Loch Lomond steamers

[meldrum]

I have been looking at a couple of old 'NUR conditions of service', one from October 1955 and the other from September 1956 that have come down through the family.
Amongst the mid boggling lists of different jobs are the different grades for staff on the Loch Lomond steamers which had been jointly owned between the LNER and the LMS.
Against the grade of 'Engineer' (171s 0d) is a note that 'Engineer Livingston to continue to receive a personal differential of 6s'.
This is repeated in the April 1956 supplement but not in the 1956 edition owing to the Loch Lomond steamers not being mentioned.
I know virtually nothing about this subject but I am intrigued as to why Engineer Livingston is treated differently and why he is the only person to be mentioned by name in the entire book.

[Seagull]

Hello Meldrum,

171s 0d would be £8 11s or £8.55 metric, I would guess that is weekly pay.
I find it odd they showed it as Shillings rather than Pounds and Shillings.

Anyway I can think of two likely possibilities for Mr Livingstone's pay differential.

1. The two companies were originally operated with separate pay and conditions.
When they were amalgamated the people who were of the same rank but getting a higher rate of pay in their original company retained their pay rate. People who were promoted would have been paid the combined (lower) rate of pay. Those who were not promoted would have kept their pay differential.
Probably Mr. Livingstone was not promoted - he was what would be called a 'professional 3rd Engineer', or even 4th or 5th Engineer.


2. Mr. Livinstone was originally employed in a different capacity somewhere else and under his agreement to move/be moved was paid the supplement to keep his pay the same.

To me scenario 1. is by far the most likely. I would guess the companies were amalgamated sometime before, probably late 1920s or early 1930s, and by 1955/6 he was the last remaining engineer that had not be promoted or retired.

Alan

[meldrum]

Hi Seagull
many thanks for the reply.
Yes I think your suggestion that Mr Livingston not having been promoted and therefore keeping the higher rate is spot on.
Thinking about it it's a bit like Network Rail today with staff receiving different overtime rates/enhancements etc depending on whether they had come from Jarvis or Carillion for example. Nothing changes eh ?
For the record in case any one is interested here are the grades and pay rates for steamer staff on Loch Lomond from October 1955.

Master 197s
Mate 156s
Engineer 171s
Purser
Permanent 156s
Seasonal 143s
Deckhand 140s
Leading fireman 146s
Night fireman 140s
Fireman 140s
Coalman 131-135s
Cook 140s
Steward 140s
Bar attendant 124s
Stewardess 132s
Pantry attendant (female) 92s
Tearoom attendant (female) 92s
Waitress 86s
Pantry boy Paid at Junior Conciliation Staff rate (other than engine cleaners).

[Seagull]

Looking at those payscales Mr Livingstone was apparently the only engineer so would have been the 'Chief' even if not described as such in the paperwork.

I see the Master was on about £500 a year and the mate was not paid much more than the deck ratings.

Alan

[drmditch]

Looking at those payscales Mr Livingstone was apparently the only engineer so would have been the 'Chief' even if not described as such in the paperwork.

I see the Master was on about £500 a year and the mate was not paid much more than the deck ratings.

Alan

Would the Mate have been expected to hold a Master's Certificate? (On a small inland steamer.)

[Seagull]

Would the Mate have been expected to hold a Master's Certificate? (On a small inland steamer.)

The Master would probably have had a Home Trade Masters certificate which would restrict him to the waters around the UK and Irish coasts and across the North Sea between the Elbe and Brest. As an alternative he could have had a 2nd or Chief Officers certificate with a home trade Masters endorsement.

The Mate would probably have had a Home Trade Mates or alternatively a 2nd Mates either Near Continental or maybe even deep sea (Unlimited area).

The ticket classes required are influenced by the trading area and also the number of passengers the V/L is licenced to carry. As most of the railway steamers carried over 100 passengers then the two deck officers would probably have had those I mentioned.

Mr Livingstone, of the original enquiry, would have had either a Home Trade Chief Engineers certificate or maybe a 2nd Engineers certificate for Near Continental or Deep Sea or again a Home Trade endorsement. He was not promoted I would guess because he was already sailing as Chief or whatever the equivalent description was in that service.

Alan