Following on from an article written in May 2023, after a visit to Howth, which can be read here, [1] I found an article about the Tramway by C. L. Fry in the March 1951 issue of The Modern Tramway. [2]
The May 2023 article covers the route of the line in some detail.
“A very delightful summer outing can be had by availing oneself of the excellent service operated by the Great Northern Railway (Ireland) on its Dublin local line from Amiens Street Station to Howth. Perhaps the best way would be to leave the train at Sutton Station and there board a G.N.R. Hill of Howth tram which leaves Sutton Station, and winds its way round and over the Hill. The tramway at its summit reaches a height of 350 feet above sea level. From the top of the Hill, and the tramway goes almost to the top (560 ft.) it is possible to see the Mountains of Mourne on the north side, the Wicklow Hills on the south side, and the wonderful view of Dublin Bay and Bray Head. The view at night time, with the reflection of millions of lights glittering in the sea across the bay is equally marvellous. For 1s. 6d., a ticket may be purchased to include a trip by railcar to the tramway terminus and then by the tramway round and over the Head, and back to Dublin by diesel railcar.” [2: p50]
“The tramway, which is single line throughout, runs mainly in a reserved right-of-way, about one-third of this being on the side of the road. The track is laid with standard type bull head rails, with the wooden keys on the inside so that it is only necessary for the milesman to walk the line once to see if all the keys are tight. There is, however, about a half-mile of standard tramway grooved rail from Sutton Cross to the foreshore near St. Finton’s – one of the first calling places after Sutton Cross. This track, of course, is sunk in the carriageway. There are many passing-places on the line, and each one of these is signalled to the next passing-place by the driver, thereby preventing a car from the opposite direction entering the single line section, though cars may follow in the same section. The line is 5.25 miles long and starts from the railway station at Sutton and ends at Howth railway station.
“It is at Sutton that the car sheds, fitting shop, and former power station are situated (power is now taken from the Electricity Supply Board); the voltage is 550 d.c. The car shed has three lines side by side and a point of interest is the fact that there is a 3-way overhead frog with a moveable tongue, which is hand-operated from the base of the post, so that the trolley will take the correct wire to go into the sheds.
“This tramway was opened on 7th June 1901, and is now the only electric tramway in the Irish Republic. Within a couple of years of the opening day, the Company had eleven bogie tramcars, all of which are still working more or less in the same condition as when first built. Nos. 1-8 were built by the Brush Engineering Co., are mounted on Brill maximum-traction trucks, and have vestibuled platforms. They are 31ft. 4in. long by 7ft. 6in. wide, and carry 30 passengers in the saloon, and 37 on the upper deck. They are painted blue and cream. Nos. 9 and 10 were built by Milnes, are rather larger, and are mounted on Peckham maximum-traction trucks. They are painted in the standard mahogany colours of the G.N.R.(I) carriages. These cars are unusual, insofar as they have a combination of ‘knife-board’ and transverse seats downstairs, to enable people to admire the beautiful scenery to be seen on this journey. Seating capacity is 33 in the saloon, and 40 on the upper deck: the cars have vestibule ends, and are 33ft. long and 7ft. 6in. wide. All ten cars on this tramway have open tops. The trolley poles are mounted on the extreme side (the sea-side) of the tramcar. Car No. 11 is a works vehicle; it is really a wagon with a tower at one end used for repairing the overhead. The trolley in this case is mounted on the centre line of the roof at the opposite end from the tower. This car is mounted on Brill maximum traction trucks, and is 24ft. 3in. long and 7ft. 3in. wide.” [2: p50-51]
“All the passenger trams are fitted with air brakes, which are charged with compressed air to 75lb. per square inch at the car sheds every morning. They also have regenerative and hand brakes for control on the very steep hills on which they operate, the gradings being as steep as 1 in 16.25. Nos. 1-8 are fitted with electric heaters downstairs.
“While the Dublin United Tramway [D. U. T.] Company’s line was operating to Howth, there were two extremely unusual features:
“(1) Although both tramways were built to the standard Irish railway gauge of 5ft. 3in. and at Sutton Cross cars of the G.N.R. tramways crossed the D.U.T. on the same level, there was no point or other physical connection to enable cars of the two Companies to interchange. The G.N.R. single overhead wire was fitted with insulators on both sides of the two D.U.T. overhead wires at this crossing, the actual length of G.N.R.(I) wire taking D.U.T. current being about 6ft.
“(2) At Howth the G.N.R. Tramway again crossed the D.U.T., but this time on an over bridge, the G.N.R.(I) descending to the level of the D.U.T. Again there was no physical connection.
“Incidentally, of course, this is the level of the railway station at Howth. The tramway is on one side of the railway platform. The railway journey from Sutton is but 2 miles” [2: p51-52]
“Another item of interest in the fact that the overhead consists of a single wire from the Summit to Howth while it is double all the way (with the exception of the old D.U.T. crossing already referred to) in the other direction to Sutton.
“The tramway has, on the whole, been very well maintained by the G.N.R. Extensive renewals of track have taken place quite recently and overhead posts which have corroded owing to the action of sea air have had steel bars inserted and have been filled with concrete.
Some ten years or so ago buses were operated for a short time but were withdrawn as the tramway service was more suitable owing to the hilly nature of the line. Today, the position unfortunately is rather uncertain, and while a splendid service is operated in the summer, the number of passengers using the service in the winter enables only a skeleton service to be operated.
“Regarding the future of this delightful tramway, one thing is certain, that Mr. G. B. Howden, General Manager, G.N.R.(I) and also General Manager of Coras Iompair Eireann, who has done his best to maintain every branch line, will, I have no doubt, do all in his power to keep this line open as long as traffic warrants it.” [2: p52]
The featured image for this article is a line drawing of a drive system from a Hamburg Metro Car, an SKF DT4. [5] … AC traction motors (commonly induction motors) are the standard for modern trams, replacing older DC motors to provide higher efficiency, better reliability, and reduced maintenance. These motors, often running at 60–200 kW, power the bogies and enable regenerative braking to feed energy back into the overhead line. They are controlled by variable-frequency inverters for smooth acceleration.
The Modern Tramway of February 1951 carried an article by ‘Eltee’ entitled ‘Traction Motor Trends’ about the recent changes in electric motors in trams. [1: p33-34]
“The present trend towards the use of lightweight high-speed electric motors for traction purposes, a trend exemplified at its best by the motors used in in the P.C.C. cars in America, and those of similar design now being introduced at Blackpool and and Glasgow and on the Continent, justifiably prompts the query as to why motors were not, in the past, built as they are today. There are actually several reasons for this, some highly technical, but one of the more important is that the need for efficient ventilation of motors was not sufficiently appreciated in the early days.
“When a motor is running and current is passing through its conductors these conductors are heated by the passage of current, just as are the conductors of an electric stove though much less so. The power represented by this heat is lost to the motor, and called the ‘copper loss’. Another source of loss is the rotation of the armature in the motor magnetic field; the alternating magnetism through the armature caused by its rotation brings about power losses in armature iron, which also appear as heat. In running, then, the motor gets heated, and if there were no means of dissipating this heat the motor would get hotter and hotter until something melted.
“In practice this does not happen, as the motor casing is in contact with the air around it, and when the casing is hot it loses heat to this air, doing so all the more readily when the car it is driving is moving and there is a certain amount of draught. Many years ago this was the only way of cooling the tramway motor, hence a large motor had to be used simply to ensure that there was enough casing area to dissipate the heat generated. Some additional armature cooling was given by the provision of axial ducts in the armature, aided by a few radial ducts. In this way some slight fanning action was given by the moving armature, swirling the air in the motor casing and conveying the heat from the armature more readily to the outside casing for dissipation into the atmosphere.
“A later development introduced what is now known as ‘series ventilation’, the self-ventilated motor being introduced about 1910. In such a motor a fan is mounted on the non-commutator end of the armature, and two sets of openings are made in the same end of the motor casing. The fan draws air through the armature axial ducts when the motor is running and expels it through one of the casing openings; this assists to keep the armature cool. This air, in the first place, is drawn in through the other set of openings and over the field coils before turning round and entering the armature ducts; in this way the field also is kept cool, but the ventilation of the armature suffers because the air is already somewhat warmed by its passage over the field coils.
“A further development, common from about 1920 onwards, is known as ‘parallel ventilation’, in which there are two parallel air streams through the motor. A twin fan is fitted to the non-commutator end of the armature, and openings made in both ends of the motor casing. The fan draws a stream of cool air over the commutator, round the armature surface and over the field coils before expelling it. The other half of the fan draws an air stream under the commutator and through the armature axial ducts, thus keeping the interior of the armature cool and dissipating most of the iron losses effectively.
“With a motor as efficiently ventilated as this it is possible to ‘force’ the motor more without its getting too hot; that is, in more technical language, a motor can have a higher rated power. Consideration of the above method of ventilation readily shows that if the motor armature rotates more quickly the attached fan will draw more air through it, ventilate it even more thoroughly, and permit even more ‘forcing’ by the passage of greater currents. This, in essence, explains the present trend towards motors of high rotational speed; the efficient ventilation possible on such motors permits more power to be passed through them than through motors of similar size with less effective ventilation.
“The above being understood, two further points are worthy of emphasis. One is that the greatest losses occur in a motor when it is starting and running slowly; the best ventilation occurs when it is running quickly. Cars on a town route will thus need bigger motors than similar cars on an interurban route on which there is a lot of free running, providing their maximum speeds are equal. The second point is that, if motors have been used on a service on which their capabilities are being fully employed the gear ratio must not be altered, because, although the speed of the cars can thereby be improved, such a measure will not only increase the currents passed through the motor (for more power will be required from the motor) but will also decrease the average speed of rotation of the motor. resulting increased “losses” and impaired ventilation will both tend to raise the operating temperature of the motor. and so reduce its life, unless it was known that hitherto it had been used well below its capacity and was operating at relatively low temperatures.” [1: p33-34]
Since ‘Eltee’ was writing at the beginning of the 1950s, much has changed!
Improvements in the ventilation of tramcar electric motors since 1950 have centred on a move away from traditional forced-air cooling in direct current (DC) motors to advanced, sealed, and integrated systems used with modern AC traction, enhancing reliability and reducing maintenance. [2][3]
Modern three-phase AC motors allow for lighter, more compact, and more powerful motors. These motors are often less sensitive to heat and easier to cool than older designs. [2][3]
Modern tram design integrates motors directly into the bogies, with ventilation systems designed as part of the overall low-floor, compact carriage architecture, ensuring better cooling airflow in restricted spaces. [3]
Many modern motors are now completely enclosed, utilizing improved heat sinking and specialized cooling fan designs rather than drawing in outside air, reducing the impact of dust and water on electrical components. [2][3]
The use of GTO-inverters and modern power electronics reduces motor heat generation compared to older resistor-controlled DC motors, reducing the load on ventilation systems. [2][3]
Improved insulation materials allow motors to operate safely at higher temperatures, reducing the strain on the cooling systems and improving longevity. [2][3]
Modern electric trams utilize motors to generate electricity during braking, returning power to the grid or charging on-board batteries/supercapacitors. The use of battery-power and on-board storage can allow trams to pass through city centres or other sensitive areas without overhead wires. [3][4]
Electric motors are ideal for rapid urban transport because their higher torque at low speeds allows speedy departures from stops on a network. It also allows tramcars to handle hilly terrain better than internal combustion engines.
Electric motors are roughly 90% efficient at converting energy into motion. In contrast, diesel engines lose about 60-70% of fuel energy as heat. [4]
Additionally, unlike internal combustion engined vehicles that consume fuel while stopped, electric trams use virtually no power when stationary. [4]
AC motors have been shown to improve reliability and decrease downtime compared to traditional DC motors. But they have significantly lower maintenance needs than internal combustion engines, having far fewer moving parts and not needing oil changes, spark plugs, filters, and complex exhaust systems. The high torque of electric motors at low speeds eliminates the need for heavy, expensive multi-stage gearboxes common in internal combustion engined vehicles. [4]
Trams typically have a service life of about 30 years, roughly double that of diesel-powered buses. They typically produce no local pollutants like nitrogen oxides or particulates, which is critical for city air quality and meeting climate targets. Electric propulsion is significantly quieter than internal combustion engines, reducing noise pollution in densely populated areas. In addition, electricity can be generated from various sources, including renewable energy (wind, solar, hydro), making the system future-proof as the power grid decarbonizes. [4]
Increasingly in an urban environment public transport is heading underground. Because they emit no exhaust fumes, electric trams can safely operate in tunnels and underground stations where diesel engines cannot.
Internal flexibility is increased as the need for bulky and heavy engines and fuel tanks is eliminated. The net gain is a more friendly user experience, faster loading and unloading at stops and increased passenger capacity. [4]
It is not surprising that many cities around the UK, and across the world, are seeking to reintroduce trams and to increase the size of their networks.
References
‘Eltee’; Traction Motor Trends; in The Modern Tramway Volume 14 No. 158; The Tramway and Light Railway League, February 1951, p33-34.
The featured image for this article is Brno Tramways No. 131 with Trailer No. 310, which early in 1951 was newly delivered to Brno. [1: p21]
Gerald Deuce reported in February 1951 on a series of new tramcars being delivered to Brno in what is now the Czech Republic. [1: p25-26]
He writes that these tramcars:
“are uni-directional single truck motor-cars with trailers of similar design and are intended for PAYE [Pay As You Enter] operation with the entrance at the rear. All the doors except the leading set of the motor-car, are under the control of the respective conductor.
“The cars are heated by electric radiators fitted under the transverse seats, and lighted by a fluorescent tube strip along the ceiling.
“Brno is the capital of Moravia and has a population of just over 273,000. It is situated about 130 miles south-east of Prague, and is the centre of the Czechoslovak textile industry and an important tourist centre.” [1: p25]
Their ‘vital statistics’ were: ….
In this table, the first column of figures relates to the motorcar the second column of figures relates to the trailer. [1: p25]As far as I can tell the trams introduced in 1950/51 in Brno were KPS Brno 4MT trams and the trailer is a vv4 trailer car. Deuce does not give full details. [1: p25]
In 1950, the Královopolská strojírna plant in Brno manufactured new tram cars, including the KPS Brno 4MT2 motor tram and a vv4 trailer, which served the city. This period focused on modernizing existing infrastructure, with four-axle T-series trams and K-series cars introduced during the 1950s/60s. The KPS Brno 4MT2 tram, manufactured in 1950, was later used in the 1970s by the Technical Museum. [9]
Deuce continues:
“The tramway system is of standard gauge, the lines all rising from the railway station, near the centre of the town, with a total route mileage of about 23. The main depot and workshops are at Pisarky, approached by a long sleeper-track section. This line also serves the exhibition grounds, where there is a special four-track layout. There is an interurban line to Lisen, 5.2 miles long and nearly all on private right-of-way; most of this line is single-track with passing loops, with automatic colour-light signals.
“The higher number indicated against the first three services refers to a short working over the central portion of the route. Services 5 and 9 run together for most of the distance. Frequent services with trailers are operated on all routes. The through trains on the Lisen line usually consist of a motor-car and two trailers, and run at intervals varying between 15 and 40 minutes; there are additional short workings.
“The Brno tramway network (Czech: Tramvajová doprava v Brně, simply Tramvaje v Brně) was the first network of its kind to be put into operation in what is now known as the Czech Republic with its horse tram lines dating back to 1869. [In the 21st century], Brno is the second largest city in the Czech Republic, after Prague, and its tram network is also the second largest in the country.” [5]
At different times, three different modes of propulsion were used on the network: from 1869, horse-power was in use; from 1884, steam-power was in use; and from 1900 electric trams were introduced. [5]
Brno hosts a tram parade in June each year. The three images below come from that parade: ….
These next paragraphs come from a webpage written in 1998/99 by Richard Bilek from the Czech Republic, who died in 2001 (R.I.P.). Translated from Czech, that have in places been paraphrased to read more easily. They are a ‘snapshot’ of the tramway network in Brno in 1998/1999 and a potted history of developments from the 1950s to the late 1990s. [2]
“In 1951, Brno had 62 km of network. In 1948, the last two-axle tramcars from Zbrojovka Zidenice were delivered. In the 50s, the city renewed their tramcars with new progressive tramcars of class T2. 94 tramcars of this type were delivered till 1961. No T1 type tramcars were purchased by the city.
“In 1963 new tramcars of T3 arrived. The city wanted tramcars with bigger capacity. Tatra Works developed articulated tramways of type K2 in the mid of 60s. First prototypes were tested here in 1965, and between 1966 and 1977, the City purchased 132 tramcars of this type, so they operated the largest fleet of K2 tramcars in the Czech Republic. These tramcars were still most typical for Brno at the end of the 20th century.
“All Czech cities except Brno at the end of 60s shortened their network at the end of the 1960s. Brno was the only city with uninterruptable expansion of track after WW2 through until the turn of the 21st century. New housing estates in Brno also were connected with the tramway and later, with trolleybuses. The last major expansion, a new line, was opened in 1989, a further short connection line was opened in 1994. An additional 2.2 km was under construction in 1998/1999. The city purchased new KT8D5 tramcars at the turn of the 21st century, 28 cars entered service. Further renewals were also planned – T6B5 type. and low-floor tramways of RT6N1 type.
“The city was operating the following tramcars just prior to the turn of the 21st century:
1470+1462 Last units of T2 tramcars of T2 type. These two vehicles were due to be scrapped in 1998. 1495..1668 Tramcars of T3 or T3SUCS. Mostly in service 1001..1132 Articulated tramways of K2. 126 still in service 1701..1728 KT8D5 Tramcars. One withdrawn after an accident 1201..1220 New T6B5 tramcars, delivered 1995 and 1996 1729..1735 KT8 tramcars with low-floor mid section 1801-1804 RT6 low floor tramcars
“The city also sought to renew these old tramcars:
“Tramcar T3 no.1615 was rebuilt in 1993-1994 to new type T3MB with new body, renewed electricity, etc. There was a hope to rebuild approx. 70 tramcars to this state, but only 11 had been renewed by the end of 1997.
“Also, K2 tramcars were intended for renewal in this way. First prototype was rebuilt in Pars DMN Sumperk works (small city approx. 120 km norhtern from Brno) and was placed in service in Brno. An additional batch of 6 similar tramcars was renewed later.
“There were plans to order new KT8 tramcars (for a new line to Lisen). They were due to be delivered with a low-floor middle section in 1998/1999.” [2]
The Modern Tram Network
As we have already noted, Brno is the second largest city in the Czech Republic, after Prague, and its tram network is also the second largest in the country.
Scribble Map of Brno’s 21st century tram network on OpenStreetMap.com base map. Follow this link to the interactive map. [3]
The urbanrail.net webpage has a more detailed map and plenty of images of trams in service on the network. [4]
The Brno tram system comprises 12 lines, with a total operational track length of 139 kilometres (86 miles) and a total route length of 70.4 kilometres (43.7 miles). The lines not only serve the urban area, but also lead to the neighboring town of Modřice located south of Brno. Before construction began on the final leg of the extension in 2008, the entire network was made up of 69.7 km of track. [5][9]
Further details of the modern network and the trams in service in the mid-21st century can be found here. [5]
References
Gerald Deuce; New Cars for the Brno Tramways; in The Modern Tramway, Volume 14, No. 158; The Light Railway Transport League, February 1951, p25-26.
I have a few older copies of Modern Tramway which I had not yet read. The first of these is the January 1951 issue, this is a third reflection from that copy of the Journal.
The Brisbane City Council Transport Department Tram Network in 1950. [1: p17]
“Brisbane, the capital of Queensland, Australia, was first settled in 1824. From that date it grew steadily, expanding round the broad winding Brisbane river to become the great city and seaport it is today. Horse trams were introduced by the Metropolitan Tramway and Investment Company in August 1885, and these gave way to electric cars in 1897 and 1898. At the same time, the Brisbane Tramway Company was formed to take over operation of the electric lines and this company built many extensions to the system to match the needs of the fast-growing city. In 1923 the tramways passed into the hands of the Brisbane Tramways Trust, a government board representing Brisbane ratepayers; this Trust was only a temporary body, and when the Greater Brisbane City Council was formed in 1925, the tramways and all city transport became the concern of the Brisbane City Council Transport Department.
“When the public authority took over in 1923, the fleet consisted of 195 cars: today [1950] the Department operates 420 tramcars and 154 single-deck diesel buses. The old B.T.C. cars, many of which are still running, are of great variety and include 4-wheel and bogie “toast racks” and 4-wheel and 8-wheel end-loading saloons, known as ‘Dreadnoughts’. These cars appear only during peak hours and they present an odd appearance against the modern streamliners. … The first new tramcar design developed by the B.C.C. was the ‘drop-centre’ type of which 204 were built, numbered from 196 to 399. These cars have a plate frame, reversed maximum-traction trucks, open centre compartment with eight transverse benches and two closed end compartments. They seat 64, have a maximum capacity of 110, and are 45ft. 6in. long.
“In 1938, a second new type was evolved, later to become known as the ‘400’ or ‘Streamliner’ class. Of these cars, 108 have been built to date [1950], the prototype, No. 400, differing slightly in appearance from its successors. These fine cars are 49ft. in length, seat 64 with a total capacity of 110, and are very fast. The post war version, numbered 473-508 is an improved type with sliding doors: 483-508 have Dunlopillo seating and panelled bodywork; 497, 498, 499, 505, 506, 507 and 509 are fitted with resilient wheels and a multi-notch controller. Other noise-reducing features not yet introduced include rubber inserts in the trolley head. A further 50 of the improved “400” class are yet to be built. Other features of these cars are:
– Integral construction, the whole of the frame and panels being of steel with no separate under-frame.
– Interior lined with varnished natural timber, ceiling of white-enamelled masonite.
– Sashless windows operated by Young full-drop window balancers.
– Motorman’s windows of armour-plated glass and fitted with air-operated windscreen wiper.
– Bogie trucks equipped with GE 247A motors of 40 h.p. each and air brakes.
– Double helical driving gears.
– Air compressors and trolley base mounted on special rubber fittings to reduce noise and vibration.
“The B.C.C. livery is silver with blue lettering.
“The general condition of the track is good, all new track being laid in solid concrete to the top of the rails. On straight track 82 lb. railway rail is used without guard rails, the groove being formed in the concrete. Curves are laid with British Standard 6C tramway rail. There are reserved and private-right-of-way sections on the Chermside, Salisbury, Belmont, Rainworth and Ascot routes. The Chermside extension, opened in 1947, is a model layout with rails laid in concrete and flower beds on either side of the tram track separating it from the motor road: the poles supporting the overhead are at the side of the road.
“Since the war ended in 1945, extensions of three lines have been opened: to Belmont (31st July 1948), to Chermside and to Enoggera (13th August 1949). An extension from Holland Park to Mount Gravatt (1 3/4 miles) is at present under construction and two more extensions are provided for during the current financial year. The Holland Park line now under construction is a street line, and will serve a new housing area. The new lines completed since the war, together with the Mount Gravatt extension, total about six route miles. On 30th June 1949, the total route mileage was 65 miles 60 chains (track mileage 119 miles 75 chains). Of particular interest is the new Ann Street diversion. Formerly all routes [that] passed through the city centre (with one exception) converged at an awkward bottleneck in Petrie Bight. As had been long feared, an accident occurred at this point during a Saturday midday peak with resultant dislocation of traffic. To avoid any recurrence, the Tramway Department constructed a line in Ann Street (about 1/8 mile) from Wharf Street to Petrie Bight in 1946. Of single track with double track junctions, the new line, used only for emergencies, is of standard concrete construction with double overhead wire. It is planned to place tram tracks underground at the inter-section of Ann and and Queen Streets as a first move in a more extensive future city centre subway plan to relieve surface traffic and speed up street transport. When this plan takes shape, Brisbane will be the first Australian city to have tramway subways (the Wynward line in Sydney was built by the Railway Department and is only on loan to the tramways until the underground railway proper is constructed).
“On weekdays the fares start at 2d. for one section and an additional penny for each section, but there are zone fares to and from the city at a reduced rate, and on some routes these work out at about a penny a mile. On Saturdays and Sundays after 6.30 p.m. the fares are increased by a penny with the exception of the first section which remains at 2d. From Monday to Friday concession tickets sold in books of eight for a shilling may be used at the rate of one ticket for each section and are much in demand. On Sundays excursion tickets are sold at 1s. 6d. for adults and 3d. for children; they allow the holder to travel anywhere on the system between 8 a.m. and 2 p.m. or between 2 p.m. and 10 p.m.
“The only tramway that has been abandoned in Brisbane is the short length between the Botanical Gardens and Queen Street and from Queen Street to Gregory Terrace, all in the city centre and operated as two short shuttle services until 1948. This route from the the Gardens to Gregory Terrace will form part of Brisbane’s first trolleybus route (the remainder of the route along Coronation Drive to the University at St. Lucia has never been a tram line) and bodies are now being constructed on 30 Sunbeam trolleybus chassis; it is anticipated that these 44-seater all-steel trolleybuses will be in operation before the end of 1950.
– St. Paul’s Terrace – Enoggera. – West End – New Farm Park. – Dutton Park – New Farm Wharf. – Belmont/Cavendish Road/Holland Park – Wharf Street or Valley Junction.
– Valley Junction – South Brisbane Station.
(Special and short workings are not included in the above list.)” [1: p15-16]
In practice, “Brisbane’s historic tramway network operated from 1885 to 1969, serving as a vital transport link before being replaced by buses. Known for its iconic, largely open-design ‘toastrack’ trams, the network reached a peak of 109 km in 1954, connecting suburbs like Paddington, Ascot, and Toowong. The system officially closed on 13th April 1969.” [2] The horse-car era lasted from 1885-1899, the electric-car era from 1899 to 1969.
Trams “ran on standard gauge track. The electric system was originally energised to 500 volts, and subsequently increased to 600 volts. All tramcars built in Brisbane up to 1938 had an open design. This proved so popular, especially on hot summer nights, that the trams were used as fundraisers and often chartered right up until the last service by social groups.” [2]
Brisbane was the last capital city in Australia “to close its tram network. Despite the decision to shut down the network, Brisbane’s trams were held with great affection by locals, and one commentator described their removal [as] ‘one of the most appalling urban planning mistakes in the city’s history’. [3] There have been ongoing proposals since the early 1990s to reinstate a functional tram network.” [2]
In the 21st century, Brisbane has its own ‘Metro’ but it is not a tramway network. “Since the 1990s, busways were considered as one of the options when the Queensland Government developed the 25 year Integrated Regional Transport Plan. It was recommended that a 75 km (47 mi) network of busway corridors to complement the existing Queensland Rail City network,” [4][5] should be built.
The first section of busway, opened in September 2000, with the rest of the South East Busway opening in April 2001 at a final cost of over $600 million. [6] Planning and construction of the Northern and Eastern Busways began soon after the success of the first section, increasing bus commuter statistics. As of 2025, the city had three busways, spanning 29 kilometres, including 28 stations and 20 tunnels. [4][7]
As of 2007, 294 buses per hour (one way) – 1 bus every 12 seconds – passed through the busway network’s busiest point (a section of the South East Busway north of Woolloongabba station). Further, capacity issues occurred at other locations in the city. [4]
“In order to meet the capacity bottlenecks of the busway system, various solutions [were] proposed, including conversion to light rail, the BaT tunnel, a second Victoria Bridge, bus route changes, and later, Brisbane Metro.” [4][8]
The initial proposals for a rubber-tyred metro of 2016 were adapted to meet specific concerns. Bi-articulated buses were chosen. The buses would operate on two routes. The business case released in November 2017 costed the project at AUS$944 million. By April 2018, the federal government had agreed to contribute AUS$300 million.
In November 2019, BCC announced that a consortium of Hess, Volgren and ABB had been awarded a contract for 60 buses. The buses were to be fully electric via overhead wireless charging that will charge at the end of each route for less than six minutes. [4][9]
“A pilot bus was built and tested in Europe in 2021, arriving in Brisbane for testing in early 2022. Following successful testing, an order was placed for the remaining 59, with close to 1000 modifications based of the original pilot vehicle. [10] The 60 vehicles cost AUS$190 million, an increase of $100 million compared to more traditionally powered vehicles, with deliveries beginning in late 2023. As of 2026, the full 60 ordered are still being delivered.” [4][11]
“The system consists of two routes over 21 km (13 mi) of busways. The routes serve Brisbane CBD every five minutes during peak times, extending as far as Eight Mile Plains, the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital and the University of Queensland respectively. Route M2 began service on 28th January 2025. Route M1 began service on 20th June 2025.” [4]
A route map for the Metro can be found here. [12] Route M1 connects with the South East Busway services. Route M2 connects with the Northern Busway services. [12]
I have a few older copies of Modern Tramway which I had not yet read. The first of these is the January 1951 issue, this is a second reflection from that copy of the Journal.
As the London network began to close a significant number of trams were sold. This copy of Modern Tramway notes that the remaining ‘Felthams’ were sold to Leeds City Transport.
By the late 1920s trams operated by both the Metropolitan Electric Tramways and the London United Tramways were increasingly aged. The two operators co-operated in the development of a new tram design – the ‘Feltham’. Conceived following detailed research and the construction of a number of prototype cars, the production ‘Felthams’ all entered service by the early 1930s. However, the LPTB’s plans for converting tram routes to trolleybus operation soon saw these modern cars transferred from north of the River Thames to south of the river. Here the production cars mostly survived until the final conversion programme. This was not the end of the story, however, as the majority were sold for further service to Leeds, where the last survivors were to see the final closure of the West Riding system in November 1959. The book explores the story of the ‘Felthams’ in London, Leeds and Sunderland. [2]
“In 1929 the Metropolitan Electric Tramways (MET) placed into service an experimental tramcar, No. 320, manufactured by the Union Construction Company which was located in Feltham. This tram was of a significantly more advanced design than other experimental cars that the MET had trialled in the previous few years, and was the first of three prototypes that led to the final design of what became known as the “Feltham” trams. Two more experimental tramcars were then constructed: MET No. 330 later the same year, and No. 331 the next. After experience in passenger service was assessed, the best features of each were combined to form the final design.” [3][4]
After service in London until 1949 and into the very early 1950s, 92 of these trams were to be purchased by Leeds City Transport. In January 1951, Modern Tramway reports:
“The purchase of the remaining 92 London ‘Feltham’ type cars by Leeds City Transport at a cost of £500 each is a wonderful bargain for the latter city; a bus with the same expectation of life as one of these still very modern cars would cost about £4,000, and a new bogie tram at least £7,000.
“On arrival at Kirkstall Works the trucks are completely stripped and all worn parts are replaced. The hornways where worn are built up by a welding process. It has been found necessary to replace the rubber blocks used in the driving-wheel hornways in London by the correct springs, and the tyres are turned to the standard Leeds profile.
“It was found that the car bodies were structurally quite sound on arrival from London; all that it has been necessary to do to the exterior has been to replace damaged panels and to remove dents in the dash; internally, all the woodwork has had the old varnish removed and has been repolished with a light oak finish, all interior panels being finished in light brown. The seats are removed from the cars and the upholstery thoroughly cleaned. Any cars that are received with seat coverings in poor condition will be re-upholstered in the standard Leeds red leather. A combined route-number and destination blind has been fitted, the apertures used in London for displaying the service number having been painted out; a lower saloon side indicator-blind is also provided. The front exit has not been restored for passenger operation, the air-operated front door being used solely for perambulators and luggage.
“The cars, which are arriving at the rate of two a week, are being numbered from 501 upwards in the order of arrival from London, up to 515 having been received at the time of writing and up to 504 being in passenger service. Arrangements have been made with London Transport for the ex-Metropolitan cars with B.T.H. equipment to be despatched first, to be followed by the ex-London United cars with G.E.C. equipment. The ex-Metropolitan and ex-London United cars will be classified in Leeds as types UCC/1 and UCC/2 respective’y.
“The livery finally decided upon for these cars is ‘British Electric Traction’ red all over, relieved by a cream band below the upper saloon windows and a cream panel above the lower saloon windows. The cars are lined out in gold and the roof, trucks and lifeguards are painted Brunswick black. Car No. 503 lacks the cream bands, whilst car No. 501 is still in London Transport livery.
“The cars have proved very satisfactory in service and are popular with the passengers. Those at present in service operate from Torre Road Depot which will eventually operate ‘Felthams’ exclusively. The riding qualities of these cars on the long reserved-track routes to Crossgates and Templenewsam are good. The Leeds undertaking is to be congratulated on obtaining and reconditioning these fine cars.” [1: p6]
The ‘Felthams’ served in Leeds until the closure of that city’s network in 1959. Wikipedia talks of 90 rather than 92 of these trams operating in Leeds. [3] The Seashore Trolley Museum in Maine, USA agrees with this assessment. [5]
The Seashore Trolley Museum reports:
“Car No. 341 was one of this class known as the ‘Felthams’ (after their place of construction). The ‘Feltham’ cars were the result of a complete vehicle redesign similar to the development of the PCC car in the USA at about the same time. No. 341 was one of 54 cars built for the MET which served London’s northern suburbs. At over 40 feet long, the ‘Felthams’ were relatively long and had a tapering body, large entrance/exit vestibules and a low floor height. A distinctive feature was the higher floor for the operator’s cab. Rather than using overhead wires, London trams (including the MET trams) drew power from an underground conduit, similar to systems in Washington, DC and New York City. When the London Passenger Transport Board acquired the Metropolitan Electric in 1933, No. 341 became No. 2085. The car survived the World War II blitz, but the LPTB’s policy was to replace trams with trolley buses and expanded underground lines. The ‘Felthams’ were the last new trams purchased for London. After 1938, most of LPTB’s remaining tram lines were in South London. In 1948, LPTB was nationalized and became the London Transport Executive. The last London tram ran in 1952. The tram system in Leeds acquired 90 ‘Felthams’ from London Transport in 1950, including No. 2085, which became No. 526 at Leeds. Leeds painted its trams red and used overhead bow collectors rather than trolley poles. Leeds abandoned its trams in 1959.” [5]
Two other ‘Felthams’ have been preserved:
Car No 331 (LTPB No. 2168) which was transferred to Sunderland. This tram was a central entrance prototype which was numbered 100 when in service in Sunderland. It now is part of the National Tramway Museum, Crich, collection. [3]
Car No. 355 (LTPB No. 2099, later Leeds No. 501) is now part of the collection at London Transport Museum, Store, Acton, London. [3]
I have a few older copies of Modern Tramway which I had not yet read. The first of these is the January 1951 issue.
The editorial for this issue of Modern Tramway was a long update on Birmingham’s tram-scrapping programme. An update that railed against the dominance of the bus! It was clearly written by someone who knew the centre of Birmingham at the start of the 1950s very well.
“Birmingham Corporation Tramways operated a network of tramways in Birmingham from 1904 until 1953. It was the largest narrow-gauge tramway network in the UK, and was built to a gauge of 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm). It was the fourth largest tramway network in the UK behind London, Glasgow and Manchester.” [2]
“As Birmingham’s tram-scrapping programme continues it becomes increasingly clear how great a part has hitherto been played by the tramways in keeping city centre congestion within bounds. Birmingham has an awkward arrangement of central streets, and for many years now a large number of bus services, some of them cross-city, have followed a loop route through the central streets (Victoria Square, New Street, Corporation Street, Bull Street and Colmore Row). This is an admittedly convenient arrangement for cross-city passengers, but the very large number of buses traversing these streets adds considerably to the congestion; it could just be done, however, with the existing number of bus services and aided by the desperate expedient of the world’s most complicated one-way scheme, formulated in 1933.
In 1933, however, most of the traffic to the city was catered for by tramways terminating on the fringe of the central loop area; their terminal arrangements were far from ideal in many cases, but the quick turn-round possible with trams at such places as Hill Street and Steelhouse Lane did materially aid matters, as did the arrangement by which the Martineau Street trams (services 3, 3X, 6, 8 and 10) followed the one-way routing by a single track in Corporation Street from Martineau Street, then passing through a central island at the Corporation Street – Bull Street corner (where other traffic turned left and right) and across what may be described as a ‘one-way watershed’ alongside Lewis’s building, to rejoin the Corporation Street traffic where two-way traffic commences at Old Square. This arrangement was severely criticised on the ground that it involved the running of trams against the one-way traffic for one block alongside Lewis’s, but this feature could very easily have been rectified by extending the already rather complicated island at Bull Street corner up to Old Square, so as to keep the tramway traffic on a reservation throughout the very short stretch where it conflicted in direction. with the road traffic. This would not have caused any additional congestion, for traffic along Corporation Street from Old Square towards Bull Street has in any case to be split into two streams (right and left) at the Lewis’s island, and to do this in advance of the corner would probably have assisted traffic flow rather than otherwise, while the single track is no wider than other islands in Corporation Street erected as traffic aids, including a long one opposite Cherry and Union Streets which directly continues the line of the track.
There need therefore have been no difficulty in running trams along Corporation Street, whilst doing so did have the immense advantage of directing the traffic from Martineau Street terminus into a path which short-circuited the very congested détour via Bull Street and Steelhouse Lane which was the only alternative.
The tramway abandonments which have occurred since 1933, however, have in most cases had the effect of upsetting these arrangements and causing further invasions of the already congested central ‘loop’. Thus the Ladywood changeover brought an additional bus service into Victoria Square and Paradise Street, and the Moseley Road changeover two more, owing to the lack of flexibility of buses, whereby they must have central streets to loop round, instead of simple reversal as was possible with the trams in Hill Street. The Transport Department was evidently anxious to keep the additional buses to a minimum, for the former Cannon Hill service was eliminated altogether, and many thickly populated streets in the Balsall Heath area left for the first time in fifty years without service, in a desperate attempt to eliminate one service at all costs and thus limit the mischief. As it is, Paradise Street is now a solid mass of bus loading stations (incidentally without weather protection, which the tram termini had), and scenes at rush hours beggar description.
The next step was the abandonment of the Witton and Perry Barr routes operating from Martineau Street. As the replacing buses could not, of course, use the ‘watershed’ at Lewis’s, these two services (33a and 39) were compelled to go via the Bull Street and Steelhouse Lane detour, bringing additional buses to this very congested area; a recent traffic census showed this part of Bull Street to carry the heaviest volume of traffic in Birmingham.
Then, in October last, the remaining Martineau Street tram routes were scrapped. It had evidently been decided on this occasion that no further traffic could possibly be added to upper Bull Street, for some very awkward expedients were adopted to avoid this. The buses (55b) replacing the service 8 trams were brought into the city by the former outward route and terminated by reversal in Old Square (short of Bull Street); this, besides depositing passengers some distance short of the former central terminus, has meant additional vehicles turning right out of Corporation Street into Old Square, causing considerably more obstruction than the former tramway arrangement at this point, for the trams merely separated the two streams of traffic, while the buses intersect them. The Washwood Heath service (56) replacing tram 10 has been routed still more awkwardly; it comes into Martineau Street by the former route, and turns into Corporation Street, but at the Lewis’s island turns right down lower Bull Street, and rejoins the outward route at an extremely awkward narrow hairpin bend at the foot of Bull Street, where a double line of buses has to be squeezed between the blind corner and a central lavatory island. The change from one-way to two-way traffic, in fact, occurs at the narrowest peak (STET) of the whole loop! Local tramway students prophesied trouble at this point as soon as the plans were known; a single traffic bollard was planted in this narrow ‘throat’ to separate the two lines of traffic, but a Belisha Beacon on the corner became a casualty on the first day of operation, and a day or two afterwards an elevated kerb and guard rails were very hastily erected to protect the blind corner. Notwithstanding these precautions a skidding bus tore through the guard rails and caused a fatal accident on the morning of 10th November, less than six weeks after the changeover. At the inquest on the victim of this accident, the jury added a rider saying: (a) that the wood block paving was dangerous and (b) that they did not agree with the route followed by bus service 56 (round the Bull Street Dale End hairpin bend). When asked if they would be satisfied if a non-skid surface were laid, they replied in the negative and said they still thought the route was wrong. A non-skid surface has since been laid very hastily, but the route of the 56 bus remains unchanged.
On Wednesday, 1st November [1950], the Chairman of the Traffic Advisory Com mittee stated that ‘removal of trams in Corporation Street had greatly eased the stress there and in Lancaster Place’. Statements to this effect are regularly made in Birmingham, but few now believe them, and unfortunately for the Chairman, the very worst traffic jam ever experienced in Birmingham occurred on the afternoon following his self-congratulatory speech, and had Lancaster Place for its centre! The subsequent highly-embarrassed official explanations blamed everything which could be thought of (including a collision near Five Ways, over two miles away on the other side of the city!) but there is little doubt that the trouble was directly caused by the new bus arrangements, for any hitch at the foot of Bull Street quickly dams traffic back along the short length of lower Bull Street to Lewis’s corner, and this in turn blocks Corporation Street both ways, with inevitable trouble at Lancaster Place.
There was a much better case for anticipating an improvement at Perry Barr terminus after the changeover, for the tram terminus at Perry Barr was admittedly in an awkward place, and with the replacing 33A buses extended to Boar’s Head, no vehicles of any sort now terminate at Perry Barr. Nevertheless, queues of traffic extending nearly a mile from Perry Barr to Heathfield Road can be seen any evening and it is the considered opinion of many that the chaos there is much worse than before.
Such are the results of tram-scrapping so far in Birmingham. It may be said that besides the points already mentioned, there are many other traffic plague-spots, all tramless, such as the notorious instance of Digbeth and Deritend. Remaining to be ‘converted’ are the two groups of services following the Bristol and Lichfield Roads (36, 70, 71; 2, 78, 79), which at present are among the busiest, though least congested, thoroughfares in Birmingham. Abandonment of the Bristol Road tramway will involve removing an exceptionally heavy traffic load (including Austin Motor Works industrial, and Lickey Hills holiday traffic) from the present reservations, and the consequent invasion of the adjoining carriageways by hundreds of additional vehicles, with results which may be imagined (or seen, at Kingsway, Manchester). Abandonment of the Lichfield Road services will mean the loss of a good deal more reservation (especially in Tyburn Road) and perhaps more important in this particular case, will involve finding turning circles and loading places in the city for three extremely heavily-trafficked routes. It is difficult to see, in fact, how this can possibly be done. Looping via Corporation Street, Bull Street and Steelhouse Lane would put an intolerable extra burden on the busiest section of Bull Street and add more turning traffic to the Snow Hill corner; there is certainly no more room in the Old Square, and though Martineau Street is not now fully utilised, any more buses there mean Bull Street again, either to the left (already chock-a-block) or to the right (where the recent fatality occurred). The authorities have so far kept very quiet as to what is proposed for these routes, and one suspects that they are to be quietly cut back to Lancaster Place, with a nice half-mile walk to the city centre for all passengers. But as these are scheduled as the last routes to go, it will then be too late for anyone to protest!” [1: p2-3 & 5]
There is no doubting that these are the partisan words of a lobbying group opposed to the removal of Birmingham’s trams. But the increased congestion which would inevitably occur with the introduction of a significant number of additional buses should have been foreseen and have been better planned.
In more modern times the retention and refurbishment of the tram network would perhaps have been seen as the better option along with the pedestrianisation of much of the central area of the city.
But the early 1950s were not the 2020s. The internal combustion engine was seen as the future for transport and the electric trams were seen as leftovers from another era.
References
Birmingham’s Bustigestion; in Modern Tramway Volume 14 No. 157; The Light Railway Transport League, London, January 1951.
“Wemyss Bay was formerly part of a large landed estate centred on the 15th century Kelly Castle. By the mid-19th century it had been split in two distinct areas, Wemyss and Kelly. The Wemyss [estate] was bought by Charles Wilsone Brown who built Castle Wemyss, and sold off plots … and developed a marine village.” [13]
“In 1860, [Castle Wemyss] was bought by John Burns, a partner in the Cunard Steamship Company, who would later become Lord Inverclyde. The Inverclyde family held the estate until 1957, after which it was developed for housing.” [13]
“In 1867, the Kelly estate was bought by Dr James (Paraffin) Young, friend of Dr David Livingstone, and then in 1899 by Alexander Stephen of Linthouse, who rebuilt the third version of Kelly House on a higher site. Sadly, it was destroyed by fire in 1913, and demolished. [In the 21st century], the site is a … holiday park.” [13]
In 1812, “‘Comet’, the world’s first seagoing, passenger steamship was launched at Port Glasgow. … The resulting development of the Clyde steamers was the start of a transport revolution. As the Victorian era developed, the Clyde became lined with docks and shipyards handling Scotland’s growing world trade. Glasgow became known as the ‘second city of the Empire’ and expanded rapidly.” [13]
In order to “escape the grime and congestion of the city, its wealthy merchants and industrialists began to build holiday homes along the Clyde coast.” [13] Partially as a result of these developments along the Clyde coast, the Glasgow, Paisley and Greenock Railway opened a railway line. “At the time, the River Clyde was heavily used by Clyde steamers, but it was impassable for larger sea-going vessels, which anchored at the Tail of the Bank for transshipment at Greenock, and transfer of passengers.” [3]
The railway soon attracted considerable goods and passenger traffic. “In particular passenger traffic grew considerably. The traffic to resort locations on the Firth of Clyde and other coastal places, was especially encouraging, and the steamer trade became lucrative.” [3]
At the time, total journey time — rail and ship— “was considered critical. As a pioneer railway, the Greenock company had not given thought to this, but slowly the disadvantage of the Greenock station became more prominent. The walk from the railway station to the Quay was through squalid streets, and the steamer transit to the lower Clyde involved a circuit round Kempock Point and Cloch Point to reach the seaway.” [3]
By 1851, the Glasgow, Paisley and Greenock Railway had been taken over by the Caledonian Railway.
A different company, the Greenock and Wemyss Bay Railway obtained an Act in 1862 which permitted it to “form a junction with the Greenock line a short distance West of Port Glasgow station; it would then climb and run round to the South of Greenock, then following the valley of the Spango Burn to a station on the hillside above Inverkip, then turning South to a pier station at Wemyss Bay.” [3]
The line was opened to traffic on 15th May 1865, but the early years after opening were challenging for the Company. Its railway was operated for it by the Caledonian Railway. An independent ‘Wemyss Bay Steamboat Company Limited’ operated steamers in connection with the trains. However this meant that the railway company was completely dependent on two other concerns for the conduct of its business, and reliability problems on the railway and in operating the steamers led to a poor reputation. “After four years, the Wemyss Bay Steamboat Company failed (in 1869), and the Rothesay connections, on which the Wemyss Bay Railway relied, were made by other steamer operators as part of their wider network of routes. …To add to the difficulties, the industrial development confidently expected at Upper Greenock failed to materialise, and the lands acquired there were sold off at a loss.” [3]
The Friends of Wemyss Bay Station note that, “The fare for a return first class ticket to Wemyss Bay was 3/6d, a third class return, 2/9d. (18p and 14p). The first class return to Rothesay, with cabin, was 3/9d (19p); third class with cabin was 3/-(15p), according to a Glasgow Herald newspaper advert in May 1865. That was almost two days’ pay for an unskilled labourer. Places served by the steamers included Rothesay, Largs, Millport and Ardrishaig. Largs did not have its own railway until 1885. The original station was designed in the style of a Victorian villa, to be in keeping with the substantial houses being built in the area.” [13]
Originally the train shed at the station housed only a single platform, a second platform was added in 1872. The Friends of Wemyss Bay Station note that, “As well as the steamer traffic, the railway was attracting significant development in Wemyss Bay and Skelmorlie.” [13]
Things began to improve significantly for the Greenock and Wemyss Bay Railway when the Caledonian Railway’s plans to extend its line to Gourock were frustrated. Wemyss Bay became an attractive route. “The Greenock and Wemyss Bay Railway was able to pay its first dividend, a remarkable 5½%, in 1878.” [3]
The more stable financial situation, heralded by the first dividend payment by the Greenock and Wemyss Bay Railway, “enabled more harmonious working, and the disadvantageous circumstances of the Caledonian’s operation at Greenock made the Wemyss Bay route more attractive to them. Widespread talk of amalgamation was put into effect: in August 1899 the ‘Glasgow Herald’ announced that the Wemyss Bay company was to be absorbed. In fact the announcement was premature, but the agreement to amalgamate had been finalised, and from this time the two companies co-operated more fully. The actual amalgamation was authorised by an Act of Parliament on 27th July 1893, [5] and took effect on 1st August 1893.” [8: p78-79][9]
“For some years the relationship between the Wemyss Bay company and the Caledonian had been prickly, the smaller company believing that its interests were not being taken into account. In January 1887, the Wemyss Bay company applied to the Railway and Canal Commissioners to compel the Caledonian to transfer their trains to Glasgow Central station: at that time they were still using the less convenient (to the public) Bridge Street; but the application failed. [5] (Bridge Street continued to be used for Caledonian operations from the Paisley direction until 1905.)” [3][6] However, the Friends of Wemyss Bay Station note that in 1890, “Trains from Wemyss Bay started running to Glasgow Central Station. [Also in 1890,] the Caledonian Steam Packet Company took over operation of the steamers from Wemyss Bay.” [13]
In 1893, “The Caledonian Railway Company took ownership of the Wemyss Bay line and soon drew up plans for improvements. … The old station and pier had become quite inadequate for the number of people using them. Trips on the steamers to the Clyde coast were very popular. Holidays had become a real possibility for many people, transforming quiet towns, such as Millport and Rothesay, into coastal resorts. … Hydropathics and hotels were built for the use of the wealthy; the less well-off rented a room elsewhere. Many well-to-do families spent the summer in their handsome stone-built villas on the coast, with the head of the household travelling by steamer and train to business in Glasgow.” [13]
“In 1901 the extension of Wemyss Bay pier was completed. The new pier was twice the size of the old one and could accommodate five steamers.” [13]
O. S. Nock observes that the station was rebuilt to an exceptionally pleasing design with a light glass canopy to the circulating area; the pier could accommodate five steamers at once. He continues:
“At Wemyss Bay … quite apart from the beauty of the station itself, the traffic facilities provided in the reconstruction … are remarkable in themselves. The enterprising timetables of the day required that a train and a steamer should arrive simultaneously, and exchange passengers. Although the changeover did not need to be done at the lightning speed demanded by the most competitive services at Gourock, there was to be no dawdling about. The station platforms, and the approach ways to the steamer berths, were therefore made exceptionally wide, so that two opposing streams of pedestrians could pass without interference. From the railway point of view, while the two long island platforms provided four platform faces for trains, a third line was laid in between the two island platforms to enable locomotives of incoming trains to be released immediately on arrival, and ‘run round’ their trains.” [10: p76, 77, & 82]
The station buildings at Wemyss Bay as it appears on Google’s satellite imagery in the 21st century. [Google Maps, May 2026]
The station had a purely decorative italianate clock tower and a significant, unique concourse. It opened on 7th December 1903.
The decorative clocktower at Wemyss Bay Railway Station, seen in May 2026. [My photograph, 8th May 2026]The superb concourse roof at Wemyss Bay Railway Station. [My photograph, 8th May 2026]The wide covered-way built to accommodate significant passenger movements both towards and away from steamers docked at the quay. [My photograph, 8th May 2026]
The station’s architect was the Caledonian Railway’s architect, James Miller. [11] He worked in consultation with Donald Matheson, Chief Engineer of the Caledonian Railway Company [11] The improvement works undertaken on the line between 1898 and 1907 cost the Caledonian Railway more than £267,000. [5]
Wemyss Bay Railway Station building is regarded as an Edwardian masterpiece. It was the first of the Clyde railway piers to be built, and is now the last one remaining. It well deserves its Category A architectural listing, with its sinuous, graceful curves, and elegant glass canopies, still protecting passengers coming off the trains and heading down for the boat connection to Rothesay on the Isle of Bute.
The station is remarkable in its use of glass and steel curves. Although it is one of Scotland’s finest railway buildings, it suffered serious neglect until “a major refurbishment scheme [costing more than £5 million] carried out jointly by Network Rail, Inverclyde Council and the Scottish Government from June 2014 to the spring of 2016 [saw] the station buildings and adjacent ferry terminal fully restored.” [12]
The canopies over the station platforms and the concourses were repaired between 2014 and 2016 by the Spencer Group. [25]
The work was undertaken by the Spencer Group. [13] The Spencer Group say:
“The project was originally to be delivered over two financial years to take advantage of two summer periods and ensure tools could be downed during the winter periods which, due to the station’s location, would be particularly harsh. … However, following the initial works on the site, it soon became clear that the completion date was unrealistic, as more and more issues with the structure were discovered. … The problems stemmed from the age of the building materials, such as the Georgian wire over the canopies and the paint used, and the inability of these old technologies to handle the station’s coastal location, with water ingress and rust causing significant damage. Further to this, the lack of access to many parts of the station building led much of it to fall into disrepair, as maintenance works had been impossible.
“Almost all of the station’s existing roof slates were classified as unsuitable for the coastal environment, needing a total of 1,434m2 of replacement tiles. A post-contract-award of the structural assessment also revealed significant overstressing to the existing structural elements, requiring substantial strengthening with 3.5 tonnes of steel.
“Several problems with the paint on the station’s steel beams, including rust and the use of lead-based paint, meant that nearly 4,000 litres of new paint was used in the refurbishment works in total. … The delay these unexpected issues should have caused was lessened by working through the winter, which required the implementation of extra measures to stop seasonal bad weather, such as February’s storms, from causing further delay. … The final stages of the work involved installing new access systems to the canopies to prevent the previous issues of access difficulty leading to disrepair, refurbishing the concourse roof with a total of 165.5 sq. m of new glass panes, and other miscellaneous finishing tasks.” [25]
The final stages of the work involved installing new access systems to the canopies to prevent the previous issues of access difficulty leading to disrepair, refurbishing the concourse roof with a total of 165.5 sq. m of new glass panes. [25]
“Wemyss Bay was the first combined rail and ferry terminal on the Clyde coast.” [13] It has survived to be the last operating combined rail and ferry terminal.
“The glass-roofed complex, with its ‘Queen Anne’ styled half-timbered frontage finished with roughcast and red sandstone, is dominated by a four-sided sixty-foot high clock tower. A truly majestic building.” [2]
Returning to the early years of the 20th century and specifically to the 1910s. …
At that time, the Caledonian Railway invested in a series of new heavy duty tank locomotives designed specifically for the line from Glasgow to Wemyss Bay.
After the First World War, the station passed into the ownership of the LMS and throughout the interwar years, “large crowds continued to flock to the Clyde coast. … Due to austerity, and particularly petrol rationing, following the Second World War most people continued to take holidays close to home. For many that meant the train to Wemyss Bay and a steamer to Roth say, Millport or Arran.” [13]
As with many coastal holiday destinations in the UK, during the 1950s, the number of passengers on the steamers dwindled. With increasing car ownership in the 1950s, a car ferry was introduced between Wemyss Bay and Rothesay (although vehicle loading and unloading was a time consuming affair, with vehicles loaded through the side of the vessel and taken down to the car deck on a lift).
These car ferries included the 1954 pioneer, MV Cowal, which served on the Firth of Clyde for more than 24 years.
MV Cowal on the Wemyss Bay/Rothesay run in the mid 70s. This photograph appears on a number of websites but shared on the Calmac Ferries (Friends) Facebook Group by Stephen Dalziel on 17th October 2025. [16]
The 1960s were a time of great change for the railways. Many delightful and/or significant station buildings were demolished because they were thought to be uneconomic and maintenance liability. It is surprising that Wemyss Bay Railway Station survived this period. It did do so, however, and gained protection as a listed building. The railway saw a significant change in motive power, with steam being displaced by electric multiple units (EMUs)
In the 1970s, the ferry service to Innellan ceased after the 1972 summer season. The Caledonian Steam Packet Co. was amalgamated with David MacBrayne Ltd. to form Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd. in 1973. In 1977, the “linkspan came into use at Wemyss Bay, allowing vehicles to drive on and off the ferry. In connection with this, the pier was shortened.” [13]
1977 was also “the last year in which there were cruises from Wemyss Bay, and since then the only regular service has been that to Rothesay.” [13]
The late 1970s saw extensive fire damage to Wemyss Bay pier. Different comments/publications from the Friends of Wemyss Bay Station have the date of fire damage in 1977 [19] or 1978. [13]
Wemyss Bay Pier was rebuilt in 1987-1988 and was shortened further. The clocktower was also restored at that time.
During 1993-1994, “the station was very extensively renovated by ScotRail, A plaque on the concourse records the completion of this work. … Under railway privatisation in 1997, operation of the trains was taken over by National Express. … Subsequent franchisees have included First Group and Abellio, a subsidiary of the Netherlands State Railway.” [13]
Class 318 EMUs “were introduced into passenger service on 29th September 1986, between Glasgow Central and Ayr/Ardrossan. Eventually they operated to Largs when electrification was complete. A few years later they started to operate services to Gourock and Wemyss Bay, which saw most services from 1000 to 1500 through Paisley Gilmour Street operated by 3 car Class 318s.” [22]
In 2009, “as part of ScotRail’s Adopt a Station scheme ‘Friends of Wemyss Bay Station’ was formed as a support group of volunteers, with a particular interest in reinstating the floral displays which had been a special feature for many years. … The Friends also operate a secondhand bookshop in former waiting rooms on the concourse, and provide historical information about the station.” [13]
In the early 2010s, the Class 314 and 318 EMUs were supplemented on ScotRail’s network by three-car and four-car Class 380 EMUs which were built by Siemens. these Class 380s were not initially intended for use on the line to Wemyss Bay.
As noted above, in 2015-2016, “the station and pier were again the subject of a programme of considerable renovation by Network Rail and Caledonian Maritime Assets Limited, which returned them both to the original Caledonian Railway colour scheme.” [13]
In 2017, the station was described by Sir Simon Jenkins as ‘Britain’s loveliest station’. [20]
In February 2018, Rail Magazine reported that the veteran Class 314 EMUs were due to be retired with, initially, additional Class 318 sets cascaded down to the Wemyss Bay route.
This was enabled by Hitachi Rail Europe Class 385s being brought into service on ScotRail, releasing ‘380s’ for other routes. This in turn made more 318s available for routes such as Wemyss Bay. [21]
to be used on these routes instead, alongside the Hitachi-built EMUs when more are delivered. A further five Class 320/4s are also on their way to SR in the near future, allowing Class 318s to also be used on these routes.
Eventually Class 380s began to provide services to Wemyss Bay.
This image shows a Class 380 EMU at Wemyss Bay Railway Station. [25]
C. V. Awdry; Encyclopaedia of British Railway Companies; Guild Publishing, 1990.
John Thomas revised J S Paterson; A Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain: Volume 6, Scotland, the Lowlands and the Borders; David and Charles, Newton Abbot, 1984.
O S Nock; The Caledonian Railway; Ian Allan Limited, London, 1961.
James Miller FRSE FRIBA FRIAS RSA (1860–1947) was recognised for his commercial architecture in Glasgow and for his Scottish railway stations. Notable among these are the American-influenced Union Bank building at 110–120 St Vincent Street, while acknowledging Richard McLoud Morrison Gunn as the bank’s chief designer; his 1901–1905 extensions to Glasgow Central railway station; and Wemyss Bay railway station on the Firth of Clyde. His lengthy career resulted in a wide range of building types, and, with the assistance of skilled draughtsmen such as Richard M Gunn, he adapted his designs to changing tastes and new architectural materials and technologies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Miller_(architect), accessed on 8th May 2026.
It was announced on 22nd October 2025 that the lines through the Channel Tunnel would see double-decker trains by 2031. An order was placed for their construction and delivery in October 2025. [6]
The featured image for this article shows what one of these trains would look like in Eurostar’s grey livery. The fully electric fleet of trains will be named Eurostar Celestia, which comes from the Latin word caelestis, meaning ‘heavenly’. The colour of the train has not yet been decided, but the current colour of Eurostar trains is grey, dark blue and yellow. Each train would be 200m long. Currently two are run together making an entire service 400m long. Double-decker trains don’t have twice as many seats as a single-deckers though, just because there needs to be room for interior steps, but there would be a fifth more seats. This means an increase from just under 900 seats on the current service to just over a thousand. [6]
“A bilevel car (American English) or double-decker coach (British English and Canadian English) is a type of rail car that has two levels of passenger accommodation as opposed to one, increasing passenger capacity (up to 57% per car in extreme cases).” [1]
Examples of Double-Deck Coaches/Trains in a Few Different Countries
France
“Double deck carriages date to at least as early as the second half of the 19th century. In France several hundred ‘voitures à impériale’ with seats on the roof were in use by the Chemins de fer de l’Ouest, Chemins de fer de l’Est and Chemins de fer du Nord by 1870, having been in use for over 2 decades; the upper deck was open at the sides with a light roof or awning covering the seats.” [1]
Marc Andre Dubout tells us that “the success of the railway with the public, the rise of the suburbs forced the companies to design double-decker carriages whose capacity was almost double that of conventional railway cars. Built from 1855 by the Compagnie de l’Ouest, … these carriages represent the flowering period of the Impressionist painters who took the trains on Sundays to go and paint in the countryside … not so far from Paris. It is the era of the boater and the joys of picnics by the water.” [4]
Dubout continues to say that these carriages weighed 8 tons and had 4 compartments downstairs and space for 34 sitting upstairs which could be reached by external staircases at the end of the carriage. [4]
“In the 1860s, M.J.B. Vidard introduced two-storied carriages on the Chemins de fer de l’Est, with a full body, windows, and doors; the design lowered the floor of the lower storey to keep the center of gravity low. Vidard’s carriages had a total height of 13 feet 8 inches (4.17 m) with the head height in the lower part of the carriage only 5 feet 5 inches (1.65 m); the carriages had a capacity of 80 persons (third class) in a 2 axle vehicle of 13 tonnes fully loaded.” [1][5]
This image is embedded here from another webpage. This carriage was built by De Dietrich & Cie in 1899. [5]
“The first all-steel Chemins de fer de l’État double deckers are an early example of split-level cars.” [1] “The first ten carriages were delivered by Brissonneau et Lotz, now part of Alstom, in 1933. The Voiture État à 2 étages were used as permanently coupled sets of carriages and used for réversibilité (push-pull operation), driving the train from the end passenger car and the steam locomotive pushing, on the Réseau Saint-Lazare. They often operated once in the morning, taking commuters to work, and once in the evening, returning them back home. They were also briefly used on the Réseau Montparnasse in shorter sets of six cars.” [3]
“Fifty cars were built, which accommodated the increasing suburban traffic from the beginning of the 20th century. They were supplemented by 380 Talbot passenger cars and 200 Standard EMUs. The last of the class were only withdrawn in 1984, after introduction of the VB2N in 1975.” [3]
The Voiture de banlieue à 2 niveaux (shortened to VB2N) “is a type of double-deck set of passenger carriages used on Transilien, the commuter rail network in the Île-de-France region of France. The carriages are unpowered and designed to be paired with an electric locomotive.” [7] They were built between 1974 and 1984, refurbished between 2002 and 2008. Since 2012, the VB2N trains were being shifted from busier RER and Transilien lines to less busy routes on the Transilien network as new equipment came online, most notably the single-level Z 50000 and double-deck Regio 2N(Z57000) trainsets. The VB2N trains have been being retired gradually since 2021. [7]
The double-deck Regio 2N trainsets are a family of a double-deck, dual-voltage electric multiple unit trainsets built for French rail operator SNCF to serve its regional rail routes (TER, Transilien, and RER). The trains utilize a unique and highly configurable design. One of the end cars is single-deck and designed to accommodate wheelchair users, the other end car is double-deck. The intermediate cars are either double-deck with no doors accommodating seated passengers traveling long distances or single-deck with two double doors per side accommodating standing passengers traveling short distances. Trains can be configured with six, seven, eight or ten cars. Additionally, the seating can be configured for intercity service (2+1 seating in 1st class, 2+2 seating in 2nd class), regional service (2+2 seating throughout), or high-capacity commuter service (3+2 seating throughout). These trains were designed and originally built by Bombardier, but during delivery the company was bought by Alstom, which completed the order. A total of 447 trainsets have either been built or are under construction at the Alstom Crespin factory since 2012. The first set was placed into regular passenger service in September 2013. [8]
Regio 2N in TER Hauts-de-France livery at Gare de Longueau, (c) Thierry Martel and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons Licence (CC BY-SA 4.0). [9]
Germany
Double-decker trains in Germany (Doppelstockwagen) originated in 1935–36 with LBE commuter coaches, evolving from East German, Görlitz-built articulated trainsets in the 1950s-70s into widespread regional use. Following reunification, Deutsche Bahn modernized these coaches to become the dominant, high-capacity standard for regional lines, and in 2015, introduced them as Intercity 2 for long-distance routes. [11][12][13]
Early Beginnings (1930s-1950s): The first double-deckers were built by WUMAG at Görlitz for the Lübeck–Büchen–Hamburg railway in 1935, pioneering push-pull operation in Germany.
East German Development (DDR): VEB Waggonbau Görlitz became a hub for double-deck technology, producing two- to five-car articulated sets (Doppelstockgliederzüge) for the Deutsche Reichsbahn, with over 4,000 sets produced for the Eastern Bloc.
West Germany (DB): In contrast to the East, the West German Deutsche Bundesbahn initially focused on single-level carriages until adopting modern 2nd generation Class 760 cars in the early 1990s.
Post-Reunification & Regionalization: After 1990, Deutsche Bahn heavily adopted modern, single-coach bilevel designs for regional rapid transit across Germany.
N Gauge models produced by Fleischmann (6260075). These two double-decker coaches are available as a set. They are typical of the style of single coach bilevel designs used for regional rapid transit across Germany. [16]
Early 21st Century: typical trains were red double -decker carriages hauled by electric locomotives (such as Class 146 or 147), and featuring high-capacity seating for commuters. [11][12]
DB Regio BR 146 locomotive in charge of a typical double-decker consist at Munich. This image was shared by Samson Ng on the World Electric Locomotives Facebook Group on 7th February 2026. [19]
This YouTube video shows a DB Region BR147 locomotive bringing its train into Angermunde Station with a train to Stralsund Hbf. [20]
Intercity 2 Era (2015-Present): In 2015, Intercity 2 trains, a mix of Bombardier and Stadler “kiss” trains, were introduced for long-distance services, capable of 160 km/h, though they have been criticized for offering regional-style comfort on long routes. [13]
Private operators such as ODEG [21] and National Express Germany [22] use modern Siemens Desiro HC double-deck sets, often featuring a mix of single and double-deck cars for faster boarding. [11][12]
Bilevel trains are widely used across the USA and Canada for high-capacity commuter services and long-distance travel. Primarily using Bombardier/Alstom BiLevel Coaches in cities and Amtrak Superliners on national routes, these trains maximize passenger volume, with the Bombardier model operating in at least 14 different transit authorities.
Examples of operators are:
GO Transit (Canada):
GO Transit uses a bilevel passenger railcar (currently built by Alstom and previously by Bombardier, Hawker Siddeley Canada, the Canadian Car and Foundry (Can Car), and the UTDC) is used by a number of different North American commuter and regional rail operators, they feature a distinctive octagonal profile. The principal operator is GO Transit in the Golden Horseshoe, which operates some two-thirds of the total produced fleet. [26]
The BiLevel coaches were designed by Toronto’s regional commuter rail service, GO Transit and Hawker Siddeley Canada in the mid-1970s as a more efficient replacement for GO’s original single-deck coaches and cab cars. A trial was first undertaken with a borrowed Chicago & North Western Gallery Car. [27]
This image is embedded from the Transit Toronto website. It shows GO GP40-2L locomotive No. 9811 pulling a borrowed Chicago & North Western Gallery Car past Bayview Junction in April 1976 to test the feasibility of double-decker passenger coaches on the system. The test was a success, although GO would eventually adopt its own special model of bilevel coaches. This image is on the Transit Toronto website courtesy the D&T Illingsworth collection. [28]
Metrolink:
Metrolink in Southern California operates high-capacity, double-decker passenger coaches to maximize commuter transport efficiency without needing extra tracks. The fleet primarily consists of older, octagonal-shaped Bombardier BiLevel Coaches and newer, silver Hyundai Rotem BiLevel cars, often featuring white and blue or modern silver liveries. The Bombardier BiLevel Coaches were the same design as those operating on the GO network. [29]
Hyundai Rotem began marketing commuter rail cars in 2006 to compete with other railcar manufacturers in North America such as Bombardier Transportation and Kawasaki Heavy Industries Rolling Stock Company. An assembly plant opened in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 2008 to meet American requirements; it closed a decade later. Significant users include: MBTA Commuter Rail (Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority); Metrolink; and Tri-Rail, a commuter rail service linking Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach in Florida. [32]
Sound Transit (Seattle):
Sound Transit serves the city of Seattle in Washington State in the Pacific Northwest of the USA. It makes use of Bombardier BiLevel Coaches.
These have been in use on the Sound Transit network since the early 2000s. Sound Transit has made multiple orders over time, with new cars arriving in 2017 and 2022 to support service expansion on the South Line and a programme of refurbishment planned to begin in 2027. [32]
While there has been a significant use made of double-decker carriages on the continent and in North America. These vehicles have been largely absent in British railway history. The primary cause has been the tight loading gauge on British railways.
In recent years railway construction in the UK has seen a larger loading gauge used. The fruit of this policy is the plans to use double-decker carriages through the Channel Tunnel and on HS1.
However, these new carriages will not be the first to run on British metals. In the late 1940s Bulleid, the Chief Mechanical Engineer of the former Southern Railway, introduced two double-decker trains to the route between London Charing Cross and Dartford. These SR Class 4DD trains had split level floors with alternately high and low passenger compartments. They were no higher than regular carriages and so could travel on the Southern Railway network. “It was hoped that the SR Class 4DD could fit almost a third more commuters on board. But things didn’t get off to a great start, when the carriages were pulled for modifications after just one day in service. They subsequently revealed various other shortcomings, one of which … was the windows not opening.” [34] A ventilation system had to be fitted to overcome the problem.
The Southern Railway designed SR Class 4DD carriages were introduced as an experiment in 1949 just after nationalisation. [35]
Apparently, passenger capacity was improved by the SR Class 4DD, but the compartments were just not comfortable and because there were more passengers boarding and alighting, the train service was slowed down
Ostdeutsche Eisenbahn GmbH (ODEG) is the largest private railway operator in eastern Germany, operating passenger services across Berlin, Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Saxony, and Saxony-Anhalt. Founded in 2002, it is a 50/50 joint venture of Netinera and BeNEX, operating 17 lines.
National Express Germany (a subsidiary of the British Mobico Group) is a major private rail operator in North Rhine-Westphalia, operating regional lines including the Rhein-Ruhr-Express (RRX) RE1, RE5, and RE11, as well as RE7 and RB48. Using Siemens Desiro HC trains, they provide run services covering 20 million km annually as of 2023.
The November 1954 issue of The Railway Magazine included an article by C. A. Knight about the railways between Sellafield and Maryport and inland as far as Cockermouth and Kelton Fell.
The featured image at the head of this article (and the article by C. A. Knight) shows an early 1950s image of Workington Station with a train to Euston ready to depart behind a ‘Royal Scot’ loco. [1: p757]
Reading Knight’s article encouraged me to begin a review of the different railways and tramways of the area. This article is the first of a series. …
Knight says: “Travellers to Keswick by the ‘Lakes Express’ during the summer [of 1954] may have speculated on the country to the west of that delectable town which is served by the train in the final stages of its journey. Some may venture as far as Cockermouth, but few will follow the train to its terminus at Workington, that product of Victorian enterprise in industry, as there is little in the area to attract the tourist from the delights of the Lake District. To the student of railway history, however, its tangle of intersecting railways holds promise of interest.” [1: p757]
Knight tells us that, “The early evolution of the railways of West Cumberland was not marked by the contentious episodes which frequently characterised railway development in the mid-nineteenth century; rather [it could] be described as a process of peaceful penetration. … The narrow belt of agricultural land on the western edge of Cumberland was for many years practically isolated by the difficulties of travel through the mountains of the Lake District. The discovery of rich seams of coal, and the improvement of mining technique which enabled coal to be won from under the sea-bed, led to development of shipping facilities, and the economic factor became the distance from the port of shipment. Tramways in various forms were installed to enable coal to be brought from more distant pits, and on these, horse-drawn vehicles were no doubt used.” [1: p757]
The Early Tramways of West Cumberland
Early tramways in West Cumberland were primarily focused on moving industrial goods—specifically coal and iron ore—rather than passengers. Online references to Industrial Waggonways and Tramways in the 19th Century include:
Woodagreen Pit to Whitehaven Harbour: a crude wooden waggonway built at the Ginns as early as 1683. [9]
Seaton Tramroad: A 3 mile wooden waggonway built from Seaton pit to Workington, in the early 1730s. [6]
Harrington Harbour/Bain’s Tramway (c. 1760/1840s): A wagonway was established at Harrington Harbour as early as 1760. Later, it became known as “Bain’s Tramway,” which is shown on an 1864 OS map connecting Harrington Harbour with mines at John Pit and Hodgson Pit, passing through Rose Hill.
Whitehaven Harbour: A horse-drawn tramway was completed in 1854, authorized by the Whitehaven and Furness Junction Railway Amendment Act 1853. It allowed goods wagons to travel from Preston Street to the south end of the harbour.
Mr. Curwen’s Waggonway: A significant waggonway owned by Henry Curwen of Workington, which necessitated a bridge for the Whitehaven Junction Railway to pass over it in 1844.
Colliery Lines: These include: Waggonways from Lonsdale Collieries on Broughton Moor; Howgill Colliery Waggonway; and Whingill Colliery Waggonway.
Whitehaven Mineral Lines: The rapid development of haematite deposits in the Cleator Moor and Egremont districts in the 1840s led to numerous industrial lines and tramroads, later absorbed by the Whitehaven, Cleator & Egremont Railway (opened in parts from 1857).
The First Howgill Incline: constructed by 1813 in Whitehaven. [22]
Rowrah & Kelton Fell Mineral Railway: A significant line developed to serve the limestone quarries and iron ore mines near Rowrah, with development occurring through the 1860s and 1870s.
Jane Pit to Quayside (Workington): saw horses towing basic coal trucks from the pit down and over the railway, along to Chapel Bank and on to the Quayside. [8]
Cleator & Workington Junction Railway (1879): While technically a later railway, it was built to connect the existing iron and coal mining infrastructure (early pits and associated wagonways) with the coast to break existing transport monopolies.
Harrington and Lowca Light Railway: (commonly known as the Lowca Light Railway or LLR)
Lowca: An early locomotive works was established at Lowca, lasting until 1926, its business was fatally undermined by a disastrous fire in which the wooden patterns used during manufacture were burned. [5]
Corkickle Brake: A standard-gauge rope-worked incline survived as late as 1986, which was a remnant of early industrial transport methods, handling 500,000 tons of traffic at its peak.
Yarlside Iron Mines Tramway: built by John Barraclough Fell. [21]
These early, often private, waggonways generally used iron rails (replacing wooden ones) to connect pits to collieries or directly to the rapidly developing ports of Workington, Harrington, and Whitehaven.
Main Line and Branch Line Railways
There were a surprising number of standard-gauge railway companies operating in West Cumberland, as the maps above show.
The Whitehaven Junction Railway
The Whitehaven Junction Railway (WJR) was a historic English railway company sanctioned in 1844 to connect the town of Whitehaven with the Maryport and Carlisle Railway, facilitating industrial growth in West Cumberland. It played a crucial role in linking local coal mines and ironworks to broader transport networks. [10]
The Whitehaven & Furness Junction Railway
The Whitehaven & Furness Junction Railway (W&FJR) was established to connect the town of Whitehaven with the Furness Railway at Broughton-in-Furness. [11]
The Whitehaven, Cleator & Egremont Railway
The Whitehaven, Cleator and Egremont Railway (WC&ER) was built to open up the hematite orefield to the south-east of Whitehaven. It opened for goods traffic in 1855 and for passenger traffic in 1857. [12]
The Maryport & Carlisle Railway
The Maryport and Carlisle Railway (M&CR) was incorporated in 1837 to connect the two towns of Carlisle and Maryport. George Stephenson was the engineer of the line, which opened fully on 10th February 1845. [13]
The Cleator & Workington Junction Railway
The Cleator and Workington Junction Railway (C&WJR) served the towns of Cleator Moor and Workington and intermediate villages. It was mainly used for coal, limestone and iron ore traffic for the local industries. [14]
The Cockermouth & Workington Railway
The Cockermouth and Workington Railway (C&WR) was established by act of Parliament in 1845. The railway opened for service in 1847, and ran from the Whitehaven Junction Railway station at Workington to a station at Cockermouth near the bridge over the Derwent. [15]
The Cockermouth, Keswick & Penrith Railway
The Cockermouth, Keswick and Penrith Railway (CK&PR) was incorporated by Act of Parliament on 1st August 1861, to build a line connecting the town of Cockermouth with the London and North Western Railway (LNWR) West Coast Main Line at Penrith. [16]
The Whitehaven & Furness Junction & Whitehaven Junction Joint Railway
While they were separate companies, the W&FJR and the WJR worked together, particularly around Whitehaven. By 1852, a connecting line (including the Bransty tunnel) linked the W&FJR from the south with the WJR from the north. From the mid-1850s, the two companies merged their efforts to focus passenger traffic at Whitehaven Bransty Station (jointly managed) and goods traffic at Preston Street. [17]
The Harrington & Lowca Light Railway
The Harrington and Lowca Light Railway (commonly known as the Lowca Light Railway or LLR) was a short railway close to the coast on the South side of Harrington. Rosehill Junction was the junction between Bain’s Tramway (later known as the Harrington and Lowca Light Railway) and the Cleator and Workington Junction Railway’s Harrington Branch (later known as the Rosehill Branch). [18][19
Tramways
A Proposed Electric Tramway for West Cumberland– 1901
At the turn of the 20th century, the Cleator Moor Electric Tramway was planned and Acts of Parliament were sought for its construction. [3] Sadly, this standard-gauge tramway was not built, even though three different enabling Acts of Parliament were sought and passed (1901, 1903 and 1905). [3]
The tramway was to be operated by the ‘West Cumberland Power & Tramway Company Limited’ [4]
Later Industrial Railways
These railways include:
The CORUS Works Tramroad: a 3 ft-gauge works railway. [7]
Whitehaven Harbour: by the late 19th century, almost all of the harbour had a rail network. Locomotives were first introduced in 1848, the last locomotive being disposed of in 1986. [20]
Various Inclines and Other Lines: in addition to the Corkickle Break mentioned above (which lasted until 1986) there was a second Howgill Incline built by 1923 and of which remains can be found adjacent to Wellington Lodge. The Howgill Incline(s) have been out of use since 1972. [23][24]
References
C. A. Knight; Railways of West Cumberland; in The Railway Magazine, November 1954; Tothill Press, London, 1954, p757-765.
N. Caplan reviewed parliamentary activity relating to railways in 1858 in The Railway Magazine of December 1958. His aim was to encourage research into railway history through the various Acts of Parliament relating to railways.
The Railway Magazine, December 1858, page 833. [1: p833]
“By 1858, the Railway Mania was well in the past, hostility to the railways had largely died away, and Parliament evidently felt that the railways might reasonably be left to consolidate their position by more prudent management, subject to the continuing close scrutiny of railway Bills by Parliamentary Committees. Some 8,000 miles of railway had been constructed, and the main trunk routes had mostly taken shape by 1858. After the financial disasters of the collapse of the railway boom, money was not readily forthcoming.
Most of the railway schemes before Parliament in 1858 were relatively modest. But there was plenty of fresh legislation with over seventy railway Acts receiving the Royal Assent in that year. These were, almost without exception, ‘Local & Personal Acts’ relating to particular railway companies, there were only two ‘Public General Acts’, and one of these applied only to railways in Ireland, the other amended the famous Act of 1844.” [1: p833]
Prior to reading Caplan’s article I was unaware of the distinction made in Parliament between ‘Local & Personal Acts’ and ‘Public General Acts’,
It appears that UK Acts of Parliament Acts of Parliament can be divided into two types: public acts and private acts. …
“Public actsare legislation of universal application and change the general law. Private acts (also known as local and personal acts) affect the powers of individual groups,such as companies or local authorities.Prior to 1798, all acts, both public and private, were published together with private acts listed as ‘local and personal acts declared private’. Since 1798, printed acts have been divided into two series: ‘public general acts’ and ‘local and personal acts’.” [2: p2]
The picture after 1798 is relatively complex:
According to the House of Commons information Office, [2: p3-4] Private Acts are listed as:
(a) Private Acts (until 1802); (b) Local and Personal Acts, not printed (1802-1814); Private Acts (1815-date) (titled Personal Acts from 1948).
All private acts have been printed since 1922.
Local and Personal Acts include:
(c) Public Local and Personal Acts (1798-1802);
(d) Local and Personal Acts to be judicially noticed (1803-1814); Local and Personal Acts declared public and to be judicially noticed (1815-1867);
(e) Provisional Order Confirmation Acts (regarded as public acts of a local character) (1867-1963);
(f) Local and Personal Acts (1868);
(g) Local and Private Acts (1869);
(h) Local Acts (1870 onwards).
The House of Commons Information Office comments: “The differences between all these series can often be set aside, except in searching out the actual texts from library shelves. However, it is normal to cite acts in a standard way, despite what may appear on the document itself.” [2: p4]
“It is now usual to cite public acts of all periods with arabic figures and post-1797 non-public acts with roman numerals. Personal Acts have italic arabic figures, and it is a service to the reader to supply the information (Not Printed) after the citation of any such act known never to have been printed. The [Chronological Table of the Statutes](CTS) is a useful guide for citing public acts of whatever age.” [2: p4-5]
The House of Commons Information Office goes on to provide specific details of how citations should be structured and then gives examples of how this should be done, note that ‘cap’ is short for ‘chapter’:
For Public Acts examples are: [2: p5]
Disorderly Houses Act 1751 (25 Geo 2 cap 36) Debtors Act 1869 (32 & 33 Vict cap 62) County Courts (Penalties for Contempt) Act 1983 (cap 45)
For Local Acts, examples are: [2: p5]
Aberbrothwick Harbour Act 1839 (2 & 3 Vict cap xvii) Epping Forest Act 1878 (41 & 42 Vict cap ccxiii) British Railways (Liverpool Street Station) Act 1983 (cap iv)
For Personal and Private Acts, examples are: [2: p5]
Marquess of Abergavenny’s Estates Act 1946 (9 & 10 Geo 6 cap 1) Hugh Small and Norma Small (Marriage Enabling) Act 1982 (cap 2)
Returning to Caplan’s article: he speaks of just two Public Acts relating to railways in 1858, it appears that these are:
An Act to continue “The Railways Act (Ireland), 1851.” UK Public General Acts 1858 cap. 34 (Regnal. 21_and_22_Vict). [3]
The Cheap Trains and Canal Carriers Act 1858 (21 & 22 Vict. cap. 75), which amended earlier regulations regarding passenger duty and company liabilities. [4]
Caplan has more to say about the second of these two Acts. His comments can be found later in this article. …….
There is a summary, available online, of the clauses in the railways Acts of the 1858 session of Parliament giving powers to the Board of Trade. [7] That Summary may well be of interest here and is reproduced as Appendix 1 to this article (after the References below).
In his article, Caplan goes on to look at a number of specific ‘Local and Personal Acts’, he says: “Some of the Local & Personal Acts of 1858 exemplified the continuing problems of railway development, while others reflected the emergence of new problems, and it is interesting to look at a selection of these Acts.” [1: p833] Those he looked at included:
The Knighton Railway Act – one of the few in 1858 relating to an entirely new railway company. This Act, dated 21st May 1958, incorporated the Knighton Railway Company to construct a 9-mile line from Craven Arms to Bucknell, later extending to Knighton. It was a key component of the Central Wales line development, aiming to connect the industrial Midlands with Welsh border towns, eventually being absorbed by the LNWR. [5][6] The Act stated that:
“a Railway from the Craven Arms Station of the Shrewsbury & Hereford Railway, in the County of Salop, to the Borough of Knighton, in the County of Radnor, would be of great public and local advantage. The cost of construction was modestly estimated at £66,000 to be raised by a capital of 6,600 shares of £10. The Knighton Railway was intended to be be worked in conjunction with the Shrewsbury & Hereford Company, and the Act provided for the latter to work the Knighton line. No doubt largely as a matter of form the Act gave similar sanction for the Knighton Company to work the Shrewsbury & Hereford line.” [1: p833]
It is worth noting the powers reserved to the Board of Trade in respect of this railway which appears in Appendix 1 to this article below. [7][Appendix 1]
Caplan points out that the Knighton Act was full of interesting facets of Parliament’s ideas about the control of railways, such as: the detailed control of maximum passenger and freight charges; and the maximum charge of fivepence per ton per mile “for fish, feathers, canes, cochineal, house-hold furniture, hats, shoes, toys and all other articles, matters, and things.” [1: p833]
Caplan also highlights the delays in completing new lines such as the Salisbury & Yeovil Railway and the need to authorise the sale of that line to the London & South Western Railway:
The Salisbury & Yeovil Railway Act
The Salisbury & Yeovil had a struggle to build its line because of shortage of money. The Salisbury & Yeovil Company was incorporated by an Act of 1854, and was authorised to make a railway from the terminus of the Basingstoke and Salisbury line of the London & South Western Railway at Salisbury to Yeovil, together with a branch to join the Wilts, Somerset & Weymouth Railway near Yeovil. The 1854 Act had laid down that these lines were to be completed in four years, and failure to comply might have involved a penalty of (30,000. The Salisbury & Yeovil had to go back to Parliament in 1855 and again in 1857 for authority for deviations from the original route, and was still desperately short of funds. The company was compelled to turn to the London & South Western for help, and amalgamation was the only real solution of its difficulties.
The Salisbury & Yeovil Act of 28th June 1858, gave the company further time to complete the revised route – two years from the passing of the Act and power to transfer the undertaking of the company to the L.S.W.R. Under the “South-Western Railway (Works and Capital) Act, 1858,” of 12th July 1858, the L.S.W.R. received power to lease or purchase the Salisbury & Yeovil Company and the way was cleared for the L.S.W.R.’s through main line from London to Exeter. [1: p833-834]
Railway Construction Costs
Caplan notes that railway construction costs almost inevitably exceeded estimates made by companies and thus the provision made for financing the construction and operation of a line by Parliament. Troubles arose:
“because of unforeseen engineering problems, … [and/or] the high costs of acquiring land and fighting rival promoters. … It is worth recalling that the costs of railway construction in Britain were strikingly high; it was stated in Parliament in 1858 that the average cost had been ₤33,000 a mile, compared with only £9,000 a mile in the United States, where land was so cheap and built-up areas so few. [1: p834]
Many of the 1858 Acts were designed to deal with money matters. This was true of:
“the Cromford & High Peak Railway Company to raise further Sums of Money; and for other Purposes. This unique railway was incorporated in 1826, and the company was given power in 1855 to raise more money, and to re-organise its capital structure. The 1858 Act referred to the ‘improvement of their railway, and they have laid out considerable sums of money upon that portion of the line which is situate between the junction of the Stockport, Disley & Whaley Bridge Railway and the station near the town of Buxton, and such expenditure has been beneficial to the company and the public and a considerable increase of traffic has arisen upon the railway’. The 1858 Act authorised the Cromford & High Peak to raise another £60,000 capital in the form of 3,000 more 6% preference shares of £20, and to raise £20,000 by mortgage.” [1: p834]
Interestingly, Caplan states, “All of the Acts dealing with financial powers of railway companies contained a clause of great … importance in relation to the Railway Mania of the 1840s, and the chequered career of George Hudson, the ‘Railway King’.“[1: p834] This clause stated:
“It shall not be lawful for the company, out of any money by this Act authorised to be raised by calls in respect of shares or by the exercise of any power of borrowing, to pay to any shareholder interest or dividends on the amount of the calls made in respect of the shares held by him in the capital by this Act authorised.” [1: p834]
Caplan explains that “The Hudson Empire had been built up only at the expense of the integrity of the various companies’ capital, and there had been cases of dividends being paid out of capital instead of out of genuine net earnings. It was these irregular dividend payments which helped to stimulate the public demand for railway shares, and thus led to the fantastic boom of 1845-46 in which railway promoters were offering the public the prospect of even 14 or 15 per cent. interest. The collapse of the boom, and the investigation of company accounts, led Parliament to insist on this standard clause to prohibit dividend payments out of capital.” [1: p834]
George Hudson controlled a significant part of the railway network in the 1840s. He had the title “The Railway King” conferred on him by Sydney Smith in 1844. He played a major role in linking London to Edinburgh by rail. He also formed the first significant merger of railway companies, creating the Midland Railway, and developed his home city of York into a major railway junction. He represented Sunderland in the House of Commons. However, his “success was built on dubious financial practices and he frequently paid shareholders out of capital rather than money the company had earned.” [8]
There were a series of railway mergers over the 1850s. Caplan say that “the process of railway amalgamation continued in 1858, as some of the smaller and financially-weaker companies found it impossible to carry on, and a number of Acts provided for amalgamation by outright purchase or for such close financial and working arrangements that the companies concerned lost all effective independence.” [1: p834] Caplan mentions one in particular:
The Inverury & Old Meldrum Junction Railway
On 11th June 1858, this railway was authorised “to be leased in perpetuity to the Great North of Scotland Railway for a rental of £650 per year, payable half-yearly. … A very modest sum for the lease of a railway but the Inverury & Old Meldrum Junction was a very small railway.” [1: p834]
The route of the Inverury & Old Meldrum Junction Railway. [9]
The authorising Act for the Inverury and Old Meldrum Junction Railway received the Royal Assent on 15th June 1855, a necessary capital of £22,000 was authorised. The line was “5 miles 1194 yards in length, from a junction at Inverurie. The station at that time was some distance south of the present one; the Old Meldrum branch line ran alongside the main line for nearly a mile before diverging. The engineer was John Willet. There were few engineering complications in constructing the line, the biggest work being a 50-foot girder bridge over the River Ury.” [9][10: p7-9][11][12]
The capital was raised mainly locally, and construction was completed quickly and cheaply, being ready by June 1856 at a low cost of about £5,000 per mile. The opening to passengers took place on Thursday 26th June 1856. [9][10: p7-9][13]
In 1866 the Great North of Scotland Railway (GNoSR) set about incorporating several branch line leases into the parent company; the Oldmeldrum company was one of them. The £650 annual lease rental was converted to £13,810 of new GNoSR Old Meldrum preference stock. Parliament authorised the change on 1 August 1866. Ordinary shareholders got £3 of GNoSR stock for their £10 shares. [9][10: p7-9][13]
In 1930 passenger receipts had totalled £243, which represented a loss in working of £718. It was hardly sustainable to continue such an operation, and the LNER closed the passenger service from 2 November 1931. [9][10: p58][18: p315]
The basic goods service to Oldmeldrum continued, but it too became unsupportable in the 1960s, and it was closed on 3 January 1966.[18: p315] It was later used for a while for wagon storage.[9][10: p65]
The Manchester South Junction & Altrincham Railway
This railway was authorised by Parliament in 1845 and was jointly owned by the London & North Western and the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire railways.
Caplan says that:
“It is not surprising that the railway companies concerned in the operation of joint lines did not always see eye to eye, and one Act of 1858 brings clearly above the surface some of the difficulties which arose. This was the ‘Act to improve the management of the Manchester South Junction & Altrincham Railway’. …. The M.S.J.A.R. …. was managed by a board of six directors, three nominated by each company, and two chairmen, each company appointing one. The chairmen were to preside alternately at board meetings and the presiding chairman had a casting vote in the event of a tie.
“Such an arrangement was bound to cause trouble at times and as the preamble to the 1858 Act said ‘it has been found that in cases where the interests of the London & North Western and the Manchester, Sheffield & Lincolnshire Railway Companies differ the said provisions with respect to the chairman of the board of directors produce great inconvenience and delay, and that resolutions passed by the said board under one chairman are often rescinded by a subsequent board under another chairman.” The preamble went on to refer to the competition between the parent companies: inasmuch as the two companies work over and are competitors for much of the traffic which is or may be conveyed over the South Junction Railway, and the questions therefore between them are likely to be multiplied, it is essential to the public convenience and to the proper use of the South Junction Railway…
“The Act provided that in future the chairman presiding over any board meeting should not have a casting vote. Instead, the parent companies were to appoint each December an arbitrator and, in the event of failure to agree on an arbitrator, the Board of Trade was to make this appointment. The arbitrator’s term of office was fixed at one year, though he could be re-appointed. The arbitrator was given the power to decide disputed matters in cases where there was a tie in voting at the board of the South Junction Railway. [1: p834-835]
A Station near Victoria Street, Pimlico and a Railway to Connect it with the West End of London & Crystal Palace Railway at Battersea
Caplan says that the continued growth of towns and passenger traffic required big changes in station arrangements, and a particularly interesting Act of 1858 concerned London. This was:
“‘An Act to authorise the construction of a station near Victoria Street, Pimlico, in the County of Middle-sex, and of a railway to connect the same with the West End of London & Crystal Palace Railway at Battersea in the County of Surrey, in order to afford improved communication between certain of the railways south of the Thames and the western districts of the Metro-polis; and for other purposes’.
This was indeed a major scheme of passenger traffic improvement – the authorised capital was £675,000. The existing terminus of the West End of London & Crystal Palace Railway was South of the Thames at Battersea – it was, however, called ‘Pimlico’ – and this was not at all convenient for the West End. Pimlico Station was opened in March, 1858, and the new Victoria Station authorised by the 1858 Act was opened in October, 1860, so that the ‘West End Terminus’ south of the River had the shortest of lives.” [1: p835][20]
The Victoria Station and Pimlico Railway (VS&PR) was by the Victoria Station and Pimlico Railway Act 1858 on 23 July 1858. to build Victoria Station, Grosvenor Bridge over the River Thames, and a length of line to Connect with the London & Crystal Palace Railway. The company later leased its lines and stations to the LB&SCR and the London Chatham and Dover Railway (LC&DR) but continued in existence until December 1922 when it was very briefly amalgamated with the South Eastern Railway before becoming part of the Southern Railway as a result of the Railways Act 1921, which created the Big Four on 1 January 1923.
In 1844, ‘Gladstone’s Act’ was passed ‘to attach certain Conditions to the Construction of future Railways’. Although about the general regulation of the railways, Gladstone’s Act was known as the charter of third class passengers who suffered a miserable time travelling on those railways that thought it worthwhile recognising their existence!
Caplan says that:
” Parliament’s aim in Clause VI of the 1844 Act was to ‘secure to the poorer class of travellers the means of travelling by railway at moderate fares, and in carriages in which they may be protected from the weather’ and at least one train a day in each direction on all main, junction and branch lines was to provide such facilities. Parliament specified the fare to be charged: ‘The fare or charge for each third class passenger by such train shall not exceed one penny for each mile travelled’.
“However, there was room here for disagreement about the proper basis of charging for fractions of a mile travelled. Hardened as we are by the course of inflation, we may be tempted to smile at the thought of Parliament moving in all its majesty in 1858 to lay down that fractions of a mile must be charged for at a specific rate, but farthings and halfpennies were real money a hundred years ago. The Victorians-individuals and railway companies were unlikely to dismiss farthings and halfpennies as insignificant quite apart from the question of the principle of the thing.
“So it was that Clause 1 of the Cheap Trains Act, 1858, prescribed the method of charging for fractions of a mile on journeys by the ‘Parliamentary Trains’: ‘When the distance travelled by any third class passenger by any train run in accordance with the provisions [of the 1844 Act] is a portion of a mile, and does not exceed one mile, the fare for such portion of a mile may be one penny, or when such distance amounts to one mile, or two or more miles, and a portion of another mile, the fare or charge for each such portion of a mile, if the same amounts to or exceeds one half mile, may be one halfpenny’.” [1: p835, p860]
The first page of the Act referred to as the ‘Cheap Trains Act’. It is worth noting that the Act sought not only to amend the law relating to Cheap Trains but also to restrain the Exercise of certain powers by Canal Companies being also Railway Companies. [22]
The ‘Cheap Trains Act’ was actually also intended to curb railway companies from monopolizing transport by abusing their control over acquired canal networks. It regulated the leasing of canals by railway companies, ensuring they couldn’t stifle competition, while also addressing railway pricing.
The Act specifically addressed concerns that railway companies, having bought up canals, would allow them to fall into disrepair or charge prohibitive tolls to force traffic onto the rails.
It also restricted any ‘Canal or Navigation Company, being also a Railway Company’ from leasing other canals or railways without parliamentary authority, preventing the massive consolidation of transport networks by a few rail companies.
It sought to maintain the viability of independent canal carriers against ‘Railway and Canal Companies’.
It also sought to strengthen the provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1854 which forced canal and rail companies to provide ‘reasonable facilities’ for transport.
The 1858 Act was later made perpetual by the Cheap Trains Act 1860. It acted as a protection mechanism for the waning canal industry against aggressive railway competition during the expansion of the UK’s rail network.
However, the 1860 Act was not Parliament’s last word on the subject of Cheap Trains. A further Act was passed in 1883. It was known as the ‘Cheap Trains Act’. The 1883 spurred the expansion of affordable ‘workmen’s trains’. It abolished or reduced passenger duty (duty not fares) for companies charging less than a penny a mile, requiring them to provide sufficient services for working-class commuters, particularly in urban areas. [23] It obliged the railway companies to operate a larger number of cheap trains. [24]
That 1883 Act also consolidated the Law relating to the conveyance of the Queen’s Forces by Railway. [23]
“Some railways in London were already operating workmen’s trains although they were often overcrowded and inconveniently timed. Although the act was opposed by some railway officers, notably Sir Edward Watkin of the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway, the number of cheap suburban services increased greatly. During the 20th century, the appearance of competing road services meant that the railways were forced to reduce their fares. So few services eventually attracted duty that the act was abolished in the Finance Act 1929.” [24]
Further Acts of Parliament relating to railways were not considered worth noting by Caplan, some of these are covered in Appendix 2.
Returning to Caplan’s article, he concludes by saying that, “No railway enthusiast should be deterred from the thought of looking into Acts of Parliament by the mistaken impression that they are dry as dust. Many of them bring the ‘Railway Age’ before us in the most vivid way.” [1: p860]
Hopefully this review of his article has further emphasised the value of reading through relevant Acts of Parliament to gain a better understanding of railway history.
References
N. Caplan; Parliament and Railways in 1858; in The Railway Magazine, December 1958; Tothill Press, London, 1958, p833-835 & p860.
Duncan McLeish; Rails to Banff, Macduff and Oldmeldrum: Three Great North of Scotland Railway Branch Lines; Great North of Scotland Railway Association, 2014, p7-9.
Donald J Grant; Directory of the Railway Companies of Great Britain; Matador, Kibworth Beauchamp, 2017, p278.
H A Vallance; The Great North of Scotland Railway; David and Charles, Dawlish, 1965, p59-60.
David Ross; The Great North of Scotland Railway: A New History; Stenlake Publishing, p40, 83, 222 & 223.
The Clauses in the Railways Acts of the 1858 Session of Parliament giving Powers to the Board of Trade are to the following effect:
Construction of Works
Alyth Railway Act, 1858, c. 43. s. 28., &c. —Provides that the junction with the Scottish North-Eastern Railway, in case of difference, is to be made according to a plan approved of by an engineer appointed by the Board of Trade previously to the commencement of such work; and any difference as to the nature or necessity of the signals and other works at the junction, the same to be referred to arbitration or the decision of an engineer, to be appointed by the Board of Trade, at the option of the Scottish North-Eastern Company.
Andover and Redbridge Railway Act, 1858, c. 82. s. 22., &c. — Provides that the Company are not to proceed with any works affecting the Bishopstoke and Salisbury Railway, or any of the works of the London and South-Western Railway Company, until they shall have delivered to that Company a plan, &c. of the proposed works, and obtained the approval thereof of the principal engineer; but if he shall not certify his approval within one calendar month of the delivery of such plan, &c., and shall fail to furnish within such period a plan of executing the works satisfactory to that Company, the Andover Company may submit a plan, &c., to the Board of Trade, and on the same being certified, proceed to the execution of the works, &c.
The Company shall also so make and maintain the Branch Railway as to enable the London and South-Western Company to make a convenient junction between it and the Southampton and Dorchester Railway; and any difference with reference thereto is to be settled by the arbitrator of the Board of Trade, and the Company are not to open the railway between Romsey and Redbridge, or any part thereof, for public traffic, unless they simultaneously open for traffic the branch railway.
Banbridge, Lisburn, and Belfast Railway Act, 1858, c. 46. s. 32. — Provides that in case of difference with respect to any works for effecting the communication with the Ulster Railway and the Banbridge Junction Railway, the same is to be determined by an engineer, to be appointed by the Board of Trade.
Caledonian Railway (Branch to Port Carlisle Railway) Act, 1858, c. 66. s. 5. — Provides that all communications between the Branch Railway authorized by this Act and the Port Carlisle Railway, in case of difference, are to be effected by means of connexion rails, and points of such construction, and laid in such manner as shall he determined by an engineer to be appointed by the Board of Trade.
Devon Valley Railway Act,, 1858, c. 122. s. 26., &c. — Provides that in case of difference, the junctions of the railway with the Tillicoultry Branch of the Stirling and Dunfermline Railway, and with the Fife and Kinross Railway, are to be made according to a plan to be approved of by an engineer to be appointed by the Board of Trade; and any difference as to the nature or necessity of the works to be constructed at such junctions shall be referred to arbitration, or the decision of an engineer to be appointed by the Board of Trade, at the option of the Stirling Company or the Fife and Kinross Company respectively. A certain road in the parish of Dollar is to be carried over the railway by a stone bridge, to the satisfaction of the engineers of the Company and the landowners named in the Act, or in case of difference, of an engineer to be appointed by the Board of Trade.
Dublin and Meath Railway Act, 1858, c. 119. — Provides that communications between the railways authorized by the Act and the railway of any other Company, shall be made to the satisfaction of the engineer of the Company with whose line such communication is to be made: and if such Company shall have no engineer, or the engineers shall differ, then such communications shall be made in the manner directed by an engineer to be appointed by the Board of Trade.
East Kent Railway ( Western Extension) Act, 1858, c. 107. s. 7., &c. — Provides that all communications between the railway and the Mid-Kent Railway (Bromley to St. Mary Cray), in case of dispute, shall be made in such manner as shall be directed by an engineer to be appointed by the Board of Trade. Before the Company open the railway for public traffic, they are to make a station at Sole Street at which all trains are to stop (except on Sundays), for the purpose of taking up and setting down passengers, goods &c., special or express, or mail trains, only excepted.
East Suffolk Railway (Branch and Capital) Act, 1858, c. 47. s. 10. — Provides that in case of difference as to the mode of making the communications with the Lowestoft Railway, or as to the works necessary or convenient for effecting the same, the matter is to be settled by the Board of Trade, or its arbitrator.
Eden Valley Railway Act, 1858, c. 14. s. 28. — Provides that in case of disputes as to the nature or necessity of the works at the junctions of the railway authorized by this Act with the Lancaster and Carlisle Railway, or the South Durham and Lancashire Union Railway, the matter shall be referred to arbitration, or to the decision of an engineer to be appointed by the Board of Trade, on the application of either of the Companies.
Exeter and Exmouth Railway Act, 1858, c. 56. s. 46. — Provides that if any carriageway be made across the railway on the level for the benefit or convenience of any person interested in the shore or river bank adjoining the railway, the mode of making and watching such crossing shall be subject to the approval of the Board of Trade.
Fife and Kinross and Kinross-shire Railways Junction and Joint Station Aci, 1858, c. 65. s. 5. &c. — Provides that the junction between the railways of the two Companies and the joint station at Kinross, and the bridge for carrying the Great North Road, &c. over the Kinross-shire Railway and the levels of the two railways, are to be made to the satisfaction of the engineers for the time being of the Companies, and in case of difference, of an engineer to be appointed by the Board of Trade, on the application of either Company.
Either of the Companies, on giving three months’ notice, may construct the joint station at Kinross, and will be entitled to recover from the other Company one moiety of the expense, as the same shall be certified by the engineers, or in case of difference, by an engineer to be appointed by the Board of Trade.
Formartine and Buchan Railway Act, 1858, c. 108. s. 45., &c. — Provides that the Branch Railway to Ellon is to be constructed simultaneously with the main line from Dyce to Old Deer, and no part of the main line is to be opened to the public until the branch has been opened, and no part of the railway is to be opened until a double line of rails shall have been laid down upon the Great North of Scotland Railway between the point of junction at Dyce and Kittybrewster. Any difference as to the mode of effecting the communication with the Great North of Scotland Railway is to be determined by a referee, to be appointed by the Board of Trade.
Knighton Railway Act, 1858, c. 19. s. 22. — Provides that any difference as to the mode of effecting the communications with the Shrewsbury and Hereford Railway is to be determined by a referee, to be appointed by the Board of Trade.
Midland Great Western Railway o f Ireland (Clare Deviation) Act, 1858, r. 94. s. 9. —Provides that in case of difference with reference to any works for effecting the communication between the railway authorized by the Act and the Great Southern and Western Railway, the same is to be determined by an engineer, to be appointed by the Board of Trade.
Newport, Abergavenny, and Hereford Railway Act, 1858, r. 126. s. 7., &c. — Provides that a deviation is to be made in the Aberdare Canal, at the expense of the Company, and to be maintained and repaired by them during a period of five years; and if any dispute shall arise between them and the Canal Company touching the said matters, the same is to be determined by an engineer, to be appointed by the Board of Trade.
North British Railway Consolidation Act, 1858, c. 109. s. 49. — Provides that this Act repeals the prohibition against the use of locomotive engines on the Old Leith Branch Railway, and empowers the Company to stop up such of the roads or accesses across the railway in the parish of South Leith as they may think fit, and to make provision for the crossing of the railway, at two or more points, by means of occupation or other roads, and to execute such works as may be necessary for adapting the railway to the use of locomotive engines, and to run the same thereon.
Portsmouth Railway Amendment Act, 1858, c. 101. s, 7., &c. — Provides that if any difference shall arise respecting the communication between the Portsmouth Railway and the railways belonging either jointly or separately to the Brighton and South- Western Companies, or as to the erection of signals at, and other matters connected with such junctions, the same is to be determined by arbitration, in the manner provided by the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, section 21. The Company are prohibited from appropriating any part of a certain road, called Blackfriars Road, belonging to the Landport and Southsea Commissioners; but they may and shall, for the purpose of forming a communication between their railway and the line of the Brighton and South-Western Companies at Landport, make sidings, with two lines of rails, within the limit of deviation, across and on the level of the said road, subject to the usual provisions in reference to crossing roads on the level, and to such other reasonable regulations as may be agreed on between them and the surveyor, or, in case of dispute, as shall be settled by an officer to be appointed by the Board of Trade.
Redditch Railway Act, 1858, c. 137. s. 36. — Provides that the bridge for carrying the railway over the Worcester and Birmingham Canal is to be constructed, as to its position, form, and dimensions, to the satisfaction of the engineer of the Railway and Canal Companies, and, in the event of disagreement, to the satisfaction of an engineer to be approved by the Board of Trade.
Symington, Biggar, and Broughton Railway Act, 1858, c. 15. s. c25., &c. —Provides that in case of difference as to the mode of effecting the junction with the Caledonian Railway, the same is to be made according to a plan approved of by an engineer, to be appointed by the Board of Trade previously to the commencement of the works; and any question as to the nature or necessity of works at the junction, in case of dispute, is to be referred to arbitration, or to the decision of the Board of Trade, at the option of the Caledonian Company.
Whitehaven Junction Railway (New Branches) Act, 1858, c. 127. s. 27. — Provides that if the Company shall be required by the Lords of the Admiralty, under the provisions of this Act, to make any carriageway across the railway on the level, for the purpose of affording access to the seashore, then the manner of making and watching such level crossing shall be subject to the approval of the Board of Trade, and the Company shall not be liable for the expenses of watching such level crossing.
Additional Rails
East Suffolk Railway (Branch and Capital) Act, 1858, c. 47. s. 27. — Provides that the main line from the Leiston Junction to Halesworth, and the part from Halesworth to Haddiscoe, are to be completed, so that two lines of railway may be laid down when and as the Company think proper; and if the Company shall not lay down two such lines of rails, then when it shall appear to the Board of Trade that another line of rails, in addition to the single line of rails on such portions, is required for the public accommodation.
Portsmouth Railway Amendment Act, 1858, c. 101. — Provides that if the gross annual proceeds of the traffic on the line between Godalming and Havant for three consecutive years shall average £45,000, the Company, on request of the Board of Trade, shall lay down an additional line of rails, raising such an amount of additional capital as may be necessary for that purpose.
Lease, Sale or Amalgamation
East Suffolk Railway Companies Amalgamation Act, 1858, c. 111. s. 3. and s. 43., &c. — Provides that from the passing of the Act the undertakings of the East Suffolk Company, the Yarmouth and Haddiscoe Company, and the Lowestoft and Beccles Company were united and consolidated into one undertaking.
The Company may grant a lease of their undertaking to Sir M. Peto for any term not exceeding 21 years, determinable on 12 months’ notice, after a resolution by the Company that such lease shall be determined, provided that if within three months after such notice the lessee shall apply to the Board of Trade and object to the determination of such lease, then the resolution and notice shall have no force or effect, unless the Board of Trade shall be of opinion that the lease is injurious to the public interests, and shall confirm such resolution. Any shareholder, voting against such resolution, within three months may require the Company to purchase the shares, in respect of which he voted, at par.
South Devon and Tavistock Railway Act, 1858, c. 102. s. 3. — Provides that lease to the South Devon Company, with consent of Shareholders of both Companies, the Company still remaining liable to the provisions of the 30th section, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 189, as to laying down additional rails on the narrow gauge, if required so to do by the Board of Trade: the terms and conditions of using the same by any Company, in case of dispute, are to be settled and adjusted by the Board of Trade.
Staines, Wokingham, and Woking Railway Act, 1858, c. 58. s. 19., &c. — Provides that the Company may lease all or any part of their undertaking to the South-Western Company, with consent of shareholders of both Companies. The lease, at the expiration of every ten years, to be subject to such modification as the Board of Trade may consider necessary to protect the public interests.
Ulverstone and Lancaster Railway Act, 1858, c. 98. s. 42., &c. — Provides for lease or sale to the Furness Company of all or any part of the undertaking; the terms to be approved of by the Board of Trade.
Vale of Towy Railway (Leasing) Act, 1858, c. 147. s. 3. — Provides that the Company may lease for a period of 10 years their undertaking to the Llanelly Railway and Dock Company, such lease to be approved of by the Board of Trade.
Use of Railway Station, &c.
Fife and Kinross and Kinrosshire Railways Junction and Joint Station Act, 1858, c. 65. s. 17., &c. — Declares that the management and maintenance of the joint station are in the Companies; but in the event of any difference thereon, or on any other questions relating to the use and working of such station, or as to the expense thereof, the same is to be settled by an arbitrator, to be appointed by the Board of Trade. The Companies may agree with the Edinburgh, Perth, and Dundee Company with respect to the use and working of the railways authorized by this Act on the terms of the Fife and Kinross Railway Act, 1855, and the Kinrosshire Railway Act, 1857.
London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway (New Lines) Act, 1858, c. 84. s. 27., Sec. — Provides that the Company and all persons lawfully using their railway, may likewise use the Mid-Sussex Railway Stations, &c.; and in case of dispute as to the time, conditions, and regulations respecting the use thereof, the same shall be determined by the Board of Trade, or its arbitrator.
London and North-Western Railway (Additional Works) Act, 1858, c. 131. s. 12. — Provides that the Company, and the Great Western Company may, if they shall think fit, instead of proceeding with the arbitration under the provisions of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 200., for the separation and allotment of the joint station at Wolverhampton, known as the High Level Station, or in addition thereto, so far as the same shall not extend, make and carry into effect agreements for the appropriation and allotment to and between, or to either of them, of the whole or any part of such station ; and upon such appropriation and allotment being completed and approved of by the Board of Trade, the several portions shall vest in the Stour Valley and Great Western Com panies accordingly. The portion which may be assigned to the Stour Valley Company shall be deemed to be included in the lease to the London and North-Western Company.
Portsmouth Railway Amendment Act, 1858, c. 101. s. 25. — Provides that the Company, and all other companies lawfully using the Portsmouth Railway, may pass over and use so much of the railway of the Brighton Company as will be situated between the point of junction with that railway, in the parish of Havant, and the Portsmouth Railway, and the point at or near Hilsea Redoubt, where the Brighton Railway unites with the line to Portsmouth belonging to the Brighton and South-Western Companies, and also of their line to Portsmouth between the said point at Hilsea Redoubt and the terminus of the said railway at the Landport road, in the parish of Portsea, and also so much of the line of the South-Western Company as will be situate between the point of junction therewith of the intended railway firstly described in this Act, and the before-mentioned point at Hilsea Redoubt. The terms and conditions of such user are to be settled, failing agreement between the Companies, by their principal engineers, or their umpire, or, failing such appointment, by some person to be appointed by the Board of Trade. The right of user of the joint station at Landport is limited to traffic conveyed on the public service, but the Companies may agree for the use thereof for the general traffic.
The Portsmouth Company, in working or using the railway of the Brighton and South-Western Companies, is to observe the regulations and bye-laws of the Companies in force on the railways so used, as far as the same shall be applicable to the Portsmouth Company; and in case of dispute respecting such regulations or bye-laws, or the mode in which the powers or privileges given by the Act shall be exercised, or the regulations to be adopted exclusively for the convenience or accommodation to be afforded to the traffic of the Portsmouth Company, the same shall be settled as before-mentioned, provided that neither such regulations and bye-laws, so far as they affect the Portsmouth Company, nor the award thereon of the engineers, or their umpire, shall have any force unless the same shall have been confirmed by the Board of Trade. Any award of an umpire may be reconsidered by order of the Board of Trade.
Traffic Arrangements.
Alyth Railway Act, 1858, c. 48. s. 47., &c. —Provides that a traffic agreement may be made with the Scottish North-Eastern, and Edinburgh and Perth, and Dundee Companies, or either of them. Agreement limited to ten years, and to be assented to by the shareholders of the several Companies in special meeting, and to be approved of by the Board of Trade.
Athenry and Tuam Railway Act, 1858, c. 112. s. 44., &c. — Provides that a traffic agreement may be made with the Midland Railway of Ireland Company. Agreement limited to ten years, and to be assented to by the shareholders of the Companies in general meeting, and to be approved of by the Board of Trade.
Banbridge, Lisburn, and Belfast Railway Act, 1858, c. 46. s. 44, &c. —Provides that a traffic agreement may be made with the Ulster, the Dublin and Belfast Junction, and the Banbridge Junction Companies, or either of them. Agreement limited to ten years, to be assented to by the shareholders of the Companies parties thereto, and approved of by the Board of Trade.
Caledonian Railway (Branch to Port Carlisle Railway) Act, 1858, r. 66. s. 16., &c. — Provides that a traffic agreement may be made with the Port Carlisle Company and the Carlisle and Silloth Bay Company, or either of them. Agreement limited to ten years, to be assented to by the shareholders of each Company, and to be approved of by the Board of Trade.
Cleveland Railway Act, 1858, c. 114. s. 40. —Provides that a traffic agreement may be made with the West Hartlepool Company. Agreement to be assented to by the shareholders of the Companies, and approved of by the Board of Trade. On the expiration of ten years from the commencement of any agreement, the Board of Trade may cause the same to be revised, and the Board is empowered to declare that, if any modification required by it be not agreed to by the Companies, then, at the expiration of twelve months after notice given to the Companies of such modification being required, the said agreement shall determine.
East Kent Railway (Western Extension) Act, 1858, c. 107. s. 17., &c. — Provides for the due transmission of traffic to or from any part of the railways belonging to the South-Eastern Company, to or from any part of the railways belonging to the East Kent Railway Company, and empowers the Board of Trade, in case of dispute as to the nature and extent of the accommodation to be afforded by the latter Company, and the rates of charge at which the several services required of it shall be performed, to settle the terms and conditions. The Company and the West London and Crystal Palace Company may enter into traffic arrangements. Agreement limited to ten years, to be assented to by the shareholders of both Companies, and approved of by the Board of Trade. Any question or difference which may arise between the Companies with reference to the construction of any such agreement, is to be settled by the Board of Trade, or its arbitrator.
East Suffolk Railway Companies Amalgamation Act, 1858, c. 111. s. 50. &c. — Provides that a traffic agreement may be entered into with the Eastern Counties Company, the Norfolk Company, and the Eastern Union Company. Agreement to be assented to by the shareholders of the several Companies, and approved of by the Board of Trade, and to be liable to revision by that Board at the expiration of every ten years. If the revision proposed by the Board of Trade be not agreed to, the Board may declare that the agreement, at the expiration of twelve months, shall determine.
Eden Valley Railway Act, 1858, c. 14. s. 39., &c. — Provides that a traffic agreement may be made with the Stockton and Darlington Company, the Lancaster and Carlisle Company, and the South Durham and Lancashire Union Company, or either of them. Agreement to be assented to by the shareholders of the several Companies, and approved of by the Board of Trade, and to be liable to revision by that Board on the expiration of every ten years. If the revision proposed by the Board of Trade be not agreed to, the Board may declare that the agreement, at the expiration of twelve months, shall determine. The South Durham Company are required by the Act to afford all proper facilities for the due transmission of the traffic.
Exeter and Exmonth Railway Act, 1858, c. 56. s. 63., &c. — Provides that a traffic agreement may be made with the South- Western Company. Agreement to be assented to by the share holders of both Companies, and approved of by the Board of Trade. At the expiration of ten years after the date of any such agreement, if the Board of Trade is of opinion that the agreement is adverse to the public interests, it may require the Companies to modify the terms and conditions thereof.
Formartine and Buchan Railway Act, 1858, c. 108. s. 52., &c. — Provides that a traffic agreement may be made with the Great North of Scotland Company. Agreement limited to ten years, to be assented to by the shareholders of both Companies, and approved of by the Board of Trade.
Great Northern and Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Companies Act, 1858, c. 113. s. 1., &c. — Provides that the Companies from time to time during 50 years, with assent of share holders, and approval of the Board of Trade, may enter into agreement with respect to the conduct of the traffic. The Manchester Company is to afford to the London and North-Western, or any other Company on demand, all reasonable facilities for the forwarding of traffic between Liverpool and the port of Great Grimsby, and between any other station of the London and North-Western Railway and the same port, or between any station of such other Company and the port of Great Grimsby; and any difference as to the facilities to be afforded, or as to the amount of the rates, is to be settled from time to time by an arbitrator, to be appointed by the Board of Trade. It is not incumbent on the Manchester Company to afford any such facilities, unless the Company applying shall afford to them similar facilities between the same places.
Great Northern and Western (of Ireland) Railway Act, c. 96. s. 21., &c. — Provides that agreements which the Companies may enter into under the 20 & 21 Vict. c. 84., may be for such periods as the Companies think fit. Any such agreement, at the expiration of ten years from the date or revision thereof, is liable to the revision of the Board of Trade, if the Board shall be of opinion that the public interests are injuriously affected by it.
Knighton Railway Act, 1858, c. 19. s. 43., &c. —Provides that a traffic agreement may be made with the Shrewsbury and Hereford Company. Agreement limited to ten years, to be assented to by the shareholders of both Companies, and approved of by the Board of Trade.
Liskeard and Looe Railway Act, 1858, c. 1 1 . s. 33., &c. — Provides that a traffic agreement may be made with the Liskeard and Caradon Company. Agreement limited to ten years, to be assented to by the shareholders of both Companies, and approved of by the Board of Trade.
South-Western Railway (Works and Capital) Act, 1858, c. 89. .v. 33., &c. — Provides that a traffic agreement may be made with the Wimbledon and Dorking Company and the Exeter and Exmouth Company, with consent of shareholders, and approval of the Board of Trade, which Board, at the end of every ten years, may call on the Companies to modify the terms and conditions of the agreements if the Board shall be of opinion that the public interests are thereby injuriously affected.
North Yorkshire and Cleveland Railway Act, 1858, c. 134. s. 25., &c. — Provides that a traffic agreement may be made with the North-Eastern Company. Agreement limited to ten years, to be assented to by shareholders of both Companies, and approved of by the Board of Trade.
Redditch Railway Act, 1858, c. 137. s. 26., &c. — Provides that a traffic agreement may be made with the Midland Company. Agreement limited to ten years, to be assented to by the share holders of both Companies, and approved of by the Board of Trade.
Stokes Bay Railway and Pier Act, 1858, c. 50. s. 10., &c — Provides that a traffic agreement may be made with the London and South-Western Company. Agreement limited to 10 years; to be assented to by the shareholders of both Companies, and approved of by the Board of Trade.
Symington, Biggar and Broughton Railway Act, 1858, c. 15. s. 46., &c. — The Act confirms an agreement for ten years, already entered into by the Company with the Caledonian Company, and provides that during the present or any future agreement, the tolls and charges shall be those contained in the Caledonian Railway Act 1845. The agreement may be renewed with assent of shareholders and approval of the Board of Trade.
Ulverstone and Lancaster Bailway Act, 1858, c. 98. s. 42., &c. — Provides that a traffic agreement may be made with the Furness Company. Agreement to be assented to by the shareholders of both Companies, and to be approved of by the Board of Trade, and to be subject, at the end of every ten years, to be modified in such manner as the Board may consider necessary for the public interests.
Victoria Station and Pimlico Railway, Act 1858, c. 118. — Provides that a traffic agreement may be made with the Brighton Company, the Crystal Palace Railway Company, and the East Kent Company, or any one or more of them. Agreement to be assented to by the shareholders, and approved of by the Board of Trade, and to be subject, at the end of every ten years, to such revision as the Board of Trade may consider necessary. In the schedule to the Act is set out an agreement between the Company and the East Kent Company. The Act defines the west end traffic of the East Kent Company therein referred to to be traffic for which the Company’s intended station will, as regards its situation, afford convenient accommodation for the western parts of the Metropolis, and the words “West End of the Metropolis,” in the said agreement, to be that portion of the Metropolis which may be conveniently accommodated by the said station. Any dispute with reference to the matters contained in the above provision is to be determined by the Board of Trade, or its arbitrator, or as to the rate of payment per passenger to be made by the East Kent Company being unreasonable, is to be determined by the Board of Trade, or its arbitrator, if the same be not settled by the Companies themselves.
Miscellaneous.
North British Railway Consolidation Act, 1858. — Provides that certain portions of the authorized railway belonging to the Company are to be abandoned, and the Company are to make compensation to the owners of certain private roads, and to the trustees or surveyors of public roads, for the maintenance of bridges or tunnels erected by the Company under or over those roads, except when such bridges or tunnels shall, with the permission of the Board of Trade, be removed by the Company, and the roads restored to the satisfaction of the Board; sect. 48.
Appointment of Arbitrator.
Dublin and Meath Railway Act, 1858. — The Act appoints (section 25) an arbitrator in the case of certain lands required by the Company, and provides in a certain event that the Board of Trade shall appoint an arbitrator in the matter.
Manchester, South Junction, and Altrincham Railway Act, No. 2. — This is an Act to improve the management of the Manchester, South Junction, and Altrincham Railway. It enacts that the chairman of the Company shall not, in the case of an equality of votes at any meeting of the Board, have, in addition to his original vote, a casting vote; and that the London and North-Western Company and the Sheffield Company shall, in the month of December in every year, appoint an arbitrator, whose duty it will be to attend any meeting of the South Junction Board, if required so to do, and to decide upon any matter affecting the undertaking of the South Junction Company, on which there shall be an equality of votes, and which may be referred to him under the provisions of the Act. In case the Companies do not concur in the appointment of the arbitrator, upon the requisition in writing of either of them, the Board of Trade shall appoint the arbitrator.
Appendix 2
Several railway-related acts were passed in 1858 in the UK, focusing on specific company incorporations, extensions, and operational regulations.
Key examples, not referred to by Caplan, include the East Suffolk Railway Act and acts incorporating lines like the Symington, Biggar and Broughton Railway. These acts enabled the expansion of the UK rail network and facilitated improvements in infrastructure.
Numerous other local and private acts were passed, such as the Edinburgh and Glasgow and Stirling and Dunfermline Railways Act 1858 and the Staines, Wokingham and Woking Railway Act 1858.
The East Suffolk Railway Act 1858 provided regulations for connecting with other lines (such as the Lowestoft Railway) and required matters of dispute to be settled by the Board of Trade.
The Severn Valley Railway Extension Act extended the time allowed for completion of the railway.
There were some Indian Railway Acts as well. For example: the Great Southern of India Railway Company was formally established in 1858 to facilitate railway development in India. The Government of India Act 1858, while not exclusively a railway Act, transferred control of Indian territories (and their developing railway systems) from the East India Company to the British Crown.
Roger Farnworth 
,_N%C3%A1dra%C5%BEn%C3%AD,_10.jpg){kind=link}
_-_cropped.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Flickr_-_James_E._Petts.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
