Midland Railway Company

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, ChrisN said:

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.

 

I believe there was a wave of abolition of second class from 1 July 1893, led, as far as I can work out, by the Caledonian, which had rather more clout with the LNWR than did the Cambrian, and so was able to hold out, forcing the abolition of second class through booking between England and Scotland by the West Coast route, and hence the abolition of second class provision by the West Coast Joint Stock carriage fleet.

 

I haven't found a list of other companies that withdrew second class on this date, but the S&DJR was one that did, although I think the LSWR retained second class.

[Caley Jim]

11 hours ago, NHY 581 said:

Wrong +1

What I quoted was said to me by a local farmer on an occasion when we had a few of her tups in our field and I found one lying dead one morning.  She was of the opinion that it had probably come off second best in a head-butting contest with one of the others!

 

Jim.

[DenysW]

7 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

haven't found a list of other companies that withdrew second class on this date, but the S&DJR was one that did, although I think the LSWR retained second class.

Some companies let second class dribble towards extinction by retaining it only on suburban or short-distance services. I haven't been systematic on this, but examples appear to include  Furness, Great Northern and Northeastern. The symptom is a radical decrease in revenue/journey from typically more than 20 d to less than 10d.

[kevinlms]

10 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I haven't found a list of other companies that withdrew second class on this date, but the S&DJR was one that did, although I think the LSWR retained second class.

Didn't the LSWR retain 2nd class,because they ran a lot of boat trains. I thought even early Mk1 stock had 3 classes, especially for continental boat trains, nowhere else though. But perhaps I'm wrong and the change to Mk1, led to the 2nd class being eliminated.

2nd class of course came back, but merely a renaming of 3rd class.

[Compound2632]

9 hours ago, DenysW said:

Some companies let second class dribble towards extinction by retaining it only on suburban or short-distance services. I haven't been systematic on this, but examples appear to include  Furness, Great Northern and Northeastern. The symptom is a radical decrease in revenue/journey from typically more than 20 d to less than 10d.

 

Subsequent to my post, I did find an online source that stated that all Scottish companies abolished second class in 1893, along with some others, but that those companies with a larger suburban passenger business retained it because it was popular with the public and just about paid - which I think ties in with what you say there. But that source had other errors such as giving 1910 as the date the GWR abolished second. 

[Tom Burnham]

6 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Didn't the LSWR retain 2nd class,because they ran a lot of boat trains. I thought even early Mk1 stock had 3 classes, especially for continental boat trains, nowhere else though. But perhaps I'm wrong and the change to Mk1, led to the 2nd class being eliminated.

2nd class of course came back, but merely a renaming of 3rd class.

I think the last carriages built for 2nd class were some Maunsell carriages for the Southern Railway, which were designed to be suitable for either first or second class use on Continental boat trains.  They had boards at cantrail level to show the class they were being used for. Two survive on the K&ESR, and very comfortable they are two.

The early Mark 1 carriages would have been built as first or third.

[Tom Burnham]

There was an article by C Hamilton Ellis in Trains Illustrated in the June 1956 issue on second class.  My take on the survival of second class on some lines is that it was related to class distinction in Victorian and Edwardian times.  Relatively few working class would have travelled long distance in pre-Grouping times, and those that did would usually have put on their best clothes so that they didn't seem objectionable to middle class passengers sharing the compartment.  Suburban trains would have had a much higher proportion of working class passengers and many of those would have been in their working clothes, so that clerks and the like sharing the compartment would have risked getting their clothes grubby, and would have been willing to pay a modest premium to avoid that.  Let alone the rank tobacco that workmen would have smoked ..

Edited June 9 by Tom Burnham
Date of T I article added.

[DenysW]

6 hours ago, kevinlms said:

2nd class of course came back, but merely a renaming of 3rd class.

That was certainly the Midland policy from 1875. Presumably the concept of 3rd class fares as the ones limited to a maximum of 1d/mile on most railways was enshrined in legislation as the jargon so couldn't be changed. That said, the same travel in the 1850 Bradshaw seems to have been called 4th class in places - including the Midland's Leicester-Peterborough service, but not its Nottingham-Lincoln service. At that time the Midland seems to have been almost entirely conventional: most services 1st and second only, with two each day (except Sundays) in each direction government and including 3rd/4th class.

 

The Great Northern was referring to the Midland's 1.5 d/mile first class in 1888 in reply to requests to boost second class by cutting its price.

 

20 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

retained it [Second] because it was popular with the public and just about paid

I can't find the exact wording, but on yet another challenge to the wisdom of operating second  in addition to first and third in the 1890s, the GNR chairman said they'd go on operating  second whilst more than a million a year used it, and that he would happily provide a better quality of travel if people were prepared to pay for it.

 

1 minute ago, Tom Burnham said:

much higher proportion of working class passengers and many of those would have been in their working clothes

I have also seen references to down-market coaches provided for those wearing work-clothes and paying workmens fares, but nothing really systematic.

[Tom Burnham]

And the Midland didn't just improve third class seating, they also admitted third class passengers to all their trains, unlike, say, the GWR.  Ellis says "from the late 'eighties onwards, the South Western company made quite good third-class carriages, put them on all the express trains, and still maintained a distinctly superior second class.  This, of course, was a thrust against Great Western, which kept third class off it's best trains for a very long time." "The Great Northern's idea of 'second' was to have a mat on the floor and a '2' on the door.  Otherwise the carriage was patently 'third'."

[Compound2632]

What the Midland did in abolishing second class was effectively to abolish third class in terms of accommodation and first class in terms of fares.

Edited June 11 by Compound2632
typo.

[billbedford]

The LNER did not abolish 2nd class on the GN/GE suburban trains until 1st January 1938 and then abolished 1st class on those trains in 1941. 

 

I've seen "Workmen's trains" listed in WTTs, but  I don't know whether these were intended for company employees or the more general working classes. 

 

 

[Tom Burnham]

29 minutes ago, billbedford said:

I've seen "Workmen's trains" listed in WTTs, but  I don't know whether these were intended for company employees or the more general working classes. 

 

 

As I understand it, some railways which demolished a lot of near-slum housing to build their lines - like the London Chatham & Dover - were obliged by Act of Parliament to provide trains for workmen who now had longer journeys to work at particularly cheap fares (less than the Parliamentary penny a mile).  These were usually quite early in the morning - so, for example, clerks, messengers and such like who wanted to take advantage of the cheap fares but didn't have to be at the office until 8.30 or 9 would hang about in coffee shops.

I believe there's some evidence that these cheap trains weren't actually used by people who'd been displaced from slums - who usually just crowded into nearby slums.  Also, they tended to be in jobs like the docks where they were just hired by the day and needed to be on site to have a chance of work.

[Compound2632]

20 minutes ago, billbedford said:

I've seen "Workmen's trains" listed in WTTs, but  I don't know whether these were intended for company employees or the more general working classes. 

 

Usually services provided by the railway company for the specific use of the employees of a particular firm, usually timed to accommodate a change of shift. The Midland ran such trains for the Austin plant at Longbridge by the 1920s. A photo of this train shows it to be mostly composed of 6-wheel thirds of 1880s vintage, whereas the normal Birmingham District suburban services were worked by sets of bogie coaches built 1908/9:

 

 

[Embedded link to Warwickshire Railways image mrknpreg244]

 

In 1890/1, the Midland built 70 workmen's carriages specifically for such services, rather more basic than the standard third:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64268.]

 

Painted green, the old third class colour.

 

Two trains of these were involved in an early-morning accident at Staveley on & October 1899; one train from chesterfield to Markham and the other from Dronfield to Glapwell, both described as workmen's trains:

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BoT_Staveley1899.pdf

There was no passenger station at Markham - did this train run to a platform at the colliery sidings?

[Tom Burnham]

See also from the Hendon & Finchley Times of 17 June 1892 (p.5)

and again from the same paper of 14 February 1908 (p.7)

[Tom Burnham]

55 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Two trains of these were involved in an early-morning accident at Staveley on & October 1899; one train from chesterfield to Markham and the other from Dronfield to Glapwell, both described as workmen's trains:

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BoT_Staveley1899.pdf

There was no passenger station at Markham - did this train run to a platform at the colliery sidings?

Another collision involving a "Paddy train" to Markham and Glapwell in 1890 - see the Derbyshire Times of 25 January 1890, p.5:

It seems that hand-worked points were involved, so presuumably the train wasn't on a passenger running line, but on either a Midland Railway goods line, or colliery track.

[Compound2632]

29 minutes ago, Tom Burnham said:

Another collision involving a "Paddy train" to Markham and Glapwell in 1890

 

Railway Archive has an entry for this accident but not (as yet) a copy of the report. 

[DenysW]

From the "Railway Magazine" Vol  VIII, p93 in 1901:

 

 

[Holmesfeldian]

The classic image of a miners' Paddy train (John Alsop collection ref. A 397) - picture reputedly taken at Shipley Colliery.

 

Edited June 11 by Holmesfeldian

[Compound2632]

5 hours ago, Holmesfeldian said:

The classic image of a miners' Paddy train (John Alsop collection ref. A 397) - picture reputedly taken at Shipley Colliery.

 

This is a different kettle of fish - a workmen's train on a private colliery  railway rather than one operated by a railway company on its public lines. Not subject, as far as I'm aware,  to all the BoT regulations such as continuous brakes.

[Worsdell forever]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

This is a different kettle of fish - a workmen's train on a private colliery  railway rather than one operated by a railway company on its public lines. Not subject, as far as I'm aware,  to all the BoT regulations such as continuous brakes.

 

And there we were thinking the Midland's carriages were comfortable when all along the passengers preferred an open wagon to travel in... 😲

[Compound2632]

14 minutes ago, Worsdell forever said:

And there we were thinking the Midland's carriages were comfortable when all along the passengers preferred an open wagon to travel in... 😲

 

No, you are misinterpreting the picture. A Midland open wagon was preferable to anybody else's hand-me-down 4-wheel carriages.

[DenysW]

52 minutes ago, Worsdell forever said:

when all along the passengers preferred an open wagon to travel in

They do seem to have been loaded on the same principle as the sheep: pack 'em tight and they can't fall over.

[billbedford]

On 10/06/2024 at 08:54, DenysW said:

From the "Railway Magazine" Vol  VIII, p93 in 1901:

 

Interestingly, the average mileage for workman's trains is less than 10 miles, some considerably less. 

[kevinlms]

On 11/06/2024 at 19:54, Compound2632 said:

 

No, you are misinterpreting the picture. A Midland open wagon was preferable to anybody else's hand-me-down 4-wheel carriages.

No, the passengers preferred the Midland, because there was a sense of colour to their world, instead of just black & white!

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

No, the passengers preferred the Midland, because there was a sense of colour to their world, instead of just black & white!

 

Well, that was certainly an advantage the Midland had over the North Western.