When Jago Hazzard says in his latest video (thanks to him for prompting me to write this latest essay) the railways are the biggest thing, everything will be railways (‘The time will come when railways will supersede almost every other form of conveyance in this country’) ‘etc etc, its almost like a patriarchal edict, a message from the long gone advocates of railways who were indeed men. I mean no-one invented railways who was of the female fraternity. That is a truly sober fact. Richard Trevithick. Robert Stephenson. Isambard Kingdom Brunel. William Barlow. Joseph Locke. John Fowler. James Greathead. Frank Pick, Charles Yerkes, Nigel Gresley, Oliver Bulleid – and many more.
Some might say we’ve now got women in railways. There are a number of examples whose experiences can be read on social media and some of them are certainly proud of their roles in having transcended what could only have been a male bastion at one time. Even so, there were the pioneers Karen Harrison, Britain’s first train driver, Hannah Dadds, London’s first tube train driver – and then before that there were the female clerks and train conductors in times of war – Maida Vale station was the first ever to be maintained entirely by women (but there’s a less than savoury side to that as I hope to reveal at some later time).
TfL has a post that enlists all the female pioneers they are aware of. One thing to note is none of these were responsible for building railways or designing locomotives or achieving stupendous engineering challenges. These were simply opportunities that arose. In spite of the schism between the sexes, there’s still that oh so male thing. The one example I can think of currently is the one female railway worker who had suffered at the hands of misogyny and has written much about her experiences – both in the news and on social media.
Curiously those advocating the demise of railways happened to be men too! Oh the irony! Ernest Marples. Doctor Richard Beeching. ‘Its better by road’ (except it isn’t because, well compared to the railways, women can be abducted and taken away in vehicles to be raped, tortured, murdered, as many pictures and videos from a certain recent event showed. And its invariably men doing the abducting. Its by no means the only time this has happened but its the most powerful one of recent times I am sure many will recall.
At least one cannot use a railway for those sordid means! That isn’t even true even though there is a huge difference between the two. Railways can and have been, used for the mass transportation of women. Auschwitz and the many other concentration camps engineered by the advocates of a certain demagogue who spent much time admiring the Bavarian scenery from his mountain hideaway. Trains were used en masse to transport millions of women (not forgetting the other victims, many who were men too, but also the gypsies, the disabled, the LGBT, etc.) What happened to the women is most unimaginable, and yet it was men who were behind all of this.
When Jago Hazzard in his Why the Stockton and Darlington is so Special video lists all the people who came up with the ideas for steam engines, railways, etc, they all turn out to be men. That certainly is a problem. Not only that at the end of his talk he cited men who asserted that railways would be the all enduring means that stood above everything else. This is essentially the basic premise – that men create everything (and in a sense its also the basic premise that since men are the creators, they too can be the destroyers.) One other thing is certain – railways have long been used by men to harass, cajole, and even kill women and its something that has not gone away.
What exactly goes through a woman’s mind when she is the victim of horrific attention from a male on a train or even a tube train – and even that in front of other passengers must no doubt be indescribable and must be one of the most awful experiences. This from just a few years ago when a woman was indeed the victim of a ‘brazen attack’ on the Piccadilly line from Heathrow. Sky News and Independent.
In Railways Defamiliarisation (Malgorzata Nitka 2006) – an excellent book which examines the role of the railways in society from the time of the Stockton and Darlington Railway onward, its is said:
Originally meant to satisfy the desire for comfort and privacy, isolation was often too complete not to become a cause of anxiety. The comfortable upholstered interior had its seamy side of distress… Should an emergency situation arise, the afflicted traveller was left to their own devices and they might exhort their voice in vain. It is quickly realised that on the train one has no choice but to disempower oneself, there is no way in which one can feel the master of one’s own movements…
Those extracts were quoted from a work written in 1839 – nearly at the dawn of the railways. If anyone thought assaults on the railways was a very recent thing, they could not be more wrong. Its been happening ever since the beginning of the railways. As John Ruskin pointed out, the railways essentially brought a sordid task into the public sphere. In other words the overall picture being a space where men could conduct certain attacks in the privacy of a train speeding through the country, the screams drowned by the engine noises and the din the wheels made on the tracks.
Even with modern trains the modus hasn’t changed. Take the Elizabeth line and some very horrific assaults that have occurred on that – the least seediest and the least inhospitable railway one could ever imagine. For example this recent assault between Custom House and Whitechapel, and this one where a perpetrated attack was conducted on an Elizabeth line service between Paddington and Reading. Even a stricken train that has broken down seems also to be impervious from any kind of attacks as this incident on an Elizabeth line near Ladbroke Grove shows. These are by no means the only examples.
The Evening Standard cites Tottenham Court Road station as one of the most crime ridden stations – a status elevated by no other than the Elizabeth line. A modern train doesn’t have compartments that is true, but it has carriages that are extremely crowded. Had things been different, the compartment could have proved a place of security from marauding men by way of enforcing legislation. That didn’t happen sadly and in the same sense the entire train (by way of having walk through carriages) has now been thrown open to even more opportunists. The number of incidents where men are groping women or worse have increased because crowded spaces provide a suitable cover – and in those circumstances it can be difficult to see who is the perpetrator. Understandably a lot of women don’t report issues because they’d never be believed for a start. And if they do report, the process can often be worse than the incident itself.
If one uses the search engines to find out when women first began encountering this completely unsavoury side of the male populace who tend to frequent trains – it appears from a general search that the first railway assault took place in 1885 – that is according to the Illustrated Police News (22nd August 1885). Further investigation has Wikipedia with details an assault that took place in 1875. That was Colonel Baker – from whom a woman who had to escape his clutches by clinging to the outside of a train speeding between Woking and Esher. Baker was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment and fined £500.
It simply cannot be that the first assault had took place in 1875 – more than fifty years after the railways first began (in the current sense eg 200 years) – and that because men have been at it far longer than this. More research was needed. Examples much nearer to the dawn of the railway era were eventually found. One such example occurred in 1841 where a guard of the London and Brighton Railway Company was found having assaulted a young woman of just 17 years. (Old England 23rd October 1841). When the train started its journey the defendant (railway guard John Beadle) immediately commenced an attack upon her. The interesting aspect of this particular incidence is the male’s assumption that he owned the woman. Its an idea that many subscribers to a patriarchal society still hold dear even to this day.
Part of the report of a sexual assault on a train between Horley and Croydon in 1841 as depicted in the Old England newspaper.
Perhaps the most shocking thing of all was Beadle asserted he could do what he liked and it would be her fault for having chosen to ride in a train’s first class compartment. One can immediately see the inherent assumption that women are men’s property. Its shocking to see this, in the early days of the railways, that a thing built by men was being used by them as a presumed ownership of women – as the following text shows.
She told him that she would call out murder if he did not, and he replied that he did not care about her calling out, for no one could hear her, and he added, that if he could not do what he liked with her, she should not ride in the first-class carriage.
Apparently the young lady had bought a second class fare at Horley but had opted to seat herself in a first class compartment for the journey to Croydon. How the guard, John Beadle knew that isn’t explained, nevertheless he undertook an aggravated assault on the young woman. The punishment was rather light however. A fine of forty shillings. There is something interesting going on here. It was queried why the penalty was very light. Apparently it was because Beadle was a railway employee, there were extenuating circumstances and Beadle had claimed the whole episode had been one of fabrication. It was said the magistrates would reserve the highest penalties for the really serious offences.
Report on an assault on a woman in a railway train. Chelmsford Chronicle (24th October 1845).
This entailed a wine merchant, a George Gurney of Walworth, having assaulted a woman on a train between Bishops Stortford and Roydon. Originally the lady wanted to go to London but the train was halted at Roydon after the guard was finally alerted as the train drew into that station. Apparently the guard knew the perpetrator in question but refused to divulge his name. The guard then got very annoyed with the woman because he claimed she was holding up his train.
Gurney had attempted various misdemeanours and at times became threatening to the unfortunate victim:
as he still persevered in his offensive conduct towards her, she called five or six times loudly to the guard for assistance, but without receiving any attention, and the defendant, while she was doing so, in a taunting tone told her that she ought to have a carriage entirely to herself, and that if he had half-a dozen cigars he would smoke them all out for the purpose of annoying her.
The shocking aspect of this particular case is Gurney got off very lightly. He was fined a mere ten shillings.
Mr. Broughton said it was most essential for the interests of the public, that such efficient regulations should be established upon railways as would secure ladies who were compelled to travel alone, or unprotected, from such molestation and annoyance as the complainant had been subjected to, and it was the imperative duty of the guard in the present case to have not only readily furnished the name of the person who had insulted the lady, but to have rendered every facility for bringing the matter to a proper investigation.
Clearly there was a need that arose as a result of these two particular incidents. The need for effective legalisation and proper protection – some which is still lacking in 2025. Can that be considered a major success of Railway 200? In other words, the success being a major failing rather. I think so because its clear the assaults are endemic and its clear the railways haven’t succeeded in ending the menace that many women passengers face. If we go back to the 1830s, remember it was said ‘Should an emergency situation arise, the afflicted traveller was left to their own devices and they might exhort their voice in vain.’ That basically is the unchanged situation in 2025 – especially when one reads this recent example that occurred on the tube.
If a male interferes with a woman in a carriage when she is all by herself, isn’t that already a serious misdemeanour? What intensity is needed to justify the most serious penalties? It seems there’s been a rather lacking attitude towards females in railway carriages. Society being male orientated (and controlled by men) it was no doubt them who should legislate against such incidences. But did it happen. Very unsurprisingly no. Surely it should be that women who choose to ride in compartments alone are taking the risk? I don’t think that is the right way of looking at it.
Some prefer a quiet part of a train for a moment of repose in this extremely male orientated world. Choosing a quiet carriage isn’t a signal for abuse. Its a means of getting away from any unwarranted incursions. The problem is that very peace can often be spoilt by the presence of men with little intent other than to not behave. Its why so many assaults occur these days, not because there are compartments but because there are so many people its difficult to detect and its hard to see on the CCTV’s whether someone on a crowded platform or on a train is actually groping a woman. Basically a crowded train provides some cover for a man who wants to grope unseen and if challenged they can then claim it was because they were pushed or jostled by someone else. Compartments and crowded trains are different but there’s no doubt each sadly constitutes what can only be a haven for men with dubious intent – thus there hasn’t been any considerable improvement in terms of the reduction of sexual crimes on the railways this past 200 years. Men generated the problem at the very dawn of the railways – and they are still the problem as we celebrate an apparently fantastic 200 years of railways.
One of the most horrific pictures of any such sordid endeavours was that published quite a few years ago in one newspaper. It was 1988 when a photograph of a bloodied women lying on the floor of a compartment was printed in the press. She had been murdered by a man who had no doubt took advantage of her solitary presence while the train was in motion. As an employee of the Department of Transport, we had to process transport items in the newspapers for the department’s archives and one of the leading dallies had published a photograph of the woman lying dead in the train. Its intent was no doubt to highlight these isolated train compartments as no less than being a murderer’s paradise. Only by way of showing the full horror would others really learn what men got up to on trains. Not only that, there was no doubt a change to the design of certain trains might occur much quicker. Sadly that didn’t happen – it took yet more incidents before that occurred. Even in 2025 the overall direction in railway safety in terms of women has actually been one which has seen little change.
When one asks, how can it be known it had been a man who undertook the killing? Might it have been a woman? The news reports do mention that a man was seen running from the train (Sunderland Echo 26th March 1988). His victim was totally helpless because she was the only one present in that compartment, and he rained blows with a knife, leaving her dead and her body to be discovered when the train finally arrived at Victoria station. The victim was Deborah Linsley who was murdered on a train from Orpington to Victoria. Her presence in London was due to her being on a training course and was travelling back to Scotland. She had been stabbed at least five times.
Death trap carriages to remain. Reading Evening Post 25th March 1988.
The result of that horrific incident was compartments certainly needed to be phased out. British Rail’s response was something like ‘nah, we can’t do that. We haven’t got any trains to replace these.’ It took time for those particular carriages to be phased out completely. In fact it took FAR MORE incidents before British Rail (and the Government, its owner) decided upon rapid replacement of these obnoxious death traps. Sexual offences on the railways had risen by 61 percent – rapes, indecent assaults and indecent had all increased massively (Daily Express 16th October 1990). There was no doubt these death-trap carriages had to go – preferably as fast as possible. .
BR signals end for the rape-trap trains. Daily Express 16th October 1990.
Let’s face it. There’s one biggie in this whole sordid matter and its the one thing that CANNOT be phased out from the railways. That’s men. Its much the same as those who are in power, these ‘putrid’ leaders, always men, who call for world chaos, war, genocide, as detailed in that very article. Evidently men with evil intent cannot be phased out, not even those in charge of countries or politics, just as they cannot be from other aspects of society – including use of the railways too.
For many women their one and only ‘mistake’ is to live in a misogynistic society – one that expresses ‘a hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls, which is a form of sexism that can maintain patriarchal social roles.’
Google’s AI gives this instant summary of what misogyny means.
Last summer The Guardian highlighted the increasing incidence of violence against women on the railways. This had risen by 50% in two years. It said the report had shown that ‘more than a third of all women commuting by rail were likely to be assaulted – predominately during rush hour’. The stats showed the ‘number of crimes against women and girls rose from 7,561 in 2021 to 11,357 in 2023, and the number of sexual offences rose 10% from 2,235 to 2,475…’
The incidence of assaults on women on London’s underground has too risen considerably. BBC News. It is simply not right the railways should be touted as the best thing ever created in 200 years – yet continue to be used for such sordid endeavours, including harassment, rape and even murder – when in that very 200th year incidents are massively on the increase. Its no success of any sort.