In the 1950s, a tram Glasgow purchased some years before, a ‘one-off’, unidirectional double decker car which it numbered 1005 and which was sometimes known as the ‘Blue Devil’ for its unconventional three tone blue colour scheme, was put forward by the LIght Railway Transport League as an option for trails that the League hoped might happen in London. The tramcar sat on PCC type trucks [1] and was sleek and streamlined. It can be seen in its later standard colour scheme in the bottom-right of the featured image above (Public Domain). [6]
The link to Flickr below takes us directly to Frederick McLean’s page on Flickr which focusses on this tram. Frederick McLean’s notes say that the reverse of the photograph was stamped with the photographer and/or negative owner name C. W. Routh and with the date 25 May 1955. He notes too that, in the photograph, the tram was heading South-east at St. George’s Cross.
In Washington DC a conduit system was in use, like that in London, and PCC cars were in use. The Light Railway Transport League (LRTL) proposed a trial on London’s streets of a modern PCC tram. They were even prepared to pay for the exercise.
Glasgow’s No 1005 was one of two cars considered a suitable vehicle for the trial by the LRTL. It was “equipped with up-to-date VAMBAC [3] electronic control, which promised smoother starting and braking, thus allowing higher schedule speeds with safety and comfort for passengers. In addition the trucks were fitted with improved motors, and more importantly, resilient wheels which gave a much quieter ride.” [2: p45]
Sadly the obstacles to the trial in London were too great. Harley lists these: [2: p46]
Single-ended cars needed turning loops. There was only one route (between Beresford Square and Well Hall Roundabout on Route No. 44) which might accommodate the trial.
Glasgow trams used bow collectors rather than trolley poles and we’re not fitted out for conduit working.
The Glasgow network was in fact a narrow-gauge network, three quarters of an inch (19mm) narrower than the standard-gauge in use in London. [5]
With a will to do so, these obstacles might have been overcome at LRTL expense, but ultimately there was no desire among the authorities in London to countenance the trial. Harley quotes the letter sent by the Operating Manager (Trams and Trolleybuses), dated 23rd March 1950: “Work on the replacement of the remaining trams is proceeding rapidly, and it is expected that the first stage of the conversion scheme will be completed before the end of the year, and that the scheme as a whole will be finished within a period of three years. You will see, therefore, that the Executive are committed to a policy of substituting oil-engined buses for the tramway system, a policy which they consider to be right and proper. In these circumstances the Executive regret that they cannot avail themselves of the offer you have made.” [2: p46]
The parallel offer of a similar trial using a, then, modern single deck Blackpool tram was also rejected by the authorities in London. Their minds were fully made up.
In Glasgow, Car No. 1005, foundered in use. Trams Today tells us that “when initially built in 1947 it featured Vambac controllers, a unique livery of three tone blue and was single ended but progressively both the livery and the control equipment had been standardised with the rest of the fleet. This still left the unusual loading arrangements which made 1005 unpopular with the general public amongst a fleet of more than a thousand more orthodox trams. Consequently it had for several years been restricted operation to use only at peak times whilst much oldertrams bore the brunt of all day service.” [4]
“In an attempt to rectify this situation and make better use of 1005 it entered the workshops during 1955 for rebuild that dispensed with the single ended arrangement. A drivers cab and full controls were provided in the rear. …. The work was carried out on a strict budget and, although successful in making 1005 more standardised, it still saw only infrequent use when it tram, generally appearing only during rush hour period until 1962 when it was finally withdrawn and disposed of for scrap.” [4]
References
PCC type bogies were first used on PCC cars in New York. The PCC car was “a revolutionary vehicle – a streamlined, single deck Tramcar which ride on superbly engineered trucks, giving a quiet and comfortable ride. When, on 1st October 1936, Mayor Fiorello H. La Guardia of New York, inaugurated service of Brooklyn and Queens Transit Car 1009, a new era in rail transportation opened. Orders followed from American and Canadian cities and eventually almost 5,000 cars rolled off the production line. This figure was augmented by the 15,000 PCC cars or vehicles built under PCC patents which appeared in Europe and Asia. The concession for England was snapped up by Crompton-Parkinson. They produced an advanced VAMBAC system (Variable Automatic Multinotch Braking and Acceleration Control), compatible with PCC technology, and 42 sets of equipment were used by London Under- ground in the late 1930s. In 1937, W Vane Morland, the Leeds manager, visited Boston to see the new design. He then returned home with the blueprints of the PCC, but the outbreak of war put paid to any more progress.” [2: p45]
Robert J. Harley; London Tramway Twilight: 1949-1952; Capital Transport Publishing, Harrow Weald, Middlesex, 2000.
VAMBAC was the acronym used to refer to Variable Automatic Multinotch Braking and Acceleration Control. It was in use in the UK as early as the late 1930s on London Underground. [2: p45]
Glasgow Corporation Tramways; Wikipedia; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Corporation_Tramways: “Glasgow’s tramlines had a highly unusual track gauge of 4 ft 7+3⁄4 in (1,416 mm). This was to permit 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge railway wagons to be operated over parts of the tram system (particularly in the Govan area) using their wheel flanges running in the slots of the tram tracks. This allowed the railway wagons to be drawn along tramway streets to access some shipyards. The shipyards provided their own small electric locomotives, running on the tramway power, to pull these wagons, principally loaded with steel for shipbuilding, from local railway freight yards.”
The featured image at the head of this article shows trams which served Route 34 in Clapham in 1949, the photographer is not recorded. [2] Route No. 34 ran from Chelsea (Kings Road) via Clapham and Camberwell Green to Blackfriars. [1: p122]
Robert Harley, in his book ‘London Tramway Twilight: 1949-1952 has chapters focussing, among other subjects on the years 1949, 1950 & 1951. [1]
In the chapter which considers 1949, [1: p32-41] Harley tells us that in May 1949, forty members of the Light Railway Transport League (LRTL) undertook a tour in Feltham car No. 2094. “It was noted that this particular car was resplendent in fresh paint and in excellent mechanical condition, having recently passed through Charlton Works. Chief Inspector Perry was ‘on the handles’, and he drove Car 2094 from Victoria to Southcroft Road. Tour participants were then transported to Purley, before returning to Victoria. The journey from Purley to Victoria was timed at 55 minutes.” [1: p36]
Harley goes on to say: “Perhaps many of the 40 members realised that an era of stability was about to end, for on 8th June space was made free in Wandsworth and Clapham depots to allow construction of garage facilities for diesel buses. This work would include filling tramway inspection pits, providing new bus docking pits, sinking fuel oil storage tanks in the ground and installing fuelling points. The old tramway traversers which were used to shift trams sideways, would also go. It was indeed the beginning of the end, and a tangible sign that progress towards the inevitable extinction of electric traction was now unstoppable.” [1: p36-37]
Harley also notes that, ‘The Modern Tramway’ for July 1949 “contained a number of details under the headline ‘London Depot Changes’. According to the correspondent, Wandsworth Depot had been converted to overhead wire and a change pit constructed at the entrance. Removal of the conduit equipment within the depot made for an easier and safer conversion. Fleet changes included seventeen cars of the 1700 series E/1 which were shifted to Clapham Depot to work route 26. Fifty-one other E/1s were transferred from Clapham to Camber- well and New Cross. The 1500 series E/1 cars were now mostly stabled at New Cross. Six E/3 cars were moved from Thornton Heath to Norwood, which also received some rehabs from New Cross. Route 34 was now worked by Camberwell Depot and was operated mainly by E/3 cars, with the odd HR/2 and E/1 taking a turn. New Cross took over route 66 from Camberwell; Norwood worked most of route 10, although Telford Avenue still supplied one Feltham for this route. Telford Avenue took over Clapham’s share of route 10 and part of the allocation of cars on routes 22 and 24.” [1: p37]
The reality was that, from its formation in 1937 by J.W. Fowler to seek the modernisation and retention of electric tramways [1: p42], the LRTL was fighting against entrenched views in London Transport (LT). “Lord Ashfield, Frank Pick, Sir Henry Maybury and the other board members were firmly convinced that the sooner they got rid of the trams there better.” [1: p42]
“Although there was a genuine affection for tramways amongst many LT employees, it is safe to say that the attitude of LT, the Labour Government and the TGWU was fairly consistent. New and better road vehicles, in the form of the RT bus, would provide a flexible, more integrated service thus in this sense, the post-war abandon- ment programme was never a party political issue. It was the consensus of transport experts that trams had had their day. Arguments such as the danger of relying on imported oil and rubber found little support in the corridors of power. As for the growth of motor vehicles, it was confidently predicted that the average speed of London’s traffic would increase after the removal of the trams. Parking was not foreseen as a problem, and the use of American style parking meters was discounted as unBritish! Concerns about pollution mainly centred on burning smokeless fuels, which would ease the fog situation. The possible harmful effects of exhaust fumes from the thousand or so new buses were given the same short shrift as American parking meters.” [1: p43]
References
Robert. J Harley; London Tramway Twilight: 1949-1952; Capital Transport, Harrow Weald, Middlesex, 2000.
This short article could be entitled, ‘The Modern Tramway takes on the Manchester Guardian‘. In. Its May 1957 journal the Light Railway Transport League asks whether its readers had read the Manchester Guardian on 22nd January. The featured image shows trams in Rotterdam in May 1957. [3]
In an article entitled ‘A Twisted Tale’, The Modern Tramway Journal is surprised to see the Manchester Guardian being taken in by the spirit of the current age which was decidedly anti,-Tram. [1: p83]
“Did you read the ‘Manchester Guardian’s’ account of the re- building of Rotterdam in the issue of 22nd January? It was a good article, catching the spirit of the modern conception of town planning, and making you feel that the writer had not only visited Rotterdam but had been genuinely inspired by the creat- ive talent of its designers until you got to his last sentence, which pro- vided so violent a contrast that it might have been written by a different person. It read: “It is odd to see trams still clanking through the city and to hear that there is no intention as yet of scrapping them.”
Whatever was the writer [on] about? Rotterdam’s trams are among the finest and most modern in Europe, as well as some of the quietest, a system that conforms to the League’s highest ideals and amply attains its motto of “Vlug, veilig en goedkoop (fast, safe and cheap).””
[1: p83]
As the article goes on to explain, “nothing about a Rotterdam tram could remotely be described as clanking; they run on track entirely free from dropped joints and corrugations, and their noisiest feature is the click of the controller ratchet. As for the town planning aspect, if you have visited Rotterdam during the last 10 years you will have seen how the rebuilding of the city went hand in hand with the rebuilding of the transport system; the tramways in the main streets in the city centre are now sited on central reservations, free from other traffic, and the busiest stops are laid out with a foresight rare else- where, the track dividing so that each group of routes has its own stop and shelter side by side. The service the trams give is one of the finest a city could have, a smooth, effortless flow of high-capacity vehicles operating at the cheapest fares in Holland, and how any trained observer could visit the city and fail to be impressed by it is difficult to understand.” [1: p83]
While it may have been true that the oldest tramcars on the Rotterdam network were contemporaries of the HR2s in London they were actually almost silent! Indeed, The Modern Tramway expressed surprise that the city’s tram company(Rotterdamse Ekectrische Tram (R.E.T.)) considered those vehicles due for retirement. Apparently the company had already ordered a first batch of replacement single, and two car articulated sets. Pointedly The Modern Tramway comments:
“As for the other post-war cars, their equipment came from Trafford Park, and the ‘Guardian’s’ outburst is hardly calculated to further the export trade of Metropolitan-Vickers who made them.”
[1: p84]
So, what might have been the explanation for the Manchester Guardian’s faux-pas? The Modern Tramway thought that it had an explanation which might be charitable:
“Perhaps the writer, putting his impressions on paper some time after his visit, searched in his mind for the sound of Rotterdam’s trams (and failed, since they are noiseless), and unconsciously completed his mental picture by substituting the tram noises he knew in Manchester, the home of groaning motors, rattling windows, dropped joints, broken check-rail, lifeguard trays tied up with string, four-wheel cars with odd bearings, bogie cars with odd trucks and all the rest of it. Either this, or he deliberately set out to mislead and based his words on three quite erroneous assumptions, to wit:
(a) A modern city with trams is odd;
(b) Trams, including Rotterdam ones, clank;
(c) Rotterdam’s trams will ultimately be scrapped, but not as yet.
We had always looked on the Manchester Guardian as a factual paper with a liberal outlook, a traditional supporter of oppressed minorities, and free of the bigoted outlook that is so often present elsewhere. We did not expect a paper that devoted page after page to the horrors of shipping live horses to Antwerp to show the customary English attitude of ignorance and intolerance towards tramcars; trams, after all, are a persecuted minority without the means of defending themselves.”
[1: p84]
I suspect that The Modern Tramway editor had his/her tongue firmly in his/her cheek as they penned that last paragraph!
The article continues:
“If the contributor had written about St. Malo or Douai or Maubeuge or some other of those French towns whose trams were capable of racing a tortoise on equal terms then we might have felt a glimmer of sympathy, but the article was on Rotterdam, and it is possible only to say that the remarks were inappropriate, misleading and absolutely untrue.
Of course, we wrote to the ‘Guardian’; on enquiring among our readers who know Rotterdam, we found that they too had not been slow to refute this smear against the R.E.T., and we believe that some of the Guardian’s’ overseas readers wrote as well. Last (but by no means least), our friend Ir. Bogstra, the General Manager of the R.E.T., was so surprised by the Guardian’s remarks that he sent the paper a set of photographs of the newest trams and a coldly factual analysis of the reasons why Rotterdam prefers trams to buses. From all this, we might have expected to read at least one “Letter to the Editor” disagreeing with the contributor, but all that happened was the appearance of a childish note of defiance in the “Miscellany” gossip-column a fortnight or so later, expressing surprise that there were such things as silent modern trams; because the word “tram” rhymed with “slam” you expected it to be noisy, and so on in the same vein. There are newspapers from which we should have expected unenlightened comment, but we never thought that we should have to include the Manchester Guardian’ among their number.”
[1: p84]
Rotterdam’s Trams remain an integral part of the city’s transport provision. “Opened in 1879, the network currently has nine regular tramlines, and three special or seasonal tramlines. It has been operated since 1927 by Rotterdamse Elektrische Tram (RET). The tram network is the city’s more extensive public transport system, while the rapid transit Rotterdam Metro is the more utilized system.” [2]
The Modern Tramway Journal of April 1957 included a nostalgic look at one of the Glasgow tram network’s successes. [1] An ‘out-boundary’ route, No. 28, which at one time was part of the longest tram route in the UK, almost 23 miles in length. End to end it was a 2 hour tram journey. At that time, the early 1930s, the route from Renfrew Ferry to Milngavie was numbered 14. “In 1943 it was cut at Spiersbridge and renumbered 28, and on 3rd April 1949, the Glenfield – Cross Stobs section was closed.” [1: p61] The truncated line (No. 28) ran from Renfrew Ferry to Glenfield – a distance of 5.24 miles.
For some general information about Glasgow’s trams, please look towards the end of this article. First, we focus on Line No. 14 which was renumbered 28. …
The route of Line No.14 passed through the following ‘stations’/stops:
Renfrew (Ferry Road, High Street, Paisley Road); Paisley (Renfrew Road, Gilmour Street Station, Causeyside Street, Neilston Road); Barrhead (Cross Arthurlie Street, Main Street, Darnley Road); Nitshill Road; Jenny Lind; Thornliebank Main Street; Mansewood; Pollokshaws Road; Shawlands Cross; Strathbungo; St Andrew’s Cross; Laurieston; Glasgow Bridge; Union Street; Renfield Street; Sauchiehall Street; Cambridge Street; Gartnethill; St George’s Cross; Queen’s Cross; Wyndford; Maryhill (Maryhill Road); Bearsden (Milngavie Road); Milngavie (Main Street). [4]
Line 28 was much reduced in length, as we have noted, it still ran from and to Renfrew Ferry but the locations mentioned by Coonie in his article do not appear in the list above.
Glenfield Road and Caplethill Road met close to the Glenfield Terminus of the No. 28 route. The image below shows the terminus in use.
The old No. 14 continued beyond this terminus following Caplethill Road to Barrhead and then left Barrhead along Athurlie Street continuing on through the centre of Glasgow. As you will see below Coonie talks of the Glenfield Terminus being ‘out in the wilds’. [1: p63] Even in 2023 this appears to be the case!
The Elderslie Depot mentioned by Coonie below is, of course, long-gone. Elderslie itself remains, South of the A737 to the West of Paisley and also immediately to the South of the railway line from Paisley to Johnstone. The tram depot was on Main Road, Enderslie. It was opened in 1904 by Paisley District Tramways, it was acquired by Glasgow City Transport in 1923. It was also used as as bus garage between 1932 and 1955 and eventually closed in 1957. The entrance was just before the railway bridge.
Elderslie Tram Depot. This image was shared on the Paisley Heritage Facebook Page on 1st March 2020. [11]
The nickname for the No. 28 route was ‘The Goldmine’ as the pence-per-mile average was well above the city average!
In his article, Coonie talks first of the old line (No. 14):
“It is a rare “double-ended” service, taking the crowds both ways at once, shipyard workers to the Clyde, engineering workers to Porterfield Road, shop and office workers into Paisley, factory workers to the south side, workmen’s business and shopping traffic all up and down the same five- mile stretch, with busy two-way peaks but without the awkward tidal traffic flow so common in city transport and yet so uneconomic. Of all the out- boundary routes, the 28 is probably the only one they are sorry to lose; the others lost £80,000 a year, but not the “Goldmine.” It has a history too. In the days of Paisley District Tramways it ran from the Ferry through Renfrew and Paisley burghs to Barrhead and beyond, and after the 1923 take-over Glasgow made it part of Britain’s longest tram route-22.9 miles and two hours, the No. 14 from Renfrew Ferry to Milngavie. … The weekday service is every six minutes (73 before mid-day), with two and three-minute intervals at rush hours and extra cars on Saturdays, so that you get 48 cars in the two-hour morning rush, including ten coming round from Elderslie. There are buses too, for Glasgow Corporation have no monopoly in Paisley or Renfrew and four bus companies are on the same road, red, green and blue- and-white buses racing green-and-orange trams, and most of the buses bought second-hand at that. Patons, Western S.M.T. and Cunninghams run from the Ferry to Paisley, McGills and Western from Paisley to Barrhead, all competing with the trams, … but this is the one place where the trams fought back and held their ground.”
[1: p61-62]
Coonie tells the story of the ‘battle’:
“Up to 1949, Elderslie had only six modern cars (Nos. 1266-1271) and since one of the loops on the Glenfield- Barrhead section was a bit short, only 4-wheel cars were used there. But with that obstacle removed, things be- gan to warm up; the road-widening scheme north of Paisley gave the trams a real speed-track, a new lye at Porter- field Road kept rush-hour cars clear of the main line, a new crossover at Lochfield Road allowed economical short-workings, and then they brought over twelve more Coronations and five modern 4-wheelers from the city to work the base service, kept the old cars on the 21 or in the depot (except at rush hours) and sat back to watch the fun. It was worth watching; the comfort, the headway and the rapid acceleration soon brought passengers back to the trams and kept them, the average speed including stops was 2 m.p.h. above the city’s average, and although the 28 modernisation was expensive, it paid off. The “Goldmine” was a fine example of what you can do with modern trams if you try – even in 1950 – and although the boundary agreement means that its days are numbered now, that’s politics and no fault of the trams.
Most trips are busy and uneventful, with the accent on good timekeeping and good service, but (keep it dark) the “Goldmine Handicap” is still run two or three times a month, depending on the rosters, the weather, and whether anyone is around. My last race was on [Car No.] 1272 just before Christmas, with Dennis up front … We left the Ferry dead on time, but were held at Renfrew Cross, and the pride and joy of Cunningham’s Bus Service (second-hand ex-London R.T. 1481) got away in front, driven by tram-hater Duncan who once called Coronations a “pile of junk.” Dennis decided to show ’em; he opened her up, but passengers were already leaving the tram stop at Robertson Park to get on the bus, which always gets his goat, and with strange oaths, half-Irish, half-Glasgow, he went on gaining ground to Renfrew South. The road widened out; the Coronation was put on the last notch, traction motors whining, lamp-shades swinging, Rosie the clippie squealing ‘Whit ur you playin’ et?’ as we tore up Moorpark, over the hill, down past the boundary sign and round the curve till at Sandyford Fire Station the R.T. gasped and called it a day. Dennis whined past, picked up six passengers, and kept right on at full power to Paisley North, the 17-year-old tram beating London’s wonderful post-war bus as usual. Officially these things don’t happen, and the names in this story are fictitious, but that’s how the insulator suffered at Moorpark.”
[1: p62-63]
Trams at Elderslie Depot. This photograph was shared on the Paisley Heritage Facebook Page on 1st March 2020. [11]
Apparently, it was important, if one wanted to make a claim to have done the ‘Goldmine’ properly, to start at Enderslie Depot. Coonie describes the route in detail:
“The cars for [Route No.] 28 are all shedded at Elderslie; Coronations 1266 to 1283, older hex- dash and round-dash cars, and the five single-truck experimentals 1001-4 and No. 6, dating from 1939-41. No. 6 is “The Coffin”; once a standard car, it was destroyed in the Clydeside blitz of March, 1941, rebuilt as a modern car, burnt out at Newlands Depot in 1948, rebuilt, sandwiched between 1280 and 1282 in 1951 and rebuilt again. But ours is flagship 1279, a Phoenix with a 1954 Coronation body, running number eight due out 6.20 am. On the dark winter’s morning, the wind blows across the railway and the jungle that was once a garden, tended by the staff of Paisley District Tramways; we enter the main road, reverse, cross over, and roar down through Paisley and the darkened High Street, picking up the “regulars” for the south side starch and textile-finishing works. At the Cross, the driver changes the points (no points- man till 7 a.m.), then we take the curve into Gilmour Street, and the passengers rise and swing the seats unasked as we reverse in County Square for the ten-minute run south through the waking town to Glenfield.
Glenfield terminus is almost out in the wilds. A few derelict standards remind you that eight years ago you I could travel by a “Saxby” down the narrow country road to Barrhead, with sharp turns into the loops and the power a bit on the weak side, though that didn’t prevent No. 1005 taking a League party down there in 1947. But we turn the seats, wait for a minute and then head north again; down the grade, past the road from Glenburn housing estate whose people are forever complaining at their bus service, up again through Potterhill where the “nobbery” live and, over the goods line at the old Potterhill station. If you look back now, you see the majestic skyline of the Gleniffer Braes, made famous by the Paisley poet Robert Tannahill.
Things begin to warm up now, with customers at every stop. Over Lochfield Road crossover and Neilston Road, we pass Brown and Polson’s cornflower works and the line becomes a real town tramway with tenements, 3-story buildings and the Royal Alexandra Infirmary. The final descent, Causeyside Street, is rather wider, and then we pass a crossover round a curve, and ride up the 1 in 12 St. Mirren Street Brae to stop more often than not at the Paisley Cross traffic lights. Despite the grade there is no record of any tram accident here, though a bus ran away in a heavy frost some years back. Later in the day, at 9 a.m., 12 noon, 3, 6 or 9 p.m. you can hear the carillon of Paisley Town Hall across the garden in Dunn Square, old Scottish tunes with hymn-tunes on Sundays. At Christmas, the square is a fairyland of coloured lights.
The lights change, we rattle over the points and crossings of the 21 route (Paisley’s best-known sound), and pull up in narrow Gilmour Street, the main loading point for the “Goldmine” to Renfrew. On Saturday, the scene in Gilmour Street has to be seen to be believed, with long queues at both north and southbound stops and never a wasted journey. Then we pass Paisley Municipal Buildings and the old jail, all turreted and crenellated like a medieval fortress, facing on County Square and harmonising with the G.P.O. and the railway station built to the same style. There is a crossover, and a small loop, once connected at both ends to the northbound line but now a fossilised remnant; it was once the terminus of the Abbotsinch service worked latterly by oneman single-deck car No. 92 from Finnieston until it closed on 26th March 1933. The loop was still used for short-working 28s until about five years ago.
Under Gilmour Street bridge we turn into Old Sneddon Street, cross the River Cart by Abercorn Bridge and see on our left the red-brick Abercorn Street sub-station of G.C.T., its siding connected to our northbound track by a trailing point. Excluded from the frequency-change scheme, Abercorn Street is the last sub-station working at 25 cycles, and since its closure will complete the change to industrial frequency at Pinkston this explains why the Department are pre- pared to give up serving Paisley. Just past here, a tenement block juts out and causes the track to become single for twenty feet in Weir Street, the only single track on the Glasgow system, and then we turn left into Renfrew Road, pass some engineering works and Paisley (Abercorn) station, and gain the open road again. There are several schools here, and until 1953 a special school car was run from Elderslie.
Next come Sandyford Road crossover (“Paisley North”), the terminus of the long No. 4 from Springburn. At the fringe of the New Gallowhill housing scheme is a small cairn, marking the spot where Marjorie Bruce, mother of Robert the Bruce, was thrown from her horse and fatally injured. In contrast, there is nothing at all to mark the site of Renfrew tram depot at Newmains Road, which was swallowed up completely by a housing scheme in 1949 after being used for 13 years as a store. We are now on a stretch of road which until 1949 was just a dusty cobbled lane with no pavement and the “Saxby” cars brushing the hedges; to-day it is a fine broad tarmac road, on which the Elderslie Coronations and Govan Cunarders can really show their paces. When the road was widened, the track was completely realigned. Beyond, on the right, we can see the runways of Renfrew Airport, and on the skyline the shipyard cranes of the Clyde and the tower of Glasgow University.
From here, we climb over the hill and down to Porterfield Road (“Renfrew South” on the screens). One of the sights of the “Goldmine” is the 5.30 p.m. scene on the Porterfield Road lye, a new track (with a double-track triangle junction) put in in 1950 to cater for the Babcock and Wilcox engineering works traffic. As the hour approaches, specials arrive from both north and south, from Elderslie and from Govan, to line up on the works track; then at 5.28 the whistle blows, the crowds stream out to the waiting cars, and from 5.31 to 5.38 a queue of packed special cars moves off nose- to-tail, some for Paisley (Causeyside Street), some to Lochfield Road, and some to take the curve at the Cross for Elderslie. The sight is warmly recommended to all tram-lovers.
Passing the Robertson Park (second finest in Scotland) we reach Renfrew Cross and the turreted Town Hall, six times the height of a tram. Away to the right swing the tracks of the 4 and 27, linking Renfrew with Glasgow via Shieldhall and Govan, and we are on our own again, round a slight curve, under the goods railway and past some shipyards on our right, perhaps with a dredger fitting out. Ahead lies the end of the line, the slipway of Renfrew Ferry, and the towering mass of the Clyde Valley Power Station across the water. Originally the terminus was nearer the ferry gates and consisted of a trailing crossover, but this was cut back to ease congestion in 1954 and replaced by a single line in the middle of the road. The slack wire used to facilitate the bow reversal here is one of the longest on the system.
The car comes to a stand; the crew turn the seats, and the passengers walk down to the diesel-electric chain ferry and float slowly across to where other trams – standards, Coronations, Kilmarnock bogies, and strange beasties like 1809 and 1100 – run up and down between cranes and shipyard walls to Whiteinch, Clydebank and Dalmuir. And as we pay the penny toll to enter Dunbartonshire, we can look back at the grid pylon reflected in the water, to the chain of the ferry vanishing into the depths, and to the Coronation standing in Ferry Road beyond, almost out of sight, waiting for another good payload and another run “Down the Goldmine,” the route where the tram hit back – and won.”
Glasgow Corporation Tramways were formerly one of the largest urban tramway systems in Europe. [2] Over 1000 municipally-owned trams served the city of Glasgow, Scotland, with over 100 route miles (160 route kilometres) by 1922. [3] The system finally closed in 1962 and was the last city tramway in Great Britain (prior to the construction of new systems in the 1990s). [4]
“From a maximum of more than 1,200 trams in 1947, the system was gradually wound down from about 1953 in what proved to be a lingering death.” [8]
Wikipedia tells us that the Glasgow system’s initial network of a few lines expanded greatly in the early years of the 20th century, [5] extending to burghs and rural areas outside the city boundaries which were soon incorporated into it as well as outlying neighbouring towns [6]
The time of the 1938 Empire Exhibition held in the city’s Bellahouston Park is viewed by some as the apex of the system’s timeline, [6][7] with new cars recently put into service [8] and special routes added for the exhibition, while the city was as yet undisturbed by World War II and subsequent redevelopments, with the trams winding through the dense network of tenements and factories which characterised industrial Glasgow in the first part of the 1900s, [9] but also into some new ‘garden suburb’ developments with widened streets to accommodate the tracks. After the war the trams began to be phased out, although periodic reviews of routes were still conducted. Tellingly, the routes were not extended to any of the large 1950s peripheral housing schemes nor to the new towns being developed outside the city. [4]
References
Ian M. Coonie; Down the ‘Goldmine’; in The Modern Tramway, The Light Railway Transport League, April 1957, p61-65.
On 28th February 2022 the Donegal Railway Heritage Centre announced that, with funding provided through the “Creative Ireland” programme administered by Donegal County Council, they completed the production of a map of County Donegal showing some of the main Donegal railway heritage still to be seen across the County and into Northern Ireland.
Niall McCaughan, Manager of the railway Museum stated: “In recent years there has been an increased interest in railway heritage, locally, nationally and internationally. Here in Donegal is no different, but the uniqueness of the railways that operated across Donegal has a special place in the hearts of the local population, not to mention too the international interest it rightly deserves. Although much of our great railway heritage has disappeared over the decades, there still is surprising a lot about, hidden in plain sight and some of Donegal’s railway heritage is still in operation for different purposes, including as the Bus Éireann bus station in Letterkenny and their depot in Donegal town, both previously part of the Donegal railway network. This includes Station buildings, halts, Gatehouses, bridges, etc. With this in mind, we have produced a simple easy to read folded “Heritage Trail” guide for the county, as well as some locations just across the border.” [1]
I picked up one of these leaflets at the Heritage Centre in Donegal Town. It is a really well-prepared fold-out map with a significant number of important locations on both the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway (which served the Northern half of County Donegal from its station in Derry) and the Co. Donegal Railways network.
If you are planning a holiday in Co. Donegal then writing off for one of the leaflets would be worthwhile. They are supplied free, provided the buyer covers postage and packing costs. Alternatively, the leaflet is also available to download as a .pdf file, here. [2]
This is a low resolution copy of the map which forms part of the heritage trail leaflet. Each of the numbered locations has its own short note and photograph on the reverse side of the leaflet. [2]Just a few of the locations highlighted in the leaflet. [2]
This is an excellent leaflet providing a great way to plan a trip round Co. Donegal to find railway heritage and to enjoy Donegal’s wonderful scenery. Don’t get so focussed on the railway history that you miss the superb beaches and the rugged moorland scenery.
The leaflet’s suggested stop-off points can supplemented by some excellent railway walking.
The first 6 km of the line from Burtonport (on the L&LSR [3]) is an easily accessible, well-maintained walk. Full details of the walk and associated historic photographs can be found on this link:
A further excellent walk, part metalled, runs between Falcarragh Railway Station and the Foot of Muckish Trailhead, also on the L&LSR, which can be found within this link:
Lough Connell, Meenderrynasloe, Co. Donegal. The old railway ran along the North side of the lough. Parking is available at the West end of the lough. [Google Maps, 5th June 2023]
It is also possible to follow other lengths of the line which are part of other walking trails or which require a little more adventurous spirit. The full length of the Burtonport Extension of the L&LSR is covered by the series of of which the three above are a part.
‘The Modern Tramway’ in March 1957 (Volume 20, No. 231) carried a follow-up article [1] to that carried by the Journal in April 1954. The original article is covered here:
The follow-up article in the March 1957 Journal focussed on a new Road Research Laboratory Report about London road accidents. The Modern Tramway claimed in the article that the Report went almost unnoted in the national press, unlike the Laboratory’s earlier report.
Two images of London trams, possibly both Felthams. The first on Route 48, the second on Route 54. Route 48 ran between West Norwood, Elephant & Castle and City (Southwark). Route 54, between Grove Park Station and Victoria Station. [2][3: p122]
The featured image at the top of this article is part of the Lambeth Landmark Collection (Ref: 04823, Identifier: SP160, 1951). It shows, possibly, another Feltham tram on Route 38 crossing Westminster Bridge going towards Parliament Square. The London County Hall building can be seen on the right. The Skylon of the Festival of Britain is just visible (no more than a ghostly shadow) on the left side of the tram. Route 38 ran between Abbey Wood and Victoria Embankment (via Westminster Bridge). [4][3: p122]
The new report studied the effect on accidents of resurfacing former tramway roads in the boroughs of Camberwell and Wandsworth, and the report’s conclusions were that the improvement in road surfaces reduced skidding accidents but increased some other types of accident presumably by encouraging higher speeds. The final result was a marked transfer of accident-proneness from pedal cyclists to pedestrians and motor vehicles, a 10% decrease in total accidents and a ‘non-significant increase’ in fatal and serious accidents. The Journal commented that the phrase ‘non-significant increase’ was “not intended to reduce the seriousness of the case; since fatal and serious accidents are fewer than slight accidents a far more dramatic change in the trend would be necessary to reach the point of statistical signifi- cance.” [1: p43]
Of particular significance was the additional evidence which this latest report provided that “London tramway accident figures were not typical of those for the country as a whole. The comparison is made between the period when the tracks were intact but disused (and in many cases patched, leaving only the conduit slot exposed) and the first equivalent period after complete resurfacing; it confirms that the conduit slot was probably as important a factor as the running rails in pedal cycle accidents, and since this outdated feature of the former L.C.C. system was entirely confined to London (at least in the motor age) it clearly invalidates any comparison of accident figures between London and other towns.” [1: p43] Other similar points, such as the absence of loading islands in London, were brought out in the previous article in April 1954.
The Light Railway Transport League secured an interview with the Road Research Laboratory in which evidence relating to Dundee’s experience of a conversion from trams to buses was discussed as well as the then recent report about London. The tram and bus accident figures for Dundee showed that Dundee trams ran about three times as far per fatality as Dundee buses. “The Laboratory … considered that the Dundee figures were too small for any definite conclusion to be drawn from them, and maintain their previous view that since London results in almost all other matters have been found similar to those elsewhere the same must be true of trams.” [1: p43]
Sadly, the League came to the conclusion that the Laboratory’s conclusions would only be challenged if it’s own members were able to provide statistically significant and conclusive figures relating to some of the larger city networks which allow comparisons to be made. The League suggested that two forms of comparison were possible: “one in a city such as Sheffield where modern practices (and modern surfaces) apply on a street tramway system, the other in a city such as Liverpool where a high proportion of the tramways were on reserved track.” [1: p43] The League was convinced that the many untypical features of the London tramways rendered invalid any extrapolation of London results to other towns, and that a similar study in (say) Sheffield would provide ample proof of this. Their view was tramway modernisation would have brought about a greater reduction in accidents than the replacement of trams with buses. The League asserted that figures received from Hamburg seemed to confirm this. The Deputy Director of the Laboratory agreed that such practices as coupling trams together and providing loading islands could reasonably be expected to reduce the accident rate, but the Laboratory had no figures to support this. It seems, however, that there was shared agreement on the safety value of reserved tramway tracks as a study undertaken by the City Engineer in Glasgow after the war showed accidents to be negligible. [1: p44]
References
More About Accidents; in The Modern Tramway, The Light Railway Transport League, Volume 20, No. 231, p43-44.
The Modern Tramway Journal in February 1957 carried an article about the tramways of Leeds. The data for the article was collated by A.K. Terry and the article was written by J.H. Price. [1] Please note that the copyright of the featured image above is owned by the National Tramway Museum at Crich. The museum are content for it to be shared in this way provided that their copyright is acknowledged.
The Suez crisis brought a temporary halt to a number of things within the UK economy. One of these was the planned scrapping of the tram routes and tramcars in Leeds. That pause provided the opportunity for the Light Railway Transport League to compile a map, fleet list and list of services for the city. Everything included in the February 1957 article was correct as of 31st December 1956.
In 1953, Leeds City Council decided to substitute buses for trams over a period of ten years. This meant tha by the end of 1956, ten nineteen of the city’s tram routes had been abandoned and the 1953 roster of 417 tramcars reduced to 170.
Those changes were recorded by the article as follows:
“The first conversion was the service from the Corn Exchange to Half Mile Lane (No. 14) on 4th October 1953, followed on 4th April 1954, by Kirkstall Abbey (No. 4) and Compton Road (No. 10). The latter abandonment saw the withdrawal of the last ex-Manchester and ex-Southampton cars and the Pivotal-truck Chamberlain cars, while Headingley depot was closed to trams at the same time. No further abandonments took place in 1954, but 1955 and 1956 have witnessed six closures and the concentration of all tramway operations on the large central depot at Swinegate.
Chapeltown Depot was closed as a running shed on 24th April 1955 … and the Gipton tram service (No. 11) was replaced by buses on the same day, followed by Meanwood (No. 6) and Elland Road (No. 8) from 26th June. But as a result of the oil crisis, trams are now running to Elland Road again, after an absence of over seventeen months! The explanation is that this line remained intact to serve Low Fields Road scrapyard, and with the oil shortage special trams now run again on certain Saturday afternoons in connection with football matches at the Leeds United ground.
The replacement by buses of the Beeston service (No. 5) on 20th November 1955, enabled the depart- ment to cease using Torre Road depot (except to store some cars awaiting scrap) and this building is being converted to a bus garage, unlike Chapeltown depot which is to be sold. The 1956 abandonments – Lawnswood (No. 1) from 4th March, followed by Whingate (No. 15) and New Inn (No. 16) from 22nd July have removed trams from the city’s busiest thoroughfare (Boar Lane) and have eliminated the last of the Chamberlain cars. These vehicles were former Pivotal cars of 1925-26 remounted on new P.35 type trucks built at Kirkstall Road Works from 1944 onwards, mostly after the patent had been purchased in 1948 from the Brush company. Save for works journeys, trams no longer run through City Square, another notable traffic centre which provided one of the few British examples of the familiar Continental technique of using the centre of a square or roundabout as a full-scale tramway station.
The abandonment of the routes on the west side of Leeds has left the works at Kirkstall Road rather unfavourably placed. At present, tracks are maintained from Swinegate through City Square and Wellington Street to the works, but the Chairman of Transport Committee … stated some time ago that the Department was considering moving trams to and from the works on a special road vehicle. This has not materialised, and it is thought that when the fleet has been further reduced, the rear tracks of Swinegate Depot will be fitted with lifting gear and equipped to carry our body repairs, the trucks, motors and controllers then being taken by road to and from Kirkstall Road Works for attention.
Although no definite indication of policy has been given, it seems likely that after the completion of the present scheme to convert all lines laid entirely in streets (of which three remain Hunslet, Dewsbury Road and Moortown), the routes with reserved tracks may remain for several years. Track renewals have been taking place on all routes, notably on York Road where some of the former wooden sleepers have given way to a concrete base as already used on the Belle Isle reservation. The Roundhay reserved track has also received attention.
Since the Leeds Transport Committee seem to consider the sub-ject solely from the financial angle, the retention (or otherwise) of the reserved-track routes will presumably depend on the Department’s ability to keep the cost of tramway operation down to a figure comparable with that of the buses. The Chairman has admitted that reserved tracks are much cheaper to maintain than street tracks, and the concentration of all the cars at one large depot is evidently another step in this direction, as is the elimination of non-standard cars and equipments from the tram fleet. The diversity of types in the Leeds tram fleet will be seen from the accompanying table, and it is significant that only Horsfield and Feltham cars are now receiving major overhauls; these two classes between them would be more than sufficient to work the reserved-track routes.
Of the other types, the Headingley streamlined and Chamberlain cars have already departed from passenger service, and one of the three ex-London H.R.2 cars (No. 277) has been withdrawn following a collision, while London’s famous No. 1 (Leeds 301) will soon find its way back to its birthplace at Charlton as a prized exhibit in the B.T.C. collection of historic vehicles. The most unfortunate demise in Leeds is that of the Middleton bogie cars, of which only one (No. 268) now remains in service. Whatever the virtues of standardisation and maintenance-simplification, one cannot but regret the passing of what were some of the smoothest-riding double-deck cars ever built; so far as can be judged from personal observation, their withdrawal is due to body defects and the need to retyre the wheels at very frequent intervals lest the swing links of the trucks fail to clear the road surface. The extra cost of four-motor maintenance, as also experienced in Liverpool, may have been a factor. Enquiries were made as to the possibility of preserving one of these cars, but the scrap value and consequent purchase price would be in the region of £145. Nevertheless, anyone willing to help is invited to contact Mr. C. Routh, 17, Wynford Rise, West Park, Leeds 17, so that the potential financial support for such a scheme may be assessed.
The former preserve of these cars, the No. 12 route to Middleton, is now linked with the Belle Isle and York Road services and served mainly by Horsfields and Felthams. Both classes acquit themselves surprisingly well on the reserved track, but on such a route as this the 4-wheeled double-decker must inevitably proceed more cautiously than an equal-wheel bogie car, and the exhilarating dash down through the woods by the last few cars at night is now almost a thing of the past. Various minor improvements are being made to the Horsfield cars, including the replacement of air bells by electric bells, smaller destination boxes which no longer occupy the entire end window space, and fixed upper-deck windows with sliding ventilators to replace the winding type made famous elsewhere by the twin notices “Do not spit on the car. The conductor will adjust the win- dows on request.”
Since Leeds does not intend to buy or to build any more trams, the life of the reserved track lines may in the end be determined by the life of the cars, most of which are already 26 years old. Yet the Middleton route with its private express track has a wonderful potential advantage in time and distance over the shortest route to Middleton by road, and if the private track were extended into the city along the colliery railway, and modern coupled single-deckers introduced to run at railway speeds, the earning power of the trams would certainly be superior to that of buses using the increasingly congested streets. Birmingham is considering using its former tramway reservations, linked by subways, to form a rapid-transit system, but Leeds is even more fortunately placed, for the modern substations and suburban reserved tracks already exist, and present slum-clearance and road-widening schemes could bring the York Road reserved track almost to the city centre. It would be a short step to link this with the Middleton route by a subway, a new road, or even a private surface line laid partly over the river. These are real possibilities, and should be examined now, while the chance exists, so that they can be taken into account in town planning schemes. The opportunity is far too good to miss. [1: p23-24 & 27]
The article included a plan of Leeds City Tramways as they existed on 31st December 1956.
The Leeds City Tramway Network as on 31st December 1956. [1: p22]
The article also provides a table showing tram services in Leeds as at 31st December 1956
Leeds Tram Services recorded at the end of 1956. [1: p25]
The next two images show the table of rolling stock still in use on the tramway network at the end of 1956. The first image tabulates the rolling stock, the second provides explanatory notes and details of manufacturers.
Tramcars in use in Leeds at the end of 1956. [1: p30-31]
A separate numbering system was used for ‘Works Cars’ – snowplough cars, rail grinders, stores cars, water cars and rail Derrick’s. All of the Works Cars apart from the snow brooms and rail derrick No 1 were converted from passenger cars.
Works Cars and Former Passenger Cars [1: p32]
The article also included photographs of some of the Leeds tramcars.
The January 1957 edition of ‘The Modern Tramway’ reported a significant decision made by the Manx Government at the end of 1956 in respect of the future of the M.E.R. (the Manx Electric Tramway). [1]
On 12th December 1956, “the House of Keys decided by 17 votes to four that the railway, instead of being allowed to close, should be purchased by the Manx Government and run as a national tourist attraction. In addition to the purchase price of £50,000, they approved a scheme to relay the Douglas-Laxey and Snaefell track over ten years and to construct four new cars for the base service.” [1: p4]
Given the general attitude across the British Isles in the 1950s this might have seemed to be an unlikely outcome. As The Modern Tramway comments:
“This is a historic decision, the first case in which the powers that be have recognised that an electric tramway, no less than a narrow-gauge or miniature railway, constitute a real tourist attraction. Again, it is perhaps the first case in which real heed has been paid to suggestions first put forward in these pages, [The Modern Tramway]. …
On 20th June [1956], the House of Keys rejected the advice of a committee that the Manx Electric Railway be allowed to close, and appointed a new committee to investigate the possibility of continuing the system. … [That committee] found that the cost of essential track renewals was the same as already quoted (£90,000 for Douglas-Laxey, £36,000 for Snaefell and £139,000 for Laxey-Ramsey) and that the only major saving would be to limit the purchase of new rolling stock to the four motor cars needed for the base service. It would however be possible to get ten more year’s life from the existing track north of Laxey and reconsider the future of the Laxey-Ramsey section later on, and they also obtained a reduction in the purchase price from £70,000 to £50,000 by leaving out two hotels and allowing the company to retain its investments. They therefore reported that the cost of taking over the railway and running it for ten years would be £50,000 for purchase, £25,000 for ten years’ trading losses and £225,000 for renewals, and the question before the Manx Parliament was whether this expenditure would be justified.”
A Future for the M.E.R.; The Modern Tramway Volume 20, No. 229, January 1957, p4. [1:p4]
After summarising the costs of improvements and renewal the article quoted the Committee’s Report:
“We think everyone will agree that the existence of the Railway is a very great asset to the Visiting Industry. It has been at all times well patronised, and its failure would be a serious loss to the amenities of the Island as a visiting resort. Numerous letters have appeared in the local Press deploring the proposal to close the Railway and indicating the value which visitors place upon it, and the enjoyment derived from its use. Some of us feel that in any event the moral effect of closing this scenic railway which has served to supply visitors with the means of access to many of our Glens, some of which have already been purchased on behalf of the Isle of Man Government, would have a very serious effect upon the whole future of the Isle of Man and that no steps should be spared within reasonable limits to maintain it in existence.”
A Future for the M.E.R.; The Modern Tramway Volume 20, No. 229, January 1957, p4. [1:p4]
The Committee published their report in November 1956 and, in it, went on to mention the effect on the Island’s economy as regards unemployment, electricty supply, road improvements and winter work schemes, but the tourist industry naturally was their main concern. They paid tribute to the directors’ willingness to compromise which had led to the reduction in the purchase price.
A full debate took place in the Court of Tynwald on 12th December 1956 and was voted on. 17 members were in favour, four against with two abstentions.
In practice, this meant that a Board of Tynwald was set up to run the line. That Board took control of the line in 1957; and were tasked with a complete renewal of the track between Douglas and Laxey before 7 years had elapsed. After completion of that renewal, the Snaefell Mountain Railway was to be addressed in the next 3 years. In addition, purchase of 4 new cars, at an estimated cost of £8,000 each, was approved.
The Modern Tramway closes it’s article with an encouragement, first, to the Manx Tourist Board to “advertise the line as much as they can; … as a national asset the M.E.R. can and must take its proper place in the excellent handbooks and posters which the island distributes. Special guests should be taken for a trip over the line (in the directors’ saloon, of course) just as they were when it was new, and there might be a thing or two to be gleaned from the Talyllyn Railway or the R.H. & D. in the field such as selling guides, postcards and history brochures, conducting visitors round the sheds, putting together a small museum or even running a named express. Bi-lingual station name boards (as suggested by the Visiting Industry Commission) and altitude posts on the mountain railway.” [1: p5-6]
And secondly, to the Light Railway Transport League properly support the decision of the Tynwald. This, the article suggests should at least include:
a League visit on an annual basis,
a publication covering the history of the line,
members choosing to take their holidays on the Isle of Man,
regular talks about the island and it’s unique forms of transport.
Manx Electric Railway special train at Dhoon Quarry in September 1975: the train consists of the original motor car, No.1 of 1893, and ‘Royal Saloon’ no.59 of 1895, and was working an enthusiast trip. At this time No.1 was normally only used for maintenance work, and had been equipped with platforms screens to give some protection to the driver. The front dash panel can be seen to be seriously dented, and the body can be seen to be in need of attention. It was ‘rescued’ from this condition in 1979 and restored as part of the Tynwald Millennium celebrations.
2023 sees the 130th anniversary of the opening of the M.E.R., the Company advertises its Douglas to Ramsey service, the Snaefell service and the Steam railway together. [2] The M.E.R. has, since nationalisation, had a chequered history. The Company’s website has a short history of the service which tells us that:
“The new timetable introduced in June 1958 with 11 round trips to Ramsey between 10am and 6pm was met with immediate disapproval, so much that nearly the entire Board resigned. After the appointment of a new Board in July 1959, a service of 20 round trips with a winter service was the agreed replacement, allowing the mail contract to continue.
By 1965 the relaying of the Derby Castle to Laxey section and rewiring was near enough complete. Tynwald’s commitment to the M.E.R was tested in January 1967 where a short section of the wall at Bulgham collapsed, meaning temporary termini had to be set up north and south of the accident site. Reconstruction of the embankment started in May, and was finished in mid-July.
The Laxey-Ramsey section was closed after a few years of speculation in September 1975, causing the railway to lose the mail contract. Following Government debate it was decided to keep the Ramsey section closed for 1976, the railway as a result becoming the high topic at the year’s General Election!
Support for the M.E.R meant that the Laxey-Ramsey section was reopened for the 1977 season, with the amalgamation of the Steam Railway and M.E.R under the title of Isle of Man Railways coming shortly after during 1978 (though the name of the M.E.R Board was not changed) Both railways were to be marketed jointly and timetables coordinated, working in turn with the amalgamated bus network. The M.E.R looked to be safe, with the Centenary of Electric Traction Celebrations coming to the fore in 1979.
The ‘Centenary of Electric Traction’ Celebrations were very successful for the Manx Electric Railway, with the restoration of Freight Trailer No.26 and Locomotive No.23 to display condition, the opening of the Electric Railway Museum in Ramsey Car Shed, and the Grand Cavalcade at Laxey, during which all the operational stock was exhibited to the general public. Car No.1 was also restored to operational passenger use, with Car No.2 following in Winter 1980/81.
During 1983 the Manx Electric Railway and National Transport Boards were amalgamated, to become the Isle of Man Passenger Transport Board, with Car No.6 receiving the title ‘Isle of Man Passenger Transport’ post-overhaul. During the same year, Locomotive No.23 was also restored to operational condition, receiving again trucks and equipment from Car No.33. It ran during the May 1983 and 1984 ‘Vintage Transport’ Weekends, being very popular for visiting and local enthusiasts. Further repairs were undertaken to areas of the Bulgham section of the M.E.R, with the northern section of the retaining wall (near today’s excursion platform) receiving attention.
In 1986, the Board system was scrapped and the M.E.R came under the control of the Department of Tourism and Transport (Today the Department of Community, Culture and Leisure). Following two years of planning, the ‘Year of Railways’ was launched in 1993, with the Centenary of the Manx Electric Railway being the prime focus.” [3]
“The section between Laxey and Ramsey was closed again in summer 2008, after a consultancy report commissioned by the Isle of Man Government exposed critical failings in the permanent way, deeming it unsuitable for passenger service in the near future. The … Tynwald, agreed to spend nearly £5 million for track replacement in July–September, allowing trams to run on a single track. … Manx authorities were considering vintage buses as a replacement during the closure. … In 2009, the full line operated continuously, and it has continued to do so during the summer season since the beginning of the 2010 season at Easter, except for [a] COVID-related suspension, with no rail-related incidents affecting services.
Until 1998, the line operated a year-round service, but since then it has run seasonally, usually between March and the beginning of November, though the dates can vary from season to season.” [4]
30 years have passed since the centenary celebrations and the Company now maintains its own website and an active social media presence.
References
A Future for the M.E.R.; The Modern Tramway; Volume 20, No. 229, January 1957, p4-6.
Professional thinking in London in the early 1950s was that tramway modernisation would reduce road accidents. Accordingly, The Light Railway Transport League was invited to exhibit at a number of post-war Road Safety Exhibitions. [1: p59]
However, on 1st January 1954, a London Transport Executive press release carried the title ‘Tram Scrapping has reduced London accidents’. [2] This claim was based on a study “undertaken … by the Road Research Laboratory of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and summarised in a Report issued towards the end of [1953].” [3]
The Modern Tramway noted that the report was a serious well-intentioned piece of research into trends in London traffic accidents. It was “cautious in its approach and highly qualified in its conclusions.” [1: p59] However, the article continues, “the fact is that the parts of this Report, divorced from their contexts, which received notice in the Press appears to have given an incorrect impression, and this we point out lest students of transport fail to draw a proper distinction between the study itself and the conclusions drawn from it.” [1: p60]
This has often been a malaise which had affected public reporting of detailed technical papers. The LTE release chose to remove all qualifying statements and ignored the manifest caution in the way conclusions were expressed by the original report. It perhaps is also symptomatic of a general presumption that tramways (and also railways) were not the transport of the future. The internal combustion engine was seen as the future. At the time, this was not necessarily an unreasonable view. It has, however, been proven to be a significant miss-step in policy direction as the years have unfolded.
“The original accident study considered all London accidents from 1950 to 1952, and compared the general trend of all kinds of accidents with those on ex-tram routes; only if the ex-tram route reduction was significantly greater than the more general reduction could the greater reduction be associated with tram-scrapping. So far, so good. BUT of all the accident classes surveyed, only that of ‘Accidents involving public service vehicles’ was found to have a reduction which was statistically significant, and within this class, fatal accidents actually increased, serious accidents were not reduced significantly, and the much-vaunted reduction was, in fact, limited to ‘slight accidents involving public service vehicles’. The L.T.E. handout omitted all mention of this vitally important word ‘slight’ and … gave the same statistical weight to all … classes of accident.” [1: p60]
Surely, one fatal accident is more concern to the community than fifty ‘slight’ accidents, “and the Report confirms the views of the Road Safety Organiser for Greenwich that by disciplining other traffic, London’s trams did at least keep the proportion of fatal or serious accidents well below the average for the whole country. It may well be that in this way, and by the tendency of the tram’s life- guard to reduce the proportion of fatalities in accidents, the tram has saved many valuable lives.” [1: p60]
The Modern Tramway comments that, “the over-simplification of this theme in the L.T.E. handout is the more regrettable in view of the fact that the London Transport Executive were the sole agency through which the results of the study were made public. A different body with no direct interest in the justification of tramway abandonments might have presented the results in a totally different way.” [1: p60]
Perhaps of even greater significance in that contemporary debate was the way in which the different transport authorities and borough councils had created a context in which tramway accidents were more likely to occur. “For eighteen years, every suggestion that would have reduced accidents was turned down on the excuse that the trams were to be scrapped, and dozens of urgently needed road improvement works were held up on the excuse that they must await the final abandonment; no wonder acci- dents happened.” [1: p60]
The Modern Tramway highlighted a number of issues/examples which are worthy of note:
Many tram stops in South London desperately needed to be equipped with loading islands but, except in two isolated instances, nothing was done, even where the road was sufficiently wide to leave room for two lines of traffic between the island and the kerb.
On 11th March 1948, Croydon Highways Committee, acting on the recommendation of their Accident Prevention Sub-Committee and with the approval of the local police, asked London Transport to lay a double tram track through the bottleneck at Crown Hill, Croydon, in place of the single track. This proposal … was rejected.
As part of the general determination not to spend money on the tramways, the headlamps of London’s trams remained obscured until the end by their wartime masks. In most other towns trams would long since have been fitted with separate rear lights, and sometimes also with stop lights and indicators.
The same excuse of eventual abandonment was given when complaints were made about the type of tramway paving adopted, yet when the new lines were constructed in Lambeth for the Festival of Britain it was shown that even conduit tracks could be given a surrounding surface equal to that of the best modern roads.
The cars themselves, although efficient and extremely reliable vehicles, were not always maintained to the best possible standards; this is shown by the fact that in 1947 the men of Telford Avenue Depot actually staged a one-day strike to draw the attention of the public to the state of the vehicles which they were expected to drive. It is also significant that the Ministry of Transport would not allow the sale of ex-L.C.C. cars to other cities unless the braking systems were improved.
The consequences of the LTE’s shoddy approach to the dissemination of the report’s findings were also of significance. The Modern Tramway continues:
“Wherever tramways are the subject of Press attacks, the London figures were triumphantly reproduced with a “We told you so” air, often omitting the fact that only accidents involving public service vehicles were concerned and thus making it appear that tramway abandonment reduced all road accidents by a third, which is sheer nonsense. Other papers such as the Yorkshire Evening News developed their own patent theories as to the probable effect of tram-scrapping in their own areas, consequently, ignoring the different conditions. We have not forgotten how this newspaper treated two accidents in Leeds on 10th December, 1953, when the fact that a tram had grazed the side of a lorry, injuring no one, was reported with headline while the case of a 12-year-old girl knocked down by a bus on the same day was relegated to a small paragraph.” [1: p61]
The Report itself extrapolated its own findings, suggesting that if the effects in other towns were the same as in London, then the replacement of all the remaining tram services in Great Britain would result in a further saving of about 1,100 accidents per year. “In fact,” says The Modern Tramway, “any tramway officer outside London would have pointed out … that this gratuitious extrapolation is quite pointless.” [1: p61]
The Modern Tramway went on to point out some of the key distinctions: [1: p61-62]
London tramways, for the most part, retained the outmoded conduit system of current collection, with a central slot and broken road surface. Except on the semi-reserved Embankment area lines, no one would have recommended its retention had the tramways been modernised.
London tramways were almost completely devoid of reserved tracks, loading islands, and other modern aids to tramway safety. Where tramways on reserved tracks were replaced by buses running on the public highway, the opposite effect has been the case, and accidents had increased.
The use of modern vehicles and well maintained tracks in other locations invalidates any comparison.
In London, motorists were permitted to overtake stationary tramcars. Elsewhere this was usually prohibited by local bye-laws.
In London, buses and trams shared the same road space. Elsewhere, they were kept on separate roads wherever possible.
London’s trams relied on a magnetic brake, elsewhere, by 1953, air brakes were in use.
Experience in Sheffield and in a number of German towns suggests that the findings of the report about London were not replicated. In those cases “accident figures had risen as a result of tramway abandonment.” [1: p62]
The Modern Tramway concludes it article with two further thoughts:
Prior to the period examined by the Report, a considerable proportion of the public service vehicles involved in accidents would have been buses and coaches. The article states: “In our experience, a mixed service of buses and trams running along the same road is far more obstructive and dangerous than an equivalent service of one type of vehicle only; in these circumstances the replacement of the trams by extra buses may well result in fewer accidents, but exactly the same effect would be obtained by replacing the buses by extra trams. We understand that this is the case in Brussels, where several pre-war bus routes are now tram-worked and of 14 bus routes in 1939, only three now remain.” [1: p62]
“All public service assessments, “the article continues, “should be made, not on a ‘per vehicle’ basis, but on the basis of per unit service to the public. Since it is acknowledged that the replacing bus service is 5-10% less than the corresponding tram service, it follows that there are roughly 73% fewer vehicles, and each has 56 rather than 73 seats, ie., there are 29% fewer replacing seats – and it is seats, on road public service vehicles, which represent service to the public. Assuming, however, that a third of the public service vehicles operating along tram-served roads were buses, there were still 20% fewer public service seats available along ex-tram routes after the scrapping of the trams. If it further be assumed that proportionality might be the criterion for accident assessment, a decrease of 20% in accidents might be permitted before significance is attached to the type of vehicle providing the service; after all, a 20% reduction in tram service might well have produced a 20% reduction in accidents involving trams. The actual decrease in accidents was nearly 30%, so it remains to be tested whether the unexpected extra reduction of 10% was significant in the light of the total number of such accidents.” [1: p62]
In fact, performing a “chi-square” test of significance with the revised figures, in the light of the service provided, showed that any reduction in accident numbers was no longer statistically significant.
The Modern Transport article concluded firstly that London Transport and the Press made far too much of a Report in which its D.S.I.R. authors qualified their conclusions very heavily. And insisted that the observed decrease in accidents is only in ‘slight’ accidents with other accident numbers not having changed appreciably.
It seems to me that there is a salutary lesson here for us all which relates to the need to treat press reports with care particularly where those publishing press releases about those reports may have their own agenda.
References
Trams and Road Accidents: A Fresh London Analysis; The Modern Tramway, Volume 17, No. 196, April 1954.
Tram Scrapping Has Reduced London Accidents; LTE Press Office, G.P.N. 257, 1st January 1954.
DSIR Road Research Laboratory Report R.N. 2061, October 1953. … It is worth noting that the report was not released to public scrutiny but that its substance appeared in reports within the technical press of the time.
The April 1954 edition of ‘The Modern Tramway’ included an article about the introduction of new articulated tramcars in Stuttgart. It is interesting to listen to the discussion about the relative merits of articulated cars and trains of two or three cars coupled together. …..
In April 1954, the first of these new cars were going into service, supplied by H. Fuchs Wagonfabrik A.G. of Heidelberg. As far as I can ascertain, Stuttgart sourced later articulated tramcar sets from manufacturer Maschinenfabrik Esslingen. [2]
“The decision of the Stuttgart authorities to order articulated cars rather than the standard German grossraumwagen was reached after careful consideration of local conditions. The city is very hilly and of 116 route Km.
20 Km. have gradients of from 3-5%.
21 Km. have gradients of from 5-8%.
5 Km. have gradients more than 8%.
and only a very few routes (15 Km. in length), are so slightly graded that they can be considered level. In overcoming the differences of gradient the tramways are very sharply curved and there are many curves with a radius of 20 metres. The city centre is narrow and congested and high speed running is impossible. In order to raise average speeds, the uphill speeds of the trams must be increased.
The articulated design was partly chosen as it gave increased adhesive weight (69% of the available weight is carried on driving axles with forward and rear bogies motored). The new cars are slightly wider than the older types and some realignment of curves was necessary.
Each unit has 60 seats and room for 160 standing passengers. To obtain the greatest advantage from the extra width, sliding doors are fitted, with folding stops. Whilst the capacity is roughly that of a two-car car grossraumwagen set, the total length Is about 5 metres shorter and actually 6.8 metres shorter than a standard Stuttgart three car four-wheeler set. This represents a 20% saving. The reduced length is also an asset in traffic.
Passengers enter through the centre pair of doors and alight from either front or rear. Waiting passengers can therefore concentrate at one point on the loading island and British type queue barriers are being erected to guide passengers to the point where the centre doors will be; alighting passengers are not discharged into the waiting queue. The two conductor’s desks face the entrance doors and passengers can either pass forward or rearward according to the accommodation available.
The new cars will not entirely replace the existing three-car tram-trains of four wheel cars-at least not for some years. The capacity of these sets can be matched to traffic demands, using one, two or three units as required. The articulated cars have not this adaptability and will, there- fore, be used on routes where traffic remains fairly constant through the day; on these routes they will replace 3 car sets (used intact all day), thus representing a saving of one conductor per unit.”
Modern Articulated Cars for Stuttgart; The Modern Tramway, Volume 17, No. 196, April 1954, p70-71. [1]
It is interesting to note that each articulated set was to be staffed by 3 people, a driver and two conductors. Modern UK articulated sets only have a driver and if two articulated sets are paired there would still only be one driver.
The article in The Modern Tramway goes on to provide technical descriptions which came from the manufacturer of the tramcars, starting with leading dimensions:
“Overall length of car, 25 metres (82 ft.); Distance between bogie cen- tres, 18 metres (59 ft. 1 in.); Wheel base, 1.750 metres (5 ft. 9 in.): Overall height from rail level, 3.115 metres (10 ft. 3 in.); Height of floor, 0.82 metres (32.25 in.); Overall width of car, 2.2 metres (7 ft. 2.625 in.); Weight of car including electrical equipment 26,000 kg. (25 tons 11 cwt.); 4 motors having each 58 kW. …
The whole car body including the underframe is built up of edged columns and girders welded together, so that the supporting structure is formed by side wall, underframe, and car roof.
The car roof, which is of the arched type, is fitted with an all-around rain gutter drained by means of outlet pipes located in various columns.
The windows are embedded in rubber, so no draught and rain water can enter. The windows are fixed at the bottom, and sliding at the top.
The car is single-ended. There are four sliding doors arranged on the outside, of identical size and operated from the conductors’ seats through an electro-pneumatic door valve. The door opening or closing operation simultaneously operates the folding footsteps through air cylinders, thus preventing any person from hopping on the car whilst in motion. Should the door remote control fail, the doors can be opened by hand, by reversing an emergency cock.
The two car sections are separated from each other, in the centre, by a “corridor connection.” This was necessary to enable the car to nego- tiate narrow curves, and to compensate for the various movements.
Each of the two car sections includes a conductor’s place of the stationary type, where all necessary controlling apparatus and push- buttons are arranged to operate the doors, loud-speakers, heating systems, etc.
The space available between the two conductors’ places serves as a collecting point for passenger flow. The arrangement of the hand-rails guide the passengers past the conductor to the inside. Since the conductor’s seat is elevated, he has a good view over the passengers entering or leaving the car.
The driver’s cab is separated from the passengers’ compartment by a partition. This partition has been so formed that the electrical controllers are at its upper part, leaving some space for a cupboard below to store lost property. The access is by means of a hinged door.
The controllers and levers to be operated by the driver are arranged so as to be easily accessible.
The lighting equipment of the car consists of fluorescent type tubes running through lengthwise. There is an illuminated number plate on the roof, and an illuminated direction board in the upper part of one side window.
The whole of the cable wiring is arranged in the underframe, and this in suitable conduits adequately protected from splash water. Separate cable tubes lead to the various electrical appliances. The entire Bosch type pneumatic equipment is also located in the underframe. The brake equipment consists of the following:-
Service brake: Electrical braking through the motors;
Additional brake: Electro-pneumatic, hand-operated air brake having at all times at its disposal a brake force supply from bent springs (so- called spring storage brake);
Emergency brake: 6 electro-magnetic rail brakes being fed from a separate battery and directly opera- ting on the rails with a 24,000 kg. force.”
Modern Articulated Cars for Stuttgart; The Modern Tramway, Volume 17, No. 196, April 1954, p71-72.
The article concludes with details of suspension and bogie centre pins:
Suspension of axles: Through helical springs with no damping at all. There are intermediate rubber layers for silencing, in conjunction with the helical springs.
Steering of axles is through a suspended and continuous spring leaf transmitting the longitudinal and transverse forces to the bogie frame. There are auxiliary axle guards to protect from spring breakage.
Bolster suspension: Undamped helical springs located far on the out- side, with built-in hydraulic shock absorber, serve to quickly eliminate any lateral up-and-down movement. In addition, to cushion the lateral bolster movement and to transmit the force longitudinally from the bolster to the bogie frame, there are rubber pieces arranged on each bolster end, and these pieces are vulcanized on metal plates. The bolster springs are housed in cross-bars suspended on the frame by means of a pendulum. The bolster is led through small stop plates, eliminating wear and tear.
Bogie centre pins: There is an entirely rigid pivot pin transmitting all forces to the bolster. Thus, no lateral sliding pieces subject to wear and tear are necessary. The torsional friction moment is practically non-existent compared with that obtained by use of sliding pieces, resulting in minimum wear and tear of tyres and rail, and insignificant impact effect when curves are being negotiated.”
Modern Articulated Cars for Stuttgart; The Modern Tramway, Volume 17, No. 196, April 1954, p73.
References
Modern Articulated Cars for Stuttgart; The Modern Tramway, Volume 17, No. 196, April 1954, p70-73.
Roger Farnworth 
