LTSR-why did it become part of the LMS?

[rodent279]

This may have been covered before, but.....

 

I realise the the Midland took over the LTSR in 1912, and I have read that the LTSR dropped many hints to the GER about a merger or buyout, but they never took the hint.

Why then did the 1921 Railways act group the LTSR into the LMSR, and not in the LNER?

[JohnR]

You've answered your own question - it was taken over by the Midland. The 1921 Act put the Midland into the LMS, it therefore also put all the railways it owned or part owned into the LMS. 

[rodent279]

Yes, but could the Act not have split the LTSR away from the Midland and put it in with the LNER? The London & Blackwall Railway existed, in legal terms at least, until the Grouping, and was combined with the LNER.

Edited January 16 by rodent279

[Jeremy Cumberland]

The LTSR isn't mentioned in the Railways Act. It had ceased to exist when it was bought by the Midland Railway in 1912, and of course the Midland became part of the LMS.

 

I am not aware of any existing company being broken up by the Act.

 

Many railway mergers and takeovers before 1921 weren't really mergers or takeovers at all in a legal sense. You mention the London & Blackwall Railway, which remained an independent company, although it had been leased by the Great Eastern for many years before the Grouping. It is natural that it should have remained with its operating company. In the case of the South Eastern Railway and the London Chatham and Dover Railway, both companies retained their own existence when they united under the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Companies Managing Committee, and all three are named in the Railways Act as being constituent companies of "The Southern Group".

Edited January 16 by Jeremy Cumberland

[Bucoops]

It's an odd case, definitely. I never realised until relatively recently that Fenchucrch St Station was owned by the LNER, not the LMS at grouping. I assume the Midland ended up with the LTSR for competition reasons - the GER built their own line to Southend, no need for another one. Wikipedia has information on the LTSR being a joint operation between the London & Blackwall Railway, and the Eastern Counties Railway - the latter begin a later consituent of the GER so there was an early link.

[pete_mcfarlane]

9 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

It's an odd case, definitely. I never realised until relatively recently that Fenchucrch St Station was owned by the LNER, not the LMS at grouping.

It was served by some LNER trains. They even electrified it (at 1500v DC) as part of their Liverpool Street electrification programme, with regular empty trains running through the 1950s to keep the wires clean. 

 

[Michael Hodgson]

12 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

It's an odd case, definitely. I never realised until relatively recently that Fenchucrch St Station was owned by the LNER, not the LMS at grouping. I assume the Midland ended up with the LTSR for competition reasons - the GER built their own line to Southend, no need for another one. Wikipedia has information on the LTSR being a joint operation between the London & Blackwall Railway, and the Eastern Counties Railway - the latter begin a later consituent of the GER so there was an early link.

Grouping wasn't about competition, it was necessary to sort out the mess the railways were in post war.

Surely it was simple - LTSR didn't exist, it was already part of MR, MR was obviously going to be LMS group.

What is perhaps harder to understand is why M&GN didn't get grouped into either LMS or LNER.

[Matt37268]

21 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

It's an odd case, definitely. I never realised until relatively recently that Fenchucrch St Station was owned by the LNER, not the LMS at grouping. I assume the Midland ended up with the LTSR for competition reasons - the GER built their own line to Southend, no need for another one. Wikipedia has information on the LTSR being a joint operation between the London & Blackwall Railway, and the Eastern Counties Railway - the latter begin a later consituent of the GER so there was an early link.

If you have a look on the Monopoly board you’ll notice all the stations are LNER ones… 

[Steamport Southport]

1 minute ago, Matt37268 said:

If you have a look on the Monopoly board you’ll notice all the stations are LNER ones… 

 

Only because of the LNER publicity department. They paid Waddingtons to put their name on the board!

 

The original has Pennsylvania Railroad, Short Line, B&O Railroad and Reading Railroad.

 

 

Jason

[Dungrange]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

What is perhaps harder to understand is why M&GN didn't get grouped into either LMS or LNER.

 

Because the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway was jointly owned by the Midland Railway (LMS) and Great Northern Railway (LNER), so it became a joint LNER/LMS line.  No different from the Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway (LMS/SR) or Cheshire Lines Committee (LMS/LNER), where the parent companies were placed in different groups.

[Dungrange]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

Why then did the 1921 Railways act group the LTSR into the LMSR, and not in the LNER?

 

Because in 1921, the LT&SR no longer existed - it was simply an integral part of the Midland Railway and had been since before WW1.  MR went to the LMS. No further thought required.

 

The question you really want to ask is why was the Great Eastern Railway not interested in purchasing the LT&SR and Midland Railway was?  The Midland Railway probably had more money to offer the LT&SR shareholders and acquiring the LT&SR gave the Midland Railway access to places that they didn't have access to prior to 1912 such as Southend-on-Sea.  The GER was less flush with cash and acquiring the LT&SR would have brought them less benefits - they already had a route between London and Southend-on-Sea.  What are the other major population centres that the LT&SR served?  Basildon is a major town now, but in 1931 it had a population of just 1,159 and didn't get it's station until 1974.  Dagenham Dock didn't open until 1908 (not that long before the Midland offered to purchase the LT&SR) and Dagenham Heathway didn't open until 1932 under the LMS.  In 1911 Dagenham was a relatively small town with a population of 7,930.  Access to the Port at Tilbury was possibly the most valuable asset, but presumably the GER simply didn't have enough money to offer the LT&SR shareholders.

[DCB]

It looks like the Midland swooped after 2 failed attempts by the GER and a live one by the LNWR through the NLR alerted them to the opportunity to expand their empire, by offering shareholders  three for one share exchange worth 6% Pa  (Other Midland shareholders had to make do with 2%)  The LTSR had already committed to electrify much of the network and didn't have the funds to upgrade the infrastructure and keep their shareholders in the lap of  Edwardian luxury  so it was probably a good deal all round.  The GER retaliated by preventing the LTSR running their brand new 4-6-4 tanks over their tracks.   

[rodent279]

So were any companies split or partitioned under the RA1921? Was it simply an exercise in reduce the number of controlling interests, rather than an attempt at reshaping the geography?

 

Interesting that the LTSR had committed to electrify, would it have been 3rd rail DC or overhead line? Id assume 3/4rDC for compatibility with the District railway. One for the Imaginary Railways thread.

 

Perhaps another question would be if the MR takeover had not happened,  would the LTSR have gone into the LNER, or would it & the District Railway have been combined?

[Wheatley]

There was no attempt at shaping geography, it was simply an exercise in stopping the national network going bust. 

 

Look at the tangle of parallel LNER (NBR) and LMS (CR) lines along the Clyde or around Leith, or the spiders web of LNER and LMS lines around South and West Yorkshire. The latter were even still part of two different BR regions until quite late on. 

Edited January 17 by Wheatley
Fat fingers

[Jeremy Cumberland]

21 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Perhaps another question would be if the MR takeover had not happened,  would the LTSR have gone into the LNER, or would it & the District Railway have been combined?

It depends what alternative history played out between 1912 and 1921. Schedule 1 of the Act, which lists all the grouped companies, divides them into "Constituent Companies" and "Subsidiary Companies". There are only 27 "Constituent Companies", and three of these represent the SECR as I mentioned above. The division isn't quite as I might expect - the Maryport and Carlisle (which I think was still fully independent in 1921) is listed as a "Subsidiary Company" - but on the whole the "Subsidiary Companies" are ones that had a separate legal existence but which were in fact operated by another company. As far as I can tell, "Subsidiary Companies" were all grouped with their operating company.

 

So, where the LT&S went depends on whether it had formed links with the LNWR or the GER, or whether it had remained fully independent and operated its own trains. If it remained independent then it would almost certainly have joined the LNER. However, if it had joined up with the LNWR, it would presumably have joined the LMS.

 

I could be mistaken, but I don't think there was any suggestion that the LT&S might be absorbed by the District Railway, who weren't in the best financial shape themselves as I recall. However, in a delightful "just suppose", we might then imagine the pressure to include both the District and the Metropolitan in the Grouping, under the LNER (the obvious home for the Met, with its extensive running alongside the Great Central).

[Bucoops]

9 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Grouping wasn't about competition, it was necessary to sort out the mess the railways were in post war.

Surely it was simple - LTSR didn't exist, it was already part of MR, MR was obviously going to be LMS group.

What is perhaps harder to understand is why M&GN didn't get grouped into either LMS or LNER.

 

Sorry, i wasn't clear - I was referring specifically about Fenchurch St Station ownership at grouping, seems odd that the London terminus of the former LTSR line being owned by someone else when grouping was planned. It's the ownership of the line I was referring to with regard to Midland ownership over the Great Eastern.

I think it was the Monopoly game board that helped me "click" at ownership.

[Aire Head]

10 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Yes, but could the Act not have split the LTSR away from the Midland and put it in with the LNER?

 

There is no reason to split off the LTSR from the LMS and such a move would have ilicitied much protest too and set an uncomfortable precedent. It would have bogged down the grouping even more by causing bickering over who gets to have what. After all if you can arbiterily remove a bit off one company what's to say you can't do it to another one?

[Jeremy Cumberland]

10 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

 

Sorry, i wasn't clear - I was referring specifically about Fenchurch St Station ownership at grouping, seems odd that the London terminus of the former LTSR line being owned by someone else when grouping was planned. It's the ownership of the line I was referring to with regard to Midland ownership over the Great Eastern.

I think it was the Monopoly game board that helped me "click" at ownership.

I think that Fenchurch Street was owned by the London and Blackwall Railway. The Eastern Counties/Great Eastern also seem to have invested in it. Thus the station went with the GER and London and Blackwall to the LNER.

[rodent279]

12 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

 

There is no reason to split off the LTSR from the LMS and such a move would have ilicitied much protest too and set an uncomfortable precedent. It would have bogged down the grouping even more by causing bickering over who gets to have what. After all if you can arbiterily remove a bit off one company what's to say you can't do it to another one?

Yes, thinking about it, this makes sense. One could imagine the Midland then protesting that the MSWJ went into the GW.

[rodent279]

1 minute ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

I think that Fenchurch Street was owned by the London and Blackwall Railway. The Eastern Counties/Great Eastern also seem to have invested in it. Thus the station went with the GER and London and Blackwall to the LNER.

So who operated most trains at Fenchurch St? If it was the LTSR, that makes it unusual in being a major London terminus owned by one company,  but with most trains operated by another.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

14 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Yes, thinking about it, this makes sense. One could imagine the Midland then protesting that the MSWJ went into the GW.

Despite its name, the MSWJR was independent rather than under joint ownership. It was very poor, though, and it leaned on its three bigger neighbours for support, and played them off against each other. Perhaps it would have fitted better into the Southern, but I can't see it being given to the LMS, granting them access to Southampton.

[phil-b259]

20 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

So who operated most trains at Fenchurch St? If it was the LTSR, that makes it unusual in being a major London terminus owned by one company,  but with most trains operated by another.

When and what era?

 

Fenchurch Street was built by the London & Blackwall railway conpany and initially it not only used cable haulage plus an unusual track gauge but it was VERY busy with messengers rushing between city merchants and the docks - plus passengers who used the new railway to make connection with steamships from Blackwall to places in Kent and Essex.

 

However after several decades the invention of the electric telegraph and the general spread of the railway network meant passenger numbers stated to decline - so the L&B looked for other ways to generate revenue. The GER meanwhile we’re having the opposite trouble with passenger numbers overwhelming their London terminus,  so the L&B was rebuilt as a steam worked standard gauge railway and a new link line from Stepney (now Limehouse) up to Bow on the GEML was built with the GER paying tolls for the use of L&B to Fenchurch street.

 

In the following decades the LTSR (which didn’t exist in the early years of the GER) started using the L&B (initially via Forrest Gate, Stratford and Bow before the line via East Ham was opened in conjunction with the District line) for its London terminus again paying tolls to the L&B

 

The North London Railway even used Fenchurch Street for a time both before Broad Street opened (Richmond - Fenchurch Street) and afterwards for a Broad St - Fenchurch St service though this didn’t last very long before it got cut back to terminate at Poplar instead.

 

Eventually the L&B leased their entire railway to the GER and by the time of the 1921 grouping both companies ended up being incorporated into the LNER.

[bécasse]

58 minutes ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

Despite its name, the MSWJR was independent rather than under joint ownership. It was very poor, though, and it leaned on its three bigger neighbours for support, and played them off against each other. Perhaps it would have fitted better into the Southern, but I can't see it being given to the LMS, granting them access to Southampton.

The MSWJcR's "problem" was Sam Fay who had made too good a job of running it before he moved to the GCR. If it hadn't been for him, the line, which was useful to the MR and LSWR (and even more useful to the military authorities), would almost certainly have become a parallel joint line to the S&DJR, whether it would have shared management with the S&DJR or have had a separate (but same partners) joint management team put in place is a moot point.

 

Another interesting grouping apparent "mis-allocation" was the Cambrian Railways which, prior to the state control of the Great War and after, had very definitely been under the wing of the LNWR (influenced by but not owned by it) and yet was grouped into the GWR and not the LMSR.

[2251]

16 hours ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

The LTSR isn't mentioned in the Railways Act. It had ceased to exist when it was bought by the Midland Railway in 1912, and of course the Midland became part of the LMS.

 

 

 

The position is a little more complicated than this, although basically correct.

 

The LT&S company was incorporated by the London Tilbury and Southend Railway Act 1862.

 

The Midland Railway (London Tilbury and Southend Railway Purchase) Act 1912 effected a statutory vesting of the undertaking of the LT&S in the Midland, including the transfer of employment of the LT&S's "officers clerks and servants" to the Midland.

 

The directors of the LT&S company, however, were to remain in office "for the purposes only" of "winding up the affairs of" the LT&S company and on "completion of such winding up" the LT&S company "shall be by virtue of this Act finally dissolved and cease to exist."

 

In addition, under the Act, the Midland issued new securities, which holders of existing LT&S securities received in exchange for their LT&S securities. 

 

In short, the company incorporated by the 1862 Act ceased to exist following the transfer of its entire undertaking to the Midland by the terms of the 1912 Act (the obtaining of holders of LT&S securities of new Midland securities) and the conclusion of the winding-up for which the 1912 Act provided. 

 

The 1912 Act, for anyone who wants to read it, is here:

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/Geo5/2-3/100/pdfs/ukla_19120100_en.pdf

[The Stationmaster]

7 hours ago, bécasse said:

The MSWJcR's "problem" was Sam Fay who had made too good a job of running it before he moved to the GCR. If it hadn't been for him, the line, which was useful to the MR and LSWR (and even more useful to the military authorities), would almost certainly have become a parallel joint line to the S&DJR, whether it would have shared management with the S&DJR or have had a separate (but same partners) joint management team put in place is a moot point.

 

Another interesting grouping apparent "mis-allocation" was the Cambrian Railways which, prior to the state control of the Great War and after, had very definitely been under the wing of the LNWR (influenced by but not owned by it) and yet was grouped into the GWR and not the LMSR.

It might have been useful to the MR but the only way they could access it was over the GWR.  The odd thing was that while both the MR and LSWR had Running Powers over the MSWJcnR between Andover Jcn and Andoversford they had no running powers over the GWR between Andoversford and Cheltenham.  Thus at the northern end they could neither get onto or off the MSWJR.  The LSWR could obviously exchange traffic with the GWR at Andoversford but they were then reliant on the GWR to work that traffic to the Midland and vice c versa.  

 

Similarly they had no Running Powers to the GWR at either Savernake or Swindon so again any traffic transferring at those places would automatically be with the GWR.  So little wonder that the Running Powers were not exercised    As far as Post-Group ownership is concerned clearly 'something went on' as the MSWJR did not become absorbed by the GWR until July 1923  and the Absorption Schme for that was not put in place until September that year.  In some respects GWR ownership made sense because the MSWJR exchanged, or potentially exchanged, traffic with the GWR at three places compared with only one point of traffic exchange with the Southern and none with the LMS.  Amnd neither the Midland or the LSWR n nad any sort of wnership or shareholding control over the MSWJR making it very dfferent from the S&DJtR which those two companies jointly owned