Thoughts on how our models would look without the Big 4 grouping

:hiI have just been doing a little day dreaming, A kind of what if scenario, How would our railways have developed without the Big 4 grouping. What kind of model railways would we have, coaching stock and loco,s in pre-grouping livery.Running in the 1930,s

Would there have been more variety? A Royal Scot in full LNWR livery :mrgreen: assuming loco development loosely followed the historical trend, with coaches in plum & Cream

Caledonian Blue loco,s, Highland yellow?

It maybe fun ? and get us out of the straight jacket of history if we wanted?

regards,

Derek

Ahhh , I see the makings of a new UK railway coming on; not EWS  but the SEW Lines.
( I think Owen's MN&S is like that)

:hiRon, Its just a daydream at the moment? I always wondered how the premier line would have developed without having Derby involved. A joint LNWR/L&Y empire with the 4-6-0 type running fast goods, further development of the Claughtons ect. One could even stay close to history, just keep the old livery for your favourite company.;-)

for a start I suspect that Stanier would have stayed at Swindon, so its possible that Great Bear would have been joined by Princesses in Green.  The Midland would probably have to pull its finger out and build a fleet of 7Fs, or a varient on Bertha, for goods traffic.  The GNR would probably be a mini LNER with gresley at the helm, but the L&Y and GC situation would be dificult with the engineers being of retiring age.  A bit of imagination to get a stirling at horwich or kirtley at gorton perhaps?

Fictitious Liveries -Not quiet on topic but for those that may not have seen this site before
http://www.fictitiousliveries.co.uk/

Interesting though the comment on Midland 7F's  could have a reply  'they had them', and sent them to the Somerset & Dorset.

 The real reason for the 'small engine policy' of the Midland was 'weak' or old (lack of forward thinking design -  not including sufficient extra strength to take heavier traffic, or 'lack of money!

The Settle & Carlisle had theirs strengthened (the S&C was built 10 years after the London line, and they still were building , as was proved later, with the benefit of hindsight, weak bridges) to allow the original (quite heavy) compounds, and the new high specification (corridor carriages)  to run over it - the bridges gained the central stiffening girders. The London main line, Derby southwards as far as I know did not - so it still had the weak bridges. The LMS strengthened them in due course to take the Jubilees - I wonder if 'infrastructure' work (paid for in part by Government) as a result of the 1929 crash was involved?

The MR did try out a S&DJR 2 8 0  - I wonder if that used the (possibly stronger bridged) goods lines, which were additions to the original line.

The same thing to a degree, made the LNWR claughtons have a smaller boiler than the original design. The LMS fixed that (& used them on the S&C) but they were getting old by then, and new information (springs etc ) produced the Royal Scots.

I suspect that the science of bridge stresses was not very advanced so, and understandably, the civil engineers played safe!  

The 'stock markets crash' could have forced some amalgamations?  One reason for the grouping was that the enormous cost of the First world war, on the railways infrastructure in cash terms was never paid - the self same thing happened after the Second world war as well - it took BR till the fifties to rectify the delayed maintenance of track especially, which both slowed everything down, and was the cause of some accidents.

Yours Peter.

Theres always the possibility that the "Austin 7s" were built under the midland banner.  Just to continue their small engine policy to a certain extant in that they wouldnt go any further than an 0-8-0 and if required shove an 0-6-0 at the front of it for good measure.

The civil engineers playing safe isnt unknown - the Highland built River class was sold off instantly for fears of being too heavy, yet almost immediately returned to the Highland routes at the grouping.  Yet the Midland's abject fear of bigger engines was, I suspect, similar to Stirlings allergic reaction to bogie carriages - its all about the initial capital expenditure, the cheap b*ggers.  But then again having just done a dissertation on the pre grouping railway scene has made me wish that they were grouped earlier!

I've had similar ideas re the GE, with a probable joint working with the GN the B17's would doubtless have arrived but be in GE Blue whilst the electrification of the NER might have resulted in no A4's but electric steamliners in the 30's whilst the M&GN is to have Armstrong Whitworth  Diesel Cars. GE electrics on the LBSC system with articulated quintart sets like the 2 cars on the Newcastle system. Oh and no Edward Thompson either….