After Easter 2026, we spent a few days at Borth on Cardigan Bay, North of Aberystwyth. We took the opportunity to visit Aberystwyth and to travel on the Cliff Railway.
Aberystwyth Cliff Railway is the longest electrically operated cliff railway in the UK. It sits at the North end of Aberystwyth’s promenade. Constitution Hill provides views over the town and Cardigan Bay. On a really good day, as many as twenty-six mountain peaks can be seen from the summit. [1]
Aberystwyth Cliff Railway has been transporting visitors to the summit of Constitution Hill since 1st August 1896. It is a 778 feet (237m) long funicular railway, and is the second longest funicular railway in the British Isles after the Lynton and Lynmouth Cliff Railway. Since November 1987, the Aberystwyth Cliff Railway has been a Grade II listed structure. [1][2]
The Cliff Railway as seen on the 6″ Ordnance Survey of 1904, published in 1906. [3]
For the first 25 years of its life the railway operated via a water balance system. Electrification occurred in 1921.
The cars have a maximum capacity of 30 passengers, permanently connected via a continuous cable. The original water balance system used a Worthington Corporation compound steam engine water pump housed in the lower station to move water to the upper station. Each passenger car had a tank in its chassis that could hold 4 tonnes of water. Water was added to the tank of the top car, which descended under gravity, hauling the lighter lower car on the parallel track to the top station. [5]
The railway is straight, ascending about 430 feet (130 m) over a horizontal distance of 778 feet (237 m), a maximum gradient of more than 1 in 2 (50%). The 4 ft 10 in (1,473 mm), slightly broader than standard gauge, and laid on timber sleepers. [5]
“The unique design of the undulating track and tilted carriages is the work of George Croydon Marks. A man who played a key role in several projects during the golden age of funicular construction. He would later make his name in politics as Lord Marks, the liberal peer.” [1]
As we have already noted the railway was electrified using a 41 kW ATB AG [de] Morley DC motor in 1921. In 1934, after changes to the town’s electricity supply, a mercury arc rectifier and transformer were installed in the lower station to provide a 440V DC power output. The cars are moved using a high-tensile steel cable attached to both vehicles. It passes around a drum, mounted on a vertical axis between the tracks at the top. The motor drives the drum controlled by an automated cut-off which stops the motor and the cars when required. [5]
“The carriages are brought to the summit at a stately 4 miles per hour. They are powered by a powerful motor and high-tensile steel cables supported by a sophisticated electronic safety system. At the midpoint of the journey, the railway ventures through a deep cutting, where 12,000 tons of rock was excavated to allow the winding footpath to cross via a series of bridges overhead.” [1]
Its twin carriages are named Lord Geraint and Lord Marks. [6]
The Cliff Railway as seen on the 6″ Ordnance Survey of 1948, published in 1953. [4]
“Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the cliff railway was popular with visitors but during and after the Second World War, passenger numbers declined significantly. In 1948, seeking to revive its fortunes, the Aberystwyth Pier Company bought it and carried out repairs and upgrades. The new owners were unable to increase passenger numbers.” [5]
In 1976, a fault developed in the railways breaking system and it was closed briefly. In the late 1970s, “a local mining company acquired a majority stake and formed the Aberystwyth Cliff Railway Company to operate it. In 1978 a new electrical system was installed which is used to the present day. It takes its power from and returns surplus energy to the National Grid.” [5]
More recent key dates:
1987 – recognised as Grade II listed structure.
1998 – purchased by Constitution Hill Ltd.
2005 – upper station refurbished (with café and gift shop).
2014 – roof repairs undertaken and ramps and other adaptations made to improve accessibility – better protection from the elements, a small car park at the station (very small!), wheelchair and guide dog friendly trains, a passenger lift providing wheelchair access from the train to the summit, and once there, wheelchair friendly pathways across the site. [1]
The featured image for this article is a stained glass window in Emneth Parish Church which is a memorial to Revd. Wilbert Vere Awdry who served as the incumbent of the parish from 1953 to 1965. [9]
In his book ‘The World the Railways Made’, in a chapter entitled ‘The Habits the Railways Changed’, and after a discussion of the dramatic effect the railways had on the consumption of different foodstuffs, Nicholas Faith talks of the food the railways carried not only being physical:
“It was also spiritual, enabling pilgrims to travel far more easily. But there were natural hesitations before God-fearing folk were prepared to use such an obviously secular phenomenon. The Russian bishops, for instance, were afraid that ‘pilgrims would come to the monastery [Sergiev Posad (now Zagorsk), site of the sacred Troitsk monastery] in railway cars, in which all sorts of tales can be heard, and often dirty stories, whereas now they come on foot and each step is a feat pleasing to God’. Despite this reluctance, the Metropolitan himself opened the line from Moscow to the holy spot, and by the time the Trans-Siberian was opened, the church was happy to commission a splendid ‘church car’ to minister to the congregations en route. [2]
“The pattern was repeated with different religions throughout the world. The first railway in what was then called Persia was a narrow-gauge line which ran six miles from Tehran to a shrine in the village of Shah Abdul Azim. [3] In Japan at least two railways served important shrines, at Ise and a special line from Oji to the temples at Nara. By the 1890s there was a convenient stop for pilgrims to pay their homage to Mount Fuji.
“Some of the promoters of the first railways in India had hoped to spread Christianity, others were afraid that pilgrims would not use them to travel to their sacred shrines. According to Herbert Spencer, Robert Stephenson referred the matter ‘to the Dhurma Subha of Calcutta, the great sanhedrin of orthodox Hindoos, who, after consulting the sacred texts and the learned pundits, delivered it as their opinion that the devotee might ride in a railway carriage to the various shrines without diminishing the merit of the pilgrimage.’ The result was an amazing growth in pilgrimages, to the mutual advantage of the ‘Hindoos’ and the railway companies. (Quarterly Review, 1868).
“Railways could also be used for secular worship. As late as 1968 the pious Chinese built a railway sixty miles from Hangsha, the capital of Hunan province, to Shao-sha, the birthplace of Mao-Tse-Tung. Over the next decade, before the cult of Mao’s personality waned, three million passengers took the leisurely four-hour journey every year.
“Railways were obviously most suitable for mass religious movements and so concentrated attention on a small number of famous shrines, leading to the neglect of older sites. The most obvious beneficiary was Lourdes, which can truthfully be described as ‘The Shrine the Railway Made’. [cf. 19]
“Bernadette Soubirous’ visions had started in the late 1850s, before the route of the line from Bayonne to Toulouse had been decided. So the town council seized with both hands the opportunity to ensure that the line passed by Lourdes.
In October 1862, the council agreed to compensate any land-owners who suffered, even from the railways’ surveys. In May 1863, councillors asked the railway to site its station as close as possible to the centre of town and complied with every one of the company’s requests. They admitted the navvies and railway workers to the local hospital and ignored their riotous behaviour.
“Their reward came in 1866 with the simultaneous opening of the grotto and the railway from Tarbes, which connected with trains to Bordeaux and far-off Paris. Between 1870 and 1878 a total of 958 pilgrimages to Bernadette’s shrine brought 661,000 pilgrims to Lourdes, 100,000 of them on a single day, 3rd July 1876, to rejoice in the newly-proclaimed doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and affirm the idea of la France Catholique.
“At much the same time similar ideas were being spread throughout France by another railway-based religious order, the Assumptionists, who exploited the railways to assemble mass rallies, largely of the most humble of folk. The Assumptionists were a strange, and in their time highly important, sect, founded by the scion of a rich land-owning family, who acquired considerable political influence through their ability to mount mass rallies.
“But the railway’s most dramatic influence was not on Christianity, but on Islam. Throughout the 19th century increasing numbers of pilgrims had made the difficult and dangerous journey to Mecca. In September 1900, Sultan Abdul Hamid proposed to build a railway to Mecca as a pious gesture on the twenty-fifth anniversary of his accession to the Ottoman throne. The idea was immediately greeted as an important affirmation of Muslim values.
“The Sultan naturally insisted on building a purely Muslim railway. He decreed that, ‘only Muslim workers and Muslim materials ought to be employed; timber from the vast forests of Anatolia and Macedonia; ballast from the country being crossed, rails and wagons from the Imperial workshops; engineering regiments would provide the workforce, the schools of Constantinople the engineers and the foremen.’ [4]
“In the event, much of the material had to be bought in Europe, together with some skilled labour, supervised by the German engineer who had built most of the railways in the Levant. The combination of ferocious piety, the Sultan’s will-power and German organising ability ensured that this railway, nearly a thousand miles in length, was built within eight years.
“Meissner Pasha, the German chief engineer, was simply given the two terminals, Damascus and Mecca, and told to connect them by rail as best he could. He was a genius. He had to handle a huge construction force composed of a dozen nationalities. The line was built across some of the bleakest, hottest, most implacable terrain in the world, without natural resources of any kind. His worst problem was with the Bedouin, furious at being deprived of the pilgrims who had been their prey, ruffians eventually hunted down by an implacably efficient Turkish general, Kaisim Pasha.
“Meissner was not allowed to complete his work. Neither he, nor any other infidel, was allowed to venture beyond Medina Saleh, the 587th mile-post on the line. Fortunately he had trained up a highly-accomplished Turkish engineer, Muktar Bey, who brought the line into Medina in August, 1908. But then the Bedouin took their revenge, wiping out a whole construction camp, and thus scotching any idea of building the railway the final 300 miles to Mecca itself. Unfortunately the line ran for a mere eight years, until T. E. Lawrence blew it up. Since then it has lain abandoned, the break-up of the Ottoman Empire signalling the end of any hope of cooperation between the peoples along the lines.
“In Anglo-Saxon countries deep religious faith produced, not railways, but strong hostility to the very idea of running them on the Sabbath, as a serious challenge to the fundamental Sabbatarianism which was as much a feature of the age as the railways themselves.
“The famous Versailles accident of 1842 was naturally exploited by the Sabbatarians as an awful lesson meted out to the Godless foreign travellers who had dared desecrate the day. After an equally appalling accident in Clayton tunnel just outside Brighton twenty years later ‘plenty of people rushed about proclaiming the accidents as a judgment of God.’ In between times the railways’ Sunday excursions were denounced as ‘trips to Hell at 7s 6d.’ [5]
“But it was not the excursionists (who included such devout souls as Thomas Cook) who forced the railway companies to break the Sabbath. According to Michael Robbins in The Railway Age, it was the absolute need for mail trains to run on a Sunday which broke the resistance of the Sabbatarians in both Scotland and Wales. They were never as powerful as was made out, and most clerics probably reacted like Dr Grantley in Trollope’s Barchester Towers: ‘If you can withdraw all the passengers the company I dare say will withdraw the trains. It is merely a question of dividends’.
“Nevertheless the argument rumbled on. In 1883 the inhabitants of a small Highland village managed to prevent a load of fish from leaving on the Sabbath and were greeted as heroes when they returned from serving the jail sentence to which they were sent-enced. Six years later ‘the anti-Sunday Travel Union’ had 58 branches with some 8,000 adherents. Partly owing to its activities, trains on suburban lines normally ceased running on Sundays during the hours of Divine service.
“Similar battles were fought in the United States. In Galesburg, the railroad was the blunt instrument which broke the power of the Sabbatarians. The first Sunday train was boarded by the impressive figure of President Blanchard of Knox College, who was told to go to Hell when he ordered the engineer to take the engine back to the roundhouse. And that, wrote Ernest Elmo Calkins, was the end of the powerof ‘the little group of pious men who had founded Galesburg to be a Christian town after their own ideal’. [6]
In South Africa, the Reverend Van Lingen managed to prevent any Sunday trains from desecrating the Sabbath at the settlement of Paarl. After denouncing the railway from the pulpit, he founded a Sunday stage coach service for passengers from Cape Town which successfully kept the railway at bay for half a century.
“There was, and remains, a strong counter-current, a positive railway-worship among clergymen of the Church of England. Bishop Eric Treacy and Canon Roger Lloyd were famous railway writers; Canon Reginald Fellows wrote a history of Bradshaw, founding father of railway timetables (which Archbishop William Temple was reputed to know by heart); and more recently the Reverend Wilbert Awdry made a fortune by recounting the adventures of Thomas the Tank Engine and his friends.” [1: p266-270]
In 1979 LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0 number 45428 was named Eric Treacy. It is now preserved on the North Yorkshire Moors Railway. The Treacy Collection of 12,000 photographs forms part of the National Railway Museum’s archive of over 1.4 million images. [25]
In the 19th century, the rapid expansion of railways in the UK was met with both profound spiritual revival and fierce religious resistance. While some religious leaders initially condemned trains as ‘rank infidelity’ and decried Sunday travel, railways ultimately revolutionized religious life, opening up previously remote pilgrimage sites like Glastonbury to the masses.
The massive influx of migrant workers, known as ‘navvies’, who built the complex rail lines had squalid living conditions. In response, religious groups established dedicated missions. In the Western Dales, the construction of the Settle-Carlisle line and West Coast Mainline left behind a trail of small chapels, churches, and meeting houses dedicated to these workers. [11][12]
The Railway Mission, founded in 1881, continues to provide support and solace to everyone associated with the railways. [21]
The Railway Mission was founded in 1881. It was a Christian philanthropic organization designed to combat the ‘sinful behaviour’ of railway workers. It provided spiritual guidance, reading rooms, and temperance advocacy to railway employees. [13][14]
Spiritual Metaphors: The advent of steam engines gave birth to rich new religious vocabulary. Preachers and poets of the era often invoked railways as metaphors for salvation. In popular broadsides like ‘The Spiritual Railway’, repentance was the ‘station’, the Word of God was the ‘first engineer’, and Faith was the passenger train! [15]
Nikolaus Pevsner transcribed the following lines from a memorial in the cloister of Ely Cathedral to two victims of an accident on the Norwich to Ely railway line in 1845. Pevsner finds it “eminently characteristic of the earnestness with which this new triumph of human ingenuity was still regarded.” [9]
“The line to Heaven by Christ was made, With heavenly truth the Rails are laid, From Earth to Heaven the Line extends, To Life Eternal where it ends. Repentance is the Station then, Where Passengers are taken in ; No Fee for them is there to pay, For Jesus is himself the way. God’s Word is the first Engineer, It points the way to Heaven so clear, Through tunnels dark and dreary here. It does the way to Glory steer. God’s Love the fire, his Truth the Steam, Which drives the Engine and the Train; All you who would to Glory ride, Must come to Christ, in him abide. In First, and Second, and Third Class, Repentance, Faith, and Holiness, You must the way to Glory gain, Or you with Christ will not remain. Come then poor Sinners, now’s the time, At any Station on the Line, If you’ll repent, and turn from sin, The Train will stop and take you in.” [10]
Dedicated Chapels in entirely new settlements, such as Tebay in Cumbria, sprang up around major railway junctions. The influx of workers forced the Church of England and Nonconformists to erect new places of worship (like the 1885 Methodist chapel in Tebay) specifically to serve the growing railway community. [16]
Tebay Methodist Chapel built in 1885 to serve the railway community. [Google Streetview, September 2024]
Michael Ainsworth wrote an article in 2015 which reflected on Railways, Clergy, Religion and the Law. [17] In it he said:
“The coming of the railways in the 19th century excited deep passions among churchmen, as many novels of the time illustrate. The manner in which building was legally driven through, line-by-line, has been exhaustively documented. For some the speed, the smoke, the ‘blot on the landscape’, were unnatural and diabolical – particularly when Sunday trains broke the sabbath commandment. The vast church of St Bartholomew Brighton was built on a commanding site, and allegedly on the dimensions of Noah’s Ark, as a witness to those travelling down for ‘dirty weekends’. However, one of the most ‘proper’ films ever, Brief Encounter, takes place in a railway station … at Carnforth,” [17]
“Clergy joined with landowners in resisting encroachment. (They had limited success – note, for example, how the line curves round Sacred Trinity Church in Salford.) The perils of rail travel were brought home early by the first railway fatality, in 1830, of William Huskisson MP at the opening of the Liverpool to Manchester line: a memorial at the site, still clearly visible on the line over Chat Moss, was erected in 1913. The dangers were confirmed by the Tay Bridge disaster of 1879 which evoked what has been widely hailed as the worst poem in the English language (but curiously enjoyable) by William McGonagall.” [17]
“But others hailed railways as a godsend and a sign of divinely-blessed progress (despite blighting the urban landscape) … By the latter part of the century, they had certainly revolutionised episcopal ministry. The late 19th-century renewal of enthusiasm for confirmation would not have been possible without the railways. For example, of James Fraser, Bishop of Manchester 1870-85, it was written he spent the week travelling through his diocese, so that there were few days in which he was not somewhere on the railways.” [17]
James Fraser, Bishop of Manchester, 1870-1885, consecrated 99 new parish churches across Manchester Diocese.. He was a frequent railway passenger. [24]
Michael Ainsworth moved on to reflect on clergy interest in railways (model, real or fictional). He said:
“Among clergy who have been ‘keen on railways’, perhaps Eric Treacy, Bishop of Wakefield from 1968-76, significantly described in his Google entry as railway photographer and Anglican bishop, in that order, was pre-eminent. He died in 1978 on Appleby station awaiting a rail-tour arrival. One of the few lapses in Alan Bennett’s chronicling of northern life is in his … Bed Among the Lentils where ‘Mrs Vicar’, the alcoholic wife of a Leeds incumbent (in the diocese of Ripon, as it then was) entertains the bishop who leaves on the pretext of having to bless a steam engine in Keighley (then in another diocese: Bradford, as it then was). However both – plus Treacy’s diocese of Wakefield – are now within the diocese of West Yorkshire and the Dales, aka Leeds (whichever it has decided to call itself), so no harm is done. Appleby remains in Carlisle diocese.
“It has often been said that the reason why some clergy – probably male rather than female – and others, including church musicians, are keen on railways is because they are reassuringly ‘closed systems’, and Awdry’s setting of his railways on the Isle of Sodor confirms this. Lines and boundaries are set, detailed timetables can be pored over, structures are clear: a joy for those who run model railways in their attics for their own pleasure, or larger versions in their gardens to raise funds – both, according to various reports, threatened from time to time by health and safety regulations.
“This joy is less pronounced now that the real railways have been franchised and fragmented. Responsibility for trains, track, signalling, stations and all else is dispersed among many bodies – providing more benefit to lawyers than to passengers, or ‘customers’. Connections, where they exist at all, cannot be held because they will incur a fine for stopping too long in the station. Problems are always someone else’s fault.” [17]
In their book, ‘The Railway Station: A Social History‘, Jeffrey Richards & John M. McKenzie also make connections between Religion, the Clergy and the Railway (particularly the Railway Station):
“Many … have come to the conclusion that the role and atmosphere of the station large and small is essentially ecclesiastical. G. K. Chesterton, a self-confessed station saunterer, celebrated the station as a temple of tradition, a comforting source of continuity in a world increasingly dedicated to change:
“The only way of catching a train I have ever discovered is to miss the train before. Do this, and you will find in a railway station much of the quietude and consolation of a cathedral. It has many of the characteristics of a great ecclesiastical building; it has vast arches, void spaces, coloured lights, and above all, it has recurrence of ritual. It is dedicated to the celebration of water and fire, the two prime elements of all human ceremonial. Lastly, a station resembles the old religions rather than the new religions in this point, that people go to it. In connection with this it should also be remembered that all popular places, all sites actually used by the people, tend to retain the best routine of antiquity very much more than any localities or machines used by any privileged class. Things are not altered so quickly or coarsely by common people as they are by fashionable people. … If you wish to find the past preserved, follow the million feet of the crowd. At the worst the uneducated only wear down old things by sheer walking. But the educated kick them down out of sheer culture. I feel this profoundly as I wander about the empty railway station, where I have no business of any kind. I have extracted a vast number of chocolates from automatic machines; I have obtained cigarettes, toffee, scent, and other things that I dislike by the same machinery; I have weighed myself with sublime results; and this sense not only of the healthiness of popular things, but of their essential antiquity and permanence is still in possession of my mind.” [26: p11-12][27: p219-224]
Richards & Mackenzie note that a similar sense of ecclesiastical peace was detected by Karel Čapek in Czech country stations:
“There are little stations threaded on the lines like beads on a rosary; they stand in the solitude like places of pilgrimage, far from the profane noises of the world; they are the real chapels dedicated to the silent ceremony of Waiting. They are led to as a rule by a country lane with a straggling row of trees; the longer it is the more profound and lasting is the silence which embraces the pilgrim who comes to the station to wait. … We who are waiting, shuffle from one foot to the other and cough under our breath like worshippers in a chapel; we are dressed in clean clothes and depressed in a Sunday sort of way. … ‘Mummy!’ says the piping voice of a little girl. ‘Be quiet’, her mother reproves her in a whisper. ‘Mummy, when will the train come?’ Be quiet, little girl, we have to wait for the train to come. If you aren’t as good as if you were in church, the train won’t come, and we shan’t go away in it to the ends of the earth.” [28: p99-101]
Ricahrds & Mackenzie comment that it is appropriate that Canon Roger Lloyd spoke of the quietude of Marylebone Station:
“It is essentially peaceful and when some rather fussy penitent told his father confessor that he could find nowhere in London where he could meditate in quiet and peace, he was astonished to hear the caustic answer: ‘Have you tried Marylebone, my son?'” [29: p99]
Richards & Mackenzie argue that it is possible to extend the metaphor ad infinitum:
“For if the station is seen as cathedral or chapel, it can also be seen to possess in its heyday a Bible every bit as imposing and sometimes even as impenetrable as the Authorized Version (Bradshaw), incense (steam), and liturgical chanting (‘The train now standing at platform 3 is …’, ‘Close the doors and stand clear’, ‘All change’). In some countries nature imitates art and makes this fancy reality. In Tsarist Russia, icons were often placed in railway-station waiting-rooms and in Greece there were shrines at stations where the traveller could light candles to protect him on his journey. The ceiling of the Great Hall at the old Euston Station was deliberately modelled on that of the church of St. Peter extra muros in Rome.” [26: p12-13]
So, they go on to note that:
“Somehow sensing this connection, clerics have been drawn as if by a magnet to the rails. Bishop Eric Treacy of Wakefield, who had an engine named after him, was a tireless photographer of and writer about railways. Similarly prolific and passionate in their dedication were Canon Roger Lloyd, author of, among other works, The Fascination of Railways, Canon Reginald Fellows, researcher into the history of Bradshaw, Canon Victor Whitechurch, creator of the fictional railway detective Thorpe Hazell, and Revd Wilbert Awdrey, author of the much-loved children’s books about Thomas the Tank Engine and his friends. Archbishop William Temple when headmaster of Repton had a complete mental recall of Bradshaw and would set as an imposition for an errant boy the best way of travelling from Great Yarmouth to Exeter or Penrith to Ipswich without touching London, complete with changes and times. He would then correct it from memory. It was therefore entirely fitting that, in the celebrated Ealing comedy about the last age of steam, The Titfield Thunderbolt should be driven by the local vicar and fired by a visiting bishop.” [26: p13]
Richards & Mackenzie also talk of trainspotters taking up their hallowed places at the end of station platforms and holding well-thumbed copies of the Ian Allan Guide: “the Bible of their cult.” [26: p13]
They reflect too on the use of railways on pilgrimages, particularly in India:
“The religious metaphor is never very far from the pen of the writer on railways and stations. But railways have also had a powerful literal effect upon religious movements around the world. Stations everywhere took on the role of the Tabard Inn at Southwark, where Chaucer’s pilgrims assembled for their journey to Canterbury. Muslims flocked to the stations of Russian Central Asia, up-country India, Malaya, and North Africa to commence their long journeys to Mecca. The leaders of Eastern religions which had resisted the appearance of the railway, as in China and Japan, soon found that their co-religionists swiftly took to the rails to visit temples and shrines. The stations of the South African Boer Republics, themselves huge concessions to the modern world which the Boers would originally much rather have done without, took on some of the dour, flinty character of Dutch Reformed Calvinism.
“But it was in India that the railways produced their most dramatic religious effect. Hinduism is one of the most mobile of all religions and Hindus found in the railways a hitherto unimaginable opportunity to travel to shrines, pilgrim centres, and important ceremonies. The Murray’s Handbooks to India are punctuated with references to stations much used by pilgrims. In 1906, the Chief Superintendent of the East India Railway provided readers of the Railway Magazine with a graphic description of a pilgrimage to Allahabad. [26: p172-174][32: p326-328] Every twelve years, a ceremony known as the Kumbh mela took place at the confluence of the Jumna (Yamuna) and Ganges rivers just outside Allahabad. The ceremonies lasted for a month and millions attended, many coming only for a few days.
For the duration of the mela as many as twenty pilgrim trains a day, each carrying a thousand passengers, might be brought into Allahabad in addition to the normal traffic. It was necessary to use all the Allahabad stations, Naini, Kotaparcha, Kyogunge, Allengunge, as well as the Main and Fort stations to distribute the tremendous pressure of passengers. Temporary booking-offices, thatched and constructed of railway sleepers, were built near the site of the mela itself to sell tickets to returning pilgrims. At the station barriers, barricades and pens had to be constructed to separate ‘up’ from ‘down’ passengers and avoid crushing and injury. Most of the special pilgrim ‘rakes’ were made of goods wagons with a mat on the floor to sit on, and an oil lamp hung from the roof for illumination. Superintendent Huddleston assured his readers that pilgrims found this accommodation perfectly comfortable and never made any complaints. Pilgrims, he went on, were the most patient of passengers. But even they had been known to take direct action when driven to desperation. Some years earlier a train carrying pilgrims had been so seriously held up that its journey had taken twenty-four hours rather than seven or eight. Towards the end of the journey the pilgrims discovered that their train had been shunted into a siding at a station in order to give precedence to the mail train:
“They thought it time to take action on their own account. Several of them thereupon left their carriages and placed their heads on the rails vowing that, rather than allow another train to pass by they would sacrifice their lives. After this demonstration it is needless to say which train got away first, but, of course, there was an outcry because the Mail ran late!” [32: p328]
Sometimes the lack of co-ordination among the different Indian railway companies made things difficult for pilgrims. There were, for example, no through trains from the East India Railway to the Oudh and Rohilkan railway, and pilgrims together with other travellers had all to change trains at Moghalsarai junction, a mere ten miles from the great pilgrim city of Benares (now Varanasi). Huddleston described the scene:
“During pilgrim rushes, surging, struggling crowds filled the platforms and the waiting halls, and while the masses changed from one train to another the station was a Babel. The delays between connecting trains often being considerable, it is needless to remark that the position was one of intolerable discomfort, though it was accepted by both passengers and railway staff as part of the day’s work.” [32: p501-502]
Through trains were eventually provided, and ‘the convenience to pilgrims and relief to Moghalsarai station is immense’.
The complexities of the arrangements made for pilgrimages is borne out in a number of ways. The Government Health Department sent men to examine pilgrims alighting from trains. Their job was to watch out for cases of smallpox and cholera. The railway also had its own medical department, which attempted to take action when cases of plague, small-pox, or cholera were reported:
“During the mela a slight outbreak of cholera occurred at a small station called Manickpore on the Jubbulpore line. The company’s doctor was on the spot in no time, attended the patients, examined the sanitary arrangements, disinfected and closed the station well, and arranged for tanks of pure water to be conveyed from 62 miles away.” [32: p425-426]
The traffic arrangements for the Kumbh Mela in 1906 were entrusted to the same officer who had made all the arrangements for the Great Delhi Durbar organized by the Viceroy Curzon in 1904. He was provided with 450 employees to help. The earnings from the pilgrims, who travelled at very low fares, amounted to £53,500 in 27 days. Superintendent Huddleston noted with evident self-satisfaction that ‘everything worked without a hitch, and there was not a single accident of any kind’. [26: p172-174]
‘The Railway Age’, according to Richards & Mackenzie had many faults. But:
“But it was an age which saw the slow, sure, and steady progress of social improvement and it was an age of hope, of optimistic belief in the future, unashamed aspiration for better days and better conditions in the world. The great stations stand, if they do still stand, as towering monuments to that belief, public meeting-places where faith in the perfectibility of man by his own ingenuity and the blessing of a divine providence was daily affirmed. In this respect, the oft-quoted cathedral metaphor is not inapt. Stations were cathedrals of the new technology. They were also places of hope, faith, and inextinguishable humanity, embodiments of that spirit that Charles MacKay captured so well in his poem ‘Railways 1846’. [26: p17]
John MacKay’s poem reads:
‘Railways 1846’ by John MacKay. [30: p69]
For a more about Clergy and Railways, please click here. [7]
It is also worth listening to Railway Mania Podcast Episode 19 to gain an understanding of the way in which Christian non-conformists in the UK were so instrumental in the development of the railways in the UK. [8]
Railway Chaplains
As we have already noted, The Railway Mission is a British mission devoted to the rail industry. It was founded in 1881 based in mission halls, and now operates a chaplaincy service across the rail network in the UK.
In the early days of the Railway Mission there were a number of mission halls at railway stations throughout the country. These days Railway Chaplains cover hundreds of miles by train. Lorraine Worsley-Carter points to one of these chaplains – Revd. Mike Roberts: “Mike works under the auspices of the Railway Mission. He covers a vast area in the North West from Stafford to Carlisle, Blackpool to the Pennines. This includes 11 Passenger and Freight Operators; Network Rail; 11 depots; over a hundred stations and 50 signal boxes. He is also a chaplain to the British Transport Police.” [20]
The Railway Mission is committed to making a real difference to the lives of people in the “railway family.” [21] The Railway Mission says this about its work on the railways:
“Every day, rail colleagues keep passengers and freight moving safely. When something difficult happens a fatality, a serious incident, an assault, a sudden death in the team – it is people who carry it home. … Railway Mission chaplains are present across the network. We offer calm, confidential pastoral support in the moment, and we stay alongside staff and managers as they take the next steps. Sometimes that is a quiet conversation at a depot or station. Sometimes it helps a manager hold a team together after devastating news. … In 2025, our chaplains recorded 9,157 support interactions across the industry. 23.5% were requested by a manager or director, a sign that chaplaincy is valued not only for individual care, but also for coordinated, time-critical support after incidents. …
“Independent social value work using RSSB’s Rail Social Value Tool has estimated that for every £1 invested in Railway Mission chaplaincy, around £3.13 of social value is generated. That is why partner support matters. It keeps chaplains present where and when staff need them most.” [22]
Lorraine Worsley-Carter says: “The introduction of railway chaplains in the United Kingdom has been a significant development in the provision of spiritual and emotional support to both railway employees and passengers. These dedicated individuals serve a crucial role in an industry that operates around the clock, often under stressful and challenging conditions. … One of the primary attributes of railway chaplains is their ability to provide emotional support to railway employees. Working in the railway industry can be physically and mentally demanding, with long hours and often unpredictable schedules. Railway chaplains offer a listening ear and a supportive presence, helping employees cope with the stresses and challenges of their jobs. They provide a safe space for employees to discuss their concerns, anxieties, and personal issues, which can have a positive impact on mental health and job satisfaction.” [20]
What About Patron Saints?
Some are highlighted by John Bull (inspired by writer Anne Thériault). [18] Here they are!
Saint Christopher – Patron Saint of Travellers – St Christopher’s sainthood is based on his, allegedly, having carried the baby Jesus across a river. As such he is the generic Patron Saint for travellers. He is also Saint Patron of Truck Drivers!
Saint Montague – Patron Saint of Railways – Montague was the abbot of a monastery, but died when he was hit by a locomotive. This is likely another of the Catholic Church’s canonisations to keep up with new transport technologies.
Saint Galthus – Patron Saint of Steam Engines – Saint Galthus is the patron of steam engines. Having run the Pope’s private rail line, he was martyred by a faulty boiler. His body was found to be incorruptible after death and he was duly canonized. Although, it is said his Pope just really loved trains.
4. Saint Catherine of Alexandria – Patron Saint of Railway Workers – Catherine was a 4th century martyr, was well educated, and is also the patron saint of philosophers and preachers. It is not clear why she was anointed Patron Saint of Railway Workers, although the social media posts of some railway workers do point to a degree of philosophising and preaching! [18]
Painting by Caravaggio (1598–99) in the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum in Madrid. [31]
According to John Bull there are other patron saints who can be considered as being closely allied to railways. [18] Here are a few:
St Dominic de la Calzada– Patron Saint of Civil Engineers – worked on building bridges and paved causeways to help pilgrims in Spain – calzada means causeway in Spanish. [18]
St Bénézet – Patron Saint of Bridge Builders – Bénézet saw a vision during the eclipse of 1177 that propelled him to build a bridge over the River Rhône at Avignon. He built the bridge single-handedly, as church and civil authorities refused to help him, thus becoming an early advocate for community based transport planning. [18]
Saint Barbara – Patron Saint of Tunnellers (and Mining Engineers) – Saint Barbara, has often been invoked to protect diggers and mine engineers in such dangerous work, and so is also the patron saint of miners. And by extension the patron saint of railway tunnels and tunnellers. To this day, tunnels under construction often have a small alcove in which a small statue of her is placed, for her divine protection. The medieval miners also named digging equipment after women in her honour, and this tradition is still followed to the present – tunnel boring machines (TBMs) are still given female names! [18]
In addition to religious saints, John Bull also provides some suggestions for ‘Secular Saints’, including these. [18]
Thomas Rammell – Patron Saint of Pneumatic Railways – Engineer Thomas Rammell had a single-minded obsession with pneumatic railways, beginning with his London Pneumatic Despatch Railway … Although this seems more like a case for Saint Jude, the Patron Saint of Hopeless Causes.
Antonio Gaudí – Patron Saint of Trams – Architect Antonio Gaudí was struck & killed by a tram right next to his under-construction La Sagrada Familia Basílica. Unfortunately he looked quite dishevelled, so passersby thought he was a vaigrant and he didn’t get the medical help that could have saved his life.
Saint Harriet – Patron Saint of the Underground Railroad – some Anglicans consider Harriet Tubman a saint, as she was the conductor of the Underground Railroad in the US. Whilst not a physical railroad, but more a concept, Harriet deserves inclusion.
And finally … Having Faith in the Rail Industry (A Muslim Perspective)
CPMS-Egis Scheme Project Manager Farah Sajwani on the challenges to make the railways inclusive to all religions. As a Middle Eastern Muslim Farah Sajwani never thought she’d be working in the railway for a company in England. Farah’s journey into the industry began when she left Oman to pursue an undergraduate degree in chemical engineering in Australia. She then moved to Manchester, where she completed her postgraduate degree in engineering project management. It was from here that she moved to London and joined the graduate scheme at CPMS-Egis where she has been for nearly three years. [June 2021]
This is an article from RailDirector magazine: [23: p46-47]
“Landing a job in a railway-focused company was very exciting, yet overwhelming, as I came from a country that did not have a railway,” said Farah. “I was a little apprehensive at first as I was concerned about being credible and having a successful career there, not knowing much about rail, but everyone has been very welcoming and helpful and I’m really enjoying it. Another pleasant surprise was getting a graduate placement in a company that is understanding and inclusive of other cultures and religions. I’d often heard friends saying that the working environment can be tough and that people from a different ethnicity, religion, education and national origin can sometimes feel left out in the workplace, but I have been fortunate at CPMS-Egis. I have felt included from the outset of my placement and am now Scheme Project Manager. I am also actively involved in the company’s EDI and Community Kindness Groups.”
In February [2021], Farah was invited by Women in Rail (WR) to join the Equality Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Charter Working Group created by Women in Rail (WR) and the Railway Industry Association (RIA) following its launch last November. “I’ve joined the Charter Working Group because I want to make a difference and help organisations understand better how to attract a more diverse workforce and be more inclusive,” she said. “I think every person, regardless of their ethnicity, religious beliefs and background should be able to contribute equally to the growth and wellbeing of the organisation they work for, thrive in their job and realise their full potential.”
The EDI Charter has already been signed by more than 160 organisations which demonstrate the industry’s commitment to the equality, diversity and inclusion agenda. The EDI Charter Working Group comprises young professionals in rail chosen by WR and RIA on the basis of their personal commitment and qualities and the fact that they represent a spectrum of the backgrounds, ages, genders and identities and various grades, roles and companies within the UK rail industry at this particular point in time.
“Being part of the working group is the opportunity to share my experiences and to help organisations understand better what may be holding them back from attracting a diverse workforce and being more inclusive,” she said. “It is also a way for me to be the voice of the people who share my background who may be facing challenges in the workplace but are not able or prepared to speak out. Each member of the group brings a different perspective on EDI and the challenges to inclusion so the group is not only about sharing my experiences, explaining how companies can be more inclusive of Muslim women, but also about learning about others, listening to their experiences, their challenges, and understanding how I can myself help foster better inclusion in the workplace and the railway.”
Farah is using her voice to inform the industry about what can be done to encourage more Muslims into the rail sector. Like nearly all industries in the UK, Muslims face universal barriers to employment, with prejudice believed to be a contributor as to why unemployment rates are more than double that of any other community. … “I am keen to use my voice to raise awareness to the need to create more flexibility around the working environment in the railways for people like me,” she said. “For instance, as a Muslim, I don’t celebrate Christmas and I don’t do anything special on Boxing Day, yet as an employee, it is automatically assumed that I will take those days off because it is a bank holiday. It would be good to be able to work those days and use that credit to take time off on the days I celebrate my religion such as Eid-al Fitr (Festival of Breaking the Fast) which follows Ramadan (a month of fasting).”
“Again, with Ramadan it would be good if organisations could make people more aware that they have colleagues fasting and ask them to be a little bit more understanding. I have found my colleagues at CPMS-Egis to be really supportive, but I am aware that it is not always the case for other Muslim people. … In the long term, it would be good to see employers make prayer space available for everyone. I pray five times a day so it would be nice to have a personal space to do this, but this space could also be used as a meditation room for individuals or just somewhere where anyone who needs to take a moment can decompress, … I am pregnant at the moment and flexibility is important to me, to go to hospital appointments for instance. As long as I am doing my job right and making up the working hours, that should be the main focus.”
It is these sorts of ideas that Farah hopes to promote and move forward as part of her role in the working group of the EDI Charter. “When I first joined the rail industry, I did feel a little awkward when I was taking time off to celebrate my faith and during Ramadan when I was fasting,” she said.“Organisations could look at offering more flexible hours for employees during these times, because for example I don’t take a lunch break when fasting. … A lot of it comes down to raising awareness, which is a priority for me with the EDI Charter Working Group. Inclusion is not a case of one size fits all and what works for one organisation. might not work for another. Employers need to connect with their employees, open the discussion and both need to work together to make it work for them.”
“Our role as the EDI Charter Working Group is about understanding our respective challenges and come up with ideas and suggestions as to how employers can address them so they can attract a more diverse workforce and create better inclusion. … I have really enjoyed my time in the rail industry so far and I really want to play my part in making sure I help everyone feel included, whilst at the same time encouraging others to join the industry. … Based on my overall experiences so far, I would recommend the rail industry to everyone and I would encourage everyone to speak up if they face challenges. … There are lots of opportunities to work in the railways. You just need to understand the industry and make sure the industry understands you.” [23: p46-47]
References
Nicholas Faith; The World the Railways Made; Pimlico, London, 1990, 1994, p259-270.
J. N. Westwood; A History of Russian Railways, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1964.
Michael Ainsworth; Thoughts on railways, clergy, religion and the law; in Law & Religion UK, 17th April 2015; via https://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2016/04/17, accessed on 8th July 2026.
John Eade; The Changing Role of Railways in the Life of a European Pilgrimage Shrine; via Researchgate; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289637979_THE_CHANGING_ROLE_OF_RAILWAYS_IN_THE_LIFE_OF_A_EUROPEAN_PILGRIMAGE_SHRINE, accessed on 9th July 2026. This paper examines the changing role of the railway in the development of one of the most important Roman Catholic shrines – Lourdes in France. During the second half of the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth century, trains were vital in establishing Lourdes’ position as a major national and international shrine. Although the expansion of car ownership and tourism after the Second World War have vastly increased, the numbers visiting the shrine, the importance of the railway has declined. This paper examines the changing role played by the railway in the shrine’s development, the declining importance of organised pilgrimage groups and the growth of individual choice and the flexibility provided by diverse modes of transport. It concludes with a consideration of the relevance of this case study to the study of pilgrimage and tourism in Europe and beyond.
The featured image for this short article is a relatively poor/grainy photograph taken on Sunday 25th July 1937 at Liverpool Bank Hall Engine Shed. Prominent in the photograph and identified by the photographer, is ex-L&YR 0-8-0 7F Locomotive No. 12981. In the background LMS 4-6-0 No. 5229 can be glimpsed. [Unknown Photographer]
In June 2026, I was given an image printed on a postcard in 1937. The photograph was taken at Liverpool Bank Hall Engine Shed (Code 27A) which was in north Liverpool, located just off Stanley Road in Kirkdale/Bootle. This is a ‘down-the-rabbit-hole’ kind of article in which I follow my nose from the photograph above and see where that leads. ….
Also seen at Liverpool Bank Hall Locomotive Shed (27A) was No. 12782, another ex-L&YR 0-8-0 locomotive. No. 12782 is one of the survivors of a once numerous class of L&Y Aspinall Class 30 0-8-0 6Fs dating from 1901. It was withdrawn in 9/50, almost the last of its Class. Note the most obvious difference from No. 12981, the cab. This photograph was taken on 20th June 1948, (c) Ben Brooksbank and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike license 2.0 (CC BY-SA 2.0). [1]Another view of Locomotive No. 12782 at Bank Hall. On the same road is ex-L&Y 1F 0-6-0T LMS No. 11535, fitted with dumb buffers and swinging spark-arrestor for working in the Docks, (c) Ben Brooksbank and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike license 2.0 (CC BY-SA 2.0). [2]
Bank Hall Shed was and L&YR shed which was later operated by the LMS and later British Railways, it housed L&YR ‘Pug’ 0-4-0Ts for dock shunting, Class 02 shunters like D2852, and Stanier Class 5s for Liverpool Exchange passenger services.
Ex L&YR ‘Pug’ 0-4-0T locomotive – LMS No. 11246 at Liverpool Bank Hall Locomotive Shed on 20th June 1948, (c) Ben Brooksbank and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike license 2.0 (CC BY-SA 2.0). [3]
Records available online give details of the locomotives on Bank Hall Shed on Sunday 7th March 1937, Sunday 27th February 1938 and Sunday 7th September 1941 do not show No. 12981 as being on shed. This is not conclusive evidence that No. 12981 was not allocated to Bank Hall as it may, in each case, have been out on duty. However, No. 12981 is recorded as being on shed on Saturday 3rd October 1942. [4]
No. 12981 was one of a number of L&YR 0-8-0 locomotives transferred to the LMS at the grouping. L&YR Class 30 locomotives were classified by the LMS as 6F locomotives there are a couple of images of one of these locomotives above. No. 12981 was a L&YR Class 31 locomotive. This class were given a power-rating of 7F by the LMS. “The class was designed by George Hughes and introduced in 1912. The class comprised 115 new locomotives (the 1546 Class, built 1912–21) and 40 rebuilt from two other classes: the 91 Class (built 1900–08) and the 9 Class (built 1918).” [5][6][7][8]
A LMS (ex-L&YR) 7F 0-8-0 at Normanton Shed in 1947. This is No. 12928, built by Hughes c. 1920, withdrawn in September 1947 – soon after this photograph was taken. Note the style of cab on this locomotive matches the cabs on the Class 30 locomotives. (c) Ben Brooksbank and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike license 2.0 (CC BY-SA 2.0). [9]
This image was for sale on eBay. It shows the same cab as the featured image for this article above. The vendor describes the locomotive as LMS ex-L&YR Class 91 Loco. No. 1440 (LMS 12981). It appears that No. 12981 was a locomotive rebuilt at Horwich from a Class 91 Locomotive built between 1900 and 1908. [10]
This is also a Class 91 0-8-0 – it has the same cab as the Class 30 locomotives. [11]
Another image for sale on eBay shows another Class 31 – No. 12856. This has the same cab detail as the Class 30 locomotives. [12]
An ex-works photograph of L&YR locomotive No. 1427 which was one of the L&YR’s Class 91 locomotives. It became No. 12990 in LMS days. Note that the cab is the same as No. 12981. Given that this is an ex-works image, it is clear that this batch of locomotives were given a different of cab compared with their cousins. [13]
Bank Hall Locomotive Shed was situated off Stanley Road close to the Kirkdale tunnels. The depot was opened in 1865 and closed in 1966. At the time of closure it had two sheds – a brick-built 8-road dead-ended shed and a brick built shed with 4 through roads and 4 dead-end roads. The next two map extracts are taken from the 1st Edition 25″ Ordnance Survey. Two sheets cover the area of the Bank Hall Sheds. The locomotive depot sat to the East of the Liverpool, Crosby and Southport line and Northwest of North Docks Branch (through Kirkdale Railway Station) which were in turn alongside the Cheshire Lines Railway.
One of the two sheds at Bank Hall Locomotive Depot can be seen at the bottom left of this map extract. Immediately North of the shed is Atlantic Docks Junction (LNWR) which was established on 5th September 1881 It was the point at which the Alexandra Dock branch diverted from the original Bootle branch just east of the Canada Dock Tunnel. Stanley Road is at the bottom left of the extract, with tram lines heading North and South along it. A tramway depot is just to the North of this map extract. Northeast of Kirkdale Station which sits in the top right of this map extract. The North Docks Branch (L&YR) and the Cheshire Lines Railway (CLC) enter Kirkdale tunnels and underground separate with the CLC lines heading Northeast towards Walton-on-the-Hill Railway Station. Two turntables can be seen within the curtilage of locomotive depot. [14]The second of the two engine sheds can be see centre-top of this map extract. Bankhall station can be seen top-left with the Liverpool, Crosby and Southport line curving away to the Northwest. The 4 through roads sit on the west side of the shed. the four dead-end roads enter from the North end of the shed. A multiplicity of marshalling sidings sit to the East of the depot. Stanley Road with its tramway are to the West of the locomotive sheds. [15]
This map extract shows the depot in 1906. The OS Sheet was surveyed in 1906 and published in 1908. There are no obvious differences from the map extracts above. The next edition of the OS mapping of 1924/25 shows no further change from this map extract. [16]
The same location in the 21st century. The site is occupied by Kirkdale Traction Maintenance Depot. It is home to Mersey Rail’s 777 fleet of trains and the engineers workshop for the old 507/8s. [Google Maps, July 2026]
In 1903, the Mersey Railway was electrified; this was the world’s first full electrification of a steam railway. It was followed by the electrification of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway line from the Liverpool Exchange railway station to Southport railway station three years later. In 1937, electrification of the Wirral Railway lines to New Brighton railway station and West Kirby railway station enabled service into Liverpool via the Mersey Railway Tunnel. Bank Hall continued to serve and stable steam locomotives, by the 1937, it had one of the large reinforced concrete coaling stages. Shed Bash UK provides details of locomotives stabled/allocated to Bank Hall MPD in the period from 1937 to 1966 when it closed. [4]
Memories of Bank Hall Sheds (27A) in the period 1960-1966 can be found here. [17]
After 1966, with Bank Hall MPD closed remaining steam-powered services were supported from elsewhere and 1968 waw the last of regular steam use in the country.
Between 1966 and 1980, the Mersey Railway became part of the Merseyrail network which was radically transformed from a fragmented group of suburban lines into a unified, metro-style urban transit system. This era saw the introduction of the Merseyrail brand, the construction of the underground city centre tunnels, and the replacement of aging pre-war rolling stock with modern electric trains. Merseyrail made use of the older Class 502 EMU units until 1980.
The British Rail Class 502 was a n EMU originally built by the LMS at its Derby Works. Introduced in 1940 and withdrawn by 1980, they spent the whole of their working lives on the electrified railway lines north of Liverpool. Their original livery was LMS maroon. [20]
In the 21st century, modern traction on Mersey Rail includes the older Class 507/8 EMUs and the more modern Class 777 EMUs. These are maintained on the site of the old MPD at Bank Hall.
The British Rail Class 507 electric multiple unit (EMU) passenger trains were built by British Rail Engineering Limited at Holgate Road carriage works in two batches from 1978 to 1980. They are a variant of British Rail’s standard 1972 design for suburban EMUs which eventually encompassed 755 vehicles over five classes (Class 313, 314, 315, 507 and 508), (c) Vanmanyo and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 4.0). [18]
The British Rail Class 777 METRO is a class of electric multiple unit passenger trains delivered by the Swiss rolling stock manufacturer Stadler Rail, being used on the Merseyrail network, (c) Rodhullandemu (2021) and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 4.0). [19]
The featured image for this article shows a brand new standard-gauge locomotive – 0-6-4T Mersey Railway No. 1 ‘The Major’. It had not yet received its nameplates when it posed in ‘works grey’ at the Beyer, Peacock works at Manchester in 1885. The locomotive served on the Mersey Railway until that line decided on electrification. Four engines from the line, including ‘The Major’ found employment in Australia, on John Brown’s private light railway – the Richmond Vale Railway in New South Wales. The image comes from “Light Railways – Australia’s Magazine Industrial and Narrow Gauge Railways.” It is included here as an example of a standard gauge locomotive employed on an industrial line recognised as a light railway by ‘The Light Railway Research Society of Australia’. Not all ‘Light railways’ were narrow gauge, nor were their locomotives small 0-4-0T or 0-6-0T locomotives. [7]
W.J.K. Davies tells us that in the 1870s, it became apparent both in the UK and other countries that “many districts, while they would benefit immensely from the facilities afforded by a railway, just could not maintain a line built and operated to main line standards. And so, gradually, during the 1870’s and 1880’s, the concept of the light railway was formulated; a sub-standard means of bringing the advantages of rail transport into rural districts with the deliberate intention of opening them up and improving them. It must be made clear that this concept was different both from the idea of a standard gauge branch line which, although single track, was built and equipped in such things as signalling, stock and staffing to the same standards as the main lines, and from those narrow gauge lines already in existence which had been constructed in difficult country for a specialized purpose, normally the carriage of minerals; the best example of which was the Ffestiniog Railway, in Wales. These lines were not light railways in the true sense of the term.” [1: p24]
“The true light railway developed first beyond the confines of the UK, “while at home even the minor railways, both standard and narrow gauge, were still largely restricted by custom which demanded such things as raised station platforms, separate goods yards and elaborate signalling arrangements; and by Board of Trade regulations framed for more ambitious projects. Even abroad, ideas developed in various ways in different countries, usually by trial and error methods, and it was not until the 1890’s, when the International Railway Congress debated the situation at several of their annual conferences, that anything resembling a clear picture of what constituted a light railway emerged.” [1: p24-25]
“The term, as might be expected, proved difficult to define, for what was a light railway in one country, might be considered main line in another; it might be of standard or narrow gauge depending on the circumstances. In Britain, a light railway usually meant a light branch line of an average length of about ten miles, while on the other hand, in France, metre gauge lines substantially built with considerable engineering works and often fifty miles or more in length were also classed as light railways as indeed they were in comparison with the cost of building and maintaining a standard gauge line in the same circumstances. Perhaps the best definition is that a light railway is a line of railway constructed deliberately below the standard of a country’s main line railways for the sake of economy in construction and working and intended to open up a poor district, at the same time producing additional traffic for the main lines. It must, if it is to obtain all the advantages of being a light railway, be freed from many restrictions imposed on main lines for safety reasons, such as elaborate signalling, manning of level crossings, etc. It must be able to throw off sidings at convenient points and even perhaps have portable tracks laid right into the farms. In order to have these advantages, it will also have to put up with some restrictions the imposition of a low maximum speed, the need often for special light locomotives and rolling stock so as not to strain a light trackbed, a lower standard of comfort, and problems of interchange of goods with the main line.” [1: p25]
In the 1890s, a light railway was seen as having desirable and undesirable features. “It must be borne in mind that some of the theories have been disproved in practice over the years and also that subsequent developments in road-motor transport particularly have invalidated many of the points put forward as advantageous for instance, no minor line could now tolerate the somewhat slow and leisurely method of operation which some of the ideas presupposed – but, nevertheless, at the time all the arguments for light railways had validity and much construction was based on them. Even now in remote, hilly districts such as one finds in Austria, or under special conditions (e.g. concentrated agricultural traffic such as sugar beet) they may have relevance.” [1: p25]
“The basic tenet of all light railway theory was that the line must be suited to the traffic it was to carry initially and for a period of some years after the opening. Remember that, ipso facto, light railways were to open up poor districts – if the district was rich it could support a full-scale railway from the beginning – and so traffic would have to be generated by the railway. Thus, the argument ran, if a district was estimated to support a traffic of, say, 10,000 tons a year, then it was foolish initially to lay down a railway with a capacity of 50,000 tons a year. Track and equipment would be uneconomically used and, more important, the original capital outlay with its interest charges would be unnecessary and perhaps even fatally large, whereas if the line was constructed in a manner suited to the traffic available it stood a much better chance of paying its way and building up a strong reserve. Then, if and when the increase in traffic caused by its construction warranted the improvement of the railway to higher standards, perhaps even to main line standards, this could be undertaken with evidence of a solid backing, and a considerable amount of goodwill already gained; while if no development occurred, the capital loss was smaller.” [1: p25-26]
The question of suitability for the traffic expected, prompts a consideration of the type of railway required. “Once the traffic was estimated, the best and most economical way of handling it had to be considered, and immediately the problem of track gauge arose. Now this comes only third in the International Railway Congress’s [IRS] table of conditions influencing the cost of railways in easy country.” [1: p26] The conditions were:
the axle-load, on which the weight of rail depends;
the speed of trains;
the gauge;
the station accommodation. [1: p26] cf. [2]
“Nevertheless the gauge is a very important factor and in hilly or otherwise difficult country its importance becomes paramount. There were two schools of thought, the supporters of the standard gauge (of the country concerned, whether it was 5ft 3in, 4ft 8lin, or 3ft 6in) and those of the narrow gauge, the latter being somewhat divided among themselves by the multiplicity of gauges in use. The proponents of the standard gauge suggested that this was most convenient in all respects, particularly in ‘easy’ country where extensive earthworks were unnecessary. The railway, they said, could at first be laid with light rail and worked by specially designed light locomotives and stock until traffic had increased sufficiently for it to be brought up to ordinary branch line standard. To the objection that such stock would not remove the need for transhipment since light waggons could not be worked in with main line equipment, they suggested that the line could be made just strong enough so that the lighter types of main line stock, in particular goods waggons, could be worked over it, and then, when the time came for upgrading, the trackbed was already there. They pointed out that the narrow gauge had several major disadvantages. First there was the problem and expense of transhipment of goods; then there was the problem of maintaining enough rolling stock for peak periods without too much lying idly by at other times; and thirdly there was the need to maintain expensive separate workshops to service the line’s equipment.” [1: 26]
“The narrow gaugers retorted that there was a considerable difference in capital cost, which might often mean the difference between success and failure; that the transhipment bogey was greatly overrated; that, especially in agricultural country, the narrow gauge had the advantage of being able to use sharper curves and thus to run right into the very farms and warehouses it served, and down the streets of towns if necessary; and that with small railways extensive workshops were not required. Running repairs could be carried out by a competent fitter and the engine crews, and for all heavy repairs it would be more economical to send the stock away to a main line depot. They pointed out, moreover, that the standard gauge had an additional disadvantage that its users might demand an improvement in standards without the necessary traffic to justify these and public opinion might force the railway company to comply. This did in fact happen in several places such as South Australia, where feeder lines were constructed on the standard gauge of 5ft 3in with 40 lb rails, a maximum axle load of 7 tons, 20-ton locomotives and a maximum speed of 20 mph; a set of conditions eminently satisfactory for economical working. Unfortunately, public opinion forced successive increases in weight and speed until the railways were running 35-ton locomotives with a 9-ton axle-load at speeds of up to 35 mph on the original track, which was certainly not a satisfactory state of affairs! As the narrow gauge protagonists said, this was unlikely to happen on the narrow gauge where customers would cheerfully put up with conditions which, on a standard gauge line, would draw forth howls of wrath.” [1: p26-27]
No clear-cut conclusions were possible. The International Railway Congress concluded after meetings over several years, that, “while light railways on the standard gauge might very well serve for fairly short distances over easy ground, there was nothing to be lost from a break of gauge should circumstances require it and indeed in many cases it would be advantageous, through leading to a substantially lower capital cost with consequently lower interest charges and lower maintenance costs. The following Table drawn up by the Congress may be of interest.” [1: p27]
Table 1: Construction Costs per Mile (in £ sterling) in the 1890s. [1: p27]
The cost difference rises rapidly under certain conditions. This is particularly true as the length of line increases or the topography becomes more difficult. Davies notes that Mackay [2] quotes instances of construction costs from: the Indian Sub-continent (one, 17 miles in length) and Australia (one, 6 miles in length and one, 16 miles in length).
India:
Standard-Gauge (5ft 3in): £2,927 per mile
Metre-Gauge: £1,969 per mile
2ft 6in-Gauge: £1,817 per mile
Queensland, Australia:
Standard-Gauge (4ft 8.5in): £46,000 per mile
3ft 6in-Gauge: £15,000 per mile
Davies observes: “there is not a very great difference in the lndian figures, though the difference will become more important as the line lengthens, ln the case of the Queensland line, however, the adoption of a narrower gauge with its sharper curves and smaller road-bed allowed a tremendous reduction in initial cost which would, no doubt, be also reflected in the maintenance costs. If this is considered to be rather an extreme example, then the case of the Styrian Local Government railways in Austria may be of interest. Here the light railway on the standard gauge from Cilli to Woollan cost £9,000 per mile, while the cost of several narrow gauge lines constructed by the same concern in similar terrain averaged under £4,000 per mile and even the 750mm gauge railway from Kapfenberg to Seebach (still in service [in 1964] for goods) which ran through very difficult country cost only £4,265 per mile, including the provision of stock.” [1: p28]
The figures quoted “could of course only be realized if the narrow gauge line was planned to take full advantage of economies in route layout and construction. The IRC pointed out that not too much notice need be taken of laying out the track for easy conversion to a standard gauge railway for, if the expected traffic materialized, then capital could be found to make any modifications to the route that were found necessary; thus if a district would only support a narrow gauge line, it would be folly to make the substructure similar to that of a standard gauge one.” [1: p28]
“The IRC also pointed out, and its opinion was endorsed by many authorities, that even the lightest standard gauge line would often be of too great capacity for the needs of a district and that by adopting a gauge in accordance with the estimated capacity required, all interests would be better served. The Indian railway system, then being extensively developed, is a good example of the sound reasoning behind this theory. In India, the main arteries were built to a gauge of 5ft 6in. Larger areas which were poorly developed but which had a definite potential, were served by metre gauge lines substantially laid and worked to high standards but with a considerable saving in costs these were secondary systems rather than true light railways. Poor or isolated districts, or those in which difficult country made a broader gauge financially impossible, were served either by sub-standard metre gauge lines or by what were termed ‘special gauge’ railways, normally on the military 2ft 6in gauge but occasionally, if conditions warranted it, on the 2ft gauge. It is interesting to note that, except where military expediency decided the gauge (not always 2ft 6in) the gauges chosen seemed well proportioned to their work. A survey in 1895-96 showed that in practice traffic and costs decreased proportionally with each narrowing of gauge, as long as each railway worked within its calculated capacity, and most of the railways are still in use at the present time; [1964] many indeed having been extended and otherwise improved.” [1: p28-29]
The IRC did, however, disapprove of the wide variety of narrow gauges being put into operation. It was considered that: “in order to encourage the development of light lines, the greatest possible liberty should be left them to choose the width of their gauge. … But, it is also advantageous to keep to certain recognised patterns which practice has already approved. … The four ordinary standards, 4ft 8.5in; metre;2ft 6in; and 2ft are only ones which ought to be recommended.” [1: p30]
Davies points out that “It was considered that this would help to increase standardization in the event of lines connecting or the authorities concerned wishing to re-use material. This latter possibly requires a little explanation. One of the points put forward in support of building the smallest possible line to start with was that, if traffic developed to the extent where the railway had to be rebuilt, the original material could be taken away and used again to open up a new district; this of course presupposed some kind of central or local authority control over the construction and working of light railways.” [1: p30]
Davies notes that, “in common with many engineers of the time, members of the International Railway Congress considered that the 2ft gauge was really too narrow, leading to unnecessary slowness and problems of stability. (Those who cited the Festiniog in reply were told quite truly that this was not really a good example; it merely proved that the gauge could, if the need arose, bear a heavy traffic but that no one would suppose it to be ideal for a heavily engineered line carrying some 150,000 tons a year.) The gauge had its champions, however, particularly the Decauville Company in France, who advocated it as very suitable for light roadside tramways, in particular in agricultural areas where sharp curves and many side lines were desirable. This company later built up several quite extensive systems. … It was also used further afield, a typical example being the Darjeeling-Himalaya line in India. The South African Railways especially have shown that the 2ft gauge is by no means a toy [cf. 3] if properly handled.” [1: p30]
Davies says that a narrower gauge was advocated by some for specialized purposes such as estate railways or agricultural lines. Decauville produced the 500mm gauge (about 16in) and in England Sir A. P. Heywood’s pioneering work with the 15in gauge is noted by Davies. Smaller gauges did not, however, catch on and 2ft/600mm remained the smallest gauge in general use. [1: p30]
Whatever the width of the narrow gauge, there was one thing which exercised the minds of all light railway theorists in the 1880s and into the 1890s – “that of transhipment of goods between main line and light railway. It was, of course, a major argument for those who advocated light standard gauge lines but, after considerable study, the experts, both amateurs like Sir Arthur Heywood and professionals like the members of the International Railway Congress came to the conclusion that the problem was not nearly so serious as it seemed. They pointed out that transhipment was taken as a matter of course in other circumstances, that goods were freely transferred from waggons to railway trucks and vice versa without any complaints. A survey of methods in various countries showed that at that time (mid-1890’s) it could be economically done for between 1 1/2 d and 3d a ton; where rates were higher than this, they considered that the procedure should be overhauled and greater co-operation secured between the companies concerned. Co-operation, in fact, was rightly considered the most important factor in transhipment. It was emphasized that the main line concern should encourage the light railways in every possible way since it was to their own advantage to stimulate as much traffic as possible. Several continental countries, such as Austria and Hungary, wrote into their light railway Acts clauses which compelled the main line concerns to give their smaller neighbours every facility and encouraged the initiation of partnership arrangements.” [1: p31]
As to the actual arrangements for transhipping goods, the IRC considered that: “Several special cases may justify the erection of special transhipment fittings but apart from these exceptional cases, as a general rule the most ordinary and most simple methods of transhipment from waggon to waggon, on roads at the same level, should be recommended.” [1: p31]
Davies says that, “A transhipment shed with the lines so arranged that waggon floors were on the same level with a platform between them, or even with the light railway on a slightly higher level so that the interchange platform sloped gently down to the standard gauge, was thought to be the most sensible arrangement and was widely adopted. Considering the basic idea behind a light railway, that it was intended for a comparatively light, general traffic in both directions and including much agricultural produce which would be difficult to tranship in bulk anyway, this was undoubtedly a sound idea, since the capital cost of gantry cranes, tipplers, etc., would only be justified if there was a fairly large, one-way flow of bulky traffic. This did apply in many cases, particularly overseas and when mineral traffic was an important feature of the railway’s economy. Our own Glyn Valley Tramway, for example, although very much a rural steam-worked light railway as far as general traffic was concerned, had a big outgoing granite and slate traffic which justified the installation of fairly elaborate loading banks and two waggon tipplers.” [1: p31]
The considerations around this subject were very different depending on ‘light railway’ practice in any particular country. French metre-gauge light railways could be many kilometres in length and were at least equivalent to a busy shorter branch line in the UK. Traffic generated could be significant. Davies notes: “Here the cost of transhipment became a more important factor than the theorists of the 1890’s realized, especially as road transport with its ‘door-to-door’ capabilities became more competitive. They had advocated the container system as the most suitable but somehow this idea was never widely adopted, while the transporter waggon which allowed standard gauge trucks to be ferried over narrow gauge lines and which had been thought uneconomical because of the time a standard gauge waggon was out of traffic, saw a great development in the [1920s and 1930s]. ” [1: p32-33]
“Success appears to depend largely on the relationship between the gauges involved; 2ft is too narrow to take a 4ft 8 in gauge waggon safely, but with 2ft 6in and metre gauge the system is quite satisfactory and has been extensively used in Belgium, Germany, Austria and other continental countries. Provided the main line is well equipped with rolling stock, the ‘time-out-of-traffic’ problem has not proved important. Its main drawback is that the narrow gauge railway must have sufficient clearances to enable standard gauge stock to pass over it, and this means that many earthworks and all bridges, tunnels, etc., must be to the main line loading-gauge or even slightly larger. In practice this has restricted the use of transporters to lines passing through fairly easy country where such obstructions are at a minimum and the extra cost involved is therefore low. In hilly districts even such considerable systems as the French Vivarais system must keep to the traditional methods with straightforward interchange sidings.” [1: p33]
“The gauge to be used and its associated problems were, however, only one of the factors that had to be taken into account. There were many other considerations, particularly with regard to where economies could safely be practised; and most of these were greatly influenced by the second basic tenet of light railway theory which was that the line should serve the district it ran through otherwise its potentialities would be largely wasted. This axiom may appear self-obvious but it was often neglected with dire results, especially in this country. If it was heeded, it largely determined the theoretical course of a railway, for such a line might well not be able to follow the most direct course or the easiest one from the engineering point of view. For example, a line might be projected to join A and B, some 50 miles apart by the most direct route. Then the promoters would have to consider whether a deviation to serve C, involving about 4 miles extra track mileage would be justified from the point of view of the additional traffic it would create, or the benefit it would give to the district. If it was being sponsored by a local authority specifically to open up a district the line would probably go the long way round but if it was being privately financed this was a major problem, for mileage was inevitably an important factor in determining the cost of the line. The IRC needless to say had very definite views on the subject. A light railway, in its opinion, should provide transport virtually from door to door, or at least from farm to market, and should be laid out to facilitate this in every possible way.” [1: p33]
“But if this was to be done, other problems immediately arose. Laying out a line on the route best calculated to serve the countryside inevitably meant that obstacles that could otherwise have been avoided had to be surmounted. Steep gradients, river and road crossings, sharp curves, particularly where the railway followed a road, were all likely to occur more frequently. Here, incidentally, the narrow gauge scored on all counts; it could take sharper curves, it took up less space on a roadside verge, the proportion of dead to live weight hauled was lower than on a standard gauge line, so that better payloads could be hauled up the gradients, and it was easier to run off both permanent and temporary sidings. Whatever gauge was to be used, however, the problems remained. Was it better to have a shortish, steep gradient or to make a deviation round the rise? Should the railway run along a public road or on its own right of way? Opinions differed, but obviously the need for economy often dictated the final decision. Quite elaborate Tables were calculated to show the effect of varying gradients on working and one is given below.” [1: p33-34]
Estimates provided by Davies of the effect of various gradients: Davies says that “No real account need be taken of gradients of less severity than 1 in 200 but that the stiffer the gradients that were encountered, the more economical it would be to avoid them, particularly as the carrying potential of a train would be determined to some extent by the stiffest gradient of any length found on the railway.” [1: p34]
“Thus one or two fairly steep gradients could be tolerated providing, first, that they were short enough to be rushed, and second that the ruling gradient was sufficiently gentle so as not to exhaust the steaming powers of the locomotives. A ruling gradient of not more than 1 in 80 was recommended but 1 in 50 was, it appears, more often accepted as the maximum in practice.” [1: p34]
This table shows the sharpness with which load hauling powers drop off as the gradient increases. Taken from a thesis of the period, it assumes locomotives with a tractive force of about 321 Ib per ton weight (then thought to be the optimum for light railway engines) working at a maximum speed of 7 mph on gradients of any reasonable length. It will be seen how quickly, proportionately, the tonnage which can be hauled drops away once the ruling grade exceeds about 1 in 80. [1: p35]
Roadside running “was recommended wherever possible, especially for the smaller lines, both because it was economical in first cost, the land involved already being in most cases the property of the local authority, and because it was the route most likely to serve the community.” [1: p34]
Davies goes on to say that, “On one thing … all were agreed whatever was done about the route, economies should not be practised on the track itself. The initial cost of a well-built trackbed, with an adequate weight of rail, would pay for itself many times over in reduced maintenance costs and smoother running; and an interesting sidelight – many authorities, from Decauville to Sir A. P. Heywood, recommended steel sleepers rather than the usual wooden ones, as being stronger and longer lasting. This last suggestion was not widely adopted, although it proved its worth on light lines but the consequences of neglecting the earlier warning soon became all too plain. Minimum recommended rail-weights per yard for the various gauges were:” [1: p34-35]
2ft gauge: 25 lb
2ft 6in gauge: 30 lb
Metre gauge: 50 lb [1: p34-35]
“These proved satisfactory in practice providing that adequate sleeper spacing and ballasting was provided, since these two factors have a considerable influence on the axle-load a given weight of rail will safely bear. The troubles of many light railways in their later years sprang from a parsimonious outlook when they were built, which compelled their constructors to use too few sleepers and very inferior ballast, often containing a high proportion of earth. … The main economies which it was felt could be effected came under three headings: accommodation, working arrangements, and manning, the first one of these being the most controversial, especially in this country. Collectively they make up the third tenet of light railway theory as propounded in the 1890s, which might well be summed up in Henry Ford’s famous slogan ‘Simplify and add Lightness’. All unnecessary frills were to be omitted. Complex signalling, interlocking of points and signals, gated level crossings, fencing, even the normal staff and token system used on single line railways, virtually all the safety measures so dear to the administrators, should be ignored and, indeed, were forgotten in most countries where the light railway idea took firm root. A system of train orders and, later, telephone communication, proved perfectly satisfactory for the slow and infrequent trains of such lines and could well have functioned over here, as was proved by the Glyn Valley Tramway which was a roadside light railway of continental type but which profited by its official classification to run its operations in a very free and easy manner without any serious mishap. As for gated level crossings, when these theories were being worked out, there was, of course, very little traffic on the roads and many lines were roadside anyway; even now [1964] the majority of continental lines do without gates. They have the occasional accident but rarely one sufficient to disturb anyone’s equanimity for long.” [1: p35-36]
“This urge for economy extended, too, to the lineside buildings which, it was stressed, should be of the simplest and of a limited number of standard patterns. … Such things as raised platforms were considered unnecessary and, indeed, an encumbrance as, in order to increase the economy of working at wayside stations, goods and parcels sheds were often combined with the station house and the very sensible plan adopted of having a siding or loop directly in front of these for goods waggons, the main running line being a short distance away.” [1: p36]
The diagrams below illustrate the difference between UK practice and that on the continent.
Typical layouts of stations on light railways in the UK (A and B) and on the Continent (C and D). A and C represent typical intermediate stations, B and D represent passing/crossing places. Davies suggests that it is important to note the differing arrangements of goods facilities and the usual practice on continental railways of providing toilets at stations, something that was unusual for lines in the UK. [1: p41]
“Places of little importance were to have halts only, which, on the Continent at least, were and are often just a nameboard at a level crossing, with the possible addition of a small shelter.” [1: p36]
There was also the question of staffing. The IRC claimed that, in effect, railwaymen should be able to put their hands to almost everything. Among other things they suggested:
The possibility of giving up the fireman, or, at all events, being enabled to make him assist in other work apart from the engine, and engaging him as a simple fireman apprentice.
The use of carriages with a central gangway which allows of their being looked after by a single guard to examine tickets even in trains of as many as eight carriages.
Allowing the train staff (brakesmen of goods trains and firemen) to share in working points, handling baggage, etc., at the stopping places and intermediate stations.
People other than railway employces being engaged to look after stopping places of small importance.
Station-houses could be inhabited by men employed at various jobs on the railway, the stations being looked after by their wives, and it was even proposed that the wives should issue and collect tickets on trains. (In practice many light railways employed far too large a staff, although in later years, as competition grew, and conditions worsened, the staff numbers were of necessity reduced. Davies says that “Regrettably, it was often in the essential posts such as gangers that economies were made rather than in the more expendable administrative personnel.”) [1: p37]
In respect of the trains, “economies could, it was considered, be obtained by such devices as composite carriages for the lesser used classes, reduction of the number of classes, waggons of similar capacity to those on the main line if this was practicable, and particularly by careful study of the maximum axle-load and the maximum speed required, both of which, if kept to a reasonably low figure, would ease maintenance all round. A prominent supporter of this view was E. R. Calthrop, who advocated a uniform axle-load for all vehicles on a railway, adopting in practice a maximum load of 5 tons for a 2ft 6in gauge line laid with 30 lb rail, with a relatively low maximum speed of 15 mph; that his theory was sound is indicated by its success on the Barsi Light Railway in India; and by the Leek & Manifold Valley Light Railway in Staffordshire, the track of which needed no replacement at all during the thirty years life of the line.” [1: p37
However, that the track of many light railways lasted as long as it did was due not so much to careful planning as to infrequency of traffic. “Generally speaking it was considered that two trains a day would meet the requirements of most districts. ‘Transport‘ commented in 1894: ‘Almost all the places where light lines are asked for have at present only two connections by public vehicle each way daily, one in the morning and one in the evening. It would therefore be reasonable for poor lines to have only two trains each way daily’.” [1: p37]
Davies goes on to note that “it is of interest … that the same Journal also advocated the introduction of ‘motor trains’ or, as the French call them, ‘trains legères’ if circumstances justified additional services over busy parts of the line. These in practice, in the early years, usually consisted of an engine hauling one or two coaches but later on, of course, railcars were used. When one considers cases like that of the all-stations mixed train on the ‘Le Blanc-Argent’ line in Touraine, which took 14 hours to cover its 191 kilometres and was indicated on the public timetables as three separate trains, one realizes why such trains legères were considered desirable. Admittedly the [Le Blanc-Argent] train had to struggle through no less than four standard gauge junctions with their attendant complications but it was by no means alone in its tardiness. Even in the 1890s, however, the disadvantages of mixed trains had been recognized and the IRC recommended that, as soon as traffic on a line justified it, they should be abolished.” [1: p37-38]
Davies concludes that the theorists’ arguments of the 1890s, before the Light Railway Act of 1896 were that a line should be:
suitable for the traffic expected;
of service to the community; and
simple in construction and operation.
The theorists thought “of light railways as sub-standard lines designed to open up a district and to contribute traffic to the main line railways; they were to be constructed on the simplest pattern compatible with operating efficiency. This … entailed a number of restrictions in carrying power, train size and speed, but did not mean that the railway should be a ramshackle concern. If it was properly suited to its traffic there should be sufficient capital to build it substantially in comparison with that traffic it was to carry. Economies were to be realized mainly through throwing overboard all the elaborate trappings and working practices of the main lines and, depending on its circumstances, a line classed as a light railway might range from a 2ft gauge steam tramway only a few miles long to a fully equipped metre or 3ft 6in gauge line up to or even exceeding 100 miles in length. Standard gauge lines rarely came within this category unless they were of feeble length and laid with very light rails and equipment, since narrow gauge lines offered economies in capital cost which out-weighed their disadvantages.” [1: p38]
In practice, the UK was a relatively late adopter of light railway schemes. “A fair amount of legislation for, and, indeed, construction of local railways had already taken place by the end of the 1880s in various countries. But development was very patchy and the lines that had been built tended to adhere to the physical conditions governing the main line railways in their own country, more from lack of fresh thoughts on the subject than for any other reason. Thus, in Britain, for example, minor lines had high platforms, and goods sheds detached some distance from the main station buildings, neither of which practices, as we have seen, was considered necessary by the theorists. Indeed as late as 1902 there was so little clearly formulated planning on the subject in Britain that an eminent practising engineer found it necessary to write a manual to inform his colleagues of the practical principles involved in laying a light railway.” [1: p39][3]
There was “a surprising amount of agreement among existing continental light railway builders as to the basic requirements of a light railway except, of course, in the always invidious matter of gauge; and it was on the basis of existing practice that the theorists of the 1890’s were able to formulate their ideas. Nor was the considerable body of light railway theory so built up entirely the work of amateurs. The professional ‘International Railway Congress Association’,† an official body set up by most European and some other countries, maintained a standing committee to consider the subject of light railways and to sift out the best elements of existing practice.” [1: p39]
The recommendations relating to light railways by the 19th century theorists were followed to a significant extent. A good example is the case of railway gauges, always a thorny problem. Before the 1890’s there was a multitude of gauges in use, but very few light railways built after about 1895 did not conform roughly to one of the IRC’s four recommended gauge groups. There was general agreement over fencing, signalling and standardisation, although the rigour with which standardisation was persued depended on the country concerned. Davies highlights a problem experienced in France during WW1. … “France, merely laid down general rules and left individual companies to produce their own detailed specifications. The disadvantages of this were not apparent while vehicles remained on their home lines, but became plain when they had to run on other railways, as the French found out when the 1914-18 War forced them to strengthen their north-eastern light railways with stock from lines all over the country. The variations in coupling and braking systems in particular were numerous and severely taxed the ingenuity of the operating staff; while the Austrians, who had standardized with just this eventuality in mind, were able to reinforce their military railways with no trouble at all. The disadvantages also showed in peace-time when railways started to close down and other lines wished to buy their equipment.” [1: p40]
Steam Locomotive on the Tramway de Royan at the turn of the 20th century, (c) Public Domain. [5]
Davies highlights a few interesting matters:
A. Rather hazy distinctions between ‘light railways’ and ‘tramways’ – Tramways were usually lines of only local interest and running for the most part alongside public roads, these were typically exempt from state railway laws. Promotion and control were usually left in the hands of local authorities. “Yet these lines might not be ‘tramways’ in the generally accepted sense of the term today, but true light railways which just happened to run by the roadside. Indeed some considerable systems of what were officially classed as tramways arose, a typical example being the Tramways de la Sarthe in France, operating 20 connected lines of metre-gauge track, with a total length of 406.1 kilometres. Such lines usually had … wayside stations, … steam traction, and carried goods as an integral part of their traffic.” [1: p40,42] Ultimately, the only distinction between such tramways and a ‘light railway’ would be the likelihood that the light railway probably mainly kept to its own right-of-way.
B. The use of ‘concessions’ in most countries in Europe for their light railways – this practice was unusual in the UK in respect of light railways. It was, however, relatively commonplace in respect of tramways built in local roads in the UK. These were granted a fixed length of operation by a contractor with a first refusal for the local authority when the term came to an end.
In Europe, almost every country used some form of ‘concession’ system, “whereby companies did not simply go out and buy land with the right to build a railway on it and use it in perpetuity after an initial authorization, but were simply given powers to build a railway and run it for a fixed period as contractors, after which the position would be reviewed. Alternatively they might operate a railway already constructed by the state or by some other organization; and often the state reserved to itself the right to purchase the line at a specific time after construction. These concessions were of two main types which may conveniently be referred to by their French titles of ‘concessionaire’ and ‘fermier’.” [1: p42]
Davies tells us that “The ‘concessionaire’ company normally undertook to work a railway or railways ‘at their own risks and perils’. In other words. it had to pay its way or close. This was not quite so bleak a prospect as it might seem since the operation of the railway was often subsidized by a state or local authority and guaranteed interest might even be paid on the capital of the railway company concerned. Such companies often built their railway(s) in the first place and provided their own rolling stock.” [1: p42]
“The ‘compagnie fermière’ on the other hand, was solely an operating company and worked a railway on behalf of an owning organization, usually a local or municipal authority. It worked either as a completely controlled subsidiary to the authority, in which case profit did not come into the matter, or else contracted to operate the line for a fixed percentage of the gross receipts. This type of concession was used frequently in later years when the railway concerned was almost certain to make a loss but was considered of sufficient benefit to the community for its continued operation to be worth while.” [1: p42]
Davies continues: “It was in the granting of these concessions and in the various ways by which the concessionary companies were helped, that the attitudes of different countries showed themselves; and it was the terms under which such concessions were granted that often determined whether the light railway network of a country was a success or a failure. Where the state organized its secondary rail system, either by judicious financing or by direct control, lines were built sensibly and with reasonable success; a fruitful co-operation grew up between the State and the concessionaries. But where the State was not quite sure what it wanted, or where local authorities were allowed to have the major say in authorizing and constructing systems of any importance, the results, generally speaking, were not so good. This was probably due mainly to over-enthusiasm and to the desire to meet the demands of poor districts which felt the need of a railway as much as their more prosperous neighbours. The result in both cases was that promoters tended to be offered unduly favourable terms, with insufficient security on their part in return. Hence many lines were built that were of very doubtful viability under any circumstances and certainly unlikely to be a paying proposition. The construction of these uneconomic lines was often justified by the explanation that they were not expected to pay their way, initially at any rate, but were designed to benefit a region by opening up new districts, the local authority being quite willing to pay a subsidy to achieve this end. This argument was possibly valid where the operating company did not make a considerable profit out of the situation but such lines inevitably had to be offered under guaranteed terms which cost the local authority dearly. Moreover, the lines concerned were naturally very vulnerable to any improvements in road transport.” [1: p42-43]
C. Other Factors – affecting the viability of ‘light railways included:
Prestige: “The local company usually had its pride, and this led to considerably more expenditure on lineside fittings than was strictly necessary. In particular, station buildings tended to be substantial, … often of brick and stone, and of two stories where a simple hutment would have sufficed. Too often, also, unnecessarily elaborate workshops were provided for each small company although big private concerns, to give them their due, often had a central workshop where all heavy repairs were done.” [1: p43]
An operational problem: often ignored by early theorists. For “minor railways which formed dead-end branches, the obvious place for the operational headquarters and running sheds was at or near the junction with a main line railway. Yet traffic flow usually required the first train out in the morning to be from the far terminus to the junction. Hence a sub-shed, capable of storing one or two locomotives, and equipped with fuelling facilities, and even at times living accommodation, had to be provided at the far terminus. On a system with several branches this could well be a considerable expense.” [1: p43]
Staffing: was often on a more lavish scale than the theorists or IRC would have liked. Dvvies, in 1964 writes: “It was far more lavish in many cases than was strictly necessary, as has been shown by a number of French minor lines in recent years. Such lines as the CFD du Vivarais, or the late-lamented CFD du Tarn have, since the war, cut their personnel by almost half; and for a 55 miles system like the Tarn this meant a decrease of some forty men. It is being wise after the event, but it is plain that the fortunes of some minor concerns would not have been so bad, had they controlled their staffing ratios more realistically in the first place.” [1: p43]
Dual Effects of Traditional Ideas of Railway Building: Davies sees these as a ‘standard gauge mentality’ and a failure to appreciate the results of improvements in road transport. Both, he says, led to stagnation of ideas: “The standard gauge mentality was, as the name implies, a fixed idea among officials involved in planning light railways, to avoid the, as they saw them, disruptive effects of a multiplicity of gauges and standards. It implied a large degree of conformity with main line standards in signalling and other matters as much as conformity in the actual gauge. It was by no means always destructive but in many cases a railway built on these principles meant one far too large and elaborately equipped, hopelessly uneconomic for the traffic it was to carry and for the revenue which could be expected. In extreme cases it simply meant that no railway was built at all.” [1: p44] … Davies goes on to say that on the Continent and in Britain from about 1910, the “light railway builders of the period often stuck too closely to the mass of theoretical dicta which had appeared about the turn of the century. In France especially, but also in other countries they went on planning tortuous roadside lines, designed for slow and infrequent trains, without realizing that road competition was becoming even then a very real factor. The theorists had not visualized motor transport; the builders of the 1910’s seem to have ignored its presence to a surprising degree. The result was the construction and operation of such systems as the Tramways de la Corréze in central France. This was an extensive system of no less than five separate lines on the metre gauge, totalling 179.5 km and opened as late as 1913-14. Yet it was for the most part roadside, serving small communities, laid with light rail and equipped with 4-wheel stock of a pattern already outdated. Even the locomotives were small 0-6-0T’s designed for the haulage of light trains at slow speed. Even after the 1914-18 War some of the light railways that were promoted then followed much the same pattern and it is all the odder that, while sticking religiously to what were becoming, in the circumstances, outmoded concepts, the builders of such lines were not afraid of constructing considerable engineering works if the need arose. The TC [Tramways de la Corréze] mentioned above had, for example, the viaduct of La Roche Taillade, a huge suspension bridge noted throughout France for its superb design, … while the Côtes du Nord system, which was building such lines as late as 1925, was also a pioneer in the use of pre-stressed concrete structures and used the material extensively for viaduct work.” [1: p44]
Viaduc de Roche-Taillade sur la Luzege 92 metres high, 160 metres long with piers/stanchions of 126 metres in height. [4]
Conclusions
The success of a light railway was likely to vary in practice with the conditions it encountered rather than its adherence to a particular set of ideas. Davies concludes that “in virgin territory overseas, the light railways had ideal conditions for survival; long hauls; great potential for traffic development; and a fair chance of expansion provided the ‘standard gauge mentality’ of colonial administrators could be overcome. On the Continent and at home, on the other hand, they were more hidebound by traditional ideas, problems of prestige, etc., and were far more subject to competition which developed from other forms of transport. ” [1: p45]
A short article picks up on a short piece in The Railway Magazine of August 1905 which reflected on the early years of Light Railways after the 1896 Act. This can be found here. [6]
References
W. J. K. Davies; Light Railways: their rise and decline; Ian Allan, London, 1964.
J. C. Mackay; Light Railways for the United Kingdom, India and the Colonies; Institution of Civil Engineers (facsimile ed.), London, 2011.
The featured image for this article shows ‘Argyll’ (a Barclay built 0-6-2T) taking its train Southeast out of Campbeltown before turning Southwest to run round the South side of the town. This image was shared on the Machrihanish Online Facebook Page on 26th July 2023. (c) Public Domain. [22]
The Campbeltown and Machrihanish Light Railway was a 6-mile, 2 ft 3 in (686 mm) narrow-gauge railway in Kintyre, Scotland, operating between 1906 and 1934. It ran from Campbeltown’s New Quay to Machrihanish, primarily serving coal traffic while also transporting tourists and locals across the peninsula.
It replaced an earlier industrial tramway which was built in 1876 and used by the Argyll Coal and Canal Company, which before this had replaced a canal.
In 1876, the line followed the line of the old canal that used to be used to transport coal.
In 1905/6 the curves were improved and the steeper gradients eased.
Most of the output from the colliery was used locally – by residents and the 34 distilleries. The coal business was largely seasonal and the owners looked for a use during the summer months and in 1905/6 a light railway (2’3″ gauge/686mm)was built to replace the tramway and at the same time it was extended to Machrihanish and along the front in Campbeltown.
Opened in 1906, the Campbeltown and Machrihanish Light Railway was Scotland’s only passenger-carrying narrow-gauge railway and operated as an isolated line with no connection to the national rail system.
Ultimately, the railway suffered from increased road competition from bus services, financial problems, and reduced coal quality in the early 1930s, closing in 1932 (officially 1933) and being dismantled in 1934.
Stenlake Publishing has recently published a new ‘Oakwood Press’ 3rd edition of a book first published by David & Charles in 1970. A second edition was published in 1993 by Plateway Press. The new edition has minor updates and some ‘new’ old photographs. The author, now in his 90s, visited Campbeltown in the early 1930s and again in 1941 thus sparking his interest in this operation. In the 1950s he decided to build a scale model and his new bride was only too happy to accompany him to Campbeltown on their honeymoon so he could take the necessary research photographs of what was left of this line built to move coal economically from pit to ship. The route was from the colliery near Machrihanish across the Kintyre Peninsula to the pierhead at Campbeltown. Coal strikes in the 1930s, competing services from buses, financial problems and the fact that Machrihanish coal wasn’t of especially high quality, all contributed to the inevitable demise in the mid 1930s, but traces of the line remain visible along the route today.
The Route of the Line – Campbeltown to Machrihanish
The route of the line is shown below on contemporary Ordnance Survey mapping which was revised in 1914/1915 and published in 1921. These map extracts are supported by Google Maps satellite imagery and Google Streetview images. Occasionally other images illustrate the particular section of the route. …
The Railway Harbour branch ran out onto New Quay and along Hall Street. Ordnance Survey mapping revised in 1915 and published in 1921. [4]The same area in the 21st century. [Google Maps, May 2026]
The next few photographs show the site of the sidings as it is in the 21st century, beginning at the North end and wandering to the South. …
Looking South from Stewart Street, the buildings on the left straddle the top of the site. The ginnel behind the blank gates and the single-storey building to the right were present when the site was in use by the old light railway. [Google Streetview, December 2021]Looking South through the site with the arch of the modern buildings behind the camera. [Google Streetview, October 2015]Further South through the site, this view continues to look to the South. [Google Streetview, October 2015]This view from the hospital access road looks North through the site of the old sidjngs towards Stewart Street. [Google Streetview, December 2021]Turing through 180°, the view faces South from the same location as the image above. Hospital buildings sit directly over the old site. [Google Streetview, December 2021]Further to the South, peering over the wall we can see the open grass area that was once the triangular railway junction in Campbeltown. [Google Streetview, December 2021]
The line to Machrihanish set off just to the South of West and immediately crossed what is now Ralston Road at an unmanned, ungated level crossing. ….
The road crossed by the railway is now known as Ralston Road. [4]Approximately the same area as it appears on Google satellite imagery in the 21st century. The fence line on the right of this image on the North side of Limecraigs Road marks the approximate Centreline of the old railway. The line of the old railway now passes through the hosing estate on the West side of this image. [Google Maps, May 2026]Looking East from Ralston Road, the fence line sits on the line of the old railway. [Google Streetview, November 2021]Looking West from Ralston Road, the Centreline of the old light railway passed through the house at the centre of this image. [Google Streetview, November 2021]The line continues West but on a West-southwest trajectory. [4]A series of red dots give an approximation to the route of the old railway. A relatively modern housing estate sits over the old line. [Google Maps, May 2026]The old line curved round to just North of West before crossing what is now Tomaig Road. [4]Again, red dots show the approximate alignment of the old railway on this next extract from Google’s satellite imagery. The alignment becomes visible once the housing estate is left behind. [Google Maps, May 2026]A closer view of the location of the level-crossing. The red dots indicate the line of the old railway. [Google Maps, May 2026]Looking back along the line of the old railway towards Campbeltown. [Google Streetview, November 2021]Looking West from the same crossing, along the route of the old railway, towards Machrihanish. [Google Streetview, November 2021]The line ran on Northwest from the crossing at Tomaig Road. [4]The same length of railway shown on the 21st century ESRI satellite imagery provided by the NLS. Its route is easy to see. [14]
This next map extract shows the line as far West as the edge of the Ordnance Survey map sheet. [4]
A similar length of the line as it appears on the ESRI satellite imagery provided by the NLS. The resolution on this image is not as good as that on the satellite imagery provided by Google but none-the-less, the route of the old light railway can easily be made out. [15]
The line continued Northwest to another level crossing (top-left) over what in the 21st century is the B843. [5]A similar length of the line is shown in this satellite image. The route of the line can be picked out, running from the bottom-right towards the top left, where it crosses the B843. [Google Maps, May 2026]A closer view of the location of the level-crossing. The red dots approximate to the line of the old light railway. [Google Maps, May 2026]Looking back along the line of the old railway from the level-crossing at the B843, the fence line beyond the tree in the middle fairground marks the line of the railway. [Google Streetview, November 2021]Turning through 180° at the same location, the tree in the centre foreground sits on the line of the old light railway. [Google Streetview, November 2021]From the level-crossing, the line ran on to the West. [5]The field boundary running West from the location of the level-crossing marks the line of the old light railway. [Google Maps, May 2026]Two relatively tight curves on this next map extract saw the line turning to the Northwest. [5]The field boundaries running across the centre of this satellite image mark the line of the old railway. [Google Maps, May 2026] A wide sweeping curve took the line on to the West. [5]The red dots show the approximate line of the old railway. The two most westerly of these dots are perhaps a little too far to the North to actually sit over the old line. [Google Maps, May 2026]The line continued West-southwest. [5]Again, the line of red dots approximate the route of the old railway. By the 21st century, much of the formation has been ploughed into the fields surrounding it. [Google Maps, May 2026]This next map extract shows the old railway as it continued heading West-southwest. [6]A similar length of line is again shown on the 21st century satellite imagery provided by Google. The line of the old light railway is a little easier to identify running West-southwest from the top-right of the image towards the lower-left side. [Google Maps, May 2026]The line continues heading West-southwest before beginning to curve round to the West. [6]The route of the old railway follows the field boundaries which run from top-right to a little below centre-left on this Google satellite image. [Google Maps, May 2026]The line crosses this map extract from right to left at the centre of the extract. [6]Approximately the same area as it appears on Google’s satellite imagery. The line of the old railway runs East to West a little below the centre of the image. [Google Maps, May 2026]Only at the left hand side of this extract does the line turn a little towards the Northwest. [6]The route of the old railway is a little harder to make out on the satellite image. The string of red dots show it’s approximate alignment. [Google Maps, May 2026]The turn to the Northwest is much more evident on this next extract from the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1914/15 published 1921. [6]The line of red dots on this next extract from Google’s satellite imagery is the best that I can do to show the approximate line of the old railway. Much of this length of the line has been ploughed back into the landscape. [Google Maps, May 2026]Now curving back towards the West, the line approaches the Machrihanish Water. [7]The red dots on this image mark the approximate line of the old railway at each edge of the satellite image. The field boundary between marks the line of the railway. [Google Maps, May 2026]Adjacent to West Machrihanish, Machrihanish Water ran alongside the railway. Just to the West of the access road to West Machrihanish the light railway branched to serve the colliery and the village of Machrihanish. The line to the colliery ran parallel to Machrihanish Water, that serving the village turned away to the Southwest. [7]
West Machrihanish farm in 2026, also showing the access road and Machrihanish Water. The line of the old railway turning away for Machrihanish village is marked in red. The line to the Colliery ran alongside Machrihanish Water. [Google Maps, June 2026]
The next map extract shows the site of Argyll Colliery which mined the Machrihanish Coalfield, the ‘Main Coal’ was the principal coal seam at this location and is some 3 to 4m thick. A further, higher seam known as the ‘Kilkivan Coal’ has also been worked by the colliery.
The site of Argyll Colliery. [7]
A similar area in the 21st century. The lines drawn are only approximate. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Mining was taking place at the site of the colliery “before the 16th century, largely in connection with a local sea-salt industry. Similar but very small scale activity also took place on the northeast coast of the nearby Isle of Arran. It continued at a low level through to the late 18th century when a new pit was sunk at the Argyll Colliery, ushering in the coalfield’s busiest period which lasted until the closure of the mine in 1929, following a fire in 1925. Much of the coal was used to fuel the area’s numerous distilleries. The coalfield was linked to Campbeltown by a canal from the late 18th century and by a tramway/narrow-gauge railway at the end of the 19th century.” [16]
After closure in 1929, plans were in the 1930s “to distil oil from Machrihanish coal, but they were never put into practice. The mine was reopened in 1946, … with two drift mines … serviced by modern machinery.” [17] The mine, however, closed permanently in 1967.
A colourised postcard image of the pit head at the Argyll Colliery. This image was shared on the Machrihanish Online Facebook Page on 11th August 2019, (c) Public Domain. [2]
For more about Argyll Colliery, please click here, [18] here. [19]
We continue to follow the main line through to Machrihanish Station. …
Having turned to the Southwest away from the branch into the colliery the main line then crossed the road from Campbeltown to Machrihanish. The crossing can be seen at the right side of this map extract. [7]Approximately the same area as shown on the map extract above. The red line gives the approximate route of the old railway. It is difficult to finally fix the location of the crossing as no historic features remain at the location and the caravan park post dates the line by some time. The exact location of the crossing may be as much as 50 metres to the West of the point that the red line crosses the road, perhaps not as much to the East. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Looking West along the B843 at the approximate location of the railway crossing. [Google Streetview, November 2021]
Looking East along the B843 at the approximate location of the railway crossing. [Google Streetview, November 2021]
About 50 metres to the South of the B843, the line ran parallel to the road. [7]Approximately the same area as shown on the map extract above, as it appears in satellite imagery in the 21st century. [Google Maps, June 2026]The line to the South of the relatively large homes which fronted onto the B843 in Machrihanish. [7]Roughly the same area in the 21st century. The line ran behind the properties which still face out onto the B843. [Google Maps June 2026]A coluorised postcard image showing ‘Argyll’ arriving at Mchrihanish Railway Station sometime in the 1920s. This image was share on the Machrihanish Online Facebook Page on 26th July 2019, (c) Public Domain. [25]Machrihanish Railway Station sat behind (to the South of) the village. It was a simple two road station with passing loop. [7]Again, approximately the same area as covered by the map extract above. The red lines approximate to the railway – with a simple passing loop in the old station. As can be seen a modern estate has been built over the site of the old railway station. [Google Maps, June 2026]Machrihanish: the railway sat behind the buildings shown here, (c) Public Domain. This old postcard image was shared on the Machrihanish Online Facebook Page on 8th September 2019. [
The backs of the buildings at Machrihanish in 1905, before the railway arrived in the village, (c) Public Domain. [20]
A view of Machrihanish village from the Northeast soon after the turn of the 20th century (c) Public Domain. [21]
The railway owned two large tank engines built by Barclays of Kilmarnock named the “Argyll” and “Atlantic” together with three smaller engines inherited from the colliery. Its six unique large coaches handled the passenger business and there were 150 colliery owned coal wagons.
Links to other sites, blogs, articles
https://wp.me/p7RU99-148, The Campbeltown to Machrihanish Light Railway, accessed on 13th May 2026.
In the bookshop at Wemyss Bay Railway Station in May 2026, I picked up the Spring 2026 issue of West Highland News Plus which is the magazine of the friends of The West Highland Lines. It reminded me that 2026 is the 125th anniversary of the opening of the Mallaig Extension on 1st April 1901.
More of that later. …
Among a variety of different news reports, the magazine included:
Network Rail (NR) Contracts
In mid November 2025:
“NR completed a £15 million improvement project on the West Highland Line between Crianlarich and Fort William. … Over a nine-day closure of the line, engineers worked to deliver a series of critical upgrades, including renewing sections of track, drainage improvements and clearing hazardous vegetation to help protect the line against heavy rainfall and extreme weather conditions. Targeted track renewals, replacing around 10km of rail and more than 9,000 sleepers. Renewal of a railway bridge near Corrour, and vegetation management. Renewal of five culverts, improving drainage and ensuring structural stability and renewal of a footbridge.” [1: p4]
“While a £4.5 million project on the Kyle Line was completed in early November.” [1: p4]
In June 2025:
“NR delivered an £11.5 million upgrade on the Far North Line, while a £4.5 million project on the Kyle Line was completed in early November. Both projects involved renewing sections of track, some of which dated back almost a century.
These last two projects involved renewing sections of track, some of which dated back almost a century.
ScotRail Statistics
“ScotRail recorded its busiest day in 2025 – Friday, 12th December with 345,216 journeys, the highest daily total since services were brought into public ownership (in April 2022). The figure surpassed previous records set during major events like the Edinburgh Festivals, large concerts including Taylor Swift and Oasis, and key sporting fixtures. Removing peak fares has meant significant savings for passengers across the country, with some journeys reduced by almost 50% including those between Edinburgh and Glasgow.
“ScotRail also announced that 7,866,187 passenger journeys were made during December, making it the busiest December since Scotland’s Railway returned to public ownership. This is ten per cent (701,910 journeys) more than the 7,164,277 journeys made in December 2024, and 69 per cent more than the 4,646,072 journeys made in December 2022. Over a similar period (7th December 7 to 3rd January) ScotRail also recorded its best punctuality and reliability scores since its return to public ownership. 88.5 per cent of trains met their punctuality target, an increase of more than nine percentage points from the 79.2 per cent recorded in 2022/23.
“The ORR’s [2] figures for the period April 2024 to March 2025 showed Scotland’s busiest stations: Glasgow Central – 25.3 million, Edinburgh Waverley – 22.8m, Glasgow Queen St. – 15m, Edinburgh Haymarket – 3.3m and Paisley Gilmour St. – 3.2m. On The West Highland Lines, passenger entries/exits for 2024 to 2025 were: Oban: 201,750; Fort William: 176,226 and Mallaig: 90,476.” [1: p7]
Earth Observation Company SatSense
I am sure someone will understand this better than I do. …
“Network Rail awarded a major contract in November to the Earth Observation Company SatSense to monitor the UK’s entire rail network using satellite Interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) technology. This is a world first, as it is the first time that a major rail operator has used the technology on such a large scale. The multi-million-pound, multi-year contract will integrate data from Sentinel-1 and the upcoming NISAR mission to monitor Britain’s rail network. The process will build upon NR’s operational expertise and proven asset management processes to manage railway assets by combining regular satellite radar data with advanced analytics to map deformation, flooding and surface changes.
“SatSense will use satellites, including the Sentinel-1, NISAR, and TerraSAR-X constellations, to produce data, which it will process and integrate into NR’s earthwork asset management systems. The approach will reduce the need for costly, subjective, and untimely repeat on-site examinations.
“The technology gives a cost-effective alternative to actually visiting scheduled sites; a reduced risk to personnel, by minimising the time needed for working on the track and on slopes; faster data collection by eliminating the time constraints of ground-based surveys and high data accuracy and consistency with millimetre-level precision enable repeatable measurements over time for trend analysis while reducing human error and subjectivity. Britain’s railways are increasingly making use of satellite technology, such as providing Wi-Fi to the Scottish Highlands and on the North Yorkshire Moors Railway.” [1: p8]
Future Ferries
An artist’s impression of the new small electric ferries. [1: p17]
“The names of Scotland’s seven small electric ferries being built in Poland for CalMac have been unveiled after more than 1,000 people voted in a poll based on Scottish lochs. The Loch class ferries form the first £160 million phase of the two-part Small Vessel Replacement Programme which also includes harbour upgrades to accommodate the vessels and recharge their batteries. The vessels, which can carry up to 150 passengers and 24 cars, will serve Colintraive – Rhubodach (Bute), Lochaline – Fishnish (Mull), Tarbert (Loch Fyne), Portavadie, Fionnphort (Mull) – lona, Sconser (Skye) Raasay, Tobermory Kilchoan (Ardnamurchan) and Tayinloan (Kintyre) – Gigha, are due to start arriving in 2027.” [1: p17]
The 125th Anniversary of the Opening of the Mallaig Extension
In his article in the journal, John McGregor writes about the various machinations which preceded the construction of the 40 mile long Mallaig Extension. [3: p19-20]
The result of various negotiations was the decision of the government to support two schemes to serve the West coast of Scotland North of Oban. One of those would be the line through Fort William to Mallaig, the other would need to be selected from lines to Achnasheen, to Ullapool, to Lochinvar and to Loch Laxford.
One of these four alternatives was already authorised – the line from Garve to Ullapool. The project received approval from the Westminster Parliament by means of a local Act of Parliament, the Garve and Ullapool Railway Act 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. ccxxxiii), of 14th August 1890. Sadly for the folk of Ullapool there was not enough financial backing for the scheme. [5]
Those pushing for finance for the Garve to Ullapool route were to be disappointed. The directors of the Highland Railway decided to opt “for a measure of assistance sufficient to carry the Dingwall & Sky route on to Kyle of Lochalsh, the terminus originally intended.” [3: p20] 1897, saw the line to Kyle of Lochalsh extension completed.
McGregor continues:
“The proposed Treasury Guarantee for the Mallaig Extension (1892), supplemented by the assurance of a parliamentary grant for Mallaig harbour, was overtaken by the Government’s defeat in that year’s general election. … The incoming Liberals, lacking an overall majority, were variously distracted (not least by their doomed-to-fail pursuit of Irish Home Rule). Suspicious of the railway industry as an over-powerful vested interest, they eventually acknowledged their permanent civil servants’ advice that the Conservative offer was binding, but not until the Mallaig Extension Bill had passed into law (1894) – and this at the second attempt. (As a ‘late bill’ in parliamentary session 1892-93, it had met with procedural challenge from the Caledonian and Highland Companies.) When the Liberal administration retreated to opposition without securing the legislation to confirm the Guarantee, the duty fell to the returning Conservatives, who, joining with the anti-Home Rule Liberals under a common ‘Unionist’ banner, were emphatically victorious in 1895.” [3: p20]
But, there was trouble over the promised subsidy. It would be the first time that such a subsidy would be made to a commercial railway company on the UK mainland. In addition, McGregor notes, there were some constitutional issues at stake:
“Though talked up for partisan reasons, the ‘constitutional’ aspect of all this was of some importance. Besides the alleged iniquity of state-subsidised competition, it could be argued that the Treasury and the Board of Trade, which oversaw the design of Mallaig harbour, were framing policy without the initial parliamentary sanction traditionally required. A different, though related argument, alarming for the North British, held that such ‘lavish’ assistance made the Mallaig line a ‘Government road’, open to all-comers including the Caledonian if a Callander & Oban branch were to reach Fort William from Connel Ferry. And with a new Light Railways Act in prospect (it passed in 1896), other voices continued to urge that the Mallaig scheme be comprehensively reassessed, for light -and cheaper – construction.
“Finally, the North British were to the very end vulnerable in that they were known to have half-repented their West Highland involvement. Why should the taxpayer help remedy what now looked to be their burdensome and expensive mistake?” [3: p20]
McGregor draws attention to a number of different recorded statements in Parliament in the proceedings related to the West Highland Railway, Mallaig Extension Bill, Parliamentary Session 1893-94:
Cameron of Lochiel, evidence: The Promoters [of the West Highland Railway) were very much disappointed with [the] Roshven part of the line being thrown out… and…ever since I have been doing all in my power to obtain an extension to the west coast in some shape or form. [No one] would contend that Mallaig Harbour is perfect [but it] is the only one we…have left. [3: p20]
Spencer Walpole, chairman, Lothian Commission (1889-90), evidence: We recommended, in the event of the Mallaig line being made, that something should be done for the Highland [Company]…. We thought that was carrying out the spirit of our instructions. [3: p20]
John Conacher, general manager, North British Railway, submitted with his evidence a minute of the North British Railway board (1893): With reference to the proposed extension of the West Highland Railway to Mallaig…the… Company agree to guarantee the difference between the sum of £260,000 to be guaranteed by, Government and the total capital…estimated at £338,000. [3: p20]
Callander & Oban Railway/Caledonian Railway Petition Against – House of Lords: Notwithstanding the Bill originally professed to be promoted solely in the interests of the population of the Western Highlands and Islands, and for the development of the fishing industry, in accordance with [the Lothian Commission Report] it is now avowedly supported by the North British Railway Company (without whose aid it could not be made), entirely in their own interest…for purely competitive purposes. … [3: p20-21]
Highland Railway Petition Against, – House of Lords: [It is] wholly without precedent and contrary to public policy to sanction the grant of powers to construct a railway and harbour upon the anticipation that the Government may at some future time ask Parliament to subsidise the Company [in question] to a very large amount. The clear consent of Parliament to…such a subsidy…should precede the application for the grant of these powers. [3: p20]
Exchange between Committee Chairman and counsel for the North British Company, House of Commons: It places the Committee in a very unusual position, for they [become] practically a court of review of the inauguration of a new description of public policy. … Not quite so…. The Treasury [have made] it a condition [of] their obtaining power to make the subsidy that we shall obtain Parliamentary sanction to the scheme upon its merits. [3: p20]
In truth, it is unlikely that an issue of this nature would have been seen as of any real significance outside of the UK (and the USA). Government intervention in railway matters were usual, rather than exceptional.
Nicholas Faith says that:
“Almost instinctively, Britons and Americans left the shape of their [rail network] to market forces, to individual promoters. In Britain this relatively unregulated competition led merely to the duplication of a few lines. In the United States duplication ran riot. Even after the rationalisation of the 1890s there were twenty-one different routes between New York and Chicago, varying in length between 912 and 1376 miles, and no fewer than ninety ‘all-rail’ routes between New York and New Orleans.
“By contrast the Continental Europeans adopted the orderly ‘Belgian’ pattern, because they were deemed to be of crucial national interest. The pattern, by which railways were planned and regimented, government would ensure that the promoters received a ‘normal’ rate of return during construction. In return, the state ensured that the railways’ assets would revert to public ownership at the end of a specific period.
“The French went the furthest. They had planned a coherent rail system before a single mile of main-line track had been laid. As a result there is only one line between any two major towns: but because the network radiates from Paris connections between some major provincial centres – most obviously Lyons and Bordeaux – have ranged from the poor to the disgraceful.
“Planning did not preclude political conflict even before any main lines had been built. By 1848, the railways represented symbols of bourgeois capitalism powerful enough for the French revolutionaries of that year to call for their nationalisation. In the event their relationship to the state was worked out only during the reign of the Emperor Napoleon III. …
“Following the Crimean War, Haussmann’s enormously expensive reconstruction of Paris and a financial crisis in 1857, the French railway companies were forced to ask for financial help. The next year the system was divided into two, the 7,774 kilometres already built and the 8,578 kilometres of lines being promoted at the time. In a typically French carve-up, the network was divided between six great companies. The state guaranteed the interest due on loans required to build the new network, receiving a small percentage on the revenues of the railway companies, which, effectively, became the state’s partners. As usual the capital required was under-estimated and the agreement had to be revised, but it provided France with a coherent network and allowed the state to intervene if it thought rates were too high.
“However, the politicians would not let well alone. By the mid-1860s the opposition was demanding the construction of socially useful but economically marginal local lines, and the railway companies, with their close links to the Emperor, became symbols of his over-centralised regime and its grasping supporters. After the 1870 war, the opposition’s views prevailed and an elaborate network of smaller, local lines was built, largely for electoral reasons. This ‘Freycinet network’ was much abused at the time, although it made an enormous contribution to the unity of rural France. But the unfortunate Chemins de Fer de l’Ouest, which included a high proportion of branch lines running through thinly-populated rural areas, got into terrible financial trouble and had to be nationalised. The first lines to be taken over were in a poor financial and operational condition, so their nationalisation inevitably led to perfectly justified accusations of incompetence and over-manning. Nevertheless the French state gradually increased its influence until a unified network was formed under national control just before World War II.
“In Germany the individual states had originally perceived the railways as a further opportunity to assert their identity. In most cases, even when private money was involved, there seems to have been a tacit understanding that eventually the state would take over. To build the line between Cologne and Minden the government provided a guarantee that the bonds would pay 3 ½ per cent interest. The state would also buy a seventh of the original share capital, which was arranged so that eventually the government would own the whole lot. [So valuable was the railway, that its gradual sale enabled Bismarck to fund the Prussian war against Austria in 1866.]
“But arrangements varied. Baden modelled its system on that of Belgium. In the neighbouring state of the Pfalz, private enterprise held sway. One bemused observer points out that ‘both of these systems involved serious time losses and periods of indecision at the start and both slowly created a viable and profitable railroad system in the end.’ What mattered more than the system was ‘the basic determination to decisively and energetically develop the railroad through one system or another.’
“To Bismarck it was essential that the railways, the most potent symbol of German unity, should be in public hands. In 1873, he insisted on the creation of a new Imperial railway agency for the newly-united German Empire, ostensibly to work towards greater uniformity in rates, in fact to promote eventual nationalisation of the few lines in Prussia not already in the state’s hands.
“It took even the supposedly all-powerful Bismarck several years to create a Ministry of Public Works designed to take charge of the nationalisation process. Meanwhile his friend and banker, Gerson Bleichroder, was busy buying shares in lines he expected to be nationalised. In 1863 Bleichroder had enabled Bismarck to acquire cheap options on shares in a couple of railways, but his later investments were on a much larger scale. Fritz Stern, in Gold and Iron reckons that ‘at some points, roughly half of his liquid capital was invested in these shares.’ For Stern the investment represented ‘the clearest commitment to his own policy of nationalization, because failure or even undue delay in nationalizing could have cost him money.’ The commitment ‘sustained his intense interest in the nationalization of railroads. Less sympathetic commentators would simply have labelled Bismarck an ‘insider trader’.
“The truly enthusiastic railway politician, like Cavour, was less interested in the relationship between them and the state than simply in getting them built. ‘His methods were eclectic,’ wrote P.M. Kalla-Bishop in Italian Railways ‘there was a state plan and a state railway system, yes; but should a private company wish to build a railway it was encouraged, and, as well, there were railways jointly owned by a company and the state. The object was to get railways built by any means.’
“Even the knowledgeable Cavour assumed that politically-motivated lines – in his case those running down the Italian peninsula, specifically designed to encourage national unity – would also prove economically viable. They didn’t. Similar mistakes were made in Spain and Austria-Hungary, which both ‘constructed “star” systems, centring inappropriately upon their capital cities. In Austria-Hungary like Italy, a state with more ambitions than capital, government policy was often dictated by the financial needs of the Emperor. As a result the railways changed from private ownership with state guarantees, into state ownership; then, in 1885, the state lines were leased to private companies in three networks, the Mediterranean, the Adriatic, and the Sicilian. Although these corresponded to France’s six great companies, they were far less economically successful, and nationalisation was required a mere twenty years later.
“The smaller, and generally even poorer, European countries often suffered from the depredations of British promoters. Portugal had some especially unhappy experiences, while the Swedes, after experiencing the misdeeds of the unscrupulous John Sadleir, reverted to an earlier pattern by which the Gota canal had been built as a private monopoly under strict state supervision, using government-guaranteed funds.
“The pendulum swung the same way outside Europe. In Japan the Meiji Emperor was so anxious to encourage railway construction that the government’s own Railway Bureau actually surveyed and built the first lines, while the company received a guaranteed eight per cent yield on its capital. In India the first railways were built under a system which combined profit-sharing and a generous state guarantee. In 1869, an increasingly self-confident Imperial administration decided to take over the task of construction itself. The task proved too burdensome so private enterprise was allowed to enjoy the rewards from profitable lines, albeit with a smaller guarantee, while the state took on the burden of unprofitable routes. The government investment proved immensely worthwhile: by 1914, the government-owned railways were providing a fifth of India’s total government revenue, more than customs and excise combined.
“In the absence of such a firm imperial hand the whole messy process of construction, operation and attempted regulation of such natural monopolies provided innumerable opportunities for politicians to sell the valuable gifts they had in their power: construction rights, permission for compulsory land purchase, government backing for their loans, preventing competition once the lines were built. Individual politicians, or fleeting pro-railway majorities in Parliament or Congress, are sometimes denounced as corrupt, but, somewhat unfairly, the railway promoters have borne most of the blame. But the moralising was, and is, largely confined to Britain, Canadaand the United States. In non-Anglo-Saxon countries people have lower expectations of honesty from their politicians.” [7: p71-76]
Nicholas Faith focusses once again on the British situation in the 19th century:
“In Britain the railways division of the British Board of Trade dates back to 1841. However it was subject not only to politicians’ whims but also to the prevailing mood of the day, and thus swung between allowing the railways to regulate their own affairs and a mood particularly prevalent after a major crash – a determination to assert the primacy of the public interest.
“The companies became adept at delaying or evading regulations. For instance the 1844 Regulating Act provided that every company had to run at least one train every day to serve all the inhabitants along its route. The train had to stop at every station, cheap fares would be available, and the train had to average at least 12 mph. These ‘Parliamentary trains’ became a long-standing joke, famous for their inconvenience, discomfort and snail-like pace.
“The companies’ long-term rear-guard action against regulation was helped by the ‘railway interest’, the first major, organised, feared and overrated – industrial lobby. Opponents alleged that the legislature was dominated by members dedicated more to the railways than to the common good.
“On the face of it the critics seemed to have a case. For a generation after the great influx resulting from the railway boom of the 1840s there were never fewer than a hundred Members of Parliament with some railway connections. Nevertheless, … there was a gulf between appearance and reality. Most of the members of the ‘interest’ were directors of local railways; they were not tied to the major companies most likely to come into conflict with government. However, they were powerful enough to block much legislation for the twenty years after 1846, a period when Parliament was dominated by interest groups rather than parties. In this atmosphere political pressure for effective control or eventual nationalisation naturally evaporated. It was only after the Reform Bill of 1867, and the resulting reinforcement of party discipline, that Parliament started to act, albeit mainly on settlements of railway disputes. Earlier regulations had assumed that the railways would play fair, would reduce their charges in return for protection from competition. Of course they didn’t.
“Yet even after a series of crashes in the early 1870s, even after the companies had refused to accept government-imposed brakes (partly because they could not agree on the type they would fit) the Board of Trade’s inspectors were still divided as to whether legislation was needed or whether they could rely on ‘the persuasive power of public opinion as a means of securing the adoption of safety devices’. Not surprisingly, by 1884, even The Times was calling for government regulation of railways on behalf of the public.
“The laissez-faire attitude was still far more powerful than it was in Continental Europe. The British companies, for instance, waged a long campaign to avoid granting automatic protection to work men injured at work, whereas in France railway companies were bound to provide compensation even if they were in no way to blame.
“Even in Britain, however, nationalisation had had its advocates from the very beginning. John Ruskin, for one, had always believed that ‘all means of public transport should be provided at public expense, by public determination where such means are needed, and the public should be its own “shareholder”.” During the debates of the early 1840s, many pioneers, including the great contractor Thomas Brassey and, more surprisingly, George Hudson, the Railway King, testified that a controlled monopoly was the best form of railway management. Competition, Hudson pointed out – and later experience in the United States proved his point – led to ruinous undercutting of rates, inevitably succeeded by agreements not to compete, what the Americans called ‘pools’. In the United States, freight railroads are still privately owned and in Britain it took until 1923 to group the companies into four giant concerns, and a further quarter of a century before Britain followed the rest of Europe and nationalised its lines.” [7: p78-80]
Returning to the specifics of the Mallaig Extension Railway, ultimately a government subsidy was agreed. Construction started in 1897. It was entrusted to the Simpson & Wilson Engineering Partnership [8][9] with the contractors being Robert McAlpine & Sons. [10]
True to his ‘nickname’ Concrete Bob [10] made very significant use of mass concrete on the Mallaig Extension – Glenfinnan, Loch-nan-uamh, Morar and Borrodale Viaducts were built of mass concrete.
McGregor tells us that Borrodale Viaduct “had the widest concrete arch yet attempted for a railway bridge. [Mass concrete] was also used in lesser structures, accommodation works and station buildings.” [3: p21]
Initial phases of construction focused on earthworks – extensive rock cuttings totaling over 495,000 cubic yards and embankments of nearly 750,000 cubic yards.
Construction of viaducts, bridges and tunnels followed, then track laying. Subsequent phases involved the construction of viaducts and bridges, followed by track laying, “with the line featuring 11 tunnels, six major concrete viaducts, and a single-track alignment with gradients up to 1 in 48 and numerous curves.” [15]
The use of mass concrete for the structures was an innovative and cost-effective engineering in a remote setting. “The total workforce peaked at over 2,000 navvies, many of whom arrived by sea aboard the SS Clansman in December 1897. … Major works were largely completed by 1900, though the remote terrain contributed to logistical delays in transporting materials and equipment.” [15]
The article on Grokipedia continues:
“The Mallaig Extension Railway officially opened on 1 April 1901, extending the West Highland line 40 miles from Banavie near Fort William to the new fishing port at Mallaig on Scotland’s Atlantic coast. The extension, authorized by the West Highland Railway (Mallaig Extension) Act of 1894 and completed ahead of the 1902 deadline, was designed primarily to facilitate rapid transport of fresh sea fish to southern markets, transforming the small village of Mallaig into a major herring port. On opening day, arriving steamers including the SS Clydesdale from Stornoway and the SS Lovedale from Portree berthed at Mallaig, discharging passengers who boarded the inaugural train bound for Glasgow via Fort William—a journey that underscored the line’s role in integrating rail and sea travel.
Early operations combined passenger and freight services on the single-track route, with trains handling everything from local crofters’ livestock and agricultural goods to the burgeoning herring catches landed by up to 700 skiffs in nearby lochs like Nevis and Hourn. The initial timetable provided several mixed trains daily between Fort William and Mallaig, supporting connectivity to the Outer Hebrides and Isle of Skye.” [25]
McGregor tells us that:
“The first ten miles out of Corpach were constructed relatively easily, along the north shore of Loch Eil, but to the west supplies were brought in by sea direct from Glasgow. Camps had been set up near Lochailort, Loch nan Uamh and the Morar estuary. Contractors’ railways were used and where (rail) access was impossible, horses were used, up to 200 at a time.
“Excavating along the route’s bedrock, predominantly mica schist, quartz and gneiss, challenged even the sharpest steel and latest tools. Gelignite was used for blasting, causing several serious accidents. But a new style of drilling was on the way, thanks to a visit to his dentist by young Thomas Malcolm McAlpine. He noticed the dentist pressed a knob on the floor and a ‘Pelton wheel’ was driven by water. So, on the railway water-driven turbines were introduced using plentiful supplies from the local lochs. Previous methods cost large numbers of manpower, with the new hydropower, this was cut by 500-600 men.
“The use of mass concrete to build the structures on The Extension is well known, but Scottish engineer John Strain had first used it building the Callander & Oban Railway. (Mass concrete is poured or cast-in-place concrete with no steel reinforcements but large amounts of crushed stone aggregate.)
“Some of the local land owners resented the resulting appearance of the concrete, so the contractor was asked to add red colour to the mix and, by scoring the surface, emulate the look of dressed granite (from a distance). The mighty Glenfinnan Viaduct, in 1901, was the longest concrete bridge in the UK. Excavations had started in 1897 and by October 1898 a contractor’s railway was laid. By completion of the viaduct, a total of 14,914 cubic yards of concrete had been used. The contractor was paid £18,904, of which £17,883 was payment for concrete.
“A quite different problem faced the builders between Arisaig and Morar: the ground was not solid enough to carry a railway. To get the line across the soft and peaty stretch of land known as Keppoch Moss, the contractors used the same principle that had been used on the West Highland ‘main’ line across parts of Rannoch Moor- floating on a subsurface raft made from alternate layers of turf and brushwood, capped by a large quantity of cinders.
Although the first public service train ran on the new line on Monday, 1st April 1901, there had already been previous trains. The Oban Times reported that in June 1900 a ‘pioneer’ train, which was occupied by members of the contractor’s firm, engineers and railway officials and friends, completed the journey of 40 miles from Banavie to Mallaig in a little over two hours. When Queen Victoria died in 1901, the McAlpines ran a special train on Saturday, 2nd February to enable villagers of Glenfinnan to attend a memorial service at Corpach. A hoped-for official opening for late 1900 did not happen because of signalling problems and after a week of inspections by the Board of Trade’s Major Pringle in March 1901, the line was finally given the green light to open.” [3: p22][4]
In 1979, a lot of the overhead pole route to the far north of Scotland was brought down by a storm. Full replacement could not be justified and the line was at risk of closure. “The only means of providing a train service in the short term was to use the train staff and ticket system, which was both clumsy and expensive, often involving road vehicles to transport the staff to the adjacent signal box if the sequence of trains changed from the timetabled order.” [1: p23]
Chris Green, then General Manager of ScotRail, sought a solution which would be less expensive. The BR Signalling & Telecoms Department and the BR Research Group at Derby ” initially designed a system where the bell signals and token instrument controls could be sent over a radio link. … This … enabled the line to resume normal working, it did nothing to reduce the costs of operation. ” [1: p23]
RETB was the next iteration in the design process. It works by:
“Having a chain of radio transmitting (base) stations on hilltop or high-ground sites along the routes interspersed with radio repeater locations, normally sited at one of the passing loops. A radio signal sent from the first base station gives radio coverage for between 10-20 miles of line and which is picked up by the first repeater station. This repeater transposes the signal into a different frequency and sends that signal out which is picked up by the second base station, which then broadcasts that signal to the next section of line. This second broadcast is picked up by the second repeater which again transposes the signal to a third frequency and transmits it on to the third base station.
“This chain of events continues until all the line is covered. The repeater system means that no cable connection is needed to feed into the various base stations and thus no lineside cabling is required on the route. To guard against a break in the chain, a rented landline connects the far end site back to the control point so that token control data can be sent in the reverse direction.” [1: p23]
This system coincided with the introduction of Solid State Interlocking (SSI) which was installed at the central control point. “This was the first application of SSI and preceded the first main line application at Leamington Spa. The SSI is programmed for the route from which a signaller’s console enables electronic tokens to be issued and transmitted into the radio chain.” [1: p23]
The system requires that all rolling stock on the line must:
“be equipped with a mobile radio and a cab display unit on which the tokens are displayed. The signaller knows the rough position of every train by receipt of verbal messages received from the driver normally given at the passing loop locations and, under the control of the SSI, can issue a token for a train to go from one passing loop to the next. The SSI prevents the issue of any conflicting token. Once the train arrives at the passing loop the driver contacts the signaller and the token is retrieved. The system relies on verbal messages between signaller and the train drivers but normally a signaller can control up to 20 train movements dependent on traffic levels.
“The passing loop points are normally set for left hand running into the loop. There is no facing point lock, but they are controlled by train operated movements. When a train leaves a loop, it runs through the points the wrong way and pushes them over to the reverse direction. Once all wheels have passed, a stored energy device returns the points to the normal facing direction. A speed limit of 15 mph over the points ensures safe operation but increases journey times. This speed limit is an impairment for reducing journey times and NR is investigating whether the points can be changed to powered operation under the control of the token that has been issued.
“The system was first introduced on the Kyle of Lochalsh line in late 1984 and on the Far North lines to Thurso and Wick in 1985. It was deemed a success. Both routes were initially controlled from a centre at Dingwall which was subsequently moved to the Inverness signalling centre. Later it was deemed suitable for the West Highland Lines from Helensburgh to Oban, Fort William and Mallaig with a control centre at Banavie (west of Fort William) which came into operation during 1987/88. This involved BR buying a hill top for the base station at White Corries using thermocouple gas generators for power, later converted to solar panels and wind generators. Sixteen manual signal boxes were then closed on the WHLs.
“In the early days, RETB had its reliability problems often necessitating a resumption of train staff and ticket working. Some of this was due to inadequate radio coverage. Later, a change of frequency band became necessary because of European bandwidth regulation. Both aspects have caused a total rebuild of the systems in Scotland. … Two later developments have been the addition of the Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS) to prevent trains entering a single line section unless they are in possession of a token, and the introduction of a ‘Request to Stop’ system used by passengers at some rural stations.” [1: p24]
Corrour Railway Station
John McGregor included a short article about Corrour Railway Station in this copy of the magazine. [16] A separate article focusses on that Station. It can be found here. [17]
Referencesand Notes
Doug Carmichael (ed); West Highland News Plus; Friends of The West Highland Lines, February 2026.
The Office of Rail and Road.
John McGregor; 1st April Marks the 125th Anniversary of the opening of the Mallaig Extension; in West Highland News Plus; Friends of The West Highland Lines, February 2026, p19-22.
Hege Hernaes; Building the Mallaig Railway – A Photographer’s Story; Glenfinnan Station Museum, 2020.
Nicholas Faith; The World the Railways Made; Pimlico Publishing, London, 1994.
Alexander Simpson was born at Coatdyke on 1 October 1832. His early experience appears to have been as a railway engineer in south-west Scotland as he was based in Ardrossan when his elder son Robert was born in September 1859. He first came into prominence as the engineer of a railway system in San Domingo which had been financed by Glasgow investors and on his return in the early 1880s was appointed engineer to the Glasgow and City District Railway Company, a subsidiary of the North British, undertaking the tunnel from Finnieston to Bellgrove.
Later in the same decade he took Walter Stuart Wilson, some 18 years his junior (born 1850), into partnership as Simpson & Wilson. The practice was a civil engineering firm specialising in railway work and particularly tunnelling for the North British Railway and its subsidiaries. It undertook the Glasgow District Subway (1890-6) and the extension of the West Highland line from Fort William to Mallaig. An ambitious proposal for a third tier of lines at Queen Street Station, Glasgow, planned in 1898-9, was not carried out.
Simpson was for many years a director of the North British Railway. It is not yet clear when he retired, but his place was taken by his son Robert. He died on 22 May 1922 at Carbieston, Ayr, and was survived by Robert, another son and two daughters, his wife Agnes Fell having predeceased him. He was buried at Cathcart.
Wilson withdrew from the partnership in the same year (1922) and retired to Summerdell, Holme, Carnforth, Lancashire where he died on 24 October 1926.
The practice was continued by Robert Simpson who died in Glasgow on 25 June 1931 leaving the then very substantial moveable estate of £96,684 4s 3d. [9]
Sir Robert McAlpine Limited is, today, a British building and civil engineering company based in Kings Langley, England. It carries out engineering and construction in the infrastructure, heritage, commercial, arena and stadium, healthcare, education and nuclear sectors. Its founder was a risk-taker who made and lost money at different times in his career. He is known as ‘Concrete Bob’ for the fact of his use of concrete blocks as well as bricks in the building of housing estates. Later he was to use mass concrete to great effect on the Mallaig Extension Railway. [11]
Corrour Station is near Loch Ossian on the Corrour Estate. It is the highest mainline railway station in the United Kingdom at an elevation of 1,340 feet (410 m) above sea level. It is located between Rannoch and Tulloch, and is sited 71 miles 54 chains (115.3 km) from Craigendoran Junction, near Helensburgh. In the 21st century, ScotRail manages the station and provides the most services, along with Caledonian Sleeper. [2]
The featured image for this article is a video of steam at work on Rannoch Moor not far from Corrour. The video can be watched here. [7]
Corrour Railway Station “has a passing loop around an island platform with a siding on the east side. In common with the line’s two other remote passing places, Gorton and Glen Douglas, it was built with a tall signalbox and an adjacent low building in which the signalman lived. The adjacent low building (in Corrour’s case) was also used as a sub post office from 15th December 1896 and a Post Office telegraph office from 16th August 1898; Corrour even qualified as a post town. Later, the railway constructed a station house for the signalman on the east side of the tracks, and the original building became purely office accommodation for the railway and the post office.” [2]
When the North British Railway opened the West Highland Lines to Fort William in 1894, it had been forced to build a station at Corrour, ten miles from the nearest road. Sir John Sterling-Maxwell permitted the line to be built across the Corrour Estate on the proviso that this Railway Station would be built to serve the estate.
McGregor tells us that only 48 miles of the 100 mile line lay within lands belonging to firm supporters of the new railway:
“There was assured passage from Craigendoran to Inverarnan, through the Colquhoun estate, and from Inverlair (Tulloch) to Fort William, through The Mackintosh’s Brae Lochaber property and Lord Abinger’s Inverlochy. But between Glen Falloch and Glen Spean the landowners in question (Breadalbane, Menzies, Walker and now Stirling-Maxwell) had to be variously cultivated or won over.
“Facilities were a matter for the North British. General Manager John Walker, who died in 1891 with the West Highland still three years from completion, had begun negotiations with his namesake Colonel Walker, on the basis that the then Corrour lodge, on the ridge east of the railway, could be accessed from a simple halt or private platform near Lubnaclach. His successor, John Conacher, looked to conclude a formal agreement with Stirling-Maxwell, by which time it had been decided that the passing place to break the long section between the stations at Rannoch and Inverlair would be sited at the summit of the line and named ‘Corrour’. With a siding for coal and other deliveries, the passing loop would be convenient for the larger, up-to-date lodge which the new proprietor planned to build beside Loch Ossian. Request-stop rights were confirmed, while Stirling-Maxwell, for his part, permitted railway-builders Lucas & Aird to take sand and gravel free of charge; this outcropped in useful quantities across the wet, peaty heights of Rannoch which he now owned. George Malcolm, long-established factor for the Glen Garry and Glen Quoich estates and a notable West Highland campaigner, became Corrour factor as well – surely no coincidence? He may have helped frame the agreement, which he vigorously upheld after the railway opened for traffic in August 1894.
“Ambiguities remained … while Conacher and his deputy David Deuchars [head of the North British traffic department and ‘superintendent of the line’], less sanguine about the prospects of the West Highland than John Walker, were determined to keep North British obligations within bounds. Much conflict ensued, beginning with the unfinished state of Corrour passing place that first autumn, gates had not been installed in the railway fence and the siding lacked buffer stops. When Stirling-Maxwell was in residence, a mail pouch went to and fro, but the regulations governing postal traffic, at first strictly interpreted, meant that it was dropped and collected at Rannoch, entailing a 7-8 mile pony trip.
“The early months of operation saw vulnerable consignments (nursery-grown trees for planting out, young fish to stock Loch Ossian) carried past Corrour, to be “lost” in Fort William goods yard. Cheap weekend tickets to Glasgow, for the sizeable workforce employed on building the new lodge, were only grudgingly conceded. And strife repeatedly arose over the cumbersome request-stop procedure on which Deuchars insisted, involving the North British district superintendents at Glasgow and Fort William. (The Corrour signalman risked being disciplined if he used his own discretion.)
“Some relaxation came for Stirling-Maxwell personally, after he was elected to Parliament in 1895 and made regular journeys to Westminster. Nevertheless, strict conditions remained – for estate workers, Fort William tradesmen and even Corrour guests, while brake-van passes for travel by the daily goods trains were not willingly issued, despite the slender passenger timetable. A festering grievance was the imposition of ‘next station’ fares standard North British practice in respect of unadvertised halts with a restricted passenger-and-parcels traffic; these were calculated to Tulloch (northbound) or to Rannoch (southbound). Returning from Corrour one evening, Malcolm at last refused to pay the excess and a fractious correspondence followed, verging on the ludicrous, before the North British solicitor advised that the trivial sum was best forgotten.” [1: p27-28]
Video of Steam on Rannoch Moor. [7]
Beyond its role as a halt serving the Corrour Estate, Corrour Railway Station was intended to be a passing place named Luibruaridh (sic) after the nearest habitation Luibruairidh, on the old drove road between Rannoch and Spean Bridge (1 1⁄2 miles (2.4 km) northwest). The Station broke up what would have been an excessively long stretch between passing places at Rannoch and Tulloch on the railway.
Wikipedia tells us that the halt was used “as a station, and the name ‘Corrour’ was also used although Corrour Lodge at that time was where the drove road crossed Coire Odhar, some 5 miles (8.0 km) southeast of the station (marked Corrour Old Lodge on the OS map). However, when the station opened, estate traffic was facilitated by the building of a mile-long (1.6 km) track connecting the station to the old drove road as it passed near the head of Loch Ossian. … In the early days, there was so much estate business that the railway employed an extra [clerk] during the grouse season. It was theoretically a private station for the use of the estate, but it was also used by the public from the start, despite its not appearing in public timetables until September 1934.” [2]
McGregor tells us that the solution to all of the early bickering was finally agreed. Full public station status was approved by the Board of Trade with no onerous conditions. [1: p28]
Wikipedia continues: “In 1897, the estate built a new lodge at the foot of Loch Ossian, 4 1⁄2 miles (7.2 km) northeast of the station. There was, however, no vehicular access to the lodge from the public road system, so all goods (including vehicles) had to come and go by rail via Corrour station. Until the track along the south shore of Loch Ossian was built, the estate ran a small steamer from the lodge to the head of Loch Ossian (where Loch Ossian youth hostel is now), from which the station was only a little over a mile (1.6 km) away. In 1972, the Forestry Commission built a private macadamized road from the A86 at near Moy Lodge to Corrour Lodge, so for the first time there was vehicular access to the station, via Corrour Lodge and Moy Lodge – a total distance of 15 miles (24 km).” [2]
We noted earlier that circumstances improved significantly for Sterling-Maxwell when he became an MP. Whatever deal was actually done, Sterling-Maxwell “gave his support to the much-contested Treasury Guarantee on which the West Highland Mallaig Extension depended. By virtue of his lesser property at Morar, he had a personal interest in the Mallaig line. Stirling-Maxwell later became a North British director, a “West Highland voice” on the board. Of a younger generation that the familiar landed “names” behind the West Highland project, he would live on into the mid-20th century, and his paternalist concern for successive railway families at isolated Corrour is well attested.” [1: p28]
Corrour Railway Station was just to the South of the summit of the line – the highest point on the railway network in the UK. Its sub post and telegraph office closed on 5 March 1977. [8]
In the 21st century, specifically in the year from April 2018, the station was the most used on the line North of Crianlarich with the exception of Fort William and Mallaig. [9] In recent years passenger usage has been:
In the mid-21st century, Corrour is unstaffed and there are no ticket-issuing facilities. There are no departure announcements but there is WiFi, a telephone help point, an electronic departure display and a Caledonian Sleeper digital information point. There is a shelter with bench seats and cycle racks. The station is lit by electric lights. [2][10]
I saw the featured image in a photo book compiled by Alton Douglas for Beacon Radio in 1987, ‘Memories of the Wrekin and Beyond’. It shows Lilleshall Estate’s 2ft-gauge railway in actionin 1933. [1: p47]
The Lilleshall Estate in Shropshire featured a historic 2-foot gauge miniature railway that operated from 1928 until the onset of World War II. Built to entertain tourists, the line used unique petrol-powered, steam-outline locomotives manufactured by E.E. Baguley Ltd.
Opened in 1928 and closed in 1939.
In 1917 the Duke of Sutherland sold the Hall and and Gardens. Eventually these were acquired by Herbert Ford who developed the site into a tourist attraction.
A map of the Lilleshall Hall and its grounds which shows the route of the railway. [3]
“The guide book was titled ‘Lovely Lilleshall’, adding ‘see Lilleshall and know the thrill of living’. On offer to visitors were: lunches & teas in the Hall, tennis courts, putting greens, archery, bowling greens, children’s playground, formal gardens, abbey ruins and a 2ft gauge railway. Opened on Easter Saturday, 7th April 1928, the line was a balloon loop of 1 mile, giving a full ride of 1¼ miles. Stations were provided at ‘Lilleshall Hall’ (the terminus) and ‘Abbey’ on the return loop in the woods. Apparently, internal combustion motive power was chosen to protect valuable plants alongside the line from damage by a steam locomotive. The line was presumably a success as a second steam outline locomotive was ordered from Baguley, arriving in May 1929. The Hall and railway were closed at the outbreak of the Second World War on 3rd September 1939.” [2]
Baguley 1695 (1928): The first locomotive delivered to Lilleshall, it is fully preserved and operates at the Apedale Valley Light Railway in Staffordshire.
Baguley 1769 “Altonia” (1929): A larger locomotive purchased to boost capacity was later moved to Alton Towers, and is now preserved at the Old Kiln Light Railway in Surrey.
References
Alton Douglas; Memories of the Wrekin and Beyond; Beacon Broadcasting, Wolverhampton, 1987.
I have just been given a small pamphlet style paperback book compiled and published in June 1920 by W.G. Tilling.
The featured image for this article comes from the frontispiece of Tilling’s book. It is a picture of the Class L 4-6-4T superheated large tank locomotive ‘Charles C. Macrae’. [1]
Tilling’s forward to the book states:
“For many years particulars of the locomotives running on our railway lines were difficult to obtain, but the Great Western Railway Company a year or two back broke through the usual official reticence by publishing a list of all their named engines. This was doubtless done to interest the general public in that railway, and I believe has proved a successful advertisement.
“Unofficial lists have also been published of the engines of the London and North Western Railway and a few of the smaller lines. Following these examples, I am prompted to deal with the locomotives of the London Brighton and South Coast Railway. This Company’s engines have probably had a larger circle of admirers than those of any other railway of similar size. The influence on locomotive design of the genius of the late William Stroudley (locomotive superintendent from 1871 until 1889) has appealed to the technical mind; whilst many, unconnected with railways, first attracted in their boyhood to this Company’s locomotives by their bright yellow livery and the fact that nearly all bore distinctive names, continue to take a keen interest in them long after their school days; and even now, when the engines are painted in less attractive colours, and the Stroudley classes are passing to the scrapheap, I feel sure there is a sufficiently large number interested to warrant the publication of this little book, and moreover, I am sanguine enough to hope that it may be of some use to many in the Company’s service.” [1: p3]
There were six hundred and six locomotives on the company’s roster in 25 different classes at the time that Tilling was writing these were:
The locomotives of the London, Brighton & South Coast Railway in 1920. [1: p4]
There were 172 tender engines and 434 tank engines (all of the side tank variety). In addition, Tilling writes, there were four tank engines attached to the Locomotive Department for shunting in the Locomotive Works and the three principal steam sheds.
Class B1 0-4-2 Express Passenger Locomotive. [1: facing p4]
Tilling continues:
“All engines are fitted with the Westinghouse brake, whilst a few running in conjunction with ‘foreign’ lines have the automatic vacuum brake in addition. These latter engines proved extremely useful during the war in dealing with the large amount of other Companies’ rolling stock that passed over the Brighton system.
“The passenger engines are painted umber colour lined out with two yellow lines with the Company’s arms in colours on the splashers and gold lettering, whilst the goods engines are painted black with red lining and gold lettering.” [1: p5]
There were seventeen Locomotive Depots on the system. …
Locomotive Depots of the LB&SCR. [1: p5]Class B4 4-4-0 Express Passenger Locomotive. [1: facing p5]Class A1x 0-6-0T Rail Motor Engine. [1: facing p9]
Tilling describes the various classes of locomotive:
“CLASS A: are small six-coupled side tanks with 4-ft. wheels, usually known as ‘Terriers’. They were designed [in 1872] years ago for working passenger trains on the South London and East London lines. Fifty engines were built in all, originally Nos. 35-84; several have been sold to other Companies, others scrapped, whilst the remainder are now used on rail motor work, excepting Nos. 642 and 682, which are yard engines at Battersea shed and Brighton works respectively.
“During the war several were taken over by the Government for working on light military lines in England and Scotland, for which their light weight only 27 tons 10 cwt. in working order made them very suitable. Although the oldest class now running on the line they are still very useful little engines, and several have recently been rebuilt with new boilers, etc., and are now classed A1x.
“CLASS B: include Stroudley’s and R. J. Billinton’s four-coupled passenger express engines, subdivided into B1 (‘Gladstones’), B2 (‘Grasshoppers’), B3 (one engine only-213 ‘Bessemer’) and B4 (‘Scotchmen’). The B2 and B3 engines are now all rebuilt with larger boilers of the C3 type and classed B2x.
The Bl’s are front-coupled non-bogie engines, and they for many years worked the bulk of the express traffic between London and Brighton until superseded by the B4’s in 1901. The majority of the survivors are now employed on work usually done by tank engines, and several are now stationed at Tunbridge Wells shed. ‘Gladstone’ itself, after thirty-seven years, is still in evidence working slow trains between Brighton and the Metropolis. No. 172 is the only one of the class not fitted with Stroudley’s pumps and arrangement for utilising part of the exhaust steam to heat the water in the tender.
“The B2’s were the first express engines with a leading bogie to run on the LBS&CR. They were built to supersede the old single wheelers on the London-Portsmouth road with its many curves, and the first batch, Nos. 314-324, were all sent to Fratton shed, except No. 323, which worked from St. Leonards.
“No. 206 was badly damaged in the Wivelsfield accident of December, 1899, and also has the distinction of having worked the first sixty-minute Pullman train from Victoria to Brighton on 2nd October 1898.
“Several of the B2x’s have had wells fitted to their tenders to increase their water capacity, whilst Nos. 204, 206-209, 211, 212, 314, 323 and 324 now have the large tenders formerly on the C3 goods engines.
“The B4’s were nearly all built in Glasgow at the time of the Boer War, and many carried names reminiscent of that campaign, until Mr. Marsh, with a few exceptions, abandoned the naming of engines.
“The B4’s have been used for a number of trials at one time and another. No. 45 ran from 1902 till 1911 with a Drummond water-tube fire-box. No. 48 worked for some time early in 1905 fitted with templates over the boiler to test the clearance of the newly designed ‘Atlantics’. When Mr. Marsh decided to do away with the old yellow livery in 1905, he painted experimentally two of this class (Nos. 50 and 52) dark green. No. 52 also ran for some time in 1902/3 fitted with Holden’s oil fuel apparatus (as did also some of the B1, B2 and E5 classes). No. 53 ran for several years fitted with the Hotchkiss water circulator, whilst No. 59 worked with a ‘Phoenix’ superheater from 1912 to 1915.
“No. 54 formerly bore the name ‘Empress’, and was at one time used for all Royal specials. She carried the name ‘La France’ for a week in August, 1905, when working special trains in connection with the visit of the French fleet to Portsmouth.
“Several of this class have now been fitted with extended smokeboxes.” [1: p6-8]
A Class B2x 4-4-0 Express Passenger Locomotive. [1: facing p12]A Class C3 0-6-0 Main Line Goods Locomotive No. 301. [1: p46]Class D1 0-4-2T Passenger Locomotive. [1: facing p8]
Tilling next focused on Class C locomotives:
“Class C: are the tender goods engines, of which there are four varieties.
“The C1 class, when built, were amongst the largest goods engines in the country. Only two survive, No. 428 stationed at Fratton and No. 430 at Brighton. They have both recently had the Stroudley patent brake gear removed and the standard arrangement substituted, in order to cope with heavier goods trains. No. 430 in the early days of the war worked a troop special through to Doncaster.
“The C2’s were all built by the Vulcan Foundry Co. They are now being reconstructed as C2x’s, having the larger C3 boiler. Like the B4’s they have makers’ plates on the back of the tenders, but as the tenders have been interchanged at various times, the works numbers on the plates do not necessarily apply to the engines to which the tenders are now attached. Two of the C2x’s, Nos. 524 and 546, are at present (June 1920) on loan to the Great Western Railway; they are stationed at Old Oak Common depot and regularly work through onto the Brighton line.
“The C3’s are nearly all at present attached to the Horsham depot; they were an advance on the C2 class in boiler power, but the first five only had 174-inch cylinders, though the remaining five have 18 inch cylinders. They originally had 3112 gallon tenders, but latterly these large tenders have been transferred to engines of the B2x class and the C3’s now have the smaller ones formerly on the B2x engines.” [1: p8-9]
Tilling continues:
CLASS D: “The D1 class is Stroudley’s well-known front-coupled tank engine. Mr. Stroudley built no fewer than 125 of these engines, distributed over practically the whole period of his rule at Brighton. Whilst designed for the London suburban traffic they have been used on every class of work, and some of them are to be found at every shed on the system. Perhaps Fratton has seen the least of them, but Nos. 254 and 356 are there at present for working the Portsmouth-Chichester rail motor. No. 248 has side tanks with rounded ends as in the Marsh engines.
“No. 625 of this class was the first engine on this railway to be fitted with the Westinghouse brake; and 233 is noteworthy as having been for many years stationed at East Grinstead, being, in fact, the only engine ever stationed there.
“The D3 class is Mr. R. J. Billinton’s four-coupled bogie tank. Having a greater coal and water capacity than the D1’s, they are used on the longer routes. The valve gear and cylinders of this class are interchangeable with those of the C2 goods engines. Two of the D3’s (Nos. 396 and 397) have been rebuilt with the larger boiler of the I2 class.” [1: p9-10]
He continues:
Class E: “The ‘E’ CLASSES are the six-coupled side tanks, the oldest being Stroudley’s E1’s. The first of these appeared in 1874, and the last were turned out in 1891 by Mr. R. J. Billinton, who fitted his own design of boiler which added slightly to the weight. No. 689 has been entirely rebuilt, having new tanks, cab and boiler.
“No. 157 differs from all the other engines of its class. It was built for, and has worked all its life on the difficult Eastbourne-Tunbridge Wells line. It has side tanks and bunker slightly larger than the other E1’s, cylinders 18.25in × 26in, motion as Classes B1 and C1, and weighs 46 tons 18 cwt. in working order.
“Several of the E1’s were condemned for scrap in 1912, and Mr. L. B. Billinton designed an entirely new class to take their place. These are the E2’s. There are ten of this series, the second five having longer side tanks than the others. For a short time, when new, Nos. 103 and 104 worked in the centre of six coaches as a rail motor between London Bridge and Crystal Palace via Forest Hill.
“When Mr. Stroudley died in December 1889, an experimental six-coupled radial tank was in hand. This engine – No. 158 – did not commence work until just two years after his death, and while it had Stroud let’s standard 18.25in × 26in cylinders, it was essentially ‘Billinton’ in appearance. This engine weighed 52 tons 14 cwt. When Mr R. J. Billinton subsequently built sixteen others, they had his standard 18in x 26in cylinders. They are Class E3.
A Class E2 0-6-0T Goods Tank Locomotive, No. 100. [1: facing p36]A Class E5 0-6-2T Mixed Traffic Tank Locomotive, No. 587. [1: facing p37]
Tilling continues:
“The E4’s and E5’s are similar to the E3’s but with larger driving wheels for mixed traffic and passenger work respectively, the capacity of the tanks is, however, larger. Twelve of the E4 class served on active service in France. They were Nos. 470, 481, 498, 504, 506, 516, 518, 562-565 and 580, and were chiefly employed banking trains on the St. Pol-Amiens line. They have all now been returned, and having been overhauled are back in service, painted black and unlined. They still bear the small plate inside the cab with which they were supplied before going overseas, to the effect that they are the property of the LB&SCR. of England. They were the only Brighton engines that were sent overseas during hostilities.
“Four engines of Class E4 have been rebuilt with the larger 12 class boiler and are now classed E4x, whilst four of the E5’s and two of the E6’s have been fitted with the larger C3 boiler and are now class E5x and E6x respectively.
No. 591, one of the E5’s, for some years regularly worked the 8.00 p.m. Grande Vitesse train from London Bridge to Newhaven; this engine is also noteworthy in having retained its name ‘Tillington’ and its yellow livery until 1917, over four years after all other ‘yellow’ engines had disappeared. Several of the E3’s and E4’s have been fitted with circular smokeboxes supported on a saddle, but when they retain the original sized boiler they are not classed E3x or E4x.” [1: p11]
Again, Tilling continues
Class H: This class “consist of the ‘Atlantics’, eleven in number. Mr. Marsh came to Brighton from Doncaster, and the first engine he designed for this railway was based on the familiar G.N. standard express type. Five were at first built by Messrs. Kitson of Leeds (Class H1). The H2’s were built at Brighton some years later; they have super-heaters which allow larger cylinders and lower boiler pressure to be used. Ten of them are stationed at Brighton and one at Eastbourne, and in conjunction with the ‘J’ and ‘L’ tanks they work all the heaviest expresses between London, Brighton and Eastbourne. No. 39 is frequently used for Royal specials, and bears the name ‘La France’. [1: p11-12]
A Class H2 Superheated 4-4-2 Express Passenger Locomotive No. 421. [1: facing p13]
The next class of locomotives that Tilling covers are:
Class I: “The ‘I’ class consist of the ten-wheeled tanks. The I1’s suffer from having too small boilers, but the later I3’s built for express work are very successful engines.
“No. 21 differs from the others in having 6 ft. 9 in. drivers, and the same cylinders and motion as the B4’s; it was fitted with a superheater during 1919. Twenty others of the I3’s are fitted with superheaters but have 21 in. x 26 in. cylinders.
“The I1’s are used on various local services; the I2’s and I4’s (which are the same as the I2’s, but with 20 in. cylinders and superheated) on such services as the London-Tunbridge Wells trains; whilst the I3’s work chiefly between London and the Coast on fast trains.
“No. 23 worked regularly for some weeks during 1909 in conjunction with the LNWR engine No. 7, ‘Titan’, on the ‘Sunny South Special’, running from Brighton through to Rugby one day and returning the next.” [1: p12]
A Class I1 4-4-2T Passenger Tank Locomotive No. 597. [1: facing p20]A Class I3 Superheated 4-4-2T Express Tank Locomotive No. 22. [1: facing p21]
Class J: “The ‘J’ Class consist of two experimental tank engines built by Mr. D. Earle Marsh for the express service between London and the Coast. They are of the ‘Pacific’ or 4-6-2 type with 21 in. × 26 in. cylinders, driving wheels 6 ft. 7 in. diameter, and superheated. No. 325 is fitted with Stephenson’s valve gear, whilst No. 326 was the first engine on this line to be fitted with the Walschaert pattern valve gear.
A Class J Superheated 4-6-2T Express Tank Locomotive – N0.326 ‘Besborough’. [1: facing p28]
Tilling continues:
Class K: “The ‘K’ Class are the latest heavy goods engines designed by Mr. L. B. Billinton for the traffic between London and Newhaven. They are tender engines of the ‘Mogul’ or 2-6-0 type, superheated. The first of these was put into service in September, 1913. To meet the greatly increased goods service to Newhaven, due to the war, another five were built in 1916; they are fitted with top feed to the boilers and have Belpaire fireboxes, and having proved so successful in service others with an improved top feed system are now under construction at Brighton. No. 339, one of the earlier engines, was fitted with this new arrangement in April, 1920, and is illustrated in these pages.” [1: p13]
A Class K Superheated 2-6-0 Fast Goods Locomotive No. 337. [1: facing p29]
He also notes that in 1920 there were:
“Seven engines of the K class … under construction at Brighton, they will be numbered 347 to 353. The engines at present numbered 347 to 353 will in due course be re-numbered 214 to 220; and engines at present numbered 214, 217 and 219 will be re-numbered 618, 619 and 620.” [1: p46]
Another Class K Superheated 2-6-0 Fast Goods Locomotive, No. 339, which was fitted with the, then, latest arrangement of Top Feed (April 2020). [1: p45]
Class L: “The ‘L’ Class consist of two tank engines of the ‘Baltic’ or 4-6-4 type. These are the largest express tank engines in Britain, and were built by Mr. L. B. Billinton to work the fast non-stop service between London and the coast towns at an approximately uniform speed, and so save racing on the down grades. These engines have cylinders of 22 in. diameter and 28 in. stroke, and the boiler which is of ample capacity is fitted with a superheater. The driving wheels are 6 ft. 9 in. diameter, and sufficient water and coal is carried for the longest non-stop run between London and Portsmouth.” [1: p13]
In the years prior to 1920, the LB&SCR had locomotives not recorded by Tilling, these include:
LB&SCR Richmond class: This class was a series of 0-4-2 express passenger locomotives, designed by William Stroudley in 1877. They were a larger version of his “Lyons” class (D2) which were in turn developed from his successful ‘D-tank’ class of 1873. [2]
The six locomotives in this class were built at Brighton railway works and appeared in traffic between October 1878 and March 1880, intended to replace earlier classes designed by John Chester Craven on the heaviest express trains between London and Brighton. They performed well on these duties for a decade but were eventually replaced by Stroudley’s larger “Gladstone” class (B1). They were then transferred to Eastbourne and St Leonards to work on expresses from those towns. During the winter of 1900/01 members of the class were transferred to the duplicate list. Withdrawal commenced in April 1901 and was completed by November 1904. No examples were preserved. [2]
They were originally classified as “B class” together with the members of the larger “Gladstone class”. As all six locomotives had been withdrawn before D.E. Marsh introduced his letter/number classification scheme, they were never officially allocated a new class designation. They were, however, described as ‘D3 class’. [2]
Diagram of a Richmond class 0-4-2, (c) F. Burtt and Public Domain. [2]
Locomotives designed by and built during the tenure of John Chester Craven between his appointment in 1847 and his retirement in January 1870. A full list of these locomotives can be found here. [3]
The ‘Jenny Lind’: The ‘Jenny Lind’ was built in 1847 after a relatively complicated gestation by E. B. Wilson and Company. [4] But it proved to be so successful that the design was used by Wilson & Co. as their standard design and more than seventy examples were built for various railways, including twenty-four for the Midland Railway. It could be said to be the first to be mass-produced to a consistent pattern. Indeed, the manufacturers charged a hefty premium for variations, although in response to pressure, they later built a number of “large jennies”. [4]
Other manufacturers and railways also adopted the type. John Chester Craven, Kirtley’s successor at Brighton, built a class of five similar “Jenny Lind singles” from 1853 to 1854. [4] An enlarged type was also built by Beyer, Peacock and Company in 1860 for the Portuguese South Western Railway. [4]
The original Jenny Lind, (c) Public Domain. [4]
Class G: A prototype single locomotive, No. 151 Grosvenor, was designed by Stroudley and produced by Brighton railway works in December 1874. This was extensively tested before a second, scaled down locomotive No. 325 Abergavenny, was ordered in June 1876 and completed in January 1877. Both locomotives performed adequately, but Abergavenny was significantly less powerful than Grosvenor. A modified design was developed and twelve further locomotives were built between December 1880 and November 1881. The members of this class worked express trains between London and South Coast towns such as Portsmouth, Brighton and Eastbourne, and covered large mileages. The introduction of the Billinton B2 class made the singles redundant on the Portsmouth line and so several were transferred to Tunbridge Wells. … Withdrawals began in May 1907, and the last locomotive survived until May 1914. No examples have been preserved, but there is a model of No. 331 Fairlight in the museum at Sheffield Park on the Bluebell Railway. [5]
London Brighton and South Coast Railway Class G 2-2-2 Locomotive. 26 locomotives were produced in this class. ‘Grosvenor’ was the first, ‘Abergavenny’ was the second (with alterations) and subsequently 24 more were produced, (c) Public Domain. [5]
Very Early Locomotives of the LB&SCR: Wikipedia also provides a list of all the locomotives owned by the LB&SCR from its inception (1846) until 1849. [6] That list includes a significant number of locomotives built by a series of specialist locomotive builders including: Sharp, Roberts & Co.; Jones, Turner and Evans; G and J Rennie; Edward Bury & Co.; William Fairbairn; George Forrester & Co.; Sharp Brothers; R and W Hawthorn Ltd.; Jones & Potts; John George Bodmer; Timothy Hackworth; and Stothert & Slaughter. Many of these were built for companies which formed the LB&SCR in 1846 and were built as early as 1838.
The majority of the locomotives acquired were owned or ordered by one of the three constituent railways, but some had been ordered by the Joint Committee. After the Joint Committee’s dissolution, some locomotives were ordered by John Gray, the new locomotive superintendent, from Timothy Hackworth and delivered during 1847 and 1848. Others were purchased from Stothert & Slaughter between 1847 and 1849. After this date the railway’s new locomotives were designed and built by John Chester Craven, usually at Brighton railway works. [6]
A List of Locomotive of the LB&SCR in 1920: Tilling provides a detailed list, locomotive by locomotive, of locomotives in use by the LB&SCR in 1920 to complete his book. These tables can be found here.
References
W.G. Tilling; The Locomotives of the London, Brighton & South Coast Railway; Tilling, London, 1920.
The travel section of the Saturday Guardian Magazine on 23rd May 2023 included a few pages about train journeys in Europe (pages 72 to 77). This is the fifth part of a look at those pages. …
The two pages of Nicky Gardner’s article. [1: p76-77]
Nicky Gardner, lead co-author of the guidebook ‘Europe by Rail’, has championed slow travel across the continent’s most scenic routes. Her writings highlight sea-hugging railways where travellers can take in spectacular coastal panoramas, deep fjords, and dramatic cliffs right from the carriage window. The short Guardian article featuring a few such routes was written by her and is directly quoted here.
5. Europe’s Best Coastal Train Lines
A. Scotland: Coast to Coast
The first line Nicky Gardner chooses to highlight is operated by ScotRail. Travelling the Inverness to Kyle of Lochalsh line will set you back £32 for a single ticket The journey is 83 miles and takes 2hrs 40mins. There are 4 trains a day (only two on Sundays). Sit on the right side first and then switch to the left. …
Nicky Gardner writes:
“There is only one rail route in Britain offering views of both the west and east coasts from a regular local train, and that’s the line from Inverness to Kyle of Lochalsh. For the east coast, look out for Cromarty Firth away to the right as the train approaches Dingwall, about half an hour after leaving Inverness. Later, you have good views of west coast sea lochs as the train runs down to the Atlantic coast at Kyle. And in between you’ll find alliterative desolation aplenty as it pauses at Achnashellach, Achnasheen, Achanalt and Attadale.
“The last 20 minutes down to Kyle bring a magic panorama of coast, headlands and islands. The sun sparkles on Loch Carron with glorious views north to the wild Applecross peninsula. Seals shuffle for safety as we approach Duncraig and all too soon we are pulling into Kyle of Lochalsh.” [1: p76]
“The Kyle of Lochalsh line is a primarily single-track railway line in the Scottish Highlands, from Dingwall to Kyle of Lochalsh. Many of the passengers are tourists, but there are also locals visiting Inverness for shopping, and commuters. All services are provided by ScotRail and run beyond Dingwall to Inverness. In the past there were some through services to and from Glasgow, Edinburgh or Aberdeen. None of the 63-mile (101 km) line is electrified, and all trains on the line are diesel-powered, as are all other trains in the Scottish Highlands.” [2]
When the first section of the Dingwall & Skye Railway opened on 19th August 1870 the area around Strathpeffer area became much better connected. However, because of the resistance of a local landowner, the Dingwall & Skye railway was pushed further North and had to run up a steep gradient (1 in 50) to a much higher line on the valley side. The new line had a station named ‘Strathpeffer’ but it was 2 miles from the spa on a relatively steep road. It would have been so much better had the line been able to follow the valley floor. With Strathpeffer’s rise in popularity it became necessary to build a branch line into the village.
The former station at Achterneed. [Google Maps, June 2026]Looking back towards Dingwall from the road-crossing at Achterneed. [Google Streetview, September 2025]Looking ahead along the line towards Kyle of Lochalsh from the road-crossing at Achterneed. [Google Streetview, September 2025]
The railway bridge over the Black Water at the East end of Loch Garve. The line runs along the South shore of the loch before turning Northwest and running into Garve Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Garve Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Two Class 158 Diesel Multiple Units (158701 and 158704) operated by Abellio ScotRail pass each other at Garve station’s passing loop, with services bound for Inverness and Kyle of Lochalsh respectively, (c) Sexy Simon and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence, (CC BY-SA 4.0). [3]Looking back into Garve Railway Station from the A835 level-crossing. [Google Streetview, September 2025]
Looking ahead along the line towards Kyle of Lochalsh from the level-crossing on the A835 at Garve. [Google Streetview, September 2025]
The line runs alongside the A835 and then the A832. Alongside the A832, it crosses this forestry access road. A short distance to the West of this crossing the A832 turns away to the Northwest. [Google Streetview, September 2025]
The line then turns to the Southwest to meet the North shore of Loch Luichart and runs West along the North shore before crossing the outfall from Mossford Hydroelectric Power Station. The line can be seen in the bottom-right of this satellite image. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Loch Luichart Railway Station seen from the approach road looking Southwest towards the station. The station sits above the North shore of the Loch at its western end. [Google Streetview, December 2021]
The original station at Lochluichart (called Lochluichart High) was opened by the Dingwall and Skye Railway in August 1871. It sat at a lower level than the present station.
Soon thereafter the line crosses the River Bran. In the 1950s the Conon Valley hydro-electric scheme raised the water level of Loch Luichart which required the railway line to be diverted onto higher ground and a new station to be erected. [Google Maps, June 2026]
The new line was known as the Lochluichart Diversion. It required a replacement bridge over the river. This image shows construction work on the bridge in the 1950s, (c) Am Bailie. [4]
The line ran on the South shore of Loch a’ Chuilinn before turning Northwest to cross the channel of the River Bran at its western end.A satellite image is below. [Google Maps, June 2026] The adjacent image is a drone’s eye view of the same bridge, (c) Brian McInally (August 2021). [Google Maps, June 2026]
Now on the North bank of the River Bran, the line runs West passing Loch Achanalt and through then request stop of the same name.
Achanalt Request stop and the A832. The River Bran runs just below the bottom of this image and just intrudes into it at the bottom-left. From this point on for a reasonable distance the line runs on the South side of the A832, with the River Bran to the South of the line. [Google Maps, June 2026]The next railway station is at Achnasheen just before the next bridge over the River Bran. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Achnasheen Railway Bridge spans the River Bran at the Southwest end of Achnasheen Railway Station. It is a single lattice-girder span of unusually light construction, with masonry abutments. [5]
Then, parallel to the A890, the line runs down the East side of Loch Gowan and continues to follow the River Bran upstream, crossing the River once again on a much smaller structure.
After the line bridges a tributary of the River Bran, this next bridge over the River Bran itself encounters a much smaller river! [Google Maps, June 2026]
The A890 runs to the North of Loch Scaven, the railway on the South side of the Loch. Both continue West-southwest across moorland and woodland.
The former Glencarron Railway Station is surrounded by woodland. The station was known as Glencarron Platform. [6]
Glencarron Platform was opened in 1873 on the Highland Railway’s line from Dingwall to Kyle of Lochalsh, this remote station closed in 1964. It had originally been for the sole use of the landowner but was later opened to all travellers. [7]
Southwest of Glencarron Platform the railway followed the A890 down the valley of the River Carron. The Road was Northwest of the line, the river was to the Southeast of the line.
Further Southwest, a forest access road crossed the line at a level-crossing. [Google Maps, June 2026]The level-crossing seen from the A890. [Google Streetview, September 2025]River, road and railway continue West from the crossing. [Google Maps, June 2026]Further West again, the A890 passes under the railway. [Google Maps, June 2026]This view looks South through the underbridge which was designed only for a single line of traffic. [Google Streetview, September 2025]This view looks North through the same bridge. [Google Streetview, September 2025]
The valley of the River Carron is heavily wooded and the line disappears at times under the canopy. Even Achnashellach Railway Station is difficult to make out from above!
The A890 and the railway run to the Northwest of Loch Dugaill at the Southwest end of the loch the railway crosses the A890 again.
The road crossing to the Southwest of Loch Dugaill. [Google Maps, June 2026]Looking Northeast along the Carron valley towards Dingwall. [Google Streetview, September 2025]Looking Southwest along the Carron valley towards Kyle of Lochalsh. [Google Streetview, September 2025]
The road and the railway run in close proximity for quite a distance.
Both road and rail are close once again at Attadale Railway Station which served/served the Attadale Estate and Attadale Gardens. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Attadale Railway Station. [Google Streetview, September 2025]
The road and railway remain close together for a distance to the South of Attadale Station, passing through Stromeferry Tunnel.
The Strathcarron Tunnel was designed to provide protection for both the railway and the A890. Current arrangements mean that the road is close and traffic diverted to run through the rail tunnel under strictly controlled traffic arrangements. [Google Streetview, September 2025]
The tunnel is a concrete structure which covers both the railway and A890, it protects the railway and road from the cliff above. The tunnel was built in the 1970s. When the Stromeferry Bypass road opened, it met the older road from Strathcarron and in doing so resulted in the closure of the Strome Ferry crossing from Stromeferry to North Strome Pier. [10]
The cutting back of the cliff face for the road resulted in instability and the surface was netted to prevent rockfalls. [11]
Work became necessary on the cliff face, the space for doing this needed the road traffic to be diverted onto the line of the railway. Matting was placed on the railway to allow this and an arrangement that interlocked the railway signalling with the road traffic lights. [11][12]
Looking Northeast through Strathcarron Tunnel during traffic restriction in place in 2018. In this photograph we see that vehicles are running over the line of the railway and controlled by interlocked traffic lights and railway signals. [12]
Since 2012, the Highland Council have been consulting with local people and drawing up a number of plans to alleviate the rockfall problem in the future. “Widening the existing route is now seen as a complete non-starter, although netting on the cliff faces, and regular monitoring of their condition, have kept the road open. The two main proposals remaining are … to redirect the road around the back of the hills from Attadale to Glen Udalain, or to build a bridge at Strome. This second option would also see the pretty lochside village of Lochcarron bypassed, with a new road around the back on the hillside, although doubtless this could be put back as a long term aspiration, with the bridge still built. In both of these options the present road below the cliff would then be converted to a rock trap to protect the railway, with the two ends remaining open for local access.” [13]
Southwest of the Strathcarron Tunnel road and rail run close together along the shore of the loch. [Google Streetview, September 2025]
The close alignment continues for some distance further to the Southwest. [Google Streetview, September 2025]
With the A890 now a little further inland the railway approaches Stromeferry. This view looks back along the line to the Northeast. [Google Streetview, May 2010]Looking ahead towards Stromeferry Railway Station at the same location. [Google Streetview, May 2010]Stromeferry Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]Stromeferry Railway Station seen from the West. [Google Streetview, April 2009]A little further down the coast an approach road to the shore passes under the line by means of a low arch bridge. [Google Streetview, September 2025]The line bridges the mouth of Abhainn Srath Ascaig. [Google Maps, June 2026]It also crosses the mouth of a small lagoon. [Google Maps. May 2026]And then it enters Duncraig Railway Station and across the mouth of another lagoon. [Google Maps, June 2026]Duncraig Railway Station seen from the access road bridge. [Google Streetview, June 2025]The arch bridge over the mouth of the lagoon to the Southwest of Duncraig Station. [Google Streetview, June 2025]Another bridge (smaller this time) over the mouth of another lagoon formed by an embankment carrying the line. [Google Maps, June 2026]The next significant location along the line is Plockton Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]Looking back East along the line from the road bridge over the railway station. [Google Streetview, September 2025]Plockton Railway Station as seen from the road bridge over the Northeast end of the station site. [Google Streetview, September 2025]The Station building seen from the Northeast on Station Road. [Google Streetview, November 2021]The line then crosses another stream as it flows into the loch. [Google Maps, June 2026]The embankment at this location is relatively significant in height, the steam passes under the line via a stone-arched culvert. [Google Streetview, September 2025]At Duirnish Railway Station the line crosses a minor road serving a few properties on the loch shore. [Google Maps, June 2026]Looking Northeast from the road-crossing. [Google Streetview, September 2025]Duirnish Railway Station seen from the Northeast. [Google Streetview, September 2025]Shortly after passing through Duirnish Railway Station the line is bridged by another minor road. [Google Maps, June 2026]Another embankment takes the line across an inlet from the loch. [Google Maps, June 2026]A more substantial structure, this time a steel girder bridge spans the channel through this embankment. [Google Streetview, May 2026]
Looking North from Main Street Bridge. [Google Streetview, September 2025]Looking South from Main Street Bridge. [Google Streetview, September 2025]Two images looking North from The bridge carrying Station Road across the two arms of the railway entering Kyle Station. [Google Streetview, September 2025]
Looking South at the lines to the West of Kyle of Lochalsh Railway Station’s island platform. [Google Streetview, September 2025]A view of the West side of the station in 1939. The ferry to Kyleakin is off scene to the right. A train is leaving for Dingwall and Inverness, with an ex-Highland 4-6-0, (c) Walter Dendy and licensed of reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 2.0). [14]Looking South at the lines to the East of Kyle of Lochalsh Railway Station’s island platform. [Google Streetview, September 2025]
Sheep ready to be loaded onto a train in the years between WWI and WWII. This is one of a number of images of the Kyle line held by the Museum in Kyle of Lochalsh station building. [15]
B. Ireland: Dublin to Wicklow
Irish Rail operates the Dublin Connolly to Arklow line. The 50 mile journey takes 1hr 45mins and costs only €8.85. There are 6 trains each day with 3 on Saturday and Sunday. Make sure to sit on the left.
Nicky Gardner writes:
“Londoners may be surprised to read that Dublin had commuter trains earlier than the UK capital. Ireland’s first railway ran from Westland Row to Kingstown (now Dún Laoghaire), a stretch of track that is now the prelude to a fine route that extends right down to Wexford and Rosslare in the south-east corner of Ireland. The spectacular coastal section just south of Dún Laoghaire is a remarkable piece of engineering as the railway cuts under Bray Head. It was designed by none other than Isambard Kingdom Brunel, and in many ways resembles his celebrated coastal railway at Dawlish in Devon.
“South of Bray Head, the railway hugs the coast, with fine views of the Wicklow Hills well off to the west and the Murrough Wetlands closer to hand. Coastal purists may opt to stop at Wicklow, but I recommend staying on board to enjoy a short foray through the hills and down the Vale of Avoca, with its lush woodland. Alight in Arklow where the railway regains the coast again.” [1: p76]
The line to Dún Laoghaire (and beyond) is part of the Dublin DART network. It is a fast, frequent, and electrified commuter rail system. Originally it ran only along the coast of the Irish Sea, connecting Malahide and Howth in north County Dublin through the city centre down to Greystones in County Wicklow. The DART servesd32 stations and consisted of 53 route kilometres of electrified railway (46 km (29 mi) double track, 7 km (4.3 mi) single), and carried to up 23 million passengers per year. [16] That original network ahs been expanded.
The adjacent image shows the expanded DART network with the original line shown in green. The route that Nicky Gardner highlights is the line shown Magenta and Green to the South of the centre of Dublin with its terminus at Greystones in Co. Wicklow. [16][17]
Leaving the centre of Dublin, the Southbound DART follows the coast closely all the way to Greystones. Each of the stations on the route South from Connolly Street Railway Station is shown on the extract from Dublin’s schematic transport map above. [17]
Connelly Street Railway Station – the DART platforms serving the line to the South are those at the top-right of the image, with the DART leaving the image on the lower left. The DART runs on a viaduct above the city streets. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Leaving Connolly Street Station heading South, trains on the DART cross the River Liffey at high level The Bridge is known as the Cumann na mBan Bridge, this utilitarian steel-truss viaduct connects Connolly Station on the northside to Pearse Station on the southside. Designed by John Chaloner Smith (engineer to the Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford Railway), the bridge was built between 1889 and 1891. It consists of wrought iron lattice girders on a double row of piers with five spans. The viaduct is approximately six metres above street level and supports two railway tracks. [18]
The bridge carrying the DART over the River Liffey (c) YvonneM and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons Licence (CC BY-SA 3.0). [20]
A closer photograph of the bridge taken in 2008, (c) KGGucwa (Public Domain) [19] and (below) a satellite image showing the bridge. [Google Maps, June 2026]
After crossing the River Liffey, the DART runs through Tara Station (top-left) and Pearce Station towards the bottom of the image at the centre. [Google Maps, June 2026]
The line continues heading Southeast through Grand Canal Dock Station and Lansdowne Road Station. Just to the South East of Lansdowne Road Station the DART crosses the River Dodder (just off the image to the bottom-right). [Google Maps, June 2026]
The next two stations are Sandymount (top-left) and Sydney Parade (bottom-right). [Google Maps, June 2026]
Nicky Gardner’s focus is on the length of the line to the South of Dún Laoghaire. Immediately to the Southeast of the Station the line passes in tunnel under the central sea front area of the town.
This OpenStreetMap extract shows the tunnel more clearly than some mapping. [21]
Leaving the tunnel to the South East of Dún Laoghaire, the line first head South and passes through Sandycove & Glasthule Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Sandy Cove and Glasthule Station facing South, (c) Autarch and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 3.0). [23]Turning Southeast the line continues through Glenageary Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Glenageary Railway Station looking Southeast, (c) Doug Lee and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 2.0). [24]
The line continues Southeast through Dalkey Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Dalkey Railway Station seen from the Southwest, (c) Andrewrabbott and placed in the Public Domain. [25]
South of Dalkey the line turns through South to South West and follows the coast towards Killiney, shown below. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Killiney Station facing South, (c) William Murhy and licensed under a Creative Commons licence. (CC BY-SA 2.0). [26]
Further to the South the line passes through Shankill Railway Station heading South. [Google Maps, June 2026]
The line continues South from Shankill Railway Station through Woodbrook Railway Station and then Bray Daly Railway Station.
Woodbrook Station is at the top of the first of these images, Bray Daly in the top half of the second. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Woodbrook Railway Station looking South with a Northbound service sitting at the platform. [27]
Bray Daly Railway Station looking South with an IE 29000 Class DMU heading South across the level-crossing at the North end of the Railway Station. [28]
South of Bray Daly Railway Station trains run through storage sidings which hold trains during off-peak hours to provide a peak hour service North through Dublin. As the line heads South through these sidings the line become a single track and heads East at first to run alongside the sea and then curving around Bray Head. The single-track line clings to steep cliffs, offering dramatic views of the Irish Sea as it weaves through historic tunnels. A series of photographs of this next length of the line can be found here. [29]
“The route around the headland was surveyed and engineered by … Isambard Kingdom Brunel, who at the time was engaged with the construction of the Dublin & Wicklow Railway’s line from Bray to the county town of Wicklow further south. The section of line around the headland from Bray to Greystones was first opened in 1855. The line featured several engineering structures, including tunnels and several wooden trestle built viaducts. High maintenance costs and constant damage from the sea resulted in several deviations from the original 1855 route, the first of which involved the construction of new tunnel (No.1) in 1876, however a section of the 1855 alignment was retained as ‘Worthington Siding’ until 1882. The second occurred in 1879 between No.2 and 3 Tunnels, and the final deviation was implemented as late as 1917, which involved the construction of the longest tunnel (No.4) at 1,042 yards long at the southern end of the headland.” [29]
“All of the deviations eliminated the Brunel’s viaducts and cliff sections, the line now taking on the name Brunel’s Folly due to the route’s reconstructions. Today there are four tunnels in total, including some smaller nameless ones. A well maintained pathway between Bray and Greystones overlooks the majority of the railway line.” [29]
Bray Head: the railway ran close to the sea around the headland. [Google Maps, June 2026][30]
The railway around Bray Head, (c) Stuart Fisher (2008) and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY_SA 2.0). [31]
The railway is somewhat less dramatically sited as it heads further South, through Greystones and on to Wicklow. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Perhaps it is worth noting that this journey only costs €8.85 single or €17.70 return!
C. Germany: Over the Sea to Sylt
Nicky Gardner suggests that it is best to sit on the left of the train as it leaves Husum to travel to Keitum. A 44 mile journey will cost €21.60 single and take an hour to complete. Trains on the Marschbahn line run hourly and are operated by Deutsche Bahn (DB). [32]
She writes:
“One cannot fail to be impressed by the determination of the Weimar Republic’s engineers and planners who needed to build a railway to Sylt. This sandy outpost of German territory is the largest of the North Frisian Islands. The traditional route to Sylt relied on a ferry from a mainland port on territory which was ceded to Denmark after the first world war. So a causeway was constructed across the Wadden Sea to reach Sylt. It opened in 1927, and a century later the Hindenburg causeway is still car-free – and since mid-April this year it is for the very first time possible to ride a posh ICE train over the sea to Sylt.
“Leaving Husum, a coastal town shaped by the herring trade, we sweep over the town’s harbour on a high bridge. There’s a cluster of fishing boats at the quayside below. Then we glide north over marshlands and meadows, all protected by high dykes to prevent the area from being inundated.
“From the train, you get a real feel for these landscapes with their distant horizons. But the sea seems far away, held at bay by dykes. That changes after Klanxbüll, where the railway turns west and crosses salty mudflats to reach the open sea. Check tide tables and make this journey at high tide – ideally on a stormy day. In such conditions, this is an unforgettable experience. Alight at Keitum, to my mind the nicest village on Sylt. From the station, it is an easy stroll into the village with several cosy cafes and a feast of fine Frisian thatch and gables.” [1: p76-77]
The line to Sylt runs North out of Hamburg. As the train glides gently through the flat expanse of Schleswig-Holstein, picturesque views of green meadows and the Kiel Canal open up. Shortly before arrival, the route offers an unforgettable panorama: the Wadden Sea stretches out before you with its characteristic tidal creeks. [32]
Husum (Nordsee) Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]Husum Railway Station Building is a substantial structure, (c) Mef.ellingen and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 4.0). [34]Hattstedt Railway Station. [Google maps, June 2026]Hattstedt Station seen from the level-crossing at the West end of the station site. [Google Streetview, August 2022]
The next station on the line is in Struckum – although, as can be seen below it appears no longer to be in use as a station. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Looking South through the site of the station from Brückenstraße which bridges the line just off the top of the satellite image of the site. [Google Streetview, May 2022]Looking North from the bridge on Brückenstraße. [Google Streetview, May 2022]
The next station is only a short distance further North in Bredstedt. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Bredstedt Railway Station building seen from the West [Google Streetview, September 2023]
Theis view looks back towards Bredstedt from the bridge carrying Margarethenberg over the line. [Google Streetview, September 2023]Turning through 180°, this view shows the line heading North towards Langenhorn. [Google Streetview, September 2023]Looking back South towards Bredstedt from the level-crossing at Beekensweg. [Google Streetview, May 2022]The line ahead to the North from the same level-crossing. [Google Streetview, May 2022]
The next station is at Langenhorn. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Langenhorn Railway Station seen from the level-crossing at its South end. [Google Streetview, September 2023]
The line continues on a straight alignment just to the West of North. The next image shows the view North along the line at the Dorpstraat level-crossing in Bargum.
Looking North at the Dorpstraat Level-Crossing in Bargum. [Google Streetview, September 2023]
The view North from the railway-crossing on Dorfstraße at Stedesand. [Google Streetview, June 2022]
Looking Southeast from the level-crossing on Dorfstraße in Risum-Lindholm. [Google Streetview, September 2023]
Looking Northwest at the same level-crossing. [Google Streetview, September 2023]
Further Northwest, this is the view along Legerade with the railway alongside. [Google Streetview, September 2023]
The next railway station at Niebüll is in two parts. There is the normal passenger facility towards the top of the adjacent satellite image. To the South of this station is the loading point for the SyltShuttle at Niebüll – Niebüll Autoverladung. It is the point that vehicles travelling to Sylt are loaded onto the shuttle trains – ‘Blue’ or ‘Red’ [Google Maps, June 2026]
Niebull Railway Station building seen from the West. [Google Streetview, May 2022]Looing East across the level-crossing on Gather Landstraße at the North end of the Railway Station site. [Google Streetview, September 2023]Looking Southinto the Station site from the crossing at Gather Landstraße [Google Streetview, September 2023]
North of the Railway Station in Niebull a junction divides the single line heading North from the line serving Sylt which head Northwest. [Google Maps, June 2026]
The line to Sult heads to the left (Northwest) after crossing Gather Landstraße [Google Streetview, September 2023]
Looking Northwest from the level-crossing at Süderende. [Google Streetview, September 2023]The w ide-open, expansive and flat countryside is once again emphasised by this view North from the level-crossing at Süderdeich. [Google Streetview, September 2023]
Klanxbüll, Schleswig-Holstein is the final station on the mainland before the embankment/causeway that takes the railway across the Wadden Sea. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Klanxbüll, Schleswig-Holstein as seen from the level-crossing at the Southeast end of the station site. [Google Streetview, September 2023]
Wide open flat lands on the approach to the Wadden Sea. [Google Streetview, September 2023]
A drone’s eye view of the shuttle service operated by DB (the Red Train) which crosses the embankment leading to Sylt. [35]
The Blue Train covers the same route – it is operated by RDC Deutschland (Railroad Development Corporation). [36]
A drone’s eye view of the shuttle service operated by DB which crosses the embankment leading to Sylt. [35]The first railway station on Sylt is Morsum. [Google Maps, June 2026]Morsum Railway Station seen from the level-crossing at the West end of the station site. [Google Streetview, March 2022]Keitum Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]Train sitting at Keitum Railway Station enroute to Westerland Railway Station. [Google Streetview, August 2025]
Westerland Railway Station on Sylt. Car trains unload and load here. [Google Maps, June 2026][Google Streetview, March 2022]
Westerland is the end of the line and the last kilometre or two from Keitum to Westerland are not particularly scenic. It seems as though Nicky Gardner is happy to get off the train at Keitum. The flat landscape and the significant crossing of the Wadden Sea by train are positive attributes of a line, that to me at least, seems to be less than Nicky Garner promises it will be.
The next article in this series will be the last. It focuses on a line in Northern Spain and a line in Southern Italy.
References
Nicky Gardner; Over Land & Sea: Magical Views and Sea-Hugging Routes on Europe’s Best Coastal Train Lines; in Saturday(the Guardian Magazine), 23rd May 2026, p76-77.
Roger Farnworth 
#/media/File:The_Jacobite_Arriving_at_Mallaig_-_geograph.org.uk_-_3119099.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
#/media/File:P1020943_Bahnhof_Husum_2019.jpg){kind=link}