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

[ChiefPlanner]

Some very excellent comments on this thread. I suppose we "don't know" is an answer , but the Big 4 were very aware of the challenges facing it pre September 1939 , and they were actively canvassing for a better deal. As today , there were imbalances in regional economy and well being - the Southern being probably the best off , the others had their challenging bits - the GWR in dealing with the decline in coal exports via the ports in particular , and the others had similar issues with declining heavy industry and of course large mileages of rural or semi-rural lines , which were challenging in terms of what we would now call service quality and investment. (for example the LMS had considered in the 1930's the long term future of routes north of Inverness and towards Stranraer for example , the GWR had a branch line committee looking at the weaker lines etc etc)

There were bright spots - the Wirral "electrics" , the much acclaimed and publicised high quality streamliners , London Transport had a golden era , and of course the well managed and economically resourced Southern Electric.

With the structural changes in industry and large population movements (South Wales to the South East and the Midlands) , the suburban "explosion" of semi-detached London and elsewhere , and in advance of the national post war changes in Town and Country planning / Regional planning for example there were plenty of issues that a longer period of peace would have been been ripe for attention.

WW2 certainly gave a reprieve to many branch lines , which would certainly have faced the axe much earlier , if only on the passenger services. Freight was another story - but the continuation of low capacity and often low speed services would have been "interesting" , particularly with what would certainly have been the earlier start of the later motorway network.

 

[devon_belle]

A lot of infrastructure projects were cancelled due to the war. However, a lot of major yard expansions happened because of the war too. I guess that freight and passenger traffic would have continued to fall off and led to the rationalisation and modernisation of the railway sooner, as others have said. One would hope fewer lines would be closed, but I don't think this is certain either.

I suspect the fulfilled infrastructure projects (station expansions/rebuilds, new chords, avoiding lines, electrification) would have still been rationalised once it was no longer needed after freight (and passenger) traffic declined. Electrification would have saved some routes, but we would still have lost a lot of quadrupled/doubled track and extra station platforms in my opinion.

However, would it be fair to say that in this universe the Great Depression may not have happened? It was a major factor in German politics that propelled Hitler into power. This potentially puts the 1930s in a whole new perspective as well as the 1940s.

 

[ac6000cw]

There's an interesting spreadsheet of historical transport statistics downloadable from here - https://nic.org.uk/app/uploads/Historic-Transport-Final-Dataset.xlsx

Re. road transport, by 1938/1939 there were already around 2 million private cars, 0.5 million goods vehicles and 53 thousand buses in use. In the previous 10 years private cars had more than doubled and goods vehicles almost doubled. Much the same percentage growth in vehicle numbers happened in the ten years from 1947 to 1957, so basically WW2 just stalled the growth for about 9-10 years.

For railways, between 1920 and 1937 total passenger revenue decreased by around 25% but total passenger train mileage increased by around 30%, so the overall revenue per passenger train mile roughly halved over that period. Based on that, it's not hard to see why the Southern pushed forward with electrification to lower passenger train operating costs and encouraged housing development in its area. But for the other post-grouping railways I think there would eventually have been pretty savage cutbacks in secondary and branch line passenger services (both closures and bus substitution).

Also, I think the railway companies (if allowed to) would have become much more 'multi-modal' transport companies, with many 'pick up' branch/secondary line freight workings replaced with road transport from the nearest mainline hub.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

A well known book referred to the 1930's as "The Devils Decade" - and yes , purely on UK economic and social issues - there were some severe concerns on what were referred to as "the congested areas" , - but from a low point of 1931 , things had genuinely improved.

(unless of course you lived in Dowlais - where sometime in the mid 1930's it was suggested it was such a basket case , that it was suggested the "town" be demolished and the population relocated to the coastal belt)

 

[Calthrop]

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.

Topic-drifting, and essentially not about WWII: but, I find not altogether far-fetched: a scenario in which the Rye & Camber -- had it not been, "as above" and in fact, reckoned wrecked beyond repair by wartime defence-type use -- could have had a happier fate. It was, as at 1939, England's last "conventional" narrow-gauge line with a passenger service: if it had only actually been repaired and brought back into use after the war's end; it would have had to last for but a few more years, before the railway-preservation phenomenon came on the scene. One feels that the R & C would have made an excellent candidate for taking-over by a preservation society -- it was in a well-liked holiday area; very short (but running sense-makingly "from somewhere to somewhere"), and not physically demanding or (one figures) highly expensive to maintain; although its motive power was exclusively internal-combustion for its final most-of-two-decades, and I think its original steam locos had been scrapped by 1939: with its 3ft. gauge, steam locos of that gauge could have been, probably without great difficulty, acquired from other lines (public, or industrial) in the British Isles. With only a slight bit of better luck than in fact befell it: the R & C might still be, delightfully, with us today.

There was also the dream long entertained and discussed -- as late, I believe, as shortly-post-WWII days -- of extending the Romney, Hythe & Dymchurch Railway the seven or eight miles west from Dungeness, to link up with the Rye & Camber: the two railways to be then merged "in some way or shape".

 

[30907]

Coming late to the party, and assuming that the Great Depression had happehed:

1. the railways would have been in better physical nick (if not financial), and programmes of electrification etc would have gone ahead, but issues with agrijg infrastructure would have begun to affect the system.
2. the motor industry would have continued to develop, with car use becoming common some years earlier than actually happened, and the railways continuing to invest in road services (bus and lorry). And package holidays by air would have happened sooner or later.
3. as a result of 2, many minor lines would have closed to passengers, possibly even earlier than the post-Beeching era, followed later by routes to coastal resorts. I don't know enough about freight (being SR!) to comment

4. assuming nationalisation didn't happen, a fair number of duplicate routes would have remained open (thinking GC, LSW to Plymouth) but there would also have been commercial pooling agreements (such as the SR/GW had west of Exeter) leading to some stagnation.
Certain forum members can be assured that Salisbury-Exeter would have survived as a double-track express route

 

[HSTEd]

Certain forum members can be assured that Salisbury-Exeter would have survived as a double-track express route

Well I'd suggest it may have become the main (and possibly only) route.

If its a competition in the late 1950s between EMUs via Salisbury and steam or early diesels via Reading, I think the EMUs win.

The Southern appears to have already believed that going all Electric as fast as possible was its only chance in the 1930s.

 

[renegademaster]

Topic-drifting, and essentially not about WWII: but, I find not altogether far-fetched: a scenario in which the Rye & Camber -- had it not been, "as above" and in fact, reckoned wrecked beyond repair by wartime defence-type use -- could have had a happier fate. It was, as at 1939, England's last "conventional" narrow-gauge line with a passenger service: if it had only actually been repaired and brought back into use after the war's end; it would have had to last for but a few more years, before the railway-preservation phenomenon came on the scene. One feels that the R & C would have made an excellent candidate for taking-over by a preservation society -- it was in a well-liked holiday area; very short (but running sense-makingly "from somewhere to somewhere"), and not physically demanding or (one figures) highly expensive to maintain; although its motive power was exclusively internal-combustion for its final most-of-two-decades, and I think its original steam locos had been scrapped by 1939: with its 3ft. gauge, steam locos of that gauge could have been, probably without great difficulty, acquired from other lines (public, or industrial) in the British Isles. With only a slight bit of better luck than in fact befell it: the R & C might still be, delightfully, with us today.

There was also the dream long entertained and discussed -- as late, I believe, as shortly-post-WWII days -- of extending the Romney, Hythe & Dymchurch Railway the seven or eight miles west from Dungeness, to link up with the Rye & Camber: the two railways to be then merged "in some way or shape".

Topic-drifting, and essentially not about WWII: but, I find not altogether far-fetched: a scenario in which the Rye & Camber -- had it not been, "as above" and in fact, reckoned wrecked beyond repair by wartime defence-type use -- could have had a happier fate. It was, as at 1939, England's last "conventional" narrow-gauge line with a passenger service: if it had only actually been repaired and brought back into use after the war's end; it would have had to last for but a few more years, before the railway-preservation phenomenon came on the scene. One feels that the R & C would have made an excellent candidate for taking-over by a preservation society -- it was in a well-liked holiday area; very short (but running sense-makingly "from somewhere to somewhere"), and not physically demanding or (one figures) highly expensive to maintain; although its motive power was exclusively internal-combustion for its final most-of-two-decades, and I think its original steam locos had been scrapped by 1939: with its 3ft. gauge, steam locos of that gauge could have been, probably without great difficulty, acquired from other lines (public, or industrial) in the British Isles. With only a slight bit of better luck than in fact befell it: the R & C might still be, delightfully, with us today.

There was also the dream long entertained and discussed -- as late, I believe, as shortly-post-WWII days -- of extending the Romney, Hythe & Dymchurch Railway the seven or eight miles west from Dungeness, to link up with the Rye & Camber: the two railways to be then merged "in some way or shape".

It only ran as far as the golf club didn't it? If it ran all the way to the parkdean and butlins resorts it might have been able to survive acting as a shuttle to Rye but I doubt golf would bring in enough to survive

 

[yorksrob]

Were those profitable?

I'm not sure how profitable exactly, however from what I've read, they were reasonably well used.

With the Southern generally being financially better off, I'd have expected some of those more marginal lines to have survived (possibly electrified as well).

 

[Calthrop]

It only ran as far as the golf club didn't it? If it ran all the way to the parkdean and butlins resorts it might have been able to survive acting as a shuttle to Rye but I doubt golf would bring in enough to survive

Consulting Wiki: line's Golf Links station was around mid-point of route -- outer terminus was Camber Sands -- near the shore, on the edge of Camber village. Am not familiar with the area, first-hand -- don't know about the mentioned resorts -- but, maybe at all events, potential traffic from folk who wanted a trip to the beach?

 

[devon_belle]

Certain forum members can be assured that Salisbury-Exeter would have survived as a double-track express route

Excellent...

I believe the SR would have been in a great place if WWII had not happened. Quad track to Southampton, electrification to Weymouth and Exeter, Exeter St Davids avoiding line, Woking grade separation, Axminster expansion, potentially 6-tracking to Wimbledon (iirc), Chessington–Leatherhead, etc.

However, don't forget the GWR had grand plans too... quadrupling Cogload–Exeter (assuming the Great Depression didn't impact this), Dawlish avoiding line and associated Paignton rebuild, London–Reading & Taunton–Plymouth (and branches) overhead electrification. Presumably there are many more of which I am not aware.

I am by no means an expert on aircraft technology, but would a lack (or delay) of WWII advancements slow down the transfer of long-distance journeys to air travel?

 

[randyrippley]

As someone mentioned earlier, if WWII didn't happen, you have to look at why it didn't happen.
If the cause was appeasement and lack of military will in the UK, then it's possible that the UK could have become a member of a German-dominated European integrated trade zone, with extensive German holdings in key UK businesses. That would naturally lead toward German-led technology being adopted, to the detriment of UK industry

I am by no means an expert on aircraft technology, but would a lack (or delay) of WWII advancements slow down the transfer of long-distance journeys to air travel?

Very much so, especially when you consider how much the post-war aviation industry in both the UK and USA were influenced by German WWII research

 

[Ken H]

As someone mentioned earlier, if WWII didn't happen, you have to look at why it didn't happen.
If the cause was appeasement and lack of military will in the UK, then it's possible that the UK could have become a member of a German-dominated European integrated trade zone, with extensive German holdings in key UK businesses. That would naturally lead toward German-led technology being adopted, to the detriment of UK industry


Very much so, especially when you consider how much the post-war aviation industry in both the UK and USA were influenced by German WWII research

One of the precursors of WW2 was WW1. That gave the Nazis their reason to be envious, blaming stay at homes who made money from armament manufacture rather getting slaughtered in the trenches.
They also say we lost a generation of good men in WW1, and the lack of these men made the UK poorer for many generations. Dunno if thats true, though.
The Russian Revolution also was a factor in all this. Unwinding history back to the French revolution is probably way off topic

 

[JLH4AC]

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.

It was the management mainly in the BTC but also in British Railways itself that was aware that it was politically problematic to order rolling stock, and certain parts from foreign companies, and for some reason I can't tell for sure that even seemed to include licensing EMD engines. If it was more politically acceptable (Or what even prevented them from licensing EMD engines was not the case.) I am sure that BR would have explored using EMD engines during the Pilot Scheme. The Big Four would likely not have had such problems in a reality where they were not nationalised.

Topic-drifting, and essentially not about WWII: but, I find not altogether far-fetched: a scenario in which the Rye & Camber -- had it not been, "as above" and in fact, reckoned wrecked beyond repair by wartime defence-type use -- could have had a happier fate. It was, as at 1939, England's last "conventional" narrow-gauge line with a passenger service: if it had only actually been repaired and brought back into use after the war's end; it would have had to last for but a few more years, before the railway-preservation phenomenon came on the scene. One feels that the R & C would have made an excellent candidate for taking-over by a preservation society -- it was in a well-liked holiday area; very short (but running sense-makingly "from somewhere to somewhere"), and not physically demanding or (one figures) highly expensive to maintain; although its motive power was exclusively internal-combustion for its final most-of-two-decades, and I think its original steam locos had been scrapped by 1939: with its 3ft. gauge, steam locos of that gauge could have been, probably without great difficulty, acquired from other lines (public, or industrial) in the British Isles. With only a slight bit of better luck than in fact befell it: the R & C might still be, delightfully, with us today.

There was also the dream long entertained and discussed -- as late, I believe, as shortly-post-WWII days -- of extending the Romney, Hythe & Dymchurch Railway the seven or eight miles west from Dungeness, to link up with the Rye & Camber: the two railways to be then merged "in some way or shape".

Yeah, it does seem reasonable to think that if was in a more recoverable state it could have become a nice seaside heritage railway after its closure.

 

[JJmoogle]

An enormous amount of planned infrastructure gets completed, Electrification of most of the network happens far quicker than can be imagined today. The railway companies still lose a hell of a lot of money.

Labour still get elected at some point in the 40s and nationalise the industries, including the railways.

The modernisation plan still happens although heavily focused on electric units and Loco's, Diesel gets rather seen off, Steam is retained for non-electrified frieght, Beeching or something like it is brought forward, there's less idiotic cuts, still a lot of cuts though.

It's extremely difficult however, as many others have said, to work out how this goes with an international stage, like what is the rest of Europe doing, what does the Empire and further, decolonisation look like without the second world war.
How do New Towns plan out if the cities aren't being bombed to drive people out etc...

Overall I think you end up with a 'slightly' larger and more Electric network than we have now, a lot more stations would have been demolished and rebuilt hideously,

 

[ChiefPlanner]

An enormous amount of planned infrastructure gets completed, Electrification of most of the network happens far quicker than can be imagined today. The railway companies still lose a hell of a lot of money.

Labour still get elected at some point in the 40s and nationalise the industries, including the railways.

The modernisation plan still happens although heavily focused on electric units and Loco's, Diesel gets rather seen off, Steam is retained for non-electrified frieght, Beeching or something like it is brought forward, there's less idiotic cuts, still a lot of cuts though.

It's extremely difficult however, as many others have said, to work out how this goes with an international stage, like what is the rest of Europe doing, what does the Empire and further, decolonisation look like without the second world war.
How do New Towns plan out if the cities aren't being bombed to drive people out etc...

Overall I think you end up with a 'slightly' larger and more Electric network than we have now, a lot more stations would have been demolished and rebuilt hideously,

Electrification on the Southern in the 1930's was completed with impressive despatch - about 8 months or so for quite lengthy track sections and they had bespoke teams to carry out his interesting work - none of this "project development stuff " - once Board authority had been obtained , teams of engineers and operations staff would be sent out for detailed walk outs with a view to implementation. Much of the materials etc required was "British made" so the supply chain was fairly quick (even if con rails were shipped by sea from Workington to Angerstein Wharf to save on LMS haulage costs !) - the only scheme that Herbert Walker failed to get full Board authority for was the Hastings route from Tonbridge which had to wait till 1986 - but you can be assured it would have been cleared well before if WW2 had not intervened. Coal supply was a not irrelevant factor in those equation .....(or the cost of bringing it in)

Suburban and even "Garden City" developments were stopped by 1938 / 1939 - but the very poor 19thC housing legacy in part of inner London / Birmingham and many other cities was being tackled pre-war by local authorities , and regardless of war damage and so on , this would have been carried on - the London County Council for example under Herbert Morrison built considerable blocks of flats in inner London and of course there were the examples of Becontree and Burnt Oak for new housing for the population. War just made the condition of much of the worst housing to become even more dilapidated.

 

[Calthrop]

Yeah, it does seem reasonable to think that if was in a more recoverable state it could have become a nice seaside heritage railway after its closure.

Re Rye & Camber: or even -- as with the Talyllyn -- passed seamlessly, without an interval of actual closure, out of the hands of a failing commercial undertaking, into those of a preservation society; but I should probably not get too obsessed with this general scene: undeniably a digression from the thread's "no WWII?" discussion ...

 

[Bevan Price]

It is impossible to say what would happen. It would partly depend on politics. Mosley has been mentioned previuosly; his fascist supporters were a nasty, dangerous rabble - they were only banned after WW2 started - no war, and they might not have been banned. Might they have attempted to take power, somehow winning a 1940 General Election, or starting a civil war ??

Assuming not, who would have won a 1940 General Election? Tory win - and Chamberlain would have continued as PM - and Churchill would never have become PM. Labour win, and Attlee would have become PM in 1940 rather than 1945. But in 1940, Labour would have been in a somewhat situation to what it is now -- ideas of what it wamts to do -- but not enough money to implement everything; so. maybe a NHS, but not enough money for widespread nationalisation.

So, the Big 4 would probably have continued largely unchanged - uneasy finances, continuation of line closures that had been proceeding steadily from the mid-1920s and throughout the 1930s.

On the LMSR, William Stanier would not have been taken away to "war duties", and probably continued until he retired in 1944. His successor, Charles Fairburn was an electrical engineer, but sadly died young (58) in 1945 -- had he lived longer, we might have seen LMSR start wider electrification projects in the mid-1940s.

The LNER was already planning 1500V DC electrification projects in the late 1930s, these would have continued rather than being delayed until the 1950s.

The SR would have continued its 3rd rail electrification throughout the 1940s, rather than almost stop such projects until the Kent Coast electrification in the mid to late 1950s.

The GWR would probably have continued to develop its diesel railcars, but would probably not have started any electrication plans, and would have been the last to stop building steam locos.

 

[HSTEd]

Assuming not, who would have won a 1940 General Election? Tory win - and Chamberlain would have continued as PM - and Churchill would never have become PM. Labour win, and Attlee would have become PM in 1940 rather than 1945. But in 1940, Labour would have been in a somewhat situation to what it is now -- ideas of what it wamts to do -- but not enough money to implement everything; so. maybe a NHS, but not enough money for widespread nationalisation.

Chamberlain will not be PM for long even if he wins a 1940 General Election, he died in November 1940 of cancer. So he probably still dies early.

Otherwise, I largely agree, but I think only the Southern truly understands the predicament the railway is in. The others are rather lukewarm on electrification.

 

[mike57]

I think the main impact would have been on the electric/diesel mix by the 1960s. Assuming the big four survived in some form the Southern would have electrified just about all lines, and probably closed the rest slowly. Bearing in mind the Southern experience with 3rd rail, and the fact that it could be installed fairly easily and quickly would other companies adopted it for their commuter routes around London. London Tilbury Southend or GWR commuter lines for example. Would the government have made the money available for the LNER electification at 1500v DC, I think thats quite likely, and the LMS would have followed suit

So my prediction would be that we would have a mainly electric network, steam would probably have hung on a bit longer in the backwaters, the 'Beeching axe' would have started earlier, cutting the worst basket cases, but some of the better used routes that were cut might have survived, instead of a program of mass closures in the 60s it would have been a 'drip feed' throughout the 40s and 50s.

The other big if is why didnt WW2 happen? No rise to power of Hitler, therefore no need for war, or appeasement and the 3rd Reich being the main force in Europe. Under the second possibility I could see the UK being in a long period of poor economic performance due to the fact that the 3rd Reich wouldn't have wanted a strong UK, in which case there would have been little investment and by 1950 everything might still have been almost as run down as it was anyway due to war, but without the destruction caused by bombing.

 

[Ken H]

I think the main impact would have been on the electic/deisel mix by the 1960s. Assuming the big four survived in some form the Southern would have electified just about all lines, and probably closed the rest slowly. Bearing in mind the Southern experience with 3rd rail, and the fact that it could be installed fairly easily and quickly would other companies adopted it for their commuter routes around London. London Tilbury Southend or GWR commuter lines for example. Would the government have made the money available for the LNER electification at 1500v DC, I think thats quite likely, and the LMS would have followed suit

So my prediction would be that we would have a mainly electric network, steam would probably have hung on a bit longer in the backwaters, the 'Beeching axe' would have started earlier, cutting the worst basket cases, but some of the better used routes that were cut might have survived, instead of a program of mass closures in the 60s it would have been a 'drip feed' throughout the 40s and 50s.

The other big if is why didnt WW2 happen? No rise to power of Hitler, therefore no need for war, or appeasement and the 3rd Reich being the main force in Europe. Under the second possibility I could see the UK being in a long period of poor economic performance due to the fact that the 3rd Reich wouldn't have wanted a strong UK, in which case there would have been little investment and by 1950 everything might still have been almost as run down as it was anyway due to war, but without the destruction caused by bombing.

Remember Germany and USSR were allies at the start of WW2. So we would have been close to a massive European state, bigger than the EU. Whether the UK and Switzerland could have remained independant in that scenario I doubt. I think we would have lost the empire, incl India. So export markets would have gone. Which would have killed off much of railway workshops.

 

[randyrippley]

Were there any pre-war plans to expand the North London Line electric network? I guess the Northern Heights was one, were there any others? Perhaps fourth or third rail electrification north of Kings Cross and/or St Pancras maybe via the Snow Hill route - an early equivalent of Thameslink? Would have needed stock capable of both 4th and 3rd rail pickup.
Presumably the West London Line would have remained electrified and in use for local passenger services so could have affected the development of Olympia / Earls Court areas.
Or Gospel Oak-Barking?

 

[Killingworth]

The LNER was already planning 1500V DC electrification projects in the late 1930s, these would have continued rather than being delayed until the 1950s.

Although if we are going back to earlier start points before WW1 we might have had no LNER and 1500v DC electrified North Eastern ECML from Newcastle to York, to which GNR might have joined up to Kings Cross.

 

[mike57]

Remember Germany and USSR were allies at the start of WW2. So we would have been close to a massive European state, bigger than the EU. Whether the UK and Switzerland could have remained independant in that scenario I doubt. I think we would have lost the empire, incl India. So export markets would have gone. Which would have killed off much of railway workshops.

Thats was my thought with the question Why didnt the war happen?, If Hitler had still come to power then quite frankly I think we would have been a satellite state of Germany, with very little real choice in anything, and our resources would have been used to further the German state, with the result that we would not be in a much different place to that at the end of WW2 economically, and possibly with internal dissent or worse as well.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Were there any pre-war plans to expand the North London Line electric network? I guess the Northern Heights was one, were there any others? Perhaps fourth or third rail electrification north of Kings Cross and/or St Pancras maybe via the Snow Hill route - an early equivalent of Thameslink? Would have needed stock capable of both 4th and 3rd rail pickup.
Presumably the West London Line would have remained electrified and in use for local passenger services so could have affected the development of Olympia / Earls Court areas.
Or Gospel Oak-Barking?

The LMS had plans for electrification from St Pancras to Harpenden certainly in the 1930's , and the LNER had plans for suburban electrification out of Kings Cross , thriftily planning to use the comfort challenged Quad Arts , despite the latter having gas lighting !

 

[randyrippley]

............... but I think only the Southern truly understands the predicament the railway is in. The others are rather lukewarm on electrification.

Not surprising given that LNER/LMS/GWR all had coal traffic as a major part of their business and they'd hardly want to annoy their customers. Added to the probability that the rail companies would have had major shareholders from among the mining businesses.

The Southern only had the relatively minor and locally focused Kent coalfield, insignificant in real terms to their business

 

[RT4038]

Not surprising given that LNER/LMS/GWR all had coal traffic as a major part of their business and they'd hardly want to annoy their customers. Added to the probability that the rail companies would have had major shareholders from among the mining businesses.

The Southern only had the relatively minor and locally focused Kent coalfield, insignificant in real terms to their business

They had probably worked out how commercially marginal their suburban passenger business was (or was going to be in the future) so probably didn't want to apply what little capital investment money they had on something not worthwhile?

 

[mike57]

Not surprising given that LNER/LMS/GWR all had coal traffic as a major part of their business and they'd hardly want to annoy their customers.

But surely if large scale electrification had taken place coal would have been the power station fuel, so pits would have still been required, and power plants might have been located close to the pits in the case of GWR, LNER and LMS, easier to transmit electicity than lug coal around. Transformers and mercury arc rectifiers were available by the late 30s which means power could be distibuted at high voltage before transforming down and rectifying for traction supplies

 

[HSTEd]

But surely if large scale electrification had taken place coal would have been the power station fuel, so pits would have still been required, and power plants might have been located close to the pits in the case of GWR, LNER and LMS, easier to transmit electicity than lug coal around. Transformers and mercury arc rectifiers were available by the late 30s which means power could be distibuted at high voltage before transforming down and rectifying for traction supplies

The calculation in the 1940s and much of the 1950s was still that coal was easier to haul than electricity.
It wasn't until the coming of the "Supergrid" in the early 1960s that the British Electicity Authority/Central Electricity Generating Board came to the conclusion that 'coal-by-wire' was the most economical choice.

 

[Ken H]

The calculation in the 1940s and much of the 1950s was still that coal was easier to haul than electricity.
It wasn't until the coming of the "Supergrid" in the early 1960s that the British Electicity Authority/Central Electricity Generating Board came to the conclusion that 'coal-by-wire' was the most economical choice.

They needed the big baseload power stations, like Ferrybridge, Drax, Cottham etc to make that work. The small ones like Skelton Grange near Leeds were not that economic