Working City to City: The LNWR's on-train typist service of 1910

I am sure from the very earliest days of the railways passengers must have done work on the train. It is, some might say, a tradition of the travelling businessperson. However, the declining cost and increasing hardiness of laptops has undoubtedly changed the nature of train-based work. Rather than simply reading policy documents and making notes, as was likely the case in the poorly lit Victorian railway carriages, those travelling to their place of work can now produce via their laptops formal documents that will go on to their colleagues, managers and companies’ directors. The train can be, for many, a second office that is possibly more pleasant than the one at their final destination.

But the ability to produce formal document on the train is nothing new. Long before the laptop was invented, from February 1910 businessmen on the London and North Western Railway’s (LNWR) “City-to-City” express had facility to have their important and urgent documents typed.[1]

The typist's compartment on the "City-to-City".

The “City-to-City” express was inaugurated by the LNWR between Birmingham and London Broad Street Station to compete with the Great Western Railway’s express services between the same places (the GWR’s services ran into Paddington). Starting from Birmingham at 8.20 am and arriving at 10.35 am, the morning “City-to-City”, which also had a breakfast car attached, took two and a quarter hours to make the journey, whereas the GWR’s service took fifteen minutes less. Although, if you made the journey by the GWR it possibly would have taken you longer overall reach your place of work, Paddington being some distance away from the commercial centres of London. Broad Street Station on the other hand was only a short walk away from the city.[2] The return run of the “City-to-City” started from Broad Street at 5.25pm and arrived at 7.40pm.[3]

Presumably in an attempt to entice to their services businessmen who were eager to save time at work, the LNWR took the innovative step of providing Britain’s first ever on-train typist service on the “City-to-City”. Situated in a compartment specially fitted up with a desk and chairs, the shorthand typist was available to take dictation of letters at any time on the journey.[4] On the inaugural run of the express the work was supervised by Miss Tarrant of the Euston typing room; while on subsequent journeys a Miss Boswell took over.[5] It would, however, seem that there was some initial objection to this service in the press . In the ‘Woman’s Gossip’ section of the Cheltenham Looker-On it was stated that while 5 or 6 hour journeys for passengers was ‘tiring in itself’, the ‘girl’ doing the typing was expected to be at her post five days a week to ‘do office work all the time.’ In its estimation this would be too much work for the ‘girl and exclaimed that ‘the doctors talk of the growth and spread of nervous habits among the people, but who can wonder at it?’[6]

The first letter from the "City-to-City" express.

Initially, it would seem the typing service was successful. “I have been kept busy all the way up,” Tarrant said in an interview shortly after the “City-to-City’s” inaugural return run, “twelve passengers dictated letters to me and only once, when we were passing through the Kilsby Tunnel,  was the dictation interrupted…I had no difficulty whatever in using the typewriter, and all my clients appeared to be highly satisfied. The experiment was quite a success.”[7] Yet, after two months the Tamworth Herald would report the typewriting services had ‘not been so well patronised as was expected would be the case.’ It would seem that travellers using the service were unable to overcome the fear that any business they conducted through the train’s typist would not be confidential. Yet, irrespective of customers’ trepidation, the LNWR decided to extend the service to other trains.[8] Whether the typist service was successful in the long-run is unclear, only a closer examination of the company’s files may reveal this.

--------

[1] Evening Telegraph, Wednesday 2 February 1910, p.4
[2] Wolmar, Christian, Fire and Steam: A new history of the Railways in Britain, (London, 2007), p.188
[3] The Railway Times, 22 January 1910, p.122
[4] The Railway Times, 22 January 1910, p.122
[5] Aberdeen Journal, Thursday 03 February 1910, p.6
[6] Cheltenham Looker-On, Saturday 29 January 1910, p.16
[7] Evening Telegraph, Wednesday 2 February 1910, p.4
[8] Tamworth Herald, Saturday 16 April 1910, p.6

"One broad principal of economy"; One female booking clerk in 1903

Whenever a railway company decided to employ a woman as a clerk before 1914, the newspapers always described the event as an ‘experiment’ or an ‘innovation.’ The Caledonian Railway took such a step 1903 when it decided to hire an unnamed woman as booking clerk at Perth Station. ‘RAILWAY INNOVATION AT PERTH’ was the title of The Evening Post’s report.[1]

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.

A Brief History of the Female Railway Clerk 1830-1914

While I have written frequently about female clerks on Britain’s railways before 1914, I have never penned a complete history. Therefore, this post will provide a broad survey of the changes in women’s clerical employment on the railways between 1830 and 1914.

Initially it may be useful to specify who I am talking about. Women were employed in three clerical positions on the Victorian railway. Firstly, there were the booking clerks; who sold tickets to passengers and registered their luggage. Secondly, women were engaged as administrative clerks, to fill in returns, conduct correspondence, and deal with the day-to-day station administration. Lastly there were telegraph clerks, who sent and received telegraph messages. It would be interesting to talk about these types of clerks separately. Yet, that would take some time and I have decided to just do a general history of all female clerical workers.

When the first female clerks were engaged on Britain’s railways is uncertain. However, the earliest I have found was Margaret Savage, who was appointed as a Telegraph Clerk at the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway’s (LBSCR) Three Bridges Station in August 1855. Two years later Margaret’s sister, Harriet, was also employed there as a Booking Clerk. Clearly, both Margaret and Harriett only got their jobs because their father, Thomas, was the Station Master there.[1] The same occurred in the case of Elizabeth Spearpoint, who was appointed as Telegraph Clerk at the LBSCR’s West Croydon Station in October 1857 because  her father, Robert, was in charge of that station.[2] Interestingly, what these and other appointments by the LBSCR suggest is that in the 1850s it was the first company to adopt a coherent policy regarding female clerical staff, which was simply to appoint station masters’ daughters in clerical positions.

It is not clear to what extent similar opportunities were available for women on other railways. Yet, a letter to The Times reported in 1858 that:

“In taking a ticket the other day at the Edinburgh station of the Edinburgh, Perth and Dundee Railway, we were pleasantly surprised on being waited upon by a blooming and bonnie lassie, who, along with an activity quite equal to, exhibited a politeness very rare in railway clerks of the literally ruder sex. We observed that the department was entirely occupied by women, there being another giving out tickets, and a third telegraphing.” [3]

Nevertheless, the evidence suggests before 1870 different railways adopted different policies regarding female clerks, and many, such as the London and South Western, Great Western, Metropolitan and London and North Western Railways, did not employ any. Thus, the first reference to a female clerk in the London and South Western Railway’s files, of which I have done an extensive survey, was in 1871, as follows:

Mr Fifields Daughter – Read letter from Mr Fifield Agent at Oakley Station requesting that his daughter may be appointed as Telegraphist at that Station at a pay of 7/- per week

   Recommend this to the Board[4]

Indeed, the fact that this matter had to be submitted to the board suggests that this was the first case the company had considered. Thereafter, the LSWR employed some female clerks, but these were in isolated cases and there was no set policy.

The first case of a railway company employing a large group of female clerks at one time was the London and North Western Railway between late 1874 and 1876. The women were working in the Birmingham Curzon Street Station Goods Department and their role was to make 'abstracts from invoices for the ledger accounts of credit customers and for forwarding to the Railway Clearing House.’[5] Following this, the company began employing large numbers of female clerks around the its network, at locations including Camden, Shrewsbury, Bolton, Manchester and Wolverhampton.[6]

The success of this ‘experiment’ (a word used frequently) meant that other companies began investigating the possibility of engaging women for clerical work. Most notably, the Great Western Railway investigated it thoroughly for about six months in 1876. On the 30 August its board minuted that:

‘…female clerks might be employed with advantage, but their work should be confined to offices (such as Goods or Abstract Offices) where they could be employed separately from the men clerks, except when the member of a station master’s family may be employed at the same station himself.’[7]

This was a promising start, and a later letter by a senior management endorsed these views. Indeed, on 24 November a meeting of goods managers authorised a trial of clerks at Birmingham, Bristol and Plymouth Goods Stations. For some unknown reason the trial was not proceeded with, and it was not until 1905 that the matter was considered again by the company.[8]

Nevertheless, despite the LNWR’s ‘experiment’ being successful,  it would not be until after 1900 that the cases of women being engaged in clerical positions on the railways became common. In March that year twelve were employed at Kings Cross Station by the Great Northern Railway, with the North British Railway engaged forty as telegraph clerks at Edinburgh Waverly Station. In 1901 the North Eastern Railway employed six women as telegraphists at York, with an undetermined number of female clerks being appointed there in the Traffic Statistics office the following year.[9] In 1906 the Great Western Railway employed a number of women in clerical positions at the Paddington Goods Department, followed by female telegraphists and tracers in 1908 and 1910 respectively.[10] One of the last places to engage female clerks was the Railway Clearing House, which in 1912 appointed twenty-seven who were related to men working there. This number had increased to 180 two years later.[11] Thus, by July 1914 there were 2,341 female clerical staff working on Britain’s railways.[12]

The LSWR's 'Conditions of Service' for female clerks.

However, not all companies were quick to appoint women in clerical capacities, and it was only in March 1914 that the London and South Western Railway drew up formal 'conditions of employment'.'[13] Indeed, by the coming of war, the company had only employed six female clerks.[14]

Overall, how should we think about the increase in the number female clerks within British railways after 1900? It would be easy for me to simply claim this change occurred because it became more socially acceptable for women to take up such positions. Yet, I cannot help think that there was an economic rationale involved on the railway companies’ part. Between 1870 and 1900 the profitability of British railway companies declined, with the industry’s operating costs increasing from fifty-one to sixty –two per cent of revenue over the period. Indeed, the most significant rise in companies’ expenses occurred in the late 1890s.[15] Consequently, the railway companies began looking at many ways to economise from around 1900.

Indeed, given that female clerks were paid less than their male colleagues, this raises an interesting question; to what extent was the expansion of women’s clerical employment on railways after 1900 advanced by changes in society, or changes in the nature of the railways’ business? My impression is that alterations in society's attitudes made the employment of female clerks more acceptable. Yet, because the cases of their employment on the railways grew rapidly after 1900, with little progress directly before it, I would also suggest that the industry's weakened financial circumstances stimulated managers into taking advantage of changing attitudes by employing more women in clerical positions, thus reducing railways' wage bills. Indeed, when the London Underground was considering engaging women as clerks in 1907, the Railway Gazette stated the following: ‘such an innovation has obviously only one raison d’être, that of economy…’[16]

Of course, I may be wrong in this assessment, which is based on the information I have to hand. Therefore, I am open to other perspectives and suggestions.

---------

[1] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 414/770, Traffic staff: register of appointments Indexed, p.62

[2] TNA, RAIL 414/771, Traffic staff: register of appointments Indexed, p.77

[3] The Times, quoted in Wojtczak, Helena, Railwaywomen, (Hastings, 2005), p.27

[4] TNA, RAIL 411/241, Traffic Committee Minute Book, Minute 575, 30 November 1871

[5] The Englishwomen’s Review, Friday, 15 February 15th, 1878

[6] TNA, RAIL RAIL 410/1837 to RAIL 410/1842, Salaried Staff Registers.

[7] GWR Board Minute, 30 August 1876, quoted in, Matheson, Rosa, The Fair Sex: Women and the Great Western Railway, (Stroud, 2007), p.50

[8] Matheson, The Fair Sex, p.51

[9] Wojtczak, Railwaywomen, p.29-31

[10] Matheson, The Fair Sex, p.52-54

[11] Wojtczak, Railwaywomen, p.29

[12] Wojtczak, Railwaywomen, p.38

[13] TNA, RAIL 411/275, Traffic Officers’ Conference, March 1914, Appendix 1

[14] TNA, RAIL 411/506, Clerical register - Female staff, Various Staff Records

[15] Gourvish, T.R., Railways and the British Economy: 1830-1914, (London, 1980), p.42

[16] Railway Gazette, quoted in Wojtczak, Railwaywomen, p.27

The Social Backgrounds of Female Railway Clerks - 1875-1886

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

TurnipRail 2 year Anniversary - The Best of the Second Year

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

Female clerk's pay in the 1910s on the London and South Western Railway (verses male clerk's)

There is no doubt that before 1914, on average, railwaywomen earned less than their male colleagues. However, the wage gap between the genders is difficult to determine accurately because there were only a few jobs that both women and men did and where direct comparisons can be made. One was clerical work, which by 1914 was increasingly being opened up to women. I have talked in three posts about the first sixteen female clerks that were employed at the London and North Western Railway’s Birmingham Goods Depot from 1874. One post looked at wages the women were paid, finding that until their eighth year they received the same amount as men (here), after which their pay rises stopped. Nevertheless, I have not looked at the amount female clerks were paid in the 1910s, when they were becoming commonplace in the offices Britain’s railways.

Between 1870 and 1900 the London and South Western Railway (L&SWR) is known to have employed nineteen women as telegraph clerks across its network. However, these appointments were made in isolation from each other and were not part of an established policy. Indeed, the women usually received their positions because station masters requested that their daughters be found a job before they were married. It was only in March 1914, on the arrival of a new General Manager, Herbert Ashcombe Walker, that the company formalised the ‘conditions of service’ for new female clerks. This laid out what qualifications they were required to have, as well as their wages.[1] Therefore, because a formal policy was established, female and male clerks’ pay can be compared. Furthermore, it should also be noted that male clerks’ scales were revised in 1911.[2]

However, the comparison isn’t a direct one for a number of reasons. Firstly, it should be stressed that male and female clerks were paid differently, in that most men were paid monthly, while all women received their wages weekly (and, therefore, could be fired more easily). Furthermore, the document describing the female clerks wages does not specify exactly when increases should occur, nor by how much. Therefore, this information has had to be gleaned from staff records. All it does specify are that the maximum rate for London based clerks was 28 shillings per week (£72 16s/year), while for those in the country it was 26 shillings (£67 12s/year).[3] London wages covered stations including ‘Waterloo, Vauxhall, Nine Elms [goods depot], Queen's Road, Clapham Junction, Kensington and Receiving offices in London.’[4] For the purposes of this post I will only be looking at the wages of the women based in London.

In addition, male clerks’ salaries were increased automatically each year, whereas the records indicate that the female clerks’ wages were raised at different points and by different amounts, presumably based on their individual abilities. This said, most women were guaranteed increases each year. Thus, Florence Emily Elliott, who joined as a telephone operator at Waterloo in July 1914, earned ten shillings a week for a year before increasing to fourteen.[5] Whereas Lilian E Teuten, who joined the company in the same capacity in April 1915, only stayed on the lowest rate for three months before advancing to twelve shillings.[6] Consequently, because the female clerks’ wages were not strictly standardised, I averaged the wages that twenty clerks were on at different points in their employment to ascertain the rapidity of their wage increases. However, some of the twenty left the service in the seven years and, thus, the number of wages being averaged for the later years of service diminished (See the table on the left). Lastly, in early 1920 the L&SWR significantly revised the rates female clerks were paid, and consequently good data to make a comparison with male clerks’ salaries is only available for their first seven years of their employment.

The figures suggest that for much of the seven years female clerks on average earned more than the men, as indicated in the graph below. This shows the average yearly rates that female clerks were on at any given point, as well as the male scale. Indeed, while the women started on a yearly rate that was £4 less than the men, it was only after half a year that the women’s’ average surpassed it. Indeed, of the nineteen female clerks still employed after a year of service, fourteen were earning more than the men’s standard rate of £35 per year. In the third year of service the average rate the women were being paid slowed and male clerks began earning more than the women’s average per year, five years after appointment.

Furthermore, the difference between the wages male and female clerks were on at points across the period is shown better in the graph below. Indeed, the average wage that the women were on passed those of the men after half a years’ service. It reached its peak at two and three-quarter years’ service, when the average yearly rate that sixteen female clerks were on was £12 4s more than the men’s set rate of £40 per year. Thereafter, the difference fell and from the women’s’ fifth year onwards the average rate they were earning was less than the men’s standard salary of £70.  

Lastly, I want to look at the total earnings that male and female clerks earned over the first seven years of their employment. The table below shows the standard raise that male clerks received each year, as well as the average rate that female clerks were on at the same points. The table shows that over the seven year period, female clerks, on average, earned £8 4s more than their male counterparts.

Ultimately, these figures show that the L&SWR’s female clerical workers in the 1910s did not earn less in their first seven years employment than their male colleagues. Rather, they actually were paid a little more. Additionally, combined with research I have done on female clerks working for the London and North Western Railway in the 1870s, which also showed male and female clerks’ wages were comparable, it tentatively suggests that the railway industry’s female clerical workers before the inter-war years were in the first years of their employment paid just as well as the men. However, this clearly requires further investigation given I have only studied two companies.

However, more importantly, it should be remembered that this research does not alter the fact that the women’s wages were capped at 28 shillings (£72 16s) and they could not gain promotion beyond the position of supervisor. Furthermore, in the L&SWR’s case very few women stayed in employment long enough to earn the maximum rate, as even in the First World War they were barred from serving while married. Of the twenty women sampled, only three women ever received the 28 shillings a week stated in the 1914 ‘conditions of service’.

(NB: Some did go on to earn higher wages when the L&SWR revised the scales in 1920. Yet these were high in comparison with the earlier scales, given the inflation of wartime, and for this reason they have not been included in the sample.)

SPECIAL NOTICE

I will be doing two talks on 20 December and 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 will be 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] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 411/275, Traffic Officer’s Conference, 27 March 1918, p.113 and Appendix A, p.18

[2] Hampshire Record Office [HRO], 104A02/A3/13, London and South Western Railway minutes extracts: Carriage Department, marked number 13 on spine, Jul 1910-Jul 1914, circular Revised Scale of Salaries for Clerical Staff, 20 November 1911

[3] TNA, RAIL 411/275, Traffic Officer’s Conference, 27 March 1918, Appendix A, p.18

[4] HRO, 104A02/A3/13, London and South Western Railway minutes extracts: Carriage Department, marked number 13 on spine, Jul 1910-Jul 1914, circular Revised Scale of Salaries for Clerical Staff, 20 November 1911

[5] TNA, RAIL 411/506, Clerical register - Female staff 1915 – 1924, p.5

[6] TNA, RAIL 411/506, Clerical register - Female staff 1915 – 1924, p.7

Discovering Britain's first Railwaywomen (1840s and 1850s) - Part 2

My last post discussed the research I have done on some of Britain’s earliest railwaywomen. They were employed by four companies in the 1840s and 1850s and I looked at the positions they worked in and how they came to be appointed. In this post I will look at their wages, length of employment and how they left the service.

The wages the women received were highly variable within companies, between companies and even amongst individuals doing the same jobs. Out of the sixty women, Ann Berry, an office cleaner at Atherton on the London and North Western Railway (L&NWR), had the sad distinction of being the lowest paid, earning only 1 shilling a week (£2 12s per year)[1]. Interestingly, another office cleaner,  Ann Cavanagh who was based at the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway’s Manchester offices, was the highest paid, receiving £1 1s a week (£52 12s per year).[2] However, despite Ann being the highest paid woman, in comparison with her male colleagues it was still a low amount.

Thus, women’s starting wages on the early railways were meagre. The poorest wages were given to the gatekeepers, and from a sample size of 22 the average wage was 3 shillings 3 pence per week (£6 10s per year). However, this figure is forced up by the fact that there were a number of gatekeepers earning much higher amounts than the rest. Eliza Prince, based at the Saltney gate on the Great Western Railway (GWR) was earning 7 shillings per week (£18 4s per year).[3] However, this average is also skewed by the fact that seventeen of the gatekeepers worked for the London, Brighton & South Coast Railway (LB&SCR) and fifteen of these were receiving what was clearly a standard rate of 2s 6d per week (£6 10s per year). Gatekeepers’ low wages reflected the fact that many of them were given a house as part of their work and had husbands who were also employed by the railway as platelayers or signalmen. Thus, the company did not feel the need to pay these women a higher wage.

The highest wage earners were the waiting room attendants, who on average earned 10 shillings 9 pence per week (£27 17s 2d per year). However, seven of the eight, working for the L&NWR and LB&SCR, all earned 10 shillings a week (£26 per year). Whereas, Francis Fuller, who worked as a ‘servant’ for the LB&SCR, was earning 15 shillings per week (£39 per year).[4] Possibly, the higher wages reflected the fact that attendants usually had had husbands killed on the railways, but also that these men had been in important positions, such as clerks or engine drivers.

While there are only four clerks in the sample, their wage average was 7 shillings 11 pence per week (£20 9s 6d per year). There are seemingly no patterns in their wages, possibly indicating that as the employment of women in such positions was rare, the companies decided what they were paid on a case by case basis. Lastly, cleaners earned on average 5 shillings 2 pence per week (£13 9s 3d per year). Yet, while most of these women were at the lower end of the wage spectrum, amongst the twenty-one individuals doing this job eleven different rates were paid and the only pattern that can be discerned is that the higher paid office cleaners were usually working in stations of note. For example, Ann Trant, who worked at London Bridge Station (LB&SCR), was earning 7 shillings a week (£18 4s per year)[5]. This said, some low paid cleaners at large stations have also been found, suggesting that those who were paid more were possibly in supervisory roles.

Once assigned to their posts forty-one of the women did not receive any wage increases, and for the nineteen women that did the extra income was minimal. Indeed, it was more likely that they would leave the service before they would receive a raise. The details of how twenty of the women left the service have been found. One, Jane Beattie who was an office cleaner at Sheffield on the (MS&LR), died. This was in 1877 after twenty-seven years in the service.[6] Ten resigned and given that four were in their late teens and two were in their mid-20s when they left, it suggests they did so to get married. (The ages when three left are unknown)

Nine of the women were dismissed and the reasons stated for this clearly show that the companies saw women’s labour as being far more dispensable than men’s. Indeed, the phrase ‘services dispensed with,’ or words to that effect, appear in eight of the nine cases, suggesting they were simply fired when no longer required.  The case of Esther Pearce, a gatekeeper at Berwick on the LB&SCR, is particularly interesting as the staff record clearly shows why she lost her job. After thirteen years of service she was discharged on the basis that the company appointed a man.[7] Additionally, long service did not seem to grant the women any immunity from being dispensed with when their post was no longer required. Only Elizabeth Boyd, who was a Charwoman on the MS&LR at Hull, was dismissed for any form of malpractice as she had been inattentive to her duties.[8]

Overall, a number of themes can be drawn from this information. Firstly, the wages women received were, overall, very low compared with those of their male colleagues, even in the cases of the female clerks who were the only women doing a job that men also held. Secondly, there were a considerable number of women who went into railway work before marriage. Lastly, the railway companies saw women were a source of cheap and dispensable labour.

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

[1] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 410/1858, Staff register including station agents, guards, porters, ticket collectors, gangers, ladies attendants, night watchmen, police constables, bellmen, lamplighters, engine drivers, firemen, labourers, stokers, signalmen, warehousemen etc., p.258

[2] TNA, RAIL 463/305, Staff register 1, p.441

[3] TNA, RAIL 264/349, Register of uniformed staff No.1 O & P, p.252

[4] TNA, RAIL 414/569, Returns of staff employed in all departments of the company, p.438

[5] TNA, RAIL 414/770, Traffic staff: register of appointments Indexed, p.4

[6] TNA, RAIL 463/305, Staff register 1, p.189

[7] TNA, RAIL 414/770, Traffic staff: register of appointments Indexed, p.119

[8] TNA, RAIL 463/305, Staff register 1, p.392

Discovering Britain's first Railwaywomen (1840s and 1850s) - Part 1

I have repeatedly commented that Victorian railwaywomen are little studied by historians. Indeed, men’s dominance of the workforce has meant that women’s roles have been overlooked. However, this problem is compounded in the case of women working in the early railways as there is a chronic lack of investigation into railway history before 1870 generally.

Therefore, I felt that the working lives of Britain’s earliest railwaywomen were in need of investigation. I used ancestry.co,uk’s railway employee database to search for women that worked on the railways between 1830 and 1860. This was not an exhaustive survey of the available files as I was unable to simply search for them by gender and their years of employment. Consequently, I resorted to using popular women’s first names from the Victorian period with the hope that results would be returned. Happily, I found the records of sixty railwaywomen’s who were working in four railway companies.[1 – distribution of records by company are at the end] Furthermore, I believe more were available and I will have to go back and expand my research. The findings were not startling, but they do make for interesting reading.

Unsurprisingly, as the industry grew increasing numbers women were employed by the railways. Keeping in mind that this only a preliminary survey, no women have been found that worked in the 1830s and only two were discovered from early 1840s. Indeed, the first woman on the list is a Mrs Fuller who was employed by a housekeeper by the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway (LB&SCR).[2] (Note: other women have been found by historians that were employed earlier - See: Wojtczak, Railwaywomen) It was in the late 1840s that women started to be employed by railways large numbers, as the table below shows. Furthermore, as the industry expanded in the 1850s the number obtaining positions increased more rapidly.

The range of occupations women were engaged in were limited. Twenty-four were engaged in cleaning duties of some type. Nineteen were employed as Office Cleaners, such as Elizabeth Blackhouse who started work on the 10^th October 1853 at Ashton on the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway (MS&LR)[3].  Three others were also classified as ‘Charwoman’ and one was just noted as being a ‘cleaner.’ Furthermore, there was a startling moment when I came across Sarah Dyson who worked at Huddersfield on the London and North Western Railway (L&NWR) in the early 1850s. She was listed as ‘Station Keeper.’ Was this, I thought, one of Britain’s earliest Station Mistresses? Predictably it was not, and a second staff record confirmed she was a cleaner there.[3] Ultimately, and has been recorded elsewhere, most of these women would have received their posts as an act of charity from the company when their husbands were killed or incapacitated by accidents on the railway.

The second largest employment group were gatekeepers and twenty-three women were employed as such, mainly on the LB&SCR. These women’s circumstances are hard to determine without more detailed research, however, other sources would suggest that many would have been the wives of railwaymen. Indeed, some gatekeeper’s records were next to those of other railway employees, such as signalmen, who had the same surname and were based nearby. Furthermore, Ann Hunstead[5] and Frances Earl[6] who were appointed by the LB&SCR to different gates near Berwick in 1849 and 1857 respectively, were both recommended by Mr Oliver of the Permanent Way Department. This suggests that they were the wives or widows of men working on the line in the area, for example platelayers or inspectors. Overall, gatekeeping positions were clearly given to women who already had some association with the railway company through marriage.

What did surprise me is that only seven women were employed as attendants in some form. Six were employed as ‘Ladies Attendants’ and would have looked after Ladies Waiting Rooms where they existed. Indeed, smaller stations did not have separate waiting rooms for men and women and this is confirmed by the fact that all six women were working at large stations that would have had them. They were based at London Bridge (Sarah Kays, Mary McRae), Rugby (Mrs Gillings, Caroline Stephenson) and Wolverton (Thirza Cowdell, Sarah Topsham).  Mrs A Chase, who was a ‘Waiting Room Attendant’ at Brighton also may have worked in a women's waiting room.[7] Again it is likely, as I have pointed out in an earlier post, that most of these women’s’ husbands would have been killed or injured while in the railways’ employ.

Probably the most interesting find was that four women were working as clerks for the LB&SCR, with the earliest being Margaret Savage who was appointed at Three Bridges Station in 1855. Indeed, this is the earliest known female clerk on Britain’s railways so far. Of the four, three were ‘Telegraph Clerks’ who would not have met the public and were ‘back office’ workers. However, another interesting discovery is that Margaret’s sister, Harriet, was also employed at Three Bridges as a Booking Clerk in 1857. Thus, this would make her the first woman to serve passengers in such a capacity. Ultimately, Margaret and Harriet would not have obtained their positions if it were not for the fact that their Father, Thomas John, was the Station Master there.(see above image) [8] Indeed, all four women employed as clerks were the daughters of Station Masters. Consequently, this suggests that the only route for women to obtain these higher status occupations was to have a father who was in a senior position.

Ultimately, this short survey should be treated with caution given the limited survey size, the high proportion of LB&SCR employees in it and the availability of documentary evidence. Yet, it does confirm statistically that the majority of women working on Britain’s railways in the 1840s and 1850s would have been in menial positions and all were dependent on men to obtain employment (even if they had been killed). In the next post I will explore the variable relationships that the women had with their employers.

----------

[1] The railway companies were the Great Western Railway (10.00%), the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway (48.33%), the London and North Western Railway (20.00%) and the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway (21.67%)

[2] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 414/776, Traffic staff: register of appointments, p.438

[3] TNA, RAIL 463/305, Staff register 1, p.124

[4] TNA, RAIL 264/343, Register of uniformed staff No.1 C, p.59

[5] TNA, RAIL 414/776, Traffic staff: register of appointments, p.229

[6] TNA, RAIL 414/770, Traffic staff: register of appointments Indexed, p.119

[7] TNA, RAIL 414/773, Traffic staff: register of appointments, p.247

[8] TNA, RAIL 414/770, Traffic staff: register of appointments Indexed, p.62

The Lives of Female waiting Room Attendants at London Bridge Station in the 1860s and 70s

Before the 1880s the number employment options for women on Britain's railways were small and they could become charwomen or office cleaners, waiting or refreshment room attendants, carriage lining sewers, polishers or gatekeepers. The limited number of positions available was because most railway companies only employed the wives of injured or deceased railwaymen as an act of charity. Indeed, very few jobs in this period were given to the daughters of railwaymen.

With this in mind, I tried to find the staff records of some female waiting room attendants to discover more about their lives and circumstances. Thus, in my search I came across thirteen that worked at the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway’s (LB&SCR) London Bridge Station in the 1860s and 1870s. It is not certain which waiting room they worked in, as 1872 it was noted that there was a separate ‘ladies waiting room.’ Thus, this implies that men and women were separated when waiting for trains.[1]

The thirteen women were appointed between 1861 and 1878. However, as attendants came and went it has been determined that anywhere between three and six were posted there at any one time. Pay was low and all earned between 10 shillings and £1. Yet, the majority received 18 shillings throughout their employment. This was not a terrible income, but would only have enabled them to have an acceptable, if frugal, standard of living.

From the records it is clear that that the historiography was correct in suggesting that the majority the attendants were the wives of deceased or injured railwaymen. Of the thirteen women, nine were widows. Four of these had been married to Station Masters, one to a head porter, another to a travelling ticket inspector, another to guard, and, lastly, one to a company policeman. The position of one of the widow's husbands is unknown. Only one attendant, Emma Hubbard, acquired her position due to her husband, a ticket inspector, being injured. He was in an accident at New Cross Station.

The positions the husbands held is important as they were seemingly a factor in their widows receiving employment as waiting room attendants. Firstly, all the husbands were working within the company’s Traffic Department, and as the waiting rooms were under its remit, it was only appointing its own employee's wives. Secondly, all the husbands' had high status jobs and suggests that the 'respectability' and 'trustworthiness' of a family was a factor in the women's employment. Widows whose husband's had jobs that were deemed of low respectability, such as porter, platelayer or gatekeeper, were seemingly missing from the list (and others seen in the files). Yet, given that London Bridge Station was one of the LB&SCR’s main stations it may have been that the company prioritised appointing individuals who had ‘respectable’ husbands there, and that elsewhere there was no such distinction. This requires more research

The ages of the attendants on appointment varied. The oldest appointee was Elizabeth Croft who was simply ‘recommended by Mr Hawkins,’ and was 56. The youngest were Ellen Membray, who was the widow of a guard, and Mary Ann Thompson, the widow of a policeman, who were both 28. Seven of the appointees were between the ages of 35 and 45. What this fact implies is uncertain. Were these women appointed to the London Bridge Waiting Rooms because their ages meant that they had more life experience making them more suitable for the work? Or perhaps the management did not employ younger women for fear of the male railway workers being distracted (a concern seen on another railway)? This may even suggest that railway workers were more likely to be killed or die in their middle ages. Ultimately, the answer is uncertain.

The attendants left employment a number of ways. Six resigned. The shortest career belonged to Sarah Ann Adams, the widow of a Station Master at Queen’s Road, who after being appointed in April 1877 resigned her post in November 1878. Indeed, this was after a promotion to Charwoman in May of that year. Three of the individuals, Elizabeth Lanfair, Rachel Vicary and Ellen Reece, all resigned their posts in 1900 and 1901 after twenty-five, twenty-two and twenty-four years respectively. While not having a pension, all received money from the company’s benevolent fund. Vicary's record shows that she received only a third of her working wages, her income dropping from 18 to 6 shillings per week. This equated to £15 12/- per year and was an amount that would have barely paid for her living.

What is striking is that five of the individuals left employment because they were incapacitated, usually after a short period employment. No details are given as to the cause of their ill-health so we can only speculate what occurred. Nevertheless, considering that the wages paid were low, the working hours were long and the fact that their employment periods were short, it may suggest that health issues like malnutrition and fatigue may have played a role. Indeed, the fact that such a high proportion of the women became ‘incapacitated’ shortly after engagement, does support the thesis that the nature of the work was taking its toll.

Lastly, only one individual, Emma Hubbard, was fired. In January 1875 after two and a half years of employment she was discharged for losing £595 from the waiting room.
 

Thus, this small survey reveals that the women of the LB&SCR’s London Bridge Waiting Room staff were typically widowed, had had husbands who were in ‘respectable’ posts, received low wages, had poor working conditions and were very likely to suffer from health problems as a result of their employment. However, the very sad fact is that in a world where men were expected to be the breadwinners, that this employment, which was given merely as charity, was better than the women's alternatives of destitution or even the workhouse.

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

[1] The Lancaster Gazette, and General Advertiser for Lancashire, Westmorland, Yorkshire, &c., Saturday, August 17, 1872, pg. 7

[2] All information taken from: The National Archives, RAIL 414/764-779, London Brighton and South Coast Staff Records, 1861-1901

Discovering More About Britain's First Fifteen Female Railway Clerks - Part 2

In the last post (here) I looked at the first sixteen women to be employed in clerical positions on Britain’s railways between 1874 and 1876 at the London and North Western Railway’s (L&NWR) Curzon Street goods offices in Birmingham. I looked at their ages on appointment, the management structure of the office and their starting wages. In this post I will look at their careers, wages after appointment, how they left the service and the effect that this ‘experiment,’ as it was called by the press, had on women’s clerical employment on the L&NWR.

It was discussed in the last post how many of the women started on wages that were slightly better than those of similarly aged male apprentices. An investigation of their wages after they started their jobs again shows that while the press was adamant that their employment would immediately reduce company costs, male clerks only began to earn significantly more later in their careers. J.M.A. Heywood and Martha Hughes had increases in their wages typical of the other women in the office. The graph below shows the progression of their wages compared with those of four male clerks appointed in the same period. While the full wage details of only one male clerk has been found and only a small sample is involved, the graph shows that for the first 8 years of their employment the women’s wages kept pace with those of their male colleagues. However, once they reached this point in their increases became much more infrequent. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the wages for female clerks were always capped at £65.00 per annum.

Only in cases where they were promoted to Matron or Assistant Matron did the women earn more. A good proportion of sixteen women eventually took up these posts. Emma Eliza Beard was office Matron until 21^st October 1894, at which point she was earning £100.00. Into her shoes stepped E.A. Besley, who at that point had been earning the maximum for clerks of £65.00 per annum. She was thereafter paid £80.00 and by 1903 she was earning £100. However, in December 1907 she became sick and left the company’s employ. She died on the 30^th January 1908.[8] Her successor was another of the fifteen, Maria Newman. When the first Assistant Matron, Butler, had resigned in March 1899, and she had taken up that post, and it was only natural that she would become Chief Matron when the position became vacant. It is unknown when she left the position, however, her last known wage rise to £160 came on the 1^st January 1917.[9] This suggests that until the early 20^th century, the matrons’ wages were also capped at £100 per annum, but thereafter the cap was raised, possibly due to the inflation of the First World War.

The details of how and when eleven of the women left the company have been found and a breakdown of how long each was employed is shown below. The first to leave after four years seven months service (aged 20) was Mary M. Hill and the longest service was given by Maria Newman who, as stated, was still serving in 1917. Seven of the twelve resigned at a young age, possibly to get married. Three individuals left because of sickness. One case, that of E.A. Besley, has been cited. E.E. Beard left the service in November 1894, finally being ‘struck off’ in July 1897. Lastly, Emily J. Mitchell fell sick in February 1883 and was paid until the 12^th May when she was struck off.[10] She died shortly after on the 15^th May.[11] Only A.J. Stoker eventually received a pension, and on the 1^st November 1908 she was superannuated after 43 years service.[12]

Not all the women stayed in the Birmingham office during their careers, and two transferred elsewhere. A.J. Stoker was the first to move, transferring in May 1878 to the company’s Mill Street offices in Wolverhampton. [13] She remained here for the rest of her career. The most eventful career was Sarah Jane Besley’s. Having joined the company in January 1875, she moved on the 1^st July 1886 to the company’s goods offices in Leeds.[14] Yet, in June 1890 she again transferred to the Huddersfield Goods Department where she stayed until her resignation in 1892.[15] Why they moved is unknown. However, it is possible that like with the male clerks they were offered the chance to transfer and took it.

As was detailed in the last blog, the ‘experiment’ was deemed a success and expanded. The Cheshire Observer of Saturday July 16^th 1876 reported that female clerks were employed at Chester.[16] While the female clerks at Chester have not been found (as yet), I began cataloguing any others that I could. The L&NWR’s Goods offices at Manchester London Road and Mosley Street hired ten female clerks between 9^th July 1876 and the end of 1878.[17] Furthermore, between 17^th July and 1^st December 1876 eight women were recruited at Camden.[18] Three women were hired at Shrewsbury Station on the 1^st December 1876[19] and one is known to have been appointed to Bolton Station on the 9^th October 1876.[20] I am sure there were more and more research will hopefully be conducted in the future.

These two posts have highlighted interesting features of the employment of Britain’s first female clerks. Firstly, the women were generally unmarried and under the age of 25, with a few notable exceptions. However, unsurprisingly they had to leave employment on marriage. Yet, a few gave considerable service to the company, some upwards of 40 years. Furthermore, the wages they received were comparable with those of their male colleagues for the first eight years of employment. However, thereafter they stagnated with the maximum they could earn being £65.00. The only way they could receive more was through promotion. However, opportunities were limited to moving into the posts of Matron or Assistant Matron, and there was clearly no chance of promotion into middle or senior managerial positions.

Most importantly, the sixteen women of the Birmingham Goods Department showed their managers that gender was not an issue when it came to ability or quality of work. Thus, what happened in Birmingham between June 1874 and June 1876 changed employment practices on Britain’s railways, as women’s clerical employment was considered by other railway companies and expanded within the L&NWR.

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

[8] TNA, RAIL 410/1842, Salaried Staff Register [No 1, pages 581-1087] - Goods Department. Includes station masters and clerks, p.913

[9] TNA, RAIL 410/1839, Salaried staff register [No 2, pages 1613-2092] - Goods Department. Includes station masters and clerks, p.1810

[10] TNA, RAIL 410/1842, p.913

[11] TNA, RAIL 410/1842, p.914

[12] TNA, RAIL 410/1839, Salaried staff register [No 2, pages 1613-2092] - Goods Department. Includes station masters and clerks, p.130

[13] TNA, RAIL 410/1842, p.867

[14] TNA, RAIL 410/1842, p.913

[15] 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.1413

[16] The Cheshire Observer, Saturday July 15^th, 1876, p.6

[17] TNA, RAIL 410/1837, p.1215; 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; TNA, RAIL 410/1843, p.1337 and p.1339

[18] TNA, RAIL 410/1837, p.1227

[19] TNA, RAIL 410/1837, p.1286

[20] TNA, RAIL 410/1837, p.1289

Discovering More About Britain's First Fifteen Female Railway Clerks - Part 1

I recently wrote about the first fifteen female clerks appointed by the London and North Western Railway’s (L&NWR) at its Curzon Street Goods Offices in Birmingham in the mid-1870s (Here). Dubbed an 'experiment' on the press, their employment was the initiative of the District Goods Superintendent, Mr W.J. Nichols, and was the first time on Britain's railways that women had been employedto perform functions that were at the time ordinarily undertaken by male employees.[1] However, having limited resources my post was informed by newspapers from the period. I knew nothing of the women’s names, ages or careers. I just dubbed them the ‘Birmingham Fifteen.’

But then I was pleasantly surprised. As I related in my last post (Here), The National Archives (via Ancestry.co.uk) has in the last fortnight made available on-line the staff records from some of Britain’s major railway companies from the 19^th and 20^th century. Therefore, after purchasing a subscription the first thing I did was to look for the ‘Birmingham Fifteen.’ Firstly, I found one clerks' name on the 1881 census, the only census which has been transcribed with individuals’ occupations, and then searched the staff records. The result was that I found more information than I could handle and I have, therefore, decided to dedicate two posts to my findings. The first post will look at when the women were appointed, their ages on appointment, the management structure of the office and their starting wages. The second will look at their careers, their wages after appointment, how they left the service and the effects of Mr Nichols’ initiative on clerical employment for women in the L&NWR generally.

I’ll start this post logically, at the beginning. The first women appointed as clerks at the Curzon Street offices were J.M.A. Heywood, J.M. Matthews and Emma Eliza Beard on the 1^st June 1874. These were soon followed by others. However, there is a bit of confusion as to how many women were actually appointed. Indeed, it shows that 19^th century newspapers were not always reliable. The Englishwoman’s Review of February 1878 stated that at that point there were 15 women working in the office.[2] Up to June 1876 it seems that only fourteen women had been appointed. Yet, the appointment of Martha E. Hughes and Louisa J. Hands in early 1877 made the total number up to sixteen.[3] The answer to this conundrum, I think, is that Beard, was significantly older and paid more than the others, suggesting that she was the ‘matron.’ Thus, it can be surmised that the Review did not count her in the fifteen as she was their line manager. The number of women in the office only remained at sixteen until the 1^st May 1878, when A.J. Stoker transferred to the company’s Wolverhampton offices.[4]
 

The ages of the women varied, however, all would have been unmarried and possibly the daughters of railway workers. The Englishwoman’s Review of 1878 stated that the majority of the women were ‘young persons,’ [6] and this is confirmed by the evidence. The youngest clerk appointed was L.M. Matthews who was only fifteen years and six months old. It is presumably for this reason that she was listed as a ‘female apprentice.’ [5] As shown below, of the thirteen women employed under the age of twenty, five of the clerks (31.25%) were employed at the age of 15, with the rest being engaged between the ages of 16 and 19.

Only 3 of the women were over the age of 20. As stated, the oldest woman in the office was Beard, who was thirty-two years old and five months. However, Stoker was twenty-six years and eleven months old and Mary Butler was twenty-seven months and eleven months old. Indeed, it is suspected that because of her age and her wages (see below) that Butler was the Assistant Matron. 

Interestingly, their starting wages compared very favourably with those of male clerks, who usually also began their L&NWR careers between 14 and 19 years old. Eleven of the thirteen (84.61%) women entering the service below the age of 20 received £26.00 per annum, or 10s per week (which concurs with the Review article). This was £1 higher than the starting rate for most male apprentices (based on records observed). Thus, the initial claims of the press that the employment of women would reduce railway company costs seems to have been their opinion rather than based on any evidence. Furthermore, 18 year old M.E. Harris and the 26 year old A.J. Stoker both received £31 per annum (or 11s 11d per week). Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that in these two cases the L&NWR was rewarding prior experience of clerical work, especially as Harris was under the age of 20 but receiving more than her similarly aged counterparts. Naturally, the managers of the office received more than the others. Beard received £65 per annum (24s per week) and Butler received £39 per annum (15s per week).[7]

What has been shown is that from the outset the office of ‘Birmingham Fifteen’ was initially identical to those elsewhere in the company. There was a hierarchy, transfers, apprentices, comparable pay with male clerks and variance in wages based on experience. Indeed, this is interesting when juxtaposed against of the initial views of the press that perceived the employment of women clerks as abnormal, using words like 'experiment,' and claiming that their engagement would reduce railway company costs. However, as will be shown in part 2, the options open to the ‘Birmingham Fifteen’ were actually very limited, with the heights they could reach in pay and positions capped. 

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

[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.929

[2] The Englishwoman’s Review, Friday, February 15^th 1878, p.77

[3] 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.1207

[4] TNA, RAIL 410/1842, Salaried Staff Register [No 1, pages 581-1087] - Goods Department. Includes station masters and clerks, p.167

[5] The Englishwoman’s Review, Friday, February 15^th 1878, p.77

[6] TNA, RAIL 410/1837, p.1207

[7] TNA, RAIL 410/1842, p.913