Centenary of the Grouping

[rodent279]

Reviving an old thread, and wandering slightly OT, the Underground system was not included in the grouping. I've read elsewhere that in 1933 they were "taken into public ownership, rather than full nationalisation".

What is the difference between public ownership and nationalisation?

[62613]

43 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Reviving an old thread, and wandering slightly OT, the Underground system was not included in the grouping. I've read elsewhere that in 1933 they were "taken into public ownership, rather than full nationalisation".

What is the difference between public ownership and nationalisation?

You say "potayto, I say portarto"

Edited January 31 by 62613

[Wickham Green too]

Much the same as today when the DaFt has stripped certain TOCs of their franchises and are operating them at arms length - in neither case are they called British Railways !

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

Reviving an old thread, and wandering slightly OT, the Underground system was not included in the grouping. I've read elsewhere that in 1933 they were "taken into public ownership, rather than full nationalisation".

What is the difference between public ownership and nationalisation?

 

I believe this means that it was a company in which the Government was the sole shareholder. We've seen similar in recent years where the Government has taken a controlling shareholding in publicly-listed companies in the banking sector.

[The Stationmaster]

7 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I believe this means that it was a company in which the Government was the sole shareholder. We've seen similar in recent years where the Government has taken a controlling shareholding in publicly-listed companies in the banking sector.

Seems not to have been the case as in 1947, when the BTC took over the LPTB, various LPTB stocks were valued for future payment in the form of  BTC stocks.  One or two parts of the UndergrounD still existed as separate companies until the 1947 Act - e.g. the GW & Mr et Hammersmith & City Joint Committee.

[Colin_McLeod]

23 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I believe this means that it was a company in which the Government was the sole shareholder. We've seen similar in recent years where the Government has taken a controlling shareholding in publicly-listed companies in the banking sector.

 

That is also the case with Northern Ireland Railways Company Limited.  It's a private limited company wholly owned by the Northetn Ireland Transport Holding Company which itself is a public corporation.

[rodent279]

Pardon me for being pedantic/slow on the uptake/dim/all of the above, but so what then is nationalisation, if it is not public ownership of a company? How is it different?

[The Stationmaster]

12 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Pardon me for being pedantic/slow on the uptake/dim/all of the above, but so what then is nationalisation, if it is not public ownership of a company? How is it different?

I think it boils down to the existence or otherwise of shares and legal status.  Being a company puts the Govt at arms length whereas full nationalisation involves direct control by a Govt department.

[Arun Sharma]

37 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I think it boils down to the existence or otherwise of shares and legal status.  Being a company puts the Govt at arms length whereas full nationalisation involves direct control by a Govt department.

I imagine 'being a company' means that the Govt. is no longer responsible for pensions [other than the standard state pension]. Although oddly enough that is more often used as a [hidden] reason for privatisation.

[rodent279]

On 02/01/2023 at 11:40, t-b-g said:

 

Indeed and that is why, in my view, it was highly likely that Robinson was approached. He had the seniority. No matter how people try to interpret the surviving records 100 years later, it is highly unlikely, in my view, that Gresley would have been appointed without some sort of discussion with Robinson.

What if, just suppose, the LNER had gone with Robinson as CME, and he persevered fire a few years, then retired in say 1926-7? Is it beyond the realms of possibility that Stanier could have made the move from Swindon a few years earlier, and gone to Doncaster?

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

What if, just suppose, the LNER had gone with Robinson as CME, and he persevered fire a few years, then retired in say 1926-7? Is it beyond the realms of possibility that Stanier could have made the move from Swindon a few years earlier, and gone to Doncaster?

 

As long as Thompson or Bulleid didn't get the job, we would have been OK.

 

Written with tongue firmly in cheek in case anybody wants to get grumpy about it.