It is not as simple as you might think, given the continuing existence post 1923 of the "joint" railway companies, with part-ownership from different members of the big 4. Locally, these included the CLC (Cheshire Lines Committee) and MSJ&A (Manchester, South Junction & Altrincham) railways. Other such companies were the M&GN (Midland and Great Northern) and S&D (Somerset & Dorset). The CLC provided significant competition to the LMS (London, Midland & Scottish) railway on the key Manchester to Liverpool and Chester routes. These 2 competing routes have survived, albeit no longer as the principal routes between these cities, but virtually all the other ex-joint railway lines no longer exist as part of the national rail network.I am trying to find out on what routes did the Big Four Rail Companies compete after the 1923 Grouping?
How did they compete (frequency, fares, aggressive marketing)?
TIA
Just to add that while the LNWR(LMS)/GWR competed strongly between London and Birmingham, they happily worked together on a large joint network on their borders.It is not as simple as you might think, given the continuing existence post 1923 of the "joint" railway companies, with part-ownership from different members of the big 4. Locally, these included the CLC (Cheshire Lines Committee) and MSJ&A (Manchester, South Junction & Altrincham) railways. Other such companies were the M&GN (Midland and Great Northern) and S&D (Somerset & Dorset). The CLC provided significant competition to the LMS (London, Midland & Scottish) railway on the key Manchester to Liverpool and Chester routes. These 2 competing routes have survived, albeit no longer as the principal routes between these cities, but virtually all the other ex-joint railway lines no longer exist as part of the national rail network.
The "North and West" was effectively a single railway; south/west of Shrewsbury it was jointly owned by GWR and LNWR (later LMSR), as were Chester to Birkenhead & Warrington, with GWR having running powers to Manchester Exchange.Just to add that while the LNWR(LMS)/GWR competed strongly between London and Birmingham, they happily worked together on a large joint network on their borders.
This mainly covered Hereford-Shrewsbury and branches, and Birkenhead-Chester-Warrington and branches.
In particular the "north and west" main line Crewe-Hereford-Newport-Severn Tunnel-Bristol was operated pretty much as a single railway.
BR eventually decided to route these trains (bar Crewe-Cardiff) via Birmingham as part of Cross-Country.
On the CLC example (2/3 LNER, 1/2 LMS), there were something like 5 routes between Manchester and Liverpool, all LMS bar the CLC route (Manchester Central-Liverpool Central).
The CLC was by far the most punctual route with the most frequent trains, so got most of the business.
That situation has only recently been changed, with the Chat Moss (LNWR) route being electrified and with the fastest trains.
It's worth noting that recent changes in railway (Network Rail) operational boundaries have extracted the MML from the "LMS" group and put it in the "LNER" group.
The "Eastern Region" now starts as soon as you are off the WCML at Stoke and Nuneaton, something that would have been unthinkable in the "Big 4" era.
Similarly the "Western" now starts just outside Crewe.
These boundaries are about to be formalised in the Regional structure of GBR.
Similarly for the GWR and Southern: there is London - Reading.or another example London to Exeter.
Having said that, the routing of some of today's freight flows can appear at times strange due, amongst other things, to a general dislike of running-round en route or gauging issues, particularly with container traffic.Very interesting stuff - while the retention of business and profit makes much sense, the routings are utterly bonkers when viewed from a present time!
Fair point, though some difference between routing through necessity/convenience of paths/not running round and routing a convoluted route just to get a bigger wedge of the charges! Going the long way in the old days via the S&D I presume doesn't solve any gauging issues...Having said that, the routing of some of today's freight flows can appear at times strange due, amongst other things, to a general dislike of running-round en route or gauging issues, particularly with container traffic.
I believe the Midland also ran freight, especially perishables such as bananas, from Bristol to London via Broom Jn and the S&MJ, a shorter route than via Birmingham and Leicester, but still very circuitous compared with the GW main line.For many of the "competitive" flows passenger traffic was less significant than freight, and much of this remained competitive until nationalisation, and to an extent even after that. The onetime Midland Railway had been the leader in this, with competitive freight service from London to Bristol (via Leicester/Birmingham) or London to Cambridge (via Kettering) etc. There were many others. If your London loading point was say Tilbury Docks it was commonly far quicker to route wholly on one company than have it sat in exchange sidings with another company.
Freight rates charges were standardised and regulated, based on the mileage of the shortest route regardless of that actually taken. For interchanged traffic it was divided based on the mileages actually done. Thus with the Tilbury to Bristol example, if the charge for a wagon was say £20, based on the direct mileage via Swindon, if sent this way the LMS would get say £4 and the GWR £16. But if routed on the LMS via Leicester, not only might it be quicker, as the LMS ran such a through freight service, but they got to keep the whole £20. Freight salesmen were adept at routing via their home company as much as possible.
The Somerset & Dorset, joint LMS/SR, was kept going by among other things the substantial freight traffic to the south-west on SR points, much of which originated on the LMS. Instead of handing over to the GWR at Bristol it was cumbersomely routed via reversing at Bath, over the Mendips to Templecombe, then on the Southern onwards. The classic was coal from South Wales to Ilfracombe gas works, from where the colliery (on an LMS penetrating line in South Wales) might even be just visible with binoculars from Ilfracombe. Charged via the Severn Tunnel mileage, such wagons were typically routed on the LMS from Swansea via Shrewsbury, Stafford, Birmingham, Bath, Templecombe, Exeter, and finally Ilfracombe, keeping the revenue out of the hands of the GWR. It was only when the S&D was transferred to the Western Region around 1960 that such nonsenses were ended, commonly accompanied by comments that the WR had rerouted the S&D traffic out of "spite", where in fact it was common sense.
I believe the Midland also ran freight, especially perishables such as bananas, from Bristol to London via Broom Jn and the S&MJ, a shorter route than via Birmingham and Leicester, but still very circuitous compared with the GW main line.
Yes, opened during WW2 to provided more operational flexibilityI seem to remember reading that the above manoeuvre came into being post-Grouping: with both former Midland, and S&MJ, in the LMS; the Broom south curve being constructed, to cut out the need for reversal there -- though I might well have that wrong.
There were some variances. Apparently at the grouping, the Great North of Scotland, which had no contact point with other LNER constituents, while linking to the LMS at both ends, was nevertheless assigned to the former so the perishable fish traffic from Peterhead/Fraserburgh, about their only worthwhile originating freight, could be readily taken forward to LNER destinations, as the onetime East Coast constituents (NBR/NER/GNR) had long made a better job of this than the Caley/LNWR. An LMS dockside freight salesman, if the GNoS had gone the other way, would have routed it by their own company.Ultimately freight was more profitable than passenger traffic for the GWR, LMS and LNER. As has been set out above, it was also mostly less time-sensitive, so could be routed in the most profitable manner.