The Fixed Game Is On In Canada

So we are now seeing the credit unions raise their variable rate mortgages as well over the past couple of days. This comes as no surprise to me that the push is on for fixed rate mortgages.



The banks make the most profit on fixed rate term mortgages. With today's current bond yield spread, the banks are making a fortune on mortgages. Why offer variables and make.50% spread on my money when i can make three times that on a fixed rate term? Welcome o the profit center of banks. Should we also mention that fixed mortgages carry a penalty of interest rate differential or three months, which ever is greater. The variable mortgages are just a straight three month interest penalty. Now we are in the lowest fixed rate mortgage territory again, which does make sense for some clients to choose that product. We are also in a period of the the lowest prime rate and the US is on record of not increasing prime rate till 2013. So the US announces no rate increase and within two weeks Canadian banks say variable rate mortgages are no longer profitable?



As with all major decision's, get all the information and the help of a full time professional to make the best choice for yourself.

The Lives of Female waiting Room Attendants at London Bridge Station in the 1860s and 70s

Before the 1880s the number employment options for women on Britain's railways were small and they could become charwomen or office cleaners, waiting or refreshment room attendants, carriage lining sewers, polishers or gatekeepers. The limited number of positions available was because most railway companies only employed the wives of injured or deceased railwaymen as an act of charity. Indeed, very few jobs in this period were given to the daughters of railwaymen.

With this in mind, I tried to find the staff records of some female waiting room attendants to discover more about their lives and circumstances. Thus, in my search I came across thirteen that worked at the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway’s (LB&SCR) London Bridge Station in the 1860s and 1870s. It is not certain which waiting room they worked in, as 1872 it was noted that there was a separate ‘ladies waiting room.’ Thus, this implies that men and women were separated when waiting for trains.[1]

The thirteen women were appointed between 1861 and 1878. However, as attendants came and went it has been determined that anywhere between three and six were posted there at any one time. Pay was low and all earned between 10 shillings and £1. Yet, the majority received 18 shillings throughout their employment. This was not a terrible income, but would only have enabled them to have an acceptable, if frugal, standard of living.

From the records it is clear that that the historiography was correct in suggesting that the majority the attendants were the wives of deceased or injured railwaymen. Of the thirteen women, nine were widows. Four of these had been married to Station Masters, one to a head porter, another to a travelling ticket inspector, another to guard, and, lastly, one to a company policeman. The position of one of the widow's husbands is unknown. Only one attendant, Emma Hubbard, acquired her position due to her husband, a ticket inspector, being injured. He was in an accident at New Cross Station.

The positions the husbands held is important as they were seemingly a factor in their widows receiving employment as waiting room attendants. Firstly, all the husbands were working within the company’s Traffic Department, and as the waiting rooms were under its remit, it was only appointing its own employee's wives. Secondly, all the husbands' had high status jobs and suggests that the 'respectability' and 'trustworthiness' of a family was a factor in the women's employment. Widows whose husband's had jobs that were deemed of low respectability, such as porter, platelayer or gatekeeper, were seemingly missing from the list (and others seen in the files). Yet, given that London Bridge Station was one of the LB&SCR’s main stations it may have been that the company prioritised appointing individuals who had ‘respectable’ husbands there, and that elsewhere there was no such distinction. This requires more research

The ages of the attendants on appointment varied. The oldest appointee was Elizabeth Croft who was simply ‘recommended by Mr Hawkins,’ and was 56. The youngest were Ellen Membray, who was the widow of a guard, and Mary Ann Thompson, the widow of a policeman, who were both 28. Seven of the appointees were between the ages of 35 and 45. What this fact implies is uncertain. Were these women appointed to the London Bridge Waiting Rooms because their ages meant that they had more life experience making them more suitable for the work? Or perhaps the management did not employ younger women for fear of the male railway workers being distracted (a concern seen on another railway)? This may even suggest that railway workers were more likely to be killed or die in their middle ages. Ultimately, the answer is uncertain.

The attendants left employment a number of ways. Six resigned. The shortest career belonged to Sarah Ann Adams, the widow of a Station Master at Queen’s Road, who after being appointed in April 1877 resigned her post in November 1878. Indeed, this was after a promotion to Charwoman in May of that year. Three of the individuals, Elizabeth Lanfair, Rachel Vicary and Ellen Reece, all resigned their posts in 1900 and 1901 after twenty-five, twenty-two and twenty-four years respectively. While not having a pension, all received money from the company’s benevolent fund. Vicary's record shows that she received only a third of her working wages, her income dropping from 18 to 6 shillings per week. This equated to £15 12/- per year and was an amount that would have barely paid for her living.

What is striking is that five of the individuals left employment because they were incapacitated, usually after a short period employment. No details are given as to the cause of their ill-health so we can only speculate what occurred. Nevertheless, considering that the wages paid were low, the working hours were long and the fact that their employment periods were short, it may suggest that health issues like malnutrition and fatigue may have played a role. Indeed, the fact that such a high proportion of the women became ‘incapacitated’ shortly after engagement, does support the thesis that the nature of the work was taking its toll.

Lastly, only one individual, Emma Hubbard, was fired. In January 1875 after two and a half years of employment she was discharged for losing £595 from the waiting room.
 

Thus, this small survey reveals that the women of the LB&SCR’s London Bridge Waiting Room staff were typically widowed, had had husbands who were in ‘respectable’ posts, received low wages, had poor working conditions and were very likely to suffer from health problems as a result of their employment. However, the very sad fact is that in a world where men were expected to be the breadwinners, that this employment, which was given merely as charity, was better than the women's alternatives of destitution or even the workhouse.

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

[1] The Lancaster Gazette, and General Advertiser for Lancashire, Westmorland, Yorkshire, &c., Saturday, August 17, 1872, pg. 7

[2] All information taken from: The National Archives, RAIL 414/764-779, London Brighton and South Coast Staff Records, 1861-1901

100 Disciplinary Actions - A Glimpse of Railway Discipline in the 1860s

Although there has been much commentary in the literature on the subject of railway discipline, there has been no quantitative work on the extent to which the railway companies actually employed the three main methods of punishment: fines, demotions and dismissals. Thus, I thought I would review a railway company’s ‘Black Book’ of disciplinary actions to see how frequently each method was used. While there are a number of Black Books have been digitised (by Ancestry.com), I chose one from the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway (LB&SCR) which covers some of 1862 and 1863. Naturally, I couldn’t analyse all the 90-odd pages of entries for a blog post and so I restricted myself to a hundred that were entered between 1^st August and 7^th November 1862.

Fines were clearly the most regularly imposed punishment. However, the amount of money that employees had taken off them for offences varied from six pence to five shillings depending on the seriousness of their infringements.

Clearly, the company imposed the lowest and highest fines infrequently. Only in one case was an employee fined six pence. In August J.H. Ainscough, a Telegraph Clerk at Victoria, was reported for the ‘wrong delivery of a telegraph message.’ At the higher end of the fine spectrum, only three individuals received the maximum fine of five shillings. In October two Porters at Victoria Station, Messrs Ireland and Conherr, were fined this amount for ‘getting drunk and fighting in a public house.’ Evidently, the company’s reputation was at stake and managers weren’t going to tolerate individuals damaging it while off the premises. The third five pound fine was given to W. Lebbage, a signalman at Brighton station. Possibly this was two fines rolled into one as he both ‘neglected his signals and points whereby an engine was thrown off the road’ and had ‘strangers in his box.’ Whether the two offences were related is unknown.

Most of the employees, fifty-nine out of the hundred, received a one shilling fine, possibly suggesting that this was a ‘standard’ rate. The most common offence to incur this, which was imposed in twenty-five cases, was the rather mundane transgression of ‘coming on duty late.’ The other one shilling fines were imposed for a range minor infringements of the rules or neglect of duties. In August at London Bridge Station four porters, named Gutsell, Peel, Pinter and Burns, were all fined for ‘running alongside of trains and catching hold of the doors while trains are running into station contrary to order.’ In September a C. Cartwright was fined for ‘putting a passenger in the wrong part of 10.50 am train on [the] 12th August.’ Later that month a Guard, J. Croft, was fined for ‘Causing detention of luggage that was put out at Forest Hill by mistake instead of at New Wandsworth’ Station.

Higher fines of 2 shillings (6 instances) and 2 shillings 6 pence (10 instances) were given regularly for more serious offences. Eight employees were fined for causing damage to property, whether it was the LB&SCR’s, other railway companies’ or private individuals’. G. Fulman, a Guard at Victoria, was fined 2 shillings 6 pence in October for ‘causing damage to a first class carriage by not seeing to the proper fastening of the door.’ In September T. Hawkings, a Van Foreman at Brighton, was fined 2 shillings for ‘Loading a van too high whereby roof of shed at Redhill was damaged.’ Other fines of these amounts were imposed for individuals, such as signalmen, delaying trains or for operational errors. T. Eldridge, a Guard based at London Bridge, was fined 2 shillings 6 pence in October for ‘shunting his train without signal from the underguard and leaving several passengers behind.’

Only for very serious offences were individuals dismissed and twenty examples were recorded. Two offences were guaranteed to end an employee’s career, being absent without leave (four instances) or being drunk (one instance). Indeed, in three cases, those of Baldstone, Graves and Baker, the two offences were committed at once. The other frequent cause of dismissal was serious neglect of one’s duty. In this period porters occasionally doubled-up as guards. Thus, two porters, W. Balley of Victoria and A. Allen of Balcome, were both dismissed for falling asleep while doing this duty. But not all individuals were asleep when committing transgressions, and J. Bailey, a signalman at Balham, was evidently fully awake when he was fired for playing cards on duty in August. Only in two cases was actual criminal activity involved, the most serious being that of J. Baker, a Porter at London Bridge, who was fired in September for ‘stealing a £5 note from a passenger.’ He was ‘sentenced to a month’s imprisonment with hard labour.’ While Baker was fired for trying to do something surreptitiously, T. Mead, a Porter at Carshalton, clearly wasn’t. In September he was fired for ‘use of filthy language to one of our customers.’

In the entire sample only one individual was demoted. S Brown was a Lampman at Victoria when he was found not to be up to the job. Consequently, in October he was reduced to being a porter and his wages dropped from twenty-six to eighteen shillings a week.

Naturally, this is only a small sample of the disciplinary actions the LB&SCR took during its existence. Indeed, I have only given some basic statistics and highlighted interesting cases. But the LB&SCR wasn’t unusual in punishing their their employee's transgressions of the rule book by these methods. Therefore, a more detailed quantitative study of Victorian railway discipline is required. Issues surrounding how much individuals were fined, the types of offences that employees faced dismissal for, and how these changed over the decades needs to be seriously addressed and analysed.

All taken from: The National Archives: RAIL 414/759, Names, offences, punishments etc, of various members of operating staff (black book), 1862-1863, p.1-11

Variable Rates In Canada

Good Afternoon,



Just a quick note.



The mortgage market is buzzing with the news of various lenders increasing their variable rates. So far RBC and TD have both moved up their variable rates from Prime-.65% to Prime-.45%. We still have a lot of lenders that are offering variable rates from prime-.75-.90%.



This will not affect clients that already have a variable rate mortgage or mortgage approval currently in process.



Those of your clients that are house hunting should be aware.



If you have any questions regarding this please give us a call. To get approved call our office now at 604 536-3802



In other news, Timing is everything: Canadians think it's a good time to buy - and to sell



In this year's survey, Canadians were more likely to say that investment opportunities and market conditions played a factor in their decision to buy another home (both at 21% versus 15% in 2010). The large majority (82%) plan to sell their current home and of those who are selling, four in five expect to sell at or above asking price (78% versus 66% in 2010).



Among those who have purchased a second home and do not plan to sell their previous home, 42% will keep the first home as a rental property. More buyers this year than last indicated that they will stay in their current home and the new home they purchase will be a rental property (32% versus 20% in 2010). Interestingly, there was a big increase this year in the number of buyers who said that rather than selling their current home, a family member will move into it (12% versus 4% in 2010).



"Buyers should keep in mind that if they are expecting to sell above asking price, it's likely they will need to also buy at above asking price," says Haque. "A home is, obviously, a very big purchase - especially if you will not be selling your previous home to put towards the cost. A mortgage expert can walk you through your financing options and show you strategies and products that may save you money and provide flexibility over the course of your mortgage."

Aug. 23, 2011 /CNW/

To Your Success! Jared Dreyer

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





3.39% 5 Year Fixed Mortgage Rate



Prime - 90% (2.10%) 5 Year Variable Rate



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



All rates quoted are on approved credit.







Download Dreyer Group on Your Hand-held



Mortgage Payment Calculator



Income Qualifier



Purchase Finance Calculator



Get an Instant Hold and Quote for Your Client



Access Quick App to get your clients approval going



Blackberry and iPhone compatible.



Simply link here







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

Fare Rises and the Abandonment of the British Railway Passenger

On Tuesday I spent 45 minutes of my morning standing at Waterloo Station handing out cards and supporting the Campaign for Better Transport’s ‘Fair Fares’ campaign. Now, as some of my long-time readers are aware I did raise some concerns about this campaign in a previous post (here). However, those concerns, some of which have diminished, are secondary to the fact that I wholeheartedly support it. I don’t just believe the campaign is important because everyone likes to keep more of their money. I believe it is important because economically it is beneficial that fares are kept within the financial reach of everyone.

This fact was demonstrated to me later on Tuesday when one of my customers at the library, who works with unemployed individuals, stated that for some the fare price was a crucial factor in whether they attended a job interview. Indeed, as the cuts hit, unemployment rises, and inflation goes up, the expected 30% increase in rail fares over the next three years will see increasing numbers of people priced off the railways, with those at the bottom of the income scale being affected the greatest. Consequently this will limit people’s job opportunities, businesses’ access to labour and it may ultimately stunt economic growth.

Most of the politicians will argue that the fares need to go up to pay for necessary improvements to the network. In their minds the increases are especially needed because the government is cutting its subsidy to the railway companies. While there is some truth in these claims, it doesn’t address the fundamental issue that has allowed this situation to occur: that over the last 20 years successive governments progressively abandoned the needs of the travelling public in favour of maintaining a privatised system that simply doesn’t work.

Let us be honest for a moment, railways in this country do not make profit any more. However, their social, environmental and economic benefits are so significant that ultimately it is highly beneficial to the nation to have a railway system that touches so much of the country and for the government to maintain it (directly or indirectly). By the early 1990s the nationalised British Rail was working for nation. While always receiving a subsidy, between 1982 and 1993/4 it made impressive efficiency savings to become one of the most efficient railways in the world (as I have pointed out here). All the while, it continued to provide reasonable fares for passengers and boost the economy. However, since privatisation the government has had to subsidise the train operating companies to keep them in profit. Consequently, the cost of the railways to the taxpayer now is far in excess of what it would have been had the industry not been privatised.

Thus, the predicted 30% increase in fares indicate the thinking of the current government. Because of the persistence of free-market ideologies they believe that keeping private enterprise involved in the railways, when it clearly hasn't worked, is more important than the industry's purpose of serving the country's economy and inhabitants. Furthermore, the recent McNulty report on railway efficiency did not talk about significant alternatives to the the private system. Indeed, no one in government seems willing to shout the truth: "this isn't working any more."

Of course the government did not always have the same attitude. The last time the railways were run by private multi-coloured railway companies was in the 19^th century. The 100+ companies mostly made a profit. Yet, as the industry matured the government still stepped in to protect the country's poorest individuals. Before the 1870s most railways acted in ways that were simply in their shareholder’s interests. For most citizens the cost of travel was high and although the railways’ operated a first, second and third class system, third class accommodation was only really within the price range of lower-middle and upper working-class individuals. Those at the very bottom of the social spectrum were priced off the railway. That is until 1844.

After eight people died in the Sonning Cutting accident of Christmas Eve 1841, the Board of Trade began an enquiry into third class train accommodation. The culmination was the 1844 Regulation of Railways Act. This compelled railway companies that derived a third of their revenue from passengers to provide one train daily which called at all stations, had a minimum speed of 12 miles per hour, used enclosed carriages with seats and, most importantly, cost the traveller not more than 1d per mile. These were nicknamed ‘Parliamentary Trains’ (or ‘Parlys). Reflecting the financial burden of these services for the railway companies, any company meeting the requirements did not pay taxes on the fares.[1] While not ideal, this was the first intervention by government that forced the railway companies to put on accommodation for those who were not financial able to use it prior to that point. Fundamentally, it was an act by law-makers of economic stimulation. But things didn’t stop there.

The building of the railways caused many residential areas of cities demolished. This meant that many factory and industry workers were forced to move further away from the metropolis. To protect these individuals’ incomes and the labour supply of the businesses they worked for, the railway companies were compelled by the acts of parliament authorising their lines to provide cheap trains for the workmen. While some companies had provided ‘workmen’s trains’ in the 1840s, the first compelled to do so by parliament was the Great Eastern Railway in 1864 when it extended to Liverpool Street. The act stated that it was to provide workmen’s trains to London from Edmonton and Walthamstow at a return cost of 2d. Thereafter, and much to the chagrin of railway directors, by 1899 there were 104 workmen’s trains run daily. The only negative point was that the trains were run very early in the morning, returning late at night.[2]

While these two developments are important individually, they show that all governments recognised the economic and social value of the railways to the nation soon after their establishment. Indeed, political affiliation did not seem to be an issue, and the 1844 act was passed by a Tory government, while the 1864 one was passed by a Liberal administration. Furthermore, these laws were followed after 1870 by others that fixed the rates the railways charged traders and improved the railways’ safety. Ultimately, by the First World War governments had realised that the profit motive of the railway companies was a secondary concern to structural integrity of economy they served.

Nevertheless, we live in an age where there has been a reverse of this attitude by successive governments. Despite the extremely high cost of the railways for the taxpayer, the potential for high train fares to damage economic recovery, the national discontent with the privatised system and the fact that privatisation wrecked the world’s most efficient railway, governments since the early 90s have continued to prioritise the ideology that private enterprise is good for the railways over the benefits that the industry provides to the nation. Thus, the predicted 30% fare increases over the next three years are the starkest evidence of this. It is the wrong attitude for a loss-making, but nationally beneficial industry.

So I say this: Fare Fares Now…Bring Back British Rail ASAP

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

[1] Simmons, Jack, 'Parliamentary Trains,' The Oxford Companion To British Railway History, (Oxford, 1997), p.369

[2] Simmons, 'Workmen's Trains,' The Oxford Companion To British Railway History, p.568

Canadian Mortgage Rates Hitting All Time Lows

Rates Have Dropped Again! Holding Your Rate Is Easy





Just a quick note to let you know the 5 Year Fixed Rate has dropped again to an all time low of 3.39% !



In addition, the 5 Year Variable Rate is at an incredible low rate of 2.10%



To Hold Either of these low rates, please email jared@dreyergroup.ca or call our office directly and book with one of our in-house underwriters at 604 536-3802



Please be sure to include your name and all contact information.



It's Easy and you will be covered for up to 120 days!





Warm Regards,



Jared Dreyer

Your Mortgage Professional

604 649-5991

www.dreyergroup.ca

jared@dreyergroup.ca



All rates listed are current as at August 17, 2010 and are subject to change. Some conditions apply.



________________________________________

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









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!





Top 10 Mortgage Broker Team in Canada





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

One Railway's Fight Against Trams...With No Money

A few months I wrote about how the railways’ profitability in the late 19^th century came under threat from trams (HERE). One of those most affected in the years after 1901 was the London and South Western Railway (L&SWR), for whom suburban traffic made up a considerable part of their income. In that year London United Tramways (LUT) began services between Hammersmith and Kew Bridge, Shepherds Bush and Kew Bridge, (via Chiswick) Shepherd’s Bush and Acton, and to Brentford and Hounslow. Twickenham was connected in 1902, with Hampton Court reached the year after. By 1906 Kingston, Surbiton, New Malden and Wimbledon also had trams.[1] Being clean, modern and able to pick up and drop off individuals from much more convenient locations than trains, trams were an instant success and in 1902 took 64% of the L&SWR’s receipts from passengers to Hounslow. [2]

Previously, I wrote about how ultimately the threat to the company’s profitability was countered through the adoption of electric traction (HERE). Yet, before this decision was made the L&SWR attempted a number of other solutions to counter the threat. This was because a large project such as electrification of the company’s suburban lines would consume large amounts of capital. However, at the time the L&SWR was already undertaking large capital projects such as the widening of its main lines, the rebuilding of Waterloo Station and the relocation of its locomotive works to Eastleigh, and thus an extra project would increase an already heavy burden on the company's capital supplies. Thus, it had to find other ways to attract traffic back to the railway. Yet, the solutions that its General Manager, Charles Owens, came up with were piecemeal, simply adapting existing operational structures and practices to the new trading environment. Thus they did not have the desired of effect of drawing passengers back to the railway.

The first move that Owens made was to improve the carriage stock on the suburban routes through the introduction of ‘bogie’ carriages in ‘block sets.’ By 1900 six-wheeled carriages were being used on most suburban routes in sets, however, some of these dated back to 1879. Thus, modernisation was required. In 1900 and 1901 the Locomotive Committee agreed to replace some old sets with new designs. However, these still had six-fixed wheels and were not really an advance in design. [3] But with the new threat developing the mind-set of the committee changed, and at the May 1902 it authorised the construction of thirty-two higher-quality bogie carriages[4] that were eventually were formed into eight four-car block trains. Consequently, between 1902 and September 1912 145 of these sets were built.[5] Evidently, the switch to bogie vehicles was an attempt to upgrade the quality of the company’s suburban carriage stock and attract passengers back to the railway. However, while the new carriages made massive improvement in the suburban rolling stock, it did not halt the haemorrhaging of passengers as the upgrades simply brought the rolling stock’s quality up to a level that was already expected by the travelling public.

The second move that the company made was to introduce steam railmotors. These were a locomotive and a carriage combined into one unit and the L&SWR produced seventeen between April 1903 and June 1906. The first two were built for the company’s joint Fratton and Southsea branch with the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway, and were introduced in direct response to a threat there from trams. While most texts attribute the initiative to the Locomotive Superintendent, Dugald Drummond, the Railway Magazine stated that Owens was responsible. Indeed, once deemed a success on the Fratton and Southsea branch more railmotors were built. While the L&SWR used them extensively used on small branches throughout the country, a number were placed on services between Twickenham and Gunnersbury, right in the company’s competed territory. However, with limited capacity, the regularly with which regular maintenance was required[6] and their uneconomical nature, the railmotors were not a success and were withdrawn in 1916 and 1919. [7]

Thirdly, Owens tried, in vein, to negotiate with the LUT. In 1904 the LUT had a bill in Parliament that would extend its services to Staines. Naturally, the L&SWR lodged an objection to this. In the wake of this Owens managed to negotiate a deal with the LUT. For three years the L&SWR would agree to drop its opposition to the Staines extension if the tram company agreed to not promote further routes in the L&SWR’s territory. Additionally, the Staines project was only allowed with the L&SWR’s consent. [8] However, this negotiation was too late, and the LUT’s bills of 1902 had already pushed its network deep into the L&SWR’s.

Lastly, the L&SWR attempted to win back traffic by a very old method, the manipulation of fares. In the June 1911 edition of Railway Magazine Owens suggested that the way to claw back inner-suburban traffic was to reduce the cost of season tickets and that this process was already under way.[9] How successful this was, and whether there was any further manipulation of ticket prices, is unknown.

Therefore, hamstrung by a lack of capital resources, Owens’ attempts to mitigate the effect of trams on the company’s passenger business were all unsuccessful. By February 1913 the company was still losing £100,000 and 1 million passengers per year.[10] His answers to the threat all had their genesis in practices and procedures that could be found in the railways before 1900. The response that worked, and which had been on the cards for some time, was electrification which begun in 1913. However, this was only possible after the L&SWR had finished its major capital projects, such as the building of the Eastleigh works, and slowed the progress of others including the rebuilding of Waterloo.

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

[1] Chivers, Colin, The Riverside Electric: LSWR Electrification 1912-1922 – South Western Circle Monograph No. 5, (Unknown, 2010), p.2-8

[2] Faulkner, J.N and Williams, R.A., The LSWR in the Twentieth Century, (Newton Abbot, 1988), p.101

[3] Weddell, G.R., L.S.W.R. Carriages: Volume One 1838-1900, (Didcot, 1992), p.209-244 and Weddell, G.R., L.S.W.R. Carriages in the 20^th Century, (Oxford, 2001), p.130

[4] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 411/192, Locomotive Committee Minute Book, Minute 931, 14^th May 1902

[5] Weddell, G.R., L.S.W.R. Carriages in the Twentieth Century, (Oxford, 2001), p.16

[6] Casserley, H.C., London & South Western Locomotives, (Shepperton, 1971), p.137-138

[7] Weddell, L.S.W.R. Carriages in the Twentieth Century, p.89

[8] Chivers, The Riverside Electric, p.8-9

[9] Railway Magazine, June 1911, p.456

[10] Faulkner and Williams, The LSWR in the Twentieth Century, p.101