The worse thing about the LMS was how many of its constituent companies lost out on preservation. Because the board of directors favoured standardisation and ‘modern’ designs, many London & North Western, Lancashire & Yorkshire, and to a lesser extent the Midland Railway classes were scrapped early on. Smaller companies like the Furness and North Staffordshire Railway got it even worse. There was an attempt at Derby to save several withdrawn Midland locos and one North London tank, but William Stanier had them stupidly scrapped because they were taking up space in the paint shop (which was one of the largest paint shops in the country).
Stanier has also been blamed for ordering the scrapping of a number of early GWR locomotives whilst working for that railway, "North Star" and "Lord of the Isles" in particular.
There were more than 4 railway companies. But the original plan was for the railways in Scotland to be one a single entity, and the North Eastern Railway was to remain in take and only merged with the Hull and Barnsley Railway, which they had taken over shortly before the Grouping and not merging with the Great Central, Great Northern and Great Eastern railways.
You mentioned Stanier and his Black 5 and 8F classes, you also mentioned Henry Fowler, meaning you could have mentioned the imfamous LMS Garratt design... A means to avoid doubleheading, hamstrung by the interference of their design office with overheating axleboxes, and poor coal consumption.
to be fair, there were some isolated exceptions to the small engine policy- particularly the locomotives designed for the Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway (jointly owned by the Midland Railway and the London South Western Railway) because that route had some substantial hills... unfortunately, those locomotives were the exception to the small engine policy and not the rule
I’m noticing some people comparing the LMS to Penn Central, but I think a better, but not perfect, comparison would be with British Leyland, which you also did a video on before. They were also a case of a merger happening, because the British government wanted it.
3:14 yeah the LNER never did have a lot of profit tbh but the companies that formed into it were already great at working together........except maybe the NER but no one talks much about them anyway
So I’m a current freight driver on what used to be the Midland Railway. I do drive over some of the former LNWR, but mostly on the Midland. Even today, the divide still exists. I hate being on the LNWR (West Coast Main Line today), because it’s frankly a much too busy railway, which is STILL laid out in a really stupid way. It’s an inferior railway, but government insists on throwing more and more investment money into it, while the Midland (now the Midland Main Line) has received far less investment and has proven itself to be a far more functional railway, even without all the money. That’s also after the majority of its connections to LNWR and LNER routes were severed. On top of that, the Midland DOES have hills! Sharnbrook, the Hope Valley and the extant main route through the Peaks are seriously steep! That’s not even getting started on the Midland’s “Long Drag” on the Settle and Carlisle line. So for all the banging on about Shap and Beattock, the Midland is a hillier route south of Manchester. The Midland also serves more locations, due to it’s trunk and branching nature. It’s just a superior (and far more beautiful when you’re looking out the window) railway. In comparison, the WCML is misery out the window, as far as Lancaster. Last point; the smaller loco policy kept jobs for working class people, instead of the profits disappearing into shareholders pockets. Good policy. End of discussion.
the main reason ive heard for the small engine policy was bridge weight restriction, the MR was behind on bridge replacement compared to the other companies so couldnt build anything bigger and heavier, notable were quite heated and lengthy arguements between the locomotive department and the civil engineers. it was only after these restricted bridges were replaced that bigger locos could follow
Hi, the origin of the "Royal Scot" class was from a set of drawings borrowed from the Southern Railway's "Lord Nelson" class. These 2 classes of locomotives bare a striking similarity. Hampered with both the Midland Railway stubborn 'small engine' policy and the L. &. N.W. R's one and only effort at building a large express type, the "Claughton" class. A design dating from 1913, 130 were built, these were woefully inadequate and out of date by the 1920's. 🚂
@@jodypitt3629 Yes, the Claughtons' were a mixed bag indeed. The "big boiler" variant was a good bit better, but still not quite there (but did some good work over the Settle and Carlisle!). The rebuilt and new Hughes Dreadnoughts might have been the answer, but for all their good qualities, they were still rather heavy on coal, which pains me to say a bit, because they're one of my favourites! Basically, isn't the Royal Scot a three cylindered Lord Nelson, technically?
Hi Robert, I've had 2 relatives, an uncle and a grandfather, both were railwayman, being an artist and inheriting their 'train of thought' I've made several drawings of locomotives, my current project is that of a "Claude Hamilton" class 4-4-0.
There is a reason why the GWR seemed to just absorb and that was in that the GWR did not merge with the other railways. Instead the GWR actually bought out the other companies as opposed to merging with them. As such there was no merger but simple takeover by the GWR.
i read a story about how the GWR remained largely un changed by the grouping, it was mainly friends in high places giving preferential treatment, such as certain lines that should have gone to the LMS or SR instead was given to them
Darkness a very good video but unfortunately you put the coat of arms of the London and North Western Railway up not the London and Northeastern railway. The LNWR was a constituent of the LMS.
Unlike Penn Central, the LMS was fortunate to come at a time when road traffic hadn't fully developed in the UK and motorways/interstates were unheard of.
@@callumthornelow2936Also, unlike Penn Central, the LMS managed to get their act together eventually - I have this conversation with my Dad because he is a bit of a LNER fan and I am LMS...😅
@@robertwilloughby8050 No question about that, bringing in Lord Stamp & William Stanier was crucial to the turn around. However the LMS had the luxury of time to get their act together whereas Penn Central being formed at a time when American railroading was already in a downward spiral had no hope of turning things around.
You should look into the railroad history... or lack of.. of Cannon county Tennessee, Soo soo many times it Almost had a railroad but never quite got it, its almost ridiculous how many times the county was teased by it
Of thrash metal? I have heard of that. Another “Big Four” was the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago, & St. Louis Railway, which ran most of the New York Central’s branches in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois.
Obviously in this day and age you'd want to primarily start with Diesel; especially if it was in the US. Mainly beginning with the GE Evolution Series models that meet Tier 4 emissions in the US. In the UK, you would need to ask for Progress Rail to make British Rail Class 69 for your company. Though getting your hands on a Class 67 could help. If you got lucky with electrification in the US, then you'd start installing more electric locomotives or EMUs. The UK is starting to really like the later. They have designs like British Rail Class 323 EMU and Class 710 Aventra. As for electric locomotive, there's the Class 91. Getting your hands on a dual-mode or tri-mode locomotive that works on both Diesel and Electric would be helpful in the UK. Also in US if operating at New York. The UK is developing the Class 93 and Class 99. The US has ALP-45DP. If Hydrogen locomotives take off, then there's that too. If not a potential replacement for Diesel. Then there's the scenario of suddenly getting thrown into the past. Specifically at the very start of the Diesel Age. You possibly want Berkshire to start with in the US. Perhaps later on the Challengers (unless you had to deal with very steep mountain terrain, then it'd be the Big Boys instead) and perhaps even one extremely powerful Virginia Double Decapod. Till you could start to widely introduce the EMD F7. As for the UK; there's the BR Standard Class 9F to start with. Perhaps also the Black 5 and Peppercorn A1. I know what you said is a hypothetical situation, but still.
@ I personally would get ahold of some dual mode locomotives and multiple units while developing better electric and diesel locomotives and researching hydrogen locomotives and modern coal fueled locomotives.
Not *that* large in the grand scheme of things? NOT THAT LARGE? .... How very ..... Oh, right ... see what you mean! The early LMSR .... a tale of inadequate bearing surfaces and itsy bitsy liddle engines ... 🙄
![[SFS] Locomotives that HIT STUFF...](/img/1.gif)
He returns to his roots... WELCOME BACK!
The worse thing about the LMS was how many of its constituent companies lost out on preservation. Because the board of directors favoured standardisation and ‘modern’ designs, many London & North Western, Lancashire & Yorkshire, and to a lesser extent the Midland Railway classes were scrapped early on. Smaller companies like the Furness and North Staffordshire Railway got it even worse. There was an attempt at Derby to save several withdrawn Midland locos and one North London tank, but William Stanier had them stupidly scrapped because they were taking up space in the paint shop (which was one of the largest paint shops in the country).
Stanier has also been blamed for ordering the scrapping of a number of early GWR locomotives whilst working for that railway, "North Star" and "Lord of the Isles" in particular.
@@michaelmclachlan1650but that's been debunked in recent years ( regards Stanier senior)
Yes please make more Railway videos
Thankyou for adding music credits for those who like the music!
Yes, finally! Another Railway-related video!
There were more than 4 railway companies. But the original plan was for the railways in Scotland to be one a single entity, and the North Eastern Railway was to remain in take and only merged with the Hull and Barnsley Railway, which they had taken over shortly before the Grouping and not merging with the Great Central, Great Northern and Great Eastern railways.
You mentioned Stanier and his Black 5 and 8F classes, you also mentioned Henry Fowler, meaning you could have mentioned the imfamous LMS Garratt design... A means to avoid doubleheading, hamstrung by the interference of their design office with overheating axleboxes, and poor coal consumption.
We back with train videos!!!!!!!
Edit: not gonna lie Mr Stannier had a very impressive mustache. With a stache like that, you mean business.
Very true, lol.
Good to see a new vehicle related video from you.
Unlike Penn Central, these guys actually found someone to set things right.
I like the Coronation locomotives. Especially as they're part of the Pacific wheel arrangement family.
to be fair, there were some isolated exceptions to the small engine policy- particularly the locomotives designed for the Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway (jointly owned by the Midland Railway and the London South Western Railway) because that route had some substantial hills... unfortunately, those locomotives were the exception to the small engine policy and not the rule
I’m noticing some people comparing the LMS to Penn Central, but I think a better, but not perfect, comparison would be with British Leyland, which you also did a video on before. They were also a case of a merger happening, because the British government wanted it.
I agree 👍🏻
3:14 yeah the LNER never did have a lot of profit tbh but the companies that formed into it were already great at working together........except maybe the NER but no one talks much about them anyway
5:52 just wait until he discover the power struggle between the Caledonian railway and the rest of Scotland during this merger
Excellent work with vid. Hopefully you can cover the other 3 at some point too.
So I’m a current freight driver on what used to be the Midland Railway. I do drive over some of the former LNWR, but mostly on the Midland.
Even today, the divide still exists. I hate being on the LNWR (West Coast Main Line today), because it’s frankly a much too busy railway, which is STILL laid out in a really stupid way. It’s an inferior railway, but government insists on throwing more and more investment money into it, while the Midland (now the Midland Main Line) has received far less investment and has proven itself to be a far more functional railway, even without all the money. That’s also after the majority of its connections to LNWR and LNER routes were severed.
On top of that, the Midland DOES have hills! Sharnbrook, the Hope Valley and the extant main route through the Peaks are seriously steep! That’s not even getting started on the Midland’s “Long Drag” on the Settle and Carlisle line. So for all the banging on about Shap and Beattock, the Midland is a hillier route south of Manchester.
The Midland also serves more locations, due to it’s trunk and branching nature. It’s just a superior (and far more beautiful when you’re looking out the window) railway.
In comparison, the WCML is misery out the window, as far as Lancaster.
Last point; the smaller loco policy kept jobs for working class people, instead of the profits disappearing into shareholders pockets. Good policy.
End of discussion.
the main reason ive heard for the small engine policy was bridge weight restriction, the MR was behind on bridge replacement compared to the other companies so couldnt build anything bigger and heavier, notable were quite heated and lengthy arguements between the locomotive department and the civil engineers. it was only after these restricted bridges were replaced that bigger locos could follow
I guess Penn Central decided to follow the LMSR start.
Hi, the origin of the "Royal Scot" class was from a set of drawings borrowed from the Southern Railway's "Lord Nelson" class. These 2 classes of locomotives bare a striking similarity. Hampered with both the Midland Railway stubborn 'small engine' policy and the L. &. N.W. R's one and only effort at building a large express type, the "Claughton" class. A design dating from 1913, 130 were built, these were woefully inadequate and out of date by the 1920's. 🚂
@@jodypitt3629 Yes, the Claughtons' were a mixed bag indeed. The "big boiler" variant was a good bit better, but still not quite there (but did some good work over the Settle and Carlisle!). The rebuilt and new Hughes Dreadnoughts might have been the answer, but for all their good qualities, they were still rather heavy on coal, which pains me to say a bit, because they're one of my favourites! Basically, isn't the Royal Scot a three cylindered Lord Nelson, technically?
Hi Robert, I've had 2 relatives, an uncle and a grandfather, both were railwayman, being an artist and inheriting their 'train of thought' I've made several drawings of locomotives, my current project is that of a "Claude Hamilton" class 4-4-0.
@@jodypitt3629 I really like the Claudes' and I LOVE the S69(B12) 4-6-0's!
Hi Robert, 61572 is the only survivor of this class, Triang-Hornby had released a model and also she is the only example of an inside cylinder 4-6-0.
There is a reason why the GWR seemed to just absorb and that was in that the GWR did not merge with the other railways. Instead the GWR actually bought out the other companies as opposed to merging with them. As such there was no merger but simple takeover by the GWR.
i read a story about how the GWR remained largely un changed by the grouping, it was mainly friends in high places giving preferential treatment, such as certain lines that should have gone to the LMS or SR instead was given to them
Darkness back talking about trains. He's not ready to talk about British Rail just yet though. 🤣🤣🤣
There can be only one!
Still love the LMS
3:24 you used a lnwr logo when talking about the lner oops
Darkness a very good video but unfortunately you put the coat of arms of the London and North Western Railway up not the London and Northeastern railway. The LNWR was a constituent of the LMS.
This will always be the next video uploaded after stg 12 in my subscribtions
Basically Penn Central of the UK.
Unlike Penn Central, the LMS was fortunate to come at a time when road traffic hadn't fully developed in the UK and motorways/interstates were unheard of.
@@callumthornelow2936Also, unlike Penn Central, the LMS managed to get their act together eventually - I have this conversation with my Dad because he is a bit of a LNER fan and I am LMS...😅
@@robertwilloughby8050 No question about that, bringing in Lord Stamp & William Stanier was crucial to the turn around. However the LMS had the luxury of time to get their act together whereas Penn Central being formed at a time when American railroading was already in a downward spiral had no hope of turning things around.
That's a bit harsh
You should look into the railroad history... or lack of.. of Cannon county Tennessee, Soo soo many times it Almost had a railroad but never quite got it, its almost ridiculous how many times the county was teased by it
If you're looking for another British railway to do at some point, I got on for ya: The Somerset & Dorset.
Some of Thomas’s friends were from the LMS
Such as Arthur
People used to euphemistically call it the "hell of a mess."
Some great footage, but you can't beat a bit of Christopher Walken to finish it off!!
9:35 bro, did we just become best friends 💀
The other big 4 is Metallica, Megadeth, Anthrax, and Slayer
Of thrash metal? I have heard of that.
Another “Big Four” was the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago, & St. Louis Railway, which ran most of the New York Central’s branches in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois.
If I ever start a railroad, it hopefully won’t fail.
Obviously in this day and age you'd want to primarily start with Diesel; especially if it was in the US. Mainly beginning with the GE Evolution Series models that meet Tier 4 emissions in the US. In the UK, you would need to ask for Progress Rail to make British Rail Class 69 for your company. Though getting your hands on a Class 67 could help.
If you got lucky with electrification in the US, then you'd start installing more electric locomotives or EMUs. The UK is starting to really like the later. They have designs like British Rail Class 323 EMU and Class 710 Aventra. As for electric locomotive, there's the Class 91. Getting your hands on a dual-mode or tri-mode locomotive that works on both Diesel and Electric would be helpful in the UK. Also in US if operating at New York. The UK is developing the Class 93 and Class 99. The US has ALP-45DP.
If Hydrogen locomotives take off, then there's that too. If not a potential replacement for Diesel.
Then there's the scenario of suddenly getting thrown into the past. Specifically at the very start of the Diesel Age. You possibly want Berkshire to start with in the US. Perhaps later on the Challengers (unless you had to deal with very steep mountain terrain, then it'd be the Big Boys instead) and perhaps even one extremely powerful Virginia Double Decapod. Till you could start to widely introduce the EMD F7. As for the UK; there's the BR Standard Class 9F to start with. Perhaps also the Black 5 and Peppercorn A1.
I know what you said is a hypothetical situation, but still.
@ I personally would get ahold of some dual mode locomotives and multiple units while developing better electric and diesel locomotives and researching hydrogen locomotives and modern coal fueled locomotives.
GREAT WESTERN!!!
Sir Nigel GRESLEY!!!!!
Not *that* large in the grand scheme of things? NOT THAT LARGE? .... How very ..... Oh, right ... see what you mean!
The early LMSR .... a tale of inadequate bearing surfaces and itsy bitsy liddle engines ... 🙄
Could have lost the first three and a half minutes which was irrelevant to the subject