Railway Management

[Greg Wetzel]

I am absolutely confused about how railway management used to be done during the age of steam. For example, what exactly are the Board of Director's duties? What does the General Manager do? How are trains scheduled in order to avoid delays? What is a Control Office, and what are the duties of those who work in one?

 

[6Gman]

I am absolutely confused about how railway management used to be done during the age of steam. For example, what exactly are the Board of Director's duties? What does the General Manager do? How are trains scheduled in order to avoid delays? What is a Control Office, and what are the duties of those who work in one?

Crikey ! That's a comprehensive set of questions.

The Board of Directors have overall responsibility for the direction of the company on behalf of the shareholders.
The General Manager has responsibility for the day to day management of the company in accordance with the policy set by the Board.
There will be a set of sectional running times for different types of train over each section of route. These form the basis of constructing a timetable which should - under normal circumstances - be capable of operating without delay.
The Control Office directs the minute by minute operation of the railway, responding as circumstances change. The duties of the staff within them will vary e.g. there will be different staff monitoring different elements of performance.

(Incidentally, the answers are broadly the same whether it's the age of steam or 2019!)

 

[John Webb]

The Board of Directors does what it does for any company - it makes policy decisions, allocates finances, approves major investments eg a new class of loco, a new branch line, a major resignalling project and the like.
The General Manager was responsible to the board for the day to day running of the company - roughly equivalent to the Managing Director. He would have heads of all the major departments (ie Traffic, Motive Power, Permanent Way, Signal and Telegraph, Workshops, Civil Engineering etc.) reporting to him on a daily basis. He would be particularly concerned at delays to traffic, problems of late introduction of new equipment and the like.
Control rooms covered specific areas of each railway, and were not on every railway. The first such room opened in 1907 at Masborough, Rotherham, on the Midland Railway. The idea spread slowly, it seems, and it was only after grouping that the LMS and the LNER made them more widespread, primarily for handling the goods traffic. The GWR had a less comprehensive system, and the Southern Railway primarily had traffic offices more concerned with the passengers.
Control rooms had to cope with late running trains (when relief crews might be needed to take over), accidents, breakdowns, as well as overseeing the general running of the system in their area. So they would have to liaise with the appropriate local depots of the various departments in their area. Lots of telephones, I understand!

 

[randyrippley]

Which begs the question, what happened during periods of disruption, who made the decisions as to what ran where?
Did the local signallers just do their best as trains arrived? Was there a local emergency plan? Or a network plan?
With the reduced communications then available it must have been difficult

 

[341o2]

That would be control. As a guard in the 70's, you would report to control in the event of disruption for instructions on what to do next, unless they had contacted you first. The duty roster had a number of turns described as "orders" where you were on standby ready to take over in the event of disruption. You were not permitted to leave the rest room during your shift. I'm describing Kings Cross.

Yes, the railway had an extensive internal telephone network of its own, connecting all offices, stations, signal boxes, depots etc. Never had a communication problem

 

[WesternLancer]

Which begs the question, what happened during periods of disruption, who made the decisions as to what ran where?
Did the local signallers just do their best as trains arrived? Was there a local emergency plan? Or a network plan?
With the reduced communications then available it must have been difficult

Telegraph systems gave pretty much as much comms in Victorian times as many modern systems give today - and closer together signal boxes meant you were rarely THAT far from a communication 'hub'.

Having a thing in your pocket that you can talk to people on does not mean that for people who had access to them as needed, communication systems were that reduced!

for example - see this post from the phones on trains in BR days thread that gives an idea:

"In the USA you could send telegrams not only to a street address but also to a passenger in a train. A guy wrote in Trains magazine that he was travelling in the late 1940s to a railroad job interview in Chicago but the train was hours late so at a station he sent a telegram saying so. The reply of "no problem, see you when you get here" was telegrammed to an intermediate non-stop station, it was put up in the hoop along with the Train Orders, snatched on the fly by the conductor, and given to a brakeman to walk along the train and deliver it. It was addressed to "Mr X, Train 123 Eastbound, Car 8, Roomette 6". Not just railway business but anyone, financiers etc, who were travelling."

 

[341o2]

I'd suggest to the OP that he reads "I Tried to Run a Railway" as Gerry Feinnes held some of the posts mentioned.

Going back to signal boxes, in the days of Absolute Block, most communication with your neighbours by bell codes, although there was also an omnibus telephone line, nothing new in networking, anyone connected to the system could join in.
Feinnes relates the amusing story of a local Superintendant who was known as "The Colonel", "The Old Man", or the "Old B**er" according to mood. On a visit to inspect signalboxes, as he left one box, he heard one ring on the block bell, an unofficial request to have a quick word with your neighbour without everybody listening in. Realising he had left his gloves there, he took the call, only to be greeted with
"Ey oop Joe, Old B***ers coming"
"'Tis the Old B***er speaking" said he with relish

 

[Clarence Yard]

Which begs the question, what happened during periods of disruption, who made the decisions as to what ran where?
Did the local signallers just do their best as trains arrived? Was there a local emergency plan? Or a network plan?
With the reduced communications then available it must have been difficult

It depended on the area. In my time on the ER we had Divisional Control Offices, responsible for activities in their patch with an ER HQ Control at York, controlling the overall picture.

In the days before the auto-telephone system was widespread, you had to contact people outside your area by going through telephone exchanges but you could use the telegraph to wire alterations forward or send messages directly.

On the GN they used the single needle telegraph in nearly each signal box right up until Power Box days and the GN was largely self regulating as boxes had to wire forward to a number of other boxes the passing time of certain trains. Which box you wired forward to depended on the train itself - it was a simple system but very effective. The Signal Box site has an article on the single needle, written by one of the last people to be trained on it.

Divisional Control, latterly at GN House Kings Cross, then had to control as appropriate. There were section controllers, crew controllers and power (loco & DMU) controllers, all intervening as required.

The contingency plan was effectively done by habit as the controllers were very experienced railwaymen who knew their patch as well as the operational needs in times of disruption. There was a written "fog and falling slow" train plan to deal with expected or actual bad weather. That usually meant, on the KX patch, putting non-essential freights by and running a reduced passenger service, sometimes with additional stops.

 

[6Gman]

So they would have to liaise with the appropriate local depots of the various departments in their area. Lots of telephones, I understand!

And lots of swearing in my experience.

 

[Aictos]

I'd suggest to the OP that he reads "I Tried to Run a Railway" as Gerry Feinnes held some of the posts mentioned.

Going back to signal boxes, in the days of Absolute Block, most communication with your neighbours by bell codes, although there was also an omnibus telephone line, nothing new in networking, anyone connected to the system could join in.
Feinnes relates the amusing story of a local Superintendant who was known as "The Colonel", "The Old Man", or the "Old B**er" according to mood. On a visit to inspect signalboxes, as he left one box, he heard one ring on the block bell, an unofficial request to have a quick word with your neighbour without everybody listening in. Realising he had left his gloves there, he took the call, only to be greeted with
"Ey oop Joe, Old B***ers coming"
"'Tis the Old B***er speaking" said he with relish

I used to have that book and autographed by the great man himself

 

[Greg Wetzel]

So, in terms of Control, how would they track the progress of a train? So, let's say Train X is running late. Would a signal-man call Control to report that Train X hadn't passed their box, and Control giving instructions to allow for other trains that were running on time to get priority?

Also, when it comes to freight, and extra trains of freight X were needed to get the freight moving, would the Yard-master telephone Control to ask for extra trains to be schedule? How would Control arrange for specials to get through while having to deal with the usual trains working to the regular timetable?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

So, in terms of Control, how would they track the progress of a train? So, let's say Train X is running late. Would a signal-man call Control to report that Train X hadn't passed their box, and Control giving instructions to allow for other trains that were running on time to get priority?

Also, when it comes to freight, and extra trains of freight X were needed to get the freight moving, would the Yard-master telephone Control to ask for extra trains to be schedule? How would Control arrange for specials to get through while having to deal with the usual trains working to the regular timetable?

Pretty much so - pre computerisation , there was always of course the Train Register book in signal boxes so s/man could be annoyed from internal phone calls from Control (though certain key trains were expected to be reported to the Control Office) - stations had "tick sheets" where they wrote down actual departures times on sheets that were sent to the Control / Divisional Office. Remember , there were Station Managers / Masters at the time who were expected to closely moniter the service , and take local action , which of course could then be reported to Control , most of them knew exactly what they were doing and were a key link. As late as the 1960's on the Southern , much faith was put in these people to "manage" the local operations , and even after some bad Winters , the then General Manager defended these people as the ones that kept things going in adversity better than office bound "clerical" officers.

In terms of specials - locally you could probably get away with careful conversations with signal boxes - in terms of cross boundary moves it would have to be arranged - at worst , via ringing the local Control - thence the Regional Control - and back down the tree at the receiving or intermediate levels. Generally ,ways were found to make things happen. In my experience - fairly easy - only once did I (in the 1980's) have to appeal to the BRB's hard pressed Freight Operations Manager - who of course , gave the OK and ensured priority. (in this case by over ruling the Regions verbally - to the extent that passenger loco resources were made available) - Good Man.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

And lots of swearing in my experience.

About the first advice I was given on "management" -was that the railways ran on strong language and plenty of tea. The other was that if you want anything to happen , have good relationships with both the Train Crew supervisors and the local signalmen. Sound advice.

 

[Taunton]

One of the differences at the higher management level in pre-1948 days (and elsewhere in established commerce, such as with Banks), was the division between the Directors and the Management, something disappeared nowadays. The Directors, including the grand Chairman, were almost wholly part-time, similar to what would be known as a Non-Exec, and principally represented the interests of the shareholders/owners. The top position was the General Manager, but they were commonly not a Director, and only went to board meetings by invitation (and sometimes not even that). It would correspond to a Managing Director nowadays. The major railway Chairmen were often well known from other businesses as well.

The key managers, such as Chief Engineer (who did the civils) reported up to the GM. It was always an issue that the Chief Mechanical Engineer (who did rolling stock) was regarded as a cut above the other operational managers, and often had the same salary and status as the GM, which caused various ructions. Churchward (GWR CME) and Grierson (GWR Chief Civil Engineer) apparently had longstanding feuds and infighting.

When the LMS wanted to offer Stanier, from the GWR, the CME position, it had to go by a formal route. The GM of the LMS could not approach either Stanier or the GWR directly, he had to ask Lord Stamp, his Chairman, to approach Viscount Churchill, Chairman of the GWR, which they did over a pleasant lunch at Stamp's club. Churchill had to ask Sir Felix Pole, GWR GM, he in turn asked GWR CME Collett, Stanier's boss, who had to approve (or not) and ask Stanier to go over to Euston and have a word. Nowadays a headhunter would be appointed as an intermediary to approach Stanier directly.

 

[Spartacus]

About the first advice I was given on "management" -was that the railways ran on strong language and plenty of tea.

Everyone out if there's no tea!

 

[Midland Man]

So, in terms of Control, how would they track the progress of a train? So, let's say Train X is running late. Would a signal-man call Control to report that Train X hadn't passed their box, and Control giving instructions to allow for other trains that were running on time to get priority?

?

Key signal boxes had Train Recorders (also known as box lads or booking boys) whose job it was not only to keep the Train Register up to date, undertake cleaning duties etc but also report to Control the passage of trains on a regular basis. I don't know if any signal boxes now have train recorders, but Healey Mills PSB did until some time after the new panel was installed in 2003 and it was then realised that keeping a train register/reporting to control was no longer needed as it was done by the signalling system.
With the advent of TRUST and the loss of Train Recorders some signalmen have to report times of some or all trains which would be done (ideally) as soon as possible by input to TRUST, or if no TRUST machine at intervals by telephone, or by FAX to Control.
David

 

[6Gman]

About the first advice I was given on "management" -was that the railways ran on strong language and plenty of tea. The other was that if you want anything to happen , have good relationships with both the Train Crew supervisors and the local signalmen. Sound advice.

Yes, would agree with all that !

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Yes, would agree with all that !

Along with the subtle dispensation of "12 hours" occasionally , or rest day working - or even strategically offered bacon rolls .......

 

[6Gman]

Along with the subtle dispensation of "12 hours" occasionally , or rest day working - or even strategically offered bacon rolls .......

And may I add Traction Inspectors to your list of people to keep "on side" ?