Should the Great Central have been merged into the GWR after grouping?

[Sad Sprinter]

Something I've always thought about. Surely it would have made more sense; they shared a common corridor into London and a busy intertwined freight network. Would have also made a complete South West/North East corridor under single metals. I wonder too if the GWR would have seen the GCR as an opportunity to compete with the established North/South railways more than the LNER did.

 

[randyrippley]

If you're going to do that, giving the LSWR to the LMS, not the Southern, would have created a freight and passenger network covering most of GB. You'd then have two competing national companies - GW/GC and LMS/LSWR.
The Southern could have concentrated on the London commuter routes.
That leaves the LNER as a smaller non-national operation

 

[30907]

Something I've always thought about. Surely it would have made more sense; they shared a common corridor into London

only the Birmingham route and only as far as Northolt Jn.

and a busy intertwined freight network.

Really? where did they meet apart from Banbury?

I don't think the GW would have been keen - the London Extension wasn't where the GC made money.

 

[geoffk]

Then you would have had the GWR running to Cleethorpes (but the LNER would not have served Wrexham).

 

[Dr Hoo]

I thought that the basic premises of the Grouping were to (a) improve efficiency and avoid unnecessary duplication and (b) to enable some larger and optimistically hoped to be profitable companies to ‘prop up’ some struggling smaller ones, e.g. in Scotland.

Where did the OP get the idea that the Grouping was intended to promote competition?

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I thought that the basic premises of the Grouping were to (a) improve efficiency and avoid unnecessary duplication and (b) to enable some larger and optimistically hoped to be profitable companies to ‘prop up’ some struggling smaller ones, e.g. in Scotland.

Where did the OP get the idea that the Grouping was intended to promote competition?

Born over 70 years after grouping took place, I can't say its my area of expertise!

Even if that's the case, I would have thought a GCR and GWR empire might have worked for freight operation.

 

[Irascible]

I've heared somewhere or other that there was a desire to completely nationalise after ww1, so the grouping is something of a halfway house if you look at it like that. If anything it was to stop wasteful local competition rather than promote any.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I've heared somewhere or other that there was a desire to completely nationalise after ww1, so the grouping is something of a halfway house if you look at it like that. If anything it was to stop wasteful local competition rather than promote any.

I wonder what pre-WW1 nationalisation would have looked like

 

[Irascible]

I wonder what pre-WW1 nationalisation would have looked like

I don't think there was any desire to natinoalise whatsoever until the govt got control of the railways in ww1 ( was *anything* nationalised in the Victorian era? I guess the East India company might count ) - there wasn't any real competition anyway until the technological explosion wars tend to give. Post ww1 you have a brew of govt control, surplus motor transport, workforce issues, economic shock and usually after wars there's a political lean to the left.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Winston Churchill was in favour of nationalisation immediately after WW1, surprisingly perhaps. One of the failures of the grouping was that the existing companies were simply cobbled together to form the Big Four, with no attempt to unpick the joint lines or arrive at rather more sensible geographic areas. There was a lot of wasteful competition, duplication and strange consequences - such as the LMS in Swansea or the LNER in Wrexham. Rationalisation had to wait until the BR era, by which time it was far too late.

There were attempts to merge the Great Central and Great Northern in 1907, and the GC, GN and Great Eastern in 1908 but were blocked by the Board of Trade.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Winston Churchill was in favour of nationalisation immediately after WW1, surprisingly perhaps. One of the failures of the grouping was that the existing companies were simply cobbled together to form the Big Four, with no attempt to unpick the joint lines or arrive at rather more sensible geographic areas. There was a lot of wasteful competition, duplication and strange consequences - such as the LMS in Swansea or the LNER in Wrexham. Rationalisation had to wait until the BR era, by which time it was far too late.

There were attempts to merge the Great Central and Great Northern in 1907, and the GC, GN and Great Eastern in 1908 but were blocked by the Board of Trade.

What would have been the effects of a GC/GN merger?

 

[edwin_m]

only the Birmingham route and only as far as Northolt Jn.

It was joint between Northolt and Ashendon Junction, west of Aylesbury, the two companies having their own routes north and south of here. The GC co-operated with the GWR to bypass the section they shared with the Metropolitan, and the GWR got a shorter route to Birmingham.

 

[30907]

It was joint between Northolt and Ashendon Junction, west of Aylesbury, the two companies having their own routes north and south of here. The GC co-operated with the GWR to bypass the section they shared with the Metropolitan, and the GWR got a shorter route to Birmingham.

Thanks for expanding on my brief comment.

 

[MichaelAMW]

only the Birmingham route and only as far as Northolt Jn.

Really? where did they meet apart from Banbury?

I don't think the GW would have been keen - the London Extension wasn't where the GC made money.

I think the point is that a lot of the coal traffic going up the GC ended up on the GWR.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The Monopoly board would have had to find a new station to replace Marylebone, as they are all LNER stations.

The GC was really the Manchester, Sheffield & Lincolnshire railway, which is where its interests lay.
It came close to being bought by the LNWR in the 1850s.

 

[Magdalia]

The Great Central and Great Western co-operated closely on long distance freight, the key link being the short line between Woodford Halse and Banbury, which joined the GWR and LNER without any need to use the LMSR.

This was particularly useful for steel traffic between Sheffield/Scunthorpe and South Wales.

Another well known freight movement via this route was the Grimsby-Whitland and Hull-Plymouth fish trains that exchanged traffic near Swindon.

 

[75A]

Something I've always thought about. Surely it would have made more sense; they shared a common corridor into London and a busy intertwined freight network. Would have also made a complete South West/North East corridor under single metals. I wonder too if the GWR would have seen the GCR as an opportunity to compete with the established North/South railways more than the LNER did.

The GWR would just have wound it down like they did with the Southern in the West Country.

Something I've always thought about. Surely it would have made more sense; they shared a common corridor into London and a busy intertwined freight network. Would have also made a complete South West/North East corridor under single metals. I wonder too if the GWR would have seen the GCR asn opportunity to compete with the established North/South railways more than the LNER did.WWW

Would the GWR then have become The Even Greater Way Round?

 

[Irascible]

The GWR would just have wound it down like they did with the Southern in the West Country.

That'd be BR/WR - the Southern got everything the LSWR had & wound it down somewhat themselves ( although admittedly the LSWR had already conceded defeat about Plymouth ). The GWR might have trimmed some operations in Wales ( I don't know ) but that would have been one of the points of the grouping anyway.

If you're trying to create a megacompany the length of the nation then surely a GWR/LNWR merger would have made more sense. GN&WR?

 

[Dr Hoo]

The LMS had interests (including joint lines) all the way from Lowestoft to Swansea, Bournemouth to Thurso, York to Bristol, Shoeburyness to Aberdeen and in the North of Ireland.

 

[Helvellyn]

If the desire was to remove duplication perhaps a Midland/Great Central merger to create a fifth company might have been better. Possibly including the Glasgow & South Western to preserve the alliance with the Midland. Would surely have been an incentive to start removing a lot of duplicate routes at that point!

 

[Irascible]

If the desire was to remove duplication perhaps a Midland/Great Central merger to create a fifth company might have been better. Possibly including the Glasgow & South Western to preserve the alliance with the Midland. Would surely have been an incentive to start removing a lot of duplicate routes at that point!

Or maybe just don't create the LMS & split the constituents so you get that pair and the GWR and friends/LNWR/L&Y/NSR - now sort out the north of England ( or at least the Liverpool-Leeds-Birmingham area ) who goes where if you're being a bit more thoughtful? I suppose the criteria would have to leave two competitive routes to Scotland. To be honest the GCR should really have gone in the LMS anyway. Was it given to the LNER to give them a way into the northwest?

 

[Revaulx]

What would have been the effects of a GC/GN merger?

This is a really interesting question, and one that I think it’s worth spending some effort on; it isn’t ridiculously speculative like “what if there hadn’t been a world war?”.

The success of the (operational) SER/LCDR merger in 1899 showed what could be achieved by cooperation. I can’t help believing that had the GN/GE/GC merger been allowed to go ahead, it would have been followed by a flurry of others. The L&Y and LNWR were already starting to cooperate around then, and some of the Scottish companies were keen to forge links with wealthier English ones. If the GSWR had gone in with the Midland, would the Caledonian followed suit with the LNWR?

Had it gone ahead in 1909 they’d only have had five years before war intervened in any case, but it’s reasonable to wonder whether the much larger company would have found it easier to raise funds to begin London suburban electrification? This was something the GN at least were extremely keen to do, but were prevented by ongoing poverty; they had never really recovered from the insane cost of the Queensbury Lines.

 

[Rescars]

IIRC, the original concept was for five groups in England and Wales, with separate single groups for London, Scotland and Ireland. This could have led to some interesting developments - rather different ones from what actually transpired.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The Cambrian was grouped with the GWR, on the grounds that the LMS group was already "too big".
At that point the Cambrian had better working relations with the LNWR than the GWR.

The Cambrian also had an interface with the GC (at Wrexham Central).

 

[Irascible]

The Cambrian was grouped with the GWR, on the grounds that the LMS group was already "too big".

What a great criteria to split things on! giving the LMS mid and north Wales & then grouping the Midland & the GCR ( as the railways of the midlands ) might have worked better. Although then you still have the GWR going straight up the middle of the LMS instead of round the edge.

1910s data analysis wasn't brilliant though, and this was the age we were deciding other people's borders by drawing neat lines on a map, so...

 

[RLBH]

Some years ago, someone suggested the GWR/GCR grouping, and keeping the Midland separate from the London and North Western, and a few other changes:

Alternative Grouping

Putting the Cambrian in with the LNWR doesn't seem to be part of his scheme, but probably makes sense given the discussion above about relations between the two. With the LNWR and Midland separate, concerns about the size of that group are probably rather reduced.

It's an interesting idea which prioritises competition over rationalisation; under this scheme the LNER has the greatest route mileage, followed by the LNWR and then the GW/GC group. That applies whatever you do with the Cambrian.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Some years ago, someone suggested the GWR/GCR grouping, and keeping the Midland separate from the London and North Western, and a few other changes:

Alternative Grouping

Putting the Cambrian in with the LNWR doesn't seem to be part of his scheme, but probably makes sense given the discussion above about relations between the two. With the LNWR and Midland separate, concerns about the size of that group are probably rather reduced.

It's an interesting idea which prioritises competition over rationalisation; under this scheme the LNER has the greatest route mileage, followed by the LNWR and then the GW/GC group. That applies whatever you do with the Cambrian.

That is a very interesting (and vintage!) site. Such a scheme would potentially give the GWR a cross country route from Leeds right through to Wales and Cornwall along its own metals. Although getting from Bristol onto the GCR would be awkward and would need a country detour through the Cotswolds to Banbury.

In this instance the West London Line would be very important. Perhaps more so than the Snow Hill tunnel, which would connect onto the GWR, but also the GCR via the old Shepherds Bush to Acton freight line. Providing a powerful node for freight from most of Great Britain to the Channel ports.

Putting the Dorset and Somerset onto the Midland would create a single trunk of metals from Bournemouth to Glasgow. I'm sure the Midland would be friendly over the LSWR, seeing they'd both be competing with the GWR/GCR joint company. So maybe even a vast empire from Padstow to Glasgow.

The LNWR and Midland routes would be separate entities. Competing with pax to Manchester and to a lesser extent Glasgow. It would seem that the Midland and GWR would be the main cross country routes with the LNWR and LNER being left as primary London based routes.

With the Great Eastern and Great Northern merged, perhaps it could become the Great Northern & Eastern Railway? Or GNER...

 

[Rescars]

That is a very interesting (and vintage!) site. Such a scheme would potentially give the GWR a cross country route from Leeds right through to Wales and Cornwall along its own metals. Although getting from Bristol onto the GCR would be awkward and would need a country detour through the Cotswolds to Banbury.

An alternative Great Way Round

 

[RLBH]

Putting the Dorset and Somerset onto the Midland would create a single trunk of metals from Bournemouth to Glasgow. I'm sure the Midland would be friendly over the LSWR, seeing they'd both be competing with the GWR/GCR joint company. So maybe even a vast empire from Padstow to Glasgow.

Given that the S&D was Midland-owned, it would certainly be absuorbed under such a scheme. Presumably so would the Midland & South Western Junction. Joining the L&SWR with the Midland under such a situation would make a lot of sense - perhaps more than joining it into the Southern group.

An alternative Great Way Round

Some very odd routes become possible on a joint GW/GC network - which would have slow, indirect routes from London to both Manchester and Liverpool!

 

[Taunton]

That is a very interesting (and vintage!) site. Such a scheme would potentially give the GWR a cross country route from Leeds right through to Wales and Cornwall along its own metals. Although getting from Bristol onto the GCR would be awkward and would need a country detour through the Cotswolds to Banbury.

GWR directors were a sensible set financially, and would not touch the Great Central with a barge pole. They were hacked off enough at having to overpay for the South Wales near-bankrupt lot (a number of which were so financially poor just because of how their coal mining principal shareholders did the accounts between the two).

There were however longstanding extensive services, mainly freight, between the two via Didcot west curve. No need to go via the minor (some single track) Cheltenham-Banbury line (known as "over the Alps" on the GWR). This continued into BR days, having been a means between the LNER and GWR of keeping revenue off the LMS.