Monthly Archives: Dec 2013

Herefordshire Railways

My interest in full scale railways centres round the railways of Hereford and the county of Herefordshire. The picture above is taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereford_railway_station and shows a 2-6-0 on pilot duty at Barrs Court Station in Hereford in 1959.

Here are a few links that provide an insight into the railways of Herefordshire from the 1850s to the present day:

http://www.bosci.net/LOWV/LOWV%20history%20railways.htm

http://www.archive-images.co.uk/index.gallery.php?gid=39

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/herefordandworcester/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8683000/8683231.stm

http://www.kingslandlife.com/Pages/Village%20History/Railwayhistory.html

https://www.facebook.com/OldHerefordRailwayPhotographs

http://oldherefordpics.blogspot.co.uk/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railways_in_Hereford

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereford_railway_station

https://www.flickr.com/photos/midlandexplorerboy/sets/72157624307645770/

http://htt.herefordshire.gov.uk/605.aspx

http://herefordcityheritage.info/html/railway.html

I have been building an N Gauge model of Hereford Station and MPD in the loft of the vicarage. I hope to share more about this in due course.

Luke 8

A while back I came across some notes on Luke 8. Unfortunately, I did not keep a record of where I found them. I suspect I was reading a Grove booklet at the time, but I don’t know which one. Perhaps someone will let me know if they recognise the notes below. This is another passage where the dynamics of Shame are central!

All the accounts of Jesus’ meeting with women affirm the value of womanhood to him. The passage in Luke 8 is no exception.

For the wounded one, who has thought her womanhood was a liability or nothing more than a source of shame, this acceptance is in itself a healing.

Enclosed in the story of Jairus’ daughter, this account of the woman who bleeds speaks directly to her sense of shame. Stigmatized and excluded by her embarrassing and uncontrollable state, she comes to Jesus from behind, where he cannot see her, and touches the fringe of his clothes. She does not want to be noticed because in her experience notice usually leads to further shame and rejection. Her condition means that she will make him ritually unclean by her touch, and there is nothing she can do about that, but he still represents hope to her – maybe her last hope.

Who knows what she felt about the fact that she was suffering from this humiliating condition. Did she question God, like job, in the long hours of loneliness? Did she rail against him, or shrug her shoulders in resignation? Was it the will of God that she should suffer this? Or was it her own fault -some past transgression the cause of her present trouble?

She had had ten years to reflect on it – years maybe of bitterness and resent­ment, of physical pain and exhaustion. Years of anger at her helplessness, despite having done all she could to get rid of her shame, despite having given all her money to those who claimed to be able to cure her, but who were in reality just as powerless as she was herself. Perhaps now she had moved beyond all of it, to a place of no feeling at all and no hope, deadened within, until another healer comes to town. And he – what does he do? Does he draw her to one side, as he does with some others who come for his heal­ing, knowing how ashamed she feels? Does he sit down quietly with her alone, to answer her questions and enfold her in a new awareness of the love of God?

The wounded one sees it all in her mind’s eye – sees herself as the shamed woman, cut off from others by the unspeakable things that have happened to her and then sees the Christ turn to the woman, demanding that she be exposed for all to see. There was to be no more hiding away, no more pre­tence that all was well, really. There was to be no collusion between the Anointed One of God, and the religious and social attitudes that kept her isolated and increased her shame. He insisted on bringing her out onto cen­tre stage, into the gaze of all those who had shunned her with their remarkable lack of compassion. His action meant that her shame, the shame of humilia­tion not of penitence, was no longer to be the controlling force in her interior life. The power has gone forth from him, to heal her physical state, drawn forth perhaps by the silent pleading of her heart, but that is not enough for him. She must own her actions, be a grown-up, acknowledge how it is with her – and hold her head up high. The wounded one knows that if he had let the woman remain hidden then the spiritual dis­ease, the shame of humiliation, would have remained untouched and unhealed. While the shame of penitence leads to release, the shame of humiliation can only lead to continued captivity Uncomfortable though it was, it was his love which had restored the woman to wholeness. He knew her concealment was important without being told, he cared enough to do something about it, and he had the power and the desire to do so.

The story offers the wounded one the first hint of the possibility of resurrec­tion – of a new life in which the experiences of the past are not forgotten or discarded, but which might be filled now with the presence of Christ. She opens her heart to the movement of the story, to the movement of Christ within. She hears his word to her of deliverance from shame. The past be­comes charged with life not death. The remembrance of hurt and humiliation is no longer empty of love. It is lit from within by Jesus. Memory now holds the possibility of further healing and of a greater restoration to life. It is more than a simple restoration though, for in this new life she will begin to know herself and God more fully than ever before, and already there is a joy that contrasts completely with her earlier experience. Through the story of the humiliated and rejected woman, Christ himself has touched her wounded place and begun the process of healing. Christ himself is present within the wounded place at last.

Shame and the Cross

5. Shame and the Cross

A crucifixion was a shame-burdened event, “an utterly offensive affair,” (Hengel: p22; cf., Clapp: p28). The cross was known as a place of shame (Heb.12:2; cf.Albers: p103; Clapp: p28; Moffatt: p197) throughout the Mediterranean: “When Paul spoke … about the ‘crucified Christ’ (1 Cor.1:23; 2:2; Gal.3:1), every hearer in the Greek-speaking East … knew that this ‘Christ’ … had suffered a particularly cruel and shameful death, which as a rule was reserved for hardened criminals, rebellious slaves and rebels against the Roman state. That this crucified Jew, Jesus Christ, could truly be a divine being sent on earth, God’s Son, the Lord of all and the coming judge of the world, must inevitably have been thought by any educated man to be utter ‘madness’.” (Hengel: p83.)

“When Paul talks of the ‘folly’ of the message of the crucified Jesus(1 Cor. 1:18ff), he is therefore not speaking in riddles or using an abstract cipher. He is expressing the harsh experience of his missionary preaching and the offence that it caused. … [Jesus] died like a slave or a common criminal, in torment, on the tree of shame. … He was ‘given up for us all’ on the cross, in a cruel and a contemptible way,” (Hengel: pp89-90).

We need also to recognise that a cross was not so much a place of torture as a place of shame; There were and have been many extremely horrendous ways to die, and many have experienced torture and dying of unimaginable brutality. The cross was not the worst possible way to die. It was a death reserved for those the Roman empire felt free to shame, it was never used by them for their own citizens, for people of honour. It was used for slaves, for foreigners, for insurrectionists, all of whom needed to be shamed in the clearest possible of ways.

“This may be a little hard for us to grasp, for the cross has become an emblem of honour today. We wear polished crosses as jewellery; we “lift high the cross” and bear it into our services with pride. But in the first century the cross was the supreme emblem of shame. To be crucified was to be stripped naked and nailed up high, where one’s vulnerability and agony were exposed to public contempt. As we can learn from accounts of Jesus’ death, crucifixion was as much a ceremony of shame as of torture. In a Jewish culture that avoided any exposure of private bodily parts, crucifixion was shockingly obscene. Furthermore, only the most shameful elements of society were subject to crucifixion. If you were a Roman citizen, you would not be executed in this way; crucifixion was for slaves, prisoners of war, revolutionaries and bandits.” (Jewett: pp42-43.)

Jurgen Moltmann maintains that the only way to know God is to know God hidden in the cross and shame. He calls the crucified Christ alone “humanity’s true theology and knowledge of God.” (Moltmann: p212.)

In addition to the cross itself, the events surrounding the crucifixion were designed to bring the greatest possible humiliation/shame. Torture, mockery and shaming are particularly evident in the passion narratives of Matthew (Mt.26:67f; 27:27-31,39-44; cf.Morris: p686, 709-12, 716-9), Mark (Mk.15: 1,5,13f,16f,29,31f,34; cf., Clapp:p28; Cranfield:p452,456) Luke (Lk.22:63ff; 23:11,35-39; cf.Hendriksen: p996,1001f,1012f,1029ff,1040f; Marshall: p845,856,868ff) and John (Jn.18:34f; 19:1-5; cf., Beasley-Murray: p334-7; Neyrey: p123ff). We see Jesus facing not only physical pain, but deep humiliation/shame.

However, far from seeing the crucifixion as shameful, the early church saw it as the place of Christ’s glory. What was shameful in the eyes of the world was glorious to the eyes of faith (Stott:p40: cf.1 Cor.1:18-25.) Christ’s shame was his true glory. (Carey:p91ff; Neyrey:p114,118f; Stott:p40; cf.Lk.24:26; Jn.7:39; 12:28; 17:5.)

References:

Please see the bibliography on this site.

Shame and the Face of God

4. The Face of God – In the Old Testament there is an interesting dilemma about whether human beings can be permitted to see God’s face, which equates to the overwhelming knowledge of God (cf.Exod.33:20ff; Num.12:8), and live (Gen.32:20; Exod.3:6; 20:19; 24:2,10). Yet there is an association between the face of God and ‘ blessing’ ( Num.6:24ff; Ps.4:6; 67:1), and the hiding of God’s face and divine ‘abandonment’ and ‘disgrace’ (Deut.31:16ff; Ps.22:24; 27:9; Isa.57:17; cf.Ford:p218; Stockitt:p118 ).

Seeking God’s face is associated with the pursuit of holiness and repentance (1 Chron.16:11; 2 Chron.7:14; Ps.24:3-6; 27:8) and the “shining face of God is a summary statement of salvation.” (Ford:p217; cf., Ps.31:6; 67:1f; 80:3,7,19 .) In fact, “to follow the Hebrew word ‘face’, through the Old Testament is to be offered a fresh perspective on salvation from that associated with most doctrines of atonement.” (Ford: p217.)

This is especially true if we juxtapose shame, described by a loss of face or an inability to lift the face (Ezra 9:6; cf., Stockitt: p118), with salvation represented by the ability to look into the ‘shining face of God’. The answer to ‘shame’ is to see God’s face; something greater than empathy, it is the experience of God’s smile of acceptance.

This Old Testament dynamic is worked out in the New Testament – Christ is God incarnate, face-to-face with humanity. Not only can we look to the Transfiguration (Mt.17:2; Lk.9:29;cf., Farrar:p238; Hendriksen: p504, 510; Marshall: p383), to the teaching of Paul (2 Cor.4:6 Lias:1892:p61f; Plummer:p62,121: Thrall:p317; cf.2 Cor.2:10), and the evidence of Revelation (Rev.1:16; 22:4; cf., Stockitt: p119), but if we consider Jesus using ‘facing’ as an interpretative aid: “then its literal and metaphorical ramifications are vast, ranging through the great variety of meetings, dialogues, addresses and conflicts; through ideas of rejection of evil, with conversion and repentance as ‘turning’; the Last Supper authorising a face to face community around a meal; and an eschatology (‘now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face’ – 1 Cor.13:12).” (Ford: p220.)

Critically, at the Cross, Jesus cries out ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me’ (Mt.27:46) which comes from Psalm 22. Later in that Psalm comes the answer ‘he has not hidden his face from him, but has listened to his cry for help’ (Ps.22:4). There is a suggestion here that we can look to the Cross for a resolution of ‘loss of face’ – of disgrace/shame. On Christ’s face “we see the cost of God’s initiative in bodily form. It is a human face that is in torment, the face of one who is in a place of shame,” (Stockitt: p118). This face was the face that had looked with pain at Peter after his denial (Lk. 22:61). In front of that face Peter’s shame was intense, but in front of that face Peter’s shame was addressed (Jn. 21:15ff; cf., Stockitt: p118).

Also at the Cross we see the dead face of Christ – the dead face of God. The dead face means that we cannot separate the atonement from the physical humanity of Christ. The dead face indicates that the person has died. The dead face, “acts somewhat like a black hole of infinite, impenetrable meaning. … But it is, most importantly, a black hole with a human face. Evil, sin, death, suffering and all the distortions and corruptions of creation can now be identified with this face. There can be no separation of person and work here. The face of this person leads to the heart of his work. Many atonement theories rely too heavily on the language of ‘event’ – one objective happening once for all. … The dead face by no means rules out event language – it is incomprehensible without it. But it ties it into person language in a way that other forms of expression do less adequately.” (Ford: p221.)

References:

David Ford; “The Face on the Cross”; in Anvil, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1994; p215-225.
Robin Stockitt; “‘Love Bade Me Welcome; But My Soul Drew Back’ – Towards an Understanding of Shame”; in Anvil, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1998; p111-119.

For other references see the bibliography on this site.

Matthew 1:18-25

You’d never find me reading a newspaper problem page, but my wife Jo tells me that even in the Guardian newspaper they have one. But this isn’t your usual agony aunt column, it’s a problem page with a difference.  Each week the Guardian publishes a letter that someone has sent in and they invite everyone to send in their answers to the problem.  The following week they publish people’s advice.

We might perhaps try this in our Parish Magazine – what do you think? Each month we could publish a reader’s letter and the following month publish advice from our readers. So, here is our first letter. It is from a Mr. Joe Davidson:

I really love my girlfriend and we have been planning our wedding together for some time now.  But I’ve just found out she’s pregnant and I’m not the father.  What should I do?

What might your answers be? Perhaps one of the following:

Get rid of her – she’s clearly not to be trusted

Tell her to get rid of the baby if she really loves you

But what about this one?

Don’t jump to conclusions – it might not be what you think. Go ahead and marry her and bring the baby up as your own.

Joseph, in Matthew 1, faces the same dilemma. The woman he loves is pregnant and he’s not the father.  What should he do?

Get rid of Mary on the quiet? That’s his first thought. 

But then he is challenged to change his mind: “It’s not what you think – Mary’s not been with another man – this baby is from God. Marry her, love her and bring up this special baby as your own.”

My wife Jo tells me that if you’re an East Enders fan with a good memory you’ll know of a similar storyline being played out 10 years ago between Little Mo and Billy Mitchell.  Little Mo was raped and became pregnant.  She was adamant that she’d keep the baby and so she and Billy split up because Billy couldn’t handle the idea of bringing up another man’s child.  Little Mo disappears from Albert Square for a while and has the baby.  In time, the rape charge comes to court and she and Billy have to meet up.  They realise that they still love each other.  Billy talks to other men on the Square who’ve faced similar problems and begins to change his thinking.  Perhaps, because he loves Little Mo so much, he can be a dad to someone else’s child.  And so they get back together and try to make a go of being a family.  But it doesn’t work – at first there’s just Billy’s worries that he doesn’t feel like a dad and his fear of what it will be like in the future. In the end he cannot accept Freddie as his own.

I guess Joseph, too, must have struggled bringing up Jesus.  How did he cope with the knowing looks of others? He must, also, have wondered what he was taking on being a dad to God’s child.  How would he feel as the child grew up?  What would he say when the child asked questions about his real dad?  And what would happen when Mary had more children with Joseph as the real dad? 

Not easy!

We don’t hear much more about Joseph in the Bible – we know he was still around when Jesus was twelve and that Jesus learned the family trade of carpentry.  This would suggest that Joseph did stick around and do as God had asked him to do.

Taking responsibility for something that’s not of our own making is hard.  But God asked Joseph to do it – to love and nurture Jesus. God asked him to stay with Mary however tough things got. God wanted Joseph to look for God’s way through the mess and the pain of the situation he found himself in.

Life, for us, can get messy, painful and confusing.  Walking away, turning our back on such situations, is not an option that God wants us to take.  Instead he wants us to get involved, to put aside our fears and worries and listen for his guidance.

There was a lot of mess around that first Christmas. A heavily pregnant woman; a dirty stable to give birth in; noisy smelly animals and visiting shepherds; Gentile visitors from the East; evil intentions of Herod and his murder of innocent children.

In the mess of that situation, Mary, Joseph, the shepherds and the wisemen all saw God’s glory in the form of a baby.

In our churches each Sunday we celebrate Holy Communion, the memorial of  the messy, shameful and disgusting death which ended Jesus’ earthly life. The breaking of his body and the shedding of his blood – which was God’s saving act.

In fact, all through Jesus’ life we are asked to see God’s power and love not in clinical and awesome isolation, not in some abstract way, but in the mess and muddle of everyday life. And, Jesus himself promises that when we get involved in the lives of others, when we go where God calls us to go, then we will experience his power in just the same kind of way – in the midst of everyday life. And later in Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus promises to be with us in just these situations. He also makes it clear that when we walk away from difficult situations, …. we turn our back on God.

Back to our problem page? What would you do presented with Joseph’s dilemma?

Joseph swallowed his pride, set aside that decision to abandon Mary and instead to took on the challenge that God set him.  He could have walked away, but he didn’t.  Instead of taking the easy course, he got involved in the mess that life presented to him and in doing so he experienced, he encountered first-hand, the power and love of God.

Joseph challenges us to chose to stick with life at it really is. In doing so, we will find that through the struggle, through both difficulties and joys, God will draw closer to us.

Shame in the Teaching of Jesus

3. Shame in the teaching of Jesus – If shame is to be considered to have a prominent place in the thinking of New Testament authors, we would expect to encounter in the stories about Jesus in the Gospels.

Examples include:

Luke 11:5-13, where a sleeping man avoids shame (to himself and his village) by granting the request of his neighbour. (Bailey: p119-33; Stockitt: p114.).

Luke 15:11-32, where Jesus speaks of a family that experiences deep shame, the younger son’s requesting the money and leaving home would have brought untold shame on his family (Bailey: p165; Musk: p163; Nouwen: p36).On his shameful return to his village he expects scornful mocking by the community (Bailey: p178). The father’s actions, within the culture of Jesus’ day, were incredible. He took on himself the shame of the prodigal – running through the village, embracing both the shame and his son (Bailey: p181; Musk: p163). This story of shame, perhaps “more than any other story in the Gospel, … expresses the boundlessness of God’s compassionate love.” (Nouwen: p36; cf., Musk: p164.)

In John 8:2-11 we see Jesus dealing with the shame of the woman caught in adultery. He “shatters the solidarity of the shamers,” (Clapp: p28 cf., Jn 8:7) and, unlike the Pharisees who use shame to hurt and destroy, “Jesus uses shame to affirm and rescue a degraded woman. He does not deny the shame of her sin, but he refuses to let shame have the last word or define her.” (Clapp: p28 cf.,Jn 8:11.)

References:

Kenneth Bailey; “Poet and Peasant”; Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983.
Rodney Clapp; “Shame Crucified”; in Christianity Today, March 11,1991; p26-29.
Bill A. Musk; “Honour and Shame”; in Evangelical Review of Theology, Vol. 20, No. 2, April 1996; p156-167
Henri J. M. Nouwen; “The Return of the Prodigal Son”; Darton, Longman & Todd, London, 1997.
Robin Stockitt; “‘Love Bade Me Welcome; But My Soul Drew Back’ – Towards an Understanding of Shame”; in Anvil, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1998; p111-119.

Chemins de Fer de Provence 9 – Tramway to Roquestéron

This line was about 27km long. It was commissioned in 1906 but not finished until 29th July 1923. Commissioning of the line was delayed as a result of a series of landslides on the line to Daluis further north.  The line closed again only a month after opening because of an accident and finally re-opened in July 1924.

There were two daily trains in each direction. The course lasted 2 hours and 40 minutes.

Pont Charles-Albert on the Var was the eastern extremity of the line and provided for connection to the Nice-Digne main line. The picture below is of the original bridge which had to be rebuilt as it was not suitable for the tramway.

In the Village of Gilette the tramway followed the main street (la Rue de la Fontaine).

The tramway passed close to or through other villages on the route before reaching Roquestéron, the terminus.

By the late 1920s the line was suffering low revenue and making a loss. The last tram travelled on 29th April 1929 and the line was decommissioned and track was removed the following year.

References:

    • http://marc-andre-dubout.org/cf/baguenaude/esteron/esteron.htm
    • “Nice to Chamonix secondary networks of French alps” – Jean Robert – G. Time (Montreuil) – 1961
    • “Stations of the Côte d’Azur and the High Country Alpes-Maritimes” – Marie – Equinoxe – 2008
    • “Trams Alpes Maritimes” – Delaveau – MTVS – No. 46-1988
    • “The secondary railways in the Alpes-Maritimes” – Riffaud – MTVS – 1978
  • ” Tramways of the Maritime Alps (TAM) and South-France “ – Magazine of Railways Regional and Urban – n ° 146-1978.
  • ” Tramways of the Maritime Alps (TAM) and South France – Supplements “- Magazine of Railways Regional and Urban – n ° 150-1978.

Shame and Honour in the New Testament

2. Honour, shame and holiness/righteousness are significant in different parts of the New Testament. So I’ve made this the second theme relating to shame in the New Testament.

We will return to this theme later, so, just for now, here are a couple of pointers to places where the pivotal values of honour and shame appear:

a) K. C. Hanson demonstrates the honour/shame dynamic behind the ‘makarisms’ of the Gospels, suggesting that honour (Mt.5:3ff) and shame (Mt.23.13ff) bracket the Lord’s ministry. (Hanson: p81ff. – ‘makarisms’ = ‘blessings/woes in Matthew)

b) Halvor Moxnes highlights the themes of honour, shame and righteousness, as an important part of the epistle to the Romans (Moxnes: p61ff). Paul, in Romans, spoke to a society with a strong honour code, which as a result was highly stratified, and had a strong sense of shame. His message to Christians subverted the relationship between honour and shame, in that he juxtaposed shame with ‘holiness’. He challenged Christians to step outside of a dynamic which was endemic in society; to have a separate identity based, not on honour/competition but on holiness/righteousness. He highlighted that the resources available to achieve this came from God and could be experienced in the life of the Spirit.

References:

K. C. Hanson; “How Honourable! How Shameful! A Cultural Analysis of Matthew’s Makarisms and Reproaches”; in Semeia 68; “Honour and Shame in the World of the Bible”; 1996; p81-111.
Halvor Moxnes; “Honour and Righteousness in Romans”; in Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Issue 32, 1988; p61-77.

Shame in the New Testament – some themes

In the last few posts we have considered some Old Testament passages in which shame is a significant theme, or where shame seems to have an impact on events. In due course we will consider some New Testament passages where this is also true. But first, some of the themes within the New Testament that are shame related.

I consider that the key elements of the New Testament approach to shame are:

(a) lack of a ‘sense of awe’;

(b) honour and shame;

(c) shame in the teaching of Jesus;

(d) the face of God; and

(e) shame and the Cross and the Passion of Christ.

We’ll take each of these in turn over the next few days:

1.  A sense of awe and discretion-shame seem to be absent from the pages of the New Testament. Indeed there is even seems to be an unabashed shamelessness evident:  “At almost every point of symbolic significance, shame – conceived as a sense of awe, a reticence before the holy – is abolished. There are no holy places that one may no longer enter into: there is no temple in the Revelation of John. There are no holy things that one may no longer touch: Peter, with his Old Testament scruples about unclean animals, is told that there are no unclean things now. When Jesus dies, the veil of the temple is rent in two. … Jesus does away with special holy places and permits free access to God.” (Schneider: p115, cf., Mt.27:51; Mk.15:38; Lk.23:45; Acts.10:9ff,24ff; Rev.21:22.)

Further, Jesus challenges the traditional meaning of the Sabbath (Mt.12:1ff; Lk.13:10ff.), and introduces familiarity into relationship with God. Paul defeats ‘Judaisers’ who want to impose Jewish rituals on new Gentile believers. (Acts 15: 1-35.)

This might appear to suggest that all vestiges of shame/awe can be cast off, and perhaps explains the absence of shame in the traditional thinking of Western society and the Western church. This is, I believe, not what was intended. We are intended to read the New Testament against the backcloth of the Old.

The New Testament: “adds an important dynamic to the picture. The religious encounter is not only one of reticence before that which one venerates; it also involves the revelation of what is hidden. Religion may be understood as the dialectic of covering and uncovering of the sacred in time and space. … The freedom and intimacy of the New Testament presuppose the restraint and respect of the Old Testament. The invitation to address God as ‘Abba‘ is issued to those who dared not utter His name.” (Schneider: p116.)

This does not, however, go far enough. The ‘dynamic of covering and uncovering’ is essential to religious experience, but so also is the sense that ‘shame’ has been dealt with. This is not to imply that we are now to be ‘shameless’, or that ‘shame’ should no longer be part of the experience of Christians, but rather to note that the experience of shame, first noted at the Fall, has been realigned or renewed by the work of the ‘Second Adam’.

References:

Carl D. Schneider; “Shame, Exposure, and Privacy“; Beacon Press, Boston, 1977.

Chemins de Fer de Provence 8 – Tramway in the Tinée Valley

The Tinée Valley – Pont de la Mescla to St Sauveur-de-Tinée

This line was 26.5 Km long and connect villages in the Tinée velley to Nice to Digne line of the Chemins de Fer du Sud which became the Chemins de Fer de Provence.

Like other lines of the Tramways Alpes Maritimes (TAM), the electric current was single phase. The civil engineering works (bridges, tunnels) were executed by the Department.

The line was built in 1911 and operation started on 1st April 1912. Landslides affected the operation of the line in the early months. The original opening was delayed from January to April because of landslides and on 2nd April a further landslide affected several hundred metres of track and destroyed power lines.

The line operated until July 1931.

There were three trains in each direction and the journey along the line took 2 hours and 5 minutes. Between Tinée (SF) and St Sauveur the line climbed 333 metres or about 1000 feet. As well as passenger trains, two freight trains would traverse the line, one in each way. These took about 2 hours and 50 minutes to travel the length of the line.

There are some pictures below.

References:

http://marc-andre-dubout.org/cf/baguenaude/tinee/tinee.htm
“De Nice à Chamonix les réseaux secondaires des alpes françaises” – Jean Robert – G. Fuseau (Montreuil) – 1961.
“Gares de la Côte d’Azur et du Haut-Pays Alpes-Maritimes” – Marie – Equinoxe – 2008.
“Les tramways des Alpes Maritimes” – Delaveau – MTVS – n°46 – 1988.
“Les voies ferrées secondaires des Alpes-Maritimes”- Riffaud – MTVS – 1978.
“Tramways des Alpes maritimes (TAM) et Sud-France” – Magazine des Chemins de fer Régionaux et Urbains – n° 146 – 1978.
“Tramways des Alpes maritimes (TAM) et Sud-France – Compléments” – Magazine des Chemins de fer Régionaux et Urbains – n° 150 – 1978.
Wikipedia