> As I understand the situation, there was a law passed very early on in railways
> development (1840s or 50s perhaps) which forced railways to include 3rd class
> accommodation on some trains. Because of that law, when the various railways
> wanted to reduce the number of classes offered, they had to retain the "3rd
> class" designation and delete "2nd".
Exactly so. Gladstone's Bill, 7 and 8 Victoria C.85, included "...that
each company be required to run over their line on each weekday at least
one train conveying third-class passengers in carriages provided with
seats and protected from the weather, at a speed of not less than twelve
miles an hour, including stoppages, and at a fare not exceeding one
penny a mile for adults, children under twelve half price, and under
three free, 56 pounds of luggage to be allowed without charge." The
Bill was enacted in 1844. At the time some railways didn't have a third
class. This was part of an attempt by Gladstone to lay the foundation for
the state buying up the railways, since even by that time they had ceased
to be competitive and were attempting to develop monopolies, anathema to
the spirit of the period. By accepting the above and many other clauses
the companies put off the state's right to buy up companies from 12 years
after opening to 22 years, by which time the whole shebang was so large
that the threat was unaffordable.
Ken.
Mike@notigg.not.no - 19 Jul 2005 23:33 GMT
>> As I understand the situation, there was a law passed very early on in railways
>> development (1840s or 50s perhaps) which forced railways to include 3rd class
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
>Ken.
Would you chaps mind if I took this and put it on the Goods and Not So
Goods site? Passenger stock is not something I know much about.
As noted in the earlier post
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/gansg/00-apps/app-3.htm is all I have on
the subject.
Regards
Mike