J Yoder wrote:That seems positive...was the LNER not considered successful? Is this what helped lead to nationalization?
There's a very big question, and 'to get a handle' on it really needs some historic perspective. Now, my views are those of a laissez-faire liberal, and may not concord absolutely with those of other orientations.
It all starts with land ownership. When the railways began as a transport network, every bit of land in the UK had an owner, and a legal enabler from the government ( Act of Parliament hereafter 'Act') was required to enable a railway route to be built. The Act gave those who had proposed the route detailed in a survey the right to purchase the land required, subject to various conditions. So right from the start, of necessity to prevent landowners simply refusing to sell land, there was a national government involvement.
Very rapidly indeed the people who made up the governments of the day began to recognise the value of the railway both to their own fortunes, and those of the nation. (The concept of the 'military-industrial complex' coined over a hundred years later, is recognisably emerging here.) A large number of entirely shareholder owned private companies built, owned and operated the railways throughout C19th and into C20th and the outbreak of WWI. At this point the UK's railway is effectively nationalised for the purpose of defeating Germany. It's a soft nationalisation however; the overlap between the railway owners and the ruling class forming governments was very large indeed.
Post WWI, the railways return to private ownership and operation, sort of: the government of the day institutes a pay and working conditions settlement applicable to all the UK's railway workers. This immediately makes all the railways in Scotland unprofitable. Nationalisation is looked at as a solution, but the there is no political appetite for it. Instead the grouping scheme is devised, and four groups still in private ownership are created by large scale mergers. Two smaller groups in the South of the UK which have no exposure to the Scottish problem, (think of that what you may) and two large groups, LMS on the west side of the country, LNER on the East side, both 'London to Scotland' in crude terms which would absorb the Scottish losses thanks to English earnings and thus keep the national railway system operational. (Militarily Scotland was essential to UK defence - and remains so.)
All the groups succeeded in operating railway services until nationalisation following WWII. The LNER was the least profitable and unable to make a real net profit for most of its existence, largely because the great depression hit hardest on its territory. (Bankruptcy was never a threat thanks to the large land and property holdings purchased under the Acts that enabled the railways, and after.) Despite its poor finances the LNER was more successful managerially (pressure of doing everything on a shoestring) and very efficient. The war was very hard on the entire UK railway system; on the credit side the LNER's big engine policy proved itself - it entered the war owning 80% of all the wide firebox locomotive power in the UK - so the poorest railway had the most effective big engine fleet! This proved a real winner and shaped future thinking about steam power.
When assessed at nationalisation, the LNER was pretty much the cheapest to operate in any category where comparison could be made, yet had been the leader in developing the big locomotives for the faster passenger and goods services that the railway needed to remain competitive. Nationalisation was a political imperative of a post war government. It wasn't absolutely necessary technically as the railways were not bankrupt (back to land ownership), but was a manifesto policy item of the party which won the election. (Your fellow countryman, Mr Terry Gilliam, directed an excellent film 'Brazil' as a projected fulfillment of the Nationalisation plan for the UK. Worth watching.)
