Category Archives: Magazines

The Railways of West Cumberland – Part 2 …….

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 Guardian Lifestyle Travel – Saturday 23rd May 2026 – Part 4 – Readers’ Favourite Railway Journeys – Part B

The travel section of the Saturday Guardian Magazine on 23rd May 2023 included a few pages about train journeys in Europe (pages 72 to 77). This is the fourth part of a look at those pages and includes more reader’s recommendations of journeys by train. It includes a few more uploaded by the Guardian online.

The featured image for this article is a photograph of Le Petit Train Jaune which runs from Villefranche-de-Conflent to Latour de Carol/Enveitg in the Pyrenees, © A1AA1A and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 3.0). [33]

Further Guardian reader’s recommendations for rail journeys can be found here. [2]

4. Readers’ Favourite Railway Journeys – Part B

F. Vintage Locomotives in Tuscany

“We took the Treno Natura from Siena last May for a whole day out in the beautiful Tuscan countryside. It’s a real steam engine with classic coaches. Most passengers were friendly locals: we only encountered two other foreign tourists, a Swiss couple. A band came aboard to entertain us, and an optional walk through vineyards was also available. Fabulous value at only €42 each.” [3][Reader: Nigel Gould]

The Treno Natura (Nature Train) is a restored historic steam train from the 1930s that takes passengers on scenic, slow-paced journeys through the Tuscan countryside, departing from Siena’s main station.

The Treno Natura (Nature Train). [20]

The Treno Natura has a mixed schedule from March through October, to combine a scenic ride with special events like festivals, markets, sagras and food and wine tastings. Departing from Siena, the train alternates routes, taking you to the gorgeous Val d’Orcia, to Asciano, Montalcino and other historic towns, where you can enjoy special food markets, antique markets, festivals or other events. You can also combine your ride with a walk through Italy’s postcard-perfect landscapes, and dine in authentic Tuscan trattorias. [20]

G. Alpine beauty on the Montreux to Interlaken line

“From Montreux station I took the MOB railway to Interlaken. Weaving up through vineyards, Lac Léman shimmers below as the panorama broadens. Suddenly, you’re in pine forests and glimpsing jagged mountain crests. Bridges straddle rushing white water. The clanging and hooting warnings for road crossings. A long tunnel. Then burst into alpine pastures peppered with chalets. Le Pays d’Enhaut. Valleys filled with crisp air, summer cowbells, flowers and crickets – perfect for long walks. Or winter-snow-muffled land, all skis and fondues. Arriving in Château-d’Œx feels like discovering a new world.” [3][Reader: Christian Vassie]

The Montreux to Interlaken line, operated by the GoldenPass Express (GPX), is a 3-hour and 15-minute scenic journey through Switzerland. Thanks to pioneering variable-gauge technology, the train seamlessly connects Lake Geneva to the Bernese Alps without requiring a change of trains at Zweisimmen.

Montreux, Zweisimmen and Interlaken. [21]

As the train winds up the hillside above Lac Léman’s north shore, leaving Montreux behind, the bustle of the ‘Swiss Riviera’ gives way to the tranquil farming country of the Pays d’Enhaut, followed by the upmarket resort of Gstaad, before a gentle descent to Interlaken, between the twin lakes of Thun and Brienz in the Bernese Oberland.

One of our earliest family holidays abroad was a two week stay in Château-d’Œx. I was probably 14 years old at the time. The memories of the alpine pastures and the train at that time are vague. Much later in my 40s we travelled the line again after a night in Montreux and before staying on a caravan site close to Interlaken. A change of train was necessary at Zweisimmen.

This 70-mile route, crosses the röstigraben (the French-Swiss German language border) and links some of Switzerland’s most famous tourist centres.

Caroline Bishop tells us that since the early 2020s there has no longer been a need to change trains at Zweisimmen. The result of something that counts as a technological first. The Montreux Oberland Bernois railway (MOB) and BLS (the two train companies operating the line) were determined to develop a bespoke bogie which could narrow or widen to fit the different widths of the two railways, as well as adjust to their different platform heights. [21]

At Zweisimmen, The train crosses a special gauge-adapting ramp in Zweisimmen at a low speed of up to 15 km/hr. The train’s weight is momentarily relieved, allowing the variable-gauge bogies to slide the wheels closer together or further apart. The carriage is automatically raised or lowered from 35 cm to 55 cm, to align the doors with the different platform heights. Because the railway networks use different electrical voltages 900 V DC and 15 kV AC, a locomotive is attached or detached during the process. It takes just 8 minutes in all with the physical gauge and height changes happening in just a few seconds. [24]

The video below shows the process: [25]

Incidentally, the Golden Pass Line is not the only line to leave the lake shore at Montreux. The line to Rochers de Naye also claims away from the lakeside town. Rochers de Naye is a 2,042-metre-high mountain in the Swiss Alps, towering over Lake Geneva (Lac Léman) and the town of Montreux. It boasts panoramic views of the Alps (including Mont Blanc and the Eiger), it is easily accessible all-year-round by a historic 50-minute cogwheel train from Montreux.

The journey up Rochers de Naye departs from Montreux Station, climbing over 1,600 metres through forests, alpine meadows, and steep rocky ridges. The Montreux–Rochers-de-Naye railway line is an electrically operated rack railway of 800 mm track gauge of 800 mm. The line operates via the village of Glion, on the mountainside above Montreux, where it connects with the Territet–Glion funicular. [22]

Please see here for more about the Rochers de Naye railway. [23]

H. Slow travel at its best: Belgrade to Bar

” The train trip from Belgrade to Bar must be one of the slowest in Europe, taking 11 hours to cover 296 miles. At €23, it was probably the best-value travel money I’ve ever spent. In fact, the train trip was about the only time in my life when I longed for a journey to go slower rather than faster. It took me through some of the most dramatic scenery I’ve ever seen. Passing through deep gorges, canyons and mountain peaks, the train crossed more than 400 bridges and seemed to stop at every village. The Mala Rijeka viaduct was a highlight. The route took in spectacular dams, ancient monasteries and stone houses where old black-clad women waved at us from open kitchen windows. At one point, the passengers got out to feed a herd of goats and once we were overtaken by a mountain cowboy on a galloping horse. For the last part, you can see swimmers and sunbathers on Adriatic beaches.” [3][Reader: Peter]

The railway journey from Belgrade (Serbia) to Bar (Montenegro) is 476-kilometres (296-miles) in length. It features 254 tunnels and 435 bridges, including the Mala Rijeka Viaduct and it descends from the mountains to the Adriatic coast. There are two direct trains, one during the day and one at night. The Daytime Train (‘Tara’): Runs during the summer season. It departs around 09:00/09:45 and arrives in Bar around 21:00. In 2026, a standard second class single ticket costs €24. The best views can be seen when sitting on the right side of the train travelling from Belgrade to Bar.

Belgrade to Bar a multi-national scenic journey. [26]

Camilla Bell-Davies describes the route like this:

“After leaving a sun-drenched Belgrade behind, it’s not long before we’re gazing out at the rolling hills of the verdant Valjevo and Užice wine regions. The scenery becomes more dramatic as the line reaches the Zlatibor mountain range. We’re tempted to get off and explore Tara national park, which has excellent hiking trails and wild camping spots. But we press on, gathering speed past well tended fields and roaming goats.

“We pass through a slice of Bosnia-Herzegovina and back into Serbia again. In 1976, there were no border checks between these Yugoslav republics. Today, stern border guards rap on the carriage door at each crossing and hawkers board the train and sell beer, burek (pastries) and cigarettes.

“After our third border crossing, the pastoral hills swell into Montenegro’s Black Mountains, which dodge in and out of view between the tunnels and bridges. At Kolašin, a town near Durmitor national park, we stop to stretch our legs and peer up at monasteries atop impossible summits. How fun it would be to climb them. Next time, we think, as the long hoot of the train’s whistle signals our departure.

“Within an hour we reach the dizzying Mala Rijeka viaduct. Our train briefly resembles the Hogwarts Express soaring over the Scotland’s Glenfinnan viaduct in the Harry Potter films. After that, the mountains taper to the brutalist blocks of Montenegro’s capital Podgorica – named Titograd from 1946 until 1992. There’s little to recommend it, so we keep going to Virpazar on Lake Skadar, where we stop and spend a day pottering in a boat.” [26]

Lake Skadar, the largest in the Balkans sits half in Albania and half Montenegro, © GabrielZafra/BokicaK/Ivan25 and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 3.0). [27]
Lake Skadar. [28]

Camilla Bell-Davies continues:

“Half of the lake falls within Albania’s borders, and the Accursed mountains double up in the reflection of the water. These days the main division is a culinary one: Albania prepares the lake’s carp in a sizzling prune and tomato sauce called tavaë krapi, and Montenegro eats the freshwater fish salted and pickled, which is best tasted right by the water at the Restaurant Silistria.

“The next afternoon, we’re back on the train for the last stretch. At sunset, the Adriatic hoves into view. The sea opens to one side, the oranges and pinks in the sky melting into the water. For the final hour we swing past craggy headlands and sand-swept bays, arriving in Bar as darkness falls.” [26]

The Belgrade to Bar railway was completed in 1976. It was built by the Yugoslav State Railways (JŽ) and was 25 years in the making.

Sections of the railway were completed as follows:

  • Resnik – Vreoci in 1958
  • Podgorica – Bar in 1959
  • Vreoci – Valjevo in 1968
  • Valjevo – Užice in 1972
  • Užice – Podgorica in 1976

It is now operated by JŽ’s successor companies, Železnice Srbije (ŽS), Željeznice Republike Srpske (ŽRS) and Željeznička Infrastruktura Crne Gore (ŽICG). [29]

During the 1990s, the line had a chequered history:

  • In February 1993, the short Bosnian section of the railway was the site of the Štrpci massacre.
  • Maintenance of the Belgrade–Bar railway suffered from chronic underfunding during the 1990s, which has resulted in the railway deteriorating and becoming unsafe. This culminated in the Bioče derailment, when a passenger train derailed, causing the deaths of 47 passengers. As a result, efforts are being made to thoroughly reconstruct the railway.
  • The Serbian part of the railway was targeted several times by NATO during its bombing campaign in 1999, seriously damaging portions of the railway.
  • The small section that passes through Bosnia and Herzegovina was blown up by SFOR ground forces in the late 1990s. [29]

Repair work on the line is progressing gradually. In 2016, Serbia started a thorough reconstruction of its portion of the line in order to restore its original maximum speed of 120 kilometres per hour (75 mph). The first section, between Belgrade and Valjevo (27% of the Serbian part of the line) was completed in 2017. [29]

Since 2017, the Belgrade to Bar railway has undergone targeted, phased overhauls rather than a total route modernization, with hundreds of kilometers of track still awaiting upgrades. Progress has been split between Serbian and Montenegrin territories, heavily backed by the European Union and international loans.

In Serbia:

  • Resnik–Valjevo Section: Completed in 2017/2018, this USD $80 million upgrade by Russian Railways International rehabilitated a 77.6 km stretch of the railway. It restored maximum passenger speeds to 120 km/hr on this length of the line.
  • Valjevo to the Montenegrin Border: Engineering and technical documentation for the reconstruction of the remaining 210 km down to the border was initiated. However, construction has remained in the planning phase, with Serbian authorities estimating the total required investment for their remaining sections at €1.5 to €2 billion. [30]

In Montenegro:

  • Vrbnica–Bar Line Rehabilitation (2016–2020): Technical assistance with – and structural work on – the main Montenegrin corridor were completed with European Investment Bank (EIB) support.
  • Bar–Golubovci Upgrade: The European Union and the EIB committed a €175.6 million financial package to modernize a key 39 km stretch, improving reliability, safety, and increasing network capacity.
  • Kos–Trebešica Section: Targeted rehabilitation actions on this highly vulnerable section were launched to prevent bottlenecks and secure the combined maritime-railway transport with the Port of Bar.
  • Future Upgrades: Montenegro still requires major structural repairs across an estimated 160 km of its portion of the line. [30]

I. Through Italy’s Apennines to Rome from the Adriatic

“The cross-country east-west train trip from Pescara on the Adriatic to Rome is magnificent. It traverses the spine of Italy, single track all the way across the Apennines, stopping at towns such as Sulmona and Avezzano. The scenery changes as the route traverses mountain passes and ridiculous gradients before descending to plains over a period of 3 to 4 hours.” [3][Reader: Stephen]

The railway between Pescara and Rome is a 240-kilometre (150-mile) long railway line, that connects Rome with Tivoli, Avezzano, Sulmona and Pescara. The route operates through the regions of Lazio and Abruzzo. It was built in stages between 1873 and 1888. [9]

The route of the line from Pescara on the Adriatic to Rome, © Sayatek and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons Licence (CC BY-SA 4.0). [5]

The line between Pescara and Popoli opened on 1st March 1873. That between Popoli and Sulmona opened on 1st November 1873. Tivoli to Mandela opened on 10th December1884. Mandela to Cineto Romano opened on 25th November 1885. Rome to Tivoli opened on 1st August 1887. The line between Sulmona and Avezzano opened on 28th/30th July 1888. [10]

A 15 minute introduction to the journey and the trains used on the line. [7]

It seems possible that the great experience that Stephen had on this line is not likely to be available for too much longer. …

Major upgrading of the route has been ongoing throughout the 2020s and was scheduled for completion by 2026. [4] Once all work has been completed, the number of trains covering the route will double and the journey time will drop from 3 hours 20 minutes (at best) to around 2 hours. But it is not at all clear how soon that might be.

The project has faced problems along the way. It was put on hold in October 2023, when Italy missed out on 1.5 billion euros from the EU Recovery and Resilience Fund. Although it seems that “the Italian government is now ready to partly refinance the initiative with 951 million euros. Around 720 million euros were unlocked by the Interministerial Committee for Economic Planning and Sustainable Development (CIPESS) via the EU Cohesion Fund. The remaining 231 million euros are coming from the funds for non-deferrable works.” [6]

On 6th March 2024, RailFreight.com reported that the funding made available by the Italian Government related primarily to the length of the line which is within the Abruzzo region. That scheme is separated into two lots, the first (Lot 1) envisioned the doubling of the line connecting the Interporto d’Abruzzo terminal to Manoppello. Lot 2 entailed laying a second track between Manoppello and Scafa. In total, these lines amount to roughly 13 kilometres of the roughly 240 making up the whole Rome-Pescara line. This is a very small portion of the whole line.

There are two further “lots that still need to be addressed: the Sulmona – Pratola Peligna and [the] Tagliacozzo – Avezzano sections, for which there does not [yet] seem to be any plan.” [6] Original intentions were also to improve the line from the Airport “terminal to Pescara via Chieti. No new decisions have been made for this section either as of yet.” [6]

Railfreight.com note that even after the present schemes are completed much of the route will still be single-track, old and with steep sections and tunnels that do not meet current European standards.

It transpires, even so, that progress has not been without problems. As of May 2026, work on the first two lots mentioned above is underway but the likely completion date is now in 2028.

The low-resolution video below gives an idea of progress made by early 2026: [8]

Work should be completed by 2028 on the two lots which are under contract: Interporto d’Abruzzo – Manoppello and Manoppello – Scafa. [8]

So, perhaps the deduction to be made is that it still might be worth taking a journey along the line for some time to come!

Incidentally, on a journey through Sulmona one should also note the existence of another line which runs from Sulmona to Isernia. It is named ‘Ferrovia dei Parchi’. [11]

Ferrovia dei Parchi

The line is given this name on account of the special nature of the places it passes through. Its spectacular route passes through the Maiella National Park and the Abruzzo, Lazio and Molise National Park. [11]

An invitation card to the opening (Inaugurazione) of the Sulmona-Isernia railway (Della Strada Ferrata Sulmona-Isernia) on 18th September 1897 © Public Domain. [12]

Opened on 18th September 1897, the Sulmona-Isernia was destroyed by the Germans during World War II. It was rebuilt and relaunched in 1955 as far as Castel di Sangro, and reached Carpinone in 1960. The line, which has never been electrified, has always been linked to steam locomotives. In the 1980s, was allowed to quietly deteriorate with no significant maintenance undertaken. In 1995, ticket offices were closed and several stations were downgraded to mere halts, until eventually, the line’s connection to the line from Pescara to Rome was severed in the early years after the millennium. [11]

The route of the Ferrovia dei Parchi, © Sayatek and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons Licence (CC BY-SA 4.0). [14]

Nowadays, the line has been given a new lease of life as a tourist railway. It was superbly engineered when it was built. Despite the mountainous territory through which it runs the Ferrovia dei Parchi climbs gently up the mountainsides using viaducts, curves and tunnels, never exceeding gradients of more than 28%. It is over 128 km in length, 25 km of which are in 58 tunnels. Those tunnels are among more than one hundred engineering works carrying the line including bridges and viaducts. In addition, there are more than 300 aqueducts, bridges, avalanche barriers and overpasses, as well as 21 different stations. [11]

The tourist train runs in the summer months – June to September – booking in advance is advised and packages are available with accommodation in Sulmona included. [12][13]

The service uses vintage carriages consisting of wagons dating back to the 1930s, such as Corbellini and Centoporte carriages , generally hauled by an FS D.445 diesel locomotive.” [15]

Two photographs of Locomotive D445 ‘Bombardone’ and the early 20th century, wooden-bodied coaching stock. [11]

J. Best way to See the Pyrenees? On a Little Yellow Train!

“Le Train Jaune runs between Villefranche-de-Conflent and Latour-de-Carol in France. ‘Le Canari’, as it’s known locally, climbs to 1,595 metres at Bolquère-Eyne during its spectacular 40-mile (63km) route. Fresh mountain air, breathtaking views and valley-crossing suspension bridges can all be experienced either from the train’s bright yellow open-air wagons or from within the cosy comfort of its carriages. It is the best way to discover the wonders of the Pyrenees. My wife and I went for our honeymoon and fell in love with the little yellow train. [3][Reader: Joe Brownen]

Le Petit Train Jaune. [31]

Highlights on the journey include crossing the UNESCO-listed Gisclard Suspension Bridge, the Séjourné Viaduct, and rolling through the Cerdagne plateau.

The train takes 3 hours for a one-way trip from Villefranche-de-Conflent to Latour de Carol/Enveitg and the cost is €22.50 (or €5 if you got a special summer offer from the “Region Occitanie”). A return trip takes 6 hours minimum (there is a stop of a few hours at the terminus) for €45 full price. (Prices correctly in May 2026.) [16]

The Ligne de Cerdagne, usually referred to as Le Train Jaune is a 1,000 mm (3 ft 3 3⁄8 in) gauge railway. The line serves 22 stations, fourteen of which are ‘request stops’. There are 19 tunnels, the longest of which is the Tunnel du Pla de Llaurar with a length of 380 metres.

Amongst the various structures along the line are the two viaducts over the River Têt which are mentioned above. They are classified as Historic Monuments because of their architectural and technical importance:

The Pont Cassagne (also known as Pont Gisclard) is 253 metres (830 ft) long and, unusual for a railway bridge, a suspension bridge – the only one in France located on an operating railway. In 2023, a major project was carried out to replace 12 of the suspension cables © Cevenol2 and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons (CC BY-SA 2.0 fr). [18]

The Pont Séjourné, a 236.70 metre-long masonry viaduct in the town of Fontpédrouse. [19]

The line is single-track with passing loops. Trains are powered by electricity at 850 volts DC, supplied by a third rail. The power is supplied by hydro-electric generators on the River Têt. The maximum speed of the train is 55 km/h (34 mph). Modern two-car multiple units are used, as well as older powered cars with trailer carriages. Line maintenance vehicles are stored at Villefranche-de-Conflent. [17]

Construction started in 1903 and the section from Villefranche-de-Conflent to Mont-Louis was completed in 1910, followed by the extension to Latour-de-Carol in 1927. [17]

The website for le Petit Train Jaune can be found here. [32]

References

  1. Readers’Travel Tips: Favourite Train Trips; in Saturday (the Guardian Magazine), 23rd May 2026, p75.
  2. https://rogerfarnworth.com/2026/05/27/the-guardian-lifestyle-travel-saturday-23rd-may-2026-part-3-readers-favourite-railway-journeys-part-a
  3. https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2026/may/22/readers-favourite-scenic-european-railway-journeys-trains, accessed on 25th May 2026.
  4. https://www.fsitaliane.it/en/strategic-projects/rome-pescara-line-.html, accessed on 27th May 2026.
  5. https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ferrovia-rm-pe.png, accessed on 27th May 2026.
  6. https://www.railfreight.com/infrastructure/2024/03/06/doubling-of-rome-pescara-railway-partly-back-on-track, accessed on 27th May 2026.
  7. https://youtu.be/ubiP4tuAzbk?si=HsWYksmW14pXdIIe, accessed on 27th May 2026.
  8. https://youtu.be/_L8txHrI_U0?si=TMAn-BwN7z1y_zJe, accessed on 27th May 2026.
  9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome%E2%80%93Sulmona%E2%80%93Pescara_railway, accessed on 27th May 2026.
  10. https://www.trenidicarta.it/aperture.html, accessed on 27th Mat 2026.
  11. https://www.italia.it/en/italy/things-to-do/snow-train-ferrovia-dei-parchi, accessed on 27th May 2026
  12. https://ferroviadeiparchi.it, accessed on 27th May 2026.
  13. https://ferroviadeiparchi.it/shop, accessed on 27th May 2026.
  14. https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrovia_dei_Parchi#/media/File%3AFerrovia_Sulmona-Isernia.png, accessed on 27th May 2026.
  15. https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrovia_dei_Parchi, accessed on 27th May 2026.
  16. https://letrainjaune.fr/en/horaires-et-infos, accessed on 28th May 2026.
  17. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligne_de_Cerdagne, accessed on 28th May 2026.
  18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligne_de_Cerdagne#/media/File%3APont_gisclar_082004.jpg, accessed on 28th May 2026.
  19. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligne_de_Cerdagne#/media/File%3AViaduc_sejourne%2C_train_jaune%2C_fontpedrouse.jpg, accessed on 28th May 2026.
  20. https://www.summerinitaly.com/guide/steam-train-from-siena#google_vignette, accessed on 25th May 2026.
  21. https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2022/dec/07/switzerlands-brilliant-new-train-route-direct-from-montreux-to-interlaken, accessed on 26th May 2026.
  22. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux%E2%80%93Glion%E2%80%93Rochers-de-Naye_railway_line, accessed on 26th May 2026.
  23. https://rogerfarnworth.com/2018/04/16/the-rochers-de-naye-line
  24. https://www.gpx.swiss/en/stories/technology, accessed on 26th May 2026.
  25. https://youtu.be/74mKjQpPzNA?si=48XvU8X2a_eNaBZx, accessed on 26th May 2026.
  26. https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2024/sep/18/mountains-beaches-history-belgrade-bar-best-train-rides-europe-serbia-montenegro, accessed on 26th May 2026.
  27. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Skadar, accessed on 26th May 2026.
  28. https://undiscoveredmontenegro.com/lake-skadar-national-park, accessed on 26th May 2026.
  29. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgrade%E2%80%93Bar_railway, accessed on 26th May 2026.
  30. https://seenews.com/news/serbia-montenegro-seek-eu-support-for-belgrade-bar-railway-revamp-1262919, accessed on 26th May 2026.
  31. https://www.tourisme-pyreneesorientales.com/destination/incontournables/le-train-jaune, accessed on 28th May 2026.
  32. https://letrainjaune.fr, accessed on 28th May 2026.
  33. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligne_de_Cerdagne#/media/File%3ATrainJaune_viaduc.jpg, accessed on 28th May 2026.

The Guardian Lifestyle Travel – Saturday 23rd May 2026 – Part 3 – Readers’ Favourite Railway Journeys – Part A

The travel section of the Saturday Guardian Magazine on 23rd May 2023 included a few pages about train journeys in Europe (pages 72 to 77). This is the third part of a look at those pages and focuses on some reader’s recommendations of journeys by train. It includes a few more uploaded by the Guardian online.

The featured image for this article is a Flexity Outlook Eurotram at Trindade station in Porto, Portugal, © Cornelius Kibelka and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 2.0). [3]

3. Readers’ Favourite Railway Journeys

A. A Dramatic Metro Line in Porto

“I love the surprise of urban rail. Porto’s metro D line heading south emerges from mundane darkness underground to suddenly skim rooftops and then rattle across the fantastic Eiffel-inspired Dom Luís I bridge. Choosing to walk back across the metal deck is a completely different experience.” [1: p75][12][Reader: Amy]

A map of the Metro in Porto. The yellow line is line D. It runs from Hospital Sãn João to Santo Ovidio. It is the one Metro line that crosses the Rio Douro. [2]

The Porto Metro (Portuguese: Metro do Porto) is the light rail network in Porto. It runs underground in central Porto and above ground into the city’s suburbs. The first parts of the system have been in operation since 2002. The network uses low-floor tram vehicles. [3]

A Flexity Outlook Eurotram at Trindade station, © Cornelius Kibelka and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 2.0). [3]

The Socimi Eurotram (later sold as the Bombardier Flexity Outlook (E)) is an electric tramcar originally designed for the tram system of Compagnie de Transports Strasbourgeois (CTS). Initially produced by Socimi, after the company became bankrupt Eurotrams were manufactured first by ABB Group’s transportation division, then by Adtranz and finally by Bombardier Transportation, who marketed the tram as part of their Flexity Outlook range.” [4]

One of the Flexibilty Outlook Eurotrams crossing the Dom Luis I bridge over the Rio Duoro, © Sergei Gussev and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY 2.0). [5]
An aerial view of the Dom. Luis 1 Bridge over the Rio Douro in Porto. The bridge carries a road on a lower deck and the Metro Line D on the upper deck, © Deensel and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY 2.0). [6]
The Dom. Luis I Bridge seen from the West, © Milton Li, June 2019. [Google Maps, May 2026]

The bridge was designed by Theophile Seyrig and opened at the end of October 1886. In the 21st century, “the bridge’s upper level is used by pedestrians and by line D of the Porto Metro, whilst the lower level is used by buses, taxis, cyclists and pedestrians. The lower level links to the Porto waterfront, including the Praça da Ribeira and the lower station of the Guindais Funicular, at its northern end, and to Gaia waterfront, with its Port wine lodges, at its southern end. The upper level connects to Porto city centre and São Bento station at its northern end, and adjoins the Serra do Pilar Monastery and the upper station of the Gaia Cable Car at its southern end.” [6]

In 1879, Gustave Eiffel presented a project to construct a new bridge over the Douro, with a high single deck in order to facilitate ship navigation. This project was rejected due to dramatic growth of the urban population, which required a re-thinking of the limits of a single-deck platform. … A competition was initiated in November 1880, in order to construct a double-deck metal bridge, which included projects by Compagnie de Fives-Lille, Cail & C., Schneider & Co., Gustave Eiffel, Lecoq & Co., Société de Braine-le-Comte, Société des Batignolles (which submitted two ideas), Andrew Handyside & Co., Société de Construction de Willebroek (also two projects) and John Dixon. It was in January of the following year that deliberations by the committee supported the project of Société de Willebroek, a design that cost 369,000 réis and provided better carrying capacity. On 21st November 1881, the public work was awarded to the Belgian Société de Willebroek, from Brussels, for 402 contos. It was to be administered by Théophile Seyrig, the former partner of Gustave Eiffel and author of the project. Seyrig had also designed the Maria Pia bridge that was constructed by Eiffel & cie, hence the resemblance of his new bridge to the Maria Pia bridge. Construction began on the Luis I bridge alongside the towers of an earlier suspension bridge, the Ponte Pênsil, which was disassembled.” [6]

By 26th May 1886, the first weight experiments began, with the transport of a 2,000 kilograms (4,400 lb) per metre. On 30th October construction of the main arch and upper deck were concluded, resulting in its inauguration the very next day. On 1st November, a toll system began to operate under the administration of the winning company, that was equal to 4 reís per person. The following year the lower deck was inaugurated, completing the project. During its ceremonies, the bridge was blessed by Bishop D. Américo.” [6]

Line D (yellow line) opened on 17th September 2005 between Câmara de Gaia in Vila Nova de Gaia and Pólo Universitário in the North. At the northern end, the São João Hospital and IPO stations, were not brought into service until March 2006 due to safety concerns. At the southern end, the line was expanded until D. João II in May 2008 and then to Santo Ovídio in October 2011. In June 2024, the line was extended southwards by 3.15 km with three new stations added, Manuel Leão, Hospital Santos Silva and Vila d’Este. [3]

The Guardian reader (Amy) speaks of the tram emerging from the darkness of the tunnel before crossing the bridge. The tunnel mouth can be seen in the satellite image immediately below.

This satellite image shows the location mentioned above. Trams emerge from underground on the North side of the Rio Douro and are soon high above city streets such as Escardas do Codecal and Av. Gustavo Eiffel and then crossing the river. [Google Maps, May 2026]

On the South side of the river trams fly over R. da Cabo Simeo and Calcada da Serra before meeting and crossing R. Rocha Leao at level.

Metro line D runs North to South, crossing R. Rocha Leao at level. [Google Maps, May 2026]
Looking North towards the Rio Douro from R. Rocha Leao. [Google Streetview, June 2025]
Turning through 180°, this is the view South along Metro Line D from R. Rocha Leao. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

The Guardian reader talked of crossing the bridge on the Metro and then walking back over it afterwards!

B. Fjords and Waterfalls in Norway

“I travelled across Norway by rail on the spectacular Bergensbanen, running between Oslo and Bergen, and the unforgettable Flåmsbana branch line. The Bergensbanen crosses the high mountain plateau of Hardangervidda, passing lakes, forests and snow‑covered peaks before descending toward the fjords of western Norway. At Myrdal, I transferred on to the steep Flåmsbana, which drops dramatically to Flåm on the Aurlandsfjord, with waterfalls and sheer-sided valleys at every turn.” [1: p75][12][Reader: Daniel]

The Bergensbanen is a spectacular 496-kilometre railway connecting Oslo and Bergen in Norway. Taking approximately 7 hours, it is Northern Europe’s highest mainline railway, reaching 1,237 metres above sea level. The line runs 4 to 6 times daily, offering stunning views of Hardangervidda mountain plateau and deep fjords.

Trains on the Bergensbanen are operated by Vy. [7] Highlights along the way include Finse (the highest station), Myrdal (transfer to the Flåm Railway), and Voss (a major skiing hub).

The Bergensbanen is actually a 371-kilometre (231 mile) long scenic standard-gauge railway line between Bergen and Hønefoss, Norway. However, the name is often applied to the entire route from Bergen to Oslo, including the Randsfjord and Drammen lines between Hønefoss and Oslo, covering a total distance of 496 kilometres (308 miles). [8]

The Bergen Railway (Bergensbanen)
Between Oslo and Bergen by train, © Vy/Øivind Haug. [9]
Connecting Norway’s stylish capital with its most picturesque city, the 496km, 39-station Oslo-Bergen railway is one of the world’s most beautiful train journeys, © MariusLtu/Getty Images. [10]
The route crosses the inhospitable Hardangervidda plateau, which soars more than 1km above sea level, © Stockstudiox/Getty Images. [10]

The Flåmsbana is one of the most beautiful train rides in the world and it takes you past mountains and waterfalls you will not forget.

The Flåm Railway. © Morten Rakke. [9]

An article about the Flam railway can be found here. [11]

C. An Electric Gem in Germany

“I took the RB26 train from Berlin-Lichtenberg to Müncheberg and changed for the Buckower Kleinbahn historic narrow gauge railway. Opened in 1930 as an early electric railway, it closed its regular service in the late 1990s. It is now volunteers who run the line that takes you through the rolling hills of Märkische Schweiz in Brandenburg to the pretty spa town of Buckow. Here, I visited the residence of Bertolt Brecht and Helene Weigel on the peaceful reedy shores of Lake Schermützel, before returning refreshed to the Berlin bustle.” [1: p75][12][Reader: Rachael]

The Buckower Kleinbahn railway runs from Buckow to/from Müncheberg a round journey of close to 10km.

The blue line approxi.ates to the route of the preservation railway line. [14]

The little railway museum in Buckow’s train station building illustrates the history of Buckow’s narrow-gauge railway, as well as of other private and secondary railways, such as the Müncheberg narrow-gauge railway, the Oderbruch train and the ‘Royal Prussian Eastern Line’ (now the RB 26). There are also many exhibits of all sizes and ages, relating to general railroading in Germany.” [13]

A range of diesel and electricity-powered vehicles from the time between 1920 and 1986 are presented in the outdoor area of the Buckow train station. In addition to this, the old rectifier facility of Buckow’s narrow-gauge railway is home to an exhibition about railway power technology, as well as railway signalling and safety.” [13]

“Buckow’s narrow-gauge railway (Buckower Kleinbhan) with historic vehicles operates on weekends from April to October, and it is inseparably linked to the railway museum. Visitors coming from Berlin can board the museum train at Müncheberg station and are taken to Buckow via Waldsieversdorf with very friendly assistance. Children of all ages get to look over the train driver’s shoulder and interested adults can take part in a training course and obtain a certificate as an honorary train driver of the Buckow narrow-gauge railway.” [13]

This historic electric railcar is one of a number of such vehicles, Class 279 or ET188 types, with some refurbished in the early 1980s, which run on the Buckower Kleinbahn railway, © Museumsbahn Buckower Kleinbahn e.V. [13]

D. The Swiss Watchmakers’ Line

“When time is not important, a little-known French railway line allows you to enter Switzerland through the valley of the watchmakers. The line from Besançon in France drifts through the beautiful Jura foothills to Le Locle, a Swiss watchmaking town. No one got on or off at L’Hôpital-du-Grosbois, a byway station en route named after a leprosy hospital. A line that Dr Beeching would probably have closed still delivers you into Switzerland on time. [1: p75][12][Reader: Martin]

The “Watchmakers’ Line” (La Ligne des Horlogers) is a historic cross-border railway connecting Besançon, France, to La Chaux-de-Fonds/Le Locle, Switzerland. Named in honour of the region’s rich horological heritage, it spans the Jura mountains

Winding through the rugged terrain of the French Pays Horloger (Watchmaking Country) and the Swiss canton of Neuchâtel, the line is a marvel of 19th-century railway engineering. It features numerous tunnels and viaducts built to conquer the steep alpine inclines. The route is actively served by TER (Transport Express Régional) trains on the French side and connects seamlessly with the Swiss rail network.

The TER (regional) train takes approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes to cover the 48-kilometre distance. There are around 9 direct trains per day in both directions.

A standard train on the route between Besançon, France and La Chaux-de-Fonds/Le Locle, Switzerland. [16]

From 1st March to 31st October 2021, SNCF Réseau carried out major modernization work on the Horlogers line, a century-old mountain line, which connects Besançon (25) to La Chaux-de-Fonds in Switzerland for a budget of €55.5 million. These works reinforced structures (bridges, tunnels, walls, and trenches), renewed 35 km of track for €49 million (€19.4 million from the French State, €19.4 million from the Bourgogne-Franche-Comté Region, €6 million from INTERREG, and €4.2 million from SNCF Réseau), made the Morteau and Valdahon stations accessible to all for €1.5 million (€0.75 million from the French State and €0.75 million from the Bourgogne-Franche-Comté Region), and modernized the signaling system to allow TER regional trains in the Bourgogne-Franche-Comté Region to continue operating in Switzerland for €5 million (€2.5 million from the French State and €2.5 million from the Bourgogne-Franche-Comté Region). After a complete eight-month service interruption on the line, traffic between Besançon and Morteau resumed on 31st October, and between Morteau and La Chaux-de-Fonds on 23rd December 2021. [15]

The site of La Chaux-de-Fonds/Le Locle consists of two towns situated close to one another in a remote environment in the Swiss Jura mountains, on land not particularly suited to farming. Planned in the early 19th century, after extensive fires, the towns owed their existence to the watchmaking industry. Their layout along an open-ended scheme of parallel strips on which residential housing and workshops are intermingled reflects the needs of the local watchmaking culture that dates to the 17th century and is still alive today.

E. Charmed by the Vienna to Zagreb train

“The journey from Vienna to Zagreb saw mountainous central Europe relax into Balkan charm. Stunning Alpine scenery melted into forest, settling down into rolling hills as we passed through Graz and reached the Slovene border, stopping for an hour’s changeover at the tiny Zidani Most station, where we enjoyed afternoon beers gazing over lush Slovenian countryside. The connection to Zagreb boasted dramatic lake scenery that gave way to farm land, golden in evening light, as we passed into Croatia, soon rattling into its underrated capital. We booked this through Omio, which came in relatively cheaply at £41.” [12][Reader: Matt]

It is possible to get a direct train. According to thetrainline.com, the journey takes about 6 to 6.5 hours, covering roughly 370 km. Tickets can start around €25 to €35. There are normally 11 trains per day travelling from Vienna to Zagreb and tickets for this journey start from £25.89 when you book in advance. [17] The raileurope.com website quotes a lowest fare at under £22.00. [18]

The train journey from Vienna to Zagreb transitions from spectacular Alpine peaks to lush river valleys and rolling Balkan countryside. The journey takes you through southeastern Austria and northern Slovenia before arriving in Croatia. To catch the best views, sit on the left side of the train when departing Vienna to look down into the Semmering valleys. When traveling through Slovenia, sit on the right side to enjoy the best riverside views.

Shortly after leaving Vienna (Wiener Neustadt), the train climbs the Semmering Pass. This is a UNESCO World Heritage site, famous for winding viaducts, tunnels, and panoramic views of steep mountain valleys and dark pine forests.

The Semmering Pass railway and surrounding scenery, © C.Stadler/Bwag and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 4.0). [19]
An international express on the Semmeringbahn, pulled by 1044 274-7 in 2004, © Herbert Ortner and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY 3.0). [19]

As you descend from the mountains, you’ll pass through the rolling, green agricultural landscapes and vineyards surrounding the city of Graz.

Crossing the border, the scenery becomes dramatic. The train tracks hug the winding Savinja and Sava rivers, passing through deep gorges and canyons flanked by dense forests and rural villages.

The rugged terrain flattens out into the golden farmlands and charming countryside of northern Croatia before pulling into Zagreb’s main station, Zagreb Glavni Kolodvor.

Further suggestions for rail journeys from Guardian readers can be found in the fourth of this series of articles based around the Guardian Saturday Magazine of 23rd May 2026.

References

  1. Readers’Travel Tips: Favourite Train Trips; in Saturday (the Guardian Magazine), 23rd May 2026, p75.
  2. https://www.reddit.com/r/TransitDiagrams/comments/gidbxm/ocdiagram_metro_do_porto_portugal, accessed on 25th May 2026.
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porto_Metro, accessed on 25th May 2026.
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socimi_Eurotram, accessed on 25th May 2026.
  5. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vila_Nova_de_Gaia_(52734250241).jpg, accessed on 25th May 2026.
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dom_Lu%C3%ADs_I_Bridge#/media/File%3ADom_Lu%C3%ADs_I_Bridge_(36961760686).jpg, accessed on 25th May 2026.
  7. https://www.vy.no/en/train/routes/the-bergen-line, accessed on 25th May 2026.
  8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergen_Line, accessed on 25th May 2026.
  9. https://en.visitbergen.com/visitor-information/travel-information/getting-here/bergensbanen-oslo-to-bergen-by-train, accessed on 25th May 2026.
  10. https://www.bbc.co.uk/travel/article/20230130-the-highest-rail-route-in-northern-europe, accessed on 25th May 2026.
  11. https://rogerfarnworth.com/2019/01/01/the-flam-railway-in-1950
  12. https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2026/may/22/readers-favourite-scenic-european-railway-journeys-trains, accessed on 25th May 2026.
  13. https://www.brandenburg-tourism.com/poi/seenland-oder-spree/industrial-culture/eisenbahnmuseum-and-buckower-kleinbahn-train-museum, accessed on 25th May 2026.
  14. https://www.komoot.com/smarttour/3623001, accessed on 25th May 2026.
  15. https://www.sncf-reseau.com/fr/cp/bourgogne-franche-comte/ligne-horlogers-modernisee-entre-besancon-et-morteau, accessed on 25th May 2026.
  16. https://www.railwaypro.com/wp/colas-consortium-to-modernise-ligne-des-horlogers, accessed on 25th May 2026.
  17. https://www.thetrainline.com/en/train-times/vienna-to-zagreb, accessed on 25th May 2026.
  18. https://www.raileurope.com/en-gb/destinations/vienna-zagreb-train, accessed on 25th May 2026.
  19. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semmering_railway, accessed on 25th May 2026.

The Guardian Lifestyle Travel – Saturday 23rd May 2026 – Part 2 – Nice to Tende

The travel section of the Saturday Guardian Magazine on 23rd May 2023 included a few pages about train journeys in Europe (pages 72 to 77). This is the second part of a look at those pages. …

The featured image for this article is the Train des Merveilles (Train of Wonders), a scenic tourist train that runs between Nice, France, and Tende, France. Services also run on to Cuneo. The train travels through the Roya Valley, through rugged gorges, picturesque villages, and numerous tunnels. The line is a feat of engineering, featuring hundreds of bridges and tunnels to traverse the steep terrain of Les Alpes Maritime. The viaduct shown in the featured image is the Viaduc de l’Erbossiera, a unique structure designed to run longitudinally through a river gorge having a singular upturned ‘U’-shaped pier (just off the left of the photograph), © Monaco Tribune, (although used on a significant number of different webpages). [14]

2. France’s Wonder Train

My wife and I stay regularly in Nice or in Les Alpes Maritime and have often travelled on the line between Nice, Tende and Cuneo – Le Train des Merveilles. A particular favourite location to stay has been the perched village of Saorge which overlooks a section of the line.

In recent years, the valley of La Roya has experienced devastating flooding. In October 2023, Storm Alex hit the valleys of the Royal and the Vesubie causing catastrophic damage.

The Institut Géographique National published excellent interactive maps showing the Roya and Vésubie valleys before and after Alex. These can be found here. [2]

The damage Storm Alex caused in October 2023 was almost beyond belief. The satellite image on the left shows the area around the entrance of the tunnel at Col de Tende before the storm, the image on the right shows the area the day after the storm. The devastation was mirrored down the valley of La Roya, © IGN. [2]

If it is of interest you can read about the history of the railway line in a series of articles, here, [3] here, [4] here, [5], here, [6] here, [7] here, [8] here, [9] here, [10] and here. [11]

The viaduct at Tende, © Wondermash, Public Domain. [13]

In 2026, the railway line running up the valley of La Roya is open once again. Anna­belle Thorpe writes about a journey up the line and about other surrounding areas visited. [1]

The French Departement of Provence- Cote d’Azur has been an almost annual holiday destination for my wife and I over the past 20 years or more © Guardian Graphics. [1: p74]

It was good to read about the area in the article in the Guardian Saturday magazine. [1]

The two pages of the article in the Guardian’s Saturday magazine on 23rd May 2026. [1]

Annabelle Thorpe travelled the line after it reopened. She writes:

“Back on track last December after a programme of major works closed the line for a year, it’s one of the most spectacular train routes in Europe, a two-hour journey that climbs 1,000 metres in 100km, linking Nice with the medieval town of Tende, surrounded by the soaring peaks of the Mercantour national park.

“It’s barely 10 minutes before the suburbs of Nice begin to melt into low hills, scattered with auburn-roofed villas and copses of chestnut trees. Once the ascent begins, it’s easy to see why maintaining the line, begun in 1883, is a serious task. More than 100 bridges and viaducts – and almost as many tunnels and retaining walls – stitch the track together, along with ingenious helical loop tunnels, which gain altitude by following a series of bends inside the mountain itself.

“It’s a breathtaking ride, the hills gaining height and heft, until a great mountainscape begins to unfold before us; jagged peaks that make the valley road below seem little more than a thin sliver of ribbon.

“Many passengers ride straight up to Tende and set off to hike the mountain trails that lead off from the town. But we want to see a little more, and disembark first at Sospel, a medieval town where the 13th-century Pont-Vieux straddles the Bévéra River. It’s market day and, even in such a small town, there are flower and vegetable stalls, great wheels of cheese and delicious looking breads. We stroll the quiet streets, past crumbling baroque churches and gothic-style houses. It’s amazing to think we are barely an hour from Nice – it feels like we’ve been transported to an entirely different region of France.

The higher we go, the more the feeling of stepping back in time grows. At La Brigue, the gateway to the Mercantour national park, the tangle of medieval streets feel barely raised from their winter sleep; the town only really comes alive in summer, when the hikers arrive. La Brigue’s claim to fame is the Chapel of our Lady of Fountains, a couple of miles outside the town. Named for the seven springs that trickle through the rocks nearby, parts of the church date back to the 13th century, when, legend has it, villagers built it as a sign of gratitude to the Virgin Mary after prayers for a new water source for La Brigue were answered. While the facade is unassuming, the interior is truly extraordinary; its walls and ceiling are covered in 15th-century frescoes by Giovanni Canavesio that are so vivid the church is sometimes called the Sistine Chapel of the Southern Alps.

By the time we arrive in Tende, where the houses cling to the mountainside, we are 800 metres above sea level and there is nothing but wooded slopes leading to high peaks and a crisp, clear silence. We follow the modern main street through the clustered, medieval houses of the old town up to the ruins of Chateau Lascaris, where the views stretch to the distant peaks of the Marguareis massif, the last mountains before Italy. It’s quite a pull, and afterwards we reward ourselves with mammoth croque monsieurs at Stella Alpina – part outdoor equipment shop, part rustic eaterie. Around us, hearty looking chaps in Lycra cycling tops are tucking into pints of lager and platters of local cheese and cured meats.

Much restored, we dip into the Musee de Merveilles, where we learn (through our fractured French) that the area is home to one of Europe’s largest Neolithic and Bronze Age rock-engraving sites. The town’s more recent (relatively speaking) history is tied to the Salt Road, a mule train route between the Piedmontese Alps and the Ligurian coast, used from the middle ages until the 18th century. Built as the last French stop-off along the trade route, it partly explains why a town of such a size was located in such an isolated, mountainous location.” [1: p74-75]

Annette Thorpe’s article goes on to talk of visits to Antibes, Beaulieu-sur-Mer and the city of Nice. Places that feature strongly in our own experience of Nice and its environs and which sit alongside places like Saorge and Menton in our own reminiscences!

Fontan-Saorge Railway Station on the Nice to Tende line is dwarfed by the surrounding scenery. [My photograph, November 2014]
The Train des Merveilles seen from the balcony of our flat in Saorge. [My photograph, November 2014]
Another view of the train from across the valley in Saorge [My photograph, November 2014]
Another service on the line between Tende and Nice. The location is the railway station at Breil-sur-Roya. [My photograph, November 2014]
An FS D.445 diesel locomotive in charge of a passenger service is seen in this closer view of Fontan-Saorge railway station, taken from above the tunnel mouth to the South of the station, © Giorgio Stagni and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 3.0). [12]

The railway from Nice through Tende to Cuneo is as spectacular as Annette Thorpe says. It is an excellent experience which I can highly recommend.

Annette Thorpe concludes:

“That’s the beauty of Nice. It’s both a destination itself and a gateway to very different worlds, all of them just a train ride away. The Train des Merveilles is unarguably the highlight; those extraordinary twists and turns, the grandiose scenery, wild and untouched, so different from the busy streets of Nice. But to pack all of it into one short trip is to make the very most of this diversely beautiful region; a trip des merveilles indeed. [1: p75]

Our visits to the city of Nice have always been in the late Autumn when Mediterranean weather is considerably more mild than in high summer. The added benefit of travel in the late Autumn, is that traffic density on the coast roads is much lower than in the height of the tourist season.

Any visit to Nice should also include a trip on the metre-gauge Chemins de Fer de Provence and, of course, visits to the villages along its route.

References

  1. Anna­belle Thorpe; France’s Wonder Train; in Saturday (the Guardian Magazine), 23rd May 2026, p74-75.
  2. https://alex.ign.fr, accessed on 24th May 2026.
  3. https://rogerfarnworth.com/2025/07/22/the-railway-from-nice-to-tende-and-cuneo-part-1
  4. https://rogerfarnworth.com/2025/07/26/the-railway-from-nice-to-tende-and-cuneo-part-2
  5. https://rogerfarnworth.com/2025/08/06/the-railway-from-nice-to-tende-and-cuneo-part-3-vievola-to-st-dalmas-de-tende
  6. https://rogerfarnworth.com/2025/08/16/the-railway-between-nice-tende-and-cuneo-part-4-st-dalmas-de-tende-to-breil-sur-roya/
  7. https://rogerfarnworth.com/2025/08/25/the-railway-between-nice-tende-and-cuneo-part-5-breil-sur-roya-to-ventimiglia
  8. https://rogerfarnworth.com/2025/08/29/the-railway-between-nice-tende-and-cuneo-part-6-breil-sur-roya-to-lescarene
  9. https://rogerfarnworth.com/2025/09/26/the-railway-between-nice-tende-and-cuneo-part-7-lescarene-to-drap-cantaron-railway-station
  10. https://rogerfarnworth.com/2025/10/07/the-railway-between-nice-tende-and-cuneo-part-8-drap-cantaron-railway-station-to-nice.
  11. https://rogerfarnworth.com/2026/02/06/the-railway-between-nice-tende-and-cuneo-part-9-the-short-golden-age.
  12. https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fontan_-_Saorge_(stacidomo)#/media/Dosiero%3AFontan-Saorge_staz_ferr_D.445.jpg, accessed on 24th May 2026.
  13. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Viaducttende.JPG, accessed on 24th March 2026.
  14. https://www.monaco-tribune.com/en/2025/12/train-des-merveilles-between-nice-and-tende-finally-reconnects-with-the-roya-valley, accessed on 24th May 2026.

The Guardian Lifestyle Travel – Saturday 23rd May 2026 – Part 1 – Naples

The travel section of the Saturday Guardian Magazine on 23rd May 2023 included a few pages about train journeys in Europe (pages 72 to 77).

The featured image for this short article is a photograph of a EAV (Ente Autonomo Volturno)-owned Circumvesuviana train at Napoli Garibaldi station, © Falk2 and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 3.0). [8]

1. Time Travel on the Naples Line

The first of the articles, written by Sophia Seymour picks up on a new film about the region around Naples which “reveals rarely visited villas, seismic landscapes and a ‘civilisation buried mid-sentence’ – all accessible by train.” [1: p72]

The article by Sophia Seymour describes a journey made on the ‘Circumvesuviana’ a narrow gauge line around the Bay of Naples. A journey that she chose to make after watching a Gianfranco Rosi film ‘Pompei: Below the Clouds. [1: p72-73][2]

The film had its world premiere in the main competition of the 82nd Venice International Film Festival on 30th August 2025, where it won the Special Jury Prize. It was theatrically released in Italy by 01 Distribution on 18th September 2025. [2][3]

Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian rated the film five stars out of five, calling it “utterly distinctive” and “a ghostly yet luminous cinematic mosaic.” [2]

Sophia Seymour chose to experience the Naples portrayed by Gianfranco Rosi by travelling on the ‘Circumvesuviana’ a narrow gauge line around the Bay of Naples, a train which Rosi says, is “my time machine“.

Rosi chooses to travel on the ‘Circumvesuviana’ beyond the tourist route to Pompei and Herculaneum. “He stays on the train, camera in hand and traverses this seismic landscape – from the Sorrentine peninsula, crowned by Vesuvius in the east, to the lesser-known crates of the Phlegraean Fields in the West.” [1: p72]

The Bay of Naples, Naples, Pompei Herculaneum, Sorrento and Vesuvius. [1: p72]

Sophia Seymour writes:

“Before the Circumvesuviana reaches the archaeological site of Pompei, it skirts the Gulf of Naples, passing through a number of overlooked towns characterised by a stratification of history visible in the architecture. Drawing into the station of Torre Annunziata, Rosi holds the camera on the visible layers of the town’s history: diamond-patterned Roman brickwork cut from nearby volcanic quarries, Doric columns from an excavated Roman villa, and the still-lived-in mid-century housing blocks rising above them. That Roman villa is worth stopping for. Believed to have been built for Poppaea Sabina, the second wife of Emperor Nero, Villa Oplontis feels like a secret discovery. Its frescoes are almost untouched, its colonnade pristine, and on this day, as always, there was scarcely another soul in sight.

Back on the Circumvesuviana, I head east to Somma Vesuviana. A team from the University of Tokyo has been excavating here for decades, slowly uncovering the Villa Augustea, the imperial estate where the Emperor Augustus is believed to have died in AD 14. It was not the great eruption of AD 79 that buried the villa, but a later one in AD 472. The archaeological treasures still buried across the region are so numerous that tomb raiders have long burrowed into the soft volcanic stone looking for loot to sell on.

A second train line, the Cumana, runs in the opposite direction. It departs from Montesanto station in central Naples and heads west, reaching Pozzuoli in 25 minutes. At the end of the line lies a working port city of 75,000 people living in the basin of one of the world’s most geologically active calderas (volcanic craters). The lore surrounding Vesuvius has long overshadowed the dangers posed by the Phlegraean Fields, which rumble daily beneath the city’s foundations.

Stepping off the train at Pozzuoli, I was hit by the pungent sulphuric smoke drifting over the port. I had timed my arrival for a simple lunch at Abbascio ù Mare (a local favourite serving fish landed from the boats that morning) before visiting the Macellum of Pozzuoli, a 2nd-century Roman market near the harbour. Here, I found the clearest record of what is known as bradyseism, the movement of magmatic fluid and gas beneath the surface of the Earth that lifts and lowers the land, sinking entire towns and raising them again centuries later.

Halfway up the ancient columns, I spotted bands of small holes in the stone. These were bored by molluscs when the columns once stood metres below the bay. Rosi’s camera follows the phenomenon underwater, descending into the submerged ruins of nearby Baia, where robed marble figures stand upright on the seabed as shoals of fish drift over mosaics and between their feet.

Between east and west, at the intersection of the Circumvesuviana and the Cumana, lies Naples – known to the Greco-Romans as Neapolis (the new town) because it was new compared with Pompei and Baia. In the centre of the city, at the Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli, Rosi films Maria, the museum’s archaeologist, deep in the storage vaults. This is what he calls the casaforte (the safe of memory) – shelf upon shelf of fragmented marble torsos, legs and busts, the overflow of 2,000 years of excavation.”  [1: p72-73]

The Circumvesuviana and the Cumana are two essential, distinct commuter rail networks operated by the Ente Autonomo Volturno (EAV) in the Naples metropolitan area. They serve completely different regions and purposes for both commuters and travelers.

The Circumvesuviana is a 950 mm gauge railway network radiating east and south of Naples, circling Mount Vesuvius. It operates 142 km (88 mi) of route on six lines. It is entirely separate from other national and regional railway lines. It has 96 stations with an average inter-station distance of 1.5 km. [4]

It is the primary way for tourists to reach major archaeological sites like Pompei (Pompei Scavi station) and Herculaneum (Ercolano Scavi station). It also runs to Sorrento, making very busy during the tourist season.

Main departures are from Napoli Porta Nolana, though trains stop at Napoli Garibaldi (underneath the main Centrale station).

Because regular Circumvesuviana trains are heavily used by locals, frequently crowded, and lack air-conditioning, EAV operates the Campania Express during the peak tourist season. This premium service guarantees seating, is air-conditioned, and makes far fewer stops between Naples and Sorrento.

The Circumvesuviana Network, © Sukoruma12 and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC0). [5]

The Cumana is a standard-gauge commuter railway that heads west from central Naples, traveling through the Phlegrean Fields (Campi Flegrei) along the coast to Torregaveta. [6]

It runs through the western districts of Naples (Fuorigrotta and Bagnoli) out to Pozzuoli, Baia, and Fusaro. It is popular for accessing coastal views, the port for ferries to the islands, and local archaeological spots like the Flavian Amphitheater.

The main city centre station is Napoli Montesanto. The Cumana is typically more modern, less crowded, and used more by local commuters than the chaotic, tourist-heavy Circumvesuviana.

The route of the Cumana, © ArbaleteOpenStreetMap contributors and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 2.0). [7]

References

  1. Sophia Seymour; Time Travel on the Naples Line; in Saturday (the Guardian Magazine), 23rd May 2026, p72-73.
  2. Peter Bradshaw; Pompei: Below the Clouds review – a ghostly yet luminous cinematic mosaic of Naples crowns a superb trio; in Saturday (the Guardian Magazine), 30th August 2025.
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Below_the_Clouds, accessed on 23rd May 2026.
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumvesuviana, accessed on 23rd May 2026.
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumvesuviana#/media/File%3ACircumvesuviana_map_2025.jpg, accessed on 23rd May 2026.
  6. https://www.napoliunplugged.com/naples-regional-metro-system, accessed on 23rd May 2026.
  7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumana_railway#/media/File%3AMappa_ferrovia_Cumana.svg, accessed on 23rd May 2026.
  8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naples_metropolitan_railway_service, accessed on 23rd May 2026.

The Modern Tramway – June 1951 – Reinstatement of a Street Tramway Route in Helsinki

The featured image for this article is the pikkuruotsalainen (“Little Swede”) tram, built by ASEA in Sweden. Together with its open summer trailer,  they became a beloved pair on city tracks. The breezy trailers were especially popular on hot days, so much so that passengers sometimes clung to the running boards or jumped off before the tram had fully stopped. Though open trailers were meant only for summer use, wartime shortages forced them into winter service under tarpaulins. Their final flourish came during the Helsinki Olympics in 1952, when crowds crammed aboard one last time before the trailers disappeared from daily traffic, © Helsinki City Museum, Public Domain. [19]

A short letter from Kaj Arnold Larsen, Engineer of Helsinki Tramways was published in The Modern Tramway in June 1951. [1]

It seems that the editors of The Modern Tramway were delighted when examples that bucked the seemingly overwhelming trend of closures could be cited.

K. A. Larsen wrote:

“Service 5 of the Helsinki (Finland) tramway system passes through the centre of the city, traversing the narrow Alexander Street for part of its distance. The passenger frequency in 1948 was 12.5 passengers per car kilometre. In June, 1949, tramway operation of this route ceased and diesel buses were substituted as it was thought that bus operation would be more economical and would speed up the traffic flow. Staff economy was to be effected by using eight buses (i.e., eight drivers and eight conductors) instead of six trams, each with its own trailer (six drivers and twelve conductors). It was soon found that 15 buses, with a total crew of 30. and a 2-minute headway instead of the trams 5-minute headway, were necessary. Street parking had to be forbidden in Alexander Street as the congestion in rush hours was making impossible the working of the 60-seater diesel buses through the street. Even without street parking, the situation was not noticeably relieved.

Faced with this object lesson, the authorities wisely decided to restore the tram service along the route as soon as sufficient cars were available. Trams are now running again, and the traffic is moving without difficulty.

Next year the Helsinki tramways will take delivery of a number of new bogie tramcars of a design which combines the best features of P.C.C. and modern Swiss practice. These cars will have a passenger capacity of 100 and a maximum speed of 38 m.p.h. They will be used with one or two trailers and will replace 30-year-old cars. Extensions to the tramway system are planned and headways are to be decreased.” [1]

Larsen concludes:

“We shall then be able to show the public that higher speed and better acceleration and deceleration can be obtained with trams than with buses and that without bad odour and poisonous gases. We are not unaware of the advantages of oil and trolley-buses and we use them on suitable routes.” [1]

In the 21st century, the Helsinki Tram network are part of the public transport system organised by Helsinki Regional Transport Authority and operated by Metropolitan Area Transport Ltd (Finnish: Pääkaupunkiseudun Kaupunkiliikenne Oy) in Helsinki. The trams are the main means of transport in the city centre. 56.8 million trips were made on the system in 2019. In addition to the older tram network, there is a single light rail line that was opened in October 2023. Although technically compatible with the tram network, the light rail line is separate from the city centre tram network. [2]

The modern tram network in Helsinki. [3]

Public transport in Helsinki was initiated in 1888 by Helsingin omnibussiosakeyhtiö, using horse-drawn omnibuses. “In 1889, Helsingin Omnibussiosakeyhtiö acquired the right to construct tram lines. The next year, the company changed its name in Helsingin raitiotie- ja omnibussiosakeyhtiö (abbreviated HRO). Electric traction was considered as a power source for the new system, but due to lack of funds, and the city council’s negative attitude towards electric trams, the decision was made to use horse-drawn trams instead. The new system was built to a track gauge of 1,000 mm. Test traffic started in December 1890, but the network wasn’t officially opened until June 1891. The capacity of the horse tram system soon proved insufficient, but the conversion to electrified trams was postponed until the price of electrification of the network reached lower levels.” [16] At this time, the network was 8.5 kilometres in length.

A 1988 Finnish postage stamp depicting a horse-drawn tram in Helsinki 1890-1900, © Posti-ja telelaitos and made available as Public Domain. [5]

In the latter half of the 1890s, Julius Tallberg acquired the right to construct an orbital tram system around the city that would have linked the existing HRO lines and parts of the city not covered by the HRO lines. After negotiations, Tallberg and his associates transferred the construction permit of the orbital line to the HRO in return for a large number of HRO stock shares.” [16]

Kummer trams in Helsinki in the early 20th century, © Public Domain. [16]

In 1897, HRO received the right to construct an electrified tramway into Helsinki. A call for bids was sent out the following year, and the contract was awarded to the Germany-based O.L. Kummer.” [16]  Under the contract, Kummer were required to build and electrify the new network and provide the trams to be used on it. In addition, Kummer had to run the system for up to 3 years to prove the quality of its work. Running the system, resulted in significant profits for Kummer and, as a result, by 1901, HRO had assumed responsibility for operating the tram network. The four lines of the developing network after electrification were all single-track.

Although the single-track lines proved to be inadequate it was some time before the HRO was willing to fund the conversion. In 1906, “the company applied for and received permission to convert their track network into double-track. The contract also specified certain lines that HRO had to operate, as well as certain extensions that had to be built.” [16]

The contract for converting the tram network into double track was awarded to the Swedish ASEA. Conversion work began in 1908 and was completed in 1910. From 1908 until 1919, ASEA also supplied the HRO with a total of 78 trams and 70 trailers.” [16]

ASEA delivered 67 trams of this type, nicknamed “Pikkuruotsalainen” (English: Little Swede), to HRO between 1908 and 1918. HKL 32 (originally HRO 77) is photographed on line 15 in 1954, © B. Okkola, Public domain. [16]

ASEA (Allmänna Svenska Elektriska Aktiebolaget) was a Swedish industrial company founded in 1883 in Västerås. Renowned for electrical engineering and infrastructure, it produced early industrial robots, transformers, [trams,] and locomotives.” [4]

In 1909, the network expanded to include the island of Kulosaari – a private line owned by Brändö Spårvägsaktiebolag

In 1913, a tram line reached Alppila. In 1914, the network was also expanded into Taka-Töölö and Hermanni.

Another private line (built by Aktiebolaget M.G. Stenius) linked the existing HRO tracks in Töölö to Munkkiniemi and Haaga.

In 1926, HRO acquired Aktiebolaget M.G. Stenius and, two years later, Brändö Spårvägsaktiebolag also passed into HRO ownership. As a result, HRO again became the sole owner and operator of trams in Helsinki.” [16]

The tram network reached its apex in 1930, when the network covered a larger area than ever before, … there were 14 lines in operation.” [16]

The first trams built in Finland for Helsinki came from Suomen autoteollisuus in 1940–1941. HKL 169 photographed on line 5 in 1957, © Public Domain. [7]

At the end of 1944 the City of Helsinki acquired the entirety of HRO, which now became a municipal transport authority under the name Helsingin Kaupungin Liikennelaitos (HKL)” [16]

During the 1950s a total of 105 Finnish-built double-bogie trams (Karia types HM IV and HM V, Valmet types RM 1 and RM 3) were delivered to the HKL.” [16]

The Karia HM IV was a Finnish-built tram  delivered in the mid-1950s, © Kari Paavola (2004), permission to use here has been requested. [8]

Two other images of the Karia HM IV can be found on these links:

https://transphoto.org/photo/527278

https://transphoto.org/photo/527279

The Karia HM IV was a classic Finnish-built tram that operated in Helsinki during the 1950s and 1960s. Delivered in the mid-1950s, these double-bogie “Mustang” derivatives were foundational in modernizing Helsinki’s local public transport network before the introduction of the modern tram fleets.

Tram No. 11, type HM V, on Line 2 in September 1999, © Peter Van den Bossche and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 2.0). [6]
Tram No. 339 is a restored Valmet RM1 type tram owned by Stadin Ratikat Oy, on charter drive on the new tracks on Fredrikinkatu in Kamppi in April 2009. It was built in 1955 and withdrawn from active service in 1987 and subsequently used as an advertisement tram before being acquired by Stadin Ratikat and then taken to Tallinn for restoration in 2002. The restoration was completed in Helsinki in 2004, © Kalle Id, and  licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 3.0). [9]
A Valmet RM3 tram photographed by Leino Osmo in 1965 held by Helsinki City Museum, © Public Domain. [11]

Despite the experience of the ‘experiment’ reported by The Modern Tramway in 1951. Helsinki planned on the gradual removal of its trams. … “During the 1960s all plans for expanding the tram network were put on hold while resources were concentrated on the planning of the metro and additional bus connections. At the same time plans were drawn for the termination of the tram network by the year 2000. In 1969 Helsinki city council made the decision that in the future tramlines would be confined to the inner city, while the metro would serve the suburban areas; the tram system would be terminated, at earliest in the year 2000. This decision required the acquisition of new trams to replace the last two-axle trams, the oldest of which dated from the 1920s. Originally the plan was to acquire fairly new second-hand articulated Duewag GT6 trams from Copenhagen, but the deal fell through and in the end new articulated trams were acquired from Valmet (type Nr I) in 1973–1975. These trams were planned to be the last trams to be acquired for traffic in Helsinki.” [16]

Valmet Nr 1 Tram No. 34 in Hakaniemi on line 7A. This tram was built in 1973, © Kalle Id and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 3.0). [12]

The ‘Valmet Nr I’ trams are articulated six-axle vehicles built at the Valmet aircraft factory between 1973 and 1975, they are based on the German Düwag GT6 design. About 50 of these iconic high-floor vehicles remain in regular service across the city’s network. [13]

During the early 1970s the decision to terminate the tram system was reconsidered and eventually reversed. In 1976, the tram network was expanded for the first time since 1955, when the new connection into Itä-Pasila was opened (then line 2, present line 7). Another expansion was opened in 1980, when tracks in Katajanokka were expanded eastward to a new residential area (then line 5, present line 4). In 1981 another group of articulated trams, based on the Nr I type, were ordered from Valmet. Classified as Nr II, these trams were delivered between 1983 and 1987, allowing the withdrawal of the majority of the 1950s-built trams (types HM IV and RM 1 in their entirety), as well as withdrawal of all trailers.” [16]

A Valmet Nr II Tram, vehicle No. 99, Valmet Nr II trams were delivered to Helsinki between 1983 and 1987. [My photograph, September 2016]
A Valmet Nr II Tram, vehicle No. 92. The NrII trams were modernized between 2006 and 2011 to include a low-floor section, becoming known as MLNRV class. The added sections were built by Verkehrs Industrie Systeme in Germany and installed in Finland by HKL. [My photograph, September 2016][10]
The NrII trams were originally painted in an orange and grey livery, but it proved unpopular and both classes were later repainted in the traditional yellow and green colours. This is NrII number 73 in Market Square on line 1, 1987, © Felix O, and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 2.0). [15]

In 1985 the tram network was extended to West Pasila (line 7). In the mid-1980s the tram lines were radically reorganised: line 5 was closed down and the routes of lines 2, 3B, 3T, 4, 7A, 7B, 8 and 10 altered to a smaller or larger degree.” [16]

The next expansion of the network occurred in 1991, when the connection from Ruskeasuo to Pikku Huopalahti was opened (line 10). In the 1990s wide-ranging plans were made for expansion and improvement of the tram system. These included the Jokeri orbital light rail line connecting Itäkeskus to Leppävaara, extensions of the system to Munkkivuori, Koskela, Viikki, Malmi, Arabianranta and to the harbour areas Jätkäsaari, Munkkisaari and Kalasatama, which were to be freed from shipping activities and to become brownfield sites for residential and office development. In addition to the extensions, the plans included a partially tunneled light rail line linking Erottaja to Pasila via Töölö.” [16]

In 1999, Helsinki purchased a fleet of low-floor Variotram trams from Adtranz (which became Bombardier in 2001). The new generation trams suffered from persistent technical difficulties and the whole batch has to be returned to Germany. To cover their absence the city purchased ten second-hand trams from Mannheim, Germany.

Wikipedia informs us that, “The purchase of the Bombardier trams was never completed due to the reliability problems. Instead, a deal was reached that required Bombardier to keep a certain minimum number of trams in operation. Bombardier opened its own depot in Helsinki for this purpose in mid-2008.” [16]

An articulated, low-floor tram on Kaivokatu, outside Helsinki Railway Station. This tram is a Bombardier Variotram MLRV2, This specific tram, identified by number 225, is shown traveling on line 6T toward Arabia. [My photograph, September 2016]

The purchase of a new series of 40 low-floor trams was initiated in 2007, and the trams were eventually ordered from the Finnish manufacturer Transtech in December 2010. Two photographs of these trams appear below. …

Another articulated, low-floor tram at the tram stop on Kaivokatu. This is a Škoda Artic tram. This series of trams was designed specifically for Helsinki’s challenging conditions by the Finnish manufacturer Transtech Ltd, which is part of Škoda Transportation. [My photograph, September 2016]
Another view of a Škoda Artic articulated tram also on Kaivokatu, © Bahnfrend  and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 4.0). [14]

The extension of the network from Arabia into the new residential development area in Arabianranta (lines 6 and 8) was … opened in 2004. Line 6 was extended from Arabia to Arabianranta in 2004 and line 8 from St. Paul’s church in 2007. The new number 9 line opened on 10th August 2008, connecting Kolmikulma in central Helsinki to East-Pasila and replacing bus line number 17, albeit having been truncated from both ends compared to the initially planned version. This marked the opening of the first new tram line in Helsinki since the (re-)opening of line 2 in 1976.” [16]

“The first phase of the extension of line 8 to Jätkäsaari was opened on 1st January 2012, and the extension of line 9 to the ferry terminal in Jätkäsaari via Kamppi on 13th August 2012.” [16]

Some interesting trams need to be noted:

  • From the autumn of 2010 to December 2012, a Culture Tram was operated for limited hours on three days of the week (Wed, Thu, Fri) on the additional line no. 5, whose route ran from Ooppera to Linjat via Rautatientori. The Culture Tram had various art exhibitions and performances on board. Highlights included performances by the singers of the Finnish National Opera and concerts as a part of the Flow Festival. The tram is an eight-axle Duewag tram, originally purchased from Mannheim, Germany, and refurbished specifically for this purpose. It is retained as part the fleet and available on charter basis for events that could use the equipment installed in it. [16]
The Culture Tram once ran regularly on Line 5. It is now available on a charter basis, © JIP and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 3.0). [17]
  • The Pub Tram – Spårakoff is currently under renovation and temporarily unavailable. It is a tram converted into a pub, touring the central sights of Helsinki city centre. The ride features beer, wine, cider, refreshments, fun and great views. There is even a toilet on board. It is an historic HM V type tram converted to be used as a bar! Two photographs appear below. …
A HM V tram which has been kitted out as a pub. [My photograph, September 2016]
Another view of the ‘pib tram’ taken late in the evening and a little out of focus. [My photograph, September 2016]

As of 2 September 2024, the network consists of 11 individually numbered city centre tram lines and one numbered light rail line. Lines 1 and 8 operate on a slightly different route during weekends when they go to the West Harbour terminal, indicated with a “T” suffix on the line number. Lines 3N and 9N are operated on a slightly modified line 3 and 9 route respectively during night time. The light rail line 15 is currently the only tram line in Helsinki to also reach the neighbouring city of Espoo, all other lines travel inside Helsinki only.” [2]

References

  1. K. A. Larsen; Reinstatement of a Street Tramway Route in Helsinki; in The Modern Tramway, Volume 14. No. 162, June 1951, p 138.
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_Helsinki, accessed on 17th May 2026.
  3. https://www.reddit.com/r/TransitDiagrams/comments/14ft4sz/map_of_the_tram_system_of_my_hometown_helsuinki_in, accessed on 17th May 2026.
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASEA, accessed on 17th May 2026.
  5. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Horse-Tram-1988.jpg, accessed on 17th May 2026.
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_trams_in_Helsinki#/media/File%3ATram_2_in_Helsinki.jpg, accessed on 17th May 2026.
  7. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HM_I_tram_Helsinki.jpg, accessed on 17th May 2026.
  8. https://phototrans.eu/14,55273,0.html, accessed on 17th May 2026.
  9. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RM1_Kamppi_2009-04-03.jpg, accessed on 17th May 2026.
  10. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MLNRV_Hakaniemi_2010-05-03.JPG, accessed on 17th May 2026
  11. https://www.finna.fi/Record/hkm.674CAE85-12DF-4246-B249-596DF1703379, accessed on 17th May 2026.
  12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valmet_Nr_I#/media/File%3ANr_I_34_in_Hakaniemi.jpg, accessed on 17th May 2026.
  13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valmet_Nr_I, accessed on 17th May 2026.
  14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_Helsinki#/media/File%3AHKL_HST_Artic_435%2C_Kaivokatu%2C_2019_(04).jpg, accessed on 17th May 2026.
  15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_trams_in_Helsinki#/media/File%3ANrII_tram_in_Helsinki_in_1987.jpg, accessed on 17th May 2026.
  16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_trams_in_Helsinki, accessed on 27th May 2026.
  17. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_trams_in_Helsinki#/media/File%3AHelsinki_Culture_Tram_from_the_outside.jpg, accessed on 17th May 2026.
  18. https://www.raflaamo.fi/en/restaurant/helsinki/sparakoff, accessed on 17th May 2026.
  19. https://finland.fi/life-society/trams-carry-the-future-in-helsinki-and-elsewhere-in-finland, accessed on 21st May 2026.

The Modern Tramway May 1952 – Metrovick Electrical Equipment

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 – December 1951 – The New German Standard Tramcar

The featured image for this article shows the prototype Standard Tramcar on the streets of Hanover, © Streek en Stadsvervoer, Public Domain. [1: p280]

During the 1950s, German trams transitioned from older, war-damaged wooden vehicles to new, streamlined standard designs that supported the postwar Wirtschaftswunder (economic miracle). Standard designs emerged in both East and West Germany, heavily influencing urban transit.

In West Germany, operators sought to replace aging fleets with standardized models to streamline manufacturing and repairs:

  • The Verbandswagen (VÖV): Developed by the Association of Public Transport Companies (VÖV) starting in 1950. These were traditional two-axle trams that could be built quickly using existing components but featured a more modern, modernized exterior.
  • DÜWAG Großraumwagen: (Articulated Trams) Introduced in the early 1950s by DÜWAG (Düsseldorfer Waggonfabrik), these four-axle, bogie-mounted trams revolutionized West German transit. They featured wide doors for easy boarding, large windows, and better passenger flow.
  • Munich’s M-Wagen: Built by Josef Rathgeber, the first units of this iconic, four-axle, bogie-style tram were introduced in 1949/1950 to begin rebuilding Munich’s transport network.

The Modern Tramway writes, at the end of 1951, about a standard tramcar being developed by committee in West Germany in the very early 1950s which would become known as the DÜWAG Großraumwagen (DÜWAG Articulated Tram):

“The tramway sets of the large German cities normally consist of one 4-wheel motor car and two 4-wheel trailers, each with a length of 8 to 10 metres, and each capable of transporting about 70 persons. In contrast with the post-war construction programmes of other European countries, German post-war tramcars have for the most part adhered to this tradition, as witness the 4-wheel K.S.W and Aufbau types of which some hundreds are now in service. Exceptions are the 1949 6-wheel cars of Munich and the 1950 bogie cars in Hamburg, high-capacity cars operating in trains of two cars (motor and trailer) only.

“Early in 1950, it was announced that a Committee, consisting of representatives of the tramcar-building industry and of several West German tramways (among them Hanover, Düsseldorf, Wuppertal, Cologne, Duisburg and Dortmund) were working on plans for a standard tramcar which would compare with the latest models of other countries, notably the U.S.A., Sweden and Switzerland. The car would be an all-electric single-ended unit about 14 metres long, mounted on two 4-wheel bogies equipped with the latest rubber springing devices, and capable of transporting 100 passengers; a two-car train of such cars (motor car and trailer) would therefore replace three-car train of the usual 4-wheel cars, with consequent economy in staff. Pay-as-you-pass operation with a seated conductor would be incorporated, since the load would exceed the capacity of a mobile conductor.

“The first prototype car and trailer began to take shape late in 1950 at the works of the Düsseldorfer Waggonfabrik in Düsseldorf, to the order of the Hanover tramways, who meanwhile evolved and constructed the special electrical equipment. The car and trailer were delivered to Hanover in March of this year, and entered public service on 28th April for the period of the Heavy Industries Fair. It is fitting that the honour of operating the first car should be accorded to the Hanover tramways, since the General Manager, Dr. Ing. Philipp Kremer, played the leading part in the evolution of the design and the principles which have led to its realisation. Numerous visits were made to other European countries operating modern tramcars to study features not hitherto tried in Germany, and in the case of the Belgian P.C.C. cars and certain other modern designs we were privileged to supply Dr. Kremer with material from the files of The Modern Tramway.

“The details which follow refer specifically to this initial prototype train for Hanover, since many details of the final standard design will be decided only after experience is gained with several slightly differing prototype cars operating in different cities:” [1: p273]

The principle dimensions of the prototype tram. [1: p273]

“The all-steel body, so constructed that damaged parts can be replaced rapidly in case of minor collisions, has a rounded form and a sharply inclined front windscreen to minimise reflections from the brightly-illuminated car interior. The electrically worked folding doors are of a new design with increased window-space, the motor car has three doors at the rear, giving one double-width and one single width opening: passengers enter by these doors and congregate on the large rear platform before paying their fares to the seated conductor and passing to the saloon. The conductor’s desk is placed immediately forward of the rear entrance, with a good view of passengers boarding.  Exit is by means of a double-width door in the centre of the car and a further double width exit is provided at the front, the doors of which are controlled by the motorman. An ordered flow of passengers is thus ensured, from the rear of the car to the centre and front, and once passengers are accustomed to the system a marked reduction in loading and unloading time is expected. The trailer has the same treble width rear entrance, but as in this case the seated conductor has to control both entrance and exit doors, the latter, again treble-width, are located in the centre of the car only and the front exit is dispensed with. As the cars travel only with closed doors, roof ventilators are provided, together with opening upper portions to all windows. It is hoped in particular that the folding doors will eliminate accidents caused through passengers attempting to ride on the steps or to board or alight from cars in motion.” [1: p274]

A schematic drawing on which individual prototypes were based. The Hanover variant of the design is shown here, with the inclined windscreen. [1: p274]

“The Hanover motor car and trailer are mounted on a type of 4-wheel inside-frame bogie truck developed by the Waggonfabrik Uerdingen in 1938, and used also for the post-war fleet of bogie cars in Hamburg. Special emphasis is placed on the elimination of noise, by incorporating rubber in the springing and elsewhere. The motor car has rubber-insert resilient wheels of the Swedish S.A.B. design; the trailer uses the recently-patented resilient wheel of the Bochumer Verein. These features combine to give a remarkably quiet and shock-free ride.

Wagonfabrik Uerdingen (Uerdingen Wagon Factory), merged with Düsseldorfer Waggonfabrik (Düsseldorf Wagon Factory) in 1935. The firm operated under the name DÜWAG (or Duewag) and was one of the leading manufacturers of railway and tramway vehicles in Germany. In fact, from the 1960s onwards, Duewag, had close to a monopoly of the market in Germany.

In the 21st century, the firm is a manufacturer of regional and high-speed trains as part of Siemens Mobility. [5][6]

Over the years Duewag produced a series of different rail vehicles and tram/light rail vehicles including: the Duewag T4 tramcar; the Duewag GB6 tramcar; the Duewag GT6 tramcar in various versions; the Duewag GT8 tramcar in various versions; the Duewag GT12 tramcar; the SL79 trams in Oslo; Hanover’s TW 400 trams; Hanover’s TW 6000 trams; Stadtbahnwagen Type M/N trams/light rail vehicles used by  in used by several Stadtbahn and tramways in Germany, Austria, Poland, Romania and Turkey; Stadtbahnwagen Type B vehicles used on Stadtbahn networks in North Rhine-Westphalia, Bursa and Turkey; SSB DT8 used on the Stuttgart Stadtbahn system, produced in multiple iterations by various manufacturers; Hong Kong Light Rail Phase 1 (Comeng); Phase 2 (Kawasaki); and Phase 3 (A Goninan) bogies; Siemens-Duewag U2 which was used on the Frankfurt U-Bahn, Edmonton LRT, the Calgary CTrain), the San Diego MTS, in Mendoza, and in Sacramento; Siemens SD-400 for the North and South American market, and
Siemens-Duewag Supertram for use on the South Yorkshire Supertram light rail network.

Resilient wheels of the Swedish S.A.B. (Svenska Aktiebolaget Bromsregulator) design are specialized railway wheelsets featuring a sandwich of compressed rubber pads inserted between the central wheel hub and the outer steel tire. This elastic connection significantly dampens noise, absorbs high-frequency vibrations, and reduces wear on both tracks and rolling stock. Not just suitable for trams, these wheels have a heavy rail application as well, and are standard for BR Class 86/2 electric locomotives. [7]

The Modern Tramway article continues:

“The electrical equipment of the prototype tram was devolved and constructed in the Glocksee workshops of the Hanover tramways. The controller has 20 driving notches (12 series and 8 parallel, the last notch with 50% field-weakening) and 17 braking notches, and is mounted beneath the floor of the car, between the trucks. it is actuated mechanically from the motorman’s position by means of an ingenious rod-and-bevel-gear device, which allows the motorman, using his hand-wheel, to regulate the controller exactly as if it was mounted on his driving platform. This feature was developed during the war by the Hanover tramways, and has given good service on the modern 4-wheel cars of the 222-231 series; it renders the controller immune to collision damage and greatly reduces the amount of wiring necessary. An inspection hatch is provided in the floor of the saloon. The four AEG half-voltage GBM 320 type motors have a rating of 50 kW. and permit a high rate of acceleration and a speed of 60 km.p.h. in normal service.” [1: p274]

AEG GBM 320 50kW motors were direct-current (DC) series-wound traction motors which were manufactured by AEG and SSW (Siemens-Schuckertwerke) and were widely used in mid-20th-century European light rail vehicles.

The Modern Tramway article continues:

“Braking is effected on the motor car as follows:

1. By an electric brake with 17 notches, the current thus produced also applying the disc brakes of the trailer car through solenoids, as is usual in Germany.

2. By an electro-magnetic track brake (four shoes with a force of 4,000 kg. each).

3. By a hand-lever-actuated oil brake working through brake drums on the armature shafts of each motor.

“The trailer also has a mechanical handbrake working on braking discs on each of the four axles. The track-brake shoes and the trailer solenoids are also wired for operation at 24 volts from the car’s battery, should the need arise.

“Secondary electrical equipment is grouped in a battery-fed 24 volt circuit (with a Bosch charging unit fitted with automatic cut-in and cut-out), and comprises: emergency lighting, twin headlamps (close and distant), rear light, door motors, moving trafficator-arms and regulation side-lamps, loudspeaker and optical signalling system with passenger-buttons. The provision of a low-tension supply enables normal automobile accessories to be used, with consequent economy. Current collection is by a twin-beam pantograph mounted well forward, and the motor car and trailer are joined by a Scharfenberg automatic coupling, incorporating all electrical connections, of the type used on the elevated railway (and the latest trams) at Hamburg. Normal bar couplings are provided at the ends of the train for use in emergency.

“The new Hanover train has undergone prolonged tests, and to the end of May the car had completed 11,000 km. in public service, an average of 220 km. per day.” [1: p275]

The Scharfenberg automatic coupling is a commonly used type of fully automatic railway coupling. Designed in 1903 by Karl Scharfenberg in Königsberg, Germany (today Kaliningrad, Russia), the coupler has gradually spread from transit trains to regular passenger service trains, although outside Europe its use is generally restricted to mass transit systems. [8]

The Modern Tramway article continues:

“A second 2-car train, differing in several important details, was completed at the end of May and delivered to the Rheinische Bahngesellschaft (Düsseldorf tramways); although the cars had not entered public service late in August their appearance on tests has caused much public interest by reason of their bold light green colour scheme. The motor car represents an attempt to drive both axles of a 4-wheel truck from one motor, mounted longitudinally, this feature is experimental, and further prototype cars will revert to the 4-motor principle using layouts and transmissions embodied in the P.C.C. car and the Swiss standard car respectively. The Düsseldorf car also lacks the inclined windscreen of the Hanover model. One prototype car will be constructed to the metre gauge, and operated for test purposes by the tramways of Wuppertal.” [1: p275-276]

The prototype Standard Tramcar on the streets of Hanover, © Streek en Stadsvervoer, Public Domain. [1: p276]

“Orders have already been placed for 70 of the standard cars, partly by means of special credits accorded by the Transport Ministry of the West German government; standard-gauge models are to operate in Düsseldorf, Dortmund, Cologne, Duisburg and on the Siebengebirgsbahn (Bonn), metre-gauge models in Wuppertal and Bochum-Gelsenkirchen. There is little doubt that, once the final design is evolved and mass-production commences, many further orders will be forthcoming.” [1: p276]

This was indeed the case

A significant number of these trams were delivered to tram networks around Germany. There were design differences which were requested by different networks. The most obvious difference between these trams was the design of the front windscreen.

“The single-ended trams featured three different types of windshields, each named after its initial design: a flat windshield (Düsseldorf type), a slanted windshield (Hanover type), and a split slanted windshield (Kiel type), derived from the American PCC tram . The double-ended trams all had flat windshields.” [4]

Furthermore, several licensed versions of this type were produced. These – almost all single-ended trams – were built between 1954 and 1977 under the direction of various companies and are, or were, particularly common in Austria .

The prototype Standard Tramcar on the streets of Hanover, © Streek en Stadsvervoer, Public Domain. [1: p280]

We have already noted that the very first DÜWAG articulated tram was delivered to Üstra in Hanover in 1951, followed by series production vehicles from 1952 onwards. In addition to Hanover, initially only Düsseldorf  received several prototypes. German Wikipedia tells us that, “Most operators did not procure series production trams until 1954, when the Duewag tandem drive with one motor per bogie became available. The Duewag articulated trams were also available as bidirectional vehicles . The electrical equipment and control systems were supplied by Siemens , BBC , or Kiepe Elektrik.” [4]

Keil: a Duewag large-capacity tramcar No. 251 at the Schloßgarten stop in June 1963, is just one example of the ubiquity of the standard tram design. [9]

How come, Germany has so many cities with their own tram network?

In the 21st century, Germany still has an extensive number of tramway networks (Straßenbahn in German) … Some of these networks have been upgraded to light rail standards, called Stadtbahn in German. Straßenbahn and Stadtbahn schemes are usually operated on the legal foundation of the BOStrab, the Tramways Act of Germany.” [2]

Tram, Stadtbahn, U-Bahn and S-Bahn schemes in Germany, © Maximilian Dörrbecker (Chumwa) and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 2.5). [2]

Tramways served as the primary means of urban transport in Germany until the early 1960s when they were systematically replaced by buses. However, in the 1980s tramways began to reappear; experts spoke of the ‘renaissance of the tramway’. In the 1990s tramways had again become a modern means of public transport. Popular notions of fashion have been used by scholars to explain this cycle of acceptance rejection and restoration. Tramways were a highly visible manifestation of commodity culture and people projected onto them not just travel destinations but more broadly their desires, ideas and beliefs.” [2]

In the early 1950s, electric trams were still the backbone of German urban transport. However, later in the decade, the rise in private car ownership led to a car-centric shift. Many cities—particularly in West Germany and West Berlin—viewed trams as old-fashioned and began replacing them with buses and underground metros (U-Bahn). [3]

These plans were only partly fulfilled due to high costs and booth Munich and Nuremberg ended up retaining and later expanding portions of their tram networks. Other cities, like Hanover and Stuttgart, pursued a middle ground by putting trams in tunnels through the city centre with the intent to eventually convert them to an U-Bahn. By the 1980s, virtually all German cities abandoned these costly full-conversion schemes and trams stayed on the surface.” [3]

So, Germany kept, and modernised, many of its tram networks. “Today, an unrivalled 60 cities still run trams, stitching together new housing, walkable neighbourhoods and low-car lifestyles. This essay shows how those tracks survived the mid-century cull and why they remain a cornerstone of Germany’s greener, people-first urban renaissance.” [3]

In East Germany, trams were even more dominant. Socialist transport policy emphasised public transport, and funding was limited for widespread motorways. As a result, every major East German city kept its trams and many were expanded. Leipzig, Dresden, and Magdeburg extended tram routes into new Plattenbau (prefabricated apartment) quarters during the 70s and 80s. Tram networks continued to be expanded after reunification. In East Berlin a 4.5km tram line opened in 1991 through the large Hellersdorf housing estate, providing crucial links to a growing suburban district. Reunified Germany inherited a robust base of tram systems across both East and West.” [3]

‘Creat Strreets’ [3] tell us that factors which led to many more tram networks being retained than in other countries such as the UK and the USA include:

  • Economic realities: A postwar economic boom in the UK and US meant that car ownership skyrocketed. Meanwhile, Germany was still in a deep economic depression. After the formation of West Germany in 1949, federal and state governments continued to provide funding for municipally owned transport companies, including trams.
  • Policy and planning: German cities remained denser, more compact, and more mixed-use and city councils were pragmatic about transport. German tram companies often remained publicly owned and focused on long-term service. By the 1970s, the oil crises also reminded Germany of the value of electric transport, helping halt further closures.
  • Cultural differences: It’s difficult to understand Germany’s decision to retain trams without understanding that to German policymakers keeping trams would have seemed like the pragmatic, sensible and safe option, whereas a switch to buses would have been an unknown risky option. Furthermore, unlike in the UK and US where trams came to represent the past and the car became an important status symbol, public transport in Germany never acquired a social stigma. Trams were not associated with poverty or obsolescence, but rather with efficiency. German cities were among the first to recognize the downsides of car dependency, too: pollution, congestion, and hollowed-out city centres. Rather than widening roads and doubling down on motorways, cities such as Freiburg reinvested in trams as part of traffic calming and pedestrianisation strategies.
  • Continuous modernization: Rather than letting systems decay, German operators never stopped investing in new tramcars and technology. From the 1950s, Düsseldorf based DÜWAG began supplying West German cities with modern articulated trams, and cities like Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, and Hannover introduced new, higher-capacity trams. This kept service quality high and public support strong. Trams were reimagined as a modern, attractive, clean transport, integrated into pedestrian zones and designed with attractive vehicles and stops. In contrast, many North American and British trams had been neglected and unmodernised, making buses seem like an improvement in comparison.
  • The tram-train: Germany was an early adopter of the tram-train (or “Stadtbahn”) concept that mixes tram and metro elements. The best-known example is in Karlsruhe. By using dual-voltage tram vehicles, Karlsruhe linked street tramlines to existing regional rail tracks, effectively merging local and regional transport. This model has since inspired tram-trains in cities like Saarbrücken and Kassel and in Cologne and Frankfurt some tram lines go underground and now run as light-rail metros in the centre while still operating on streets in outlying areas. It’s a case where Germany led in expanding tram usage at a time when others were only starting to consider reintroducing trams.
  • Pragmatism: Where other countries pursued replacing trams with buses, German cities often kept trams that still served dense areas well. They chose a flexible approach which allowed for gradual upgrades rather than wholesale dismantling.
  • Strong municipal operators: Many tram systems remained in the hands of publicly accountable city utilities, giving them a long-term investment outlook. This made it easier to plan for continuity and renewal.
  • Public acceptance and use: Even during the car boom of the 1960s and 70s, trams were well-used. As other forms of transport became congested or expensive, trams kept their niche and their advocates.
  • Return on Investment: Returns for trams was higher than for road-building, particularly when urban regeneration effects were included. A 2025 study by MCube and the Technical University of Munich, commissioned by Deutsche Bahn, found that every €1 spent on local public transport generates around €3 in added economic value for Germany’s GDP.

References

  1. The New German Standard Car; in The Modern Tramway, Volume 14, No. 168, December 1951, p273-276 & p280.
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_Germany, accessed on 20th May 2026.
  3. https://www.createstreets.com/the-country-that-never-tore-up-its-tracks, accessed on 20th May 2026.
  4. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duewag-Gro%C3%9Fraumwagen, accessed on 20th May 2026
  5. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waggonfabrik_Uerdingen, accessed on 20th May 2026.
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duewag, accessed on 20th May 2026.
  7. https://trid.trb.org/View/18694, accessed on 20th May 2026.
  8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scharfenberg_coupler, accessed on 20th May 2026.
  9. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stra%C3%9Fenbahn_Kiel, accessed on 20th May 2026.

The Modern Tramway 1951 – Some Advertising

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.

The Modern Tramway – July 1951 – Pittsburgh: An American Tramway Stronghold

The Modern Tramway of July 1951 included an article by A. A. Jackson about the tramways of Pittsburgh. [1]

The featured image for this article is a vintage Presidents’ Conference Committee (P.C.C.) tramcar- No. 1604. It is from the 1600 series of P.C.C. cars, operated by Pittsburgh Railways and is pictured on Line 49 bound for Beltzhoover. This photograph was taken during the 1970s, © Voogd075 and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 3.0). [2]

Pittsburgh is situated at the point where the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers converge to become the  River Ohio, historically it is the most important Iron and Steel Centre in the United States.

Jackson wrote:

“It is also one of the greatest American Tramway strongholds. The present population of the city is just under 674,000 and the surrounding industrial area is densely peopled.

Public transport began in 1859, when the first horse cars ran, and up till 1902 there were a large number of competing tramway companies. In that year, these companies were brought together under the Pittsburgh Railways Company, which is still the operator today [(late ,1950)]. There are now 1,187 trams, 666 of them being P.C.C. cars. There are over 542 miles of 5ft. 2 in. gauge track. This network of 79 routes sprawls over the whole urban and suburban area, serving more than 50 communities from Sewickley in the west to Trafford and Pitcairn in the east and from Aspinwall and Etna in the north to Washington and Charleroi in the south. These latter two places are about 28 and 20 miles respectively from the centre of the city and the tramway routes serving them are of interurban character. The Charleroi line actually runs beyond that town to a point further south in the borough of Roscoe. It has a branch to Donora and California. Half-hourly service is provided on these two interurban lines.

“Many of the suburban routes have private right-of-way and reserved track.” [1: p160]

The tram fleet owned by the Pittsburgh Railway Company. [1: p160]
South Hills Junction, with P.C.C. car on service 37, © Public Domain. [1: p162]

“All tram services are designated by numbers (1 to 99, with gaps) and by names which usually indicate the district served or the principal street the route traverses, All-night cars operate in most districts between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. “Car Stop” discs are attached to the overhead wire and at heavy loading points where more than one car loads at the same time, special signs are placed on the overhead wires reading: ‘First Car’, ‘Second Car’ and, in some cases, ‘Third Car’.

“The first P.C.C. car arrived on 26th July, 1936, and the remainder were delivered (all from the St. Louis Car Co.) as follows: 1937 (175 cars), 1938 (25 cars), 1940 (100 cars), 1942 (100 cars), 1944 (50 cars), 1945 (115 cars), 1948 (100 cars). Included in the 1945 batch was No. 1600, the first standard 1945 model all-electric, standee-window P.C.C. car to be produced. It was included as a sample model by agreement. (All subsequent P.C.C. cars ordered after 1945 were standardized to that design (with ceiling fans and monitor roof optional) replacing the electric-air operated, non-standee window P.C.C. design originating in 1935).” [1: p162]

Interurban P.C.C. car No. 1613 at Cannonsburg, © Public Domain. [1: p162]

“Thirty-seven of the P.C.C. cars have been modified for interurban operation on the Washington and Charleroi lines. These modifications include replacing Clark B-2 trucks with St. Louis B-3 trucks, replacing H-B. lifeguard fenders with ‘cow-catchers’, provision of sirens, cash registers and an emergency tool kit over the windows ahead of the centre doors. The cars are also equipped with baggage racks. Some of the interurban P.C.C. cars are also equipped with radio telephones. Pittsburgh is the only system using single-ended, single-unit P.C.C. cars in long distance interurban service and the only system to use all-electric cars on this type of service. All Pittsburgh’s P.C.C. cars are one-man operated, with front entrance (P.A.Y.E.) and centre exit.” [1: p162-163]

Tram No. 1614, emerging from the tunnel at South Hills Junction, running outbound from Pittsburgh to Washington Pa.) on the inter-urban route. This junction carries 6 city and 2 inter-urban services, all operated by PCC. cars. [1: p163]

Tram No. 1647 outbound from Washington Junction to Washington (Pa.). This tramcar is one of 12 specially equipped for inter-urban service with type B3 trucks, siren, emergency tool kit and cash register. [1: p163]

At its height, the Pittsburgh Railways Company operated 666 P.C.C. streetcars, the third-largest fleet in North America, after Toronto (745) and Chicago (683). The network comprised 68 streetcar routes, of which three remain in operation in partially modernized form as part of the Pittsburgh Light Rail system. [3]

Financially, the Pittsburgh Railway Company struggled. Its lease and operate business model proved hard to support and the company declared bankruptcy twice, first in 1918 lasting for 6 years and then again in 1938, this time lasting until 1st January 1951. Company costs rose in the early twentieth century. PRC faced constant pressure from the city to improve equipment and services and workers would walk out when a pay raise was rejected.

When A.A. Jackson was writing about the network for The Modern Tramway, the company was still in bankruptcy.

On 26th July 1936, the PRC took delivery of P.C.C. streetcar No. 100 from the St. Louis Car Company. It was placed in revenue service in August 1936, the first revenue earning PCC in the world. The company went on to purchase a very large number of these vehicles in batches of 100 on most occasions. Jackson’s table giving details of the PRC fleet (above) shows that after purchasing car No. 100 in 1936: cars 1000-1099 were purchased/leased in 1937; cars 1100- 1199 were purchased/leased in 1937/1938; cars 1200-1299 were bought/leased in 1940; cars 1400-1499 arrived in 1942; cars 1500-1564 were purchased/leased in 1944/1945; cars 1600-1699 arrived in 1945; cars 1700-1799 arrived in 1949. During much of this time the PRC was bankrupt.

Despite the size of the network, it was not able to withstand the winds of change and large scale abandonments of lines began in the late 1950s, usually associated with highway or bridge work. [3]

As examples:

  • highway improvements in the Duquesne-McKeesport area resulted in the replacement of tram services with buses on 21st September 1958;
  • The replacement of the Point Bridge with the Fort Pitt Bridge precipitated the abandonment of many routes to the West End, all on 21st June 1959. In the end, the company had to abandon 27 miles (43 km) of street track in situ and was awarded $300,000 as compensation.

These events “marked the beginning of significant abandonments: 90 percent of the network was dismantled over the next decade.” [3]

A network that seemed to A.A. Jackson to have a bright future was by 1970 a pale shadow of the network in the early 1950s.

Similar things were happening in respect of the PRC Interurban network:

  • The Charleroi interurban line was cut back to the Allegheny County border at Library (Simmons loop) in June 1953. It continued to operate until the 1980s as 35 Shannon-Library and became the southern portion of 47L Library via Overbrook when Light Rail Vehicles (LRVs) replaced [trams]. The [tram] loop was removed in 2004. In 2010 this line became the Blue Line – Library, and in 2020 was renamed the Silver Line – Library.” [3]
  • The Washington line was cut back to the county boundary at Drake in August 1953 and eventually became the 36 Shannon-Drake. This in turn became the southern portion of 42 South Hills Village (excluding the new link from Dorchester to South Hills Village, which was built in 1984). The final portion of the interurban from Dorchester to Drake was renamed 47 Drake, finally closing in 1999 and bringing to an end P.C.C. Streetcar operation in Pittsburgh.” [3]
P.C.C. No. 1791, route 10 West View. [4]

Pittsburgh Light Rail

The Pittsburgh Light Rail is the successor to the original Pittsburgh Railway Company. Some residual parts of the old network are in use as part of the Pittsburgh Light Rail system.

The Pittsburgh Light Rail (commonly known as The T or the Trolley) is a 26.2-mile (42.2 km) light rail system in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, serving the city and surrounding suburbs. The system operates as a deep-level subway in Downtown Pittsburgh, but runs mostly at-grade in suburban areas south of the city. It is largely linear in a north–south direction, with one terminus near the central business district and two termini in the South Hills. The system is owned and operated by Pittsburgh Regional Transit.” [5]

The Pittsburgh Light Rail network is made up of three lines – the Blue Line, the Red Line and the Silver Line. This map shows the three lines superimposed on an OpenStreetMap base layer. [6]

The system is one of the surviving first-generation streetcar systems in North America, with portions of the network dating to 1903, when they were operated by the Pittsburgh Railways Company. It is one of three light rail systems in the United States that continues to use the broad 5 ft 2 1⁄2 in (1,588 mm) Pennsylvania trolley gauge rather than the 4 ft 8 1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge. In 2025, the system had a ridership of 3,104,400.” [5]

On 1st March 1964, the PRC system “was acquired by the newly established Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT), which also assumed operations of more than 30 other transit companies in the region, including bus operators and the incline lines. The state hoped the consolidation would help stabilize the system as the private companies all had separate fare structures, labour agreements, and, in some cases, overlapping routes, while ridership had declined in the preceding years.” [5]

PAT undertook a program of consolidation and modernisation. MOT tram routes were converted to bus operation which it believed reflected lower operating and maintenance costs and reduced capital requirements. “By the early 1970s, only a small number of trams routes remained, primarily those using the Mount Washington Transit Tunnel to reach the South Hills, retained in part because they operated on private rights-of-way separate from street traffic.” [5]

PAT also planned to introduce guided busways. The programme was given the name ‘Skybus’. However investment was curtailed in the late 1970s because of public opposition.

Stage I

Planning shifted toward reconstructing the remaining tram lines as a modern light rail system, resulting in a ‘Stage I’ plan, the first phase of a broader program to develop a new light rail network. “The project included reconstruction of the Beechview line, construction of a short branch to South Hills Village, and a 1.1-mile (1.8 km) subway through downtown. Reconstruction of the existing line included double-tracking formerly single-track segments, replacing jointed rail with continuous welded rail, and upgrading the overhead power system to modern catenary.” [5]

A Blue Line train crosses the Panhandle Bridge and approaches First Avenue station in April 2023, © Cbaile19 and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC0). [8]

“Only the busiest stops were rebuilt with high-level platforms, while lower-ridership stops retained low-level, street-level boarding. Because this work preceded the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, full systemwide accessibility was not required. The design also allowed continued operation of P.C.C. cars on unmodified portions of the network, with some shared stations providing both high- and low-level boarding.” [5]

Construction started at the end of 1980. The first modern light rail cars began operating on 15th April 1984. A full service across the subway, the rebuilt Beechview line, and the South Hills Village branch was operating by July 1985. [5]

Funding for upgrades to the segment of the line between Castle Shannon and South Hills Junction was approved in May 1985, including $20 million in federal grants. The entire Stage I project was declared complete on 22nd May 1987, at a total cost of $522 million, which included the purchase of 55 light rail vehicles. [5]

Southbound Blue Line train departs Station Square, heading into the Mount Washington Transit Tunnel. The Blue Line operates between Pittsburgh’s North Shore and South Hills Village via Downtown and the neighborhoods of Knoxville and Overbrook, as well as Castle Shannon and Bethel Park. The line operates over the Overbrook line and the South Hills Village line, © kaffeeeinstein and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 2.0). [9]

Stage II – The Overbrook Line

“The line from South Hills Junction to Castle Shannon via Overbrook (now called the Overbrook Line, part of the Blue and Silver lines) was first constructed by the Pittsburgh and Castle Shannon Railroad (P&CSRR) between 1872 and 1874. In 1905, Pittsburgh Railways leased the route, and between 1909 and 1910, converted it to dual gauge, retaining the existing narrow gauge for the coal-hauling trains and adding the broad 5 ft 2 1⁄2 in (1,588 mm) Pennsylvania tram gauge for passenger service using trams (streetcars). While the line was electrified with overhead power, the coal trains continued to use existing steam locomotives.” [5]

The Beechview line was rebuilt during the 1980s, but the Overbrook line remained largely unchanged and continued to be operated using P.C.C. cars. “The reconstruction of this line would be part of the Stage II project, to be performed at a future date pending additional funding. However, the condition of the track and infrastructure of the Overbrook line continued to deteriorate and in 1993, Pittsburgh Regional Transit determined the line to be unsuitable for safe operation in its current state and suspended service on the line. The line remained dormant until 1999, when the PRT broke ground on the Overbrook Line reconstruction project.” [5]

The rebuilt Overbrook line was essentially an entirely new line built along the original line’s right of way. As had been done with the Beechview line prior, the rebuilt line was completely double-tracked with continuously welded rail, pandrol clip fixation, upgraded catenary and signaling, and other improvements. The rebuilt line included eight accessible stations with high-level platforms; unlike the Beechview line, no street-level stops were retained. The Overbrook line reopened in June 2004, at a total cost of $386 million, including the cost of purchasing 28 LRVs. Coinciding with the opening, Pittsburgh Regional Transit purchased 28 additional light rail cars to support the line and increase overall system capacity. At this time, the 55 existing cars were completely rehabilitated as well. In addition, as part of the Stage II project, upgrades to the traction power network, Operations Control Centre, and signals and communications had been implemented.” [5]

Southbound Red Line train at Westfield, September 2015. The Red Line runs between South Hills Village and Downtown Pittsburgh via the Beechview neighbourhood, © Cbaile19 and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC0). [10]
Northbound Silver Line train near Mesta, December 2020. The Silver Line operates between Pittsburgh’s North Shore and Library via Downtown and the neighborhoods of Knoxville and Overbrook, as well as Castle Shannon and Bethel Park, © Sebileis2017 and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 4.0). [11]

North Shore Connector

In January 1999, Pittsburgh Regional Transit began planning for the construction of a light rail line to connect Pittsburgh’s Downtown and North Shore. Federal funding was approved for the extension on 6th February 2004.

The main project involved twin-bore tunnels below the Allegheny River to connect a refurbished Gateway Station, which was the former Downtown terminus, to North Side station, located just west of PNC Park, and Allegheny station, located just north of Heinz Field. The completed project opened to the public on 25th March 2012. The final cost was $523.4 million. [5]

Route map of the three lines on the Pittsburgh light rail system, © Haha169 and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 4.0). [7]

2024–2028 Rail Replacement Projects

From 2024 to 2028, PRT is undertaking a system-wide program of track rehabilitation across the network. The work includes phased closures, single-tracking, and temporary service reroutes. … In 2024, sections of the Red Line were closed for track replacement, resulting in single-tracking operations, shuttle bus substitutions, and a temporary Red Line Short service between Dormont Junction and Overbrook Junction. During part of this period, Red Line trains were also rerouted over the Blue Line alignment.” [5]

That programme continues in 2026.

Future light-rail and rapid-transit extensions are mapped out in the 25-year ‘NEXTransit‘ plan. [12]

Rolling Stock

The majority of Light Rail Vehicles (LRVs) in use on the network are Siemens SD-400 units, introduced to the network between 1985 and 1987. These units were rebuilt by CAF (Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles) in 2005‍–‍2006 and are currently numbered from 4101‍–‍4155. (Seven units salvaged for parts, then scrapped.) CAF also supplied 28 of their own design of LRV between 2003 & 2004. [5]

References

  1. A. A. Jackson; An American Tramway Stronghold; in The Modern Tramway, Volume 14, No. 163, July 1951, p160 & p162-163.
  2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PCC_uit_de_1600_serie_op_lijn_49_BELTZHOOVER.jpg, accessed on 18th May 2026.
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_Railways, accessed on 18th May 2026.
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_Railways#/media/File%3APCC_uit_de_1700_serie_op_lijn_10_WEST_VIEW.jpg, accessed on 18th May 2026
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_Light_Rail, accessed on 18th May 2026.
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_Light_Rail#/map/0, accessed on 18th May 2026.
  7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_Light_Rail#/media/File%3APittsburgh_T_System_map.png, accessed on 18th May 2026.
  8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_Light_Rail#/media/File%3APanhandle_Bridge_from_First_Avenue_Station%2C_2023-04-21.jpg, accessed on 18th May 2026.
  9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Line_(Pittsburgh)#/media/File%3AT_Lightrail_an_der_Station_Square_03.jpg, accessed on 18th May 2026.
  10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Line_(Pittsburgh)?wprov=rarw1#/media/File%3ARed_Line_Car%2C_Beechview%2C_2015-09-10%2C_02.jpg, accessed on 18th May 2026.
  11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Line_(Pittsburgh)?wprov=rarw1#/media/File%3ASilver_Line_(cropped).jpg, accessed on 18th May 2026.
  12. https://nextransit.network, accessed on 18th May 2026.