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

[Chrius56000]

. . .Would the Big Four, if they hadn't been nationalised, have gone ahead with major station rebuilds like Euston, Birmingham New Street and Coventry and gone ahead with similar types of large PSBs to what B.R. subsequently built?

. . .(I presume the mooted L.M.S. Resignalling of Preston would have gone ahead if W.W.2 hadn't thrown a spanner in the works!)

. . .Just to give a Beeching closure example from my infant days, would the ex–LYR Southport–Preston route likely to have remained open under L.M.S. ownership?

. . .And on a side note, might we still have had "Totem Signs" and/or in later days, some sort of "Corporate Identity" on our stations, given that B.R. inherited a lot of "Big Four" practices?

Chris Williams

 

[mike57]

. . .Just to give a Beeching closure example from my infant days, would the ex–LYR Southport–Preston route likely to have remained open under L.M.S. ownership?

I suspect the 'basket cases' would have closed sooner, not as an organised 'Beeching' big cut more likely as the worst performing lines were identified they would have been closed. Some of the more questionable closures probably wouldn't have happened, but overall I dont believe the network would look that different today. The government would have probably had to offer to support some routes where closure was politically unacceptable. I think cost cutting measures would have started a lot earlier on lightly used routes, diesel rail cars, pay trains, unstaffed stations, automated crossings.

 

[simonw]

I suspect the 'basket cases' would have closed sooner, not as an organised 'Beeching' big cut more likely as the worst performing lines were identified they would have been closed. Some of the more questionable closures probably wouldn't have happened, but overall I dont believe the network would look that different today. The government would have probably had to offer to support some routes where closure was politically unacceptable. I think cost cutting measures would have started a lot earlier on lightly used routes, diesel rail cars, pay trains, unstaffed stations, automated crossings.

Would the technology have exist for some of those changes to come earlier, without the developments that the war brought about?

 

[mike57]

Would the technology have exist for some of those changes to come earlier, without the developments that the war brought about?

My view is that war accelerated some developments but sucked resources from other things, so overall I think technology would have continued to advance at a similar rate, maybe with some different emphasis. In terms of cost cutting most of the technology existed prior to WW2, the GWR and others had diesel rail cars, colour light signalling centrally controlled was coming in. Unstaffed stations and paytrains are more of a cultural thing

I know there was quite a bit of union resistance to those sort of measures, but if the big 4 had survived would it been more a 'drip feed' a branch line here, a branch line there with the 'simplify or close' being the two options, and each change would have resulted local negotiations on a line by line basis, avoiding the head on 'clash to death' that tends to happen when things get to a national level.

 

[Peter Sarf]

My view is that war accelerated some developments but sucked resources from other things, so overall I think technology would have continued to advance at a similar rate, maybe with some different emphasis. In terms of cost cutting most of the technology existed prior to WW2, the GWR and others had diesel rail cars, colour light signalling centrally controlled was coming in. Unstaffed stations and paytrains are more of a cultural thing

I know there was quite a bit of union resistance to those sort of measures, but if the big 4 had survived would it been more a 'drip feed' a branch line here, a branch line there with the 'simplify or close' being the two options, and each change would have resulted local negotiations on a line by line basis, avoiding the head on 'clash to death' that tends to happen when things get to a national level.

This makes me think of a simple question :-
Would resistance to change on the railways have been greater or lesser if the Second World War had not happened ?.

Post War the UK did tend to use immigration to solve our labour shortage rather than perhaps simplify or rationalise working practices in many industries. But that depends if the technology was there (for example I wonder if pay as you enter busses could have happened earlier). Certainly the next step - contactless was way way off in the future !.

Of course, without war there would have been more working age men available.

 

[randyrippley]

. . .(I presume the mooted L.M.S. Resignalling of Preston would have gone ahead if W.W.2 hadn't thrown a spanner in the works!)

. . .Just to give a Beeching closure example from my infant days, would the ex–LYR Southport–Preston route likely to have remained open under L.M.S. ownership?

I do wonder whether rather than closure, the route may have been electrified as an easy extension of Liverpool-Southport. And also obviously complete Ormskirk-Preston at the same time. Together they would have brought Preston into the Liverpool commuting area and opened up a lot of easy-to-develop flat land south of the Ribble

 

[Belperpete]

Post-war, we were so indebted that there was a virtual moratorium on importing things that weren't essential, hence our sticking with home built steam locos rather than importing diesel technology. So had the war not happened, we would certainly have imported more foreign technology, for both locos and signalling, leading to more rapid change

Centralised control was already coming in pre war, but was largely based on relay technology. The war certainly advanced electronics and computing - whether that would still have happened without the war is a big question. Without the war fast tracking the US economy, and the UK still being a major economic player dependant on traditional technologies, I doubt that there would have been the impetus to develop the new technologies that we are now so dependent on. For example, before the war, computing was just a pie in the sky theoretical concept - it could well have stayed that way without the war providing both a need for it, and the considerable resources needed to prove that it was viable.

Nationalisation gave the unions a much greater hand. Without it, and the assumption that the railways were being underwritten by the government, I suspect that commercial pressures would have led to more acceptance of change being necessary for survival.

 

[HSTEd]

Nationalisation gave the unions a much greater hand. Without it, and the assumption that the railways were being underwritten by the government, I suspect that commercial pressures would have led to more acceptance of change being necessary for survival.

Without the government underwriting the railway its like the railway industry ends up Serpeling (or worse) itself out of existance by the 1980s.

 

[billio]

I do wonder whether rather than closure, the route may have been electrified as an easy extension of Liverpool-Southport. And also obviously complete Ormskirk-Preston at the same time. Together they would have brought Preston into the Liverpool commuting area and opened up a lot of easy-to-develop flat land south of the Ribble

This might also have applied to the Bury electrics being extended to Oldham and Rochdale. This was being planned by the L&Y prior to WW1 and the idea may have resurfaced in the 1930s.

 

[contrex]

Were the motor generator sets replaced by mercury arcs because of WW2 technology?

Steel-tank mercury-arc rectifiers were being used for new schemes in the 1920s and 1930s. The Southern Railway bought 23 steel-tank mercury arc rectifiers, each 2500 kW capacity, from Bruce Peebles & Co for schemes in the Eastbourne, Hastings and Sevenoaks areas prior to World War 2.

 

[mike57]

Without the government underwriting the railway its like the railway industry ends up Serpeling (or worse) itself out of existance by the 1980s.

I think the support would have been more targeted at routes or improvements, rather than just giving money for general support, probably also in the case of capital projects to create employment as a spin off, which had already been ongoing during the 30s, although if we reached a point of insolvency as happened to some banks during the late 2000s then a bail out/nationalisation would have followed.

Had the worst basket case routes closed earlier then the resources would have been concentrated onto the viable routes, and you could argue that the railways would have been in better position to compete with other modes of transport later in the timeline.

My own view is that under these various alternate timelines the current network wouldn't be vastly different, yes the odd branch closed that is currently open, and some closures wouldnt have occured, but overall the network has been shaped by other changes, and these changes would have happened anyway.

Were the motor generator sets replaced by mercury arcs because of WW2 technology?

I think the game changer was solid state technology, which allowed 50Hz high voltage electrification. Yes attempts had been made to build mercury arc rectifiers or MG sets into locomotives, but to be honest given the complexity and/or weight prior to viable solid state rectifiers DC electrification of one form or another still held the edge. Low frequency AC high voltage is possible, and is used in Germany and other places, but a down side is the transformers get heavier and bigger as you drop the frequency.

Mercury arc rectifiers had been in use for some years at the start of WW2 and were surprisingly robust and reliable in fixed installations, but mounting them in locomotives was a different proposition, as the Class 84s showed, these ended up solid state.

Taking this line of thought to the obvious conclusion I think the timing of the developments in solid state electronics would be key, and bearing in mind these took place in the late 40s in our time line.

 

[Krokodil]

and you could argue that the railways would have been in better position to compete with other modes of transport later in the timeline.

The real millstone was the common carrier obligation and the requirement to publish fares and tariffs, only being able to alter them by applying to a tribunal. How can you compete with road haulage who can name their price?

 

[Belperpete]

The real millstone was the common carrier obligation and the requirement to publish fares and tariffs, only being able to alter them by applying to a tribunal. How can you compete with road haulage who can name their price?

By being in the road haulage business yourself. The railways were already diversifying into road haulage, buses, shipping, and air. I suspect that these would have become increasingly more important parts of their business, and the railways had the clout to see off the competition.

 

[mike57]

The railways were already diversifying into road haulage, buses, shipping, and air.

The real millstone was the common carrier obligation

I suspect that the erosion of the common carrier requirement with respect to freight would be hastened by developments and diversification. Containerisation might well of taken off earlier replacing wagon load freight. Collected by road transport, delivered to the final destination by road transport, but who knows or cares what happens in the middle. Long or medium distance, a rail (or sea) leg in the middle, short distance, road haulage end to end.

 

[Killingworth]

The real millstone was the common carrier obligation and the requirement to publish fares and tariffs, only being able to alter them by applying to a tribunal. How can you compete with road haulage who can name their price?

The War and Common Carrier obligations, from Hansard 1944; https://hansard.parliament.uk/commo...73f7025065/Railways(CommonCarrierObligations)

Mr. Etherton
Sharethis specific contribution
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport the reason for the Emergency Powers (Defence) Railways Order (S.R. & O., No. 72, of 1944) under which the railway companies are relieved of their obligations as common carriers.
Mr. Noel-Baker
Sharethis specific contribution
As my hon. Friend is aware, the pressure on the transport system is at present heavy and its capacity must, therefore, be used to the best advantage. To this end we must allocate traffic to the most appropriate means of transport, and we must restrict the acceptance of traffic which would cause congestion and delay. Statutory Rule and Order No. 72 accordingly relieves the railways of the obligation to carry goods which my Department have designated as goods which should not be carried by rail.