Statistics for Managers on the 1830s Stockton to Darlington Railway

The Stockton to Darlington Railway (SDR), which was promoted by local businessmen, was authorised as an act of parliament in 1821 and was completed in 1825. Its significance is because it was the first railway to be permitted to carry goods and passengers by steam traction. However, some historians dispute that it was the railway that started the ‘Railway Age’ and only consider it a precursor to it. These views have been formed on the basis that initially the railway ran from collieries to Stockton via Darlington, a mere 30 miles. Secondly the bulk of the early traffic was heavy minerals, and lastly the company sub-contracted portions of its operations. Yet, while many comparisons are made with the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, opened in 1830, the SDR did help George Stephenson to refine locomotive design, track building techniques and rail profiles.

However, the SDR it soon became more than just a short line, and in 1828 the company extended its line to Middlesbrough. [1] However, it was in 1833 that the company started to truly resemble a modern railway. Prior to this date the company had only used locomotives on mineral trains, with horses pulling the passengers. Furthermore, the company owned only a few trains, and the majority of individuals could pay to use their own traction to pull their own trains on it. Thus, the line was managed in much the same manner as a canal or toll road, and there were no timetables or safety mechanisms.

In 1833, this all changed and the management of the SDR took control of the line. Firstly, double tracks were laid to allow trains to run in opposite directions. Timetables were introduced, as well as a crude system of signalling.[2] Lastly, the Shildon works, which had been established on a small scale in 1825 to build and maintain the company’s own locomotives, came to resemble what we would now know as a locomotive works under the charge of the company’s new locomotive superintendent, Timothy Hackworth.[3] Subsequently, the SDR became a standard railway and was a huge success.

While outwardly appearing like a conventional railway, it cannot be ignored that the company also started to use management techniques that were akin to other early companies. Within the files of the SDR at the National Archives can be seen the SDR’s early attempts at statistical gathering. The data that has survived pertains to the number of passengers conveyed and how far they went. While it is unknown what other data the company kept (at this point at least) the statistics do suggest that very quickly after establishment early railway companies were gathering metrics beyond just revenue and expense.

The first page of data showed me the monthly totals of passengers conveyed and how far they travelled. In 1833 12,829 passengers travelled 101,288 miles on the SDR (7.90 miles per passenger). However, between January and September 1834 the railway conveyed 143,672 passengers 1,049,370.5 miles (7.30 miles per passenger). Thus, while the company was conveying more passengers in 1834 than in 1833, on average they were going shorter distances. Subsequently, financial information (which I do not have at the moment) may reveal that the effect that this had on the company’s profitability. What is for certain is that the company was rapidly becoming more popular, and this also may have had an effect on the statistic of miles travelled per passenger.

In addition, how the passengers were carried was also noted. While we are familiar with the distinctions of First, Second and Third class carriage from later on in British railway history, it seems that the early SDR distinguished the customers by ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ passengers. The evidence, which again showed the monthly totals, indicates that from the 1^st January 1834 to the 17^th December, 11,270 (25.54%) passengers paid more to travel ‘inside.’ However, 32,857 (74.46%) travelled by the evidently cheaper ‘outside’ accommodation.

Furthermore, by 1835, it is clear that the managers were demanding more complex statistics, and another document evidences the number of passengers each month travelling under specific headings: ‘Number of Passengers on Market Days,’ ‘Number of passengers not including market days’ and ‘total number of passengers.’ For that year 23,485 (45.54%) passengers travelled on market days, with 28,082 (54.46%) conveyed at other times.

Lastly, a document from 1836 shows that the SDR was not just recording the volume of passengers across the line, but was also recording specific detail were passengers were travelling to and from (however, this can be inferred from the details communicated by the first document). Between April and October that year, the company earned £202 10s 0d from passengers conveyed from Stockton to Darlington (58.96%), £41 10s 0d from passengers going from Shildon to Darlington (12.08%), £85 6s 4d from those going from Shildon to Middlesbrough (24.84%) and £14 2s 8d was spent by individuals making other journeys (4.12%). Thus, the management could gauge what their most popular journeys were, and where extra capacity in trains may have been needed.[4]

Overall these documents indicate that even in the early days of railway operation railway managers were using statistics to measure demand, pricing and uptake of their services. Indeed, on the bottom of the first sheet, which showed the number passengers conveyed and the number of miles they travelled, there is a calculation in pencil of how far, on average, each passenger travelled. Later documents also show that these calculations were made. Thus, what these documents indicate is that systems of management accounting were developed very quickly in the early railway industry. Furthermore, as they started at the beginning of the SDR’s proper operation it can be deduced that management recognised, based on prior experience that management accounting was important.

[1] Kirby, Dr Maurice, ‘Stockton & Darlington Railway’, The Oxford Companion to British Railway History, (Oxford, 1997), p.478

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockton_and_Darlington_Railway

[3] Ransom, P.J.G, ‘Works, railway manufacture and repair’, The Oxford Companion to British Railway History, (Oxford, 1997), p.569

[4] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 667/1364, Statistics of passenger journeys: numbers carried, mileages, receipts etc., 1833-1837

"The Man With A Gold Cap" - The Life of a Stationmaster - 1912

While I talk a lot on this blog about the broad issues of railway operations, I rarely discuss the day to day running of Britain’s railways. In July 1912 the Railway & Travel Monthly printed an article entitled ‘The man with the gold cap.’ The article discussed the nature of the daily work of the stationmaster. Written by J. Thornton Burge, a stationmaster on the London and South Western Railway, he stated that he had ‘often been struck by the apparent ignorance of the general public as to the duties and responsibilities of a stationmaster.’ Burge worked at Templecombe Station, a station of considerable size where there was a ‘very large transfer of traffic’ and ‘marshalling of trains.’ Burge, while working for one company, clearly felt that the experiences he was describing applied to most station masters throughout Britain.

Burge’s day started at 7.45am, where on arrival he would find between 50 and 100 letters. Some were from Head Offices which had ‘arrived by trains during the night,’ some were from his own staff, and others came from other station masters. The details of the letters were very varied, including requests for ‘special attention to be given to some old person or child changing trains,’ the quick transit of goods and complaints from traders. There were also enquiries from headquarters as to suggested timetable changes, derailments, operating irregularities, staff changes or pay rises. All of these had to be read, and responded to.

After dealing with the correspondence he next received the night inspector’s report that detailed any irregularities as to the running of the trains, followed by the yard foreman’s report that showed how many wagons were in the yard. From this, he would be able to determine whether there were more wagons waiting to be sent from the station, than the goods trains that were due to arrive were able to convey. Thus, he would have to arrange special trains. Lastly he read the signalmen’s report which explained any delays, most of which he could account for to head office without the further need for investigation.

Stationmasters in the period were also responsible for the station’s accounts and returns. Therefore, he had to check and sign many returns, accounts had to be settled and claims by traders investigated. He also had to make sure all trains were ‘cleaned and birthed’ for the morning services and every delay in the train service had to be reported to headquarters.

By now many trains were passing through the station, it being the busiest part of the day. Being the man in charge he had to make sure that their movements were completed efficiently. On the one hand, he was not to delay the fast trains considerably, lest he ‘incur the censure of his chiefs.’ Yet because his station was a junction, if he let trains go that were due to connect with others that were late, meaning passengers missed their connections, he may also ‘upset plans’ and ‘greatly annoy passengers.’ However, the telegraph and telephone was utilised to regulate the service and plan for irregularities.

After all the correspondence had been completed and the rush in traffic was over, the stationmaster had to do his early morning inspection of the station to check that all was in order. This encompassed every part of the station from the waiting rooms to the lavatories, to the goods shed and yard. Additionally, once or twice a month he made surprise visits to the outlying signal boxes to make sure that nothing was out of order.

The rest of the day seemed to be filled up in attending to the range of other issues that arose at the station. Burge laid stress on frequency with which ‘blockages’ occurred on the main lines to which he had to attend. They occurred for multiple reasons, for example flooding on the line, the slippage of an embankment, a derailment, or an accident. It was the stationmaster’s duty to make sure that safety was ensured, but that, if possible, trains could continue to run. With a group of gangers and platelayers he would proceed to the blockage and put signalmen on either side of it to warn oncoming trains. He would then marshal the employee’s efforts to restore the free movement of trains. Interestingly, he commented that on such occasions it would be useful to not wear a uniform, as when hurrying around the station in times of urgency, he would be continually accosted by passengers or traders wanting information or trying to make a complaint.

Burge made the point that unlike other grades of employees, his responsibilities for looking after the station meant that he was never off duty and was ‘supposed to be always within reasonable call for cases of urgency day and night, Sunday and weekday, and from the time he becomes stationmaster he practically gives himself wholly to the company’s business.’ Thus, on many occasions, after he had left his post, he was called back to the station to attend to some matter. This was particularly the case for Burge as trains ran all through the night. He remembered a number of cases when he was called on at such times to attend to a disabled man, to make a decision about some injured cattle and when fog and snow storms slowed operations on the line.

While this was only a cursory view of stationmaster’s activities, and I could not do the entire article justice here (peppered as it is with very detailed, quite boring, information), what has been shown is that the stationmasters before the First World War were a dedicated group of individuals who were under consistent pressure to keep the railways of Britain moving. Their jobs while relatively clean and free from risk of physical harm, were far from easy and on occasions were very arduous.

All taken from The Railway and Travel Monthly, July 1912, p.201-210

'At the time of catastrophe’ - Railway Passenger's Accident Insurance - 1849-1914

In the period 1874 to 1878, on average 35 passengers were killed per year on Britain’s railways (against 687 railway employees). High profile accidents such as Abergele in 1868, in which 32 people died, combined with the attendant hysteria, did much to put fear into the heart of the travelling public.[1] How then could the passenger avoid leaving their family destitute if they had the misfortune to be in an accident? The answer – railway passenger’s insurance.

The most prominent company to provide this was the Railway Passengers Assurance Company (now part of AVIVA). Formed in 1849, ‘for the purpose of Insuring Passengers by railway against accidents,’ it started with a capital of £1,000,000 ‘to inspire confidence in its ability to pay £1000 for a threepenny premium.’[2]

After establishment, the company quickly made deals with the railway companies of Britain to sell tickets and policies at stations. Initially the tickets, purchased from booking offices at station, would insure the passenger for the journey that they were about to undertake (irrespective of length). In 1849 passengers could pay threepence on a first class ticket, twopence on a second class ticket and onepence on a third class ticket would, which, in the case of a fatal accident, would entitle their family to £1000, £500 and £200 respectively. In the cases where accidents were non-fatal, but where there had been injury, the company would pay out ‘a sum of compensation that they consider just.’ If the amount paid out was disputed by the claimant, the company would go to arbitration.[3] The company also issued periodical insurance tickets (usually for a month), and, irrespective of class, any fatal accident would permit the family to claim £1000. The original cost of this tickets have not been determined.[4]

Despite much scepticism in the press regarding the viability of the new company, insurance policies and single journey tickets sold well. At the company’s first annual general meeting in March 1850, it was reported that in the period between August 1849 and the end of the third week in February, 65,353 single journey tickets had been sold (15,710 first class, 24,586 second class and 25,047 third class). Additionally, 1,683 periodical passes had also been sold.[5]

As the insurance was sold at stations there had to be some pay-off for the railway company. A London and South Western Railway 1858 guide to Station Agents stated that Booking Clerks that issued and received insurance tickets were to receive a 10 per cent commission from the Assurance Company as remuneration for their trouble. Indeed, they were required to process the tickets also, and clerks were to send a weekly return of the number of tickets issued and received to Waterloo Audit office.[6] However, the selling of tickets wasn’t always looked on favourably by the railway companies themselves, and many Booking Clerks were instructed by management not to invite the selling of insurance as talk of accidents on the railways may have increased anxiety among travellers.[7] Despite this, the company remained successful.

After the formation of the company the types of accident insurance that could be taken out proliferated and some of the old schemes became more standardised. An 1897 guide for Station Agents shows that there was insurance for journeys not more than 35 miles and journeys of any length. The compensation was also dependent on how much the purchaser paid. There was also the option for individuals to purchase accident cover for 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 5 years, 10 years or the entire length of their person’s life. Furthermore, the subjective assessment of how much individuals should receive if they were maimed or injured had been replaced with formalised payments for those who suffered ‘death or loss of two eyes or limbs,’ ‘total disablement’ and ‘partial disablement.’[8] (see image for more details)

While the Railway Passengers Assurance Company held sway over 19^th century passenger insurance, the scheme of the periodical Tit-Bits should be noted. Tit-Bits was launched by the innovative publisher George Newnes in 1881. In May 1885 Tit-Bits announced in bold and capitals ‘A NEW SYSTEM OF LIFE ASSURANCE.’ The scheme was as follows: ‘ONE HUNDRED POUNDS WILL BE PAID BY THE PROPRIETOR OF"TIT-BITS" TO THE NEXT-OF-KIN OF ANY PERSON WHO IS KILLED IN A RAILWAY ACCIDENT, PROVIDED A COPY OF THE CURRENT ISSUE OF "TIT-BITS" IS FOUND UPON THE DECEASED AT THE TIME OF THE CATASTROPHE.’

This had been suggested to Newnes by the wife of a dedicated reader who had been killed in an accident. Seeing the potential to increase the periodical’s circulation and his profits, Newnes used the idea. The first successful claimants were the family of a 40 year old coachbuilder who had fallen between the train and the platform at Hatfield station and had been run over. The coroner proclaimed ‘accidental death.’ However, crucially, four witnesses testified that the man had Tit-Bits in his pocket. Subsequently, two claims a month on average were made and by September 1891 Newnes had paid out to 36 families. How far this scheme increased the circulation of the Tit-Bits is unknown. However, it provided the publication with gripping stories for individuals reading it on the commute.[9]

[1] Simmons, Jack, ‘Accidents’, The Oxford Companion to British Railway History, (Oxford, 1997), p.2-4

[2] Author’s Collection, Instructions to Station Agents – Railway Passenger’s Assurance Company, 1897

[3] The Era, Sunday, March 4, 1849; Issue 545

[4] Trewman's Exeter Flying Post or Plymouth and Cornish Advertiser, Thursday, November 22, 1849; Issue 4381

[5] The Morning Post, Thursday, March 07, 1850; pg. 3; Issue 23788

[6] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 1035/269, 1858 - RAIL 1035- Abstract of instructions which have from time to time been issued to the Station agents &c Previous to 1st May 1858, p.14

[7] Harrington, Ralph, ‘The railway accident: trains, trauma and technological crisis in nineteenth-

[8] Author’s Collection, Instructions to Station Agents – Railway Passenger’s Assurance Company, 1897 century Britain,’ http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/irs/irshome/papers/rlyacc.htm

[9] Jackson, Kate, ‘The Tit-Bits Phenomenon: George Newnes, New Journalism and the Periodical Texts,’ Victorian Periodicals Review, Vol.30, No.3, (Fall, 1997), p.217-218

'Preferred in Finer Weather' - Early Third Class Passenger Accommodation

I don’t often write about the rolling stock of Britain’s railway on this blog. In fact, I don’t think I have so far. I don’t know why. The development of rolling stock on Britain’s railways relate to many aspects of the social, managerial, governmental and technological history of the railway network. But, as will be shown, the earliest third class accommodation was appalling because of the profit motive of the earliest railway managers.

Unlike today, where the majority of us sit in what is now ‘standard class,’ a much smaller proportion of customers travelled by the lowest class in the earliest days of Britain’s railways. Yet, this was not necessarily by choice and the railways before 1850 were reluctant to provide third class accommodation on many services. A return from 1847 showed that in the year ending June 1846 just over 6 million 1^st class passengers were conveyed in Britain (14.07%), just under 17 million 2^nd class passengers travelled (38.66%). The rest of those conveyed were about 18.5 million 3^rd and Parliamentary class passengers (the latter of which more will be mentioned in a moment) (42.26%). However, the preference for carrying 1^st and 2^nd class passengers was logical considering they contributed £3.6 million of the £4.7 million (76.18%) of the revenue generated by passenger traffic in that year.[1]

Thus, for early railway managers providing accommodation for third class passengers forced up operating costs, reduced revenues and ultimately diminished profits. Indeed, on many railways, for example on the opening of the Hampton Court Branch of the London and South Western Railway, the company didn’t mention third class travelling arrangements at all.[2] Furthermore, many companies did not attach third class carriages to the regular passenger services, instead attaching them to goods trains. Of course, this wasn’t to say that the addition of third class carriages to a train that was ‘running light’ didn’t add profit to the overall service, but in the main, railway managers preferred to convey the more profitable first and second class traffic.

Furthermore, the low rate of return on conveying third class passengers also affected the quality of their accommodation which was, especially in winter, dreadful. Thus, early third class accommodation rarely had a roof, glazing, and almost always forced the passengers to sit on wooden seats. In short, these coaches were little more than slightly modified goods wagons.[3] However, by not spending large amounts of money on the coaches for third class travellers, railway managers were reducing the overall cost of conveying them. On the opening of the Sheffield and Rotherham Railway one reporter tried to make the best he could of the third class coaches which were ‘of common appearance but substantial in structure, and being open will probably be preferred in fine weather.’[4]

However, such poor accommodation carried with it substantial risks when an accident occurred. While individuals had come to harm falling from the coaches,[5] it was an accident on the Great Western Railway on Christmas Eve 1841 that brought the matter to the government’s attention. Late in the evening a luggage train, which was comprised of three third class coaches and some heavily loaded goods wagons, was going from Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington and was passing through Sonning Cutting, east of Reading Station. Rains had caused a landslip which had covered the track with earth. In the dark the train hit this and derailed, causing the third class carriages, which were between the engine and the goods wagons, to be crushed. Eight people died at the scene, and one died in hospital a day later. 16 people were seriously injured.[6]

The accident report stated that one of the principal causes of fatality was the lack of protection afforded to the passengers within them. Indeed, many of the passengers had been thrown out of the carriage on impact.[7] As such, the Board of Trade initiated a general inquiry into the conveyance of third class passengers nationwaide, culminating in the 1844 Regulation of Railways Act. This compelled all companies that derived a third of their revenue from passenger traffic to provide one train daily calling at all stations, that did not go less than 12 miles per hour, which did not cost the traveller not more than 1d per mile and, crucially, used enclosed carriages with seats. These were called ‘Parliamentary Trains.’ Reflecting the fact that the operation of these services would be a financial burden for the railway companies, any company meeting these requirements would not have to pay taxes on the fares.[8]

While this piece of legislation was a landmark, given it was the first by government that actively intervened in railway affairs, it also showed the future of the third class carriage. Of course, the legislation did not stop the usage of open coaches immediately, and they continued to be used until as late as the early 1870s. Yet, what this story shows is that the from the very earliest days of the railway industry it was the government that had to intervene to restrict the railway’s earliest urges simply to make as much profit as possible. Indeed, it is also possible that this early intervention by the government instilled in railway management the idea that they had an obligation to the public, something that would have an effect on railway profitability in later years.

[1] House of Commons Parliamentary Papers [HCPP], 1847 (706) Railways. Summary of returns, showing the number of passengers carried on 63 railways of the United Kingdom during the year ending 30 June 1846, the fares of each class, and the receipts from each class of passengers, and for goods.

[2] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 411/227, Traffic & Coaching Committee Minute Book, 19^th January 1849, p.301

[3] Harris, Michael, ‘Carriages,’ The Oxford Companion to British Railway History, (Oxford, 1997), p.76

[4] The Sheffield Independent, and Yorkshire and Derbyshire Advertiser, Saturday, November 03, 1838; pg. 2; Issue 908

[5] The Champion and Weekly Herald (London, England), Sunday, October 27, 1839; Issue 163.

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonning_Cutting_railway_accident

[7] Accident Returns: Extract for Accident at Sonning on 24th December 1841, http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=113

[8] Simmons, Jack, ‘Parliamentary Trains,’ The Oxford Companion to British Railway History, p.369

Always remember "Safety First!" - Railway Employee Safety Campaigns from 1913

Safety for Britain’s railway employees before 1913 was governed by the rule books that each was obliged to carry. This had been the case since the railway’s beginnings. However, the rule book did not prevent accidents occurring, and between 1900 and 1913 the average number of railway employees killed per year was 485, with the number of injuries being 20,737. Thus, while the rule book was an established part of railway life, its instructions were failing to prevent accidents. Mike Esbester argued that this could be attributed to the formality and compulsory nature of such documents. ‘The reader was unlikely to read the solid mass of text except when compelled to do so.’[1] It wasn’t until the Great Western Railway (GWR) introduced the “Safety Campaign” in 1913, that things began to change.

The origins of the ‘Safety First’ campaign can be found in the United States. In the early 1900s, Ralph Richards, the Chicago and North Western Railroad’s (C&NWR) general claim agent, became concerned by the number of accidents within the company. As late as 1910 107 men were killed and another 9,000 were injured while at work for the company. Thus, in 1905 he published a number of articles on safety issues and in 1906 these were reproduced as a book. At the same time he attempted to get the C&NWR’s management interested a campaign, something that would become a fruitless endeavour until 1910.[2] By 1912, the ‘safety first’ campaign had become accepted amongst the management of many American railroad companies.

The GWR’s management first came interested in the ‘Safety First’ campaign in 1913 through articles in the Illinois Central Railroad Magazine, George Bradshaw’s book the Prevention of Railroad Accident and through other publications. However, the ‘safety first’ mantra was spreading within Britain’s railway administrators and commentators at the time, and the GWR’s management were simply the first to act on this interest. Thus, the GWR contacted some American railroads about their campaigns with a view to introducing something similar amongst its own employees in early 1913.

Esbester argued that the ‘Safety First’ campaign ‘reinvented safety education in Britain,’ using journalistic techniques to convey its messages. While the contents of the rule book were stuffy and unappealing, the messages provided by the campaign were attractive. Indeed, the GWR used its staff magazine, the Great Western Railway Magazine, to convey its messages as well as publications, competitions and posters. The contents focussed on such areas as safety in coupling together trains, crossing the line, dealing with electric lines (in later years), loading carts, riding on the top of carriages and not standing too close to a steam train’s exhaust pipe.

Articles were written with the employee in mind. They were straightforward for the individual to understand and used informal language that was very different from that found in the rule books. Furthermore, photography was utilised in all the material that was produced, usually showing ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ working behaviour (shown – an example from the 1920s). Additionally, capitalisation and bold text were used to highlight important points. Lastly, in 1916 the GWR introduced a pocket token about the size of a penny to be kept with loose change. This had the ‘Safety First’ motto, ‘IS IT SAFE?’ emblazoned all over it and every time an individual brought out their change it would be there to remind them of the value of safety.

Quickly after the GWR started to work on the campaign it was taken up by other British Railway companies. Indeed, the GWR shared its materials. The companies that introduced campaigns were the London and South Western, Great North of Scotland, Midland and Great North Joint, Wirral, Rhymney, Cambrian, Cardiff, and Isle of Wight Central, North Eastern and Hull and Barnsley Railways. Indeed, it is interesting to note that the diffusion of the campaign happened just as quickly in Britain as it did in America, with many of these companies adopting the campaign by 1915.

So why was the campaign introduced in 1913? Esbester concludes that a combination of two factors that precipitated its adoption. Firstly, this was a period in which the profitability of Britain’s railways was at an all-time low. Secondly, the railway companies were under intense pressure to improve the working conditions of their employees, both from government and the unions. Indeed, in 1911 there had been a national railway strike (which I wrote about here). Thus, the campaign was an attempt by the railway companies to prevent interference from the government in labour relations, placate the unions, while at the same time trying to avoid spending money on costly new safety devices.[3]

If you would like to read Mike Esbester’s article in full, it can be found HERE.

[1] Esbester, Mike, ‘Reinvention, Renewal, or Repetition? The Great Western Railway and Occupational Safety on Britain’s Railways, c.1900-c1920,’ Economic History Online, Vol.3 (2005)
[2] Aldrich, Mark, Safety First: Technology, Labour, and Business in the Building of American Work Safety, 1870-1939, (New York, 1997), p.188
[3] Esbester, ‘Reinvention, Renewal, or Repetition?’ (2005)

Royal Trains for three Victorian Royal Weddings

What with all the fervour surrounding the Royal Wedding, I thought that I would look through some 19th century newspapers for evidence of how the Victorian railways played a role in royal weddings of the past.

The first wedding I encountered was Princess Victoria’s (Queen Victoria’s Daughter) marriage to Prince Frederick William of Prussia on the 25th January 1858. This took place at the Chapel Royal in St. James’ Palace. After the Wedding Breakfast at Buckingham Palace, the couple left for Windsor. In 1858 Windsor had two stations owned by two companies, and the couple were carried by the Great Western Railway (GWR) from Paddington Station. Leaving the station at 5pm, they arrived at Windsor at pm and were greeted by dignitaries, fireworks, the firing of a canon and a guard of honour.[1] A few days later the couple travelled back to Paddington, and then by the South Eastern Railway (SER) to Gravesend where they were to depart for Prussia. All through their journey crowds gathered at the stations they passed to cheer them on, and on arrival at Gravesend Station they were greeted by speeches and cheers.[2]

At the same time, many from around the nation wished to celebrate the wedding and excursion trains were provided to London. Indeed, this was a period when the railway industry was just starting to exploit large events for financial gain by running 'specials' to them. Thus, it is known that the London and South Western Railway (L&SWR) provided special excursion trains from Southampton to ‘enable sight-seers to witness the preparations for the marriage ceremony.’[3] Other instances of special trains have not, however, been found. Yet, it is plausible that they did exist.

In July 1862 another of Queen Victoria’s daughters, Princess Alice, got married to Prince Louis of Hesse at Osborne House on the Isle of Wight. Because of the death of Prince Albert in December 1861, the Royal Family was still in mourning. For this reason the wedding was not common knowledge amongst the public. After the event, the couple travelled from the pier at Gosport to Vauxhall by the L&SWR. ‘So little did the public know about the event’ reported The Sheffield & Rotherham Independent, that when the 5pm Southampton to London express train was shunted into a siding to let the royal train pass, the passengers had the strong impression that there had been an accident ahead. Indeed, when informed of the purpose of the stoppage they refused to believe it. Yet, reassurance came when they saw the royal coaches ‘with the visitors at the wedding seated in it, all at mourning.’[4]

Prince Edward, Queen Victoria’s eldest son and the future King Edward III, was married on the 10th March 1863 to Princess Alexandra of Denmark in St. George's Chapel at Windsor Castle. Alexandra had arrived only four days previously at Gravesend and had been conveyed by the SER to the Bricklayers Arms Station. She was then transported Windsor by the GWR from Paddington.[5] After the wedding the couple departed for Southampton via Basingstoke by the GWR. Jackson’s Oxford Journal reported that ‘the passage of the train from Windsor was welcomed at every station through which it passed by a display of flags, words of welcome and floral decorations.’ On arrival at Southampton the royal carriage was detached from the train, and to the sound of cheers six horses pulled it into the docks. It was from here that they took the Royal Yacht to the Isle of Wight and Osborne House.[6]

Unlike the wedding of Princess Alice, Edward’s wedding, like Prince William’s, was celebrated by many around the country. Naturally, some people wanted to visit Windsor and special trains were laid on by the GWR from Paddington. However, the number conveyed is unknown.[7] In addition, festivities were held nation-wide. In Edinburgh bonfires were lit, famous buildings and monuments were illuminated and fireworks were let off. As such, special trains were run to the city from Newcastle, Dundee and Glasgow, with return workings run after the illumination had finished.[8] Thus, special trains were laid on throughout the country to transport individuals to regional events.

Overall, Britain’s railways clearly played a role in broadening the appeal of royal weddings and making royal couples into celebrities in early Victorian Britain. Stations, particularly, were the focal points for the celebrations, as they were the only places where many people could see the royal couples personally. Indeed, in all of these cases, bar that of Princess Alice’s marriage, royals were subject to celebrations at either end of their journeys, as well as at the stations through which they passed. Additionally, railways had the effect of allowing those that lived far away from the weddings to celebrate where the ceremonies were, or at regional festivities. Thus, while not all weddings were located in easily accessible places, like Windsor, the special trains detailed here indicate that there was significant interest in them. Thus, I have to ask, did the railways start the hype around the royal weddings that we have today?

[1] The Essex Standard, and General Advertiser for the Eastern Counties, Wednesday, January 27, 1858; Issue 1415
[2] The Bristol Mercury, Saturday, February 6, 1858; Issue 3542
[3] Daily News, Friday, January 22, 1858; Issue 3647
[4] The Sheffield & Rotherham Independent, Thursday, July 03, 1862; pg. 4; Issue 2412
[5] Hampshire Telegraph and Sussex Chronicle etc, Saturday, March 7, 1863; Issue 3309
[6] Jackson's Oxford Journal Saturday, March 14, 1863; Issue 5733
[7] The Sheffield & Rotherham Independent, Wednesday, March 11, 1863; pg. 7; Issue 2626
[8] Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, Sunday, March 8, 1863; Issue 1059

The Rise and Fall of 'Ladies Only' Railway Compartments in the 19th Century

The railways had a considerable effect on the mobility of women, particularly those in the upper and middle classes. Prior to their advent most women were not permitted to travel on their own. If they wished to go anywhere, the social norms of the day demanded that they have accompaniment by their husbands or a male relative to protect them against supposed dangers. Yet, because the railways reduced journey times the perceived risks lone women faced when travelling were adjudged to have diminished. The Quarterly Review stated in 1844 that the railways had brought about ‘the emancipation of the fair sex, and particularly of the middle and higher classes, from the prohibition from travelling at all.'[1]

However, some still felt that women should be isolated when travelling on the railways and by this time a few companies were starting to provide permanent ‘ladies only’ compartments in trains. Nevertheless, the practice was not widespread and it wasn’t until the 1860s that railway companies came under heavy pressure to institute such a provision universally. Indeed, some advocated that that the railways should be legally obliged to provide 'ladies only' accommodation on each train.

Advocates for these facilities were spurred on by high profile cases of rudeness, foul language and assaults by men that went to court and which were reported in the press. As an example, The Penny Illustrated Paper printed in 1868 the tale of two women who were repeatedly followed by man, who was ‘dressed as a gentleman,’ from one compartment to another. He apparently acted in an insulting and obtrusive manner. Indeed, when the letter writer left the carriage, leaving her friend with the man, he ‘subjected her to gross insults and annoyances.’[2] Another letter, printed by The Standard in 1864, was from one man whose servant had been assaulted on a train. Alone in a carriage, the three men spoke rudely to her and she went and stood by the window. One of the fellows then tried to pull her to the ground and ‘caught hold of her leg…putting his hands up to her knee.’ They blocked her screams for help by standing by the window, and then pushed her against the side of the carriage violently. They laughed and then got out.[3] Thus, it was these kinds of reports that fuelled demands for women to have separate travelling accommodation.

As such, it is not surprising that when the Metropolitan Railway introduced permanent ‘ladies compartments’ on all their trains in October 1874, many congratulated them on the decision in the press.[4] However, this was an experiment that failed miserably and after a couple of months the Metropolitan had abandoned the practice.

The truth was that ladies compartments were very under used. A report in The York Herald stated that on the Metropolitan ‘it was found that the privilege [of women’s only compartments] was not availed of to an extent to warrant the company in setting aside so much space in each train, and moreover that it was abused.’[5] Indeed, there had been ‘ladies compartments’ on the Stockton to Darlington section of the North Eastern Railway for some time before 1874. However, they were also ‘frequently empty.’[6] Furthermore, when the Board of Trade investigated the whole issue in 1887 it found that the companies would reserve compartments on request, but those that were permanently reserved were very under used.[7] Indeed, this was perhaps even more than the railways would offer in some cases, and the Railway Clearing House rule book of 1884 stated that if requested guards were to ‘select a carriage for [women]… in which other ladies are travelling.’[8] Thus, by the time of the First World War permanent ‘ladies accommodation’ was exceedingly rare as providing it was unremunerative for the railway companies.

Overall, the demands for ‘ladies only’ accommodation were generated from newspaper sensationalism and a misrepresentation of reality. As Jack Simmons commented, the number of cases of women being insulted, robbed or assaulted reported in the papers was ‘insignificant, when looked at against the number of journeys women were making at the time.’[9] Indeed, this seems to have been contemporary thinking amongst some. A reporter for the Newcastle Weekly Courant stated in 1884 that ‘there are women who, believing all that they read in the newspapers is as true as Gospel, think they are in mortal terror when they find themselves alone with a man in the carriage.’ Indeed, his view was that men would rather search a train for a spare seat, rather than sit with an ‘unattended female.’ Apparently, most men thought that ‘it is best to leave female travellers alone, as they are generally well able to take care of themselves.’[10]

Ultimately, the story of the ‘ladies only’ accommodation is one where media hype gave weight to patriarchal views. Between the 1860s and the 1890s individuals holding the view that women should be separated on trains made a lot of noise and put pressure on railway companies to endorse their perspective. However, as women travellers showed by their actions, they did not need the protection. Subsequently, the railways, driven by a financial rationale to fill trains and make profit, responded by not heeding their requests.

[1] Quarterly Review, Volume 74, Issue 147 (1844, June) p.250
[2] Penny Illustrated Paper, Saturday, September 26, 1868; Issue 365
[3] The Standard, Tuesday, September 13, 1864; pg. 3; Issue 12510
[4] The Standard, Thursday, October 15, 1874; pg. 3; Issue 15668
[5] The York Herald, Thursday, December 17, 1874; pg. 3; Issue 5572
[6] The Newcastle Weekly Courant, Friday, October 10, 1884; Issue 10943.
[7] Simmons, Jack, ‘Women’s Emancipation,’ The Oxford Companion to British Railway History, (Oxford, 1997), p.566
[8] South Western Circle Collection [SWC], London and South Western Railway Rule Book, 1884, Rule 242, p.137
[9] Simmons, Jack, The Victorian Railway, (London, 1991), p.334
[10] The Newcastle Weekly Courant, Friday, October 10, 1884; Issue 10943.