Economic, Rate and Vancouver Housing Highlights

Economic, Rate and Vancouver Housing Highlights





Good Afternoon Everyone,

The cost of borrowing is going to decrease again as the major banks announced yesterday they are planning to drop their rates 20 bps depending on the product. Look for these rate adjustments coming soon.

Yesterday at the Mortgage Brokers Association Conference of BC, I had the privileged of once again listening to Benjamin Tal, CIBC Senior Economist.

Some highlights were:

The Asian investor buying in Canada is a sustainable market due to the large Chinese population and the enormous amount of wealth.

Japan’s earthquake, coupled with Europe’s debt loads namely Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Greece, crisis in Egypt and Libya, will more than likely hold interest rates in check for the coming year.

Benjamin sees no housing bubble in Vancouver. To have a housing bubble requires two main components that Canada does not have. Huge increases in mortgage rates which is not forecasted by any economists and secondly a sub prime mortgage market of bad quality loans.

The US is continuing to improve with US companies doing well with exports to emerging markets.

He also sees the era of leverage is over and the coming era will see a more conservative approach of investments and savings that will bring about a more stable economy.

Here for interest, are the 12 most overpriced real estate markets in the world according to The Economist.

1. Sydney, Australia
2. Hong Kong
3. France
4. Spain
5. Sweden
6. Great Britain
7. Belgium
8. Netherlands
9. New Zealand
10. Ireland
11. Singapore
12. Denmark

VANCOUVER PRESS — A three-year housing forecast says Metro Vancouver and northern B.C. will stay hot, while the Okanagan and Kootenays will be weaker.
Central 1 Credit Union's B.C.. Housing Forecast 2011-2013, which was released Wednesday, concluded that the median price of a home in B.C. will rise three per cent and set a new record of $402,000 in 2011, largely because of the higher price levels in Metro Vancouver, while home sales across the province will rise about seven per cent in the year.

The median price is expected to rise another one per cent in 2012 and another four per cent in 2013, on higher demand.

B.C.’s annual median transaction price rose to a record high of $392,025 in 2010, a six-per-cent increase from 2009.

A median price is the price in the middle of all prices ranging from lowest to highest.
Total home sales will rise this year to 95,500 units, rebounding from a 10.5-per-cent drop in 2010 as both resale and new home sales will increase, the forecast said, adding that sales will increase another two per cent in 2012 and a healthy 15 per cent in 2013.

"Even after those gains, sales will be below the levels we saw from 2002 to 2007," Central 1 economist Bryan Yu said. "Low, but rising, interest rates and tighter mortgage insurance rules will restrict sales for the next few years."
Yu said that this year, sales will have been stronger in the first few months as buyers move to beat the tougher mortgage insurance rules that take effect on March 18.
"Metro Vancouver will observe the strongest uptick in early-year activity, given the higher proportion of local buyers and higher prices in those areas," added Yu.
According to a release, although home sales will be strongest in Metro Vancouver area and Northern B.C. during the three-year forecast period, it will weaken in the latter part of 2011.

“While activity is likely to retrench in the second quarter, continued in-migration and labour market gains will continue to provide support to price levels,” the report said of Metro Vancouver. “Price levels are expected to remain flat in 2012, before rising six per cent in 2012.”

As well, the report noted, the economy in the north will continue to benefit from strong commodity markets and trade-related activity, which will keep housing activity on an upward trend through the forecast horizon.

However, the report also said that the weak links in B.C.’s housing market will remain areas with a high exposure to external recreational and retiree buyer demand. Housing markets in the Okanagan, the Kootenays and parts of Vancouver Island will continue to see weaker demand conditions in 2011 as mortgage rates rise and buyers remain hesitant to make discretionary and luxury purchases.
“With demand and supply conditions already favourable to buyers at the current time, a downward trend in price levels is expected to persist into 2011,” the report said of the two regions, which have seen significant declines in recreational purchasers, especially those from Alberta, with many buyers seeking cheaper properties in the U.S.

“The median annual price in the Thompson-Okanagan is forecast to decline six per cent, while Kootenays prices are forecast to decline five per cent.

”Despite that, the report said these markets will observe significant rebounds in 2012 and 2013 as buyers take advantage of lower prices and retiree and recreational demand strengthens on improved economic conditions. Following flat activity in 2011, housing sales in the Thompson-Okanagan region are forecast to rise eight per cent in 2012 while the Kootenays will see 10 per cent growth. Both markets are forecast to record more than 20-per-cent gains in sales in 2013. The Vancouver Sun

Jared Dreyer
Your Mortgage Professional
604 649-5991
www.dreyergroup.ca
jared@dreyergroup.ca


________________________________________
About Dreyer Group Smiles

Dreyer Group Smiles is a program dedicated to giving to facilities that provide safe and transitional housing to children and youth in the Fraser Valley of British Columbia. By providing funds to these programs, Dreyer Group will make a meaningful difference to kids who otherwise may not have a roof over their heads, or hope for a bright future.
Dreyer Group hopes to expand this effort through their clients and business partners. In addition, they plan to raise additional funds through annual events and corporate fundraising initiatives. Dreyer Group is working closely with the Salvation Army to allocate these funds to the children and shelters.


About Dreyer Group Mortgages, A Member of the VERICO Brokers Network

As a senior mortgage consulting team with extensive experience in the financial services industry and thousands of happy clients throughout the Lower Mainland, we understand what it takes to build long-term relationships through service and expertise. As an independent brokerage, we are not restricted to one financial institutions mortgage options. We provide the best range of financing solutions by accessing over 40 lenders and hundreds of products coast-to-coast.

Each VERICO member is an independently owned and operated business.
Copywrite © 2008


3.79% 5 Year Fixed Mortgage Rate

2.20% 5 Year Variable Rate

REMINDER: New insurance changes coming into effect March 18th. Submit any last pre-approvals today!

Email me now with the next person you know that needs financing

All rates quoted are on approved credit.


Dreyer Group Mortgages Voted BEST MORTGAGE BROKER 2010, Surrey, North Delta, White Rock, South Surrey by NOW Newspaper Readers. Many thanks to our valued clients and partners for voting for us!


Dreyer Group Smiles
When you do business with Dreyer Group, a portion of every mortgage funded goes towards providing safe housing for children and youth. Thank you for your support.




Follow me on twitter



Follow my financial blog



Follow me on Facebook


Quick Links
Check our Best Rates
Currency Rates
Market Watch
Local Weather
Mortgage Calculators



ABOUT JARED

Jared has built his business based on a passion and commitment for delivering exceptional client service. He has provided superior financing solutions to thousands of happy clients over the past 18 years.

As a Government Relations Committee Member of the Canadian Association of Accredited Mortgage Professionals (CAAMP), Board Member and Director of the Mortgage Broker Association of BC (MBABC) for the past 2 years, Chairing the Education and Public Relations Committee, Board Member of the VERICO National Advisory Council and Director of the Mortgage Brokers Institute of BC (MBIBC), Jared works diligently to accomplish positive change within the mortgage industry.

Jared also sits on the Board of the White Rock South Surrey Chamber of Commerce and is a member of the Vancouver Board of Trade.

A strong believer in community, Jared has been very active in setting up business partnership programs for local business as well as giving initiatives to children’s’ charities locally and throughout the Fraser Valley and Metro Vancouver.

"Tailing in" - Perilous Early Railway Practice

I am always constantly astounded by some of the operating procedures that occurred in the early railways. Indeed, on many occasions I worry that the railway managers, rather than serving the public, were in fact trying to secretly get them injured, maimed and killed through instituting procedures that were highly dangerous. The most baffling of these was the practice of ‘tailing-in’ passenger carriages or, as we would know it today, ‘fly shunting’. This practice, which would probably scare the majority of us, was very common at terminal stations the London and South Western Railway (L&SWR), as well as on other railways.

My first encounter with the practice came on reading a Board of Trade report on an accident that occurred at Hampton Court station in 1855. This gave a good description of ‘tailing in.’ A train would stop at a ticket platform outside the station where the passengers would have their tickets checked. At the same time the locomotive would be detached and driven on a little way. A rope, of about 16 yards in length, would then be hitched to the front carriage and the rear of locomotive, while a porter stood on the front of the first carriage. The train would then begin to pull away and as the rope became tight the carriages would pick up speed. The train would proceed down one road and a set of points would then be changed. Just before the critical moment, the porter on the carriage would unhook them and the carriages and, driven by their own inertia, they would glide into the station.

Or that was the theory. In the case in question the porter had not acted in time, or perhaps had some trouble in detaching the rope. Either way, the train dragged the one carriage it was hauling from the rails. The Board of Trade official criticised the practice. He could not see why carriages could not be detached just outside the station and pushed into it. Furthermore, he stated that if this method of shunting was to be continued it was desirable that some better way of detaching the rope be found, rather than relying on a porter. Lastly, he stated that there was no written procedure laid down by the management or the station agent. [1]

For all the failings of the practice, it did continue on until the 1868 at most L&SWR terminal stations. On the 9^th of June 1868 at Windsor station, a train was being roped in, and as the procedure was about to finish, the carriages violently hit the buffers.[2] In this case the driver had pulled the train, consisting of eight carriages, at too fast a speed. The result was that three passengers were hurt, two of whom were travelling in the rear carriage. Overall, the accident report called tailing-in ‘dangerous and objectionable.’ Furthermore, it must be remembered that in this period, trains did not have the sprung buffers that ours have today, and as such 3 individuals were injured. [3]Thus, on the 19^th June the L&SWR forbade the activity across its network.[4]

‘Tailing in’ was a product of a railway industry that was developing. Almost alien to our eyes, it represented the very ad hoc origins of some early railway practices, in that early railway managers were groping forward, unsure and constantly learning the best ways to manage services, technology and operations. Yet, as the industry developed, the L&SWR’s management did not feel it necessary to change what had been proven to be an evidently a poor and dangerous procedure, and this was presumably for cost reasons. Therefore, it was only after the accident at Windsor that the practice was halted, the L&SWR’s hand being forced by the Board of Trade.

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

[1] TNA, RAIL 1053/53, Railway Department report on accidents for 1855. (Described at item level), report on accident at Hampton Court Station, 14^th December 1855

[2] Williams, R.A., The London and South Western Railway, Volume 2: Growth and Consolidation, (Newton Abbott, 1973), p.47

[3] House of Commons Parliamentary Papers [HCPP], 1867-68 [3959-V] Reports of the inspecting officers of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade, upon certain accidents which have occurred on railways during the months of April, May, June, and July 1868. (Part third.)

[4] Williams, The London and South Western Railway, Volume 2, p.47

Lets get this straight, by the 1990s British Rail was very efficient!

On Monday I watched the despatches program that everyone is talking about that criticised the modern railway network. Boy, did I get frustrated. I wasn’t particularly concerned with the lack of descent analysis, nor with the dominance of subjective opinions. No, as a historian of the railways I got annoyed with the words of Steven Norris, one of the architects of British Rail’s (BR) privatisation in the early 1990s. In his view, BR was an inefficient and lazy organisation that did not give the taxpayer ‘value for money.’ Furthermore, he asserted that privatization was the only way to solve its internal problems. While I acknowledge British Rail did have a long history of inefficiency, what annoyed me was that this opinion flies in the face of all the evidence. Indeed, by the 1990s BR was, by all reasonable measures, one of the most efficient railways in Europe. Indeed, this post is about bursting Steven’s annoying little bubble. All figures are taken from the highly detailed history of British Rail by Terry Gourvish.

Firstly, a bit of background is required. From 1982 onwards the government shrunk BR’s budgets. Indeed, in 1982 central and local government funded BR to the tune of £1330.8 million (constant at 1989/90 prices). By 1986/87 this had shrunk to £950.8 million, and by 1989/90 the total funding was £568.8 million.[1] This reduction forced BR to become more customer focussed and led to a massive reorganisation of the company, named ‘sectorisation.’ Most importantly, it forced BR to become a more efficient organisation

If we consider that Britain's railways since the 1930s had never made overall profit, and consequently always required a subsidy from government to fund their operations, the level of loss that BR incurred in the 1980s and 90s would be indicative of the performance of the business. The central principal for BR operations under sectorisation was that the profitable parts of the business, such as Intercity, would actually reduce the burden on the taxpayer as they would mitigate losses incurred by other sectors that were loss-making, such as Regional Railways. The table below shows the profit and loss of BR's different operational sectors in certain years, as well as its overall total.

Source: Gourvish, Terry, British Rail 1974-97: From Integration to Privatisation, (Oxford, 2004), p.476-479

As shown, in 1982 Intercity, Railfreight and Network South East were all poor performers, with only Railfreight making a slight profit. However, all three became far more profitable by 1993/4, whether it be through cost control, greater efficiency, growing their trade, better public service or increasing their prices. Only BR’s Parcels service and Freightliner, the latter of which was a relatively new part of the business, did not improve their performance by 1993/4. Furthermore, Provincial and Regional Railways, which ran local lines and were effectively cross-subsidised by the other BR sectors, also became more efficient by 1993/4. Overall, the result was that by 1993/4 the burden on the taxpayer was £724 million, or 73.21 per cent less than it did in 1982.

Furthermore, most elements of BR’s costs reduced in the period. As an example I will look at maintenance costs, which declined significantly. The results are shown in the table below.

Source: Gourvish, Terry, British Rail 1974-97: From Integration to Privatisation, (Oxford, 2004), p.207

This indicates that between 1983 and 1989/90 BR’s maintenance costs dropped by 19 index points. However, the cost per train mile, which essentially relates BR's overall expense to the amount of work done by the organisation, fell by a massive 24 index points. While some of this reduction could be down to changes in the price of materials, there is no doubt that some, if not most, could be attributed to better cost control, improved operational practices and better project management.

But where did BR's efficiency stand against other European operators? The table below shows the number of kilometres that BR’s trains ran per member of staff in the period, against the average for the fourteen 'Community of European Railways' members (excluding BR).

Source: Gourvish, Terry, British Rail 1974-97: From Integration to Privatisation, (Oxford, 2004), p.292

Evidently, per staff member BR’s trains went further than thos of European operators. This was despite, in some cases, the British railway network being of a higher density than in many countries and requiring greater maintenance, more administration and having greater intensity of train movements. This means that BR was more productive per staff member than the European operators and that taxpayers were getting better ‘value for money’ from its operations. 

Lastly, because of efficiencies, the level of support that BR received in real terms also reduced over the period. The table below indexes the funding of British railways against three major European operators between 1975 and 1991.Source: Gourvish, Terry, British Rail 1974-97: From Integration to Privatisation, (Oxford, 2004), p.292

While the real terms funding of French and Italian railways by their governments increased over period (Italy  by a substantial amount) the German and British Governments reduced theirs. However, BR's superior performance is shown by the fact that the German government’s funding of Deutsche Bahn rose in the late 1970s, falling off in the early 1980s; whereas BR’s funding was reduced overall, reaching its lowest level in 1989. Indeed, of the four operators BR had had the least success in securing government funding over the period. Thus, while reducing its operating losses substantially and increasing some sectors' profitability, this data indicates that BR was, at the point it was privatised, highly efficient in comparison.

Therefore, Terry Gourvish’s figures have shown that in the 1980s and first half of the 1990s BR improved the profitability and performance of its business, reducing the burden on the taxpayer. By the mid-1990s it was one of the most efficient railway operators in Europe, if not the most efficient. Of course, I have only scratched the surface of what actually went on within BR here, and its story in the period wasn’t one of unabated progress. Yet, this data shows that claims by Steven Norris (and others) that BR was inefficient in the 1990s are just plain wrong. Indeed, if privatisation hadn't happened there is no telling how efficient or productive Britain's railways may have become after 1997.

If you would like to read more about BR's business, I would really recommend Terry Gourvish's book. 

[1] Gourvish, Terry, British Rail 1974-97: From Integration to Privatisation, (Oxford, 2004), p.455-456

Making a Mess of a Station - Extending Waterloo Station in 1878 and 1885

Waterloo handled 86,397,666 passengers in financial year 2009/10, making it Britain’s busiest railway station.[1] Yet, Waterloo has always been one of Britain’s busiest stations. The structures that make up the current Waterloo Station complex were the product of the London and South Western Railway (L&SWR) rebuilding the station to cope with the massive increase in passenger traffic after 1890. Yet, the station that stood before the current incarnation looked very different. It was a mess, actually consisting of three stations with three names.

The building of Waterloo Bridge Station, as it should be more accurately known, was because in 1839 the L&SWR’s first terminus was at Nine Elms. Yet, once built the L&SWR was determined to strike out towards the city, and in 1848 the company opened their new line to Waterloo Bridge. As Colin Chivers and Philip Wood have commented, this new station was never intended to be a terminus, nor the great station that it became. Indeed, an original plan (which I cannot reproduce) shows that 3 of the 6 lines went to the back wall, so as to allow easy extension to the city or Southwark.[2] Yet, the hoped-for extension did not happen and Waterloo quickly became the point on which all L&SWR operations were focussed. After this the only major alteration came in 1860 when four more platforms were built on the north side of the station, bringing the total to 8.[3] Through various alterations this number had risen to 12 by 1878.

After 1870 the number of passengers that the company carried on its line, particularly on its suburban routes, began to increase rapidly. In 1870 the L&SWR conveyed 13,387,357 passengers, in 1875 this had risen to 20,998,310 and by 1880 30,294,406 people travelled with the company. This was an overall increase of 126.29%.[4] Indeed, I have commented in an earlier blog post as to how this put a strain on the company’s services and about the many complaints were directed against the management as a result (Found Here). But, with such an unexpected rise in the level of traffic it is unsurprising that the management of the L&SWR was caught unawares. Thus, in 1874 the L&SWR’s senior management and directors decided to act. While an aspect of their plan was to add an extra line between Clapham Junction and Surbiton,[5] they predominantly focussed on the bottle-neck at Waterloo Station. Here, many trains were kept waiting outside the station as there were insufficient platforms for the ever-increasing number that were scheduled to cope with the traffic increases.

However, without an accurate way of predicting how traffic would grow, the extension of Waterloo Station from 1878 onwards was a very ad hoc affair, that reflected that the L&SWR managers were simply reacting to the business environment and had no way of knowing what the future would bring. Thus, in 1874 the company submitted in its bill of that year a plan to ‘widen and improve’ Waterloo station on the south side.[6] Opened in December 1878, the new ‘South’ station was entirely self-contained, having its own booking office and taxi yard. Crucially, it added a further two platforms to the Waterloo complex.[7]

Yet, the continued traffic growth of the 1870s meant that soon after it opened the extra capacity it provided was deemed insufficient to cope with increased numbers of train movements. Thus, in 1881 the company submitted a further bill to parliament for another extension to the main station on the north side.[8] Opened in stages in 1885, this new ‘North’ station added a further six platforms to the station, bringing the overall total to 18.[9] This was also technically a separate station and had its own booking office and taxi yard

This was how the station would remain until 1900 (see map - showing 1895). The ‘North’ Station served the Windsor and Reading Lines, the ‘Central’ station served the West of England Main Lines, and the ‘South’ station served the Hampton Court, Kingston and Leatherhead lines.[10] However, amongst the public the name of ‘south’ was substituted with ‘Cyprus,’ after the British annexation of 1878, and the north station became ‘Khartoum,’ after the Sudan campaign of 1885.[11]

The result was that after the adaptations of the original station in 1878 and 1885 the L&SWR’s passengers were left with a confusing three-part station. Subsequently, when Jerome K. Jerome wrote his book Three Men in a Boat in 1889 he said the following of the station:-

“We got to Waterloo at eleven, and asked where the eleven-five started from. Of course nobody knew; nobody at Waterloo ever does know where a train is going to start from, or where a train when it does start is going to, or anything about it. The porter who took our things thought it would go from number two platform, while another porter, with whom he discussed the question, had heard a rumour that it would go from number one. The station-master, on the other hand, was convinced it would start from the local.”[12]

Furthermore, the L&SWR itself did not help to decipher the Waterloo complex for its passengers as the 18 platforms had only 10 platform numbers.[13]

Therefore, in 1878 and 1885 the L&SWR’s management succeeded in reducing the pressure on its infrastructure by expanding Waterloo Station. However, while they had to do something to face the problem of accommodating passenger traffic growth, the management could not predict how this would change in the future. Subsequently, if they had built too much capacity into the station this may have caused unnecessary expense if traffic growth had fallen off. The result was that the station was added to in a piecemeal manner; making Waterloo increasingly confusing for travellers. Thus, it would only be the complete rebuild of Waterloo in the early twentieth century that would unravel the mess that the extensions of the nineteenth had caused.

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

[1] Clinnick, Richard, ‘From Britain’s busiest…to the quietest, Rail Magazine (March 9-March 22 2011) Issue 665, p68-69

[2] Chives, Colin and Wood, Philip, Waterloo Station circa 1900: South Western Circle Monograph No.3, (Catford, 2006), p.2-3

[3] Chives and Wood, Waterloo Station circa 1900, p.4

[4] Board of Trade, Railway Returns

[5] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 411/247, Traffic Committee Minute Book, Minute No. 724, 17^th October 1878

[6] House of Commons Parliamentary Papers [HCPP] 1874 (14) Railway, &c. bills. Report of the Board of Trade upon the railway, canal, tramway, gas, and water bills of session 1874, p.15

[7] Chives and Wood, Waterloo Station circa 1900, p.9

[8] HCPP, 1881 (67) Railway, &c. bills. Return to an order of the Honourable the House of Commons, dated 7 February 1881;--for copy of report by the Board of Trade upon all the railway, canal, tramway, gas, and water bills of session 1881.

[9] Chives and Wood, Waterloo Station circa 1900, p.9

[10] TNA, RAIL 411/255, Traffic Committee Minute Book, Minute No. 911, 18^th August 1886

[11] Faulkner, J.N. and Williams, R.A., The LSWR in the Twentieth Century, (Newton Abbot, 1988), p7-8

[12] Jerome, Jerome H. Three Men in a Boat, (London, 1889)

[13] Faulkner and WilliamsThe LSWR in the Twentieth Century, p7

Vancouver Housing Highlights

Economic, Rate and Vancouver Housing Highlights






Good Afternoon Everyone,

The cost of borrowing is going to decrease again as the major banks announced yesterday they are planning to drop their rates 20 bps depending on the product. Look for these rate adjustments coming soon.

Yesterday at the Mortgage Brokers Association Conference of BC, I had the privileged of once again listening to Benjamin Tal, CIBC Senior Economist.

Some highlights were:

The Asian investor buying in Canada is a sustainable market due to the large Chinese population and the enormous amount of wealth.

Japan’s earthquake, coupled with Europe’s debt loads namely Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Greece, crisis in Egypt and Libya, will more than likely hold interest rates in check for the coming year.

Benjamin sees no housing bubble in Vancouver. To have a housing bubble requires two main components that Canada does not have. Huge increases in mortgage rates which is not forecasted by any economists and secondly a sub prime mortgage market of bad quality loans.

The US is continuing to improve with US companies doing well with exports to emerging markets.

He also sees the era of leverage is over and the coming era will see a more conservative approach of investments and savings that will bring about a more stable economy.

Here for interest, are the 12 most overpriced real estate markets in the world according to The Economist.

1. Sydney, Australia
2. Hong Kong
3. France
4. Spain
5. Sweden
6. Great Britain
7. Belgium
8. Netherlands
9. New Zealand
10. Ireland
11. Singapore
12. Denmark

VANCOUVER PRESS — A three-year housing forecast says Metro Vancouver and northern B.C. will stay hot, while the Okanagan and Kootenays will be weaker.
Central 1 Credit Union's B.C. Housing Forecast 2011-2013, which was released Wednesday, concluded that the median price of a home in B.C. will rise three per cent and set a new record of $402,000 in 2011, largely because of the higher price levels in Metro Vancouver, while home sales across the province will rise about seven per cent in the year.

The median price is expected to rise another one per cent in 2012 and another four per cent in 2013, on higher demand.

B.C.’s annual median transaction price rose to a record high of $392,025 in 2010, a six-per-cent increase from 2009.

A median price is the price in the middle of all prices ranging from lowest to highest.
Total home sales will rise this year to 95,500 units, rebounding from a 10.5-per-cent drop in 2010 as both resale and new home sales will increase, the forecast said, adding that sales will increase another two per cent in 2012 and a healthy 15 per cent in 2013.

"Even after those gains, sales will be below the levels we saw from 2002 to 2007," Central 1 economist Bryan Yu said. "Low, but rising, interest rates and tighter mortgage insurance rules will restrict sales for the next few years."
Yu said that this year, sales will have been stronger in the first few months as buyers move to beat the tougher mortgage insurance rules that take effect on March 18.
"Metro Vancouver will observe the strongest uptick in early-year activity, given the higher proportion of local buyers and higher prices in those areas," added Yu.
According to a release, although home sales will be strongest in Metro Vancouver area and Northern B.C. during the three-year forecast period, it will weaken in the latter part of 2011.

“While activity is likely to retrench in the second quarter, continued in-migration and labour market gains will continue to provide support to price levels,” the report said of Metro Vancouver. “Price levels are expected to remain flat in 2012, before rising six per cent in 2012.”

As well, the report noted, the economy in the north will continue to benefit from strong commodity markets and trade-related activity, which will keep housing activity on an upward trend through the forecast horizon.

However, the report also said that the weak links in B.C.’s housing market will remain areas with a high exposure to external recreational and retiree buyer demand. Housing markets in the Okanagan, the Kootenays and parts of Vancouver Island will continue to see weaker demand conditions in 2011 as mortgage rates rise and buyers remain hesitant to make discretionary and luxury purchases.
“With demand and supply conditions already favourable to buyers at the current time, a downward trend in price levels is expected to persist into 2011,” the report said of the two regions, which have seen significant declines in recreational purchasers, especially those from Alberta, with many buyers seeking cheaper properties in the U.S.

“The median annual price in the Thompson-Okanagan is forecast to decline six per cent, while Kootenays prices are forecast to decline five per cent.

”Despite that, the report said these markets will observe significant rebounds in 2012 and 2013 as buyers take advantage of lower prices and retiree and recreational demand strengthens on improved economic conditions. Following flat activity in 2011, housing sales in the Thompson-Okanagan region are forecast to rise eight per cent in 2012 while the Kootenays will see 10 per cent growth. Both markets are forecast to record more than 20-per-cent gains in sales in 2013. The Vancouver Sun


Jared Dreyer
Your Mortgage Professional
604 649-5991
www.dreyergroup.ca
jared@dreyergroup.ca


________________________________________
About Dreyer Group Smiles

Dreyer Group Smiles is a program dedicated to giving to facilities that provide safe and transitional housing to children and youth in the Fraser Valley of British Columbia. By providing funds to these programs, Dreyer Group will make a meaningful difference to kids who otherwise may not have a roof over their heads, or hope for a bright future.
Dreyer Group hopes to expand this effort through their clients and business partners. In addition, they plan to raise additional funds through annual events and corporate fundraising initiatives. Dreyer Group is working closely with the Salvation Army to allocate these funds to the children and shelters.


About Dreyer Group Mortgages, A Member of the VERICO Brokers Network

As a senior mortgage consulting team with extensive experience in the financial services industry and thousands of happy clients throughout the Lower Mainland, we understand what it takes to build long-term relationships through service and expertise. As an independent brokerage, we are not restricted to one financial institutions mortgage options. We provide the best range of financing solutions by accessing over 40 lenders and hundreds of products coast-to-coast.

Each VERICO member is an independently owned and operated business.
Copywrite © 2008


3.79% 5 Year Fixed Mortgage Rate

2.20% 5 Year Variable Rate

REMINDER: New insurance changes coming into effect March 18th.

Email me now with the next person you know that needs financing

All rates quoted are on approved credit.


Dreyer Group Mortgages Voted BEST MORTGAGE BROKER 2010, Surrey, North Delta, White Rock, South Surrey by NOW Newspaper Readers. Many thanks to our valued clients and partners for voting for us!


Dreyer Group Smiles
When you do business with Dreyer Group, a portion of every mortgage funded goes towards providing safe housing for children and youth. Thank you for your support.




Follow me on twitter



Follow my financial blog



Follow me on Facebook


Quick Links
Check our Best Rates
Currency Rates
Market Watch
Local Weather
Mortgage Calculators

The Main Railway Worker's Rule Book, wasn't the only Rule Book

I am weird, I must be. I have developed an unnatural interest in railway company staff rule books. For those of you who have been reading my blog for some while you will have encountered this unnatural interest. So here I am again, writing another blog post on them.

The history of the main company rule book, which every staff member had to carry with him or her, was quite dull after 1871. In that year the Railway Clearing House (RCH) standardised the rule books that were issued by all the companies.[1] Thus, to look at the Great Eastern Railway rule book is to look at the London and North Western Railway rule book as they are all the same. Subsequently, because the rule books were produced by an external body (albeit with company-specific covers on), the railways companies had no way of including in them rules that were specific to their own systems. Thus, after 1871 there was a proliferation of ‘supplementary’ rule books that were issued by companies themselves and were designed to complement the main rule book.

Before 1871 there had been rule books that were issued to railway employees in addition to the main one. A browse through the National Archives Catalogue shows that the London and South Western Railway in 1858 and 1865 issued instruction books to station agents that were a compilation of instructions that had been issued to them ‘from time to time.’[2] The North Eastern Railway published a ‘book of rules for working single lines’ in 1862.[3] The Bristol and Exeter Railway issued a book of rules for members of the Permanent Way Department in 1865.[4] Yet, the nature and number of these supplementary rule books is unknown. Indeed, there seems to have been no fixed relationship between the content of the main and supplementary rule books. It is quite possible this was because ]the companies devised the main rule books themselves, and when they came to produce later editions they simply added the content of the supplementary books (although this is theorising).

What is known is that after 1871 a fixed relationship between rule books, supplementary rule books and instruction books developed. Because the main rule book became a fixed element in railway operation all other rule books worked from it as a governing point. Therefore, all supplementary rule books that were produced were, as far as I am aware, always designed to complement the main one. Thus, the supplementary rule books could be split into two categories, those that were designed to complement and be used in combination with the company’s books of rules and regulations, and the appendices to the working timetable.

Firstly, supplementary rule books were developed for particular types of employee to provide guidance where the main rule book did not cover issues sufficiently. The L&SWR in 1896 and 1902 produced ‘Instructions to Engineering Staff,’[5] ‘Instructions Respecting Station Accounts’ in 1898,[6] ‘Supplementary Instructions as to Fogs and Snowstorms’ in 1908,[7] ‘Instructions for the guidance of Carmen, Van Lads, Horse-Keepers, Horse-Shunters and others concerned’ in 1913 [8] and a book of rules for electrified lines in 1915.[9] Indeed, as M.A.C. Horne has shown, this wasn’t just a practice that was restricted to the L&SWR, and many companies issued supplementary books of rules to address specific issues on their lines that were required to be governed by regulations outside the RCH-approved rule book.[10]

Indeed, this practice continued into the inter-war period and the big four railway companies continued to produce supplementary rule books. The Southern Railway (SR), for example, produced ‘Instructions Applicable to Electrified lines’ in 1925[11] and 1941[12], as well as a selection of special rules for drivers, firemen and guards, in 1935.[13] Furthermore, the London and North Eastern Railway (LNER) produced ‘Points for the guidance of Gangers, Sub-Gangers and others concerned in the maintenance of the permanent way,’ in 1925,[14] and in 1937 the London, Midland and Scottish Railway (LMS) produced a ‘Book of Instructions in connection with the working of Electric trains on the Central electrified Lines.’[15] I am sure there were more issued by the ‘Big Four’ companies, but these are the ones I have in my collection. Therefore, this suggests that after 1871 there was a short-fall in the rule-book work of the RCH. Evidently, for some reason it did not feel the need to address all areas where instruction was required. This was even the case in areas of railway operation, such as the work of Carmen or that on electrified lines, where there was the possibility of it issuing a rule book that may have covered practice multiple railways companies.

The second types of supplementary rule book were collections of instructions that were only applicable to a particular part of a company’s operations. Thus, they could not be produced by the RCH. These collections of rules became very quickly defined as ‘Appendices to the Working Timetable and Book of Rules and Regulations,’ and they started to be issued on some railways in the 1870, but became standard by the 1890s. For example, the South Eastern & Chatham Appendix of 1922 contains information on such things as:

1) Battersea Pier Junction, Special Instructions at

2) Carriages, Windows Broken by Passengers

3) Destination Boards, Cleaning Of

4) Exceptionally Heavy Loads to L&NWR

5) Faversham, Slipping of Carriages At

6) General Instructions relating to Goods Traffic

7) Hand Signal, Shunting By [11]

Of course, I have only listed seven of the topics covered, however, the book itself is 284 pages long with a contents running to 18 pages. Indeed, such was the increasing number of company specific rules contained within these books, that when the industry’s 100+ railways were merged by government into four private companies, the Appendices became massive tomes, containing vast amounts of information on the special rules each company had. The LMS, ‘Sectional Appendix to the Working Timetable (Midland Division)’ from 1937 was 288 pages long,[12] The Southern Railway ‘General, Central-Eastern and Western Appendices to the Working Timetable,’ from 1934, was 484 pages long. Lastly, the Great Western Railway ‘General Appendix to the Rule Book’ from 1936 was 344 pages long.

Therefore, the history of the British railway rule book before World War Two was not one of uniformity. While the main rule book that was possessed by every British railwaymen after 1871 was always created, devised and sent out from the RCH, its failure to cover every aspect of railway operation precipitated the proliferation of other rule books that were necessary for instructing railway companies’ employees in safe and efficient operation.

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

[1] Horne, M.A.C. British Railway Rule Books, (Unpublished Paper, 2008), p.26 http://www.metadyne.co.uk/pdf_files/RULE_MAIN_V4.pdf

[2] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 1135/270, Abstract of Instructions which have from time to time been issued to the Station Agents. etc., 1865

[3] TNA, RAIL 527/953, Rules for Working Single Lines, 1855-1862

[4] TNA, RAIL 1134/21, Appendix to rules. Permanent way dept, 1865

[5] Eric Penn Collection [EPC], Instructions to Engineering Staff, 1896 and Author’s Collection, Instructions to Engineering Staff, 1902

[6] TNA, RAIL 1135/276, ‘Instructions Respecting Station Accounts,’ 1898

[7] TNA, RAIL 1135/279, ‘Supplementary Instructions as to Fogs and Snowstorms,’ 1908

[8] TNA, RAIL 1135/280, ‘Instructions for the guidance of Carmen, Van Lads, Horse-Keepers, Horse-Shunters and others concerned,’ 1913

[9] South Western Circle Collection [SWC], ‘Instructions applicable to the Electrified Lines,’ 1915

[10] Horne, M.A.C. British Railway Rule Books, (Unpublished Paper, 2008), p.30 http://www.metadyne.co.uk/pdf_files/RULE_MAIN_V4.pdf

[11] Author’s Collection, Southern Railway ‘Instructions Applicable to the Electrified Lines,’ 1925

[12] Author’s Collection, Southern Railway ‘Instructions Applicable to the Electrified Lines,’ 1941

[13] Author’s Collection, Southern Railway ‘Instructions for Drivers, Firemen and Guards, 1935

[14] Author’s Collection, London and North Eastern Railway, ‘Points for the guidance of Gangers, Sub-Gangers and others concerned in the maintenance of the permanent way,’ 1925

[15] Author’s Collection, London Midland and Scottish Railway, Book of Instructions in connection with the working of Electric trains on the Central electrified Lines,’ 1937

[16] Author’s Collection, South Eastern and Chatham Railway, Appendices to the Working Timetable and Book of Rules and Regulations, 1922

[17] Author’s Collection, London, Midland and Scottish Railway, Sectional Appendix to the Working Timetable (Midland Division), 1937

[18] Author’s Collection, Southern Railway ‘General, Central-Eastern and Western Appendices to the Working Timetable’ from 1934

[19] Author’s Collection, Great Western Railway ‘General Appendix to the Rule Book,’ 1935

Infringing The Rule Book - Causes of Dismissal on the Victorian Railway

In my PhD research I have focussed on how individuals’ became London and South Western Railway (L&SWR) clerks through the sitting of an exam and a period of probation. This is important to my PhD because if they passed these they could, if they wished, follow a career path into management. What I have never looked at, because it is irrelevant to my study, is how individuals left the service.

For my own personal interest I have investigated how 300 clerks and salaried staff members left the L&SWR’s employment between 1860 and 1914. Although, given the staff records I have images of, the majority of the cases occurred between 1860 and 1885. For the most part what I have found isn’t blog material, being quite dull. Out of 300 L&SWR staff records covering surnames beginning A to C (roughly), 69 died on the job (23.00%), 97 resigned (32.33%), 51 were superannuated (25.33%) 2 had unknown exits (0.66%) and 10 lost their jobs for unknown reasons or just incompetence (3.33%). However, what are very juicy are the 46 (15.33%) clerks and salaried staff members that went astray or were dismissed for either an infringement against the rule book or, as in a few cases, criminal activity.

The 1884 L&SWR rule book made the consequences of infringements against its contents very clear; ‘The company reserve the right to punish and servant, by immediate dismissal, fine, or suspension from duty, for intoxication, disobedience of orders, negligence, or misconduct, or for being absent from duty without leave; they also reserve the right to deduct from the pay of their servants, and retain the sums which may be imposed as fines, and to withhold their wages during the time of their suspension, or absence from duty from any cause.’[1] Thus, 46 clerks and salaried staff members fell foul of the rule book.

The greatest sin that an individual could commit against the company involved the money clerks handled daily. 16 of the 46 (34.78%) of the offenders were either ‘deficient in accounts’ or ‘short in their cash.’ Consider the case of S. Bedford. He had joined the company as a telegraph clerk in 1867 at the tender age of 16. He had started at Salisbury Station, however, in October 1879 he was working in the booking office at Waterloo on £90 a year. For some reason, Bedford was found to be ‘short in his cash’ by £6. Whether this was because of simple error or the fact that he had been surreptitiously stealing from the company is unknown, however, I would suggest that the former was the case. In many of the dismissal cases where the clerk was at fault, rather than engaging in knowing criminal activity, the individual would be ‘called upon to resign.’ This would allow the company to punish the individual, but also would allow him to avoid having a black mark on his character. In a way, it was an honourable dismissal, borne of the fact that the company recognised the individuals, who in many cases had provided good service in the past, had simply made a costly mistake. Therefore, that fact that this happened in Bedford’s case suggests that he had got his monies out of order, rather than he was stealing from the L&SWR.[2]

But, there were other cases of monetary irregularities that were more serious than simple errors, and 13 other individuals were (28.26%) dismissed for such reasons. Well, I say dismissed, as two, J.G. Batchelor at Portsmouth,[3] and William Clement, who was working in the Steam Packet Department at Southampton,[4] both absconded in 1870 and 1867 respectively. It is highly likely that they stole some money as their records did not say ‘absent without leave.’

The case of E. Agnew is one where his dismissal was almost certainly the result of his criminal activity. Agnew had been working for the company since October 1874, when he had started at the age of 16 ½ at Bournemouth Station as a Junior Clerk. His record shows that he was habitually in trouble, and between January 1876 and April 1884 he was fined on 6 separate occasions. For example: April 1876, fined 2/6 for inattention to telegrams; Oct 1878, fined 5/-+ cautioned for re-issuing tickets improperly; Jan 1884, fined £1 for attempting to retain a sovereign which he picked up from the floor belonging to another clerk’s cash. Things reached crescendo when in April 1886, while working at Waterloo, he was dismissed for embezzling £28 15/- from the company.[5] This was an ignominious end to a bad career.

However, the money stolen by Agnew pales in comparison with that lost by F. Benning who had had on the surface of things a successful career. Starting as an Apprentice Clerk at Southampton in 1862, he had moved up the ranks and pay-scales rapidly. After a spell at the Nine Elms Goods Department, had returned to Southampton to the Dock Office in 1873, and in 1877 was on the large salary of £175 per year. Yet, in December of 1878 it was found that he was ‘short in his cash’ by an impressive £520. Indeed, such was the debt that I suspect that he had kept many accounting errors hidden for years. [6]

Overall, given the nature of the clerks’ work, it is unsurprising that the majority of infringements against the rule book, just under two thirds (28 out of 46), were to do with money. Yet, this does leave 18 other cases. Some are quite boring. Four individuals were ‘absent without leave’ (8.70%) and 2 (4.35%) were dismissed for ‘neglect of duty.’ This said, the remainder are quite interesting.

One of the most serious infringements that any railway employee could committee against the rule book was drinking on duty, and 4 (8.70%) clerks and salaried staff members were dismissed for this reason. E. Brown had joined the L&SWR in 1855 at the age of 32 as a signalman at Clapham Common Station (no longer open). He had been made the Agent at Sutton Bingham Station in June 1860 and was moved to Whimple Station in 1874 on £90 a year. It seems that Brown’s life, for some reason, must have taken a turn for the worse. Between late 1874 and April 1876 he was fined 4 times by the company for being ‘absent without leave,’ (20/-) ‘carelessness’ (20/-), allowing passengers to travel without tickets (20/-) and for holding the last train to Portsmouth (5/-). Finally, in 1876 was found drunk at Sidmouth Station and was dismissed shortly after.[7] The latest dismissal case I saw was that of A. Bowron. Bowron had joined the company at the age of 16 ½ in May 1875 as a Junior Clerk at Twickenham. Yet, after 38 years of unimpressive, but relatively trouble-free service, he was ‘called upon to resign’ for ‘intemperate habits’ in May 1913 at the age of 54 ½.[8]

The remaining cases of dismissal are probably the most interesting. J. Bailey, the station agent at Wareham of 6 years, was dismissed in June 1865 for ‘sending false telegrams.’ What was in these telegrams is unknown, but it suggests some sort of fraud was going on.[9] In April 1873 a new Junior Clerk at Clapham Junction who had only been in the job a month, A.E. Bothams, was reported for ‘using improper language to a passenger.’ Thus, this was the quickest exit from L&SWR employment in my study. [10] My favourite cause of dismissal was that of A.J. Calcott. In 1872 he had joined the company at Netley Station, and by 1881 he was working at Waterloo. On June 22 he was reported for ‘having females in his office and incivility to passengers.’ How he sneaked these ‘females’ into the office at such a busy station is unknown. However, it is interesting that the L&SWR authorities on his record stated that they were ‘females’ rather than just strangers, revealing that the management’s patriarchal view of the workplace. [11]

Over the entire sample there were only 8 cases (17.39%) where the dismissal was for causes that I would classify as ‘criminal.’ They were as follows:-

1. H. Coward - Dec 1865 -Registration Examiners Office, Waterloo - Absent without leave, monies not accounted for (£1.17s.6d). [12]

2. R. Blake - March 1866 - Audit Office, Southampton - Charged out monies on goods in excess of what had been actually paid out by him.[13]

3. J.F. Blann - Oct 1872 - Tisbury Station - Defficient in cash and made overcharges on parcels and kept the money.[14]

4. G.T. Cooksey - Dec 1876 - Surbiton Station - Improperly cashed cheques for a party having no business in connection with the company.[15]

5. J. Brownston - June 1878 - Aldershot Goods Station - Concerned with the destruction of books.[16]

6. F. Burt - Aug 1880 - Walton Station - Short in Cash and Absconded (to be prosecuted when captured.).[17]

7. J. Benbow - Aug 1881 - Timber Yard, Nine Elms - Irregularities in reciept from timber contractors.[18]

8. E. Agnew - April 1886 - Waterloo Station - Embezzlement (£28.15s.0d).[19]

What is interesting is that in only one case, that of F.Burt, was there any mention of criminal proceedings being brought against an ex-clerk. Furthermore, if I take into consideration the 38 other cases of dismissal, this remains the only one where the possibility of criminal proceedings was mentioned, even when the sums of money lost through error was huge. Of course, I have no evidence that in criminal action wasn't brought on these occasions, and that might just be an omission from the staff record books. However, although more study needs to be done, the fact that it is rarely mentioned does (tentatively) suggest that the company very much saw discipline as an internal matter and not concerning outside authorities except in exceptional circumstances.

Indeed, given the prestige attached to clerical work on the railways, the potential benefits that a career could bring, the sense of railway employment making you part of a unique 'family' and the fact that dismissal could mean destitution for many, it is highly possible that by the 1860s there was a sense that the L&SWR punished their own in the ways they saw fit and that its systems of punishment were all that was required in the majority of cases. Additionally, this would juxtapose well against the fact that the L&SWR (as well as other companies) in this period were also looking after their staff in increasingly diverse ways through the introduction of pension schemes, health checks and staff training. Thus, framed in these terms, there is the possibility that from the 1860s the railways may have been developing into self-contained communities that had their own social rules and where, increasingly, paternalism over and punishment of employees was seen as primarily the job of the company and not the state. Yet, to confirm this theory will require more research.

I would love to do more work on the topic of railway company discipline. However, I do not have the time. Yet from this evidence it is clear that most of 46 clerical or salaried staff members were simply dismissed for infringing the very strict rules of the Victorian railway workplace, whereas those who were dismissed because they knowingly wanted to steal from the railway was small. Hopefully, if I do get the time, I can expand my sample to include all the L&SWR clerks, but that would be a massive task.

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

[1] South Western Circle Collection [SWC], 1884 L&SWR Rule Book, Rule 15, Page 10

[2] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 411/492, Clerical staff character book No. 2, 1838 – 1919, p.773

[3] TNA, RAIL 411/491, Clerical staff character book No. 1, 1838 - 1877, p.49

[4] TNA, RAIL 411/491, Clerical staff character book No. 1, 1838 - 1877, p.83

[5] TNA, RAIL 411/492, Clerical staff character book No. 2, 1838 – 1919, p.906

[6] TNA, RAIL 411/492, Clerical staff character book No. 2, 1838 – 1919, p.54

[7] TNA, RAIL 411/491, Clerical staff character book No. 1, 1838 - 1877, p.31

[8] TNA, RAIL 411/492, Clerical staff character book No. 2, 1838 – 1919, p.965

[9] TNA, RAIL 411/491, Clerical staff character book No. 1, 1838 - 1877, p.39

[10] TNA, RAIL 411/491, Clerical staff character book No. 1, 1838 - 1877, p.688

[11] TNA, RAIL 411/492, Clerical staff character book No. 2, 1838 – 1919, p.129

[12] TNA, RAIL 411/491, Clerical staff character book No. 1, 1838 - 1877, p.101

[13] TNA, RAIL 411/491, Clerical staff character book No. 1, 1838 - 1877, p.46

[14] TNA, RAIL 411/491, Clerical staff character book No. 1, 1838 - 1877, p.588

[15] TNA, RAIL 411/491, Clerical staff character book No. 1, 1838 - 1877, p.57

[16] TNA, RAIL 411/492, Clerical staff character book No. 2, 1838 – 1919, p.964

[17] TNA, RAIL 411/492, Clerical staff character book No. 2, 1838 – 1919, p.876

[18] TNA, RAIL 411/492, Clerical staff character book No. 2, 1838 – 1919, p.818

[19] TNA, RAIL 411/492, Clerical staff character book No. 2, 1838 – 1919, p.906