Canadian Mortgage Clients

Today's Canadian mortgage clients need to get the best planning strategy for their mortgage. With Canadian and world economic news changing on a weekly basis, it is very hard to know what direction or forecast for Canadian mortgage rates. When working with a independent accredited mortgage advisor will help you knowing the best course of action taken based on your current financial situation. The variable and fixed rate mortgage options need to be chosen with the best mortgage plan.

Beeching, Serpell, McNulty and the Future of Britain's Railways

Apparently, and I am not entirely sure how this passed me by, there is a ‘value for money’ review being undertaken on Britain’s railways. The man at the helm is Sir Roy McNulty (shown) who apparently is an air transport specialist and was the former head of the Civil Aviation Authority. Exactly, therefore, how worrying his appointment is, is uncertain, as McNulty’s career history includes both public and private activities. The reason for my confusion stems from the fact that those who have previously tried to get more ‘value for money’ out of the railways, namely Sir Richard Beeching (the Railway Satan as he has been called) and the more forgotten Sir David Serpell, had two different backgrounds that clearly shaped the way they conducted their reviews of the costs of the network. Therefore McNulty’s mixed career history means that his report could be anything from fair and even handed to a massive axe-swing in the direction of Britain’s railways.

So how should Beeching and Serpell’s reports be judged in light of their career histories? First, let us turn to Beeching. Beeching, who came to British Railways from ICI, doesn’t really have a good reputation amongst the public. But then again I have always felt that the man has been treated unfairly in that he was brought in to do a job and he did it. In 1963 he wrote his famous report, The Reshaping of British Railways. His proposals rather cheesed people off as he proposed closing 6000 miles of railway (out of 18,000) and shutting 7000 stations. This would make it possible for British Railways to lose 70,000 employees over three years. But then again it was the Secretary of State for Transport, Ernest Marples, who brought Beeching in, and Marples was the one who actually implemented the report’s recommendations. Additionally, Marples was a fan of road transport given he had owned road-building company (Marples-Ridgeway) who had just got the contract for the M1. Therefore, it is clear that the prism through which Marples saw the railways was simply as a wasteful, inefficient business, and it is unlikely that he acknowledged its social or economic benefits to the nation, especially as he was so married to road transportation. Simply put, the railways were only a drain on the nation’s finances. Therefore, in response to the profitability problems of British Railways, he brought in a businessman (Beeching) to solve a business problem and once his recommendations were implemented they did irreparable damage to the network. Beeching was, however, not a railway professional and didn’t have experience in network industries. As such he simply looked at the railways as a business and not its social or economic benefits. Therefore, was the outcome really that surprising? I think not.

While the Beeching cuts are well known about because they actually occurred, the Serpell report, released in March 1983 has largely sunk into the bog of history because none of it got implemented. On a backdrop of a suffering economy, British Rail’s revenues decreasing and the lowest number of passenger journeys taking place in the network’s history, it was ordered by the Thatcher Government to look at the long-term role of Britain’s railways and make British Rail pay. After much work Sir David Serpell, a long-term civil servant, recommended a range of ‘options’ to change the network. The first, Option A, would reduce the rail network by 86% and the passenger train miles by 56%. In short, all that would be left would be the East, West, Great Western and Great Easter main lines, as well as a number of main lines to the south coast (the plan is shown). Yet, while everyone has focussed on this option, principally I presume because it looks so horrible, people forget that he presented three others. In Option B the cuts proposed in Option A would be implemented, but with the suburban network remaining. Option C kept much of the network in place, but with the removal of loss-making services (however there were three sub-options that can be looked at on Wikipedia if you so wish). Lastly, option D ignored the main goal to make the railways profitable and retained lines to populated areas with over 25,000 people. However, many small stations would be closed.

Serpell I think has also got a bad reputation, however I think he was a better man for the job he was asked to do than Beeching was for his. If I listed his civil service career between 1937 and 1982 it would take a whole paragraph. However, some of the major departments he had worked in were the Ministries of Food, Fuel and Power and Trade, the Treasury, the Department of Education and the Board of Trade. He also had worked for National Conservancy Council, the Ordinance Survey Review Committee and had been a member of the British Railways Board (BRB) between 1974 and 1982. In sum, Serpell had had a varied career that brought him a lot of experience in many government departments and plenty of these dealt with social, rather than economic, issues. He also had some (unquantifiable) experience of railways being on the BRB. Therefore, given the cost cutting nature of the Tory Government of the early 1980s and the tremendous economic constraints that government put the nation under, I feel that perhaps Serpell did well given his circumstances. Everyone screams and shouts about the first option, however the range of options that he presented does suggest that he was thinking more deeply than Beeching about the rail network. Firstly, in the age of austerity of the early 1980s he satisfied his brief of presenting different options to make Britain’s railway network pay. Fair enough, that’s what he was asked to do. However, the mere fact that he presented Option D, that defied his brief, suggests that despite being constrained by his environment of economic stringency and a cost-cutting Conservative Government, he did have an eye on the social and economic implications of rail transport. This, I would suggest, may have in part stemmed from his varied civil service background that showed him that how a range of different government agencies added to the nation’s health indirectly. I think, for Serpell, he had to show that railways were not just about the ‘bottom line’ as they were for Beeching, Marples and many in the Thatcher Government.

Thankfully, the Serpell report was dropped quietly because of the outcry. Indeed, throughout the mid and late 1980s passenger numbers rose and the issues confronting the network seeped away. However in the current climate we face new challenges and the coalition has deemed it necessary to commission another report looking at the ‘value for money’ of the rail network. As stated this will be under Sir Roy McNulty, the former head of the Civil Aviation Authority. He will also be assisted by some unspecified ‘rail professionals.’ Considering his background alone, McNulty has some of the attributes of both Beeching and Serpell. Firstly, like Beeching, he has had an extensive career in business, working at Chrysler UK, Harland & Wolff, Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co., Short, Bombardier Aerospace, Norbrook Laboratories Ltd, and the Ulster Bank Ltd (amongst other things.) Yet, in his more recent years, like Serpell, he has worked for the government on the Olympic Delivery Authority, the Steering Group for UK Foresight Programme, the Northern Ireland Growth Challenge, the Technology Foresight Defence and Aerospace Panel and the Department for Trade and Industry’s Aviation Committee. Admittedly, these were consultancy and committee posts, and not like Serpell’s career in the Civil Service, yet, it does mean he was engaging with governmental activities of a social and economic nature. Lastly, very much like Serpell, he had his spell on a high-profile transport body as he was head of the Civil Aviation Authority.

Therefore, with this résumé it seems that the impending report could go one of two ways. He possibly may do a Beeching and recommend cuts to services, lines and the suspension any new developments. However, he could, and I think this is more feasible given the record rail usage at the moment, recommend cuts and efficiencies within Network Rail (which has infrastructure costs 30-50% higher than those on the continent), the suspension of any large capital investment, changes to the franchise structure and the cutting of some of the most unremunerative services. Thus, this would in part be like of some of the less violent options put forward by Serpell. One thing is for certain, the cost of maintaining and running the British railway network has to come down, and McNulty’s background and experiences will in some part shape the outcome of the review like those of who were tasked with the same job before. On the flip side, we don’t know what part of his past will have the greatest effect on the report and therefore we wait…biting our nails.

Canadian Mortgages Rates Down

We are now heading back into an environment of dropping mortgage rates for the fixed terms. We now have the lowest qualifying rate from the bank of Canada since the rule changes of April 19th. With the great selection of inventory in today's market place and room on prices, now is an awesome time to look at either upgrading or entering the marketplace.

Parcels Costing on the West London Extension Railway (Let's Go Wild)

Now I won't bore you with a long history of the West London Extension Railway (WLER). Simply put it, was built, owned and operated by four railway companies, the Great Western Railway (GWR), London & North Western Railway (L&NWR), London, Brighton and South Coast Railway (LB&SCR) and my own, beloved, London and South Western Railway (L&SWR). It ran from Clapham Junction to Kensington (now Kensington Olympia) where it connected with the L&NWR and GWR's West London Railway and opened on the 2^nd March 1863. Therefore, it can only be considered a fill-in company of little significance in the grand history of Britain's railways. However, with the South Western's involvement it did peak my interest. What, I mused, could the WLER's company files tell me about how the South Western's management? And so, I spent a day photographing the WLER company's files at the National Archives. Sometimes research doesn't go as planned and in the end I found very little of use. But, what I did find regarding the company itself was of more general interest to me (and others). I may not be able to use the information in my PhD, but it is worth relating the findings, small as they are, as they may be of a more general interest.

Ok, don't go to sleep, but it is all a matter of cost accounting. In layman's terms we don't know a great deal about how the Victorian railway companies made small everyday decisions. Large-scale decisions, those involving large capital investment, are broadly understood. When the railway companies built an engine shed, constructed a new type of locomotive or remodelled a station we roughly know why they did because of the large-scale nature of these projects. The rationale behind them are there to be seen in blaring neon lights. But then the history of Britain's Railways isn't made up solely of large decisions made by the directors and managers, it is made up of a mix of the big and the small. In fact one of the goals of my PhD is to try and create links between corporate thinking on the 'big' and the 'small' decisions and how both were formulated. Anyone wishing me luck?...I hope so. The way that small decisions were made is a very large mystery that noone has really approached up to this point because of a lack of information.

Further to this, the actual statistics railway companies used to inform decisions are also a bit illusive. We know that Locomotive Departments used a range of measures to monitor cost such as Locomotive Miles (the cost of locomotive operation divided by miles run by the locomotives), Carriage Miles (same as before but for carriages) and Wagon Miles (well, you get the gist). Yet, except in special cases (such as Terry Gourvish's study of Mark Huish's innovations on the L&NWR in measuring the cost of moving one ton or passenger, one mile) there is significant uncertainty as to how the non-Locomotive departments within most railway companies costed their operations. Indeed, in the case of the L&SWR the most I have found with regard to cost accounting (under which falls all figures such as ton mile) in the Traffic department was the cost of feeding horses in 1887 using the 'fodder per horse' measure. No doubt the horses were happy, but I am not.

It was therefore with some sense of wonder that I came across one decision on the WLER regarding parcels delivery using a completely a type of costing that I hadn't seen before. When the line was opened the board of the WLER formed an officers committee which was made up of the chief officers of the four companies that owned the company, as well as the superintendent of the line. The minute books of this committee are joyful files on two counts. Firstly, most minutes of railway companies' officers' committees have been lost as these committees did not discuss the 'higher matters' of company operation. This means that a lot of information on the day-to-day running of railway companies in the Victorian period has been lost. Secondly, the document is printed and for any pre-1900 historian (of any subject) not dealing with the handwriting of a possibly cranky or tired clerk is always a dream. Anyway, I digress.

From 1863 when the line opened the company collected costing data on the parcels delivery service at Kensington station. Indeed, as far as I can tell this all they collected costing data on. Why, I hear you ask? Well, I'm not precisely sure, but I will suggest a number of points that may explain things. Firstly, while costing data on parcels services hasn't been shown up in research on any other railways yet, this may suggest that the four companies involved may have actually collected this form of data and the only fact that I have found them in the case of the WLER is that the minutes of the officer's committee survived. However, a counter-argument may be that it was because the service was administered by the four companies that they felt it needed to be monitored more closely so that the expenditure incurred could apportioned to each company more accurately. While both positions have their merits, I will go with the former. This is because the costing that they worked out, the cost of delivery per parcel' was for the whole service. They did not divide the data up between the four companies, i.e. the cost of delivering a GWR parcel, the cost of delivering a LB&SC parcel and so on. Therefore, the evidence suggests that all the companies involved may have engaged in this type of costing and applied it to the management of the WLER. This, believe it or not, is possibly an important finding (everybody dance now).

So where did they apply this costing to decision making? On the 4^th January 1864 the company set up the delivery arrangements for parcels at Kensington station. The rule they applied to the service was that any delivery that was within a mile of the station would be free, where as any delivery over that distance would be charged (at a rate I have yet to find yet). Initially there were three deliveries daily to the local area. In working out how the cost of operating the service would be apportioned between the four companies the company firstly credited the delivery account with the revenue generated. Then the companies each paid a portion of the cost dependent on what percentage of the parcels had originated on each of their networks.¹ It was after this that the company worked out two cost measures, the gross cost of delivery per parcel (total cost of delivery service divided by the number of parcels) and the net cost per parcel (the cost of delivery after revenue had been factored in, divided by the number of parcels delivered). These figures were presented every half year to the committee. The gross and net cost of delivery are presented below for the period between the December 1864 and December 1870 half years. Please click on the picture to blow it up and get a better look.

Clearly, the cost was rising up until December 1867, but after that point the cost dropped to levels far below any cost before it. So what changed? At the March 1867 meeting of the Officers Committee the December 1866 figures were presented and 'attention was called to the Gross charge of 4 ½d per parcel being very high.'² But, no action was taken at this point. However, roughly one year later at the February 1867 meeting, the costs were presented and they had risen even more sharply. The officers requested that the Superintendent of the Line, Mr Grew, investigate whether the delivery agents, Messrs Horne and Chaplin, would 'reduce their charges if only two deliveries were made daily, instead of three; and if satisfactory terms are offered, to then make only the two deliveries.'³ The new proposal was agreed to by Horne and Chaplin and the two deliveries saved the company 20s a week (or approximately £52 per year.)⁴ This started on the 1^st of April and while 'it was apprehended that many complaints would be made...after the first few days, they entirely ceased.⁵ As such the cost of delivery dropped significantly.

A number of observations should be made about this service. A report for the officers committee written by Grew after the service had started on the 4^th of April 1864 noted that 'the number of parcels sent for delivery is increasing, but at present the receipts from them will not cover the expenses.'⁶ Indeed, the parcels delivery service never made any profit throughout its observed history. Despite revenue increasing, between the December 1864 and December 1870 half years it never made up more than two thirds of the costs that the four companies had to pay. Therefore, why did they continue the service?

I would suggest that even at this early stage of railway development there was an expectation that the company would provide a parcels delivery service in a certain way, and that the WLER was conforming to established industry paradigms. This assertion is confirmed by the actions that the company took, or did not take, in response to the figures presented of the cost of delivery per parcel and the overall cost of the service. Firstly, they did not change the charging structure for deliveries. For example they did not remove the 'free' service and consider charging for all deliveries irrespective of distance. Secondly, they did not cancel the service when it was not profitable. Thirdly, they made the simplest change possible by reducing the number of deliveries, doing nothing to radically alter the way they operated the delivery service. Fourthly, they did not change, as far as I am aware, the rates or those deliveries they charging for, a factor possibly influenced by charges agreed to by the different companies individually or through the Railway Clearing House (RCH). Lastly, they noted the public response to the changes that they made and were worried about the reaction. Therefore, the WLER's controlling officers, seem to have been constrained within pre-existing industry ways of working and the expectation that they would offer a parcels delivery service.

Therefore, while this blog entry has only focussed on one station, within one small company, it does suggest a number of interesting points. It has shown that more detailed costing of railway operations was being used within the industry to make decisions on company activities. However, these decisions were constrained by what were considered industry norms that were conditioned by the expectations that the public possibly had regarding the services that they would receive from a railway company. This also may suggest (exceedingly tentatively) that many of the problems of railway company profitability in the late 19^th century that has been discussed by historians (Gourvish, Leunig, Aldcrodt et.al.) may have been in part caused by those companies that were established later conforming to 'industry norms.' This may have in turn re-enforced these norms within the older companies who couldn't make radical changes to their services as the industry was built up around them. I can't however assert these last points on this data alone at all, but I hope with further research to discuss these issues in more detail in the future.

Vastly more research needs to be done on these WLER papers and I hope that you have enjoyed this delve into the more academic side of my work. Oh and another thing – I am not in any way studying the WLER, I looked at them for fun and interest. Sometimes I wonder about my life...nah, I kinda like it.

REFERENCES

1The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 731/11, West London Extension Railway Company: Records, Principal Officers' Minutes (printed), Minute No. 20, 7^th December 1863, Minute No. 28, 4^th January 1864 and Minute No. 36, 1^st February 1864.

2TNA, RAIL 731/11, West London Extension Railway Company: Records, Principal Officers' Minutes (printed), Minute No. 412, 7^th March 1867

3TNA, RAIL 731/11, West London Extension Railway Company: Records, Principal Officers' Minutes (printed), Minute No. 509, 10^th February 1868

4TNA, RAIL 731/11, West London Extension Railway Company: Records, Principal Officers' Minutes (printed), Minute No. 525, 26^th May 1868

5TNA, RAIL 731/11, West London Extension Railway Company: Records, Principal Officers' Minutes (printed), Minute No. 547, 6^th July 1868

6TNA, RAIL 731/11, West London Extension Railway Company: Records, Principal Officers' Minutes (printed), Report written by Superintendent Grew to the Principal Officers, 4^th April 1864.

Canadian House Prices

Here is our latest client email;

Expert Mortgage News
Current Views, News, and Advice




Good Afternoon,

The sun is finally here and all is good in Vancouver! As far as the mortgage industry goes, there are not to many changes. Rates remain steady and the Bank of Canada is set to meet July 20th. The HST front heats up with Bill Valder Zalm continuing to hash it out in court citing the HST was brought into effect without a explicit vote of the provincial legislature. Already though many merchants have taken matters into their own hands and are not charging - or absorbing - the controversial tax. Even advertisers are creating HST free product and service packages. Boston Pizzas has an HST buster meal menu.... like GST, this too will soon be over (or renamed) and we will be paying more tax at the end of the day....

Don't forget about our iPad contest. Who is the next person you know that needs mortgage help from the Dreyer Group? Refer us a client by September 15 and be entered to win an iPad.

Below are some stats from various sources. MLS price comparisons from 2007 and resale prices. Have a great rest of the day and enjoy that sun!
Jared Dreyer, AMP
604 649-5991


MLS Home Sales Prices
Year Canada BC AB MB/SK ON QC Atlantic
2007 $307,094 $439,119 $356,235 $171,609 $299,544 $207,530 $158,589
2008 $304,971 $454,599 $352,857 $205,036 $302,354 $215,307 $171,258
2009 $320,333 $465,725 $341,201 $216,012 $318,366 $225,412 $182,640
2010 YTD $342,327 $495,471 $353,397 $226,918 $349,101 $239,890 $196,121

Year Vancouver Calgary Toronto Montreal
2007 $570,795 $414,066 $377,029 $229,902
2008 $593,767 $405,267 $379,943 n/a
2009 $592,441 $385,882 $396,154 n/a

Source: Scotia Economics, May 2010

Average MLS® Resale Price for Local Markets

City May 2009 May 2010
Halifax $248,209 $264,539
Saint John $188,500 $173,872
Quebec $212,241 $238,594
Montreal $273,390 $300,807
Ottawa $312,927 $334,360
Toronto $395,609 $446,593
Hamilton/Burlington $297,132 $315,647
Winnipeg $208,806 $237,697
Saskatoon $279,477 $294,516
Calgary $382,632 $417,978
Edmonton $326,332 $340,723
Vancouver $583,674 $661,745
Victoria $482,119 $515,126
Source: Canadian Real Estate Association

Bank of Canada Prime Lending Rate
April 21, 2010 2.25 %
June 2, 2010 2.50 %
July 21, 2010 Next meeting date
Source: Bank of Canada

Conferences, Academics and Railways...a busy week

Well I has been a very busy week. I attended an academic conference on Tuesday and Wednesday, at which I talked about railways, and then on Thursday I took a trip to York to see my supervisor who is based at the National Railway Museum. In these few days of activity I used, touched, caressed and talked about Britain's railways almost constantly. In fact, everywhere I have gone has meant that I have been in contact with railways in some way, shape or form. While far from a terrible thing, I suppose this is my own fault having supplemented my 'enthusiast' interest in railways with an academic one. Indeed, I find increasingly that my academic interest has usurped the enthusiast perspectives I used to take. This hasn't however diminished how the railways have affected my life and I find that they consume my mind in even more ways than I could have ever thought possible.

Predictably the story always starts with a journey 'riding the rails.' Interestingly, this week I have travelled the Hampton Court to London Waterloo journey on three occasions at different times of the day, early morning, rush hour and late morning. On the flip side I have got the exact same train back home each time. Thinking about the outward journey it is not really surprising that you get a different breed of traveller on each of the different trains. The 6.24 train from Hampton Court on day 3 of 3 was not, as may be expected, completely filled with business people. They made up the bulk of the travellers, but woven amongst them were a number of others laden with bags that looked as they required heavy lifting gear to be moved. I suppose they were heading for the slightly ambiguously named 'London Terminals' departing for northern or western climbs on holiday. The slightly later train that I caught on day 2, the 7.54, was as expected filled with men in suits and women in more varied attire. It is an injustice in this world that men essentially have to wear a uniform to work, whereas women feel far more pressure to wear make-up, have different clothes each day and invest far more in their appearance than their male counterparts. But I digress. The train I caught on the first day, the 10.24, was probably the most pleasant by virtue of the fact there was more space to spread out. Those individuals on their way into London at this time were an odd bunch, comprised of students, day-trippers, the late businesspeople (some of which I suspect were hungover). Evidently, London draws in its stragglers after 10 am.

While I went through the usual sweat, sweat and tears (stuck under someone armpit) on the tube all of the days, I had the joy of travelling to York by 'East Coast' on the last (York Station Shown). For all of you who are regular followers of my blog, you will know that some months ago I had a right-royal rant at First Great Western, who failed to provide me with a first class service even when I was residing in a first class carriage. Even though I didn't experience East Coast's First Class accommodation on Thursday, a glance through the window of the carriages proved to me that my assertions about the company's elite services were correct. There were cups and saucers on tables, newspapers ready to be read, and table cloths on standby to absorb the inevitable spillages. As I passed I lamented the fact that FGW had a long way to go and my mind questioned how such two companies can have two widely differing services even when they call them the same thing. Alas, I fear that is how my mind works now. I suspect everything railway-related is dissected as part of a construct of factors, policy decisions and balance sheets. And so, with those thoughts, I settled in my seat in standard accommodation and had a pleasant, but uneventful, journey to York.

It was on the way back that I realised just why sometimes encountering the travelling public is a trial. I should specify at this point that I journeyed to York with my model railway club colleague Richard. On arriving at out allotted seats to journey south we realised that firstly we were booked at a table, but also that we sitting diagonally from each other. As we sorted ourselves out a woman who was booked to sit next to us piped up, “er...have you young gentlemen got seat reservations?,” in a tone that betrayed the fact that she evidently believed we were 'stealing seats.' We replied we did and Richard sat down. The woman looked disgruntled, but went to sit next to her friend who had secured two seats next to each other that weren't booked up. I suppose there will always be an element of society that will always naturally distrust youth, (even though I am at the tender age of 28), and while Richard an I had consumed a few beers, we were polite and sensible. I suppose that is the problem with being in an enclosed space, people become protective, even territorial, about the space they have been assigned and it is at social flashpoints such as these that their prejudices come out.

Moving on, I should say that it was in York that I had the reality of my 'railway-filled' life brought home to me. My department, the grandly named 'Institute of Railway Studies and Transport History,' is housed in a rather ramshackle building next to the National Railway Museum. It is there that I have to go to meet Colin, my supervisor, roughly every two months for supervision sessions. It is for this reason that I am not really that excited by the museum or its contents any more, its all old hat as I have passed through it so many times in the last four years. The only discoveries I usually make are related to which parts of Flying Scotsman are strewn about the workshop. However, Richard's reaction was somewhat different considering it had been close to a decade since he had been to the museum. He was interested in everything and eager to see all. He was like an excited puppy who loved trains. I find this sad as it means I have been immunised against the joy of being interested in railways simply for the sake of it. I no longer see the objects of the industry as the sole interest, and in my mind frame every signal, every carriage, every locomotive as part of a process of management decisions. The physical objects associated with railway operation are now imbued with greater meaning, but diminished joy.

This is because of my academic life that has evolved since 2006. Part of this life occurred on Tuesday and Wednesday as I attended at the Institute of Historical Research's postgraduate student conference at Senate House near Russell Square. The conference title was, 'Politics and Power.' On the first day I volunteered to chair a panel of historians who presented papers on 'Print Culture Politics and Texts'. OK, I confess I know nothing about this subject, but it was very interesting all the same and I think I did well in the chair. Further, the day was peppered with papers on a range of interesting subjects regarding politics, as well as enough sandwiches to feed a small country. Throughout I answered the usual question I get, “so, what are you studying?” It is one of the strange and wonderful things about my own topic that people can relate to it easily. When I am asked about my PhD, my response almost always triggers from the questioner an anecdote, family story or opinion regarding the railways. This, I think, is a wonderful thing and stems from the fact that railways are something that everyone has to relate to, ride on and struggle with. Therefore, it was on the first day of the conference that everyone (who didn't know before) learnt what I was doing and subsequently I took joy in the universal appeal of my PhD.

It was on the second day that I had the highlight of the week. After another day of very interesting papers on politics, there, located at the end of the conference schedule, was my contribution. (In the picture above I am on the far right. Also on the Panel was Dr Helen Glew and the Chair was Peter Sutton) My paper was titled 'Moving a Locomotive Works: Politics, Agency and Decision-Making within a Nineteenth Century Railway Company,' a sample of which was featured in my last blog post. I have found that a feature of giving a paper is that the expressions of your audience do not change, that is unless a joke is cracked. I suppose if they were changing their expressions regularly it might indicate that they weren't listening and by default that what you are saying was duller than a paint-drying conference, or that they didn't like what you were presenting. But, having only ever presented three papers, the experience of unchanging faces is still somewhat unnerving for me. This said, I am sure I will get used to it. The paper tracked the London South Western Railway's plans to move its locomotive, carriage and wagon works to somewhere 'in the country,' and how the different managers engaged in internal politics to stop this happening.

Why was this the high point for me? I discussed how the joy I took in the physical objects of railway operation has diminished, and how I tend to view every object as part of a management process. But then again, when thinking back on the paper I presented, there is a new joy that I now have with regard to railways. Simply put, I love that my understanding of Britain's railways is more complex than the simplistic 'object-by-object' view. I now intimately understand why Britain's railways are the way the are and have a deeper understanding of the processes of their construction and operation. Therefore, it isn't a bad thing that I am consumed by railways, as those aspects of Britain's railways that previously gave me joy have passed, being replaced by a whole new set of wonders.

Latest TD Economic Highlights For Canada

Here is the latest;Highlights

• Financial markets continued to come under pressure this week as the S&P 500 was down another 5.1% by 1:00 pm Friday. The Canadian S&P/TSX index fell over 400 points this week. Commodity prices ended the week at $72 U.S./barrel.
• The Case-Shiller home price index showed some improvement in April. But optimism surrounding the housing recovery was tempered by the lowest ever reading in the pending home sales index.
• The ISM manufacturing survey suggests that manufacturing activity continues to expand at a healthy pace, but has slowed slightly from earlier in the year.
• The private sector created 83 thousand jobs in June. While it is encouraging that job growth continues, the pace remains subdued and rather unimpressive.
• Canadian real GDP stalled in April, led by outsized declines in domestic components such as retail sales, arts, entertainment, and recreation. There was also some broad-based weakness in manufacturing.
• This week marked a milestone for the Ontario and British Columbia, with the introduction of the harmonized sales tax (HST). Some minor near-term economic adjustments are anticipated.

The Bottom line in the stats, lower interest rates for Canadian mortgages. The recovery is still weak and will continue to move at a slower pace for the next couple of quarters. Let's hope the emergency relief still kicks in to keep the machines going.