'It is impossible to manage a [pre-1914] railway by theory" ... or is it?

In the early 1900s the London and South Western Railway (LSWR) was one of five British railway companies that began sending its clerks to the London School of Economics (LSE) to undertake classes in 'railway administration.' The aim of this move was to augment the skills and knowledge of its clerical staff, the company's future managers, in a period when the quality of the railway industry's management was being questioned and it was being challenged by high material and labour costs, competition from trams on suburban routes, increased government intervention and stagnating traffic growth. Indeed, this caused a severe drop in company profitability from the late 1890s onwards.

However, before the First World War the idea of railway employees attending universities to receive management training was not universally accepted within many companies'. Furthermore, this attitude was not restricted to the railways and Amdam argued that historians have almost unanimously concluded that within British industry generally there was a ‘skepticism towards business education within the both the academic and business community’.[1]

This scepticism towards was expressed frequently by LSWR clerks in the company's staff magazine, The South Western Gazette, which was largely written and edited by them. When Hilditch, the Waterloo Station Superintendent, retired in 1905, the piece announcing this stated that he had had ‘a good plain practical education, but he possessed, in addition, what universities have not yet been able to provide, namely, a shrewdness and capacity for sound common sense, a cool head and clear intellectual grasp.'[2] The anti-university feeling was reiterated in 1909 when another clerk, writing on the matter staff education, stated that ' I will dismiss the question of the London School of Economics by saying that “it is impossible to manage a railway by theory.” Indeed, he preferred an institute where individuals could learn 'practical' railway skills.[3]

The problem with this attitude was that it was what had created many of the problems railway management faced immediately after the late 1890s. Indeed, because many senior officials felt that good railway managers were born within the industry, not made outside it, and thus recruited the vast majority internally, companies' decision-makers were highly institutionalised within the practices and norms of the railways that employed them and the industry as a whole.  Consequently, railways were unable to respond adequately to the challenges they faced as there was severe lack of innovation within them and few new ideas were being generated. This is what my PhD shows in the LSWR's case.


-----

[1]Amdam, Rolv Petter, ‘Business Education’, in Jones, Geoffrey and Zeitlin, Robert (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Business History, (Oxford, 2007), p.586 
[2] South Western Gazette, September 1905, p.9 
[3] South Western Gazette, December 1909, p.10

Improving the Management Class? LSE Training and the London and South Western Railway.

I have written before about the training of London-based railway clerks at the London School of Economics (LSE) in the very early twentieth century ( here). Realistically, clerks were the only individuals in the pre-1914 railway industry that had a chance of moving into management. Thus, the training, which took place from 1903 onwards and which was up to the clerks themselves to attend (although the railway companies made a donation to the LSE), were designed to give them a good grounding in what was considered good management technique. What is of interest in this post is not the courses themselves, they have been covered before. Rather, I am interested on the effect that the courses had on the quality of railway managers. Did the courses have the potential to improve the quality of railway companies’ management class? The company of choice is the London and South Western Railway (L&SWR).

The LSE contacted the L&SWR about their clerks attending its courses in October 1903, and by May 1904 183 were attending.[1] Some of the earliest courses L&SWR Clerks attended were as follows:-

1- The Economics of Rapid Transit

12 - The Law relating to railway companies

14 - Economic Factors in Railway Administration

41 - Railway Statistics in England and Foreign Countries

108 - The Law of Carriage by Railway[2]

After 1903 number of L&SWR employees attending fell consistently up until 1913 when only 43 took the courses. Understandably, during World War One the number of attendees dropped off further. However, after 1918 there was a slight recovery in numbers. This is shown in the graph below. It is suspected that this drop, apart from during the war, can be attributed to the fact that in 1903 most of the clerks who were willing to attend the LSE did so at that point. Subsequently, those who went later on were either new employees or they had moved to places where the LSE was geographically accessible. However, their numbers were not as great.

Yet, despite high overall attendance, the effect the courses had on the calibre of the L&SWR’s management class seems marginal. I have found that 156 L&SWR employees attended courses at the LSE which were assessed by examination, their results being recorded on their staff records. Of these individuals only 3 (1.92%) actually went on to become senior managers within the company. Furthermore, in 1921 the company did a detailed survey of its entire staff. This census showed that across all departments that it had 162 individuals in senior management positions. Thus, the three individuals constituted only 1.85% of the L&SWR’s management in this year.

The three men were John Percival Milton, William Tucket Venton and Herbert Ivor Bond. Milton was a clerk in the Goods Manager’s Office when he took his first course in 1903 (Law of Carriage by Railway). He later became District Goods Superintendent at Salisbury in 1918.[4] Venton was also a clerk in the same office and also began in 1903 (‘Law of Carriage by Railway’). He later became a District Goods Superintendent in 1912 at London, later moving to Southampton.[5] The last was Bond, and Draughtsman in the Engineering Department. It is unknown what courses he took, but in 1919 he became London District Engineer. Of the three only Milton excelled, and in 1912 he won the 'Brunel' Medal for three first class certificates in three subjects in not more than four years.

Therefore, attendance by L&SWR employees at the LSE courses had minimal effect on the quality of its senior management between 1903 and 1922. Nevertheless, it is possible that it did improve the day to day performance of the other 153 attendees from the company. Indeed, the LSE training may have had far had more benefits for the quality of its junior management. Presumably, many of those who attended the courses later on in their history (after 1910, for example) would not have had time to rise up into senior management positions by the time the L&SWR was dissolved in 1922. Yet, by then they may have become stationmasters or chief clerks. Furthermore, their career advancement may also have quickened because senior managers advanced them based on their LSE attendance.

Lastly, it is highly plausible that the training courses had an effect on the senior management of the Southern Railway (formed in 1923 from the L&SWR, London, Brighton & South Coast and South Eastern & Chatham Railway), as after its formation the majority of the LSE attendees would have had long enough careers to be senior managers. This will, however, require further research.

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

[1] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 411/265, Traffic Committee Minute Book, Minute No. 886, 18th May 1904

[2] TNA, RAIL 411/265, Traffic Committee Minute Book, Minute No. 562, 18th November 1903 and TNA, ZPER 11/23, South Western Gazette, June 1904 pp.5

[3] TNA, RAIL 411/673, L&SWR 1921 Census of Staff

[4] TNA, RAIL 411/493, Clerical staff character book No.3 1839-1920, p.119

[5] TNA, RAIL 411/494, Clerical staff character book No.4 1859-1920, p.258

The Philanthropy of Railway Companies - 1910

One of things that I've noticed when going through the minute books of the London and South Western Railway was the large number of donations the company made to charitable causes, especially in the 1880s, 1890s and early twentieth century. However, it was also noted that the railway companies, for unknown reasons, refused many requests to contribute to organisations on many occasions. Yet, this was all I saw of the charitable activities of railway companies in the period. Therefore, imagine my surprise when found in the House of Commons Parliamentary Papers a report detailing all the charitable donations that British railway companies made in 1910.

In that year the railway companies of England, Wales and Scotland (I have excluded Ireland) earned £116,240,054 and cost £72,170,459 to operate.[1] In the same year, the industry donated a mere £14,068 4s 0d to external organisations, the large proportion of which were of a religious or charitable nature. This constituted a measly 0.000195% of the industry’s entire operating costs for 1910. Thus, the railways of Britain, while in large part seeing to the needs of their own workers though housing, pensions, training and healthcare schemes, were miserly when giving to those beyond their organisational borders.

Reflecting the paternal activities of the railway companies, the majority of their donations were to ‘Hospitals, Infirmaries and Dispensaries,’ which totalled £6,690 15s 6d. Combined with the donations to other ‘medical’ organisations listed amongst the recipients, ‘Convalescent Homes and Nursing Associations’ (£424, 5s 0d) and ‘Ambulance, medical, surgical aid, and truss societies’ (£308 1s 0d), the total that the railway companies gave to these types of bodies was £7,423 1s 0d, or 52.76% of the overall total. The fact that medical organisations were the largest beneficiaries of what little charity the railways provided, is indicative of the fact that they relied on them to support their own workers who fell sick or who were disabled in the course of their employment. Therefore, propping up medical organisations through donations was extension of the railways’ own internal paternalistic activities.

Religious organisations received the next largest amount of charity from the railway companies. ‘Church funds’ and ‘missions’ received £1,698 3s 0d overall (12.07%). As has been stated in earlier blog posts (here and here), early on different railway companies had varying approaches to religion, ranging from indifference to active encouragement. The fact that different attitudes were still present by 1910 is shown by the different proportional amounts that companies gave to such organisations. The London and South Western Railway (L&SWR) gave £100 5s 0d, or 9.17% of its overall total, to religious organisations, while the Great Western Railway (GWR) gave £125, or 9.89%. Yet the Lancashire and Yorkshire (L&YR), North Eastern (NER) and Great Central Railways (GCR) gave nothing, while the London and North Western Railway gave £822 1s 8d to churches and their attendant organisations, 31.22% of their overall total. Given that most donations were decided on by the companies’ directors, the varying contributory amounts given to religious bodies clearly related to the different levels of religiosity existing within company board rooms.

The early twentieth century was also a period when railway companies were starting to provide opportunities for their employees to train externally; opening up opportunities for them to gain further experience and possible promotion. To this end the railway companies donated £1,110 18s 0d (7.89%) to educational institutions. Looming large amongst the recipients was the London School of Economics (LSE), which at the time was training London based clerks in the art of railway management. You can read more about the courses in some of my earlier blog posts (here, and here). The five railways who sent clerks to the LSE in 1910 were the L&SWR, GWR, GCR, NER and Metropolitan Railway. Additionally, £1,278 14s 0d (9.09%) was spent on ‘Mechanic’s, Seamen’s and Fishermen’s Institutes.’ However, the majority of this total was constituted by the London and North Western Railway giving £1,087 10s 0d to the Crewe Mechanics’ Institute where it sponsored training 42 for individuals. Yet, as shown, the railways that were giving to educational institutes to varying degrees. This is indicative of the fact that the idea that railway employees could advance themselves and boost their careers through work-based education was only starting to permeate the industry.[2]

Overall, I do not have space to discuss all the donations that railway companies made in 1910 and have only mentioned the most prominent recipients here. However, what this post has shown is that the donations that company boards made could represent the state of the industry at the time, the beliefs and ideas of directors, and the environment in which the companies operated. Thus, more research needs to be done on this forgotten area of railway history to see how much we can learn about the attitudes of directors and managers. But then, I think I have lost count now of the areas I keep flagging for further research.

[1] Railway Returns 1910
[2] House of Commons Parliamentary Papers [HCPP], 1911 (266) Railway companies (charitable and other contributions, 1910). Return to an order of the Honourable the House of Commons, dated 10 August 1911;--for, return "showing in detail the amounts contributed by the railway companies of the United Kingdom, during the year 1910, to institutions and associations of various character, not directly controlled by the companies, and not for the exclusive benefit of the companies' servants."

Female Railway Clerks at the LSE, 1914-1920

In the mid-1890s at the London School of Economics (LSE), William Acworth, a noted commentator on railway issues, gave a series of lectures to Great Western (GWR) and Great Eastern Railway (GER) clerks on railway management. After this, the idea of a department being established there to teach railway employees on aspects of railway management began to develop. Subsequently, in 1903 seven major railway companies (GWR, GER, London and South Western Railway, Great Central Railway, Great Northern Railway and London and North Western Railway) paid for more detailed courses to be established at the university. The clerks of these companies were not forced to attend the courses, as they took place on their own time, yet they were encouraged to do so as it would help their careers.

In the first term (1903-04) the courses available were 'The Economics of Rapid Transport,' 'The Law Relating to Railway Companies,' 'Economic Factors in Railway Administration,' 'Railway Statistics in England and Foreign Countries' and 'The Law of Carriage by Railway.' All initially ran for 3 to 12 lectures, and a student’s performance was measured by either an essay or exam. The number of courses made available by the Railway Department soon expanded, and by the First World War topics included railway engineering and locomotive operation. Further, courses were also offered on subjects not directly related to railway management or more general topics, such as economics, business and accountancy skills. Ultimately, students who attended over many years could obtain a degree with honours in transportation.

Over this period, the number of female clerks working within British railway companies had grown significantly. By July 1914, out of 13,046 female railway workers across the network, 2,341 were working in clerical grades. With the coming of the war this number increased. Thus, by 1918 Britain’s railways employed 13,655 women as clerks.

Throughout the war the Railway Department at the LSE continued to teach London-based clerks and many female clerks took the opportunity to attend. In total, over the period 1914 to 1920, there were 126 occasions of female clerks attending the Railway Department for a term. In contrast there were 1419 occasions of male clerks attending for a term, meaning that over the period women made up 8.16% of the student body.

The evidence shows that the attendance of female clerks was shaped by women’s wartime employment patterns. Thus, in the 1914-15 term there were no female students (out of 267), as the proportion of women within the railways’ clerical workforce was still insignificant. It was in the 1915-16 that the first female clerks attended the LSE, one coming from the Metropolitan Railway and four from the Great Western Railway. From this small start, and with the massive increase in the female clerical staff generally, the number attending the LSE grew after 1916. This growth is tabulated below:-


What is also interesting is that female clerks working on the different railway companies attended the classes in different proportions relative to the number of overall attendees that their company sent. The table below shows the number of clerks that attended according to the railway company with which they were employed between 1914 and 1920:-


Evidence suggests that the enthusiasm with which female clerks from the different companies attended the LSE may have been influenced by the companies’ pre-war enthusiasm for employing women in clerical positions generally. Therefore, the Great Western Railway, who supplied the greatest number of female clerks relative to their entire contribution to the student body, was one of the first companies to employ women as clerks in 1906. Yet, one of the railways from which the fewest numbers of female clerks went to the LSE, the London and South Western Railway, only began to employ female clerks in March 1914. A caveat should be stated, in that these figures will be affected by the fact that the LSE classes were only attended by clerks that worked in the London area. So, for example, the worst performer in the table, the Great Northern Railway, served mainly areas in the north of the country and may have had few London-based female clerical staff, which would have affected their returns.

Yet, despite this consideration, the evidence suggests that the different companies’ pre-war mind-sets towards female labour and employment may have affected the encouragement that they gave to their female clerks to attend. Indeed, if senior managers within some companies had only begrudgingly allowed women to become clerks in the first place, it is quite possible that they did not make them aware of the courses at the LSE or put up barriers to them attendening. Indeed, the L&SWR employed over 400 female clerks during wartime, yet only 2 attended the Railway Department, suggesting that something restricted their attendance.

Clearly, this story shows that the attitudes of higher education institutions to the education and admission of women was changing. But more importantly, it indicates that once given the opportunity to attend these institutions, women did so with enthusiasm.

Railway Clerks and the LSE...Clerical Training in the early 1900s

In the 1890s and early 1900s Britain’s railway companies introduced many policies to try an affect the quality of their management under increasingly stringent government regulation and more constrained trading conditions. One of the most interesting outcomes of this period was that the railways started to train their employees at external institutions, rather than just relying on them to learn their duties ‘on the job.’ The first group of employees to become trainees were the clerks of the railway companies.
 

While many companies, including the London and South Western Railway, had been encouraging their staff to take up shorthand classes in the 1880s as a way to advance their careers, it wasn’t until the 1890s that railway companies became interested in sending their employees on long-term training and development courses. The first railways to take such a step were the Great Eastern (GER) and Great Western Railways (GWR), who’ paid for some of their clerical staff to attended a series of lectures given at the London School of Economics (LSE) by William Acworth, at that time a railway commentator.

It wasn’t until the early 1900s that formal courses started to develop. In 1901 the LSE approached the major railway companies with a view to running courses on railway management at the University. The London and South Western Railway’s (L&SWR) board certainly didn’t take up the offer and the advance was ‘to be declined.’ It is unknown for what reason this was, but this decision was made after consultation with the boards of the other railway companies. Therefore, it is a possibility that there was actually industry-wide apathy over such training.[1]

Yet, in 1903 seven companies, including the London and North Western, London and South Western, Great Western, Great Northern and Great Eastern Railways, sent some of their London-based clerks to the courses at the newly formed Railway Department of the LSE. Over a number of years the students were able to obtain a degree in transportation[2] In the first term (1903-04) courses, which ran from between 3 and 12 lectures, [3] were available on 'The Economics of Rapid Transport,' 'The Law Relating to Railway Companies,' 'Economic Factors in Railway Administration,' 'Railway Statistics in England and Foreign Countries' and 'The Law of Carriage by Railway.'[4] It is unknown to what extent to which examination was involved; however, essays definitely were submitted for ' The law of Carriage By Railway' and 'Economic Factors in Railway Administration'[5]

By 1914 the range of courses available had expanded, encompassing engineering aspects of the railways, locomotive operation, economics, business and accountancy. However, four topics remained at the core of the degree, under the titles of Commercial, Economics, Law and Operating. All had exam assessments, and essays were required for 9 of the 16 courses available. Generally, by this point courses were between 20 and 30 lectures a term, however, shorter courses were introduced. Additionally, since 1905 students had to attend at least one of the 7 core courses along with a number of short courses to obtain the qualification[6] All students on courses received grades of either first, second or third class, and three first class passes would earn an individual the ‘Brunel Medal.’

Overall, the LSE courses broadened the experience railway clerks on two levels. Firstly, they allowed them to meet fellow clerks from other railways, and would have served as an informal forum for them to share ideas and experiences. Indeed, as an indicator of these new linkages, in 1909 a Railway Students Association was formed.[7]This shut down during the war, but was re-formed in 1919.[8]

Secondly, and more importantly, it is clear that the courses were designed to give attendees a broader knowledge of railway operations. This was in response to the organisational institutionalisation that had developed within the British railway by the turn of the century. In 1911 the head of the teaching staff at the school, Mr Stephenson, wrote:-

'Students come from a variety of departments and offices. In many cases their knowledge of railway work is confined strictly to the limits of work done in their own departments, and often to only a small section of such work. Of the rest of the work of the railway they are supremely ignorant.'[9]

Yet, the reality was that the courses were not just convened for expanding the knowledge of the individual clerks or for their own career advancement. When in 1909 Stephenson suggested that a new course be run on the 'Economics of Railway Construction and Locomotive Operation,' he stated that it would be:-

'…designed with the special object of meeting the needs of the Traffic [Department] man. It is really important that the Traffic operator have some knowledge of the Engineering departments. Without such knowledge the Traffic Officer is not in a position to criticize the schemes of the Permanent Way Engineer or the work of locomotives. Even less is he competent to draw up schemes sidings, stations, yards etc. which it is clearly his duty to do.'[10]

Further, in a letter to an unknown recipient in 1901, Hawkins, head of the Railway Department, stated that the department was maintained exclusively for the benefit of ‘persons engaged or about to be engaged in railway administration in England, the British Colonies and dependencies.'[11] Therefore, while clerks may have seen these courses as a mechanism through which they could advance their career, in reality for the senior management of the railways, they were a way of improving the quality of management of the future.

---

[1] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 411/28, Court of Directors, 2^nd May 1901, p.51 and 13^th June 1901, p.69

[2] Pollins, Harold, Britain's Railways: An Industrial History, (Tatowa, 1971) p.105

[3] London School of Economics Archive [LSE], Minutes, 14/2/1, 1904-1911, Minutes 3^rd June 1904 

[4] LSE, Minutes, 14/2/1, 1904-1911, Minutes Dated 3^rd June 1904 

[5] TNA, ZPER 11/23, South Western Gazette, June 1904, pp.5 and LSE, Minutes, 14/2/1, 1904-1911, Minutes Dated 3^rd June 1904

[6]TNA, ZPER 11/29, South Western Gazette, October 1912, pp.8 and LSE Minutes, 14/2/1, 1904-1911, 2^ndMay 1905

[7]TNA, RAIL 1115/46, Reports and Accounts: Welfare, Railway Students' Association (London School of Economics), Annual Report and Receipts and Payments Account for Session 1931-32, p.7

[8]LSE, Minutes 14/2/3, 1915-39, Minutes of the Advisory Committee on Railway Subjects, 7^th July 1922 page 81

[9]LSE, Minutes, 14/2/1, 1904-1911, Memorandum by Mr Stephenson to the Advisory Committee on Railway Subjects, 13^th February 1911

[10]LSE, Minutes, 14/2/1, 1904-1911, Memorandum by Mr Stephenson on a fresh course of lectures which he proposes to give at the school in the session 1908-09, 1^st June 1909

[11]LSE, Central Filing Registry, 426/1/A, Letter to unknown recipient from W.A.S. Hawkins, 25^th April 1901