'As Temperate a Body as Could be Found' - The United Kingdom Railway Temperance Union

I got it into my head that I should write a blog post about railway temperance this week as I will be traipsing off to the Great British Beer Festival at Earls Court, twice. So, perhaps it is my subconscious, or my liver, trying to tell me something.

Temperance was one of the key principals of railway employment in the 19^th century, ensuring that individuals’ who were in safety critical positions, such as enginemen, firemen, porters, signalmen or guards, did not have impaired judgements when undertaking their duties. The London and South Western Railway’s rule book from 1845 stated that ‘any engineman or fireman found drunk whilst on duty, or on the company’s premises, will be instantly discharged, and visited with the severest penalties of the law.’[1] By 1912 this had not really changed and the Railway Clearing House’s rule book of that year stated that railway employees were not allowed into station Refreshment Rooms and any found drunk on duty would be dismissed ‘without notice.’[2]

Nevertheless, Jack Simmons pointed out that the greatest extension of the railway network between 1850 and 1876 was accompanied by the massive rise in national alcohol consumption.[3] In 1831 nine Burton-upon-Trent breweries produced 50,000 barrels of beer. By 1868 twenty-six breweries produced 1,755,252 barrels and in 1888 thirty-one breweries produced 3,025,000 barrels.[4] Thus, given the increase in alcohol consumption, some railway workers formed temperance unions to promote the cause. Yet, prior to 1882 these organisations were small, uncoordinated and operating independently.

In 1882 thirty-two unknown railwaymen,[5] feeling that a ‘principal of cohesion and expansion’ was required,[6] formed the United Kingdom Railway Temperance Union (UKRTU) with backing from the Church of England Temperance Society. The CofE’s temperance union was particularly active at the time. In that year there were 339,687 members in the 20 national diocesan branches, as well as 14,352 individuals in the seamen’s temperance union. The formation of the ‘Railway Temperance union’ was simply part of a policy of expansion to spread the word of temperance.[7] However, the railway union always had the unique perspective in that abstinence from alcohol was always linked with the safe operation of the railways.

The first meeting of the UKRTU was held at Exeter Hall, on the Strand, on Wednesday 11th October 1882. The president of the new society was Rev. Cannon Ellison.[8] The growth of the railway temperance union had a difficult start. However, by 1908 there were 300 branches nationally with 37,947 members[9] and branches were established by workers from most main line railway companies.[10] Membership particularly expanded in the early twentieth century. For example, in 1905 the London and North Western Railway union’s membership was only 4,777, whereas in 1908 it stood at 17,536.[11]

Members could pledge allegiance to the union in two capacities, following the practice of the CofE’s own temperance society. Category A members pledged total abstinence from alcohol and promised ‘by example and effort’ to promote the union. Category B members had this similar aim, but for whatever reason chose not to abstain totally.[12]

The organisation was carried on by volunteers who ran activities that could be broadly split into two categories; spreading the message, and events. Spreading the message was a big part of the union’s purpose from the start and the union used a system of ‘catch-my-pal,’ where members would induce their friends and neighbours to join. He would ‘talk and argue and persuade until that object was achieved.’[13] Furthermore, branches held meetings daily at meal-times where individuals would listen and talk about temperance message. On the social side, concerts and lectures were held in winter time and excursions would be run to the seaside and resorts in the summer months. Additionally, by 1911 the union owned a number of halls which were used as reading rooms ‘or institutes where a game of billiards may be played.’ The union’s halls at Crewe could also boast of a rifle range. Competition between branches also occurred, whether through football or between branch choirs.[14] Lastly, the Great Western Railway temperance union members established the company’s staff magazine with the tag-line the ‘Temperance Union Record’ in 1888.[15] These practices continued up until the First World War and beyond.

Overall, the question that could be asked is whether work of the UKRTU actually reduced intemperance and ensured safety on the railway? But in reality that is not the issue. At the point of the union’s establishment no example was cited where alcohol had directly caused an accident. Furthermore, an expansive article in The Quiver from 1911 on the union did not cite one accident where an intoxicated individual had been involved. The truth was that temperance among railway workers, while not absolute, was well established by 1882 through the companies’ own rules and regulations. In January 1885 the South Western Gazette, the London and South Western Railway’s staff magazine, reported on the first meeting of that company’s Exeter branch. The Bishop of Exeter stated that the organisation was ‘very peculiar and very striking’ as ‘it could not be said that railway men as a general rule were tempted to drunkenness,’ and that they were ‘as a body were as temperate a body as could be found.’[16]

Thus, because generations of railway workers had had drilled into them the notion temperance by railway companies’ managements the UKRTU was in fact quite irrelevant to the issues of safety. This is re-enforced by the fact that the great concerns of safety campaigners rested not with the alcoholism of railway workers, but with matters of technology and railway worker’s lengthy and tiring hours. Therefore, the formation of the UKRTU was simply an extension of the national temperance movement, which was part of a religious groundswell at the time, and it only used the issue of ‘safety’ as a cover to push its own religious message of service to God through abstinence.

--------

[1] London School of Economics [LSE], HE 1 (42)/4391845, Rules for Enginemen and Firemen, 1845, Rule XXIV, p.20

[2] Author’s Collection, London and South Western Railway Rule Book, 1^st November 1912, Rules 9 and 12, p.8-9

[3] Simmons, Jack, ‘Temperance Movement,’ The Oxford Companion to British Railway History, (Oxford, 1997), p.503

[4] Goruvish, T.R. and Wilson, R.G., The British Brewing Industry: 1830-1980, (London, 1994), p.91

[5] Blyth, Gregory, ‘Temperance on the Line,’ The Quiver, Vol 46, No 6, (April 1911), p.581

[6] Jackson's Oxford Journal, Saturday, October 14, 1882; Issue 6761

[7] Daily News, Wednesday, April 26, 1882; Issue 11241

[8] Jackson's Oxford Journal, Saturday, October 14, 1882; Issue 6761

[9] Raynar, Wilson H., The safety of British railways; or, Railway accidents: how caused and how prevented, (London, 1909), p.92

[10] Blyth, ‘Temperance on the Line,’ p.582

[11] Raynar, The safety of British railways, p.92

[12] McKenna, Frank, The Railway Workers: 1840-1970, (London, 1980), p.47

[13] Blyth, ‘Temperance on the Line,’ p.584

[14] Blyth, ‘Temperance on the Line,’ p.582

[15] Great Western Magazine and Temperance Union Record, November 1888, p.1

[16] South Western Gazette, January 1885, p.6

Opportunity and Exploitation – The First Female Clerks on Britain’s Railways - 1875

Before 1870 most women working on the railway received their jobs as an act of charity from the railway companies on the death or injury of their husbands. After being on a waiting list, they could be appointed as refreshment room attendants, carriage lining sewers, ticket sorters or gatekeepers. Unsurprisingly, these jobs were low paid, took place in poor conditions and had long hours. Yet, being appointed to such a post was far better that the alternatives of poverty or possible confinement to the workhouse. Indeed, as I have written before (here), the lives of railwaymen’s widows was hard and destitution was always possible.[1]

In 1875 the London and North Western Railway (L&NWR), Britain’s second largest railway company, altered the nature of women’s employment within railway companies by appointing 15 women to clerical roles at the company’s Birmingham Goods Department. This was on the initiative of a ‘Mr Nichols,’ who was the traffic manager at the Curzon Street Station. Strictly speaking, this was not the first time women had been given office-based employment by the railways, and on rare occasions the daughters of stationmasters had been engaged as telegraphists. Yet, the 1875 appointments signalled a change in women’s opportunities on the railways as it was first occasion when clerical positions had been created specifically for women, rather than their circumstances or any charitable intent.

This could possibly linked to the improved education in the period. The 1870 Education Act had extended education (somewhat unevenly) to all children between the ages of 5 and 12. Given that most of the women employed by the L&NWR were ‘young women,’ it could be argued that the expansion of national education facilitated their employment. Indeed, a few years later the women were all described as being ‘fairly educated.’ [2] Yet, while these were progressive steps for womens' employment in the railway industry, overall, railway companies were comparatively slow in appointing women to clerical positions. As an example, the Post Office was employing 3,500 female clerical staff by 1887.[3]

The work and conditions of the fifteen women employed by the L&NWR were described in a number of publications. In 1878 The Englishwomen’s Review (hereon known as 'The Review') stated that the women's work was principally to make 'abstracts from invoices for the ledger accounts of credit customers and for forwarding to the Railway Clearing House.’[4] This work was described by The Review as being ‘not difficult,’ but required ‘care and accuracy.’ Like most clerical jobs in the period, this would have been highly repetitive and dull.

The conditions of the work were not that distinct from those of the male clerks, although Myra’s Journal in 1889 stated that the women worked separately from them and were placed under a matron's charge.[5] Unlike other women performing jobs on the railway network, their hours were relatively tame, and they worked between 9 am and 5 pm. However, as with most clerical work in the period, the reality was that they would have gone home when they finished their assigned work, whether that be at 5, 6, 7 or 8 pm. The pay was pitiful compared with their male colleagues, ranging from 10s to 17s per week (£26 to £44 4s per year). Indeed, most junior clerks on the London and South Western Railway started on £30 per year, but their wages could reach the £100s throughout their career (See here). [6] However, even amongst female clerical workers these wages were poor and Myra’s Journal stated that they were ‘less than those paid by the Prudential Assurance Company.’[7] Furthermore, these women would have had no promotional prospects and presumably they left the company on marriage.

Nevertheless, in comparison with other employment opportunities for young women, working for the L&NWR was deemed better given the office environment. The Review stated that ‘the work affords excellent employment for fairly educated girls whose parents do not wish to send them into shops and factories.’[8] Therefore, in contemporaneous eyes, the avoidance of manual work made up for the fact that the women were poorly paid.

With these appointments being novelties in the railway industry at the time, it is not surprising that they drew criticism. Firstly, some argued that by appointing women to such roles it would threaten men’s jobs. In July 1876 the periodical Judy observed that because of the success of the women at Birmingham and the expansion of the ‘experiment,’ ‘Female engine-drivers and stokers will be the next step of course.’[9] Thus, while Judy was comic publication, this clearly expressed the threat some men felt from women being employed en masse within the railway industry.

Furthermore, in February 1887 The Review noted that a correspondent from the Railway Shareholder had argued that ‘though paid less…,[women] are totally unable to perform the whole of the arduous and multifarious duties of a corresponding number of male clerks owing to their “want of knowledge of the general routine of work”’ The Review retorted that if there really was a problem it ‘might be easily remedied by more regular training; but we are well disposed to think that the experience of the North Western Company…is conclusive, and that women clerks are up to their work.’[10] Thus, the women were attacked along lines which historically womens’ employment always has been; the taking of men’s jobs and the perceived inability of women to perform their duties adequately.

However, the L&NWR's management were very pleased with the ‘experiment,’ and The Review stated that ‘it is found that the work is done much more accurately than by male clerks, to say nothing of the neatness which is also displayed.’[11] Furthermore, The Cheshire Observer stated that because of this ‘the directors have been induced to try the experiment in other large centres of traffic…we believe the interesting experiment is being tried at Chester Station.’[12] Consequently, by the 1890s the L&NWR had recruited around 180 women for clerical posts,[13] at Camden, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds Chester and Wolverhampton.[14] But the success of the ‘Birmingham fifteen’ had wider implications within the industry. In 1877 The Leeds Mercury reported that other railways were considering employing ‘respectable women’ at stations.[15] Thus, by 1911 Britain’s railways employed 1,120 women in clerical positions (as opposed to 84,802 male clerks.)[16]

It should, however, be remembered that the true purpose of the L&NWR's appointments in 1875 was not through any urge to reform employment practices for women or to open up their opportunities. Rather, the L&NWR saw them as a source of cheap labour in a time when the railway industry's profitability was declining. The Cheshire Observer stated that for all railway companies the employment of the women in clerical positions ‘would be of great consideration in these times of railway competition.’[17] The Leeds Mercury stated that ‘the arrangement is economical, and ought to result in lessening railway expenditure, which has grown unduly in late years, especially in the wages department, and brought about a lamentable reduction in the rate of dividends.’[18]

Thus, the appointment of the 15 clerks at Birmingham was a significant event in the history of women’s employment on the railway, opening up clerical roles for women within the L&NWR and other companies. Nevertheless, the reality was that these women were exploited to improve company profitability. Indeed, this was story repeated in the other railway companies, and in other industries, when they took similar steps.

EXTRA, 11/08/2011: I have since written another blog on this subject to be found HERE

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

[1] Wojtczak, Helena, Railwaywomen, (Hastings, 2005), p.1-41
[2] The Englishwomen’s Review, Friday, February 15th, 1878, p.77
[3] The Englishwomen’s Review, Tuesday, February 15th, 1887, p.78

[4] The Englishwomen’s Review, Friday, February 15th, 1878, p.77

[5] Myra’s Journal, Monday, Aril 1st 1889, p.185

[6] The Englishwomen’s Review, Friday, February 15th, 1878, p.77
[7] Myra’s Journal, Monday, Aril 1st 1889, p.185
[8] The Englishwomen’s Review, Friday, February 15th, 1878, p.77
[9] Judy, July 19th 1876, p. 141-142
[10] The Englishwomen’s Review, Tuesday, February 15th, 1887, p.78
[11] The Englishwomen’s Review, Friday, February 15th, 1878, p.77
[12] Cheshire Observer, Saturday, July 15th 1876, p.6
[13] Wojtczak, Railwaywomen, p.29
[14] Myra’s Journal, Monday, Aril 1st 1889, p.185
[15] The Leeds Mercury, Thursday, June 25th, 1877
[16] Wojtczak, Railwaywomen, p.29
[17] Cheshire Observer, Saturday, July 15th 1876, p.6
[18] The Leeds Mercury, Thursday, June 25th, 1877

"Demand for Burton Ale was Never so Great" - The Coming of the Railway to Burton

Before the railways arrived the majority of breweries produced beer for their local markets. Indeed, with the growth of the national population in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, particularly in urban centres, the trade of these local breweries increased considerably. However, the railways changed things beyond many individuals’ wildest expectations, and while they did not revolutionise the beer industry, they certainly brought its products to a far wider market

The breweries of Burton benefitted the most from these new transport links. They had expanded their businesses in London, Liverpool and Birmingham in the 1820s and 1830s. Yet, beer prices in these places remained high to cover the costly transportation. The railway altered this situation and in 1871 the Nottinghamshire Guardian stated that ‘Mr Bass,’ the biggest Burton brewer, was ‘assisted greatly by the development of the railway system between 1835 and 1850.’[1] Burton was afforded a railway link to London in 1839 by the Birmingham and Derby Junction Railway who connected to the London and Birmingham Railway. In Wilson’s opinion this did three things for the Burton brewers.

Firstly, the cost of transporting beer reduced. Prior to the advent of the railways the cost of transporting a ton of beer (about five barrels) to London was around the £3 mark. However, the reduced the cost to around 15s per ton. Indeed, this spurred the Burton brewery partnerships to push the railway companies to drop the price of conveying other supplies they used, such as hops, malt and casks.

The second major effect was that the speed at which beer could be moved also reduced. Thus, where beer moving from Burton to London took three weeks to make the journey in the 1820s, by the 1840s it was taking 12 hours. This increased Burton beers’ availability to the country and consequently the demand for them skyrocketed. Thus, Bass’ home trade quadrupled in the four years after 1839. Furthermore, in 1855 the output of Bass was 145,177 barrels. Yet, as the nation’s rail network had expanded considerably, by 1858 production had doubled. Indeed, this shifted the company’s focus from foreign trade, which had been a major source of revenue before 1839, to internal markets. On the erection of a new Bass brewery in April 1863, The Derby Mercury commented that ‘the demand for Burton Ale was never so great as at the present time, as we are informed that applications have been received for many thousands of barrels of ale which the brewers are unable to supply.’[2]

Lastly, the rail links allowed the beer company to move materials and beers quickly and cheaply from the brewery and maltings to within Burton itself. Thus, overall, Wilson argued that ‘no other town and industry in Victorian Britain demonstrated better the benefit of the railways.’ Indeed, as the Leicester Chronicle stated on the opening of a new Brewery by Allsopp’s and Sons in July 1853, ‘The splendid establishment which this enterprising firm has founded in this place is every way worthy of the magnitude and celebrity of their brewery, while its immediate connection with the system of railways, worked by the London and North Western Railway company, not only affords them an immense advantage in economy of material and transit, but enables them to bring their ales into the London market in the most perfect condition possible.[3]

Commentators were always impressed by the affect that the railways had on Burton, but also the affect that the increase in trade had on the railways. The Licensed Victullers’ Gazette in 1874 stated that ‘something like 120,000 railway trucks [were employed], enough if all placed on a line of railways in a straight line now to reach from London to Liverpool and back again.’ Furthermore, Bass became the world’s largest railway customer. When Bass reached its peak in the late 1890s the company was despatching 600 wagons per day and within a few hours they could be unloaded inside the company’s depots at St Pancras and at the London Docks. Indeed, Burton became a web of ‘intercommunicating lines belonging to the four companies operating in the town.’

Therefore, without the railways Burton ales possibly would never have become as famous as they did.

-----

[1] Nottinghamshire Guardian, Friday, May 26th 1871, Issue 1316
[2] The Derby Mercury, Wednesday, April 29th 1863, Issue 6839
[3] The Leicester Chronicle: or, Commercial and Agricultural Advertiser, Saturday, July 9th 1853, Issue 2224

All information, except where stated, came from Goruvish, T.R. and Wilson, R.G., The British Brewing Industry: 1830-1980, (London, 1994), p.149-151

For our Four-legged friends - When Dogs Travelled on the Railway

After a survey of my many railway books I have determined that seemingly no one has ever written about the conveyance of our four legged friends by train in the Victorian era. This is a shame and hopefully this post will try and shed some illumination on this apparently forgotten subject.

The dog ticket was an early invention of the emergent railway industry and the National Archives holds a document that lists dog tickets issued between 1849 and 1854 on the Great Western Railway (GWR).[1] Furthermore, in 1848 the Daily News recorded events from two years earlier in which how dog-tickets were issued was detailed. On the 11^th September 1846 a Mr Wallop was returning from a day’s shooting to Gosport. Allegedly, Wallop fired his gun out of the first class carriage window, damaging it and the door. On arrival a railway employee demanded Wallop’s name, which he refused to give. But, the official persisted and demanded to see the dog ticket on which the name of the passenger was usually written. [2]

Thus, given that the dates of the GWR document and the events of Gosport, it could be suggested that companies had started issuing special dog tickets in the late 1840s. Yet, given the lack of research on the early railway, this cannot be confirmed. Secondly, the Daily News report also indicates that the early procedure of writing the names of the owner on the dog ticket. The one thing that was missing from these pieces of evidence is whether dogs travelled in a prescribed manner.

However, special procedures for the conveyance of dogs was definitely in place by the 1850s, and a court case from 1858 detailed that procedures for canine carriage had become rather unpleasant for the animals involved. The case involved a man who was pursuing a claim against the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway for his dog that had escaped in the course of a journey. Ordinarily, it was recalled, dogs were conveyed in ‘dog-boxes’ which throughout the journey were stashed under the seats of second class passenger carriages.[3] Indeed, correspondence from the period indicates that these dog boxes were common.

However, the rules laid down that dogs be carried in this manner were sometimes breeched in this period as the accompanying picture from 1882 in the Illustrated London News evidences. Indeed, a book from 1868 called Romey’s Rambles on Railways, stated that many women, who owned small dogs, hid them ‘under shawls and in hand baskets.’ However, other methods of concealment ‘more erudite are occasionally practiced,’ such as one man who concealed his dog in a carpet bag.[4]

Yet, some railway companies attempted to stamp out the and breeches of the rules. A London and South Western Railway Appendices to the working timetable from 1911 stated that ‘complaints have been made of Passengers being permitted to take dogs with them into carriages to the annoyance and inconvenience of passengers. This is contrary to the Regulations and Guards of Trains and the staff of stations should insist firmly but courteously on the animals being placed in the Guards’ vans. However, interestingly this did not apply to ‘ladies’ lap dogs.’[5]

But this raises an interesting question as to whether the aforementioned ‘dog-boxes’ were still used by this time, as the order does not mention a dog-box was required. This said, a London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Appendices from 1922, suggests that railways may have still used them. It stated that no dog ‘unpacked’ was to be received for transport without a muzzle. Additionally, it also orders that the boxes for dogs, that were to travel in the guards van, were not to be accepted if they were ‘not sufficiently large.’ Furthermore, ‘the labels of dogs must be inspected at all points, and any instructions re watering at any particular point &c, written thereon must be carried out as far as is practicable and consistent with the safe custody of the animal.[6] Thus, while the boxes were still used, it seems that, firstly, the practice of putting the dogs under seats had long since passed by the early twentieth century. But, secondly, the rule implies that the safe, comfortable and humane transit of dogs was a prime concern when they were transported.

This change was due to a shift in the attitudes to animal welfare in the late Victorian period. Amongst other letters that have been found regarding the treatment of dogs on trains, The Times recorded in 1900 that the Kennel Club had sent out a circular to ‘the principal railway companies’ suggesting improvements in the method of conveying dogs. They asked that dogs be placed in boxes, side by side, in guards vans and these new boxes would be available at stations, much in the manner of horse boxes, for an extra fee. After this, the boxes would be disinfected. In the Kennel Club’s opinion many dogs have had to be destroyed due to infections caught while using the old boxes that were too small and dirty.[7] Thus, given the rules cited above, it seems that this suggestion was taken up by some railway companies.

Overall, like most things I blog about, there needs to be research on this area of railway history. However, two things can be noted. Firstly, the dog ticket was established early on in British railway history, and a 1950s example I have testifies to its persistence. But, secondly, the accommodation given to dogs improved, possibly because of welfare concerns and public pressure.

------

[1] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 631/60, Dog Tickets, 1849-1855

[2] Daily News, Saturday, March 4, 1848; Issue 552

[3] The Law Times, Harrison vs. The London, Brighton and South Coast Railway, June 14^th 1862, p.468

[4] Roney, Sir Cusack Patrick, Rambles on Railways, (London, 1868), p.172

[5] Author’s collection, London and South Western Railway, Appendix to the Book of Rules and Regulations, 1^st January 1911, p.150

[6] Author’s Collection, London, Brighton and South Coast Railway, Appendix to the Working Timetable and to the Book of Rules and Regulations, May 1922, p.142

[7] The Times, Thursday, May 31^st 1900, p.6

One Month in 1886 - The Traffic and Trade of Britain's Railway Industry

From December 1885 to March 1886 the London and South Western Railway’s staff magazine, The South Western Gazette, published each month a breakdown of the gross receipts of Britain’s major 14 companies for the previous four weeks. Why they did this is uncertain, however, the statistics do make for interesting reading and tell us some things about the nature of the British Railway industry at a single point in history. In this post I will look at the statistics for the four weeks ending 20^th March, 1886, (for some railways the statistics were up to the 21^st) and discuss what they reveal about the relationship between company revenue, mileage and traffic.

Firstly, the statistics showed the route mileages of the 14 companies. The two largest were the Great Western Railways (GWR), which had 2,366 route miles, and the London and North Western Railway (L&NWR) at 1,801 miles. The smallest companies listed (however, smaller ones did exist in Britain) was the North London Railway (NLR), with only 12 route miles, and the Metropolitan District Railway (MDR) at only 13 route miles.

However, interestingly, the NLR generated the most gross revenue per route mile on the list, and for each one the company made £665. This was followed by the Metropolitan Railway, whose every rout mile earned it £566, and then the MDR, which earned £548. However the two largest railways in the country, the GWR and the L&NWR only earned £52 and £92 per route mile respectively. Indeed, the GWR was the worst performing company in this respect, an honour it shared with the London and South Western Railway, who also earned £52 per route mile.

The reason for the NLR, MDR and Metropolitan’s tracks earned the most revenue was that these companies served the London district. The Metropolitan and MDR in March 1885 seemingly did not carry any freight traffic, yet, served the densely populated areas of central, South West and North West London. Thus, over their small networks they hauled vast numbers of passengers commuting to and from work daily. The same can be said of the NLR, however, they were also graced with considerable through freight traffic going from the north of the country to the south. It should also be noted that these three railways also ran some services over other companies’ lines. Thus, their revenue per route mile may have been inflated, and if the revenue they earned per route mile they operated was calculated, the figures may have been lower.

This said, these figures would have been still high in comparison with the worst earners per route mile. The North Eastern Railway earned £50 per route mile,* whereas the L&SWR and GWR only earned £52 per route mile. Indeed, all three companies had lines that covered sparsely populated areas. Indeed the same could be said of the Great Eastern Railway (GER), which earned £62 per mile, and the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway (LB&SCR), which made £61* per mile.

There could, therefore, be an argument that main line railways which principally carried passenger traffic generally earned less per route mile. Four Railways fell into this category. 73.72% of the London, Chatham and Dover’s (LC&DR) revenue came from passenger traffic, as did 66.78% of the LB&SCR’s , 64.16% of the South Eastern’s (SER) and 61.77% of the L&SWR’s. Yet there is considerable variance between how much they earned per route mile, which were £103, (which was calculated erroneously by the individual compiling the statistics - many thanks Jeremy for pointing this out) £61, £73* and £52 respectively. Therefore, the two railways that served South East London and Kent, the SER and LC&DR, benefited from serving commuter areas and densely populated countryside. Indeed, the LC&DR earned the second highest gross revenue per route mile of the companies listed.

Similarly, there is variance in the gross revenue earned per route mile amongst the railways that made most of their money from goods traffic. The MS&LR earned 78.045% of its revenue from goods traffic, the MR’s proportion was 76.51%, the North Eastern Railway (NER) earned 70.73%, the L&NWR generated 67.71% and the Great Northern Railway’s (GNR) proportion was 67.31%. Nevertheless, of the five the NER generated the lowest amount per route mile, earning only £50*, whereas the MR earned £106. Thus, having large proportions of freight traffic did not necessarily equate to companies naturally earning more revenue per route mile. However, the total revenue per route mile of these ‘freight-dominated’ companies was £82, whereas for the four ‘passenger’ companies it was only £64.

This is an obvious thing to state really, but this evidence shows that the revenue earning capacity of each company per route mile was dependent on how densely populated or industrialised the area they served was. Indeed, clearly, what they hauled was less of a factor. Consequently, it would be interesting to see whether different management techniques, styles and structures within railway companies developed dependent the different population and industry densities they served.

Additional Note 24/07/2011: As has been pointed out by Jeremy (and many thanks), the gross revenue earning potential is not necessarily the same as profitability. Thus, for this to be determined, more information on the companies' costs and traffic levels has to be found. Victorians, as I have repeatedly discovered, sometimes showed to the public very basic ways of measuring of the revenue earning power of their companies. Thus, this is simply one example where the full information is not present. As I have the Board of trade returns for 1886, this may be a project in the future.

Furthermore, the figures were calculated incorrectly in a number of cases, and where a figure is marked with a * it is the correct figure, rather than what was printed in the text at the time.

Repeating 'facts' Frequently does not make them 'History' - Potential Errors in Railway Historical Writing

Anyone who has ever read my post footnotes will not have failed to notice that in the course of writing them that there are some books that I use regularly, for example the Oxford Encyclopaedia of British Railway History. This is principally as I don’t have the time to research every subject that I write about. Yet, when writing posts I will always attempt to find in 19^th century newspapers and journals, which are increasingly available on-line, to add some contemporaneous commentary on the different subjects. I also, if possible try and find some academic research or use some of my own work if relevant. This is because I have a very real concern about the books I use to write my blog.

Railway literature can be split into three different categories. Firstly, there are the ‘books with pictures,’ which have very little detail and simply exist for the pure pleasure of looking at the photographs of trains. Secondly, there are narrative histories, which may focus on a particular line, company or locomotive designer. Indeed, R.A. Williams’ three part history of the London and South Western Railway simply recounts what happened, when it happened. There isn’t any reference to the railway’s political, social, cultural or technical environment, nor is there detailed analysis. Personally, for me, these narrative histories are exceedingly dull.

Lastly, and leaving aside academic work that is done, there are the analytical railway histories for the general reader. Recently, we have seen Christian Wolmar write a number of books of this ilk, notably Fire and Steam. However, Christian follows in a fine tradition of individuals who have written about railways in a way whereby anyone who was interested in history, rather than railways, can enjoy the topic. Indeed, the most notable author was the late, great, Jack Simmons. However, I do sometimes have to ask questions of the facts found in this class of authors’ texts.

One of the accepted facts of the early British railway history was that military men dominated the management of the railway companies. This is a 'truth' that has been reprinted again and again, and those analytical histories of the railways have, presumably because the authors used earlier books, repeated it very frequently. Yet, this accepted fact is simply not true. In four blog posts in April (Found here, here, here and here) I showed by using three directories of railway officials from 1841, 1847 and 1848 that less than 4% of early railway managers had military titles. Thus, the supposed truth, so frequently repeated, was destroyed.

But naturally, this got me thinking. In my blog posts I frequently use facts that I see repeated in more than one railway history book. But what if those facts’ have only become accepted because they have been repeatedly regurgitated in the railway historiography?

For example, recently I found the origin of one highly repeated fact (the details which escape me now) in a Victorian history of the railway industry. Yet, the Victorian book itself was far from academic, was more anecdotal than those that had used its information and on other areas of detail I found it simply to be wrong. Furthermore, the opinions, books and letters of authors, for example Dickens and Trollope, have been used many times to describe aspects of railway travel. Indeed, I myself have used these author’s opinions before. But surely these authors had higher standards than the average traveller and this was reflected in their opinions. (Note: If I have to use Mugby Junction one more time I may scream).

Indeed, it has become clear to me that Dickens harboured resentment for station refreshment rooms after having had a bad experience in the 1850s. Now, that isn’t to say there were not bad refreshment rooms, but the narrative on the subject has been shaped by his, and others,’ negative opinions of them. However, no one asks about the good refreshment rooms. Neither do the query the fact that most criticisms of them comes from before 1870, with little being found after this date. Why doesn’t that fact ever get a mention?

Overall, my point is that in the railway literature there are facts which, despite being false, have been regurgitated so often that they have become established as ‘truth’ because no one has questioned them. For this reason, individuals writing railway history articles or books must be careful when repeating things found in other books. Indeed, until more serious and in-depth research has been done on the 19^th century railway, the validity of many established 'facts' will simply not be known.

‘No Imagination can Conceive of the Ruin' - Dickens and the Staplehurst Accident

On the 9^th of June 1865 at Staplehurst an accident occurred that went down in history. This wasn’t because it was one of the most horrific accidents in British railway history, although 10 people died; nor was it because it was the first major accident. It was famous because one of its passengers was Charles Dickens. Dickens had been travelling with his mistress Ellen Ternan and her mother in the first class compartment of the South Eastern Railway’s (SER) 2.38 am boat train from Folkestone.[1]

The accident occurred on the viaduct over the ‘muddy stream’ of the River Beult. Over an eight to ten week period the engineering team, consisting of 4 carpenters, one labourer, 3 platelayers and one foreman, were replacing the viaduct’s baulks (basically wooden timbers) which were placed between the iron girders to hold the track up. These were to be replaced during the passing of passenger trains, and up until the end of the project everything ran smoothly with train services passing without incident. 

SER company regulations stated that fog detonators placed on the tracks at 250 yard intervals up to 1000 yards from where the engineering works were to protect them. At 1000 yards a flagman was to also be placed. However, on 9^th of June the foreman of the Beult viaduct works, John Benge, had not ordered the detonators placed and the flagman was stationed only 544 yards from the works. This disregarding of the rules was compounded by the fact that Benge had failed to read his timetable accurately. Because the boat train was left Folkestone dependent on the arrival time of the steam packet, which was determined by the tide, this meant that each day it arrived at different points along the line at different times. On the 9^th June, Benge expected to arrive at the time stated for the 10^th, which was two hours earlier and subsequently his team had started to remove two tracks. The result was that when the train arrived at the viaduct the driver saw the flag too late and was unable to stop the 13-carriage train in time.

What happened next would shape the rest of Dickens’ life. Firstly, the locomotive, tender and leading break van managed to cross the viaduct on the beams. However, the tender broke the viaduct wall. The second class carriage directly behind stayed on the viaduct, while the first class carriage, in which Dickens and his party was in, came to be lodged precariously halfway off the viaduct. The rest of the carriages went over the side into the stream. Dickens, went to the aid of the victims and described in a letter to Thomas Mitton four days later what he had saw: ‘no imagination can conceive of the ruin of carriages, or the extraordinary weights under which people were lying, or the complications into which they were twisted up among the iron and wood, and mud and water.’ He received praise for his actions, however, because of his travelling companions he shied away from the limelight.[2]

Most commentators point to the fact that this accident had a profound effect on Dickens’s health, and no one can deny that it did. Dickens had, as Ian Carter states, the ‘ominous signs’ of post-traumatic stress disorder thereafter. He refused to travel by express train, and always opted for the slow trains. Indeed, it is said that he never recovered from the shock of the accident and he died five years to the day after it on the 9^th June 1870.[3]

However, what is not so commonly known is that after 1865 Dickens pushed more vehemently the issue of railway safety, particularly improved signalling. In a letter a month after the accident to the author Bulwer Lytton, he stated that the railways of Britain had developed an ‘enormous no-system,’ which had ‘grown up without guidance…Its abuses are so represented in Parliament by Directors, Contractors, Scrip Jobbers, and so forth, that no Ministers dare to touch it.’ Indeed, because of this lack of responsibility amongst railway officials and their presence in parliament, those to blame for such accidents were protected. [4]

Dickens’ primary concern was the idea that knowledge was so crucial to the safe working of the railway and he believed that this aspect of the railways needed improving. Thus, Dickens’ magazine All Year Round featured an article on the highly advance signalling system at Victoria Station and particularly a signal box that was referred to as the ‘hole in the wall.’[5] Furthermore, his collection of short stories from 1866, Mugby Junction, featured a story called the Signalman, where a ‘disturbed and isolated’ signalman was killed by a train after seeing a ghoul who had warned him previously about two other deaths (see my last blog post HERE).[6] Thus, the story addressed the idea information systems failing and causing accidents.
 

The effects of Dickens’ activities (amongst others) on safety are hard to pin down. However, it wasn’t long after the Staplehurst accident that Acts were passed by government on block signalling (1871), interlocking points and signals (1873) and Automatic Vacuum Brakes. (1878)[7] Thus, while it wasn’t Dickens voice alone that forced through these changes, he can be said to have been important in raising the profile and disseminating knowledge about issues of railway safety amongst the public. Indeed, he eventually became a voice that reflected the public’s concerns that were rife at the time. He did this so the fate of those listed below, the victims of the Staplehurst accident, occurred less frequently in the future to others.

Name Occupation

Emma Beaumont Spinster

Anne Bodinham Wife of Frederick Bodinham, Solicitor

Charlotte Chaunhay-Faithful Wife of Faithful, Judge at Bombay

Hannah Cundliff Wife of Martin Cundliff, Hotel Keeper

James Dunn Warehouseman

Adam Hampton Surgeon

Hippolite Mercia Cook

Amelia Rayner Wife of Lloyd Rayner, Merchant

Lydia Whitby Wife of George Whitby, Merchant

Caroline White Spinster

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

[1] Carter, Ian, Railways and Culture in Britain, (Manchester, 2001) p.91

[2] Pope, Norris, ‘Dickens’s “the Signalman” and Information Problems in the Railway Age,’ Technology and Culture, Vol. 41, No.3, (July, 2001) p.444-445

[3] Carter, Railways and Culture in Britain, p.91

[4] Pope, ‘Dickens’s “the Signalman”,’ p.448

[5] Pope, ‘Dickens’s “the Signalman”,’ p.450

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

[7] Gourvish, T.R., Railways and the British Economy: 1830-1914, (London, 1980), p.52