'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages

Why a well-intentioned move would create more problems than it would solve.

In 1977 British Railways abolished a railway institution 132 years old: ladies-only train accommodation. With sex offences rising by 32 per cent on London's tube and train network to record levels last year, Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn this week proposed a consultation on having women-only carriages on the London Underground after 10pm. While well intentioned, history suggests that these would create more problems than they would solve.

In the 19th century the ladies-only carriage was a reflection of the gender-segregation of Victorian public life and the lack of autonomy women often had within it (an 1862 guide to using the railways had a section entitled 'sending females' by rail, which rather demonstrates popular attitudes). They were also a reaction against numerous and recurring cases of sexual assault. British carriages were usually divided into compartments from which escape in an emergency was difficult. Before 1868 emergency cords were not legally required, and thereafter frequently malfunctioned. Consequently, female passengers could be at risk of serious assault with little prospect of help.

The most infamous incident occurred in 1875. Colonel Valentine Baker was a noted army officer, brother of explorer Samuel Baker, and friend of the Prince of Wales. He was also a sexual predator. While sat in a first-class compartment with 22 year old Rebecca Dickinson, Baker indecently assaulted her. Dickinson, unable to raise the alarm, climbed out of the window of the moving train, remaining half outside and half inside as Baker clung on to her, travelling for five miles until the train stopped at the next station. Baker was arrested and charged with indecent assault, dismissed from the army, and publicly disgraced. Dickinson was largely physically unharmed, but in other incidents women suffered serious injuries or death. In the wake of these there were widespread demands for separate ladies-only accommodation to prevent attacks from happening.

However, demands usually came from paternalistic middle-class men, not women. An 1896 correspondent calling himself 'Paterfamilias' explained that 'scarcely a week passes without one's reading of some more or less horrible outrage on the railway, and it should be the spontaneous act of every company to provide reserved accommodation by every train and for every class of carriage.' But among women the accommodation was strikingly unpopular. In 1888 only 248 of 1,060 ladies-only seats in a given period on the Great Western were used, with 5,141 women travelling in smoking compartments instead. The London, Tilbury & Southend ran all their trains between 1877 and 1882 with 'women and children only' compartments, but removed them due to unpopularity. The majority of companies had abolished permanent ladies-only accommodation; instead female passengers could request a compartment be designated Ladies-only. But requests were rare. Despite demands following each 'outrage', women simply didn't want the accommodation.

This low use had multiple causes. Families competed for space with single women, many of whom did not want to share with children. One correspondent explained 'women are, as a rule, very fond of their own children, but I for one draw the line at other people's children […] when they behave like little monsters.' The compartments became associated with stereotypical old-fashioned spinsters, with young women especially avoiding them. Safety concerns remained. Most women preferred to travel in standard accommodation with a few other people than alone in ladies-only, where male attackers could and did still gain entry.

The compartments also generated a discourse that the modern reader would consider 'victim blaming'. An 1875 newspaper promoting Ladies-only argued 'It is incumbent upon the gentler sex not to lay themselves open to the gibes and sneers of the vulgar upon such a point as this, and the sooner they do so the better, or they will be the victims of retaliation.' In short, travel in a ladies-only carriage or you deserve what you get. This kind of attitude is utterly unacceptable today, but ladies-only carriages act to reinforce it. Emphasis is placed upon potential victims to avoid assault rather than dealing with the cause of the problem, a regular criticism of ladies-only carriages in operation in other countries.

Ladies-only also became the target of ire for male passengers, annoyed at having to squeeze into overcrowded carriages when the Ladies-only were empty. The Metropolitan abandoned Ladies-only after a year because of male complaints. Other men began to demand full gender segregation, with one correspondent arguing 'Men mostly travel in silence; women […] talk almost incessantly. In the name of humanity let them have carriages reserved to themselves, but also let us men have carriages reserved to ourselves.' While Ladies-only was intended to provide a refuge for women, the result was the actions of female passengers came under scrutiny, with many women reporting hostile reactions from male passengers when they tried to travel in other parts of the train.

The solution was to open up trains. The tube railways, with their open carriages and numerous staff, encouraged a safer environment in which gender separation was considered unnecessary. The continuance of compartment carriages meant ladies-only survived on the railways for a considerable time, but today, with compartments abolished, the prime reason for their existence is gone. Instead, the last two centuries suggest that sexual harassment is better targeted by a larger staff presence, open trains (such as the new walk-through trains on the Metropolitan), CCTV to identify suspects, and the strong prosecution of offenders. With congestion appearing to be a prime cause of harassment by allowing offenders a degree of anonymity in the rush hour crowds, a movement towards larger trains and more regular services is also likely to help.

There is no doubt that sexual harassment remains a serious issue on Britain's railways, but women-only carriages are unlikely to prove a 'silver bullet' and probably counterproductive. As Funny Folks reported on the end of Ladies-only on the Metropolitan in 1875, 'It would not do; the 'ladies only' compartments had to be given up to 'the mixture as before;' and man – proud man, got a lesson in the difficulties of legislating in the interests of the fair sex!'

Simon Abernethy is a historian at Cambridge looking at social class, gender, and public transport in London.

- See more at: http://www.historytoday.com/simon-abernethy/sending-females-rail-history-women-only-carriages#sthash.UiZyDdJ9.dpuf

Interesting article, moreso, because I never knew these existed!

I used to use them Eddie.  When travelling to and from boarding school my Nan and Mum always used to put me in one of the women only carriages because they felt happier I'd be safe.  The guards on the platform used to make sure that no men got in them (the main carriage was divided into smaller sections then, like you see in the old films, seating for about 8 in each).  There was also a guard on the train who walked up and down the corridor checking tickets and making sure no men went into the ladies only.  Women's groups are suggesting them as part of a larger package of safety measures because there have been so many incidents on railways recently.

Support the union call for more staff and fewer cuts to the London Tube to improve security for all. The author of this article, Simon Abernethy, agrees we should support them.

Absolutely!

And once you strip out all the hyperbole it's basically saying what Jeremy Corbyn was saying.

Wome only carraiges are still on Tory Minister Claire Perry's desk though after she announced it at the Tory party conference. No fuss then.

It would be absurd on the Underground and rush-hour trains in and out of London. If there are seats free they should be used by whoever wants or needs them.

On the Underground, if a bloke gets a bit close to a female, well that's what happens when the trains are packed. Women should just give them a swift kick if they're getting a bit too close. It would be ridiculous to try to separate male and female travellers anyway.

I like the idea of phone-free carriages though, and screeching-children-free carriages.

sassy wrote:I used to use them Eddie.  When travelling to and from boarding school my Nan and Mum always used to put me in one of the women only carriages because they felt happier I'd be safe.  The guards on the platform used to make sure that no men got in them (the main carriage was divided into smaller sections then, like you see in the old films, seating for about 8 in each).  There was also a guard on the train who walked up and down the corridor checking tickets and making sure no men went into the ladies only.  Women's groups are suggesting them as part of a larger package of safety measures because there have been so many incidents on railways recently.

I don't agree with them though. I can see it would make your family feel better for and on behalf of you, but I just think it's opening a whole can of screaming worms for anyone and everyone who wants their own carriage!

As has been said by myself and didge, I believe, the answer lies in getting more staff to man stations and trains, not segregating people.
That's just going backwards.

What next? Back to the 50's and put blacks on their own carriages in case they get "picked on or harassed"?

The answer starts from a young age teaching people equality.
Further help is needed on stations and trains, but to segregate people is nothing short of backwardness, of which it will not stop there as you open up a can of worms. If you have female only carriages what is to deny male only carriages, family only carriages, hetrosexual, homosexual etc, soon you will not have enough carriages.
Segregation is a backward method, which we should scrap everywhere including schools, which is another reason some grow up not respecting others, because thery hardly interact with them on a daily bases.
Look to the root causes of a problem, not create further problems of which segregation does.

Nobody ever put blacks in their own carriage Eddie, in fact the only other form of segregation is First Class only, and we still have that.  When attacks and harrassment of women on public transport has increased by 25% in a year, we have to start thinking out of the box.  Can you actually see them coughing up for more guards etc?  I can't.   I totally agree that everyone should be safe, but the fact is, it's not everyone who is being targetted, it is women specifically.

OMG you are basing First class now on segregation where First class is based on cost? Sorry that is absurd, and is not really segregating as anyone can buy better class seats as you can anywhere. It does not deny anyone the right to buy them so it has no comparability.
Claiming attacks have increased 25 percent is poor also when now more people are coming forward reporting cases of attacks and its not just females that are victims. Over nearly 3 decades no political entity has wished to place pressure to make this law top have guards back and they have all failed at this and again segregation is a step backwards because then any group can claim to want and demand the same

sassy wrote:Nobody ever put blacks in their own carriage Eddie, in fact the only other form of segregation is First Class only, and we still have that.  When attacks and harrassment of women on public transport has increased by 25% in a year, we have to start thinking out of the box.  Can you actually see them coughing up for more guards etc?  I can't.   I totally agree that everyone should be safe, but the fact is, it's not everyone who is being targetted, it is women specifically.

These attacks on women - are they real attacks or just some bloke getting a bit close? If a carriage is full of people I can't see a bloke actually assaulting a woman right in front of everyone. It might happen on trains where there are no other people, but that doesn't happen very often.

In fact, if a bloke (or woman) is getting a bit too close, watch out for your pockets or handbag rather than anything else.

Do they still have "quiet" carriages, or was that scrapped?

They still have 'quiet' carriages, or they did the last time I went by rail.



Sex offences on trains and stations reach record level

• 19 August 2015
  
• From the section UK
  

The number of recorded sexual offences on trains and at stations has risen 25% to a record level, British Transport Police (BTP) figures suggest.
BTP recorded 1,399 sexual offences in 2014-15 in England, Scotland and Wales - up 282 on the previous year.
Recorded violent crimes also increased - up 8% to 9,149 - but overall crime fell for the 11th year in a row.
The force said the rise in sex crime figures was mainly due to a campaign to encourage reporting of these offences.
Project Guardian launched in 2013 with the aim of reducing sexual assault and unwanted sexual behaviour on public transport in London, after a survey suggested that 90% of such attacks went unreported.

---

'I was sexually assaulted on the Tube'

Ellie Cosgrave was sexually assaulted whilst travelling on the Tube.
"It was an extremely packed Tube carriage...it was a really confusing situation. I wasn't really capable of moving away," she told the BBC.
Click here to listen to her interview on Radio 5 live.

---

Officers in uniform and colleagues in plain clothes were deployed to patrol London's transport network to identify offenders and prevent crime.
That led to a campaign called "Report It to Stop It" which was launched in April this year to tackle sexual assault on the London Underground.
However, this campaign - accompanied by a video in which a female commuter is increasingly hounded by a persistent male and eventually groped - came after the period in which these annual crime figures were collated.
BTP officers are responsible for policing all railway stations and trains - including the London Underground - in England, Scotland and Wales.

'Concern'

The [url=http://www.btp.police.uk/pdf/BTP- Statistical Bulletin 2014-15.pdf]figures[/url], which cover the 12 months to the end of March, show most of the sexual offences were against women and girls.
Deputy Chief Constable Adrian Hanstock called the rise in violent crime a "concern".
"It is worth noting that the chances of being a victim of any crime are small," he said.
"The use of more officers patrolling late-night trains and at peak periods, as well as our extensive CCTV network, is helping to halt this rise."

---

The figures

Comparing 2014-15 with 2013-14:

• Total recorded crime fell from 50,839 incidents to 46,688
  
• Sexual offences increased 25% from 1,117 to 1,399
  
• Criminal damage rose 1.9% from 3,298 to 3,361
  
• Theft of passenger property fell 16% from 14,353 to 12,039
  
• Robbery fell 17% from 436 to 358
  
• Fraud offences fell 18% from 457 to 374
  

---

Mr Hanstock added: "While it is encouraging to compare our current level of performance to last year and note these improvements, the outcome is even more remarkable when you reflect on the progress made over the last 11 years.
"In that time, vehicle and cycle crime has been driven down by 39%, meaning 4,600 fewer offences, while 19,000 fewer people have been the victim of the theft of property, with crimes of this type down 61%."
The force said a key priority now was to cut train delays caused by incidents such as vandalism and trespass, after police failed to hit last year's target to reduce rail disruption by 6%.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33979568


With respect to those on this forum, we are not likely to be targetted, being either male, or those female over 40, in my case way over lol.  The women being targetted are mostly young, and they are asking for help.  If they are asking, we have a duty to think of their needs, not ours.

Again this is because more and more people are reporting crimes and that the Police are actually recordning them better.
All of which is no reason to use a backward method of segregation

FFS, are these women incapable of telling a man to eff off or kicking him in the shins?

If I was rich, I'd go by first class. If it's not one thing it's another in the usual carriages. People scoffing Big Macs, men guffawing loudly, women yacking loudly on their phones, kids screeching, fat people trying to squeeze into the next seat ...

So you like segregation then, providing it's done by those with money?  LOL

Where did I say I agreed with that?
Its also bollocks as it allows such idiots to buy their way out of crowding
What I proved was how idiotic your comparrison was

My reply was to Rags, not you.

lol you are poor liar

sassy wrote:So you like segregation then, providing it's done by those with money?  LOL

I'd segregate myself, yes.

Cuchulain wrote:lol you are poor liar

Actually didge, sassy was replying to rags' comment about traveling first class hence the reference to money.
That's how I read it anyway, it's quite obvious to me.

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:lol you are poor liar

Actually didge, sassy was replying to rags' comment about traveling first class hence the reference to money.
That's how I read it anyway, it's quite obvious to me.

Bullshit. She could easily be replying to both.
So spare me the bending over defending her its pathetic

Sassy was replying to me.

Raggamuffin wrote:Sassy was replying to me.

Subjective we both made points after she brought up first class.
Also I know here only too well

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Sassy was replying to me.

Subjective we both made points after she brought up first class.
Also I know here only too well

Her reply wasn't relevant to your post, but it was relevant to my post.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Subjective we both made points after she brought up first class.
Also I know here only too well

Her reply wasn't relevant to your post, but it was relevant to my post.

Yes it was.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Sassy was replying to me.

Subjective we both made points after she brought up first class.
Also I know here only too well

Her reply wasn't relevant to your post, but it was relevant to my post.

I wouldn't bother. He is always right and never believes anyone else
He thinks we are all liars.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Her reply wasn't relevant to your post, but it was relevant to my post.

I wouldn't bother. He is always right and never believes anyone else
He thinks we are all liars.

That's true. If Sassy was replying to him, there was quite a time lapse. Perhaps he's in a time warp.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Her reply wasn't relevant to your post, but it was relevant to my post.

I wouldn't bother. He is always right and never believes anyone else
He thinks we are all liars.

ooooh Bitchy.
Retrack those claws Eddie lol
Its up to me if I think Sassy was making also the point to me, not you.
I do not think everyone is liars, which is a lie in itself.
I just take task bitchy girls and as seen they do not like it lol.
Debate and then I have no need to

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Her reply wasn't relevant to your post, but it was relevant to my post.

I wouldn't bother. He is always right and never believes anyone else
He thinks we are all liars.

ooooh Bitchy.
Retrack those claws Eddie lol
Its up to me if I think Sassy was making also the point to me, not you.
I do not think everyone is liars, which is a lie in itself.
I just take task bitchy girls and as seen they do not like it lol.
Debate and then I have no need to

It's your opinion that sassy was replying to you
It's a FACT she wasn't.

It's your opinion we are being bitchy, when the FACT is, we are explaining to you, that you're wrong.

It's your OPNION that I have claws, it's a FACT, that I don't.

Do you see the difference between fact and opinion?
I can give more examples if you like?

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:



ooooh Bitchy.
Retrack those claws Eddie lol
Its up to me if I think Sassy was making also the point to me, not you.
I do not think everyone is liars, which is a lie in itself.
I just take task bitchy girls and as seen they do not like it lol.
Debate and then I have no need to

It's your opinion that sassy was replying to you
It's a FACT she wasn't.

It's your opinion we are being bitchy, when the FACT is, we are explaining  to you, that you're wrong.

It's your OPNION that I have claws, it's a FACT, that I don't.

Do you see the difference between fact and opinion?
I can give more examples if you like?

lol I do not believe her Eddie because as seen she is so obsessed with me she even took to bashing me on Twitter, she is that pathetic, with a view to getting me banned here.
No the bitchy I speak of is how you were pathetically ganging up on Quill, and it was very childish.
You are hardly in any position to give advice Eddie lol
Sorry retract your nails lol

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:


It's your opinion that sassy was replying to you
It's a FACT she wasn't.

It's your opinion we are being bitchy, when the FACT is, we are explaining  to you, that you're wrong.

It's your OPNION that I have claws, it's a FACT, that I don't.

Do you see the difference between fact and opinion?
I can give more examples if you like?

lol I do not believe her Eddie because as seen she is so obsessed with me she even took to bashing me on Twitter, she is that pathetic, with a view to getting me banned here.
No the bitchy I speak of is how you were pathetically ganging up on Quill, and it was very childish.
You are hardly in any position to give advice Eddie lol
Sorry retract your nails lol

Didge, you jumped in again. Rags posted about first class Sassy responded with a post about segregation by money. It is clear to all but the thick that sassy was responding to Rags!
All this fuss and carry on just because you can't say sorry I misunderstood?!?!

Cuchulain wrote:OMG you are basing First class now on segregation where First class is based on cost? Sorry that is absurd, and is not really segregating as anyone can buy better class seats as you can anywhere. It does not deny anyone the right to buy them so it has no comparability.
Claiming attacks have increased 25 percent is poor also when now more people are coming forward reporting cases of attacks and its not just females that are victims. Over nearly 3 decades no political entity has wished to place pressure to make this law top have guards back and they have all failed at this and again segregation is a step backwards because then any group can claim to want and demand the same

As seen I also responded to Sassy about her poor comparrison.
As to your view Nems, when you have something intelligent to say then I will listen.
Again Sassy has a mad obsession with me and I do not believe a single word that comes out of her mouth.
Also I thought you did not want to respond to me?
Proving what a liar you are also.
Its possible Sassy was only responding to Rags, but I do not believe her, which is my choice not yours or anyones else.
Got that?
Are you not continuing the fuss, so spare me your views, they are often irrelevant.

Cuchulain wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:OMG you are basing First class now on segregation where First class is based on cost? Sorry that is absurd, and is not really segregating as anyone can buy better class seats as you can anywhere. It does not deny anyone the right to buy them so it has no comparability.
Claiming attacks have increased 25 percent is poor also when now more people are coming forward reporting cases of attacks and its not just females that are victims. Over nearly 3 decades no political entity has wished to place pressure to make this law top have guards back and they have all failed at this and again segregation is a step backwards because then any group can claim to want and demand the same

As seen I also responded to Sassy about her poor comparrison.
As to your view Nems, when you have something intelligent to say then I will listen.
Again Sassy has a mad obsession with me and I do not believe a single word that comes out of her mouth.
Also I thought you did not want to respond to me?
Proving what a liar you are also.
Its possible Sassy was only responding to Rags, but I do not believe her, which is my choice not yours or anyones else.
Got that?
Are you not continuing the fuss, so spare me your views, they are often irrelevant.

Oooh get you !

Saucer of milk for Didge lol

You are wrong just admit it !

Nems wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


As seen I also responded to Sassy about her poor comparrison.
As to your view Nems, when you have something intelligent to say then I will listen.
Again Sassy has a mad obsession with me and I do not believe a single word that comes out of her mouth.
Also I thought you did not want to respond to me?
Proving what a liar you are also.
Its possible Sassy was only responding to Rags, but I do not believe her, which is my choice not yours or anyones else.
Got that?
Are you not continuing the fuss, so spare me your views, they are often irrelevant.

Oooh get you !

Saucer of milk for Didge lol

You are wrong just admit it !

oooh get you Nems

I told you I do not believe Sassy and never will again after her hissy fit on Twitter with the attempt to get me banned.

Now you are continuing the fuss, because you love it lol.

Cuchulain wrote:

Nems wrote:


Oooh get you !

Saucer of milk for Didge lol

You are wrong just admit it !

oooh get you Nems

I told you I do not believe Sassy and never will again after her hissy fit on Twitter with the attempt to get me banned.

Now you are continuing the fuss, because you love it lol.

Nah irrelevant
I don't follow either of you on Twitter so don't give a stuff what is said there.
The only one making a fuss is you, because you made a mistake and rather than admit it you engage fuckwit mode.

Nems wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

oooh get you Nems

I told you I do not believe Sassy and never will again after her hissy fit on Twitter with the attempt to get me banned.

Now you are continuing the fuss, because you love it lol.

Nah irrelevant
I don't follow either of you on Twitter so don't give a stuff what is said there.
The only one making a fuss is you, because you made a mistake and rather than admit it you engage fuckwit mode.

Ha Ha ha

I am not on Twitter, which is the point, she has taken to slagging me off there and to recruit people to come here because she is that pathetic at debating she needs backup, where she bragged about getting me banned.
This was because Dean was kind enough to post the link.
Again I do not believe Sassy, best you get that in your teeny tiny pathetic head Nems.

Cuchulain wrote:

Nems wrote:

Nah irrelevant
I don't follow either of you on Twitter so don't give a stuff what is said there.
The only one making a fuss is you, because you made a mistake and rather than admit it you engage fuckwit mode.

Ha Ha ha

I am not on Twitter, which is the point, she has taken to slagging me off there and to recruit people to come here because she is that pathetic at debating she needs backup, where she bragged about getting me banned.
This was because Dean was kind enough to post the link.
Again I do not believe Sassy, best you get that in your teeny tiny pathetic head Nems.

For someone you don't believe you spend an awful lot of time obsessing about her!
Soft lad

Didge made his post at 2.13, and Sassy made her post at 2.55, two minutes after my post. I hardly think she'd take so long to reply to Didge.

Nems wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:



Ha Ha ha

I am not on Twitter, which is the point, she has taken to slagging me off there and to recruit people to come here because she is that pathetic at debating she needs backup, where she bragged about getting me banned.
This was because Dean was kind enough to post the link.
Again I do not believe Sassy, best you get that in your teeny tiny pathetic head Nems.

For someone you don't believe you spend an awful lot of time obsessing about her!
Soft lad

Really?
How many debates am I responding to with her directly she is posting in today?

Miss chaka khan thighs

Raggamuffin wrote:Didge made his post at 2.13, and Sassy made her post at 2.55, two minutes after my post. I hardly think she'd take so long to reply to Didge.

All this because he can't say sorry I misunderstood!

Nems wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Didge made his post at 2.13, and Sassy made her post at 2.55, two minutes after my post. I hardly think she'd take so long to reply to Didge.

All this because he can't say sorry I misunderstood!

All this because you seem to think I have to think sassy is telling the truth.
I dont.

Cuchulain wrote:

Nems wrote:

All this because he can't say sorry I misunderstood!

All this because you seem to think I have to think sassy is telling the truth.
I dont.

Sassy was making an observation on a comment from Raggs. Because you are self obsessed you thought it had to be about you. A mistake is all Didge. A little error on your part

My post followed Rags's post and was a reply to her, why didge would think it was to him, when it followed the post by Rags and referred to money re First Class, I have no idea, unless of course as normal Didge thinks everything has to be about him or it doesn't count.

Sassy everything that comes out of your mouth is a lie and I have little view to expect you telling the truth when you conspire on twitter lol and seek support because you get battered on debates here.

What a stupid fuss. Sassy was replying to me, and it was lighthearted anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:What a stupid fuss. Sassy was replying to me, and it was lighthearted anyway.

Exactly.  I'm afraid Didge has NPD with bells, whistles, balloons and streamers.  He can't help himself.  Any minute now he'll be on another meltdown, then he'll apologise and say he's reformed and then he'll be back on the merrigoround.  Manipulation in spades.

This coming from the woman who was conspiring to get me banned and adament she would do so to her twitter friends lol
That was funny when you were busted on that and that is called an obsession, which proves you clearly need to see the doctor where you are that bothered by a poster online because he easily tears apart your arguiments and shows up your support for extremists. lol