Jose Banaudo writes,”As an extension of the Cannes Tramway route which linked Mandelieu, Cannes and Antibes, the TNL coastal line extended from Cap-d’Antibes to the Menton district of Garavan via Cagnes, Nice, Villefranche, Beaulieu , Monaco, Cap-Martin and Menton. These juxtaposed sections formed a continuous axis of 76 km of interurban tramway which served almost the entire coastline of the Alpes-Maritimes, from the Emite of the Var department to the Italian border.” [1: p35]
Jose Banaudo published a two volume set of books about the historic trams of Nice, “Nice au fil du Tram.” Articles based around the first of these two volumes can be found on this blog.
This is the third in a series looking at the second volume. The first two can be found on these links:
Of a total length of nearly 26.5 kilometres, the first 7.8 kilometres of this route (as far as St. Laurent-du-Var) were over the rails of Nice’s urban tram network. Cagnes was a further 4.8 kilometres along the coast and the length of the tracks between Cagnes and Cap-d’Antibes was 13.75 kilometres. The maximum gradient on the line was 49mm/metre with 2.22 kilometres on the level and 24.75 kilometres on a gradient, however shallow. The highest point on the route was on the length approaching Cap-d’Antibes.
Nice to Cagnes and Antibes services departed from Place Masséna, following Rue Masséna and Rue de France towards St. Augustin on the main East-West urban line. The double-track lines ended “beyond the stop serving the station called Le Var by the PLM then Nice-St.Augustin by SNCE Shortly after, a branch operated on race days served the Hippodrome … located on the left bank of the Var at the location occupied today by the postal sorting centre and the airport parking lot. The River Var was crossed on the bridge which carried both national road 7 and the PLM bridge, Marseille – Nice line.” [1: p35]
The TNL tracks were in the shoulder of the RN7 over the bridge across the River Var. This image was shared on the Comte de Nice et son Histoire Facebook Group by Jean-Paul Bascoul on 18th December 2020. [4]St. Laurent-du-Var Railway Station. The tracks of the TNL can be seen in the foreground. This image was shared on the Comte de Nice et son Histoire Facebook Group by Alain Nissim on 10th July 2021. [5]The same location in the 1960s. The railway station building has been replaced and the level crossing now serves a more significant road. This image was shared on the Comte de Nice et son Histoire Facebook Group by Mike LeFotographe on 17th October 2022. [6]St. Laurent-du-Var Railway Station in 2023. A footbridge has replaces the level-crossing but the station building is much the same as it was in the mid-20th century. [Google Streetview, April 2023]Another view of St. Laurent-du-Var, this time from the West. The PLM lines through the station are on the left. The tracks of the TNL lines can be seen within the road surface on the right. This image was shared by Alain Nissim on the Comte de Nice et son Histoire Facebook Group on 10th July 2021. [5]The picture above had a PLM train at St. Laurent-du-Var station, this shows a TNL tram on the RN7. [7]A similar view to that shown in the two monochrome images above. [Google Streetview, August 2022]
Trams stopped at the level crossing of the St. Laurent-du-Var station, at the point where the road leading to the centre of the town diverged from the RN7. “Beyond that, the track remained on the RN7 through the hamlet of Cros and then passed over the PLM line in the La Bégude district. The old town of Cagnes and its castle, built on a hill overlooking the modern districts, was seen while the River Cagne was crossed on an ancient donkey bridge. Beyond this structure, a station served the centre of the locality where a two-track shed served as a depot.” [1: p36]
Further west, the bridge over the River Malvan was followed by the PLM Cagnes Gare. This was the point at which lines of the TAM network to Venice and Grasse met with the TNL lines. Those two lines were opened in December 1911 but not connected to the TNL line until October 1917.
A TNL tram leaves Cagnes-sur-Mer heading for Nice. Haut de Cagnes is in the background. [8]Avenue des Freres-Roustan early in the 20th century, looking North. [8]The same view/location I think, in 2023. [Google Streetview, March 2023]Avenue-de-la-Gare in the early 20th century. So little of this scene remains. [8]Place-de-la-Gare in the early 20th century, again little of this scene remains. [8]A typical view looking South on Avenue-de-la-Gare in 2023. The motorway runs between the road and the railway station, much of the west side of the street has been redeveloped as well. [Google Streetview, April 2023]The South end of l’Avenue de la Gare. The TNL tram rails can be seen in the road surface. It is difficult to confirm this location in the 21st century. [8]
These different tram lines working in close proximity on the same site required special precautions, so as to avoid any accidental contact between the incompatible overhead lines of the two companies (550 V DC for the TNL and 6600 V single-phase AC for the TAM).
After leaving Cagnes, TNL trams ran past the location of an Alpine hunters camp. This image was shared on the Comte de Nice et son Histoire Facebook Group by Alain Nissim on 6th February 2023. [9]
Leaving Cagnes through the St. Véran district, the TNL line ran on the shoulder of the NR7. It ran past the location of an Alpine hunters camp and then crossed the River Loup on a metal bridge. Sadly, I have not been able to find old views of the bridge over the Loup.
Le pont routier de la Loup looking Northeast towards Nice. Trams ran along the shoulder of the highway over the bridge. The Pont du Loup had 3 metal spans (of 14m, 17m and 14m). [Google Streetview, April 2023]
The line ran between the Vaugrenier pine forest and the PLM line, close to the sea and adjacent to the RN7. Jose Banaudo says that there were two stops with sidings (presumably passing loops) before the tramway crossed the River Brague on a shared bridge with the RN7. The Pont de la Brague, constructed close to the start of the 20th century, had three substantial arches. The spandrels of the centre-span had arched voids which relieved weight on the arch and allowed additional capacity for times when the river was in flood.
The city of Antibes then came into view. First, trams passed Fort Carré, and then entered Antibes across a narrow road bridge over the PLM railway. The Pont d’Antibes had one metal span of 11m. Just beyond the bridge there was a short (118m) connection to ‘la gare PLM d’Antibes’ where there was a passing loop and shed.
There was a shuttle service between the Cap d’Antibes and the PLM station.
A tram sits at the terminus of the short branch on Avenue de la Gare (today Robert-Soleau) in Antibes, ready to provide a shuttle to Cap-d’Antibes. The station building is visible beyond the tram. [1: p37]
The tram in the picture above sits at the terminus of the short (0.3km) line from the railway station in Antibes which connected to the line from Nice.
After just over 0.2 km the line reached the southern end of Place Jean-Macé (then Place de la Victoire and today Général De Gaulle) where the TNL rails intersected with the tramway from Cannes (CTC) which had its terminus in Place Guynemer. Banaudo comments: “Originally, the tracks of the two companies only crossed, but a connection was established between them during the First World War to allow the circulation of direct freight trains between Nice and Cannes. Depending on the direction of traffic, the tram stopped on one side or the other of this intersection, near which a waiting room was set up on the ground floor of a building.” [1: p36]
The Antibes terminus of the tram route to/from Cannes in Place Guynemer.. [14]
From what is now Place General de Gaulle, trams ran along the Boulevard du Cap (today Albert Premier).
Trams ran in the road close to the beach at La Salis and then followed the Boulevard du Cap as it began to rise between villas and gardens which it served by a series of fixed and optional stops. Two passing loops were provided, one of which was at Chemin des Contrebandiers.
Looking Southwest along Boulevard de la Garoupe, the route of the TNL towards the terminus. Chemins des Contrabandieres is on the left. [Google Streetview, April 2023]
The Cap-d’Antibes terminus was established towards the south-west end of the peninsula, between the Grand Hôtel du Cap and the Graillon Tower.
This brings us to the westerly limit of the TNL. The CTC tramway to Cannes is a matter for another time.
To bring the trams to the Cap d’Antibes was a costly exercise. It was a steep, wooded promontory. It was also necessary to undertake costly work to widen existing roads. A generous loan on good repayment terms was agreed by the local authority.
The work included in the contract was the widening of local roads from 6.15m to 8m and the laying of the tram tracks.
Originally trams from Nice covered the full length of the line through Antibes and out onto the Cap d’Antibes. In the post-war years, the Nice and Cap-d’Antibes services were separated, the former running to Place Jean-Macé and the latter leaving from the PLM Station. [1: p38]
References
Jose Banaudo; Nice au fil du Tram, Volume No. 2: Les Hommes, Les Techniques; Les Editions de Cabri, Breil-sur-Roya, France, 2005. This is a French language text.
Reading the ‘Modern Tramway’ Journal of May 1983 in Autumn 2023, took me back to the time when I was working for Greater Manchester Council. The County Engineer was A.E. Naylor. I was working in the Engineer’s office in County Hall.
The ‘Modern Tramway’ carried an article by W.J. Wyse about the then recently released rail strategy for the conurbation. [1]
The report was released on 18th February 1983 and summarised the results of six months’ work by BR, the Greater Manchester Council (GMC) and the Greater Manchester PTE, assisted by consultants, ‘to develop an achievable long-term strategy for the maintenance and development of the local rail network, having regard to the likely development of the Intercity network’. It was a report which first made clear intentions for the building of a new ‘tram’-network for Greater Manchester.
Wyse writes:
“From the BR side, there was the important objective of improving Intercity services, so that these need no longer terminate at Manchester. An obvious example of such improvements would be to permit Anglo- Scottish expresses to run from London to Manchester on their way to Preston. The “Picc-Vic” scheme of the early 1970s had had to be abandoned because resources were not available. A later proposal for a low-cost Castlefield curve would have given only limited benefits in terms of improved central area access. Then, in 1980, BR published its proposals for the Windsor Link in Salford which, also using the link via Deansgate and Oxford Road, would enable through running between several interurban and local services. Coupled with the proposed Blackpool-Preston-Manchester electrification, this would also improve access to many Intercity services. Further improvements would follow from the Hazel Grove Chord, linking Hazel Grove with New Mills Central, to give better Intercity services to Sheffield.
The desire to improve the BR facilities in Manchester obviously brought up the possibility of electrifying the existing local rail system at 25 kV, coupling this with converting the 1500-volt lines to Hadfield and Glossop and the 1200-volt third-rail line to Bury all to 25 kV overhead supply. The problem here is that this would be a very expensive solution, so other strategies were considered and compared.
The current rail situation has five distinct areas which create problems that have to be solved in order to improve services. Some of these have already been mentioned, but setting them out in this way shows them in perspective.
1) Rolling stock obsolescence, especially of diesel railcar units.
2) Re-equipment of non-standard electric services now using de supply.
3) Renewal of obsolete signalling systems.
4) Separate north and south suburban railway networks, with lack of links and lack of penetration into and across central Manchester, making rail travel less attractive.
5) Two main Intercity stations, Piccadilly and Victoria, too far apart for easy interchange, and causing duplication of to be abandoned because resources were not facilities.
The GMC has committed itself to maintain the present basic pattern of rail services, and to improve the network to increase the use made of it. This includes better access to existing stations as well as possible new stations, and putting pressure on the government to authorise construction of new class-141 diesel railcar rolling stock.” [1: p146]
The Report proposed a number of alternative strategies.
BR’s intention to focus its Intercity services at Manchester Piccadilly retaining Victoria for provincial interurban and local services was made clear. This would mean a basic framework of Intercity services to Crewe, Macclesfield, Leeds, Preston and Liverpool, and beyond. Other interurban lines would serve Warrington, Chester and Bradford. These main programmes would then govern the re-equipment policies for the local services on these lines.
The rail strategy study concentrated on the lines which carry only local services, and indirect access into and across central Manchester.
The two main options were:
1) a comprehensive system of cross-city rail tunnels with electrification of the whole regional system to 25-kV mainline standards with ‘conventional’ rolling stock; or
2) non-conventional solutions using existing rail routes and a former rail route (to Charlton and Didsbury) with vehicles that could run on existing streets or in tunnels across the city centre to provide a comprehensive network that also would also allow for interchange with the Intercity network.
That second option was then further subdivided into two:
2a) a Light Rail Rapid Transit system using vehicle which were defined as “a cross between a rail vehicle and a tram”; and
2b) replacement of rail tracks by carriageways on which some form of express bus would run.
It was noted that (2b) might create problems for existing and proposed goods facilities.
Greater Manchester Rail Network with the Windsor Link and the Light Rail Transit System. It is interesting to see how much of this proposal has been implemented by 2023 and what additions have been made to the proposals as well. [1: p147]
The conventional rail solution would have meant a rail tunnel between Piccadilly and Victoria Stations with an intermediate stop at Piccadilly Gardens. Another tunnel would have run East-West, connecting the Altrincham line with the Piccadilly line with an intermediate station at Albert Square No reinstatement of the Chrolton-Didsbury line was included.
The non-conventional solutions would have to meet certain criteria:
“i) segregation from the conventional rail network except for grade crossings with limited movement of goods;
ii) routes compatible with development of the conventional rail network;
iii) existing or potential traffic must be sufficient; and
iv) the routes must make a logical network and, for the corridors they serve, give adequate interchange with the main BR network.
These criteria would be satisfied by the following lines; Bury, Rochdale via Oldham, Glossop/Hadfield, Marple/Rose Hill (assuming building of the Hazel Grove chord), Altrincham (with Chester services diverted via Stockport), and the former Midland line to Didsbury.
Interchange with conventional Intercity and local rail services would be given at Victoria, Piccadilly and Deansgate/Central stations. The cross-city routes would meet at Piccadilly Gardens with the equivalent of a triangular junction to provide good access to what they call “the core of the Regional Centre” by all permutations of through-running across the junction.
The routes for the surface link in the city centre [had] been worked out to minimise conflicts with general traffic; apart from the section between Piccadilly Gardens and High Street, the lines would not run through high pedestrian-activity areas. These routes, as shown in the map, have been worked out for a Light Rail solution, but the report indicates that they could be modified for a busway solution.
Alternatives to LRT that were considered include road-based systems (buses and trolleybuses) and dual-mode systems including busways on existing rail formations. The only systems they felt worth considering [were]: LRT, busways and guided buses. [1: p148]
The possible LRT system would require lower standards (in terms of alignment, stations, signalling and vehicle weight) than conventional rail systems. They would be able to run on streets and use existing rail routes at relatively minimal cost. This made them very attractive. Their capacity was stated as between 1,000 and 5,000 passengers per hour, with up to 10,000 in central areas. It was noted that phased development would be possible and that boarding and alighting might well be at close to normal pavement level.
Wyse continues:
“Changes would be needed to the proposed new layout of Piccadilly Gardens, and a number of changes to the road layout to accommodate LRT would have to balance the needs of LRT against other vehicles and pedestrians. An important change of attitude from the more usual approach is the opinion that installation of LRT need not lead to any significant decline in environmental standards, especially if overhead wires can be supported from wires attached to buildings rather than poles.
An LRT system could be extended on to other existing or former rail routes, or considered for other corridors where the roads are wide enough to allow construction. Indeed the wheel [had] now turned full circle, for the LRT could be extended “on-highway, right into the middle of major district centres”, in other words, as a conventional tramway. …
Both busway solutions [were] not … studied in the same detail as LRT solutions. They would require significantly higher capital expenditure for carriageways to replace existing rail tracks on some 90% of the proposed system, but only indicative costs [were] worked out for a carriageway width of 8 m with hard shoulders of 2.5 m. Whilst a guided busway would avoid the need for hard shoulders, there [were] issues of operational reliability and ‘on street’ use. A busway that [could] run on street without extra works or hardware could have advantages over LRT, and feeder services at the outer ends could also use existing roads. Further work would [have been] needed to establish whether capital costs could be reduced without sacrificing the operational and safety aspects. [1: p148-149]
A Comparison of Costs
This table gives an idea, at November 1982 prices, of the relative costs of the different options. The report’s authors noted that these figures do not include thing which were common to all the options, such as the Northwest electrification and the Windsor Link. [1: p149]
As can be seen in Table 1, LRT at surface level is the cheapest estimate by some margin. The report also considered what might be the costs of a first phase of work:
Re-electrifying the Bury line and constructing the Victoria-Piccadilly tunnel – £95 million;
LRT above ground – converting the Bury and Altrincham lines and building the complete city centre network – £38.5 million
LRT city centre network in tunnel, otherwise as the above ground scheme – £56.5 million.
Apparently, no work had yet been done “on assessing the operating costs of the alternative strategies, or on considering the effects of bus operating strategies. … While no assessment [had] been made of the benefits to passengers and the effects on other road users, all options [were] considered likely to give significant benefits compared with the ‘Do Nothing’ alternative.” [1: p149]
Cost comparisons were made with the Tyne & Wear and the London Docklands schemes with figures adjusted to November 1982 levels. Table 2 shows these prices.
This table shows just how significantly lower the estimated costs/mile of the Manchester LRT schemes were when compared with the Tyne & Wear Metro and the London Docklands schemes. The critical figures are in the right-hand column in the table. [1: p149]
Wyse commented that work so far undertaken indicated “that if the present rail network [was] to be retained, an LRT system using existing rail lines which do not carry BR interurban services would appear to offer a significantly cheaper solution than conventional heavy rail and ‘busway’ solutions.” [1: p150]
He also noted that, “Further work [was] needed to consider both the operating costs of the alternatives, with due allowance for revisions to bus services, and the likely order of benefits. … Aspects which need[ed] early consideration include[d]: confirmation of the feasibility of city centre LRT tunnels, the safeguarding of potential LRT and busway routes and facilities, the organisation and management of an LRT or busway system (a joint BR/PTE set up [was] suggested), and finally the opportunities to provide improved cross-conurbation services and connexions to Intercity services for major district centres such as Ashton-under-Lyne.” [1: p150]
Manchester’s Network in 2023
40 years on from thi9s report it is interesting to note how much of what was planned came to fruition. As we know the high cost solution of tunnelling under the city centre was not developed. A Light Rapid Transit solution was given the go-ahead and has met much of what was intended.
The first line constructed was the Altrincham to Bury line through Victoria Station and the centre of the city. A link to Piccadilly Station was also installed in the early years. The following history is gleaned from Wikipedia [3].
Phase I opened in 1992. The original Market Street tram stop handled trams to Bury, with High Street tram stop handling trams from Bury. When Market Street was pedestrianised, High Street stop was closed, and Market Street stop was rebuilt to handle trams in both directions, opening in its new form in 1998.
Shudehill Interchange opened between Victoria station and Market Street in April 2003. The bus station complementing it opened on 29 January 2006.
Phase 2 provided a link with Salford Quays with a line running to Eccles. Cornbrook tram stop was opened in 1995 on the Altrincham line to provide an interchange with the new line to Eccles. There was initially no public access from the street, but this changed on 3 September 2005 when the original fire exit was opened as a public access route.
Two of the original stops; Mosley Street, and Woodlands Road were closed in 2013. The latter being replaced by two new stops (Abraham Moss and Queens Road) opened nearby.
By the mid-2000s, most of the track on the Bury and Altrincham routes was 40+ years old and in need of replacement. In 2006 it was decided that a £107 million programme to replace this worn track would take place in 2007.
Phase 3 entailed a significant expansion of the network. It turned into a series of different phases as different funding arrangements had to be made:
Phase 3a – created four new lines along key transport corridors in Greater Manchester: the Oldham and Rochdale Line (routed northeast to Oldham and Rochdale), the East Manchester Line (routed east to East Manchester and eventually to Ashton-under-Lyne), the South Manchester Line (routed southeast to Chorlton-cum-Hardy and eventually to East Didsbury), and eventually the Airport Line (routed south to Wythenshawe and Manchester Airport). A spur was also added to the network to link from the Eccles line to Media City. The link to Media City was opened in 2010. The Line to Chorlton opened in 2011. The other lines opened gradually between 2011 and 2013.
Phase 3b – Three lines mentioned in the paragraph above were extended from initially shorter lines. The construction of the East Manchester line extension from Droylsden to Ashton-under-Lyne, the East Didsbury extension from Chorlton and the Airport line via Wythenshawe, commenced in 2011 and all was complete by the end of 2014.
The link to Manchester Airport. [5]
Phase 2CC – Second City Centre Crossing – was completed in 2017.
Trafford Park [4] – The Trafford Park line linked the Trafford Centre to the network and opened in 2020.
References
W.J. Wyse; A Rail Strategy for Greater Manchester; in Modern Tramway and Light Rail Transit, Volume 48 No. 545; Light Rail Transit Association and Ian Allan, Shepperton, London; May 1983, p146-150.
Jose Banaudo published a two volume set of books about the historic trams of Nice, “Nice au fil du Tram.” Articles based around the first of these two volumes can be found on this blog.
This is the second in a series looking at the second volume. The first can be found on this link:
This line was almost entirely double-tracked. It originated on the Place de Riquier (today Auguste-Blanqui), west of the PLM station on the Nice – Ventimiglia line which serves this working-class district to the east of the city. It ran down Rue Arson, passing the depot on Boulevard Ste. Agatha.
Initially, an old building stood out from other frontages along the route and required a short section of single track (304 metres) The building was demolished in 1914 and the single-track section was eliminated. At the intersection with Rue Barbéris, a branch headed east to serve a warehouse. At Rue Barla, the Ligne du Port crossed the rails on Rue Arson. Shortly thereafter, two other branches made it possible to deliver wagons to the Giordan metallurgical plant and the cement warehouse on Rue Lascaris. The line then reached the Eastern corner of the Port, where it joined the Monte-Carlo line and the Voie des Docks towards the Quai des Deux-Emmanuel.
After running along a length of Rue des Deux-Emmanuel, the line turned right onto Place Cassini (now Ile-de-Beauté) where there was a significant tram-halt. In order to make it easier for the trams that had their terminus here to reverse, a complete loop went around the church of Notre-Dame du Port via Rue Rusca, Rue Fodéré and Rue Pacho. At the West end of the square, the tramway passed in front of the monument in honor of President Sadi Carnot, whose bronze bust disappeared during the requisition of non-ferrous metals during the last war, then it went up Rue Cassi to Place Garibaldi. From there, the route was common with other lines on the Boulevards of Pont-Vieux and Mac-Mahon (today Jean-Jaurès), Place Masséna, Avenue de la Gare (today Jean- Médecin) and Avenue Thiers to the PLM station.
The Route from Place de Riquier to Parc-Imperial via the PLM Station on Avenue Thiers. This image shows the route as it was before 1934. It comes from the collection of Richard Panizzi. [1: p23]
Jose Banaudo continues: “After stopping at the station, the line continued West along Avenue Thiers where a new main post office was installed in 1931 in a large red brick building, in a rather incongruous style in our latitudes. At the intersection of Boulevard Gambetta, the Parc-Impérial line briefly joined the ‘Circulaire’ in order to pass under the bridge of the PLM Marseille-Nice line. Then, it branched off to the left into Boulevard du Czaréwitch (today Tzaréwitch) whose name honors the Crown Prince of Russia, Nicolas Alexandrovitch, who died in 1865 in a villa in this district where the Imperial family used to come stay in the winter.” [1: p22]
After passing under the railway bridge, T1 motor car crosses the triangle junction on Boulevard Gambetta to enter Boulevard Czaréwitch. This postcard image was shared on the Comte de Nice et son Histoire Facebook Group by Roland Coccoli on 18th June 2019 and 6th April 2023. [3]The same location in 2023, Boulevard Gambetta looking South. The scene is now dominated by the motorway flyover. [Google Streetview, April 2023]This postcard image comes from the collection of Jean-Pierre Garacio and was shared on the Comte de Nice et son Histoire Facebook Group on 27th January 2015 by Jean-Paul Bascoul. The photograph shows Boulevard Czaréwitch running into the distance on the right and depicts a T2 motor car arriving from Parc-Impérial and passing in front of the Parc des Roses hotel/bar-restaurant. The mention of “Civette Russet” above the entrance door at the centre of the image indicates the strength of the Russian community in this district where the imperial family frequently stayed in the second half of the 19th century. [4]The camera is in approximately the same location taking this photograph. Boulevard Tzarewitch runs East from its junction with Boulevard Gambetta. [Google Streetview, April 2023]
Trams then passed in front of the Russian Orthodox cathedral, completed in 1912, and stopped at the crossroads with Rue Cluvier where the double track ended. The urban service terminus was set shortly before the intersection with Avenue de la Tour-Lascaris (today Boulevard François-Grosso).
There was a further 529 metres of single-track climbing Boulevard du Parc-Impérial and Avenue d’Angleterre (today Paul-Arène) to terminate at the Southwest corner of the Grand Hôtel du Parc-Impérial.
This is a postcard image of l’Hotel Parc-Imperial, Nice. [2]Another view of the Hotel Imperial at Parc Imperial. In the foreground of this image a tram can be seen approaching the terminus of the line. This length of line was only used in the holiday season (between December and May). [5]
The Hotel opened in 1900 on the property where the Russian Imperial family came for vacation. It was this luxury establishment which had financed the extension of the tramway to its doors. The single-track section was only operated during the tourist (winter) season, from 1st December to 15th May. It disappeared in the post-war years when the hotel found itself in a difficult financial situation leading to its acquisition by the city of Nice in 1926 with a view to transforming it into a school.
The Hotel Parc Imperial was purchased by the City of Nice in 1926 the roofline has changed but the building seems to have the same footprint in 2023. The tram seen in the image above was approaching the Hotel along the road in the foreground, (Avenue Paul-Arene in the 21st century). [Google Streetview, April 2023]
The Riquier-Parc-Impérial line linked a working-class district and a residential area in the hills, passing through the main transfer points of the urban network: the Port, Places Garibaldi and Masséna, then the PLM station. The route was used by services from Mont-Boron to the PLM station which used it after running between Mont-Boron and the Port on the Monte-Carlo interurban line. In the 1934 redesign, this route disappeared with the exception of the Riquier – Port – Garibaldi section which was integrated into the new line No. 7. Line No. 7 was the last line served by trams, running until 10th January 1953.
La Ligne de la Gendarmerie, Pasteur, St. Pons et St. Andre
This line linked Place Masséna with St. Andre.
From the TNL station on Place Masséna, the double-track line ran along Rue Gioffredo. Initially, this route also served the Monte-Carlo and Levens lines, and then, from 1934, all services serving the east of the city took this route. After passing behind Masséna high school and Voeu church, trams for St. Andre met the line arriving from the PLM station via Rue Tonduti-de-L’Escarène, and then saw the interurban lines turn away to the right via Rue Defly towards Place Garibaldi.
Until the end of the Masséna – Garibaldi route via the left bank of the River Paillon in 1934, Rue Defly and Pont Garibaldi were only used by interurban services to Levens, Villefranche, St. Jean-Cap-Ferrat, Beaulieu and Monte Carlo.
At the end of Rue Gioffredo, the service connection to the Cimiez line turned away to the left and St. Andre trams turned right into Boulevard Carabacel where there was a connection to the construction materials warehouse of Charles Véran. At Place Carabacel (today Jean-Moulin), tracks to Pont and Rue Barla turned away to the right. The tramway to Levens rejoined that for St. Andre after having detoured through Place Garibaldi.
The line then ran along the right bank of the River Paillon, then only lightly developed, via the quays of Place d’Armes and Pasteur (today Galliéni and Lyautey). After passing under the PLM Nice – Ventimiglia railway, trams arrived at the stop serving the Gendarmerie, which was the terminus for several years. From there, the single track followed the shoulder of the roadway on land recovered from the river bed. Two branches served a fuel trader and the Andréis steel construction works. The tramway then ran under the bridge of the PLM Nice – Cuneo line, after which there was a passing loop at the stop called ‘Vésubie’, at the intersection of avenue Florès. It then ran alongside the district named Pasteur after the large hospital built in 1913, and where a velodrome brought great entertainment on race days. The valley narrowed here, at the foot of the hill where the monastery of Cimiez and the ancient abbey of St. Pons stand. Two stops with passing loops followed, at St. Pons-Octroi and St. Pons-Asile, the latter serving the psychiatric hospital Ste. Marie.
Shortly after this narrow passage where the ligne de Contes could be seen on the other bank of the river and where some services continued towards Levens, the St. André tramway left the Paillon valley to follow the Chemin de Grand Communication No. 19 (currently Departmentale No. 19) into the narrow valley of the River Banquière to reach the terminus at St. André.
A tram for St. Andre waiting at the tram stop in the village which was in the Valley of the River Banquiere. [9]Possibly a service for Levens in the immediate vicinity of St. Andre. These two images were shared by Roland Coccoli on the Comte de Nice et Son Histoire Facebook Group on 17th May 2020. [6]
I have been unable to locate these two views in relation to the landscape around St. Andre de la Roche in 2023. However, one group of buidlings does appear on the image below.
The group of buildings marked by the yellow arrow appear on both the monochrome images above. This suggests that the tram stop featured in those images was somewhere along the length of the M19 (Quai de las Banquiere) visible in this photograph. [Google Streetview, May 2023]
This line closed in September 1948 in favour of a replacement bus service.
La “Rocade” des Rules Barla, De Lepante et Assalit (Sauzzo – Gare PLM – Carras)
This route, was created to link the East to the West of the city of Nice via the main railway station. The location of its termini was altered several times. Intentionally, it served less busy streets.
The route as of 1934, from the collection of Richard Panizzi. [1: p28]
At its Eastern end it originated not far from the Port in the Riquier district, on Place Saluzzo (today Max-Barel) which since 1908 has been the starting point of the “Moyenne Corniche” towards the Col de Villefranche. From there, a dedicated route led via Boulevard Imperatrice-de-Russie Boulevard (today Lech-Walesa) to warehouses which were used by the army during the First World War.
The double track followed Rue Barla in a westward direction where, just 87 m from its starting point, it crossed Rue Arson and the line going down from Riquier towards the Port. Shortly after, the tram passed in front of the tobacco factory.
A T2 motor car providing a Carras – Saluzzo service has just passed in front of the ‘Manufacture des Tabacs’ and is arriving at the crossroads of Rue Barla and Rue Arson. The branch to the left is used by freight trains traveling between the port and Gare du Sud, from the collection of Andre Lebecque. [1: p27]Approximately the same location in the 21st century. This photograph was taken at the junction of Rue Baral and Rue Arson. [Google Streetview, January 2019
At the crossroads with Rue de la République, it crossed the line of Abattoirs, La Trinité and Contes, and then crossed the River Paillon on Le Pont Barla. Banaudo says that this was, “a beautiful structure with three cast iron arches in a style similar to that of the Garibaldi bridgenearby.” [1: p27]
Now on the right bank of the Paillon, the line met La Ligne de St. Pons which it followed for a short distance along Boulevard Carabacel and Rue Gioffredo. [1: p27]
A Thomson tram crosses le Pont Barla towards the street of the same name and Place Saluzzo. In the background is Place Carabacel (today Jean-Moulin), from where the St. Pons line branched off towards Place-d’Armes (today Galliéni). Note the sheets, which have been washed in the river, drying on lines below the bridge. This photograph was shared on the Comte de Nice et son Histoire Facebook Group on 7th June 2016 by Roland Coccoli. [7]A similar view in 2023. The building just to the right of the centre of this image is the same as that at the centre of the image above. [Google Streetview, April 2023]
Arriving at the intersection of Rue Tonduti-de-L’Escarène, the tramway branched off to the North taking this fairly narrow street to Place Sasserno. From there, it entered Rue de Lépante, which commemorates “a terrible naval battle against the Turks in 1571 in which ships crewed from Nice participated.” [1: p27]
Turning sharply to the West, the line followed the narrow Rue Assalit at the end of which it came out at the end of Avenue de la Gare (today Jean-Medecin). It crossed the tram tracks there and entered Avenue Thiers, stopping in front of the PLM station before following Avenue Thiers along its entire length to the intersection with Boulevard Gambetta. At Boulevard Gambetta, the trams turned South towards the crossroads of Rue de France and then turned West to run along the same route as lines to La Madeleine, La Californie and Cagnes to a terminus at either Pont-Magnan or at Carras depending on its year of operation. [1: p27]
Nice – Carras District – Saint Helene – tram stop. The stamp at the centre of the card shows that it was sent during WWI from the Ruhl temporary hospital which was used for war-wounded soldiers and which was in the building that in calmer times was the Ruhl Hotel on the Promenade des Anglais. This postcard image was shared on the Comte de Nice et son Histoire Facebook Group by Jean-Paul Bascoul on 26th February 2023. [8]The Avenue de la Californie in 2023. The road forms the main artery for Nice’s modern tram service to and from the Airport. This photograph is taken close to the terminus of the tram route in Carras. [Google Streetview, April 2023]
This line closed in November 1948 in favour of a replacement bus service.
La “Circulaire” Par le Passage a Niveau (Ste. Agathe – Passage a Niveau Gambetta)
Of all of the lines in the Nice tram network, this line was the most varied. Over most of the route, it followed tracks used by other lines. The only exceptions, Banaudo tells us, “being the lengths between Gare du Sud and PN Gambetta and at the Gambetta / Czaréwitch crossroads.” [1: p30]
This route map comes from the collection of Richard Panizzi. [1: p31]
Banaudo goes on to say that the route, “lost its circular character in 1934 with the elimination of the north-south axis via the avenues, but part of its route was taken up later to create line 7 which was the last served by trams, closing in 1953.” [1: p30]
Initially, the ligne “Circulaire” services left Place Masséna along Avenues de la Gare (now Jean-Medecin) and Malaussena to Place Gambetta (today Général De Gaulle) in front of the Gare du Sud. “There, the route branched off to the west taking Boulevard Joseph-Garnier to the level crossing of the Nice – Digne and Nice – Meyrargues lines of the Chemins de fer du Sud de la France (SF). The TNL double track crossed that of the SF by a quadruple crossing on which traffic was governed by instructions common to the two companies. Here, the trains had priority over the trams: an announcement by electric bell warned the barrier guard of their approach, who closed the signals for the tram and then stretched four chains across the road to stop traffic. In the north-west corner of the level crossing, a TNL track connected to a long siding belonging to the SF, through which the goods convoys commuting from the Port were pushed back towards the goods yard of the Gare du Sud.” [1: p30]
A winter view of Boulevard Joseph-Garnier looking East with tram tracks visible in the road surface. [9]The same location on Boulevard Joseph-Garnier in April 2023. The photograph is taken from a point just a few tens of metres to the West od the monochrome image above. [Google Streetview, April 2023]
After this the “Circulaire” ran South along Boulevard Gambetta. At the crossroads of Boulevard Czaréwitch (today Tzaréwitch), the line to the Parc-Impérial left to the West. The “Circulaire” then passed under the railway bridge. After which, the lines towards the PLM Station branched off to the East onto Avenue Thiers. Some distance further South, the “Circulaire” turned left (East) into Rue de France, joining the route used by trams serving La Madeleine, Carras and Cagnes and returned to Place Masséna.
Banaudo tells us that, “Later, the route was extended eastwards in three stages: – First to the Port via Boulevards Mac-Mahon and du Pont-Vieux (today Jean-Jaurès), Place Garibaldi and Rue Cassini. Then, an additional loop was added to this circuit: from the Port, it went up Rue Arson to Boulevard Ste. Agathe, running along that street to reach Rue de la République and then Place Garibaldi.” [1: p30]
A third short “extension allowed Place de Riquier to be served, which the tramway reached in one direction via the Port and in the other via Boulevard Ste. Agathe.” [1: p30]
Rue de France, the Thomson tramcar nº 38 has just passed a car going in the opposite direction in front of the l’Eglise St.Pierre-d’Arène heading towards Boulevard Gambetta. The disk at the front of the roof indicates that the tram is on the “circulaire” service. The photograph was taken by Giletta in the period before the 1st World War. The church was extensively remodelled in the period between the two world wars. This image comes from the collection of Jean-Pierre Garacio. [1: p32]
This line finally closed in January 1953 in favour of a replacement bus service.
La Ligne de la Madeleine (Masséna – La Madeleine)
The last line to open in Nice’s urban tram network served La Madeleine running initially from Place Masséna but it’s Eastern terminus changed on a number of occasions. First to the Port, then Abattoirs and finally La Trinité Victor.
Departing from Place Masséna, the tramway first the main East-West artery heading towards Carras and Cagnes. At Pont Magnan it turned North and became a single-track route. A passing loop was installed just to the North of the junction.
Just to the North of Rue de France a tram sits in the passing loop presumably awaiting the arrival of another tram from Place Masséna. This image looks North toward the PLM railway viaduct. It was shared on the Comte de Nice et son Histoire Facebook Group on 2nd February 2023 by Jean-Paul Bascoul. [14]Looking from Rue de France along Boulevard de la Madeleine in October 2022. During the 20th century, the River Magnan was culverted leaving the immediate area looking very different to the monochrome view above! [Google Streetview, October 2022]The tramway running along the left bank of the River Magnan the PLM Marseille – Nice railway was carried over the River on the viaduct at the centre of this image which looks North and which was shared on the Comte de Nice et son Histoire Facebook Group by Jean-Paul Bascoul on 16th April 2020. [11]A similar view in 2022 to that immediately above. The railway viaduct, in the 22st century is flanked on both North and South faces by the high level dual carriageway Voie Pierre Mathis. [Google Streetview, October 2022]
Passing under the PLM Marseille – Nice railway line, the track ran along the left bank of the River Magnan, between Boulevard de La Madeleine and the river. Jose Banaudo tells us that the line “takes its name from the silkworm breeding industry … which flourished in this sector until the end of the 19th century.” [1: p33]
Looking South, this postcard image shows the railway viaduct across the Valley of the River Magnan. Trams ran between the road at the river. This image was shared on the Comte de Nice et son Histoire Facebook Group by Roland Coccoli on 16th April 2016. [12]Also looking South towards the Mediterranean, this 21st century view emphasises the changes which have occurred in the valley of the River Magnan. [Google Streetview, August 2020]Further North and looking North in 1942. Some work was undertaken in the river channel that year. This image predates the work. It was shared on the Comte de Nice et son Histoire Facebook Group by Charles Louis Fevrier on 17th January 2021. [13]Approximately the same view during the work in 1942. [13]Looking North again. The Boulevard de la Madeleine follows the line of the River Magnan which continues in culvert. It is impossible to locate a modern photograph at the location of the monochrome images above as there has been so much development in the river valley. [Google Streetview, April 2023]Looking South at the same location. All three of these images were shared on the Comte de Nice et son Port Facebook Group on 17th January 2021 by Charles Louis Fevrier. The tramway is visible in all three images. [13]
The Magnan valley, then a relatively sparsely populated district on the edge of the city, justified its tram service due to the presence of “numerous craft workshops and small factories such as a mechanical piano factory, a glassworks, a biscuit factory, a button factory and several laundries. These establishments also left their names on the tram stops, and later on the bus stops.” [1: p33]
A tram running along the left bank of the River Magnan in La Madeleine. This image was shared on the Comte de Nice et son Histoire Facebook Group on 10th October 2019 by Roland Coccoli. [10]
“On Sundays, the activity of the workshops was replaced by renowned restaurants with dance floors and boules. Many city dwellers came to spend a relaxing day in the countryside, which inevitably included an excursion to the “Trou des Etoiles”, a natural cave, 35 m deep at the base of Ventabrun hill which was then mentioned in the most prestigious tourist guides.” [1: p33]
Passing loops sat in front of two restaurants, “Chalet des Roses” and “Les Orangers”. The terminus was in the Place de La Madeleine (today Alexandre-Blanchi) below the church, the cemetery and la gare Sud-France station which served the village.
Once again, this route map comes from the collection of Richard Panizzi. [1: p34]
This line closed in December 1951 in favour of a replacement bus service.
References
Jose Banaudo; Nice au fil du Tram, Volume No. 2: Les Hommes, Les Techniques; Les Editions de Cabri, Breil-sur-Roya, France, 2005. This is a french language text.
The first railways in the area were of wooden rails used during the construction of docks facilities. Some were in use in the Naval Dockyard in 1724, [2] and in 1756 John Smeaton laid some more to help move materials in his workyard on the mainland which was preparing stonework for the Eddystone Lighthouse. [4: p5-8] [1]
Smeaton’s Workyard near the location of Millbay Docks was used for a fastidious trial construction of the lighthouse to ensure that the massive stone blocks used in its construction would fit with each other before undertaking the work on site, 14 miles out to sea. To move these blocks around the Workyard, Smeaton made use of a ‘Rail Road’ which comprised of a four-wheel carriage running on a timber road. In Smeaton’s own words, stones were “delivered upon the four-wheel carriage that runs along the timber road, commonly called at the Collieries, where they are used, a Rail Road: and being landed upon the carriage, any stone can be delivered upon any of the Bankers in the line of the work-sheds on either side: or the carriage being turned a quarter round upon the Turnpike, or Turnrail, it can be carried along the road that goes up the middle of the yard, and be delivered upon any part of its area destined for their deposition; all the stones marked for the same course being deposited together; from which place they can be again taken up upon the carriage, run along the road, and be delivered upon any Banker in the line of sheds, or upon the Platform, and afterwards returned back to the same place of deposition, ready to be carried to sea in their proper order … A Banker in a mason’s yard is a square stone of a suitable size, made use of as a work-bench.” [4: p6-7]
In 1812, John Rennie laid a 3 ft 6 in (1.07 m) gauge metal tramway to help with the construction of the Plymouth Breakwater; rails were laid in the quarry at Oreston and on the breakwater, and loaded wagons were conveyed between the two on ships. [5][1]
Rennie’s use of a ‘Rail Road’ is recorded in three different contemporary accounts: “The first of these is ‘Two Excursions to the Ports of England, Scotland and Ireland in 1816, 1817 and 1818, with a description of the Breakwater at Plymouth and the Caledonian Canal‘ translated from the (French) original of Charles Dupin. The second book … [was]published by J. Johns of “Dock” (soon to become “Devonport”) in a booklet dated November 1820 entitled ‘Interesting Particulars Relative to the Great National Undertaking, the Breakwater now Constructing in Plymouth Sound.’ From these two books, a good picture of Rennie’s little railway can be formed, whilst the third book, Rennie’s own mammoth publication provides yet another set of carefully-scaled drawings, similar to Smeaton’s previous records.” [4: p9-10]
An engraving in Rennie’s book which shows the wagons used on his ‘railway’ [4: illustration between p8 & p9]
Rennie’s 3ft 6in gauge railway allowed horses to bring large stone blocks on flatbed wagons (or smaller stones in wagons fitted with sides), from his quarry at Oreston to a quay where the wagons were turned on a turntable and loaded onto vessels with iron rails in their holds and taken to the sites of the breakwater. On arrival a form of tippler appears to have been used to discharge the wagonloads onto the sides of the breakwater. [4: p10-11]
A second engraving from Rennie’s book which shows the wagons in place in the hold and on the deck of one of the wessels which transported stone from the quarry to the site of the breakwater [4: illustration between p8 & p9]
“The building of the breakwater extended over some thirty years, and in its final stages a railway was actually constructed on the surface of the “wall” enabling the ships to be unloaded in the reverse manner to that of the loading at Oreston, even down to the provision of turn-tables. … This … has given rise to the claim that this was the first rudimentary ‘train ferry’.” [4: p12]
A further engraving from Rennie’s book which shows the breakwater with the railway on its surface. [4: illustration between p8 & p9]
Kendall noted in 1968, that the quarry at Oreston still continued to supply stone for the maintenance of the breakwater. [4: p12]
On their journey around England in 1826 and 1827, Von Oeynhausen and Von Dechen visited the Plymouth Breakwater and the later Plymouth & Dartmoor Railway referred to below. [7: p51-55] Of the Breakwater Railway, they commented: “For the transport of the larger masses of stone, 10 ships of 80 tons burden have been built in the Royal Dockyard. These ships can carry 16 blocks, each of 5 tons weight, in two rows, each block resting on a wagon which runs on a railway. The two railways on the ships are extended to the breakwater by drawbridges; and then the wagons are drawn out of the ships by cranes and unloaded. In this manner, a ship of 80 tons can be unloaded in 40 or 50 minutes. The ships are brought to the place where the stones are required to be laid by the help of buoys.” [7: p55]
A more conventional tramway was opened on 26th September 1823. The 4 ft 6 in (1.37 m) Plymouth & Dartmoor Railway ran from Princetown to Sutton Harbour and the Cattewater. Branches were opened to Cann Quarry in 1829 and to Plympton in 1834, followed by the Lee Moor Tramway in 1854. Haulage on these lines in Plymouth was always by horses (although the Lee Moor Tramway did have two 0-4-0ST locomotives which spent most of their life at the Lee Moor end of the tramway). The Lee Moor line remained in use until 1960. [1][3][6: p9]
The Plymouth & Dartmoor Railway is covered in much greater detail in the article accessed via this link:
Paul Burkhalter; Devonport Dockyard Railway; Twelveheads Press, Truro, 1996.
Eric R. Shepherd; The Plymouth and Dartmoor Railway and the Lee Moor Tramway; ARK Publications (Railways), Newton Abbot, Devon, 1997.
H.G. Kendall; The Plymouth & Dartmoor Railway; The Oakwood Press, Lingfield, Surrey, 1968.
David St John Thomas; West Country Railway History; David & Charles, Newton Abbot, 1973.
Russell Leitch; Plymouth’s Railways in the 1930s including “The Gear’s Poor Relation”; Railway Correspondence & Travel Society, Peterborough, 2002.
C. Von Oeynhausen and H. Von Dechen; Railways in England 1826 and 1827; translated from the German by E.A. Forward and edited by Charles E. Lee and K.R. Gilbert; Newcomen Society, Cambridge, 1971.
A talk given on 17th September 2023 at St. Alkmund, Whitchurch.
If I were to ask for a show of hands this morning of those who have never wronged anyone. How might you respond?
Some might be ask themselves what right I have to ask a question like this. Is it, perhaps, the wearing of a dog collar that means I feel I can do so?
Some might think about what others around them might think if they put up their hand. … People here this morning probably know me too well. Although I know that I have never done anything too bad, I have certainly not broken any laws, they might remember that one time when I …………… What will they think of me?
Others might want to challenge my presuppositions behind asking the question. They might want to enter into a philosophical debate about my presumptions. … What might I mean by ‘wrong’? What might I mean by ‘never’? Do I mean ‘wrong’ in an absolute sense, measured against a set of laws? Or do I mean ‘wrong’ in a relative sense, in terms of the breakdown of relationships? Am I talking about ‘wrong’ in terms of personal moral responsibility, or of complicity in the actions, or failures to act, of my group, my family, my village, my class, my business, my society?
Ultimately, I guess, whether we readily admit our failings, or we only do so at our lowest ebb when self-doubt is strongest, very few of us would put our hands, and so today’s Gospel reading is for us, for you and for me. We all need or have needed someone’s forgiveness.
But our Gospel reading turns the question round the other way. It asks: What do you do when you have been wronged? What do we do when people hurt us or upset us? It talks about a need for us to forgive others.
There are many questions we could wrestle with this morning about ‘forgiveness’. But rather than embarking on a philosophical debate, let’s allow the Gospel story to speak. ……..
Just suppose, for a moment or two, that you have been hurt, maligned or mistreated by someone else.
Suppose (use fingers to count) someone lets you down, cheats on you, loses their temper with you, says some cruel and unkind things, steals from you, makes you look stupid, and breaks something of yours when you let them borrow it. … How do you respond? ……….
When Peter speaks to Jesus, he believes that he is setting a very high standard: “How often should I forgive someone? 7 times, Lord?” It seems as though Peter is saying: Seven times seems about the limit, fairly generous really. You might just as well give up on someone after that. Or perhaps, Peter is asking something like, “Am I being too generous, Lord, what do you think, perhaps after just 3/4 times?”
And Jesus response, I think, leaves Peter reeling – not seven times but seventy-seven times – or in some translations seventy times seven – 490 times. … “As often as is necessary,” is Jesus’ response. “Keep forgiving until you lose count completely!”
And Jesus then tells a story to help us understand that it is because we have been loved so much, forgiven so much ourselves by God, that we should forgive others.
Jesus’ story is about an employee or servant who has a wife and children and who has overspent on his company credit cards, someone who has maxed out. He has spent his boss’s money on himself and his family. He has stacked up a huge amount of debt with his boss.
The Boss calls for his servant and demands repayment of what is owed. The servant falls on his knees and begs to be given more time to pay. The master, the boss, feels sorry for his servant and lets him off the whole debt! Just like that!
The debt is cancelled. How does the servant feel? … I guess that, if you have struggled under the burden of significant debt, an unpayable mortgage, a large gambling debt, a payday loan which is escalating out of control. Then you will know something of the immense relief, the unbridled joy of the servant. …
Now that is just what the bible says God has done for you and for me. He has cancelled the debt we owe, he has forgiven what we have done wrong, and continues to do so, perhaps even things that only we and God know about! …. The meanness, the selfishness, the pride, the hypocrisy, the fibs, the tax evasion, the days ‘off-sick’ which weren’t, the snails and slugs we have thrown over the garden fence onto our neighbour’s property, our failure to recycle, the driving above the speed-limit on the motorway… you know, all those kinds of things, as well as what might be much bigger things ….. When we say sorry to God for these things he forgives us. The only question is whether we mean what we say when we say we are sorry, and, I guess, whether, ultimately, we are willing to make restitution to those we have harmed.
God has forgiven me and you more than we can imagine. It is just as though we owed God more than a million pounds (IOU a million) and he has cancelled the debt. The debt is gone, we have been set free of debt. (Tear up the I.O.U.). ……
So, back to the Gospel story, … here is this happy, free servant. He’s wandering back from the house of his master, his boss, to tell his family the good news. He’s over the moon, he’s delighted, it is wonderful. And he meets a fellow servant of his boss, his master. This fellow servant owes him a few quid.
And the same thing happens; this other servant falls on his knees and begs to be given more time to pay. But what does the first servant do? He grabs him by the neck, shakes him and has him thrown into prison until he can pay the debt.
What Jesus wants us to ask ourselves is this: Is it reasonable for the first servant to behave this way? Is it fair and right? What do we think?
Of course it isn’t. …
Yet forgiveness remains something we all find difficult – often impossible. … Jesus is suggesting in this story that we will only begin to be able to forgive, if we can comprehend how much we ourselves are loved, how much we been forgiven.
Jesus says that it is when we know that we are loved without conditions, that we can begin to show that kind of love to others.
The love God has for us is that kind of love.
Our regular Sunday services allow time for confession and for us to hear God=s word of forgiveness for us. We also join together in the Lord’s prayer: ‘forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us’. Weekly reminders of just how crucial forgiveness is.
It is only in the security and strength of God=s forgiving love for us, that we can be free to love and that we can begin to forgive others generously in return.
Yes, for their sake and for God=s sake … but actually also for our own sake. … For, finding a way to forgive, is essential for the sake of our own health and well-being. For when we hold onto grudges, it is as if we throw ourselves into debtors’ prison until the perceived debt has been paid. A failure, on my part, to forgive can destroy me. …. So, the last few words of our Gospel reading, as awful as they are, reflect no more than the natural consequence of the first servant’s failure to forgive. …
Rather than finishing on this negative note, let’s think forward to the central act of our service this morning. Let’s focus on the love shown to us in Christ. … On the forgiveness which is ours in Christ, no matter what we have done, no matter how guilty or ashamed we feel. And, as we prepare for our Communion, let’s allow ourselves once again, as we receive the elements of bread and wine, to sense the love of God suffusing our minds and hearts. This act of love which we re-member in our bodies, is an act of deeply healing, forgiving love from a God who thinks the world of each one of us. We are loved, forgiven, set free. Words are just not enough, but bread and wine, body and blood, warm our hearts and embrace us in God’s arms of mercy.
I picked up a copy of this book in September 2023. It is large format Hardback book of 272 pages. The listed price is £30.00 but my copy cost me just over £10 plus postage and it is in an excellent pre-owned condition. I had anticipated a well-illustrated book which would be a relatively easy read. I was pleasantly surprised to find that while it was an excellent read, it was also a well-researched, scholarly work with: all maps and illustrations properly catalogued and sources noted; a significant bibliography of scholarly works; and a comprehensive index.
Hayes’ book brings together in one volume the history of waggonways, tramways and tramroads as well as early modern steam railways. It provides some superb copies of contemporary maps. Illustrations and text are exceptionally well laid out. I thoroughly enjoyed reading through some concise introductions to significant plateways and railways of the period.
Wooden Rails and Horse/Manpower
The book begins with a review of significant lines which were first constructed with wooden rails.
– Hayes tells us that, “The earliest definitively documented application of a cross-country railed way in Britain is that of entrepreneur Huntingdon Beaumont: his waggonway ran from Strelley to Wollaton, now in the West part of Nottingham. … Documents fix the date of this first waggonway at between October 1603 and October 1604.” [1: p14]
– Other early waggonways include: some close to Broseley, Shropshire, leading to wharves on the River Severn dated at around 1605; and several feeding to the River Tyne in the 1630s. Practice differed between these two areas. In Shropshire, wagons were usual relatively small on narrow-gauge tracks which fed straight into the mines they served. In the Northeast, wagons were larger and the gauge wider.
– In Wales, a Shropshire-type of waggonway was in use in Neath, Glamorgan before 1700. In Scotland, the first available records, from 1722, cover the Tranant to Cockenzie railway close to Edinburgh which was another Shropshire-style waggonway.
We have evidence that throughout the 1700s, wooden waggonways were in use. Examples include: the Alloa Waggonway (built in 1766); Ralph Allen’s wooden railway in Bath, Somerset (built in 1731); Whitehaven, Cumbria’s waggonways which converged on staiths in the harbour (1735); the Middleton Railway in Leeds (1758); Tyneside/Northumberland/Durham (1608 onwards, significant maps have been retrieved dated 1637, 1761 and 1788). Hayes draws attention to a number of Northeast waggonways: the Plessey Waggonway; the Killingworth Waggonway; waggonways associated with Dunstan Staiths (the last of which closed in 1990!); the Tanfield Waggonway (built between 1725 and 1738); the Beamish South Moor Waggonway (built around 1780); the Pelton Moor (built between 1746 and 1787) and Deanry Moor (built 1779) Waggonways. Hayes also mentions the replica wooden waggonway at Beamish Open-Air Museum. [1: p15-31]
This 1830 map of South Wales, part of the large ‘Map of the Inland Navigations, Canals and Rail Roads with the Situations of the various Mineral Productions throughout Great Britain’, of which many extracts are shown in Hayes’ book, shows a large number of railways despite being published the same year as the opening of the Liverpool Manchester Railway. The majority of the lines shown are plateways. After an early start with edge rails, most of the lines built after about 1800 were of the plateway type. Many of these railways are referred to in the book. [1: p66-67]
The book goes on to focus on the transition between wooden and iron rails, noting the practice of overlaying wooden rails with cast-iron plates, a system which was in use as early as 1767 in Coalbrookdale, Shropshire. [1: p36]
Cast and Wrought Iron
Hayes then looks at the introduction of Cast Iron and the later Wrought (or ‘maleable’) Iron. Again two different practices developed:
– L-shaped plateways with wheels without flanges were in use underground as early as 1787, these were then used above-ground in the Shropshire area, in the Forest of Dean, on a number of lines in South Wales, and by Benjamin Outram on the Butterley Gangroad, Little Eaton Gangway and the Peak Forest Tramway. Other examples include: the Lancatser Canal Tramroad; the Ticknall Tramway; the Caldon Low Tramway; the Surry Iron Railway, the Gloucester and Cheltenham Railway; the Middlebere Plateway, Dorset; the Silkstone Waggonway Near Barnsley; The Forest of Dean and Severn & Wye Railways; the Somerset Coal Canal Railway; the Kilmarnoch & Troon Railway; and the South Wales Railway and Canal Network (including the Hay Railroad between Brecon, Hay and Kington. A departure from the us of L-shaped Cast Iron plates was the use of granite for the Haytor Granite Railway which supplied granite from Dartmoor to wharves on the River Teign. [1: p38-71]
– Edge rails with flanged wheels saw greater early use in the Northeast and on a number of lines in South Wales, although many in South Wales were converted from edge-rails or round bars to plateways because of the influence of Benjamin Outram. Those lines remained as plateways until the 1830s. Wrought or ‘maleable’ iron was initially expensive as larger section rails were used. This changed when first ‘T- section’ and then ‘I-section’ rails were produced by a rolling process. Many early edge railways used short- sections of rail in a fish-belly shape. Hayes details some of the most significant very early iron edge railways: the Forest Line of the Leicester Navigation; the Lake Rock Rail Road; the Belvoir Castle Railway; the Mansfield & Pinxton Railway; the Plymouth & Dartmoor Railway; the Stratford & Moreton Railwaythe Monkland & Kirkintilloch Railway and its later siblings, the Garnkirk & Glasgow Railway, and the Ballochney Railway; the Slate Railways of North Wales, (including the Llandegai, Penrhyn, Nantile and Dinorwic Railways); and the Northeast Coalfield. [1: p72-93]
A short section [1: p94-99] covering inclined planes and stationary engines precedes Hayes coverage of the first ‘Travelling Engines’ and ‘Working Locomotives’ in the ear before Stephenson growing ascendancy. [1: p100-127]
Steam Power
Richard Trevithick was to be the person who solved the question of how to use steam-power on rails as a Travelling Engine. It required the use of high-pressure steam. …
The railway revolution came from a marriage of suitable iron track with a reliable source of mechanical power. Up to the end of the eighteenth century, steam power was in the form of low pressure, large machines, and the few that were mobile were slow and lumbering. The engineer and inventor Richard Trevithick would change everything. His answer was what he called ‘strong steam’ – high-pressure steam coupled with good enough quality of materials and construction to safely contain it. The first of Trevithick’s high-pressure engines was a stationary machine installed at Cook’s Kitchen Mine near Cambare, Cornwall, in 1800. It was reliable, for it was still running seventy years later. … In August 1802, Trevithick had been in Coalbrookdale, where, it seems, the Coalbrookdale Company, an ironworks, began making stationary propulsion engines based on his design. That month Trevithick wrote to a supporter in Cornwall, Davies Giddy, that “the Dale Co have begun a carrage at their own cost for the real-roads and is forceing it with all expedition.” This is significant in that it may be the first surviving reference anywhere to the idea of running a steam locomotive on rails. However, the possibility of a Coalbrookdale locomotive – which would have been the first in the world is a bit of an enigma, since there is no direct evidence of one being built beyond Trevithick’s letter. … When Trevithick’s Penydarren locomotive first ran in South Wales, it did so on a plateway and would have had wheels without flanges. [1: p100-101]
A good introduction to George Stephenson’s early activities [p128-133] is followed by a focus on the Hetton Colliery Railway which, after a competition between engineers, George Stephenson designed with three self-acting inclines and level sections worked by horses or by his locomotives. By the date of opening, Hetton Colliery Railway became the first to be designed specifically for locomotive use and featured three of Stephenson’s ‘patent travelling engines’. “Just over half the route was worked by locomotives. … The other five sections were all inclines. Three were worked on a self-acting basis and two … used engines. Despite being advised by Stephenson … to use maleable- or wrought-iron rails, the Hetton Colliery Railway used …cast-iron edge rails, each 3ft 9 ins long and laid on stone and wooden blocks. They gave the company a lot of trouble. … Despite considerable on-going modifications, … the railway proved conclusively the value of the locomotive engine and provided valuable experience for Stephenson. … [It] lasted for well over a century: the last section closed only in 1972, the result of the decline of the coal industry rather than issues with the railway.” [1: p134-139]
Most early railways were related to mineral interests and carried freight. The first passengers were carried, if at all, as an after thought. On the Swansea & Oystermouth Railway (later known as the Swansea & Mumbles Railway), which was built by 1806 to transport coal, iron ore, and limestone, Benjamin French offered the company £20/year in lieu of tolls “for permission to run a waggon or waggons on the Tram Road… for conveyance of passengers.” The proposal was accepted by the company, and French began his service with what was essentially a stagecoach with the wheels adapted to run on rails on 25 March 1807 – this is the world’s first documented regular rail passenger service. It seems to have been popular, for French’s permission was renewed the following year for £25. Ultimately mineral traffic on the line did not live up to expectation and passenger traffic became relatively more important. After a 9 year hiatus starting in 1855 both horse-power and steam competed for until 1898 when the companies involved merged. The line was by then essentially a tourist attraction, and a pier was built at the western end of the line to provide a destination. In 1929 the line was electrified and had 13 tramcars Popularity grew, and during the depression years of the 1930s 5 million passengers a year were being carried. But the popularity did not last, traffic declined, and the line closed in 1960.
These early railways were local affairs but there were visionaries who perceived that longer distances would soon become possible. Hayes points us to: Benjamin Outram, who proposed a double-track railway from London to Bath; Richard Lovell Edgeworth, who in 1802 published a paper entitled ‘On the Practicability and Advantage of a General System of Rail-roads‘; Thomas Telford, who surveyed a 125 mile route from Glasgow to Berwick in 1809-10, recommending the use of a railway rather than one of his favoured canals; John Stevens (in the US) who argued that railways would be better than canals over longer distances; William James, who in 1802 proposed railways from Bolton to Manchester and Liverpool, and who, in 1808, proposed a General Railroad Company to build a network of railways across Britain; Edward Pease, in 1821, imagined a London to Edinburgh railway; and Thomas Gray, who in 1820 was the first to proposed a detailed railway network covering all of the British Isles which could be used for poor-relief by creating massive levels of employment during its construction. [1: p140-143]
Detailed studies of the Stockton & Darlington Railway [1: p144-167]and the Canterbury & Whitstable Railway [1: p168-171] precede discussion of what Hayes calls ‘the First Modern Railway’, The Liverpool & Manchester Railway. Hayes provides a detailed and well-illustrated ‘chapter’ about that railway, including contemporary maps and images. [1: p172-193]
Another double-page spread from Hayes’ book. [1: p192-193]
Further short studies look at: Agenoria’s Railway and at the batch of locomotives, of which Agenoria was one, the other three being exported to the united States, one of which (the Stourbridge Lion) became the first steam locomotive to run in North America in August 1829; the Cromford & High Peak Railway; the Leicester & Swannington Railway; and the Stanhope & Tyne Railway. Honourable mentions include: the Bristol and Gloucestershire Railway; the Avon & Gloucestershire Railway; the Whitby & Pickering Railway; and the Bodmin & Wadebridge Railway.
Hayes then reflects on the gradual development of a national network of railways and a growing number of skilled railway engineers, [1: p206-225] before picking out one railway, the London & Greenwich Railway, which has a claim to have been the first commuter railway. [1: p226-229]. Hayes closes his book with a short look at the transfer of railway technology from the UK to the rest of the world. [1: p230-259].
Summary
In summary, Hayes book is, as the rear of the dust-jacket claims, “A highly illustrated and readable account of the earliest railways, from the first wooden-railed waggonways to the development of the railway network of the 1840s and beyond. During this period the modern railway engine was invented and refined; it rapidly outpaced the horse and developed into a swift and strong machine that changed the course of world history forever.” [1]
There are 700 maps and other illustrations and the story is brought to life by a lively narrative supported by well chosen photograph and railway ephemera.
The book is something of which its author can be justifiably proud. I thoroughly recommend it’s inclusion on the library of anyone interested in the development of the railways from their early beginnings. It is worth its cover price of £30.00, but if you can find it in good condition for around £10.00 second-hand, then jump at the opportunity to make a purchase!
References
Derek Hayes; The First Railways: Atlas of Early Railways; The Times, HarperCollins, Glasgow, 2017. [2]
Friday 31st August, 1962, saw the closing of the dockside tramways of the Port and Harbour Commissioners in Derry. This was probably “a delayed outcome of the closing in 1957 of much of the hinterland railway system, which … diverted much traffic to Dublin, and since 1950 the rail traffic over the Commissioners lines has fallen from 200,000 tons to just over 10.000 tons per year. Now road transport is used for all traffic.” [1: p314]
The city of Derry was unusual in having four separate railway termini, two on each side of the River Foyle. On the western side was the Foyle Road, terminus of the Great Northern Railway’s 5ft 3jn gauge line to Omagh and Portadown, separated by nearly two miles of quays from the L&LSR’s 3 ft. gauge terminus at the Graving Dock. Across the river on the eastern shore was the Waterside terminus of the Ulster Transport Authority (ex-NCC) main line to Coleraine and Belfast, and further south on the same side was Victoria Road station, the terminus of the 3ft gauge line to Strabane owned by the Ulster Transport Authority and worked for them by the County Donegal Railway.
The narrow gauge lines were closed in 1953 and 1954 respectively, but the broad gauge lines were still in use in 1963.
“To allow railway wagons to reach the town quays and the quayside warehouses, the … Port and Harbour Commissioners built from 1867 onwards a system of dock tramways worked initially by horses. Most of the lines were of three-rail mixed gauge. … In 1872 steam traction was introduced, with broad-gauge tank locomotives fitted with dual couplings so as to haul broad or narrow-gauge wagons; mixed gauge trains were not unusual.” [1: p314]
From about 1950 the Commissioners two latter-day locomotives (both 0-6-0 saddle tanks) were displaced by road tractors, but remained in their shed for another three years. Photographs of these two locomotives can be seen towards the end of this article.
“For a short time in the 1880 the Lough Swilly passenger trains ran over the dock tramways as far as the Middle Quay, but this ceased in 1888, and a link for passenger traffle was provided instead from 1897 onwards by the 4ft 8in gauge horse tramway of the City of Derry Tramway Company, replaced by motor buses in 1920.” [1: p314-315]
“Since part of the original scheme was to allow the railways of the eastern shore an access to the quays and warehouses on the western, or town, side, the layout included a railway across the lower deck of the Carlisle Bridge, and this was continued when the bridge was reconstructed as the Craigavon Bridge in 1933. The upper deck of the bridge carrie[d] a roadway and footpaths. Locomotives were not allowed on the bridge, and for many years the wagons were moved across by rope and capstan.” [1: p315]
This installation included two of Ireland’s few mixed-gauge turntables (the others were at Strabane, Larne Harbour and Carnlough), and to ensure that the narrow-gauge wagons were balanced correctly on the turntables, the 3 ft. gauge track was brought to the centre of the broad gauge instead of remaining at one side.
Price commented that the whole layout was distinctly unusual. He considered it likely (in 1963) that some portions of the trackwork would remain in place for years to come.
Craigavon Bridge was designed by the City Architect, Matthew A Robinson. Construction began in the late 1920s and was finished in 1933. As we have noted, the lower deck of the bridge originally carried a railway line for freight wagons, but that was replaced by a road in 1968. At each end, a silhouetted mural of a railway station stands to mark the former railway. [2]
The Port and Harbour Commissioners Tramways have been carefully mapped by Chris Amundson after study of all available sources. His work covers track layouts throughout the life of railways and tramways in Derry. This is not the place to share large electronic files but his mapping can be found on the Irish Railway Modeller forum. His CAD map from the late 1940s can be found here. [3] Just a few extracts from that drawing. …….
To the North of the Goods Shed and just off the North edge of the extract above the L&LSR crossed the Strand Road at level on a shallow angle.
This photograph is taken looking North through the level-crossing on Strand Road. It shows the final train on the L&LSR, entering Graving Dock Station from the North, crossing Strand Road. The Crossing Gates emphasise the width of the road and the shallow angle of the crossing. [16]This extract from the Ordnance Survey at the turn of the 20th century shows the Graving Dock, the L&LSR Station and the Strand Road crossing. The Port and Harbour Commission’s dual-gauge tramroad enters the extract from the South and terminates alongside Graving Dock Railway Station where a connection is made with the L&LSR sidings. Ownership of the tracks switched from the Commission to the L&LSR at the Southwest end of the Graving Dock.The view North from the mouth of Duncreggan Road in 2022. The western kerb of Strand Road was under the location of the car parked on the grass verge close to the centre of the picture, perhaps under the location of the offside rear wheel. The level crossing gates were perhaps a short distance to the North of the same car. [Google Streetview, October 2022]
The next two images show the Port and Harbour Commission’s Locomotive 0-6-0ST No. 1 at work on the West side of the River Foyle. Both are embedded Getty Images.
Locomotive 0-6-0ST No. 1 in 1933, (Photo by Science & Society Picture Library/SSPL/Getty Images). [7]Locomotive 0-6-0ST No. 1 again, (Photo by Science & Society Picture Library/SSPL/Getty Images). [8]Locomotive No. 1 again, this locomotive was built by Robert Stephenson & Co. (Works No 2738). It is on display in the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum at Cultra near Belfast. [9]The Port and Harbour Commission’s Locomotive No. 3, ‘R.H. Smyth’. This locomotive is an Avonside Engineering Company locomotive, built in 1928, (Works No. 2021). Described as “generally similar to the B6 class 0-6-0 saddle tanks, but with a wheelbase of 9 feet and a gauge of 5 feet 3 inches”. The engine was designed to work on dual gauge track with both 5’3″ and 3′ gauge wagons, and had a pair of offset narrow gauge buffers. It was stood down from operational duties in 1959. By 1968 the engine had been out of use for several years and the Reverend L.H. Campbell decided to buy her to save her from the scrapyard. By February 1968 the engine was his, remaining for the time being in the Harbour Commissioners’ sheds. In 1972, the Reverend decided to pass the engine on to the Railway Preservation Society of Ireland so that it could be restored to working order. The handover officially took place on 1st May that year. It has an interesting history in preservation. [10]
No. 3’s story is taken up by the Railway Preservation Society of Ireland: “The little engine lay outside for many years until it became practical to overhaul her. She first steamed in preservation in summer 1977. For many years she served as yard shunting engine at Whitehead, and was a guinea pig for the inner firebox repair on No.85. Her public duties included train rides up and down the site at Whitehead, hauling early Easter Bunny and Santa trains before they became mainline trains. … In the summer of 2000 the loco was hired to contractors Henry Boot who were relaying the Bleach Green – Antrim line for NIR. A locomotive was needed to pull ballast hoppers, and as IÉ and NIR were not in a position to loan a locomotive, the RPSI was approached. The locomotive pulled over fifty thousand tons of stone from 18th June until 25th November 2000. On the latter date she returned to Whitehead and resumed her shunting duties. … By 2004 “R.H. Smyth” was in need of an overhaul, but didn’t seem likely to return to steam until the Guinness engine came out of traffic as steam shunting engine. Then the contractors relaying the Bleach Green – Whitehead line stepped in. They required an engine to haul ballast trains, just as Henry Boot had. The locomotive was given a thorough overhaul in double quick time, and was moved to Greenisland in early August 2005. After a busy five months ballasting, the engine returned home to Whitehead in December 2005. … From 2006 until 25th November 2012, when it returned to Whitehead, the engine was on loan to the Downpatrick and County Down Railway, although for the last couple of years of that stay, the locomotive was out of service awaiting a decision on boiler repairs. … In late 2019 the locomotive received a cosmetic overhaul and went on display in the Museum at the head of a mini goods train. The narrow gauge coupler has been reinstated.” [10]
References
J.H. Price; The Londonderry Harbour Tramways; in Modern Tramway and Light Railway Review, Volume 26, No. 309; Light Railway Transport League and Ian Allan Hampton Court, Surrey; September 1963, p314-315.
On the road between Purton and Etloe on the Northwest side of the Severn Estuary there is a railway viaduct. Seemingly it sits remote from any former railway. Although you might just be forgiven for thinking that it is a remnant of the Forest of Dean Central Railway, or even associated with the Severn & Wye Railway which ran close to, but to the South of, the hamlet of Purton.
The Severn Bridge Railway Station sat just to the South of Purton on the West Bank of the River Severn. [9]Purton sits just to the North of the Severn Bridge Station on the Severn and Wye Railway. This map extract comes from the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1901. [10]
It is, in fact, the main remnant of a planned railway/tramroad – the Purton Steam Carriage Road! It can be seen on the map extract below which shows the viaduct just to the North of the hamlet.
Purton Viaduct appears at the top-left corner of this map extract. The hamlet of Purton is bottom-left. Purton Pill is just below the centre of the extract. Historically, there was a ferry across the River Severn at this location. This map extract comes from the 1879 25″ Ordnance Survey. In 1879, a footpath can be seen following the approximate line of the proposed railway. [11]
The viaduct was built, circa. 1832, of red sandstone rubble with dressed voussoirs. It has 3 arches of diminishing heights, its main pier is wedge shaped, so that the viaduct is slightly angled. The tallest arch spans the road. The centre arch is damaged on the NE side. Its Southeast wall continues as retaining wall for some distance. Part of the parapet survives at the north west end.
The viaduct is of considerable historical and industrial archaeological interest: the Purton Steam Carriage Road was planned in 1830, just a few years after the Stockton and Darlington Railway first ran in 1825.
Sadly, it was never to carry the goods it was intended for, but it seems to have had considerable effect on local politics at the time, and on later railway enterprises in the area.
“The finance was to come from a prominent local Iron-master, Charles Mathias of Lamphey Court, Pembrokeshire. The viaduct is the most tangible surviving evidence for an industrial scheme which would have involved the first crossing of the Severn on a moveable bridge.” [1]
The Purton Steam Carriage Road Company predated the Forest of Dean Central Railway and intended to build a line, 8 miles or so long, from a purpose-built dock at Purton Pill to the then-new Foxes Bridge Colliery in the Forest of Dean.
A scheme drafted earlier in the century was revived in 1830 and supported by a number of Forest industrialists. As we have already noted, “The promoter of the Parliamentary Bill, presented to Parliament in 1832, was one Charles Mathias, who was so confident of the Bill’s success that he purchased the required land and began construction of the line. Unfortunately, the Bill met strong opposition from the Commissioners of Woods, failed to make its second reading and was withdrawn. Mathias’ premature and misplaced enthusiasm had led to the construction of various bits of railway infrastructure.” [3]
The structures completed included:
All or part of Nibley Hill Tunnel near Blakeney (the portals are each marked as “old quarry” on the 1892-1914 OS 25″ map);
Purton Viaduct is Grade II Listed by Historic England. It is recognised as being of “considerable historical and industrial archaeological interest”, but is suffering from the vegetation which has almost hidden it from view in places! [3]
The viaduct is noted in Neil Parkhouse’s, “Forest of Dean Lines and the Severn Bridge” which is the second volume in Lightmoor Press’, “British Railway History in Colour” series. [6]
North of the Viaduct, the line of the Purton Steam Carriage Road can be followed on older maps, as the map extract below shows.
Purton Viaduct appears in the bottom-right of this map extract and the route of the planned Purton Steam Carriage Road can be seen as the double-dotted track heading Northwest from the viaduct. This extract is from the 1879 25″ Ordnance Survey. [11]The line of the proposed Carriage Road runs from bottom-right to top-left on this extract from the 25″ 1878/1879 Ordnance Survey. [12]The line of the proposed Carriage Road runs from the bottom-right towards the top-left on this extract from the 25″ 1878/1879 Ordnance Survey. Approximately at the centre of the extract the Ordnance Survey chose to name the made-made defile at Lanesbrookgreen as an Old Quarry. It is in fact the location of what was to be the Southern mouth of Nibley Hill Tunnel. [12]This slightly out of focus extract from the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1878/1879 shows both the North and South ends of Nibley Hill Tunnel marked as Old Quarries. The road running North-South adjacent to the line of the northerly length of Nibley Hill Tunnel and then crossing its line to the North of the proposed southern portal is now the A48. [12]This composite image overlays modern satellite imagery over the 25″ Ordnance Survey from the turn of the 20th century. The defiles marking the proposed tunnel entrances can be made out at the top and bottom of this image. The A48 is easily made out. [14]
Nibley Hill Tunnel would have been 600 yards in length and would have taken the Purton Steam Carriage Road into the Forest of Dean close to the village of Blakeney.
The Purton Steam Carriage Road was one of two early proposed Tramroads in the Forest of Dean which were close to the line of what became the Forest of Dean Central Railway.
To the North was the proposed Moseley Green and Tilting Mill Tramroad which was intended to link the valley of Blackpool Brook with the outside world by connecting mines in the Moseley Green area with the Bullo Pull Tramroad. It was not pursued. Instead, in 1832, the Purton Steam Carriage Road was devised to access the Blackpool Brook valley. [13]
Its route North of Nibley Hill Tunnel is difficult to identify on the Ordnance Survey mapping of the late-19th and early-20th centuries.
In the early 1950s, Price tells us, “A considerable stir was caused in railway circles by the news that the Russian and Czech railways had introduced a service of through sleeping-cars between Prague and Moscow, overcoming the break of gauge at the Russian frontier. It appeared that the cars could be lifted on jacks, complete with their passengers, while the standard-gauge bogies were run out and replaced by others of the wider Russian gauge. This method was later extended to other routes, and the accompanying photograph, taken in 1957, shows the cars of the Moscow-Berlin Express raised up on electric jacks in the gauge-conversion yard at Brest-Litovsk, on the frontier of Russia and Poland. … Unknown to the Ministry of Communications of the U.S.S.R., something very similar has been going on quite unobtrusively here in these islands, not just in the last decade, but ever since 1933. The place is Laxey, Isle of Man, and the cause is the six-inch difference in gauge between the Manx Electric Railway’s Douglas-Ramsey line and the Snaefell Mountain Railway. The coastal tramway was constructed to the usual Manx gauge of 3 ft. 0 in., but on the Snaefell line this would not have left sufficient room for the centre rail and the gripper wheels and brake-gear, with the result that the mountain line uses a gauge of 3 ft. 6 in. instead.” [1: p19]
Both the MER and the Snaefell lines “have always been under a common management, and in past years, repainting of Snaefell cars was carried out at the mountain line’s car shed by staff who travelled up each day from Derby Castle. Since Snaefell car shed at Laxey is narrow and rather dark, the work was mostly done out of doors, the car being run in and out of the shed each time it rained. After the 1933 fire at the other Laxey car shed had created a float of spare plate-frame bogies, the management decided to use a pair of these to bring Snaefell cars due for overhaul down to the principal Manx Electric workshops at Derby Castle, Douglas. Controller overhauls and motor repairs were already carried out at Douglas, and since 1933 work at Laxey has therefore been confined to routine maintenance, running repairs and truck overhauls.” [1: p19]
The result of this decision was that every now and again (once or twice a year) a Snaefell car had to be lifted off its 3 ft. 6 in. gauge trucks and mounted on 3 ft. gauge bogies to be towed down to Douglas, returning by the same means when its overhaul was completed. This operation was rarely seen by visitors to the Isle of Man as it took place out-of-season.
“The Snaefell 1963 operating season ended on Friday 13th September, and the moving operation started soon after eight o’clock next morning, when Snaefell car No. 4 was brought down from the car shed and run on to the dual-gauge siding. With it came a set of traversing-jacks, various tools, and the necessary wooden packing, kept in the Snaefell car-shed for this twice-yearly operation and any other less foreseeable. eventualities. Four … men then set to work … following a sequence which, like many other Manx Electric operations, is handed down from one generation to the next without ever having found its way into print.” [1: p22]
J.H. Price continues:
“First, the brake-gear and bogie-chains are disconnected, and the bow-collectors roped to the trolley-wire so that the pins can safely be removed, after which the collectors are untied again and lowered to the ground. Once this is done, no part of the car’s circuit can become ‘live’, and next the motor and field connections are broken at their terminals in the junction-boxes, which are housed under the seats and above the motor positions. The body is now merely resting on its two bogies, with no connection between them.
The next stage is to lift the car and exchange the 3 ft. 6 in. gauge bogies for others of 3 ft. 0 in. gauge. In the case of the Russian sleeping-cars mentioned earlier, the two gauges are concentric and the car. bodies need only a straight lift and lowering, but Laxey siding has three rails (not four), and the car body therefore has to be traversed laterally by three inches from the centre-line of the 3 ft. 6 in. gauge to the centre-line of the 3 ft. 0 in. To do this, the staff use a pair of special traversing-jacks with a screw-thread in the base that enables the load to be moved sideways; similar jacks are used by the Royal Engineers to re-rail locomotives, and were also used by them to place Newcastle tram No. 102 on rails at Beaulieu in March, 1959.
Considerations of safety make it preferable to keep one end of the car resting on a chocked bogie, so the Manx Electric use only one pair of jacks, tackling first one end of the car and then the other. First the Snaefell end of the car is lifted, and the 3 ft. 6 in. gauge bogie is pushed out; in this case, it was then towed up to the car shed by Snaefell car No. 1. Meanwhile, two men fetch a 3 ft-gauge plate-frame trailer bogie from Laxey Car Shed and push it by hand along the northbound running line to Laxey station, where it is shunted on to the three-rail siding and run in under the Snae- fell car. The body is then lowered to the horizontal, traversed to suit the centre of the 3 ft. gauge bogie, and landed on the bogie baseplate. A king-pin is then inserted, the loose retaining-chains are secured, and the jacks taken out and re- erected at the other end of the car.
Now comes the turn of the Laxey end (the two ends of the mountain cars are referred to as Laxey end and Snaefell end, not as No. 1 and No. 2, or uphill and down). The car body is raised again on the jacks, and the other Snaefell bogie pushed to the end of the siding. A second plate-frame trailer bogie is then brought up to a nearby position on the northbound Douglas-Ramsey road, derailed with pinch-bars, and manhandled across the tarmac on to the three-rail siding. Once re-railed, the bogie is then run in under the car end, which is lowered, traversed and secured in the same way as before. The Snaefell car is now ready for its trip to Douglas, and as soon as it has been towed away, another Snaefell car collects the remaining 3 ft. 6 in. gauge bogie and takes it up to the Snaefell car-shed, together with the ladder, tools, packing and jacks. [1: p22]
At the suggestion of ‘Modern Tramway’ a member of staff of the MER agreed to make a photographic record of the whole process. The images were then reproduced in ‘Modern Tramway’. The sequence of images appears below, starting with the Snaefell car No.4 being run into the three-rail siding.
Photograph 1: Snaefell No. 4 “is run on to the three-rail siding at Laxey Station; linesmen tie each bow collector to the trolley wire to take the strain off the mountings, then remove the pins from the spring bases, untie the bow and lower it to the ground.” [1: p20]
Photograph 2: “The car body is disconnected from the trucks (electrically and mechanically) and raised on jacks, and the first 3 ft. 6 in. gauge motor bogie pushed out and towed by another car to the Snaefell depot.” [1: p20]
Photograph 3: “A 3 ft. gauge plateframe trailer bogie is brought up by hand from Laxey Car Shed, ready to be placed beneath the mountain end of No. 4.” [1: p20]
Photograph 4: “The trailer bogie is run in under the car, and the body lowered and traversed sideways on to the bogie centre-plate, then secured by a king-pin and side chains.” [1: p20]
Photograph 5: The traversing jacks are re-erected at the other end of the car, the body lifted off the second motor bogie which is then pushed on to the end of the three-rail siding.
Photograph 6: A second plate-frame trailer bogie brought up on to the running line, derailed with crow-bars, and pushed across the tarmac to the three-rail siding.
Photograph 7: The bogie is run in under the Laxey end of No. 4, and the body lowered, tra- versed and secured. The conversion from 3 ft. 6 in. gauge to 3 ft. gauge is now complete.
Photograph 8: MER. saloon No. 22 enters the transfer siding by the rarely-used 3 ft. gauge crossover and is coupled by bar and chain to Snaefell No.4, ready for the trip to Douglas.
With this work taking place on a Friday, Snaefell car No. 4 was taken to Laxey car shed and then moved on Monday 16th September to Douglas.
Snaefell Car No. 4 was built in 1895 as the fourth of a batch of 6 cars and arrived at Laxey in the spring of 1895. MER’s website tells us that, “Power for the Car was by Bow Collectors with Mather and Platt electrical equipment, trucks and controllers, and Braking using the Fell Rail system. As new, the cars were delivered without glazed windows and clerestories. Both were fitted in Spring 1896 (following complaints of wind, as the original canvas roller blinds did not offer much protection).” [2]
“Car No.4 was one of two Snaefell Cars (Car No.2 the other) to carry the Nationalised Green livery, applied from 1958. No.4 became the last car/trailer in the MER/SMR fleets to carry the scheme, it being moved to Derby Castle Car Sheds for repaint and overhaul during September 1963.” [2]
Car No. 4’s last trip on the MER for overhaul was during Winter 1993, moving back by Spring 1995. After this all maintenance on Car No. 4 was undertaken at Laxey. Laxey was significantly remodelled in 2014. The dual-gauge siding is no longer used and in the remodelling a token 3-raol length was included for effect.
References
J.H. Price; The Secret of Laxey Siding; in the Modern Tramway and Light Railway Review, Volume 27, No. 313; Light Railway Transport League and Ian Allan, Hampton Court Surrey, January 1964, p19-23.
The Modern Tramway and Light Railway Review of November 1963 carried an article by C.S. Dunbar about the Kingsway Tram Subway. It seemed an opportune moment to focus on the Subway as the southernmost portion of the tunnel was about to open to motor traffic as the Strand Underpass.
An image in my blog in an article about the last few years of London’s tram network prompted some response. [2] So, having read his article, I thought that reproducing most of C.S. Dunbar’s article here might be of interest to others. …
The former tramway subway ran beneath Aldwych and Kingsway. “When the London County Council, as the tramway authority for the Metropolis, decided that it would itself operate the services as the various leases fell in, the question of joining up the separate company systems became very important, particularly with a view to giving communication between the north and south sides of the river. The decision to clear an insanitary area in Holborn, and to construct Aldwych and Kingsway, led to discussion in 1898 on the possibility of using the new streets for a tramway to connect the northern and southern systems. It was then suggested that instead of running the trams on the streets, a sub-surface line should be constructed as an integral part of the improvement. Something similar had already been done in New York and Boston, and a deputation … was, therefore sent to those places.” [1: p385]
On the strength of their report, an application was made in the 1902 session of parliament for powers “to construct a subway for single-deck tramcars at an estimated cost of £282,000 from Theobalds Road to the Embankment at Waterloo Bridge, from which point a surface line would continue to and over Westminster Bridge. By the LC.C (Subway and Tramways) Act, 1902, the subway itself was approved for the whole proposed length, but the tramway was not authorised beyond the north side of the Strand. The proposed Embankment line was rejected and in fact it took the Council four years to secure powers. Many ridiculous arguments were advanced against the line, the most absurd, probably, being that the trams would interfere with members crossing the road to reach St. Stephen’s Club. Six Bills introduced by the Council between 1892 and 1905 to enable it to carry the tramways across Westminster and other bridges and along the Victoria Embankment were thrown out by one or other House of Parliament, and not until 1906 was the battle resolved in the Council’s favour.” [1: p385-386]
As events were to prove, “a great mistake was made in deciding that the subway should only provide for the passage of single-deck cars, but this decision was reached for three main reasons:
(1) to avoid a large sewer under Holborn would, it was thought, necessitate too steep a descent to be safe for double-deck cars – as it was there was a gradient of 1 in 10 from Theobalds Road;
(2) the position of the District Railway in relation to Waterloo Bridge and the gradient from the Strand presented difficulties in the way of making a satisfactory southern exit;
(3) there was a feeling that it might be found that London traffic could be handled more expeditiously with coupled single-deck cars than with double-deckers.” [1: p386]
“Construction was undertaken at the same time as the new streets were laid out and as well as making provision for the trams, a pipe subway for gas and water mains 10 ft. high and 74 ft. wide was built on each side. The approach from Theobalds Road was by an open cutting 170 ft. long in the middle of the road. The tracks then passed into two cast-iron tubes, 14 ft. 5 in. in diameter and 255 ft. long, which took the tracks under the Holborn branch of the Fleet sewer. The rails were 31 ft. below the road surface when passing under Holborn, rising again at 1 in 10 to Holborn Station. Raised side-walks were provided in the single tunnels. From here to Aldwych the tunnel was 20 ft. wide with a roof of steel troughing just below the street. The running rails were laid on longitudinal wooden sleepers embedded in concrete, and since the conduit would not have to bear the weight of road traffic a special lighter design was used in which the normal slot rails were replaced by plates which could be lifted for maintenance. As usual with L.C.C. tramway figures it is difficult to ascertain the actual cost of the work, but it seems likely that the construction of the subway itself accounted for £133.500 for the 2,920 ft. from Theobalds Road to Aldwych, with a further £112.500 for permanent way and electrical equipment.
At the time the subway was opened it was not connected with any other electrified route, so it was decided to terminate the public service at Aldwych Station (situated at the junction of Aldwych and Kingsway) and to use the tracks which extended southwards from there towards the Strand as a depôt. Inspection pits were therefore constructed under this length and some repair equipment installed. An intermediate station was built at Great Queen Street (subsequently renamed Holborn). Pending the opening of Greenwich power station, current was obtained from the County of London Electric Supply Company at a cost of 1d per unit.
Single Deck Cars
Sixteen Class F tramcars (numbered 552 to 567) were ordered from the United Electric Car Company, Limited, Preston at £750 each. The Board of Trade, then the Government Department concerned with tramways, was very focussed on the risk of fire in the tunnels and the new cars had to be as non-flammable as possible. “The underframes were therefore made of steel angle and channel sections, and the body panels were of sheet steel. The slatted longitudinal seats were of non-flammable Pantasote on angle steel supports; the seating capacity of the cars was 36. Even the adjustable spring roller-blinds, with which the windows were fitted, were supposed to be non-flammable. The inside finish was entirely in aluminium. The cars were 33 ft. 6 in. long over the fenders and 24 ft. 10 in. over the body pillars. The trucks were centre bearing maximum traction bogies by Mountain and Gibson with a 4 ft. 6 in. wheelbase and 311 in diameter driving wheels. The distance between the centre of the driving axles was 14 ft. 6 in. The controllers were by Dick Kerr and included provision for using the electro-magnetic brake for service stops.” [1: p387]
Service 31 had more vicissitudes than the other two. Consequent upon the conversion of part of the Wandsworth service to trolleybuses on 12th September, 1937, it was cut back to Prince’s Head, Battersea. The conversion of the Shoreditch area caused its diversion on 10th December, 1939, to terminate at the lay-by at Islington Green (outside the Agricultural Hall) which had been put in in 1906 but never used for regular services, except possibly for a few weeks in 1909. Destination indicators, however, showed ‘Angel, Islington.’ There was a further curtailment on 6th February, 1943, when the service began working between Bloomsbury and Prince’s Head in peak hours and between Westminster Station and Prince’s Head at other times. This arrangement was unsatisfactory owing to the turning points being on through routes and the cars and crews being based at Holloway, and it was hoped as from January, 1947, to run between Islington Green and Wandsworth High Street. It was not, however, possible to introduce this improvement until 12th November, 1947.
In addition to the 100 E/3 type cars previously mentioned, 160 other cars were built to the fireproof specifications laid down for the Subway (HR/2 class 1854- 1903 and 101-159, E/3 class 160 to 210), and in later years some of these worked regularly on the subway services, particularly after war losses. After Hackney depôt closed, the cars for the subway were provided by Holloway depôt for all three services and also by Wandsworth (for 31), Norwood (33) and Camberwell (35). At one time in 1941, Holloway depôt was cut off for several days by an unexploded bomb and could only operate a shuttle service of two cars between Holloway and Highgate, during which period wooden E/1 cars from South London depôts were perforce used on the subway routes, turning back at Highbury Station. The famous L.C.C. car No. 1 of 1932 was intended for the subway services, with air-operated doors and folding steps for use at the subway stations, and worked from Holloway depôt on these services from 1932 to 1937. This car was sold in 1951 to Leeds and is now preserved at Clapham.
In 1937, the rebuilding of Waterloo Bridge necessitated the diversion of the subway exit to a position centrally beneath the new bridge, at a cost of £70,000 including a new crossing of the District Railway; after the changeover took place, on 21st November, 1937, the curved section of tunnel leading to the former exit in the bridge abutment was walled off and still exists. For the next three years, the trams entered the subway through the bare steelwork, as the new bridge took shape above their heads. In anticipation of a general conversion of the London tramways to trolleybus working, an experimental trolleybus (No. 1379) placed in service on 12th June, 1939, was so designed as to permit passengers to board and alight from the offside at Aldwych and Holborn Stations. Not until some years later did London Transport admit officially that this experiment had been a failure. The war brought a reprieve to the remaining London tramways, and was followed by a decision that the routes still working would be replaced by motor buses and the subway closed.
Owing to a need to replace worn-out buses, tramway replacement did not commence until 1950, when on 1st October, tram service No. 31 (Wandsworth High Street- Islington Green) was replaced by bus service 170 (Wandsworth High Street – Hackney L.T. Garage), running via Norfolk Street northbound and Arundel Street southbound, and taking about eight minutes from Savoy Street to Bloomsbury as against four minutes by tram. From 7th October, 1951, Camberwell depôt was closed for reconstruction and its share of service 35 taken over by New Cross. Finally, on Saturday, 5th April, 1952, trams ran through the Subway for the last time; tram service 35 (Forest Hill – Highgate) was replaced next day by bus service 172, and tram service 33 (West Norwood – Manor House) was replaced by bus service 171, West Norwood – Tottenham (Bruce Grove). The last car to carry passengers through the subway in service was E/3 No. 185, some time after midnight, and in the early hours of the following morning the remaining cars from Holloway depôt were driven south through the Subway to new homes or the scrapyard.
“A clerestory roof was fitted with a trolley plate on top, although the cars never actually carried a trolley-pole but were built solely for conduit operation. The height from the ground to the trolley plate was 11 ft. The internal height to the top of the clerestory was 7 ft. 94 in. and the width was 6 ft. 6 in. over the solebars, 6 ft. 8 in. over the pillars and 6 ft. 10 in. over the roof. There were five windows on each side. The first of the class, No. 552, was built with bulkhead doors of the twin sliding type and had side doors to the unvestibuled platforms, which interworked with the folding steps. These doors were removed before the car entered service, and the remainder of the class had the normal single door in each bulkhead and a simple sheathed chain across the platform sides.
Each bulkhead was fitted with an oil lamp above the nearside bulkhead panel, which showed either a white or red aspect externally and also threw a light into the interior of the car. These were replaced by electric lamps at an early date. Hanging from each canopy was a box for the colour- light headcode, and above the canopy was a destination indicator. Projecting from the roof at both ends was an iron bar; this struck against other bars hanging from signal lamps at the beginning of the descent from Theobalds Road travelling south and that from Holborn Station travelling north, so putting the aspect to red. Corresponding contacts were made on leaving the section in both directions to put the signals back to green, the object, of course, being to prevent more than one car in each direction being on the 1 in 10 gradient at one time.
To provide a northern connection with the subway, it was decided to electrify the line in Theobalds Road (by arrangement with the North Metropolitan Tramways Company, which then held the lease) and to construct a new line in Rosebery Avenue and St. John’s Street to the Angel, Islington. The estimate for this was £40,500, but owing to great difficulties with sub-surface mains and other obstructions the cost eventually reached £47,000. Part of the reconstructed roadway was carried on a concealed iron viaduct. Work was started on the reconstruction on 17th September, 1905. The Board of Trade inspected the Subway and the new line to the Angel on 29th December, 1905, and motormen then, began to be trained.” [1: p387]
A public service from Angel to Aldwych began on 24th February 1906, the delay was down to the Board of Trade’s worries over the non-flammable character of the tramcars. The ceremonial opening included “the first car, painted blue and gold, taking 12 minutes northbound and 10 south. This was good running, remembering that horse cars were working in Theobalds Road. Smoking was not permitted in the cars and this led one councillor to suggest the provision of open cars especially for smokers. Fares were fixed at 1d. from the Angel to Holborn Hall and from Holborn Hall to Aldwych and d. for the full journey. The novelty attracted a considerable number of passen- gers from the start and the takings for the first three days with a two-minute service averaged [just over 2s. 2d.] per mile as against 1s. per mile for the double-deckers in South London.” [1: p387]
Class G Tramcar No. 584 leaving the Subway for Westminster in 1923. The L.C.C. flaman can be seen to the right of the photograph. [1: p389]
“Meanwhile in July, 1905, the Council’s attention had been drawn to the fact that its compulsory powers for the acquisition of land and easements for the construction of the subway from Aldwych to the Embankment would expire in August. It therefore voted £50,000 for the necessary acquisition in the hope that powers for the Embankment tramway would eventually be secured. Actually £9,400 was paid to the Duchy of Lancaster and £15,250 to C. Richards and Company for the extinction of their interests in the arches under Wellington Street. In the Parliamentary session of 1905 powers were secured for an additional station south of the Strand under Wellington Street.
In November, 1905, the Council ordered a further 34 cars of a similar type to the first batch, but this time with Brush bodies, glazed bulkheads and Westinghouse equipment (Nos. 568-601, class G). It had not been possible to build steel bodies as cheaply as timber ones and the cost of these cars came out at £27,761, or nearly £817 each. On the delivery of these cars, there were sufficient to extend the route to Highbury Station on 16th November 1906, after High Street and Upper Street, Islington, had been reconstructed in the short time of 12 weeks. In fact the cars started running before the borough council had completed the wood paving at the sides of the carriageway.
When the Embankment tramway was eventually opened and powers had been obtained for the subway link, work was pushed ahead on the remaining section. This fell on a gradient of 1 in 20 from Kingsway to the Strand, 1 in 108.3 under the Strand, and was then level; it was far more costly to construct than the original length, mainly owing to difficulties in crossing the District Railway. The final 620 ft, in fact, cost £96,000 exclusive of permanent way and equipment. The cost would have been £20,000 more had the proposed station at Wellington Street been built, but in March, 1907, the Council decided that the proposal should be aban- doned, as the site was only 200 yards from the Embankment and the platform would be 32 ft. below ground. This decision enabled the extension to be opened nine months earlier than would have been the case otherwise. The Council undertook the whole of the work by direct labour and completed it in about twelve months. South of Aldwych Station, the tracks curved sharply to the south-west in twin tunnels and continued beneath Aldwych as a single tunnel with brick-arch roof, separating again at the Strand into twin cast-iron tubes which continued to about a third of the way under Lancaster Place. The exit on to the Embankment was through the western wing wall of Waterloo Bridge and here a triangular junction was constructed. The eastern side of the junction, leading towards Blackfriars, was never used and was removed during the 1930 re-construction referred to later.
Through services were inaugurated on 10th April, 1908, from Highbury Station to Tower Bridge and from Highbury Station to Kennington Gate. Fares ranged from 0.5d. to 3d, (the maximum on both routes). Special workmen’s fares of 1d. single and 2d, return were given from any terminus to Waterloo Bridge. The journey times varied from 47 to 50 minutes on the Tower Bridge route and 41 to 44 on the other. A six minute service was given on each route with early morning extras between Highbury and Aldwych. The cars were stabled at Holloway and New Cross depôts.
The Kennington service did not pay and in looking for another route on which to use the single-deck cars, the management thought of Queen’s Road, Battersea, on which it was impossible to run double- deckers owing to a low railway bridge. The Kennington service was therefore diverted on 25th January, 1909, to work between St. Paul’s Road and Lavender Hill via Battersea Park Road, giving a service to the Lavender Hill area while the Wandsworth Road line was being electrified. As Essex Road was being reconstructed at this time, it is possible that cars actually turned at the Angel or at Agricultural Hall for some weeks. The through fare was 4d. and the journey time 52 minutes. Transfer fares to Kennington were given. In May, 1910, the Angel definitely became the northern terminus, with a short service working between St. Paul’s Road and Southampton Row. In the following year, the southern portion was cut back to Vauxhall, the crossover in Wandsworth Road by the gas works being used. Transfers were issued to Battersea On 17th June, 1912, the service was again extended but this time to Clapham Junction via Battersea Park Road and the Sunday afternoon service began to work from Southgate Road. In the summer of 1911 (probably on 22nd June) the Tower Bridge service was extended to Tooley Street (Bermondsey Street), the through fare remaining at 3d. and the journey time being 52 minutes, but a year or so later Tower Bridge again became the terminus. The junction westward into Tooley Street was replaced in 1923 by one in the opposite direction.
Until 1912, the cars carried colour-light headcodes, the original through services displaying red-green-red for Highbury Station – Tower Bridge and blank-green-blank for Highbury Station – Kennington Gate. When L.C.C. routes began to be numbered in September, 1912, the Tower Bridge service became 33 and that to Clapham Junction 35, the number being hung from the canopy. This arrangement, used on double-deck cars only until upper deck stencils were fitted, was retained on the subway cars until 1930. On 28th October, 1913, 35 was altered to run between Highbury and Belvedere Road only, the southern part of the service being taken over by 86 from Embankment to Clapham Junction. At this time cars on 35 turned at a lay-by in St. Paul’s Road at one end of the route and in Lambeth Palace Road at the other. A year or so later, Westminster Station became the southern terminus. Service 33 was withdrawn altogether, but reappeared after the 1914-18 war as a weekday service between Highbury and County Hall, while 35 then became Highgate – County Hall. After the withdrawal of 33, Tower Bridge Road was covered by 68 from Waterloo Station. In July, 1924, both 33 and 35 were extended to the Elephant and Castle via St. Georges Road, obtaining at last a terminus at which the cars could stand without obstructing other through services. The author believes that the subway services were the only ones which ever regularly used the southbound track in St. Georges Road. When cheap mid-day tickets were instituted, Savoy Street was taken as the ‘City terminus’ on southbound cars and Bloomsbury on northbound. [1: p387-389]
Decision to Enlarge
As years went by, the L.C.C. increasingly became aware that single-deck cars could not be made profitable. The use of double-deck rolling stock would allow many useful connections and the movement of rolling-stock across the Thames would be facilitated. The, then current, route for double-deck trams to cross the Thames was via North Finchley, Putney and Wandsworth.
In 1929, the L.C.C. decided to increase the headroom to 16 ft. 6 in. They sought to raise the roof at the northern end and deepen the tunnel at other places. The decision resulted in observations that the subway might well be “enlarged to take motor traffic as well as trams, but the Metropolitan Police Commissioner pointed out that congestion would arise at each end of the tunnel, that a serious traffic block would quickly develop if a vehicle broke down inside, and that there was a danger of exhaust fumes and even fire. The London Traffic Advisory Committee recommended that the tunnel could serve no useful purpose as a motor-way, and the L.C.C. would have nothing to do with the idea. Nevertheless, on the day the subway was reopened, The Times returned to the theme and hoped that the tunnel would be available for omnibuses and other vehicles ‘when tramways have had their day.'” [1: p390]
Dunbar continues:
“The contract was awarded to John Cochrane and Sons, Limited, who started work on the street level on 11th September, 1929, this necessitating the temporary diversion via Hart Street and Theobalds Road of bus services 7 and 184. North of Holborn the roadway was opened up and the twin tunnels replaced (after sewer diversions) by one wide passage with a steel girder roof, while elsewhere the additional headroom was obtained by under-pinning the side walls with concrete and lowering the track by approximately 5 ft. The estimated cost was £326,000 including £76,000 for the reconstruction of the 50 single-deck cars. On and from 16th January, 1930, only one tram service (numbered 33) ran through the subway from Highgate to the Elephant, while 35 worked Highgate – Bloomsbury. The single-deck cars carried passengers through the subway for the last time on Monday morning, 3rd February, 1930, after which the subway was closed altogether, a connection being maintained by temporary L.G.O.C. bus service 175 (Islington – Charing Cross Embankment via Kingsway and Northumberland Avenue, returning via Norfolk Street, Strand and Aldwych). On 14th May another bus service – 161 – was put on between Islington and Waterloo on weekdays only. The two tramway stations were rebuilt and modernised, that at Holborn being finished in travertine, a cream marble used in ancient Rome. Standard trackwork with yokes and slot-rails set in concrete was used in place of the special type evolved for the original construction.
It had been hoped that the subway would be reopened by the Prince of Wales on 17th December, 1930, and in anticipation of this car No. 1930 was painted blue and gold. Actually, however, it was not possible to start experimental runs before 5th January 1931. The formal reopening was performed on Wednesday, 14th January, 1931, by the Chairman of the Council, Major Tasker, car No. 1931 painted white with blue lining being employed, followed by two other cars. These ran from the Embankment to Theobalds Road and back to Holborn Station, where one of the platform seats served as a rostrum for the speeches. Public service commenced at 5 o’clock next morning, with a one-minute headway and a total of 5,000 cars per week. The L.C.C. issued a special booklet describing the subway’s history and reconstruction and listing the new services and transfer facilities, together with the running times. [1: p390]
“The subway service was worked by the new E/3 class cars (Nos. 1904-2003) which had been ordered in June, 1929, from Hurst, Nelson & Co., of Motherwell, and had been working on various South London services until the subway was ready. In the subway, it became necessary to use the drivers’ platforms and the front stairways for boarding and alighting at the island platforms of Holborn and Aldwych stations. The former bar-operated signals at Holborn and Bloomsbury were replaced by others worked by the passage of the plough in the conduit slot. The single-deck cars were withdrawn and the trucks and Westinghouse equipments used under new English Electric composite bodies, but still bearing the original numbers (552-601). The single- deck car bodies were offered for sale in 1930, to be collected at Holloway or Charlton. In earlier years, some of these cars were stabled, first at Jew’s Row and later at Clapham for the Queens Road service, while in 1911 some were sent to Hampstead for the experiment with coupled cars which took place between January and August of that year on the Hampstead – Euston route.
Public service through the subway began again on 15th January, 1931, with three services: 31, Hackney Station – Wandsworth High Street via Shoreditch and Battersea Park Road (73 minutes, weekdays), Hackney – Tooting Junction (Saturday evenings) and Leyton Station L.M.S. – Westminster Station (54 minutes, Sundays); 33, Highbury Station – Water Lane, Brixton (42 minutes, weekday peak hours), with occasional workings to Norbury; 35, Highgate, Archway Tavern-New Cross Gate via Kennington (59 minutes, daily). It was originally intended to work 31 through to Wimbledon via Haydon’s Road, but this was never done. From 19th April to 4th October, 1931, the Sunday working of this service was from Leyton, Baker’s Arms, to Tooting Junction (17 miles). A similar arrangement prevailed in subsequent summers, but for the rest of the year the Sunday workings were between Baker’s Arms and Wandsworth.
Service 33 was altered twice during 1931 and began operating in off-peak hours, being diverted first to Norwood on 14th May, and then at the other end to Manor House on 8th October, after which it remained unchanged. Also on 14th May, 1931, 35 was extended to Forest Hill (Cranston Road) via Brockley, the indicators actually showing Brockley Rise. A Saturday evening and Sunday working was instituted between Highgate and Downham via Brockley – 16 miles the longest tram service ever operated entirely inside the County of London. The dates of this service are uncertain, but it was definitely working on 8th October, 1931. It possibly ceased after 5th March, 1932, on which date the southern terminus of 35 became the lay-by at Forest Hill Station. On 30th June, 1932, the route was diverted via Walworth Road instead of via Kennington and thereafter remained unchanged. On 1st June, 1933, short workings were introduced between Highbury and Elephant and Castle via St. Georges Road. These were numbered 35A.” [1: p390-392]
Route 31 saw a series of different changes over its life. Dunbar tells us that “consequent upon the conversion of part of the Wandsworth service to Trolleybuses on 12th September 1937, it was cut back to Prince’s Head, Battersea. The conversion of the Shoreditch area caused its diversion on 10th December 1939, to terminate at the lay-by at Islington Green (outside the Agricultural Hall) which had been put in in 1906 but never used for regular services, except possibly for a few weeks in 1909. Destination indicators, however, showed ‘Angel, Islington’. There was a further curtailment on 6th February 1943, when the service began working between Bloomsbury and Prince’s Head in peak hours and between Westminster Station and Prince’s Head at other times. This arrangement was unsatisfactory owing to the turning points being on through routes and the cars and crews being based at Holloway, and it was hoped as from January 1947, to run between Islington Green and Wandsworth High Street. It was not, however possible to introduce this improvement until 12th November 1947.”[1: p392-394]
“In addition to the 100 E/3 type cars previously mentioned, 160 other cars were built to the fireproof specifications laid down for the Subway (HR/2 class 1854 to 1903 and 101-159, E/3 class 160 to 210). and in later years some of these worked regularly on the subway services, particularly after war losses. After Hackney depôt closed, the cars for the subway were provided by Holloway depôt for all three services and also by Wandsworth (for 31), Norwood (33) and Camberwell (35). At one time in 1941, Holloway depôt was cut off for several days by an unexploded bomb and could only operate a shuttle service of two cars between Holloway and Highgate, during which period wooden E/ cars from South London depôts were per- force used on the subway routes, turning back at Highbury Station. The famous L.C.C. car No. 1 of 1932 was intended for the subway services, with air-operated doors and folding steps for use at the subway stations, and worked from Holloway depôt on these services from 1932 to 1937. The car was sold in 1951 to Leeds and is preserved at Clapham. [1963]
In 1937, the rebuilding of Waterloo Bridge necessitated the diversion of subway exit to a position centrally beneath the new bridge, at a cost of £70,000 including a new crossing of the District Railway; after the changeover took place, on 21st November, 1937, the curved section of tunnel leading to the former exit in the bridge abutment was walled off and still exists. For the next three years, the trams entered the subway through the bare steelwork, as the new bridge took shape above their heads. In anticipation of a general con- version of the London tramways to trolley- bus working, an experimental trolleybus (No. 1379) placed in service on 12th June 1939, was so designed as to permit passengers to board and alight from the offside at Aldwych and Holborn Stations. Not until some years later did London Transport admit officially that this experiment had been a failure.” [1: p394]
The Second World War meant a reprieve for the remaining tramways in London. Trolleybuses were no longer seen as the future, the decision was taken to replace the trams with motor buses. The decision was taken to close the Subway. In practice tramway closures did not happen quickly. Already worn out buses were replaced first, so tramway replacement did not start until 1950. We have looked at the twilight years of London’s tramways in an earlier post in this series. [4]
On Saturday 5th April 1952, “trams ran through the Subway for the last time. … The last car to carry passengers through the Subway in service was E/3 No. 185, some time after midnight, and in the early hours of the following morning the remaining cars from Holloway depôt were driven South through the Subway to new homes or the scrapyard.” [1: p394]
“The tracks remained unaltered, though disused, until the final abandonment of London’s tramways on 5th July, 1952, after which the street tracks were lifted in stages and those in the subway, cut at the approaches, were left as the longest section remaining in London. A technical committee was set up by the Minister of Transport to report on the possible use of the subway for motor vehicles, and tests with road vehicles were carried out both before and after closure, but the committee concluded that a satisfactory scheme would cost £1,200,000 and the Minister decided that the money could be better used in other ways. An alternative scheme to convert the subway to a car park was rejected because the cost (£175,000) was out of proportion to the benefit. In 1953, London Transport used the subway to store 120 retired buses and coaches in case they were needed for the Coronation, and in 1955 it was used to represent a railway tunnel in the film Bhowani Junction. A film company offered to take over the whole subway as a film studio, but this was rejected on account of the fire risk. Repeated questions in Parliament kept the issue alive, but in 1955 London Transport invited applications for the use of the tunnel as a store for non-flammable goods, and finally leased it in October, 1957, to S. G. Young & Co. of Blackfriars as a store for machine parts. The new tenants introduced fluorescent lighting colour-washed walls, and filled in part of the floor so as to use fork-lift trucks and pallets. After the trolleybus power supply ceased in 1959, the DC automatic pumps beneath the Strand at the lowest point of the subway were re-motored to work from the public supply.
Meanwhile, in June, 1958, the London County Council expressed interest in taking over the subway and creating an underpass for light traffic beneath the Strand and Aldwych to deal with the traffic jams which often extend right across Waterloo Bridge. This plan involved about half the subway, from Lancaster Place to Kemble Street, and received official backing, though not until April 1962, did the Minister of Transport decide to make a grant of 75 per cent towards the estimated total cost of £1,306,512. The consulting engineers were Frederick Snow & Partners, and the contract for the reconstruction, totalling £1,025,233, was awarded in July, 1962, to John Mowlem & Co, who moved in on 1st September, 1962, and promptly began their 15-month task.” [1: p395]
The new underpass opened on 21 January 1964. “It is only 17 feet (5.2 m) wide and, as a result, it is normally one-way northbound because of the side clearances required. The headroom is only 12.5 feet (3.8 m) due to the tunnel having to pass beneath [a] bridge abutment by a 1:12 gradient. An electronic ‘eye’ alerts drivers of tall vehicles and diverts them to an ‘escape route’ to the left of the entrance. However, high vehicles do still try to pass through and so get stuck occasionally.” [5]
“The underpass is a concrete box within the former tram subway, with the road surface at the original track level. At the northern end of the underpass the road rises to the surface on a new carriageway supported by metal pillars. This passes through the site of the former Aldwych tramway station; because of the greater width requirement, 27 trees and some pavement sections were removed for it to be constructed.” [5]
“The tunnel was used by the 521 bus route northbound until it was withdrawn in April 2023. In 2012, the direction of traffic in the tunnel was temporarily reversed, so that it was in use by southbound traffic. This was to facilitate easier traffic flow during the 2012 Summer Olympics.” [5]
References
C.S. Dunbar; London’s Tramway Subway; in Modern Tramway and Light Railway Review, Volume 26 No. 311, November 1963, p385-395.
Roger Farnworth 
.jpg){kind=link}
