get left there too? 

[Andy Hayter]

Quite a few did. 

 

I think most of the ROD standard gauge locos returned (often in a less than prime condition) but other British built locos stayed - for example what became under SNCF in '37, the 140C.

 

A lot of the ROD wagons and narrow gauge stock remained in France.

[billbedford]

A lot of the ROD wagons and narrow gauge stock was built to the French loading gauge so couldn't be returned.

[Talltim]

Nice discussion all. When I said 'weathered the war better', I was thinking, what if the government had not held them to remuneration at thier 1913 mark? What if a huge number of the lorries that came back, and were bought up by ex-servicemen had actually been left in Europe? The rail companies would have been in better shape financially, and there would have been less immediate threat from road fright hauling.

 

Yes, I know, 'what ifs', and we could go on from there to anywhere.

 

Thanks for not coming right out with "What a daft question!" LOL

 

Jim F

I don't think its  daft question, pointless maybe, but interesting, and has led to a thread that makes for good reading.

[KCR]

Quite a few did. 

 

I think most of the ROD standard gauge locos returned (often in a less than prime condition) but other British built locos stayed - for example what became under SNCF in '37, the 140C.

 

A lot of the ROD wagons and narrow gauge stock remained in France.

And there's all those lovely LNWR and LSWR 0-6-0s sent to Palistine along with the Baldwin tender locos that were found unfit and shipped back and converted to tanks in the UK and the big Kitson 2-8-4 tanks. And the stuff that ended up in Mesopotamia.

[JimF51]

That would have been a plus, correct, if all those newer built locos had come home? It would have helped the railways save money, allowing them to retire older locos that were past due, but kept in service to meet demands.

 

So, again, if no grouping, would those locos been treated to nice original or modified liveries?

 

Jim F

[CKPR]

A couple of 'what if' scenarios that I've sometimes mused over:

- what if the NER had continued along it's North American influenced path with high-capacity bogie wagons, heavyweight coaching stock, mainline and suburban electrification, etc ?

- what if  WW1 occurred but the grouping didn't and  the railways had re-equiped with the surplus ROF/ROD engines such as the Woolwich moguls and GCR ROD 2-8-0s  in the way US railroads adopted the USRA designs? The M&CR looked at buying one of the former in the early 1920s but presumably didn't follow this through given the impending grouping.

[EddieB]

There is an evolutionary trend that can be followed right across Europe, whereby the earliest railways were point to point (colliery to port, town to town), coalescing into smaller regional companies, then larger regional companies and, finally, national systems.  (Later, of course, unravelling into privatised components).  The key stages happened at different times in diffrent countries, so I think it fair to say that some form of Grouping would have happened in the UK - at the behest of the companies themselves - had not WWI and the Mother of Parliaments intervened.

 

As to liveries, the post-grouping liveries were almost as elaborate as the liveries of the late Edwardian era and I see no reason why some kind of resurgence wouldn't have happened had the pre-grouping companies survived - but only for passenger locomotives (for the reasons Andy Hayter gives - shortage of manpower).  (I wonder whether the Depression of the late 'twenties and 'thirties may have seen a return to austerity liveries for certain companies).  It was in the early 'twenties that the Great Eastern introduced colour into its suburban services (and the "Jazz" trains were born), in some ways a metaphor for shaking off the gloom of WWI austerity.