Midland Railway Company

[Compound2632]

27 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

 

No, I follow it to see what the MR enthusiasts put forward to justify there beliefs that it was such a great railway.

 

As you well know no arguments in justification are necessary. The Midland was one of only two truly national railway companies in the pre-grouping period - international, one might say, as, along with the other truly national railway company, it owned lines wholly or jointly in all three kingdoms of the union. 

 

But think on this: going wagon-spotting in pre-Great War photos, one is more likely to see a Midland wagon in a photo of a North Western subject than one is to see a LNWR wagon in a photo of a Midland subject.

[DenysW]

27 minutes ago, MR Chuffer said:

the absolute lengths that the LNWR would go with skulduggery to suppress any and all competition.

To about 1880 I think you can swap most of the larger Victorian railway company's names for LNWR and not be too far wrong, although Huish does seem to have been a particular gem. Read the accounts of the Gauge War trials, and not just the artificially augmented trans-shipment chaos at Gloucester. After say 1880 less opportunity, not less desire, for playing naughty.

 

On the MS&L vs. the Midland, in 1867 (about to complete a vastly expensive extension to London) the Midland's track had required capital of £49.1k/mile, the UK average (including cheaper Ireland) was £35.2k/mile. The MS&L was at £60.0k/mile and the L&YR at £60.9k/mile. Due to the American Civil War and the Overend-Gurney crisis the Midland had expensive finance for its Bedford-London extension, so they were probably similar to the other two like-for-like. Not obviously just down to the cost of the Woodhead route for the MS&L.

[DenysW]

49 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

The Midland was one of only two truly national railway companies in the pre-grouping period

While that is certainly true for the late Midland with its Irish lines, what only the Midland succeeded in doing was expanding from a successful regional railway into a successful national railway. In the days when you are partly judged by your presence (or lack of it) in London. The MS&L/GCR tried and failed; most of the other regionals didn't even try.

 

I do feel that it kept its regional, attack-is-the-best-form-of-defence attitudes well after they were needed, however.

[Jol Wilkinson]

44 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

As you well know no arguments in justification are necessary. The Midland was one of only two truly national railway companies in the pre-grouping period - international, one might say, as, along with the other truly national railway company, it owned lines wholly or jointly in all three kingdoms of the union. 

 

But think on this: going wagon-spotting in pre-Great War photos, one is more likely to see a Midland wagon in a photo of a North Western subject than one is to see a LNWR wagon in a photo of a Midland subject.

 

Stephen, if you look back through this thread, that there has been a great deal of effort to prove what a great railway the MR was. No fans/followers/groupies of other pre-group railways seem to feel the need to do the same.

 

And your second paragraph proves what?

[DenysW]

1 minute ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

No fans/followers/groupies of other pre-group railways seem to feel the need to do the same

Do you include the GWRiacs in that generalisation? I feel the Rev. Awdrey got it right when one of his engines felt there were two ways of doing things: the GWR way or the wrong way.

 

Also typical: the Midland get sneered at for having a small-engine policy, although it didn't. The GER and the SER get sympathy for having such a restrictive loading gauge and/or lightly-laid track.

[MR Chuffer]

17 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

what a great railway the MR was

They did take over the LNWR at the end of the day, in the guise of the LMS, so no insecurity here. And then there is that other regional railway, the GWR, not without its fan bois on here...

Edited October 7, 2023 by MR Chuffer

[DenysW]

7 minutes ago, MR Chuffer said:

then there is that other regional railway, the GWR, not without its fan bois on here...

Regional yes, but one of the pre-Grouping Big Four. It had its own regional charm for modellers, as well, with its wide variety of branch lines to chose from, and its quaint enthusiasm for anything Brunelian, however disproven.

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, MR Chuffer said:

Oops, most of us then... But seriously though, what also comes out of the Marple piece, from the author(s), was the absolute lengths that the LNWR would go with skulduggery to suppress any and all competition.

Well, a start had to be made very early in the piece, as the LNWR for excellent reasons, never wanted a break of gauge station with the GWR 7ft. They succeded as they never did, sometimes building a single track link, so the GWR couldn't claim 'running rights', as there was no spare capacity - what a shame that was!

 

They also did very well with postal services, because they served most of the largest cities and Holyhead or partnered with companies, such as the Caledonian who did.

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

And your second paragraph proves what?

 

The ubiquity of the Midland. 

[Jol Wilkinson]

3 hours ago, MR Chuffer said:

They did take over the LNWR at the end of the day, in the guise of the LMS, so no insecurity here. And then there is that other regional railway, the GWR, not without its fan bois on here...

As they had a younger management team at the time of the grouping they effectively "took over" management of the LMS, not for any other reason.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

As they had a younger management team at the time of the grouping they effectively "took over" management of the LMS, not for any other reason.

 

LNWR and Midland directors were in equal numbers - four each I think - on the first LMS Board, responsible for making these appointments. But one has to presume that the Board chose the candidates they thought best suited to the needs of the new company, irrespective of age, although normally one would expect the most senior man to be appointed, as indeed happened with the post of Chief Mechanical Engineer, which went to the LNWR man.

Edited October 7, 2023 by Compound2632

[DenysW]

2 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

As they had a younger management team at the time of the grouping they effectively "took over" management of the LMS, not for any other reason.

I've looked at this and I put it with the 'small-engine' myth. The LYR's top men (sorry, no women) took over the LNWR. The Midland had a 1900s state-of-the-art management approach, and the others were still in the 1850s. And they were hereditary enemies. No wonder the Midland's men (same apology) bubbled to the top when better management was needed, and no wonder the wounds are still raw 100 years later.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Clearly I am outnumbered by the researchers into pre-group railway history, preferring to spend my time nowadays modelling. 

 

As Denys points out, this was 100 years ago but I don't take the view that the wounds are still raw. Or at least amongst those I know who model the LNWR and/or are in the LNWR Society (of which I was a Committee member for some years).

 

[Caley Jim]

8 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

 No fans/followers/groupies of other pre-group railways seem to feel the need to do the same.

That's because the Caledonian was The True Line!  😀

 

Jim (windae picked)

[Aire Head]

49 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Or at least amongst those I know who model the LNWR and/or are in the LNWR Society (of which I was a Committee member for some years).

 

So why did they boo me when I revealed I was a Midland man during conversation at Guildex? 😛

[kevinlms]

12 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But think on this: going wagon-spotting in pre-Great War photos, one is more likely to see a Midland wagon in a photo of a North Western subject than one is to see a LNWR wagon in a photo of a Midland subject.

There is a simple reason for that - the Midland had more wagons than the LNWR!

 

In an article by Noel Coates in Model Railway 1974 January, he's conclusions are based on 1905 statistics, where:

The Midland had 117,880 wagons and 4,566 track miles, giving an average of 25.8

The LNWR had 74,799 wagons and 5,345 track miles, giving an average of 14.1

 

In 1923 this had changed.

The Midland had 107,617 wagons and 6,030 1/4* track miles, giving an average of 17.8

The LNWR had 76,293 wagons and 5,821 1/4* track miles, giving an average of 14.8

 

* Not convinced about calculating totals to nearest 1/4 mile!

 

 

From the above, it appears that in 1905, the Midland were well behind the LNWR and their improvements to their traffic management was much needed. For every 5 wagons spaced out along Midland tracks, the LNWR had 3 on theirs. But in 1923, they were still behind the LNWR!

Of course, no reference is made to other railway vehicles on respective railways (which should be balanced out anyway) or P.O. wagons.

[DenysW]

I'm a little surprised by the increase in Midland track miles, from 4566 to 6030. The Midland had already extended into Ireland in 1903, and the LT&S (1912) had lots of passenger services but not much track. This implies the Midland spent a lot of effort 1905-1923 in adding sidings and passing loops, and maybe some dualling and quadrupling as well. Not impossible, just surprising it was to that degree.

 

FWIW, the Midland declared that, outside Ireland, in 1905 it owned 1397 miles of permanent way, part-owned 666 miles, and ran on 492 miles of foreign track. The part-owned dropped to 280 in 1906, probably from applying the fraction-owned, a change Great Northern made in 1880. I've rounded to the nearest mile throughout. In 1906 the statements increased in precision (but probably not accuracy) from 1/4 mile to the nearest chain.

 

I don't have the 1923 numbers for permanent way.

[DenysW]

9 hours ago, Caley Jim said:

That's because the Caledonian was The True Line!

That's maybe a touch subjective? It certainly appears to have been the most successful of the Scottish lines, as the North Eastern was of the English.

[Caley Jim]

22 minutes ago, DenysW said:

That's maybe a touch subjective? It certainly appears to have been the most successful of the Scottish lines, as the North Eastern was of the English.

I was simply quoting the CR's own publicity! 😁 

 

Jim 

[Compound2632]

6 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Of course, no reference is made to other railway vehicles on respective railways (which should be balanced out anyway) or P.O. wagons.

 

Well, yes, of course: the LNWR was well ahead of the Midland in providing corridor carriages and had, in the end, a great many more - it was overwhelmingly the dominant company in the long-distance passenger business, though the discerning, leisured, and romantically-inclined went Midland. It's notable that the LMS standard carriages, designed under the superintendency of Robert Reid (ex-Midland), though of generally Midland appearance inside and out, were to LNWR compartment layouts - the requirements of the ex-LNWR routes calling the shots.

 

Really, there's no need to argue about the relative merits of the LNWR and Midland; surely it is enough to acknowledge that both were superior to any of the merely provincial lines, such as all those with Great in their title. I like to remember that Joseph Ellis, when he was vice-chairman of the Midland, was also a Director of the LNWR - consequent on his original financial interest in the Midland counties and the London & Birmingham.

[kevinlms]

39 minutes ago, DenysW said:

I'm a little surprised by the increase in Midland track miles, from 4566 to 6030. The Midland had already extended into Ireland in 1903, and the LT&S (1912) had lots of passenger services but not much track. This implies the Midland spent a lot of effort 1905-1923 in adding sidings and passing loops, and maybe some dualling and quadrupling as well. Not impossible, just surprising it was to that degree.

 

FWIW, the Midland declared that, outside Ireland, in 1905 it owned 1397 miles of permanent way, part-owned 666 miles, and ran on 492 miles of foreign track. The part-owned dropped to 280 in 1906, probably from applying the fraction-owned, a change Great Northern made in 1880. I've rounded to the nearest mile throughout. In 1906 the statements increased in precision (but probably not accuracy) from 1/4 mile to the nearest chain.

 

I don't have the 1923 numbers for permanent way.

The figures for the LT&S component was

1804 wagons & 176 miles at an average of 10.2

and for the NLR

516 wagons & 62 miles at an average of 8.3

 

The figure for the worst offender (the Caledonian!) was

1905  65,615 wagons & 2,199 miles at an average of 29.8

1923 51,536 wagons & 2,830 1/4 miles at an average of 18.2

 

So the Caledonian was another example of a railway that had significantly improved it's wagon fleet usage - presumably by replacing older wagons with higher capacity replacements.

 

FWIW this article only covers LMS group companies.

[kevinlms]

Here's a scan of the article. Sorry, not co-operating with Part 1, I can't get it the right way up!

Edited October 8, 2023 by kevinlms
Attempting to fix Part 1

[DenysW]

From what I read (so a limited number of biased sources) the Midland was probably the worst affected of the pre-LMS companies by being re-purposed for WW1 duties. Thus I believe it was tilted further towards being a goods/minerals line to feed the northern fleet, and to get military supplies towards the LSWR and Southampton than were the others. So the original author picking 1905 and 1923 may have mostly illustrated this.

 

Its London coal trains were already at capacity by WW1 and were well-marshalled - I'm summarising Ponsonby's massive trawl through Midland working timetables here, and assuming that Midland staff followed the rules..

[DenysW]

1 hour ago, Caley Jim said:

I was simply quoting the CR's own publicity!

That's quite dangerous. That way lies believing that the GCR's London Extension was built to Basel loading gauge, and that the Great Bear was a wonderfully successful locomotive.

[DenysW]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

such as all those with Great in their title

I do have a lingering fondness for a company calling itself "Great North of England" based on 42 locomotives, and running York-Darlington.