Counting customers - railway traffic before Christmas in the 1800s

There is no doubt that the four or five days before Christmas are some of the busiest for Britain’s railways as people travel home to see their friends and relatives, or return bleary eyed from Christmas parties and gatherings. No doubt the flooding in Britain has reduced the number of trains running in the period this year. However, nationally, 22,247 trains were scheduled on the 21 December; 20,436 on the 22^nd; 11,588 were supposed to run yesterday and 18,968 are due to run today.^[1] Most Train Operating Companies have not supplement their regular scheduled services,^[3] Chiltern being the only one.^[2] Thus, with largely regular Saturday and Sunday timetables in operation on the 22^nd and 23^rd December, and with trains stopping early today, many passengers will feel like they have travelled in tin cans by the end of the festive season.

However, it is no comfort to say so, but crowded trains are what the Christmas passenger has experienced for over a century. In the nineteenth century particularly, the various railway companies provided the press with a plethora of data on their Christmas traffic. In the days after the 25 December how many passengers to and from stations were commonly mentioned in newspapers, especially as the numbers usually grew each year. 

The number of passengers who travelled in the festive period from London via the Great Western Railway (GWR) perfectly shows this growth. In 1895 the number booked at the company’s City and West End Offices and London Stations between Friday 20 December and Thursday 26 December at noon was 40,750. This was an increase on 1889’s total of 37,000. Indeed, in 1895 5,953 passengers travelled from Paddington on Saturday 21 December; with 8,992 being conveyed on Christmas Eve.^[4] Therefore, with Christmas passenger numbers increasing so rapidly year on year, it is quite possible that individual travellers found themselves progressively squeezed as the railways struggled to keep pace with the changing demand.   

However, as we are currently told passenger numbers in this country continue to grow, it would be interesting to see this year whether the 374 and 307 trains scheduled leave Paddington on the 21 and 24 December respectively are on average they are more packed than those on the same day in 2011. ^[5]

But passenger data was not the only information the newspapers featured; and the amount of parcels handled by stations also appeared alongside it. Those passing through the London and North Western Railway’s Euston Station were of particular interest and, as I related in a blog post last year, special arrangements were established there in the 1840s to handle this vast and growing traffic. Statistics have been found which show that number of parcels arriving at Euston in the three days before and the morning of the 25 December grew most years. They were as follows:

1848 - 12,000 [6]

1849 - 15,000 [7]

1850 - 10,000 [8]

1851 - Inward and Outward: 40,000 (figures for the week before Christmas) [9]

1852 - 12,000

1853 - 12,500 [10]

1864 - 17,000 [11]

Therefore, by digging into nineteenth century newspapers we can gauge how the railways became an integral part of Christmas for Victorians; performing the same function as do for passengers today, through taking them from home to merriment and delivering them all they needed for Christmas cheer.

Much thanks must go to Tom Cairns for the data he provided on current train operations.

A Very Merry Christmas

My other Christmas posts are as follows:

'Pretty Festoons of Holly Leaves Are Displayed' - The Decoration of Railway Stations Before 1900

"Christmas fare from the provinces" - Euston Station and the Distribution of Festive Goods in the 1840s

"An EXTRA TRAIN will leave Shoreditch" - Trains on Christmas Day before 1900
A Victorian 'Railway' Christmas - Parcels, Pastimes, Profit and Poetry

---------

[1] Data kindly provided by Tom Cairns http://realtimetrains.co.uk and Twitter: @swlines

[2] http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/service_disruptions/seasonal/Christmas_2012/index_custom.html

[3] http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/service_disruptions/seasonal/Christmas_2012/index_custom.html

[4] Morning Post - Friday 27 December 1895

[5] Data kindly provided by Tom Cairns http://realtimetrains.co.uk and Twitter: @swlines

[6] The Morning Post, Tuesday, December 26, 1848

[7] Daily News, Wednesday, December 26, 1849, Issue 1119

[8] The Era, Sunday, December 29, 1850

[9] The Standard, Saturday, December 27, 1851, p.1

[10] The Essex Standard, and General Advertiser for the Eastern Counties, Wednesday, December 28, 1853

[11] Jackson's Oxford Journal, Saturday, January 9, 1864

The York Tap - A peice of railway heritage restored

As some of you may be aware, last week I went on a short holiday to York. I love York so much. It is a place where there is great things to do, plenty of pubs and, of course, the National Railway Museum. However, this visit was enhanced by a recent addition to this wonderful city, namely, the York Tap. For those of you unfamiliar with the Tap, this is a new pub which opened on the 16 November at the station. Situated next to the platform, this establishment boasts 32 taps on the bar and somewhere between 80 and 100 bottled beers. Indeed, possessing such a range of beer puts it solidly in my top three drinking establishments in York (and believe me, this is a constant battle in my head) and it will not surprise anyone that during my three day visit, I popped into the Tap twice.

For most of the last quarter of a century the building which houses the Tap was home to the ‘York Model Railway,’ a small, much overlooked, attraction. Yet, in early 2011 it decided to move to a site in Lincolnshire and it was at this point that Pivovar, owner of the Euston and Sheffield Taps, as well as Pivni in York city centre, moved in. The decision by East Coast, the Train Operating Company that manages York Station, to allow Pivovar to inhabit the building was important for railway heritage. The building is Grade II listed and as such special care had to be taken with it. Indeed, the process of renovating and revealing the neglected interior cost £250,000, including a contribution of £75,000 from the Railway Heritage Trust.[1]

This money was clearly worth it, and entering the building is a bit like going back in time. Never, in all my drinking days have I experience a pub which satisfies two of my loves: railway history and good ale. Thus, after my visits I began thinking about the history of the Tap building and was resolved to investigate. Much to my surprise, after only a short period of digging I found an article in The British Architect describing the building’s construction and interior.

The building that the Tap uses was originally opened in February 1907 by the North Eastern Railway (NER) as the station’s tea room. It seems that around the same time the NER may have been in the process of expanding tea rooms facilities at its large stations, as the article on the York establishment was accompanied by another describing a new tea room at Hull (now a Pumpkin Café). Indeed, the Hull and York tea rooms, as well as their interiors and furniture, were both designed in an art-nouveau style by Mr W. Bell F.R.I.B.A., the company’s architect.

The British Architect indicates that many of the features of the tea room have been restored in the Tap. The floor space was 2,500 square feet and, like at present, there were two doors, one facing the city and another opening onto the station platform. These two entrances were situated so that ‘the ordinary public, as well as passengers, may use the room.’ The only difference was that the room originally possessed ‘draught-proof’ revolving doors, whereas currently the Tap has regular ones.

The building's design was originally governed by the position of the pre-existing roof columns and spandrils. Indeed, these were incorporated into the tea room, with fretwork added to the columns to hide the fact that they were part of the station’s main structure. Furthermore, the joy with the current interior is that the colours are very similar to those adopted in 1907. The walls were ‘finished in crimson,’ the ceiling was cream and the woodwork was white. The furniture and counter were executed in ‘dark mahogany,’ and the floor, which remains to this day, was a mosaic with an ornamental border. The only significant departures in the Tap from the 1907 features is that the counter and furniture are in different positions and are of a different design, and there is an absence of floor rugs (as shown in the pictures). Nevertheless, what has been accomplished when sitting in the Tap today is a wonderful sense of history and nostalgia.

Lastly, a nod should go to those who created the structure in 1907. The contractors for its building were Messrs Blackett and Son of Greencroft East, Darlington, and the instillation of the mosaic's terrazzo paving was entrusted to Messrs Diespeker of 60 Holborn Viaduct, London.[2]

Overall, what has been restored at the York Tap is not just the fact that the building is again quenching the thirsts of passengers. By the early twentieth century, class distinctions in station waiting and refreshment rooms had been mostly abandoned across the railway industry and, thus, the NER created a facility worthy of both first and third class passengers. Therefore, what Pivovar have recreated within the York Tap is an example of the railway refreshment room’s last stage of development before the First World War, a period when passenger travel was at its most comfortable. Indeed, for this act of preserving railway history (combined with providing copious amounts of beer), I cannot heap on them enough praise.

Visit the York Tap’s website HERE

------

[1] http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/9366138.New_pub_taps_into_the_real_ale_market

[2] The British Architect, 27 February 1907, p.127

For Temperance, the Beach and Sport - The Victorian Excursion Train

The excursion train was an important part of British leisure pursuits in the Victorian period. Social, political, leisure and work groups made agreements with railway companies, or through intermediaries that soon became known as travel agents, to convey them to and from a place in a day for cheaper fares. This reduced the cost of travel for the passengers, while providing the companies guaranteed with income.

It is unsurprising that the first excursions were on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway (L&MR), Britain’s first intercity line, in 1831. In first year the company had offered some of the first special trains in the country. Two weeks after the line was inaugurated, in October 1830, individuals could travel from Liverpool to the Sankey Viaduct and back in the Duke of Wellington’s coach for five shillings. This was followed by a special train for visitors to the Liverpool Charity Festival a few days later.

However, the first real excursion was run in May 1831 when the company agreed through an independent promoter to take 150 members of the Bennett Street Sunday School from Liverpool to Manchester and back again for one third of the regular fare. This set the pattern for all excursion trains from then on.[1]

Excursions soon grew in number and popularity with groups being conveyed to race meetings, church bazars, or just to visit cities for a day out. The Sheffield & Rotherham Independent reported in April 1841 that during that year’s Whitsuntide Holidays the North Midland Railway would operate ‘an excursion train from Sheffield to Derby, when no doubt that thousands of our townsmen will take the opportunity of visiting that pleasant town and its arboretum.’[2] Probably the most interesting excursion train of the period was arranged by Bodmin and Wadebridge for a public execution in 1836.[3]

Furthermore, it was in this period that Thomas Cook began as an agent arranging excursions. The first he organised was on the Midland Counties Railway in 1841, and took 570 temperance campaigners to a rally at Loughborough. His business grew rapidly and by 1850 it spread as far as Scotland and North Wales. However, he was one of many travel agents that appeared in the period.[3]

However, with locomotive technology limited, and with carriages small in capacity, excursion trains were huge in size and have been described as ‘monstrous.’ An excursion train from Sheffield to Leeds in September 1840 was pulled by five locomotives and possessed seventy carriages.[4] Another in September 1844 from Leeds to Hull carried 6,600 passengers in 240 carriages pulled by nine locomotives.[5] Indeed, such was their size that in the period excursion trains usually arrived late at their destinations. This meant that the passengers only had a short time at their destination, given they had to rejoin the train to return soon after.

The Great Exhibition between 1 May and 15 October 1851 was the high point for the early excursion trains. By this time many small lines had been absorbed into larger networks that had terminals in London. Consequently, travel agents and groups were able to arrange excursions to the Exhibition from as far afield as Yorkshire. Indeed, some groups even set up ‘exhibition clubs’ to arrange the trips. Thus, all companies serving London experienced considerable traffic increases when the Exhibition was open. The Great Western Railway’s passenger traffic increased by 38.3%, the London and South Western’s by 29.9%, the London and Blackwall’s by 28.5% and the South Eastern;s by 23.8%. Furthermore, Thomas Cook claimed that, acting as agent, he had brought 165,000 individuals to Euston. Thus, most concluded that the railways and excursion trains contributed to the exhibition’s success.[6]

Excursions by this point were an accepted railway activity, even though many railway companies, for example the London and North Western Railway, were not entirely certain they were profitable. Indeed, after the Bank Holiday Act of 1871 the number of excursions exploded and they took vast swathes of people to large religious gatherings, coastal resorts, race meetings, cities, sports events, the boat race and to fairs that many organisations ran. Furthermore, the National Sunday League, which was a not-for-profit organisation set up in 1855 to pressure for museum and park openings on Sundays, began arranging their own excursions from the 1870s. After a small start, by 1914 the League organised 540 such excursions in that year. Furthermore, large companies, such as Bass in Burton and the railways themselves arranged day trips for their workers, principally to the seaside. The GWR’s annual ‘Swindon Trip’ drained the town of half its population, giving a day out to around 26,000 people.[7]

Ultimately, the growth in excursion train numbers after the late 1860s was spurred on by people possessing greater free time and the increased range of available leisure activities. However, the exact number of people using them across the period is unclear. A Royal Commission on Railways between 1865 and 1867 found that the L&YR, L&NWR and Midland Railway carried 1,140,000 excursion passengers in 1865. This constituted 3% of their passenger revenue.[8] This proportion possibly grew and in the period between 1901 and 1909 excursion trains contributed 10% of the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway’s income from passengers. However, the latter company served principally passenger districts, whereas the three former companies did not, and the samples were from different periods in the history of the excursion train. Thus, the comparison is not really fair.[9]

Nevertheless, the excursion train added to the cultural life of the country in the Victorian period, and allowed many to experience much that they wouldn’t have had the chance to otherwise. Thus, for the people of Britain, the excursion train was a great success.

----------

[1] Simmons, Jack, The Victorian Railway, (London, 1991). p.272

[2] The Sheffield & Rotherham Independent, Saturday, April 10, 1841, p. 8, Issue 1107

[3] Simmons, Jack, ‘Excursion Trains,’ The Oxford Companion to British Railway History, (Oxford, 1997), p.150

[4] The Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Saturday, January 02, 1841, p. 2, Issue 1093

[5] Simmons, The Victorian Railway, p.273

[6] Simmons, The Victorian Railway, p.275

[7] Simmons, ‘Excursion Trains,’ p.150

[8] Simmons, The Victorian Railway, p.278

[9] Simmons, ‘Excursion Trains,’ p.151

A New High-Speed Line, An Old Victorian Assumption?

There is a debate going on in the world of all things ‘railway.’ The building of Britain’s second high speed line, or HS2 as it is more commonly known, fills the pages of newspapers, magazines, blogs and websites, with those in the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ camps fervently arguing their corners. Indeed, such is the storm that has been whipped up that some campaigners use fall into trap of using emotional arguments to try and win the debate, disregarding evidence and research. However, the emotion involved can some times obscure  the central question at hand; does the nation need a high speed line to accommodate future passenger traffic growth?

The response of those who oppose the line to the projected passenger growth centres on the idea that the existing rail network will be able to be upgraded to accommodate the increasing traffic. This may have some credence, and the network does have the capacity to be modified to allow faster, longer and improved trains, as the West Coast Main Line was in 2008. On the other side of the argument, the supporters of the line argue that routes between London and Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool will start to breach their capacity before 2030 even with modification. Indeed, they believe that while upgrading the West Coast main line is an option, this can only go so far given that the Victorian network’s twists and turns prohibit high speeds. Thus, HS2 is not just desirable, it is a necessity.

Yet, for all this back and forth debates, I believe a central issue has been overlooked and ignored by most involved. Simply put: will passenger traffic actually continue grow at all? Clearly, those who support HS2 think it will. But even those who oppose the line, and dispute the pro-HS2 camp’s predictions of how quickly traffic will increase, still accept that more and more passengers will ride the rails.  Indeed, most accept future passenger growth is a reality on the basis that passenger numbers have grown between 1994 and last year from 735 million in 1994 to 1320 million (see graph below). But, I have seen very little in my reading that even mentions the idea that passenger numbers will plateau or even decline in years to come. I have seen projections of how passenger numbers could increase, but this simply isn’t the same as saying they will increase. Therefore, everyone in every camp is making a massive assumption.

However, this assumption isn’t new, has been made before by railway mangers, directors and commentators. A conversation with anyone in a position of influence in the late Victorian railway industry would have elicited no inkling from them that the massive traffic growth of the period would slow. The graph below shows that between 1870 and 1900 passenger growth increased at a rate at which not even the most astute railway mystic could predict, from 337 million to 1115 million. Indeed, the idea that traffic and revenue growth would never slow was the premise upon which almost all railways invested and embarked on new projects. Thus, those deciding current transport policy, as well of those not deciding it, have fallen into the same mind-set: “Passenger numbers will grow, so let us prepare happy in the knowledge that our assumption will pan out as expected.”

But this reasoning fails to appreciate that traffic growth is not always assured, as Victorian railway managers found out to their horror. The ever-increasing passenger (and goods) traffic numbers of the 1890s deceived railway companies’ managements. They thought that whatever investment they made in their networks would, in time, give healthy returns to shareholders because of the continually increasing traffic and revenue. Consequently, capital investment in the late Victorian period was large, including the myriad of light railways, the rebuilding of stations, a multitude of small works at stations and yards, and the Great Central Railway’s expensive extension to London.

Yet, as the graph shows, passenger traffic growth on Britain’s railways slowed after 1900 and started to decline beyond 1911, as the railways’ trade came under attack from new forms of transport such as trams and motor transportation. Indeed, after the First World War Britain’s passenger numbers went into further free-fall. Thus, all the major capital projects that had been started and finished before 1900, as well as those that were continued on with after it, were building capacity into the network that was simply not needed.

But there was another problem after 1900 that affected the railway industry. In the 1890s railway companies’ costs had risen and their profitability had fallen, making their shares were less attractive to investors after the turn of the century. Consequently, their access to capital was diminished.  This meant that the progress of many major capital projects had to be slowed. But, more importantly, because capital costs were already high the railways’ could not easily invest in the infrastructure to counter the new forms of competition. Thus, the casual acceptance by railway officials before 1900 that traffic and revenue would continue to grow, weakened the industry's financial position after it.

Of course, I am not necessarily saying that the current upward inertia of passenger numbers will slow in the years to come. Indeed, there is an important difference between the trading environments of the Victorian period and those of the current day. Before 1900 the railways had a virtual monopoly in inland transportation, the competition they had was negligible, and their officials found it much harder conceptualise that any external threats that would challenge their long-established hegemony. Contrastingly, in the current trading environment the railways’ competition is already in existence (unless some Star Trek-esque transporter equipment is developed) and transport policy is directed by the Department for Transport. This makes future passenger growth easier to predict.

Yet, the fact that current policy makers and others continue to ask the question of ‘how much will passenger traffic grow,’ while completely ignoring the question ‘will passenger traffic grow at all,’ suggests that the same assumptions that their predecessors had over a hundred years ago may have set in. This is a worry, to be sure.

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

'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

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.