What if... the 1921 Railway Act nationalised the Railways ?

The 1921 railway act consolidated the nations myriad of railway companies into 4 main companies.

The net result of this was convergence of locomotive designs based upon knowledge of the time, result in the LMS designs with a bit of Swindon influence, the LNER's pacfics, the Southern regions WC/ BB etc etc.. and the GWR seemed to continue with more of the same of which appeared to be superior designs of the time.

The government did consider the option of full nationalisation but adopted the "big four". If they had gone for full nationalisation.. what could have been the likely impact on locomotive designs in the UK at the time ?

Would we have gone the GWR's way ?
Was the LNER influence with new designs likely to propogate into standard designs nationwide ?
Would the Southern convinced the networks for full national 3rd rail ?
or was the LMS sitting on "Standard designs" that would have been used by all, as seen by the 8F and Black 5 designs ?

Would our network more closely resembly Germany, where standard designs propogated early on, and in mass quantities such as the 01, 38, 58, 78, 86 etc etc, but also lower overall speeds ?

thoughts ?

 

Would guess that there'd be no sudden desperation to abandon steam from 1955, thus the early diesel designs would probably have been a small number of well tested, thought-out classes, as opposed to the wide range of small batches of (in some cases) useless locos which emerged...

 

The big 4 companies were already looking seriously at diesels before the war, so whilst the process may have been more orderly, I think there is a case for arguing that WW2 actually delayed the onset of widespread dieselisation. Whilst Gresley was looking at 4-8-2s and Stanier was thinking about 4-6-4s for heavier trains, I suspect that diesel technology would also have been re-examined and the prototypes that emerged around 1948 would have appeared a few years sooner. As soon as they proved themselves in service the writing was on the wall for steam.

 

Firstly, dealing with Germany, this was the unifying of the systems ofonly a dozen or so States with Prussia already the dominant part.

For GB, a rather murky crystal ball. Many more companies to be merged than in Germany. The C1917 ARLE designs could have been put into effect - mainly a combination of GWR & SECR practice with probably notice being taken of Gresley's latest products. Don't really see the LMS contingent having much influence apart from George Hughes of the L&YR.

Brakes - still to be sorted between air and vacuum.

Electrification - more notice might have been taken over the LB&SCR overhead high tension system for the future, already established in Switzerland and Germany.

 

Personally, I think Eric Geddes' 1923 'Grouping' was the least worst idea at the time, but the problem was that the 'Big Four' were pretty much left to fend for themselves thereafter, and were treated pretty shabbily, particularly as very little of the promised First World War compensation was paid (£60 million shared amongst all companies over two £30 million annual instalments; a paltry sum, when considering that the GWR's deferred wartime maintenence alone amounted to around £48 million). I have recently written an MA dissertation on the subject of whether Britain's railway industry really was a 'Poor bag of assets' after the Second World War, and it is amazing to see how much the events of 1923 shaped how politicians looked at the railway industry over the next few decades- far too much laissez-faire and not enough cooperation through public-private investment. In other words, I feel the situation we are experiencing now is what should have been done then, with infrastructure absorbed by a government-controlled body, with the private railway companies renting the track. This was even suggested by the LNER as an alternative to Nationalisation in 1947.

The motive power situation probably wouldn't have been quite the standardisation programme BR tried to achieve in the 1950s. The 'Big Four' recognised that they could not merely scrap all obsolescent classes overnight, and so the best were retained while newer designs came on stream. The Southern was a prime example of this, having opted for electrification at an early stage, yet recognised that steam motive power would remain a staple for the medium-term, and thus merited further investment. It would have been interesting if the railways would have adopted the N class as standard; a perfectly adequate design, but is it suitable in all circumstances? The problem of standardisation is that in some cases, you have to cater for the niche eventualities. A very interesting question...

 

If the railways had been nationalised in 1921..........

No castles, or kings.
Might have got the 08 shunter that much sooner, so no 94xx panniers.
The Great Western ability to use the larger loading gauge to full effect would have been curtailed, so no large cylinder overhang, such as is on a 28xx, or hall.
No conjucated drive 3 cylinder locomotives, past those already built.

However...

The Great Western No1 boiler would have made it into the wider world, just as it did when Stanier went to the LMS. So you can imagine lots of black 5's, Jubilees & 8f's.
Lots of locomotives would be retrofitted, such as the Robinson ROD, to enable what would be the earliest standard locomotive.
The standard of locomotive building & repair would have improved, as other shops got to use Zeiss optical, as at Swindon, Wolverhampton & Caerphilly.

Third rail electrification into the west country, & east Anglia, to eliminate the extra work involved in bringing in coal, etc.

No Bullied pacifics....

Finally, a long view...... imagine getting into a 4-CEP ( or up-market equivalent) and doing Kings Cross- Edinburgh? Steady 75mph, which was the yardstick at the time.

Regards,
Ian.

 

I was actually thinking the opposite..

The castle's heritage dates back to the Star class, and probably considered quite modern at the day.
Additionally Gresleys 4-6-2 was just coming out in 1923
Maunsells 2-6-0 would probably have done well.

assuming the potential was seen, I would have thought they would have propogated wider ?
Though assuming 1 CME of the new company, it wouldnt have given Stanier much chance or Bulleid, and maybe it would have been a development of the ROD of GWR 2-8-0 that moved forwards for heavy freight ?

what would have been the most likely class 4/5 4-6-0 class ?

 

I think a lot would have depended on who formed the management of the railway. Looking at what happened in '48, the government initially asked the GWR board to take on the running of the new BR, but they declined as they were not in favour of the scheme. As a result the government turned to the LMS (predominately, but not entirely) to provide the majority of the senior staff of the new organisation. In '21 I suspect that they would have asked either the GW or the LNW to form the board. It is not unlikely that the GW would have refused then too, and possibly the LNW as well, in which case the next in line would have been the Midland perhaps. All three were pretty hot on locomotive standardisation to some degree or other, but the GW were much more effective in executing it extensively.
Had the GW of formed the senior management team I suspect that there would have been an earlier and faster move to rebuild absorbed locomotives and standardise on GW "designs". Granted this would have meant modifications to loading gauge of locos or track and structures, but look how much they achieved on the railways they did absorb in grouping. I do not think it would have been plain sailing though - imagine the resistance from Crewe to being asked to produce a fleet of "Halls" for example.
Ultimately we would probably have seen much the same outcome as was seen after '48. i.e. a lot of regional autonomy and some attempts at central standardisation, so no Bulleid pacifics, but maybe a Gresley A1 chassis with a GW derived boiler tearing down the line to Plymouth, or hauling expresses to Glasgow up the WCML.
Unless the government was freer with the cheque in the interwar years (unlikely given the state of the economy then) I don't thing dieselisation would have happened much quicker than it did, or have been all that more organised. Electrification MIGHT have got further, but we would have simply had more 1500V DC overhead to rip out and replace later.

 

Well, Crewe were asked to build a fleet of 'halls'; 842, in fact. Thats how we ended up with the black 5. As much as I like the GW design school, the get-attable design of outside valve gear allows better servicing of said moving parts.

Gresley designed chassis? Err, no. Peppercorn, yes, for all of the reasons listed above. I could imagine a Maunsell/Robinson combination, with Collett or Stanier acting in a technical & standards position. If the ROD/30xx was such a bad job, how come some of them lasted over 30 years?

Above all, the locomotive would need to be simple, rugged, and accurately built.

Finally... A lot of the South Wales companies were still paying a handsome dividend on their stock (Taff Vale, Rhymney, Barry, etc), as coal was still king in 1921. Paying compensation to shareholders would be a real problem area.

Regards,
Ian.

 

I suspect the Andre Chapelon message would have taken longer to be digested in the U.K. compared with the route via Gresley that it took. British engineers, as well as British enthusiasts, tended to be rather too parochial. Anyone who has seen 2-3-2 U1 in Mulhouse museum will get the point.

 

I think there would have been a big question whether GWR kit could have survived the maintenance standards on some of the other lines. Its well documented that after the grouping the GWR inspectors caused a good deal of ill feeling on the Welsh lines by condemning an awful lot of stock that the Welsh lines considered to be perfectly adequate. The Western seems to have had, on the whole, better trained staff and higher standards of maintenance - which costs money but is fine if it reduces expenditure in the long term, but it takes a long time to build that up. Imposing those standards on some of the other lines would have been a *considerable* challenge. Again its pretty well documented that a number of GWR ideas just didn't work when transferred to other regimes and the most likely cause is the maintenance environment.

 

According to the book 'The Somerset and Dorset 2-8-0s', I think the author's name was D. Milton or similar, the S&D 7F design was considered around 1921 for a possible standard freight loco in the event of nationalisation. Interesting when you consider that the supposed reason for the Midland not building further examples - thus ending the double-headed 4F shenanigans - was clearance problems with their outside cylinders!

 

No, that must be rubbish. The Robinson 2-8-0s would have been adopted given that they'd been built in substantial numbers to the orders of HMG already, and the government ended up with several in store because the railways wouldn't pay their asking price.

 

Not necessarily rubbish - the key word was 'considered'. In fact, wasn't the Robinson design 'considered' again for the WW2 war effort, before the Stanier 8F & Riddles' Austerity were chosen?

 

The Grouping missed the biggest opportunity of all.

Four was too many companies, the only one that was not really necessary was the western. Easy solution: everything south of Bristol - Southern, everything north of Bristol - Midland.

 

I'm surprised that they were even considered. They aren't exactly the best locos of that wheel arrangement.

 

If the railways had been nationalised in 1921, there would probably have been an equivalent of the Beeching Report in the 1920's or 1930's. Crucially, this would have been before the railways had started to go into serious decline in the face of road transport. So there would have there would have been fewer closures - probably limited to a few unsustainable branches built under light railway legislation and also some duplicate lines, although some of those could have been suitable for turning into intensive freight only routes. If we'd had nationalisation, followed by rationalisation, during the 'heyday of the railways', the post war decline might have been less, and there might not have been Dr. Beeching's report of the 1960's.

Probably dieselisation would have been quicker, and the spread of electrification might have been different, with Southern third-rail spreading across the country. I have a book about railway working published in about 1910 and in there electrification is seen as the future of railways - at a time when diesel engines were only found in pumping stations!

 

Glad it didn't happen. Our variety of artifacts would presumably be a lot narrower if it had.

 

Once a government becomes involved then the course of events becomes politically motivated and who Knows. Witha vested interest in the infrastructure would the government have upheld it and not invested in Roads and road transport or would they have consolidated along Beeching lines earlier but to a lesser extent. Would Permanent ways have been improved/strengthened/widened so that the superior( if we are honest) GWR motive power could be allowed to propogate...
One likes to think that , as in 1948, a technical committee would have been set up, found that swindon design and construction was better than anyone elses and set about producing Modified Halls and Castles, Prairies and Panniers. Eventually the Superheat and Draughting Pennies may have dropped. One does wonder wether the wide firebox and therefore, the Pacific would ever have come into being and in its abscence whether ta 4-8-0 /2/10-0 would have come into being or maybe a fleet of 'Pacifics' evolved from 'Great Bear' would have been...
There is no reason why Stanier would not have found his way up this B. R. Swindon ladder, or for that Matter Maunsell, Gresley, Bulleid as some of them surely would have become part of the new set up. But without doubt steam locomotives would be either Black or green, have taper boilers etc Then Post War (II) there would have been an even hastier rush towards Dieselisation... so not much change there...