What is the Genealogy Project?

Our first objective is the creation of a data bank of Word files, the most important one containing the records of people - in the districts through which the Whitby to Pickering line passes - who are identified in the UK censuses as associated with (usually directly employed by) the railway.

For each individual we record: their address; full name; age; employment; place of birth; status in household. Each record is referenced to page number within census enumeration district, for ease of location if we want to find out more, for example details of the family.

The file is organised into five line sectors: Whitby, Grosmont, Goathland, Levisham, Pickering - each presented chronologically. The census has a complicated, ever-changing structure, reflecting continuous urban development, among other things; but put simply, Whitby sector typically is subdivided into 20-30 enumeration districts, Pickering about 10-12; intermediate places far fewer. 

Up to the present, we have processed the (10-yearly) censuses from 1841 to 1911 – from the beginning of the railway until just before the First World War. Next are the 1921 census, which has recently become available, and the 1939 Register (a more limited survey). This will take us up to the Second World War (although imperfectly, since the 1931 census has not survived).

On file we have around 1300 references, which probably equate to 500-800 distinct individuals. Because the census identifies those present at an address on census date, rather than resident, there will be some inaccuracies. And we already know that we have picked up some individuals from other main lines connecting at Pickering, Grosmont and Whitby, and from industrial branches along the line. 
 

What have we learned, to date?

Unsurprisingly, between 1841 and 1911 the number of individuals identified as railway workers grew enormously. In 1841 we found only 6: four at Whitby, two at Pickering. (There must have been others, however, some doubtless classified as coachmen, etc.) There is then rapid growth: by 1851 Whitby area has 24, Pickering 26, and employees appear at intermediate locations, particularly Goathland. Thereafter, significant expansion continues, mainly at Pickering, Whitby and Grosmont, more modestly elsewhere. By 1911, we identified 309 railway employees over the whole line. 

The distribution of the railway population (obviously) is reflected in housing arrangements. There are lineside cottages near crossings and signal boxes, and by Goathland incline and Grosmont tunnel; houses for station masters’ families and other “clean hands” employees. There is clustering in parts of Pickering and Whitby, where large numbers of staff looked after all aspects of the railway.

There are numerous possible analytical angles for studying the railway workforce: time period, location, activity type, age, gender, social background, family structure, for example. Clearly, some studies would be better when we have the 1921 and 1939 data: the First World War had an enormous effect on employment practice. However, our current data might well be helpful, to underpin and enhance displays and presentations, learning activities, audio guides, etc.  

For now, two major lines for future enquiry suggest themselves. First, as we have seen, from about 1850 there was a sustained expansion in railway employment, a demand that could not have been wholly satisfied locally. So, where did workers come from, who were they, what were their backgrounds, did they (almost all men in those days) come as singles, or with families, where did they stay at first, and did they settle?

The second line derives from the first. Certain family names recur again and again through the decades. Sometimes it is the same individual - perhaps in the same job, perhaps moving, with or without promotion. Or we see multiple generations of a family, or multiple individuals of a generation. Sometimes families stay in the same cottages for decades, new generations doing the same jobs. But sometimes not: this opens up questions about education, social mobility, family/location/community traditions, and so on.

To conclude, we have assembled, and done a basic evaluation of a large quantity of material, and we know that there is more to come. We can already see some promising possibilities, and we think we know some of the ways in which we might be able to advise, facilitate, or otherwise contribute to other imaginative uses of what is undoubtedly an extremely rich resource.