Lawrence begins his article about the relatively newly refurbished Shrewsbury Railway Station by remarking on the debt Shrewsbury Station owes to the construction of the Severn Tunnel: “it is to the Severn Tunnel that Shrewsbury owes the position it claims as one of the most important distributing centres in the country if not the most. In telephonic language, it is a “switch board,” and those on the spot claim that more traffic is interchanged and redistributed at Shrewsbury than even at York.” [1: p461]
At the Southeast end of the station site, rails predominantly from the South and West converge. At the Northwest end of the station lines predominantly from the North and East meet to enter the Station.
Lawrence highlights the origins of different trains by noting the “places in each direction to and from which there are through carriages.” [1: p461]
From the South and West: London, Worcester, Dover, Kidderminster, Minsterley, Bournemouth, Cheltenham, Portsmouth, Cardiff, Bristol, Swansea, Penzance, Torquay, Weston-super-Mare, Southampton, Carmarthen, and Ilfracombe.
From the North and East: Aberystwyth, Criccieth, Barmouth, Llandudno, Dolgelly, (all of which are more West than East or North), Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool. York and Newcastle, Glasgow and Gourock, Edinburgh, Perth and Aberdeen, Chester and Birkenhead.
Lawrence comments that “these are terminal points, and separate through carriages are labelled to the places named; but, of course, the actual services are enormous: Penzance, for instance, means Exeter, Plymouth, and practically all Cornwall; and London, means Wolverhampton, Birmingham, Leamington and Oxford. And the bulk of these through connections only came into existence – and, in fact, were only possible – after the opening of the Severn Tunnel.” [1: p461-462]
Before 1887, the Midland Railway “had something like a monopoly of the traffic between North and West, and Derby occupied a position analogous to that occupied by Shrewsbury today, but, of course, on a much smaller scale. In 1887, the North and West expresses were introduced by the London and North Western Railway and the Great Western Railway, and then Ludlow, Leo- minster, Hereford, and a host of sleepy old world towns suddenly found themselves on.an important main line.” [1: p462]
From Manchester and Liverpool, Lawrence says, “the new route not only saved the detour by way of Derby, but incidentally substituted a fairly level road for a very hilly one. There are now nine expresses in each direction leaving and arriving at Shrews-bury, connecting Devonshire and the West of England and South Wales with Lancashire and Yorkshire.” [1: p462]
Shrewsbury Station was erected in 1848, and was the terminus of the Shrewsbury and Birmingham Railway, constructed by Mr. Brassey. It was enlarged in 1855, and practically reconstructed in 1901.
The current Historic England listing for the Station notes that it opened in 1849 and was extended circa 1900. The architect was Thomas Penson Junior of Oswestry. The building is “Ashlar faced with Welsh slate roof. Tudor Gothic style. 3 storeys, though originally two. 25-window range, divided as 4 principal bays, articulated by polygonal buttresses with finials. Asymmetrical, with tower over main entrance and advanced wing to the left. 4-storeyed entrance tower with oriel window in the third stage, with clock over. Polygonal angle pinnacles, and parapet. Mullioned and transomed windows of 3 and 4 lights with decorative glazing and hoodmoulds. String courses between the storeys, with quatrefoil panels. Parapet with traceried panels. Ridge cresting to roof, and axial octagonal stacks. Glazed canopy projects from first floor. Platforms roofed by a series of transverse glazed gables. The building was originally 2-storeyed, and was altered by the insertion of a lower ground floor, in association with the provision of tunnel access to the platforms.” [6]
Lawrence says that the building “possesses a handsome façade and is of freestone, in the Tudor Gothic style. Unfortunately, its imposing frontage is not shewn to the best advantage, as the station lies literally in a hole. Previously to 1901 there was direct access from the roadway to the platforms; but the principal feature of the 1901 alteration was the excavation of the square in which the station was built to a depth of 10 or 12 feet, in order to allow the booking offices, parcels offices, etc., to be on the ground floor, under the platforms, and passengers thus enter the station from a subway, wheeled traffic approaching the platform level by means of a slope. On one side frowns the County Gaol, on the other is the Castle, now a private residence. All around and in front are small shops, for the approach is only by way of a back street.” [1: p462]
A satellite image showing Shrewsbury Prison, the Railway Station, the River Severn and Shrewsbury Castle. [Google Maps, September 2024.
Shrewsbury Gaol is more normally referred to as Shrewsbury Prison, but you may hear it called ‘The Dana’. It was completed in 1793 and named after Rev Edmund Dana. The original building was constructed by Thomas Telford, following plans by Shrewsbury Architect, John Hiram Haycock.
“William Blackburn, an architect who designed many prisons, also played a part in drawing up the plans for a new prison. It was Blackburn who chose the site on which the prison is built. Blackburn was influenced by the ideas of John Howard, … a renowned Prison Reformer. … Howard visited Shrewsbury in 1788 to inspect the plans for the new prison. He disliked some aspects of the designs, such as the size of the interior courts. … Consequently, redesigns were undertaken by Thomas Telford who had been given the position of Clerk of Works at the new prison the previous year. Shrewsbury Prison was finished in 1793 with a bust of John Howard sitting proudly above the gate lodge. He gives his name to Howard Street where the prison is located.” [7]
The gatehouse of Shrewsbury Prison with the bust of John Howard above. [7]
Shrewsbury Castle was commissioned by William the Conqueror soon after he claimed the monarchy and was enlarged by Roger de Montgomery shortly thereafter “as a base for operations into Wales, an administrative centre and as a defensive fortification for the town, which was otherwise protected by the loop of the river. Town walls, of which little now remains, were later added to the defences, as a response to Welsh raids. … In 1138, King Stephen successfully besieged the castle held by William FitzAlan for the Empress Maud during the period known as The Anarchy [and] the castle was briefly held by Llywelyn the Great, Prince of Wales, in 1215. Parts of the original medieval structure remain largely incorporating the inner bailey of the castle; the outer bailey, which extended into the town, has long ago vanished under the encroachment of later shops and other buildings. … The castle became a domestic residence during the reign of Elizabeth I and passed to the ownership of the town council c.1600. The castle was extensively repaired in 1643 during the Civil War and was briefly besieged by Parliamentary forces from Wem before its surrender. It was acquired by Sir Francis Newport in 1663. Further repairs were carried out by Thomas Telford on behalf of Sir William Pulteney, MP for Shrewsbury, after 1780 to the designs of the architect Robert Adam.” [10]
At the time of the writing of Lawrence’s article in The Railway Magazine, the castle was owned by Lord Barnard, from whom it was purchased by the Shropshire Horticultural Society. The Society gave it to the town in 1924 “and it became the location of Shrewsbury’s Borough Council chambers for over 50 years. The castle was internally restructured to become the home of the Shropshire Regimental Museum when it moved from Copthorne Barracks and other local sites in 1985. The museum was attacked by the IRA on 25 August 1992 and extensive damage to the collection and to some of the Castle resulted. The museum was officially re-opened by Princess Alexandra on 2 May 1995. In 2019 it was rebranded as the Soldiers of Shropshire Museum.” [10]
Lawrence continues to describe the Railway Station building: “Inside, one notices how the prevailing style of architecture of the front is carried into every detail of the interior. All the windows of waiting room and other platform offions are in the peculiar Tudor style, and the whole interior is graceful and handsome. The excavation of the station square involved the removal of a statue erected to the memory of one of the foremost citizens, Dr. Clement, who lost his life in combating the cholera in the early [1870s]. It was removed to the ‘Quarry’, a place of fashionable public resort.” [1: p462]
“The two main platforms are of considerable length, 1,400 and 1,250 ft. respectively, and each of them can accommodate two trains at once. The station was designed with this object in view, being divided into two block sections by a cabin, from which the whole of the station traffic is controlled. There are seven cabins in all, the most important of which contains 185 levers.” [1: p462-463]
“The lines approaching the station are laid out in curves of somewhat short radius, and the system of o guard rails is deserving of notice. Instead of being in short lengths, as is frequently the case, they are in apparent continuity with the respective facing points, and any derailment seems to be impossible. The new station is built over the river, and consequently the bridge which formerly carried only the permanent way was considerably widened – more than trebled in width, in fact. The platforms are supported by piers driven 25 ft. below the bed of the river by hydraulic pressure.” [1: p463]
Lawrence continues: “Looking across the river, the stationmaster’s house, ‘Aenon Cottage’ it is now called, is seen on the opposite bank, a house which has had a very chequered history. It started life as a thatched cottage; then it became a public house; then a ‘manse’, the residence of the Baptist minister. Then it was altered and enlarged and afforded house room for the Shropshire Union Railway and Canal Offices, and has now entered upon another phase of its railway history as the residence of Mr. McNaught, the stationmaster.” [1: p463] I have not been able to determine the exact location of this property.
Lawrence shares details of McNaught’s employment history with the railways, including periods as Stationmaster at Craven Arms and Hereford before arriving at Shrewsbury in 1890. Under McNaught at Shrewsbury were a joint staff of 160, including 16 clerical and 25 signalmen. Additional non-joint staff included clerical staff in the Superintendent’s office and the carriage cleaners.
At Shrewsbury there were locomotive sheds of the LNWR (57 engines and 151 staff) and the GWR (35 locomotives and about 110 staff).
The station was 171.5 miles from Paddington, the fastest scheduled journey was 3 hr 28min. The route via Stafford to London was 9 miles shorter than the GWR route, the fastest scheduled train in 1905 did that journey in 3hr 10min.
Lawrence notes that “the really fast running in this neighborhood is that to be found on the Hereford line, the 50.75 miles being covered in 63 min.” [1: p464]
Lawrence comments that beyond the station site, “The town of Shrewsbury is not the important place it once was. … Shrewsbury was the centre whence radiated a good deal of warlike enterprise. All this glory has departed, and Shrewsbury has not been as careful as its neighbour, Chester, to preserve its relics of the past. The walls have almost gone, railway trucks bump about on the site of the old monastic buildings, public institutions of undoubted utility but of very doubtful picturesqueness have replaced abbey and keep and drawbridge and its very name has disappeared into limbo. … (‘Scrosbesberig’).” [1: p465]
But, it seems that its importance as a railway hub in someway makes up for other losses of status: During a typical 24 hour period, “there are 24 arrivals from Hereford, 21 from Chester, 18 from Crewe, 18 from Wolverhampton, 13 from Stafford, 7 each from Welshpool and the Severn Valley, 4 from Minsterley, and 2 local trains from Wellington. There are thus 114 arrivals, and the departures are 107, making a total of 221. But a considerable number of these trains break up into their component parts when they reach Shrewsbury, and are united with the fragments of other trains in accordance with the legend on their respective destination boards, so that the total number of train movements is a good deal in excess of the nominal figure.” [1: p465]
Lawrence talks of Shrewsbury as the starting point for GWR trains to make a vigorous attack upon North Wales and similarly as the starting point for their rivals to make a descent upon South Wales. For 115 miles, all the way down to Swansea, the they had local traffic to themselves. Trains ran on the Shrewsbury and Hereford Joint line for twenty miles, as far as Craven Arms, a journey which took about half-an-hour. Trains then commenced on a leisurely run of 3 hours 5 min to 4 hours 40 min. Much of the line was single and stops were numerous. Lawrence remarked that, in the early part of the 20th century, “the fastest train from Swansea stops no less than fourteen times, eight booked and six conditional. This is the favourite route from the north to Swansea, for the scenery along the line is pretty, and, as far as alignment goes, it is much more direct than any other, although the Midland obligingly book travellers via Birminghamand Gloucester.” [1: p466]
Lawrence continues: “The only purely local service in and out of Shrewsbury is that to the little old-world town of Minsterley, 10 miles away, served by four trains each way daily. … The Severn Valley branch connects Shrewsbury with Worcester. The latter city is 52.25 miles away, but there is no express running. It forms no part of any through route. … Two hours and a half is [the] … allowance for 52 miles.” [1: p466-467]
Of interest to me is the time Lawrence quotes for the 63 mile journey from Manchester to Shrewsbury, 1 hour 45 minutes. The shortest train journey from Manchester to Shrewsbury in the 21st century is from Manchester Piccadilly to Shrewsbury, which takes about 1 hour and 9 minutes, although a more typical journey would take more like 1hour 40 minutes. The distance is, today, quoted as 57 miles. There are currently 20 scheduled services on a weekday (15 of which are direct) from Manchester to Shrewsbury. In the opposite direction, there are 37 scheduled rail journeys between Shrewsbury and Manchester Stations (with 17 being direct).
Improvements to Shrewsbury Station Quarter
In 2024/25 Shropshire Council is undertaking work in front of Shrewsbury Railway Station. Work began in June 2024. [20]
Two artists impressions of the work being done in 2024/25 conclude this look at Shrewsbury Station at the start of the 20th century.
Two drawings showing the improvements underway at the time of writing. [20]
References
J.T. Lawrence; Notable Railway Stations, No. 34 – Shrewsbury: Joint London and North-Western Railway and Great Western Railway; in The Railway Magazine,London, December 1905, p461-467.
A note in the August 1905 edition of The Railway Magazine mentions a 1904 report from the Light Railway Commissioners and comments from the Board of Trade in 1905. [1: p170]
The Regulation of Railways Act 1868 permitted the construction of light railways subject to ‘…such conditions and regulations as the Board of Trade may from time to time impose or make’; for such railways it specified a maximum permitted axle weight and stated that ‘…the regulations respecting the speed of trains shall not authorize a speed exceeding at any time twenty-five miles an hour’. [2]
“The Light Railways Act 1896 did not specify any exceptions or limitations that should apply to light railways; it did not even attempt to define a ‘light railway’. However, it gave powers to a panel of three Light Railway Commissioners to include ‘provisions for the safety of the public… as they think necessary for the proper construction and working of the railway’ in any light railway order (LRO) granted under the act. These could limit vehicle axle weights and speeds: the maximum speed of 25 miles per hour (mph) often associated with the Light Railways Act 1896 is not specified in the act but was a product of the earlier Regulation of Railways Act 1868. … However, limits were particularly needed when lightly laid track and relatively modest bridges were used in order to keep costs down.” [2]
Sir Francis Hopwood’s report to the Board of Trade on the proceedings of the Light Railways Commission during 1902, indicated “a growing tendency to embark on private and municipal light railway schemes all over the country. Thirty-one fresh orders, of which only two for steam traction, were submitted, eighteen being confirmed, making a total of thirty-five for the year. No order was rejected. Since 1896, 420 applications [had] been made, more than half being confirmed. They represented 3,900 miles of line, with a capital expenditure of £30,371,193. The total mileage sanctioned during 1902 amount[ed] to 1,500 miles, with a capital expenditure of £10,148,900, or over a third of the aggregate for five years.” [10]
The short report in the August 1905 Railway Magazine highlighted the “number of applications made to the Commissioners in each year since the commencement of the Act, the number of orders made by the Commissioners, and the number confirmed by the Board of Trade, with mileage and estimates.” [1: p170]
Applications for Light Railway Orders (*From 278 applications. + From 237 Orders submitted). [1: p170]
Railways built under the Light Railways Act 1896 struggled financially and by the 1920s the use of road transport had put paid to the majority. Some survived thanks to clever management and tight financial control.
“The Light Railways Act was repealed in 1993 for England and Wales by the Transport and Works Act 1992 and no new light railway orders were allowed to be issued for Scotland after 2007. … Until the Transport and Works Act 1992 introduced transport works orders, heritage railways in the UK were operated under light railway orders.” [2]
Among many others, Light Railways which were built under the Act include these examples:
Welshpool and Llanfair Light Railway, opened in 1903, closed in 1956, reconstructed and reopened between 1963 and 1981 on the entire route except Welshpool town section. Articles about this line can be found here, here and here. [3]
Tanat Valley Light Railway, articles about the line can be found here and here. [4]
Shropshire & Montgomery Light Railway, five articles about this line and its rolling stock can be found here, here, here, here and here. [5]
Kelvedon & Tollesbury Light Railway, an article about this line can be found here. [6]
Campbeltown and Machrihanish Light Railway is referred to in this article. [7]
Bere Alston and Calstock Light Railway, the East Cornwall Mineral Railway and this line are covered in three articles which can be found here, here and here. [8]
Ashover Light Railway, is covered in three articles which can be found here, here and here. [9]
A parallel act governed light railways built in Ireland.
The Railway Magazine of February 1922 introduced its readers to the advantages of ‘demountable flats’. ‘Demountable flats’ significantly improved the loading and unloading of consignments of goods on railways and road motor vehicles. ‘Demountable flats’ made it possible to transfer a load from one to the other or vice versa in a few minutes. The result was a significant “saving in time and labour. … The system, which [was] capable of considerable extension, [was] finding favour on several railways. It [had] recently been adopted by the London and South Western Railway with great advantage and two illustrations [were] reproduced [in their article] showing the arrangements employed.” [1: p137-138]
Demountable flat in position on stand-dray, London & South Western Railway. [1: p137]
“The old method of collecting goods was to despatch a pair-horse van with two men at 9 a.m. each day to pick up a load. The horses and men were compulsorily kept idle while the goods were loaded piecemeal, the van eventually returning to the goods yard with its load and frequently being unable to perform more than one return journey in the day. Under the new arrangement a motor lorry leaves the depôt at 9 a.m. with an empty demountable flat to pick up a load. Upon arrival the flat is pushed or lifted off the chassis and a loaded one transferred thereto by similar means. The lorry is able to return with this load at 10 a.m., the load being then transferred to the stand-dray, after which the motor sets out again on another trip at about 10.15 a.m., carrying an empty flat as before.” [1: p138]
Two men transferring a load of 50 barrels of apples (weight: 4 tons), London & South Western Railway. [1: p138]
“Horses are harnessed to the stand-dray to which the first load was, as stated, transferred, and haul it to the goods siding ready to load it on to a wagon of the goods train. By this means loads collected late in the afternoon can be delivered at far distant points early the following day per goods train. Also six return journeys can be accomplished in a day, whereas previously this might necessitate the employment of twelve men and six pairs of horses. The inward traffic or goods delivery is conducted on the same lines and with the same saving of time and labour. The wheels of the demountable flats illustrated are fitted with self-aligning ball bearings, which considerably facilitate the ease of handling of the flats, especially in their loaded condition.” [1: p138]
These revised methods of working were relatively novel in 1922. As can be seen in the text above,, working patterns were changing and manual labour was becoming less important as more mechanised operations were undertaken. No doubt, the reduced number of men required for these operations eventually saw redundancies.
“The larger the unit loads the greater the reduction in handling time for a given quantity of cargo. To make economic sense any container system has to be widely adopted, prior to the 1930s this meant that the majority of containers used were for bulk flows of minerals.” [4]
The presence of an article focussing on the use of ‘demountable flats’ in The Railway Magazine might suggest that they were a relatively early form of ‘unit load’ used on the railways. Their use was certainly a development in a flow of innovation in the movement of goods across different modes of transport. They were, though, effectively, but loosely, a form of ‘containerisation’. And containers had, by 1922, been around for some time, “various kinds were in regular use on the canals from the 1780s and wooden containers were adopted by the Liverpool & Manchester line in the 1830s for both coal and general goods.” [4]
“The Liverpool & Manchester Railway built open frame ‘skeliton (sic) wagons’ to carry rectangular bottom-door coal containers already in use of the canals but used their standard flat wagons to carry Pickfords general goods containers.” [4]
Although some of the mineral ‘containers’ “travelled on specially built wagons a lot were carried in three and four plank standard open wagons.” [4]
In 1841 Brunel introduced iron mineral boxes/containers in South Wales to protect friable coal. Cranes then lifted these containers into the holds of ships at Swansea docks. They were then emptied using bottom doors. 8ft long by 4.5ft wide, these containers were carried four to a wagon. [4]
During the pre-grouping era, containers were also used for passenger luggage where that luggage needed to be loaded onto boats travelling to the continent. Certainly, both the Great Eastern Railway and the South East & Chatham Railway provided this service. [4]
“By about 1900 road furniture vans were fitted with removable wheels so they could be moved on standard railway wagons, these evolved into covered furniture containers by the time of the First World War. Building on the work done by the pre grouping (pre 1923) companies railway container designs were standardised during the later 1920’s. The new RCH approved standard containers were based on the existing designs of the time. This move was mainly lead by the LMS who began promoting containers in 1928 in order to counter the competition from road haulage companies for door-to-door services.” [4]
By the 1930s, furniture and some high value items were being carried in containers. In the late 1930s almost all meat transportation by rail was undertaken using dedicated containers.
“British railways built many thousands of containers, mainly to the standard pre-war ‘van’ type designs. Up to the 1960’s it was usual to send containers through the system as single loads, hauled in standard mixed goods trains but under British Railways all-container ‘liner’ services began to emerge in the late 1950s.” [4]
The breweries used tank wagons of both the fixed and ‘demountable’ kind for beer and spirits. “Guinness developed a steel tank in the 1940s that could be carried in ordinary open wagons but demountable beer tanks were in effect containers and ran on purpose built chassis. Bass built up quite a fleet of these tanks, some of which were later used for other work, one example being the movement of glue to chipboard factories. This latter traffic was carried throughout the 1950s and 60s but … transferred to road in the 1970s. There were a few demountable tanks carried in pairs on a single wagon, Scottish and Newcastle had two of these and Truman’s had one (which could carry either two tanks or a single tank mounted … centrally).” [2]
‘Conflats’ were developed, in the era before nationalisation of the railways. ‘Conflat’ was the telegraphic code within the GWR’s “coding of railway wagons for a container wagon. Unlike normal wagon loads, containers were only listed to carry furniture or goods (unless they were refrigerated containers, which carried frozen products kept cold by ice) which needed to be placed on a specialist flatbed wagon which had train braking capability due to the fragile nature of the products carried.” [3]
These “wagons were removed from service (as were the containers themselves) when more modern containers came into use.” [3]
“British Railways used several standard types of wagon. The Conflat A, which could carry one type ‘B’, or two type ‘A’, containers, was the most common. It was regularly used to carry AF (frozen food) containers: while the Conflat L, which could carry three smaller containers for bulk powders, was also produced in large numbers. … The Conflat B wagon could carry 2 AFP (frozen food) containers. These were slightly wider than the standard AF containers, and were designed to carry loads on pallets.” [3]
Innovation continued through the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, but this discussion has taken us quite a distance from the ‘demountable flats’ of the 1920s and their dramatic impact on goods handling.
J. Holt Schooling produced a series of articles in The Railway Magazine after the turn of the 20th century. I came across the third of these in the July 1903 edition of the magazine. [1: p20-28] Elsewhere in the same magazine, there was a short note which highlighted the total net receipts of all Britain’s railways companies with the figures tabulated. [9: p59]
Headline figures for Britain’s railway companies for 1901 and 1902. [9: p59]
The figures show a small but significant increase between 1901 and 1902.
Holt Schooling’s article looked at some detailed statistics relating to British railways, with some comparisons made with statistics relating to the railways of the USA. …
Accidents
Holt Schooling highlighted the decrease in the chance of death or injury to railway passengers over the period from 1877 to 1901. Accidental deaths fluctuated over the period, injuries fell significantly in absolute terms (4,330 injured between 1877 and 1881 and 2,988 in 1897 to 1901) during the same period, the number of passengers carried rose significantly (2.9 billion to 5.5 billion). In relative terms, the number of deaths and injuries improved dramatically. The proportion killed, reducing from 1 in 17.9 million to 1 in 75.6 million, and the proportion injured refusing from 1 in 700 thousand to 1 in 1.2 million.
Passenger accident statistics on British railways. [1: p20]
Comparable figures in the USA show that the chance of death or injury while travelling by rail in the USA is very much higher, close to eight times higher.
Passenger accident statistics on railways in the USA. [1: p20]
Holt Schooling notes that “This result, unfavourable to the United States, is partly qualified by the fact that American railway journeys are of greater duration than English railway journeys, American passengers thus being exposed to risk of accident for a longer time than the British pas- senger, and also the American returns do not explicitly state whether or not the accidents to passengers are ‘from causes beyond their own control’ – a condition that applies to the foregoing accident facts for British railways.” [1: p21]
Holt Schooling produced a 10year summary of the causes of accidents. …
Causes of accidents in the British Isles during the ten years 1802-1901. [1: p21]
He notes that, “collisions account[ed] for 60% of all train accidents that happened, and that only two other causes of accidents had any material degree of frequency.” [1: p21] These were defects in the permanent way and trains entering stations at too great a speed.
Rates of Dividend on Ordinary Stock
In 1901, over £454 million was invested in railway companies ordinary stock. Schooling focuses on Ordinary Stock because it is the largest of the stocks under which railway capital is grouped. He explains that Guaranteed and Preference Stock amounted to more than £425 million, and Loans and Debenture Stock, just over £316 million.
Rates of Dividend Paid in 1901. [1: p22]
31% of Ordinary Stock paid a dividend between 2 and 3%. Interestingly, nearly 20% of the stock paid a dividend from 5 to 6%. [1: p22]
Working Expenditure
Railway costs per 1000 train-miles all rose between 1900 and 1901, with the exception of the cost of compensation which marginally decreased.
Railway Expenditure 1900/1901. [1: p22]
In absolute terms, the pattern is similar. Railway costs rose by just over £2.7 million between 1900 and 1901.
Railway Expenditure 1900/1901. [1: p23]
That increase in costs was only partially matched by a £1.5 million increase in gross receipts.
Train Mileage
Holt Schooling compared British and American figures for the year 1900 which was the latest year he had figures for. …
USA passenger train miles were 363.5 million, goods train miles were 492.6 million. A total of 856.1 million miles. The figures for the UK were respectively, 220 million, 180 million and a total of 400 million miles.
It is worth noting that freight mileage in the USA was considerably higher than passenger mileage. In the UK passenger mileage exceeded freight mileage. Train mileage in total in the USA was more than double that in the UK.
It is interesting, however, to consider the intensity of use of lines in the USA and the UK. This provides a very different picture. …
Train mileage per mile open for traffic. [1: p24]
Holt Schooling comments that on “average, each mile of American railroad is passed over by a train 4,400 times in the year, or twelve times per day. But each mile of British railroad is passed over by a train 18,300 times in the year, or fifty times per day. This is a striking fact, and it is another of those fundamental differences between the railway systems of the two countries … Our railways are used more than four times as often as the American lines are used, and this fact necessarily carries with it many other important differences between the two railway systems and the methods by which they are worked.” [1: p24]
Classes of Passengers
Three different classes were used on Britain’s railways. Holt Schooling tabulates the figures for each class in 1901.
Patronage of British railways passenger trains by class in 1901. [1: p24]
Holt Schooling notes “the overwhelming preponderance of the third-class passenger … 91.2 per hundred. The [highest] proportion of third-class passengers [was] in Scotland; and the lowest proportion of third class passengers [was] in Ireland, 81.4 per 100.” [1: p24-25] It is worth reminding ourselves that the whole of Ireland, at this time, was still considered to be part of the UK.
Holt Schooling goes on to note that the highest proportion of second- and first-class passengers in the UK was in Ireland and then comments that these figures suggest that Irish travellers do not feel the need for thrift in the way others in the UK do. He seems to suggest that his figures show that Ireland was not as poverty-stricken as was currently being made out in 1903.
It seems to me that this is only one way of interpreting the figures. Surely it is, at least, just as possible that these figures suggest that relative poverty was greater in Ireland given that a lower proportion of people were able to afford to travel third-class. It is also possible to infer from the figures that there was a greater disparity between rich and poor in Ireland than in the rest of the UK.
Receipts from Passenger and Goods Traffic
Gross receipts of British railway companies in 1901 were £106.5 million of which over £99.5 million were traffic receipts (passenger and goods combined). Holt Schooling notes that “Goods Traffic yielded more than one-half of this amount namely, £53 million, and passenger traffic, £46.5 million.” [1: p25-26] He goes on to state that over the 10 years (1892-1901), passengers receipts had increased in relation to goods receipts as shown in the table below.
Traffic Receipts of the Railways of Britain. [1: p26]
Overall receipts had increased year on year from £78.6 million in 1892 to £99.6 million in 1901. Despite the slight discrepancy in figures between Holt Schooling’s narrative and the table above, it is clear that the relative proportion of income changed over the 10 year period from 45% passenger/55% goods, to 47% passenger/43% goods.
Holt Schooling looks behind these overall figures and notes that close to 77% of passenger receipts came from third-class passengers! The figures were: 76.8% third-class; 10.7% second-class; 12.5% first-class.
Comparison of some Individual Railway Companies
Holt Schooling provides some details of individual railway company receipts/expenditure in 1901. [1: p26]
The lowest percentage of expenditure to receipts that he quotes is for the Furness Railway, 51%, closely followed by the Great North of Scotland Railway (52%), the North British Railway (53%), the Caledonian Railway (56%), the Great Northern Railway of Ireland (56%), the Taff Vale Railway (58%), Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland (59%) and the Glasgow and South Western Railway (61%).
The average of all British railways was 63%, a figure which also applied to the GWR, the L&Y and the LNWR. Those with higher percentage of expenditure included: the Great Southern & Western Railway of Ireland, the London & South Western Railway and the Midland Railway (64%), the North Eastern Railway (65%), the Great Eastern Railway (66%), the Great Northern Railway (67%) and the Great Central Railway (70%)
Holt Schooling suggests that these figures are counterintuitive. Rather than the larger companies being the most efficient, it seems that it was the smaller companies for whom this was true. There also appears to be a Northwest/Southeast divide with the least efficient companies being to the South and East of the country, while the more efficient were in the North and West, including Ireland!)
Holt Schooling also looks at receipts per train mile in pence/mile. …
Railway company receipts per train-mile. [1: p27]
Holt Schooling comments: “Here, again, are very large differences. The Taff Vale Railway received nearly 7s. per train-mile run from passenger and goods traffic, while the Great North of Scotland Railway received little more than 4s., the mean result for all railways in the United Kingdom being almost exactly 5s. per train-mile run. There are many important railways in the above list whose receipts per train-mile run are appreciably below the average, although upon general considerations, one would expect them to be above rather than below the average.” [1: p27]
Delayed Arrival of Trains
The most recent figures available to Holt Schooling, issues by the Board of Trade, related to some companies’ long-distance train arrivals in London in the 3 month period, June-August 1895. …
Punctuality of Railway Companies’ Trains at London termini in June to August 1895. [1: p27]
Figures for trains originating more than 50 miles from London may well feel comparable for the first four companies in the table above. Given the greater distances travelled by trains in the GWR, it is to be expected that a smaller percentage would have arrived within 5 minutes of the scheduled time than other companies in the list.
Rail Usage, January to March 2024 and earlier.
How do the statistics from 1903 compare with modern figures? The Office of Rail and Road produces quarterly statistics about rail usage. At the time of writing, the latest statistics cover the period from January to March 2024. [2]
The ORR report is dated 13th June 2024.
“A total of 1,610 million journeys (1.61 billion) were made by rail passengers in Great Britain in the latest year (1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024). This is a 16% increase on the 1,380 million journeys (1.38 billion) in the previous year (1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023). There were 405 million journeys in the latest quarter (1 January to 31 March 2024). This is a 13% increase on the 359 million journeys made in the same quarter in the previous year (1 January to 31 March 2023).” [2]
“Total passenger revenue was £10.3 billion in the latest year. This is a 13% increase on the £9.1 billion in the previous year (when adjusted for inflation). In the latest quarter, total passenger revenue in Great Britain was £2.6 billion. This is 13% more than the £2.3 billion generated in the same quarter in the previous year (when adjusted for inflation).” [2]
Included within the ORR report was a graph showing passenger numbers since 1946.
Passenger numbers on British railways since 1946 [2]
In 1946, passenger numbers were 1,270 million. A nadir was reached in 1982, just 630 million passengers. The peak since then was reached at the end of the 2010s, 1,740 million. At the turn of the 20th century Holt Schooling reported annual passenger numbers as 1,712 million, almost the same as the figure for 2019/20. The effect of the pandemic was marked. In 2020/21, passenger numbers fell to 388 million, recovering to 990 million in 2021/22, 1,380 million in 2022/23 and 1,610 million in 2023/24.
Before 1946, figures were interrupted by the two world wars. It is possible, however, to produce a similar graph to that above covering the period prior to 1946. The ORR has done so and an extract from another of their regular reports is below.
Passenger numbers on British railways from 1872 to 1947 and beyond. [8]
Peak patronage of the country’s railways occurred in 1920 when the railways carried 2,186 million passengers.
Passenger train kilometres: distances are recorded in kilometres in 2024. Between January and March 2024, “there were 126 million passenger train kilometres travelled, … an 8% increase on the 117 million recorded in the same quarter in the previous year. However, this is 93% relative to the 136 million in the same quarter five years previously (January to March 2019).” [2] These figures record full train movements.
Passenger vehicle kilometres: “include both the distance covered by locomotives and the carriages they transport. In the latest quarter (January to March 2024), there were 764 million passenger vehicle kilometres operated. This is a 6% increase on the 722 million kilometres in the same quarter in the previous year. However, this is still slightly below prepandemic levels, at 96% relative to the 800 million five years ago (January to March 2019).” [2]
The ORR report summary says that the key results of their statistical work are:
A total of 1.61 billion journeys were made by rail passengers in Great Britain in the latest year (1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024). This is a 16% increase on the 1.38 billion journeys in the previous year (1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023).
There were 405 million journeys in the latest quarter (1 January to 31 March 2024). This is a 13% increase on the 359 million journeys made in the same quarter in the previous year (1 January to 31 March 2023).
Total passenger revenue was £10.3 billion in the latest year. This is a 13% increase on the £9.1 billion in the previous year (when adjusted for inflation).
A total of 60.1 billion passenger kilometres were travelled in the latest year. This is a 13% increase on the 53.0 billion passenger kilometres travelled in the previous year.
Rail Accidents to 2024
Annual rail safety statistics on mainline rail, London Underground, and other non-mainline networks (trams, metros, other light rail, minor and heritage railways) are provided by the ORR, “reporting on fatalities and injuries to passengers, members of the public and workforce in Great Britain. It also covers train accidents and (annual and quarterly) number of signals passed at danger (SPADs). These incidents are reported to the Office of Rail and Road under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulation (RIDDOR).” [4]
The ORR reports on rail safety at the end of September each year, at the time of writing the latest report was published on 28th September 2023. [5]
“There were eight non-workforce fatalities (passenger or public) in the latest year (April 2022 to March 2023), a decrease from 11 in the previous year. These included five fatalities which occurred in mainline stations and at the platform-train interface, two passenger fatalities at stations on the London Underground and one fatality from a collision between a member of the public and a tram.” [5] The 8 fatalities in the year are lower than those reported by Holt Schooling. The total number of passenger fatalities in the years 1887 to 1901 was 520 people. The average number of fatalities per annum during that time was close to 35. But the network in the 21st century is much smaller.
“As of August 2024, the UK’s National Rail network is 10,072 miles (16,209 km) in Great Britain and 189 route miles (303 route km) in Northern Ireland. This network includes 20,000 miles of track, 30,000 bridges, tunnels, and viaducts, and around 2,500 stations.” [6]
By 1914, “the country had 23,000 miles of rail track and 4,000 stations, according to industry body Rail Delivery Group.” [7] Assuming the parameters are consistent, this means that the network in 2024 is less than 45% of that serving the country in 1914. If the network were of a similar size to that in 1914, the 8 fatalities in 2022/23 would equate to nearer to 15 fatalities after the turn of the 20th century. It is reasonable to think that, at least as far as fatalities are concerned, the modern rail network is safer than that operating in the early 20th century.
Conclusions
The statistics quoted and reviewed by Holt Schooling, provide an insight into the activities of railway companies at the turn of the 20th century. Passenger numbers were to increase further over the years and hit a peak in 1920 but then dropped to a low point in 1982 before recovering strongly. Only to see a drastic temporary reduction as a result of the pandemic.
Both passenger numbers and accidents are reported differently in the 21st century. However, as much as it is possible to compare figures from times more than a century apart, and as limited as this analysis has been, we can tentatively say that modern railways are comparably well patronised and safer than they were early in the 20th century.
References
J. Holt. Schooling; Lessons from Railway Statistics; The Railway Magazine, London, July 1903, p20-28.
The featured image above is of the Aveling & Porter locomotive known as ‘Old Chainey’, one of two unusual steam locomotives which served the line in early days. [29]
One of the delightful things about reading early copies of The Railway Magazine is the perspective from which articles are written. In this particular case the existence of the Great Central Railway is a welcome novelty!
This article begins: “Quainton Road is a name which has of late become familiar to the railway public owing to its being the converging point of the lines of the Great Central Railway’s recently-opened extension to London with those of the Metropolitan. It is situated in Buckinghamshire, at a distance of 45 miles from London” [1: p456]
Goodman goes on to refer to the Great Central as being “destined to become a power in the land.” [1: p456]
With the benefit of hindsight, whatever could be said about the Great Central during its lifetime, we know that it has not survived as a main line!
“The Great Central Railway [GCR] in England was formed when the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway changed its name in 1897, anticipating the opening in 1899 of its London Extension.” [2]
It survived as an independent company until, “on 1st January 1923, the company was grouped into the London and North Eastern Railway.” [2]
Ultimately, “the express services from London to destinations beyond Nottingham were withdrawn in 1960. The line was closed to passenger trains between Aylesbury and Rugby on 3 September 1966. A diesel multiple-unit service ran between Rugby Central and Nottingham Arkwright Street until withdrawal on 3 May 1969.” [2]
But this article is not about the GCR. It is about what Goodman describes as a “useful but little-known line … Called the Oxford and Aylesbury Tram Road.” [1: p456] The name is somewhat of a misnomer, as the line depended on the Metropolitan service between Aylesbury and Quainton and only ever ran as far as Brill, with a population of 1,300. It was only 6.5 miles in length. It was known during its lifetime by a number of different names: the Brill Tramway; the Quainton Tramway; the Wotton Tramway; the Oxford & Aylesbury Tramroad; and the Metropolitan Railway Brill Branch.
“In 1883, the Duke of Buckingham planned to upgrade the route to main line standards and extend the line to Oxford, creating the shortest route between Aylesbury and Oxford. Despite the backing of the wealthy Ferdinand de Rothschild, investors were deterred by costly tunnelling. In 1888 a cheaper scheme was proposed in which the line would be built to a lower standard and avoid tunnelling. In anticipation, the line was named the Oxford & Aylesbury Tramroad.” [3]
The first locomotives on the line were particularly unusual. Built by Aveling and Porter of Rochester, they arrived on the line in 1872, at which time the line was known as the Wotton Tramway.
A previous article looked at these Aveling and Porter locomotives among other unusual locomotives. Goodman says that “the early locomotive stock of the tramway consisted of two four-wheeled engines, which would now-a-days present a more or less unique appearance by the side of more modern types of locomotion.” [1: p457]
“Old Chainey” is a chain and flywheel-driven loco built in 1872. It was one of two locomotives on the line between Quainton Road and Brill. It was not very successful, especially if loads were heavy. It lasted in service on the Tramway until 1895 when it was sold for use at Nether Heyford Brickworks in Northamptonshire, where it continued working until the Second World War. [5]
It is now a static exhibit. It was placed, first at the London Transport Museum and then on long-term loan from the London Transport Museum to the Buckinghamshire Railway Centre. [6]
Goodman continues: “In general design [the locomotives] were not unlike the familiar traction engine, being built upon the same principle. Each engine had only one cylinder, which was situated above the boiler. Motion was accordingly imparted to a fly-wheel placed near the foot-plate, which, being connected with the running (not driving) wheels by a chain passing round their axles, caused the engine to move. The dimensions of the cylinders were 7 in. in diameter and 10 inches stroke. The wheels on the rails were 3 ft. in diameter. Both engines had long chimneys, fitted with caps to prevent the emission of sparks. For the accommodation of the enginemen, cabs – in reality little more than weather-boards – were provided, and at each side, about 18 in. above the rail-level, a footboard was fixed. …. The speed attained by them would hardly be termed ‘express’, the time occupied on the 6.5 miles from one terminus to the other averaging about 90 minutes!” [1: p457] That is just over 4 mph.
The line was upgraded in 1894, but the extension to Oxford was never built. “Instead, operation of the Brill Tramway was taken over by London’s Metropolitan Railway and Brill became one of its two north-western termini.” [3] The Aveling and Porter locomotives appear to have remained in service until 1895.
The nickname “Old Chainey” appears to result from the noisy operation of these locos. The one on static display at Buckinghamshire Railway Centre is Aveling and Porter No. 807. It was the first of the two locomotives converted for use on the Tramway. They cost £398 each. [7: p13] It was delivered to the Tramway in January 1872. The second loco was delivered in September of the same year. [7: p18][8: p29]
Before the writing of Goodman’s article in 1899, probably as early as 1895, more advanced locomotives were introduced, allowing trains to run faster. Goodman comments that the Aveling and Porter locos were: “superseded by two smart little locomotives of a more modern design. They [were] Huddersfield No.1 and Brill No. 2. and were built by Messrs. Manning, Wardle and Co., Boyne Engine Works, Leeds, the former in 1878 and the latter in 1804. Both [had] six wheels, all coupled, saddle tanks, and inside cylinders, with a total wheel-base of 10 ft. 9 in. and when in working order they each [weighed] about 10 tons. The wheels [were] 3 ft. in diameter, and the cylinders 12 in. in diameter, with a stroke of 17 in.” [1: p458]
Manning Wardle engine Brill No.1, Huddersfield at Quainton Road in the late 1890s with the Wotton Tramway’s passenger coach of the mid-1870s, an 1895 Oxford & Aylesbury Tramroad passenger coach, and a goods wagon loaded with milk churns. [3]A rather poor photograph showing Brill No. 2, Brill. [1: p457]
The rural nature of the area meant that passenger traffic on the line was never particularly high. “The primary income source remained the carriage of goods to and from farms. Between 1899 and 1910 other lines were built in the area, providing more direct services to London and the north of England. The Brill Tramway went into financial decline.” [3]
In 1899, Goodman reported that “the traffic receipts of this little line have always been gratifying to the proprietors, and in 1894 the reconstruction of the tramway was sanctioned, and, as previously mentioned, it was decided to carry it through to Oxford. The old light rails have been replaced by flat-bottomed ones spiked directly on to transverse sleepers, but in some places bull-headed rails and chairs are utilised. The banks of earth which originally did duty for platforms have made way for small but serviceable stations, of which there are four, besides those at the two terminal points, viz Waddesden, Westcott, Wotton, and Wood Siding.” [1: p458]
Goodman also commented that “the train service was also smartened up although the speed of ten miles per hour [was] never exceeded. There [were] four trains each way daily (Sundays excepted), which [ran] at the following times: [departing Brill] 8.10, 10.30 am, 3.05, 5.05 pm, [arriving Quainton Road] 8.53, 11.10 am, 3.45, 5.50 pm; [departing] Quainton Road 9.30 am, 12.15, 4.15, 6.25 pm, [arriving Brill] 10.10 am, 12.55, 4.50, 7.00pm. … None of the trains [were] timed to stop at the intermediate stations except Wotton, unless required. Passengers and goods [were] conveyed by all trains, which [were] thus ‘mixed’, and their ‘make-up’ would certainly provoke a smile when seen for the first time.” [1: p458] The ‘consist’ was made up of a combined carriage and luggage van, one (or sometimes two) bogie coach(es) with an open interior, and an open ‘low-sided’ goods wagon which often was seen with one or two milk churns. All passengers were charged a standard 1d/mile and there was no first class accommodation. The line was worked on a single-engine in steam principal which meant no signals except on approaches to level-crossings. Goodman notes that the line was only separated from roads and adjacent property by a light wire fence.
When the line was independent, its head offices were at Brill, as was the engine shed, which sat alongside the line on the approach to Brill Station. A further two or three sidings were dedicated to the handling of goods. The station sat about a mile from the centre of Brill.
This low resolution extract from the 25″ Ordnance Survey from the turn of the 20th century shows Brill with its station. The small town is at the bottom of the extract. The Station is around a mile North at the top of the extract. [9]An enlarged extract from the 25″ Ordnance Survey showing Brill Station. The engine shed is centre-top of the extract. Passenger facilities are. Lose to the end of the line to the Southwest of the engine shed and they sit in front of the goods facilities. [10]A similar area on modern satellite imagery. The road from Brill enters this image bottom-left, it is called Tramhill. The route of the old line enters from the rightc. [Google Maps, September 2024]Brill Station in the 1890s. [1: p460]A view from Brill Station Platform with a tram running into the station and the engine shed to the left. [1: p459]An unidentified London Transport train at Brill Railway Station in 1935. [25]
Goodman also notes that the construction of the line posed no significant difficulties. He comments that “the tram road [was] a party to the Railway Clearing House so far as goods and parcels traffic [was] concerned.” [1: p459]
In 1899, through booking of passengers was not in operation, “in fact, the neighbouring companies completely ignore[d] the existence of the tram road in their time tables, and some omit to show it on their maps.” [1: p460]
Goodman expressed confidence that “when the extension to Oxford [was] opened [the line would] necessarily assume a position of more importance.” [1: p460] As we will see below, that confidence was misplaced.
In 1933, the Metropolitan Railway became the Metropolitan line of London Transport. The Brill Tramway became part of the London Underground, despite Quainton Road being 40 miles (64 km) from London. London Transport focussed on “electrification and improvement of passenger services in London and saw little possibility that passenger routes in Buckinghamshire could become viable. In 1935 the Brill Tramway closed.” [3]
“After closure, the line was largely forgotten. Because it had been built on private land without an Act of Parliament, few records of it prior to the Oxford extension schemes exist in official archives. At least some of the rails remained in place in 1940, as records exist of their removal during the building of RAF Westcott.[139] Other than the station buildings at Westcott and Quainton Road almost nothing survives of the tramway; much of the route can still be traced by a double line of hedges.[154] The former trackbed between Quainton Road and Waddesdon Road is now a public footpath known as the Tramway Walk.” [3]
References
F Goodman; The Oxford and Aylesbury Tram Road; in The Railway Magazine, London, November 1899, p456-460.
Ian Melton, From Quainton to Brill: A history of the Wotton Tramway; in R. J., Greenaway (ed.). Underground, Hemel Hempstead: The London Underground Railway Society, 1984.
Bill Simpson; The Brill Tramway; Oxford Publishing, Poole, 1985.
The November 1899 issue of The Railway Magazine carried the first of a short series of articles about the railways of New Zealand. As you will discover if you choose to read on, the author does not hold back on offering his personal opinions about the state of the railways and choices made by the government of the day for the country’s railways.
It is a pity that I do not have access to the subsequent article(s) about New Zealand’s Railways nor to any debate that the article may have provoked.
It might be interesting to hear some present day reflections on the comments the author makes!
The article is also of interest for an introduction to the rather unusual decisions taken by the Southland government about its first railway.
Rous-Marten begins: “When railway construction first began in New Zealand, that ‘Britain of the South’ was a sort of Heptarchy – an association of seven Provinces’, subsequently nine, with a ‘General’ or Federal Government at the capital, Wellington. And three of these Provinces separately entered upon railway making, each on its own account.” [1: p465]
He continues: “There was a special reason in every instance for the embarkation on this enterprise. In Southland the local capital, Invercargill, was separated from the port by about fifteen miles of swamps, and from its goldfields by a stretch of country over which road-making was difficult on account of the numerous boggy streams which had to be crossed. In Otago – more accurately Otakou … – the capital, Dunedin was approachable from the port only by a difficult channel, or a still more difficult land-track. In Canterbury the chief town, Christchurch, was separated from the port (Lyttelton) by a high – almost mountainous – range of hills. And so connection by rail was sought as the most efficient and, in the end, the cheapest, means of communication. … Unfortunately, each of those semi-independent Governments adopted a different gauge.” [1: p465]
Rous-Marten says that “Southland chose the British standard gauge, 4 ft. 8.5 in.; Otago preferred the 3 ft. 6 in. gauge; Canterbury – wisest of all selected the ‘Irish’ gauge of – 5 ft. 3 in.” There is a glimpse in this sentence of Rous-Marten’s own position which quickly becomes clear as the article unfolds. [1: p465]
He goes on to say that “still more unfortunately, when, the Provincial Governments were abo- lished, and when a general system of railways was adopted, the 3 ft. 6 in. gauge was chosen for the whole colony as the most economical – a grievous and, I fear, irreparable blunder.” [1: p465]
Otago Province
The first Otago railway, was from Dunedin to Port Chalmers. Once built, it “was worked by Double-Fairlie engines without any very serious difficulty being experienced from initiation to completion.” [1: p465]
Rous-Marten says that this Double-Fairlie Engine was a Class K, New Zealand Railways. [1: p466] The Double-Fairlie locos were, in fact, Class E locomotives. The Class K locomotives were built by Rogers in the USA and were 2-4-2 tender locomotives. Otago Province was a significant province of New Zealand until the abolition of provincial government in 1876. The capital of the province was Dunedin. Southland Province split from Otago in 1861, but became part of the province again in 1870. [36]Otago, in the 21st century, is a southeastern region on New Zealand’s South Island. Its terrain encompasses snow-capped mountains, glacial lakes and a rugged peninsula sheltering sandy beaches and wildlife like penguins. Queenstown, a lakeside resort town framed by the dramatic Southern Alps, is famous for adventure sports like bungee jumping and paragliding. Outside Queenstown are dozens of wineries. It has an area of approximately 32,000 square kilometres (12,000 sq mi), making it the country’s second largest local government region. Its population was 254,600 in June 2023. [37]
Canterbury Province
Canterbury (Māori: Waitaha) is a region of New Zealand, located in the central-eastern South Island. The region covers an area of 44,503.88 square kilometres (17,183.04 sq mi), making it the largest region in the country by area. It is home to a population of 666,300 (June 2023). [38]
Canterbury region. [38]
Rous-Marten’s article continues: “The Canterbury railway from Lyttelton to Christchurch had one solitary work of large magnitude, a tunnel through the dividing range. … The length of the ‘Moorhouse Tunnel’ is almost exactly the same as that … of the Box Tunnel of the Great Western Railway … a mile and seventy chains. … Originally, the Canterbury line was equipped with six six-wheeled tank locomotives, all built by the Avondale Company, Bristol. Of these, four had 5ft. 6in. driving and trailing wheels, coupled and inside cylinders 15 x 22; two had leading and driving wheels coupled 5 ft. in diameter, and cylinders 14 x 22.” [1: p466]
Wikipedia tells us that later the tunnel appears to have become known as the Lyttelton Tunnel. It opened on 9th December 1867. “The line and the tunnel were constructed to accommodate 5 ft 3 in (1,600 mm) rolling stock at the behest of contractors Holmes & Richardson of Melbourne, as this was the gauge they were already working with in Victoria. The line remained this way until, following the abolition of provincial government in New Zealand and the establishment of a new uniform national track gauge, the line was converted to 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm) by April 1876.” [2]
This indicates that for the first 8 years and 4 months of its existence the line was of 5ft 3in gauge. Those first locomotives will have been of that gauge. During that time, all the railways built in Canterbury Province were of the same gauge.
Wikipedia [4] also tells us that the “Canterbury Provincial Railways operated ten steam locomotives of varying types, not divided into separate classes. They were all tank locomotives based on contemporary British practice and were built by the Avonside Engine Company, except for No. 9 by Neilson and Company. Nos. 1-4 had a 2-4-0T wheel arrangement: No. 1, named Pilgrim,[3: p12] was built for the Melbourne and Essendon Railway Company of Melbourne, Australia in 1862 but was quickly on-sold unused to Holmes and Company, who were building the Ferrymead line (in New Zealand. The line was closed after the Moorhouse/Lyttleton Tunnel opened). [3: p11] It entered revenue service when the line opened.” [4]
The remainder of the first six locomotives, No. 2 (arrived April 1864), No. 3 (arrived March 1867), No. 4 (arrived May 1868), [3: p12] Nos. 5 and 6 also arrived in May 1868. The first four were 2-4-0T locos, Nos 5 & 6 were 0-4-2T and were somewhat smaller. [3: p13]
The Province purchased three more 0-4-2T locomotives, ordered independently, No. 7 entered service in August 1872, No.8 in March 1874 and No. 10 in June 1874.[3: p12] No. 9 was a diminutive 0-4-0T ordered after No. 8 but entered service before it, in January 1874, shunting on Lyttelton wharf. [4][3: p14]
“Only No. 1 was withdrawn while in Canterbury Provincial Railways’ service, in 1876.[3: p12] When the conversion of the Canterbury lines to narrow gauge was completed, its frame and the other nine locomotives were sold to the South Australian Railways. [3: p12] Despite the ship carrying the locomotives and rolling stock, the ‘Hydrabad’, being shipwrecked near Foxton on the North Island’s west coast on its journey to Australia, the locomotives and rolling stock ultimately were safely delivered to South Australia and with considerable modification seven of them remained in service until the 1920s.” [5: p9-11]
Rous-Marten was unable to find illustrations of these locomotives. Modern technology makes it easier to search for available to sources. One of the 2-4-0T locomotives Nos 1-4 appears in the image below.
One of four 5ft 3in gauge 2-4-0T locomotives ( Nos 1-4) operating on the railways of Canterbury Province prior to 1876 and the gauge change. [6: p1]
Rous-Marten described these locomotives as “very excellent engines … [that] had large brass-covered domes (with safety-valves) over their fire-boxes.” [1: p466]
A.A. Cross, in his MA thesis, says that the “broad-gauge Canterbury Railways are considered unanimously by New Zealand historians as the origins of the modern-day railway network in New Zealand. Built by the Canterbury Provincial Government in 1863 to relieve transport issues between Christchurch and Lyttelton, the broad-gauge railway later expanded to reach Amberley in the north and Rakaia in the south, opening up the Canterbury Plains and stimulating trade and immigration.” [6: p2]
“Brought under the control of the Public Works Department in 1876 along with several narrow-gauge lines built by the Provincial Government, the broad-gauge was converted to the New Zealand standard narrow-gauge in 1878 and the locomotives and rolling-stock were sold to the South Australian Railways.” [6: p2]
Since the majority of the locomotives from Canterbury Province continued to serve on South Australian railways until the 1920 they were clearly very suited to the roles that they fulfilled in Australia.
Rous-Marten notes that, while these locomotives were serving in New Zealand, he had “timed [them] at 56 to 60 miles an hour on favourable gradients. As a rule the gradients were very easy, and the permanent way was good, the whole line being laid with 75 lb. rails.”
Southland Province
“The Southland Province was a province of New Zealand from March 1861, when it split from Otago Province, until 1870, when it rejoined Otago.” [39]
Southland Province. [39]
Rous-Marten turns to the story of the railways in Southland Province: “In the first place, to save time and expense, it was rashly decided to employ timber for the permanent way, that is to say for the rails as well as for the sleepers. Square baulks of timber were pinned longitudinally on transverse sleepers, while the engines and rolling stock were constructed on the ‘Davies’ system. That is to say, instead of the wheels having the usual flanges – which would soon have cut up the wooden road they were broad in the tread and flangeless, while smaller wheels set at an angle of 45 degrees against the inside face of the rails kept the main wheels in position. It was an ingenious idea, but proved in practice a complete failure. The wooden rails speedily perished. The locomotives, four-wheeled ‘single-wheelers’, with outside cylinders, were quite unable to obtain sufficient adhesion on the slippery surface of the timber in wet or frosty weather, especially up grades of 1 in 79 and 1 in 90.” [1: p466-467]
‘Crampton’ type locomotive “Oreti” departing Invercargill Railway Station on the “Great Northern Railway” to Makarewa in 1864. The sleepers – and the rails – are wooden. (From a painting by W.W. Stewart) [7]
More detail about the wooden railed railway in Southland Province can be found here. The experiment lasted about three years from 1864 to 1867. [7]
It seems that James M. Davies proposed this solution to the transportation dilemma besetting Invercargill in 1863, or thereabouts. Apparently, Davies had recently been instrumental in planning and building the Geelong-Ballarat Railway in southeastern Australia, and had designed a steam locomotive that was then manufactured in 1861 by Hunt & Opie’s Victoria Foundry in Australia. [8]
The ‘Lady Barkly’ was shipped by Davies to Invercargill and over four hours had it steaming along the town’s jetty on timber baulks laid for the demonstration. An enthusiastic public response resulted from the demonstration of which the Southland Times reported: “Crowds of spectators passed the afternoon at the Jetty in riding delightedly in the locomotive. … The motion was found pleasant and quite free from that oscillation and concussion, which distinguish traveling on iron rails with the usual engine.” [8]
The ‘powers that be’ were persuaded to construct a railway following Davies’ principles.
Rous-Marten continues his article by recounting a tale from his own experience of an occasion when “all the passengers of whom [he] was one, were politely asked to leave the carriage and help to push the carriage and engine to the summit of the bank. This, [he says] we did with colonial cheerfulness, and on resuming our seats the guard promptly collected 2s. 6d. apiece from us as our fares! At this time Mr. W. Conyers MICE, who subsequently was Chief Commissioner of the South Island Railways of New Zealand, was in charge of the locomotive department of the Southland line, and he conceived the idea of converting a stationary sawmill-engine into a coupled locomotive, in the hope of tiding over the difficulty until more suitable engines and permanent way could be provided.” [1: p467]
Rous-Marten expresses regret that he did not take a photograph of what he calls “this ingenious but amazing nondescript.” [1: p467] He is sure that a written description is inadequate to convey its astonishing appearance. Even so he attempts to provide details of the locomotive, which had “a pair of horizontal cylinders along the boiler, which drove a ‘dummy’ crankshaft, whence an oblique coupling-rod drove one pair of 3 ft. wheels, these being coupled to a pair of 3 ft. trailing wheels, while a third pair of 3 ft. wheels led the way, I convey all the idea I can of an engine which probably stands alone in locomotive history. I have actually travelled at 20 miles an hour with this marvellous locomotive, with the flangeless wheels and the little slanting guide-wheels, yet without disaster. True we went off the rails once when I was there; but the only damage was the smashing of a basket full of eggs, which a farmer’s wife was carrying to market. But ere long the unnatural strains to which the working parts of the engine were subjected brought her to grief, and soon the entire experiment of the railway was abandoned as a hopeless failure. Its fate was shared by the Province, which became bankrupt, and had the balliffs in its Government offices. Ultimately an arrangement was effected, and the railway was relaid with the usual permanent way, including iron rails of 72 lbs. to the yard, and was opened for a distance of 35 miles, viz., from Bluff Harbour to Invercargill and Winton.” [1: p467]
The replacement railway, completed in 1867, was built to standard gauge and three small six-wheeled tank engines were purchased. Of these three locomotives, one (a 2-4-0T) was supplied by Avonside and two (0-4-2Ts) by Hudswell Clarke. I have been unable to find photographs of these locomotives.
Rous-Marten says that “with the smaller engines I several times recorded 45 miles an hour, and once 50; with the larger engine in several instances 55 miles an hour.” [1: p468]
Gauge Standardisation
In 1870, Southland rejoined the larger Otago Province. [9] “On 22 February 1871,” Winton History Website says, “a railway line from Invercargill was opened to Winton, built to the international standard gauge of 1,435mm. This was the furthest extent of Southland’s standard gauge network, and the next section to Caroline was built to New Zealand’s national gauge, 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm) narrow gauge railway. This extension opened on 20 October 1875, ending Winton’s 4.5 years as a railway terminus, and two months later, the line back to Invercargill was converted to 1,067mm gauge. This line grew to be the Kingston Branch.” [10]
By 1875, both Southland and Canterbury Province’s railways were converted to what the New Zealand government had decided would be the national gauge, 3ft 6in.. Rous-Marten says that this move was “very much to the annoyance and regret of the local population, who regarded the narrower gauge and smaller engines with unconcealed contempt and derision.” [1: p468] Given Rous-Marten’s already established negative views on the narrow -gauge, it is impossible to determine whether he is forcefully expressing his own views, or speaking for the wider population.
Rous-Marten comments that “after having, for a time, three different gauges in operation, and in Canterbury a mixed gauge of three rails, [New Zealand] ultimately arrived at uniformity by the process of ‘levelling down’ to the narrowest gauge of all, and the one least suitable for permanent operation. This decision was largely governed by the political influence which subsequently operated so seriously for evil in the career of the New Zealand railways. It was believed that by using the narrower gauge construction would be cheaper, and so that the millions borrowed for railway construction could be spread over a larger area than if the wider gauge were employed, and that thus a larger number of voters would be interested in supporting the scheme. And so it proved. But the results are nevertheless regrettable.” [1: p468]
I suspect that there may be, at least, some who would want to challenge Rous-Marten’s strongly expressed views. …
Moreover, says Rous-Marten, “the further mistake was committed of laying down 40lb. iron rails, which almost immediately proved unable to carry even the moderate amount of traffic anticipated, and had to be replaced with 53 lb. steel rails. However, it was but natural that errors should be committed in the starting of a large enterprise by a small community, the total population of the colony at the inception of railways being under a quarter of a million, scattered over an area more than 1,000 miles in length, and about 200 miles in breadth, divided midway by 20 miles of stormy sea, the dreaded Cook Strait. Probably New Zealand made no more blunders than did the Mother Country, if all the respective circumstances be taken into due consideration. And at the present date [1899] the colony possesses a fairly good and efficient railway system extending over more than 2,000 miles.” [1: p468]
Developments
Rous-Marten notes that by 1899, New Zealand was still waiting for the completion of a main trunk railway system. But his further assertions move beyond just reporting circumstances. … “Vast sums [had] been frittered away on small local and branch lines which [did] not pay interest on cost – some not even their bare working expenses – while main lines have been left unfinished. Indeed, in one case the first length of 84 miles of main trunk line from the capital (Wellington) northward was left to be made by a private company, which [had] since been harassed and persecuted by the Government with the object of forcing it to sell the line to the State at a price much below its just value, while it [had] been the favourite target of the small district governing bodies in respect of local taxation.” [1: p468-469]
The line in question, that from Wellington to Manuwatu, ran/runs North from Wellington, through Palmerston where it divided/divided with one arm serving Palmerston and the other, Napier. In 1899, there was also a project underway to take the line to Auckland in the North. That project was being worked from Auckland and from the South with some distance yet to go before the two projects met. Rous-Marten writes of likely long delays before the link could be completed, “as the route of the connecting link [had] been for years – and still [was] a subject of hot and embittered political strife.” [1: p469]
It seems that Rous-Marten was right about timescales, NZ History tells that in the end, “after more than two decades of surveys, engineering challenges and sheer hard work, the main trunk’s first through train left Wellington on the night of 7th August 1908. This ‘Parliament Special’ carried politicians and other dignitaries to Auckland to meet the United States Navy’s visiting Great White Fleet, which arrived in port on the 9th. The train needed 20½ hours, and several changes of locomotive, to complete the trip. In the middle section it crawled over a temporary, unballasted track that the Public Works Department had rushed through in the nick of time.” [13]
In 1899, in the South Island, things appear to have been somewhat better. Rous-Marten tells us that the main trunk line started from “Bluff Harbour, in the extreme south, and [continued] unbrokenly through Invercargill, Dunedin, Oamaru, and Timaru to Christchurch, a distance of nearly 400 miles. … It [had] been extended northward for 70 miles, and there [ended at] … Culverden station, and many miles [had] to be traversed before the [then] southern termination [was] reached of the short line which ultimately [would] continue the Southern Main Trunk to the pretty little port of Picton, in Queen Charlotte Sound.” [1: p469]
From Picton it was then a journey of about 50 miles by boat to reach Wellington and the North Island.
Wikipedia tells us that construction of the Southern Main Trunk “was completed all the way from Picton to Invercargill in 1945.” [14] It seems then that Rous-Marten somewhat misjudged how close to completion the Southern Main Trunk was.
In the 21st century, there is an 11 hour train, thrice a week, between Auckland and Wellington. [15] From Wellington you catch a ferry to Picton. There you can board the Coastal Pacific to Christchurch. [16] The Southerner, that went to Invercargill, stopped operating in 2002. [17] The journey from Auckland to Christchurch takes around 22 hours in total, provided, that is, connections can be made. Allowing a minimum of two days for the journey would be advisable.
Engineering and Structures
Rous-Marten turns to the engineering work on the New Zealand railway system. In 1899 the heaviest engineering on the system [was] the Moorhouse/Lyttelton Tunnel.
In addition to that tunnel, Rous-Marten says that in 1899 there was no lack of important construction achievements. “Abounding as New Zealand does in huge rivers fed from the snowy Southern Alps, which in their turn bring about the condensation of the vast volumes of aqueous vapour raised from the Tasman Sea by the hot N.W. winds, bridges of large magnitude are necessarily numerous. Longest of all these is that over the Rakaia River in the South Island, which is more than a mile and a quarter in length. Ordinarily it spans a wide desert of rough, pebbly shingle, which has several comparatively small streams meandering through it. But during several weeks in each year that entire mile-and-a-quarter of width is a tremendous foaming torrent.” [1: p469-470]
The combined Rakaia road and rail bridge built in 1873. It was replaced by separate road and rail bridges in 1939. [20]
The Rangitata and Waitaki Rivers are no less formidable.
Building of the Rangitata River Railway Bridge. [21]The Rangitata River Railway Bridge. [22]The old Waitaki River Bridge was dual purpose road/rail. This picture was shared on the Oamaru TODAY Facebook Page on 3rd May 2023. [23]
The bridging of South Canterbury’s wide, braided rivers made travel easier and faster. Initially the bridges carried both rail and vehicular traffic. [24]
It was these early bridges that Rous-Marten was referring to in his article when he said that these rivers were “all crossed … by really fine bridges, which resist the worst assaults of the snow-fed torrents let loose against them from the mountains but the first spring rains.” [1: p470] All these structures have now been replaced by separate road and railway bridges.
Rous-Marten also points to two “specially interesting works. … Both … on the Wellington and Manawatu line, and [both] within twenty miles of Wellington. The trestle viaduct span[ned] a deep, dry ravine. The lattice girder-bridge crosse[d] an arm of the sea known as the Porirua Harbour. Both [were] highly creditable works.” [1: p470]
A wooden trestle bridge, 150 ft high, over a ravine about 16 miles from Wellington on the Wellington and Manawatu Railway. [1: p467]The bridge carrying the Wellington and Manawatu Railway across a branch of the Porirua Harbour. [1: p468]
It is not clear why Rous-Marten chose to illustrate the two bridges above. There were many structures on the Wellington and Manawatu Railway which he could have chosen, including:
Belmont viaduct: A 38 metre-high, 102 metre-long wooden viaduct that crossed a gully in Paparangi. Built in 1885, it was the largest wooden viaduct in New Zealand at the time. It was replaced by a steel viaduct in 1903, but was demolished in 1951 due to safety concerns. This may well be the wooden trestle bridge shown above. [25]
Tunnels: A series of tunnels along the Paekākāriki escarpment. [26]
Bridges: Major bridges over the Pāuatahanui inlet and the Waikanae, Ōtaki, and Manawatū rivers. [26]
Makurerua Swamp: A raised embankment across the Makurerua Swamp in Horowhenua. [26]
Rous-Marten refers to “other important bridges … over the Clutha, Waimakariri, Wanganui, Manawatu, Waikato, and many more large rivers, the Clutha and Whanganui bridges being particularly fine.” [1: p470]
Rous-Marten continues: “Perhaps the engineering feat which has attracted most interest in connection with the New Zealand railways is the means by which the Rimutaka range of mountains, about thirty-five miles from Wellington, has been surmounted by the railway that runs from the capital northward. Starting trom Wellington the line winds round the edge of the bay and then goes by very slight gradients up the valley of the Hutt River to a point about twenty miles from the city. Here it begins its climb up the mountain, which is effected by a series of severe gradients, chiefly I in 35 and 1 in 40, with some 40 curves of only five chains radius!” [1: p470]
A single boiler Fairlie locomotive (R Class), New Zealand Railways. [1: p466]
For this heavy work, single-boiler Fairlie engines as shown immediately above were usually used. Rous-Marten says that in 1899 these locos were being replaced “by a more powerful class designed and constructed in New Zealand.” [1: p470]
He goes on to talk about the line again: “At the summit, a tunnel, not quite half a mile long, is passed through, and then the descent is begun. But the conditions are totally changed. … While the ascent of 1,200 ft. from the southward takes 15 miles of line, being … on gradients not steeper than I in 35, the descent northward is made in less than 3 miles, the gradient being continuously 1 in 15, while there are 39 curves of 5 chain radius. Thus in the total distance of 18 miles traversed in the ascent and descent of the Rimutaka, no fewer than 79 5-chain curves have to be rounded. The gradient of 1 in 15 is dealt with on the Fell system, the ordinary vertical locomotive being supplemented with an interior one actuating horizontal wheels which are forcibly pressed against a raised middle (third) rail. This constitutes a powerful climbing apparatus, and a no less powerful brake in the descent.” [1: p470-471]
The slow climb up the Rimutaka Incline. This image shows four locomotives at work on the incline which used the Fell System. This image is held in the New Zealand Archives [31] and is used here under a Creative Commons Licence (CC BY-SA 2.0). [30]
The Rimutaka Summit Station, Tunnel and Incline were built in the 1870s. It was intended that the work should be completed between “12th July 1874 and 22nd July 1876.” [29]
Once the station yard had been levelled, work started on the tunnel itself, it took 17 months longer than intended at the start of the contract. [29]
The Rimutaka Summit Tunnel at the top of the 1 in 15 incline. The Fell system third rail sits in between the running rails. [1: p470]
The Fell System was invented by English engineer John Barraclough Fell (1815-1902). It was the first third-rail system for railways that were too steep for adhesion on the two running rails alone.
The Fell System was used on several railways in addition to the Rimutaka Incline including:
The Rewanui Incline: on the West Coast of New Zealand, the Fell system was used for braking descending trains. [32]
The Roa Incline: also on the West Coast of New Zealand. [32]
The Cantagalo Railway in Brazil: the Estrada de Ferro Cantagalo. [32]
The Mont Cenis Pass Railway on the border between France and Italy was 77 km (48 mi) long and ran from 1868 until superseded by a tunnel under the pass in 1871. [33]
“The Fell system was developed in the 1860s and was soon superseded by various types of rack railway for new lines, but some Fell systems remained in use into the 1960s. The Snaefell Mountain Railway still uses the Fell system for (emergency) braking, but not for traction.” [33]
Rous-Marten mentions one incident associated with the Rimutaka Incline which resulted in the construction of a “massive, high timber fence” [1: p471] as a wind break.
The wind break protected the line against “the devastating force of the furious gales which sweep down the ravines on the northern side of the Rimutaka range. That the precaution is not supererogatory was disastrously proved by the most serious and fatal railway accident which had ever occurred in New Zealand up to the current year. A mixed train of passenger coaches and goods wagons was struck ‘broadside on’ by a terrific blast of wind when on this incline, with the result that the whole train was blown sideways off the rails and flung down the precipice beneath, the vehicles hanging like a string of huge beads to the engine, which, by the grip of its Fell machinery on the middle rail, still sturdily maintained its place on the metals.” [1: 471]
An artist’s impression of the scene of the accident on 11th September 1880 on the Rimutaka Incline. Four children were killed and 13 adults injured when two rail carriages were blown off the tracks by severe winds on a notoriously exposed part of the Rimutaka Incline. This was the first major loss of life on New Zealand’s railways; only five rail accidents have claimed more lives in this country’s history. [34]
In summary, “the Rimutaka Incline was a 3-mile-long (4.8 km), 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm) gauge railway line on an average grade of 1-in-15 using the Fell system between Summit and Cross Creek stations on the Wairarapa side of the original Wairarapa Line in the Wairarapa district of New Zealand. … The incline formation is now part of the Remutaka Rail Trail.” [30]
Rous-Marten continues: “A few years [after the incident on the Rimutaka Incline], trains were thrice blown off the rails while crossing the Wairarapa Plain, … and similar wind-breaks had to be erected there also, the particular spot being opposite to a deep gully in the mountain range, which acted as a funnel for the wind and concentrated its full force on one special spot on the plain.” [1: p471]
He also notes a further problem with the “formidable Rimutaka Range, … the tendency to vast landslips, a whole mountain-side sometimes slid “down bodily when once its base [had] been disturbed. And the tremendous floods to which New Zealand rivers are liable constitute[d] another trouble, often a very costly one – in the way of slips and wash-outs.” [1: p472]
Rous-Marten also notes that “it has often been doubted whether [the] … crossing of the Rimutaka might not have been avoided by a detour through more level country.” He comments that in 1899, “the feasibleness of constructing a new line to avoid the obstacle [was] under careful consideration.” [1: p472]
In the end a new, longer tunnel was built through the Rimutaka Mountains at a lower level. That lower tunnel is now known as the Remutaka Tunnel (‘Rimutaka’, before 2017). It “was opened to traffic on 3rd November 1955, is 8.93 kilometres (5.55 mi) long. It was the longest tunnel in New Zealand, superseding the Otira Tunnel in the South Island until the completion of the Kaimai Tunnel, 9.03 kilometres (5.61 mi), near Tauranga in 1978. Remutaka remains the longest tunnel in New Zealand with scheduled passenger trains.” [35]
Rous-Marten also points out another “formidable and troublesome work, … the rounding of the Waitati Cliffs, about 15 miles north of Dunedin, in the South Island. … In order to round a precipitous cape standing between two deep bays of the sea it was necessary to ascend by grades of 1 in 50 to a point where the cliff had to be rounded by a ledge or shelf being cut out of the solid rock at a height of some 400 ft. perpendicular above the sea. At one point, indeed, a ‘fault’ ran inward under the line, and was crossed by girders, so that, standing on the foot-plate and looking down on the landward side of the engine, one could gaze straight down into the boiling sea some 400 ft. below. For some years the trains passed this awe-inspiring place without accident.” [1: p472]
Rous-Marten says that he had been “on the engine foot-plate when [rounding] the point at 25 or 30 miles an hour. But the dangerous character of the place, not only below, but from rock-falls above, forced itself more and more upon the public mind; indeed, many people were afraid to travel by so apparently perilous a route, and preferred to go by sea. So first the speed there was rigorously kept down to 10 miles an hour, and in the end a tunnel was cut through the point, so as to avoid the worst ‘bit’.” [1: p472]
Rous-Marten wants also to tell us about the main trunk line from Christchurch to Dunedin, connects two cities which are about 230 miles apart and which in 1899 had populations of about 70,000 each, was, South from Christchurch, ” [1: p472]
He continues: “From Oamaru onward to Dunedin the line is an almost uninterrupted alternation of rises and falls on steep gradients, often I in 50 and I in 60, a descent of several miles at the sharper rate, after Deborah Bay tunnel (0.75 mile long), bringing the train down to the final level run of 7 miles along the shore of the picturesque harbour to the … southern city of Dunedin.” [1: p472]
At least one further article by Rous-Marten, in a later issue if The Railway Magazine was planned. Unfortunately, I do not yet have access to a copy. Rous-Marten promised that he would continues to describe some interesting railway routes as well as look in detail at the motive power in use in 1899 on New Zealand Railways. ….
References
Charles Rous-Marten; New Zealand Railways; in The Railway Magazine, London, November 1899, p465-472.
The November 1899 edition of The Railway Magazine carried a short article about the L&LSR which was not heavy on technical detail. It mostly reads as though it were a holiday brochure rather than an article in a railway journal. None-the-less, the article is still of interest, particularly for the fact that it was written during the period when the L&LSR was expanding.
A map of the L&LS Railway in 1899, before its significant expansion. I was particularly drawn to this map as my wife and I spent our main holiday this year in Rathmullan directly across Lough Scilly from Buncrana. I have still to complete a series of articles about the L&LSR between Derry and Cardonagh. [1: p461]
Chisholm starts his article: the L&LSR “is one of those excellent little lines constructed on the narrow gange principle, which are to be found in all parts of Ireland. The country has the benefit of light rail ways It is with one of these lines that the present article is intended to deal. It is to be hoped that the following notes respecting the L&LSR will prove interesting to readers.” [1: p461-464]
Chisholm then spends a number of paragraphs explaining how best a traveller from the mainland to Derry.
I found his outline of the route from London interesting as it highlighted the number of railway companies whose rails the journey would cross. “Leaving London (Euston or St. Pancras) the passenger is taken to Carlisle, the ‘Clapham Junction of the North’. The journey is continued to Stranraer on the Portpatrick and Wigtownshire Joint Railway, owned by the London & North Western, Midland, Caledonian, Glasgow & South Western, Companies. The steamers run alongside the harbour station, Stran raer. The boats are well built, and are fitted with the latest improvements, The joint companies are financially interested in this steam boat service, as is also the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway. The time occupied in crossing is approximately two hours. Larne harbour station also adjoins the steamer pler, … A narrow gauge train awaits the arrival of the boat, and by this train the traveller is taken to Ballymena, It is necessary to change here into the broad gauge ‘Londonderry Express’, which speedily runs to the city on the banks of the Foyle.” [1: p464-465]
At that time, Derry “consist[ed] of two towns, one on each side of the River Foyle. The waterside station of the Belfast and Northern Counties Rail- way is on the eastern bank. The river is spanned by the stately Carlisle Bridge, a fine structure, which can truly be termed ‘[Derry’s landmark’. … The [L&LSR’s] station was on the western bank of the river. On entering it and viewing for the first time the rolling stock therein, the Londoner’s thoughts [would] immediately fly to the London and South Western Railway. The carriages before him [were] painted almost exactly after the style of that Company’s coaching stock. In addition to this, [the L&LSR] Company paint their engines a bright grass green – another prominent ‘South Western’ feature.”
The featured image for this article shows L&LSR Locomotive No.1 J.T. Macky which was built by Black, Hawthorn & Co., of Gateshead in 1883. At the time of Chisholm’s article this locomotive was only around 6 years old. In a surprising digression from the more general nature of his article, Chisholm provides quite some detail about this locomotive. “It was named after the then Chairman of the Company. Mr. Fred. Dawson, the … General Manager of the Company, … supplied the [Chisholm] with the leading dimensions of ‘J.T. Macky’. It [was an 0-6-2T loco], a six-coupled engine with a two-wheeled pony truck at the rear. The diameter of the coupled wheels [was] 3 ft. 6 in., the diameter of the trailing wheels being 2 ft. 2 in. The gauge of the line [was] 3 ft 0 in. ‘J. T. Macky’ [had] cylinders 13 in. by 19 in.; a total heating surface of 592 square feet. …(112 tubes); a steam pressure of 140 lbs. per square inch, and a total length over the buffers of 27 ft. The total weight of the engine in working order [was] 23 tons 3 cwt.” [1: p462]
L&LSR Locomotive No. 1 ‘J.T. Macky’. [1: p463]
It is clear that Chisholm was quite taken by this locomotive: “The locomotive is extremely handsome, being painted … brought green picked out with black and white stripes. A bright brass dome is mounted on the top of the barrel.” [1: p462]
In 1899, Chisholm claimed that the L&LSR owned ten locomotives the first four named, respectively, J.T. Macky, Londonderry, Donegal and Inneshowen. The remaining engines bore numbers only. J.T. Macky, Londonderry, and Donegal were numbered ‘1’ to ‘3’ and were all 0-6-2T locomotives supplied by Black, Hawthorn & Co. Inneshowen was numbered ‘4’, supplied by the same company it was an 0-6-0T. I have only found evidence of a further four locomotives having been supplied to the L&LSR by 1899: No. 5(A) and No. 6(A), both supplied by Robert Stephenson & Co. in 1873, both 2-4-0T locomotives; and No. 5 and No. 6, both supplied by Hudswell Clarke in 1889, both 4-6-2T locomotives. [3]
Chisholm continues: The L&LSR consisted of “two branches. … The longer branch extend[ed] to Letterkenny, and the shorter to Buncrana. [At that time] the company work[ed] and own[ed] 14.5 miles of line.” [1: p462-463]
Chisholm goes on to write about the L&LSR’s expansion plans. Looking forward from the end of 1899, he says: “It aspires to greater things, … there are now being made extensions of great importance.The first of these is a line from Letterkenny to Burtonport, 49.5 miles. An extension from Buncrana northwards to Carndonagh (see map) is also now being undertaken. The latter will be 18.5 miles long. It will be seen that when these extensions are completed, the Lough Swilly Railway will be a comparatively big concern.” [1: p463]
From this point in his article, Chisholm sells the area around the L&LSR as a holiday destination. “The scenery in and around … County Donegal is exceptionally fine. … Buncrana has truly been described as a lovely spot. It is an ideal holiday resort. A fine building – the Lough Swilly Hotel – has been erected, where tourists will find excellent accommodation. The Lough Swilly Railway is fully alive to the fact that the district served by its line is essentially a resort for the tourist. With this view, [the Company] has introduced a number of facilities for holiday makers. For example, cheap tickets are issued daily between Londonderry and Buncrana – the fare for the double journey being only one shilling. The tickets are available by all trains. The passenger has not to get up at an unearthly hour in the morning to catch a special train. … There has also been introduced, … passengers proceed by rail from Londonderry to Buncrana, thence to Fahan, by steamer from Fahan to Rathmullan, by coach from Rathmullan to Rosapenna, Dunfanaghy, Gweedore, Dungloe, Glenties, Ardara, Carrick, Killybegs, thence by rail to [Derry]. ” [1: p463]
A train from Derry arrives at Buncrana. The Locomotive is L&LSR No. 4, ‘Innishowen’. [1: p464]
In Chisholm’s concluding remarks, he comments that “the railway is a thoroughly up-to-date concern. … The management is … thoroughly enterprising. The railway … is an interesting and well-managed line; the scenery in the district it serves can truly be described as amongst the grandest in the British Isles.” [1: p464]
References
A J. Chisholm; The Londonderry & Lough Swilly Railway; in The Railway Magazine, London, November 1899, p461-464.
My completed articles about the L&LSR can be found on this blog on the following links:
E.E. Speight tells of his own experiences travelling by rail in Norway. In an article which is primarily a travelogue rather than a technical piece. He fails to mention the gauges of the different railways that he travels along. [1] The matter of the differing gauges of railways in Norway is covered in some paragraphs below.
In 1899, Norway had around 1,300 miles of railway. The principal elements were lines running:
from Christiania South towards Sweden reaching the border at Kornsjo (169 km – the Smaalensbanen);
from Christiania East towards Sweden reaching the border beyond Kongsvinger;
from Christiania to Trondhjem (562 km) with branches to Lillehamer, Otta and from Elverum to Kongsvinger;
from Trondhjem to Storlien (108 km) to meet the line in Sweden from Stockholm;
from Christiania South to Drammen, Laurvik and Skien (204 km) with branches to Randsfjord, Kongsberg and Kroderen, Horten and Brevik.
between Christiansand and Byglandsfjord (Saetersdal); Stavanger and Ekersund (Jaederbanen); and Bergen to Vosse (108 km).
The city of Oslo was founded in 1024. In 1624, it was renamed Christiania after the Danish king; in 1877, the spelling was altered to Kristiania. In 1925, it reverted to its original medieval name of Oslo.
It seems as though E.E. Speight may have missed the 1877 memo about the renaming of the city, and so continued to refer to Kristiania as Christiania. Reading in the 21st century we need to read Christiania as Oslo.
In the 21st century, the Norwegian railway system comprises 4,109 km of 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in) (standard gauge) track of which 2,644 km is electrified and 274 km double track. There are 697 tunnels and 2,760 bridges. [2]
This was not the case in the early years of the network. The first railway in Norway was the Hoved Line between Oslo and Eidsvoll and opened in 1854. The main purpose of that railway was to move lumber from Mjøsa to the capital, but passenger service was also offered. In the period between the 1860s and the 1880s Norway saw a boom of smaller railways being built, including isolated railways in Central and Western Norway. The predominant gauge at the time was 1,067 mm (3 ft 6 in) (narrow gauge), but some lines were built in 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in) (standard-gauge), particularly where those lines connected to the standard-gauge lines of Sweden. [2]
When building the Norwegian Trunk Railway (1850-1854), Robert Stephenson built the line to British standard gauge. This line was very expensive; Pihl argued that narrow-gauge railways would be less expensive to construct, he argued successfully for 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm) gauge. During the railway construction boom of the 1870s and 1880s all but the Kongsvinger Line, the Meråker Line and the Østfold Line were built with narrow gauge, leaving Norway with two incompatible systems. [7]
The 3ft 6in gauge was chosen by Carl Pihl in 1857 as the ‘standard-gauge’ for Norwegian railways. Pihl was a civil engineer and director of the Norwegian State Railways (NSB) from 1865 until his death in 1897. [7]
A number of main line railways were built to the 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm), to save cost in a sparsely populated mountainous country. This included: the Hamar – Grundset Railway which commenced operation in 1861; the more challenging Trondheim – Støren Railway which commenced operations in 1864; and Norway’s first truly long-distance line, the Røros Line, connecting Oslo and Trondheim (in 1877).
In 1883 the entire main railway network had been taken over by Norwegian State Railways (NSB), though a number of industrial railways and branch lines continued to be operated by private companies. [2]
It was the decision of the Norwegian Parliament to construct the Bergen line to standard-gauge (in the year following Phil’s death), which finally settled the debate over gauges. By this time, it had been demonstrated that standard-gauge lines built to the same specifications as the narrow gauge could be constructed at the same cost. [7]
Ultimately, all narrow-gauge lines owned by the NSB were either closed or converted between 1909 and 1949, at a cost many times larger than the initial savings of building them narrow.
Projects such as the Bergen Line and the Sørland Line (also built to standard-gauge) were connecting all the isolated railways and transshipment costs were becoming significant. [7]
Some private railways had 750 mm (2 ft 5 1⁄2 in) and one had 1,000 mm (3 ft 3 3⁄8 in) gauge. A few railways are in part still operated as museum railways, specifically the Thamshavn Line, Urskog–Høland Line and the Setesdal Line. [3]
The Thamshavn Line (Norwegian: Thamshavnbanen) was Norway’s first electric railway, running from 1908 to 1974 in what is now Trøndelag county. Today it is operated as a heritage railway and is the world’s oldest railway running on its original alternating current electrification scheme, using 6.6 kV 25 Hz AC. It was built to transport pyrites from the mines at Løkken Verk to the port at Thamshavn, as well as passengers. There were six stations: Thamshavn, Orkanger, Bårdshaug, Fannrem, Solbusøy and Svorkmo. The tracks were extended to Løkken Verk in 1910. [4]
The Urskog–Høland Line (Norwegian: Urskog–Hølandsbanen), also known as Tertitten, is a narrow gauge (750 mm (2 ft 5 1⁄2 in)) railway between Sørumsand and Skulerud in Norway. [5]
The Setesdal Line (Norwegian: Setesdalsbanen) was a railway between Kristiansand and Byglandsfjord in southern Norway, 78 km (48 mi) long. It was built with a narrow gauge of 1,067 mm (3 ft 6 in), and opened to Hægeland 26 November 1895, and to Byglandsfjord 27 November 1896. Stations along the line included Mosby, Vennesla, Grovene (Grovane), Iveland and Hægeland. Now, 8km of this line is open as a heritage railway. [6]
By the 21st century, of the operational (non-heritage) railways in Norway, only the Trondheim (Trondhjem) Tramway has a different gauge, the metre-gauge, 1,000 mm (3 ft 3 3⁄8 in). [2]
Returning to Speight’s article in The Railway Magazine, he refers his readers to a government publication in French and Norwegian which provided excellent statistical information and maps/plans – De Offentlige Jernbaner, Aschehoug & Co., Christiania. This appears to have been a regular, annual, publication and copies from later years can be purchased online. [8]
Speight focus was on describing his own experiences on the rail network in Norway. He entered Norway from Sweden on a train which ran direct from Helsingborg (in Sweden) to Christiania (Oslo) remarking on the spaciousness and comfort of the Norsk-Svensk hurtugtog, or fast train.
His first sight when opening the curtains of his train compartment in the morning was drizzle at the station in Frederikstadt. His first rail with rail journey in Norway was travelled at a very slow pace with long waits at stations in the route to Christiania (Oslo). He comments on the dramatic scenery and on the difficulties which must have been experienced in building the line on which he was travelling. Speight points his readers to the illustration below, which shows the Ljans viaduct (admittedly the photo quality is poor) and he says: “The train winds in and out among rocks and trees and over many a gorge, passing the most picturesque little wooden homesteads all the way from Ljan, a few miles out of the city. One of the pretty villas was a smoking ruin as we passed, and the conductor told me that the day before it was all right, and that such fires were a common occurrence. At the upper window of another of these wooden villas, standing just over the water of an inlet of the fjord, appeared two faces, and the conductor cheerily saluted his wife and little child, as he does three times each week on his return from Sweden.” [1: p449]
The three photographs immediately above are further photos of Ljans Viaduct taken before 1929 all of which are in the collection of the Norsk Jernbarnemuseum. [9]
Speight continues: the main station in Oslo “adjoins the quays, and is at the bottom of the main street which runs up past the chief shops to the Castle, Carl Johan’s Gade, or Johan as it is known all over Norway.” [1: p449]
The trip from Copenhagen to Christiania (Oslo) was advertised as an 18 hour or a 22 hour journey. In Speight’s view, the journey could have been completed in either 12 or 14 hours. The causes for the length of the journey, in Speight’s view were “the length and weight of the trains, the frequent long stops and the form of locomotive used. … They [were] manifestly incapable of taking the eight or ten corridor carriages over the gradients on this line. … The [then] present total of stopping time amount[ed] to about three hours; this [was] partly accounted for by the fact that meals [were] taken in the stations, and at the customs station a long stay [was] made. But there [was] no need for the five or ten minutes’ stops made at many of the small stations where the little business could [have been done] in a quarter of the time. If the two Governments cared to run … an express, from Helsingborg, stopping only, say, at Halmstad, Gothenburg, Trollhättan, Frederikshald, Frederik stadt and Moss (running a steamer thence to Horten for quick connection with Skein and Drammen) the journey should [have been completed] in 12 hours, the more easily if a restaurant car were [to be] attached to save long stops.” [1: p450]
Speight then travelled Southwest from Oslo along the line which had termini in Skein, Kroderen and Kongsberg. He complains that no first class carriages were provided on the line and comments again about the slow speed of the service despite expresses being provided. He says: “An approach is made towards running expresses, four trains daily passing between Christiania and Drammen, 33 miles, without a stop, but with an occasional crawl, in an hour and a half. There are obstacles to fast speed on this line also, as there are many crossings and such gradients that for the heavy trains it is necessary to have a small engine at each end The point of depar ture in Christiania is situated by Piperviken, a quay for coast steamers. Vestbanens station is smaller than the Eastern station, but none the less cold and uncomfortable. There is no refreshment room, and some of the less known Midland stations, say Bingley or Keighley, are palaces in comparison. The trains, however, are comfortable, being provided with through passages, open to the public, and irregularly disposed seats – some like an English tram car, others saloon fashion.” [1: p450]
Speight has only praise for the scenery on the line: “The scenery along the line is remarkably attractive. Inland, after leaving the western bights of Christiania fjord, the road is cut through many pretty bits of English scenery, and at busy, timber-laden Drammen the sea again appears. It is near Holmestrand, however, that a typical form of Norwegian railway is traversed, where high speed is manifestly impossible. On one side are cliffs, pine-clad and bird-haunted; on the other, beating against a low sea-wall, the water of the fjord. Holmestrand is a little seaside resort which is becoming very popular. The railway here runs close under the cliffs, and the town spreads on the narrow steep between the line and the beach. Down to Tönsberg, a viking town of lost glory, the train is backed, to be run out after a short stay on to the main line again, a proceeding which would have been unnecessary had the station been built some half-mile from the present one. The district between Tönsberg and Laurvik is meadow and shrubby rockland, abounding in ancient memories of rich plundering days. In one field near the railway is the famous Gokstad mound, whence, some years back, the large viking ship was taken which now stands in the University Museum at Christiania.” [1: p451]
“At Sandefjord, one of the most prettily situated towns in Norway, at the head of a four-mile fjord, with wooded rocky banks, [were] many signs of prosperity, and goods wagons are constantly to be seen in the sidings and down at the harbour, to which a branch line runs through the town. From here the line goes over the crest of the hill to Laurvik, a growing port, where passengers from Christiania for English ports are taken on board. Though the distance from Christiania is only 98 miles, the quickest train, the 11.17 p.m., takes 4 hr. 40 min. to make the journey, and one wretched “blandet-tog,” or mixed goods and passenger, actually spends 10 hr. 40 min. on the way. There is a morning train from Laurvik to Christiania which takes 11 hours, being passed on the way by another. Those who are unfortunate enough to be reduced to riding in one of these mixed trains have a dreadful time.” [1: p451]
This line, after leaving Laurvik, passes through Porsgrund, famous for its porcelain, and ends at Skien, a thriving manufacturing town.
Speight was unable to travel over the lines which run from the coast inland, those from Christiansand to Byglandsfjord, Stavanger to Ekersund, and Bergen to Voss. He comments that the “two latter are perhaps too well known to English tourists to need description. … Two of the views accompanying this article (Trangereid Station and the mountain tunnel between Dale and Bolstad) will remind visitors to Bergen of the marvellous manner in which the engineering difficulties along the Vossebanen have been overcome.” [1: p451]
Speight now turns from the smaller lines in Norway to what was known as the trunk line to the North, “a line which by the very nature of the country it passes through must always attract the attention of those who are “railway mad.” Its seclusion and remoteness from the general tourist-route, added to the fact that from the map it appears to traverse a most romantic part of the country, stealing through the mountains, like the Midland line from Settle to the North, lends an air of mystery.” [1: p451-452]
From Oslo (Christiania), the train leaves “the large station by the docks at 1.45pm and runs to Eidsvold and over an inlet of Lake Mjosen into Hamar (on that section of the line built originally by an English company, and called Hovedbanen) steadily at 26 miles per hour, through meadow, wood, and lakeside scenery. At Hamar a change of trains is made, and all the passengers rush into the refreshment-room for ‘mid-dag’, an abundant meal of three courses, which costs about two shillings. Ample warning is given, and then you take places in a most comfortable corridor-train which seats and sleeps two persons only in each first-class compartment, a convenience which makes the journey no hardship, and which is regulated from the booking-office in Christiania. After leaving Hamar the pace is slow but very steady, and one’s attention is wholly occupied by the view from the windows. Fairly level country is passed through until Elverum, twenty miles from Hamar, then begins a slow climb, which lasts for eight hours. Elverum is 608 feet above the sea, and Tyvold, the highest point on the line, which is passed about two in the morning, 2,158 feet.” [1: p453]
The line climbs alongside the River Glomen for 150 miles, alternately on one bank then the other, until “settling down to a regular position east of the stream, under steep wooded cliffs. The river was filled with timber floating down from the mountains. … Across the valley which grew narrower hourly were mountain-ridges, whose summits were white with snow. Under them nestled farms the whole way, though their share of sunlight and warmth seemed to be small. Here and there would appear clusters of prosperous looking farmsteads, with telephone lines running from one to another. And all the while the long train was slowly making its way up through cuttings and tiny rock tunnels, along sandy strips of road among the fragrant pines.” [1: p453-454]
Speight continues: “Koppang was the supper-place, where we had twelve minutes to drink milk and eat smörbröd, i.e., sandwiches of bread and fish, cheese, or meat. After leaving this station the conductor began to prepare the beds, and when they were ready they were indeed cosy. Sleep came easily after the mountain air, and although the intervening grades of the slope were missed, this only heightened the surprise with which I looked out of the window after suddenly waking at two o’clock. The scenery had changed entirely. We were running along the side of a bare, wintry ridge, and the next minute passed gingerly over a roaring torrent. It was light, as the June nights are in Norway, and … everything was covered with snow, altogether such a view as one might get among the upper heights of Craven in winter. I had missed Röros, the high mining town, which I specially had hoped to see, but it was gratifying to have returned to consciousness just at the very highest point of the line.” [1: p454]
It took five hours to drop 2,100ft to sea-level at Trondhjem, “here everything was cold and desolate, and all the barns were dripping. … At Stören, reached [at] about five, the conductor brought us coffee and biscuits from the refreshment room. … From Stören we ran the 33 miles into Trondhjem in an hour and a half … and at 6.55 am, the train drew up alongside the harbour, where in old days the Hansa ships docked.” [1: p454-455]
“The line beyond Trondhjem … runs over the mountains into Sweden, … it provides one of the most fascinating railway journeys possible. … From Trondhjem the line runs along the bends of the fjord for many miles, turning finally inland at a place called Hell. … Then we enter Stördal, a narrow valley much resembling Upper Wharfdale, but with higher fells on each side and steeper falls of water coming down through the trees. For thirty miles the train creeps along into the heart of the mountains, past isolated farms, and always near the river, for the valley is only a few yards wide in places. The cart-road is grass-grown and one can see that the railroad is responsible for most of the traffic. Time after time one seems to be running straight into the hills; then a bend is turned and another mile or so of valley appears, with wonderful variety of forest and mountain views.” [1: p455]
When the train arrived at Gudaan a locomotive was attached behind, and then the train was pushed and pulled up through the otherwise bleak and desolate forest. Speight continues: “So well do we climb that in one hour we have actually ascended 1,000 feet, and when we reach the Swedish frontier station, [Storlien], sixty-six miles from Trondhjem, we are over 2,000 feet above the sea, in a wilderness of deep snow, though it is already June.” [1: p455]
This laborious journey between Norway and Sweden was necessary because there was constant traffic between Sweden and Trondhjem and trains can be very heavy. Speight refers us to Samuel Laing, who, he says, “lived in this region about the year 1834, [and] dwells at some length on the trade route over into Sweden, traversed in winter by sleighs, the best railroad in the world, he says. His astonishment would have been worth recording had he been told that in time an actual railroad would penetrate these wilds of the Keel, and that comfortable, spacious carriages would daily find their way through those bleak woods.” [1: p455]
At Storlien, Speight, left Norway, continuing his journey into Sweden.
Early Locomotives in Norway
Speight commented on locomotives in Norway in 1899 seemingly being underpowered for the duties expected of them. He only provided one photograph of a locomotive in the article which is shown below. No details of the locomotive appears in his article. …
An 2-4-0T Norwegian Locomotive! Speight provides no details about the loco. It appears that it carries the name Munis. [1: p451]
It seems as though Norway’s early narrow gauge steam locomotive classes were numbered using roman numerals by the NSB (I,II,III,IV,V, etc). [20] There is a limited amount of information available online about these locomotives, but it seems that a lot of the earliest classes were 2-4-0T locos. However, the first 3ft 6in gauge steam locomotive on Norway’s railways was an 0-4-2T, not a 2-4-0T but of a similar size to the other tank locomotives pictured above and further below. This 2-4-0T locomotive was No. 1 of the Hamar – Grundset Railway and is shown below at Løten station. The date was 18th October 1861, and it is believed that the photo was taken during a test run. Regular timetabled operations commenced on the railway the following month. The locomotive was built by Robert Stephenson & Co. in 1860. I found the photograph on transpressnz.blogspot.com. [25]
No. 1 of the Hamar – Grundset Railway shown at Løten station on 18th October 1861. It is believed that the photo was taken during a test run. [25]
I have not been able to clarify which class of locomotive is pictures in E.E. Speight’s article. Similar sized locos are pictured below but all different in some way from E.E. Speight’s photograph – different cab, different dome, different chimney.
An example of the NSB Class II 2-4-0T side tank locos is shown below.
NSB Class II 2-4-0T Loco No. 3 Hakon. [24]
The NSB Class III locos were a class of six side tank 2-4-0T locomotives. They were built by Beyer, Peacock and company from 1868 to 1871 as part of the III class for the Norwegian State Railways. They were designed, built and operated for small local passenger trains for which they operated until the 1920s.
NCB Class III 2-4-0T Loco. No. 21, Alf. [22]
The NSB Class IV (or Tryggve Class) locos were 1,067 mm (3 ft 6 in) narrow gauge 2-4-0T steam locomotives built by Beyer, Peacock & Co. in Manchester, England. [21] This was a class of twenty-five side tank 2-4-0 locomotives. The first of the class was built by Beyer, Peacock and company in 1866 and the last built in 1882 also by Beyer, Peacock and company and originally classed II and XV from 1898. In 1900 the class was re-designated IV and IX and operated by the Norwegian State Railways until 1952 when the last one was withdrawn. The class was named Tryggve after the first locomotive of the class which was also numbered two. [23]
NCB Class IV 2-4-0T Loco No. 8, Cudrun at Melhus station. [23]
All these locomotives could well have been encountered by Speight on his journey through Norway.
References
E.E. Speight; Through Norway by Rail; in The Railway Magazine, London, November 1899, p447-455.
Reading the November 1899 edition of The Railway Magazine, I came across an article about railways and tramways in the Forest of Dean … ‘The Severn & Wye Joint Railway’ by E.A. Clark. [1]
The article from 1899 adds something to the series of posts already made about the Forest and it railways
Clark says that “it was in the year 1809 that the initiative of the Severn and Wye took place. It had long been felt that there was great commercial scope in the Forest of Dean, and in this year Parliament sanctioned the construction of a tram road through the district. The undertaking was incorporated by the name of the Lydney and Lydbrook Railway Company, ‘for the purpose of making a railway or tramway from the River Wye at Lydbrook to the River Severn at Lydney, with various branches to serve the collieries in the Forest of Dean’. The Company finding their undertaking not complete, owing to there not being proper accommodation at Lydney for the export of coal, etc., in the following year (1810) obtained power by an Act of Parliament for the construction of a canal (over one mile in length) and docks or basins at Lydney to communicate with the River Severn, and the name of the Com- pany was changed by the same Act to the Severn and Wye Railway and Canal Company.” [1: p434-435]
A Horse Drawn Vehicle sitting on the Tramway. The stone sleeper and rail construction is evident in this image. The vehicle looks to be a passenger carriage which has the correct wheel-spacing for the track gauge – probably not typical of the routine use of the Tramway! [1: p434]
Clark goes on to tell us that “the cost of construction of the tramway was nearly £90,000. The tramway was laid with tram plates and worked by horse power until the year 1865, when the first locomotive engines were used. From 1810 to 1868, the concern worked very satisfactorily and good dividends were paid. The Great Western Railway Company had constructed a railway on the broad gauge principle to the Forest at one or two points, and this rendered it necessary for the Severn and Wye in 1868 to lay down a broad gauge railway upon that part of their undertaking which lies between the South Wales Railway (Great Western Railway) at Lydney and Wimberry Slade near to the station now known as Speech House Road. Parliamentary authority was obtained to confirm this and to extend the line from Wimberry Junction to Cinderford, also to construct a very important branch, known as the ‘loop Line’ which runs from a point known as ‘Tufts’ between Lydney and Whitecroft on the main line, passing round the eastern side of the forest with sidings to the various collieries, and meeting the main line again at a point known as Drybrook Road, where there is now a passenger station. The loop line is 6 miles 55 chains.” [1: p435]
Clark continues: “The following year, a further Act empowered the Company to convert the tramway on the Lydbrook section to a railroad, with connection with the Great Western Railway at Stowefield, now known as Lydbrook Junction. In 1872, the tramway to Milkwall was substituted by a railway from the main line at Parkend with an ex-tension to Coleford. In 1875 the ‘Foresters’ (as the natives of the district are called) had their first experience of riding behind a locomotive engine. For it was in 1872 that an Act of Parliament was passed, which sanctioned the Severn and Wye Railway conveying passengers. … The year 1872 was a very important one to the Foresters, for in addition to the powers obtained as above described, the Severn Bridge Railway Company [was] incorporated for the purpose of making a railway from the Severn & Wye Railway and the Great Western Railway at Lydney across the River Severn to Sharpness Docks … and the Midland Railway.” [1: p435-437]
The Severn Bridge Railway
“The Severn Bridge was opened for passenger traffic on 17th October 1879. That year, the Severn & Wye Railway & Canal Company amalgamated with the Severn Bridge Railway, and was incorporated under the name of the ‘Severn and Wye and Severn Bridge Railway Company’. This new departure was not a financial success, and the most important Act had yet to be passed, and that was in 1894, for vesting in the Great Western and Midland Railway Companies the whole undertaking of the Severn and Wye and Severn Bridge Railway Company (at a cost of over £447,000), and by the same Act the Midland Company were empowered to transfer to the joint Committee (fe. the Great Western and Midland Com-panies), their branch known as the ‘Gloucester and Berkeley New Docks Branch’ rom Sharp- ness to Berkeley Road, joining the Midland main line.” [1: p437]
One of the large soans of the Severn Bridge during construction at Liverpool. [1: p439]A postcard view of the Severn Bridge with Severn Bridge Station in the foreground. [1: p439]
There was much local opposition which meant compromise was necessary. Several conditions were therefore enjoined in the Act, one was the extension of the railway into Cinderford Cinderford, should be extended into the town.
At the time of the writing of the article (November 1899) there were over 40 collieries; two large tin-plate works; several iron ore mines; and numerous quarries. “Total traffic carried by Severn and Wye Railway Company:- 1875, 492,931 tons; 1890, 674,545 tons; 1898, 1,149,631 tons. Of course the great increase in the 1898 figures, as compared with the 1890 figures, [was] due to some extent owing to the traffic from Sharpness not being accounted for in the 1890 figures – the Berkeley Branch then belonged to the Midland Railway. … Passenger traffic [had] doubled during the last two years as compared with ten years [before].” [1: p438-439]
‘Little John’, its Class Mates and Later Locos
Clark provides two pictures of what he says was the first broad gauge locomotive belonging to the Severn & Wye Railway (‘Little John’). The pictures below show it as an 0-4-0WT locomotive. It is possible that, a few years earlier, the Company purchased a single loco on a trial basis. “This locomotive was [possibly] ‘Little Nell’, an 0−4−0 saddle tank, the first locomotive built at the Boyne Engine Works, Leeds, by Manning, Wardle & Company, and delivered to Sheepbridge on 5th February 1859.” [4]
Clark indicates that these photographs depict ‘Little John’, the first broad gauge locomotive owned by the Severn & Wye Railway Company. The loco shown was an 0-4-0WT loco. [1: p437]
Some notes on the Western Thunder website suggest that ‘Little John’ was one of three locomotives of the same design which were supplied to the Severn & Wye Railway (S&WR). The three locos were ‘Will Scarlet’, ‘Little John’ and ‘Alan-a-Dale’. The writer of those notes assumed that ‘Little John’ and its class-mates were 0-6-0WTs and mentions that the three locos were divided between the GWR and MR when the S&WR was taken into joint ownership in July 1894, ‘Will Scarlet’ (FJ 122) became GWR 1356, ‘Little John’ (FJ 140) became Midland 1123A, and ‘Alan-a-Dale’ (FJ 157) became Great Western 1355. [3]
It seems from the discussion on that website that six 0-6-0T locos were purchased by the S&WR, these were of various designs from different suppliers. Fletcher Jennings supplied locos as shown below.
Illustrations showing details of the six 0-6-0T locomotives supplied to the Severn & Wye Railway by Fletcher Jennings. These illustrations and the quoted text below appeared in the 30th April 1869 copy of ‘The Engineer’ [2]
The notes associated with the two images above say: “This somewhat remarkable engine – illustrated above … which is of the broad, or 7ft. gauge, has been specially constructed with a view to its being readily altered if occasion should require to suit the ordinary narrow gauge, and with as little expense as possible. To this end the axles are made, as will be seen by reference to the plan and section, with a third journal and wheel seat in positions proper for 4ft. 8.5 in. gauge, the coal-box, water tanks – except the one under footplate – fire-box, smoke-box, side foot-plates, and other parts are all made to suit the narrow gauge, so that when the alteration, which is anticipated, is required, little more is needed than to shorten the frame stays and buffer beams, remove certain brackets which support the fire-box and smoke-box, place the frames nearer together, shorten the axles, and remove one of each pair of wheels to its inner wheel seat. The cylinders are 14in. diameter, and the stroke is 20in.; the wheels 4ft. diameter, and extreme wheel centres 11ft. 3in.; tires, piston-rods, motion bars, crank pins, &c., are of steel. The fire-box is 3ft. 3in, long, 3ft. 3in. broad, and 4ft. 10in. deep. The boiler barrel, which is telescopic, is 3ft. 6in. mean diameter, and 8ft. Shin. long; the tubes are of brass . long, 2in. outside diameter, and 105 in number. … The total weight with a full supply of water and fuel is 28 tons 6 cwt., and this is distributed as follows:- Leading wheels, 9 tons; driving wheels, 9 tons 1 cwt.; trailing wheels, 10 tons 5 cwt. With partially filled tank and coal-box, the weight is equally distributed on the wheels.” [5]
Another source on ‘rmweb’ provides the following notes which were sourced from the RCTS publication, ‘Locomotives of the GWR – Part 3’. “Severn and Wye loco history is not simple. … They started to get steam engines in 1865, when there was thirty miles of 3’8” tramway. By 1867 they had five locos, and decided to go broad gauge, converting three engines. Two broad gauge engines were obtained, but in 1872 they decided to go to standard gauge, so the five broad gauge engines were converted to standard. The S&WR amalgamated with the Severn Bridge Railway in 1879. A receiver was appointed in 1883, and the railway was taken over jointly by the MR and GWR in 1894. … The first five engines were Fletcher Jennings 1864, with flangeless wheels for the tramroad. 1-4 were 0-4-0WT, 2-3 being the ones that were converted, 1 becoming a canal dredger. 5 was an 0-6-0ST which also went through two gauge conversions. All these had gone by the time of the receivership.
The RCTS publication, ‘The Locomotives of the Great Western Railway Part 3 Absorbed Engines 1854-1921‘, details the following locomotives as well:
Robin Hood, Fletcher Jennings 1868, MR 1121A – was broad gauge originally.
Ranger 0-6-0 (rebuilt ST), GWR 1358 – very complicated history.
Raven 0-6-0ST, Boulton, 1876 – sold on.
Wye 0-4-0T, Fletcher Jennings, 1876 GWR 1359.
Sharpness, Vulcan, 1880 MR. 1124A.
Severn Bridge, Vulcan, 1880 GWR 1354.
Sabrina, Vulcan, 1882 MR 1125A.
Forester, Vulcan, 1886 MR 1126A.
Gaveller, Vulcan, 1891 GWR 1353.
Four locos were hired from Boulton’s siding at different times.
The net result of these different notes is that the 0-4-0WT loco shown in Clark’s article in the Railway Magazine is unlikely to be ‘Little John’. ‘Little John’ was probably one of the later 0-6-0T locos and may well not have been a broad gauge engine at any time during its working life.
‘Forrester’, which Clark says was the first six-wheeled broad gauge locomotive of the S&WR. [1: p438] As the notes above suggest, ‘Forrester’ was actually one of the later purchases by the S&WR. [6]‘Robin Hood’ – Clark says that this was a six-coupled broad-gauge locomotive. [1: p438] The loco was built in 1868 as a broad-gauge locomotive. [6]
References
E.A. Clark; The Severn & Wye Joint Railway; in The Railway Magazine, London November 1899, p434-441.
Victoria’s and South Australia’s railways were 5ft 3in broad gauge. New South Wales’ railways were standard-gauge, Queensland’s were 3ft 6in gauge. And, as of 1899, the authorities were in no sense inclined to yield up their gauge to progress. [1: p417]
Perhaps we need a review of the historical context. Wikipedia provides a narrative which aids in understanding why Australia ended up with three different railway gauges.
“In 1845, a Royal Commission on Railway Gauges in the United Kingdom was formed to report on the desirability for a uniform gauge. As a result, the Regulating the Gauge of Railways Act 1846 was passed which prescribed the use of 4 ft 8 1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) in England, Scotland and Wales (with the exception of the Great Western Railway) and 5 ft 3 in (1,600 mm) in Ireland. … In 1846, Australian newspapers discussed the break of gauge problem in the United Kingdom, especially for defence [and] in 1847, South Australia adopted the 4 ft 8 1⁄2 in gauge as law.” [5]
“In 1848, the Governor of New South Wales, Charles Fitzroy, was advised by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in London, Earl Grey, that one uniform gauge should be adopted in Australia, this being the British standard 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in gauge. The recommendation was adopted by the then three colonies.[10][11][12] Grey notes in his letter that South Australia has already adopted this gauge.” [5] As at that time, Victoria and Queensland were part of New South Wales. It would seem as though this instruction should have settled the question of a suitable railway gauge for the Australian continent. However, communication with the UK took anything between 2 1⁄2 and 7 months before the installation of the Australian Overland Telegraph Line and under-sea cable communications in 1872 and debate over matters of consequence could be very protracted. In 1850, the NSW legislature sought a change of gauge to match the Irish standard gauge of 5 ft 3 in (1,600 mm). This was endorsed by the NSW Governor, and Colonial Secretary Earl Grey in London. That agreement was confirmed in 1851. In the meantime, a new engineer, James Wallace, was appointed by the railway company. He preferred the British standard gauge. “The government was persuaded to make the change back to 4 ft 8 1⁄2 in and in January 1853 they advised the company that the Act requiring 5ft 3in (1,600mm) would be repealed.” [5]
In February 1853, the other colonies (Victoria having separated from New South Wales in 1851) were sent a memorandum advising them of the pending change and it was recommended they likewise adopt 4 ft 8 1⁄2 in. IIn Victoria, the colonial government decided that it preferred the 5 ft 3 in (1,600 mm) gauge and an order for locomotives and rolling-stock was and placed.land communicated to suppliers in the UK.
“In July 1853, the Government of Victoria advised New South Wales that it would use the broader gauge and later appealed to the British Government to force a reversal of New South Wales’ decision. Subsequently, the Melbourne and Hobson’s Bay Railway Company opened the first railway in Australia in 1854, as a 5ft 3in (1600mm) a broad gauge line, and the South Australian Railways used the same gauge on its first steam-hauled railway in 1856.” [5]
Despite a request by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to reconsider the alteration to standard-gauge, in 1855, “the NSW Governor William Denison gave the go-ahead for the 4 ft 8 1⁄2 in Sydney to Parramatta railway, which opened in September of that year. … Concerns over the gauge difference began to be raised almost immediately. At a Select Committee called in Victoria in September 1853, a representative of the railway company which had not replied to Charles La Trobe’s earlier memorandum, reported a preference for 5 ft 3 in (1,600 mm), but when asked if Victoria should follow NSW he answered: ‘We must, I conclude of necessity, do so’. In 1857, the NSW railway engineer John Whitton suggested that the short length of railway then operating in New South Wales be altered from 4 ft 8 1⁄2 in gauge to 5 ft 3 in (1,600 mm) to conform with Victoria but, despite being supported by the NSW Railway Administration, he was ignored.” [5] At that time, there were only 23 miles (37 km) of track, four engines and assorted rolling-stock on the railway. “However, by 1889, New South Wales, under engineer Whitton, had built almost 1,950 miles (3,500 km) of standard gauge line.” [5][6: p186]
The problem was exacerbated when Queensland Railways opened their first line in 1865. They chose a narrow gauge, 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm), on the supposition that it would be constructed more cheaply, faster and on tighter curves than the wider gauges. This line, between Ipswich and Grandchester, was the first narrow gauge main line in the world.
“South Australia first adopted this gauge in 1867 with its line from Port Wakefield to Hoyleton. The main reasons for choosing this were reduced cost, and the expectation that the narrow gauge would never connect to broad gauge lines. ‘Overbuilt’ English railways were criticised. The Wakefield line was also envisaged as a horse-drawn tramway. … Later narrow gauge lines went towards Broken Hill and to Oodnadatta and from Mount Gambier.” [5]
The Western Australian Government Railways adopted the narrow-gauge in 1879 for its first line from Geraldton to Northampton. [6: p186}]
“The Tasmanian Government Railways opened its first railway from Launceston to Deloraine in 1871 using 5 ft 3 in (1,600 mm) broad gauge, but converted to 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm) narrow gauge in 1888.” [5][6: p186]
Queensland Railways train at Spring Bluff Station [1: p420]Spring Bluff Railway Station in 2024. Spring Bluff is best known for its heritage listed Railway Station, in the Spring Bluff valley tucked into the ranges north of Toowoomba. Spring Bluff Railway State is a favourite day trip for visitors, with the landscaped gardens and steam train rides attracting thousands for the spring exhibit during Toowoomba Carnival of Flowers. [14]
“South Australia first adopted this gauge in 1867 with its line from Port Wakefield to Hoyleton. The main reasons for choosing this were reduced cost, and the expectation that the narrow gauge would never connect to broad gauge lines. ‘Overbuilt’ English railways were criticised. The Wakefield line was also envisaged as a horse-drawn tramway. … Later narrow gauge lines went towards Broken Hill and to Oodnadatta and from Mount Gambier.” [5]
The Western Australian Government Railways adopted the narrow-gauge in 1879 for its first line from Geraldton to Northampton. [6: p186}]
“The Tasmanian Government Railways opened its first railway from Launceston to Deloraine in 1871 using 5 ft 3 in (1,600 mm) broad gauge, but converted to 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm) narrow gauge in 1888.” [5][6: p186]
“Until the 1880s, the gauge issue was not a major problem, as there were no connections between the separate systems. The focus of railway traffic was movement from the hinterland to the ports and cities on the coast, so governments were not concerned about the future need for either inter-city passenger or freight services. It was not until 1883 when the broad and standard gauge lines from Melbourne and Sydney met at Albury, and in 1888, narrow and standard gauge from Brisbane and Sydney met at Wallangarra that the break of gauge became an issue.” [5]
“The issue of rail gauge was mentioned in an 1889 military defence report authored by British army officer Major General James Bevan Edwards, who said that the full benefit of the railways would not be attained until a uniform gauge was established. Until the turn of the 20th century, the benefits of a uniform gauge were not immediately apparent, since passengers had to pass through customs and immigration at the intercolonial border, meaning that all goods would have to be removed for customs inspection. It was only with [the anticipation of] Federation in 1901 and its introduction of free trade between the states that the impediment of different gauges became apparent.” [5]
The November 1899 edition of The Railway Magazine engaged in the discussion with the first of a series of three articles on the subject.
Indooroopilly Girder Bridge, Queensland Railway. [1: p417]The Indooroopilly Railway Bridge is still.in use in the 21st century. It now sits alongside a road toll-bridge. The railway bridge is undergoing refurbishment which started in 2022 and which is due to be completed by 2025. Eptec Services have been engaged to do the refurbishment work which will involve cleaning, sandblasting and repainting the bridge structure which is made up of steelwork fabricated in Italy. [15]
“All the aspirants for State rights and an Australian nationhood not unnaturally contend that the respective gauges now in use within their territorial boundaries are well adapted for their own requirements in the proposed Commonwealth.” [1: p417] So starts the first in a series of articles in The Railway Magazine (November 1899).
Despite the evidence tendered to those debating the formation of the new Commonwealth of Australia by accredited railway experts, the unification of railway gauges was “ultimately dropped as being beyond the grasp of Conventional solution.” [1: p418]
By 1897, the deliberations of the working group set up to address the difficulties brought about by the different gauges, resulted in a recommendation to their respective governments that the New South Wales standard-gauge be adopted at a probable cost of £2,400,000 to bring all of the colonies into line. (A better estimate of the cost, according to The Railway Magazine would be a minimum of £8,000,000). [1: p418]
Perhaps in the light of the expenditure involved in unifying the different gauges, the same working group met again in late 1898 to look at “several ingenious mechanical contrivances to overcome the break of gauge difficulties … [but these proposals] were deemed inadequate to the requirements of the proposed Commonwealth’s railway system.” [1: p418] The meeting endorsed the decision of 1897 with one dissenting voice, that of the Queensland representative, Mr R.J. Gray who reaffirmed his commitment to the 3ft 6in gauge.
In an article written in 1897, Gray’s deputy, Mr J.F. Thallon had indicated that no common gauge would, at that time, be agreed between the different jurisdictions. He proved “most clearly that the narrow gauge [had] been more cheaply constructed, worked and maintained than either the 4 ft. 8 1⁄2in. or 5 ft. 3 in., and that in Queensland, where the 3 it. 6 in. gauge [had] been adopted, the people [had] lower fares and freights than in New South Wales or Victoria; also, that the narrow gauge [was] capable of earning a revenue four times as great as the [then] present revenue of the Victorian railways and [was] therefore the best and cheapest gauge for a progressive Queensland.” [1: p418-419]
‘Rebus’ commented that “it will be readily admitted by all … that a uniform gauge throughout Australia would be a decided advantage. That need not be discussed, but a very pertinent question, if an alteration is to be made, is ‘Which is the best gauge for Australia?’ It is not the cost of conversion only we have to consider, but the extension of railways in the future, and the annual expenditure that will fall upon the generations yet to come. It is not a question of having one gauge from Brisbane to Sydney, or from Sydney to Melbourne, leaving the other lines in Queensland the same gauge as at present. Such a scheme would only perpetuate and intensify the evil, seeing that the traffic between Darling Downs and Gymple, Bundaberg, would all have to be transhipped in Brisbane. If a break of gauge is to remain anywhere, it could not be better placed than at Wallangarra, where there is little traffic. If a change of gauge is to be made it must … be complete, and include one and the same gauge for all Australia. Some have suggested a third rail between certain points, but the proposal cannot be treated seriously. To lay down a third rail in Queensland would cost more than to alter the gauge, and it would be much less satisfactory to all concerned.” [1: p419]
He continues: “The cost of converting the Australian railways to one uniform gauge, whichever be adopted, would be stupendous, involving, as it would, the absolute necessity of discarding and replacing enormous quantities. of rolling-stock, as well as the reconstruction of the permanent way of the converted lines. So far as mileage is concerned, the 3 ft. 6 in. gauge already almost equals (and adding extensions now in progress in Queensland and Western Australia, will quite equal) the other twoput together.” [1: p419-420]
By 1899, the lengths of each gauge open to public traffic were: 3ft 6in gauge, 5,280 miles; 5ft 3in gauge, 3,615 miles; and 4 f. 8 1⁄2in gauge, 2,531 miles. It was obvious to ‘Rebus’ that “to convert all lines to the 3 ft. 6 in. gauge would cost the community less in money, in time, and in public inconvenience than to adopt either of the other two. To alter the 4 ft. 8 1⁄2in. to 5 ft. 3 in. (which is the next important as regards mileage) would not be attended with insuperable difficulties, and it would have one substantial advantage, viz., that the rolling-stock of the 4 ft. 8 1⁄2in. gauge could be readily disposed of, whereas the 5 ft. 3 in. rolling-stock, if discarded would be a comparative drug on the market; but 5 ft. 3 in. as the uniform gauge would be decidedly objectionable, seeing it [was] all but obsolete. The question, so far as Australia [was] concerned, therefore reduces itself to 4 ft. 8 1⁄2in. or 3 ft. 6 in.” [1: p420]
‘Rebus’ goes on to review how the different gauges compared with each other in regard to cost of construction, revenue and expenditure, rates, fares, etc. He used the average expenditure of previous years to estimate the cost of construction and equipment: New South Wales had by that time spent £37 million on its railways, an average cost of £14,560/mile; Victoria had spent over £38 million on its railways, an average cost of £12,206/mile; Queensland had spent over £17 million on the miles of its network, £6,947/mile. He argued that it was vital to minimise cost of construction as the interest burden on each of the colonies was at about 50% of all expenditure!
Whilst, the cost burden of government borrowing was a significant argument. ‘Rebus’ seems to ignore the great advantages of increased speed and loading capacity available to networks of the wider gauges. Perhaps this was not so apparent at the end of the 19th century as it would become in later generations. It is clear that, in ‘Rebus” world, speed is of little value, cost is seemingly far more significant, perhaps this is indicative of the predominant concern being the transport of imperishable goods, rather than passengers or perishable goods.
‘Rebus’ goes on to argue that the cost per head of population was not particularly relevant but it was “very much the same in all three colonies, ranging from £29 in New South Wales to£36 in Queensland.” [1: p421-422] The length of railway per head of population was perhaps of greater significance – close to 28 ft in Queensland; 10 1⁄2ft in New South Wales; and 14 ft in Victoria! ‘Rebus’ argues that it was important to keep this disparity in mind when comparing the relative merits of different gauges, “because it is length of railway, not width, which is required to open up and develop the resources of Australia.” [1: p422]
He further argued that if the cost of servicing loans, the cost of maintenance and working expenses were aggregated, then “the New South Wales railways must earn a gross revenue of about £1,200 per mile in order to pay their way, Victoria £984, and Queensland £563. Taking the latest published returns, New South Wales earned £1,114 per mile, Victoria £769, and Queensland £483. In this respect,” he said, “the colonies of Australia [were] far behind other colonies where a uniform gauge of 3ft 6in is in operation.” [1: p422]
‘Rebus’ provides this table to allow a comparison of the percentage of net earnings to capital spent. [1: p422]
In the table above it can be seen that the return on investment in the two colonies in South Africa was significantly higher than all the networks in Australia and New Zealand. ‘Rebus’ pointed out that narrow-gauge lines could live with much lower traffic levels than the wider gauges of New South Wales and Victoria.
Of some interest may be the comparative figures ‘Rebus’ provides for revenue per head of population. The figures in Australia were:
New South Wales: £2 3s 10d
Victoria: £2 0s 10d
Queensland: £2 9s 4d
He compares this with revenue per head of population in the UK:
England & Wales: £1 18s 4d
Scotland: £1 16s 9d
He suggests that it would be unwise to assume an annual revenue higher than £2 10s per head of population.
He accepts that “gross receipts per mile of railway and per head of population may not prove a very reliable criterion of the practical advan-tage of one gauge over another, and it can without doubt be contended that the wider gauges, having more powerful locomotives and a larger population settled alongside, can carry at a much cheaper rate, and thus the residents of New South Wales and Victoria should gain indirectly a counterpoise to the very apparent disadvantage of the greatly increased initial cost in those colonies.” [1: p423]
He, therefore, compares a few rates and fares taken from the then latest published lists and in operation in 1899.
‘Rebus’ says that, “it will be observed that the ordinary fares in Queensland are very much lower per mile than in either of the other two colonies. In the case of holiday excursion fares the difference is even more favourable to Queensland, the figures being:” [1: p424]
Comparison of long-distance fares in Australia. [1: p424]
‘Rebus’ also provides a fare comparison for shorter distances based on the price of season tickets:
Monthly Season Ticket Comparison for 1899 in Australia shows that New South Wales prices are the highest. [1: p424]
‘Rebus’ continues to look at livestock transport costs and he demonstrates that the narrow-gauge of Queensland achieved cattle transport at about 75% of the cost in the other network areas. Sheep were again transported at lower rates/mile than on the other two networks. However, he seems to avoid drawing attention to the fact that cost per animal rather than per mile would not be as advantageous to his argument as the distances involved were much larger in Queensland.
This seems to be a weakness in each of the comparisons made by ‘Rebus’ for dairy products and grain as well.
Unfortunately, I don’t have access to the later articles which seek to put the case for the other two gauges. There are weaknesses in the arguments made by ‘Rebus’ and we have noted them in the text above. Possibly, however, as time went by and the 20th century unfolded, it increasingly became clear in many parts of the world that narrow gauge lines struggled with road competition and were handicapped by the longer transit times than possible on the larger gauges.
“With Federation in 1901 and the removal of trade barriers, the short sightedness of three gauges became apparent, [but] it would be 94 years before all mainland state capitals were joined by one standard gauge!” [2]
In those 94 years it became clear that the 3ft 6in gauge would, if chosen as the national gauge, have needed replacement with a wider gauge.
“At the time of Federation, standard gauge was used only in NSW, but was favoured for future construction. Work on gauge conversion was assisted by section 51 (xxxiii) of the Constitution of Australia, which made specific provisions for the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws with respect to railway acquisition and construction. An agreement was made with the South Australian and Western Australian state governments for the Trans-Australian Railway from Port Augusta to Kalgoorlie, with work started in 1911 and completed in 1917. However, with the different gauges, to transport goods from Queensland to Perth required four transshipments!” [2]
The Wikipedia article continues: “In October 1921, a royal commission into uniform rail gauge recommended gauge conversion of large areas of the country and that:
the gauge of 4 feet 8 1⁄2 inches be adopted as the standard
no mechanical, third rail, or other device would meet the situation
uniformity could be secured by one means only, viz., by conversion of the gauges other than 4 ft 8 1⁄2 in.” [5][7]
“The subject was discussed at a conference of the Prime Minister with the Premiers in November 1921, when it was decided to adopt 4 ft 8 1⁄2 in as the standard gauge for Australia and it was resolved that adoption of a uniform gauge was essential to the development and safety of the nation.” [5] [8]
“By the outbreak of World War II in 1939, there were still 14 break-of-gauge locations, with upwards of 1600 service personnel and many more civilians employed to transfer 1.8 million tons of freight during the conflict.” [5]
Strikingly, in 1922, 273 inventions to solve the break-of-gauge were proposed, and none adopted. [9]
In 1933, as many as 140 devices were proposed by inventors to solve the break-of-gauge problem, none of which was adopted. [10]
Even dual gauge with a third rail for combining Irish gauge and standard gauge was rejected as too reckless, as the gap between these gauges of 6.5 inches (165 mm) was considered to be too small. [11] Dual gauge combining Irish gauge and narrow gauge where the gap was 21 in (530 mm) was also rejected. [12]
“After the Second World War a report on uniformity of railway gauges was commissioned from former Victorian Railways Chief Commissioner Harold Clapp for the Commonwealth Land Transport Board. The report produced three main recommendations:
Gauge standardisation from Fremantle and Perth to Kalgoorlie, all of South Australian and Victorian broad gauge lines, all of the South Australian south east and Peterborough division narrow gauge lines, and acquisition and conversion of the Silverton Tramway. Costed at £44.3 million.
A new standard gauge “strategic and developmental railway” from Bourke, New South Wales to Townsville, Queensland and Dajarra (near Mount Isa) with new branch lines from Bourke via Barringun, Cunnamulla, Charleville, Blackall to Longreach. Existing narrow gauge lines in Queensland would be gauge converted, including Longreach – Linton – Hughenden – Townsville Dajarra and associated branches. Costed at £21.6 million.
A new standard gauge line to Darwin, including a new line from Dajarra, Queensland to Birdum, Northern Territory, and a gauge conversion of the Birdum to Darwin narrow gauge line. Costed at £10.9 million.
The report wrote that if only main trunk lines were converted, it would introduce a multitude of break of gauge terminals and result in greatly increased costs. It also recommended abandoning part of the existing Perth to Kalgoorlie narrow gauge line, and build a flatter and straighter route using third rail dual gauge, as modernisation was just as important as standardisation.” [5]
Wikipedia has reconstructed the railway network changes proposed by the Clapp Report. This file is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication [2]
None of the states in Australia were happy with the report. It seems to have been shelved, but “gauge conversion continued, with the South Australian Railways’ Mount Gambier line from Wolseley to Mount Gambier and associated branches converted to broad gauge in the 1950s, on the understanding it would change again to standard gauge at a later date, which would have made it the first and only railway in Australia to have successfully been converted to all three gauges.” [2] But it closed in 1995. Standard gauge lines were also built, with the line between Stirling North and Marree opened in July 1957. [2][6: p188]
“In 1956, a Government Members Rail Standardisation Committee was established, chaired by William Wentworth MP. It found that while there was still considerable doubt as to the justification for large scale gauge conversion, there was no doubt that work on some main trunk lines was long overdue. Both the committee and the government strongly supported three standardisation projects at a cost of £41.5 million:
Albury to Melbourne (priority 1)
Broken Hill to Adelaide via Port Pirie (priority 2, built third)
Kalgoorlie to Perth and Fremantle (priority 3, built second).” [2]
The Wikipedia article continues to describe individual projects in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and on into the 21st century as late as 2018. [2]
As of 2022, there were 11,914 kilometres (7,403 miles) of narrow-gauge railways, 18,007 kilometres (11,189 miles) of standard gauge railways and 2,685 kilometres (1,668 miles) of broad gauge railways. [13]
References
‘Rebus’; Uniformity of Gauge in Australia – The Case for 3ft 6in Gauge; in The Railway Magazine, November 1899, London, 1899, p417-425.
“Standardisation of Railway Gauges“. Year Book Australia, 1967. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 25th January 1967, accessed on 9th September 2024.
“Break of Gauge“. The Daily News. Perth. 12th January 1922. p. 2. Retrieved 26th October 2013 – via National Library of Australia, accessed again, 9th September 2024.
“Break of Gauge”. The Brisbane Courier. Brisbane. 14th August 1933. p. 15. Retrieved 27th August 2011 – via National Library of Australia, accessed again, 9th September 2024.
“Great Western Railway”. The Argus. Melbourne. 11th March 1926. p. 7. Retrieved 26th August 2011 – via National Library of Australia, accessed again, 9th September 2024.
“Standard Gauge Plan Postponed”. The Argus. Melbourne. 17 February 1941. p. 5. Retrieved 26 August 2011 – via National Library of Australia, accessed again, 9th September 2024.
“Trainline 9” (PDF). Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications. 26 May 2022. Retrieved 27 May 2022, accessed again on 9th September 2024.
Roger Farnworth 
_1906.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
