What would have happened to the railways if WWII hadnt happened?

[Belperpete]

Too many butterflies to really tell how it would have affected the railways, plus a lot would depend on why there was no world war 2 as that would have big changes to the economic and political situation in the late 1930s. No war also means the empire survives for longer of course which also has big effects on the country (and railways including manufacturers). It would be a very different world for sure.

Agreed that the political situation would have been very different - we became a much more left wing country as a result of WW2. The war led to an overwhelming feeling that things had to change, that we couldn't just go back to the way things were before. Perhaps exemplified by the South Bank exhibition with the skylon. Anything old fashioned was inherently seen as bad, ripe to be replaced by the new - and that included the old and worn out railways which were seen as inherently inferior to the new and modern motor car. Without the war would there have been the same push for out with the old? Would the Labour party have ever come to power?

The war had demonstrated the benefits of centralised state control of health, education, infrastructure, communications, etc etc. Without the war there would have been a very different mindset. I suspect that without the war, the UK would be much more like the US with much more local control, and less state control. If county councils were still in charge of road policy, would they ever have agreed with one another to build motorways? And without the German autobahns (built to allow rapid troop movements) as an example?

Would the railways ever have been nationalised without the view of centralised state control engendered by the war? How many industries were nationalised prior to WW2? The nationalisation of the railways meant that there were no longer major shareholders in positions of power pulling strings for the railways behind the scenes, like there were for the road lobby.

Also before the war, the railways had significant control of the road haulage industry, and also controlled many of the bus companies, shipping lines, air lines, etc. Following nationalisation, the railways were forced to sell off these profit making subsidiaries. Without the war and nationalisation, I think the railways would have invested ever more heavily in these subsidiaries, becoming ever more dominant in those areas. A bit like happened on the Isle of Man, these subsidiaries taking over their independent rivals and eventually becoming more profitable than the railway, with the road subsidiaries ending up supporting the railway. And without motorways, and with the railways being the dominant players in the haulage and bus industries, would road transport have taken off as it did?

 

[Killingworth]

The calculation in the 1940s and much of the 1950s was still that coal was easier to haul than electricity.
It wasn't until the coming of the "Supergrid" in the early 1960s that the British Electicity Authority/Central Electricity Generating Board came to the conclusion that 'coal-by-wire' was the most economical choice.

Coal was very easy to haul by sea from the North-East ports to power stations on estuaries around our shores. Smokeless zones started putting paid to them as well as domestic fires.

However it was 4 years of WW1 that really put the skids under railways in a big way leading to the 1923 groupings when many were on the verge of bankruptcy. Not nationalisation as such but with some big practical similarities in effect.

It's often overlooked that WW1 was the precursor to major changes in society, at least as great as after WW2. The first Labour government was briefly in 1924, then from 1929-31 and Ramsay MacDonald remained as PM in a Coalition Cabinet until 1935. The 1945 Labour victory didn't come out of nowhere. Many of the preparations for that Attlee government had been going on during WW2 when Labour cabinet ministers in Churchill's 1940 War Ministry were already becoming accustomed to government.

 

[WAB]

The modernisation plan still happens although heavily focused on electric units and Loco's, Diesel gets rather seen off, Steam is retained for non-electrified frieght, Beeching or something like it is brought forward, there's less idiotic cuts, still a lot of cuts though.

I think the ex-LMS would have sussed out pretty quickly that the maintenance and operations regimes are very different for steam and diesel, versus diesel and electric, and committed to a faster reduction in steam. The Western would probably be behind the curve unless the Railway Executive has a whip hand and can move reformers into top jobs there.

If nationalisation did not happen, by the late-40s, early-50s the shareholders would be getting pretty angsty about the financial decline and might bring in some Beeching-types who'd bring in something similar to what Beeching did, just perhaps less quickly. The end of steam might be a bit more organic, as new-found accounting techniques write off most of the freight traffic and DMUs reduce costs on secondary and tertiary passenger services. Something like the 9F might have been built to get bulk freight done before diesel tech caught up for the heaviest loads.

 

[HSTEd]

Something like the 9F might have been built to get bulk freight done before diesel tech caught up for the heaviest loads.

Of course, if dieselisation has commenced, lashing small diesels together using multiple working systems is likely still far more economic than operating large steam locomotives.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Of course, if dieselisation has commenced, lashing small diesels together using multiple working systems is likely still far more economic than operating large steam locomotives.

Yes I feel that without the war progress on the early diesels (10000, 10001, 10201,10202,10203 and onwards) would have been quicker. Electrification earlier (probably 1,500 Volts DC overhead - Woodhead and for Anglia earlier then more). Possibly no steam loco builds beyond 1940 so all the post war BR era new steam locomotive builds would not have happened.

 

[JLH4AC]

Agreed that the political situation would have been very different - we became a much more left wing country as a result of WW2. The war led to an overwhelming feeling that things had to change, that we couldn't just go back to the way things were before. Perhaps exemplified by the South Bank exhibition with the skylon. Anything old fashioned was inherently seen as bad, ripe to be replaced by the new - and that included the old and worn out railways which were seen as inherently inferior to the new and modern motor car. Without the war would there have been the same push for out with the old? Would the Labour party have ever come to power?

The political situation would have been different if WW2 had not happened, depending on the cause of WW2 being avoided it could be more or less likely that a labour government would take during the 1940s. In reality there was a notable swing away from Conservatives to Labour during the 1935 general election, and it is not unreasonable to think there would have been a further swing toward Labour during the 1940 general election if WW2 did not happen.

The war had demonstrated the benefits of centralised state control of health, education, infrastructure, communications, etc etc. Without the war there would have been a very different mindset. I suspect that without the war, the UK would be much more like the US with much more local control, and less state control. If county councils were still in charge of road policy, would they ever have agreed with one another to build motorways? And without the German autobahns (built to allow rapid troop movements) as an example?

Labour had committed to the social reforms and nationalisation it would carry out after it was elected to the government as part of the 1935 general election. The construction of autobahns began before the NSDAP took power, and by that point controlled-access highways had been built in the USA and Italy and were also being built in Canada.

 

[Belperpete]

The political situation would have been different if WW2 had not happened, depending on the cause of WW2 being avoided it could be more or less likely that a labour government would take during the 1940s. In reality there was a notable swing away from Conservatives to Labour during the 1935 general election, and it is not unreasonable to think there would have been a further swing toward Labour during the 1940 general election if WW2 did not happen.

Labour had not been a success prior to the second war. The rise of the fascists in Britain and elsewhere was partly because the socialists were seen to have failed. The war ended the fascist movement in Britain, which meant that the socialists (and communists) were then the only voices for the common man. The war also gave Stalin the opportunity to vastly expand his communist empire, which was the root of much of the fright of communism after the war. Would there have been an iron curtain without WW2? And would the communist movement have taken a larger hold in Britain?

My feeling is that without the war, support for the fascists here would have continued to grow. Support for the left would likely also have increased, but become increasingly divided between socialist Labour and the communists. In a worst case scenario, we could have ended up like Germany with a fascist government. Forget about small things like electrification schemes and line closures, that could have had a truly dramatic impact on the railways (and just about everything else). To take an example, Hitler wanted a high speed broad gauge! Would we have been busy copying that idea too?

The war totally changed the political, social and economic climate in Britain, and much of the world. As others have also pointed out, it also spurred on many technological changes. It really is very hard to envisage what the world would be like now had the war not happened. Many of the things that we now take for granted would likely not be true.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Labour had not been a success prior to the second war. The rise of the fascists in Britain and elsewhere was partly because the socialists were seen to have failed. The war ended the fascist movement in Britain, which meant that the socialists (and communists) were then the only voices for the common man. The war also gave Stalin the opportunity to vastly expand his communist empire, which was the root of much of the fright of communism after the war. Would there have been an iron curtain without WW2? And would the communist movement have taken a larger hold in Britain?

My feeling is that without the war, support for the fascists here would have continued to grow. Support for the left would likely also have increased, but become increasingly divided between socialist Labour and the communists. In a worst case scenario, we could have ended up like Germany with a fascist government. Forget about small things like electrification schemes and line closures, that could have had a truly dramatic impact on the railways (and just about everything else). To take an example, Hitler wanted a high speed broad gauge! Would we have been busy copying that idea too?

The war totally changed the political, social and economic climate in Britain, and much of the world. As others have also pointed out, it also spurred on many technological changes. It really is very hard to envisage what the world would be like now had the war not happened. Many of the things that we now take for granted would likely not be true.

You do make me think that we are edging towards another world war. Politics gets scary when it becomes two parties going to opposite extremes - Polarised as per the USA apparently. We are perhaps in the same pre-war 1930s disillusion phase - this time particularly with regards to the credibility of politicians. Getting dangerously close to where Fascism has a foothold again. Arguably we are overdue another war - I sincerely hope we have evolved beyond that.....

So in conclusion. Was the second world war the culmination of a reset phase that triggered social and industrial change ?.

It is obvious from posts above that we cannot take the second world war in isolation. We would have to work back from that to find a logical state of things that we could have diverged from to avoid world war two. Perhaps even before the first world war * and then we are looking at revolution in Russia. Where else could revolution have happened ?. All I can say is it is complicated and interesting.

*= let us not forget the argument that the second world war was a result of the first world war where Germany was left too hamstrung after the peace agreement.

I will just step back and just look at the pace of change (technology and social).
Did war speed progress up or stifle technological progress ?. Social change as well - shortage of manpower for labour intensive steam engines where I am a bit surprised that did not bite before all the BR standard steam engines were built. The UK built too many modern steam engines which were then scrapped prematurely. Getting scrapped as the railways built too many unproven diesel designs to replace them. Could it have been planned better - it seems to me BR went from being too conservative (steam) to the opposite extreme (too many unproven diesel designs in production). Would the lack of WW2 have allowed a more sensible pace of progress. Answers seem to be varied - the big four companies might have each gone their own way steadily. LNER adopting electric, LMS perhaps looking more at diesel. Southern obviously electric but Bullied did build three diesel prototypes (10201, 10202 & 10203).

The OP poses an interesting and many faceted question. Not immediately obvious.

 

[Ken H]

You do make me think that we are edging towards another world war. Politics gets scary when it becomes two parties going to opposite extremes - Polarised as per the USA apparently. We are perhaps in the same pre-war 1930s disillusion phase - this time particularly with regards to the credibility of politicians. Getting dangerously close to where Fascism has a foothold again. Arguably we are overdue another war - I sincerely hope we have evolved beyond that.....

So in conclusion. Was the second world war the culmination of a reset phase that triggered social and industrial change ?.

It is obvious from posts above that we cannot take the second world war in isolation. We would have to work back from that to find a logical state of things that we could have diverged from to avoid world war two. Perhaps even before the first world war * and then we are looking at revolution in Russia. Where else could revolution have happened ?. All I can say is it is complicated and interesting.

*= let us not forget the argument that the second world war was a result of the first world war where Germany was left too hamstrung after the peace agreement.

I will just step back and just look at the pace of change (technology and social).
Did war speed progress up or stifle technological progress ?. Social change as well - shortage of manpower for labour intensive steam engines where I am a bit surprised that did not bite before all the BR standard steam engines were built. The UK built too many modern steam engines which were then scrapped prematurely. Getting scrapped as the railways built too many unproven diesel designs to replace them. Could it have been planned better - it seems to me BR went from being too conservative (steam) to the opposite extreme (too many unproven diesel designs in production). Would the lack of WW2 have allowed a more sensible pace of progress. Answers seem to be varied - the big four companies might have each gone their own way steadily. LNER adopting electric, LMS perhaps looking more at diesel. Southern obviously electric but Bullied did build three diesel prototypes (10201, 10202 & 10203).

The OP poses an interesting and many faceted question. Not immediately obvious.

If you are looking at technological change, you must not forget electronics. We had the first computer at Bletchley Park. But we had development of solid state electronics, germanium then silicon diodes or greater and greater power, and later power transistors. But also in signalling ( remember panel processors replacing ranks of relays to manage the signalling diagrams in power boxes, then SSI, but also in ticketing (remember APTIS and PORTIS ticket machines). And also in back office. TOPS, ticket sales analysis, wages.
Would this have happened as quickly without the work of Alan Tiring and Tommy Flowers at Bletchley

SSI-Solid State Interlocking
APTIS-Advanced Passenger Ticket Issuing System, later All Purpose Ticket Issuing System
PORTIS-Portable Operated Ticket Issuing System
TOPS-Total Operations Processing System

 

[Meerkat]

How strong were the unions under the Big Four v BR, and when did it become difficult to close lines?
ie would the Big Four have been able to reform operationally much quicker, and would they have been able to easily prune the network (replaced at least initially by their own bus and lorry services)?
In regard to why the war didn’t happen I would say the most likely scenarios would be britain/France calling Germany’s bluff at Munich and Hitler backing down, or a quicker war with the allies attacking Germany seriously such that a peace deal was done, with a concentration of both sides on the almost inevitable clash with Stalin.
Personally the question should probably be without a Labour government rather than without WW2.

 

[Bevan Price]

Coal was very easy to haul by sea from the North-East ports to power stations on estuaries around our shores. Smokeless zones started putting paid to them as well as domestic fires.

However it was 4 years of WW1 that really put the skids under railways in a big way leading to the 1923 groupings when many were on the verge of bankruptcy. Not nationalisation as such but with some big practical similarities in effect.

It's often overlooked that WW1 was the precursor to major changes in society, at least as great as after WW2. The first Labour government was briefly in 1924, then from 1929-31 and Ramsay MacDonald remained as PM in a Coalition Cabinet until 1935. The 1945 Labour victory didn't come out of nowhere. Many of the preparations for that Attlee government had been going on during WW2 when Labour cabinet ministers in Churchill's 1940 War Ministry were already becoming accustomed to government.

It was probaly the punitive penalties imposed on Germany (reparations, for example) that indirectly led to WW2. If the German economy had not become so bad in the 1920s, Hitler & co. might never have had the opportunity to rise to power. And once evil regimes have achieved power - byy fair means or foul - they are reluctant to relinquish that power. They create - or invent - potential enemies as an excuse to adopt repressive policies. So that can lead to war, Germany v. much of Europe, Russia v Ukraine just to name two consequences of evil regimes. The Middle East is already bad - and could get a lot worse if Iran's puppets get too aggressive....

 

[JLH4AC]

Labour had not been a success prior to the second war. The rise of the fascists in Britain and elsewhere was partly because the socialists were seen to have failed. The war ended the fascist movement in Britain, which meant that the socialists (and communists) were then the only voices for the common man. The war also gave Stalin the opportunity to vastly expand his communist empire, which was the root of much of the fright of communism after the war. Would there have been an iron curtain without WW2? And would the communist movement have taken a larger hold in Britain?

My feeling is that without the war, support for the fascists here would have continued to grow. Support for the left would likely also have increased, but become increasingly divided between socialist Labour and the communists. In a worst case scenario, we could have ended up like Germany with a fascist government. Forget about small things like electrification schemes and line closures, that could have had a truly dramatic impact on the railways (and just about everything else). To take an example, Hitler wanted a high speed broad gauge! Would we have been busy copying that idea too?

Labour had not yet won a majority by 1940 but the 1930s saw Labour replacing the Liberal Party as one of two main parties. As noted before Labour had already benefited from a considerable swing during the 1935 general election and many factors that led to that swing would still factor into the 1940 general election. It depends on how far back you push the point of divergence and what form it takes, it will not be hard to make multiple possible scenarios that either harm or benefit Labour.

In a reality in which the fascist movement was able to take hold yet did not cause WW2 I think they would be more of a laughing stock. It would be unlikely that a movement with militarism and expansionism at its core could have avoided starting wars, so the Allies must have been prepared to intervene to avoid a world war. This would mean that 1940s fascists would have none of the victories and wartime myth-building for use in their propaganda.

The war totally changed the political, social and economic climate in Britain, and much of the world. As others have also pointed out, it also spurred on many technological changes. It really is very hard to envisage what the world would be like now had the war not happened. Many of the things that we now take for granted would likely not be true.

That is one of the reasons why I am not directly engaging with the OP question as it is so multifaceted and open to interpretation that I would not be happy with any one scenario I put forward.

 

[HSTEd]

It was probaly the punitive penalties imposed on Germany (reparations, for example) that indirectly led to WW2. If the German economy had not become so bad in the 1920s, Hitler & co. might never have had the opportunity to rise to power. And once evil regimes have achieved power - byy fair means or foul - they are reluctant to relinquish that power. They create - or invent - potential enemies as an excuse to adopt repressive policies. So that can lead to war, Germany v. much of Europe, Russia v Ukraine just to name two consequences of evil regimes. The Middle East is already bad - and could get a lot worse if Iran's puppets get too aggressive....

The sanctions on Germany were probably harsh enough to really upset the Germans, but not harsh enough to actually damage their ability to start another war.

The French were upset that the Americans watered down the proposals to a very large degree.

 

[Ken H]

THe assumption in 2024 was that the UK public went into WW2 united in a determination to defeat the Nazis.
that is untrue. A large part of the population, politicians and the press wanted to stay out of any coming war in Europe. In the mid 1930's Churchill was seen as a war monger by some.
While we knew about Hitlers dreams of expanding east (into lands given to Poland post WW1) it was not seen as relevant in the UK.
I am unsure whether the Nazis' persecution of Jews was known about generally.
So I tend to the view that UK going to war in Sept 1939 wasn't certain. UK had followed a policy of appeasement over the occupation of the Rhinelands and Sudetenland and may have done the same for Poland.
How this would have played out in a 1940 election and its effect on the UK railways, I dont know!

 

[Peter Sarf]

It was probaly the punitive penalties imposed on Germany (reparations, for example) that indirectly led to WW2. If the German economy had not become so bad in the 1920s, Hitler & co. might never have had the opportunity to rise to power. And once evil regimes have achieved power - byy fair means or foul - they are reluctant to relinquish that power. They create - or invent - potential enemies as an excuse to adopt repressive policies. So that can lead to war, Germany v. much of Europe, Russia v Ukraine just to name two consequences of evil regimes. The Middle East is already bad - and could get a lot worse if Iran's puppets get too aggressive....

Indeed. I have long held the belief that World War Two (WW2) was a direct result of World War One (WW1). The Germans had to fight their way out of the very restrictive result of their surrender at the end of WW1. People forget Hitler and his Nazis were democratically elected and then started dismantling the democracy that would allow for their downfall. The warning signs were there but people in Germany got complacent - it is the same risk with Donald Trump.

With Germany and WW2 we needed to have invaded Germany well before 1939 to nip the problem in the bud. Then to this day we would be still debating the justification for starting a war and the cost it had on the UK's economy. We probably would not have carried much of Europe with us. Compare and contrast to the Gulf War - far more pre-emptive and still debated about.

Which leads us to Russia. Would a European war with Russia have been inevitable sometime 1940-1945 ? - I don't know. I suggest maybe not - maybe a sleeping giant like China - a country we are heavily dependant on (did I mention Russian gas ?).

The sanctions on Germany were probably harsh enough to really upset the Germans, but not harsh enough to actually damage their ability to start another war.

The French were upset that the Americans watered down the proposals to a very large degree.

Yes the French were acutely aware of the industrial prowess of Germany after World War One. Perhaps we in the UK should have harnessed that ?. I seem to recall our late 1950s DMUs had underfloor engines based on German designs from WW2.

 

[etr221]

THe assumption in 2024 was that the UK public went into WW2 united in a determination to defeat the Nazis.
that is untrue. A large part of the population, politicians and the press wanted to stay out of any coming war in Europe. In the mid 1930's Churchill was seen as a war monger by some.
While we knew about Hitlers dreams of expanding east (into lands given to Poland post WW1) it was not seen as relevant in the UK.
I am unsure whether the Nazis' persecution of Jews was known about generally.
So I tend to the view that UK going to war in Sept 1939 wasn't certain. UK had followed a policy of appeasement over the occupation of the Rhinelands and Sudetenland and may have done the same for Poland.
How this would have played out in a 1940 election and its effect on the UK railways, I dont know!

My thinking is that the critical crisis for Britain's road to war was that of March 1939, when Hitler moved against rump Czechoslovakia, establishing the Reichsprotektorat Böhmen und Mähren - which convinced Chamberlain that Hitler was (to misquote a later PM) 'not a man with I could do business with' (and continue appeasement), and led to the British guarantee to Poland... and an acceptance that war might well be necessary.

Given that the Lebensraum that Hitler wanted was the the Slavic lands to Germany's East (Poland, Belarus, Ukraine...) a war in that direction would have come (absent a regime change) sooner or later, the only question for Britain was whether they could stay out (trusting Hitler not to move in other directions).

 

[mike57]

What I find interesting about a lot of alternative history scenarios is how you frequently end up at the same place. Details change, but overall events move towards and end up at the same point. Taking WW2 even if we had continued appeasement once Hitler was successful in the east he would have turned his attention west. So war may have been delayed, but given the actions of Hitler and the Nazis war was inevitable unless we surrendered our sovereignty to Nazi Germany.

If Hitler was never born, what would have happened, probably not a very different outcome. Another Nazi person would have probably risen to power and perused similar policies.

I think a far more important piece of the jigsaw of events at this time was the US position, they had the resources and manpower to influence the outcome in a way that European nations could not.

How would all this influence the railways? Ultimately probably not all that much, line closures would have happened, steam would have been replaced. The reasons for the changes in the railways were down to other factors, increasing car use, more efficient road transport, diesel and electric rail traction being cheaper and easier to run, these changes were inevitable, just as railways replaced canals.

So fast forwards to 1980, I reckon barring a few minor changes the network would look quite similar to todays in terms of extent. The only difference I could see is the degree of electrification, which had the big four survived with no or a later war would have been greater, as a country our electric traction industry was more developed than diesel. I think the LNER would have electrified the ECML, and the SR would have electrified just about everything and closed the rest. The other two would then have probably followed suit, although the GWR might have decided on diesel as the replacement for steam. SR 90mph EMUs to Exeter and maybe beyond would have put severe pressure on the GWR to SW England.

 

[Belperpete]

Indeed. I have long held the belief that World War Two (WW2) was a direct result of World War One (WW1). The Germans had to fight their way out of the very restrictive result of their surrender at the end of WW1. People forget Hitler and his Nazis were democratically elected and then started dismantling the democracy that would allow for their downfall. The warning signs were there but people in Germany got complacent - it is the same risk with Donald Trump.

I agree that WW2 was to a great degree a result of the punitive sanctions imposed on Germany as a result of WW1. But don't forget that the result of most wars is the total eradication of the losing country, which gets absorbed by the victor. Would that have been a better outcome from the German point of view? Would there even be a German point of view had that happened? It didn't happen after WW1 (despite the French wanting to take a sizeable chunk of Germany), because the US wouldn't allow it. They hadn't fought a war for France and the UK to expand their territories.

In a reality in which the fascist movement was able to take hold yet did not cause WW2 I think they would be more of a laughing stock. It would be unlikely that a movement with militarism and expansionism at its core could have avoided starting wars, so the Allies must have been prepared to intervene to avoid a world war. This would mean that 1940s fascists would have none of the victories and wartime myth-building for use in their propaganda.

We only see the fascists as a laughing stock now, largely as a result of WW2 propaganda. They were far from being a laughing stock before WW2, and even during it. Don't forget that the National Socialists were a laughing stock in Germany at one point, and only came to power because Hindenburg tried to use them as pawns in his power broking.

Whether our fascist movement would have started a war is debatable, but there was a very real possibility that they could have caused us to side with Germany rather than against. They had some very influential connections in the establishment.

Again, as other posters have noted, it was a very close run thing that we actually went to war at all. If Halifax had accepted the job as PM we almost certainly wouldn't have, and without us the French wouldn't have either. It was only because Churchill, a rank outsider, got the job and then refused to negotiate, that the phoney war escalated into real war. Hitler would have been left to expand eastward. How long he would have left Western Europe alone can only be conjecture.

 

[Krokodil]

How long he would have left Western Europe alone can only be conjecture.

Sooner or later he'd have been after Alsace-Lorraine. His interest in invading Britain (and for that matter holding Occupied France and keeping a puppet government in Vichy France) was purely because both countries otherwise posed a threat to his ambitions. Our fate (had invasion succeeded) would have been a puppet state along the lines of Vichy France, with Edward VIII back on the throne.

 

[JLH4AC]

We only see the fascists as a laughing stock now, largely as a result of WW2 propaganda. They were far from being a laughing stock before WW2, and even during it. Don't forget that the National Socialists were a laughing stock in Germany at one point, and only came to power because Hindenburg tried to use them as pawns in his power broking.

Whether our fascist movement would have started a war is debatable, but there was a very real possibility that they could have caused us to side with Germany rather than against. They had some very influential connections in the establishment.

Again, as other posters have noted, it was a very close run thing that we actually went to war at all. If Halifax had accepted the job as PM we almost certainly wouldn't have, and without us the French wouldn't have either. It was only because Churchill, a rank outsider, got the job and then refused to negotiate, that the phoney war escalated into real war. Hitler would have been left to expand eastward. How long he would have left Western Europe alone can only be conjecture.

They became a laughing stock through post-WW2 propaganda highlighting their failures and their crazy ideas. As stated before if their ambitions were halted in 1936 they would have none of the victories and wartime myth-building to act as reasonable counter-propaganda. I was not referring to our fascist movement, I was referring to the movement as a whole. British fascists did have influential connections in the establishment but others in the establishment strongly opposed them and the general public tended to be opposed to them.

In a reality where the Axis powers were allowed to expand without any intervention, WW2 was still likely to happen. Even if Hitler wanted to leave Western Europe alone (Though I doubt Germany would have left France alone
as pan-Germanism was a key part of Lebensraum.) you have to remember Germany was not the only major Axis power, Japan's and Italy's expansionist goals would have brought into conflict with Britain, France and the USA.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Getting back to the railways, I suspect that the LNER (with some financial help from Government) would have pushed 1500V dc electrification forward and got into serious numbers of diesel railcars. SR would have got to the Kent Coast electrification earlier and some lines that have been closed since WW2 would also have been electrified. The LMS would be into serious dieselisation and the GWR, after a brief flirtation with gas turbines would have pushed diesel hydraulics and built more diesel railcars. Electrification in Birmingham, Bristol and London would have been considered.

With diesel shunters and multiple units generally being built earlier, the run down of steam for those types of workings would have been swifter and, for example, the start to experiment with diesel main line locos would have occured earlier and the near development hiatus imposed by the BTC would not have occurred.

Looking just at the GWR, Cook would have succeeded Hawksworth at the end of the 1940’s and he was much more technically open than FWH was. He was also very organised so I can imagine the GWR making one of those giant leaps forward that, after a period of apparent stagnation, it was prone to do.

 

[Ken H]

Getting back to the railways, I suspect that the LNER (with some financial help from Government) would have pushed 1500V dc electrification forward and got into serious numbers of diesel railcars. SR would have got to the Kent Coast electrification earlier and some lines that have been closed since WW2 would also have been electrified. The LMS would be into serious dieselisation and the GWR, after a brief flirtation with gas turbines would have pushed diesel hydraulics and built more diesel railcars. Electrification in Birmingham, Bristol and London would have been considered.

With diesel shunters and multiple units generally being built earlier, the run down of steam for those types of workings would have been swifter and, for example, the start to experiment with diesel main line locos would have occured earlier and the near development hiatus imposed by the BTC would not have occurred.

Looking just at the GWR, Cook would have succeeded Hawksworth at the end of the 1940’s and he was much more technically open than FWH was. He was also very organised so I can imagine the GWR making one of those giant leaps forward that, after a period of apparent stagnation, it was prone to do.

Would long distance 3rd rail have been a thing? Could they have gone for 1500v overhead outside the london built up area. I think a 1500v overhead/3rd rail EMU would be simple. 25Kv/3rd rail EMUs weren't a thing in UK till later with the cl 313 and GN electrification.

 

[mike57]

I think a 1500v overhead/3rd rail EMU would be simple

Thinking specifically Southern Railway,

Would the 1930/40s technology be able to support it? Probably yes to a limited extent, thinking about the CC1/2 Southern locos these used the 'Booster motor/gen set to avoid gapping, but a side effect of these was that the traction motors operated at twice the 3rd rail supply voltage, but getting all this kit under an EMU would not have been possible.

Another option is to just accept reduced power on 3rd rail, but given that 1500v DC probably wouldnt start until 30+ miles from London for example that probably wouldn't be acceptable.

Or use the series parallel arrangements that were in use at that time, but dont allow the final full parallel step on 1500v DC.

Given that the SR were setup to deliver 3rd rail infrastructure quickly I dont think they would have introduced this complication, particularly as OHL takes longer to install anyway. The issue that limits 3rd rail today, safety was not seen as an issue at this time, and 3rd rail is fine upto 90/100mph and at that time that would have been seen as plenty

So yes in a no WW2 timeline 3rd rail might have reached Exeter, Southhampton - Bournemouth - Weymouth and Kent Coast would have happened much quicker and most of the branch lines would have been electrified as well. By the late 1960s anything not electrified would be closed. The stock originally built for the 1930s Brighton scheme and add ons would serve its time out on the branch lines. Maintaining and operating EMUs for exended periods is possible, there is fundementally less to go wrong than on a DMU, motors can be rewound, bearings replaced, the only problem is the control systems, but the early stuff was simpler than the later systems.

25Kv at 50Hz only really becomes practical once simple on board rectification is possible, motor generator sets are heavy, Mercury arc rectifiers are tempremental in a moving environment but fine in fixed installations, and were used br the Southern in their sub stations, so for 25Kv 50Hz to take off we needed the semi-conductor diode. (Low frequency, 16 2/3 or 25Hz are different, its possible to use large serial wound motors up to about 25Hz, so no need for rectification)

 

[HSTEd]

So yes in a no WW2 timeline 3rd rail might have reached Exeter, Southhampton - Bournemouth - Weymouth and Kent Coast would have happened much quicker and most of the branch lines would have been electrified as well. By the late 1960s anything not electrified would be closed. The stock originally built for the 1930s Brighton scheme and add ons would serve its time out on the branch lines. Maintaining and operating EMUs for exended periods is possible, there is fundementally less to go wrong than on a DMU, motors can be rewound, bearings replaced, the only problem is the control systems, but the early stuff was simpler than the later systems.

I think if the third rail reaches Exeter, the SR will probably usurp the bulk of the Cornwall-London traffic from the GWR.
At which point I think third rail probably takes over Cornwall.

 

[mike57]

I think if the third rail reaches Exeter, the SR will probably usurp the bulk of the Cornwall-London traffic from the GWR.
At which point I think third rail probably takes over Cornwall.

If we are working in this alternate time line, I agree, a 90/100mph EMU to Exeter is going to be cheaper to run, more comfortable, and I suspect faster than the GWR service which I am assuming might still be steam hauled at this point (say 1950s). The Southern already had 'Inter City' EMUs with a good standard of comfort (for the period) working on the Sussex coast lines dating from the early 30s, A similar new build with a bit of re-gearing to improve top speed, tweak the bogies, its not a big stretch. The only real problem is the need for lots of feeder stations on the 88 miles from Salisbury to Exeter, but I dont think that would have been seen as an impossible problem. Maybe accept higher volt drops and boost voltage to 750v would have been a starting point.

Even in the 'real' timeline the Southern were always more of a passenger railway than the others, and one could see them running something close to the current inter city services far earlier, regular interval services, and less reliance on freight.

 

[Peter Sarf]

If we are working in this alternate time line, I agree, a 90/100mph EMU to Exeter is going to be cheaper to run, more comfortable, and I suspect faster than the GWR service which I am assuming might still be steam hauled at this point (say 1950s). The Southern already had 'Inter City' EMUs with a good standard of comfort (for the period) working on the Sussex coast lines dating from the early 30s, A similar new build with a bit of re-gearing to improve top speed, tweak the bogies, its not a big stretch. The only real problem is the need for lots of feeder stations on the 88 miles from Salisbury to Exeter, but I dont think that would have been seen as an impossible problem. Maybe accept higher volt drops and boost voltage to 750v would have been a starting point.

Even in the 'real' timeline the Southern were always more of a passenger railway than the others, and one could see them running something close to the current inter city services far earlier, regular interval services, and less reliance on freight.

There were parts of the Southern (a long way) back before grouping iirc that used overhead - maybe 750V DC or perhaps 1,500V DC. I think London Bridge to/past Croydon was one. I think some yards had a bit of knitting right into the 60s. Something like Salisbury to Exeter must have been a candidate for a higher DC voltage to reduce losses so overhead would be pragmatic ?.

If WW2 and its causes had not got in the way I could see us by now moaning about how little conversion from DC to 25KV AC electrification the UK had achieved !.

 

[mike57]

There were parts of the Southern (a long way) back before grouping iirc that used overhead - maybe 750V DC or perhaps 1,500V DC. I think London Bridge to/past Croydon was one. I think some yards had a bit of knitting right into the 60s. Something like Salisbury to Exeter must have been a candidate for a higher DC voltage to reduce losses so overhead would be pragmatic ?.

If WW2 and its causes had not got in the way I could see us by now moaning about how little conversion from DC to 25KV AC electrification the UK had achieved !.

No that was the LBSCR, they used a 6.6Kv 25Hz OHL system, totally incompatible with DC. This was pre WW1.

There is a good description here https://archive.org/details/electricrailway371911newy/page/784/mode/2up?view=theater with pictures.

Some Southern yards were wired with simple OHL trolley wires at 660v DC to permit low speed operation of suitable locos, e.g. CC1/2 without the need for ground level 3rd rail, but this was only suitable for shunting.

 

[Peter Sarf]

No that was the LBSCR, they used a 6.6Kv 25Hz OHL system, totally incompatible with DC. This was pre WW1.

There is a good description here https://archive.org/details/electricrailway371911newy/page/784/mode/2up?view=theater with pictures.

Some Southern yards were wired with simple OHL trolley wires at 660v DC to permit low speed operation of suitable locos, e.g. CC1/2 without the need for ground level 3rd rail, but this was only suitable for shunting.

Did the class 71s have pantographs - presumably for yards ?.

I vaguely recall the 71s did have pantographs, plus a flywheel to get them over 3rd rail gaps.

 

[mike57]

Did the class 71s have pantographs

Yes I think they did

 

[HSTEd]

Wikipedia would suggest that the SR built Class 70 locomotives would match a Class 9F steam locomotive in tractive effort.

I think third rail electrification would likely outcompete parallel steam-hauled routes both for freight and passengers, only dieselisation would have any chance. Even then I would not bet on the first generation diesels.