The LNER Encyclopedia

Rather than cluttering up the forum with endless "What If?" threads, I thought it would be best to group all of these questions together into one single topic: the "What If?" thread.

Here we can go over all kinds of questions about the railways had history played out a little differently. Would the circumstances have been beneficial or a hindrance? What things might we have seen/not seen as a result? Would we have ended up at the same end point anyway?

Once the question has stopped generating responses, a new one can then be asked and away we go again.

And this is note just for the LNER; this is for the railways of Britain during any period

So, to get the ball rolling:

What if the 1923 Grouping had split the railways into the Big 5, with Scotland getting its own company?

This actually was one proposal put forward when the Grouping Act was being drawn up, so this one isn't too far a stretch to imagine having occurred. How would this have looked had it occurred though?

- Who would have become the first CME of the Scottish Railway?
- Would we have had the famous "Race to the North Mk II" between the LNER and the LMS (or the LM as they would have become)
- What designs might have been favored for the railways of Scotland? More 4-4-0s? A plethora of tank engines? Or would we have seen some things that were drastically different to those created under the Big 4?
- What livery would have been chosen for it's engines, wagons, coaches, buildings, uniforms?
- And whatever other effects the creation of a "Big 5" may have had.

To look at what companies would most likely have been grouped into this new railway it would be safe to assume that the list would have included the following

• Caledonian Railway
  Glasgow and South Western Railway
  Great North of Scotland Railway
  North British Railway, and
  Highland Railway

Considering that it was quite a major railway prior to the Grouping, you would have to assume that a fair amount of power would have been retained by the members of the previous Caledonian Railway. I'd even go so far as to suggest that the railway's major works would have been the ex-Caledonian St. Rollox railway works in Glasgow.

I'd believe that the locomotives would have been a mix of Medium-sized tender engines and Mid-to-Large-sized tank engines to cope with the challenging lines. I'm afraid I can't be more specific than that though.

What do you all think?

As with all commercial mergers, rationalisation - or asset stripping in modern parlance - would have probably become the first priority, with a nod to the shareholders and a lot of blood letting particularly between the Caley and NBR, certainly in the central region of Scotland over duplication of stations, routes, manpower, locomotives, rolling stock etc.

I'm not really qualified to speak on the merits of one CME or loco type over another, so probably a 'best of' trial would have been called for but it's anyones' guess if that could have been entirely impartial.

Its always been a fascination to me what would have happened had the CLC been part of the LNER?
Just as if the GCR had ever gone and built the docks, I read about somewhere, at Crosby.
Real competition to the LMS in Liverpool? Hmmmmmm
Also consider if the Manchester Ship Canal had never happened? What would that have produced with regards to rail development in the North West of England? Is it reasonable to postulate about the MSL/GCR getting involved?

What if the Hatfield to Hertford North single line via Welwyn Garden City with a connection to Hertford East had not been closed in the 1950s and also the Hatfield to Luton and Dunstable single line as well had not been closed in the 1960s and both lines had been electrified by B.R.?. I have often though that it was a great pity that both of these two branch lines only 20-30 miles north of central London in particular didn't escape the closures of the B.R era and remained open for the growing house building and commuter traffic in that part of Hertfordshire during the 1970s, 80s & 90s into and out of London until the present day. Dr.Beeching was so short sighted.

Kyle1987 wrote:What if the 1923 Grouping had split the railways into the Big 5, with Scotland getting its own company?

This actually was one proposal put forward when the Grouping Act was being drawn up, so this one isn't too far a stretch to imagine having occurred. How would this have looked had it occurred though?

- Who would have become the first CME of the Scottish Railway?
- Would we have had the famous "Race to the North Mk II" between the LNER and the LMS (or the LM as they would have become)
- What designs might have been favored for the railways of Scotland? More 4-4-0s? A plethora of tank engines? Or would we have seen some things that were drastically different to those created under the Big 4?
- What livery would have been chosen for it's engines, wagons, coaches, buildings, uniforms?
- And whatever other effects the creation of a "Big 5" may have had.

I'd believe that the locomotives would have been a mix of Medium-sized tender engines and Mid-to-Large-sized tank engines to cope with the challenging lines. I'm afraid I can't be more specific than that though.

What do you all think?

One thing that looks certain is that the new company would not have had the resources for a major loco building programme so pre-Grouping types would have had a better survival rate, restraining the urge of the Caley CME to slaughter the enemy products. So BR would have inherited a fine stud of GSW locos. What I would give to have seen one of their Baltic tanks!

As for NB/GNS lines, obviously the invasion of GE and GC designs would not have occurred. (No N2s, either.) Rather than being replaced by new Caley-based designs, I would guess older locos would have had to continue.

Kudu

what if .. crude oil had been cracked before coal was mined and .. the internal combustion engine had been invented and the first railways used this form of propulsion, then after 100 years oil dried up and coal was to be the new fuel, but been totaly clueless about steam there would have been some right abortions on the drawing board (come forth Mr Bullied), not to mention the human race having to get used to all the polution

mr b

I think that is a big stretch: It was possible to build primitive steam engines with poor quality irons and machining. It would probably be impossible to build a primitive internal combustion engine with such materials and technologies.


Richard

richard wrote:I think that is a big stretch: It was possible to build primitive steam engines with poor quality irons and machining. It would probably be impossible to build a primitive internal combustion engine with such materials and technologies.


Richard

I think you are underestimating the skills of engineers in those distant days?

A post 1923 Scottish Railways would of been interesting, I always think London and all the decisions and influcence that was in the Capital must of seemed a million miles away from the stations / sheds / yards up in the Highlands.

A big what if, what if someone had the foresight to 4 track the Welwyn Viadcut....

MultiPrinter: I don't think you could have built a primitive internal combustion engine in circa 1800 - when (primitive) high pressure steam engines were already in commercial use. The metallurgy just wasn't up to it.

Spark ignition would have also had to wait a few decades (and that is being optimistic).


Richard

Bonavia records that a Scottish Railway company was considered at the Grouping, but that it would not have been financially viable even then! So scotland was split between the two big northern England companies who had the profitable freight traffic to support them.

But history aklso suggests that route rastionaisation was very slow, look at the continuing overlap between the Cally and the GSW in Ayrshire, remaining right up to the 60s.

Had an impoverished Scottish company survived, it would have lived for a long time on the existing locos, so no P2s!

mr B wrote:what if .. crude oil had been cracked before coal was mined and .. the internal combustion engine had been invented and the first railways used this form of propulsion,

Iron was smelted with charcoal and then coal. It is difficult to imagine how to run a blast furnace on oil instead of coal. The problem really is that the oil would have to refined enough to remove the sulphur to make good enough steel to build the plant to refine the oil............

I think you will find that most advances in technology are dependent on advances in the underlying materials science.

now bearing in mind that primitive man put some 'black stones' (coal) around his fire to contain it and as we all know they caught fire .. now just sopossing he had no 'black stones' and his fire got out of controle and the water from the spring had dried up, so in pannic he dug for water and found what he thought was mud'y water (crude oil) so in ernest he thru' a bucketfull on his fire, and instead of putting out it burst into flames after it was heated and produced the by products that we know today. Thus being the amount of experimentation that cracked the piece of coal into tar/parrafin/turp's/etc and ending up with coke, that same amount of technology would have gone into cracking crude oil producing a gas that could be used in the making of steel. A far fetched tale but you try to use what you get your hands on first, as you know nothing about the future.

mr b

Crude oil was known in the form of pitch and tar, since ancient times.
It was used as a sealant and for burning (eg. torches). With improvements in ocean-going ships, whale oil became generally easier to get and use - so this became the main oil for illuminative burning for a few centuries.

Bill makes a good point about blast furnaces. And we both agree about the metallurgy just not existing until the late 19th century. It is rare we agree, so that should tell you something...


Richard

This thread's opening up a very interesting area of discussion. However, having arrived at the internal combustion engine via oil and its derivatives as fuel has somewhat obscured the true history, because the first practical IC engines used a very direct derivative of coal as fuel - i.e. town's gas. They were gas engines. In those days, before electric spark ignition was practical, their inventors used various clever devices for ignition, at least one of which involved a gas flame which was put into communication at the right moment with the compressed gas/air mixture by a slide valve.

Unfortunately, the capacity to build a gas engine into a locomotive was rather limited - having to carry around a gas bag (or a mobile gas works!) in place of a boiler wasn't very appealing (although both those alternatives did give rise to practical solutions that were used to power IC engined road vehicles by gas during the 20th century at periods when imported oil supplies were under threat in the UK).