Something which comes up now and again for me, in conversation with other railway enthusiasts. There seems to be a perception that active railway enthusiasm is a pursuit to follow which, needs a fair modicum of both leisure and money. People go on to conclude from this, that before the late 1950s at best, railwaying as we nowadays know it was beyond the reach of all but a lucky, moneyed élite (largely, the idle rich and the affluent and privileged self-employed, and maybe some of the clergy); and that those of said élite who liked railways, were the only ones in those days who were able to, and did, play the game. (Rider implied, that those of us who were born from about 1950 on, have been uniquely fortunate in this respect.) I feel that this proposition holds some truth; but that its a case which some folk simplistically over-state, and a drum which they bang too vigorously and too insistently.
I dont have hard statistics about this stuff: I just have an instinctive feeling that this matter wasnt as simple as those who propound the theory, make it out to be. Obviously (as above), a good deal of truth in it: but, I feel, not the whole truth and some personal history and lore of which Im aware, suggests an alternative take. My mother and her four siblings, in their teens in the 1930s, were from a fairly average middle-class family for the times for sure, no silver spoon there their widowed mother worked as a primary-school teacher to put food on the table (to be fair, there was help, including financial, from less-close members of the family). Nonetheless (they lived in Chester) they had leisure time, in which they did stuff including trips into neighbouring North Wales there was a holiday-cottage set-up in the Conway Valley, in which they took summer holidays some of the siblings were mountain-lovers, and regularly cycled from Chester to the Lake District and back, and did mountain stuff in the Lakes. None of this brood were gricers (I seem in that respect, to be a one-off sport in the family); but if they had been going by what I gather as above, theyd have had a fair bit of time and resources and opportunity for gricing, at least in their fairly extensive corner of Great Britain.
To hear some of the it was only for the lucky wealthy few-merchants my mother and her siblings situation as heard and relayed by me, must have been a fairy tale for them in reality, every farthing would have to had to be carefully watched; theyd have been confined to Chester and its immediate environs, all of them would have had to find miserably-paid part-time work taking up virtually all of their leisure time; and they would have been among the relatively fortunate middle-class folk; as for the proletariat... (the Four Yorkshiremen thing cannot help but come to mind).
Again I dont deny that things were tougher for people in general, 80+ years ago just: I feel that the proponents of the only the very fortunate 5% idea, have a less-than-completely-accurate view of those times in some cases, perhaps they are dedicated class warriors, for whom faith trumps fact?
In my eyes there were, seemingly, just so many railway enthusiasts doing their stuff pre-circa-1955 there are the magazines dating way-back-when, and the books, to prove it it just seems too facile for people to say, they have to have been only the fortunate wealthy few. In conversation on this matter, Ive cited L.T.C. Rolts Railway Adventure, telling of the saving for preservation of the Talyllyn Railway in the very early 1950s an era which, according to the pervasive doom-merchants, was grey and deprived and miserable, and Britain was bankrupt in the aftermath of World War 2, and nobody had any money or any chance to do anything beyond working and just barely providing for their families. I ask so how come there were the resources to save the Talyllyn? The gloomsters riposte, Nock and his associates here, were among the fortunate few wealthy self-employed types who had the luxury of being able to take time off and do this stuff. Some truth here, maybe but I seem to get from the chronicles of the revival of the Talyllyn and, a few years later, the Ffestiniog: that the privileged and wealthy leaders couldnt have achieved the saving of their lines, without a lot of support in one way or another (a little given by many, amounts to much) from ordinary worker bees of the time: working folk surviving on a shoestring, students, pensioners subsisting on next to nothing, National Service conscripts in their leisure hours... somehow, these lowly types managed to find the time and opportunity; where the gloom-merchants suggest that they could not possibly have.
This is a bit of a hobby-horse which I have developed in the great scheme of things, it is very insignificant; but it concerns what I see as a received idea, harboured by many, which rather annoys me. My position tends toward people are very ingenious at somehow carving out the time and opportunity, for having fun. It is a puzzle to Shakespeare scholars, as to how the poor who flocked to the theatres in Tudor times to enjoy plays for an admittance fee of a penny or two, were able to do so. Legislation of the time, supposedly enforced employed persons being at their place of work for approximately the twelve hours of daytime, Monday to Saturday inclusive; and the law enforced closure of the theatres on Sunday. Theatre performances took place in the early afternoon, to take advantage of the daylight. In theory, there was no way that the working poor could have got to the theatre: but somehow or other, many of them wangled it. I see this as a constant through history: gricers managing against the odds, to do at least some gricing, several centuries after Londons working stiffs managing to play truant to go and take in Hamlet or Macbeth...
Would be interested to hear other peoples thoughts on this matter unless its an obscure thing thought of only by myself and a few equally odd friends?
I dont have hard statistics about this stuff: I just have an instinctive feeling that this matter wasnt as simple as those who propound the theory, make it out to be. Obviously (as above), a good deal of truth in it: but, I feel, not the whole truth and some personal history and lore of which Im aware, suggests an alternative take. My mother and her four siblings, in their teens in the 1930s, were from a fairly average middle-class family for the times for sure, no silver spoon there their widowed mother worked as a primary-school teacher to put food on the table (to be fair, there was help, including financial, from less-close members of the family). Nonetheless (they lived in Chester) they had leisure time, in which they did stuff including trips into neighbouring North Wales there was a holiday-cottage set-up in the Conway Valley, in which they took summer holidays some of the siblings were mountain-lovers, and regularly cycled from Chester to the Lake District and back, and did mountain stuff in the Lakes. None of this brood were gricers (I seem in that respect, to be a one-off sport in the family); but if they had been going by what I gather as above, theyd have had a fair bit of time and resources and opportunity for gricing, at least in their fairly extensive corner of Great Britain.
To hear some of the it was only for the lucky wealthy few-merchants my mother and her siblings situation as heard and relayed by me, must have been a fairy tale for them in reality, every farthing would have to had to be carefully watched; theyd have been confined to Chester and its immediate environs, all of them would have had to find miserably-paid part-time work taking up virtually all of their leisure time; and they would have been among the relatively fortunate middle-class folk; as for the proletariat... (the Four Yorkshiremen thing cannot help but come to mind).
Again I dont deny that things were tougher for people in general, 80+ years ago just: I feel that the proponents of the only the very fortunate 5% idea, have a less-than-completely-accurate view of those times in some cases, perhaps they are dedicated class warriors, for whom faith trumps fact?
In my eyes there were, seemingly, just so many railway enthusiasts doing their stuff pre-circa-1955 there are the magazines dating way-back-when, and the books, to prove it it just seems too facile for people to say, they have to have been only the fortunate wealthy few. In conversation on this matter, Ive cited L.T.C. Rolts Railway Adventure, telling of the saving for preservation of the Talyllyn Railway in the very early 1950s an era which, according to the pervasive doom-merchants, was grey and deprived and miserable, and Britain was bankrupt in the aftermath of World War 2, and nobody had any money or any chance to do anything beyond working and just barely providing for their families. I ask so how come there were the resources to save the Talyllyn? The gloomsters riposte, Nock and his associates here, were among the fortunate few wealthy self-employed types who had the luxury of being able to take time off and do this stuff. Some truth here, maybe but I seem to get from the chronicles of the revival of the Talyllyn and, a few years later, the Ffestiniog: that the privileged and wealthy leaders couldnt have achieved the saving of their lines, without a lot of support in one way or another (a little given by many, amounts to much) from ordinary worker bees of the time: working folk surviving on a shoestring, students, pensioners subsisting on next to nothing, National Service conscripts in their leisure hours... somehow, these lowly types managed to find the time and opportunity; where the gloom-merchants suggest that they could not possibly have.
This is a bit of a hobby-horse which I have developed in the great scheme of things, it is very insignificant; but it concerns what I see as a received idea, harboured by many, which rather annoys me. My position tends toward people are very ingenious at somehow carving out the time and opportunity, for having fun. It is a puzzle to Shakespeare scholars, as to how the poor who flocked to the theatres in Tudor times to enjoy plays for an admittance fee of a penny or two, were able to do so. Legislation of the time, supposedly enforced employed persons being at their place of work for approximately the twelve hours of daytime, Monday to Saturday inclusive; and the law enforced closure of the theatres on Sunday. Theatre performances took place in the early afternoon, to take advantage of the daylight. In theory, there was no way that the working poor could have got to the theatre: but somehow or other, many of them wangled it. I see this as a constant through history: gricers managing against the odds, to do at least some gricing, several centuries after Londons working stiffs managing to play truant to go and take in Hamlet or Macbeth...
Would be interested to hear other peoples thoughts on this matter unless its an obscure thing thought of only by myself and a few equally odd friends?