At 13:31 22/10/99 +0100, you wrote:
>The Bristol and Gloucester Railway (engineer = I K Brunel) opened in 1844
>completing the link from Exeter to Newcastle upon Tyne. Charfield Station
>(not far from the Cromhall colliery site) included a "Coal Wharf". The
>remains of this still exist.
>
>As much as I'd like to be able to say Cromhall was "sending coal to
>Newcastle" it is more likely coal was beeing imported, much of which may
>have been used for the wollen mills in nearby Wotton-Under-Edge.
>
>I have heard it said (but not found written reference) that the introduction
>of railways to an area reduced the price of coal by about 50%. They were
>therefore a mixed blessing since where they brought means of transport to
>some mines and increased their life span and profitability, to others they
>represented increased competition. Is this true?
>
Undoubtedly so. Philip Hudson's book on mining in Lunesdale - very thin
seams of poor quality coal, therefore highly marginal - shows that none of
the pits survived long after the arrival of the railway in the area.
Likewise in the Somerset coalfield, isolated pits like Edford in the upper
Nettlebridge valley were never able to develop to their full potential
because of the lack of a rail link. Even those pits that had rail links
suffered from competition from Midlands pits which had lower production
costs (the Somerset seams were mostly thin, and frequently hard to work).
They were also under capitalised, especially the Waldegrave pits, but that
is another story.
Cheap(er) rail-borne coal often killed off the coastal shipping trade too:
It certainly did here in East Anglia where it was combined with silting of
the harbours and creeks, though it lasted in "remote" areas like the far
south west.
Richard Kelham
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|