THE GRAND JUNCTION CANAL
A HIGHWAY
LAID WITH
WATER.
PART V. ―
POSTSCRIPT
THE GRAND UNION CANAL COMPANY
“I cannot repeat too often that transport today is an indivisible
commodity and that there is little hope for the survival of canals
unless the canal industry provides not merely a transport track, but
a transport service that is equal to the service provided by the
other forms of transport. Such a service can be provided by
the canal industry, but only through the constant exercise of
commercial initiative and enterprise.”
Chairman’s address to the General Meeting, May 1945
INTRODUCTION
On 1st January 1929 the Grand Junction Canal Company ceased to
exist.
In several ways the 18 years following the formation of
the Grand
Union Canal Company are the most interesting in the waterway’s history,
for until then it had led a fairly mundane existence. Under
new ownership
the waterway entered a period of significant change and although much of
it
failed to achieve its aims, those aspects that did succeed leave a
tantalising picture of what might have been had not the cold hands
of the State stifled the business.
|
R. F. de Salis. |
Apart from
its unsuccessful venture into canal carrying, the Grand
Junction Canal Company had throughout its life operated along the
lines of a turnpike trust, deriving its revenue mainly from the
passive collection of tolls and from rental income (which by end of
its life formed a substantial part of its revenue).
But this moribund style of management was to change abruptly.
On 1st January 1929 the amalgamation of the Grand Junction Canal Company, the Regent’s
Canal and Dock Company and the Warwick canals to
form the Grand Union Canal Company took effect. There followed a radical
change in management outlook, first as the new board extended and
modernised its main line in a forlorn attempt to resuscitate
long-distance canal carrying; then, following a radical management
shake-up, as their successors set about building a sustainable business by
diversifying into related areas of transport activity. But
WWII. intervened before these strategies could take real effect and
the Company was again to experience ― as de Salis had described the
Grand Junction Canal Company’s experience during WWI. ― being
“very unfairly treated” under the regime of wartime government
control.
The War years did see one important, albeit short-lived,
development. The Grand Union Canal Act 1943 repealed many of
the clauses in the archaic canal Acts inherited by the new Company
from its constituents. It also extended the
Company’s borrowing powers, enabling it to diversify its business ―
and here it took full advantage ― and, overall, gave to it the
attributes of a modern business enterprise. In the immediate
post-war years the benefits of diversification were beginning to
show when, on 1st January 1948 the Company’s assets were acquired by
the State together with those of many other transport
undertakings to form the British Transport Commission.
――――♦――――
THE NEW COMPANY
|
Wilfrid H. Curtis.
First Chairman of the Grand Union Canal Company. |
On 1st January 1929, two Acts of Parliament [1]
took effect under which the Regent’s Canal and Dock Company
acquired, via a merger, the canal assets of the Grand Junction Canal
Company and at the same time purchased the three Warwick canals,
which form the shortest route from Braunston to Birmingham.
The company so created, the Grand Union Canal Company, [2]
took its name from the former Leicester Line canal, which has since
been known as the ‘old’ Grand Union Canal.
The negotiations that led to this amalgamation came to public
attention in May 1927, but they had commenced some years previously.
Recognising that the two companies had much commonality of purpose,
de Salis approached W. H. Curtis, a Grand Junction Canal Company
director and Chairman of the Regent’s Canal and Dock Company, with a
proposal that they examine the possibility of a merger, a tactic
that would avoid one company having to raise the large cash sum
necessary to buy the other. [3] Informal
discussions then progressed, the companies’ auditors and solicitors
became involved and negotiations eventually reached fruition early
in 1928, soon to be followed by extraordinary general meetings
at which the terms of the amalgamation were approved by the
respective shareholders. Because the companies had been
created under the archaic ‘joint stock company’ system, each having
been formed by a private Act of Parliament, further Acts were
necessary to sanction both the merger and the purchase of the
similarly constituted Warwick canals. The new company took the
form of a ‘limited liability company’, [4] its
board comprising six directors ― three each from the Grand Junction
Canal Company and the Regent’s Canal and Dock Company ― under the
chairmanship of W. H. Curtis. [5]
The terms of the grouping were, that:
-
the holder of each £100 share in the Grand Junction Canal
Company received Grand Union Canal Company stock to the nominal
value of £67 6s ― a later capital adjustment (£40,906 2s 6d)
increased this to £70 18s 6d; [6]
-
the three Warwick canals were bought outright by the Regent’s
Canal and Dock Company, which paid £62,258 15s. 0d. for the
Warwick & Birmingham Canal and £8,641 for the Warwick & Napton
Canal [7] (the Birmingham & Warwick Junction
Canal being owned jointly by the other two);
-
the Grand Union Canal Company became responsible for the upkeep
of the section of the Oxford Canal between Braunston Junction
and Napton Junction;
-
a new limited liability company, ‘The Grand Junction Company’, [8]
was formed to acquire that part of the Grand Junction Canal
Company’s property portfolio at Paddington, which was not
included in the merger, together with certain Grand Junction
Canal Company pension obligations, and to carry on the business
of an estates and financial company. The Grand Junction
Canal Company’s existing 4% debenture stock (£150,000) and 6%
preference shares (£93,700) were to be serviced by the Grand
Junction Company, which received rental income from its property
portfolio and the interest on 5½% Grand Union Canal Company
debenture stock to the value of £285,709.
To
some extent the formation of the Grand Union Canal Company
implemented a recommendation of the 1906 Royal Commission, that
canal company mergers were desirable to achieve control over longer
routes (which railway mergers had achieved many years earlier), both
in terms of setting ‘through tolls’ and standardising waterway
dimensions; failure to achieve each had greatly hindered the
development of inland waterway transport in the UK. The
formation of the new Company gave its Board control over the entire
route from London (Brentford and Regent’s Dock) to Birmingham. [9]
In 1931, the Company also obtained control over the entire route
from London to the River Trent with the purchase of the Leicester
Navigation (Leicester to Loughborough) and the Loughborough
Navigation (Loughborough to the River Trent); the purchase of
the Erewash Canal further extended Company’s domain from the Trent to Langley Mill on the
border of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. At an extraordinary
general meeting convened to seek shareholder approval for this
scheme, Curtis described his vision for the extended waterway:
“. . . . the linking up of these undertakings with the Grand
Union would provide a fine barge canal from London to the Trent, and
Nottinghamshire, when certain larger locks had been built at Foxton
and Watford. As this last improvement was a very costly one,
amounting to £150,000, they [the Company] had made an
application to the Government under the Development (Loans
Guarantees and Grants) Act, 1929, to carry them over while the work
was being executed and until the traffic began to move.”
The Times, 29th May,
1931
Acquisition of the north Leicestershire canals required an enabling Act [10]
which, when it came into force on 1st January 1932, added a further
40 miles of canal to the 240 miles existing. In announcing the
takeover, The Times report went on to say that dredging would
commence “without delay”, which suggests that the
newly-acquired waterway was in poor shape.
The Board then returned to a scheme last tried in the 1890s, of widening the locks at Foxton and
Watford to take larger craft, their view being that this would
increase the canal trade between the
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire coalfields, the Leicestershire
granite quarries (chippings for road construction) and markets in
the Home Counties. It would also provide better access to the
ironworks of the Erewash Valley and to the electrical engineering
works around Loughborough. How the restriction on the passage
of wide craft in the confines of the Blisworth Tunnel was to be
dealt with appears to have been glossed over. But the Board had been unduly optimistic
in extending their waterway before the Government had agreed to
provide the financial assistance necessary to fund the cost of
rebuilding the Watford and Foxton locks, which they declined to do. Without government help,
the scheme was unaffordable, for by then the cost of
modernising the London to Birmingham route had left the Company’s
finances over-stretched. Thus, Curtis’s vision of a barge
canal from London to the Trent evaporated and the narrow staircase
locks at Watford and Foxton continued to restrict the through route
to narrow boats and impose a bottleneck on the passage of trade.
56 YEARS IN THE SAME OFFICE!
Undated clip from the Evening News.
When on Tuesday two of London’s best-known canal
companies, the Grand Junction Canal and the Regent’s
Canal, cease to exist as separate bodies and become the
Grand Union Canal, it may be the beginning of a new era
in English canal history, but it will be the end of a
very interesting personal record.
Mr. J. W. Bliss, whose office as general manager to the
Grand Junction Canal will come to an end, has been for
51½ years the same room at the foot of Surry-street,
Strand. Not many men in London could beat that
record. “During the whole of that time,” said Mr. Bliss
to the Evening News today, “I have only been absent from
work four days owing to an attack of lumbago.
“I came from Northamptonshire when I was 16. I had
had a fine open-air life, riding almost as soon as I
could walk, and hunting with the Pytchley as often as I
could. Perhaps it was partly to this that I owe my
good health. I started off as a junior clerk with a
salary of £50 a year, and worked up, step-by-step, till
I became clerk to the company in 1905 and general
manager in 1916.
“My life has been a pleasure all the way through, and it
will be a bit of a wrench to give up the old work, the
old routine, and the old office. One thing I am
most pleased with is that we have never had any labour
troubles among our staff of 300 or so. Even during
the general strike our relations continued friendly, and
everyone remained at work.
“It has been part of my duty to make each year a tour of
our whole system, a hundred miles or so. I made
the tour latterly in a motor boat, and I suppose I have
done it for the last thirty years. The result is
that I have got intimately the whole system and many of
the men who work on it. When the new company takes
over I shall be an advisory director, and well as being
manager of the Grand Junction Canal estates at
Paddington, and it will be a great pleasure if I am
invited to make the annual tour of the system again.”
Mr. Bliss believes that the outlook for the canals of
the country has never since the introduction of railways
been so bright as it is now. Road transport, he
says, which in some places is a competitor, is in others
an ally. “The outlook is brighter,” he declared,
“because, with common management over a group of canals
through journeys are made more easy and it is possible
to have a higher standard of maintenance. Time is the
essence of the matter in transport competition and the
common management of canals between London and
Birmingham will probably lead to a reduction in the time
spent on the journey. The replacing of the horse by the
motor has also been a big factor in the improved
outlook.”
Mr. Bliss has a high opinion of the people who work on
the canal boats and barges. “They are good-hearted
people,” he said. “I have known a case where, when
the parents on one boat died their children were adopted
by the man and wife on another boat.” |
――――♦――――
MODERNISING THE MAINLINE
The Grand Union Canal Company got off to an unfavourable start.
The winter of 1928-29 was severe, resulting in six inches of ice in
places; this was followed by a period of drought. Other than
reducing that year’s dividend and providing the Board with
a recognition that better ice-clearing methods were needed, other
items for them to address included dredging and the need for more protection
against bank erosion caused by turbulence from the growing number of
motor boats then entering use. It was therefore proposed to
invest £50,000 to £60,000 on further concrete walling and piling,
which would achieve the additional benefit of increasing the bottom
width of the waterway, thereby reducing drag and speeding up
traffic. But this modest engineering programme was soon to be
overshadowed by another, which would have far-reaching consequences
for the Company’s fortunes.
In 1929, Herbert Morrison, then Minister of Transport, announced
that the Labour government favoured canal development as a means of
helping industry, and that the ‘Development (Loan, Guarantees, and
Grants) Bill’ then passing through Parliament might provide
financial assistance to help develop waterways serving important
industrial areas.
Long-distance traffic on the Canal had been declining for many
years, a state of affairs that in 1920 had caused de Salis to state
that “we shall hope to carry out desirable improvements on the
paying portion of our canal, but on the non-paying portion we shall
merely carry out our obligations. . .” the paying portion of the
canal being that to the south of Berkhamsted. Despite this
pronouncement, the new Board
must have seen sufficient potential in the face of existing rail and
growing road competition to revive their long-distance traffic sufficiently to justify the heavy
investment needed to upgrade the entire London to Birmingham route,
and they set about planning a programme of improvements the likes of
which had not been seen since the waterway was built. Their
aim was to transform the Company into a transport business that, for
deadweight cargoes at least, could compete with road and rail
transport on equal terms. They believed that this could be
achieved by upgrading the waterway to handle bigger and faster craft
and by offering modern cargo-handling, storage and distribution
facilities at its principal wharfs. When complete, it was
envisaged that the London to Birmingham service would be operated by
pairs of wide boats (12ft 6ins beam) loaded to 137 tons compared
with 55 tons for a pair of narrow boats, and that they would complete the
journey in 48 hours compared with the 60 hours existing.
Furthermore, the use of craft of sufficient size to navigate the
Thames would avoid the cost and delay involved in transhipping cargo
at Brentford between Thames barges and lighters, and narrow boats.
In response to the Government’s grants scheme, the Company submitted
a three-year development programme designed to transform the
existing London to Birmingham waterway into a barge canal
throughout. It included bridge widening; concrete walling,
piling and dredging; and widening the narrow locks on the former
Warwick canals to accommodate craft of 12ft 6ins (and
ultimately14ft) beam. The programme’s estimated cost was
£881,000, but the answers to some questions about it are not evident.
Based on past experience of using wide boats north of Berkhamsted, [11]
the intended service improvement would have required the section of the
main line from Berkhamsted to Braunston to be dredged and widened;
there is also the question of the passage of wide boats in the confines of
the tunnels; and the
Board’s ultimate aim of using river barges (14ft beam) on the
Birmingham route would have required further extensive bridge widening.
In November 1930, a notice appeared in the London Gazette
informing the public of the Company’s intention to introduce a Bill
into Parliament seeking powers to undertake the proposed engineering
work. This was to include, inter alia, obtaining land
by compulsory purchase; building new locks and flights of locks
between Napton and Birmingham; fixing tolls; obtaining a running
agreement over the Braunston to Napton Junction section of the
Oxford Canal; and raising additional capital and loans to finance
the scheme.
The public announcement was followed by an extraordinary general
meeting at which Curtis described the aim of the plan. He
informed the meeting that, despite significant industrial growth,
traffic between London and Birmingham had remained practically
static at around 100,000 tons p.a. during the previous 20 years.
The situation required “enterprise” and that by opening up
the route to larger and faster craft the Company would acquire more
business. But Curtis’s belief departs from another important point
stated by de Salis a decade earlier. When addressing the
decline in the Grand Junction Canal Company’s long distance
business, de Salis had explained to his shareholders that an
increased share of the London to Birmingham trade could only be
gained at the expense of the railways. As he understood the
position:
“We divide our traffic roughly into two classes: — Through, or
traffic between London, Braunston (for Birmingham), Leicester and
Northampton; and Local (all other traffic). Generally, the
through traffic is in competition with rail; the local traffic is
not . . . . . Three men are needed to move 50 tons, say, from London
to Birmingham on canal, and the same number can move 500 tons by
rail. This is a factor which has come to stay, and I do not
think we can look for anything but a dwindling long-distance
traffic.”
Chairman’s address to the GJCC General Assembly,
December 1920
The modernisation plan obtained Parliamentary approval in the Grand
Union Canal Act 1931, which authorised the Company to finance the
work by the issue of redeemable (in 1953) debenture stock up to the
value of £500,000. The stock, designated the ‘Grand Union
Canal Development Loan No. 1’, carried a 4% coupon and by way of
government assistance the Company was awarded a grant of the
interest on £500,000 for 10 years at 5% p.a., and 2½% p.a. for a
further five years. A further £400,000 of 6% preference stock
was issued at the same time.
At the Company’s general meeting in March 1932, Curtis was able to
report that work on the scheme was making substantial progress.
Extensive dredging had been carried out with the aim of deepening to
5ft 6ins the section of canal from Brentford and throughout the Long
Level to permit the passage of 100 ton capacity barges, much
concrete walling and piling had been carried out, and a tender had
been accepted for widening the Warwick canals’ locks to accommodate
wide boats:
“When the works contemplated by the new capital schemes are
finished, the Company will be in possession of a waterway linking
the chief midland towns and coalfields to the metropolis, providing
a means of transport at a cost which will be much less than by any
other method. When one realizes the importance of low
transport cost to the export trades it is not surprising to learn
that the facilities that the Company will have to offer to the
Midland manufacturers are likely to be taken advantage of to a very
large extent. . . . . With our costs so low new traffic is bound to
come to us and when trade gets over its troubles [i.e.
the Great Depression] we can confidently expect increased
business.”
Chairman’s address to the General Meeting, March 1932
|
A section of the
Canal before modernisation . . . . |
By the following year, modernisation of the Warwick canals was
proceeding. A £350,000 contract employing nearly 1,000 men ―
about three quarters from the local dole queues ― had been placed
with L. J. Speight Ltd, a firm of civil engineering contractors
working under the supervision of the eminent civil engineer, Sir
Robert Elliott-Cooper. Construction work was planned carefully
to permit it to proceed without the need to suspend canal traffic:
“. . . . for miles the canal banks have been transformed from
rough jagged boundaries to concrete walls presenting all the
symmetry of an up-to-date swimming bath. . . . many parts of the
canal are being improved by men directly employed by the Company;
indeed, activity is general almost throughout the length of the
waterway.”
The Times, 20th June,
1933
|
. . . . and
afterwards. |
Work on the Warwick canals included converting the existing 52
narrow locks into weirs, replacing them with 51 wide locks (on the
Knowle flight, six locks were replaced by five) of a modern design:
“The reconstruction gave the opportunity for several new
features. Adjustment of the water level in the lock chamber
was hastened by the construction of large sluices of a spiral type
with bevel gearing specially designed; and the sluice culverts were
carried along the side walls and provided with three lateral
openings through which the water finds an exit. These large
sluiceways ensure the rapid filling or emptying of the lock, and the
average time for craft passing through does not exceed four minutes
for the complete operation.”
Transport and the Public,
J. A. Dunnage (1935)
|
New locks under
construction at Knowle, Warwickshire in 1932.
The old narrow locks are on the left of the picture. |
Extensive dredging deepened the Braunston to Birmingham section to
5ft 6ins, while walling increased the waterway’s bottom width to
27ft, a profile that had been derived from experiments undertaken by
the Company, from which it was learned that:
“. . . . for a 14 feet horse-drawn barge, where the ratio of
canal area to boat immersed area was increased by passing from an
undredged to a dredged section by 56.6 per cent, the speed was
increased by 66.8 per cent; for a 7 foot motor-driven boat passing
similarly into a dredged section where the area ratio was increased
by 77.7 per cent the speed was increased by 59 per cent or from 2.73
to 4.62 m.p.h. The results of these tests was that the
standard to be aimed at was, for 14 feet beam craft, a minimum
bottom width of canal of 32 feet by 5 feet 6 inches minimum depth,
and for 12 feet 6 inches craft a minimum bottom width of canal of 27
feet.”
Transport and the Public,
J. A. Dunnage (1935)
By October 1934, most of this re-engineering had been completed and
the Duke of Kent was invited to open the new locks between
Napton and Birmingham. He boarded the new wide boat
Progress at Hatton Station canal bridge from where he travelled
to perform the opening ceremony.
Progress was to be the precursor of a fleet of larger craft
that were to form an important element of the Board’s long distance
carrying strategy. Her specification was a significant
departure from the wide boats then in operation on the Canal:
“The motor vessel ‘Progress’ is a new type of canal wide boat and
was built at Messrs. Bushell Bros. Dock Yard, at Tring. It
will be the first motor canal boat of its size to go and load in the
Thames ex-ship and carry goods to Birmingham, thus saving
transhipment. Up to the present barges large enough to load
ex-ship have only been able to travel as far as Berkhamsted and are
horse drawn.
The motor vessel ‘Progress’ has an overall length of 75 feet, a beam
of 12 feet 6 inches, and a depth of 5 feet, and will be capable of
carrying 68 tons. It is fitted with a British-Junkers
30-B.H.P. three-cylinder unit engine and runs at 1,200 r.p.m.
It carries seven river lamps, a bell, fog horn and has wheel
steering and living accommodation.”
Unidentified press cutting in the collection of Miss Catherine
Bushell
Progress moored on the Wendover
Arm following construction and fitting out for the Royal ceremony at
Bushell Brothers’ boatyard.
Progress, conveying the Duke of
Kent at the opening ceremony at Hatton Locks, October 1934.
But wide boat carrying was not to be ― by 1937 the development money had
run out, leaving sections of the main line south of Braunston unable
to accommodate them. Thus Progress became the sole
example of a class of canal craft that might have been. The
Board’s wide boat strategy was laid quietly to one side and
the Company’s long distance carrying fleet continued to comprise
narrow boats, a position that continued until the trade finally petered out
with the closure of Boxmoor Wharf in
1981:
“The narrow locks on the Warwick section of the main line were
rebuilt before the last war and a pair of narrow boats can now be
locked through to Birmingham in one operation. The Grand Union
Canal Company spent about £1 million on this scheme and on dredging
and bank protection, but failed to secure sufficient money to
complete their programme within the time allowed by the Grants
Committee. The London-Birmingham route beyond Berkhamsted
continued to be operated by narrow boats. It is inadvisable to
use narrow boats on the Thames, and goods destined for destinations
beyond Berkhamsted are discharged into lighters and transhipped at
Regent’s Canal Dock or Brentford.”
Canals and Inland Waterways:
Report of the Board of Survey (Rusholme Report), BTC, 1955
|
The GUCCC butty
Tiverton (No. 376) at Tysley Wharf.
The cranes had just been supplied by Stother & Pitt. |
Although the Company continued to invest in improvements to its
warehousing facilities at Brentford and Birmingham (Sampson Road and
Tyseley), by 1937 it had become apparent that modernisation was
failing to produce the desired returns, nor did it seem likely to.
In explaining to shareholders why their Ordinary dividend had been
passed over for the third successive year, Curtis had this to say:
“What, then, are the reasons for passing an Ordinary dividend for
three years in succession? The main reason is that the revenue
from tonnage carried has not left sufficient margin after paying the
prior charges incurred in performing our part of the arrangement
entered into with the Treasury, which was a condition for receiving
from them the grant of interest. These prior charges amount in
all to nearly £30,000. This slow expansion of the tonnage
revenue has been largely due to the fierce competition by rail and
road.
The railways entered into an agreement with the Canal Association,
of which we are ourselves members, which purported to benefit both
parties. So far as we are concerned it resulted in the loss of
a very large tonnage in one particular trade where the railways were
fighting coastwise shipping. The cut rate might have stopped
coastwise shipping, but it certainly killed our trade. We have
protested that this sort of thing was not provided for, and we are
letting the Canal Association know that we are of this opinion.
The railway attitude is that they will not give a canal such as ours
a place in the sun.”
Chairman’s address to the General Meeting, April 1937
|
Col. E. J. Woolley
MC |
Thus de Salis’s policy of concentrating on short-haul freight
carried to canal-side locations ― thereby avoiding railway
competition (road transport having become an additional competitor)
― appears to have been vindicated. Indeed, when the British
Transport Commission reviewed the operation of their canals in 1954,
they reached the same conclusion, that only the section of the Canal
south of Berkhamsted was worthy of further investment, and that the
remainder was “to be retained”. [12]
|
|
The GUCC warehouse
at Sampson Road c.1938. |
Perhaps failure to meet its strategic objectives led to the Board
being restructured, with two directors resigning to make way for
“younger men”. Three new directors ― John Miller, E. J.
Woolley and J. M. Whittington ― were appointed, and formed a
committee tasked with making economies and reorganising the Company.
At the 1937 General Meeting, Curtis was reappointed to the Board for
a further term, but shortly afterwards a brief press statement
announced his resignation, E. J. Woolley being appointed to succeed
him. At the following year’s General Meeting there is no
mention of Curtis receiving a vote of thanks for his years of
service to the Company, and to the Regent’s Canal and Dock Company
before it. Speaking at the Company’s final General Meeting
over a decade later, the presiding Chairman, John Miller, on looking
back as his directorship, referred to a reconstruction of the Board
towards the end of 1936 “when the Company was undoubtedly in a
very precarious condition”. It is of course a matter of
conjecture, but circumstances suggest that Curtis’s resignation was
encouraged.
Modernisation continued under the chairmanship of E. J. Woolley.
September 1938 saw the opening of the Company’s new warehousing
facility at Sampson Road, Birmingham. Built at a cost of over
£34,000, it offered 30,000 square feet of floor space. Boats
could enter its internal wharfs to be worked by the latest
electrically operated gantry cranes capable of moving goods to any
part of the building. The press described the depot as being
“in every sense an inland dock”. In addition,
warehousing at Brentford was extended, that at Leicester and
Northampton improved, new cranes were purchased for use at Tysley
and at the Regent’s Dock, and motor vehicles were acquired to
improve the collection and delivery of goods in the Birmingham area:
“In keeping with the Company’s policy of bringing the whole of
their system into line with modern conditions, and making it capable
virtually of handling an almost unlimited quantity of traffic, was
their decision to provide new terminal facilities, or improve those
already in existence at every point where present or prospective
trade justified such a step. Thus, they have spent a large
amount of money in modernising the Regent’s Canal Dock and in
providing large warehouses in Birmingham, Brentford and other places
which have been important centres of canal activity . . . . It is
now scarcely necessary to recall that shortly after carrying the
ambitious amalgamation scheme into effect, the Company, in part with
the aid of the Government, and for the rest out of their own
resources, spent over £1,000,000 in improving the waterway along its
main route between London and Birmingham.”
Grand Union Canal Company advertising material c.
1938
By 1942, the Board was already beginning to take a view on the
post-war position of the Company. The indications at that time
suggest that they recognised that the future lay in providing a
broader-based transport service ― warehousing, shipping and road
haulage ― to replace their core activity of long-distance canal
carrying, which would eventually and inevitably disappear.
――――♦――――
COMMERCIAL EXPANSION
Besides extending the network to gain end-to-end control of their
main routes, the Board also acquired or created a number of
subsidiary companies, their aim being to transform the Company into
an integrated transport business that could compete favourably with
its competitors. The Board’s business strategy was summed up
by John Miller (by then Company Chairman) towards the end of the
WWII.:
“Stockholders will recall that payment of the dividend on the
Preference stock was last made in respect of the year 1936. In
the course of that year and of the next year considerable changes
were made in the Board, and the whole organisation of the Company
was drastically altered. It is clear that the Company was not
earning its Preference dividend and that the serious decline in
revenue since the amalgamation in 1929 would continue at a
progressive pace, unless drastic steps were taken to arrest the
decline and open up new fields of revenue, by broadening the basis
of the Company’s business, expanding its activities, and
transforming it from a mere passive toll-taking owner of a canal
track and dock into a comprehensive transport organisation.
It is to this end that we have laboured since 1936. That is
why we acquired our own shipping company and our own stevedoring
company at the Regent’s Canal Dock, that is why we have acquired a
road haulage subsidiary and formed our own road transport
department, why we organised a modern warehousing department, why we
acquired new warehouses, improved existing warehouses, and installed
at all our terminals and depots and at the Dock new and improved
handling installations and equipment. Quick results were not
to be expected, but before the outbreak of war there were signs that
we had already turned the corner.
The effect of the war was to interrupt the commercial progress of
the Company. The continental and most of the other overseas
traffic which we had been building up was soon lost, and the
Government control of railways tended to divert traffic from the
canal. Moreover there was a continuous rise in wages and other
costs effecting maintenance and operation of the canal which has
only recently reached what I hope is its peak.”
Chairman’s address to the General Meeting, December
1944
Broadening the business base began modestly. In 1930, the
Company entered into canal transport with the acquisition of a small
carrying fleet, Associated Canal Carriers Ltd. [13]
This was followed by further acquisitions; in 1934, of the Erewash
Canal Carrying Company, another small company that operated mainly
along the Loughborough and Erewash lines, and in 1936, of Thomas
Clayton (Paddington) Ltd, a firm that specialised in rubbish
disposal and which was to become a reliable earner for the Company.
For many years Claytons had contracted with the Borough of
Paddington to dispose of some 40,000 tons p.a. of household rubbish,
and in 1939 they obtained a similar contract from the Borough of St.
Marylebone.
In parallel with their entry into canal carrying, the Board made a
determined effort to develop the leisure side of their business.
The “picturesque reservoirs” at Ruislip and Aldenham offered
potential for bathing, boating, and fishing and, overall, a source
of income that would help compensate for the increased cost (which
could be considerable) of pumping canal reservoirs during long dry
summers. In 1933, the Company commenced the development of a
lido at Ruislip Reservoir, spending some £12,000 on what Curtis
described as “a lido quite on the lines of summer seaside
resorts” from which he expected “a good return”.
The Lido, which was opened by the Earl of Howe in 1936, centred on
an art-deco style building fronted by a swimming area flanked on
either side by piers in a horseshoe shape. The main building
contained a cafeteria while those on either side housed the
turnstile and ticket area, and changing rooms. The Lido was
successful in its heyday, offering swimming, boating, a children’s
playground, a beach and later a miniature railway. [14]
During 1937, the Company expanded its freight handling capabilities
by acquiring interests in a stevedoring and wharfage company ― which
became the Grand Union (Stevedoring and Wharfage) Company Limited ―
and in a short-sea shipping business. This firm,
Grand Union (Shipping) Ltd., operated the Regent’s Line, which using
a small coastal steamer, the Marsworth, opened a twice-weekly
service between the Regent’s Canal Dock and Antwerp. The
following year the Marsworth was joined by the Blisworth
and the service extended to Rotterdam. At the other end of the
line the Company acquired an interest in a Belgian shipping agency
registered in Antwerp, Grand Union Belge de Transports Societe
Anonyme, to handle its Continental business. This firm
owned its own barge fleet and was able to provide quotations for and
handle through traffic from UK towns served by the Canal to
the principal European cities:
“We are thus able to carry goods from Birmingham to Basle and
other Continental towns in our own craft by the all-water route.
This achievement, I believe, is unique in the history of British
transport . . . . You may wonder where the money has come from to
pay for the new companies and other heavy expenditure we have had to
incur. We have, however, been able to sell a considerable
amount of land which was of no use for canal purposes and produced
no revenue. You will, I am sure, agree that we have pursued
the right policy in converting it into something which will produce
revenue. As opportunity offers we intend to sell more such
land.”
Chairman’s address to the General Meeting, March 1938
In addition to running its own shipping operation, Grand Union
(Shipping) also acquired the UK agencies for several Continental
transport businesses including the Dutch ‘Oranje Line’. Using
four ships, this company opened up a fortnightly service between the
Regent’s Canal Dock, Canada and the USA during the open season ―
which extended from the end of March to about the middle of October
― and landed fruit from Spain and Palestine during the winter
months.
By March 1939, the Company’s progress into shipping and the
development of their terminal facilities appears to have been
sufficiently encouraging to lead the Chairman to report to that
year’s General Meeting that during the year 1,690 ships had passed
through the Dock and that shipping “is producing business both
for the Stevedoring and Wharfage Company, the canal, our Birmingham
warehouse, and the Dock”. Meanwhile, the Company was
publicising its Regent’s Dock facilities:
“There is a regular service of steamers between the Dock and
Bergen, Stavanger, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Danzig, Hamburg, Bremen,
Delfzijl, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Antwerp, Ghent, etc. During
the season, considerable quantities of timber are discharged
overside from steamers into canal craft for delivery to the numerous
wharves situated at various points on the canal. [15]
Cargoes of all descriptions can be conveniently discharged overside
into canal boats for conveyance to the many towns served by the
Grand Union route to the Midlands.
There is a 250ft coal jetty in the Dock equipped with two powerful
grabs, each capable of lifting six tons and these enable steamers
coming from the coalfields of the N.E. coast to discharge their
cargoes within about ten hours of arrival. Unloading can be
carried out either by day or night, and it is quite usual for a ship
to enter the Dock on one tide, discharge its cargo, and leave for
the return journey on the next tide. Large quantities of coal are
discharged at this jetty and then conveyed to the gas and
electricity stations situated on the canal side in the London area.”
Grand Union Canal Company publicity material ca. 1938
However, established shipping interests were unwilling to accept
further competition and commenced an action against the Company for
ultra vires [16] claiming that it had no
lawful authority to run a shipping business. The action
lingered on until powers obtained under the Grand Union Canal Act
1943 ― the Chamber of Shipping contesting the Bill’s passage through
both houses ― enabled the Company to extend its business lawfully
into related areas. The Board quickly took advantage of these
powers to create new sources of revenue which, they believed, would
lay the foundations for a sustainable post-war future. In
December 1943 they acquired a road transport subsidiary, Cartwright
& Paddock, to operate in the Birmingham area, and formed four new
subsidiary companies:
-
Grand Union Transport Limited, to take over and expand the
Company’s road transport activities;
-
Grand Union Warehousing Company Limited, ditto
warehousing activities;
-
Grand Union Estates Limited, ditto the Company’s estates;
and
-
Grandion, ditto sports and recreational activities and
interests.
With
the commencement of hostilities in 1939, the Government quickly
moved shipping away from the Thames to west-coast ports that were
more distant from enemy action. As a result, earnings declined
to the extent that the Company was unable to pay its Preference
share dividend and had difficulty meeting debenture interest.
But warehousing continued to turn in good results, with the new
warehouse at Brentford, opened in January 1940, quickly being filled
to capacity. By the end of 1943, the Chairman was able to
report that the Company’s wharfage and warehousing business was
profitable and continuing to expand and that it “was showing
considerable promise for the future”. The prolonged period
of drought that occurred during 1944 reduced the canal’s earnings,
but overall the year compared favourably with 1943 due mainly to
warehousing, wharfage, shipping and the rubbish removal (Thomas
Clayton) subsidiaries turning in good results.
By the end of the war it was becoming evident that the Company’s
post-war future would centre increasingly on its developing
subsidiary businesses, with a gradual move away from its former core
canal business, which was reporting an increasing loss. As the
post war years were to prove, narrow boat carrying was now in
terminal decline:
“All the Company’s subsidiaries in actual operation ― other than
our two carrying companies ― have achieved satisfactory results;
they have all made profits in the period under review, and the
aggregate present value of their assets exceeds the original capital
investment by this Company. Grand Union (Stevedoring and
Wharfage) Company, Limited, in particular, despite the decline in
traffic at the dock arising out of war conditions, has greatly
improved results during the financial period of 19 months ending on
December 31 last.
I should like to make special mention of Grand Union (Shipping)
Limited. This important subsidiary, whose pathway was cleared
by our 1943 Act, has an established position in the short-sea
continental trades. So that it may give in post-war years that
service which its clients expect, orders have been placed for two
new Diesel-engined ships, each 1,100 tons deadweight, to be built to
the most modern specification.”
Chairman’s address to the General Meeting, May 1945
But on 1st January 1948, the Company was sucked into the black hole
of the British Transport Commission. Cartwright & Paddock went
eventually to the Road Haulage Executive and the rest of the Company
to the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive. The profitable
shipping subsidiary was quickly sold off to be followed in 1951 by
Ruislip Reservoir and Lido.
――――♦――――
CANAL CARRYING
Shortly before the amalgamation, the Regent’s Canal and Dock Company
placed an order for a pair of steel narrow boats. Built by the
Steel Barrel Company of Uxbridge, the George (motor) and the
Mary (butty) were of a new design, with deeper holds that
gave a higher freeboard than usual, a feature intended to enable the
pair to navigate safely on the Thames. They could also load to
70 tons compared to 55 tons for a standard pair. [17]
On trial it was found that the hold was too deep for convenient
manual cargo handling, and when loaded to capacity the drag
created when passing over shallow stretches of the waterway slowed
progress dramatically. Despite these drawbacks the pair were
taken over by Associated Canal Carriers who found them sufficiently
successful to justify an order for a further six pairs; these formed
the ‘Royalty class’. Rapid expansion of
the carrying fleet then followed, with two further narrow boat
designs [18] being constructed by various
builders:
“Our subsidiary company, Associated Canal Carriers, Limited
[renamed the Grand Union Carrying Company Ltd. in 1934], is
teaching us many things that can be used to our benefit. For
instance, if we are to secure the increased traffic we are hoping
for this can only be done ― as far as our long-distance traffic is
concerned ― by the building of 100 or more pairs of boats of the
improved type now undergoing trial. When you come to realise
that each half a dozen pairs of boats put on the water, and each
getting normal freights, according to the present average, give us,
say £1,200 to £1,400 a year in tolls, you will see how urgent it is
that some carrying company should initiate a programme of boat
construction. As six pairs of boats cost only £7,500, this
capital outlay, if required to be financed by the Grand Union Canal
Company, would show an excellent return.”
Chairman’s address to the General Meeting, March 1932
The reason for the Company’s heavy investment in canal carrying
stemmed from a belief that there existed good potential for reviving
the long-distance carrying trade based on a modernised
infrastructure, and under those conditions the business would be
there, providing that the Company was able to carry it. As
Curtis put it:
“With regard to the future, I cannot feel anything but very
optimistic. We have been deluged with inquiries from all
directions, but, owing to a shortage of canal boats for long
distance traffic, we have had to turn down trade.”
Chairman’s address to the General Meeting, March 1935
By September, 1936, the new carrying fleet stood at 186 pairs.
But Curtis’s over-optimism had again prevailed, for at the following
year’s General Meeting he was hinting at over-capacity; “Their
craft [the Carrying Company’s] have not been fully occupied
all the time for the reason that it is not an economic proposition
to man boats for which there is not good loading”. In
other words, new boats were lying idle, a wasting asset attracting
capital costs.
|
John Miller, last GUCC
Chairman. |
In 1936, John Miller joined the
Board and was appointed Managing Director of the Carrying Company,
which he set about reorganising while drumming up new business.
But despite his endeavours, its earnings remained insufficient to
cover the interest and depreciation charges on its new fleet.
In respect of the 1937 financial year, the directors were obliged to
place £11,000 ― substantially the whole of the parent company’s net
revenue ― into reserve against the losses sustained by carrying.
Despite having moved an additional 25,564 tons of cargo in the year,
the Carrying Company was facing fierce competition from road haulage
as well as from rail, both of which were engaged in their own
pricing war, as was rail with coastal shipping. The result was
that reduced rail freight rates (up to 65% on grain) were attracting
business away from the canal. And yet a further problem to
have a telling effect on canal carrying was a shortage of boat
crews:
“. . . . a considerable portion of the fleet is not earning
anything. We are seriously handicapped by the difficulty in
finding captains and mates, and it is becoming increasingly
difficult to obtain them. The problem of manning the boats is
one of the most serious with which we are having to grapple.
In 1937 we had to refuse 40,000 tons of traffic ― a particularly
galling experience, because we had 50 pairs of boats waiting for
crews.”
Chairman’s address to the General Meeting, March 1938
Shortage of boat crews ― a problem encountered during WWI., which
was to hinder canal carrying for the remainder of its days ― does
not appear to have entered into the Board’s calculations when
planning to increase the size of their carrying fleet. The
fact was that boatmen were by now exchanging their demanding
itinerant canal life for land-based employment that paid regular
wages and provided a more comfortable home, with schooling and
welfare services for their families close to hand. When the
Ministry of War Transport took control of the principal canals in
1942, the position had deteriorated to the extent that it was even
referred to in a wartime propaganda booklet:
“In a generation the population of boatmen has become very small.
Think of the life on the boats. The hours are long ― a 12-hour
day is inevitable ― the men may frequently have to load and unload
their own boats at wharves without cranes, for which they receive
extra pay. To hump 50 tons of coal onto the wharf after a
12-hour day is not an attractive prospect. Living conditions
are primitive.
Wages are on the low side. It is true that during these long
hours a man may not be working hard; he may merely be standing at
the tiller. But the life is lonely; the industry has been
largely recruited from those born and bred on the boats; and the
younger generation saw that if they wanted the amenities, the higher
wages, the entertainments of modern life, and better opportunities
for education for themselves and their children, the best thing they
could do was to leave the water.
The earnings on a pair of boats average £7 a week. This looks
well, if the whole of that £7 a week is going into one family; but
not all boats by any means are one-family boats. Usually each
pair of boats has a captain, a mate and a boy, which means that the
captain gets £3.10.0 per week, the mate £2.10.0 and the boy £1.”
Transport Goes to War:
Ministry of Information, 1942
The Company’s publicity material for canal carrying from 1938 (see
Appendix)
gives no hint of their Carrying Company’s manning difficulties,
which resulted in overall losses for that year amounting to £26,863.
[19] Although there had been an increase of 28,111
tons booked, this extra business had to be sub-contracted to
independent carriers due to shortage of boat crews, only about a
half of the fleet being available:
“ . . . . we have felt acutely the shortage of boatmen, and at
the present time we are still obliged to employ outside carriers to
move cargoes for us. There is no doubt that the old canal
boatman is a dying race, and in addition is somewhat of a nomad,
changing his employment from time to time. I have no doubt
that the crisis period
caused a number to move away from areas they expected to be most
affected, and many of them have not yet returned.”
Chairman’s address to the General Meeting, March 1939
In addition to the manning problem, freight carriage in general was
by now being affected adversely by the political situation on the
Continent. Hitler’s annexation of Austria damaged business
confidence, resulting in reduced imports of timber and steel, both
of which were staple canal cargoes from the Thames. The
opening of the London Power Company’s new power station at Battersea
and the growth of the National Grid, gradually caused the small
municipal power stations along the Regent’s Canal to reduce output
and to close, and with them went a useful source of revenue
delivering their coal. In 1929, the Company carried 190,374 tons of
power station coal, earning revenue of £12,429; over the following
decade, this gradually diminished to 11,925 tons in 1938, earning
£993, a decline that was also felt in a loss of dues at Regent’s
Dock.
Following the outbreak of war, the Carrying Company was engaged by
the Government to move foodstuffs from London to the provinces, but
they were again hit by crew shortages. During 1939, 45,915
tons of goods had to be sub-contracted to other carriers while a
large proportion of the Carrying Company’s fleet lay idle. A
further problem to emerge following the commencement of hostilities
was that the volume of cargo arriving by sea at Regent’s Dock
quickly fell away. [20] Trade with Germany (on
average four steamers a week) ceased, while much traffic was
diverted from the Thames to west coast ports. Much of the
coastal coal delivered into Regent’s Dock ― from where it was
shipped by canal to factories and gas works in the West London area
― was transferred to rail, and the extensive Scandinavian timber
trade also diminished. The result was a loss of dock dues and
stevedoring charges, and also in tolls due to reduced shipments
along the Canal. By now the Carrying Company had accumulated
losses of £134,000, largely attributable to depreciation and
debenture interest.
Other than the fall in sea-borne trade into Regent’s Dock, other
wartime events were to have a damaging impact on the Company’s
carrying activities. Because in peacetime the railways had
over capacity, at the outbreak of hostilities the Government
was confident that the railways could handle the nation’s war-time transport
needs supported by road transport and coastal shipping. No
importance was attached to the contribution that could be made by
the independent canals, [21] which were by now
regarded as an anachronism:
“The canals are the poor relation of the railways and the roads ―
a member of the transport family fallen on evil days, who
nevertheless appears to scratch some sort of living together in a
mysterious way.”
Transport Goes to War:
Ministry of Information, 1942
The independent canals were thus left outside government control.
Their boatmen ― already in short supply ― together with other canal
and boatyard workers were recruited into the armed forces, or
departed for better-paid work in munitions factories.
The Government had learned nothing from the previous conflict;
indeed, the situation became a re-run of that which the canals had experienced during WWI.
By the beginning of 1942, it was evident that the railways could not
accommodate the hugely increased level of war-time traffic. In
response to the crisis, Frank Pick, former Chief Executive of the
London Passenger Transport Board and a distinguished transport
administrator, was commissioned to review the situation. Among
his recommendations to the Ministry of War Transport was that the
Government should assume tighter control over transport, including
inland waterways. Thus, on 1st July 1942, the Minister of War
Transport (Lord Leathers) took control of the principal canals and
canal carrying companies.
As in WWI., the business relationship between the Company and
the Ministry of War Transport was not to be a happy one.
Although matters of everyday management did not present a problem ―
these remained in the Company’s hands, subject to the Minister’s
overriding directions ― the financial arrangements did. From
the date when government control was imposed, all companies so
affected lost the carrying subsidy that had until then been in
force, and payment for government work ― which needed to take
account of any losses incurred in meeting the Minister’s directions
― became the subject of negotiation between each canal company and
the Ministry. The offer accepted by the canal industry in
general was that during the period of control, companies would
receive a sum equivalent to their average earnings during the period
1st January 1936 to 31st December 1938, but any earnings exceeding
this figure while under government control had to be surrendered to
the Ministry. In other words, the controlled companies were
made an offer of an assured sum ― no more, no less ― which they
could accept or, if they so wished, decline and take a chance on
their wartime earnings exceeding what the Ministry had offered.
The Board believed that this formula, when applied to them, was
impractical because it failed to take account of the changes that
the Company had been undergoing during the baseline period, and its
acceptance would result in certain loss. Having failed to
persuade the Ministry to improve their offer, the Company decided to
take their chance on outperforming it.
Added to the unresolved problem of carrying charges, the Company had
not been permitted to increase its tolls. In 1940, it had been
permitted an increase of up to 50% ― the average implemented was 33⅓%
― but this should judged against the previous authorised increase,
which dated from 1894; indeed, some rates had remained below the
statutory figures. As happens during prolonged periods of
conflict, inflation increased and with it the cost of canal
maintenance, which, as the war progressed, began to exceed the
Company’s toll receipts, about a quarter of which came from the
Carrying Company’s activities. As the Chairman (John Miller) explained to
the 1945 General Meeting, “this company’s receipts from tolls are
at present insufficient to pay the cost of even a moderate programme
of repairs and renewals”:
Year |
Tonnage
Receipts
(Tolls, &c.) |
Maintenance
and Traffic
Expenses |
Net revenue
from Ware-housing and terminal services |
Gross
Revenue
Balance |
1938 |
125,748 |
103,613 |
(91) |
68,285 |
1939 |
120,991 |
97,058 |
11,269 |
79,524 |
1940 |
113,466 |
98,413 |
21,727 |
79,808 |
1941 |
143,953 |
108,003 |
42,505 |
125,142 |
1942 |
138,618 |
*132,579 |
60,948 |
*114,060 |
1943 |
162,925 |
172,725 |
75,764 |
107,312 |
1944 |
148,001 |
175,708 |
76,293 |
98,007 |
*
Before making a special
provision of £25,000 for dredging Regent’s Canal Dock.
Chairman’s address to the General
Meeting, May 1945 |
Revenue from warehousing and wharfage together with that earned by
the other subsidiaries was by now cross-subsidising the Canal; as the
Chairman went on to explain, “I have no doubt that
our position would be precarious indeed if we had not adopted a
policy of commercial expansion”.
Although the period of government control probably slowed the
decline in canal transport, as it had
during WWI., by 1946 the national network was carrying less
(10 million tons) than in 1938 (13 million tons), a year in which
carrying had been depressed by the political situation in Europe. At the peak of war-time activity in
1944, the canals carried slightly less than 5% of the nation’s total
traffic. [22]
The final years of the Carrying Company saw it suffer the damaging
impact of the old enemy of canal transport to which it, to a greater
extent than its road and rail competitors, was vulnerable ― the
weather. Throughout its life, the mainline had been subject to
the vagaries of ice, drought and flooding (sometimes resulting in
burst banks). The years 1933 and 1934 saw the worst drought
for more than a generation. In June, 1934, the South Leicester
section had to be closed and its water used as a reserve for the
main line, but between July and December the low water level led
to a restriction being placed on the draught of boats, resulting in lost revenue. At the 1935 General
Meeting, the Chairman explained that the Board’s decision not to pay
a dividend on the capital stock for the previous year was due to the
increased cost of pumping, which had added £20,000 to the annual
maintenance bill (£171,000):
“The whole of the year under review has been overshadowed by the
anxieties caused by the abnormal drought. Canals generally
have had no such experience of deficiency in rainfall for two years
consecutively, and as their records go back over 100 years, we must
realise that we are not likely to be again faced with such a
condition of affairs.”
Chairman’s address to the General Meeting, March 1935
But Curtis was, as usual, over-optimistic, for prolonged drought did
indeed recur.
Freezing could be even more damaging to trade. The winter of
1939-40 was the coldest for 45 years, and for six weeks the canal
was frozen over between Birmingham and London. And inclement
weather was to continue during the Canal’s final years:
“Exceptionally dry weather, dating back to the latter part of
1942, culminated in 1944 in one of the most serious droughts, from
the Company’s point of view, in its history. There were grave
fears that the main line of the canal from London to Birmingham
might have to be closed. But we have for several years been
modernizing and increasing our pumping plant and we had the
foresight to close our South Leicester Section as far back as
December 1943, in order to preserve a supply of water for the more
important Braunston Summit. For these reasons and through the
splendid work of our engineer, Mr. C. A. Wilson, and his staff, we
were able to keep the main line open. For a considerable
period, however, the draught of boats had to be restricted and there
was an inevitable decrease in tolls and a substantial increase in
the cost of pumping.”
Chairman’s address to the General Meeting, May 1945
The winter of 1946-47 experienced the longest spell of continuous
frost for 106 years, and canal carrying suffered as a result:
“The year 1947 was full of major problems. Costs and
general expenses rose and increased revenue was hard to obtain.
The severity of the winter, when our main waterway was frozen over
for four weeks and we were further inconvenienced by subsequent
floods, caused great expense and loss of revenue.”
Chairman’s address to the (final) General Meeting,
October 1949
But the weather soon ceased to be of consequence to the Company’s
profit and loss account.
On 1st January 1948 its carrying subsidiaries were
taken into State ownership and, as commercial entities, they ceased to exist.
Ironically, the under-employed carrying fleet ― 126 motors
and 130 butties, of which about 70 pairs were in commercial use ―
was soon to be increased, for having incurred a trading loss
during the first six months of 1948, the large private canal
carrier, Fellows, Morton & Clayton Ltd., went into voluntary
liquidation and their assets were acquired by the British Transport
Commission. As from 1st January 1949, their South-eastern
Division’s already bloated carrying fleet received a further boost
of 100
pairs of FMC boats. Thus, State-owned canal carrying on the
Grand Union Canal began life with what was probably the largest
fleet of canal boats ever assembled under a single management.
――――♦――――
DID AMALGAMATION PROVE SUCCESSFUL?
Over the years various government-sponsored committees of inquiry
had reached the conclusion that canal carrying could only operate
successfully through of programme of mergers, such as those that had
led to much of the success of the railway companies. Canal
company mergers had the potential to eradicate the chaotic charging
structure and make possible the removal of that blight of canal
operation, the lack of standard measurements in their construction
(again achieved by the railways early on). The question
therefore arises as to the extent to which the formation of the
Grand Union Canal Company resulted in any material benefit along
these lines. Here, the indications are that canal carrying had
had its day and that no amount of modernisation of the Grand Union
network would have led to a different outcome. That
said, there are clear indications that the Company would have
survived, but as an integrated transport operation that relied less
and less on its canal operations. What would have become of
the waterway under these circumstances is a matter of conjecture ―
nationalisation did at least have the effect of preserving it.
The Atlee Government’s nationalisation programme could not have been
foreseen in 1929. Had it ranked among the risks then facing the
Company, it is likely that the investment programmes of the 1930s
would not have received shareholder endorsement. The new Board undoubtedly based their
business strategy on
a vision of an unfettered future. That said, some of the assumptions underlying their investment
appraisal calculations appear questionable, not least the
sufficiency of the capital required to complete the modernisation
plan and the extent of the financial return necessary to make it
pay ― a matter of costs and benefits. And regardless of
whether there was reasonable expectation of sufficient cargo to fill
the boats, the existing shortage of boat crews alone brings into
question the decision to invest in a large carrying fleet on which
capital charges had to be paid. Following
the top management shakeup in 1936, it is easier to understand the
new Board’s strategy to diversify further, for by then it must have
been apparent that the long-distance carrying trade could not compete favourably with road and rail.
During the Company’s 18-year life, canal transportation continued
its long-established decline, being superseded increasingly by road
transport as well as by rail. This aspect of the
Company’s business reflects the national trend, where tonnage fell
from 22 million tons in 1919, to 15.5 million tons by 1927, to 13
million tons by 1938, to 10 million tons in 1946. There then
followed a slight recovery to 11.3 million tons in 1949, after which
canal carrying gradually died. The narrow canals suffered the
most, and for most of its length the Grand Union was a
narrow canal for commercial purposes.
The Company’s published tonnage figures, where they exist, provide
one indication of commercial activity, but only that, for the data
gives no hint of freight rates and ton-miles. But with that
caveat, and assuming that the data was gathered in a consistent
manner, it demonstrates a downward trend. Tons carried were,
for 1931 1,870,718; 1932, 1,638,443; 1933, 1,685,487; and for 1934,
1,726, 344. There is then a gap in the publically available
figures until 1938-39, a period undoubtedly affected by the adverse
political situation in Europe, by which time tonnage had declined to
around 1.2 million tons. Thus, although it may well have
slowed the rate of falling canal revenue, the cost of modernising
and extending the waterway does not appear to have delivered any
material benefit. By the end of the WWII., in the words of the
Chairman, net toll receipts were “insufficient to pay the cost of
even a moderate programme of repairs and renewals”.
Another indicator of commercial success ― albeit including other
activities ― is the rate of dividend paid on the Company’s stock.
For the first complete year of trading (1929-30), the capital stock
fell to 1⅜% compared with the 4% usually paid by the Grand Junction
and the 2% by the Regent’s Canal. There then followed a
downwards drift to ⅞% in 1933 after which the dividend was suspended
until 1945, when distribution resumed at 1%. Dividend
increased to 2% in the following year and ― despite experiencing a
dreadful winter during 1947-48, when the waterway was frozen over
for thirteen weeks ― to 2.8% for the Company’s final year of
trading, the Government having blocked an attempt by the Board to
pay 5.8%. The 6% Preference shareholders fared rather better.
Their dividend was suspended between 1937 and 1941, to be restored
in full in 1944, when 3% was also paid retrospectively for 1942 and
1943. Regarding share price, we have been unable to establish
the market value of the capital stock at nationalisation, but by the
end of the war a £100 share was trading at around £22; judging from
the Chairman’s address to the closing meeting in 1949, share price
remained below par at nationalisation. The indications are
that the Company was a poor investment from both the Capital and
Preference shareholders’ points of view.
Although the Company’s performance should be judged in the
context of the ‘Great Depression’ and of WWII., the Board’s unrealistic assessment of the potential for
reviving long distance canal transport and the costs which that
would entail must have been the
dominant factor in its declining income. There was insufficient
capital to bring about the necessary transformation; to turn the London to Birmingham and
the River Trent routes
into barge canals on which much larger loads could be carried by
pairs of wide boats of the Progress class and to use such
craft to eradicate the transhipment costs and delays that resulted
from narrow boats being unable to load directly from ships in the
Thames and the London Docks. Lock widening on the Warwick
canals did improve traffic flow, but for most of their length the main routes
remained ‘narrow’ so far as through traffic was concerned ― the job
was left half done:
“The Grand Union Canal throughout its length presents special
features . . . . As far as the length from Uxbridge to Birmingham is
concerned, the question has often been debated whether it is or is
not a ‘narrow’ canal. The facts are these. The canal was
constructed for use by wide boats as far as Braunston. A
substantial scheme on converting the waterways as a whole into a
wide canal was put in hand by the former owners between the wars and
all the locks can accommodate craft 14ft x 70ft. [23]
But the scheme was never completed and substantial amounts of
ancillary supporting work (estimated several years ago to cost
several million pounds) would be necessary to enable wide craft to
use the waterway in a fully effective way (to pass each other
practically wherever they happened to meet, for instance).
From the point of view of commercial carrying, therefore, the Grand
Union system must be treated as within the group of narrow canals .
. . .”
The
Facts About the Waterways, British
Waterways Board, London, 1965
The heavy investment in extending and modernising the waterway
having failed to earn a sufficient return left the Company’s small
carrying and toll margins highly vulnerable to such ailments as
shortage of boat crews and the vagaries of the weather. But
had the capital been available to achieve the full extent of
modernisation ― including widening the Watford and Foxton locks ―
would canal traffic have increased sufficiently to repay the higher
capital costs and provide a reasonable return? The growth of
road transport coupled with the lowering of freight rates as the
canal’s competitors (road, rail and coastal shipping) fought each
other for market share, suggest that even if a significant increase
in trade had been won it would have been at unattractive rates and
unlikely to have delivered material benefit. During the 1930s,
some waterways did gain traffic and remained commercially viable
into the post-war years. But these were waterways ― such as
the Aire & Calder, the Sheffield & South Yorkshire, and the Trent
systems ― that had been improved considerably (widened, deepened,
straightened) to enable them to handle craft of well over 100 tons
capacity. They were also the carriers of heavy local trades in
coal and bulk liquids.
But on other side of the business there were encouraging signs of
progress. By the end of WWII., through its subsidiaries the
Company had evolved into an integrated and sustainable transport
operation with interests in stevedoring, warehousing, shipping, road
haulage, property and even leisure. Here the future looked
reasonably bright. Had the Company not succumbed to
nationalisation, one is left to wonder how the business might have
developed; whether it would have moved increasingly into shipping,
warehousing and road haulage; whether its leisure subsidiary might
have recognised the waterway’s potential for leisure cruising long before
the State; and how the change to containerisation and the closure of
the Port of London would have been dealt with.
At the Company’s final General Meeting in October 1949, John Miller had this
to say:
“I hope that as this is our final meeting, you will permit me to
refer to the achievements of your Board, which you will remember was
reconstructed towards the end of the year 1936, when the Company was
undoubtedly in a very precarious condition, and it may be admitted
that the policy introduced of broadening the business and the
introduction of a better all-round transport service to our clients
met with the success which we had hoped. . . .
It is regrettable that the nationalisation of transport had to be,
for I had reasonable hope that before long our capital stock would
have reached par value, which would have afforded your Board great
satisfaction. . . .
There is no satisfactory substitute for private enterprise in the
business of transport, whether by sea, land or air, and this simple
fact will be discovered as time goes on . . . .”
. . . . and such proved to be the case.
――――♦――――
APPENDIX
(Grand Union Canal Company publicity material c.
1938)
THE GRAND UNION CANAL CARRYING COMPANY LIMITED . . .
.
. . . . owns the
largest fleet of mechanically-propelled canal craft in the country,
consisting of 185 pairs of Diesel-engined canal boats of a type
evolved after six years’ experiment in design. The high-speed
Diesel engines give a loaded speed of six knots, and whereas the old
type of canal craft carried 55 tons on the pair, the new boats will
carry 72 tons on a draught of 4 ft. 3 ins. with ample freeboard.
The new craft afford a cubic capacity of about 2,800 cubic feet
below gunwales, with ample space for the carriage of general cargo
which is well protected from the weather by tarpaulins. The
cabins are fitted with electric light, and for travelling by night
each boat has a headlight whose beam greatly facilitates the
negotiation of the locks. On an average, the trip from London
to Birmingham takes between three and four days. The increased
freeboard enables craft safely to navigate the tidal estuaries.
GENERAL CARGO
The
Company is particularly well equipped for the handling of General
Merchandise. Unlike the old type of craft, the Company’s boats
are mobile and well fitted for travelling by night, and afford a
storage space which is unequalled by other forms of transport.
GRAIN
The
Company has a rapidly increasing traffic in grain, which is loaded
alongside the steamer in the London Docks for delivery, both in bulk
and in sacks, to various mills and warehouses alongside the canal.
Until recently, this traffic was carried almost exclusively in
sacks, but the new boats have made it possible to carry grain in
bulk, thus ensuring considerable economies. The expense of
bagging, sack hire, and the return of empty sacks is in this way
entirely avoided.
STRAWBOARDS
There is a service
for the transport of strawboards, both in bundles and in reels, from
direct alongside import steamer in the REGENT’S
CANAL DOCK to the
NORTHAMPTON, COVENTRY, BIRMINGHAM,
and NUNEATON districts. The strawboards
are warehoused, sorted, and re-delivered according to customers’
requirements.
TIMBER
All classes of
timber are handled by the Grand Union Canal Carrying Company, and,
if required, rates per standard will be quoted on softwoods, from
London to any point in the Midlands. Timber is received
overside in the Surrey Commercial and other docks, or arrangements
can be made for steamer to discharge in the Canal Company’s Regents
Canal Dock at Limehouse, where cargoes can be received directly
overside by the Grand Union Canal Carrying Company’s craft.
Thus traffic can be carried direct from the ship to the Midlands
without the extra cost and delay which would be incurred by
trans-shipment from lighters. Considerable economies can be
effected in this way, and rates can be quoted to include the
discharge of the vessel and dock dues. Almost unlimited
storage space is available in Leicester, Birmingham, Nottingham,
Coventry and other important towns covered by the system.
Timber is sheeted immediately boats are loaded, ensuring that it is
carried through to its destination in a perfectly dry condition.
CEMENT
The Company has a
large trade in the carriage of cement in bags. This traffic,
which is particularly well suited to carriage by water, is loaded
and discharged under cover by means of the most up-to-date handling
plant, and is stored in special warehouses for re-delivery by road
in small lots.
COAL & ROADSTONE
The Company is in a
position to offer a regular and reliable service for the carriage of
coal and roadstone, and, if required, their subsequent distribution
by road in any district served by the system. The Company’s
Midland Office is in daily touch with the collieries and quarries in
connection with the placing and the loading of boats, and these can
invariably be supplied at short notice.
SAND
Low rates are quoted
for the carriage of SAND from the various Pits
alongside the canal, including those at LEIGHTON
BUZZARD, where nearly sixty varieties
of sand can be obtained.
IRON & STEEL
The Company operates a regular
service for the carriage of iron and steel in approximately 1,000
ton lots from direct ex steamer in the REGENT’S
CANAL DOCK to be
delivered in Birmingham and South Staffordshire. The boats are
placed direct alongside and on completion of the steamer’s
discharge, which is effected within 1½ days, they pass from the dock
on to the canal for the Birmingham terminal. Here the cargo is
distributed in the quantities required by a fleet of up-to-date road
vehicles. These facilities form part of a through route from
the Continent to the Midlands. |