Midland Railway Company

[Compound2632]

One really needs to see figures for revenue as well as passenger numbers to get a fuller picture - revenue being correlated with passenger miles. Raw passenger numbers gives prominence to those companies such as the GER and SECR that had a large commuter traffic into London. From the point of revenue, one first class journey from London to Edinburgh would have been worth about a hundred workmen's returns into Liverpool Street. It would be interesting to understand what proportion of journeys on lines such as the LNWR, Mid, GWR, GNR were long-distance. 

[Tom Burnham]

Some revenue figures (£) for 1901 (from the 1902 Railway Year Book) (E+OE):

 

                                                   Passenger, Parcels and Mails       Goods, Minerals and Live Stock

Caledonian                               1,633,459                                          2,335,381

Great Central                               904,754                                          2,021,419

Great Eastern                            3,062,819                                         2,220,022

Great Northern                         2,088,120                                         2,748,459

Great Western                           5,379,381                                         5,797,231

Lancashire & Yorkshire            2,314,459                                         2,994,151

London Brighton & S Coast     2,315,551                                           796,059

London & North Western        6,054,645                                         7,590,143

London & South Western        2,849,447                                          1,370,966

Midland                                       3,592,503                                         7,398,317

North British                               1,666,410                                         2,545,788

North Eastern                             3,007,815                                         5,830,788

South Eastern & Chatham        3,136,175                                         1,694,706

 

It's interesting that although (apart from the three "Southern" companies and the Great Eastern) goods etc revenue was more important than passengers, in many cases the difference isn't as great as you might imagine.  I think the Midland (pre the Tilbury acquisition) and the Great Central were actually the only companies where the goods revenue was more than twice passenger.  While the North Eastern had an enormous tonnage of coal traffic, a lot of it was carried relatively short distances from pit to staithe, while the Midland for example connected the Midlands and Yorkshire coalfields with London.

In 1901, Cecil Paget was still assistant works manager at Derby, and coal trains were still spending many hours in lay-by sidings.  I guess while the train isn't moving, the capability of the loco is irrelevant!

[Compound2632]

33 minutes ago, Tom Burnham said:

Some revenue figures (£) for 1901 (from the 1902 Railway Year Book) (E+OE):

 

I think that does show the dominance of the LNWR in the long-distance passenger business, if we can assume that the number of passenger journeys per company were in much the same proportion as in 1921 - a very rough assumption. The GWR, which did not have a very large commuter business (certainly not at this date) but some nice long lucrative runs to the West Country &c. is therefore unsurprisingly in second place. 

 

We know that the Midland was playing second fiddle to the LNWR on Scotch and Lancashire traffic - one just has to compare the length of the trains! So its lower passenger revenue is unsurprising (noting of course that these figures are from before the LTS take-over). Where the Midland is, I think, likely to have been doing better than the LNWR or GNR was on medium-distance journeys, with more of its routes serving significant population centres. For example, on the London- Manchester route, the GNR/MS&LR route had served Sheffield but the LNWR nowhere bigger than Stafford or Rugby, where the Midland took in Leicester and Derby. Of course by 1901 the GCR was competing for Leicester and Nottingham traffic on the Manchester route.

[Regularity]

58 minutes ago, Tom Burnham said:

Some revenue figures (£) for 1901 (from the 1902 Railway Year Book) (E+OE):

Interesting to add total revenue and to rank by pass/goods/total revenue.

Doesn’t matter much, because the important metric is the earnings per share, but it’s fun to do it!

[DenysW]

Shareholder Returns. The following table is very simplistic because (a) it tracks only Ordinary Shares, and these were lower on the pecking order than Preferred Shares and Debentures, let alone direct borrowing (b) it ignores the possibility that the shares could give returns or losses by increasing/decreasing in value. In good times the Midland paid around 6% on Ordinary shares but only 4% on Preferred shares. In bad times (see the LCDR and the MSLR/GCR) Ordinary Shares would get nothing but if possible Preferred shares would still get their 'guaranteed' return. Even these were not always reliable on the MSLR.

 

I've intentionally not included the more complicated tables from this Warwick University article because they wrap-in share prices, and that mean that virtually all of the companies were a loss-making investment in Edwardian times.

 

Government securities were paying 2% at the start of this period, but 6% by the end, as a reference for what a safe investment paid. The Taff Vale numbers seem to reflect that there was enough demand for Welsh coal during this period for the Taff Vale, the Rhymney, and the Barry railways all to be very profitable, even though the latter two railways had much more expensive (to build) lines.

 

[Compound2632]

I was having a discussion about this the other day with my sister-in-law, a high-flying City "Gent"; in her retirement (she's younger than me, blow it!) much in demand as a non-executive director, for her financial, management, and personal skills. 

 

The historical point she made was that at that time, dividend was much more important than share price, as most shareholders were individuals who relied on dividends for their income. There were not then the large institutional funds that dominate the market now, who make the majority of their growth through share trading. 

 

Also, at that time, dividend income was treated on the same footing as any other income for income tax.

[Regularity]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

The historical point she made was that at that time, dividend was much more important than share price, as most shareholders were individuals who relied on dividends for their income.

Hence earnings per share - which is independent of the share value, which can change dramatically.

 

[CKPR]

On 10/05/2022 at 14:57, Compound2632 said:

at that time, dividend was much more important than share price, as most shareholders were individuals who relied on dividends for their income... dividend income was treated on the same footing as any other income for income tax.

From memory, the M&CR was one of the most profitable railway companies with dividends of nearly 10% in some years and interestingly, M&CR dividend statements are still  pretty common in antique shops in west Cumbria, which seems to suggest that the  M&CR's generous dividends were an important part of some people's incomes. 

Edited July 3, 2022 by CKPR

[Compound2632]

How to remain profitable?

 

Carriage & Wagon Committee minute 2022, 12 August 1886:

 

20 tons Goods Brake Vans

Read Traffic Committee minute No.  24718 as follows:-

Resolved

That as experiments have proved that a 20 ton brake may be safely used in lieu of two 10 ton brakes in those cases where it is necessary to have two 10 ton brakes attached to a train, the Carriage & Wagon Committee be requested to construct 75 such brakes by means of which about 60 under-guards can be dispensed with, whose wages amount to upwards of £3000 per annum. As a consequence of this, the renewal of 150 ten-ton brakes will be rendered unnecessary.

Approved

 

[TNA RAIL 491/254]

 

These 20 ton brakes will be the ones constructed to lot 158, raised on 17 August 1886, just five days later. The experiments presumably involved the prototype vehicle built to lot 146, raised on 5 February 1886. The drawing, Drg. 651, was dated 27 January 1886.

Edited May 12, 2022 by Compound2632
typesetting corrected

[bill-lobb]

On 11/05/2022 at 00:11, CKPR said:

From memory, the M&CR was one of the most profitable railway companies with dividends of nearly 10% in some years and interestingly, M&CR dividend statements are still  pretty common in antique shops in west Cumbria, which seems to suggest that the  M&CR's generous dividends were an important of some people's incomes. 

There is a story by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle called "The Poison Belt" in which the earth passes through a belt of strange gas that apparently kills everyone on earth bar a few who are in positions that it does not reach them. The heroes of the tale encounter a confused elderly lady who's only question is how is London and North Western stock performing. The idea pf people depending on railway share dividends for income is apparently established in contemporary popular culture.

 

Bill

[technohand]

All very interesting but has anyone done any modelling?

Just joking

Tony

[Crimson Rambler]

In answer to Tony's question, yes I have done some Midland modelling and so been able to progress the Class N 0-6-0T a little further:-

 

 

 

It is seen standing outside the office block on DH's excellent S7 Midland Railway shed layout. It visited so that I could confirm my belief that a 7ft - 4ins x 7ft - 8ins wheelbase would need none or next to none sideplay to negotiate the 12ft/1 in 7 points on Davids layout.

 

For those who may not recognize what it is, below is what it will look like when its finished:-

 

 

If mine comes out as good as this one by David then I'll be well pleased.

 

Crimson Rambler

 

[Tricky]

3 hours ago, Crimson Rambler said:

In answer to Tony's question, yes I have done some Midland modelling and so been able to progress the Class N 0-6-0T a little further:-

 

 

 

It is seen standing outside the office block on DH's excellent S7 Midland Railway shed layout. It visited so that I could confirm my belief that a 7ft - 4ins x 7ft - 8ins wheelbase would need none or next to none sideplay to negotiate the 12ft/1 in 7 points on Davids layout.

 

For those who may not recognize what it is, below is what it will look like when its finished:-

 

 

If mine comes out as good as this one by David then I'll be well pleased.

 

Crimson Rambler

 

Looking good so far. Is it the Slater's kit? Some aspects of it look like Slater's but I'm not sure? Is that LG inside motion peeking through there?!

[lezz01]

Very nice it looks too.

Regards Lez.

[Crimson Rambler]

To answer @Trickyparts of it do come from the Slater's kit. Indeed the intention after a long break from modelling, was to build the kit as a way of getting my hand back in, however after starting out on that road the plan quickly changed instead to try and take as much advantage as I could of working in S7.

 

The frame plates are Slaters as are the outside frames (valances) and the platform. The horns started out as Slaters brass hornblocks but cut to form separate guides. The wheels are Slaters married to an ABC motor and gearbox plus Premier Components (I think) coupling rods - but the latter will be replaced. The rest of what you can see is scratchbuilt. 

 

The kit was ordered without a boiler so I know I have to make a replacement but I'm hoping to use as much as possible of the upperworks.

 

 

Crimson Rambler

 

 

 

[Tricky]

47 minutes ago, Crimson Rambler said:

To answer @Trickyparts of it do come from the Slater's kit. Indeed the intention after a long break from modelling, was to build the kit as a way of getting my hand back in, however after starting out on that road the plan quickly changed instead to try and take as much advantage as I could of working in S7.

 

The frame plates are Slaters as are the outside frames (valances) and the platform. The horns started out as Slaters brass hornblocks but cut to form separate guides. The wheels are Slaters married to an ABC motor and gearbox plus Premier Components (I think) coupling rods - but the latter will be replaced. The rest of what you can see is scratchbuilt. 

 

The kit was ordered without a boiler so I know I have to make a replacement but I'm hoping to use as much as possible of the upperworks.

 

 

Crimson Rambler

 

 

 

It all looks very neat. Which ABC gearbox/motor did you go for? Assuming it’s got to fit upright in a round top firebox.

[Crimson Rambler]

Its an ABC Mini Gooch gearbox @Trickycoupled to one of his coreless motors. The engine will have a round top firebox and by my reckoning the top rear 'edge' of the motor will end up in a gap formed between the cab spectacle plate and the boiler front/backhead.

 

Crimson Rambler

 

 

[Tricky]

I posted these pics on my own thread but thought I’d pop them on here too as there may be one or two folk who would appreciate some Midland architecture! They are, of course, entirely scratch built by me to a commission, and are built to 7mm/ft. They represent a coal office and weighbridge office buildings. I seem to have been involved in a lot of Great Western stuff over the last couple of years and so it is an absolute joy to be working on Midland subjects for a change! The architecture style is just so beautifully Midland - elegant, well proportioned and understated. Perfect. Contact me with your own project brief. 

[lezz01]

Beautifully built as always Tricky mate.

Regards Lez.

[Rowsley17D]

Love the look of those sash windows they look as though they could be opened.

[Compound2632]

48 minutes ago, Rowsley17D said:

they look as though they could be opened.

 

Now there's the next challenge...

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

Now there's the next challenge...

 

... though I expect it's been done in 2 mm fs, @Caley Jim?

[Tricky]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Now there's the next challenge...

They could of course be in an open position - but as for working - well…

[Compound2632]

26 minutes ago, Tricky said:

They could of course be in an open position - but as for working - well…

 

One would have to model the lead balance weights sliding inside the frame.

[lezz01]

12 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

One would have to model the lead balance weights sliding inside the frame.

Why? If you can't see it why model it? Friction would hold the window in whatever position you put it in, The weights wouldn't be a problem but the sash cord would as it wouldn't be as flexible as a real one would and that would cause issues. Working sash windows could be built but not with working weights and cords. You'd have to make the frame from metal so it would hold it's shape as you can't rely on plastic, maybe you could 3D print it in out of nylon in 7mm but I'm not sure about 4mm. 3D printing isn't something I know a lot about but I do know a man who does. 

Regards Lez.