Don't Mess with Revenue Protection...A Norwich Tale

This weekend I winged my way to Norwich by train to see my friends, Matt and Alina. Fun was had by attending a fireworks party, at which I met some lovely people; a pub, which is simply the best that I have ever frequented (The Fat Cat – really, look it up); and a Sci-Fi convention, at which I didn't feel completely at ease, but at least with my background in beer festivals and model railway exhibitions, I did not feel greatly unnerved amongst those who have specialist (and in some cases esoteric) interests.

Either side of this magnificent weekend were two journeys by train which were reflectively uneventful. However, what I realised on the outward journey, were the problems that ticket inspectors, sorry, 'Revenue Protection Officers,' (RPO) have to deal with. I'm not talking about the major incidents, I reckon they are pretty rare. No, I'm talking about the low-intensity conflicts they have with passengers who try and bend the rules. I don't know how many times a day RPOs hear ticket-based excuses, but they must hear some that could even stretch the phrase 'tall tale' to breaking point.

For my example I will recount the tale of the RPO on my journey from London Liverpool Street to Norwich. I boarded the National Express East Anglia train, which seemed to have last had a refurbishment in the 1990s, and settled down at a table seat. The thing about being a PhD student is that every mindless moment, however short, allows PhD type thoughts to slip in. Therefore, being at a table on a train is pure bliss, especially as I had no one opposite me (perfect for leg-stretching) and no one next to me (perfect for bag placing), and I could get my laptop out without bothering anyone.

Over the aisle from me, and a little way up, a woman settled down in her seat. Also, just behind me, another group of individuals were bedding in at a table. I presume they were students from their general demeanour and age. These people were a nuisance, simply because of what happened about an hour into the 1 hour 52 minute journey. The rallying call to attention for all of them was “tickets please.”

The woman just up from me was reached by the RPO first. She had conveniently forgotten that she couldn't buy Young Persons tickets without possessing a Young Person's Railcard. With no truth in her voice, she stated confidently “well, the ticket machine said 16 to 25 and I thought that meant that you received an automatic discount if you were between...” She was cut off. The revenue protection officer wasn't buying it, and he explained the situation to her. She'd have to pay the excess charge to make the price of the ticket up to a full single.

It was at this point that she again proclaimed that she didn't understand. I suspect this was a stalling method, and the RPO again explained the concept of a railcard to her. After much 'umming' and 'arring' by the woman, the officer lost his rag, but only slightly. “Look” he said with some force, “you have two options. I can let you pay the excess charge, which I shouldn't really do, or, you can pay the full fare of £52.” Faced with this choice, the woman relented, and still mumbled as the RPO moved on.

I produced my ticket, as did a handful of others, and the RPO reached the table behind me. He checked one person's ticket, fine, then another's, and then....oh dear. I heard “can I have your Young Person's Railcard please?” I don't know why it made me laugh inside, but I thought it highly amusing when the last of the group proclaimed “I have a photocopy.” What a pathetic gesture. He had obviously lost his Young Person's Railcard, but was now hoping that he could get away without having one with him.

This, naturally, was not good enough. “Sorry sir” said the RPO, “I will need to see the physical thing.” Because there was some, albeit weak, evidence that a Young Person's Railcard existed, a debate ensued based on this premise. “But why” another of the group proclaimed, “would my friend have a photocopy if he didn't actually have one at home.” The RPO drew himself up and made the very logical argument that anyone could use a computer to doctor an image of a railcard. The response did not have any logic to it. “Yea but is that realistic?” A stupid question, and the RPO said as much. He stated that it had been done in the past, and if they didn't insist on the physical railcard every time, people could potentially get away without paying millions pounds in fares.

Again, this did not satisfy the group, and with a supreme amount of naiveté, one of the culprit's companions piped up, “yea, but we're honest, do we look like criminals?” This was the point at which, for the second time, the RPO gave an ultimatum. “Pay the excess, or the £52, it is up to you.” He also threw in the argument that he couldn't apply one rule for “that person down there” and not enforce it for others. He did, however, throw this chap a bone. If he took the ticket, receipt and the physical railcard to a ticket office, he may be able to get the money back. There were no guarantees though. Naturally, the offender paid up, and after the RPO had left a in depth analysis of the exchange occurred at the table.

The moral of this story is this; RPOs are very jaded to false excuses and the lengths people will go to get round the system, because they deal with cases like the ones cited multiple times a day. As such, it is no point trying to dodge their scrutiny, because, quite clearly, anything you say won't get you out of sticky situations. However, this state of affairs isn't the RPO's fault. Nor is it the fault of those of us who genuinely make mistakes. Rather, it is the fault of all those who try and dodge the system and try to take it for a ride. They are the ones that have ground down any sympathy RPOs may have had...

The Dirt of the Victorian Railway Industry - The Platelayers

The railways were one of the few organisations in the Victorian period where someone from a lowly background could rise up to better their ‘lot’ in life. For many, these opportunities were small, but for the industrious they definitely existed. However, excluding women, who could not advance for obvious reasons, one group of railway employees had almost no opportunities to advance beyond their station. These were the platelayers. In correspondence with author Frank McKenna, Will Thorne, a Victorian platelayer himself, stated that the platelayer was the ‘most neglected man in the service.’ [1]

By 1860, W.M. Mills stated that on Britain’s 8863 miles of railway there were 8598 platelayers. Gangs of platelayers were marshalled under a foreman or ganger, and were allocated a section of line to look after. This had to be inspected twice a day and any faults in the track’s gauge, level and superelevation were to be mended by using their picks, shovels, hammers, wrenches and track gauges. They also had to maintain line side fences and keep the culverts clear,[2] as well as retrieve any item that may have fallen from a train.[3] All these tasks were to be done in all weathers.

Further, to this, platelayer’s working conditions were the poorest of any railway employees. For six days a week they had to be on duty between 6am and 6pm, and at the end of the day they had to make sure that the line was clear and in good working order. Naturally, if the work had not been completed by 6pm, they had to stay until it was done so. Pay was probably the worst of any railway employees, apart from women, and the hard graft was rewarded with a measly 17 to 21 shillings per week. Indeed, sickness on a Sunday would mean that a platelayer would forfeit his Monday pay.

Promotional prospects to improve their pay were also non-existent. Where some of the weekly paid staff, through industrious working, could jump onto the clerical promotional trees that could take them to management (a rare, but recorded occurrence), platelayers could not do this because they were outside the main framework of railway life given their working location away from stations. They could rise within their own limited hierarchy, from platelayer, to ganger, to sub-inspector and lastly to inspector. But, because of the small ratio of gangers and inspectors to platelayers, promotion was highly unlikely.[4] This lack of promotional opportunities to any ‘higher and more remunerative’ grades was confirmed by Will Thorne.[5]

Further, platelayers’ poor working conditions, promotional prospects and pay were not their only hardships. They also had a bad image, and they were not the sort of individuals that railway managers wished to have around their pristine stations. On the Lynton and Barnstaple railway, just before the First World War, playelayers were issued with an edict that they were not allowed on the platform at Lynton. Rather, they were instructed to ‘slink by on the track,’ lest they be seen by passengers.[6]

Thus, platelayers had the hardest life of any railway employees in the Victorian railway and were destined to remain in their position, treated like dirt, for their entire working lives.

---

[1] McKenna, The Railway Workers, p.35-36

[2] Ransom, P.J.G. ‘Platelayers,’ The Oxford Companion to British Railway History, (London, 1997), p.381

[3] McKenna, Frank, The Railway Workers, (London, 1976), p.35

[4] Kingsford, P.W., Victorian Railwaymen, (London, 1970), p.138

[5] McKenna, The Railway Workers, p.36

[6] McKenna, The Railway Workers, p.36

There are Good Ways for Unions to act - This Isn't one of Them

I believe that Unions are important. After all, I am in one. Unions exist to protect the rights of workers, to ensure that they have safe workplaces, to fight for a fair wage for a days work and to defend their members when harassed. This is why they were created, and this is what their mandate should be. Later today, I find myself venturing to London on the day of the TSSA and RMT’s third one-day tube strike. I’m actually quite lucky. I will arrive at Waterloo and will end my journey at Euston. As such, I will only use the Northern line; one of the few lines that operates a relatively good service when a strike is on. I will not, therefore, have to make one of the many difficult journeys that will be undertaken by other London commuters trying to get from A to B. And all this, because the two unions involved are not behaving like unions are supposed to.

Some weeks ago I wrote three blog entries charting the history of the 1911 railway workers strike which was conducted by Britain's four main railway unions. This action was primarily a response to the fact that the railway companies of Britain paid their employees poorly, while making them work exhaustive hours with poor safety precautions. Therefore, the strike action was a response to a set of circumstances which, by any reasonable measure, needed to be changed.

However, this strike action, which is over the closure of ticket offices, is not really about ‘safety,’ pay or even hours. I know that Bob Crow likes to bang on about safety like no tomorrow. But I believe he uses the ‘safety’ argument as a smoke screen to protect revealing his own agenda.

I cannot remember the last time that I purchased a paper underground ticket, maybe two years ago, maybe three? Why exactly do we need to keep so many ticket offices open? The short answer is that we don’t. Over the last 5 years ticket office sales have dropped by 50%, only 1 in 20 journeys start with a visit to a ticket office and 80% of journeys are now made with Oyster cards. Therefore, Transport for London’s (TfL) plans to close many ticket offices across the London Underground network seems, from an economic standpoint, entirely justified. This is an especially pertinent point when these ticket offices are funded by the taxpayer and we are in a time of economic stringency. Of course, this has meant that there will be 800 job losses, but TfL have repeatedly and categorically stated that that this will lead to no compulsory redundancies and no loss of earnings for existing staff. Therefore, the staff reductions will be brought about through ‘natural wastage.’

Yet, Bob Crow repeatedly states that the closure of ticket offices will reduce the safety of the travelling public. Yea right. Think of this, if there is a passenger-related safety issue to be dealt with, it is not the people in the booths who deal with it; it is the individuals in the main station area. Therefore, the reduction of ticket offices will have no effect on how these issues are dealt with within the station. Indeed, I suspect, given that three quarters of ticket offices were actually open on the last strike day, and that it is primarily the drivers and maintenance workers that are on strike, that ticket office workers themselves are unconcerned by the cuts.

Subsequently, if the RMT and TSSA’s members are on strike, but there will be no changes in working conditions for them as they are not the ones who will be affected by the cuts, it begs the question as to why the action has been taken? In my opinion, this is about the unions gaining the political upper hand in the face of future adversity. The RMT are one of the most militant unions, with one of the most hard-headed leaders it has had in a generation. With cuts looming, Bob Crow has long since woken up to the fact that his member's jobs will increasingly come under threat. Therefore, he has used the first industrial relations issue to start to fight his corner, to assert his political position, even though the matter at hand is in reality an issue that doesn't primarily affect the RMT's members.

Thus, he may cry out that the safety of the public is compromised, but in reality, Crow's aim can only be to force TfL into a position whereby he can fight later battles with the upper hand. If the unions won this dispute, it would be like tacit consent being given by TfL that they could not make changes regarding staffing issues without their consent. Thus, in the long run, a successful strike action would mean the RMT and TSSA's members' jobs would be more secure.

However, the problem with Crow hijacking the issue of ticket offices for is own end, is that he is now a bit like the boy that cried wolf. At the end of the day, most of the public can see the need for the ticket office changes and support them. Subsequently, in the future when the unions really need our support with some justifiable strike action because of potential cuts or job-losses, many of us just won’t care because our trust in the RMT and the TSSA will have been eroded to the point of non-existence. Many will no longer see them as protectors of their members, rather, they will be perceived as bullies that cannot face reality.

Thus, there are good ways for unions to act, and this strike action is not one of them.

Spotlight On: The Railway Clearing House

The Railway Clearing House (RCH) was a massive organisation within the structure of Britain’s railway industry by 1914. Yet, very few people were, or are, aware of existence because it was not glamorous, it was not high-profile, and its employees were mainly clerks, probably some of the most uninteresting of Victorian workers. But, the RCH was vital to the efficient working of the railway industry up until 1948, and was the facilitator of the development of standardisation of rules, procedures and technologies in its early days.

Visualise, if you will, the emergent British railway network of the 1830s and early 1840s. Small companies were springing up all over the nation, and in addition to the many technical problems that arose, through booking and the transit of goods wagons from one company to another could be a contentious issue. This was because the companies involved would argue over the division of receipts between them, as the mileage tables that they used showed the distance between stations as being different. Additionally, the rates different companies charged for carriage were different between the railway lines. Something needed to be done.

On the 2^nd January 1842, the Chairman of the London and Birmingham Railway, George Car Glyn, invited delegates from nine railway companies to attend a meeting at 11 Drummond Street, near Euston. These nine companies were all operating in the industrial heartland of Britain, and as membership was always voluntary, many companies, including the Great Western, London, Chatham & Dover and London, Brighton and South Coast did not join them until the 1860s. However, most of Britain’s railway companies were members by the 1870s.

The RCH had five aims: To arrange the through booking of passengers and personally owned horses and carriages, to divide passenger receipts between companies dependent on mileage travelled, to promote the through transportation of goods and the charging rates on a ‘per mile’ basis, and to provide a place where all debts owed by one company to another could be settled. Each company was charged £5 per year per station owned, plus an additional levy was charged dependent on the proportion of receipts processed relating to each company. To aid this process, in 1847 the RCH employed number takers, to check the number of wagons running on foreign lines. Further, in this year, the first book of goods rates classifications were published, standardising goods rates. Lastly, in 1853, the RCH published it first book of distance tables facilitating the settlement of accounts between companies. On a more basic level, the standardisation of ticket printing and stamping of ticket printing was also facilitated through the RCH.

With this structure in place, the RCH also began to act as a facilitator of standardisation of elements of industry practice beyond matters of rates and ticketing. In the industry’s early days, different companies did not use standard technologies on their lines. Signalling on the Great Western was different to that the London and North Western, buffers were at different heights, couplings between locomotives and rolling stock was different. This was a problem, given that the number of connections between companies was growing, and trains, wagons and carriages were required to move from one railway line to another.

Thus the RCH became the forum for the standardisation of railway practice, and much of this was done through the work of the different conferences that brought together the officials of different companies, such as the Goods Managers’, General Managers’, Engineers’ and Accountants’ Conferences. In September 1847, the RCH the member companies agreed to adopt Greenwich Meantime, a move which allowed time to be standardised across the nation. By 1870, the RCH had ensured that most companies were using the standard semaphore signals, some of which are still with us today. Indeed, many other technologies were standardised through the RCH, such as buffer heights, running board levels and vacuum brakes. Lastly, in 1876, after much wrangling, the RCH enabled the production of a standard rule book for all railway companies. While I cannot begin to list everything that was standardised here, it is clear that the RCH was important in shaping how Britain’s railways operated.

The RCH grew over the years and moved far beyond the humble beginnings at Drummond Place, and by 1900 it employed 2000 clerks at Seymour Street. However, what the RCH represented was the fact that the British railway industry, which was dense and developed very quickly, needed some way for the companies to cooperate and work together. It was, therefore, a response at a critical time to a problem that the embryonic British railway industry faced. It would go on to shape the British railway network through the standardisation of technology and procedure. It ceased functioning in 1955.

For more information see: Bagwell, Philip The Railway Clearing House in the British Economy, 1842-1922, (London, 1968)

Crime and Punishment on the Victorian Railway

The Victorian Railway was a harsh place to work. While death was an ever-present threat, there was also the danger that the slightest infraction of the company’s rules may result in disciplinary action. Discipline came in four main forms, fines, demotions, suspensions and dismissals. While the latter three forms of punishment were infrequently inflicted on individuals, fines were a regular occurrence. Between August 1862 and December 1863 the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway imposed 482 fines on its Traffic Department employees. The department only had 1800 men, indicating that it wasn’t difficult for employees to breach the company’s rules and regulations. The 482 fines were imposed for the following:-

Errors in work – 135

Late on Duty – 107

Neglect of Work – 105

Damage to Property – 73

Breach of Regulations – 31

Misconduct – 27

Insubordination - 4 [1]

While it would take some time to list every type of infraction that occurred on the Victorian railway network, in January 1874 the London and South Western Railway disciplined 35 individuals; amongst which was a guard who was ‘fined for neglecting to see the carriage doors properly fastened,’ a telegraphist who was cautioned for ‘being late on morning duty,’ a signalman who was ‘fined for letting a goods train out of the yard in front of an excursion train’ and four porters who were dismissed from the ‘service for intoxication’ (hopefully not at the same time). Indeed, in cases where individuals turned up to work intoxicated or were found asleep on duty, almost all were dismissed.

Offences were usually recorded in the railway companies’ ‘Black Book.’ However, to warn other staff against making infractions, the companies would list all of the previous month’s within the monthly Working Timetables, or would send round a circular to all staff. While the offending individuals were not named, the circulating to the staff a list of all cases of misconduct was clearly meant as a corrective, to diminish the number of infractions and to enforce the rules.

Fines on most railways were between 1 and 5 shillings, however, in the case of more serious offences being committed or repeat offending, fines could go as high as £1. Once again, like in the case of the death of railway employees, disciplinary actions disproportionately affected the lower paid employees of railway companies. Of the L&SWR’s 35 disciplinary cases in January 1874, only one employee punished, a station agent, was a member of the higher-paid grades. The remaining 34 individuals were in the low-paid grades, for example porters, gangers, enginemen, guards and telegraphists. Indeed, the same was the case on other railways, and on the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway in August 1872, of 55 punishments given out, only 7 were to employees in higher grades.[2]

Therefore, the suspension, dismissal and fining of staff would have meant either temporary or permanent hardship for the railwayman’s families. Indeed, if a porter was paid £1 (20 shillings) a week, a fine of 5 shillings may have constituted a week in which the family would be forced to eat less. Further, larger fines for serious offences would have meant that some families may have gone without food for a week. Indeed, I don’t think I need to explain what effect suspension or dismissal of a railway employee would have had on his family if they were on a low income.

Therefore, the rules railway workers had to follow in the Victorian Period were harsh, but the consequences of an infraction may have been harsher.

--------

[1] Kingsford, P.W., Victorian Railwaymen, (London, 1971) p.22

[2]Kingsford, P.W., Victorian Railwaymen, (London, 1971) p.27

No Plan and lots of Groping - Rail Policy so far under the Coalition

So, at the moment the Department for Transport (DfT) isn’t really sure what it is doing with regard to investing in important rail projects. Well, that is my impression. On Tuesday, the Secretary of State for Transport, Philip Hammond, stood up in the House of Commons and outlined a many of the department’s plans regarding transport. The railways did not, sadly, receive top-billing. Indeed, the majority of the projects that were announced were concerning investment in the road network.

In four categories, Hammond outlined the level of commitment the government had to various projects. Firstly, those investments that were cast in stone were upgrades to sections of the M1, M60, M6 and M25, as well as 12 other road projects. Yet, languishing in the second tier of projects, which are subject to ‘a best and final submission,’ were the extension to Midland Metro and a new southern entrance to Leeds station. These were guaranteed provisionally, but not with certainty. In a third tier of works, were the Leeds Rail Growth Project, the Rochdale Interchange and new vehicles for Sheffield Supertram. These will have to fight out with other road projects for a share of a £600 million pot of money. Lastly, there were another group of projects that are in a ‘pre-evaluation’ group, such as the Croxly Rail Link (linking the Metropolitan line to Watford Junction). These will be subject to further review.

And everyone went “hmm,” stroked their chins and exclaimed “hang on a minute.” Many planned large railway projects, which did not get a mention in last week’s Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR), were also absent from Hammond’s announcement. The CSR did vaguely outline some funding of big projects, such as Crossrail, the second High Speed Line and Network Rail’s Station Improvement program. However, in the CSR and Hammond’s announcement we did not hear a peep regarding the Intercity Express Programme (IEP), which was to deliver replacements for aging high speed rolling stock; nor was there a croak about the electrification of the Great Western and Midland Main Lines; neither was there any announcement regarding new rolling stock for Thameslink. This was like Hammond saying that everything was fine, when all the while everyone is looking at the house behind him that was on fire. We all could see as plain as day what he was leaving out. Indeed, all he did say about the IEP, in response to a question, was that it was under review.

What this all amounts to, is that investment in Britain’s railways under the coalition is still very uncertain. Firstly, while many projects were confirmed in the CSR, there is no way to know whether they will be developed in line with their planned formats as the announcement was vague. Additionally, this status can also be applied to Hammond’s second tier of project’s that are ‘subject to a best and final submission.’ Further, other large projects that were planned are nowhere to be seen. Lastly, there is no certainty regarding many smaller projects that will have to vie for money.

I would suggest this is because the DfT doesn’t know where they want to go with regard to railway infrastructure projects and investment. Take for example the IEP. This major investment has been mulled over since Sir Andrew Foster’s report on it in July. But, there is another factor that is in play. The progression of the IEP would be heavily dependent on the electrification of the Great Western and Midland Main Lines, and vice versa. This is because the new trains will have to run under the newly electrified lines. Therefore, to cancel one project would imperil the other because they are interlinked. As such, the DfT have to consider the two projects together; but this means that it will take longer to decide on whether they go ahead as planned or in an altered format. Additionally, consider the number of rail projects that are not confirmed, but are still in the ‘provisional’ categories listed above. This evidences a lack of conviction regarding rail investment within the Department, as they are still open to review. HS2 is also not a certainty, as technically we are still in the planning phase and the actual work on the line would not start until after the next election. Thus, as it stands, after 6 months the coalition still has no firm commitments to rail investment.

Overall, it strikes me that the DfT has very little direction regarding investment in major projects on the railways. But this is a severe problem. Railways are different from roads, in that they require vast amounts of planning to make investments because of the high capital costs and the technology involved. Thus, Hammond and the DfT quickly need to develop a plan for major capital projects on Britain’s railway network, that moves them beyond such vague terms as ‘growth’ and ‘efficiency.’ It needs to be long-term and must encompass the wants and desires of all those that demand a modern rail network. Without a plan, they will be groping their way forward for the next 5 years, making one ad hoc decision after the other. This has the potential to lead to erroneous investment, poor management decisions and ultimately higher costs for the taxpayer and the travelling public. This has been a problem for the railways in the past, and it can’t happen again.

Filming the railways - the Importance of britishrailways.tv

Irrespective of what period of history an individual studies, whether it is Renaissance Monarchy, Tudor Gentry, the Post Office or Railways, he or she will very quickly develop concerns regarding the preservation of archival material relating to his or her chosen topic. This stems from the fact that anything that is preserved could add to the quality of the research they produce, and to loose it anything may be a loss to their present or future output.

As a railway historian, I have talked on many occasions about my intense frustration with what I call the ‘draw effect.’ This is the idea that in draws, cupboards and lofts throughout the world, there are large numbers of potentially useful documents for historians which in many cases are in danger of one day finding their way into skips. Although, this said, much does get saved, and to look at the railway documents for sale on eBay is both reassuring, knowing the documents are safe, but also frustrating, given that I can’t buy everything. Therefore, my idea has always been that many documents in private hands could be preserved through an online database. Anyone could upload digital images to the database, and this would also increase the availability of documentary material for researchers. However, I was beaten to it, and an on-line archive does now exist in embryonic form at http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/.

However, while this site covers paper documents, historical artefacts do not only come in this form. From the moment that we could produce movies, people have produced movies of the railways. Thus, it concerned me for a long while that this material didn’t have an online home. Imagine my joy and surprise when I came across http://www.britishrailways.tv/, which is gradually building up an online archive of railway films from the past and present. Naturally, as a railway historian I am engrossed in the historical content of the site, whether it be films of important events, or the railway companies’ own promotional material. Indeed, the site really brings railway history to life.

One of the problems with historical study is that sometimes using paper documents makes it hard to really imagine what events were like. Indeed, on many occasions it is even easy to forget that the events I study were real at all. But, by using archival footage of an event, the sense that history is in ones imagination fades away. Take for example the following footage of the aftermath of the Abermule crash in 1922. While I can get a report on the crash (found here), the video of it below shows me the true horror and devastation that was caused. What was only a previously a report to my mind, is now a much more real, terribly sad, event.

britishrailways.tv

Further, consider my PhD studies on the London and South Western Railway. Within it I will be looking at the company’s construction of the Feltham Marshalling Yard. However, the most experience I have had of the yard was when I went running overgrown remains a few years back. There were no lines left, very little infrastructure and the wasteland was being used as a biker track. Therefore, imagine my joy when I came across it being used in this World War Two film which showed me it in action for the first time.

britishrailways.tv

Lastly, of course, http://www.britishrailways.tv/ features many promotional videos and adverts which the railway companies of Britain have created over the years. Subsequently, the site gives the historian an insight into how the industry changed the way it projected itself to attract customers. So, on the site you can find videos of the London and North Eastern Railway’s highly promoted ‘Silver Link’ run in 1937, footage of when the London, Midland and Scottish Railway’s locomotive, ‘Royal Scott,’ visited the World Trade Fair in Chicago in 1933, and, lastly, there are also many of the adverts that British Rail produced in the 1970s, 80s and 90s. However, as an example I have chosen this somewhat disturbing advert from Southern made in 2008 (I think).

britishrailways.tv

These are just a few of the 100s of films that are available on http://www.britishrailways.tv/ that show many aspects of railway history and operation. I feel that the site is an important step forward in making railway history accessible and interesting for all. Previously, many of the videos featured on the site would only have been available to a few people. But, because the site exists, it is helping diminish my 'draw effect,' allowing more individuals to experience railway history through the medium of film. Therefore, I implore you to take a look around the site, sign up as a member, upload videos and support it in any way you can, as this will help promote the sharing of railway history for the benefit and entertainment of all who are interested.