Quantcast
Channel: Turnip Rail
Viewing all 38 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

Looking forward to 2012 with Turniprail (and a thanks to all)

January 1, 2012, 5:16 am
$
0
0
I thought that I would use this first post of the year to lay out some personal goals for the blog, my research and myself over the coming twelve months. I really hope that all come true, but I doubt it.

PhD: I am actually in the last stretch of my PhD and I have to submit the thing by October. However, my academic task in the next few months is to take the eight chapters I have crafted over the last five and a quarter years and turn them into a coherent piece of work that can be submitted in draft form to my supervisor.  Theoretically, this should be easy, as in my head my thesis, which is on the management of the London and South Western Railway between 1870 and 1910, is pretty complete. The reality is that a lot of work needs to be done, especially to brush up on a bit of background reading. But I’ll get there, I have no doubt.

Blog: I have to warn you, given that these are the last ten months of my PhD, my blog may suffer due to a diminished number of updates. Already, the frequency of my posts has dropped to one a week and it is quite possible that as October nears I may need to reduce this further.

This said, I am committed to the blog and will hope to do some original research for it at points (naturally I may gush forth after October with a plethora of posts because of the freedom I will have). More importantly though, while I have made some wonderful friends through it, and hope to make more, it entertains many who read it and also helps my ultimate career goals (see below).

I don’t think the topics of my posts will change much. I am still interested in railway management, even though I may be sick to death of it by October. My continuing interest in Railwaywomen will feature, not just because I have already written a post on this topic for the future, but because I find it a fascinating area to study with new revelations coming forth every time do more work on the subject. I will also want to look at a bit more at the railways before 1870, as this area of railway history has received little investigation. Ultimately, however, all of Victorian railway history is still fair game for blogging about, and I hope to choose varied and interesting subjects to post on throughout the year.

Work:  As I have mentioned elsewhere, I work in a public library part-time to fund my PhD. Unfortunately, like all who work in libraries, I possibly may loose my job by March. Therefore, it should not surprise anyone that one of my hopes for 2012 is that this doesn't happen. Yet, given this has been a possibility for some while, and to avoid not having the finance to fund my PhD, I have already paid off my university fees.

Nevertheless, one interesting thought has crossed my mind. If I am made redundant I’ll be able to finish my PhD early given the free time. Clearly that would not be in any way ideal, firstly, because this is not the way I hoped my career would progress (see below), but also because I genuinely love helping people at the library.

Career: I suppose I had it in my head that in this year my career would begin – whatever would be. I’ve had two main ideas since my PhD commenced; the first to be academic, the second to be a journalist and freelance writer. The former is an option. However throughout my PhD I have not done any teaching (and therefore have had time to write the blog). I would be very willing to teach if it was to lead me to better things, but I have never been over-keen on the idea. I dunno, maybe I’d love it when I get there. Furthermore, I have always considered that there may be an opportunity to get an research grant to do a project, perhaps on the early railways, so I may look into that as an option.

However, I think I am more interested in becoming the journalist and freelance writer (while keeping firmly in touch with academic developments). Firstly, given the cuts, I am not sure that positions in the academic world will be flowing as easily as they did in years past, especially for an early career historian. But secondly, I so enjoy writing my blog and would love to do something similar for some money (don’t worry, I love writing my blog so much that that will always remain). Originally, before the crisis hit, my idea was that I was going to keep the part time job in the library while building up my profile as a writer. Then, when I was getting enough regular work to sustain me, I would reconsider my position at the library. However, if I do lose my job, parts of this plan may have to be advanced. Nevertheless, whatever happens, I suspect I will be on that career road before the end of the year.

Love: I am sure I will secure the love of many new friends in 2012 whatever happens, as that is what occurred in 2011. Indeed, one of the joys of 2011 has been that I have met so many good, kind, supportive and loving people.

Indeed, I want to wish everyone a happy and productive 2012. I love writing my blog for such wonderful, supportive, generous and friendly readers and Twitter followers. I am always buoyed by your positive comments, your support for my work and your friendship. I cannot begin to thank you all enough.  You are all so lovely.

And now for some blog stats from 2011:

Most visits on one day: 24 December – 284
Lowest number of visits on one day: 22 April – 12
Week with most visits: w/b 18 December - 576
Month with the most visits: December – 1,783
Total visits: 13,201 (Average - 36.17/day)
Unique visits: 9,651 (Average – 26.44/day)
Page views: 21,399 (Average – 58.63/day)
Pages per visit: 1.62
Average time on the site: 1 minute 13 seconds

↧
Search

Explosions, Crime and Rewards - Stories From The Victorian Station Waiting Room

January 8, 2012, 2:56 am
$
0
0
The waiting room was an early feature of British railway stations. The Liverpool and Manchester Railway, which opened in 1830 and was the world’s first inter-city railway, built waiting rooms at its two termini. Nevertheless, at the stopping places in between they were not present and other early railways also placed little importance on providing waiting room accommodation.[1] Francis Wishaw, who surveyed all the railways in Britain being planned or under construction in 1842, rarely mentioned them.[2]

However, as the time passed they were gradually introduced. Indeed, larger stations started being equipped with separate waiting rooms for men and women and the different classes of passenger. Liverpool Lime Street Station in 1836 had five waiting rooms for first and second class men and women, and one simply designated a ‘ladies’ waiting room.’ Five was also the number at Edinburgh Princes Street in 1896, where the fifth room was simply a ‘general waiting room.’ Most small stations could not be said to have such commodious facilities, most only possessing ‘first class ladies’ and ‘general’ waiting rooms. Inside them there was usually a fire and seating, which if you were lucky was upholstered.[3] Indeed, waiting rooms were were variable in quality and a common cause of complaint. In 1867 a passenger travelling from the London and North Western Railway’s (L&NWR) Huyton Quarry Station stated that the waiting room was unpainted, a ‘fusty’ odour hung in the air and in the winter months the room’s ‘occupants are ingeniously roasted by the fire on one side and exposed on the other to cold blasts.’[4] Nevertheless, the facilities for passengers in country stations were usually better in quality, tended to as they were by dedicated staff.[5]

While the history of waiting rooms’ themselves in the Victorian period is essentially uninteresting, they were places where people met and from which stories emerged. Therefore, a bit of a dig in nineteenth century newspapers has revealed some interesting stories.

Clearly, exploding waiting rooms were a problem given the gas lighting. On the morning of Monday 14 October 1869 at Newton Abbot Station a gas leak occurred in the waiting room. On discovering the leak a Mr Hemmett, the station’s inspector, went looking for it and did this by ill-advisedly lighting a lamp. Unsurprisingly, the gas that had collected in the ceiling exploded, causing Hemmett some injury.[6] A similar event occurred at 5 O’clock on Sunday 2 November 1873 at Kew Gardens Station. On the up side of the station the porter had lit the lamps in the station’s two waiting rooms. Evidently this was done poorly and gas started to accumulate in both. Thus, when another porter began lighting the external lamps this caused an explosion which blew out the rooms’ windows and doors and destroyed the ceilings. A booking clerk and several passengers narrowly escaped injury or death, with the damage coming to around £200.[7]

While possible death by explosion was clearly a risk, the waiting room could also be the site of crimes. On the 23 January 1871 at Shanklin Station on the Isle of Wight, Charles Colenutt was found sleeping in a chair. The station master, James V. Sully, led him out with the assistance of a porter. Yet, Colenutt returned ‘two or three times,’ and on the last struck Sully’s hat with his fist ‘rendering it unfit for further wear.’ At the Hampshire Petty Sessions on the 5 February, Colenutt was fined thirty shillings for the assault, fifteen shillings costs and ten shillings damages.[8] Clearly, for Colenutt the waiting room was a warm place to sleep the day away.

However, sleeping in a waiting room was not a cause of crime in the case of Alexander Thompson who ‘dropped off’ in the Chesterfield station waiting room on 1 August 1896. On that day, while Thompson was asleep there, Linther and Walter Hall entered the waiting room and stole his pocket watch which was worth £15. On rising from his slumber, the victim became aware that his watch chain was hanging down with nothing on its end. A search was conducted and the watch was found nearby. The blame was quickly placed on the Halls, who were arrested shortly after. At the trial, Walter blamed Linther, saying that the former had told him of the crime while in the “House of Correction.” Yet, Linther argued that Walter was trying to save himself, then launched into ‘a torrent of invectives’ against his brother and lastly claimed that Walter had asked for a pardon from the prison Chaplin. Both were found guilty and they imprisoned for four months with hard labour.[9]

With so many people coming and going from waiting rooms, it is unsurprising that incivility also occurred. One passenger in September 1865 complained bitterly about the ‘female official in charge’ of the Ladies Waiting Room at Newcastle Central Station. She described how a lady ‘who held a first class ticket’ for a journey north arrived at the station early and proceeded to the waiting room where she placed her basket on the long side table. The attendant quickly pronounced that “the company don’t like such things placed there.” Having used the table for its purpose, the passenger ignored the comment. Yet, she quickly received another shortly after; “You must take it off the table the company don’t like things there.” The passenger, somewhat confused, asked what the purpose of the table was if it was not for putting things on. The attendant carried on with her work while mumbling and the traveller put the basket on her knees to end the ‘annoying conduct’. The same attendant also accosted two women who entered the waiting room when their train was late. Once they had passed through the doors, she placed herself in front of them stating that “This room is for no one but those going by train.” On the women informing her that their train was late, the attendant’s response was that “People should enquire whether trains were late before coming – the company did not like persons sitting there.” She attendent then proceeded to pace about, muttering. Lastly, another passenger went into the waiting room’s inner room for a little water. The attendant followed her and rudely stated that those who wished to have a drink usually went to the refreshment room.[10 – see below for some thoughts on this case.]

However, waiting rooms were not just used for waiting for trains. In the Gateshead Station Waiting Room on the 2 October 1887 the local Railway Servants Temperance Union held a meeting at which Mrs J.J. Gurney gave an address. [11] In 1878 at the Kew Gardens Station waiting room, which I presume had been repaired by then, the life of a sick animal was ended. On the 7 October a ‘large black retriever dog in a state madness took possession of the ladies waiting room.’ The station master contacted the Metropolitan Police and very soon police constable No.302, John Smith, arrived with a gun. Nothing more could be done than to shoot the poor animal.[12] Furthermore, like today, passengers also left things in waiting rooms. In May 1869 a resident of Richmond (Surrey) offered a reward of five shillings for a ‘large bundle of MS. Pamphlets, Plays, &c’ with paper which was ‘stamped with a coronet’, which had been left in the station waiting room. [13]

I have only mentioned a few events, amongst millions, that occurred in Victorian station waiting rooms. Indeed, what are missing are descriptions of the more mundane meetings between Victorians as they went about their daily lives. However, I will leave you with the following article from an 1894 edition of Hearth and Home, which describes, through the life of a waiting room mirror, the coming and going of passengers.[14]

SPECIAL NOTICE

I will be doing a talk on 17 January at 6.30 pm at Kew Public Library on Victorian Railwaywomen, looking at who they were, where they worked in the industry and their pay and status. Refreshments a provided, all for a mere £1. If you would like to attend, call the library to book a place on 020 8734 3352 (Opening Times: Tues - 10-1, 2-6; Wed 2-6; Fri 2-6; Sat 10-1, 2-6) or email kew.library@richmond.gov.uk 

------

[1] Biddle, Gordon, ‘Waiting Rooms’, The Oxford Companion to British Railway History, (Oxford, 1997), p.553
[2]Whishaw, Francis, The Railways of Great Britain and Ireland: Practically Described and Illustrated, (London, 1842), reprinted (Newton Abbot, 1969)
[3] Biddle, ‘Waiting Rooms’, The Oxford Companion to British Railway History, p.553
[4] Liverpool Mercury, Thursday, 21 November 21, 1867
[5] Biddle, ‘Waiting Rooms’, The Oxford Companion to British Railway History, p.553
[6] Trewman's Exeter Flying Post or Plymouth and Cornish Advertiser, Wednesday, 14 October 1863
[7] The Pall Mall Gazette, Monday, 3 November 1873
[8] Hampshire Telegraph and Sussex Chronicle etc, Wednesday, 8 February 1871
[9] The Derby Mercury, Wednesday, 28 October 1896
[10] The Newcastle Courant etc, Friday, 8 September 1865 – NOTE: On reflection I believe that the attendant at Newcastle was probably suffering from what now would be recognised as mental health problems. Indeed, given that the woman was probably a widow of a railwayman who had been killed in the course of his work and was probably living in poverty with dependents, these factors may have had an effect. The sad thing is that a letter such as this would probably have ended her employment, pushing her into even more hardship. Indeed, I have recounted a similar case HERE which ended up with in attendant going onto the workhouse.
[11] The British Women's Temperance Journal, 1 December 1887 p.134, Issue 60 and 12
[12] The Sporting Gazette, 12 October 1878, p.973
[13] Judy, Wednesday, 19 May 1869 p.38
[14] Hearth and Home, Thursday, 8 November 1894, p.923
↧
↧

From Railway Clerk to Railway Manager - Changes in the Route to Management 1840-1910

January 15, 2012, 1:40 am
$
0
0
One of the questions that I ask in my PhD is how exactly did people get promoted into managerial positions within the London and South Western Railway’s (L&SWR) Traffic Department? This is important, as understanding who was making policy within the company allows me to better appreciate the factors behind the decisions the company made.
 
The vast majority of the company’s senior Traffic Department managers, which included Superintendents of the Line, Traffic Managers, District Superintendents, District Goods Superintendents and Wagon Masters, originated from the company’s primary labour market (PLM). This labour market consisted of the clerical staff and included office lads, junior clerks, telegraph clerks, clerks, station masters, chief clerks, inspectors, goods canvassers and goods agents. A ‘rough’ promotional tree in the department is shown. Furthermore, only a few of the department’s managers came from external sources or the secondary labour market (which encompassed all non-clerical posts).

Therefore, future manager’s careers was largely determined by the position they started in. Research on the position in which L&SWR’s Traffic Department managers started their railway careers is shown in the table below and the data is presented by the decade in which they joined the company.

Overall, only three of the seventy railway managers sampled started their careers on the secondary labour market (4.28%), two beginning as porters and one as a ticket inspector. Indeed, those who began their employment in clerical positions dominated.

However, one feature of the table that should be noted is that the proportion of future managers who started their L&SWR careers in positions higher in the hierarchy, for example clerk or chief clerk, diminished over the period. The proportion in the 1830s and 40s was 57.1%, while in the 1850s it was 83.3%. However, as the criteria to become a clerk became stricter, being increasingly restricted to school-leavers, these proportions declined, and only 40% of future managers joined the company in senior clerical positions in the 1860s. Therefore, by the1870s no future managers started in any position in the hierarchy above ‘Junior Clerk’, ‘Lad’ or ‘Messenger.’

The result of the policy of increasing restricting entrance into the PLM to school leavers was that as the railway industry matured the age most managers joined the company also declined through the decades. The table below shows the ages that seventy-one Traffic Department managers started their careers between 1850 and 1900. The data is sorted by the decade in which they joined the company.  

The future managers who had begun their L&SWR careers in the 1830s and 40s had a wide range of ages, with 46.7% joining the company when they were beyond their teenage years. But, because of the changes outlined above, the proportion joining above twenty years old diminished. In the 1850s it was 38.4% and in the 1860s 21.0%. Thereafter, all those who became middle or senior traffic managers on the L&SWR were in their teens when they joined the company.

The effect of these changes was that as the decades progressed, the length of time it took individuals to become middle or senior managers grew longer. The table below shows the average number of years that it took the managers to reach their first middle or senior management post. The data is collated according to the decade in which they reached that point.

While in some decades the sample sizes are small, and this would have affected the figures, there was a clear change in the 1880s. In the very early years of the L&SWR new middle or senior managers had on average only served the company for a short time.  While in the 1850s, 60s and 70s, individuals who were appointed to managerial posts had been employed for an average of between twelve and sixteen years. However, thereafter, all new middle or senior managers had been with the company above an average of twenty-five years.

Therefore, what the three sets of suggest is that there is a change in the starting position, starting age and length of career of new middle and senior managers around 1880. Before then managers could have begun their careers in fairly senior positions, above the age of twenty and would have gone into management after a short space of time. However, thereafter, new middle and senior managers had started their railway careers in their teens, usually in the position of junior clerk or lad, and had worked their way through the ranks of the company.

Therefore, the evidence shows that in the company’s early years, large numbers of people were appointed to more senior posts in the PLM, such as Clerk, Station Agent or Chief Clerk. This reflected the emergent nature of the industry and the fact that trained railway professionals were in short supply. Yet, as the company matured there were increasingly enough people being promoted up the hierarchy from below to fill any vacancies that appeared. Consequently, fewer people were appointed directly into higher positions. Consequently, after the 1870s the, only way to enter the company’s PLM, and have the chance of rising into management, was to join it out of school at the lowest point on the promotional ladder.

All data from company staff records, and the L&SWR’s Staff Magazine, ‘The South Western Gazette.’
↧

The Dynamics of Cab Fares from Waterloo Station in 1864

January 22, 2012, 8:40 am
$
0
0
Recently, I received through the post a map of the London and South Western Railway that I suspect was published around 1863 or 1864 as part of a publically sold timetable. The map itself is very interesting. However, on one reverse of the item was a list of all the ‘CAB FARES FROM WATERLOO STATION.’ From the industry’s birth the railways of Britain always established relationships with road transportation companies so that passengers could continue their journeys after leaving the station. Therefore, indulge me for this post while I deviate away from railways and analyse the fares that cabs charged between Waterloo and places in London.

The document (Shown) listed approximately 150 different destinations that cabs could take passengers to from Waterloo. Five fare prices were listed: six pence, one shilling, one shilling six pence and two shillings. Only a journey to the West India Docks cost two shillings six pence. Using this data, I thought I would investigate the cost of journeys per mile and determine which trips were the best value. I used the ‘get directions’ function of Google Maps to measure the distance of each journey. Of course, many roads have changed since 1864 and this means that my results are not as accurate as if I had a map of London from that year. Yet, given London is a very old city and many roads have not changed, I considered that this wasn’t a bad way to find the distances out. At the same time as measuring the journey’s distances, I noted in which direction they were going to reveal if this affected the fare prices.

After sampling 100 journeys, the results clearly showed that the fare structure for journeys of different distances was as follows:

Less than 1 mile (9 recoded): 6s
Between 1 and 1.9 miles (41 recorded): 1s
Between 2 and 2.9 miles (38 recorded): 1s 6d
Between 3 and 3.9 miles (11 recorded): 2d
Above 4 miles (1 recorded): 2s 6d

However, of the 100 fares to destinations surveyed, nine journeys had rates that existed outside this price structure. Some of these anomalous returns may just have been because of the distances provided by Google Maps. For example, the Corn Exchange on Mark Lane, two miles from Waterloo on Google Maps, cost 1s to get to. Also, the fare to get to the London Hospital, which was three miles away, was 1s 6d. Therefore, if these journeys had been just 0.1 of a mile shorter the fare quoted would have been correct for the distance.

Nevertheless, five out of the 100 fares seem to make no sense. The 1.7 mile journey from Waterloo to St John Church, Horsleydown, cost 1s 6d when it should have been 1s. Furthermore, the 2.6 mile journey to Cambridge Terrace cost 2s, when the correct price was 1s 6d. I cannot proffer an explanation for these fares, so their cause will have to remain a mystery.

From my research I have also determined that the longer an individual’s journey, the better value it was. This is illustrated by comparing the best and worst value journeys in the sample. If we exclude the anomalous results, the best value journey was to Shoreditch Station, which was 2.9 miles from Waterloo and cost 1s 6d. This meant travellers on this route paid 6.24d per mile. The most expensive cab rides were those that cost 1s for a 1 mile trip. These went to Freemason’s Tavern (now Arms) in Covent Garden, Charing Cross Station and the Bank of England (now the Old Bank of England pub) on the Strand.

Furthermore, I worked out the average price of all the journeys in each distance range. This further confirmed my thesis that the further an individual went, the more value they received. The averages per mile for journeys in each distance range are as follows:

Less than a mile: 7.83d/mile
Between 1 and 1.9 miles: 8.53d/mile
Between 2 and 2.9 miles: 7.90d/mile
Between 3 and 3.9 miles: 7.05d/mile
Above 4 miles: 6.52d/mile

Lastly, I wished to look at whether the cost per mile of journeys was affected by the direction of travel, for example South East, North, etc. The results shown in the table clearly suggest that they were not.

With exception of cabs going to the South and South West of London, for each of the directions of travel the range in the cost of journeys was large. This suggests that price structure above was applied across London. This is confirmed by looking at the average cost per mile for the journeys in each direction. The highest average cost per mile was found on journeys to the North and West of London (8.16d). Whereas, those cabs going to the South and South West of London cost the least per mile (7.32d).  However, this latter result may have been affected by the small sample size. Therefore, given the difference between the highest and lowest average cost per mile was small, only 0.84d, and because the lowest average cost per mile was because of a limited sample size, it again confirms that the fare structure was the same for journeys going in every direction.

Overall, I can say that unless passengers were lucky enough to travel to a place for which the fare was especially good value for money, cab rates from Waterloo were standardised based on the distance of the journey. Furthermore, the direction passengers travelled did not affect how much they paid for conveyance. The only variable in the cab fares was that those going further were paying less per mile for their travel.

Lastly, as this is a railway blog, I thought I would end with a minute from the London and South Western Railway’s Traffic Committee that amused me. On the 10November 1886 it recorded:

‘The General Manager recommended that W.C. Accommodation be provided in the above arch [at Waterloo] for the use of the cabmen at a cost of about £45.’[1]
                                                                Approved

-----------

[1] The National Archives, RAIL 411/255, Traffic Committee Minute Book, Minute No. 1091, 10November 1886
↧

"It has long been considered necessary" - The London and South Western Railway Orphanage - Part 1

January 29, 2012, 1:26 am
$
0
0
In the mid-Victorian period a strong community spirit grew amongst railway workers of all grades, with one of the most community-orientated railway companies to work for being the London and South Western Railway (L&SWR). Its employees banded together to form a Widows and Orphans Fund in 1861 to support families of railway workers who had been killed on the railways.[1]  Furthermore, the company’s staff magazine, The South Western Gazette, was established by railway workers to support this charitable cause.[2] Yet, if the father and husband had not subscribed to the fund, in the event they were killed at work their families were did not receive any money from it. Thus, with the support of many of the L&SWR’s managers and employees, the ‘London and South Western Railway Servants’ Orphanage’ was established in early 1886 to support these railwaymen's children.

Prior to 1886 there was only one orphanage for railway worker’s children in Britain, run by Midland Railway employees at Derby from 1875 and housing children from all over the country.[3] In November 1883 a letter to TheHampshire Advertiser noted that the daughter of William Parker, a L&SWR platelayer who had been killed the year before, had been admitted this home.[4] Like the L&SWR employee’s orphanage would be, the Derby institution was independent from the Midland Railway and was run on voluntary contributions.[5] Yet, by1883 it was reaching capacity and this fact may have been the impetus for an orphanage being started for the children of L&SWR employees.[6]

In 1884 the Rev. Canon Allen Edwards, who was known as the ‘railwaymen’s parson’, set about raising support and funds.[7] An article in the Gazette in January 1885 noted that many important individuals, both inside and outside the railway company, had already volunteered contributions. The list included names such as the company’s ex-General Manager, Archibald Scott, its Deputy Chairman, Wyndam S. Portal, the Right Honourable the Lord Cairns, and the Bishop of Winchester. In total, twenty-one notable individuals had given financial support, with nine individuals pledging to contribute in the future. The goal of the orphanage was given as the following:

‘It has long been considered necessary that a home should be provided for the orphans of men who, at the time of their death, were in the service of the London and South Western Railway Company, leaving families unprovided for, such accident being the result of accident or natural cause.’

The orphanage’s organisation was headed by a small committee of railwaymen, none of whom were L&SWR managers. Furthermore, there were sub-committees at each of the principal stations to put up children as candidates for entry into the home. These candidates were voted on by the subscribers, who each received a vote for each five shilling donation to the orphanage. The regional committees were also responsible for raising funds for the orphanage’s operations and the sending of a representative to the central committee.[8]

The orphanage opened in March 1886 at a private house in Jeffreys Road, Clapham; the initial intake being ‘ten fatherless girls’ under the age of fourteen.[9] The next elections for entry came in October 1886 and the Gazettelisted the circumstances of eight children who had been candidates for entry. The circumstances of the three that successfully entered the home were as follows:

1. Nellie Short, Father, a porter was killed in 1885. Mother has seven children, one in service; the rest she provides for by her own labour. – 504 votes
2. Ellen Elizabeth Hicks, Father, a brakesman, died in 1886. Mother has three young children and provides for them almost entirely by her own labour. – 412 votes
3. Edith Flora Burningham, Father a horse inspector died in February this year. Mother has eight children, three of whom are earning a little money. – 266 votes[10]

As the number of children in the home increased more space was required. Thus, the orphanage committee acquired the house next door in 1894, allowing it to accommodate a total of fifty girls. Yet, by this point it was felt that a home for boys was required, and a year later another house in Jeffreys Road was purchased, which by the start of 1896 was housing twenty-six boys. But the number of orphanages housed continued rising and in 1900 the committee purchased a larger house in Guildford Road, South Lambeth, to which all the girls transferred.[11]

While many of these developments were funded by the contributions of railway workers, large donations were made by individuals from within the railway company. The General Manager of the company between 1885 and 1897, Sir Charles Scotter, and his wife, Annie, were major supporters of the orphanage. The new home for boys in 1895 was purchased with a donation of 100 guineas from Scotter and for this reason Annie’s name was on the building.[12] Furthermore, the new home for girls in 1900 was purchased with a contribution of 500 guineas from the L&SWR’s directors.[13] Lastly, funds were also raised through fairs, such as one at Basingstoke in 1887,[14] and concerts, for example one the Duchess of Albany attended at Eastleigh in 1892.[15] Thus, the activities supporting the orphanage exemplified the community spirit that existed within the L&SWR between railway workers themselves, and between the company’s management and their employees.

By the early 1900s the two homes were again reaching capacity and a new site was sought. Indeed, with £2,800 bequeathed from Mr Thomas Parker Harvey a new orphanage was opened in Woking in 1909. The building of this institution, and its work in the 1920s, will be the subject of the next post.[16]

--------

[1] South Western Gazette, 7 July 1888, p.4
[2] South Western Gazette, June 1881, p.5
[3]http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=026-d3732&cid=0#0
[4] The Hampshire Advertiser, Saturday, November 24, 1883; pg. 6; Issue 3907
[5] South Western Gazette, December 1886, p.187
[6] The Hampshire Advertiser, Saturday, November 24, 1883; pg. 6; Issue 3907
[7] Unknown Author, ‘London and South Western Servants Orphanage’, South Western Railway Magazine, Vol. VII No. 70 (January, 1921), p.2
[8] South Western Gazette, January 1885, p.3
[9] Unknown Author, ‘London and South Western Servants Orphanage’, p.2
[10] South Western Gazette, December 1886, p.187
[11] Unknown Author, ‘London and South Western Servants Orphanage’, p.2-3
[12] South Western Gazette, 1 January, 1911, p.9
[13] Unknown Author, ‘London and South Western Servants Orphanage’, p.2-3
[14] The Hampshire Advertiser, Wednesday, July 20, 1887; pg. 2; Issue 4288
[15] The Hampshire Advertiser, Saturday, April 09, 1892; pg. 8; Issue 4782
[16] Unknown Author, ‘London and South Western Servants Orphanage’, p.2-3
↧
↧

"In No Way Were the Children Stinted" - The London and South Western Railway Orphanage - Part 2

February 5, 2012, 5:28 am
$
0
0
My last post looked at the early years of the London and South Western Railway (L&SWR) Servant’s Orphanage . The orphanage was an embodiment of the community spirit that existed within the railway company, as it was established by, and received contributions from, the company’s employees, managers and directors.  I left the story in the early 1900s when a new home was required because the two sites, in Jeffreys Road, Clapham, and Guildford Road, South Lambeth, were reaching capacity. This post describes the new home built in Woking and what went on inside. Indeed, the L&SWR's staff magazine, The South Western Magazine, published a detailed article on the institution in 1921 and it is from this that my information is taken.
 
Building - The new home was cited next to the South Western main line on 7.5 acres of land between the Oriental Institute and Woking Station. This land had been purchased from the London Necropolis Company for £2,800, using money that had been bequeathed to the orphanage by the late Thomas Parker Harvey of Clapham.  Soon after, in October 1907, the foundation stone was laid by one of the orphanage’s great supporters, H.R.H. Duchess of Albany. Opened in 1909, the total cost of the building was £30,000 and it was designed by a local architect, Mr. E.C. Hughes of Wokingham,

Organisation - In 1921 the orphanage was managed by a board of L&SWR staff, consisting of men from all districts, departments and grades of employment. Furthermore, the South Western network, which stretched from Waterloo to the West Country, was split up into eleven districts, all of which possessed a committee elected by subscribers and which had a secretary. The main board was formed from these secretaries and an extra representative for every 250 subscribers. This meant that the board of management constituted (and I was not going to count them) over sixty members and this was headed by an elected chairman. In 1921 the post was held by Mr D.J. Radmoore, chief yard inspector at the Nine Elms Goods Depot. In the magazine’sopinion ‘Mr Radmoore is a very keen worker for the orphanage, and is never happier than when he is joining in some scheme for the pleasure and benefit of the children.’

Local Committees - The orphanage’s operation relied heavily on the work of the regional committees. Primarily, they were to raise funds for it. Indeed, the formation of a new London committee in 1920 had brought over 3,800 additional subscribers and had organised many fund-raising concerts. One of the oldest committees was that at Southampton, which in the summers of 1919 and 1920 had invited the orphanage’s children to the town for the weekend. ‘Sports and entertainments’ were run, with prizes being awarded. At night the children were taken to the homes of railwaymen ‘where they enjoy every hospitality.’ Furthermore, the committees also arranged trips for the children to local attractions, such St. Paul’s Cathedral and The Tower of London, as well as staged concerts for them at the home.

Furthermore, there was also a ladies committee that co-ordinated with the matron to see to the purchasing of ‘clothing and other matters that hardly come into the province of the general house committee.’ The 'ladies' also presided once a week over a sweet stall where the children could buy ‘wholesome confectionery.’

Staff– The Superintendent in 1921 was A. E. Smith, who had been previously been on the board of management.  The magazine commented that under his leadership the orphanage had been described as ‘one of the best managed in the country.’ He was supported by a matron, Miss Core, who had spent her whole life in the ‘institution world’ and had been at Woking for eleven years. Additionally, Miss Love was Assistant Matron and had been one of the first girls to enter the orphanage in 1886 when it was still at Jeffreys Road, Clapham.

The Building– This was two stories high. On the ground floor there were boys and girl’s classrooms, washing lavatories, hat, coat and boot rooms, and dining hall to seat 200 people. There were also a kitchen, sculleries and larders. Furthermore, there was a library, supported by the orphanage’s honorary treasurer, Cecil W. Carrington, which was described as ‘one of the finest in the country. Indeed, while having no link with the railway company at all, Carrington had helped raise money for ‘The Children’s Fund,’ which allowed the construction of a sports ground and pavilion. He also built the drill hall and a fully equipped carpenters shop. On the first floor there were four dormitories, bath rooms and staff rooms. Lastly, four dormitories were lcoated on the second floor, as well as the infirmary.
 
Work– The children's daily activities were varied. Each day the boys played cricket or football, and by 1921 the the orphanage had won four cups playing others from local schools. On the left of the building was the girls’ playground which was equipped with swings, and on the summer they played tennis and ‘other games’. However, in times of inclement weather, all the children used the drill hall in the grounds to play. Next to this was the carpenters shop, which was equipped with benches, tools and two lathes, and the boys were under the tuition of Mr Jones, an instructor at a local secondary school. Furthermore, there was a large field that was loaned to the orphanage on which the boys learned to grow vegetables.

The children were educated at a local elementary school and its headmaster, Mr E.H. Gower, took an interest in the home and was on its board of management. In 1921 four boys from the home in had obtained a scholarship to secondary school, with one girl obtaining a free place at the Girls’ Country School in Guildford to train as a teacher. In cases such as these the individuals would be allowed to stay on at the home until their schooling was finished.
 
Living - Each child had their own bed in a dormitory, some of which were dedicated to an individual who gave £100 or more to the orphanage. Each dormitory was overseen by a member of staff who slept in a cubical and who monitored the younger and sick children. During winter months activities happened in the dormitories before bed time. For example, ‘lantern lectures’ were given by friends, concerts were arranged, and children were provided with all they needed to study, read or play dominoes. Alternatively, on many occasions the children huddled round pianos to sing.

The health of the children at the home was considered good by all. This was partially because of a good diet that was considered one of the most varied of any similar institution in the country. Indeed, the magazine commented that during the shortages of the First World War the food standard was maintained and ‘in no way were the children stinted’.  The laundry was all done on site by means of hot air chambers, and a disabled ex-serviceman was employed to repair the children’s boots, a task that kept him busy all day.

‘After Care’ Committee –The magazine commented that ‘the Board of Management has given thoughtful and sympathetic consideration to the question of following up the children’s careers and conditions after they leave the orphanage.’ Thus, ‘After-Care’ committees had been set up in each district of the L&SWR’s system. As soon as a child left the orphanage, the secretary of the district in which they were going to reside was advised. He would then make periodical visits to see how they were faring. The ‘After Care’ committee then met once a quarter to review the cases and if action was required the matter would be presented to the board. However, when the children reached an certain age limit, which was not stated, they were judged to 'have been prepared morally, physically and educationally to earn their living in the world.’ They were then fitted out with an outfit valued at £30 and the orphanage’s job was then considered over.
 
Clearly, the L&SWR orphanage at Woking was one of the best supported and run in the country in 1921. Indeed, its existence was a testament to the fact that within the railway company there was a community spirit amongst workers, managers and directors. All involved with the company cared about their colleagues and families, whether they knew them or not, and this is perhaps something we have lost in modern business.

All information taken from: Author’s Collection, South Western Railway Magazine, January 1921, p.1-8
↧

Guest Post by Keith Harcourt - TurnipRail's 2 Year Anniversary

February 14, 2012, 12:00 am
$
0
0
For today's two year anniversary of TurnipRail, I asked a number of people who I hugely respect to write short pieces for the Blog. Many thanks to Keith Harcourt, Academic Liaison Officer for the Historical Model Railway Society, for the first post. I've known Keith for only a short while, however, in this period I have come to truly admire his commitment to spreading academic research on the railways. Indeed, only recently he started his own excellent blog 'The Railway Servant', which I really recommend you check out. I am sure you will find Keith's post as fascinating as I did, so, over to him:

I am delighted to be able to write in support of the second anniversary of Turniprail.  Some figures in railway history have introduced new ways of communicating for a variety of reasons and I shall instance one here.  What David has done is to introduce us a 21st century way of spreading our research and that seems to me to be very important.

Pic 1) LMS Film Poster For Staff Notice Boards

When the London, Midland and Scottish Railway (LMS) was formed in 1923, it was an amalgam of individual companies each with their separate working practices, management traditions and machinery.  Mr E. J. H Lemon, Vice-President from January 1932, had seen the strain that a lack of cohesion in the workforce had put on the LMS. On November 21st, 1933, he wrote to the President, Lord Stamp, “Whilst our publicity for public purposes has developed in step more or less with modern conditions, I am afraid that publicity or propaganda for staff purposes has not kept pace with the times. This has been forcibly brought home to me by the reception which has been given to the ‘Royal Scot’ film presentations at various centres recently, e.g. at Crewe the enthusiasm of the railwaymen was simply astonishing. It seems to me, therefore, that we shall have to pursue a policy which will awaken the interest of and develop the esprit de corps of our staff… we must let them see what the railway means in all its workings.”[1]

From this small beginning a yearly programme of film showings, mainly in hired halls or suitable railway premises developed. Posters (Pic 1) were distributed and as Lemon had observed at Crewe the films were very popular. However, with such a huge route mileage as that of the LMS there were still places where films needed to be shown, but because of their remoteness and lack of facilities this was difficult. Undeterred, in 1936, Lemon obtained agreement for the conversion of old sleeping carriages into mobile cinemas. (Pic 2)

Pic 2) The Interior of the first cinema coach
The use of film on the LMS was not solely confined to the development of staff morale however. H.G. Smith, Lemon’s secretary from 1932 to his departure from the railway in 1942, recorded in a diary of “The Achievements of Mr Lemon” [2] (which can now be consulted at the Archive of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers), that the film medium was to be used: “…to instruct the staff in the correct method of carrying out their work”.  The mobile units were deemed especially useful in this regard.

When the LMS School of Transport in Derby opened in 1938 it had a specially designed Lecture Theatre with a proper projection suite and in the development of the curriculum film was specifically mentioned as a medium of instruction. (Pic. 3)

Pic 3) The LMS School of Transport Lecture Theatre as it was on opening
For film in the 1930s, substitute the Internet, YouTube and Blogs. David, with Lemon and others, has shown us that in order to develop ideas, learn from each other and promulgate archival research, we need to use the most modern communications media available.  Happy Second Birthday to Turniprail and as the LMS announcer might have said, “Long may it continue to prosper.,”

References

[1]Lemon, E.J.H. “LMS Film Propaganda” Memorandum to the President. 21st November, 1933. The Lemon Papers held in the Archive of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.
[2] Smith, H.G. “The Achievements of Mr Lemon”. The Lemon Papers held in the Archive of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.

Picture Sources:

1) Author's Collection
2) Railway Gazette
3) Railway Gazette
↧

TurnipRail 2 year Anniversary - The Best of the Second Year

February 14, 2012, 4:00 am
$
0
0
What a couple of years it has been. As I write, my Turnip Rail website hosts 213 posts on a range of railway history topics. However, despite what I have produced, the past year, and especially the last six months, has not been one of the easiest periods in my life. In September I began suffering from anxiety, which has affected my ability to work and, I think, the quality of my output. I also broke my toe around the same time - which I'll only say was annoying. Gladly, both these problems are mostly resolved. Nevertheless, in the last couple of months I have gone through a process of a work restructure. Therefore, I have been made redundant and will have to re-interview for a job in the coming months. Consequently, combined with an increasing work-load from my PhD (which has until late September to be submitted) I have been reduced to doing a post a week.

Despite these things, I hope I have turned out posts which you have found entertaining and interesting. I have certainly enjoyed researching and writing them. So, in this anniversary post I have randomly chosen some of my favourites from the past year. 

1. “When Victorian Beer Trains Crash”– In some sense, this post from April explored the link between the railways and the brewing industry.  Indeed, I looked at some of the interesting ways that crashed beer trains were reported. I was unsurprised that the newspaper reports always seemed to have humorous remarks, this being the funniest:  “Alcohol can thus baffle her Majesty’s mail as well as her Majesty’s Government.”[1] However, what was particularly interesting was that the majority of the accidents I found befell Midland Railway trains coming from Burton. This was logical though, Burton being the centre of the Victorian brewing industry.

2. “The York Tap - A piece of railway heritage restored”– OK, this is another beer-related post, but in a different way. A trip to York in early December meant I had the pleasure of going into the York Tap, a pub sited on the York Station platform. In the post I described how the building the Tap inhabits was opened in 1907 as the station’s tea room, and its recent conversion to a pub restored the building to its former glory. I love the Tap and would recommend a visit to anyone.

3. “Unlocking the Early Railway Manager – Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4” (The link is to Part One) – Using three directories of railway officials from 1841, 1847 and 1848, these four articles sought to investigate the validity of a long-held belief that early railway managers were mainly ex-military men, as well as look at early managers generally. However, rather than presenting four finished pieces of research as I normally do in posts, I set out to describe how this investigation progressed over the period of a few weeks. The results were startling and should change the content of railway history books in the future. Firstly, I concluded that ‘the notion that military men were the driving force in early railway management is erroneous,’ given that they constituted a tiny proportion of all railway managers. Secondly, in 1848 the three great engineers of the period, Brunel, Locke and Stephenson, directly controlled  the engineering affairs of 28.81% of Britain’s railway companies. Yet, even more impressively, engineering matters for 59.13% of all Britain’s total railway mileage was under their collective charge. These are important findings and I would like to do much more work on this subject in the future.

4. “A New High-Speed Line, an Old Victorian Assumption?”– I got some interesting reactions to this post which simply highlighted something I observed. The building of Britain’s second high-speed line (HS2) was being promoted by its supporters as adding capacity to the railway network, as the number of passengers using the railways is predicted to massively grow in the future. I suggested that if you talked to any railway manager before 1900 they too would have said that traffic growth was inevitable. Yet, the expected growth didn’t occur, and after 1900 the number of passengers using the railways levelled off and then began falling. All I did was compare the two situations, observing that this part of railway history shows us that passenger traffic growth can be hard to predict. I will state this now, I did not post this because I necessarily oppose HS2; I posted it only as a consideration. I will not reveal my position on HS2, because I don't think getting political is what my blog is about.

5. “‘Crabbed, morose and irritable’ - One Liverpool Man's Complaints Against the L&NWR in 1867”– This was a post that discussed of six long letters that ‘A CONTRACTOR’ wrote to the Liverpool Mercury in 1867 complaining about the station facilities of the London and North Western Railway. The station that received the most criticism was at Huyton Quarry, which he argued ‘might be a station in Chancery, so out-of-elbows does it look, or belong to some bankrupt company, who could not afford a few pounds to put in a tolerably descent condition.’[2] Generally, these letters were just interesting insights into how the public felt about railway managers at the time and the services they received.

6. Lastly, I have done three posts this year about the first sixteen female clerks to be employed at the London and North Western Railway’s Birmingham Curzon Street Station between 1874 and 1876. The first in August looked at how the company’s decision was reported in the press. Indeed, the newspapers detailed the basic facts of their employment, for example, whose decision it was, the company’s attitude, their working environment and their pay. However, on Ancestry.co.uk releasing digitised railway staff records, I was able to look these women up and do some detailed statistical analysis of their employment. In two following posts (HERE and HERE) I examined the women’s ages, promotional prospects, length of employment and pay. Indeed, on this latter point I found that up until their eighth year they received the same pay as the men, at which point it was curtailed. This was a very interesting finding, showing that the newspapers at the time were wrong when they said that the employment female clerks was immediately going to reduce company costs.

Overall, I cannot say these were my absolute favourite posts, yet, they are definitely near the top. I strive hard in my blog to pass on entertaining and interesting pieces of railway history, things I find, and elements of my PhD. In return I have received a lot of love, complementary comments and warmth. I just want to thank all my readers so much for your support this year. My blog wouldn't have been a success without you all reading, re-tweeting and re-posting, and for that I am eternally grateful.

-----------
[1] Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, Sunday, August 10, 1873; Issue 1603
[2] Liverpool Mercury, Tuesday, November 12, 1867; Issue 6175

↧
Search

Gourvish and Wolmar - TurnipRail's 2 Year Anniversary - Guest Posts

February 14, 2012, 9:00 am
$
0
0
This is the last TurnipRail Two-year anniversary post, and I am glad to say I finish off with two prestigious guest posters, Terry Gourvish and Christian Wolmar.



Kevin Tennent, Me and Terry at Battersea Beer Festival, 2011
Terry Gourvish:On the first day of my PhD, my supervisor he handed me a book: 'Mark Huish and the London and North Western Railway.' I consumed it, gaining a fondness for a subject which, at that point, I knew little about. But beyond that, I was in awe of the author: Terry Gourvish. On our first meeting I was star-struck. Oh how things have changed. Indeed, over a pint in the Golden Ball, York, it was partially his idea to start the blog. Terry's had an extensive career. His two-volume history of British Railways is unsurpassed, and he authored the Official History of the privatised railways between 1997 and 2005  and the Channel Tunnel. Furthermore, he has written countless articles on railway history, a comprehensive history of Britain's brewing industry and on business history generally. He now heads the London School of Economics' Business History Unit. Indeed, Terry is someone I look up to immensely. Thus, I was overjoyed when he agreed to write a piece for the blog, and for that I owe him much thanks.


Should Passengers Pay Higher Fares?
This issue comes up every year, and produces the same sterile arguments from the main protagonists: Passenger Focus, ATOC, et al. How much of the cost of running the passenger railway should be charged to the ‘fare box’ is, of course, a matter for public policy. Some countries, e.g. France and Italy, have historically charged more to tax-payers than we do in the UK. If that is justifiable, then passengers should pay less here too. On the other hand, in countries which load the burden onto tax-payers, the operation represents a subsidy to rail users, who are in general not the poorer members of society that subsidies really ought to reach. I would say that increasing the fare box via higher fares is justifiable, but only if: 1] railway costs are as low as they could be; and 2] journeys made on the spur of the moment, i.e. non-APEX fares, are not punitively high.

Can we say that this is so? 

Christian Wolmar: Well, what can be said about Christian Wolmar that hasn't been said already? Christian is Britain's leading transport commentator, popping up on TV and Radio almost every week. But more than that, he has written widely about railway issues and history. The first book of his I read, many moons ago, was the 'Subterranean Railway', his engaging account of the history of the London Tube. Subsequently, I have consumed most of his other books, including 'Fire and Steam', 'On the Wrong Line' and 'Engines of War.' I also am an avid reader of his fortnightly column in RAIL magazine. Therefore, as an author whose writings I have thoroughly enjoyed through the years, I was thrilled when he agreed to write a paragraph for this anniversary. Many, many, thanks to Christian:

Without understanding history,we cannot learn its lessons. In the research for my various books, it is remarkable how the same dilemmas over railway politics have occurred throughout their history. Italian politicians, for example, were debating whether to nationalise their railways in the 1880s, and interestingly it was the Left who opposed state control. Discussions over open access to railways predate that by some decades and nearly all rail companies realised that providing the traction as well as the track was the best option, a lesson of history missed by those who supported the rail privatisation of the mid 1990s. Subsidy, too, has always been a thorny issue and subject to much handwringing from politicians. If only they understood the history and learned from it, they would not make the same mistakes as their predecessors. Maybe that is too much to hope for, but as historians – and I have become one by default – we must strive to educate today’s decision makers about how the past can inform them.
↧
↧

'The Railway Company do not want it.' - The L&SWR's Purchase of the Southampton Docks

February 19, 2012, 3:36 am
$
0
0
One of the biggest events in the London and South Western Railway’s (L&SWR) history was the company’s purchase of the Southampton Dock Company (SDC) in 1892. This was not just important for the company, in that it secured the company’s traffic flows, but it also turned Southampton into one of the world’s great trading ports by World War One.

Originally, in the 1830s the London and Southampton Railway (which would become the L&SWR) had been promoted with a docks portion attached to the plan. However, for various reasons, in 1835 the two projects were split into separate railway and dock companies, forcing each to become liable for their own profit and losses. Yet, throughout its history the L&SWR relied on the Dock Company for a large portion of its traffic. As Charles Scotter, the L&SWR’s General Manager, stated in 1892, the railway had ‘no interest in any other port’ and it was ‘entirely in the interest of the L&SWR to develop trade at the port.’[1]

However, by the mid-1880s the L&SWR was a successful company, despite internal management problems, while the SDC was losing money because of poor management. This was because it did not possess a deep water dock that could accommodate the newest and largest kinds of vessels, and its dock-side technology was antiquated. Scotter stated that in his opinion the Docks at Southampton were ‘twenty or thirty years behind nearly every other port in the country.’[2]

Thus, major shipping companies were removing their business from the docks. The L&SWR’s staff magazine, TheSouth Western Gazette,reported in August 1882 that the Union Steam Ship Company had removed their services from the port and the L&SWR’s General Manager at the time, Archibald Scott, was negotiating with Peninsular and Oriental (P&O) for them to stay there. The Gazettereported that 'traffic...is rapidly and surely declining...' and '...dock companies were availing '...themselves of the dock accommodation which London [Docks] alone can supply...’[3]  This was problematic for the L&SWR. In the five years between 1881 and 1886 the tonnage of goods coming through the docks as a percentage of the total hauled on the L&SWR dropped from 16.92 per cent to 9.88 per cent. 

Ultimately, the SDC did not have the capital or capital raising ability to make the improvements to attract trade back to the port. Its declining profitability meant that the dividend it paid fell from £2.00 per ordinary share in 1881, to nothing in 1885.[4] This affected the level of capital that the dock company could attract and its Chairman, Steuart McNaughten, revealed in 1892 that the capital the company was authorised to raise totalled £2,037,547, but that £386,298 had not materialised. Thus, the L&SWR was faced with one its main sources of traffic rapidly heading towards ruin, with no hope of a revival of its fortunes without external help.[5]
Firstly, in 1886 the L&SWR lent a financial hand to the Dock Company. In 1885 the dock company and the Corporation of Southampton attempted to pass an act of parliament whereby the Corporation would lend the SDC £220,000 for a new deep water dock.'[6] This failed, and later that year the SDC made an agreement with the L&SWR which effectively turned it into a vassal state of the railway company. The L&SWR would raise a stock of £250,000 which would be subscribed to the SDC, and the money would be spent on a deep water dock and all necessary equipment. Additionally, four L&SWR directors would sit on the Dock Company’s board and all designs and works were to be approved by the L&SWR engineer. There would also be the option, for fairness sake, for the Great Western Railway to come in on the agreement within three years.[7]

The bill passed in May 1886[8] and the new “Empress Dock was opened on 26th July 1890 by Queen Victoria. However, it was without equipment of any sort and required £200,000 to £300,000 extra to make it fully functional.[9] Furthermore, the L&SWR’s investment had not improved the dock’s trade significantly.  In the seven years between 1886 and 1891 the goods coming through the Southampton Dock Company as a percentage of the total goods the hauled on the L&SWR had only marginally increased to 12.13 per cent. Indeed, this had fallen from a higher point of 13.89 per cent in 1889. Yet, by 1890 all the money agreed to have been spent, despite the L&SWR raising £50,000 extra in 1889. Furthermore, the SDC had been unable to raise any new capital through a second preference issue in 1891 of £84,000, of which only £34,265 was subscribed.[10]

Again facing ruin, the SDC’s proprietors acted. At an Annual General Meeting in February 1891 a motion passed that 'the directors be requested to open negotiations with the London and South Western Railway Company with a view to taking over the Docks.'[11] Yet, the L&SWR was clearly reluctant to do this. In 1891 the L&SWR’s Chairman, Dutton, wrote to the Dock Company stating, 'it should be distinctly understood that the Railway Company are not to be regarded as in any sense seeking to acquire the Docks...'[12] Furthermore, in 1892 at the Parliamentary enquiry into the L&SWR’s purchase, Scotter was asked if 'this was the sort of harbour which should be handed over to a railway company rather than be kept in the public interest?' His response was that 'The Railway Company do not want it.'[13]

Yet, the railway company had no option than to purchase the docks, save it from ruin and secure their traffic flows. Dutton’s letter to the SDC’s board stated that the L&SWR would acquire the docks 'in the belief that it would be an advantage to the Dock Company and to the trade generally of the town of Southampton.'[14] Yet, Scotter was more categorical about the reasons for the purchase. After his above response was asked 'then why do you take it [the docks]?'  He replied the acquisition was imperative 'because we see that the trade of the town and of the port will diminish unless we do.'[15]

The take-over of the Docks received Royal Assent in July 1892,[16] the transfer of control being active from the 21 October 1892.[17] Over the next eighteen years the L&SWR expended 26.96 per of its capital improving and expanding the docks, vastly increasing the trade flowing through them.[18] Indeed, the L&SWR’s purchase saved the docks and eventually turned Southampton into one of the nation’s great trading ports.

--------

[1] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 1066/2735, Parliamentary Bills and Minutes of Evidence, etc., Southampton Docks, 1892, Mr Charles Scotter, 2 May 1892, p.104
[2] TNA, RAIL 1066/2735, Parliamentary Bills and Minutes of Evidence, etc., Southampton Docks, 1892, Mr Charles Scotter, 2 May 1892, No. 1004 p.107
[3] South Western Gazette, August 1882, pp.4-5
[4] TNA, RAIL 1066/2735, Parliamentary Bills and Minutes of Evidence, etc., Southampton Docks, 1892, Mr Steuart McNaughten, 28 April 1892, p.24
[5] TNA, RAIL 1066/2735, Parliamentary Bills and Minutes of Evidence, etc., Southampton Docks, 1892, Mr Steuart McNaughten, 28 April 1892, Nos.5 and 6 p.3
[6] TNA, RAIL 411/7, L&SWR Court of Directors Minute Book, 26 March 1885, Minute No.1675
[7] TNA, RAIL 411/211, L&SWR Special Committee Minute Book, 28 October 1885
[8] TNA, RAIL 411/7, L&SWR Court of Directors Minute Book, 13 May 1886, Minute No.1982
[9] TNA, RAIL 1066/2735, Parliamentary Bills and Minutes of Evidence, etc., Southampton Docks, 1892, Mr Steuart McNaughten, 28 April 1892, No.139, p.34
[10] TNA, RAIL 1066/2735, Parliamentary Bills and Minutes of Evidence, etc., Southampton Docks, 1892, Mr Steuart McNaughten, 28 April 1892, No.15 p.4
[11] TNA, RAIL 870/4, General Meetings of the Southampton Dock Company, 17 February 1891, p.114
[12] TNA, RAIL 870/22, Southampton Dock Company, Court of Directors, 1 October 1891, p.294
[13] TNA, RAIL 1066/2735, Parliamentary Bills and Minutes of Evidence, etc., Southampton Docks, 1892, Mr Charles Scotter, 2 May 1892, No. 1259 p.135
[14] TNA, RAIL 870/22, Southampton Dock Company, Court of Directors, 1 October 1891, p.294
[15] TNA, RAIL 1066/2735, Parliamentary Bills and Minutes of Evidence, etc., Southampton Docks, 1892, Mr Charles Scotter, 2 May 1892, No. 1260 p.135
[16] TNA, RAIL 411/8, L&SWR Court of Directors Minute Book, 7th July 1892, Minute No.1118
[17] Pannell, J.P.M, Old Southampton Shores, (Newton Abbot, 1967) p.127
[18] TNA, RAIL 1110/283/RAIL 1110/284, L&SWR Reports and Accounts, 1880-1923
↧

"Stone Cold Ginger Beer" - The Station Refreshment Room after 1870 - Part 1

February 26, 2012, 7:12 am
$
0
0
In September last year I did a post for the excellent Victorianist Blog on the subject of nineteenth century railway station refreshment rooms. Indeed, high-profile criticisms of their food and service were frequent in the period. In 1867 in Mugby Junction, Dickens described the ‘The pork and veal pies, with their bumps of delusive promise and their little cubes of gristle and bad fat; the scalding infusion, satirically called tea, the stale bath buns with their veneer of furniture polish; the sawdusty sandwiches, so frequently and energetically condemned.’[1] Anthony Trollope commented that, ‘the real disgrace of England is the railway sandwich – that withered sepulchre, fair enough outside, but so meagre, poor and spiritless within.’[2] Additionally, in 1856 Dickens commented on the services at Peterborough: ‘The lady in the refreshment room…gave me a cup of tea, as if I were a hyena and she my cruel keeper with a strong dislike to me.’[3] Indeed, this was the basis for the satire in Mugby Junction.[4]

However, to my mind these opinions of station refreshment rooms are problematic as they all came from before 1870. Indeed, in the Victorianist post I highlighted this fact and postulated that because I was unaware of criticism of refreshment rooms after 1870 it implied that ‘an improvement in their quality in the later railway industry and…an increasing professionalism in the services that the companies’ provided.’[5] I based this assumption on the fact that many railways began to employ professional refreshment room contractors after 1870. Indeed, Messrs Spiers and Pond were contracted to run refreshment rooms for numerous railway companies including the Metropolitan, South Eastern, London, Chatham and Dover and London and South Western Railways. Thus, by 1925 they controlled over 200 rooms.[6]

Yet, I was still making a massive assumption that refreshment rooms actually improved. Consequently, I began searching after 1870 for any comment on their quality. My findings showed that contrary to my initial theory, refreshment rooms continued to be complained about.

Unsurprisingly, food and drink at refreshment rooms was criticised frequently. When in 1900 Mr E. Thompson Smith of the Colchester Brewing Company applied for an alcohol licence for a proposed hotel opposite the Great Eastern Railway’s Station at Thorpe, he suggested the refreshment room provided ‘a ginger biscuit and an antiquated sausage roll.’[7] In another case, a retired detective in 1887 recalled ‘getting a bad egg and some wasby coffee.’[8] In 1894 the London and North Western Railway was fined 20 shillings and costs for selling milk at a refreshment room that was constituted of twenty per cent cream.[9] In 1900 the magazine Outlook commented on the ‘stone cold ginger beer’ and stewed tea.[10] Lastly, ‘A DAILY TRAVELLER’ in 1884 stated that the only thing of quality that could be found in refreshment rooms were ‘beer and spirits.’ To his mind;

‘the coffee is made of essence, which is poured into the cup by guess and then a plash of water added carelessly, sometimes making the cup run over, and without its having ascertained if the water is boiling. The tea is kept in a sort of concentrated decoction, and served in the same careless way.’ [11]

Jokes were also found in this period, such as this from 1892:

Traveller: “My friend, there’s no meat in this sandwich”
Waitress: “No?”
Traveller: “Don’t you think you’d better give that pack another shuffle and let me draw again?”[12]

In addition to the food, the quality of the environments within refreshment rooms were frequently referred to. At the Highland Railway’s half-yearly meeting of shareholders in 1894, a Mr Dingwall drew attention to the lack of cleanliness in the company’s rooms.[13] In 1899 a meal at a Masonic Bazaar was referred to as possibly becoming ‘a miserable fiasco…a sort of railway refreshment room, if it had been lacking the grace, sweetness and charm which Madames Mace, Rowell and Hunston lent to it.’[14] Lastly, in 1898 in West Kerrier, a Superintendent Beare (who presumably was a policeman) was informed at the local sessions that ‘the refreshment at Helston Railway Station had not been properly conducted.’[15]

Finally, one frequent complaint was refreshment room prices. In 1886, a ‘John Fletcher Little’ wrote to the Leeds Mercury about the ‘exorbitant prices at present charged in the third class refreshment rooms for such beverages as milk, tea, coffee &c.’ For example, ‘Milk costs twopence a glass, whilst it is sold in the shops and coffee taverns at a penny’ and tea and coffee was ‘charged for at a rate of threepence,’ whereas elsewhere it was also a penny.[16]  In 1900, Outlookcommented on the ginger beer at refreshment rooms which ‘at some stations, for instance, fourpence a bottle is charged for precisely the same article that a cyclist in the country procures for a penny.’[17] Lastly, when referring to the low profit margins of coffee taverns, one reporter enquired as to whether ‘refreshment room prices’ could be charged.[18]

Therefore, it can be considered that refreshment rooms continued to be criticised into the late nineteenth century and had a reputation for providing poor quality and expensive food, and having uninviting environments.

Nevertheless, occasional references to good quality services can found. In 1888 Messrs Browning and Wesley, refreshment room contractors at Paddington and Chester stations, brought a libel case against Ernest Solly, who, whilst in the Chester Station room, claimed the meat in his sausage roll was bad. After complaining to the staff, Solly left for his train to Liverpool. On arrival in Liverpool he telegrammed the following:- ‘Exchange Liverpool Office, To inspector of Nuisances, Chester. Please inspect sausage rolls, refreshment rooms, station, bad meat; will write tonight. Dr Solly.’ He then proceeded to write to the Town Clerk’s office in Birkenhead about the affair. On inspection by Chester Town Council, Messrs Browning and Wesley were exonerated and their materials were described as being of the ‘very best quality.’ Sonny was ordered to pay a farthing in damages.

Interestingly, when Dr Solly complained to the refreshment room staff of the meat in his roll, he asked whether the place ‘belonged to Speirs and Pond.’ [19] Indeed, in the period rooms managed by Spiers and Pond were generally thought of as ‘diamonds in the rough.’ Therefore, in the next post I will discuss this market leading company.

------

[1] All Year Round, December 1867, p.60
[2] Trollope, Anthony, He Knew He Was Right, (London, 1869), p.351
[3] Simmons, Jack, The Victorian Railway, (London, 1991) p.354
[4] Richards, Jeffrey and MacKenzie, John M., The Railway Station: A Social History, (Oxford, 1988), p.291
[5] http://thevictorianist.blogspot.com/2011/09/lady-in-refreshment-roomgave-me-cup-of.html
[6] Biddle, George, ‘Refreshment Rooms,’ The Oxford Companion to British Railway History, (London, 1997), p.417
[7] The Essex County Standard West Suffolk Gazette, and Eastern Counties Advertiser,Friday, September 29, 1900
[8] The Ipswich Journal, Friday, October 21, 1887; Issue 8872
[9] The Huddersfield Chronicle and West Yorkshire Advertiser, Saturday, June 02, 1894
[10] Outlook, Vol.6, No.133 (1900, 18 August), p.72
[11] Birmingham Daily Post, Tuesday, February 12, 1884
[12] Leicester Chronicle and the Leicestershire Mercury, Saturday, February 13, 1892
[13] Glasgow Herald,Thursday, April 26, 1894
[14] Jackson's Oxford Journal, Saturday, April 22, 1899
[15] The Royal Cornwall Gazette Falmouth Packet, Cornish Weekly News, & General Advertiser, Thursday, September 08, 1898, pg. 3;
[16] The Leeds Mercury, Friday, December 31, 1886
[17] Outlook, Vol.6, No.133 (1900, 18 August), p.72
[18] Hampshire Telegraph and Sussex Chronicle etc, Wednesday, August 29, 1877;
[19] Liverpool Mercury etc. Saturday, July 28, 1888
↧

The Refreshment Rooms of Spiers and Pond - The Station Refreshment Room after 1870 - Part 2

March 4, 2012, 4:51 am
$
0
0
In my last post I talked about the frequent complaints about the service and food in railway station refreshment rooms after 1870. However, there were exceptions where refreshment rooms were considered exemplary, the most notable being those managed by the catering contractors Messrs Spiers and Pond.

Spiers and Pond was formed in 1851 when Christopher Pond, while seeking his fortune in Australia, met Felix William Spiers in Melbourne. Initially, they rented a room in the National Hotel there, turning it into a catering facility for gold miners called ‘The Shakespeare Grill Room.’ After much success, they soon looked to expand and purchased the Cafe de Paris in the city.[1] In 1858, a Professor Anderson wrote to The Eradescribing it:-

‘Above the bars, and over the gateway you enter, is the Café de Paris, containing a salon, far superior in decoration and appointments to any I know of among the restaurants of London, and a coffee and smoking room fitted up with as much taste and elegance as you will meet in Paris…You may dine here in as much style as anywhere “at home,” and be served with a cut from a hot joint, just as at Simpson’s on the Strand.’[2]

But Spiers and Pond's plans didn't stop there and in 1861 they paid for the English Cricket team to visit Australia. The English team arrived on Brunel’s steamer, the Great Britain, on Christmas Eve 1861 and in the following months played matches against teams from the various Australian provinces. After losing all but one game, they played their last in early May, leaving shortly afterwards.[4] Financially, the cricket team's visit was a roaring success for Spiers and Pond, and, buoyed by its success, in March 1862 they tried to persuade Charles Dickens to conduct a speaking tour of Australia for £10,000; or £5,000 if they bore all costs.[5] He declined.

Why Spiers and Pond returned to Britain and started taking over railway station refreshment rooms is unknown. However, by mid-1864 they had made arrangements with the London, Chatham and Dover Railway to run all the rooms on their line, as well as at Charing Cross Station on the South Eastern Railway when it opened. Rather than Spiers and Pond paying the railways a rent, they would receive a proportion of the profits ‘thus giving to each party to the contract an interest in the extension of the business to be done.’ Furthermore, Spiers and Pond would ‘endeavour to attract customers by the quality and price of their goods supplied.’[6] Unsurprisingly, their refreshment rooms were a great success and, consequently, arrangements were made with the Great Northern Railway for the operation of a refreshment room at King’s Cross station, and with the Metropolitan railway for the provision of services at all their stations.[7]

As part of this deal with the Metropolitan, in 1866 Spiers and Pond opened a refreshment room at the company's Ludgate Hill Station. The Era gave a description:

‘It is now decorated in the most refined taste, and divided into compartments fitted with spring, velvet covered seats, and every possible contrivance to ensure the comfort of those who may make use of it in the future. An enormous stove, oven and fireplace combined, called the “Great Grill Apparatus,” is a prominent object at one end of the restaurant…”

The restaurant opened on Monday 1 January 1866 to passengers of all classes.The publication, referring to refreshment rooms generally, commented that ‘reforms in this branch of what we may call railway administration were imperatively demanded, and these reforms Messrs Spiers and Pond have commenced in the most praiseworthy manner possible.’[8]

In the years that followed the company took over the operation of rooms all over Britain’s railways. At some point before 1882 they received the contracts for all of the refreshment rooms on the Great Western and Midland Railways. Yet, in that year the companies took them back from contractors and operated them themselves (these decisions were later reversed).[9] Furthermore, in 1888 the London and South Western Railway’s rooms were in the hands of Spiers and Pond.[10] Only a more thorough investigation, which I have not time to do, will reveal when different companies made arrangements with Spiers and Pond. However, in 1894 they were operating rooms at the ‘principal stations’ of the following railway companies:

London, Chatham and Dover
South Eastern
Great Western
London and South Western
Midland
Great Northern
Caledonian
Great North of Scotland
North British
Great Eastern
Metropolitan
District
Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire
Cambrian
Lancashire and Yorkshire

Thus, by 1925 Spiers and Pond operated over 200 refreshment rooms in Britain.[11]
Spiers and Pond were universally praised for the quality of their services. In 1866 it was commented that they ‘maintained the highest reputation, and we sincerely trust that their efforts at reforming the system of railway refreshment rooms will meet with success.’[12] The Sheffield & Rotherham Independentin 1869 called them ‘celebrated caterers.’[13] In 1872 it was commented that ‘Spiers and Pond have earned a reputation for their good fare at moderate prices.’[14] A writer in The Fishing Gazette in 1880 commented that he ‘found everything up to the mark’ and that the ‘most courteous attention was paid to the visitors.’[15] Lastly, Spiers and Pond’s arrival in Britain was referred to in 1888 as having caused a ‘gastronomic revolution.’[16]

Therefore, Spiers and Pond refreshment rooms provided passengers with a better quality service than those elsewhere, the quality of which was highlighted in the last post. Nevertheless, what effect this had on improving the provision in refreshment rooms generally is unclear. There is a possibility that it put pressure on railway companies and other contractors to improve their facilities. However, given that most held monopolies at the stations they were serving, and combined with the evidence presented in the last post, I suspect it is unlikely.

----------------

[1] http://www.spiers.net/pond.htm
[2] The Era, Sunday, September 12, 1858
[3] The Royal Cornwall Gazette, Falmouth Packet, and General Advertiser, Friday, April 25, 1862, p.6
[4] The Sheffield & Rotherham Independent, Wednesday, May 14, 1862
[5] The Sheffield & Rotherham Independent, Tuesday, March 18, 1862, p. 5
[6] The Morning Post, Saturday, August 27, 1864, pg. 2
[7] The Era,Sunday, October 2, 1864
[8] The Era, Sunday, December 31, 1865
[9] The County Gentleman; Sporting Gazette and Agricultural Journal, Saturday, November 04, 1882, pg. 1123
[10] The County Gentleman, A Sporting Gazette and Agricultural Journal, Saturday, January 07, 1888; pg. 9
[11] Biddle, George, ‘Refreshment Rooms,’ The Oxford Companion to British Railway History, (London, 1997), p.417
[12] Bell's Life in London and Sporting Chronicle, Saturday, January 06, 1866
[13] The Sheffield & Rotherham Independent, Saturday, May 15, 1869; pg. 6
[14] The Standard, Monday, March 18, 1872; pg. 2;
[15] The Fishing Gazette, Saturday, January 24, 1880; pg. 37
[16] The County Gentleman, A Sporting Gazette and Agricultural Journal, Saturday, January 07, 1888; pg. 9
↧

Reducing Railway Industry Fragmentation in the early 1900s

March 11, 2012, 6:23 am
$
0
0
Christian Wolmar has written frequently that one of the major causes of the railway industry's current woes, in terms of operational costs and passengers fares being too high, is the fragmentation of the industry. Britain's railways as they exist contain a myriad of private companies interacting with each other within a web of complex working arrangements, most of which force costs up. Indeed, it is accepted by most experts that separating the management of the trains from the tracks was a disaster.[1]

But fragmentation within the railway industry isn't a new issue and was addressed by railway managers in the early 1900s. In the late 1890s the railway industry's profits were depressed by a mix of poor management, competition, increasing material costs and the growth of high volume low-margin traffic (However, historians are divided on which of these factors played the biggest role). Indeed, in 1885 the industry's operating ratio, which is expenditure expressed as a proportion of revenue, stood at fifty-two per cent. By 1900 this had been driven up to sixty-two per cent.[2]

In response to their change in fortunes, railway companies attempted to reduce costs through numerous means in the first years of the 1900s;  more efficient track maintenance, better locomotive designs, new technologies and improved goods operation. Yet, despite these vigorous efforts to improve how they functioned, inter-company rivalry and duplicated services remained one of the most serious and costly issues for industry leaders. Between 1870 and 1900 the railway companies of Britain, of which there over a hundred, unsuccessfully sunk resources and capital into competing for market share on certain routes and at cities which were served by more than one company. For Example, the Great Western and London and South Western Railways had a protracted battle in the West of England, both in terms of the services they provided and through line building to gain territory. But such competition only served to depress profits, not improve them.

Therefore, late in the first decade of the twentieth century railway companies came together to promote economical working, eliminate competition, pool resources and ultimately reduce overheads. While outright mergers were actively resisted by government, as they would hand companies regional monopolies, railway directors and managers worked around this objection by forming 'working unions'. In late 1907 the Great Northern and Great Central Railways announced an alliance in which they pooled receipts and the management of all rolling stock, lines and works were placed under the remit of a joint committee. It was an arrangement akin to amalgamation, however, it just wasn't a legal union. 

Other companies soon followed suit. In June 1908 the London and North Western and Midland Railways produced a less comprehensive scheme, where all receipts, except those from coal and coke traffic, were pooled, competitive capital expenditure was ceased and cooperative and economical train operations were sought. Indeed, this had considerable success in reducing these two companies' operational expenses. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway joined the agreement in 1909. Furthermore, early in 1909 the Caledonian and North British Railways drew up a very similar agreement. Lastly, in August 1910, after nearly a year and a half of negotiation, the Great Western and London and South Western Railways came to terms. [3]

While the fragmentation of the modern railway industry is different in many ways to that which existed immediately after 1900, there is no doubt that in the period knowledgeable industry leaders felt a sensible way to reduce their railway's operational and capital costs was to cooperate. Indeed, the particular success of the London and North Western and Midland Railway in reducing these forms of expenditure through unification, is a testament to the idea that when it comes to railways, collaboration, not fragmentation, can be preferable.

-----

[1] Wolmar, Christian, "Fragmentation is the problem, not the solution", Christian Wolmar's Website, 19 May 2011
[2] Gourvish, Terry, Railways and the British Economy1830-1914, (London, 1980), p.42
[3] Cain, P.J., 'Railway Combination and Government, 1900-1914', The Economic History Review, 4 (1972), p.633

↧
↧

An Early Railway Manager - A Perpetual Failure

March 18, 2012, 5:10 am
$
0
0
Cornelius Stovin is not a familiar name in railway history circles. To my surprise, he is not even well known amongst those who study the London and South Western Railway (L&SWR), the company for which he worked as its first Traffic Manager from 1839. My interest in him stems from the fact he left the company suddenly in 1852 when it was found that his accounts were seriously in disarray. However, no research has been done on Stovin before he came to the railway, and, therefore, I resolved to find out more. What was discovered was that Stovin was a perpetual failure.

Cornelius Stovin was born in Birmingham in 1802 to John and Elizabeth Stovin, and was christened at St’ Martins Church on 2 June. [1] According to Chapman’s Birmingham Directory for 1801, John was a druggist who also dispensed oil, soap, candles and glue at the Bullring.[2] He was obviously considerably wealthy, as he was able to send Cornelius to Magdalen Hall at Oxford University, which he entered on the 18 March 1820, aged nineteen.[3]On graduation Cornelius moved into Mosley Street, Birmingham[4] and went into business with John Heycott Jervis as brass founders. This would be Cornelius’ first failure in business, and for unknown reasons the partnership was dissolved in August 1826.[5]

Yet, At some point before then he had met Jane Waddell, who he married on 2 November 1824 at St Phillips Cathedral in the city.[6] Jane was the daughter of William Waddell,[7]  who had taken over the ‘Hen and Chickens Inn’ at 130 New Street in 1802. While keeping the inn he also established himself as a coach proprietor there[8] and turned the business into one of the Midland’s most extensive coaching establishments by the 1830s.[9] Clearly, John Stovin and William Waddell were friends, as William named one of his sons John Stovin Waddell.[10] Thus, it is it is very possible that some point after 1826 Cornelius joined  Waddell’s growing business.

On the death of William in 1837[11] Jane, received £5000, which would have passed to Cornelius because of wives’ property rights in the period.[12] I am not one hundred per cent sure what happened next, however, my best theory is that in late 1837 Cornelius set up a coaching business on his own, probably using this money. [13] However, he did not inherit any of William’s business directly, as most of it was taken over by his son, Thomas.[14] Yet, he clearly had some use of the Hen and Chickens Inn site, as shown by the following advert from The Liverpool Mercury on 7 December; ‘Royal Mails and Fast Post Coaches leave the above Establishment (Hen and Chickens Coach Office, New Street Birmingham), to all parts of the Kingdom, immediately upon the arrival of the different Railway Trains.’ The advert was signed ‘Cornelius Stovin and Co. Proprietors.’[15]

For the second time in his life, Cornelius’ business was unsuccessful, and he was declared bankrupt on the 26 February 1839. Indeed, one of the petitioning creditors was John Stovin Waddell,[16] who by then was a coach builder in his own right.[17] Stovin made a poor business decision by setting up as a coach proprietor in Birmingham in 1837, as the railways arrived there that year.  On 4 July 1837 the Grand Junction Railway between Birmingham and Liverpool opened[18] and on 17 September 1838 the London to Birmingham started operating.[19] Furthermore, the Manchester and Birmingham Railway was under construction.[20] Therefore, given I presume the main routes of the Birmingham coaching industry were to London, Liverpool and Manchester, it is logical to suggest that in this period much traffic was being lost to the railways, which would have hit Cornelius hard.

However, three days before Cornelius’ bankruptcy, the London and Southampton Railway’s (later L&SWR) Traffic and General Purposes committee minuted that ‘Mr Cornelius Stovin to be Superintendent of the Traffic Department at salary not exceeding £250 a year.’[21] Stovin accepted the post on the 28 February.[22] Later, in 1840, he was made the company’s Traffic Manager.[23] It is quite possible he got the job through being in contact with an influential L&SWR director, William Chaplin,  who had  also been in the coaching business previously. Indeed, Stovin had the support of Chaplin throughout his at the L&SWR, and this had allowed him to increase his power within the company, despite his temper.

Yet, closer scrutiny of Stovin’s past may have avoided the problems that occurred in March 1852. It is clear that Stovin kept the Traffic Department’s accounts poorly. Like most railways of the period considerable traffic was brought to it by independent carriers. The arrangement at the L&SWR was that these carriers were allowed a rebate from the charges they collected for carriage and credit was allowed for three months. However, in August 1851 the directors’ attention was drawn to the poor state of these accounts, particularly those of a West of England carrier named Ford. Ford owed the company a considerable amount, and immediately after the directors expressed their concern Stovin managed to reduce his outstanding debit to £5000.

But things were going sour for Stovin and his operations were coming under more scrutiny. Thus, in early 1852 he took sick leave and then absconded to the United States in March. Initially, the press reported that there were ‘no known deficiencies affecting the railway company.’[24] However, an investigation, which lasted until July, found that Stovin had been hiding a shortage in the Traffic Department’s accounts of £2921 11s 8d. Chaplin offer to pay Stovin’s return fare so that he could explain himself to the board. But the ex-Traffic Manager stayed in New York.[25] Indeed, on the 19 May his wife Jane and seven children arrived in by the ship London to join him.[26] Finally, the whole family moved to Canada, where Stovin again became a railway manager.

Stovin was clearly an unsuccessful businessman three times over. Firstly, his foundry business failed in 1826, then the foray into the stagecoach industry collapsed, and, lastly, he arranged the L&SWR finances very poorly, costing the company money. Yet, he reached his lofty position by receiving help from individuals who were much more astute businessmen than he, for example William Waddell and William Chaplin.

Ultimately, the Stovin case raises some broader issues surrounding the nature of early railway managers. This was an era when the idea of the professional railway officer was far from established and the ‘Stovin affair’ highlights that the early railways took into their ranks a mixed bag of individuals that could not always be relied upon. However, Stovin was just one example amongst thousands in the period, and more research needs to be done on the backgrounds of other early railway managers to truly find out what their experiences were before coming to the job.

-----

[1] https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/J7Q8-458
[2] Chapman, T, Chapman's Birmingham Directory, (Birmingham, 1801)
[3] Oxford University Alumni, 1715-1886, Volume VI, p.122
[4] Berrow's Worcester Journal, Thursday, November 18, 1824; Issue 6359
[5] The Observer,28 Aug 1826, p.1
[6] https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/NJHT-B2N
[7] Berrow's Worcester Journal, Thursday, November 18, 1824; Issue 6359
[8] Hanson, Harry, This Coaching Life, (Manchester, 1983), p.149
[9] Harman, Thomas T. and Showell, Walter, Showell's Dictionary of Birmingham, (Birmingham, 2006), p.125
[10] https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/NV4T-D94
[11] Death index Oct-Nov-Dec, 1837
[12] The National Archives [TNA], PROB 11/1873, Will of William Waddell, Innholder of Birmingham , Warwickshire, 24 February 1837
[13] Liverpool Mercury etc, Friday, December 7, 1838; Issue 1439
[14] Hanson, This Coaching Life, p.149
[15] Liverpool Mercury etc, Friday, December 7, 1838; Issue 1439
[16] The law journal for the year 1832-1949: comprising reports of cases in the courts of Chancery, King's Bench, Common Pleas, Exchequer of Pleas, and Exchequer of Chamber…, p.13
[17] 1835 Pigot's Directory for Warwickshire, Birmingham, p.543
[18] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Junction_Railway
[19] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_and_Birmingham_Railway
[20] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_and_Birmingham_Railway
[21] TNA, RAIL 412/3, Traffic and General Purposes, and Traffic Police and Goods committees, 23 February 1839
[22] TNA, RAIL 412/3, Traffic and General Purposes, and Traffic Police and Goods committees, 2 March 1839
[23] TNA, RAIL 412/1, Court of Directors Minute Book, Minute No. 1307, 30 October 1840
[24] Reynolds's Newspaper, Sunday, April 18, 1852; Issue 88.
[25] Williams, R.A., The London and South Western Railway: Volume 1 – The Formative Years, (Newton Abbott, 1968), p.219-220
[26] National Archives (US), New York Incoming Passenger Lists, 1820-1957,
↧

The Social Backgrounds of Female Railway Clerks - 1875-1886

March 25, 2012, 3:16 am
$
0
0
Mid-way through last year, I looked at the first sixteen female ledger clerks employed at the London and North Western Railway’s (L&NWR) Birmingham Curzon Street goods station between 1874 and 1876. However, in the course of my research I actually discovered the staff records of fifty-six female clerks that the company appointed between 1874 and 1886 at eight locations across the company’s network.

While I determined from the records these women’s rates of pay, length of employment, promotional prospects and what their jobs involved, I did not look at their family backgrounds. However, understanding individuals’ backgrounds is important, as they ultimately they determined their employment prospects. Indeed, I have postulated elsewhere that these clerks were possibly the daughters of railwaymen. Thus, I set out to test this theory. To determine the women’s backgrounds, which in the Victorian period were essentially their father’s occupations, I looked for the clerks in census records. Consequently, I found the professions of eighteen of their fathers.

Firstly, my theory that the female clerks predominantly came from railway families seems to be unfounded. Of the nineteen clerks only five had fathers employed by the L&NWR (27.78%).  For example, Margaret A. Peacock, who was employed at Shrewsbury station on the 1 December 1876,[1] was the daughter of Edward Peacock who made Station Master at Tattenhale Station in 1881.[2] Furthermore, in that year William Redford, Goods Agent in Manchester,[3] was father to both  Elizabeth[4] and Isabella[5] Redford, who were both clerks in Manchester Moss Street Goods Station. Lastly, Mary Hannah Hassall, who was also appointed at Manchester Moss Street in 1876,[6] had a brother, James, who was a Junior Clerk at the time,[7] which may also have facilitated her entrance into the company. Thus, a considerable, but not overwhelming, proportion of the women did have some link with the railway.

Of the nineteen fathers, seven could be considered to have been in some form of trade (38.89%). For example, Edith Gould, who joined the Camden Goods Office in 1876,[8] was the daughter of James Gould, a cheesemonger in St Pancras.[9] Additionally, James Harris was a Blacksmith employing one man, [10]  and was the father of Martha and Mary Harris who were employed at Birmingham Curzon Street in 1874 and 1876[11] respectively. The professions of the remaining four fathers were a cabinet maker, someone simply listed as a ‘manufacturer,’ a cigar and tobacco manufacturer and a master jeweller employing one boy.

Four (22.22%) of the fathers had positions in some form of administration. Probably the highest ranked was Joseph Arlom, father of Emma Arlom who was appointed at Manchester Moss Street Station in 1878[12], who was an ‘Inspector of Police.’[13] The lowest ranked socially was Alfred Vigurs, who by 1881 was a clerk at a lamp makers.[14] He was the father of Lizzie Vigurs, who was appointed to the Birmingham Curzon Street office in 1875.[15] The others fathers were working as Canal (or possibly Burial) Agent and a Superintendent of a public baths.

Only two of the fathers (11.11%) had what can be considered unskilled jobs. Frederick Hughes, the father of Martha Hughes, an appointee at Birmingham in 1875[16], was a ‘spoon and fork filer.’[17] The other was a Wheelhouseman in Manchester.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the vast majority of the female clerks had fathers who were in professions that required skill or education. Indeed, sixteen of the eighteen (88.89%) fathers would almost certainly have provided comfortable households for their families including good schooling for their children. Furthermore, the majority of the fathers were in positions that Victorian society considered ‘respectable’, meaning their daughters would have had a good chance of obtaining the positive references that potential employers required. Lastly, while this brief piece of research has shown that familial links to the railway were not necessarily required for the women to become clerks on the L&NWR, it has shown that the basis of their entry was identical to that for male clerks, in that the social class, public standing and educational level of the father were hugely important factors.

-----

[1] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 410/1837, Register of salaried permanent officers in the Goods Department including clerks, goods managers, inspectors, superintendents, time keepers, accountants, foremen, agents, canvassers and collectors., p.1286
[2] TNA, RG 11/3552, 1881 Census, Cheshire, Tattenhale, District 6, p.1
[3] TNA, RG 11/3473, 1881 Census, Lancashire, Manchester, Heaton Norris, District 12, p.16
[4] TNA, RAIL 410/1841, Salaried Staff Register [No 2, pages 2593-3088] - Miscellaneous departments. Includes staff employed in the following departments: Goods, Cattle, Horse, Rolling Stock, Detective and Canal. Includes station masters, inspectors, detectives and clerks, p.2634
[5] TNA, RAIL 410/1843, Salaried staff register [No. 1, pages 1089-1599] - Goods Department. Includes clerks, goods managers, inspectors, superintendents, time keepers, accountants, foremen, agents, canvassers, collectors, timber measurer, traffic solicitor and cartage, p.1338
[6] TNA, RAIL 410/1837, Register of salaried permanent officers in the Goods Departmentp.1215
[7] TNA, RG 11/4003, 1881 Census, Lancashire, Manchester, St George, District 19, p.71
[8] TNA, RAIL 410/1837, Register of salaried permanent officers in the Goods Department, p.1227
[9] TNA, RG 11/176, London, St Pancras, Regents Park, District 4, p.17
[10] TNA, RG 11/2982, 1881 Census, Warwickshire, Birmingham, St Martin, District 7, p.24
[11] TNA, RAIL 410/1837, Register of salaried permanent officers in the Goods Department, p.1207
[12] TNA, RAIL 410/1841, Salaried Staff Register [No 2, pages 2593-3088] - Miscellaneous departments, p.1338
[13] TNA, RG 11/3940, 1881 Census, Lancashire, Moss Side, District 81, p.59
[14] TNA, RG 11/2835, 1881 Census, Staffordshire, Handsworth, District 20, p.26
[15] TNA, RAIL 410/1837, Register of salaried permanent officers in the Goods Department, p.1207
[16] TNA, RAIL 410/1837, Register of salaried permanent officers in the Goods Department, p.1207
[17] TNA, RG 11/3033, Warwickshire, Aston, Duddeston, District 41, p.19
↧
Search

The Hours Victorian Railway Clerks Worked - 1856

April 1, 2012, 11:30 am
$
0
0
Being employed on the Victorian railway would always mean long hours, as with most other jobs of the period. Kingsford argued that ‘in the early years [of the railways] hours of work were extremely long and left a bare minimum for sleep. There was no regular provision for Sunday relief or for holidays and the working week was normally a seven day one.’[1] Amongst the railway staff records on Ancestry.com, I came across a file that provided insight into clerks and station master’s working day on the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway in 1856. This contained questionnaires where they were asked a range of questions, including how long in each day they toiled.[2]

Kingsford commented on this file in passing (although he said erroneously that all the returns were filled in by Station Masters), and argued that the seventy-six individuals in it worked an average of fourteen hours a day.[3] I have not sampled every man’s hours of work, and have only surveyed the first  twenty-five returns, but I can confidently say that this is a generalisation that hides considerable nuance and variance in each individual’s employment circumstances. Nevertheless, the average number of hours worked by the men in my sample came out at thirteen hours, thirty-five minutes; close to Kingsford’s calculation.

The individual who worked the shortest hours was Mr Brabrook, a clerk at New Cross Station, who most days worked a mere eight and a half hours. However, he did work for ten hours forty-five minutes some weeks. The individual who had the longest working day was Mr Beacon, a clerk at Bridlington Station, who reported that he was at the station for sixteen hours, twenty-five minutes per day - from 7.30am to 11.55pm. Thus, if I estimate he daily had thirty minutes off for lunch, this would mean his working week was 112 hours, 25 minutes long.

While Kingsford worked out the number of hours the men were on duty was fourteen hours, it seems that the length of time people were on duty varied considerably amongst the twenty-five men I looked at. The results are as follows:

Clearly, the majority of those in the sample were working between fourteen and fifteen hours. Yet, nine were working less than that amount, while eight were working more. There are two possible explanations for this variation. Firstly, it is quite conceivable that people worked more hours because they were higher in the organisation, and, therefore, had greater responsibility. Alternatively, because some individuals were at remote locations, they may have had fewer colleagues to cover them and allow them time off.

Firstly, I decided to examine the theory that those who were higher in the organisation worked longer hours. Broadly speaking there were three ‘ranks’ of employees represented amongst the twenty-five, junior managers (superintendents), supervisory posts (Station Masters or Foremen) and General Clerks (including one junior). The average number of hours worked for each group of employees was as follows:-

While the sample size is small, and we have to be wary about making any firm conclusions from these figures, what this table would suggest is that individuals’ working hours were on average shorter before they went into supervisory posts. Yet, on being promoted to a junior managerial position their hours improved.

But what about the idea that those individuals employed in the country worked longer days? Indeed, this was postulated by Kingsford. The results were that the thirteen country workers in the sample were on duty for an average of 14.01 hours per day, whereas for the twelve in the town it was 12.96 hours. Therefore, this tentatively confirms the theory. Lastly, I wanted to look at the two sets of statistics in combination, to see whether all ranks worked more hours at country stations.

The results really show why I need to expand the sample size to all seventy-six individuals in the file. However, while no firm conclusions can be made regarding the supervisors or Junior Managers, clearly, general clerks in the country worked more hours than their counterparts in the town.

Overall, while there are problems with this brief survey given my sample size, it has presented some interesting questions to be tackled in the future.

------

[1] Kingsford, P.W., Victorian Railwaymen, (London, 1970), p.115
[2] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 414/767, Traffic staff histories based on questionnaire and relating to staff appointed 1836-1854
[3] Kingsford, Victorian Railwaymen, p.117
↧

'Titanic' and the London and South Western Railway - An Intimate Relationship

April 8, 2012, 4:38 am
$
0
0
The London and South Western Railway had an intimate relationship with Titanic, the ship having sailed from the company’s Southampton Docks. However, the association goes deeper than just a doomed ship sailing from a south coast port that happened to be owned by a railway company. Rather, from its inception, Titanic had been destined to sail from Southampton.

The LSWR purchased the failing Southampton Dock Company in 1892 and set about expanding the port to make the best use of its new acquisition. Between 1892 and 1910 the company spent a total of £3,063,644 on what was dryly referred to in its accounts as ‘New Plant, Graving Docks, Warehouses and Various Improvements.’[1] This included new graving docks in 1895 and 1905, and new quays in 1898.[2] Consequently, the investment had the effect the LSWR’s directors expected; it grew the port's trade. In 1892 421,611 tons had passed through the docks and, given most of this was carried by the LSWR, it constituted 15.41 per cent of the company’s goods traffic. However, with increasing numbers of steamship lines serving Southampton, the tonnage of goods passing through the docks grew to 1,113,132 by 1908,  44.38 per cent of the LSWR’s freight traffic.[3]

Adriatic approaching Southampton
Indeed, by 1908 twenty-one companies were sailing from Southampton, including the Union-Castle Line, Royal Mail Steam Packet services, the American Line and, not unexpectedly, the White Star Line.[4] The White Star Line began its association with Southampton in June 1907 when its New York express service transferred there from Liverpool. On the 5June that year, a day Railway Magazine labelled the docks’ ‘Red-Letter Day’, the White Star steamer Adriatic inaugurated the weekly service.[5] Months later, the company was claiming the move had been an ‘immediate success’, and on both inward and outward journeys  it was refusing customers.[6]

Therefore, the White Star Line’s decision to move its services to Southampton could be perceived as a rational one based on its assessment of where it could garner the most trade. Yet, on the LSWR’s June 1907 ‘report and statement of accounts’ there appeared the name of a new director; The Right Hon. Lord Pirrie,[7] who immediately joined the company’s ‘Docks and Marine’ Committee.[8]  Pirrie can be easily describe as a ‘shipping magnate’, and when appointed to the LSWR’s board he was a director of twelve other companies, nine of which were associated with sea-bound trade and commerce. Amongst these was his position as chairman of Harland and Wolff, who built the Titanic and its sister ships, and his directorship of the Oceanic Steam Navigation Co, or White Star Line as it was more commonly known.[8]

Therefore, it is not surprising that the White Star Line transferred to Southampton; nor that in April 1907 Harland and Wolff opened a repairing depot at the docks to service White Star Line ships (amongst others).[9] However, the accommodation of Pirrie’s shipping interests by the LSWR did not stop there. In October 1907 the company began work on a new sixteen acre dock which, at the White Star Line’s request, was to be known as the ‘White Star Dock’ (although other companies could use it). This was opened in early 1911 and on 14 June that year Titanic’ssister ship, Olympic,sailed from there. Furthermore, when the LSWR found out about plans for Olympic and Titanic, it extended its Trafalgar Dry Dock to accommodate them..[10]

It shouldn’t be assumed that the LSWR acting as an arm of the White Star Line by spending so much capital on the docks for it. The investments were mutually beneficial for both businesses, and both greatly profited. Indeed, Pirrie’s presence on the LSWR board was not to control its policies in his favour; rather, he acted as a bridge between it and the White Star Line (and Harland and Wolff) so their strategies were coordinated. Thus, Pirrie, the White Star Line and the LSWR should collectively held responsible for bringing Titanic to Southampton.

On the morning of 10 April 1912, the day Titanicsailed, two special boat trains are known to have left the LSWR’s Waterloo terminus bound for the doomed vessel. Second and third class passengers, as well as the first class passengers’ maids and valets, travelled on a 7.30 am train; arriving dock-side two hours later. Later, 202 First class passengers departed Waterloo at 9.45am, arriving at 11.30 am, only thirty minutes before the ship sailed.[11]

Therefore, the links between the LSWR and Titanic ran deep, and when the ship foundered on the 15 April it is no surprise the railways' board minuted the following:

‘Wreck of the White Star Liner Titanic– The Chairman mentioned that, under his instructions, a letter of sympathy had been sent to Messrs. Ismay, Imrie & Co. with reference to the terrible disaster that had recently befell the Titanic and upon his motion it was resolved: “That a donation of £500 be given for the relief of the sufferers and divided equally between the Mansion House fund which is being raised on the behalf of the relatives of those persons, whether crew or passengers, who lost their lives in this sad calamity and the Mayor or Southampton’s fund for the relatives of the crew.”[12]

-------

[1] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 1110/283 and RAIL 1110/284, London & South Western Railway – Reports and Accounts
[2] Faulkner, J.N. and Williams, R.A., The LSWR in the Twentieth Century, (Newton Abbot, 1988), p.142
[3] Railway Magazine, April 1909, p.402-406
[4] Railway Magazine, April 1909, p.403
[5] Railway Magazine, March 1909, p.297
[6] The Times, Monday 26 August 1907, p.4
[7] TNA, RAIL 1110/284, London & South Western Railway – Reports and Accounts, Half year ending June 1907
[8] South Western Gazette, June 1918, p.80
[9] Directory of Directors, (London, 1907)
[10] Faulkner, and Williams, the LSWR in the Twentieth Century, p.144
[11] Bevan, Mike and Chivers, Colin ‘The Titanic Centenary’, South Western Circular, 15 (April 2012), p.470
[12] TNA, RAIL 411/39, Court of Directors Minute Book, 19 April 1912
↧
↧

Archives, Artefacts, Amateurs and Academics - A Conference Report

April 22, 2012, 2:32 pm
$
0
0
The Conference Centre's 'Sunken Lounge'
To say that my time in Derby on Friday and Saturday was stimulating is a bit of an understatement. For those who don't follow my Twitter feed, on Friday and Saturday I attended the Archives, Artefacts, Amateurs and Academics workshop in Derby, jointly run by the Historical Model Railway Society and Business Archives Council. Firstly, I will hand over to Keith Harcourt, HMRS Academic Liaison Officer and conference co-organiser, who has very kindly provided me with this interesting summary on the origins, purpose and work of the HMRS:

---------------

The Historical Model Railway Society was founded in 1950 by historians and modellers concerned at the crude railway models on sale at that time. They set out to collect an archive of original drawings, photographs, working and public timetables plus other ephemera and historically accurate models as well having for reference The George Dow Library of railway books. The Drawings Collection holds over 160,000 historic drawings many of which have been of use in preservation work on Heritage Railways and in a vindication of the original purposes of the Society have been used by Bachmann in their making of current model trains. The photographic collection currently has 47,233 image listed on the website, but that is but the tip of the iceberg.

Significantly each year they also provide small, but often crucial, grants to a few PhD and Masters students who are working on the railways of the British Isles.

Their mission statement is interesting; it notes that the Historical Model Railway Society is an educational charity whose objectives are the study and recording of information concerning railways of the British Isles and the construction, operation, preservation and public exhibition of models depicting those railways.”[1] Simmons and Biddle[2] note that : “ The HMRS is the senior such society in Britain. The interests of individual members are cared for by stewards, each of whom specialises in a railway company or subject, and who act as a clearing house for information between members.” From my experience the Society has a refreshing attitude to railway history believing that it starts from today and trying to reflect that in their collections.

In 2005 the Society, having fund raised amongst its members for many years, opened its purpose built Museum and Study Centre on the Midland Railway at its Swanwick Junction Museum Site. The building is to full museum standards and a description of it, with directions can be found here: http://www.hmrs.org.uk/museumstudycentre/index.php At present the Centre only opens one day per week and on special Midland Railway open days, but as Margaret Garratt, the Secretary of the Society says, “If only we had more volunteers we could do so much more. More people to help would mean that we could open more often and, while the work of cataloguing has to be carefully done, we can teach people how we do it and so speed up the work.”

As the HMRS holds the entire Metropolitan Cammell Engineering Drawing collection as well as the Derby Works Collection (held on behalf of Derby Museums) and many private collections, some of the drawings are of foreign locomotives and rolling stock built in Britain and whilst these are not the prime purpose of the collection, they are carefully archived and listed too. Because the Society has an Academic Liaison Officer who gives papers at international conferences on transport and history of technology topics he is sometimes approached by people from other countries whose locomotives and rolling stock were built in the British Isles. The Society, via links to the Manchester Locomotive Society and the Newcomen Society, made through a delegate to this workshop, has recently been able to help Dr Tatsuhiko Suga, Executive Director of the East Japan Railway Culture Foundation locate the original drawings for Japan Railway Locomotive Number 1, built at the Vulcan Foundry in 1871, and the HMRS are now scouring the HMRS archives for drawings of the four carriages shipped with it which may well have been built by Metropolitan Cammell.

----------------

The conference brought together forty-four individuals from a range of organisations that all had one thing in common; they were interested in railways in one shape or another. For example, the meeting was attended by members of the Great Eastern Railway Society, The Railway and Canal Historical Society and The London and North Eastern Railway Society, to name but a few. Furthermore, various individuals from archival institutions attended, such as the National Archives, the Ballast Trust, The National Railway Museum and the Midland Collection Trust. Lastly there were academics such as Terry Gourvish, Kevin Tennent and little old me.

The goal of the workshop was, as the Business Archives Council's Website states, to:

'...prompt an awareness of what these various groups are doing, and to start a dialogue between the enthusiast and academic which may lead to co-operation in preserving and using collections, and furthering our understanding of the past and its relevance to the future.'

I not only believe that the workshop was successful was in starting this dialogue, but the ball has started rolling on something very important.


Perhaps the only high speed point indoors. Craig King, MD of TQ Catalis, (in Orange Jacket) explains to delegates how it works.
Friday started at 2.30 with fascinating tour by Craig King of TQ Catalis, who provide training for signalling engineers in the conference centre. Indeed, where we were staying, The Derby Conference Centre, was originally Britain's first purpose-built training centre for railway staff, and was opened in 1938 by the London Midland and Scottish Railway. Designed by William H. Hamlyn, the art-deco building is now Grade II listed.

Being shown round the TQ Catalis training centre
On the first evening, the keynote speech was given by Professor Peter Stone OBE from the University of Newcastle. Professor Stone does not have any links with railways, but rather is an archaeologist. However, he brought with him considerable experience from a long career building links between academics and amateur organisations. He highlighted that when working towards a goal, individuals from many different interest groups can possess knowledge which, while generated for different purposes, may enrich each other's outlooks. Indeed, the dangers of one group or another taking a dominant role when trying to reach an objective were also underlined, as this may produce outcomes that others are dissatisfied with. This was a perfect start to the workshop, as a tone was set of the need for cooperation and collegial working between all those using and attempting to preserve railway archives.

Dr. Roy Edwards, Tim Proctor, Keith Harcourt and Prof. Peter Stone
Dr. Roy Edwards Speaking
We were then treated to a talk by Tim Proctor who is curator of the National Railway Museum's archive. Tim talked about the way the archive operates, the challenges it faces given its restricted funding, and how it cooperates with organisations and volunteers to help catalogue and manage its collections. Furthermore, he highlighted that some people do not realise that the National Railway Museum's archive exists, and I felt that this was an important point. The question that stuck in my mind was how we disseminate knowledge among those interested in railways, historians from all relevant fields, and the general public, that railway archives exist? I think Tim also was responsible for the biggest laugh of the workshop, pointing out one plan in the NRM's archive from the Wolverton Railway Works for a combined folding writing desk and lavatory.

The only negative point about the Derby Conference Centre was that I had to leave. The food we received that evening was exemplary, the décor was lovely and the bar comfortable. Therefore, with some delegates overcoming a few drinks from the night before, everyone rose early to catch the coach to Historical Model Railway Society's study centre, located in the grounds of the Midland Railway Centre at Butterley.

After much inspection of the HMRS's model railways at the centre, which were, to say the least, impressive, four more talks were given. The first was by Dr. Valerie Johnson from The National Archives, who talked on the nature of archives. She posited a number of questions, for example what is an archive? Who decides what is important? Can documents be objects? Can objects be documents? Indeed, items of interest that one group may find unimportant, may be vital to another. Therefore, this is where interested communities that have great knowledge of a subject can be useful in shaping what archives hold and how they are treated. Towards the end of her talk, Valerie mentioned a project that TNA had completed cataloguing all 7,328 railway accidents between 1853 and 1975. I had no idea about this project, and neither did a lot of people present. This emphasised another key issue for the workshop. How can researchers and archives holding railway material build links to understand better what each other is doing?
Kevin Tennent and I entering the HMRS Study Center

Following this, Kiara King discussed the work of The Ballast Trust. For those of you who were not aware, the Ballast Trust is an organisations set up in 1987 by William Lind to assist with the rescue, sorting and cataloguing of business archives, particularly technical records, such as shipbuilding, railway and engineering plans, drawings and photographs. This talk highlighted how the trust used volunteers and interns to catalogue the archives they received. Furthermore, Kiara talked on how she had developed procedures for the processing of the collections that flowed through the Trust's hands, as well as the use of social media, such as Flikr and a blog to raise awareness of its work.
Inside the HMRS Study Centre

Paul Garratt speaking to the delegates
Ivor Lewis, deputy-chair of the HMRS, then talked about the challenges faced in archiving documentation created by modern businesses. Almost all are in digital format, with many firms considering these the masters. Therefore, their preservation is a huge issue, especially as the role of 'secretary' within organisations has disappeared and individuals are now expected to manage their own files. According to Ivor, when computers first arrive on the scene, twenty to thirty years ago, document preservation was not greatly considered and the loss of records was seen by some as natural. Currently, while more people are becoming interested in preserving digital records, concerns regarding the histories of companies being lost through the 'delete' button remain. Indeed, in the railway context these concerns will apply to what Train Operating Companies will or will not preserve. He finished by suggesting that currently the archiving of digital records is up to well meaning and enthusiastic employees pursuing the issue.

Our time at the study centre was finished with a talk by Paul Garratt, the Drawing Archivist there. He described how the drawings came to be at the centre, what state they were when they arrived and how they were then sorted and catalogued. Once again, the discussion mentioned how the HMRS had to work with groups to accurately identify what items are within the collection. Furthermore, he also posited questions regarding the future of the collection, for example how the study centre might archive rolling stock plans generated by Computer Aided Design.

Princess Margaret Rose
We then broke for lunch and I headed over to the Princess Royal Class Locomotive Trust and Museum, which is also on the site. A number of delegates were taken round by the curator, Kate Watts, and we were shown the Trust's museum and workshop. The presence of the trust complements Midland Railway centre perfectly, and it is lovely to see steam locomotives up close.

Delegates being shown around the Midland Railway Study Centre
Derby and the Silk Mill Museum was where the second half of the day was held. Unfortunately, this clearly fascinating museum was mothballed by Derby City Council in April 2011 to save money. This is especially sad as the building was the world's first factory, having been established in 1717. Nevertheless, delegates were lucky enough to have a look around the first floor and we were then given a tour round the Midland Railway Study Centre, which is housed within. Its archive holds a highly impressive collection of Midland Railway documents, more than The National Archives. Consequently, it is a hugely valuable resource for those researching the railway. As part of the tour, we were also given access to the study centre's repository. As many of you are aware, I have an obsession with railway rule books (and I am always open to receiving digitised copies) and immediately on entering I went looking for them. I think torment is the correct word. I opened a cabinet and there, right before me, were boxes of rule and instruction books. I had to be dragged away.

Rodger Shelly, Principal Keeper of Derby Silk Museum speaking
The afternoon's lectures commenced with Roger Shelley, Principal Keeper of the museum, giving us a fascinating talk on what was held within the museum's collection and how it was managed. Given the museum's closure, he mentioned new initiatives to keep the museum engaging with the community. Indeed, it had recently it had improved over 300 Wikipedia articles relating to items within its collection and Derby's history. The case of the Silk Mill Museum posed some interesting questions to the audience about archival organisations' public engagement and how, when faced with financial restrictions, documents and artefacts can be made accessible the public. Furthermore, at the forefront of my mind were concerns as to how cash-strapped archives may treat families and individuals that come to them wishing to deposit collections of railway documents when their resources are limited.

This topic was touched on by the next speaker, John Miles. John is Chairman of  the Midland Collection Trust, which supervises a collection of 39,000 Midland Railway documents and artefacts which constitute the majority of those held in the Midland Railway Study Centre. These were formerly owned by Roy Burrows, and John spoke very informatively on how the trust to manage the collection was established, how it had been catalogued, and how it is currently maintained. John's most interesting anecdote was that in the gallery of Midland Railway items on the Trust's website, the most looked at were the chamber pots from the company's hotels. Ultimately, this talk focussed the audience's mind on the fact that many collections of railway items are in the hands of private collectors. Indeed, as many who have read some of my earlier posts will know, this is a matter that concerns me greatly. What happens to these collections when their owners pass on? How can we be sure they will be saved when their families, through no fault of their own, have no knowledge of their value? Lastly, how do we disseminate amongst the general public knowledge of where collections of railway artefacts and documents can be deposited?
Grahame Boyes of the Railway and Canal Historical Society Speaking

Grahame Boyes and Keith Fenwick from the Railway and Canal Historical Society then demonstrated the 'Transport Archive Register' (formerly the Tracking Railway Archives Project). This is a database of where archival material from railways and canals is stored around the country, and was begun in the early 2000s to complement other archival databases, such as the now defunct Access 2 Archives and the National Register of Archives. Researchers can search the database by railway or canal company, subject, industry, county, country or people, and then will be provided a link to the relevant web page. I was struck by the fact that if the railway community are going to come together to preserve and promote railway archives, then tools such as this, which are added to by the community, are going to be vital. We need hubs whereby information on railway archives can be found and pooled. Indeed, this may take the form of a website, yet there also may be a need for a central organising committee that can marshal such efforts.

The last talk of the day was given by Joan Unwin, archivist at the Company of Cultlers in Hallamshire. This company was established in 1624 to maintain the quality of Sheffield manufactured cutlery and steel products. She spoke of one particular accession into its archive of 1400 razors and the issues surrounding this, including the evident safety concerns regarding the storage of these potentially dangerous items. While donations of paper archives are trouble enough for archivists, the talk highlighted the what problems there are when archives take into stock physical items. In the context of railways this is potentially a huge problem, given that they were, and are, producers of items of all sorts. Indeed, the talk challenged the audience to think about what railway archives actually need to acquire, and whether every physical item needs to be kept.
Roy Edwards and Keith Harcourt leading the round-table.

The workshop ended with a round-table discussion where many of the ideas and questions highlighted in the two days were thrown around. While nothing concrete was decided on there and then, I think we have started a very large ball rolling. I am certain that in the next coming months the energy and enthusiasm that the speakers and delegates showed towards railway archives will produce many new ideas and initiatives to aid their promotion, use and preservation. 

I am looking forward to playing a large part in this and working with the many of the new friends I have made this weekend. Indeed, there is much work to be done; for myself, and a whole community of amateurs and academics who love the railways. I want to finish off by saying a big thank you to the two organisers of the workshop, Keith Harcourt and Roy Edwards, for putting on such a wonderful event - it was truly fantastic and at the end of Saturday night, I was not happy to be leaving! 

Many thanks to Keith Harcourt for many of the photos.

------------

[1] The Executive of the HMRS. Carried on page 2 of every copy of the Society’s Journal.
[2] Simmons, J. & Biddle, G The Oxford Companion to Railway History. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1997) Page 205)
↧

Defining the Early British Station Master

April 29, 2012, 5:27 am
$
0
0
Late Victorian and Edwardian Station Masters are perceived to have been highly respected individuals. They commanded the stations at which they were based, and were pillars of the community; respectable, authoritarian and honourable. However, in the case of station masters before 1870 these attributes are not necessarily applicable. Without established promotional trees, standardised rules and regulations, and with vetting procedures for new employees not being set in stone, Britain’s pioneer station masters were a very mixed bag, to say the least.

Firstly, the term ‘station master’ was not a universal one in the period, although it was certainly around. A London and South Western Railway rule book from 1845 called them ‘station clerks’, and in many cases this is what they were, simply clerks in charge of a station.[1] Indeed, the Great Northern Railway omitted the word ‘station’ altogether, calling officials in these positions ‘clerks-in-charge’ in 1856.[2] Nevertheless, it seems that other railways used ‘clerks-in-charge’ interchangeably with ‘station master’, as shown in the East Lancashire Railway’s 1856 rule book.[3] The most common alternative to ‘station master’ in the period was ‘station agent’, and the London and South Western Railway, after disposing of ‘station clerk’, retained this title right until the 1900 for all except those individuals administering large stations.[4] It was only in the 1860s that ‘station master’ became far more common and part of common parlance.

However, whatever early station masters were called, the individuals filling these posts came to the railways after being occupied in a vast array of other occupations. In my survey of the professions 400 London and North Western Railway workers between 1830 and 1860 had prior to being employed by the railway, thirty-nine of the sample were station masters or ‘agents’. Their previous occupations were diverse, including farmers, journeymen, sailors, civil servants, bookkeepers and porters. Seemingly, most sectors of the mid-Victorian economy were represented amongst the thirty-nine, and it suggests that it would not be wise to pigeonhole early station masters as having one or two types of employment background.[5]

However, it is unsurprising that with men from many backgrounds filling these posts, not all were well behaved. In 1858 George Reeves, Station Master at Lowdham Station on the Midland Railway, pleaded guilty to embezzling the company out of an unspecified amount. In passing sentence the judge stated that he Reeves had been placed in a position of ‘great confidence and trust,’ and while he showed remorse, he was sentenced to six months hard labour.[6] In 1861 the cash held at the London and South Western Railway’s Windsor Station was found to be deficient. While no officials were found to be at fault, it is odd the management would then ‘break up the staff’ throughout the line [7] and remove the Station Master, John Madigan, to Petersfield with a reduction of salary.[8] Lastly, in 1865 at the Usk Quarter Sessions, Alfred Brown, station master at Hengoed Station on the Rhymney Railway, was charged with indecently assaulting Mary Ann Griffiths in a railway carriage.[9]

Of course, the majority of station masters in the period were honourable and did their job satisfactorily. Indeed, most had to have favourable references to be appointed. The Great Northern Railway’s ‘General Instructions and Regulations for the executive department’ stated that ‘experienced clerks’, who I presume were frequently appointed as ‘clerks-in-charge’, were required to have references from their ‘last employer’ and ‘one from each of two housekeepers of an undoubted respectability.’[10] 
Furthermore, after around the mid-1850s it was highly unlikely that an individual would be appointed directly as a station master, as railway companies increasingly preferred these posts to be filled by individuals who had risen through the ranks. Thus, by this time potentially poor station masters were usually weeded out before they reached that post. For example, William Mears was appointed directly as ‘agent’ on the opening of Winchfield Station on the London and South Western Railway in May 1840.[11] Yet his son, Francis, had a longer road into that position. He was appointed as an apprentice clerk at Dorchester 1851, finally becoming ‘agent’ at Dinton fifteen years later in 1866.[12]

Additionally, as the years passed the rules regulating station masters’ work grew in number and were increasingly formalised. The London and South Western Railway’s 1853 rule book dedicated only thirteen pages to instructing station masters,[13] and the East Lancashire Railway provided only eleven in 1856.[14] However, as the complexity of the railway network and density of train movements increased, the regulations for station masters mirrored this by becoming more detailed. For example, in 1858[15] and 1865[16] the London and South Western Railway produced abstracts of ‘instructions which have from time to time been issued to the Station agents’, which were forty-two and 102 pages long respectively. This was in addition to the nineteen dense pages of instructions in the company’s general rule book of 1864.[17] Therefore, because of  companies’ tightening regulation of station master's activities, there was less scope for them to misbehave or commit crime. Indeed, from a brief survey of on-line nineteenth century newspapers, the cases where this was so seemingly decline after the 1850s.

Therefore, the story of the early Victorian station master is one of a mixed bag of individuals doing a job which was not the same at every location or within every company. However, it is also one where what station masters did quickly became standardised and routine within the promotional and organisational frameworks the railway companies established.

-----

[1] London School of Economics Collection [LSE], HE1 (42) – 439, London and South Western Railway Rules to be observed by Enginemen and Firemen , 1845, p.iii-iv
[2] Author’s Collection, Great Northern Railway, General Instructions and Regulations for the executive department’, p.94
[3] LSE, HC1 (42) -41, Bye-laws, rules and regulations to be observed by the officers and men in the service of the East Lancashire Railway Company, Bury, October, 1854. p.51
[4] The National Archives, RAIL 1135/276,Rules and Regulations General Instructions and Appendices to Working Timetables: General Instructions to Staff, Station Staff, 1908
[5] The National Archives, RAIL 410/1805, Register of waged and salaried staff including station masters, agents, porters, policemen, pointsmen, signalmen, female cleaners, foremen, gatemen, shunters, clerks, breaksmen and lampmen.
[6] Nottinghamshire Guardian, Thursday, January 07, 1858, p. 3
[7] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 411/217, Special Committee Minute Book, 11 January 1861
[8] TNA, RAIL 411/492, Clerical staff character book No. 2, p.416
[9] The Leeds Mercury, Saturday, January 7, 1865,
[10] Author’s Collection, Great Northern Railway, General Instructions and Regulations for the executive department’, p.94
[11] TNA, RAIL 411/491, Clerical staff character book No. 1, p.340
[12] TNA, RAIL 411/491, Clerical staff character book No. 1, p.305
[13] LSE, HE 3020 – L.84, Rules and Regulations for the guidance of the officers and servants of the London and South Western Railway, 1853, p.16-29m
[14] LSE, HC1 (42) -41, Bye-laws, rules and regulations to be observed by the officers and men in the service of the East Lancashire Railway Company, Bury, October, 1854. p.51-61
[15] TNA, RAIL 1035/269, Abstract of instructions which have from time to time been issued to the Station agents &c Previous to 1st May 1858
[16] TNA, RAIL 1035/270, Abstract of instructions which have from time to time been issued to the Station agents &c Previous to 1st June 1865
[17] Author’s Collection, Rules and Regulations for the guidance of the officers and servants of the London and South Western Railway, 1 August 1864, p.22-43
↧

A Misinformed but Devious Take-over of a Railway

May 6, 2012, 11:32 am
$
0
0
The Somerset and Dorset Railway in 1875
The ultimate point of my PhD on the London and South Western Railway’s (LSWR) management between 1870 and 1910 is to determine the quality of managers' and directors' decisions in the period. Therefore, I deal with questions surrounding what drove decisions and what decision-makers knew when making them. One event I focus on is the LSWR and Midland Railway’s lease of the Somerset and Dorset Railway (SDR) in 1875.

The LSWR and Midland Railway's Lease

The SDR was formed from a number of small companies in 1862. Yet, after connecting to Bath in 1874 it got into financial trouble, even though the trade with the Midland at that place and the LSWR at Templecombe was healthy.[1] Consequently, the beleaguered company approached the Great Western Railway (GWR) with the proposal that it would purchase the SDR. Thereafter, the GWR and its Bristol and Exeter Railway (BER) allies engaged in protracted negotiation with the SDR,[2] and by early August a deal was close. On the 12 August 1875 James Grierson and J.C. Wall, the GWR and BER General Managers, visited the LSWR’s General Manager, Archibald Scott, at Waterloo. The LSWR and GWR were fierce competitors, but as an act of good faith Grierson and Wall informed Scott of the negotiations and offered the LSWR a working agreement on the southern part of the line between Templecombe and Wimborne.[3] Scott expressed his alarm at the proposal[4] and requested another meeting on the 16 August to give him time to consult the LSWR’s board.[5]
James Allport

It was at that point that the LSWR out-flanked the GWR. Scott met his board on 13 August and was immediately sent to Birmingham to confer with the Midland’s Deputy Chairman and General Manager, James Allport.[6] By the 17 August they decided to work with the LSWR to offer the SDR a better deal than the GWR and B&ER's.[7] Yet, knowledge of Scott's trip was withheld from Grierson and Wall when he met them on sixteenth,[8] with Scott stating that a LSWR half-yearly meeting of proprietors had prevented the board considering the matter.[9] This gave the LSWR and Midland time to finalise their deal with the SDR board, who on 19 August rejected GWR and BER’s offer. The agreement between the LSWR, Midland  and SDR was signed on the 1 November.[10] Naturally, the GWR was angered by Scott’s actions and opposed the leasing Bill in Parliament.[11] However, against its many protestations, this passed on 13 July 1876.[12]

Decision-making

The question remains as to why the LSWR decided to go behind the GWR's back and secure the SDR for itself? Certainly, LSWR decision-makers thought their company would benefit from leasing the SDR and augmenting its infrastructure. Scott described its traffic as being ‘in its infancy’ and at the parliamentary committee investigating the lease stated that:

James Grierson
‘A considerable amount of money will have to be expended on the Somerset and Dorset Line to improve it and make it efficient for traffic purposes, and I have no hesitation in saying that the traffic to be carried over the Somerset and Dorset Line in connection with the South Western system and the Midland as well as locally, will be very large indeed.’[13]

However, the LSWR did not employ accurate predictions of the capital expense required to realise the SDR's revenue generating potential. Like Channon argued regarding the Midland’s London extension in 1869, LSWR decision-makers’ knowledge of costs and revenues was too incomplete for accurate predictions of these things to be made.[14] Furthermore, there was realistically not time enough between Scott being notified of the GWR and BER’s plans on the twelfth, and the agreement’s completion on the nineteenth, for accurate forecasts to be formulated. This is not to say LSWR decision-makers had absolutely no idea of the potential revenues and costs of taking over the line, and the proposal for the LSWR to operate between Wimborne and Templecombe was deemed objectionable because Scott recognised the region’s poor revenue generating potential. But this analysis was not systematic, and based on ‘gut-feeling’ and experience.

In reality, the potential profits the SDR could generate with investment was not the reason the LSWR joined with the Midland to lease it. Before 1876 the SDR generated little traffic for the LSWR. In 1871 freight moving from the SDR onto the LSWR’s system contributed to the latter revenue of only £38,282, rising to £54,482 by 1875, the increase being because the Bath connection opened. Yet, this still only constituted 2.19 per cent of the LSWR’s gross receipts in 1875[15] and it is unlikely this traffic alone justified the lease.

Rather, the timing of the LSWR’s approach to the Midland and SDR were determined by the GWR and B&ER’s actions. The LSWR's trade could have been potentially disadvantaged if they had taken over the line, and Portal, the LSWR Deputy-Chairman, stated that the GWR and B&ER’s proposals were ‘highly injurious to the interests of the public, contrary to the interests of Parliament and hurtful to the South Western Company.’[16] Strategically, the SDR was important for the LSWR, with trade coming through it from the north and South Wales to Southampton. In August 1875 Scott stated that ‘…naturally the South Western Company, [has been] interested…for so many years been in the traffic in connection with the Somerset and Dorset line.’[17] Therefore, the GWR’s proposals would have given it control of this traffic, possibly damaging the LSWR's revenue.

Thus, the LSWR’s concern to control its trade and territory on its own terms, overrode others regarding the investment the line needed or its revenue generating capacity. Indeed, LSWR decision-makers were attempting to protect a regional monopoly, as Dodgson argued occurred at the time in the industry more generally.[18]



Archibald Scott
However, the lack of accurate cost and revenue predictions played a role in LSWR decision-makers’ mind-sets when approaching the SDR takeover. Firstly, they had believed from as early as the 1840s that traffic and revenue would always increase irrespective of the state of the economy (as I prove elsewhere in my Phd). This fed the belief that territorial protection would always put extra traffic onto the LSWR’s system, which would ultimately be good for company profits. Consequently, because accurate project forecasting was largely absent and decisions were usually made based on gut-feeling, these largely assumed beliefs underpinned the rationale and timing of most decisions. Indeed, in the SDR's case, for the LSWR to loose territorial control, may also have potentially lost it the profit from the naturally assumed traffic growth. Again, Channon argued that similar thinking was behind the Midland Railway’s construction of the London extension.[19]

A Successful Take-Over?

Ultimately, the SDR lease mirrored Watkin’s extensions of the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire railway to some extent, as Hopkins described them as ‘expensive failures’ because they ‘were not properly weighed up as investment opportunities’.[20] While the the success of the SDR lease is hard to determine accurately, it was seemingly limited. Between 1875 and 1880, when the LSWR and Midland was investing heavily in the line,[21] passenger numbers hauled grew by 53.22 per cent, and goods tonnage hauled increased by 26.75 per cent.[22] Contrastingly, the LSWR’s passenger traffic numbers grew by 44.26 per cent and goods tonnage by 37.90 per cent over the same period. Yet, thereafter, traffic growth on the SDR stalled, and between 1885 and 1895 the passenger and goods traffic originating from the company grew by 26.94 and 14.58 per cent respectively, while the LSWR’s proportions were 53.02 and 34.47 per cent.[23] Therefore, in later decades the SDR’s own traffic growth was proportionately much lower than the LSWR’s, and its traffic would have made up proportionately less of its parent company's over time.[24] Nevertheless, the benefit of the LSWR controlling the line for its traffic from the north and South Wales may have been considerable as the SDR provided a more direct route to Southampton for it, but this cannot be determined.

Overall, however, the case of the SDR lease shows that rather than mid-Victorian railway managers and directors making calculated decisions about network expansion; the protection of territory was a very important concern for them in the period. Yet, this was despite them never being able to truly quantify what the costs and benefits of protecting this territory would be.

------

[1] Williams, R.A., The London and South Western Railway, Volume 2: Growth and Consolidation, (Newton Abbot, 1973), p.173
[2] MacDermot, E.T., revised by Clinker, C.R., History of the Great Western Railway: Volume 2, (Shepperton, 1982), p.52
[3] The National Archives [TNA] RAIL 1066/1692, Sir D. Gooch to the Hon. R.H. Dutton Bart. 26 August 1875, p.44
[4] TNA, RAIL 1066/1692, Wyndham S. Portal. To Sir D. Gooch, 4 September 1875, p.46
[5] TNA, RAIL 1066/1692, Sir D. Gooch to the Hon. R.H. Dutton Bart. 26 August 1875, p.44
[6] TNA, RAIL 1066/1692, Archibald Scott’s evidence for Somerset and Dorset Railway Bill, Minute No. 418, p.55
[7] Williams, The London and South Western Railway, Volume 2, p.174
[8] TNA, RAIL 1066/1692, Sir D. Gooch to Wyndham S. Portal. 27 October 1875, p.48
[9] TNA, RAIL 1066/1692, Sir D. Gooch to the Hon. R.H. Dutton Bart. 26 August 1875, p.44
[10] Williams, The London and South Western Railway, Volume 2, p.174-175
[11] TNA, RAIL 1066/1692, Parliamentary Bills and Minutes of Evidence, etc.
[12] Williams, The London and South Western Railway, Volume 2, p.175
[13] TNA, RAIL 1066/1692, Archibald Scott’s evidence for Somerset and Dorset Railway Bill, Minute No. 378, p.42, 24 March 1876
[14] Channon, Geoffrey, Railways in Britain and the United States, 1830-1940: Studies in Economic and Business History, (Aldershot, 2001), p.107
[15] TNA, RAIL 1066/1692, Archibald Scott’s evidence for Somerset and Dorset Railway Bill, Minute No. 369, p.41, 24 March 1876
[16] TNA, RAIL 1066/1692, Wyndham S. Portal. To Sir D. Gooch, 4 September 1875, p.46
[17] TNA, RAIL 1066/1692, Archibald Scott’s evidence for Somerset and Dorset Railway Bill, Minute No. 375, p.42, 24 March 1876
[18] John, ‘New, disaggregated, British railway total factor productivity growth estimates, 1875 to 1912’, The Economic History Review, 64 (2011), p.639
[19] Channon, Railways in Britain and the United States, 1830-1940, p.107
[20] Hodgkins, David, The Second Railway King: The Life and Times of Sir Edward Watkin (Llandybie, 2002)
, p.486
[21] TNA, RAIL 262/16, Somerset and Dorset Joint Line Committee, Meetings of Officers 1875-1884
[22] Board of Trade, Railway Returns for England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland, 1875, p.58-62 and 1880, p.50-54
[23] Board of Trade, Railway Returns for England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland, 1880, p.52-56 and 1885, p.52-56
[24] Board of Trade, Railway Returns for England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland, 1875, p.62 and 1880, p.54
↧
Viewing all 38 articles
Browse latest View live
Search