When exactly did British Rail use other company locomotives?

SuperSpeedMaglev

Wonderfully Old Fashioned
I mean, for example, when LMS, GWR, Etc carried BR Liveries. Did it happen before nationalisation?
I wouldn't mind a year or at least a desc.. thanks :D
60072.jpg

l.aspx
 
Did it happen before nationalisation?

I wouldn't have happened before nationalisation as British Railways wouldn't exist until that point. British Railways (the name didn't change to British Rail until 1965) took over the concerns, including locos and rolling stock, of the 'Big Four' companies on 1 January 1948. I can't say for certain, but I imagine at that point, it's likely that most BR stock would have remained in the 'Big Four' liveries until they could be repainted.
 
I guess it's similar to Conrail in the united states, where after the big merger occurred, there were patch jobs and locomotives without any Conrail identification on them. Eventually all Conrail engines were either painted or removed from the roster.
 
Basically, in 1948, the LMS, GWR, SR and the LNER were absorbed in to British Railways. At first, liveries did not change- most locomotives received their BR numbers by 1950, and many also had 'BRITISH RAILWAYS' written in large block capitals where the name of their previous owner used to be. On the LNER, some locomotives received an 'E' before their old numbers rather than immediately adopting the 6xxxx numbering scheme. Some locomotives in the immediate post-nationalisation era did not carry any company lettering at all.
Here are a few photos:
sr-merchant-navy-banner-ipad0002.jpg

A model of a Bulleid Unrebuilt Merchant Navy Class as it would be in 1948-49, still in Southern Railway light green but carrying 'British Railways' in Bulleid-style sunshine lettering on the tender.
Peterborough_A1_60163_on_16_8_2010.jpg

LNER Peppercorn A1 Pacific 'Tornado', in LNER Apple Green but with BR numbers and lettering. Many A1s and A2s were outshopped like this, though some A2s were completed just before nationalisation and received full LNER livery.
LMS10000.jpg

The GWR and LMS were a bit touchy about nationalisation- GWR locomotives simply retained their old numbers and liveries in some cases through to their ultimate withdrawal, and the LMS's last CME H.G. Ivatt famously insisted that the cast 'LMS' letters on the side of the two LMS diesels delivered before nationalisation weren't removed until after his retirement. He got his wish.
 
The reason GWR locos retained their numbers was because they used cast number plates whereas the other constituents were mainly painted so it made economic sense.
 
I never knew there was an economic reason for it. I assumed it was just pride, as WR locomotives delivered long after 1948 continued to receive cast numberplates- including the Western diesel hydraulics!
 
Hi everybody.
Just to add to NathanMallards above posting in regards to the regional opposition to adopting british railways logos and numbering, it also has to be remembered that on nationalisation of the railways in 1948 the whole rail system was financially near bankruptcy. Over six years of War had also brought the whole British economy to its knees and therefore the labour government which took over the running of the railways on nationalisation had no money whatsoever to invest into it.

The solution was seen as ensuring that all freight traffic would be placed on the railways by the nationalisation of the road haulage industry (trucking) which also took place in 1948 under the transport act. The foregoing was supposed to ensure that a constant stream of high Revenue would be available to the railways with all commercial companies having to move their consignments large or small through the rail system as heavy Road transport vehicles were not allowed to travel more than 20 miles on average from their base depots.

However, the nationalisation of the road transport industry proved to be " a total and absolute disaster" which in very large measure contributed to the defeat of the Labour government in the 1950 election. The conservative government led by Winston Churchill which took power immediately de-nationalised the road transport industry and by 1952 investment was pouring into the newly re-formed private road transport industry with its modern diesel motive power to which the antiquated steam-powered rail industry had no answer to by way of competition.

In the years 1953 to 1963 Britain's railways lost over 90% of its freight traffic to road transport competition which made the financial plight of the railways even worse than it had been on nationalisation. Therefore, there was no finance whatsoever available in those Years for repainting logos or even in many cases basic maintenance. Many thousands of rail freight cars went to the scrap yard still having the logos of their original companies on them along with the locomotives which hauled them.

In the late 1950s the private motor car also started to impact on the railways passenger numbers which brought Britain's railways to the lowest ebb in their history in the early 1960s. However, Doctor Beeching with his axe came along in 1963 which stabilized the situation and eventually brought about the re-vitalization with the huge growth in passenger numbers and Investment that we see in Britain's railways today.
Bill

 
I wonder what today would have been like, if in the years 1953-1963, had the government used the money they invested in the national
road network & motorway building, used it instead, to invest in containerising & improving the railfreight network.

Maybe the railways would be playing an even bigger part in getting goods around the country than they now do, plus maybe the roads would not be carrying
the huge amount of heavy lorries, which causes large expenditure on road repairs & upgrades.
 
I wonder what today would have been like, if in the years 1953-1963, had the government used the money they invested in the national
road network & motorway building, used it instead, to invest in containerising & improving the railfreight network.

Maybe the railways would be playing an even bigger part in getting goods around the country than they now do, plus maybe the roads would not be carrying
the huge amount of heavy lorries, which causes large expenditure on road repairs & upgrades.

I have thought about this. Maybe if the government spent money on upgrading railroads, there wouldn't be so many abandoned lines that had shippers leave becuase of bad track.
 
I'm probably infringing forum rules here but the Minister of Transport who appointed Dr Beeching was Ernest Marples of Ridgeway Marples a major motorway builder.
 
I'm probably infringing forum rules here but the Minister of Transport who appointed Dr Beeching was Ernest Marples of Ridgeway Marples a major motorway builder.

No infringement of rules, but instead pointing out an important historical fact. We have had and still have the same conflict of interest going on over here. The Maine (MDOT) official appointed by their governor to lead the passenger rail rebuilding efforts, owns a road construction company... The New Hampshire legislature has fought constantly to oppose any kind of rail investment, especially in passenger service. A prominent bus company up there was the impetus behind this with the Downeaster service paid for by Maine and Massachusetts, but no investment by New Hampshire. The same with commuter service to the state's capitol city Concord, and possible service to Portsmouth, Nashua, Manchester, and Plaistow.

John
 
The situation of British Railways in the 1950s and 60s is probably most comparable to that of the Penn Central in the US- both inherited countless unprofitable, duplicated routes and antiquated rolling stock. I sometimes wonder what would have happened if BR was never formed- I suspect the big four companies would have gone down a very different path to the one BR went down.

The LNER would have probably started a 1500v DC electrification program, starting with the MSW line and probably later expanding it to include the ECML and probably the Hull line as well. It is obvious from the original order of EM2s (27, I think) that the LNER wanted to electrify more than the Woodhead route. Steam would have probably have held out until at least the early 60s. Meanwhile, the GWR would have taken delivery of their first Gas Turbine. Given its atrocious reliability record, I should imagine that any plans to buy more would have been ditched fairly quickly. The development of the GWR would have probably carried on the same way that it did as BR Western Region, with steam eventually being displaced by diesel-hydraulics. I also think that eventually the GWR would have looked at electrifying the Paddington-Penzance Mainline, probably at 1500v DC to ensure commonality with the LNER. The LMS, I think, would have dieselised quite quickly, with a mix of 10000 and 10800-like diesel electrics, with a few Fell Diesel-Mechanicals thrown in for good measure. Perhaps the LMS would have also have ordered a few Deltics, too. Steam would not have lasted much beyond 1960, I think.

The Southern Railway would have probably gone down a completely different path altogether. Most mainlines would have been electrified with third-rail, operated by a mix of EMUs and 20003-like electric locomotives. Diesels would operate any mainline that wasn't electrified, but I don't think they would have lasted long before being displaced by electrics. Branchlines would have probably been operated by steam locomotives, albiet steam locomotives with twin cabs and chain drive, à la Leader. Leader-like locomotives may have operated freight trains on the mainlines, too. I think steam would have survived up until the late 1980s and possibly beyond on an un-nationalised SR.
 
Hi everybody.
AAAHHH, I see we are into the “what if” stage of the thread.:D

However, I do not believe there were many “what if” options open to the Labour government of 1945 or the Conservative government of 1950 in relation to Britain’s rail system. Britain’s railways had carried the full burden of the war effort transportation throughout the six years of the Second World War, and although the regional operators were in name private companies such as LMS and GWR throughout the war years they had operated on a national basis under government directive.

When the war ended in 1945, the regional companies where all but bankrupt in line with the whole British economy. Many millions were owed to the rail companies by way of government debt but again in line with other industries, those war debts the companies knew would not be paid for many years, if at all. Therefore the regional rail companies did not fight against nationalisation because the alternative would be having to make wholesale reductions in their infrastructure, if not outright bankruptcy may well have lay in store.

On nationalisation of the railways in 1948 the Labour government tried to protect and support the rail industry by also nationalising the road haulage industry (trucking) as I outlined in my posting at #’8 of this thread. However, the nationalisation of the road transport industry turned out to be an absolute disaster and it was quickly de-nationalised as one of the first acts of the Conservative government elected in 1950.

Britain at that time was in the throes of introducing the National Health Service and also engaged in a massive government funded council house building programme that was replacing the city slums and the many thousands of homes in cities all over the country had been damaged by the wartime air bombing blitz. Food rationing in Britain was also very much still in being and would not fully come to an end until 1954 eight years after the war ended. Therefore, with the government struggling to feed its people, build decent homes for those returning from the war and at the same time improve the health of the nation there was never going to be any money for the railways.

Indeed, in the above there is very strong evidence that the Conservative government of 1950 very much wished to drastically reduce the finance it was giving to the railways for rolling stock and locomotive replacement. A clause was contained within the transport act which de-nationalised the road transport industry which stated that British railways must openly publish all charges and contract prices it negotiated and obtained from its customers. The foregoing meant that road hauliers (truckers) could easily see the prices being charged by British rail to consignees which allowed them to easily undercut those prices and gain the work. It was like taking candy from a baby.

There are other factors which very much added to the decline of the railways not least the decision in 1949 that the main motive power in the industry would remain as steam which was also confirmed again in 1951 by the new Conservative government . The foregoing helped seal the fate of the freight traffic on the railways and in the late 1950s there began the growth of the car as the main personal transport of the population which eventually sealed the fate of its passenger traffic.

Therefore I believe there were no “what if’s” for the railways for the entire period of 1939 until 1963 when Doctor Beeching with his axe very much changed the agenda and set the scene that would eventually lead to the passenger growth and investment we see today in Britain’s railways.

Bill
 
Last edited:
... I sometimes wonder what would have happened if BR was never formed- I suspect the big four companies would have gone down a very different path to the one BR went down. ...

Yes, they would have gone bankrupt and required a massive taxpayer bailout! So ultimately they would have been nationalised anyway.

Paul
 
Bill,
Therefore I believe there were no “what if’s” for the railways for the entire period of 1939 until 1963

So where did the government get the money to invest in the M6 which opened as a full length motorway in 1959 ?

This only had 2 consequences ..................
1. It pandered to the increase in car ownership & improved road haulage.
2. Used government money that could have been invested in getting the railways modernised.

As has been pointed out, (and we all know that MPs are all 'self serving greedy swine') Beeching was appointed & following the
orders of Marples, who had a very large stake in the motorway side of things.
 
Hi everybody
Bill,

So where did the government get the money to invest in the M6 which opened as a full length motorway in 1959 ?

This only had 2 consequences ..................
1. It pandered to the increase in car ownership & improved road haulage.
2. Used government money that could have been invested in getting the railways modernised.

As has been pointed out, (and we all know that MPs are all 'self serving greedy swine') Beeching was appointed & following the
orders of Marples, who had a very large stake in the motorway side of things.

BLACKWATCH, in answer to your questions 1 and 2 and from someone who has spent their entire working life in transport I believe those answers are somewhat complex. Can I also say before I start to criticise, that I believe that the Clemont Atlea led Labour government was without doubt the greatest peacetime government that the United Kingdom ever had and probably ever will have.

That stated, In the latter years of World War II the National Coalition Government under Winston Churchill had discussed the building of a motorway system in the UK based on the autobahns that had been constructed in Germany in the 1930s. The Labour government elected in 1945 decided that they would push forward with the concept and the full plans for Britain’s motorway system where published in 1946. Those plans included all the major motorways that we have today including the M25.

However, as already discussed in this thread when the Labour government took office in 1945 Britains economy was virtually bankrupt and there was no prospect whatsoever of building that motorway system. Despite the dire financial position the Labour government where determined that unemployment would not greet the men and women of Britain’s Armed Forces returning from six years of war in the way that unemployment had greeted those returning from the First World War.

There were many great initiatives carried out by that government to avoid unemployment one of which was the decision in 1949 that Britain’s railways should continue with steam as its main motive power. The decision meant that there would be a great need for the coal which would fire the locomotives bringing with it high employment numbers in the mining industry. High levels of manpower would also be needed on the now nationalised railways to operate and maintain those locomotives.

To ensure the ongoing employment of the above workforces it was also decided to nationalise Britain’s heavy road haulage industry (trucking) which it was envisaged would act as a support industry for Britain’s railways. The foregoing was to prove “a step too far” as it meant that virtually all goods consignments in the UK both large and small had to be carried for at least part of its journey on Britain’s railways, and the truth is they simply could not cope.

The nationalisation of the road haulage industry had not even been fully completed when in 1951 the newly elected Conservative government brought forward a transport bill which de-nationalised road transport which rapidly went on to capture over 90% of the railways freight traffic in the newly privatised industries first 10 years.

With increasing truck numbers operating on Britain’s roads together with the steadily rising numbers of private cars it became obvious to all that the plans for a motorway network would have to be brought into being. By 1956 the economic position of Britain was improving and it was decided by government to build the Preston bypass which was to be Britain’s first section of motorway, and all the rest is history.

As for Mr Maples gaining the contracts to build those motorways, I feel my thoughts on that matter are best kept to myself for anything else may risk being sued. That is not to say that the appointment of Doctor Beeching was the wrong choice in any way. For in 1963 he proved to be the right person in the right position at just the right time in my humble opinion.

Bill
 
Last edited:
Thanks Bill, you are obviously better read on this than I am, but it proves the old saying "you are never too old to learn".

I believe we are of the same opinion on Marples. ;)
 
Many thanks blackwatch, I was born in 1943 and so I can remember many of the events through my childhood and youth including the food rationing etc. I left school at the age of 15 in 1960 to become an apprentice Butcher, but after two years I realised that could not stand the sight of blood.

I then joined the road transport industry in 1963 as a young van driver and went on to drive heavy vehicles two years later (my dream job at that time). I went on again to qualify in industrial safety in the mid-80s still working in the road transport industry and started my own industrial safety company some years later. I sold the company to a number of the senior employees which had been with me since the start so I could retire in 2013 but still do some work for them on an advisory basis even though I am now 72 but still fully fit.

Many of the events I have spoken of in this thread I can personally recall especially as I came from a family employed in the railway industry. I was considered to be a black sheep by the family when I join the road transport industry, and that I never lived down with some of them.

However, I can honestly say, if I was called from this Earth tomorrow, when I arrived at the pearly gates I would genuinely ask “can I go back down and do the whole thing over again including marrying my wife Carol for the last 48 years” and I would very much hope that the answer would be yes.

I hope your employment prospects have improved blackwatch, but if not I can only wish you all the best.

Bill
 
I think a big problem for British Railways, later on, was a feeling that the 1955 Modernisation Plan - which did involve major new investment - had been botched and money frittered away (for example, on first generation diesel classes many of which were no good and had to be scrapped). Fair or not, this perception coloured the Treasury's attitude to British Railways management in the 1960s and 70s - basically, they couldn't be trusted with public money. Add to that the industrial relations problems of the 1950s and a number of major national strikes, this left the impression in official circles that the industry was a basket-case, fit only for 'managed decline'. I think this attitude permeated Government thinking (Labour as well as Conservative) all the way through to privatisation. The latter is, of course, a whole separate story!

Paul
 
Back
Top