No or delayed National Grid in UK

[IanBertram]

From Wikipedia:
In 1925, the British government asked Lord Weir, a Glaswegian industrialist, to solve the problem of Britain's inefficient and fragmented electricity supply industry. Weir consulted Merz, and the result was the Electricity (Supply) Act 1926, which recommended that a "national gridiron" supply system be created.[4] The 1926 Act created the Central Electricity Board, which set up the UK's first synchronised, nationwide AC grid, running at 132 kV, 50 Hz.
The grid was created with 4,000 miles of cables – mostly overhead cables – linking the 122 most efficient power stations. The first "grid tower" was erected near Edinburgh on 14 July 1928,[5] and work was completed in September 1933, ahead of schedule and on budget.[6][7] It began operating in 1933 as a series of regional grids with auxiliary interconnections for emergency use. Following the unauthorised but successful short term parallelling of all regional grids by the night-time engineers on 29 October 1937,[8] by 1938 the grid was operating as a national system. The growth by then in the number of electricity users was the fastest in the world, rising from three quarters of a million in 1920 to nine million in 1938.[9] It proved its worth during the Blitz when South Wales provided power to replace lost output from Battersea and Fulham power stations.[9]

So, what happens if the grid is not available at the outbreak of war in 1939.

 

[MKD]

the lights go out in more places more often.

 

[IanBertram]

To be honest I'm a little surprised that no one finds this of interest. From what I've read, the existence of the National Grid was a significant contributor to British resilience during WW2. Similarly the absence of a full equivalent in Germany hindered their ability to maintain product on a number of occasions.

Of course it's much less obvious than the normal wartime TLs - background technology not flashy planes and superweapons but a critical factor in the war nevertheless.

 

[pdf27]

Thing is, I think it’s generally accepted on here now that the western allies were vastly more effective industrially than the Germans. That means the UK not having a national grid at all 15 years after they decided they needed it just doesn’t seem plausible. Germany getting one might be an interesting POD, but the UK losing theirs feels a bit to much like putting lead paint in the tea...

 

[Thomas1195]

After ww1 war industry experience, this was inevitable and all major parties support standardization.

 

[IanBertram]

Thing is, I think it’s generally accepted on here now that the western allies were vastly more effective industrially than the Germans. That means the UK not having a national grid at all 15 years after they decided they needed it just doesn’t seem plausible. Germany getting one might be an interesting POD, but the UK losing theirs feels a bit to much like putting lead paint in the tea...

Perhaps - but by current standards, the implementation of the grid was actually very quick. From the report in 1925, an Act a year later and full implementation by 1938. Compare that with electrification of the rail line west from Paddington to the SW and Wales... (or HS2 and Crossrail, which have been inordinately slow even given their much greater complexity)

 

[b0ned0me]

Perhaps - but by current standards, the implementation of the grid was actually very quick. From the report in 1925, an Act a year later and full implementation by 1938. Compare that with electrification of the rail line west from Paddington to the SW and Wales... (or HS2 and Crossrail, which have been inordinately slow even given their much greater complexity)

It’s a relatively small, dense, urbanised country which was physically untouched by WW1. I’m guessing the leading engineers had already done a lot of back of the envelope “if-only” sketches. Then once the enabling legislation was nodded through parliament it’s a matter of connecting up a whole lot of existing relatively new infrastructure. Apparently 4,000 miles of additional transmission lines in 12 years is what, 30 miles per month? For a well-funded high priority national level project with essentially zero planning or environmental regulations that doesn’t seem like it should be such huge challenge. I’m sure the interconnects and substations were very complex but towers and cables across empty countryside isn’t so difficult.

 

[MickCz]

Perhaps - but by current standards, the implementation of the grid was actually very quick. From the report in 1925, an Act a year later and full implementation by 1938. Compare that with electrification of the rail line west from Paddington to the SW and Wales... (or HS2 and Crossrail, which have been inordinately slow even given their much greater complexity)

Presumably implementation was relatively quick because having a reliable electricity supply enhances values, rather than damages some property values. Therefore little opposition to it. Of course, the level of owner occupation was low so, again, less opposition.
As for the effect of not having it on the war effort, presumably the effects of bombing on production would be little short of disastrous.

 

[fasquardon]

Thing is, I think it’s generally accepted on here now that the western allies were vastly more effective industrially than the Germans. That means the UK not having a national grid at all 15 years after they decided they needed it just doesn’t seem plausible. Germany getting one might be an interesting POD, but the UK losing theirs feels a bit to much like putting lead paint in the tea...

So out of curiosity, why did Germany not get a national grid and why did UK get one?

Did France have a national grid at the outbreak of war?

fasquardon

 

[Gunnarnz]

Perhaps - but by current standards, the implementation of the grid was actually very quick. From the report in 1925, an Act a year later and full implementation by 1938. Compare that with electrification of the rail line west from Paddington to the SW and Wales... (or HS2 and Crossrail, which have been inordinately slow even given their much greater complexity)

What amazes me about this story is that it finished ahead of time and on budget. There are very few major projects which manage that these days, and I'd love to know if anyone ever studied how they managed that particular miracle.

 

[Thoresby]

So out of curiosity, why did Germany not get a national grid and why did UK get one?

Because Germany was broke and then spending money on Panzer I's rather than enhancing the resilience of the economy.

Did France have a national grid at the outbreak of war?

It had a partial one, I think most of North-Eastern France (the Industrial bit) was tied up but from what I remember it didn't extend to the more rural South and West.

 

[Thomas1195]

So out of curiosity, why did Germany not get a national grid and why did UK get one?

Did France have a national grid at the outbreak of war?

fasquardon

Germany (and the US) already had strong electrical power and engineering industries with unified electrical standards before ww1 (because their industries were dominated by only few large players). OTOH, Britain lacked both before ww1 and only ramped up during the war, and they realized the necessity of having a National Grid in trying to catch up with the US and Germany.

 

[pdf27]

Because Germany was broke and then spending money on Panzer I's rather than enhancing the resilience of the economy.

It's worth reading some economic history like Wages of Destruction or Britain's War Machine to see just how poor Germany was at the time. Fundamentally they couldn't afford what they did buy in OTL, let alone additional expensive projects.
It's also worth noting that the German leadership knew that theirs was a poor country which couldn't win a drawn-out war against their likely enemies, but might potentially win a short war before their opponents were fully mobilised. This meant that anything which increased resilience would be a waste of money - if you're in that situation you've already lost the war, so far better to spend the money up front on something that might let you win it quickly.

 

[Jellico]

That means the UK not having a national grid at all 15 years after they decided they needed it just doesn’t seem plausible.

Off topic but I have to mention Australian rail gauges. 119 years and still waiting

 

[b0ned0me]

What amazes me about this story is that it finished ahead of time and on budget. There are very few major projects which manage that these days, and I'd love to know if anyone ever studied how they managed that particular miracle.

Partly because in those days the guys specifying the project could actually knew roughly what the work entailed and what was possible, and the people signing off on it took their word for it. These days all large projects are based on:
- paying a company to pay other companies to pay other companies to pay other companies to pay other companies to pay other companies to do the work
- every layer selecting the absolute lowest/fastest semi-plausible bid from below, adding a profit margin and passing it up
- the people “in charge” generally knowing very little about what is actually happening and ignoring any numbers that doesn’t suit them

Partly because in those days you could legitimately say “it’s a world first, brand new technology, demonstrably gigantic economic benefit in the short term, we will need a generous budget”.

Lastly, things are just a lot more difficult these days. A quick search on Highways England shows 14 separate planned projects related to HS2 impacting major roads, every one of which is a big complicated “iron your shirt while wearing” project since you cant just shut off a major road for a year or more. In the thirties these roads would have either not existed or been much less sensitive to disruption. Same for dozens of other major pieces of expensive stuff that the project has to weave over, under or around while meeting safety and environmental standards not even dreamt of in the thirties. Building something vaguely similar to HS2 in the thirties wouldn’t have been easy from an engineering perspective but I think it would have been organisationally much easier.

 

[Thoresby]

A quick search on Highways England shows 14 separate planned projects related to HS2 impacting major roads, every one of which is a big complicated “iron your shirt while wearing” project since you cant just shut off a major road for a year or more. In the thirties these roads would have either not existed or been much less sensitive to disruption. Same for dozens of other major pieces of expensive stuff that the project has to weave over, under or around while meeting safety and environmental standards not even dreamt of in the thirties. Building something vaguely similar to HS2 in the thirties wouldn’t have been easy from an engineering perspective but I think it would have been organisationally much easier.

This is a very relevant point when people make comparisons with China. It's not just that the Chinese have economies of scale they also don't have the same density of existing, in use and important infrastructure to get in the way of the shiny new train line. We could build a High Speed line from Inverness to Ullapool for a fifth the cost per mile of HS2. We won't because there's zero demand (like some of China's lines) but we could.

 

[IanBertram]

The complexity of HS2 was why I referred also to the electrification of the line to the SW, which is overrunning at least in part because no one realised that there were numerous historic bridges and other structures on the route - a good example I think of

"the people “in charge” generally knowing very little about what is actually happening and ignoring any numbers that doesn’t suit them "

 

[trash80]

Lastly, things are just a lot more difficult these days. A quick search on Highways England shows 14 separate planned projects related to HS2 impacting major roads, every one of which is a big complicated “iron your shirt while wearing” project since you cant just shut off a major road for a year or more. In the thirties these roads would have either not existed or been much less sensitive to disruption. Same for dozens of other major pieces of expensive stuff that the project has to weave over, under or around while meeting safety and environmental standards not even dreamt of in the thirties. Building something vaguely similar to HS2 in the thirties wouldn’t have been easy from an engineering perspective but I think it would have been organisationally much easier.

Mixing these themes together, i work near a future HS2 station. A recent large project has been change the alignment of power cables as the pylons go through where the station will eventually be. They had to build new pylons, move the cables across (the M42 being in the way which complicated things a lot) and then demolish the old pylons. While thousands of cars pass through the building sites every hour. Just an example of how complicated things can be these days.

 

[b0ned0me]

Mixing these themes together, i work near a future HS2 station. A recent large project has been change the alignment of power cables as the pylons go through where the station will eventually be. They had to build new pylons, move the cables across (the M42 being in the way which complicated things a lot) and then demolish the old pylons. While thousands of cars pass through the building sites every hour. Just an example of how complicated things can be these days.

And no power interruptions allowed or there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth!!!!! Riding a unicycle blindfolded while juggling chainsaws doesn’t even come close....

Whereas in the good old days people were relatively forgiving of the odd power cut and the utility companies had much more local spare generation capacity on standby, since they didn’t have a national grid to rely on.

 

[IanBertram]

since they didn’t have a national grid to rely on.

I'm old enough to remember people using lead-acid accumulators to power their lights...