Centenary of the Grouping

[t-b-g]

I have had a look and I can't see anything on here celebrating the anniversary of the forming of the "Big Four" 100 years ago.

 

One of the bigger moments in our railway history and worth commemorating.

 

So I am!

 

Happy 100th Birthday to the Big Four.

[Bucoops]

Demise of the Great Eastern Railway (and others!) too, so bitter-sweet as it were.

 

But yes, birth of the LNER so worth commemorating :)

[phil_sutters]

Grouping, what grouping? The S&DJR just acquired a load more cousins, because its adoptive parents didn't marry each other, just hitched up with their neighbours.

[t-b-g]

It was indeed a bittersweet moment for me too as my favourite companies and liveries were on their way into the history books.

 

There were a few companies that escaped, the M&GN being another but it doesn't alter the fact that today is the anniversary of the start of the Big Four period.

 

One of the great "what ifs" of railway history is how the ECML might have looked had Robinson accepted the offer of the CME job for the LNER rather than decline it and recommend the young man Gresley instead.

 

 

[Colin_McLeod]

Happy 100th to LMS,  LNER,  GWR and SR.

 

Happy 75th to BR.

[phil_sutters]

55 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

Demise of the Great Eastern Railway (and others!) too, so bitter-sweet as it were.

 

But yes, birth of the LNER so worth commemorating :)

L&NER please

 

[Edwin_m]

35 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

Happy 100th to LMS,  LNER,  GWR and SR.

While the other three were totally new, wasn't the GWR a perpetuation of the pre-Grouping company with some relatively minor additions?  

[t-b-g]

1 minute ago, Edwin_m said:

While the other three were totally new, wasn't the GWR a perpetuation of the pre-Grouping company with some relatively minor additions?  

 

Yes but prior to 1923 it was one of many diverse companies. After 1923 it was one of the Big Four.

[t-b-g]

40 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

Happy 100th to LMS,  LNER,  GWR and SR.

 

Happy 75th to BR.

 

Indeed and perhaps we should celebrate the anniversary of BR too. Without being too morbid, there may not be many of us left to celebrate the centenary of that event!

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

One of the great "what ifs" of railway history is how the ECML might have looked had Robinson accepted the offer of the CME job for the LNER rather than decline it and recommend the young man Gresley instead.

 

The big what-if is how things would be now if John Major had ignored the way the establishment chose to privatise BR with franchises, leasing companies owning the rolling stock, TOCs separated from infrastructure (Railtrack) and backed his preference of going to the Big Four approach of companies running complete railways.

[franciswilliamwebb]

18 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

While the other three were totally new, wasn't the GWR a perpetuation of the pre-Grouping company with some relatively minor additions?  

 

Yes, although the Cambrian lost it's original name when it acquired the branch to London😏

[Michael Hodgson]

53 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

Happy 100th to LMS,  LNER,  GWR and SR.

 

Happy 75th to BR.

Don't you mean R.I.P?

[Northroader]

[ELTEL]

I can’t believe that Hornby will miss the 75 & 100 year anniversaries, so perhaps on January 10th we will find out what’s in store from Hornby to celebrate these major British Railway anniversaries.

 

Terry 

[t-b-g]

4 minutes ago, ELTEL said:

I can’t believe that Hornby will miss the 75 & 100 year anniversaries, so perhaps on January 10th we will find out what’s in store from Hornby to celebrate these major British Railway anniversaries.

 

Terry 

 

I think the Flying Scotsman Centenary model, as it was the first loco put into traffic under the LNER, might count towards that.

[Dave John]

Just out of interest

 

;

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Edwin_m said:

While the other three were totally new, wasn't the GWR a perpetuation of the pre-Grouping company with some relatively minor additions?  

Actually with some quite considerable additions - its Docks Dept grew massively as a result of the grouping and was of course subsequently headed by someone who came from one of the amalgamated companies;  Its coal traffic also received a major boost giving the combined company access to one of the richest parts of the South Wales coalfield and arguably it was its coal revenue that allowed it to carry on running various quiet rural branchlines.  And financially if definitely dead something right because at nationalisation certain GWR stock (i.e. shares) received the highest continuing guaranteed payments post 1948 of any of the Big Four stocks.

 

But are we entirely right to look upon 1923 as the anniversary of anything more of the Grouping than the attachment of names to three of the new Groups?  The legislation dated from 1921 (see above) and amalgamations started before 1923 - for example all of the larger Welsh companies amalgamated with the GWR from 1 January 1922 and the revised GWR was established by legislation passed in July 1922 with absorbtion of various smaller companies coming in January 1923.  And the GWR did not absorb the M&SWJtR until July 1923 with the Caledonian and North Staffs similarly surviving as separate companies until that month when they finally amalgamated with the LMS.

 

So the centenary - apart from the names used by three of the Big Four - spreads over the period from 1921 to mid 1923

[Wickham Green too]

Yes, even the smallest of the Four incorporated a myriad of smaller Companies - such as the Lee on the Solent, Hayling Island, Mid Kent, Victoria Station & Pimlico and Brighton & Dyke - which took a while to come on board but, according to Kidner, "The new group commenced business on 1st January 1923" ......... so that's the date we recognise !

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, Northroader said:

 

On New Years Days 1948, Garter King of Arms was still suffering from a Hogmanay hangover when he met the BRB who showed him the above and they told him ""We need a coat of arms for our newly formed British Railways..."

 

The conversation then went along the folloing lines ....

 

"When organisations merge, we usually take the principal items and mottoes from each one and combine them. 

What can we use from all these?  The first one's got lions.  So we can use a Lion, but it needn't be rampant.

The second is simply the crests of London and Bristol side by side - is that relevant?"

 

"No, BR will serve the whole country.  So can we have the Arms of all the other cities in the UK please? "

"No, that won't work.  "

 

"The SR and LMS crests have a horse, a dragon, roses and thistles.  And what about the motto?  Some of the words are in Latin, others in English.  Railways are a means of transport and ..."

 

"On yer bike.... You can have a lion on a unicycle then.   I need the hair of the dog."

[t-b-g]

52 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Actually with some quite considerable additions - its Docks Dept grew massively as a result of the grouping and was of course subsequently headed by someone who came from one of the amalgamated companies;  Its coal traffic also received a major boost giving the combined company access to one of the richest parts of the South Wales coalfield and arguably it was its coal revenue that allowed it to carry on running various quiet rural branchlines.  And financially if definitely dead something right because at nationalisation certain GWR stock (i.e. shares) received the highest continuing guaranteed payments post 1948 of any of the Big Four stocks.

 

But are we entirely right to look upon 1923 as the anniversary of anything more of the Grouping than the attachment of names to three of the new Groups?  The legislation dated from 1921 (see above) and amalgamations started before 1923 - for example all of the larger Welsh companies amalgamated with the GWR from 1 January 1922 and the revised GWR was established by legislation passed in July 1922 with absorbtion of various smaller companies coming in January 1923.  And the GWR did not absorb the M&SWJtR until July 1923 with the Caledonian and North Staffs similarly surviving as separate companies until that month when they finally amalgamated with the LMS.

 

So the centenary - apart from the names used by three of the Big Four - spreads over the period from 1921 to mid 1923

 

I would regard 1st Jan 1923 as the single biggest event of the grouping and the date that we should count as being when the LNER, SR and LMS were formed and alongside the GWR became the Big Four. There were certainly things that didn't happen on that date 100 years ago but if we are looking for an anniversary to remember, then today is the only logical choice.

 

 

 

 

[Pint of Adnams]

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

One of the great "what ifs" of railway history is how the ECML might have looked had Robinson accepted the offer of the CME job for the LNER rather than decline it and recommend the young man Gresley instead.

 

 

An urban myth, Robinson was too old and his later recollection of events was considered to be less than accurate. The appointment of the CME was deferred pending Sir Vincent Raven's report on the 'Organisation of the Running Department', which put forward a number of options but were basically a decision as to whether the CME should also be in charge of the operation and running of the motive power, or should that be aligned with the operating superintendents in each Division. The various committees preferred the latter arrangement and recommended same to the board. This fixed the duties and responsibilities, and the remuneration, of the CME and allowed the appointment to be made. Gresley was the natural choice.

[Pint of Adnams]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

So the centenary - apart from the names used by three of the Big Four - spreads over the period from 1921 to mid 1923

Actually to mid-1924. There were considerable issues to be resolved over the absorption by the LNER of the Mid Suffolk Light Railway, which owed more than it owned. That was finally resolved by  Parliament approving an amendment to the Absorption Agreement, which finally took effect on 1 July 1924.

[Oldddudders]

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Indeed and perhaps we should celebrate the anniversary of BR too. Without being too morbid, there may not be many of us left to celebrate the centenary of that event!

As a Southern sort of cove, but with Brighton roots if any, the huge investment that Southern placed in electrifying the Brighton Main Line makes it hard to regret Grouping. And that first brave step paid so handsomely that other schemes followed. But it would still be more than 30 years, thanks to WW2, before mainline steam was snuffed out. 

 

As for BR, I was born nearly 11 months into its existence, and it provided my employment from leaving skool at 17. I was a BR employee 13.9.66 - 29.6.96, when my bit was sold off. Even then I maintained continuous employment until full retirement in 2004. Few skool-leavers today can expect to be so lucky. 

[t-b-g]

36 minutes ago, Pint of Adnams said:

An urban myth, Robinson was too old and his later recollection of events was considered to be less than accurate. The appointment of the CME was deferred pending Sir Vincent Raven's report on the 'Organisation of the Running Department', which put forward a number of options but were basically a decision as to whether the CME should also be in charge of the operation and running of the motive power, or should that be aligned with the operating superintendents in each Division. The various committees preferred the latter arrangement and recommended same to the board. This fixed the duties and responsibilities, and the remuneration, of the CME and allowed the appointment to be made. Gresley was the natural choice.

 

It is interesting and not uncommon for recollections from those who were actually there to be found to be faulty later. I would think it highly improbable if the appointment was not discussed with Robinson at some point. There would have been talks and succession planning before the date when things actually changed to ensure continuity.

 

It is interesting to read Robinson's account, which has been disputed on the grounds of his great age. For somebody supposedly struggling with his mental health and memory, he writes beautifully. He was still writing very lucid letters later than that.

 

What I don't understand was what had Robinson to gain from inventing such a story? He and Gresley were good friends and he only had to say that he had decided to retire and that he suggested Gresley would be the man for the job. Why say he had been offered it and declined it?

 

So my view is that we may never really know exactly what was said at the time, whether Robinson was actually asked to take the job or if it was just proposals but I would be quite shocked if there had been no discussions with Robinson about who should have the post on the LNER.

 

 

[gr.king]

5 hours ago, t-b-g said:

It was indeed a bittersweet moment for me too as my favourite companies and liveries were on their way into the history books.

 

There were a few companies that escaped, the M&GN being another but it doesn't alter the fact that today is the anniversary of the start of the Big Four period.

 

One of the great "what ifs" of railway history is how the ECML might have looked had Robinson accepted the offer of the CME job for the LNER rather than decline it and recommend the young man Gresley instead.

 

 

It may be relevant, if controversial, to ask whether London-Edinburgh non-stop, 100mph in the early thirties, and 126mph in 1938 would have been achieved had the design of "express" locos with Robinson's restricted grate areas, cramped ashpans and limited air supply to the grate continued, rather than Doncaster's wide grates over modest sized carrying wheels - although the latter was possibly over-done in some designs, and included in some which may not have needed it at all.