British Transport Historical Records and Their Value to the Architectural Historian

SAHGB Publications Limited

British Transport Historical Records and Their Value to the Architectural HistorianAuthor(s): Henry ParrisSource: Architectural History, Vol. 2 (1959), pp. 50-62Published by: SAHGB Publications LimitedStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1568220 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 07:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

SAHGB Publications Limited is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toArchitectural History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.40 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:37:22 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sahgb

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1568220?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


BRITISH TRANSPORT HISTORICAL RECORDS AND THEIR VALUE TO THE ARCHITECTURAL

HISTORIAN HENRY PARRIS

In an address at the Inaugural General Meeting of the Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain, Mr. Howard Colvin distinguished three traditions in the study of architectural history. First, there is 'the study of buildings as monuments whose history is contained in their own structure'; secondly, there is the 'use of documents . . . to throw light on the history of a structure, on the mind of an architect, or on the building practice of an age'; thirdly, 'there is the art-historical approach which is concerned chiefly with tracing aesthetic concepts'. The study of railway architecture in Britain, in so far as it has been studied at all, has hitherto been undertaken by the first and third of these methods. With regard to railway architecture, this is true of Mr. Barman's book2 and of the important studies of Professors Hitchcock and Meeks3, although they make some use of original drawings and plans. It is the purpose of this article to show that the second method also-the use of records--is necessary to a full understanding of the subject4.

The documents in question are, of course, mainly to be found in British Transport Historical Records. You will note that in my title I refer to the value of these records to architectural historians in general, not merely to the historians of railway architecture. This is not because the contribution of the railways has been too important to be ignored in any general account of our architectural history. It has, of course, been ignored hitherto, but I believe that the works I have mentioned have made it impossible for us to ignore it again. The main importance of this source for architectural history is that, with the possible exception of the Public Record Office, it is the largest single collection relating to architecture in this country in the nineteenth century. The student of country houses must seek his records in the houses themselves, or perhaps in the county record office; the student of parish churches has to look into each parish chest; the student of municipal architecture must seek his documents in each separate municipality. The student of railway architecture, on the other hand, has the good fortune to find the great majority of his record material unified in one collection. And much of what he learns from the records will be of value in the study of nineteenth century architecture in general. It was comparatively unusual for

H. M. Colvin, 'The Study of Architectural History in England', an address delivered at the Inaugural Meeting of the Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain, York, 1 Jun. 1957, 1.

2 C. Barman, An Introduction to Railway Architecture (1950). 3 H. R. Hitchcock, Early Victorian Architecture in Britain, 2 v. (1954).

C. L. V. Meeks. The Railway Station: An Architectural History (1957). 4 The first published study to make use of British Transport Historical Records for purposes of architectural history, so far as I know, is D. Cole, 'Mocatta's Stations for the Brighton Railway in Journal of Transport History iii (1957-8), 149ff.

50



a man to build nothing but railway stations, and the building practice of firms when working for railway companies was, generally speaking, not greatly different from what it was when they were working for other clients. If therefore the records throw some light on 'the mind of an architect, or on the building practice of an age' (to borrow Mr. Colvin's phrase once more) that light will illumine much more than the railway station we are immediately studying-the Town Hall across the square perhaps, or the terraced houses down the street.

What then are British Transport Historical Records? Briefly, they are the records of all the bodies whose activities are now carried on by the British Transport Commission. These bodies were engaged in many different fields-canals, river navigation, docks and harbours-as well as railways. Compared with other business enterprises of the nineteenth century, railway companies were great keepers of records. This was a result of their structure. Businesses in general in nineteenth century Britain were owned and managed by one man, or a small group of men working in partnership. There was therefore no need for them to record their decisions in writing, or to keep the records even if they did so. Almost all railway companies, on the other hand, were run by boards of directors, with full-time officers responsible to them, and responsible in their turn to bodies of shareholders. This type of structure led naturally to the production of a vast quantity of paper. The officers reported in writing to the Board, the Board reported in writing to the shareholders, and both Board and shareholders recorded their decisions in minute books.

When the British Transport Commission took over, they found themselves in possession of a huge collection of material. A Committee was set up, which reported in 19515. Their report was accepted by the Commission, and subsequent development has been based on the principles there laid down. The first of these-and one of great importance to the architectural historian- was the distinction between relics (i.e., objects appropriate to an art gallery or museum) and records. A great many early drawings-e.g., G. T. Andrews' original drawing for York Old Station6-are classed as relics, not records, although from our point of view they have an importance as records. Secondly, the historical records have been separated from those which are still needed for current business purposes. Thirdly, the whole collection should be placed in the care of an Archivist.

The collection is at present housed in three places, London, York and Edinburgh7. At each office there is one or more archivists to assist the student, and search facilities. These latter are extremely good in the London office, and although the arrangements at York are of a provisional character, they compare very favourably with the facilities available elsewhere for record searchers. No charge is made to the student.

Railway records are, in general, arranged by companies. Thus some background of railway history is desirable to find one's way about in them; 5 British Transport Commission, The Preservation of Relics and Records (1951). 6 Published by Hitchcock, op. cit., ii, XV23. r For a discussion of the principles underlying this division, see Journal of Transport

History, ii (1956-7), 129.

51



it is useful, for example, to be able to trace the line from York to Darlington from British Railways back through the L.N.E.R., the North Eastern Railway, the York, Newcastle & Berwick, & the York & Newcastle, to the Great North of England Railway Company, who built it. The records of individual companies are divided again into a number of uniform classes. These classes are not all of equal value to the architectural historian. For example, Class I -Minutes & Reports-is of the highest interest, while Class II-Stock & Share Registers-may be almost ignored from our present point of view. Three other classes of particular importance may be noticed; namely, Class III -Deeds, Agreements, Contracts, Specifications, Estimates, and Plans; Class Vlll-Correspondence & Relevant Papers; and Class IX-Secretarial Papers.

In addition to the records of companies, there are a number of other groups of records, which in part supplement them, and in part cut across them. Some of these are of great significance for architectural history; for example, Historical Letters, Historical Records & Papers, and Maps, Plans and Surveys. The entire collection is admirably catalogued, and there is a good card-index, which is constantly growing.

Having described the records, we may now go on to consider what they tell us. Let us start by taking a look at the career of one of the best known of railway architects, Philip Hardwick, famous (or notorious) for the propylaeum at Euston. Early in 1839 the Chairman of the London & Birmingham Railway asked him to state a scale of fees for certain work the company wished him to undertake. He replied8 that he would prefer to be paid a regular annual salary, and drew up what is probably the earliest considered statement of the duties of a railway architect anywhere in the world. He offered to undertake the following duties:

To prepare all the drawings and specifications for all new buildings and other works not being within the Engineer's department, to advertise for tenders and enter into contracts for the same, to superintend the execution of the works, to measure them (if necessary) and examine and certify the accounts.

To direct and superintend all repairs and alterations necessary to the several buildings already erected including those at London and Birmingham and examine and certify the accounts.

To prepare all plans of property already belonging to the Company or of any additional property that may be required. To value all property either in land or houses that may be necessary either to be purchased or to be sold.

To receive all rents due to the Company arising from land or houses.

To report on all business, and attend all meetings of committees when required and generally to transact all other business and to render the Board the best advice and assistance which could be required in such a department.

From a man whom so many of his contemporaries considered extravagant we should be prepared for an extortionate demand for salary-especially in view of the fact that he was prepared to act as the company's valuer, estate agent and rent-collector as well as their architect. In fact, his demand was extremely modest-no more than ?400 per annum. Since the standard fee

8 British Transport Historical Records (BTHR) HL 2/8.

52



was reckoned to be 5%9, he seems to have estimated that the Company would be spending only some ?8,000 a year for the various kinds of expenditure which he undertook to supervise.

Hardwick made two reservations, however; one explicit, the other tacit. If the Company called for any new construction on a large scale, he expected to be paid a fee over and above his salary; to quote his own words, 'if any important building were to be erected, that would form a subject for further consideration, as is usual in all appointments of this kind.' Moreover, he does not undertake to give up private practice and devote all his time to the Company's service.

The Company appears to have accepted Hardwick's terms. Some of the work recorded in subsequent correspondence forms a very humdrum contrast to the grandeur of the Euston propylaeum. Hardwick recommended, for example, the building of fifty cottages for the Company's servants at Wolverton. They were to consist of one room up and one room down, with a lean-to privy and wash-house, and were to cost ?100 each'?. He advised the Company how to resist a claim for depreciation of land as a consequence of railway works". He bought land for the Company from Eton College'2. He insured Euston Station against firel3.

More important work arrived in 1842, when alterations were needed at Euston. The Board called for drawings and estimates, which Hardwick submitted'4, but proposed an arrangement for executing the design which aroused the architect's professional ire. In his covering letter he wrote":

As regards the latter part of the resolution wherein the opinion of the Board is expressed 'that consistently with a proper view to economy the actual performance of the work may be placed under the Company's executive officers', I feel it my duty to request, you will assure the Board, that although no person in their employ can be more truly anxious than I am to meet their views, where I feel that it can be done without a compromise of principle, I could not assent to the arrangement which has been suggested, without a departure from the rule of conduct which, as an architect of some standing in my profession, I feel I am distinctly pledged to, and which I can assure the Board no one in the profession of any character, would under similar circumstances, consider himself justified in giving up.

The reasons for a tenacious adherence to this principle are not to be sought in a desire to engross emolument, but the honest wish on the part of an architect, in doing justice to his own employer, to sustain at the same time, his own reputation, which might be seriously compromised if another were to carry out and superintend the plans which he has designed, for, as the motives which may have regulated his principle of design can be but imperfectly understood, and by conjecture only, by another person, it is more than probable, that both himself and his employer may suffer from unavoidable misconceptions.

9 A. M. Carr-Saunders and P. A. Wilson, The Professions (1933), 188-9. 10 BTHR HL 2/8. " ibid. 12 ibid. 13 ibid. 14 ibid. 15 ibid.

53



To move now to another famous station-Paddington. My text here is a letter from British Transport Historical Records, which Mr. Rolt has printed in his life of Brunel'6. On 13 January 1851 the engineer wrote to the architect, Matthew Digby Wyatt, to invite him to take part in designing the proposed new Great Western station at Paddington. What was known of Wyatt at that date to make Brunel choose him?

We must put from our minds the distinction he subsequently attained- the knighthood, the Slade Chair at Cambridge; and the memorials by which he is remembered, such as the Byzantine Court of the Crystal Palace. We must think instead of a young man in his thirty-first year, busy organising the Great Exhibition-whose success was still very problematic-but known prin- cipally by his writings. Why should so distinguished an engineer as Brunel have sought out such a man to work with him on so important an under- taking? The clue is to be found in Wyatt's publications. He had written on decoration-mosaic and polychromy17-and had enunciated an enthusiastic and positive attitude to the achievements of his age. He had criticised Ruskin for his lack of a 'consistent theory of mechanical repetition as applied to art' and his 'very lopsided view of railways and railway architecture'8. He had stated his own attitude to industrial design in the field of ironwork-so important in station design: 'the artist,' he urged, 'by careful study of the material and its manufacture shall elaborate and employ a system of design in harmony with, and special to, the peculiarities so evolved"'9.

It is clear from Brunel's letter that he was well aware of Wyatt's ideas. 'Now in this building,' he said, '. .. I want to carry out strictly and fully all those correct notions of the use of metal which I believe you and I share (except that I should carry them further than you) and 1 think it will be a nice opportunity. . . . Indeed as good an opportunity as you are likely to have (unless it leads to other and I hope better) of applying the principle you have lately advocated.' So much for the design of metalwork; as for polychromy, Brunel added, 'I want to shew the public also that colours ought to be used.'

A very cursory visit to Paddington today shows that it did indeed prove 'as good an opportunity' as Wyatt was to have of applying his theories to the design of iron-work. But he and Brunel were not able to carry out any bold plans in the use of colour. In April, 1852, the chairman of the company, and several members of the board visited the site'2. What exactly they saw is not recorded; but it is clear that they did not like it. The Secretary was ordered to write Brunel a stiff letter, enjoining important modifications in the design21:

The directors . . . beg you will not introduce any ornamental or coloured tiles but will have the ordinary stucco . . . under the roofs of the sheds.

There is a very decided objection on their part to any sort of decorative ornament to the passenger platforms or offices which they wish to be as plain and inexpensive looking as possible.

16 L. T. C. Rolt, Isambard Kingdom Brunel (1957), 231-2. '7 N. Pevsner, Matthew Digby Wyatt (1950), 30. 18 ibid, 18. 19 ibid, 13. 20 BTHR GW 1/5, 15 Apr. 1852. 21 BTHR GEN 3/55.

54



But why was any building still going on in April 1852? In the letter I have already quoted, Brunel had said: 'I am going to design in a great hurry and I believe to build a station after my own fancy . . . the matter presses very much, the building must be half finished by the summer.' That was in January 1851. In the same month the Board had given the order to go ahead with the first instalment of the new station and the contractors-Messrs. Fox & Henderson-were to complete it by 15 May 185122. This firm were the wonders of their age for speedy erection of large buildings in iron and glass23. In the previous year they had undertaken to erect the Great Exhibition building in Hyde Park-the Crystal Palace-and were to complete what Professor Hitchcock calls 'this marvellous feat of rapid and economical space enclosure' in nine months. They achieved this by the efficient use of a range of techniques which even today we are not really at home with-prefabrication, standardisa- tion of parts, application of machine tools to wood-working, site management. It was therefore natural to turn to the same firm to build Paddington, and to expect similar results.

May arrived, however, when they should have been finished, but they were not. Brunel defended his own part in the business, and the Board considered transferring the contract24. In October 1851 the Board once more considered the delays in the work 'and the insufficiency of means employed by Fox, Henderson & Company', and Brunel was instructed to hurry them by Fox, Henderson & Company, and Brunel was instructed to hurry them up25. A week later it was decided to withhold further payments from the contractors, pending an estimate of the time required to complete the work; since the contractors were also manufacturers of iron components, it is interesitng to note that the delay was on the manufacturing rather than the building side26.

In November 1851 the directors were planning to go ahead with the second instalment of the station. As a result of the frustration they had suf- fered, they instructed Brunel to prepare an estimate of the length of time required, and to insert a penalty clause in the contract to secure the company ' against any repetition of the delay occasioned . . . by Messrs. Fox, Henderson & Co.'27. In March 1852 the directors, still dissatisfied, summoned one of the employees of the contractors into the Boardroom, and cross-examined him about the delay-which must have been extremely embarrassing for the wretched man! He tried to shift the blame on to Brunel, by complaining that he was held up for lack of working drawings28. In spite of everything, however, Fox, Henderson & Co. were invited to tender for the completion of the station within a specified period-but this time under a strict penalty clause29.

It is not hard to imagine why Fox, Henderson's work at Paddington was so miserable a contrast to their achievement in Hyde Park. In taking on

22 BTHR GW 1/4/ 9 and 23 Jan. 1851. 23 Hitchcock, op. cit., i, 530 ff. 24 BTHR GW 1/5 15 May 1851. 25 ibid., 23 Oct. 1851. 26 ibid., 30 Oct. 1851. 27 ibid., 27 Nov. 1851. 28 ibid., 4 Mar. 1852. 29 ibid., 18 Mar. 1852.

55



another contract of such magnitude, they almost certainly over-extended themselves-especially when we remember that the Crystal Palace had to be taken down as well as put up. But the whole affair does help to explain why 'other complete stations were not built in the 50's on the Crystal Palace system '3.

The architects of the two stations at York-G. T. Andrews and Thomas Prosser-each made a noteworthy contribution to railway architecture. Their careers form an interesting contrast. While Andrews was architect of the York & North Midland Railway in the sense that he did a great deal of work for them over a long period of years, he was paid by fees, and was able to work for other clients at the same time. Prosser, on the other hand, was a full-time, salaried officer of the North Eastern Railway for the first twenty years of its existence.

Andrews' connection with the York & North Midland began in 1838, when he was commissioned to pierce an archway through the city walls to give the traffic access to the proposed station31. Andrews produced two designs, while the Company's engineer, Thomas Cabrey, offered a third; since the Company were not insensitive to aesthetic and antiquarian considerations, it was decided to submit the three designs to the Yorkshire Philosophical Society32. One of Andrews' was chosen, and he was 'requested to prepare estimates in order to advertise for contracts for the same immediately 33. Three tenders were received ,for ?2,000, ?2,500 and ?3,700 respectively; the Board were clearly not satisfied, for they asked Andrews for a further estimate-not this time as an architect, but as a contractor34. A week later, Andrews was

fully empowered to engage workmen to complete the archway under the bar walls; the work to be done by measurement, all old materials that can be made useful, to be used and an estimate to be made of their value. The archway to be completed in April next. Estimate . . . ?1,96035.

In thus acting both as architect and contractor Andrews was running counter to the professional spirit of his age. Sir John Soane had set his face against the practice, and it was one of the grounds for expulsion from the Institute of British Architects from the establishment of that body in 183436.

I will say something later about Andrews' work on the Old Station at York. A large part of his work in the city for the York & North Midland was of a much more humdrum character. In 1840 he was drawing up plans for cottages outside the walls37. In 1841 he was letting the contracts for the goods station38. In 1843 he was in charge of repairs to the refreshment rooms at the Station39. Two years later, he was constructing a second archway through the

30 Hitchcock, op. cit., i, 540. 31 BTHR YNM 1/1 27 Dec. 1838. 32 ibid., 24 Jan. 1839. 33 ibid., 31 Jan. 1839. 34 ibid., 7 Feb. 1839. 35 ibid., 14 Feb. 1839, 36 Carr-Saunders and Wilson, op. cit., 177-8. 37 BTHR YNM 1/1 13 Feb. 1840. 38 ibid., YNM 1/2 24 Feb. 1841. 39 ibid., GNE 4/6.

56



walls40 to provide for the increased traffic. In 1852 he was instructed to add a storey to the lodge at the station gates41. Finally, in 1854, this time for the North Eastern Railway, he was preparing estimates for painting and repairs42

Meanwhile, he was doing a good deal of work for another local company, the Great North of England Railway. Their coal depot at York was outside the walls, and so they employed him to enlarge North Street Postern arch43, in order to give better access to it. He drew up plans for the coal depot itself, and for similar facilities at Alne and Thirsk44-work which might seem more appropriate to the company's engineer. He supervised the erection of these depots, and also the stations at Raskelf and Sessay45, though it is not clear whether he had designed these stations.

It is worth asking why railway companies employed architects for such small-scale work: once again we must bear in mind the difference in structure between railway companies and other forms of industrial enterprise in the mid-nineteenth century. If a cotton-spinner wanted a new mill, for which he would have to pay himself, he would probably call in a builder and they would rough out a design together. Being on the spot, he would supervise the building when it got under way. A railway company, on the other hand, was run by a board of part-time directors, and they were building with the shareholders' money. It was natural for them to delegate the work to someone, and in the 1840's at any rate, architects were probably cheaper than engineers. Again, the directors had little time to spare for supervising the building they put in hand, especially since much of it was going on at scattered points remote from their head offiecs. They therefore relied on the architect, as a high-grade clerk of works, to ensure that work was carried out according to specification.

This conception of the architect is brought out very clearly in the original terms of appointment of Thomas Prosser as a full-time officer of the North Eastern Railway. He was recommended by the Locomotive Committee to the Board as 'Architect or Clerk of Works,' and his duties were defined as follows46:

To take charge of the whole of the stations throughout the line, and to examine them periodically as to the state of repair of the roofs, windows, doors, and painting inside and out, paying special attention to the W.C.s and urinals.

To design and prepare specifications for all new buildings, stations, warehouses, engine stables, workshops &c, and superintend their gonstruction.

Mr. Prosser to have such assistants as draughtsmen for preparing plans, and workmen, as may be considered necessary, and to be allowed to finish any works he may now have in hand.

The implication is clearly that after finishing any such works, he was to accept no further private commissions, but devote all his time to the company's service. In any case, he would have had very little time to gpare having

40 ibid., YNM 1/2 12 Nov. 1845. 41 ibid., YNM 1/6 8 Dec. 1852. 42 ibid., NER 1/8, 29 Dec. 1854. 43 ibid., GNE 1/2 11 Jan. 1840. 44 ibid., GNE 3/8 Original drawings signed by Andrews. 45 ibid., GNE 4/7. 46 ibid., NER 1/8 16 Dec. 1854.

57



discharged duties so extensive for a railway system extending from Normanton to Berwick!

We see Prosser building new offices at York47, and altering the train-shed roof there48, within a year or two of his appointment. But a more intriguing glimpse into his daily routine is supplied by a file on the supply of hot water for foot-warmers4'. In his day, containers of hot water were placed in railway carriages to warm the feet of passengers. The colder the weather, the sooner the foot-warmers needed refilling. Hence arose the problem of providing boilers for foot-warmers at branch-line stations, on which Prosser was asked to report in 1864'". Later he was ordered to provide some experimentally, but owing to delay in fitting the taps, they were not ready until February 1865. Even then the boilers would not burn. Almost two years later, the problem was still unsolved. The station-master of Leyburn wrote with feeling:

I am truly ashamed to have to ask such as Lord Bolton more particularly ladies to get into carriages without [foot-warmers] . .. during this storm.

There can be no connection between foot-warmers and architecture, yet they were the responsibility, for a time at least, of the architect. An architect friend of mine is fond of demonstrating that most members of the profession are obliged to devote so much of their time to things which are not architecture that it is a miracle that any good buildings are ever put up at all. It is salutary to be reminded that railway architects were in the same position a century ago. The period when Thomas Prosser was worrying about the foot- warmers was also the period when the North Eastern Railway decided to build the present station at York. Perhaps the conception of parallel curved naves first occurred to him in the intervals of inspecting recalcitrant boilers!

Comparing the positions of Andrews and Prosser, it appears that the former was the better paid. For the Old Station, which was built jointly by the York & North Midland and the Great North of England, his fee was ?916 2s. Od. The former company paid up fairly promptly, within three months of the opening of the station, but he was still presing the latter for payment ten months later5'. For the hotel he added to the Old Station more than ten years later his fee was ?300, out of which he was to find the clerk of works52. In this case, we know the exact cost of the building-?7,670 12s. Ild.53- which was below the estimate. It is gratifying to note that the grateful clients decided to pay their architect the difference between expenditure and estimate -?29 7s. Id.54. Even so, his total fee was well below the standard five per cent.

Payment on this scale however was princely compared with the salary

47 ibid., NER 1/9 23 Jan., 17 Apr. 1857. 48 ibid., GNE 8/2, 49 ibid., NER 4/68. 50 ibid. 51 ibid., GNE 8/1. 52 ibid., YSN 1/1 19 Jan. 1852. 53 ibid., 17 Feb. 1853. 54 ibid.

58



at which Prosser began-?200 per annum, plus expenses55. Twelve years later his salary was increased from ?500 to ?700 per annum, and he was

authorised to procure additional assistance in his office to enable him to attend more specially to the duties of architect56.

He had at length devolved the role of clerk of works which he had so long doubled with that of architect, but was still paid very modestly.

It would be tempting to discern in the works of the two men some reflec- tion of their different status; to find Andrews' station the finer since he was a free professional man; Prosser's the more pedestrian since he was a humble salaried slave. Yet most judges agree that each station has considerable merit, although designed by men so different in their relations with their clients.

I want now to show the value of records in the study of an individual building, and I have chosen for this purpose York Old Station. From the point of view of station design, it is an important example of the pioneer period. It has considerable architectural merit. It is largely intact and available for study. Lastly, it has been discussed at length in the pages of Professors Hitch- cock and Meeks57, who appear to have reached their conclusions mainly from an examination of the building itself, from an original drawing by the architect58, and from an early plan59. Comparison of their accounts with the records shows that in several important respects they have been misled.

In their main conclusions they agree. They both assume that the whole design was executed over a very short period, and was complete by 18426?. This leads to the conclusion that 'the incorporation of a hotel in the charac- teristic railway station grouping seems to have begun at York '61 and that 'the major innovation at York, . . . was the provision of complete hotel facilities within the station block"62. It also leads to the conclusion that York was one of the first stations built on the 'U? plan63, and that the hotel 'was the ancestor of the famous London ones and the first to form an integral part of a station complex 64.

In fact, however, the development of the Old Station, from the decision as to the site until the completion of the hotel, was a long drawn out process, extending over a period of fifteen years, from 1838 to 1853. The architect was never given the opportunity to design the station as a whole, but was

55 ibid., NER 1/8 16 Dec. 1854. 56 ibid., NER 1/12 20 Apr. 1866. 57 Hitchcock, op. cit., i, 211, 499, 504, 508-9: ii, XV22, 23.

Meeks, op. cit., 33-4 and Fig. 11. 58 Now in York Railway Museum and reproduced by Hitchcock, XV 23. 59 Now British Transport Historical Relics 6381/57Y and reproduced by Meeks, Fig. 11. 60 Hitchcock, op. cit., 499; Meeks, op. cit., Fig. 11, the caption of which reads 'York,

The Railway Station, by G. T. Andrews, 1840-41. Plan'. Internal evidence is sufficient to show that the date of this plan is later than 1841. It includes offices for the Midland (incorporated 1844) and Great Northern (incorporated 1846) Railways. Great Northern trains did not begin running to York until 1850. More- over the title of the plan-omitted by Professor Meeks-includes the vital letters 'N.E.R.'; the North Eastern Railway was incorporated only in 1854.

61 Hitchcock, op. cit., i 499. 62 ibid., 508. 63 Meeks, op. cit., 33. 64 ibid., 34.

59



required to extend and enlarge piecemeal, as the traffic grew. The incorporation of the hotel in the station building to form a 'U' shaped plan dates, not from the early '40s, but from the early '50s. At this date, the formative influence of such a lay-out on later stations can hardly have been great. If Professors Hitchcock and Meeks have exaggerated the originality of the design, they have, on the other hand, underrated Andrews' achievement. It is one thing to produce a building of quality over a period of eighteen months or so: it is a much more remarkable feat to impose on a building constructed piecemeal over a period of fifteen years so great a unity of design that intelli- gent and sensitive critics a century later are taken in. It has been the fate of so many stations to lose any architectural distinction they may originally have possessed as a result of just such piecemeal extensions.

The York & North Midland Railway approved the site of the Old Station in 183865, and at the end of the year admitted the Great North of England Railway to a joint interest in the station66, with the exception of the offices which were to occupy the first floor over the booking office. Andrews drew up his plans sometime in 183967, but the question of the offices was not settled until early in the following year68. The contract for the booking office block facing Tanner Row was awarded in May 1840 to Messrs. Holroyd & Walker of Sheffield, whose tender was ?7,88669. In August plans for a refreshment room on the opposite side of the line were approved, to be erected by the same contractors70.

These two blocks were straightforward building work; the novel part of the construction was the train-shed roof in iron and glass. The contract for this was awarded in May 1840 to Bingley & Co. of Leeds at the price of ?5 8s. 4d. per hundred superficial feet71. In the following month Andrews was reporting that the 'contractor for the iron roof' was unsatisfactory72. In spite of this, the Company still planned to complete the roof in August73. It then became necessary to approve a stronger quality of glass74. The Company considered transferring the contract to another firm75, and then called in a third firm to help Bingley's with materials and labour76. The roof was now to be finished by November 184077. It was not, however, possible to open the station until January 184178 and there seems little doubt that it was the difficulty of executing a pioneer work in iron and glass that was responsible for the delay.

A plan of 184179 shows the lay-out of the station in its original form. The

5 BTHR YNM 1/1 23 Aug. 1838. 66 ibid., 6 Dec. 1838. 67 ibid., 3 Oct. 1839. 68 ibid., 26 Mar. 1840. 69 ibid., 7 May 1840. 70 ibid., 6 Aug. 1840. 71 ibid., 7 May 1840. 72 ibid., 29 Jun. 1840. 73 ibid., 20 Jul. 1840. 74 ibid., 13 Aug. 1840. 75 ibid., 17 Sep. 1840. 76 ibid., 18 Sept. 1840. 77 ibid. 78 ibid., YNM 1/2 29 Jan. 1841. 79 ibid., GNE 3/4.

60



cross-platform, giving access from one side of the lines to the other, is clearly shown. Professor Meeks emphasises the importance of this element in the design8". Although apparently so simple, it was omitted from the original lay-out of the present Paddington Station as late as 1854, and passengers crossed from one platform to another by means of retractable drawbridges. An inven- tory of 184281 enumerates the rooms and the purposes for which they were used; there were eighteen rooms, and three W.C.s on the Refreshment Room side, and nine rooms and an unspecified number of W.C.s on the Booking Office side, plus the Y.N.M. offices on the first floor.

In 1850 extensive alterations and additions were ordered, as recorded in the following minute82:

That a waiting-room for ladies be erected next to the refreshment rooms and the second class refreshment room altered at the York station and that bedrooms be erected over these rooms as shown in the plan produced by Mr. Andrews at a cost not exceeding ?260 as estimated by him.

Shortly afterwards, it was decided to enlarge the parcels office83. Finally, in 1851, the York Joint Station Committee, representing the York & North Midland and the York, Newcastle & Berwick (successors to the Great North of England) referred two schemes for a hotel to the parent companies. The one which was chosen was described as a hotel 'to be erected on the property of the Companies at the end of the station '84 from which we may infer that the crucial factor in adapting the station to a 'U' shaped plan was not any architectural consideration but simply the fact that the Companies owned the site already. Andrews now produced plans, and the Committee suggested he should add an extra storey85. This he did, and was then authorised to advertise for tenders86. In May 1852 considerable dissatisfaction was felt with the progress of the work, and Andrews was ordered 'to enforce strict com- pliance with the terms of the contract'87. The hotel was finished in February 185388.

These illustrations have shown that, although in form British Transport Historical Records may not look much like architectural archives89, they con- tain much of architectural importance. There are many other interesting questions one might investigate with their aid. For example, exactly how many stations, besides Cambridge, did Sancton Wood build for the Eastern Counties Railway?90 Was the highly-praised design for Stoke-on-Trent Station the sole contribution to railway architecture of 'the otherwise unknown R. A. Stent'9.

80 Meeks, op. cit., 33-4. 81 BTHR GNE 4/8. 82 ibid., YNM 1/5 26 Apr. 1850. 83 ibid., 12 Jul. 1850. 84 ibid., YSN 1/1 23 Dec, 1851. 85 ibid., 12 Jan. 1852. 86 ibid., 19 Jan. 1852. 87 ibid., 8 May 1852. 88 ibid., 17 Feb. 1853. 89 Cf. J. Harvey, 'Architectural Archives', in Archives, ii, (1953-6) 117-122. 9O Cf. Hitchcock, op. cit., i, 510. 91 ibid., i, 523.

61



Again, who played Digby Wyatt to Brunel at Bath & Temple Meads, Bristol?92 Then there are the intriguing elevations and plans for railway stations, signed Edward Jones and dated November 1837"'. They must be among the earliest original station drawings in the world'"; but which company commissioned them, were the stations ever built, and if so, where? Or, to take a larger question, consider the influence of railways on the diffusion of building materials -Welsh slate, for example, or Fletton bricks. These questions are typical of the many hundreds awaiting enquiry by architectural historians in British Transport Historical Records.

92. Cf. Barman, op. cit., 29, where it is apparently suggested that Matthew Digby Wyatt worked with Brunel at Bristol; this can hardly have been the case since Bristol was completed in 1840, when Wyatt was in his twenty-first year.

9:2 BTHR HRP 7/9.

62



Documents

British Transport Historical Records and Their Value to the Architectural Historian