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.

'Killed or Injured from their own Misconduct or Want of Caution' - Death on the Mid-Victorian Railway

Between June 1854 and June 1860, 55 London and South Western Railway (L&SWR) employees were seriously injured, while another 40 were killed. Presumably, because of the high accident rate, fear of death or injury must have been an ever-present worry for railway employees by the mid-Victorian period. Indeed, these fears were also accompanied by the fact that that they knew their loved ones would receive little or no support from their employer if they were disabled or killed while at work.

This was because railway management and directors viewed accidents as usually being the result of employees’ 'own misconduct or want of caution.' Government returns from 1854 onwards show how prevalent this opinion was amongst L&SWR managers. Of the 55 fatalities and 40 injuries on the L&SWR mentioned, only 2 deaths and 2 injuries were attributed to ‘causes beyond [employees’] own control.’ This left 53 fatalities and 38 injuries that were classified as being a result of the individuals’ ‘own misconduct or want of caution.’

However, by detailing a few cases of accidents, it shows that management could have mitigated the number of fatalities and injuries through the implementation of better procedures and rules, and through investment in safety equipment. On the 19^th May 1856 ‘Edward Bundy, breaksman, incautiously coupling a goods train at Ringwood Station was caught between the waggons and killed.’ On the 14^th June 1858 ‘John Colbourne, platelayer, fell from a ballast waggon in motion near Eling Junction, and was run over and killed.’ And lastly, on the 7^th October 1859 ‘William Scott, platelayer, (not on duty at the time), run over and killed in the Knowle cutting, near Fareham, from his own want of caution.’

Clearly, in each of these cases the LS&WR could have done more to protect these men. Yet, Railway Company managers felt that there was little or no need to put in place rigorous safety measures to avoid accidents, as it was widely accepted that the employee had to take, in most cases, responsibility for his own actions. However, because such a high proportion of employees were classified as being killed or injured because of their ’own misconduct or want of caution,’ it suggests that managers used this excuse to avoid making life-saving changes in an effort to save money. It was only years later that they were forced to do so by the Government.

More upsettingly, the effect of the death or disabling of a railway employee may have been that it reduced poor families to further poverty. The majority of those killed or injured on the railways were porters, platelayers, pointsmen, or labourers; all of which would have received the lowest pay within railway companies, and who may have been living in poor conditions anyway. But, on a railway employee’s death or injury there were few funds to support widows and orphans, and support from the company would be minimal. In the L&SWR management’s case, the most they would give to widows in this period was a £5 gratuity to cover funeral costs, or possibly a very low paid job as an office cleaner, carriage lining sewer, waiting room attendant or gatekeeper. Thus, when these unhappy events occurred, it may have meant further poverty, even destitution, for railway workers’ families.

Thus, the death or injury of a railway employee in the mid-Victorian period was something to be feared by vast swathes of people, both in and out of railway employment.

DB vs Eurostar - The New Railway Race

Everyone saw it on Tuesday; like a white slug, a Deutsche Bahn ICE3 train rolled into St Pancras, signalling the company’s long-planned intention to run services from London to destinations throughout Europe from 2013. This is just what I wanted to see; better use of the under-used channel tunnel. Yet, poor old DB had been clearly upstaged. Just 11 days before Eurostar, the current operator of trains between St Pancras and the continent, announced the purchase of ten new trains from Siemens that will run between Britain and European destinations, and which will be delivered in 2014. And so, with much fanfare, a mock-up of one of the trains’ new power cars was placed next to the Albert Memorial in Kensington Gardens.

In essence, these new trains evidence that a ‘race to Europe,’ a name with which I now dub DB and theirs burgeoning competition, is in the offing. Indeed, DB have stated that trains will be run to and from Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Frankfurt and Cologne, whereas Eurostar haven’t specified yet exactly what their destinations will be; a move to probably keep their competitor guessing. So it is possible that Eurostar may run to those places also.

Races to places by train are always exciting. In the 1930s two railway companies, the London and North Eastern (LNER) and London Midland and Scottish Railways (LMS), poured millions of pounds into the second ‘race to the north.’ This was a competition between the two companies, who both served Scotland, to attract passenger traffic through the use of speed, style and comfort. Both companies subsequently developed streamlined locomotives to push the speed of their services up, as well as built some of the most luxurious coaches ever seen on the British railway network.

The problem with the whole enterprise was that the LNER and LMS didn’t really need to engage in this competition. Both had a monopoly on their particular routes, apart from when trains hit Scotland, and both companies did not derive most of their revenue from passenger traffic. Yet, freight revenue, which was their main earner, was suffering by the 1930s. Firstly, government regulation restricted what they could charge for goods haulage; but also, much of their goods business was being lost to road hauliers. Thus, both companies would have better served their interests by not investing the competition, and instead putting the majority of their developmental efforts into improving their goods services, both in cooperation with each other and individually.

Therefore, if we are going to experience a new railway race, if Europe is the place where this battle is to be made fought, then BD and Eurostar have to address beforehand the question as to whether they actually need to compete at all. There are enough attractive destinations in Europe which they could serve, and as such the companies could choose to run trains to different destinations. Of course, some might say that competition to destinations will be good for the customer, as prices will be driven down and the quality of travel will increase as the companies try and tempt passengers. But if all the London to Europe trains go to the same places it won’t be good for the British passenger, as the companies’ could have taken decisions that would have increased the destinations available. Therefore, it is in our interest as passengers that DB and Eurostar work together on destinations before they start to compete.

The Railways and the Comprehensive Spending Review

This afternoon I listened to a Comprehensive Spending Review which I despised. Naturally, transport was the one area of government expenditure that I was keeping an eye out for. My honest opinion is that things could have been much worse for the railways. Just to clarify, I’m not saying that I liked what was announced, it was just that with all the hype that preceded the CSR I felt that transport, and more specifically the railways, were going to be clobbered to a much greater extent.

Firstly, some transport policies that I like, such as the building of Britain’s second high speed rail link, tube upgrades and the completion of Crossrail to improve London’s transport network, will go ahead. Indeed, after the Department of Defence, the Department for Transport has received the highest capital funding of £33 billion over the next three years. Although, we shouldn’t get too excited; the electrification of the Midland and Great Western main lines, and the replacement of Britain’s High Speed Trains through the Intercity Express Programme, were conspicuously not mentioned. Overall, we’ll all find out the details of the capital expenditure next week when the Secretary of State for Transport, Philip Hammond, will make announcements regarding where the investments will actually be. Subsequently, at this stage no planned investment can be guaranteed to progress as expected (if at all).

Yet, the most definite policy that was announced with regard to the railways was that from 2012 regulated fares, which include savers and season tickets, will rise for three years at the rate of RPI+3%, whereas currently they rise at a rate of RPI+1%. Richard Hebditch, the Campaign for Better Transport’s campaign director, estimated (via the medium of Twitter http://twitter.com/RichardHebditch) that based on the government’s own estimations of the level of RPI and inflation over the course of this parliament, the rise in fares would be 31% overall. This is horrible and will hit commuters hard, especially in areas where there aren’t good tube links. While many will be able to absorb the increased transport costs into their household budgets, a great number will not.

I am a firm believer in the concept of transport poverty; the idea that the prohibitive cost of rail travel limits job opportunities for many people, keeping the standards of living down for them and their families. If the cost of travelling to higher paid employment wipes out any potential increases in people’s pay packet, then they simply won’t apply for those jobs. Further, if people don’t use the railways to travel longer distances to work, their employment opportunities in an area are limited as car commutes are generally shorter than rail ones. Lastly, if the up-front costs of season tickets are too high, so as to wipe out a person’s salary for a month or two, this will also limit where individuals look for work as they will be unwilling to make the initial commitment of funds.

Thus, in terms of transport policy all this CSR will serve to do is further hurt the poorest in society by limiting their opportunities to travel to better paid employment. Further, it will solidify a divide between the ’transport rich’ and the ‘transport poor.’

The Lives of Late-Victorian Railway Clerks

Late-Victorian railway clerks were pen pushers, who at stations, yards and offices did a range boring and tedious jobs, such as filling out traffic returns, processing correspondence, handling money and ordering stores. Monotonous as these tasks sound, clerks’ career opportunities, high wages and job security made them a unique and fascinating group of railway employees.

By the 1870s railway companies were employing boys between the ages of 14 and 19 as junior clerks, usually appointing them to the traffic or the administrative departments. However, gaining a situation as a junior clerk was dependent on a number of factors. Firstly, before even setting foot in a railway office, prospective clerks would have been required to provide security and present testimonials written by respectable individuals who could attest to their good character. Secondly, the majority of railways expected these individuals to pass exams, which, in the case of the London and South Western Railway (L&SWR), included tests on 'writing, spelling, copying and common arithmetic.' Therefore, because of the necessary connections, money and education to become a junior clerk, it is clear that the majority would have had middle class backgrounds.

Once they had passed these rigorous entrance procedures they immediately received benefits, starting on higher salaries than other railway employees. In 1877 William Pratt, a new cleaner at the L&SWR’s Nine Elms engine shed, earned £15 12d per year, whereas in 1878 Henry Holmes (shown), a junior clerk at Lapford Station, began on £35 per year. Further, clerks’ wages were raised at a quicker rate than other staff, and in 1890 Pratt was on £93 12d per year, whereas by 1891 Holmes, now based at Superintendent of the Line’s Office, Waterloo, was on £125 per year. In addition to these benefits, the clerks, who were paid monthly, could boast of having higher job security than other staff, the majority of which were only paid weekly and could be dismissed easily.

Yet, despite the advantages over other staff in their pay packet, clerks’ work was long and arduous, and usually in poor conditions. A Chief Clerk on the North British Railway in 1863 recounted that while the working day may have officially been between 9.15 am and 6 pm, clerks in reality were expected to get through their assigned work whatever, forcing many stay in their offices until 7, 8, 9 or even 10 pm. Some even took their work home with them.

But efficiency and a high level of commitment could pay off, and industrious clerks were usually rewarded with advancement up the companies’ clerical promotional ladders. The natural course of advancement for junior clerks was to be confirmed as a full clerk after three to five years of training. Then, after variable periods of time depending on their aptitude, they may have become chief clerks, goods agents or station agents. Once reaching this level, they still may have been promoted further, moving to larger and larger offices, yards or stations. But, even greater rewards awaited these men if they continued to impress.

By the 1870s clerks were the only railway employees that in reality could be promoted into the ranks of management. Indeed, a small number rose to be General Managers. In the period 1870 to 1909, Gourvish showed that of 43 General Managers appointed within Britain’s fifteen largest railway companies, 40 had begun their careers in Traffic or Administrative departments. Indeed, the previously mentioned Henry Holmes eventually became the L&SWR’s Superintendent of the Line. Only in exceedingly rare cases did non-clerical staff get promoted to this level within railway companies.

Therefore, while undertaking the dullest and most boring work within the late-Victorian railways, I feel that the clerks were an interesting group of individuals, whose advantageous backgrounds ensured they had better jobs, good career prospects and a happier living.

Bibliography

Gourvish, T.R., 'A British Business Elite: The Chief Executive Managers of the Railway Industry, 1850-1922', Business History Review, Vol. 47, (Autumn, 1973)

Kingsford, P.W., Victorian Railwaymen, (London, 1970)

McKenna, Frank, The Railway Workers 1840-1970, (London, 1980)

The View from the Inside Track

If I were a historian of World War Two I could walk into any bookstore and choose from a plethora of books that recounted the personal wartime experiences of soldiers, sailors and airpersons. These multitudes of texts are in existence because the conflict was an event in the authors' lives that was never to occur again. Thus, they wrote about their wartime experiences to pass on their unique perspectives, on a unique set of events. Yet, for the rest of us historians, who deal with what occurred in the lives of individuals on a day to day basis, personal accounts of their activities are rare, principally because they presumably didn’t feel the need to write books on their work, sleep and play. Therefore, as a historian of the pre-1914 railway industry, when I do come across the personal accounts of railway workers it is a special thing. Four such texts spring to mind.

1. Memoirs of Station Master by Ernest J. Simmons (1879) – Great Western Railway (GWR)

Ernest Simmons was a Station Master on the Great Western Railway when, in 1879, he published his book detailing his employment as a clerk on that railway in the 1850s and 1860s. Published under the pseudonym Ernest Struggles, it is a lively, humorous and entertaining retelling of the life of the GWR clerk, all the while improved by the fact that the author could write well. Beginning with his first post at Oxford station and following him through reassignments to number of other locations from Aynho to the Black Country, it takes a cynical, and at times disrespectful view of management, criticising some of the company’s more illustrious figures such as Daniel Gooch. Yet to guard against libel, he used fictitious names for locations, individuals and the company itself. Thus, the book itself is truly an insight into the lives and opinions of the mid-Victorian railway clerk.

2. Sam Fay’s Diary (January 1878- July 1881) – London and South Western Railway (L&SWR)

Sam Fay was one of Britain’s most illustrious railwaymen, becoming General Manager of the beleaguered Great Central Railway in 1902 and serving on the Railway Executive Committee during World War One. Fay had started as a clerk on the London and South Western Railway in 1872 and was moved to Kingston in 1876. It is during his time at Kingston that he kept a diary in two small notebooks. In these books many aspects of Fay’s social life were recorded, from his early liaisons with his future wife, his rowing exploits and also being caught without a ticket coming back from Kew. Yet, what is most interesting (to me at least) are the insights the diary gives into railway employment on the L&SWR. In the diary Fay recounted inter-departmental disputes, his applications for vacancies, his relations with Kingston’s station master, and the moment he formed the railway industry’s first employee magazine, the South Western Gazette. Of course, I can’t recount everything the diary contains, but the document is a mine of information on the lives of railway clerks. Indeed, in some respects the information in Fay’s diary is better than those in Simmons’ book, as it is a direct recording of events, rather than the documentation of memories.

N.B. The diary is in the possession of Sam Fay’s grandson, Bill.

3. The Working and Management of the English Railway, by George Fidlay, (1891) – London and North Western Railway (L&NWR).

George Findlay in 1891 published this book after a lifetime as a railway employee. Initially he had worked as an engineer with Thomas Brassey, the great railway contractor. However, in 1853 Brassey recommended he be appointed manager of the Shrewsbury and Hereford Railway, and when this line was jointly leased by the L&NWR and the GWR he was appointed as a goods manager within the former company, eventually becoming its General Manager in 1880. It is from this vantage point that he produced this book as a guide to how the L&NWR operated. In it he touched on almost all aspects of railway operation, such as management, staff, the permanent way, signals, telegraph operation, the working of trains, shunting and marshalling, rolling stock and railway law. Presumably his broad career, moving from engineering to management, meant that he could comment on all aspects of railway operation with the weight of experience. Thus, he gave us an insider’s view of the railways that was technically astute and from a management perspective.

4. Railway Reminiscences by George Neele (1904) – London and North Western Railway

While Fidlay gave an account of the operating procedures within the L&NWR at one point in its history, George Neele, the companies’ former Superintendent of the Line, released this book in 1904 recounting his experiences from an entire career within the industry. Starting as a clerk in 1847, his book charted the many changes within the industry towards the standardisation of many aspects of operation, for example brakes, locomotive headlamp codes, telegraphic codes and the important role of the Railway Clearing House. It also contained highlights such as his trip to the United States, as well as the many characters that were involved in railway operation on the L&NWR and elsewhere. In some ways, this book is the best personal recollection of Victorian railway employment available, as it detailed the development of an industry from the view of a manager who could see a bigger picture than individuals lower down the promotional ladder.

All of these texts were unique, in that the authors were all writing from different perspectives within the industry. Indeed, they all recount these individuals’ experiences at different points in their careers. There is, however, one similarity between these texts, in that they were all recollections from individuals who were salaried employees. The porters, carriage cleaners, drivers and other weekly paid staff do not seem to have left accounts of their railway employment. This said, I may be wrong and their stories are waiting to be found.