Centenary of the Grouping

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

It all depends! If you say that a loco exists from the day that its frames are assembled, then you could say that they are a year late, as that would have happened in late 1922.

 

This does get into dangerous philosophical territory. After all, a locomotive may have new frames during the course of its working life, so the frames clearly aren't the essence of the locomotive. I've argued before that the identity of a locomotive lies in its engine history card. But at what point did that document come into existence? When the loco was released to traffic? Obviously the loco existed before then - for example, it may have spent several weeks undergoing trials. One could go on splitting the unfortunate hare...

[t-b-g]

9 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

This does get into dangerous philosophical territory. After all, a locomotive may have new frames during the course of its working life, so the frames clearly aren't the essence of the locomotive. I've argued before that the identity of a locomotive lies in its engine history card. But at what point did that document come into existence? When the loco was released to traffic? Obviously the loco existed before then - for example, it may have spent several weeks undergoing trials. One could go on splitting the unfortunate hare...

 

Choosing a date to celebrate the anniversary of a loco is indeed a tricky task. A can of worms indeed.

 

At least it is nice to have firm date, 1st Jan 1923, when the Act of Parliament forming the LNER, LMS, GWR and SR came into force, to celebrate as a centenary.

 

Nobody could disagree with that...........

[drmditch]

The 10 am departure from KX was referred to as the 'Flying Scotsman' from the latter part of the 19th century.

The locomotive (the third A1 Pacific) was built as 1472, but was not named until it was displayed in the Wembley Exhibition of 1924.

It was named after the train.

[rodent279]

38 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Choosing a date to celebrate the anniversary of a loco is indeed a tricky task. A can of worms indeed.

 

At least it is nice to have firm date, 1st Jan 1923, when the Act of Parliament forming the LNER, LMS, GWR and SR came into force, to celebrate as a centenary.

 

Nobody could disagree with that...........

Except that....... Technically the GWR want formed on that date, it just grew.

Sorry, but someone had to say it!

 

Which leads me on to a question.

What was the actual legal mechanism used to form the 4 railways? Were they mergers, takeovers, amalgamations-what?

[rodent279]

1 minute ago, drmditch said:

The 10 am departure from KX was referred to as the 'Flying Scotsman' from the latter part of the 19th century.

The locomotive (the third A1 Pacific) was built as 1472, but was not named until it was displayed in the Wembley Exhibition of 1924.

It was named after the train.

So arguably 2023 is not the centenary of Flying Scotsman the train, or the locomotive.....

We are getting into real dangerous territory here!

[Compound2632]

25 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Except that....... Technically the GWR want formed on that date, it just grew.

Sorry, but someone had to say it!

 

Which leads me on to a question.

What was the actual legal mechanism used to form the 4 railways? Were they mergers, takeovers, amalgamations-what?

 

This has been addressed in an earlier post, where the first page of the Railways Act, 1921, was reproduced:

 

The Act provided the legal basis for amalgamation of the constituent companies and absorption of the subsidiary companies. 

 

Wikipedia has some useful lists of constituent and subsidiary companies of each group:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_constituents_of_the_London,_Midland_and_Scottish_Railway

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_constituents_of_the_London_and_North_Eastern_Railway

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_constituents_of_the_Great_Western_Railway

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_constituents_of_the_Southern_Railway

 

From which it will be seen that the Great Western was amalgamated with several Welsh lines, all equally constituent companies and represented on the board of the new group along with directors of the old Great Western. The new group company adopted the Great Western name but it is not true to say that it was legally the same company, at least as I understand the matter.

Edited January 7, 2023 by Compound2632

[rodent279]

So who decided which was to merge/amalgamate with which, and which were the constituents and which the subsidiaries? Was it down to the railways themselves, or was it all detailed in the Act?

For example,  the Brecon & Merthyr was, on the basis of route mileage, larger than the Rhymney,  yet was a subsidiary,  whereas the Rhymney was a constituent.

Edited January 7, 2023 by rodent279

[Dave John]

Generally it was decided by parliamentary advisors at committee stage in discussion with interested parties. The basis is clearly geographic, however there was much legal argument over the finances. 

 

 

 

 

I note that the Act was on sale to the public, price two shillings and sixpence. So buy  a copy, I'm not scanning all 90 pages in.... 

[Wickham Green too]

1 hour ago, drmditch said:

The 10 am departure from KX was referred to as the 'Flying Scotsman' from the latter part of the 19th century. ...

.... but wasn't OFFICIALLY named until 1924 - followed by 1472.

[Compound2632]

15 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

So who decided which was to merge/amalgamate with which, and which were the constituents and which the subsidiaries? Was it down to the railways themselves, or was it all detailed in the Act?

For example,  the Brecon & Merthyr was, on the basis of route mileage, larger than the Rhymney,  yet was a subsidiary,  whereas the Rhymney was a constituent.

 

The Act set out a schedule of the railways to be amalgamated, as reproduced by @Dave John and required the railways to prepare an amalgamation scheme that had to meet certain conditions which it laid down. This scheme was to be presented by the Minister of Transport to an amalgamation Tribunal, the three members of whom are named in the Act - senior civil servant, an accountant and government adviser, and a senior barrister. If they found the scheme to conform to the requirements of the Act, they were to confirm the scheme.

 

The Act made provision for companies to pre-empt the full implementation of any scheme by amalgamation or absorption, hence the LNWR / L&YR amalgamation and NER absorption of the H&BR, both taking effect on 1 Jan 1922.

 

The full text of the Act can be read here:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/11-12/55/enacted

 

I suppose that the composition of the groups had been the subject of negotiation in the run-up to the introduction of the Bill.

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Except that....... Technically the GWR want formed on that date, it just grew.

Sorry, but someone had to say it!

 

Which leads me on to a question.

What was the actual legal mechanism used to form the 4 railways? Were they mergers, takeovers, amalgamations-what?

Actually the post Group GWR was formed the by the Preliminary Amalgamation Schemes, various of 1922 and the Railways (Western Group) Amalgamation Scheme of June 1923.  The relevant Act of Parliament being the 1921 Act.

 

The Big Four were created by, usually, two different methods.  the first of these was by amalgamation of existing companies to create new companies which were empowered by the 1921 a Act and supplemented by various form schemes.  On the GWR most of the amalgamations took place in 1922 and I think the same might might have happened in some instances elsewhere.

 

The other route was the absorption of, usually, smaller companies and in the case of the GWR (I quote the GWR becaue I happen to have its official listing) most of those took place in early 1923.

[Compound2632]

Sir Eric Geddes' speech introducing the second reading of the bill, on 26 May 1921, makes interesting reading:

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1921/may/26/railways-bill

 

Sir F. Banbury was, of course, the Chairman of the Great Northern Railway.

[rodent279]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Sir Eric Geddes' speech introducing the second reading of the bill, on 26 May 1921, makes interesting reading:

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1921/may/26/railways-bill

 

Sir F. Banbury was, of course, the Chairman of the Great Northern Railway.

I find this passage interesting:- "The proposal originally put forward by the Government was that the Scottish companies should be formed into one group, but the companies desire to be grouped with the English companies."

Shades of 1707?

[Pint of Adnams]

5 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

I find this passage interesting:- "The proposal originally put forward by the Government was that the Scottish companies should be formed into one group, but the companies desire to be grouped with the English companies."

Shades of 1707?

Shades of the present day and the Barnett Formula, where the Scots get more out of the English than on their ownsome...

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

I find this passage interesting:- "The proposal originally put forward by the Government was that the Scottish companies should be formed into one group, but the companies desire to be grouped with the English companies."

Shades of 1707?

 

And:

 

GEDDES: The only dissentients are my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and the Scottish companies. I think it would probably be for the convenience of the House if the Government dealt with the case of the Scottish companies in the course of the Debate. The proposal originally put forward by the Government was that the Scottish companies should be formed into one group, but the companies desire to be grouped with the English companies. The English companies were prepared not to contest that, but there was the fundamental difficulty that the Scottish companies have spread the belief that they are in a very precarious position financially, but I do not think they are.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: They are out for the bawbees.

GEDDES: Quite right. They said: "We want amalgamation and complete fusion with the English companies, and although we are in this precarious condition now, we want to be taken over by the English companies in our pre-War pristine beauty." You cannot ask English shareholders to do that, because it is absolutely impossible. That is the great crux. They say: "Who is to put us on our feet?" I do not think they are off their feet. Undoubtedly there are great economies to be made by grouping, not only in England, but also in Scotland. I cannot find out exactly what the Scottish companies want. I know the whole of the Scottish Members have been trying to find out, but I do not know that more than two or three of them have succeeded. At any rate, if they have they have not told me.

Edited January 7, 2023 by Compound2632

[Compound2632]

On the question of how the groups in Schedule 1 were drawn up, my further reading suggests that this was the proposal put to Geddes by the Railway Companies Association - i.e. the companies agreed it for themselves. The LNWR / L&YR / MR and the GCR / GER / GNR had been working together as effectively two groups for 15 or so years before the grouping, with traffic pooling, shared facilities, etc., so those were pretty much a done deal.

[JohnR]

In hindsight, we now know that the Scottish companies were right - they were in no financial state to stand alone in 1923. But on the other hand, part of that was the wasteful competition between the NBR and Caledonian, and to an extent that continued by putting them in different groups. 

 

Even in 1948 it took many years for some of that to be resolved. 

[LMS2968]

A bit like the LNWR - Midland war but with extra snow. Had both the Caley and NBR finished up in the same group, it would hardly have stopped the squabbling, and if that group had been the LMS, they'd have had a civil war both north and south of the border.

[Compound2632]

17 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

A bit like the LNWR - Midland war but with extra snow. Had both the Caley and NBR finished up in the same group, it would hardly have stopped the squabbling, and if that group had been the LMS, they'd have had a civil war both north and south of the border.

 

Amusing but rather far from an accurate assessment of the state of affairs.

[The Stationmaster]

On 08/01/2023 at 11:57, Compound2632 said:

 

Amusing but rather far from an accurate assessment of the state of affairs.

Not really.  There were still rivalries and jealousy between depots in the 1970s in South Wales that could in many respects to be traced back to different Pre-Group ownership   And there was one depot where the arrangement of some of the Driver's links exactly reflected the way the work, or rather what was left of it, had been covered by the depots of the various Pre-Group companies in that area  

 

And during  GW150 in 1985 there was very nearly a stand-up fight between locomen on one occasion with one pair accusing the other of being 'Southern men so it shouldn't have been their job anyway' (on a GW150 steam hauled special.  And that sort of thing went on everywhere - in 1969 I came across someone in Scotland, brought back to work past retirement age, who made it absolutely clear that he was a North British man, not an LNER man.

[Colin_McLeod]

On 07/01/2023 at 12:46, t-b-g said:

Nobody could disagree with that...........

 

A risky thing to say. This is RMweb 😁

[LMS2968]

There might - or might not - have been harmony in the higher echelons but at ground level, men, certainly those who fell to the LMS, were very much wedded to their re-Grouping roots. This enmity was apparent not only LNWR - Midland but even LNWR - LYR, which two companies had been 'chums' for many years. The L&YR men liked the Midland influence no more than those of the LNWR; have a read of Eric Mason ('Rivington'), My Life with Locomotives (1962) Ian Allan Ltd.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

There were still rivalries and jealousy between depots in the 1970s in South Wales that could in many respects to be traced back to different Pre-Group ownership  

 

59 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

There might - or might not - have been harmony in the higher echelons but at ground level, men, certainly those who fell to the LMS, were very much wedded to their re-Grouping roots. 

 

Well, yes, I admit that wasn't the side of things I had in mind.

 

As D.L. Smith reports a 'Sou-West man saying of the king during the abdication crisis, "They are saying that a Caley man is getting his job!"

 

 

[pH]

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

And that sort of thing went on everywhere - in 1969 I came across someone in Scotland, brought back to work past retirement age, who made it absolutely clear that he was a North British man, not an LNER man.

I know I’ve posted about this before, but it seems relevant, so apologies for the re-post. 
 

Polmadie shed (ex-LMS, ex-Caley) lost all its Duchesses in 1962/63. About the same time, they were ‘given’ several A2 Pacifics, which were not generally appreciated. When talking to me about this, a Polmadie driver referred to an A2 as “One of they big NB (as Mike says, not LNER) scraps.”

[Compound2632]

This goes back to the brevity of the grouping period - a mere 25 years. At a time when there was much more stability of employment than nowadays, and most men were starting work at 15, 50 years' railway service would not have been unusual. A senior driver in the early 1960s could well have started his railway career before the Great War and have had a good decade of service with his pre-grouping company. (Although almost certainly interrupted by a couple of years of conscription.) As a young radical firebrand, he'd probably been frustrated by the failure to nationalise in the early 1920s; it's easy to see that his loyalty to the half-measure of the grouped company might not be strong.