Readers’ Forum
The LNWR/LYR amalgamation 1921
Regarding the article in the February issue, a few additional points may be of interest. Firstly, in 1875, a successful legal case was brought against the LNWR by the newly formed Locomotive Manufacturers’ Association to prevent that Company continuing to build new locomotives for the LYR. This was an important judgement that had implications went well beyond those two companies. Henceforth, British railway companies could only build new locomotives for their own use. More immediately, it was also indicative of just how close the relationship was between the two railways continued to be right up to the grouping period. The 1875 verdict in favour of the private, non-railway works, locomotive builders stood with one exception up to 1948, namely the LMS later British Railways/ NCC later UTA Derby-built 2-6-4Ts of the late 1940s. Even then this came about through political circumstances, namely railway nationalisation and the separation of the LMS’s Northern Irish assets after the order had been placed, rather than deliberate intent. (Atkins, The Golden Age Of Steam Locomotive Building).
Secondly, in respect of the 1922 amalgamation, it would be naive not to think that, tacitly at least, the LNWR directors would not have seen the attraction of an amalgamation with the LYR, whilst retaining their own company’s name, as a useful means of strengthening their position for whatever lay ahead given the all the uncertainty and ideas for reorganising the railways then circulating. Preliminary moves and regroupings of this kind were, and are, far from unknown in the corporate world. From the LYR standpoint, did its Board see amalgamation with the LNWR, as its best, or least worse option? Voluame 3 of Marshal’s history of the LYR implied this was the case but otherwise has surprisingly little to say on the matter. In his history of the LNWR, 1921). That said, research into the two sets of directors’ professional interests and personal relations might help to further an understanding of the decision making process on both sides.
