Transport of cattle by rail

[ejstubbs]

I'm trying to understand how cattle would have been handled back in the day, particularly irregular shipments of just eg a wagon load or two.

 

I presume that the process would have been organised so that the animals wouldn't have been kept waiting in the wagons at either the source or destination station for any appreciable length of time.  Even if there was a holding pen at the destination, I imagine the railway would prefer to have the beasts off their hands as soon as possible after arrival.  Equally, on despatch it would seem to be preferable for the wagons to be waiting and the animals loaded straight in when they arrived, rather have beef on the hoof milling about waiting for the wagons to be ready, and then waiting again for the wagons to be shunted in to a departing train.

 

I assume that in some locations specific arrangements would have been needed to handle more intensive cattle traffic eg market towns on market days.  However, that's not the sort of location I'm currently planning to model.

 

To provide a bit more context: if my station has a goods loop - such as the examples on this web page, for instance - would it be feasible for the cattle dock to be on the loop?  The rationale being that the wagons wouldn't be expected to sit loaded up in a siding for any significant length of time.  Once unloaded (or on site waiting to be loaded eg the next day) they could be kept out of the way in to a quiet backwater siding somewhere.

 

Another question: I've read (though it might be a fiction) that railways preferred coal handling facilities to be located away from the passenger areas of the station, so as to keep the dust and grime of the 'business end' of the railway away from the areas open to the travelling public.  (I suppose that dry goods, parcels, timber etc would be less offensive to the delicate sensibilities of the genteel clientele of the 1920s and 1930s.)  Would that also be true of cattle facilities, ie that they would, where practical, be sited away from the station approach and platforms?

[The Stationmaster]

Ideally you don't want cattle pens on a goods shed loop (some of those examples are less than idea ) as that might interfere with the working of shed traffic but that won't matter much if it is a quiet station with only one or two wagons needing the goods shed.  At a station not far from my home the cattle pens were on the branch platform's run-round loop although I suspect that even back in the busier times there wasn't much in the way of cattle/sheep traffic, at the branch terminus the pens were on a platform on the opposite side of aline which had a passenger platform on the other side, so not too far from passengers!

[Adrian Wintle]

The cattle dock at Churston was behind the end of the up platform. See the 1921 picture here: http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/c/churston/

 

Adrian

[jamie92208]

From the research that I did for my model of Long Preston one feature stood out.  The cattle dock ALWAYS had a separate road entrance to either the goods yard or the station.  Thus would presumably be to avoid the beasts beig frightened by traffic and also to avoid them soiling the road entrance.

 

As to handling of small quantities there were often only 1 or two pens usually with a fenced area behind them so that one wagon load of beasts at a time could be put into the pens.

 

Long Preston could handle large numbers on market days but also handled small shipments.  One regular one, that a former signalman told me about, was Highland cattle from Dingwall that a local farmer bought on a regular basis.  Apparently he bought one or two wagon loads at a time and certainly from Carlisle to Long Preston these were attached to the tail of the last local passenger working which stopped at Long Preston.  The entrance to the cattle dock was controlled by a ground frame that was near the down starter.  Apparently after the passenger traffic had been dealt with the train with cattle wagons attched, would pull forward over the river, past the starter and then under control of the porter the ground frame was released and the whole train with passengers on would reverse into the cattle dock to detach the wagons.  The train would then set off to Hellifield.  

 

When I told the late David Jenkinson about this he expressed disbelief but consulted the sectional appendix and found that either two fitted wagons were allowed as tail traffic or three unfitted plus a brake van.

 

Jamie

[davetheroad]

My prototype inspiration Penrith had the cattle pens, actually lots of sheep were transported, distant from the station platforms but later when an abbatoir was constructed it appears 4 cattle pens were built beside one of the long sidings normally used for coaches? Thats where they are going on my layout. The coal drops etc are also adjacent to the end of the main up platform.

[John_Miles]

I believe that loaded cattle trucks had to be marshalled immediately behind the engine on loose coupled freights so the cattle weren''t knocked about too much. Also there was a regulation about how long they could be in the truck before the had to be watered. I think it was 10 hours. I always find the concern for animal welfare a bit hypocritical, given that most of them were going to be slaughtered when they reached their destination. I also read somewhere that the least popular job was cleaning the cattle dock and trucks after the cattle had gone.

 

A variation on this is when whole farms were moved. Somewhere in my archives I have a document about a farmer who was moving lock, stock and barrel from Scotland to somewhere near Hay-on-Wye.

[Boris]

I believe that loaded cattle trucks had to be marshalled immediately behind the engine on loose coupled freights so the cattle weren''t knocked about too much. Also there was a regulation about how long they could be in the truck before the had to be watered. I think it was 10 hours. I always find the concern for animal welfare a bit hypocritical, given that most of them were going to be slaughtered when they reached their destination. I also read somewhere that the least popular job was cleaning the cattle dock and trucks after the cattle had gone.

 

A variation on this is when whole farms were moved. Somewhere in my archives I have a document about a farmer who was moving lock, stock and barrel from Scotland to somewhere near Hay-on-Wye.

There's a film of it on youtube as part of a BTF film

[Fat Controller]

The 'concern for animal welfare' is strictly practical; stressed animals produce lactic acid, which can give an 'off' flavour to the meat.

[AberdeenBill]

The 'concern for animal welfare' is strictly practical; stressed animals produce lactic acid, which can give an 'off' flavour to the meat.

 

And avoiding any compensation/insurance claims.    

[keefer]

presumably stressed animals are also more likely to struggle/jump about, which in a confined space means visible physical damage/injury - you wouldn't necessarily know about the taste till later, but you would notice an injured animal straight away

[kandc_au]

An example of what Stationmaster said was Ashburton.

Also Maiden Newton had the cattle dock beside and at the end of the main platform.

Stock was walked up the station road.

 

Khris

[Reorte]

Where I'm modelling, Kirkby Stephen, the cattle dock was a siding off the main goods track. It's actually still there (not as a cattle dock siding obviously) even though most of the rest of the pointwork has gone so it's no longer a separate siding. The dock itself was at the far end of the platform, although separated from it by a now-gone wall. It was also higher than the passenger platform, presumably a step-free level for the livestock, whereas there was quite a step up from the passenger platform (now raised to the same level as the former cattle dock).

 

Access to the cattle dock siding was via a hand point, and there was a trap on the exit from the goods yard beyond that point, so presumably using the siding for trap purposes was not acceptable (although I can imagine a couple of other reasons for it, and someone who actually knows what they're talking about could probably come up with another).

[ejstubbs]

Thanks for all the info.  Please keep it coming!

 

So it looks like there wasn't any overriding principle of keeping cattle well away from passenger areas in a small station (and might not have been for coal either).  I can well understand that space limitations, even in country areas, might take precedence over "softer" planning criteria.

 

Regarding the dock being located so as not to interfere with other goods traffic: the dock at Highley on the SVR appears to be positioned right next to the pointwork which gives access to the goods loops from the South (though, being loops, they could obviously also be accessed from the North end if required).  Perhaps more significantly, though, it seems to block access to the quarry line as well.  I know this is a preserved line but as far as I can see from Old Maps the dock is still in its original, apparently obstructive, location.  It looks like the dock opens directly on to the public road on the non-railway side, which might explain why it was located where it was.  That does suggest to me that, in that location at least, the operational practice must have been to load/unload cattle and clear the dock as expeditiously as possible, with empty vans being shunted immediately off out of the way rather than left next to the dock.  As it happens, the Highley dock (helpfully modelled RTP by Bachmann) is exactly the sort of size of facility that I am considering for my layout.

[Wolfy]

It's also worth bearing in mind that cattle aren't just valued for their meat; the hides are valuable too and so any damage would reduce the value of this. Also, if one gets stressed during the journey and goes lame then getting it off railway property and to the slaughterhouse would become much harder.

[kevinlms]

The 'concern for animal welfare' is strictly practical; stressed animals produce lactic acid, which can give an 'off' flavour to the meat.

I'm sure the RSPCA would disagree with your thoughts.

[Fat Controller]

I'm sure the RSPCA would disagree with your thoughts.

I'm sure they would; however, we're talking about a period when the RSPCA (and other groups, such as Compassion in World Farming) had little influence. Economic pressure, such as getting a bad reputation, and thus a low price, because of the quality of your meats and hides was much more likely to have an effect. 

[kevinlms]

I'm sure they would; however, we're talking about a period when the RSPCA (and other groups, such as Compassion in World Farming) had little influence. Economic pressure, such as getting a bad reputation, and thus a low price, because of the quality of your meats and hides was much more likely to have an effect. 

Here is an inquiry into contagious diseases of animals from 1873. 

 

http://www.dippam.ac.uk/eppi/documents/15762/page/413381

 

Question 6856 onwards is about the practice of limewash, whether or not it was warranted, but insisted on by the Royal Agricultural Society Q 6859. Note the objection was due to damage to the ironwork of the ship (Q6962). Q 6871 is about animal cruelty & dismissal.

 

However as we know, limewashing of cattle wagons was outlawed from about 1926 onwards, so someone must have been considering it in between times. In fact, Q 6815 & 6 suggest that the practice of limewashing did nothing anyway.

 

I think your confusing the issue of cruelty of animals, to animal liberation, which IMO are completely different matters.

[islandbridgejct]

Here is an inquiry into contagious diseases of animals from 1873. 

 

http://www.dippam.ac.uk/eppi/documents/15762/page/413381

 

Question 6856 onwards is about the practice of limewash, whether or not it was warranted, but insisted on by the Royal Agricultural Society Q 6859. Note the objection was due to damage to the ironwork of the ship (Q6962). Q 6871 is about animal cruelty & dismissal.

 

However as we know, limewashing of cattle wagons was outlawed from about 1926 onwards, so someone must have been considering it in between times. In fact, Q 6815 & 6 suggest that the practice of limewashing did nothing anyway.

 

I think your confusing the issue of cruelty of animals, to animal liberation, which IMO are completely different matters.

 

That report is very interesting. I've only scratched the surface of it so far, but it seems that the Committee that prepared the report said it would be useful if limewashing could be discontinued.

 

I'm trying to piece together the flow of cattle between Ireland and Britain in the early 1900s. It seems from the report that the principal flow was one of meat for slaughter, and that the cattle were shipped from Dublin to Holyhead and Birkenhead, and from Greenore to Stranraer and Birkenhead. They then seem to have been sent directly for slaughter in the large cities, rather than being sent for further fattening, or for recovery after their travels. The traffic would seem to be one requiring block trains from Holyhead and Birkenhead to London, perhaps Birmingham, and presumably cities from Liverpool to York and across the midlands. Presumably the trade to Scotland went to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

 

As to the origins of the traffic, the GS&WR sent out empty specials from Dublin every Tuesday, to return filled on Wednesday / Thursday after the weekly cattle markets. There were 2 potential destinations: it had extensive sidings near the Dublin cattle market and the L&NWR, with which it was closely associated, had extensive sidings at its station at the North Wall in Dublin. Cattle rearing in the GS&WR territory included the principal dairying belt, and current practice is that bullochs are sent to Connaught for fattening, while heifers are retained as dairy cows. Presuming something similar in the early 1900s, there must still have been a substantial trade towards Dublin to generate a trade which, apparently, used to cause near gridlock in the system every week.

 

The shipping of cattle from Connacht would have been caught largely by the MGWR, which had its own, even larger cattle yards in the North Wall. Given the close links beteen the LNWR and GS&WR, and the rivalry between the GSWR and the Midland, I'd expect the latter probably favoured Birkenhead as a destination for connection to the GWR (or was it?), though presumably economic reality would have seen the LNWR pick up a good chunk of the traffic.

 

The WLWR might have taken some of the Connacht traffic before 1901, but as there seem to have been no cattle pens in Waterford and only small ones in Limerick, I think that unlikely. After its absorption by the GS&WR in 1901 and completion of the Waterford - Rosslare line by the GS&WR and GWR in 1906, a further traffic might have opened up to south Wales via Rosslare port. Does anyone know about this? I think I may have seen photos of cattle wagons at Rosslare.

 

To return to the fattening in Connacht of cattle bred in the dairying ares in Leinster and Munster, this traffic would have had to move either over the WLWR line through Limerick and Athenry, or the GSWR through Dublin. Given the small size of the cattle pens in Limerick, and the late completion of that line, I imagine the traffic was probably over the GSWR to the cattle market in Dublin, and then back along the Midland to the fattening farms. This would mean the GSWR operation was probably largely one way, towards Dublin, while the Midland might have distributed cattle around its system, and later returned them to Dublin for export.

 

This leaves the Greenore traffic. The L&NWR owned the Dundalk, Newry and Greenore (jointly with the GNR(I)?). The raison d'etre of that line was to ship cattle out of Greenore. The most likely point of origin for those cattle was northern Connacht, where the SLNCR made its living from shipping cattle from Sligo and Leitrim to Enniskillen, where they would have been taken by the GNRI and shipped to Greenore via Clones and Dundalk or Omagh and Portadown. I would imagine there was probably a Belfast traffic through Omagh, but that most of the traffic would have been through Dundalk to destinations from Stranraer to Birkenhead, with Fleetwood probably featuring as it apparently built itself up from trade with Ireland.

 

If anyone knows any more about this, or can correct any of my assumptions above, I'd be grateful to hear. I was going to start a separate thread on this, but I hope I'm sufficiently on topic to justify posting on this thread, and that the OP doesn't mind or regard this as a thread hijack.

 

 

Alan

[jamie92208]

There wasdefinitely a large trade via Heysham that got distributed around the Midland system.  When I was researching Woodlesford, just south of Leeds, I was told by an old retired porter that irish cattle regularly arrived during the night and 3 or four wagons would be dropped off for unloading.  They then went to a local farm for fatenning.  There are many photos of the extensive lairage at Heysham and at least one of a cattle special heding south with blocks of 5 cattle wagons with a sheeted open between each block.  The opens contained hay for feeding the besats en route.

 

Jamie

[islandbridgejct]

There wasdefinitely a large trade via Heysham that got distributed around the Midland system.  When I was researching Woodlesford, just south of Leeds, I was told by an old retired porter that irish cattle regularly arrived during the night and 3 or four wagons would be dropped off for unloading.  They then went to a local farm for fatenning.  There are many photos of the extensive lairage at Heysham and at least one of a cattle special heding south with blocks of 5 cattle wagons with a sheeted open between each block.  The opens contained hay for feeding the besats en route.

 

Jamie

Thanks. That's interesting. I'm particularly interested that they were shipping cattle for fattening prior to slaughter. According to the 1870 report there was very little risk of infection from Irish cattle (foot and mouth was apparently rife in Ireland at the time, but largely under control in England and Wales) because most cattle were shipped direct for slaughter. Presumably the trade had evolved over the intervening years.

 

On googling lairage, I turned up a list of ports charging lairage from Hansard, which seems to show that the ports of export in 1913 were Glasgow, Ayr, Heysham, Fleetwood, Birkenhead, Holyhead, Cardiff and Bristol.

 

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1913/apr/23/irish-cattle-lairage-at-ports

 

I found this map of Heysham on the nls website

 

 

http://maps.nls.uk/view/101101067

 

I presume the area marked with the arrow is the cattle dock. I'll look further for photos of the loading and unloading later.

 

The cattle pens at Greenore were bigger (and right beside the hotel!):

 

 

http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V2,722301,810879,12,9

 

I'd expect Cardiff and Bristol to have taken cattle from Rosslare, Holyhead and Birkenhead to have taken from Dublin, Heysham and Fleetwood to have taken from Greenore, and Ayr and Glasgow from Greenore, Belfast or Larne, though I'm not sure the last two were involved in the trade. The principle seems to have been to go for short sea crossings, and keep the journey time under 12 hours.

 

I'll post more as I put this together.

 

Alan

[Fat Controller]

Fishguard had extensive lairage, just below the GWR-owned hotel.

[jamie92208]

You're right about the cattle pens.  There are photos of them in Essery's book on Midland Wagons though I'll have to check which volume and obviously can't post it on here.   Heysham had sailings to Belfast and Douglas so I presume that the cattle came from Belfast.  I've never seen any reference to export trade unless it was prize cattle for breeding which travelled in special vans.  All the references that I've seen have been for import.   The info about import for fattening came from a retired porter that I talked to in the mid 70's so presumably would have taken place this century.  There is a site about Woodlesford Station run by Howard Benson that might have more.  I've provided him with quite a bit of material.

 

Jamie

[The Stationmaster]

Fishguard had extensive lairage, just below the GWR-owned hotel.

Neyland also had an extensive lairage but it declined after Fishguard opened

[islandbridgejct]

 

You're right about the cattle pens.  There are photos of them in Essery's book on Midland Wagons though I'll have to check which volume and obviously can't post it on here.   Heysham had sailings to Belfast and Douglas so I presume that the cattle came from Belfast.  I've never seen any reference to export trade unless it was prize cattle for breeding which travelled in special vans.  All the references that I've seen have been for import.   The info about import for fattening came from a retired porter that I talked to in the mid 70's so presumably would have taken place this century.  There is a site about Woodlesford Station run by Howard Benson that might have more.  I've provided him with quite a bit of material.

 

Jamie

Thanks, Jamie. I'm afraid I'm causing the confusion - my export is your import, because I'm looking from the other side of the Irish Sea.

 

Greenore was an LNWR port, so presumably was shipping to LNWR destinations as far as possible. The Midland owned the NCC which served Antrim and Derry and a small part of Tyrone. I'd suspect its cattle came from the Cookstown and Limavady branches. They might have come off the CDRJC or LLSR, but I never heard Donegal was cattle country. I think the GNRI would have preferred Greenore - better income for its Irish North Western branch - but maybe cattle dealers had their own shipping preferences.

 

Alan

[Rail-Online]

I believe some Irish cattle was transported all across the country for re-export to the Continent.  There are pics of complete GWR cattle trains near Hull and also on GER metals taking 'Beasts' to boats for onward shipment. Presumably these would have been landed at Fishguard. Remember GWR cattle vans were not pooled between the wars (except for a few months, then they GWR pulled out of the pooling) so if you see GWR cattle van off their system it is unusual.

 

Tony