• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Choices Between Different Routes

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sad Sprinter

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2017
Messages
1,800
Location
Way on down South London town
Prior to Beeching, what were the main considerations a passenger used to say get from Manchester to London. When one could go to Euston, Marylebone or St Pancras? Was the seating/in train services quite variant between each railway?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,018
The secondary routes tended not to have a lot of end-to-end passengers, but on the ex-GC carried Manchester to Nottingham, Sheffield to Aylesbury, Leicester to Harrow, etc. There was an account in Trains Illustrated magazine in 1960 by an observer at Leicester Central about the last day of through GC route trains between Marylebone and Manchester, who commented on how well filled they were. Difficult to call them expresses because they stopped every 30 miles or so.
 

Sad Sprinter

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2017
Messages
1,800
Location
Way on down South London town
The secondary routes tended not to have a lot of end-to-end passengers, but on the ex-GC carried Manchester to Nottingham, Sheffield to Aylesbury, Leicester to Harrow, etc. There was an account in Trains Illustrated magazine in 1960 by an observer at Leicester Central about the last day of through GC route trains between Marylebone and Manchester, who commented on how well filled they were. Difficult to call them expresses because they stopped every 30 miles or so.

Ah that’s interesting, when did GC crack expresses end?
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,018
They never existed. Right from the start in 1900 they stopped at the various intermediate points. They were never going to match London to Manchester times. In the summer 1939 timetable the key LNER train of the day, 3.20pm from Marylebone, stopped at Aylesbury, Leicester, Nottingham, Sheffield, Penistone, Guide Bridge and Manchester (Central, not London Road), arriving 7.45pm. And that was the last through train of the day.
 

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
15,686
Location
Devon
Prior to Beeching, what were the main considerations a passenger used to say get from Manchester to London. When one could go to Euston, Marylebone or St Pancras? Was the seating/in train services quite variant between each railway?
It’s quite an interesting question. I think even now there’s quite often more than one choice of route/TOC between certain cities, but back in pre WW2 times there were some real differences between the companies.
I’ve often wondered about this too.
 

70014IronDuke

Established Member
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Messages
3,686
Prior to Beeching, what were the main considerations a passenger used to say get from Manchester to London. When one could go to Euston, Marylebone or St Pancras? Was the seating/in train services quite variant between each railway?

I think you need to go back a little bit before Beeching to really put your question - but it is one that I've pondered, or rather, wondered about more from the commercial, or operator's angle.

In particular, you choose Manchester as your example, which is perhaps not the best. The reason I say this is because the GC was never going to compete on schedules from London (unless, perhaps, you lived next to one of the stations in the suburbs). It just went too far round at the northern end, heading north east at Leicester towards Nottingham and then north-west via Sheffield and Penistone.

And I don't even think the Midland really stood much chance against the LNW after the grouping in terms of timings: apart from being a bit slower for the first 130 miles or so, the last 60, including Ambergate to Chinley, were so difficult as to ruin its chances as a real competitor once average running speeds began to rise. (* More later)

More interesting would be to study route choices like London to Rugby, Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield, London to Birmingham and maybe, London to Exeter.
I suspect London - Rugby the LNW won hands down vs GC because of frequency.
I suspect London - Leicester and Nottingham, the Midland won on frequency and 'first at the game' - though Nottingham was also served by the GN.

There is also the question of location of stations - particularly in London, where eg Marylebone was relatively 'out of town' and not particularly well connected vs Euston, St Pancras and Kings Cross. In the case of traffic to the West Country, Waterloo probably had the advantage here (and to some extent, still has, despite the far slower schedules from Exeter).

The London - Birmingham - Wolverhampton contest is probably the most evenly balanced of the big ones, and I don't know who was winning that prior to 1960.

* Which brings us back to the Midland vs LNW and the question: why didn't the LMS management simply rationalise things, ie downgrade the Midland service from 1923, rather like the LMR did in 1966 with electrification of the LNW?

Well, perhaps they did to some extent (any experts out there can comment?), but I suspect it may come down to the implications of Taunton's post regarding the GC services to Manchester, that is, prior to the mass production of cars starting in the mid-1950s, there was still significant traffic generated mid-route to justify the use of these long-distance trains. (nb also the continued use of the Thames-Clyde and Waverley + sleepers on the slower Midland lines to Scotland well into the 60s.)

With the advent of the family owned car from c 1955, traffic from these intermediate journeys dropped away (because people used their cars) while traffic to and from London was rising, or at worst, more or less constant.

One probably needs to add into the mix the sharp drop in forces traffic from 1945 onwards.

Of course, Paddington - Brum and St Pancras - Manchester (and even the GC to some extent) did get boosted from 1957 - 66, but this was only a temporary blip caused by diversions for LNW electrification.
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
17,866
Location
Airedale
If you go back to around 1900, you could perhaps say:
Long distance traffic to and from London was relatively lucrative, prestigious and used by influential people, so every major company wanted its share (including the GNR to Manchester via the then MSLR, and even the LNWR to Swansea via Shrewsbury - to give an extreme example!).
I am not sure, though, that it was desperately profitable (especially to Scotland) - certainly not compared with goods and mineral traffic.
Speed was not vital (with some exceptions - but I can only think of London- Birmingham where it was of everyday importance, eg the LNW 2-hour expresses and the GW cut-off); however, facilities (toilets, corridors, dining cars) definitely mattered.
Remember that there was no external competitor pre WW1; this, of course, changed as the motor car and aeroplane developed (and the bus, but not in this market), and speed began to become a factor.
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,320
The LMS probably recognised something that Beeching and current DfT both (at least partly) ignored - not everybody wants to go to/from London. Yes, London is the biggest attraction - but not the only attraction. The Midland route from London to Manchester also served large towns / cities such as Leicester & Derby, and some people wanted to travel between there and Manchester. There were also smaller, but no insignificant traffic flows for Matlock and Millers Dale (for Buxton connections.) Beeching & co. viewed the Midland route as an "expendable" alternative route to the LNW between London & Manchester - and largely ignored the intermediate traffic potential - or the value of having an alternative available when problems inevitably occur on their favoured route.
 

didcotdean

Member
Joined
25 Jun 2013
Messages
150
Sometimes the choice was dictated by more local concerns, such as the citing of respective stations. For example in Leicester before marriage my father in the early 1950s used to favour using Central station where possible as he lived on the north west side of the city whereas my mother used London Road as she lived in to the south.
 

Springs Branch

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2013
Messages
1,418
Location
Where my keyboard has no £ key
I wonder whether any differences in fares would have influenced which routes passengers chose.

IIRC, in past times, fare calculations were mostly based on mileage between origin & destination.
“Market-based” pricing – whereby you paid more than the normal rate for a fast, comfortable, new train (usually to/from London) – was only introduced by British Rail around the 1960s along with Inter-City branding and Mk2 coaches.

So using the Manchester example, were different fares charged for the routes to Euston, St. Pancras or Marylebone?
And not necessarily just to London, but for other journeys with two or more distinct options like Manchester to Glasgow, Nottingham, Leicester or Rugby (as mentioned by @70014IronDuke)?

Would the unfortunate passenger choosing a slower and roundabout trip on the GC or LNER pay more for the privilege based on the extra mileage?
Conversely, maybe the railways offered *cheaper* fares for lightly-loaded trains going “the long way round”, allowing a thrifty northerner to save a few bob on his Third Class fare.

How long has the “Manchester Stations to London Terminals via Any Permitted” ticketing concept been around?
Would your old cardboard Edmondson return ticket issued at London Road constrain you to return only from Euston, if that was the destination printed?

I’ve seen those who collect & study transport timetables described as being “on the fringe of the fringe”.
Maybe there’s a hard-core “fringe of the fringe of the fringe” out there, who collect and study old Fares Manuals.
 
Last edited:

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,018
My understanding is that, while fares were mileage-based, on a single national scale, between two towns where there were alternative services the fare by the shorter route applied to all.

Cecil J Allen, I think it was, once wrote that a ticket from Swansea to London would allow him to arrive at Liverpool Street, as he could start off on the LNWR route to Shrewsbury, then Stafford, whereupon he could claim to now be travelling to London by the GNR, heading on their line cross-country to Nottingham and Peterborough, where again he could say he was taking the GER route.

This was even more applicable to freight rates, which were similarly regulated and standardised, and allowed the Midland to compete on all sorts of transits such as London to Bristol.
 

RLBH

Member
Joined
17 May 2018
Messages
962
This was even more applicable to freight rates, which were similarly regulated and standardised, and allowed the Midland to compete on all sorts of transits such as London to Bristol.
In the case of freight, I believe that the rates charged were standardised based on the shortest mileage between origin and destination, but were then allocated to the various railways involved on the basis of actual mileage on their system.
 

Calthrop

Established Member
Joined
6 Dec 2015
Messages
3,295
My understanding is that, while fares were mileage-based, on a single national scale, between two towns where there were alternative services the fare by the shorter route applied to all.

Cecil J Allen, I think it was, once wrote that a ticket from Swansea to London would allow him to arrive at Liverpool Street, as he could start off on the LNWR route to Shrewsbury, then Stafford, whereupon he could claim to now be travelling to London by the GNR, heading on their line cross-country to Nottingham and Peterborough, where again he could say he was taking the GER route.

This was even more applicable to freight rates, which were similarly regulated and standardised, and allowed the Midland to compete on all sorts of transits such as London to Bristol.

I'm not quite sure whether to opine that the above arrangements in the days of same, were admirably fair; or potentially unfair on companies operating routes longer than that of their competitor with the shortest route.

Re the above post's middle paragraph: while presumably Cecil was indulging there, in a pure flight of fancy; I've read -- a "snippet" in some book or magazine, identity of which forgotten -- which included part of his imaginary and ludicrous Swansea -- London (Liverpool Street) journey; as factual for a period in the past. The item pertained to one particular exploit of my "hero": T.R. Perkins, the ultimate "line-basher", who in the later 19th / earlier 20th centuries, travelled over every line in the British Isles open for passenger traffic. In this journey, some time before 1914, Perkins "bagged" the GNR's anomalous line way out to its west, between Derby (Friargate) and Stafford -- he set off on the morning's first train eastward out of Stafford.

The item -- quoting Perkins's published notes of his journey, in a railway magazine of the day -- mentioned that at that time, the GNR was seriously offering to the travelling public, an alternative route to and from London, to the logical-seeming LNWR one: by its own trains Stafford -- Derby -- Nottingham -- Grantham, and thence to Kings Cross. (Perkins didn't IIRC actually do this in its entirety; just noticed that it was on offer.) Doing the run this way would consume such a colossally greater amount of time than using the LNWR route: that one could only reckon that the GNR must have been offering a very substantially lesser fare (this, I believe, was my surmising -- I don't think the item concerned, touched on different-fares questions). In a situation of, as per this thread, the GN having to charge the same Stafford -- London fare as the LNW: it's hard to conceive of any passenger in their right mind (the general public would not consider that that description applied to compulsive all-lines-gricers), taking up the GN's suggestion.
 

RLBH

Member
Joined
17 May 2018
Messages
962
In a situation of, as per this thread, the GN having to charge the same Stafford -- London fare as the LNW:
The Railway Regulation Act 1844 - responsible for Parliamentary Trains - set a maximum fare of 1d/mile for third-class services. I wouldn't be surprised if other passenger fares regulation in the pre-nationalisation days was done similarly.

Lest anyone get nostalgic about such cheap fares - reduced fares for children were only protected to the age of 12, and based on average wages it's the equivalent of £3.26/mile today! And anyway, such fares strictly only applied to one all-stations stopper per day.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,018
As well as the LNWR, the Midland also had a salient in Swansea, through Hereford, reached by an odd tentacle plus some considerable running powers. It was also the procedure that freight traffic between the Midland and points on the LSWR were sent via their jointly owned S&D. A wagon of coal, consigned from a Midland connected colliery near Swansea, destined for Ilfracombe gas works, would be solemnly routed from Swansea via Brecon, Malvern, Bath, Templecombe and Exeter.

Now Ilfracombe and Swansea are in sight of one another on a clear day, from the elevated heights of Ilfracombe station. If consigned by the GWR through the Severn Tunnel it would still be charged about 150 miles. But by the MR/LSWR route, nearer double this. I believe it would be charged the same,
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
The London - Birmingham - Wolverhampton contest is probably the most evenly balanced of the big ones, and I don't know who was winning that prior to 1960.

My ancestors, when travelling W Mids to London in the 50s, would always use the GW “as the restaurant car was better”.
 

WesternLancer

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2019
Messages
6,996
I think you need to go back a little bit before Beeching to really put your question - but it is one that I've pondered, or rather, wondered about more from the commercial, or operator's angle.

In particular, you choose Manchester as your example, which is perhaps not the best. The reason I say this is because the GC was never going to compete on schedules from London (unless, perhaps, you lived next to one of the stations in the suburbs). It just went too far round at the northern end, heading north east at Leicester towards Nottingham and then north-west via Sheffield and Penistone.

And I don't even think the Midland really stood much chance against the LNW after the grouping in terms of timings: apart from being a bit slower for the first 130 miles or so, the last 60, including Ambergate to Chinley, were so difficult as to ruin its chances as a real competitor once average running speeds began to rise. (* More later)

More interesting would be to study route choices like London to Rugby, Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield, London to Birmingham and maybe, London to Exeter.
I suspect London - Rugby the LNW won hands down vs GC because of frequency.
I suspect London - Leicester and Nottingham, the Midland won on frequency and 'first at the game' - though Nottingham was also served by the GN.

There is also the question of location of stations - particularly in London, where eg Marylebone was relatively 'out of town' and not particularly well connected vs Euston, St Pancras and Kings Cross. In the case of traffic to the West Country, Waterloo probably had the advantage here (and to some extent, still has, despite the far slower schedules from Exeter).

The London - Birmingham - Wolverhampton contest is probably the most evenly balanced of the big ones, and I don't know who was winning that prior to 1960.

* Which brings us back to the Midland vs LNW and the question: why didn't the LMS management simply rationalise things, ie downgrade the Midland service from 1923, rather like the LMR did in 1966 with electrification of the LNW?

Well, perhaps they did to some extent (any experts out there can comment?), but I suspect it may come down to the implications of Taunton's post regarding the GC services to Manchester, that is, prior to the mass production of cars starting in the mid-1950s, there was still significant traffic generated mid-route to justify the use of these long-distance trains. (nb also the continued use of the Thames-Clyde and Waverley + sleepers on the slower Midland lines to Scotland well into the 60s.)

With the advent of the family owned car from c 1955, traffic from these intermediate journeys dropped away (because people used their cars) while traffic to and from London was rising, or at worst, more or less constant.

One probably needs to add into the mix the sharp drop in forces traffic from 1945 onwards.

Of course, Paddington - Brum and St Pancras - Manchester (and even the GC to some extent) did get boosted from 1957 - 66, but this was only a temporary blip caused by diversions for LNW electrification.
excellent post - very interesting to read and thought provoking.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,018
In the case of freight, I believe that the rates charged were standardised based on the shortest mileage between origin and destination, but were then allocated to the various railways involved on the basis of actual mileage on their system.
I believe this was correct. So for the wagonload described above, if the standard rate was 1 shilling per ton per mile, the GWR would charge 150s and would take this all themselves. If via the Mid/S&D/LSWR route, and the respective mileages were 180+50+70, then the charge would still be 150s but divided up in proportion, Midland 90s, S&D 25s, LSWR 35s. The S&D was 50% owned by the Midland and the LSWR but for this calculation would be treated separately.

This is what the Railway Clearing House used to do when the paperwork was submitted. They didn't have the benefit 100 years ago of Excel, like I did, but were probably a whiz at doing it in their head.

This mileage approach can treat badly a railway that has a lot of short haul as part of a long haul, and was a part of how the Midland took over the LT&S in the early 1900s. The opening and development in the preceding 20 years of Tilbury docks had put a lot of freight onto the LT&S for a few miles until interchanged in London, for which they only received a small amount and it was significantly unprofitable. The Midland served all the various major inland industrial areas and could take most right through, and thus it served them well to absorb the smaller company.

I am aware that airlines developed a variation on this for their same issue of interchanged revenue, that the through revenue is not divided by the absolute mileage but by the square root of the various mileages. Thus a fare from Glasgow through London to Chicago might be £500, and the two distances 400 and 4,000 miles. If done by mileage the internal airline would get £45 and the long distance airline £455, which as so much cost is associated with the airports etc is inequitable. On a square root basis of the mileages (20 and 63 respectively) the airlines would get £120 and £380, which would be a more reasonable split.
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,042
Location
North Wales
And I don't even think the Midland really stood much chance against the LNW after the grouping in terms of timings: apart from being a bit slower for the first 130 miles or so, the last 60, including Ambergate to Chinley, were so difficult as to ruin its chances as a real competitor once average running speeds began to rise. (* More later)
...
* Which brings us back to the Midland vs LNW and the question: why didn't the LMS management simply rationalise things, ie downgrade the Midland service from 1923, rather like the LMR did in 1966 with electrification of the LNW?
The LMS had huge tensions between its LNWR and Midland constituencts for much of its early life. In that context, the downgrading of one mainline over the other would have been fiercely opposed by the losing faction.
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,042
Location
North Wales
One interesting avenue of investigation could be to look at how the Railway Clearing House apportioned ticket revenue for journeys where there were multiple possible routes (with the same ticket). Is there any publisehd work on this subject?
 

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
3,834
My ancestors, when travelling W Mids to London in the 50s, would always use the GW “as the restaurant car was better”.
Growing up in Birmingham in the 1950s, with regular visits to maternal grandparents living in north London, my recollection is that we almost invariably went from New St to Euston, until electrification works in the early '60s affected that route. Only then did the ex GWR route from Snow Hill via Banbury become the recommended routing.
This was despite my father having family links to the Bristol area which gave him a lifelong affection for everything GWR.
It also has to be said that before its rundown in the later 1960s, Snow Hill was a rather more attractive station than was the original New Street. The reconstruction of that during electrification was seen as a big improvement at the time, despite its later unpopularity.
 
Joined
31 Aug 2019
Messages
341
Location
IW
Not unlike today. It was all about the time it took. You didnt want to spend the whole day on the train!
Im amazed at people sometimes. Its often put out that you used to be able to get a London bound train from Birkenhead Woodside. Nobody would ever consider that as a serious alternative to the LNWR route. You would use it if you wanted to go to Wales or Chester and then if you wanted to go from there further south, and then on from there to London.

Yes there were a lot of services that went to London but not everybody wanted to go there all the time!
 

Sad Sprinter

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2017
Messages
1,800
Location
Way on down South London town
Growing up in Birmingham in the 1950s, with regular visits to maternal grandparents living in north London, my recollection is that we almost invariably went from New St to Euston, until electrification works in the early '60s affected that route. Only then did the ex GWR route from Snow Hill via Banbury become the recommended routing.
This was despite my father having family links to the Bristol area which gave him a lifelong affection for everything GWR.
It also has to be said that before its rundown in the later 1960s, Snow Hill was a rather more attractive station than was the original New Street. The reconstruction of that during electrification was seen as a big improvement at the time, despite its later unpopularity.

What was the reason why? Was the GWR route longer?
 

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
3,834
What was the reason why? Was the GWR route longer?
I think it was a bit longer in distance* but was rather longer in time, and probably had less frequent services. I suspect the GWR route was already being run down in the 1950s, until it had a brief renaissance during Euston to New Street electrification. After that services were considerably reduced, until through trains were virtually eliminated, before restoration under Chiltern much more recently.
*(I'm not at home at the moment so can't check)
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
17,866
Location
Airedale
I think it was a bit longer in distance* but was rather longer in time, and probably had less frequent services. I suspect the GWR route was already being run down in the 1950s, until it had a brief renaissance during Euston to New Street electrification. After that services were considerably reduced, until through trains were virtually eliminated, before restoration under Chiltern much more recently.
*(I'm not at home at the moment so can't check)

Just looked at summer 1958 WR - it was certainly not being run down, with 2-hour trains down at 9.0, 10.10, 11.10 and the semi-fasts under 2 1/2 hours. It was then improved during the electrification works as you say.
Don't know how it compares with LMR but I don't think very different.
 

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
3,834
Just looked at summer 1958 WR - it was certainly not being run down, with 2-hour trains down at 9.0, 10.10, 11.10 and the semi-fasts under 2 1/2 hours. It was then improved during the electrification works as you say.
Don't know how it compares with LMR but I don't think very different.
OK, thanks for the info', that's certainly better than I'd have thought.
I under ten years old at the time, so I didn't have any input into the family's travel choices :)
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,320
30907 said:
Just looked at summer 1958 WR - it was certainly not being run down, with 2-hour trains down at 9.0, 10.10, 11.10 and the semi-fasts under 2 1/2 hours. It was then improved during the electrification works as you say.
Don't know how it compares with LMR but I don't think very different.
OK, thanks for the info', that's certainly better than I'd have thought.
I under ten years old at the time, so I didn't have any input into the family's travel choices :)

Summer 1958 LMR Timetable. London Euston to Birmingham New Street 2-hour trains only ran SX.
From Euston: 08:50; 12:50; 14:20; 17:50; 18:55. All except the 08:50 called at Coventry.
Semi-fasts, and most Saturday trains took between about 2h. 15m. & 2h. 30m. Some Saturday times may have been allowed extra time in preparation for WCML electrification works.
By the Summer 1959 timetable, Euston - Birmingham services had been much reduced, and the fastest SX times were 2h. 03m. Until diesels arrived, most of these trains would be worked by a Class 6P Jubilee 4-6-0, whilst the Western Region used a mixture of Kings (8P) & Castles (7P) (also 4-6-0s)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top