GWR and SR Overlap Questions

[Seanem44]

I have become fairly interested recently in the GWR, but more so in the relationship between the GWR and SR.  It appears that much of their service overlapped in the extreme South West.  While the lines were mostly different, it appears from what I can read on maps that the SR did also make its way down in to Cornwall through different routes.

 

This somewhat intrigues me, for such a small region (by comparison).  Can anyone shed any light on the conditions in which this occurred, and the working relationship between the two companies?  Was this a straight up fierce rivalry?  Was it friendly competition?  Did the two companies share track in places?

 

I know in WWII, the SR leant S15s to the GWR, so it seems like they must have had somewhat of good working relationships.

 

I don’t know why, but this has really intrigued me lately and am wondering if anyone knows the history of it.  I also think this might aide in my own layout development as well.

[Miss Prism]

This somewhat intrigues me, for such a small region (by comparison).  Can anyone shed any light on the conditions in which this occurred, and the working relationship between the two companies?  Was this a straight up fierce rivalry?  Was it friendly competition?  Did the two companies share track in places?

 

'Friendly' would perhaps be a polite term. The companies tolerated each other. Just about...

 

The LSWR had rights (I use the term loosely, otherwise Stationmaster Mike will jump down my throat) through Exeter St Davids, in its route to and from north Cornwall over the 'withered arm'. The SE&CR (and later SR) ran freight through Reading. There were always a bunch of SR workings to Oxford (a convenient engine changeover point for north-south stuff). The GWR ran trains into Victoria in early days. etc etc

 

There was a degree of swapping of 'ownership' of some lines from the 1950s onward, e.g. Wadebridge, Seaton, Burnham-on-Sea, Reading-Basingstoke.

[phil-b259]

I have become fairly interested recently in the GWR, but more so in the relationship between the GWR and SR.  It appears that much of their service overlapped in the extreme South West.  While the lines were mostly different, it appears from what I can read on maps that the SR did also make its way down in to Cornwall through different routes.

 

This somewhat intrigues me, for such a small region (by comparison).  Can anyone shed any light on the conditions in which this occurred, and the working relationship between the two companies?  Was this a straight up fierce rivalry?  Was it friendly competition?  Did the two companies share track in places?

 

I know in WWII, the SR leant S15s to the GWR, so it seems like they must have had somewhat of good working relationships.

 

 

The SR also leant a bunch of King Arthurs to the LNER during WW2

 

Please remember that during both World Wars, the railways were effectively nationalised (via the Railway Executive Committee) and motive power was shifted around to meet the needs of Her Majesty's Government. If a particular location was short of motive power then the REC would ring round and identify locos that could be spared and move them to where they were needed. Similarly during WW2 the SR, LNER and the GWR all built examples of the Stanier 8F - not because they wanted to but because that was the design the REC initally identified as the ideal loco for use moving military traffic about at home and abroad.

 

During piece time the GWR and the SR were competitors where they met - in fact I would suggest the SR and LMS were more closely tied due to both seeking to compete with the GWR and the legacy of 'joint' lines (SDJR, MSWJR) while the GWR and LNER also had a close relationship for much the same reasons.

Edited November 16, 2017 by phil-b259

[Ramblin Rich]

There was a lot of jockeying for territory in the South West in the mid 1800s, with the LSWR basically making what could be called hostile buyouts of lines to thwart the GWR. The Bodmin & Wadebridge line was completely isolated from the rest of the LSWR until the North Cornwall line was completed. There was GWR running rights from Bodmin to Wadebridge.

The North Devon line to Barnstaple was going to be a branch of the Bristol & Exeter ( effectively an extension of the GWR) and was laid to broad guage, until the LSWR again jumped at a chance of upsetting the GWR applecart by buying into the scheme! It became an LSWR line with mixed guage track to start with,but the GWR continued to run broad guage freight trains to Crediton until the broad guage was abandoned.

[Rivercider]

As Rich has pointed out there was hostility between the LSWR and the Bristol and Exeter Railway (later GWR).

Look at the history of the little Exeter and Crediton Railway, LSWR skulllduggery taking it away from the BER.

 

Later there were agreements between the SR and the GWR.

I believe one agreement was that neither company would improve their respective routes to Barnstaple,

hence the Exeter to Barnstaple route was never fully double tracked, and some passing loops remained insufficiently long for summer working,

 

cheers 

[D854_Tiger]

'Friendly' would perhaps be a polite term. The companies tolerated each other. Just about...

 

The LSWR had rights (I use the term loosely, otherwise Stationmaster Mike will jump down my throat) through Exeter St Davids, in its route to and from north Cornwall over the 'withered arm'.

 

There was a similar arrangement at Plymouth, the LSWR station was at Friary but this could only be accessed via GWR metals through North Road station.

 

I've always wondered if it was always the case that Plymouth Friary - Waterloo trains would always stop at North Road and Exeter St Davids as well as Central.

 

Offering the option of a competing second route to London, at both GW stations, leaving in the opposite (and rather confusing westward) direction to GW trains at both places.

[eastglosmog]

In addition to the ones mentioned by Miss Prism, there was the use by the LSWR of the GWR route from Dorchester to Weymouth, in exchange for which the LSWR laid about 8 miles of mixed gauge track from Dorchester eastwards so that the GWR could run broad gauge trains eastwards to a field in Dorset!

Somewhat later, the GWR obtained running powers to run trains from the end of the Didcot Newbury and Southampton from its junction south of Winchester to Southampton.

I think that relationships between railways in Victorian times could be quite acrimonious at times, after the grouping they were it bit more harmonious.

PS - Phil, the MSWJR was never a joint railway, although the Midland and the LSWR both helped it a great deal.  Had it been, it might have fared better after 1923 (puts on tin hat).

Edited November 16, 2017 by eastglosmog

[Nearholmer]

By the Edwardian era, the cutthroat completion between the GWR and LSWR was cutting both of their throats, to the degree where they reached a sort of armed truce, or fought one another to a standstill in the west, and they were on the brink of some form of amalgamation or working agreement immediately prior to WW1. There were certainly serious discussions going on between the two boards.

 

I doubt they had a monopolies and mergers commission in 1914, but the Board of Trade might have had a view on any ‘stitch up’ even then.

 

Kevin

[Rivercider]

There was a similar arrangement at Plymouth, the LSWR station was at Friary but this could only be accessed via GWR metals through North Road station.

 

I've always wondered if it was always the case that Plymouth Friary - Waterloo trains would always stop at North Road and Exeter St Davids as well as Central.

 

Offering the option of a competing second route to London, at both GW stations, leaving in the opposite (and rather confusing westward) direction to GW trains at both places.

It was my impression that all SR trains did always have to stop at Exeter St. Davids, though I cannot find it in writing at the moment.

In any case with a 1 in 37 incline at one end of the station, and Red Cow Crossing at the other end most trains would need to stop anyway,

either to take a banking loco, or to wait for the gates.

 

I think in the 1930s there was a SR plan to build their own platforms at St Davids with a flyover to avoid conflicting moves,

but WWII put an end to the plans

 

cheers 

[eastglosmog]

By the Edwardian era, the cutthroat completion between the GWR and LSWR was cutting both of their throats, to the degree where they reached a sort of armed truce, or fought one another to a standstill in the west, and they were on the brink of some form of amalgamation or working agreement immediately prior to WW1. There were certainly serious discussions going on between the two boards.

 

I doubt they had a monopolies and mergers commission in 1914, but the Board of Trade might have had a view on any ‘stitch up’ even then.

 

Kevin

Kevin - I believe such amalgamations required the sanction of Parliament at that time.  Suspect this would not have been forthcoming in 1914, but if it had I wonder what they would have called the new company? Great South Western? Greater Western?  It would certainly have made a difference to the grouping!

[Coppercap]

PS - Phil, the MSWJR was never a joint railway, although the Midland and the LSWR both helped it a great deal.  Had it been, it might have fared better after 1923 (puts on tin hat).

Correct. In this case the 'J' stood for 'Junction'. Despite it's northern terminus being The Midland's Cheltenham station, the MSWJ still has to run over GWR metals between Cheltenham and Andoversford before getting onto it's own metals...

[Nearholmer]

The SER and LCDR found a way through the same issues, without I think going to Parliament, by agrreement. I’d have read-up to be sure, but I think that the two companies and boards continued to exist, but appointed a single body to act as executive for both.

 

Other options would have been pooling of revenue, which I think they might actually have done, ceding lines to one another, “non- aggressive pricing” (a cartel, effectively), cunning timetabling ruses that effectively ‘gave’ towns to one another ........ doubtless lawyers had hours of fun and fees trying to dream-up wheezes.

 

Name? Great London and Wessex Railway.

Edited November 16, 2017 by Nearholmer

[phil-b259]

The SER and LCDR found a way through the same issues, without I think going to Parliament, by agrreement. I’d have read-up to be sure, but I think that the two companies and boards continued to exist, but appointed a single body to act as executive for both.

 

 

This was indeed the case - both the SER and LCDR companies continued to exist* until 1922 with shareholders of each getting separate dividends etc. IIRC the 'Managing Committee' that headed up what traded in public as the 'SECR' was split 51% SER people and 49% LCDR folk. Financial obligations, running costs and profits were distributed in accordance with this split to each of the parent companies.

 

In many ways its the Victorian / Edwardian version of the likes of todays 'GTR' or 'SWR' where the actual brands the public sees, and which run various franchisees are in fact a 'managing committee' passing profits back to the respective parent companies based on their individual shareholding.

 

 

* There were an awfull lot of railway companies that still exsisted in 1921 which did not run train services having leased out their lines to other parties over the years. The London & Blackwall Railway Company for example continued to exist even though it had leased its railway to the Great Eastern Railway for 99 years  - and as far as the public were concerned it was a GER operation

[Nearholmer]

The SER & LCDR had become well-practised in interesting financial and managagerial arrangements, having spent years bankrupting one another, and they were still in dire straits at grouping.

 

What they really needed to do was electrify their suburban lines, and they engaged consultants and their own engineers on design, but the really interesting bit was financial, because in c1921they set up a standalone company to build a generating station and I think ( I'd need to check this part) carry out the works of electrification. This company would then have been paid for 'the juice' consumed at a pre-agreed rate that guaranteed it a good profit in all but the worst-case outcome. All clever stuff, that was very similar indeed to what emerged as Private Finance Initiatives much more recently, and spookily similar to how Hinckley Point is supposed to be procured. It's the sort of 'penny wise, pound foolish' way of going on that skint people have to resort to!

 

On grouping the SR had to pile all the capital it could raise into the SE suburban electrification, but the investment did at least work, by cutting costs and growing the traffic.

 

Which has not much to do with Cornwall ...... sorry!

[Oldddudders]

My take on all this has always been that the GWR got there first and bagged all the best bits. South Cornwall was always going to be the more populous part, with a balmier climate and less effect from the Atlantic. North Cornwall, then and now, is much more rugged in terrain and climate, much less endowed with worthwhile towns for a railway to serve. The Southern route to Plymouth could never compete on timeliness, however accommodating its rival might be at St Davids. And while Bude, Barnstaple and Ilfracombe might have yielded big crowds in season, for much of the year they were predictably quiet.

[DavidB-AU]

A bit of background as to why the GWR and LSWR weren't overly aggressive towards each other in later years.
 
George White and several other prominent Bristol businessmen had planned a second railway to Bristol to compete with the GWR monopoly. They got the backing of LSWR to build a new line from Grateley to a new grand terminus about where White later built the Bristol Tramways Centre. The plan was later revised to run partly over existing lines, including joining the S&D near Midford, runing Bristol traffic via Mangotsfield and a line from the Midland's St Philip's station to the new terminus. 

[slight aside, the final amendment to the plan included a branch line from Amesbury to Winterbourne Stoke. Much of the land around Winterbourne Stoke was owned by Lord Ashburton, part of the Baring family. Barings Bank was to help finance the railway.]

The Bill eventually went to parliament in November 1882. From The annals of Bristol in the nineteenth century by John Latimer, "After a long struggle with the Great Western Company before a committee of the House of Commons, the bill was rejected. Shortly afterwards the Great Western and South Western boards entered into a compact, by which they mutually undertook to refrain from an aggressive policy towards each other. The agreement raised an insuperable bar against the revival of the above scheme."
 
Apart from the commercial objections from the GWR, one of the biggest critics was Sir John Lubbock (an archaeologist turned MP) as the line would have run literally right past Stonehenge and cut through the Stonehenge Cursus.

Cheers
David

[eastglosmog]

The Bodmin and Wadebridge (bagged by the LSWR to the GWR's annoyance) relied on china clay traffic.  As far as I know, it was quite profitable, but was basically short haul to the coast (as was the GWR's equivalent down to Fowey) due to the arrangements to protect coastal shipping.  The LSWR also had the huge Delabole Slate quarry to generate traffic.  Trouble is, the slate trade declined drastically in the 20th century which dented the economics of the North Cornwall line a bit.

[Dunsignalling]

There was, as I understand it, a LSWR / SR scheme for a viaduct to take their line from the lower end of St David's tunnel, across both the GWR lines and the River Exe to pick up a new alignment along the north side of the river, bypassing the GWR station altogether.

 

Had it gone ahead, the remainder of the existing (surviving) bank would presumably have been retained for exchanging whatever merchandise goods traffic would still need to pass between the two systems.

 

However serious the proposals/plans might have become, and however the politics and economics of what would have been a pretty major investment might have stacked up, the idea was effectively scuppered by the outbreak of either or both of the World Wars.  

 

John

Edited November 17, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[Nearholmer]

Once the original capital cost of these lines was forgotten about, and lost within the overall capital-base on which dividends were paid, they could probably be kept going on a 'minimal maintenance and operational cost' basis, which the SR in particular was very good at, even as traffic dwindled. Provided that they covered their costs and made a small % contribution through things like seasonal trade, they were just about worth keeping. Through the SR period labour costs remained pretty low, and railway families in rural areas were content with a standard of living that was materially a great deal lower than now.

 

But, as soon as substantial capital renewal was needed, and as soon as labour costs started to rise as material expectations rose after WW2, the clock must have been ticking loud and fast. The 1950s staycation trend probably kept them bobbing above water, but then foreign holidays, Meldon viaduct, ancient signalling and track that was hugely labour intensive.......

 

My gut feel is that the SR, if it had continued in being, would have got a grip on costs, and probably been able to raise capital to "spend on savings", quicker and better than BR, but it is really hard to see how the North Cornwall Line could have survived beyond the 1960s .......... maybe as a very basic 'bus service on rails', perhaps with council subsidy in view of the very poor road links in the area, but even that I think unlikely. The SR would probably have pooled resources with the GWR, to get Padstow effectively served via Bodmin, and concentrated on road buses for the north coast (they had shares in the bus company already, and operated extra seasonal tourist routes).

 

The continuation of two main lines to Plymouth ...... nah! The SR route would probably have had to be downgraded to 'basic railway with capability to carry a few-trains-a-day contingency main line service'.

Edited November 17, 2017 by Nearholmer

[chrisf]

I am intrigued by the Southern Region's proposal, never implemented, to run diesel electric multiple units on local and branch services in Devon from a depot at Exmouth Junction.  My understanding is that it was intended to cover the East Devon branches - Exmouth, Sidmouth, Seaton and Lyme Regis - and stopping trains on the main line as far east as Yeovil.  I wonder whether and how the Withered Arm would have been included.  Outside summer weekends the lines to Ilfracombe and Torrington, those to Plymouth, Padstow and Bude and the Callington branch, which were largely portion-worked, would have been ideally suited to demus.  What actually happened, of course, was that after the SR lines west of Salisbury passed to the WR the latter reshaped the former SR main line serice, drafted in dmmus  and then set about closures despite promises to the contrary.

 

Does anyone know?

 

Chris

[Nearholmer]

I don't know about under BR(S), but what I do know is that the SR was boiling pretty much exactly those plans, and intent to create a 'road switcher' to handle the goods traffic, in the late 1940s, as part of its broad-brush 'electrify east of the Bournemouth Line; dieselise west of it' strategy.

 

Every know and then, I ponder the idea of a 1950s Southern Railway (not region) layout based on all this, set during a steam/diesel transition and railway rationalisation taking place in an orderly fashion, ten or fifteen years before the "Oh my goodness; look at the financial mess this place is in; drastic action to stem the blood loss !!!" that had to happen under Beeching.

 

DEMUs for local services; big diesels with hauled stock (TCs effectively) for the ACE (probably with a pair of low axle-weight road switchers taking over at Exeter); goods concentrated on a few nodes from which road transport would radiate (the SR was well on with this by 1939 anyway); old crocks and moguls being gracefully retired; Bullied Pacifics causing everyone to scratch their heads and wonder quite what to do with machines that were still virtually new, but much more expensive to run than the diesels.

[Zomboid]

We had a great thread a while back about "what if the SR hadn't been nationalised"...

Given electrification and the lack of decent loco coal on the SR (I have heard that the kent coal wasn't really very well suited to locomotives, but I'm happy to be corrected), I imagine it would have been at the forefront of dieselisation.

I wonder what these locos would have ended up looking like. CC1 and the 1020x's were pretty utilitarian boxcab designs, but I think a lightweight Road Switcher would have been a hood style design (like the various GP series locos, or 10800), but if they did build some bigger locos for expresses on the Waterloo - Exeter section maybe style would have come into it a bit and we'd have ended up with something looking a bit like a Nohab...

Shame there was never a 3rd rail Croc, too. If everything East of the Bournemouth line was electric there would have been a need for some electric freight locomotives - passenger trains would obviously all be EMUs.

[Miss Prism]

Imagine these in lined malachite:

 

 

[Zomboid]

I prefer it in black with a nice sunshine SOUTHERN across the top of the grilles.

 

But this is way off topic. I do apologise...

[Nearholmer]

Where is the 'what if the Southern hadn't been nationalised?' thread?

 

I think I contributed to, much on the lines above, but we could always reopen it to discuss motive power policy.