Midland Railway Company

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, ChrisN said:

Apparently, farmers were not above ordering one size with a partition and then moving it once the animals were being loaded.  Of course this was to the cost of the rail companies, but how they did it without the railway staff knowing I do not know.    The GWR, invented a method whereby the locking mechanism of the partition was seen from the outside, so as to prevent this.  @Mikkel has written about this in one of his blogs.

 

The GWR often gets credited with innovations that were in fact common to all the companies, again, via the General Managers' Comittee at the RCH. Here's MR Traffic Committee minute 33838 of 7 April 1905:

 

Fasteners for cattle wagon partitions.

                              Resolved that the movable partitions in three hundred cattle wagons be fitted with fasteners for preventing the partitions being moved in transit at an est cost of forty-five shillings each, or a total of £675, and the matter was referred to the Carriage and Wagon Committee.

 

A further 200 were fitted a year later.

[Caley Jim]

Apropos sheep being packed in.  If a sheep falls over and lands on it's back, it cannot right itself (no matter where it is) and will eventually suffocate.  Therefore it is advantageous that they be packed in to the extent that they are supporting one another.  I once had occasion to right a 'cowp'd ewe' in the field adjacent to our last house and it was a good 15-20 minutes before it eventually recovered and walked away.

 

Jim

[Mikkel]

18 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The GWR often gets credited with innovations that were in fact common to all the companies, again, via the General Managers' Comittee at the RCH. Here's MR Traffic Committee minute 33838 of 7 April 1905:

 

Fasteners for cattle wagon partitions.

                              Resolved that the movable partitions in three hundred cattle wagons be fitted with fasteners for preventing the partitions being moved in transit at an est cost of forty-five shillings each, or a total of £675, and the matter was referred to the Carriage and Wagon Committee.

 

A further 200 were fitted a year later.

 

Pure envy. In 1903 Messieurs Wright and Marillier of the GWR’s Wagon & Carriage department invented and patented the Wright-Marillier partition locking bar for cattle wagons.

 

From your quote it would seem that the Midland took two years to catch on. But that is as expected 😛

 

[drduncan]

11 hours ago, Caley Jim said:

Apropos sheep being packed in.  If a sheep falls over and lands on it's back, it cannot right itself (no matter where it is) and will eventually suffocate.  Therefore it is advantageous that they be packed in to the extent that they are supporting one another.  I once had occasion to right a 'cowp'd ewe' in the field adjacent to our last house and it was a good 15-20 minutes before it eventually recovered and walked away.

 

Jim

I remember an old farmer friend (who despised sheep) saying how sheep would always find new and interesting ways to kill themselves, had to be watched constantly to stop them killings themselves, and if all else failed they would die of boredom….

D

 

[DenysW]

1 hour ago, Mikkel said:

In 1903 Messieurs Wright and Marillier of the GWR’s Wagon & Carriage department invented and patented the Wright-Marillier partition locking bar for cattle wagons.

That is merely evidence that the GWR chose to engineer an in-house solution to one of the problems of the day and then to publicise the fact. It is not evidence for or against early adoption of the technology. In an industry where most of the larger Railway companies chose to design and construct their own locomotives such a parochial attitude is not surprising. Even the Midland, which did out-source locomotive construction after it had in-house capacity, very rarely outsourced design.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Mikkel said:

From your quote it would seem that the Midland took two years to catch on. But that is as expected 😛

 

The reaction time would have been quicker if it was something the LNWR or GNR were doing!

[Caley Jim]

1 hour ago, drduncan said:

I remember an old farmer friend (who despised sheep) saying how sheep would always find new and interesting ways to kill themselves, had to be watched constantly to stop them killings themselves, and if all else failed they would die of boredom….

D

 

A local farmer once told me that a sheep's main objective in life is to die! 

 

Jim

[NHY 581]

1 hour ago, drduncan said:

I remember an old farmer friend (who despised sheep) saying how sheep would always find new and interesting ways to kill themselves, had to be watched constantly to stop them killings themselves, and if all else failed they would die of boredom….

D

 

 

Wrong. 

 

8 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

A local farmer once told me that a sheep's main objective in life is to die! 

 

Jim

 

Wrong +1

 

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, NHY 581 said:

Wrong. 

Wrong +1

 

Farmers are notorious pessimists. I've known many a lively sheep. The will to bleat is strong. Equally, I've eaten parts of many a sheep that didn't make it to adulthood.

[ChrisN]

I have a friend who once had a small holding with a small flock of sheep.  We were there one day and the South Down ram was laying on its side, looking very ill.  We went and told our friend, who said, "Oh that is just Bob, he does that as he knows it gets him attention."

 

Sorry, enough thread drift.

[drduncan]

1 hour ago, NHY 581 said:

 

Wrong. 

 

 

Wrong +1

 

Mint sauce! Mint sauce! Mint sauce!

[Compound2632]

8 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

The reaction time would have been quicker if it was something the LNWR or GNR were doing!

 

So, I had a look in LNWR Wagons Vol. 1 to see if there was anything on partition fasteners - there is not, so far as I can see. But reference is made there, apropos of standard internal lengths for small, medium, and large wagons, to the Rates and Charges Order Confirmation Act 1891. On investigation, this turns out to have been a series of acts, each specific to a particular railway company. There were such acts for the LNWR, Midland, Great Western, Great Eastern, Great Northern, and the four southern companies but as far as I can make out on a superficial search, for the North Eastern, L&Y, or MS&L, or for the Scottish or Irish companies.

 

Each of these acts has a vast appendix laying down maximum rates for items as diverse as toasting forks or wheelbarrows in parts. The full text of the Midland Railway (Rates and Charges) Order Confirmation Act, 1891, is here:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/Vict/54-55/219/pdfs/ukla_18910219_en.pdf.

The reference to cattle truck lengths is in Part II of the appendix, 'Animal Class', in the 'Description' column of the table on page 12.

 

These acts were passed as confirmation of Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under powers granted by the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888. There's presumably some story around why these Orders needed to be followed up with Acts of Parliament. 

Edited June 8 by Compound2632

[kevinlms]

Regardless of who invented the lockable partition, it must have saved railway companies a lot of money, rather than shuffling around and building 3 sizes.

With presumably the farmers only wanting to pay for the smallest size, after all a couple of extra sheep isn't going bankrupt the railway. 

[ChrisN]

6 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

So, I had a look in LNWR Wagons Vol. 1 to see if there was anything on partition fasteners - there is not, so far as I can see. But reference is made there, apropos of standard internal lengths for small, medium, and large wagons, to the Rates and Charges Order Confirmation Act 1891. On investigation, this turns out to have been a series of acts, each specific to a particular railway company. There were such acts for the LNWR, Midland, Great Western, Great Eastern, and the four southern companies but as far as I can make out on a superficial search, for the Great Northern, North Eastern, L&Y, or MS&L, or for the Scottish or Irish companies.

 

Each of these acts has a vast appendix laying down maximum rates for items as diverse as toasting forks or wheelbarrows in parts. The full text of the Midland Railway (Rates and Charges) Order Confirmation Act, 1891, is here:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/Vict/54-55/219/pdfs/ukla_18910219_en.pdf.

The reference to cattle truck lengths is in Part II of the appendix, 'Animal Class', in the 'Description' column of the table on page 12.

 

These acts were passed as confirmation of Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under powers granted by the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888. There's presumably some story around why these Orders needed to be followed up with Acts of Parliament. 

 

I find this very interesting that Parliament thought that it should set rates for private companies, I am not sure that it would go down too well nowadays.

 

Perhaps it had to be put in an act because BoT Orders did not have the force of law and that Parliament did not want to give the BoT such powers itself.

[DenysW]

18 minutes ago, ChrisN said:

I find this very interesting that Parliament thought that it should set rates for private companies, I am not sure that it would go down too well nowadays.

They set maximum rates for passengers and merchandise, but not, as far as I can tell, minerals. Typically this was in the Acts giving compulsory purchase powers to the companies to build new railways/branches/etc. This gave an absolute jumble of potential rates. There were also the "Parliamentary Trains" forcing the early railways to provide at least some passenger service for 1 d/mile, stopping at all stations, and doing at least 13 mph.

 

The Midland embraced third class passengers extra to the parliamentary minimum. Others (GWR, LSWR, Bristol & Exeter) did not. The GWR did have to accept Soldiers at Parliamentary rates on its services, but it appears through gritted teeth.

[kevinlms]

17 minutes ago, ChrisN said:

 

I find this very interesting that Parliament thought that it should set rates for private companies, I am not sure that it would go down too well nowadays.

 

Perhaps it had to be put in an act because BoT Orders did not have the force of law and that Parliament did not want to give the BoT such powers itself.

I would guess that it had something to with the rate and dividing up the income (via the RCH), hard enough working out the proportion of whose line the wagon travelled over, let alone variations in the price.

 

Just imagine a wagon travelling 100 miles over 3 companies, with ratios of the track of 65, 25 & 10% and having 3 rates per ton/mile or item in the case of livestock. 1 shilling and 1 penny, 1 shilling and 1 farthing and 11 and 3/4 pence. Half the country would need to be employed by the RCH!

So in the interests of the companies to have a unified charging rate, based on distance.

[Mol_PMB]

To add to the complexity, there was the 'Ordinary Rate' and the 'Reduced Rate' depending on whether the railway or the sender took responsibility for loss, damage or delay.

As mentioned here, which is for livestock but not, in this case, the four-legged variety:

[kevinlms]

3 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

To add to the complexity, there was the 'Ordinary Rate' and the 'Reduced Rate' depending on whether the railway or the sender took responsibility for loss, damage or delay.

As mentioned here, which is for livestock but not, in this case, the four-legged variety:

Unfortunately, we don't get to see the rates! 🙂

[Compound2632]

26 minutes ago, ChrisN said:

I find this very interesting that Parliament thought that it should set rates for private companies, I am not sure that it would go down too well nowadays.

 

OFCOM, OFWAT, OFGEM, etc. are all carrying out exactly that role; although independent from government they derive their powers from legislation. It could be argued that it was the Regulation of Railways Acts that set the precedent for this; there was an 'arms-length' aspect through the Railway and Canal Commissioners.

 

On the one hand, the railways collectively had a something approaching a monopoly on transport and hence there had to be some protection for the public from abuse of that monopoly. (There was never the view that competition between companies would lead to the market dictating rates - Parliament consistently made a choice in favour out of one of a number of competing routes.) On the other hand, the railways were a national asset that could be seen as financed by private enterprise on behalf of the state - the continental model.

 

The example of the enormous profits generated by some of the canal companies was very much in the minds of early railway legislators - Gladstone's Act of 1844 provided powers for the nationalisation of any company that consistently paid more than 10%.

[Compound2632]

38 minutes ago, ChrisN said:

Perhaps it had to be put in an act because BoT Orders did not have the force of law and that Parliament did not want to give the BoT such powers itself.

 

Orders of the Board of Trade had the force of law, being made under powers granted to the Board by Acts of Parliament - examples of what I think is termed secondary legislation.

 

In this case, these acts of 1891 are confirming 'Provisional Orders' - I don't know what the status of these would have been. The detail of Orders, and indeed of these Acts, was undoubtedly thrashed out between government and industry - the industry being represented by the Railway Companies' Association. 

[ChrisN]

37 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

OFCOM, OFWAT, OFGEM, etc. are all carrying out exactly that role; although independent from government they derive their powers from legislation. It could be argued that it was the Regulation of Railways Acts that set the precedent for this; there was an 'arms-length' aspect through the Railway and Canal Commissioners.

 

On the one hand, the railways collectively had a something approaching a monopoly on transport and hence there had to be some protection for the public from abuse of that monopoly. (There was never the view that competition between companies would lead to the market dictating rates - Parliament consistently made a choice in favour out of one of a number of competing routes.) On the other hand, the railways were a national asset that could be seen as financed by private enterprise on behalf of the state - the continental model.

 

The example of the enormous profits generated by some of the canal companies was very much in the minds of early railway legislators - Gladstone's Act of 1844 provided powers for the nationalisation of any company that consistently paid more than 10%.

 

Yes of course.

 

33 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Orders of the Board of Trade had the force of law, being made under powers granted to the Board by Acts of Parliament - examples of what I think is termed secondary legislation.

 

In this case, these acts of 1891 are confirming 'Provisional Orders' - I don't know what the status of these would have been. The detail of Orders, and indeed of these Acts, was undoubtedly thrashed out between government and industry - the industry being represented by the Railway Companies' Association. 

 

That is why I was surprised it needed an Act of Parliament.  There must have been some wording in the Act that set up the Provisional Orders, or perhaps the BoT were going beyond what there powers in theory were.

[DenysW]

1 minute ago, kevinlms said:

Just imagine a wagon travelling 100 miles over 3 companies

The following is inference only, but I feel it makes at least some sense.

 

Minerals weren't regulated because it was possible to marshall them into complete trains, and the railways therefore got paid much less per ton-mile than they did for merchandise. It also gave scope for savage competition for long-distance coal.

 

You can also convert passengers fares per mile into fares per ton-mile based on the tare weight of the carriages, and this is asserted (by Clement Stretton) to have been a large part of the Midland's decision to abandon second class.

[Mol_PMB]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

Unfortunately, we don't get to see the rates! 🙂

There was big ledger of rates, with all sorts of exceptions and special conditions, which was updated regularly by circulars from the RCH.

As well as different goods being charged at different rates, there were also various rates for different speeds of service, parcels by passenger train being dealt with much more quickly than wagonloads of minerals.

Being a railway clerk in those days required very good levels of arithmetic and reading comprehension!

 

An excerpt from one of the RCH circulars here, with examples of special rates, exclusions etc, but also listing the railways (and other carriers) which were signed up to the rates and conditions:

 

 

 

[ChrisN]

1 hour ago, DenysW said:

The following is inference only, but I feel it makes at least some sense.

 

Minerals weren't regulated because it was possible to marshall them into complete trains, and the railways therefore got paid much less per ton-mile than they did for merchandise. It also gave scope for savage competition for long-distance coal.

 

You can also convert passengers fares per mile into fares per ton-mile based on the tare weight of the carriages, and this is asserted (by Clement Stretton) to have been a large part of the Midland's decision to abandon second class.

 

The Cambrian abolished Second Class in the 1890s and a report to the board said that because of this their revenue increased, I am not sure if it was because Second Class passengers then went First Class, or they got more Third Class passengers in Second Class compartments than they previously had Second Class Passengers.

 

They had to abandon the move until 1912 when both the LNWR and GWR abolished Second Class, as Second Class Passengers from those lines on through tickets were a bit upset that they had to travel Third Class on the Cambrian.)

[Compound2632]

I've had a look at the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/51-52/25/enacted

 

The first section of this establishes the Railway and Canal Commission, in lieu of the Railway Commission of the 1873 Act, as a court for resolution of disputes over rates &c., this being deemed more properly a judicial matter than a batter for a government department. 

 

The second section is concerned with traffic matters and it is this that empowers the Board of Trade to make Provisional Orders, with the specific intention that these be confirmed by Act of Parliament. These Provisional Orders were to be based on the proposals of each railway company, which was deemed to be the promoter of the legislation. (Section 24 of the Act.) 

 

The reason for the omission of the NER and the Scottish and Irish companies from my previous list is simply that their Confirmation Acts were passed later, in 1892 and 1893.

Edited June 8 by Compound2632