50s/60s Britain and Now

[rockershovel]

It would be a fascinating study to trace where the feeling of industry “belonging to us all” was lost. I suspect that the rapid decline of privately owned industry in the mid-1960s and 1970s, followed by the recession of the later 1970s (the definitive end of the long post-War boom) played a part, together with the rise of politically-motivated Trades Union activism. 

[iL Dottore]

Interesting posts about the quality of, the management of various industries and services. I think that you can argue that what we have been discussing about the decline and fall of various British industries, is due to the fact that for much of Britain’s industrial history there was a huge mass of very cheap, unskilled labour, that could be employed without having to invest in new machinery, new technology and training & education. Combine that with a captive and apparently uncritical market (home and the Empire) and what we saw in the 50s 60s and 70s would be the end result of that particular combination.
I think a good example would be that of the shipbuilding industries: in the 1930s German shipyards were already welding their Navy ships together whilst in Britain the ships were still riveted together. The British shipbuilding yards being either unwilling or unable (for various reasons) to replace riveting with welding (I suspect it was for two reasons: firstly the cost of equipment and the training of the welders; and secondly, because moving to welded construction would have put quite a lot of people out of work due improved efficiencies [no need to employ 5-man rivet crews when one welder can do the same job]).

Edited May 1, 2020 by iL Dottore

[Platform 1]

7 hours ago, soony said:

a radio program favourite of mine - a science fiction program , once a week, on what was the equivalent of radio 4 today

 

Did you know you can browse or search the old BBC programme schedules at https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk ?  From 1923 to 2009

 

And you can watch the Swiss spaghetti harvest story:

 

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by Platform 1
Add spaghetti

[The Johnster]

4 hours ago, Philou said:

Ah yes Carruthers, the Empress flying boat. I can't imagine what would have happened if the UK had followed the flying-boat path - I think Birmingham is the largest town furthest away from a coast-line (Barry Island being the closest beach?) - alright for us having a huge coast-line but what happens if you want to get further inland - thinks Hungary or Denver? Also imagine you arrive at Southampton and the weather is a bit rough - taken by lighter in choppy water - uuurgh! - and the same on arrival at destination. Give me terra firma every time.

Buying floats can land on reservoirs and lakes as well as sheltered coastal locations; they were the core of Imperial and Pan-Am's operations in the late 30s.  You could build flooded runways for them I suppose and then drain them to be used by conventional a/c.  I think it's a matter of which part of Brum you're from whether Barry Island or Weston Super Mare is closest.  The Danube runs through (actually, between) Budapest.  The Russians were at one time working on a supersonic military flying boat  IIRC, though I might be confusing that with the Ekranoplan stuff.

 

Another advantage that flying boats have is that they are much more likely to survive an emergency landing at sea, dependent on conditions of course, and can for very long haul flights be refuelled from ships; in fact the Americans used Catalinas as SAR in the Pacific theatre in WW2.  Moreover, many emergency landings in inland areas can access a stretch of water given even a small window of opportunity, such as the East River...  

 

They went out of fashion after the war as everyone knows, but small ones are still used as general transport in the remoter parts of Canada, and Alaska.  A modern airliner version would probably have retractable floats for aerodynamic reasons.  There are few important destinations that do not have a river or lake that might be used for them, saving the huge cost of runways.  In your choppy Southampton Water example, a small tug can tow the fb to the sheltered terminal where you could probably deplane under cover.  Where river traffic is heavy (back to Budapest and many other such locations, it would be an issue, but there is not much shipping these days in the upper Thames estuary, New York, or Boston harbours.

 

Many airports are close to stretches of water, or in it at Hong Kong; Schipol, JFK, LHR (Welsh Harp) come to mind, and it is possible that flying boat terminals could be incorporated into existing facilities at some of them.  The CV-19 aftermath will have huge implications for civil aviation, and traffic will fall.  We may even see a resurgence of flying boats on routes where they are practicable and cost effective; the game has changed, but we don't know how yet.  We may even see the resurgence of city centre terminals for booking in, and less infrastructure at the airports (we called them aerodromes or airfields in the 50s)

 

I'd say Heathrow's new runway is a non-starter, and so is HS2 if as forecast rail travel is to be down 20%; the existing WCML network will be able to cope.  But these sorts of sums have been got wrong before, which is why that network is currently too close to capacity and would benefit from losing it's fast trains.

 

[Reorte]

11 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

They went out of fashion after the war as everyone knows, but small ones are still used as general transport in the remoter parts of Canada, and Alaska.  A modern airliner version would probably have retractable floats for aerodynamic reasons.  There are few important destinations that do not have a river or lake that might be used for them, saving the huge cost of runways.  In your choppy Southampton Water example, a small tug can tow the fb to the sheltered terminal where you could probably deplane under cover.  Where river traffic is heavy (back to Budapest and many other such locations, it would be an issue, but there is not much shipping these days in the upper Thames estuary, New York, or Boston harbours.

 

At a rather smaller end of the scale a few years ago scheduled seaplane services started between Glasgow (on the Clyde) and Oban. I don't know if they're still going or not (present situation notwithstanding anyway).

[Nearholmer]

3 hours ago, Lantavian said:

The public hated BR.

 

What do you base that assertion on?

 

My impression was of a very "up and down" relationship, a lot of frustration, especially with the tax bills for subsidies, but very little 'hatred' of BR. There was not to my knowledge any spontaneous demand for railways to be swept away (lots of cries for them not to be where that was threatened), and except in the "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" columns of some 'papers there wasn't any spontaneous cry for a return to the private sector.

 

There was definitely a combination of spontaneous and media-fomented hatred of the railway TUs during the 1970s, but the same can be said of the TUs in all of the heavily unionised industries at the time, and that isn't the same as saying that people hated BR or its senior management.

 

People did turn their backs on railways as a means of transport for c25 years where a motorcar was available  to them as a viable alternative, because cars were better in many senses before they became a plague in themselves, but that was "car love", not "rail hatred".

 

TBH, I think you are overstating your case.

[Devo63]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

'Large sums of money were in his care.  They were never seen again'; sounds like some of my relatives, certainly.  Bloodnok is more like us that, say, Grytpype Thynne.  There were palpable elements of Bluebottle, cardboard and string cutout hero, about me when I was that age.

At times I have been favourably compared to the Famous Eccles. Unfortunately when people get to know me better that opinion seems to be deflated somewhat. My ex-partner could have been a twin for Miss Minnie Bannister when seen in the correct light (very dull illumination with a bit of strobing).

 

Dave

[rockershovel]

Some of the posters above appear to be confusing flying boats, and floatplanes - which are conventional aircraft with floats as landing gear. 

 

The problem with flying boats is the economics. They are very slow, as aircraft go, and take a long time to turn around. 

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, iL Dottore said:

Interesting posts about the quality of, the management of various industries and services. I think that you can argue that what we have been discussing about the decline and fall of various British industries, is due to the fact that for much of Britain’s industrial history there was a huge mass of very cheap, unskilled labour, that could be employed without having to invest in new machinery, new technology and training & education. Combine that with a captive and apparently uncritical market (home and the Empire) and what we saw in the 50s 60s and 70s would be the end result of that particular combination.
I think a good example would be that of the shipbuilding industries: in the 1930s German shipyards were already welding their Navy ships together whilst in Britain the ships were still riveted together. The British shipbuilding yards being either unwilling or unable (for various reasons) to replace riveting with welding (I suspect it was for two reasons: firstly the cost of equipment and the training of the welders; and secondly, because moving to welded construction would have put quite a lot of people out of work due improved efficiencies [no need to employ 5-man rivet crews when one welder can do the same job]).

 

Britain had a chronic and long-standing problem, dating back to the latter half of the nineteenth century, by which the financial manipulation of businesses to provide cash dividends, took priority over the long-term stability of those businesses. This wasn’t the case in Germany and the USA, Britain’s emergent competitors, where technical experts were paramount and financial offices existed to serve them. 

 

This came to a head in the 1920s and 1930s where essential improvements were simply not made, because the financial controllers would not accept them. Hence the Germans and French developed railway electrification, and we did not. The Germans and Americans (a rather different proposition, with a system based upon enormous natural resources, no entrenched ruling class with a disdain for actual ability and a constant pressure to innovate) developed welded ships. The Americans developed workable diesel railway traction at least a decade before we even started. 

 

In the 1940s this would manifest itself as a failure to reform education, we needed effective, mass vocational training and didn’t attempt to provide it. That’s why well over a million emigrated in the years after the war, and more until the 1970s; they had no faith in management. 

 

[Reorte]

38 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

Some of the posters above appear to be confusing flying boats, and floatplanes - which are conventional aircraft with floats as landing gear. 

 

The problem with flying boats is the economics. They are very slow, as aircraft go, and take a long time to turn around. 

 

If the general consideration is "planes that can take off and land on water", does it matter as far as the thrust of this discussion goes?

[F-UnitMad]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Buying floats can land on reservoirs and lakes as well as sheltered coastal locations; they were the core of Imperial and Pan-Am's operations in the late 30s.  You could build flooded runways for them I suppose and then drain them to be used by conventional a/c.  I think it's a matter of which part of Brum you're from whether Barry Island or Weston Super Mare is closest.

Plenty of canals around Birmingham & the Black Country. Your Flying Boats could land on them!!!

[The Johnster]

7 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

SNCF, who seem to be too creative for their own good, resulting in a bit of a mess.

This, I submit, applies to France generally...

 

7 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

There's a funny story in O V S Bulleid's son's biography of him, about how he used a 'livery parade' at Waterloo to distract and bamboozle the Board, and the same went-on multiple times on other railways. Br consumed a lot of time and paint on it in 1948/49 with several livery parades. 

 

Riddles did a similar stunt at Marylebone early in 1948; several Black 5s had been painted in the board's various suggested mixed traffic liveries liveries, unlined greens, browns, etc, usually identifiable to the particular suggester's loyalties.  Riddles, whose own loyalties were to the LNWR, supervised and when, as he'd correctly guessed would happen, the whole shooting match degenerated into a talking shop, gave the nod and a  gleaming Black 5 fresh out of Crewe and painted by men who remembered the original livery appeared, stealing the show.  He got his way of course and LNWR lined black became the official mixed traffic livery, and a very sensible choice it was IMHO.  Livery parades also took place for passenger and goods stock, the passenger liveries mostly displayed on Stanier stock by and large.

 

My view FWIW is that BR got it right except for custard/cream on main line passenger stock; lined maroon was a massive improvement, and the 8P blue, which only looked good on A4s.  There was something of the touring caravan about the custard/cream to my mind.  Of course, being a WR man, I am simply conforming to stereotype in liking lined Brunswick Green for 'ordinary' passenger locos, but I contend that by and large it sat very well on every loco it was applied to, though maroon Duchesses and Princesses looked better.

 

My favourite livery for steam locos in general is the olive green Maunsell Southern livery, which is very smart and dignified, and my least favourite is the gaudy fairground look of Caledonian Blue.  My least favourite livery of all time is Network South East, a very effective way of making perfectly respectable locos and carriages look like a pair of knock off street market plastic 1990s trainers.

[The Johnster]

7 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

SNCF, who seem to be too creative for their own good, resulting in a bit of a mess.

This, I submit, applies to France generally...

 

We, on the other hand, are too greed and short sighted for anyone's good, resulting in a bit of a mess.  In fact, it

 

7 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

There's a funny story in O V S Bulleid's son's biography of him, about how he used a 'livery parade' at Waterloo to distract and bamboozle the Board, and the same went-on multiple times on other railways. Br consumed a lot of time and paint on it in 1948/49 with several livery parades. 

 

Riddles did a similar stunt at Marylebone early in 1948; several Black 5s had been painted in the board's various suggested mixed traffic liveries liveries, unlined greens, browns, etc, usually identifiable to the particular suggester's loyalties.  Riddles, whose own loyalties were to the LNWR, supervised and when, as he'd correctly guessed would happen, the whole shooting match degenerated into a talking shop, gave the nod and a  gleaming Black 5 fresh out of Crewe and painted by men who remembered the original livery appeared, stealing the show.  He got his way of course and LNWR lined black became the official mixed traffic livery, and a very sensible choice it was IMHO.  Livery parades also took place for passenger and goods stock, the passenger liveries displayed on Stanier stock by and large.

 

My view FWIW is that BR got it right except for custard/cream on main line passenger stock; lined maroon was a massive improvement, and the 8P blue, which only looked good on A4s.  There was something of the touring caravan about the custard/cream to my mind.  Of course, being a WR man, I am simply conforming to stereotype in liking lined Brunswick Green for 'ordinary' passenger locos, but I contend that by and large it sat very well on every loco it was applied to, though maroon Duchesses and Princesses looked better.

 

My favourite livery for steam locos in general is the olive green Maunsell Southern livery, which is very smart and dignified, and my least favourite is the gaudy fairground look of Caledonian Blue.  My least favourite livery of all time is Network South East, a very effective way of making perfectly respectable locos and carriages look like a pair of knock off street market plastic 1990s trainers.

[F-UnitMad]

7 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

This, I submit, applies to France generally...

You didn't quote the bit about it smelling of wee...!!??!!  

 

Sprinting for Exit, with sincere apologies to at least one Frenchman I know on here, who models US O Scale.... 

[J. S. Bach]

3 hours ago, Platform 1 said:

And you can watch the Swiss spaghetti harvest story:

That is the one that I remember being broadcast over here; well, Baltimore at that time.

Edited May 1, 2020 by J. S. Bach

[Philou]

I was going to say that the French have tried to improve their image regarding public conveniences. Insofar as I am aware, they were the first to introduce the self-cleansing automated loo (in most towns now free to use). But then, I remembered they STILL have those bl**dy squat-bogs known here as a la turc (Turkish style) especially on the motorways - very reminiscent of what they had generally over here in the 50s and 60s, which brings us back on-topic.

 

Sanitary arrangements in the 50s and 60s - there you go for starters: Many houses without loos indoors and fewer still with a bathroom. Kitchens being tiny probably a scullery but perhaps a larder as there were not many 'fridges. Cold water on tap - but perhaps outside. Houses in multiple occupation with 'Irish need not apply' in the window. Not floors let out as flats, but single rooms.

 

Writing that leaves me feeling a bit cold - the 50s and 60s were NOT good in that respect. Oop north, I remember going to Leeds when I were a lad (and it wasn't the only town up there with them) and seeing back-to-backs - streets and streets of them AND washing strung across the streets. It made Cardiff look rather genteel.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[pH]

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

They went out of fashion after the war as everyone knows, but small ones are still used as general transport in the remoter parts of Canada, and Alaska.  

 

I wouldn't call (for example) Vancouver and Victoria "remote":

 

https://images.app.goo.gl/gcqx4CRdR8krBH4t6

https://images.app.goo.gl/EQRJnumjEPvuawCP6

 

Yes, the smaller ones like the Beaver (flying pickup truck) can be used in pretty remote places. But, as you can see in those pictures, they can be used on regular scheduled services between significant cities. Those two terminals are right in the downtown (Victoria especially) and there is a city centre-to- city centre service between them.

[62613]

5 hours ago, rockershovel said:

It would be a fascinating study to trace where the feeling of industry “belonging to us all” was lost. I suspect that the rapid decline of privately owned industry in the mid-1960s and 1970s, followed by the recession of the later 1970s (the definitive end of the long post-War boom) played a part, together with the rise of politically-motivated Trades Union activism. 

I would say that the post-war boom came to an abrupt end in late 1973, when the price of crude oil went from $3/barrel to $11/barrel between October and December of that year; that and the OPEC- inspired embargo on countries supporting Israel in the Yom Kippur war. For a start, it spelt the end of the steam turbine - propelled ship, of any size. I can remember, in the company I worked for, all the 35,000  to 100,000 - ton dwt tankers went very rapidly for scrap, between the middle of 1974 and the middle of 1975. There was aclass of 65,000 tonners; the two steamers went then, whereas at least one of the three motorships lasted until 1982.

 

That being said, Britain had long-standing economic problems, stretching back at that time for around 100 years, and no - one in a position to do anything about it, actually bothering. That goes for politicians, of all parties, those in charge of the companies concerned, and those who ran the trades unions

 

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, 62613 said:

That being said, Britain had long-standing economic problems, stretching back at that time for around 100 years, and no - one in a position to do anything about it, actually bothering. That goes for politicians, of all parties, those in charge of the companies concerned, and those who ran the trades unions

 

Agree. I would date the start of the decline of Britain to around 1870, when the technologies of the second wave of the industrial revolution were emerging, and they weren't emerging here. It might even be arguable that they weren't emerging here for reasons that could be traced back even further, so that the seeds of decline had been well-planted while the first wave of the industrial revolution was going full-steam.

 

Whether it was a case of people in positions of power "not bothering" or simply "not seeing and understanding" is probably very debatable. There were a few people who spotted the problem early (some of those who formed the City & Guilds Institute knew that we had some catching-up to do c1880, for instance), but most of the movers and shakers just couldn't see that there was a problem, and it took absolutely ages for hubris to work its way out of the system (if indeed it has completely).

 

The TUs, who often get lumped with a lot of the blame for the final decline of the 1970s and the death-twitches of the early-1980s were in a strange position in this, because for the greater part of the period of decline they were very much not in positions of power, they were simply attempting to secure the most basic protections for their members, with little conception that they were attempting to suckle on a dying sow, and no access to help revive it if they had recognised the fact.

 

There was probably a maximum window of about ten years (c1955-65) when everyone could have come to their senses and acted in ways that might have averted the disaster that was the 1970s, and I would blame hubris in high places for that not happening; too many scales over too many eyes for too long.

 

But, could anyone with clear sight and the ability to say it how it was have actually achieved a real position of power in the prevailing climate?  Was Wilson the nearest, and too late, and too fettered? Barbara Castle? the abortive "In Place of Strife" White Paper?

Edited May 1, 2020 by Nearholmer

[rockershovel]

The attempted political solution of the early 1970s was never going to work, it was far too late for that. It wasn’t a case of “scales over eyes”, but as Orwell had described it “a governing class which had lost its function, but clung to its position” . The whole system needed overhaul, long before. 

 

That’s why the technical and productive class were leaving in droves, in the 50s and 60s; they could see it. 

 

Oddly enough, the oil crisis was my life-defining opportunity, although I didn’t realise it at the time. It precipitated the great national adventure of North Sea Oil; the financial class sold us down the river (again) but I was off and running, by then. 

 

 

 

[rockershovel]

Duplicate post

 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by rockershovel

[St Enodoc]

10 hours ago, rockershovel said:

take a long time to turn around.

Like oil tankers?

[TheQ]

11 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Buying floats can land on reservoirs and lakes as well as sheltered coastal locations; they were the core of Imperial and Pan-Am's operations in the late 30s.  You could build flooded runways for them I suppose and then drain them to be used by conventional a/c.  I think it's a matter of which part of Brum you're from whether Barry Island or Weston Super Mare is closest.  The Danube runs through (actually, between) Budapest. 

Barra in the Outer Hebridies is ahead of you. 

 

[iL Dottore]

8 hours ago, Philou said:

...Sanitary arrangements in the 50s and 60s - there you go for starters: Many houses without loos indoors and fewer still with a bathroom. Kitchens being tiny probably a scullery but perhaps a larder as there were not many 'fridges. Cold water on tap - but perhaps outside. Houses in multiple occupation with 'Irish need not apply' in the window. Not floors let out as flats, but single rooms.

 

Writing that leaves me feeling a bit cold - the 50s and 60s were NOT good in that respect. ..

Very well put. My maternal Grandparents’ end-of-terrace house only had an outside loo (but running water inside AND a “proper” coal cellar). My Great Aunt’s bungalow, in contrast, had everything inside, although the WC was unheated (and she also had an outside loo as well). But there again my Great Aunt was from the “wealthy” side of the family: having a detached property, being the first in the family to have a telephone, a fridge, a washing machine & tumble dryer and a colour TV - back when these were the exception rather than the rule...

One would have thought that, with the creation of the NHS in 1948 to safeguard the nation’s health, general hygiene standards would have been addressed, but as late as the mid-sixties many people would still take their weekly or fortnightly bath at the council’s bath houses (which, I think, were usually attached to the municipal swimming pool). Other 50s/60s “hygiene” things I remember from my skoolboy years...

 

> Stiff and shiny Izal toilet paper

> Fresh underwear and socks each day, everything else “recycled” until it walked of its’ own accord to the laundry basket (I exaggerate, but we never wore clean “everything” every day)

> Coal tar soap (to which I have returned, not liking the overly perfumed stuff available nowadays)

> Bath night, once-a-week. Flannel/face cloth wash otherwise (with instructions to “wash behind your ears”. Why specifically there as opposed to axilla and groin, I don’t know)

> Changing from P.E. gear into school uniform without showering (at least I don’t recall ever having a shower at school after P.E./games/sports. I must have done).

 

Funnily enough, although I recall the washing rituals of my childhood, try as I might I don’t recall any such emphasis on brushing my teeth/oral hygiene (which might be due to the fact that - in those days - dental hygiene in the UK was very poor and neglected with much of the population being edentulous by their late 30s)

 

In my mid-teens moving to the US - with their emphasis on (at least) once-a-day showers, an absence of body odour and beautiful teeth with concomitant brush-three-times-a-day dental hygiene  - was quite a hygienic eye opener! Even now, the British are reputed to have “the worst teeth in Europe” (as an aside, I once worked with a British ex-pat who was snagged-toothed, with nicotine brown dentition and halitosis that could strip paint at 50 yards, who complained that his dentist  - who he saw for an extraction - wanted to “fix my teeth, which are perfectly alright, thank you very much”. I pity that poor dentist)

[rockershovel]

3 hours ago, TheQ said:

Barra in the Outer Hebridies is ahead of you. 

 

 

The Norman Britten “Islander” takes its name from such operations, although Barra is now operated by Twin Otters. Dundee had a grass runway when first opened (on reclaimed land on the Firth of Tay) giving rise to the story that p,SNES landed on the beach. An uncle of mine flew to the Channel Islands and landed on the beach in the 1930s, I believe st St Ouens.