What would have happened to the railways if WWII hadnt happened?

[infobleep]

I was wondering about this recently. If WWII hadn't happened, would the railways have been nationalised as soon as they were?

If they hadn't been, would more lines have closed sooner, due to commercial companies considering them unprofitable or would they have still limped on?

I assume the line through Archway in London would have been finished and the link from Chessington South to Leatherhead too.

Would such lines still exist now? I suspect the answer would be yes, at least in the Chessington branch line case.

What other schemes didn't happen or get finished due to WWII? Would they have happened?

 

[HSTEd]

Whilst WW2 and the resulting maintenance holiday did massive damage to the railways, nationalisation was likely inevitable.

The railways, with the exception of the Southern, were largely unable to adapt to the challenge of increasing motor transport.
They probably won't be able to electrify fast enough to escape long term systemic failure, which will likely lead to nationalisation even if Labour doesn't get into power.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think that road use might have accelerated earlier without World War Two due to a lack of economic decline during the war. This would have lead to an earlier decline in rail use for passenger. Perhaps wagon load freight might have lasted longer due to a lack of surplus army vehicles in 1946-ish.

Nationalisation might not have happened earlier as the state would not have needed to take over the railways to avoid war reparations. So I think closures would have been forced upon the big four due to economic reality. I am sure eventually members of the big four would have come to mutual agreement over closing duplicate routes and even become one national railway company. The inevitable nationalisation would probably have occurred in the 1960s probably after Dr Beeching had done his report for the United Big Four and closures achieved. Probably with a misguided pro rail contingent hoping the state would reverse the closures !.

I think by the turn of the century things would be much as they are in reality. No rolling program of electrification.

Then again I expect dieselisation would have started earlier (there were pre war prototypes). Maybe a lack of the headlong rush to replace so many steam engines with so many untried diesel types. By the time of privatisation there might have been fewer steam engines being retired early as they would not have been built. There would have been more early diesel locomotives and developments of them coming along earlier.

 

[The exile]

At least two of the big four were in a terrible financial position by the late 1930s so something major would have happened anyway. Ultimately the answer would have been determined by politics which would probably have been very different. (This is assuming that “without world War 2” doesn’t mean “capitulation to Hitler” - does anyone know what Prime Minister Moseley’s transport policy would have been?

 

[Belfastmarty]

One of the reasons road transport developed rapidly after WW2 was the availability of large numbers of war surplus vehicles, together with a cohort of workers trained to drive them. Similarly, the aerospace industry was kick started during the war and came out of the conflict well poised to develop civilian airliners. The railways came out of the war worn out and run down through lack of maintenance, all of which was a perfect storm for the post-war decline in rail.
If the war hadn't happended the railways would have had much less competition for their business and the golden age of the 1930s rail travel could well have continued in to the 1950s or 60s.

 

[A0]

I think electrification of swathes of the LNER would have happened.

As well as Woodhead, AIUI the LNER had plans for electrifying London - Hitchin (1,500v DC) and York - Newcastle. It doesn't take a huge amount of imagination to link those to Woodhead and conclude either the ECML or Great Central Mainline would have been wired.

One of the reasons road transport developed rapidly after WW2 was the availability of large numbers of war surplus vehicles, together with a cohort of workers trained to drive them. Similarly, the aerospace industry was kick started during the war and came out of the conflict well poised to develop civilian airliners. The railways came out of the war worn out and run down through lack of maintenance, all of which was a perfect storm for the post-war decline in rail.
If the war hadn't happended the railways would have had much less competition for their business and the golden age of the 1930s rail travel could well have continued in to the 1950s or 60s.

Rail passenger numbers hadn't been growing in the 1930s (even before the onset of WW2) and there were line closures taking place due to competition from the motor-bus. So I'm not sure where this myth of the "golden age" comes from.

 

[Ken H]

Well it depends how you start. Lets assume WW1 occurred but Germany did not become full on Nazi. So no war in Europe.
There was a general election in 1935, so the next one would have to be before 1940. The 1935 election led to a coalition but the Conservatives were the main party, and could have formed a government without coalition.
Whether WW2 caused Labour to win the 1945 election I dont know. But without a labour government, I think nationalisation of rail, steel and coal would be unlikely.
Without WW2 we would not have needed assistance from the United States. So the empire would have lasted longer, but I doubt it would have lasted much longer. Maybe our exit from India would have been less rushed, and maybe we would not have seen partition there, so a united secular India, and no Pakistan/Bangladesh. Empire was important as the rail equipment industry exported equipment to the colonies, improving its viability.
But as described earlier, there were massive leaps in technology in WW2:-
Big diesels were developed for marine use, notably the Deltic. This allowed diesel railway locos with a decent power/weight ratio.
Turing and Flowers developed the first electronic digital computer - colossus- at Bletchley Park. Would we have had TOPS, or APTIS without Colossus. or even the electronically controlled power electronics we have today.
The big unknown for me is electrification. Would the railways have carried on with 1500V DC electrification? or abandoned it as unaffordable. would we have seen Bournemouth and Kent Coast 3rd rail? There there advances in power systems in WW2 that helped. Were the motor generator sets replaced by mercury arcs because of WW2 technology? Without electricity nationalisation would supply of bulk electricity to the railway have been possible? Before nationalisation, much of the electricity industry was local authority owned, and was important for tramways.
Without electrification and diesels with sufficient power, then steam would have still been the mainstay.

Of course without WW2, then we could have shared developments with the big industrialised economies, like Germany, France and the US, and that will have affected UK railways.

Or then we could have had a Beeching/Serpell type rationalisation with just the main inter city routes, plus a london surburban railway, maybe doing their work in about 1950 as cars and lorries became a realistic form of transport.

 

[WAO]

Interwar legislation hamstrung railfreight, allowing small lorry firms to cherry pick lucrative traffic, leaving aggregates and coal to the railway.

A true free market would have enabled the railway to compete in freight just as it did with passenger services (where the roads were not fit for long distance journeys in poorer, dearer cars).

Diesels (or at least licensed technology) from the USA would have arrived 20 years sooner.

And railways would not have had five years of overuse and bombing with little maintenance or investment.

WAO

 

[RT4038]

A true free market would have enabled the railway to compete in freight just as it did with passenger services (where the roads were not fit for long distance journeys in poorer, dearer cars).

A true free market would not have hamstrung bus and coach operators from competing against the railway, probably losing them even more passenger traffic than they did.....

 

[Andyjs247]

If the war hadn’t happened the Great Western would have built the line from Exeter to Newton Abbot avoiding Dawlish. Other schemes put on hold would have been built too. We’d likely have seen more electrification and dieselisation sooner. British Rail might not have happened with standard steam locos being produced, likewise the modernisation plan with too many small badly designed diesel locos, but we would have had consolidation and rationaliasation of the network but maybe not on the scale of Beeching.

 

[JLH4AC]

Nationalisation might not have happened earlier as the state would not have needed to take over the railways to avoid war reparations. So I think closures would have been forced upon the big four due to economic reality. I am sure eventually members of the big four would have come to mutual agreement over closing duplicate routes and even become one national railway company. The inevitable nationalisation would probably have occurred in the 1960s probably after Dr Beeching had done his report for the United Big Four and closures achieved. Probably with a misguided pro rail contingent hoping the state would reverse the closures !.

Nationalisation was a largely political decision, Clement Attlee's Labour government policy of nationalising multiple industries including sections of the road haulage industry was mostly due to their socialist ideals saving the declining industries was just added bonus.

One of the reasons road transport developed rapidly after WW2 was the availability of large numbers of war surplus vehicles, together with a cohort of workers trained to drive them. Similarly, the aerospace industry was kick started during the war and came out of the conflict well poised to develop civilian airliners. The railways came out of the war worn out and run down through lack of maintenance, all of which was a perfect storm for the post-war decline in rail.
If the war hadn't happended the railways would have had much less competition for their business and the golden age of the 1930s rail travel could well have continued in to the 1950s or 60s.

This is a great point the large amount of surplus vehicles combined with railways and tramways being worn down by the war is one of the major factors why road and air transport developed so rapidly after WW2. Two more factors to why air transport developed so rapidly after WW2 were the need to keep wartime Britain connected with its colonies and the development of jet aircraft during the war.

 

[PTR 444]

In London, we would likely have seen the Bakerloo extension to Camberwell and the Northern Heights plan become a reality.

 

[WAO]

A true free market would not have hamstrung bus and coach operators from competing against the railway, probably losing them even more passenger traffic than they did.....

...but neither the road system nor the vehicles of the time (Bedford OB's!) were suitable for distance work. Rail was (and still is).
WAO

 

[JKF]

Were there any lines or significant infrastructure destroyed in the war that were never rebuilt? I think we lost some overall roofs on stations, but any bridges lost that resulted in lines being closed altogether?

Several already closed lines were lifted for scrap for the war effort, local to me this happened to the WC&P. Might some lines have survived if not lifted, and might there have been a practice of leaving the rails in place after closure without this? One problem in this country has been the haste with which closed lines were demolished and sold off, particularly the Beeching era, removing the option for later reinstatement.

 

[HSTEd]

Major closures still happen even if the war doesn't happen.
The railway was already doing very badly economically by 1938.

The only company that could plausibly avoid mass closures is the Southern Railway, every other system is going to get clobbered by road competition. Even without surplus lorries in the post war period the rise of road haulage is inevitable.

It might mean we see third rail multiple units in Cornwall, but beyond that I think it plays out surprisingly similarly to what happened in reality, although over somewhat different timescales.

 

[A0]

Nationalisation was a largely political decision, Clement Attlee's Labour government policy of nationalising multiple industries including sections of the road haulage industry was mostly due to their socialist ideals saving the declining industries was just added bonus.

Except in 1945 the industries they nationalised weren't by and large declining industries - coal, steel, road haulage, travel agent (Thomas Cook), civilian airline among others.

The only company that could plausibly avoid mass closures is the Southern Railway, every other system is going to get clobbered by road competition. Even without surplus lorries in the post war period the rise of road haulage is inevitable.

It might mean we see third rail multiple units in Cornwall, but beyond that I think it plays out surprisingly similarly to what happened in reality, although over somewhat different timescales.

The Southern did have some basket cases, admittedly a number were things they inherited from people like Col Stephens, but there had been much less overlap with the Southern's constiutent companies and they didn't have the targets of things like large scale coalfields that there were in the Midlands and North which led to several companies targetting places.

 

[JohnElliott]

Thinking of other cancelled projects, there might be a Dawlish Avoiding Line in place, and the line from East Grinstead to Haywards Heath via Horsted Keynes would probably have been electrified and remained open (encouraging more development at West Hoathly and Horsted Keynes than in our timeline). Maybe electrification to Hastings 40 years sooner, too, with electric versions of the Hastings DEMUs.

 

[JLH4AC]

Were there any lines or significant infrastructure destroyed in the war that were never rebuilt? I think we lost some overall roofs on stations, but any bridges lost that resulted in lines being closed altogether?

Several already closed lines were lifted for scrap for the war effort, local to me this happened to the WC&P. Might some lines have survived if not lifted, and might there have been a practice of leaving the rails in place after closure without this? One problem in this country has been the haste with which closed lines were demolished and sold off, particularly the Beeching era, removing the option for later reinstatement.

As far as I am aware the only railways that closed directly due to the war was the London Necropolis Railway which was closed in May 1941 due to bombing damaging the terminus, and the Rye and Camber Tramway was so worn down by the wartime use that it was deemed irrecoverable and was sold for scrap in 1947 though as with many other small railways it likely would have closed earlier if it was not needed for the war and likely still would have closed if the wartime damage was repairable.

Except in 1945 the industries they nationalised weren't by and large declining industries - coal, steel, road haulage, travel agent (Thomas Cook), civilian airline among others.

The railways and canal companies were in decline and many docks due to being owned by the railways/canals at the time were not doing much better. Coal and steel industries were not yet in decline (Though it was clear to many that without change they were likely to be in trouble in the future.) which along with the numerous smaller yet stable firms in road haulage, electricity, gas and other industries and promising companies in the airline industry being nationalisation supports my point that railway nationalisation was a largely political decision that an Clement Attlee's Labour government would have gone ahead with even if the railway industries were not in decline.

Thomas Cook was nationalised due to being owned by the railways due to British assets taken over by the Custodian of Enemy Property and sold off as a result of the Paris headquarters of their owners being seized by the Germans.

 

[randyrippley]

With no WWII perhaps there would have been less antipathy within BR /BRB for diesel-hydraulic locomotives. Or for German designed diesel engines in general. We purchased Swiss-designed Sulzers, which in reality proved to be a poor choice, especially at the higher power ratings. If instead we'd standardised on Maybachs we may have had a much more reliable fleet.

Of course no war would have meant slower development of our own diesel products: so no Deltics, slower development of the EE 4-strokes, no high-speed Paxman designs, and no Crossleys (as in the class 28)
That in turn means.......no HST

edit
correct class 23 > class 28

 

[Peter Sarf]

With no WWII perhaps there would have been less antipathy within BR /BRB for diesel-hydraulic locomotives. Or for German designed diesel engines in general. We purchased Swiss-designed Sulzers, which in reality proved to be a poor choice, especially at the higher power ratings. If instead we'd standardised on Maybachs we may have had a much more reliable fleet.

Of course no war would have meant slower development of our own diesel products: so no Deltics, slower development of the EE 4-strokes, no high-speed Paxman designs, and no Crossleys (as in the class 23)
That in turn means.......no HST

Perhaps the need for many of those fancy diesels obviated by electrification - Oh well.....

 

[infobleep]

Very interesting replies.

Major closures still happen even if the war doesn't happen.
The railway was already doing very badly economically by 1938.

The only company that could plausibly avoid mass closures is the Southern Railway, every other system is going to get clobbered by road competition. Even without surplus lorries in the post war period the rise of road haulage is inevitable.

It might mean we see third rail multiple units in Cornwall, but beyond that I think it plays out surprisingly similarly to what happened in reality, although over somewhat different timescales.

Thinking out loud, I wonder if more Southern lines would have survived or would they have eventually closed anyway due to car usage increase and Great Western Railway lines being better towards Cornwall.

 

[randyrippley]

Perhaps the need for many of those fancy diesels obviated by electrification - Oh well.....

Well......pre-WWII our electrical engineering was definitely more advanced than our diesel capabilities.
Diesel technology depended on ships to drive development, and our shipping lines had a ridiculous preference for steam turbines - partly because of cross shareholdings between the bigwigs in charge of shipping and coal mining. Even oil fired steam was viewed with suspicion outside of the Royal Navy. UK diesel technology stagnated as a result.

There's another wobble factor to throw into the mix: without WWII would the coal mines still have been nationalised, and what difference would that have made to the railways? If the trains had been nationalised but the mines not, would that have accelerated the decision to end steam haulage? Or if neither had been nationalised would vested interests have slowed down the race to end steam?

 

[Sun Chariot]

Of course no war would have meant slower development of our own diesel products: so no Deltics, slower development of the EE 4-strokes, no high-speed Paxman designs, and no Crossleys (as in the class 23)

I think the UK would have looked to the already-maturing US diesel technology. By 1938, Electro Motive Corporation (later GM EMD) was offering railroad customers a 2000bhp 6-axle locomotive.
Even a US product scaled down to UK loading gauge, would have enabled a faster (and arguably a more cost effective to the taxpayer) path to dieselisation.

 

[JLH4AC]

With no WWII perhaps there would have been less antipathy within BR /BRB for diesel-hydraulic locomotives. Or for German designed diesel engines in general. We purchased Swiss-designed Sulzers, which in reality proved to be a poor choice, especially at the higher power ratings. If instead we'd standardised on Maybachs we may have had a much more reliable fleet.

Of course no war would have meant slower development of our own diesel products: so no Deltics, slower development of the EE 4-strokes, no high-speed Paxman designs, and no Crossleys (as in the class 23)
That in turn means.......no HST

I doubt that would be the case; LNER, LMS and Southern were already favouring diesel electrics over diesel-hydraulics during the 1930s, British Rail outright refused to import/licence engines from Americans despite them being on the same side of the war, and the Pilot Scheme would still have called for locomotives powered by many different kinds of engines to test them and capability of their manufacturers.

The Napier Deltic was designed for the Royal Navy to power small and fast naval craft so it still would be designed even if not for class 55.

 

[HSTEd]

Perhaps the need for many of those fancy diesels obviated by electrification - Oh well.....

Well without the disruption of war there will be quite a lot of electrification going on.

1500V and third rail probably become the dominant specifications however.

However none of this will overcome the fundamental challenge facing the railway in 1939.

The Napier Deltic was designed for the Royal Navy to power small and fast naval craft so it still would be designed even if not for class 55.

Without the war the Coastal Forces are probably going to continue using craft which are very similar to the 1930s ones, and there was even a trend towards steam turbines in the Coastal Forces before the war. That eventually resulted in the "Steam Gun Boats".

It is questionable whether a Deltic class high performance engine will be developed.

 

[JLH4AC]

Without the war the Coastal Forces are probably going to continue using craft which are very similar to the 1930s ones, and there was even a trend towards steam turbines in the Coastal Forces before the war. That eventually resulted in the "Steam Gun Boats".

It is questionable whether a Deltic class high performance engine will be developed.

Motor torpedo boats/motor gunboats which were the types of craft that led to the Deltic engine being developed were powered by petrol engines before the war but petrol made them vulnerable to fire so in 1943 the Admiralty set up a committee to develop a high-power lightweight diesel engine for such craft. The Steam Gun Boats you referred to were built during the war because the Royal Navy along with the petrol powered Fairmile D motor torpedo boat due to an urgent need for boats to hunt down German E-boats at a time of scarcity of suitable diesel engines.

As much as my love of steam would lead me to prefer it to be the case I can't see it being realistic being the case that the Royal Navy without the pressure of war would choose to go with steam turbine powered gun/torpedo boats at the same time as the railway and road transport companies are pushing forward with complete dieselisation.

 

[birchesgreen]

Too many butterflies to really tell how it would have affected the railways, plus a lot would depend on why there was no world war 2 as that would have big changes to the economic and political situation in the late 1930s. No war also means the empire survives for longer of course which also has big effects on the country (and railways including manufacturers). It would be a very different world for sure.

I suspect LNER would have to be nationalised in the early 1940s though.

 

[Sun Chariot]

I suspect LNER would have to be nationalised in the early 1940s tthough .

Agreed; its parlous financial state through the 1930s, makes me wonder if a nationalised LNER was the route - or whether another Big Four would have had appetite and capital to take it over, cut back the worst losses and operate the remainder.

British Rail outright refused to import/licence engines from Americans despite them being on the same side of the war, and the Pilot Scheme would still have called for locomotives powered by many different kinds of engines

In the Big Four era, American practice was of interest to UK CMEs. If WW2 had not happened and Britain's governments had the motivation, I think the "US option" would have been explored more seriously.
Postwar, I think it was UK Government and the BTC - rather than British Railways - which deemed it both politically and commercially better for their diesel-propulsion requirement to be tendered to unproven British manufacturers.

 

[yorksrob]

Very interesting replies.

Thinking out loud, I wonder if more Southern lines would have survived or would they have eventually closed anyway due to car usage increase and Great Western Railway lines being better towards Cornwall.

I expect routes such as Tonbridge to Brighton and Horsham to Shoreham would have survived at least.

 

[infobleep]

I expect routes such as Tonbridge to Brighton and Horsham to Shoreham would have survived at least.

Were those profitable?