What was the contemporary view of the Grouping?

[Lacathedrale]

LTC Rolt in railway adventure of 1952 sternly decries the nationalisation of the railways.

 

 Ian Fleming in modelling the br era (admittedly a little post hoc)  rages against the privatisation.

 

i seem to see very little about the grouping and I was wondering if there are any good resources for opinion among railwaymen and enthusiasts of this period.

[Aire Head]

1 hour ago, Lacathedrale said:

wondering if there are any good resources for opinion among railwaymen

 

I guess the opinion of the railwayman will vary depending on whether you were someone from a small company now swallowed up into a massive one or from a larger company for whom life didn't take that dramatic a turn.

[D9020 Nimbus]

E S Cox's Locomotive Panorama volume 1 covers his time working for the L&Y at Horwich works, then for the merged L&Y/LNWR, then for the LMS. A mechanical engineer, he ended his career as Deputy CME of British Railways.

 

Some of the issues (e.g. "Midlandisation") were unique to the LMS — an "unfriendly" merger at least in part. The LNER and SR seem to have been friendlier — at least outwardly.

 

My copy was published by Ian Allan — many years ago. Not sure where it could be obtained now but (in the UK) your local library should be able to obtain it on inter-library loan.

[Compound2632]

The place to look might be the contemporary railway press. I believe the Great Eastern Railway Society offers the relevant publications in digitised form. I understand various authors are working with some of this material with a view to producing articles for publication in 2023.

[Michael Hodgson]

What the railway worker thought was probably different from what the shareholder thought.

THe fact is that after both world wars the railways had necessarily become run down and neglected and the service would have been slow and unreliable as a result.

Grouping and nationalisation were probably seen by the public (as well as by the Governments of the day) as the only practical way of getting the railways back to something approaching pre-war standards of efficiency, jokes about stale chees butties notwithstanding.

[Mike Storey]

In terms of railwaymen, the Armagh disaster basically changed the relationship of government to railway regulation. The Grouping became the epitome of that. It sought (although did not specify) the universal application of various railway safety devices, from continuous braking to signalling improvements, and was seen as "inevitable" to sort out the finances of many of the constituent companies. That large scale closures did not arrive until some ten years later is some evidence to suggest that the Act was not about saving money, but was to effect a more rational approach to the operations. 

 

There is an argument that nationalisation was far more about saving money, as was the subsequent Major privatisation, neither of which proved particularly successful, in that regard. 

 

For resources, apart from the various Wolmar books, which variously deal with it, I would recommend reading the 2015 "The Railways" by Simon Bradley. I am sure others will recommend further reading. For contemporary reports, you really only have the archives of the Railway Magazine, and some separate research by various societies, which you must join in the main, to access them. Newspaper archives are relatively scant on the whole shebang. From that which I have read, you will see little on any public reaction. This came later, with prospective and actual closures. The "Grouping" actually took a long time to have any effect on the individuality of services, apart maybe from the SR. It was still a major problem with nationalisation.

 

 

[Oldddudders]

ISTR from a skool history lesson a 1923 cartoon, showing a man representing the GWR grinning broadly and saying "Never even blew my hat off!" 

[Mike Storey]

9 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

ISTR from a skool history lesson a 1923 cartoon, showing a man representing the GWR grinning broadly and saying "Never even blew my hat off!" 

 

Funny history lesson from skool! We did not even reach WW1, let alone the aftermath!!

[phil-b259]

There are three aspects to the question depending on where you were at the time.

 

If employed on the railway I suspect there would have been a negative feel about it (as an industry railwaymen are a conservative bunch and greatly dislike inexperienced outsiders medalling with their industry).

 

If a shareholder in railway companies I guess it depended on whether the new grouping gave you a better chance of dividends than the previous setup.

 

If a member of the general public I suspect your were far more interested in healing the damage caused by WW1 (economically and mentally) than point scoring over which railway structure was 'better'

[Dunsignalling]

I suspect that, for the majority of railwaymen in positions directly related to running trains and serving the general public,  there would have been little real change but some discomfort and bruised pride if it was seen as being absorbed by a former rival. 

 

The real upheavals would have been within management and senior works positions where reorganisation will have created actual winners and losers. Some of the mergers would have represented an end to advancement, or at best a suspension of it, for many from companies that didn't finish at the top of the heap.

 

John

Edited April 20, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[Jeff Smith]

Probably somewhat like airline mergers when seniority lists have to be combined resulting in most people moving down the list.......

[BR60103]

(From my father)

 

Two enginemen on the Glasgow & Southwestern, discussing the abdication:

 

I hear the King's quit.

We're going to have a new one.

I hear a Caley man's up for the job.

 

 

[Lacathedrale]

What about the enthusiast? Rather than the employee or shareholder.

 

i ask because the two books mentioned has such polarised view from opposite sides of the same nationalisation

[Tom Burnham]

Michael Bonavia has published books looking at the Big Four from a fairly high level perspective.

As regards getting back to pre-Great War standards of service, the Railway Mag in the early 1920s published articles comparing speed and frequency of trains from London to principal centres with those in 1914. There was a good deal of variation in the rate of recovery, to say the least.

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, Lacathedrale said:

What about the enthusiast? Rather than the employee or shareholder.

 

i ask because the two books mentioned has such polarised view from opposite sides of the same nationalisation

If it's anything like later changes, the enthusiast reaction will have been almost entirely negative. We like what we are used to and (at least initially) decry whatever replaces it. 

 

Majority enthusiast opinion generally lags practical railway necessity by a decade or two, then suddenly, when the new structure or equipment itself comes under threat of replacement, the process starts all over again.

 

A bit like why it takes twenty folk singers to change a lightbulb, one sees the need and gets on with it, while the other nineteen sing a song in praise of the old one that no longer works....

 

John

Edited April 21, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[Michael Hodgson]

Both world wars resulted in changes to social attitudes and norms.  Nationalisation (and likewise with privatisation under the Tories) differed significantly from Grouping in that although both involved reorgansiation and rationalisation of working arrangements following direct state control to meet wartime necesessities, there was also the radical element of party political dogma  "The railways and the pits belong to us now", to go with the start of National Insurance/State Pensions/Social Security and formation of the NHS.

 

Of course the railways were already in trouble from the decline of rail in favour of road before WW2, with the "Railways Demand a Square Deal Now" campaign in 1938.

[Compound2632]

The grouping did not come out of the blue, nor was it solely a consequence of state control during the Great War. At least as far as the LMS and LNE groups go, it was the inevitable conclusion of the working agreements between the LNW/L&Y/Midland and GC/GE/GN respectively, dating from 1908/9 or thereabouts. These in turn were responses to the declining financial health of the railways that had become noticeable from around the beginning of the century, with the decline in trade after the South African War. There was also the issue of increasing working expenses, with the introduction of the eight-hour day and, on the long-distance passenger side, the significant increase in train weight per passenger as corridor carriages and dining carriages became part of passenger expectations, with the consequent increase in first cost, both of carriages and locomotives, and the cost of operating the latter. As an investment, "Home Rails" were on the slide well before motor road competition had any effect. Railway growth ceased around 1900, for nearly a century.

[Chris116]

15 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Funny history lesson from skool! We did not even reach WW1, let alone the aftermath!!

I am 67 and my O level history was 1919 to the present day. Present day seemed to end around 1955 as far as the syllabus was concerned which was over ten years out of date at the time but the lady teachers stories of her sex life brought us right up to date!

[The Stationmaster]

I have one simple answer about what railwaymen thought of the Grouping and nationalisation as it was all summed up by one of my Shunters back in the 1970s.  'My dad had worked for the Taff (Vale) and he said the GWR was the best railway company of all'.  So there you are  TVR to GWR to BR and the grouped company was the best of the lot.

 

But it does opf course need further thought and explanation - the TVR had a terrible reputation for the way it treated its employees (including a strike due to the way it managed its people).  By contrast the GWR,  prior to the General Strike, when writing a memo or letter to any member of staff opened by addressing them as Mr (or no doubt Miss or Mrs) whatever, and it paid an ex-gratia pension - so it was in many respects a good employer and clearly a much better one than the TVR had been.  Alongside that BR didn't really rate in the eyes of some even if they did 'own' it.  I suspect the opinion of ex TVR staff probably wasn't shared by some ex M&SWJt staff

 

But interestingly even in the early 1970s many railwaymen in the South Wales Valleys still carried on some of the rivalries of Pre-Group days.  In a brand new diesel depot created in the middle of what had previously been 'a railway nowhere' the work in some of the Drivers' links was organised in a way which mainly reflected the depots the Drivers had come from which in turn were based in many respects on Pre-Group boundaries - and that was over 50 years after the Grouping.

 

So no doubt the attitude of many inside the fence depended very much on which company they had come from and which company they finished up with.   And some of that feeling - although not necessarily the people, lingered for many years. But don't forget that on BR even into the 1960s there were still people who had started on the railway prior to the Grouping and some of them had long memories of old rivalries.

[Michael Hodgson]

25 minutes ago, Chris116 said:

I am 67 and my O level history was 1919 to the present day. Present day seemed to end around 1955 as far as the syllabus was concerned

I didn't get that far in history, as I didn't do history to O level, so I am very confused about it all.  If you wanted to know about WW1/2 that was current affairs, so ask your dad/grandpa.  We were taught about King Billy crossing the Channel in 1066, wars between Lancashire & Yorkshire (on and off the cricket pitch) until history finished with various incursions across Hadrian's Wall (one of my schools was actually on that wall) during the 1745 rebellion.

 

The trouble was that although I knew there had been lots of sieges and battles at places like Stirling Castle, Stirling Bridge, Killiecrankie, Prestonpans, Flodden and Culloden, I couldn't remember who won which one.  I went to schools in both Scotland and England over the years, but the outcome of each battle wasn't consistent.  It was either we had a glorious victory or the murdering b*ast*rds massacred us - depending where I was.  Little brother also went to school in Wales for a couple of year and got yet another version of history!

[TheQ]

My history books went up to the moon landing.... I left Sgoil in 1975!! just  6 years later..

Meanwhile ..

Your opinion of the grouping depended on what railway you were from and who you were joining. as Mentioned the Midland and South Western Junction Railway was an interesting one.. They were always near bankruptcy, so joining GWR gave some job security..

However.

GWR wanted the MSWJr only to stop Midland or Southern getting it.. GWR promptly started making economies and running the line down.. As it was a competitor / duplication  of the Gloucester to Swindon line and the Newbury line

[Trog]

An old boy I worked with on the railway in the early 1980's said that when he had asked an older colleague years before what he had thought about the grouping. The (ex LNWR) colleague started swearing about the bl00dy Midland Railway, which rather took him aback as the colleague did not usually swear much.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Trog said:

An old boy I worked with on the railway in the early 1980's said that when he had asked an older colleague years before what he had thought about the grouping. The (ex LNWR) colleague started swearing about the bl00dy Midland Railway, which rather took him aback as the colleague did not usually swear much.

 

For balance, there's a story in Terry Essery's Saltley Firing Days, of one of his drivers who had started out on the footplate at a LNWR shed; his driver had drawn a chalk line down the middle of the footplate: "This is my side and that's yours" and never spoken to him again.

[LMS2968]

To say there was a bit of enmity between the LNWR and Midland is a bit like saying that grizzly bears can be a little grumpy. It was probably more bitter than that between the GWR and LSWR or Caledonian and North British.

[kevinlms]

4 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

To say there was a bit of enmity between the LNWR and Midland is a bit like saying that grizzly bears can be a little grumpy. It was probably more bitter than that between the GWR and LSWR or Caledonian and North British.

But the Caley and G&SWR weren't exactly great friends! Considering they were the Scottish 'extensions' of the LNWR & MR respectively, that's not surprising.