How often did the Royal Mail deliver during the Victorian Era?

[Operation_Ripper]

Watching Sherlock Holmes and Poirot, I believe I have heard of morning, afternoon and evening posts? Did the Royal Mail ever actually deliver three times (or more) a day? Tried googling and wiki but no luck.

[Cunctator]

I’ve wondered about this too. Even English novels from the 1920s and 1930s (e.g. Agatha Christie’s) mention the arrival of the evening post around 9.00pm

[UDS]

It depended on where you lived, obviously, but in Central London they not only delivered frequently, they collected frequently and sorted and distributed very fast. I recall reading - sorry, no cite - that with a bit of luck it was possible to receive a letter in the morning, post a reply, and receive a response to your reply, all on the same day, provide both parties were in Central London.

[UDS]

According to this book review in the middle of the nineteenth century there were twelve postal deliveries in London every day - one per hour.

And here is evidence that a London-to-London letter was expected to be delivered within three hours of posting, and that a delivery time of eight or nine hours was considered to warrant complaint.

[Rayne_Man]

I once read in a novel about a husband , on realizing he is going to be kept late at work that day, writing a letter to his wife, posting it at midday and she receiving it in the afternoon. Of course, they were both located in London.

[Celyn]

@Rayne Man

I once read in a novel about a husband , on realizing he is going to be kept late at work that day, writing a letter to his wife, posting it at midday and she receiving it in the afternoon. Of course, they were both located in London.

I’ve read the same thing, relating to Glasgow, so perhaps it was a general city thing.

I wonder how they managed to do it. Perhaps there would have been a lot fewer letters to deal with. Perhaps no junk mail to clog things up.

[Operation_Ripper]

@Celyn

Perhaps no junk mail to clog things up.

Ahhh, good point. I bet that had a lot to do with it, wonder what percentage junk makes up of today’s mail, has to be well over 50 percent I would guess.

[Operation_Ripper]

From Wiki

According to 50 Simple Things You Can Do To Save The Earth:

* Each year, 100 million trees are used to produce junk mail;
* 250,000 homes could be heated with one day's supply of junk mail; and
* Americans receive almost 4 million tons of junk mail every year.

I didn’t know we even had 100 million trees, heh.

[Rayne_Man]

But don’t forget, because there was no telephone, the majority of personal communication was via the mail. I would think that most people in Victorian times (at least the educated ones) wrote many more letters compared to today. So the volume of mail would be high.

[scr4]

@Celyn

I wonder how they managed to do it. Perhaps there would have been a lot fewer letters to deal with.

I don’t see how it’s so difficult. It’s just a matter of manpower.

But I wonder how expensive it was, and if it was mainly for the rich. Does anyone know?

[Zabali_Clawbane]

They wrote a LOT of letters in Victorian times, it was expected of you to do so. I think the higher your social status the more letters you wrote too. (And their writing was tiny as well.)

[Rayne_Man]

@scr4

I don’t see how it’s so difficult. It’s just a matter of manpower.

But I wonder how expensive it was, and if it was mainly for the rich. Does anyone know?

A stamp cost one penny, and in 1880 the average income of a skilled manual worker was £62 per year, that is 22 shillings a week.So one stamp would cost 0.4% of a week’s wages. (12 pence to a shilling , so a week’s wages would be 264 pence).

[threemae]

@Rayne Man

A stamp cost one penny, and in 1880 the average income of a skilled manual worker was £62 per year, that is 22 shillings a week.So one stamp would cost 0.4% of a week’s wages. (12 pence to a shilling , so a week’s wages would be 264 pence).

I know that the purchasing power parity doesn’t match up at all, but this is relatively about a dollar or two for modern America?

[Rayne_Man]

@threemae

I know that the purchasing power parity doesn’t match up at all, but this is relatively about a dollar or two for modern America?

Probably a bit more. I think the average weekly wage in the UK is £500, so 0.4% of this works out to £2 or $3.5. The actual cost of a stamp in the UK is currently 32p, a sixth of the Victorian stamp in “real” terms.

[scr4]

@Rayne Man

A stamp cost one penny, and in 1880 the average income of a skilled manual worker was £62 per year, that is 22 shillings a week.So one stamp would cost 0.4% of a week’s wages. (12 pence to a shilling , so a week’s wages would be 264 pence).

Thanks. So if you mailed one letter a day, that’s still less than 3% of your income. Seems like the same order of magnitude as what people today spend on phone bills.

[Colophon]

@Operation Ripper

From Wiki

According to 50 Simple Things You Can Do To Save The Earth:

• Each year, 100 million trees are used to produce junk mail;
• 250,000 homes could be heated with one day’s supply of junk mail; and
• Americans receive almost 4 million tons of junk mail every year.

I didn’t know we even had 100 million trees, heh.

I’m no fan of junk mail, but it does annoy me when people bring up the “x million trees are used to make that paper” argument. Trees are farmed to make paper! You might as well say, “12 billion wheat plants are chopped down every year to make bread”…

[Operation_Ripper]

@Colophon

it does annoy me when people bring up the “x million trees are used to make that paper” argument

I’m sorry you are so easily annoyed, as I believe you entirely missed the point of my post.

We were discussing junk mail and what percentage of the whole it makes up, and that Wiki section sort of addressed the point. My post was NOT about protesting the number of trees cut down. Sorry for your confusion. I hate trees too.

[Askance]

@Zabali_Clawbane

They wrote a LOT of letters in Victorian times, it was expected of you to do so. I think the higher your social status the more letters you wrote too. (And their writing was tiny as well.)

“They” being the well-off, yes. Your average working man would hardly ever write one.

The population of greater London in 1900 was over 6 million, which would be the County of London plus the City of London. But the City of London alone only had about 30,000 people living in it at the time.

I don’t know the area covered by the hourly post service mentioned about but I guarantee it would not be the whole city. It would be the City plus the more affluent suburbs around it, I’ll guess something in the region of 100,000 people. It wouldn’t be hard for 100,00 of the richest people in the world at the time to pay for an hourly postal service over a fairly small geographical area.

[scm1001]

In todays terms I suspect that 1p postage victorian stamp would be the same as a fast delivery service (DHL, TNT etx) here in terms of speed and price - which is a better comaprison that the bulk mail deliveries of today. However, it is pause for thought when both the rail service and mail service was as fast 100 years ago in the UK as it is now. Progress indeed

[ralph124c]

Not too relevant, but in chicago, in the 1920’s the famous 'leopold-Loeb" kidnapping, ransom, murder crime, the US Post office delivered mail twice a day. the kidnappers sent their ransom note in the morning, and it was delivered to the parents of the kidnapped boy by noon of the same day. that doesn’t happen today.