Flicking through a number of old magazines passed to me by a friend here in Telford, I came across a supplement published by The Railway Magazine in December 1990, “Eric Treacy: The Classic Years.” [1]
The Rt. Revd. Eric Treacy MBE, LLD, Lord Bishop of Wakefield from 1968 until 1976, died on Appleby Station on 13th May 1978. He left behind a large collection of railway photographs, taken over more than four decades.
In 1932, he was ordained deacon in the Church of England and priest a year later, serving as curate at Liverpool parish church from 1932 to 1934. [4] Wikipedia tells that “he took up railway photography, being inspired by visiting Liverpool Lime Street and getting to know his parishioners who worked on the railway. His photographic work appeared in various magazines during the 1930s.” [3]
His railway photography “was interrupted by the Second World War when he served as Military Chaplain. On 12th March 1940, he was commissioned as Chaplain to the Forces 4th Class (equivalent to captain). [5] On 10th May 1945, it was announced that Treacy had been Mentioned in Despatches ‘in recognition of gallant and distinguished services in North West Europe’. [6] He was promoted to a Chaplain to the Forces 3rd Class (equivalent to major). On 24th January 1946, he was appointed a Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE).” [7][3]
In 1946 Treacy published his first book which contained images of L.M.S. locomotives. [8] On demobilisation he became Rector of Keighley and in 1949 was appointed Archdeacon of Halifax. [9] In 1961, he became Bishop of Pontefract [3] and in 1968, Treacy became Bishop of Wakefield. [1: p2]
The Railway Magazine Supplement comments that Treacy was “a devout man of the church as well as a talented lineside photographer (and frequent footplate passenger!) his atmospheric work never failed to portray his passionate love of railways, quickly establishing him as one of Britain’s foremost railway photographers.” [1: p2]
By 1935, “he was sending work regularly to The Railway Magazine signed ‘Rev E. Treacy, 2 Edge Lane, Liverpool’, showing London Midland & Scottish trains, many of them still worked by former London & North Western Railway locomotives, around that great city. Shap was an early discovery, and he spent many hours walking the fells and awaiting Anglo-Scottish expresses as they slogged their way to the summit. The zenith of his work undoubtedly came with the Stanier Pacifics, and to those who remember, it is virtually impossible to think of Eric Treacy without also the thunderous reminder of a ‘Princess Royal’ or ‘Coronation’ Pacific unleashing its full fury against that formidable climb with 15 bogies and more in tow.” [1: p2]
Lorna Hogger says that “Treacy befriended drivers and firemen in his congregation and often persuaded them to make smoke effects for his pictures. … He took time to plan his photographs days in advance, checking the weather and position of the sun at the time the train was due, and coming to know the locations well. Treacy rarely took unplanned shots, the equipment and large glass negatives being too expensive for acting on impulse.” [8]
Lorna Hogger also tells us that Treacy “joined the Railway Photographic Society in 1935, but unlike many of his peers he described his pictures as ‘emotional rather than technical’, enabling him to create stunning landscapes. This is evident in the photograph below which shows a goods train crossing the Ribblehead Viaduct.” [8]
The Railway Magazine Supplement continues: “No less atmospheric were his photographs of departures from major stations: think of Treacy, and sooty masterpieces of ‘Royal Scot’ or ‘Patriot’ 4-6-0s getting to grips with heavy trains at the foot of the deep rock cuttings out of Liverpool Lime Street come to mind, or perhaps an A4 Pacific trying to find its feet at the head of an Edinburgh-bound express at Kings Cross.” [1: p2]
The Railway Magazine Supplement concludes: “Throughout the transformation of the ‘Big Four’ to British Railways, and into modernisation when diesel locomotives began appearing on major routes, Treacy was there, and his legacy of ‘Deltics’ at Leeds or ‘Peaks’ on trans-Pennine services have all the richness and imagination of his steam photos.” [1: p2]
Photograph albums of Treacy’s work include:
Canon Eric Treacy; My Best Railway Photographs: No.1 L.M.S.; Ian Allan Ltd, London, 1946.
Eric Treacy; Roaming the Northern Rails; Ian Allan Ltd, London, 1976.
Eric Treacy; Roaming the East Coast Main Line; Ian Allan Ltd, London, 1977.
Eric Treacy; Lure of Steam; Ian Allan, London, 1969, 1980.
Eric Treacy; Glory of Steam; Ian Allan, London, 1981 (reprint?)
G. Freeman Allen; Great Railway Photographs by Eric Treacy; Peerage Books, London, 1982.
P.B. Whitehouse & G. Freeman Allen; Eric Treacy: Railway Photographer; David and Charles, Newton Abbott, 1983.
P.B. Whitehouse & J. Powell; Treacy’s Routes North; 1985.
P.B. Whitehouse & J. Powell; Treacy’s British Rail; 1990.
Eric Treacy; Portrait of Steam; 1991(reprint).
Eric Treacy; The Best of Eric Treacy; Atlantic Transport Publishers, 1994.
David Jenkinson & Patrick Whitehouse; Eric Treacy’s L.M.S.; Oxford Publishing Company, 1988.
References
Eric Treacy: The Classic Years; in The Railway Magazine (supplement), December 1990.
P.W. Gentry wrote about Stockport’s trams in the July 1949 issue of Modern Tramway.
He says: “Besides possessing several interesting features of its own, the Stockport system today commands added attention as the last last surviving member of that once network of standard gauge undertakings encircling Manchester. It is an unusually pleasing system by virtue of its compact and simple arrangement, its focal point being Mersey Square.” [1: p123]
The article in Modern Tramway caught my attention because for about 9 years I worked in Stockport as a highway engineer.
This is a second article looking at Stockport Corporations Tramways. The first article which looked at the history of the network and followed one axis of that network can be found here. [2]
Mersey Square was the main hub of Stockport’s tramway network and appeared as a schematic plan in Gentry’s article in The Modern Tramway. …
Before looking at the remaining tram routes operated by Stockport Corporation it is worth noting the trams which Stockport Corporation used to operate the network. P.W. Gentry listed these as follows:
This table is taken from Gentry’s article. [1: p126]
Edgeley to Mersey Square and Mersey Square to Reddish andGorton
This first axis of the network was covered in my first article about Stockport Corporation Trams, here. [2] Two further axes are worth our attention: the first, below, that between Gatley and Bredbury; the second that between Manchester and Hazel Grove.
Gatley to Mersey Square and Mersey Square towards Bredbury
Tram services entered Mersey Square and crossed the Mersey. Services to the West of the town commenced here and ran along Princes Street to Bridge Street. That length of the network is covered in an earlier article which can be found here. [2]
We resume this article at the Northeast end of Princes Street and its junction with Bridge Street and then follow the route to Hyde.
This completes the length of the tramway from Stockport to Hyde. The next article in this short series will cover the line from Manchester to Hazel Gri
References
P.W. Gentry; Stockport Corporation Tramway; Modern Tramway, Vol. 12 No. 138, June 1949, p123-126.
Harry Postlethwaite, John Senior & Bob Rowe; Super Prestige No. 14, Stockport Corporation; Venture Publications, Glossop, Derbyshire, 2008. This document is made freely available by MDS Books as a .pdf: https://www.mdsbooks.co.uk/media/wysiwyg/Stockport_Download_1.pdf, accessed on 14th January 2025.
The Modern Tramway reported in December 1950 on the purchase by the Sudan Light & Power Company of the new 4-motor bogie tramcars. The bogies and equipment were being “supplied by the English Electric Company and the underframes and bodies by Charles Roberts and Company Ltd., under sub-contract to the English Electric Company. All motor tramcars and trailers [were to] be fitted with air brakes. As will be seen from the drawing reproduced, the body design [was] a pleasing example of modern British practice. The trailer cars [were] of similar outline.” [1: p270]
I published an article about the railways/tramways of Sudan in May 2022. That article can be found here. [7] This present article should be seen as an addendum to that article.
The image is embedded from Getty Images. It is a high-angle view of pedestrians, cars and an EEC tram &n trailer at the tram terminus in Omdurman, Sudan, circa 1955. The tramline connects Omdurman, on the west bank of the River Nile, with Khartoum. (Photo by Three Lions/Hulton Archive/Getty Images). [4]
The Modern Tramway continues:
“Electric tramway operation in Khartoum began on 16th January, 1928 when the line from Khartoum North to Omdurman via Khartoum and the White Nile Bridge was opened. The Khartoum Tramways were the first electric tramways in the Sudan and transport in the city and outskirts had been previously provided by two steam tramway lines, which were closed on the opening of the electric line.” [1: p270]
The Modern Tramway describes the electric tramway which replaced the steam-powered trams:
“The present rolling stock of the 3ft. 6 n. gauge Khartoum tramways consists of 16 single-truck motor trams, 15 4-wheel trailers, one 4-wheel electric locomotive and 30 goods trucks. All the stock was built by the English Electric Company Ltd. Four passenger services are operated, viz:
Khartoum Central Station Omdurman Central Station (5 miles).
Khartoum Central Station Khartoum North (3) miles).
Omdurman Central Station Abu Rouf (14 miles).
Circle (12 miles).” [1: p270]
“Headways are 18, 20, 20 and 30 minutes respectively. In addition a freight service is operated between Khartoum railway station and Omdurman. The main Iine begins at Khartoum North (where it made end on junction with a steam tramway to Shabat Reach, a service now operated by motor buses) and shortly turns south to cross the Blue Nile; on gaining the other bank, the line turns east, passing through the main part of Khartoum and running parallel to the Blue Nile. On this section there is the main depot and a large loop which runs round to the Central Station and the back of the city before turning north to rejoin the main line. At Mogren Point, the main line crosses the White Nile and immediately turns north towards Omdurman; this city stretches for 6 miles along the river and during the régime of the Mahdi it became the capital of his empire. The city is memorable for the battle fought outside its walls in 1898 between the followers of the Mahdi and the British. Some distance after turning north, there is another depot at Zaptia, on the western side of the line. At Omdurman Central Station the tramway turns east, back towards the river Nile, which it reaches at Abu Rouf, the final terminus. From this point, there is a ferry service to the terminus of the former steam tramway at Shabat Reach on the other side of the Nile. The tramways are all single-line-and-loop and there are several goods sidings. In 1948, 8,883,851 passengers were carried, whilst goods traffic averages 12,000 tons yearly.” [1: p270-271]
“At the time of the inauguration of the electric tramways it was thought that due to the very dry nature of the ground in Khartoum, satisfactory earth points could not be obtained for earthing the track for a track return system. It has since been established that it is possible to provide earth points, and the new trams will operate on the normal single overhead and track return system.” [1: p271]
The Modern Tramway acknowledged the help of the Sudan Light and Power Company Ltd., who provided the information on which these notes are based.
References
Modern British Tramcars for Khartoum; in The Modern Tramway Vol. 13 No. 156, London, December 1950, p270.
P.W. Gentry wrote about Stockport’s trams in the July 1949 issue of Modern Tramway.
He says: “Besides possessing several interesting features of its own, the Stockport system today commands added attention as the last last surviving member of that once network of standard gauge undertakings encircling Manchester. It is an unusually pleasing system by virtue of its compact and simple arrangement, its focal point being Mersey Square.” [1: p123]
This article in Modern Tramway caught my attention because for about 9 years I worked in Stockport as a highway engineer.
We know that tramways arrived in Stockport in the 1880’s from the Manchester direction when “the Manchester Tramways and Carriage Co, Ltd., [opened] a horse-car service into Mersey Square via Levenshulme.” [1: p123]
In 1889, the Stockport and Hazel Grove Carriage and Tramway Co. Ltd. was formed and “instituted horse car services southwards to Hazel Grove and Edgeley at Easter 1890.” [1: p123]
Stockport tramcar No. 5, dating from 1901, is preserved at the Heaton Park Tramway. The lower saloon of tramcar No. 5 was recovered from a field, where it had been used as a hen house, in 1971. It was restored by the ‘Stockport 5 Tramway Trust’. It now runs on the Heaton Park Tramway, a tramway museum in Heaton Park, Manchester. [2]
Stockport Corporation began tramway operations when, in 1890, “an Order under the Tramways Act was obtained for the construction and operation of electric tramways. Work commenced in Sandy Lane on 12th February 1901 and the three routes projected were opened in stages.” [1: p123]
Woodley Route: to Woodley Station by 26th August 1901; and Pole Bank by 30th May 1902.
Reddish Route: to Sandy Lane by 3rd September 1901; to Holdsworth Square by 30th May 1902; and to the Bull’s Head in Reddish by 25th November 1903.
Cheadle Route: to the Robin Hood on Brinksway by 23rd January 1902; to Cheadle Heath Bridge by 25th July 1903; to Cheadle Green by 5th May 1904; and to the Horse & Farrier, Gatley Green by 24th May 1904.
In parallel, negotiations secured the purchase of the horse tramways. First, the Levenshulme line (which was electrified by Manchester Corporation by 1903 and maintained by them). The Stockport & Hazel Grove undertaking was purchased in 1994 for £14,000 and electrified by 5th July 1905.
Tram service No. 35 was by then running from Manchester to Hazel Grove.
Mersey Square was the main hub of Stockport’s tramway network. …
The National Library of Scotland retains three digital versions of the OS 25″ mapping:
An extract from Map: Cheshire X.15; Ordnance Survey, 25 inch to 1 mile; revised: 1907; published: 1932 which shows Mersey Square as it was in 1907. It seems as though publication of this map was delayed for 25 years! [6]An extract from Map: Lancashire CXII.9; Ordnance Survey, 25 inch to 1 mile; revised: 1917; published: 1922, which shows Mersey Square as it was in 1917. [7]An extract from Map: Lancashire CXII.9; Ordnance Survey, 25 inch to 1 mile; revised: 1934; published: 1936, showing Mersey Square as it was in 1934. The tram depot has been enlarged and the additional depot on Heaton Lane constructed. Heaton lane Depot is accessed via the branch West off Wellington Road. [8]
The sequence of extracts from the Ordnance Survey’s 25″ series of maps shows the development from 1907 to 1934. The most significant changes in that period were: the dualling of the trackwork on the A6 South of the Square; and the development of the Tram Depot. As can be seen from the map extracts, the main depot building was widened to reach the river bank and then extended Southwest towards Mersey Square. A surprising change appears in the latest extract – the conversion of the dual track work on Chestergate where it passes under the A6, Wellington Road to a stretch of single track.
Mersey Square in 1932, seen from the West. This image was shared on the Memories of Stockport Facebook Group on 19th January 2021 by Chris Paul. [13]
The 1930s to the 1970s saw major changes to the centre of Stockport. The River Mersey was culverted from Mersey Square, Northeast to Bridge Street and a dual carriageway road was created along the line of the River Mersey. This new road was not used by trams but it altered traffic arrangements at Mersey Square while it was in use.
The construction of Merseyway in the 1930s is nearing completion in this photograph which was shared on the Memories of Stockport Facebook Group on 18th October 2020 by Dave Moran. [12]The view Southwest from Bridge Street, showing the dual carriageway over the River Mersey in the mid-20th century. This image was shared on the Memories of Stockport Facebook Group on 26th June 2020 by Julian Ryan. [9]Merseyway was built on a series of reinforced concrete portal frames spanning the river. Given the positioning of the vehicles on the structure, this image probably comes from while the road was closed. The image was shared on the Memories of Stockport Facebook Group on 26th September 2018 by Marilyn Ann Cronshaw. [11]Merseyway is seen from the Southwest, looking Northeast in the mid-20th century. The tram depot is on the left. This image was shared on the Memories of Stockport Facebook Group on 10th August 2020 by Keith Povey. [10]A final view of Merseyway as a road across the roundabout at its Southwest end in Mersey Square. The photograph was taken from Wellington Road and it was shared on the Memories of Stockport Facebook Group on 6th October 2020 by Mark Lloyd. [14]Mersey Square seen from the Southeast in 1948. The oddly shaped roundabout at the end of Merseyway is on the right with the old fire station above it. This image was shared on the Memories of Stockport Facebook Group on 28th August 2023 by Michael Sidebottom. [15]Traffic emerging from Mersey Square onto Wellington Road (A6). Manchester is away to the right, Hazel Grove to the left. Heaton Lane Tram Depot is beyond Wellington Road on the right of the image. This photograph was shared by Marilyn Ann Cronshaw on 24th June 2015. [16]Mersey Square, Stockport in the 21st century. [Google Maps, January 2025]
By July 1905, the network was “in its final shape, with a total route mileage of 19.46. Of this, however 2.51 route miles (Vernon Park Pole Bank) was the property of Bradbury and Romiley Urban District Council, 1.64 miles (Cheadle Heath Bridge Gatley Green) belonged to Cheadle and Gatley U.D.C. and 0.88 miles to Hazel Grove and Bramhall U.D.C., all these sections being leased to Stockport Corporation for operating purposes. The total length of track over the system as a whole was 34.03 miles, and the cost of track construction averaged the modest figure of £7,227 per route mile.” [1: p124]
In addition to joint working with Manchester Corporation, a similar arrangement was made with “The Stalybridge, Hyde, Mossley and Dukinfield Transport and Electricity Board, Pole Bank being the point of connection between the two systems. Stockport cars were operated through to Hyde Town Hall from 1st January, 1903, when the Pole Bank Hyde line was the property of the Oldham, Ashton and Hyde Electric Tramways, Ltd., a B.E.T. subsidiary, but it was not until 1923, when this undertaking sold out to local authorities and the Hyde – Pole Bank section was taken over by the Joint Board, that mutual through running could be started. A joint S.H.M.D.-S.C.T. service was introduced in March 1925, between Hyde and Edgeley via Mersey Square and continued until the Joint Board ceased to operate trams on 26th May, 1945. Thereafter, Stockport maintained the service unaided until 2nd March, 1947, when buses took over and the trams were cut back to Vernon Park.” [1: p124]
The withdrawal of the through services into Manchester occurred in the late 1940s but, Gently says, “luckily, only one section of the purely local system [had] suffered likewise, that being the Cheadle-Gatley section, on which buses were substituted on 21st September 1931. An early trolleybus route to Offerton was given up as impracticable many years [earlier].” [1: p124]
Wikipedia tells us that the fleet of tramcars steadily increased, with the Corporation owning a total of 87 double-deck electric tramcars through the life of the system, [3] although the highest number at any one time was 85 [4] and numbers settled down at 82, “all of which [were] of the single-truck top-covered vestibuled type with an average seating capacity of 60. Only 26 cars [had] open balconies, and these [were] used only at peak periods; ten of them [had] reversed staircases. The 56 totally enclosed cars [included] 30 which [were] fully upholstered on both decks, the seats being particularly deep and comfortable. The car [equipment comprised] Westinghouse, DK.30 or DK.35 motors and Dick, Kerr DB.1 (form K3) controllers, and hand-operated track brakes [were] fitted on account of the steep gradients. In 1944, the fleet numbering was re-arranged with the primary object of grouping together between 1 and 29 all those cars which, on account of a low bridge near Bredbury, had low-built top-covers, these being identified by a large H (denoting “Hyde,” the route concerned) on either side of the headlamp.” [1: p124] This was needed until abandonment of the lines beyond Vernon Park rendered this unnecessary. [5]
Most of the network survived the Second World War but was progressively closed in 1950 and 1951, only surviving for a short while after the Modern Tramway article of 1949. … “The Crossley Road to Hazel Grove route was the first to go, on 14th January 1950, followed by the Edgeley to Vernon Park route on 3rd March 1951, the Cheadle route on 10th April 1951 and finally the Reddish line on 25th August 1951.” [3]
Wikipedia also explains that: “The Corporation also ran a small trolleybus line, using three vehicles which collected current from the overhead lines using the German Lloyd-Kohler system, the only use of this system in Britain. The route opened in 1913, but the onset of the First World War made obtaining spare parts from Germany impossible, and it ran intermittently, due to maintenance problems. It was replaced by motor buses in 1920.” [3]
It is interesting to note that the deals made with adjacent networks “allowed long journeys to be made by tram, with the route from Hazel Grove to Seaforth Sands near Liverpool being 51.5 miles (82.9 km). One lady is known to have travelled between Liverpool and Stockport for pleasure on several occasions, although it took almost a whole day to reach her destination.” [3]
Gentry noted that Stockport’s track was “double throughout on the Levenshulme, Cheadle Heath, Edgeley and Hazel Grove routes and mostly so on Reddish except between the top of Lancashire Hill and Clare Road; this latter section, together with Princes Street and most of the Vernon Park route [was] single-and-loop. The rail used [weighed] 101 lbs. per yard. The chief depot [was] located in Mersey Square, with a subsidiary depot nearby in Heaton Lane.” [1: p124]
Trams ran through St. Peter’s Square and down the ramp into Mersey Square. The tram stop was in the centre of the paved area with both the Tram Depot and the Fire Station close by.
Reddish Road then turns to the North and later to the Northwest.
Another extract from the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1934 (this sheet published in 1935). The tram tracks turned with Reddish Road as the road ahead led to Reddish Station forecourt. [36]As this next extract from the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1934 shows, trams followed Reddish Road over the railway via Reddish Bridge and on to Holdsworth Square. [36]North of Holdsworth Square trams ran North along Gorton Road crossing the LMS & LNER Joint Railway between Manchester and Hayfield adjacent to that line’s Reddish Station. The location is shown on this extract from the 1934 25″ Ordnance Survey. [37]
The next map extract and photograph show the terminus of the route we have been following from Mersey Square to Gorton. …
This first article has looked at the history of Stockport Corporation’s Tramways and has highlighted two of the tramway routes operated by Stockport Corporation. The line from Edgeley to Mersey Square and the line from Mersey Square to Gorton. Subsequent articles will look at other routes operated by the Corporation.
References
P.W. Gentry; Stockport Corporation Tramway; Modern Tramway, Vol. 12 No. 138, June 1949, p123-126.
Harry Postlethwaite, John Senior & Bob Rowe; Super Prestige No. 14, Stockport Corporation; Venture Publications, Glossop, Derbyshire, 2008. This document is made freely available by MDS Books as a .pdf: https://www.mdsbooks.co.uk/media/wysiwyg/Stockport_Download_1.pdf, accessed on 14th January 2025.
The June 1950 issue of The Modern Tramway carried a report by A. A. Jackson on the tramways in the French port of Marseilles.
Marseilles sits in a natural basin facing West into the Mediterranean and surrounded by hills on three sides. Jackson’s article was based on personal observations in 1945 and later information provided by D. L. Sawyer and N.N. Forbes. He writes:
“The suburbs extend to the lower slopes of these surrounding hills and they are connected to the centre of the city by a tramway system that is now the largest in France. The original operator was the Compagnie Genérale Française des Tramways (Réseaux de Marseille) but the tramways have been under sequester since 1946. The route mileage at the present time is kilometres and the gauge is standard (i.e. 1.44 metres).
The important dates in the history of the system are:
1873: First horse tramway. (This date is questioned by other sources with 1876 being quoted for the first use of horse-drawn trams. The French Wikipedia entry talks of planned routes dating from 1873 but the concession only being awarded in 1876.) [2][3][16]
1876: C.G.F.T. acquired the tramways (excluding the Aix interurban).
1890: Electrification begun.
1904: C.G.F.T. acquired and electrified the steam railway, L’Est-Marseille.
1907: Allauch (12 km.) and La Bourdonnière (12 km.) routes opened.
1910: Electrification completed. Le Merlan route opened.
1922: First rolling stock modernisation began.” [1: p134]
These dates are not comprehensive. Jackson was writing at the end of the 1940s and could not be expected to cover later events. It is worth noting Wikipedia’s comment that, “Unlike most other French cities, trams continued to operate in Marseilles, even as through the 1950s and beyond trams disappeared from most cities around the world. The original tram system continued to operate until 2004, when the last line, Line 68, was closed. Trams remained out of operation for three years between 2004 and 2007, in advance of the effort to renovate the tram network to modern standards.” [2]
The Tramways of Marseilles in 1949. [1: p134]
Wikipedia says that “the network was modernised by the constant introduction of newer tramcars, to replace the older ones. In 1938, thirty-three trailers were recovered from Paris. These meant that reversible convoys could be operated. In 1939, the tramway company owned and operated 430 tramcars, 350 trailers and 71 lines.” [2]
A 1943 proposal would, if it had been realised, seen tunnels provided in the centre of Marseilles, the busiest lines would have been brought together in two tunnels. This project did not come to fruition.
Wikipedia continues: “In 1949 a further modernisation occurred. The first articulated tramcars was designed and built (Algiers tramway possessed articulated SATRAMO tramcars). These were created by joining two older tramcars. These tramcars remained unique [in France] until 1985 when Nantes tramway opened.” [2]
The city council did not want to keep its network of trams. The haphazard modernisation of tramcars was evidence of the council’s intentions. “The process of replacing tramways with trolleybuses and buses began after World War II in 1945 and accelerated from 1950. The first closures meant that Canebière was tramway-free from 1955. The last closure occurred on 21st January 1960.” [2] But not all lines closed. …
Line No. 68 opened in December 1893 and is the only tramway line to remain in service during the later part of the twentieth century. It “stretched from Noailles to Alhambra, serving La Plaine, the Boulevard Chave, the La Blancarde railway station and Saint-Pierre cemetery. The central terminus [was] situated in a tunnel. This tunnel, built in 1893, [was] unique in France and was built to give access to the city centre, avoiding the narrow streets of some of Marseille’s suburbs. Because of the problems involved in converting the line to bus use it was decided to keep the line operational.” [2]
Line 68 [was] 3 km (1.9 mi) long and was out of use for a few years. The decision to modernise it was taken in 1965 and the line had reopened by 1969 when twenty-one PCC tramcars were purchased and the whole track relaid. “The first of the PCC cars arrived on 26th December 1968 and the first tram went into service on 20th February 1969. The last of the old tramcars was withdrawn that spring. Modernisation resulted in an increase in passengers. Numbers increased from 4,917,000 passengers in 1968 to 5,239,000 in 1973.” [2]
The PCC cars were later modernised in 1984. Three new cars were delivered and all cars made into double cars. The line operated successfully until 2004 when it closed for reconstruction. After refurbishment, “the short section between La Blancarde and Saint Pierre was reopened as part of a new network on 30th June 2007. The section along Boulevard Chave to Eugène Pierre [reopened later the same year] … the tunnel to Noailles was … [reopened in] …summer 2008.” [2]
Returning to Jackson’s article of 1949/50, he continues:
“The longest route is that to the industrial town of Aubagne, 17 km. inland (service 40) and this is further extended 14 km. eastwards by an original trolley-bus route (to Gémenos and Cuges). The Aubagne tram line, which also carries the associated service 12 to Camoins les Bains (12 km.) and a short working to St. Pierre (service 68), begins at the Gare Noailles, a sub-surface tramway station in the centre of the city and the trams leave this station in tunnel, proceeding thus for 1 km. with no intermediate stop, to emerge on a quiet, broad boulevard before branching, (service 12 to Camoins, 40 to Aubagne). After the junction, each of these two lines continues outwards on roadside reserved track for most of its length. The origin of these important suburban arteries was the steam railway L’Est Marseille which was constructed in 1892 from the Gare Noailles to St. Pierre, and converted to an electric tramway by the C.G.F.T. in 1904. Bogie cars and trailers provide a fast service on these routes and the local services to St. Pierre are worked by single-truck cars, One so often hears aesthetic criticism of tramways that it is interesting to note that a well-known League member once explored the Marseilles system and left the city, blissfully unaware of the existence of this interesting sub-surface terminus.” [1: p134-135]
“The other City termini are in side streets off the main thoroughfare La Canebiere (Boulevard Garibaldi, Alliées Leon Gambetta, Cours Belsunce, Cours Joseph Thierry) also opposite the Préfecture, and on the two main streets leading north out of the city (Place Jules Guesde and Place Sadi-Carnot). To cross the city involves a change of cars in all but one instance, the sole remaining cross-city service being No. 41, Chartreux St Giniez. Coastal lines extended to L’Estaque in the north-west and to La Madrague in the south, the latter serving the popular beach and pleasure resort La Plage du Prado (rather similar to Sunderland’s Sear burn route). Other lengthy routes (mostly with rural termini) are: Chateau Gom bert (5), La Bourdonnière (1) Allauch (11), Les trois lucs (7), Le Redon (24) and Mazargues (22 and 23). The circular service, No. 82, serves the residential and coastal areas to the south of the city and enjoys wide roads and unrestricted run ning over most of its length; it traverses the scenic Corniche for part of its run. This is one of the few routes on which cars may be seen running without the almost inevitable trailer. In the older parts of the city many of the streets are narrow, but the greater part of Marseilles is planned on the usual French pattern and therefore possesses wide streets and boulevards well suited to tramway operation. As in Italy, the track in the boulevards is often placed against either curb, well away from the main traffic stream, and in such places the parking of cars is strictly controlled to ensure that tramway operation is unrestricted. At boulevard intersections such as the Rond Point du Prado there are well planned circular layouts joining all tracks. Four-wheeled trolleybuses of standard design and small oil buses have replaced the trams on a number of strictly urban routes unsuitable for tramway operation (the oil bus substitutions are presumably an intermediate stage with the eventual intention that they be replaced by trolleybuses). These trolleybus and oil bus substitutions retain the old tramway services numbers although in certain cases the original tramway route has been extended or slightly modified. Mr. D. L. Sawyer, who was in Marseilles recently, reports that the trolleybuses are not unaffected by the daily shaking up they receive from the rough, uneven street surfaces which gives one cause to reflect that an effective trolleybus installation in many European cities would prove to be a very expensive business as the traditional street surfaces would need to be completely replaced with a surface rather more kind to the not-so-sturdy trolleybus. The tram tracks, which suffered badly from war time neglect, were very noisy in 1945, but they have now been put in excellent condition.” [1: p135-136]
The “Régie Départmentale des Chemins de Fer et Tramways des Bouches du Fer et Tramways des Bouches du Rhône formerly operated a reserved-track roadside electric tramway from Marseilles to the university and cathedral city of Aix en Provence, 29 km to the north. This line was physically connected, by end-on junction, with the Marseilles system, and its Marseilles terminus was at the Place du Change, by the Vieux Port. The dark blue and silver bogie cars, towing one or more heavy bogie trailers, operated an hourly service with a journey time of just under 90 minutes. The Aix terminus was at the extreme end of the main street, the Cours Mirabeau, at the Place Forbin, and the depot and works were situated at the Pont de l’Arc, Aix. This line was converted to trolleybus operation during the winter of 1948-49 and the main trunk road has thus been burdened with additional vehicles. Mr. Sawyer states that the trolleybuses have reduced the journey time considerably; this is hardly surprising as the trams they have replaced were not modern and the number of stops on the tram route was unnecessarily large. New tramcars and a certain amount of track re-alignment would probably have produced an even greater improvement than the trolleybuses it is certain that they would have been a better investment.” [1: p136]
Jackson reports on the rolling-stock in use on the network:
“The rolling stock of the Marseilles system is an interesting mixture of semi-modern and modernised cars, painted blue and cream and mostly of single-truck design. The trailers approximately equal the motor cars in number and are of even greater variety; one type, a covered toastrack, is known locally as ‘Buffalo’ and is very popular during the hot Mediterranean summer. Extensive use is made of twin-units in Marseilles thus obviating the necessity of shunting at termini. The cars are fitted with deep throated hooters and the sound of these, together with the clanging of the bells that announces the changing of the traffic lights is a characteristic of the city. The rolling stock is housed in five depots, all marked on the map, viz., Arenc, Les Catalans, Les Chartreux, La Capelette and St. Pierre. The repair and construction workshops are at Les Chartreux. The high price of materials and the financial situation forbid the purchase of new trams under present conditions and the current programme is therefore concerned with the rehabilitation of existing equipment. A fine and bold beginning has been made in car No. 1301, placed in service in the summer of 1949. This is an articulated car, built from two of the more modern motor cars and the result is a vehicle of pleasing and efficient appearance, 21 metres in length with a passenger capacity of 175 (35 seats) and a maximum speed of 50 km. per hour. One driver and one conductor only are needed (a saving of 35 per cent on personnel against the motor car and trailer type of unit); loading is through the front entrance, unloading through centre and rear exits. The car is double-ended and the doors are pneumatically controlled, one by the driver and the other two by the conductor. The tram cannot start until the central door is closed.
The tickets are issued on the usual carnet system and the books of tickets can be purchased at a reduced price at kiosks and tobacco shops, a book of twenty 5-franc tickets costing 85 francs. Two tickets are taken by the conductor for one section, three for two sections, and four for three sections or over. After 9 p.m. and on Sundays the rate is increased by one ticket and on special journeys to the Sports Stadium and Race Course, a minimum of five tickets is taken. The length of the sections is short and it is only on the longer suburban routes that the all-over fare becomes cheaper. Many cars are equipped for “pay as you enter” (although to use the word “pay” is not entirely accurate as the carnet system means that the conductor rarely handles money). On the Aubagne route (No. 40) a special fare tariff is in force; the complete journey requires five tickets costing eight francs each. Transfer tickets are not used as they have been declared unsuitable for Marseilles.” [1: p136-137]
The French Wikipedia entry for the trams of Marseilles gives some significant detail relating to the trams used on the network. The original, early, rolling-stock delivered between 1891 and 1925 was “cream-coloured, the colour adopted by the CGFT on all the company’s networks. All the motor cars had open platforms and could be transformed in summer, with the glass frames on the side walls being replaced by curtains. The numbers were painted in large figures on the four sides of the vehicles.” [16]
Two axle trams: [17]
No. 501 to 524, “Saint Louis” motor car, 1891-95, power: 2 × 12 hp , empty weight 6.7 tonnes, ex No. 201 to 224 before 1900; (Drawings can be found here. [18])
No. 525, prototype “K” engine, 1891-95, power: 2 × 27 hp, ex No. 301 before 1900;
No. 526-530, “P”, 1898, power: 2 × 27 hp, ex No. 1 to 5 Marseille Tramways Company
From 1925, the engine bodies were modernized. They were rebuilt with closed platforms and their capacity was increased. The trucks (chassis) remained original, but the electrical equipment was reinforced to gain power. This fleet was completed by two series of new engines. All modifications were made according to the criteria of the “Standard” type, a standard defined for vehicles to use the future tunnel network. [17][24]
Bogie trams: [17]
1200, prototype of a closed platform tram;
1201-1231, 1924, transformation of the “C” trams, 1002-1033, power: 4 × 32 hp, empty weight 16.4 tons;
2001-2004, 1929, known as “Pullmann”, delivered new, power: 4 × 42 hp, empty weight: 21.5 tonnes.
Trailers
The number of trailers varied between 400 and 500 depending on the period. The majority of trailers had 2 axles and were numbered in the series 1 to 500. These included: open trailers called “Badeuse” with side access to the rows of transverse benches; and closed trailers with access via end platforms. [17]
In addition there were a number of bogie trailers:
138-153, 1899, transformed into tram cars;
2051-2054, 1928, accompanying the “Pullmann” engines 2001-2004;
2201-2233, 1937, purchased from the STCRP (Parisian network) and coupled to the 1200 locomotives;
2551-2572, 1944, of the “Standard” type, coupled to the 1200 motor cars. [17]
Jackson continues:
“In 1945, overcrowding of trams had reached a peak as there then existed no other means of public transport and the number of cars in service had been reduced by the shortage of electricity and lubricants and the ravages of war-time lack of maintenance. Passengers were then to be seen riding on the steps, on the bumpers, on the roofs and even standing tightly jammed between the trailer and the motor car, precariously balanced on the couplings; indeed it was often difficult to see the cars for the passengers. This is only mentioned as a tribute to the sturdiness and reliability of electric tramways which here, as in many other cities all over the world, continued to operate and bear the brunt of all the city’s passenger traffic long after war conditions had forced other means of transport out of service.” [1: p137]
“With regard to the future, it is encouraging to know that the main tramway routes will be retained and modernised and that modern tramway equipment and reserved track routes of the electric light railway type will be a feature of the Marseilles of the future-a fine tribute to the planners of the original tramway system. It is officially recognised that trolleybuses would be unable alone to cope with the heavy traffic of this great French port, and only a small number of tram routes remain to be converted to trolleybus operation. Further tramway subways, including one under the Canebière, were proposed some years ago and it may be that these will, after all, be built as they would be considerably less expensive than the tiny network of underground railways that is part of the current plans.” [1: p138]
It is worth a quick look at the development of Marseille Metro further below.
Jackson also provides details of the different services in place in 1949 (his list was correct as at May 1949, but omitted some all-night services and short workings):
Line 23, Tram No. …34 (first digit not visible) in Place Castellane. This image is made available under a Creative Commons Licence (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0). [30]
The 21st Century
Marseilles modern tram network was inaugurated on 30th June 2007. The first phase of the new Marseille tram network opened on that date. It consists of one line linking Euroméditerranée in the northwest with Les Caillols in the east. Between Blancarde Chave and Saint-Pierre stations, it runs on part of the former Line 68.
“In November 2007, the portion of the old Line 68 between Blancarde Chave. and E-Pierre (near the entrance to the tunnel) reopened, and two lines were created. Line 1 links E-Pierre and Les Caillols, and Line 2 runs from Euroméditerranée to La Blancarde, where a transfer between the two lines was created. La Blancarde train station is a transit hub: a station on Line 1 of the Marseille Metro opened in 2010, and it has long been served by TER regional trains to and from Toulon.” [2]
“In September 2008, Line 1 was extended to Noailles via the tunnel formerly used by line 68. This tunnel now carries a single track since the new trams are wider than the [PCC trams]. In March 2010, Line 2 was extended 700 metres North from Euroméditerranée-Gantes to Arenc.” [2]
“In May 2015, the 3.8 km (2.4 mi) Line 3 was inaugurated. It shares Line 2 tracks between Arenc and la Canebière where Line 2 turns west. Line 3 continues South on new track through Rue de Rome to Place Castellane. Line 3 extensions south, 4.2 km (2.6 mi) to Dromel and la Gaye, and 2 km north to Gèze are planned. Tram Line 3 will therefore continue to run parallel to the Dromel-Castellane-Gèze Metro Line 2, which may limit its ridership.” [2]
Rolling-stock: “Customized Bombardier Flexity Outlook trams are used on the new tram line[s]. Composed of five articulated sections, they were 32.5 m (106 ft 8 in) long and 2.4 m (7 ft 10 in) wide. Twenty-six were delivered in 2007.[2][3] They were extended by 10 m (32 ft 10 in) by adding two additional articulated sections in 2012. [6] In 2013, six new Flexity were ordered for the T3 line.” [2]
“Their exterior and interior appearance was designed by MBD Design. [6] The exterior resembles the hull of a ship, and the driver’s cabin resembles the bow. A lighted circle displays the colour of the line the tram is on. Inside the tram, the floor, walls, and ceiling are coloured blue, and seats and shutters are made of wood.” [2]
“The tram network is run by Le Tram, a consortium of Régie des transports de Marseille and Veolia Transport. The proposal to privatize the operation of public transit was unpopular, and resulted in a 46-day transit strike.” [7]
Marseilles Metro
The Marseilles Metro is independent of the tram network. It consists of two different lines, partly underground, serving 31 stations, with an overall route length of 22.7 kilometers (14.1 mi). [10] Line 1 opened in 1977, followed by Line 2 in 1984. Two stations, Saint-Charles and Castellane , each provide interchange between lines. [11]
The mention of ‘Lickey’ in the railway press usually conjures up thoughts of the Lickey Incline and the bankers needed to enable steam-powered trains to make the climb.
In an article written in 1949 (Modern Tramway’s Prize Article of 1949) and published in February 1950, B.J. Pridmore prophetically proposed a Light Rail solution to anticipated traffic issues on the transport corridor centred on the Bristol Road.
Would cities in the UK which already had some reserved tram tracks have benefitted from forward thinking that sustained the use of trams through the latter years of the 20th century on tracks and routes which would be suitable for the current wave of Light Rapid Transit/Modern Tramway provision?
Here is Pridmore’s article in full (illustrations are from a variety of referenced sources):
“Summary
There are few cities with a passenger transport route so convenient for conversion to a rapid-transit light railway as is the Birmingham route to the Lickey Hills. In this article is submitted a scheme for such a conversion, describing the route, the alterations required to the track and vehicles, the attractive services which could be operated, and the possibility, in the future, of the possession by Birmingham of a true rapid-transit installation giving a public passenger transport system freed from the delays due to street congestion.
Introduction
The Lickey route of the Birmingham tramways extends about eight miles Southwest of the city, connecting it to the suburb of Edgbaston (2 miles) and the almost separate entities of Selly Oak (4 miles), Northfields (6 miles) and Longbridge (7 miles and location of the Austin Works), bifurcation at this point giving two termini at the dormitory villages of Rednal and Rubery on the edge of the Lickey Hills.
The traffic on this route is partly of a business character, with a morning peak to the city, two small mid-day peaks, outward and inward, from the city to Selly Oak, and the evening peak of outward-bound traffic. Superimposed upon this are the industrial peaks, of a general nature to and from the city, and of a concentrated nature in the opposite directions to and from the Austin Works at Longbridge. Further traffic is of an interurban nature: between each of the shopping centres of Northfields and Selly Oak as well as from each of these to Birmingham there is appreciable miscellaneous traffic. There is also considerable holiday traffic to the Lickey Hills on non-working days.
Services are operated from the city to Rubery and Rednal, with many short workings to Selly Oak, and extra mid-day journeys from Longbridge to Northfields and Selly Oak, whilst services on the inner (and suburban) section of the route are amplified by the superposition of those to and from Pershore Road (Cotteridge). which share the Bristol Road with the Lickey routes for the first two miles or so to the junction at Pebble Mill Road.
This trunk route with large and varied traffic and high load factor has already about three-quarters of its length constructed as reserved track. Much of this has recently been relaid “solid” on a concrete foundation, instead of on the ballasted sleepers as originally.
It has only two short gradients of any magnitude, and would thus seem ideal for gradual conversion towards an interurban light railway giving ample capacity on the route and removing public transport from the road proper, hence also reducing congestion in the bigger Birmingham of tomorrow for it is along this route that Birmingham seems ripe for the next phase of expansion.
In the remainder of this article it is suggested how, ultimately, this route should be converted to a light railway as a contribution towards ideal transport in the greater Birmingham of the future.
The Track and the Route
The present Navigation Street terminus loop should be improved to give loading islands outside two parallel tracks at the terminal loading point; the track layout should include crossovers to enable Pershore Road cars to be separated from Lickey cars, and Selly Oak and other short working cars to be separated from through cars (as will be needed for peak-hour services, q.v.). The one-way streets forming the loop are amply wide enough to permit the tram tracks to be relocated at the sides and be totally reserved; public transport would thus be segregated from the rest in this most congested section of the route.
Tram No. 842 sits at the Navigation Street terminus of the route from Birmingham to Rednal and Rubery. [3]The Navigation Street terminus of the tram service to and from the Lickey Hills. Tram services No. 70 and No. 71 circulated round the loop shown on this extract from the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1913 (published in 1918). [6]
The Bristol Road as far as Pebble Mill Road will ultimately have to be widened if traffic increases much more; but taking in part of the footways and front gardens would in general give room for the central eighteen feet of reservation which would suffice for the tramway. Alternatively, the reservation could be at the side and a three-lane road be left for the remainder of the traffic. As an interim measure local road-widening and the provision of loading islands with queue barriers, the former combined with pedestrian crossings, at the few important stops, should be undertaken.
The narrow road through Selly Oak and under the railway bridge presents the greatest obstacle; track reservation should be made when this is widened, while the provision of loading islands would seem the only present practicable measure.
The roads through Northfields and Longbridge are amply wide enough for a narrow track reservation (lacking the wide grass borders of the present reservations) and conversion of these sections to dual carriageway with central reservation for the tramway should be done as soon as the conversion scheme is commenced.
The tracks at present reserved can remain as now except that it would be wise to convert the remainder of the sleeper track to ‘solid’ track before high-speed running is commenced.
The Cars
Pending the acquisition of new cars (possibly like those at Llandudno, which show what can be done on 3ft. 6in. gauge if the spirit is willing), conversion of about 20 cars of the ‘800’ class for the base service and its reserves, and rehabilitation of another forty air-braked cars, would enable the Department to put the scheme into operation with the minimum of delay.
The cars to be converted should have their roofs and ends removed and the body sides made straight (instead of waisted). The roofs and ends should be renewed and the cars at the same time lengthened about two feet each end. The new ends and roofs should be on the lines of those of the post war Glasgow cars: platform doors should be added and the stairhead doors and bulkheads omitted. Large destination and route number blinds should be fitted below the top-deck windows. Interior decoration should be as modern and attractive as in any other vehicle of early 1950s – brown ceilings are out of place to-day.
To reduce noise the short coil springs on the bogies might be replaced by rubber pads. The long coil springs should be shortened and stiffened (to reduce noise) and have rubber pads above them, again to reduce noise. The motor gear ratio should be decreased by about 10 per cent and helical gears fitted. Automatic but optional field shunting, giving 66 per cent of normal field, should be added. This should give free-running speed of up to 35 m.p.h., yet, by reason of the large amount of free-running possible on such a route, should not unduly stress the motors thermally. The present controllers would suffice for the more arduous duty if a lineswitch contactor were added to perform circuit breaking; the cost and complexity of contactor control would not, in such a conversion, be justified. The present brake installation could be retained if rubber bushed joints were used in the rigging to reduce noise.
The cars to be rehabilitated should be given straight sides, new roofs, rubber rods in the springing, automatic optional weak field, and lineswitch circuit breakers. These alterations would render them comparable in appearance and performance with No. 843, which in good condition, is still an advertisement for 3ft. 6in. gauge possibilities.” [1: p37-38]
These should be spaced as widely as possible, on the theory of ‘greatest good for greatest number’, even if the short-distance passenger suffers during peak hours. It is more important that the many living in Selly Oak and beyond should have a fast journey home than that an Edgbaston passenger should be set down at the end of his turning. There should be three stops only between Navigation Street and Pebble Mill Road, located where they will be of most use to peak-hour passengers. These stops should have loading islands and queue barriers as described earlier. Other stops, convenient for short distance passengers, clearly labelled ‘not used in peak hours’, should be provided to attract the extra revenue, so useful to any undertaking, which accrues from the casual off peak travel which is a consequence of an attractive service being available.
Beyond Pebble Mill Road, peak-hour stops at each outskirts and the centre of Selly Oak, Northfields, and Longbridge, should be the main points for loading and unloading; there should be some additional stops between these centres at places where the need is obviously great. None of these additional stops should be separated by less than a quarter of a mile, however, but additional stops ‘not used in peak hours’ should also be provided where considered appropriate.” [1: p38-39]
The junction of Pebble Mill Road and Bristol Road, Birmingham as shown on the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1939 which was published in 1945. [7]Looking Southwest along Bristol Road through its junction with Pebble Mill Road. The trams for The Lickey Hills stopped just beyond the junction. Pebble Mill Road central reservation was at times used to store trams and particularly after the closure of the network before there was room for them at the Depot. [Google Streetview, June 2024]
Pridmore continues:
“Services
A base frequency of 12 cars per hour from Navigation Street, half of which would run to Selly Oak only, would probably suffice. Pershore Road should be symmetrically superimposed. The equal service to
During peak hours, however, a different technique would facilitate traffic flow and give quick travel to long-distance passengers; it is suggested that 12 packets of departures per hour be arranged. The first of each packet would be a fast to Rednal or Rubery, running non-stop to Pebble Mill Road. The second would be a duplicate of the first, but routed to the alternative terminus, stopping only at the peak hour stops to Pebble Mill Road to pick up only. Thence both these cars, would continue, using peak hour stops only (as is presumed in all peak hour services), to their respective termini. The third car would be the triplicate, running as the duplicate but probably to Selly Oak, Northfields or Longbridge only, as the traffic for the extremities of route dictates. Fourth would be the Pershore Road car, stopping also to set down at intermediate points to Pebble Mill Road, and fifth would be its duplicate performing similar duties as necessary.
If a less or more frequent service should prove necessary its pattern should be similar to that indicated above, as the suggested total frequency of 60 cars per hour is well within the capacity of a single line of tramway, whilst the use of packet departures will facilitate the through-running of the long-distance cars.
Inwards peak hour working, when with the load, would be arranged so that cars from Bristol Road would stop only to set down between Pebble Mill Road and Navigation Street, and that such cars should be given priority at the Pebble Mill Road junction.”
The necessity for large destination blinds on the cars, a point mentioned earlier, is now appreciated; the indication of “limited stop” must be given, as well as the destination, and regular users will wish clearly to be aware of both whilst a car approaches their stop.” [1: p39-40]
The success of a scheme such as that described above would commend its application to the similar but not quite so heavily trafficked routes to Pype Hayes and Erdington on the east of Birmingham.
When the full conversion to reserved track had been completed in the less near future, consideration should be given to the provision of a third track to Pebble Mill Road to permit the regular operation of peak hour expresses both ways, and for the ultimate operation of two or three-car trains of single deck high-speed vehicles much as the P.C.C. cars on metre gauge lines in the U.S.A. and elsewhere.
The use of such trains would then render possible the economic construction of cross-town subways in further effort to remove passenger transport from the sorely congested central streets of Birmingham.
The transport problem of Birmingham, as of many large cities, is becoming increasingly severe. The author is of the opinion that such problems can only be solved by the provision of an urban transport installation, and not by the use of supposedly flexible vehicles on the existing network of roads; it is the attempt to solve the problem by this latter means that is responsible for the congestion in the centre of Birmingham at the present time. An embryo specialised installation exists in Birmingham to-day; it is recommended that it be developed as far as possible for its specialist purpose while there is still time and before the traffic of the future swamps the Bristol Road completely, as it will do if numberless small vehicles are expected to cope with it in competition with the many others who regard themselves as having equal claim to the surface of a public road.” [1: p40]
References
B. I. Pridmore; A Lickey Light Railway; in Modern Tramway Vol. 13 No. 146, London, p37-40.
Modern Tramway talks, in 1949, of the Shaker Heights Rapid Transit (SHRT) Lines as “A high speed electric light railway entirely on reserved track, connecting a beautiful high class residential district with the centre of a large city. affording such speedy and efficient service that the car-owning suburban residents prefer to use it and park their cars on land provided by the line; a system which makes a handsome profit and has recently taken delivery of 25 of the most modern type of electric rail units in the world [which] are only some of the outstanding facts about Shaker Heights Rapid Transit.” [1: p101]
Two images from Modern Tramway which show: first , a station in Shaker Heights which shows the central reservation and a car of standard type; second, a PCC car equipped for multiple-unit operation, one of a fleet of 25 delivered in 1948. [1: p112]
The network was created by the Van Sweringen brothers and purchased after their bankruptcy, and a period of 9 years in receivership, by Cleveland City Council in 1944. [2]
The official ownership details down the years are:
“1913–1920: Cleveland & Youngstown Railroad 1920–1930: Cleveland Interurban Railroad 1930–1935: Metropolitan Utilities 1935–1944: Union Properties (47%), Guardian Savings and Trust (33%) and Cleveland Trust (20%) 1944–1975: City of Shaker Heights 1975–present: Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority.” [4]
The SHRT connected the city of Cleveland, Ohio, with the largest residential area known as Shaker Heights, six miles East.
The Van Sweringen brothers planned the line “in the early 1900’s as part of a land development scheme, … to serve the district that would grow up on the Heights and beyond, and the charter was obtained in 1907. The land development was planned around the line, and the engineers allowed for a railway area 90 feet wide through the property with 50 feet of open space each side of the tracks (room for four tracks and a grass verge on each side). Building was delayed by the First World War and the line was not opened until 11th April, 1920.” [1: p101]
On 20th July 1930, Shaker Rapid Transit cars began using the Cleveland Union Terminal (CUT), after the Terminal Tower opened. [12]
Before this, on 17th December 1913, trams began operating on the first 1.6-mile segment in the median of what would become Shaker Boulevard, from Coventry Road east to Fontenay Road. [12] The line was grandly named ‘The Cleveland & Youngstown Railway’.
In 1915, the tram service was extended to Courtland Boulevard. In 1920 it became apparent that the plan to link Cleveland to Youngstown would not succeed and the line was renamed as ‘The Cleveland Interurban Railway’ (CIRR). In April of that year, the Van Sweringen brothers opened a segregated (trams separate from other rail and road traffic) line from East 34th Street to Shaker Heights with their trams using the urban tram (streetcar) network to reach the city centre. [12]
“In 1923, the Standard Oil Company built the Coventry Road Station for $17,500. … In 1924, the Shaker trains were referred to as ‘the private right-of-way rapid transit line’, but calling it ‘the rapid’ probably dates back further than that.” [12]
The historic station at Tower City (1927 onwards) was the early terminus of the Shaker Heights Rapid Transit Lines which were extended along the Cleveland Waterfront.
The modern Tower City Station is the central station of the Cleveland, Ohio RTA Rapid Transit system, served by all lines: Blue, Green, Red and Waterfront. The station is located directly beneath Prospect Avenue in the middle of the Avenue shopping mall. The station is only accessible through the Tower City Center shopping complex. [13]
The first cars were ordinary tramcars from the Cleveland City system, specially refitted for fast service. “In July, 1930, the SHRT (which had formerly entered the city over street tracks) was brought into the main line railway terminus over existing railway tracks. By this time the line extended for 9.5 miles from the Union Terminal Building in Cleveland to Green Road, at the far end of Shaker Heights; in addition, there was a branch line to Moreland.” [1: p101]
The two lines in the suburbs were extended. The Moreland line in 1929, eastward from Lynnfield (its original terminus) to Warrensville Center Rd. The Shaker line, in 1937, was extended from Warrensville Center Rd. to a new loop at Green Rd. [2]
“Under the main floor of the Union Terminal Building, the SHRT tracks are adjacent to the main line railway platforms. The six miles out to Shaker Square are on an ascending grade along the valley of the Cuyahoga river, and are entirely on private right-of-way; from Shaker Square onwards, the line runs through a grass reservation in the centre of Shaker Boulevard as far as Green Road Terminal.” [1: p101]
“The branch to Moreland, a suburb of smaller type property, diverges about 500 feet east of Shaker Square station, running in a south-easterly direction; at this terminus are storage yards with car parking facilities inside a U track formation.” [1: p101]
“The overhead is compound catenary out to East 55th Street, Cleveland, and normal trolley-wire elsewhere; the line is signalled throughout and road crossings are well spaced.” [1: p101]
The journey from Green Road outer terminus to the Union Terminal Building in downtown Cleveland “is covered in 22 minutes including 16 stops en route. The six miles from Shaker Square down into Cleveland (which include four curves with speed restriction) are covered in 8-9 minutes by non-stop cars. The up-grade increases the express timing on the outward journey to Shaker Square to 12 minutes.” [1:p101]
“When the City Council bought the line in 1944, the Director of Transportation, Mr. Paul K. Jones, began to modernise the existing fleet and to look around for new cars. He chose PCC cars with multiple unit equipment, and after trial runs in 1946 with a PCC-MU car ordered for Boston’s tramways, he ordered 25, to be modified to suit the SHRT’s demands and these were delivered towards the end of [1948]. They have Sprague Multiple Unit Control and are equipped for MU operation in trains of up to six cars. Other details are: Seating capacity. 62; overall length, 52ft. 7in.; overall height, 10ft. 4in.; width, 9ft.; truck wheel base, 6ft. 10in.; livery, canary yellow.” [1: p101]
A new $60,000 sub-station was built by 1949 in Shaker Heights which ensured adequate power for the PCC cars. Other improvements undertaken were “the doubling of car parking space at stations and an increase in service frequency.” [1: p101]
Extensions of the SHRT were, in 1949, considered likely; at that time, the line had been graded beyond Green Road as far as Gates Mills and steel poles had been erected part of the way. (This extension never occurred even though the preparatory work had been undertaken.) [7]
The Moreland Branch had been graded south to the Thistledown Race Track beyond Warrensville and there was little doubt, at that time that this extension would be completed. It turns out that this extension also never came to fruition.
“In Cleveland itself, the City Council … asked for 31 million dollars for the purpose of financing extensions of its city lines east and west of the city. The East Side line was laid out and partly graded by the original builders of the SHRT; it left the Heights line at East 60th Street and needed, at the time of writing of the article in Modern Tramway, only a few months’ work to complete.” [1: p101]
“Snow [had] no effect on the operation of the SHRT and the line [carried] on when local bus and trolley bus lines [had] ceased … in the severe winter of 1947-8; and all the year round, as mentioned before, the owners of the $75,000 homes of Shaker Heights [left] their cars behind and [travelled] into town by the faster and more reliable means so amply provided.” [1: p102]
“In 1955 the Cleveland Transit System (which was formed in 1942 when the City of Cleveland took over the Cleveland Railway Company) opened the first section of the city’s new rapid transit line, now known as the Red Line. It used much of the right-of-way and some of the catenary poles from the Van Sweringen’s planned east-west interurban line adjacent to the NYC&StL tracks. The first section of the CTS rapid transit east from Cleveland Union Terminal included 2.6 miles (4.2 km) and two stations shared with the Shaker Heights Rapid Transit line, necessitating split platforms with low-level sections (for Shaker Heights rapid transit cars) and high-level sections (for CTS rapid transit cars).” [4]
In the 21st century, the Red Line (formerly and internally known as Route 66, also known as the Airport–Windermere Line) is now “a rapid transit line of the RTA Rapid Transit system in Cleveland, Ohio, running from Cleveland Hopkins International Airport northeast to Tower City in downtown Cleveland, then east and northeast to Windermere. 2.6 miles (4.2 km) of track, including two stations (Tri-C–Campus District and East 55th), are shared with the light rail Blue and Green Lines; the stations have high platforms for the Red Line and low platforms for the Blue and Green Lines. The whole Red Line is built next to former freight railroads. It follows former intercity passenger rail as well, using the pre-1930 right-of-way of the New York Central from Brookpark to West 117th, the Nickel Plate from West 98th to West 65th, and the post-1930 NYC right-of-way from West 25th to Windermere.” [5]
The Red Line is shown on the four extracts from OpenStreetMap below. [5]
These four map extracts show the full length of the Red Line from the airport in the West to East Cleveland. [5]
In the 21st century the two original Shaker Heights routes form the Blue Line and the Green Line as part of Cleveland, Ohio’s Rapid Transit System.
“The Blue Line (formerly known as the Moreland Line and the Van Aken Line, and internally as Route 67) is a light rail line of the RTA Rapid Transit system in Cleveland and Shaker Heights, Ohio, running from Tower City Center downtown, then east and southeast to Warrensville Center Blvd near Chagrin Blvd. 2.6 miles (4.2 km) of track, including two stations (Tri-C–Campus District and East 55th), are shared with the rapid transit Red Line, the stations have low platforms for the Blue Line and high platforms for the Red Line. The Blue Line shares the right-of-way with the Green Line in Cleveland, and splits off after passing through Shaker Square.” [3]
The Blue Line from Cleveland to Shaker Heights shown on OpenStreetMap. [3]
“The Green Line (formerly known as the Shaker Line) is a light rail line of the RTA Rapid Transit system in Cleveland and Shaker Heights, Ohio, running from Tower City Center downtown, then east to Green Road near Beachwood. 2.6 miles (4.2 km) of track, including two stations (Tri-C–Campus District and East 55th), are shared with the rapid transit Red Line; the stations have low platforms for the Green Line and high platforms for the Red Line. The Green Line shares the right-of-way with the Blue Line in Cleveland, and splits off after passing through Shaker Square.” [4]
Tram cars used on the Shaker Heights lines since 1920 include: the 1100-series and 1200-series centre-entrance fleet; the colourful PCC cars; and the current fleet of Breda LRVs which have operated the line since 1982. [15]
Cleveland’s 1100-series and 1200-series center-door cars were built in the mid-1910s. “Not only were these cars distinctive and immediately identifiable as Cleveland cars, but many of them outlasted the Cleveland street railway itself. This was because the suburban streetcar route to Shaker Heights, barely on the drawing board when the center-door cars were built, bought a handful of 1200-series cars to hold down service when it was new. For years these cars were the backbone of service to Shaker Heights until the last of them were finally retired in favor of PCC cars in 1960.” [16]
Cleveland’s PCC Trams began arriving in the late 1940s, as we have already noted. PCC (Presidents’ Conference Committee) trams were streetcars of a design that was first “built in the United States in the 1930s. The design proved successful domestically, and after World War II it was licensed for use elsewhere in the world where PCC based cars were made. The PCC car has proved to be a long-lasting icon of streetcar design, and many remain in service around the world.” [17]
The Shaker Heights Rapid Transit network purchased 25 new PCC cars and 43 second-hand cars. A total of 68: the original 25 Pullman cars were extra-wide and had left-side doors. The second-hand cars were: 20 cars purchased from Twin Cities Rapid Transit in 1953; 10 cars purchased from St. Louis in 1959; 2 former Illinois Terminal cars leased from museums in 1975; 2 cars purchased from NJ Transit in 1977; 9 ex-Cleveland cars purchased from Toronto in 1978. PCCs were used until 1981. [17]
The Cleveland Transit System had 50 PCCs purchased new and 25 second-hand. The second-hand cars purchased from Louisville in 1946. All Cleveland’s cars were sold to Toronto in 1952. Of these, nine cars were (noted above) sent to Shaker Heights in 1978. [17]
Pullman Standard PCCs “were initially built in the United States by the St Louis Car Company (SLCCo) and Pullman Standard. … The last PCC streetcars built for any North American system were a batch of 25 for the San Francisco Municipal Railway, manufactured by St. Louis and delivered in 1951–2. … A total of 4,586 PCC cars were purchased by United States transit companies: 1,057 by Pullman Standard and 3,534 by St. Louis. Most transit companies purchased one type, but Chicago, Baltimore, Cleveland, and Shaker Heights ordered from both. The Baltimore Transit Co. (BTC) considered the Pullman cars of superior construction and easier to work on. The St. Louis cars had a more aesthetically pleasing design with a more rounded front and rear, compound-curved skirt cut-outs, and other design frills.” [17]
“Both the Cities of Cleveland & Shaker Heights purchased PCC trolleys after WWII. Cleveland operated theirs from 1946 to 1953 before they sold them to the City of Toronto. Shaker Heights operated their PCCs for a much longer period – i.e. from 1947 up until the early 1980s.” [18]
Cleveland’s Breda LRVs are a fleet of 34 vehicles operating on the Blue, Green and Waterfront lines. One is shown below on the Blue Line and one on the Green Line. [19]
The LRVs were purchased from the Italian firm, Breda Costruzioni Ferroviarie, to replace the aging PCC cars. They were dedicated on 30th October 1981. [3]
The cars consist of two half bodies joined by an articulation section with three bogies. The two end bogies are powered, and the central bogie under the articulation section is unpowered. “The car is slightly more than 24 m (79 ft 10 in) long, is rated AW2 (84 seated passengers and 40 standing), and can travel at a maximum speed of 90 km/hr (55 mph). This speed can be reached in less than 35 sec from a standing start.” [20]
Overall length: 79ft 11in.
Width: 9ft 3in
Tare weight: 84,000lb
Acceleration: 3mph/sec.
Service braking: 4mph/sec.
Emergency braking: 6mph/sec.
Each LRV “is bidirectional with an operator’s cab at either end and three doors per side. The passenger door near the operator’s cab is arranged to allow the operator to control fare collection. The 84 seats are arranged in compliance with the specification requirements. Half the seats face one direction and half the other. Each end of the car is equipped with … an automatic coupler with mechanical, electrical, and pneumatic functions so that the cars can operate in trains of up to four vehicles.” [20]
In 2024, the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority board approved “the selection of Siemens Mobility for a contract to replace the Breda light rail vehicle fleet. … The planned framework contract with Siemens Mobility would cover up to 60 Type S200 LRVs, with a firm order for an initial 24. … The high-floor LRVs will be similar to cars currently used by Calgary Transit, with doors at two heights for high and low level platforms, an infotainment system, ice cutter pantographs, 52 seats, four wheelchair areas and two bicycle racks. … The fleet replacement programme currently has a budget of $393m, including rolling stock, infrastructure modifications, testing, training, field support, spare parts and tools. This is being funded by the Federal Transportation Administration, Ohio Department of Transportation, Northeast Ohio Areawide Co-ordinating Agency and Greater Cleveland RTA.” [21]
References
Shaker Heights Rapid Transit Lines; in Modern Tramway Vol. 12, No 137, May, 1949, p101,102,112.
A significant proportion of the August 1925 edition of The Railway Magazine [1] was dedicated to coverage of the Centenary celebrations at Darlington. Given the short timescale between the event and the publication date of the August issue of the magazine (?late July?), and given that modern digital techniques were in no way available, the achievement of publication in such a short time is to be admired.
Writing at the end of 2024, in just a few months the 200th anniversary will occur, it will be interesting to see what celebrations will be taking place in the Summer of 2025. See, for example, the National Railway Museum‘s plans for 2025. [42]
G.A. Sekon offered The Railway Magazine’s congratulations to the organisers of the 1925 exhibition on their organisational achievements and on the “comprehensiveness and interest of the exhibits brought together.” [1: p101] He also notes that the opportunity was taken by the King to appoint many different leading railway officers to the Order of the British Empire these included: four CBEs (Mr. R. C. Irwin, Secretary, L.M.S.R., Mr. E. A. Bolter, Secretary, G.W.R., Mr. G. Davidson, Divisional General Manager, North Eastern Area, L.N.E.R., and Mr. G. S. Szlumper, Assistant General Manager, Southern Railway), eight OBEs and fourteen MBEs.
The ‘main event’ was the procession which was “witnessed at ease and in comfort by many hundreds of thousands in view of the accessibility of the route practically from end to end and the arrangements whereby landowners generously allowed access to fields adjoining the line.” [1: p103]
The event was opened by HRH. the Duke of York, accompanied by the Duchess of York. (The Duke of York being the future George VI who became King unexpectedly following the abdication of his brother, King Edward VIII, in December 1936.)
In his opening address Mr. W. Whitelaw made it clear that, “The Exhibition was the result of the co-operation of five great railway companies, assisted by many friends from all parts of the country, who possessed interesting relics of the first passenger railway in the kingdom. It seemed very fitting that the commencement of the celebration of what took place on 27th September 1825, should be in that great railway town of Darlington. If Darlington did not own all the credit for the science of railways, at any rate no one could deny or challenge the statement that Darlington was the home of the first great railway statesman, Edward Pease.”
The Procession
A short (20 minute) film of the procession/cavalcade can be viewed here. [35]
“The centenary celebrations were held in July to allow guests from foreign countries visiting the International Railway Congress to take part. An exhibition of rolling stock at the new Faverdale Wagon Works in Darlington was opened by the Duke and Duchess of York (later King George VI and the Queen Mother). The following day the royal couple watched as procession of locomotives passed between Stockton and Oak Tree Junction, starting with a Hetton Colliery locomotive that had been built in 1822 and finishing with a replica train of ten chaldron waggons and ‘the company’s coach’ hauled by Locomotive No.1 propelled by a petrol engine in a specially built tender.” [45] A copy of the original programme for the procession can be found here. [46]
The procession was due to have 54 items, one of which had to be withdrawn (the North British Locomotive Company’s geared turbine condensing locomotive). [1: p123] The final list was: [8]
1. Hetton Colliery locomotive – 1822.
2. S. & D.R. “Derwent” – 1845.
3. NBR 0-6-0 No. 381 (LNER J31 10114) – 1867.
4. NER 0-6-0 No. 1275 – 1874.
5. LNER J26 0-6-0 No. 517 (ex NER) – 1905.
6. LNER B16 4-6-0 No. 934 (ex NER) – 1921.
7. LNER K3 2-6-0 No. 203 – 1925.
8. LNWR 0-8-0 No. 1881 (LMS 8900) – 1901.
9. LMS 0-8-0 No. 9446 (ex LNWR) – 1922.
10. LNER 02 2-8-0 No. 3501 – 1924.
11. GWR 2-8-0 No. 4700 – 1919
12. LNER P1 2-8-2 No. 2393 – 1925.
13. LNER electric loco No. 9 (hauled by J71 0-6-0T 317) (ex NER) – 1914.
14. GWR 2-2-2 “North Star”(replica), (on wagon, hauled by J71 0-6-0T No. 181) – 1837.
Of these items, The Railway Magazine chose to highlight a number of these including:
1. The Hetton Colliery Locomotive
“The procession was headed by the old Hetton Colliery engine, built in 1822 by George Stephenson and Nicholas Wood, previous to the establishment of Stephenson’s works at Newcastle-on-Tyne. The engine, by the way, was rebuilt in 1857, and again in 1882, when the link motion, at present fitted, was added.” [1: p109]
“Next in order came the old ‘Derwent’, a mineral engine of Timothy Hackworth’s design, which was built in 1845 by William and Alf Kitching, of the Hopetown Foundry, Darlington, for the Stockton and Darlington Railway. The ‘Derwent’ also ran under its own steam.” [1: p109]
“Then followed a number of engines more or less familiar to the present generation [1925], although two of them were built over 50 years ago. A 1925 modern goods express 2-6-0, with special valve gear, and a mineral engine 2-8-0 with three cylinders, were a great contrast to the veterans that had passed earlier. Then followed a “Mikado” type of locomotive built at the Doncaster works of the L.N.E.R., for fast mineral work, but even greater interest was shown in a model of the old North Star, built in 1837 by Robert Stephenson and Co., which was mounted on a Great Western ‘crocodile’, drawn by a locomotive. Several specimens of the single-driver expresses popular in the latter half of the [19th century] were in the procession, including the Cornwall, which has a driving wheel of 8 ft. 6 in. in diameter the largest locomotive driving wheel still in service in the world.” [1: p109]
4.0-6-0 Stockton & Darlington Goods
Fourth in the procession was a typical 0-6-0 locomotive from the Stockton and Darlington (S&D) Railway. This was probably NER No. 1275 which was the only NER 1001 Class locomotive to survive into LNER ownership. It was built by Dübs & Co., Glasgow, and was delivered to the S&D in May 1874. 1275 entered into LNER ownership with an official mileage of 908,984 miles. Still in its NER livery, it was quickly withdrawn on 16th February 1923. [6]
This locomotive is preserved as part of the National Collection and is on static display at the National Railway Museum at York. [6]
NER No. 1275 is preserved in the National Railway Museum in York: Science Museum Group. NER 0-6-0 ‘1001’ class steam locomotive and tender, No 1275, 1874. 1975-7009 Science Museum Group Collection Online. [7]
The LNWR Class B was a class of 0-8-0 steam locomotives introduced in 1901. These locomotives were a development of the three-cylinder compound Class A (though this letter classification was not introduced until 1911), they had a 4-cylinder compound arrangement. 170 were built between 1901 and 1904. [9]
“The London and North Eastern Railway Class P1 Mineral 2-8-2 Mikado was a class of two steam locomotives designed by Nigel Gresley. They were two of the most powerful freight locomotives ever designed for a British railway. It was initially intended they be a more powerful 2-10-0 version of the earlier Class O2 2-8-0s. The design was submitted in August 1923, for use between Peterborough and London, and also between Immingham and Wath marshalling yard. The power was quoted as being 25% more than the O2.” [21]
“No. 2393 was completed in June 1925, just in time for the Stockton & Darlington Centenary celebrations in July. It was fitted with a Robinson superheater, whilst No. 2394 (completed in November) had the “E Double” superheater recommended by The Superheater Co.” [22]
14. GWR 2-2-2 ‘North Star’ (replica)
North Star was the first GWR locomotive, it on 31st May 1838 it worked the inaugural train for the company’s directors. More details can be found on the Preserved British Steam Locomotives website. [10]
Built in 1847, ‘Cornwall’ is a preserved steam locomotive. She was built as a 4-2-2 at Crewe Works in 1847, but was extensively rebuilt and converted into her current form in 1858. [12]
Wikipedia tells us that, “In 1858, Ramsbottom redesigned Cornwall almost completely. Little survived unchanged, other than the outside frames and the centres of the drivers. The boiler was … moved entirely above the driving axle, without any notches, channels or tubes. … New cylinders and valve gear were provided. … The wheel arrangement was [changed to] 2-2-2. … Ramsbottom also included his newly designed tamper-proof safety valves.” [12]
There was another minor rebuild in the 1870s providing a typical LNWR style of cab, with a short roof and semi-open sides. It was renumbered 3020 in June 1886. [12]
The Great Northern Railway (GNR) No. 1 Class Stirling Single was a class of steam locomotive designed for express passenger work. Designed by Patrick Stirling, they were characterised by a single pair of large (8 ft 1 in) driving wheels which led to the nickname ‘eight-footer’. Originally the locomotive was designed to haul up to 26 passenger carriages at an average speed of 47 miles per hour (76 km/h). It could reach speeds of up to 85 mph (137 km/h). [14]
“The first of the class, No. 1 is the only engine to be preserved. It is exhibited at the National Railway Museum, York. It was restored to running order during the 1930s for the fiftieth anniversary of the Race to the North and steamed again during the 1980s.” [14]
The three locomotives shown in the image above are:
19. 1875 built NER Class 901 2-4-0 No. 910;
20. 1885 built LNER E5 2-4-0 No. 1463 (ex NER);
21. 1892 built LNER D17/1 4-4-0 No. 1620 (ex NER)
The LNER Encyclopedia says that “Fletcher’s ‘901’ class was his final express passenger design for the … NER. The ‘901’ Class was created in 1872 to provide new more powerful express locomotives to replace the 16in cylinder locomotives still being used by the NER for express work. The first two locomotives, Nos. 901/2, were built at Gateshead in 1872. Whilst these were being built, two batches of ten each were ordered from Beyer, Peacock & Co and Neilson & Co. These twenty engines were built and delivered in 1873. A further 33 were built at Gateshead between 1873 and 1882 in four batches.” [17]
The LNER Encyclopedia says that the “new E5 locomotives were direct descendents of Fletcher’s ‘901’s. The cab design was changed, and a completely new tender design was used. A total of twenty E5s were built in 1885, with Darlington and Gateshead building ten each.” [18]
E5 No. 1463 is owned by the National Collection, but is on loan to the Darlington ‘Head of Steam’ Museum, now known as ‘Hopetown Darlington’s. [18]
The LNER Encyclopedia also notes that the NER Class M1 (later Class M) locomotives were Wilson Worsdell’s first express passenger locomotives for the North Eastern Railway (NER). … Twenty Class M1 locomotives were built at Gateshead between 1892 and 1894. More information can be found on the LNER Encyclopedia website. [19] These NER M1 locomotives became the LNER D17/1 Class at the grouping. [20]
The LNER operated a surprising variety of electric locomotives and multiple units. Although its electric operations were eclipsed by the Southern, the LNER had the largest electric locomotive stud of the Big Four companies. More about the various electric locks and multiple units can be found on the LNER Encyclopedia website. [27]
“Sir Vincent Raven was a great believer in the electrification of main lines. After the success of the Shildon-Newport electrification, he planned to electrify the North Eastern Railway’s (NER) stretch of the East Coast main line from York to Newcastle. As a part of this plan, authorisation was granted in March 1920 to build the prototype electric passenger locomotive No. 13. This had a 2-Co-2 (4-6-4) wheel arrangement, and was built at Darlington with electrical equipment provided by Metropolitan-Vickers.” [28] The loco was completed in 1922 just before the NER became part of the LNER in 1923.
The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (L&YR) Hughes 4-6-4T class of steam locomotives were a 4-6-4T version of the L&YR Class 8 (‘Dreadnought’ Class 4-6-0), hence they were known as ‘Dreadnought tanks’. All were actually built by the LMS in 1924 after the grouping, albeit at the L&YR’s Horwich Works. Withdrawals started in 1938, with three engines (11112, 11115, 11116), one each in 1939 and 1940 (11113 and 11111 respectively), four in 1941 (11114, 11117–11119) and the last (11110) in January 1942. No examples were preserved. [23]
Another example of the same class, No. 11114. [23]
41. GWR 2-8-0T Locomotive No. 5225
The 4200 class of 2-8-0T engines was designed to work the heavy short-haul coal and mineral trains in South Wales. They were designed using standard GWR parts as used in the 2800 class. A total of 205 locomotives were built (including the 5205 class) between 1910 and 1940. They were the only 2-8-0T to run in Britain. [24]
“The first engine to be built was 4201 in 1910 (4200 was a later engine built in 1923). Between 1910 and 1930 195 were built numbered 4200-4299 and 5200-5294. 5205 onwards had larger cylinders and other minor alterations and were known as the 5205 class.” [24]
“Five examples of the 4200 class and three members of the 5205 class have been preserved (4247, 4248, 4253, 4270, 4277, 5224, 5229 and 5239). There are also three locomotives preserved from the 7200 class which were rebuilds of the 5205 series 5264 rebuilt as 7229, 5275 rebuilt as 7202 and 5277 rebuilt as 7200).” [24]
42. LNER ‘Garratt’ Locomotive No. 2395
“The London and North Eastern Railway Class U1 was a solitary 2-8-0+0-8-2 Garratt locomotive designed for banking coal trains over the Worsborough Bank,[i] a steeply graded line in South Yorkshire and part of the Woodhead Route. It was both the longest and the most powerful steam locomotive ever to run in Britain. It was built in 1925 with the motion at each end being based on an existing 2-8-0 design. The original number was 2395, and it was renumbered 9999 in March 1946, and then 69999 after nationalisation in 1948, although it retained its cab-side plate bearing its original number throughout its life. The locomotive ran for some time as an oil burner, and was tried out on the Lickey Incline in 1949–1950 and again, after the electrification of its home line, in 1955. These trials were unsuccessful, and so the locomotive was withdrawn in 1955 and scrapped.” [26]
The locomotive was constructed in just 3 weeks in 1925, perhaps with the Stockton & Darlington centenary celebrations in mind. It was ready just in time and sent in the standard outshopped grey livery before being painted black. [26]
43. LNER Petrol Railcar/Railmotor No. 130Y, later 2105Y
The 1920s were quite an era for experimentation on the railways of the UK. This Railcar/Railmotor is included in a number looked at elsewhere on this blog. The relevant article can be found here. [30]
The North Eastern Railway (NER) “authorised the construction of the experimental Petrol Autocar No. 2105 on 21st September 1922. On 19th October, Raven reported the purchase of a 6-cylinder 105hp Daimler engine from the Slough Trading Estate Co. Ltd. The remainder of the vehicle was built at York Carriage Works and was completed in July 1923. By this time, Grouping had occurred, and the autocar was given the LNER number 2105Y. It was later renumbered as No. 22105 in August 1926.” [31]
Sentinel produced a significant number of steam railcars/railmotors. They are covered elsewhere on this blog. Please click here. [33]
The LNER arranged for trials of two Sentinel railmotors in 1924. After those trials, adaptations were made including providing larger boilers. The result was ideal for LNER uses and a series of 80 units were purchased. The first two large boiler railcars were ordered on 11th December 1924. These railcars used the bodies from the trial railcars and the cost was discounted accordingly. Numbered Nos. 12E & 13E, the railcars entered service with the LNER in May 1925 and were classified as Diagram 14600-614E. [34] They were ‘state of art’ units available just in time for the Stockton & Darlington celebrations.
46. LNER 0-8-0 Q7 (formerly NER T3) with mineral wagons.
The North Eastern Railway Class T3, classified as Class Q7 by the LNER, was a class of 0-8-0 steam locomotive designed for heavy freight. Five were built by the NER in 1919 and a further 10 by the LNER in 1924. No. 904 was put in charge of a rake of mineral wagons for the procession. [32]
This train consisted of a series of tableaux depicting the history of the wheel. It was described in the publication ‘Railway Wonders of the World’ like this: “The tableaux consisted of six wagons each carrying a separate ‘picture’. The first was allegorical and depicted a number of astrologers grouped at one side of a symbolic wheel, with a scene showing modern engineering practice on the other. The two scenes were joined through the spokes of the wheel by a huge chain, representing the links of time. The second tableau showed a tribe of prehistoric men, who, having felled a tree with their flint axes, were shown transporting the trunk on logs used as rollers – the earliest form of the wheel. Then came an Egyptian scene in which one of the royal Pharaohs was being drawn on a wheeled platform by slaves, showing how the Egyptians started the wheel in its manifold forms so that, through the ages that followed, progress successively moved on the wheels of chariot, wain, and coach. This was followed by the fourth tableaux showing how the wheel was discarded for a time when Sedan chairs were used, and the fifth depicting the story of the wheel in transport opening its most famous chapter when Stephenson mounted an engine on wheels and steam locomotion began. On one side of this wagon Stephenson was explaining the working of a model of “Locomotion No. 1” to a group of friends and workmen, whilst on the other side modem mechanics were working with present-day materials and tools. The final tableau showed how the railways of the world have grown from the few miles of permanent way uniting Stockton and Darlington.” [37]
48. GNSR 4-4-0 No. 45A and train of old 4-wheel coaches
The locomotive was one of a Class which transferred to the LNER. More details can be found here. [38]
No. 45A was repainted in GNSR green to take part in the Stockton & Darlington Centenary celebrations. It was withdrawn on 31st July 1925 shortly after its return. There was some talk of preservation, and it was temporarily employed as a shunter at the Inverurie Works. However, preservation was not to be, and No. 45A was scrapped soon afterwards. [38]
LMS 4-6-0 No. 10474 was a Class 8 4-6-0 steam locomotive to a Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway design that was built for the LMS by Horwich Works in 1925. 10474 and its siblings were used on express passenger trains for the LMS. [36]
Its train is made up of nine vestibule carriages built at Derby and used on the West Coast route to Scotland. [1: p124]
No. 4082 ‘Windsor Castle’, “was chosen as the Royal engine from the time that it was driven from Swindon works to Swindon station by King George V accompanied by Queen Mary on 28th April 1924. Plaques were mounted on the side of the cab to commemorate the occasion.” [39]
No 111 ‘Viscount Churchill’ (converted into a Castle class 4-6-0 from ‘The Great Bear’) took charge of a train of express passenger articulated coaches. Didcot Railway Centre says that the new GWR articulated coaches “came as a surprise to many as the railway press was unaware they had been developed. The train had one two-coach unit and two three-coach units. The formation was one brake first, one first, one first restaurant car, one kitchen car, one third restaurant car, two third-class coaches and a brake third. The first-class coach interiors were finished in walnut and the third-class in mahogany.” [40]
The LSWR N15 class was a British 2–cylinder 4-6-0 express passenger steam locomotive designed by Robert Urie. The class had “a complex build history spanning three sub-classes and ten years of construction from 1918 to 1927. The first batch of the class was constructed for the London and South Western Railway (LSWR), where they hauled heavy express passenger trains to the south coast ports and further west to Exeter. After the Lord Nelsons, they were the second biggest 4-6-0 passenger locomotives on the Southern Railway. They could reach speeds of up to 90 mph (145 km/h).” [41] The Southern Railway (SR) publicity department gave the N15 locomotives names associated with Arthurian legend; the class hence becoming known as King Arthurs.
53. LNER Train of Articulated Stock behind LNER A2 4-6-2 No. 2400 ‘City of Newcastle’
The LNER Class A2 4-6-2 steam locomotive was designed by Vincent Raven for the North Eastern Railway (as NER class 4.6.2). Two were built by the NER in 1922 before the grouping and another three by the LNER in 1924. Their LNER numbers were 2400–2404. All five locomotives were named by the LNER. ‘City of Newcastle’ was the first of the class. [43]
The replica train pulled by a modern incarnation of ‘Locomotion No.1’ was the last element of the procession/cavalcade. It was somewhat shorter than the original train of September 1825. ..
On 27th September 1825, Locomotion No. 1 hauled the first train on the Stockton and Darlington Railway, driven by George Stephenson. The train consisted of Locomotion No.1, eleven wagons of coal, the carriage ‘Experiment’, and a further 20 wagons of passengers, guests, and workmen. Around 300 tickets had been sold, but about twice as many people were believed to have been aboard. The train, which had an estimated weight of 80 metric tons and was 400 feet long, reached a maximum speed of 12 mph, and took two hours to complete the first 8.7 miles of the journey to Darlington, slowed by a derailed wagon and a blocked feed pump valve for an average speed of 8 mph. [44]
“Locomotion No. 1 (originally named Active) … was built in 1825 by … George and Robert Stephenson at their manufacturing firm, Robert Stephenson and Company. It became the first steam locomotive to haul a passenger-carrying train on a public railway … [It] was ordered by the Stockton and Darlington Railway Company in September 1824; its design benefitted from George Stephenson’s experience building his series of Killingworth locomotives. It is believed that Locomotion No. 1 was the first locomotive to make use of coupling rods to link together its driving wheels, reducing the chance of the wheels slipping on the iron rails. However, the centre-flue boiler proved to be a weakness, providing a poorer heating surface than later multi-flue boilers. … Locomotion hauled the first train on the Stockton and Darlington Railway, the first locomotive to run on a public railway. On 1st July 1828, it was heavily damaged when its boiler exploded at Aycliffe Lane station, killing its driver, John Cree. It was rebuilt, but as a consequence of the rapid advances in locomotive design, [it] became obsolete within a decade. It was used on the railway until 1850, after which it was converted into a stationary engine. In 1857, as a consequence of its historical importance, Locomotion was preserved and put on display. Between 1892 and 1975, it was on static display at one of the platforms at Darlington Bank Top railway station, and was then on display at the Head of Steam museum based at Darlington North Road railway station between 1975 and 2021. It was then moved to the Locomotion museum in Shildon. A working replica of Locomotion was built, and following years of operation at Beamish Museum was put on display at the Head of Steam museum.” [44]
The Exhibition
At the Railway Centenary Exhibition held in the LΝΕR’s Faverdale Wagon Works and Sidings at Darlington “was gathered together the biggest and most interesting collection of railway appliances, locomotives, rolling stock and other material ever exhibited in this country. The locomotives and rolling stock on rails at the exhibition sidings numbered 99, whilst in the building were three locomotives and about 650 other items. … The railways were naturally the chief exhibitors, but many extremely interesting items were loaned from private collections.” [1: p127]
The Railway Magazine went on to list all the major exhibits, some of which were in the cavalcade/procession covered above.
The details given in The Railway Magazine are reproduced in the Appendix below.
The exhibition was comprehensive, giving an outstanding insight into the world of railways in Great Britain.
Appendix – Exhibition Items
The Railway Magazine … [1: p127-130]
In the outdoor catalogue were: the model of North Star, constructed for the exhibition, utilising the original driving wheels. Nearby was the Invicta, Canterbury and Whitstable Railway, built by R. Stephenson & Co., in 1830, and a 2-2-2 engine constructed by Bury, Curtis & Kennedy in 1846 for the Great Southern Railway. Two locomotives came from Belgium, one a 2-2-2 saddle tank, with tender built for the 3-ft. 7-in. gauge Anvers-Gand Railway in 1844, the other a full-size model of a 2-2-2 engine built in 1835 for the Belgian State Railways. Other old locomotives included the Derwent, Cornwall and the Hetton Colliery locomotive, which led the van in the Centenary procession. There was also the historic Locomotion, and a full size model of the Rocket. The remaining locomotives are tabulated according to groups, subdivided on the basis of original ownership.
Of these, the sections of the LNER were responsible for 33 locomotives.
The NER‘s total was 14:
No. 949 0-4-4 5-ft. passenger tank built by Neilson & Co. in 1874, designed by E. Fletcher;
No. 1334, 0-4-4 5-ft. 11-in. passenger tank built at Darlington in 1901, designed by Wilson Worsdell;
No. 2151, 4-4-4 5-ft. 9-in. passenger tank, 3 cylinders, built at Darlington in 1913, designed by Sir Vincent Raven;
No. 1275, 0-6-0 5-ft. mineral engine, built in 1874 by Dubs & Co., designed by W. Bouch;
No. 517, 0-6-0 4-ft. 74-in. mineral engine built at Gateshead in 1905, designed by W. Worsdell;
No. 934, 4-6-0 5-ft. 8-in. express goods engine, 3 cylinders, built at Gateshead in 1921, designed by Sir Vincent Raven;
No. 902, 0-8-0, 4-ft. 71-in. 3-cylinder mineral engine, built at Darlington in 1919, designed by Sir Vincent Raven;
No. 910, 2-4-0, 7-ft. express passenger engine, built at Gateshead in 1875, designed by E. Fletcher;
No. 1463, 2-4-0 7-ft. express passenger engine, built at Darlington in 1885, “Tennant” type;
No. 1620 4-4-0 7-ft. 1.25-in. express passenger engine, built at Gateshead, 1892, by W. Worsdell;
No. 2207, 4-4-2, 6-ft. 10-in. express passenger engine, 3 cylinders, built at Darlington, 1911, designed by Sir Vincent Raven;
No. 2006, 4-6-0 6-ft. 11-in. express passenger engine, built at Gateshead, 1900, designed by W. Worsdell, Gold Medal, Paris, 1900;
No. 9, 0-4-4-0 4-ft. electric freight engine, built at Darlington, 1914, designed by Sir Vincent Raven;
No. 13, 4-6-4, 6-ft. 8-in. electric express engine, built at Darlington, 1922, designed by Sir Vincent Raven.
The Great Central section was represented by four engines:
No. 6499, 0-6-0, 3-ft. 9-in, saddle tank shunting engine, built by Manning Wardle & Co., 1876, for the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway;
No. 5088, 4-6-2 5-ft. 7-in. passenger side tank engine, built at Gorton, 1923, designed by J. G. Robinson;
No. 5972, 4-2-2 7-ft. 9-in. inside cylinder express passenger engine, built at Gorton, 1900, designed by H. Pollitt;
No. 6169, Lord Faringdon, 4-6-0 6-ft. 9-in. 4-cylinder express passenger engine, built at Gorton, designed by J. G. Robinson.
Two locomotives represented the GE section
No. 7133 was a 0-4-0 3-ft. 1-in. enclosed tramway engine built at Stratford in 1897;
No. 8900 (1900), Claud Hamilton, 4-4-0 7-ft. express passenger engine, built at Stratford, 1900, designed by J. Holden. Gold Medal Paris Exhibi- tion, 1900.
The GN section showed three engines:
The celebrated No. 1, 4-2-2 8-ft. 2-in. express engine, with outside cylinders, built at Doncaster, 1872, designed by P. Stirling:
No. 3990 (No. 990), 4-4-2 6-ft. 8-in. express engine, built at Doncaster, 1898, designed by H. A. Ivatt, the first “Atlantic” engine constructed in Great Britain;
No. 3251 (No. 251), 4-4-2 6-ft. 8-in. express engine, built at Doncaster, 1902, designed by H. A. Ivatt, the first engine on a British railway with a wide firebox.
The NBR section was represented by two engines:
No. 10114, 0-6-0 5-ft. 13-in. goods engine, built by Neilson & Co. in 1868, designed by T. Wheatley;
No. 9902, Highland Chief, 4-4-2 6-ft. 9-in, express engine, built by R. Stephenson & Co., 1911, designed by W. P. Reid.
The GNSR section was represented by No. 45A, 4-4-0 5-ft. 61-in. mixed traffic engine, built in 1866 by Neilson & Co., designed by W. Cowan.
The remaining seven locomotives exhibited by the LNER. were built since the grouping of the railways:
“Garratt” type 2-8-0+0-8-2, built by Beyer Peacock & Co., 1825, fitted with H. N. Gresley’s valve gear, driving wheels, 4-ft. 8-in. diameter, 6 cylinders (three to each truck), the first 6-cylinder “Garratt” locomotive, weight in working order, 176tons;
No. 203, 2-6-0 3-cylinder 5-ft. 8-in. express goods engine, built an Darlington, 1925, designed by H. N. Gresley (No. 202, a similar engine, was shown in the Exhibition building);
No 3499, 2-8-0 3-cylinder 4-ft. 8-in. mineral engine, built at Doncaster, 1924, designed by H. N. Gresley;
No. 2393, “Mikado” type (2-8-2) 3-cylinder 5-ft. 2-in. mineral engine, fitted with “booster” to drive trailing wheels, built at Doncaster, 1925, designed by H. N. Gresley;
No. 2563, William Whitelaw, 4-6-2 3-cylinder 6-ft. 8-in. express engine, designed by H. N. Gresley;
No. 2400, City of Newcastle, 4-6-2 3-cylinder 6-ft. 8-in. express engine, built at Darlington, 1922, designed by Sir Vincent Raven.
The LMS exhibit of modern locomotives comprised six engines: …
Three LNWR engines: …
No. 1881, 4-cylinder compound 4-ft. 3-in. mineral engine, built at Crewe, 1901, designed by F. W. Webb;
No. 9446, 0-8-0 4-ft. 2-in. goods engine, built at Crewe, 1922, designed by C. J. B. Cooke;
No. 5900, Sir Gilbert Claughton, 4-cylinder, 6-ft. 3-in. express engine, built at Crewe, 1913, designed by C. J. B. Cooke.
The Midland section exhibit was No. 679, 4-2-2 7-ft. 91-in. express engine, built at Derby, 1899, designed by S. W. Johnson.
The L&YR section showed No. 10474, 4-6-0 4-cylinder 6-ft. 3-in. express, built at Horwich, designed by G. Hughes.
The LMS specimen was No. 11112, 4-cylinder 6-ft. 3-in. passenger tank, built at Horwich, 1924, designed by G. Hughes.
The Somerset & Dorset Joint Railway No. 86 2-8-0 4-ft. 71-in. mineral engine, built by R. Stephenson & Co., 1825, designed by Sir H. Fowler (LMS)
The GWR was represented by three modern locomotives:
No. 5225, 2-8-0 4-ft. 7-in. mineral tank engine, built at Swindon, designed by G. J. Churchward;
No. 4700, 2-8-0 5-ft. 8-in. express goods engine, built at Swindon in 1919, designed by G. J. Churchward;
No. 4082, Windsor Castle, 4-6-0 4-cylinder 6-ft. 8-in. express, built at Swindon, designed by C. B. Collett. This is the locomotive the King and Queen drove at Swindon.
The SR was represented by No 449, Sir Torre, at the head of the train of modern coaches.
In addition there were: the City and South London Railway‘s old electric engine supplied for the opening of the railway in 1890. The LNER showed a petrol bus for rail service, a petrol autocar, and a Sentinel-Cammell steam coach.
Modern rolling-stock-passenger and freight was represented in profusion: …
A complete train by each of the four groups: …
GWR – showed an articulated rake of coaches and a 10-compartment third-class corridor coach, 70ft long;
LNER – showed a similar articulated rake and an electric coach, a Post Office van, a sleeper with first-class berths and third-class compartments, a twin (articulated) sleeper, a ‘triplet’ dining set, corridor third etc.;
SR – sent Pullman Car ‘Lydia’, whilst the Pullman Car Company exhibited ‘Niobe’;
London Electric Railways by one of the latest tube coaches.
Also in view were:
The “Dandy” coach from the Port Carlisle Railway;
A Stockton & Darlington carriage built circa 1850;
A GNSR coach from circa 1865.
The wide range of modern freight vehicles was well shown by the 18 wagons, etc, of different types exhibited by the LNER, varying from a four-wheeled horse-box to a set of three 60-ton flat wagons tight coupled for conveying 160-ton guns. The GWR showed a 20-ton mineral wagon, a 35-ton well trolley, a 30-ton articulated gun wagon, and a 70-ft. rail or timber truck. There were a few items of old goods rolling-stock, including a ‘Chaldron’ coal wagon built in 1826.
Within the building the fine display of signalling appliances from the earliest days, through the crude interlocking of some sixty years ago to the present perfect locking apparatus, electrical and mechanical, attracted much attention. So did the many specimens representing all periods during the past 100 years of the rails, chairs, and sleepers that go to make up the permanent way. Chief interest was taken in the numerous models, many on a large scale, and as regards locomotives chiefly working models, actuated by compressed air. Of the 46 locomotive models there were two of the Locomotion, while several GWR. broad-gauge engines made a fine display. The Metropolitan Railway was a big exhibitor in this section, showing seven or eight models of locomotives of various railways. A quarter-size model of the GNR’s 8-ft. 1-in. single (Stirling’s famous 4-2-2 type) was prominent, as, too, was the Dandy Cart, with horse aboard, as attached to the rear of horse-hauled mineral trains. Here also were models in plenty of railway bridges and viaducts, railway coaches, steamers, &c. Early railway tickets, bills, time-tables, passes, medals, &c., were to be seen in profusion, with specimens of Edmondson’s ticket-dating presses and ticket-printing machines invented in 1840, and taken from actual work to be shown at Faverdale. Railway-station bells, besides early signal and hand lamps of various types, were represented, whilst the many loan collections of literature and maps relative to early railways provided information of rare value to those interested in the development of the railway system.
References
G.A. Sekon, ed.; 1825-1925: The Railway Centenary Celebrations at Darlington, 1st to 3rd July 1925; in The Railway Magazine, London, No. 338, August 1925, p101-142.
C.R. Henry of the South-Eastern & Chatham Railway wrote about this line being the second public railway opened in England in an article in the October 1907 edition of The Railway Magazine. [1] Reading that article prompted this look at the line which was referred to locally as the ‘Crab and Winkle Line‘.
There are a number of claimants to the title ‘first railway in Britain’, including the Middleton Railway, the Swansea and Mumbles Railway and the Surrey Iron Railway amongst others. Samuel Lewis in his ‘A Topographical Dictionary of England’ in 1848, called the Canterbury & Whitstable Railway the first railway in the South of England. [2][3]
The Crab and Winkle Line Trust says that in 1830, the “Canterbury and Whitstable Railway was at the cutting edge of technology. Known affectionately as the ‘Crab and Winkle Line’ from the seafood for which Whitstable was famous, it was the third railway line ever to be built. However, it was the first in the world to take passengers regularly and the first railway to issue season tickets. The first railway season tickets were issued at Canterbury in 1834 to take people to the beach at Whitstable over the summer season. This fact is now recorded on a plaque at Canterbury West railway station. Whitstable was also home to the world’s oldest passenger railway bridge.” [17]
Henry explains that in 1822, “the possibility of making Canterbury a virtual seaport was engaging much thought and attention on the part of the inhabitants of that ancient city. Canterbury is situated on the banks of a small river called the Stour, having an outlet into the sea near Sandwich, and this river was a very important waterway in Roman and Saxon times, but by the date above-mentioned, it had fallen into a state almost approaching complete dereliction, being quite unnavigable for ships of any appreciable size. The resuscitation and improvement of this waterway was considered to be the only solution of the problem of making Canterbury a seaport, and as a result of a very strong and influential agitation by the citizens a scheme of revival was announced by a number of commercial men who had formed themselves into a company for the purpose. The scheme comprised many improvements to the river, such as widenings, new cuts, etc., with the provision of a suitable harbour at Sandwich, the estimated cost of the whole being about £45,700. It was submitted to Parliament in the session of 1824, but the Bill was rejected by a motion brought forward by the Commissioners of Sewers, who complained that the works had been hurriedly surveyed and greatly under-estimated. Nothing daunted, however, fresh surveys and estimates were prepared and presented to Parliament in the following year. This second Bill was successful, and when the news that it had passed the third reading in the Upper Chamber was made known in Canterbury, the event occasioned much jubilation amongst the inhabitants, who, according to local records, turned out with bands of music and paraded the streets exhibiting banners displaying such words as ‘Success to the Stour Navigation’.” [1: p305-306]
It is worth noting that it was as early as 1514 that an Act of Parliament promoted navigation on the River Stour. There remains “a Right of Navigation on the river from Canterbury to the sea. After two weirs above Fordwich, the river becomes tidal.” [4]
C.R. Henry continues:
“While the city was so enraptured with its waterway scheme, influences of a quieter nature were steadily at work with a view to making Canterbury a virtual seaport by constructing a railway from thence to Whitstable. One day in April 1823, a gentleman – the late Mr. William James – called on an inhabitant of Canterbury to whom he had been recommended, to consult with him on the subject of a railway. It was arranged between these two gentlemen that a few persons who it was thought might be favourable to the project should be requested to meet the next day: several were applied to, but the scheme appeared so chimerical that few attended. At the meeting the gentleman stated he had professionally taken a cursory view of the country, and he thought a railway might be constructed from the copperas houses at Whitstable (these houses used to exist on the eastern side of the present harbour) to St. Dunstan’s, Canterbury. This line, he observed, was not so direct as might be the most desirable, but there would not be any deep cutting, and the railway would be formed on a regular ascending and descend. ing inclined plane. He also urged that by the construction of a harbour at Whitstable in conjunction with the projected railway, the problem of making Canterbury an inland seaport would be effectually solved, and that the railway offered undoubted advantages over any waterway scheme in point of reliability and rapidity of conveyance, as well as being only half the length of the proposed navigation.
The railway scheme met with scant support at first, but by 1824 a few private and commercial gentlemen had been found who were willing to form themselves into a company for the prosecution of the project, and they elected to consult Mr. George Stephenson as to the feasibility of their idea. The projector of the Canterbury and Whitstable Railway, as already said, was the late William James, well-known for the part he took in the Liverpool and Manchester Railway and other lines, and it was no doubt through his influence that it was decided to consult Stephenson, with whom he was very friendly at the time. George Stephenson, however, was too occupied with larger undertakings in the North to give the Canterbury and Whitstable Railway much of his personal attention, so he deputed his assistant, Mr. John Dixon to survey the line.
George Stephenson advised that the railway be made to pass over the ground situate between the [present] tunnel through Tyler Hill and St. Thomas’s Hill onwards through the village of Blean, then to Whitstable, terminating at precisely the same spot as it now does [in 1907], this route being an almost level one, and not necessitating many heavy earthworks. But the proprietors did not behold this route with favour: they wished for the novelty of a tunnel, so a tunnel Stephenson made for them, thereby altering the whole line of railway he first proposed, and causing it to traverse some very undulating and steep country. A survey of the new route was made, which was to the right of the original one, and plans, sections and estimates were duly deposited with Parliament for the Session of 1825.
The Canterbury and Whitstable Railway Bill was not assailed with great opposition, the only body really opposing it being the Whitstable Road Turnpike Trust, who, however, were compromised by the insertion of a clause in the Bill to the effect that ‘should the project be carried into execution, the Company, when formed, will indemnify the Trust to the full amount which they may suffer by traffic being diverted, and that for 20 years’. The Act received Royal Assent on 10th June 1825.” [1: p306-307]
So it was, that work on the railway and harbour went ahead and the improvements to the Stour Navigation were left in abeyance, and the then insignificant village of Whitstable became one of the first places to have a railway.
The Company was formed with a nominal capital of £31,000 divided into £50 shares. Joseph Locke was appointed ‘resident engineer’ and a host of experienced workers (navvies) were brought down from the North of England to work on the line.
North of the railway corridor the route of the old railway, shown in pale orange, runs North-northwest. It crosses Hanover Place twice and runs ups the West side of Beverly Meadow. The route is tree-lined as far as Beaconsfield Road. A footpath runs immediately alongside to the route. That footpath appears as a grey line on the satellite imagery adjacent to this text.
North of Beaconsfield Road the line of the old railway has been built over – private dwellings face out onto the road. North of the rear fences of these properties a tree-line path follows fairly closely the line of the old railway between two modern housing estates as far as the playing fields associated with The Archbishop’s School. [15]
C.R. Henry continues:
“The Canterbury and Whitstable Railway was laid out with gradients almost unique in their steepness, necessitating the major portion of the line being worked by stationary engines. At Canterbury the terminus was situated in North Lane, whence the railway rises in a perfectly straight line on gradients ranging between 1 in 41 and 1 in 56, to the summit of Tyler Hill, a distance of 3,300 yards.
On this section is the Tyler Hill tunnel which the proprietors were so anxious to have. This peculiar little tunnel may be termed the principal engineering feature of the Canterbury and Whitstable Railway: it is half a mile long, and was constructed in four different sections, each of varying gauge. The working face evidently started at the Whitstable side of Tyler Hill, since as it advances towards Canterbury each section becomes larger than the preceding one. The first three sections are the usual egg shape, but the final section, i.e., at the Canterbury or south end, has perpendicular instead of bow walls, and is the largest of the four. In the very early days the Canterbury end of the tunnel was closed at nighttime by wicket gates, and the rides upon which the gates hung are still to be seen in the brickwork. The bore of the tunnel is unusually small specially constructed rolling stock having to be used for the present day passenger service over the line.” [1: p309]
Tyler Hill Tunnel runs underneath the Canterbury Campus of the University of Kent. Its South Portal was adjacent to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s School at the bottom-right of the adjacent satellite image. [15]
Giles Lane appears on both the early OS map extract and this satellite imagery. [8][15]
The North portal of the tunnel is highlighted by a lilac flag on the adjacent satellite image. [15]
Two photographs below show North Portal as it is in the 21st century. It is fenced and gated for safety and security purposes. The first shows the spalling brickwork of the tunnel ring, and the boarding-off of the entrance provided with an access gate. for maintenance purposes. Both were shared on Google Maps.
Tyler Hill Tunnel North Portal, (c) Enigma “Enigma” Hyena. (August 2021)Tyler Hill Tunnel North Portal, (c) Enigma “Enigma” Hyena. (August 2021)The route of the old railway is clearly visible as a straight line in the middle of a wooded strip of land running North-northwest from the North Portal of Tyler Hill Tunnel. [Google Maps, December 2024]Looking North toward the site of the stationary engines from Tyler Wood Road. [Google Streetview, October 2022]
Henry continues his description of the line:
“At the top of the steep bank from Canterbury there stood two 25 h.p. stationary engines for winding the trains up the incline. From where the first engine house stood the line is straight and practically level for the next mile to Clowes Wood summit, where there were two fixed engines of the same type and h.p. as those at the previous stage. The line then descends at 1 in 28 and 1 in 31 for the next mile to a place called Bogshole, so named owing to the once spongy condition of the ground in the vicinity, which was a constant source of trouble during the early days of the railway, as whenever wet weather set in the track invariably subsided with sometimes consequent cessations of traffic for a whole day, and even longer. At Bogshole commences the South Street level, which continues for a mile to the top of Church Street bank, whence the line again falls for half a mile at 1 in 57, the remaining half mile to Whitstable being almost at level.” [1: p310]
The two extracts from railmaponline.com’s satellite imagery above show the route of the old line as it runs down across the line of the modern A299 (at the top of the first image and at the bottom of the second image). In each case, if you cannot see the full image, double-click on it to enlarge it. For the majority of this length the old railway line followed a straight course. [15]
Looking South from the A299 along the route of the old railway, nothing remains to show that this was once the location of the old railway. [Google Streetview, August 2024]Looking North from the A299 along the line of the old railway – there is nothing to see. [Google Streetview, August 2024]At the bottom of the incline the old railway curved a little to the Northwest and met South Street tangentially. A level-crossing took the line across what is now Millstrood Road. [11]The length of the line shown on the OS Map extract above is the bottom half of the old line as it appears on this modern satellite image from railmaponline.com. [15]
The old railway route continues North and after passing through the rear gardens of houses on South Street runs, for a short distance immediately adjacent to South Street.
“Just below the top of Church Street bank is situated the only public road bridge on the railway. This is a narrow brick arch spanning Church Street, and stands today in its original form, notwithstanding the several but fruitless efforts of the local traction engine drivers to affect its displacement with their ponderous machines.” [1: p310]
The bridge to which Henry refers is long-gone in the 21st century. We can still, however, follow much of the route of the old railway.
“Before the completion of these works, … the company had twice to recourse to Parliament for additional capital powers, having exceeded those already granted with the railway in a half-finished state. The first was in 1827, when it was stated that the works authorised in 1825 had made good progress, but for their successful completion a further sum of money to the tune of £19,000 would be required, and for which they now asked. This Act also empowered the company to become carriers of passengers and goods, their original intention being to only levy tolls on all wagons and carriages passing over their line, the railway company providing the tractive power. The Act received royal assent on 2nd April 1827, but the larger portion of it was repealed by another in following year, the directors having found that the £19,000 previously authorised would prove inadequate for their purpose; so in 1828 they again went to Parliament for powers to raise £40,000 in lien thereof, and also petitioned for powers to lease the undertaking should they so desire, for a term not exceeding 14 years. These powers were conceded, and the Act received Royal Assent in May 1828. … The capital of the company aggregated £71,000 before the opening of the railway took place, which sum was further increased by a subsequent Act. … By May 1829, the works were nearing completion [and] … the question of permanent way and the gauge to which it was to be laid, had to be [considered.] … The Stephenson gauge of 4 ft. 8 1/2 in, was adopted. The permanent way … was laid with Birkenshaw’s patent wrought-iron fish-bellied rails and castings, of which George Stephenson highly approved. These rails were rolled in lengths of 15 ft.and weighed 28lb to the yard. The castings were spiked to oak sleepers placed at intervals of 3 ft., and the sheeves upon which the winding ropes of the stationary engines ran were situated in the centre of the track fixed to the sleepers at intervals of 6 ft.” [1: p310-311]
Henry continues:
With “all earthworks completed, engine houses, engines and stationary engines erected, permanent way laid, and everything generally ready to be brought into use, excepting the harbour, which was not completed for a year or two later, the Company announced the formal opening of the railway for 3rd May 1830.” [1: p311]
Of that day in 1830, the Kent Herald wrote:
“The day being remarkably fine, the whole City seemed to have poured forth its population, and company from the surrounding country continuing to augment the throng. By eleven o’clock, the time appointed for the procession to start, the assemblage of spectators was immense. The fields on each side of the line of road being crowded by well-dressed people of all ages, presented one of the most lively scenes we have witnessed for some time. The arrangements were so judiciously made, that by a quarter past eleven the procession was set in motion, the signal for starting having been given by telegraph. The bells of the Cathedral rang merrily at intervals during the day, and flags were displayed on the public buildings and railway. The following is the order of the procession:
1. Carriage with the directors of the Railway Company wearing white rosettes.
2. A coach with the Aldermen and other Members of the Canterbury Corporation.
3. A carriage with ladies.
4. A carriage with a band of music.
5. Carriages with ladies.
6 to 20. Carriages containing the Proprietors of the Railway, their friends, etc., in all amounting to near three hundred.
The procession was drawn forward in two divisions until it arrived at the first engine station, in which manner also it entered Whitstable, preceded by the locomotive engine. The various carriages contained nearly 300 persons, consisting of the principal gentry, citizens, and inhabitants of Canterbury and its neighbourhood. At Whitstable an excellent lunch was provided for the company by the Directors at the Cumberland Arms.” [14]
The inaugural train sets off from Canterbury and approaches Tyler Hill Tunnel South Portal. [1: p305]The return journey with the inaugural train leaving Whitstable and heading South for Canterbury. [1: p312]‘Invicta’ – the first engine used on the Canterbury’s and Whitstable Railway standing in 1950 on a plinth in Dane Jon Park, Canterbury. [19: p107]
The Kent Herald continues:
“On returning, the procession was joined at the Engine Station, and the whole went forward into Canterbury together.
The motion of the carriages is particularly easy and agreeable, and at first starting the quiet power with which the vast mass was set in motion dispelled every fear in the passengers. The entrance into the Tunnel was very impressive – the total darkness, the accelerated speed, the rumbling of the car, the loud cheering of the whole party echoing through the vault, combined to form a situation almost terrific – certainly novel and striking. Perfect confidence in the safety of the whole apparatus
The Crab and Winkle Line Trust tells us that the locomotive that pulled that first passenger train on the line was ‘Invicta’. They go on to say that the ‘Crab and Winkle Line’ became:
“the ‘first regular steam passenger railway in the world’ as stated in the Guinness Book of Records. … The ‘Invicta’ was based on Stephenson’s more famous ‘Rocket’ which came into service four months later on the Liverpool to Manchester line. Unfortunately with just 12 horse power the ‘Invicta’ could not cope with the gradients and was only used [regularly] on the section of line between Bogshole and South Street. The rest of the line was hauled by cables using steam driven static winding engines at the Winding Pond in Clowes Wood and the Halt on Tyler Hill Road. The Winding Pond also supplied water to the engines. … By 1836 the ‘Invicta’ was replaced and a third winding engine was built at South Street. The line was a pioneer in railway engineering using embankments, cuttings, level crossings, bridges and an 836 yard (764 metre) tunnel through the high ground at Tyler Hill. The railway was worked with old engines and ancient carriages always blackened by soot from the journey through the tunnel. It was said that goods trains tended to slow down for their crews to check pheasant traps in the woods and to pick mushrooms in the fields.”
“Journey times in the 1830s were approximately 40 minutes, but by 1846 with improvements to both the line and the locomotive, the trip took just 20 minutes. This is a very respectable time especially when compared with today’s often congested roads. … In 1839, the ‘Invicta’ was offered for sale as the three stationary engines were found to be adequate for working the whole line. The one enquiry came to nothing and the locomotive was put under cover. In 1846, The South Eastern Railway reached Canterbury and acquired the Canterbury and Whitstable Railway in 1845. The branch was relaid with heavier rail and locomotives replaced the stationary engines. For many years the ‘Invicta’ was displayed by the city wall and Riding Gate in Canterbury. The ‘Invicta’ is now displayed in the Canterbury museum.” [17]
A later article about the Canterbury & Whitstable Railway, written by D. Crook, was carried by The Railway Magazine in February 1951. [19]
Crook says that the Canterbury & Whitstable was “the first railway in England to convey ordinary passengers in steam-hauled trains. … In 1832, Whitstable Harbour was opened and … a steamer later ran … between Whitstable and London. During the 1840s, the South Eastern Railway took an interest in the Canterbury & Whitstable line. The S.E.R. leased it in 1844, commenced working it in 1846, and eventually bought it outright in 1853. From 6th April 1846, it was worked throughout its length by locomotive traction, when a junction was made at Canterbury with the South Eastern line from Ashford to Margate.” [19: p125] It was at this time that the stationary engines became surplus to requirements.
“The financial receipts improved steadily and throughout the remainder of the nineteenth century the line was prosperous. In 1860, the London, Chatham & Dover Railway reached Whitstable, and shortly afterwards was extended to Margate. The South Eastern Railway opposed the construction of this line and, of course, there was no connection between the two railways at Whitstable. Early in the [20th] century intermediate halts were built at South Street, and Tyler Hill, both serving scattered communities between Whitstable and Canterbury, and a new station was provided at Whitstable Harbour, on a site just outside the harbour. In 1913, the South Eastern & Chatham Railway, into which the L.C.D.R. and S.E.R. had merged, built the present Whitstable & Tankerton Station on the main line. The Canterbury & Whitstable Railway crossed over this line just beyond the end of the platforms, and a halt was built on the bridge at the point of crossing. Steps connected the two stations and special facilities, such as cheap day tickets between Herne Bay and Canterbury via Whitstable, were commenced. After the first world war, local bus competition became intensive and the inevitable decline followed. In 1930, it was decided to close the line to passengers and the last passenger train ran on 31st December of that year. This decision must have brought the Southern Railway more relief than regret, for, in consequence of the one tunnel (Tyler Hill) on the route, clearances are very limited, and only selected engines and special coaching stock can work over it. From 1931 onwards the line has been used regularly for goods traffic, and today [in 1950], with total closure a possibility in the near future, it provides a wealth of interest.” [19: p125-126]
In 1950, Crook took his own journey along the Canterbury & Whitstable Railway which began at “Canterbury West Station, the bay platform from which the Whitstable trains ran [was] now disused. The railway [curved] sharply towards Whitstable, and immediately [left the main] line. The single track [climbed] up through the outskirts of Canterbury, and [entered] the first railway tunnel to be built in the world.” [19: p126]
We need to pause for a moment to note that Tyler Hill’s claim was actually to being the first tunnel which passenger services passed through. (Haie Hill Tunnel in the Forest of Dean was an earlier structure but was only used for goods services.)
Tyler Hill Tunnel restricted the dimensions of locomotives and rolling-stock on the line. Nothing wider than 9ft. 3in. or higher than 11ft. could work through the tunnel which was nearly half a mile in length. The gradient through the tunnel (1 in 50) continued North of the tunnel for a total length of two miles.
Crook mentions passing Tyler Hill level crossing but noted that there was no sign of the passenger halt which once stood there. He continues: “Entering woodland country, the line … begins to drop sharply towards Whitstable. The gradients on the descent have been widely quoted as 1 in 31 and 1 in 28, but [Crook notes] the gradient boards [he saw] show them as 1 in 32 and 1 in 30. In any case, they are among the steepest to be found on a British railway. At the foot of this bank, the woods are left behind and another level stretch follows: it was at this point that Invicta used to be coupled on to the trains. The line then approaches South Street Halt, of which the platform has been removed and the waiting room only remains. The level crossing gates there, and similarly at Tyler Hill, are operated by the resident of a nearby house, the train indicating its approach by prolonged whistling. Nearing the outskirts of Whitstable, the line passes under an imposing road bridge built in 1935 by the Kent Kent County Council and carrying the A299 road which takes the bulk of the road traffic to the Kent coast. … The final steep drop into Whitstable is at 1 in 57 and 1 in 50. A road is crossed on a picturesque brick arch, which is still in its original condition, although it is undoubtedly awkward for road traffic because of its narrowness and oblique position. Immediately beyond this bridge is a much more modern one carrying the railway over the main Victoria-Ramsgate line at a point (as mentioned earlier) just clear of the main line Whitstable Station. Not a trace remains of Tankerton Halt.” [19: p126-127]
“By 1914, the railway was running regular services for day-trippers and Tankerton was becoming a thriving tourist destination, with tea shacks and beach huts springing up along the coast. 1914 also saw the outbreak of WW1 and the Crab and Winkle Railway was passed into the hands of the Government for the next 5 years. Passenger services were halted and the railway and harbour were used to transport much needed resources to the Western Front. These included livestock, horses, ammunition and trench building equipment.” [18] After the war, the return of passenger services did not result in the same level of patronage as before the war.
Crook continues his 1950s commentary: “Half a mile on lies the harbour, from the railway viewpoint, a pathetic sight. Both stations are still standing, the original inside the harbour gates, and the later one just outside and separated from the harbour by the main road through Whitstable. Level-crossing gates are provided there. The original station is completely derelict, and the later station, now closed for over 20 years, from the outside at least, is little better. This building has been leased for various purposes, and at present is the headquarters of the local sea cadets. Devoid of paint, and with the platform surface overgrown with weeds, it makes a very sad commentary on the march of time. The small signal box which stood there has been completely removed. A loop is provided for the engine to work round its train and this is the only section of double track along the whole six miles. The harbour itself is as pathetic as the derelict stations, with a profusion of sidings which could hold without difficulty 70 to 80 trucks. Thus the handful of trucks, rarely more than 15, lying in one or two of the sidings, serve only to remind of a past prosperity now not enjoyed. Small coastal steamers and barges carrying mostly grain and stone use the harbour, which suffers badly from the disadvantage of being tidal.” [19: p127]
It is worth commenting that Whitstable has seen a renaissance in the late 20th- and early 21st- centuries. It is a pleasant place to wander and has seen a real recovery in its economy.
Crook continues his 1950s commentary: “There are now no signals along the track but the telegraph wires appear intact, though off their poles in some places. A modern touch is provided by standard Southern Railway cast-concrete gradient signs and mile posts. The latter give the route miles to London via Canterbury East and Ashford, and, as a point of interest, by this route London is [76.25] miles from Whitstable compared with 59 miles by the Victoria-Ramsgate main line. … Originally two goods trains each day were needed to keep abreast of the traffic, but now one is ample. It takes half-an-hour to arrive from Canterbury, there is an hour’s leisurely shunting in the harbour, and the return to Canterbury is made at about 1 p.m. There is no train on Sundays. Goods carried mostly are confined to coal into Whitstable and grain into Ashford. At one time coal from the Kent mines was exported from Whitstable, but now the coal which comes this way is entirely for local use and is not a product off the local coalfields alone, but mostly from the Midlands. In the other direction, grain is unloaded at Whitstable from class “R1” six-coupled freight tanks which are in accord with the historical traditions of the line, for no fewer than three Chief Mechanical Engineers have shared in producing the version seen today. Originally known as Class ‘R’, they were built between 1888 and 1898 by the South Eastern Railway and were among the last engines to appear from Ashford under the Stirling regime, 25 being built in all. On the formation of the S.E.C.R.. some of the class were modified by Wainwright and classified R1, a total of 23 ‘Rs’ and ‘R1s’ survived to be included in the Southern Railway stock list. Nine of these subsequently were further modified to enable them to work over the Canterbury & Whitstable line and succeeded some of Cudworth’s engines. At the end of 1950, all the ‘Rs’ and all but 10 of the ‘R1s’ had been scrapped. The surviving ‘R1s’ which can work this route are Nos. 31010, (now 61 years old). 31069, 31147, 31339, and these engines all make regular appearances.” [19: p127-128]
Because of the gradients on the line, working rules stipulated that trains had to be limited to 300 tons (18 loaded trucks) from Canterbury to Whitstable, and 200 tons in the other direction, but by the early 1950s loads rarely approached these figures. “Modifications were necessary to reduce the height of the ‘Rs’ and ‘Ris’ so that they could negotiate the tunnel on the branch, these alterations included the fitting of a short stove pipe chimney, a smaller dome, and pop safety valves. The ‘R1’ rostered for duty on the Canterbury and Whitstable line spends the rest of its day as yard pilot in the sidings at Canterbury West. It is coaled and watered there, and returns to Ashford only at weekends.” [19: p128]
The reduced headroom in the tunnel also meant that while most open type wooden and steel trucks were permitted over the route, no closed wagons were. “For the grain traffic, special 12-ton tarpaulin hopper wagons were used. These [had] fixed side flaps and [were] all inscribed with the legend ‘When empty return to Whitstable Harbour’. Special brake vans [were] used also. Because of weight restrictions, the ‘R1s'[were] not allowed over all the harbour sidings, and trucks there [were] horse drawn or man-handled.” [19: p128]
Crook concludes his article with some comments which were topical at the time of writing: “In recent years there has been strong agitation for the railway to be re-opened for passengers, but these efforts have been unsuccessful. It had been suggested that, as Canterbury is to be a local centre for the Festival of Britain, and the line has such an historical background, a passenger service should be reinstated for a trial period during the coming summer, but this was considered impracticable. … Perhaps specially-built diesel railcars would provide a satisfactory solution. On the other hand however strong the case for re-opening, it must be admitted that the need for special rolling stock constitutes a serious difficulty.” [19: p128]
“The line was in use for over 120 years. Passengers were carried until 1931 after which the line was used for goods only. The line finally closed on the 1st of December 1952, but was re-opened for several weeks in 1953 after the great floods cut the main coastal line on the 31st of January. The line was offered for sale in the late 1950s and large sections of the line were sold to private landowners. … The world’s oldest railway bridge in Whitstable was knocked down in 1971 to make way for cars. Thirty metres of the tunnel collapsed in 1974 and by 1997 the whole route was disused built on, or overgrown, almost entirely forgotten…” [17]
Two short notes about the Canterbury and Whitstable Railway:
A. A Canterbury and Whitstable Echo (The Railway Magazine, June 1959)
“Indignation has been expressed by residents in Whitstable at a recent substantial increase in the local rates, and the Urban District Council has been criticised for purchasing the harbour last year from the British Transport Com-mission for £12,500. This purchase accounts for 5d. of the 4s. 4d. increase in the rates. Whitstable Harbour was the first in the world to be owned by a railway company; it was among the works authorised by the Canterbury & Whitstable Act of incorporation of June 10, 1825. The railway was closed completely in December, 1952, and has been dismantled. In present circumstances, it probably is but cold comfort for the disgruntled residents to stress the historical interest of the harbour, quite apart from its commercial value. For them the fact remains that the purchase by the local authority of this adjunct to the pioneer railway in Kent has resulted in an increase in their rates.” [22]
B. Whitstable Harbour (The Railway Magazine, September 1959)
“Sir, Your editorial note in the June issue is of considerable interest to railway historians, for in addition to the fact that Whitstable Harbour was the first in the world to be owned by a railway company, it was also via this harbour that one of the earliest combined railway and steamboat bookings was introduced … In 1836, a local steam packet company agreed with the Canterbury & Whitstable Railway for the issue of tickets between Canterbury and London, and advertised that the ship William the Fourth, with Captain Thomas Minter, would leave Whitstable at 12 o’clock every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and that the connecting train from Canterbury would leave that station at 11 o’clock. The journey from London would be made on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. The advertised single fares (including the railway journey) from Canterbury to London were in chief cabin 6s., children 4s.; and in fore cabin 5s., children 3s. 6d. The advertisement was headed with a small picture of the steam packet and the words, ‘Steam to London from Whitstable and Canterbury to Dyers Hall Steam Packet Wharf near London Bridge‘.” [23]
NB: There is at least a question mark to the assertion that Whitstable Harbour was the first in the world to be owned by a railway company. We know that Port Darlington was opened in December 1830. Whitstable harbour was built in 1832 to serve the Canterbury and Whitstable Railway which opened earlier. [24]
References
C.R. Henry; The Canterbury and Whitstable Railway: The Second Public Railway Opened in England; in The Railway Magazine, London, October 1907, p305-313.
In April 1920, a couple of paragraphs in The Railway Magazine focussed on a new experimental Railmotor constructed by New South Wales Railways. [1]
Railmotor No. 1
In April 1920, The Railway Magazine reported that New South Wales’ Railway Commissioners introduced a railmotor service on the Lismore line, an isolated section on the North Coast. The railmotor car was provided by converting and lengthening to 8 ft. 6 in. the chassis of a five-ton Moreland motor lorry. The front pair of wheels were also replaced by a four-wheeled bogie. The railmotor provided seating accommodation for 33 passengers, and was designed and constructed at the carriage and wagon shops of the system at Eveleigh, Sydney. [1]
Before being placed in service, a severe trial run was made, and proved in every way to be most successful; a I in 40 grade being taken at a speed of 18 m.p.h. The time-table was arranged for speeds up to 25 mph. The Railway Magazine noted that if found satisfactory in continued service similar rail-motor services would be introduced on other branch lines. [1]
NSW Railmotor No. 1 was powered by a 42 hp 4-cylinder American Waukesha petrol engine. This engine was later replaced by a 40 hp British Thornycroft 4-cylinder petrol engine. This vehicle proved a success on the line between Lismore and Grafton. [3]
“The wooden body … was finished in narrow tongue and groove boards. It was divided into three separate sections, accommodating 33 passengers and 2 crew. The first section was the cab, which accommodated the train crew (the driver and the guard). The second section (the forward compartment) accommodated 23 passengers and the third section (the rear compartment) was a smoking area and accommodated 10 passengers. The two passenger compartments were fitted with transverse seats and drop type windows, and each compartment had two doors, which opened outwards. There was no interconnection between the three compartments. Steps were fitted under each of the doors to allow passengers to alight from the vehicle to ground level.” [3]
“The Railmotor was designed to run in one direction only and draw-gear was fitted to the trailing end so that a trailer could be attached for hauling light goods and parcels. A collapsible tricycle (trike) was also carried for the train crew’s use in case of an emergency or breakdown in the section. This was carried on the back of the Railmotor.” [3]
“In November 1925, after six years of reliable service, [this vehicle] was withdrawn from passenger traffic and it took on a new role as the Signal Engineer’s inspection car. It subsequently lost its title of Railmotor No.1 as this was re-allocated to one the newly designed 42-foot Railmotors in November 1926.” [3]
“No. 1 was finally withdrawn from railway service in 1930. The body was sold and it began a new life as a house in the Coffs Harbour region, while the chassis was scrapped.” [3]
As we have already noted, one drawback with Railmotor No.1 was that it was only single ended and needed to be turned at the terminus for the return journey. Therefore double-ended operation was to be provided in the next prototype vehicle, Railmotor No.2, built in 1921. [3] Both trial vehicles were sufficiently successful to mean that the railway company went on to use a number of Railmotors.
Railmotor No. 2
Railmotor No. 2 (Kathleen)! “An end-platform suburban type carriage, FA 1864, was chosen for this experimental vehicle. Eveleigh Carriage Works converted this carriage to a Railmotor while its mechanical parts and the petrol engine were designed and built in Eveleigh Locomotive Works.” [3]
Configured as a railmotor, Kathleen (never its official name) “was divided into 4 sections, accommodating 53 passengers and 2 crew. [A] driving [cab was] positioned at each end. The First Class section accommodated 16 passengers, while the Second Class section accommodated 37 passengers. … Driving cabs were mounted in the centre of the end platforms at each end of the vehicle. Entry to the cab was gained through a back door that opened into the passenger compartment. The driving controls were arranged to allow the vehicle to be driven from either end and this meant the vehicle did not have to be turned for the return journey.” [3]
The first class section of the Railmotor “occupied one third of the vehicle’s length and the second class area occupied the remaining two thirds. Access to either area was gained through a door contained in a wall separating the two compartments. The engine protruded through the floor of the second class area and was covered by a padded fixture providing seating for an additional 5 passengers. This fixture measured 10′ 6″ x 3′ 6″. Battery boxes were also located in this central area and these to were covered with padded seats providing seating for 12 passengers.” [3]
“Railmotor No. 2 was powered by a 6-cylinder 100 hp (@1,000 rpm) petrol engine manufactured in the Eveleigh Railway Workshops. This engine was regarded as a fine piece of engineering, as it was reversible. That is, it could be turned in either direction and it contained features such as coil ignition, seven bearing crankshaft, together with overhead valves and camshaft. To make the engine turn in the opposite direction a camshaft containing two sets of cams was slid into position by means of compressed air. This engine weighed 22 cwt. A three-speed gearbox was coupled by cardan-shaft to both axles on one bogie. The vehicle was geared to give a road speed of 40 mph (@1,425 rpm) in top gear. Total weight of the vehicle of 26 tons 7 cwt 2 qtr.” [4]
“As the Railmotor could run in either direction, buffers, cowcatchers and standard screw drawgear were mounted on headstocks at either end and electric headlights were mounted above each of the driver’s windscreens. Electric lighting was used for the cab and compartment areas.” [4]
“Railmotor No.2 ran trials between Tamworth and Barraba on the 29th April, 1921. On the 15th October, 1922, the public timetable officially showed the railmotor, which provided a faster daily service (except Sundays) in place of the three times weekly mixed train service.” [4]
“No.2 failed to complete about two thirds of its allotted mileage during the first twelve months of operation and this poor performance was put down to undulating grades on the Barraba branch. The unit was eventually withdrawn from this working in November 1924. The unit proved a little more successful when it was trialled on the easier graded Burren Junction to Pokataroo branch during 1925.” [4]
It was withdrawn from service “in November 1925 and reverted to its original role as a suburban carriage number FA 1864. The engine that powered No.2 found a new life driving a water pump at Armidale and later at Valley Heights. … A proposal to construct another five cars similar to Kathleen but with an increased seating capacity lapsed. New designs proceeded and the standard 42-foot railmotor emerged.” [4]
References
Petrol Railmotor Car: New South Wales Government Railways; in The Railway Magazine, April 1920, p230.
Roger Farnworth 
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Locomotion_Shildon_29.06.2009_P6290048_(9989613283).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
