1948 Nationalisation - Pullman Car Company

[Titfield]

An historical question hoping someone can answer. Does anyone know (or can point to the source) why the Pullman Car Company was NOT nationalised in 1948?
Somewhat oddly an internet search revealed through Hansard that this question was asked in the House (of Commons) in 1948 but the Hon James Callaghan simply didnt answer the question.
I know that the British Transport Commission acquired PCC in 1954.
Thanks In Advance.

 

[Journeyman]

An historical question hoping someone can answer. Does anyone know (or can point to the source) why the Pullman Car Company was NOT nationalised in 1948?
Somewhat oddly an internet search revealed through Hansard that this question was asked in the House (of Commons) in 1948 but the Hon James Callaghan simply didnt answer the question.
I know that the British Transport Commission acquired PCC in 1954.
Thanks In Advance.

I believe it had something to do with the staff having very different pay and conditions to those employed directly by rail companies, and that integrating them with the newly formed BR posed potential problems with industrial unrest and relations with the unions. Can't find that spelt out anywhere, though, so my memory might be a bit dodgy on this.

 

[Titfield]

Thanks. Yes I was aware of the problems caused by pay and conditions - which of course blighted the introduction of Blue Pullman in the 1960s.

Somewhat bizarely - well at least to me - I turned up the 1948 September and October edition of the Railway Magazine (Vol 94 Edition 977) and it states in the editorial:

"The activities of the Pullman Car Company, of course, remain outside the scope of the British Transport Commission".

Whilst true it doesnt exactly help!

 

[Taunton]

Pay would not impact nationalisation, but Pullman was owned partly by the Southern Railway, and partly by Wagons-Lits, based in France. There were issues with nationalising ownership outside the UK. The same applied to the likes of the County Donegal Railway, owned half by the LMS and half by the Great Northern of Ireland, itself with ownership and operations in both countries.

 

[Titfield]

Pay would not impact nationalisation, but Pullman was owned partly by the Southern Railway, and partly by Wagons-Lits, based in France. There were issues with nationalising ownership outside the UK. The same applied to the likes of the County Donegal Railway, owned half by the LMS and half by the Great Northern of Ireland, itself with ownership and operations in both countries.

Thank you!

So in essence the answer is: it could not be nationalised in 1948 because of the part ownership by Wagons Lits (France) but in 1954 the owners including Wagons Lits could sell it to the BTC because they wished to do so.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Pullman was owned partly by the Southern Railway, and partly by Wagons-Lits, based in France.

I suppose that helps to explain why the Southern Region and the Southern Railway before it had Pullmans acting as Restaurant/ Buffet cars in its EMUs.

SR Class 6-PUL - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Taunton]

There were enough merger issues at nationalisation as it was. The same applied to the countrywide bus services that were nationalised at the same time. Some of these, as at Taunton, came originally from pioneer GWR road services, and the bus crews were still members of the NUR, not the TGWU as elsewhere, and this carried on into the 1970s (does it still apply?). Although they agreed common pay rates there was still some issue between the two - said to be the reason why there was no through local bus service along the Taunton to Exeter road, you had to change halfway and they were un-coordinated. Different onetime companies, different unions.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I am not going to succeed in phrasing this very elegantly but was the Pullman Car Company an 'undertaking' within the meaning of the Transport Act 1947? The act referred to various railways (and canals) that had been under government control during the war or provided various services to the public. There were also provisions for the acquisition of private owner freight wagons. It isn't immediately obvious to me that provision of refreshment services on the Southern (for example) fell under these definitions.

I know that this then begs the question as to why the government of the time didn't draft their bill more widely so as to include such services but in the overall scheme of things Pullman was pretty tiny.

So far as I am aware the academic, Terry Gourvish, BR's official and definitive historian, doesn't even mention Pullman in his books (although Michael Bonavia, an 'inside' historical writer does, albeit fairly passingly, in some of his).

 

[Journeyman]

I wonder if it got inadvertently overlooked?

 

[krus_aragon]

I wonder if it got inadvertently overlooked?

It'd be in good company with the tiny little Talyllyn Railway if it were!

 

[Journeyman]

It'd be in good company with the tiny little Talyllyn Railway if it were!

That's the sort of thing I'm thinking of. The rail network was so huge and complicated that there were bits of it barely anyone knew about!

 

[Taunton]

It wasn't just the Big Four who were nationalised, some oddball bits were identified, such as the Mersey Railway. My hunch is they got the list from the Board of Trade, who did railway regulation at the time, and had possible coordinated the wartime operations as well from the same list. Pullman were not a train operator so wouldn't be on the list.

It's an interesting point though that they picked off private owner wagons but not carriages. Maybe they thought Pullman, shut down "for the duration" would never restart, and they would save a bit in compensation.

I've always got the feeling that the various LMS-owned operations in Northern Ireland were also forgotten about, and seemed left in a bit of a limbo for a while.

 

[Rescars]

I am not going to succeed in phrasing this very elegantly but was the Pullman Car Company an 'undertaking' within the meaning of the Transport Act 1947? The act referred to various railways (and canals) that had been under government control during the war or provided various services to the public. There were also provisions for the acquisition of private owner freight wagons. It isn't immediately obvious to me that provision of refreshment services on the Southern (for example) fell under these definitions.

I know that this then begs the question as to why the government of the time didn't draft their bill more widely so as to include such services but in the overall scheme of things Pullman was pretty tiny.

So far as I am aware the academic, Terry Gourvish, BR's official and definitive historian, doesn't even mention Pullman in his books (although Michael Bonavia, an 'inside' historical writer does, albeit fairly passingly, in some of his).

Julian Morel in his book "Pullman" notes that Pullman was unaffected by nationalisation, but the BTC acquired its shares later, though leaving it independent and under its existing management for a further 8 years. Apparently we have Dr Beeching to thank for finishing it off as a separate entity. Morel ought to know his stuff, he was Pullman's Catering Superintendent.

 

[Titfield]

I am not going to succeed in phrasing this very elegantly but was the Pullman Car Company an 'undertaking' within the meaning of the Transport Act 1947? The act referred to various railways (and canals) that had been under government control during the war or provided various services to the public. There were also provisions for the acquisition of private owner freight wagons. It isn't immediately obvious to me that provision of refreshment services on the Southern (for example) fell under these definitions.

I know that this then begs the question as to why the government of the time didn't draft their bill more widely so as to include such services but in the overall scheme of things Pullman was pretty tiny.

So far as I am aware the academic, Terry Gourvish, BR's official and definitive historian, doesn't even mention Pullman in his books (although Michael Bonavia, an 'inside' historical writer does, albeit fairly passingly, in some of his).

Yes I have got both the Bonavia BR The First 25 Years and Gourvish British Railways 1948 - 1973 A Business History.

Bonavia is a relatively short book with little detail on many of the topics although as you say he does talk about Pullman mainly in the context of Blue Pullman. Gourvish's book is a weighty tome but is "thin" on some aspects particularly all the aspects of marketing for example the Pullman brand.

Regarding Dr Hoos point about "undertakings" sets me thinking about just how well the bill was drafted. As Pullman wasnt an operator as such and owned only a handful of assets perhaps it was simply too small to be worth really bothering about especially given the complexity of the ownership issues.

 

[oldman]

The Transport Act 1947 defines the railways to be nationalised as those under Ministry control under the defence regulations, and the wagons were those which had been requisitioned under the same regulations.

They nationalised what they already controlled.

 

[Gloster]

A skim through Railways for the People (A.J.Mullay, Pendragon, 2006), which unfortunately only has an index of names, does not give an answer, but mentions two points that may have had an influence. Firstly, British Railways was to be a railway for all and there were those who felt that luxury services such as Pullmans did not fit in with that. Secondly, there was the belief that, although they were profitable when nationalisation was being planned, the Pullmans would be the first to suffer financially in a recession and it was better to leave a private company (with greater freedom of manoeuvre) to take the risk. Additionally, the operating costs of the Pullman services could be compared with those of the Hotels Executive, although this may be subsequent justification. (This is all my interpretation of a couple of paragraphs.)

 

[John Luxton]

, such as the Mersey Railway.

Someone needs to write a new, detailed history of the Mersey Railway. However, I used to have the old Oakwood Book on the Mersey Railway, unfortunately it fell apart and was disposed of years ago. But I am sure there was a comment in the text that it was only around 1950 that the Mersey management was taken over by BR. Perhaps if someone has a copy they could check and confirm if my memory is correct.

Also the Liverpool Overhead Railway Company escaped nationalisation. I think the Government realised it was a bit of an expensive basket case which couldn't meet its high structural maintenance costs in the 1940s. Even when closure was announced in the 1950s British Railways wasn't interested!

The Ffestiniog escaped I understand because services over the main line were suspended though the quarry companies were still using their own stock at the Blaenau end.

 

[Gloster]

Someone needs to write a new, detailed history of the Mersey Railway. However, I used to have the old Oakwood Book on the Mersey Railway, unfortunately it fell apart and was disposed of years ago. But I am sure there was a comment in the text that it was only around 1950 that the Mersey management was taken over by BR. Perhaps if someone has a copy they could check and confirm if my memory is correct.

Also the Liverpool Overhead Railway Company escaped nationalisation. I think the Government realised it was a bit of an expensive basket case which couldn't meet its high structural maintenance costs in the 1940s. Even when closure was announced in the 1950s British Railways wasn't interested!

The Ffestiniog escaped I understand because services over the main line were suspended though the quarry companies were still using their own stock at the Blaenau end.

I think the Mersey Railway was nationalised in 1948. The Liverpool Overhead Railway was profitable (to the tune of half-a-million pounds in 1947) but Mullay does not give any reason for it being missed, despite representations from the NUR in 1948. The Festiniog seems to have been ignored because the Executive only knew about the local quarry movements. However, a wagon was worked over the line once a year to maintain the company’s rights.

 

[Taunton]

It's a good question for 1948, of "If the Mersey, why not the Liverpool Overhead as well?". But I think that, nationalisation or not, when faced with considerable expenditure in the 1950s on the LOR steel viaducts, which simplistically had not been maintained to last since it was built 60 years beforehand, they would have gone for buses to replace it as well.

The Mersey was operated very integrated with the LMS electric services over the old Wirral Railway routes after the 1938 electrification, so a more relevant question for 1923 would be "If the Wirral was taken in to the LMS, with whom it only had tenuous connections, why not the Mersey as well?". But the LMS effectively looked after the Mersey almost as one of its own - when Mersey cars were wrecked in WW2 they were not only repaired at Wolverton but a complete new replacement car was built there.

 

[Roger1973]

Pay would not impact nationalisation, but Pullman was owned partly by the Southern Railway, and partly by Wagons-Lits, based in France. There were issues with nationalising ownership outside the UK. The same applied to the likes of the County Donegal Railway, owned half by the LMS and half by the Great Northern of Ireland, itself with ownership and operations in both countries.

There were some odd bits of nationalisation that may have not been intended - the Midland General / Notts and Derby / Mansfield District bus and trolleybus operation came in to state control through nationalisation of the electricity industry rather than transport.

My understanding is that the UK operations of Wagon-Lits, which included Thomas Cook, got taken over by the UK government in 1940 as it became 'enemy property' when France fell. TC then got sold to Hays Wharf Cartage, which again got nationalised when the railways (who owned HWC) were nationalised (have read things about this in various places, but also mentioned on Wikipedia.

Presume by 1948, Wagon Lits was again in French ownership, but can't find specific references to that.

There were enough merger issues at nationalisation as it was. The same applied to the countrywide bus services that were nationalised at the same time. Some of these, as at Taunton, came originally from pioneer GWR road services, and the bus crews were still members of the NUR, not the TGWU as elsewhere, and this carried on into the 1970s (does it still apply?). Although they agreed common pay rates there was still some issue between the two - said to be the reason why there was no through local bus service along the Taunton to Exeter road, you had to change halfway and they were un-coordinated. Different onetime companies, different unions.

Yes, RMT do still represent bus drivers at a number of locations, and their branch list includes much of what used to be the Western / Southern National territory, and mainly seems to be successors to ex Tillings operators elsewhere.

The situation has got muddied in some places with depots being closed, or sold from one operator to another, and some depots / operators have ended up with a mix of RMT (former NUR) and Unite (former TGWU) drivers.

I believe there may be one or two London bus garages (possibly relatively new operations that were never part of London Transport / London Buses) where drivers are RMT.

 

[oldman]

There seems to be a bit of mythology about what was not nationalised and why not. In fact what was brought under government control during the war and then nationalised was:

The Big Four, including joint and 'independent' railways they operated
London Transport
The Mersey Railway
The Colonel Stephens light railways
and (unless I've missed something) that's it.

See Schedule 3, page 145 of the Transport Act

The Liverpool Overhead was probably thought to be a sort of local tramway.

 

[coppercapped]

The Transport Act 1947 defines the railways to be nationalised as those under Ministry control under the defence regulations, and the wagons were those which had been requisitioned under the same regulations.

They nationalised what they already controlled.

I support this interpretation. The 1947 Act defines those bodies to be nationalised as:

13.—(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section the class of bodies referred to in the last preceding section (that is those bodies to be vested in the BTC) are the bodies which either—

(a) carry on any railway, canal or inland navigation undertaking the whole or any part of which is at the date of the passing of this Act under the control of the Minister by virtue of an order made under Regulation sixty-nine of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939; or

(b) are the owners of any railway or canal forming, or forming part of, the subject matter of any such undertaking as aforesaid; or

(c) were at some time before the passing of this Act owners of any such railway or canal, and are, by virtue of some enactment, represented as respects that railway or canal by the body carrying on the corresponding undertaking, and do not themselves carry on any activity not connected with that railway or canal.

As Oldman wrote - the Government nationalised what it already controlled and the key part of this was the infrastructure: railways, canals and harbours. Rolling stock was, in a sense, incidental.

A skim through Railways for the People (A.J.Mullay, Pendragon, 2006), which unfortunately only has an index of names, does not give an answer, but mentions two points that may have had an influence. Firstly, British Railways was to be a railway for all and there were those who felt that luxury services such as Pullmans did not fit in with that. Secondly, there was the belief that, although they were profitable when nationalisation was being planned, the Pullmans would be the first to suffer financially in a recession and it was better to leave a private company (with greater freedom of manoeuvre) to take the risk. Additionally, the operating costs of the Pullman services could be compared with those of the Hotels Executive, although this may be subsequent justification. (This is all my interpretation of a couple of paragraphs.)

This is, I would suggest, a very late interpretation based on the then perceived justification of the reason the railways were nationalised. There is no historical evidence that these points were considered at all.

 

[Taunton]

I understand that the nationalisation of the coal wagon fleet (half a million?) was an absolute windfall for the wagon hire companies. Most collieries whose names were on the wagons did not actually own them, but hired them from a number of specialist hire companies, often characterised by "Wagon and Finance" in their company names. They charged the collieries for hire, but also the local coal merchants etc for demurrage charges, that is a daily charge when standing beyond the say 24 hours allowed for unloading. For some this was the greater part of their revenue. Many merchants did not unload the wagons immediately, but used them as a form of cheap storage, both because they didn't have the ground space and to avoid double handling and thus breakage of the coal.

I read that there was a civil service jockeying over whether the wagon fleet should be sold to the Coal Board, nationalised at the same time, or the railway.

 

[pdeaves]

I understand that the nationalisation of the coal wagon fleet (half a million?) was an absolute windfall for the wagon hire companies.

and, as I understand, was in insanely poor condition, yet was valued as if good.

 

[coppercapped]

and, as I understand, was in insanely poor condition, yet was valued as if good.

The Sixth schedule of the 1947 Act gives a matrix of 'Compensation for Acquisition of Privately-owned Wagons'. This varies from £248 for a 1946 built 8 ton wagon to £403 for a 5-door 21 ton all steel wagon of the same year. Compensation dropped with age so a 1902 (or earlier) 8 ton wagon was valued at £16 10s 0d and for wagons built before 1917 the going rate was £22 to £47 each depending on type.

Somebody had to work all this out as it's enshrined in the Act! Amazing.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Michael Bonavia (who was an eye witness to the process of acquiring the private wagons) noted in 'British Rail - The first 25 years' that the infant Railway Executive immediately identified to the British Transport Commission that there was a 'surplus' of 115,420 coal wagons that had just been purchased, most of which were only fit for breaking up! (A proportion could be re-purposed as open merchandise wagons.) Millions of pounds straight down the drain.

Even more amazing.

 

[Taunton]

Virtue Signalling is nothing new, and nationalising the nationwide (as the wagons rolled around) visible face of private collieries and painting the names out was a key value for the post-1945 Members of Parliament, from a time when there was a such a large coal mining electorate, and their substantial influence through union support of the new MPs. Note how it was only the coal fleet, not others. By extension, these MPs probably thought that Pullman cars would never get started again.

Not a partisan point because all do it - when London buses first started to privatise individual routes, which initially were allowed to have their own livery, it was instructed that route 24, down Whitehall and round Parliament Square, should be one of the first, so MPs could be shown what was in hand.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Virtue Signalling is nothing new, and nationalising the nationwide (as the wagons rolled around) visible face of private collieries and painting the names out was a key value for the post-1945 Members of Parliament, from a time when there was a such a large coal mining electorate, and their substantial influence through union support of the new MPs. Note how it was only the coal fleet, not others. By extension, these MPs probably thought that Pullman cars would never get started again.

Not a partisan point because all do it - when London buses first started to privatise individual routes, which initially were allowed to have their own livery, it was instructed that route 24, down Whitehall and round Parliament Square, should be one of the first, so MPs could be shown what was in hand.

Looking at some of the external condition of many of those wagons , post war , after a hard war and pooling , and patching repairs to the body work , there was precious little of the PO "branding" left. I suppose austerity Britain had no resources / material to replace them with new steel wagons of better functionality.The "New Jerusalem" was focused on voter credibilty to repair of war damage and in particular the very real housing crisis.

Pullman services , particularly on the Southern were quite rapidly restored after the war , possibly with an eye to public and staff morale ?

 

[S&CLER]

It's a good question for 1948, of "If the Mersey, why not the Liverpool Overhead as well?". But I think that, nationalisation or not, when faced with considerable expenditure in the 1950s on the LOR steel viaducts, which simplistically had not been maintained to last since it was built 60 years beforehand, they would have gone for buses to replace it as well.

The Mersey was operated very integrated with the LMS electric services over the old Wirral Railway routes after the 1938 electrification, so a more relevant question for 1923 would be "If the Wirral was taken in to the LMS, with whom it only had tenuous connections, why not the Mersey as well?". But the LMS effectively looked after the Mersey almost as one of its own - when Mersey cars were wrecked in WW2 they were not only repaired at Wolverton but a complete new replacement car was built there.

The LMS, specifically its ex-L&Y commercial manager Ashton Davies, made several informal offers to the Mersey, but the MR shareholders wouldn't bite. Perhaps they thought they were likely to enjoy a better dividend as an independent than they could expect from the LMS. Had the Mersey become part of the LMS in 1923, the LMS electrical engineer Cortez Leigh might have been able to enforce his preference for 1500v DC electrification, which is what he wanted for the Wirral line (he had been on the committee that recommended 1500v DC as the future British standard). Only the stubborn refusal of the Mersey to convert (even if the LMS paid) put a stop to this. The MR was, however, willing to convert from 4-rail to 3-rail and to change the distance between the live rail and the running rails.

 

[Taunton]

The MR was, however, willing to convert from 4-rail to 3-rail and to change the distance between the live rail and the running rails.

I believe this was done only well after the end of the Mersey, in 1956, when the old Mersey stock was replaced by the postwar build of the Class 503s. The 1938 versions of these, and the existing Mersey stock, had changeover equipment used at the interface between the systems at Birkenhead Park.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2021 ==

Pullman services , particularly on the Southern were quite rapidly restored after the war , possibly with an eye to public and staff morale ?

Was it not the case that Pullman were the restaurant car managers for all of the Southern's services, not just the ones in a Pullman car? Didn't the Southern at an earlier stage have Spiers & Pond as their contractor, but it changed to Pullman at some time?