Pre-beeching density of railways

[Junctionmad]

I find it fascinating how the railways sustained such high levels of employment at their greatest extent. Even modest country stations had a significant staff, at least one fully manned signal box and clerks dealing with goods traffic separately. Nowadays it seems we struggle with single-manned trains, unstaffed stations and centralised signalling. What is the difference today? Is it the drive for higher profits/returns to shareholders, a greater disparity between those Jobs For The Boys at the top and, well just about everyone else, or a greater "investment" in middle management, IT technicians (though I'm sure that layers of bureaucracy have always been with us - after all it's what we bequeathed to Indian Railways, the largest employer on Earth)?

 

From what I understand, receipts (passenger fares and goods charges) were comparable in real terms and there wasn't the "state aid" that subsidised the modern railway.when first privatised.

Real labour rates on 19th. Century railways were comparatively low, yet by the first war , railways were largely financial basket cases. ( with perhaps the noticeable exception of the gwr) ,

 

The railways were caught in a death spiral, rising labour costs , an inefficient traction system , common carrier rates and from 1900 onwards road competition. Hence the trend to rid itself of labour , that accelerated rapidly under nationalistion largely of course because losses began to mount uncontrollably. Also freight was the key to railways profitability not passsgners ( with the exception of dense commuter services ) but rail freight was inefficient, labour intensive and uncompetitive.

 

The end result wasn't hard to see, Nationalised industries had access to capital that no private company had , ( not politically sensitive) but equally had huge sensitivities to mounting annualised losses. (Very politically sensitive)

 

Hence the removal of unskilled and semi skilled labour in all its forms and the resultant struggle to retain a customer facing attitude ( that actually requires " people")

 

It's not true that costs are comparable , today road freight ton/km is lower comparatively then any time in recent historiy, sea freight rates are so low that only super carriers are surviving. Passenger travel is cheaper then ever ( rail travel of any distance in any regular way was always the preserve till recently of the modestly wealthy. )

 

The same phenoneoum was repeated in all labour intensive business , mining , steel , etc etc. From the 70s the rise of " services" began to offer some alternative for un or semi skilled , though largely at poorer rates of pay and significantly more job insecurity.. the next phase of devaluing labour is about to hit us , ie robotisation , which is likely to produce an even more severe societal effect, rendering many millions not just unemployed , but unemployable

 

Note that it's not down to simplistic issues like H&S or costlier rolling stock, today rolling stock is comparatively cheap, often when sourced from lower cost ecomonies

Edited October 9, 2017 by Junctionmad

[Old Gringo]

Returning to the question posted by Deonyi yesterday, "Is there any BR pre-Beeching map of the entire railway network anywhere?" and the Handbook of Stations, etc.

 

Although it would appear that a good range of maps and atlases have already been suggested, I would like to add a few numbers to the debate and add a couple of alternatives to the list of maps and atlases.

 

The railway network in the British Isles is probably the best served in the World (i) and there are many maps available of the network from inception around 1830 to the peak year of 1926.  Various sources suggest figures in excess of 20,250 (i) route miles for England, Scotland and Wales and well over 3,500 miles (ii) for Ireland, and a total track mileage well in excess of 50,000 miles.

 

However, how many thousands of miles of privately-owned industrial railways there have been on these islands is (afaik) unknown, but I would hazard a guess at a minimum of at the least 25,000 miles, as they crop up so frequently on Ordnance Survey Maps (iii).

 

And here's the rub, although railway enthusiasts and historians have been spoiled with a plethora of railway maps and atlases, few have been related to, or use the Ordnance Survey's 'professional' scales. Although there are many early railway maps, including Bradshaws, most maps showing the Pre-(1923)-Grouping railway companies are based on the data from the RCH series of maps scaled at 2.25 or 7.5 miles to the imperial Inch.

 

The RCH 'Official' Railway Maps were those prepared and published for the Railway Clearing House (1842 - 1963), which not only show the pre-or-post grouping railway companies, but also the major industrial railways feeding into the network.  All the district and junction RCH maps have the distances between stations and depots marked in miles and chains, so that the clerks could work out rates and charges [e.g. between Abattoir Co.'s siding, Yorkshire and Ystrad, South Junction, Glamorgan: the first and last entries in the RCH Handbook of 1904, reprinted by David & Charles, 1970 (iv)].

 

Over the years Ian Allan has reprinted several of the RCH maps and in post 4, Theheretic recommends the British Railways Pre-Grouping Atlas and Gazetteer: first published in 1958 and running to at least five editions.  My well-used copy is a fifth edition from 1976: a handy, ring-bound, 10" x 7" volume, with maps at a scale of approximately 8 miles to the inch.  It is based upon the RCH, England & Wales small edition (1922?) and Scotland map of similar date, with six of the regional district editions also included (of London and the most industrialised areas).  I still find it one of the best buys of the last forty years! Theheretic also recommends the Maps available on-line from the National Library of Scotland, another superb and free resource.

 

RCH maps (v) provided the basis for the books by Alan Jowett'; 'Jowett's Railway Atlas of Great Britain & Ireland', [first published in 1989 by Patrick Stephens Ltd.], being the most well-known and IMO the best book of its type.  Although Alan superimposed the National Grid over his artworks, he didn't use a consistent O/S scale and therefore it's difficult to give a grid reference and refer back to an Ordnance Survey map to get an idea where the railway exactly was.  Otherwise the book is very well produced and a mine of useful information, with tunnels, viaducts and engine sheds included. Highly recommended.

 

A different approach was being taken by Colonel Michael Cobb (1916-2010) in a volume which IMO is the Rolls-Royce of Railway Maps: 'The Railways of Great Britain, An Historical Atlas'.   The two volumes are contained in a slip case and were first published in 2003, by Ian Allan.  These maps are the result of Cobb's 30-year quest to combine historical data of the railways onto the underlying Ordnance Survey information into a series of maps - all of which were produced to a consistent  O/S Scale (One inch to One mile, the precursor to the current 1:50,000 series).

 

This results in maps which can be compared to the underlying geography and also contain all the data (e.g ownership and opening and closure dates) of all the railways that have operated during the last 200 years.  Plus, you can trace the industrial connections to every colliery, canal basin and factory.

 

IMO, it is the most useful volume ever produced for anyone interested in railway history, but it comes with a couple of proviso's:  It's very expensive and suffers from not being either split into three books, or given a ring binding, or both production remedies, as the binding of the England and Wales volume is susceptible to disintegrate from excessive stress.  Also IMO, it is a shame that Michael Cobb used a set of 1970  'Ordnance Survey One-inch'  editions as the base undermap, rather than perhaps a 1960 set .  And finally, what a shame it  doesn't include the railway network of Ireland, which for 90 years of development was part of the total railway investment and subsequent network.

 

Although you can do so much of this on the internet now with RailMaps (see post 3), it's so much better and lots more fun to look at a book!

 

Hope some of this was interesting and proved useful!

 

All the best,

John.    

 

 

(i) The Oxford Companion to British Railway History, O.U.Press, 1997, says, "Railway maps in G.B. reflect its position as the best mapped country in the World", p312 and suggests a maximum of 20,267 route miles, p497.

(ii) The Railway Year Book of 1919 has a figure of 23,718 for the total route mileage of the railways of the British Isles.

(iii)  Alan Godfrey reprints of early maps are a good starting point for industrial studies.

(iv) The RCH Handbook was produced from 1867 to 1956 and contains information on every station and goods depot, services available, crane sizes, etc.

(v)  Begun by Zachary Macaulay in 1851, these were expanded and improved by John Airey to cover the whole of the British Isles and the business was purchased by the RCH in 1895.  Sets are held in the Brunel University and P.R.O. at Kew and single maps appear occasionally at Book-fairs and Auctions.

[The Stationmaster]

Real labour rates on 19th. Century railways were comparatively low, yet by the first war , railways were largely financial basket cases. ( with perhaps the noticeable exception of the gwr) ,

 

The railways were caught in a death spiral, rising labour costs , an inefficient traction system , common carrier rates and from 1900 onwards road competition. Hence the trend to rid itself of labour , that accelerated rapidly under nationalistion largely of course because losses began to mount uncontrollably. Also freight was the key to railways profitability not passsgners ( with the exception of dense commuter services ) but rail freight was inefficient, labour intensive and uncompetitive.

 

The end result wasn't hard to see, Nationalised industries had access to capital that no private company had , ( not politically sensitive) but equally had huge sensitivities to mounting annualised losses. (Very politically sensitive)

 

Hence the removal of unskilled and semi skilled labour in all its forms and the resultant struggle to retain a customer facing attitude ( that actually requires " people")

 

It's not true that costs are comparable , today road freight ton/km is lower comparatively then any time in recent historiy, sea freight rates are so low that only super carriers are surviving. Passenger travel is cheaper then ever ( rail travel of any distance in any regular way was always the preserve till recently of the modestly wealthy. )

 

The same phenoneoum was repeated in all labour intensive business , mining , steel , etc etc. From the 70s the rise of " services" began to offer some alternative for un or semi skilled , though largely at poorer rates of pay and significantly more job insecurity.. the next phase of devaluing labour is about to hit us , ie robotisation , which is likely to produce an even more severe societal effect, rendering many millions not just unemployed , but unemployable

 

Note that it's not down to simplistic issues like H&S or costlier rolling stock, today rolling stock is comparatively cheap, often when sourced from lower cost ecomonies

 

For many years the basic rate of pay for a porter was fixed by reference to the standard wage (in so far as there was one) for an agricultural labourer, plus 10/- (per week).  And most other rates then went on from that, pretty low, starting point

[The Stationmaster]

One thing I would add to John ('old Gringo's post) is the GWR atlas produced by Tony Cooke and his excellent series of 'Track Layouts of the GWR/BR WR' books with the latter in particular showing and dating the changes which have taken place over the years and drawn to scale with chainages marked (although you can't readily correlate them to OS maps but it's a bit easier with the atlas).

[Mike Storey]

I find it fascinating how the railways sustained such high levels of employment at their greatest extent.  Even modest country stations had a significant staff, at least one fully manned signal box and clerks dealing with goods traffic separately.  Nowadays it seems we struggle with single-manned trains, unstaffed stations and centralised signalling.  What is the difference today?  Is it the drive for higher profits/returns to shareholders, a greater disparity between those Jobs For The Boys at the top and, well just about everyone else, or a greater "investment" in middle management, IT technicians (though I'm sure that layers of bureaucracy have always been with us - after all it's what we bequeathed to Indian Railways, the largest employer on Earth)?

 

From what I understand, receipts (passenger fares and goods charges) were comparable in real terms and there wasn't the "state aid" that subsidised the modern railway.when first privatised.

 

Not sure I have completely understood what you are trying to say, but.....

 

On the transition from BR to privatisation, the massive rise in subsidy rendered necessary after a few years was not about efficiency issues, but about the scandalous reduction in capital investment, largely renewals as well as new works, and even of maintenance budgets by the Treasury, in the last decade of BR's existence. I was part of that transition team and our explanations fell on deaf ears with the politicos. BR was "deeply inefficient" according to John Major, and we were not going to change that message. The TOCs, and to a lesser extent the ROSCO's. found that out pretty quickly and that their short term quick-win business plans were pretty well shot (but the steep, even now unexplained, rise in passenger numbers saved them), but Railtrack took much longer to understand the mess they had bought into, hence their ultimate demise.

 

The key difference between "then" (pre-Beeching) and "now" is freight. Almost every wayside halt had a decent element of parcels and goods inwards or despatch (or both) which was labour intensive, even well into BR days. When I started in BR (1970's), we still had goods clerks (many fewer than before admittedly) who had innumerable forms to complete, for numbertaking, consignment notes, goods received, held, forwarded, delivered and so on. Continental freight was even more complex (which I had to learn in detail in my first job). This was on top of actually shunting the wagons, from or for the daily trip, arranging or doing unloading, cleaning out, reporting, requesting and despatching, billing, collecting, receipting and accounting, as well as loading and the reverse paperwork, if you had that traffic. That was at each individual station that serviced such business. Passenger work in the ticket office was more intense than now, given the archaic but effective ticketing system and accounting, but has changed far less relatively.

 

That goods and then parcels quickly dropped and then disappeared from almost all locations, explains the rapid drop in staff for that side of railway operations. All the Big 4 companies, bar the SR, only made profits from freight and made consistent losses on passenger operations. State Subsidy was inherent, despite the revisionist rose tint of many these days, through indirect capital tax write-offs and infrastructure grants under other names. That is why the Attlee government was able to "purchase" the assets of the Big 4 at nationalisation, at such a cheap deal, although there is a good argument that government never properly refunded the companies for their wartime losses (as was also the case in WW1). But the loss of freight and parcels, the only justifiable existence for so many branch lines, was their deathknell, and not Marples/Beeching alone. Such closures started in the 1930's and accelerated in the 1950's, well before them. The advent of computerisation, in freight (TOPS) and in passenger ticketing (APTIS/POTIS and its successors) then explains the rest of the staff reductions, but could have, ironically, allowed costs to be cut sufficiently for the retention of at least some of the lost business, had the technology been available earlier, in conjunction with reduced train crew (via dieselisation or electrification) and less labour-intensive signalling and track maintenance. BR did attempt to show the possibilities in the late 1950's and early 1960's with DMU's and some innovative signalling changes on a number of branch lines, but the dye was cast, and indeed BR officials under Beeching were deemed as guilty of fiddling the figures to justify closures as Marples.  Railways were deemed old fashioned in the public's mindset, and were not a vote winner at that time.

 

As a contrast, if you think the density of Britain's railway system has shrunk far too much, take a look at France. It is reducing further even now, mainly due to pxxx-poor management, despite the LGV lines which only serve major conurbations in reality. There is a growing mood here to privatise SNCF, something unheard of just a few years ago.

 

Things are different in Britain now, but for how long?

[Deonyi]

Thank you all for your helpful posts; they are most appreciated. I shall make sure to look into the books referenced by other members here, as they seem like they would be what I am looking for. Of course, I agree that Beeching probably has been blamed too much for the closures which probably were necessary at the time. Similar things happened here in Victoria during the 20th century, when miles and miles of track and stations were closed, including a number of inner-city Melbourne lines. I suppose it really does shew the era was that of the motor car.

Edited October 10, 2017 by Deonyi

[Guy Rixon]

I think you are blaming the wrong bloke. Most of the closures were pre Beeching, Ashburton, Princetown, Kingham, MSWJR etc on the WR just the main lines were really Beeching, GCR, Waverley, MR Manchester Millers Dale etc.

Marples did far more closures of the branches we loved. 

 

 

Yes, but Beeching, on 5-year secondment from ICI to serve as chair of the BR board, was effectively working for Marples (Minister for Transport) as a consultant. Some of the branch-line cuts were implemented after Beeching returned to ICI, but according to his first report. Apparently, the peak closures of branch lines, in terms of route miles per year, was in 1965, while Beeching was still in post.

[Old Gringo]

Thank you all for your helpful posts; they are most appreciated. I shall make sure to look into the books referenced by other members here, as they seem like they would be what I am looking for. Of course, I agree that Beeching probably has been blamed too much for the closures which probably were necessary at the time. Similar things happened here in Victoria during the 20th century, when miles and miles of track and stations were closed, including a number of inner-city Melbourne lines. I suppose it really does shew the era was that of the motor car.

 

Apologies for my over-long post last night, which attempted provide some alternatives, following on from the previous answers and also add a little background to the history of railway maps.

 

However, it's back to school for me, as it does help to answer a question, if you read it properly and Deonyi asked,

 

"Is there any BR pre-Beeching map of the entire railway network anywhere?  I thought the Handbook of Stations might have had one but it seems not".

 

And the simple answer is - there are several comprehensive Single-sheet maps, which cover the entire railway network, pre-Beeching.

 

Here's a few examples: 

 

A British Railways system map as at Nationalisation.  Published by British Railways in 1948 and printed by W.&K. Johnston Ltd.  Size 24" x 15", Scale approximately 1:2,000,000 (57 miles to 2 inches).

 

This is a beautiful map containing all the lines in England, Wales & Scotland, with a portion of Ireland (split North to South, from Londonderry to Waterford).  White land areas are set in a pale blue sea, with red railways in E.W. & S. and black railway lines in Ireland.

 

It folds out from the back of the 'British Railways Holiday Guide' 1949 edition - Western Region.  One of a series of paperback books (5.5" x 8.5") priced at One Shilling and containing information on the areas served by the region (in this case the ex-GWR including the Channel Islands and running to 572 pages!).

 

This series of books was published throughout the 1950s and had been 're-organised' certainly by 1952 into five regional volumes, all around 250 pages.  The 1952 Holiday Guide for Area 1: Scotland has a similar British Railways system fold-out map at the back.

 

However, the map is now published by the Railway Executive, 1950, printed on cheaper paper by a firm in Nottingham and the design reduced to a grey sea but still with red railways in E.W. & S.! Same size, same scale, not so attractive, but just as useful for viewing the whole network on one sheet of paper.

 

This version of British Railways network map does turn up as a single sheet at book-fairs and I have a later reprint dated 1958; this time published by British Transport Commission, Ref: BR 86601.  It is almost the same as the 1950 edition, with E.W. & S, plus 50% of Ireland and similar colours, but just a few routes are now missing in the Scottish borders, the Highlands and no doubt obscure places in England and Wales, if I spent a couple of hours looking!

 

The flip-side of this BR 86601 edition has a full map of Scotland, but with no scale bar.  Perhaps, it was printed for handing out in the Scottish region?

 

This 24" x 15" system map was redesigned and reprinted again in 1960 by the British Transport Commission, with a new ref: P/60.  Printed in Great Britain by Waterlow & Sons Ltd.  There is a change in presentation with straight lines for the railway routes between stations.  The diagram is presented on a greenish land set in a bright blue sea, with brown railways.  The same section of Ireland appears on the left, however Northern Ireland has the same ground colour as E.W. & S.  A few more railways have disappeared, most obvious is the Midland & Great Northern system closed in 1959.

 

Again, it is a single-sheet and was probably a leaflet, or insert to be used with promotional material.

 

All these books and maps are out there at the Book-fairs in Britain and probably, either somewhere on e-bay, or book dealers' sites on the internet.

 

Hope some of this was also interesting and proves useful.

 

All the best,

John.

[andyman7]

I was part of that transition team and our explanations fell on deaf ears with the politicos. BR was "deeply inefficient" according to John Major, and we were not going to change that message. The TOCs, and to a lesser extent the ROSCO's. found that out pretty quickly and that their short term quick-win business plans were pretty well shot (but the steep, even now unexplained, rise in passenger numbers saved them), but Railtrack took much longer to understand the mess they had bought into, hence their ultimate demise.

I have often explained that far from being inefficient, BR was extremely efficient at extracting economies from a grossly underfunded network. Of course, without privatisation, the true scale of the required investment would probably never have been validated, hence the conundrum we have today whereby an extremely complex (and therefore by definition) inefficient control structure does at least provide security of funding; whilst nationalisation would once again seem to be a sure way to put the squeeze on railway funding as it took its place in the queue behind health and education as in the old days when spending was under pressure (as it always is).

[71000]

Obviously, after the Beeching cuts the British rail network has thinned considerably, but before the cuts what was the 'coverage' per se like? I assume most towns would have had one or two railway stations, but for smaller villages was it likely that there would have been a station within ten miles (excluding Scotland)? Looking at old OS maps, it seems to be the case, with Dartmoor being maybe the greatest expanse outside of the northern counties without a railway line, however I'm not too sure. 

 

Also, is there any BR pre-Beeching map of the entire railway network anywhere? I thought the Handbook of Stations might have had one but it seems not.

Deonyi,

What you need is the "British Railways Pre-Grouping Atlas and Gazetteer" Published from time to time by the transport publishing specialists : Ian Allen publishing London. This is the definitive British railways map in book form. It shows all lines constructed up until 1923, so 99% of what covered Britain. Each railway companies lines are shown in a different colour. And pre 1923 there were of course dozens of companies. There being 3 seperate companies just on the Isle of Wight !  The book may be available direct from Ian Allen, or try secondhand specialists such as Bill Hudson who advertise here on RMweb ! 

 

As for Dartmoor there were a number of railways in this area. Probably the most important being the Southern Railway double track mainline from London Waterloo, that passed through Exeter, and Crediton, before climbing up onto the moor via North Tawton to reach Okehampton. From Okehampton it continued via Lydford Blackdown and Tavistock, before dropping down to Bere Alston, Tamerton Folliot, and approached Plymouth from the West via Devonport, and ended up in the Southerns own terminus at Plymouth Friary.  There were also junctions at Okehampton with a secondary line that went across the moor to Halwill Junction. From there there was a branch to Bude, while the secondary line continued to Launceston, Camelford, Wadebridge and Padstow. There was also a Southern branch from Wadebridge to Bodmin, and a freight line up onto Bodmin moor at Wenford. All shown in the gazetteer. The only line not shown in the book, because it opened post 1923, was another line over Dartmoor opened in 1925 between Halwill junction and Torrington on the North Coast. So Dartmoor was pretty well served.

 

Indeed there is increasing talk about re-opening the Southern mainline across Dartmoor, as the ex GWR line around the coast through Teignmouth and Dawlish keeps getting severely damaged and often closed by violent sea wave damage. The last major incident being back in the winter of 2013-4 when the coastal line was closed for a few months.

 

The Duke 71000

[Old Gringo]

As I posted before, the book recommended by Theheretic (in post 3) and now by the Duke, British Railways Pre-Grouping Atlas and Gazetteer, published by Ian Allan, has always been my own first choice to look up any location in England, Wales & Scotland and to trace back its origins.  If you decide to purchase a copy, try to get one with a spiral binding it's so much better to use and with care will last a lifetime.

 

However, if you want to compare, the before and after results of Britain's first 'Corporate Raider', Beeching, then there's nothing better than laying two single sheet maps side by side.  And it's possible to do this with a couple of maps, one of which was reprinted as recently as 2005.

 

The British Rail Passenger Network, as at 4th September 1967, yet another version of B.R. 86601, size 16.5" x 24", published by British Railways Board and printed by George Philip Ltd.  Branded with the 'barbed wire' symbol, and at an approximate scale of 30 miles to One inch, the remaining railways are shown in red on a white ground surrounded by a pink sea.  This network is what was left immediately after Beeching's return to ICI, but still has the Waverley route and several other lines yet to become history! 

 

Stretch out next to it one of the earlier versions from the 1949 Holiday Guide and see what we lost in 20 years, or use the P/60 version for just the span of Beeching and Marples.

 

For a much longer timespan and to appreciate what  has been closed since the railways were at their peak, there are a lot more alternatives and some reprints from around 2005, published by a company in Devon, Old House Books, Moretonhampstead.

 

The first and (IMO) the most useful is Grouping System Railway Map of the British Isles 1923.  This map is based on the excellent Philips version of the RCH maps, combining The RCH small England, Wales & Scotland with the Ireland map on a single sheet measuring 33.5" x 27" and using a scale of approximately 22 miles to the Inch. 

 

The 23 major E.W. & S. pre-1923-grouping companies' systems are shown in colour plus the 6 main Irish companies and because it's a bit crowded in some areas, detail maps displayed around the edge, using parts of the old RCH district maps (e.g. London, Edinburgh & Glasgow, Lancashire & Yorkshire Manufacturing Districts, etc.).

 

The map I believe was used by Old House Books was originally designed and published by George Philip & Son, Fleet Street, London (probably?) during the early 1930s, using the title Philips' Railway Map of the British Isles, showing the Grouping System.  Early copies up to 1938 have only a plain Green card cover and I've not found a date on them.  However, my copy is copyright 1945 and has an illustration of the fabulous LMSR 'Coronation Scot' on the cover card.

 

The Philips' Map is slightly larger at 40" x 31" (ii) with a scale of 18 miles to the Inch and is therefore a clearer copy than the reprinted version by Old House Books.  They turn up at second-hand fairs, rarely in fine condition but a superb single-sheet reference.

 

The second single sheet (perhaps worth a look at ) has again had a version reprinted by Old House Books and is 'Bradshaw's  Railway Map of Great Britain & Ireland, 1907.  This map was first published as a fold-out in the back of Bradshaw's Railway Guide.  Why they would pick 1907, rather than 1922 edition that David & Charles reprinted in 1985, or perhaps that was the reason? (iii)

 

That reservation said, the Old House version size 34" x 24" is well laid out and much easier to read., with black railways on a cream ground at a scale of approx. 20 miles to the Inch.  But ,obviously, it doesn't show the system as fully developed as it was at The Grouping of 1922/23 as the Philips version and the Pre-Grouping Atlas will.

 

As before, I hope some of this helps you in your research into the railway network of the British Isles.

 

All the best,

John.

 

(i) Ran to at least 8 editions, so should be easy to find.

(ii) not 42" x 33" as advertised on the cover, but there was a cloth version at Six shillings and one mounted on rollers too for 9s 6d!

(iii) Bradshaw's July 1922 Railway Guide, 1166 pages, republished by David & Charles, 1985 and also Guild Publishing for Book Club Associates.  The definitive book for the final year of pre-Grouping railways' services, with a 30" x20" fold-out map in the back.

[The Lurker]

For many years the basic rate of pay for a porter was fixed by reference to the standard wage (in so far as there was one) for an agricultural labourer, plus 10/- (per week).  And most other rates then went on from that, pretty low, starting point

I was paid the agricultural labourer's minimum wage in my very first job in 1983, aged 16. The princely sum of 90p an hour.

 

It was, to be fair, agricultural labour - I was apple picking

[bike2steam]

Obviously, after the Beeching cuts the British rail network has thinned considerably, 

You aint kidding, in the late 50's you could stand and watch what seemed like an endless procession of freights going in, and out of places like Bescot, and Temple Mills yards - today, well, it's changed a bit, it's called 'progress'.

[Dunsignalling]

In conversation the other day I made the comment that train drivers were worth at least £60K given that they stand a good chance of having to witness at least one suicide related death, at very close quarters during the span of their working lives. Is that true or was I being over dramatic?

If they are in the job for 20 years or more, they'll probably be fortunate only to witness one.

 

John

[Mike Storey]

If they are in the job for 20 years or more, they'll probably be fortunate only to witness one.

 

John

 

Still O/T, sorry, but: Quite so. My brother was a driver for nearly 40 years, first at Old Oak, then Cricklewood, then Old Oak, and finally for Eurostar. He had three suicides in the years before Eurostar, and he says that was not uncommon. He recalls them vividly if ever raised, but found a way to get past them mentally.

 

Conversely, also remember the poor , like me, who had to pick up the remains. Whilst not in the same category as actually seeing a person dive or kneel in front of you as a driver, it was traumatic in a significant way. I had to deal with 12 bodies, and one who was still alive when we got to her, in about 8 years in front line operations management (after which I was second, then third on the call out/call up hierarchy, when you rarely got to deal with these things first hand). That record was not unusual at all, and I guess would still not be for P/Way and NR First Response Ops Staff and Managers (suicides are rising faster again). The first few were highly horrific, especially when you had to hunt around for the missing bits. The police, ambulance and coroners who invariably attended were usually much more used to dead bodies. You eventually learned off them, to kind of dismiss each incident as a bit of a nuisance and developed a shield against the reality. It would seem callous to others, but then they had never been there, seen it, done it. The very worst of course was the one who was still alive. You were still dealing with a real human in incredible pain.

 

Getting back to the thread, whilst nostalgia is a wonderful thing, and I use it a lot, a major factor in the rationalisation of yards, avoiding lines and parallel routes, was the increase in average speeds and sectional timings generally. Whilst many will point to average journey times for passenger trains on many commuter routes, and even some main lines, having not improved as much (or at all) as one might expect, freight trains became a different animal, and it was they that had used up a great deal of the timings graphs on individual routes (with many having top speeds of 45mph and very long leads on acceleration and braking curves), much less so now, although still mostly greater than equivalent passenger timings. Once you could slot them in more easily to main routes, the justification for the additional, parallel routes became much harder economically. We may lament the loss of such routes at times of perturbation or major closures, but such additionally redundancy is incredibly expensive to keep.

[The Johnster]

I was extremely fortunate in an 8 year career as a guard at Canton in the 70s to never be directly involved in a suicide or any death of a person under a train I was working, but did once have to perform a line search for a body after a previous service's driver reported a 'bump' on a dark winter morning.  Without going into details, this was both unpleasant and very sad.  

 

But one of our drivers was involved in a particularly horrific incident which affected me considerably.  Working single manned on a Western on an up Paddington, he encountered a gentleman kneeling in a praying position in the four foot on the up main at Southall and could do nothing to avoid him, but the worst aspect of this was that, at the very last second, the unfortunate man (presumably a Sikh; he was wearing a turban) looked directly into the driver's eyes and smiled...

 

Offered a journey home on the cushions at Paddington, he refused and worked back in the belief that, if he hadn't, he'd have never got into the cab of a locomotive again.  

 

My opinion at the time was that people who offed themselves in such a way were selfish and inconsiderate in the extreme, though many of my older colleagues were more tolerant; 'you never know what you might be driven to'.  In the meantime, having had some issues of my own with mental illness, I have come to realise that my previous view was simplistic and that in reality matters of this sort are rarely easily categorised or classified.  I doubt that, were my situation to become that desperate, that I'd ever end it like that under a train, though, my railwayman's instinct would never accept the disruption to the service...

[APOLLO]

Interesting map here. This was beechings closure proposal, Not all lines shown were closed (Liverpool - Southport for instance) - but most were.

 

Brit15

Edited October 11, 2017 by APOLLO

[russ p]

Although its good that a lot of black remained red there is also quite a bit of red that actually went black,especially in west Norfolk

[Mike Storey]

Interesting map here. This was beechings closure proposal, Not all lines shown were closed (Liverpool - Southport for instance) - but most were.

 

Brit15

 

Many variations to this evolved in reality. But one pair is, IMHO, the strangest of all. BRB proposed the retention of the Oxford to Cambridge route, with stopping services, but proposed the complete closure of the East Suffolk. That at least made some sort of sense, given the relative populations served, and the demise of the fishing and other industry from Lowestoft and elsewhere on the line at the time. Fortunately the latter never happened and is now going from strength to strength, but, despite the currently active plans in place to re-open the former, albeit somewhat differently geographically, I never understood what caused its eventual closure in the first place.

[Echo]

The map appears to show the old LD&EC route west from Lincoln to Langwith Junction in red. That line lost its passenger service in the 1950s!

[Andy Kirkham]

Other lines that are, perhaps surprisingly,  not shown as proposed for closure include Bewdley, Kingswear, Okehampton, Swanage, Fawley, Neyland and Bourne End - High Wycombe.

 

Perhaps KIngswear and Neyland escaped attention at the time because they were considered to be integral parts of main lines, rather than separate branches.

Edited October 12, 2017 by Andy Kirkham

[The Johnster]

Many more main lines that are suggested on this map lost all their stopping services as well, which of course included goods depots.  The extent to which a main line railway passed through local communities, many without good road connections or bus services, without serving them to any extent beyond chasing the train to a rail head 20 miles away, increased drastically.  The bare economic justification for retaining these stations, complete with staff and signalmen, could often not be made, but a lot of wobbly accounting and a management culture of 'rationalisation' made matters very much worse!  For instance, the method of assessing how may passengers used a station was by on train census taken by the guard before and after stopping at it, so if a train carrying 100 passengers stopped at a station, and it carried 95 passengers leaving it, 5 passengers used the station, right?

 

No, anything up to 195 passengers could have used the station (a more realistic figure might be something like 10 off, 5 on, 15 in all), 100 off and 95 on, but the system had no method of delineating this.  So stations which were a major asset to their communities were lost, and everybody who was going to buy a car anyway did so; the rest struggled with country buses. 

[bike2steam]

Other lines that are, perhaps surprisingly,  not shown as proposed for closure include Bewdley, Swanage,

At the time Alveley colliery was still in production and sending coal out via Bewdley, but went within a few years, and Swanage was, tentatively, under consideration for the 3rd rail, but by 1966 the idea for a sub-station at Corfe Castle was dropped ( or so was the story I was told). 

http://shropshirehistory.com/mining/mines/alveley.htm

Edited October 12, 2017 by bike2steam

[jonny777]

The map appears to show the old LD&EC route west from Lincoln to Langwith Junction in red. That line lost its passenger service in the 1950s!

 

 

 

Although summer holiday and excursion traffic was still going that way into the early 1960s which is probably the reason for it being red. 

 

On the subject of road and sea transport never being cheaper in real terms; how much of that is down to companies paying slave labour wage rates, cutting out safety considerations where they can get away with it, and (according to what I have read from police reports on road transport) fitting illegal electronic devices to lorries which over-ride the tachograph and make it look like the vehicle is stationary when it is doing 60mph? This enables drivers to go for 18 hours without a rest. 

 

Unfortunately, rail freight cannot compete with those kinds of practices; and yet the public seem to have accepted a 13-mile 90 minute delay motorway queue on their journey as part of life. This is something they would kick up a big fuss about if it happened ten times a day on the railways, as it seems to do on the motorway network. 

[The Stationmaster]

Many more main lines that are suggested on this map lost all their stopping services as well, which of course included goods depots.  The extent to which a main line railway passed through local communities, many without good road connections or bus services, without serving them to any extent beyond chasing the train to a rail head 20 miles away, increased drastically.  The bare economic justification for retaining these stations, complete with staff and signalmen, could often not be made, but a lot of wobbly accounting and a management culture of 'rationalisation' made matters very much worse!  For instance, the method of assessing how may passengers used a station was by on train census taken by the guard before and after stopping at it, so if a train carrying 100 passengers stopped at a station, and it carried 95 passengers leaving it, 5 passengers used the station, right?

 

No, anything up to 195 passengers could have used the station (a more realistic figure might be something like 10 off, 5 on, 15 in all), 100 off and 95 on, but the system had no method of delineating this.  So stations which were a major asset to their communities were lost, and everybody who was going to buy a car anyway did so; the rest struggled with country buses. 

 

The Beeching Reportassessment of passenger numbers, certainly on our part of the world, were done by station staff (where there were any of course) plus ticket sales information was readily available for all stations which would at least show originating passenger numbers although the Beeching Report was criticised simply for using originating passenger numbers without taking account of their destination (i.e. mainly the matter of branch lines feeding main lines).