LTSR-why did it become part of the LMS?

[The Stationmaster]

On 17/01/2024 at 22:06, rodent279 said:

Although we've strayed somewhat from the original topic, this is very interesting stuff-keep it up!

Right time to inject some dates.  According to one source Sam Fay was not seconded, by the LSWR, to the MSWJR  until1892. and he left, back to the LSWR, in 1899.

 

The MSWJR, under the powers of the Swindon and Cheltenham Extension Railway (which became part of the MSWJR in 1884) commenced running trains to Cheltenham on 1 August 1891 the connection to the Banbury and Cheltemnham Direct had opened in  March 1891.  Although the B&CR had been worked by the GWR (under powers granted by the GWR Act of 1886) the line did not become part of the GWR until  6 August 1897.  The GWR Act of 1900 acquired powers to purchase the land for the purpose of doubling the line (parts of the line in reality).

 

The Marlborough and Grafton Railway was incorporated by Act of  Parliament dated 7 August 1895 and opened on 25 June 1898. The  construction of this line, which was to be worked by the MSWJR under powers granted in its Act of Incorporation, created an independent (of the GWR) route between Marlborough and Grafton with its own (high level) station at Savernake.  The company was vested in the MSWJR from 1 August 1899. 

 

Thus the 'by-pass line at Savernake opened a few weeks short of exactly 7 years after the MSWJR began running trains over the Banbury and Cheltenham into Cheltenham.

 

Incidentally while some of the the independent South Wales companies amalagamated with the GWR from 1 January 1922 there were exceptions.  Notable exceptions were the Brecon and Merthyr, and Neath and Brecon, which were absorbed by the GWR on that date - as were the Penarth Harbour, Dock, and Railway company, the Penarth extension railway (Penarth to Cogan via Llandough) the Vale of Glamorgan Railway (Barry to Bridgend),  the Port Talbot Railway and Dock, the South Wales Mineral railway,  the Rhondda and Swansea Bay Railway, and most of the companies west of Swansea except the Llanelly Dock and Railway (which amalgamated.)   The Swansea Harbour Trust was vested in the GWR from jJuly 1923 under separate legislation,  The Cambrian also amalgamated with the GWR from 1 January 1922 but all the other separate companies in Mid and North Wales were absorbed by the GWR.

 

Source for all dates (except Sam Fay). the GWR Analysis Book published by the company in 1926.  OPC did a reprint of it in 1986 but I also have a copy of the GWR original publication complete with map (the OPC  reprint dd not include the map).

Edited January 18 by The Stationmaster

[Compound2632]

8 hours ago, pH said:

The G&SWR was not involved in the Forth Bridge Railway Company. In addition to the NBR, the NER, GNR and MR were partners in the company.

 

I didn't intend to say it was; if you took away the impression that that was what I was saying, that must be the consequence of poor sentence construction, for which I apologise. But the G&SWR's Chairman, Matthew William Thompson, was Chairman of the Forth Bridge Company and of the Midland Railway, up to 1890. I forget the exact arrangement but think the four railway companies guaranteed the Forth Bridge Company's dividend, or some such, rather than owning it outright? 

Edited January 19 by Compound2632

[DenysW]

10 hours ago, pH said:

In addition to the NBR, the NER, GNR and MR were partners in the company.

This may be a technical nit-pick, but I thought the Midland simply helped guarantee the Forth Bridge company would pay 4% on its shares. It was pointed out somewhere that if the Midland was a part-owner, then that section of track would have had to appear on the 1913 map in its accounts, and it doesn't. Certainly it didn't report income from the Forth Bridge in its Net Revenue account, where it reported on other Joint companies. Same for both points for the Great Northern. I haven't checked the others.

 

Apologies to @Compound2632 for the overlap with his reply.

Edited January 19 by DenysW
Add apology

[Compound2632]

49 minutes ago, DenysW said:

Apologies to @Compound2632 for the overlap with his reply.

 

Not at all. Thank-you for confirming my recollection!

 

Did the G&SWR stand to benefit from the Forth Bridge, though? I think the answer has to be yes, because by strengthening the NBR's competitive position it weakened the Caledonian.

[pH]

I’m not disagreeing with anything that’s been written in the two posts immediately above. I’m just not sure what the arrangement was between the railways involved in the Forth Bridge Railway Company. Here are the sites from which I got the information I used in my previous post:

 

https://www.railscot.co.uk/Forth_Bridge_Railway/index.php

 

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/who-we-are/our-history/iconic-infrastructure/the-history-of-the-forth-bridge-fife/

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, pH said:

I’m not disagreeing with anything that’s been written in the two posts immediately above. I’m just not sure what the arrangement was between the railways involved in the Forth Bridge Railway Company. 

 

It is a rather arcane point but I think that from @DenysW's post you can now be sure!

 

4 minutes ago, pH said:

https://www.railscot.co.uk/Forth_Bridge_Railway/index.php

 

Quote

The capital for the bridge was raised by four railway companies as shown in this clickable pie chart

 

This is a misunderstanding but again it's a subtle point. The Forth Bridge Company could raise the capital required because the four railway companies guaranteed the dividend. Anyway the pie chart is wrong - the proportions were: NBR 35%, MR 30%, and GNR and NER 17.5% each. I recognise those incorrect figures though - I think they appear in one (or more likely several) of O.S. Nock's books.

 

Quote

The line and bridge were jointly maintained by these companies until the 1923 grouping.

 

I'm fairly sure this is incorrect too but I don't know the exact arrangement. The Forth Bridge Company remained a separate entity until nationalisation, so remained at least financially responsible for maintenance. I very much doubt any of the three English companies had any direct role. 

[DenysW]

14 minutes ago, pH said:

I’m just not sure what the arrangement was between the railways involved in the Forth Bridge Railway Company.

I'll have a look at the text parts of the Great Northern's accounts 1882-1890 when next I look at them. It is both more verbose and more transparent than the Midland. A 30% share (to the MR) of 'only' £3.2M is not enough to be distinguished in the accumulation of capital spent by the Midland in that period.

 

What always puzzled me was why the Midland would help pay for the Forth Bridge, and particularly pay more than the NER, which was both as financially healthy as the MR, and a lot closer to the Forth on easier gradients. Acting as a guarantor accepts risk, but doesn't demand money, so it all made more sense.

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, DenysW said:

What always puzzled me was why the Midland would help pay for the Forth Bridge, and particularly pay more than the NER, which was both as financially healthy as the MR, and a lot closer to the Forth on easier gradients. Acting as a guarantor accepts risk, but doesn't demand money, so it all made more sense.

 

Partly due to the empire-building ambition of Matthew William Thompson. During his chairmanship of the Midland and the G&SWR, there was a nearly-successful attempt at amalgamation of the two companies - defeated in the end by G&SWR shareholders who believed the terms offered for their stock were inadequate. There was also some talk of amalgamation of the G&SWR and the NBR, which the Caledonian fended off by offering amalgamation of itself with one or the other on more favourable terms (but not I think both at once). This is all described in Peter Baughan's North of Leeds. 

 

Also, the Midland was keen to expand its Scottish traffic. From the opening of the Settle & Carlisle, it had routes to Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Ireland; the Forth Bridge gave both the Midland and the East Coast companies a route to Aberdeen, Perth, and Inverness that was finally competitive with the West Coast companies. That the Midland didn't think it had quite as much to gain as the East Coast companies is illustrated by its 30% contribution to the guarantee, compared to the combined GN / NE share of 35%. (This also shows that the expectation was that the primary source of income would be from passenger traffic between London and Scotland.)

[Compound2632]

Going back to the LT&SR question for a moment, the Midland's purchase was far from completely out of the blue. (Or red, I suppose purchase by the Great Eastern would have been out of the blue.) The Midland had been running a passenger service between St Pancras and Southend for many years - the celebrated 1738 Class 4-4-0 No. 1757 Beatrice was outstationed at the LT&SR's Southend shed from building in 1885 until the late 90s. Both the LT&SR and the GER used St Pancras as their West End terminus - fashionable first-class passengers didn't want to be dumped in the City! I'm not sure when the P&O Tilbury boat trains started running from St Pancras; that may have been after the Midland take-over. 

[rodent279]

53 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Both the LT&SR and the GER used St Pancras as their West End terminus

Didn't know that! Did the LNER continue with this?

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Did the LNER continue with this?

 

I don't know. 

[JohnR]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

. Both the LT&SR and the GER used St Pancras as their West End terminus - fashionable first-class passengers didn't want to be dumped in the City! I'm not sure when the P&O Tilbury boat trains started running from St Pancras; that may have been after the Midland take-over. 

 

Interesting definition of West End. EasyJet would be proud!

[Compound2632]

11 minutes ago, JohnR said:

Interesting definition of West End. EasyJet would be proud!

 

A darned sight nearer the West End than Liverpool Street or Fenchurch Street! 

 

The South Eastern had a similar problem, with London Bridge being convenient for the City but remote from the West End. Its solution - the extension to Charing Cross - must be about as West End as you can get? 

 

The Great Western had the opposite problem, of access to the City. Hence its early interest in the Metropolitan Railway; also the South Western, though its solution came a generation later. 

Edited January 19 by Compound2632

[2251]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

The Midland had been running a passenger service between St Pancras and Southend for many years - the celebrated 1738 Class 4-4-0 No. 1757 Beatrice was outstationed at the LT&SR's Southend shed from building in 1885 until the late 90s. Both the LT&SR and the GER used St Pancras as their West End terminus - fashionable first-class passengers didn't want to be dumped in the City! I'm not sure when the P&O Tilbury boat trains started running from St Pancras; that may have been after the Midland take-over. 

 

What route did they take before the opening of the Tottenham and Forest Gate Railway inn 1894?

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, 2251 said:

 

What route did they take before the opening of the Tottenham and Forest Gate Railway inn 1894?

 

Via Stratford, I suppose?

[DenysW]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

Also, the Midland was keen to expand its Scottish traffic.

Probably a correct  summary of their attitude at the time but almost certainly delusional. The Scottish railway economy (all of it, not just the fraction north of Edinburgh)  was about 10% of the England&Wales rail economy, so getting a bigger bit of a small part of a small pie isn't worth it.

 

I'm still thinking about how to delve into the numbers to get the truth and not just confirm preconceptions on Extensions, but so far only the Midland's London & Manchester twin extension looks convincingly worthwhile. General increase in railway traffic 59%, Midland increase 100%, capital costs leave Midland dividends unaffected. The Settle and Carlisle and the Great Northern's Derbyshire adventure both look neutral, whereas Phase 2 of the GCR's London extension (the GCR/GWR Joint bit) looks like an severe unforced error.

[DenysW]

6 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Via Stratford, I suppose?

Probably, but not certainly, not. My 1887 Bradshaw reprint only has a two-hourly service calling at Kentish Town and terminating at Tottenham Hale as the connection to other GER services, which indeed pass via Stratford.

[kevinlms]

14 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Via Stratford, I suppose?

Yes.

 

Early timetables

The first timetable (1854) consisted of 11 trains each way which ran from Tilbury with ferry connections from Gravesend. The timetable was a mix of fast and stopping trains with the smaller stations at Grays, Purfleet, Rainham and Barking getting seven trains up trains per day, whilst in the down direction Barking and Grays had eight stops whilst the others stayed on seven. On arrival at Stratford the train split into two portions with one portion went for Fenchurch Street (calling Stepney where connections for NLR services to Chalk Farm were available) and the other for Bishospgate (some of which called at Mile End).

 

From

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London,_Tilbury_and_Southend_Railway#Operations

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Yes.

 

But not to St Pancras. The same source states:

 

Quote

In 1894 the Midland introduced four Southend to St Pancras trains each way and a Midland Railway locomotive was outbased at Shoeburyness. The Midland stated they could not operate the service and after some negotiation the LT&SR started operating these trains into St Pancras with one of their engines overnighting at Kentish Town engine shed.

 

So I'm probably wrong and Beatrice only went to Shoeburyness (not Southend) in 1894.

 

The Midland Railway Study Centre has a good collection of photos from the latter half of the 1890s, showing Midland or LT&SR engines hauling Midland passenger trains on the LT&SR.

[Nearholmer]

The LT&S went through its entire existence trying to fool people into thinking it ran to Gravesend. I think it even had train headboardsxshowing that destination.

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

The LT&S went through its entire existence trying to fool people into thinking it ran to Gravesend. I think it even had train headboardsxshowing that destination.

 

It got people to part with money  under that delusion:

 

 

 

 

[Embedded links to catalogue images of Midland Railway Study Centre items 03382, 03222, and 03386.]

[2251]

17 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

The LT&S went through its entire existence trying to fool people into thinking it ran to Gravesend. I think it even had train headboardsxshowing that destination.

 

In the same way, I suppose, that the GW ran to Dartmouth.

[Stoke West]

28 minutes ago, 2251 said:

 

In the same way, I suppose, that the GW ran to Dartmouth.

And the LSWR ran to The Isle of Wight

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, Stoke West said:

And the LSWR ran to The Isle of Wight

Indeed, and since it had ticket-offices in places on the IoW that were served by its steamers, but which had no railways, it must have.

 

It did at least have the decency to part-own some track on the IoW though, from Ryde Pier Head to St John’s, jointly with the LB&SCR, even if it never ran trains there.

[DenysW]

This is the Work-in-Progress I mentioned. The capital increase is for the 5 years before the extension opens and isn't just the cost of the extension, the receipts and profits are for the 10 years following. The catastrophic collapse in the GCR's profitability was actually mostly due to Phase 2 - if it had stopped once it got to Marylebone via the Metropolitan its Extension might well have looked like a success.

 

Getting back to the OP, the LT&S might well have been staring at a 50-100% increase in its £6M Capital to electrify, at a time when lines like the North London were shrinking radically. All pain, no gain, except for the better, cleaner, quieter service to the passengers?