The Railway Magazine of September 1922 carried two short articles about new petrol Railmotors. …
North Eastern Railway (NER) – Petrol Rail Motor Bus
The first short article was about an experimental vehicle used by the NER.
On certain portions of the NER network, the company realised that “there was room for a service conducted on lines as nearly as possible identical with those of motor buses on the roads. With the view of ascertaining, without much initial expenditure, whether the scheme is likely to prove financially successful, they have converted one of their ‘Leyland’ road motor ‘buses, formerly running on the road services in the vicinity of Durham, so as to make it suitable for running on the railway.” [1: p234]
The war resulted in a significant increase in railway working expenses which made it impossible to provide a train unit on some of the country branches, where the number of people travelling was small, “sufficiently cheap to cover its working expenses out of the small revenue available,” [1: p234]
NER Rail Motor [1: p235]
The NER needed to devise a cheaper form of rail transport. As a first step, it decided to convert one of its own fleet of petrol-powered road buses. The company’s intention was to undertake a trial at low cost before developing a design specifically tailored to rail use.
The experimental unit entered service on 19th July 1922. If “the results of the working of this vehicle are encouraging, the company intend[ed] to build vehicles [capable of] carrying up to 40 passengers, and maintaining an average speed of approximately 30 m.p.h.” [1: p236]
The railmotor operated between Copmanthorpe, York, Strensall and Earswick, and was “manned by a motorman and a conductor exactly in the same way as if it were running on the highway. Single journey tickets [were] issued on board, so that passengers [did not have] the trouble of going to the booking office. It [had] accommodation for 26 passengers. It [ could] be driven from both ends, and run in either direction, and the motive power consist[ed] of a 35-h.p. Leyland engine of the standard type, supplied by the builders for their ordinary commercial road vehicles.” [1: p236]
The donor vehicle was one of three Leyland Motor Co. buses that the NER purchased on 21st July 1921. “With a long bonnet and a overhanging roof at the front, it was a typical design for that time. The conversion was completed at York Carriage Works. Initially No. 110 in the Road Vehicle fleet, it was renumbered as No. 130Y shortly after conversion because No. 110 was already occupied in the Coaching Stock list.” [2]
An “additional radiator and an additional driving position were located at the rear of the vehicle. Central passenger doors were fitted to both sides of the saloon. …. Folding steps were also added to allow access from rail level. These were later replaced with fixed steps, and eventually removed altogether. An electric headlamp was also fitted.” [2]
The LNER website continues: “the initial York duty involved a service to Haxby, Strensall, Earswick, and Copmanthorpe. NER Petrol Autocar No. 2105 took over this duty on 9th July 1923, and No. 130 was transferred to Selby. At Selby, No. 130 operated daily return trips to Straddlethorpe, York, Goole, Catleford, Goole, Market Weighton, Cawood, and Hemingborough. This resulted in a full timetable that started at 6:52am and finished at 7:44pm. No. 130 took part in the Stockton & Darlington Centenary celebrations, but continued these Selby duties until November 1926.” [2]
Railmotor No. 110, later No. 130. The fold-down steps can be seen clearly in this image. [2]
On 11th November 1926 the railmotor/railbus “caught fire whilst being filled up with petrol at Selby shed. The entire bus was reportedly gutted within 15 minutes. Reports also suggest that someone used a naked paraffin lamp to check the level of the petrol tank. Only the chassis remained, and it was eventually decided not to rebuild or replace the bus. No. 130 was officially withdrawn from stock on 9th April 1927.” [2]
It seems as though the initial experiment was successful enough to allow the NER to authorise the building of a further experimental petrol railmotor (No. 2105) in September 1922. A Daimler engine was purchased in October and “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.” [3]
Railmotor No. 2105 (later renumbered 22105) [3]
It seated 40 in third class accommodation, seats were in pairs either side of a central gangway. “The distinctive wheel arrangement had a two axle bogie at the engine end, and a single fixed axle at the other end. The single fixed axle was powered from the motor via a clutch, three-speed gearbox, and propeller shaft with two universal joints. 40mph was reportedly possible. Radiators were fitted to both ends.” [3]
This Railmotor took over the service provided by No. 130 and continued to operate local services in and around York until 1930. By 1930, it had been renumbered 22105.Closure of a series of local stations that year led to it being reassigned to the Hull area. It is “known to have been given an extensive timetable in the Hull area from 1st May to 17th July 1932 when it worked a 14 hour timetable including Beverley, Thorne North, Brough, Willerby & Kirk Ella, and Hull. Reports suggest it was unreliable during this period and was often replaced by a Sentinel steam railcar.” [3]
Over the next two years, No. 22105 did not work any revenue-earning services. It was withdrawn from service on 19th May 1934.
What is perhaps surprising is that these two experimental vehicles were not the first ones used on the NER network. The NER had experimented with petrol railmotors just after the turn of the 20th century. Two examples are worthy of note.
A. Petrol-electric Railmotors/Autocars
The NER were reviewing their operation of suburban passenger services on Tyneside. Alongside the introduction of electric trains on an urban network of lines which would later develop into the Tyne and Wear Metro, the NER ordered two experimental railcars/railmotors to work other, non-electrified, parts of the network.
“Both railcars were built at the York Carriage Works, together with the original Tyneside electric stock, in 1902-3 and numbered 3170 and 3171. They were 53.5 feet long and weighed around 35 tons. They had clerestory roofs, bow ends, large windows and matchboard sides. There were four compartments inside, the engine room with the principal driving position, a vestibule, the passenger saloon and a driving compartment. There was no guard’s compartment. The passenger saloon had 52 seats. These were reversible and upholstered in standard NER pattern. With curtains at the windows, radiators between the seats and electric lighting, the passenger accommodation was described as ‘cosy’ and seems to have been very popular with the travelling public.” [4]
These two railmotors were referred to as ‘autocars’ after the steam push/pull autotrain services already operated by the NER.
The Embassy & Bolton Abbey Railway comments: “These NER railcars were the first in the world to use petrol-electric technology. At that time, diesel engines were less advanced and not as reliable as their petrol counterparts. The concept of using internal combustion engines to power electric traction motors would later be developed into the diesel electric technology used to power many of BR’s ‘diesel’ locos.” [4]
One of the two NER petrol-electric railmotors. [5]
Initially the railmotors/autocars saw service “between West Hartlepool and Hartlepool stations (in direct competition with electric tramcars) and Scarborough to Filey (as a replacement of a steam service). Later, the autocars were transferred to the Selby – Cawood branchline to work the passenger services there. In 1923, no.3170 was fitted with a larger engine and new generator giving it sufficient power to pull a conventional carriage, thus increasing passenger capacity. It worked in the Harrogate area for a while before rejoining its twin on the Cawood branch. No. 3171 was withdrawn in 1930 and No. 3170 in 1931.” [5]
These vehicles had a petrol engine and a generator in their engine rooms, producing electricity for two Westinghouse 55HP traction motors which were mounted on the bogie underneath. A series of different petrol engines were used during the life of these vehicles. “In 1923, no. 3170 was given a third engine, a 225HP 6 cylinder ex-WD engine rumoured to come from a First World War tank. This new engine gave 3170 more torque and enough power to haul an autocoach as a trailer, though it seems not to have affected the maximum speed.” [5]
The LNER showed an interest in these vehicles and went on to test Armstrong diesel-electric railcars in the 1930s, but by then Sentinel steam railcars had been introduced. “These were not as reliable or popular, they had more seats and fitted better into the contemporary infrastructure.” [4]
No. 3171 was dismantled when withdrawn. When No. 3170 was withdrawn on the 4th April 1931 it was transported to Kirkbymoorside near Pickering, where the body became a holiday home. “Fitted with a tin roof and veranda it was well protected from the weather and survived there until September 2003 when it was sold to carriage restorer Stephen Middleton who moved it to the Embsay and Bolton Abbey Steam Railway.” [5]
B. A Petrol Directors’ Vehicle
NER Directors’ Inspection Car [8: p358]Side elevation and Plan of NER Inspection Car [8: p460]End elevation of NER Inspection Car. [8: p460]
The Engineer reported in early 1908 that “The North-Eastern Railway Company [had] recently built at its York carriage works and introduced into service a petrol rail motor inspection car designed for the use of its executive officers. The car [was] 17 ft in length by 7 ft in width, with a wheel base of 10 ft. It [was] arranged with a driver’s compartment at each end, and with an open saloon 10 ft. long in the middle. The saloon [was] entered through either of the driver’s compartments, and there [was] a permanent seating accommodation for six passengers, whilst two extra seats [were] provided on camp stools.” [8: p358]
It seems reasonable to ask why, with the experience gleaned in the very early years of the 20th century, the NER felt the need in 1922 to commission further experimental vehicles. Was it because the technology had developed significantly? Had the early experiments been less than satisfactory?
Weston, Cleveland & Portishead Light Railway
The second short piece in The Railway Magazine of September 1922 related to a Railmotor constructed by the Drewry Car Company Limited (Works No. 1252), to the instructions of Colonel H.F. Stephens, who, along with other roles, was Engineer and General Manager of the Weston, Clevedon and Portishead Light Railway.
The railmotor was powered by a 4-cylinder Baguley 35 hp petrol engine with a 3-speed gearbox and its oil consumption, on easy gradients, [was] 16 miles to the gallon. It had a maximum speed of 25 mph. It was 19ft long and driven by a chain drive from either end. It had 2ft diameter wheels. [1: p239][6]
A Drewry Railmotor at the Weston, Cleveland & Portishead Light Railway. [1: p239]
The vehicle had full visibility all round. Glazed throughout above waist height. Side widows were openable. The panels below the windows were of steel. Acetylene lighting was provided for travel after-dark. The unit carried a maximum of “42 passengers – 30 sitting and 12 standing. The car [was] provided with rails round the roof to enable light luggage and market produce to be carried outside, thus giving the passengers more accommodation.” [1: p239]
Colonel Stephens “was a pioneer of petrol traction. The WC&PR was the first of his railways to introduce railcars. … Due to low running costs [the Drewry Railmotor] was relatively profitable. … Originally the petrol tank was fitted inside the railcar together with spare cans of petrol. As smoking was then common, it was later realised that this was a hazard and a cylindrical horizontal petrol tank was fitted at one end above the buffer beam.” [6]
“A light four-wheel wagon built by Cranes was bought in 1925 for the railcar to carry extra luggage or milk churns.” [6]
This article features advertising from the November 1929 edition of The Railway Magazine. It will probably be of interest to compare the various adverts here with those in The Railway Magazine of November 1938. An article about the 1938 magazine can be found here. [2]
The Southern Railway
The Southern Railway had a single page advertisement in the magazine which featured the Golden Arrow Pullman Service between London and Paris.
London to Paris in 6 hrs 30 mins! [1: pIII]
Wikipedia tells us that, “The Flèche d’Or was introduced in 1926 as an all-first-class Pullman service between Paris and Calais. On 15th May 1929, the Southern Railway introduced the equivalent between London Victoria and Dover while simultaneously launching a new first class only ship, the ‘Canterbury’, for the ferry crossing. The train usually consisted of 10 British Pullman cars, hauled by one of the Southern Railway’s Lord Nelson class locomotives, and took 98 minutes to travel between London and Dover. Because of the impact of air travel and ‘market forces’ on the underlying economy of the service, ordinary first- and third-class carriages were added in 1931. Similarly the first-class-only ferry, ‘Canterbury’, was modified to allow other classes of passenger.” [3]
It is not surprising that the train service ceased at the outbreak of the Second World War in September 1939. “It resumed after the war on 15th April 1946, initially running with the pre-war Pullmans and the Trianon Bar car, a converted twelve-wheeled Pullman. The Southern Railway flagship, the ‘Invicta’ replaced the ‘Canterbury’ from 10th October 1946. As of 1949, the all-Pullman train was scheduled to depart from London Victoria at 10:30, with the connecting train from Calais reaching Paris (Gare du Nord) at 17:30, and from Paris at 12:15, with the connecting train from Dover arriving in London at 19:30. This worked out to a scheduled journey time of 6 hours eastbound and 6 hours, 15 minutes, westbound.” [3]
Four Full-page Adverts from the LMS
The LMS had four full-page adverts in the November 1929 magazine:
The first advert was for a series of ‘Carriage Window’ books. …
The first page pointed to a series of ‘carriage window’ books which helped travellers to comprehend what they were seeing beyond the windows on their journeys. [1: p IV]
These ‘Carriage Window’ books were usually entitled ‘The Track of the …’. They covered a number of different main line routes.
The frontispiece from the edition of ‘Track of the Irish Mail’ issued in 1947. [4]
In the article about The Railway Magazine of November 1938 we noted that the LNER was supplying scripts and slides for talks about their network. In 1929, the LMS was offering a similar range of lectures. …
Lecture notes and slides, illustrating holiday places and places of general interest on the LMS, supplied free! There is also a suggestion that a lecturer may be available too! [1: p V]
The LMS also advertised the dining experience on their express services. …
The dining experience on LMS is celebrated in this advert. I wonder whether their customers saw the advertised service or had similar disappointments as people in later generations? The food on offer probably simplified preparation work. [1: p VI]The use of containers on the LMS was clearly established by 1929. Mobile cranes in goods depots at railheads facilitated transfer from railway wagons to trucks and lorries. [1: p VII]
Four LNER Full-page Adverts
The first advert is for two books, a picture and a model celebrating ‘The Flying Scotsman’ and other LNER locomotives.
Two books, a ‘panel’ and a paperweight, all available direct from the LNER! [1: pVIII]Pullman services provided by the LNER. The ‘Queen of Scots’, the ‘West Riding Pullman’, the ‘ Harrogate Sunday Pullman’. [1: pIX]Ferry routes to Flushing (every day), to Hook of Holland (every night) to Antwerp and to Esbjerg (both nightly except Sundays). [1: pX]LNER slides and lectures, available free of charge! It seems from this advert, and that from 1938, that this practice was normal during the interwar period. Some interesting subjects! [1: pXI]
Two GWR Adverts
The first GWR adverts seems to be endeavouring to extend the summer season in the West Country. …
The GWR encourages out-of-season travel to the West Country, and the purchase of travel books direct from the GWR. [1: pXII]
Their second advert focussed on their container service. …
Advertising the GWR container services, the photograph used shows a contemporary mobile crane and a GWR road-lorry. [1: pXIII]
Other Adverts
A regular feature is a full-page advert from the Railway Publishing Co. Ltd. [1: pXIV]Adverts from ‘The Railway Club’ and Bassett-Lowke sit alongside an offering from the Press Bureau of London’s Underground of two new lectures, the first about London’s landmarks, the second about the building of the underground railways. [1: pXV]The advert from St. Martin’s Engraving Co. Ltd. appears also in the November 1938 magazine. Fouled for Books is still a going concern in 2024. Edward Exley & Co. was founded in Bradford in about 1920 and the company is still in existence in 1924, undertaking repairs of Exley products from the past. [5] F. Moore was not the name of a real artist, but rather the name adopted by the Locomotive Publishing Company, which employed the services of the rather reclusive Edwin Thomas Rudd to do the actual painting. [6][1: pXVI]The Central Argentine Railway [1: pXVII]
The Central Argentine Railway was one of four broad gauge (5ft 6in/1676mm) British companies that built and operated railway networks in Argentina. Established in the 19th century, to serve the provinces of Santa Fe and Córdoba, in the east-central region of the country, it eventually also served Buenos Aires, Tucumán, and Santiago del Estero. It effectively ceased to exist after nationalisation.
“British railway companies operating in Argentina, including the CA, were nationalized in 1948 by the Juan Perón administration. The CA took over the northern section of the Ferrocarril Rosario y Puerto Belgrano and then became part of the state-owned Ferrocarril General Bartolomé Mitre.” [7]
This final advert from the front pages of the November 1929 magazine promoted a publication by The Railway Engineer, the revised 6th edition of “Locomotive Management – from Cleaning to Driving” by Jas T. Hodgson and John Williams. [1: pXVIII]
‘Locomotive Management – from Cleaning to Driving’ was a standard text which went through regular revisions to keep it up-to-date.
Some LMS “Business” Posters
The LMS. sent specimen copies of an “admirable set of new posters recently issued by them depicting the various goods traffic facilities offered on their system. There [were] four posters altogether, all drawn by Mr. Norman Wilkinson, and these differ from the usual run of such things inasmuch as they are in black and white, with good bold red and black lettering beneath each picture.” [1: p412] Two were reproduced in the magazine.
Two of the LMS posters were reproduced in monochrome in The Railway Magazine. [1: p410]
One poster dealt with “‘Modern Equipment for Modern Loads’, and illustrate[d] the fact that the LMS. have modern cranes and specially constructed rolling-stock for dealing with loads of exceptional size and weight; another is mainly concerned with ‘Mobility’, and stresses the fact that containers reduce[d] packing costs and eliminate[d] risks of damage – besides expediting transportation of merchandise between truck and lorry. A third poster – a specially fine bit of work, this illustrate[d] the LMS. method of ‘rapid transport of goods from ship to dock’ – that is, by means of electric trucks – the contention being that modern LMS. steamers and handling appliances ensure[d] safe and expeditious transportation of goods between Great Britain and the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland. The last of the series also deals with ‘Speedy Handling’ by means of mechanically-propelled trucks, which ‘transfer goods expeditiously and safely in LMS. goods depots’.” [1: p412]
New GWR posters
“Two posters which have been issued by Mr. E. Ford, Chief Goods Manager, GWR. … They may be regarded as good examples of the modern tendency to recognise that there is almost as much scope for advertising goods traffic facilities as for those provided by the passenger department. The first emphasise[d] the fact that express freight trains provide[d] for rapid transit, usually on the basis of collection one evening and delivery early next morning, while it is quite appropriate that a first-class express engine should be shown at the head of the train, in that the latest express engines [were] quite frequently employed for running these trains, especially those on ‘registered’ service, with which the poster [was] particularly concerned. The poster itself [was] in colour, with lettering in black, white and amber on a blue ground. Pictorial portions [were] in full colour, while the arrow [was] in green, with amber shading, to emphasise ‘The Sign of the Green Arrow’.” [1: p 413]
The two GWR posters were reproduced in monochrome in the Railway Magazine. [1: p411]
“The second poster also use[d] the symbol of an arrow to indicate, in this case, speed and sureness. The train itself [was] utilised as the arrow, while the target [was] an outline map of the British Isles in green, the name of the principal centres served by the GWR. was indicated as arrow destinations. The poster in other respects [was] on a green ground, utilising also blue, red and amber to an effective degree.” [1: p413]
These two posters go some way towards addressing the veracity of different views about the commencement of the ‘Green Arrow’ service referred to in my article about the November 1938 edition of the magazine. These posters demonstrate that the GWR, at least, was offering a Green Arrow service by November 1929 and suggest that the service reached into Scotland and so into the territories of the LMS and LNER.
The Railway Magazine in November 1929 reported the breakdown of staffing across Britain’s railways in the week ending 9th March 1929. [1: p400]
The census of railway employees in 1929. [1: p400]
It is interesting, first, to note the relative sizes of the staff numbers of the Big Four railway companies. Significantly the largest employer was the LMS. The LNER had around 55,000 less staff than the LMS. Strikingly, the GWR had significantly less staff again, with the SR the smallest, with less than one third of the staff numbers of the LMS. I wonder whether these figures might have resulted in some careful thinking, particularly by the LMS about the efficiency of their organisation? It would have been helpful to see the relative levels of income to compare against these figures. …
Secondly, I was struck by the relative numbers of male and female staff: 619,000 men to 17,000 women. 10 years after the first world war, very few of the women employed on the railways at that time would still have been employed by the railway companies. … What might have been the figures in a census during WW1?
Hidden within those figures are other striking comparisons. …
There were 6,800 male carriage cleaners and only 675 female carriage cleaners.
It seems that male officers and clerical staff totaled just over 72,000, supplemented by over 2,700 technical staff. Women employed in these areas amounted to around 9,800. It is unlikely that many supervisory positions in these areas would have been open to women, perhaps head offices of the railway companies may have had female managers in typing pools?
The role of crossing-keeper seems to have been far more equitably staffed between men (1,400) and women (1,500). Often a station master’s wife (or the wife of another male employee) would be a crossing-keeper at a nearby crossing. One wonders whether there was a pay differential between men and women in this occupation?
Cleaning roles for carriages and engines were given to men (13,600). Office cleaners were set alongside charwomen (3,100) and it appears that all lavatory attendants and waiting room staff were women (660).
Shop and artisan staff are recorded separately. Men seem to have filled all supervisory roles (2,900) with 104,500 men in other grades (excluding watchmen and labourers). There were just over 1,000 women in similar roles.
There were 7,600 male hotel, refreshment room, dining car and laundry staff and 5,700 women.
I am sure that as you look at the figures other matters will come to light.
I wonder what heading wheeltappers would be recorded under? Probably ‘carriage and wagon examiners’.
It also seems that in 1929 there was a ‘profession’ that trainspotters could aspire to. Across the railways of Britain there were 2,408 ‘number-takers’!
And finally … There are two pictures below showing railway employees at work on the railways. I came across the second while searching for a wartime image of women at work on the railways. The first is the cover page from the booklet which included the second picture. The “booklet, [was] published for six old pence in the BR era, by J W Stafford, the President of the NUR with the evocative title ‘We See Ourselves’. J W Stafford was a lengthman on the Great Western Railway, and later British Railways, for 33 years before he was elected president of the NUR in 1954. He asserted that it was management’s view in the 1930s that the heavier the tool, the greater would be the output of work, and that this belief had not entirely died out in the 1950s.” [2]
Men at work on the railways. [2]
The foreword by Frank Mosley notes that “Credit for building a cathedral is seldom given to the men who carefully and skilfully laid the stones. It is the same with a railway – in building it and keeping it in good order.”
Didcot Railway Centre comments: “This booklet itself is a comprehensive and very honest reflection of all aspects of Permanent Way staff employment, its challenges and its future prospects. Extending to no less than 21 sections on 23 pages, it includes ‘As Others see us’; ‘We were the Pioneers’; ‘Our Girls’; ‘A Dangerous Occupation’; ‘The Whitewash Train’ to ‘Airing our Grievances’.” [2]
The section entitled ‘Our Girls’ is a frank reflection that wartime shortages of men caused females to be employed on this work. Stafford, writing in the BR era, considered that given the arduous and dangerous nature of normal activities, it simply wasn’t a suitable environment for women!
I suspect that today that thinking would be seen as sexist, even if it wasn’t in the mid-20th century. Women clearly proved themselves effective railway employees in both world wars.
Following on from the short article about The Railway and Travel Monthly of July 1918 which can be found here, [1] this is a short reflection on the advertising which appeared in the November 1938 edition of The Railway Magazine, [2] twenty years after the magazine looked at from 1918 and only a few months before the outbreak of the Second World War.
Advertising included a series of adverts for:
New publications such as: A History of the Southern Railway (17s/6d); Gradients if the British Main Line Railways (5s); British Locomotive Types – 3rd Edition (5s); History of the Great Western Railway, Volume 1 (1833-1863)(£1/1s) and Volume 2 (1863-1921)(10s/6d);The Railway Handbook 1938-1939, 5th Annual Edition (2s/6d); a reprint of The Locomotive Stock Book (2s/6d), and its Appendix (1s/6d), bought together – 3s/9d.
Damaged books at low prices from The Locomotive Publishing Co. Ltd.
St. Martin’s Engraving Co. Ltd.
The Railway Correspondence & Travel Society membership and visits.
The Railway Club membership.
The LNER’s practice of loaning out slides free of charge accompanied by a set of lecture notes, enabling individuals, clubs and societies to put on talks about railway related subjects themselves.
Lantern Slide talks at minimal cost. A goodwill gesture from the LNER or perhaps a good publicity exercise! [2: pIV]
Sending Containered Loads & Liquids in Bulk by Rail
There were three full page adverts placed jointly by the Big Four railway companies. The first two pages related to the movement of prepacked loads – containers and tankers.
A joint advert in The Railway Magazine of November 1938 by the Big Four railway companies. [2: pV]
Containerisation on Britain’s railways can be traced back to very early days. “In the 1830s the Liverpool & Manchester Railway used simple rectangular boxes, four to a waggon, to convey coal from the Lancashire collieries to Liverpool, where they were transferred to horse-drawn carts by crane.” [3] This had some advantages, particularly the reduced handling of the cargo.
After the turn of the 20th century, “the London & North Western, Lancashire & Yorkshire, and Midland Railway companies were carrying ‘box coal’ on flat wagons, the coal being destined for use by steamboats.” [3]
The Great Central Railway “also played a part in the story of containerisation, being one of only three companies which provided special wagons for the conveyance of ‘fish tanks’.” [3] The wagons were classified as passenger stock.
The Midland and the Great Northern also followed this practice; in the case of the Great Northern Railway the containers were referred to as ‘cod boxes’ some of which lasted into the 1930s.
As early as the late 19th Century railways were using closed containers which resembled the bodies of wooden box vans, “these were initially known as ‘lift vans’ and were privately owned by several furniture removal firms. They were carried both on railway wagons and on flat road trailers drawn by horses or steam tractors.” [3]
The Advent of more effective road transport after WWI brought a challenge to railway companies. The biggest concern was that lorries could offer a door-to-door service which significantly reduced handling costs.
“The LMS launched its first container in 1926, and over the next few years all four of the pre-Nationalisation railway companies developed significant container traffic. Containers were soon to be found carrying all manner of goods, including bicycles, confectionery, castings, cookers, baths, machinery, boots, cloth, carpet, pianos, gramophones, sugar, shrubs, and of course furniture. Special insulated containers were soon developed for the conveyance of meat, dry ice bunkers being provided to maintain the temperature.” [3]
Containerisation worked best for high value items many of which required careful packing to avoid breakages. “This meant that a premium could be charged for a fast ‘door to door’ service, which justified the use of containers.” [3]
In the first instance a variety of different wagons were used to carry thesevstandardised containers. But “by the 1930s specialised container flat wagons or ‘conflats’ were built. In many cases these were converted from other wagons, for example the LNER converted a number of cattle trucks following a downturn in livestock traffic.” [3]
Early Road-Rail Tank Containers and Demountable Tanks. This full page advert in The Railway Magazine is on the following page to the ‘Containerisation’ advert above. [2: pVI]
This advert highlights a further, more recent, development in the movement of goods – sending liquids in bulk by rail. Road-Rail tank containers dispensed with the use of casks and drums, so reducing conveyance and handling costs. The rail companies sweetened the deal by only charging for transport of the contents of these tanks provided they were carried on privately owned railway vehicles – so no return charge for the empty tank/wagon!
A similar image from a leaflet produced at the time, entitled “Conveyance of Liquids in Bulk by Rail” jointly produced by the GWR, LNER, LMS and the SR in the 1930s. [4]
The Green Arrow Freight Service
The third full page advert placed jointly by the railway companies was for ‘The Green Arrow’.
“The sign of the Green Arrow was a double precaution for traders – a system of Registered Transit for merchandise or livestock by goods train, ensuring that goods were monitored effectively throughout their journey. A Green Arrow label was fixed to the consignment facilitating identification and advance notification of its arrival. A fee of 2s/6d per consignment secured this service.” [2: pVIII]A BR western region poster advertising the Green Arrow service, framed and protected by glass. This image was shared on the LNER Forum by ‘1H was 2E’ on 3rd March 2015. It is made available for use by the Science Museum under a Creative Commons Licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). [6][7]
“In 1928 the LNER set up their officially named full wagon load ‘Green Arrow’ service, offering registered overnight transits.” [8] There is a confusion between sources – Atkins, Beard, Hyde and Tourret say that “the GWR ran an experiment with registered transit loads between 1927 and March 1929. This was a great success and became the ‘Green Arrow’ service. The other railway companies would not accept the principle until March 1933 when they at last followed suit.” [9]
However, by 1938, all four companies were clearly participating in the Green Arrow scheme.
Railhead Distribution – the GWR
The GWR advertised its road services in a full page advert in the November 1938 Railway Magazine as shown in the image below.
Although it is early morning the railhead fleet is ready for the road! [2: pVII]
Goods received in bulk at railheads in Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Exeter and Swansea were, by early morning, sorted ready for distribution and had been placed in road vehicles ready for distribution. The GWR distributed goods to destinations within a radius of 30 miles from their railheads.
The scheme ensured that goods reached even the most isolated destinations by the day following their original despatch. This meant that customer’s orders could be fulfilled in a timely manner direct from the warehouse rather than needing to be pre-stocked in a company’s outlying branches.
A contemporary postcard image showing a Thornycroft van supplied to the GWR. This vehicle is dated as being in service in 1939. [10]
Famous Trains of the LMS
The LMS placed adverts across 3 full pages for three express restaurant car services: The ‘Lancastrian’; the ‘Mancunion’; and the ‘Centenary’. …………
The ‘Lancastrian’. [2: pVIII]The ‘Mancunion’. [2: pIX]The ‘Centenary’. [2: pX]
In June 2024, I picked up a few copies of the Railway Magazine from the early 20th century.
In July 1909, the Railway Magazine noted that the Caledonian Railway had inaugurated a motor car service on its rails. Just a short journey was involved crossing the Connel Ferry Bridge and running from Connel Ferry to either North Connel or Benderloch.
In September 1909 the Railway Magazine carried a photograph of the rail-motor car.
The Caledonian Railway rail-motor car, with wagon attached. The wagon is carrying a road-motor car. It has just left the Connel Ferry Bridge. [1]
“The Caledonian Railway purchased an ordinary road-motor car, and under the superintendence of Mr. J. F. McIntosh, this was converted, at St Rollox Works, into the rail-motor car. … The car performs, daily, several journeys from Connel Ferry across the bridge to North Connel, and four of these trips in each direction are extended an additional 2.25 miles beyond North Connel to Benderloch, and it is on these longer journeys that road motor cars are conveyed on the carriage truck provided for the purpose, which is attached as a trailer to the rail-motor car.” [1]
The vehicle was a Durham-Churchill Charabanc. It originally operated as a road vehicle between Clarkston railway station and Eaglesham. It was converted to rail use in 1909 at the cost of £126!
The journey from Connel Ferry to North Connel took 5 minutes and the trip to Benderloch, 15 minutes in total.
Sunday trains were few and far between in Scotland but an exception was made for this service with 5 crossings of the bridge in each direction. Surprisingly more often than on weekdays!
The Railway Magazine notes that, “in the past, this portion of Argyllshire [was] somewhat of a closed district to motorists, owing to the long arms of the sea which intersect the land and the numerous ferries that have in consequence to be crossed. Access to the very charming district that lies between Loch Etive and Lochleven, has been particularly difficult, as the ferries have become unserviceable since the opening of the Ballachulish Railway, whilst the comparative infrequency of the trains upon the Ballachulish line, and the restrictions on the conveyance of motor cars by the ordinary trains made crossing at Connel Ferry both inconvenient and unreliable.” [1]
Motorists either avoided the area altogether or had to make a long journey via Tyndrum and Glencoe.
The charge for conveying motors across Loch Etive was 15 shillings.
Another view of the same vehicle and wagon. The rail-motor car was more of a charabanc having a number of rows of seats. [2]This view shows the rail-motor car only offered passengers very rudimentary protection from the weather. The vehicle is entering one of the stations it served. Is this Connel Ferry, North Connel or Benderloch Railway Station? [3]
The Ballachulish Branch of the Caledonian Railway which crossed the Bridge at Connel Ferry is covered in other WordPress articles:
Railway World magazine in early 1965 carried a two part article about Horwich Locomotive Works.
I always take note of articles about the Works when I find them as my paternal grandfather worked there in the early years of the 20th century, before the great depression when eventually he moved his family to Stapleford in the Derby/Nottingham area and where he took a job at the Loco Works in Derby as a blacksmith.
An article about the Works 18″ internal railway can be found here. [7]
The two-part article in Railway World was written by John Marshall and carried in the January and February copies of the magazine. This present article is substantively based on John Marshall’s work and sections of this article in “italics” come directly from Marshall’s article of 1965. [1]
“On 6th May 1964, Stanier 2-8-0 No. 48756 left Horwich works after a general overhaul, since when, the great works of the former Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway has been occupied entirely with rolling stock and road vehicles. The history of Horwich works goes back to 1884. When the main locomotive works of the L&YR opened under Sir John Hawkshaw in 1846, was on a very cramped and inconvenient site at Miles Platting, Manchester, almost surrounded by slums in the town.” [1: p22]
On 27th April 1873, “a serious fire caused considerable damage to the workshops but the pressure of work was such that the shops had to be rebuilt. It was during this period that ten Ramsbottom Newton class 2-4-0 engines were bought from the L.N.W.R. Repairs to locomotives were also carried out at the old East Lancashire Railway shops at Bury and smaller repairs were undertaken at several locomotive sheds, and it was therefore difficult to achieve any standardisation of work.” [1: p22]
During the 1870s, the L&YR was in a bad shape. “Train services were slow and unpunctual, and stations, carriages, services, goods and locomotive depots alike were some of the worst in the country. … The wretchedness of the railway was a popular theme upon which both counties of the roses were absolutely unanimous. By the early ‘eighties all this was being changed and it was now the turn of the locomotive works. Expansion at Miles Platting was not possible; a quarter of the machinery and other equipment there was out of date and ill-fitted to cope with work on the larger locomotives of W. Barton Wright. The obvious solution was to build a new works on a different site.” [1: p22]
After retiring because of ill health as Locomotive Superintendent of the LNWR in 1871, John Ramsbottom returned to railway work in 1883 and “became connected with the L&YR as a consulting engineer. At the L&YR directors’ meeting on 19th March 1884, he stated that locomotives could no longer be repaired satisfactorily at Miles Platting works and that it was essential to find a new site for the works. He recommended that in selecting a site the principal considerations should be the price of labour, a good supply of cheap water, cheap coal and a fairly central situation to avoid long runs by light engines. Various sites were suggested and Ramsbottom and Barton Wright were instructed to examine them and report back to the next meeting. Wright was also asked to ascertain the rates of wages in locomotive workshops in different parts of the country.” [1: p23]
At the next board meeting on 21st May 1884 it was noted that an estate in Horwich was about to be auctioned. The board authorised a maximum spend of £65,000. The purchase was secured for £36,000.
The site “was centrally situated and within easy reach of Bolton and Manchester. On 14th February 1870, a branch railway had been opened into the town from Blackrod, on the Bolton to Preston line. Horwich, at the foot of Rivington Pike at the western extremity of the Pennines, had a population of 3,761 in 1881.” [1: p23]
On 26th September 1884, Ramsbottom submitted drawings showing ground levels and locations for various buildings/workshops. The question of a curved connection from the Bolton direction was raised. “Plans were prepared and the ‘Fork Line’ was authorised by Parliament on 16th July 1885.” [1: p23]
Horwich Railway Station was close to the centre of Norwich and only a short distance from the proposed location of the Loco Works. The 25″ Ordnance Survey from the turn of the 20th century. [2]
Work on the site required the legal closure or diversion of several footpaths. The Thirlmere Aqueduct, planned by Manchester Corporation, had to be diverted at L&YR expense.
Ramsbottom’s plans of the locomotive and wagon works and offices “showed that the locomotive works would occupy nearly 20 acres and accommodate 112 engines; the wagon works would have occupied about 14 acres, for 1,008 wagons, but they were not in fact built. In January 1885 Wright’s detailed elevation of the office building was approved; this included a clock tower which was later omitted.” [1: p23]
Contractors began work on 9th March 1885; “a siding was constructed to bring materials onto the site and a powerful crane and locomotive were soon at work. By August the excavations for the foundations of the erecting shop were almost complete. The next stage involved the removal of a hill on “old Hart’s Farm” containing some 450,000 tons of earth. To carry out this job in one year meant the removal of 1,500 tons daily, and a force of 350 men and boys, two steam navvies, five locomotives and 130 tipping wagons were employed continuously; work continued at night under electric light. … The erecting shop … [was] a vast building 1,520ft long (well over a quarter of a mile) and 118ft wide with three bays running the whole length, the two outer ones being wider than the centre.” [1: p23-24]
A careful review of the equipment at the Miles Platting and Bury works was undertaken showing that only around 50% was suitable for the new works.
In September 1885, the disposal of surplus land to the northeast of the works began, “Some plots were … reserved, including sites for a hotel and a a bowling green but the rest was … sold for building. … Victoria Road and several streets leading from it were laid out by the company; the names chosen for the various streets … [included] Ramsbottom, Hawkshaw, Fairburn, Stephenson, Webb, Gooch, Brunel, Smeaton, Brindley, Telford, Armstrong and Siemens. … A letter was received the Bishop of Salford offering, one penny a square yard for a plot of land for a church, but the Companyhad already requested fourpence a square yard for a Wesleyan Chapel site.” [1: p24]
“Work on the office block, the boiler shop, the smithy, forge and foundry, a large store shed and a large water tank. The new gasworks was erected at this time. … Work on the Horwich fork line began on 21st September! it was opened for goods traffic on 20th June 1887, and for passengers on 1st July with an improved service between Horwich and Bolton and Manchester.” [1: p24]
This extract from the 25″ Ordnance Survey from the turn of the 20th century shows the Horwich branch with both curves in place from the mainline and with the connection into the loco works evident as well. [2]
On W. Barton Wright’s retirement in October 1887, in his place came J.A.F. Aspinall from Inchicore in Ireland to become Chief Mechanical Engineer. At the time of his appointment Aspinall was only 35 years of age.
He persuaded the Company to introduce a premium apprentice scheme and to fund a Mechanics Institute at Horwich. He also urged the immediate purchase of locomotives as prices at the time were relatively low. Based on his assessment of average mileage per locomotive in various railway companies he demonstrated that the L&YR needed a stock of 1,114 locomotives against an existing complement of 963. The shortage of engines was resulting in over use, engines becoming neglected and breakdowns being too frequent.
As an emergency measure, “Aspinall ordered 30 6ft 4-4-0s of Barton Wright’s design, but with Joy’s valve gear, from Beyer Peacock and from the same firm he ordered two small locomotives, at £250 each, for the 18in gauge internal railway system at the works. A third, ordered in 1887, cost £300. Aspinall quickly showed his concern for the well-being of the workers at Horwich. He was dissatisfied with the way the houses were being built and arranged for better supervision of the work. He also arranged for a local doctor to attend to accidents in the works until a permanent arrangement could be made.” [1: p24]
As construction work on the fitting, painting and erecting shops was nearing completion it was possible to “take in the first six locomotives for repair. They included the Barton Wright 4-4-0 No. 865 Prince of Wales, built by Dübs in 1885 and named in honour of a royal visit to Preston.” [1: p24]
The large office block, 323ft long and 58ft wide was brought into use on 19th February 1887 Beyer Peacock supplied two 18in gauge locos by 7th April and they were set to work in the erecting shop.
The foundry was completed next and work began here on 12th April. “The first castings were small engraved iron paper weights which were presented to the L&YR directors as a memento of the occasion. With the opening of the foundry Henry Albert Hoy, at that time manager at Miles Platting, was appointed works manager at Horwich and on Aspinall’s recommendation his salary was increased from £225 to £300, to become £400 in two years.” [1: p25]
Aspinall submitted further plans to the directors meeting on 27th September 1887, for a “further nine shops at an estimated cost of £26,738. For the whole of the work to be transferred from Miles Platting at an early date, it was necessary to start the brass foundry and copper shop at once and to cover in the space between the foundry and the forge to form the steel foundry. Of the shops proposed, the board sanctioned the erection of the tin and copper-smiths shop, the brass foundry, telegraph shop, steel foundry and an extension of the foundry for rail chairs.” [1: p25]
By the end of 1887, Miles Platting workshops were closed, “a few months later the shops at Bury were also closed, and all locomotive repair work was transferred to Horwich. The Miles Platting shops were converted into carriage sheds and the Bury shops used for stores.” [1: p25]
Horwich Locomotive Works as shown on the 25″ Ordnance Survey from the turn of the 20th century. [2]
In January 1888, “work was started on the first order for new locomotives. This consisted of 10 2-4-2 tank engines of Aspinall’s design, the famous “radials”; the first one No. 1008, left the works on 20th February 1889, the second following in about three weeks. Because the steel foundry was not ready, the wheels and tyres were obtained from Germany, but the other parts of the engines were built entirely at Horwich. The tenth was completed during the following August.” [1: p25]
Work began on the first of the numerous Aspinall 0-6-0s in January 1889. The first order was for 10 engines, the first being completed in September and the last on 27th March 1890. Marshall’s article lists “the building dates of … all batches of locomotives built at Horwich until locomotive work ceased. Between 1891 and 1900 Aspinall rebuilt 230 of Barton Wright’s 4ft 6in 0-6-0s into saddle tanks for shunting. This released an equal number of serviceable tenders, hence the large number of locomotives built without tenders during this period.” [1: p25]
A table showing the building dates of all the batches of locomotives built at Horwich. The table was provided by John Marshall in his article in Railway World. [1: p26]
The Mechanics Institute building was opened in December 1888. Courses in electricity, mechanics, mathematics and machine drawing were introduced. There was a staff of 5 teachers with 90 students per week. “Fees were nominal, but if a student attended less than 21 classes in each subject, the charge was doubled.” [1: p26] The Institute was extended by the addition of a public hall to seat 900 people, a library, reading rooms and class rooms which were opened in October 1895.
By 1892 “the works were in full operation and by this time Horwich had become a fair-sized town, the census of 1891 recorded a population of 12,850, and this continued to grow. Social and recreational amenities were provided by the company including a large dining hall with accommodation for 1,100 men, and a large recreation ground laid out with two bowling greens, tennis courts, a cricket ground and a children’s playground. … A cottage hospital was built and accidents could thus be attended to promptly. To serve the new population the company had about 70 shops erected along Chorley New Road. On 13th April 1900, the Bolton Corporation electric tram service was extended to Horwich and on 19th May a route was opened via Victoria Road and through the main street of the old town, but this was closed in December 1907. There is no doubt that the trams were the cause of the later reduction in the train service to Horwich from Bolton.” [1: p26]
Marshall described the Works soon after they opened: … “The main entrance in Chorley New Road is attractively laid out with gardens and lawns, and beyond, at right angles to the road and the rest of the works, stands the office block. A wide corridor runs down the centre giving access to various offices including the drawing office. This is a long room occupying much of the north-west side of the building. Connected to the office at the far end and conveniently accessible by road and rail is the general store, 198ft long and 111ft wide, arranged on two storeys with a gallery round the four sides leaving the centre open to the roof.” [1: p62]
Marshall goes on to write about the 18in gauge internal railway which linked the stores with every part of the works, the length of track amounting to 74 miles. Eight 0-4-0 steam locomotives worked the system; Robin, Wren and Dot built in 1887, by Beyer Peacock and the others built at Horwich: Fly and Wasp in 1891, Midget and Mouse in 1899 and Bee in 1901. They had no works numbers and do not figure in the tabulated list of new engines above.. They had wheels of 16 in dia. and cylinders 5in dia. by 6in stroke.
He then returns to his description of the Works: … “The boiler shop is 439ft long and 111ft wide and its three bays are traversed by 12 ton and 20 ton capacity overhead cranes. For tapping stay holes Aspinall designed a multiple stay-tapping machine worked by ropes and pulleys. Boilers are rivetted up at the end of the shop in two Tweddle rivetting towers designed by Fielding and Platt. The whole of the machinery and equipment is arranged so that the progress of the work from the entry of the plates to completion proceeds step by step through the shop with no doubling-back or crossing to other machines. From the boiler shop we enter the boiler shop smithy, the same width and 120ft long. This is equipped with fires and hydraulic flanging presses for flanging firebox backs, tube plates, throat plates, ashpans and other pressings. The presses and rivetting towers use water at a pressure of 1,500 lb/sq in.” [1: p62]
Marshall’s narrative goes on to the next section of the building, the forge. It was the same width and 452ft long, and contained a series of Siemens regenerative furnaces for reheating. Among the machines were a 35 ton duplex hammer, one 8 ton and two 5 ton hammers. Beyond the forge, in the same row of buildings, was the steel foundry, 150ft long and 135ft wide, the iron foundry 212ft long and 111ft wide and the chair and plate foundry 124ft long and 128ft wide.
“In 1899 two 2 ton Tropenas Converters were installed in the steel foundry which [was] fitted also with Siemens Martin regenerative melting furnaces and facilities for annealing steel castings. The iron foundry and the steel foundry form[ed] a continuous building in three bays traversed from end to end by overhead 12 ton electric cranes. The ground on the north side of the iron and chair and plate foundries [was] at a higher level and from here the melting furnaces and cupolas [were] charged. In the iron foundry [were] produced railway castings of every type.” [1: p62]
The next row of buildings were narrower, only 47ft wide; “first [was] the tinsmith’s shop, 92ft long, next the motor shop, 153ft long, where electric motors and other equipment [were] maintained; the coppersmith’s shop, 89ft long and the brass foundry, 164ft long. … The central power station, next in the line, produce[d] electricity for the entire works and [was] 32ft long. The adjoining boiler house contain[ed] a battery of Lancashire Boilers, some fitted with underfeed mechanical stokers and Green’s Economisers, and others with forced draught grates for burning inferior fuel. In the fettling shop castings from the foundries [were] dressed. The carriage & wagon wheel shop, 200ft long, [was] equipped with lathes for turning and boring wheels, and presses for pressing tyres on to wheels for forcing wheels on to axles.” [1: p62]The middle row of buildings has a uniform width of 111ft. Opposite the stores is the paint shop, 234ft long, uniformly lit without glare by a north light type roof and maintained at an even temperature of 55 to 60 deg. F. by hot water
Plan of Horwich Locomotive Works in 1961. [5]
The middle row of buildings was uniformly 111ft wide: “Opposite the stores [was] the paint shop, 234ft long, uniformly lit without glare by a north light type roof and maintained at an even temperature of 55 to 60 deg. F. by hot water pipes laid along the engine pits. The shop accommodate[d] about 20 engines on six rows of pits 2ft deep, and include[d] a store from which all colours, oils, varnish and other materials [were] issued and a plant for mixing paints. It was the custom to spend about three weeks painting a new L&YR engine. After the filling and priming operations three coats of paint were applied followed by three coats of varnish.” [1: p62-63]
The testing shop occupied the next 27ft of the building. It was “equipped with a vertical 100 ton Buckton hydraulic testing machine using water at a pressure of 1,000 lb/sq in. Also working at the same pressure [was] a 100 ton horizontal chain testing machine. There [were] machines for preparing test specimens, a steam hammer and appliances for testing oil and springs. The chain smithy occupie[d] the last 28 ft of the building, and beyond it [was] a chain annealing furnace, Between this and the next shop, the yard [was] spanned by a large gantry used for handling boilers and other heavy items. … The millwright’s shop, 143ft long, maintain[ed] the various types of machines used on the railway. Adjoining this [was] the pattern makers’ and joiners’ shop, 164ft long, fully equipped with woodworking machinery and for saw maintenance.” [1: p63]
The fitting and machine shop sat at the centre of the Works. It was 508ft long. “Four 5 ton electric jib cranes travel[led] along the centre of the two outer bays and serve[d] the machines on each side. The end of the building [was] occupied by the points & crossings shop, 72ft long, and signal shop, 128ft long. … Some 150yd beyond the signal shop [was] the bolt shop, 60ft long, and the smithy, 212ft long. Among the equipment here [were] 11 double and 27 single hearths, steam hammers and drop stamps.” [1: p63]
“The fourth row of buildings beg[an] with the engine shed, alongside the paint shop. The heavy machine shop, 360ft long and 48ft wide contain[ed] machines for straightening frame plates, and slotting, radial arm drilling machines and the means for making built-up crank axles. Beyond [was] the spring smithy, 153ft long, where spring plates [were] made. … Finally there [was] the enormous erecting shop … with room for 90 engines and 30 tenders. Access [was] by the ends and by two traversers 32ft wide. The shop [was] divided into five sections each equipped with four 40 ton capacity overhead travelling cranes, two on each side. The total area of the works [was] 81 acres of which the area covered by workshops [was] 17 acres.” [1: p63]
Aspinall was appointed General Manager of the L&YR in June 1899, by then, 677 locomotives had been built at Horwich. He was succeeded by H. A. Hoy, under whom a further 220 locos were built. Hoy was succeeded by George Hughes in 1904. Hughes was an internal appointment and he remained at Horwich until he retired in 1925. “The 1,000th locomotive to be built at Horwich. No. 15, one of the Hughes 0-4-0 Railmotor locomotives, Works No. 983, appeared in March 1907. … During the 1914-18 war Horwich works was engaged in manufacturing military equipment of all types. On 1st January 1922, the L&YR was amalgamated with the LNWR. and George Hughes became CME of the combined company. When the LMS was formed a year later, Hughes was appointed CME of the entire system. … For the next three years [Horwich] this became the CME’s headquarters for the whole of the LMS.” [1: p63]
Change occurred after Hughes retired in 1925. The LMS began centralising activities. “The telegraph shop, signal shop, points & crossings shop, forge, and steel foundry were closed and the work transferred elsewhere. The spring smithy was transferred to the general smithy and the original building became a tube and bar store. In about 1927, the high level boiler house was closed down. During the great depression in 1931, locomotive building was suspended after completion of a batch of 15 standard 0-6-0 tanks on 15th October and locomotive work was confined to repairs. From 1932, after the closure of Newton Heath carriage works, the electric multiple-unit trains on the Liverpool-Southport-Crossens and Manchester-Bury-Holcombe Brook services were taken to Horwich for repair, and occupied the north western end of the erecting shop, this section becoming known as the car shop.” [1: p63-64]
Part of the Works was used between 1939 & 1945 for the manufacture of armoured fighting vehicles and shells. “From May to November 1943, 33 American 2-8-0 engines passed through the erecting shop for some 30 modifications, chiefly the fitting of a Gresham & Craven combination injector and graduable steam brake valve, the overhaul of part of the motion and the fitting of hand brake gear to the tender. … In June 1943 locomotive building was resumed with a batch of Stanier 2-8-0s and tenders.” [1: p64]
“The last steam locomotive to be built at Horwich was B.R. Standard Class 4 2-6-0 No. 76099 which left the works on 27th November 1957. On 20th August 1958 work began on a series of 350 h.p. 0-6-0 diesel shunting locomotives. The last of these, No. D4157, was completed on 28th December 1962.” [1: p64]
Marshall tells us that, “after the war a mechanised foundry was built in the shop which was originally the forge. The casting of chairs was transferred to the new foundry. A typical year’s work during this period included 20 new locomotives, 350 heavy repairs and 240 light repairs to locomotives, and repairs to 200 boilers and 90 electric vehicles, and the general production work of castings, etc. With the closure of Gortonworks in 1963 the manufacture of points and crossings began again at Horwich. During 1963 the number of locomotives for repair declined and the erecting shop was invaded by wagons, many of them the result of the running down of Earlestown works, and the last locomotives entered the shop in April 1964.” [1: p64-65]
“Altogether, some 50,000 locomotives [were] repaired in 76 years, an average of over 680 a year.” [1: p65]
Marshall concludes his articles by noting that Horwich Works were a place of training and development for a number of significant people in the history of railways in the UK: Sir Nigel Gresley, R.E.L. Maunsell, George Hughes and Sir Henry Fowler, and others of significance to railway history around the world, for instance J.P. Crouch, who became CME of the Argentine Central and Rupert Fawker, CME of the Sudanese Railways.
The Works were also an important place of employment for generations of people in Horwich. Inevitably, economic conditions varied over the years, families had to travel around the country to find other work when redundancies occurred.
My paternal grandfather and grandmother found alternative work and a new home in the Midlands. I guess that there were many like them, both in the 1930s and in subsequent generations right through to the eventual closure of the Works for whom redundancy brought family trauma, a loss of dignity and a sense of hopelessness. People who felt trapped in their circumstances, swept along by a tide of events over which they had little or no control. People who had to find a new route through life for themselves and their families and who showed the same courage and commitment in their own circumstances as those who were prime movers in the development of Horwich Locomotive works in the late 19th century.
An aerial view of Horwich Locomotive Works, seen from the Southeast. [4]A closer aerial view of Horwich Locomotive Works, seen from the Northwest. [4]
Of additional interest relating to Horwich Locomotive Works is a short note in The Railway Magazine of September 1909 entitled “The Lancashire & Yorkshire Locomotive Stud.” …
“The usual summer convention of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers which this year was held at Liverpool, after a long interval, will be remembered as a railway convention, particularly as a Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway one. Firstly, because Mr. J. A. F. Aspinall, the chairman of the meeting and president of the Institution, is the General Manager of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway; secondly, because the principal paper was contributed by Mr. Geo. Hughes, the Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway; and lastly, because of the visit paid to the Horwich Works.” [8]
“Mr. George Hughes’ paper was entitled “Locomotives Designed and Built at Horwich, with some Results.” In it he stated that formerly there were in service on the Lancashireand Yorkshire Railway 29 types of passenger engines and 26 types of goods engines, the total stock being 353 passenger and 647 goods engines. There are now 1517 locomotives, of which 1,052 have been built at Horwich. About 1,100 are in steam daily. Mr. Aspinall, while chief mechanical engineer, had adopted the policy of reducing the number of types, introduced standardization, and, wherever possible, interchangeability. The number of types had now been considerably reduced. Experience with the Druitt-Halpin thermal storage tank had shown that where stopping places were frequent on rising gradients it led to distinct economy, the saving varying from 4 to 12 per cent. Experiments were now being carried out with a super-heater, the results of which would be communicated at a later date. The average life of boilers on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway for the three years ended December, 1908, was 14 years, representing an average mileage of 356,268. Copper fire-boxes ran from 150,000 to 275,000 miles, while over a period of 20 years it was found that the life of cylinders varied from 8 to 14 years. With the more severe modern conditions of service the solid type crank axle had been supplanted by the built-up pattern.” [8]
References
John Marshall; Horwich Works – Parts 1 & 2; in Railway World, Ian Allan, January & February 1965.
Looking through a number of 1964 Model Railway News magazines, I came across drawings of Sharp, Stewart & Co. 2-4-0, built in 1870 for the Furness Railway Co. and numbered 58 on their roster.
Side elevation and half plan of Locomotive No. 58 [1]Front elevation. [1]Tender, front and back half-elevations. [1]
Originally conceived as a mineral railway, the Furness Railway later played a major role in the development of the town of Barrow-in-Furness, and in the development of the Lake District Tourist industry. It was formed in 1846 and survived as an independent, viable concern until the Grouping of 1923. [4]
The Furness Railway contracted out the building of its locomotives until Pettigrew became Chief Locomotive Engineer in 1897. He put his first locomotive on the line in 1898.
2-4-0 Locomotive No. 58 had inside cylinders (16 in by 20 in), 5 ft 6 in diameter coupled wheels. It operated with a boiler pressure of 120 lb and weighed 30 tons 5 cwt. Its tender was 4-wheeled with a 1,200 gallon water capacity.
The locomotive, as designed, had no brake blocks, the only brake being a clasp type on the tender.
This relatively small locomotive was one of a series of 19 locos built to the same design. The class fulfilled the needs of the Furness Railway as passenger locomotives. The class was given the designation ‘E1’ by Bob Rush in his books about the Furness Railway. Rush’s classification was his own not that of the Furness Railway, but has become accepted generally. [2]
A photograph of one of this class can be found by clicking on the link immediately below. No. 44 was built in 1882 by Sharp Stewart & Co., Works No.3086. It was rebuilt in 1898, presumably in the Furness Railway works. Renumbered 44A in 1920, it became LMS No. 10002 – but was withdrawn in April 1925. [5]
Later, seven of the class were converted to J1-class 2-4-2 tank engines in 1891. [3]
References
T.A. Lindsay; Furness Railway Locomotive No. 58; in Model Railway News, Volume 40, No. 480, December 1964, p608-609. (Permission to copy granted for any non-commercial purpose.)
The June and July 1962 issues of ‘Modern Tramway’ included a 2-part review of the first five years of operation and maintenance of the Manx Electric Railway (MER) after nationalisation on 1st June 1957.
June 1962 marked the end of the first term of office of the MER Board. … ‘Modern Tramway’ Journal, in its June 1962 edition, begins:
“We should first explain something of how the Isle of Man Government sets about its work; day-to-day administration is in the hands of Boards of Tynwald, consisting partly of elected members of the House of Keys (the Manx House of Commons) and partly of non-Tynwald members appointed by the Governor. These Boards occupy much the same position as Ministries in the British Government, except that they serve in a part-time capacity. The M.E.R. Board, set up in 1957, has three Tynwald members and two others.
The first Manx Electric Railway Board was appointed in May, 1957. Its Chairman was Sir Ralph Stevenson, G.C.M.G., M.L.C., with Mr. R. C. Stephen, M.H.K. (a journalist), Mr. A. H. Simcocks, M.H.K. (a lawyer), Mr. T. W. Kneale, M.Eng. (a former Indian Railways civil engineer, with an expert knowledge of permanent-way) and Mr T. W. Billington (an accountant) as it’s members. … They were entrusted with the task of running the railway and reconstructing much of the permanent way, and an annual estimate of the money required was to be presented to Tynwald by 31st March of each year. No changes were made in the railway’s staff, the full-time management, as under the Company, remaining in the capable hands of Mr. J. Rowe (Secretary and Joint Manager) and Mr. J. F. Watson, M.I.E.E. (Chief Engineer and Joint Manager), who occupy the same posts today.
The new Board took over from the Company with due ceremony on 1st June, 1957, but found during their first year of office that, owing to rapidly rising costs, far more money than anticipated would be needed to reconstruct the railway at the rate intended, and to keep it running. Instead of a grant of £25,000 per year (the figure agreed upon by Tynwald), they would require £45,000, and after Tynwald had rejected both this request and their alternative proposed economies (cutting out early and late cars, and closing down in winter) the entire Board, with the exception of Mr. Kneale, resigned. A new Board then came into being, the Chairman being Mr. H. H. Radcliffe, J.P., M.H.K., with the following gentlemen as Mr. Kneale’s new colleagues: Mr. W. E. Quayle, J.P., M.H.K.. (Vice-Chairman), Lieut.-Commander J. L. Quine, M.H.K., and Mr. R. Dean, J.P. The new Board undertook to do their best to run the railway within the originally- planned subsidy of £25,000 per year, and reaffirmed that they would continue the work of reconstruction, but at a rate such as to lie within the original budget, the effect being of course that the rate of reconstruction has been somewhat slowed down and the method of financing has varied from that originally planned. The original. intention was to finance the relaying of the Douglas-Laxey section by an outright. annual grant, so that the track would enjoy. many years of debt-free life, but after the 1958 re-appraisal Tynwald reverted to the proposal of the second Advisory Committee to finance this work by a loan repayable over the 20-year life of the new track.” [1: p201-203]
A map of the MER and other rail routes. I find the hand drawn maps, which appear in the post-war to 1960s period magazines, of greater interest than the computer-aided mapping/drawings of layer years. This image should assist in placing elements of the MER referred to in the text. [1: p202]Roughly the same area as shown on the hand-drawn map above. The light blue line is the MER. The red lines are the Isle of Man Railway. The pink line is the Groudle Glen Railway. The Green line is the Douglas Bay Horse Tramway. The Dark Blue line is the Snaefell Mountain Railway. Manx Northern Railway is shown in Yellow. []
Modern Tramway continues:
“In July, 1958, the Board was granted borrowing powers up to a maximum of £110,000, and of this the sum of £20,000 has been borrowed at 5 per cent, the usual interest and sinking funds being set up to provide for repayment. The money was used to relay 200 tons of rails, including labour, rail fastenings, sleepers and ballast. In January, 1960, however, Tynwald made a special grant of £9,000 for the next stage of the track relaying, with another grant a year later, while the traffic results from the 1960 and 1961 seasons were so good that in these two years a sizeable part of the £25,000 operating subsidy remained in hand and was able to be spent on relaying; 4,000 sleepers were bought out of the annual grant in 1961, and 100 tons of rails and 4,000 sleepers by the same means early in 1962. …
Since June, 1957, despite the overall financial stringency, quite a lot has therefore been done. Five hundred tons of new rail have been laid, and to date the Board has completely renewed about seven single-track miles of line between Douglas and Laxey. Concurrently, more than half of the 24,000 sleepers on this section have been renewed. To date, new 60 lb. per yard flat-bottom rails have been laid on the following sections: both tracks from Douglas Bay Hotel to Onchan, the northbound track from Far End to Groudle, both tracks from Groudle to Baldrine, the northbound track from Baldrine to Garwick, the southbound track from Ballagaune to Ballabeg, the north- bound one from Ballabeg towards Fairy Cottage, and the southbound track from Fairy Cottage to South Cape, plus new crossovers at Onchan Head and Groudle. Many of the new sleepers were produced on the island by the Forestry Board, but the more recent ones have been imported from Scotland since no more are available locally at present. The old ones, apart from a few sold to the Groudle Glen railway, are sent to Douglas prison and cut up there for firewood.
Since the M.E.R. Company had been living a hand-to-mouth existence for several years prior to the nationalisation, the management had lost touch with manufacturers, and had to make fresh contacts. This has had the incidental advantage of allowing them to benefit from the very latest improvements in track components, and much of the recent relaying has been done with elastic rail spikes, while to the north of Ballagaune is an experimental 200-yard length of track laid with rubber pads, giving a superb and almost noiseless ride. Modern techniques have also been adopted when relaying some of the sharp curves, with careful prior calculations to determine the correct transition and super-elevation for each, instead of the rule-of-thumb methods used in earlier days.
The permanent way renewal carried out to date represents about half the total trackage between Douglas and Laxey, including all the heavily-worn sections which in 1956 were overdue for renewal. At the time the Government took over, it was hoped to relay the entire line to Laxey within seven years, followed by the Snaefell line in the ensuing three. …
Corresponding renewals have also been made to the overhead line, using round-section trolley wire and phosphor-bronze overhead parts supplied by British Insulated Callenders’ Cables Ltd., who have undertaken to continue the manufacture of whatever components the MER. may require. With gradual change to grooved wire at Blackpool, the Manx Electric will probably be the last British user of tradi- tional round trolley wire, with its big trolley wheels and “live” trolley poles reminiscent of American interurban practice. The gradual corrosion of the overhead standards in the coastal atmosphere … has been very largely arrested by a very thorough repainting.” [1: p204-205]
Further support from the Manx Government was forthcoming during the first-year period after nationalisation under a scheme designed to offset the seasonal nature of the island’s biggest industry, tourism. £7,000/year was allocated dependent on the level of employment achieved. This funding could not be for planned major work as it covered the provision of work for those employed in the summer tourism period. It was “used for marginal rather than essential work, and the Board prepare[d] estimates of such work that could usefully be done and submit them to Tynwald for eventual adoption later on. Under these schemes, Laxey and Ramsey stations [were] resurfaced in tarmac, and the whole of the Douglas-Ramsey line and most of the Snaefell line [were] completely weeded and the fences and drainage works trimmed and cleaned, which when related to the real mileage (all double track) is a considerable achievement. … The Board, … in addition, treated the whole right-of-way with a selective weed-killer. … The chemical [was] applied by a special 6-ton wagon rebuilt as a weed-killer tank wagon, with a small petrol engine providing pressure spraying at 5 m.p.h. This unit [was] based at Laxey depot.” [1: p205]
Track maintenance formed the largest element of the Board’s expenditure. Little, other than routine maintenance, was done to rolling stock during this period. Physical deterioration to stock was reduced as a result of track improvements. As the images above show, some stock received cosmetic treatment, what might be called rebranding in the 21st century world.
Modern Tramway continues:
“The passenger stock remains at 24 cars and 24 trailers (excluding trailer 52, which is now a flat car). … With the increased amount of track work, car No. 2 has been converted each winter to a works car, with work-benches and equipment in place of its longitudinal seats, but like No. 1 it can be restored to passenger service in mid-summer if need be. Certain freight wagons not required for engineering purposes, including those lying derelict at Dhoon, have been dismantled in the general clearing-up. The average age of the present 48 cars and trailers is now 61 years, but most of them are only used in the summer and should be good for many years yet.” [1: p205]
This begs the question about the stock remained on the MER in the 21st century. …
In 2023, Wikipedia tells us that, “The Manx Electric Railway … is unique insofar as the railway still operates with its original tramcars and trailers, all of which are over one hundred years old, the latest dating from 1906. Save for a fire in 1930 in which several cars and trailers were lost, all of the line’s original rolling stock remains extant, though many items have been out of use for a number of years, largely due to the decrease in tourism on the island over the last thirty years. Despite this, members of each class are still represented on site today, though not all are in original form or in regular use.” [2]
The following list details what has happened to the full fleet of motorised trams:
No. 1: built in 1893 by G.F. Milnes & Co., Ltd is an Unvestibuled saloon and painted Red, White and Teak. It has 34 seats and is painted in the MER 1930s house style. It remains available for use.
No. 2: built in 1893 by G.F. Milnes & Co., Ltd is an Unvestibuled saloon and painted Red, White and Teak. It has 34 seats and is painted in the MER 1930s house style. It remains available for use.
No. 5: built in 1894 by G.F. Milnes & Co., Ltd is a Vestibuled saloon and painted Red, White and Teak. It has 32 seats and is painted in the MER 1930s house style. It remains available for use.
No. 6: built in 1894 by G.F. Milnes & Co., Ltd is a Vestibuled saloon and painted Maroon, White and Teak. It has 36 seats and is painted in the MER late Edwardian livery. It remains available for use.
No. 7: built in 1894 by G.F. Milnes & Co., Ltd is a Vestibuled saloon and painted Blue, Ivory and Teak. It has 36 seats and is painted in the original MER livery. It was rebuilt between 2008 and 2011 and remains available for use.
No. 8: lost in 1930 in a shed fire.
No. 9: built in 1894 by G.F. Milnes & Co., Ltd is a Vestibuled saloon and painted Red, White and Teak. It has 36 seats and is painted in the standard MER livery. It is illuminated and remains available for use.
No. 10: built in 1895 by G.F. Milnes & Co., Ltd is a Vestibuled saloon, painted Grey and has no seats. It was rebuilt as a freight car and is currently stored.
No. 11: was scrapped in 1926.
No. 12: was scrapped in 1927
No. 13: was scrapped in 1957.
No. 14: was built in 1898 by G.F. Milnes & Co., Ltd is a roofed ‘toastrack’ and painted Maroon. It has 56 seats and was rebuilt/restored to original condition between 2015 and 2018 and remains available for use.
No. 15: was withdrawn from service in 1973, it is currently stored. It was originally built by G.F. Milnes & Co., Ltd in 1898 and is a roofed ‘toastrack’. It is painted Red & White and has 56 seats.
No. 16: was built in 1898 by G.F. Milnes & Co., Ltd is a roofed ‘toastrack’ and painted Red & White. It has 56 seats . The livery is described as ‘House Style’. It remains available for use.
No. 17: was built in 1898 by G.F. Milnes & Co., Ltd is a roofed ‘toastrack’ and painted Red &White. It was withdrawn in 1973. It has 56 seats and is currently stored.
No. 18: was built in 1898 by G.F. Milnes & Co., Ltd is a roofed ‘toastrack’ and painted Red &White. It has 56 seats and was withdrawn to storage in 2000.
No. 19: was built in 1899 by G.F. Milnes & Co., Ltd is a winter saloon and is painted Maroon, Cream & Teak. It has 48 seats and is in its original livery. It remains available for service.
No. 20: was built in 1899 by G.F. Milnes & Co., Ltd. It is a winter saloon and painted Red, White & Teak. It has 48 seats and is in 1970s style. It remains available for service.
No. 21: was built in 1899 by G.F. Milnes & Co., Ltd. It is a winter saloon and painted Green & White. It has 48 seats and is in nationalisation livery. It remains available for service.
No. 22: was built in 1899 by G.F. Milnes & Co., Ltd. It is a winter saloon and painted Red, White & Teak. It has 48 seats and is in standard livery. It remains available for service.
No. 23: was built in 1900 by the Isle of Man T. & E.P. Co., Ltd. It is a Green & Grey Locomotive. It was withdrawn to storage in 1994.
No. 24: was lost in a shed fire in 1930.
No. 25: was built in 1898 by G.F. Milnes & Co., Ltd was a roofed ‘toastrack’ and painted Red &White. It had 56 seats and was withdrawn in 1996.
No. 26: was built in 1898 by G.F. Milnes & Co., Ltd was a roofed ‘toastrack’ and painted Red &White. It had 56 seats and was withdrawn in 2009.
No. 27: was built in 1898 by G.F. Milnes & Co., Ltd was a roofed ‘toastrack’ and painted Yellow, Red &White. It had no seats and was withdrawn in 2003.
No. 28: was built in 1898 by the Electric Railway and Tramway CarriageCo., Ltd. It was a roofed ‘toastrack’ and painted Red &White. It had 56 seats and was withdrawn in 2000.
No. 29: was built in 1904 by the Electric Railway and Tramway Carriage Co., Ltd. It is a roofed ‘toastrack’ and painted Red &White. It has 56 seats and was rebuilt between 2019 and 2021.
No. 30: was built in 1904 by the Electric Railway and Tramway Carriage Co., Ltd. It was a roofed ‘toastrack’ and painted Red &White. It had 56 seats and was withdrawn in 1971.
No. 31: was built in 1906 by the Electric Railway and Tramway Carriage Co., Ltd. It was a roofed ‘toastrack’ and painted Red &White. It had 56 seats and was withdrawn in 2002.
No. 32: was built in 1906 by the United Electric Car Co., Ltd. It is a roofed ‘toastrack’ and painted Green &White (Nationalisation livery). It has 56 seats and is still available for service.
No. 33: was built in 1906 by the United Electric Car Co., Ltd. It is a roofed ‘toastrack’ and painted Red &White (Nationalisation livery). It has 56 seats and is still available for service.
No. 34: was built in 1995 by Isle of Man Transport. It is a diesel locomotive, painted Yellow & Black.
As an aside, G.F. Milnes & Co., Ltd was initially based in Birkenhead but before the turn of the 20th century had purchased a site in Hadley, Shropshire, now part of Telford. “Production commenced at Hadley in June 1900, and the works in Birkenhead closed in 1902. There were around 700 employees and 701 tramcars were built in 1901. The business benefitted from the rush of orders when horse and steam tramway systems were converted to electric traction, but the market had begun to contract by the beginning of 1903. The Company went into receivership in September and, after some complex manoeuvering, became part of the United Electric Car Company Ltd. in June 1905.” [3]
Hadley is only a few miles away from our home in Malinslee, Telford. The Works are still referred to as the Castle Car Works.
Other rolling stock on the MER included four roofed ‘toastrack’ trailers which were lost in the 1930 fire (Nos. 34, 35, 38, & 39); two ‘toastrack’ trailers in storage (No. 50, withdrawn in 1978; and No. 55, withdrawn in 1997); two ‘toastrack’ trailers being rebuilt in 2020 (Nos. 36 & 53); nineteen available for passenger service in 2020 (Nos. 37, 40-44, 46-49, 51, 54, 56-62); and two flatbed trailers (Nos. 45 & 52). [2]
In addition to ‘home-based’ stock the MER has welcomed a number of visiting vehicles over the years details of which can be found on Wikipedia. [2]
Returning to the ‘Modern Tramway’ articles: the Journal reported that, “Maintaining this picturesque but veteran fleet has brought its usual quota of problems, and in view of the age of much of the equipment the Company has installed an ultrasonic flaw-detector at Derby Castle works, which is being used very successfully to detect cracks in axles, and has also been used to test axles bought from British Railways before turning them down to size for use in trailers. This method of flaw-detection is markedly superior to the earlier method with magnetic fluid, since the latter could not reveal faults that were hidden by the wheel boss or the gear seating. The car motors are being rewound with glass fibre insulation, which is expected to cure burn-outs caused by the moisture that tends to accumulate while the cars are idle in winter, and should therefore bring longer motor life. Cars 7 and 9 have been fitted experimentally with hydraulic shock-absorbers on the bogie bolster springs to counteract excessive sideways motion, and the Brush type D bogies of car No. 2 have had their axlebox leaf-springs replaced with a system of brackets and coil-springs, allow- ing more movement in the hornways and. giving a smoother ride. The Management hope that these two modifications when combined will give a vastly superior ride on the ten cars with this type of bogie.” [1: p205]
In the second of the two articles, [4] the Journal continued to note that in 1960 further modern compressor sets were purchased from Sheffield Corporation which were fitted to cars Nos.1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 16, 25, 26, 27, 32 & 33.
For a short while after nationalisation a green and white colour scheme was employed to mark the change. It was quickly realised that the vehicles looked their best when painted and trimmed in accordance with their builders intentions. So, in 1962, the Journal noted that, “The more recent repainting of M.E.R. cars has therefore seen a reversion to varnished teak and Post Office red with white and light brown secondary colourings, and with full lining, crests and detail in pre-war style, and many visitors have expressed their pleasure at this reversion. For the open cars, the equivalent livery is red and white, in each case with the full title instead of the initials M.E.R. During the winter of 1960, saloon trailer No. 57 was splendidly re- upholstered in blue moquette, replacing the original cane rattan which dated quite unchanged from 1904, and No. 58 has undergone the same transformation during the past winter; the concurrent refurbishing of the interior woodwork is a joy to behold. The red used on these two cars is somewhat deeper than that mentioned above.” [2: p221-222]
Planned addition provision of four new saloon cars had by 1962 been deferred indefinitely. Grants being only sufficient to address trackwork concerns. And, since inflation had seen the cost of new cars rise significantly, it was likely that in future the Board would “probably be forced back on the alternatives of reconstructing existing cars or buying others second-hand, if any can be found. Unfortunately, the engineering restrictions imposed by the 3ft. gauge and the 90ft. radius curves and reduced clearances are such that none of the available second-hand cars from Continental narrow-gauge systems is acceptable, and although quotations were obtained for relatively modern cars from the Vicinal and the E.L.R.T., the Vicinal cars were too wide and the cost of the others including modifications was prohibitive. In the whole of Continental Europe, the 3ft. gauge (exact or approximate) is found on electric lines only in Majorca, Linz and Lisbon, and although Lisbon has some two-motor Brill 27G trucks that would be ideal for the MER, the Lisbon tramway staff think the world of them and have no intention of selling.” [2: p222]
The Journal also observed that “the problem of the two main-road crossings between Douglas and Laxey, … still remains unsolved, and although a quotation was obtained for installing powerful flashing lights, the Highways Board whose responsibility this is has not yet been willing to find the money. This is a pity, for 1962 will see the introduction of a car-ferry steamer from the mainland and the arrival of many motorist visitors unfamiliar with such Manx phenomena as rural electric railways. Despite the vigilance of MER drivers, accidents are likely to continue at these points until something drastic is done; in the meantime, some prominent warning boards and white letters on the road surface would be better than nothing.” [2: p222]
A quick look at Google Maps/Streetview shows that by 2023 that problem had been resolved.
The road crossing closest to Douglas is at the top-right of this extract from RailMapOnline. [5]The view North-northeast along the A2 at the above crossing. [Google Streetview, October 2010]The road crossing closer to Laxey. [5]The view North along the A2 at the crossing above. [Google Streetview, October 2010]
By 2010, both crossing points were protected by standard crossing lights.
During the 5 years from 1957 to 1962 traffic, as predicted, fluctuated with the weather. It was “doubly unfortunate that the first two summers (1957 and 1958) were rather poor ones. However, the splendid weather in the summer of 1959 revitalised the railway, and the new Board was happily surprised to find that the returning popularity of the railway was sustained in 1960 and even more evident in 1961.” [2: p222]
The Journal provided a comparison of passenger numbers on a number of heritage lines on the Isle of Man and in Wales. Their table is reproduced below.
‘Modern Tramway’ cautions against making too much from the figures in this table as season are not comparable. It is clear however that the MER was performing acceptably when it’s performance was judged against its peers. [2: p222]
Throughout 1957 to 1962, the MER operated with the limits imposed by Tynwald (operating revenues plus an annual grant of £25,000, supplemented by monies allocated under employment relief schemes). A wage increase threatened to upset this equilibrium, but Tynwald responded by increasing the annual grant by £3,000 in 1961. Performance improvements meant that the sum was not actually drawn down.
References
Manx Electric 1957-1962; in Modern Tramway, Volume 25, No. 294, June 1962; Light Railway Transport League and Ian Allan, Hampton Court, Surrey, p201-205
Manx Electric 1957-1962; in Modern Tramway, Volume 25, No. 295, July 1962; Light Railway Transport League and Ian Allan, Hampton Court, Surrey, p221-225.
As part of a batch of magazines from the 1950s and 1960s I picked up a number of editions of ‘Modern Tramway’ from 1963 into 1964. ‘The Modern Tramway’ was the journal of the Light Railway Transport League (LRTL). By 1963 it had dropped the ‘The’ and was published jointly by Ian Allan and the LRTL. Its formal title was ‘Modern Tramway and Light Railway Review’.
The February 1963 edition of the journal was priced at 2s 6d.
Among a number of articles in the journal was a piece by G. Hyde, The Strange Tale of No. 2.
This No. 2 was Beyer Peacock steam tram engine No. 2. It is shown in the featured image above in which it is seen at Beyer Peacock’s works in Gorton, Manchester. [2]
It was originally built to a Wilkinson patent for the New South Wales Government tramways in 1885 and shipped to Australia in April of that year. It made several trial runs on the Redfern Station line of the Sydney steam tramways, but it evidently did not compare favourably with the Baldwin locomotives then in use there. Hyde says that, “It was reputed to have a heavy fuel consumption. and Beyer Peacock’s received complaints about the difficulties in maintaining a sufficient head of steam, but the engine hardly had a fair trial as only short runs were made with it, and the drivers’ inexperience may have contributed to its shortcomings. The trials were invariably carried out after midnight so no photographs were taken of the engine in service; neither was it ever incorporated into the Sydney tramway stock, consequently it never had a fleet number. Whilst in Australia it was referred to as ‘John Bull’.” [1: p48]
After its short unsuccessful trials in Sydney, John Bull was shipped to the small port of Wollongong and worked the isolated Wollongong-Clifton section of the New South Wales Government railways. It stayed there until the section was connected to the main coastal line in 1886.
Hyde commented that at this point “John Bull” disappeared. “Nothing further is known about it until it turned up again at Manchester in 1890, when it featured in Beyer Peacock’s stock list as yard engine No. 2. The mystery of this missing four years is heightened by the fact that Beyer Peacock’s records refer to the engine as having been salvaged, and returned to their works. This led to the rumour which persists in the Gorton works that No. 2 fell into the sea at one point during its travels round the world.” [1: p48]
In 1890 the loco was modified, the duplicate controls were removed, as also were the wheel curtains, then railway type buffers and drawgear were fitted.
In 1915 a steam brake was fitted, then in 1930 a new boiler was installed and in 1958 a new steam dryer was fitted. It was ultimately withdrawn from service in early 1959.
Hyde asserted that No. 2 was “certainly the biggest tramway engine ever built to Wilkinson’s patent, and was one of the most powerful steam tramway engines ever to be built in this country Its gross working weight of 16 tons compares with the 12 tons of the heavy 83-86 class Wilkinson engines of the Manchester, Bury, Rochdale & Oldham tramway, one of which is being kept by the British Transport Commission.” [1: p49]
Hyde provided detailed information about No. 2. … It had two simple cylinders, 9.5 in. diameter by 12 in. stroke. The crank axle had a pinion in the centre with 20 teeth geared to a spur wheel on the driving axle having 33 teeth, thus having a ratio of 1.65 to 1. It was fitted with a Stephenson type link motion. The four coupled driving wheels were of 30 in. diameter, with a wheelbase of 6 ft. 8 in. The water capacity was 225 gallons and there was a fuel space of 11 cubic feet. The vertical boiler was of the Field type, and had 121 tubes, each with an outside diameter of 2.13 in. The tubes, which project down into the firebox, were between 19 and 27 inches long, and had fitted concentric open-ended internal tubes known as circulating tubes. The working pressure is 150 lb. per sq. in., and the total heating area was about 184 sq. ft. with a total fire grate area of 10.8 sq. ft. The engine has an overall length of 13 ft 6 in. and an overall width of 7 ft.
“For close on 70 years, No. 2 trundled round the Gorton works of Beyer Peacock’s being affectionately known there as Old Coffeepot,” and it is hoped that it will now see many more years of active life at the Crich Tramway Museum. In the erecting shops at Beyer Peacock’s the wheels were re-tyred and the new tyres turned down to tramway standards. Then, after boiler inspection and insurance formalities had been completed, it was despatched to join the T.M.S. fleet at Crich as the only working British steam tram engine.” [1: p49]
Hyde noted that “Project Steam Tram” would involve the Tramway Museum Society in some heavy capital outlay, and that the Society was appealing to tramway enthusiasts to take an interest in the project and support it with donations. [1: p49-50]
More recent research has filled in some of the unknowns which Hyde commented on in 1963. It was Beyer Peacock Works No. 2464 and carried an operational number of 47 in Australia. In the missing years the locomotive is thought to have spent time working in Illawarra between 1887 and 1888 prior to returning to the UK in 1889. That it was at Illawarra may be a reference to its work on the Wollongong-Clifton section of the New South Wales Government railways. If so then it remained in New South Wales longer than the article in ‘Modern Tramway‘ suggested. [2][3]
As a works shunter, the tram operated in the firm’s large works complex towing huge Beyer-Garrett locomotives from one shed to another.
After arriving at Crich in 1962, No. 2 “was operated under steam for some years from 1966. A period of off-site storage between 1971 and 1978 was followed by a return to steam in the 1980s, during which it even performed on the Santa specials. However, the work involved in firing it up, supplying it with coal and clearing away the ash helped to explain why steam traction gave way to electricity on Britain’s tramways in the early years of the twentieth century.” [3]
Crich Tramway Museum’s website tells us that, “because it was destined for export and as it was expected to be pulling much heavier loads it was much larger than those built for the home market. With 30 inch driving wheels and weighing almost 16 tons it was a true giant of a tram engine, though it did boast a number of features in common with other road-going locomotives including the fully enclosed wheels and a mechanism – in this case a “Wilkinson Patent” exhaust superheater – that was designed to reduce the amount of smoke emitted.” [3]
References
G. Hyde; The Strange Tale of No. 2; in Modern Tramway Volume 26 No. 302, LRTL and Ian Allan, Hampton Court, Surrey; February 1963, p48-50.
Peter Clowes, in his article in the September 1963 edition of the Railway Magazine wrote: “Rolling down from the Derbyshire hills came the “gang” a train of perhaps 20 wagons, their rough iron bodies piled high with skilfully stacked lumps of grey limestone. They lurched and swayed on the flanged steel track and forced the brakeman in charge of the train to cling firmly to the leading wagon on which he perched. This is how the villagers of the High Peak remember the clattering, dusty Peak Forest Tramway, built by Benjamin Outram, that was part of the life of the district for 125 years.” [1]
He goes on to explain that the tramway was only ever used for goods, no passengers were carried except when company officials undertook tours of inspection. The line carried lime and limestone from Buxton’s quarries and kilns down to the Peak Forest Canal at Bugsworth for ongoing transport on barges to Lancashire and beyond.
Wikipedia provides a sketch map of the route of the tramway which is reproduced below.
Sketch Map of The Peak Forest Tramway. [2]
The Peak Forest Tramway. [18]
The next (adjacent) sketch map is more informative. It was included in a post about the line on the Peak and Northern Footpaths Society website. It shows the locations of a number of key features on the route of the tramway. [18]
Benjamin Outram’s original intentions were to build a canal from Ashton-under-Lyne through to Chapel Milton, now a ‘suburb’ of Chapel-en-le-Frith. [4] He sought and received and Act of Parliament to this effect, dated 28th March 1794. That Act authorised the construction of the canal, which would have been 22 miles long, and the construction of a feeder tramway/plateway from the canal to Load’s Knowle (Dove Holes), near Buxton. Gradients between Chapel Milton and Buxton were severe and unsuited to canal construction.
However, Outram decided to reduce construction costs by terminating the Peak Forest Canal at Bugsworth and building his tramway for the whole of the remaining six miles to Dove Holes. Clowes tells us that, “The line was opened on August 31, 1796, and was an immediate success. Hundreds of tons of stone were brought down to Bugsworth every day. Sometimes there were as many as 20 barges – each with a capacity of 20 tons leaving the village for Lancashire.” [1]
Wikipedia tells us that “the tramway was initially single-track, on a 4 ft 2 in (1,270 mm) gauge, constructed of stone sleeper blocks and L-section cast-iron rails that were fastened directly onto the blocks, in the same manner as [Outram’s] Little Eaton Gangway built for the Derby Canal. The rails, known as gang rails or plates, were provided by Benjamin Outram and Company who also supplied the mineral wagons.” However, in 1803, the significant traffic volumes on the line required the single line to be “made double-track, with the exception of Stodart Tunnel and below Buxton Road Bridge, using the same method of fixing the rails.” [2]
When Outram’s Peak Forest Canal Company was building the Peak Forest Tramway, between 1794 and 1796, it cut into a bed of gritstone by the hamlet of Lower Crist, about 380 yards to the east of the terminus of the Peak Forest Canal at Bugsworth. The stone apparently “had good non-slip properties and was easy to cut because it had no grain. … This bed extended south of the main line of the tramway at Lower Crist and a branch line was made into it. The Company also discovered another deposit of the same stone adjoining the nearby hamlet of Barren Clough, which is situated between Lower Crist and the canal terminus. Consequently, they purchased land there as well but it was another 56 years before Barren Clough Quarry was opened.” [3]
Clowes comments that a considerable trade in this gritstone developed as it was located so close to the Tramway and Canal. “Thousands of 6 in. square setts for the cobbled streets of the country’s growing cities were carried … to the wharfs.” [1]
“Bugsworth a sleepy little village, renamed Buxworth, … became a hive of industry.” [1] [5]
It was originally intended to extend the tramway to Buxton as and when demand for minerals grew. A further extension to Ashopton in the Hope Valley over the Rushup Moors by way of Sparrowpit , Mam Tor and Lose Hill was also planned. “These extensions never materialised and the plans were finally abandoned when the Cromford & High Peak Railway was built in 1830.” [1]
Clowes provided a vivid description of what travelling with the “gang” must have been like. A quite exhilarating experince! “Teams of horses pulled the loaded wagons from the Dove Holes quarries to the highest point of the line about a quarter of a mile away. Here the horses were unhitched. The brakeman gave the “gang” a push and then leaped onto the leading axle pin as the train of anything from 16 to 40 wagons gathered speed. At first the track curved gently through a long limestone cutting, then under the main Buxton to Chapel-en-le-Frith road by means of a stone arch bridge and down into the woods of Barmoor Clough between dry stone walls about 20ft. apart. This section of the line was closely followed by the London & North Western Railway when its spur was constructed from Stockport to Buxton, more than 50 years after the tramway was built. Until the tramway ceased operations in 1920, trains and “gangs” ran alongside each other separated only by a moss-covered wall.” [1]
As we will see in a future article about the line, “where the railway swings left into a tunnel, the tramway continued around the shoulder of a hill that shadows the birch and sycamore clad gorge which plunges down to Blackbrook. … The “gang” ran on down a steady 1-in-60 gradient to marshalling yards at the end of a 900-ft. ridge overlooking Chapel-en-le Frith. Here were workshops, stables, a permanent way store, and other buildings of the tramway company.” [1]
“An inclined plane, 500 yd. long and worked by a wire rope that ran around an 18 ft.-wide wooden drum, controlled the descent of loaded wagons to the foot of the slope. The rope was 2 in. in diameter and weighed six tons. No more than eight wagons were allowed in a run on the incline. The loaded vehicles would be balanced with an appropriate number of empties whenever possible. The weight of the descending wagons pulled the empties up the slope. Sometimes horses were harnessed to the driving drum to provide additional power. If the weight of the wagons became too great and the train started to run away, a lever-operated brake would be applied in the wooden control cabin that stood on stilts just beyond the top of the 1-in-7 incline. Sometimes, however, this proved ineffective. With an ever-increasing roar the wagons would race downhill, then jump the rails and scatter their loads far and wide.” [1]
Clowes narrative continues from the small town of Chapel-en-le-Frith: “After negotiating the plane the “gangs” were reassembled in the Townend sidings and were started again on the journey to Bugsworth under their own momentum. Soon they were clattering across Bowden Lane and through a copse of oak and elm.” [1]
“A mile west of Chapel was Stodhart Tunnel which the wagons entered through a steep sided cutting, the slopes of which were covered with ivy and rhododendron bushes. For 100 yards the “gangs” thundered in darkness. Then they were out into daylight and speeding along the fastest part of the track through Chapel Milton. There were sidings here across the road from the old Spread Eagle Inn-and two or three wagons of lime might be shunted off the main line to await the arrival of local farmers with horse and cart. The tramway continued through the pleasant fields of Bridgeholm, across the Whitehough road and along the banks of Black Brook to Bugsworth. The whole journey might take three hours, allowing for delays on the plane.” [1]
At Bugsworth, the tramway divided into extensive sidings and there were many loading berths. where limestone was tipped into large canal-side storage bays below the level of the track. Clowes tells us that “one of the most interesting features of this inland port was a simple yet ingenious tipping wheel which consisted of two vertical, spoked wheels about 16 ft. high attached to a frame which ran on a special rail track. The frame was pushed over a line of wagons which had been run on to a pier over the canal basin, and a hook was fastened to the end of each wagon in turn. A rope led from the hook over a drum which linked the two main wheels. A man would climb up the spokes of one of the vertical wheels, so making it turn like a human gin. This lifted one end of the wagon off the rails, its hinged end-plate swung open and the contents of the vehicle spilled into the hold of a barge below.” [1]
Bugsworth Basin was surrounded by merchants’ offices and warehouses. The offices housed a series of different merchants supplying limestone, lime, coal and general merchandise. Further buildings housed workshops for track and rolling-stock repair; and stables for a horses which were used to transport goods and wagons back up the line to Dove Holes.
Outram’s plateways used L-shaped flanged track on which the wagons ran. The rails were 4 ft. 2 in. apart and initially made of cast-iron. Each rail was 3 ft. long and weighed 56 lb. Clowes tells us that, “the inner flange was raised 2 in. above the 3 in. wide running surface on which the flat wheels of the wagons ground their way. The rails were secured at the joints by cast-iron chairs which sat on stone block sleepers, each one about 18 in. square. An iron spike with a tapering head was driven through the end of each rail into an oak plug seated inside the sleeper. The clatter of “gangs” passing over these primitive joints must have been fearful and, understandably enough, rail breakages were frequent.” [1]
It wasn’t until the five year period between 1865 and 1870 that the line was relaid with 9 ft. long steel rails. These were rolled at Gorton and fishplates, 1ft 6ins long were used to connect the rails. “Between the stone sleeper blocks was laid a cobbled path which enabled the horses to get a firm grip. The cobbles were raised well above the level of the sleepers, in fact about an inch higher than the rail flange. This arrangement might have helped to guide wagon wheels back on to the track following derailments.” [1]
Clowes explains that wagons used on the tramway were very crudely constructed: “Each weighed between 16 and 20 cwt. when empty, and carried about 2 tons. Three sides of the body were sheets of cast iron held together by iron bands and two large wooden chocks. The fourth side was a hinged iron gate which swung open when the vehicle was tipped to unload its cargo. The body was bolted in farm-cart style to wooden axle beams. The wheels – some were cast iron, others were of wood with wrought-iron tyres – ran loose on iron pins projecting from the axle beams. They were secured by large washers and cotter pins. The “gangs” were coupled together by two short iron chains fastened at each end of the wagon beds. There was no proper braking system. Until the last days of working, the running wagons could be halted only by a perilous practice on the part of the brakeman. He would leap from his perch on the leading axle pin and thrust iron sprags into the spokes of the spinning wheels. This would lock the wheels and skid the “gang” to a stop.” [1]
The Route from Bugsworth to Dove Holes
Peter Clowes has given us a description of the journey from Dove Holes to Bugsworth. [1] As we have already noted, it would have been an exciting ride for the brakesman/ brakesmen in charge of the trams. The journey back up the gradient from Bugsworth to Dove Holes would have been much more of a toil and would have relied on horsepower. The route will be covered in greater detail, illustrated, where possible by contemporary plans and maps. In addition, as many modern photographs as is practical will be included and the journey will probably need to be divided into at least two articles.
Bugsworth Basin is shown below on an extract from the 1898 25″ OS Map which was surveyed in 1896. The concentration of tramway sidings is remarkable and suggests that, in the years before the turn of the 20th century, this was a very dynamic, busy and noisy place!
Bugsworth Basin, the terminus of the Peak Forest Canal, was surrounded by a myriad of tramway sidings. This extract from the 1898 25″ OS Map shows the main basin just to the South of the Navigation Inn. The tramway is shown exiting the extract at the third point down on the right side of the image. The tramway running South-east and leaving the extract in tunnel was the line providing access to the Barren Clough Quarry. That service the Lower Crist Quarry left the Tramway mainline a short distance to the East of the edge of this extract. [7]Approximately the same area in the 21st century. The renovated canal basin is clearly visible. The dual-carriageway visible at the bottom of the satellite image is the A6 Whalley Bridge and Chapel-en-le-Frith by-pass. [8]
“Starting in 1968, volunteers of the Inland Waterways Protection Society restored the canal and basins culminating in the re-opening to navigation in 2005. Now that restoration of navigation has been achieved, improvements and development continues” [9] under the auspices of the Bugsworth Basin Heritage Trust (BBHT). Their plan of the site is shown below.
The BBHT plan of the Bugsworth Basin site. Key: Ground Panel Locations are shown by green dots; Welcome Panels are shown by orange dots; Observation Panels are shown by mauve dots. [10]A schematic model of the Bugsworth Basin at the East end of the Lower Basin. (My photograph, 11th June 2021.)
Before heading east from Bugsworth Basin two particular things are worthy of note:
First, just beyond the Navigation Inn on the North side of the Upper Basin, there is a well-preserved example of a tramway wharf where goods were loaded and unloaded.
Second, the skew arch bridges which carry a branch tramway which served lime kilns.
The two skew-arch bridges which carrried the tramway branch to the lime kilns in 1976. These bridges carried the tramway branch over the Black Brook and a medieval packhorse road. The road bridge is in the foreground the river bridge is beyond. [20]The skew-arch bridge carrying the tramway branch to the limekilns over the old packhorse road. The skew-arch bridge over the Black brook is off to the left of the picture. The tramway mainline ran across the right foreground of the image. (My photograph, 11th June 2021.)The relative locations of Barren Clough Quarry junction and the Skew-arch bridges. [21]
Leaving Bugworth Basin, the Tramway passed to the North of Lower Crist Quarry. Its branch tramway left the mainline to the East of the junction with the limekiln tramway branch as shown below.
25″ 1898 OS Map extract showning The Peak Forest Tramway to the East of Bugsworth Basin. Lower Crist Quarry and its tramways are shown on the South side of the Peak Forest Tramway. Barron Clough Quarry was further to the South and was served by its own tramway which passed through a tunnel as it left Bugsworth Basin. Lower Crist Quarry is, in the 21st century bisected by the A6 dual-carriageway. Little of consequence now remains. [11]
Both the Barren Clough Quarry and the Crist Quarry (and the tunnel which gave access to the Barren Clough Quarry are covered in detail in an article by Peter J. Whitehead, “Crist and Barren Clough Quarries, High Peak, Derbyshire.” [19] It seems as though Barren Clough Quarry was not opened until the Company believed that Christ Quarry was close to exhaustion. Barren Clough was opened 56 years after Crust Quarry. It was served by a single-track tramway branch. The branch “commenced at a point 80 yards to the east of the terminus of the Peak Forest Canal. At a distance of 145 yards from the main line, it entered the tunnel before arriving on the quarry floor. Although the tunnel was relatively short, a vertical shaft was first sunk at a distance of 76 yards from the north portal (just under half way) to enable it to be excavated from four faces at once rather than at each end. When the tunnel was completed this shaft became an airshaft, although this feature was probably unnecessary for such a short tunnel.” [19]
The two quarry branch tramways are shown on the map extract below.
Barren Clough and Crist Quarries and their tramway branches. [11]Tramway routes to the East of Bugsworth Basin, imposed on a recent satellite image. (Google Maps)The location of Barren Clough and Crist Quarries in the 21st century, showing the A6 dual carriageway built in the later years of the 20th century. [Google Maps Satellite Image.]This is how RailMapOnline shows the Tramroad and its various connections over the length we have been looking at. [20]
As the OS Map extract above shows, there was a group of cottages just to the West of the tramway access to Crist Quarry. Those cottages are still in use in 21st Century. The access route to them (shown on the OS Map) has been cut by the A6 Dual Carriageway. They can only now be accessed from Bugsworth Basin.
Further East, the Tramroad follows the South side of Black Brook….
The route is shown on the 6″ Ordnance Survey from the turn of the 20th century. [21]The route of the old tramway is a well-paved/stoned footpath/bridleway for a distance to the East of Bugsworth Basin. [Google Maps]The route continues on the 6″ Ordnance Survey. [22]The route continued alongside Black Brook, although not following the meander around Harbour Cottage. [Google Maps]
Further along the line, it deviated South away from Black Brook so as to pass to the South side of Whitehall Mill.
Whitehall Mill is shown on this extract from the 25″ OS Map of 1898. It had its own tramway connection, with two separate accesses to the tramway. [22]The same area, shown on modern ESRI satellite imagery as provided by the National Library of Scotland (NLS), the Mill has expanded significantly in size and is still in use. It’s site crosses the brook. [22]Approaching Whitehall Mill from the West and looking along the old tramway route. [My photograph, 11th June 2021]Continuing to approach Whitehall Mill from the West along the old tramway route. [My photograph, 11th June 2021]Walking alongside Whitehall Mill from the West along the old tramway route. [My photograph, 11th June 2021]Continuing alongside Whitehall Mill from the West along the old tramway route with part of the site screened from the path by a very tall Leylandii hedge! [My photograph, 11th June 2021]Looking West-southwest back along the old tramway route towards Buxworth with the Whitehall Mill buildings screened by the Leylandii on the right. The Millpond is just off the image to the right. [Google Streetview, March 2021]Looking East-northeast along the line of the old tramway with the Millpond which served Whitehall Mill on the left. [Google Streetview, March 2021] The 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1898 shows the double track tramway continuing on the South side of Black Brook and curing round the village of Whitehough. [23]The same area as shown on the OS map above, as it appears on the ESRI satellite imagery provided by the NLS. [23]Looking West towards Whitehall Mill along the line of the old tramway. [Google Streetview, June 2016]Looking East along the line of the old tramway from the same point as shown in the image above. [Google Streetview, June 2016]The old tramway curved towards the Northeast for a short distance after crossing the minor road leading to Whitehough. [My photograph, 11th June 2021]The old tramway then curved round towards the Southeast before crossing another minor road leading to Whitehough (Whitehough Head Lane). [My photograph, 11th June 2021]Looking Southwest along Whitehough Head Lane towards Whitehough and showing the point at which the old tramway crossed the road at level. [Google Streetview, June 2011]Looking Northeast along Whitehough Head Lane at the point where the old tramway crossed the road. [Google Streetview, June 2016]This next extract from the 25″ OS mapping of 1898, shows the old tramway curving away from its crossing of Whitehough Head Lane. [24]The same area on the ESRI satellite imagery in the 21st century. [24]
Along this length of the tramway the formation of the old tramway is exposed with some of the old stone blocks which secured the tramways rails in position visible. The next sequence of photographs show these blocks.
This sequence of photographs show exposed stone blocks which acted as sleepers for the tramway rails. The images are all taken facing along the tramroad towards Chapel-en-le-Frith. [My photographs, 11th June 2021]
The estate of new housing visible in these pictures is built on the site of Forge Mill. An information board provides details, although the protective Perspex cover to the board has begun to fog over the years.
The information board tells us that the stone blocks were quarried at Crist Quarry, near Bugsworth Basin. Originally, the basic L-shaped rails were laid directly onto the blocks as specified by Benjamin Outram, the engineer of the tramway, but rail breakages were a problem and so, by 1837 the tramway rails were relaid on iron saddles. This is shown in the picture at the bottom-left of the information board. [My photograph, 11th June 2021]
The site of Forge Mill appears on this next extract from the 25″ OS mapping. [27]The same area as shown on the ESRI satellite imagery. [27]
Forge Mill has seen a variety of different uses over the years. The Derbyshire Historic Environment Record list these as:
BLEACH WORKS (Post Medieval – 1540 AD to 1900 AD) MILL POND (Post Medieval – 1540 AD to 1900 AD) WEIR (Post Medieval – 1540 AD to 1900 AD) PAPER MILL (Post Medieval – 1540 AD to 1900 AD) RAILWAY SIDING (Georgian to Victorian – 1800 AD? to 1900 AD) [25]
Information about the site was provided as part of the planning application for the new housing estate on the site of the Works . The document is available on High Peak Council’s website. [26] It confirms that the Forge Mill site was, before redevelopment, known as the Dorma Works. “The site was first developed in the early 1800’s as a paper mill. By the 1900’s the site changed to the production of textiles, a dye and bleach works. The site was sold in the early 20th century to Dorma who produced bed linen and cotton prints.” [26] After the site was purchased in 2005 it remained unoccupied and was largely demolished in 2010.
A siding was provided to link the mill to the tramway. This can be seen on the OS map above.
The 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1898 again. Beyond Forge Mill the route of the old tramway deviates Southward still following Black Brook. By the turn of the 20th century a Sewerage Farm had been constructed between the tramway and the brook. [28] The same area as shown on the 25″OS map extract above. The Sewage Farm is of a more significant size in the 21st century. [28]The next extract from the 25″ Ordnance Survey shows the tramway crossing Charley Lane on the level before beginning to curve back to the Northeast. [29]The modern ESRI satellite imagery shows the A6 dual carriageway embankments crossing the line of the old tramway. [29]The view back along the old tramway route towards Forge Mill. [Google Streetview, March 2021]Another view back along the old tramway route. The camera is sitting in Charley Lane. [Google Streetview, October 2022]The route of the old tramway to the East of Charley Lane now lies under the embankment of the A6 dual carriageway. [Google Streetview, March 2021]
This is a convenient point to finish the first part of our journey along the Peak Forest Tramway. There is, of course, much more to come, but this will need to wait for a future article.
Just to round off details of the old tramway’s history, we return first to Peter Clowes’ article in the Railway Magazine and then to other sources ….
The Gradual Demise of the Tramway
“Fifty years after the line was opened, the owners leased the Peak Forest and Macclesfield Canals – and, of course, the tramway – in perpetuity to the Sheffield, Ashton-under Lyne & Manchester Railway. A Parliamentary Act of 1846 provided for an annuity of £9,325 to be paid to the Peak Forest Canal Company. The railway later became part of the Manchester, Sheffield & Lincolnshire Railway, and in 1883 the canals and tramway were transferred completely to the new owners. The old canal company was dissolved. The Manchester, Sheffield & Lincolnshire Railway became the Great Central Railway in 1897 and was absorbed into the London & North Eastern Railway in 1923.” [1]
A 1925 Act of Parliament led to the closure of both the Peak Forest Tramway and the canal basin at Bugsworth. Clause 54 of Act 15 & 16 George V cap 52, 31st July 1925 was entitled ‘Abandonment of Peak Forest Tramway’. The Act was to empower the London and North Eastern Railway to construct new railways, widening others and to acquire land. It extended the time for the completion of certain works and it permitted the compulsory purchase of certain lands. Clause 54 stated: “The Company may abandon and discontinue their Peak Forest Tramway extending from Chinley to Dove Holes and may hold, sell or dispose of, or apply to the purposes of their undertaking the site and soil of any part of the said tramway so abandoned and discontinued.” [6]
After closure in the mid-1920s, records “made at the Marple Toll Office show that between 17th April 1928 and 12th February 1931 there were 30 deliveries of scrap iron from Bugsworth Basin to Prince’s Dock on the Ashton Canal at Guide Bridge. The total quantity of scrap was 523¼ tons, which averaged 17½ tons per boatload. …. At Prince’s Dock the scrap was transhipped onto the railway and from there it was taken to Sheffield for subsequent melting down. The scrap merchant who dismantled the tramway was T W Ward Ltd of Sheffield and it was melted down by Edgar Allen & Co Ltd, steel manufacturers of Sheffield.” [6]
As we have seen above, it was not until 1968 that work really began on recovering the industrial archaeology of the site and bringing the basin and canal back into navigable use. [9] The BBHT are proud of the replica wagon that they have relatively recently completed. The chassis of which “has been produced by members using traditional techniques, utilising timber cut from redundant oak lock gate balance beams, courtesy of the Canal & River Trust. The body steelwork has been produced by modern laser cutting, again from drawings by one of our volunteers. We have assembled this “kit” and mounted it onto the chassis.” [9] The replica wagon is now on display on the peninsula on the South side of the lower basin arm.
Further Reading
There is some excellent coverage of the Tramway and Bugsworth Basin available both online and in print form. This material includes:
Grahame Boyes and Brian Lamb; ‘The Peak Forest Canal and Railway; an Engineering and Business History’; The Railway & Canal Historical Society, 2012, (ISBN 948 0 901461 59 9). £30.00
Peter Clowes; The Peak Forest Limestone Tramway; in The Railway Magazine, Volume 109, September 1963, p611-617. This article can be accessed via a subscription to The Railway Magazine archives which is available as an add-on to a regular subscription to the magazine.
Roger Farnworth 
