In reality this was not an innovation. The Edinburgh,
Perth and Dundee Railway, which later became part of the North British Railway,
had employed a woman as a booking clerk a Perth Station in 1858.[2] Other
British railway companies were also employing large numbers of women in similar
positions on their networks by 1903. The Yorkshire
Evening Post reported that ‘the female booking clerk is no new thing in Glasgow;
there have been girl booking clerks in the West of Scotland for ten years.’[3] The Evening Post itself acknowledged how
the Caledonian’s new policy was not unique, ‘In the ticket office she may be
something of a novelty in the North, but not so further South. The London and North-Western
was already ahead in its employment of ladies on the ticket staffs.’[4]
In fact, the Caledonian’s appointment of 1903 was only a
unique because it was the first time it had dabbled with such an ‘experiment.’ The
plan was, it seems, to expand the number of female booking clerks on the
company’s network. In one officials’ view the ‘lady clerk was here to stay,’ with ‘female labour in the service of the
pen…rapidly widening.[5]
As with all instances of women being employed as clerks there
was a large degree of doubt as to whether they had the skills or aptitude
to perform their roles adequately. A Caledonian official thought
that ‘it was not imperative that she should run up columns of figures or juggle
with statistical puzzles of periodical survey. Her usefulness could be
exploited without any apprehension of accounting difficulties.’[6] The Yorkshire Evening Post went one
further affirming that there were just some things that female booking clerks were
incapable of doing; ‘her sex unfits her for the country station, where the
booking clerk adds to his duties those of ticket collector.’[7] Whether this
was the view of railway companies’ managements is unclear.
If there was doubt amongst Caledonian officials that women could perform the role of booking clerk adequately, why then did they proceed with the 'experiment'? Let us not presume it was because a railway manager had a
particularly progressive or feminist outlook and wished to promote equal
opportunities in the workplace. Between 1897 and 1901 the Caledonian’s
operating ratio – its operating expenditure expressed as a proportion of
revenue – rose from 50.4% to 56.4%.[8] Such an increase in operating costs,
principally because of higher coal prices, affected most British railways in this
period and, like most companies, it is presumed that the Caledonian
enacted an immediate economy drive in response.
The employment of female booking clerks was therefore likely
part of this quest to reduce costs. The ‘official’ highlighted that
they were paid less than their male counterparts: ‘the salary for mere
ticket-selling would be somewhat under that of the regular male ticket clerk.
She was a commodity of cheapness and so long as she went into the clerical market
so long would she prove a mercantile rival on the railway as on any other
railway.’ He foresaw that the female booking clerk was a permanent fixture ‘so
long as one broad principal of economy rules the railway organisations of
today.’[9] Another benefit for the railway of employing female booking clerks was that they were
never moved from their position or were promoted. ‘The male booking clerk,’ The Yorkshire Evening Post contended, ‘is a
restless animal with a keen eye on promotion, and the only way to keep him in
the service is to change him from station to station…the girl clerk does
not leave her post until she marries.’ Because the women were never given the
opportunity to move from the position in which they were initially employed,
this reduced the cost for the railway company of finding and training a constant
stream of new male booking clerks.[10]
Overall, the Caledonian’s example has shown how important
it is to place the growing number of women employed on Britain’s railways after
1900 in context. In 1901 1,633 were working on Britain’s railways; by
1914 this number had risen to 13,046.[10] I would say that to a large extent
this growth was driven by British railway companies’ desire to cut costs, and not principally because individuals in authoritative positions in the industry that had progressive outlooks.
--------------------------
[1] Evening Post, 6 October 1903, p.2
[2] Wojtczak, Helena, Railwaywomen, (Hastings, 2006), p.27
[3] Yorkshire Evening Post , 12 October 1903, p.4
[4] Evening Post, 6
October 1903, p.2
[5] Evening Post, 6
October 1903, p.2
[6] Evening Post, 6
October 1903, p.2
[7] Yorkshire Evening Post , 12 October 1903, p.4
[8] Board of Trade, Railway Returns, 1897 and 1901
[9] Evening Post, 6
October 1903, p.2
[10] Wojtczak, Railwaywomen, p.4 – The first figure is
from the 1901 census returns and could be open to change. I feel personally
that it is a little low.
