The Railway Magazine of December 1905 included a photograph of a road vehicle powered by steam. The picture in The Railway Magazine is the featured image for this short article.
The Railway Magazine entitled this image, “Great Western Railway Enterprise.” It shows a steam motor wagon and trailer which was used for collecting and delivering goods at Henwick. [1: p480]
It seems as though the editor of The Railway Magazine removed the background from a photograph to prepare it for the magazine. The original photograph is shown immediately below.
An archive image from the GW Trust archive of road motors at Didcot. It is clear that this is the original image from which The Railway Magazine took their illustration. [2]
An article about GWR Steam Road Motors was included in Going Loco, May 2022. [2]
The two photographs show the same vehicle, No. U 308, built by the Yorkshire Patent Steam Wagon Co of Leeds in 1905. “The novel double-ended transverse-mounted boiler was used to avoid problems on steep hills. With a horizontal boiler mounted fore and aft, skill is required to keep the inner firebox crown covered with water when descending a steep hill.” [2]
The same photo can be found on the Leeds Engine Builders webpage. [3]
More images of Sowerby Bridge Railway Station can be found here [67] and here. [68]
Just beyond the eastern station limits Fall Lane bridges the line – two views from the bridge follow.
The view East from Fall LaneThe view West from Fall Lane
To the East of Sowerby Bridge the line crosses the River Calder again.
Another extract from the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1905, published in 1907 shows Calder Dale Grease Works, Copley Bridge and Copley Viaduct. The Sowerby Bridge, Halifax and Bradford line leaves the main line at this point. [25]The bridge and Viaduct as they appear on Google Maps satellite imagery in 2024. [Google Maps, October 2024]
An image of Copley Viaduct can be seen here. Just beneath the viaduct, at the left of the linked photograph, a train is crossing Copley Bridge on the line we are following. [61]
The Manchester and Leeds Railway then crosses the Calder once again and enters Greetland Station. The second arm of the Sowerby Bridge, Halifax and Bradford line joins the mainline just before (to the Northwest of) Greetland Station.
Greetland Station shown on the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1905. Top-left the second arm of the triangular junction with the Sowerby Bridge, Halifax and Bradford line can be seen joining the Manchester and Leeds Railway. Bottom-right, the Stainland Branch leaves the main line just before the main line bridges the River Calder once again. [26]The same location in the 21st century. Greetland Station is long gone and the branch South (the Stainland Branch has also been lifted. [Google Maps, October 2024]Greetland Railway Station in 1962, just before closure. The camera is positioned at the Northwest end of the station. [28]
Greetland Railway Station “was originally opened as North Dean in July 1844. It was subsequently changed to North Dean and Greetland and then to Greetland in 1897. Situated near the junction of the main Calder Valley line and the steeply-graded branch towards Halifax (which opened at the same time as the station), it also served as the junction station for the Stainland Branch from its opening in 1875 until 1929. It was closed to passenger traffic on 8th September 1962.” [27]
Looking West from the A629, Halifax Road which sits over the line adjacent to the West Portal of Elland Tunnel. [Google Streetview, July 2024]
Rake says that the line then approaches “Elland Tunnel, 424 yards, in length, and, after leaving Elland Station, pass[es] through a deep cutting, from which a large quantity of stone for the building of the bridges was obtained.” [1: p471]
To the East of Elland Railway Station the railway is carried above the River Calder, passing Calder Fire Clay Works. Further East again, “the railway is carried across a steep and rugged acclivity, rising almost perpendicularly from the river. … The viaduct consists of six arches of 45ft span each, and leads directly to Brighouse, originally the nearest station to Bradford.” [1: 472]
The view from the South of the bridge which carries the railway over Park Road (A6025), Elland. Elland Station stood above this location and to the left. [Google Streetview, July 2024]
From Elland, the line runs on through Brighouse
Brighouse Station and Goods Yard as shown on the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1905. [31]The view West from Gooder Lane Bridge towards Cliff Road Bridge Elland. [Google Streetview, May 2023]The view East across Brighouse Railway Station from Gooder Lane. [Google Streetview, May 2023]Brighouse Railway Station (originally called ‘Brighouse for Bradford’). [1: p472]
Embedded link to Flickr. The image shows B1 No. 61034 Chiru at Brighouse Station on 2nd April 1964. The locomotive is arriving at the station from the East with a local passenger train. The locomotive had only recently been transferred to Wakefield from Ardseley. It was withdrawn at the end of 1964. The photograph looks Southeast through the station. [32]A much later photograph of Brighouse Railway Station (2006) which looks Northwest through the station from platform 1, (c) Ian Kirk and authorised for reuse under a Creative Commons Licence (CC BY 2.5). [33]
To the East of the passenger facilities at Brighouse there were a significant array of sidings. The first length of these can be seen on the OS Map above. Around 75% of the way along these sidings Woodhouse Bridge spanned the lines. Much of the area has been redeveloped by modern industry. The next four images relate to that bridge.
Woodhouse Bridge in 1905. [69]Woodhouse Bridge in 2024. [69]Looking West from Woodhouse Bridge in 2023. [Google Streetview, August 2023]Looking East from Woodhouse Bridge in 2023. [Google Streetview, August 2023]
Leaving Brighouse Station, the railway is joined, from the North, by the Bailiff Bridge Branch (long gone in the 21st century).
Immediately to the East of Brighouse Station Goods Yards, the Bailiff Bridge Branch joined the Manchester and Leeds Railway. [62]Approximately the same area in the 21st century as shown on the OS map extract above. The line of the old Bailiff Bridge Branch is superimposed on the satellite image. [Google Maps, October 2024]
A little further to the East, in the 21st century, the line passes under the M62 and enters a deep cutting before, at Bradley Wood Junction, the Bradley Wood Branch leaves the line to the South (still present in the 21st century).
Looking West from the M62 in July 2024Looking East from the M62 in July 2024Bradley Wood Junction as shown on the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1905. [70]Much the same area in the 21st century. [70]
“Beyond [Bradley Wood Junction] the Calder is crossed by a viaduct of two arches of 76 ft. span each. this is succeeded by an embankment, along which the line continues down the valley. [It] again cross[es] the Calder by a viaduct similar to that just referred to.” [1: p472] The line was widened to the South side to create a four-track main line and single span girder bridges were positioned alongside the original structures.
At the first crossing of the River Calder mentioned immediately above, the original two arches of the stone viaduct can be seen beyond the more modern girder bridge in this photograph, (c) Uy Hoang. [Google Streetview, September 2022]The same bridges as they appear on Google Maps satellite imagery in 2024. [Google Maps, October 2024]
In between the two bridges across the River Calder, was Cooper Bridge Station.
Cooper Bridge Station as it appears on the 1905 25″ Ordnance Survey. [34]The Station at Cooper Bridge is long gone in the 2st century, but the bridges remain. The station sat over the road at this location with platform buildings between the rails of the left edge of this image. This photograph is taken from the North on Cooper Bridge Road. [Google Streetview, July 2024]The second of the two crossings of the River Calder mentioned above. This photograph, taken from the Southwest, shows the girder bridge with the stone-arched 2-span bridge beyond, (c) Uy Hoang. [Google Streetview, September 2022]This view from the North East and from under an adjacent footbridge shows the stone-arched 2-span structure, (c) Uy Hoang. [Google Streetview, September 2022]
Rake’s journey along the line seems not to focus so closely on the remaining length of the line. Various features and a number of stations seem to have been missed (particularly Cooper Bridge, Mirfield, Ravensthorpe, Thornhill, Horbury & Ossett). It also seems to suggest that the line goes through Dewsbury Station. Rather than rely on Rake’s commentary about the line, from this point on we will provide our own notes on the route.
At Heaton Lodge Junction, the LNWR Huddersfield & Manchester line joined the Manchester & Leeds line with the LNWR Heaton & Wortley line passing beneath. The Manchester & Leeds line ran on towards Mirfield Station passing the large engine shed before entering the station over a long viaduct which once again crossed the River Calder.
Just to the East of Mirfield Station was Cleckheaton Junction and then Wheatley’s Bridge over the River Calder. A bridge then carries Sand Lane over the railway.
Looking West from Sands Lane Bridge back towards Mirfield. [Google Streetview, May 2023]Looking East from Sands Lane Bridge. [Google Streetview, May 2023]
Soon after this the line encountered Dewsbury Junction which hosted Ravensthorpe (Ravensthorpe and Thornhill) Station.
Dewsbury Junction and Ravensthorpe Station. [39]Looking West from Calder Road towards Mirfield. [Google Streetview, May 2023]The view East from Calder Road showing Ravensthorpe Station with the Manchester & Leeds line heading away to the right of the picture. [Google Streetview, May 2023]
Thornhill Railway Station was a short distance further East just beyond the junction where the Ravensthorpe Branch met the main line at Thornfield Junction.
Thornfield Junction, Goods Yard and Station as shown on the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1905. [40]Thornhill Station opened with the Manchester & Leeds Railway and only closed on the last day of 1961, a short time before Beeching’s closure of of Dewsbury Central. [37]The same station looking East towards Wakefield, Normanton etc. In the background is the bridge of the ex-Midland branch from Royston to Dewsbury (Savile Town), closed 18/12/50, (c) Ben Brooksbank and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons Licence (CC BY-SA 2.0). [38]The view West from Station Road in the 21st century, through what was Thornhill Railway Station. {Google Streetview, March 2023]The view East from Station Road in the 21st century. The bridge ahead carries Headfield Road over the railway. [Google Streetview, March 2023]The view West from Headfield Road Bridge towards the site of the erstwhile Thornhill Railway Station and Station Road. [Google Streetview, October 2022]The view East from Headfield Road Bridge. [Google Streetview, October 2022]
East of Thornhill Station were Dewsbury West and Dewsbury East junctions which together with Headfield Junction formed a triangular access to Didsbury Market Place Station. This was a busy location which sat close to Dewsbury Gas Works, Thornhill Carriage and Wagon Works and Thornhill Lees Canal Locks and a canal branch. Just off the North of the map extract below was a further junction giving access to the GNR’s Headfield Junction Branch, before the line crossed the River Calder and entered Dewsbury Market Place Station and Yard and terminated there.
This extract from the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1905 shows the triangular junction which provided access to Dewsbury Market Place Station and a series of Goods Yards and Sheds. Headfield Road is on the left side of this image. [41]A similar area in the 2st century as it appears on Google Maps satellite imagery. [Google Maps, October 2024]
Dewsbury was very well provided for by both passenger and freight facilities. In its railway heyday the Midland Railway, the London & North Western Railway, the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway and the Great Northern Railway all had access to the town. A computer drawn map showing the different lines can be found here. [42]
Continuing along the line towards Wakefield and Normanton, the next feature of note is the junction for Combs Colliery’s Mineral Railway at Ingham’s Sidings. Nothing remains of this short branch line.
Ingham’s Siding ran South, crossing the Calder & Hebble Navigation to reach Comb’s Colliery. [43]
Further East the line continues in a straight line East-southeast to cross the River Calder once again. It then passes the Calder Vale and Healey Low Mills at Healey and runs Southeast to Horbury and Ossett Station.
The bridge over the River Calder adjacent to Calder Vale and Healey Low Mills. [Google Streetview, April 2023]The bridge over the River Calder at Calder Vale and Healey Low Mills is in the top-left of this map extract from the 1905 25″ Ordnance Survey. This area was chosen by British Rail in the 1960s for a large marshalling yard. [46]British Railways developed a large marshalling yard in the 1960s at Healey Mills. The yard was opened in 1963 and replaced several smaller yards in the area. It was part of the British Transport Commission’s Modernisation plan, and so was equipped with a hump to enable the efficient shunting and re-ordering of goods wagons. The yard lost its main reason for existence through the 1970s and 1980s when more trains on the British Rail system became block trains where their wagons required less, or more commonly, no shunting. Facilities at the site were progressively run down until it closed completely in 2012. [46][47]Healey Mills Marshalling Yard in April 1982, (c) Martin Addison and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons Licence (CC BY-SA 2.0). [48]Looking Northwest from Storrs Hill Road Bridge in the 21st century. [Google Streetview, March 2023]Looking Southeast from Storrs Hill Road Bridge in the 21st century through the throat of the old marshalling yard. [Google Streetview, March 2023]Horbury & Ossett Railway Station. [44]The site of Horbury & Ossett Railway Station in the 21st century. [Google Maps, October 2024]Looking Northwest from Bridge Road, A642 towards Storrs Road Bridge. Horbury and Ossett Railway Station goods facilities were on the left. [Google Streetview, July 2024]looking Southeast from Bridge Road. the passenger facilities were on the Southeast side of Bridge Road with the platform sat between the running lines. [Google Streetview, July 2024]
“Horbury and Ossett railway station formerly served the town of Horbury. … The station was opened with the inauguration of the line in 1840, on the west of the Horbury Bridge Road, to the south-west of the town. Later a new, more substantial structure was built just to the east. … British Railways developed a large marshalling yard in the 1960s at Healey Mills immediately to the west of the original station. … [The station] closed in 1970. Almost all that remains is the old subway which ran under the tracks. Ossett is now the largest town in Yorkshire without a railway station. Proposals to open a new one are periodically canvassed, perhaps on part of the Healey Mills site.” [45]
A little further East is Horbury Fork Line Junction where a mineral railway runs South to Harley Bank Colliery and the Horbury & Crigglestone Loop leaves the Manchester to Leeds line.
Horbury Fork Line Junction on the 1905 25″ordnance Survey. The junction sat just to the West of Horbury Tunnel. That tunnel has since been removed. [49]The same location in the 21st century. The tunnel sat to on the East side of the present footbridge which is just to the left of the centre of this image. This image is an extract from the NLS’ ESRI satellite imagery. [49]
These next few photographs show views of the line from a series of three overbridges to the East of Horbury Fork Line Junction.
The view West from Southfield Lane Bridge. [Google Streetview, October 2022]The view East from Southfield Lane Bridge. [Google Streetview, October 2022]The view West from Dudfleet Lane Bridge towards Southfield Lane Bridge. [Google Streetview, October 2022]The view East from Dudfleet Lane Bridge towards Millfield Road Bridge. [Google Streetview, October 2022]The view West from Millfield Road Bridge towards Dudfleet Lane Bridge. [Google Streetview, October 2022]The view East from Millfield Road Bridge. [Google Streetview, October 2022]
The next significant location on the line is Horbury Junction.
Horbury Junction on the 1905 25″ordnance Survey. Horbury Junction Ironworks sat in-between the Manchester and Leeds Railway and the. There was a Wagon Works just off the South edge of this image. The line heading South from Horbury Junction was the L&YR line to Flockton Junction and beyond. [50]The same location in the 21st century as shown on the ESRI satellite imagery provided by the NLS.. [50]
Industrialisation in the immediate area of Horbury Junction began “in the early 1870s with the construction of Millfield Mill, followed by the Horbury Ironworks Co. In 1873, Charles Roberts bought a site for a new factory at Horbury Junction and moved his wagon building business from Ings Road, Wakefield to Horbury Junction. Before that, the area of Horbury Junction was a quiet backwater with a corn mill and a ford across the Calder for farm traffic.” In reality, a beautiful pastoral area of countryside was changed forever with the coming of the Railway, Millfield Mill, the Wagon Works and the Ironworks.” [51]
In the 21st century, just beyond Horbury Junction, the line is crossed by the M1.
In the 21st century, just beyond Horbury Junction (on the left of this extract from Google Maps), the line is crossed by the M1. [Google Maps, October 2024.
Horbury Junction seen, looking Southwest from the M1. [Google Streetview, July 2024]Looking Northeast from the M1. [Google Streetview, August 2024]Green Lane Underpass seen from the North. This underpass sits just to the East of the modern M1. [Google Streetview, October 2008]
Following the line on to the Northeast, it next passes through Thornes.
The railway bridge at the centre of Thornes in 1905. [52]The same location in the 21st century. The now quadruple line is carried by two separate bridges. [52]Thorne Bridge seen from the South in June 2024. [Google Streetview, June 2024]
Northeast of Thornes, the Manchester and Leeds Railway ran at high level into Kirkgate Joint Station in Wakefield.
Thornes Lane BridgeA638, Ings Road BridgeThe bridge carrying the line over Kirkgate. [All three images from Google Streetview April 2023]The Manchester and Leeds Railway enters this extract from the 1905 25″ Ordnance Survey bottom-left, To the North of it id the GNR Ings Road Branch. To the South of it is a Goods Yard with access to Wakefield’s Malthouses and Mark Lane Corn Mill. [53]The same area in the 21st century. The rail lines remain approximately as on the map extract above. Wakefield Kirkgate Station (top-right) is somewhat reduced in size. Much of the built environment is different to that shown on the map above. This image is another extract from the ESRI satellite imagery. [53]
Wikipedia tells us that once it was opened by the Manchester and Leeds Railway in 1840, Kirkgate station was “the only station in Wakefield until Westgate was opened in 1867. The railway station building dates from 1854. … Some demolition work took place in 1972, removing buildings on the island platform and the roof with its original ironwork canopy which covered the whole station. A wall remains as evidence of these buildings. After this, Kirkgate was listed in 1979.” [72]
Kirkgate Station was refurbished in two phases between 2013 and 2015. [72]
East of Kirkgate Joint Station in 1905. The landscape in Primrose Hill is dominated by the railway. The line exiting to the South of this extract is the L&YR Oakenshaw Branch which crosses the River Calder and runs past the station’s Engine Sheds. [54]the same area in the 21st century, much of the railway infrastructure has disappeared and is beginning to be taken over by nature. [54]
Just to the East of Wakefield Kirkgate Station were Park Hill Colliery Sidings.
Much the same area in the 21st century. The Midland’s lines South of Goosehill have gone, the footbridge remains but the large area of sidings to the Northeast of the Junction have also gone. [56]Park Hill Colliery Sidings and the River Calder in 1913. [55]The same location in the 21st century. [55]
And beyond those sidings a further crossing of the River Calder.
The three arched stone viaduct across the River Calder. This photograph is taken from Neil Fox Way and looks Southeast towards the bridge. [Google Streetview, June 2024]
Just a short distance further along the line, at Goosehill, the Manchester and Leeds Railway (by 1905, The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway) joined the North Midland Railway (by 1905, The Midland Railway)
Goosehill Bridge and Junction witht he Midland Railway entering from the bottom of the extract and the Manchester 7 Leeds entering from the bottom-left. [56]Immediately to the Northeast of the last extract from the 1905 25″ Ordnance Survey, the Midland’s lines can be seen heading Northeast with branches off to the North and West. The branch heading away to the West is the St. John’s Colliery line running to wharves at Stanley Ferry. That to the North runs through the screens and serves St. John’s Colliery itself. [57]The same area in the 21st century. The roadway crossing the railway and heading off the satellite image to the West runs to a large opencast site. [57]Looking Southwest from the bridge carrying the access road to the opencast site. [Google Streetview, May 2023]Looking Northeast from the bridge carrying the access road to the opencast site. [Google Streetview, May 2023]Looking Southwest from the Newlands Lane Bridge. [Google Streetview, May 2023]Looking Northeast from Newlands Lane Bridge. [Google Streetview, May 2023]
From this point on the traffic from the Manchester and Leeds Railway ran on North Midland (later Midland) Railway metals, via Normanton Railway Station and then passing Silkstone and West Riding Collieries, and on towards Leeds, approaching Leeds from the Southeast. Normanton Station appears on the map extract below.
An smaller scale extract from the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1905 which shows Normanton and its railway station. St. John’s Colliery and Gooshill Junction are just of the extract on the bottom left. [58]Looking Southwest from Altofts Road Bridge through the site of Normanton Railway Station. [Google Streetview, April 2023]
Rake’s last words on a journey along the railway are these: “Just previous to reaching Wakefield, the railway is carried over a viaduct of 16 arches, and, quitting that station it enters a deep cutting, and crosses the Vale of Calder for the last time, a little to the east of Kirkthorpe. Here was the most important diversion of the Calder, by which the cost of building two bridges was saved. … The line terminated by a junction with the North Midland Railway, a mile to the north of which point was situated the Normanton Station, where the York and North Midland, and by its means, the Leeds and Selby and Hull and Selby Railways united with the former lines. The remainder of the journey to Leeds, 9 miles, was traversed on the North Midland Railway.” [1: p472]
Rake goes on to talk about the gradients of the railway which “were considered somewhat severe. Starting from Manchester, the line ascends to Rochdale, 10 miles, over a series of inclinations averaging about 1 in 155; from Rochdale to the summit level, 6½ miles, the ascent is 1 in 300; the total rise from Manchester being 351 ft. From the summit level plane, which extends for 1 mile 55 chains, to Wakefield, a distance of 30 miles, the line descends for the first six miles on a gradient of 1 in 182, after which it is continued by easy grades of an average inclination of 1 in 350. Below Wakefield a comparatively level course is maintained to the junction with the North Midland Railway, the total fall from the summit being 440 ft. The curves were laid out so as not to be of a less radius than 60 chains. The gauge adopted on the Manchester and Leeds Railway was 4 ft. 9 in., to allow a in. play on each side for the wheels. … The rails were of the single parallel form, in 15 ft. lengths, with 3 ft. bearings, and were set in chairs, to which they were secured by a ball and key, as on the North Midland Railway. The balls, (3/4 in. diameter), were of cast iron, and fitted into a socket formed in one side of the stem of the rail; the key, which was of wrought iron, was 8 in. long (and 5/8 in. wide at one end, from which it tapered to 3/8 in. at the other end). … Stone blocks were used where they could be obtained from the cuttings, and were placed diagonally, but sleepers of kyanised larch were used on the embankments, the ballasting being of burnt and broken stone.” [1: p472-473]
It is interesting to note that the tramway/tramroad practice of using stone blocks as sleepers was in use when this railway was first built!
Rake continues: “The Manchester terminal station was located between Lees Street and St. George’s Road, and was entirely elevated on arches. The passenger shed was covered with a wooden roof, in two spans, and the whole length of the station was 528 ft. The passenger platform was approached by a flight of 45 steps from the booking-office on the ground floor. [1: p473]
Early signals on the Manchester and Leeds.Railway which became part of the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway network. [64]
“The signals were of the horizontal double disc or spectacle form which, when revolved to the extent of a half circle, caused both discs to be invisible to the driver and indicated all right, the lamp above showing, when illuminated, green; the colour shown by the lamp when both discs were crosswise to the line being red.” [1: p473]
Rolling Stock
“The carriages consisted of three classes, The first class, in three compartments, upholstered, and fitted with sash windows painted blue; second-class, in three compartments, but open at the sides and furnished with wooden sliding shutters painted yellow; and carriages termed ‘mixed’, in which the middle compartment was for first-class, and each of the ends was for second-class passengers. There was also a carriage of novel construction, built according to the plan of the chairman of the company and used at the opening of the line. The under-framing was of the usual construction, but the body was unique. The floor was considerably wider than ordinary, and the sides curved outwards until they joined a semicircular roof, the greater part of which was fitted with wire gauze to give air, but capable of being instantaneously covered with waterproof material, by the action of an inside handle, so that sun and rain could be shaded out at pleasure. The sides were fitted throughout with plate glass, and ranges of seats occupied the floor, having passages on either side. Tents were also contrived in the sides which closed at will by spring action. The effect of the interior was said to resemble the interior of a conservatory! These carriages were in each case mounted on four wheels, with a perforated footboard of iron running the whole length of the body, in substitution for the lower tier of steps in use on other railways at the time.” [1: p473-474]
I have produced Rake’s description of this ‘unusual carriage’ as I have found it impossible to imagine what it looked like from Rake’s word-picture.
At the end of 1840, “an improved form of third-class carriage was constructed, in which each wheel was braked; the brake levers were attached to the axle-boxes and, consequently, when applied by the guard. who sat on the roof, did not bring the body of the carriage down on to the springs, The buffing springs were placed in front of the headstocks, and a flat iron bar attached to the buffer worked in brackets on the sole bar. The doors were fitted with latches on the outside, which were fastened by the guard when the passengers were inside.” [1: p474]
An improved third class carriage. Looking back from a 21st century perspective, these carriages seem to be not much better than the wagons used to carry livestock. This is borne out by Rake’s notes below. It was, however, a significant improvement on the open wagons, having a roof, glass windows and brakes. Contrary to what Rake appears to say below, Wells suggests that these covered third class wagons did have seating. [1: p474][75: p85]
“The windows and the doors being fixed, no passenger could open the door until the guard had released the catch. Roof lamps were not provided in these coaches, which were painted green. … The third-class carriages. or rather, wagons, were provided with four entrances, to correspond with the “pens” into which they were sub-divided by means of a wooden bar down the centre, crossed by another bar intersecting the former at right angles in the middle of its length. There were no seats, and the number of passengers for which standing room could be found was limited solely to the to the bulk Stanhope or ‘Stan’ups’, as they were derisively termed. The contrivance of pens was said to be due to a determination to prevent respectably dressed individuals from availing themselves of the cheaper mode of conveyance, in which there was little to distinguish them, it was complained, ‘from the arrangements for the conveyance of brute beasts which perish’. The company’s servants were strictly enjoined “not to porter for wagon passengers‘!” [1: p474]
Rake’s illustration of an early Manchester and Leeds Railway first class coach. [1: p474]
Further details of Rolling Stock on the Railway can be found in Jeffrey Wells book about the line. [75: p81-85]
Locomotives
Rake tells us that the locomotives were all mounted on 6 wheels and purchased from Sharp, Roberts & Co., Robert Stephenson & Co., and Taylor & Co. They all had 14 in. diameter, 18 in. stroke cylinders and 5 ft. 6 in. diameter driving wheels. Jeffrey Wells provides a more comprehensive, tabulated, list of those early locomotives. [75: p79-80]
A typical 0-4-2 Locomotive of 1839/1840. [76]An early (1834) R. Stephenson & Co. 0-4-2 locomotive of very similar design to those supplied to the Manchester and Leeds Railway 9c0 Public Domain. [77]
The first three 0-4-2s were made by Robert Stephenson & Co., and that company supplied plans and specifications for its locomotives which meant that The Manchester and Leeds Railway could have the same design manufactured by other firms of the Company’s choice. The first 12 locomotives built for the Manchester and Leeds in 1839 were all to Stephenson’s 0-4-2 design. Wells tells us that of these locomotives, the first three (Nos. 1 -3) were called Stanley, Kenyon and Stephenson and were built by R. Stephenson & Co. They were supplied to the Railway in April and May 1839. [75: p79]
The next three locomotives (Nos. 4-6) were supplied by Sharp Bros., Manchester. Lancashire and Junction were supplied in May 1839 and York in July 1839. Nos. 7, 9 and 10, named respectively, Rochdale (16th July), Bradford (6th September) and Hull (7th September)came from Naysmith & Co., Patricroft. Nos. 8, 11, 12 (Leeds, Scarborough and Harrogate) were supplied by Shepherd & Todd by September 1839. [75: p79]
Wells comments that No. 1, ‘Stanley’ “was named after Lord Stanley, Chairman of the House of Commons Committee who supported the Manchester and Leeds Railway Bill in 1836. … Other Stephenson designs followed: 19 engines, numbered 15 to 40, of the 2-2-2 wheel arrangement were delivered between October 1840 and April 1842. These were recommended by Stephenson to work the eastern section of the line, between Sowerby Bridge and Wakefield, thus gradually removing the [Manchester and Leeds Railway’s] reliance on North Midland Railway motive power which had at first prevailed from late in 1840.” [75: p80]
R. Stephenson patented 2-2-2 locomotive No. 123 ‘Harvey Combe’ built 1835, from Simm’s ‘Public Works of Great Britain’, 1838. This locomotive is of a very similar design to those supplied by various manufacturers to the Manchester and Leeds Railway in 1840-1842. These were given the Nos. 15-40 and were supplied by Charles Tayleur & Co., Rothwell & Co., Laird Kitson & Co., Sharp Bros., Naysmith & Co., and W. Fairburn & Co., (c) C. F. Cheffins, Public Domain. [78]
He continues: “Once again several manufacturers were involved in the supply of these locomotives. Goods engines were represented by a further batch of 0-4-2s; 13 were delivered (Nos 33 to 46) between April 1841 and June 1843, the three manufacturers involved being R. Stephenson & Co., Haigh Foundry, Wigan, and William Fairbairn & Co. of Manchester. … Three standard Bury-type 0-4-0s were the last engines to be delivered (Nos 47 to 49) the first two bearing the names West Riding Union and Cleckheaton respectively. All three were completed between November 1845 and January 1846 by the firm of Edward Bury of Liverpool.”
And finally. …
Rake concludes his article, the first to two about the line in The Railway Magazine (I currently only have access to this first article) with two short paragraphs. The first reflects on policing: “There were no police on the railway, the whole of the platelayers being constituted as constables on the completion of the first section of the line; and, we are afterwards told, that ‘the vigilance resulting from the pride these men take, in being thus placed in authority, had been found to supersede the necessity of any more expensive system of surveillance.'” [1: p474]
The second notes that: “The directors [were] very anxious to complete the railway as far as Rochdale, at the earliest possible time, and on the 4th July, 1839, it was opened through that town to Littleborough, a distance of about 14 miles, the event ‘exciting a most extraordinary degree of local interest and wonder’ we are told.” [1: p474]
References
Herbert Rake; The Manchester and Leeds Railway: The Origin of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway; in The Railway Magazine, London, December 1905, p468-474
Jeffrey Wells; The Eleven Towns Railway: The Story of the Manchester and Leeds Main Line; Railway & Canal Historical Society, Keighley, West Yorkshire, 2000.
An article in the Railway Magazine in December 1905 prompted a look at the Manchester and Leeds Railway. For a number of years my parents lived in sheltered housing in Mirfield which is on the line. Looking at the line as it appeared in 1905 and again in the 21st century seemed a worthwhile exercise! Part 1 of this short series provides a short history of the line and takes us from Manchester to Sowerby Bridge.
The featured image at the head of this article shows the Manchester & Leeds Railway locomotive ‘Victoria’, in about 1878-80. This locomotive was designed by Edward Bury and built at his works in Liverpool. It was one of a batch of 0-4-0 engines ordered in 1845, and later converted to an 0-4-2 wheel arrangement (c) Public Domain. [65]
In his first article in 1905, about the Manchester and Leeds Railway which was accompanied by a series of engravings included here, Herbert Rake wrote that on 11th September 1830 a committee tasked with improving communications between Leeds and Manchester, emboldened by the success of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, decided to hold a meeting to form a new railway company.
On 18th October 1930, the decision was taken. A board of directors was appointed, a survey was authorised and work was undertaken to prepare for an application to Parliament. It was based on a junction with the Liverpool and Manchester Railway at Oldfield Lane, Salford and at St. George’s Road, Manchester.
The route from Manchester to Sowerby Bridge was easily agreed, that from Sowerby Bridge to Leeds was more difficult to agree. The Bill prepared for Parliament focused on the Manchester to Sowerby Bridge length of the planned line and was presented on 10th March 1831. Opposition from the Rochdale Canal Company and others and then the dissolution of Parliament halted the progress of the Bill.
Resubmission was agreed on 8th June 1830 but once again failed in its progress through Parliament. In the end, the project was revised, the company was reorganised, and the capital fixed at £800,000 in £100 shares in a meeting in October 1935.
Rake tells us that this “new project abandoned the Salford junction line, but embraced a deviated extension beyond Sowerby Bridge, along the lower portion of the Vale of Calder, past Dewsbury and Wakefield, to Normanton, thence to Leeds, in conjunction with the North Midland Railway. … [The line was] intended to form a central portion of a great main line running east and west between Liverpool and Hull.” [1: p469-470]
The prospectus noted a few important facts, particularly:
The population density with three miles either side of the proposed line was 1,847 persons per square mile. The average for England was 260 persons per square mile.
Within 10 miles of the line there were 29 market towns, twelve with a population greater than 20,000.
Within 20 miles of the line there were 48 market towns with more than 10,000 inhabitants.
Rake tells us that “The Act of Incorporation received the Royal Assent on the 4th July 1836, and authorised a joint stock capital to be raised of £1,000,000, with an additional amount by loan of £433,000.” [1: p470]
Construction commenced on 18th August 1837. On 14th February 1838 it was decided to apply to Parliament for an Act authorising branch lines to Oldham and Halifax.
Late in 1838, “a modification of the original plan for effecting a junction of the Manchester and Leeds Railway with the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was proposed, by an extension of both to a joint terminus within 500 yards of the Manchester Exchange. … The Act of Parliament for this and other purposes received the Royal Assent on the 31st July 1839, authorising the sum of £866,000 to be raised for the purpose of constructing the Oldham and Halifax branches, for making a diversion in the railway at Kirkthorpe, for enlarging the station in Lees Street, and for constructing the line to join the Liverpool and Manchester extension.” [1: p470]
Rake explains that the railway ran through Miles Platting where the Ashton and Stalybridge branch diverges. At Middleton the Oldham branch connected to the main line. Mill Hills embankment (maximum height 75 feet) carries the line towards Blue Pits Station where the Heywood line joins the main line. The line runs on through Rochdale, Littleborough and Todmorden Vale before running in cutting (maximum depth 100 feet) to Summit Tunnel.
During construction, “Six contracts were awarded between the Manchester terminus and the Summit Tunnel and were progressing satisfactorily by August 1838.” [6]
The West Portal of Summit Tunnel is approached from Manchester through a deep cutting. [1: p469]The same portal of Summit Tunnel in 20th century steam days. [3]
When built, Summit Tunnel was the longest in the world. It opened on 1st March 1841 by Sir John F. Sigismund-Smith.
“The tunnel is just over 1.6 miles (2.6 km) long and carries two standard-gauge tracks in a single horseshoe-shaped tube, approximately 24 feet (7.2 m) wide and 22 feet (6.6 m) high. Summit Tunnel was designed by Thomas Longridge Gooch, assisted by Barnard Dickinson. Progress on its construction was slower than anticipated, largely because excavation was more difficult than anticipated. … It … cost £251,000 and 41 workers had died.” [4]
Rake noted that the tunnel is “14 shafts were necessary, and the strata of rock shale and clay was of so treacherous a character that the brick lining of the roof, which is semi circular, consists in places of no less than 10 concentric rings.” [1: p471] He also comments that: the tunnel entrance is if an imposing Moorish design; 1,000 men were employed with work continuing day and night.
Beyond the tunnel, the railway “entered a cutting in silt, which required piling to secure a foundation. Continuing onwards, we pass through the Winterbut Lee Tunnel, 420 yds. in length, and across a viaduct of 18 arches, one of which is of 60 ft. span we then proceed over the Rochdale Canal, on a cast iron skew bridge 102 ft. in span, at a height of 40 ft. above the surface of the water.” [1: p471]
“Tenders for work on the eastern section were advertised in 1838. … Contractors then worked fastidiously under the threat of heavy penalties should they over-run the set time limits. They were also forbidden to work on Sundays.” [6]
At Todmorden, “the railway is carried over almost the entire breadth of the valley by a noble viaduct of nine arches, seven of which are each of 60 ft. span, and two of 30 ft., at a height of 54 ft. above the level of the turnpike road.” [1: p471]
Quitting Todmorden, where the Burnley branch diverges, the line enters Yorkshire, passes through Millwood Tunnel (225 yards), Castle Hill Tunnel (193 yards), and Horsefall Tunnel (424 yards) and then arrives at Eastwood Station. Some distance further on is Charlestown. Afterwards the railway “crosses river, road, and canal, by a skew bridge of three arches, the canal being separately spanned by an iron bridge.” [1: p471]
Looking back West from Cross Stone Road across the western portal of Millwood Tunnel. [Google Streetview, April 2023]Looking East from the corner of Phoenix Street and Broadstone Street, above the eastern portal of Millwood Tunnel. [Google Streetview, April 2023]
These next few images give a flavour of the line as it travels towards Hebden Bridge.
Lobb Mill Viaduct sits alongside the A646, Halifax Road between Castle Hill Tunnel and Horsefall Tunnel. [Google Streetview, June 2023]Looking Southwest along the line towards Todmorden from E. Lee Lane. [Google Streetview, April 2023]A little to the Northeast, Duke Street passes under the railway. This view looks West from Halifax Road [Google Streetview, June 2023]Eastwood Railway Station as it appears on the 1905 25″ Ordnance Survey. [63]Thye approximate location of Eastwood Station as it appears on Google Maps satellite imagery in 2024. [Google Maps, October 2024]A little further Northeast, this is the view Northwest along Jumble Hole Road under the railway. [Google Streetview, June 2011]The view Northwest from he A646, Halifax Road along the Pennine Way Footpath which passes under the railway at this location. [Google Streetview, June 2023]Again, looking Northwest from Halifax Road along Stony Lane which runs under the railway. [Google Streetview, June 2023]The view Southwest along Oakville Road which runs next to the railway. [Google Streetview, April 2023]The view Northeast from the same location on Oakville Road. [Google Streetview, April 2023]
A short distance Northeast, the railway “crosses river, road, and canal, by a skew bridge of three arches, the canal being separately spanned by an iron bridge.” [1: p471] The location is shown on the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1905 below.
The bridge mentioned above, as it appears on the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1905. [11]The same location shown on Google Maps satellite imagery in 2024. [Google Maps, October 2024]Looking Northeast along Halifax Road, the three arches of the viaduct are easily visible. Beyond it there is a girder bridge which Rake does not mention. [Google Streetview, June 2023]
A little further East Stubbing Brink crosses the railway.
Looking West along the railway from Stubbing Brink Bridge. [Google Streetview, April 2023]The view East along the line from Stubbing Brink. [Google Streetview, April 2023]
The line next passes through a short short tunnel (Weasel Hall Tunnel (124 yards)) and arrives at Hebden Bridge Station.
After Hebden Bridge Station, the line proceeds along the South bank of the River Calder, through two small stations (Mytholmroyd and Luddenden Foot) and by a number of riverside mills.
East along the line towards Luddendenfoot, Brearley Lane bridges the line.
Looking West from Brearley Lane Bridge towards Mytholmroyd Station. [Google Streetview, July 2009]Ahead to the East, the line curves round towards the location of Luddendenfoot Railway Station. [Google Streetview, July 2009]Luddenden Foot Railway Station. The station closed on 10th September 1962. The site has been developed since 2007 and the northern half is now occupied by the Station Industrial Park, which is accessible via Old Station Road. Two gate pillars from the original station flank the entrance to the road. [14][17]The location of the erstwhile Luddendenfoot Railway Station as seen from Willow Bank, (c) Matt Thornton. [Google Streetview, February 2021]Looking Southeast from Willow Bank. The arch bridge visible ahead carries Jerry Fields Road over the line, (c) Matt Thornton. [Google Streetview, February 2021]
To the Southeast, Ellen Holme Road passes under the line.
Ellen Holme Road passess under the railway to the Southeast of the old Luddendenfoot Railway Station. [Google Streetview, June 2023]
Passing other mills and traversing a deep cutting the line enters Sowerby Tunnel, (645 yards) and reaches Sowerby Bridge Station.
We complete this first part of the journey along the Manchester and Leeds Railway here at Sowerby Bridge Railway Station.
References
NB: These references relate to all the articles about the Manchester and Leeds Railway.
Herbert Rake; The Manchester and Leeds Railway: The Origin of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway; in The Railway Magazine, London, December 1905, p468-474
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:
Roger Farnworth 
_1906.jpg){kind=link}
