The LNER Encyclopedia

The 'Why was the LNER so poor?' thread got me thinking.

What would have happened after WWII if the railways hadn't been nationalised? What if the government had simply given them the money to restore their networks to pre-war standards and told them to get on with it?

Would there have been cooperation to rationalise services in the face of competition from road transport?

Specifically, what plans did the LNER have (apart from the electrification of Sheffield-Manchester and some GE suburban lines)?

Pyewipe Junction: Ah the "What If ?" question, always fascinating. Supposing that the 'big four' had been given sufficient money to restore their systems to the position in 1939 they may well have still faced insuperable difficulties given the economic situation at the end of the war, as well as the material and labour shortages and rising costs which affected B R . They would have faced increasing competitive pressures from alternative modes of transport and would probably still have laboured under the outdated regulatory system which they had struggled against in the 1930s. Would they [the 'big four'] have recognised the need for an extensive restructuring of the industry or, like many other British industries post-war, have failed to face up to this need and could they have carried such a restructuring through in the face of strong trades unions?
The upheaval of nationalisation could have been avoided and the years of struggle as four attempts, [ Transport Acts 1947,53,62 and 68] were made to arrive at a successful working model for the integrated system, though admittedly political dogma played a role here. Motive power change may well have begun earlier than it did, for in 1948 the LMS had main line diesels 10,000/10,001 and the LNER had received tenders for 25 1,600 hp diesel electrics to be used in multiple on east coast workings. Nationalisation killed this idea and later, when the purse strings were loosened, there occurred the waste of much money in the 1955 Modernisation Plan as attempts were made to graft new technology onto an obsolete model desperately in need of structural change. Change which was forced upon the system in the early 1960s.

Pyewipe Junction wrote:What would have happened after WWII if the railways hadn't been nationalised? What if the government had simply given them the money to restore their networks to pre-war standards and told them to get on with it?

That would have meant we would have had a Tory government (or at least a weak Labour one) in 1945. If that were the case then it would have been a completely different country ( no NHS, no other nationalisation, no US debt, independence wars in India and other commonwealth countries, etc etc) and almost all of post war history would have been different.

One thing is for sure,we would'nt have had those BR standard locos pushed on to us that had nothing in common with any of the pre-grouping locos of the LNER many of which had unique and superior equipment.

Yes, main line diesel traction would probably have come along a bit earlier for both the LMS and LNE - would the GW have pressed ahead with their gas turbines? Just started reading a book on the subject, one trouble they had was that the Swiss one (18000) was so heavy, it had the same axle loading as a 'King', which kind of restricted its use. There was also talk of coal burning gas turbines! On the SR, more electrification, perhaps, but would they have persevered with the Leaders, - surely not?

I recall once reading a booklet published by the LNER post -war about their plans for the future. Unfortunately, it was so long ago that I cannot remember much detail but certainly there were no revolutionary schemes in it, rather enhanced accomodation for the carriage cleaners at New Basford, that sort of thing. The Quadarts were built with easy conversion to EMU stock in mind, using 3rd rail d.c. current - or perhaps 1500 d.c. overheads? - but that certaintly wasn't mentioned in the booklet.

As stembok says, a fascinating notion.

hq1hitchin: Good old GWR, always different, went their own way, did their own thing. As with the gas turbines and also later with the diesel hydraulics. The gas turbine with its high power/weight ratio for the power unit appeared as an attractive rail option. Unfortunately, the highest efficiency with a gas turbine is achieved where consistently high power outputs can be maintained. This is difficult to achieve on the railway, with constant power adjustments for speed restrictions,gradients, etc and the fuel consumption/efficiency figures of the two W R gas turbines under test proved very disappointing. Another attempt at harnessing the system for rail use was made with the B R gas turbine prototype ATP in the 1970s, but reportedly this was curtailed by the rise in oil prices in this decade.Another reason may have been the fact that Rover, who were involved in the project -they had entered a gas turbine powered car in the Le Mans 24 hour race in the 1960s - had reportedly become disenchanted with their gas turbine project, perhaps due to their other problems at this time.

I don't know the details of the Rover turbines, but the noise and cost might have been problems. JET1 (the car) survives - I think the Science Museum have it. A small number are in private hands - I remember seeing a 'loose' engine advertised in the Land Rover magazines about ten years ago.

At least one has actually been fitted to a 'proper' Land Rover (a Stage 1 I think it was - as it has the stronger transmission and lots of space).

Anyway, back to late LNER plans: Michael Bonavia talks about the various discussions regarding conversion to oil burning and diesel propulsion. Diesel giving the biggest fuel savings, but required a larger investment.


Richard

Richard: The WR gas turbines were certainly noisy, a reported cause for complaint from some of those driving them, as also indeed was the APT reportedly.

The economic superiority of diesel electrics became increasingly apparent as the 1950s progressed, despite their much higher initial capital cost. The price of coal rose steadily during this period, while the quality in general declined.At the same time the fuel oil price showed a steady fall. For instance by C1960 a steam Pacific working from King's Cross to Newcastle would burn some 5 -6 tons of coal costing over £30. An EE Type 4 D/E would burn just under a gallon a mile of diesel at around 5p per gallon to the railways, approximately £15.00. This was apart from the diesels superior availability for work, though, mind you, in the early painful B R diesel days this superior availability was sometimes more theoretical than actual!

I think there would have been a more measured move from steam to alternative forms of traction than that provoked by the 1955 modernisation plan. This would have been a good thing from a point of view of development and testing. The separate railway companies would each have developed separate designs if they had taken it upon themselves to design their own equipment. Possibly though they may have had to rely on the outside firms which is where all the expertise was in new forms of traction.

Of course the 1955 Modernisation Plan originally envisaged a pilot scheme involving the procuring of 174 prototype diesels in three main power classes, using various configurations as regards engines and transmissions from various suppliers. This pilot scheme would have lasted perhaps three years before further large scale production orders were placed. Under the scheme there could still have been several thousand steam locos still in service in 1970, as it was they had all disappeared by 1968. On paper it was a sensible and measured approach, it was however overtaken by events as the financial position of B R rapidly worsened and perhaps also in part due to pressure from the locomotive manufacturing lobby. Roland Bond, at that time CME of B R, made known his misgivings at the time ,but was overruled. The pilot scheme was abandoned and the floodgates were opened. The result ,more than forty classes of diesel, when, had we followed the West German model of careful evaluation prior to large scale ordering, five might have sufficed. Of course approaching the world leaders, the U S A, for help was politically not an option at the time -or for long after - though it could have saved much money and waste of resources. Those British manufacturers who had been slow to see the signs and left behind in the development of railway motive power were desperate for a chance to show their wares, but in the long run it only delayed their fate, as famous companies such as North British and Beyer Peacock still disappeared.
The British manufacturers who did best were those with an established track record of development in the diesel and electric field, such as English Electric, whose locomotive 'family' was, overall, the most successful of the first generation of diesel power on B R. Strangely, the original pilot scheme had no provision for what became one of the most successful power groups of the B R diesel family, the Type 3 locomotive of C 1,500- 1,750 hp, as exemplified by the Class 33s and Class 37s.