Back Track
When one wanders around a Model Railway Exhibition and sees prominently displayed on the shelf of a second-hand bookstall a copy of the 1985 reprint edition of the July 1922 Bradshaw, just begging to be purchased, what does one do? Well, one makes an instant impulse decision to buy and goes on to implement that decision even when subsequently surprised that although in very good condition the volume was somewhat overpriced, but nevertheless, as Edith Piaf often sang so powerfully. “Je ne regrette rien”.
So, having made the purchase, it would be folly to consign the book to dust gathering on my own railway bookshelves. But how to use effectively its 1224 pages, of which 871 were timetables of British railway companies? An analysis of the timetables comprising the Glasgow & South Western Railway's passenger services in the last year of the company's existence seemed an obvious answer.
The ‘Good and Safe Wee Railway’ was, as we G&SWR enthusiasts would like to believe, a ‘good’ railway, but not as has been indicated in Association literature on a number of occasions in the past by eminent historian and author Andrew Swan, an entirely ‘safe’ railway. But how ‘wee’ was it?
There are many measures for judging the size of a railway company – route mileage, track mileage, train mileage run, size of locomotive fleet/coaching fleet/ wagon fleet, passengers carried, goods and mineral tonnage conveyed, number of staff employed, capital employed, and profitability being among the various measures. A route mileage at Grouping of 493½ for the G&SWR which gave the company a ranking of 14th in Britain by that measure, and 506 for the Highland Railway might suggest that the companies were of equivalent size, but once other factors are taken into consideration. The G&SWR handed over to the LMS 528 locomotives, 1,183 passenger coaches and 19,252 revenue-earning wagons as againstand 2,718 revenue-earning wagons by the HR, while in 1922 the G&SWR's gross revenue was £3,903,152 and net revenue £692,919 as against £1,221,034 gross revenue and £241,380 net revenue of the HR – the relative size of the two companies is put into proper context. Yet a total of 493½ miles might suggest that the railway was rather ‘wee’. Would a detailed analysis prove or disprove this suggestion?
