GWR Constituent and Absorbed Companies

[Newport_rod]

There has been some discussion in the Rolling Stock area on the Forum about the use of the term 'absorbed' to cover all the companies that became part of the reconstituted GWR in 1922. This topic has been created to allow debate to continue in a more appropriate location and the relevant posts will be moved here.

Wokmad - Constituent and Absorbed vs Absorbed - I'm probably oversensitive but every time I look at the cover of Volume 10 of RCTS Locos of the GWR my hackles are raised just a tad when I see (solely) the word absorbed when most of the locos therein are constituents. Is it just me?

[Rhobat Bryn]

No it's not. There are too many inaccurate short cuts taken to be found when it comes to Wales' railway history and, unfortunately, a tendency to belittle the achievements of Wales' railways in general. The distinction is an important one since it demonstrates the commercial significance of the companies at the time both to themselves and others. However, I would assume that we, as a Circle, would take more care in our use of language to describe the constituent companies which form the historical background to our current national railway franchise. To describe the Taff Vale, the Cambrian or the Barry as absorbed companies is not only inaccurate, it is also distinctly misleading.

[wokmad]

I tend to agree with Rhobat, but the discussion is getting off topic and I was remiss in using somewhat loose terminology. If possible I think it would be better if the title of my post was changed to Constituent and Absorbed Breakdown and Travelling Cranes. Is this possible? Someone could than start a new topic on the relative merits and contributions of the constituent and absorbed companies to the new GWR as compared to those that made up the other three of the big four.

[Newport_rod]

Thanks for the suggestion wokmad, as you can see the original topic has been renamed and the off-topic posts moved here.

Regarding the term consituent I've always associated it with the larger Welsh companies - TVR, BR, Cambrian, etc. but presumably the term applies equally to the GWR itself as one of the constituents of the new company. Thus a GWR Saint is no more or less a Constituent Co. Loco than a Barry B1.

[wokmad]

The events leading up the passing and implementation of the 1921 Railways Act constitute an interesting sage. Those interested in the details are recommended to get hold of a copy of Railway Amalgamation in Great Britain by WE Simnett, published by the Railway Gazette in 1923. This is first paragraph on what Simnett has to say on the Western group:

“The Great Western Railway Company had been placed in a somewhat privileged position under the Act, for by Section 3(2) the Great Western was to retain its name and identity, and although six other constituent companies (all Welsh lines) were named in the First Schedule, these were to be amalgamated with [Simnetts emphasis], without any dissolution of the latter. Virtually, although not in name, the other constituent companies were to be absorbed by the Great Western, the difference between them and the subsidiary companies in the Western group being one rather of degree than of kind, except that they were each allowed to elect a director to the new Great Western board. It is true that in this group, unlike the others, the Great Western was easily the predominate partner, none of the other constituent companies being strictly comparable with it in size or importance.”

According to Simnett, the original Great Western was over 3000 route miles in length, while the other six constituents could only muster 560 miles between them. Their major contribution to the new GWR was of course the South Wales Docks. I doubt whether six ex-Welsh company directors would have had much influence on board policy. To me a more interesting question is how many ex-Welsh company officers attained senior positions (i.e. reporting to the General Manager) in the new GWR. I am only aware of two; Edward Lowther, General Manager of the PTR&D, was appointed Chief Goods Manager of the GWR in 1921 and also briefly Docks Manager in 1925, and JH Vickery, the former General Manager of the A(N&SW)D&R, became the Chief Docks Manager in 1922.

[Rhobat Bryn]

Your post accurately summarises the realpolitik of the time. It was definitely seen as an opportunity to centralise railway operation based in London and, from a Welsh perspective, to move in on the considerable profits being made from the coal traffic and their export at the time. What is interesting about the "constituent" category is the need for its creation at all. The Taff Vale and the Barry, who were both making respectable profits and distributing generous dividends, were not at all happy at seeing their companies broken up when they were as successful as they were. In order to assuage the resentment felt, the category of 'constituent' was created and the softener of places on boards offered. What is significant about the resentment is that it tells us that this was not a natural economic merger but rather one forced through by legislation, politically driven by the financial institutions who sought to profit from the economies of scale.

I have always found it strange that the grouping, which only lasted for 25 years, is used as a defining point in railway history and regarded as being an "all good" event. History tells us otherwise, I think.

[wokmad]

War was declared on 4 August 1914 and the Government took over the nation’s railways at midnight under the provisions of the Regulation of the Forces Act 1871, control being exercised through the Railway Executive Committee of the Board of Trade and, from August 1919, by the new Ministry of Transport. Capital expenditure, unless officially sanctioned, was stopped by the Board of Trade as from 19 May 1915, a policy only rescinded on 2 June 1919. During the war compensation for loss of income, if any, was paid in monthly instalments based on pre-war receipts and later included the costs of arrears of maintenance [1]. Early in 1921 it was estimated that the outstanding claims might amount to about £150 million, but after discussion with the railway companies and by agreement the sum was compounded to £60 million, which figure was included in the 1921 Act. Of this the GWR received a total of just over £10.5 million in six tranches as the amalgamating/absorbing company, £8.7 million for the GWR itself and e.g. £450,000 for the TVR, the largest amalgamated company.

Reverting to an earlier point, it is remarkable how easily amalgamation terms were agreed. The preliminary scheme for the Cambrian, Cardiff, Rhymney, Taff Vale and A(N&SW) companies was considered by the Railway Amalgamation Tribunal on 20 March 1922 and approved on 25 March. The Barry held out for, and received, better terms than first offered (surprise, surprise!), the scheme not being submitted until 8 May 1922.