Photo Roll Call

[Andy873]

Firstly, thanks once again for the replies on my last two question, appreciated!

Question - who are these people in the first photo on this webpage?

Going from left to right, I can only guess at:

1. The station master?
2. The boy??
3 & 4. Porters?
5. A plate layer?
6. The goods shed master?

Any ideas please!

 

[Gloster]

I am no expert on railway uniforms, but:

1 most likely the Station Master. 2 possibly a boy messenger or the like, but not necessary a railway employee as he has no uniform, so he could be from a business in the town, or just a random boy. 3 and 4 probably Porters. 5 either a platelayer or the lowest level of yard labourer. 6 possibly another Porter, but of a different, possibly higher, grade to the other two.

These are all guesswork. You would need a detailed knowledge of uniforms and the staffing at the station to get more than an outline idea. There are limits to knowledge.

 

[6Gman]

The boy is carrying some paper so quite possibly a messenger on his way to/from the telegraph office. Even as late as the 1970s a lot of railway stuff was conveyed via scraps of paper at each end of the process with a telegraph transmission in the middle!

Very early in my career I spent time wading through sheaves of teleprinter paper trying to work out rolling stock mileages! Given the original numbers were handwritten in carriage sidings then transcribed by telegraph operators who didn't know one end of a carriage from another the results were less than ideal!

What should have read:

LG8 34178 25543 26011 25862 15773 16018 25872 25333 35008

would come out as:

LF8 34178 "%543 26011 52862 1573 16018 25872 25333 350008

Good luck !

 

[Bevan Price]

I am no expert on railway uniforms, but:

1 most likely the Station Master. 2 possibly a boy messenger or the like, but not necessary a railway employee as he has no uniform, so he could be from a business in the town, or just a random boy. 3 and 4 probably Porters. 5 either a platelayer or the lowest level of yard labourer. 6 possibly another Porter, but of a different, possibly higher, grade to the other two.

These are all guesswork. You would need a detailed knowledge of uniforms and the staffing at the station to get more than an outline idea. There are limits to knowledge.

Other possibilities are ticket office person (booking clerk ?), or local signalman.

 

[Andy873]

The boy is carrying some paper so quite possibly a messenger on his way to/from the telegraph office. Even as late as the 1970s a lot of railway stuff was conveyed via scraps of paper at each end of the process with a telegraph transmission in the middle!

I missed the obvious about the boy and the paper he's holding.

Other possibilities are ticket office person (booking clerk ?), or local signalman.

Clean forgot about those two possibilities!

What could have been the purpose of the photo? I have two others that are station postcard photos, but they show the stations not the staff.

 

[Rescars]

I suggest it wasnt that unusual in the Edwardian era for a group phot to be taken of a stationmaster and his team. Typically the SM would be in centre shot, not infrequently seated, rather than to one side and looking away from the camera, though. I wonder why no 1 is looking away. Camera shyness perhaps?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Might person #1 on the left be the station's ticket collector / inspector, who'd normally be at the entrance / exit to the platform(s)?

Looks like someone you wouldn't want to mess with.

 

[stuving]

I can add a few thing to this - even names!

A young "three-loom weaver" suffered a serious accident in 1901, sued the L&YR in 1902, and was awarded £800. Among the named witnesses was John William Hale, foremen porter, who said he had two men under him. One other porter, George Knowles, was named.

In the 1901 census Knowles was a junior porter, aged 20 still living at home in Burnley itself, and his brother at 16 was a "train booking clerk" but we don't know where. I have not found Hale living locally. John W Tate was a station master, and as he lived in the station maser's house at Padiham that was his station. He was 45.

A search of the 1901 census finds 44 men living in Padiham parish with "railway" in their occupation. However, as we have seen, their place of work could have been elsewhere. There are several porters and clerks (mostly very young) and carters. Outside the station itself there are signalmen, a lot of platelayers, and station yard workers (shunters, engine cleaners etc.). There was also a station labourer and a scalesman.

So it isn't possible to identify staff as working at Padiham by where they lived. I also wonder which railway staff came under the stationmaster, directly or via some other manager. I presume signalmen and platelayers didn't, but what about the goods yard and sidings? Of course if anyone, even a driver, stepped onto his station they entered the stationmaster's fief.

 

[Gloster]

So it isn't possible to identify staff as working at Padiham by where they lived. I also wonder which railway staff came under the stationmaster, directly or via some other manager. I presume signalmen and platelayers didn't, but what about the goods yard and sidings? Of course if anyone, even a driver, stepped onto his station they entered the stationmaster fief.

I think it was always that Traffic staff came under the Stationmaster and they included signalmen, yard staff including shunters, guards, van drivers, porters, clerical staff, etc. The platelayers would not be directly under him, but he might have some powers over those based at his station or stations; the same would apply to S&T and Building Department staff. Drivers, firemen, cleaners and other Locomotive Department staff were not responsible to him. However, any member of staff would be required to obey any legitimate instruction of a Station Master at his station. Staff such as signalmen would in general be responsible to the Station Master, but for matters related to Rules & Regulations and disciplinary matters concerned with signalling matters they would be responsible to a signalling inspector.

This was the outline when I was on the railway in the early 1989s, but I don’t believe that the general pattern of the line of command had changed much in a century. However, different companies would have had slightly different ways of organising things.

 

[Andy873]

@Gloster Thanks for explaining roughly who was over who, it certainly helps with things.

So it isn't possible to identify staff as working at Padiham by where they lived

That's right, I know of one man who lived in Gt. Harwood but was based at Blackburn station. He was later transferred to Whalley. One morning he set off walking in deep snow at 4 am to get there on time. His last few years however he did manage to get posted to Harwood.

For the railway staff living in Padiham, you had Rose Grove and Burnley Central close by, any of these people could very easily have been based at one of these stations.

A young "three-loom weaver" suffered a serious accident in 1901, sued the L&YR in 1902, and was awarded £800. Among the named witnesses was John William Hale, foremen porter, who said he had two men under him. One other porter, George Knowles, was named.

Yes, I've read about this in an old newspaper article. Seems there were plenty of accidents and sadly deaths even along this short branch line back in the day.

I suggest it wasnt that unusual in the Edwardian era for a group phot to be taken of a stationmaster and his team. Typically the SM would be in centre shot, not infrequently seated, rather than to one side and looking away from the camera

The only other "group" photo I have is from Simonstone station which was also on the branch line. This second photo is exactly as you say, all are sat down on a long bench with the SM in the middle.

Question - Could photos like these be some sort of retirement present? In both of the photos there is one noticeably older person...What reasons would cause a group photo to be taken?

Here is a link to the the second photo at Simonstone - Scroll down towards around 3/4 of the page.