AHC/WI: Delay/ slow down British economic decline post 1870

Thomas1195

Banned
They might want to, but they would have to go where the work is.

I don't have the statistics at hand to back it up, but IIRC more Irish Catholics emigrated to England and Scotland than to the USA.

The Teesside Steel Industry was started by a German immigrant and a Welshman, its chemical industry by a German immigrant and what at the time was its largest shipyard was also owned by a German immigrant.

The other story about Victor Spinetti's grandfather is that he (or if it was not him it was the grandfather of another British celebrity) is that he wanted to emigrate to America, but the steamship captain put them off at Cardiff and told them it was New York.
And dont forget the gold rush and railway boom. Also, the emergence of guys like Carnegie also helped encourage immigration to US.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
How do you tell when the war is going to happen, then? If you upgrade ten years too early, then you've not improved things; if you upgrade every three years, the capital outlay is going to be considerable.


But the British had arms industries at the time, for example - it's not like there was a hole in the market for those. As for the rest, trying to establish cutting edge industries is inherently incompatible with the idea that you'd have forty years to make them profitable - if you try to encourage new industries too zealously then you end up paying a whole hell of a lot of money to people who are never going to turn a profit at all.

In addition, you need people to sell to. OTL the British were selling guns to pretty much anyone who didn't buy Krupp (they sold entire ships to several countries in South America, as well as selling weapons to Japan, to Italy, to the Ottoman Empire, and even managed to sell to the US during the Spanish-American War.) Where's the extra market - France? Russia? Both had their own ordnance suppliers.

Hang on, you're either assuming that there is demand enough to make up for the increased production. The problem with this is that at peacetime there isn't. You need an increased demand for weaponry. Considering that the two best customers (us and germany) are protecting their native manufacturers and are unlikely to buy the british guns, then it becomes an expensive investment to end up with the same sales figures, with no guarantee from their perspective that the potentially increased margins will pay off the cost of modernising.

This is why they need a larger market BEFORE they modernise.
I was talking about new industries as a whole

New industries had demand, LOTS OF DEMAND.
Synthetic dye had the British huge textile and clothing industry as a potential market AND was invented by a Brits, and this is a terribly huge blunder.

Electrical goods had demand from the electrification process (like electric motors for power supply plants, but it is understandable as British electrification process and electrical industry both were retarded) and military (radios, field telephones), thus government can create a market for electrical equipment. Besides, middle-class people would want to have telephones, electric cookers, vacuum cleaners, washing machines or radios in their homes => demand.

Precision and optical equipment had demand from laboratories and military (or yeah, maybe because Britain never organized large scale, professional R&D before 1914 like Germany).

Magnetos had demand from motor industry (well, but by 1914, British car industry was still underdeveloped).

You can modernize the arm factories like BSA by electrifying them, replace their outdated 19th century steam powered machinery with electric powered machines, or installing newly invented Ford assembly line in 1913. Having electric powered assembly lines would greatly increase production rate in shells and small arms, as well as tanks.
 
Last edited:

hipper

Banned
[QUOTE="Thomas1195, post: 13774557, member: 97697"

You can modernize the arm factories like BSA or Enfiled Armoury or Royal Ordnance by electrifying them, replace their outdated 19th century steam powered machinery with electric powered machines, or installing newly invented Ford assembly line in 1913. Having electric powered assembly lines would greatly increase production rate in shells and small arms, as well as tanks.[/QUOTE]

Your research is woefully insufficient the Royal small arms factory was substansially electrified, this article is from 1909

ROYAL GUN FACTORY.

North Boring Mill.—This is one of the older sections of the factory wherein guns of all classes and calibre are manufactured, except small-arm rifles and machine guns. There are in the department about 180 electric motors with an aggregate horse-power of 2800. The current is supplied from the Central Power Station for the Arsenal generally, and a considerable use is made in this factory of magnetic clutches.


ROYAL SMALL-ARMS FACTORY, ENFIELD LOCK.

The factory is driven by electricity. The power is derived from a central station containing four generator sets, two Parsons steam-turbines, driving shunt-wound dynamos of 250 kilowatts, and two triple expansion vertically enclosed engines driving shunt-wound dynamos of 350 kilowatts capacity. Most of the shops are lit by arc lamps and incandescent electric lamps, but in a few shops high pressure incandescent lamps have been installed.
 
Last edited:

hipper

Banned
The Greenwich Electricity Generating Station, which was opened on May 26, 1906, has been designed to supply sufficient energy for the whole of the tramways worked by the London County Council. It will be one of the largest generating stations in the kingdom, and will ultimately have plant amounting to about 52,000 horse-power. The general arrangement of the generating station was designed by the Council's architect in consultation with the tramways electrical engineer, and the building was erected under the supervision of Mr. W. E. Riley, the Council's architect, and equipped under the supervision of Mr. A. L. C. Fell, the Council's chief officer of tramways, and Mr. J. H. Rider, the tramways electrical engineer. The pier and condensing water pipes were designed and erected under the supervision of Mr. Maurice Fitzmaurice, the Council's chief engineer.

The site is on the bank of the river at Greenwich, about 250 yards eastward of Greenwich Hospital. There is an area of approximately 31 acres. The boiler-house contains twenty-four water-tube boilers of the five-drum Stirling Company's type, and twenty-four boilers of the Babcock & Wilcox Company's type, arranged in pairs in two rows, with a firing floor between. Each Stirling boiler has an evaporate capacity of about 16,300 lbs. of water per hour, while the Babcock boilers will evaporate 18,200 lbs. per hour. Each boiler works at 200 lbs. pressure, and is fitted with chain grate stokers.

The engine-room contains four reciprocating engine sets of 3500 kilowatts normal capacity each, and two turbine sets of 5000 kilowatts each. Two other sets are in course of erection. The engines are by Messrs. John Musgrave & Sons, Limited, of Bolton, and are of the vertical-horizontal type. Each engine comprises two complete half-engines, one on each side of the generator, consisting of a vertical high pressure cylinder 330 inches diameter, and a horizontal low pressure cylinder, 66 inches diameter. The stroke in each case is 4 feet, and the two connecting-rods on the one side of the engine work on to a common overhung crank pin. The engines run at 94 revolutions per minute.

The generators were built by the Electric Construction Company, Limited, of Wolverhampton, and are mounted directly on the engine shafts, each generator being erected between the two half-engines of each set. They are all of the revolving field type, and deliver three-phase current at 6600 volts between phases, at 25 complete cycles per second. The normal output is 3500 kilowatts, or 306 amperes per phase, and 4375 kilowatts on emergency overload.

The turbines now at work were made by Messrs. Willans & Robinson, Limited, while the generators were made by Messrs. Dick, Kerr & Co., Limited. They run at 750 revolutions per minute, and will give 6250 kilowatts on emergency overload. The switch-gear is of the remote control electrically operated type. The circulating and feed-pumps are all electrically operated. When completed, the Station is estimated to cost about £800,000, and the total cost of the pier condensing water pipes, and a wharf wall about 260 feet in length, is about £53,000.



That's quite an nteresting too I see no lack of capacity in the uk to construct electrical equipment
 

Thomas1195

Banned
[QUOTE="Thomas1195, post: 13774557, member: 97697"


Your research is woefully insufficient the Royal small arms factory was substansially electrified, this article is from 1909

ROYAL GUN FACTORY.

North Boring Mill.—This is one of the older sections of the factory wherein guns of all classes and calibre are manufactured, except small-arm rifles and machine guns. There are in the department about 180 electric motors with an aggregate horse-power of 2800. The current is supplied from the Central Power Station for the Arsenal generally, and a considerable use is made in this factory of magnetic clutches.

Do you have the link?
But I am sure that I have read about the domination of craft based practices in Birmingham arm trade
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
The Greenwich Electricity Generating Station, which was opened on May 26, 1906, has been designed to supply sufficient energy for the whole of the tramways worked by the London County Council. It will be one of the largest generating stations in the kingdom, and will ultimately have plant amounting to about 52,000 horse-power. The general arrangement of the generating station was designed by the Council's architect in consultation with the tramways electrical engineer, and the building was erected under the supervision of Mr. W. E. Riley, the Council's architect, and equipped under the supervision of Mr. A. L. C. Fell, the Council's chief officer of tramways, and Mr. J. H. Rider, the tramways electrical engineer. The pier and condensing water pipes were designed and erected under the supervision of Mr. Maurice Fitzmaurice, the Council's chief engineer.

The site is on the bank of the river at Greenwich, about 250 yards eastward of Greenwich Hospital. There is an area of approximately 31 acres. The boiler-house contains twenty-four water-tube boilers of the five-drum Stirling Company's type, and twenty-four boilers of the Babcock & Wilcox Company's type, arranged in pairs in two rows, with a firing floor between. Each Stirling boiler has an evaporate capacity of about 16,300 lbs. of water per hour, while the Babcock boilers will evaporate 18,200 lbs. per hour. Each boiler works at 200 lbs. pressure, and is fitted with chain grate stokers.

The engine-room contains four reciprocating engine sets of 3500 kilowatts normal capacity each, and two turbine sets of 5000 kilowatts each. Two other sets are in course of erection. The engines are by Messrs. John Musgrave & Sons, Limited, of Bolton, and are of the vertical-horizontal type. Each engine comprises two complete half-engines, one on each side of the generator, consisting of a vertical high pressure cylinder 330 inches diameter, and a horizontal low pressure cylinder, 66 inches diameter. The stroke in each case is 4 feet, and the two connecting-rods on the one side of the engine work on to a common overhung crank pin. The engines run at 94 revolutions per minute.

The generators were built by the Electric Construction Company, Limited, of Wolverhampton, and are mounted directly on the engine shafts, each generator being erected between the two half-engines of each set. They are all of the revolving field type, and deliver three-phase current at 6600 volts between phases, at 25 complete cycles per second. The normal output is 3500 kilowatts, or 306 amperes per phase, and 4375 kilowatts on emergency overload.

The turbines now at work were made by Messrs. Willans & Robinson, Limited, while the generators were made by Messrs. Dick, Kerr & Co., Limited. They run at 750 revolutions per minute, and will give 6250 kilowatts on emergency overload. The switch-gear is of the remote control electrically operated type. The circulating and feed-pumps are all electrically operated. When completed, the Station is estimated to cost about £800,000, and the total cost of the pier condensing water pipes, and a wharf wall about 260 feet in length, is about £53,000.



That's quite an nteresting too I see no lack of capacity in the uk to construct electrical equipment
Lack of capacity, more accurately lag in capability was proved by the fact that German output was 3 times higher and two third of British electrical equipment in 1913 was produced by American and German subsidiaries. Lack of capability was also demonstrated in the elctrification of London sub.

Siemens UK subsidiary was a bigger producer and Dick, Kerr and Co.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Besides, you wont see the likes of United Akali Company (stuck to Leblance process even until after ww1) in Germany
 
I was talking about new industries as a whole

New industries had demand, LOTS OF DEMAND.
Synthetic dye had the British huge textile and clothing industry as a potential market AND was invented by a Brits, and this is a terribly huge blunder.

Electrical goods had demand from the electrification process (like electric motors for power supply plants, but it is understandable as British electrification process and electrical industry both were retarded) and military (radios, field telephones), thus government can create a market for electrical equipment. Besides, middle-class people would want to have telephones, electric cookers, vacuum cleaners, washing machines or radios in their homes => demand.

Precision and optical equipment had demand from laboratories and military (or yeah, maybe because Britain never organized large scale, professional R&D before 1914 like Germany).

Magnetos had demand from motor industry (well, but by 1914, British car industry was still underdeveloped).

You can modernize the arm factories like BSA by electrifying them, replace their outdated 19th century steam powered machinery with electric powered machines, or installing newly invented Ford assembly line in 1913. Having electric powered assembly lines would greatly increase production rate in shells and small arms, as well as tanks.

1) Talk about moving the goalposts. We were directly referring to your assertions about militry arms.

2) All you've done here is obfuscate the point, and then blindly repeat your assertion. The arms industry will NOT upgrade unless they are sure they'd make up for their expenses in the upgrade.

Until you provide the new market (which we've already shown doesn't exist yet) then peacetime production won't change. I don't care to argue around this point again. Either address what is said, or admit you haven't got an answer.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
1) Talk about moving the goalposts. We were directly referring to your assertions about militry arms.

2) All you've done here is obfuscate the point, and then blindly repeat your assertion. The arms industry will NOT upgrade unless they are sure they'd make up for their expenses in the upgrade.

Until you provide the new market (which we've already shown doesn't exist yet) then peacetime production won't change. I don't care to argue around this point again. Either address what is said, or admit you haven't got an answer.
Well, for arm industry, your statement about demand is true. Modernizing here I mean just electrifying and/or replacing old machines with new ones, not expanding.

And in the post (post 78) you referred, I actually mentioned about new industries (not just armament).

For new industries as a whole, there were lots of demand in Britain. Let me repeat:

Synthetic dye had demand from British huge textile and clothing industries, AND khaki army uniforms.

Electrical equipment had demand from electrification (e.g. electric motor for power supply), which would and should be carried out in both military and civillian sectors. Besides, military would demand light, radios and field telephones. Or civilians would demand new goods like telephones, radios, light bulbs, or electric cooker.

Precision and optical goods, there were demand from both civilian (like laboratories) and military prewar.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Well, for arm industry, your statement about demand is true. Modernizing here I mean just electrifying and/or replacing old machines with new ones, not expanding.

And in the post (post 78) you referred, I actually mentioned about new industries (not just armament).

For new industries as a whole, there were lots of demand in Britain. Let me repeat:

Synthetic dye had demand from British huge textile and clothing industries, AND khaki army uniforms.

Electrical equipment had demand from electrification (e.g. electric motor for power supply), which would and should be carried out in both military and civillian sectors. Besides, military would demand light, radios and field telephones. Or civilians would demand new goods like telephones, radios, light bulbs, or electric cooker.

Precision and optical goods, there were demand from both civilian (like laboratories) and military prewar.

Having a strong and modern peacetime civillian heavy industries also results in more efficient war production. For example, a big and modern car plant could be converted to a tank factory
 
It isn't going to solve the problem on its own, but an earlier grouping of the mainline railways might help. As it happens there is a convenient POD. This is an extract from an unfinished British Railway Electrification essay that I wrote in 2007.
In the early 1870s the LNWR tried to merge with the Caledonian and Y&LR, while the Midland counterattacked with a proposal to join with the GSWR. These and other merger proposals led to the formation of a Parliamentary Committee which recommended that the British railway system be grouped into 6 great firms that in time would amalgamate into a single private or state owned company. In the real world Parliament rejected the findings of the Committee and the piecemeal merger applications including a second attempt by the LNWR and YLR to merge in 1873.
IOTL British Governments and Parliaments were very good at ignoring the sound advice given to it by committees that it had set up, for example when Churchill said that Civil Aviation must fly by itself. Your TL could be that the British Government does what it was advised to do more often.

Starting with the railways the Government would have followed the advice of the above committee and brought the OTL Grouping that came into effect on 1st January 1923 to 1st January 1873. However, the OTL Grouping created 4 great firms, not the 6 recommended by the early 1870s Parliamentary Committee. This could be followed up by earlier Nationalisation with the date being 1st January 1921 instead of 1st January 1948.

The London Underground lines weren't amalgamated until 1933 when the London Passenger Transport Board was created. I can't remember if the unification of London's underground railways, buses and trams was a recommendation of the Report of the Royal Commission on London Traffic (1906), but ITTL it could be and the LPTB or something like it formed in 1908.
 
Following on from Post No. 132...

In that timeline I decided against bringing forward the grouping because I thought it would hinder rather than help electrification. However, I did have more piecemeal amalgamations including the earlier creation of the Southern Railway in 1853 and a merger between the Great Northern Railway and North Eastern Railway in 1854. These are the relevant sections from the essay.
The Southern Railway

This section is not entitled “The Southern Railway Constituents” because the merger of the LNWR, LBSCR and SER that Parliament rejected in 1853 in the real world was allowed in this version of history. This Southern Railway expands into Kent before the LCDR can happen.

I have done this to stop the unnecessary duplication of lines, stations, locomotive classes, rolling stock designs and operating practices of the real world that blighted the railways of this region, especially the SER and LCDR. The money saved was used to improve the remainder of the network. The lines were built to a higher standard, some of it to the Berne Gauge because the Company shared Watkin’s dream of a Channel Tunnel. Therefore special locomotives and rolling stock were not needed for lines with narrow clearances or weak track, which allowed more standardisation. Maunsell could build the powerful pacific locomotives the Company needed in the 1920s. In the real world the poor quality of the track delayed their construction until the 1940s. More cut-offs, flyovers and underpasses were built. The Southern Railway could afford to dig the Isle of Wight Tunnel, which in this version of history runs from Portsmouth to Ryde. When the time for electrification came the money required was available, it was done evenly and with standardised equipment.

The London and North Eastern Railway Mk 1

This company was created in 1854 by the merger of the Great Northern, Leeds Northern, York and North Midland and York, Newcastle and Berwick Railways. The end of the Euston Square Confederacy resulted in the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway joining in 1857. Merger talks with the North British Railway in 1857-58 were fruitless and in 1906 an application to merge with the Great Eastern Railway was rejected by Parliament.

In the real world the NER was the largest railway company in Britain with some 720 route miles and if all the 285½ miles in the GNR’s authorising act were completed by 1854 this would give the LNER Mk I over 1,000 route miles, however my sources say some of it wasn’t completed till 1857.

The Company was still the largest on 31st December 1922 when all other things being equal it had 3,768 route miles of railway. However, the total was a few hundred miles less because the Hull and Barnsley Railway and MS&LR London Extension weren’t built, which in turn meant the Great Western & Great Central Joint Line was unnecessary to the LNER.

The money saved was spent elsewhere. The LNER persuaded would be H&BR investors to buy its shares and some of the money raised was used to build a northern link with the East London Railway, which turned it into a heavily used and highly profitable cross-London route.

The £11½ million spent on the MS&LR London Extension in the real world was instead used to upgrade the East Coast Main Line and as many branches as could be afforded to the Berne Gauge standard in anticipation of the Channel Tunnel of which the LNER was a principal supporter. Although the Government blocked construction of the Tunnel the investment was not a waste of money because it included the 1960s ECML remodelling, the Selby Diversion, quadrupling of congested sections and the removal of bottlenecks. These were all measures that increased the capacity of the line and reduced journey times. There was a beneficial side effect because the bridges and tunnels needed higher clearances for the Berne Gauge, which made it easier and cheaper to install the overhead wires when electrification was considered.
Since then I have changed my mind about the proposed purchase of the GER 1906 and that it should have been approved by Parliament. I'm also thinking that it might have been better if the LNER Mk 1 had bought the London Tilbury & Southend Railway instead of the Midland Railway.

In earlier versions of this essay I had a rail tunnel between North and South Shields built as it would be a useful addition to the Tyneside Electric system because if included as part of the proposed Newcastle-South Shields-Sunderland-Newcastle electrification studied in 1907-08. Only the Newcastle to South Shields portion was approved and that wasn't until 1936 and it was eventually completed in 1938. If built and given junctions with the mainline railways the tunnel would have allowed electric working from Sunderland to Blyth and Morpeth via the Avenue Branch.

That was before I discovered the "Bridges on the Tyne" website and the 1902 scheme for a railway tunnel between the two towns that was actually approved by Parliament. ITTL the scheme was backed by the LNER Mk 1, which with its greater financial resources allowed the tunnel to be built and connected into its network. If necessary I would have paid for it by the Company not making the £300,000 contribution to the Queen Alexandra Road-Rail Bridge in Sunderland because the rail portion was only operational from 1909 to 1921.

In the essay the creation of the LNER Mk 1 in 1854 and the earlier creation of the Southern Railway also helped to create some mainline rail links running across London from North to South. This is what the essay had to say about them...
The East London Railway and Outer Circle
The ELR has failed to live up to its potential in the real world because it did not have adequate links with the main line network north of the Thames and it is only now that the problem is being addressed with the construction of the Dalston extension. In this version of history such links (including the planned connection with the GER line at Cambridge Heath, the tunnel dead-ends only 350m from the junction) existed when it opened in 1876 and from the beginning it carried heavy traffic loads.

The WLR/WLER, NRL, ELR and what became the South London Line were electrified at about the same time in this version of history, which combined with the ELR’s adequate northern connections made a proper Outer Circle possible.

In the real world ownership of the ELR transferred from the Southern Railway to the LPTB when the main line railways were nationalized. However, in this version of history it became part of British Railways due to the other parts of the Outer Circle belonging to it and its importance as a through route.
IOTL the East London Railway was owned by a consortium of 6 railway companies (the Great Eastern Railway (GER), the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway (LB&SCR), the London, Chatham and Dover Railway (LCDR), the South Eastern Railway (SER), the Metropolitan Railway, and the District Railway) until 1925 when it passed to the Southern Railway.

However, in my railway electrification timelines the ELR earlier formation of the Southern means it was only owned by 3 or 4 railway companies (depending upon whether OTL District was part of the Metropolitan) and becomes part of the Southern Railway in 1875. The intention is that the Southern and the LNER Mk 1 have the financial muscle to build the required northern links in time for the opening of the line in 1876.
The Great Northern & City and Waterloo & City Lines
[Note that when I wrote it in 2007 I didn't know of the difficulties involved in extending it to Bank.]

In the real world GNCR was sponsored by the GNR to relieve pressure on the ECML between Kings Cross and Finsbury Park. Its 1901 request for operating powers over the GNR tracks from Finsbury Park to Edgware, High Barnet, Alexandra Palace and Enfield was denied. The Metropolitan Railway purchased it in 1913 and intended to extend the GNCR and make an end on junction with the W&CR at Bank. This did not happen and World War Two frustrated plans to project the GNCR to East Finchley and Alexandra Palace. The line finally achieved its original purpose in 1976 with the completion of the Great Northern Suburban scheme and ownership was transferred from London Transport to British Rail.

In this version of history the LNER Mk 1 purchased the GNCR while it was under construction and when it opened in 1904 electric trains continued from Finsbury Park to Edgware, High Barnet, Alexandra Palace and Enfield. The LNER Mk 1 overcame opposition from the property owners above the projected Bank extension was overcome and it was opened before 1914.

The W&CR opened in 1898 was purchased by the LSWR in 1907 and after being owned by the Southern Railway and British Rail transferred to the London Underground in 1994. In this version of history the LSWR gave it a physical connection with the main line network at Waterloo and converted it from 3rd rail DC to 25kv AC to coincide with the GNCR reaching Bank.

The Waterloo and Finsbury Joint Railway was a useful link between the ECML and southern England, effectively a Crossrail or second Thameslink although it did not acquire this name until the 1980s. As the line had no physical connection with the rest of the Underground and carried heavy through traffic the lines belonged to British Rail and its predecessors throughout their lives.

The opening date for the GNCR ITTL is probably too pessimistic. IOTL the GNCR obtained its Act of Parliament before the W&CR but took longer to build for lack of finance and opposition from its original sponsor the GNR, which is why it was completed 6 years later. But ITTL the line was sponsored and owned by the GNER Mk 1 a company that had also owned the MSRL (which IOTL became the Great Central Railway in 1899) since 1857. ITTL some of the £11½ million spent on the MS&LR London Extension completed in 1899 IOTL could have been spent on accelerating the completion of the GNCR including an extension to Bank in 1898 to coincide with the completion of the W&CR.
 
Last edited:
Going back to Post Number 132 the full extract on the proposed mergers between the firms that eventually became the London Midland & Scottish.
In 1851 the LNWR made proposals to amalgamate with the North Sfaffordshire Railway and a year later tried to merge with the Midland Railway. In the early 1870s the LNWR tried to merge with the Caledonian and Y&LR, while the Midland counterattacked with a proposal to join with the GSWR. These and other merger proposals led to the formation of a Parliamentary Committee which recommended that the British railway system be grouped into 6 great firms that in time would amalgamate into a single private or state owned company. In the real world Parliament rejected the findings of the Committee and the piecemeal merger applications including a second attempt by the LNWR and YLR to merge in 1873.

Had the 1851-52 amalgamations taken place a London, Midland and North Western Railway would have been created and if Parliament allowed the 1870 amalgamations the company would rename itself the London, Midland and Scottish Railway on 1st January 1873.

If it had been created earlier the LMS would have had a more rational network. The Midland London Extension would still be required, but it would terminate at an expanded Euston station rather than St Pancras. There would be no need to build the Settle and Carlisle Railway, saving £3½ million which was instead used to upgrade the WCML between Crewe and Carlisle. There was no need to participate in the Cheshire Lines Committee and Manchester to Altrincham lines, which were left to the LNER Mk I.
As already stated I though that an earlier Grouping would hinder rather than help electrification at the time so I limited mergers to one between the Mersey Railway and the Wirral Railway, but now I think that the North Staffordshire Railway should have been taken over by the LSWR or the Midland in the early 1850s.

This is the section on the Mersey Railway from the March 2009 version of the essay.
The Mersey Railway, Wirral and Birkenhead Railways

In the real world the Mersey and Wirral Railways obtained electrification powers in 1900. However, only the Mersey Railway used them and electric working began in 1903. In this version of history it obtained powers in 1890 and commenced electric working in 1893 using 11kv AC rather than the 3rd rail DC system used in the real world. The electricity was supplied by the Liverpool Electrical Supply Company (LiverLec) rather than its own power station, which is why it was able to electrify 10 years earlier.

In common with the real world electrification transformed the Mersey Railway from a loss maker into a highly profitable company. In 1900 it used some of this wealth to buy the Wirral Railway and obtained powers to electrify it at 25kv AC and upgrade its own line to the same standard. Both schemes were completed in 1903 and a total if 15½ route miles was electrified. This was a great improvement over the real world because the Wirral was too poor to use its powers and electrification of its 10.7 route miles was not completed until 1938 using the Railway Facilities Act.

In this version of history it also obtained powers to extend electrification from its terminus at Rock Ferry over the Birkenhead Railway to Hooton, which was done by 1907, that is 70 years ahead of the real world and then onto Chester and Ellesmere Port by 1914, which was not done until the 1990s in the real world. This brought the Mersey-Wirral-Birkenhead system up to a total of 32½ route miles.

In the real world the Mersey Railway in common with the ELR and GNCR never fulfilled its potential because it suffered from inadequate connections at one end. That is the planned connections with the L&YR at Liverpool Exchange and the LNWR at Liverpool Lime Street were never built. In this version of history the earlier electrification of the Company made it rich enough to complete these links by 1903.
I would now modify the above to say that the Mersey Railway which as related above was a loss maker from its opening in 1886 to electrification was purchased by the LNER Mk 1 in 1890 along with the Wirral Railway. The two railways were either as a directly purchased by the LNER Mk 1 or it was done via the Cheshire Lines Committee. The money to buy the companies and pay for the electrification in 1893 rather than 1903/1938 came from not building the MSLR London Extension.

Money released from not building the MSLR London Extension was also used to advance completion of the extensions from the Mersey to the L&YR at Liverpool Exchange and the LNWR at Liverpool Lime Street (which IOTL were never built) from 1903 to 1898. Furthermore the proposed link with the GCR (ITTL LNER MK 1) lines in the Wirral Peninsular was also built in the 1890s.

ITTL the LNER Mk 1 via the CLC would also build the link between its Liverpool Central Station and Liverpool Exchange between 1890 and 1914. This would preferably be before the L&YR began the electrification of its lines out of Liverpool Exchange in the early 1900s. IOTL this was eventually done in the 1970s.
 

hipper

Banned
Do you have the link?
But I am sure that I have read about the domination of craft based practices in Birmingham arm trade

its a rather engaging account of a trip to the Works by a party from The Engineer, you can link to it by finding the royal small arms factory webpage

BTW back copies of the engineer via graces guide are an excellent source of information on 19th century technology.

Re The Birmingham arms trade you may want to Google Birmingham small arms (BSA) which emerged from the craft based Birmingham gun makers.
They went consolidated and industrialized in a positively German fashion...



however I think you have a more basic problem you seem to want the UK to be able to equip the entire entente in WW1 by 1915 ...

this is on the face of it impossible without advanced preparations for war they were able to satisfy their own needs for shells but the existance of a peacetime american economy made it possible to expand beyond whatever limits the UK economy had.

Ie if the UK had 10 times its actual industrial capacity in WW1 then it would still be able to expand its armies more quickly by drawing on the American economy

the alternative was to accept a longer war.

I don't believe there are any circumstances in which a great war would be fought where the UK would not draw upon American Industry.


Cheers Hipper
 

Thomas1195

Banned
its a rather engaging account of a trip to the Works by a party from The Engineer, you can link to it by finding the royal small arms factory webpage

BTW back copies of the engineer via graces guide are an excellent source of information on 19th century technology.

Re The Birmingham arms trade you may want to Google Birmingham small arms (BSA) which emerged from the craft based Birmingham gun makers.
They went consolidated and industrialized in a positively German fashion...



however I think you have a more basic problem you seem to want the UK to be able to equip the entire entente in WW1 by 1915 ...

this is on the face of it impossible without advanced preparations for war they were able to satisfy their own needs for shells but the existance of a peacetime american economy made it possible to expand beyond whatever limits the UK economy had.

Ie if the UK had 10 times its actual industrial capacity in WW1 then it would still be able to expand its armies more quickly by drawing on the American economy

the alternative was to accept a longer war.

I don't believe there are any circumstances in which a great war would be fought where the UK would not draw upon American Industry.


Cheers Hipper
There were some posts above talking about a scenario where UK population would rise to 55-70 million by 1913 instead of 45m, due to higher economic growth during 1870-1914. Their economy would be much bigger and much more likely to adopt modern mass-production techniques. But in this case, the UK might still stay ''splendid isolation'' because Germany would not dare to challenge it (especially if its pop was 70m). In fact, any scenario with a significantly stronger British economy than OTL can lead to the continuing of isolation.

What I mean was not about arming the whole Entente, but more about Britain being more self-sufficient during the war, at least in industrial stuff like steel and machinery. This would require a bigger and more modern prewar steel and machine tool industry. It was also about better efficiency, e.g producing 4000 tanks and 65000 aircrafts instead of 2500 and 55000 like OTL without reducing output in other categories.
 
Last edited:

hipper

Banned
Well, for arm industry, your statement about demand is true. Modernizing here I mean just electrifying and/or replacing old machines with new ones, not expanding.

And in the post (post 78) you referred, I actually mentioned about new industries (not just armament).

For new industries as a whole, there were lots of demand in Britain. Let me repeat:

Synthetic dye had demand from British huge textile and clothing industries, AND khaki army uniforms.

Electrical equipment had demand from electrification (e.g. electric motor for power supply), which would and should be carried out in both military and civillian sectors. Besides, military would demand light, radios and field telephones. Or civilians would demand new goods like telephones, radios, light bulbs, or electric cooker.

Precision and optical goods, there were demand from both civilian (like laboratories) and military prewar.

Here is an interesting factoid showing the relative scale of the British and German Electrical industries from Wikipedia

Relative size

Just before World War I Siemens had more employees in Britain than in Germany.[12]

So what was actually happening was that Siemens was expanding the British electrical industry without it costing the British investor a penny

You could not get a more cost efficent way to start a new industry Maybe these Victorians knew a thing or two...
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
Here is an interesting factoid showing the relative scale of the British and German Electrical industries from Wikipedia

Relative size

Just before World War I Siemens had more employees in Britain than in Germany.[12]

So what was actually happening was that Siemens was expanding the British electrical industry without it costing the British investor a penny

You could not get a more cost efficent way to start a new industry Many these Victorians knew a thing or two...
In Germany, there was also AEG, the world's fourth biggest electrical firms.

One major problem here is that Siemens and some others did not necessarily produce the best equipment in Britain, maybe even outdated stuff, as they did not have to exercise applied patents there.
 

hipper

Banned
In Germany, there was also AEG, the world's fourth biggest electrical firms.

One major problem here is that Siemens and some others did not necessarily produce the best equipment in Britain, maybe even outdated stuff, as they did not have to exercise applied patents there.

Activities:

Cables manufactured—the catalogue grew to include underground super-tension power mains, telegraph trunk lines and underground telephone cables, overhead lines and electric light cables.

Apparatus manufactured—grew from telegraph apparatus to include: marine and mine signalling apparatus, measuring and scientific instruments, wireless telegraphy, telephone exchanges (manual and automatic) and apparatus, wet and dry batteries, landlines, ebonite, cable accessories and joint boxes[15]
 
There were some posts above talking about a scenario where UK population would rise to 55-70 million by 1913 instead of 45m, due to higher economic growth during 1870-1914. Their economy would be much bigger and much more likely to adopt modern mass-production techniques. But in this case, the UK might still stay ''splendid isolation'' because Germany would not dare to challenge it (especially if its pop was 70m). In fact, any scenario with a significantly stronger British economy than OTL can lead to the continuing of isolation.

What I mean was not about arming the whole Entente, but more about Britain being more self-sufficient during the war, at least in industrial stuff like steel and machinery. This would require a bigger and more modern prewar steel and machine tool industry. It was also about better efficiency, e.g producing 4000 tanks and 65000 aircrafts instead of 2500 and 55000 like OTL without reducing output in other categories.
I originally did Scenario B2 to wank the post 1945 British armed forces (except I hadn't heard of an ALT history wank in the early 1990s). I worked out that even if the UK was richer and the British economy more productive so that it could afford to buy more arms it was going to be hard to find the men to use them. I hadn't heard of ASBs back then either, but if I though if as if by magic, the British Isles had twice the people then you automatically have twice the military personnel subject to the economy being twice as big.
 
Top