Rule Books tell us more than the just the rules

The rule books that railway companies issued to their staff were probably the most important document that they had on their person. It governed everything that they did and any employee who broke the rules would be subject to some form of punishment, ranging from fines to dismissal. The rule book was, therefore, a way management established order over a large number of personnel.

Now that the railway companies of old have passed, the rule books of a company can show us the rate of change on the railways. Changes in procedure found in the books were, in turn, the result of the changing technology of the industry. So, the interval between new editions can indicate the level of this change that occurred within the industry. For my example I will use, unsurprisingly, the London South Western Railway’s rule books. From the information that I have gathered, I have determined that the L&SWR issued the staff with updated versions of the rule book in the following years:-

1) 1845 2) 1853 3) 1857 4) 1860

5) 1864 6) 1877 (suspected) 7) 1884 8) 1890

9) 1897 10) 1904 11) 1912 12) 1921

Between 1845 and 1864 the staff of the company was inundated with changes in the rules, with 5 new rule books issued in 19 years. This was an average of a new rule book being issued every 3.8 years. Clearly, the industry was changing rapidly in this period. Everything in the company evolved, from the way that the track was laid, right through to the locomotives that ran on it, and this was reflected by the L&SWR management issuing very regularly new rule books that contained updated and additional rules relating to the developments.

Naturally this meant that the rule book got longer and more detailed over the period. The 1845 rule book, which was called a ‘rule book for enginemen and firemen’, had in it a small section at the front with instructions for ‘Station Clerks’ (the first station masters). This section was only 2 pages long, with large text. However, jump ahead to 1864 and the section for station masters was 18 pages long and smaller text. Additionally, in 1845 there were only 8 rules directed at Station Clerks, whereas in 1864 there were 64. The frequency of issue and the changing size of the rulebooks, therefore show that in the period the industry was rapidly evolving.

Between 1864 and 1890 the number of rule books issued declined, and only 3 were produced (one every 8.67 years). This is indicative of the fact that the pace of change within the railway industry was slow. By the 1860s train operations, procedures for the transit of goods and passengers, and a host of other aspects of company operation, had been standardised. The British railway industry had by 1870 entered the ‘mature’ phase of railway operation.

Further, the lack of change is indicated again by the fact that the size of the rule book didn’t change. The 1864 book had a total of 302 pages in total, whereas the 1884 rule book (the 1890 rule book not being available) had only 297. Further, the instructions to station agents only increased in length by a page to 19. These rulebooks were evidently a product of a period in railway history when evolution and change was slow within the industry and procedure had become standardised.

However, after 1890 the railway companies of Britain were under considerable strain as profitability declined. It was with this in mind that they started to investigate many new innovations and make changes to operating procedures to keep costs down, provide higher levels of service to customers and improve the efficiency of traffic management. Some of these changes included pneumatic signals, electrification projects, marshalling yards, better coaching stock and higher capacity wagons. Thus, these changes are indicated by the slightly increased number of rule books issued in the period. Between 1890 and 1921 the L&SWR produced 4 rule books, an average of one every 7.75 years. While the level of change was evidently not as rapid or drastic as in the first period, as many new changes were simply adaptations of existing procedures and technologies, there is some cause to say that the companies produced more rule books to accommodate the increased number of changes that occurred in the industry.

What is of interest, and is in contrast with the trends outlined, is that the rule books issued after 1890 actually shrunk. The 1904 one had 167 pages, the 1912 one had 164 pages, and the 1921 edition had 183. This is in part explained by the fact that the L&SWR reduced the font size. Additionally, some departments, such as Engineering, produced their own rule books for their staff which would have meant fewer pages in the general rule book. Unfortunately, I am unable to compare the amount of space given over to the instructions for station agents, as the section was not clearly identified in the three rulebooks cited.

Overall, it is clear that the number of rules in the L&SWR rule book in this period did not significantly change in volume. This demonstrates that in making changes to the company’s network it simply adapted existing systems and procedures. As such, the changes introduced weren’t as drastic as those made in the early years of operation. This said, the increased frequency of the issue of rule books shows that the L&SWR was making regular alterations to the network.

I have shown how the changes in the complexity of the industry, and of the L&SWR’s operations, can be charted through the frequency that rule books were issued to the staff. The railways moved from growth and increasing complexity, to maturity, and then to a period when they were under threat. Subsequently, if I can infer all this without actually reading the text of the rulebook, then who knows what a more detailed study of them allow me to discover.

Canadian Mortgage Rules Changing?

I read a recent article at Macleans.ca regarding all the housing bubble talk. They suggest that we could see a soft landing of 8-10% in House prices. They then go on to say we could see a rebound in prices of homes if the Canadian government lessens up the qualifying rules again. I do agree with them. I believe that the decline of home sales is related to two major factors. One being the HST and lack of good information in BC. Not to mention the constant media attention here in BC. Second is the rule changes in April that the Canadian government for qualifying for mortgages in Canada. These rule changes took about 12-18%(my opinion only) of the potential buyers right out of the marketplace. The realty is that Canada does not have enough of a population to support the rule changes and HST in a 60 day period. Look for the variable and self employed rule changes to be changed again this fall.

Uncovering the Hidden History of Britain's Railwaywomen

The history of railwaywomen before World War One (and more generally) is hidden from view. While there has been a rise in the interest in the topic, (see Helena Wojtczak and Rosa Matheson’s books, and the work I have presented in this blog) much still needs to be done to answer the many questions about women's employment on Britain's Railways. A few questions outstanding are for example:-

· How widespread was female employment on the railways at different points?

· In a patriarchal society, how did women go about gaining employment on the railways?

· Did geographical region in which a woman lived or the local railway company affect what employment they received?

· What factors pressured railway companies in expanding women’s employment opportunities around the turn of the century?

· Did the attitudes and opinions of company directors affect women’s employment opportunities within railway companies?

· Did all types of jobs given to women on Victorian railways become available at the same time?

I could keep listing questions, but as can be seen there is still a lot of research that needs to be done in the archives. With regard to the London and South Western Railway (L&SWR) I have answered some of the above questions in my blog entries. However, I have now come to a dead end with regard to that company as I have gone over every file with a fine tooth comb looking for data. So, the search needs to be expanded to the other railway companies operating in the period.

With this background in mind, I will now describe three important events in the history of women’s employment on the London and South Western Railway. I will, in each case, state some of the questions that are yet to be answered with regard to them. I will use as a reference point Helena Wojtczak’s excellent book Railwaywomen, to provide some context for my findings. However, I should stress that while her book is a very good overview, for the Victorian period it is not a detailed text on female employment within Britain’s railway companies.

1850 - The first recorded female employees – On the 21^st June 1850, the Traffic Committee of the company entered the following in the Minute Book:-

‘Read letter from Mr Stovin [Traffic Manager] as to the employment of Platelayer's wives at certain Gates on the Dorchester Line

Approved. Mr Bass to alter the Gates as req.uired + Mr Stovin to carry out this resolution consulting with Mr Mills.’ (TNA, RAIL 411/227, p.494)

This is very early in the railway’s history, and only 12 years after the L&SWR started operating. The questions arising from this minute are many. Was the job of gatekeeper the earliest form of women’s employment on Britain’s railways? Wojtczak stated that three female ‘railway labourers’ can be found in the 1851 census as working on the building of the South Eastern Railway (Wojtczak, 2005, p.1). Therefore, there is some weak evidence that women were working in other capacities on the network. As such, the question does remain in what capacities did women work at this time? Additionally, was the L&SWR following trends set by other railways, and can other companies be found that started employing women at an earlier date?

1871 - The first recoded female telegraphist – The L&SWR for many years categorised telegraph clerks and junior clerks under the all-encompassing heading of ‘clerical staff.’ The distinction between the jobs was even less at country stations where telegraph clerks generally had other duties. But, those women employed on the South Western as telegraphists were strictly limited to telegraph work as far as I can gather. The first woman to be employed in this capacity was Miss Fifield, and her employment was confirmed as follows on the 30^th November 1871:-

Mr Fifield's Daughter – Read letter from Mr Fifield Agent at Oakley Station requesting that his daughter may be appointed as Telegraphist at that Station at a pay of 7/- per week.

Recommend this to the Board (TNA, RAIL 411/241, Minute No. 575)

Again, I turn to Wojtczak’s book to provide some context. It seems that the L&SWR was behind other railways when employing women as telegraphists. The Edinburgh, Perth and Dundee railway employed their first woman telegraphist at Edinburgh Waverly Station in 1858. Further, in the 1861 census Mrs Annie Bond appears as a telegraph clerk at Eastbourne on the London Brighton and South Coast Railway (Wojtczak, 2005, p.31). Again the questions are many. It remains to be seen why some railways were slower than others to employ women as telegraphists? Was there a preference for employing women as telegraphists at country stations only, as in the country jobs for women were limited? Did women receive the same starting pay as their male counterparts? Lastly, was the timing of when women were employed dictated by the attitude of the different companies’ directors?

1914 – The formalisation of women’s employment on the L&SWR – On the 27^th March 1914 the Traffic Officers conference of the company introduced a formal policy for the engagement of female staff in clerical, telegraph, telephone and ticket sorting positions. The minute was as follows:-

Employment of Female Staff – Referring to minute No.528 of the Traffic Officer's meeting on the 24^th instant, the proposal to employ female clerks in some of the company's offices on the conditions mentioned in Appendix A was approved and the General Manager was authorized to make arrangements for carrying it out. [Appendix A is shown] (TNA, RAIL 411/40, p.113)

It seems from Rosa Matheson’s work that the L&SWR was again slow in employing women en masse in this period. The Great Western Railway (GWR) started employing female clerks in 1908, and by 1906 the North Eastern Railway (NER) employed 94 women, while the London and North Western Railway (L&NWR) employed 250 female clerks (Matheson, 2002, p.137). While, clearly, the introduction of this policy by the L&SWR was a step towards increasing the number of female staff, the question remains as to why the company was behind the others, and what factors meant that the other railways started to employ female clerks earlier? Further, this policy was only applied to only single, unmarried women that were employed. It therefore begs the question as to why the other major group of women who worked on the railways at this time, the widows of company employees, did not receive any formal terms of employment at the same point? Lastly, there is again the question as to whether women received the same pay as their male counterparts? The answer to this question is obvious given the period of history I am dealing with. But, to what extent did women receive less, and was there variance between what the different railway companies paid them?

Overall, this piece has shown only a selection of the outstanding issues that need to be addressed in the history of Britain’s railwaywomen. As such, I hope as my career progresses to continually return to them. On a finishing note, I would like to say to anyone reading this that if they do archival work please send me anything you find on the topic (with reference details of course), as I am trying to obtain as much information as possible.

How Technology Changed Research

When I go to archives I carry many technological devices to aid me in my work (camera, laptop, leads, chargers and, of course, earphones). And I am not the only one. Increasingly, I am conscious of the fact that the National Archives is starting to look like a branch of Curry’s, or, if you do some mental blocking, an Apple Store (Genius bar excluded). The reason is that technology dominates historical research now. I wouldn’t even think of going to the archive without any of my devices and on the rare occasions when I forget one of them I am genuinely frustrated. I feel that I am unable to function as effectively without my whole raft of equipment. I suppose it is like when everyone got mobile phones. When we didn’t have them, we didn’t need them. But now everyone has one, we can’t live without them.

I think that now I am full ensconced in the technological age of research, that I ultimately forget the point from which I have come. In 2003 I was using the methods of research that had been used for hundreds of years. In conversation with Terry Gourvish, Britain’s leading railway historian, he described the process of writing an article in 1973 that was on ‘A British Business Elite: The Chief Executive Managers of the Railway industry 1850-1822.’ For this biographical survey of Britain’s railway CEOs, he had to travel from Norwich to London many times to gather the information. This, naturally, took time. His ultimate opinion was that the article wasn’t as detailed as he would have liked, and because of this it was open criticism years later. I have to confess, that I am one of those historians who currently disagrees with the piece. On expressing my disagreements, Terry quickly conceded that my more detailed, technologically aided, research may indeed contradict his, and he put this fact down to the era when he was working. There simply wasn’t the capacity, given his job, his location, and the data gathering constraints of the 1970s, to be as efficient and effective as I can be now.

I didn’t, however, make the technological jump from paper, pencil and photocopying, to laptop, camera and earphones, at once. My methods changed gradually. When I started doing research at the National Archives in 2003 on my undergraduate dissertation (‘Big Wing Theory’ in the Battle of Britain), I was quite satisfied sitting there with a pencil and pad in hand, copying down everything I found. However, recently finding my notes from that work certainly reminded me of the torture of a pencil wearing through to what I felt was the bones of my fingers. By the end of it, I was turning each page in dread of finding a document that was vital, but which was long. I did photocopy some things, but because of my limited budget I could only use the service selectively. As such, I was utterly sick of the sight of documents by the end of the dissertation. This didn’t, however, hinder me from undergoing the same laborious process when doing my postgraduate dissertation in 2005 (Pre-World War One British military aviation).

You see, technology wasn’t something that I thought of at the time as being necessary. Indeed, the majority of historians, especially in 2003, simply didn’t use it. The biggest indicator of this was that those who did use cameras and laptops at the archives were cast to the rear part of the reading room, segregated by a glass screen from us ‘hard-working’ historians who still toiled with the old methods. We struggled to get our necessary work completed before closing time; they cheated. Of course, I have embellished for dramatic effect, but sometimes it did feel to me like a ‘them and us’ situation.

It was only with my PhD in 2006 that I started to use technology. It seemed logical that I should now that laptops and digital cameras were cheaper, and I could see the benefits. With this in mind I went out and purchased the WORST LAPTOP EVER. Heavy, slow and noisy, it made me the centre of attention in the ‘silent’ reading room. But, it did the job I needed it to do until a year and a half later when I upgraded to a better model. This was superseded by a netbook in 2009, which I still use to this day. Small, compact (and strangely faster than my first laptop), it is really great. Obviously, the advantage of having a laptop is that rather than writing things out, I now create immediately accessible digital. As such, I avoid my own handwriting, which tends to leave me staring at a letter or entire word while to work out what the hell it is. It also means that I can tabulate statistical information quicker. Overall, I think that my work rate improved, but this wasn’t really a leap ahead in performance.

Two years later I added the digital camera, and this really was a massive step up. Whereas before I could copy data from a I00 page document in about 2 hours, now I could do it in 20 minutes. Hurrah, I am an archival speed-demon. Ok, my first camera was dreadful, and the number of documents that came out blurred is hard to count, but now I have a beauty that does everything excellently.

I feel now that my own shift in research techniques is not unique. Currently, the National Archives is dominated by historians who use technology to aid and speed their work. Indeed, when the main reading room was remodelled, the Archives did away with the physical barrier that divided the two groups of historians. Everyone is now mingled in. My only complaint, and I don’t know if this is a complaint to be aimed at the camera manufacturers or the historians, is that I wish that there wasn’t such a loud clicking sound when cameras take photos. But hey, I’m just being a grouch.

The last technology that has changed the way that individuals do research, aside from those that have been mentioned, is the internet and the digitisation of records. In the past if a historian wanted to look up a newspaper article from the distant past, he’d have to make the long trip to Colindale to the Newspaper Library. But now these are almost all available online. But newspapers aren’t the only things available. With my University of York log-in a plethora of resources are at my fingertips. While my PhD has been in progress, I have been blessed with a number of tools that have come available for researchers, such as 19^th Century Newspaper and Journal collections, and the House of Commons Parliamentary Papers. There were also a number of other resources that were already available, such the Dictionary of National Biography, Who Was Who and Ancestry. Lastly, there is the multitude of other websites that provide me with information. The internet is now therefore an integral part of my work, speeding it up no end and allowing me to bypass the archive.

The point of this article has been to show how research, once a lonesome, slow and laborious process, has now been transformed into a quicker and simpler exercise through the application of technology. What can be produced is no longer subject to the restrictions of the past, such as time and location. This, therefore, hails a new era of historical research that should be recognised. We are now entering into a period in which the work that is produced as an end product of research, both in an academic and popular sense, should be more accurate and should be less impregnable to criticism. In addition, more material will be researched because of the speed of its collection, allowing more work to be produced. Hopefully, this will further and refine our knowledge of history by leaps and bounds. Of course, there is the potential for historians to become complacent, churning out article after article simply because it is possible. But if academic rigor is upheld and standards are maintained, I see no reason why this should occur. Therefore, because of technology I look forward to what the future will bring.

Canadian Housing Bubble Not Happening

There was a very bad headline article picked up by the media today. A left wing group trying to make a name for it self came out with a 1st graders report on a potential housing bubble if rate rise sharply. That is the entire basis of the article. The facts are that the CD howe institue and CMHC have both not predicted a bubble. The facts are that we have seen mortgage rates go in the opposite direction, they are the best they have been and going even lower. The GDP in Canada has slowed, forecast is for a pause in the prime rate increases. We never had the US style mortgages in Canada. In fact we only had subprime lenders in canada for about 18 months before they were shut down and no longer doing any business in canada. Those mortgage repersent only about 5% of the total mortgage market. Fact RBC was just voted the 10th safeest bank in the world. Canada has a strong, safe banks with the best lending practices in the world. The housing market is balanincg to a healthy buyers market which is good for everyone. Take a breath, read past the headlines for the real truth.

The Accommodation of Smokers on the London and South Western Railway

While it is right to study the British railway industry in isolation, it should never be forgotten that its importance to Victorian society means that it can be held up as a mirror to it at times. For example, some railway companies in the late Victorian period encouraged the development of the temperance movement amongst their employees. This was following the nation-wide rise of the temperance movement. Further, before World War One there was an expansion of education and many in society saw it as a means of social improvement. Subsequently, the railway companies set up education courses for their staff to take advantage of the pro-education feeling in the nation and develop better employees. Lastly, in the 1990s smoking gradually became socially less acceptable, and as such by 2000 it was banned on all railway journeys. This was followed in July 2007 by its prohibition anywhere within railway premises. This change of the law was much to consternation of some of my friends.

I once suggested to one of my friends who smoked that he should actually write a history of smoking on Britain’s railways. While he had never complained about the ban on smoking within railway carriages, he has taken issue with the fact that he cannot smoke on platforms as they are not covered. He didn’t warm to the idea, and as such no work has been done on this subject. Indeed for this blog entry I thought I might give a short history of how the London and South Western Railway approached the issue of smoking on its trains and at its stations. The information has come from the various copies of the company’s rule books, appendices to the working timetables and bylaws that I have.

What surprised me when looking for rules on smoking in the documents, is that the 2007 law has returned the status of smoking on railway premises to its original state. A London and South Western Railway rule book from 1845 states that:

‘Smoking is strictly prohibited both in the carriages, and in the company’s stations. Every person smoking in a carriage or station is hereby subjected to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings; and every person persisting in smoking in a carriage or station, after being warned to desist by the Guard in charge of the train, or any officer of the company, shall, in addition to incurring a penalty not exceeding forty shillings be immediately, or, if travelling, at the first opportunity, be removed from the Company’s premises.’

So, smoking was banned everywhere within the railway company and the nuisance aspect of the habit comes through loud and clear. This is primarily as it is only later in the century that smoking became cheaper and accessible to a greater proportion of the population. As such, it was probably only been the first class passengers that could have afforded to smoke. This fact is reinforced by the hefty nature of the maximum fine, forty shillings, which would have been well beyond a week’s salary for many individuals. A low paid L&SWR clerk at the time earned approximately 19 shillings a week, a well-paid clerk earned double this. This indicates that even for the middle classes the fine would have been a great burden. Also, today the fine would be the equivalent of paying a maximum £161. Therefore, this suggests that it was only the richer end of society that were smoking, and that the fine was tailored accordingly.

This regulation was in place for many years as it was replicated word for word in the company’s 1864 staff rule book. The first sign of a change is found in an 1884 staff rule book as follows:

‘7. Every person smoking in any shed or covered platform of a station, or in any building of the company, or in any carriage or compartment not specifically provided for the purpose, is hereby subjected to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings. The company’s officers and servants are required to take the necessary steps to enforce obedience to this bye-law; and any person offending against it is liable, in addition to incurring the penalty above mentions, to be summarily removed, at the first opportunity, or from the company’s premises.’

It is uncertain what year that the L&SWR allowed smoking in some carriages, however I suspect the change occurred in the early 1870s. [Ed. I was helpfully informed by Jeremy (see comment below) that the railway companies were compelled by the 1868 Regulation of Railways Act to provide smoking compartments in all passenger trains. I have posted the rule in the comments section below.] The change came because smoking as a habit was becoming far more widespread due to the advent of the cigarette and the lowering of the price of tobacco. Therefore, the company must have felt obliged to provide provision for the increased numbers of customers who smoked, as it would be unseemly not to do so. This said, because of the harsh tone and strictness of the rule, it would seem to suggest that the company was merely accommodating the rise in the numbers of smokers who wished to travel; and there is no indication that it was seeking to encourage the practice. One transgression would be all it took to land you with a fine and removal from the premises.

Additionally, it should be noted that the L&SWR were able to make this change at the time as larger coaches with a greater number of compartments were being introduced. Subsequently, it was easier for company officials to designate particular compartments for smokers without disruption to other people’s journeys. Thus, the introduction of the smoking compartment was also aided by the advancement of railway design.

The provision of smoking compartments on the L&SWR was, therefore, set in stone by the 1880s because of these factors. They would be present on British railways until the 1990s. However, what changed around the compartments were the rules for governing how the railway employees should deal with those passengers who transgressed by smoking outside of them. For the next change in attitude we have to move forward to the L&SWR’s Bye-laws of 1906 which stated that:

’16. No person shall smoke in any railway carriage or compartment thereof not specially provided for smoking; or in or upon any part of the company’s premises where smoking is expressly prohibited by the Company; and no person shall smoke elsewhere within the Company’s premises if requested by any servant or agent of the company not to do so. Any person infringing or not observing this by-law and regulation shall be liable to the penalty prescribed by By-law No. 1; and any person who persists in so offending after being warned by any passenger to servant or agent of the company to desist, and fails to quit such carriage, compartment, or place immediately upon request by any servant or agent of the company, may, without prejudice to any such penalty be removed therefrom, or from the company’s premises, by or under the direct of any servant or agent.’

This was clearly a change in tone. The rules of 1845, 1864 and 1884, were very direct, strongly worded and the staff were to take the harshest measures to deal with those who broke them. While the ruling presented here is essentially the same as the 1884 one, the wording of this bylaw essentially instructs passengers to be warned that if they inappropriately smoked it may possibly land them with a fine (still up to 40 shillings). It is much less strict than earlier regulations.

What is also interesting is that at the same time the onus was on the staff to provide enough smoking compartments for those who required them. Rule No. 195 in the 1904 and 1912 L&SWR staff rule books stated that ‘Guards must, before starting, see that they have a sufficient number of compartments reserved for smokers...’ Thus, having enough provision for smokers is the responsibility of the guard, and by default the railway company. This demonstrated that no longer were smokers to be just accommodated by the L&SWR staff, as before, but that they were to be expected as passengers. This aligns well with the new, less harsh, tone of the bylaw of 1906. Because by the early 19^th century was smoking was a universal social activity, both the bylaw and the rule book indicate that the L&SWR directors and managers were obviously far more positive about those who chose to do it on the company’s premises.

As a postscript, in the 1934 Southern Railway (which took over the L&SWR’s territory in 1923) appendix to the working timetable, it shows how far railway companies’ attitudes had changed since the 1840s. It stated that:

‘Any person reported by a passenger, or seen to be smoking in a non-smoking compartment, must be politely informed that this is a contravention of one of the Company’s Bye-laws (No. 17 in the public timetable); and the passenger must be requested to desist from smoking or to change into a smoking compartment. Failing compliance, the name and address of the offending passenger must be obtained and the circumstance reported to the Divisional Superintendent.’

Thus, for those who smoked outside the designated compartments the Southern Railway imposed no fines and there was no ejection of the offender from company premises. Further, the tone of the instruction seems quite weak willed in comparison with earlier examples. The most that could happen is that those who transgressed the bylaw may have gotten a stern letter from the Divisional Superintendent (given gave their name and address to the company’s staff in the first place). By this time smoking was not perceived of as much of a nuisance as it had been in the past, and as such there was a far more relaxed attitude to those passengers who chose to break the rules. Therefore, the Southern Railway’s attitude was clearly shaped by smoking’s almost universal acceptance in society at the time.

Overall, the L&SWR’ rules, accommodations and attitudes to passengers smoking changed in line with the general shift away from it being the preserve of the rich, towards its almost universal acceptance within society. However, what is also important to note that the nuisance aspect of smoking, that some people do not want to inhale others’ smoke, never really went away. Smokers and non-smokers were always segregated. Indeed, as the evidence shows, railway companies always defended the rights of non-smokers to continue their journeys without being affected by those who wished to smoke, despite the habit becoming socially more acceptable over the period of this study.

Canada Mortgage Business Changing?

Having been in the Canadian mortgage broker business for 18 year now, one thing is certain change. This business is always in a state of change and will be. The choice is up to you on how to react and win. The lenders/banks will always be wanting us to be out looking for new business that they can have and call there own. If you have not been looking after your clients in a way that is adding tremendous value to them, there will be a tougher road ahead. More then ever i see the banks changing the value proposition to the customers. We need to be learning everyday and willing to change out thought patterns everyday to win. The mortgage battle is highly competitive and will be getting even more competitive. What are you willing to do today to add value to your customers?