Pre nationalisation preferences....

Is it the act of a heretic to admit I don't really have a preference? I'm just thankful I can still work on steam locomotives, not matter where they were designed or built.

 

A Hall far superior? :flypig:

 

Swindon, anything else is just inferior.....

 

............. to the Southern's finest

 

cutting edge technology? how is this weren't many southern locomotives rebuilt due to them not being very good or is a silly numbering system cutting edge.

 

Much of which was put in place in embryo form by the L&SWR, or by ex- South Western management who took over the management of the SR at the grouping - so it would be the Sou' Western for me; the only sensible way to travel West

Seriously, compared to the other companies, the speed with which the Southern found its feet after the grouping, and the smoothness with which a single strategy was developed and implemented, was an object lesson in what today we'd call change management. The senior management team was assembled quickly utilising the best talents from all three of the constituents with a minimum of acrimony - compare that with what happened on the LMS. Commenting on Sir Herbert Walker, the new General Manager (and former LSWR GM), Michael Bonavia comments: (A History of the Southern railway)

which is a pretty good definition of what effective management means.

Tom

 

I didn't vote because I can't decide.

 

I find myself having a stronger interest in the pre-grouping period than those fleeting 25 years from grouping to nationalisation -the riotous diversity and sheer variety, each evolving inhouse styles and practices, the pride as evinced by their resplendent engines, liveries, rolling-stock, stations, hotels and permanent way, which were to greatly impact on the post-grouping identities, makes it hard to pick a single favourite. I can point to favourite periods within the history of various companies - the casual and refined elegance of fine engineering of Kirtley/Johnson years of the Midland (any company capable of building the Settle and Carlisle and St Pancras is worthy of respect however begrudging); the wildly exuberant experimentation of the Francis Ramsbottom, McConnell and Webb periods, which settled to become the calm, effortless and understated confidence of the Whale/Bowen-Cooke period of the LNWR; the fierce northerner independence of the NER particularly under Fletched, (brielfy) Tennant to Worsdell and Raven (with the colourful and unique S&DR as a constituent); the LBSCR under Stroudley and Billington - the epitome of Victorian and Edwardian grace and elegance - an endlessly fascinating concern that turned out some of the most picturesque engines (although not always successful) the ever seen; the LSWR throughout its life, for being the narrow-gauge bulwark against the GWR's broad-gauge in the 'gauge wars' and the innovation and experimentation in engineering throughout the course of its history (not always successful - I'm looking at you Drummond), which ultimately put the Southern in good stead, as Jamesquared has outlined.

I also find fiercely distinct identities of the Scottish railways fascinating, not least the almost forgotten companies such as the little Glasgow and South Western; the southern Welsh railways are also a most interesting subject as are the London-based railway companies such at the North London, Metropolitan and the London regions of the GER (think of Stafford works in its heyday with a sea of ultramarine blue engines on shed and the steady stoccato rhythm of the westinghouses. It must have been an incredible sight. I like the GWR (and the old Bristol and Exeter) for their at times bizarre but never dull, Broad-gauge creations and I like the Dean period (of Indian Red frames, outside cranks and polished brass-work complementing the GWR green). I like the GCR for the Robinson period - that sense of making a grand statement -of trying to make up for lost time and stand proud among its larger, more established and wealthier competitors following the completion of the London extension and the change of name. I also find the Sturrock and Stirling periods of the GNR - the planned upstart with an air of protestant puritanism and naivety set against the often squalid, chaotic, underhand and at times downright dirty dealings of its older and more established rivals (The MR and LNWR specifically - think Mark Huish and George Hudson for example.)

The sheer variety makes it hard to select one favourite. Given the Midland was my first introduction to the pre-grouping period as a boy (via the Crimson lake engines of the LMS - The Hornby Jubilee in my trainset) it holds a special place. That being said, the LMS isn't a favourite in the post-grouping period (although I find the machinations behind the scenes academically interesting and I find each of the Big-4 interesting) because it seemingly could never capitalise on the best aspects of its constituents. If anything it sometimes seemed to encapsulate some their worst traits. I confess that Stanier's introduction of GWR practice leaves me fairly cold (not least from an aesthetic point-of-view. I'm just not that into the look of a tapered boiler). Ultimately the LMS never felt comfortable in its own skin - it never overcame the shot-gun marriage of the Midland and LNWR/L&YR - two fiercely independent and proud concerns (which in itself makes the LMS interesting). In retrospect the Midland and LNWR really should have been the basis for two distinct companies with smaller concerns amalgamated into them to form two comparable rivals but that's a topic for another discussion.

The company that appears to have best capitalised on its constituents and forged a solid identity is the Southern perhaps in part because it wasn't so large and unwieldy as the LMS forged from strong rivals. Despite bearing the brunt of the war-effort (transporting goods to the front during the Great War), the newly-constituted Southern quickly got down to work, forging a distinct identity based on best practice of its constituents notably the LSWR, and forged ahead with the excellent locomotive practice of Urie and Maunsell (with a good dollop of Midland it has to be said, by way of Clayton on the old SECR). Maunsell had the good sense to capitalise on the excellent work of his erstwhile LSWR colleague, Urie. The Southern is small and unsung relative to the companies yet it turned out great engines, it remained innovative while not wasting energy changing that which wasn't broken. The management was very strong and as someone else said, innovative. And if an engine has to be green, then the striking Malachite Green of the late Southern period is the colour it should be. What a colour!

My after all that, my vote goes to the Southern with the LNER - essentially an enlarged GNR (very little GER/NBR/GNSR practice in particular made its presence second felt) - second.

 

How about New South Wales Government Railways versus Victorian Government Railways? (standard gauge versus broad-gauge (5'3"). All change at Albury!!)

 

They were rebuilt because they were arguably too cutting edge for their own good, and considering that they work quite well in preservation, the above might be an over-used argument. And I hardly think 90 engines is a lot when there were over 1,000. The V class was cutting edge, and although we are straying into pre-Grouping territory, the N class and the H15s were cutting edge in their day. As for their electrification programme, don't get me started...

 

Or, in the case of the unrebuilt Bulleids, too powerful for their own weight.

 

The N class was the first six-coupled outside cylinder outside Walschaert taper boiler loco in Britain. Cutting edge? Without question - everything that came after was a variation on that concept, by and large.

 

I might suggest the Highland Railway 'River' class were perhaps the instigator of the modern mixed traffic locomotive.

 

There are many candidates - the Jones Goods, the Churchward 43XX for example. But the N was the first where all of my mentioned features could be found on one loco - the Rivers, for example, were parallel boiler.

[PEDANT] The N class was designed in 1914, the River in 1915 (Admittedly the first N didn't roll until 1917)[/PEDANT]

 

Indeed but not everyone considered the parallel boiler a necessity. I don't think the LNER went in for them in a big way (?).

 

True, but a taper boiler is provably a better design in service and arguably more 'modern'. The LNER went parallel, I imagine, in the belief that cost and ease of construction outweighed the advantages in service. But bear in mind that under the lagging Gresley Pacifics have a taper boiler (I think).

 

But with James Ellis acting as an in-house auditor the Midland was relatively unharmed by Hudson. I like to think that Ellis rumbled Hudson early on and just allowed him enough rope to benefit the company but not strangle it.

 

I went from Melbourne to Sydney in 2009. Albury seemed a sad place compared with what it must once have been.

 

The Maunsell N is a good shout for the first modern mixed traffic loco. Interesting to think that, with just a very small change to how things actually turned out, they might have become the first in a line of national standard locomotives, 35 years before that actually happened in practice.

Tom