What might have been: Sir John Monash or Sir Harold Clapp?
Since my new job, as a human pedestrian crossing track circuit, I’ve got a lot of time on my hands, which I’ve been putting to reading. Amongst other things, I’ve been reading John Monash: A Biography by Geoffrey Serle (Melbourne University Press, 1982. ISBN 0 522 84239 9). It’s a pretty straightforward biography, detailing the life of the industrialist and World War 1 general, who later headed the fledgling State Electricity Commission after returning victorious from his successes on the Western Front.
Most railway historians immediately associate Sir John Monash with being the engineer in charge of the Outer Circle railway in his early days, and possibly his involvement in arbitration of settling disputes over payment of contracts between firms engaged to build railways and the various State railway systems at the start of the 20th century.
On Sir John Monash’s return triumphantly to Australia, heralded throughout as a war hero, he was approached by innumerable requests to enter State and Federal politics (which was mainly dissuaded by an antipathy to Billy Hughes which was derived from the two falling out over aspects of repatriating AIF troops, amongst other things), to take up many bureaucratic roles such as a planned review on taxation that fell through, or to be the director of a large volume of companies and many associations.
One offer, which was made from the Victorian State Government through Sir James Barrett, Vice-Chancellor of Melbourne University (which he retained strong links with throughout his life) was to be the Chairman of Commissioners of the Victorian Railways in April 1919.
Sir John Monash refused the role on two grounds.
Firstly at the time he did not wish to accept a State Government appointment at the time, citing “…[the position would mean he would] surrender [his] individual freedoms…”. This is strange when you look at his later acceptance of the Chief Commissioner of the State Electricity Commission a year later, a role which he held for eleven years until his death in 1931. As well, he never felt encumbered by the bureaucracy when he wished to get his own way with the Cabinet; Sir Robert Menzies recalled that, as a junior member of the Nationalist McPherson State cabinet in 1928 and 1929 that when a proposal was rejected by the ministry, he would walk unannounced straight into the Cabinet room mid-meeting and, on finding out that his proposal was rejected would simply say that “[the proposal's rejection]…can only be because they’ve [the cabinet] have utterly failed to understand it”, and on convincing the Cabinet of the error of their ways, would produce a pre-prepared Order-In-Council which was duly signed by the now cowed Ministers or Premier.
Having said that, it is recorded that he had some rather major battles over the LaTrobe Valley brown coal generation scheme, enduring one searching enquiry and a lot of pressure from rural areas wanting massive subsidies and local councils wanting to retain lucrative electric supply companies.
Even so, the first reason of not wishing to subjugate his independence to a State Government seems somewhat spurious given this example and the many times when he would push his plans and ideas against both wartime and peacetime establishments.
Secondly, and probably more telling is that, when a journalist asked for comment on it, he was quoted as saying: “No! it’s tempting, but I won’t accept it… There’s nothing further to be done with railways. They’re at their last ditch”. As for the reasons for Monash holding that opinion, it could be thought that his experiences on the Outer Circle may have had a bearing on it; at a lecture he presented in August 1890 to the Engineering Students’ Society at Melbourne University, he describes ‘the critical government inspector whose ‘especial delight’ is to point out that some bridge or culvert is being built upside down’. It is not recorded what effect the failure of the Outer Circle railway had on his opinions of railways, however his engineering standards, demonstrated in the use of the Fairfield railway bridge for road traffic 120 years later, cannot be disputed.
The Victorian Railways also were not a big adopter of reinforced concrete at the turn of the century, the pipes that he was manufacturing in conjunction with David Mitchell were described as being viewed by the VR as ‘thoroughly prejudiced’; did Monash also develop such prejudices himself?
It is recorded that almost exactly a year later, in April 1920, Harold Winthrop Clapp, whose father had obtained a great degree of financial success running Melbourne’s cable tramway system, applied for and was appointed as the Chief Commissioner of the Victorian Railways.
His achievements such as providing a market for freight traffic through marketing, the adoption of American passenger train styling for the Spirit of Progress and, through the lionising by people like Patsy Adam-Smith, his rapport with the employees of the Victorian Railways, and later his work with the Land Transport Board and paving the way for re-gauging the south-eastern railways of Victoria are testament to his works.
Having said that, his legacy was not all brilliant; a large number of unprofitable branch lines (such as the white elephants of Red Hill, Alvie, Stony Crossing and Sea Lake-Kulwin), and did very little for metropolitan Mebourne, despite plans being presented in 1938 which were not acted upon. He was also regarded as merely a showman (so much so he was also known as ‘Clever Mary’) – someone who would do something for publicity rather than making substantive changes to the railway system which was desperately needed at the time, with a network that was tipped to be too inflexible and antiquated to handle a major upsurge in traffic; something that was proved right in World War 2.
But what differences would have been made if Monash had have accepted the post of Chief Commissioner of the VR rather than the SEC a year later?
We know that he travelled overseas in 1910 between March and November to both England, continental Europe (where his family had arrived from a generation prior) and the United States as the head of his successful enterprise building reinforced concrete structures. He was very interested in the transportation systems in use; from the Swiss railways to the London underground to Penn Station and the road traffic in Chicago.
Had he taken the appointment as Chief Commissioner, it would have been fortuitous that Merz’s programme of suburban electrification was in full swing; his opinions of steam traction was that it was “effete” and was disdainful of the nuisances caused by the smoke of the steam locomotives. Given his interest in electricity in his SEC involvement also supports this claim. Certainly it can be assumed that his low regard for steam may well have meant an interest possibly in a greater level of electrification of railways than the limited amount given to commuter passenger train working; it may have resulted in such electrification that was seen emerging in Europe and later the US on such systems as the Milwaulkee Road – certainly the grades of the Bendigo, Ballarat and North-Eastern lines would have been tempting.
We know that he also he was enamoured by the Underground systems of London, Paris and Berlin – given the Ashworth Report on Melbourne’s suburban system recommendations of introducing two underground railways from Flinders St to North Fitzroy (under his alma mater at Melbourne University) and to North Melbourne – he may have been much more inclined to introduce these to Melbourne, or an expanded version.
As well, he was no fan of the rural lobby and was not interested in subsidising the rural areas’ electricity costs in favour of the profitability of the SEC, which was, like the VR, not in great shape financially at the time (although the SEC started turning a profit). What would have been his reactions for proposals for loss-making railways to such places as Wensleydale or Lette or past Nowingi? I doubt that the various Railway Leagues, although he had offered his professional services to the Fitzroy Railway League at the turn of the 20th century, would have brooked a great deal of opposition. We may have seen the closure of several extremely unprofitable railways rather than their lingering terminal declines whcih we still witness north of Sea Lake and Swan Hill.
It is a good possibility that he would have earned the equal respect of the employees that Clapp commanded; it is telling that during the darkest periods of the 1930’s Depression, he was openly talked about as being the nation’s leader; something which he declined as well.
Given that he was quoted as having given ’scornful comments on our backwardness’ in regard to transportation on at least several of the interviews and lectures he gave, it is not surprising that he declined the position. It is interesting that 100 years later, the same opinions are now expressed broadly at the railway systems in Australia; was Monash more perspicacious in seeing the decline of the railways since the 1880’s boom?
What we can assume is that as far as the overall health of the railways stands now; we most likely would be, especially in urban Melbourne, a much better position if Monash had have accepted the job, or even if it had have been offered in 1920. How much though, remains something we may not be able to determine, but it certainly reflects the task ahead for someone wanting to progress heavy railed transport into the future.
Excellent post and all that needs to be said.
I had heard the anecdote about him walking into the Cabinet meeting and ‘correcting’ their decisions and you can’t imagine too many public servants doing that today.
The ABC series on Monash and Coombes suggested that it was easier in those days for a senior bureaucrat to tower over a politician. Few of the latter were formally educated, and they didn’t have the vast legions of staff they have now.
Meej in his webpage about Clapp suggested a similar thing – the man was a showman and I suspect his ideas were already a bit ‘fluffy’ when rail’s problems, as I have argued elsewhere, were already very real even in the 1920s. The relative productivity of the internal combustion engine on sealed road over steam locomotive on steel rail, for typical small loads, had already shifted even then.
I suspect Monash could see well over the horizon, and also saw that it wasn’t just 10% Iron etc, but that the organisational culture was already inimical to running a successful enterprise. I suspect as well the M&MTB might have been a better vehicle for a suburban rail system.
I’d like to imagine Monash had seen the VR as a potential customer and corridor for his volts – although in one sense it was a competitor, the traffic being briquettes for domestic cooking/heating and industrial furnances, both uses Monash would have happily supplied directly using electricity.
I could add, as is my Bent, that many of the approaches to Monash to lead Australia came from the extreme Right, and had him ruling by decree under Martial Law. Our nascent fascists were not troubled that he was a Jew.
Was the Outer Circle railway a ‘failure’?
It was in the sense that the purpose of providing a somewhat convoluted link from the government railway at Oakleigh to Spencer St, avoiding the private rail system, was short-circuited by the full take over of the private rail system and the direct line from Oakleigh to the city.
Convoluted in that the journey to Fairfield was not the end of the matter, there was then a shunt at Clifton Hill and a very long way round through Royal Park.
Had the private railways lingered longer, surviving the 1890s depression and giving the government reason to continue shipping Gippsland freight via Royal Park, more of it might have survived.
And combinations such as lacking traffic rights via Caulfield, but via Camberwell, might have seen traffic from Hughesdale to Camberwell persist. Traffic via Jolimont might have seen the whole remain as well. And we don’t know the chickens and eggs – how much post 1890 development in the area was deterred because the railway was already unavailable.
I’ve walked the easement a lot lately and have concluded Alamein to East Malvern should definitely not have been lost, and to some extent to Hughesdale as well. The current little branchline arrangement to Alamein would at least have provided some flexibility for GWY and Dandy passengers in regular operations as well as out-of-course.
North of Camberwell there was plenty of silly stuff – the Deepdene station was not at the current Deepdene shops and the Mont Albert tram but some distance north. The Shenley station was too close to current East Camberwell and hardly worth changing trains for. I gather the name Dasher was facetious yet the money they spent electrifying to Ashburton, I’m surprised the extra cost to Deepdene would have been much more.
And we judge the superior effectiveness of heavy rail over tram by today’s poor journey times on crowded roads – but in those days the North Balwyn and Mont Albert trams must have provided a better, faster service than the trains.
With Monash and the VR – when appointed to the job as the chief commissioner of the SEC, he moved very sharply to stop the VR selling electricity from the Newport power station in 1922. Unlike the various local councils who has their own electricity supply companies, however, the VR quickly complied.
I don’t think that he would have looked on the prospect of selling briquettes as being in competition to electricity, it formed part of the SEC’s sales and they undoubtedly would have welcomed the extra revenue from retail and wholesale marketing and selling of briquettes as an alternative to wood fuels.
As well, with his background, a lot was made of both his German and Jewish background, but that was erased in the accolades received after the battles in which he led US and Australian forces in the dying stages of World War 1.
The article is in fact not as good as I’d have liked it; the point about the Outer Circle is that at the time, it was considered a white elephant and a failure due to the aggressive and short-sighted nature of the Land Boomers and, while not documented, could have been a reason for his dislike of railways at the time of his suggested appointment to the Chief Commissioner of Railways.
The point about the survival of the private railways (or the one metropolitan one, which was actually quite healthy at the time) is one that I’d like to follow up in a separate post when I can get the time to read a bit of background into the 1884 sale to the VR.
‘Notch – a great article in the style of the historical ‘what if?’ and one that has prompted me to think of another ‘what if’ if Monash had have followed Clapp’s career trajectory (and had he lived a bit longer into WWII).
In particular, I’m thinking of how Monash would have performed as Director-General of Land Transport during WWII. Having read a couple of times now Alan Whiting’s Engines of Destruction about the Australian Standard Garratt, Clapp’s managerial style and ‘roughshod running’ in imposing ‘his’ locomotive upon an unwilling QGR show a dark side to Clapp that his biographers seem to overlook. It would be interesting to see if Monash could have done any better as D-G Land Transport and what, if anything he could have done to break the deadlock of people and freight on the rail system given all the external factors (such as Japan’s submarine attacks against merchant shipping). In particular, whether Monash’s organisation skills could have done anything to stop the collapse of the east coast railway system at the start of the first big New Guinea offensive in August-September 1943 when delays at breaks of gauge in NSW and Victoria saw the CLTB ordering a temporary halt on accepting any new cargoes for NSW and Queensland during September 1943.
Anyway, once again a great article with a strong historical focus.
LS
Notch – ped crossing? I thought you were on the New St gates. I was going to ask if you’d put them on Ebay yet, they’re quite famous.
Would he have instituted train orders, and thereby enabled the dynamiting of several signal gantries that were restricting the loading gauge?
Ideally some sort of arrangement for piggybacking narrow gauge stock on top of standard gauge and a little remedial track building might have got goods quicker from NQ via the inland routes and across to Boggabilla and south.
I could have imagined even via Tocumwal into Victoria, largely free of tunnels. Overline bridges could also have been dynamited, and new crossings built Donovan Rd Healesville-style.
I can even imagine, using the Wallangarra and Goondawindi routes, and potentially the Roto and Stockinbingal routes, a one-way traffic arrangement, with the Roto/Goodawindi complex being used as northbound and the Wallangarra/Tocumwal line as south bound.
Would have required some quick thinking trackwork but would have saved what was apparently hundreds of men at each of the breaks of gauge.
LS: I think he would not have been placed in such a lowly role as D-G of Land Transportation in World War 2 had he lived until 1945: he would have been in Blamey’s role once hostilities opened in 1939.
I think he would have probably pushed for nationalisation of the railways under the banner of the CR, probably when Curtin and Chifley were in office federally, as it would have been the only time he would have gotten a fair hearing for that – he certainly would have been rejected by Billy Hughes.
In fact – there’s another what if right there. On a tangent, I also read Chifley’s biography, he was very much for federalising things, disliked the States and their existence. What isn’t recorded is what he thought of (or whether he did think of) having one federal rail system controlling freight and having one standard (or broad or narrow) system across the board. How close did we go to having maroon and silver CR everywhere, especially when Wallangarra and Albury collapsed?
Patsy Adam-Smith in my opinion has always lionised Clapp more than he deserved, and made him out to be more than he was; while he was painted as being a nice man who gave the nation oranges and Art Deco executive trains, he also seemed to ignore the Ashworth Report, did little to change the design of steam locomotives (the X was a glorified C, the K was probably his best locomotive) and really let things go so badly that when WW2 came along, the VR in my opinion really suffered badly in rebuilding, so much so that we’re still affected.
Also, ABC1 at 17:00 tomorrow (6th Feb 2010) has a doco on Monash. Sadly, the anachronism doesn’t pick up ABC.
Riccardo: The location only controls ped gates and two autos. NIMBY attitudes at their worst.
I don’t know whether Monash would have followed Webb down the train order route – I think he would have gotten onto dieselisation or at least 1500v DC electrification along the more steep routes in Victoria and damn what people thought of the technology being Continental, before trying out removing the signal bridges – which were only in four or five locations anyway; if anything loading gauges might have been more entrenched if as I suspect he would have gone down the route of electrification.
SG in 1962 put a lot more in than were ever bypassed on the North-East. I would have been very
The more I think about it, the more I think he would have leaned on the Americans to pitch in for some help building the gap between Alice Springs and Larrimah, and certainly would have considered putting the borders at least in CR’s hands – or even just appropriating the interstate connections for the ‘war effort’.
WWII bumped up freight and passenger loads but it can be agreed it was detrimentla to railways in the long run, and also a lot of missed opportunities – nationalising being just one of these.
The Constitution was quite clear – the use of railways for defence purposes was 100% in WWII and could have been kept after that for Cold War/Anti Soviet arguments as well. By the time the states had made a case to the High Court that the defence threat was over, I suspect they would have long since lost interest.
To me the nationalisation issue was more than just about standardisation, it was also about creating viable contiguous corridors, such as is now being discussed with the Inland Rail route.
Lines like the Peak Hill line might appear harmless and peripheral in themselves, but as part of a national freight route could be quite significant. Even Hay and Pinnaroo branches could have been part of a direct Sydney-Adelaide route. I gather the Broken Hill route is pretty close to a direct Sydney to Perth route, but it isn’t the direct route to Adelaide.
Blamey was very unpopular and was reputedly a crooked cop so Monash would have been preferrable, although an old man (thoughts of Petain here, keeping generals past their prime).
Just checked Google maps – Sydney to Adelaide does track Hay, Balranald, Robinvale Red Cliffs (Mildura) Morkalla, Renmark and Morgan.
It would probably have allowed what wheat and general goods there was at Balranald, Robinvale, Morkalla to be diverted to Adelaide, as per the S.92 of the Constitution. Whether the existing branches to those places would then have closed, or generated more traffic by virtue of a superior route, is conjecture.
Notch, last night during my even perambulations I was dreaming up a novel – a story about a C19th railway commissioner being appointed. Feel free to suggest anything for it. Maybe 1880s Marvellous Melbourne or alternatively a 1850s-60s tale about the original conception of railways in Australia.
I reckon you could do a decent novel about Speight vs Syme easily. Enough source material would exist, and it’s got enough legal drama in it. Don’t know if there is a Bulletin article on it, but it’s on my List Of Articles To Write One Day.
@ Notch – I think Monash may well have been too old (he would have been 74 in 1939) to have been recalled to active duty to become Chief of the General Staff or Commander of the 2nd AIF. As it was, his WWI contemporary C.B.B. White (who was 63 in 1939) was recalled from retirement to be CGS in early 1940. Interestingly, had Monash have lived long enough to have taken White’s place, it is likely he would have died in the Canberra air crash on 13 August 1940 that killed White and a number of senior Cabinet members.
In terms of a national railway system, Australia came very close to achieving it in the 1944 referendum (that included Federal control of the rail network among the 14 powers to be assumed by the Commonwealth if the referendum had passed).
@Riccardo, the Sydney-Adelaide inland railway via Hay was part of the proposal for a ’strategic railway’ between Brisbane and Adelaide that was given some prominence in 1915 by the commissioning of a survey by the Commonwealth Parliament.
Personally, I think WWII was the final blow to the railways as the dominant form of land transport that has seen them eclipsed ever since. The War exacerbated the worst of Government regulation of land transport (restrictions of interstate pax and freight movements for example) and continued the pattern of under-investment seen since the end of WWI as assets were ’sweated’ in time of crisis. Equally, the path dependence of the rail industry on its labour-intensive operating system and steam power were other factors that made it for most passenger and freight hauls unable to compete with road.
However, that’s a story for another day. To summarise, Monash (had he lived to WWII) would have been too old for a commander’s post. A position as a senior bureaucrat (such as Controller of Land Transport) where he would have used his persuasive personality, public profile and cachet as Australia’s foremost solider of WWI to better combine the ‘honey and vinegar’ in the right proportions to get the job done.
LS
Ah, thanks for that, LS. The biography of Chifley didn’t mention railways in what he wanted to nationalise.