Technical change and
railway systems
Colin
Divall
Institute of Railway Studies, York
Clicking on the
superscript numbers in brackets will bring up references.
Use your browser's 'back' button to return to your place in the
document.
Such has been the intensity and longevity of interest in the technical side of Britain's railways that we might be forgiven for thinking that little remains to be written on the subject. Indeed recent reviews of transport history have not identified technical change as a priority for further work. (Gourvish 1993, Robbins 1991) But the impression that the subject is in good shape is not altogether sound. While there has been a good deal of improvement in recent years with the new wave of railway historiography in periodicals such as Backtrack, many books and articles aimed chiefly at a lay audience still tend to be written with slight regard for the wider social, economic, political and environmental contexts of technical developments. (Divall 1996) A grasp of technical detail in some degree is essential if we are to appreciate the wider significance of technical change, but we should not allow the tail to wag the dog if we want the history we write to be taken seriously by others - including those responsible for funding research - who do not share our interest in railways per se.
Although they are prone to other faults academics are on the whole better at the necessary contextualisation. Over the past three decades economic historians in particular have studied technical change on the American railroads of this and the last century, gaining insights into theoretical issues of general concern such as the genesis and rate of diffusion of new technologies and the effect they had on productivity. Much of this work is relevant to the historical analysis of Britain's railways.
If matters such as these are to help guide us in developing a new research agenda for the history of technical change on Britain's railways then our assessment of what needs to be done will naturally be shaped by our appreciation of what has already been achieved. Since economic historians have generally travelled the furthest in relating technical developments on the railways to wider concerns, I draw chiefly upon their analytical categories in this chapter. But I do not want to prescribe - or for that matter proscribe - any particular theoretical approach, or to suggest that economic history is the only discipline which has anything of interest to say about railways and technology. Political historians might, for example, look at how various forms of state regulation have shaped technical developments (for an initial analysis see Dobbin 1994, pp. 158-212), while historians of technology have already shown how in the USA a wide range of social factors beyond those normally considered by political and economic historians affected both the rate of adoption and the physical design of certain kinds of railroad plant. (For example Clark 1972). And social and cultural historians - who do not always pay as much attention as they might to technology - could profitably look more closely at the influence on people's lives of technical change on the railway (for example Robbins 1992, Jackson 1991 pp. 167-203, Schivelbusch 1986, McKay 1976): the cultural symbolism of railway technologies remains a neglected topic in the British context, although one that has attracted interest in the USA. (Nye 1994, Williams 1990, Danley and Marx 1990, Revill 1989) Although my own preferences will be clear, I cannot emphasise enough that a multi- and even inter-disciplinary approach to the understanding of railways and technical change is the surest way of unlocking the potential of the subject for further research.
Technical Change and Productivity
One widely accepted definition of technical change describes it as the commercialisation, adaptation and improvement of either production processes or products. Economic historians' interest in the phenomenon have usually focused on a series of questions concerning its genesis, diffusion and economic effects. (Rosenberg 1982 pp. 3-4, 1994 pp. 1-23)
The effect of technical change on productivity - whether of land, labour, capital equipment or all of these - is one of the most important of these issues, and as one of the leading technologies of the 19th century railways have long been the subject of intensive research. In the 1960s Albert Fishlow's detailed econometric studies suggested that the US railroads' high rate of growth in productivity between 1870 and 1910 was chiefly due to a reduction in costs associated with steady, incremental improvements to locomotives and freight cars, although the introduction of air brakes, automatic couplings, new signalling systems and steel rails also helped. (Fishlow 1966) Reviewing the work of Fishlow and other (then) 'new economic historians', Patrick O'Brien confirmed that between about 1860 and 1890 'the technological potential for reductions in real costs was greater for railroads than for other forms of transport'. (O'Brien 1977 p. 36)
We have little of this sophistication on Britain's railways, although the broad chronology of developments before the first world war is clear enough. Author after author discusses changes in the materials and design of the permanent way, the development of larger, faster and more powerful locomotives, improvements to signalling and other safety devices, such as the continuous brake, and, at the end of this period, the first, cautious moves towards electrification. (For example Simmons 1978, pp.142-238, Bagwell 1974 pp.76-80, Sherington 1969 pp.211-21, 259-60, 263-71). This reluctance to essay a thorough analysis of the overall cost-savings to the railways or the enhanced revenue that accrued from the introduction of better passenger and freight services is understandable, for the American econometricians' findings were severely criticised by many who pointed to significant methodological difficulties in trying to assess how much technical change contributed to improved productivity. (For example Rosenberg 1982 pp.23-8, Rubin 1967). Other criticisms focused on inadequate data - also a problem in the British context since the costing and accountancy systems of railway companies prior to the first world war were notoriously slack by modern standards. (Lightner 1983, Cain 1980, Aldcroft 1972, Vamplew 1972a, 1971, Irving 1971, Hawke 1970 pp.290-1, 387) For these and other reasons econometric analyses of Britain's railways have shed little light on the precise contribution of technical change to productivity growth over the long term. (Vamplew 1972a, Hawke 1970 pp. 281-312, Deakin and Seward 1969 pp.192-4)(1)
There is however a place for more circumscribed inquiries into the economic consequences of technical change. Some companies in the later 19th and early 20th century were better than others at keeping statistics - although we cannot hope for any more series as comprehensive as those of the North Eastern Railway, already thoroughly analysed by Bob Irving. (1972, 1976) The work of Cain (1980), Irving (1984, 1978), Foreman-Peck (1990) and others over the last 20 years that has given us a much better understanding of the capitalisation, output and total factor productivity of the railways prior to 1914 could perhaps be used to attempt fresh estimates of the order-of-magnitude significance of technical change. Statistics are more readily available for the period after the first world war, and there remains much work to be done on the 'Big Four' (but see Crompton 1995, 1989) and even - despite Terry Gourvish's excellent appraisal of the financial implications of technical developments from 1945 to 1973 - British Railways (BR). (Gourvish 1986) We should also remember that Britain's railways encompass more than 'the railway formerly known as BR' and its predecessors. It would be interesting to know, for example, about the differences between the engineering of BR and independent passenger railways such as London Transport; industrial railways are another neglected subject with interesting possibilities for comparative work. (Lewis this volume)
The Management and Diffusion of Technical Change
The severe difficulties facing anyone who wishes to estimate the contribution of technical change to the railways' productivity suggests that it might be wise to turn our attention to a closely related subject: the capacities of Britain's railway managers to deal with innovation. Such research should not be restricted to the 19th century for firms operating in markets that were no longer unchallenged - such the railways after the first world war - can offer interesting historical lessons in the redemptive powers of technical change. (Edgerton 1996, 1987)
Business historians have of course long recognised US railroads as the 19th century precursors of the large, integrated corporation, a point taken up - with suitable alterations for the differences between the two countries - by some scholars of Britain's railways. (Gourvish this volume, Channon 1981) But there is room for debate about the appropriate criteria against which to judge the decisions railway managers and engineers made about the technical possibilities that were open to them and hence our more general conclusions about the nature and quality of the railways' corporate structures and their capacity for decision-making. An important aspect of work on managerial performance relating to technical change in businesses other than the railways has been the ability to compare firms' competitive performance. But the unique nature of the railways' markets and regulatory regimes (Kirby this volume) combine with the statistical shortcomings and methodological difficulties already noted to make this sort of comparison either otiose (when the level of competition was slight) or practically impossible for much of the railways' history.
All of this suggests that we might do better to take managerial decision-making as a phenomenon amenable to historical explanation but not retrospective judgements regarding its financial efficacy. We could then move towards a less normative understanding of technical innovation than that usually assumed by business historians of railways. It is probably fair to say that a majority is still most interested in the managerial politics of companies - or their 'corporate culture' - primarily from the point of view of showing how this impacted upon financial performance. (For example Churella 1994, Bezilla 1980, Marx 1976) By contrast many historians of technology seek to explore how this politics shaped the very standards by which historical actors judged the success or otherwise of technical change - the absence or 'problematic' nature of statistical data thus becomes an interesting matter that requires explanation rather than a block to historical judgement. Moving towards a fuller recognition of the contested meanings of such data also implies a shift towards a richer theoretical understanding of railways, as organisations whose wider goals and purposes were open to competing definitions. One consequence is that the work of historians interested in questions of labour or gender are more readily absorbed into work on technical change. (For example Drummond 1997, 1995, Brown 1995, Crompton 1989) Adopting such social constructivist approaches to the evolution of railway technologies should prove a highly fruitful line of inquiry. (For example Dunlavy 1994, Usselman 1985). And because this kind of history acknowledges that individuals and personalities helped to make the past, good writing on the subject will avoid the overly abstract and dry nature of much of the existing economic history of railways.
Even if these more radical lines of inquiry are not pursued there is a need for a reexamination and extension of some of the work undertaken by an earlier generation of economic and business historians. Their studies suggested that technical decisions were made without any clear idea of the financial - or other - benefits that might have accrued. Irving (1971) for example argued that around the turn of the century the London & North Western and North Eastern Railway companies failed to invest in electrification partly because they did not appreciate the widespread advantages of doing so. Similarly Dyos and Aldcroft (1969 p.186) claimed that a lack of costing techniques in the railway companies' workshops inhibited innovation in locomotive design during the 19th century - although the complaint is more commonly that there was too much variation and too little standardisation! (For example Westwood 1977) On the whole we have insufficient evidence to be sure that these conclusions apply more generally.
Take for example the area of locomotive manufacturing. (Larkin and Larkin 1988) Before the first world war cost accounting was more widespread among engineering firms of all kinds in Britain than is often realised (Divall 1994), and recent studies of the private locomotive builders Beyer-Peacock shows that in the 19th century this company, at least, made considerable efforts to cost its products. (Heap 1992, Hills and Patrick 1982) Moreover Kirby (1988) suggests that the proliferation of locomotive designs emanating from the railway companies and the privately-owned workshops before the first world war resulted from a recognition of the economic advantages of continual incremental improvement. Diane Drummond has recently developed this theme, arguing that economic historians have too readily accepted the applicability to Britain's railways of criteria of technical advance evolved primarily for the analysis of the US economy. At least until 1900, she argues, British railway companies' workshops were as technically advanced as any in the world and their highly differentiated products and associated manufacturing techniques were well suited to the particular markets for technical labour within which the railways had to operate. (Drummond 1997 pp.22-34) Indeed, John H. Brown's exemplary study (1995) of the American Baldwin locomotive works demonstrates that this firm prospered in the 19th century by developing a range of products which in its diversity arguably bears comparison with that in Britain. Although there is a good deal of research currently under way on the business history of Britain's locomotive industries, much remains to be done, particularly with regard to the 20th century. Once we move outside the charmed circle of motive power, the management of almost every area of technical change remains to be explored. (But see Jenkinson 1996, Milligan 1975)
The period after the first world war has on the whole been inadequately treated. The weight of opinion - informed principally by Derek Aldcroft's pioneering studies - is still that the Big Four did not fully grasp the benefits offered by technical change, particularly when it came to the reduction of manpower and new forms of motive power. (Aldcroft 1968 pp.77-83, 1974 pp.243-62, Dyos & Aldcroft 1969 pp.308-12). Interest has largely focused on traction policy; other innovations of note include standardisation, particularly of rolling stock, the use of new techniques of mass production and repair, the introduction of larger capacity wagons, the cumulative effect of minor design improvements on them and on the track, and the development of new signalling and train control systems. (Jenkinson 1996, Bonavia 1981 pp.83-8, Pollins 1975 pp.187-9, Aldcroft 1968 pp.77-83) A good deal of the criticism has been levelled at the railways' management: Aldcroft, for example, conceded that a shortage of capital meant that the Big Four were largely unable to undertake large scale electrification of the main lines in the 1920s and 1930s - a conclusion recently disputed by Crompton (1995) - but he felt that managers simply missed the opportunities provided by diesel traction. (Aldcroft 1974 pp.247-52, 255-7)
There is scope for a critical analysis of Aldcroft's figures (see for example on the USA, McCall 1983), but a more rewarding line of inquiry might be to explore the many and varied reasons why the Big Four stayed with steam and other so-called outmoded technologies, such as low capacity wagons. Aldcroft suggested - and Michael Duffy (1982) has made a similar argument with regard to the BR standard steam locomotives in the 1950s - that engineers were simply attached to traditional ways of working: but this is merely to state the problem, not solve it. A better understanding of the corporate structures of the Big Four focusing particularly on the relationships between engineers and other senior managers would be a good starting point. (For an initial analysis of the LMS, see Divall 1998) We also need to be sensitive to the possibility that engineers and managers might have had good reasons to think that technical innovations were not as promising as they appear to us with the benefit of hindsight: these issues are rarely as straightforward as they are sometimes made out to be by those historians who lack a substantial measure of technical expertise. Michael Bonavia made a start at looking at these wider issues some years ago, pointing out that the opinions of contemporaries regarding matters such as the practicality of diesel traction and larger goods wagons were not as sanguine as Aldcroft's post hoc judgements - some of the disagreement concerning diesels, for example, stemmed from the issue of whether it was possible to extrapolate from the experience of North American railroads. (Bonavia 1981 pp.120-38) Most histories of British motive power are too narrowly focused on technical matters to help us greatly in this task - by contrast Mark Reutter's study of the Pennsylvania Railroad's doomed attempt to stay with steam in the 1930s and 1940s shows what can be achieved by dedicated historians working outside the universities. (Reutter 1994)
The thrust of the most recent work on Britain reaches similar conclusions to studies of the period before the first world war - that if there were failures to seize the full potential of new technology the blame was in some considerable measure due to factors over which railway managers had little control. (Crompton 1995) The relationship between the state and Britain's railways is as important to bear in mind in relation to technical change as it is to any other aspect of the railways' history (Kirby this volume) - a point amply demonstrated by Terry Gourvish's highly detailed history of BR. (1986) While thanks to this book and the more descriptive work of John Johnson and Robert Long (1981) our understanding of the management of technical change on the nationalised railway system is considerably better than that in relation to the Big Four, case studies such as those of Stephen Potter (1987, 1993) on Britain's high speed train since the 1960s and Roxanne Powell's doctoral study (1996, 1997) of the Advanced Passenger Train and the SNCF's TGV demonstrate the value of paying close attention to both the managerial and governmental regimes under which engineers work. More work like this on the recent past might attract funding from policymakers, and although high speed trains and their associated infrastructural requirements are obvious subjects for further research, we should not ignore more mundane topics such as the development of new technologies for freight and regional and local passenger services. (Whitelegg et al 1993)
The Genesis of Technical Change
We readily associate recent technical change on the railways as the product of systematic research and development. But this approach to the genesis of innovation can be traced back to the late nineteenth century - by 1890 several of the larger US railroads had built laboratories for technical research. (Usselman 1985 pp. 228-85). Apart however from Johnson and Long's sketch of developments since the 19th century (1981 pp.437-464) we have had little until recently on the history of engineering research on Britain's railways. A comprehensive analysis of technical research undertaken by and for Britain's railways is long overdue.
I have started this task with an initial study of the London, Midland & Scottish (LMS), chiefly because the company drew explicity upon American models of corporate organisation and technical research and so offers the potential for interesting trans-Atlantic comparisions. (Divall 1998) But we must not fall into the trap of using such a narrow definition of 'research' that we are blinded to the innovative and developmental work that was done by engineers working in the traditional technical departments. As well as a more thorough examination of the LMS's engineering functions, we need comparisons with the equivalent departments on the Southern, London & North Eastern and Great Western Railways - none of which was as keen as the LMS on the American model for the organisation of research. There is of course already a large body of literature relating to these matters, but it needs to be set in the context of the facilities offered by governmental research bodies, the industrial research associations and the universities. Perhaps too someone will turn their attention to an overview of the technical research undertaken by the private manufacturers of railway locomotives, rolling stock and other equipment.
Nor should we ignore technical change on the earliest railway systems. While Lewis's magisterial study (1970) of early wooden waggonways is unlikely seriously to be revised in the light of new research, the growing interest in the technology (among other facets) of the pre-1830 railway is already causing us to think again about the respective contributions of pioneers such as George Stephenson, John Buddle and William Chapman. (Rutherford 1997) Future work on particular lines and regional networks will help us to understand better the continuities and discontinuities between the essentially mediaeval technology of the waggonway and the sophisticated systems of the Victorian railway. A fuller grasp of the personal, business and proto-professional networks that bound together the engineers and promoters of railways in the late 18th and early 19th century should enhance our knowledge of the diffusion of new technologies in a period that, for all the long standing interest in the industrialisation of Britain, is not as well understood as it might be; such work could also contribute to wider debates about the regional nature of industrialisation.
Railways As A Cause Of Technical Change In Other Industries
The railways' influence on the development of other industries is another subject once of great interest to economic historians that would bear further examination. These 'linkages' fall into two categories: first those with industries that supplied the goods and materials used in railway construction, operation and maintenance ('backward linkages'); and secondly those with other business sectors that benefited from the expansion and integration of markets facilitated by the development of the railway system ('forward linkages'). Technical change had a part to play in both kinds of linkage, although in neither case has the issue traditionally been of the first priority.
We can deal quite briefly with forward linkages. Clearly technical change sometimes allowed for reductions in charges made for existing railway services, or for the provision of new kinds entirely (faster, through goods trains for instance). In these ways the railways furthered the prosperity of other industries, and this gives us another reason for studying the technical innovations detailed earlier - if, that is, we accept this aspect of the econometric approach.(2) But there is little more to be said about forward linkages and technical change that places railways at the centre of debate. Some of the success enjoyed by non-railway businesses depended on the technologies they introduced partly in response to changing market opportunities. But the railways' part in promoting technical change of this sort (or perhaps even in preventing it, when, for instance, a vigorous industry was debilitated by changing markets) was normally limited to their shaping of these markets. Only very occasionally do we find instances where the railways played a more direct part in promoting a new technology, for instance by offering facilities. Thus Hawke for example referred to the introduction, development and diffusion of the electric telegraph, which from the mid 19th century was assisted by the granting of wayleaves by the railway companies.(3) (Hawke 1970 pp.382-384)
There is one other way in which technology enters the discussion of forward linkages. In the 1960s and 1970s some econometricians were interested in the degree to which the railways' unique technologies enabled them to offer transport services that thanks to geography could not readily or economically be provided by other modes, for instance, canals.(4) As O'Brien noted judging such matters requires detailed engineering knowledge and, as several critics have pointed out, this is precisely what was lacking in much of the econometric analyses. (O'Brien 1977 pp.74-75, Robbins 1991 pp.84-85) Moreover the very notion of technical change emphasises the point that railways were developing systems, and on the whole this point was also ignored by the econometricians. There might therefore be some point to looking again at their global assumptions regarding the comparative technical advantages of railways over other forms of transport, perhaps extending the period of study into the 20th century. (For an initial analysis see Evans 1981) But such an analysis would resonate more readily with the concerns of the present generation of historians if it were to try to understand the 'success' or 'failure' of different modes of transport in the context of the socio-technical factors prevailing at particular times and in particular locales. As Jack Simmons pointed out 40 years ago in a study of the survival of horse traction on Britain's railways, what is regarded an outmoded kind of technology in one context might well be a sensible choice in a different set of circumstances. (Simmons 1994 pp. 11-22)
Backward linkages
Technical change featured a little more prominently in the analysis of backward linkages, where debates focused primarily on the iron, steel, and mechanical engineering industries. As we have come to expect, the literature on North America is much more extensive than that on Britain. Generally speaking commentators on Europe have had little cause to disagree with David Landes's view that it is 'doubtful' whether the impact of the railways on technical change in these industries was as 'consistently favourable' as that on output. (Landes 1969 p.153)
Until very recently the case of the ferrous metal industries seemed to bear this account out. Hawke unequivocally concluded that before 1870 the English and Welsh railways' demand for rails played no significant part in the change from iron to steel manufacture, nor in advances in finishing techniques such as the rolling of rails. (1970 pp.232, 234, 243, 245, see also Hawke & Higgins 1983 pp.193-194, Gourvish 1980 pp.22-23) Reviewing the evidence from America and a number of European countries in addition to Britain, O'Brien was even more sweeping. He suggested that the railways had 'little to do' with advances in metallurgical technologies throughout the 19th century, although he did note Fishlow's contention that technical change in the US steel industry might have been systematically linked with railroads. (O'Brien 1977 pp.65-6) For O'Brien the point was 'not likely' to be resolved because economic historians did not agree on what counted as a cause of technical innovation; insofar as it was expressed demand, the 'sales to the railroads constituted part of the environment that stimulated research into new technology for basic metallurgy.' Similarly the railroads' demand for rails might have assisted in the diffusion of known techniques throughout the iron and steel industries of Europe and North America (O'Brien 1977 pp.66-7) Alternatively, it might have allowed the continued use of technologies - such as the Bessemer process of steel manufacture in Britain from the 1880s - which would otherwise have been uneconomic. (Musson 1978 p.175) Apparently there was little more to be said.
Since we need not restrict ourselves to the theoretical assumptions of these economic historians we do not have to so pessimistic about the value of further research. Recent work on the steel industry demonstrates that there is enormous scope for exploring the ways in - and the mechanisms through - which the railways' requirements affected other industries. Thomas Misa has recently argued that in the USA the industry-wide standards adopted in the 1870s for the chemical constitution of steel produced by the Bessemer process 'owed much to the railroads' - they 'selected and defined' the properties of steel to ensure that 'the metal that best filled their specific technological needs would be uniformly available'. (Misa 1995 pp.1-43)
Yet for the earlier generation of historians specificities such as these counted against the railways. Fogel for instance said that in the USA the Bessemer process was used for little else other than the manufacture of rails, and hence that the railroads' contribution to technical innovation in the steel industry counted for little when it came to manufacturing processes of a wider economic significance. But this argument is set up in such a way that the railroads can never win. If we find that they only encouraged technical change that was specific to their own requirements, then the railroads stand condemned of producing nothing of general value for the economy. If however it turns out that technical advances adduced by the railroads were wider relevance then it is open for economic historians to argue that the railroads' role was contingent, not necessary: the demand from firms in some other industry could have caused the technical changes which as a matter of historical fact the railroads brought about. Thus for example although in the USA the iron structural I-beam evolved from railway rails (Jewett 1967, 1969), it might be argued counterfactually that in the absence of railroads similar beams would have been developed by other means.
As far as research on Britain is concerned the degree of our ignorance concerning the technical influence of the railways on other industries is for the most part so great that we need not worry too much about the niceties of this sort of counterfactual argument. Detailed studies such as Misa's carried out in the British context would be very welcome, with due caution for the differences as well as the similarities between the two countries already indicated by the initial work being done on railways and the steel industry. (Brooke 1986, see also Drummond 1995 pp.47-48, 101-104, Tweedale 1987, Reed 1982 pp.63, 67-73) Similarly Gourvish's comment (1980 pp.23, 25) that we need more studies of the railways' impact on the technical development of the iron industry may be extended to most of those other industries - non-ferrous metals, bricks, timber and other building materials, and coal - of which he noted generally we have little knowledge.(5) There is also scope for more work on 19th century developments in prime movers (but see Hills 1994) and the telegraph (Kieve 1973), while the wider impact of many of the heterogeneous techniques employed by civil engineers (earthworks, tunnels, bridges, other structures and so on) remain to be explored. (Sutherland 1997) Once we move into the 20th century the whole field of heavy (Byatt 1979 pp.46-66) and light electrical engineering opens up, including for example the railways' contribution to control systems and data processing - a consequence of improvements in the regulation of motive power and rolling stock - and safety-critical systems such as signalling.
Only in the realm of mechanical engineering has a satisfactory start been made. Historians have been interested for many years in the railways' part in promoting novel techniques in the working and handling of metal (particularly by machines), and we have a general idea about how the division of markets between company workshops and private manufacturers affected the growth of standardisation in locomotives and rolling stock. (Kirby 1991, 1988, Rolt 1986 pp.117-118, Saul 1970, pp.145-150, Dyos & Aldcroft 1969 pp.185-7) But only recently have more detailed studies by historians interested in the labour process - most notably Drummond's work on the railways' workshops at Crewe and elsewhere (Drummond 1997, 1995, 1989, 1987) - enabled us to assess some of the claims made by an older generation of historians. Much needed doctoral studies of the independent locomotive builders should shortly produce further answers. However a more general assessment of the railways' contribution to the diffusion of new technologies and techniques awaits further studies at the level of the firm: at the moment we can do little more than echo O'Brien's point that it would be 'surprising to find that some of the solutions to technical problems posed by the railways for metallurgy, thermo-dynamics and the manufacture of machine tools had no spin-offs to other parts of the engineering industry'. (O'Brien 1977 p.70)
Technology Transfer - Britain's Railways Abroad
Although I have drawn heavily upon North American studies to suggest subjects and approaches for future research on Britain's railways I have not discussed at any length the potential of comparative studies. These are particularly relevant to the issue of the transfer of railway technologies from one country to another. For much of the 19th and well into the 20th century Britain was of course a major supplier of railway technologies, technical expertise and personnel across the globe (Inkster 1991 pp.150, 177-179, 224-5, Ville 1990 pp.144-153, Buchanan 1989 pp.148-160, 1986 pp.501-524, Henderson 1972 pp.64, 69-70, 135-136, 158-159) - although the influence of British ideas on European engineers was perhaps not as long-lived as is commonly supposed. In the recent past the flow has tended to be in the other direction with for instance US diesel locomotives appearing in Britain in the 1980s and wagon technology from the same country in the late 1990s, although we can of course find much earlier instances of the importation of foreign technologies - electric tramways and railways are a good example. (Yuzawa 1985, McKay 1976 pp.35-83) Current developments in the field of high speed trains promise interesting further problems for students of technology transfer. (Powell 1996, 1997, Puffert 1993)
There has been surprisingly little detailed historical work done on the fate of British railway technology exported overseas, or indeed on that of foreign equipment imported into Britain. The general questions asked in relation to other kinds of technology transfer are often relevant to railways. (Fox 1996, Jeremy 1992, 1991) What for instance are the conditions which maximise the chances of such transfers being successful? What effects do the imported technologies have on the recipient country - and indeed on the exporter? In what ways does the need to function in a new environment - socially and economically as well as physically - mean that the technology alters its physical form?
This last is one of the more interesting questions currently engaging historians of technology that is relevant to the future study of railways. We are all familiar with the fact that the first British locomotives exported to the USA rapidly proved unsuitable for the lightly laid and tortuous permanent way and had to be radically modified to give a satisfactory performance. Economic historians have long argued that the design of British locomotives was specific to the economic conditions of their country of origin, where the saving of land in the construction of railways was more important than that of either capital or labour. This resulted in superbly engineered but expensive lines, and locomotives of a similar kind to run on them. By contrast in North America land was cheap (or free) but labour and capital were not. Railways were thus cheaply constructed and poorly aligned, needing a very different design of locomotive. The engines were also cheaper to build than British ones: shortages of capital forced indigenous manufacturers to standardise and adopt mass production. (White 1994, 1971, Habakkuk 1962 pp.32-33, 87-90) Although some research is currently being undertaken on British locomotives in Sweden there is plenty of scope for comparative work of this kind on other countries. (Karlsson 1994).
As with other areas of the study of technical change, recent comparative work tends to draw upon a wider range of explanatory factors than the specifically economic. For example Eda Kranakis has shown how before 1900 the different attitudes of French and American engineers towards mathematical forms of analysis and systematic practical experimentation contributed to the markedly more successful evolution and diffusion of the steam injector - a French invention - in the USA. (Kranakis 1989) And Colleen Dunlavy's nuanced and sophisticated analysis of how the social, political and economic differences between Prussia and the USA were reflected in the development of their railways in the 1830s and 1840s includes much on technical change that should inspire similar comparisons for Britain. (Dunlavy 1994)
Concluding Remarks
Clearly there is no shortage of theoretical perspectives or empirical studies of other countries' railways upon which we can draw inspiration for our new research agenda. In concluding I should like briefly to make just two points.
First we are fortunate in Britain to have such a large number of people outside the universities with an interest in the history of railways. There is enormous potential for academic and lay historians together to develop a rigorous and sophisticated account of technical change and Britain's railways. The evolution of 'local history' in recent years suggests that at its best such a partnership can produce nuanced studies that move beyond a microscopic or parochial intellectual outlook to become genuinely microcosmic in scope. Tightly focused studies that are nevertheless informed by an awareness of wider debates can provide the evidence needed to support or refute more generalised accounts, and can contribute to further theoretical work. By contrast mere detail can all too often prove to be beside the point, and unfortunately this is a problem with a considerable proportion of the writing produced by lay historians. Yet while there are undoubtedly many lessons which lay historians (and their publishers) can learn from academics, the point works the other way round as well. Academics have no monopoly over historical insights or knowledge, as I know from my own work. While undertaking research on the LMS's approach to technical research by chance I discussed with a retired railway worker the costing of locomotive repairs. He pointed out to me that the booked figures often bore little resemblance to the costs incurred - something which had never struck me and yet which has an obvious bearing on our ability to estimate the productivity of technical change. A small point in itself perhaps, but an important one that could be multiplied many times over.
Secondly, I should like to enter a plea for all
historians to think more about the potential of forms of evidence other than
traditional written sources. Oral accounts are hardly novel in the wider realm
of historical scholarship but there is scope for their more widespread and
better informed use in connection with railways. Physical remains (or if you
prefer, the 'material culture') of railways - be they in museums, on heritage
railways or elsewhere - might also serve more as sources of evidence. There are
one or two examples of studies of extant locomotives in the USA which help us
to understand for instance the development of the skills and techniques of
railway manufacturing. (White 1981) Historical archaeology can sometimes
surprise us: our knowledge of the sources of supply of components to the early
locomotive industry has recently been modestly extended through the examination
of boiler tubes recovered from a shipwreck off Scotland, and the remarkable
discovery of extensive remains of wooden waggonways at Lambton D pit in Co.
Durham will surely deepen out understanding of the technology of railways in
the 18th century. While discoveries of this quality are likely to be extremely
rare, the extensive collections of the National Railway Museum remain
under-exploited. A large and well-documented series of permanent way castings
from Crewe works could for example tell us more about the nature of iron and
steel manufacturing throughout the latter half of the 19th century. Clearly,
the skills of archaeo-metallurgist would be essential here, but as I remarked
earlier such inter-disciplinarity should surely be welcomed.(6) The heterogeneity of railways as
sociotechnical systems requires such an eclectic approach, and is precisely
what makes research on technical change such a potentially rewarding
subject.
Click here to view the bibliography for this paper.
Colin Divall is Professor of Railway Studies in the
University of York and Head of the Institute of Railway Studies,
and Head of Research at the National Railway Museum.
© The Author 1996. Except for bona fide individual or
academic purposes, this paper may not be reprinted in whole or in part, or
stored, or transmitted by any means, including electronic, without the prior
written consent of the author. All commercial use, reproduction or transmission
of this paper is strictly prohibited.
We welcome feedback on this paper: please e-mail
cd11@york.ac.uk, or write to Colin Divall
at the Institute of Railway Studies, Department of History, University of York,
Heslington, York YO10 5DD.
IRS home page | IRS research page | Working papers index page
Notes
1. Gary Hawke and Jim Higgins later claimed that the 'impressive' productivity record of Britain's railways between 1830 and 1914 came 'mainly from improvements in the performance of assets peculiar to the railway industry' but unfortunately they did not develop the point. (Hawke & Higgins 1983 p. 194)
2. Hawke (1970 pp.381-382) makes clear which of these benefits are counted within the concept of the railways' 'social saving' and which are properly externalities to be counted among the forward linkages. But this need not concern us here.
3. Hawke (1970 pp.382-384) played down the significance of these wayleaves, claiming that they could have been established at minimal extra cost to the telegraph companies without the railways' assistance. But a more rounded account would also acknowledge the (unquantifiable) part played by the early railways' usage in establishing the technical reliability of the electric telegraph. This aided its diffusion throughout Britain. (Kieve 1973)
4. Fogel's 'embodied benefits'.
5. Hawke said that there is 'no reason' to suppose that railways contributed directly to the techniques of preserving wood, nor that there were any 'dependent technical advances in a "stone industry"', although he cites little evidence for these claims. That with regard to wood seems particularly unwise given the railways' interest in for example preserving sleepers. He admitted that the case of bricks 'is a little more uncertain'. (1970 pp.211-212)
6. If material objects are to be of any use to historians as evidence then curators and other custodians must give much more attention than hitherto to conserving and recording any changes to the objects in their care. (Hopkin 1994 pp.215-221)
Aldcroft, Derek H. (1968), British Railways in Transition: The Economic Problems of British Railways Since 1914, London: Macmillan
Aldcroft, Derek H. (1972), 'Railways and economic growth: a review article', Journal of Transport History, 1 (2nd ser.) (2), September
Aldcroft, Derek H. (1974), Studies in British Transport History 1870-1970, Newton Abbot: David & Charles
Bagwell, Philip (1974), The Transport Revolution, London: Routledge
Bezilla, Michael (1980), Electric Traction on the Pennsylvania Railroad 1895-1968, University Park and London: Pennsylvania State University Press
Bonavia, Michael R. (1981), Railway Policy Between the Wars, Manchester: Manchester University Press
Brooke, David (1986), 'The advent of the steel rail, 1857-1914', Journal of Transport History 7 (3rd series) (1), March
Brown, John H. (1995), The Baldwin Locomotive Works, Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press
Buchanan, R. Angus (1986), 'The diaspora of British engineering', Technology and Culture 27 (3), July
Buchanan, R. Angus (1989), The Engineers: A History of the Engineering Profession in Britain 1750-1914, London: Jessica Kingsley
Byatt, I. C. R. (1979), The British Electrical Industry: The Economic Returns to a New Technology, Oxford: Clarendon Press
Cain, P. J. (1980), 'Private enterprise or public utility? Output, pricing, and investment in English and Welsh railways, 1879-1914', Journal of Transport History 1 (3rd series) (1), March
Channon, Geoffrey (1981), 'A. D.Chandler's "visible hand" in transport history', Journal of Transport History 2 (3rd series) (1), March
Churella, Albert J. (1995), 'Corporate culture and marketing in the American railway locomotive industry: American Locomotive and Electro-Motive respond to dieselization', Business History Review 69 (2), Summer
Clark, Charles H. (1972), 'The development of the semiautomatic freight-car coupler, 1863-1893'. Technology and Culture 13 (2), April
Crompton, Gerald (1989), 'Squeezing the pulpless orange: labour and capital on the railways in the inter-war years', Business History 31 (2), April
Crompton, Gerald (1995), 'The Railway Companies and the Nationalisation Issue, 1920-1950' in Millward, R. and Singleton, J. (eds), The Political Economy of Nationalisation in Britain 1920-1950, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Danley, S and Marx, L. (eds) (1990), The Railroad in American Art: Represenations of Technology and Change, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Deakin B. M. and Seward, T. (1969), Productivity in Transport: A Study of Employment
Capital, Output Productivity and Technical Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Divall, Colin (1994), 'Professional organisation, employers and the education of engineers for managment: a comparison of mechanical, electrical and chemical engineers in Britain, 1897-1977', Minerva 32 (3), Autumn
Divall, Colin (1996), 'What Kind of Railway (Engineering) History Should We Be Writing?' in Jarvis, A. (ed.), Approaches to Engineering History, Liverpool: Merseyside Maritime Museum and the Newcomen Society
Divall, Colin (1998), 'Down the American Road? Industrial Research on the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, 1923-1947' in Armstrong, J., Bouneau, C. and Vidal Olivares, J. (eds), Railway Management, Aldershot: Scolar Press
Dobbin, Frank (1994), Forging Industrial Policy: The United States, Britain and France in the Railway Age, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Drummond, Diane K. (1987), 'Building a locomotive: skill and the workforce in Crewe locomotive works, 1843-1914', Journal of Transport History 8 (3rd series) (1), March
Drummond, Diane K. (1989),'"Specifically designed"? employers' labour strategies and worker responses in British railway workshops, 1838-1914'. Business History 31 (2), April
Drummond, Diane K. (1995), Crewe: Railway Town, Company and People, 1840-1914, Aldershot: Scolar Press
Drummond, Diane K. (1997), 'Technology and the Labour Process: A Preliminary Comparison of British Railway Companies' Approaches to Locomotive Construction Before 1914' in Divall, Colin (ed.), Perspectives on Railway History: Papers Delivered at the SHOT Meeting, London, August 1996, York: Institute of Railway Studies
Duffy, Michael C. (1982), 'Technomorphology and the Stephenson traction system', Transactions of the Newcomen Society 54
Dunlavy, Colleen (1994), Politics and Industrialization: Early Railroads in the United States and Prussia, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
Dyos, H. J. and Aldcroft, D. H. (1969), British Transport: An Economic Survey from the Seventeenth Century to the Twentieth, Leicester: Leicester University Press
Edgerton, D. E. H. (1987),'Science and technology in British business history', Business History 29 (4), October 1987
Edgeton, D. E. H. (1996), Science, Technology and British 'Decline', Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Evans, Francis T. (1981), 'Roads, railways and canals: technical choices in 19th-century Britain', Technology and Culture 22 (1), January
Fishlow, Albert (1965), American Railroads and the Transformation of the Ante-Bellum Economy, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press
Fishlow, Albert (1966), 'Productivity and Technological Change in the Railroad Sector, 1840-1910' in National Bureau of Economic Research, Output, Employment, and Productivity in the United States After 1800, London: NBEC/Columbia University Press
Fogel, Robert W. (1964), Railroads and American Economic Growth: Essays in Econometric History, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press
Foreman-Peck, J. (1990), 'Railways and Late Victorian Growth' in Foreman-Peck, J. (ed.), New Perspectives on the Late Victorian Economy: Essays in Quantitative Economic History 1860-1914, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Fox, Robert (ed.) (1996), Technological Change: Methods and Themes in the History of Technology Amsterdam: Harwood Academic
Gourvish, Terence R. (1980), Railways and the British Economy 1830-1914, London: Macmillan
Gourvish, Terence R. (1986), British Railways: A Business History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Gourvish, Terence R. (1993), 'What kind of railway history did we get? Forty years
of research', Journal of Transport History 14 (3rd series) (2), September
Habakkuk, H. J. (1962), American and British Technology in the Nineteenth Century, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Hawke, Gary R. (1970), Railways and Economic Growth in England and Wales 1840-1870, Oxford: Clarendon Press
Hawke, Gary and Jim Higgins (1983), 'Britain' in O'Brien, P. (ed.), Railways and the
Economic Development of Western Europe 1830-1914, London: Macmillan
Heap, Christine (1992), 'Nineteenth Century Production and Pricing at Beyer, Peacock & Company, Locomotive Manufacturers, Manchester' in Cossons, N., Patmore, A. and Shorland-Ball, R. (eds), Perspectives on Railway History and Interpretation, York: National Railway Museum
Henderson, W. O. (1972), Britain and Industrial Europe 1750-1870, Leicester: Leicester University Press, 3rd ed.
Hills, Richard (1989), Power from Steam: A History of the Stationary Steam Engine, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Hills, Richard and Patrick, D. (1982), Beyer, Peacock: Locomotive Builders to the World, Glossop: Transport Publishing
Hopkin, Dieter (1994), 'A Commentary on Restoration, Conservation and the
National Railway Museum Collection' in Shorland-Ball, R. (ed.), Common Roots - Separate Branches: Railway History and Preservation, London: Science Museum/National Railway Museum
Inkster, Ian (1991), Science and Technology in History: An Approach to Industrial Development, London: Macmillan
Irving, R. J. (1971), 'British railway investment and innovation 1900-1914', Business History 13 (1), January
Irving, R. J. (1976), The North Eastern Railway: An Economic History, Leicester, Leicester University Press
Irving, R. J. (1978), 'The profitability and performance of British railways, 1870-1914', Economic History Review 31 (2nd series), (1)
Irving, R. J. (1984), 'The capitalisation of Britain's railways, 1830-1914', Journal of Transport History 5 (3rd series) (1), March
Jackson, Alan A. (1991), Semi-Detached London: Suburban Development, Life
and Transport, 1900-39, Didcot: Wild Swan, 2nd ed.
Jenkinson, David (1996), British Railway Carriages of the 20th Century, Penryn: Atlantic Transport Publishers, 2nd ed.
Jeremey, David J. (ed.) (1991), International Technology Transfer: Europe, Japan and the USA 1700-1914, Aldershot: Edward Elgar
Jeremy, David J. (ed.) (1992), The Transfer of International Technology: Europe Japan and the USA in the Twentieth Century, Aldershot: Edward Elgar
Jewett, Robert A. (1967), 'Structural antecedents of the I-beam, 1800-1850', Technology and Culture 8 (3), July
Jewett, Robert A. (1969), 'Solving the puzzle of the first American structural I-beam', Technology & Culture 10 (3), July
Johnson, John and Long, Robert A. (1981), British Railways Engineering 1948-80, London: Mechanical Engineering Publishing
Karlsson, Lars O. (1994), 'Purchase or Adaptive Redevelopment: The British Locomotive in Sweden' in Shorland-Ball, R. (ed.), Common Roots - Separate Branches: Railway History and Preservation, London: Science Museum/National Railway Museum
Kieve, J. L. (1973), The Electric Telegraph: A Social and Economic History, Newton Abbot: David & Charles
Kirby, Maurice W. (1988), 'Product proliferation in the British locomotive building industry, 1850-1914: an engineer's paradise?', Business History 30 (3), July
Kirby, Maurice W. (1991), 'Technological Innovation and Structural Division in the UK Locomotive Building Industry 1850-1914' in Holmes, Colin and Booth, Alan (eds), Economy and Society: European Industrialisation and Its Social Consequences, Leicester: Leicester University Press
Kranakis, Eda (1989), 'Social determinants of engineering practice: a comparative view of France and America in the 19th century', Social Studies of Science 19 (1), February
Landes, David S. (1969), The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Larkin, Edgar J. (1979), Memoirs of a Railway Engineer, London: Mechanical Engineering Publishing
Larkin, Edgar J. and Larkin, John G. (1988), The Railway Workshops of Britain, London: Macmillan
Lewis, M. J. T. (1970), Early Wooden Railways, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
Lightner, D. L. (1983), 'Railroads and the American economy: the Fogel thesis in retrospect', Journal of Transport History 4 (3rd ser.) (2), September
McCall, John B. (1985), 'Dieselisation of American railroads: a case study', Journal of Transport History 6 (3rd ser.) (2), September
McKay, John P. (1976), Tramways and Trolleys: The Rise of Urban Mass Transport in Europe, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
Marx, Leo (1976), 'Technological change and the theory of the firm: the American locomotive manufacturing industry, 1920-1955', Business History Review 50 (1), Spring
Milligan, John (1975), The Resilient Pioneers: A History of the Elastic Rail Spike Company and Its Associates, Aberdeen, Edinburgh and London: Paul Harris Publishing
Misa, Thomas (1995), A Nation of Steel: The Making of Modern America 1865-1925, Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press
Musson, A. E. (1978), The Growth of British Industry, London: Batsford
Nye, David (1994), The American Technological Sublime Cambridge, Mass. and London, MIT Press
O'Brien, Patrick (1977), The New Economic History of the Railways, London: Croom Helm
Pollins, Harold (1971), Britain's Railways: An Industrial History, Newton Abbot: David & Charles
Potter, Stephen (1987), On the Right Lines? The Limits of Technological Innovation, London: Frances Pinter
Potter, Stephen (1993), 'Managing High Speed Train Projects' in Whitelegg, J., Hulten, S. and Flink, T. (eds), High Speed Trains: Fast Tracks to the Future, Hawes: Leading Edge
Powell, E. Roxanne (1996), 'The Frontiers of State Practice in Britain and France: Pioneering High Speed Rail Technology and Infrastructure (1965-1993)', PhD thesis, London School of Economics and Political Science
Puffert, Douglas J. (1993), 'Technical diversity: The Integration of the European
High Speed Train Network' in Whitelegg, J., Hulten, S. and Flink, T. (eds), High Speed Trains: Fast Tracks to the Future, Hawes: Leading Edge
Reed, Brian (1982), Crewe Locomotive Works and its Men, Newton Abbot: David & Charles
Reutter, Mark (1994), 'The great (motive) power struggle: the Pennsylvania Railroad v. General Motors, 1935-1949', Bulletin of Railroad History,170, Spring
Revill, George (1989), 'Paternalism, Community and Corporate Culture: A Study of the Derby Headquarters of the Midland Railway Company and Its Workforce 1840-1900', PhD thesis, Loughborough University
Robbins, Michael (1991), 'The progress of transport history', Journal of Transport History 12 (3rd series) (1), March
Robbins, Michael (1992), 'Railway Electrification in London and Its Social Effects' in Cossons, N., Patmore, A. and Shorland-Ball, R. (eds), Perspectives on Railway History and Interpretation, York: National Railway Museum
Rolt, L.T.C. (1986), Tools for the Job: A History of Machine Tools to 1850, London: Science Museum, 2nd ed.
Rosenberg, Nathan (1982), Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Rosenberg , Nathan (1994), Exploring the Black Box: Technology, Economics and History, Cambridge University Press
Rubin, W. (1967), Review of Fogel (1964), Technology and Culture 8 (2), April
Rutherford, Michael (1997), 'In the beginning', Backtrack 11 (10), October
Saul, S. B. (1970), 'The Market and the Development of the Mechanical Engineering Industries 1860-1914' in Saul, S. B. (ed.), Technological Change: the United States and Britain in the Nineteenth Century, London: Methuen
Schivelbusch, Wolfgang (1986), The Railway Journey: The Industrialization of Space and Time in the 19th Century, Leamington Spa: Berg
Sherington, C. E. R. (1969), A Hundred Years of Inland Transport 1830-1933, London: Frank Cass
Simmons, Jack (1978), The Railway in England and Wales 1830-1914: The System and Its Working, Leicester: Leicester University Press
Simmons, Jack (1994), The Express Train and Other Railway Studies, Nairn: Thomas & Lochar
Sutherland R. J. M. (ed.) (1997), Structural Iron, 1750-1850, Aldershot: Ashgate
Termin, Peter (1975), Causal Factors in American Economic Growth in the Nineteenth Century, London: Macmillan
Tweedale, Geoff (1987), Sheffield Steel and America: A Century of Commercial and Technological Interdependence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Usselman, Steven W. (1985), 'Running the Machine: The Management of Technological Innovation on American Railroads, 1860-1910', PhD thesis, University of Delaware
Usselman, Steven W. (1984), 'Air brakes for freight trains: technological innovation in the American railroad industry, 1869-1900', Business History Review 58 (1), Spring
Vamplew, Wray (1971), 'Nihilistic Impressions of British Railway History' in McCloskey, D. N. (ed.), Essays on a More Mature Economy: Britain After 1840, London: Methuen
Vamplew, Wray (1972a), 'Railways and the transformation of the Scottish economy', Economic History Review 24 (2nd series) (1)
Vamplew, Wray (1972b), 'Scottish railways and the development of the Scottish locomotive building industry in the nineteenth century', Business History Review 46 (3), Autumn
Ville, Simon P. (1990), Transport and the Development of the European Economy, 1750-1918, London: Macmillan
Westwood, J. N. (1977), Locomotive Designers in the Age of Steam, London: Sidgwick and Jackson
White, John H. (1979), A History of the American Locomotive: Its Development: 1830-1880, New York: Dover and Constable, 2nd ed.
White, John H. (1981), The John Bull: 150 Years a Locomotive, Washington: Smithsonian Institution
White, John H. (1985), The American Passenger Car, 2 vols., Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2nd ed.
White, John H. (1993), The American Freight Car, Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press
White, John H. (1994), 'Old Debts and New Visions: The Interchange of Ideas in Railway Engineering' in Shorland-Ball, R. (ed.), Common Roots - Separate Branches: Railway History and Preservation, London: Science Museum/National Railway Museum
Williams, Rosalind (1990), Notes on the Underground, Cambridge, Mass. and London: MIT Press
Yuzawa, Takeshi (1985), 'The introduction of electrical railways in Britain and Japan'. Journal of Transport History 6 (3rd series) (1), March