I'm not sure what point the author thinks he's making in the article. (In fact, quite frankly, I think he's a bit all over the place!) I don't see what part the 1923 Grouping played in the slow and long-term decline of traditional industries in the north, and I certainly don't see how the demise of the L&Y "meant the end of northern economic independence." He cites no evidence to support his statements, and presents what are no more than his own personal assumptions. "The usual guiding logic of regionality and operational efficiency was set aside," he says. "The London routes to the north, provided by other companies, were assumed to have primacy." Assumed by who? On what basis does he make this assertion?
He seems to be implying that it was all part of some huge conspiracy by London-based Governments to deliberately run-down the Northern economy over several decades. "It meant the end of northern economic independence, and the regions re-orientation towards becoming a London satellite zone, a move which the Thatcher government pretty much completed." Quite. What David Lloyd George started, Margaret Thatcher completed. They make unlikely bed-fellows.
There are too many errors in the article to list, but I think most railway historians would disagree with his statement that "uniquely among major English companies, this company [the L&Y] never built a line to London." The North Eastern Railway, with over 1,700 route miles, readily springs to mind. In many ways, the NER was very similar to the L&YR, and was equally well run with a similarly pioneering attitude towards adopting new technology.
The author talks of how "parliament forcibly grouped most lines into four huge new entities." This is true, of course, but irrelevant to his argument since the L&YR had already agreed voluntarily to merge with the L&NWR. In the event, of course, this merger was largely pointless, but the two Boards didn't know that at the time they started discussions. Merger talks between the two started because those who sat in the Manchester Victoria Boardroom could see that the fiancial situation was worsening and that the L&Y could not survive long-term as an independent entity. Not only was there a huge backlog of infrastructure works as a result of the First World War, but also passenger and freight traffic were both starting to decline. In the case of the Lanky, it was a hard-nosed commercial decision by the Board and nothing to do with being "forcibly grouped" by Parliament.
The fortunes of the railways in general mirrored the fortunes of the country at the time, that's why the Grouping had to happen. Despite what the author seems to be trying to say, if Parliament hadn't acted when it did to create the 'Big Four,' the railways would have been in a far worse position subsequently.
