Talk:Railways Act 1921

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)

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)

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  ^talk_edits 10:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Verbarson: 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#1921 Railways Act) 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. --Redrose64 🌹 (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  ^talk_edits 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#1922 or 1923? some years ago. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Discussion is in favour of 19 August 1921. Thanks all. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The article has, in the infobox, "Commencement 1 January 1923"; in the lead, "The provisions of the act took effect from the start of 1923."; and in the section The act, "The act took effect on 1 January 1923." But I cannot find anywhere in the Act that this is explicitly stated. The date comes up several times, usually written out in full, as in the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, often in relation to some specific matter; but nowhere nearby these occurrences is there any indication of that being the commencement of the Act itself.

It is common, but not universal, for an Act of Parliament to have a section towards the end of the main text, and before the Schedules, that specifies when various portions of the Act come into force; see for example Section 17 of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, subsections (2) to (5) inclusive. It is, I believe, the case that if such information is not present, the Act comes into force on the day upon which it is passed, which for the Railways Act 1921, was 19 August 1921.

Reading the text of the Act, it is clear that some matters needed to be attended to before 1 January 1923; and that there are also matters that still fell within the provisions of the Act even if they were carried out before 1 January 1923. You don't even have to go very far in order to find an example - section 2 subsection (1) states:

The constituent companies in any group may on or before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, submit to the Minister of Transport (hereinafter referred to as " the Minister ") an amalgamation scheme framed in accordance with the provisions of this Act which has been agreed to by all those companies.

and subsection (3) states

If the constituent companies in any group fail to submit an agreed amalgamation scheme framed in accordance with the provisions of this Act on or before the said date, a scheme for the amalgamation of the constituent companies in that group shall be prepared and settled in accordance with this Act by the amalgamation tribunal.

Notice that the words "on or before" come up in each of these subsections; it is clear that 1 January 1923 is the deadline by which the various amalgamations needed to be settled. For this to have occurred within the provisions of the Act, the Act must already have been in force some time prior to 1 January 1923. So, in the absence of anything to the contrary, I believe that the commencement date was 19 August 1921. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Acts of Parliament (Commencement) Act 1793: Whereas every act of Parliament, in which the commencement thereof is not directed to be from a specific time, doth commence from the first day of the session of Parliament in which such act is passed: and whereas the same is liable to produce great and manifest injustice; for remedy whereof, be it enacted; and it is hereby enacted by the King's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lord spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That the clerk of the parliaments shall endorse (in English) on every act of parliament, which shall pass after the eighth day of April one thousand seven hundred and ninety-three, immediately after the title of such act, the day, month, and year, when the same shall have passed, and shall have received the royal assent; and such endorsement shall be taken to be part of such act, and to be the date of its commencement where no other commencement shall be therein provided. (emphasis mine).

So yes, 19 August 1921 is the commencement date.  M2Ys4U ^(talk) 14:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I think, possiby, you are over-reading it. Obviously for all the amalgamations to take effect on 1 January, appropriate arrangements woud have to be in place beforehand but such arrangements wouldn't have taken effect till the first. In a large number of cases with the smaller railways, especially those that ended up in the GWR group, they were already, in effect, subsidiaries of the larger company, and little work needed to be done. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

What about the LNWR/LYR amalgamation? Their proposal was formally submitted to the Amalgamation Tribunal (a body set up under the terms of the Act), which approved it on 20 December 1921 and the two railways duly amalgamated on 1 January 1922. For this to have occurred, the Act must have been in force by the time of the application to the Amalgamation Tribunal. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Here's another way of thinking about it. Instead of saying when the amalgamations started, I have a reference that states when they were completed "The formal amalgamations proceeded smoothly and were completed almost without any pressure from the Government The work of the Railway Amalgamation Tribunal the body responsible for supervising the amalgamation and the settlement of claims was completed by October 1923" - this is taken from page 10 of Inland Transport by Christopher Ivor Savage · 1957 (Read pages 9 and 10 for full context). So my suggestion is simply to change what the article says to "the provisions of the act were completed by October 1923". 10mmsocket (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the 19 August 1921 date. There's no separate commencement order for the Act that I can find so it must have come into effect on the day of Royal Assent. What was seen on 1 January 1923 was the result of the act, the new four companies taking over the operations of the railways. As that is what the public saw, it's very easy to say 1 January 1923 was the day the act came into force, but that's not the date the act commenced. Nthep (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2025 (UTC)