1

Journalof the

Railway & Canal Historical Society

Volume 39 Part 1 No 228 March 2017

George Stephenson – the railway surveys.Part 2 : 1832–1848 — Robert F Hartley 2

Murray Gladstone : George Stephenson’s assistant inChester — David Parry 13

The inception and demise of the Roman Fossdike :a postscript — Pat Jones 24

Correspondence 29

The railway signalman (1936) 29

To Teignmouth for the day : a Heathcoat factory excursionfrom Tiverton — Tim Edmonds 31

The Leominster Canal : derelict, abandoned or closed?— David Slater 42

The location of Edward Jones’s 1799 tramroad : an assessmentbased on contemporary correspondence — Bryan Morgan 45

Reviews 53

Cover images:

Front : ‘The Heathcoat Works outing to Teignmouth’ (detail of painting by W P Key)(National Trust Images) (see pp 31–41)

Back : Early Great North of Scotland Railway buses (from Mike Mitchell, Great Northof Scotland Road Services, reviewed on pp 53–4)

2

George Stephenson – the railway surveysPart 2 : 1832–1848Robert F Hartley

A move to Leicestershire

At the start of February 1832 George Stephensonjoined the board of the Leicester & SwanningtonRailway. He had provided them with advice at varioustimes but he had another reason for taking a closerinterest in the Leicestershire railway. A month laterhis workmen commenced sinking a colliery shaft atWhite Leys Farm, in what is now the town ofCoalville.1 It is not recorded whether Stephensonwas there to inaugurate his new Snibston Collierybut it seems likely. During the summer more workmenarrived and houses began to be built along theturnpike road from Leicester to Ashby de la Zouch.Presumably the general scheme of the new settlementwas decided by Stephenson, with terraced rows forthe different grades of workmen, each with its owngarden allotment, as in his native West Moor atKillingworth.2

At the time railway planning may still have seemeda rather precarious occupation, whereas owning coalmines, from Stephenson’s experience, seemed morelikely to provide a reliable source of income. Thesecond working shaft of Snibston Colliery, SnibstonNo 2, went on to produce coal profitably for anothercentury and a half.3

In July Stephenson reported to the Leicester &Swannington Railway on the prospects for extendingtheir line north of Swannington, including levels,plans for inclined planes, and a link to the Cloud Hilllimestone quarry. The Coleorton Railway was builtthree years later, perhaps using some of his ideas.4

By 1 August 1832 he was in residence in a handsomemodern house at Alton Grange, two miles west ofSnibston, near Ashby de la Zouch.5 It seemssurprising that he should have come to this relativelyrural spot when Liverpool was a major centre offinance for new railways, but he was moving to amore convenient central point in the country, readyfor the next group of new railway projects.

Travel on stage coaches took up much of his timeat this period. He was making journeys to Londonon Parliamentary business, to the Birmingham areafor the Grand Junction, to North Yorkshire for theWhitby & Pickering, and to Newcastle to keep in

touch with developments at Robert Stephenson &Co. He would also have been well aware that projectsto link the industrial areas of Birmingham, the eastMidlands, Yorkshire and Lancashire were likely toemerge as early candidates in the next spell of railwaypromotion.

Five main lines, north Midlands,Yorkshire, Lancashire, 1834–6

In July 1834 Stephenson was at Whitby where hemet George Hudson who, at that time, was promotinga railway link from the south to his home city of York.Hudson was then very much the rising star of railwaypromotion and would soon gain the soubriquet of‘the Railway King’. He would be useful to bothGeorge and Robert Stephenson, but they alwaysretained a degree of scepticism about his businesspractices.

Fifteen months later the York & North MidlandRailway (Y&NMR) was formed and Stephenson wasappointed to survey the route.6 In the meantime hehad just completed a three-month survey of the routeof the North Midland Railway (NMR)7 from Derby toLeeds and had also recently prospected the route ofthe Birmingham & Derby Junction.8 These three lineswere linked, forming a chain of communication fromBirmingham to Leeds and York.

Frederick Swanwick was the Assistant Engineeron the NMR and Y&NMR and in 1834 and 1835 healso signed off plans for the Sheffield & Rotherhamline which formed a junction with the NMR.9 He mayhave done this on his own because Stephenson wasfully occupied with the other projects; alternativelyit may have been George Stephenson’s way ofrewarding the younger man’s hard work and ability.

Normanton near Wakefield was the site of thejunction between the NMR and the Y&NMR and italso became the planned point of junction for a fifthline, the Manchester & Leeds Railway, surveyed byStephenson and Thomas Gooch, the plans for whichwere finalised in 1836.10 The route largely followedthat of Stephenson’s 1830 survey although the linkaround the south side of Manchester to the Liverpool& Manchester Railway was omitted.

3

Fig 1. George Stephenson railway surveys 1832–1840, with related later lines to 1844

4

by the assistant. This probably in part reflects thefact that the deposition of railway plans wasbecoming a much more routine procedure and theplans were starting to be printed rather thanindividually drawn and coloured. It may also indicatethat he was to some extent considering himself asretired. Alternatively, it may have become lessconvenient for him to see and handle each surveyplan before it was deposited with the Clerks of thePeace.

The only one of these lines that was modified verymuch before completion was the Birmingham & DerbyJunction, whose proprietors decided to build a southfork from Whitacre to Hampton in Arden to facilitatetraffic from London to the north, and also to modifythe approach from Coleshill into Birmingham. Thesefive surveys not only created the basis of the railwaynetwork in the north Midlands, but also providedthe core components of the later Lancashire &Yorkshire, Midland, and North Eastern Railways.11

George’s involvement in these schemes wasparticularly needed because Robert and his team werefully involved in building the London & Birmingham.That line was the showcase for the Stephenson teamand had to succeed. It was an epic task but at theend of 1837 the worst was over, and all thoseinvolved, including George, celebrated with a dinnerat the Dun Cow Inn at Dunchurch. Afterwards thework of supervising the building of these five newrailways was gradually passed on to Robert anddelegated to other members of the team.

The 135 miles of magnificent main line betweenBirmingham, Leeds and York are quite comparablewith the 127 miles of Brunel’s Great Western Railwaywhich were built more slowly during the same fewyears over rather easier terrain. This is not todenigrate Brunel’s achievement but to show what aformidable team Stephenson had created around him,especially as the Manchester & Leeds was also beingbuilt at the same time along a 50-mile route, ‘literallystudded with engineering difficulties from end toend’.

Stephenson was by no means ready for retirement,however, and would go on to plan railways furtherafield. He was also looking for a new home,somewhere more convenient for the new main linenetwork. Tapton House, on a hill overlookingChesterfield, became available to rent in 1838 andStephenson was living there by mid-August. It wasa far larger and more prestigious house than AltonGrange, reflecting Stephenson’s status now as one

of the country’s most respected engineers. It alsohad more space for offices and bedrooms for guestsand assistants to stay.12

Extensions into Lancashire and Yorkshire

As the engineer of the Manchester & Leeds,Stephenson supervised the surveying of the shortbranch to Halifax in 1838.13 This line, terraced alonga very steep valley side, is a more impressive pieceof engineering than might at first appear. In 1841Stephenson and Joseph Burke signed off the plansfor a longer branch from Todmorden to Burnley,Blackburn and Preston (the North LancashireJunction Railway).14 Although this was not built inits entirety, the Manchester & Leeds later constructedthe Todmorden–Burnley section and the Blackburn& Preston15 used almost exactly the line ofStephenson and Burke’s route between FaringtonJunction & Blackburn. George Stephenson was laterappointed Engineer to the Preston & Wyre Railway,but in terms of surveys this seems only to haveresulted in George Parker Bidder’s brother, Samuel,preparing the plans for the short Blackpool andLytham branches in 1844. Further aspects of thecollaboration with Bidder will be considered in thenext section of this paper.

The Leeds & Bradford was an early project, firstmooted in 1830, which Stephenson eventuallyplanned in 1839.16 It was a logical extension of theNorth Midland, following a somewhat indirect routeto make use of the Aire valley. The line waseventually built in the mid-1840s following a furthersurvey by Robert Stephenson.

George Hudson brought George Stephenson inagain to plan the Y&NMR branch line from York toScarborough in 1841.17 This also incorporated theearlier Whitby & Pickering line. These lines werebuilt largely as planned, but as an economy measurethe 1,400 yard tunnel which Stephenson had plannednear Kirkham Abbey was replaced by a long loopwhich added over a mile to the journey and still slowsthe progress of trains to this day.

In 1844, perhaps because there was so muchpressure to plan new lines, Stephenson was alsoconsulted to approve the plans of the Y&NMR’sHarrogate & Ripon Junction branch.18 This was oneof many Hudson proposals at that time, intended toforestall rival schemes; it was never built, althoughthe later Pilmoor–Boroughbridge line ran parallel topart of the route.

5

Routes southwards from Manchester,1835–40

In October 1824 the young Robert Stephenson hadspent six months at Edinburgh University, and whilethere he met an even younger prodigy, the 16-year-old mathematical genius, George Parker Bidder. Adecade later the two resumed their acquaintance andBidder joined Stephenson’s team working on theLondon & Birmingham Railway.

Bidder was an enormous asset to the Stephensonsbecause the ability to calculate volumes of materialto be excavated and tipped was crucial to thesuccessful estimating of railway construction costs.However, he was much more than this. He was affable,dependable and hard-working, and a close friendshipdeveloped between the three men. Bidder, likeGeorge, enjoyed some of the traditional pastimes ofhis working-class background, and the two wouldsometimes engage in a bout of traditional wrestlingin the partnership’s London office while Robertgloomily contemplated the cost in replacing brokenfurniture!

Robert Stephenson’s engineering consultancybegan early in 1835, based at first in St John’s Woodand from February 1836 at 16 Duke Street,Westminster.19 A year later he moved to Great GeorgeStreet (closer to the Houses of Parliament) wherethere were additional rooms for the necessary drawingoffices and document storage. Production of finishedplans was contracted out to experienceddraughtsmen such as Charles Cheffins, who had alsoworked on the London & Birmingham.

Even before the Grand Junction Railway (GJR) wascompleted it had been noticed that it was by no meansthe shortest possible route from Birmingham orLondon to Manchester. In 1835 George Stephensonis said to have surveyed a line from Tamworth toRugby, via Atherstone and Nuneaton.20 Thefollowing year plans were deposited, on behalf ofthe Birmingham & Derby Junction Railway, signedby Charles Liddell ‘for Geo Stephenson Esq.’.21 Thisline would have joined the London & Birmingham atRugby on its direct course to London. It was in factpart of a larger scheme for a line from Manchestersouth via Stoke to Rugby.

At the end of 1836 plans had also been depositedfor the Manchester South Union Railway (MSUR)from Manchester (London Road) via Stoke-on-Trentand Rugeley to Tamworth; there it ended abruptly ina junction with the Birmingham & Derby Junction

line, but it would also have joined their proposedTamworth to Rugby line. These first MSUR planswere signed by George Stephenson as Engineer, withGeo P Bidder as Assistant Engineer, and includebranches from North Rode to Leek, Stone to HammerHouses (Norton Bridge on the GJR), Stone to MillMeece (on the GJR) and Armitage to Alrewas(junction with the Birmingham & Derby Junction).22

In 1837 Stephenson and Bidder submitted newplans, including a branch from Stoke to Leek, a branchinto Lichfield, and a branch from Kidsgrove toCrewe.23 The latter would have crossed the GJR onthe level to make an end-on junction with the Chester& Crewe line. There would have been east–northand west–south spurs to connect to the GJR.

Plans for the Kidsgrove to Crewe line weredeposited again in 183824 and 1839,25 with GeorgeStephenson as Engineer and Murray Gladstone asAssistant Engineer. Stephenson had also supervisedplans for the Chester and Crewe line26 and in 1839there was an additional plan27 for a short but difficultline from Brook Street in Chester (near the later siteof Chester General Station) around the north side ofthe city walls to the site of a proposed dock on theRiver Dee.

In the parliamentary session of 1837 the MSURwent head-to-head with a rival scheme, planned by JU Rastrick, for a line from Manchester to Stafford.According to Whishaw,28 the two companiesamalgamated their interests and the resultingManchester & Birmingham Railway was authorisedon 30 June 1837 with a direct line from Manchester toCrewe and a branch from Cheadle to Macclesfield.The engineer was George Watson Buck, who hadworked for Robert Stephenson on the London &Birmingham but was no longer one of the Stephensonconsultancy.

The Manchester & Birmingham had the samestarting point as the MSUR, at the junction of StoreStreet and London Road. Its course throughStockport was very close to the route surveyed byBidder and Stephenson, but their viaduct would havebeen some 25 feet lower than Buck’s. They mightalso have given it a more architectural treatment witha surface of dressed stone. In the event Buck usedplain red brick for most of the structure, giving it anunadorned Roman grandeur. Stockport viaductremains one of the greatest monuments of the earlymain-line railways.

With the northern end of the route now under way,albeit under a rival engineer, Bidder and Stephenson

6

Fig 2. Railway surveys south from Manchester made by George Stephenson andGeorge Parker Bidder, 1836–1840

7

submitted plans on 1 March 1838 for the Manchester& Birmingham Extension Railway (M&BER), or Stoneto Rugby line.29 This followed the MSUR route fromMeaford (Stone) to Tamworth, then continuedthrough Atherstone and Nuneaton to Rugby. Thebranch from Armitage to Alrewas was also included.

Having failed to gain approval in 1838, the M&BERscheme was resubmitted on 30 November 1839.30

George Stephenson’s name appears as engineer butthe plans are signed by Bidder. On 25 February 1840two further sets of plans were deposited, for a Stone& Rugby line and for a Stafford & Rugby line.31 Theyfollow the same course but the second scheme had aline from Stafford to Colwich.

All of these plans were fiercely opposed by theGrand Junction Railway and even by the London &Birmingham, which would surely have benefitted fromthem. Even the influence of the local landowner andPrime Minister, Sir Robert Peel, was unavailing. Fromthe point of view of Bidder and Stephenson and theshareholders of the various companies the wholeMSUR episode represented five years of wasted time,effort and money.

Eventually, in 1844, the Stafford and Rugby schemewas revived as the Trent Valley Railway andconstructed under the supervision of RobertStephenson. George was an honoured guest on theopening day, Saturday 26 June 1847. Much of theroute closely followed the 1840 proposals except inthe area of Atherstone and around Great Haywoodand Shugborough, In addition, the Alrewas branchwas never built.

Further north, the line from Macclesfield to Stokeand Colwich was built in the mid-1840s by the NorthStaffordshire Railway, and also the branches fromNorth Rode to Leek and from Kidsgove to Crewe.Again, parts of the route followed Bidder andStephenson’s plans, but with numerous detaildifferences. Robert Stephenson was the supervisingengineer.

West Cumberland

In spite of all his other commitments in the crowdedyear of 1836, Stephenson also supervised a surveyof the Maryport & Carlisle (M&CR) line. Plans forthe M&CR were deposited on 30 November anddepict the route very much as built apart from a laterrealignment between Wigton and Aspatria.32 Thefollowing summer (early August 1837) Stephensonvisited the area again, having been asked to give hisopinions on possible routes from Lancaster to

Carlisle. No detailed plans were made but he camedown in favour of a coastal route, including longembankments across the Kent, Leven and Duddonestuaries, rather than through the fells south ofPenrith.33 He has been criticised for this but it washardly surprising. He was after all acting on behalfof the M&CR promoters and their associates, and healways preferred routes that ran through miningareas, which the coast route eminently did.

Although after his tour of Cumbria Stephensonannounced his intention to retire, he was drawn backinto railway promotion in that district in the 1840s.

Fig 3. Railways in Cumberland surveyed byGeorge Stephenson and John Dixon, 1836–1845

8

The Whitehaven & Maryport,34 Cockermouth &Workington35 and Whitehaven & Furness Junction36

lines were all surveyed by John Dixon, resuming anassociation between Stephenson and Dixon whichwent back to the start of the Stockton & Darlingtonproject. These lines were largely built as planned,apart from the Whitehaven & Furness Junction southof Millom, where the intended embankment acrossthe Duddon Sands to join the Furness Railway atAskham was abandoned; the route eventuallydiverted via Foxfield, adding another six miles or soto the distance.

Had the Cumberland coast line come into oneownership it might have become a secondary mainline route to Scotland, but once the LNWR hadsecured the direct route from Lancaster to Carlisle itensured that this was never going to happen. Ascompleted the coastal line curved sinuously aroundthe three estuaries on Morecambe Bay and was amuch longer and slower route than first envisaged.At a time when it might have been upgraded, in thelater 19th century, it was worked by three smallcompanies, one of them controlled by the LNWR.Although highly important for mineral traffic, itremained essentially just of local importance.

To Scotland and Ireland

Not long after he started to build steam engines atKillingworth Stephenson had apparently announcedthat in the future railways would take the mails fromLondon to Edinburgh. This was an ambition he wouldnever abandon and in the autumn of 1838 he wasback in his native county, prospecting a route fromNewcastle to Berwick-upon-Tweed. The plans weredeposited on 1 March 1839 by ‘George & RobertStephenson’ in conjunction with plans by ‘MessrsGrainger & Miller’ for the continuation from Berwickto Edinburgh.37

The Stephensons’ route swept imperiouslythrough Bedlington and along the coast past Craster,but in Parliament it proved impossible to overcomethe entrenched opposition of Earl Grey and thedemands of the town of Morpeth. In subsequentyears Robert was required to piece together acompromise solution, indirect and with some severecurves, to enable the scheme to go ahead. Despiteits status as part of a prestigious trunk route, theNewcastle and Berwick section remains a poor-quality substitute for the original proposals. Only ina few places, such as at the remarkable surviving1840s station at Chathill, do the trains race along the

alignment which George Stephenson first envisaged,although perhaps sleepy Alnmouth may be gratefulthat it did not end up in the shadow of the big viaducthe planned across the estuary there.

With a route from London to Edinburgh in progressor planned out, Stephenson’s mind turned to the nextmajor target which was Dublin with the importantmail traffic. He had looked at the topography of northWales in 1838 and returned in the spring of 1839,studying routes to the harbours at Holyhead andPorthdynllaen. He came down firmly in support ofthe coastal route from Chester to Holyhead. Theoriginal plans38 differ in at least one major respectfrom those eventually used, for they envisaged usingTelford’s Menai suspension bridge to transfer rollingstock across to Anglesey. This seems at first glanceridiculous but it reminds us that in 1839 and even in1843 the suspension bridge was the only knownstructure capable of being extended to the lengthrequired to cross the Menai Straits. It would take a

Fig 4. Great North British Railway, Newcastleto Berwick, 1839

9

decade of engineering development to evolve thevery long tubular girders which Robert Stephensoneventually used with great success.

It has been noted earlier that Chester seems alwayshave been considered as a key location by GeorgeStephenson, and in 1839 plans were deposited in his

name (with Murray Gladstone asActing Engineer) for a Ruabon &Chester Railway.39 This includedthe crossing of the Dee at Chesterand the formation of thattriangular junction with theBirkenhead and Crewe lines whichhad figured in Stephenson’splans as early as the 1824Liverpool & Birmingham scheme.The Ruabon & Chester line alsoincluded branches to Brymbo andFfrwd ironworks, reached byinclines of 1 in 62 and 1 in 40respectively. It was revived againin 1842 as the North WalesMineral Railway,40 attributedjointly to George Stephenson andAlex M Ross, with HenryRobertson as Assistant Engineerand Surveyor. Ross subsequentlybecame Robert Stephenson’sassistant for the building of theChester & Holyhead line.

Peak District plans, 1845–48

In the early 1840s George Stephenson largelyretired from railway surveying although his diaryremained crowded with appointments for publicappearances as the lines he and Robert had planned

Fig 5. Chester to Holyhead Railway, 1843 plans by George and Robert Stephenson, and otherrailways in connection planned by George Stephenson

Fig 6. Part of Stephenson’s 1843 Chester & Holyhead Railwaysurvey showing how the line would approach the Caernarvonshire

side of Telford’s road bridge, 1839

10

gradually came to fruition. In 1845 however he wasdrawn back by a project close to his heart, theimprovement of transport across the Peak District.There were three related schemes, the main one beingthe Manchester, Buxton, Matlock & MidlandsJunction Railway (MBM&MJR). Smiles tells us thatthis was his favourite, and this is easy to prove, asthe first page of the plans41 in the Matlock RecordOffice bears once again the familiar signature ‘GeorgeStephenson Esquire, Engineer’.

The MBM&MJR was a very logical project withinthe context of the third Railway Mania. It wouldhave been expensive to build, but would have linkedDerby to Manchester by a very direct route. FromAmbergate it followed the Derwent valley toBakewell, then via Monsall Dale and Miller’s Dale toBuxton, from where a tunnel of 4,128 yards wouldhave led under Combs Moss. The line continued viaWhaley Bridge and Hazel Grove to join the

Manchester & Birmingham line at Stockport. Therewould have been a tunnel nearly a mile long at Disley.Just east of this tunnel a branch led northwardsthrough Marple, Romiley and Hyde to join theManchester–Sheffield line at Newton. There were inaddition branch lines to the Dove Holes quarries,and to the Poynton and Norbury collieries.

Clearly related to the MBM&MJR, the Buxton,Macclesfield, Congleton & Crewe project42 madesense within the context of the times. This was, afterall, another period of Railway Mania. The costs ofconstruction would have been high, with a tunnelunder Buxton Market Place and another, no less thanthree miles long, under Axe Edge on its route westtowards Congleton.

Rather more difficult to understand is whyStephenson (with Frederick Swanwick, no less)should have put his name to the Sheffield, Bakewell& Ashford proposals.43 These included two inclines

Fig 7. Peak District railways; surveys by George Stephenson, 1845

11

of two miles at 1 in 12 or 1 in 13 over Totley Moss andtwo further inclines (totalling over three miles) assteep as 1 in 32, on the branch from Heeley toChesterfield. It is difficult to know what to make ofthis project. It could be dismissed as the folly of anageing mind, but Swanwick’s involvement suggestsotherwise. There was undoubtedly at the time anover-inflated enthusiasm for all kinds of railwayswhich would later prove to be unrealistic orimpractical.

The Buxton to Crewe and Sheffield to Bakewellschemes vanished with the bubble of investor over-confidence that had created them. The more soundlybased MBM&MJR failed to gain authorisation in1845 but returned in the two following years withradically different routes,44 all to little avail. TheAmbergate to Rowsley section was built in the 1840s,but the Midland Railway’s eventual route toManchester, whilst following much of the 1845 routeonwards to Millers Dale, then turned northwest alongGreat Rocks Dale and through a summit tunnel underDove Holes. It was not completed until 1867.

Conclusions

Some railway histories begin with entire chapterson ‘early proposals’ and ‘might-have-beens’ and ingeneral I have never read these with muchenthusiasm. However in the case of the Stephensonsurveys I feel they are worth studying, partly aspioneering instruments of railway engineering, butalso for the light they shed on the career and characterof George Stephenson.

Firstly, they tell us first of his remarkable self-confidence; he had no formal training as a surveyorbut when surveys were needed to build his railwayshe stepped forward and did them. The glimpses weget of that process reveal his enormous stamina andcapacity for work.

Secondly, they reveal his decisiveness coupledwith a degree of stubbornness. Once he had createda route he was not easily able (as Robert so oftenwas) to allow it to be modified. Thus, when he couldchange Vignoles’ route for the Liverpool &Manchester, he did so, bringing the Manchesterterminus back close to his preferred location. Wealso see that he had a very competitive determinationto achieve certain objectives. Although he was keento retire he could not restrain himself from taking the

initiative on the projects which would extend therailway system to the capital cities of Edinburgh and(via a sea crossing) Dublin.

We know that he chose whenever possible to planroutes along river valleys with easy gradients. Minesand industrial sites on either side could thengenerally send their heavy loaded wagons downhillto the main line. He had a clear grasp of the transportnetwork of Britain, identifying certain focal points,such as Chester and Stoke-on-Trent, to which hereturned on numerous occasions, knowing that theywould eventually prove to be important centres oftraffic. Having chosen to base himself, firstly nearAshby de la Zouch and later at Chesterfield, he clearlyfocussed his work on the north Midlands, leavingRobert initially to look after the area south ofBirmingham.

Nevertheless, in all this he could only guide andserve the investors in any given railway. He wasriding a wave, not making it. At times there were notenough projects to keep his team together, at othersthere was clearly far more work than he could handle.

George Stephenson may not have been the paragonof generosity portrayed by Smiles, but his assistantsseem on the whole to have remained loyal to him,and some, including John Dixon, were clearly life-long friends. When things went wrong he generallytook the responsibility. Thomas Blackett, the seniorsurveyor on the Liverpool & Manchester in 1824,must have failed to notice the inaccuracies in hislevelled survey, but Stephenson seems to haveshouldered the blame alone.45 When his assistantWilliam Allcard was found to have made errors withthe Lime Street Tunnel survey, Stephenson was quickto support him.

Visiting the various record offices to view theoriginal surveys has been a fascinating experience,revealing the vast geographical extent ofStephenson’s study of the landscape of England andWales. These documents are just a few amongst thepriceless records maintained by skilled and dedicatedstaff, whose valuable institutions are under threatfrom government cutbacks. I would encourageanyone reading this article to go and seek out someof the Stephenson plans. Despite all the potential ofthe digital age to make copies, there is still a certainunique thrill in touching a page which has upon itthe vigorous and flowing signature of the great man.

12

Notes and referencesChRO Cheshire Archives and Local Studies

CuRO Cumbria Record Office

DeRO Derbyshire Record Office

DuRO Durham County Record Office

LRO Leicestershire Record Office

NYRO North Yorkshire Record Office

SRO Staffordshire Record Office

WYAS West Yorkshire Archive Service, Wakefield

1. Samuel Fisher, Reminiscences of Early Coalville(Coalville 150 Group, 1992)

2. Denis Baker, Coalville : the first 75 years, 1833–1908(Leicester : Leicestershire Libraries, 1983)

3. Original plans for the branch railway were signed by J CBirkenshaw (plan in Leicestershire Record Office).The eventual route was altered. Part of the linesurvives at present in the closed Snibston DiscoveryPark.

4. Robert F Hartley, ‘The Coleorton Railway’ in EarlyRailways 4 (Sudbury : Six Martlets, 2010), pp 151–166

5. The house remains apparently little changed sinceStephenson’s time. A commemorative plaque hasrecently been added to the building at the instigationof Leicestershire County Council.

6. WYAS, QE20/1/1835/8 (York & North Midland Railway,30 November 1835, George Stephenson & FrederickSwanwick); QE/20/1/1836/6, 30 November1836(George Stephenson & Thomas Cabry)

7. WYAS, QE20/1/1835/4 (North Midland Railway,Section, 30 November 1835, George Stephenson &Frederick Swanwick)

8. SRO, Q/RUm/84 (Birmingham & Derby Junction Rly,1835)

9. WYAS, QE20/1/1835/1, QE20/1/1835/1

10. WYAS, QE20/1/1836/8

11. Stephenson also surveyed the Maryport & CarlisleRailway in 1836, as described below.

12. Tapton House and park remain very much asStephenson would have known them, being used as acollege of further education.

13. WYAS, QE20/1/1838/2

14. WYAS, QE20/1/1841/3

15. Engineer Joseph Locke, Acting Engineer John Collister

16. WYAS, Wakefield, QE20/1/1839/2 (Section only)

17. NYRO, QDP(M) 34

18. NYRO, QDP(M) 41

19. M R Bailey (ed), Robert Stephenson, the EminentEngineer (Aldershot : Ashgate, 2003), pp 67–82

20. Peter Lee, The Trent Valley Railway (Burton-upon-Trent : Trent Valley Publications, 1988) p 4

21. LRO, QS/73/18 (Birmingham & Derby JunctionRailway, December 1836)

22. SRO, Q/RUm/89

23. SRO, Q/RUm/97; ChRO, QDP/146

24. SRO, Q/RUm/111; ChRO, QDP/150

25. SRO, Q/RUm/111

26. Not yet seen by the author

27. SRO, Q/RUm/113

28. Francis Whishaw, The Railways of Great Britain andIreland … (London : Weale, 1842), pp 301–6

29. SRO, Q/RUm/103 (Signed for George Stephenson byGeo P Bidder)

30. SRO, Q/RUm/120

31. SRO, Q/RUm/132

32. CuRO, Whitehaven, YDX/111/6/11

33. CuRO, Carlisle, DSEN/5/11/3/1/30 (Letter fromGeorge Stephenson at Alton Grange to the proprietorsof the Caledonian Junction Railway and the Committeeof the Whitehaven, Workington and MaryportRailways, 16 August 1837)

34. CuRO, Carlisle, Q/RZ/1/85 (1844)

35. CuRO, Whitehaven, TBR/1/3/7a (November 1844)

36. CuRO, Carlisle, Q/RZ/1/88,(1844) also Q/RZ/1/89(Kirksanton Deviation and Whitehaven HarbourExtension 1845)

37. DuRO, Q/D/P99 (Great North British Railway, 1839)

38. ChRO, QDP/176

39. ChRO, QDP/160

40. ChRO, QDP/172

41. DeRO, Q/RP/2/119a

42. SRO, Q/RUm/186; ChRO, QDP/202

43. WYAS, QE/20/1/1845/81 (29 November 1845)

44. DeRO, Q/RP/2/148 (1846–7), Q/RP/2/12; ChROQDP/282 (1847–8)

45. Blackett later published An Essay on the Use of theSpirit Level … (Newcastle : Hodgson, 1838). He waslater to be criticised for errors in his surveys on theNewcastle and Carlisle line.

13

Murray Gladstone : George Stephenson’sassistant in ChesterDavid Parry

Introduction

During the late 1830s and early 1840s Chester wasthe focus of a number of railway proposals associatedwith George Stephenson whose expertise was greatlyin demand from railway promoters throughout thecountry. To accommodate such demands andprovide complementary technical skills, Stephensonmade extensive use of assistants, often young,talented engineers who were able to gain valuableexperience working on his burgeoning portfolio ofprojects. In researching these projects, oneassistant’s name appears frequently in local reportsand papers between 1837 and 1840 but thereafterseems to disappear: Murray Gladstone.

Stimulated by curiosity for this little knownengineer from a famous family with early railwayassociations, the present author has attempted toconstruct a biographical sketch of his brief railwaycareer under the wing of the most famous pioneer ofrailways, which gives an insight into the crucial roleof an assistant engineer at the dawn of the railwayage.

Early life

Born in Liverpool on 14 February 1816, MurrayGladstone was a member of a large and influentialLiverpool family with Scottish roots from which afuture Prime Minister would emerge. His father wasRobert Gladstone(s) (1773–1835), various familymembers having dropped the final ‘s’. His uncle, SirJohn Gladstone MP (1785–1851), had been activeboth locally and in Parliament promoting the Liverpool& Manchester Railway (L&MR) whilst Sir John’syoungest son, William Ewart Gladstone (1810–98),was to play an important role in governmentregulation of the emerging railway network at theBoard of Trade in Sir Robert Peel’s governmentbetween 1841 and 1845. Another cousin wasRobertson (or Robert) Gladstone (1805–75), brotherof W E Gladstone, who was a leading shareholderand director of the L&MR from its incorporation in1826, having previously been a deputy chairman ofthe provisional committee since 1824. Sir John andRobertson Gladstone were key members of the

‘Liverpool Party’, the influential group of investorsbehind the L&MR and subsequently the GrandJunction Railway (GJR). Thus the wider Gladstonefamily played an influential role in the emergence ofearly main-line railways though perhaps not notablylinked to their engineering.

However, the possibility of a technical career wassuggested by young Murray’s aptitude fordraughtsmanship and mechanics that emerged fromhis education at Liverpool’s Royal Institution. As aresult, his father assisted him in finding a positionunder George Stephenson who had recently beenengaged in the construction of the L&MR, enablingGladstone to involve himself at leading edge ofrailway civil engineering with one of its pioneeringpractitioners.1

Murray’s early experience of railways might wellhave disastrously cut short his career. In October1830, together with his younger brother,Montgomery, and an unnamed L&MR director’s son,he was riding on the footplate of a locomotivepropelling a goods wagon near Rainhill. The wagonsuddenly derailed, turning the locomotive on its side.Whilst the driver and the three young men were ableto jump to safety, the legs of the stoker, James LambTurner, were trapped beneath the locomotive andscalded by escaping water. Turner suffered from hisinjuries for the remainder of his distinguished careeras an engine driver with the L&MR and itssuccessors, the GJR and the London and NorthWestern (LNWR) until his retirement in 1859.2

Chester & Birkenhead Railway

It is unlikely that Gladstone was working underStephenson at the time of the accident, the occasionsuggesting something of a works tour, especially asa director’s son was present. Nevertheless,Gladstone probably joined him in 1831, aged 15, as in1837, he had been working for Stephenson for ‘aboutsix years’. This period must have been a steeplearning curve during which he had been engagedon several railway projects, including preparation ofthe section for the Chester & Birkenhead Railway(C&BR), making estimates of quantities for pricing

14

by Stephenson. Indeed, in 1836–7 Stephenson hadtwo neighbouring projects for which Gladstone wasan Assistant Engineer – the C&BR with J Bennisonas Surveyor, and the Chester & Crewe Railway(C&CR) with John Palin as surveyor, work havingprogressed sufficiently for plans to be deposited bythe end of November 1836. Following this Gladstonewas entrusted with relations with key stakeholders,appearing with a colleague before the Town Councilin Chester on 13 January 1837 and answeringtechnical questions about the line of the C&CR inthe city. His relative youth did not go unremarkedby the Chester Chronicle which identified him as ‘ayoung gentleman, named Gladstone’.3

Gladstone’s exposure to political scrutiny took amajor step forward in June 1837 when, at the age of21, he found himself as an engineering witness at theHouse of Lords committee stage of the C&BR bill. Inthis capacity he outlined his role in the project,confirming that efforts had been made to avoid thedistrict’s ‘landed interest’ and that it had beenpossible to adopt a favourable line with noengineering challenges and a maximum gradient of

1 in 330. The Lords’ scrutiny involved questioningabout access to the various rival ferries, including adetailed discussion of distances, of which Gladstoneappeared to have a good grasp. However, heconfirmed that the final choice of line wasStephenson’s.

A particularly interesting exchange in thisexamination concerned the conveyance of goods forLiverpool, which Gladstone argued would be besttrans-shipped at Tranmere in view of the shorterdistance between railway and river – 200 yardsalthough involving a fall of 13 feet:

The best Way will be to remove them in Boxesdown the Slope One in Twenty-three to theTranmere Ferry, and ship them at once with thesame Boxes that come from Chester, in the WayCoals are done at Liverpool […] I would take themdown a sloped Road of One in Twenty-three; Iwould put them in a common Cart, merely acommon Frame, with Wheels upon it and a Horse.

He expected each cart to carry a single boxaveraging about a ton, and that the boxes would beshipped to Liverpool by flats or steam vessels fit forthe purpose; he also suggested that the boxes would

Fig 1. Railways with which Murray Gladstone was associated

15

be suitable for lead pigs, a traffic already provingsomewhat problematic between Chester andLiverpool. Questioned as to why the leadmanufacturer might tolerate the transfers necessaryby rail in preference to the direct water-based transitbetween Chester and Liverpool, he ventured that hemight prefer the overall time saving by rail to the‘absolute uncertainty of the River Dee’ then used.This inter-modal containerisation concept had beenused in Derbyshire for around 40 years, and brieflyfor coal on the L&MR where it had also been usedfrom 1830 for general merchandise by Pickfords.However, the resulting Act of Parliament sought toestablish a level playing field for the ferries byrequiring rail connection to each of Woodside,Birkenhead and Tranmere ferries.4

Whilst making a substantial contribution to theLords hearing, Gladstone did not carry the wholeburden, George Stephenson and his long-timeassociate, John Dixon, also making majorappearances. By 30 June Dixon was working fromthe Railway Office in Waterloo Street, Birmingham,probably for the Birmingham & Derby JunctionRailway, to which address Gladstone wrote advisingof the success of C&BR’s bill in the Lords andoptimistically urging the rapid completion of the linebefore traffic could be diverted to the GJR, due toopen in a few days. On the same day the C&CRreceived the Royal Assent, the C&BR following on12 July. In combination, these two lines wouldprovide a route between Crewe and Merseyside tocompete with the GJR’s less direct route to Liverpoolvia Earlestown and the L&MR. Nevertheless, thelatter had a three year start and a dominant marketposition that would play out to the detriment of bothChester companies over the ensuing years.5

Chester & Crewe Railway

John Dixon was appointed Engineer to bothrailways, with Gladstone supporting him as AssistantEngineer on the C&BR until transferring to the C&CRto become Resident Engineer in 1838. This transferappears to have allowed Dixon to focus on the C&BR,as engineer’s reports to the C&CR proprietors from1838 were made jointly by Stephenson andGladstone, or Gladstone alone, their preparationprobably falling to the latter. Gladstone’s duties inthis role also involved design work for promotion ofextensions of the C&CR beyond Crewe towards thePotteries and to the River Dee in Chester.6

In connection with the former extension, on 29April 1838 Gladstone accompanied George

Stephenson at a public meeting in Hanley as part ofa high-powered deputation from the C&CRcomprising E S Walker, (later Sir Edward) proprietorof the Walkers, Parker & Co lead works in Chesterand currently Mayor, William Wardell, C&CR deputychairman, partner in the Chester bank of Dixons &Wardell, Thomas Bagnall, a director, and HenryKelsall, the C&CR’s solicitor. Based on survey, the7½ mile extension had been drawn up by Gladstonefrom Crewe via Alsager to Butt Lane, near Kidsgrove,where it was to join another of Stephenson’s projects,the Manchester & Birmingham Railway (M&BR)providing access to the Pottery towns through aproposed tunnel at Harecastle.

This meeting was highly charged with railwaypolitics as, previously disappointed by the GJR, thePotteries interests sought a railway to Liverpool andwere now faced with two possibilities. The C&CRwere offering a 45½ mile route via its extension toCrewe, then via Chester, Birkenhead and ferry toLiverpool, while the GJR were now offering a branchfrom their line, which would provide through railaccess to Liverpool, though 7 miles longer, via theL&MR. Meanwhile, resistance by the GJR to theM&BR connecting to it at Stone raised the possibilityof the latter extending via the Trent Valley to theLondon & Birmingham Railway at Rugby, so saving12 miles which was attractive to the Hanley audience,whilst providing a route to the north-west bypassingthe GJR. After the C&CR deputation had stated theircase the meeting discussed the Stephenson proposaland unanimously resolved to support it. However, aprocess of railway amalgamation later placed theC&CR in the hands of the GJR, which in turn mergedwith the L&BR and M&BR to form the London &North Western Railway (LNWR), before the Crewe–Kidsgrove link was completed in 1848.7

Now in post on the C&CR project, it may beassumed that one of Gladstone’s first tasks asResident Engineer was to issue the invitations totender for the first of the construction contracts whichappeared in May 1838. Work started on the largest,the £56,500 Waverton contract, at the Chester endon 8 August, having been awarded to ThomasBrassey. This was more than a year followingauthorisation, but it had been a deliberate decisionto defer the start on the C&CR so as to co-ordinateits opening with the C&BR, which was expected totake longer to construct. The Waverton contractinvolved an aqueduct under the Ellesmere & ChesterCanal at Christleton.8

16

By the middle of August the C&CR’s earthworkshad progressed sufficiently to allow celebrations forconstruction workers, directors and guests. Theevent was the laying of the foundation stone of abridge over the railway between Walker’s lead worksand the Hoole Lane lock which was carried out bythe company’s Chairman, John Uniacke. Thecompany was very liberal in provisions for theconstruction workers, especially as regards liquidrefreshment, although order was restored by police!A more formal dinner was provided for directors andtheir guests, hosted by Murray Gladstone asResident Engineer. Following the loyal toast, Glad-stone proposed a toast to Uniacke and the directorsin recognition of the Chairman’s perseverance in themany difficulties the project had faced in order toreach this significant milestone which appear to havebeen political or commercial rather than technical, asUniacke referred to those who had predicted failurebeing determined to realise it.

Unsurprisingly, both men saw the railway as ofgreat advantage to the city of Chester, Uniacke inparticular seeing rail connections as being crucial torestoring Chester’s position in the mainstream of thecountry’s commerce and attracting manufacturinginvestment to the city. He went on to praiseGladstone’s engineering expertise and generositywith the celebrations, while Gladstone gave credit toGeorge Stephenson who had determined the routeof the Chester to Crewe railway, his task as assistantbeing no more than to follow his master’s direction,adding in a telling phrase that Stephenson ‘hadchalked out the great chain of railways in thekingdom’. He apologised for Stephenson’s absencein Newcastle for the British Association’s annualmeeting, adding that he understood Stephenson’smain purpose was to promote a railway betweenLondon and Edinburgh, whose realisation ‘wouldbe the proudest day of his life’. With the line toBrighton, this would see the length of the countryserved by rail, the width already approachingcompletion, a geographically questionable boast withthe question of the Holyhead line still unresolved(as described below).9

Passing through the Cheshire Plain the C&CRrequired few major structures, the Christletonaqueduct and the River Weaver viaduct north ofCrewe being the most significant whose constructionGladstone was to supervise. On 14 November 1838Gladstone reported to C&CR proprietors thatsurveys had been completed, the route marked outand land ownership plans prepared. Work on the

Waverton contract had been ongoing since Augustand the £36,973 Crewe contract had also been let toBrassey; the remaining Bunbury and Wardlecontracts involving rather lighter works were letearly in 1839.

Gladstone’s responsibilities also extended to thebuilding of coaches for the line and he reported theprocurement of some ‘fine ash timber’ then beingseasoned while the bodies for several first-classcarriages were being assembled. He was awaitingresults of an experiment concerning new framingand springing on the York & North Midland Railwaywhich had implications for reducing the dead weightof other classes of coaching stock. It is not clearfrom his report why first-class coaches wereunaffected.10

At the November meeting the C&CR proposed ashort extension from its Brook Street terminus inChester to the Dee near the start of its new cut,whilst the subsequent notice in the London Gazettealso recorded the intention to seek powers forconstructing one or more wet docks. Less than amile long, the extension was to tunnel under UpperNorthgate Street, terminating near ‘the Sluicehouse’and cheese warehouse. No details of docks wereincluded beyond an indication of the intended site,though the line’s approach height to the water’sedge of about 25 feet on arches is intriguing.11

Meanwhile, following the local consultation inApril, work on the C&CR Potteries extensionproposal was continuing, plans being deposited forpublic inspection prior to Parliamentary procedureon 30 November 1838, with revised plans depositedfor it and the Dee branch on 28 February 1839. ThePotteries extension and the Dee branch were bothpart of an attempt to divert china clay imports toChester from Runcorn, with the incentive of returncoal cargoes from the Deeside wharves, as alreadyvessels bringing iron ore to Chester were takingsmelted iron away as return cargo. However, thePotteries extension and Dee Branch proposal failedto secure Parliamentary approval.12

The Great Holyhead Railway

These were not the only proposals thatStephenson was promoting with Gladstone’sassistance around the nascent Chester hub, intendedto reverse the city’s decline. The C&CR, driven bya progressive element on Chester’s reformed TownCouncil, saw itself in a strategically advantageousposition between the GJR and the coastal route toHolyhead, a significant factor in view of the national

17

imperative for improved communications betweenLondon and Dublin, to examine which a governmentcommission had been appointed in 1836.

While the C&CR and C&BR were being promotedduring 1836–37 Charles Vignoles had undertakenfeasibility studies for routes between the GJR northof Wolverhampton and the port of Porthdynllaen, apotential rival to Holyhead, and between Chester andboth Holyhead and Porthdynllaen, in both cases rulingout a coastal route. A further proposal to develop anew harbour in Ormes Bay (modern Llandudno)emerged during 1836 as the St Georges Harbour andRailway, with William Cubitt as harbour engineer andGalloway & Son as railway engineers; it was to beconnected to the GJR by a railway through Flint andChester. With the London–Dublin strategy remainingunresolved during 1838 the C&CR commissionedStephenson to undertake a further survey of thecoastal route in addition to one undertaken by FrancisGiles and to compare it with the Vignoles inland route.Stephenson directed the survey work which wasundertaken by Gladstone and Palin during late 1838,but it was limited to producing sections rather than afull mapping of the 82 mile route.13

Stephenson reported back to the C&CR directorsstrongly in favour of the coastal route in December1838. Following his report and with support from theC&CR, a prospectus for the Great Holyhead Railwaywas published on 8 February 1839, which kept openthe option of Ormes Bay as a potential rail-servedharbour for the export of coal from the Welsh coalfieldsto Dublin and other markets. The prospectus alsopointed to the proposed M&BR Rugby extension andthe C&CR Potteries extension as elements of the routeit envisaged from London to Holyhead, passingthrough Stoke-on-Trent and thereby independent ofthe GJR, which it was to pass over at Crewe. Combinedwith the M&BR route via Stoke to London, thesedevelopments have the appearance of a grandstrategy to bypass the GJR for traffic between Londonand Dublin, Manchester and even Liverpool viaBirkenhead.14

Based on the Stephenson team’s surveys, sectionswere displayed at the C&CR proprietors’ meeting inApril 1839, comparing Vignoles’ overland route forthe Anglo-Irish railway with Stephenson’s preferredGreat Holyhead Railway along the north Wales coast,the former being mountainous and demandingtunnelling, whilst the latter closely followed sea level,although involving significant works over the Conwyestuary and the Menai Strait and significant crossingsof the Dee at Chester and the Clwyd at Rhyl.

Stephenson supported his findings by saying he nowhad a ‘most minute survey’, whereas his previousview had been based on ‘an ocular survey’ of thecoastal route. His assumptions on the Vignoles routewere based on desk study from the ‘survey and datain the report of the Irish railway commissioners’.Stephenson observed that an engineer’s eye wasnot needed to assess the ‘one section displaying amountainous country, such as never yet wasattempted to be traversed by a railway, and the othershewing almost a level waterline.’ Subsequently, atthe turn of 1839–40, Gladstone and Palin joinedStephenson in meeting a small committee of inquiryin Chester, who reported favourably to the House ofCommons on Stephenson’s line.15

Whilst the 1839 proposals were unsuccessful,Stephenson’s recommendation ultimately formed thebasis of the Chester and Holyhead Railway (C&HR)that his son, Robert, was to realise. Indeed,Stephenson’s report to the directors of the C&CRoutlined a route from Chester to Holyhead startingclose to the proposed River Dee branch line,tunnelling under Upper Northgate Street, then pass-ing south of the canal basin, before crossing the Deeand running parallel to the river until Talacre.16

Ruabon & Chester Railway

Having completed the Holyhead line survey inaround December 1838, Stephenson’s Chester teamof Gladstone and Palin moved on to a survey of theChester–Ruabon line, which shared with the Deebranch and Holyhead line the need for a westboundexit from the C&CR’s Brook Street station. Theoutcome was the ‘Ruabon and Chester Railway witha branch to Brymbo and Ffrwd’ deposited on 1 March1839 (Fig 2) and fulfilling a proposal made by localindustrialists in 1836. It ran from Chester via a junctionwith the C&CR and C&BR, passing through a tunnelunder Upper Northgate Street, emerging at GardenLane, and then passing south of the canal basin andcrossing the Ellesmere & Chester Canal. The routepassed north of the Roodee to cross the Dee andpass through a cutting to reach Saltney. This isbroadly the westward exit from Chester today whichwas eventually constructed by the C&HR. However,it was independent of the Dee branch, plans for whichwere deposited the day before and which would haveleft the Birkenhead line a few yards before the Ruabonline, crossed it and tunnelled under Upper NorthgateStreet further north (Fig 3). It is not clear why theproposed lines were not combined to avoid buildingtwo tunnels.

18

About 700 yards east of the present SaltneyJunction the line turned south-west, crossing a privatecarriage road to Eaton Hall by unspecified means,and then, from Pulford Crossing, it followed broadlythe present day course of the Chester–Shrewsburyline via Rossett, Gresford, Wrexham and Rhostyllen.From this point, the proposed line diverged from thepresent line to a maximum of about 50 chains to thewest as far as Llangollen Road, Plas Madoc, south ofRuabon.

The most significant feature of the main line’sgradient profile was the 1 in 82 incline betweenRossett and Rhosrobin against southbound trains,known as Gresford Bank. A branch to Brymbo wasproposed, leaving at Croes Newydd, approximatelyas subsequently constructed by the GWR. This wasto continue at a 1 in 62 gradient for the 2½ miles up toBrymbo and then via a 790 yard tunnel and 1 in 40gradient for the 1¼ miles down to Ffrwd, providinglinks to the ironworks at these locations.17

The mineral potential of the Ruabon & ChesterRailway (R&CR) was emphasised by Stephensonat shareholder meetings of the two Chestercompanies in April 1839. To the C&BR proprietorson 10 April he gave a favourable opinion of the linebecause of its estimated construction cost, ‘a sumnot much exceeding’ that of the C&BR due to itsfavourable gradients, and its similarity in trafficterms to the Leicester & Swannington Railway withwhich he was familiar. Two weeks later, at the C&CRproprietors’ meeting on 24 April, Stephensoncommended the superiority of Ruabon coal inmaking coke for locomotives and for iron making,and predicted sales to other lines, not least to theGJR, light-heartedly offering to work it for theRuabon owners himself, if no-one else would. TheR&CR’s solicitor, Thomas Edgworth, confirmed thescheme was ready for the next session of parliament(1840) and optimistically suggested that the growingneed from the Ruabon industrial area made it likely

Fig 2. Title block for the 1839 deposited plan for the Ruabon & Chester Railway (Flintshire Record Office: QS/DR/4)

19

that there would be little Parliamentary opposition.However, this piece of business was overshadowedby the discussion prompted by the results of theHolyhead line survey.18

Construction of the Chester & Crewe Railway

Whilst future projects played an important part inthe proprietors’ April 1839 meeting, the mainbusiness was to receive the Directors’ and Engineers’reports on the progress with building the C&CR itself,the latter in joint names of Stephenson andGladstone. The Bunbury and Wardle contracts,totalling 10 miles, had now been let to MessrsJackson and Bean, with good progress on these andalso on ‘the Waverton contract, although landaccess, materials and weather had slowed the Crewecontract. The embankment for the connection to theGJR at Crewe was almost complete and the cutting tothe west needed a few more weeks, whilst clay hadbeen moved to the site of the Weaver viaduct forbrick making.19

By November 1839 the C&CR had encounteredheavy weather in both a metaphorical and a literalsense: the company’s financial position had led it toconclude a controversial amalgamation with the GJRwhich was now subject to Parliamentary approvaland exceptional rainfall had taken a toll on theconstruction schedule, although an opening date nottoo far behind that originally forecast was stillexpected. Stephenson and Gladstone reported thaton the Waverton contract rain had affected the sandysoils beneath the Christleton aqueduct, but thestructure was now at springing level and the canalwas expected to be re-opened in January. Meanwhile,a mile of permanent way had been laid on the Bunburycontract and a turnpike bridge and two timber bridgeswere under construction, whilst the Ellesmere &Chester Canal’s annual stoppage had given thecontractors an opportunity to lay foundations for acanal bridge. The Wardle contract reported fivecompleted road bridges and another over theMiddlewich canal branch, for which iron beams had

Fig 3. Extract from 1839 Ruabon & Chester Railway plan showing the exit from Chester, with theChester & Crewe Railway’s Dee branch added (Flintshire Record Office: QS/DR/4)

20

been cast, with completion imminent. Just under twomiles of permanent way were in place. However,heavy flooding in the Weaver valley had adverselyaffected the Crewe contract and concerns aboutembankment slippage had enforced an extension ofthe viaduct whilst working arrangements had beenchanged to accelerate progress. The Weaver hadbeen diverted and its former bed used for two of itspiers, the foundations proving easier than expecteddue to the proximity of red sandstone.20

A year of stagnation, 1840

At this point, it would be useful to summarise the23-year-old Murray Gladstone’s project portfolio atDecember 1839 for which evidence has been found:

1. Resident Engineer for C&CR – 4 contracts andcarriage construction

2. Assistant Engineer for C&CR Potteriesextension and Dee branch in Chester

3. Assistant Engineer for Ruabon & ChesterRailway

4. Feasibility survey and sections for GreatHolyhead Railway

These activities required skills in civil engineeringdesign, construction supervision, stakeholderrelations and Parliamentary processes, all carried outunder the guidance of George Stephenson. A list ofall known projects on which he was engaged between1836 and 1840 is summarised in Table 1.

However, the process of railway promotion couldoften be a long, iterative process, as is seen in thecase of the C&HR, previously referred to as the GreatHolyhead Railway. With the route and packet portissue still unresolved in mid-1839, the House ofCommons appointed a delegation to investigate thecompeting options, ultimately favouring theChester–Holyhead route.21

The Ruabon–Chester project also ran intodifficulties during 1840, such that a further versionof the proposal was deposited on 29 July 1840 byGeorge Stephenson as Engineer, Murray Gladstone,Assistant Engineer and John Palin, Surveyor. Thiswas largely as the 1839 plan but with two significantchanges: the Brymbo and Ffrwd branch had beendropped and the route south of Wrexham had beenrealigned up to ¼ mile eastwards taking it closer tothe Hafod Colliery with a slight increase in gradient.Precise reasons for these changes and thesubsequent becalming of the project are unclear,although the period from 1839 marked a three-yeareconomic depression.22

This appears to have also been a turning point forthe young engineer, for whom it is probable thatrailways were beginning to stagnate as a source ofwork. As well as general economic conditions, theC&CR ran into difficulties in raising its authorisedcapital and, according to its chairman, the Mayor ofChester, John Uniacke, the directors considered itsproprietors’ interests to be better served by being‘consolidated’ with the GJR, or ‘swallowed up’, as aParliamentary inquisitor more perceptively put it,effectively neutralising any threat from the strugglingcompany’s strategic ambitions. With Parliament stillundecided on the Holyhead issue and the GJRnotoriously showing little enthusiasm to press thecase or for developing the recently acquired C&CR,open since October, Gladstone’s burgeoning railwayproject portfolio of December 1839 may well havelooked rather more slender – or at least stagnant – ayear later. Whilst these external factors led to theslowing down of railway development aroundChester, it is also possible that Gladstone may havefelt a urge to move on from railway building and totry other avenues for his talents, the two factorspossibly acting in combination.23

Table 1. Murray Gladstone’s project portfolio 1836–1840

Dates Project Role

1836-7 Chester & Birkenhead Railway AE - plans1836-7 Chester & Crewe Railway AE- plans1838-9 Chester & Crewe Railway extension and Dee branch AE - plans1838-40 Chester & Crewe Railway RE - Construction1838-40 Great Holyhead Railway AE - sections1838-40 Ruabon & Chester Railway AE - plans

AE = Assistant Engineer; RE = Resident Engineer

21

Winds of change

As 1841 unfolded there is fragmentary evidencethat Murray Gladstone may have been movingtowards an independent role as a consulting engineer.The diary of the Liverpool-based contractor, WilliamMackenzie, records a meeting with Thomas Brasseyat the GJR’s office on the afternoon of 6 January tosettle terms with Joseph Locke for tunnels on theParis–Rouen line for the construction of which heand Brassey had entered into partnership. Followingthis both partners met with Murray Gladstone and acolleague named Lister from the C&CR for dinner atthe Adelphi Hotel in Liverpool. This may have beenThomas Lister (1809–1905), another Stephensonengineer, who had previously worked on bridges forthe GJR. Although not recorded by Mackenzie, sinceBrassey had been one of the C&CR contractors theremay have been some residual business from thatrecently opened line to be resolved, though themeeting also gave Gladstone and Lister theopportunity to network with two key players in thegrowing demand for British railway engineers on thecontinent.24

However, Gladstone was at this time still committedto local work for on 8 January Chester Town Councilwas informed that he was to make a report to a specialwaterworks committee that had been charged withimproving the city’s water supply. In the absence ofreference to George Stephenson, Gladstone may havebeen acting in his own capacity, drawing on hisexperience of building the C&CR during which anabundant source of pure water had beendiscovered.25

While the Chester assignment was in progress, on11 February 1841 Gladstone wrote from London toW B Buddicom, who had been Resident Engineer tothe L&MR from 1836 to 1838 and LocomotiveSuperintendent at the GJR since 1840, having recentlyhad a breakfast meeting with Mr Cooke of Cooke &Wheatstone, the patentees of a five needle electro-magnetic telegraph system that had been in use onthe GWR since 1839. Gladstone had spent somethree hours discussing the system with Cooke andpassed on some illustrative costings forimplementing such a system to Buddicom at £250per mile, inclusive of license fees of £50 per mile. Hismotive in passing this information to Buddicom isunclear, but significantly, in addition to illustrativecostings of a system for the railway’s own use, hefloated the possibility of a ‘new’ company being

allowed by the railway company to lay a pipe for‘general purposes’, suggesting that Cooke might wellform such a company. He concluded by encouragingBuddicom to make contact with Cooke, suggestingthat he might, however informally, have beensupporting the latter’s initiative. Indeed, in 1845,Cooke formed the world’s first publictelecommunications carrier, the Electric TelegraphCompany, with the Stoke-on-Trent MP, John LewisRicardo.26

Acknowledging delays from other duties and thedesire to fully develop his proposals, Gladstonecompleted his report to the Council on 16 February.He criticised the high costs of the current ChesterWater Works Company’s Barrell Well extractionstation on the Dee east of the city at Boughton,although conceding that it was providing a bettersupply than the earlier works at the Old Bridge. Hesuggested, however, that a new supply could be freefrom the impurities from surface drainage and cityeffluent. Drawing on the C&CR discovery, heproposed a steam-pumped well between the C&CRand the Ellesmere & Chester Canal in Great Boughton(elsewhere described as Christleton). He added:

This engine I propose to construct upon theCornish principle of expansion, whereby thegreatest possible economy in the consumption offuel is ensured – with a regulating column attached,to preserve an equal pressure upon the pipes and toprevent breakage.

However, as he recognised a new company mightbe opposed by the incumbent operator, herecommended that the latter be encouraged to closeBarrell Well and extend his main to the proposednew well. Based on his drawings and specifications,a reputable engine manufacturer had quoted £680for a steam engine and pumps, to which Gladstoneadded £430 for an engine house and reservoir, £200for land and £750 for the connecting main. Withappropriate allowance for contingencies, he adviseda total capital outlay of approximately £2,300 withoperating costs of £300 per annum, the result capableof delivering five times the current volume of water.He added an estimate of £9,000 for re-piping the city,leading to a domestic water rate of 4s 6d perhousehold per annum. This may have been awelcome prospect as residents were already facedwith a 6s rate as a result of a costly settlementbetween the current water company and itspredecessor. Whilst the Chester Chronicleadvocated municipalisation of the supply, the highcost of compensation was probably responsible for

22

Gladstone’s proposalremaining unrealised untilthe outbreak of cholera in1849 raised the priority ofwater supply on the TownCouncil’s agenda.27

Passing the baton

From April 1841 MurrayGladstone’s involvement inrailway-related engineeringprojects around Chesterappears to have beenreduced, partly explained bythe general stagnation inrailway promotion in 1840–42 and partly by theWrexham to Chester railwaycause being taken up during1842 by the newly formedBrymbo Mineral & RailwayCompany. The vehicle ofthis company was a ‘NorthWales Mineral Railway fromWrexham to Chester unitingwith and forming a part ofthe proposed GreatHolyhead Railway’. GeorgeStephenson shared creditwith Alexander M Ross asthe responsible engineers,with a young Scotsman,Henry Robertson, the sameage as Gladstone, asassistant engineer andsurveyor.28

Robertson, a formerassistant to RobertStephenson and JosephLocke, and Ross were alsopartners in the new Brymbocompany, formed toregenerate the iron workswhich had stagnatedfollowing the death of John‘Iron Mad’ Wilkinson in1808. Ross, who was to become Robert Stephenson’sassistant engineer on the Holyhead line, appears tohave taken over Gladstone’s role on GeorgeStephenson’s Chester projects by November 1842,whilst Robertson, who had arrived in Brymbo earlierin the year and had started exploring links between

Brymbo, Wrexham, Chester and various points onthe Dee, gradually assumed greater responsibilityfor the Ruabon–Chester railway link.29

Alongside these changes, Stephenson himselfhad been winding down his activities as a consultingengineer from about 1840, passing the baton for

Fig 4. North portal of the Christleton aqueduct looking towards Crewe(2016). The Ellesmere & Chester Canal crosses at a 20o angle.

Fig 5. South portal of the Christleton aqueduct looking towards Chester(2016). Both portals have heavily weathered plaques that are difficult to

decipher from the road.

23

major projects to his son, Robert, althoughmaintaining a residual involvement in railwaypromotion. Winds of change were blowing throughthe Stephenson camp, though how far these affectedGladstone’s own career choices is not apparent.30

Later career

Gladstone’s professional activities from 1841 areunclear until in 1844 a more remunerative opportunityappeared in the Liverpool firm of Ogilvy, Gillanders& Co, a textile company associated with the Glad-stone family , where he was made a junior partner. Inthis capacity he relocated to Calcutta to oversee theiroperations in the Anglo-Indian trade, possiblyreturning in 1851 when he is recorded to have madea costly journey from Calcutta to London, via Suez,Alexandria and overland from Trieste. On his returnhe became head of the Manchester office ofGladstone, Latham & Co, a related concern, and livedin the Higher Broughton district of Manchester wherehe built an astronomical observatory, being electeda Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1860.In addition to his business activities, he becameactive in Manchester’s civic life, at various timesholding offices in connection with ManchesterInfirmary, Owens College, Manchester GrammarSchool and as Chairman of the Royal Exchange. In1860 he acquired a large house at Penmaenmawr onthe north Wales coast where he built a largerobservatory whilst retaining his residence inManchester until 1872 when he sold it to the Bishopof Manchester. Having remained active in businesshe met an untimely death by falling and drowningafter fishing on the sea shore at Penmaenmawr on 25August 1875, only a few hundred yards from one ofthe railways he surveyed as a young engineer. Hiscousin, the former Prime Minister W E Gladstone,attended his funeral, remarking in his diary that ‘therespect shown was very marked’.31

Murray Gladstone’s railway legacy

The Chester to Crewe railway represents the mostcomplete example of Gladstone’s engineeringaccomplishments; he represents something of afacilitating figure, translating George Stephenson’sintuitive vision for railway routes into the sectionsand plans that enabled the promotional dialogue totake place, often for others, such as Henry Robertsonor Alexander M Ross, to realise albeit with somemodification. He contributed to much of the networkthat radiates today from Chester, and the Chester–Crewe line still plays an essential, if unspectacular,

role in connecting north Wales to the West CoastMain Line, including the Christleton aqueduct (Figs4, 5).

However, beyond the physical realisation ofrailways, his brief career as a railway civil engineerenables us to appreciate the teamwork and delegationinvolved in railway promotion under a national figuresuch as George Stephenson who needed adependable local representative both to translatevisions and ideas into drawings and structures, andto manage relations with the various stakeholders.

Notes and references

ChRO Cheshire Archives and Local Studies

FRO Flintshire Record Office

SRO Staffordshire Record Office

1. Royal Astronomical Society, Monthly Notices, vol.XXXVI no. 4, (11 February, 1876); Simon Garfield,The Last Journey of William Huskisson (London :Faber & Faber, 2002), p 96; F E Hyde, Mr. Gladstoneat the Board of Trade (London : Cobden-Sanderson,1934), pp xv, xx; R E Carlson, The Liverpool &Manchester Railway Project 1821–1831 (NewtonAbbot : David & Charles, 1969), pp 48, 81, 180, 275;N W Webster Britain’s First Trunk Line (Bath : Adams& Dart, 1972), pp 22, 26–27; Ancestry.co.uk,historical person search, Murray Gladstone and others<http://www.ancestry.co.uk/genealogy/records/murray-gladstone_70478679> [accessed 10 August2016]

2. The Engineer, 7 May 1880, p 342, <http://w w w. g r a c e s g u i d e . c o . u k / i m a g e s / e / e 7 /Er18800507.pdf> [accessed 2 August 2016]

3. House of Lords, ‘The Chester & Birkenhead Railway’,sessional papers, vol. XVII (London : House of Lords,1837) p 52; The National Archives, RAIL 1030/4;Chester Chronicle, 20 January, 1837, p 4

4. House of Lords (1837); R H G Thomas, The Liverpooland Manchester Railway (London : Batsford, 1980),pp 184–5, 201; T B Maund, The Birkenhead Railway(Sawtry, Hunts : Railway Correspondence and TravelSociety, 2000), p 6

5. S Cotterell, A Handbook to Various Publications,Documents and Charts Connected with the Rise andDevelopment of the Railway System chiefly in GreatBritain and Ireland (Birmingham : Edward Baker,1893), pp 111–13, <https://archive.org/stream/handbooktovariou00cottrich#page/n1/mode/2up>[accessed 2 August 2016]

6. Maund (2000), p 8; SRO, Q/RUm/113

7. Chester Chronicle, 11 May 1838, p 4; Webster (1972),p 117

24

8. Chester Chronicle, 24 November 1837, p 3; 18 May1838, p 3; 16 November 1838, p 3

9. Chester Chronicle, 24 August 1838, p 3

10. Chester Chronicle, 16 November 1838, p 3

11. Chester Chronicle, 16 November 1838, p 3, 21December 1838, p 3; London Gazette, 16 November1838, p 2559, 22 February 1839, p 371; ChRO,QDP 158/1–2 (‘Plan and Section of the proposedextension of the Chester & Crewe Railway, Engineer,George Stephenson; Assist. Engineer, MurrayGladstone’)

12. SRO, Q/RUm/111,113; Chester Chronicle, 18 May1838, p 3; ChRO, QDP 158/1–2

13. Chester Chronicle, 8 April 1836, p 1; P E Baughan,The Chester & Holyhead Railway (Newton Abbot :David & Charles, 1972), pp 23–32; Webster (1972),p 159; House of Commons, ‘Third Report of SelectCommittee on Private Business’ (London : House ofCommons, 1840), p 9; Chester Chronicle, 5 May1839, p 3

14. Chester Chronicle, 4 January 1839, p 3; 8 February1839, p 2; FRO, D-DM/223/20 (‘Prospectus of theGreat Holyhead Railway’, 1839); ChRO, QDP 158/1–2

15. Chester Chronicle (1839) 26 April, p 3; House ofCommons, ‘First Report of the Committee onLondon–Dublin Communication’ (London : Houseof Commons, 1840), p 4

16. Chester Chronicle, 4 January 1839, p 3

17. ChRO, QDP 160 (‘Plan and Section of the Ruabon andChester Railway, Engineer, George Stephenson’,1839)

18. Railway Times, 20 April 1839, p. 318; ChesterChronicle, 26 April 1839, p 3

19. Chester Chronicle, 26 April 1839, p 3

20. Railway Times, 23 November 1839, p 905

21. Committee on London–Dublin Communication (1840),p 4

22. ChRO, QDP 165 (‘Plan and Section of the Ruabon andChester Railway, Engineer George Stephenson’,1840); Edward Parry, The Railway Companion fromChester to Shrewsbury … (Chester : ThomasCatherall, 1849), p 5

23. House of Commons, ‘Third Report of the SelectCommittee on Private Business’ (London : House ofCommons, 1840), p 7; Webster (1972), pp 115, 159–60

24. David Brooke (ed), The Diary of William Mackenzie(London : Thomas Telford, 2000), p 57; TheEngineer, 30 June 1905, p 645 <http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Thomas_Lister> [accessed 4October 2016]

25. Chester Chronicle, 15 January 1841, p 4

26. E T MacDermot, History of the Great Western Railway,Volume 1 (rev C R Clinker), (London : Ian Allan,1964), pp 324–5; FRO, D/B/174; ‘Cooke andWheatstone telegraph’, Wikipedia <https://e n . w i k i p e d i a . o r g / w i k i /Cooke_and_Wheatstone_telegraph> [accessed 31August 2016]

27. Chester Chronicle, 16 April 1841, pp 2–3; J S Barrowet al, ‘Local government and public services: Publicutilities’ in A History of the County of Chester: Volume5, Part 2, the City of Chester: Culture, Buildings,Institutions (ed A T Thacker and C P Lewis)(Woodbridge : Boydell & Brewer for the Institute ofHistorical Research, 2005), pp 35–9, British HistoryOnline <http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/ches/vol5/pt2/pp35-49> [accessed 17 August 2016]

28. ChRO QDP 172 (‘Plan and sections of the proposedNorth Wales Mineral Railway from Wrexham toChester uniting with and forming a part of theproposed Great Holyhead Railway, Engineers, GeorgeStephenson and Alex M Ross, Assistant Engineer andSurveyor, Henry Robertson’, 1842)

29. G G Lerry, Henry Robertson (Oswestry : Woodalls,1949), pp 7–8, 14–15, 20; Baughan (1972), p 90;London Gazette, 12 November 1842, p 3149

30. L T C Rolt, George and Robert Stephenson (Stroud :Amberley, 2009), p 258

31. Royal Astronomical Society (1876); W E A Axon, TheAnnals of Manchester (London : John Heywood,1886), p 353; F E Baines, Forty Years at the PostOffice, Volume 2 (London : Bentley, 1895), pp 241–2; London Gazette,14 May 1872, pp 2287–9;Cambrian News and Merionethshire Standard, 27August 1875, p 10; H C G Matthew (ed), TheGladstone Diaries, Volume 9 (Oxford : ClarendonPress, 1986), p 63

25

The inception and demise of the RomanFossdike : a postscript

Pat Jones

In his ‘Thoughts on the Roman Bridge at Lincoln’(Lincolnshire History and Archaeology, vol 47, 2012)Michael Lewis wrote: ‘Opinion is moving stronglytowards an Anglo-Scandinavian date for theFossdyke, although a few still argue for a Romanorigin, for example Pat Jones, “The inception anddemise of the Roman Fossdike”, Journal of Railwayand Canal Historical Society, 219 (Mar. 2014), pp.26–31’. One of Lewis’s sources was Michael J Jonesand others, The City by the Pool (Oxford, 2003).

In my more recent article ‘The Lincoln Navigation:Fossdike in the Ellison era’,1 Figure 1, ‘Interpretationsof sketches by Drury’ (Dave Watt), was alsoborrowed from The City by the Pool (Figure 6.14). Ihave confidence in Watt’s interpretation of MichaelDrury’s sketches; stations 514 to 516 revealed thelevel of the sand forming the ‘Natural Stanch’ ofBrayford Head and my addition of a scale betweenthe ‘OD’ and ‘7m’ lines showed it to be 2.0 metresabove Ordnance Datum. This supports theconclusion in my 2014 article regarding the waterlevel at Lincoln:

The land between road and river was about 3.2mabove OD; a normal level of (say) 2.3m above ODwould have kept its surface safely below the land,but that level would have been influenced byvariations in the volume of flow. A guillotine gate –cataractum – would have been needed at Torkseyto maintain a navigable depth of 1.2m, and excludethe Trent’s silt-laden floodwater.

I am also confident that the present level of TorkseyLock’s bottom sill (1.1m above OD) represents – orwas only marginally above – the Trent’s natural bedlevel when Richard Ellison II built the first lock onthat site circa 1760. He was required to maintain theFossdike so that it could be used by craft drawing3ft 6ins, which would require a depth of about 4 feet.And the level of the natural riverbed thereabouts isknown to have been stable since Roman times.

But I am not happy with some of the originalcaption’s wording:

Fig. 6.14. Diagram interpreting the informationfrom Michael Drury’s 1887–8 notebooks (Fig.6.13). The section shows, quite clearly, the presence

of the sand-island, towards the northern end of themodern High Street in what is now Wigford. It alsodemonstrates that the Roman road to the south ofthe island is built on a substantial causeway acrossmuch lower-lying land subject to annual flooding(drawn by Dave Watt, copyright English Heritage).

I do not agree that ‘the section shows, quite clearly,the presence of the sand-island, towards thenorthern end of the modern High Street in what isnow Wigford’. At station 510 the sand is 2.8m aboveOD, and the Roman road is on land 3.2m above OD;the land to its north was ‘quite clearly’ not an island.

In my 2014 article I wrote:

… the diarist Abraham de la Pryme recorded how inabout 1687 ‘as they were digging a cellar in Lincoln,in the chief street, they found a whole large boatwith a great many cut and squar’d stones therein’.9

(9. Abraham de la Pryme, Diary, Surtees Society,vol 54 (1870) p 65).

The conclusions of my article were weakened bymy inability to identify the site where the ‘whole largeboat’ was unearthed. There can now be no doubtbut that it would have been in the vicinity of station510. That is the only place where the Roman roadwas built on the floodplain, and that was the onlyarea where a bend in the natural river Witham couldhave closely approached the road. Rivers are deepestaround the outside of their bends, and the roadnearby would have made this an ideal site for a wharf.

The open boats using the Fossdike in the 1680scarried up to 5 tons on a draught of 18 inches, andthe phrase ‘a whole large boat with a great many cutand squar’d stones therein’ suggests that it waslarger than the boats the witnesses were accustomedto seeing. The actual size can only be a matter forspeculation, but we can be sure a boat carrying 5 ormore tons is unlikely to have been able to proceedmuch further upstream. Indeed, it may have beennecessary to improve the natural channel betweenBrayford Pool and the wharf.

The caption continued: ‘It also demonstrates thatthe Roman road to the south of the island is built ona substantial causeway across much lower-lying landsubject to annual flooding’. The road at station 510

26

had initially been laid on land 3.2m above OD; iffloodwater reached the road, the ford across BrayfordHead would be 4 feet under water and impassable;severe flooding is unlikely to have been an annualevent while the Fossdike was operational. MichaelLewis associated the Roman bridge with the buildingof Lincoln’s ‘south gate which, after the lower citywas walled, in perhaps the late second century, stoodexactly where Stonebow is now’. However, the‘substantial causeway’ that raised the road to 4.7mabove OD, would have almost certainly beencontemporaneous with ‘a large scheme to reclaimand build up the land (by over a metre) in this area …during the mid-second century’.2

Presumably the work was in response to the sameperiod of heavy rainfall and flooding that wasexperienced at nearby Littleborough on Trent. Apaper by D N Riley and others revealed that ‘longperiods of heavy and prolonged rainfall during thesecond half of the 2nd century, after c.160, or early inthe 3rd century, had resulted in the earlier phases ofoccupation being sealed beneath alluvium up to 1.5mdeep’.3

Assuming the surface of the land in which thecellar was dug to have been about 0.3m below theroad, and given that it was above part of the Witham’sformer course, and that the ground would have beenwaterlogged below the normal level of the river, it isunlikely that the cellar extended below about 2.4mabove OD. The boat must have been encounteredbefore reaching that level. The natural features ofthe Fossdike constrained the draught of boats toabout 1.07m, the bed level of the canal was about1.1m above OD, and with the addition of about 0.33mfor freeboard, its gunwales would have lain about2.5m above OD. It is possible that the riverbed besidethe wharf was marginally higher, and/or that the landsurface there was marginally lower, but of this therecan be no doubt; the boat had been built in the late1st or 2nd century to operate to and from Lincoln viathe Fossdike. The Witham was un-navigabledownstream beside the city, and a shallow-draughtboat suitable for the river’s upper reaches would nothave been uncovered.

The levels in the previous paragraph may not beprecisely correct, but I am confident they are notwildly inaccurate. The same comments apply to theboat’s draught, but its features and other dimensionscan now only be subjects for speculation. It wouldhave been strongly built, and probably double-ended, with a short deck at each end for its crew to

stand on. The lifting technology available wouldhave determined the maximum weight of the guillotinegate; it may have been necessary to restrict its height,thereby limiting its ability to exclude floodwater, and/or its width, thereby constraining the breadth ofboats. Nevertheless, the tonnage they carried wouldhave certainly been in double figures.

It is known that building stone was ‘exported’ fromLincoln; excavations within the medieval town ofBawtry, on a site almost opposite the church, revealedJurassic limestone from the Lincoln Edge in thefootings of 12th and 13th century buildings.4 Whenthe stone was quarried is unknown; it could havebeen in the 12th century, equally it could be reusedstone that had been shipped down the Fossdike, theTrent, and up the Bycarrsdike and Idle, in the 2ndcentury.

Reverting to the caption, which continued: ‘… Italso demonstrates that the Roman road to the southof the island is built on a substantial causewayacross much lower-lying land subject to annualflooding’. While the Fossdike was still operational,part of the Witham’s floodwater could have beendiverted into the river Trent whenever the tidal levelat Torksey permitted. Conversely, the sustained andunusually high levels of silt-laden floodwater in theTrent would have flowed inland, raising the levelabove that normally reached when the Witham wasin flood. The deposit of around AD 150 in theFossdike at Torksey of a finely crafted votive offeringto the god Mars,5 implies the canal was seen to beresponsible for the high level of floodwater beingexperienced at Lincoln. This would explain why thealluvium with which it became obstructed was notcleared out, and why it became necessary to raisethe lowest-lying section of road 1.5m, and the low-lying land between road and river ‘by over a metre’.

A question less easy to answer is ‘why was “awhole large boat with a great many cut and squar’dstones therein” not salvaged?’ It was not unusualfor newly laden untended wooden boats to sink attheir moorings; planks below their load-waterlinetend to dry out while they are unladen and leakingseams take time to take up. Regular pumping outwas absolutely necessary. When the Withamreturned to its normal level the boat’s gunwales wouldhave been above water and its salvage would havebeen simple, albeit pointless. The ‘cut and squar’dstones’ had obviously been destined for a buildingproject accessible by water via the Trent, and sincethe only means of delivery had ceased to exist,

27

salvage by their intended recipient would have alsobeen pointless. But that does not explain why theywere not recovered for use locally.

The boats shown in Fig 1 had left Bridgwater Dockand were bound up the river Parrett on the first of aspring flood tide. They had no rudders, and werecontrolled on the tideway by sweeps fore and aft.Crutches on each gunwale enabled craft to bepropelled above the tideway. The boats on theRoman Fossdike were probably not very different. Asimilar scene might have been seen during the lastdecades of the first century on the river Trent nearWest Stockwith, with boats leaving the Bycarrsdikeand riding the Aegir upstream to the Fossdike.

I hope I have now shown that there is evidence tojustify the widely held belief that the Fossdike had aRoman origin and my belief that, together with theBycarrsdike and Turnbridgedike, it was built tosupport the 9th Legion’s advance to York.

References1. Pat Jones ‘The Lincoln Navigation: Fossdike in the

Ellison era’, Journal of the Railway & Canal HistoricalSociety, no 227, November 2016, pp 566–579

2. M J Jones (ed) ‘Excavations at Lincoln; third interimreport, sites outside the walled city 1972–77’,Antiquaries Journal, vol 61 (1981), p 93. Recited inJones (2014) pp 29–30

3. D N Riley, P C Buckland and J S Wade, ‘Aerialreconnaissance and excavation at Littleborough-on-Trent, Notts’, Britannia, vol 26 (1995), pp 253–284

4. Letter dated 22 November 1991 from Bob Sydes, Survey& Excavation Officer, South Yorkshire ArchaeologyUnit, Libraries and Museums Building, Sheffield S14PL

5. Pat Jones, ‘The discovery of a statuette of Mars in theFossdike at Torksey in the 18th century’, Journal ofthe Railway & Canal Historical Society, no 224,November 2015, pp 390–4

Fig 1. ‘The rising tide on the River Parrett forms a wave called locally the ‘Bore’. It rises from 16 to20 feet in about 1¾ hours at Bridgwater, taking 2¼ hours to reach that town from the mouth at

Burnham. It has been known to rise 10 feet in 10 minutes. The wave is about 3 feet in height. On 16December 1910 the tide rose 20 feet 4 inches, overflowing the banks.’ (Publisher’sdescription)

A postcard (½d stamp) franked ‘Bridgwater Au[gust] 18 [19]13’ (RCHS Collection)

28

Fig 2. Lincolnshire OS Sheet 70.07 (resized). The site of Michael Drury’s station 510 (where a bend inthe natural Witham most closely approached the Roman road) is marked with a dot east of Midland

Station. The straightened river is 192 metres distant.Features of general interest include the towing path on the formerly navigable but now inaccessible

Upper Witham into which Brayford Wharf East extended; also Brayford Bridge which replaced a fordacross Brayford Head in 1795–7, the buildings on the west side of the unnamed High Bridge,

Stonebow, across High Street (top right), and numerous public houses.

29

Correspondence

Divine intervention? Thomas Cooper and theNuneaton accident, 1858

(RCHS Journal, November 2016, pp 579–81)

Adrian Gray’s paper ‘Divine Intervention?’ overlooksthe most obvious and rational explanation forThomas Cooper’s escape from injury in the Nuneatontrain crash.

Cooper was on his way to lecture in Yorkshire. Itwas therefore logical that Wyatt, the guard, shouldhave redirected him from the Glasgow coach to theone bound for Huddersfield. Although Mr Graystated that Cooper was stowing his luggage in thefifth coach, the Manchester composite, he later writesthat it was not clear which carriage he got into. Of

course, whilst the guard may have redirected him tothe Huddersfield coach, he might nevertheless haveentered any of the others.

As to the supernatural aspect of this tale, I oncehad a comparable experience. Travelling as a childwith my mother, we were boarding a suburban trainat Liverpool Street as it pulled away. The dog slippedbetween the carriage and the platform but we got onunscathed nevertheless. We were we lucky not tosustain injury to either ourselves or the dog. It mighthave been more prudent to wait for the next train butwe later learned that that had been involved in acrash. Divine intervention? – not once but twice onthe same day! Just good luck.

Keith Noble

The railway signalman (1936)From H V Morton, Our Fellow Men (Methuen, 1936), pp 19–23

Whenever I go to Scotland by train there comes atime in the night when I awaken and listen to therhythm of the wheels, and I can tell that we are doinga steady seventy miles an hour in the dark. As theblack country-side slides past, my mind travels aheadto the locomotive where the driver and the stokerstand in the swaying cab, their grimy faces reddenedin the glow of the furnace.

Years ago I travelled to Scotland on the bookplateof the Royal Scot. I remember the headlong hours,the grime, the giddy sideways rocking, the breath-taking dives Into the horror of tunnels, and the waveof an arm from a cabin, the cheery wave of a man whohas been waiting and watching for us, a man in analert, four hundred-long chain of men whose job it isto hand us on in safety as we thunder towards thenorth, and always signals, signals, signals …

As the marvels of life increase, fewer people seemcapable of wonder. No one thinks it marvellous thata living chain of men, whose routine is the result of acentury of high-speed travel, should bend over leversin the signal cabins and pass thousands of lives insafety every day over the steel roads of this country.

The signalman is more or less of a mystery.

Sometimes we see him leaning out of his and if wethink of him at all, it is to reflect that we would notcare for the responsibility of his job.

Take Mr. Smith. He has been a signalman for fortyyears. He has gone right through the mill, and hasreached the highest position that he can hold. He isa ‘Special Class’ man, and his wages are 75s. a week.

‘No, it wasn’t any love for trains that made me asignalman,’ says Mr. Smith, with a smile. It was therudeness of a passenger. Forty- odd years ago I wasa porter at a London terminus, and on my very firstday an old man was so rude to me that I decided toget out and do something else, for I’ve always beenan independent sort of fellow and I wasn’t going tostand for that kind of treatment. So I thought I’d bea signalman. It was pure chance. I was at the end ofthe platform, and, looking up, I saw a signalman alonein a cabin. And I thought to myself : “That’s the jobfor me. Boss of my own cabin. No interferingnoseyparkers, no bad-tempered passengers, norailway police … just me in the cabin putting over

30

the levers, answering the telephone, with no one tocurse me unless I make a mistake.”’

Mr. Smith pokes a spill of paper into the fire, holdsit over his pipe and says solemnly: ‘And do youknow, after forty years I still think that’s one of theattractions of a signal-man’s life – his solitude. Mindyou, it’: not the job for a nervy man. It’s not a job fora man who can’t make up his mind. You want a quick“Yes”’ or “No” man. Yet you want a man withimagination who can look ahead find visualise histraffic. Anyhow, the first time you’re alone in a boxin a fog will tell you whether you ought to stick it, ortry something else!’

For 75s. a week Mr. Smith directs about eighthundred trains a day in and out of the platforms of aLondon terminus. He knows the trains and their timesby heart. To watch him at his levers and his electricalpush-buttons is rather like watching an organist atwork, pulling out stops here and there with an easy,smooth mastership.

‘Well, maybe you’re right,’ he says, ‘perhaps itisn’t an overpaid job, but when I joined thirty yearsago a signalman only got 16s. a week for twelve hoursa day and no overtime. Considering theresponsibility of a signalman’s work, it is not a goodjob. A guard’s job is more popular. But you’ve onecompensation in the signal box: you’re king of thecastle.’

There are twenty-five thousand five hundred andthirty-seven signalmen in Great Britain today, whichis a reduction of three thousand six hundred andfifty-seven on the number employed last year. Thereduction is due to economy and to the introductionof Colour Light and Track signalling. Science,therefore, is to some slight measure abolishing evensignalmen.

There are seven classes of signalmen, with ratesof pay which vary from 48s. to 75s.

‘A man must begin in the lowest grade,’ says Mr.Smith, ‘and when he has mastered a minor job hegets a chance of promotion to the next grade. Manysignalmen rise from box lads, aged about fourteen orfifteen. Box lads are employed at important junctionboxes to book the trains as they pass, getting theexact time so that it can be used for referencepurposes. They leave at the age of twenty, whenthey get transferred to Grade 2 Porter, or carriage

cleaner, and if they still want to be signalmen theyfinally qualify and start to work their way up throughthe various grades.’

‘What did you find the most difficult thing in youryoung days?’

‘Moving house’, says Mr. Smith, without amoment’s hesitation. ‘You see, if a signalman wantsto get on, he has to move from box to box. He startson a simple two-road job where trains are not frequent,then he moves on to a more complicated road, then,perhaps, to a junction, and so on. It’s all right whenyou’re a young bachelor, but get married, and thebusiness of moving worries you more than all theexpress trains in the A.B.C. The signalman who getson is always breaking up his home; and what happensto his increase of pay? I’ll tell you the honest truth.In nine cases out of ten it goes into the new landlord’spocket. If the transfer comes when you’ve got afamily – so much the worse! If it comes when yourfamily is grown up and in work, you must go intolodgings and return home when you can. Just imaginewhat it means to leave a house with a controlled rentand find yourself forced to take an uncontrolledhouse. Many a signalman has actually accepted areduction to a lower grade than face this. It payshim.’

Mr. Smith has been in every kind of signal box.

He has been one of those lonely watchers to whomthe flash past of an express is an event. He has beenin charge of a junction box whose elaborate wireslook like the inside of a grand piano. He has, in otherwords, progressed from one to twenty-nine ‘marks’to three hundred and seventy-five ‘marks’ and over.

This mysterious statement must be explained.Signalmen are paid, not by the hour or the week, butby ‘marks’, or movements. Thus the lowest grade insignalling is that in which the signalman makes fromone to twenty-nine movements a day; the highest isthat in which he makes three hundred and seventy-five and over a day.

‘There’s nothing much to it,’ says Mr. Smithmodestly, as he signals an express into the station.You just keep calm and – don’t daydream’.

‘What do you dislike most?’

‘FOG!’ said Mr. Smith. ‘It’s a fair … hullo, here’sthe six-fifteen at last – two and a half minutes late.’

31

To Teignmouth for the day:a Heathcoat factory excursion from Tiverton

Tim Edmonds

Knightshayes and John Heathcoat Amory

Knightshayes Court is a country house near Tivertonin Devon and was bequeathed to the National Trust(NT) in 1972. It had been commissioned in 1867 byJohn Heathcoat Amory, grandson of John Heathcoat.1

The family’s wealth came from the lace industry. Bornin Derbyshire in 1783, John Heathcoat was broughtup in Leicestershire, where he was apprenticed inthe hosiery industry, before working in Nottinghamfor a builder of knitting frames.2 He became interestedin lace-making machinery and in 1805 moved toLoughborough to develop a machine-made net lacebusiness. In 1815 he purchased a disused woollenmill at Tiverton. After his Loughborough factorywas attacked by Luddites on 28 June 1816 and all themachinery destroyed, he moved to Tiverton and re-established the business there, many of hisemployees moving with him. Heathcoat gained areputation as a model employer, with good wagesand working conditions by the standards of the time,and he built houses and a school in Tiverton. From1832 to 1859 he sat as an MP for Tiverton, where healso served as Mayor. He died in 1861.

John Heathcoat had three daughters, Anne, Eloiseand Caroline. Anne, the eldest, married SamuelAmory, a London lawyer who acted for JohnHeathcoat, and John Amory was their only son, bornin 1829. He was given the middle name Heathcoatand was generally known as John Heathcoat Amory.A Tiverton MP from 1868 to 1885, he incorporatedthe Heathcoat name into his surname by changinghis name to John Heathcoat-Amory through a RoyalLicence in 1874, just before he was created a baronetfor political services.3 Anne died in 1833 and theother two sisters ‘employed their large property andinfluence in carrying out their father’s benevolentviews and wishes’, but presumably without directinvolvement in the running of the company.4 Eloiseremained single, but Caroline married AmbroseBrewin and in 1852 John Heathcoat & Company wasformed as a partnership between John, his son-in-law Brewin, his nephew Thomas Hallam, and hisgrandson John Heathcoat Amory.5 Meanwhile JohnHeathcoat Amory had already been groomed in

business affairs and on his 21st birthday he hadtoured the Heathcoat factory where ‘he wasenthusiastically cheered and welcomed as theiryoung master’.6 Brewin died in 1855 aged 47 and,with his grandfather’s declining health, JohnHeathcoat Amory took over the running of thecompany in 1859 and inherited it on John Heathcoat’sdeath in 1861. As the obituary in The Times put it,‘Mr Heathcoat’s grandson, Mr Heathcoat Amory, hashad for some years the responsibility of managingthe extensive business affairs of his late grandfather,of whom he is the sole male representative’.7 However,it seems John Heathcoat Amory was more interestedin developing a political career and in becoming acountry gentleman than in running a factory so, afterhis marriage to Henrietta Unwin in 1863, he left theday-to-day running of the business to his brother-in-law, William Unwin.8

The railway watercolour at Knightshayes

Displayed at Knightshayes is a watercolourpainting showing a train at a seaside location andsigned ‘W P Key August 10th 1854’. On the rightside of the picture is a railway tunnel beneath redcliffs, where well-dressed passengers are alightingfrom the train. The rest of the painting shows aseaside promenade, beach and coastal vista thatincludes a townscape and estuary, with a rockycoastline continuing into the distance. Given theDevon context the location is identifiable asTeignmouth. The picture is reproduced herewith (Fig1) and can also be viewed online.9

It was not clear from the content of the picturewhat its relevance was to Knightshayes, butsubsequent enquiries with the NT revealed that itdepicted a Heathcoat factory outing from Tivertonto Teignmouth. On the back is the followinginscription:

PRESENTED TO John Heathcoat Amory, Esq., bythe Mechanics, operatives and others in the employof Messrs. John Heathcoat & Co. to mark theirhigh esteem of him for his conduct on all occasionsas a Master, but particularly on the 10th August,1854 for identifying himself in assisting to carryout the regulations for the Excursion to

32

Fig 1. The Heathcoat Works outing to Teignmouth, 10 August 1854, watercolour painted by W P Key.

33

Fig 1. The Heathcoat Works outing to Teignmouth, 10 August 1854, watercolour painted by W P Key. The painting is displayed at Knightshayes Court, Devon. (National Trust Images/John Hammond)

34

Teignmouth, the expense of which The Firm sohandsomely defrayed. It is therefore consideredthat this representation of their arrival will be anacceptable memento of the occasion. September12TH, 1854

This picture has previously been published inblack-and-white in Gore Allen’s book about JohnHeathcoat and in Thomas’s Regional RailwayHistory. It was also reproduced for an exhibition inCharnwood Museum in 2007. In all these cases therewas minimal caption information and nothing aboutthe artist.10 More recently it has been reproduced,with a brief description, in the Broad Gauge Society’sbook on the atmospheric railway.11

Description of the painting

The watercolour includes some fascinating details,which warrant closer examination than is possible ina small reproduction (Fig. 2). Below the cliffs in theright foreground a train is shown with the locomotivejust short of the tunnel mouth and the first threecarriages visible along the promenade.12 Smartly

dressed passengers are being helped from the trainonto the lineside by uniformed staff and are thenwalking past the locomotive to access the promenadethrough a gap in the wall next to the tunnel mouth,beyond which is a tall signal. The uncrowdedpromenade stretches towards the town ofTeignmouth with the tower of the church of St Michaelthe Archangel in the centre of the picture, beyondwhich are the white houses around The Den, themain resort area, which would include Den Crescentof 1826. The church tower is not the present one,which dates from 1887–9. Beyond the town theposition of the mouth of the river Teign can beidentified by the white sail of a boat and the miniaturelighthouse of 1845.13 There are a few people on thebeach, where bathing machines wait for business,and the boats on the sea include a steam vessel onthe far left. The red cliffs of The Ness are easilyidentifiable in the background with the coastlinestretching in the distance towards Babbacombe Bayand Torquay.

Fig 2. Close-up of the bottom right corner of the Key watercolour, showing detail of the train andpassengers. (National Trust Images/John Hammond)

35

Several aspects of the subject matter of the paintingare of note. Why are the excursion passengersalighting beside the track instead of using thestation? How accurate is the representation of thisand the other railway detail? Why was this excursiontrain special enough to warrant the commissioningof a painting? Why was John Heathcoat’s grandsonapparently held in such high esteem by the factoryemployees? Who was W P Key and why was hechosen for this commission? This paper attempts toprovide some answers to these questions.

How the press reported the event

A newspaper report of the outing published twodays later gives a description that matches quite wellwith some of the detail in the painting.14

The town was very gay on Thursday, owing to theexcursion party from Mr Heathcoate’s factory, atTiverton, consisting of men, women and children,to the number of 2,500. The first train arrived at10.20, and the second twenty minutes after. Thevisitors soon spread themselves on the Den, inwondering admiration of the scene – a spectaclewhich hundreds of them had never witnessedbefore. The day was beautiful, and in a trice everyboat that was to be had was filled withexcursionists, bound for a cruise in the bay. The

Industry steamer soon got up steam, and, filledwith delighted operatives, made the tour of theunrivalled bay, giving them a glimpse of Torquay,Dawlish, Babbicombe [sic], and the other beautiesof the coast. She continued to make trips duringthe day; meanwhile, others promenaded about thetown, and clustered on the Beach, inspecting withcuriosity every shell. The Tiverton band, whichaccompanied the visitors, displayed their musicalabilities on the Den. The inhabitants ofTeignmouth had decorated their houses with flags,which added greatly to the animation of the scene.Towards seven o’clock the parties graduallygathered for home, and in half-an-hour, owing to theadmirable arrangements of the Railway Company,the living freight of pleasure-seekers were oncemore on their way – tired, yet happy – and filledwith lasting remembrances of their day atTeignmouth.

There were two separate reports on the excursionin an Exeter newspaper the following week.15 Underthe headline ‘Monster Train’16 the Tiverton newssection reported:

On Thursday last, the Bristol and Exeter Railwaygave an excursion trip to Teignmouth, when theoperatives in the employ of Messrs Heathcoat andCo were each presented with a ticket, who in returnprovided for their wives and sweethearts. Between

Fig 3. The view painted by Key as it appeared on 29 August 2014. A DMU on a Paignton–Exmouthservice emerges from the cutting that replaced the tunnel when it was opened out for the double-

tracking in the 1880s. (Tim Edmonds)

36

3000 and 4000 participated in the day’s enjoyment,which was kept up with the greatest hilarity.

The Teignmouth correspondent wrote:

Nearly three thousand persons, from the lacemanufactory of Mr Heathcoat, the worthy memberfor Tiverton, spent the day on Thursday last atTeignmouth. ... Mr Heathcoat is not like many whoemploy a number of hands, and after getting allthey can out of them leave them to themselves. Heattends not only to the temporal and moral wants,but also to the religious welfare of his people andtheir families, by providing schools for the young,where the bible is the school-book.

Clearly the party must have behaved themselveswell in comparison to other excursionists to the town,because the rest of the Teignmouth report is a tiradeagainst poor employers encouraging drunkennessamong their employees. Although there is adiscrepancy in the numbers between these threepress reports, it is clear that this was a very largeparty and so the painting shows only a small numberof them. Even including those in the distance thereare perhaps fewer than 200, although of course someare still alighting from the train.

The depiction of the railway

Railway excursions were quickly established fromthe early 1830s, perhaps beginning with theLiverpool & Manchester Railway soon after itsopening in 1830.17 While it was the railway companiesthat played a major part in the organisation of earlyrailway excursions, specialist excursion agentsworked with them to develop the business, whilstvoluntary societies and religious groups were alsoprominent.18 Works railway trips began as early as1840 and were developed during the 1840s and 1850sby paternalistic employers, often with public relationsbenefits in mind. They tended to be big occasions,with plenty of razzamatazz. Such events were morecommon in the industrial areas of the Midlands andthe north of England, so the 1854 Heathcoatexcursion was probably unusual for the WestCountry at that time.19

The railway in the picture was part of the SouthDevon Railway (SDR), which had been engineeredby I K Brunel and was built to the broad gauge of 7feet 0¼ inches. It remained independent until it wasamalgamated with the Great Western Railway (GWR)in 1878.20 The SDR was opened from Exeter toTeignmouth on 30 May 1846, extended to NewtonAbbot on 31 December the same year and again overthe next three years to reach Torquay (Torre) andPlymouth. Initially worked by steam locomotives,

Brunel’s atmospheric system was implementedbetween Exeter and Newton Abbot in 1847. All trainswere worked atmospherically from 23 February 1848until the system was abandoned later that year andthe service reverted to haulage by steam locomotivesfrom 10 September.21 By 1854 the SDR had a fleet oftwelve 4–4–0STs built to Daniel Gooch’s ‘Corsair’design.22 The locomotive in the painting is a saddletank and so it is likely to have been one of this class.The train would have originated on the Tivertonbranch of the Bristol & Exeter Railway (B&ER) andremained on that company’s line until Exeter, but fromthere to Teignmouth it was on the SDR, perhaps witha change of locomotive at Exeter.

The first two carriages are brown, possiblyvarnished wood. The third, in the bottom right cornerof the painting, is a pale blue colour and on one doorit is possible to make out the letters ‘EVON’ in whitepaint. This has been identified as an iron-bodiedSDR third-class carriage.23 If the other two carriagesin the picture are also SDR stock, then these couldbe new wooden thirds from a delivery made during1854.24 However, for a large excursion like this itwould have been necessary to use any availablecarriages from both the SDR and B&ER, so perhapsthis is the case here and might explain the difference.25

The livery of B&ER carriages from 1849 was a darkcrimson lake with ‘drab’ lining.26 This does not matchwith the light brown that Key has used, but perhapshe was adding colour from memory after the event orit may be that a darker colour on the painting haschanged over time.

A local Devon surveyor and artist, William Dawson,painted a magnificent set of watercolours of the SDRas an atmospheric railway. These were completed in1848 and are now in the care of the Institution ofCivil Engineers, but in 2013 they were published in alarge format in the Broad Gauge Society’s book onthe atmospheric railway. One of the paintings is ofthe tunnel mouth at Teignmouth from a similarposition to that used by Key.27 There are somedifferences in the detail, as one might expect, but thescene is remarkably similar in terms of the generaldepiction of the landscape.28 As regards the railway,there is an interesting difference in how the two artistshave shown the tall disc-and-crossbar signal left ofthe tunnel mouth. This type of signal was used bythe GWR and several other broad-gauge lines – whenthe disc was visible to an oncoming train driver thismeant ‘all clear’, but when post was rotated a quarterturn to show the cross-bar this indicated ‘danger’.Key shows the disc as a bulls-eye, black with a broad

37

white ring, which was normal for the SDR.29 On theDawson picture the disc is red, which was the colourused on other broad-gauge lines.30 A photographtaken in the 1860s or 70s31 and another taken c188032

show the scene little changed, although the originalsignal had been replaced by a semaphore signal justto the left of the tunnel mouth. However, the tunnelwas opened out in 1880–4 as part of major engineeringworks through Teignmouth, which includedwidening the railway to double-track and rebuildingthe station.33 This changed the scene to that whichis familiar today, with the railway curving off the seafront into a deep cutting crossed by a tall bridge.

An intriguing aspect of the painting is that thepassengers are shown alighting at the tunnel mouthand not at the station, which was located at the otherend of the tunnel. This seems to be both a dangerousand unnecessary practice. One possibility is thatthis was artistic licence in that it enabled the train,the passengers and the seaside destination to beincluded in the picture. However, it is known thatexcursion passengers did alight at a nearby SDRdestination where there was no station. TheCourtenays, Earls of Devon, had their seat atPowderham Castle, about two miles on the Exeterside of Starcross station. Kay recounts that ‘theCourtenays did allow suitably deservingorganisations to use Powderham Park for fetes, andon several occasions this resulted in special trainsdecanting their passengers onto the lineside atPowderham’.34

To save costs, railway companies sometimescrowded excursion passengers into long, heavytrains35 and the evidence from the newspaper reportquoted above is that there were two trains, carryingbetween 2,500 and 4,000 passengers. Teignmouthstation was in a cramped location between thetunnels and, although a second platform had beenadded in 1848 and the original single short platformof 1846 had been lengthened in 1853,36 dealing withmultiple excursion trains would likely have causedoperational problems. It is conceivable, therefore,that the train in the painting may have been stoppedon the other side of the tunnel in order to relievepressure on the station. Without evidence this mustremain a matter of conjecture.

Were there other Heathcoat excursions?

John Heathcoat was an enlightened thinker onmany matters relating to his workforce and the localcommunity, so this corporate ethos must have beenbehind the idea to offer a holiday trip to employees.

But was the Heathcoat excursion of 1854 depictedin Key’s painting the only such event to take place?Writing in 1867, William Felkin records that ‘on theoccasion of an excursion to Teignmouth, in 1836,given to the hands and their families by the firm,2,300 persons formed the party’.37 He does notspecify how this party was to be transported, butan excursion in 1836 could not have used the railwaybecause none had yet reached the area. The B&ERwas opened in sections and had reached TivertonRoad and Exeter on 1 May 1844. The branch toTiverton was opened on 12 June 1848 from TivertonRoad, which was shortly renamed TivertonJunction. As we have seen, the SDR was openedfrom Exeter to Teignmouth on 30 May 1846.

Without the railway, what mode or modes oftransport could have been used to move this hugegroup of people some 30 miles or so in eachdirection? Road transport would have been theonly option for the first part of the journey sincethe Exe was not navigable above Topsham,although Exeter could be reached via the ExeterCanal.38 The Grand Western Canal was planned tolink Taunton with Exeter and included a branch toTiverton, but by 1836 only a short section fromTiverton towards Taunton had been completed –the section south to Topsham had not been startedand was destined never to be built.39 Carts couldhave been used and the best road route at the timewould have been on turnpike roads of the Tiverton,Exeter, and Teignmouth & Dawlish Turnpike Trusts,probably via Bickleigh and Stoke Canon, skirtingExeter to reach Teignmouth via Exminster andDawlish.40 An idea of the state of repair of theseroads may be obtained from the 1840 SelectCommittee on State of Roads, when the Clerk to theTiverton Trust reported most to be in ‘very goodrepair’, although there were some parts not so.Similarly the Clerk to the Exeter Trust reported thatthe roads of the Exeter and Teignmouth & DawlishTrusts were in ‘good’ condition.41 An example oflarge-scale road excursions comes from Lancashire,where as late as 1849 Sunday road trips were beingorganised from Preston to the coast at Lytham, 12miles away, using large carts. Each cart couldaccommodate about 20 passengers and 30 or 40would be used.42 This meant about 600–800passengers per excursion and, assuming vehiclesof similar capacity were used for the Heathcoat 1836trip to Teignmouth, that would have required 115carts. It is hard to comprehend where suchresources could have been obtained.

38

There was the possibility of not travelling thewhole way by road, but perhaps using water for thelatter part, via the Exe estuary and the sea. At thistime coastal trips were popular in some parts of thecountry,43 but coastal vessels were small and theproblem would have been finding enough space forsuch a large group. Steam packet services wereoperating between Exeter, Topsham and London inthe 1830s for passengers and goods but, if therewas any ‘private hire’ arrangement for excursions,this would have had to be accommodated withoutdisrupting the timetabled services.44 Whether thejourney was road or road and boat, an excursion likethis would have taken many hours and have requireda very early start and a very late return. Felkin doesnot state if it was a day trip or for a longer period.The latter is unlikely, but if the party had remainedovernight at Teignmouth then there is the questionas to where they would have stayed, sinceaccommodating so many would have been a majorundertaking. Whatever its nature such a venturewould most likely have been locally newsworthy,but to date no newspaper report or any other recordof this excursion has been identified.

So was Felkin mistaken? Like John Heathcoat hecame from the East Midlands and served anapprenticeship in the textile industry. In 1822 hewas employed by the Heathcoat company, includinga spell at Tiverton, before returning to Nottinghamas an agent for Heathcoat and other lacemanufacturers. By 1836 he was in a businesspartnership of his own in Nottingham, so his sourcefor a Heathcoat excursion that year must have beenindirect and could well have been misunderstood.45

Evidence suggests that the size of the party he giveswas quite possible at that time, since a contemporarywriter noted that ‘Mr Heathcoat provides dailyoccupation to upwards of 1200 hands in his factory,and nearly as many in their own houses, in mendingthe lace and other incidental operations’.46 Withfamilies included, that makes 2,300 feasible. Did heget the destination wrong? An excursion to Dawlish,rather than to Teignmouth, would have saved timeand distance. Did he get the year wrong? Perhapsa transcription error turned 1846 or 1856 into 1836.An excursion by railway to Teignmouth fromTiverton Road would have been possible in 1846,and from Tiverton in 1856, but no newspaper reportshave been found to corroborate this. The conclusionmust be that Felkin was in error and the excursionhe was writing about was actually that of 1854.

With the coming of the railway to Tiverton in 1848,

Heathcoat was active in talking to the railwaycompany. Meetings of the B&ER board normallytook place at Bristol, but that of 12 June 1848 tookplace at Tiverton. This was the day that the branchwas opened, and the minutes of the meeting recordthat ‘At 2 o’clock the board accompanied Mr JohnHeathcote MP & a deputation from the inhabitantsof Tiverton, to the Assembly Room’.47 What theytalked about is not recorded, but the Heathcoatcompany was quick to recognise the potential of therailway for company outings. According to a pressreport, within two months of the branch opening thecompany were talking to both the B&ER and SDR‘to supply them with a special train to take theworkpeople employed in their factories to Dawlishwhere refreshments will be provided for them.Accommodation will be required for about 1400 ...This will be a magnificent treat – such as only theboundless kindness and princely generosity of mrHeathcoat could have conceived.’48 An excursionto Dawlish in the summer of 1848 would have involvedrunning over the atmospheric railway from Exeter andit is doubtful if such numbers could have beenaccommodated over its single-track with limitedsiding accommodation.49 If it had, then this wouldcertainly have been newsworthy. However, as withthe Felkin reference, the press mention of a Dawlishtrain is about something that had not yet taken place,and to date no newspaper reports or other evidenceof such an excursion happening have been identified.Similarly, nothing has yet been found to show thatany Heathcoat railway excursions were organisedbetween 1848 and 1854. The minutes of the SDRBoard Traffic & Finance Committee for the period1849–54 carry entries relating to various excursions,including several run in conjunction with the B&ERand the GWR, but there is no mention of eitherHeathcoat or Tiverton.50 Only a single volume ofB&ER Traffic Committee minutes exists and it coversjust the first six months of June 1850. Interestinglythese refer to arrangements at Whitsuntide for‘pleasure trains’ rather than excursions.51 The B&ERBoard Minutes for 1853–4 have several referencesto excursion trains but, while Torquay, Weston andClevedon are among the seaside destinations,Teignmouth is not included. There is a report that anaccident occurred to ‘the Excursion Train on theTiverton Branch on the 19th July [1854], from a looseAxle; 3 Carriages got off the Line; but no person wasat all injured’.52 Presumably the Heathcoat excursionthe following month was incident-free so did notwarrant a report to the board.

39

For the years immediately after the 1854 excursion,no newspaper reports have been found to suggestthat any further Heathcoat railway excursions tookplace. However, in 1857 a report on a heated meetingof the Exeter & Exmouth Railway about possibleworking arrangements with the SDR and B&ERincluded mention of the potential for excursion trafficand used Heathcoat as an example: ‘Supposing, forinstance, Mr Heathcote’s factory people wanted aday’s excursion, and they applied to the South DevonCompany for a train to go to Exmouth, the directorswould say – “We can take you cheaper to Dawlish orTeignmouth than to Exmouth”.’53 This is evidencethat Heathcoat was seen as a potential source ofsuch business, but it does not help in identifyingany specific excursions that had taken place.54

In the absence of conclusive evidence that therewas an excursion to Teignmouth in 1836 or to Dawlishin 1848, it seems probable that the 1854 trip was thefirst, and possibly the only one, that the Heathcoatcompany had succeeded in operating. If this is thecase, and the 1848 newspaper report had led theemployees to expect an earlier excursion which nevertook place, then this could have been cause forcelebration. If the organisation of the successfulexcursion was was one of the fruits of the youngJohn Heathcoat Amory’s increasing involvement inthe management of the company, then this mightexplain the ‘high esteem’ in which the employeesheld him and which prompted the commission of apainting as a gift. But who was the artist and whywas he chosen?

The artist

It has proved difficult to obtain information aboutW P Key and his work.55 However, internet searchesidentified three other watercolours by him that havebeen offered for sale in art auctions. One of these isclose in style, time, location and subject matter tothe Teignmouth picture: The South Devon RailwayLandslip Near the Parson & Clerk Nose, awatercolour of a broad-gauge train on the coast nearDawlish in 1852.56 From a few years later and similarin style is Seascape of 1860 which depicts a sailingvessel in what might well be a south Devon setting.57

The third is Portrait of a Family of 1880 – differentin subject matter and a much later work.58

On the assumption that the artist was a local person,and without knowing what the initials W P stood for,searches of the census and other records revealed alikely candidate in William Key.59 It seems that Williamwas born in Cornwall in 1811, 1812 or 1813, although

there are discrepancies in the census records overexactly when and where. His wife Ann was born inDorset in 1810 or 1811, and they lived all their lives inthe West Country, never far from the sea. Their firstchild, Elizabeth was born in Clifton, Gloucestershire,in 1839 and baptised in Dorchester, with the father’soccupation being given as ‘a painter’.60 In 1841William Key, age 30 and occupation ‘Artist’, lived at6 Victoria Street, Charles the Martyr, Plymouth. Alsoliving there were Key’s wife and a daughter, Elizabeth,age 3, plus Elizabeth Cole, age 60, the head of thehousehold.61 In 1851 Ann and three daughters:Elizabeth (12), Mary A (6) and Lucy (3) were living at60 Tavistock Street, Stoke Damerel, Devonport.Ann’s occupation is ‘Painter’s Wife’. At this timeWilliam was clearly working away from home sincehe is a visitor at Winner Street, Paignton, where hisoccupation is given as ‘Portrait Painter’. By 1861 thefamily were all living at V L Rose Cottage, BarrowRoad, Abbotskerswell with William’s occupation now‘Miner & Artist’.

In 1871 William, Ann and the two youngerdaughters were living in Bedminster, Somerset, whereWilliam’s occupation was ‘Letterpress Printer’.Daughter Elizabeth was working as a housekeeper inDorchester for Richard Mabey, whom she was tomarry in 1873. In 1881 Ann and daughter Mary Annwere living at Belle Vue Terrace, Portland, Dorset,and Lucy was visiting the now-widowed Elizabeth inDorchester. William was working away from homeagain and living in a boarding house near the family’searlier residence in Stoke Damerel, with his occupationgiven as ‘Broker (Messenger)’. The last censusrecord for William and Ann Key is 1891, when theywere still at Belle Vue Terrace with Mary and Elizabeth.William died in 1892 and Ann in 1899. William’soccupation in 1891 is given as ‘Artist (PortraitLandscape & Marine)’, which is a good summary ofthe subjects of the pictures described above.

In none of the records consulted does WilliamKey’s entry include a middle name or initial, but hewas clearly an aspiring artist who had to seek otheremployment to support his family. He was livingclose to the locations of both the W P Key railwaypaintings at the time that they were painted and, ifthe 1860 maritime picture is of a south Devon scenethat would also fit. The likelihood is that this is theartist who has left us with such a delightful glimpseof the Heathcoat factory’s trip to Teignmouth for theday. We can only speculate as to why he got thecommission, but he was in the right place at the righttime and perhaps it was through a personalrecommendation.

40

Acknowledgements

For help with source materials in their care I amgrateful to the staff of the Devon Heritage Centreand The National Archives; I have also madeextensive use of the online search facilities of theBritish Newspaper Archive. Staff and volunteers atthe National Trust at Knightshayes, and at Tivertonand Topsham Museums, have given advice andassistance. Grahame Boyes, John and AudreyCarpenter (Friends of Charnwood Museum), MartinEbdon, Veronica Edmonds, Peter Kay, StephenPonder, Philip Scowcroft, Geof Sheppard andmembers of the Yahoo railwaycanal group havehelped in various ways and I am grateful to them all.

Notes and references

TNA The National Archives

1. Spelling variations of the Heathcoat name, including‘Heathcoate’, ‘Heathcote’ and ‘Heathcot’, are foundin contemporary documents, particularly newspaperreports. The form ‘Heathcoat’ is used throughoutthis article except where quoting such sources.

2. Sources used for Heathcoat family history include: D EVarley, John Heathcoat (1783–1861): founder of themachine-made lace industry (Newton Abbot : David& Charles, 1969); W Gore Allen, John Heathcoatand his Heritage (London : Johnson, 1958); S DChapman, ‘Heathcoat, John (1783–1861)’ in OxfordDictionary of National Biography (2004)<www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/12846> [accessed5 April 2016]; G C Boase, ‘Heathcoat, John (1783–1861)’ in Leslie Stephen & Sidney Lee (eds),Dictionary of National Biography, vol 25 (London :Smith, Elder, 1891), pp 350–1

3. The London Gazette, 3 March 1874, pp 1453–4

4. The Times, 26 January 1861, p 12

5. Mike Sampson, A History of Tiverton (Tiverton WarMemorial Trust, 2004), p 242

6. Trewman’s Exeter Flying Post, 9 May 1850, p 8

7. The Times, 26 January 1861, p 12

8. National Trust, Knightshayes – a souvenir guide (2013),p 6

9. It is reproduced here with the kind permission of NTImages, the original being 570x900mm. It can also beviewed on the NT Collections website at<www.nationaltrustcollections.org.uk/object/541123> [accessed 10 January 2016] where it hasthe title ‘The Heathcoat works outing – the steamtrain arriving at Teignmouth Station’.

10. Gore Allen (1958), p 96; David St John Thomas, ARegional History of the Railways of Great Britain, Vol1, The West Country (Newton Abbot : David &

Charles, various editions from 1960) (consulted sixthedition, 1988, p 115). Thomas credits the image tothe Heathcoat company. A tiny colour reproductionwas included in The Lacemakers’ Story, a souvenirbooklet published by Charnwood Museum for the2007 exhibition and reprinted in 2016 in connectionwith 200th anniversary of the Luddite attack inLoughborough.

11. Paul Garnsworthy (ed), Brunel’s Atmospheric Railway– featuring the contemporary watercolours of WilliamDawson (Exeter : Broad Gauge Society, 2013), p 79.The date of Key’s painting is just six years after theend of atmospheric operation of this section of theSouth Devon Railway.

12. The tunnel was known as ‘Teignmouth East Tunnel’or ‘East Cliff Tunnel’ to distinguish it from‘Teignmouth West Tunnel’ at the other end of thestation.

13. Architectural details are from Bridget Cherry &Nikolaus Pevsner, The Buildings of England – Devon(2nd ed., Harmondsworth : Penguin, 1989).

14. The Western Times, 12 August 1854, p 7

15. Trewman’s Exeter Flying Post, 17 Aug. 1854, pp 3–4

16. The term ‘monster train’ was a label given by the pressand commonly used from as early as 1840 to describelarge excursions, Susan Major, Early Victorian RailwayExcursions (Barnsley : Pen & Sword Transport, 2015),p 83

17. Philip Scowcroft, ‘Railways and the leisure revolution’in David St John Thomas (ed), How RailwaysChanged Britain (Derby : RCHS, 2015), p 78

18. This is covered in detail by Major (2015), chapters 2,3 and 4.

19. Major (2015), pp 72–4; Arthur & Elisabeth Jordan,Away for the Day – the railway excursion in Britain(Kettering : Silver Link, 1991), p 110

20. Unless otherwise stated, railway chronology is from PR Gale, The Great Western Railway with map (GreatWestern Railway, 1926) and Peter Kay, Exeter–Newton Abbot: a railway history (Sheffield : Platform5, 1993).

21. Garnsworthy (2013), pp 15, 23

22. Brian Arman, ‘Corsair and Brigand. Their sisters andhalf sisters. Part 2’, Broadsheet no 59 (Spring 2008),p 26

23. Geof Sheppard, ‘Meat van no 10702’, Broadsheet no75 (Spring 2016), p 17

24. Sheppard (2016)

25. In 1854 the B&ER agreed to lend the North DevonRailway company coaches for excursion traffic, TNA,RAIL 75/21, p 356 (B&ER Board Meetings 1853–4,meeting of 9 August 1854)

41

26. TNA, RAIL 75/58, p 65 (B&ER Finance CommitteeMinutes 1846–9, meeting of 4 March 1848)

27. Garnsworthy (2013). The Teignmouth tunnel view ison p 53.

28. There is another contemporary representation of theview in a rather poor drawing of c1854 reproduced inKay (1993), p 194.

29. E T MacDermot, History of the Great Western Railwayvol II (London : GWR, 1931), p 255

30. Garnsworthy (2013), p 52

31. Kay (1993), p 194

32. R H Gregory, The South Devon Railway (Lingfield :Oakwood Press,1982), p 40

33. Kay (1993), chapter 16 which includes a detaileddescription of these changes.

34. Kay (1993), p 130

35. Major (2015), p 25

36. Kay (1993), pp 189–91

37. William Felkin, A History of the Machine-WroughtHosiery and Lace Manufactures (London, 1867), p263. Cherry & Pevsner (1989), p 807, includes thisinformation about the excursion and it must havebeen added by Cherry for the revised edition since itis not in the original Pevsner South Devon volume of1952. Presumably Felkin was the source.

38. Joseph Priestley, Historical Account of the NavigableRivers, Canals and Railways throughout Great Britain(2nd ed, London : Cass, 1967), p 272. (This is areprint of the 1831 edition with new introductorymaterial.)

39. Helen Harris, The Grand Western Canal – a briefhistory (Newton Abbot : Peninsula Press, 2009)

40. Information extracted from Martin Ebdon, TheTurnpike Roads of Devon in 1840 (Bradford-on-Avon,2014). Downloadable from:<www.martinebdon.me.uk/turnpikes/The-Turnpike-Roads-of-Devon-in-1840.pdf> [accessed 25 April2016].

41. Quoted on the relevant links on section 1h of<www.turnpikes.org.uk> [accessed 25 April 2016]

42. Major (2015), p 30

43. Jordan (1991), p 7

44. For example, an advertisement by the St George SteamPacket Company in The Times on 12 April 1833shows a service from London to Topsham every fivedays.

45. Biographical information about Felkin is from< w w w . k n i t t i n g t o g e t h e r . o r g . u k /doc78f8.html?doc=14050&cat=665> [accessed 25May 2016].

46. William Harding, The History of Tiverton in the Countyof Devon, vol 1 (Tiverton : Boyce, 1845), p 224

47. TNA, RAIL 75/13, B&ER Board Meetings 1847–50,p 71

48. The Western Times, 15 July 1848, p 6

49. Garnsworthy (2013), p 17 shows the full atmospherictimetable from 5 May 1848. The line reverted tolocomotive haulage on 10 September 1848.

50. TNA, RAIL 631/3 (1849–51), RAIL 631/4 (1851–4)

51. TNA, RAIL 75/63, meeting of 24 April 1850

52. TNA, RAIL 75/21, p 341

53. Woolmer’s Exeter & Plymouth Gazette, 7 March 1857,p 8

54. Searches of records from the relevant period in theHeathcoat archives held at the Devon Heritage Centre(4302B) revealed no references to factory outings.Amyas Crump, The Tiverton Museum RailwayCollection (Southampton, 2010), mentions only the1854 excursion but does not give a source. Enquiriesat Tiverton Museum elicited that they held no relevantrecords. John F Travis, The Rise of the Devon SeasideResorts 1750–1900 (University of Exeter, 1993), p101 refers only to the 1854 excursion and his sourceis the reproduction of Key’s painting in Thomas (seenote 10).

55. Key does not appear in the standard work on paintersof the period: Christopher Wood, Victorian Painters1 The Text, (rev ed, Woodbridge : Antique Collectors’Club, 2008).

56. <www.mutualart.com/Artwork/The-South-Devon-Railway-Landslip-Near-th/C2E6C60255E8F40D>[accessed 10 January 2016]. This is a similar view tothat in the better-known lithograph by W Spreat of apicture by F Jones. See Gareth Rees, Early RailwayPrints (Oxford : Phaidon, 1980), p 77.

57. <www.arcadja.com/auctions/en/key_w_/artist/496483> [accessed 11 January 2016]

58. <www.onlinegalleries.com/art-and-antiques/detail/portrait-of-a-family/244893> [accessed 19 July2016]

59. Online searches of census, register and other data werevia <www.findmypast.co.uk> [accessed at variousdates in 2016]

60. See transcribed record 684, 27 February 1839, on<freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ f o r d i n g t o n d o r s e t / F i l e s 2 /HolyTrinityBaptisms1838.html> [accessed 23January 2016].

61. Elizabeth Cole was perhaps Key’s mother-in-law, butI have been unable to confirm this.

42

The Leominster Canal : derelict, abandoned orclosed?

David Slater

Richard Dean’s extremely interesting article in theJuly 2016 Journal warrants several comments.1

These are made below under separate headings:

Statutory closure

Richard Dean must be congratulated for an astuteanalysis of the various statutory aspects relating tothe surviving lengths of the Leominster Canal . Ihave similarly previously examined the originaldocuments and formed the same view that someisolated lengths of Leominster Canal, even after 150years, still remain legally open. The lengths of canalthat had statutory closure, as permitted by theLeominster Canal Sale, Tenbury Railway and Tenbury& Bewdley Railway Acts, did not constitute thewhole length of the canal and accordingly theresidual lengths still remain legally open. I also agreethat some residual liabilities of the originalShrewsbury & Hereford Railway (S&HR) Companystill reside with the modern-day succeeding statutorybody, the Department of Transport. Although I haveresearched the topic, I have not been able to locateany surviving deeds, conveyances or plans whichprovide more specific information regarding thepotential transfer of ownership from the S&HR or itssuccessors of the canal from Newnham Bridge toSouthnet. Any scrutiny to clarify the currentsituation could prove contentious and, withoutparliamentary repeal, any transfer of ownershipcannot functionally alter the use of land, whichremains that of a legally open canal with a statutoryundertaker. There are pros and cons for such ascrutiny and, after discussion with other trustees ofthe charity organisation Friends of the LeominsterCanal, it was concluded that it was wiser in mostinstances to ‘let sleeping dogs lie’ and not potentiallydisturb the current stable status quo of landownership and liabilities. After all, althoughseemingly still legally open, these stretches of canalnow largely lie within private hands, are largelyabandoned and derelict and are not likely to be everfunctionally restored. Their statutory closure wouldrequire parliamentary repeal of the 1847 LeominsterCanal Sale Act.

Newnham tunnel and Rea aqueduct

With regard to specific canal structures, Newnhamtunnel is now assimilated into private farmland andis home to a Natural England bat roost. RichardDean’s article mentions that Rea aqueduct hasdeteriorated since 1964 but more recently, and muchmore significantly, it suffered a major partial collapsein 2013. The towpath on the aqueduct acts as a legalfootpath and constitutes a designated public rightof way over the River Rea, although the footpath iscurrently closed following the partial collapse. Theaqueduct lies on the boundary betweenWorcestershire and Shropshire and is a listed Grade2 structure by Historic England. With these legalcomplexities and major safety issues, it is fortunatethat matters are being co-ordinated sensibly andcompetently by Worcestershire County Council, inconjunction with the other bodies known to beinvolved. It appears, however, that a statutoryliability still exists for the Rea aqueduct to constitutea legally open canal over the River Rea. Discussionand consultation continue amongst the bodies andthe condition of the aqueduct continues to bemonitored closely. Fortunately, after over 200 years,much of Dadford Junior’s spectacular brick aqueductstill survives and has not been demolished as a quickand easy solution to cheaply resolve an undoubtedextremely difficult and potentially costly problem.Fortunately, the heritage and legal status of theaqueduct has taken its required precedence in therecent decision making processes and will bynecessity continue to do so. It is vital, however, thatthis takes into account the original parliamentarycanal and railway acts, their conveyances and theresidual liabilities of the S&HR Company, which arestill in force.

The Shrewsbury and HerefordshireRailway becomes the new Shrewsburyand Hereford Railway

The 1845 proposal for the S&HR to cross theLeominster Canal by two bridges, as stated in thearticle, seemingly appears straightforward,

43

particularly as that is how the railway wasconstructed. The evidence available in theParliamentary Archives, however, raised queries overthe legality of the canal being crossed by the twobridges, as its S&HR plan showed no such crossings.It is now known, however, that this apparentdiscrepancy came about by two railway schemesbeing put forward in 1845 with confusingly verysimilar names. These constituted the Shrewsbury &Herefordshire Railway and the Shrewsbury &Hereford Railway. Now located in the HerefordshireArchive and Records Centre (HARC), two differentsets of plans and books of reference for the railwayswere deposited in 1845 with the Clerk of the Peace inHereford. One plan, for the Shrewsbury &Herefordshire Railway, was based on a survey bythe two engineers Robert and Henry Stephenson andshows two crossings of the canal at Wyson locksand the Putnal loop. This is a similar alignment tothe line constructed and as existing on the groundtoday. The other plan, for the Shrewsbury & HerefordRailway, was surveyed by Isambard Kingdom Bruneland was deposited less than one day later but wassubstantially different. By contrast, Brunel’s plandepicts no crossing of the canal by the line of therailway, with the line being positioned more to thewest, although crossing of the Putnal loop waspermitted within one Limit of Deviation. Logicallytherefore, it could be assumed that Brunel’sShrewsbury & Hereford Railway plan would havebeen incorporated into the 1846 Shrewsbury &Hereford Railway Act. This assumption is wrong,however, because it is the Stephensons’ survey andnot the Brunel plan and book of reference whichcorresponds to the content of the Act and the line ofconstruction with two canal bridges. The explanationfor this paradox lies in an unusual sequence of events.In 1845/46 the two railway companies were in fiercecompetition and the Shrewsbury & Hereford RailwayCompany, under the patronage of the Great WesternRailway Company, strongly opposed the Shrewsbury& Herefordshire Railway Bill. The Shrewsbury &Hereford Railway Company proposal, however, failedafter several attempts at its Bill stage and theCompany was dissolved in June 1846. Immediatelyafter this, a bizarre event then occurred within 24hours, at the late Bill stage of the Shrewsbury &Herefordshire Railway, in that its name was alteredto the Shrewsbury & Hereford Railway. Thisrepresents the unusual explanation as to why thestatutory line of the S&HR is based on theStephensons’ Shrewsbury & Herefordshire Railway

plan and not the Brunel S&HR plan. Brunel’s planand the minuted evidence at the Bill stage, now inthe Parliamentary Archives, relate to the original andnot subsequent Shrewsbury & Hereford Railway,whereas the evidence for the Shrewsbury andHerefordshire Railway Bill relates to the eventual 1846Shrewsbury and Hereford Railway Act. As to beexpected, this complex situation led to frequentconfusion and errors of wording in the originalcompany documents and minutes, the House ofCommons and House of Lords records andsubsequent archival deposits. Also, last but notleast, initially this created immense difficulty for thosenow researching the topic! Each of the two plans,however, was ingenious and credible in its own way.The Brunel plan totally avoided any involvement withthe Leominster Canal, whereas the two bridgecrossings in the Stephensons’ plan ensured that thecanal could remain open for the period from theopening of the S&HR in 1853 up to the eventualpurchase and legal closure of that part of the canal in1858. Interestingly, with nearly psychic insight, the1845 Subscription Contract for the Shrewsbury &Herefordshire Railway stated that the railway wouldbe called ‘the Shrewsbury and Herefordshire Railwayor by a similar name or names as may at any timehereafter be adopted by the Committee ofManagement or the Directors’. The reason for thesudden change in name of the railway on 6/7 June1846, that then became incorporated into the August1846 S&HR Act, sadly remains unknown.Unfortunately it is not revealed in the parliamentaryrecords, the Shrewsbury & Herefordshire andsubsequent S&HR Minutes nor the Board of TradeCompany archives. Similarly, although the changein name is clearly documented in parliamentary andrailway archives, evidence of this has not been foundin the Board of Trade Joint Stock Companiesregistration records, although the dissolution of theoriginal S&HR is recorded.

The canal railway bridges

Although the article states that the two railwaybridges that crossed the canal were timber and laterchanged for smaller ones, the S&HR minutes in 1856contain a report by the then engineer, David Wylie,on the safety and condition of bridges on the railway.He states:

The bridges have strongly framed girders on eachside with intermittent pieces trussed with wroughtiron rods and cross planking; the whole resting onstone or brick abutments. The framed part is stated

44

to be expected to last for years and the onlyexpense to be painting and replacing the planking.

This high quality build for longevity is notsurprising as, although the original line was single,the bridges were built to easily accommodate theirenvisaged later conversion into a double line.

The Deepcroft bridge and canalconstruction

The accommodation bridge near Deepcroft,illustrated in the article and stated to have beendemolished is actually still extant. Indeed, in recentyears the Friends of Leominster Canal haveundertaken some stabilisation work on the bridge.

It is also mentioned in the article that there wasmisinterpretation by later writers with regard tostarting the canal at Stourport and workingeastwards, whereas it should have saidwestwards.The question posed in the title

In response to the question posed in the title ofthe article, I would support the view that theremaining lengths of the Leominster Canal are largelyabandoned and derelict but are not all legally closed.

Joint collaboration

Richard Dean and myself are grateful to Editor forencouraging joint collaboration between the two ofus with regard to my originally submittedcorrespondence article. Richard apologises toreaders of the Journal for his errors with respect tothe Deepcroft bridge and for giving the wrongdirection of canal construction from Stourport. I am

myself, however, particularly grateful to Richard forsharing his personal copy of part of a 1845 railwayplan of the line from Shrewsbury to Hereford,originally held by the Great Western Railway butuntitled. Unexpectedly this was clearly different fromthe 1845 Brunel S&HR plan in the ParliamentaryArchives. This observation prompted a visit to seethe deposited plans at the HARC, which revealedthat Richard’s plan was identical to the Stephensons’survey and not Brunel’s 1845 plan. Further researchwas then undertaken in The National Archives, theParliamentary Archives and the British NewspaperArchives, giving rise to the unexpected explanatorysequence of events summarised above. HARC andthe Parliamentary Archives have been exceptionallyhelpful in this pursuit and the latter are now reviewingtheir catalogue entries and amending them asappropriate. The 1845 Stephensons’ Shrewsbury &Herefordshire Railway plan has subsequently beenlocated in the Parliamentary Archives but itsrelationship to the 1846 Shrewsbury & HerefordRailway Act had not been previously appreciated.This fascinating aspect of the early history of theShrewsbury & Hereford Railway proved to be atotally unexpected bonus from the research into theLeominster Canal and the current legal status of itsclosure.

Reference1. Richard Dean, ‘The Leominster Canal : Derelict,

abandoned or closed?’, Journal of the Railway & CanalHistorical Society, vol 38, pt 8 (no 226), July 2016,pp 510–13)

45

The location of Edward Jones’s 1799 tramroad :an assessment based on contemporarycorrespondence

Bryan Morgan

The Monmouthshire Canal was authorised in 1792,one of its purposes being to open up the hithertounderdeveloped coalfield in the valleys to the northof Newport. It immediately attracted investors fromBristol, among them Edward Thomas Jones whoobtained a lease of minerals under Machen mountain,Waunfawr and Risca farm from Sir Charles Morganof Tredegar Park in 1794.1 He opened a colliery in1796 and built a short tramroad to connect it to theCrumlin branch of the canal, at that date stillunfinished. An account of Jones’s colliery andtramroad was given in this Journal by the late GordonRattenbury in 1983.2

Rattenbury describes the route of the tramroad inthe following terms:

Starting at ST 2305 9133, where are the remains ofthe bridge over the Ebbw, it ran in a straight line tothe canal at ST 2316 9168, where a house on thecanal bank reached by a straight, steep path marksthe top of the incline. The total length of the linewas only a quarter of a mile …

On Fig 1 this line is marked as A. The descriptionis clearly derived from the first edition of the 1 inchOrdnance Survey map which was published in 1833.This shows what appears to be a branch leading offthe Nine Mile Point branch of the MonmouthshireCanal Company’s tramroad and running uphill acrossthe River Ebbw to the Crumlin branch of theMonmouthshire Canal. The word ‘Colliery’ appearsalongside the point of junction. The 1833 map in

Fig 1. Extract from 1:2500 Ordnance Survey map of 1883 showing the possible lines of Jones’s 1799tramroad (BB, CC) and the confirmed line of the later tramroad (A) that was in existence by 1813

46

turn is clearly based on the preliminary drawings of1813 which show a colliery and what appears to be atramroad in exactly the same position (Fig 2).

However, whilst there is no reason to doubt thatthe maps show the tramroad as it was in 1813 and1833, an examination of earlier correspondencesuggests very strongly that the colliery and tramroadthat Jones opened in 1796 lay some distance to thewest of this line and that the tramroad shown on theOS drawing of 1813 and map of 1833 was a laterdevelopment.

Amongst the property leased to Jones was Riscafarm. But whilst Jones had the minerals, the surfacewas simultaneously leased to Rowland Phillips foragricultural purposes. Jones’s lease merely allowedhim to construct a tramroad across the land to thecanal. This arrangement caused friction between thetwo lessees and resulted in Jones writing a letter toEvan Phillips (the agent for Sir Charles Morgan) inDecember 1797. In it he stated that his men hadstarted to work coal and he urgently required awayleave over Risca farm. Ideally he would haveliked to take over Rowland Phillips’ surface lease ofRisca farm, but failing that he hoped that Evan Phillipswould be able to use his influence with Sir Charles toenforce the terms of his lease in the face of RowlandPhillips’ obstructiveness.

I must earnestly request that you will … obtain SirChas Morgan’s permission for me to have the Farmor else that part of it more immediately fronting my

work or else fix with R Phillips to permit me at anytime and in any place – to sink pitts – take groundfor laying the coals down and hauling them away –which is the language of my lease and if I cannot actaccordingly to the tenor of my lease of what use isit to me.

I have found Rowland Phillips to be an obstinate,troublesome and quarrelsome neighbour andtherefore I cannot but wish he was removed and toprevent me any further trouble if Sir Chas Morganwill grant me a lease upon the farm (even at somelittle advance of rent) I will if Sir Chas wish it let RPhillips retain the house and other buildings and allthe land north of the wheat field (opposite my pit)till he can be accommodated with a farm elsewhere– this will prevent any further dispute.3

The wording of this letter shows that Jones neededto cross a wheat field ‘opposite my pit’ but that thehouse itself and farm land to its north were notnecessary for his plans. The wheat field is alsoreferred to as ‘immediately fronting my work’. Thismakes it unlikely that his pit was on the site shownon the 1813 drawing, for a tramroad from that pointto the canal (A on Fig 1) would have needed to crossfurther farm land to the north of a field opposite thepit. And in any case, if his pit had been at the siteshown on the 1813 drawing he could hardly havedescribed ‘the house and other buildings and all theland north of the wheat field’ as being ‘opposite mypit’. Jones’s original colliery of 1796 lay much closerto the farm house, perhaps roughly on the same siteas the later Black Vein Colliery (Fig 1). This argumentis further strengthened by a later letter of Jones fromMarch 1800 in which he submits an account of thecoal which he had raised in Waunfawr colliery,Waunfawr lying directly across the River Ebbw fromRisca farm.4

The geology of Machen Mountain (Fig 3)5 is suchthat that all the coal seams (in the local series) outcropon the lower slopes. The Sun vein at ST 232913 isthe lowest and the Rock vein at ST 220913 is thetopmost. The intervening seams (Red, Grey, Big,Black etc) outcrop in turn. All of them dip by about25 degrees in a westerly direction. In December 1797Jones wrote that ‘the men are now working coals onthe Sun vein and I therefore much want the road’.This can only mean that his mining operation hadrecently expanded to include the Sun vein and theextra output increased his need for the tramroad.More importantly, it indicates that his initial miningactivity, 18 months earlier, was not on the Sun veinand must have been somewhere else.

The 1813 OS drawing shows a bridge across the

Fig 2. Extract from the Ordnance Surveydrawing of Monmouthshire dated 1813 showing

the presumed tramroad and colliery builtperhaps by Jones at some date between 1800 and

1813

47

river, close to Risca farm house. Its positioncorresponds exactly with the description that Jonesgives of the wheatfield opposite his pit and it wasvery probably built by him. In a later letter to EvanPhillips dated 13 March 1800 Jones gives a detaileddescription of his difficulties, including an accountof how he built a bridge over the river but was thencompelled to shift it:

…when I took to the coalery, there was no bridgeover the river to go to it. I was consequentlyobliged to be at considerable expence in building abridge and when I had finished it, Rowland Phillipswould not let me have a road through his farm tothe bridge. I was therefore to please him, obliged totake the bridge down and rebuild it in another placeat a heavy expence and when I had rebuilt thebridge he would not then let me have a road throughhis farm to the canal until Sept 98 and the wintercoming on. I could not get the railroad finished ‘tillMarch 99.6

There has been a bridge on this site right up to thepresent day. The remains of pier foundations for anearlier bridge are still visible in the river bed (Fig 4)and it is likely that they are those of Jones’s rebuiltbridge. It is difficult to ascribe a motive to anyonebut him for building this bridge. An 1868 item in theMonmouthshire Merlin states that this ‘Waunfawr’

Fig 3. The geology of Machen Mountain (Geological Survey, 1899)

bridge was constructed by neither Machen nor Riscaparish but by the ‘Railway Company’ and it had neverbeen dedicated to the public.7 The bridge had beenbuilt some 70 years earlier, so this statement isnecessarily vague but it does indicate that the bridgewas built for commercial reasons.

In his letter Jones gives no indication of the relativepositions of the original and rebuilt bridges and itmight therefore be tempting to identify his first bridge,the one that he had to demolish, with the bridgewhose piers can still be seen and his rebuilt bridgewith the bridge shown on the 1813 drawing. This,however, would probably be erroneous. Jones’s 1800letter gives no suggestion that he had replaced hisoriginal colliery: he was still to all appearancesworking at Waunfawr opposite Risca farm house.The original bridge was probably fairly close to therebuilt bridge. It is worth noting that there are alsomasonry remains on the south bank of the river, some50 yards downstream of the confluence of Ebbw andSirhowy. They may have been associated withJones’s first bridge but this is conjecture.

Whilst it is reasonable to conclude that the pierfoundations beneath the Waunfawr, or Black Vein,bridge are those of Jones’ bridge, it is difficult to be

48

certain of the route taken by the tramroad from thatpoint up to the canal. Two possibilities (B B and CC) are superimposed on the 1883 map reproduced asFig 1. B B follows in part a track that was in existencein the 1880s and which could be regarded as asurvival of Jones’s tramroad. Equally the upperportion of C C follows what appears to be a pre-existing line that could also represent an earliertramroad. The gradient on this line would have beenabout 1 in 10.

The tramroad had been completed by the autumnof 1799 when Archdeacon Coxe commented upon itas he passed through the area:

In my way to Risca, I crossed a bridge over a railroad, lately formed by Mr. Edward Jones, whorents under Mr. Morgan of Ruperra some mines oflead, calamine and coal, in Machen Hill, on theopposite side of the Ebwy. The expedition andsecurity with which the cars are conveyed up anddown the steep side of the precipice, appearsingular to a spectator on the bridge. Two parallelrail roads are carried from the canal to the oppositeside of the Ebwy, along which two cars are drawnup and let down at the same time, by means of anengine; they appear to pass each other alternately,like buckets in a well; a boy descends with theempty car, nearly midway, and after adjusting themachinery is again drawn up with the loaded car,which empties the coals into the boats of thecanal.8

The reference to an ‘engine’ is interesting. Coxe’s

description of the alternate movements upand down of the ‘cars’ and the double trackclearly indicate a reciprocating system, butit cannot have been a conventional self-acting incline because the gradient wasagainst the load. Similarly 1799 is earlier thanany other known reference to a poweredincline and in any case there is no evidence,either documentary or on the ground, tosuggest the existence of the necessaryengine-house. Presumably it was a horse-driven whim, perhaps using gravity (theweight of the empty descending drams) toassist the horse.

One question remains. Why does the 1813OS drawing show the route in such aposition? Did Jones transfer his operationsfrom Waunfawr colliery to a new collieryshown on the drawing and build a newtramroad running up to the canal, the onedescribed by Rattenbury in his 1983 article?

At first sight this seems unlikely. TheNine Mile Point branch tramroad was opened in 1805or 1806 and ran directly past Jones’s Waunfawrcolliery. It offered far easier shipping arrangementsthan an incline up to the canal followed by trans-shipment into barges. It is hard to imagine that Joneswould choose to perpetuate this type of arrangementwhen he had immediate access to the railway.However, the 1813 drawing shows no sign of theWaunfawr colliery opposite Risca farm and, asRattenbury has shown, Jones’s financial backers,John and Thomas Leman of Bristol, were still usingthe canal in 1815. This must mean that at some datebetween 1800 and 1813 Jones or his backersabandoned Waunfawr colliery and opened a newone close to the Nine Mile Point railway (as shownon the 1813 drawing). At the same time the firsttramroad was abandoned and replaced with a newone, perhaps re-using the original materials. Anotherpossibility is that this drawing shows not thetramroad but an old route for the pack horses thatJones was forced to use before he completed histramroad.

Acknowledgements

Tony Jukes (Oxford House Industrial HistorySociety) for various maps, plans and the 1868reference to the Monmouthshire Merlin; John Venn(OHIHS) for the extract from Coxe’s Historical Tour;National Museum Cardiff for geological data (British

Fig 4. The remains of pier foundations for an earlier bridgestill visible in the bed of the River Ebbw under the present-day Waunfawr bridge (ST 225913), possibly connected with

the bridge built by EdwardJones in 1799

49

50

Geological Survey materials © NERC 2015)

Notes and references1. National Library of Wales (NLW), Tredegar 43/20

2. Gordon Rattenbury, ‘Jones’ Tramroad, Risca’, Journalof the Railway & Canal Historical Society vol 27, no 9(November 1983), pp 288–290

3. NLW, Tredegar 43/12. This letter and Jones’s laterletter of 1800 are both reproduced in full as appendicesto this article.

4. NLW, Tredegar 50/133

5. British Geological Survey, 1850

6. NLW, Tredegar 50/133

7. Monmouthshire Merlin, 30 May 1868, p 2 (report onthe proceedings of a magistrates’ court under theheading ‘Newport Police Intelligence’)

8. William Coxe, An Historical Tour in Monmouthshire(London: Cadell and Davies, 1801), p 258

Appendix 1

Letter from Edward Jones to Evan Phillips, agent toSir Charles Morgan, December 1797

Crumlin Dec 5th 1797

Sir

Agreeable to my promise when I last had thepleasure of seeing you herewith send you copy ofthe bond which I believe you will find agreeable towhat we fixed on. The blanks for the names etc youwill of course fill up and if you will have the goodnessto let me know what day you will get the bondexecuted I will attend you to receive that with theother lease. I could much wish to have the pleasureof being with you on Thursday as I proposed butthat is now impossible as I am obliged to go to Bristolfor a few days – which I intended doing last week –but I found my attendance at the coalery sonecessary that I put it off. The men are now working

coals on the Sun Vein and I therefore much want theroad but I can no way get a determination from SirChas Morgan or Mr Brown or Rowland Phillips onthe subject and I now think that it will be in vain toexpect anything done unless by your application toSir Chas Morgan and I must earnestly request thatyou will immediately do this and obtain Sir ChasMorgan’s permission for me to have the Farm or elsethat part of it more immediately fronting my work orelse fix with R Phillips to permit me at any time and inany place – to sink pitts – take ground for laying thecoals down and hauling them away – which is thelanguage of my lease and if I cannot act accordinglyto the tenor of my lease of what use is it to me. I shallfeel myself much obliged to you if you will be kindenough to represent the matter to Sir Chas Morganin the way you would feel it if you were in my situationand I have too high an opinion of him to think he willput you off – he will certainly determine one way orthe other.

I have found Rowland Phillips to be an obstinate,troublesome and quarrelsome neighbour andtherefore I cannot but wish he was removed and toprevent me any further trouble. If Sir Chas Morganwill grant me a lease upon the farm (even at somelittle advance of rent) I will if Sir Chas wish it let RPhillips retain the house and other buildings and allthe land north of the wheat field (opposite my pit) tillhe can be accommodated with a farm elsewhere –this will prevent any further dispute. I shall be ableto go on with my business comfortably and Sir ChasMorgan or R Phillips cannot be injured. I am thereforein expectation of your immediate interference and ofthe matter being accomplished to my wishes in thecourse of a few days – the account of which I shallbe in hopes of receiving soon to guide me how toproceed.

I am with much esteemSirYour most humble servantEdward Jones

Appendix 2

Letter from Edward Jones to Evan Phillips, agent to Sir Charles Morgan, March 1800

Stow Hill, Newport

March 13, 1800

Dear Sir

Agreeable to your request I herewith send you account of coals raised at Waun Fawr Coallery to 21st

December last. I should have been glad to have sent you the accounts before, but my time is so fully takenup that it really was no trifling matter to take off an account of every days transaction at the coallery for 3½

51

years. I must wish I had good cause to be pleased in the making out this account and I should have beenpleased if the produce of the coallery had but enabled me to pay 3 years rent; even if beyond that I had notcleared one shilling. On the contrary this account only tends to bring to my recollection the loss of more than3 years of the most valuable period of my life; the spending of several thousand pounds without anyvaluable return yet produced and the making of a contract to pay Sir Chas Morgan several hundred poundsfor a place which hath not hitherto, by the most trifling profit, enabled me to perform that contract. I do notblame Sir Chas Morgan – I do not blame you – I have no cause – and I am confident that you have not yet– nor ever will have cause to blame me. I certainly have done all in my power to bring the coalery toperfection. I have laboured in my mind night and day, I have spared no expence, I have given it a dailypersonal attendance. But I have had to contend with the varied seasons of the year, with misinformation,with an obstinate man as to my railroad, with unfinished wharfs at Newport and with a bad constructed, illmanaged, unfinished canal on which I had placed my very dependence and on the navigability of which I hadmade my first calculation. Nor were those calculations singular. Every proprietor of the MonmouthshireCanal 3 years ago supposed that the canal on its present plan was equal to any business that the coal ownersor iron masters should find themselves capable of doing. But in this their calculations were erroneous as wellas mine, which have proved by experience and which is confirmed by the sentiment or report of Mr Outramwho declares the canal to be in an imperfect state and says that he is confident that the improvements herecommends will be found absolutely necessary before an extensive trade can be established. On anextensive trade alone, I have calculated to be enabled to pay the rent and produce a profit – and I doubt notyou will recollect when you first sent me a map of the coalery that you stated thereon that 100 tons of coalbesides iron might be produced and sent down the canal every day – I believed you was right and I amsatisfied the quantity maybe raised but I am certain if the canal remains in its present state the quantitycannot be sent down; when all the other works are opened to their intended extent. Through the want ofwater, frost, repairs and alterations, the Crumlin line of the canal was not navigable last year above 8 months.Thus if a man intended to send down 100 tons per day, through the year, he must send down 150 tons per day,every day the canal is open so that a greater quantity of men, horses and boats must be kept than would besufficient if the canal was complete. I have got the coalery equal to send off 25 tons per day but to send thisoff, I am obliged to keep men, horses and boats equal to send down ten boats of coal per week when the canalis navigable; consequently I am at a much greater expence than I should be if the canal was finished. Addedto this it costs me every day the canal is shut £2-10-0 you will easily be able from this to form a judgement,what profit I have derived from the sale of coals towards paying the gallage or rent. I have but oneconsolation – I know Sir Chas Morgan is not a hard man. I entertain the highest opinion of him and I feelconfident he will not expect of me more than is equitable. I shall therefore state the quantity of work that hasbeen done and what the gallage would be if I had no plea to ask for a deduction.

An Acct of Coals raised at Waun Fawr Coalery

Tons

1796 sold at the coalery, 11,779 carts or 736 tons 736

97 ditto 9,078 503 sent down the canal 64 567

98 ditto 11,094 693 ditto 886 1,579

99 ditto 7,702 486 ditto 3,503 3,989

Tons 6,871

But against this I must beg leave to mention to Sir Chas Morgan that when I took to the coalery, there wasno bridge over the river to go to it. I was consequently obliged to be at considerable expence in building abridge and when I had finished it, Rowland Phillips would not let me have a road through his farm to thebridge. I was therefore to please him, obliged to take the bridge down and rebuild it in another place at aheavy expence and when I had rebuilt the bridge he would not then let me have a road through his farm to thecanal until Sept 98 and the winter coming on, I could not get the railroad finished ‘till March 99. Thus I wasa whole year idle after I had got coals from March 1798 to March 99 sending off only 886 tons of coal insteadof 5000 tons which I could have done if I had got my railroad in proper time and the canal had been navigable.I had boats, men and horses equal to the work the whole time. The Canal Co. indeed made me an allowanceon the boats, as there was not water to navigate them. Yet my expenses were very heavy. Add to this the 64

52

tons of coal sent to canal in ‘97, the 886 tons in ’98 and 154 tons in ’99 were hauled in carts and sent on horsesbacks at an extra expence of 1/6 per ton – so that my account with Sir Chas Morgan would run like this.

1796 to 1799 To gallage on 6871 tons of coal @ 1/- £343-11-0

Deduct an allowance towards pulling down one and buildingtwo bridges – Cost near £100

Ditto an allowance for want of railroad to carry off coalsfrom March 98 to March 99

Ditto an allowance for extra expence of hauling coals1104 tons at 1/6 per ton £72-16-0 this through the want of railroad made a loss on the coals instead ofprofit

Ditto an allowance towards 4 months expences of boats, horses and men in 1799 through theunfinished state of the canal

I must of course leave these blanks for Sir Chas Morgan to fill up according to his wonted liberality, but hewill give me chance to be satisfied with his decision.

As to the commencement of the rent I scarcely know what to say. I should indeed feel happy whether thecanal was finished or not, if the quantity of coals I could get down would but enable me to pay the rent. Butto pay the rent when the canal, the only road to profit, is not navigable certainly cannot be pleasing.

In a few months I shall be able to send off 50 tons of coal per day this if the canal was always navigable wouldleave me a profit thus.

300 days at 50 tons per day would be 15,000 tons per annum which at 1/6 per ton clear to pay rent and profitand this would be very handsome would make £1125-0-0

Rent of coalery and wharf 650-0-0

Profit £475-0-0

But if the canal is shut only 100 days in the year see how different the account will then stand

200 days at 50 tons per day would be 10,000 tons per annum which at 1/6 per ton (as above) would be£725

Rent 650

Canal shut 100 days my expenses would be

6 boats @ 13 per day

4 horses 14

13 men 1 -8-4 say only £2-10 per day would be 250

4 boys 4-0 £900 2-19-4 then after selling ten thousand tons of coal in a year I should have a loss of 175

725

Sir Chas Morgan will see from this the situation I stand in and will no doubt determine accordingly.

I do not wish that the rent should any longer remain in a state of uncertainty and therefore propose that therent shall commence from 21 Dec last making a deduction of as many days rent as the canal may be shut forwant of water and making alterations and amendments etc. This will be bringing matters to a conclusion andI doubt not will meet the approbation of Sir Chas Morgan and yours also.

I will thank you to lay this statement before Sir Chas Morgan as soon as may be and to favour me with hisdetermination.

I am Sir

Your most Obedient humble servant

Edward Jones

53

Reviews

Railways in the Landscape: how they transformed the face of Britain — Gordon Biddle216pp, 255x180mm, 147 illustrations (98 colour), hardback, Pen & Sword, 47 Church Street, Barnsley, South YorkshireS70 2AS <www.pen-and-sword.co.uk>, 2016, ISBN 978 1 47386 2 357, £25

No-one is better suited than Gordon Biddle (one ofour Society’s founding members) to produce thiscompact readable survey of the visual impact thatrailways have had on the British landscape. Hispreface and comprehensive bibliography brilliantlyplace the book in context. In five themed chaptershe describes ‘Transforming the rural scene’ from thebirth of railways, covering routes, civil engineering,viaducts and tunnel portals; ‘Country stations andbuildings’ (houses, signal boxes, engine sheds andyards), explaining how vernacular architecture usinglocal materials in the early period gave way tocompany standard designs using ubiquitousmaterials now available because of railway transportand then to a third period towards the end of thenineteenth century that was born in reaction tostandardised fashions and mass-production; ‘Thecoast’, covering the development of resorts andrailway ports; ‘Townscapes’ (perhaps the bestchapter), analysing how railways were allowed intoLondon and provincial towns and cities, the sitingof termini, goods yards and warehouses and thecorresponding development of suburbs; and ‘Placesthe railways made’, recognising the differencebetween new railway towns, railway villages and themore common occurrence of railway enclaves inexisting towns.

Themes are drawn from many examples each onedescribed assertively within the text from the author’s

encyclopaedic critical knowledge of his subject.Illustrations, without exception, dramatically supportthe text. The book’s usability is enhanced by anoverall feeling that Biddle is describing the now andnot what used to be; if he does mention a building orfeature that has gone then he tells us, but generallyhe describes what is still there to be seen. A sixth,short, chapter points out how abandoned railwayscontinue to mould the landscape and how some havedefined later road building projects. The seventhchapter then deals, with equal relevance, with themodern railway scene from the 1923 grouping to thepresent, including Crossrail and the plans for HS2(whose impact on the landscape, Biddle comments,‘will certainly be far less than that of the great gashmade by the M40 motorway through the same area,accompanied by continuous traffic noise’).

A final chapter ‘A Case Study of LandscapeChange’ compares in some detail the present dayroute of the former London & Birmingham Railwayfrom Euston with the illustrations by J C Bourne atthe time of its construction. Whilst the Euston Archis gone, the terminus at Birmingham is convenientlythe surviving Curzon Street which allows thislovingly written book to finish with another positivemention of the future HS2.

STEPHEN ROWSON

Great North of Scotland Railway Road Services: railway buses in north-east Scotland 1854–1930 — Mike Mitchell128pp, A4, 140 photographs (4 colour), 8 drawings, 2 maps, softback, Great North of Scotland Railway Association,Keith Fenwick, 31 Brackley Lane, Abthorpe, Towcester NN12 8QJ <www.gnsra.org.uk>, 2016, ISBN 978 090234329 0, £15

The Great North of Scotland was the smallest ofBritain’s major railway companies before thegrouping and was also peripheral geographically,covering an area to the northeast of Aberdeen, butits network of associated road services wassignificant (the third most important amongst railwayoperators in 1904) and this study dealscomprehensively with them.

The volume’s first main chapter summarises roadservices in the area in the pre-railway age and after,

when there was an extensive network of ‘coaches inconnection’ with the trains from the GNSR’sfounding in 1854. Not only did the road servicesinvolve passengers but the railway had aconsiderable goods collection and distributionnetwork.

The story of the motorised road services coversless than thirty years (1904–1930) but there is plentyto fill what is admittedly a slim, if large format, volumelavishly filled with illustrations. Major topics covered

54

include relations with non-GNSR road services andtheir often different fares; and the effect of the GreatWar on bus operations, with shortages of vehicles,spares and the transport of wounded soldiers.

Not long after the war came the Great North’sabsorption into the London & North Eastern Railwaywhich did not lack enterprise in matters like newroutes and rolling stock, but it was an uphill strugglewith non-railway motor firms, a countrywide problemmade worse in northeast Scotland by its comparativelack of population. Some cutbacks were inevitable –but not the always popular and profitable Ballater–Braemar route which the LNER extended at the easternend into Aberdeen.

The Railway (Road Transport) Act 1928 had lesseffect in a way than on other railways’ road services,about which questions could be asked as to theirlegality, whereas the inherited GNSR operations hadbeen legalised by a Provisional Order in 1906. By

1930, however, the LNER’s road services generallygave in to pressure and were transferred toW Alexander & Sons Ltd whose successors operatemany routes today. Railway-run freight services inthe area continued to run under the LNER for muchof the 1930s.

This book is a model of its kind and it is difficult toconceive of its subject being covered better than itis here. Day to day operations including accidentsand staffing details are entertainingly dealt with.Appendices cover the fleet, liveries, service depots,financial returns, drivers’ duties, staff lists, ‘coachesin connection’ 1861–1899 and the GNSR’s motor rulebook for 1919. Small-scale but clear maps, areasonably full bibliography and list of sources(primary and secondary) add to the book’s value asdo the endnotes to each chapter. Particularlyrecommended.

PHILIP L SCOWCROFT

The Railway Goods Shed and Warehouse in England — John Minnis with Simon Hickman137pp, 210x210mm, 79 photographs (52 colour), 4 diagrams, softback, Historic England, The Engine House, FireFly Avenue, Swindon SN2 2EH, 2016, ISBN 978 1 84802 328 4, £14.99

Historic England is a Government servicechampioning England’s heritage and giving adviceon conservation of a variety of items which make upthe scene of the country.

Since the inception of railways it has always beennecessary to set up depots where goods may betransferred between rail and, mainly, road transport.Whilst the carriage of small loads of a wagonload orless has long ceased, transfers during despatch andreceipt of goods remain an essential as a part of theeconomy.

This nicely produced book is divided into two mainparts, firstly seven chapters of description thenpages 100 to 124 which comprise a valuable gazetteerof extant or lost good sheds and warehouses listedby pre-grouping company and location (includingnational grid references). There is also a 2-pagebibliography. Apparently some 70 more depots havebeen ‘discovered’ since the publication of the book.The variety of remains might be illustrated by thesituation at five successive stations on the reviewer’slocal line – closed 1952 and still standing, renovatedas a restaurant, vanished under new factories orhousing and, finally, still in use by builders merchantsfor road transfer.

The seven short text chapters describe the riseand fall of the railway goods depot. Chapter 1

(8 pages) looks at the basic organisation of a shedwith examples large and small, some dating from theearliest days of the railway. Chapter 2 deals withspecific examples with design detail. Chapter 3 (11pages) will delight railway modellers for its colourillustrations of numerous sheds although themodelling of a large depot such as LondonBishopsgate or Lincoln is beyond most! The 26pages of chapter 4 (‘Company Designs’) will providean interesting browse for home or travel while chapter5 describes large goods and warehouses includingthe interior of these massive buildings, which weredifficult for the layman or historian to visit becauseof the need for security.

By the 1920s the decline of railway wagonloadand ‘smalls’ traffic and the introduction of modernmaterials in construction meant that brick gave wayto concrete and steel sheds (chapter 6, ‘The 20thCentury’) and several illustrations deal with this typeup to about 1960. Finally one of the authors (SH)has written nine pages on conservation includingexamples of re-use as offices or a brewery butretaining as much historic fabric as possible.

RICHARD TYSON

55

Train Doctor: troubleshooting with diesel and electric traction — Roger Seniorx, 214pp, 245x171mm, 157 illustrations (chiefly colour), hardback, Pen & Sword, 47 Church Street, Barnsley, SouthYorkshire S70 2AS <www.pen-and-sword.co.uk>, 2016, ISBN 978 1 47383 803 1, £25

Every year around a dozen books are published aboutdiesel and electric traction but are rarely worth asecond glance. This book is an exception. Theincreasing complexity of railway technology duringthe past 50 years, particularly in the fields of motivepower and signalling, has created a major knowledgegap between railway enthusiasts and historians onthe one hand and professional railway managers andengineers on the other which didn’t exist in the daysof steam. The following quotation from the book (p68) epitomises this change: ‘It has been said that inthe steam days faults took three minutes to find butthree days to fix. In diesel days it was three days tofind a fault and three minutes to fix. Looking at the… problem [on a class 91 electric locomotive] thistook six months to find and probably only six minutesto fix.’ This glimpse into the real world of moderntraction is therefore a significant contribution to theliterature and certainly deserves our notice.

This is an autobiographical account of RogerSenior’s career, starting as an electrician on diesellocomotive maintenance at Leeds in 1968. He becameincreasingly involved in fault-finding investigationson diesel locomotives, particularly after theintroduction of HSTs on the East Coast Main Line in1978. When intermittent faults were reported whichcould not be replicated and solved at the depot, thiscould involve travelling on the locomotives inservice. When electric services were introduced onthe ECML in 1988–9, the author was asked to workas a temporary Technical Riding Inspector (TRI) onthe new class 91 locomotives and Mark IV train sets.

In most cases he was able to rectify the problem or atleast enable the train to keep running on reducedpower, thus minimising disruption to passengers. Acost-benefit analysis of what he achieved led to thejob being extended beyond his retirement sixteenyears later and expanded into a team of six under hisleadership.

Much of the text describes the variety of faultsand incidents that the TRIs had to deal with – eachone at least a minor, if not a major, drama – withchapters on related topics, such the York Control,the introduction and function of the ‘Thunderbird’rescue locos, and the effects of privatisation. It endswith a detailed account of the ‘Mallard Project’, themajor overhaul, after 15 years in service, of the MarkIV fleet, incorporating improved safety featuresarising from the recommendations of recent accidentinquiries, as well as a full refurbishment and updatingof the passenger environment.

There is much here about railway work that doesnot appear in most railwaymen’s autobiographicalwritings. What comes through strongly is theauthor’s commitment to the job, never knowing fromday to day when he would get back home. Thepublishers were right not to polish the author’scolloquial style, which gives added authenticity.However, they should have inserted a key to hismany technical abbreviations. The reproduction ofhalf of the photographs at a size smaller than a railticket detracts from the quality of the production.

GRAHAME BOYES

Stephenson’s Rocket, 1829 onwards – owners’ workshop manual: an insight into the design,construction, operation and maintenance of the iconic steam locomotive — Richard Gibbon156pp, 220x270mm, 228 illustrations (190 colour), 31 drawings, hardback, Haynes Publishing, Sparkford, Yeovil,Somerset BA22 7JJ <http://haynes.com>, 2016, ISBN 978 1 78521 0631, £22.99

‘What is fascinating about the anatomy of Rocket isthat if George or Robert Stephenson were confrontedwith the last steam locomotive built in the 1960s,they would no doubt be able to understand themachine and even drive it’.

The chapter titles are: ‘The Rocket story’ (whichincludes the Rainhill trials and its becoming a museumexhibit); ‘The anatomy of Rocket’; ‘Driving, firingand riding on Rocket’; ‘Maintaining Rocket’; ‘Rocketreplicas’; ‘The value of replicas’ and ‘Epilogue – thelegacy’.

Right at the start the author acknowledges his debtto The Engineering and History of Rocket byMichael Bailey and John Glithero and the readerbecomes very aware of his close association with allthe aspects listed in the sub-title especially with thecontinued preservation of a highly significanthistorical artefact and the furtherance of ourunderstanding of it through the ever more carefuldesign of replicas. There is an excellent extensiveindex and a glossary. The pictorial element is verystrong, but in some cases a larger image might have

56

been better. These include pages from the Raistricknotebooks.

Contemporary accounts of riding on the Rocketare relatively few: those of Fanny Kemble (an actress);Thomas Creevey (a politician) and Edward Entwhistleare relatively well known but are incorporated plus apiece of justifiable faction wherein the authorimagines working on the Liverpool & ManchesterRailway as the fireman. Obviously this is faction ofthe very highest order as he has considerableexperience of handling the replicas. This aspectcaptures the thrill of handling something so very farremoved from today’s technological environment:

getting the locomotive into reverse is as complex ason an early automobile and is a source ofconsiderable amusement to those in the know.

The reviewer’s initial reaction was: ‘a workshopmanual for the Rocket: how ridiculous’ (thinking ofthe oil-stained one for his Hillman Hunter), but thebibliographical scaffolding is highly appropriate, notonly for Rocket, but for Flying Scotsman andTornado (also featured in this series). The author isa Chartered Mechanical Engineer and former Headof Engineering at the National Railway Museum.

KEVIN JONES

Atlas of the Southern Railway — Richard Harman & Gerry Nichols224pp, 210x295mm, 151 maps, hardback, Ian Allan, Addlestone, Surrey KT15 2SF, 2016, ISBN 978 0 7110 3829 5, £30

This detailed atlas of the entire Southern Railway (SR)network is based on original track diagrams of thethree constituents: the London & South WesternRailway, the South Eastern & Chatham Railway andthe London, Brighton & South Coast Railway. Thefull extent of the SR from 1923 to 1947 is mapped andsignificant changes in this period are shown. Single,double and even quadruple track lines aredistinguished and sidings, stations (includingplatforms), tunnels, signal-boxes, level crossings,bridges and viaducts are also shown and named. Themapping also includes industrial lines (of which thereare a surprising number) as well as minor lines suchas the Romney, Hythe & Dymchurch, the Volk’sElectric Railway at Brighton and the Lynton CliffRailway but apparently not the other seasidefuniculars or urban tramways. Miniature railwayssuch as the short-lived Surrey Border and CamberleyRailway are not shown.

The maps are printed only in black but are veryclear as the only other geographic features shownapart from the railways are the coastline and majorrivers. This enables a lot of information to be includedon the maps such as opening and closing dates andstation name changes. The scale of the main maps isnot explicitly stated but is about 1½ miles to the inch,but significantly large scales are used for complexareas.

There is a comprehensive index and separateindexes of bridges and viaducts, depots and enginesheds, industrial and military railways, level crossings,locations and signal-boxes, sidings, stations andtunnels. This book is clearly intended to be a workof reference but it is also enjoyable just to browsethrough. It appears to have been carefully proof-read and no significant errors have been noticed.

RICHARD COULTHURST

Rails in the Road: a history of tramways in Britain and Ireland — Oliver Green269pp, 282x215mm, 405 illustrations (144 colour), hardback, Pen & Sword, 47 Church Street, Barnsley, South YorkshireS70 2AS, 2016, ISBN 978 1 47382 223 8, £30

New York’s first urban street railway was built in 1832.Why was it not until 1860 that Britain’s firstexperimental urban tramway was trialled inBirkenhead? And did its promoter, the brash self-publicist, George Francis Train, actually have the effectof delaying the acceptability of tramways, particularlyin London? Was the Tramways Act 1870, with itsrequirement for 21-year leases, a help or a hindrance?Why were the alternatives to horse traction – steam,cable and compressed air – generally unsatisfactory?What was the social and economic effect of the

speedy transition to electric trams and the resultantextension of the tramway networks? Was the declineafter the First World War inevitable? And why hasthere been a resurgence of urban light railwayschemes in the last couple of decades? These arejust some of the questions discussed by the author,who is a former Head Curator of the LondonTransport Museum and has become its first ResearchFellow.

The scope of the book is wide, including ruraltramways such as the Wisbech & Upwell, funicular

57

railways, the Tyne & Wear Metro and the DocklandsLight Railway. Trams are considered in their political,social and economic context, not over-emphasisingthe vehicles themselves though he discusses themanufacturers and the extent to which technologyand equipment was imported. The narrative seemsperhaps less balanced when considering the costsand benefits of modern light railways. For example,it is said that ‘over 30 per cent of Greater Nottingham’spopulation now live within 800m of a tram stop’; analternative statement of the same facts – ‘two-thirdsof Greater Nottingham’s population live more thanhalf a mile from a tram stop’ – would give a completelydifferent impression.

One great virtue of this book is the variety andquality of its copious illustrations, includingadvertisements, cigarette cards, cartoons andpaintings. It is fortunate that the ‘golden age oftrams’ coincided with the ‘golden age of postcards’– a time when postcards did not just record prettyscenes but also showed events and ordinary streetlife – and these help show why trams existed andhow for a couple of decades they were so successful.

This is an excellent single-volume overview of thehistory of British tramways, with a good balance oftext and illustrations, attractively presented – truly aquality production.

PETER BROWN

The Industrial Archaeology of Shropshire — Barrie Trinder296pp, 240x170mm, 205 illustrations (144 colour), 10 maps & plans, softback, Logaston Press, Little Logaston,Woonton, Hereford HR3 6QH, 2016, ISBN 978 1 910839 05 8, £15

Shropshire is England’s largest inland county. Itsindustrial history comprises much more than theIronbridge area – other parts of the county had coaland metalliferous mines, quarries for building stoneand limestone, foundries and forges, textile mills,paper mills, potteries, brick-making and industriesassociated with agriculture, for example. This bookcovers them all, the main omission being agriculturalbuildings.

This wider study of industry is important for thetransport historian as it provides a context for thedevelopment of the various transport networks.These have their own 42-page chapter titled ‘Linear

landscapes’, covering the river Severn, canals,railways, roads and pipelines, supplemented by anappendix detailing the turnpike roads and theirtollhouses. Tramroads are dealt with in otherchapters, in association with the industries whichthey served.

The first edition of this book was published in1995. For this second edition the text has beentightened, new information added, and extraphotographs (many in colour) included. For thedepth of the research, the comprehensiveness of itscoverage and the clarity of its writing, it is Britain’sbest county or sub-regional survey of industrialhistory and its visible evidence.

PETER BROWN

Vertical Boiler Locomotives and Railmotors built in Great Britain, Vol. 2 — Philip J Ashforth& Vic Bradley296pp, 273x215mm, 290 illustrations (29 colour), hardback, Industrial Locomotive Society,77 Station Crescent, Rayleigh,Essex SS6 8AR, ISBN 978 0 9540726 4 3, £29.95

Vertical boilers appealed to engineers from theearliest days of railways with the appearance ofBraithwaite and Ericson’s Novelty and TimothyBirstall’s Perseverance at the Rainhill trials. Theattraction of simplicity of construction and rapid steamraising was however offset by limitations of feasiblesize and low steam reservoir capacity, summed up inGeorge Stephenson’s reported dialect report onNovelty: ‘..hers got nae goots’. Such locomotiveseventually only proved of utility as small shuntinglocos, tram engines and as a power source for light

railcars.Small producers, such as Chaplin & Co. of Glasgow

and De Winton & Co. of Caernarvon, produceduseful industrial shunting locos in Victorian times.Tram locomotives built to William Wilkinson’s patentby several prominent locomotive manufacturersenjoyed a brief flowering before the arrival of theelectric tram. There was a similar brief period duringthe main railways’ Edwardian railmotor era whichendured only on the Great Western Railway. Thearrival of high pressure boilers, particularly from the

58

Sentinel Company, revived the type over the period1923–1957. Indeed that company produced moreunits and locomotives than all the others combinedand occupies over a third of this book.

This work, with the original volume by RowlandAbbott (published in 1989), describes all knowncompanies and products utilising vertical boilers,ranging from the relatively conventional to thefrankly weird. The authors and fellow researchers

have done a magnificent job in tracking these downin forensic detail. It is not, however, an easy readand is handicapped by the format which not onlyadds to the first volume but also replaces,supplements and amends that work in part, sometimesrequiring cross reference. Perhaps a consolidatedvolume might have been more satisfactory for thereader. Nevertheless this is a formidable work ofresearch and reference for the specialist.

BRIAN JANES

Building London’s Underground — Antony Badsey-Ellis376pp, 239x168mm, 175 illustrations (38 colour), 76 maps, plans & diagrams, hardback, Capital Transport, 117 OldRoar Road, St Leonards-on-Sea TN37 7HD, 2016, ISBN 978 1 85414 397 6, £30

Much of this volume’s subject matter goes unseen,or unnoticed, by travellers on the London Tube. Thebook is aimed at the interested layman and exploresthe evolution of civil engineering practice as appliedto the Underground, from the original section of theMetropolitan Railway opened in 1863 up to andincluding Crossrail.

Coverage is essentially chronological but thesubject is too vast for the book to consider every

scheme; its 25 sections concentrate on major workssuch as the building of new (mainly below-ground)lines and the modernisation of existing lines andstations – a process which started very early on.(Much of the expensive and disruptive liftreplacement work described here might have beenavoided if escalators had been perfected ten yearsearlier, but the pendulum is now swinging backtowards the provision of lifts to facilitate step-free

Commuter: the history of a British way of life — Simon Webb150pp, 235x157mm, 20 photographs, softback, Pen & Sword, 47 Church Street, Barnsley, South Yorkshire S70 2AS,2016, ISBN 978 1 47386 290 6, £12.99

Whilst eminently readable, this book provides aninteresting mix of styles, emulating Bill Bryson in anoften tangential approach to the subject, but alsotaking on a teaching mode by involving the readeras ‘we’ and providing recaps of previous content. Itprovides a reminder that there have been few attemptsto record passenger involvement in the transportmodes that many of us study and certainly does notadd significantly to a definitive account of that topic.

An examination of the bibliography providessurprising omissions in the list of books that theauthor has consulted and several books used forquotes in the narrative are not included. Unqualifiedstatistics are often quoted without reference to theirorigin. A reasonably useful index is provided.

Much reliance is placed on fictional referencesfrom books, films and television programmes to movethe narrative forward, when alternative real worldevidence was probably obtainable and possibly morerelevant. That is not necessarily a criticism, as itunclear whether the author is aiming to engage with

anyone beyond a general reader. That belief isperhaps extended when examining the fewsupporting and uninspired illustrations, individuallyreferred to in the text, but gathered together off-centrein the book. While setting out to tell the story ofBritish commuters, the accounts provided areLondon-centric with, even then, a partiality to eventsoccurring north of the Thames. Waterbornecommuting across the Mersey and Solent does notrate a mention, nor does the considerable use ofcycles and motorcycles by commuters.

In addition to many typos, there are a number ofcomplete inaccuracies: West Drayton, for example,is not a station on the tube system, nor is it threemiles from Moorgate; terrorist actions were sustainedat Edgware Road Station, not Edgware. Furthermore,the author seems to have a fixed belief that GoldersGreen and Edgware are in Metro-Land, as referred toin the text and captions for illustrations – not true!

BRIAN & ANGELA JONES

59

access.) Tunnelling practice, as might be expected,occupies a major part of the book but we also learnabout station layout and construction, powersupply, flood protection and the complexities ofavoiding or rerouting existing railways, sewers,pipes and cables. The book’s focus is on situationswhere novel or notably ingenious techniques wereused, meaning that many worthwhile but morestraightforward projects such as the replacementof Wood Lane station by White City are touchedon only briefly, if at all. One curious error, though,is that the Northern Outfall Sewer, situated in EastLondon, is stated to have been reconstructed aspart of the rebuilding of Bond Street station. Thespace factor also means that depots, works and

above-ground lines receive little attention; rollingstock is considered mainly in terms of its dimensions.

The book is well written by a knowledgeableauthor, although anyone who is not a civil engineeris likely to come across some unfamiliar technicalterms. Crossrail, a project which is both major andstill in progress, gets particularly generous treatment.The illustrations are well chosen and although someof them have appeared elsewhere, this is perhapsinevitable in a field where appropriate images are few.Three appendices summarise contractors andengineers, the dimensions of tunnels and of ringsegments. There is a good bibliography but the indexis not quite detailed enough.

GRAHAM BIRD

Paisley & Barrhead District Railway — Jack Kernahan120pp, 275x215mm, 140 illustrations, 28 maps, softback, Lightmoor Press (with Caledonian Railway Association),Unit 144b, Lydney Harbour Estate, Harbour Road, Lydney GL15 5ES, ISBN 9781911038 10 8, £15

The two towns in the title are respectively west andsouthwest of Glasgow and about 4 miles apart.There were a number of attempts to link them untilthis scheme was authorised in 1897 with strong localsupport. It included two routes around Paisley toavoid construction in the town centre but still toconnect with existing lines. But construction wasslow, even after the Caledonian took over in 1902and sunk about £750,000 in the line, which theauthor equates to approximately £268 million atpresent day values and compares with £294 millionneeded to restore the Borders railway.Unfortunately, while the line was being built, electrictrams started running between the two towns andin the end there was no point in opening the sevenpassenger stations constructed on the line. It wasonly ever used for goods traffic.

The beginning of the twentieth century saw anumber of new railway schemes all constructed tohigh engineering standards and whose constructionwas well documented by both official and amateurphotographers. This has provided the author witha rich source to illustrate the book and demonstrate

construction techniques at a time when somemechanisation had been introduced but much wasstill done manually.

The book starts by looking at earlier schemesbefore describing the promotion and construction indetail. The competing Glasgow & South WesternRailway also features, as it promoted its own line inthe district at the same time. The limited use made ofthe line is described as is its steady but inevitabledecline until closure in the 1960s. Interestingsidelines include the use of one of the stations todisplay the Caledonian’s First World War ambulancetrain in 1915. The line also served the Pressed Steelplant. Brand new Glasgow Blue Trains were hauledon the branch by CR locomotives such as 0–4–4Tsas they were equipped with Westinghouse brakes.

The presentation of the book is very good, withclear photographic reproduction. It is recommendedto anyone with a Scottish interest or who wants toknow more about one of the less successful railwayinvestments of the early part of the twentieth century.

KEITH FENWICK

60

Rod Fowkes spent most of his working life withBritish Rail, initially in the Midlands and latterly inCornwall. Starting as a junior porter, he progressedto the control offices at Leicester and Nottinghamwhere he was Assistant Passenger Controller.Continuing his progress through the grades, he thenbecame Traction Arranger at Toton Yard but when itlater became clear that marshalling yards weredoomed he was fortunate to be able to make a changeof direction, fulfilling a long-held ambition to work inthe West Country. In 1978 he moved to Laira, initiallyas Movements Supervisor, and his final post wasDuty Manager.

The book’s earlier chapters bring out particularlywell the challenges of introducing change to longestablished but inefficient practices in the days whentypewritten memos and notices were a principal formof internal communication. In certain areas ‘Spanishcustoms’ were common and operating decisions –such as whether to hold advertised connections –sometimes depended on personalities rather than the

From Clerk to Controller: a life on the railways 1957–1996 — Rod Fowkes248pp, 246x173mm, 166 photographs (135 colour), 10 maps & diagrams, approx. 100 reproductions of BR internaldocuments, hardback, 2016, Pen & Sword, 47 Church Street, Barnsley, South Yorkshire S70 2AS, ISBN 9781 4738 44162, £25

rulebook. However the author’s free use of termssuch as ‘a lethargic bunch of incompatibles’ and‘incompetence personified’ leave little doubt as tohis views of certain individuals. But Rod is clearlyan enthusiast and among his later achievements wasthe organisation of a well received open day. Theintricacies of dealing with this and other tasks, suchas the handling of visiting enthusiast rail tours andthe movement of a group of withdrawn diesellocomotives, are described in some detail. Along theway we also learn something of his familybackground.

This is a well produced work and the illustrationsare of good quality, but some are virtually identicalwith others and could have been omitted. Much ofthe book is taken up with copies of detailed internalmemoranda, reports, TOPS printouts and the like;the cynic may feel that a number of these have beenincluded as makeweights, but others will no doubtbe fascinated by their content. There is no index orbibliography.

GRAHAM BIRD

Dark Days and Brighter Days for Northern Ireland Railways — Edwin McMillan288pp, 260x210mm, 123 photographs (87 colour), 4 maps, 17 diagrams, softback, Colourpoint Books, ColourpointHouse, Jubilee Business Park, 21 Jubilee Road, Newtonards BT23 4YH, 2016, ISBN 978 1 78073 094 3, £18

Northern Ireland may be smaller than the historiccounty of Yorkshire but for many years it has had itsown railway company which has had an interestingbut difficult history. Like the railways in the south ofIreland and in Britain, the railways in the north werenationalised after the Second World War. In all threeareas the nationalised railways began as a part of amonolithic structure that also embraced roadtransport. At different times and in different waysthe monoliths were dismantled. Nationalisation inthe north began with the Ulster Transport Authoritybut in 1967 this gave way to Northern IrelandRailways and Ulsterbus.

This book is essentially a detailed account of thehistory of the railway company since its formation in1967. To a certain extent it is an inside history in thatit has been written by a former employee who madehis own records of developments. As is to beexpected, the author deals at length with the troubles,with two of ten chapters devoted to them whileappendices list most of the incidents. Indeed, one

can only marvel at the way the railways continued tooperate in this period and the dedication of the staff.

The various physical, traffic and administrativechanges are well detailed. Indeed, during Edwin’speriod with NIR there were major developments whichincluded re-opening stations and opening new onestogether with new rolling stock. But the onlydisappointment is that the author does not seem tohave attempted to focus in any detail on the internaland external politics of NIR which is surprising as atone time he was Assistant Company Secretary. Hedoes however relate how in 1986 consideration wasgiven to extending the remit of the British TransportPolice to NIR. The book is well illustrated andincludes many of the author’s photographs. It maynot be a full business history of the state-ownedcompany in an academic sense but it is a must foranyone who wants to familiarise themselves with awell run company that has had more than its fairshare of difficulties.

JOHN KING

61

The Story of the Irish Mail — William Davies200pp, 215x137mm, 88 photographs, 10 maps, softback, Llygad Gwalch, Ysgubor Plas, Llwyndyrys, Pwllheli, GwyneddLL53 6UY, 2016, ISBN 978 1 84524 254 1, £8.50

This is a useful contribution to the history of theIrish Mail in that it brings together many strands inthe story. Essentially it is the story of what is claimedto be the oldest named train in the world, althoughthe author takes the reader back to its earlier origins.The transfer of the mail contract from road to rail isneatly detailed while the development of the port ofHolyhead is not ignored. The author has made gooduse of published sources while he has made extensiveuse of primary sources, ranging from files in the NRMat York to county record offices in Wales, althoughthere is no mention of Irish archives. The author’sone time employment by British Rail and residenceat Holyhead must have been helpful. Some of the

illustrations have never been published. The author’suse of relevant books is reflected by a usefulbibliography but it is a pity that there is no index.

The big disappointment is that the author doesnot appear to have made a real effort to understandthe complex politics of the history, although hediscusses the LNWR regaining the mail contract fromthe City of Dublin Steam Packet Company in 1920after 70 years. It was the 1930s that saw intensepolitics involving British and Irish railways, postalauthorities, government departments and airlines.The book is spoiled by some clumsy English andweak punctuation.

JOHN KING

Highland Survivor: the story of the Far North line — David Spaven314pp, 232x155mm, 82 photographs (65 colour), 6 maps, gradient profile, softback, Kessock Books, Box 421, 24Station Square, Inverness IV1 1LD <www.kessockbooks.com>, 2016, ISBN 978 0 9930296 4 6, £16.99 (p&p £3.50)

The railway from Inverness to Wick and Thursofollows a long and sinuous route, serving an area ofsparse population. It has always been difficult tooperate, with single track and steep gradients andsubject to extreme weather conditions, yet twice ithandled the challenge of greatly increased wartimetraffic. Vulnerable to road competition, it survivedthe threat of closure in the Beeching Report and thedestruction of the Ness viaduct by floods in 1989.Improvements to the A9, including three new bridges,have made the railway less competitive in somerespects, but it continues to cling to life.

The focus of this book is the story of the line’ssurvival since the 1950s told by someone who, formuch of that time, has been closely associated withit in a professional capacity as a railway managerand consultant. There are three parts. The first is aconcise history of the origins, development andoperation of the line through to the earlynationalisation period, compiled from secondarysources. The second takes the story throughBeeching and the various campaigns that led toreprieve. The third deals in detail with the ups anddowns of the post-Beeching era and looks at theline’s prospects. Appendices list some notablestructures on the line, crossing loops and token-

exchange points. There is a short bibliography, a listof archive sources and a brief index. Some sourcereferences are made via endnotes, but this is notdone consistently since there are also many in-textreferences. A significant number of publicationsreferred to in both text and endnotes are omitted fromthe bibliography.

The meat of the book is the detailed and informedaccount of the struggles against closure proposalsand changing traffic, drawing extensively on recordsfrom the Highland Archive at Inverness. Theseinclude documents relating to various campaigns tosave and promote the line, notably the papers of theauthor’s father, Frank Spaven, a civil servant whosemove to Inverness in 1966 had introduced his son tothe line. There are pertinent analyses of traffic andoperations, including staffing and rolling stock, andthe book is illustrated with relevant photographs.The author writes with enthusiasm and authority,advocating local management to enable the line’scontinued survival, and emphasising the importanceof developing local traffic south of Tain andpromoting tourism on the northern section. It isimportant reading for those interested in recentrailway history.

TIM EDMONDS

62

Cockerel’s in the Cut: remembering a working boatman’s life — John Blunn with LucyWaldron74pp, 240x185mm, 31 photographs (7 colour), softback, The Canal Book Shop, The Wharf, Audlem, Cheshire CW30DX, 2nd edition, 2016, ISBN 978-0-9955180-0-1, £10.95

Past & Present Waterways. Border canals: Middlewich to Llangollen — Ray Shill160pp, 240mm x185mm, 202 illustrations (76 colour), 9 maps & plans, softback, The Canal Bookshop, The Wharf,Audlem, Cheshire CW3 0DX, 2016, ISBN 978 0 9574037 6 5, £16.95 + £ 3.75 p&p

This is the second edition of a book first publishedin 2008; it now includes enlarged and updatedmaterial, and overall forms another valuablepublication by The Canal Book Shop. The authorgrew up on working narrow boats between 1934 andaround 1959, and much of the book comprises amemoir of that period; between 1970 and retirementin 1994 he worked on maintenance on the ShropshireUnion Canal.

Mr Blunn tells us that, having never attendedschool, he was entirely self-taught, and the bookhas been edited by his step-daughter, Lucy Waldron.Her introduction stresses that the reader should‘hear’ John talking’. The style is thus conversational.

The story relates his upbringing working forFellows Morton & Clayton, then moving in wartimeto Thomas Clayton of Oldbury, where he became aboat captain in 1950; and finally to Samuel Barlow.Canals over which he worked included the ShropshireUnion, the BCN area, and the Grand Union, with tripsto Nottingham and Manchester. He relates a tough

childhood, with many accidents, long hours and hardwork, but one tempered by strong families and mutualhelp. He details problems in working horse-drawnand later diesel-engined boats, conveying usefulimpressions of practical ways that boats and cargoeswere handled.

This is very much a personal account, illustratedlargely with personal photographs. It includesbiographical details about his first wife, and a movingtribute after her death, while his second wifecontributes an afterword. The structure is somewhatodd: after a straight narrative, a section ‘AdditionalNotes’, written in 2016, amplifies some of the earlieraccount. Whilst this provides more details, parts aresometimes repeated; some closer editing might havehelped. Its value to the historian lies in the detailsand reflections on his life from someone with practicalexpertise (having met Mr Blunn briefly, I can vouchfor this) who is keen to pass this on.

JOSEPH BOUGHEY

This book should not be confused with the similarlytitled earlier work by Derek Pratt Waterways Past andPresent. The full title makes it clear that this book isconcerned only with those canals close to, orcrossing the Anglo-Welsh border.

It is essentially a photographic record consistingof a satisfying mixture of old and more recent imagesoriginating from various collections, notably that ofthe RCHS. Each picture is accompanied by aninformative extended caption.

After a brief introduction that outlines the centraltheme, the photographs (sadly many of themundated) follow short chapters based on specificlengths of waterway, expounding the genesis of eachproject together with the route revisions and abortedschemes. Although there is a map, there isinsufficient detail for those unfamiliar with the regionto put all the places mentioned in the narrative intotheir geographical setting. Canal building in thisregion was certainly a complex affair.

Subsequent chapters concern the tramroads andrailways associated with the canal, the amalgamatedcanals in the hands of the Shropshire Union Canaland LMS Railway (including the limestone, iron coaland other commodities carried), British Waterwaysand its successor the CRT and finally, the restorationschemes which began in 1969.

Unfortunately the reproduction of the photographsis variable. Particularly noticeable is the poor colourof some, suggesting uncorrected deterioration of oldslides. In addition, many of the monochrome picturesare excessively dark and murky. Nevertheless, TheCanal Book Shop is to be congratulated andencouraged; their recent entry into publishing islaudable. The title of this volume hints that it couldperhaps be the forerunner of a series. Let us hopeso.

JOHN HOWAT

63

Ashby Canal: past, present & future — Geoffrey E Pursglove121pp, 210x145mm, 118 illustrations (63 colour), 14 maps, 18 facsimiles, softback, Ambion Publishing, 1 Queen Street,Swadlincote DE12 7JE, 2016, ISBN 978 0 9935925 0 8, £9.95

This book is what you would expect from its lengthand title – an outline for the general public coveringbasic facts of a generally uneventful history,interleaved with reminiscences and historic personalprofiles. There are eight short chapters, includingone on coal mining which both inspired the canaland led to its demise owing to subsidence and closureof pits. Boats and carriers are covered, including theAshby Canal Association’s admirable history of coalcarrying. Finally preservation, and extensiverestoration, is explained in detail. The title shouldreally include the words ‘and railways’, both becauseparts of the authorised canal were built as tramwayand because there is a section on the parallel Ashbyand Nuneaton Joint Railway.

There are many illustrations, most with helpfulcaptions, but others not even dated or identified.There is an index and a timeline (‘chronologies’ areapparently out of fashion).

Maps are provided of various proposed routes,and of the tramway section of the canal, but with theglaring omission of even a diagrammatic map of thecanal as built. As there are also obviousdiscrepancies within the text itself, it raises the moregeneral question of why there is an apparent trendfor publishers not to employ an outside eye to lookfor these kinds of problems.

DAVID PEDLEY

Destination Western Front: London’s omnibuses go to war – Roy Larkin192pp, 245x175mm, 125 photographs, hardback, Historic Roadways, PO Box 6924, Tadley RG24 4UD<www.historicroadways.co.uk>, 2016, ISBN 978 0 9565014 6 2, £19.95 plus £4.00 p&p

For a self-published book the author has set himselfand achieved very high production standards. Theuse of good quality paper stock and a clear typeface,with carefully considered layouts, has produced abook that is good to look at and begs to be read.

Once a reader starts to become immersed in thecontent it becomes evident that the support of aneditor / proof reader would probably have improvedthe final product. It appears that the author is sokeen to share the results of his undoubtedly extensiveand thorough research that putting facts on pagesbecame more important than consideration ofnarrative flow and the timeline of events.

The subject matter, the use of buses and relatedlorries during the First World War in France andBelgium, is comprehensively examined using manycontemporary records and a wonderful selection ofwell presented photographs, which by themselveswould be worth the cost of the book. The creation oftransport units, the training of drivers and mechanics,transfer to the Continent and subsequentdeployment in action are all well documented. Thereare facts and statistics aplenty, but, even for a reader

with some previous knowledge of the subject, thosetopics need to be set into a relevant context. Theprovision of a chronology of the progress orotherwise of the armies in combat on the WesternFront and a number of small area maps showing theparticipation of the Army and Navy groups operatingand supporting the vehicle operations describedwould greatly assist general understanding.

It is unlikely, nevertheless, that a larger assemblyof detail related to the very considerable impact thatthe vehicles and their operating personnel created inthe grim war zones will easily be found. The dataand information collated, particularly in appendices,concerning units’ formation, training, disposition anddetailed movements will no doubt provideopportunities for others to develop further studies.The bibliography provided is sparse in detail and acomprehensive index would have been a welcomeaddition. While many of the points raised abovemay seem to be negative, the book can be thoroughlyrecommended as providing an interesting read andgood value for money.

BRIAN JONES

Ian Allan Publishing

In December 2016 it was announced that agreement had been reached for sale of Ian Allan Publishing titles(but not the imprint), the Oxford Publishing Company imprint and the ‘abc’ brand to Crécy Publishing ofManchester; the Ian Allan sales outlets are not affected by this arrangement. There may therefore bechanges to the distribution arrangements for books received for review prior to this change.

64

Brief Notes

The London, Tilbury & Southend Railway:a history of the company and line. Vol 5:Tilbury — Peter Kaypp331–426, A4, 175 photos, 40 plans, softback, PeterKay, 6c Park Road, Wivenhoe CO7 9NB<peterkay.essex@btinternet.com>, 2016, ISBN 978 1899890 49 1, £13.95

This latest volume in the series contains, not a generalhistory of the period 1959–1970 as previouslyenvisaged, but a comprehensive account of theTilbury stations and rail connections to the dockswith particular emphasis on the 1930 Tilbury Riversidestation and its origins. The only piece missing is ahistory of the Gravesend ferry, which is now promisedto constitute the next volume.

Bath’s Railways in photographs by J C Way— Neil Butters[48]pp, 175x240mm, 51 photographs, softback, StenlakePublishing, 54–58 Mill Square, Catrine KA5 6RD<www.stenlake.co.uk>, 2016, ISBN 978 1 84033741 9,£10

The first in an intended new series in small landscapeformat featuring the work of individual photo-graphers, this depicts (mostly) steam trains aroundBath between 1958 and 1966 with the Somerset &Dorset line strongly represented. This is a pictorialwork focussing on the trains rather than theinfrastructure.

The Lost Railways of London and Middlesex— Neil Burgess96pp, 273x210mm, 158 photographs, softback, StenlakePublishing, 54–58 Mill Square, Catrine KA5 6RD<www.stenlake.co.uk>, 2016, ISBN 978 1 84033740 2,£16

This is a photographic record of closed lines andstations in the Greater London area withaccompanying chronological tables. Some of theviews are familiar – inevitable given that many of thelocations were early casualties and hence attractedfew photographers – but are well reproduced andthe whole forms an a handy and attractive reference.

A Life on the Lines: the grand old man ofsteam — R H N Hardy192pp, 198x231mm, 196 photographs (7 colour),hardback, Bloomsbury Publishing (Conway), 50 BedfordSquare, London WC1B 3DP, 2016, ISBN 978-1-8448-6335-8, £16.99, also available as e-book

This is the lightly revised second edition of a bookwhich in its first carried the more meaningful subtitle‘a railwayman’s album’, being essentially a collectionof photographs of the railwaymen – chiefly steamfootplate crew – with whom Dick Hardy workedthrough his career. It communicates something ofthe fraternity of the railway service of his era butoffers only small glimpses into his experience ofmanagement.

The following two ‘Middleton’ books: 96pp, 236x166mm, about 120 photographs plus maps, timetables, tickets etc,hardback, Middleton Press, Easebourne Lane, Midhurst GU29 9AZ, 2016, £18.95 (post free)

Northampton to Peterborough including theSeaton Branch — Vic Mitchell & Keith SmithISBN 978 1 90817 492 5

The former London & North Western Railway cross-country routes named in the title closed topassengers in the 1960s although the eastern endwas reopened in the 1970s as the Nene Valley Railway.The photographs are up to the normal Middletonstandard and include many of the level crossingsand associated signal-boxes on the routes whilemaps, timetables, gradient profiles and ticketillustrations are provided as usual. The final twophotographs are devoted to the Railworld site atPeterborough.

Derby to Stoke-on-Trent, plus the lines toCheadle, Burton, Stoke and Stafford — VicMitchell & Keith SmithISBN 978 1 90817 486 4

Although the main route described in this volume isstill operational, illustrations of some long closedstations and other railway infrastructure on theselines are rare, and the authors have done well to tracesome very rare shots. Perhaps this explains thegreater number of maps than is the norm in this series.Proof reading is poor – even the title on the cover isin error!