by Philip Trendall (Chair)
Stories get passed down from generation to generation and often get changed on the way. Often though, when the evidence is examined, our valued stories are found to be gross distortions of what actually happened. I was therefore rather pleased recently to have one of these tales of Railway, Dock and Canal (RDC) policing to be fully based in fact.
In 2011/12 I led the project to re-introduce armed policing to BTP. It was a challenging task that required attention to lots of different issues – not least the need to get the law changed to allow BTP officers to have firearms at all. The project left me with an interest into the history of armed policing and in the legal position of the RDC police forces.
There was one story I had first heard in the early 90s about the LNER police withdrawal of weapons during the war. This, the story goes, resulted in a period when there was no armed protection from sabotage or invasion for a short period at a time when such things were at the very top of the list of the nation’s concerns. The story can be traced to our premier historian and ex Chief, W. O Gay.
During the 2011/12 project I promised myself that I would get to the bottom of the story. A little over a decade later I got round to looking at it. Nothing moves very fast in the world of amateur history. A recent visit for work purposes to the National Archives (TNA) gave me an opportunity to dig through several files.
As an aside it occurs to me that we have no comprehensive document examining the history of RDC policing in wartime. The principle published work about the police and the Second World War does not even mention the railway police. Another project that needs attention.
From the files it is clear that RDC police had some access to firearms in the 1930s. The coming of war meant that the need to have armed protection against sabotage was urgent. The government ordered that railway police forces should be equipped with weapons, despite the desperate shortage of such kit. The issue was co-ordinated by the police sub-committee of the Railway Executive Committee (REC). War meant that the days of the independent railway companies was over. The REC was the mechanism for bringing together the work of the mainline railway companies and the London Passenger Transport Board (LPTB). The REC had its own underground headquarters in a disused tube station (Down Street) and was based on a model used during the Great War. The railway police forces already enjoyed a very high level of co-operation and were well placed to co-ordinate their activities.
Inevitably there was some confusion; the LPTB Police had purchased revolvers and rifles for their officers before the War Office issue and, so as not to miss out on the supply, donated their purchases to the LTPB Home Guard, only for this to be questioned by the War Office and Ministry of Transport. The strategic importance of the London Underground meant that the protection of flood gates and control rooms was seen as vital and weapons were issued to selected officers and to some rail staff. By 13th August 1940 the LPTB Police requested:
“an additional 100 revolvers and 2,500 rounds of ammunition” (1)
The importance of the docks was obvious and in particular and those in the north east were seen as especially vulnerable. On 19th June 1940 the LNER requested that they be supplied with:
“150 rifles and bayonets, 200 revolvers with holsters and belts together with 50 rounds of ammunition for each weapons for (officers) at vital points on the Docks or in Coastal areas” (2)
Note that the amount of ammunition requested did not allow much for training or practice.
The prospect of police officers with bayonets soon caused some disquiet. The was much talk that rifles and bayonets would destroy the ‘civil status’ of police officers. More practically the daily reality of policing a dock or railway station meant that rifles were an encumbrance and were ill suited to anything other than static guarding. It was therefore agreed that officers with patrol duties should only be equipped with side arms. It was at this point that things temporarily went awry in Hull.
On 17th October 1940 Mr Tollerton of the Ministry of Transport wrote to Mr Cole Deacon of the REC:
“I have today received a copy of a cocked hat letter dated 9th September from Admiralty to War Office referring to previous correspondence to the effect that rifles issued to the military police by the military authorities have been withdrawn on instructions of the Chief of Police of the LNER; revolvers only are to be carried by these police but as no such issue has taken place police are unarmed; in view of the extreme vulnerability of Hull Docks to sabotage and treachery this is unsatisfactory ………..please treat as a matter of urgency” (3)
The letter goes on to describe correspondence with MI5 from a local military officer who requested urgent issue of side arms.
There followed an urgent correspondence which got to the bottom of the matter. Colonel Cole of the LNER Police had wanted to replace the rifles carried by his officers with revolvers. His order was interpreted as applying to all ‘police’ including the military police who had responsibility for guarding Hull Docks at that time. It is not clear how long firearms were absent from the Docks. There was a certain amount of incredulity that soldiers should follow instructions from the railway police but it seems that the Colonel Cole’s former military rank may have played a part. The whole episode was a little embarrassing for all concerned, but it did have a positive outcome. The authorisation for the supply of revolvers for use by the railway police was expedited and given priority over other national defence needs.
It is tempting to view the actions of our wartime forebears through a ‘Dad’s Army’ perspective. But we should be in no doubt about the seriousness of the business of policing the railways and docks of wartime Britain. In the same file there are letters from government departments marked ‘Most Secret’ about the movement of vital traffic via the docks and railway networks, including the expected arrival times of large conveys from the USA carrying food and weapons. Such traffic caused considerable work for the railway (including dock) police. At a time when the UK stood virtually alone against tyranny the railway police played their part to the full: protecting people, supplies and infrastructure, fighting to enforce the law at a time when theft was rampant and conditions unbelievably difficult. Several officers lost their lives in performing these duties and many more suffered great hardships and long term ill health. At every stage my research reminds me that we are right to be proud of what they achieved.
Philip Trendall
Sources:
(1) Minutes of the Police Committee of the REC 6th September 1940 (REC Min 2,183 – 13/9/40)
(2) Letter LNER to Home Office 19th June 1940
(3) Letter from Mr R H Tolerton CBE, DSO, MC, Ministry of Transport to Mr Cole Deacon, Railway Executive Committee, 17th October 1940
Source: The National Archives UK: File: AN2 944 976
Originally published on the blog: Policing Public Transport: A Neglected History
Also see: Arming the BTP (article from 2012)