The price of a ticket to Ormskirk- 1855/6

I recently acquired 3 old Railway Magazine editions from 1959 because the February to April editions have a ‘Railway Development in Liverpool’ article (by MD Greville & GO Holt) split over the 3 months. The article certainly is in depth and something you’ll not see in modern railway magazines; it runs in total to 25 pages and is well illustrated – all black and white photos of course.

 

The reason I raise this is that in the February edition there’s this interesting piece :-

‘The opening on Sept 4^th 1855 of the LYR* Manchester and Southport line (of which the ELR** was joint owner between Burscough and Southport) precipitated yet another rate war, in the course of which the fare between Liverpool and Southport gradually dropped to 6d. single and 9d, return. It was not until March 1856, that sanity was restored, and the fares were fixed at 1s 6d, single and 2s 6d. return. 

Arising out of this there was an interesting case in the Liverpool County Court – ELR v James Bowes. Mr Bowes bought for 6d., a third class ticket from Liverpool to Southport and alighted at Ormskirk***, to which place the fare was 1s 6d. The Court decided in favour of the railway, stating that it had the right to charge as little as it liked for longer distances, and that there was no restriction of the liberty of Mr. Bowes in that he could alight where he pleased on payment of the difference due.’

* Lancashire Yorkshire Railway 

** East Lancashire Railway

*** Clearly the train used the Burscough Curves, specifically the south curve.

So it's clear that ralway ticketing could be as confusing back then as it still is now!

This blog piece was also published in Connexion the newsletter of OPSTA - Ormskirk Preston & Southport Travellers Association - July 2023 edition.

Parking on Pavements 2 – what Sefton Council could have said

My immediately preceding posting refers

‘Thank you for getting in touch with Sefton Council regarding pavement parking.

Whilst the matter you raise happened on a Liverpool City Council street and therefore any issues arising would be dealt with by that Council it did involve a Sefton registered taxi so we are asking our taxi licensing section to remind all Sefton registered taxi drivers not to restrict or block pavements in the Borough in the course of their work.

Our policies to address pavement obstructions, be that by vehicles, building skips etc. is set out on this page on our website (insert link here). The page says how to make a complaint and what expectations those making a complaint can have with regard to how the Council will take forward matters raised.

Whilst we have limited resources to tackle pavement blockages we do want to hear about such problems particularly where they are persistent and can create significant danger for pedestrians such as the elderly, those with disabilities or people pushing child buggies/disability wheelchairs.

We try to direct our parking wardens to prioritised streets/roads in the Borough based on notifications of problems of this nature.

I hope this helps explains things clearly.’

 

Parking on Pavements

Please have a look at the frankly bizarre story - via the link below - as related by the Liverpool Echo newspaper:-

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/council-slammed-belittling-response-taxi-26926494#ICID=Android_EchoNewsApp_AppShare

Apart from the bizarre response, what troubles me as a former leader of Sefton Council is that the reply doesn't even indicate how the Council deals with vehicles which are illegally parked, within the Borough that is.

I live in Sefton Borough and some of the 'parking' I see on an everyday basis is at best anti-social behaviour and at worst illegal 'abandonment' of a vehicle. Yes, of course some drivers have acquired the habit of always parking with two wheels on the pavement even where there is absolutely no reason to do it. Most of the time this creates a minor inconvenience for the majority of pedestrians, although this ratchets up considerably for people pushing prams, those on mobility scooters and people with disabilities, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians.

But, of course, when you combine a busy road and a narrow pavement even just two wheels on the pavement can cause a significant obstruction. When you add to that situation one where the driver has put all or the vast majority of their vehicle on a pavement then everyone else using the pavement is blocked from doing so and is forced into the road!

My point is that Sefton Council should not only have apologised for it's ridiculous response, it should also have taken the opportunity to say what it actually does to try to make the Borough's pavements safer, how residents can report such issues and what expectations they can have that action will be taken.

As an exercise in public relations Sefton Council has shot itself in both feet, which begs the question about who responds on behalf of the council, who checks such responses and the training required to ensure all the Council's communications with outside world are appropriate, easily understood, polite and helpful.

My former councillor colleague David Tattersall, who sat on Sefton’s Cabinet in the early 2000’s and spent his working life public relations, would despair I have little doubt. On more than one occasion I saw David pulling up council officers when communications were, in his view, missing the point or not making a clear point.

 

With thanks to Keith Page for raising the issue with me.