Regency Rails - Georgian, Williamine & Early Victorian Railways

[Northroader]

Trouble was that some were produced in instalments, a chapter at a time, in the form of a soap opera. Consequently he felt the need to fill each instalment up with rather more words than were really needed. If they’d appeared initially as books and had careful editing, they wouldn’t be such heavy going in places. Still, I enjoy the stories and the characters, as well as the picture of living conditions at the time. Mr. Carker is the baddie in Dombey and Son, even if you feel Dombey only had himself to blame and it was a well deserved come uppance.

Edited March 13, 2020 by Northroader

[whart57]

2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

But such was life in the early Nineteenth Century.  Those plush yellow First Class coaches would not initially have attracted the very upper echelons of Society.  The idea of taking a seat in a compartment with strangers, people to whom one had not been introduced, just because they could afford a First Class ticket! 

 

 

 

First class on the railways was the equivalent of an inside seat on a stage coach. Those who could afford to keep and run their own carriages would not choose to travel with the hoi polloi on a stage coach. Some railways in the 1830s had mail coaches, with fares higher than first class, this reflecting that on the turnpikes the Royal Mail coaches were a cut above the ordinary stage coaches.

 

Second class was the equivalent of an outside seat on a stage coach, not surprising then that the first second class coaches were open.

 

Incidentally the idea that if someone could afford a First Class ticket meant their fides were bona  lasted until the twentieth century on the cross channel ferries. Until Edwardian times possession of a First Class ticket for the London boat train spared someone the indignity of passport checks. The penny finally dropped that government agents and criminal bosses were probably the people best able to afford the SECR's eye-watering first class fares.

[Hroth]

21 minutes ago, Northroader said:

Consequently he felt the need to fill each instalment up with rather more words than were really needed.

 

Ruddy partworks!

Of course, Mr D started his writing career as a penny-a-line journalist, so logorreah would come naturally to him...

 

 

 

[Regularity]

35 minutes ago, Northroader said:

Trouble was that some were produced in instalments, a chapter at a time, in the form of a soap opera. Consequently he felt the need to fill each instalment up with rather more words than were really needed.

He was also paid by the word...

[runs as required]

Bernard Shaw would famously apologise "I'm sorry I've not had time to shorten this"

[Welchester]

32 minutes ago, whart57 said:

Incidentally the idea that if someone could afford a First Class ticket meant their fides were bona  lasted until the twentieth century on the cross channel ferries. Until Edwardian times possession of a First Class ticket for the London boat train spared someone the indignity of passport checks. The penny finally dropped that government agents and criminal bosses were probably the people best able to afford the SECR's eye-watering first class fares.

 

Not to mention high class tarts.

[Caley Jim]

3 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Taking the advice of the Chief Medical Officer, I've decided to refuse to speak to anyone unless they present a letter of introduction ...

Presumably signed by both parents!   

3 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Apparently the Duke of Wellington, who, with his entourage, had his own 8-wheel railway carriage for the opening of the Liverpool & Manchester, eschewed railway travel for the next 13 years until tempted aboard by the young Queen.  When he did travel by rail, he was an inveterate traveller in his own coach, the socially icy Duke cleaving to the practice long after most aristocrats had thawed sufficiently to travel inside railway carriages.

The Duke of Sutherland went one (or perhaps two) better.  He not only had his own saloon carriage, but also his own locomotive and his own station for Dunrobin Castle.  I suppose since he largely financed that section of the Further North Line he was perfectly entitled to provide himself with the latter!

 

Jim

[Caley Jim]

42 minutes ago, Bishop of Welchester said:

 

Not to mention high class tarts.

Would these be custard tarts or fruit tarts? 

 

Jim

[cctransuk]

5 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

Would these be custard tarts or fruit tarts? 

 

Jim

 

Exclusively those made by the Queen of Hearts - secure inside travel only, as we all know about the proclivities of the Knave of Hearts!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, whart57 said:

 

First class on the railways was the equivalent of an inside seat on a stage coach. Those who could afford to keep and run their own carriages would not choose to travel with the hoi polloi on a stage coach. Some railways in the 1830s had mail coaches, with fares higher than first class, this reflecting that on the turnpikes the Royal Mail coaches were a cut above the ordinary stage coaches.

 

Second class was the equivalent of an outside seat on a stage coach, not surprising then that the first second class coaches were open.

 

 

 

Yes, that is the precise analogy, hence the oddness of a private coach for those not embarking their private coaches. Also, this explains why at first it was assumed that second class would not require  roof.  Again, consistent with the classes of stagecoach traveller, it can been seen how well to do and respectable the occupants of the second class open coaches are.

[whart57]

One of the problems with travel by rail for the richest was that you couldn't summon a servant. Trains would not pull over and allow the carriage carrying the servants to catch up so your good lady could summon her maid. So from the 1850s on railway companies started building "family saloons" for hire. These would be a first class saloon with a neighbouring second class compartment with a connecting door.

[Edwardian]

37 minutes ago, whart57 said:

One of the problems with travel by rail for the richest was that you couldn't summon a servant. 

 

You could book a Special, or have a private station (or private waiting room or request stop privilege at a public one).

[Caley Jim]

The Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway found that members of all social classes were happy to travel in the cheaper second class carriages, which, although they had roofs, had wooden seats with no upholstery and no glass in the windows.   It was even said that Magistrates were happy to travel in the seat-less 'stand-up' fourth class!

 

Jim

[Caley Jim]

2 hours ago, cctransuk said:

Exclusively those made by the Queen of Hearts - secure inside travel only, as we all know about the proclivities of the Knave of Hearts

I shudder to think what he was going to do with them!

 

Jim

[Nearholmer]

14 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

 It was even said that Magistrates were happy to travel in the seat-less 'stand-up' fourth class!

 Its awfully tempting to drag negative national stereotypes out at times like this.

[Northroader]

19 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

I shudder to think what he was going to do with them!

 

Jim

You’re letting you imagination run away now, Jim.

[Caley Jim]

1 hour ago, Northroader said:

You’re letting you imagination run away now, Jim.

Our Probus Club outing this year includes a visit to Moat Brae House.  (Virus permitting)

 

Jim

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, Caley Jim said:

The Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway found that members of all social classes were happy to travel in the cheaper second class carriages, which, although they had roofs, had wooden seats with no upholstery and no glass in the windows.   It was even said that Magistrates were happy to travel in the seat-less 'stand-up' fourth class!

 

Jim

 

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 Its awfully tempting to drag negative national stereotypes out at times like this.

 

Not national stereotypes, no. I'm sure a look at the books would show more fourth class returns being issued from Edinburgh than from Glasgow. It's rather reminiscent of the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway's reluctance in later years to admit third class to the longer-distance (I hesitate to say faster) trains - they already had enough trouble with those who could well afford to travel first going second.

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

11 hours ago, Northroader said:

Trouble was that some were produced in instalments, a chapter at a time, in the form of a soap opera. Consequently he felt the need to fill each instalment up with rather more words than were really needed. If they’d appeared initially as books and had careful editing, they wouldn’t be such heavy going in places. Still, I enjoy the stories and the characters, as well as the picture of living conditions at the time. Mr. Carker is the baddie in Dombey and Son, even if you feel Dombey only had himself to blame and it was a well deserved come uppance.

 

Yes the demands of serial publication which required a certain number of pages to be filled in each edition of the magazine in which it was published, and the payment by word system meant that a good plot could easily be ruined. The last volume in Trollope's Barchester Chronicles is completely ruined by an sub-plot intrusion concerning the behaviour of a young society woman and her pet artist. Every time I read the Last Chronicle of Barset I invariably just give that section a complete miss.    

[rockershovel]

I’ve always felt that a great problem with Dickens’ work, is that he completely exhausts his talents on his villains and grotesques. Characters like Mr Gradgrind, Wackford Squeers and Miss Havisham spring vividly from the pages. Sidney Carton contributes a phrase to the language. Timothy West’s Josiah Bounderby, Oliver Reed’s menacing Bill Sykes; the creepily comic double-Act of Fagin and the Artful Dodger, translated into a musical...

 

Mr Micawber, Uriah Heep, Mrs Gamp; Mr Bumble the Beadle and his moment in the spotlight, regarding the legal and practical aspects of marital estate; Ebenezer Scrooge, the Circumlocution Office, the endless legal obfuscation of Jarndyce vs Jarndyce. 

 

My good wife has a set of Dickens, the sort of thing which arrives from well-meaning aunts of a certain age. She has read ALL her Austen and Bronte novels, a feat of mental application and endurance I’ve never even aspired to, but Dickens... nope.

 

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

3 hours ago, rockershovel said:

I’ve always felt that a great problem with Dickens’ work, is that he completely exhausts his talents on his villains and grotesques. Characters like Mr Gradgrind, Wackford Squeers and Miss Havisham spring vividly from the pages. Sidney Carton contributes a phrase to the language. Timothy West’s Josiah Bounderby, Oliver Reed’s menacing Bill Sykes; the creepily comic double-Act of Fagin and the Artful Dodger, translated into a musical...

 

Mr Micawber, Uriah Heep, Mrs Gamp; Mr Bumble the Beadle and his moment in the spotlight, regarding the legal and practical aspects of marital estate; Ebenezer Scrooge, the Circumlocution Office, the endless legal obfuscation of Jarndyce vs Jarndyce. 

 

My good wife has a set of Dickens, the sort of thing which arrives from well-meaning aunts of a certain age. She has read ALL her Austen and Bronte novels, a feat of mental application and endurance I’ve never even aspired to, but Dickens... nope.

 

 

I'd agree with that. Certainly David Copperfield and Pip in Great Expectations come across as hapless naïfs. However Martin Chuzzlewit manages some spine as does Nicholas Nickleby. And with some pretty rare exceptions most of his women characters are either vacuous or even more so. The few exceptions are unattainable goddesses or strong willed eccentrics. That probably comes back to his less than stellar personal relationship with his wife, despite all the children they produced. I've never worked out whether it was his haphazard upbringing or the overall Victorian era urge for melodrama.

 

Still the plot lines in all their complexities are still benchmarks for keeping the reader interested. Bleak House is a personal favourite and for clear dusting off of undesirables his treatment of the various schemers in Our Mutual Friend is unmatched. I also find Dombey and Son extremely entertaining.

 

However while I am also Trollope fan I feel his earlier novels are at best left unread and these are deservedly obscure now. I dutifully worked through some of them but certainly his early writing lacks dramatic sense and comes nowhere near the tightness of The Chronicles of Barsetshire, the Palliser series and The Way We Live Now which also stand in contrast to Dickens in the much less melodramatic depiction of the characters. Each author however have his rightly deserved fame.

 

I suppose that we are used to seeing authors' early or apprentice works disappear which colours our perceptions. Jane Austen only completed six novels of which Sense and Sensibility and Northanger Abbey are not especially noteworthy except as an indication of how her writing style developed. The remaining four are works for which any author would be feted. Yet coming back to Dickens The Pickwick Papers is a work of pure genius and yet it is his first. I suspect that Dickens' attested love of the theatre and amateur dramatics tended to sometimes override his common sense when faced with the plot dilemma of falling back on melodrama or not was concerned.

 

      

Edited March 14, 2020 by Malcolm 0-6-0
spelling

[Compound2632]

21 minutes ago, Malcolm 0-6-0 said:

Jane Austen only completed six novels of which Sense and Sensibility and Northanger Abbey are not especially noteworthy except as an indication of how her writing style developed. The remaining four are works for which any author would be feted. 

      

 

All Austen's novels are "early works", given her death at the age of only 41. Who knows how her style might have developed? 

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

14 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

All Austen's novels are "early works", given her death at the age of only 41. Who knows how her style might have developed? 

 

 

Oddly Dickens who dies at age 57 began writing in his early 20s, following on his work as journalist providing parliamentary transcripts so in essence his creative period is around 35 years. Austen died aged 41 however had begun writing at age 11 so that gives her a creative period of approx. 30 years. Further to that she was not constrained by the need to earn a living as was Dickens. So there isn't a huge difference.

 

When he died Dickens' work with its reliance on overly exaggerated characters was becoming obsolete and there was little sign that he was going to modify his style, except that the later novels are darker - perhaps reflecting Dickens' health and family problems. Austen was steadily maturing as a writer and while her final years were beset by increasing illness, plus the onerous task of being the main caregiver for her hypochondriac mother she manages to leave little sign of those problems in her work. Dickens allows the reality of his life to intrude while Austen uses writing to mask it. 

 

Austen had one benefit as a writer that Dickens did not. She wasn't trapped in that writing regime of working for magazines where she was contracted in a system that demanded quantity over quality and tighter to the point story lines. These are the antithesis of good writing. And of course she did not need to rely on her earnings as a writer even though what little she did eventually earn was no doubt welcome. So yes there is every chance that she may well have developed her skill and eye for character if illness had not forestalled that. 

 

Another stylistic feature that helps Austen to stand out is that she was essentially a Georgian and Regency writer which meant that she was not culturally moulded by the hopelessly saccharine writing style that the early Victorian writers like Dickens faced as the priggish attitudes of Prince Albert began to dominate both Queen Victoria and society. The Georgian and Regency period was much more down to earth.

 

Where Dickens would have treated the ethical dilemmas faced by the Bennet family in Pride and Prejudice of finding husbands for five daughters as serious moral lessons, Austen was able to write of them in the far more realistic gentle almost satirical way she was fond of. Or to put it another way, if Dickens had written it, Lydia would have died an early death probably of consumption to make sure that we understood that flagrant abuse of social mores was not to be tolerated, rather than blissfully carrying on in her usual heedless fashion. Certainly the latter is preferable, and more realistic, than the former.

 

Which is to say that both writers are as much products of their times as their their creativity and one cannot properly say who is the best or the most original - I like both.       

[Compound2632]

7 hours ago, Malcolm 0-6-0 said:

Oddly Dickens who dies at age 57 began writing in his early 20s, following on his work as journalist providing parliamentary transcripts so in essence his creative period is around 35 years. Austen died aged 41 however had begun writing at age 11 so that gives her a creative period of approx. 30 years. Further to that she was not constrained by the need to earn a living as was Dickens. So there isn't a huge difference.

 

 

But Austen's period as a commercial novelist was very much shorter - just six years from the publication of Sense and Sensibility to the posthumous publication of Persuasion. The latter does show signs of development towards what might have become her mature style. As to earning a living, perhaps not in an absolute sense but she and her sister and mother were "poor relations" - she certainly welcomed the income; her novels reveal an acute awareness of the value of money! Her elder sister Cassandra died in 1845 by which time Dickens was well into his stride.

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But Austen's period as a commercial novelist was very much shorter - just six years from the publication of Sense and Sensibility to the posthumous publication of Persuasion. 

 

Yes that is correct but most of her published works were actually written before she became commercial - she seemed to tinker with things for years as she built up her confidence. Sense and Sensibility is considered to have originated in an earlier experimental form she used trying to give the impression of two conversations in play which results in an altogether anachronistic contrast rather than a dialogue. Obviously her publisher wanted to see that peculiar dual dialogue form removed and replaced with a plot driven narrative. Personally it is my least favourite - I always have the desire when reading it to strangle the hysterical sister.