The LNER Encyclopedia

If i was William Whitelaw in 1948 and they hadnt nationalised the LNER what would i have done please discuss. I would like to hear forum members views

Given the general condition of the railways after the war and the need for extensive repairs/replacements to everything. Also the probable run down in traffic levels....what lines routes can we mothball/close to concentrate resources on the more proftable routes.

Nice one 52A i note the words mothball rather than closure.

G'Day Gents
As much as I hate to say this but I think diesels would have been high on the agenda' there were big advances in diesels during the war, and a private railway would have to make a profit, I would go so far as to say that the LNER would have gone into diesels in a big way, shunters first, then freight and local passenger, Express passenger last,(plenty of Pacifics) but would have been completly diesel by 1970 at the very latest, if the reports coming to Sir WW were positive,then 99% by 1960 at the earliest,provided they could borrow money for a cash strapped Government,
manna

Manna so you wouldnt have gone down the Electric route. I agree high speed diesel technology had come on by leaps and bounds mainly through the German use in Submarines but i think my first plan would be to get maintenance up and running to take care of damaged infrastructure then start with the Electrification scheme. Remember Swiss and other railways at the time thought that 1500Vdc was the way to go.
I would have had the Woodhead route electrified but from Newark to Liverpool via the CLC then i would have had thoughts of extending into London via the GCR.
The ECML would eventually be a candidate for Electrification but i think it would be a few years before this could be contemplated meanwhile some new pacifics were coming along fine and we had a decent 4-6-0 & 2-6-0. The first diesels to consider would be shunters that are inherently more efficient than steam because they can be switched off and started up quickly as required they dont need to be kept in steam when stood idle.
We also had our WDs for heavy work so a mixed traffic diesel would not be required until much later for hauling trains over non electrified route miles after the phasing out of steam which as Manna says would probably have been around 1970 only a few years after the actual BR cessation. By concentrating on a mixed fleet of reasonably modern Steam locos and new Electrics without the need for Mixed traffic diesels excepting shunters thats my way forward.

Extension of electrification in the London suburban area might well have been a high priority. Back in pre-Grouping days the GNR had thought about it, and on the GE section the lines to Chingford and Enfield would have usefully complemented the post war Shenfield scheme. The lines handed over to LT (Barnet, Egware, Epping etc) got what they needed but those left with BR missed out for another 15 years or more.

It's very difficult to gauge, as the big 4 "took their eye of the ball" and concentrated on their stock valuation in anticipation of the state buy-out. They had effectively lost control of their destiny in 1939.

The austere post-war world would have changed priorities away from high speed glamour trains toward bread and butter services such as local commuter traffic and coal and steel industry related freight trains.

The problem with Electric Rail Systems is that they require substantial generation and distribution net-works. Could the LNER have afforded them? However there was also a serious shortage of Diesel Fuel.

One of the problems that had to be addressed was the lack of good quality coal. Perhaps burner design would have received attention. Certainly with the lack of steel I'm sure that existing locos would have had longer lives and I doubt if the big four would have built, was it 2500 locos , as BR did. (999 standards and c1600 existing classes.) {That could be on the high side.}

This is an interesting post and thread.

421

There was a shortage of fuel oil at the end of the war but i think we could have been ok for electricity what didnt help was the severity of the post war winters which hampered the movement of coal.
Yes the LNER and the LPTB could have cooperated a little better by a slight reorganisation, electrification of the outer London suburbs could have carried on at a faster pace albeit with improved Tyneside stock which could have been constructed by both the LNER and outside contractors.
Rationalisation would have had to take place for example lines between Nottingham and Mansfield were actually triplicated with two LNER constituents the GNR & GCR and the former Midland lines running alongside each other in places.
Conditions of work should have been made a little better to attract returning servicemen to work on the railway.

52D wrote:If i was William Whitelaw in 1948 and they hadnt nationalised the LNER what would i have done please discuss. I would like to hear forum members views

Sell up and move to almost any other business

G'Day Gents
Electrification, may have been a long turn goal for the LNER, but I think they would have gone down the diesel road first, by doing that they could have got rid of 20,000 staff, and that's a lot of pay packets, that alone would have lifted the dividend.
Britain was building mainline diesel for export in 1950/1 eg, South Australian Railways A1A-A1A locos,off the top of my head I think, 1500hp and 123 tons, they lasted in service until about 1990, so it would have been very easy for the LNER to buy mainline diesels off the peg, they were a single cab unit, and usually ran in pairs,Bingo your up to 3000 hp, that'll take 15 coaches up Stoke bank at a better speed than most A4's, and in 1951, I think old Sir WW would have been thinking about bums on seats, more than what electrification could do with a huge cost outlay.
manna

Manna whats the rod running down the centre of the running line is it a form of locking for the table.

G'Day Gents
I think your right with that, I've never noticed it before, I'll have a look at my other photo's of SAR turntables.
If you look in the background, you can see the tenders of withdrawn steam loco's.
manna

The fact that the LNER had invited - and received - tenders for 25 1,600 hp diesel electric locos just prior to nationalisation for ECML duties seems to give an indication of the path to be taken. The sad thing is - as Michael Bonavia later noted - that Riddles and Co shelved this plan. Such a reasonably large scale trial might have done much to alleviate some of the 'pains' of the Modernisation Plan of 1955.

I would have entered into negotiations around a possible merger with the LMS and a subsequent rationalisation of operations.

The LNER was broke, broke, broke.

Of the Big Four, only the Southern could have traded profitably in the longer term.

The LNER was broke,broke, broke

Not strictly true as a look at the company balance sheet 1923-47 will show. Certainly the LNER led a parlous economic existence, with 1926/32 and 1938 particularly difficult. However, as Geoffrey Hughes says in his book on the LNER, "the company was never within close sight of bankruptcy".The railway made a working profit in every year of its existence and most dividends were paid even in the most difficult times. Reserve funds also remained healthy. Moreover, there is also a case to be made that the railways were treated unfairly post-war by the government in respect of accumulated revenues from booming wartime traffic deposited in an Arrears of Maintenance Fund established by the Railway Executive and paid back to the companies post war .The LNER had vigorous plans post-war though funding them at that time have been a very different matter. With a reforming government elected in 1945 ,however, nationalisation was a political inevitability.