Britain's Railways Nationalize in 1923?

IOTL, the government considered nationalizing the railways after the Great War before Grouping was settled upon. It appears it got far enough that standard engines were being considered, or at least Maunsell's N class mixed-traffic engines were considered for one. 100 were ordered from Woolwich Arsenal to stimulate the post-war local economy, but could it also have been a carry over from preparation for nationalization in some way?

Supposing Britain's railways are nationalized in 1923, what happens to the railways from here onwards? If Maunsell is chosen to be the CME, how will mould Britain's engine design?

Tagging @NOMISYRRUC
 

Zen9

Banned
But doesn't this run the risk of a Beaching style rationalisation earlier as well?
 
A Beaching style rationalisation was unlikely before the great growth in motor traffic in the 1950's before then the railways were critical in moving both goods and people as the roads were not good enough pre war
 
This thread should be in post-1900, btw.

But doesn't this run the risk of a Beaching style rationalisation earlier as well?

There were line cuts prior to Dr Beeching's report, both under British Rail and previously under the private companies. Some lines did need to be cut (or at least mothballed), but there really needed to be a more comprehensive study of traffic in each station.
 
Bit of a disaster - no Mallard/A4 :(
Mansuall only built loco's for Southern, which means that they are slightly limited by size. If he was CME for all of Britian, he would have had to have built pasifics.
 

DougM

Donor
I am sure you will see some “pruning”. But only in locations that had redundant or duplicated lines. In the 20s the trains were much more important then in the 50s. Trucks being able to take over more by the 50s. So in the 50s you could cut little used lines and replace them with trucks and such. But in the 20s and 30s you would not see a little used line cut as it WAS still being used.
It is a difference in perception as much as available technology. The perception being that the little used lines were the cost of doing business. As the railroad had a job to do and that was to move materials to everywhere from everywhere and that included little used lines. Buy the 50s that attitude was changing.
 
I know that they started closing the Kelvedon and Tollesbury to passengers in 1921 due to a total absence of traffic from Tollesbury to Tollesbury Pier
 
IOTL, the government considered nationalizing the railways after the Great War before Grouping was settled upon. It appears it got far enough that standard engines were being considered, or at least Maunsell's N class mixed-traffic engines were considered for one. 100 were ordered from Woolwich Arsenal to stimulate the post-war local economy, but could it also have been a carry over from preparation for nationalization in some way?

Supposing Britain's railways are nationalized in 1923, what happens to the railways from here onwards? If Maunsell is chosen to be the CME, how will mould Britain's engine design?

Tagging @NOMISYRRUC
I do know that nationalisation was considered, but have no idea about what form that nationalisation would have taken.

IIRC Churchill suggested nationalising the railways and running them at a loss to help the economy. However, he was also the man who also said, "Civil aviation must fly by itself!" It couldn't and subsidised foreign competition quickly forced the fledgling British airlines to stop flying.

What I want to say is that this British Railways did the best things that the Grouping companies did, but on a larger scale. However, as I subscribe to the A.B.C. theory of history it is more likely that they did the worst things that the Grouping companies did, but on a larger scale.

For steam traction we probably see what the OTL British Rail did brought forward 25 years. So a small range of standardised locomotive designs is introduced from 1926 instead of 1951. The same would happen with carriages and wagons. They would also try to reduce costs by having the locomotive, carriage and wagon works build a smaller variety of designs in the hope of achieving economies of scale.

IIRC the OTL British Railways inherited 400 classes of steam locomotive in 1948. My hope is that there would have been fewer than 50 classes by 1948 ITTL. However, that might not be of any financial benefit to British Railways. It is very likely that the Government will make the Company reduce its fares or pay the shareholders bigger dividends.

Furthermore, making steam traction cheaper reduces the financial benefits of dieselisation and electrification. That would be a bad thing because steam would linger on for a decade longer than OTL. On the other hand when dieselisation was eventually carried out it might have been more successful. There might have had time to test the prototypes properly before placing bulk orders and a reduction in the number of designs.

Note

A.B.C. = Another British Cockup
 
Last edited:
Assuming that they went for seniority for the CME (as the groupings did) then it's almost certain that it would be offered to J G Robinson of the GCR (appointed 1902) however he turned down the LNER OTL because of his age. The next is George Hughes of the LYR (I'd assume that the OTL merger with the LNWR wouldn't go through but you never know) as he was appointed in 1904. He did become CME of the LMS OTL so I think that he would accept. Poor HPM Beames is screwed ITTL as well but then so are both Gresley and Stanier.
 
Assuming that they went for seniority for the CME (as the groupings did) then it's almost certain that it would be offered to J G Robinson of the GCR (appointed 1902) however he turned down the LNER OTL because of his age. The next is George Hughes of the LYR (I'd assume that the OTL merger with the LNWR wouldn't go through but you never know) as he was appointed in 1904. He did become CME of the LMS OTL so I think that he would accept. Poor HPM Beames is screwed ITTL as well but then so are both Gresley and Stanier.
Much like Chairles Fairburn, Frederick Hawksworth, and Arthur Peppercorn, I'm afraid. A shame we got so little from Beames, his heavy goods tankies seem to have been reliable performers.
 
Not my usual subject area, but what happens to Flying Scotsman in this scenario?

1993-paignton-60103-flying-scotsman.jpg
 
Not my usual subject area, but what happens to Flying Scotsman in this scenario?

1993-paignton-60103-flying-scotsman.jpg
It was built before the POD, but as TTL will likely see much less steam preservation due to more well thought out modernization, it's iffy whether Scotsman will be preserved.

(As far as OTL, there's an evil little voice inside me that wants to see Flying Money Pit shelved and have City of Truro be put back in operable condition. :p)
 
Might we see more electrification earlier? I would assume/hope on a more standardized system. It would be a stimulus to the emerging electric utility industry/grid.
Possibly the adoption of automatic couplers, and the installation of brakes on all cars? I imagine the labor unions would push for these, on safety grounds , if nothing else.
Otoh, I doubt there will be much in the way of replacing signal boxes with automatic block signals, and probably a delayed dieselization Too many levermen and firemen would be made redundant. I doubt a government owned railway would be able to do that.
 
Not my usual subject area, but what happens to Flying Scotsman in this scenario?
The unless Gresely is apointed, it is never built. Gresely would be a poor choise for a standardizer ( though he did build exceptional loco's).
Might we see more electrification earlier?
Maybe if Raven is made CME

(As far as OTL, there's an evil little voice inside me that wants to see Flying Money Pit shelved and have City of Truro be put back in operable condition. :p)
(There are too many locos, to little reasources. FS is to steam loco as ultramarines are to 40K, or the abidcation crisis is to interwar royality, so presuably the NRM thought they had a bussiness case)
 
Top