Origins for the LNWR/L&Y Alliance?

[1165Valour]

In 1847, as the recently formed LNWR absorbed the Huddersfield & Manchester Railway and Leeds, Dewsbury & Manchester Railway, the L&Y dissuaded them from building their own line through Mirfield. Instead, they offered them running powers from Heaton Lodge Junction through Mirfield to Ravensthorpe. 

 

This made me wonder: when and why did the L&Y and LNWR make common cause, and how often was this relationship strained?

[rogerzilla]

John Ramsbottom worked for both of them.  He left the LNWR under something of a cloud when they refused to pay him more - there's a story about him literally burning a fistful of royalty cheques in front of the board of directors and flouncing out.  He then semi-retired until the L&YR hired him to set up Horwich Works.

[Aire Head]

On 16/05/2024 at 19:58, 1165Valour said:

This made me wonder: when and why did the L&Y and LNWR make common cause, and how often was this relationship strained?

 

Given that one of the few things these companies could agree on was "**** the Midland" I wonder if that has something to do with it?

 

[adb968008]

The two are quite complimentary..

 

lyr cut coast to coast in a big thick wedge of what was one of the most productive parts of the world, the lnw connected london to scotland. 

 

the MR competed quite heavily in the north to LYR, the GCR was a threat to both LNW and LYR, leaving either GWR or GNR as other likely suitors to the LYR.. of that lot the LNW is the best suitor. 

 

Had 1923 not happened either the MR or GCR may have found themselves up against a considerable threat on freight business which may in part explain Horwich’s rapid dismemberment at the hands of the MR at Derby in the LMS.

 

Had the LYR merged with the MR it would have on the map looked good but could imagine a huge amount of cultural differences, one being very forwards looking, the other stuck in the 1880’s.

 

The LYR is very under rated (because it didnt go south of Watford) but it was revolutionary and way ahead of it’s peers, indeed many CMEs learned their trade there.

 

 

Edited May 25 by adb968008

[Velocemitch]

I thought the L&Y merged with the LNWR, just prior to the grouping?

not sure where I read that, it would have been a long long time ago! 

[Aire Head]

12 hours ago, adb968008 said:

the other stuck in the 1880’s.

The Midland was far from stuck in the 1880s that's just propaganda from those factions within the LMS who didn't like the Midland.

[MR Chuffer]

26 minutes ago, Velocemitch said:

I thought the L&Y merged with the LNWR, just prior to the grouping?

Yep, 1 year before...

[MR Chuffer]

More in this link near bottom, the LNWR, LYR and MR traffic agreement in 1907. https://www.rmweb.co.uk/forums/topic/113035-more-pre-grouping-wagons-in-4mm-the-d299-appreciation-thread/?do=findComment&comment=5268554

[LMS2968]

1 hour ago, Aire Head said:

The Midland was far from stuck in the 1880s that's just propaganda from those factions within the LMS who didn't like the Midland.

That is, all of them!

[steve45]

There is a history of collaboration between the LNWR and LYR. 

 

In 1870 the LYR was in a poor state, resulting in the two companies applying to amalgamate in 1871, this was rejected by parliament in 1872 after opposition from other railway companies claiming it would form a monopoly.

 

In 1872 the LNWR started to supply a small number of locomotives to the LYR, being 0-4-0 tank and 2-4-0 tender locomotives to Ramsbottom designs.

 

 

 

[adb968008]

1 hour ago, Aire Head said:

The Midland was far from stuck in the 1880s that's just propaganda from those factions within the LMS who didn't like the Midland.

LYR was building 0-8-0’s, designed a 4-6-2, was building a fleet of 4-6-0’s that were used by the lnwr in preference to their own, locos had lifting jacks, wanted to deploy fully fitted freight, deployed air braking. Had plans to redesign marshalling yards and freight handling based on US practice, wanted to deploy a 3rd rail commuter network across the north west.

 

MR.. happy building 4-4-0’s from the 1880’s and a fleet of unfitted, small axlebox 0-6-0’s, bad relations with unions, low innovation.
They did have the s&d, lt&s and s&c.

The MR did make the 7f, but frugally failed to capitalise on it, either to the ROD or themselves.

 

Paget produced his high risk high innovation loco, but the MR quietly scrapped it.

 

meanwhile even the lnwr experimented with electrics, claughtons etc, GNR with higher speed 4-6-2’s.

Aside of frugality in what way was the MR forward thinking ?.. buying US locos during a strike, using a shopping basket tender as a standard that became a bugbear to replace, or fowler designing a mountain climbing, high altitude, tight curving loco design for use on straight lines to london.

 

 

 

Edited May 26 by adb968008

[LMS2968]

I'm not the biggest fan of the Midland but it did have its plus points. Remember that it embraced compound locomotives, and made them work. It was a pioneer in the use of Control for train operation; its passenger coaches were a considerable improvement over those of others, including the LNWR and even more so the L&YR (yes, I know about the fires from gas lighting and wooden construction, but all other used these too). Its stations were neat and functional. It provided the LMS with different working methods, some of which were actually improvements on what had gone before. Unfortunately, it also imposed some others which were not.

 

It's fashionable to highlight the negative Midland attributes but the positives should be recognised as well.

[LMS2968]

59 minutes ago, steve45 said:

There is a history of collaboration between the LNWR and LYR. 

 

In 1870 the LYR was in a poor state, resulting in the two companies applying to amalgamate in 1871, this was rejected by parliament in 1872 after opposition from other railway companies claiming it would form a monopoly.

 

In 1872 the LNWR started to supply a small number of locomotives to the LYR, being 0-4-0 tank and 2-4-0 tender locomotives to Ramsbottom designs.

 

 

 

It was actually quite a large number. There were 180 DX 0-6-0s, five 0-4-0 saddle tanks and and ten 2-4-0 Newton class. The DXs were used as mixed traffic engines on the LNWR but considered express passenger on the L&YR!

[1165Valour]

I can think of one definite example of the Midland being behind the times, and one which had disastrous consequences at Hawes Junction. The Midland did not use signal level collars, apparently claiming they encouraged carelessness in the signalman, if I remember correctly. Of course it's impossible to know exactly if collars would have prevented Sutton from forgetting the two light engines, but by 1910, was there really an excuse for not using collars?

[Compound2632]

Considering the LNWR / LYR / MR nexus, it has also to be remembered just how closely the LYR was allied with the MR following the opening of the Hellifield route, giving the LYR a route to Scotland independent of the LNWR. The Midland was working practically all the express passenger trains passing through Blackburn, for example. Going further back, the Manchester & Leeds Railway was dependent on the North Midland Railway to actually get to Leeds.

 

As a generalisation, we partisan enthusiasts are prone to over-estimate the degree of competition between the old companies - they were all in cahoots through the Railway Clearing House, agreeing traffic sharing and minimum rates - a cartel, in fact.