‘The Modern Tramway’ – Part 3

The featured image above is the front cover of a book by Robert J. Harley – London Tramway Twilight: 1949-1952. [1]

The AEC Regent III RT was one of the variants of the AEC Regent III. It was a double-decker bus produced jointly between AEC and London Transport. It was the standard red London bus in the 1950s and continued to outnumber the better-known Routemaster throughout the 1960s. This picture was taken in 1972, © Jimmy Baikovicius and licenced for use under a Creative Commons Licence (CC BY-SA 2.0). [2]

August 1953 saw the publication of Volume 16 No. 188 of ‘The Modern Tramway’ Its own editorial focused on another editorial. The ‘South London Press’ of 21st July 1953 which suggested that the travelling public were beginning to see the advent of buses, replacing trams, on London streets as a little less positive than was first thought. …

“It is now about a year since the last tram left South London, and that is perhaps a reasonable period in which to judge whether the change to boses has brought the anticipated relief to traffic and passengers.

No comment comes from the great majority of people so long as they set to and from home with no great hitch or discomfort. It is when something goes wrong, and the victims of an unusually long queue at the top per home full of their grievance, that the cry is heard: Why did they ever scrap the trams?

The silence of motorists is more significant. These were the road users who used to complain about the hold-ups by the juggernauts of the streets There are still traffic jams, varying from the normal to the sensational (as at the Coronations). but it is hard to single out any one class of vehicle as guilty of creating the nuisance.

A reader, Mr. C. B. Smith, has argued very reasonably in the Letters Column that, for a scheme costing £9 million, the improvement is not impressive. Queues are not shorter, and fares continue to rise, he says. Buses still cause confusion on the Victoria Embankment and – this is a newer objection – buses are held up by fog and snow far more than trams ever were.

He is supported today by another correspondent who has a newer complaint; pollution of the air by the fumes of diesel-engined buses. She has been surprised by “the look of filthy, oily, sooty air.”

We had not seen this sooty air, but anyone can smell it in the main roads. It is the reek of heavy vehicles, especially lorries, and before long the use of diesel oil may spread to cars, being cheaper than petrol.

This was probably not foreseen when buses first replaced electric trams, but it is really a separate question. When will the exhaust fumes of internal combustion engines be recognised as a danger to health?

The main reason why trams were abolished in London, was that they were in antiquated form of transport in streets too narrow for modern traffic which goes on swelling though there is no chance of widening the streets owing to the cost of the land.

The campaign by “tram lovers” against their abolition was based on this fact that they were antiquated. It was asked why London did not bring itself into line with other great cities of Britain and the Continent by introducing modern trams.

The problem was to say whether any sort of tramway system with fixed lines in the middle of the road – there was no hope of moving them to the side – was suitable for a town so jammed with traffic. First, the LCC, and then Parliament agreed that London could not now take trams of any sort.

The present generation of road users knew trams, and many remember them with affection as something we grew up with, a part of the setting of our golden youth. To get a fairer perspective on trams, imagine the next generation, which will never have known them, and see how they would react to a proposal to introduce them.

A sort of light railway running down the centre of high roads, we would say. and passengers get on and off by making their way through the motor traffic on each side. These electric coaches do not go very fast, so they would not be dangerous, but of course following traffic would be slowed down to the same speed.”

‘The Modern Tramway’, August 1953, Volume 16 No. 188, p147-148, quoting ‘The South London Press’ of 21st July 1953. [3]

Some interesting questions are raised in the editorial which appear prophetic. Particularly, the reference to the increasing use of diesel for car engines, the reality of heavy diesel pollution on city centre roads and the lack of investment in infrastructure.

I guess we now know the answer to the question of acceptance of trams by future generations. (Viz: To get a fairer perspective on trams, imagine the next generation, which will never have known them, and see how they would react to a proposal to introduce them.)

In cities where new (LRT) tram systems have been introduced, the construction phase seemed to produce significant negative responses but, in action, the trams have generally been well received.

References

  1. Robert J. Harley; London Tramway Twilight: 1949-1952;
  2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AEC_Regent_III_RT, accessed on 11th June 2023.
  3. The Modern Tramway Volume 16 No. 188.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.