Train punctuality of the distant past

[infobleep]

If you think our current train punctually isn't good. How about these?

I'm currently browsing my Stanfords Tourist Guide to Norfolk, published in 1885. In it the author Walter Rye is rather scathing about how The Great Eastern use to be. Punctuality was poor, with trains often an hour late.

It all changed when two trains collided head on though, on a single line. After that disaster, punctuality improved, although journeys were still slow.

Another book I've read, by Molly Hughes, about her life growing up in the 1870s-1890s, talks about the Cambrian Railways often running an hour late.

So does anyone know if there were other railway companies even worse than this? I assume no compensation would have been due back then for the delays.

Was it the government's of the day that forced the companies to improve their punctuality?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The LNER was frequently referred to as the "Late and Never Early Railway" so there may be clue in that!

 

[coppercapped]

An early railway writer, whose name escapes me at the moment, once referred to the London Brighton and South Coast Railway as being 'audaciously late'. And either Gilbert or Sullivan, one of whom lived in or near Harrow-on-the-Hill, wrote to the management of the London and North Western Railway along the lines of 'Sir, although Saturday is to be found in every calendar, it always seems to catch the London and North Western Railway by surprise...'

There's nothing new under the sun!

No Government ever took any interest in railway punctuality - apart from the occasional remark in Hansard - until John Major introduced his 'Citizens Charter'.

 

[Calthrop]

No Government ever took any interest in railway punctuality - apart from the occasional remark in Hansard - until John Major introduced his 'Citizens Charter'.

I recall reading of various – quite prominent and main-line, not dozy light railways in the back of beyond -- pre-Grouping railway companies which for certain periods of time, were notoriously inefficient and un-punctual; sometimes they got their act together and improved their performance, sometimes not so much so – strong impression indeed, that it was all up to the individual undertaking: no government involvement.

I seem to remember learning of the Lancashire & Yorkshire, and the Great North of Scotland, having each had a spell of being pretty shambolic; but in both cases the railways concerned, reformed and became models of efficiency. The London, Chatham & Dover and the South Eastern, were long well-known for giving poorish service – it was regretted that foreigners arriving at Dover or Folkestone, got their first impression of Britain’s railways from those clowns. When the two companies put aside their rivalry and amalgamated, around the turn of the 19th / 20th century; unfortunately, the amalgamation did not yield much in the way of greater efficiency.

Jerome K. Jerome, early in his Three Men in a Boat, would seem to be ridiculing the London & South Western Railway in his description of how the trio got to -- Staines? – Windsor? – at all events, the place on the Thames where their boat awaited them. Nobody on the staff at Waterloo station has the faintest idea of how / where to find any train, for any destination: the loco crews are as clueless as everyone else. In the end, our heroes bribe a driver and fireman to take their train, to the desired destination. This long baffled me rather – the LSWR might not have been Britain’s most efficient railway, but I’d seen no hint anywhere else, that it was particularly bad. I wondered whether Jerome had some personal quarrel with this particular railway company. Finally, light was shed – may have been in a thread on these Forums, though the “search” function has delivered nothing – Jerome was hyperbolically mocking not the LSWR as such, but the notoriously complicated, confusing and warren-like character of its Waterloo terminus, which had as it were organically grown up bit by bit, over the decades – a situation which continued until total remodelling of the terminus just before the Grouping.

 

[infobleep]

I recall reading of various – quite prominent and main-line, not dozy light railways in the back of beyond -- pre-Grouping railway companies which for certain periods of time, were notoriously inefficient and un-punctual; sometimes they got their act together and improved their performance, sometimes not so much so – strong impression indeed, that it was all up to the individual undertaking: no government involvement.

I seem to remember learning of the Lancashire & Yorkshire, and the Great North of Scotland, having each had a spell of being pretty shambolic; but in both cases the railways concerned, reformed and became models of efficiency. The London, Chatham & Dover and the South Eastern, were long well-known for giving poorish service – it was regretted that foreigners arriving at Dover or Folkestone, got their first impression of Britain’s railways from those clowns. When the two companies put aside their rivalry and amalgamated, around the turn of the 19th / 20th century; unfortunately, the amalgamation did not yield much in the way of greater efficiency.

Jerome K. Jerome, early in his Three Men in a Boat, would seem to be ridiculing the London & South Western Railway in his description of how the trio got to -- Staines? – Windsor? – at all events, the place on the Thames where their boat awaited them. Nobody on the staff at Waterloo station has the faintest idea of how / where to find any train, for any destination: the loco crews are as clueless as everyone else. In the end, our heroes bribe a driver and fireman to take their train, to the desired destination. This long baffled me rather – the LSWR might not have been Britain’s most efficient railway, but I’d seen no hint anywhere else, that it was particularly bad. I wondered whether Jerome had some personal quarrel with this particular railway company. Finally, light was shed – may have been in a thread on these Forums, though the “search” function has delivered nothing – Jerome was hyperbolically mocking not the LSWR as such, but the notoriously complicated, confusing and warren-like character of its Waterloo terminus, which had as it were organically grown up bit by bit, over the decades – a situation which continued until total remodelling of the terminus just before the Grouping.

Waterloo was certainly confusing. It is mentioned as being such in one of my old guide books. Might be in Dicken's Dictionary of London by Charles Dicken's Junior, fifth edition from 1883.

I believe both parts of the station were called Waterloo rather than Waterloo and Waterloo East.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Calthrop]

I believe both parts of the station were called Waterloo rather than Waterloo and Waterloo East.

That's the spirit: don't differentiate the other mob's line, from your own -- it's only effete foreigners who try to make things logical and sense-making -- that's why we always succeed, and confound them !

 

[Cowley]

That's the spirit: don't differentiate the other mob's line, from your own -- it's only effete foreigners who try to make things logical and sense-making -- that's why we always succeed, and confound them !

Love it!

 

[Darren R]

Waterloo was certainly confusing. It is mentioned as being such in one of my old guide books. Might be in Dicken's Dictionary of London by Charles Dicken's Junior, fifth edition from 1883.

I believe both parts of the station were called Waterloo rather than Waterloo and Waterloo East.

Somewhat off topic (sorry!) but Waterloo East was actually known as Waterloo Junction until the Southern Railway dropped the suffix in 1935 - and presumably introduced still more confusion to the station(s)!

 

[MotCO]

I believe both parts of the station were called Waterloo rather than Waterloo and Waterloo East.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

At one stage the two stations were linked by a rail link - you can still see the remnants of the route when leaving Waterloo East for Charing Cross. Maybe it was considered to be a single station, and therefore only had one name.

 

[Bookd]

At one stage the two stations were linked by a rail link - you can still see the remnants of the route when leaving Waterloo East for Charing Cross. Maybe it was considered to be a single station, and therefore only had one name.

At street level, if you look at the footbridge connecting Waterloo and East, beneath it the original connecting railway bridge is still in place.

 

[infobleep]

At street level, if you look at the footbridge connecting Waterloo and East, beneath it the original connecting railway bridge is still in place.

The bridge is now just used as storage.

It may well have been seen as one station but it was considered confusing none the less.

Another confusing one, taken from my 1902 Thorough Guide to the Eastern Counties, and referring to Norwich:
To prevent confusion it may be well to point out that Thorpe (terminus) gets its name from Thorpe Hamlet, the eastern suburb of the city. Thorpe (village) is about 2 miles East bfrom Thorpe (terminus), and its station is called Whittlingham Junction.

Wonder how many people went to Thorpe when they should have gone to Whittlingham Junction? Being a village, not many one might hope.

I don't mean to go away from the topic itself. Perhaps I should create a new one. Confusing stations.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Calthrop]

Another confusing one, taken from my 1902 Thorough Guide to the Eastern Counties, and referring to Norwich:
To prevent confusion it may be well to point out that Thorpe (terminus) gets its name from Thorpe Hamlet, the eastern suburb of the city. Thorpe (village) is about 2 miles East bfrom Thorpe (terminus), and its station is called Whittlingham Junction.

Wonder how many people went to Thorpe when they should have gone to Whittlingham Junction? Being a village, not many one might hope.

Topic-drifting a bit, inspired by the subject of rail references in guide-books "back in the day": a quote follows from a 1937 guide-book for visitors to the Isle of Wight. All the Island's six rail lines were then in use for passenger and freight, and the guide operates in a context of rail being a viable way to get around; but cautions, "As...these lines were originally laid out for three different systems, disconcerting changes are often necessary when making any but the shortest of journeys, and visitors should make themselves acquainted with the direction of the various lines by means of the map, and should also ascertain, before setting out, that a change of train will not involve a long wait for a connection."

It would seem that in its first fifteen years of ownership of the IOW lines, the Southern Railway did less than it might have done, to rationalise workings vis-a-vis the pre-Grouping times of three different rail undertakings of the Island, with each doing its own thing.

 

[30907]

Topic-drifting a bit, inspired by the subject of rail references in guide-books "back in the day": a quote follows from a 1937 guide-book for visitors to the Isle of Wight. All the Island's six rail lines were then in use for passenger and freight, and the guide operates in a context of rail being a viable way to get around; but cautions, "As...these lines were originally laid out for three different systems, disconcerting changes are often necessary when making any but the shortest of journeys, and visitors should make themselves acquainted with the direction of the various lines by means of the map, and should also ascertain, before setting out, that a change of train will not involve a long wait for a connection."

It would seem that in its first fifteen years of ownership of the IOW lines, the Southern Railway did less than it might have done, to rationalise workings vis-a-vis the pre-Grouping times of three different rail undertakings of the Island, with each doing its own thing.

The 1938 summer timetable shows a basically hourly interval service on all routes (complete with 3 trains meeting at Merstone, which had two platforms only!) except on Sundays. I imagine this was a spinoff from the Portsmouth Direct electrification in 1937, in which case the guidebook may have been "fair comment" for earlier years.

 

[Calthrop]

The 1938 summer timetable shows a basically hourly interval service on all routes (complete with 3 trains meeting at Merstone, which had two platforms only!) except on Sundays. I imagine this was a spinoff from the Portsmouth Direct electrification in 1937, in which case the guidebook may have been "fair comment" for earlier years.

Seems, then, that the SR "got it together" re their Wight lines, at the end of the 1930s. Come World War II with its various stringencies, one would figure that IOW passenger services were considerably reduced; but as the Island was considered to be in the "front line" in that war, people couldn't go there for holidays anyway -- so, one reckons, not much of a problem right then.

I'm very fond of the Isle of Wight and its railways, and wish that fate had served them better in the past three-quarters of a century, than it actually has -- have posted elsewhere in "Railway History & Nostalgia", on that theme.

 

[infobleep]

I have a thing for old guide books and that is nearly always a section at the start on the railways. Some even have sections on the stage coach routes and hiring of horses.

We have preserved railways. I think it's a shame there aren't any preserved stage coach routes, even just short ones of a length similar to a small heritage railway line. If there is such a thing, I've not heard of it.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk