The Great Northern Railway recognised the value of ‘mixed traffic’ locomotives in the 19th century. Lindsay says that seventy five locos of this class were built. One source says that a total of 117 Class 18 locos were built. [4] The Great Northern Railway Society says that 153 were built. [5] The different sources seem to agree that fifty of the class were out-sourced from locomotive builders, the remainder were built in-house at the Great Northern’s Doncaster works. [1]
Side Elevation [1]Front Elevation [1]Tender – Front and Back Elevations [1]
The specification sent to outside loco constructors differed in at least one respect from that used in-house – the total heating surface of the outside builders locomotives was 543 sq. ft rather than 537.5 sq ft. [1]
Delivery of locomotives from outside firms was in the following order:
1875 – Nos. 551-556 from Sharp, Stewart & Co. (Works Nos. 2564-2569)
1876 – Nos. 557-580 from Sharp, Stewart & Co. (Works Nos. 2570-2575, 2585-2594, 2646-2653))
It should be noted, however, that there was no direct correlation between the sequence of Works Nos. and the locomotive fleet numbers. “For instance, engine Nos. 563 and 564 bear makers’ Nos. 2586 and 2585 respectively.” [1]
Messrs Sharp, Stewart & Co. locomotives were recorded as being 31 tons 13 cwt in weight. [1]
The Great Northern Railway (GNR) “was … By incorporated in 1846 with the object of building a line from London to York. It quickly saw that seizing control of territory was key to development, and it acquired, or took leases of, many local railways, whether actually built or not. In so doing, it overextended itself financially.” [2]
“Nevertheless, it succeeded in reaching into the coalfields of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire, as well as establishing dominance in Lincolnshire and north London. Bringing coal south to London was dominant, but general agricultural business, and short- and long-distance passenger traffic, were important activities too. Its fast passenger express trains captured the public imagination, and its Chief Mechanical Engineer Nigel Gresley became a celebrity.” [2]
There was a significant amount of cross-country good traffic which saw these locomotives being well-used. I believe that they were designated ‘Class 18’ within the GNR’s fleet. They were “the first type of loco to actually be built at Doncaster, rather than by outside contractors … they were used on goods trains and certain secondary passenger trains,” [3] and at times were referred to as ‘luggage engines’, because they were used to bring a second train carrying larger trunks and other passenger luggage in the day when carriages carried regular luggage on their roofs.[3].
References
T.A.Lindsay; Great Northern Railway Engine No. 551; in Model Railway News Volume 40 No. 748, October 1964, p532-533. (Non-commercial use of drawings authorised.)
Looking through a number of 1964 Model Railway News magazines, I came across drawings of Sharp, Stewart & Co. 2-4-0, built in 1870 for the Furness Railway Co. and numbered 58 on their roster.
Side elevation and half plan of Locomotive No. 58 [1]Front elevation. [1]Tender, front and back half-elevations. [1]
Originally conceived as a mineral railway, the Furness Railway later played a major role in the development of the town of Barrow-in-Furness, and in the development of the Lake District Tourist industry. It was formed in 1846 and survived as an independent, viable concern until the Grouping of 1923. [4]
The Furness Railway contracted out the building of its locomotives until Pettigrew became Chief Locomotive Engineer in 1897. He put his first locomotive on the line in 1898.
2-4-0 Locomotive No. 58 had inside cylinders (16 in by 20 in), 5 ft 6 in diameter coupled wheels. It operated with a boiler pressure of 120 lb and weighed 30 tons 5 cwt. Its tender was 4-wheeled with a 1,200 gallon water capacity.
The locomotive, as designed, had no brake blocks, the only brake being a clasp type on the tender.
This relatively small locomotive was one of a series of 19 locos built to the same design. The class fulfilled the needs of the Furness Railway as passenger locomotives. The class was given the designation ‘E1’ by Bob Rush in his books about the Furness Railway. Rush’s classification was his own not that of the Furness Railway, but has become accepted generally. [2]
A photograph of one of this class can be found by clicking on the link immediately below. No. 44 was built in 1882 by Sharp Stewart & Co., Works No.3086. It was rebuilt in 1898, presumably in the Furness Railway works. Renumbered 44A in 1920, it became LMS No. 10002 – but was withdrawn in April 1925. [5]
Later, seven of the class were converted to J1-class 2-4-2 tank engines in 1891. [3]
References
T.A. Lindsay; Furness Railway Locomotive No. 58; in Model Railway News, Volume 40, No. 480, December 1964, p608-609. (Permission to copy granted for any non-commercial purpose.)
Towards the end of March 2024, I stumbled across a number of journals of the New Zealand Model Railway Guild. One of these, the March 2021 edition, included a pictorial article about J1211 North British 4-8-2 Locomotive No. 24534 of 1939. [6] The June 2021 issue included a history of the class [7: p13-15] and General Arrangement plans as originally carried in the Railway Gazette in 1940. [7: p22-24] Also in that journal are four photographs of J1211 in service between 1960 and 1970. [8]
40 No 4-8-2 locomotives which were built in 1939 by the North British Locomotive Company and became the New Zealand Railways (NZR) J class.
They were designed to provide a mixed traffic locomotive suitable for running on the lighter secondary lines of the NZR network, and for express passenger trains in major routes.
“The J class incorporated roller bearing axles, hydrostatic lubrication and twin Westinghouse brake pumps. … They had bar frames instead of plate frames and were equipped with Baker Valve-gear. The locomotives were attached to Vanderbilt tenders and were outshopped with distinctive bullet-nosed streamlining.” [1] The streamlining also encompassed the full length of the top of the boiler between the cab and the smoke box door and the area immediately beneath the smoke box door.
The J Class locos were out shopped with a distinctive streamlining from the cab to the top of the smoke box door and with a bullet-nosed smoke box door. [2]
New Zealand’s North Island benefitted from the first thirty of the class placed into service. The South Island hosted the remaining ten locomotives which apparently were used “The first 30 of the class in service were allocated to the North Island, with the remaining ten locomotives allocated to the South Island where they were used “on the hilly section between Dunedin and Oamaru. They were immediately placed into service on the main trunk routes in both islands in order to help move wartime traffic during the Second Word War. Although used on freight trains as well, the class was well suited to high-speed running on the passenger trains of the era.” [1]
Apparently, the streamlining became “burdensome for maintenance and the skyline casing, which was open at the top proved to be a trap for soot from the locomotive’s exhaust. After a time, the skyline casing started to be removed from some examples of the class leaving them with just the bullet nose.” [1]
Ultimately the bullet nose was also removed from the majority of these locomotives.
The locomotives of the class had their streamlining removed in the war years. [2]
Members of the class “were generally considered to be a very reliable engine and well suited to their task. … They were capable of speeds of over 60 mph with a 300-ton express train. …. However, today surviving engines being used to haul excursion trains are restricted to 80 kph. … On favourable grades a single J could move a 1000-ton train.” [7: p14]
“The design was successful enough that NZR opted to build an improved variant … in its own Hillside workshops from 1946.” [1] These ‘Ja’ class locomotives were numbered 1240 to 1274 and became “the mainstay of the South Island rail services. Meanwhile North British were commissioned to build another 16, numbered from 1275 to 1290, also classified ‘Ja’, but they were oil fired and to be based in the North Island. … The sixteen ‘Ja’ from North British were the last steam locomotives to enter service with the NZR.” [7: p15]
Three J Class 4-8-2 are noted by Trainweb [2] as having been preserved:
J 1234, North British #24557/1939. For some time based at Glenbrook Vintage Railway, Auckland.. This locomotive is owned by Steam Incorporated of Paekakariki, and was leased to the Glenbrook Vintage Railway in 1998. The locomotive was returned to Paekakariki in June 2015. [4] It is now in storage awaiting a 2nd restoration at Paekakariki. [5]
J 1211 “Gloria”, North British #24534/1939. Mainline Steam Heritage Trust, Auckland (Operational). [3]
J 1236, North British #24559/1939. Mainline Steam Heritage Trust, Auckland (Being Restored). [2]
The 950mm-gauge line from Massawa on the coast, inland to Agordot, was built during colonial occupation by the Italians with some steep gradients which meant that Mallets were considered to be suitable motive power.
The line should not be confused with the metre-gauge line running from Djibouti to Addis Ababa. A metre-gauge railway that was originally built by the French from 1894 to 1917 which has since been replaced by a Chinese built standard-gauge line. [5]
In 1907, Maffei built three 0-4-4-0T locomotives for the Massawa to Agerdot line.
Ansaldo the “supplied twenty five further engines of the same class between 1911 and 1915, and in 1931 and 1939 Asmara shops assembled a nominal three new engines from d components of earlier withdrawn engines. All these were standard European narrow-gauge Mallet tanks, saturated, slide-valved and with inside frames.” [1: p64]
In the mid-1930s, a series of fifteen larger 0-4-4-0T locomotives were built. These were “built to a superheated, simple expansion design, of which ten had piston valves and Walschearts gear and the other five, Caprotti poppet valves driven from outside cardan shafts.” [1: p65] A later series of “eight engines built by Analdo in 1938 reverted to compound expansion, retaining the superheater and piston valve features.” [1: p65]
The last of the Eritrean Mallets was built in their own shops in 1963, making it the last Mallet built in the world. [6]
The line closed in 1975. Eritrea was occupied by Ethiopia for many years. After gaining independence in 1993, some of the former railway staff started to rebuild their totally destroyed railway. Some of the Mallets, built by Ansaldo (Italy) in 1938, were brought back to life. Also one of the small Breda built shunters, two diesel locos and two diesel railcars (one from 1935) were put back into working order. [7]
A section of the line, between Massawa, on the coast, and Asmara, was reopened in 2003 and has offered an opportunity for Mallet locomotives to be seen in operation in East Africa. Indeed, an internet search using Google brings to light a list of videos of locomotives heading tourist trains in the Eritrean landscape.
Wikipedia notes that the line has a track-gauge of 950mm and that locomotives operate over a 118 km section of the old line. Italian law from 1879 officially determined track gauges, specifying the use of 1,500 mm (4 ft 11 1⁄16 in) and 1,000 mm (3 ft 3 3⁄8 in) gauge track measured from the centre of the rails, or 1,445 mm (4 ft 8 7⁄8 in) and 950 mm (3 ft 1 3⁄8 in), respectively, on the inside faces. [4]
Between Arbaroba and Asmara in November 2008, a single coach is headed by one of the surviving Mallet locomotives. This is an extract from an image on Wikimedia Commons (public domain). [13]
Steam operation on the line is over, no regular services are provided but occasional tours still take place with plenty of caveats about the availability of any form of propulsion. An example is a German-speaking tour planned (as of 24th March 2024) for November 2024. [8]
Tanzania (Tanganyika)
The metre-gauge line inland from Dar-es-Salaam was built by the Ost Afrika Eisenbahn Gesellschaft (East African Railway Co.). A.E. Durrant tells us that its first main line power “was a class of typical German lokalbahn 0-4-4-0T Mallets, built by Henschel in 1905-7. These were supplemented in 1908 by four larger 2-4-4-0Ts from the same builder, after which the railway turned to straight eight-coupled tank and tender engines.” [1: p67]
R. Ramaer notes that the first locomotives used by the Usambara Eissenbahn (UE) on the Tanga Line were five 0-4-2 locos which arrived on the line in 1893. Rising traffic loads led the UE “To look for something more substantial and in 1900, Jung supplied five compound Mallet 0-4-4-0T’s as numbers 1-5, later renumbered 6-10. … To provide enough space for the firebox and ashpan, the rigid high-pressure part, comprising the third and fourth axles, had outside frames, whereas the low-pressure part had inside frames.” [9: p19]
UE engine No. 1 (0-4-4-0T – supplied by Jung) with an early passenger train ready for departure at Tanga station in 1890. This image was posted on the Urithi Tanga Museum Facebook Page [10] and is also reproduced in R. Ramaer’s book. [9: p19]UE Mallet 0-4-4-0T No. 8 heading a passenger train at Mombo. This image was shared in error on the Old Asmara Eritrea Facebook Page. [11] It also appears in R. Ramaer’s book. [9: p20]
On the Central Line (Ost Afrikanische Eisenbahn Gesellschaft – or OAEG) which ran inland from Dar-es-Salaam, construction work started in 1905 and the first locomotives used by the OAEG were four 0-4-0T engines built by Henschel, a further four of these locomotives were supplied in 1909. These small engines had a surprisingly long life. Mallets were first supplied in 1905 by Henschel and were suitable for both coal and oil firing. These were 0-4-4-0T locos (four supplied in 1905 and one supplied in 1907). “The problem with this type of engine was the restricted tractive effort and running was not satisfactory because of the lack of a leading pony truck. … Therefore Henschel supplied a second batch of four locomotives in 1908 as 2-4-4-0Ts with larger boilers and cylinders. They also had a higher working pressure of 14 atmospheres (200lb/sq in) in comparison to 12 atmospheres (170lb/sq in) for the earlier engines, while the bunker capacity had been increased from 1.2 to 2.2 tonnes of coal. (Oil fuel had been discarded).” [9: p21-23]
OAEG 2-4-4-0T No. 27, in the last Mallet class to be built for German East Africa. This locomotive appears in the Wikipedia list of Henschel steam locomotives. [12] It also appears in R. Ramaer’s book [9: p23] and A.E. Durrant’s book. [1: p66]
Kenya-Uganda
An ‘MT’ class locomotive in ex-Works condition at the Queen’s Park works of the North British Locomotive Co. [1: p66]
Mallets were the first articulated locomotives to operate in East Africa. Mallets were introduced on the Uganda Railway in 1913. A.E. Durrant notes that they consisted of “a batch of eighteen 0-6-6-0 compound Mallets to what was the North British Locomotive Co’s standard metre-gauge design, as supplied also to India, Burma, and Spain. They had wide Belpaire fireboxes, inside frames and piston valves for the high pressure cylinders only. Built at Queens Park works in 1912-1913, these locomotives entered service in 1913-14 and remained at work until 1929-30, when they were replaced by the EC2 and EC2 Garratts.” [1: p66]
North British Class ‘MT’ Mallets arrived in Kenya just before the start of WW1. [2]
These locomotives were given the classification ‘MT’ within the Uganda Railway fleet. Disappointing performance and high maintenance costs led to them being relegated to secondary duties and eventually being scrapped in the late 1920s as the Beyer Garratt locomotives began to arrive. [2] Their presence on the system was heralded by, “Railway Wonders of the World,” with the picture shown below. [3]
An ‘MT’ class Uganda Railway locomotive as illustrated in ‘Railway Wonders of the World’. [3]
References
A.E. Durrant; The Mallet Locomotive; David & Charles, Newton Abbot, Devon, 1974.
Kevin Patience; Steam in East Africa; Heinemann Educational Books (E.A.) Ltd., Nairobi, 1976.
The featured image above is a picture of the Pilling Pig. It was shared by Mandy Sharpe on the Visions of Trains and Tracks of the North West of England Facebook Group on 19th August 2017. Permission to include here applied for. [6]
One of six postcards produced by Dalkeith. This card shows the full length of the line. [16]
In the past, I have written two articles about the Garstang to Knott End Railway, those articles can be found on these two links:
Reading some back copies of Railway Bylines, I came across an article in the March 2002 edition of the magazine about this short rural line. The article was written by R. Supwards with photographs by Douglas Robinson.
The line had a hesitant start and always struggled financially, but it remained independent until being taken over by the LMS at the Grouping but lost its passenger service in 1930. It was closed to goods traffic beyond Pilling at the end of 1950. In the summer of 1963, the line beyond Garstang Town was closed. The remainder of the branch did not last long. It was closed by the end of August 1965.
A ‘Cauliflower’ 0-6-0 locomotive in LMS colours sits at Knott End before setting off towards Pilling and Garstang. This image was shared by Steve Scott on the Visions of Trains and Tracks of the North West of England Facebook Group on 27th August 2017. Permission to use here has been applied for. [7]One of six postcards produced by Dalkeith. The station at Knott End is shown from two different angles on the right of the card. The station layout is shown on the left. [16]
Supwards’ article highlighted the different locomotives used on the line: “until about 1950 the engine was usually a ‘Cauliflower’ 0-6-0 from Preston.” [1: p196] These were followed by “Ivatt Class 2 2-6-0s, with the line being worked on the ‘one engine in steam’ principle. On weekdays the ‘Pilling Pig left Preston (North Union Yard) a little before midday and returned from Pilling at 3.10pm, whereas on Saturdays it left Preston at 7.37am and started back from Pilling at 10.17am. The return trips went to Farington Junction in Preston.” [1: p196]
By the mid-50s, the Ivatt locos were replaced by ex-L&YR 0-6-0s, which in turn were soon replaced by ex-LNWR 0-8-0 locomotives and then, by the late 1950s, Stanier Black 5 4-6-0s.
Supwards’ also records enthusiasts visits to the line. The first he records was on 1st May 1954 (when a joint Stephenson Locomotive Society/Manchester Locomotive Society tour visited Pilling as part of a tour of several ‘goods only’ lines in the area, hauled by 2-6-4T No.42316). [1: p196]
Another railtour took place on 29th May 1958 (a Manchester Locomotive Society brake van trip, which comprised a single brake van attached to the usual branch working in the care of an LMS Black 5 Class 4-6-0 locomotive, No. 45438). [1: p196] By that time Black 5s were the standard motive power on the line and remained so until its closure. [1: p196/198]
Various sites along the length of the branch line. This is another of the six postcards produced and sold by Dalkeith. [16]The Pilling Pig crossing the canal bridge at Nateby near Garstang in the mid-20th century. This image was shared on the Visions of the Trains and Tracks of the North West of England Facebook Group by Ian Gornall on 21st September 2021. It is used by kind permission from Ian Gornall. [3]
Supwards’ short article is supported by a series of photographs taken by Douglas Robinson which are not reproduced here for copyright reasons.
An excellent book about the line was written by Dave Richardson, published by the Cumbrian Railways Association. [4]
The Pilling Pig: A History of the Garstang & Knott End Railway. [4]
There is a superb set of photographs of the branch collated by Paul Johnson on smugmug.com. [5]
Locomotives
As promised in an earlier article about this line, here are some details of the locomotives that served the line in its early years before it was absorbed by the LMS. The basic details come from the Wikipedia article about the line: [8]
1870: Black, Hawthorn 0-4-2ST Hebe
“The line opened on December 5, 1870, running with a single locomotive, Black Hawthorn 0-4-2ST Hebe, passengers boarding any point along the line by request. … In 1872, Hebe broke down, with all services suspended, and soon the company was in rent arrears. The locomotive was repossessed, and for the next three years only occasional horse-drawn trains were run.” [9]
1874: Manning Wardle 0-4-0ST Union
“Services resumed in 1875 using a new locomotive, Manning Wardle 0-4-0ST Union.” [9]
In the late 1870s, Farmer’s Friend, was given the nickname ‘Pilling Pig’ “because of the squeal made by its whistle. This name became colloquially applied to all of the line’s locomotives and even the railway itself.” [9] This locomotive was operational until 1900. [11]
Hudswell Clarke 0-6-0ST ‘Farmer’s Friend’. This is an extract from one of six postcard images printed and sold by Dalkeith. [16]
1885: Hudswell Clarke 0-6-0ST Hope
This locomotive had larger cylinders than Farmer’s Friend (13×20 in rather than 11×17 in) but operated at the same boiler pressure (120 psi). [12]
1897: Hudswell Clarke 0-6-0ST Jubilee Queen
Hudswell Clarke 0-6-0ST ‘Jubilee Queen’. This is another extract from one of six postcard images printed and sold by Dalkeith. [16]
This locomotive had larger cylinders than Hope (15×20) and operated at a higher boiler pressure (140 psi). [12]
1900: Hudswell Clarke 0-6-0ST New Century
This is an enlarged extract from one of the six Dalkeith postcard images. It shows ‘New Century‘ at Garstang Engine Shed. [16]
This loco was a sister loco to Jubilee Queen, and is recorded by Wells [14] as having been purchased at the same time.
1908: Manning Wardle 0-6-0T Knott End
Hudswell Clarke 0-6-0ST ‘Knott End’. This is a third extract from one of six postcard images printed and sold by Dalkeith. [16]
This locomotive had 14×20 in cylinders and operated at 150 psi. [12]
1909: Manning Wardle 2-6-0T Blackpool
Manning Wardle 2-6-0T ‘Blackpool’. This is a fourth extract from one of six postcard images printed and sold by Dalkeith. [16]
This loco had 16×22 in cylinders, operated at 150 psi, and had larger diameter driving wheels (48 in). It was fitted with Isaacson’s patent valve gear. [12][13][14] It was Works No. 1747. Isaacson, together with Edwin Wardle and Charles Edward Charlesworth took out payments for the valve gear in 1907 (patents No’s. 17533 and 27899 of 1907). Atkins is quoted by steamindex.com as saying that “The 2-6-0T was rare on British standard gauge railways. The only other was on the Wrexham, Mold and Connahs Quay Railway – a rebuild from an 0-6-0.” [15]
Other Rolling Stock
Railmotor
In 1920, just a couple of years before the line was absorbed by the new LMS, a railmotor was hired by the G&KE from the LNWR. It was still running on the line in March 1930 when the passenger service ceased. [22: p22] It looked after the majority of passenger services on the line. “Seating 48 third class passengers, this vehicle originally operated in LNWR colours, but was later repainted in LMS red with the number 10698.” [22: p24-25] The last passenger service actually ran on Saturday 29th March, although the formal closure took effect before traffic started on Monday 31st March 1930. [22: p25]
Ex-LNWR Railmotor, LMS No. 10698, paused at Nateby whilst working a passenger service between Knott End and the main line at Garstang & Catterall. No. 10698 was renumbered as 29988 in 1933 and became the last of its type in service running through the war until withdrawal in 1948. (c) Knott End Collection. The photograph is used here by kind permission and can be accessed on the Railscot website, here. [23]
Coaches
The six postcards published by Dalkeith [16] include one showing coaching stock on the line. It is shown below:
Another of the Dalkeith postcards. as with the other postcard images, this appears to be a reproduction is of a Garstang & Knott End Railway poster from 1908. [16]
When the full line was completed to Knott End, eight bogie coaches were supplied by Birmingham Carriage and Wagon Co. Ltd. Since the bogie coaches had no guards compartment they originally worked with the goods brake vans, but in 1909 two new passenger brake vans were introduced.
After the removal.of passenger service from the Garstang to Knott End (G&KE) Railway, it seems that one or two items of rolling stock were transferred to the Wanlockhead branch of the Caledonian Railway in the 1930s. That line was originally the ‘Leadhills and Wanlockhead Light Railway’. [17] A thread on the Caledonian Railway Association Forum [18] explores what is known by members of that Forum.
Apparently, “In the early 1930s a composite coach with end roofed platforms was transferred from the Garstang and Knott End Railway to the Wanlockhead branch. Its LMS number was 17899.” [18]
It appears that “a G&KE 4 wheeled passenger brake van transferred at the same time.” [17]
It was scrapped at the same time as the bogie coach when the Wanlockhead line closed in 1939.[20]
There was an article about the construction, in 7mm/ft (O Gauge), of the two carriages in Model Railway News in October 1959. That article is produced in full below. [19]
A three-page article by N.S. Eagles in Model Railway News, October 1959 features his models of the two coaches. [19]3D images of the two coaches produced for 3D printing. [20]
Apparently, 6 of the 8 G&KE coaches “fetched up at the LMS Carriage depot at Slateford, where they were used as offices and stores until at least 1959.” [17]
Wagons
One of the postcards in the Dalkeith series shows wagons used on the line. One of these is covered above. There were two dedicated coaching brake wagons. In the image below the goods wagons are in grey and the coaching brake in deep red. [16]
The goods wagons on the line are featured on this last image, another of the Dalkeith postcard images. [16]
Drawings of G&KE Railway wagons can be found here. [21]
References
R. Supwards and Douglas Robinson; A Pig of a Job; in Railway Bylines; The Irwell Press, March 2002, p196-200.
Frank K. Walmesley; The Garstang & Knot-End Railway; in The Railway Magazine Volume 22, December 1959, p859–864
Jeffrey Wells; The Pig and Whistle railway: a Lancashire backwater; in BackTrack Volume 7, September 1993, p257–265; a summary is provided on steamindex.com: https://steamindex.com/backtrak/bt7.htm#1993-5, accessed on 9th December 2023.
Philip Atkins; Blackpool – Britain’s most obscure locomotive; in Backtrack Volume 10, January 1996, p40-42; a summary is provided on steamindex.com: https://steamindex.com/backtrak/bt10.htm#10-40 accessed on 9th December 2023.
Modern Tramway Journal included a short article in October 1963 about developments in 1899 on the Isle of Man, and particularly about the use of ‘Bonner Wagons’ by the Isle of Man Tramways and Electric Power Company Limited. [1]
An item about ‘Bonner Wagons’ in the “American technical Press attracted the attention of Mr. Alexander Bruce, Chairman of the Isle of Man Tramways and Electric Power Company Limited, the predecessors of the Manx Electric Railway. Mr. Bruce was engaged in promoting and constructing a 10-mile extension of the coastal tramway from Laxey to Ramsey, and this line was intended to enter Ramsey along the seafront and possibly terminate at the pier, where freight could have been transhipped direct to and from cargo steamers without the expensive carriage necessary at Douglas. The new line also involved a rail-side steam power station at Ballaglass remote from road access. But the Ramsey Town Commissioners would not allow the sea-front route, and Mr. Bruce was forced to adopt instead the inland route and terminus which we know today. This line was opened to Ballure on 5th August, 1898, and into Ramsey on 24th July, 1899.” [1: p350-351]
Included in the tramway promotion was a granite quarry at the Dhoon, “purchased in 1895 and staffed partly by skilled Scottish sett-makers brought over from Dalbeattie, the centre of the Scottish granite industry. Setts from Dhoon Quarry were used for paving the Upper Douglas Cable Tramway, and setts and roadstone were produced both for the island’s roads and for export to the mainland. The export trade would provide an excellently balanced freight traffic on the electric line, the rail wagons taking the setts to Ramsey harbour and returning laden with coal for the power station at Ballaglass.” [1: p351]
After the Town Commissioners had prevented the extension of the tramway to Ramsey harbour, Mr. Bruce ordered several 3 ft. gauge ‘Bonner Wagons’ from the USA, which would “travel over the tramway to the outskirts of Ramsey, and could then be transferred to road by a removable ramp at one of the several level crossings. These wagons also came in very handy to counter a demand from the Ramsey Commissioners early in 1899 for 5 per cent of the gross receipts earned on the portion of the line in their area; Mr. Bruce threatened to turn the cars back at the town limits, and pointed out that by using the Bonner Wagons in the town the Company could carry on their freight traffic as they pleased. The Ramsey Commissioners soon gave way, and in return were treated on 9th June, 1899, to a special trip from Ballure to Snaefell Summit and back.” [1: p351-352]
Increasingly after the Second World War, the practice of hauling laden road trailers and semi-trailers on flat rail carsdeveloped in North America. “In this way, the railways of North America are attracting to that share of the long-distance freight that would normally move by road, quoting long-haul charges sufficiently low to represent to the haulier a clear saving over sending the load by road throughout, with its own tractive unit and crew.” [1: p350]
In the early years of railway travel “private carriages (with or without their occupants) were often conveyed on railway-wagons in the early years of railways, and in the days when motor-cars were less reliable than they are now they would quite often cover long distances in motor car vans attached to the train in which their owner travelled a forecast of today’s car-carrier trains. This method was also used for freight vehicles such as the pantechnicons of furniture-removal firms and (of course) by the circus, but the more usual method was for freight consignment to be bulked in railway wagons or vans, the railway company providing carriage services in the towns served, with transhipment in its own terminal warehouses.” [1: p350]
In competition with the mainline railways there were interurban services which predominantly carried passenger traffic but additionally sought freight traffic if it could be handled efficiently. Often such movement attracted significant transshipment costs. “In an effort to reduce these handling costs and quote competitive rates for collection-and-delivery traffic, a few American interurbans adopted a device known (after its inventor) as the Bonner Railwagon. The Bonner Wagon was in fact two separate vehicles which could be combined in one for the rail journey. The main portion was a substantial spring-axle high-sided cart of about four tons capacity, mounted on four spoked road wheels and designed to be drawn by horses when running on the streets; the second, smaller portion was a small axle-carrying truck on four flanged solid disc type wheels, on which the cart would ride for the rail journey, and which supported the cart’s axles at a height sufficient to bring the road wheels well clear of the tracks and pointwork.” [1: p350]
The first demonstration of the Bonner Railwagon system using horse-drawn wagons in Toledo in 1898. [4]
The mechanism was similar to the practice espoused by some European narrow-gauge railways where standard-gauge wagons could be carried over narrow-gauge lines. A typical example would be the practice as used on the Brünig Railway in Switzerland or on the Hartsfeldbahn in Bavaria which made use of Rollbocken in the mid-20th century.
The Rollbocke was an invention by Director Langbein of the Saronno branch of Maschinenfabrik Esslingen, which supplied many European narrow-gauge railways with it. The Härtsfeldbahn had up to 28 units, but then in connection with the expansion of the Rollbocke traffic to the Aalen-Ebnat section in 1950, 16 rental vehicles from the WEG-Bahn Amstetten-Laichingen were added. In 1960 another 16 units followed from the DB route Nagold-Altensteig. [2]
A typical Rollbocke (or dollie). [2]A standard-gauge freight wagon on ‘dollies’ (rollbocken) at the ramp in Neresheim, around 1970. (Photo: Kurt Seidel Collection)[2]
The use of these Rollbocken was somewhat different in nature to the use of Bonner wagons as separate units were used for each axle of a larger-gauge wagon. Pits were provided to allow the Rollbocken to pass under the larger-gauge wagons.
Rollbock pit in Gbf Aalen in 1967. (Photo: Winkler / Härtsfeld Museumsbahn archive). [2]
The transfer of a Bonner Wagon between road and rail was done by means of a ramp at each side of the rails. In the USA, “the interurban car would shunt the wagon towards this ramp, the sides of which would offer support to the road wheels and as the move proceeded would cause the road wagon to rise clear of the rail vehicle; the latter would then be drawn out from underneath, after releasing appropriate locking devices, leaving the road wagon to be hauled by horses to its destination in the town.” [1: p350]
The transfer taking place in North America. Typically, Bonner wagons had wide-spaced wheels and no cross axles, and were parked astride the railway tracks on small ramps. A specially designed rail car was then run underneath them. Pneumatic jacks lifted the trailer wheels off the ramps slightly and clamped them securely in place. The transfer from road to rail could be accomplished in as little as four minutes. The system promised great efficiency and cost savings as high as 50% by eliminating the re-handling of freight between trucks and rail cars. Nor would cars have to sit idle waiting to be loaded or unloaded. [3]
Although the use of Bonner Wagons “was not widespread, even in America, the method sur- vived long enough to be used in the late 1920s in conjunction with motor tractors by the Lake Shore Electric Railway, with transfer ramps in the outskirts of Cleveland and Toledo at either end of an 85-mile main-line run. Bonner Wagons could be run in trains of any reasonable length, bar couplings being provided between the projecting ends of the rail units.” [1: p350]
An advert in North America from the Electric Railways Freight Company who were freight agents for the Lake Shore Electric Railway Company (1931). [3]
Returning to the Isle of Man, “when the line to Ramsey was fully operative, the Bonner Wagons settled down to a regular routine; granite setts from the Dhoon to Ramsey harbour, coal to Balla- glass power station, empty to Dhoon, and so on. The loading ramp was a removable installation, apparently used at Queens Drive crossing and not at the Ramsey Palace terminus, though even out at Queens Drive local residents often complained of the nocturnal noises caused by the shunting and transfers. It seems from this that the ramp could only be installed and used after the last passenger car had gone past at night, to be removed again before the first car in the morning. … Another ramp was installed at Derby Castle (Douglas) to perform the same rites as at Ramsey for journeys to and from Douglas harbour, and also for general freight traffic in the town.” [1: p352]
Transferring a Bonner Wagon from rail to road on the ‘Bonner siding’ at Derby Castle, Douglas, showing the ramps which supported the road wheels while the rail carrier was being moved. [1: p351]A train of Bonner wagons hauled by a Manx Electric cross-bench car of the 14-18 series, at Laxey Station in 1899. The building on the right was later lost to fire. [1: p351]
So far as we know, the three Bonner Wagons on the Manx Electric Railway, survived for about 20 years. They were probably the only example of ‘Piggy-back’ vehicles on any British tramway or electric railway. Pearson & Price commented in 1963 that, at that time, the Bonner Wagon name “live[d] on … in an unexpected way, for the Derby Castle layout include[d] one siding that [ran] all alone behind the car shed nearest to the sea-front, and … that piece of track [was] known to the staff as the ‘Bonner siding’. The Dhoon granite quarry finally closed down in 1961, having belonged to the Highways Board for many years.” [1: p352]
References
F.K. Pearson & J.H. Price; ‘Piggy-Back’ in 1899; in Modern Tramway and Light Railway Review, Volume 26 No. 2, Light Railway Transport League and Ian Allan, Hampton Court, Surrey, October 1963, p350-352.
Modern Tramway and Light Railway Review, June 1962 carried an article based on notes by H.J. Bertschmann, G.A. Meier and M. Frei about then new articulated trams in these two Swiss cities. [1]
Both the Basler Verkehrs-Betriebe and the Verkehrsbetriebe der Stadt Zürich had taken delivery, in the months prior to the article being written, of the first prototypes of a new design of articulated tramcar. The design was a new departure, a double-articulated tram on three trucks. Earlier models of articulated cars had two sections on two or three trucks, or three sections on two or four trucks, but never before three sections on three trucks.
“Wages costs represent a very high pro- portion of the total costs in the operation of public transport, and in both Basel and Zürich reach[ed] 80 per cent of the total expenditure. Economy in staff [was] therefore the only way in which undertakings [could] remain solvent, and the rapid increase in traffic oblige[d] transport undertakings to use high-capacity vehicles in order to minimise utilisation of the road surface. The development of bogie cars was the first step in this direction, and the delivery of the first articulated cars carries this a stage further.” [1: p19]
The very different technical requirements of the Swiss urban transport undertakings had often hindered the development of a Swiss standard tramcar, one of the difficulties was caused by differences in the topography of the towns.
“This … led to a unified effort by the Basel and Zürich undertakings, the two largest tram- ways in Switzerland, to design an articulated car whose basic design was suitable for both undertakings. Whilst a classical (by German standards) two-section single-articulated six-axle car was built for Zürich by SWS (Schlieren), the co-operation between the two systems to find the most advantageous design resulted in an order for three articulated cars, two for the BVB (Basel) and one for the VBZ (Zurich), being placed with SIG (Neuhausen). SIG conceived a new style of construction, departing from the customary articulation over the central bogie (known as a Jacobs bogie) in favour of a short middle section on a two-axle non-rigid truck with an articulation at each end.
There [we]re so many common features in the design for both BVB and VBZ that practically the only differences [we]re in the number of motors and their electrical connections. Basel cars [had] four motors totalling 264 kW, whilst Zürich cars [had] six motors rated at a total of 396 kW. Motor bogie wheels ha[d] a diameter of 720 mm against the 660 mm of the Basel middle bogie wheels. Whilst the Basel cars [would] normally each haul a bogie trailer and the Zürich prototype car will also do this, the production batch of Zürich cars [would] run in multiple-unit pairs, and … (like Basel) have only two power trucks. Zürich has still to decide whether the two leading trucks will be motored, as distinct from the end trucks as at Basel. By confining the differences to these features (apart from minor differences in interior styling), the cars [could] achieve the maximum economy whilst ensuring the best use of the adhesion weight. By means of special mechanisms, it was possible to arrange the axle loadings so that the load on the driving axles was the same in both the four-motor and six-motor cars. Variations in the axle-load on the middle truck induce[d] horizontal forces in the upper part of the articulations; these induce[d] turning movements in the vertical plane, with consequent transfer of load between the outer and inner trucks. As a result of this design, the car [was] better able to start from rest on hills. [1: p19-21]
The advantages of the new design were:
The middle truck is not under the articulation mechanisms – so maintenance is much easier.
Rotation over each of the two mechanisms is half of that for one mechanism.
The body did not obstruct the drivers view of the exit doors which are in the middle section of the tram.
Double articulation permits wider front and end designs which allows doors to be built in the parallel sides of the tram.
A minimising of internal obstructions for passengers was achieved by the lesser amount of articulation required.
Trams travelled at a maximum speed of 60km/h and had a capacity of 42 seated and 123 standing. The empty car weighed 28.3 tonnes. The significant dimensions of the tramcars were:
Overall length between couplings: 20.45m
Length of body: 19.7m
Height of roof over rails: 3.385m
Width: 2.2m
Distances between king-pins: 7.0m
Overhangs: 2.85m
Wheelbase of motorised truck: 1.86m
Wheelbase of non-motorised truck: 1.7m
The article describes the trucks, braking systems and control systems as follows:
“The motor trucks are swing-link trucks with outside frames and torsion-bar springing. The springing of the torsion bar and the swing-links is combined into a single springing system, and this contributes considerably to noise reduction, in conjunction with the resilient wheels. The longitudinally-mounted motors are held by a three-point suspension to the truck frames, using rubber inserts.
The braking system: … The service brake is rheostatic, augmented with an air-operated disc-brake. A Charmilles brake handle is fitted under the controller wheel (a Volkswagen steering-wheel), … the air brake automatically supplements the electrical brake as the regenerative current dies out, and excessive braking through combined electric and air braking applications is eliminated. In an emergency, the braking effort can be supplemented with magnetic brakes. The parking brake is a hydro-mechanical hand brake. An Electro-pneumatic valve proportions the application of air to the trailer and (on the Basel cars) to the un-motored truck.
The control system has 22 running notches, of which the last three are field-weakening notches; there are 23 notches for rheostatic braking and a 24th emergency notch for magnetic braking in addition. The motors are connected in series pairs, each motor operating at half-voltage, and every effort has been made to keep the number of power cables crossing an articulation to a minimum.” [1: p190-191]
The Modern Tramway Journal also reported on a number of other features:
“The exit doors incorporate a device similar to that on the Stuttgart articulated cars. They are operated by the passengers through a push-button, and the opening of a light inner door by the passenger in order to gain access to the step holds the main doors open. The other function of the inner door is to prevent the entry of passengers at the exit doors. In Zürich, passengers would press the push-button to signal to the conductor to open the doors, whilst Basel had intended that passengers should open the doors themselves. However, as Basel experienced some confusion with this arrangement, they changed over to the Zürich system.
Particularly interesting features of the new cars include a “Hesomat” indicator blind, driven by an electric motor. The driver merely presses a “tens” button and a “second digit” button for the code number of the desired destination, and this is automatically set-up. Another innovation is the point-changing button enabling the driver to simulate a “power” signal whilst coasting past the detector. To prevent the current taken by auxiliaries causing a false “power” signal, a push-button in the centre of the controller wheel can cut off all auxiliary power as the detector is passed.
The Zürich undertaking needs new cars urgently and it is hoped that the number of articulated cars will ultimately rise to 200; they are intended to be the basic unit for the planned Tiefbahn (subway) services. The Basel plans are less ambitious for the present, but they hope to operate route 6 entirely by these cars at some date in the future. This route, from Allschwil to the German border at Riehen, is one of the fastest urban routes in Switzerland, and these cars should be particularly suitable.” [1:p191]
Ultimately, tram No. 1801 was a success as a prototype in Zurich. A series of these vehicles were purchased later in the 1960s and were called ‘Mirages’. [4] An online acquaintance tells me that a number of these trams were later sold to the city of Vinnytsia in Ukraine. Details can be found here, [6] and in the YouTube video below. [7]
Ukraine passes trams to Vinnytsia. [7]
Tram No. 601 and its partner were less of a success in Basel. As a result, the two trams ordered by Basel were not followed by a larger order. They remained the only Basel trams of their specific type. [5] Basel did purchase further articulated trams but from different a different source.
References
H.J. Bertschmann, G.A. Meier & M. Frei; New Articulated Tramcars for Basel and Zurich; in Modern Tramway, Light Railway Transport League and Ian Allan, Hampton Court, Surrey, June 2022, p187-191.
The ‘Modern Tramway’ reported in January & February 1963 on a relatively short lived experiment on Blackpool’s trams. The Marton route was an inland route through Blackpool which complemented the promenade route. It is route ‘C’ on the featured image above. [11]
The two articles were written by F.K. Pearson who suggested that his articles could perhaps have been entitled, ‘The Experiment That Didn’t Quite …‘ [1]
The Marton Route opened in 1901 but by 1938 it was approaching the end of it’s useful life, needing relaying and requiring a new fleet of 15 trams. A decision to undertake the work was deferred by Blackpool Town Council. War intervened and the existing trackwork was patched up to last a few more years.”By the time relaying could be considered again, technical progress had rendered the 1938 plan out of date, and the Marton route was chosen for one of Britain’s most interesting public transport experiments, the only attempt ever made to provide a tram service which by its sheer frequency, comfort and riding qualities could compete not just with the bus but with its future competitor, the private car.” [1: p14] Pearson’s article reports on that experiment, how near it came to success. and where it eventually failed.
Pearson continues:
“The story begins with the acquisition in 1945 by Crompton Parkinson Ltd. of a licence to manufacture in Britain certain equipment similar to that in the American PCC-car, the patents of which were held by the Transit Research Corporation in the USA. The experiments which followed were aimed at producing a vehicle which in silence, comfort, performance and soothness of riding would outshine any existing public service vehicle and rival that of the best private car. Blackpool already had modern trams, plenty of them, designed for the straight, open, track on the Promenade where even orthodox cars could give a smooth and quiet ride, but what was promised now was a tram with silent ‘glideaway’ performance even on grooved street track with frequent curves These route conditions, frequently met with in other towns, existed in Blackpool only on the Marton line, and Mr. Walter Luff the Transport Manager, made no secret of the fact that he hoped to persuade the Town Council to let him use the Marton route for a large-scale experiment that might have considerable repercussions on the future of tramways elsewhere in Britain; in short, to make it a show-piece.
The question of relaying the route was reopened as soon as the war ended, and the Town Council asked for comparative estimates for trams, buses and trolleybuses. Mr. Luff reported that to keep trams would cost £136,380 (£61,360 for new track £75,000 for 15 new cars), buses would cost £56,940 including road reinstatement and depot conversion, and trolleybuses would cost £87,360. He made no secret of his belief that the experiments then in progress would result in a vehicle superior to be existing tram, bus or trolleybus, and the Town Council, wishing to await the outcome of the trials, postponed a decision and asked that the track be patched up for a few more months.
The first objective of the new equipment was silent running on grooved street track. This was achieved by using resilient wheels with rubber sandwiches loaded in shear between the tyre and the wheel hub, which would absorb small-amplitude vibrations arising from irregularities in the track instead of transmitting them through the springing to the rest of the car, and in the process would achieve virtual silence. Furthermore, the resilient wheel allows slight lateral flexibility and reduced side friction between flange and rail, eliminating the usual scrub on curves and incidentally reducing flange wear to an extent which eliminated the need for re-turning the tyre profile between successive re-tyrings. These rubber-sandwich wheels could be unbolted and changed like those of a bus, necessitating a newly-designed inside-frame truck (type H.S. 44) produced by Maley & Taunton, Ltd., who also designed and supplied a “silent” air-compressor to eliminate another source of noise. The experimental trucks were placed under car No. 303, and on 26th April 1946, the B.B.C. took sound-recordings on street track on this and an older car, with the microphone only three feet from the wheels.
With the old-type car the noise was considerable but with No. 393 it was practically nil.
Another traditional source of tramcar noise is the straight spur-gear drive, and this was replaced in the new truck by a right-angle spiral bevel drive, completely silent in operation, and requiring the two motors to be placed fore-and-aft in the truck. In many towns this alone would have led to a remarkable reduction in noise level, but Blackpool also knows how to keep spur gears quiet, and one wonders whether a right-angle drive (less efficient mechanically) can be justified by noise reduction alone. However, these and similar gears had been developed to such a pitch of efficiency for motor vehicles by their manufacturers (David Brown, Ltd.) that their use in a tram presented little difficulty. The technical and metallurgical problems had long since been overcome, and the only question was that of expense.
The other main objective was complete smoothness of acceleration and braking with private-car performance, and for this experiments were carried out by Crompton Parkinson, Ltd., using Blackpool car No. 208 to which the experimental trucks were transferred from No. 303 later in 1946. All four axles were motored, giving a possible initial acceleration rate of 3.5 mph. per second, and a smooth rate of change was achieved by arranging the motors in permanent series-parallel pairs and feeding them through a resistance having 94 steps instead of the usual eight. This resistance, mounted on the roof for ease of ventilation, was built around a circular steel frame with contacts on a rotating arm, turned by a small pilot motor, and the master control was by a joystick control by which the driver could select the rate of acceleration or braking required. Acceleration was automatic, for if the lever were left in a constant position the traction motors would accelerate or decelerate at constant current, yet it could also be varied by moving the stick, which explains the trade-name “Vambac” (Variable Automatic Multi-notch Braking and Acceleration Control) used for this equipment. Although inspired by that of the American PCC-car, it differed in several important respects, notably in that it enabled the car to coast. A car with this equipment, operating at the limit of its potential, was expected to consume about 4.5 units per car per mile (about 2.5 times the Blackpool average), but provision was also made to give a lower performance comparable to that of older trams if the two had to provide a mixed service on the same route. This reduced performance later became the Blackpool standard.” [1: p14-15]
Two pages from Newnes Practical Mechanics which give details of the type H.S. 44 bogies produced by Crompton Parkinson Ltd. and Maley & Taunton, Ltd. [4]
It transpired that the complete car was ready to begin trials in December 1946, and the Town Council were very soon invited for a demonstration. The track was now in an awful condition requiring a relay or abandon decision.
“After considerable debate, the Transport Committee recommended that it be relaid, and the Town Council on 8th January, 1947, decided by the narrow margin of 25 votes to 21 to instruct the Borough Surveyor to proceed with the reconstruction of the track. Blackpool Town Council, then as now, included some shrewd business-men, and the fact that they were prepared to spend twice as much on keeping trams than would have been needed for buses is the most eloquent testimonial to car No. 208 and the impression which its revolutionary equipment and performance had made. For the first time, they realised, it was possible for a public service vehicle to offer a performance as good as the private car, and it was bound to be popular.
Work began straight away, using rail already in stock, followed by 600 tons of new rail and Edgar Allen pointwork to complete the job. Other traffic was diverted, with single-line working for the trams, and by the autumn of 1948 new Thermit-welded asphalt-paved track extended throughout the 3-mile route, save only for a short section held back until 1950 because of an anticipated new road layout. …
Meanwhile, the experiments with prototype car No. 208 continued, and by mid-1947 the car (specially equipped with fluorescent lighting) was ready for regular service, though frequently in demand for demonstration runs with visitors from other undertakings. The car was not used on Marton, for the Marton schedules were based on 78-seat instead of 48-seat cars, and for its first three years the new Marton track was traversed by the same cars that had worked the service since the mid-twenties, the gaunt, upright standard-type double-deckers, some of them with open balconies. These had no part in the Marton Experiment, and were due to disappear as soon as the heralded 15 new cars made their appearance.
At this point, compromises were made. Inflation meant that the planned new cars could no longer be obtained at anything like the estimated figure. Blackpool decided, for the sake of economy, to fit the new equipment to existing trams. Twelve surplus modern single-deckers were seen as suitable.
“These cars (10 to 21) had been built cheaply in 1939 for use during the holiday season only, with second-hand electrical equipment, wooden seats, no partition between driver and passengers, the minimum of interior lighting, waist-high sliding doors, and the upper half of the windows permanently open. … Scarcely had they entered service than war intervened and they were put in store, emerging in 1942 with full-length windows, doors and cabs for use on extra workings such as troop specials.
Late in 1947, the Corporation ordered 18 sets of H.S. 44 trucks and Vambac equipment, to enable them to equip sufficient cars to work the entire Marton service, including spares. Rigby Road Works set to work rebuilding the 10-21 series into a new silent-running fleet, soon to become known as the ‘Marton Vambacs’. … Internally, the cars were given soft fluorescent lights, comfortable seats upholstered in brown moquette, new floor-coverings, and tuneful bells. The first car, No. 21, appeared in December, 1949, and its lack of noise when running was quite uncanny, the only remaining sounds being the soft buzz of the “silent” compressor, the hissing of the motor brushes, the clicking of the accelerator contacts, and the sound of the trolley wheel. Even this latter was to have been eliminated in due course, for when the Marton overhead next needed renewal the round wire was to be replaced by grooved wire suitable for use with silent-running carbon skids, of the type used on trolleybuses.” [1: p17-18]
Pearson tells us that, “Conversion of the 12 cars, took just over two years, and during this period the “new” cars could be seen side by side with the older double-deckers. In the eyes of the tramway enthusiast, the “vintage” year of the Marton route was undoubtedly 1951, when about half the service was still in the hands of the venerable but never decrepit standard cars, and mingled with these like gazelles among heavier quadrupeds (a purist might say ‘octopeds’) were the first half dozen Marton Vambacs’.” [1: p18-19]
The map of Blackpool’s trams included in Pearson’s article. [2: p54-55]
In the second installment of the story, Pearson moves on from the Autumn of 1951 to the early months of 1952, when conversion of trams No.10-21 was complete. With No. 208, this meant that there were 13 tram cars serving the Marton route which had to be supplemented at times by older double-deckers. The Council’s resources were by this time dedicated to introducing Charles Roberts cars on the Promenade.
Two of the Marton Vambac trams in Blackpool South. The nearest Vambac Railcoach No. 208 was prototype test bed for the new type of controller & inside frame bogies. Behind is one of the twelve Marton Vambac’s, rebuilt from 1939-built sun saloons. This image was shared on the History of Blackpool Facebook Group on 6th February 2021 by Pete Dumville. [5]
From 1954, when the double-deckers had been withdrawn from service. The Marton route was worked by the 13 Vambac cars and, usually, three pre-war English Electric rail coaches.
It was unfortunate that rising crew costs began to become a significant issue for the Council.
“It may perhaps have been overlooked that the success of the PCC-cars on the street routes in the USA was nearly always coupled with one-man operation. … If passengers were satisfied with the new equipment, so we’re the platform staff.
The manufacturer’s claims were fully borne out, for the automatic acceleration and the provision of simple joystick and pedal control made the cars delightfully simple to drive, reducing fatigue to a minimum and eliminating some of the finer points of instructional training, since “notching up” no longer depended on the driver’s skill. However, it was rather curious to observe the use which different drivers made of the two braking systems, due, perhaps, to the admixture of pre-war and Vambac cars. The Vambac equipment provided a smooth and reliable brake effective down to a speed of less than two miles per hour, and was intended as the main service brake, the air brake being used only for the final stop, brake-shoe life being increased accordingly. This theory can be seen in everyday application on the Promenade, with the post-war cars, yet on the Marton Vambacs many drivers seemed to prefer the familiar air brake for service use, leaving what they termed the “stick brake” in reserve for emergencies. The smoothness of braking was thus dependent once again on the skill of the driver, and the smooth automatic deceleration purchased at such expense was wasted. Other drivers would use the Vambac brake to commence deceleration but would then change to air at a speed higher than intended by the designers for the final stop, and at least one journey made by the writer was marred by the Vambac deceleration being “interrupted” each time while the driver remembered to “put on the air.” One wonders why they were so fond of the air brake, but a possible reason lies in the fact that both terminal approaches were on slight gradients, where the air brake had in any case to be applied to hold the car on the grade, unlike the flat expanses of the Promenade.” [2: p51-52]
Another factor associated with the trial was that of maintenance of the tram cars.
“On the one hand, the provision of automatic acceleration and electric braking with minimum and controlled current peaks certainly eliminated the possibility of mishandling the electrical equipment, and must have reduced routine maintenance on the control gear, while the use of cardan shafts and totally-enclosed spiral bevel drives eliminated the troubles associated with the servicing of motor-suspension bearings and reduced the shopping periods. The service availability of the Vambac cars, judging from their daily appearances has been quite as high as that of the orthodox cars, and from this one can safely say that the new equipment must have been fully adequate in avoiding excessive servicing requirements. Moreover, while new and somewhat revolutionary equipment in any field has to cope with the burden of tradition on the part of older generation staff (human nature being what it is), this hurdle seems to have been surmounted with conspicuous success. On the other hand, obtaining spare parts must have been very awkward quite apart from the cost aspect for apart from Blackpool’s own 304-class cars no one else used the same equipment, despite all the hopes that were placed in it. In 1947 the potential British market for modern tramway equipment still included Leeds, Sheffield, Glasgow and Aberdeen, and anyone who had sampled the new equipment could be forgiven for seeing in it a germ of resurgence for tramways and a hope of further orders; but this was not to be. From this aspect, one begins to understand why the five extra sets of trucks and equipments were used as a source of spares rather than to equip further cars.” [2: p52, 54]
An interesting claim made for the new resilient-wheeled trucks was a saving in track costs. Although the track was abandoned before claims of a 30-year life could be tested, the track, “certainly stood up very well to 15 years’ life, and even at the end much of the track and paving was still of exhibition standard, Some of the sharper curves had been renewed, but this was only to be expected, for grooved rail generally lasts four times as long on straight track as on curves. On the sections with non-welded joints (usually) curves), there has been none of the usual deterioration of joints through hammer-blow … [found in] towns using heavy double-deck cars. The one unexpected phenomenon [was] the appearance of a few patches of corrugation.” [2: p54]
Pearson spent a short while alongside a corrugated stretch in Whitegate Drive, listening to sounds made by different types of car. He comments: “The passage of a Vambac car, even on the corrugations, was a process of exemplary quiet, but the occasional pre-war solid-wheeled car produced a roaring noise that told its own story.” [2: p54]
In his opinion, it was the “periodic traverse of the Marton tracks by these few pre-war solid-wheeled railcoaches (and by cars going to and from the Marton depot) that ha[d] given rise to the corrugations, and Whitegate. Drive residents who wrote to the papers in complaining terms can only have had these cars in mind. From the track aspect, it is therefore a pity that the original plan to equip 18 cars was not carried out, for the pre-war Blackpool cars, lacking track brakes, beget corrugations wherever they encounter solid foundations.” [2: p54-55]
A sequence of monochrome photos which were published as part of Pearson’s articles are shown below. The first four show something of the lifespan of the experiment. The following three show Marton Vambac trams at the various termini of the Marton Route.
“From the various engineering aspects – performance, silent running, case of control, routine maintenance, track wear, and availability – the Marton Experiment was therefore a success, even though it did not induce any other tramways to invest in similar equipment. The new equipment did all that the manufacturers claimed for it, and once the teething troubles were overcome ha[d] continued to function smoothly and efficiently for more than 10 years, with no further modifications of any importance. The Crompton Parkinson/Maley & Taunton Vambac/H.S.44 combination represented the ultimate development of street tramway practice in this country.” [2: p55]
Pearson considered that the VAMBAC trams had infinitely superior qualities both in riding and silence, so far as solid track was concerned. They were popular with the public – when abandonment was first proposed there was a significant outcry from customers who said that the VAMBAC trams were the finest transport service they had known. “Marton residents organised a massive petition to the Town Council for its retention, without any prompting from tramway-enthusiasts, in fact without their even knowing of it. The campaign was headed by Alderman J. S. Richardson, now the Mayor of Blackpool, and it is a sad coincidence that in his mayoral capacity Alderman Richardson himself had to preside at the closing on 28th October, 1962.” [2: p55]
It is Pearson’s view that the main reason for the failure of the experiment and the closure of the Marton tram route was the economic impossibility of two-man operation with only 48 seats per tram. While this was the main reason, there were at least three subsidiary factors: the cost of spare parts; the high energy cost of starting from rest; awkward relationships with other road users as visiting road users were no longer used to mixing with trams in their own communities.
He notes that crew costs in the 1960s accounted for an average of about 75% of a transport budget. Tram costs were higher than buses, the only way to offset that difference was to maximise the customer load-factor (this was effective on the Promenade) or to use tramway units of higher capacity than the largest available bus, so as to bring the cost per seat-mile down to a competitive figure. Had articulated cars been available that would have addressed the issue. “The 48-seat Marton Vambacs were below the minimum economic size … and throughout the experiment the route … had to be increasingly subsidised from the receipts of others. The Marton residents … enjoyed a superb service at considerably less than cost, and were naturally loth to lose it, but any suggestion of passing on the cost by raising the fares to a scale above that of the inland bus routes (as is done in summer on the Promenade) would clearly have been politically out of the question.” [2: p56]
Pearson’s own opinion, expressed in his article, is that the 12 year experiment proved that “revolutionary new concepts in tramway engineering [could] be applied to a normal street route as well as on the special field of the Blackpool Promenade, and Marton’s disappearance [was] a sad occasion for all who [saw] in the tramcar a still only partially-exploited form of transport. Looking back, it seems a repeat of a sadly familiar pattern; the engineering profession has delivered the goods, but the confused pattern of public transport in this country has never made full use of the potential made available by the engineers, electrical and mechanical, who gave practical expression to what [was], for most of us, still a composite dream.” [2: p56]
The Blackpool Trams website tells us that, “the first VAMBAC was withdrawn in 1960 as car 10 suffered accident damage and was scrapped soon after. The second VAMBAC withdrawn was 21 in 1961, which was withdrawn as a source of spare parts for the remaining trams, while 14 was also withdrawn for use as a driver training car. The writing was on the wall for the Marton Route, which had been isolated and lost it’s summer services to South Pier following the closure of the Lytham Road route in 1961, however, the remaining VAMBACS remained in use until October 1962 when the Marton route closed, with 11, 13, 15, 17 and 18 operating on the last day. The VAMBACS remained in Marton Depot and were joined by other surplus trams for scrapping in 1963. … One VAMBAC did manage to survive however, VAMBAC 11 was requested for a tour of the remaining parts of the tramway early in 1963 and was extracted from Marton Depot and made it’s way to Rigby Road. Following the tour, 11 was eventually preserved and found its way into preservation and is now at the East Anglia transport museum, where it still sees regular use today.” [3]
One of the Martin Vambacs in service in Blackpool in the late 1950s or early 1960s. This image was shared on the History of Blackpool Facebook Group on 7th April 2017 by Tony Latham. [6]Another Marton Vambac outside Abingdon Street Market. This photograph was shared on the History of Blackpool Facebook Group on 18th May 2023 by Jess Tulloch. [8]The interior of Marton Vambac No. 11 in its preserved condition at the East Anglia Transport Museum near Lowestoft. This image was shared on the History of Blackpool Facebook Group on 23rd February 2023 by Col Macloud. [7]A composite image of Marton Vambac No. 11 as used by ‘Videoscene’ in their range of transfers applied to mugs. [9]Marton Vambac No. 11 at its present home – the East Anglia Transport Museum. [10]
References
F.K. Pearson; The Marston Experiment; in Modern Tramway, Volume 26 No.301; Light Railway Transport League & Ian Allan, Hampton Court, Surrey, January 1963, p14-19.
F.K. Pearson; The Marston Experiment …. ; in Modern Tramway, Volume 26 No.302; Light Railway Transport League & Ian Allan, Hampton Court, Surrey, February 1963, p51-56.
As part of a batch of magazines from the 1950s and 1960s I picked up a number of editions of ‘Modern Tramway’ from 1963 into 1964. ‘The Modern Tramway’ was the journal of the Light Railway Transport League (LRTL). By 1963 it had dropped the ‘The’ and was published jointly by Ian Allan and the LRTL. Its formal title was ‘Modern Tramway and Light Railway Review’.
The February 1963 edition of the journal was priced at 2s 6d.
Among a number of articles in the journal was a piece by G. Hyde, The Strange Tale of No. 2.
This No. 2 was Beyer Peacock steam tram engine No. 2. It is shown in the featured image above in which it is seen at Beyer Peacock’s works in Gorton, Manchester. [2]
It was originally built to a Wilkinson patent for the New South Wales Government tramways in 1885 and shipped to Australia in April of that year. It made several trial runs on the Redfern Station line of the Sydney steam tramways, but it evidently did not compare favourably with the Baldwin locomotives then in use there. Hyde says that, “It was reputed to have a heavy fuel consumption. and Beyer Peacock’s received complaints about the difficulties in maintaining a sufficient head of steam, but the engine hardly had a fair trial as only short runs were made with it, and the drivers’ inexperience may have contributed to its shortcomings. The trials were invariably carried out after midnight so no photographs were taken of the engine in service; neither was it ever incorporated into the Sydney tramway stock, consequently it never had a fleet number. Whilst in Australia it was referred to as ‘John Bull’.” [1: p48]
After its short unsuccessful trials in Sydney, John Bull was shipped to the small port of Wollongong and worked the isolated Wollongong-Clifton section of the New South Wales Government railways. It stayed there until the section was connected to the main coastal line in 1886.
Hyde commented that at this point “John Bull” disappeared. “Nothing further is known about it until it turned up again at Manchester in 1890, when it featured in Beyer Peacock’s stock list as yard engine No. 2. The mystery of this missing four years is heightened by the fact that Beyer Peacock’s records refer to the engine as having been salvaged, and returned to their works. This led to the rumour which persists in the Gorton works that No. 2 fell into the sea at one point during its travels round the world.” [1: p48]
In 1890 the loco was modified, the duplicate controls were removed, as also were the wheel curtains, then railway type buffers and drawgear were fitted.
In 1915 a steam brake was fitted, then in 1930 a new boiler was installed and in 1958 a new steam dryer was fitted. It was ultimately withdrawn from service in early 1959.
Hyde asserted that No. 2 was “certainly the biggest tramway engine ever built to Wilkinson’s patent, and was one of the most powerful steam tramway engines ever to be built in this country Its gross working weight of 16 tons compares with the 12 tons of the heavy 83-86 class Wilkinson engines of the Manchester, Bury, Rochdale & Oldham tramway, one of which is being kept by the British Transport Commission.” [1: p49]
Hyde provided detailed information about No. 2. … It had two simple cylinders, 9.5 in. diameter by 12 in. stroke. The crank axle had a pinion in the centre with 20 teeth geared to a spur wheel on the driving axle having 33 teeth, thus having a ratio of 1.65 to 1. It was fitted with a Stephenson type link motion. The four coupled driving wheels were of 30 in. diameter, with a wheelbase of 6 ft. 8 in. The water capacity was 225 gallons and there was a fuel space of 11 cubic feet. The vertical boiler was of the Field type, and had 121 tubes, each with an outside diameter of 2.13 in. The tubes, which project down into the firebox, were between 19 and 27 inches long, and had fitted concentric open-ended internal tubes known as circulating tubes. The working pressure is 150 lb. per sq. in., and the total heating area was about 184 sq. ft. with a total fire grate area of 10.8 sq. ft. The engine has an overall length of 13 ft 6 in. and an overall width of 7 ft.
“For close on 70 years, No. 2 trundled round the Gorton works of Beyer Peacock’s being affectionately known there as Old Coffeepot,” and it is hoped that it will now see many more years of active life at the Crich Tramway Museum. In the erecting shops at Beyer Peacock’s the wheels were re-tyred and the new tyres turned down to tramway standards. Then, after boiler inspection and insurance formalities had been completed, it was despatched to join the T.M.S. fleet at Crich as the only working British steam tram engine.” [1: p49]
Hyde noted that “Project Steam Tram” would involve the Tramway Museum Society in some heavy capital outlay, and that the Society was appealing to tramway enthusiasts to take an interest in the project and support it with donations. [1: p49-50]
More recent research has filled in some of the unknowns which Hyde commented on in 1963. It was Beyer Peacock Works No. 2464 and carried an operational number of 47 in Australia. In the missing years the locomotive is thought to have spent time working in Illawarra between 1887 and 1888 prior to returning to the UK in 1889. That it was at Illawarra may be a reference to its work on the Wollongong-Clifton section of the New South Wales Government railways. If so then it remained in New South Wales longer than the article in ‘Modern Tramway‘ suggested. [2][3]
As a works shunter, the tram operated in the firm’s large works complex towing huge Beyer-Garrett locomotives from one shed to another.
After arriving at Crich in 1962, No. 2 “was operated under steam for some years from 1966. A period of off-site storage between 1971 and 1978 was followed by a return to steam in the 1980s, during which it even performed on the Santa specials. However, the work involved in firing it up, supplying it with coal and clearing away the ash helped to explain why steam traction gave way to electricity on Britain’s tramways in the early years of the twentieth century.” [3]
Crich Tramway Museum’s website tells us that, “because it was destined for export and as it was expected to be pulling much heavier loads it was much larger than those built for the home market. With 30 inch driving wheels and weighing almost 16 tons it was a true giant of a tram engine, though it did boast a number of features in common with other road-going locomotives including the fully enclosed wheels and a mechanism – in this case a “Wilkinson Patent” exhaust superheater – that was designed to reduce the amount of smoke emitted.” [3]
References
G. Hyde; The Strange Tale of No. 2; in Modern Tramway Volume 26 No. 302, LRTL and Ian Allan, Hampton Court, Surrey; February 1963, p48-50.
In the 1950s, a tram Glasgow purchased some years before, a ‘one-off’, unidirectional double decker car which it numbered 1005 and which was sometimes known as the ‘Blue Devil’ for its unconventional three tone blue colour scheme, was put forward by the LIght Railway Transport League as an option for trails that the League hoped might happen in London. The tramcar sat on PCC type trucks [1] and was sleek and streamlined. It can be seen in its later standard colour scheme in the bottom-right of the featured image above (Public Domain). [6]
The link to Flickr below takes us directly to Frederick McLean’s page on Flickr which focusses on this tram. Frederick McLean’s notes say that the reverse of the photograph was stamped with the photographer and/or negative owner name C. W. Routh and with the date 25 May 1955. He notes too that, in the photograph, the tram was heading South-east at St. George’s Cross.
In Washington DC a conduit system was in use, like that in London, and PCC cars were in use. The Light Railway Transport League (LRTL) proposed a trial on London’s streets of a modern PCC tram. They were even prepared to pay for the exercise.
Glasgow’s No 1005 was one of two cars considered a suitable vehicle for the trial by the LRTL. It was “equipped with up-to-date VAMBAC [3] electronic control, which promised smoother starting and braking, thus allowing higher schedule speeds with safety and comfort for passengers. In addition the trucks were fitted with improved motors, and more importantly, resilient wheels which gave a much quieter ride.” [2: p45]
Sadly the obstacles to the trial in London were too great. Harley lists these: [2: p46]
Single-ended cars needed turning loops. There was only one route (between Beresford Square and Well Hall Roundabout on Route No. 44) which might accommodate the trial.
Glasgow trams used bow collectors rather than trolley poles and we’re not fitted out for conduit working.
The Glasgow network was in fact a narrow-gauge network, three quarters of an inch (19mm) narrower than the standard-gauge in use in London. [5]
With a will to do so, these obstacles might have been overcome at LRTL expense, but ultimately there was no desire among the authorities in London to countenance the trial. Harley quotes the letter sent by the Operating Manager (Trams and Trolleybuses), dated 23rd March 1950: “Work on the replacement of the remaining trams is proceeding rapidly, and it is expected that the first stage of the conversion scheme will be completed before the end of the year, and that the scheme as a whole will be finished within a period of three years. You will see, therefore, that the Executive are committed to a policy of substituting oil-engined buses for the tramway system, a policy which they consider to be right and proper. In these circumstances the Executive regret that they cannot avail themselves of the offer you have made.” [2: p46]
The parallel offer of a similar trial using a, then, modern single deck Blackpool tram was also rejected by the authorities in London. Their minds were fully made up.
In Glasgow, Car No. 1005, foundered in use. Trams Today tells us that “when initially built in 1947 it featured Vambac controllers, a unique livery of three tone blue and was single ended but progressively both the livery and the control equipment had been standardised with the rest of the fleet. This still left the unusual loading arrangements which made 1005 unpopular with the general public amongst a fleet of more than a thousand more orthodox trams. Consequently it had for several years been restricted operation to use only at peak times whilst much oldertrams bore the brunt of all day service.” [4]
“In an attempt to rectify this situation and make better use of 1005 it entered the workshops during 1955 for rebuild that dispensed with the single ended arrangement. A drivers cab and full controls were provided in the rear. …. The work was carried out on a strict budget and, although successful in making 1005 more standardised, it still saw only infrequent use when it tram, generally appearing only during rush hour period until 1962 when it was finally withdrawn and disposed of for scrap.” [4]
References
PCC type bogies were first used on PCC cars in New York. The PCC car was “a revolutionary vehicle – a streamlined, single deck Tramcar which ride on superbly engineered trucks, giving a quiet and comfortable ride. When, on 1st October 1936, Mayor Fiorello H. La Guardia of New York, inaugurated service of Brooklyn and Queens Transit Car 1009, a new era in rail transportation opened. Orders followed from American and Canadian cities and eventually almost 5,000 cars rolled off the production line. This figure was augmented by the 15,000 PCC cars or vehicles built under PCC patents which appeared in Europe and Asia. The concession for England was snapped up by Crompton-Parkinson. They produced an advanced VAMBAC system (Variable Automatic Multinotch Braking and Acceleration Control), compatible with PCC technology, and 42 sets of equipment were used by London Under- ground in the late 1930s. In 1937, W Vane Morland, the Leeds manager, visited Boston to see the new design. He then returned home with the blueprints of the PCC, but the outbreak of war put paid to any more progress.” [2: p45]
Robert J. Harley; London Tramway Twilight: 1949-1952; Capital Transport Publishing, Harrow Weald, Middlesex, 2000.
VAMBAC was the acronym used to refer to Variable Automatic Multinotch Braking and Acceleration Control. It was in use in the UK as early as the late 1930s on London Underground. [2: p45]
Glasgow Corporation Tramways; Wikipedia; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Corporation_Tramways: “Glasgow’s tramlines had a highly unusual track gauge of 4 ft 7+3⁄4 in (1,416 mm). This was to permit 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge railway wagons to be operated over parts of the tram system (particularly in the Govan area) using their wheel flanges running in the slots of the tram tracks. This allowed the railway wagons to be drawn along tramway streets to access some shipyards. The shipyards provided their own small electric locomotives, running on the tramway power, to pull these wagons, principally loaded with steel for shipbuilding, from local railway freight yards.”
Roger Farnworth 
