Midland Railway Company

[DenysW]

I struggled to find the share price of the Midland railway. I attach the results of scouring two, both a little dodgy, sources. Both have the problem that in 1897 the Midland split its shares into Preferred (i.e. fixed dividend) and Deferred (i.e. variable dividend). In the Midland's case the Deferred generally paid just a little better than the Preferred (but was riskier) and the share prices are generally quite close. In the case of North British (in 1889) and Great Northern (in 1891) the reverse was true, and the Deferred shares traded for much less than the Preferred.

 

The first source for is the Bradshaw Shareholders Guides (available Kew, RAIL 1140) which published un-credited data from the 1850s to 1881 as a single summary table, and then again, company-by-company from 1910(ish) onwards. Both are annual summaries, but with different levels of detail. The later data agrees with the second source below, but the earlier does so only for 4 of the 6 companies I've done so far: the Midland, the L&Y, the LNWR, the NER, the GNR, and the MSL/GCR. The Midland was not one of the good-agreement ones.

 

As the second source, Yale University has also digitised the railway entries of the monthly periodical that gave UK share prices from 1869 to 1929, and it's available as a download of a 600,000 line csv file.  One difficulty with this one is that every tradable share is quoted. Thus for the Midland in January 1869 you have

 

 

Of these I chose 33022 for the Midland. However, neither the id numbers nor the descriptions reliably last to 1922, and there's usually a task to glue 2-3 series together, choosing consistent numbers at changeover. 

 

With that caveat, enjoy!

Yale Stocks.xlsx

[DenysW]

A better choice of Yale options and adding the preferred and deferred together for both sources (which is how the dividends are also usually presented) gives this:

 

 

As a result of Bradshaws and (my extraction from) the Yale set agreeing, I'm more confident this is correct.

[Compound2632]

I'm sure it's in Sons and Lovers or Women in Love that Lawrence refers to the declining value of some character's investments "the steady decline of home rails" or some such phrase. Illustrated by the graph, with share price halving over the first twenty years of the 20th century. (I presume dividend was correlated with share price.)

 

Those two are all the Lawrence I've read, and it was a good long while ago. What really sticks in the mind from Women in Love is Gerald forcing his horse to endure the noise of the passing colliery train. 

 

But I did finish Ulysses a fortnight ago, so there's hope for me yet.

[jamie92208]

That dip to 1920 would be caused by Government control during WW1.  From memory the Railways as a whole were in a pretty bad state in 1920..  That was when the Midland cancelled the second part of the West Riding Lines. Prices had doubled during the war and they couldn't afford it.  They took a hefty loss as well.  Land and property that had cost well over a million in 1899 was sold to Bradford Council for IIRCa net figure of £185,000.

 

They did not want to be saddled with a big capital cost.  The council opposed the abandonment bill and then did some tough negotiating then withdrew their

 Objection. 

Jamie

Edited October 2, 2023 by jamie92208

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

That dip to 1920 would be caused by Governmentcontroduring WW1. 

 

But you can see that the rot set in c. 1900. The 1890s were the Golden Age of British railways, whatever the Churchwardians, Gresleyans or Stanieriacs would have you believe. 

[billbedford]

I think you are reading that graph incorrectly. The 1890s were a politically* induced boom period, and when that crashed dividends went back to what they had been in the 1879s and 89s. 

 

* Did the 'Free traders get the upper hand in government at this time?

[meil]

On 01/10/2023 at 21:21, Blandford1969 said:

Can I use a Johnson set of frames and then draw out a Fowler tender style and ammend?

 

In a word - no. It may look like a Fowler top but its not. It's a Johnson tender with the portion above the top beading amended with a steel straight plate.

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, billbedford said:

* Did the 'Free traders get the upper hand in government at this time?

 

Conservatives under Salisbury from 1886 to 1892, then the Liberals - Gladstone until 1894 then Rosebery holding out until 1895, when Salisbury came back in, at the head of a Conservative - Liberal Unionist coalition. There was a drift away from the doctrine of free trade in favour of Imperial Preference, though that wasn't in fact enacted. Think Joseph Chamberlain, if you can bear to. 

[Dave Hunt]

13 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

The 1890s were the Golden Age of British railways, whatever the Churchwardians, Gresleyans or Stanieriacs would have you believe. 

 

And as for the 1950s being a golden age as is frequently stated........

 

Dave

Edited October 3, 2023 by Dave Hunt

[Compound2632]

27 minutes ago, Dave Hunt said:

And as for the 1950s being a golden age as is frequently stated........

 

I think of that as a Silver Age - the last decade in which the railway was still dominant for passengers, goods, and minerals and still in essentially its 1890s state.

 

 

[Embedded link to Warwickshire Railways mrdr995.]

[DenysW]

8 hours ago, billbedford said:

The 1890s were a politically* induced boom period, and when that crashed dividends went back to what they had been in the 1879s and 89s. 

Not sure I agree for railways, as below. The sag in 1893 is the Yorkshire/Derbs colliery strike. The sag in the GNR in the 1850s was a fraudulent employee. Some railways (but none of those shown) had a really bad time on dividends during the Overend-Gurney crisis in the mid-1860s. You can't tell, but the GCR was actually recovering from 1900 onwards, but not to the point of paying dividends on its Ordinary stock, just progressively more of its Preferred. I believe (but can't prove) that some of the high start-up dividends in the 1840s were paid out of capital. NER starts only in 1873 because that's when it issued Consolidated stock. Data from Bradshaw's Shareholders reports.

 

[Blandford1969]

11 hours ago, meil said:

In a word - no. It may look like a Fowler top but its not. It's a Johnson tender with the portion above the top beading amended with a steel straight plate.

Thanks, I've blown up the couple of negatives I have got of the engine to look at the tender. I'm going to have a go at doing a drawing to work it out. 

[Compound2632]

Any more authoritative reply to this question? I've just copied my answer out of Summerson:

 

[Ian M.]

7 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Any more authoritative reply to this question? I've just copied my answer out of Summerson:

 

Thanks Compound2632. Very helpful and we can continue the discussion on Midland to LMS tender plates here. 

 

I addition to your reply here: 

"The LMS carried out a general (re)numbering of tenders in early 1928. Midland tender engines built from 1874 had a oval plate carrying the company name and the engine number; this continued after the 1905 livery change when the engine number was put on the tender and there are instances of tenders carrying plates with their engine's post-1907 number but it is not known whether all tenders were given new plates. It seems tender number plates were not used in the company's final decade or so, but evidence is limited - not many photos of tender rears. [S. Summerson, Midland Railway Locomotives Vol. 1 (Irwell Press, 2000) pp. 138-9.]

 

In Johnson's time and later, engines generally kept their original tenders but there were redistributions from time to time - e.g. various Kirtley classes being given Johnson tenders - what isn't clear to me from Summerson but is I think implied is that tender numberplates were changed for ones carrying the number of the engine to which the tender had been reallocated.

 

So from Midland and early LMS days, there are surviving lists of the type of tender allocated to particular engines but it is only after 1927 that the allocation of a specific tender can be tracked.

 

As far as I can work out, a consequence of all this is that while Midland tender capacity plates survive, there seem to be no surviving tender numberplates."

 

I located in another "textbook", Illustrated History of LMS Locomotives, Vol. 1 Liveries by Essery & Jenkinson (the Bible, Vol. 1?) on pp. 156-159 & pp. 167-168 references to tender numbering and plates in the initial LMS livery scheme post-Grouping up to 1928. To summarize, of the constituent roads, only L&YR and LNER had tender-specific numbers and associated cast iron plates at Grouping and these were retained by LMS. Midland and other constuent roads (e.g., S&DJR and the Northern roads) did not have unique tender numbers or related plates. It does reference the LMS scheme in 1927-28 of assigning all new build tenders and existing tenders unique numbers and the cast iron LMS tender number plates we're familiar with in 1928 and concurrent with the livery change moving the engine number from the tender to the cabside with LMS on the tender (replacing the 1923-1927 LMS Coat of Arms on crimson lake and lozenge on black goods with engine number on the tender sides). 

 

With respect to the brass oval Midland Rwy Owner/Number plates on tenders, including a photo of the Kirtley tender from preserved 158A 2-4-0 for visual reference. Also, doing a little digging, the Wild Swan LMS Loco Profiles Vol. 10 Class 4F 0-6-0s has detailed tender drawings for this class in Midland era of standard 3250 gal. tenders (pp. 72-73) showing placement for oval MR Owner/Number and Capacity plates, and later Midland standard 3500 gal. tenders (pp. 74-75) with just provision for the oval Capacity plate - thereby supporting your point that in the later MR years there was no Owner/Number plates on tenders. Incidentally, Fowler standard 3500 gals. tenders are depicted in a North British-produced technical drawing dated 1926, also with just provision for the oval Capacity plate -- thereby implying LMS builds prior to the 1928 changes did not have tender Owner/Number plates as built.

 

Some other nuggets, Essery & Jenkinson provide the actual LMS standard livery policy (pp. 167-168), dated 12/1923 and largely continuing MR practice pre-Grouping. This indicated that all tenders (and tanks on tank engines) should "bear a brass plate" giving the water capacity of the tank affixed to the rear of the tender or bunker. It also indicated that tender number plates, if present (i.e., L&YR, LNER and older MR tenders like the Kirtley 2-4-0), may be retained. 

 

S&DJR Fowler standard 3500 gal. and other tenders were assigned unique LMS tender numbers, and the corresponding Owner/Number plates affixed, in 1930 (p. 159) when LMS incorporated SDJR stock into LMS proper (presumably they already had the brass Capacity plates affixed as per Midland/LMS policy in place at the time of original build).

 

Edited October 5, 2023 by Ian M.
Typo

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, Ian M. said:

I located in another "textbook", Illustrated History of LMS Locomotives, Vol. 1 Liveries by Essery & Jenkinson (the Bible, Vol. 1?)

 

I'm afraid I don't have Essery & Jenkinson's LMS Locomotives volumes; so many thanks for that.

 

7 minutes ago, Ian M. said:

With respect to the brass oval Midland Rwy Owner/Number plates on tenders, including a photo of the Kirtley tender from preserved 158A for visual reference.

 

This is presumably a replica, made at the time 158A was prepared for preservation, since the Kirtley tender came from a Kirtley 0-6-0. But that doesn't mean to say it's necessarily inaccurate! 

[DenysW]

More numbers, I'm afraid. Please note that the immediate impression that the Midland out-performed the rest of the bigger players in the English-railways stock market is true, but largely because the rest included MSL/GCR and the SER. But if you drop out all the ones you don't like, you end up with conclusions that represent only your personal biases. I left out the smaller companies because it's difficult to know where to stop once you start throwing in LT&S, H&B, North Staffs, North London, Taff Vale etc. I do feel a bit guilty leaving out the other moderately-sized basket case, the LC&D, but as it never paid a dividend on its ordinary stock once it emerged from bankruptcy I think I have an excuse for that one.

 

I also look at this and think that the Midland's share price was mostly set by macro-economic factors rather than the company's strategic or month-by-month management. 

 

[Dave Hunt]

One of the Midland’s strengths was that its ratio of maintenance costs to revenue was better than all but the L&SWR in the early 20th century up to WW1.

 

Dave

[Buhar]

8 hours ago, Dave Hunt said:

One of the Midland’s strengths was that its ratio of maintenance costs to revenue was better than all but the L&SWR in the early 20th century up to WW1.

 

Dave

A clear demonstration that less maintenance is required if your policy is based on little engines.

 

Alan

 

I know that's 1. Naughty and 2. Untrue but years of adherence to the words of Jenkinson and Essery brought it out.

[DenysW]

2 hours ago, Buhar said:

A clear demonstration that less maintenance is required if your policy is based on little engines.

I know I shouldn't get wound up but anyway:

 

-   The Midland ran its engines hard in terms of train-miles/year/locomotive

-   The Midland (especially post 1900) ran its engines hard in terms of nominal age.

 

Both of these say that achieving reliability would need more maintenance, which is what seems to have been applied. Nominal age probably just means that the frames, the cylinders and the wheels were old, as everything else seems to have been routinely refreshable. Most companies retired the entire engine at 40 years nominal age (probably 25 years nominal age when iron was king instead of steel), but mostly the Midland didn't - unless they'd quit on they wheel configuration (no to 2-2-2s, for instance).

 

Post script: just realised I'd read 'better' as 'put more money into' not 'got away with less'.

Edited October 6, 2023 by DenysW
PS

[Dave Hunt]

56 minutes ago, DenysW said:

Post script: just realised I'd read 'better' as 'put more money into' not 'got away with less'.

 

Yes, I meant that the Midland spent less on maintenance as a proportion of its revenue.

 

It's also well known that the most cost-effective locomotives of the LMS were the ex-Midland 2Ps.

 

Dave

[MR Chuffer]

The Great Central and the Midland, why were their fortunes so different when there were so many overlapping areas of operation and geography? On RMweb (this thread?), I saw the postabout Marple being a full on, pre-grouping, multi-company station suitable for modelling, a major traffic interchange station on the jointly owned S&M line (that’s Sheffield, later GC, and Midland).  I then turned to https://www.marple.website/railways-of-marple-and-district/website-introduction.html to get the full history, fascinating. 

The author seems biased towards the Midland – aren’t we all in this thread – denigrating GC passenger services run with 4- and 6-wheel passenger stock when the Midland's equivalent were using 6 wheel and bogie carriages of “the highest comfort” (paraphrase). And that whenever the GC had an idea for expansion, they had no money and the Midland rocked up to initiate projects. It seemed that if the Midland wanted it, it got done, except of course for the Settle and Carlisle politics when the Midland got cold feet.

The GC had access to the same Sth Yorkshire coalfields as the Midland in the early days, but was it their expansion into Lincolnshire – no coalfields! And they accessed the Wigan coalfields, which the Midland didn’t.
He even praises the Midland’s reliability and effective maintenance provisions (mentioned above) whilst still calling it a “small engine” policy – grrrr - and including carriage preparation and cleanliness compared to the GC’s.

Anyway, any thoughts on the differing fortunes of the two?
 

[Compound2632]

39 minutes ago, MR Chuffer said:

Anyway, any thoughts on the differing fortunes of the two?

 

The Midland was bigger sooner - as a consequence, largely, of George Hudson's enterprise - and had a direct route to London (via the London & Birmingham) from the very beginning. The Sheffield company got off to a bad start with all the trouble and delay over the Woodhead tunnel.

[DenysW]

1 hour ago, MR Chuffer said:

The Great Central and the Midland, why were their fortunes so different when there were so many overlapping areas of operation and geography?

On a quick look - not enough traffic to service their debt and their preference shares and still leave enough left over to pay a decent (MS&L) or any (GCR) dividend on their Ordinary shares. Debt was limited to 25% of capital in the general railway legislation. They weren't inefficient (at least after 1860), judged by the fraction of receipts used to cover running costs, as the attached amateurish photo of a page in Bradshaw's Shareholder's Guide from 1913. They were also more seasonal than the Midland, being appreciably worse in the first half of the year.

 

So it does indeed come down to the conventional wisdom that their lines cost too much, so too much debt, also too many preference shares (GCR). The London Extension was funded on debt and 5% preference share, with no dividend on the latter until 1913 (second amateurish photo, Bradshaw 1915 Edn.).

[Jol Wilkinson]

3 hours ago, MR Chuffer said:

"The author seems biased towards the Midland – aren’t we all in this thread" –

 

No, I follow it to see what the MR enthusiasts put forward to justify there beliefs that it was such a great railway.

[MR Chuffer]

24 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

No

Oops, most of us then... But seriously though, what also comes out of the Marple piece, from the author(s), was the absolute lengths that the LNWR would go with skulduggery to suppress any and all competition.