DOCSLIB.ORG

The Financial Impact of the Great Central Railway's London Extension

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Financial Impact of the Great Central Railway's London Extension The financial impact of the Great Central Railway’s London extension By Tony Sheward © Tony Sheward 2020 1 THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY’S LONDON EXTENSION 1. Introduction The general opinion of authorities, who have written about the Great Central Railway’s (GCR) London Extension, seems to be that the project was not a financial success and acted as a drag on the company’s performance in the years following its opening. This article attempts to examine the financial results of the GCR in the years immediately leading up to the decision to commit to the project, the construction period, and operations from its opening up to 1913. It seeks to discover whether there were other factors, which influenced its financial performance either positively or negatively. For convenience, the title Great Central Railway is used throughout even though this name was not adopted by the Manchester, Sheffield & Lincolnshire Railway until 1897. A glossary of the abbreviations for the various lines is included at the end. The detailed financial figures are presented in four time periods as follows: a. The Immediate Years Prior to Work on the London Extension 1887-93 b. Construction of the London Extension Phase I 1894-99 c. Construction of the London Extension Phase II 1900-06 d. The Years after Completion of the London Extension Work 1907-13 The article takes as its main source the annual reports of GCR1 and the Railway Returns2. The historical background for the article is mainly taken from published sources, in particular the three-part history of the GCR by George Dow3 and the short history of the GCR by Robert Hartley.4 Although up to 1912, the annual reports were prepared in two half yearly tranches, the information in this article is presented by calendar year for ease of understanding and comparison. Also, 1913 was the first year in which the Railway Companies (Accounts and Returns) Act 1911 (the 1911 Act) took effect and yearly annual reports began. The figures for 1913 have been reconfigured to fit the reporting formats used up to 1912. 2. An Overview Before looking in detail at the figures for the years covered, it is useful to take a bird’s eye view of what happened to the GCR during that period. The following graphs are set out in Figures A-E: A. Gross Traffic Receipts from Passenger & Freight Trains B. Total Capital Receipts C. Net Revenue before Interest on Debentures and Loans, and Dividends D. Percentage Dividend on Ordinary Shares 2 E. Percentage Return on Capital versus Return on Long Term Debt and Consumer Prices Index The monetary figures are as reported in the accounts, but of course there was inflation over the period covered and this distorts the figures to some extent. The Bank of England’s inflation calculator gives some idea of the impact that it has had. The figures below show the purchasing power of £1 in 2018 pounds at five-year intervals over the period covered and for 1913: Year Equivalent in 2018 Pounds £ 1887 129.16 1892 124.81 1897 127.68 1902 120.74 1907 118.17 1912 112.20 1913 113.35 Between 1887 and 1913 the overall effect of inflation was relatively modest with the pound in 1887 having a purchasing power of £129.16 in 2018 pounds and £1 in 1913 £113.35. As can be seen above, there was not a smooth progression due to the cyclical nature of economic growth. The movement of the total gross traffic receipts over the four time periods in Figure A was as follows comparing the closing year of the previous period with the last year of the current period: Year Gross Year Gross Percentage Traffic Traffic Increase Receipts Receipts £m £m % 1886 1.709 1893 1.845 8.0 1893 1.845 1899 2.699 46.2 1899 2.699 1906 3.752 39.0 1906 3.752 1913 4.897 30.5 The above figures are distorted by the coal strike in 1893. If the year 1892 (£2.071m) is substituted, then the growth from 1886 to 1892 was 21.2 per cent and that from 1892 to 1899 was 30.3 per cent. On the basis of these figures, it can be seen that there was an increase in the rate of growth following Phase I of the London Extension, although this was not maintained in the years after Phase II was completed. The industrial relations problems that affected the rail, coal, cotton textiles and shipbuilding industries in 1908 and 1911-12 were partly responsible. In 1887, the GCR was predominantly a freight railway with gross receipts from freight trains making up 72.5 per cent of the total. The completion of the two Phases of the London 3 Extension did move the balance somewhat towards passenger trains, with 71.9 per cent of the total gross receipts coming from freight trains in 1899 and 70.1 per cent in 1906. However, in the years 1907-13 the percentage from freight trains began to edge up again reaching 73.3 per cent in 1913, slightly higher than it had been in 1887. In the graph, the plot for the total gross receipts is not unnaturally similar to that for the gross receipts from freight trains. The plot for the gross receipts from passenger trains is much smoother and less affected by the incidents of industrial unrest. The amount of capital received by the GCR from the issue of securities in Figure B during the four time periods were as follows: Period Capital Percentage Cumulative Received Increase Capital On 1887-1893 End of Period £m % £m To 1886 26.691 1887-1893 4.939 31.630 1894-1899 9.931 101.1 41.561 1900-1906 6.476 31.1 48.037 1907-1913 5.677 14.9 53.714 The first Phase of the London Extension required a more than doubling in the amount of capital received and, although Phase II needed less, it was still nearly a third more than during the pre-Extension period. After the two Phases were completed, capital received in the last period was nearer to the pre-Extension level, allowing for inflation. As will be seen in the detailed review of the years concerned below, this put a considerable burden on the GCR’s overall financial position. One instance of this was the use of various forms of working capital such as short-term loans and Lloyds Bonds. Hire purchase agreements for the supply of wagons had been used before 1887, but a special company, the Railway Rolling Stock Trust Ltd was formed to handle the hire purchase of the working stock for the Extension. Of course, not all of the capital required for the two Phases of the London Extension was raised directly by the GCR. In Phase I, the GCR formed a joint committee to use the Metropolitan Railway’s (MR) lines from Harrow to Quainton Road and rented a pair of tracks from Harrow to Canfield Place near Marylebone from the MR. In Phase II, it formed a joint committee with the Great Western Railway (GWR) to build a line from Northolt Junction to Ashendon Junction. The construction of the new Nottingham Victoria station was covered by a joint committee with the Great Northern Railway (GNR) and the GNR made advances to the GCR for its share of the cost. Similarly, the GWR made advances to the GCR for both the construction of the Banbury Branch and its share of the joint line. Although such arrangements reduced the upfront capital costs, they did mean that there were higher fixed costs for rents, interest etc. once operations began. The figures in Figure C shows the money that was left after the net revenue from operations, other receipts and other expenditures to be able to pay the interest on debentures and loans and dividends to shareholders. The figures can be summarised as follows: 4 Year Net Year Net Percentage Revenue Revenue Increase/ (Decrease) £m £m % 1886 1.090 1893 0.961 (11.8) 1893 0.961 1899 1.110 15.5 1899 1.110 1906 1.448 30.5 1906 1.448 1913 1.778 22.8 As with Graph A, the figure for 1893 was distorted by the coal strike in that year. If the year 1892 (£1.243m) is substituted, then the growth from 1886 to 1892 was 14.0 per cent and that from 1892 to 1899 was a reduction of 10.7 per cent. On the basis of these figures, it can be seen that there was pressure on net revenue during the construction work for Phase I, but that once it was operational the percentage rate of growth grew significantly. After completion of Phase II, growth continued at a slightly lower rate. The extent to which the above growth was sufficient to cover the higher interest and dividend charges resulting from the capital raised to finance the London Extension and indeed produce better results than before is a very important consideration. This is examined further in the consideration of Figures D and E below. Figure D shows that even before work on the London Extension started the GCR was not able to match the dividend payments on ordinary shares paid by some of its rivals. It should be explained that the GCR did in fact have three types of ordinary share; preferred ordinary shares that had some prior rights to a dividend, the normal ordinary shares and deferred ordinary shares which only had a right to a dividend after a payment to the other two.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rf LTW Chiltern Response
    campaigning by the Railway Development Society Limited Development of Train Services for Chiltern Routes Response from Railfuture 1. Introduction Railfuture is pleased to respond to the London TravelWatch document regarding the Development of Train Services for Chiltern Routes. Our comments will be brief and to the point. Railfuture is the campaigning name of the Railway Development Society Limited, a (not for profit) Limited Company organised in England as twelve regional branches plus two national branches in Scotland and Wales. This coordinated response has been compiled by Railfuture London & South East, and has been agreed with Railfuture Thames Valley for those sections of line in their area (Amersham to Aylesbury and West Ruislip to Bicester North). 2. General Comments Railfuture welcomes the initiative from LTW to suggest ways of raising standards of service on Chiltern Railways services in London and South East. We note the work that has gone into gathering the detail on network capacity and existing services. Chiltern is unique for a number of reasons: its close working relationship and shared infrastructure with London Underground (LU) on the Aylesbury Line; the close proximity of other LU and London Bus services to many Chiltern ‘metro’ stations on the High Wycombe line; the close mix of short and medium distance commuter traffic and the poor interchange facilities at Marylebone. It is equally unique for the impressive increase in patronage generated by reliable modern rolling stock and infrastructure; the benefits of a long-term franchise agreement and an imaginative customer oriented professional management team. It is also inhibited by many of the factors that make it unique! These range from the poor interchange facilities at Marylebone, to a lack of infrastructure between Wembley and West Ruislip.
    [Show full text]
  • Reunification East Midlands G R Y E a a W T C Il Entral Ra
    DONATE BY TEXT! REUNIFICATION EAST MIDLANDS G R Y E A A W T C IL ENTRAL RA THE UK’S BIGGEST HERITAGE RAILWAY PROJECT Reconnecting two halves of the Great Central Railway and joining them to Network Rail Supported by David Clarke Railway Trust Friends of the Great Central Main Line East Midlands Railway Trust www.gcrailway.co.uk/unify POTENTIAL EXTENSION TO TRAM INTERCHANGE NOTTINGHAM TRANSPORT HERITAGE CENTRE RUSHCLIFFE HALT REUNIFICATION EAST MIDLANDS G R Y E A A W T C IL ENTRAL RA SITE OF EAST LEAKE STATION By replacing five hundred metres of BARNSTONE missing track between two sections N TUNNEL of the Great Central Railway, we can NOT TO SCALE create an eighteen-mile heritage line STANFORD VIADUCT complete with a main line connection. This is no impossible dream - work is CONNECTION TO THE MISSING MIDLAND MAIN LINE underway, but we need your help to SECTION get the next sections built. LOUGHBOROUGH LOCOMOTIVE SHED TO EAST LEAKE AND RUDDINGTON LOUGHBOROUGH CENTRAL STATION A60 ROAD BRIDGE REQUIRES OVERHAULING EMBANKMENT REQUIRES REPAIRING QUORN & WOODHOUSE STATION MIDLAND MAIN LINE BRIDGE ✓ NOW BUILT! FACTORY CAR PARK SWITHLAND CROSSING REQUIRES CONTRUCTION VIADUCT RAILWAY TERRACE BRANCH LINE TO ROAD BRIDGE TO BE CONSTRUCTED USING MOUNTSORREL RECLAIMED BRIDGE DECK HERITAGE CENTRE ROTHLEY EMBANKMENT STATION NEEDS TO BE BUILT POTENTIAL DOUBLE TRACK GRAND UNION TO LEICESTER ✓ CANAL BRIDGE NOW RESTORED LEICESTER NORTH STATION TO LEICESTER REUNIFICATION Moving Forward An exciting adventure is underway. Following Two sections of the work have been the global pandemic, we’re picking up the completed already, which you can read all pace to build an exciting future for the Great about here.
    [Show full text]
  • Crossing the Canal
    NOTTINGHAM RUDDINGTON K O O R B A 6 M 0 A H R I A F NOTTINGHAM HERITAGE CENTRE !RUDDINGTON FIELDS" CROSSING THE CANAL RUSHCLIFFE BRITISH HALT GYPSUM EAST LEAKE STATION KINGSTON BROOK EAST LEAKE EAST LEAKE TUNNEL It’s time for Bridging the Gap part two! STANFORD The Great Central is working to VIADUCT reconnect two halves of the railway to LOUGHBOROUGH MIDLAND CROSSING STATION THE CANAL create an eighteen mile heritage line. You’ve already helped us to build a new R I V E LOUGHBOROUGH R S bridge across the Midland Main Line. O A R LOUGHBOROUGH G RAND U CENTRAL NION C Now it’s time to work on the next part of STATION ANAL MIDLAND MAIN LINE the project. We’re raising half a million BARROW UPON SOAR QUORNDON pounds to restore the canal bridge at QUORN & Loughborough and to finish the design WOODHOUSE STATION A6 work for the rest of the reunification scheme. SWITHLAND MOUNTSORREL RESERVOIR HALT MOUNTSORREL MOUNTSORREL HERITAGE BRANCH CENTRE ROTHLEY R I SWITHLAND V E SIDINGS R S O A R ROTHLEY STATION ROTHLEY BROOK A46 MAIN LINE BIRSTALL BRIDGING MlTHE NATION GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY MUSEUM LEICESTER NORTH LEICESTER STATION The project to reunify A number of major pieces of CROSSING two halves of the Great infrastructure remain to be built. THE CANAL Before we can tackle them, we need to Central Railway is one complete design work and secure of the most ambitious planning permission. But something undertaken by any we can do right now is restore the heritage railway.
    [Show full text]
  • Settlement Capacity Study Update
    Chiltern & South Bucks Local Plan 2036 Settlement Capacity Study Page 0 of 122 Chiltern & South Bucks Local Plan 2036 Settlement Capacity Study Introduction Local authorities are encouraged by Paragraph 65 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to set out a housing requirement for designated neighbourhood areas as part of their strategic policies. This is to enable neighbourhood plans to provide sufficient housing sites to meet their expected allocation. All currently-designated neighbourhood areas in Chiltern and South Bucks Districts share their boundaries with parish boundaries. It is anticipated that any future designations will also be for town council or parish council areas rather than for areas smaller or larger than these. The purpose of this study is to calculate required housing numbers for each parish within Chiltern and South Bucks. The Planning Practice Guidance1 confirms that there is no set methodology available for doing this, stating “the general policy making process already undertaken by local authorities can continue to be used to direct development requirements and balance needs and protections by taking into consideration relevant policies such as the spatial strategy, evidence such as the Housing and economic land availability assessment, and the characteristics of the neighbourhood area, including its population and role in providing services. In setting requirements for housing in designated neighbourhood areas, plan-making authorities should consider the areas or assets of particular importance (as set out in paragraph 11, footnote 6), which may restrict the scale, type or distribution of development in a neighbourhood plan area”. The NPPF requires the housing requirement figure for a neighbourhood area to reflect the Local Plan’s overall strategy for the pattern and scale of development and any relevant allocations.
    [Show full text]
  • 50 Years Ago – a Postscript
    50 YEARS AGO – A POSTSCRIPT METROPOLITAN MODERNISATION Whilst some of us will recall the late-1950s and early 1960s as the period “when it all happened”, there was a lot going on much earlier. Here is a selection of what happened, details being obtained from the Traffic Circulars of the time. Some items may not be directly relevant but nevertheless are included for interest, if only that London Transport were bringing the Metropolitan Line up to date and ‘in line’ with the rest of the network. Date Brief details 02.01.50 “Stop-and-Proceed” abolished north of Harrow-on-the-Hill and all signals, semi- automatic and automatic, provided with signal post telephones. All trains to receive authority from relevant signalman before passing any signal at danger. Signal boxes affected were Watford Station (JL), Croxley (B), Watford Junction (C), Northwood (E), Pinner (G) and Harrow Station (JB). 01.50 Telephones provided on Chesham line (to signalmen at Chalfont & Latimer and Chesham) at One Mile Post, Two Mile Post and Three Mile Post. 04.06.50 Track slewed on a new alignment 30ft west of present from 1,000ft north of Watford South Junction to 1,500ft south of Watford South Junction, to allow bridges MR78, MR80 and MR81 to be taken out of use. 17.06.50 From midnight, maintenance responsibility for track, works & buildings and signalling between 28½ mile post (Mantles Wood) and 37 miles 195 yards, about ¾ mile south of Aylesbury South Junction, will be transferred from Railway Executive to London Transport. 25.06.50 London Transport to take over responsibility for management of ex-Joint Line from Harrow to Aylesbury South Junction including Watford and Chesham branches.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Train Services on the Met and Gc Line
    THE EVOLUTION OF TRAIN SERVICES ON THE MET AND GC LINE by Eric Stuart (Readers may find reference to the Four-Tracking article in the July 2018 issue of Underground News helpful) After the Great Central (GC) arrived at Quainton Road and the service south thereof became established, both the GC and the Metropolitan Railway (Met.) provided services. However, the personalities at the heads of the two companies did not enjoy the best of relationships. Matters came to a head when a GC train crashed when failing to reduce speed over the (then) reverse curve into Aylesbury station in 1904. About that time, both the leaders retired and a period of better relations between the companies began. On 2 April 1906, the Metropolitan & Great Central Joint Railway (MGCJR) was created. This latter took over the lines of the Metropolitan Railway north and west of Harrow South Junction, with the exception of the branch to Uxbridge. These included the main line between Harrow-on-the-Hill and Verney Junction and the branch from Chalfont & Latimer to Chesham. The MGCJR was created under the terms of the Metropolitan & Great Central Railway Act, which received Royal Assent on 4 August 1905. At the same time, the Great Central and Great Western Joint Railway was formed, covering the lines south of Aylesbury via Princes Risborough to Northolt Junction. This was the result of a new line that aided the GC by partly avoiding congestion on the Met. and also giving the Great Western a shorter route to Birmingham1. One curiosity was that a Joint Committee was set up to manage a new Aylesbury station, jointly owned by two joint railways! Some points on terminology: The new line was commonly called just ‘The Joint Line’ and, even in later LT days, some staff still belonged to a particular class that made them feel superior to others2.
    [Show full text]
  • Great Central Railway Robinson Class 8K 2-8-0 Locomotives (LNER & BR Class O4), and GWR Class 3000 by Peter Sheppard The
    Great Central Railway Robinson Class 8K 2-8-0 Locomotives (LNER & BR Class O4), and GWR Class 3000 By Peter Sheppard The first class 8K 2-8-0 freight locomotive was built by the Great Central Railway (GCR) at their Gorton works in 1911. It was to a design by J. G. Robinson. Later there was a large order from the Railway Operating Division of the Royal Engineers (R.O.D.). Class 8M (later O5) locomotives built around the same time were later converted to Class O4. Some locomotives were sent to France during the First World War and were returned. On at least two occasions batches of locomotives were loaned to the GWR by the LNER and then were returned. Some locomotives were bought by the GWR , LNWR and LMS. Some locomotives were requisitioned by the government in 1943 and sent to the Middle East, they never came back. Five more were requisitioned in 1952 and sent to Egypt. Others were sold to Australia and China. Added to this various different modifications were made to the locomotives and each modification formed a different sub class. There were 9 such sub- classes and these were numbered Class O4/1 to O4/8. The reader may think that those numbers total 8 and not 9. The explanation is that there were two sub-classes O4/2. The requirement for the first sub-class O4/2 had ended in 1924 so when a need arose for a new sub class in 1925 the vacant number was re-used. Details of the various sub-classes are given later in this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Scottish Railways: Sources
    Scottish Railways: Sources How to use this list of sources This is a list of some of the collections that may provide a useful starting point when researching this subject. It gives the collection reference and a brief description of the kinds of records held in the collections. More detailed lists are available in the searchroom and from our online catalogue. Enquiries should be directed to the Duty Archivist, see contact details at the end of this source list. Beardmore & Co (GUAS Ref: UGD 100) GUAS Ref: UGD 100/1/17/1-2 Locomotive: GA diesel electric locomotive GUAS Ref: UGD 100/1/17/3 Outline and weight diagram diesel electric locomotive Dunbar, A G; Railway Trade Union Collection (GUAS Ref: UGD 47) 1949-67 GUAS Ref: UGD 47/1/6 Dumbarton & Balloch Joint Railway 1897-1909 GUAS Ref: UGD 47/1/3 Dunbar, A G, Railway Trade Union Collection 1869-1890 GUAS Ref: UGD 47/3 Dunbar, A G, Railway Trade Union Collection 1891-1892 GUAS Ref: UGD 47/2 London & North Eastern Railway 1922-49 Mowat, James; Collection (GUAS Ref: UGD 137) GUAS Ref: UGD 137/4/3/2 London & North Western Railway not dated Neilson Reid & Co (GUAS Ref: UGD 10) 1890 North British Locomotive Co (GUAS Ref: UGD 11) GUAS Ref: UGD 11/22/41 Correspondence and costs for L100 contract 1963 Pickering, R Y & Co Ltd (GUAS Ref: UGD 12) not dated Scottish Railway Collection, The (GUAS Ref: UGD 8) Scottish Railways GUAS Ref: UGD 8/10 Airdrie, Coatbridge & Wishaw Junction Railway 1866-67 GUAS Ref: UGD 8/39 Airdrie, Coatbridge & Wishaw Junction Railway 1867 GUAS Ref: UGD 8/40 Airdrie, Coatbridge
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Lines Ref No
    Joint Lines Ref No. F Item Description and Source Notes F1 Documents re closure of Manchester Central F2 The Cheshire Lines Railway - HMRS Jnl, 1967, article F3 Accident at New Mills, report - HMSO, 1961 F4 Index to articles re CLC in RM F5 The Swinton & Knottingley Railway -Ms, D.L. Franks F6 Met. & L.T Lines - Notes F7 Met. Line electrification - Amersham station - MT, 4/59, article F8 The Chesham Branch - RM, n.d., article F9 Quainton Rd.-verney junction - Notes F10 Marple Rail Trails - W.R Burton F11 Manchester Central aerial view - A3 laser copy Donated by Robert Emblin. F12 Manchester Central & Piccadilly - Photographs Donated by Robert Emblin. F13 From Train Shed to Exhibition Centre - The Story of the Manchester Central Station - Original Ms copy Donated by Robert Emblin. F14 The Development of the Central Station site into the G-Mex Centre - N. Spooner, 1/1987 F15 Manchester Central Station - The Engineer, 13/2/80, 27/2/80, 5/3/80, copies F16 Recalling the CLC - P. Hay - Steam World 8/92 F17 Manchester Central Revisited - RW, 5/1983, R.E Rose, copy F18 Manchester Central Remembered - R.E Rose F19 The Rise & Fall of Manchester Central - K. Groundwater, RW, June 1969 F20 Marple - A one time traffic centre of the Midland Railway - BRJ 1994 - W.R. Burton F21 Manchester Central - GN Warehouse - Manchester Evening News, 17/10/95 (article & photo) F22 GCR's Joint Lines - The Rewards of a railway flirt - R. Emblin, B. Longbone F23 GCR joint lines - Data appendix - R. Emblin 2/1994 F24 Gw-GC Joint Line Opening April 1906 copy F25 Inspection of new works Neasden to Prices Risborough July 1904 copy F26 Inspection of new works Northolt to High Wycombe April 1905 F27 book: 'The Metropolitan Railway' by C.Baker.
    [Show full text]
  • Miscellaneous Items Ref Item Description and Source Notes No
    Miscellaneous Items Ref Item Description and Source Notes No. X X003 Scrapbook, photographs - ex. Magazines etc. X004 Scrapbook, newscuttings X007 "Railway Magazine" - 1912 June X012 "Travels at Home" - pub. With authy of G.C X015 Sam Fay - Article, picture, "Vanity Fair" X016 Murder in Pennines - Article, R.W. Jan 1970 X017 Past Glories, station refreshment rooms - V.R.Webster X021 A veteran of the MSLR - Article, R.M. April 1959 X022 Wadsley bridge station - Article, M.R.C X023 Railway development at Aylesbury BM No 55 X024 Diversions over Woodhead RM Jan 1970 X025 Manchester-Sheffield Electrification - Article, R.M. November 1954 X026 Bowbridge Pilot - Article, R.M. Nov. 1954 X027 Abandonment of SAMR? - letter, Dec. 22nd. 1837 X028 Accident book - Mexboro', 1925 X029 "Transport goes to war" - Book, 1942 X033 Occurrence books, mainly from Mexboro' area - B.R 16 no. 1948-58 X036 Prospectus, Preservation Loughborough - G.C.R 1976 X037 Prop. Closure Sheff.-Pen.-Huddersfield Service - Documents 1981 X038 S.Y.P.T.E. Transport Development Plan - Book 1978 X039 Index - G.C.R.J Vol. VIII X040 Index - G.C.R.J Vol. IX X041 Index - G.C.R.J Vol. X X042 Index - G.C.R articles in R.M X043 Index - G.C.R. LDECR articles in R.M X044 History of Railways around Doncaster - Ms, D.L.Franks X045 "The Plight of the Railways" - Leaflet, G.Huxley X046 "I remember" - Glossop - Booklet X049 "Woodhead Wanderer" railtour - Programme X050 Railtour Doncaster - Lincoln area - Programme X051 The Iron horse comes to town - Article, Appleby-Frodingham news, 1959 X054 The Yarborough Hotel - Notes, from Bradshaw 1853 X055 When service had meaning, The Story of and Early Railwayman's life - D.L Franks X056 Seven ages of Rlys - Ms, D.L.
    [Show full text]
  • IL Combo Ndx V2
    file IL COMBO v2 for PDF.doc updated 13-12-2006 THE INDUSTRIAL LOCOMOTIVE The Quarterly Journal of THE INDUSTRIAL LOCOMOTIVE SOCIETY COMBINED INDEX of Volumes 1 to 7 1976 – 1996 IL No.1 to No.79 PROVISIONAL EDITION www.industrial-loco.org.uk IL COMBO v2 for PDF.doc updated 13-12-2006 INTRODUCTION and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This “Combo Index” has been assembled by combining the contents of the separate indexes originally created, for each individual volume, over a period of almost 30 years by a number of different people each using different approaches and methods. The first three volume indexes were produced on typewriters, though subsequent issues were produced by computers, and happily digital files had been preserved for these apart from one section of one index. It has therefore been necessary to create digital versions of 3 original indexes using “Optical Character Recognition” (OCR), which has not proved easy due to the relatively poor print, and extremely small text (font) size, of some of the indexes in particular. Thus the OCR results have required extensive proof-reading. Very fortunately, a team of volunteers to assist in the project was recruited from the membership of the Society, and grateful thanks are undoubtedly due to the major players in this exercise – Paul Burkhalter, John Hill, John Hutchings, Frank Jux, John Maddox and Robin Simmonds – with a special thankyou to Russell Wear, current Editor of "IL" and Chairman of the Society, who has both helped and given encouragement to the project in a myraid of different ways. None of this would have been possible but for the efforts of those who compiled the original individual indexes – Frank Jux, Ian Lloyd, (the late) James Lowe, John Scotford, and John Wood – and to the volume index print preparers such as Roger Hateley, who set a new level of presentation which is standing the test of time.
    [Show full text]
  • Signal Box Register Series
    Signal Box Registers Publication schedule and current state of play as at 10th July 2019 Item Publication dateStatus 1. Great Western PB: 22 December 2007 Out of Print HB: 28 December 2007 Out of Print 1. Great Western PB: 10 May 2011 Published (Revised Edition) HB: 24 May 2011 Published 2. Midland Railway latest draft is version E22 dated Substantially complete. 18th September 2017 Publication expected 2020-2021 3. LNER (Southern Area) PB: 29 May 2012 Published. HB: 6 Nov 2012 Published. 4. Southern Railway PB & HB: 23 April 2009 Published 5. LNWR (includes NSR, Sources include NSR (1998), No work started yet. MCR, FR and L&Y) LNWR (240-599), L&Y (1999). 6. Scotland PB: 31 Oct 2012 Published. HB: 7 Nov 2012 Published. 7. North Eastern Region Work in hand (includes H&B) 8. London Transport PB: 12 Jul 2019 Published. HB: 26 Jul 2019 Published. 9. Ireland PB & HB: 3 August 2015 Published CD-ROM CD: 1 January 2008 Includes Volume 1 CDROM updates #1: 2 February 2008 Corr. Sht 1 & updated vol. 1 GW. #2: 16 September 2008 Corr. Sht 2 & updated vol. 1 GW. #3: 23 April 2009 Plus Volume 4 Southern Railway #4: 24 May 2011 Plus corr. sheet 3 & the GW register (revised edition) #5: 21 June 2012 As above plus correction sheet 4 and volume 3 LNER (Southern) #6: 15 Nov 2012 (DVD-ROM) As above plus correction sheet 5 and volume 6 Scotland #7: 25 Jul 2013 (DVD-ROM) As above plus correction sheet 6 #8: 31 May 2014 (DVD-ROM) As above plus correction sheet 7 #9: 3 Aug 2015 (DVD-ROM) As above plus correction sheet 8 #9: 3 Aug 2015 (CD-ROM) Volume 9 Ireland & Isle of Man #10: 21 Nov 2015 (DVD-ROM) As above plus correction sheet 9 #11: 10 Jul 2019 (DVD-ROM) As above plus correction sheet 10 Volume 8 London Transport Correction sheets 1: 16 January 2008 Amended vol.
    [Show full text]