Talk:Railways Act 1921

Comment1
I've rewritten this article since the previous version was somewhat short on detail. I also didn't like the word "forcibly" - most Acts tell people that they have to do something!! This article is quoted in so many other articles that it seemed a pity not to widen its scope a bit. Both World Wars wreaked havoc on the railways, since the only consideration was to get the war effort going and to hell with the infrastructure, so that some form of legislation was essential to at least get things going again. It was also the thinking behind the 1947 Act: having travelled in that time it was obvious that the entire system was falling apart and I'm sure that 1921 was no different! I also thought that going straight for the "Big Four" at the beginning was also a bit upsidedown before the explanation of the Act. Peter Shearan 08:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment2
This article needs much further work from economic a dspolitical historians,not'railway enthusiasts'. Where is the published evidence that the pre-1923 companies were losing money? They seem tohave still beenprfitable in 1919-1922. Did the Government have the legal right to force amamlgamations on private companies? Was there a precedent for this in other industries? I believe that the 1921 Rlys Act was passed because wartime government control of the railways was still inplace 3 years after the end of the war, which seems ultra vires, and the Government assummed that this allowed them to do what they liked. Perhaps the motivation was to forestall anticipated losses or to placate miliant Trade Unionists. Were there any legal challenges to this Act? I don't think that WW1 wreaked havoc on Britain's railways. There was of course no fighting, limited aerial bombing and coastal bombardment and no significant sabotage,sothat cannot bethe reason. Wartime labour cost inflation is more likely but other industries would also be affected. Barney Bruchstein (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Did you even read the article?
 * Where in the article does it state that the companies where losing money - ? nowhere.
 * If you want the article improved, don't insult the authors.Prof.Haddock (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I did read the article and in its introduction it states that the act was intended, among other objectives to 'stem the losses' made by some railway companies. It is not insulting to point out that a statement has been made without supporting evidence as this can help improve wikipedia. Barney Bruchstein (talk) 10:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

GWR
The GWR was the only company to keep its identity through the Grouping. Is this because there were no constituents big enough to impede its onward progress (eg demand a directorship, influence policy or engineering design), or was there a difference in the legislation that uniquely permitted the GWR to continue as a company? To look at it from another direction, was the former Midland Railway actually abolished, or merely lost in the mix? -- Verbarson talkedits 10:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I know of no special treatment for the GWR in the Act. The pre-1922 GWR amalgamated with six other railways (see List of constituents of the Great Western Railway) to create what was technically a new organisation, described in the Act as the "Western Group". The new Board was dominated by ex-GWR men, but not exclusively so - out of 23 directors on the new Board, 18 had served on the Board of just one of the constituent companies (15 were from the "old" GWR Board, one each from the Barry, the Rhymney and the Taff Vale), whilst five had served on the Boards of two constituents. It's not inconceivable that at the first meeting of the new Board they resolved to use the name Great Western Railway. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have now examined the Act, and it appears to me (IANAL) that the grouped companies had some leeway in determining how they should be amalgamated and structured, having the opportunity to write their own schemes within the legislation and subject to government approval. Are these documents (particularly the Western Group scheme) available anywhere? I can find debates about them and lists of schemes submitted in Hansard, but not the schemes themselves. -- Verbarson talkedits 19:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any. I expect that they will be recorded in the minute books of the respective boards of the constituent companies, these may be at the National Railway Museum, or in The National Archives. I made a relevant post at Talk:Taff Vale Railway some years ago. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)