Category Archives: British Isles – Railways and Tramways

The Railways of West Cumberland – Part 2 …….

Leave a reply

The featured image for this article is a photograph taken by Walter Dendy of a football excursion returning from Egremont to Carlisle passing through Distington Railway Station behind ex-LMS Class ‘4F’ Locomotive No. 44461 in 1951. The line to the left is to Rowrah and Kelton Fell line, © W. Dendy and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 2.0). [6]

The Railways of West Cumberland. [2]

This is the second in a series of articles about the railways of West Cumberland. The first can be found here. [3]

This article is based around the potted history of West Cumberland’s railways written by C. A. Knight and included in his article in The Railway Magazine of November 1954. [1]

Knight explains that the growing importance of Carlisle as a railway centre, sitting as it did on the natural route between England and Scotland and already the terminus of existing and proposed railways meant that it was:

“the obvious route for the improvement of communications between West Cumberland and the rest of the country, in comparison with the alternative route to the south involving the crossing of several estuaries. The Maryport & Carlisle Railway was incorporated in 1837, and was constructed in stages between 1840 and 1845, to provide communication between the points named and also to develop the coalfield between Maryport and Aspatria by facilitating the shipment of coal through Maryport Docks and the transport of coal to other parts of the country through Carlisle. The company enjoyed prosperity from the beginning, and was one of the few early railways to retain its individuality until the Railways Act of 1921. The original single-platform station at Maryport is still in use as part of the [coastal] through route from Carlisle to Carnforth.” [1: p757]

“The extension of railway communication to Workington and Whitehaven was the logical development to connect these two towns with Carlisle. This railway, known as the Whitehaven Junction, and incorporated in 1844, was the result of the enterprise of the second Earl of Lonsdale. It cut across several existing tramways from collieries to the sea, and the rights of passage were protected under the Act of Incorporation. Leaving Maryport in a southerly direction, the line traversed the level sea-shore to cross the River Derwent at Workington, crossing a colliery tramway on the level immediately after leaving Maryport. The mining village of Flimby was the only intermediate station between Maryport and Workington, the station at Siddick Junction was not built until the construction of the Cleator & Workington Junction Railway.” [1: p757 & p759]

“From Workington to Whitehaven, the line, although continuing level, followed the natural line of the coast, involving heavy engineering work in maintaining a formation at the foot of the high ground which runs to the sea. The terminus at Whitehaven was at Bransty, at the north end of the town, and the original station [was, at the time of Knight’s article, used] for carriage cleaning, with the exception of one platform, which [had] been extended to form one side of what is in effect an island platform, and [was] still used for trains to and from the North starting or terminating at Whitehaven.” [1: p759]

“Crossing the line immediately north of Bransty Station, from William Pit on the east to Whitehaven Harbour on the west side, is the sole surviving, [in 1954,] colliery tramway, which [was] still in daily use. In 1848, the railway was extended along the west side of Bransty Station to serve Whitehaven Harbour, and in 1858, a branch was constructed from a junction immediately north of Workington Station to serve Workington Harbour, now known as Merchants’ Quay. Maryport Docks were originally connected to the Maryport & Carlisle Railway, but the Whitehaven Junction constructed its own line to the docks in 1865, thus giving access from the south, and, following an era of amalgamation by the large railway companies, the whole line was absorbed by the London & North Western Railway in 1866.” [1: p759]

“By 1845, the only important place in West Cumberland without railway communication was Cockermouth, a pleasant town serving an agricultural community. The opening of the Cockermouth & Workington Railway in 1847 extended the network of railways which was taking shape. Leaving the Whitehaven Junction Railway [to the] North of the bridge over the River Derwent, this line followed the natural route eastwards along the valley, with many crossings of the winding river. but no other substantial engineering work. The line opened up the coalfield in the Camerton area, and used Workington Station jointly with the Whitehaven Junction. The terminus at Cockermouth was at the east end of the town and [was, in 1954,] the site of the goods station. The extension of the railway in an easterly direction was delayed by reason of the difficult country beyond Cockermouth, but the importance of the line was increased in 1861 by the construction of the Cockermouth, Keswick & Penrith Railway, when it became part of the direct route between the Durham coalfield and West Cumberland.” [1: p759]

“In 1863, the Cockermouth & Workington Railway was extended to the new Workington dock system on the North side of the River Derwent by means of a level crossing at Derwent Junction over the Whitehaven Junction line, and connection was also given by a private line running on the east side of the Whitehaven Junction, from St. Helens Colliery, Siddick, to Workington Dock. The railway was the first in West Cumberland to come into the hands of the London & North Western Railway, in 1866, and with the absorption of the Whitehaven Junction in the following year, the LNWR controlled the whole of the existing West Cumberland lines, although they were isolated from the rest of [their] system and reached by running powers.” [1: p759]

“The extension of railway facilities in a southerly direction from Whitehaven was again largely the result of the enterprise of the second Earl of Lonsdale, who held large interests in a number of collieries in Whitehaven and district, and was anxious to open up communication with other parts of the country. The Whitehaven & Furness Junction Railway. incorporated in 1845, originally was proposed to run from a terminus at Preston Street, Whitehaven, [the goods station in 1954] to a junction with the Furness Railway near Askam, but the scheme was modified in favour of a junction at Broughton, some six miles north of Askam. The railway was completed to Broughton in 1850, but for some years was in financial difficulties. It ran through sparsely populated agricultural country, and the remunerative iron ore traffic from the Cleator and Frizington district, which became such an important factor in the future prosperity of the line, was still undeveloped. In 1852, the single-line tunnel between Corkickle and Bransty Stations, Whitehaven, was opened, and Bransty Station was extended to cope with the influx of traffic from the south. There already existed a physical link between the Whitehaven & Furness Junction and the Whitehaven Junction by a line from Preston Street terminus along the streets of the town to Whitehaven Harbour, thence by the Harbour Commissioners’ lines to the junction with the Whitehaven Junction at Bransty, but this was never used for through traffic.” [1: p759-760]

“With the completion of the encirclement of West Cumberland by coast lines, the possibility of developing the rich iron ore deposits a short distance to the east of Whitehaven, particularly at Egremont and Cleator Moor, came under review. These deposits had been known for many years, but transport difficulties and inadequate mining facilities had restricted their output to the small quantity of ore which could be carted to Whitehaven for shipment. In 1857, the Whitehaven, Cleator & Egremont Railway was opened from Mirehouse Junction, a mile south of Corkickle, on the Whitehaven & Furness Junction Railway, to Moor Row, and thence … to Frizington to the north-east, and Egremont to the south. The result was an immediate improvement in the fortunes of the Whitehaven & Furness Junction Railway, which hauled the traffic from Mirehouse Junction, although it is probable that much of the traffic was short-hauled to Whitehaven Harbour for shipment, thus repeating the history of the coal industry by retaining the same port of shipment but extending the area of operations. The Whitehaven, Cleator & Egremont Railway surmounted the high-lying country by a series of easy curves to Moor Row on a final gradient of 1 in 52.” [1: p760]

“The continued prosperity of the iron ore industry made possible the extension in 1864 of the Whitehaven, Cleator & Egremont Railway from Frizington to Lamplugh. This is even more difficult country, and the improvement in the tractive effort of locomotives would no doubt have had some influence in endeavouring to overcome the gradients from Frizington, where the rise steepens to 1 in 44. Fortunately, the main flow of traffic was downhill, but with the locomotives available there must have been some struggles up the winding approach to Yeathouse, through a wooded cutting. The circle was completed in 1866 by an extension from Lamplugh to Marron Junction, between Brigham and Workington, where the Whitehaven, Cleator & Egremont Railway joined the Cockermouth & Workington Railway, which had been taken over by the L.N.W.R. in the previous year.” [1: p760]

“Development of the iron ore deposits in the Beckermet area, south of Egremont, followed the extension of the line from Egremont to Sellafield in 1869, to form a junction with the Furness Railway. That company was still anxious to carry a greater share of the remunerative iron ore traffic over its own lines, and strongly opposed this extension because it had previously sought powers to extend its own line to Egremont. This last major extension of the Whitehaven, Cleator & Egremont Railway was a fortunate one, as the mines at Ullcoats and Beckermet have been very productive, and now remain as the only iron ore mines still in operation in the area. Its success emboldened the company to seek a further extension from Ullock, between Rowrah and Marron Junction, to Distington, subsequently extended to form a junction with the L.N.W.R. at Parton. The development of the iron ore field in the Lamplugh area had been disappointing, no doubt partly as the result of the circuitous haul to the furnaces, and the new route reduced the distance considerably. A small colliery was opened at Wythmoor, West of Ullock Junction, but the only intermediate station between Ullock Junction and Parton was Distington, where an ironworks was established.” [1: p760]

A repeat of the hand-drawn map included in the first article of this short series should mean that some of Knight’s text can be more easily checked as it is read. [1: p758]
An August bank Holiday special service to Seascale at Moor Row Railway Station with former LYR 0-6-0 locomotive No. 52201 in charge. The station was once a vital hub for the region’s iron ore industry. It was built by the Whitehaven, Cleator and Egremont Railway and opened on 1st July 1857. Sometimes known locally as the ‘Crewe of the Iron Moor’, it served as a major junction and staging post for transporting haematite iron ore, coal, and limestone. The site included a shunting yard, engine shed, and carriage and wagon repair facilities. The station officially closed to advertised passenger services on 16th June 1947 but remained open for freight until 1964, with some industrial lines in the area continuing to use the tracks until the early 1980s. In the 21st century, the old trackbed has been repurposed and is now part of the Sea to Sea (C2C) cycle route and national coast-to-coast walk, © W. A. Camwell. [1: p761][4][5]

The Whitehaven, Cleator & Egremont Railway was confident in its own success, rebuffing takeover approaches from the LNWR until the arrival of the Cleator & Workington Junction Railway in 1876.

Knight continues:

“For some time there had been growing concern in the area in view of the virtual monopoly of transport for the heavy industries which was in the hands of the London & North Western and the Whitehaven, Cleator & Egremont Railways. Both served different parts of the district, so that no effective competition between them was possible, and an increase in rates in 1873 brought forward several proposals for competitive lines, notably one from Cleator Moor to Workington. These developments were received with composure by the existing companies, as all the apparently obvious routes were already occupied. There is little doubt that the strongly individualistic traders in the area did not relish the remote control exercised from Euston, and much preferred to deal with locally controlled railways, whose directorate was often identical with their own, possibly to some extent to their mutual advantage.” [1: p761]

“The prospect of a competitive route caused considerable alarm to the directors of the Whitehaven, Cleator & Egremont Railway and in the following year amalgamation with the LNWR was accepted. The Furness Railway, still unable to get a substantial foothold in the area, objected strongly, and in 1878 both sides were more or less satisfied by joint acquisition of the Whitehaven, Cleator & Egremont by the Furness and the London & North Western Railways.” [1: p761]

The Cleator & Workington Junction Railway was essentially built to provide competition to effective monopoly companies in the area.

Knight continues:

“With the exception of two collieries, at Walkmill, between Cleator Moor and Moresby Parks, and later at Oatlands, between Rowrah and Distington the line did not open up any new industrial territory, and was almost entirely, and for obvious reasons, financed from local business sources.

“Construction commenced immediately and the line ran from a junction with the deviated Whitehaven, Cleator & Egremont Railway at Cleator Moor, to a junction with the LNWR at Siddick, north of Workington. It is probable that the promoters would have liked to avoid the LNWR altogether, and make a junction with the Maryport & Carlisle Railway, but even they were daunted by the formidable country to be traversed north of the Derwent valley. As this railway was the last in the field, it was left with little choice in the matter of route, with the result that it was constructed through scarcely populated country involving 11½ miles of line almost entirely on a gradient of 1 in 70. Its purpose was to provide a competitive route from the many small furnaces which were in existence at that time, but the difficult country through which it ran necessitated the main line running past even these, and the works were served by small branches. The headquarters and principal station at Workington were centrally situated, but long-distance passengers were more adequately catered for by the LNWR, which had a more direct route north and south, and the passenger business was principally local.” [1: p761-762]

Workington Central Railway Station which closed to passenger traffic on 13th April 1931 and closed completely to freight traffic in May 1964. The station site included two platforms and a bay platform, serving the Cleator and Workington Junction Railway. It was situated approximately half a mile closer to the town centre than the alternative Workington railway station. The site is now a car park, although the bridge remains.. [1: p762]

Immediately north of Workington Central, a short connection was made from Cloffocks Junction across the River Derwent to the LNWR at Workington Bridge, on the Cockermouth and Workington line, and a little further north, at Dock Junction, a branch diverged in westerly direction, crossing the LNWR and describing an almost complete circle to reach Workington Docks and the Oldside Works.

Knight continues:

“Pursuing its aggressive policy, the Cleator & Workington Junction Railway next turned attention to the limestone so necessary in the production of iron, of which large deposits existed at Rowrah, the summit of the Whitehaven, Cleator & Egremont Railway between Moor Row and Marron Junction. The construction of the Oatlands branch in 1877 gave a much more direct route to Workington, and it was built from a junction at a point just south of Distington, to Rowrah, a distance of some 6½ miles.

“The branch diverges to the west of the main line, but immediately crosses it by an overbridge, and commences to climb in a southerly direction on a gradient of 1 in 44 for two miles. At Oatlands there was a station and the small colliery previously referred to, and the gradient continues for another mile at 1 in 52, when the first summit is reached. A mile and a half falling at 1 in 60 follows, succeeded by another climb just short of a mile at 1 in 46 to reach Arlecdon, the last station on the branch. A little further on the line crosses the Whitehaven, Cleator & Egremont Railway by an overbridge, and turns northwards parallel with it, thus effectively cutting off that line from the quarries at Rowrah Hall and Rowrah Head, and finally making an end-on junction with the little-known Rowrah & Kelton Fell Railway, a private undertaking owned by quarry interests, and serving iron ore mines and limestone quarries to the east of Rowrah.” [1: p763]

A football excursion returning from Egremont to Carlisle passing through Distington Railway Station behind ex-LMS Class ‘4F’ Locomotive No. 44461 in 1951. The line to the left is to Rowrah and Kelton Fell line, © W. Dendy and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 2.0). [6]

Knight continues:

“The enterprising spirit of the Cleator & Workington Junction still chafed at the necessity for handing over traffic to the LNWR at the north end of the line, and in 1883, the company reverted to the original proposal to give traffic direct to the Maryport & Carlisle. Proposals were put forward for a line from Workington to Brayton, to exchange traffic at that point with the Solway Junction Railway. This proposal was later modified, no doubt as a result of opposition by the other railway companies, and construction of a line was commenced from Calva Junction, between Workington and Siddick Junction, to a junction with the Maryport & Carlisle at Linefoot, on the branch between Bullgill and Brigham. This had the same effect, except that the Cleator & Workington Junction haulage was slightly shorter, and a small proportion was left to the Maryport & Carlisle.

“The route also was influenced by the prospect of developing the southern fringe of the Maryport – Aspatria coalfield, and collieries were served at Camerton and Buckhill, between Seaton and Great Broughton, and at Alice Pit, near Linefoot Junction. Intermediate stations were at Seaton, now practically a suburb of Workington, and Great Broughton, and the line ran almost parallel with but northward of the LNWR from Workington to Brigham, but at a much higher level. Once again, the Cleator & Workington Junction was faced with the occupation of the obvious route, and heavy gradients and sharp curvature were involved in crossing the area north-east of Workington.” [1: p763-764]

Seaton Railway Station, on the Cleator & Workington Junction line from Calva Junction to Linefoot Junction in 1951. At the time of the photograph, Seaton Station was already closed to passenger traffic (February 1922). It would close to goods in April 1964, © W. Dendy and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 2.0). [6]

Knight goes on to describe the decline of the local rail network:

“The heyday of the West Cumberland railways was the latter part of the nineteenth century, when the iron ore mines and the small iron works supplied by them were literally in ‘full blast’. In spite of temporary trade recessions from time to time, this situation continued with little diminution during the first two decades of the 1900s. Practically all the lines had passenger services, and even those which had no advertised timetable had workmen’s trains to serve the various works. The services on the interior lines certainly look sparse compared with the present bus timetable, but conditions were vastly different in those days. With the exception of workmen’s travel, which was regular, and the extent of which was known in advance, there was little demand for casual or pleasure travel, and the agricultural workers and the iron-ore miners in the pits, remote from the civilisation of the coast towns, preferred to rely on local relaxation.

“It is not surprising, therefore, that the lines which were built followed the pattern of small railways in other parts of the country. Commencing as a series of local lines to give facilities for the conveyance of traffic to ports for shipment, most of them ultimately became part of larger systems, and lost their highly individual existence. Passengers were usually a secondary consideration, and the lines followed the coastwise routes and the few intersecting river valleys to obtain the easiest formation compatible with the development of the natural resources of the area, sometimes apparently without much regard to the situation of the villages on the route, with the result that some of the stations were a considerable distance from the communities which they served, and this became obvious with the development of passenger road services.

“At the time when the railways were built, the iron industry was spread over a large number of small furnaces, most of which had been sited with a view to the proximity of local ore, but the increased use of imported ore, and improved methods of production in large furnaces, led to the gradual absorption of the small furnaces through their inability to compete, resulting in their closing down and eventual demolition. The industry is now, [in 1954,] centralised at Workington, which is largely supplied with imported ore. The importance of these interior lines has, therefore, largely decreased, and many of the areas served by them became distressed because no alternative employment was available to those whose work had come to an abrupt conclusion.

“The amalgamation of the railways in West Cumberland following the passage of the Railways Act of 1921 was the cause of far-reaching changes. Local management disappeared, and while some local tradition went with it, the railways were enabled to operate as a whole, rather than for the benefit of the constituent companies. Amalgamation, with the consequent cessation of inter-company competition, meant, however, [a new] monopoly against which local industrialists previously fought so strongly, and the prospect of which was, to a large extent, the justification for the construction of the Cleator & Workington Junction, and there is little doubt that the outlook was viewed with somewhat mixed feelings.” [1: p764-765]

A train of ex- North Staffordshire Railway stock, leaving Egremont on August Bank Holiday 1953. I believe that the locomotive is an ex-Furness Railway Pettigrew Class D5 0-6-0 freight locomotive BR No. 52510. In 1923, these were absorbed into the London, Midland and Scottish Railway (LMS) and later classified by British Railways as class 3F, © W. A. Camwell.  [1: p764]

Knight continues:

“The gradual centralisation of the iron industry was economically sound, but its disadvantages were accentuated by the trade depression of the early 1930s. The smaller furnaces which had survived were closed one by one, and the inhabitants of the locality found their livelihood completely gone, and were without any prospect of employment. Places like Frizington and Egremont, almost entirely dependent upon the iron industry, were particularly hard hit.

“The interior railway lines, immediately affected by any recession in the iron ore industry, became redundant, and the small amount of passenger traffic was quite inadequate to keep them remuneratively employed, with the result that passenger services were withdrawn from all except the coast line north and south and the branch from Workington to Cockermouth. The last-named was retained to serve Cockermouth and Keswick, and to connect these two towns with the main line at Penrith. The steeply-graded Rowrah-Distington branch of the Cleator & Workington Junction was completely removed, as the colliery at Oatlands had been closed, and it was found possible to make a connection between the limestone quarry at Rowrah Hall and the Whitehaven, Cleator & Egremont Joint line, with a consequent increase in the train loading because of the easier gradients. The same connection allowed part of the Cleator & Workington Junction branch from Harrington Junction to Derwent Works, Workington, to be removed, as the heavy limestone traffic was worked through the LNWR connection.

“Apart from the closing of some of the smaller stations for passenger traffic, the situation since the withdrawal of the passenger services on the interior lines has ,[in 1954] remained unchanged, except for the institution of workmen’s services on the Moor Row – Egremont – Sellafield line. The area is now served by the Cumberland Motor Services buses, which provide for local traffic. Great changes have taken place, however, in the economic position of the district. After the depression of the 1930s, strenuous efforts were made to attract light industries, and the success may be measured by the number of firms which have commenced business in many kinds of industry.

“Generally, it may be taken that coal was the driving force, in both an economic and a literal sense, behind the railways of West Cumberland, and although this industry retains an economic importance, the use of coal for locomotives is diminishing. It is, therefore, appropriate that the first use to be made of main-line diesel units in the north-west should be in West Cumberland, where lightweight diesels are to operate between Carlisle, Workington and Penrith. In many ways the district is a microcosm of railway developments in other parts of the country, present or future, for it was first served by small independent local lines, afterwards amalgamated into a larger system, and finally became part of an area suitable for the operation of diesel units, with their facilities for rapid acceleration and quick turn-round at terminals.” [1: p765]

A mix of legacy, pre-grouping, LMS, and early BR standard locomotives worked the region in the 1950s:

  • Mixed Traffic & Freight Locomotives: LMS Stanier Class 5 ‘Black 5’ 4-6-0s were the undisputed backbone of both passenger excursions and heavy freight along the Cumbrian Coast. LMS ‘Jubilee’ Class 4-6-0s handled principal passenger and express services. WD ‘Austerity’ 2-8-0s & 2-10-0s were deployed for the transport of coal and iron ore from local pits. LMS Ivatt Class 4 2-6-0s & Class 2 2-6-0s were regularly used for lighter passenger duties and banking on steep gradients. [8]
  • Mineral & Branch Line Engines: LMS Fowler 3F ‘Jinty’ 0-6-0Ts were used for shunting and short-haul mineral trains in the heavy industrial zones of Workington and Whitehaven. LNWR Super D’ Class 0-8-0s were a frequent sight on slow-moving freight trains in the early BR era. [8]
  • Early BR Region Innovations: BR Standard Class 3 2-6-2Ts were introduced in the early 1950s as modern mixed-traffic branch line tanks. They were utilized across the region’s secondary and cross-country routes. [8] Derby Lightweight DMUs were introduced in the mid-1950s to reduce operating costs and increase passenger numbers on quiet branch lines. [7]

The development of British Rail’s Derby Lightweight diesel multiple units (DMUs) were a significant milestone in UK railway history. They were introduced to West Cumberland in late 1954 as part of the London Midland Region’s modernization scheme. They were the first diesel multiple units built en-masse for British Railways. “Thirteen power trailer sets were built specifically for the West Cumberland area … to operate on three lines: Carlisle to Silloth; … the Carlisle – Maryport – Workington – Whitehaven line; … and the Workington, Cockermouth, Keswick & Penrith line. All would be delivered to Carlisle Upperby depot, some would move to Workington. They would be joined by more sets moved from other LMR schemes. By the time of their replacement by Class 108s in 1969 around 75% of all LMR Derby Lightweight (79xxx series) power cars would have spent time allocated to Carlisle, some of the original routes had closed and their use would spread to other routes from the city.” [7]

Further details of the history of the Derby lightweight DMUs in West Cumberland can be found here. [7]

The sleek, wide-windowed design was highly popular with tourists, and the introduction of these DMUs led to an 80% growth in passenger ticket receipts on some Cumbrian routes. [9]

A Derby Lightweight DMU on the Shore of Bassenthwaite Lake, near Keswick, Cumberland (British Railways poster artwork) © NRM/Science and Society Picture Library. [9]

Future posts in this series will look at the individual lines that are highlighted in the first article which can be found here. [3]

References

  1. C. A. Knight; Railways of West Cumberland; in The Railway Magazine, November 1954; Tothill Press, London, 1954, p757-765.
  2. The Railway Clearing House, London, 1921; via, https://maps.nls.uk/view/245959305, accessed on 3rd April 2026.
  3. https://rogerfarnworth.com/2026/05/02/the-railways-of-west-cumberland-part-1-an-introduction
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moor_Row, accessed on 29th May 2026.
  5. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1D6osFET4V, accessed on 29th May 2026.
  6. https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5325623, accessed on 30th May 2026.
  7. https://www.railcar.co.uk/type/derby-lightweight/west-cumberland-operations, 31st May 2026.
  8. https://www.photosfromthefifties.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CUM-July-2023.pdf, accessed on 31st May 2026.
  9. https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/a-diesel-train-on-the-shore-of-bassenthwaite-lake-near-keswick-cumberland-9439, accessed on 31st May 2026.

The Modern Tramway May 1952 – Metrovick Electrical Equipment

2 Replies

This short article follows on from an earlier article about the adverts placed in the 1951 issues of The Modern Tramway.

The featured image for this article shows Allan Tram No. 107 at work on the streets of Rotterdam, © Voogd075 and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 3.0). [6]

Metropolitan-Vickers, – Metrovick – was a British heavy electrical engineering company of the early-to-mid 20th century formerly known as British Westinghouse. Highly diversified, it was particularly well known for its industrial electrical equipment such as generators, steam turbines, switchgear, transformers, electronics and railway traction equipment. Metrovick holds a place in history as the builders of the first commercial transistor computer, the Metrovick 950, and the first British axial-flow jet engine, the Metropolitan-Vickers F.2. Its factory in Trafford Park, Manchester, was for most of the 20th century one of the biggest and most important heavy engineering facilities in Britain and the world. [1]

Stuart Yearsley tells me that “The Metrovick (English Electric/AEI/GEC) trams were not actually produced at the Trafford Park works, on Westinghouse Road, but at the Dick Kerr works, on Strand Road in Preston. This factory continues production of rail vehicles, under the Alstom brand, since the collapse of GEC” – see the comments below.

Metrovick took out a full page advert in The Modern Tramway Volume 15 No. 173, May 1952 [2] and no doubt in other journals as well. Its advert celebrated two significant contracts with which it had been involved:

  • 100 new tramcars for Glasgow; and
  • 35 new tramcars for Rotterdam.
The Metrovick advertisement in The Modern Tramway. [2]

100 New Tramcars for Glasgow

Glasgow Corporation Transport placed an order for 100 new streamlined “Coronation Mk II” (or “Cunarder”) tramcars in May 1946. These iconic double-deck trams, built at the Coplawhill works, began entering service in December 1948. The last of these trams entered service in 1952. They were the last double-decker trams built in Britain and we’re still in service when the Glasgow tram network was finally closed in 1962.

A Glasgow Coronation Mk II (or Cunarder) tram at work in Glasgow in 1952. [2]

Developed from the pre-war Coronation Mark I class, they were slightly longer to allow extra seating. Each car seated 70 passengers (40 upper, 30 lower). They were dubbed “Cunarders” because their sleek, rounded, aerodynamic styling and luxurious interiors resembled the famous Cunard ocean liners. They featured Maley & Taunton bogies, Metropolitan Vickers (Metrovick) electrical equipment, and Fischer bow collectors.

In their advert, Metrovick says that the whole of the electro-pneumatic control equipment and the 400 resiliently-mounted axle-hung motors and resilient gears were supplied by Metrovick.

“Electro-pneumatic control equipment combines the precision of electrical controls with the power of pneumatics. When paired with resiliently-mounted axle-hung motors and resilient gears in railway or heavy transit applications, this system effectively isolates track vibrations and minimizes shock damage, significantly extending the lifespan of the drivetrain.” [5]

Two Mark II Coronation cars survive in preservation:

No. 1297: Preserved and frequently operational at the National Tramway Museum at Crich, Derbyshire.

Glasgow No. 1297 was built by Glasgow Corporation Tramways at their Coplawhill workshop in 1948. It is now on display as a static exhibit at Crich. Returning it to an operable condition would be highly expensive as specialist contractors would need to remove asbestos covered wiring, © G Laird and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons Licence (CC BY-SA 2.0]. [3]

No. 1392: The final tram of the batch and the last new double-decker built in Britain is preserved as part of the collection at the Riverside Museum in Glasgow.

Glasgow Corporation Tramways ‘Cunader’ tram No. 1392 at the Glasgow Museum of Transport. Behind it is Glasgow Coronation Mark I tram No. 1173. The Cunader trams were a post-war development of the pre-war Coronation design © SimonQ and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY 2.0). [4]

35 New Tramcars for Rotterdam

Between 1950 and 1952, the Rotterdam Electric Tram (RET) modernized its fleet by taking delivery of 35 new single-directional tramcars (numbered 102–135) and 36 matching trailers. Built by the Rotterdam-based manufacturer Allan of Rotterdam, these iconic post-war vehicles were affectionately nicknamed ‘Allans’ by locals.

Unlike older hand-operated cars, they were fitted with modern electrical controls. They were the first series of trams in Rotterdam to provide a designated seat for the driver. They retained the classic design with open central platforms to help with passenger flow. The units’ electrical systems were supplied by the British firm Metropolitan-Vickers (Metrovick). [6]

Most of the 1950-1952 Allan cars were retired around 1970. However, a few preserved units survive today as functioning museum trams, which are occasionally showcased by transit enthusiasts. Four of this series are in the collection of the Rotterdam Public Transport Museum – Nos. 109, 115, 123 and 130. [7]

Four-axle Allan motor car No. 123 from 1951 in the Tram Museum Rotterdam, © Voogd075 and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 3.0). [8]

References

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan-Vickers, accessed on 21st May 2026.
  2. Metrovick Advertisment; in The Modern Tramway Volume 15, No.173, May 1952, p120.
  3. https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/6126710, accessed on 21st May 2026.
  4. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TRAM_no.1392_Glasgow_Transport_Museum.jpg, accessed on 21st May 2026.
  5. https://www.smc.eu/en-gb/products/electro-pneumatic-control-equipment~134571~nav, accessed on 21st May 2026.
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_of_Rotterdam, accessed on 21st May 2026.
  7. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotterdamse_Allanstellen, accessed on 21st May 2026.
  8. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotterdamse_Allanstellen#/media/File%3ARET123.a.Kootsekade.jpg, accessed on 21st May 2026.

The Modern Tramway 1951 – Some Advertising

Leave a reply

This short article shows a number of intriguing advertisements from The Modern Tramway magazine in 1951.

There were only a few different UK companies in the early 1950s who took out advertisements in The Modern Tramway. These advertisements are of interest for the wider perspective on the industry that they provide. …

1. Crompton Parkinson

One of these advertisers was Crompton Parkinson (Chelmsford, Essex) whose Traction Division placed advertisements in most of the journals during the year. These usually included details of work done by the company for a UK tram network.

This from the January 1951 issue of The Modern Tramway. [1]
This from the February 1951, March 1952 and May 1951 issues of The Modern Tramway. [2][3][5]
This from the April 1951 issue of The Modern Tramway. [4]
This from the June 1951 and July 1951 issues of The Modern Tramway. [6][7]
This is from the December 1951 issue of The Modern Tramway. [8]

Crompton Parkinson Tramcar Equipment was also the subject of the first article in The Modern Tramway of May 1951. [5: p94-95]

The short article was entitled, ‘Crompton Parkinson Tramcar Equipment at the Festival South Bank Site’.

The Modern Tramway commented:

“Those who try to argue that the tramcar has ‘had its day’ should note that in the Transport Pavilion on the Festival South Bank site there is an exhibit of traction equipment for the modern tramcar selected as representing a notable achievement of British engineering. This equipment, supplied by Crompton Parkinson Ltd. is a new development that, in conjunction with car bodies now being built, provides for tramcars with standards of performance and passenger comfort unsurpassed by any, and superior to most, other passenger transport vehicles.

“The equipment (Exhibit No. 1240) is arranged as a working demonstration that can be operated by any visitor.” [5: p94

The Crompton Parkinson display at the Festival of Britain, 1951, © Public Domain. [5: p94]

“The equipment consists of a bogie fitted with two traction motors; a ‘Vambac’ accelerator unit and a driving control panel. Motors and control gear are wired-up and connected to a D.C. supply, and the bogie raised slightly so that visitors can observe the acceleration or retardation of the wheels in response to movements of the single driving control lever.

“The D.C. power supply is obtained from a metal rectifier unit of the type normally used for operating C.P. stud welding equipment.

“The ‘Vambac’ system of control has been developed to obtain really smooth vehicle motion with high rates of acceleration and braking. The car is driven by a single lever which is pushed forward for acceleration and pulled back for electric braking. The rate of acceleration or braking is determined by how far the control lever is moved; but when it is left in a particular position this rate is then maintained automatically. Automatic safeguards prevent rates of acceleration that would overload the equipment. The only other control is a reversing switch.

“Both the smooth acceleration and braking result from the design of the accelerator unit which switches the resistance in steps small enough to prevent current peaks from one step to the next so that there is no tendency to jerky motion whether accelerating or braking. What is equivalent to more than 90 notching positions is obtained by resistor grids arranged in a circular bank. A contact arm, rotating within the bank to switch the resistor steps, is driven by a small motor under the control of automatic relays regulating its speed in accordance with the setting of the control lever and the load on the equipment.

“It is claimed that this system of control gives acceleration and braking at higher rates far smoother than are obtainable with any other road vehicles to-day.

“The bogie is fitted with two motors driving through propeller shafts and is designed to eliminate the pitching and rolling that often occurs with rail vehicles.

“The wheels are of the resilient type, developed by Crompton Parkinson Ltd., with a rubber sandwich arranged so that there is no metal connection between the tyres and the hub, the torque being transmitted by [the] rubber sandwich.

“The sandwich damps out vibration from the track, reduces the stresses imposed on the car and stops the transmission of noise to the interior. Several years’ operating experience has proved that [this] resilient type of wheel effectively reduces wear and tear on the equipment with a saving in maintenance charges.

“Tramcars equipped with ‘Vambac’ control equipment and bogies with resilient wheels are superior in passenger comfort and operating performance to any other British public transport vehicle.

‘For this equipment, Allen West Ltd. built the control gear and Maley & Taunton Ltd., the bogie, in co-operation with Crompton Parkinson Ltd. The equipment has been loaned for the duration of the Festival by Mr. W. Luff, transport manager, Blackpool Corporation, and it is one of … eighteen equipments now being supplied to the Corporation for their new single deck tramcars.” [5: p94-95]

Crompton Parkinson was a British electrical manufacturing company. It was formed in 1927 by the merger of Crompton & Co. with F. & A. Parkinson Ltd. The brand is now part of Brook Crompton. [9]

“Crompton & Co. was a lamp manufacturer founded by R. E. B. Crompton in 1878. The company was widely known for installing the first electric lighting in Windsor Castle, Holyrood Palace and other prominent buildings.” [10][11]

“F. & A. Parkinson Ltd. was a successful electric motor manufacturing company founded by two brothers, Albert and Frank Parkinson, who was a former student of (and later a major benefactor of) Leeds University. The university’s Parkinson Building, opened in 1951, is named in his honour.” [11]

“As well as making significant commercial contributions to the tramway industry, Crompton Parkinson made a wide range of electrical goods including electric motors, ceiling fans, electric generators, light bulbs, power cables and batteries. Some British Railways diesel locomotives (e.g. British Rail Classes 26, 33, 44 and 45) were outfitted with their electrical equipment. The company also produced an extensive range of electrical measuring instruments including voltmeters, ammeters and current transformers, and for a brief time at the beginning , made spark plugs.” [11]

2. Edgar Allen & Co. Limited

This from each of the January to July 1951 issues of The Modern Tramway. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
This from the December 1951 issue of The Modern Tramway. [8]

“Edgar Allen and Company was a steel maker and engineer, which from the late 19th century was based at Imperial Steel Works, Tinsley, Sheffield, South Yorkshire. The site was bounded by Sheffield Road, Vulcan Road and the Sheffield District Railway to which it was connected.” [12]

Their Imperial Works site eventually closed in 1989. After a number of proposals for the site failed to come to fruition, it now is used as an overflow car park for the Meadowhall Shopping Centre, used only at Christmas and the January sales period. [12]

3. Electro-Mechanical Brake Co. Ltd.

This from the January, March, May and July 1951 issues of The Modern Tramway. 1][3][5]]7]

The Electro-Mechanical Brake Co. Ltd., was a West Bromwich engineering firm founded in 1908. The company is historically renowned for manufacturing electric tram and railway control gear, air brakes, and later die-casting and injection moulding machinery.

Much of its output served the tramway industry in the UK. As the tramway network declined, the company successfully diversified into heavy industrial equipment, manufacturing air presses, and die-casting and injection moulding machines.

It ceased operating in the late 20th century.

4. Samuel Osborn & Co. Ltd.

This from each of the January to June issues of The Modern Tramway. [1][2][3][4][5][6]

It seems as though insufficient trade was generated by the company’s advertising in The Modern Tramway because the July 1951 issue of the magazine carried this advertisement. …

Samuel Osborn & Co. Ltd. placed this advert in the July 2952 issue of The Modern Tramway. [7]

Samuel Osborn & Co. Ltd. was a steelmaker and engineering tool manufacturer situated in Sheffield.

“In 1870, Osborn met Robert Forester Mushet, an iron master working in the Forest of Dean where he was producing a new alloy steel, considered far superior to crucible steel. Osborn bought the sole rights to manufacture ‘R. Mushet’s Special Steel’ (R.M.S) and Mushet’s two sons, Henry and Edward, moved up to Sheffield to oversee its manufacture. Business was booming with orders created by the Franco-Prussian War and the development of the railways.” [13]

“The bubble, however, burst and in 1874 Osborn was forced to file for liquidation. ” [13]

However, “with industrial development, a new market for Mushet’s Self Hardening Steel was found in America and the company opened a London Office. Taking on new partners and making connections in continental Europe he paid off all his creditors within ten years, the company being registered as the second largest private enterprise in the Sheffield & District Steel & Allied Trades Association. Expanding again, in 1885 he bought and expanded the Rutland Works, in the Neepsed area of the city.” [13]

After Samuel Osborn died in 1891, the company sought other markets for its products in the UK and abroad. It was a significant supplier of steel rails for tramway trackwork.

5. The Crown Spring Co. Ltd.

This from The Modern Tramway in  each month of 1951. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

There were once more than 30 spring manufacturers in West Bromwich, selling products that were well known throughout much of the world. The demand for springs rapidly increased with the development of the motorcar, aeronautics, wireless, electricity and engineering. [14]

The Crown Spring Company Limited, was associated with the production of helical and volute springs for heavy industries, rolling mills, pipe supports and valves etc. Other products included valve springs to fine loading limits, diesel engine valve springs from specially prepared materials, upholsterers’ springs for furniture and tension springs for the mattress trade. [14]

A mid-1950s advert, © Public Domain. [14]

6. The National Rail & Tramway Appliances Co. Ltd.

This from each of February, April, June, August, October and December issues of The Modern Tramway. [2][4][6][8]

The National Rail & Tramway Appliances Co. Ltd. was a British engineering firm founded in 1902 and historically based at 12–18 Taylor Street, Liverpool. It specialized in manufacturing brake blocks and ancillary components for the railway and tramway industries. They supplied essential mechanical items, track brakes and various truck components, which were vital for the safe operation of street tramways and early light railways across the UK.

A couple of earlier adverts for their products are shown below. … [15]

A means of grinding down imperfections in rails, © Public Domain. [15]
This more general advert covers a series of different Company products – brake shoes, a trolley for moving armatures around Works and  Break-down Bogie for moving a broken down tram car causing an obstruction in a Works. [15]

The Company is, however, more generally remembered today because of a landmark 1966 English tort law case, ‘O’Reilly v National Rail and Tramway Appliances Co. Ltd.’ The case remains a key fixture in UK law curricula regarding employers’ liability and negligence.[16]

The lawsuit involved an employee injured by a co-worker’s practical joke. It is widely cited in UK law courses regarding an employer’s threefold common-law duty of care: providing competent staff, safe equipment, and a proper system of work.In this specific ruling, the court found the employer not liable for the employee’s injuries. The judge established that the company was not in breach of its duty of care, as the employer had no prior knowledge or warning of the offending employee’s tendency to play practical jokes. [16]

References

  1. The Modern Tramway, Volume 14, No. 157, January 1951.
  2. The Modern Tramway, Volume 14, No. 158, February 1951.
  3. The Modern Tramway, Volume 14, No. 159, March 1951.
  4. The Modern Tramway, Volume 14, No. 160, April 1951.
  5. The Modern Tramway, Volume 14, No. 161, May 1951.
  6. The Modern Tramway, Volume 14, No. 162, June 1951.
  7. The Modern Tramway, Volume 14, No. 163, July 1951.
  8. The Modern Tramway, Volume 14, No. 168, December 1951.
  9. https://www.brookcrompton.com/about-us, accessed on 19th May 2026.
  10. David Cousins; Supplement to the Histelect News Col. R E B Crompton (PDF); in Western Power Electricity Historical Society. December 2020, p.3, via: https://wpehs.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Sup076ColREBCrompton.pdf, accessed on 19th May 2026.
  11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crompton_Parkinson, accessed on 19th May 2026.
  12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Allen_and_Company, accessed on 19th May 2026.
  13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Osborn_%26_Company, accessed on 19th May 2026.
  14. http://www.historywebsite.co.uk/articles/westbromwich/springs/springs.htm, accessed on 19th May 2026.
  15. https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/National_Rail_and_Tramway_Appliances_Co, accessed on 19th May 2026.
  16. https://swarb.co.uk/oreilly-v-national-rail-and-tramway-appliances-1966, accessed on 19th May 2026.

Ronachan Point, Kintyre – Limestone Tramway

Leave a reply

Ronachan Point, located on the Kintyre peninsula, features remnants of an industrial limestone quarry and a 19th-century tramway used to transport materials to a nearby slipway.

Three seams of limestone were being quarried here by 1898 and transported via a tramway to the nearby purpose-built slipway for export. On the ground and from the air the quarries are all visible, as well as the route of the tramway leading up to the pier. There are iron bolts on the pier for the tramway tracks, and iron rings and chains on the north side of the slipway where vessels could be tied up alongside to transport the limestone by sea. On the tramway is a W & T Avery Ltd. Weighbridge. The limestone quarried at this location was probably ground down for agricultural use. A few more photographs can be found here. [6]

I have not been able to establish the track-gauge of the tramway.

The location is mentioned in the SCAPE survey of the coast of the Kintyre Peninsula. [2] The notes included in that survey are provided as an appendix to this very short article below.

A closer view of the short tramway at Ronachan Point, as it appears on the 2nd Edition 25″ Ordnance Survey, revised 1898, (NLS). [3]
Another view of the short tramway at Ronachan Point, as it appears on the 25″ Ordnance Survey, revised 1915 and published 1923, (NLS). The tramway has been extended to access a processing building which has appeared on site since the prior survey. [4]
The same location on the ESRI satellite imagery provided by the NLS the remains of the pier sit at the centre of this image. [5]

References

  1. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0daJPoVq37ftjq73BxDnaBdboNWZZHXnyLWVtcEwR4vrZsx5tGmXzyhj78EPAJ4JRl&id=100032459876872, accessed on 15th May 2026.
  2. Paul Murtagh & Joanna Hambly; The Coastal Zone Assessment Survey of Kintyre; The SCAPE Trust and the University of St Andrews, November 2024; via., https://scapetrust.org/wp-content/uploads/reports/Kintyre-CZAS-Report.pdf, accessed on 16th May 2026.
  3. https://maps.nls.uk/view/82865370, accessed on 16th May 2026.
  4. https://maps.nls.uk/view/82865373, accessed on 16th May 2026.
  5. https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=18.7&lat=55.74115&lon=-5.59794&layers=168&b=ESRIWorld&o=0, accessed on 16th May 2026.
  6. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1UTk9okmV8, accessed on 16th May 2026.

Appendices

Appendix 1: An extract from the Coastal Zone Assessment Survey of Kintyre by Paul Murtagh, Joanna Hambly – Scottish Coastal Archaeology and the Problem of Erosion (SCAPE) – The SCAPE Trust and the University of St Andrews, November 2024.

A long-lived industrial landscape comprising the remains of historic limestone quarries, a lime kiln and associated coastal infrastructure was recorded around Ronachan Bay and Ronachan Point. The occurrence of limestone in the area was noted in both the Old and New statistical accounts of the parish of Kilcalmonell and Kilberry, in which Ronachan is located, where there was an:

“abundance of limestone … but that there was a scarcity … of coal to burn the limestone.” (OSA 1794; Gordon 1999, 409) and that “there are beds of limestone from north-east to south-west (but of inconsiderable thickness) to be found in several localities in the parish.” (NSA 1845; Sinclair 1999, 62).

The historical Geological Survey of Britain, One-Inch to the Mile map of the region shows that the area around Ronachan had several seams of limestone (Figure 38), and the area appears to have become the focus of extraction for a period in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Figure 38: Geological Survey of Britain, One-Inch to the Mile, Sheet 20, Killean. Solid and drift edition. Published: 1896 (National Library of Scotland) with limestone seems highlighted in purple. [2: p32]

The early phase of limestone quarrying seems to have been focused near the present-day lodge house. Here we recorded a one-arched, single-draw, stone-built, rectangular lime kiln, around which there are remains of a quarry (SCAPE ID: 16992). The kiln is depicted on the first edition OS map of 1873 (Figure 39) with a coal yard on the present site of the lodge, as well as a track leading down to the beach, where a cleared slipway was recorded (SCAPE ID: 16936), probably used to bring coal ashore for use in the kiln. The kiln appears to have gone out of use by the time the second edition OS map was surveyed in 1898 when it is referred to on the 25-inch map as an Old Limekiln, while the coal yard is built over by the lodge and current house. On the third edition six-inch OS map of 1924 an Old Quarry is also illustrated next to the kiln (Figure 39).

The three map extracts below constitute figure 39. Development of Ronachan limestone quarrying landscape in the 19th and 20th centuries. [2: p33]

Argyllshire and Buteshire CCXXIII.4 Ordnance Survey 25 inch 1st edition Scotland, surveyed 1867, published 1873. [2: p33]
Argyllshire CCXXIII.4 – Ordnance Survey 25 inch 2nd edition Scotland, revised 1898. [2: p33]
Argyllshire CCXXIII.4 – Ordnance Survey 25 inch
3rd edition Scotland, revised 1915. [2: p33]

Of the three images immediately above, the second two of 1898 and 1915 show the tramway heading towards the sea on the North side of Ronachan Point. Enlarged extracts are included in the article above.

By 1898, three large quarries were being worked at Ronachan Point (SCAPE ID: 16939,
Figure 40). They are oriented north-south, following seams of limestone through the
surrounding rock. Debris from the quarries lie scattered around the site including large
blocks of stone with chisel marks. A track, tramway and jetty (SCAPE ID: 16940)
associated with the quarries are depicted on the second and third edition OS Map of 1899
and 1915. The slipway is defined by a rock-cut area with a concrete surface and iron
fittings for the tramway extending to the end of the slip. A weighbridge made by W&T Avery
Ltd is still in situ on the track next to an area of concrete hardstanding which marks the site
of a large building depicted on the 1915 OS map. To the south of this site, at the northern
end of Ronachan Bay is another more substantial concrete jetty and slipway with an
associated boat house (SCAPE ID: 16989, Figure 41). The track links the concrete slipways
at Ronachan Point and Ronachan Bay and it is probable that both were used by the quarry
according to the weather and tide conditions. Another cleared slipway and the ruins of a
boat house on the eastern side of Ronachan Point (SCAPE ID: 16991) are still used as a
small harbour and boat laying up area and is associated with Ronachan House.

Figure 40: Aerial shot of the Limestone quarry at Ronachan point (SCAPE ID: 16939). [2: p34]
Figure 41: Concrete Jetty at Ronachan Bay (SCAPE ID: 16989) looking west. [2: p34]

The Modern Tramway – March 1951 – Glasgow Tramways Fare System

Leave a reply

The March 1951 issue of The Modern Tramway included an article about Glasgow Tramways Fare System, written by F. James Mayhew. [1]

The featured image for this article shows a hold up on tram movements on Sauchiehall Street and Renfield Street in 1951. In front of a queue of trams, a service car is at work tending to the overhead cable(s), © Public Domain. [3]

The article is interesting even if just for an insight into the relative value of money in 1951 compared to 2026.

In 2026, an adult single bus fare for a 5-mile journey in Glasgow is typically between £2.90 to £3.25. Using First Bus Tap On Tap Off (contactless), a 4–5 mile journey is listed at £2.90, while a standard on-bus ticket can be higher. Prices vary between operators, with First Bus and McGill’s being the primary carriers.

Back in 1951, a 5 mile journey on Glasgow’s trams would set you back 3d, about 1.25p.

£1 in 1951 is equivalent in purchasing power to approximately £40.77 in early 2026, according to the UK Inflation Calculator, [2] 1.25p on the general inflation index would, in 2026, be worth about 51p. This means that when general inflation is taken into account, today’s traveller on public transport is paying the equivalent of around 6 times as much as a traveller on Glasgow’s trams at the start of the 1950s!

F. J. Mayhew wrote:

“In 1872, the first tramway route was opened between St. George’s Cross and Eglinton Toll on which the through fare was 2d. with a 1d. stage from either end to the top of Union Street. On the steam tramway between Paisley Road Toll and Govan the fare inside was 2d. but it was only 1d. on the top, with the doubtful pleasure of cinders and smoke.

“When Glasgow Corporation took over the tramways from the Glasgow Tramways & Omnibus Company and commenced operating in 1894, the fares were soon reduced and were extremely reasonable. The following examples are taken from the 1914 list: for [a half-penny] one could travel 1.15 miles or 2 stages, a penny fare doubled the distance, 1.5d. fare carried you 3.75 miles, and the fares increased by [a half-penny] for every 2 stages right up to a fare of 7d. for 14.48 miles.

“After the first world war the fares were revised with a minimum of Id. for 2 stages and rising by [a half-penny] every two stages. The Corporation issued a 1d. token which cost 9d. [per] dozen and entitled one to travel 2 stages, and it was a very useful concession.

“In 1926, owing to severe competition by private buses the Corporation took the drastic action of introducing a maximum fare of 2d. on 1st July, 1926, for any distance, so that there were only three fares in operation, 1d. for 2 stages, 1.5d. for 4 stages, 2d. over 4 stages, and these fares applied all day without restriction. It was an immediate success and the trams were packed to capacity. This is the nearest to a simple system of fare collection ever tried out in Glasgow. The maximum of 2d. was not a mere experiment as it lasted for 5 years and on 31st January, 1932, the maximum was increased to 2.5d. with a new fare of 2d. covering 8 stages. This new maximum lasted till the commencement of the second world war when the new maximum was 3d.

“The rising costs of war years and after have made various alterations necessary. and the maximum was fixed at 4d. for over 10 stages and decreasing by [a half-penny] for every two stages down to the minimum fare of Id. for two stages. A popular fare of 1.5d. for 4 stages was an early casualty as it was first reduced to 3 stages and then abolished altogether.

“On 31st December, 1950, Glasgow Corporation abolished the 1d. ticket which has been the backbone of the fare system with the exception of two periods when a [half-penny] fare was in operation. The scale today is 2 stages 1.5d., 3 stages 2d., 6 stages 2.5d., 9 stages 3d., and over 9 stages 4d.

“In Glasgow, the fare system did not allow of concessions to workers at special rates as the whole scale of fares was very low. The same scale of fares applied to all routes, without the annoying exceptions some cities have for various routes and this has contributed in no small measure to the esteem in which the tramways are held by the travelling public. …

“All stages are clearly marked by the sign ‘Fare Stage’ painted red and by a red band on the pole; a small plate is fastened to the sign indicating the number of the stage. The stages are so numbered that where services converge together in the city the same number applies to the fare stage for all services. In the case of circular services or services not proceeding through the city centre, the stage numbers are apt to vary from the through routes. It is interesting to know that No. 1 stage is at Renfrew Ferry, as trams could run through from there to Milngavie, via Paisley, Barrhead, Shawlands, Glasgow, Hillfoot, and the stage number at Milngavie terminus is No. 41, a distance of 22.73 miles. Unfortunately, this through route has been severed between Paisley and Barrhead at Glenfield a short time ago. The stages in the city centre run between numbers 25 and 30 and either decrease in the east and south routes or increase in the west and north routes. The stage numbers are shown against the appropriate names of streets which are shown on the fare lists inside the trams on both decks and the fare between any two points can be very easily ascertained.

“Prior to the second world war 6d. evening tourist tram tickets were available on all tram services from 5 p.m. to midnight on any weekday, and on Sundays a 1s. ticket all day took in the bus services and underground as well. In 1950, an experimental 1.5d. voucher was issued for use between 10 a.m. and noon and 2.30 p.m. and 4.30 p.m. for any distance, valid from Monday to Friday, to encourage travel at off-peak periods. This was withdrawn after a six months trial, but a new 2d. voucher is to be introduced shortly for any distance, from Monday to Friday, between 10 a.m. and noon and 2.30 p.m. and 4 p.m. Thus the 2d. maximum fare returns after twenty years although restricted to set times.

The Transport Committee are investigating the collection of fares so as to minimise the considerable loss caused through uncollected fares every day. The red box is fitted to all trams on the platforms to allow passengers to pay their uncollected fares when leaving the tram, but unfortunately many citizens fail to realise that by not placing their uncollected fares in the boxes they are injuring their own transport system.” [1: p60-61]

In 1951, Glasgow’s extensive tram network was still a dominant, well-loved, and bustling part of city life, despite a report in October of that year signaling its eventual decline. There were sleek, new-looking trams on routes like the Service 14 to Speirsbridge and busy, often crowded, scenes in central areas such as Renfield Street and Paisley Road. [3]

Glasgow Corporation Tramways were heavily used and, in 1951, remained an essential, iconic part of the city’s transport infrastructure, even as city officials began planning for their replacement. [3]

Although the system was in the early stages of a phased transition towards buses, it still operated a vast network, including high-traffic routes like the ‘Goldmine’ service.

Photographer Peter Mitchell captured over a thousand images of the city’s trams during this period (1951-1962), showcasing Standards, Coronations, and Cunarders in operation. [4]

Glasgow Standard Tramcar in the Riverside Museum, Glasgow in 2912, © Kim Traynor and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 3.0). [5]

Tramcars in service also included in operation also included the ‘Kilmarnock bogies’ (built 1927/28). These trams were a batch of 50 maximum-traction, eight-wheeled trams (Nos. 1091–1140) featuring bogies supplied by the Ayrshire-based Kilmarnock Engineering Company. Though technologically advanced with wider interiors, they were prone to derailing on tight curves and were restricted to flatter, straighter east-west routes. [6]

References

  1. F. J. Mayhew; Glasgow Tramways Fare System; in The Modern Tramway, Volume 14, No. 159, March 1951, p60-61.
  2. https://www.in2013dollars.com/uk/inflation, accessed on 13th May 2026.
  3. https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/18248444.days—glasgow-trams-1951-1962, accessed on 13th May 2026.
  4. Hugh McAulay & Charlie Loarridge; Around the Glasgow Tramway System with Peter Mitchell; Adam Gordon Publishing, Brora, Sutherland, 2022.
  5. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Glasgow_tramcar.JPG, accessed on 13th May 2026.
  6. https://tramway.co.uk/collections/trams/glasgow-corporation-no-1115, accessed on 13th May 2926.

The Modern Tramway – February 1951 – Traction Motor Trends in 1951 – and beyond

Leave a reply

The featured image for this article is a line drawing of a drive system from a Hamburg Metro Car, an SKF DT4. [5] … AC traction motors (commonly induction motors) are the standard for modern trams, replacing older DC motors to provide higher efficiency, better reliability, and reduced maintenance. These motors, often running at 60–200 kW, power the bogies and enable regenerative braking to feed energy back into the overhead line. They are controlled by variable-frequency inverters for smooth acceleration.

The Modern Tramway of February 1951 carried an article by ‘Eltee’ entitled ‘Traction Motor Trends’ about the recent changes in electric motors in trams. [1: p33-34]

“The present trend towards the use of lightweight high-speed electric motors for traction purposes, a trend exemplified at its best by the motors used in in the P.C.C. cars in America, and those of similar design now being introduced at Blackpool and and Glasgow and on the Continent, justifiably prompts the query as to why motors were not, in the past, built as they are today. There are actually several reasons for this, some highly technical, but one of the more important is that the need for efficient ventilation of motors was not sufficiently appreciated in the early days.

“When a motor is running and current is passing through its conductors these conductors are heated by the passage of current, just as are the conductors of an electric stove though much less so. The power represented by this heat is lost to the motor, and called the ‘copper loss’. Another source of loss is the rotation of the armature in the motor magnetic field; the alternating magnetism through the armature caused by its rotation brings about power losses in armature iron, which also appear as heat. In running, then, the motor gets heated, and if there were no means of dissipating this heat the motor would get hotter and hotter until something melted.

“In practice this does not happen, as the motor casing is in contact with the air around it, and when the casing is hot it loses heat to this air, doing so all the more readily when the car it is driving is moving and there is a certain amount of draught. Many years ago this was the only way of cooling the tramway motor, hence a large motor had to be used simply to ensure that there was enough casing area to dissipate the heat generated. Some additional armature cooling was given by the provision of axial ducts in the armature, aided by a few radial ducts. In this way some slight fanning action was given by the moving armature, swirling the air in the motor casing and conveying the heat from the armature more readily to the outside casing for dissipation into the atmosphere.

“A later development introduced what is now known as ‘series ventilation’, the self-ventilated motor being introduced about 1910. In such a motor a fan is mounted on the non-commutator end of the armature, and two sets of openings are made in the same end of the motor casing. The fan draws air through the armature axial ducts when the motor is running and expels it through one of the casing openings; this assists to keep the armature cool. This air, in the first place, is drawn in through the other set of openings and over the field coils before turning round and entering the armature ducts; in this way the field also is kept cool, but the ventilation of the armature suffers because the air is already somewhat warmed by its passage over the field coils.

“A further development, common from about 1920 onwards, is known as ‘parallel ventilation’, in which there are two parallel air streams through the motor. A twin fan is fitted to the non-commutator end of the armature, and openings made in both ends of the motor casing. The fan draws a stream of cool air over the commutator, round the armature surface and over the field coils before expelling it. The other half of the fan draws an air stream under the commutator and through the armature axial ducts, thus keeping the interior of the armature cool and dissipating most of the iron losses effectively.

“With a motor as efficiently ventilated as this it is possible to ‘force’ the motor more without its getting too hot; that is, in more technical language, a motor can have a higher rated power. Consideration of the above method of ventilation readily shows that if the motor armature rotates more quickly the attached fan will draw more air through it, ventilate it even more thoroughly, and permit even more ‘forcing’ by the passage of greater currents. This, in essence, explains the present trend towards motors of high rotational speed; the efficient ventilation possible on such motors permits more power to be passed through them than through motors of similar size with less effective ventilation.

“The above being understood, two further points are worthy of emphasis. One is that the greatest losses occur in a motor when it is starting and running slowly; the best ventilation occurs when it is running quickly. Cars on a town route will thus need bigger motors than similar cars on an interurban route on which there is a lot of free running, providing their maximum speeds are equal. The second point is that, if motors have been used on a service on which their capabilities are being fully employed the gear ratio must not be altered, because, although the speed of the cars can thereby be improved, such a measure will not only increase the currents passed through the motor (for more power will be required from the motor) but will also decrease the average speed of rotation of the motor. resulting increased “losses” and impaired ventilation will both tend to raise the operating temperature of the motor. and so reduce its life, unless it was known that hitherto it had been used well below its capacity and was operating at relatively low temperatures.” [1: p33-34]

Since ‘Eltee’ was writing at the beginning of the 1950s, much has changed!

Improvements in the ventilation of tramcar electric motors since 1950 have centred on a move away from traditional forced-air cooling in direct current (DC) motors to advanced, sealed, and integrated systems used with modern AC traction, enhancing reliability and reducing maintenance. [2][3]

Modern three-phase AC motors allow for lighter, more compact, and more powerful motors. These motors are often less sensitive to heat and easier to cool than older designs. [2][3]

Modern tram design integrates motors directly into the bogies, with ventilation systems designed as part of the overall low-floor, compact carriage architecture, ensuring better cooling airflow in restricted spaces. [3]

Many modern motors are now completely enclosed, utilizing improved heat sinking and specialized cooling fan designs rather than drawing in outside air, reducing the impact of dust and water on electrical components. [2][3]

The use of GTO-inverters and modern power electronics reduces motor heat generation compared to older resistor-controlled DC motors, reducing the load on ventilation systems. [2][3]

Improved insulation materials allow motors to operate safely at higher temperatures, reducing the strain on the cooling systems and improving longevity. [2][3]

Modern electric trams utilize motors to generate electricity during braking, returning power to the grid or charging on-board batteries/supercapacitors. The use of battery-power and on-board storage can allow trams to pass through city centres or other sensitive areas without overhead wires. [3][4]

Electric motors are ideal for rapid urban transport because their higher torque at low speeds allows speedy departures from stops on a network. It also allows tramcars to handle hilly terrain better than internal combustion engines.

Electric motors are roughly 90% efficient at converting energy into motion. In contrast, diesel engines lose about 60-70% of fuel energy as heat. [4]

Additionally, unlike internal combustion engined vehicles that consume fuel while stopped, electric trams use virtually no power when stationary. [4]

AC motors have been shown to improve reliability and decrease downtime compared to traditional DC motors. But they have significantly lower maintenance needs than internal combustion engines, having far fewer moving parts and not needing oil changes, spark plugs, filters, and complex exhaust systems. The high torque of electric motors at low speeds eliminates the need for heavy, expensive multi-stage gearboxes common in internal combustion engined vehicles. [4]

Trams typically have a service life of about 30 years, roughly double that of diesel-powered buses. They typically produce no local pollutants like nitrogen oxides or particulates, which is critical for city air quality and meeting climate targets. Electric propulsion is significantly quieter than internal combustion engines, reducing noise pollution in densely populated areas. In addition, electricity can be generated from various sources, including renewable energy (wind, solar, hydro), making the system future-proof as the power grid decarbonizes. [4]

Increasingly in an urban environment public transport is heading underground. Because they emit no exhaust fumes, electric trams can safely operate in tunnels and underground stations where diesel engines cannot.

Internal flexibility is increased as the need for bulky and heavy engines and fuel tanks is eliminated. The net gain is a more friendly user experience, faster loading and unloading at stops and increased passenger capacity. [4]

It is not surprising that many cities around the UK, and across the world, are seeking to reintroduce trams and to increase the size of their networks.

References

  1. ‘Eltee’; Traction Motor Trends; in The Modern Tramway Volume 14 No. 158; The Tramway and Light Railway League, February 1951, p33-34.
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive, accessed on 12th May 2026.
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_trams, accessed on 12th May 2026.
  4. https://medium.com/@blaisekelly/why-trams-are-cheaper-than-buses-6d929192624a, accessed on 12th May 2026.
  5. https://evolution.skf.com/new-drive-systems-for-mass-transit, accessed on 12th May 2026.

Modern Tramway – January 1951 – The ‘Felthams’ in Leeds

Leave a reply

I have a few older copies of Modern Tramway which I had not yet read. The first of these is the January 1951 issue, this is a second reflection from that copy of the Journal.

As the London network began to close a significant number of trams were sold. This copy of Modern Tramway notes that the remaining ‘Felthams’ were sold to Leeds City Transport.

The featured image for this article shows Feltham No. 331 which was actually transferred to Sunderland, becoming No. 100 in Sunderland. This Feltham was unique, having central doors. It is now resident at Crich, © Nathan 1492 and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 3.0). [6]

By the late 1920s trams operated by both the Metropolitan Electric Tramways and the London United Tramways were increasingly aged. The two operators co-operated in the development of a new tram design – the ‘Feltham’. Conceived following detailed research and the construction of a number of prototype cars, the production ‘Felthams’ all entered service by the early 1930s. However, the LPTB’s plans for converting tram routes to trolleybus operation soon saw these modern cars transferred from north of the River Thames to south of the river. Here the production cars mostly survived until the final conversion programme. This was not the end of the story, however, as the majority were sold for further service to Leeds, where the last survivors were to see the final closure of the West Riding system in November 1959. The book explores the story of the ‘Felthams’ in London, Leeds and Sunderland. [2]

“In 1929 the Metropolitan Electric Tramways (MET) placed into service an experimental tramcar, No. 320, manufactured by the Union Construction Company which was located in Feltham. This tram was of a significantly more advanced design than other experimental cars that the MET had trialled in the previous few years, and was the first of three prototypes that led to the final design of what became known as the “Feltham” trams. Two more experimental tramcars were then constructed: MET No. 330 later the same year, and No. 331 the next. After experience in passenger service was assessed, the best features of each were combined to form the final design.” [3][4]

After service in London until 1949 and into the very early 1950s, 92 of these trams were to be purchased by Leeds City Transport. In January 1951, Modern Tramway reports:

“The purchase of the remaining 92 London ‘Feltham’ type cars by Leeds City Transport at a cost of £500 each is a wonderful bargain for the latter city; a bus with the same expectation of life as one of these still very modern cars would cost about £4,000, and a new bogie tram at least £7,000.

“On arrival at Kirkstall Works the trucks are completely stripped and all worn parts are replaced. The hornways where worn are built up by a welding process. It has been found necessary to replace the rubber blocks used in the driving-wheel hornways in London by the correct springs, and the tyres are turned to the standard Leeds profile.

“It was found that the car bodies were structurally quite sound on arrival from London; all that it has been necessary to do to the exterior has been to replace damaged panels and to remove dents in the dash; internally, all the woodwork has had the old varnish removed and has been repolished with a light oak finish, all interior panels being finished in light brown. The seats are removed from the cars and the upholstery thoroughly cleaned. Any cars that are received with seat coverings in poor condition will be re-upholstered in the standard Leeds red leather. A combined route-number and destination blind has been fitted, the apertures used in London for displaying the service number having been painted out; a lower saloon side indicator-blind is also provided. The front exit has not been restored for passenger operation, the air-operated front door being used solely for perambulators and luggage.

“The cars, which are arriving at the rate of two a week, are being numbered from 501 upwards in the order of arrival from London, up to 515 having been received at the time of writing and up to 504 being in passenger service. Arrangements have been made with London Transport for the ex-Metropolitan cars with B.T.H. equipment to be despatched first, to be followed by the ex-London United cars with G.E.C. equipment. The ex-Metropolitan and ex-London United cars will be classified in Leeds as types UCC/1 and UCC/2 respective’y.

“The livery finally decided upon for these cars is ‘British Electric Traction’ red all over, relieved by a cream band below the upper saloon windows and a cream panel above the lower saloon windows. The cars are lined out in gold and the roof, trucks and lifeguards are painted Brunswick black. Car No. 503 lacks the cream bands, whilst car No. 501 is still in London Transport livery.

“The cars have proved very satisfactory in service and are popular with the passengers. Those at present in service operate from Torre Road Depot which will eventually operate ‘Felthams’ exclusively. The riding qualities of these cars on the long reserved-track routes to Crossgates and Templenewsam are good. The Leeds undertaking is to be congratulated on obtaining and reconditioning these fine cars.” [1: p6]

The ‘Felthams’ served in Leeds until the closure of that city’s network in 1959. Wikipedia talks of 90 rather than 92 of these trams operating in Leeds. [3] The Seashore Trolley Museum in Maine, USA agrees with this assessment. [5]

The Seashore Trolley Museum reports:

“Car  No. 341 was one of this class known as the ‘Felthams’ (after their place of construction).  The ‘Feltham’ cars were the result of a complete vehicle redesign similar to the development of the PCC car in the USA at about the same time.  No. 341 was one of 54 cars built for the MET which served London’s northern suburbs.  At over 40 feet long, the ‘Felthams’ were relatively long and had a tapering body, large entrance/exit vestibules and a low floor height.  A distinctive feature was the higher floor for the operator’s cab.  Rather than using overhead wires, London trams (including the MET trams) drew power from an underground conduit, similar to systems in Washington, DC and New York City.  When the London Passenger Transport Board acquired the Metropolitan Electric in 1933, No. 341 became No. 2085.  The car survived the World War II blitz, but the LPTB’s policy was to replace trams with trolley buses and expanded underground lines.  The ‘Felthams’ were the last new trams purchased for London.  After 1938, most of LPTB’s remaining tram lines were in South London.  In 1948, LPTB was nationalized and became the London Transport Executive.  The last London tram ran in 1952.  The tram system in Leeds acquired 90 ‘Felthams’ from London Transport in 1950, including No. 2085, which became No. 526 at Leeds.  Leeds painted its trams red and used overhead bow collectors rather than trolley poles.  Leeds abandoned its trams in 1959.” [5]

Two other ‘Felthams’ have been preserved:

Car No 331 (LTPB No. 2168) which was transferred to Sunderland. This tram was a central entrance prototype which was numbered 100 when in service in Sunderland. It now is part of the National Tramway Museum, Crich, collection. [3]

Car No. 355 (LTPB No. 2099, later Leeds No. 501) is now part of the collection at London Transport Museum, Store, Acton, London. [3]

Car No. 355 on display in London Transport Museum, © James Petts and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 2.0). [7]

References

  1. The ‘Felthams’ in Leeds; in Modern Tramway Volume 14 No. 157; The Light Railway Transport League, London, January 1951, p6.
  2. Peter Waller; The London Feltham Tram – London’s Last Modern Tramway; Pen & Sword, 2020.
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feltham_Tram, accessed on 11th May 2026.
  4. T. A. Gibbs; The Metropolitan Electric Tramways, a Short History; The Oakwood Press, 1964.
  5. https://trolleymuseum.org/london2085, accessed on 11th May 2026.
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feltham_Tram#/media/File%3ALondon_Metropolitan_Tramways_%22Feltham%22_Tram_No.331%2C_National_Tramway_Museum%2C_Crich.JPG, accessed on 11th May 2026.
  7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feltham_Tram#/media/File%3ALondon_Tram_(no._355)_-_Flickr_-_James_E._Petts.jpg, accessed on 11th May 2026.

Modern Tramway – January 1951 – Birmingham Bustigestion!

Leave a reply

I have a few older copies of Modern Tramway which I had not yet read. The first of these is the January 1951 issue.

The editorial for this issue of Modern Tramway was a long update on Birmingham’s tram-scrapping programme. An update that railed against the dominance of the bus! It was clearly written by someone who knew the centre of Birmingham at the start of the 1950s very well.

The featured image for this article shows a tram service on Slade Road, Erdington in 1951, the photograph was shared on the Birmingham Area History Facebook Group by Jan Ross on 23rd November 2023, © Public Domain. [4]

“Birmingham Corporation Tramways operated a network of tramways in Birmingham from 1904 until 1953. It was the largest narrow-gauge tramway network in the UK, and was built to a gauge of 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm). It was the fourth largest tramway network in the UK behind London, Glasgow and Manchester.” [2]

Congestion in the Birmingham city centre was a major problem as this photograph of trams and buses on Corporation Street in 1931 illustrates so well, © Public Domain. [3]

“As Birmingham’s tram-scrapping programme continues it becomes increasingly clear how great a part has hitherto been played by the tramways in keeping city centre congestion within bounds. Birmingham has an awkward arrangement of  central streets, and for many years now a large number of bus services, some of them cross-city, have followed a loop route through the central streets (Victoria Square, New Street, Corporation Street, Bull Street and Colmore Row). This is an admittedly convenient arrangement for cross-city passengers, but the very large number of buses traversing these streets adds considerably to the congestion; it could just be done, however, with the existing number of bus services and aided by the desperate expedient of the world’s most complicated one-way scheme, formulated in 1933.

In 1933, however, most of the traffic to the city was catered for by tramways terminating on the fringe of the central loop area; their terminal arrangements were far from ideal in many cases, but the quick turn-round possible with trams at such places as Hill Street and Steelhouse Lane did materially aid matters, as did the arrangement by which the Martineau Street trams (services 3, 3X, 6, 8 and 10) followed the one-way routing by a single track in Corporation Street from Martineau Street, then passing through a central island at the Corporation Street – Bull Street corner (where other traffic turned left and right) and across what may be described as a ‘one-way watershed’ alongside Lewis’s building, to rejoin the Corporation Street traffic where two-way traffic commences at Old Square. This arrangement was severely criticised on the ground that it involved the running of trams against the one-way traffic for one block alongside Lewis’s, but this feature could very easily have been rectified by extending the already rather complicated island at Bull Street corner up to Old Square, so as to keep the tramway traffic on a reservation throughout the very short stretch where it conflicted in direction. with the road traffic. This would not have caused any additional congestion, for traffic along Corporation Street from Old Square towards Bull Street has in any case to be split into two streams (right and left) at the Lewis’s island, and to do this in advance of the corner would probably have assisted traffic flow rather than otherwise, while the single track is no wider than other islands in Corporation Street erected as traffic aids, including a long one opposite Cherry and Union Streets which directly continues the line of the track.

There need therefore have been no difficulty in running trams along Corporation Street, whilst doing so did have the immense advantage of directing the traffic from Martineau Street terminus into a path which short-circuited the very congested détour via Bull Street and Steelhouse Lane which was the only alternative.

The tramway abandonments which have occurred since 1933, however, have in most cases had the effect of upsetting these arrangements and causing further invasions of the already congested central ‘loop’. Thus the Ladywood changeover brought an additional bus service into Victoria Square and Paradise Street, and the Moseley Road changeover two more, owing to the lack of flexibility of buses, whereby they must have central streets to loop round, instead of simple reversal as was possible with the trams in Hill Street. The Transport Department was evidently anxious to keep the additional buses to a minimum, for the former Cannon Hill service was eliminated altogether, and many thickly populated streets in the Balsall Heath area left for the first time in fifty years without service, in a desperate attempt to eliminate one service at all costs and thus limit the mischief. As it is, Paradise Street is now a solid mass of bus loading stations (incidentally without weather protection, which the tram termini had), and scenes at rush hours beggar description.

The next step was the abandonment of the Witton and Perry Barr routes operating from Martineau Street. As the replacing buses could not, of course, use the ‘watershed’ at Lewis’s, these two services (33a and 39) were compelled to go via the Bull Street and Steelhouse Lane detour, bringing additional buses to this very congested area; a recent traffic census showed this part of Bull Street to carry the heaviest volume of traffic in Birmingham.

Then, in October last, the remaining Martineau Street tram routes were scrapped. It had evidently been decided on this occasion that no further traffic could possibly be added to upper Bull Street, for some very awkward expedients were adopted to avoid this. The buses (55b) replacing the service 8 trams were brought into the city by the former outward route and terminated by reversal in Old Square (short of Bull Street); this, besides depositing passengers some distance short of the former central terminus, has meant additional vehicles turning right out of Corporation Street into Old Square, causing considerably more obstruction than the former tramway arrangement at this point, for the trams merely separated the two streams of traffic, while the buses intersect them. The Washwood Heath service (56) replacing tram 10 has been routed still more awkwardly; it comes into Martineau Street by the former route, and turns into Corporation Street, but at the Lewis’s island turns right down lower Bull Street, and rejoins the outward route at an extremely awkward narrow hairpin bend at the foot of Bull Street, where a double line of buses has to be squeezed between the blind corner and a central lavatory island. The change from one-way to two-way traffic, in fact, occurs at the narrowest peak (STET) of the whole loop! Local tramway students prophesied trouble at this point as soon as the plans were known; a single traffic bollard was planted in this narrow ‘throat’ to separate the two lines of traffic, but a Belisha Beacon on the corner became a casualty on the first day of operation, and a day or two afterwards an elevated kerb and guard rails were very hastily erected to protect the blind corner. Notwithstanding these precautions a skidding bus tore through the guard rails and caused a fatal accident on the morning of 10th November, less than six weeks after the changeover. At the inquest on the victim of this accident, the jury added a rider saying: (a) that the wood block paving was dangerous and (b) that they did not agree with the route followed by bus service 56 (round the Bull Street Dale End hairpin bend). When asked if they would be satisfied if a non-skid surface were laid, they replied in the negative and said they still thought the route was wrong. A non-skid surface has since been laid very hastily, but the route of the 56 bus remains unchanged.

On Wednesday, 1st November [1950], the Chairman of the Traffic Advisory Com mittee stated that ‘removal of trams in Corporation Street had greatly eased the stress there and in Lancaster Place’. Statements to this effect are regularly made in Birmingham, but few now believe them, and unfortunately for the Chairman, the very worst traffic jam ever experienced in Birmingham occurred on the afternoon following his self-congratulatory speech, and had Lancaster Place for its centre! The subsequent highly-embarrassed official explanations blamed everything which could be thought of (including a collision near Five Ways, over two miles away on the other side of the city!) but there is little doubt that the trouble was directly caused by the new bus arrangements, for any hitch at the foot of Bull Street quickly dams traffic back along the short length of lower Bull Street to Lewis’s corner, and this in turn blocks Corporation Street both ways, with inevitable trouble at Lancaster Place.

There was a much better case for anticipating an improvement at Perry Barr terminus after the changeover, for the tram terminus at Perry Barr was admittedly in an awkward place, and with the replacing 33A buses extended to Boar’s Head, no vehicles of any sort now terminate at Perry Barr. Nevertheless, queues of traffic extending nearly a mile from Perry Barr to Heathfield Road can be seen any evening and it is the considered opinion of many that the chaos there is much worse than before.

Such are the results of tram-scrapping so far in Birmingham. It may be said that besides the points already mentioned, there are many other traffic plague-spots, all tramless, such as the notorious instance of Digbeth and Deritend. Remaining to be ‘converted’ are the two groups of services following the Bristol and Lichfield Roads (36, 70, 71; 2, 78, 79), which at present are among the busiest, though least congested, thoroughfares in Birmingham. Abandonment of the Bristol Road tramway will involve removing an exceptionally heavy traffic load (including Austin Motor Works industrial, and Lickey Hills holiday traffic) from the present reservations, and the consequent invasion of the adjoining carriageways by hundreds of additional vehicles, with results which may be imagined (or seen, at Kingsway, Manchester). Abandonment of the Lichfield Road services will mean the loss of a good deal more reservation (especially in Tyburn Road) and perhaps more important in this particular case, will involve finding turning circles and loading places in the city for three extremely heavily-trafficked routes. It is difficult to see, in fact, how this can possibly be done. Looping via Corporation Street, Bull Street and Steelhouse Lane would put an intolerable extra burden on the busiest section of Bull Street and add more turning traffic to the Snow Hill corner; there is certainly no more room in the Old Square, and though Martineau Street is not now fully utilised, any more buses there mean Bull Street again, either to the left (already chock-a-block) or to the right (where the recent fatality occurred). The authorities have so far kept very quiet as to what is proposed for these routes, and one suspects that they are to be quietly cut back to Lancaster Place, with a nice half-mile walk to the city centre for all passengers. But as these are scheduled as the last routes to go, it will then be too late for anyone to protest!” [1: p2-3 & 5]

There is no doubting that these are the partisan words of a lobbying group opposed to the removal of Birmingham’s trams. But the increased congestion which would inevitably occur with the introduction of a significant number of additional buses should have been foreseen and have been better planned.

In more modern times the retention and refurbishment of the tram network would perhaps have been seen as the better option along with the pedestrianisation of much of the central area of the city.

But the early 1950s were not the 2020s. The internal combustion engine was seen as the future for transport and the electric trams were seen as leftovers from another era.

References

  1. Birmingham’s Bustigestion; in Modern Tramway Volume 14 No. 157; The Light Railway Transport League, London, January 1951.
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Corporation_Tramways, accessed on 19th May 2026.
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Corporation_Tramways#/media/File%3ACorporation_Street_Bham.jpg, accessed on 10th May 2026.
  4. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1EJ5qJBtuX, accessed on 10th May 2026.

Wemyss Bay Railway Station

Leave a reply

We enjoyed a visit to Wemyss Bay Railway Station in early May, while we were waiting for the ferry to the Isle of Bute.

The featured image for this article shows Wemyss Bay Railway Station from the covered walkway to the pier. A steam-powered service from Glasgow has just arrived, © Public Domain. [29]

“Wemyss Bay was formerly part of a large landed estate centred on the 15th century Kelly Castle. By the mid-19th century it had been split in two distinct areas, Wemyss and Kelly. The Wemyss [estate] was bought by Charles Wilsone Brown who built Castle Wemyss, and sold off plots … and developed a marine village.” [13]

“In 1860, [Castle Wemyss] was bought by John Burns, a partner in the Cunard Steamship Company, who would later become Lord Inverclyde. The Inverclyde family held the estate until 1957, after which it was developed for housing.” [13]

“In 1867, the Kelly estate was bought by Dr James (Paraffin) Young, friend of Dr David Livingstone, and then in 1899 by Alexander Stephen of Linthouse, who rebuilt the third version of Kelly House on a higher site. Sadly, it was destroyed by fire in 1913, and demolished. [In the 21st century], the site is a … holiday park.” [13]

In 1812, “‘Comet’, the world’s first seagoing, passenger steamship was launched at Port Glasgow. … The resulting development of the Clyde steamers was the start of a transport revolution. As the Victorian era developed, the Clyde became lined with docks and shipyards handling Scotland’s growing world trade. Glasgow became known as the ‘second city of the Empire’ and expanded rapidly.” [13]

In order to “escape the grime and congestion of the city, its wealthy merchants and industrialists began to build holiday homes along the Clyde coast.” [13] Partially as a result of these developments along the Clyde coast, the Glasgow, Paisley and Greenock Railway opened a railway line. “At the time, the River Clyde was heavily used by Clyde steamers, but it was impassable for larger sea-going vessels, which anchored at the Tail of the Bank for transshipment at Greenock, and transfer of passengers.” [3]

The railway soon attracted considerable goods and passenger traffic. “In particular passenger traffic grew considerably. The traffic to resort locations on the Firth of Clyde and other coastal places, was especially encouraging, and the steamer trade became lucrative.” [3]

At the time, total journey time — rail and ship— “was considered critical. As a pioneer railway, the Greenock company had not given thought to this, but slowly the disadvantage of the Greenock station became more prominent. The walk from the railway station to the Quay was through squalid streets, and the steamer transit to the lower Clyde involved a circuit round Kempock Point and Cloch Point to reach the seaway.” [3]

By 1851, the Glasgow, Paisley and Greenock Railway had been taken over by the Caledonian Railway.

A different company, the Greenock and Wemyss Bay Railway obtained an Act in 1862 which permitted it to “form a junction with the Greenock line a short distance West of Port Glasgow station; it would then climb and run round to the South of Greenock, then following the valley of the Spango Burn to a station on the hillside above Inverkip, then turning South to a pier station at Wemyss Bay.”  [3]

The Common Seal of the Greenock & Wemyss Bay Railway (1862), © Public Domain. [13]

The line was opened to traffic on 15th May 1865, but the early years after opening were challenging for the Company. Its railway was operated for it by the Caledonian Railway. An independent ‘Wemyss Bay Steamboat Company Limited’ operated steamers in connection with the trains. However this meant that the railway company was completely dependent on two other concerns for the conduct of its business, and reliability problems on the railway and in operating the steamers led to a poor reputation. “After four years, the Wemyss Bay Steamboat Company failed (in 1869), and the Rothesay connections, on which the Wemyss Bay Railway relied, were made by other steamer operators as part of their wider network of routes. …To add to the difficulties, the industrial development confidently expected at Upper Greenock failed to materialise, and the lands acquired there were sold off at a loss.” [3]

The Friends of Wemyss Bay Station note that, “The fare for a return first class ticket to Wemyss Bay was 3/6d, a third class return, 2/9d. (18p and 14p). The first class return to Rothesay, with cabin, was 3/9d (19p); third class with cabin was 3/-(15p), according to a Glasgow Herald newspaper advert in May 1865. That was almost two days’ pay for an unskilled labourer. Places served by the steamers included Rothesay, Largs, Millport and Ardrishaig. Largs did not have its own railway until 1885. The original station was designed in the style of a Victorian villa, to be in keeping with the substantial houses being built in the area.” [13]

Wemyss Bay Railway Station in 1865, © Public Domain. [13]
Wemyss Bay Railway Station as it appears on the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1895, which was published in 1897. Both the overall roof of the railway station and the line out onto the pier can be seen here. [30]
Railways around the Greenock and Wemyss Bay Railway in 1865. The Greenock and Wemyss Bay Railway is down in red, © Afterbrunel and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 4.0). [4]
This photograph was taken at Wemyss Bay Railway station circa. 1875 when the Clyde Costal towns were very well served by a huge fleet of Paddle Steamers. The Wemyss Bay Fleet at that time included: Largs, Lancelot, Lady Gertrude and Argyle which can all be seen in the photograph. [28] The photograph was shared by Swales Forrest on the Golden Age of Travel 1830 – 1955 Facebook Group on 27th May 2023, © Public Domain. [7]

Originally the train shed at the station housed only a single platform, a second platform was added in 1872. The Friends of Wemyss Bay Station note that, “As well as the steamer traffic, the railway was attracting significant development in Wemyss Bay and Skelmorlie.” [13]

Things began to improve significantly for the Greenock and Wemyss Bay Railway when the Caledonian Railway’s plans to extend its line to Gourock were frustrated. Wemyss Bay became an attractive route. “The Greenock and Wemyss Bay Railway was able to pay its first dividend, a remarkable 5½%, in 1878.” [3]

The more stable financial situation, heralded by the first dividend payment by the Greenock and Wemyss Bay Railway, “enabled more harmonious working, and the disadvantageous circumstances of the Caledonian’s operation at Greenock made the Wemyss Bay route more attractive to them. Widespread talk of amalgamation was put into effect: in August 1899 the ‘Glasgow Herald’ announced that the Wemyss Bay company was to be absorbed. In fact the announcement was premature, but the agreement to amalgamate had been finalised, and from this time the two companies co-operated more fully. The actual amalgamation was authorised by an Act of Parliament on 27th July 1893, [5] and took effect on 1st August 1893.” [8: p78-79][9]

“For some years the relationship between the Wemyss Bay company and the Caledonian had been prickly, the smaller company believing that its interests were not being taken into account. In January 1887, the Wemyss Bay company applied to the Railway and Canal Commissioners to compel the Caledonian to transfer their trains to Glasgow Central station: at that time they were still using the less convenient (to the public) Bridge Street; but the application failed. [5] (Bridge Street continued to be used for Caledonian operations from the Paisley direction until 1905.)” [3][6] However, the Friends of Wemyss Bay Station note that in 1890, “Trains from Wemyss Bay started running to Glasgow Central Station. [Also in 1890,] the Caledonian Steam Packet Company took over operation of the steamers from Wemyss Bay.” [13]

In 1893, “The Caledonian Railway Company took ownership of the Wemyss Bay line and soon drew up plans for improvements. … The old station and pier had become quite inadequate for the number of people using them. Trips on the steamers to the Clyde coast were very popular. Holidays had become a real possibility for many people, transforming quiet towns, such as Millport and Rothesay, into coastal resorts. … Hydropathics and hotels were built for the use of the wealthy; the less well-off rented a room elsewhere. Many well-to-do families spent the summer in their handsome stone-built villas on the coast, with the head of the household travelling by steamer and train to business in Glasgow.” [13]

“In 1901 the extension of Wemyss Bay pier was completed. The new pier was twice the size of the old one and could accommodate five steamers.” [13]

1902 saw the Duchess of Montrose and her sister ship the Duchess of Rothesay built. The Duchess of Montrose is seen in this colourised postcard pictureat at the Rothesay berth at Wemyss Bay, © Public Domain. [27]

Planned improvements to the line included not only the rebuilding of Wemyss Bay station, but also those at Inverkip and Upper Greenock.

The Friends of Wemyss Bay Station included in their timeline a number of photographs of the construction work undertaken in 1903: [13]

Construction work which was completed in 1903 included building a new sea wall and reclaiming land to provide space for the station. The new station was carefully designed to allow rapid interchange between trains and steamers, to allow plenty of space for large crowds, and to provide protection from adverse weather conditions. Considerable use was.made of curves in the layout of the concourse and walkway to the pier to ease the flow of people. A timber platform was provided for porters to unload luggage and take it directly to the pier without obstructing passengers. The walkway down to the pier was designed to accommodate separate queues for different destinations. [13]
Wemyss Bay Pier in 1907, © Public Domain. [26]
A very similar area as it appears on the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1912, published in 1913. The full extent of the major alterations of 1903 is evident. [31]

O. S. Nock observes that the station was rebuilt to an exceptionally pleasing design with a light glass canopy to the circulating area; the pier could accommodate five steamers at once. He continues:

“At Wemyss Bay … quite apart from the beauty of the station itself, the traffic facilities provided in the reconstruction … are remarkable in themselves. The enterprising timetables of the day required that a train and a steamer should arrive simultaneously, and exchange passengers. Although the changeover did not need to be done at the lightning speed demanded by the most competitive services at Gourock, there was to be no dawdling about. The station platforms, and the approach ways to the steamer berths, were therefore made exceptionally wide, so that two opposing streams of pedestrians could pass without interference. From the railway point of view, while the two long island platforms provided four platform faces for trains, a third line was laid in between the two island platforms to enable locomotives of incoming trains to be released immediately on arrival, and ‘run round’ their trains.” [10: p76, 77, & 82]

The station buildings at Wemyss Bay as it appears on Google’s satellite imagery in the 21st century. [Google Maps, May 2026]

The station had a purely decorative italianate clock tower and a significant, unique concourse. It opened on 7th December 1903.

The decorative clocktower at Wemyss Bay Railway Station, seen in May 2026. [My photograph, 8th May 2026]
The superb concourse roof at Wemyss Bay Railway Station. [My photograph, 8th May 2026]
The wide covered-way built to accommodate significant passenger movements both towards and away from steamers docked at the quay. [My photograph, 8th May 2026]

The station’s architect was the Caledonian Railway’s architect, James Miller. [11] He worked in consultation with Donald Matheson, Chief Engineer of the Caledonian Railway Company  [11] The improvement works undertaken on the line between 1898 and 1907 cost the Caledonian Railway more than £267,000. [5]

Wemyss Bay Railway Station building is regarded as an Edwardian masterpiece. It was the first of the Clyde railway piers to be built, and is now the last one remaining. It well deserves its Category A architectural listing, with its sinuous, graceful curves, and elegant glass canopies, still protecting passengers coming off the trains and heading down for the boat connection to Rothesay on the Isle of Bute.

The station is remarkable in its use of glass and steel curves. Although it is one of Scotland’s finest railway buildings, it suffered serious neglect until “a major refurbishment scheme [costing more than £5 million] carried out jointly by Network Rail, Inverclyde Council and the Scottish Government from June 2014 to the spring of 2016 [saw] the station buildings and adjacent ferry terminal fully restored.” [12]

The canopies over the station platforms and the concourses were repaired between 2014 and 2016 by the Spencer Group. [25]

The work was undertaken by the Spencer Group. [13] The Spencer Group say:

“The project was originally to be delivered over two financial years to take advantage of two summer periods and ensure tools could be downed during the winter periods which, due to the station’s location, would be particularly harsh. … However, following the initial works on the site, it soon became clear that the completion date was unrealistic, as more and more issues with the structure were discovered. … The problems stemmed from the age of the building materials, such as the Georgian wire over the canopies and the paint used, and the inability of these old technologies to handle the station’s coastal location, with water ingress and rust causing significant damage. Further to this, the lack of access to many parts of the station building led much of it to fall into disrepair, as maintenance works had been impossible.

“Almost all of the station’s existing roof slates were classified as unsuitable for the coastal environment, needing a total of 1,434m2 of replacement tiles. A post-contract-award of the structural assessment also revealed significant overstressing to the existing structural elements, requiring substantial strengthening with 3.5 tonnes of steel.

“Several problems with the paint on the station’s steel beams, including rust and the use of lead-based paint, meant that nearly 4,000 litres of new paint was used in the refurbishment works in total. … The delay these unexpected issues should have caused was lessened by working through the winter, which required the implementation of extra measures to stop seasonal bad weather, such as February’s storms, from causing further delay. … The final stages of the work involved installing new access systems to the canopies to prevent the previous issues of access difficulty leading to disrepair, refurbishing the concourse roof with a total of 165.5 sq. m of new glass panes, and other miscellaneous finishing tasks.” [25]

The final stages of the work involved installing new access systems to the canopies to prevent the previous issues of access difficulty leading to disrepair, refurbishing the concourse roof with a total of 165.5 sq. m of new glass panes. [25]

“Wemyss Bay was the first combined rail and ferry terminal on the Clyde coast.” [13] It has survived to be the last operating combined rail and ferry terminal.

“The glass-roofed complex, with its ‘Queen Anne’ styled half-timbered frontage finished with roughcast and red sandstone, is dominated by a four-sided sixty-foot high clock tower. A truly majestic building.” [2]

Wemyss Bay Railway Station and Ferry Terminal, seen from above in September 2025, © Scottmcc101993 and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 4.0). [14]

Returning to the early years of the 20th century and specifically to the 1910s. …

At that time, the Caledonian Railway invested in a series of new heavy duty tank locomotives designed specifically for the line from Glasgow to Wemyss Bay.

A Caledonian Railway 944 Class 4-6-2T passenger tank locomotives designed by William Pickersgill and built in 1917 at the North British Locomotive Company’s Hyde Park Works in Glasgow. These locomotives were the first of their wheel arrangement in Scotland and we’re specifically design for the heavily loaded passenger services between Glasgow and Wemyss Bay. There were 12 locomotives in the Class and they were nicknamed ‘Wemyss Bay Pugs’ by enginemen, © Public Domain. [15]

After the First World War, the station passed into the ownership of the LMS and throughout the interwar years, “large crowds continued to flock to the Clyde coast. … Due to austerity, and particularly petrol rationing, following the Second World War most people continued to take holidays close to home. For many that meant the train to Wemyss Bay and a steamer to Roth say, Millport or Arran.” [13]

Looking along the pier walkway in the 1930s, note the crests from various paddle-steamers which used to be displayed in glass cases either side of the wide walkway. These were lost at the time of fire-damage to the pier in the late 1970s, © Public Domain. [19]

As with many coastal holiday destinations in the UK, during the 1950s, the number of passengers on the steamers dwindled. With increasing car ownership in the 1950s, a car ferry was introduced between Wemyss Bay and Rothesay (although vehicle loading and unloading was a time consuming affair, with vehicles loaded through the side of the vessel and taken down to the car deck on a lift).

These car ferries included the 1954 pioneer, MV Cowal, which served on the Firth of Clyde for more than 24 years.

MV Cowal on the Wemyss Bay/Rothesay run in the mid 70s. This photograph appears on a number of websites but shared on the Calmac Ferries (Friends) Facebook Group by Stephen Dalziel on 17th October 2025. [16]

The 1960s were a time of great change for the railways. Many delightful and/or significant station buildings were demolished because they were thought to be uneconomic and maintenance liability. It is surprising that Wemyss Bay Railway Station survived this period. It did do so, however, and gained protection as a listed building. The railway saw a significant change in motive power, with steam being displaced by electric multiple units (EMUs)

One of the early EMUs which provided the service to Glasgow in the latter part of the 20th century, © Unknown. It is an image included in the Friends of Wemyss Bay Station timeline. [13]

In the 1970s, the ferry service to Innellan ceased after the 1972 summer season. The Caledonian Steam Packet Co. was amalgamated with David MacBrayne Ltd. to form Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd. in 1973. In 1977, the “linkspan came into use at Wemyss Bay, allowing vehicles to drive on and off the ferry. In connection with this, the pier was shortened.” [13]

1977 was also “the last year in which there were cruises from Wemyss Bay, and since then the only regular service has been that to Rothesay.” [13]

The late 1970s saw extensive fire damage to Wemyss Bay pier. Different comments/publications from the Friends of Wemyss Bay Station have the date of fire damage in 1977 [19] or 1978. [13]

Wemyss Bay pier and station, seen from Skelmorlie. MV Bute is at the pier, © Dave Souza and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 4.0). [17]

Also Wemyss Bay: this view looks South from Cliff Terrace Road, with MV Bute approaching Wemyss Bay railway station and pier, © Dave Souza and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 3.0). [18]

The late 1970s also saw a new fleet of Class 314 EMUs introduced to the Wemyss Bay Railway service.

A Class 314 three-car EMU. These trains were used on the service to Wemyss Bay from the late 1970s, © Unknown. [21]

Wemyss Bay Pier was rebuilt in 1987-1988 and was shortened further. The clocktower was also restored at that time.

During 1993-1994, “the station was very extensively renovated by ScotRail, A plaque on the concourse records the completion of this work. … Under railway privatisation in 1997, operation of the trains was taken over by National Express. … Subsequent franchisees have included First Group and Abellio, a subsidiary of the Netherlands State Railway.” [13]

Class 318 EMUs “were introduced into passenger service on 29th September 1986, between Glasgow Central and Ayr/Ardrossan. Eventually they operated to Largs when electrification was complete. A few years later they started to operate services to Gourock and Wemyss Bay, which saw most services from 1000 to 1500 through Paisley Gilmour Street operated by 3 car Class 318s.” [22]

A three-car ScotRail Class 318 EMU, this photograph was taken at Hyndland, © Geof Sheppard and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 4.0). [23]

In 2009, “as part of ScotRail’s Adopt a Station scheme ‘Friends of Wemyss Bay Station’ was formed as a support group of volunteers, with a particular interest in reinstating the floral displays which had been a special feature for many years. … The Friends also operate a secondhand bookshop in former waiting rooms on the concourse, and provide historical information about the station.” [13]

In the early 2010s, the Class 314 and 318 EMUs were supplemented on ScotRail’s network by three-car and four-car Class 380 EMUs which were built by Siemens. these Class 380s were not initially intended for use on the line to Wemyss Bay.

A Class 380 EMU at Glasgow Central, © Geof Sheppard and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 4.0). [24]

As noted above, in 2015-2016, “the station and pier were again the subject of a programme of considerable renovation by Network Rail and Caledonian Maritime Assets Limited, which returned them both to the original Caledonian Railway colour scheme.” [13]

In 2017, the station was described by Sir Simon Jenkins as ‘Britain’s loveliest station’. [20]

In February 2018, Rail Magazine reported that the veteran Class 314 EMUs were due to be retired with, initially, additional Class 318 sets cascaded down to the Wemyss Bay route.

This was enabled by Hitachi Rail Europe Class 385s being brought into service on ScotRail, releasing ‘380s’ for other routes. This in turn made more 318s available for routes such as Wemyss Bay. [21]

to be used on these routes instead, alongside the Hitachi-built EMUs when more are delivered. A further five Class 320/4s are also on their way to SR in the near future, allowing Class 318s to also be used on these routes.

Eventually Class 380s began to provide services to Wemyss Bay.

This image shows a Class 380 EMU at Wemyss Bay Railway Station. [25]

References

  1. https://friendsofwemyssbaystation.co.uk, accessed on 8th May 2026.
  2. https://friendsofwemyssbaystation.co.uk/centennial-history, accessed on 8th May 2026.
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenock_and_Wemyss_Bay_Railway, accessed on 8th May 2026.
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenock_and_Wemyss_Bay_Railway#/media/File%3AWemyss_Bay_Rly_1865.gif, accessed on 8th May 2026.
  5. David Ross; The Caledonian—Scotland’s Imperial Railway—A History; Stenlake Publishing Ltd, Catrine, 2013.
  6. M E Quick; Railway Passenger Stations in England Scotland and Wales — A Chronology; The Railway and Canal Historical Society, 2002.
  7. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AtnALNWsb, accessed on 8th May 2026.
  8. C. V. Awdry; Encyclopaedia of British Railway Companies; Guild Publishing, 1990.
  9. John Thomas revised J S Paterson; A Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain: Volume 6, Scotland, the Lowlands and the Borders; David and Charles, Newton Abbot, 1984.
  10. O S Nock; The Caledonian Railway; Ian Allan Limited, London, 1961.
  11. James Miller FRSE FRIBA FRIAS RSA (1860–1947) was recognised for his commercial architecture in Glasgow and for his Scottish railway stations. Notable among these are the American-influenced Union Bank building at 110–120 St Vincent Street, while acknowledging Richard McLoud Morrison Gunn as the bank’s chief designer; his 1901–1905 extensions to Glasgow Central railway station; and Wemyss Bay railway station on the Firth of Clyde. His lengthy career resulted in a wide range of building types, and, with the assistance of skilled draughtsmen such as Richard M Gunn, he adapted his designs to changing tastes and new architectural materials and technologies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Miller_(architect), accessed on 8th May 2026.
  12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wemyss_Bay_railway_station, accessed on 8th May 2026.
  13. Wemyss Bay Railway Station Timeline; The Friends of Wemyss Bay Station, 2019.
  14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wemyss_Bay_railway_station#/media/File%3AInverclyde_-_Wemyss_Bay_railway_station_-_2025-09-24_21-57-28_001.jpg, accessed on 9th May 2026.
  15. https://modelengineeringwebsite.com/Caledonian_4-6-2.html, accessed on 9th May 2026.
  16. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1CkFvVyxoJ, accessed on 9th May 2026.
  17. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wemyss_Bay_pier_from_Skelmorlie.jpg, accessed on 10th May 2026.
  18. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20140311_Wemyss_Bay_from_Cliff_Terrace_Rd.jpg, accessed on 10th May 2026.
  19. https://www.largsandmillportnews.com/news/23550179.wemyss-bay-station-1977-blaze-caused-loss-paddle-box-covers, accessed on 10th May 2026.
  20. Simon Jenkins; Britain’s best 100 railway stations; Penguin Books, London, 2017.
  21. https://www.railmagazine.com/news/fleet/withdrawal-of-scottish-veteran-emus-relies-on-stock-cascades, accessed on 10th May 2026.
  22. http://www.scot-rail.co.uk/page/Class+318, accessed on 10th May 2026.
  23. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_318, accessed on 10th May 2026.
  24. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_380#/media/File%3AGlasgow_Central_-_Abellio_380004_and_380104.JPG, accessed on 10th May 2026.
  25. https://thespencergroup.co.uk/spencer-group-completes-100-year-old-station-refurbishment-at-wemyss-bay, accessed on 10th May 2026.
  26. https://www.wemyssbay.net/historical-photos/album/various-historical-photos, accessed on 10th May 2026.
  27. https://www.dalmadan.com/?page_id=25, accessed on 10th May 2026.
  28. https://www.wemyssbay.net/historical-photos/album/various-historical-photos, accessed on 10th May 2026.
  29. https://pin.it/21dMVoIRv, accessed on 10th May 2026.
  30. https://maps.nls.uk/view/82900413, accessed on 10th May 2026.
  31. https://maps.nls.uk/view/82900416, accessed on 10th May 2026.

Double-Decker Trains

Leave a reply

It was announced on 22nd October 2025 that the lines through the Channel Tunnel would see double-decker trains by 2031. An order was placed for their construction and delivery in October 2025. [6]

The featured image for this article shows what one of these trains would look like in Eurostar’s grey livery. The fully electric fleet of trains will be named Eurostar Celestia, which comes from the Latin word caelestis, meaning ‘heavenly’. The colour of the train has not yet been decided, but the current colour of Eurostar trains is grey, dark blue and yellow. Each train would be 200m long. Currently two are run together making an entire service 400m long. Double-decker trains don’t have twice as many seats as a single-deckers though, just because there needs to be room for interior steps, but there would be a fifth more seats. This means an increase from just under 900 seats on the current service to just over a thousand. [6]

“A bilevel car (American English) or double-decker coach (British English and Canadian English) is a type of rail car that has two levels of passenger accommodation as opposed to one, increasing passenger capacity (up to 57% per car in extreme cases).” [1]

Examples of Double-Deck Coaches/Trains in a Few Different Countries

France

“Double deck carriages date to at least as early as the second half of the 19th century. In France several hundred ‘voitures à impériale’ with seats on the roof were in use by the Chemins de fer de l’Ouest, Chemins de fer de l’Est and Chemins de fer du Nord by 1870, having been in use for over 2 decades; the upper deck was open at the sides with a light roof or awning covering the seats.” [1]

Voiture à impériale, France Paris Champs Elysées Expo Train capitale 2003 Wagon à imperial, © Patrick Giraud (Calips) and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons Licence (CC BY 2.5). [2]

Marc Andre Dubout tells us that “the success of the railway with the public, the rise of the suburbs forced the companies to design double-decker carriages whose capacity was almost double that of conventional railway cars. Built from 1855 by the Compagnie de l’Ouest, … these carriages represent the flowering period of the Impressionist painters who took the trains on Sundays to go and paint in the countryside … not so far from Paris. It is the era of the boater and the joys of picnics by the water.” [4]

Dubout continues to say that these carriages weighed 8 tons and had 4 compartments downstairs and space for 34 sitting upstairs which could be reached by external staircases at the end of the carriage. [4]

“In the 1860s, M.J.B. Vidard introduced two-storied carriages on the Chemins de fer de l’Est, with a full body, windows, and doors; the design lowered the floor of the lower storey to keep the center of gravity low. Vidard’s carriages had a total height of 13 feet 8 inches (4.17 m) with the head height in the lower part of the carriage only 5 feet 5 inches (1.65 m); the carriages had a capacity of 80 persons (third class) in a 2 axle vehicle of 13 tonnes fully loaded.” [1][5]

This image is embedded here from another webpage. This carriage was built by De Dietrich & Cie in 1899. [5]

“The first all-steel Chemins de fer de l’État double deckers are an early example of split-level cars.” [1] “The first ten carriages were delivered by Brissonneau et Lotz, now part of Alstom, in 1933. The Voiture État à 2 étages were used as permanently coupled sets of carriages and used for réversibilité (push-pull operation), driving the train from the end passenger car and the steam locomotive pushing, on the Réseau Saint-Lazare. They often operated once in the morning, taking commuters to work, and once in the evening, returning them back home. They were also briefly used on the Réseau Montparnasse in shorter sets of six cars.” [3]

The Voiture État à deux étages were a class of double-deck carriages built for Paris suburban services of the French Chemin de fer de l’État. The design was revolutionary for its use of aluminium as well as steel to reduce weight. Although unpowered, each rake of seven cars had a driving trailer at one end and were pushed and pulled by a steam locomotive, such as the 141 TC Ouest and 141 TD Ouest. The cars possessed two vestibules, each with two sets of doors and stairs to allow passage from one deck to the next. The upper deck had rows of five seats whilst the lower deck had rows of four as they had to fit between the frames. The driving trailers allowed the driver to control the steam engine from the driving cab in the opposite end carriage while the locomotive was pushing, using controls actuated by compressed air pipes running through the train, © Didier Deforest and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons Licence (CC BY-SA 3.0). [3]

“Fifty cars were built, which accommodated the increasing suburban traffic from the beginning of the 20th century. They were supplemented by 380 Talbot passenger cars and 200 Standard EMUs. The last of the class were only withdrawn in 1984, after introduction of the VB2N in 1975.” [3]

The Voiture de banlieue à 2 niveaux (shortened to VB2N) “is a type of double-deck set of passenger carriages used on Transilien, the commuter rail network in the Île-de-France region of France. The carriages are unpowered and designed to be paired with an electric locomotive.” [7] They were built between 1974 and 1984, refurbished between 2002 and 2008. Since 2012, the VB2N trains were being shifted from busier RER and Transilien lines to less busy routes on the Transilien network as new equipment came online, most notably the single-level Z 50000 and double-deck Regio 2N(Z57000) trainsets. The VB2N trains have been being retired gradually since 2021. [7]

A VB2N arriving at Gare de Lavilletertre, Oise, having travelled from Paris on 1st June 2011, © Lunon92 and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 3.0). [10]

The double-deck Regio 2N trainsets are a family of a double-deck, dual-voltage electric multiple unit trainsets built for French rail operator SNCF to serve its regional rail routes (TER, Transilien, and RER). The trains utilize a unique and highly configurable design. One of the end cars is single-deck and designed to accommodate wheelchair users, the other end car is double-deck. The intermediate cars are either double-deck with no doors accommodating seated passengers traveling long distances or single-deck with two double doors per side accommodating standing passengers traveling short distances. Trains can be configured with six, seven, eight or ten cars. Additionally, the seating can be configured for intercity service (2+1 seating in 1st class, 2+2 seating in 2nd class), regional service (2+2 seating throughout), or high-capacity commuter service (3+2 seating throughout). These trains were designed and originally built by Bombardier, but during delivery the company was bought by Alstom, which completed the order. A total of 447 trainsets have either been built or are under construction at the Alstom Crespin factory since 2012. The first set was placed into regular passenger service in September 2013. [8]

Regio 2N in TER Hauts-de-France livery at Gare de Longueau, (c) Thierry Martel and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons Licence (CC BY-SA 4.0). [9]

Germany

Double-decker trains in Germany (Doppelstockwagen) originated in 1935–36 with LBE commuter coaches, evolving from East German, Görlitz-built articulated trainsets in the 1950s-70s into widespread regional use. Following reunification, Deutsche Bahn modernized these coaches to become the dominant, high-capacity standard for regional lines, and in 2015, introduced them as Intercity 2 for long-distance routes. [11][12][13]

German class 670 railbus (only 7 were built, 2 still remaining in working condition). This particular vehicle is apparently owned by a preservation group which sometimes does trips around Saxony – though not in regular service, © Not Known. [14]

Historical Evolution:

  • Early Beginnings (1930s-1950s): The first double-deckers were built by WUMAG at Görlitz for the Lübeck–Büchen–Hamburg railway in 1935, pioneering push-pull operation in Germany.
Two photographs of the early (1935/36) double deck carriages built by WUMAG, © Public Domain. [16]
  • East German Development (DDR): VEB Waggonbau Görlitz became a hub for double-deck technology, producing two- to five-car articulated sets (Doppelstockgliederzüge) for the Deutsche Reichsbahn, with over 4,000 sets produced for the Eastern Bloc.
Double-decker coaching stock is seen here behind steam locomotive 22 032 with a passenger train in 1964 on the Dresden–Werdau railway line, between Hohenstein-Ernstthal and St. Egidien, © Werner Huhle and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 3.0). [15]
A first generation Doppelstockwagen rake in Calau in January 1997. These were built 1973–1974 and 1976–1991,  and we’re sold to East Germany, Bulgaria, Poland, Romania and Czechoslovakia, © Falk2 and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY 3.0). [11]
  • West Germany (DB): In contrast to the East, the West German Deutsche Bundesbahn initially focused on single-level carriages until adopting modern 2nd generation Class 760 cars in the early 1990s.
A second generation Doppelstockwagen on first delivery in January 1993, © Falk2 and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY 3.0). [11]
  • Post-Reunification & Regionalization: After 1990, Deutsche Bahn heavily adopted modern, single-coach bilevel designs for regional rapid transit across Germany.
N Gauge models produced by Fleischmann (6260075). These two double-decker coaches are available as a set. They are typical of the style of single coach bilevel designs used for regional rapid transit across Germany. [16]
  • Early 21st Century: typical trains were red double -decker carriages hauled by electric locomotives (such as Class 146 or 147), and featuring high-capacity seating for commuters. [11][12]
DB Regio BR 146 locomotive in charge of a typical double-decker consist at Munich. This image was shared by Samson Ng on the World Electric Locomotives Facebook Group on 7th February 2026. [19]
This YouTube video shows a DB Region BR147 locomotive bringing its train into Angermunde Station with a train to Stralsund Hbf. [20]
  • Intercity 2 Era (2015-Present): In 2015, Intercity 2 trains, a mix of Bombardier and Stadler “kiss” trains, were introduced for long-distance services, capable of 160 km/h, though they have been criticized for offering regional-style comfort on long routes. [13]
Bombardier © Klaus Foehl and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 3.0). [18]
The KISS (comfortable innovative high-speed S-Bahn train) is an electric double-deck multiple unit from the Swiss-based manufacturer Stadler Rail. [17]

Private operators such as ODEG [21] and National Express Germany [22] use modern Siemens Desiro HC double-deck sets, often featuring a mix of single and double-deck cars for faster boarding. [11][12]

Siemens Desiro HC EMU of Ostdeutsche Eisenbahn (ODEG) at Rheydt Hauptbahnhof, © Thomas and licenced for reuse under a GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2. [23]
Electric multiple unit Desiro HC BR 462 RRX National Express. [24]

Unites States and Canada

Bilevel trains are widely used across the USA and Canada for high-capacity commuter services and long-distance travel. Primarily using Bombardier/Alstom BiLevel Coaches in cities and Amtrak Superliners on national routes, these trains maximize passenger volume, with the Bombardier model operating in at least 14 different transit authorities.

Examples of operators are:

  • GO Transit (Canada):

GO Transit uses a bilevel passenger railcar (currently built by Alstom and previously by Bombardier, Hawker Siddeley Canada, the Canadian Car and Foundry (Can Car), and the UTDC) is used by a number of different North American commuter and regional rail operators, they feature a distinctive octagonal profile. The principal operator is GO Transit in the Golden Horseshoe, which operates some two-thirds of the total produced fleet. [26]

A westbound Lakeshore West GO train, seen from the Roncesvalles Pedestrian Bridge, © Dillon Payne and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 4.0). [25]

The BiLevel coaches were designed by Toronto’s regional commuter rail service, GO Transit and Hawker Siddeley Canada in the mid-1970s as a more efficient replacement for GO’s original single-deck coaches and cab cars. A trial was first undertaken with a borrowed Chicago & North Western Gallery Car. [27]

This image is embedded from the Transit Toronto website. It shows GO GP40-2L locomotive No. 9811 pulling a borrowed Chicago & North Western Gallery Car past Bayview Junction in April 1976 to test the feasibility of double-decker passenger coaches on the system. The test was a success, although GO would eventually adopt its own special model of bilevel coaches. This image is on the Transit Toronto website courtesy the D&T Illingsworth collection. [28]
  • Metrolink:

Metrolink in Southern California operates high-capacity, double-decker passenger coaches to maximize commuter transport efficiency without needing extra tracks. The fleet primarily consists of older, octagonal-shaped Bombardier BiLevel Coaches and newer, silver Hyundai Rotem BiLevel cars, often featuring white and blue or modern silver liveries. The Bombardier BiLevel Coaches were the same design as those operating on the GO network. [29]

Bombardier Cab Car No. 624 at Sonora Street, © Kwikie and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 3.0). [29]
Older BiLevel rolling stock made by Bombardier to a GO Transit design, can be seen in action on this video. [30]

Metro link also makes use of newer, silver Hyundai Rotem BiLevel cars, often featuring white and blue or modern silver liveries.

Metrolink Hyundai Rotem cab car in Southern California, © Justin N. and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 2.0). [31]

Hyundai Rotem began marketing commuter rail cars in 2006 to compete with other railcar manufacturers in North America such as Bombardier Transportation and Kawasaki Heavy Industries Rolling Stock Company. An assembly plant opened in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 2008 to meet American requirements; it closed a decade later. Significant users include: MBTA Commuter Rail (Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority); Metrolink; and Tri-Rail, a commuter rail service linking Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach in Florida. [32]

  • Sound Transit (Seattle):

Sound Transit serves the city of Seattle in Washington State in the Pacific Northwest of the USA. It makes use of Bombardier BiLevel Coaches.

These have been in use on the Sound Transit network since the early 2000s. Sound Transit has made multiple orders over time, with new cars arriving in 2017 and 2022 to support service expansion on the South Line and a programme of refurbishment planned to begin in 2027. [32]

SDRX 105, Sound Transit Sounder Bombardier Coach Cab at Carkeek Park in Seattle, WA, © Stephen De Vight and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY 3.0). [33]

Great Britain

While there has been a significant use made of double-decker carriages on the continent and in North America. These vehicles have been largely absent in British railway history. The primary cause has been the tight loading gauge on British railways.

In recent years railway construction in the UK has seen a larger loading gauge used. The fruit of this policy is the plans to use double-decker carriages through the Channel Tunnel and on HS1.

However, these new carriages will not be the first to run on British metals. In the late 1940s Bulleid, the Chief Mechanical Engineer of the former Southern Railway, introduced two double-decker trains to the route between London Charing Cross and Dartford. These SR Class 4DD trains had split level floors with alternately high and low passenger compartments. They were no higher than regular carriages and so could travel on the Southern Railway network. “It was hoped that the SR Class 4DD could fit almost a third more commuters on board. But things didn’t get off to a great start, when the carriages were pulled for modifications after just one day in service. They subsequently revealed various other shortcomings, one of which … was the windows not opening.” [34] A ventilation system had to be fitted to overcome the problem.

The Southern Railway designed SR Class 4DD carriages were introduced as an experiment in 1949 just after nationalisation. [35]

Apparently, passenger capacity was improved by the SR Class 4DD, but the compartments were just not comfortable and because there were more passengers boarding and alighting, the train service was slowed down

One of the double-decker units at the Ashford Steam Centre, in October 1972, © Hugh Llewlyn and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 2.0). [34]
A model of the SR Class 4DD, © Les Chatfield and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY 2.0). [34]

References

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilevel_rail_car, accessed on 22nd October 2025.
  2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:France_Paris_Champs_Elysees_Wagon_a_imperiale.JPG, accessed on 22nd October 2025.
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiture_%C3%89tat_%C3%A0_2_%C3%A9tages, accessed on 23rd October 2025.
  4. https://marc-andre-dubout.org/cf/lvdc/lvdc0074/carnet06_05.htm, accessed on 23rd October 2025.
  5. https://www.patrimoine-ferroviaire.fr/wp-content/uploads/Est-B4C5-imperiale-21094.jpg, accessed on 23rd October 2025.
  6. https://www.thenational.scot/news/national/25561691.first-major-fleet-double-decker-trains-run-uk-railways, accessed on 23rd October 2025.
  7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiture_de_banlieue_%C3%A0_2_niveaux, accessed on 23rd October 2025.
  8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regio_2N, accessed on 2nd May 2026.
  9. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Regio2N_003XL_en_gare_de_Longueau.jpg, accessed on 2nd May 2026.
  10. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gare_de_Lavilletertre_(2).jpg, accessed on 3rd May 2026.
  11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Double-deck_Coach, accessed on 3rd May 2026.
  12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilevel_rail_car, accessed on 3rd May 2026.
  13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercity_2, accessed on 3rd May 2026.
  14. https://www.reddit.com/r/trains/comments/1fbuaqi/actual_rare_double_decker_train, accessed on 3rd May 2026.
  15. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DR_22_032.jpg, accessed on 3rd May 2026.
  16. https://www.asmodellbahn.de/en/products/lbe-doppelstockwagen, accessed on 3rd May 2026.
  17. https://www.modellbahnshop-lippe.com/Drive+trains/Drive+train/Hobbytrain-H25304/gb/modell_373337.html, accessed on 3rd May 2026.
  18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Double-deck_Coach#/media/File%3AGie%C3%9Fen_Regionalexpress_Bahnhof01_2010-02-27.jpg, accessed on 3rd May 2026.
  19. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1B818d3gSh, accessed on 3rd May 2026.
  20. https://youtu.be/PuXw-cZ3vxE?si=iFI7opsRQzoCzXR8, accessed on 3rd May 2026.
  21. Ostdeutsche Eisenbahn GmbH (ODEG) is the largest private railway operator in eastern Germany, operating passenger services across Berlin, Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Saxony, and Saxony-Anhalt. Founded in 2002, it is a 50/50 joint venture of Netinera and BeNEX, operating 17 lines.
  22. National Express Germany (a subsidiary of the British Mobico Group) is a major private rail operator in North Rhine-Westphalia, operating regional lines including the Rhein-Ruhr-Express (RRX) RE1, RE5, and RE11, as well as RE7 and RB48. Using Siemens Desiro HC trains, they provide run services covering 20 million km annually as of 2023.
  23. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Siemens_Desiro_HC_ODEG_in_Rheydt_Hbf,_07-10-2022.jpg, accessed on 3rd May 2026.
  24. https://www.modellbahnunion.com/HO-gauge/Electric-multiple-unit-Desiro-HC-BR-462-RRX-National-Express.htm?shop=modellbahn-union-en&a=article&ProdNr=MU-H0-T46203&p=802&srsltid=AfmBOoqN0GDRh9yiDXkj_sZft70dYgWlgPruby0eBRpihbdgVX1iiNzm, accessed on 3rd May 2026.
  25. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lakeshore_West_GO_Train_WB_at_Roncesvalles_Pedestrian_Bridge_-_1,_April_27_2026.jpg, accessed on 4th May 2026.
  26. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_BiLevel_Coach, accessed on 4th May 2026.
  27. https://transittoronto.ca/regional/2507.shtml, accessed on 4th May 2026.
  28. https://transittoronto.ca/photos/images/go-9811-double-decker-197604.jpg, accessed on 4th May 2026.
  29. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bombardier_BiLevel_coaches_of_Metrolink, accessed on 4th May 2026.
  30. https://youtu.be/ZtZfaEeOLlU?si=ZWcj4cXtO2NMTZFW, accessed on 4th May 2026.
  31. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrolink_rolling_stock, accessed on 4th May 2026.
  32. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotem_Commuter_Cars?wprov=rarw1, accessed on 4th May 2026.
  33. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SDRX105.jpg, accessed on 4th May 2026.
  34. https://londonist.com/london/transport/double-decker-train-london-1940s, accessed on 4th May 2026.
  35. https://youtu.be/1a2K0TP1lxM?si=spxN70y-q5D78Lpv, accessed on 4th May 2026.