H.A.Vallance notes that in the years prior to the coming of the railways to the North of Scotland there was a series of different initiatives intended to improve transport links. The first were the roads built by General Wade (250 miles of military roads) which “were quite unsuited to the requirements of trade operating under peace-time conditions.” [17: p11] The biggest contribution to raid development was made by Thomas Telford. He “was appointed to survey for new roads and for the improvement of existing highways. In the course of … 17 years he constructed about 920 miles of road, and built some 1,200 bridges.” [17: p11] But it was the coming of the railways to the Highlands, that most effectively addressed the regions transport problems.
Earlier articles about the Highland Railway network can be found here, [3] and here. [4] These two articles cover the Strathpeffer Branch and the Fortrose Branch repectively.
Trains Illustrated No. 18 which was published in 1976 focussed on The Highland Railway. [1] The introductory article, ‘Highland Retrospect’, was written by Paul Drew. [1: p4-11]
Paul Drew commences his article with a short reflection on the excitement of waking on one of the sleeper services heading North into the Scottish highlands. Two routes provide an intensely enjoyable experience in the right weather: “The awakening on the West Highland line at Garelochhead, perhaps, or on Rannoch Moor … winding in a generally northward direction towards Fort William, Mallaig and Skye and the Hebrides; and daybreak on the Highland line proper, the Perth-Inverness main line of the old Highland Railway, somewhere between Blair Atholl and the outskirts of Inverness, following the old coach road up to Druimuachdar summit, at an altitude of 1484ft, or dropping down the hills between Spey and Findhorn and Findhorn and Moray Firth.” [1: p4]
Drew expresses his opinion that the Highland Railway (HR) route offers the greatest diversity of scenery but whether “you travel from Euston to the Highland or from Kings Cross to the West Highland line the contrast between the [suburbs of London] … and the glories seen on waking – even, for devotees, in a Scotch mist – is one of the attractions of the journey. Before World War II one could start an overnight journey to a Highland line station from Kings Cross as well as Euston, and up to 1914 from St Pancras also with, on a summer evening, a daylight exit from London.” [1: p4]
He seems to like the route taken by trains from St. Pancras best. Their route “was via Leeds, the magnificent MR route across the Pennines, Carlisle, the North British Railway’s Waverley route through the best parts of the Lowlands to Edinburgh, and so by the East Coast route over the Forth Bridge to Perth, the beginning of the HR main line – all far better traversed in daylight.” [1: p4]
He notes too that it was common practice not to disturb a passenger’s sleep which meant that sleeper services on the HR were normally made up of “HR vehicles and through coaches and sleeping cars from England (LNWR, West Coast Joint Stock, GNR, North Eastern, East Coast Joint Stock, Midland, and probably Midland & North British joint stock) and from Scotland (Caledonian and North British) but also of privately hired ‘family’ saloons, horseboxes, flat wagons conveying carriages and, from the turn of the century, motorcar vans, all supplied by a wide variety of English and Scottish railways.” [1: p4]
Occasionally, these trains would also include the “private saloon of the Duke of Sutherland, who owned not only one or two passenger vehicles but a 2-4-0 tank engine, Dunrobin, and its successor, an 0-4-4 tank of the same name, which he ran – often driving himself – on his private railway. It was in Sutherland, and ran from Golspie via his seat, Dunrobin Castle, to Helmsdale. The line was eventually taken over by the Highland and forms part of the Farther North line from Inverness to Wick and Thurso. Both Dunrobins were allowed to work (within limits) over HR tracks, even south of Inverness, but not, it seems on public passenger trains – at least not expresses.” [1: p4]
Drew notes that, “The marshalling of the heterogeneous caravans at Perth, where vehicles were made over by the CR and NBR, was a frequent cause of unpunctuality and indeed chaos. Besides, most of the trains tended to run late during the summer, especially on the HR main line, which even after the central portion south of Druimuachdar has been double-tracked in the 1890s, tended to be congested; a high-season shortage of HR motive power aggravated matters, and reliance on telegraphy for many years before introduction of the telephone did not make for flexibility in train operation. Disgruntled Sassenach passengers in Perth, Edinburgh Waverley and other big Scottish stations would mutter that they ordered this matter better in England.” 1: p4]
It would be easy to take the perspective of a southerner when considering the HR, seeing it “mainly as a means of moving tourists and sportsmen from England, and such consumer goods and other freight as the impoverished Highlands could afford to import.” [1: p4] But it would be quite wrong to do so. “The Highland Railway was conceived by Highlanders, in the Highlands, as an outlet for the fish and agricultural produce of the Highlands from northern Perthshire to John o’ Groats and from Inverness eastwards to the Aberdeenshire border and westwards to Wester Ross, a region that in the 1840s was still only slowly recovering from the oppression and impoverishment that had followed the Forty-Five insurrection a century before. The HR was the creation not of middle-class businessmen but of country landowners who ranged from the rich Duke of Sutherland to poor lairds who could afford little more than to encourage, rather than to oppose (like many landowners in the south) building the railway over their land, often asking for a station to serve their tenants.” [1: p4]
With a route mileage of more than five hundred miles, H. A. Vallance tells us, “the Highland occupied third place among the five fully-independent pre-1923 main line railways of Scotland. Its popularity with those who love railways arise from the scenic charm of its terrain, and also from the way in which the small company succeeded in working its traffic in the face of natural difficulties, and with limited financial resources, over routes that were largely single track.” [17: dust-jacket]
Prior to the 1850s, “there was already a trickle of summer tourists from the Lowlands and England, who used a surprisingly well-developed system of stagecoaches or drove in their own carriages; but it was not until the 1850s, after Queen Victoria and the Prince Consort had ‘invented’ Highland tourism by establishing Balmoral, that the trickle began to grow into a flood. Deerstalking, grouse-shooting and fishing, at least by rich people from south of Perth, developed slowly. For 20 years after the HR Inverness-Perth line, by the original route via Forres, was opened in 1863 the management adopted a take-it-or-leave-it attitude to passengers, though by the 1880s receipts from through passenger traffic from England, including much first class in the summer, were considerable. And for long afterwards the HR left the provision of really comfortable passenger vehicles to the English railways and the Caledonian.” [1: p4-5]
Drew continues: “To promoters seeking a route for a railway from Inverness to the south there were three options. The first was a relatively easy alignment along the flat coast via Forres to Elgin, thence through undulating but not mountainous country to near Inverurie and on through Lowland Buchan to Aberdeen. Second was the route of the old coach road via Kingussie, Druimuachdar and Blair Atholl to Perth, and the third was through [the] Great Glen to the area of Fort William, beyond which progress to Glasgow was through a region of mountains and lochs which had long been thought impassable for a railway – or at least to involve too many major civil engineering works – until it was traversed by the West Highland line towards the end of the century, some years after the threat of a Glasgow & North Western Railway over an even more difficult route than the West Highland.” [1: p5]
The disadvantages of the route via Aberdeen were it’s circuitous route and, at the time particularly, there being no bridges crossing the River Tay and the Firth of Forth and the failure of any such route to serve inland Invernessshire. Also significantly perhaps, was an innate suspicion (perhaps too strong a word) amongst highlander promoters of a railway that there was any need to serve the lowland city of Aberdeen.
“Nevertheless,” says Drew, “the first train to reach Inverness from the South, in 1858, was from Aberdeen, over the Great North of Scotland [Railway (GNSR)] as far as Keith and then over the Inverness & Aberdeen Junction line, which later became part of the HR.” [1: p5]
The Aberdeen to Inverness Railway Line, (GNSR – Aberdeen to Keith)
The GNSR was “floated to build a railway from Aberdeen to Inverness. … It obtained its Act on 26th June 1846. It is estimated that [this] cost £80,000 and the company was at once in financial straits, … accentuated by the crash which followed the ‘Railway Mania’s, then at its height. … [Eventually, work] started on 25th November 1852. … The railway was opened from Kittybrewster (1½ miles from Aberdeen) to Huntly, a distance of 39 miles, on 19th September 1854. Four years previously, the railway had been completed from Perth to Aberdeen. A through journey was then made possible between England and the south of Scotland, and Huntly. From this latter point coaches, running in connection with the trains, continued the journey to Inverness.” [17: p12-15]
The line was extended into Aberdeen to Waterloo Quay in 1855, and in October 1856 it reached Keith around halfway between Aberdeen and Inverness. The GNSR had overstretched itself and could not fund the remaining 55 miles of line to Inverness.
The original Great North of Scotland Railway terminus in Aberdeen opened on 1st April 1856, and closed to passenger service on 4th November 1867 with the opening of Aberdeen Joint Railway Station. This extract from the 25″ Ordnance Survey undertaken between 1864 and 1867, published in 1869 shows the station as it was in its prime. [15][18]The next significant location on the line was the station at Kittybrewster which is shown here as an extract from the 25″ Ordnance Survey undertaken between 1864 and 1867, published in 1868. [19]Dyce Railway Station was opened (along with the line) in 1854 by the Great North of Scotland Railway (GNSR). It later became a junction for the Formartine and Buchan Railway (F&BR) which diverged here and headed north to Peterhead and Fraserburgh; this opened to traffic in 1861 and had its own platforms alongside the main line ones. Passenger services over the F&BR ended as a result of the Beeching Axe on 4th October 1965 but the station remained open until 6th May 1968. [15] Freight continued to Peterhead until 1970 and to Fraserburgh until October 1979. There is still evidence on the ground of the old branch platforms which sat on the site of the station car park. The former branch lines are now a long distance cycle path, accessible from the western end of the car park. The station was reopened by British Rail on 15th September 1984. This extract from the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1865, published in 1866 shows the station soon after it became a junction station. [16][20]
The GNSR left Dyce and followed the southern edge of the River Don’s floodplain, passing through Kintore before bridging both the Aberdeen Canal and the River Don just to the North of Port Elphinstone Railway Station.
Kintore Railway Station acted as a junction station for the Alford Valley Railway which branched off the GNSR line just to the Northwest of Kintore Railway Station. The Alford Valley Railway opened in 1859. It had stations at Kemnay, Monymusk, Tillyfourie, Whitehouse and Alford. The line also served Kemnay Quarry and three other granite quarries in the area. The train took just over an hour for the 16-mile (26 km) journey. [27][28]This next extract from the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1864 to 1866, published in 1867, shows Port Elphinstone Railway Station and the bridges over the Aberdeen Canal and the River Don. As can be seen on this extract a short branch line served the canal wharves at Port Elphinstone. [21]Inverurie Railway Station was the next significant location on the GNSR and appears on this extract from the 25″Ordnance Survey of 1864 to 1866, published in 1867. [22]Further to the Northwest, the line bridged the River Urie (Ury). This extract is from the Ordnance Survey of 1866 & 1867, published in 1867. [23]
To the West of Keith, the Highland Railway held sway. The Inverness &Aberdeen Junction Railway was one of the constituent parties that formed the Highland Railway in 1865, as noted below.
The line crossed the River Urie (Ury) once again further to the Northwest. This extract comes from the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1867, published in 1868. [24]
Beyond this viaduct the line ran along the South side of the River Ury and then to the South side of the Gadie Burn. It crossed the Burn just to the West of the village of Oyne and its railway station.
The village of Oyne, its railway station, and both road and railway bridges over the Gadie Burn. This extract is taken from the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1867, published in 1868. [25]Insch Railway Station at Rothney, as it appeared on the 1867 25″ Ordnance Survey. [26]The next station on the line was Wardhouse Station. [29]And then Kennethmont Railway Station. [30]And Gartly Railway Station. [31]North of Gartly the railway bridged the River Bogie twice in short succession before arriving at Huntly. [32]Huntly Railway Station sat on the East bank of the River Bogie with Huntly to the West of the river. Huntly was the temporary terminus of the GNSR from 19th September 1854 until an extension was opened taking the line as far as Keith in October 1856. [17: p15-16] This extract is from the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1871, published in 1872. [33]
North of Huntly, on the extension to Keith the line. Missed the River Deveron and ran through Rothiemay Railway Station.
This extract from the 25″Ordnance Survey of 1870 and 1871, published in 1872 shows the viaduct over the River Deveron and Rothiemay Railway Station. [34]Further West the line passed through Grange Station which three years after opening in 1856 became the junction station for the Banff, Portsoy and Strathisla Railway which opened a branch to Banff and Portsoy. [35][36]This next extract from the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1867 & 1868, published in 1869, shows Keith Railway Station which was the terminus of the GNSR line from October 1856 until the Inverness & Aberdeen Junction Railway reached Keith from Nairn in 1858. . [37][38]
The Keith and Dufftown Railway ran Southwest from Keith to Dufftown. It can be seen curving away from the station at the left of the OS map extract above. At Dufftown, the line made an end-on connection with the Speyside Railway at Dufftown, and the Morayshire Railway connected to the Speyside Railway at Craigellachie, this ultimately gave the GNSR access to Elgin. [39]
The Aberdeen to InvernessRailway Line(HR – Keith to Inverness)
The GNSR’s protracted/torturous efforts to reach Inverness created space for others to act. Interests in Inverness sought to provide a different link to the South via Druimuachdar to Perth but were thwarted by its rejection by Parliament (in 1846), nonetheless they “obtained authority for a short line from Inverness to Nairn with a view both to blocking a GNSR approach to Inverness and also the Inverness route which eventually branched off from the Inverness-Aberdeen route at Forres, Nairn, and ran via Dava summit (1052ft), Grantown-on-Spey, Aviemore and on to Perth via Druimuachdar. (Only in the 1890s was the direct line built from Inverness via Slochd summit and Carr Bridge to Aviemore, affording the shortest route to the South.)” [1: p5-7]
Drew continues: “The Inverness & Nairn railway took only a year to build (1854-55). The eastward extension of the Inverness-Nairn line was the Inverness & Aberdeen Junction, which ran via Forres and Elgin to Keith, to which point it was opened in 1858, met the GNSR and provided the Inverness-Aberdeen through route. Two years later the Inverness & Perth Junction Company was formed. Construction of the Forres-Perth line made quick progress from both ends, despite the need to take the line for 100 miles through the central mountain tract of Scotland. The through route from Inverness via Forres to Perth was completed in 1863. The Inverness & Aberdeen Junction, which had absorbed the Inverness & Nairn, and the Inverness & Perth Junction, were amalgamated in 1865 to form the Highland Railway.” [1: p7]
West of Elgin the line bridged the River Lossie before passing through Mosstowie Station, then passed a connection to a mineral railway serving Newton Quarries and on to Alves Station.
After Alves Station it was only a short distance to the junction for the Burghead & Hopeman Branch. The line then continued on to Kinloss.
The 25″ Ordnance Survey shows the junction with the HR’s Burghead & Hopeman Branch and the adjacent roads and bridge at around the turn of the 20th century. [58]The same location in the 21st century. The road has been realigned. The route of both railway lines are still easily made out! [58]The old road bridge still crosses the railway adjacent to the newer A96 road bridge. [Google Streetview, May 2023]Looking West along the line from the A96. [Google Streetview, May 2023]Kinloss Railway Station opened on 25th March 1858 by the Inverness and Aberdeen Junction Railway. It was re-sited on 18th April 1860, to the east, but it was moved back to its original location in May 1904. It closed to passengers on 3rd May 1965nand completely on 7th November 1966. [59][60]The same area in the 21st century. [59]Kinloss Railway Station in the 21st century, looking East from the level-crossing. [Google Streetview, May 2023]Looking West from the level-crossing at Kinloss Station site. [Google Streetview, May 2023]
After leaving Kinloss trains for Inverness next ran into Forres Railway Station. Over the years the railway infrastructure at Forres has seen significant changes.
In 1858, the first railway station at Forres was located at the end of Market Street which became known as Old Station Road. The station building was demolished in the 1950s. It had been used as the stationmaster’s house since the junction opened.
A route to the South from Inverness was finally completed in 1863. It met the line running between Elgin and Inverness at Forres. Forres was chosen as the junction for the new mainline south, since it was the half-way point on the Inverness & Aberdeen Junction Railway between Inverness and Keith. Keith was also an important railway junction and the point where the line joined the GNSR and branches to the coast and Strathspey. [62]
A new ‘triangular’ station wastl constructed to allow all trains entering Forres, from either the East or West, to access the new line directly on a curve. The three curved platforms, and three junctions, gave the new Forres station its distinctive layout. [62]
The location of the new station was south-west of the existing Inverness-Aberdeen line. The original line was retained as a goods loop, with trains now leaving and re-joining the line (east-west) on a curve. Services from Inverness to Perth curved to the south on a junction at the west of the station, to arrive at the southbound platforms. [62]
Three individual signal boxes controlled the junctions at each point of the triangle: Forres East, Forres West, and Forres South. [62]
The closure of the link to the South from Forres occurred as part of the cuts following the Beeching Report in the 1960s. Further remodelling of the whole area took place in the 21st century. This saw much of the existing infrastructure removed and a new functional station built by 2017. [62]
West of Bodies the line ran on through Auldearn Station, bridged the River Nairn and entered Nairn Railway Station.
Auldearn Railway Station on the 35″ Ordnance Survey from the turn of the 20th century. It opened on 9th December 1895 and was closed by 6th June 1960. [72]The site in the 21st century – all evidence of the station has disappeared. [72]Looking West from the overbridge at the East end of the site of Auldearn Railway Station. [Google Streetview, May 2022]The bridge over the River Nairn as it appears on the 25″ Ordnance Survey from the turn of the 20th century. [73]The same location in the 21st century. [73]
Nairn Railway Station opened on 7th November 1855. In 1885, the Highland Railway Company agreed to improve the facilities at Nairn. The station buildings were replaced with improved accommodation for passenger and staff. The gables of the cross wings were surmounted with the Scotch thistle, the Prince of Wales feather, and other designs sculpted in stone. The masonry work was completed by Mr. Squair of Nairn. At the same time a new station master’s house was erected. The platforms were extended to around 440 yards (400 m) and raised in height to the level of the carriages. A new iron foot bridge over the line connected the platforms, avoiding passengers using a foot crossing over the running lines. The bridge over Cawdor Road was also widened at the same time. The work was completed in 1886. [76]
Heading Southwest out of Nairn trains passed through Gollanfield Junction Station which served the short Fort George Branch.
Gollanfield Station as it appeared on the Landranger OS map prior to closure. [79]Gollanfield Junction Railway Station opened in 1855 by the Inverness and Nairn Railway, it was initially named Fort George after the military base nearby. In July 1899, the Highland Railway opened a direct branch to Fort George (which was actually sited in the village of Ardersier). With the opening of the branch, the station was renamed Gollanfield Junction. Passenger services on the branch were withdrawn in 1943 and it closed to all traffic in August 1958. The following year, the station was renamed Gollanfield by British Railways. [77][78]The same location in the 21st century. Goods traffic at the station ceased in May 1964 and it was closed to passenger traffic on 3rd May 1965. Most of the buildings were subsequently demolished after closure, but the station house remains standing and is used as a private residence. [77][78]Looking East from the road bridge which used to span Gollanfield Railway Station, [Google Streetview, August 2021]Looking West from the road bridge which used to span Gollanfield Railway Station, [Google Streetview, August 2021]
Further details of Gollanfield Railway Station and photographs can be found here. [79]
The next stop on the line was at its terminus at Inverness.
J. W. P. Rowledge; The 4-4-0 Locomotives of the Glasgow & South Western and Highland Railways; in Brian Stephenson (ed.) Locomotives Illustrated No 117, January-February 1998, Ian Allan, Berkhamsted, Herts, 1997.
An essay written in 1998 as part of training to become an Anglican Priest.
INTRODUCTION
Susan Hill tells the story of a young woman, Ruth, whose husband dies suddenly. As Ruth works through her grief she is supported daily by Jo, the 14 year old brother of her dead husband. In the early months after the accident he is the only one who can reach into her grief (Hill: p9-116). Jo’s care of Ruth is effective care. He has no training but be deeply loves her
Christ has enjoined us to love our neighbour as ourselves. All questions of pastoral care, and particularly bereavement care, must start from the premise that all Christians, at the appropriate time and place, have something to offer, presumably love, in the first instance. This essay outlines the key issues in bereavement care and explores the different levels of care that a church congregation can provide to those working through the pain of loss.
1. THEORIES OF LOSS
Arnold van Gennep proposed a theory of loss in his book “Rites de passage” which has become generally accepted. He envisaged three main ‘stages’. A person experiencing loss starts in a ‘Prelminal’ stage caused by the separation, which is characterised by detachment, pain and anxiety; passes through a ‘Liminal’ stage of transition, characterised by ambivalence, distortion, chaos and loneliness; and gradually reaches a ‘Post-liminal’ stage of reincorporation back into the community, a time of new beginnings and moving on (from lecture by A. Chatfield). Much has subsequently been written about bereavement. William Worden talks of four tasks of mourning: accepting the reality of loss, working through the pain of grief, adjusting to an environment in which the deceased is missing, and emotionally locating the deceased and moving on with life (Worden p10ff) Ainsworth-Smith and Speck speak of three main phases: shock and disbelief, awareness, and resolution (Ainsworth-Smith: p5ff). Elizabeth Kubler-Ross suggests that dying patients and their families go through similar grief processes (Kubler-Ross: p150ff). She identifies five different stages: denial and isolation, anger, bargaining (more obvious in the terminally ill than in the bereaved), depression, and acceptance (ibid. p35-101). Colin Murray Parkes identifies a series of different behaviour patterns common among the bereaved, from broken hearts (and increased attendance at doctor’s surgeries) through alarm and stress, searching, mitigation, anger and guilt, to the gaining of a new identity. (Parkes p36-112)
These different theories all suggest a process which takes some considerable time. It would be possible to describe each individual stage in each theory but this is not necessary within the scope of this essay, the diversity of description of these stages serves to illustrate the fact that each individual responds to the loss associated with bereavement in different ways. Each author emphasises the need to recognise the way in which the individual is responding to their loss. Strath and Speck talk in a number of places of the way in which the various feelings tend to flow back and forth during the grief process like the tide coming in and out each day. Each time the tide comes in it can leave behind a different ‘response’ (eg. Ainsworth-Smith: p30-31). It must be appreciated that these theories are models to assist understanding rather than timetables for grief or routes through the grief process.
2. ATYPICAL GRIEF
Parkes points out that for some people the grief process can become distorted. He highlights two specific reactions “one was a tendency for grief to be prolonged, the other a tendency for the reaction to bereavement to be delayed.” (Parkes: p125). His work suggested that persistent panic attacks, persisting and intense guilt, intense separation anxiety, strong but only partially successful attempts to avoid grieving, and development by the patient of symptoms mirroring those of the deceased, were all associated with abnormal grief (ibid: p128). Worden outlines a number of factors which contribute to a falure to grieve. These fall into relational, circumstantial, historical, personality, and social categories. He considers abnormal grief under a series of headings: chronic grief reactions, delayed grief reactions, exaggerated grief reactions; and masked grief reactions (Worden: p73-74) Ainsworth-Smith and Speck identify the main distortions of the proces of grieving as delay, denial, prolongation and clinical depression (Amsworth-Smith p106-112).
Those caring for the bereaved need to be able to identify atypical grief if they are to be able to reassure those whose grieving is ‘normal” and be able recognise the need for greater help for others “Grief may be strong or weak, brief or prolonged, immediate or delayed, particular aspects of it may be distorted and symptoms that usually cause little trouble may become major sources of distress In some cases it may seem that a particular response is the consequence of a number of circumstances cach of which contributes to the outcome, in others, one factor may appear to be the chief determinant” (Parkes p136).
The texts refer to ‘determinants of grief’. Parkes suggests that there are a number of factors (determinants) which will influence the way people respond to loss – previous experience of loss, current issues (personality, sex, age, socio-economic status, nationality, religion and culture); and issues subsequent to the loss (support or isolation, other stresses, new opportunities).
3. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Most of the authors referred to above write of the need to give special consideration to those grieving different kinds of death. Each loss will have its own unique issues but it is possible to group losses into some broad categories that enable the development of understanding. For example, Worden provides details of anticipated grief responses to suicide, sudden death, sudden infant death, miscarriages, still births, abortion, long term illness and AIDS (Worden: p93ff). He helpfully suggests appropriate caring responses for each case as part of his discussion.
4. WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN?
We have undertaken a rapid review of current thinking in relation to grief and the process of grieving. It illustrates the need for those involved in caring to have a thorough understanding of bereavement. It seems to indicate that care of the bereaved is something for experts or specialists. I want to suggest that, although there are clearly circumstances when only an expert will do, this is not just an area for the specialist. There is much that a caring Christian community can give to those experiencing bereavement. The remainder of this essay discusses such ministry and highlights gifts and qualities necessary for those involved in it.
5. A HIERARCHY OF CARE
All of us live within a complex network of social relationships, friends, immediate family, work, church and other acquaintances which is supplemented at different times by contact with specific professionals. Bereavement, at least temporarily, extends that social network as we are visited by funeral directors, clergy, extended family and, dependent on our need, by counsellors and therapists.
Society has its own pattern of care and there are now many organisations specialising in bereavement care. The church should not set itself up in competition with those who provide specialist support and counselling but may be able to offer some of these services if they are not available locally and may well be able to provide support for its own members without competing with others. In any locality, the church needs to work out a specific caring response to those who have been bereaved.
Care for the bereaved may involve prayer, practical support, listening, counselling and therapy. Members of the church will be involved in all levels of care either in a professional capacity or as members of the body of Christ. It is possible to think in terms of a hierarchy of care with professionals providing specialist care and other equally valid ministries being undertaken by ordinary people, such as church members, for which the primary qualifications are love, sensitivity and time. The church should encourage members of its congregations to enter the fields of counselling, and psychotherapy Church leaders should also be aware of Christians in their vicinity with these skills. There is, however, much more that a congregation can do than just referring those grieving to specialists. We will consider later the nature and development of appropriate qualifications for involvement in this ministry. Firstly we must consider the unique position and role of the clergy.
Public Health Palliative Care: developing a community response to Covid-19 pandemic; written evidence submitted by the Royal College of General Practitioners (DEL0327)
6. THE CLERGY
Those outside the church will often not meet a member of the clergy except in connection with one of the occasional offices baptisms, weddings and funerals. Wesley Carr calls these occasions ‘brief encounters’ (Carr: p11) Many funerals in the UK are still conducted by a religious figure, usually Christian. The minister has to become accustomed to ministering to those with no obvious belief. She or he seems to represent something significant. But most people would not be able to articulate what! He or she is probably believed to be able to manage everything that surrounds this final boundary to life. She or “he looked to as a man [or woman] of professed faith, who is believed to be able to face the spectre of death and, as it were, to defeat it. Whereas ordinary people are afraid of death and dying, the minister is supposed not to be. [She or] he is expected to be competent. His [or her] believed strength in the face of death and … ability to handle it produce a curious amalgam in people’s minds, whereby he [or she] may almost become the purveyor of death. As such, [she or]he is both needed and shunned” (ibid. p106-107). Because the minister has [her or] his own struggles, “the pressure upon him [or her] is to respond by acting a part, so that [she or] he may meet the expectations of [their] audience and not be hurt [themselves]” (ibid: p107).
The funeral is a very significant part of the bereavement process and is therefore a major pastoral ministry that the church is able to offer to the community. Early in the bereavement process, it serves to crystallise the immediate realities, that a person has died and that the living have to do something about this. It provides a fixed reference point to which people can relate as they work through the bereavement process. It becomes crucial to the way that the family remembers the dead relative.
The clergyperson, therefore, has a vital role of directing the funeral service (as a kind of choreographer of grief), articulating in the service things that the bereaved may not be able to articulate themselves, and allowing the appropriate expression of feeling “People under stress surrender to him [or her] an alarming amount of power, which [she or] he has to hold with astuteness. As a Christian he [or she] may be tempted to respond with almost glib talk of life after death, rather than profound exploration of the gospel emphasis that life is in the midst of death” (ibid. p117).
“A considerable investment may be held even by those who have no formal religious belief m the representative role of the muruster in terms of unchangingness and security. But her [or his] ability to behave, and sometimes say things, which may sensitively challenge the established expectations may also be crucial” (Ainsworth-Smith: p116)
It is important that members of the clergy are able to engage with their own issues of loss, their own fears of death, and their own mortality, so that they grow in self understanding, Failure to do so will prevent effective involvement in the losses of others. The clergy also need to be aware of the processes of grieving, being able to judge when the grieving process has become distorted. They need to be able to counsel and to listen but must be able to judge their own limitations for caring (through lack of time, interaction with their own issues, or where care requires more professional involvement).
7. THE BODY OF CHRIST
The local church, or the body of Christ, has much to offer to the bereaved. Firstly, through its corporate nature, it is a living and theological resource for the community (Gal 6:2,10). The church should be the one place above all others where people are welcomed into a loving community which cares for its members and for outsiders (Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 12:12-27, Eph 4:1-6); a place where we carry each other’s burdens. It is a place where death and loss can be faced in a community that is centred on the suffering and death of Christ. It is a place where Christ’s death is regularly ‘made real’ in Holy Communion. It can offer services for the bereaved, such as funerals, requiems, thanksgiving services, services for loss of babies, and anniversary services. Each of these meets specific needs and is surrounded by opportunities for care. The church has various fellowship and support groups (home-groups. Mothers Union, youth groups, men’s groups) which have been learning to care for each other at a deeper level than much of the rest of the community. There is a sense in which, at times, care which comes from a community seems much stronger and mere effective than that from a few individuals.
Secondly, the individual members of the body of Christ have different gifts to offer. We considered possible areas of ministry earlier in this essay. It is important that those involved in the care of the bereaved are personally prepared for their ministry through engagement with their own experiences of loss, fears of death and mortality. It is important that they understand the process of grieving and that it will essentially be unique to each person that they care for. The level of training appropriate for ministry will vary dependent on the person’s involvement, those offering a listening or immediate prayer ministry will need more training than those who see their ministry as limited practical care or more remote prayer. Likewise the natural capabilities required of those ministering will depend on their role. Qualities necessary for ministry to the bereaved would to a greater or lesser degree include listening skills, transparency, durability, adaptability, time and commitment, approachability, experience of loss or bereavement; honesty before death, and a lack of their own agenda. it is also important that this ministry is clearly ‘other focused’ and that people are not trying to work out their own grief through caring for others.
8. DEVELOPMENT OF CARING CONGREGATIONS
We have discussed many of the specific areas of care that a congregation can offer. We have noted that, as its pastoral care structures develop, there will be a natural sense in which care for all people and also, therefore, for the bereaved will develop. Specific training in specialist skills will be appropriate for some members of the congregation; particularly in counselling, listening skills, and bereavement visiting. A congregation should be encouraged to engage with individual and corporate loss at all levels – the teaching of the church should touch this area regularly; home-groups should work together on recognising their own sense of loss and consider what ministry they, as a group, might have in this area, at times of change in the church, the element of loss should be acknowledged and faced; individuals should be helped to face their own fears of death and their own mortality.
CONCLUSION
Towards the end of Susan Hill’s novel Ruth visits Potter who had been present when her husband died. They share together the events of that day:
“Without any warning, the tears rose up and broke out of her, and Potter sat on his chair saying nothing, and yet being a comfort to her, taking some of her grief on to himself. She wept as she had never wept before in front of another human being, and it was a good thing to do; it was more value than all the months of sobtary mourning. It brought something to an end” (Hill: p135).
The local church is in a unique position to provide both community and individual care to those experiencing bereavement. The aim of all of its ministry in this area must be to provide space to allow each individual to grieve in the sure knowledge that they are, and will always be, accepted and loved, both by special friends and the whole church community.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Susan Hill; In the Springtime of the Year; Penguin, London, 1977, (International Edition, 5th April 2012).
Wesley Carr; Brief Encounters: Pastoral Ministry through the Occasional Offices; SPCK, London, 1985.
Elizabeth Kubler-Ross; On Death and Dying; Tavistock, London, 1970.
Colin Murray Parkes; Bereavement: Studies of Grief in Adult Life; Penguin, London, 1986.
J. William Worden; Grief Counselling and Grief Therapy: A Handbook for the Mental Health Practitioner; Routledge, London, 1991.
Ainsworth-Smith & P Speck; Letting Go: Caring for the Dying and Bereaved; SPCK, London, 1982.
Public Health Palliative Care: developing a community response to Covid-19 pandemic; written evidence submitted by the Royal College of General Practitioners (DEL0327); via https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/9415/html, accessed on 14th April 2025.
“At first glance appearing to be no more than an offshoot of the picturesque and spectacular Callander & Oban Railway, the Killin Railway was a wholly independent company in its own right for the first 37 years of its working life. The Killin Railway Company endured for almost all of its independent years under the patronage of one of Scotland’s wealthiest men. The local people promoted the village railway company in 1881 and the line was run under their management from its official opening on 13th March 1886 until its independence was reluctantly conceded to the LMS from 1st June 1923. In absorbing the Killin Railway Company the LMS accepted some £12,000 of debt accumulated over the years of its independence and paid the remaining shareholders just 8% of the face value of their original investment, in full settlement of the enforced transaction. During the years of independence and before they were absorbed into the LMS, the train services of both the Killin and the adjacent Callander & Oban Companies were worked by the Caledonian Railway Company as integral parts of its system.” [1: p624-625]
Gavin Campbell, the Marquis of Breadalbane & Holland held 438,558 acres of land in his estates in Argyllshire and Perthshire, spread across much of central Scotland. He was the prime mover in the development of the branch line to Killin Village.
Wikipedia tells us that “On 1st June 1870, the Callander and Oban Railway opened the first portion of its line. Shortage of cash meant that the original intention of linking Oban to the railway network was to be deferred for now. The line opened from the former Dunblane, Doune and Callander Railway at Callander to a station named Killin, but it was at Glenoglehead, high above the town and three miles (5 km) distant down a steep and rugged track.” [2][3]
“The difficult local terrain prevented any question of the line to Oban passing through Killin, and local people were for the time being happy enough that they had a railway connection of a sort; indeed tourist trade was brought into the town. The Callander and Oban Railway had in fact been absorbed by the Caledonian Railway but continued to be managed semi-autonomously. The Caledonian was a far larger concern that had money problems, and priorities, elsewhere. Nevertheless, as time went on, extension of the first line to Oban was resumed in stages, and finally completed on 30th June 1880.” [2]
Elton tells us that, “At the time that the story of the village railway began, Killin was a remote rural community that had for many years relied for its prosperity on providing a market place for the produce of the Highland farmers from the surrounding lands. Those farmers were largely tenants of the Marquis and although there is no doubt that he had their well-being in mind as well as that of the villagers of Killin, the commercial possibilities were also under his consideration when he moved the promotion of the village railway and concurrently founded the Loch Tay Steamboat Company. The village of Killin also served as a convenient overnight stop for animal drovers and their herds consisting predominantly of sheep. Situated near the lower, western, end of Loch Tay, a number of ancient overland paths met naturally near the village.” [1: p625-626]
“The traditional commerce of Killin had been seriously eroded when, in 1870, the Callander & Oban Railway had reached the head of Glen Ogle. … The C&O was able to offer to the traditional customers of Killin a more direct access to the great livestock markets of southern Scotland. The station at the head of Glen Ogle, given the name Killin, was the northern terminal of the C&O from 1st June 1870 until August 1873. On that date the line was extended for seventeen miles to a temporary terminal at Tyndrum. From Tyndrum the C&O line eventually reached Oban, being ceremonially opened to that place on 30th June 1880. Prior to that, the Highland Railway Company had built a branch line, from its Perth-Inverness main line at Ballinuig, to Aberfeldy and this line also attracted livestock trade away from Killin. It was at one time believed locally that the branch line would be extended from Aberfeldy to Kenmore and perhaps on to Killin itself but this was never seriously considered by the Highland Company. Nevertheless, as built, the branch line gave better and cheaper access to the immense markets of Perth and Edinburgh and attracted traffic from the C&O terminal at Glenlochhead.” [1: p626]
“The people of Killin petitioned the Callander and Oban company for a branch line, but this was refused, and when the Caledonian Railway itself was persuaded to obtain Parliamentary authority to build the branch, the Bill failed in Parliament.” [2]
Under the leadership of the Marquis of Breadalbane, the people of Killin decided to build a railway themselves. “The first meeting of the local railway took place on 19th August 1882, in Killin. Making a branch to join the Callander and Oban [Railway (C&O)] at its “Killin” station would involve an impossibly steep gradient, but a line was planned to meet the C&O further west and at a lower altitude. Even so, the branch would be four miles (6.4 km) long with a gradient of 1 in 50. It could be built for about £18,000. At the Killin end, the line would be extended to a pier on Loch Tay, serving the steamer excursion traffic on the loch.” [2][4][5]
Elton tells us that before the 19th August 1882 meeting took place, the Marquis of Breadalbane “sought the advice of civil engineer John Strain. In 1877 Strain had successfully undertaken to survey and engineer the last section of the C&O. This 24 miles of railway, from Dalmally to Oban, had presented him with many difficulties. Following Strain’s recommendation Breadalbane explained to the villagers at the meeting that the proposed new line would branch from a junction on the C&O some 2½ miles down the line from the existing Killin station at the head of Glen Ogle. A new station would be placed within the village itself and the line would be extended 1 miles to a station on the shore of Loch Tay. A pier for berthing the steamships plying the loch was to be built with facilities for handling passengers, live-stock and general cargo, adjacent to the Loch Tay station. The Marquis had formed the Loch Tay Steamboat Company, whose steamships and those of succeeding companies would serve on the loch until 1939.”
The ruling gradient of the proposed new line would be a demanding 1 in 50. John Strain had estimated the cost of building the line at £18,000 (£3,428 per mile). Detailed forecasts of the potential traffic indicated that only a modest income could be expected for distribution to shareholders (£365 per annum). The Marquis “invited those attending the meeting to invest in the railway, adding that he would match pound for pound the money raised. … In the three weeks after the initial meeting no more than £370 was subscribed to the funds of the new company. Mr. A. R. Robertson, who had been appointed Company Secretary, estimated that the total potential investment from the area was unlikely to exceed £4,000. This figure assumed the most strenuous of canvassing and included the promise of £1,000 from Sir Donald Currie, a resident of Aberfeldy. Mr. Robertson, as the manager of the Killin branch of the Bank of Scotland, was in a unique position to assess the probable local investment.” [1: 627]
There was a clear local determination to bring the scheme to fruition. In kind commitments were made locally in exchange for shares in the new line. The Marquis “donated all of the required land and sleepers for the track whilst the Caledonian and C&O Companies supplied the rails, all in return for shares in the village company. The C&O Company itself bought 1,200 shares and that encouraged many smaller investors. The Caledonian Railway arranged to work the line for the first three years for 55% of the receipts but stipulated that the annual turnover should not be less than £2,377. There was not one objector to the scheme and the potentially ruinous promotion of a Parliamentary Bill was thus avoided. Instead, only a Board of Trade Certificate for the construction was required and that was received on 8th August 1883. Prior to that the embryonic Killin Railway Company had already sought tenders to construct the line. The board of directors consisting of Lord Breadalbane himself, Charles Stewart, Sir Donald Currie, John Willison and Col. John Sutherland obtained nine quotations in all. These ranged from the highest at £22,442 6s 3d down to one of £13,783 8s Od, quoted by Messrs. Α.& K. MacDonald of Skye. The company secretary, who had no profound knowledge of railways, calculated that if the directors accepted the lowest tender, the total cost of getting the line into full working condition would be £28,552. The total assets available to the company at that point in time, having exhausted all sources and allowing for borrowings of £5,200, had reached an impressive £20,801. John Strain was again consulted and advised that the line could not be built for anything like the price of the lowest tender. Nevertheless, the temptation of saving such capital was too great and the MacDonalds’ tender was accepted by the village board.” [1: p627]
Inevitably, work on the project gradually fell behind and ultimately the MacDonald’s contract had to be terminated. The work was passed to John Best, of Glasgow. “Towards the end of February 1885, Strain reported that 73% of the earthworks and 84% of the culverts, creeps and bridgework had been completed.” [1: p628] The Board of Trade inspection eventually took place in early 1886 and the ceremonial opening took place on 13th March 1886. Public services on the line commenced on 1st April 1886.
The junction station on the C&O was half-a-mile from the nearest road and was far more complex than required. The station was of substantial proportions. “A single and an island platform provided three faces, two of which served the up and down lines of the C&O respectively. The remaining face … was kept exclusively for the use of the village line train. Two sidings and a crossover system were installed on the village line side. A passenger overbridge was built in 1908, while two cottages for station staff and a goods shed completed the facilities. The station complex was controlled by two signal boxes containing a total of 48 levers, 22 in the West box and 26 in the East. The junction station was set on a gradient of 1 in 138, at an elevation of about 800ft above sea level.” [1: p630]
Elton’s date for the construction of the footbridge is called into question by the OS Map extract below which was surveyed in 1899 and shows a foot bridge already in place at that time.
In 1935, the West Signal Box at Killin Junction was closed and the East Signal Box took control of the whole station layout. On Saturday 22nd October 1938, “Lt. Col. Wilson (Ministry of Transport) reported that the West Junction box had been closed and the facing points at the southern end of the main crossing loop were now motor operated by primary battery from the East Junction box, with an auxiliary tablet instrument for the section to Luib provided on the Down platform. To provide connections at the south end of the station Branch platform, a new 9-lever ground frame was provided, electrically controlled from the East Junction box, and which also slotted the running signals which applied to movements into and out of the Branch platform at its south end. Such moves were relatively infrequent, although the Branch Platform line formed a convenient third loop for trains crossing. The platform was mainly used for the shuttle service on the Killin Branch, which was worked by a train staff and one engine in steam. On account of the long and steep downward gradient towards Killin, interlaced lines named “live” and “dead” roads were formerly provided, with facing points at both ends. Ascending trains used the left-hand interlaced line, in which there were self-acting catch points. These “live” and “dead” roads had now been removed. Shunting was prohibited along the branch unless the engine was at the lower end. A similar prohibition applied to the single line towards Luib, where the gradient also fell steeply. The signal arrangements were as on the plan, with three new track circuits, separately indicated in the East Junction box, which had a frame of 28 levers, all in use with correct locking and control.” [66]
More photographs of the station can be found on Ernie’s Railway Archive on Flickr …. here, [10] here, [11] here, [12] here, [13] here, [14] here, [15] here, [16] and here. [17]
In the image above, the Callander and Oban Railway is on the right of the signal box, the Killin Branch is to the left of the box. The line down to Killin was steeply graded (1 in 50) down to the village.
The two lines ran in parallel for a short distance but increasingly at different altitudes. [19]The same are as shown on the 21st century ESRI satellite imagery provided by the NLS. [19]
The branch continued heading Northeast towards Killin, passing to the North of Wester Lix and bridging a minor tributary of the River Dochart.
To the Northeast of the main road the railway remained predominantly on embankment. A cattle creep sat a few hundred metres Northeast of the road bridge. It can be seen in the top right of the last OS Map extract. The next significant structure carried the line over the Allt Lairig Cheile, another tributary of the River Dochart.
This next extract from the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1899, published in 1900 includes the over the bridge over Allt Lairig Cheile, bottom left, and above it a small infectious diseases hospital. In the top-right corner of this extract was the next significant structure on the branch line which spanned Allt na Lice another tributary of the River Dochart. [23]A very similar area in the 21st century, as it appears on the ESRI satellite imagery from the NLS. [23]
The large building which appears on the satellite image above is Acharn Biomass.
This picture of Acharn Biomass’ site was taken by Coconut Island Drones in November 2024. [24]
Acharn Biomass Plant is an electricity production plant owned by Northern Energy Developments. It has a 5.6 MW capacity. [25]
A short distance Northeast along the line, a pair of sidings were provided at Acharn. This Acharn is not to be confused with a hamlet of the same name on the south shore of Loch Tay towards its East end. That Acharn is a hamlet in the Kenmore parish of the Scottish council area of Perth and Kinross. It is situated on the south shore of Loch Tay close to its eastern end. The hamlet was built in the early 19th century to house workers from the surrounding estates. [27]
This Acharn is adjacent to Acharn Forest. Most of the forest is a mixed conifer plantation with pockets of broad-leaved woodland and open moorland. [28] The sidings at Acharn served the farm and were situated on the north side of the single line, they opened with the Killin Railway in 1886. The sidings ground frame was released by the branch train staff. Owing to the gradient, the sidings were only worked by Down direction trains. They were removed in 1964. Colonel Marindin (Board of Trade – 12th February 1886) noted in his inspection of the Killin Branch, that there were no main line signals at the location of the Sidings. [30]
Elton describes the station at Killin: “three sidings were provided for the expected livestock and freight traffic and we’re controlled by a ground frame. The station buildings were of a simple nature (as they were at Loch Tay) and the station itself was set on a gradient of 1 in 317. Two cottages were provided in the village for railway staff.” [1: p630]
A camping coach was positioned here by the Scottish Region from 1961 to 1963. [64]
Elton continues: “The line extended a further 1.25 miles to a single platform at Loch Tay. A branch a little before Loch Tay station extended on a sharp curve along the pier that served the steamers.” [1: p630]
Again, Elton continues: “At Loch Tay was a small engine shed, with water and fuel facilities for the locomotive working the branch. Considering that one of the objectives in building the line was to recapture the lost livestock traffic, nothing was done to provide learage accommodation for farm animals at either the village or the junction stations. Naturally, this discomfited passengers using the line but in any case the way to the big livestock markets was many miles further over the C&O than from Aberfeldy and the animal traffic was never recovered to any great extent.” [1: p630]
Looking Southwest along pier Road, the railway formation is on the left. [Google Streetview, March 2010]Looking Northeast on Pier Road with the railway formation on the right. [Google Streetview, March 2010]Loch Tay Railway Station as shown on the 1899 25″ Ordnance Survey, published in 1900. This map extract shows the station, the sharply curved line extending out onto Killin Pier, the sawmill/timber yard, and, to the Northeast of the station, the engine shed which was kept open through to the closure of the branch in the 1960s. [59]The same area in the 21st century with the pier line and the station line superimposed as black lines. [59]A very early view over Loch Tay Railway Station, looking towards Killin. Rolling stock sits at the station platform while one of the two ‘Pus’ allocated to the line by the Caledonian Railway shunts Killin Pier, (c) Public Domain. [63]The Station building at Loch Tay (c) Unknown. [60]A low resolution copy of a drawing of Loch Tay Railway Station building, (c) Unknown. [60]This image shows BR 2-6-4T Locomotive No. 80093 in steam at Loch Tay Engine Shed, (c) Unknown. [61]
The Callander Heritage Centre writes of the locomotive above: “In 1885, Caley locomotive designer and engineer, Dugald Drummond, was commissioned to build a special small tank engine which could be used on the Killin branch. After much research into the line, its gradients, curves and so on he decided upon an 0-4-2 saddle tank type locomotive. The design was based on the popular 0-4-0 “Pug” tanks which were widely used for dockside and colliery work. Once the plans were prepared two such locomotives were built at the Caledonian Railways St Rollox locomotive works in Glasgow before being sent up to the branch. … With its tall, straight stovepipe chimney the little engine soon became known as the coffee pot amongst the local villagers who would often gather on the station platforms when the train was due just to marvel at its sheer size and power. It may have only been a small engine by comparison to the larger mainline giants, but to the people of Killin nothing could have beaten their blue pug.” [55]
Elton tells us that the original intention had been for 0-4-0ST locos to provide the motive power but Drummond quickly became convinced that 0-4-0 wheel arrangement would be inadequate. “The heavy grading of the line, together with the severe curve weight distribution essential on the Loch Tay pier, resulted in the two locomotives being given an 0-4-2ST wheel arrangement. The water and fuel capacities on the engines were increased to assist adhesion on the 1 in 50 ruling gradient and they were fitted with a Westinghouse braking system as an additional safety feature. Built at the Caley’s St. Rollox works, the engines carrying the numbers 262 and 263 – were of distinctive appearance and, in their Caley blue livery, became popular with the Killin villagers. They were known as the ‘Killin Pugs’ but were soon found to be unsuitable for working the village line, both being withdrawn from it as early as 1889. They were found work elsewhere on the Caley system, surviving the groupings and remaining in service almost into nationalisation.” [1: p631]
Thanks to Ben Alder for pointing me to The Model Railway News which carried an article about one of these locomotives written by J. N. Maskelyne in its July 1938 edition. The article was a result of a request made to the LMS for design details of the locomotives. The request resulted in delivery of four large blue prints and a copy of the small official weight-diagram, together with a letter in which regret was expressed that no general arrangement drawing of the engine could be found. The prints showed, respectively, the frames, the cab, the smokebox, and the saddle-tank: on carefully scrutinising these prints, Maskelyne concluded that “in all probability, no general arrangement drawing was ever made. [His conclusion was that] except for the items mentioned above, all the details on this engine were standard, or, at least, common to other types of engines and that the order for her construction was accompanied by a set of blue prints, similar to that which I had received, and a ‘Material List’, setting out all the details required, and referring to drawings already issued to the works.” [58: p184]
With the aid of the four blue prints, and a photograph, taken by Mr. J. E. Kite, Maskelyne produced general arrangement drawings for the locomotives.
Front Elevation of Ex-Caledonian LMS 0-4-2ST Locomotive, original number 253, LMS No. 15001. In 1938 the locomotive was stationed at Inverness for shunting duties.In Killin Branch days the locomotive was painted in the standard blue passenger locomotive colours of the Caledonian Railway. In 1938, the locomotive was painted in unlined black with LMS on the saddle tank and number ‘15001’ on the bunker sides. [58]Elevation of the same locomotive. [58: p182]
Maskelyne notes that “the dimensions of this engine [were] very small; her coupled wheels [were] 3 ft. 8 in., and the trailing wheels, which [were] of “disc” type, [were] 3 ft. diameter. The boiler barrel [was] 10 ft. 9 in. long, and ha[d] a mean diameter of 3 ft. 8 in. it contain[ed] 138 tubes of 14 in. diameter, and [was] pitched with its centre-line 5 ft. 41 in. above rail level.” [1: p183]
“The firebox inner shell [was] 3 ft. 6 in. square, and the grate area [was] 10.23 sq. ft. The heating surface of the tubes [was] 632 sq. ft., and that of the firebox [was] 52 sq. ft., making a total of 684 sq. ft. The working pressure [was] 140 lb. per sq. in. The cylinders ha[d] a diameter of 14 in. and a stroke of 20 in., and the tractive force [was] 10,600 lb. The saddle-tank [held] 800 gallons of water, the bunker 2.25 tons of coal. In working order, the weight [was] 31 tons 4 cwt. 2 qr., with 25 tons 17 cwt. available for adhesion, and the engine [would] take a minimum curve of 41 chains radius. The height of the top of the chimney [was] 10 ft. 10½ in. above rail level.” [58: p183-184]
It became necessary, after just a few months of operation to review the basis on which the C&O provided services on the line. It was abundantly clear after that time that the agreed minimum level of receipts (£2,377 per annum) would not be met. “A new working agreement with the Caledonian came into operation on 1st April 1888. The Caley undertook to work the Killin line at cost initially for a period of five years. Additionally, it agreed to contribute £525 pa towards the general running cost of the village line. In practice the Caledonian deducted the operating costs at source and sent the balance on to the Killin company.” [1: p631]
Late in the 1880s, “the ‘Pugs’ were replaced by altogether more powerful tank engines of 0-4-4T wheel configuration, again designed under Dugald Drummond. … Two were allocated for use on the Killin line and locomotives of this type and their subsequent developments provided most of the motive power on the village line until the 1950s.” [1: p631]
In the 1950s, under BR ownership, the Caledonian 0-4-4Ts were replaced by a variety of different locomotives. Ultimately the standard service on the line was provided by standard BR 2-6-4T 4MT locomotives. This was possible because of the earlier closure of the line Northeast of Killin and there being no need to accept the limitations on weight and wheelbase demanded by the Loch Tay pier. Passenger accommodation on train services was provided by a single four compartment brake coach and services often ran as a mixed train with goods wagons attached to the single passenger-carrying vehicle.
The sponsorship of the short Killin Branch by The Marquis of Breadalbane protected the little line from the worst of the political winds affecting the railway world. He became ill while travelling to a Caledonian Railway board meeting. Elton tells us that he “died at the Central Hotel, Glasgow on 19th October 1922, at the age of 71. His nephew, Mr Iain Campbell, who succeeded to the title, was not disposed to regard the Killin village line as anything other than a financial liability. … The death of the Marquis left the management of the village company in the hands of the two remaining local directors, Messrs. Campbell Willison and Alan Cameron. They were fiercely determined to retain control of their line in the face of what they at first believed was a move to absorb the Killin village line by the Caledonian Company. Ultimately, they received the approach from an organisation, quite unknown to them, calling itself the London, Midland & Scottish Railway. They immediately adopted a defensive position, rejecting an offer which accepted all the accumulated debt of the village company and offered £1 in cash for every £100 of Killin Company stock. The audacity of this rejection, from such a minor outpost of its ‘shotgun’ empire, came as something of a surprise to the LMSR authorities. The villagers did not at first comprehend that an Act of Central Government would ultimately give them no choice in the matter. Nevertheless, after some negotiation the offer to the villagers was eventually raised to £8 per £100 of stock as well as taking on the £12,000 of debt. The Killin Railway Company ended as it had begun with a meeting in the Village Hall. This was held on 19th March 1923 and the takeover was enacted on the following 1st July, on which date the Caledonian and C&O Companies also came under the wing of the LMSR.” [1: p632]
Elton continues: “Under the regime of the LMS the Killin branch, as it now became, changed very little. However, in September 1939, immediately after the outbreak of World War II, the line between Killin Village and Loch Tay was closed to both passenger and freight traffic. The Loch Tay pier was dismantled and the remaining steamships were withdrawn at the same time. The line to Loch Tay remained in place as the engine shed and refuelling facility were used until the line closed. The Loch Tay section did enjoy a brief renaissance in 1950. A hydro-electric scheme was installed near to the site of the former Loch Tay station and the branch was heavily engaged in transporting the necessary materials to the development site.”
It is remarkable that the line, taken over a such a high cost by the LMS in 1923, was to provide its service to the village for a further 42 years in the face of improving roads and the rapid development of the motor vehicle. It’s fate was intimately tied to that of the line between Dunblane and Crianlarich Lower Railway Station. The closure of the main line was included in the ‘Beeching Plan’ published on 25th March 1963. Elton tells us that “The freight service between Killin Junction and the village station was withdrawn on 7th November 1964 in anticipation of the closure which was finally scheduled for 1st November 1965. It was perhaps an irony that an ‘Act of God’ preempted the plans of man. On 25th September 1965, an apparently minor rock fall occurred in Glen Ogle, blocking the ex-C&O main line. This resulted in the immediate cessation of all services on the route. On examination of the fall BR engineers found that it was of a much more serious nature than it had at first appeared. The estimated cost of repair was £30,000 and … was not considered a viable proposition.” [1: p632]
The last train on the Killin Branch ran on 27th September 1965. “The locomotive, BR 2-6-4T No.80093, gathered together the varied collection of rolling stock that had accumulated at the lower end of the line over the years. The massive locomotive needed two journeys from the village to Killin Junction to clear the stock, a motley collection consisting of three assorted passenger coaches and thirteen goods wagons. The conditions on the 1 in 50 climb out of the village were wet and greasy. Perhaps the miserable weather reflected the mood of the villagers on that now far-off day when they were deprived of the little railway that their forebears had fought so hard to win and retain over a period of 82 years.” [1: p632]
References
Michael S. Elton; Killin Village Railway; in BackTrack Volume 14 No. 11, November 2000, p624-632.
David Ross; The Caledonian: Scotland’s Imperial Railway: A History; Stenlake Publishing Limited, Catrine, 2014.
John Thomas; The Callander and Oban Railway; David & Charles, Newton Abbot, 1966.
John Thomas and David Turnock; A Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain: Volume 15: North of Scotland; David & Charles (Publishers), Newton Abbot, 1989.
This image was kindly shared with me by Ben Alder on 10th April 2025.
This image was kindly shared with me by Ben Alder on 10th April 2025.
Andrew McRae; British Railways Camping Coach Holidays: A Tour of Britain in the 1950s and 1960s; Scenes from the Past: No. 30 (Part Two), Foxline, 1998.
In June 1990, The Railway Magazine issued a supplement entitled ‘King’s Cross Renaissance: The History, Development and Future of Two Great Stations’ by P. W. B. Semmens MA, CChem, FRSC, MBCS, MCIT.
Semmens introduces the supplement by highlighting first the 1846 ‘Royal Commission on Railway Termini Within or in the Immediate Vicinity of the Metropolis’ which recommended that “surface railways should remain towards the outskirts, and fixed a ring of roads around the city, beyond which they should not penetrate.” [1: p3]
The Midland Goods Sheds, Midland Road, St. Pancras & King’s Cross Passenger Stations as shown on the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1914, published 1916. [2]The same area as it appears on the modern ESRI satellite imagery in March 2025. [2]Camden/St. Pancras/King’s Cross as shown on ESRI World Topography provided by the National Library of Scotland (NLS). [3]
The next few images show these buildings from the air. …
By 1990, the main line railway still barely penetrated the central core of London “and only Thameslink crossed the built up area to provide a through route.” [1: p3] The impact of the Royal Commission was most obvious “in the North of the city, where five of our main line termini … situated in a virtually straight line along one major road, stretching from Paddington in the West to the twin stations of St. Pancras and King’s Cross five miles away to the East.” [1: p3] As a result passengers heading into the centre of London still have to change to other forms of transport even if limited subsurface onwards extensions were provided by three of the termini.
In the latter half of the 20th century, developments in service industries and improved electronic communication systems have allowed companies, which originally needed to be closely situated in the centre of the city, to look for alternative, better locations. “The railway termini, with their built-in transport facilities for staff, thus provide excellent sites at which to build new offices, and BR [was] extensively involved in many such developments, after its initial office plans for the new Euston had been thwarted by the government of the day. Some of the London termini, however, are of such outstanding architectural merit that it is not acceptable for them to be swept away and replaced by office blocks on top of improved station facilities for trains and customers. Notable among these are St. Pancras and King’s Cross, both Grade I listed buildings, whose proximity to each other makes them unique in London. (Broad Street was never really a main-line terminus, as its services were virtually all of a suburban nature.)” [1: p3]
In addition, “Extensive goods activities were also developed by the railways close to many of their London main-line termini. This was particularly apparent in the vicinity of King’s Cross and St. Pancras, where there were vast areas devoted to the vital job of keeping the country’s capital provisioned, fuelled, and even ‘mucked out’, as arrangements had to be made for the removal of refuse by rail.” [1: p3]
The Great Northern Railway’s “Goods Yard complex, designed by Lewis Cubitt, was completed in 1852. The complex comprised the Granary Building, the Train Assembly Shed, and the Eastern and Western Transit Sheds. The buildings were aligned to the axis of the Copenhagen tunnel through which the trains arrived from the north. … The Granary building was mainly used to store Lincolnshire wheat for London’s bakers, while the sheds were used to transfer freight from or to the rail carts. Off-loading from the rail carriages was made easier by cranes and turntables powered by horses and, from the 1840s, hydraulic power. … Loaded and unloaded carts were moved into the Train Assembly Shed and formed into trains for departure northwards. Stables were located under the loading platforms – some of these remain in the Western Transit Shed. … In the 1860s, offices were added on either side of the Granary to provide more clerical workspace. Dumb waiters were used to transport papers up and down and windows between the offices and sheds allowed traffic to be monitored.” [6]
The Midland Railway’s Somers Town Depot sat adjacent to St. Pancras Station on the West side of Midland Road. The next two images give an idea of the detailed brickwork used on the boundary walls of the depot.
Detail of the wrought iron railings and brickwork in the vast Somers Town Goods Yard walls. [12]
Somers Town Depot was an ambitious two-deck goods yard that differed from neighbouring King’s Cross to the east in that the tracks and platforms were raised. “This enabled the tracks to traverse above the Regents Canal to the north and arrive at their terminus before the Euston Road at that high level (conversely, the Great Northern Railway tracks to Kings Cross passenger station tunnelled underneath the canal and stayed low). Beneath, loading bays were envisioned – a logistics hub for triage, trade and distribution on to the horse-drawn road network. With its own independent hydraulic system, 20ton loaded railway wagons could be dropped to the lower level on lifts for unloading.” [12]
The technical design was accompanied by carefully developed aesthetical design work in order to – to compliment Sir George Gilbert Scott’s passenger terminus next door. “A vast decorative screen wall would contain and secure the goods depot – necessarily tall to both encompass the raised sidings within, and the perimeter access roadway around them, but essentially horizontal in format – emphasising the soaring vertical spires of The Midland Grand Hotel beyond.” [12]
The screen wall was 3250 feet or about three-quarters of a mile in length, 30 feet high and nearly 3 feet thick and surrounded the whole site. It required “about 8,000,000 bricks of a peculiarly small size, rising only 11 inches in four courses, which greatly improved the appearance of the work. It [was] faced with Leicestershire red brick, the inner portion being entirely of Staffordshire blue bricks, set in cement, no lime having been used in this or any other work on the depot. … The elevation on the Euston Road [was] tastefully ornamented with Mansfield stone, whilst the large arched openings, left in the wall to assist in lighting the roadway which runs around the enclosure, [were] protected by hammered iron screens, 11 feet by 8 feet, and weighing about 12 cwt. Each, of beautiful workmanship.” [12][13]
“While the Midland [Railway] developed some of its goods facilities alongside the passenger station, the Great Northern [Railway] adopted a different strategy. Its corresponding activities were carried out to the north of King’s Cross terminus, in an area lying mainly to the west of the main lines, although some of them were actually situated above the tracks through Gas Works Tunnel. Much of this land [in 1990] is now derelict or only partially used, and the idea of making use of it has been carefully studied during recent years. The first intention was just to make better use of the area for housing, offices and leisure, but the upsurge in rail travel during the last few years, plus the building of the Channel Tunnel, has provided the incentive to include additional and better facilities for those who travel to and from the two main-line stations by train.” [1: p3]
However, the major switch from rail to road transport in the later half of the 20th century saw a steady decline in the need for such significant goods handling facilities. And as the end of the century approached these areas were repurposed to help regenerate inner city areas and improve transport infrastructure.
Writing in 1990, Semmens tells us that “A large proportion of the Midland’s goods activities used to be carried out in its Somers Town Depot, situated immediately to the west of the passenger station, on the other side of Midland Road. The need for this from the railway’s operational point of view ceased many years ago, and after the site had been cleared, it was used for the new British Library. After years of work, which started at a great depth below street level, the £450 million building is now well on the way to completion. It is expected to be fully in use by 1996, although the first public access to the new facilities will be three years earlier.” [1: p3]
The British Library was created on 1st July 1973 as a result of the British Library Act 1972. [7] Prior to this, the national library was part of the British Museum, which provided the bulk of the holdings of the new library, alongside smaller organisations which were folded in (such as the National Central Library,[13] the National Lending Library for Science and Technology and the British National Bibliography). [7]. In 1974 functions previously exercised by the Office for Scientific and Technical Information were taken over; in 1982 the India Office Library and Records and the HMSO Binderies became British Library responsibilities. In 1983, the Library absorbed the National Sound Archive, which holds many sound and video recordings, with over a million discs and thousands of tapes. [8]
For many years the British Library’s collections were dispersed in various buildings around central London, in places such as Bloomsbury (within the British Museum), Chancery Lane, Bayswater, and Holborn, with an interlibrary lending centre at Boston Spa, 2.5 miles (4 km) east of Wetherby in West Yorkshire (situated on Thorp Arch Trading Estate), and the newspaper library at Colindale, north-west London. [7][8]
The St Pancras building was officially opened by Her Majesty the Queen on 25th June 1998. [10]
Library stock began to be moved into the new building on 25th October 1997 By the end of 1997, the first of eleven new reading rooms had opened and the moving of stock was continuing. [8] The library continued to expand, from 1997 to 2009 the main collection was housed in the new building and the collection of British and overseas newspapers was housed at Colindale. In July 2008 the Library announced that it would be moving low-use items to a new storage facility in Boston Spa in Yorkshire and that it planned to close the newspaper library at Colindale, ahead of a later move to a similar facility on the same site. [9] From January 2009 to April 2012 over 200 km of material was moved to the Additional Storage Building and is now delivered to British Library Reading Rooms in London on request by a daily shuttle service. Construction work on the Additional Storage Building was completed in 2013 and the newspaper library at Colindale closed on 8th November 2013. The collection has now been split between the St Pancras and Boston Spa sites. The Library previously had a book storage depot in Woolwich, south-east London, which is no longer in use. [8]
But, in looking at the British Library in the 21st century, we are getting ahead of ourselves! …
1: Two Great Stations and their Goods and Locomotive facilities
A: King’s Cross Station to 1990
The earliest of the two stations was the Great Northern Railway’s King’s Cross. It was shared with the Midland Railway for 20 years while St. Pancras Station was being built. The building which appears on the aerial images near the head of this article was completed in 1852. It was preceded by a temporary GNR building situated between Copenhagen Tunnel and Gas Works Tunnel.
King’s Cross Railway Station in 1852 as it appeared in the Illustrated London News in 1852. [14]The twin train sheds, seen from the Northeast. [15]King’s Cross Railway Station Structure Plan 1852. [15]
Semmens tells us that “The 1852 station was a striking building, designed by Lewis Cubitt, with twin train-sheds linked at the South end by a brick façade. It was surmounted by a tower in Italianate style, complete with a clock, which had been on show at the Great Exhibition, and a bell. When built it was the largest station in Britain, and this moved certain shareholders to complain of extravagance. The building was, however, a fairly simple one, with only two platforms being provided originally, one for arrivals and the other for departures, set against the two outer walls. Between them were no fewer than 14 carriage roads, inter-connected by turntables and cross-tracks, as the four-wheeled vehicles of those days were small enough to be shunted like this, even by manpower, from one place to another within the confines of the station.” [1: p4]
Semmens continues: “Many changes took place during the station’s first half-century of operation, and its layout had altered considerably by 1905, when it featured in a series on signalling in The Railway Magazine.” [1: p4]
This diagram of King’s Cross station layout was provided in the March 1905 issue of The Railway Magazine. It shows the platform arrangements at that time as well as the signalling. The original double-track Gas Works Tunnel had by then been joined by two similar parallel bores, while there were connections on both sides of the ‘throat’ to the Inner Circle, complete with platforms for the through trains to and from the City. Although other additional platforms had been provided, many of them had been constructed outside the train-sheds. As the era of bogie coaches had begun by then, the turntables and cross-tracks had gone, but there were still four carriage sidings alongside the main departure platform (now No. 8). This feature was to continue into the days of the Grouping. Two of the arrival platforms (Nos 3 and 4) were only half-length ones, and this unusual arrangement did not disappear until 1934. [1: p4][16]
The Great Northern Railway opened its connection to the Inner Circle of the Metropolitan Line in 1863. In 1865, the York Road Platform was constructed to allow trains bound for the City to stop before heading into the tunnel which took them down to the Inner Circle. “Northbound trains were not provided with a similar platform on the down side until 1878, even though what was to become the semi-detached Suburban station had come into use three years earlier. The use of these curves at King’s Cross was considerably extended after 1866 when the Snow Hill connection was completed between Farringdon and Holborn Viaduct, as it became possible to run through trains from the Great Northern to destinations south of the Thames. Considerable amounts of freight were also worked this way, and the provision of a banker to help loose-coupled trains up the steep incline from Farringdon lasted until after nationalisation. The passenger trains, however, were withdrawn before the first world war, as travellers had opted to use the better connections then being provided by the Underground.” [1: p5]
Semmens notes that, “Gradients on Hotel Curve, as the line up from the Metropolitan was called, were as steep as I in 35, and the station stop at the top caused endless difficulties with the operation of these through services.” [1: p5]
He continues, “It will be seen from the 1905 diagram that at that time there was a small locomotive yard, complete with turntable, between the suburban and main-line stations. In 1923 this was moved to its better-known position on the west side of the lines where they entered Gas Works Tunnel. The railway had purchased some of the land formerly used by this utility, and installed a 70ft turntable there to cope with the new Pacifics which were starting to emerge from Doncaster. Although the main locomotive activities at King’s Cross were centred on Top Shed, situated further to the north in the middle of the Goods Yard, there were obvious advantages in providing facilities closer at hand for turning and refuelling incoming locomo-tives before they took up their return workings. The end of the main departure platform (for many years No. 10, but now No.8) provided generations of enthusiasts with a grandstand view of these activities, which continued through the diesel era until the East Coast workings became monopolised by the HSTs.” [1: p5-6]
As well as a cramped layout and the proximity of the tunnels to the station throat, there were two overbridges. One served the Gas Works and was removed in 1912, the other was removed in 1921 when an alternative access route, ‘Goods Way’ was built South of Regents Canal over the mouth of the tunnels. Sightlines from the signal cabins were poor. As a result rudimentary track circuits were installed as early as 1894. [1: p6]
Semmens reported in 1990 that, “Since 1905 there [had] been three major changes in the signalling for the King’s Cross area. The first took place just before the Grouping, when a number of three-position upper-quadrant semaphores were installed, with roller-blind route indicators. In 1932 there was a much bigger change in the station area, with colour lights replacing the semaphores, and the points being worked electrically. The distinctive roller-blind route indicators were to remain until 1977, which saw the commissioning of the modern power box, situated on the up side immediately south of Gas Works Tunnel, While the previous all-electric box had just controlled the approach lines and those in the station itself, the present panel interface[d] with the Peterborough one at Sandy, 44 miles away. For good measure it also control[ed] the Hitchin-Cambridge line as far as Royston. … This latest change was part of two major developments on the East Coast Main Line in the 1970s, the Great Northern suburban electrification and the introduction of the Intercity 125s.The first of these resulted in an appreciable reduction of movements in the terminus, as the inner suburban services, worked by the dual-voltage class 313 units, were mainly diverted from Finsbury Park to Moorgate through the large-bore tunnels which were built in 1904 as the Great Northern & City Railway. From this there is now an excellent cross-platform interchange at Highbury & Islington with London Transport’s Victoria Line, giving frequent connections to and from King’s Cross Underground. They supplement those at Finsbury Park off the outer-area EMUs operating from King’s Cross suburban station, which has recently had a fourth platform added. Under the refurbished roofs of the train-sheds there [was] a straight-forward eight-platform layout for main-line trains, but the connections to the Inner Circle [were] severed, as the new inner-suburban trains now reach[ed] the City directly from Finsbury Park.” [1: p7]
Semmens also comments: “As part of this electrification scheme, the old freight flyover north of Copenhagen Tunnel was rebuilt to take passenger trains, and rails were removed from the most easterly bores of Gas Works and Copenhagen Tunnels. All this resulted in a much simpler layout at King’s Cross, and it was possible to improve the speed restrictions, which increased the station’s capacity, as well as reducing journey times. The 25 kV overhead catenary was put up [and] provide[d] power for the electric Intercity services which [were] already running as far as Leeds and York, and [would] be extended to Edinburgh and Glasgow in May 1991. … At the opposite end of the station, a considerable improvement in the passenger amenities was introduced in the early 1970s. When King’s Cross was built, the south end of the train sheds lay alongside St. Pancras Old Road, but the changes that followed the building of the Midland station produced a triangle of spare land between the station and Euston Road. Over the years this became cluttered with an assortment of completely uncoordinated buildings, known as the ‘Indian Village’. In 1973 the last of these was swept away, and the present [in 1990] single-storey concourse built in their place. It include[d] the BR ticket office and travel centre, which had previously been situated, somewhat inconveniently, halfway along No. 8 Platform. The new concourse also provide[d] other amenities, but even the vastly increased space often [became] crowded as a result from f the greater numbers [by 1990, travelling] on the frequent Intercity services.” [1: p8]
Finally in respect of King’s Cross station, Semmens notes that planning permission for the single story concourse was only granted on a temporary basis and was due to expire in 1996.
B: St. Pancras Station to 1990
At first, the Midland Railway reached London over the Great Northern Railway’s tracks from Hitchin. “Its services by this route began in 1858, but the minimal facilities at King’s Cross made it difficult to accommodate the increasing number of trains being operated by the two companies. Not surprisingly, the Great Northern gave its own trains priority, and the Midland became increasingly frustrated, with no fewer than 3,400 of its services being delayed in 1862 when the Great International Exhibition at South Kensington attracted a lot of special workings. Many of the trains off the Midland were made to use King’s Cross goods yard, and then, in the middle of the summer, the [Great Northern] moved some of the Midland’s wagons out of the way after the latter had been slow to commission their own coal yard. As a result the Midland decided it had had enough, and there was nothing for it but to build its own extension from Bedford into London.” [1: p9]
In the few years that had elapsed since the Great Northern had built its line into King’s Cross urban sprawl had magnified, and the Midland was presented with the immense task of finding a route for its own tracks. “To accommodate its proposed facilities, the Midland was able to buy a large area of land from Lord Somers on the north side of Euston Road, and a suitable reorganisation of the roads in the area could be made to accommodate its new terminus close to King’s Cross. The company was actually able to site it right on the other side of the new Pancras Road, with only the Great Northern Hotel in between.” [1: p9]
The Midland coped with the barrier presented by the Regent’s Canal by crossing it at high level and maintaining that high level through to the station buffers. This created space under the platforms to store goods brought to London by the railway. Semmens says that “there was one commodity … which had its own special containers, and these formed the new unit of measurement which was adopted for this part of the station. The platforms and tracks were thus supported on a two-dimensional grid of columns, sited 29ft 4in apart, which was chosen because it maximised the storage capacity for barrels of Burton beer.” [1: p9]
“To get the beer into the cellars, beer-laden wagons were pulled into the station, then reversed onto a hydraulic lift just outside the trainshed that took them down. Below, two railway lines ran the length of the stores and there were three wagon turntables, so that wagons could be manoeuvred throughout.” [17]
“St. Pancras has had a long and close relationship with the brewing industry and beer consumption in London. Throughout the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century, beer came from all over the country, and particularly from Burton-on-Trent, to supply thirsty Londoners. A major arrival point was St Pancras where beer was stored in a massive warehouse and in the vaults under the passenger station.” [17]
“Burton’s high-quality attractive pale ales – a contrast to the darker porter beers drunk in London – were well-renowned in the 1820s and 1830s, but getting them to London was very costly and could take three weeks. The railway’s arrival in Burton in 1839 changed that and soon Burton brewers opened rail-supplied agencies nationwide and their trade expanded rapidly. Bass, a major Burton brewer, output rose from just over 30,800 barrels in 1839 to 850,000 in 1879, its biggest market being London where its beers grew in popularity.” [17]
“Before the late 1860s, Burton brewers supplied London by sending their beer via the Midland Railway’s competitors. However, when the Midland planned its main line to London in the early 1860s, Bass agreed to send all their beer with the company as a far as possible, for a fixed price. In return the Midland would provide “Ale Stores and Offices sufficient for the business” at St Pancras. The railway built a dedicated warehouse adjacent to the Regent’s Canal which was connected to St Pancras’s northern goods yard. This held 120,000 barrels and employed 120 men. Bass subsequently became the world’s largest railway customer, and in 1874 it sent 292,300 barrels of beer to London, 36% of its total output.” [17]
Network Rail says that, “In 1865, a competition was held to design the front façade of the station including a new hotel. George Gilbert Scott, the most celebrated gothic architect of his day, won the competition even though his design was larger than the rules allowed. Construction of the hotel started in 1868 however the economic downturn of the late 1860s meant that the hotel, named the Midland Grand, was only completed in 1876. Striking and self confident, the station and hotel completely dominated its Great Northern neighbours.” [19]
The location chosen for the station was known as Agar Town. It was an area of slum dwellings. The powers-that-be saw an opportunity to clear the area. Semmens tells us that, “several thousand homes of one sort or another were demolished, which resulted in the eviction of an estimated 10,000 people, while hundreds of cats took to the wild, marking out their own new territories in the railway works. There were still more complications, as the Fleet River ran through the site by then little more than a sewer, so it was enclosed in a pipe-while corpses had to be cleared from part of the burial ground for the old St. Pancras church. Another church, St. Luke’s King’s Cross, had to be demolished, and a replacement was built at the Midland’s expense in Kentish Town. Provision was also made for a connection to the Metropolitan Railway, to permit through services to the city. This diverges from the eastern side of the main lines at Dock Junction (originally St Paul’s Junction), nearly three-quarters of a mile from the buffer-stops. It then swings to the west before passing diagonally beneath the terminus on its way to join the Metropolitan at Midland Junction, roughly in line with the end of King’s Cross.” [1: p9]
It is difficult to imagine the upheaval caused to many of the poorest residents of London by the clearance of the slums.
When it was built, St. Pancras Station had “five platforms with a further six carriage roads, which put it ahead of what King’s Cross had at the time. In 1892 the layout was modified when some of the carriage roads were replaced by two more full-length platforms, making the total up to eight, plus the shorter one on the down side. Further changes took place in the early years of nationalisation, and from 1968 there were just six full-length ones, plus the bay.” [1: p10]
The track diagram for St. Pancras in 1905, published in The Railway Magazine, November 1905. [1: p11][21]Details of the signal gantry at the station throat, published in The Railway Magazine, November 1905. [1: p11][21]
“In 1923 St Pancras was transferred to the management of the London Midland & Scottish Railway; the LMS focused its activities on Euston, and so began the decline of St Pancras over the next 60 years. In 1935 the Midland Grand was closed as a hotel due to falling bookings and profit, blamed on the lack of en suite facilities in the bedrooms. It was used instead as office accommodation for railway staff and renamed St Pancras Chambers.” [19]
During WWII, the station played an important role for troops departing for war and children being evacuated from London. Although the station was hit hard during the blitz, there was only superficial damage and the station was quickly up and running. [19]
Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, BR allowed the condition of St. Pancras Station to deteriorate and then sought to close and demolish it. “John Betjeman spearheaded a campaign to save the station and hotel, and in November 1967 was successful in getting the buildings declared Grade 1 listed just days before demolition was due to begin.” [19]
Although the buildings were saved, their decline was allowed to continue; the hotel building was mothballed in 1985 and the train shed roof fell into a state of serious disrepair. [19]
Semmens tells us that, “Under the BR Modernisation Plan, diesels took over the main-line and suburban services out of St. Pancras. For many years the former were in the hands of the ‘Peaks (class 45s), hauling rakes of air-conditioned Mark II coaches, but in the autumn of 1982 the first Intercity 125s were drafted to the line. This was slightly earlier than had been envisaged in the original BR plans of 1973, but those arrangements had been based on the Bristol and South Wales sets being cascaded to the Midland after the arrival of APTs on the Western. After the protracted development of the light-weight tilting trains, the position changed, and there were no plans for HSTs on the Midland, but this altered as BR sought to maximise the revenue from its high-speed diesels.” [1: p10]
Writing in 1990, he continues: “Since 1982 the number of these units deployed on the Midland main line has increased, the latest unit having been drafted in after the arrival of the first Intercity 225 set for the ‘Yorkshire Pullman’ on the East Coast Route in October last year. It is of interest that the Eastern Region provides the HST sets for the Midland main line, some from Bounds Green and the others from Neville Hill.” [1: p10]
“For the suburban services out of St. Pancras a special type of diesel multiple-unit was provided. These four-car seats, later to become Class 127, were introduced in 1959, and had Rolls-Royce engines with hydraulic torque converters. They improved the frequency of services on the line, as well as the overall speeds, but by the end of their working lives they had become rather unreliable. They had to continue in passenger operation somewhat longer than intended, because the introduction of their electric successors was held up by the protracted dispute over Driver-Only Operation. The new Class 317 EMUs finally went into service in the summer of 1983, the overhead wires having already been installed into St. Pancras for some considerable time.” [1: p11]
These new EMUs lasted only 5 years in service before being replaced by Class 319 units which were able to operateboth from the 25kV North of St. Pancras and the Southern region’s third rail, to offer a cross-river Thameslink service which was inaugrated by Princess Anne in May 1988. The Thameslink service led to the majority of trains from the North not entering St. Pancras Station. St. Pancras lost most of its suburban services, and by 1990, was primarily an Intercity station. Semmens notes that under the regeneration proposals current in 1990, that role would partly reverse again. [1: p11]
C: Goods & Locomotive Facilites
Semmens notes in 1990 that much of the planned regeneration would be concerned with “the future use of the land that was once occupied by former goods yards and locomotive sheds.” [1: p12] We have already noted these facilities:
The Somer Town Goods Station of the Midland Railway and its facilities further to the North would not be part of planned regeneration work as they were set aside for the British Library development which we have highlighted above.
The one-time Great Northern Goods Yard – would become the core of planned regenertion activites – an 85-acre “area situated between the Great Northern and Midland main lines, … bounded on the North by the electrified North London Line and by Regent’s Canal on the South.” [1: p12]
King’s Cross Top Shed – sat in a small area at the heart of the Great Northern Railway’s goods facilities. It closed in June 1963.
Semmens goes on to describe the area: “potato market occupied much of the east and south-east sides of the yard. It consisted of 40 covered ‘runs’, set at right angles to the main sidings, and each of them could accommodate three or four wagons while they were unloaded by the various merchants. Standage elsewhere in the yards would be required for up to 400 additional loaded wagons awaiting their turn to be shunted into place, and each of these movements would require the use of capstan and turntables, in addition to the yard pilot. Lying to the west of this area were the dispatch roads where wagons and vans could be positioned under cover while being loaded by traders. One of the tracks led down a steep incline to the underground area, which was used for ‘vulnerable’ traffic. Nearby was a building known as the Midland Shed, being. a relic from the time between 1858 and 1867 when that company’s trains reached London over the Great Northern from Hitchin. More tracks served the one-time Grain Warehouse, although it had lost its canal connections” [1: p12] which are shown in the NRM images above.
Semmens continues his description: “Continuing clockwise, the coal area was reached, which had two lines of drops inside the confines of the yard. From one of these, a pair of tracks crossed Regent’s Canal to serve Camley Street Coal Yard, where over 200 wagons could be positioned for unloading using the electric transporter. Earlier still, when the gas works alongside King’s Cross passenger station was operating, that had its own connection across the canal for the delivery of coal straight into the retort-house. Along much of the western boundary of the yard, after the canal has passed under the Midland [Railway], the property of the two railway companies came [1: p12] together. The tracks in the King’s Cross yards finished at right-angles to the lines out of St. Pancras, and were separated only by a wall and the width of the perimeter road. It was here in 1980 that the NRM’s replica of Rocket was transferred from road to rail when it worked the last steam train into St. Pancras, to publicise the Post Office’s commemorative stamps that year.” [1: p12-13]
“Between Top Shed and the North London Line were more sidings, some of which were under cover and handled Sundries, while bricks from the numerous works at Fletton, alongside the East Coast Route near Peterborough, were dealt with in the open. Hereabouts too was the smelly part of the yards, where manure from the railway’s own cartage stables was loaded for dispatch, in addition to some of London’s refuse. Even in 1965 some 40 wagons a day of rubbish from the Chapel and Hoxton Markets were being moved from here to Holwell Sidings on the branch from Hatfield to St. Albans.” [1: p13]
Semmens appears to have the wrong location for Holwell Sidings. Rather than being on the Hatfield to St. Alban’s, they were, in fact in Leicestershire. [50]
Additionally, a single-track line climbed steeply from these yards “to a dead-end parallel to Copenhagen Tunnel, from where there was a trailing connection across all the tunnels to serve the Caledonian Road goods yard away to the east.” [1: p14] While this short branch was still in use in 1965, another facility, which disappeared much earlier, was Cemetery Station, “the remains of which could be seen until the mid-1950s. Like the better-known facilities at Waterloo, this formed the starting point for funeral trains. Those in North London used to run to the graveyard on the east side of the East Coast Main Line, just north of New Southgate, the junction there being controlled by Cemetery Signalbox, now demolished. The final traces of the station opposite King’s Cross Goods Yard were swept away during the construction work that went on here for the Victoria Line.” [1: p14]
In 1965, King’s Cross Goods Yard still employed more than 1,000 men. The main terminal close in 1974 and by 1990 much of the yard’s activities had ceased. Semmens noted in 1990 that, “Freightliners ha[d] come and gone, but three separate aggregate/concrete facilities still operate[d] in the area to the north of the Top Shed. They [were] served by regular Railfreight workings, usually hauled by a pair of class 31s. There [were] also sufficient other operations to justify the presence of an unofficial caravan close to the Grain Warehouse providing food and drinks for those who work[ed] in the area. The various listed buildings and structures remain[ed], but many of the others ha[d] deteriorated since closure.” [1: p14]
2: Regeneration: First Thoughts
Back in Victorian times St. Pancras Station was built alongside King’s Cross because of the commercial competition between two different railway companies. This position was not changed by the Grouping, as, in 1923, their ownership passed to the LMS and LNER respectively, which were still rivals, particularly for the Anglo-Scottish business. Semmens notes that in 1990, the two stations were still operated by two different regions, but their common ownership during since 1948 had nevertheless provided opportunities for rationalisation and cooperation. [1: p15]
“In 1966, the year after Lord Beeching had returned to ICI, proposals for combining King’s Cross and St. Pancras were first aired, with the latter being closed. Its suburban services would have worked through the tunnels to the City, while the main-line trains were to have been diverted into King’s Cross, where one scheme envisaged a heliport on the roof. A two-storey concourse building was to have been constructed across the front of King’s Cross, while a new 300ft tower to the north-west of the station would have become the new BR headquarters. The St. Pancras hotel would have been demolished and replaced with a new office block.” [1: p16]
These early plans were stymied when St. Pancras Station and the Hotel were ‘listed’ in 1967. Suggestions that it should be a sports centre or a transport museum with trains diverted elsewhere, came to nothing in 1968 when rationalisation of railway facilities was abadoned.
Semmens says that, “a decade and a half later, other, much more friendly, proposals were to materialise for the two stations, which would enable them to become the nucleus for the regeneration of the whole area. … It was in the latter half of the 1980s that British Rail offered potential developers the opportunity to submit ideas on how to revitalise the whole 130 acres of their land around King’s Cross. … The developer’s brief was the regeneration of the land North of the two stations, which was to be fully co-ordinated with new station facilities and railway works. In particular, provision was to be made for a sub-surface station below the existing platforms at King’s Cross, which would ultimately benefit the Thameslink services due to be inaugurated in May 1988.” [1: p17]
Two consortia were invited by British Railways to submit plans which the public could study at an exhibition held in the St. Pancras Undercroft at the beginning of 1988. They were:
1. Speyhawk, working in conjunction with Sir Robert McAlpine & Sons (Speyhawk/McAlpine).
2. London Regeneration Consortium (LRC), working with two separate groups of architects, Foster Associates, and Skidmore, Owings & Merrill.
Semmens notes that “although only open for a relatively short time, the exhibition drew the public’s attention to the plans, and created considerable interest in architectural circles. In addition to the displays, which included models of the main proposals, both consortia produced some effective printed material which enables us to recall what was being planned at this stage of the project.” [1: p17]
Semmens says that “the individual styles of the two Victorian stations made it difficult to link them together architecturally, and three very different proposals for the new concourse resulted, as shown in the illustrations. Speyhawk/McAlpine, who were already involved with BR in the redevelopment of the hotel at St. Pancras, went for a ‘solid’ design. with a classical, stone-built, rotunda serving as the main public entrance. On the other hand, the LRC’s two architectural partners both came up with proposals that included much more glass in their construction. Foster Associates proposed a huge glazed vault, filling the whole gap between the two stations, while Skidmore, Owings & Merrill’s plans were for a much smaller, fan-shaped, structure with an unusual roof profile.” [1: p17]
These were only outline schemes, but suggested very different ways in which the area around and to the North of the two stations could be developed. “All three schemes involved covering in the railway tracks out of King’s Cross, between the twin train-sheds and Gas Works Tunnel, which would have meant that trains would have first emerged into daylight at the north end of this tunnel. Speyhawk/McAlpine also proposed building over the Midland’s tracks for some distance alongside Pancras Road, and included a monorail link from their proposed concourse to a new Maiden Lane station on the North London Line.” [1: p17]
The proposals submitted by the London Regeneration Consortium were preferred by British Rail, and they became the designated developers. However, the brief that they began working to was altered significantly as the 1980s gave way to the 1990s because of a significant “upsurge in railway travel … sweeping across Europe in response to modern attitudes to mobility and the environment. In particular the significance of the Channel Tunnel began to be perceived, and the need for a second London terminal/interchange to serve those parts of the country north of the Thames emerged.” [1: p17]
Semmens supplement to The Railway Magazine was effectively a position statement, outlining the state of play at the beginning of the 1990s. New proposals were before Parliament, designed to enhance the railway facilities of the UK considerably, in addition to creating a whole new urban area out of the wastelands of the former goods yard at King’s Cross. [1: p17] That redevelopment was given greater significance by the need to accommodate the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (HS1), which would bring high-speed rail services to London. [31]
In 1990, the UK Parliament considered and approved the British Rail development plans, including the merging of the stations and the creation of a new low-level station. [32] The Select Committee drew attention to the financial links between the proposed office and commercial developments on the railway lands behind King’s Cross and St. Pancras stations and the proposal for the new station to go ahead. [33]
In 1991, 1992 and 1993, the King’s Cross Railways Bill was debated in the House of Commons and the House of Lords [34] but development did not take place at that time. In 1996, the decision was taken to locate the HS1 terminal at St. Pancras (a change from the original intention for it to be at Waterloo Station).
3: The SchemeCurrent in 1990
Semmens tells us that in November 1988, the British Railways Board and London Underground Limited lodged their private ‘King’s Cross Railways’ Bill with Parliament, seeking authority “to construct works and to purchase or use land at King’s Cross in the London boroughs of Camden and Islington; to confer further powers on the Board and the Company; and for other and related purposes”. While this may sound quite modest, its passing will set in operation the second most important railway project in Britain this century, and encourage urban redevelopment of 134 acres, worth some £3 billion, as well as providing 1,800 new homes and creating the potential for up to 30,000 jobs. Remarkably little detail of how this will be achieved emerges from the four parts, 31 sections and five schedules of the Bill itself, but this was supplemented by 35 days of evidence presented by BR to the MPs considering it at the start of its committee stage.” [1: p17]
“King’s Cross, St. Pancras, Thameslink and the London Underground interchange connected with these stations are currently used by some 270,000 passengers every weekday. Many of these travel by the BR Intercity services using both the main line stations, with Anglo-Scottish trains arriving and departing every half hour for considerable periods of the day. The popularity of the East Coast Route … increase[d] still further with the travelling public after the full electric services [came] into operation in May 1991, when many of the trains [began to] run through to Glasgow.” [1: p17-18]
Long-distance passengers were “supplemented by those using the Network SouthEast suburban trains, including the Thameslink services running right across the heart of London. From King’s Cross Underground it is possible to travel to more than 60 per cent of the Underground stations without changing trains, and all the other BR main-line termini can be reached direct, except Waterloo, which requires one change. All five London airports [were soon to] be within one hour’s journey by train from King’s Cross, either direct or with easy changes, and the rail link right into Stansted [was due to] begin operations in March 1991. … The King’s Cross area [also] serve[d] as a significant bus interchange.” [1: p18] Towards the end of the 1980s, there had been a steady increase in the number of passengers using all these services.
In 1993, “the biggest step-change in British and European-transport history [was due to] take place when the Channel Tunnel open[ed] that June, following on the heels of the start of the Single European Market six months earlier. When first thoughts were being given to the King’s Cross regeneration project, predictions about the impact of both these factors suggested that provision should be made eventually for additional facilities to be developed at King’s Cross. The need for them was not expected to arise, however, until into the 21st Century. The position was changing rapidly, though, and in July 1988, British Rail published its report on the long-term route and terminal capacity for its Channel Tunnel train services. which indicated that both could become congested appreciably before the year 2000.” [1: p18]
“This radically changed the emphasis on the ideas for the new railway facilities required at King’s Cross, which became the obvious location for the second terminal for the through trains to Europe. Unlike the first terminal, to be opened at Waterloo in 1993, it would provide direct interchange with domestic Intercity trains serving the whole of the northern half of Britain … and could also be made to facilitate the workings of the through trains to and from the Continent. Any such scheme for a new major set of platforms would be extremely expensive, but an additional advantage of the King’s Cross site is that the regeneration possibilities could provide welcome finance.” [1: p18]
This diagram shows the changes to the railway connections envisaged as part of the King’s Cross proposals current in 1990. ][1: p17]A plan of the land affected by the King’s Cross proposals of 1988/1990. [1: p18]
“The … proposals … included in the 1988 Bill, provide[d] for eight new sub-surface platforms, set diagonally below the main station at King’s Cross, four of which would be for the Channel Tunnel services. To reach these from the north, a new connection [would be] required, swinging westwards in a wide curve from Belle Isle, at the south end of Copenhagen Tunnel, as it descends. Just north of the point at which it passes under Regent’s Canal, it is joined by a connection off the Midland main line, so trains from both routes can use the new platforms. At present the sharp curves through the tunnel under St. Pancras impose major restrictions on the type of rolling stock that can use the Thameslink route, and the new arrangements will remove these.” [1: p18]
In addition, “this curve [would] enable Thameslink services off the Great Northern suburban lines which [could not then be operated]. Even if the York Road and Hotel Curves were to be reopened at King’s Cross, the tight clearances caused by the tunnels and curvature would necessitate the provision of even smaller rolling stock than the [then] present class 319s. BR also ha[d] a Bill going through Parliament for the construction of a new chord at West Hampstead, which [would] provide a connection between the lines out of St. Pancras and the West Coast Route, enabling Thameslink services to be extended that way too if required. The through Channel Tunnel trains serving the northern part of Britain [would] also be able to use these links to reach the East and West Coast Main Lines. At the south-east end of the new King’s Cross sub-surface station, the platform roads [would]. converge into the two tracks which form the present Thameslink route.” [1: p18]
Realignment work then underway in “the Ludgate Hill area [would] remove the existing clearance restrictions at that end of the link, and only minimal widening work [would be] necessary between King’s Cross and Farringdon to enable the passage of the largest coaches on BR. The present King’s Cross (Thameslink) station [would] disappear, and passengers using it [would] also benefit from the change. The main entrance to this [was] situated a considerable distance away along Pentonville Road, and require[d] a long walk to reach it, either through underground passageways or across busy roads. Although the passenger facilities there [had been] recently improved, the platforms [were] short and comparatively narrow, and there [was] no room for them to be extended in any direction. A sub-surface ticket hall for the new Thameslink platforms [would] be built on the corner of York Way and Pentonville Road, beneath the Bravington block of shops, right opposite the south-east corner of the main station at King’s Cross.” [1: p19]
“Commuter traffic on the Great Northern lines [was] also expected to continue to grow. The [then] present suburban platforms [would] not accommodate 12-coach trains, and already in peak periods outer suburban sets [could] be found competing with Intercity trains for platform space in the main station. To deal with this problem, it [was] planned to switch all the Network SouthEast trains into St. Pancras by a new surface connection which [would] run across King’s Cross Goods Yard, and join the Midland’s tracks just behind the site of Top Shed. To accommodate these extra workings in St. Pancras, the number of platforms [would] be increased to ten, a task that [would be] comparatively straightforward, thanks to the method of construction adopted back in the 1860s. Bridge No. 1, immediately outside the station, [would] have to be widened, and as this [was] situated over what amounts to a six-road intersection, it [would] involve some clever engineering.” [1: p19]
The existing platforms at King’s Cross would need to be lengthened to accommodate the longer East Coast Route trains needed to meet demand. At King’s Cross, as at St. Pancras the station layout would need improvement to allow higher arrival and departure speeds to be achieved. Track would need to be relaid through Copenhagen and Gas Works tunnels.
“New platforms and tracks are of little use unless better facilities are also provided for the passengers, and considerable thought [had] been given to this aspect of the proposals as well. The idea for the new concourse beside King’s Cross Station [had] been developed, and a new design for it [had] been produced by Richard Paul of Norman Foster Associates. Like the earlier London Regeneration Consortium proposals, it [would] be clad in glass, and the triangular roof, covering 8,300 square metres, [would] be supported by just nine columns, all except one of them situated along the walls. People entering the station from the street [would] approach the concourse down a wide semi-circular ramp from the south-east. Escalators [would] connect with the improved interchange arrangements for the London Underground’s five lines, which [would] be constructed to take into account the long-term recommendations of the Fennell Report on the 1987 escalator fire. Passengers arriving by car or taxi [would] use a special area to the north of the new concourse, … equipped to deal with the different types of flow involved.” [1: p19]
Great care had been taken to ensure that the concourse was user-friendly; due allowance being made for ‘meeters and greeters’ and the dwell-times that will result. As shown in one of the illustrations, the ticket office and travel centre would be set across the wide north end, “with the main catering facilities at mezzanine level above them. The usual forecourt retailing activities [would] be located along the walls, and kept low so that views of the two main station buildings through the glass walls [were] not obscured. The floor of the concourse [would] be below street level, to facilitate the connections required to the various platforms.” [1: p20]
“Four of the new sub-surface platforms [would] be dedicated for use by the international services to and from the Continent, and they [would] have their own inward and outward Customs and immigration facilities, although these activities [were expected to] take place on the trains in the case of the through services between the Continent and the northern parts of the country. When the Channel Tunnel open[ed] in June 1993, the schedule from Edinburgh to Paris [was expected to] be approximately eight hours. To reach the West London Line through Olympia, these services [would] use either the ‘King’s Cross Link’ with the North London Line … or the Harringay curve. After the new low-level station [had] been completed at King’s Cross, which would be in 1996 at the earliest, half an hour would be cut from the timings of all the through international trains using the East Coast Route.” [1: p20]
“The international trains would then still be using the existing lines through Kent, but the completion of the European Rail Link, after 1998, [would] enable an additional 30-minute cut in timings to be made, to the great advantage of the millions of international passengers who [would] use the route each year thereafter. Its opening [would] bring Edinburgh within seven hours of Paris, and 6 hours from Brussels, the former being only an hour longer than the ‘Coronation’s’ London-Edinburgh timing, which was the fastest ever scheduled in the days of steam. From 1996, it [was] expected that there [would] be one international train an hour in each direction from Waterloo and the same number from King’s Cross, but this represents only about a quarter of the long-term capacity of both terminals. From King’s Cross, St. Pancras and Euston stations up to ten Intercity trains an hour [in 1990 departed] for the Midlands, Northern England and Scotland.” [1: p20]
“The completion of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link [would] signal the start of the high-speed domestic services from King’s Cross to the towns and cities in Kent. With the eight-coach Class 342 ‘Kent Express’ units running at up to 125 mph, the journey to Dover could take as little as 60 minutes. … Cross-London Intercity trains [might also run] this way, although they might presumably have [had] to be hauled by dual-voltage electric locomotives, as it is unlikely that the diesel fumes from the shortened Cross-country HSTs would be welcome in King’s Cross Low Level.”
Provisions were made within the Bill for the purchase of land outside British Rail’s ownership. Some temporary road diversions were envisaged as was the need to remove and later replace the listed lock-keeper’s cottage alongside the canal. A ‘listed’ gas-holder would need to be dismantled and rebuilt. A nature reserve would need to be removed and replaced by a larger one. semmens noted that only 29 homes would be demolished and the development would provide 1800 new dwellings. He noted too that a period on at least 20 years would be likely to relapse from the Act receiving Royal Assent before the scheme would be completed.
British Rail was given the green light by MPs to carry out a multi-million pound redevelopment of King’s Cross and St Pancras stations and as the 1990s unfolded, the UK Government established the King’s Cross Partnership to fund regeneration projects in the area. London and Continental Railways (LCR) was formed to construct the railway and received ownership of land at King’s Cross and St Pancras stations in 1996. After the millennium, work on High Speed 1 (HS1) began, providing a major impetus for other projects in the area.
4: St. Pancras Midland Grand Hotel
St. Pancras Renaissance Hotel in the 21st century. [35]
Before going on to consider developments after Semmens was writing in 1990, it would be good to hear what Semmens had to say about the hotel which fronts Barlow’s trainshed. Designed by Gilbert Scott, the hotel was no more than a series of foundations when the station opened in 1868. Five years would elapse before the building was complete.
The Midland Railway over stretched its finances in building its extension into London. It downsized the design of the hotel, removing an eighth floor which would have housed the headquarters of the railway company after an intended move from Derby. The project programme was allowed to drift to aid the company’s cashflow. Semmens describes the hotel as “the finest example of non-religious Victorian Gothic in Britain, … much of the detail was adapted from the architect’s plans for offices in Whitehall which never materialised.” [1: p22]
Construction of the Midland Grand Hotel took place between 1868 and 1876 and was completed in various stages with the East Wing opening on 5th May 1873 and the rest followed in Spring 1876. Altogether, the hotel fabric had cost £304,335, decoration and fittings £49,000 furnishings £84,000, adding up to a not-inconsiderable £437,335. [37]
The completed building had used 60 million bricks and 9,000 tons of ironwork including polished columns of fourteen different British granites and limestones.
Midland Grand Hotel Advertisement of 1885, Public Domain [36]The Midland Grand Hotel in 1873
Despite all its magnificence, “the building had a number of serious drawbacks, which in time were to prove its downfall as a hotel. Although it was equipped with hydraulic lifts-receiving their power from the high-pressure water mains that used to run below the main highways in London and the first revolving door in the capital, an examination of the ridge of the Mansard roof above the dormer windows will reveal rows of chimneys. These came from the open fires in the various rooms, private as well as public, which were neither easy to service nor particularly efficient as sources of heat. … Only 12 years after the Midland Grand Hotel had been completed, work started on a rival hotel in another part of London which was to eclipse it in comfort and appointments. Funded in part from the profits of the theatre of the same name, the Savoy Hotel in the Strand was completed in 1889. During its construction, the builder asked whether, in the light of the number of bathrooms being installed, the management were expecting to entertain amphibians. While not all the bedrooms originally had their own bathroom, no fewer than 67 were provided initially. … The Midland [Grand] did not have bathrooms on anything like this scale, and not many decades were to pass before those who used hotels of this standing expected such facilities in every room. In the same way as the Midland Grand Hotel could not install central heating at an economic price, they were unable to provide all their bedrooms with baths ‘en-suite’.” [1: p22]
The Midland Grand was taken over by the London, Midland and Scottish Railway in 1922, its facilities were already outdated and it had become too expensive to run and refurbish. the demand for high-class hotel accommodation in the King’s Cross/St. Pancras area declined in the 1930s and the hotel closed in 1935. [1: p23][37]
Now renamed St Pancras Chambers, the premises settled down to a somewhat less glamourous existence as railway offices. It retained this role until 1983. [1: p23][37]
The building survived the bombing raids of the Second World War but found itself threatened with complete demolition in the 1960s. As we have already noted, in 1967 it was awarded Grade 1 listed status in recognition of its importance as an example of high Victorian Gothic architecture. [37]
In 1983, the building failed its fire certificate and was closed down, remaining empty for many years.
Semmens continues: “the Speyhawk/McAlpine development proposals for the St. Pancras Grand Hotel, as it [was to] be titled, predated the main King’s Cross Regeneration Project. They [involved] the original hotel buildings … [and] the undercroft.” [1: p23] No Act of Parliament was required but by 1990 the plans had already received outline planning permission from the local authority. “Their implementation, however, depend[ed] closely on the larger BR scheme, not only because of the general upgrading of the area that will then result, but because the links from the new concourse to the two main-line stations will require ‘corridors: through the undercroft.” [1: p23]I
Included in the Speyhawk/McAlpine scheme, and sited in the undercroft were:
a leisure centre;
a shopping precinct (St. Pancras Plaza);
a cat park; and
a multi-screen cinema.
Above ground the scheme allowed for:
the conversion of the station booking hall into a hotel brasserie or coffee shop;
the conversion of the original hotel entrance into a night club;
the meeting of fire regulations by isolating the grand staircase to make it a self-contained area;
the installation of a modern central heating system; and
the provision of en-suite bathroom facilities (a challenge in a listed building).
These developments had to be set alongside significant work to the fabric of the building. [1: p23]
Planning permission was granted in 2004 for the building to be redeveloped into a new hotel. [38]
The main public rooms of the old Midland Grand were restored, along with some of the bedrooms. The former driveway for taxis entering St. Pancras station, passing under the main tower of the building, was converted into the hotel’s lobby. In order to cater for the more modern expectations of guests, a new bedroom wing was constructed on the western side of the Barlow train shed. [38][39]
As redeveloped the hotel contains 244 bedrooms, two restaurants, two bars, a health and leisure centre, a ballroom, and 20 meeting and function rooms. [37][38] The architects for the redevelopment were Aedas RHWL. At the same time, the upper floors of the original building were redeveloped as 68 apartments by the Manhattan Loft Corporation. [38][40]
The St. Pancras Renaissance Hotel opened on 14 March 2011 to guests; however, the formal Grand Opening was on 5 May – exactly 138 years after its original opening in 1873.[38][41]
The building as a whole including the apartments is still known as St Pancras Chambers. [38] Its clock tower stands at 76 m (249 ft) tall, with more than half its height usable. [38][42]
5: Bringing Things Up-to-date (2025)
By 2025, the redevelopment of the King’s Cross area has been completed. The final form of the development and of the railway provision is somewhat different from that described by Semmens.
Two street maps of London illustrate the changes to the site between the late 1980s and 2025. [30]
King’s Cross before regeneration. [30]King’s Cross after regeneration. [30]
Particularly different from earlier plans, is the way in which the international high-speed and Channel Tunnel railway traffic has been accommodated within the overall project and we will come back to those changes later in this article.
It is first worth noting that King’s Cross has undergone a substantial renaissance, one that has been described as “one of the most exciting and vibrant urban regeneration schemes in Europe.” [25]
King’s Cross Central has evolved from an idea on paper to one of the most sought after places in London. The routes and spaces within the development provided a flexible framework for sequential development on the site, and have successfully created a sense of place during each phase of the development. Significantly, those routes and spaces link the railway stations to the former derelict Granary Building and beyond. [30]
The site as redeveloped with significant open spaces and carefully planned cycle and pedestrian routes. [26]
The plan above shows the revised concourse design which was finally adopted. It is attached to King’s Cross Station building and not to St. Pancras Station building. Redevelopment of King’s Cross Station commenced in 2008, the contract duration was 42 months with completion in 2012. The contract cost £550 million. [23]
The contract involved: constructing a 1,700 tonne geodesic steel and glass dome over the top of the London Underground ticket hall; reconstruction of platforms 1 and 8 and shortening of platforms 5 to 8 to enlarge the concourse; a new glass footbridge and escalators serving platforms 1 to 8; a new 12 car platform (300m); 4,000 m² of refurbished office space; 20,000 m² of renewed main shed roof; and 2,500m² of photovoltaic panels to generate 10% of the station’s power needs. All of which was undertaken without impacting normal station operations. [23] The main objective of the project was to provide station capacity to handle projected peak hour passenger demand within a more attractive retail and transport interchange environment.
The new concourse alongside King’s Cross Station. [23]A second view of the same roof structure. [24]
The main outputs were: a new western concourse, four times the size of the existing one (from 2,000m² to 8,000m²); a wider range and quality of commercial outlets; better interchange with London Underground and St Pancras International Station; renewed main shed roof to provide better lighting. [23] “The historically accurate restorations and modern architectural and servicing interventions won 35 international design awards, including the coveted Europa Nostra prize for cultural heritage. Internationally, the station is widely regarded as one of the most successful large-scale historic building transformations of recent times, and is a fitting gateway to the 35ha regeneration scheme immediately to the north.” [24]
Islington Gazette comments: King’s Cross is now ‘vital piece’ of London economy after regeneration. [27] The area North of the two railway stations is now “a haven for offices, chain shops and restaurants.” [27] A study, by Regeneris, “was commissioned by Argent, one of the two companies behind the redevelopment. Regeneris said the project has helped create 10,000 jobs and £600million for the economy per year.” [27]
King’s Cross is the largest mixed-use development in single ownership to be developed in central London for over 150 years. The 67-acre site has a rich history and a unique setting – and it is adjacent to the best-connected transport hub in London. Post World War II the area declined from being an industrial and distribution services district to a rundown post-industrial area. What is emerging at King’s Cross is a vibrant new city quarter of offices, homes, community facilities, schools, a world-renowned university in Central Saint Martins as well as a host of shops, restaurants, bars and cultural venues. When complete, there will be 50 new and refurbished buildings set in an exciting and inspiring network of new streets, squares, parks and public space. 2,000 new homes, 3 million square feet of offices and hundreds of new shops are being delivered as part of the scheme. Universal Music Group, Google, YouTube, and Facebook are some of the high-profile tenants that will have offices and buildings in the area. The development is circa 85% complete with an estimated completion date of around 2025. … Coal Drops Yard is a spectacular reinvention of Victorian industrial railway sheds creating a unique public and retail destination within Kings Cross’s heart. This was a highly complex and challenging project because of its unique “kissing roof” and its Victorian heritage; data capture was difficult but this challenge was overcome. “BAM’s innovative use of digital was instrumental in the delivery of the scheme allowing us to improve the accuracy of repairs; map survey images to elevations and schedule the works required to give a clear scope of works and cost. In addition, our use of 3D Rhino software allowed BAM Design, Heatherwick Studio and Arup to refine the complex roof form and structure.” Coal Drops Yard is an amazing structure; there are many other architecturally impressive buildings on the site. [29]A ‘fish-eye’ lens aerial view of the site from the West. [28]Aerial views over the King’s Cross site in 2004, left, and 2022 right. [28]
Rowan Moore comments that, “The two-decade transformation of the industrial site north of King’s Cross station in London, once notorious, now a pleasant enclave of offices, homes, shops, bars and boulevards, is essentially complete. It’s a huge success. … The near quarter-century, kilometre-long, 67-acre project to redevelop King’s Cross in London is a monument of its age. It is the urban embodiment of the Blair era in which it was conceived, of the third way, of the idea that market forces, wisely guided by light-touch government, can be a power for good. It will get into the history books about cities (if such things are written in the future), representing its time in the same way that John Nash’s Regent’s Park represents the Regency and the Barbican represents the 1960s.” [28]
“The development runs from the terminuses of St Pancras and King’s Cross through a central open space called Granary Square, to a dense cluster of blocks and towers at its northern end, formed around a long oblong lawn with [Alison] Brooks’s building at its head, which includes most of the most recent additions. It is phenomenally successful, both commercially and at achieving its stated aims. Its developers, Argent (selected in 2001), set out to achieve somewhere like the sort of cities where you might want to go on holiday, with open spaces that one of its architects calls “incredibly pleasant”, and – contemplating children from surrounding areas playing in its fountains, or office workers and art students lounging in its open spaces – it has certainly done that. It has created, in its 50 new and restored buildings, about 1,700 homes, more than 40% of them affordable, 30 bars and restaurants, 10 new public parks and squares, 4.25m sq ft of offices and capacity for 30,000 office jobs.” [28]
6. St. Pancras Internationaland Rail Decisions& Developments
This drawing illustrated the high concentration of vital rail infrastructure in or under the King’s Cross development area. [43: p21]
The strategic decision was taken to focus international and domestic high-speed services at St. Pancras. The decision to have St Pancras as the terminus for the CTRL was heavily driven by the ambition to regenerate East London.
HS1 (previously the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, or CTRL) is a high-speed line which connects the Channel Tunnel with London, via Stratford, Ebbsfleet and Ashford in Kent. Eurostar services began serving St. Pancras on opening. Prior to the opening of the high-speed line, Eurostar services operated from Waterloo International. Domestic high-speed services between St. Pancras and Kent were introduced in December 2009.
HS1 was initially planned to tunnel through south-east London to an underground King’s Cross international station much as discussed by Semmens. However, in 1994 this plan was rejected, and the decision was taken to approach London from the east, terminating at St. Pancras. [43: p21-22]
In 1994, St. Pancras station was seen as not realising its full potential as a station. The original route involved expensive tunnelling under listed buildings, a medieval hospital and the King’s Cross gasworks, while the route into St. Pancras could follow the existing North London Line. [43: Appendix B]
“As a result of the decision to locate HS1 at St. Pancras, the station was extended to hold extra platforms and extend existing platforms to the required length for Eurostar. On completion there were 13 platforms: 4 for Midland Main Line services on the western side, 6 for international services in the central train shed, and 3 for HS1 domestic services to Kent on the eastern side. On opening, HS1 could carry up to 8 Eurostar services per hour as well as up to 8 domestic high-speed services per hour, along with two open access paths. … Once St. Pancras opened to international services in 2007, Eurostar moved their operations to St. Pancras and stopped serving Waterloo. Domestic HS1 services launched in 2009 using new Class 395 ‘Javelin’ trains, as part of a major revision of the Southeastern timetable in December 2009.” [43: p22]
“As a result of the work to bring HS1 to St. Pancras and the increased services this would bring to the area, the King’s Cross Thameslink station and King’s Cross St. Pancras underground station needed to be expanded to handle the additional passenger traffic. The decision to relocate the King’s Cross Thameslink station to St. Pancras was originally intended to accommodate the Thameslink Programme, which would introduce additional and longer trains connecting North and South London through the Snow Hill tunnel. … When the new Thameslink station was constructed, it was driven by three purposes: to accommodate the expanded Thameslink network, to improve safety and passenger experience at the station, and to serve the new Eurostar/HS1 terminal at St. Pancras. The new St. Pancras Thameslink station opened in December 2007, separately from and in advance of the wider Thameslink Programme. … Regarding the Underground station, a key recommendation of the Fennell report following the 1987 King’s Cross Fire was taking action to improve passenger flow, ease congestion and improve safety at the King’s Cross St. Pancras Underground station. In response, the London Underground (King’s Cross) Act was passed in 1993. Two new ticket halls were constructed: the western ticket hall and northern ticket hall. The western ticket hall was opened in 2006, doubling the station capacity at the time to serve HS1, Thameslink and visitors to the 2012 Olympics. The northern ticket hall opened in 2009, further doubling station capacity and reducing congestion. It also allowed step-free access to the Underground platforms and was described as essential to effectively managing future passenger numbers. This ticket hall also connects directly to the HS1 domestic station via a direct subway link.” [43: p22-23]
The interior of the redeveloped St. Pancras trainshed looking North from the back of the hotel. [47]A view, looking South through the refurbished St. Pancras trainshed towards the hotel. [47]
Refurbishment of St. Pancras to receive Eurostar services required a highly complex programme of expansion, modernisation and restoration. St. Pancras Interational Station became a key urban hub leading to the redevelopment of the surrounding area through added retail and hospitality. The project included the full restoration of the existing Grade I listed station, incorporating the technical requirements of a transport interchange fit for the 21st century.
Throughout construction and restoration of this complicated scheme, London Midland connections were kept almost entirely operational with minimal inconvenience to both staff and passengers throughout the design. The result is a thoroughly modern transport interchange with over 45 million passengers passing through the zone every year. [48]
Rail services operate at the high level under the trainshed roof with retail sited in the undercroft. [49]
Shops and cafés occupy what was formerly a Victorian store for beer brewed in the Burton-on-Trent breweries. Within the Grade 1 listed building, The design of the undercroft exposed the original brick arches to the former beer vaults within new fully glazed shop fronts. Opening up the platform level to expose the undercroft revealed a naturally lit main concourse that acts as the main thoroughfare connecting different parts of the complex. The designers say that “the cafés and bars on the main concourse connect via escalators and lifts to the hotel and restaurants at the platform level, providing intuitive connectivity throughout the public areas.” [49]
Developments after the completion of HS1 and St. Pancras International illustrate just how rapid change has been over the years. They have included:
A. The East Coast Main Line Upgrade which began in 2019 and which includes:
the construction of a new platform and track at Stevenage – which encompassed a 126 metre-long platform (featuring amenities like a passenger lift and ticket vending machines), and 2 km of new track, permitting more frequent services between Hertford and Stevenage North and which opened in August 2020;
work at Werrington (North of Peterborough) to improve capacity and reliability of passenger services – a new two track line and tunnel separating freight and passenger movements and eliminating the delay caused by freight trains crossing the East Coast Main line;
improvements to power supply infrastructure to enable the use of electric trains; and
King’s Cross Expansion – renewing and expanding tracks, signalling and overhead equipment serving King’s Cross Station, particularly the reopening of the third tunnel (‘King’s Uncrossed’ – December 2020 – June 2021) enabling increased service frequency.
For the sake of completeness, Wikipedia also lists further major works to improve services on the East Coast Main Line which include: [44]
Power supply enhancement on the diversionary Hertford Loop route;
Re-quadrupling of the route between Huntingdon and Woodwalton (HW4T), which was rationalised in the 1980s during electrification (part of the ECML Connectivity programme);
Enhanced passenger access to the platforms at Peterborough and Stevenage;
Replacement of the flat crossing at Newark with a flyover;
Upgrading of the Down Fast line at Shaftholme Junction from 100 mph to 125 mph and higher-speed associated crossovers (part of the ECML Connectivity programme);
Modified north throat at York station to reduce congestion for services calling at platforms 9 – 11 (part of the ECML Connectivity programme);
Freight loops between York and Darlington (part of the ECML Connectivity programme);
Darlington station up fast line platform and future station remodelling as part of HS2;
Fitment of TASS balises and gauging/structure works proposed by the open-access operator GNER (Alliance Rail) to enable tilt operation of Pendolino trains north of Darlington station, supporting its aspirations for express 3 hr 43 min London to Edinburgh services;
Power supply upgrades (PSU) between Wood Green and Bawtry (Phase 1 – completed in September 2017) and Bawtry to Edinburgh (Phase 2), including installation of static frequency converter (Frequency changer) technology at Hambleton Junction and Marshall Meadows Bay area.
Level-crossing closures between King’s Cross and Doncaster: As of July 2015 this will no longer be conducted as a single closure of 73 level crossings but will be conducted on a case-by case basis (for example, Abbots Ripton Level Crossing will close as part of the HW4T scheme)
Increasing maximum speeds on the fast lines between Woolmer Green and Dalton-on-Tees up to 140 mph (225 km/h) in conjunction with the introduction of the InterCity Express Programme, level-crossing closures, ERTMS fitments, some overhead line ewuipment (OLE) rewiring and the OLE PSU – estimated to cost £1.3 billion (2014). This project is referred to as “L2E4” or London to Edinburgh (in) 4 Hours. L2E4 examined the operation of the IEP at 140 mph on the ECML and the sections of track which can be upgraded to permit this, together with the engineering and operational costs.
In June 2020 it was reported that the UK government would provide £350 million to fund the UK’s first digital signalling system on a long-distance rail route. The signalling is to be fitted on a 100-mile (161 km) section of the East Coast Main Line between King’s Cross, London, and Lincolnshire, which will allow trains to run closer together and increase service frequency, speed and reliability. The first trains are expected to operate on the East Coast Main Line using this digital signalling technology by the end of 2025, with all improvements scheduled for completion by 2030. [45]
B. Upgrades to the Midland Main Line into St Pancras which were first proposed in 2012 as part of the High Level Output Specification for Control Period 5, to include electrification of the line between London and Sheffield, but paused in 2015 along with the rest of the HLOS plans in order to carry out a review. Work was restarted later in 2015, then cancelled again in 2017, and were finally re-announced in 2021 as part of the Integrated Rail Plan. [43: p24][46]
C. Rail and Tube service changes since 2000: various changes to the Rail and Tube services which call at King’s Cross and St Pancras over the past quarter century. As of November 2022, these changes included:
Eurostar – 2007 – Services moved from Waterloo to St Pancras; 2015 – Introduced direct London-Lyon/Avignon/Marseille service in summer season; 2018 – 2 train per day London-Amsterdam service introduced; 2019 – Third daily service to Amsterdam introduced; 2020 – Direct Amsterdam-London services introduced;
Southeastern High Speed – 2009 – Domestic HS1 services began; 2012 – Operated high speed ‘Javelin’ services between St Pancras and Stratford during London Olympics;
East Midlands Railway – 2003 – 1 train/hour (tph) St Pancras-Manchester ‘Project Rio’ service introduced while WCML underwent engineering work (ended 2004); 2007 – East Midlands Trains franchise created, merging Midland Mainline and Central Trains; 2008 – 1 tph introduced to Corby; 2009 – 2 tph introduced to Sheffield by extending 1 tph London-Derby; 2019 – Franchise awarded to EMR;
Thameslink – 2007 – Thameslink platforms open at St Pancras; 2009 – 15 tph peak hour service introduced on core section; 2018 – A large timetable change in May reintroduced cross-London services via London Bridge and many new services; 2019 – Cambridge-Brighton service doubled to 2 tph in each direction;
London North Eastern Railway – Early 2000s – Increased Leeds services from 37 trains/day (tpd) to 53 tpd as Class 373s were moved to GNER; 2011 – ‘Eureka’ timetable change simplified stopping patterns and introduced 1 tpd London-Lincoln service; 2015 – VTEC awarded franchise; introduced daily services to Stirling and Sunderland; 2016 – Newcastle services extended to Edinburgh; 2018 – Franchise awarded to London North Eastern Railway (LNER); 2019 – ‘Azuma’ trains enter service; expanded service to Lincoln and Harrogate by extending existing services every other hour;
Great Northern/Thameslink – 2007 – King’s Cross Thameslink station closes with through services moved to St Pancras; 2018 – Great Northern route connected to Thameslink, resulting in several services moving to St Pancras and continuing through London;
Grand Central – 2007 – Services begin with 1 tpd London-Sunderland; 2008 – Introduced a 3 tpd service to Sunderland; 2009 – Introduced a 4th daily service to Sunderland; 2010 – Introduced 3 tpd between London and Bradford; 2012 – Added a 5th Sunderland service; 2013 – Added a 4th Bradford service;
Hull Trains – 2000 – Services begin with 3 tpd London-Hull: 2002 – 4th daily service to Hull; 2004 – 5th daily service to Hull; 2005 – 6th daily service to Hull; 2006 – 7th daily service to Hull; 2015 – 1 tpd extended to Beverley; 2019 – 2nd daily service extended to Beverley;
Lumo – 2021 – Service commenced;
Tube – Circle – 2009 – Broke the ‘circle’ with extension to Hammersmith; 2014 – New S Stock trains;
Tube – Hammersmith & City – 2012 – New S Stock trains
Tube – Metropolitan – 2010 – New S Stock trains;
Tube – Northern (Bank branch) – Automatic Train Operation (ATO) introduced, permitting up to 26 tph (up from 20 tph);
Tube – Piccadilly – 2008 – Heathrow T5 extension opened; 2016 – Night Tube begins (6 tph); and
Tube – Victoria – 2009 – New rolling stock; 2013 – New signalling permitting 33 tph (up from 27 tph); 2016 – Night Tube begins (6 tph); 2017 – New timetable of 36 tph. [43: Appendix C]
References
P. W. B. Semmens; King’s Cross Renaissance: The History, Development and Future of Two Great Stations; in The Railway Magazine (Supplement); London, June 1990.
Gerard Peet; The Origin of the Skyscraper (PDF); Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat Journal No. 1, 2011, p18–23. via JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24193146; accessed 3rd April 2025.
Now, here is a thing. We have got used to the idea that church is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the modern world. We have come to believe that the Christian faith, in particular, is declining rapidly. Recent work by YouGov and the Bible Society calls these assumptions into question. Their work suggests that the opposite is in fact true!
“For decades,” says Paul Williams, Chief Executive Officer of the Bible Society, “Church attendance and nominal adherence to Christianity has been declining, and it has been assumed that this decline would continue and was in some sense an inevitable product of modernity. While the decline has certainly been real, we now know that the trend has been reversed. The tide of faith, whose ‘melancholy, long-withdrawing roar’ was described by Matthew Arnold, has now turned.” [1:p4]
He goes on to say that the results of a thorough and robust study “demonstrate that over the space of only six years, there has been a significant growth in the numbers of people going to church; Christians are practising their religion more intentionally; more young people are finding faith; more people are reading the Bible. … Large numbers of young adults, male and female, have started going to church, reading the Bible regularly, practising prayer and worshipping Jesus Christ as God. A new generation is finding hope in the Christian message and in established Christian communities. This hope is both personal and social. It appears to meet a hunger for connection, belonging and purpose but it also helps frame meaningful engagement in the world to address some of the intractable problems that we all face – injustice, inequality, climate change – and to form an alternative to the individualistic, competitive, materialistic worldview that has come to dominate western societies in recent decades.” [1: p4]
Paul Williams goes on to say: “There will be an instinct to use these results to support one or other of the various narratives that mark our contested cultural moment. But I urge the reader to pay attention to the detail of this study to understand what is happening. A remarkable new and life-giving phenomenon seems to be under way in Britain. The past few decades have witnessed a widespread empirical falsification of the secularisation thesis, mainly because in all parts of the world except Western Europe the world has become more, not less religious. This report suggests that even this outlier may not remain so for much longer.”
Background
McAleer & Barward-Symmons comment:
“For many decades now, the general assumption has been that Christianity, and in particular churchgoing, in England and Wales is in a state of permanent decline. Survey data, media headlines and prominent thinkers all seemed to point in one direction, with published attendance and membership figures from major denominations appearing to confirm this. From the sociological insistence in the 1960s that secularisation was inevitable and the new atheism of the 2000s, through to the more recent findings from the 2021 census showing the perilous collapse of Christian identity and headlines from last year proclaiming we were entering Britain’s first ‘atheist age’, the story seems clear – Christianity, particularly active Christianity, is on the way out.
Yet over the past few years, a different story has been emerging from the peripheries. In the United States, young men are heading to church in remarkable numbers, [2] transforming the landscape of the Church. Recent data even shows that young adults in the UK are more spiritual and less atheistic than older generations. [3] Prominent public atheists have been questioning their beliefs, while key public figures – from intellectuals such as Jordan Peterson and Tom Holland through to popular culture figures and athletes – have been open about their engagement with Christianity. More significantly, stories are emerging from the ground, including those collected by people such as Justin Brierley and Lamorna Ash, showing that young people in particular are exploring Christianity in a new way, suggesting that the previous assumptions may need to be shifted. But firm numbers have been hard to come by – until now.
Using nationally representative data through a prestigious polling agency, The Quiet Revival demonstrates that far from declining, the Church has grown. In particular we see that ‘Gen Z’ young adults are more likely to attend church regularly than any generation ahead of them bar the over-65s, and in particular we see that young men are attending in remarkable numbers. The Church is transforming before our eyes, and the figures presented in this report show the proof. As outlined throughout, this fact has implications both for civil society and for Christian denominations, networks and congregations. It is hard to overstate its importance both for our national self-understanding and for the Church’s understanding of itself.” [1: p12]
The Key Findings of the Report
Having a Christian faith is again being normalised and is arguably even culturally attractive. 12% of adults in England and Wales are attending church monthly. … “Church attendance in England and Wales is on the rise. This represents a startling change to decades-long trends and presumptions, with the most dramatic increase seen among young people, particularly young men. In 2018, just 4% of 18–24-year-olds said they attended church at least monthly. Today this has risen to 16%, with young men increasing from 4% to 21%, and young women from 3% to 12%. This is now the second most likely age group to attend church regularly. Overall, churchgoing Christians now make up 12% of the population, up from 8% in 2018. In numerical terms, that’s growth from 3.7m in 2018 to 5.8m in 2024 – an increase of 56%.” [1: p6]
Young adults are finding their way into church in remarkable numbers. 32% of churchgoers aged 18–54 are from an ethnic minority. … In addition to absolute growth in churchgoing, including among the white population, the Church in England and Wales is also becoming more diverse. Just under 1 in 5 churchgoers (19%) are from an ethnic minority, but among 18–54-year-olds this rises to 1 in 3 (32%). At the same time Catholicism has risen sharply and Pentecostalism has become the third biggest Christian tradition, with the share of churchgoers identifying as Anglicans dropping steadily. [1: p6]
This is a growing Church interested in belonging, believing and practising. 67% of churchgoing Christians read the Bible at least weekly outside of church. … Alongside this significant demographic change within churches, we see evidence of an active and vibrant Church. Rates of belief in God remain high, while both Bible reading and rates of confidence in the Bible have increased among churchgoers compared to 2018, indicating that new attenders are just as engaged in Christian belief and practice. [1: p7]
The idea that Britons are to some extent Christian ‘by default’ is rapidly diminishing. 27% of adults say they are Christian but don’t regularly go to church, compared to 32% in 2018. … At the same time, those who don’t engage in practices such as churchgoing or Bible reading are less likely than ever to identify themselves as Christian. Christianity increasingly involves an active commitment rather than a passive cultural label, and there is a clear difference between churchgoing and non-churchgoing Christians. [1: p7]
Our youngest group is showing above average engagement in spiritual practice. 35% of 18–24-year olds say there is ‘definitely a God/gods or higher power’. … The young people in our sample don’t just go to church more, they show above-average levels of warmth to spirituality, the Church and spiritual practice. This group of 18–24-year-olds are the most likely to pray regularly, with 40% saying they pray at least monthly. More than half of them (51%) have engaged with a spiritual practice over the past six months, compared to 42% of those older than them. They are also the group most interested in learning more about the Bible, with 37% of 18–24s saying they are curious to discover more about it. [1: p8]
Churchgoers show the lowest reports of feeling frequently anxious and depressed. 63% of 18–34-year-old churchgoers say they feel close to people in their local area, compared to 25% of non-churchgoers their age. … With much of the population, in particular young people, struggling with mental health, loneliness and a loss of meaning in life, Church appears to be offering an answer. We found that churchgoers are more likely than non-churchgoers to report higher life satisfaction and a greater feeling of connection to their community than non-churchgoers. They are also less likely to report frequently feeling anxious or depressed – particularly young women. [1: p8]
Churchgoers are more likely to desire social change and to engage in social activism activities. 79% of churchgoers agree it’s important to them to try to make a difference in the world. … This is not solely about personal development, however, and we also see that churchgoers are more likely to actively participate in activities aimed at benefitting the community around them. Churchgoers are more likely to volunteer, donate to foodbanks and give to charitable causes, demonstrating the positive effect of Christian faith on their lives – and the impact that a rise in churchgoing can have on society as a whole. [1: p9]
Young Christians report finding the Bible more challenging than older Christians. 35% of 18–34-year-old churchgoers agree that their faith is undermined when they think/read about some parts of the Bible. … There is clear need for more discipleship around Scripture. Approximately one-third of churchgoers say they lack confidence in navigating or understanding the Bible and speaking about it with others. Among young Christians, rates of Bible reading, Bible confidence, and interest in learning more are high. However, we also see that compared to older churchgoers, they are more likely to say the media and British culture often shake their faith in the Bible and report they have less confidence in the Bible than they used to. They are also the age group to report they find learning about the Bible to be challenging. This poses a challenge to the Church but also an opportunity to tap into and learn from their energy and enthusiasm while enabling them to go deeper into Scripture. [1: p9]
We see openness even among non-churchgoers towards Christianity and the Bible. 34% of 18–24-year-old non-churchgoers would attend church if invited by a friend. … The astonishing growth in churchgoing is matched by an openness to Christianity and the Bible: 31% of non-churchgoers say they would attend church if invited by a friend or family member, rising to 34% among 18–24-year-olds. Over half of non-churchgoers (56%) would be happy for a Christian friend to pray for them, while 18% say they would be interested in learning more about the Bible. Relationships are key here: over a fifth (22%) of non-churchgoing 18–34s say they would read the Bible if recommended by a family member or friend they trust, compared to 13% who would if a trusted celebrity or public thinker recommended it. [1: p10]
The tide of faith is coming in again, and the Church needs to adjust to a new and strangely hopeful reality. … We have four recommendations in response to this data. First, we urge policy-makers and opinion-formers to take more account of the existence of churchgoing Christians in society. Second, the Church should work on increasing Bible discipleship to grow Bible confidence and through this tap into the increased openness and cultural opportunity. Third, the Church should engage in intergenerational conversations within congregations and more widely, to enable churchgoers to learn from one another’s wisdom. Finally, it should recognise the importance and impact of authentic personal relationships.[1: p10]
About the Research
The report’s authors provide the following commentary on the report:
“The report references two data sets commissioned by Bible Society to track attitudes to the Bible and Christianity and related religious behaviours in the adult population of England and Wales. Both surveys were conducted by YouGov on large, nationally representative samples.
The 2018 sample surveyed 19,101 adults in England and Wales, while the 2024 sample surveyed 13,146 adults. Both samples therefore give a 1% margin of error at a 99% confidence level, meaning they are highly reliable. The surveys were conducted through YouGov’s online panel to population targets, and further refined with post stratification weighting. It is worth noting that because we surveyed adults, we are not able to comment in depth on the portion of the population, or the Church, which is under 18.
All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. In 2018: total sample size was 19,101 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 11th October and 13th November 2018. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all England/Wales adults (aged 18+). Ethnicity targets are based on 2011 census data.
In 2024: total sample size was 13,146 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 4th November and 2nd December 2024. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all England/Wales adults (aged 18+). Ethnicity targets are based on 2021 census data. Throughout the report, we refer to ‘churchgoers’. By this we mean people who both describe themselves as Christian and go to church at least once a month – around 30% of all those who identify as Christian. At times we also mention trends seen among other faiths. As the primary focus of this report is on exploring Christians (both practising and nonchurchgoers) and those with no religion, we have not explored non-Christian faiths by religion; rather, they are grouped together. There are obvious limits to this approach, and therefore all our observations on non-Christian faiths could be nuanced further in future studies.
Due to GDPR sensitivities, questions pertaining to religious practice like church attendance and Bible reading were optional. On these questions a small percentage of the sample refused to answer – circa 3%. This is in line with the standard dropout rate. Where we make population claims, such as the number of adults who say they go to church regularly, we have recoded refusals as ‘prefer not to say’ to keep the full base in the sample. However, as we do not know the churchgoing status of these participants, when we compare churchgoers to non-churchgoers in Chapters 2–4, participants who did not answer have been removed from analysis, rather than categorised as non-churchgoers. Including or removing them has little or no effect on the overall figures.
We know the results of this report will be surprising to some and will naturally raise further questions about the methodology behind it. To help answer some of these we’ve included an FAQ section at the end of the report.” [1: p11] That FAQ section appears below.
FAQs
Is this just down to immigration? – In short, no. The Church in England and Wales in undeniably changing shape and becoming more diverse, just as Britain as a whole is becoming more diverse. However, the growth in churchgoing among young people is seen at scale among young White people. While these could all be migrants, at the scale we’re seeing it seems highly unlikely.
It is worth noting that in between the surveys new census data was made available, which means the sampling targets were changed between the waves to ensure the sample reflects the most up-to-date view of what England and Wales looks like. This has primarily impacted how many people of Black, Asian, and other Minority Ethnicities are in the sample. As people in these ethnic groups are more likely to be Christian, this has naturally had an effect on the shape of the data, particularly when it comes to averages, and some of the trends we observe reflect this. This is not problematic, and indeed, gives us a better picture of the Church today, but we have exercised caution in drawing comparisons between the 2018 and 2024 waves when it comes to ethnicity trends outside of the white population.
Is the methodology sound? – Yes, both surveys we draw from are based on large, representative samples from one of the country’s leading research companies. Both sample sizes give a 1% margin of error at a 99% confidence level, meaning they are highly reliable. While minor changes were made to the questionnaire between the 2018 and 2024 waves, all questions used for comparison have remained the same, and the surveys were conducted under the same conditions at the same time of year. For more information see https://yougov.co.uk/about/panel-methodology
Could there be something about the sample? – In polling research we are always reliant on trusting that what participants say is a true reflection of what they think and how they act. While it is possible participants may not be answering truthfully, or have misunderstood our questions, we would need to question in turn why these effects have only become observed in 2024, and not previous survey waves. All research panels have bias, and non-probability sampling is always at risk of producing a non-representative sample. It is also theoretically possible the sample has polled a disproportionate number of young Christians. At this sample size, and the way the YouGov panel is built and maintained, this is again highly unlikely.
If you are interested in reading the report, please click on the link below and you’ll be taken to a page where you can download the report and a PowerPoint presentation.
In 1850, the Edge Hill yards occupied 40 acres, with room for 1,782 wagons. By 1873, the yards spread over 104 acres and could accommodate 3,215 wagons. In 1894, they were 200 acres in size, with 60 miles of lines with a capacity of 6,828 wagons. At the turn of the 20th century there was still space on the site for further expansion, if required.
The gradient across the site meant that wagons moved around the site under their own weight. To prevent dangerous runaways a system of hooks attached to heavy chains was employed at key locations across the site. These are marked on the diagram above by the letter ‘A’.
A sketch showing the chain-drag and hook used throughout the LNWR’s yard to arrest runaway wagons. [1: p234]
“For ‘arresting’ runaway wagons, a heavy cable was set in a wrought iron tank between and below the level of the rails. A steel hook lay in a loose socket at the height of a wagon axle, nine inches inside one rail: the cable was connected to the hook and the weight of the former, when dragged over the soft ballast, stopped the runaways. The hook socket and hook were lowered by a lever when a train passed over it, the lever working a signal arm at the same time. When the hook was – raised the signal stood at ‘danger‘.” [1: p235]
The LNWR recorded the use of the ‘Chain Drag’ – “There is no doubt … that this simple safeguard was an important factor, affording as it did a security against possible runaways which enables the whole scheme of shunting by gravitation to be carried out and worked with the greatest despatch.” [1: p235] Considerable damage and inconvenience, and maybe a major disaster, had been avoided through its use.
Contemporary LNWR records from June 1875 to June 1895 illustrate the value of these chain drags. They record the cause of each deployment of a chain drag: [2: p235]
Defective wagon brakes … 28
Wagons not sufficiently secured by shunters … 37
Failure to lower the hook to allow the passage of a train … 32
Hook raised too soon before the last vehicle had passed … 9
Defects in signals, couplings, etc. … 10
Carelessness (generally the responsibility of shunters … 52
Drawn out by loose chains hanging from wagons … 2
Hook lever slipped from shunter’s hand … 2
Misunderstanding between shunters … 9
Unknown causes … 25
“During the above period the ‘chain drag’ was required on 206 occasions and it did not once fail to stop the runaways without, moreover, any ‘injury to them or their loads’. Six ‘chain drags’ were in use, varying from 86 cwt to 109 cwt of stud cable in each drag.” [1: p238]
These ‘chain drags’ are one instance of the retarders needed in marshalling yards. The ‘chain drag’ is, however, purely a means of stopping runaway wagons rather than a mechanism to control the speed of wagons descending through a yard. Retarders, generally, are some form of mechanical brakes, often pneumatic, hydraulic, or spring-driven, which are strategically placed to control the speed of rolling wagons as they descend through a yard. They help prevent collisions by allowing operators to adjust the speed of cars to the distance they are to roll, avoiding violent impacts. Among others, these include:
Clasp Retarders – large, air or hydraulically powered beams that squeeze the wheels at rail level; and
Piston Retarders – which extract energy from the railcar as it rolls over them, offering a quieter alternative to clasp retarders.
Clasp Retarders
Typical Clasp Retarders, these were photographed at the LNER’s Whitemoor Marshalling Yards. [3]
The LNER’s marshalling yard at Whitemoor was separated into an ‘up’ yard and a ‘down’ yard. “Both yards are equipped with retarders, or rail brakes, the up yard having four hydraulic brakes and the down yard two eddy current brakes. The retarders are placed at the foot of the hump on the first four – or in the down yard the first two – leads after the king points. Their purpose is to slow down the railway trucks which are travelling at too high a speed and to keep a suitable spacing between successive wagons.” [3]
“It is necessary to brake the wagons as they run off the hump, to prevent them from colliding with the vehicles already in the sidings, and so causing damage both to the wagons and their loads. The purpose of these rail-brakes is to do away with the braking by hand required in an ordinary hump yard, where a large staff is needed. This hand-braking always involves risk. Further, the steepening of the hump gradients at Whitemoor, to accelerate the sorting, causes the wagons to run down at greater speed, and makes a powerful system, of braking the more essential. The intensity of the braking force, with these rail-brakes, can be adjusted according to whether the siding into which the wagon is about to run is full or empty; in the latter instance a longer run is needed, and the brakes will be applied with less severity.” [3]
“The brakes consist of four longitudinal brake beams, one on either side of both running rails. Two of these beams are fixed and the others are pivoted. … These beams are carried on a table or platform which, in turn, is mounted on the pistons of a number of hydraulic cylinders. Thus when water at pressure is admitted to the cylinders the whole table moves upwards, so that the “feet” of the brake beams engage with the flanges of the wheels and results in the squeezing of the wheels between the brake beams. If the pressure in the cylinders is increased sufficiently the wagon will be lifted off the running rails and will ride on the feet of the pivoted beams.” [3]
Cross-sections through the hydraulic retarders in the ‘up’ yard at Whitemoor showing them at rest and in active braking mode. [3]
“In the construction of the eddy current brake, as used in the ‘ down’ yard, there are four brake beams, two for each rail. These beams form the north and south poles of a large electromagnet and are mounted on packets of loose plates which in turn rest on massive iron ‘cores’.” [3]
The action of electric brakes working on the eddy-current principle is illustrated in this diagram. Mounted on movable plates, brake beams pull inwards on being energized by the electro-magnet. The main braking effect is due to eddy-currents set up, in the wheels, and this action is assisted by the friction of the beams which grip the wagon wheels. These electric brakes are used in the down yard at Whitemoor. [3]
“The cores shown in the diagram above are spaced about 7 ft apart throughout the length of the brake, and round each is a coil which is supplied with direct current. Thus when the coils are electrically energized the whole brake becomes a large electro-magnet, with the brake beams as its poles. As these poles arc mounted on loose plates, they pull inwards on to the wagon wheels. As the wagon passes through the brake the wheels rotate in a strong magnetic flux and eddy currents are set up in the wheel tyres, thus retarding the wagon. … This effect can be reproduced simply by rotating a disk of any electrically conductive material between the poles of a horse-shoe magnet. While a certain amount of friction must necessarily be present owing to the fact that the beams are actually in contact with the wheel tyres, the main braking effect is obtained by eddy currents, and it is this fact that distinguishes the action of this brake from that of the hydraulic brake, which relies entirely upon friction.” [3] Springs are provided at intervals along the brakes in order to pull the beams apart when the brake is switched off.
Piston Retarders
Piston retarders can operate either by compressed air or by hydraulics. Those shown in the image below are paired Dowty Retarder/Booster units. A full discussion of these units and their development over time can be found here. [2]
Hydraulic booster/retarders at Tinsley yard near Sheffield [2: p22]Typical Piston Boosters/Retarders. These are compressed air booster/retarder units in pairs. [2: p26]
“Joule Piston Retarders are self-contained, hydraulically operated devices installed on railway tracks to control the speed of rolling stock. These retarders require no external power source, making them efficient and reliable tools for managing train speeds in marshaling yards. … They are effective speed retarders. After being plunged by a rail [wagon], they immediately pop up with higher resistance to being pressed in again, so if the next wheel comes by too soon it applies more resistance against it.” [4] They appear to be used, primarily, in North America.
Joule Piston Retarders at Balmer Yard, Seattle, USA. [5]
An excellent video of retarders at work can be seen here. [9]
Other instances of retarders
In Chippenham, Wiltshire, UK a series of tests were undertaken with different retarders. A series of photos can be seen here. [6]
Sorting Goods Wagons: The Fascinating Story of Whitemoor Marshalling Yards, where Goods Wagons are Swiftly and Automatically made up into New Trains; in Railway Wonders of the World, https://www.railwaywondersoftheworld.com/sorting-goods.html, accessed on 5th April 2025.
Isaiah 43:16-21, Philippians 3:4b-14 & John 12:1-8
Passion Sunday – 6th April 2025
I don’t know whether anyone has ever told you to just “Go with the flow!” To sit back, accept that you’re not in control of circumstances and see what happens. The idea of doing this is for many of us quite scary. Like being on the big-dipper or the Pepsi-Max (The Big One) at Blackpool. Or like those who participate in Comic Relief, doing something funny for money.
On ‘The Big One’, riders are trapped. In for the ride … no escape. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons that I don’t like going on rides like ‘The Big One’ – I’m not in control and, partly because of that, I’m scared stiff.
Anyone who agrees to take part in Comic Relief probably must feel that they just have to ‘go with the flow’.
The bible readings set for Passion Sunday this year seem suggest that we should see the Christian life this way. ….
Listen to Isaiah speaking on God’s behalf: “God is doing a New Thing. Don’t remember the former things, or consider the things of old – the way it has always been. I am about to do a new thing, now it springs forth, do you not perceive it?”
“I’m setting aside all your normal terms of reference,” says God. “I am going to do something completely new, completely different. It will be scary, but I want you to trust me! It’ll be just as though the desert has become a fertile river valley – you won’t know what to make of it.”
Can you imagine the response of Isaiah’s listeners – looking sideways at each other. “Phew, what are we letting ourselves in for?”
Now listen to Paul speaking in Philippians: “I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. … I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.”
If Isaiah was talking about a New Thing, Paul is talking about an Overwhelming Thing. He has been so bowled over by his encounter with Jesus that he is prepared for anything to happen to him, willing to do anything for the sake of the Gospel. He has been overwhelmed by the love of God and that is now at the centre of who he is. Nothing else matters compared to knowing Christ. And how do we respond when we hear Paul talking like this? How do you respond?
“Well, if that is what being a Christian is all about it’s not for me!”
“Don’t get too enthusiastic about this Roger, just remember that we are British, we don’t go overboard about anything.”
And hey, you’re right we are not all like St. Paul! We must be ourselves.
But Paul isn’t asking us to be like him. … He is, though, suggesting that we should be ‘overwhelmed’ by the Gospel. Paul longs that God’s love will overwhelm us to the point that we place relationship with God first in our lives – not because nothing else matters, but because we will only have a right perspective, on the other things that matter so much to us, if we engage with them knowing that we are fully loved and accepted by God.
A New Thing. An Overwhelming Thing. And then we come to look at out Gospel reading.
Mary does something so completely over the top. An Extravagant Thing. She blows ten months wages’ worth of perfume in one extravagant act of worship. In a poignant act of love which reflects on Jesus suffering and death. Not only does she blow her wealth on Jesus, but she’s just not worried what others will think of her actions. She did something a prostitute might do (we know that this because of the way the story is reported in other Gospels). An extravagant, overwhelming response to the love of God shown to Mary in Jesus.
Our readings call on us to “Go with the Flow” – to abandon ourselves to God’s love – to let him do a new thing in us and with us. To be overwhelmed by his love and then to respond extravagantly in love to God – just like Mary did.
What might this mean for us now?
These are challenging passages – just three reflections.
Firstly, Church of England churches (perhaps other denominations too) are in the Annual Meetings season. A time when we think both about the past and what the future might hold. Perhaps we need at this time to commit ourselves to watch out for what God is doing. To expect that it will be different from the past. Something completely new – just like the passage in Isaiah suggested. Perhaps we need to agree at our Annual General Meetings that we won’t just insist on things being the way that they always have been. That we will welcome whatever the new thing is that God is doing.
Secondly: perhaps we need to give time to our faith, to listening to what God says in his Word. To hearing and feeling the depth of his love for us. To allowing ourselves to be overwhelmed by his love. There is an opportunity to do this in Holy Week and Easter Services. But perhaps this needs to be something that is on-going in our lives.
And finally, Mary’s extravagant response, gives us real cause for reflection. How generous are we as churches or as individuals. Could the way we give to God ever be described as extravagant, risky or overwhelming? …. If the answer is, ‘No!’ Then we have to allow Mary’s extravagant actions to challenge us.
How much does God’s love for us mean to us? What might we risk for it? Our reputations? Our savings? People’s approval? Mary seems to risk everything. Might we consider giving a little more of ourselves, our time, our energy, our resources. Might we do a little more than we think we can, might we slip just outside our comfort zone, might we give only just a little more than we can afford?
It might feel as though we are out of control. We may be afraid that it will be like The Big One (Pepsi-max), or it might feel like we have just committed ourselves to do something outrageous for Comic Relief.
What we actually discover is that, as we release ourselves to follow Jesus, we are swept up in the arms of God. For as we give of ourselves to God, God gives so much more of himself to us.
Stanley Jenkins tells us that “The opening of the Inverness & Rossshire Railway between Inverness and Dingwall on 11th June 1862 brought the benefits of rail transport to a prosperous farming area in Ross & Cromarty. The line was completed throughout to Invergordon on 25th March 1863, while a series of subsequent extensions eventually resulted in the creation of the Highland Railway’s ‘Far North’ line between Inverness and Wick. Inevitably the 161½ mile ‘Far North’ line omitted large numbers of places that would have benefited from direct rail links, and for this reason several branch-line schemes were put into effect during the latter part of the 19th century.” [1: p48]
“The Black Isle peninsula, between the Beauly and Cromarty Firths, became the focal point for two such schemes, only one of which was successful.” [1: p48]
Wikipedia tells us that “The Highland Railway was surprised when in 1889 the Great North of Scotland Railway (GNoSR) proposed the construction of a railway to Fortrose, … The GNoSR operated a network from Aberdeen and the nearest place to Inverness served by it was at Elgin, some distance away. The branch would have been detached from the owning railway, but running through the Black Isle it would have made a junction with the Highland Railway at Muir of Ord. A ferry operation from Fortrose to Ardersier, on the south side of the Moray, was included in the plans. Ardersier was then known as Campbelltown, and a railway branch to it was included. Two other schemes striking into Highland territory were proposed at the same time, elevating Highland Railway discomfort about its competitive position.” [2][3]
“The two companies had been adversaries for some time, and in 1883 and the following years there had been a state of continual warfare over junctions, frontiers and running powers. … The Highland saw at once that if this branch were built, it would be easy for the GNoSR to demand running powers into Inverness to reach its branch, and in that way the rival company would have gained access to the Highland’s stronghold.” [2]
After considerable ‘argument’ between the two companies, the GNoSR and the Highland Railway each submitted Bills to the UK Parliament for a line to Fortrose.
It was the Highland Railway’s scheme which received Parliamentary consent on 4th July 1890. Jenkins tells us that it was for a “16 mile branch line between Muir of Ord, on the ‘Far North’ line, and the fishing port of Rosemarkie. The gentle topography of the Black Isle ensured that the proposed line could be built with relative ease, and on 1st February 1894 a single line was opened as far as Fortrose a distance of 13 miles 45 chains. The final section between Fortrose and Rosemarkie was never built, the terminal station at Fortrose being deemed a suitable railhead for the surrounding district.” [1: p48]
“The Fortrose branch provided useful transport facilities … on the South side of the Black Isle, but it was felt that better facilities were needed on the North side of the peninsula. The 1896 Light Railways Act offered a solution to this local transport problem, and on 1st August 1902 a Light Railway Order was obtained for construction of a 19 mile line between Conon, on the ‘Far North’ line, and Cromarty. Work began at the Cromarty end, but subsequent progress was painfully slow, and extensions of Time Orders were obtained in 1907, and again in 1910. … About six miles of track was actually laid between Cromarty and Newhall, but all work was suspended in 1914 on the outbreak of World War I. At that time, construction work was in hand on a further two miles of line, but little had been done on the remaining eleven miles of line to Conon. The track was lifted around 1915 for use in the war effort, leaving the earthworks and other engineering features of the unfinished light railway in a derelict condition.” [1: p49]
“If the Cromarty & Dingwall Light Railway had been completed it would have had stations at Alcaig Ferry, Culbokie, Drumcudden, and Newhall. Other halts may have been opened once the line was in operation, while there were also suggestions that the route might be extended south-westwards from Cromarty to Rosemarkie and Fortrose, thereby creating a scenic ‘coastal’ route around the Black Isle that would have had considerable potential as a tourist attraction. Unfortunately the changed economic conditions after World War I meant that schemes of this kind were no longer viable, and the Fortrose branch was therefore left in splendid isolation as the only completed railway in the Black Isle area.” [1: p49]
“The Fortrose route was worked as a feeder branch for the ‘Far North’ line, and as such it was moderately-successful. Like other Highland Railway branch lines it was normally worked by small tank locomotives such as the Dübs 4-4-0Ts. Other engines seen on the line were Drummond’s well-known 0-4-4 branch-line tanks.” [1: p49]
The Route from Muir of Ord to Fortrose
The extracts below from the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1904, published in 1906 cover the site of Muir of Ord Railway Station. [6] Jenkins tells us that “Muir of Ord – the junction station for branch services to Fortrose – was opened on 11th June 1862 when the initial section of the Highland ‘Far North’ line was brought into use between Inverness and Dingwall.” [1: p49]
“The station was orientated from North to South, with its main station building on the down, or northbound side. The track layout was relatively complex, with sidings on both sides of the running line and a lengthy crossing loop.The main goods yard, with accommodation for coal, livestock, furniture, machinery, and general-merchandise traffic, was situated to the south of the platforms on the down side. One of the yard sidings passed through a goods shed, while others were used mainly for coal or other forms of wagon-load traffic. Further sidings were available on the up side, and one of these gave access to a 50ft diameter locomotive turntable.” [1: p49]
Wikipedia tells us that “The station is 13 miles 4 chains (13.05 mi; 21.0 km) from Inverness, between Beauly and Conon Bridge, and is the location of the sole remaining passing loop on the single line between Dingwall and Inverness.” [5]
“The station building and platform canopy were erected in 1894, [5][7] 32 years after the station itself opened. [8] Passenger services on the branch ceased on 1 October 1951, but the branch remained open for freight until 13 June 1960. Muir of Ord station was closed on 13 June 1960 but reopened in 1976, on 4 October.” [5][8]
“After the railway bridge across the River Ness washed away in February 1989, isolating the entire network north of Inverness, Muir of Ord was chosen as the location for a temporary depot, from which the stranded rolling stock could operate the service to the highland communities which depended on the line.” [5][9]
“In November 2015, work commenced on a new A862 road bridge at the northern end of the station.” [5][10]
The project cost £3.7 million and was completed in the Summer of 2017. [11]
This ESRI satellite image supplied by the NLS shows the station site after the reconstruction of the raod bridge. [6]
Wikipedia tells us that “in the 21st century, both station platforms have modern waiting shelters and benches, with step-free access. There is a car park and bike racks adjacent to platform 1, along with a help point near to the entrance from the car park.” [5]
“As there are no facilities to purchase tickets, passengers must buy one in advance, or from the guard on the train.” [5]
“The station has a passing loop 32 chains (700 yd; 640 m) long, flanked by two platforms which can each accommodate a ten-coach train.” [5][12]
“On 11th June 1862 the Inverness and Ross-shire Railway opened their line between Inverness and Dingwall. It included a station at the village of Tarradale but the company decided to name it after the nearby cattle tryst (market), Muir of Ord. Eventually the name Muir of Ord was applied to the surrounding area.” [14]
“On leaving Muir of Ord, branch trains diverged eastwards, and having, executed a full 90 degree turn the route maintained its easterly heading for about two miles.” [1: p49]
A further extract from the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1904, published in 1906. This extract shows the brach leaving the main line just North of the Station and heading East. [17]The same area as shown on ESRI satellite imagery provided by the NLS, in the 21st century. [17]As the line curved to the East it was crossed at level by a track. [17]
Additional sidings on the north side of the station provided locomotive facilities for the branch engine. The main engine siding gave access to a 50ft turntable, while a ‘kick-back’ spur ran into a single-road engine shed; another siding served as a coaling road. The station building was a typical Highland Railway timber-framed structure which was similar to its counterparts at Hopeman and Burghead, albeit with a second cross-wing at the left-hand end (when viewed from the platform). The resulting building was thus an ‘H-plan’ structure with a central block flanked by two cross-wings.” [1: p51]
In the 21st century, the track has been replaced by a modern estate road – Highfield Circle. The road entering bottom-centre is Fairmuir Road, that leaving top-right is part of Highfiels Curcle. These two roads approximately follow the line of the old railway. [17]A short distance to the East the line was in cutting and bridged by a minor road. [17]ESRI satellite imagery from the NLS shows the realigned road in the 21st century. The approximate line of the old road (blue) and railway (red) have been superimposed on the image. The modern road is named ‘Balvaird Road’. [17]A short distance further East the line was crossed by a farm access raod at a level-crossing. [18]The same location in the 21st century as shown on Google Maps satellite imagery. The lane is now named ‘Hawthorne Road’. [Google Maps, March 2025]Looking North along Hawthorne Road, across the line of the old railway (marked approximately by the red line). Google Streetview, September 2021]Looking West from Hawthorne Road along the line of the old railway towards Muir of Ord. The line of the railway is gated by the single-bar gate and it ran from there towars the distant trees. [Google Streetview, September 2021]A footpath follows the line of the old railway to the East of Hawthorne Road. [Google Streetview, September 2021]
From Hawthorne Road eastwards a public footpath follows the line of the old railway. There is a leaflet of walks for the area around Muir of Ord. One of the four walks included in the leaflet includes a length of the old railway. [19]
For a short length the old railway formation has been ploughed back into farmland. The next image looks back along the line of the old railway from a point further to the East.
After passing under the accommodation bridge, the old line ran east in cutting through what is now Spital Wood. Then, ” curving east-north-eastwards,” Jenkins tells us, “the railway continued to Redcastle (3 miles 58 chains), where the single-platform station was equipped with a full range of accommodation for goods, passengers, and livestock traffic.” [1: p49]
“Beyond [Redcastle], trains climbed towards the 250ft contour, the line’s modest summit of around 260ft above mean sea level being sited near the next station at Allangrange. Situated some 5 miles 39 chains from the junction, Allangrange was another fully-equipped station with provision for a range of goods traffic.” [1: p49]
The line continued in an East-northeast direction towards Allangrange Railway Station. [28]The same area as shown on the 21st century NLS ESRI satellite imagery. [28]Looking Southwest along the old railway towards Redcastle Station from the minor road towards the left of the satellite image above. [Google Streetview, April 2011]Looking Northeast along the old railway towards Fort from the minor road towards the left of the satellite image above. [Google Streetview, April 2011]Looking Southwest along the line of the old railway from the A832. [Google Streetview, March 2023]Looking Northeast along the line of the old railway from the A832. [Google Streetview, July 2008]Again, still heading East-northeast, trains drew closer to Allangrange Railway Station. [29]The same area in the 21st century. [29]
The line curved round from an East-northeast direction to and easterly alignment before entering Allangrange Railway Station.
From the point at which the old line crossed another lane, this is the view back towards Redcastle Station. The tree at the centre of the image on the horizon stand immediately adjacent to the line of the railway. [Little can be seen looking towards Allangrange Railway Station from the minor road as the rail alignment close to the road is overwhelmed by vegetation. [Google Streetview, September 2021]The line curved round to run in an easterly direction through Allangrange Railway Station which had a reasonable sized goods yard to the West of the passenger facilities. [30] The same location in the 21st century. The major road at the West end of the old station site is the modern A9 dual carriageway. [30]This is the view East along the line of the old railway from the A9 dual carriageway. [Google Streetview, March 2023]Noe looking East from the A9 through the trees and through the site of Allangrange Railway Station. [Google Streetview, March 2023]Looking West from the old A9 into Allangrange Station site. [Google Streetview, March 2023]Looking East from the old A9 towards Fortrose. [Google Streetview, March 2023]
Beyond Allangrange Station, and heading east-north-eastwards again, “the single-line railway descended towards Munlochy (8 miles 2 chains) which, like the other intermediate stations on the Fortrose branch, was fully-equipped for all forms of goods traffic.” [1: p49]
Three images of Munlochy Railway Station can be seen online at http://www.ambaile.co.ukhere, [53] here [54] and here. [55] Kind permission has been given to reproduce two of these images in this article.
Munlochy Railway Station looking Northeast. [53]Munlochy Railway Station, looking Southwest along the platform. [54]Looking Northeast through the station site from Cameron Crescent. [Google Streetview, September 2021]Again, looking NorthEast through the station site along Station Court. [Google Streetview, September 2021]Looking back Southwest from Millbank Road (B9161) through the station site. [Google Streetview, March 2023]Looking Northeast along the line of the old railway from Millbank Road (B9161) towards Fortrose. The A842 is just to the left. [Google Streetview, March 2023]
“From Munlochy the route passed over a small underline bridge, and with the A833 (later A832) road maintaining a parallel course to the left, Fortrose trains reached Avoch Station (11 miles 25 chains).” [1: p49]
“From Avoch, the line continued north-eastwards for a further … three miles to its terminus at Fortrose where, some 13 miles 45 chains from Muir of Ord, journeys came to an end in a surprisingly large station.” [1: p49-51]
“Fortrose had just one platform on the up side, with a run-round loop to the north and a four-siding goods yard to the south. One of the goods sidings passed through a goods shed, while another served a loading bank; a spur at the west end of the goods yard formed a short headshunt.” [1: p51]
Fortrose Railway passenger station building had “the booking hall and general waiting-room … in the centre part of the building, while the booking office and toilets were housed in the ends. The timber structure was clad in American-style vertical matchboarding, with thin cover strips affixed at each join to produce a ‘ribbed’ effect.” [1: p52] The centre block was recessed between the cross-wings to create a roofed waiting area at the front of the station.
Additional photographs of the Station can be found on the www.ambaile.co.uk website here, [73] here [74] and here. [75] Kind permission has been given to reproduce these photographs here.
Fortrose Railway Station from the end of the platform in 1912, showing the station building. A branch train is in the platform and a locomotive is on the turntable in the background. [73]Fortrose Railway Station seen from the Northeast (adjacent to the buffers). Llocomotive No. 57594 is described in the notes for the next image. Here it is about to be turned to take its train back to Muir of Ord. [74]Locomotive No. 57594 has just been turned and is being readied to haul the last train from Fortrose. The locomotive is an ex-Caledonian ‘812’ Class 0-6-0, built in August 1900 as CR No. 856, becoming LMS No. 17594 and finally BR No. 57594. It was withdrawn in December 1962. [75]
Decline and Closure
The Fortrose branch was relatively successful. Its passenger services were maintained throughout the LMS era. But the line “became increasingly vulnerable to road competition after World War II, and for this reason its passenger services were withdrawn with effect from 1st October 1951. Goods traffic lingered on for a few more years, but the end came in 1960, with the line being closed to all traffic from 13th June of that year.” [1: p52]
References
Stanley Jenkins; Highland Railway Minor Lines: 2; in Rex Kennedy (ed.); Steam Days; Red Gauntlet Publications, Bournemouth, Dorset, January 2002; p48-57.
After completing a series of articles about Genova’s transport system at the end of 2024, beginning of 2025, I came across a series of three articles in the ‘Light Rail & Modern Tramway Journal’ dating from 1995. This article covers those three pieces. …
Written, 30 years ago, Barry Cross’ articles help us to engage with the changes to the transport systems in Genova over the decades.
Part 1: August 1995 – The Demise of the Old Tram Network and the Development of the Metro
Barry Cross says that “as far as tramway enthusiasts are concerned, the city lost most of its attractions in the 1960s, when the remaining interurban tram routes were abandoned, and public transport became synonymous with travelling by diesel bus. … Nevertheless, the curious topography of the city, which to all intents and purposes is built on a narrow coastal enclave, has meant that some rather curious forms of public transport have survived. Flying the tramway flag during the lean years has been the Granarolo rack tramway, whose two cars resemble both tramway and funicular vehicles. … Then there are the two conventional funiculars: the Sant’Anna and Zecca-Righi, which provide rapid access from the port to the residential districts in the hills above. Finally, the Genova-Casella electric light railway offers one of the most scenic and exhilarating rides to be found anywhere on the European continent.” [1: p251]
In the years prior to 1995, the municipality once again “decided to embrace tramway technology, in a desperate effort to improve public transport because of the severe deterioration in traffic conditions. The result [was] the construction of an entirely new light metro, recreating in part the coastal tramway abandoned in the 1960s. Despite only three stations having so far [in 1995] opened, patronage of the line already exceed[ed] expectations.” [1: p251]
In May and June 1964, Modern Tramway carried a two-part article on the tramways and light railways of Genova by Joachim von Rohr. Barry Cross attempts, in his articles, to show developments in the city up to 1995. This will provide an opportunity to compare the situation in the mid-1990s with that in 2024/2025.
“In the 1960s, many Italian cities felt the urge to ‘modernise’ their public transport systems, a term which all too often meant the closure of efficient, if rather run-down tramway networks. Genova was no exception. Unusually, it was the urban routes that closed first, these being abandoned in the late 1950s, although the interurban routes continued to operate (and decline) well into the 1960s. … The interurban system essentially consisted of four metre-gauge routes emanating from the central Genova Caricamento terminus. Two of the routes ran along the coast, one west to Voltri (16.9 km) and the other east to Nervi (approximately 12 km), while the other two served inland destinations, along the Polcevera valley to Pontedecimo (15.1 km) and to Prato (13.6 km), situated in the Bisagno valley.” [1: p251]
Cross continues: “On 25th May 1964, the so-called ponente route to Voltri was abandoned to the west of Sampierdarena, involving the withdrawal of seven separate services. Worse still, tram tracks in Via Francia were also lifted to permit construction of a connection with the strade soprelevata (elevated roadway), in which the municipal authorities had placed so much faith as a means of decongesting the city’s narrow and winding streets. … As a direct result of this, route 7 had to be cut back from Caricamento to Sampierdarena and route 26 entirely abandoned on 27th June. Furthermore, the survival of the Pontedecimo route had become ever more precarious given that its only connection to the rest of the system was henceforth via the Certosa tram tunnel.” [1: p251]
The Pontedecimo route survived until 1st October 1964. On that day, “tramway operation through the Certosa tunnel ceased. All remaining routes were replaced by motor buses on 27th December 1966, the last tram to run in public service being car 935 on route 12 to Prato.” [1: p251]
By the 1960s, trams in the 700 and 800 series were the oldest on the network, dating from 1931 and 1934, both bogie cars. All were very much at the end of their working lives and were the first to be scrapped. Two of the 700 series trams are shown below. The first is No. 762, the second is No. 766. Trams No. 751-800 were bidirectional bogie-cars built in 1931. These were known as ‘long Casteggini’ type trams. [4][5]
The 800 series were numbered from 801 to 820 (UITE) were bidirectional bogie-cars built by Piaggio in 1932. These were known as ‘short Casteggini’ type trams. [4] Tram No. 821 is shown below at the tram terminus at Bratte in Bolzaneto. This image was shared on the Foto Genova Antica Facebook Group by Enrico Pinna on 14th October 2023. [6]
There were three types of articulated car on the network at that time. Cross says that “the most numerous of these were the 78 cars of the 1600 series, which were single-ended and the result of rebuilding from older stock, while the 15 cars of the 1700 were double-articulated vehicles ‘two-rooms-and-a-bath’ variety, also rebuilt from older cars in 1954-5, Maintenance of all of these cars was poor in their final years in service. … Genova’s most modern interurban cars were the six-axle 1100 series, built in 1942, of which there were only four examples, and the streamlined bogie cars of the 900 series. Both were bi-directional, with the articulated cars carrying two trolleys. The 900-series cars were the backbone of the interurban service and predominantly worked routes 10, 11, 16, 24 and 26. Both series were well maintained. with an eye to resale once the interurban network had been closed.” [1: p251]
Details of these four tram types can be found here. [7]
It was hoped that first, Beograd and then Zagreb might purchase the 900 series, even Madrid seems to have made enquiries, but “two and a half years after the Genova tramways closed, [the 900 series] cars were still to be found standing in their depots and were eventually broken up, with no buyer having been found.” [1: p251]
Cross recorded that “two cars, 962 and 973, were preserved, and in 1989 a scheme emerged to use them to provide passenger services on a metre-gauge heritage tramway, linking Piazza Caricamento and Piazza Ferrari along a pedestrianised Via San Lorenzo. However, in true Italian style, nothing [had] yet been decided.” [1: p252] I have not been able to find any evidence that the heritage service was brought into operation.
Cross goes on to say that “Articulated cars 1101-4 were sold to the Neuchâtel tramway (TN) in Switzerland, with car 1104 arriving on 29th March 1966 for a set of preliminary trials. These were so successful that TN bought all four and put them into service on route 5 in Autumn 1966. The Genova trolley poles were replaced by pantographs, and heating also had to be fitted, since this had been totally unnecessary in the balmy Mediterranean climate.” [1: p252]
Interurban trams were replaced by FS multiple-unit, rapid-transit trains along the coast between Nervi and Voltri or Pontedecimo in order to reach the centre of Genova. Withdrawal of the city centre trams “left Genova with 130 trolleybuses as its only means of electric urban public transport, but even these eventually succumbed to replacement by diesel bus. However, as time passed, it became ever more obvious that a huge mistake had been made in withdrawing the trams. … The elevated roadway did not prove the panacea that its planners had wished for, while motor buses did nothing to improve the traffic flow … their stops on Genova’s narrow, winding and steep roads effectively blocked the flow of all traffic!” [1: p252]
The municipality decided to reopen the Certosa tram tunnel for use by diesel buses. This required forced air ventilation to maintain reasonable air quality in the tunnel. It “reopened for bus operation on 1st October 1967, although width restrictions made it impossible for two-way working. … Instead, a token block system had to be introduced, with buses passing through the tunnel in alternate directions at nine-minute intervals. This resulted in a serious capacity problem during the rush hour, which could be overcome only by sending convoys of three instead of single buses through the tunnel. … Unfortunately, the tunnel’s ventilation system simply could not cope with the upsurge in exhaust emissions. Indeed, the Il Lavoro’ newspaper shocked the general public when it featured a photograph of a bus on route 10 leaving the tunnel with its driver clearly seen wearing a gas mask!” [1: p252]
Other solutions had to be found. “In the 1920s, Genova had been tempted to undertake construction of a conventional heavy metro, influenced by the developing trend in some other European cities. However. successful implementation of the proper scheme had been undermined by its daunting cost.” [1: p252]
A study by the Marron Institute of Urban Management looking at possible urban transit solutions considered a number of Italian cities including Genova. It comments: “Despite several attempts in the interwar period to develop metro rail networks in Rome, Milan, Genoa and Naples, the first proper metro line opened only in the mid-1950s. Metro construction finally gained momentum during the postwar years, characterized by fast urbanization and dramatic economic growth, but was hindered by the lack of a national transit policy, which finally emerged in the late 1980s, and by an essentially car-oriented transport policy.” [8: p15]
The idea of Metro for Genova was resurrected in 1972. “Trial borings were undertaken as a prelude to the construction of an 18-km two-line metro system. Ironically, the first line would run along the coast from Multedo in the west to Sturla in the east. duplicating in part the withdrawn coastal tramway! … The economics of building even a single cross-city line with, at most, two branches, proved beyond the financial capability of a city with a population of only 800,000. The decision not to proceed with the scheme was inevitable, leaving the city’s transport planners with little option but to continue with the status quo until a viable alternative could be found. … In the early 1970s, an alternative plan [was] put forward … to reuse old railway tunnels abandoned in the post-war period to provide a metro-style suburban rail service. The success of this scheme relied upon FS permitting metro cars to share tracks with conventional trains on the existing harbour line. But this it was not prepared to do. … After a change of political control in 1975, the Comunale di Genova set up a joint FS-AMT (Azienda Municipalizzata Trasporti) commission to examine the possibility of reusing previously-abandoned railway infrastructure to provide some sort of metro service. … A visit was paid to the Grazie tunnel, linking Brignole with Piazza Cavour, to assess its suitability, and also to the former Certosa tramway tunnel.” [1: p252]
Use of the Certosa tunnel by diesel buses had proved to be a failure. Instead of converting it for use by trolleybuses “it was proposed to build a Metropolitana Leggera (light metro) linking Rivarolo with Brignole by means of the tunnel. … Phase 1 would involve the construction of the Rivarolo Principe section. A reserved alignment would be built along Via Iori and Via Canepari, from where the trams would run through the tunnel to Dinegro. Here, traffic-light priority would allow the cars to cross Via Venezia and move to a further surface reservation along Via Buozzi. Finally, at Principe FS station, there would be a turning circle formed by Via Adua and Via San Benedetto. The Board of Directors of the AMT gave the project its full backing, with the Comunale following suit shortly afterwards. On 24th February 1981, the municipality, doubtless with an eye on the forthcoming June elections, approved an ITL 8000 M grant for the rehabilitation of the Certosa tunnel. although inflation eventually pushed this up to ITL 11 000 M. The central government also became involved, pledging investment worth ITL 165 000 M to build the entire 7.645-km Rivarolo-Brignole line. Ansaldo Trasporti was subsequently awarded a turnkey contract to both build and equip the line.” [1: p252-253]
Cross continues: “On 8th February 1982, the Certosa tunnel was closed to bus traffic for the last time. … In all, 540 days were spent on rehabilitating the tunnel structure, although much more work was required before tram services could start. … In 1985, work on the project proceeded very slowly, while some drastic changes were made to the eventual alignment. In the revised plan, none of the surface sections of the line had survived. From Rivarolo to Brin, the line would be on an elevated alignment, crossing the double-track FS railway line via the Compasso park. Trams would then pass through the Certosa tunnel and cross under Via Venezia and Piazza Dinegro via a new 300-m cut-and-cover subway, continuing to Principe entirely in subway. The Principe-Brignole section would still run on the dock railway as planned, then via the Grazie tunnel to Brignole FS.” [1: p253]
The municipality set a “theoretical capacity of 36 000 passengers per hour and direction [for] the line, whose trains would draw current from a 750-volt de overhead contact wire. However, curves of 150-m radius would have to be negotiated, and rolling stock would have to be designed to operate on tunnel gradients as steep as 4%. The track design would require sleepers to be enclosed in rubber sleeves to absorb noise and vibration, following successful use of such a system in Wien (Vienna).” [1: p253]
This was a much heavier metro than had originally been planned, and would be both more expensive and slower to implement – the first phase costing ITL 1150,000 M and taking 9 years to build! It was hoped to start passenger services by the end of 1989, in the end it opened in June 1990. The first phase was 2.6 km in length and had cost ITL 100,000 M/km! The line proved to be very popular. “One and a half years later, 3.5 million passengers had used the line. … It had been hoped that the line would be extended from Dinegro to San Giorgio in 1992. However, more delays ensured that only the 900m Dinegro-Principe section would be ready in time. This was duly inaugurated on 27th July 1992, and was expected to increase substantially the initial line’s patronage, since Principe is Genova’s main long-distance railway terminus and a new suburban station, San Tomaso, was being built nearby. A further two ‘metro’ sets were put into service to cope with the expected increase in traffic.” [1: p253]
Cross was writing in 1995 and reported that work was ongoing on the next length of the Metro. In the end, work on that next section of the line to Caricamento was not completed until 2003. The next section to De Ferrari (underground station at Piazza De Ferrari) was completed in 2005, and that to Brignole in 2012. [9][10]
Part 2: September 1995 – Casella Line Begins to Realise Tourist Potential
Cross notes the significant delays which affected the first scheme promoted by the ‘Societédi Ferrovie Elettriche Liguri‘ (SFEL) in 1915, which meant that It was not “until 1926 that construction was able to start on the metre-gauge line, which was to be electrified at 2.4 kV DC by the ‘Societé Ernesto Breda, which won contracts to supply the overhead and sub-stations, as well as the initial rolling stock.” [2: p295]
He also comments on the use of the contractor’s steam locomotive “to power the first train between Genova and Casella Deposito on 24th June 1929; then, on 31st August, the operating company laid on a special train for the Archbishop of Genova’s pastoral visit to Pino, with a regular passenger service starting the following day. However,” he says, “the line’s official inauguration had to wait until 28th October 1929.” [2: p295]
The line was notable for 60-metre radius curves and maximum gradients of 4.5%, imposed on engineers by the need to cross steep gradients between the Bisagno, Polcevera and Scrivia valleys. cross continues: “A non-counterweighted catenary was preferred over most of the line, although a simple transversal suspension overhead sufficed in stations, depot area and between the upper terminus and the depot. Very light 27 kg/m rail was standard throughout. The initial fleet of Breda vehicles operated by SFEL was:
3 Bo-Bo motor baggage cars (001-003) rated at 270 kW, featuring the novel Breda-Somaini energy recuperation system;
4 3rd-class bogie trailers (50-53);
3 1st/3rd-class trailers (20-22);
16 assorted goods wagons.
The Casella Deposito-Casella Paese section, originally planned in 1930, eventually opened in 1952, crossing the Scrivia river via a new combined road/rail bridge. Trains shared the road with cars, and the 1 km line terminated in mid-highway on the village outskirts.” [2: p295]
Cross comments that, throughout its life, the line made use, primarily, of second-hand rolling stock. “The first items acquired as early as 1935. In that year, three railcars came from the Montebelluna-Asolo and Montebelluna-Valdobbiadene lines operated by the former ‘Societé Veneta’, which ceased trading in 1931. These vehicles had been built at Padova by MAN in 1913 for operation at 975 V DC, but had to be modified at Genova. They had distinctive match-boarded sides, maximum-traction trucks, and retained original fleet numbers 054-056. With only two motors per car, they were rather slow, particularly with trailers.” [2: p295]
Cross notes that “World War II did little permanent damage, although rolling stock was worn out after almost continuous use evacuating families from Genova city while under bombardment. The Government Commission, which assumed managerial responsibility for the line in 1949, acquired supplementary stock from the 950-mm ‘Sangritana’ light railway (SFAA), almost totally destroyed in the war.” [2: p295] Of these, two electric locomotives were re-gauged, they were numbered 28 & 29, had 360-kW motors which “drew power via two pantograph-style bow collectors, one leading and one trailing, and could reach speeds of 50 km/h. They kept their original numbers when put on the Casella line in the 1950s and later acquired bus-type seats for 16 passengers.” [2: p295]
In January 1963, the line acquired significant amounts of stock and fixtures of the Ferrovia Elettrica Val de Fiemme (FEVF), which operated the Ora-Predazza metre-gauge line “three Bo-Bo baggage locomotives [B51-52, A2] driven by 310 kW motors and capable of a maximum speed of 60 km/h; three three-bogie rail cars … which drew power via a single rhomboidal pantograph to feed a 310 kW motor permitting speeds of 60 km/h; 36 bogie-trailers, of which C101-2 were long vehicles and C103-6 short; and … several goods wagons.” [2: p295] Of the fixtures, “the FEVF provided two static converters, replacing the FGC’s original generating equipment. These were installed at Vicomorasso and raised the line voltage from 2.4 kV DC to 2.6 kV. Unfortunately, this new equipment did not permit recuperation of energy and resulted in withdrawal of all earlier rolling stock, except that acquired from Sangritana lines.” [2: p295]
Furthermore, “in 1968, the recently-closed Spoleto-Norcia (SSIF) electric light railway yielded four 950-mm gauge railcars, built by Carminati & Toselli/TIBB in 1926 and later rebuilt by Casaltra/TIBB in 1957 with new electrical equipment, with 360-kW motors permitting maximum speeds of 60 km/h. They arrived at Genova in 1970 and entered revenue service a year later, the delay being for regauging. … Although originally numbered A1-4, they were altered to A4-7 to avoid conflict with earlier-acquired FEVF stock.” [2: p295]
Cross talks of the line struggling through the last 40 years of the 20th century. “When Joachim von Rohr visited the FGC in 1963, he noted Casella depot was particularly run down. Although renewal of the ballast was taking place, the use of short, not welded rails, plus a tendency to bend rail at joints, made for some eventful running. … On 17th January 1974, railcar A3 was derailed on poor track. On 31st October, a judge ordered closure on safety grounds, so urgent repairs were undertaken to permit a limited reopening between Genova and Sant’Antonino, and Campi SL and Casella in early 1975. Full operation resumed on 2nd March, with railcars now fitted with speedometers. … Money was not forthcoming to repair damaged A3, and the poor mechanical state of locomotive 28 also prompted its withdrawal. However money was made available to replace original rail with heavier 36-kg/m lengths, a task not completed until 1979. Maximum speeds were raised slightly, to reduce journey times from 1 hr to 55 min. In 1980-1, Casella Paese terminus was relocated from street to reserved track, and a new depot built at Vicomorasso. … In early 1990, Ansaldo Trasporti was awarded a contract to upgrade FGC installations. Overhead was replaced at a cost of ITL 5500 million, with original masts replaced by standard fitments. Voltage was raised to 3 kV DC, and a 1987 government grant allowed replacement of two sets of manual points in stations by electric ones.” [2: p295]
A gradual programme of rolling stock modernisation began in the early 1970s, “two-tone blue livery replaced the original red and cream, replaced in turn in 1980 by brown and cream. This new livery was to grace nine trailers rebodied by the Mantovana-based company ‘Gleismac’ in the early 1980s. However, C103-4 were not included, whilst C22 had already been rebuilt into a bar car at the end of the 1960s. Then, in 1985, damaged railcar A3 was completely rebuilt with a newly-designed body, chopper-controlled electronics from EEA of Genova, and two pantographs. At the same time, two Faiveley double-bracket pantographs were experimentally fitted to B51 and A4. … ‘Gleismac’ also supplied a BB diesel-hydraulic locomotive for works trains and insurance against power failure. Built by Gmeinder of West Germany in 1964, it was sold to ‘Gleismac’ from the ‘Sudwestdeutsche Eisenbahn Gesellschaft’ (SWEG) in 1986, and is now numbered D1. More recently, the bogies of disused locomotives B51-2 have been used by ‘Firema-Cittadella’ to build two new electric railcars, identical in appearance to existing railcar A3. The first, A8, was handed over to the FGC on 28th June 1993, with A9 following on 28th October. Unlike A3, both new cars can operate in multiple.” [2: p 295-296] Writing in 1995, Cross expressed the hope that if new bogies could be found, B51 might return to traffic. As far as I can tell, this did not occur. He also noted that Ferrocarril Genova Casella (FGC) was planning to buy two entirely new railcars similar to A3, A8 and A9 and three new trailers with a baggage compartment and a lift for the disabled. Two were built in 1998 (A11 and A12).
Cross also suggests that FGC planned “to rebuild railcar Al, with only A2 to be left in its original Carminati & Toselli 1920s condition. Both [were] reported fitted with modernised bogies. As for the four ex-Spoleto-Norcia railcars, at least one [was to] be de-motored to become a trailer. A4 [had] been given a new coat of cream and brown, and trailer C21, rebuilt by ‘Gleismac’ in the early 1980s, a curious livery of cream and blue.” [2: p296]
More information about railcars on the line can be found here. [12]
Looking forward from late-1995, Cross anticipated the purchase by the FGC of surviving rolling-stock from the closed Rimini-San Marino light railway. That line was operational for only twelve years between 1932 and 1944. “A significant engineering feat of its time, it included seventeen tunnels, three bridges, and three viaducts to negotiate the steep terrain. During the Second World War, the line was bombed and closed, after which its tunnels sheltered refugees during the Battles of Rimini and San Marino. After the war, the railway was abandoned in favour of the SS72 state road, San Marino Highway, and Funivia di San Marino. … In 2012, an 800-metre (1⁄2-mile) section was reopened as a heritage railway in San Marino, running between Piazzale della Stazione and near Via Napoleone.The restored section comprises the original railway’s final horseshoe turn through the 502-metre (1,647-foot) Montale tunnel.” [13] Cross anticipated that the FGC would buy the “four electric railcars, five trailers and 14 wagons, most for revenue service in Genova,” [2: p296] that were not required for the planned heritage line.
Cross comments that the distance of the Genova terminus at Piazza Manin from the central area of the city, means that the walk is quite daunting in summer months, but an extension into the heart of the city would be impractical because of the difference in height between the city centre and Piazza Manin. The terminus is situated high above the Bisagno valley which means that passengers see some fine views of the city soon after leaving the station. In describing the route, Cross speaks of a long viaduct “at Sant’Antonino which has four 10-metre arches. Departing services climb Sunday me 271 m in 9 km to reach Trensasco, located at 364 m above sea level. The line is cut into a ledge on the valley wall and near Cappuccio runs around the so-called ‘Colombo curve’ over the Viminate slope. The sharp bends give an exhilarating ride and are testament to the fact that the line engineers chose to bend with valley contours and even enter side valleys to avoid major tunnelling and expensive viaducts. … The line passes only through areas of sparse population, and former station buildings are so dilapidated it is often impossible to make out their names. Just before arriving at Campi (10 km), a small tunnel takes the line away from the main valley and shifts interest to the other side of the line. At Campi itself, up and down trains generally pass, and the guard of the ascending train has to advise control of his train’s arrival via a lineside telephone.” [2: p296]
“Having arrived at 365 m above sea level, the line then descends towards Torrazza (11 km) and Vicomorasso (15 km), where the only sub-station is located and a spur line gives access to a small car shed. Withdrawn rolling stock has also been dumped here in recent years, while the station also provides passing facilities. Thereafter, the real assault begins and the line passes through some spectacular mountain scenery by means of loops and a spiral tunnel, climbing 100 m in a mere 2km before emerging into the Polcevera basin, with its notable chestnut and acacia woods. For one brief instant it is possible to see tracks below at three different levels! Another passing point is the small halt of Sant’Olcese Tullo.” [2: p296]
Cross continues his anecdotal account of a journey North along the line. He says that “the line continues to climb, although less dramatically in the mountainous terrain. There is one particularly dramatic hairpin bend near Sant Olcese, and near the following halt of Busalletta, fine views can be obtained of Monte Sella, 811 m. The railway summit is reached at Crocetta halt, 458 m above sea level and 22 km from Genova. It is possible to see the parallel road, which has done much to abstract traffic away from the line in recent years. There are also many small level crossings along the length of the line; the insignificant ones remain unprotected, while major crossing points are guarded by either automatic half-barriers and warning tones or simply flashing lights and audible tones.” [2: p296]
“Casella Deposito (24 km) is just before the main depot site and has only an anonymous raised concrete platform to betray its whereabouts. The main line leads into a three track fan at the depot, where maintenance equipment is located and vehicle overhauls carried out. Nearby is the site of a quarry which supplied the FGC’s ballast. Appreciable goods traffic (now all lost), led to a ramp being built at Piazza Manin station to permit stone to be directly off-loaded from wagons into lorries in the street below.” [2: p296]
“Trains must reverse to gain the Casella village line, sometimes achieved with a second railcar. On the last leg of the journey, the 1952-built combined road and rail bridge has the railway track on reserved and fenced aligament to one side. Thereafter, it is less than 1 km to the terminus, on the outskirts of the small village of Casella. Two-track Paese station is unmanned, although there is a small bar to welcome thirsty passengers. … The village has no special tourist attractions other than a few bars and restaurants, all mentioned in the FGC timetable. However, the cool mountain air makes a change from the oppressive heat of the coast, and an important magnet for day-trippers.” [2: p296]
Cross notes his sources for his article of which two are articles in the predecessor journal to the Light Railway and Modern Tramway – Modern Tramway. He quotes the news pages of that magazine from 1962 onwards and a specific article by Joachim von Rohr. [14] He also consulted an article in Mondo Ferrovario. [15]
As a separate note within his article, Cross comments on what he records as ‘The FGC’s First Serious Efforts to Attract New Traffic‘. …
“At the start of the 1970s, the FGC began its first serious attempts to attract excursion traffic. While Genova municipal authorities were doing their best to dissuade unnecessary car journeys in the city, the light railway offered free parking at Genova Piazza Manin station to holders of return tickets. … This certainly offered scope for development, given the dramatic and beautiful countryside and ancient churches and forts within reasonable walking distance of stations.
This initiative has developed quite dramatically, and the policy of the FGC is now oriented towards the tourist market. It has put together a Belle Epoque train, formed of ‘heritage’ stock. The three-car train made its inaugural run on 5th November 1989 and is powered by the oldest surviving electric locomotive in Italy, No. 29 of the former Sangritana railway. … Passenger accommodation consists of ex-Val di Fiemme trailers C101 and C104, which retain original wooden furniture and bronze and brass fittings, accompanied by bar car No. C22. A major overhaul on No. C22 was undertaken in 1990, considerably upgrading its interior and also increasing capacity. … In expectation of an increase in visitors for the 1992 Columbus anniversary celebrations, the historic train had a regular Saturday working during June, July and August. The train has proved popular with both wedding and communion parties.
Near both Campi and Sardorella stations, the FGC has created playgrounds and picnic areas; the facilities at Sardorella can only be reached via the FGC. In 1990-1, the FGC began a bicycle transport service using a specially converted wagon; alternatively, customers can hire bicycles at cheap rates in Casella village.” [2: p296]
The images below show Locomotive D1 which operates the tourist train. …
Locomotive D1 responsible for a single coach. [18]
And here with two coaches. [18]
And here, escaping from a tunnel portal. [19]
“Locomotive D1 was built in 1964 on behalf of the German railways by the manufacturer Gmeinder & Co. by adapting the MaK V100 standard-gauge locomotive to metre gauge, it was numbered V52 902 (later 252 902) and used on the 28 km long Mosbach-Mudau metre-gauge line. When it’s service on that line came to an end (2nd June 1973), it was first converted to standard-gauge by Gmeinder and used by Sudwestdeutsche Eisenbahngesellschaft (SWEG) which put it to work on the Breisach-Endingen-Riegel line (numbered VL46-01). In 1986, it was sold to the Gleismac company which converted it to metre-gauge and then sold it to the FGC. It was used to haul construction and passenger trains during the renovation of the overhead line. It was then set aside at Casella Deposito for over 10 years until in 2008 it was sent to Monopoli where it was rebuilt by 2014 and it returned to service on the line in November 2015.” [12][16][17]
Sadly, when we stayed in Genova in November 2024, the line was not operational and undergoing significant maintenance.
Part 3: October 1995 – Granarolo, Funiculars and the Guidovia
Cross’ third article about Genova begins by looking at the rack railway which ran from Piazza Principe, adjacent to Genova’s principal railway station to the small hilltop community of Granarolo. … Cross says: “The project was approved on 15th February 1896 and the line opened as an electric rack tramway on 1st January 1901, although the SGFM subsequently passed into liquidation on 2nd March 1902. Management of the line was then transferred to the Societé De Bernardi & Co (DBC), but this lasted only until 1907, when the concession passed to one Luigi Parodi, a former director of DBC. Upon his death in 1918, the municipality assumed control of the line, overhauled it and handed day-to-day management over to the Consorzio Nazionale Cooperative Combattenti, which stayed in control until 30th November 1934. On the following day, the Azienda Autonoma Autobus became the new owner of the line, this being then absorbed by the Unione Italiana Tranvie Elettriche! Despite the bewildering number of owners in the early years, the line has somehow managed to remain open ever since with no change in ownership.” [3: p333]
“The 1.1-km tramway was built to the unusual gauge of 1200 mm, entirely on reservation. The lower station is at Salita di San Rocco (24 m above sea level) and the upper at Granarolo (220 m). The maximum gradient is about 23.5%. The Riggenbach rack system was chosen, with the rack at railhead level. Rail came from the Ilva company, 21 kg/m in 10.5 m lengths. … In 1950, the line was slightly extended at the upper station to permit a combined depot and workshop to be built. The lower station was also rebuilt, but still contains the inscription Ferrovia Principe Granarolo. The lower terminus is just to the west of Principe FS station and was built between two long tunnels. The lower part of the line runs through the city’s busy San Rocco district. At the passing loop, there is a station for ascending cars only. Beyond, the line has been laid directly on the slope of the Granarolo hill.” [3: p333]
Cross reports that: “The earliest recorded rolling stock was rebuilt in 1929 by Piaggio of Genova with CGE electrical equipment and two 38-kW Ansaldo traction motors. The bodies are unusual, with longitudinal seating, stepped floors and an inclined roof at the upper end, not unlike funicular cars. The two cars are 7.8 m long, 1.9 m wide and have four external doors, two per platform, and two interior doors. Service speed is 7 km/h, both ascending and descending, and capacity is 45 passengers. … The tramway uses a 550 V dc overhead contact wire, with current supplied from a sub-station which also supplied the urban trams. Each car has two trolleys, although during the day descending cars require no current, since the main braking system does not use the trolley; cars descending at night are obliged to raise one trolley to provide on-board illumination. … An interesting safety feature that persisted until recently was the fitting of two small wheels to the lower end of each car to extend the wheelbase and prevent their overturning in the event of an emergency stop. At the end of each journey, the driver wound up a counterweight, to activate an emergency braking system. This unusual device required the driver to keep his hand on a special wheel to hold off the brakes while the car was in motion. The cars had a conventional rheostatic brake which effectively operated on the cogwheel. Since there was no moveable paintwork, the cars were also fitted with double-flanged wheels on my new side and unplanned broad rollers on the other to permit negotiation over the midway passing place.” [3: p333]
Cross continues: “When both the urban and suburban tramways closed, the municipality had to make a decision on the rack line. Rather than scrap a substantial tourist asset, it was decided to undertake a major overhaul of the line and also rebuild the first of the two tramcar-type vehicles. From August 1975 to July 1976, services were suspended while all the rail was renewed and the two cars lost some of their idiosyncratic features. Two-tone green livery was replaced by orange. … In 1981, the service was modified to reflect completion of a parallel road, which at last made it possible for the AMT to put on a parallel bus service. The rack tram now [in 1995] runs every 30 minutes and its 15-minute journey time normally requires only one car, the other being stationed either at the upper terminus or near the Via Bari halt, where there is an inspection pit.” [3: p333]
Cross notes that “The Granarolo rack tramway has always suffered from a lack of traffic. In the early 1960s, it only carried 1000-1200 passengers per day and, today [in 1995] the situation is little changed. However, long-term plans for the line envisage its extension down to the coast and also further up into the mountain, where it will connect with the Genova-Casella light railway, rerouted to serve the planned upper terminus. … Older plans proposed converting the line into a funicular, reducing the current four staff to three, even two if the whole line were automated. However, in 1989, consultants MTC-Italia proposed upgrading the line whilst maintaining it as a rack tramway, suggesting replacement of the Riggenbach system by ‘something easier to maintain’ and widening the gauge to 1435mm.” [3: p333]
Cross reported that plans would have included “two new standard-gauge bogie cars, 24.5 m long and 2.2 m wide, with a maximum permitted axle load of 8 tonnes. Each car would accommodate 36 seated and 172 standing passengers. An acceleration of 1 m/s² was proposed, with a surprisingly high maximum speed of 75 km/h. The traction supply would have to be upgraded to 750 V DC. Although approved by the AMT in November 1990, no finance [had] yet been released to enable it to be implemented. In 1994, both cars were painted in red, bringing their livery into line with that [of] the two urban funiculars.” [3: p333]
Wikipedia notes that “In 2002, car 2 was sent away for an overhaul, but the bankruptcy of the original contractor and the involvement of a replacement in an alleged bribery scandal meant that the overhaul was not completed and the car returned to the line until March 2019. The overhaul included the replacement of the car floor, lighting, safety systems, electric drive, air conditioning and a new driver’s seat. Between 2002 and 2019, service was provided by car 1 operating alone. AMT now [2019] plans to use the rebuilt car to double the service frequency to every 15 minutes. ” [21]
Forward to 2024/2025 and our visit to Genova in November 2024. … When we were in Genova, we found this rack railway closed for maintenance work. Fabio Canessa reported in 20th May 2024 [20] on endless inconvenience for the inhabitants of Genova, with the line to Granarolo to be closed for major works for 2 years and the principality still waiting for news on an additional car for the line. [The notes from his report below have translated into English by Google Translate.]
Canessa noted that a series of interventions that would “force the closure of the system between the valley terminus and the stop on Via Bari for the entire duration of the construction site. … It [would] involve replicating the same interventions carried out in 2012 on the upstream section. … The project, includes the consolidation of the historic walls, which are no longer up to standard, the creation of a lateral walkway to allow passengers to move away safely in the event of a breakdown, a sort of overflow pipe that runs parallel to the railway and discharges the water collected by the canal, the reconstruction of the pylons with the same look as the upper section and the reconstruction of the overhead line. …In addition, the stop on Via Centurione , which is currently unusable on the downstream side, will be fixed.” [20]
“For the works, just over 2 million euros [were] allocated by the Region under an agreement with the Ministry of Infrastructure dating back three years. However, these resources are not yet available to AMT [on 20th May 2024], …the contract is being awarded, … but …. the works cannot be assigned until the Region … [provides] the money. The situation should be unblocked by June [2024] so that the construction site can be opened in the summer. In the meantime, the expropriations are being defined , which will concern small portions of private land necessary to move back the pylons and make room for the walkway.” [20]
“The bottom line, for the residents of San Teodoro and Granarolo who often have no alternatives to the rack railway except walking, is that until 2026 the service will be limited to the via Bari-Granarolo section . Initially there was talk of 12-18 months, then the forecasts worsened. Unfortunately not all the work can be done at the same time, safety must be guaranteed.” [20]
“The same section of the rack railway was closed for six months in 2021 to replace the tracks, sleepers, pylon plinths and also part of the contact line. The odyssey began in the early 2000s with the start of restyling work on one of the two cars , a story that lasted almost twenty years. … Speaking of carriages, it is not yet certain what the timing will be for the third one: the Region had allocated 3.5 million euros for the construction. … The contract was awarded to SVI of Lucignano (Arezzo) with a contractual expiry date set for September 2028. Even in this case, however, the Region must first unlock the necessary resources.” [20]
The Principe – Granarolo Rack Railway. [22]
The Zecca Righi Funicular
Cross tells us that plans to build “the Zecca Righi rack-braked funicular were first brought to the attention of the Genova public by a Mr Bucher on 30th June 1891. This was to start in Piazza della Zecca and proceed northwards in tunnel for 700 m. A station at Carnonara would have public access in an open shaft at 348 metres, while Montegalletto station was to be located at the upper entrance to the tunnel. Here, a transfer would be made to a second line, 820 m long and built entirely above ground. This would feature two intermediate stations, at Fossato and San Simone, with the upper terminus situated at the Chiappe wall on Righi mountain, from where tremendous views can be obtained of the Bisagno valley.” [3: p333]
Cross notes that Abt rack braking was preferred. ABT rack braking utilises two or even three different rack profiles, each half offset from each other. Trackopedia says that, “The tooth spacing is larger than with the other rack systems (120 mm). The advantage is that the profiles are always installed offset, so there are no full joints. Due to the low thickness of the profiles, they can be fitted or rotated much more easily by hand, which makes maintenance easier. In the curve, the outer profile should theoretically be longer. With short profiles, the difference in length is equalized at the joint.” [23]
Initially, a 900-mm track gauge was chosen for the line, “but this was later changed to metre gauge. The project was given the go-ahead and construction of what was classed as a secondary railway was begun. The upper line opened on 30th April 1895, while the steeper gradients encountered on the lower line delayed its opening until 13th February 1897.” [3: p333]
“The two lines gave trouble-free operation for the next 70 years, but were rebuilt into a single funicular during a much-needed modernisation programme instigated by AMT, the new owner. Bell of Luzern undertook the conversion, with two high-capacity metal-bodied cars replacing the original wooden rolling stock. The new funicular cars had rigid suspension and driving gear consisted of 2 x 125-kW motors, permitting a speed of 4.4 m/s. Each car could accommodate 100 passengers, restricting the maximum one-way traffic flow to 400 passengers per hour, with a 15-minute journey time.” [3: p333-334]
Cross continues: “A second modernisation programme was announced in 1985. It was decided to introduce partial automation to reduce staff costs, with Ansaldo Trasporti and Nuova Agudio awarded the contract. The line was closed on 3rd August 1987 and replaced by substitute buses. The old track was replaced by heavier 50 kg/m rail mounted on rubber to reduce noise emission, while the winding motors, electrical equipment, telephone system and safety equipment were also replaced. The modern day line is 1.4 km long with a difference in height of 278 m between the two termini. Average gradient is 19.9%, with some sections as steep as 34%. … The new twin-car units, driven by 2 x 458-kW winding motors, and with sliding doors, have a speed of 6 m/s, cutting the journey time to 10 minutes and increasing the one-way passenger capacity to about 1800/hour, each train holding up to 156 passengers (16 seated) on seven stepped levels. Modern suspension has also greatly improved the ride quality, while electricity for car lighting is picked up by a mini-pantograph from a simple overhead.” [3: p334]
Cross concludes his notes about this funicular: “The two-car trains, which have been painted in a striking red livery with an orange zig-zag stripe outlined in white, can call at all seven stations, although the intermediate stops at Carbonara, Santa Nicola (urban bus connection), Madonnetta (religious shrine), Preve and San Simone are request stops signalled both by passengers waiting on station platforms and those inside the cars. The starting sequence is automatic, but cars are nevertheless, single-manned. No tickets are sold on any funicular premises, although ticket cancellers are provided on cars, and the tariff is that of the urban bus network.” [3: p334]
The Sant’ Anna Funicular
The Sant’ Anna Funicular on 18th May 2015 – Car No. 1 at the summit station, (c) Tiia Monto and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons Licennce (CC BY-SA 3.0). [29]
Cross offers two short paragraphs about this line. …
“There are not many rail lines offering an end-to-end journey time of around one minute, but this is all that is necessary to travel on the 353 metres between Piazza Portello and Corso Magenta on the Sant’ Anna funicular. So short is the line that it is possible to see both cars from either station. The present day installations were supplied by Agudio Poma of Torino and consist of two small red cars, driven by a 42-kW motor, with bodywork from Merighi, Neri & Roversi.” [3: p334]
“Operation is automatic, although each car has a driving cab, and the 54-m height difference, starting at 20 m above sea level at Piazza Portello, is undertaken at a track speed of 4 m/s, with the passing place at a relatively flat location. Each car has eight seats on two stepped levels with a nominal total capacity of 30, giving a capacity of 180 passengers per direction per hour, with departures every ten minutes. Entry to the funicular is controlled by a turnstile, with boarding and alighting passengers segregated. The line is operated by AMT, so one day FS-AMT passes can be used.” [3: p334]
La Guidovia del Santuario della Guardia
In my survey of the different lines serving Genova, I missed this line completely. This is perhaps not surprising as it closed in October 1967!
A 1934 advertising poster for the line. [26]The sanctuary of the Madonna della Guardia, on Mount Figogna, in the Polcevera Valley, is frequented by believers from all over Liguria. Around 1490 the apparition of the Virgin to a peasant gave rise first to a simple chapel and then, between 1528 and 1530, to a true sanctuary. In 1890 there was a further renovation with the construction of the current church. A hospice was built next to it and the complex covered the entire summit of the mountain. [27]
This map of the line can be found on the Marklinfan.com website and is embedded here The terminal at Serro can be seen in the bottom-right of the image. The shrine is towards the top-left of the sketch map. [26]A watercolour sketch of one of the Cars used on the line. [27]
Cross says: “Some 250,000 visitors per year are attracted to the religious shrine on Monte Figogna, 817 m above sea level and from where spectacular views can be obtained over the Polcevera valley and the Mediterranean. The idea of providing a fixed link emerged in 1891, although a Belgian initiative dating from 1906 stalled for want of finance. It was not until 1926 that the Ferrovia Santuario della Guardia company was founded and subsequently undertook construction. … On 29th July 1929, the company inaugurated an initial 8.8-km section, linking the lower station of Serro di San Quirico, halfway between Bolzaneto and Pontedecimo and at 66 m above sea level, with a temporary upper terminus at Ca’Bianca (676 m). From Genova, it was possible to reach Serro, nestling between two steelworks and some oil refineries, via the UITE tramways. The remaining 1.7-km section was finally opened on 23rd June 1934. In all, there was a 130-m height difference between upper and lower termini with maximum gradients of 8.3% (the average was 6.5%) and minimum curve radius of 25 m. The line was single-track, with seven passing points and 10 Intermediate stations.” [3: p334]
Cross comments: “The Guidovia was highly unusual in that it featured petrol-engined solid-rubber-tyred vehicles which followed two parallel 200-mm wide concrete tracks. Inside these, conventional metre-gauge Vignole 9 kg/m rails acted as a guide path for flanges located on the inside of the wheels. … Iron tie-rods separated the rails at a fixed gauge, with conventional sleepers unnecessary since the weight of the vehicles was placed off the rails and on the concrete pathways. Known as the Laviosa guidance system, it was invented by the Corazza brothers, who owned the line. Rubber tyres were chosen because they gave twice the adhesion of steel wheels acting on steel rails, and made it possible for the vehicles to overcome the numerous steep gradients on the slopes of Monte Figogna.” [3: p334]
Annotated in Italian, this sketch shows the construction of the permanent way. [26]
Construction work showing the light Vignole rails and the ties which maintained the guage. This image is embedded from the marklinfan.com website. [26]
This image shows the size of the concrete bed on which the rubber-tyred wheels would run. [26]
This is probably the earliest form of guided bus technology used across the world and should be seen as the precursor of a number of other systems. [25]
Cross continues: “Both freight and passengers were carried, with passenger cars often hauling goods wagons. The journey was usually accomplished in 45 minutes at a speed of 12 km/h, although the cars had a theoretical maximum speed of 18 km/h. … The weekday timetable consisted of five return journeys, ten at weekends, although many other specials were put on for groups of visitors. Indeed, it was not unknown for the Guidovia to carry 3000 passengers in one day. In all, 30-35 staff operated the line, of which 11 were drivers, each responsible for the upkeep of his own vehicle. The depot and workshops were next to the lower terminus, which was equipped with a small turntable; others also at the upper terminus and at Gaiazza.” [3: p334]
The Cars were unidirectional and required turning at both terminii of the line. Staff called the turntables used ‘giostre‘ (carousels).
A Car being turned at the Serro terminus. [26]
A Car being turned at the upper terminus. [26]
A superb view of the Santuario della Guardia and the summit station of the Guidovia. [28]
This image shows both an unidentified Car and the Santuario della Guardia. It is embedded here from the stagniweb.it website. [28]
“The original fleet consisted of five bi-directional 90-hp petrol-engined cars (1-5), built by Officine Laviosa of Piacenza, with bodies made of waterproof oil-cloth. There were two Giardiniera trailers. In 1936, three single-cab cars (6-8) of slightly higher capacity were added. Changes were made to cars 1-5: their rear cabs were removed and a more powerful, 120-hp diesel engine fitted. In 1952, the two existing trailers were motored, using MAN diesel engines, to cater for rising patronage. An eleventh aluminium-bodied car also existed.” [3: p334] Cross was unable in his article to provide details of that aluminium-bodied car. More details have come to light since he wrote his article.
This picture of aluminium-bodied Car No. 11 is embedded from the marklinfan.com website. No. 11 was the last Car built for the line. Built in 1955 to cope with the increase in users, it was made of aluminum and had different windows, double lights, and was equipped with automatic compressed air doors. It was built in the company’s Serro Workshops. [26]Another photograph of Car No. 11 taken at the summit station. This image is displayed on one of the explanatory panels at the station. [28]A drawing of one of the earlier Cars also from the display boards at the summit station. [28]
1:200,000 Touring Club Italiano map from 1964 shows the route of the line. The Guidovia is drawn from Madonna della Guardia to Bolzaneto. [28]
Cross says that at about the same time as Car No. 11 was built, Cars No. 2 and No. 4 underwent a complete revision, involving a livery change from light green to two-tone green. Ultimately, “the line closed in October 1967 with the expiry of the company’s concession. Track and superstructure had been allowed to deteriorate, and rolling stock was also life-expired. In the 1970s, the company laid on a bus service on a new road that had opened up the Santuario.” [3: p334]
A few pictures follow which have been embedded from the stagniweb.it website. They give a good idea of the condition of the line in the 21st century. …
The tie-bars and rails. [28]
The concrete platform. [28]
Approaching the summit. [28]
The display boards at the summit are housed in a shelter which simulates one of the old cars used on the line. [28]
Cross acknowledged the following sources for his notes on the rack railway, the funiculars and the Guidovia line;
Ferrovia Principe-Granarolo by A. Sasso & C. Serra (Mondo Ferroviario, October 1991).
The Tramways and Light Railways of Genova by J. von Rohr (Modern Tramway, June 1964)
Nuova Funicolare per Genova by Alessandro Sasso (Mondo Ferroviario, April 1990).
News pages of Modern Tramway 1962 et seq Guidovia della Guardia by A. Sasso & C. Serra Mondo Ferroviario, December 1990).
The Tramways and Light Railways of Genova byl von Rohr, (Modern Tramway, June 1964)
References for this full article
Barry Cross; Genova: Back in the Tramway Business Part 1: The Interurbans and the ‘Light Metro’; in Light Rail & Modern Tramway, August 1995, p251-253.
Barry Cross; The Tramways of Genova Part 2: Casella Line Begins to Realise Tourist Potential; in Light Rail & Modern Tramway, September 1995, p295-296.
Barry Cross; The Tramways of Genova: Concluded: Granalaro, Funiculars and the Guidova; in Light Rail & Modern Tramway, October 1995, p333-334.
Stanley Jenkins comments: “Situated at the head of a fertile valley some five miles inland from the Cromarty Firth, Strathpeffer was once famous as a health spa and fashionable holiday resort. Although the medicinal value of the local mineral springs had been known for many years, the village did not really develop until the Victorian era when the Countess of Cromartie was instrumental in creating a Central European-style spa in this remote part of Scotland.” [1: p53]
When the first section of the Dingwall & Skye Railway opened on 19th August 1870 the Strathpeffer area became much better connected. However, the new line ran well to the North of the village. The line had a station named ‘Strathpeffer’ but it was 2 miles from the spa and at a much higher level. The station ended up in that location because of the opposition of a local landowner to a far better route for the Dingwall & Skye line, which would have passed through the village. The result was a steeply inclined (1 in 50) line climbing to the summit at Raven Rock
The distant station meant that the increasingly popular spa had to provide a horse-drawn road service for increasing numbers of upper-middle class clients. Stanley Jenkins tells us that “It soon became clear … that a direct rail link was needed. Meanwhile, in 1880 the Dingwall & Skye Railway was merged with the Highland Railway, and following this development it was agreed that a short branch line would be built to Strathpeffer. The proposed line would follow a route similar to that suggested for the Dingwall & Skye Railway in the 1860s, albeit with a terminal station in Strathpeffer, rather than a through station as originally planned. Accordingly, on 28th July 1884 powers were obtained for the construction of a 2 mile 38 chain railway from Fodderty Junction, on the Dingwall & Skye Railway, to Strathpeffer. The authorised line ran west-south-westwards across easy terrain towards its destination, and with few physical obstacles to hinder the work of construction good progress was made. The single-track branch was opened on 3rd June 1885, the original Strathpeffer station on the Dingwall & Skye route having been renamed Achterneed just two days earlier.” [1: p53]
The line was single-track and had no intermediate stations. As there was no station at Fodderty Junction, trains ran to and from Dingwall. Jenkins comments that the railway terminated at Strathpeffer “in a spacious terminus, while at Dingwall the Highland Railway company provided a new junction station with much improved facilities.” [1: p53]
Jenkins notes that lines like that serving Strathpeffer “attracted a certain amount of excursion and leisure traffic during the Edwardian period. Indeed, the Strathpeffer branch was albeit briefly – served by a ‘named’ train. In 1911, the ‘Strathpeffer Spa Express’ was introduced as a special Tuesdays-only working that left Aviemore at 2.30pm and ran non-stop to Dingwall; the train then continued westwards to Strathpeffer, with an arrival time of 4.15pm. This prestigious service ran in conjunction with a train that left Perth at 11.50pm, the idea being that through travellers would be able to reach their hotels with time to wash and change before dinner. Curiously there was no corresponding up service, and one assumes that travellers were expected to return southwards on normal branch services. A similar through service was available on Saturdays during the Edwardian period; this working normally left Inverness at 3.00pm, and it called intermediately at Beauly, Muir of Ord, and Dingwall. In the up direction the balancing southbound service departed from Strathpeffer at around 8.15pm. These through workings catered primarily for visitors to the larger hotels in Strathpeffer, and in this context it is interesting to note that the Highland Railway opened its own hotel in 1911. The through services were withdrawn at the start of World War I, the ‘Strathpeffer Spa Express’ being deleted in 1915, while the Inverness through trains ran for the last time in 1914.” [1: p53]
The two extracts below from the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1904 give an overview of Dingwall Railway Station and village. The full length of the station site and the junction of the line to Skye are included on this extract from the 25″ Ordnance Survey from the turn of the 20th century. [14]
Jenkins notes that “In its later years the route was treated as a minor branch line, with a service of around half a dozen trains each-way between Strathpeffer and the junction station at Dingwall. The latter station was opened on 11th June 1862 when the first section of the Inverness & Ross-shire Railway was brought into operation. In its early years the station was a very basic affair which hardly seemed appropriate for the county town of Ross & Cromarty. The station became a junction following the opening of the Dingwall & Skye Railway on 19th August 1870, but Dingwall did not reach its fully-developed form until the construction of the Strathpeffer line in the following decade.” [1: p55]
Jenkins tells us that “In view of the importance attached to the Strathpeffer scheme, it was decided that new and much-improved station buildings would be constructed, while a separate bay platform was installed at the north end of the station for use by terminating branch trains. The new station building was in effect a de-luxe version of the usual Highland Railway design, stone being utilised instead of the normal timber construction, while the building was given a substantial glass & iron platform canopy formed of seven transverse bays. The up and down platforms were linked by a lattice girder footbridge, and there was a small waiting-room block on the up side.” [1: p55]
“The track layout at Dingwall incorporated a number of loops and sidings, while the goods yard contained a range of facilities for all forms of traffic including coal, livestock, vehicles, and general merchandise; a 4ton yard crane was capable of dealing with timber or other large or heavy consignments. The station was signalled from two standard Highland Railway signal cabins known as Dingwall South and Dingwall North boxes.” [1: p55-56]
The junction between the line to Kyle of Lochalsh and the line North to Wick. The line to the North of the station, bridges the River Peffery (which is still tidal at this point) just to the South of the junction. Strathpeffer trains followed the Kyle of Lochalsh line to the West as far as Fodderty Junction. This is an extract from the ESRI satellite imagery provided by the NLS. [14]The road from Dingwall to Strathpeffer crossed the line at a level crossing. The crossing-keepers cottage can be seen on the South side of the railway line, to the East of the road. This is another extract from the 25″ Ordnance Survey from the early years of the 20th century. [19]The same area on the 21st century ESRI satellite imagery. [19]Looking North along the A834 through the level crossing with the Kyle of Lochalsh railway line. [Google Streetview, March 2023]Looking East from the A834 at the level crossing with the Kyle of Lochalsh railway line. [Google Streetview, March 2023]Looking West from the A834 at the same location. [Google Streetview, March 2023]
Jenkins tells us that, “On departure from Dingwall, branch trains proceeded westwards along the Kyle of Lochalsh line for a distance of 2 miles 22 chains. At Fodderty Junction the Strathpeffer route continued westwards, whereas the Kyle line turned sharply north-westwards on its way to Raven Rock Summit.” [1: p55-56]
Immediately to the North of Fodderty Junction, just off the top edge of the two images above, the Kyle of Lochalsh line crosses the modern A834 – the road from Dingwall to Strathpeffer.
“Until 1936, Fodderty Junction was worked from a small signalbox controlling home and distant signals in each direction, as well as the junction points. The junction was later operated by a hand generator from Dingwall North Box, with key-token operation on the ‘main-line’ section between Dingwall North and Achterneed, and one-engine-in-steam working for branch trains between Dingwall North and Strathpeffer. This mode of operation presented certain problems in that there had to be various ‘fail-safe’ arrangements between the two systems of single-line working. The Strathpeffer branch was therefore worked by a Tyer’s Occupation Key, which prevented conflicting movements on the main line between Dingwall North and Fodderty Junction, and ensured the safe operation of the one engine-in-steam section between Fodderty Junction and Strathpeffer.” [1: p56]
“Fodderty Junction Signal Box was reopened in June 1940 in connection with heavy wartime traffic on the Kyle of Lochalsh line. This situation pertained until August 1944, when the box was again closed. The box itself was a typical Highland Railway structure, while a small stone cottage was available nearby for the benefit of the signalman and his family.” [1: p56]
“Having gained their own line at Fodderty Junction, branch trains proceeded generally westwards along the south side of a fertile valley. The route was not quite straight, and as the railway approached its destination the single line was heading approximately west-south-westwards. Slowing for the final approach to the terminus, down trains passed a fixed distant signal, after which they came to rest in an attractive station, some 2 miles 38 chains from Fodderty Junction and 4 miles 60 chains from the start of the journey at Dingwall.” [1: p56]
Incidentally, for those who are unfamiliar with the full range of imperial units, a ‘chain’ is 22 yards in length (66 feet) and there are 80 chains to one mile. Initially the length of a chain varied between different jurisdictions but standardisation occurred in 1824 with the introduction of the imperial system of units. [2] A 66 ft. chain was made up of 100 links. [3]
The journey along the branch was relatively easy work for the locomotives employed. The approximately 2.5 miles to the terminus at Strathpeffer was on easy grades.
“Like other Highland Railway branch-line stations Strathpeffer was well laid-out, with a lengthy platform for passenger traffic on the up side and a small goods yard on the down side of the line. The platform line was flanked by an engine-release road, which was equipped with a short dead-end spur at its western end. Although only one platform was provided, there was sufficient space for a second platform on the down side if traffic requirements had ever justified such a facility. There was a short loading dock beside the spur at the end of the run-round loop, and this could, if necessary, have been extended eastwards to form a second full-length platform.” [1: p56]
“The station building was similar to those at other Highland branch-line terminals, albeit somewhat larger. This typical single-storey timber-framed structure was clad in the usual vertical weatherboarding, while its low-pitched slated roof was punctuated by an array of squat chimney stacks. As at Dingwall, an extensive ridge & furrow platform canopy was provided, eleven transverse bays being supported on a dozen vertical iron columns with ornate quatrefoil spandrels. The Highland Railway was not, by any definition, a rich company, and the provision of this lavishly-appointed station underlined the company’s commitment to the development of passenger traffic at Strathpeffer.” [1: p56]
https://canmore.org.uk/collection/44840 shows Stroudley 0-6-0 saddletank locomotive LMS 16118 (originally named ‘Balnain’ and later ‘Dornoch’) in Strathpeffer Station. [NB. This image can only be viewed on canmore.org.uk website as is not available for download.]
“The goods yard contained three dead-end sidings, one of which passed through a typical Highland Railway timber goods shed while another terminated alongside a raised loading bank. The yard was entered by means of a siding connection on the up side of the running line, the single turnout facing the direction of down trains. The main form of goods traffic handled here was domestic coal for consumption in the nearby hotels and guest houses, although it seems likely that a considerable amount of building material would have been handled at Strathpeffer during the Victorian period when many new buildings were being erected in the immediate vicinity.” [1: p56]
“The terminus was signalled from a small signal cabin on the down side of the run-round loop. The box contained an 11-lever frame with three spare levers. There was just one working signal, this being an up starting signal that was locked in the ‘danger’ position when the key token for the Dingwall North to Strathpeffer section was placed in the Strathpeffer key-token instrument. As a further safety measure a catch-point and sand-drag was provided beside the starting signal, and once set for the sand-drag the catch-point could not be reset until the key-token had been withdrawn from the Strathpeffer instrument.” [1: p57]
“Other features of interest at Strathpeffer station included a water tank and a well-built stone cottage for the stationmaster, both of these structures being situated to the south of the platform on the down side of the line. The station was well-sited in relation to the village (or ‘The Strath’, as it was known locally), and visitors arriving by train did not have far to walk in order to reach their hotels.” [1: p57]
“Strathpeffer was well-equipped with shops, golf courses, gardens and a pump room, all of these amenities being designed to cater for the needs of upper-middle class Victorian visitors.” [1: p57]
“Sadly, the heyday of Strathpeffer as a fashionable resort came to an end with the outbreak of war in August 1914, and in retrospect the LMS era was a period of slow but inexorable decline. Passenger services lingered on until the end of World War II, but the end came on 23rd February 1946 from which date the railway was closed to passenger traffic. Goods services continued until March 1951, after which the branch was closed in its entirety. Demolition was soon accomplished, but the once-elegant station building at Strathpeffer survived in a derelict condition.” [1: p57]
“In due course the delights of Strathpeffer were rediscovered by spa enthusiasts, conservationists, and students of Victorian architecture, and in recent years the Spa Pavilion and other buildings have been lovingly restored. Happily, the station building was sufficiently intact to attract funding for its restoration, and in 1980 this timber-framed Highland Railway structure was reopened as a craft centre and museum. In its new role, the restored station forms a fitting memorial, not only to the Strathpeffer line, but also to the other minor lines that once abounded in this corner of Scotland.” [1: p57]
Stanley Jenkins; Highland Railway Minor Lines: 2; in Rex Kennedy (ed.); Steam Days; Red Gauntlet Publications, Bournemouth, Dorset, January 2002; p48-57.
William John Macquorn Rankine; A Manual of Civil Engineering (2nd ed.); Griffin Bohn & Company, London, 1863, p3.
Roger Farnworth 
.jpg){kind=link}
