Midland Railway Company

[DenysW]

Well, for the first half of 1912 (below) Workmen weren't reported by the Midland. As 1912 is firmly in the era of 1d/mile third, the average third class journey was 14 miles, say 2-4 stations at the separation used by Victorian railways outside of really wild countryside. However the 1878 version of the LTS had it as only able to charge a maximum of 1 d/mile First, 0.75 d/mile Second, and 0.5 d/mile third.

 

So if the Workmen are paying 1/14th as much as the thirds per journey you need 3-14 times as many of them per train, depending on how many stops they are travelling. All numbers liberally rounded.

[kevinlms]

What is clear from those documents is the low percentage of 1st class passengers, compared to 3rd class. Would season tickets be in the same ratio, or would season tickets be more likely to be sold to 1st class passenger. They would presumably be more able to pay up front for a lump sum?

How long is a 'season ticket' for?

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

What is clear from those documents is the low percentage of 1st class passengers, compared to 3rd class.

 

But from the 1922 report posted a couple of posts back, the average first class passenger is earning the company over four times what the average third class passenger earned it - which indicates that the average first class journey was rather longer than the average third class journey.  That report also gives, somewhere, the number of first class and third class seats,

 

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

Would season tickets be in the same ratio, or would season tickets be more likely to be sold to 1st class passenger. They would presumably be more able to pay up front for a lump sum?

 

The 1922 report shows a bit over five times as many third class seasons as first class seasons; i.e. proportionately many more first class seasons compared to the proportion of first class individual journeys. So that does suggest that being able to afford a lump sum was a factor.

 

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

How long is a 'season ticket' for?

 

Take your pick:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail scan of MRSC 02999; c. 1906]

Edited August 25 by Compound2632

[DenysW]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

What is clear from those documents is the low percentage of 1st class passengers, compared to 3rd class. Would season tickets be in the same ratio, or would season tickets be more likely to be sold to 1st class passenger. They would presumably be more able to pay up front for a lump sum?

How long is a 'season ticket' for?

The collapse in premium  (first and second) passengers from ca. 1870 onwards (before the 1875 elimination of Second by the Midland) often gets debated in the documents of the time. The BoT reviews point out that season ticket numbers obscure this a to certain degree because there are, relatively, more of them at premium class. An 1888 BoT partial snapshot below focussed on receipts. Bradshaw (Shareholders) warns you to be careful in looking at the absolute passenger numbers, because what the North London Railway called its classes (which changed several times) was enough to affect the national numbers. Seconds and Firsts paid tax, Thirds and Parliamentary did not on services that stopped at every station - a distinction that annoyed the Midland.

 

In terms of 'what is a season' it starts out being confusing, with the L&Y, for example, taking a long time before it issued season outside of first and second class. The BoT numbers on this are better because, after about 1880 (not sure of the true date), they requested that all values were converted to an annual basis, correcting the influence of third-class weekly seasons.

 

It is my view that the killer difference between the Midland - vs the rest on the English railways - that triggered its elimination of 2nd class was the poor state Kirtley left its carriage stock in (design, not maintenance). So only the Midland wanted to upgrade all of its coaching stock to fit-for-purpose. It can't have hindered that the Midland had one of the lowest proportions of revenue due to passengers, either. There wasn't a blip in the Midland's revenue in 1875, so people were apparently spending the maximum to travel at the best class they could afford. The MS&L and CLC/MSJA always amaze me for not following the Midland (they had very little first & second), so there may be other non-financial pressures on retaining second.

[DenysW]

Summary excluding Seasons. Note the GWR and its puppets did not provide third class until after 1859 (not sure when - the BoT amalgamates third and Parliamentary in 1860), and did not provide third on every passenger train until 1894.

 

[DenysW]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

the average first class passenger is earning the company over four times

It took me a long time to realise this, so apologies if it's a blinding glimpse of the Bl$$ding obvious. The railways didn't really view passengers as people. They regarded them in the same way as goods traffic: there is a construction cost for the vehicle, a tare, and a payload weight. In the case of passengers the payload is very little more than the tare.  In both cases the rolling stock may not run full, but you still have to move the full tare weight. In both cases the traffic flow may mean returning empties, but at a reduced cost per mile. The passenger operating cost is not therefore constant across classes, because first needs appreciably more weight/ticket and more capital/ticket even with every seat full. For Midland capital in the early 1870s Stretton (p203) gives

 

Class     Cost/Carriage     Revenue/year

First       £450                    £530

Second £250                     £430

Third     £270                     £890

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, DenysW said:

It is my view that the killer difference between the Midland - vs the rest on the English railways - that triggered its elimination of 2nd class was the poor state Kirtley left its carriage stock in (design, not maintenance). So only the Midland wanted to upgrade all of its coaching stock to fit-for-purpose. 

 

 

I'm doubtful of this. 

 

It is unquestionably the case that the carriages Clayton was building from 1874 onwards marked a step change from the carriages built in the last few years of Kirtley's time. They set a 'look' that was to endure until the change to flush steel panelling over half a century later; they look, to our eyes, like proper railway carriages, and they do make the carriages of Kirtley's day look antediluvian:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64305: 28 foot 6-wheeled composite carriage number 828, built 1874-75 by Brown Marshalls & Co. This was designed as a composite, but altered, before completion, to all first class. It was then altered again to a composite in 1878/79 and converted to a 6-wheeler at about the same time.]

 

But the point is, they made every other company's carriages look antediluvian too. Birmingham New Street, 1872:

 

 

[Embedded link to Warwickshire Railways image lnwrbns_st1872.jpg.]

 

In 1874, the bulk of Midland composites and thirds had been built within the previous decade, including 200 five-compartment thirds built in 1872 and 75 twin composites built 1870-72. The bulk of second-class compartments for long-distance travel was in composites. It would, I think, be difficult to say that these carriages were of poor or outmoded design compared to the carriages of the other major lines. Only Stroudley, on the Brighton, had already started making a step change in design comparable to that made by Clayton.

 

Nevertheless, Kirtley carriages were extinct by the mid-1880s; i.e. there were many carriages with a service life of no more than 15 years, whereas the lifetime to renewal of Clayton's earliest carriages was a bit over 20 years. 

 

I'm supposed to be writing an introductory article on Midland carriages for the new Society website, so this sort of thing is in my mind.

[DenysW]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

Nevertheless, Kirtley carriages were extinct by the mid-1880s; i.e. there were many carriages with a service life of no more than 15 years, whereas the lifetime to renewal of Clayton's earliest carriages was a bit over 20 years. 

I think we differ on emphasis rather than facts. I'm broad-brush, you are fine-scale.

[Buhar]

And you both contribute really interesting stuff to the discussion.

 

Alan 

[Compound2632]

18 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But from the 1922 report posted a couple of posts back, the average first class passenger is earning the company over four times what the average third class passenger earned it - which indicates that the average first class journey was rather longer than the average third class journey.  

 

It would be interesting to compare this with, say, 1900. The rise of the motor car may have affected the number of short-distance first class journeys.

[DenysW]

Here's 1901 (also Jan-Jun) on the Midland, chosen because my photo is crisper than for 1900. However, I think it would be impossible to check the influence of the small number of cars against the simultaneous resurgence of Second (visible in that graph above) prompted by a reduction of fares in companies that wanted to retain/reintroduce it*. An example of re-introduction is the Cambrian. The North London (which lost a third of its journeys 1904-1912) blamed the fall specifically on electric trams, not even the underground railways.

 

* Documented by the right-wing** Railway Magazine, which approved.

** Union officials are frequently and exclusively referred to as paid agitators. There's at least one nastily anti-semitic outburst as well.

 

 

 

 

[Adam88]

I very much enjoyed @Dave Hunt's article about his shed diorama in this month's copy of MRJ.  We had tantalising glimpse of it in a recent edition and it certainly lives up to expectations.

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, Adam88 said:

I very much enjoyed @Dave Hunt's article about his shed diorama in this month's copy of MRJ.  We had tantalising glimpse of it in a recent edition and it certainly lives up to expectations.

 

Recipients of Modelling the Midland will get an in-depth look at the sheer legs in the next number, due to go to Members in December.

[ChrisN]

On 26/08/2024 at 09:32, DenysW said:

Here's 1901 (also Jan-Jun) on the Midland, chosen because my photo is crisper than for 1900. However, I think it would be impossible to check the influence of the small number of cars against the simultaneous resurgence of Second (visible in that graph above) prompted by a reduction of fares in companies that wanted to retain/reintroduce it*. An example of re-introduction is the Cambrian. The North London (which lost a third of its journeys 1904-1912) blamed the fall specifically on electric trams, not even the underground railways.

 

* Documented by the right-wing** Railway Magazine, which approved.

** Union officials are frequently and exclusively referred to as paid agitators. There's at least one nastily anti-semitic outburst as well.

 

 

 

 

 

When the Cambrian abolished Second Class there was a reported increase in income, as I assume, Second Class passengers went First Class.  The introduction was forced on them because they were a small fish, and the bigger fish around them still had Second Class, and through Second Class passengers, did not like having to travel Third once they got to Wales. 

[DenysW]

1 hour ago, ChrisN said:

When the Cambrian abolished Second Class there was a reported increase in income, as I assume, Second Class passengers went First Class. 

Using the BoT numbers below, there was a small but noticeable increase in First when Second was first abolished, but I'd say most passengers changed to Third, which remained the dominant source of income. The presentation is a bit jumbled because I've had to put Third on a different axis it was so much bigger.

 

I do not have an opinion as to why the Cambrian reverted to having Second, and it could easily have been due to pressure from LNWR (abandoned Second almost entirely 1910-1912) or the GWR (abandoned Second almost entirely 1908-1911). The Cambrian re-lost Second 1911-1912.

 

[DenysW]

Apologies - I should have put this in the previous post. As the total First+Second increases (previous post), it implies (I think) that Third passengers who upgraded to Second were the ones with the longer journeys where the extra comfort would be more appreciated. 

 

[Compound2632]

23 minutes ago, DenysW said:

I do not have an opinion as to why the Cambrian reverted to having Second, and it could easily have been due to pressure from LNWR (abandoned Second almost entirely 1910-1912) or the GWR (abandoned Second almost entirely 1908-1911). The Cambrian re-lost Second 1911-1912.

 

 

There was a major sweep of abolition of second in 1893 - by 1 May, it had been abolished by the Cambrian, Cheshire Lines (1 Jan 1892), Great Eastern (1 Jan 1893), Great Northern (in 1885 in Lincs, Notts, & Derbys), Hull & Barnsley (1891), London Tilbury & Southend, Manchester Sheffield & Lincolnshire (1 April 1891), except Manchester suburban traffic, where second went at the same time as on the Cheshire Lines), North Eastern, and all the Scottish lines except the Great North, which had never had second. The Caledonian's abolition forced the London & North Western's hand - no through second class bookings to Scotland meant no second class WCJS vehicles; on the East Coast, second class vanished by default. The Somerset & Dorset Joint followed on 1 July 1893. 

 

The Cambrian's problem was that the LNWR and GWR wanted second retained for through bookings to Cambrian stations. English tyranny prevailed though the latter-day Glendowers of the Cambrian board held out until 1898, when second for through bookings was restored, and 1900 for local services. 

 

All the companies in the LNWR's sphere of influence abolished second on 1 Jan 1912, along with the LNWR itself: Lancashire & Yorkshire, North Staffordshire, Furness, Maryport & Carlisle, Cockermouth Keswick & Penrith, Stratford on Avon & Midland Junction, and the Cambrian - the Great Western having progressively withdrawn second between 1905 and 1910. 

 

Ref. Charles E. Lee, Passenger Class Distinctions (Railway Gazette, 1946) - a fascinating slim volume that arrived in the post today, following a tip-off on the HMRS EAG.

Edited August 27 by Compound2632
typo.

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, DenysW said:

Apologies - I should have put this in the previous post. As the total First+Second increases (previous post), it implies (I think) that Third passengers who upgraded to Second were the ones with the longer journeys where the extra comfort would be more appreciated. 

 

See above - second re-instituted for through booking in 1898 and local bookings 1900. So a sudden flood of second-class Mancunians and Londoners.

[DenysW]

A quick afterthought on how quickly and how grim things became for the LMS - and correspondingly how unprepared the Midland/LNWR/Caledonian management must have been after 50 years of almost universally good results, stable profits and persistent growth. The 'negative' LMS dividend shown here was actually made good from reserves, and so the LMS paid +3.0% instead of zero. Buying off the devil.

 

As above, the absolute value of these dividends (i.e. in £) to their recipients had been halved by the inflation of 1917-1920, but as the capitalisation was also not corrected, dividend percentages could stay the same. 1914-1921 saw the government subsidise railway profits or railway activities, thus holding dividends close to constant.

 

So the LMS was faced with costs that had doubled, dividends that were trending down, and shareholders who presumably thought that dividends should triple from 4% - to get back to pre-War levels in purchasing power.

 

[Compound2632]

The Midland Railway Study Centre is accessioning the photograph collection amassed by Ian Howard, former editor of the Midland Railway Society Journal.

 

This is the sort of photo that leaves me on a crimson lake-induced high:

 

 

Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRS 91790. Caption: "Derby Loco sidings, 1890s. A high level southerly view from the loco offices footbridge towards the Hulland Street footbridge in the distance. No. 2 roundhouse is on the left of the picture with the top of No. 3 roundhouse just visible behind. The rectangular exterior of No. 4 roundhouses can be seen behind the many locomotives in the centre of the picture."

 

Get spotting!

[Compound2632]

So, that last photo is the sort of thing that must lead Great Western enthusiasts to despair - how can they possibly compete against such a charm offensive? We should give them some comfort:

 

 

Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 92769. Caption: "Leeds Wellington station, around 1910. A semi-broadside view of Johnson-rebuilt Kirtley 800 class 2-4-0 No. 35 awaiting departure from platform 3 with an express. The leading carriage, only partly in view, was a non-MR vehicle in two-tone livery."

 

It is, I believe, a rather charming Great Western passenger brake van, a 29 ft six-wheeler to diagram V8, of which 18 were built as broad gauge vehicles in 1877-9 and converted to standard gauge in 1891/2, at which time they were renumbered 801-818: 

https://gwrcoaches.org.uk/Vdiags.shtml#V8.

Presumably the head of a through portion to Plymouth via Bristol?

[kevinlms]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

The Midland Railway Study Centre is accessioning the photograph collection amassed by Ian Howard, former editor of the Midland Railway Society Journal.

 

This is the sort of photo that leaves me on a crimson lake-induced high:

 

 

Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRS 91790. Caption: "Derby Loco sidings, 1890s. A high level southerly view from the loco offices footbridge towards the Hulland Street footbridge in the distance. No. 2 roundhouse is on the left of the picture with the top of No. 3 roundhouse just visible behind. The rectangular exterior of No. 4 roundhouses can be seen behind the many locomotives in the centre of the picture."

 

Get spotting!

Photographed on a Sunday, no doubt.

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Photographed on a Sunday, no doubt.

 

I think this may be the queue for the works, rather than engines parked up for the Sunday. Note one or two without tenders.

Edited September 4 by Compound2632

[Buhar]

5 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Note one or two without tenders.

What! A Midland loco separated from it's tender! How will they know it's identity?

 

Alan 

[lezz01]

1 hour ago, Buhar said:

What! A Midland loco separated from it's tender! How will they know it's identity?

 

Alan 

Err it's on the smokebox door if the numbers on the tender.......and if it's in full Johnson livery it's on the cab sides and not the tender.... just saying....

Regards Lez.

Edited September 4 by lezz01