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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

London, Chatham and Dover

South Eastern

Great Western

London and South Western

Midland

Great Northern

Caledonian

Great North of Scotland

North British

Great Eastern

Metropolitan

District

Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire

Cambrian

Lancashire and Yorkshire

Thus, by 1925 Spiers and Pond operated over 200 refreshment rooms in Britain.[11]

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

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

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

[1] http://www.spiers.net/pond.htm

[2] The Era, Sunday, September 12, 1858

[3] The Royal Cornwall Gazette, Falmouth Packet, and General Advertiser, Friday, April 25, 1862, p.6

[4] The Sheffield & Rotherham Independent, Wednesday, May 14, 1862

[5] The Sheffield & Rotherham Independent, Tuesday, March 18, 1862, p. 5

[6] The Morning Post, Saturday, August 27, 1864, pg. 2

[7] The Era, Sunday, October 2, 1864

[8] The Era, Sunday, December 31, 1865

[9] The County Gentleman; Sporting Gazette and Agricultural Journal, Saturday, November 04, 1882, pg. 1123

[10] The County Gentleman, A Sporting Gazette and Agricultural Journal, Saturday, January 07, 1888; pg. 9

[11] Biddle, George, ‘Refreshment Rooms,’ The Oxford Companion to British Railway History, (London, 1997), p.417

[12] Bell's Life in London and Sporting Chronicle, Saturday, January 06, 1866

[13] The Sheffield & Rotherham Independent, Saturday, May 15, 1869; pg. 6

[14] The Standard, Monday, March 18, 1872; pg. 2;

[15] The Fishing Gazette, Saturday, January 24, 1880; pg. 37

[16] The County Gentleman, A Sporting Gazette and Agricultural Journal, Saturday, January 07, 1888; pg. 9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Traveller: “My friend, there’s no meat in this sandwich”

Waitress: “No?”

Traveller: “Don’t you think you’d better give that pack another shuffle and let me draw again?”[12]

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

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

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

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

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

------

[1] All Year Round, December 1867, p.60

[2] Trollope, Anthony, He Knew He Was Right, (London, 1869), p.351

[3] Simmons, Jack, The Victorian Railway, (London, 1991) p.354

[4] Richards, Jeffrey and MacKenzie, John M., The Railway Station: A Social History, (Oxford, 1988), p.291

[5] http://thevictorianist.blogspot.com/2011/09/lady-in-refreshment-roomgave-me-cup-of.html

[6] Biddle, George, ‘Refreshment Rooms,’ The Oxford Companion to British Railway History, (London, 1997), p.417

[7] The Essex County Standard West Suffolk Gazette, and Eastern Counties Advertiser, Friday, September 29, 1900

[8] The Ipswich Journal, Friday, October 21, 1887; Issue 8872

[9] The Huddersfield Chronicle and West Yorkshire Advertiser, Saturday, June 02, 1894

[10] Outlook, Vol.6, No.133 (1900, 18 August), p.72

[11] Birmingham Daily Post, Tuesday, February 12, 1884

[12] Leicester Chronicle and the Leicestershire Mercury, Saturday, February 13, 1892

[13] Glasgow Herald, Thursday, April 26, 1894

[14] Jackson's Oxford Journal, Saturday, April 22, 1899

[15] The Royal Cornwall Gazette Falmouth Packet, Cornish Weekly News, & General Advertiser, Thursday, September 08, 1898, pg. 3;

[16] The Leeds Mercury, Friday, December 31, 1886

[17] Outlook, Vol.6, No.133 (1900, 18 August), p.72

[18] Hampshire Telegraph and Sussex Chronicle etc, Wednesday, August 29, 1877;

[19] Liverpool Mercury etc. Saturday, July 28, 1888

The 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