Category Archives: Railways and Tramways Blog

Railways of Tanzania – Part 15 – Locomotives from the first railways built by the German colonial powers through to the amalgamation which formed East African Railways and Harbours in 1948.

Locomotives used during the EAR years from 1948 onwards will be covered in Part 16 of this series of articles.

The featured image for this article is Tanganyika Railways 2-8-2 No. 802 of the MacArthur austerity class at Tabora in the early 1950s before its conversion to oil fuel. [1: p68]

This is an overall view of Tanga Railway Station in 1908 during the the years of German East Africa. The station served as the coastal terminus of the Usambara Railway (Usambarabahn or Usambara Eisenbahn (UE)), which was constructed starting in 1893.The photograph was taken by German photographer Carl Vincenti it shows a train, headed by an unidentified early German steam locomotives, preparing to set off inland, (c) Deutsches Historisches Museum, (Inv. No. BA 90/5791)/Carl Vincenti and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC-BY-SA 3.0). [15]

Locomotives in the Years of German East Africa:

UE Class 0-4-2T Locomotives

The Tanga Line (or Usambarabahn) was constructed over a relatively long period, starting in 1893, reached Korogwe in 1905 and Moshi in 1912. Initially the line was operated by five 0-4-2 tank locomotives. Ramear tells us that these five locomotives were built in 1893 by Vulcan (Vulkan) of Stettin. They were built to a standard design which Vulcan had standardised for use in Germany. [1: p19]

UE Engine No. 1 with an early passenger train ready for departure at Tanga Railway Station. This locomotive is the first in a class of 5 0-4-2T locomotives used on the Usambarabahn (c) Public Domain. [16][1: p19]
UE No. 2, one of a class of five 0-4-2T locomotives built by Vulcan of Stetting in 1893, (c) Public Domain. [1: p18]

UE Nos. 6-10 Mallet Class of 0-4-4-0T Locomotives

A vintage postcard view of an Usambara Eisenbahn 0-4-4-0T mallet type steam locomotive, one of five built by Arnold Jung (No. 414-418) in 1900 and in charge of a mixed train. These locomotives were UE Nos. 6-10, later Nos. 601-605. [17]
Another view of an Usambara Eisenbahn 0-4-4-0T Mallet type steam locomotive in charge of a passenger train which is waiting to depart at Tanga Railway Station. [18]
Another view of a Mallet type steam locomotive in charge of a mixed train which is waiting to depart at Njussi Railway Station. [22]
UE Mallet 0-4-4-0T No. 8 with a passenger train at Mombo, (c) Public Domain. [1: p20]

UE Nos 11-14 Class 2-8-0T Locomotives

After the line was improved with curves being increased to 200m radius, 8-coupled locomotives became feasible. Ramaer tells us that “Four tank locomotives with a 2-8-0T wheel arrangement were built for the UE by Messrs Orenstein & Koppel in 1908 to a standardised tank engine design used on all German colonial railways in Africa. … They were a distinct improvement over the Mallets. Although they were designed to burn coal, the high price of imported coal meant that they remained on wood fuel, which must have given problems with fireboxes and ashpans.” [1: p19-20] Sadly these locomotives seem not to appear on the Wikipedia list of Orenstein & Koppel locomotives. [23]

For an illustration of this type of locomotive please see the OAEG 2-8-0T below.

UE Nos. 15-16 & Nos. 17-18 Class 2-8-0 Locomotives

An Orenstein & Koppel (O&K) 2-8-0 locomotive which was one of a class built between 1908 and 1910 for the Usambarabahn. This specific locomotive is UE No. 15. [19]

These 2-8-0 tender locomotives were a significant improvement over the tank engines with a same wheel arrangement – with the side tanks removed and water carried in the tender the boiler size and weight could be increased. These were the last locomotives to eb supplied to the Usambarabahn and it operated with these locomotives well into the years of World War 1. [1: p20]

OAEG 0-4-0T Locomotives

Henschel of Kassel supplied 4 of these locomotives intended for the work of building the line. A further 4 of these locomotives were supplied, to the same design by, Henschel in 1909. [1: p21] In between these two batches of locomotive (in 1907) another 0-4-0T locomotive was put into service, the origins of this locomotive are obscure and it did not match the Henschel-built locomotives. Ramaer presumes that this locomotive was taken over from the contractor, Holzmann & Co. It was built by Markmaschinen (Works No. 26) in 1893. [1: p21, p27]

Ramaer notes that the Henschel engines “could be used as both coal and oil burners, and … had a bunker capacity of ton of coal besides 300 litres (66 gallons) of fuel oil. Their water capacity was 2 m³ (440 gallons). These little engines had a comparatively long life, surviving the war and the subsequent change to British management, and the last did not go out of service before the early 1930s.” [1: p23]

OAEG 0-4-0T Locomotive No. 2 with a line building train at Ugaga (later known as Malagarasi), (c) Public Domain. [1: p21]

OAEG Henschel Mallet Class 0-4-4-0T Locomotives

Just as the Usambarabahn needed to invest in more powerful Mallet types of locomotive which could also accommodate the tight curves on the line, so the OAEG to ordered five comparable Mallet 0-4-4-0Ts, four of which were supplied by Henschel in 1905 and put in service during the first half of 1906 with the fifth following in 1907; like the 0-4-0s they were built for either coal or oil fuel. The OAEG found these Mallets not to be as effective as had been hoped and decided to order Mallets from Henschel with a different wheel arrangement. [1: p23]

OAEG Henschel Mallet Class 2-4-4-0T Locomotives

Henschel supplied a second batch of four locomotives in 1908 as 2-4-4-0Ts with larger boilers and cylinders. They also had a higher working pressure of 14 atmospheres (at) (200lb/sq in) in comparison to 12 at (170lb/sq in) for the earlier engines. While the bunker capacity had been increased from 1.2 to 2.2 tonnes of coal, oil fuel had been discarded. [1: p23]

Mallets proved to be expensive to run and the OAEG realised that if it were to be able to use suitably powered locomotives for the train loads envisaged, it would need to improve the alignment of the later sections of the Mittellandbahn and upgrade to trackwork. This allowed the OEAG to consider using rigid-bodied 8-coupled locomotives.

OAEG 2-4-4-0T No. 27, in the last Mallet class to be built for German East Africa. This locomotive appears in the Wikipedia list of Henschel steam locomotives. [24] It also appears in R. Ramaer’s book (although possibly a slightly different image) [9: p23] and A.E. Durrant’s book about Mallets. [25: p66]

On the whole, the Mallets were not as successful as had been hoped, so it was something of a relief for the OAEG that it was able to use much larger radius curves once the more difficult topography close to the coast gave way to much flatter country. The OAEG was able to look at rigid-framed locomotives. With the invention of the Gölsdorf system [26][27] which allowed spring-controlled side-play in coupled axles at the end of the 19th century. Eight-coupled engines became more feasible. The OAEG took advantage of this innovation and began to introduce eight-coupled locomotives. Ramaer tells us that “The first solution tried was the 0-8-2 tank, built with the pony truck under the fuel bunker to make adhesion independent of diminishing supplies to the maximum possible extent, besides making riding somewhat more comfortable for the crew. High prices for imported coal from Europe had made the railway look for a cheaper alternative and these engines were the first to be built for wood fuel. Henschel supplied them in 1909 as works numbers 9301-2, running numbers 47-8.

OAEG 0-8-2T Locomotives Nos. 47 and 48

One of two OAEG 0-8-2T locomotives supplied to the OAEG by Henchel. This is No. 48, (c) Public Domain. [1: p24]
This is the same locomotive but with elements easier to see as the image has a darker hue, (c) Public Domain. [28]

Ramaer tells us that “The first solution tried [by the OAEG] was the 0-8-2 tank, built with the pony truck under the fuel bunker to make adhesion independent of diminishing supplies to the maximum possible extent, besides making riding somewhat more comfortable for the crew. High prices for imported coal from Europe had made the railway look for a cheaper alternative and these engines were the first to be built for wood fuel. Henschel supplied them in 1909 as works numbers 9301-2, running numbers 47-8.” [1: p23]

OAEG 2-8-0T Locomotives Nos 41-44 (also UE 11-14)

A Borsig-built 2-8-0T. These locomotives served on the OAEG Mittellandbahn, Ramaer tells us that there were 20 of these locomotives in use in East Africa. [1: p24 & 25]

Ramaer tells us that “Simultaneously, Borsig and Orenstein & Koppel introduced an alternative [to the 0-8-2T] and more logical solution in the shape of six 2-8-0T engines, also built for wood fuel. Both types, with only 5½ and 5 cubic metres water capacity respectively, normally carried auxiliary tenders for both water and firewood, besides hoses on the engine to allow for taking water en-route. … From this class and a comparable, but compound engine, supplied, also by Orenstein & Koppel, to South West Africa and Togo, a standardised 2-8-0T locomotive was developed, which was supplied to all German colonial lines in Africa. … Besides serving on other railways, it worked on the Usambarabahn, as described above, and was built for the OAEG by Borsig, O & K, Hanomag (or Georg Egestorff, as this firm was originally known) and Maffei to a total of eighteen engines in 1909-10. Including the engines of the first batches by O & K and Borsig of six locomotives, the total of the Einheitstenderlok (standard tank locomotive) classes amounted to twenty-four engines by the end of German rule.” [1: p25]

These locomotives were far better than the 0-8-2T locos, particularly in respect of their performance at speed. This was of some importance when maximum speeds were raised to 45km/h, and planning envisaged 60km/h (36mph) for the Dar es Salaam-Kigoma mail trains. “The standard tanks were a good, straightforward design and were kept in service for a fairly long period under British management; the last ones … being withdrawn in 1951.” [1: p25]

The series was made up of Orenstein & Koppel locomotives (Works Nos.3223-3226) built in 1909, OAEG Nos. 41-44; Borsig locomotives (Works Nos. 7143-7144) built in 1909, OAEG Nos. 45-46; Henschel locomotives (Works Nos. 9301-9302) built in 1909, OAEG Nos. 47-48; Borsig locomotives (Works Nos. 7153-7155) built in 1909, OAEG Nos. 49-51; Orenstein & Koppel locomotives (Works Nos.3312-3314) built in 1909, OAEG Nos. 52-54; Borsig locomotives (Works Nos. 7552-7555) built in 1910, OAEG Nos. 55-58; Hanomag locomotives (Works Nos. 5845-5948) built in 1910, OAEG Nos. 59-64; Maffei locomotives (Works Nos. 3628-3631) built in 1910,OAEG Nos. 63-66. [1: p27]

OAEG 2-8-0 Locomotives Nos 101-120

An ex-Works photograph of one of a series of Hannoversche Maschinenbau Hanomag’s 2-8-0 locomotives built for the Ostafrikanische Eisenbahngesellschaft (East African Railway Company). No. 120 was Works No. 6666 of 1913 and was intended for use on the Mittellandbahn running West from Dar-es-Salaam. This locomotive was provided with a tender built by Borsig of Berlin. The locomotive was in use from 1923 to 1937. [20]

Numbered 101-120 these locomotives were built in three batches, 101-110 (6080-89) in 1911, 111-115 (6597-6601) in 1912 and 116-120 (6662-66) in 1913. The class was intended to include a total of 22 locomotives, but only 20 were built. The locomotives were primarily intended to support the construction and operation of the Central Line (Mittellandbahn or Tanganjikabahn) running from Dar es Salaam to Kigoma. Following World War I and the transition of the region to British administration, the engines entered service with the Tanganyika Railway Company, remaining in use into the late 1920s and 1930s. One of the Class is shown below with its Borsig tender.

An Hanomag 2-8-0 Locomotive with Borsig tender, (c) Public Domain. [21]

These were the largest and most powerful OAEG locomotives. They were put into service only after the eastern sections of the Mittellandbahn had been relaid with 55lb rail which would accommodate a ten ton axle load. Ramaer says that these locomotives were 46.2 tonnes (45.5 tons) in weight: “On level lines, these engines handled 500-ton trains, and on 1 in 55 gradients 250 tons at 10 1 km/h. Three carried feedwater purifiers/pre-heaters on top of the boiler. In their day, for the narrow gauge, they were advanced locomotives, and in the early post-war years, enginemen commented favourably upon those that survived. Nevertheless, the fact that they were not in line with British engineering practices presumably was the reason that all were scrapped in the period between the wars. The first ones went in the early 1920s, but the last survived until 1937, where it was in use on the Mwanza line. Without doubt the bulk of the class disappeared much earlier than would have been the case if the line had continued under German management.” [1: p25]

OAEG 2-8-0 Locomotive No. 107, one of the first batch of locomotives supplied by Hannoversche Maschinenbau Hanomag. When built these were the heaviest locomotives in East Africa. [1: p25]

One significant problem on the Mittellandbahn was the availability of water for the locomotives

Locomotives under British Management:

Under British administration the Tanganyika Railway started operation on 1st April 1919. It gained a series of different locomotives of German origin and some which the British forces had brought into Tanganyika during the first world war. Much of the German network had been destroyed by the retreating German forces. Ramaer says that around 4 miles was shaved off the journey between Dar-es-Salaam and Kigoma as the opportunity was taken to realign sections of the line to smooth out the worst curves.

Ramaer says that “Of the German locomotives, four classes were initially put into service on the Central Line, 14 of the Hanomag-built 2-8-0 tender locomotives of the former class 101-20 and now classified GG for German Goods, 22 2-8-0Ts, the German Einheits-vlok, now called class GT, for German Tank, 2 0-8-2 tanks and 6 0-4-0T pugs, dating back to the earliest years of the line, when the DKEBBG had used them for line building purposes. Later on, a total of seven 0-4-4-0T and 2-4-4-0T Mallets were also reconditioned.” [1: p53-54]

Only 5 German locos were salvageable on the Tanga Line: “three of the Orenstein & Koppel-built 2-8-0 tender locomotives of the German series 15-18 and two of the standard 2-8-0 tanks. Many of the Hanomag engines on the Central Line needed new cylinder castings, as the Germans had destroyed them in an attempt to prevent subsequent use of the engines. The new castings were made at the Parel works in Bombay of the former Great Indian Peninsula Railway and mostly fitted at Tabora, where the Germans had installed the main workshops for the Central Line. Thus 14 engines could be reconditioned, Nos 102-3, 105-6, 108, 111-17, 119-20.” [1: p54]

“The two 2-8-0 tender classes disappeared after a fairly short life in comparison to other, British-built locomotives on the system. The first engines went in the early 1920s, when money was made available to buy new engines from Britain. The remaining Hanomag locomotives were laid up in about 1932, after the arrival of the new class GA Garratts. One, however, was temporarily brought back into service in 1937, equipped with an electric headlamp, to work the engineering train on the lightly laid Mwanza line, which was very susceptible to washaways, and was always troublesome to operate from the locomotive point of view. All the Mallet tanks were derelict at Tabora works in 1930-31 and were subsequently sold as scrap to Japan.” [1: p54]

TR GT 2-8-0T Class Locomotives

It seems that, of the German fleet, only the 2-8-0T locos had a significant life under British control. Numbered 101 and 102 they were finally scrapped at Nairobi works in 1951.

TR GT Class 2-8-0T in use as a shunter at Tanga. This and its sister locomotive were Orenstein & Koppel locomotives and were the last two German locomotives to be in use on the network in Tanganyika, (c) Public Domain. [1: p53]

TR NZ Class 4-8-0 Locomotives

TR NZ Class No. 1098 leaving Dar-es-Salaam with the mail train in 1922. These locomotives were originally ordered by the Nizam’s Guaranteed State Railway for use on its network in the Dominion of Nizam, better known as the Hyderabad State, in India, but served their entire working lives in Tanganyika, East Africa. Class 22 locomotives were 4-8-0 locomotives built in 1915 by Nasmyth, Wilson and Company. These locomotives were numbered TR1095–TR1098, later TR200–TR203, and later still, EAR2201–EAR2204, © Public Domain. [1: p55][9: facing p182]

In March 1916, while the four members of the class were on their way to India, they were commandeered to assist in the British invasion of German East Africa, where they entered service with the Tanganyika Railway (TR), still carrying their NGSR lettering and numbers 1095–1098. In the early 1930s, they were officially classified as the TR’s NZ class (the NZ being a reference to “Nizam”), and renumbered as 200–203. [4]

The class was later operated by the TR’s successor, the East African Railways (EAR), as its 22 class, numbers 2201–2204. In the late 1940s, two of them were transferred to the Southern Province Railway, [5] the isolated network developed to support the ultimately unsuccessful Tanganyika Groundnuts Scheme. Nos 2202 and 2204 were scrapped in 1952, and 2201 and 2203 in 1956. [4]

TR DL Class 4-8-0 Locomotives

The abbreviation ‘DL’ stands for ‘Development Loan’. The locomotives first carried running numbers 200-205 and later 300-305. They had piston valves and superheater rather than the slide valves and saturated steam of the Nizams.Ramaer says that, “They were derived from the lighter engines of the Nigerian Railways’ Emir Class. Like them, they had narrow fireboxes which were found to be less suitable for wood burning, so that the DLs were used mainly on the section between Dar-es-Salaam and Morogoro, where coal was available.” [1: p56]

TR No. 301 was a TR DL Class 4-8-0 locomotive. It was originally numbered ‘TR No. 201. This Class were the first British locomotives to be built for the TR. They entered service in 1923, (c) Public Domain. [9: p297]
The TR DL class, later known as the EAR 23 class, was a class of 4-8-0 steam locomotives derived from the Nigerian Railways Emir class. The six members of the class were built by Beyer, Peacock & Co. in Gorton, Manchester for the Tanganyika Railway (TR). They entered service on the TR in 1923, and were later operated by the TR’s successor, the East African Railways (EAR). No. 2302 was originally numbered TR No. 202 and later TR No. 302, (c) Basil Roberts and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence, (CC BY-SA 4.0). [8]

The DLs were survivors. Ramaer records that they were still is use in 1972 as EAR Class 2301-2306, although it was expected that they would be set aside in 1973. [1: p56]

TR MK 2-8-2 Class Locomotives

To resolve the problem of the DLs’ narrow fireboxes, a new locomotive design was ordered with a 2-8-2 wheel arrangement. The MK Class had a larger boiler and wider firebox. ‘MK’ was short for ‘Mikado’ which was the standard name across the world for 2-8-2 locomotives.

MK Class 2-8-2 Locomotive No. 407. This class of locomotive entered service in 1925-1927. [9: p299]

Later known as the EAR 25 class, the eleven members of the class were built by Vulcan Foundry, in Newton-le-Willows, Lancashire, for the Tanganyika Railway (TR). They entered service on the TR in 1925–1927. [10]

The eleven members of the Class were:

The eleven members of the original TR MK Class. [10]
Vulcan Foundry ex-Works photo of TR MK 206. [10]

This class was a great success and the Class were still in use at the time Ramaer wrote his book, although he notes that they were now on borrowed time. “One problem with the design of the MK was the fact that the leading pony truck provided insufficient guidance on the sharp curves on the Dar-es-Salaam-Morogoro and the Malagarasi-Kigoma sections, and the design of the Bissel truck [29] left something to be desired.” [1: p57] The solution was a redesign for the next class of locomotive – the RV.

TR RV Class 4-8-2 Locomotives

The RV Class were a redesign of the MK Class – the only significant changes were the extending of the frames by 2 ft 9 in., to accommodate the leading bogie of the 4-8-2 wheel arrangement. Ramaer says that, “As a result of this change it was found necessary to extend the smokebox to keep the cylinders at least roughly in line with the blastpipe and chimney.” [1: p57] The design creted problems – “the greater length of the smokebox created vacuum problems, resulting in insufficient boiler draught. In consequence the RVs were poor steamers and this manifested itself clearly in their early days when they worked the mail trains on the Central Line. They were particularly bad on the Dar-es-Salaam-Morogoro and Kigoma-Kazuramimba sections with ruling gradients of two percent and more, although the below-average quality of firewood on the western section also had something to do with these poor performances.” [1: p57-58] They were nor popular with the train-crews.

This is a Tanganyika Railway (TR) oil-fuelled RV (River) class 4-8-2 locomotive, later classified as the East African Railways (EAR) 21 class. It was first numbered TR252, then No. TR502 and later EAR2103. The locomotive was built by the Vulcan Foundry in Lancashire, between 1928 and 1930, © Public Domain. [2][9: p303]
TR Rv Class Locomotives – class list. [2]
The ex-Works photograph of RV Class No. 252, © Public Domain. [3]

At the time of writing of Ramaer’s book (1972?), these locomotives were working out their lives on lighter duties from Morogoro shed and were unlikely to continue in use beyond 1973. [1: p58]

TR G Class 4-8-0 Locomotives (including 4 No. NW Class 4-8-0 Locos)

TR Class G 4-8-0 Locomotive No. 210 (later 22 Class) – these locomotives entered service in1928. Hill tells us that these locomotives were obtained to work two specific lengths of railway – the Tanga Line and the Mwanza branch off the Central Line, (c) Public Domain. [9: p299]

These locomotives were a redesign of the NZ Class. Ramear says: “The four Nizam 4-8-0s obtained in 1916 served as the prototype for the TR’s own G class, a very similar unsuperheated, slide-valve engine, thirteen of which were supplied by Stephenson and Nasmyth Wilson and put in service in 1928-31. They were again closely similar to the original BESA-designed 4-8-0s for India and thus provide, as the last 4-8-0s built for the TR, a direct link with the first engines of this wheel arrangement to see service in this part of the world. The first eight were supplied to the Tanga Line in 1928 and released F class engines 96 and 720, which had become very expensive to maintain. One of the new Gs, unassisted, could handle the mail trains, a marked improvement over the old and obsolete six-coupled engines. The G had an axle load of only 8-8½ tons, a necessity on the light track of the Tanga Line. The reason for their obsolete concept is not quite clear, however, if we remember that these engines were built at the same time as the KUR EA class Mikados. Their original running numbers 20-32 were later changed to 204-16, as the locomotives were considered to be direct descendants of the NZ class locomotives 200-3. After the amalgamation in 1948 the G class engines were renumbered 2205-17 and gradually taken out of service.” [1: p58]

This is a later publicity photograph of an East African Railways (EAR) Class 22 steam locomotive, numbered 2217. These locomotives were very similar to the earlier batch of NZ Class locomotives but these four locomotives were initially given the Class name NW. Built by Nasmyth, Wilson and Co. in 1930, they had Works numbers 1588-1591. They later became EAR2214-EAR2217, © Public Domain. [4]

The EAR grouped a number of locomotives into the 22 Class in the late 1940s or early 1950s. This manoeuvre grouped ex-Tanganyika engines alongside a slightly newer batch of 1930 Nasmyth Wilson locomotives (Works Numbers 1588–1591) which also operated as Class 22s. [6]

Another publicity photograph taken in the early 1950s which shows EAR2216, another of the same group of 1930-built, Nasmyth engines, EAR 2214-EAR2217, © Public Domain. [6]

The Tanganyika Railways Class G included four locomotives from a group initially known as NW Class 4-8-0s but others as well. We have noted above that the NZ Class of locomotives became EAR2201-EAR2204 (not Class G) and that the NW Class (included in Class G) later became EAR2214-EAR2217, two of which are pictured above. Others in Class G were to become: EAR2205 – EAR2209 Stephenson built locomotives (1927) Works Nos. 3959 -3963; EAR2210 – EAR2213 Stephenson built locomotives (1929) Works Nos. 3990-3991 & 4011-4012. [6]

All of the Class 22 locomotives were scrapped between 1956 and 1970. [6]

Renumbering

This table shows the revised numbering in use by the TR in the 1930s and the later EAR numbering scheme.

“The TR changed all running numbers in the early 1930s to a much more logical and consistent system. … Each class started at a round figure in series blocks of hundreds.” [1: p59]

TR ST Class 2-6-2T Locomotives

In 1930, the TR received four 2-6-2T shunters (the same type as the KUR ED1 Class). These were designated as the ST Class. They initially had running numbers TR Nos. 11-14, later TR Nos. 103-106. The locomotives were supplied by Vulcan. Under EAR control the locomotives were numbered EAR Nos. 1101-1104. [1: p60]

TR No. 12 was later designated TR No. 104 and later still, EAR No. 1101. This is an ex-Works photograph taken at the Vulcan Works in the UK, (c) Public Domain. [31]

Many of the EAR Class 11 locomotives were adapted to burn oil fuel rather than wood or coal and were still in use in 1972. [1: p60]

TR Sentinel GSL 50 Class Shunters

The TR GSL class locomotives were 0-4-0T geared steam locomotives designed for shunting and light duties. Built by Sentinel Waggon Works in Shrewsbury between 1929 and 1931, these locomotives were primarily used for shunting in yards and short-haul operations. A total of eight locomotives were built. They feature a side-tank design with geared drive, providing better traction on tight curves and low-speed manoeuvres, while the 0-4-0T Whyte notation reflects a rigid wheelbase for stability in confined spaces. [14]

A GSL Class Sentinel Shunter. Hill tells us that 8 of these small locomotives were purchased in 1930. They served in various roles until they were scrapped by the EAR in the early 1950s, (c) Public Domain. [9: p301]

Procurement of the GSL class occurred in the late 1920s amid broader post-war modernization initiatives across East African railways, with the Tanganyika Railway ordering eight units (which it numbered 50-57) to bolster yard operations as traffic volumes rose. Economic considerations favoured geared designs for their lower maintenance costs and suitability to tropical conditions, where conventional engines often suffered from corrosion and overheating. [14]

Ramaer tells us that, “Among their duties in the [1930s and 1940s] they were used as shed pilots, particularly for hauling out larger engines from the German-pattern roundhouse sheds to the turn-table, an arrangement frequently used at Central Line depots. After the war, they began showing signs of age and as newly built steam shunters were not readily available, they were replaced by diesels, the first on the TR. The last Sentinels, although outmoded, served at Tabora until the middle 1950s before being scrapped.” [1: p60]

TR GA 4-8-2+2-8-4 Garratt Class Locomotives

GA Class 4-8-2+2-8-4 Garratt No. 302 at the head of the Dar-es-Salaam -Kigoma mail train. [1: p60][9: facing p230]

The TR GA class, later known as the EAR 53 class, was a class of 4-8-2+2-8-4 Garratt-type articulated steam locomotives. The three members of the class were built in 1930 by Beyer, Peacock & Co. in Manchester for the Tanganyika Railway (TR). They entered service in 1931, and, with one exception, were later operated by the TR’s successor, the East African Railways (EAR). The class list is shown below. [11]

The GA Class numbered only three locomotives. [11]

The design of the GA class locomotives was based upon that of the Kenya-Uganda Railways (KUR) EC2 class, which was built at about the same time by the North British Locomotive Company for the (KUR). The main design difference was that the GAs had higher, narrower front tanks than the EC2s. With their reduced water capacity, the GAs also had a lower axle loading, which made them suitable for operation over the World War I-damaged bridges on the Central Line in Tanganyika. [11]

GA Class 4-8-2+2-8-4 Garratt No. 700 which was brought into service between Dar-es-Salaam and Morogoro in 1931. [9: p303]

Upon entry into service in 1931, the GA class locomotives were allocated numbers 300–302. Each of them was also given a name: the first two carried the names Arusha and Iringa, respectively, after the locations of the TR’s big road depots, and no. 302 was named Bukoba. Later, the GAs were renumbered 700–702. [1: p61]

GA Class 4-8-2+2-8-4 Garratt No. TR 301 was coal-fired and can be seen here being refuelled at Tanga. [9: facing p198]

It was the TR’s general policy to allocate tender locomotives to standard duties, and use its Garratts only for the most demanding tasks. The GA class therefore normally worked between Dar-es-Salaam and Morogoro, the heaviest part of the Central Line. [12: p184]

The GA class’s operating costs were markedly lower than those of their predecessors. Even during the Great Depression, when traffic volumes greatly declined, they were of great operational benefit. Following the outbreak of World War II, they became indispensable. [1: p60]

Unfortunately one member of the class, TR No 702 Bukoba, was derailed by a washaway near Mikese during a night of bad weather in 1944. The crew was saved, but the locomotive was almost completely submerged and had to be scrapped. [1: p60]

In 1949, the TR and the KUR were merged to form the EAR, which took over the two survivors, classified them as its 53 class, and renumbered them 5301–5302. [1: p61]

The EAR also equipped the two survivors with a French-style ACFI feedwater heater, one of which had already been fitted to the last member of the KUR EC1 class, no 66. However, the feedwater heaters were later removed, partly because they achieved only limited improvement in thermal efficiency, and also as they had caused similar maintenance problems to those experienced by the KUR. [1: p61]

In the 1950s, the EAR 53 class locomotives were replaced on the Central Line by the new EAR 60 class locomotives, and therefore transferred to the northern part of the EAR system. Later, they returned to what had become Tanzania, to carry out transfer work in Dar-es-Salaam. They were withdrawn and scrapped there in the late 1960s. [1: p61][12: p184]

East African Railways publicity photograph of no. 5302 Iringa, c. 1953, (c) Public Domain. [11]

TR GB 4-8-2+2-8-4 Garratt Class Locomotives

The Tanganyika Railway (TR) GB class were 4-8-2+2-8-4 Beyer-Garratt steam locomotives were originally ordered by the British War Department for service in Brazil, although not built. Later the design was used for locomotives for India and Burma. Four were acquired by the TR in 1946 from Burma. They later became members of the East African Railways (EAR) 55 class. [13][1: p64]

GB Class Garratt locomotive No. 753 entered service in 1948 immediately prior to the amalgamation of the TR and the KUR. [9: p307]

The Garratt locomotives that eventually made up the full 55 Class list were in use on the KUR and the TR. The full list is shown below:

The full EAR 55 Class list: as can be seen 4 of the Class served in Tanganyika, one of which (EAR No. 5505, ex-TR No. 752) is preserved at Nairobi Railway Museum. When serving in Tanganyika before the amalgamation of the two networks, these locomotives were numbered TR 750 – TR 753. [13]

TR ML 2-8-2 Class Locomotives

East African Railways (EAR) 26 class (ex-TR ML class) 2-8-2 steam locomotive no. 2603 at Tabora depot, Tanzania in 1968, © Basil Roberts and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 4.0). [7]

The six members of the ML class (an improved MK design) were built in 1947 by W. G. Bagnall, in Stafford, England, and delivered to the TR. They were later operated by the TR’s successor, the East African Railways (EAR), as its 26 class. In 1952, six further members of the 26 class were delivered to the EAR. They had been built by Vulcan Foundry, of Newton-le-Willows and Robert Stephenson & Hawthorns of North East England. [7]

TR BB Class Locomotives

Four 4-6-0 tender locomotives were found at El Shatt, at the southern end of the Suez Canal opposite Suez. These engines were originally built in 1926 at Ajmer works in India for the Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway (BB&CI Railway) and “during the war nine were taken to Egypt to serve on the metre gauge Qena-Port Safaga railway from the upper Nile to the Red Sea. The 4-6-0s were found lying idle at El Shatt in 1945 and four were initially taken over by the TR in 1947-8.” [1:p67]

Ramaetr tells us that, “They were not successful in Tanganyika, in fact they were considered poor engines; the round-top fireboxes gave trouble and non-standard parts had been used in their construction. Hence, the five remaining engines were not taken over, while the four that had come to the TR as class BB (for BB&CI), Nos 270-3 later EAR 2001-4, were used mainly for shunting and occasional banking duties. They led a somewhat shadowy existence and even a good photograph of them does not seem to exist, the only one known showing No 272 with its old TR number being cut up at Dar es Salaam about 1957-8.” [1: p67]

Engines of the TR 2-6-0 BB Class being dismantled at Dar-es-Salaam in 1958. [1: p68]

TR MR Class 2-8-2 Locomotives

These locomotives were American-built. Many of these engines were built by various American manufacturers, including: Alco; Baldwin; and Davenport. These locomotives were known as ‘MacArthurs’. Those which ended up working on the Tanganyika Railways were manufactured in 1944. [1: p70] and arrived from Malaya in 1949. There were eight locomotives bought in this way which became the MR Class, running numbers 800-807. They were built by three different manufacturers and as a result had minor differences: Alco Nos. 800-802; Baldwin Nos. 803-805; Davenport Nos. 806-807. [1: p70]

TR 2-8-2 No. 802 of the MacArthur austerity class at Tabora in the early 1950s before its conversion to oil fuel. [1: p68]

Ramaer tells us that, “At first there were problems, and modifications were needed to water tanks and reversing gear, which was undertaken at Nairobi works because of the limited capacity of the shops at Dar-es-Salaam. An additional difficulty was posed by the fact that the engines had not been designed to burn wood fuel. Grates were rather small and no rocking or dropping equipment was available. This circumstance gave rise to criticism because of the high ash residue of the wood fuel and only after the locomotives were converted to burn oil was the problem satisfactorily solved. After conversion the MacArthurs by then classified EAR 2701-8, did reasonably well.” [1; p69] The class was expanded in 1950 under EAR control when eight more were purchased from Malaya and one in parts from Nigeria. The last of these locomotives in service was based at Tabora and had been kept running by cannibalising other members of the class.

TR Sentinel Railcars

[9: facing p198]

“In 1929, two Sentinel rail cars were put into service between Moshi and Arusha in the North of Tanganyika. Although they were appreciated by the travelling public, they failed to attract sufficient traffic to make them an economic proposition on this section of the line.” [9: p199]

These railcars were manufactured by the Sentinel Waggon Works in Shrewsbury, in partnership with Cammell Laird. They were innovative geared steam-powered cars which were intended to increase service frequency and passenger convenience.

References

  1. R. Ramaer; Steam Locomotives of the East African Railways; David & Charles, Newton Abbot, 1974.
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TR_RV_class, accessed on 17th July 2026
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TR_RV_class#/media/File:TR_RV_252_works_photo.jpg, accessed on 17th July 2026.
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TR_NZ_class, accessed on 17th July 2026.
  5. https://rogerfarnworth.com/2026/03/04/narrow-gauge-industrial-lines-in-tanganyika-tanzania/
  6. https://www.flickr.com/photos/124446949@N06/35821749336, accessed on 17th July 2026.
  7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TR_ML_class, accessed on 18th July 2026.
  8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TR_DL_class#, accessed on 18th July 2026.
  9. M. F. Hill; Permanent Way Volume II: The Story of the Tanganyika Railways; East African Railways and Habours, Nairobi, Kenya; Watson & Viney, Aylesbury & Slough, 1957.
  10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TR_MK_class, accessed on 19th July 2026.
  11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TR_GA_class, accessed on 19th July 2026.
  12. A. E. Durrant; Garratt Locomotives of the World (rev. and enl. ed.). David & Charles, Newton Abbot, 1981.
  13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KUR_EC5_class, accessed on 19th July 2026.
  14. https://grokipedia.com/page/tr_gsl_class, accessed on 20th July 2026.
  15. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carl_Vincenti_Bahnhof_von_Tanga.jpg, accessed on 20th July 2026.
  16. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1ALffLxhDg, accessed on 18th March 2026.
  17. https://www.facebook.com/GermanColonialEmpire/posts/next-in-our-series-on-the-railways-and-steam-locomotives-of-german-east-africage/1345234614304324, accessed on 20th July 2026.
  18. https://gweaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/The-Indian-Railway-Corps-East-African-Expeditionary-Force_1.pdf, accessed on 20th March 2026.
  19. https://www.drehscheibe-online.de/foren/read.php?108,9540359, accessed on 20th July 2026.
  20. https://eisenbahn.de/lok-magazin/schienen-im-schutzgebiet-wie-das-deutsche-kaiserreich-seine-kolonien-mit-eisenbahnen-erschloss_27156, accessed on 20th July 2026.
  21. I cannot identify the source of this image, given the age of the locomotive and the likely date of the image it will be in the Public Domain.
  22. https://www.facebook.com/GermanColonialEmpire/photos/njussi-station-of-the-usambara-railway-in-the-german-colony-of-east-africa-from-/1339164168244702, accessed on 20th July 2026.
  23. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Orenstein_%26_Koppel_steam_locomotives, accessed on 20th July 2026.
  24. https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_schmalspuriger_Lokomotiven_von_Henschel, accessed on 24th March 2024.
  25. A.E. Durrant; The Mallet Locomotive; David & Charles, Newton Abbot, Devon, 1974.
  26. The Gölsdorf axle system is used to achieve quiet running and low wear-and-tear when negotiating curves. The axle system comprises a combination of fixed axles and axles that can slide transversely, all within a single, rigid locomotive frame. The system was invented by a young Austrian locomotive builder, Karl Gölsdorf, around the end of the 19th century. The first locomotive to use this principle entered service in 1897. [27]
  27. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6lsdorf_axle, accessed on 21st July 2026.
  28. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/402962028832, accessed on 21st July 2026.
  29. The Bissell truck (or Bissel truck) is a swiveling bogie or pony truck assembly fitted on steam locomotives. Patented by American engineer Levi Bissell in 1857, its genius lies in placing the pivot pin behind the truck and just ahead of the front driving wheels, shortening the rigid wheelbase and allowing the wheels to smoothly navigate uneven curves. [30]
  30. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/25454/25454-h/25454-h.htm, accessed on 22nd July 2026.
  31. https://picryl.com/media/tr-st-12-works-photo-c12c48?zoom=true, accessed on 22nd July 2026.

Railways of Tanzania – Part 13 – WW2 and its Aftermath

The featured image for this article is GB Class Garratt Locomotive 4-8-2+2-8-4 which entered service in 1948. [1: p307]

During WW2, the financial position of the railways in Tanganyika improved considerably, due in no small part to movements of troops and refugees and a significant increase in goods traffic. In 1940, the number of journeys made by passengers was 511,809 which produced a revenue of £93,478. In 1945, the number of journeys made by passengers was 1,524,087 which produced revenue of £345,650. Throughout the system there was a shortage of passenger rolling-stock and many third-class passengers were carried in goods wagons. Goods traffic amounted to 236,512 tons in 1940 and 357,359 in 1945. The revenue derived from it increased from £469,228 to £638,536. made by passengers was 511,809 which produced a revenue of £93,478. In 1945, the number of journeys made by passengers was 1,524,087 which produced revenue of £345,650. Throughout the system there was a shortage of passenger rolling-stock and many third-class passengers were carried in goods wagons. Goods traffic amounted to 236,512 tons in 1940 and 357,359 in 1945. The revenue derived from it increased from £469,228 to £638,536.

German enterprise in Tanganyika had been allowed to proceed unchecked in the years prior to WW2, but at the advent of the war, all enemy aliens were interned and as a result the ‘Custodian of Enemy Property’ had to deal with “36 sisal estates, 180 coffee estates, 29 tea estates, 231 mixed farms and 14 cocoa-nut plantations, a total of 490 agricultural properties. In addition, there were 91 German-owned businesses and 49 German-owned mining properties in the Territory. German-owned sisal estates accounted for nearly one-third of the Territory’s production, and 24 of them were leased, on a royalty basis, to tenants approved by the Tanganyika Sisal Growers’ Association. In 1938, the German-owned coffee estates had produced 2,000 tons out of a total output of 5,000 tons from European-owned estates. They were nearly all in the Moshi, Arusha, Oldeani and Mbosi districts. The disorganisation of the world’s markets made it very difficult to lease the coffee estates, and only 30 out of the total of 226 had been leased by the end of 1940. The 29 German tea estates in the Southern Highlands, 24 around Mufindi and 5 around Tukuyu, were leased to the Kenya Tea Company, a subsidiary of Brooke Bond. Altogether the Custodian took over 1,739 personal accounts and 720 business and estate accounts. In the first year of the war-i.e. up to 31st August 1940 – the total of estate receipts was £460,632 and of payments £250,278.” [1: p255]

Hill continues:

“For farmers and planters 1940 was a good year, despite the the difficulties imposed by the war, the limitations of overseas markets for certain types of produce and the restriction of shipping, especially for sisal. The production of sisal was 101,810 tons, compared with 103,248 tons in 1939, but only 78,528 tons, valued at £1.5 million, could be exported. In 1939, 93,110 tons valued at £1,223,477 were exported. At the end of 1940 stocks of of sisal unshipped amounted to 46,566 tons compared with a normal stock of 13,000 tons. Exports of coffee and cotton were surprisingly well maintaimed, but the groundnuts crop was only 8,185 tons as compared with exports exceeding 23,000 tons in 1936 and 1937. The production of gold amounted to 291.511 ozs., valued at £1,213,334, of which 36,809 ozs., valued at ₤309,196, were produced by the Geita Gold Mining Company. The output of diamonds (6,211 carats) was valued at £13,614

“The total volume of Tanganyika’s trade in 1940 was very satisfactory and second only to 1937. For the first time the value of domestic exports exceeded £5 million. although a considerable part of the total production could not be exported during the year. The import trade was greatly reduced by the difficulty of securing supplies, the cessation of building and development, and the removal of German consumers. The favourable balance of visible trade rose to £2,640,000. Despite the difficulties, local trading conditions were sound and much of the trade was on a cash basis. The absence of the former competition of German merchant firms was an aid to traders in adjusting their operations to wartime conditions. In the July of 1940 the Compulsory Service Ordinance introduced conscription for all British subjects and protected persons. By the end of the year, nearly all adult male Europeans who were not in the Forces were either employed in essential occupations or were too old for military service. On 14th June 1941, 450 Europeans, 330 Asians and 17,500 Africans were on military service with the East Africa Command.

“By the end of 1940 the scope of the control of essential supplies was extended to include general supplies. The General Manager of the Railways was responsible both for the control of supplies and for the operation of price control. By means of an import control, the imports of non-sterling goods were reduced to £1,135,462 in 1940 as compared with over £1.8 million in 1938.

“Early in 1940 the Sisal Controller, Major Sir William Lead, visited London to discuss the problems confronting the industry. The requirements of the United Kingdom and France were about 80,000 tons a year, and the rest of East Africa’s output was very hard to sell. With the collapse of France, the Continental markets were closed, and it was essential to devise a scheme for the restriction of output. The British Government agreed to guarantee a market for 100,000 tons of East African sisal during the year 1940-1941 at a controlled price, and the sisal planters agreed to restrict production by one-third. The restriction scheme, which came into operation on 1st November 1940, provided a quota of 76,570 tons of sisal from Tanganyika and 23,430 tons from Kenya and Uganda. The restriction scheme did not last for long. Within a year the maximum output of sisal was required and steps were taken to raise production to 108,000 tons a year.

“Towards the end of 1940 the East Africa Command called on Tanganyika for a rapid increase in supplies of meat, rice, onions and potatoes to the Army. In September a timber control was established on an East African basis under Major F. W. Cavendish-Bentinck, who was represented in Tanganyika by the Conservator of Forests as Deputy Controller. By the end of the year all sawmills were working at full capacity to meet military orders. The Shume concession of the Tanganyika Forests and Lumber Company was terminated in September, and the land, buildings and machinery were requisitioned. The forest was then worked by a South African Forestry Company, a military unit, until the April of 1941, when the Shume sawmill was closed down.

“By the end of 1940 Tanganyika’s General Revenue Balance was £705,984, a result which confounded the pundits and showed how rash it is to predict the economic reaction to a set of unprecedented conditions.

“In 1941 the revenue of the railways and the ports increased to £841,616, whereas expenditure was held down to £431,928, a remarkable achievement. After payment of loan charges (£313,137), the railways were left with a surplus of £96,551, the largest since 1927. The liability of the railways to the Government of Tanganyika was reduced to £299,096, which included a sum of £55,000 to cover the holding of Government stores. The Acting General Manager, Mr. L. E. Steventon, reported that the number of miles run per engine failure was again disappointing. ‘The majority of failures,’ he wrote, ‘were caused by the inexperience of young African drivers who are being employed as a result of heavy wastage of older men. Difficulty is being experienced in obtaining the right type of learner-driver and also in retaining their services after training has started. Training of African drivers and artisans has continued as satisfactorily as can be expected under present difficult conditions.’ A number of these drivers who remained in the Railways’ service later proved very satisfactory.

“Mr. Steventon also reported that the track had been maintained to a standard which permitted good running at the maximum speed in force. There were some bad sections in the Dodoma district, but on the coastal sections running was improved by the laying of earth ballast. One of the solutions to the problem of carrying more traffic without an increase of engine power was to regrade or realign the more steeply graded sections of the line. … In 1944, realignment and regrading was started between Morogoro and Mkata to reduce the gradient to 1%, compensated for curvature, and this work was completed in 1946. Regrading at Kidete and Saranda was also undertaken and completed in 1944. The increased traffic of the war years also made it necessary to restart the ballasting of many sections of the main line, although the demands on rolling stock often made it difficult to move the ballast from the quarries to the line.

“In the January, November and December of 1941 there were serious washaways in the Dodoma district, especially between Kms. 473 and 489, around Manyoni and in the Mukandokwa valley, which caused serious delays to traffic. As a result of a wash-away in January, a new bridge was built at Km. 473. It was completed in November, a few days before the temporary diversion was washed away. In addition to coping with its own problems, the Engineering Department also undertook the construction of an internment camp to house 3,000 men at Tabora. The camp, built in four months, was needed to house Italian enemy subjects removed from Abyssinia and Italian Somaliland. In the following year, a similar camp was built at Kigoma.” [1: p255-257]

“Towards the end of 1940, the East Africa Command called on Tanganyika for a rapid increase in supplies of meat, rice, onions and potatoes to the Army. In September a timber control was established on an East African basis under Major F. W. Caven-dish-Bentinck, who was represented in Tanganyika by the Conservator of Forests as Deputy Controller. By the end of the year all sawmills were working at full capacity to meet military orders. The Shume concession of the Tanganyika Forests and Lumber Company was terminated in September, and the land, buildings and machinery were requisitioned. The forest was then worked by a South African Forestry Company, a military unit, until the April of 1941, when the Shume sawmill was closed down.

“By the end of 1940, Tanganyika’s General Revenue Balance was £705,984, a result which confounded the pundits and showed how rash it is to predict the economic reaction to a set of unprecedented conditions.

“In 1941 the revenue of the railways and the ports increased to £841,616, whereas expenditure was held down to £431,928, a remarkable achievement. After payment of loan charges (£313,137), the railways were left with a surplus of £96,551, the largest since 1927. The liability of the railways to the Government of Tanganyika was reduced to £299,096, which included a sum of £55,000 to cover the holding of Government stores. The Acting General Manager, Mr. L. E. Steventon, reported that the number of miles run per engine failure was again disappointing. ‘The majority of failures,’ he wrote, ‘were caused by the inexperience of young African drivers who are being employed as a result of heavy wastage of older men. Difficulty is being experienced in obtaining the right type of learner-driver and also in retaining their services after training has started. Training of African drivers and artisans has continued as satisfactorily as can be expected under present difficult conditions.’ A number of these drivers who remained in the Railways’ service later proved very satisfactory.

“Mr. Steventon also reported that the track had been maintained to a standard which permitted good running at the maximum speed in force. There were some bad sections in the Dodoma district, but on the coastal sections running was improved by the laying of earth ballast. One of the solutions to the problem of carrying more traffic without an increase of engine power was to regrade or realign the more steeply graded sections of the line. … In 1944, realignment and regrading was started between Morogoro and Mkata to reduce the gradient to 1%, compensated for curvature, and this work was completed in 1946. Regrading at Kidete and Saranda was also undertaken and completed in 1944. The increased traffic of the war years also made it necessary to restart the ballasting of many sections of the main line, although the demands on rolling stock often made it difficult to move the ballast from the quarries to the line.

“In the January, November and December of 1941 there were serious washaways in the Dodoma district, especially between Kms. 473 and 489, around Manyoni and in the Mukandokwa valley, which caused serious delays to traffic. As a result of a wash-away in January, a new bridge was built at Km. 473. It was completed in November, a few days before the temporary diversion was washed away. In addition to coping with its own problems, the Engineering Department also undertook the construction of an internment camp to house 3,000 men at Tabora. The camp, built in four months, was needed to house Italian enemy subjects removed from Abyssinia and Italian Somaliland. In the following year, a similar camp was built at Kigoma.” [1: p255-257]

From 1942 until the amalgamation with Kenya and Uganda Railways in May 1948, the Tanganyika Railways made substantial profits. Hill tells us that:

“For the year 1942 the gross revenue of the railways and the ports was £1,115,927, while expenditure was only £504,642. After paying loan charges, the working profit was £296,009. At long last it was possible to inaugurate a proper Renewals Fund, and it was opened with an appropriation of £100,000. The liability to the Tanganyika Government was reduced to £84,509. The railways’ profits for the rest of the war years were £267,122 in 1943, £276,332 in 1944 and £225,441 in 1945. These satisfactory results enabled allocations to the Renewals Fund of £220,000 in 1943, £237,150 in 1944, and £193,900 in 1945. Of the allocation in 1942, £20,000 was specifically ear-marked for the new road services. Although it was not possible to place the Renewals Fund on an economic basis, it was realised that unless full renewals’ contributions were made in respect of the road vehicles which had a high value and a short life, the road services would soon be in serious financial difficulties.

“In 1944. the financial position of the ports had so improved that it was possible to contribute £10,000 to a Ports Renewals Fund, in addition to contributions of £200,000 to the Railways’ Renewals Fund and of £27,500 to the Road Services’ Renewals Fund. In 1945, the contribution to the Railways’ Renewals Fund had to be reduced to £150,000, but the contribution in respect of the ports was maintained at £10,000, and the allocation to the Road Services’ Renewals Fund was increased to £35,900. This was an important step towards a sounder financial position, but there was still a deal of leeway to be made up. In 1940, the General Manager had stated that the arrears of renewals, in respect of British assets alone, amounted to £1,272,782,

“The improvement in the railways’ financial position during the war years was based on a much wider range of traffic than formerly. The traffic returns for 1945 showed that no single item provided a dangerously large percentage of the revenue as had been the case in the years when copper had been the mainstay of the Central line. During the war the Congo traffic increased substantially, but in 1945 it represented only 159,278 of a total revenue of nearly £1.5 million.

“When the finances of the ports were separated from those of the railways in 1939, the gross earnings amounted to £123,075, the expenditure to £96,658, including debt charges, and the excess of earnings over expenditure was £26,517. These results remained much the same during the next two years, but in 1942 they started to improve, and by 1945 the gross earnings had reached a figure of £214,297. Expenditure, including debt charges, was £159,183, and the excess of earnings over expenditure was £55,114. The substantial growth of traffic strained the ports in the same way as the railways. Unfortunately the ports had also to cope with the difficulties caused by the convoy system. The arrival of ships in bunches made smooth working at Dar-es-Salaam difficult and threw a great strain on the storage accommodation at the port. As shippers had no knowledge of the arrivals and sailings of vessels, far more exports had to be stored in the port area than was normal, so a low storage rate was introduced. In 1944, at Dar-es-Salaam Malindi Wharf, a new shed which provided an additional 13,000 square feet of storage space, was constructed.

“In 1941, it was decided that the arrangements under which the Tanganyika Landing and Shipping Company, the Administration’s cargo-handling contractors at the ports, were working gave too favourable terms to the contractors. A new agreement was therefore reached whereby all revenue accruing from the handling of cargo was paid to the Tanganyika Railways, and the Tanganyika Landing and Shipping Company was paid on the basis of the actual cost of the work which they performed, plus a percentage for profit. The new agreement came into force on 1st January 1942, and resulted in a substantial increase of the gross earnings of the ports of Dar-es-Salaam and Tanga. The net receipts increased from £24,080 in 1941 to £48,251 in 1942.” [1: p258-259]

“For the year 1942 the gross revenue of the railways and the ports was £1,115,927, while expenditure was only £504,642. After paying loan charges, the working profit was £296,009. At long last it was possible to inaugurate a proper Renewals Fund, and it was opened with an appropriation of £100,000. The liability to the Tanganyika Government was reduced to £84,509. The railways’ profits for the rest of the war years were £267,122 in 1943, £276,332 in 1944 and £225,441 in 1945. These satisfactory results enabled allocations to the Renewals Fund of £220,000 in 1943, £237,150 in 1944, and £193,900 in 1945. Of the allocation in 1942, £20,000 was specifically ear-marked for the new road services. Although it was not possible to place the Renewals Fund on an economic basis, it was realised that unless full renewals’ contributions were made in respect of the road vehicles which had a high value and a short life, the road services would soon be in serious financial difficulties.

“In 1944. the financial position of the ports had so improved that it was possible to contribute £10,000 to a Ports Renewals Fund, in addition to contributions of £200,000 to the Railways’ Renewals Fund and of £27,500 to the Road Services’ Renewals Fund. In 1945, the contribution to the Railways’ Renewals Fund had to be reduced to £150,000, but the contribution in respect of the ports was maintained at £10,000, and the allocation to the Road Services’ Renewals Fund was increased to £35,900. This was an important step towards a sounder financial position, but there was still a deal of leeway to be made up. In 1940, the General Manager had stated that the arrears of renewals, in respect of British assets alone, amounted to £1,272,782,

“The improvement in the railways’ financial position during the war years was based on a much wider range of traffic than formerly. The traffic returns for 1945 showed that no single item provided a dangerously large percentage of the revenue as had been the case in the years when copper had been the mainstay of the Central line. During the war the Congo traffic increased substantially, but in 1945 it represented only 159,278 of a total revenue of nearly £1.5 million.

“When the finances of the ports were separated from those of the railways in 1939, the gross earnings amounted to £123,075, the expenditure to £96,658, including debt charges, and the excess of earnings over expenditure was £26,517. These results remained much the same during the next two years, but in 1942 they started to improve, and by 1945 the gross earnings had reached a figure of £214,297. Expenditure, including debt charges, was £159,183, and the excess of earnings over expenditure was £55,114. The substantial growth of traffic strained the ports in the same way as the railways. Unfortunately the ports had also to cope with the difficulties caused by the convoy system. The arrival of ships in bunches made smooth working at Dar-es-Salaam difficult and threw a great strain on the storage accommodation at the port. As shippers had no knowledge of the arrivals and sailings of vessels, far more exports had to be stored in the port area than was normal, so a low storage rate was introduced. In 1944, at Dar-es-Salaam Malindi Wharf, a new shed which provided an additional 13,000 square feet of storage space, was constructed.

“In 1941, it was decided that the arrangements under which the Tanganyika Landing and Shipping Company, the Administration’s cargo-handling contractors at the ports, were working gave too favourable terms to the contractors. A new agreement was therefore reached whereby all revenue accruing from the handling of cargo was paid to the Tanganyika Railways, and the Tanganyika Landing and Shipping Company was paid on the basis of the actual cost of the work which they performed, plus a percentage for profit. The new agreement came into force on 1st January 1942, and resulted in a substantial increase of the gross earnings of the ports of Dar-es-Salaam and Tanga. The net receipts increased from £24,080 in 1941 to £48,251 in 1942.” [1: p258-259]

In 1942, a service of first class safari cars which seated 7 passengers, and were built on a 10-cwt. chassis, was introduced between Morogoro and Korogwe. The fares charged were double the normal second class fare on the ordinary bus. In 1943, very heavy demands were made on this service for the carriage of passengers, including troops. As a result, it was necessary to divert all ordinary goods traffic to the sea route between Tanga and Dar-es-Salaam and to carry only passengers and baggage by road.

Hill explains that the Morogoro Road Service brought in some considerable revenue. The Railway’s profits from the venture, after payment of interest, loan charges and renewals contributions, were:

1941 ………. £3,107; 1942 …………. £271; 1943 …….. £17,950; 1944 ………. £6,311; 1945 ………. £9,199

The result of this was that the Government asked the Railways to run further road services. [2][3] Hill describes the growth of road service during WW2 as remarkable and he provides figures to support his assertion:

Road Services provided by the Railways between 1941 and 1946. [1: p260]

More details about the road services provided by Tanganyika Railways and the later East Africa Railways and Harbours can be found here. [2]

The railways were also expected to expand their services on water, both at the coast and inland. In 1942, a river service was set up in the Kilombero valley at the Governments assistance. This was a loss making service which ran for just three years before it was closed. In 1940, a ferry service to local ports and islands based at Mwanza was started which was based on vessels leased from the Custodian of Enemy Property.

By 1944, Hill tells us that: The policymakers of Tanganyika Railways were beginning to envisage what life might be like in the coming peace. “Between the two world wars Tanganyika’s status as a mandated territory under the League of Nations was undoubtedly a hindrance to economic development. As the repute of the League of Nations waned, fear that Tanganyika would be restored to Germany had waxed. As a result, capital investment was small and few commercial concerns were prepared to accept the political risk in addition to the hazards common to enterprise in an undeveloped country. These political fears and a policy of undue caution and, at least to some extent, of restriction, retarded the development of agriculture and curtailed the alienation of land for European settlement between the two world wars.” [1: p261]By 1944, Hill tells us that:

Hill continues:

“In the May of 1944 Mr. J. R. Farquharson, the Chief Engineer of the Tanganyika Railways who had been seconded as Controller of Road Transport, completed an able review of transport in Tanganyika. Mr. Farquharson’s main conclusions and recommendations were:

(i) A Transport Authority should be established to operate all state transport services, to undertake the licensing, regulation and supervision of other internal transport services, and to negotiate with transport operators between Tanganyika and other countries.

(ii) Railway revenue from internal traffic could be estimated as increasing by £15,000 a year from a level of £610,000 in 1941. A new agreement should be negotiated in respect of transit traffic to and from the Belgian Congo, To be rid of injustices to Tanganyika, a new agreement should be negotiated in respect of traffic between the Northern and Lake Provinces and the coast.

(iii) The annual cost of maintaining Tanganyika’s roads was £150,000 and the revenue raised from road users was less than £100,000. The usual unit was a vehicle of three tons’ capacity. The road transport industry was in the hands of ‘small’ men, usually owning from one to three lorries. The real cost of operating lorries was 70 cents per vehicle-mile.

(iv) The future of road-rail relations was the main transport problem. The disparity in marginal costs of rail and motor transport was about 2 cents and 20 to 30 cents respectively. Control should be exercised over road routes parallel to railway lines, but free competition should be allowed within de-fined traffic areas.

(v) A new railway should be built, at an estimated cost of £900,000, between Morogoro on the Central line and Korogwe on the Tanga line. Another new railway should be built, at an estimated cost of £2,400,000, between Morogoro and Mbeya, with the possibility in mind of stopping at a point beyond Ifakara.

(“Mr. Farquharson then wrote: ‘The financing of the losses on these two railways in their early years is well within the capacity of the railway services but, in the interests of the general welfare, it might be desirable to finance the losses in whole or in part from general revenue. Future investment in the road system should be the subject of further consideration by the proposed Transport Authority in the light of decisions made regarding railway developments. The proposed railway links, apart from their beneficial effect on the local economy, will be of great value for defence purposes and will greatly assist in the development of an African economy. All railway, port and other engineering works should be planned as a continuous programme, so that the best use is made of personnel and equipment, and the level of activity is suited to the needs of Tanganyika’s economy’.”) [1: p261-262]

Farquharson’s list continues:

“(vi) While the Shipping Conferences served a most useful function for overseas traffic, their control over local movements on the East African coast and their use of the deferred rebate system in respect of local shipments had been contrary to the welfare of Tanganyika. Deferred rebates should be prohibited and the Transport Authority should operate two coastal steamers.

(vii) Two deep-water berths should be constructed at Dar es Salaam at an estimated capital cost of £400,000. One deep-water berth and one coastal berth should be built at Tanga at an estimated cost of £300,000. Coastal berths should also be built at Lindi and Mikindani. The annual charges on a capital expenditure of some £800,000 could be met without difficulty from the revenue of the ports.

(viii) A motor-launch service should be operated along the Tanganyika shore of Lake Nyasa and much improved services established on Victoria Nyanza.

(ix) Internal air services should be co-ordinated with other internal transport services and operated in the interests of East Africa rather than to suit the convenience of operators on international routes.” [1: p262-263]

Farquharson also drew attention to a ‘Memorandum on the financial and economic aspects of the transport facilities serving the Lake Province of Tanganyika’, which was dated November 1940. Hill quotes the last two paragraphs of that memorandum which read:

“Finally it may be argued that amalgamation of the three East African territories or amalgamation of the two East African railways or both would settle the question raised in this memorandum; from that premise it could be reasoned that there would be little point in reaching a settlement on this particular problem if one of the amalgamations mentioned is likely to take place at some not-too-distant date. Amalgamation, per se, would not really solve the difficulties, and in fact a proper appreciation of this frontier problem is required to ensure that, if the railways are amalgamated, all parties will receive equitable treatment. The consideration given to all the factors and the solution proposed in this memorandum would, in fact, assist greatly in any later negotiations regarding closer union. Amalgamation may take a number of forms: e.g. (i) complete union of territories and the railways (as in South Africa); (ii) federation of territories with separate state railways (as in Australia); (iii) federation with amalgamation of the rail system; (iv) amalgamation of railways with separate states (as in Kenya and Uganda at present). With the first solution it would be necessary to consider the East African railways as a homogeneous transport system and apply the same rate structure throughout. If the union took place with no change in total traffic, the new rate level would be generally higher than the present Kenya-Uganda-rate level. It could be argued that this would be caused by the amalgamation with a low-traffic, high-cost line, but principally it would show that the present low Kenya-Uganda rates had been obtained partly because of the traffic to and from the Northern and Lake Provinces of Tanganyika. With the second solution each territory would give to the federal body only certain of its rights as a separate political entity, and with separate railway systems it would still be necessary to negotiate equitable agreements as between the federal authority, the separate territories and the railways. With the third solution it would also be necessary to negotiate equitable agreements between the railway system, the states and the federal authorities. With the fourth solution it would still be necessary for the separate terri tories to have equitable arrangements with the single administration, otherwise the latter would have the power to affect state policies.

“It can be seen, therefore, that no matter what the future may hold as regards the development of the East African transport administrations, nothing is gained by any postponement in considering the question raised in this memorandum. For forty years the Kenya-Uganda system has enjoyed almost all the transport revenue from one of the richest parts of the Territory, though the Territory itself has had its own transport route available since 1928; a settlement is now required which will safeguard the interests of Tanganyika and its inhabitants after the termination of the existing agreement.” [1: p263-264]

Hill mentions that “At long last, a decision was taken to cut the annual losses on the branch line from Manyoni to Kinyangiri. The section from Singida to Kinyangiri was taken up in 1944 and a triangle installed at Singida. In 1947 the section from Manyoni to Singida was also taken up and an unfortunate venture finally closed.” [1: p264]

Hill goes on to state that:

During 1944, orders were placed in the United Kingdom for a number of new covered wagons and tank cars, but by the end of 1947 only 22 new covered wagons had been delivered. Apart from a few shunting engines, no new engines nor passenger coaches were ordered, and the existing stock proved sufficient to cope with the traffic offering until 1947. In that year there was a decline in the volume of passenger traffic.

In 1945, there were eleven washaways on the Central line, and one of them was a serious blow. Near Mikese, one of the three Garratt engines was wrecked beyond repair and had to be written off, eight wagons were derailed and seriously damaged, and the line was blocked for four days. … In the same year Mr. A. E. Hamp, after thirty-three years of notable service to East Africa, retired as General Manager of the Tanganyika Railways and was succeeded by Mr. J. R. Farquharson. At the conclusion of his Annual Report for the year 1945, Mr. Farquharson wrote:

“It may be that the volumes of passenger and goods traffic of 1945 will not be exceeded for many years. Passenger traffic by rail rose from 35 million passenger miles in 1939 to 136 million in 1945. Public goods traffic rose from 45 million ton-miles in 1939 to 81 million in 1945. These services can look with pride on the part they have played in carrying, without any increase in rolling stock, the burdens which have resulted from the war.

“At the end of the year traffic was still rising, but the completion of demobilisation in 1946 will result in some diminution of the passenger traffic. In this period of rapid change it is difficult to forecast the position of the services during the next few years. It is hoped that, though revenues may fall, it will be possible to adjust working expenditure to such an extent as will enable a healthy net revenue position to be maintained. If this can be done, the capital investment so necessary to enable these services to play a full part in the development of the Territory can safely be undertaken.”

“In 1944, Sir Reginald Robins, the General Manager of the Kenya and Uganda Railways, had predicted that peace would bring “a considerable diminution of the demands made on the railways and a consequent fall in the revenue.” In his Annual Report for the year 1946, Sir Reginald wrote: “Few, if any, of those connected with business and shipping could foresee the amazing recovery in the import of goods from overseas. It was remarkable how quickly the momentum of the United Kingdom’s export drive gathered speed, and even more remarkable how ships in such numbers were diverted, on the completion of their tasks of carrying troops from overseas theatres of war, to cargo services.”

“The predictions of the two General Managers were wide of the mark, although they were in accord with the majority of well-informed opinion at the time. Perhaps there was too great a tendency to think in terms of 1919, and to under-estimate the release of spending power in search of goods which followed six years of war. In the case of Tanganyika, Mr. Farquharson could not foresee, at the time, the tremendous demands which the East African Groundnuts Scheme would impose on the railways.

“In the December of 1945, a non-Parliamentary paper on Inter-Territorial Reorganisation in East Africa proposed inter alia, a complete amalgamation of the Kenya and Uganda Railways and Harbours with the Tanganyika Railways and Ports Services, and the establishment of a Railways and Ports Advisory Board for the combined services. Unfortunately, the political implications of the paper provoked a controversy which distracted public attention from the proposals concerning the railways and harbours. It was unfortunate that these issues were virtually ignored in a contentious political argument, for there is no doubt that the paper offered a logical solution of many persistent problems. In the upshot the amalgamation of the two transport systems was postponed for more than two years.

“During 1946 there was a small decrease of first-class travel on the Tanganyika Railways, but an increase of third-class travel, caused mainly by the large number of troops carried after demobilisation, a movement completed in July, and the carriage of 5,600 members of the Ismailia community to Dar es Salaam during July and August to attend the Jubilee celebrations of H.H. the Aga Khan. The goods traffic increased, from 357.359 tons in 1945 to 373,823 tons in 1946. Financially the railways did very much better than during the last year of the war, and the net profit of £310,984 was the highest yet recorded and enabled £203,060 to be allocated to the Renewals Funds. For the time being, the passenger traffic passed its peak in 1946, but there was to be a further rapid increase from 1948 onwards. There was no check to the mounting volume of goods traffic for several years ahead.

“In his Annual Report for 1946, Mr. Farquharson wrote: “There are indications that goods traffic had reached or was approaching a post-war peak, but the decision of His Majesty’s Government to proceed with the Groundnuts Scheme in areas served by the existing lines has completely altered the traffic prospects during the next few years. The estimated traffic for the areas exceeds the capacity of the existing goods wagons and arrangements are in train to obtain second-hand stock from military sources and to procure supplies of new stock from the United Kingdom. Until these additional wagons are available, congestion will occur on the Central line.” [1: p264-266]

Hill continues:

“In the June of 1946 the Charter of the United Nations was adopted by the Security Conference held in San Francisco. Article 75 of the Charter stated:

“The United Nations shall establish under its authority an international trusteeship system for the administration and supervision of such territories as may be placed there-under by subsequent individual agreements. These territories are hereafter referred to as Trust Territories.” [1: p266]

Article 77 stated:

“1. The trusteeship systems shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:

(a) Territories now held under mandate.

(b) Territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and

(c) Territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.

“2. It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.” [1: p266]

By an Agreement with the United Nations His Majesty’s Government undertook to administer Tanganyika as a Trust Territory. The Agreement required that the Territory should be administered for the benefit of all sections of the population, irrespective of race or religion. The terms of the Agreement [could not] be changed without the consent of the Government of the United Kingdom. The recognition that the British Government intended to administer Tanganyika until the ultimate goal of self-government be reached, and that the rights and interests of all communities would be secured and protected, led to a greater measure of confidence in the political future and a consequent increase of capital investment.

Hill continues:

“For some years before the war consideration had been given to a long-range development programme. In December 1937, a Central Development Committee was appointed to examine and report on methods whereby development by native and non-native enterprise could best be encouraged and assisted. The outbreak of war interrupted the Committee’s work, but its admirable report, for which Sir George Sandford was largely responsible, was published in 1940. … During the war it was impossible to implement many of the Development Committee’s recommendations, but towards the end of 1943 a programme of post-war planning was drafted. A special development branch was set up in the Secretariat to re-examine, in collaboration with a Planning Committee, the position in the light of the changed conditions and circumstances. At the end of 1944 a memorandum entitled ‘An Outline of Post-War Development Proposals’ was published. The programme outlined in this memorandum was designed as the framework within which development should be carried out and not as a complete plan in itself. In 1946 it was decided that the planning and direction of development should no longer be regarded as part of the Secretariat’s functions and that the responsibility should be transferred to a separate organisation which could pay undivided attention to them. A Development Commission was, therefore, appointed. In September 1946, the report of the Commission, setting forth a ten-year development and welfare plan for the Territory, was published. It was approved by His Majesty’s Government in January 1947, subject to the provision of additional funds for African education and to the setting up of machinery to provide financial assistance for African farmers. The estimated cost of the plan was £19,186,000. The urgent need for the improvement of Tanganyika’s road system was recognised, and over £3.5 million was allocated for the realignment and reconstruction of certain main roads to bitumen standard and for the improvement of subsidiary roads. The ill-fated East African Groundnuts Scheme had its origin in a world shortage of edible oils and fats which seemed likely to continue for a long time. Proposals for such a scheme were first considered by His Majesty’s Government early in 1946. After a thorough investigation and a most optimistic report which paid inadequate heed to several vital factors, including the notorious variation in the yield of the groundnut crop along the Central line, the scheme was approved. It was proposed, within a few years, to bring into cultivation over 3,000,000 acres of land in Tanganyika, Kenya and Northern Rhodesia. Nearly 80 per cent. of the total acreage projected was to be in Tanganyika. The first areas to be developed, at Kongwa and Urambo, were served by the Central line, but by far the largest area planned was in the Southern Province. This entailed the building of a new railway and a new port equipped with deep-water berths.” [1: p266-268]

For more about the Southern Line and the Groundnuts Scheme, please click here [4] and here. [Part 12]

The railways also sought to provide effective transport for minerals extracted across the country:

  • Mwadui Mine (Williamson’s Diamonds Ltd) – in 1947, a 9 mile ‘siding’ was provided from the Mwanza Branch to serve the Mwadui Mine.
  • Mpanda (Uruwira Minerals Ltd) – a branch line from Kaliua on the Central Line to Mpanda was opened in August 1950.

“During the years 1946 to 1948, the road services continued to operate under very difficult conditions, with inadequate workshop facilities and an unsuitable fleet of vehicles. Many of the lorries had been bought during the war, and they were worked hard without thought of a long life. Early in 1948, the Road Services’ fleet of vehicles consisted of 250 assorted units, but many had been fully depreciated and were waiting their turn to be scrapped. Nevertheless, the mounting volume of traffic was carried, rates were kept at a reasonable level and the revenue earned by the Road Services steadily increased. In 1947, the surplus, after repayment of loan charges, was £23.303. but it was becoming clear that the provision for renewals (£27.450 in 1947) was inadequate. Orders were placed for large diesel-engined units which later became the mainstay of the freight service by road.” [1: p270]

“During 1947, a new passenger road service was started between Arusha and Dodoma, a passenger and goods service was started between Arusha and Oldeani, and when the Singida line was closed, it was replaced by a road service between Singida and Itigi. … It was decided in 1946 that the railway should run its own catering services. Previously the catering in the dining cars had been undertaken by contractors and the railway’s hotels at Dodoma and Tabora had beenleased to private concerns. In May the hotel at Dodoma was taken over and completely rebuilt to cope with the passenger traffic which had been greatly increased by the road service.” [1: p270-271]

Hill continues:

“Between the May and November of 1947 six new M.L. 2-8-2 engines arrived from the United Kingdom. Although they were adequate to meet immediate needs, it was clear that more engines would be needed to meet the estimated volume of traffic in 1948 and 1949. There was no prospect of obtaining new engines in under three years. Again a widespread search was made for metre-gauge engines which were for sale. Four new Garratt locomotives, suitable for operation on the Central line, were found at Rangoon and bought from the War Office. They arrived at Dar-es-Salaam in the May of 1948 and gave excellent service. Sixteen American-built ‘MacArthur’ engines were also bought from the Malayan Railway, which was then taking delivery of new engines from the United Kingdom.

“After some delay the first shipment of eight ‘MacArthur’ engines was received late in 1948. One was erected to ensure that they were capable of giving satisfactory service. The trial was sufficiently encouraging to warrant confirmation of the order for the remaining eight engines. It was first planned to erect these engines as they were needed, as the 430 wagons obtained from Shaiba and El Shatt came into service and as additional staff was available. Later it was decided to provide a margin of engine power more quickly and an erecting team was flown from Nairobi to tackle the task of erection.

“These ‘MacArthur’ engines were supposed to be of the same American design, but they had been manufactured by three different firms and each had changed certain details of the design. Generally, they were a rough war-time production. The construction of the tender water-tanks was weak and they had to be rebuilt. The valve-gear and the reversing gear was also re-designed, and most of the new parts were made in Nairobi and fitted in Dar-es-Salaam. Due to the limited capacity of the Dar-es-Salaam workshops, six of the engines were dismantled and brought to Nairobi, where they were completely overhauled and the new parts fitted. The ‘MacArthurs’ were not well suited to burning wood fuel, but after they were converted to oil firing their performance greatly improved. Although built only to meet a war-time need, they have given reasonably good service on the Central line – so much so that they are not due to be scrapped until 1963.

“In addition to the four Garratt and 16 ‘MacArthur’ engines, four engines, built at the Ajmer workshops in India and found lying idle at El Shatt, were bought at a nominal price. They were intended only for secondary and departmental use and as an insurance against delay in the delivery of other units. These four second-hand engines met a limited need and were in use until 1957.

“The tonnage handled at the port of Dar-es-Salaam increased from 270,000 tons in 1945 to over 439,000 tons in 1947 and over 504,000 tons in 1948. The Groundnuts Scheme imposed a very severe strain on the facilities, equipment and staff of the port, although its capacity was considerably increased to cope with the mounting traffic. Heavy cargoes for Kongwa had to be off-loaded over a lighterage wharf. There were not enough lighters, quay space, shed space and stacking grounds and many of the cargoes arriving for the Groundnuts Scheme were awkward to handle. In the upshot much of the equipment, then regarded as an urgent need at Kongwa or Urambo, was never used. A shipment of fertilisers was dumped at the back of the port area and railed up-country over a period. As late as 1952 a large quantity of these fertilisers was still lying unused in the open at Urambo. In addition to the demands of Kongwa and Urambo, normal import traffic increased rapidly during the post-war years and the transit traffic to the Belgian Congo was also heavy.

“Despite all the difficulties, the Tanganyika Railways earned a record profit in 1947. The combined earnings of the railways and the ports were £1,883,996. Expenditure was £1,252,289. After paying loan charges of £307,214, the net profit was £318,493 and allocations to the Renewals Funds were £287,450. The liability of the railways under the various loans was £4,348,465 and the accumulated sinking fund was £978,533.” [1: p271-272]

In the last 8 to 9 pages of his narrative, Hill tells the story of the final months of the independent existence of Tanganyika Railways and Ports Services. Public opinion became positively disposed to an inter-territorial reorganisation in East Africa. By 1st January 1948 the East Africa High Commission and the East Africa Central Assembly were established.

On 21st April 1948, the General manager of Tanganyika Railways and Ports Services proposed the amalgamation of the Tanganyika Railways and Ports Services with the Kenya and Uganda Railways and Harbours. In doing so he outlined the advantages and the disadvantages of the proposal. He said:

“In the first place, I would stress … the essential geographic and economic unity in these territories. … Secondly, it appears to me that both inside and outside the Territory the present strength of the finances of the Tanganyika Railways and Ports Services has been underestimated. … Thirdly, I should like to mention briefly the position regarding the lines being built principally in connection with the Overseas Food Corporation. The branch now under construction from Msagali to Kongwa and Hororo is being financed from railway funds with no guarantees from the Corporation. The questions of finance and guarantees in connection with the Port Works at Mikindani and the railway being built from the port to the groundnut areas have recently been discussed with Sir Charles Lockhart, a director of the Corporation. Provisional agreement has been reached in terms which are generally in accord with standards prescribed in the motion which was approved by a neighbouring legislature when considering the question of amalgamation. I would add that though the Groundnuts Scheme has added considerably to the present transport problems, it should be remembered that this big increment of traffic, leading to a spread of fixed costs and hence in the long run to lower rates for other users, has brought long-term benefits which should not be under-estimated.

“Advantages likely to accrue from amalgamation … the application of a uniform rating structure. … The new tariff … will, subject to the qualification that variations may be necessary from other causes, be generally be below the present Tanganyi8ka level. … Of much more fundamental importance … is the gain which will accrue to East Africa as a result of the removal of the break in tapered rates. … [There is an] almost universal policy of tapering goods rates, i.e, as distance increases the charge per mile decreases. With two railway systems in East Africa there is a discontinuity … in the rate at the inter-change point, so that charges for goods passing from one system to the other are generally higher per mile than movements of the same distance over one system. … The internal movement of traffic is certain to increase, and the increasing inter-territorial movements will be greatly facilitated by the uniform tariff. It would in practice be very difficult for two administrations to operate a uniform tariff, as this would in effect prevent either administration from controlling its own revenue.

“The second major advantage of amalgamation is the ability of the larger system to withstand reduction in earnings arising from droughts or from depressions in specific industries. This in turn leads to greater financial stability and consequent capacity to pursue a steady financial policy and to plan development projects farther ahead than would otherwise be possible. This is a matter of great importance if the transport services are to be well planned to meet adequately the needs of East Africa.

“The amalgamation will facilitate the adoption of the rolling stock standards (as regards the dimensions, the form of braking and the type of coupler), the structure gauge and most important the track gauge already agreed for the whole of Southern Africa. The policy of standardisation is being followed now but it will become more effective under one administration. It seems probable, with the developments now envisaged in Africa, that the question of converting the East African lines from metre gauge to 3 feet 6 inches will have to be tackled during the next ten or perhaps twenty years when a junction is effected with the Rhodesian system. The change of gauge will be a fairly lengthy process, will involve a number of temporary diversions in traffic flows and will be greatly facilitated if the lines are under a single direction.” [1: p272-275]

We can plan for but never fully anticipate the future! While the railways were under colonial control many of these arguments hold sway, but considerably less so once the various countries gained their independence. Ultimately, also, the change of gauge was not to occur. The TAZARA carried the 3ft 6 in gauge through to Dar-es-Salaam but no attempt was made to convert the East African network to a common 3ft 6in gauge! Plans in the twenty-first century are for a standard-gauge network rather than a narrow-gauge network.

Farquharson contines:

“The relatively minor advantages of amalgamation may be listed – better designed timetables for passengers, simpler tariffs for users and quicker adjustment of engines and rolling stock to meet changing traffic demands.

“Some possible disadvantages [Include]: … the increase in size of the organisation might produce, at least in the early stages, some reduction in efficiency; … the transport administration might pursue policies as regards its organisation and the quality of its services which were detrimental to Tanganyika.

“In my view the advantages clearly outweigh the disadvantages, but nevertheless it has been considered expedient to specify certain safeguards which should ensure that as far as practicable the possible disadvantages will not be experienced. The Territory will, of course, have through the machinery being set up a substantial voice in the policy to be followed by the unified undertaking. In addition, it is proposed that the unified undertaking should not assume control until the arrangements for, firstly, representation on the various advisory bodies and, secondly, the organisation of the new undertaking (so far as it concerns Tanganyika) have been accepted by the Tanganyika Government. … Joint undertakings of this type may be of three types: firstly, those in which the constituents obtain approximately equal benefits; secondly, those in which the constituents obtain widely varying benefits, and thirdly, those in which some parties receive substantial benefits while others incur net losses. It is fully expected that the new undertaking will be of the first type, but all parties will gain substantially. One factor, however, may tend to influence public opinion in Tanganyika towards the view that the new undertaking will fall into the third category. I refer to the question of part of the import and export needs of the Northern and Lake Provinces being met through the port of Mombasa rather than through the ports of Tanga and Dar es Salaam. In fact, the unified railway will, except perhaps in times of stress, not be greatly interested in which route is used. The Territory, apart from the railway, has a considerable interest in moving the bulk or all of the traffic through Tanganyika and will be free, as it always has been, to take such action as is considered appropriate to safeguard the interests of the Territory. It may then be argued that any action by Government in this direction would be contrary to acceptance of the view that East Africa has an economic unity. Though the territories form a geographic and economic unity, they have varying forms of British administration. Tanganyika in particular is specifically required to safeguard the interests of its inhabitants and the Territory as a component of the East African unit is clearly entitled to take such action as appears necessary to safeguard its interests provided such actions are not detrimental to the interests of East Africa as a whole. … The diversion of traffic from Mombasa to Tanganyika ports would not appear to be detrimental to theEast African economy.” [1: 275-276]

Some objections to the proposal were placed and some amendments were tabled, an adjournment was also proposed. The British Government made it clear that amendments/adjournments would not be acceptable. That the objections on constitutional grounds had no merit. “The proposed amalgamation is, the Secretary of State has advised, entirely consistent with Article 5(b) of the Trusteeship Agreement which permits administering authorities to establish common services between Trust Territories and neighbouring territories under His Majesty’s control. The Secretary of State is confident that in carrying out their responsibilities the High Commission will be constantly aware of their duties to promote the economic interest of the inhabitants of Tanganyika. The Secretary of State adds that an efficient transport system is vital to all these interests, as indeed it will be to the benefit of the whole future of East Africa.” [1: p276-276]

The motion as tabled by Mr Farquharson was carried, as were similar motions in the Legislative Councils of Kenya and Uganda. An order was made on 1st May 1948 amalgamating the two separate companies into one transport system to be known as the ‘East African Railways and Harbours’. A Commissioner of Transport was appointed, Sir Reginald Robins, and in his first annual report he wrote:

“Much has been done in a short time towards achieving the main objective of amalgamation, i.e. to weld the transport system into one closely integrated homogeneous organisation designed to provide the maximum transport facilities for the people of East Africa at the lowest real cost and on a non-profit basis.

“There have been exchanges of views and methods by technical officers, designed to secure a standard of the best methods to be adopted. Assistance has been rendered where it is most required by drawing on the pool of experts created by amalgamation. Work has been started on the preparation of a common tariff and common conditions of service. Comprehensive Transport Legislation is in the course of preparation; transport developments in Tanganyika have been financed from the joint resources.

“But much remains to be done. The problems falling on the East African Railways and Harbours are immense, the resources limited. Great developments are taking place in Tanganyika, still greater developments there are contemplated with the posibility of surveying and building of new railways. Great developments are in hand in Uganda which will make heavy demands on the transport system in connection with the hydro-electric scheme at Jinja, and the possible development of the copper mines at Kilembe. Yet, as is shown in the General Manager’s report, the system is still short of sufficient equipment to deal adequately with present demands. The financial question is also a very serious one; all the fluid resources are being used and temporary borrowings incurred to finance existing projects, mainly in Tanganyika. There are restrictions and difficulties in raising fresh capital, yet daily fresh demands are made involving additional transport developments which cannot be financed from the existing resources of the Administration. If these restrictions and difficulties persist, there will be no alternative but to restrict some of the development projects in the three East African territories in spite of the demand for the full development of the Colonial Empire as a contribution to world recovery. In almost every development scheme transport is the key, and it is absolutely essential that the fitting of the transport system to deal with any development should precede the inauguration of the scheme and not to put the transport question last in such considerations, or even to develop the transport system at the same time as the major scheme. That will only lead to difficulties and failure. These arguments, which are related to finance, apply with equal force to the supply of transport equipment.

“Among the other problems which still remain to be settled are the introduction of a common braking system for the two sections, replacement of the present out-of-date coupler by a modern and stronger coupler, the provision of a rail connection between all sections of the amalgamated system, and decisions as to the conversion of the system from metre to 3 foot 6 inch gauge. For financial and supply reasons, some of these projects must be regarded as long-term projects, but, nevertheless, work is proceeding on them.

“Immense tasks face the Transport Administration. Immense tasks faced the two systems in the war, but they were met and overcome. The Commissioner is convinced that the present tasks will be met and overcome in the same spirit, provided that the tolerance, support and encouragement of the people who use the transport system are forthcoming. He is satisfied that the staff is as anxious as he is to provide the best possible transport system in East Africa, and he would like to pay a tribute to them for their loyalty and help during the difficult period of amalgamation. He also gratefully acknowledges the help and assistance he received from the Governments of Kenya, Tanganyika and Uganda.” [1: p278-279]

Hill’s narrative ends with the amalgamation. His book contains two Appendices which are included after the References and Notes below.

References and Notes

  1. M.F. Hill; Permanent Way Volume II: The Story of the Tanganyika Railways; East African Railways and Habours, Nairobi, Kenya; Watson & Viney, Aylesbury & Slough, 1957.
  2. David Snowden; Tanganyika Road Services; https://www.britishempire.co.uk/article/tanganyikaroadservices.htm#google_vignette, accessed on 1st June 2026.
  3. Snowden writes: “In October 1940 the Tanganyika Government asked the Tanganyika Railways and Port Services (TR&PS) to run a road service between Morogoro on the Central Line and Korogwe on the Tanga Line, a distance of 178 miles. The TR&PS were asked to run this service because a lack of shipping and the irregularity of sailings meant that it was becoming increasingly difficult to move goods between Tanga and Dar-es-Salaam. ‘This has proved most successful,’ Mr Robins (General Manager) wrote, ‘and in view of the decrease of coastal shipping services has fulfilled a most useful function. The service became an integral part of the transport services at the end of the year. The rather primitive facilities will be improved as opportunity permits.’ … In 1942, a first class bus service, using a number of 7 -seater safari cars built on 10-cwt chassis, was introduced between Morogoro and Korogwe. The fares charged were double the normal second-class fare on the ordinary bus. This service proved extremely successful and by 1943 demand was so heavy, especially for carrying troops, that all ordinary goods traffic was diverted to the sea route between Tanga and Dar-es-Salaam – only passengers and baggage were carried by road. … In 1942 the TR&PS were asked by the Government to provide a road service from Dodoma to the Southern Highlands. This service was inaugurated on 1st January 1943. At the time there was a shortage of vehicles in Tanganyika and consequently the railways had to purchase second-hand vehicles. Many of them were in a bad state of repair, there was a shortage of spares, roads were bad, the drivers poorly trained and there was a lack of suitable workshop facilities for proper maintenance. Despite these difficulties, by 1944 the service was able to carry not only the normal traffic to and from the Southern Highlands but also large quantities of food for famine relief, labour to and from the sisal and rubber plantations and provide transport support for the refugee camps in the Southern Highlands. In 1944, a road service was started from Mombo to Lushoto, … During the years 1946 to 1948 the Road Services continued to operate under very difficult conditions with inadequate workshop facilities and unsuitable vehicles. Many of the vehicles had been bought during the war, had been worked hard and were in poor condition. Although in 1948 the Road Services’ fleet consisted of 250 assorted vehicles many had been fully depreciated and were waiting their turn to be scrapped. Despite these problems, the volume of traffic carried increased, rates were kept at a reasonable level and the revenue earned steadily increased. Orders were placed for large diesel-engine vehicles that later became the mainstay of the road service fleet. … During 1947, a new passenger road service was started between Arusha and Dodoma, a passenger and goods service between Arusha and Oldeani and when the Singida line was closed it was replaced by a road service between Singida and Itigi.” [2]
  4. https://rogerfarnworth.com/2026/03/04/narrow-gauge-industrial-lines-in-tanganyika-tanzania.

Appendices

Appendix A – Financial Results of the Railways and Ports

Appendix B – Lists of Commodities Carried by Tanganyika Railways

Aberystwyth Cliff Railway

After Easter 2026, we spent a few days at Borth on Cardigan Bay, North of Aberystwyth. We took the opportunity to visit Aberystwyth and to travel on the Cliff Railway.

Aberystwyth Cliff Railway is the longest electrically operated cliff railway in the UK. It sits at the North end of Aberystwyth’s promenade. Constitution Hill provides views over the town and Cardigan Bay. On a really good day, as many as twenty-six mountain peaks can be seen from the summit. [1]

Aberystwyth Cliff Railway, © DavidTDC3377 and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 4.0). [5]

Aberystwyth Cliff Railway has been transporting visitors to the summit of Constitution Hill since 1st August 1896. It is a 778 feet (237m) long funicular railway, and is the second longest funicular railway in the British Isles after the Lynton and Lynmouth Cliff Railway. Since November 1987, the Aberystwyth Cliff Railway has been a Grade II listed structure. [1][2]

The Cliff Railway as seen on the 6″ Ordnance Survey of 1904, published in 1906. [3]

For the first 25 years of its life the railway operated via a water balance system. Electrification occurred in 1921.

The cars have a maximum capacity of 30 passengers, permanently connected via a continuous cable. The original water balance system used a Worthington Corporation compound steam engine water pump housed in the lower station to move water to the upper station. Each passenger car had a tank in its chassis that could hold 4 tonnes of water. Water was added to the tank of the top car, which descended under gravity, hauling the lighter lower car on the parallel track to the top station. [5]

The railway is straight, ascending about 430 feet (130 m) over a horizontal distance of 778 feet (237 m), a maximum gradient of more than 1 in 2 (50%). The 4 ft 10 in (1,473 mm), slightly broader than standard gauge, and laid on timber sleepers. [5]

“The unique design of the undulating track and tilted carriages is the work of George Croydon Marks. A man who played a key role in several projects during the golden age of funicular construction. He would later make his name in politics as Lord Marks, the liberal peer.” [1]

As we have already noted the railway was electrified using a 41 kW ATB AG [de] Morley DC motor in 1921. In 1934, after changes to the town’s electricity supply, a mercury arc rectifier and transformer were installed in the lower station to provide a 440V DC power output. The cars are moved using a high-tensile steel cable attached to both vehicles. It passes around a drum, mounted on a vertical axis between the tracks at the top. The motor drives the drum controlled by an automated cut-off which stops the motor and the cars when required. [5]

“The carriages are brought to the summit at a stately 4 miles per hour. They are powered by a powerful motor and high-tensile steel cables supported by a sophisticated electronic safety system. At the midpoint of the journey, the railway ventures through a deep cutting, where 12,000 tons of rock was excavated to allow the winding footpath to cross via a series of bridges overhead.” [1]

Its twin carriages are named Lord Geraint and Lord Marks. [6]

The Cliff Railway as seen on the 6″ Ordnance Survey of 1948, published in 1953. [4]

“Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the cliff railway was popular with visitors but during and after the Second World War, passenger numbers declined significantly. In 1948, seeking to revive its fortunes, the Aberystwyth Pier Company bought it and carried out repairs and upgrades. The new owners were unable to increase passenger numbers.” [5]

In 1976, a fault developed in the railways breaking system and it was closed briefly.  In the late 1970s, “a local mining company acquired a majority stake and formed the Aberystwyth Cliff Railway Company to operate it. In 1978 a new electrical system was installed which is used to the present day. It takes its power from and returns surplus energy to the National Grid.” [5]

More recent key dates:

  • 1987 – recognised as Grade II listed structure.
  • 1998 – purchased by Constitution Hill Ltd.
  • 2005 – upper station refurbished (with café and gift shop).
  • 2014 – roof repairs undertaken and ramps and other adaptations made to improve accessibility –  better protection from the elements, a small car park at the station (very small!), wheelchair and guide dog friendly trains, a passenger lift providing wheelchair access from the train to the summit, and once there, wheelchair friendly pathways across the site. [1]
The bottom station of Aberystwyth Cliff Railway “Rheilffordd y Graig”, © Aberdare Blog and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 2.0). [5]
This view is taken near to the passing point with an empty descending car, © OLU and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 2.0). [5]
A car near the upper station of the railway, circa 1985, © Manfred Heyde and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 4.0). [5]
Aberystwyth Cliff Railway. [7]

References

  1. https://aberystwythcliffrailway.co.uk, accessed on 8th April 2026.
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberystwyth_Cliff_Railway, accessed on 8th April 2026.
  3. https://maps.nls.uk/view/101607745, accessed on 9th April 2026.
  4. https://maps.nls.uk/view/101607739, accessed on 9th April 2026.
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberystwyth_Cliff_Railway, accessed on 11th July 2026.
  6. Martin Easdown; Cliff Railways, Lifts and Funiculars; Amberley Publishing, 2018.
  7. https://youtu.be/QSFQPJb2Wyo?is=O-HzG1VqndIdBszH, accessed on 11th July 2026.

Latest Railway News/Reports from East Africa

The featured image for this article shows a Tata Chemicals locomotive at work on the metre-gauge line near Magadi. [9][cf. 6]

A. Railways Africa recently reported:

East African Governments Ramp Up Rail Investment in 2026/27 Budgets

“East Africa’s latest budget allocations show rail moving higher up the public investment agenda, with governments linking railway development to logistics efficiency, urban mobility and regional trade competitiveness. Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania are each approaching the sector from different starting points, but the common direction is clear: rail is being positioned as a strategic infrastructure tool, not only a transport asset.

Africa Star Railway Operation Company (Afristar) is the company that runs the SGR in Kenya, it is a subsidiary of the China Road and Bridge Corporation (CRBC). It has been the operator of Kenya’s Standard Gauge Railway (SGR) since its launch. However, the Kenya Railways Corporation (KRC) has been gradually taking over these operations, with full control expected in 2027. [10][11]

“The figures also point to a wider corridor logic across the region. Uganda’s Malaba–Kampala SGR, Tanzania’s continued SGR construction and rehabilitation programme, and Kenya’s rail allocations all sit within the broader ambition of improving inland connectivity, reducing logistics costs and strengthening access between ports, production centres and landlocked markets.

“East African governments are significantly increasing investment in railway infrastructure in their 2026/27 national budgets, with Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania allocating billions of shillings to expand rail networks, modernise transport systems and improve regional trade connectivity.

“In Kenya, Cabinet Secretary for the National Treasury, John Mbadi Ng’ongo, announced a proposed allocation of KSh38.4 billion for railway projects as part of the government’s transport infrastructure programme.

From Naivasha to Malaba, construction of the SGR expansion was due to start in July 2026. [12] The project will reshape logistics, lower transport costs and boost connectivity across counties. This project stands as a symbol of progress and long-term economic planning in motion.

“The allocation forms part of a broader effort to improve public transport and logistics infrastructure.

“To improve urban mobility, the government has also proposed KSh582 million for the Nairobi Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project, aimed at reducing traffic congestion in the capital.

“Meanwhile, Uganda has continued prioritising railway development through substantial infrastructure spending.

“Finance, Planning and Economic Development Minister Henry Musasizi announced the commencement of the construction of the 273-kilometre Standard Gauge Railway (SGR) linking Malaba and Kampala.

“Once completed, the railway is expected to reduce the cost of transporting containers from Mombasa to Kampala from approximately US$3,500 to US$1,600, while cutting transit times from five days to one day.

“Musasizi revealed that the rehabilitation of the Tororo–Gulu Metre Gauge Railway has reached 66% completion, while works on the Kampala–Mukono section have been completed.

“Uganda has allocated Shs8.79 trillion for transport infrastructure development in the next financial year, with priority given to the construction of the Malaba–Kampala Standard Gauge Railway and completion of the metre gauge railway rehabilitation programme.

“In Tanzania, the government has allocated 1.27 trillion Tanzanian shillings for the construction and rehabilitation of railway infrastructure, including 1.12 trillion shillings dedicated to the Standard Gauge Railway programme.

“The government said construction of the Dar es Salaam–Dodoma SGR sections, covering Lots 1 and 2, has been completed and is now operational.

“According to Finance Minister Ambassador Khamis Mussa Omar, the government views the Standard Gauge Railway as a key component of its broader economic transformation strategy.

“The railway, together with Msalato International Airport, will support the development of Dodoma into a modern administrative capital, a regional transport and logistics hub and a centre for sustainable urban development.

“Tanzania also plans to continue implementing the TAZARA Railway Revitalisation Project and advance construction of the Standard Gauge Railway from Dodoma to Mwanza and Isaka to Kigoma.

“According to the government, these projects are expected to stimulate economic activity across multiple regions by improving transport efficiency, strengthening regional trade corridors and leveraging Tanzania’s strategic geographic position.” [1]

In 2009, the East African Community produced the East African Railway Master Plan, [3] a proposal for upgrading the railways serving Tanzania, Kenya, and Uganda, and building new railways to serve Rwanda and Burundi. Evidence of progress in development of SGR routes is manifest, but the pace of development has been relatively slow.

B. On Sunday 28th June 2026, The East African reported:

Uganda locks funds for joint SGR as Kenya plan stalls

President William Ruto and his Ugandan counterpart Yoweri Museveni during the official launch of the Kisumu-Malaba Standard Gauge Railway at Kibos in Kisumu County on 21st March 2026, (c) Alex Odhiambo, Nation Media Group. [2]

“Uganda expects to conclude financing arrangements for its €2.7 billion ($3 billion) standard gauge railway (SGR) project within the next few months after securing a major funding commitment from the Islamic Development Bank (IsDB), bringing the long-delayed infrastructure initiative closer to financial close than at any point in the past decade.” [2]

“But Kenya, with which Kampala is building the cross-border project, is struggling to raise about $4 billion for the extension of its line from Naivasha in the Central Rift to Malaba on the border, with the Treasury confirming the project will not proceed under public private partnership as earlier advised.” [2]

C. Magadi Soda Works and Branch line

Thanks to ‘Class442’ on RailUKForums [4] for pointing this out.

Tata-Owned Locomotive Catches Fire

A locomotive operated by Tata Chemicals Magadi Ltd, which transports soda ash from Lake Magadi to Mombasa, caught fire on 1st July 2026, at or near Simba station in Kajiado County. The branch line between Magadi and Konza where it encounters the Nairobj-Mombasa metre-gauge line is managed as a private line by Magadi Ltd. It was a company locomotive that caught fire while travelling on the main line near Simba.

This MapCarta extract shows the town of Simba at the left side of the image, with both the metre-gauge line (MGR) and the more modern standard-gauge line (SGR). The MGR railway station is in the town. The SGR station is about 4 kilometres East of the town of Simba. [5]

Online (Instagram Video) can be found on these links:

https://www.instagram.com/reels/DaSSNIBMpXB (PLUG TV)

https://www.instagram.com/reels/DaQYQGBt8XR (TV 47)

First responders were local people. They took a number of photographs of which this is one. Flames engulfed the train as emergency responders and members of the public worked to contain the fire. [6]

Kenya Digest reports:

“A cargo train fire at Simba Station has prompted investigations as authorities work to determine what caused the incident and assess the extent of the damage. The train, operated by Tata Chemicals Magadi Ltd, caught fire on June 1, 2026, leading to an emergency response along the Magadi rail corridor.

Kenya Railways confirmed the incident in a statement issued late Wednesday night, saying the cargo train burst into flames while carrying out its normal operations.

Emergency teams were quickly sent to the scene to contain the fire, support recovery efforts, and begin assessing what may have led to the incident.

According to preliminary findings released by Kenya Railways, the fire is believed to have started after mechanical damage affected the locomotive’s fuel tank.

Officials suspect the damage caused fuel to leak before it ignited, resulting in the blaze. However, the corporation stressed that these are only early findings and that investigations are still underway to establish the exact cause of the fire and the sequence of events.

Kenya Railways said investigators are examining all available evidence before reaching a final conclusion. The corporation noted that more details will be made public once the investigation has been completed.

The railway operator also confirmed that it is working closely with Tata Chemicals Magadi Ltd, the owners of the cargo train, as both parties seek to understand what happened. Management teams from both organisations are coordinating recovery operations while technical experts continue inspecting the affected locomotive.

The cargo train operates along the Magadi rail corridor, an important industrial railway that has served the region for many years.

The line plays a key role in transporting soda ash and other industrial cargo from Magadi to different parts of the country, supporting manufacturing and other economic activities.

By the time the incident was reported, no casualties had been officially confirmed. The absence of reported injuries was welcomed, although the fire has raised fresh questions about the condition of industrial locomotives and the importance of regular maintenance to reduce the risk of similar incidents.

The latest fire also comes at a time when the government is continuing efforts to revive and modernise Kenya’s metre-gauge railway network. The rehabilitation programme is intended to improve transport options for businesses and passengers while making greater use of existing railway infrastructure across the country.

Kenya Railways has assured the public that it remains committed to establishing the facts surrounding the incident.

Officials have urged patience as technical assessments continue, saying a comprehensive report will provide a clearer picture of what caused the fire and whether any additional safety measures will be required to help prevent similar incidents in the future.” [6]

‘Class442’ points out that this is not the first incident associated with Magadi Ltd. Two years ago on 9th July 2026, there was an accident on the Magadi-Konza line.

Kenya Railways noted that the train in the accident that claimed one life, was operated privately by Tata Chemicals Magadi Limited. [7]

Maria Silantoi of  Swala Nyeti reported in July 2024: “According to witnesses and police, on 9th July 2024, the train carrying 59 passengers was heading towards Kajiado town from Magadi when it rolled backwards along a steep section of the track. Local residents believe the accident was caused by a combination of factors, including rampant vandalism of the railway line and poor visibility due to recent heavy rains. Concerns have been raised about the increasing frequency of such vandalism by scrap metal dealers, who reportedly evade capture by patrolling officers. … The ill-fated train service provided a vital and affordable public transport option for residents in remote villages of Kajiado West Sub-county, offering a Sh70 fare for a journey of approximately 135 kilometres. This service was established specifically to address the transportation challenges faced by these local communities. Previously, reaching Kajiado through the Kiserian-Isinya route could cost up to Sh700 and take as long as four hours. … The tragedy highlights the urgent need for improved railway infrastructure security and maintenance in the region. This incident serves as a stark reminder of the importance of prioritizing safety measures to prevent such devastating accidents on crucial public transport routes.” [8]

D. Biza Kenya reports on 2nd July 2026

Construction of the Malaba Extension Begins

The 475-kilometre Naivasha-Kisumu-Malaba SGR project forms a vital section of the Northern Corridor transport network, which is expected to boost trade with East African countries and cement Kenya’s role as the region’s logistics hub. [12][13]

Kenya Railways has officially commenced construction on the 475-kilometre Naivasha-Kisumu-Malaba Standard Gauge Railway, with the Sh700 billion project now underway in Narok County, which hosts approximately 100 kilometres of the corridor.

The project is divided into Phase 2B (Naivasha-Kisumu), covering 264 kilometres with an 8.69-kilometre branch line to Kisumu Port, and Phase 2C (Kisumu-Malaba), covering 107 kilometres through Siaya, Vihiga, Kakamega and Busia counties.

The entire Naivasha-Malaba extension is targeted for completion by June or August 2027. Land acquisition is ongoing, with compensation planned for over 3,500 landowners. [12]

E. The Citizen Reported on Saturday 14th March 2026:

Tanzania Begins Local Assembly of Locomotives

Tanzania has begun assembling Metre Gauge Railway (MGR) locomotives locally, The TRC claimed that they were the first country in East Africa to undertake such an initiative, the Citizen reports. The full article can be read here. [14]

The move has drawn praise from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Infrastructure, which recently visited the site, according to a statement issued by the Tanzania Railways Corporation (TRC) on Saturday.

During an inspection visit to the locomotive assembly project at the Pugu Railway Workshop, the committee urged TRC to continue strengthening the skills of Tanzanian youth involved in the programme through advanced technical training both locally and abroad.

The committee was informed that the decision to assemble locomotives locally was partly prompted by delays in the delivery of spare parts from suppliers, caused by global supply chain disruptions linked to the Russia–Ukraine War.

To address the delays, TRC imported two fully assembled locomotives from Malaysia, while the remaining components were shipped to Tanzania for assembly at the Pugu workshop.

This image was provided by ‘The Citizen’ [14]

References

  1. Chamwe Kaira; East African Governments Ramp Up Rail Investment in 2026/27 Budgets; Railways Africa;  https://www.railwaysafrica.com/news/east-african-governments-ramp-up-rail-investment-in-2026-27-budgets, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  2. Julius Barigaba, Vincent Owino & James Anyanzwa; Uganda locks funds for joint SGR as Kenya plan stalls; The East African, 28th June 2026; via https://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/tea/business-tech/uganda-locks-funds-for-joint-sgr-as-kenya-plan-stalls-5511520, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  3. https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:a8806fa2-3669-444d-8624-47320503d3be, accessed on 30th June 2026.
  4. https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/kenya-and-uganda-news-february-2026.300641/#post-7853475, accessed on 8th July 2026.
  5. https://mapcarta.com/W1198959229/Map, accessed on 8th July 2026.
  6. https://kenyadigest.com/kenya-railways-reveals-early-findings-after-cargo-train-blaze-at-simba-station/amp, accessed on 8th July 2026.
  7. https://k24.digital/411/kenya-railways-on-magadi-train-accident, accessed on 8th July 2026.
  8. https://swalanyeti.co.ke/news/article/8929/1-dead-scores-injured-in-magadi-konza-commuter-train-morning-accident, accessed on 8th July 2026.
  9. https://businesstoday.co.ke/tata-chemicals-magadi-wins-company-year-award, accessed on 11th July 2026.
  10. https://newsaf.cgtn.com/news/2021-05-31/Kenya-to-mark-4th-anniversary-since-launch-of-SGR-operations-10He0J9sBdS/index.html, accessed on 11th July 2026.
  11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mombasa%E2%80%93Nairobi_Standard_Gauge_Railway, accessed on 11th July 2026.
  12. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18yjTai4wd, accessed on 11th July 2026.
  13. https://gaa.go.ke/construction-sh700b-sgr-extension-malaba-begins, accessed on 11th July 2026.
  14. https://www.thecitizen.co.tz/tanzania/news/national/tanzania-begins-local-assembly-of-locomotives-5391096, accessed on 8th August 2026. (NB: the article is beyond a firewall requiring a subscription to access it.)

Railways and Religion

The featured image for this article is a stained glass window in Emneth Parish Church which is a memorial to Revd. Wilbert Vere Awdry who served as the incumbent of the parish from 1953 to 1965. [9]

In his book ‘The World the Railways Made’, in a chapter entitled ‘The Habits the Railways Changed’, and after a discussion of the dramatic effect the railways had on the consumption of different foodstuffs, Nicholas Faith talks of the food the railways carried not only being physical:

“It was also spiritual, enabling pilgrims to travel far more easily. But there were natural hesitations before God-fearing folk were prepared to use such an obviously secular phenomenon. The Russian bishops, for instance, were afraid that ‘pilgrims would come to the monastery [Sergiev Posad (now Zagorsk), site of the sacred Troitsk monastery] in railway cars, in which all sorts of tales can be heard, and often dirty stories, whereas now they come on foot and each step is a feat pleasing to God’. Despite this reluctance, the Metropolitan himself opened the line from Moscow to the holy spot, and by the time the Trans-Siberian was opened, the church was happy to commission a splendid ‘church car’ to minister to the congregations en route. [2]

“The pattern was repeated with different religions throughout the world. The first railway in what was then called Persia was a narrow-gauge line which ran six miles from Tehran to a shrine in the village of Shah Abdul Azim. [3] In Japan at least two railways served important shrines, at Ise and a special line from Oji to the temples at Nara. By the 1890s there was a convenient stop for pilgrims to pay their homage to Mount Fuji.

“Some of the promoters of the first railways in India had hoped to spread Christianity, others were afraid that pilgrims would not use them to travel to their sacred shrines. According to Herbert Spencer, Robert Stephenson referred the matter ‘to the Dhurma Subha of Calcutta, the great sanhedrin of orthodox Hindoos, who, after consulting the sacred texts and the learned pundits, delivered it as their opinion that the devotee might ride in a railway carriage to the various shrines without diminishing the merit of the pilgrimage.’ The result was an amazing growth in pilgrimages, to the mutual advantage of the ‘Hindoos’ and the railway companies. (Quarterly Review, 1868).

“Railways could also be used for secular worship. As late as 1968 the pious Chinese built a railway sixty miles from Hangsha, the capital of Hunan province, to Shao-sha, the birthplace of Mao-Tse-Tung. Over the next decade, before the cult of Mao’s personality waned, three million passengers took the leisurely four-hour journey every year.

“Railways were obviously most suitable for mass religious movements and so concentrated attention on a small number of famous shrines, leading to the neglect of older sites. The most obvious beneficiary was Lourdes, which can truthfully be described as ‘The Shrine the Railway Made’. [cf. 19]

“Bernadette Soubirous’ visions had started in the late 1850s, before the route of the line from Bayonne to Toulouse had been decided. So the town council seized with both hands the opportunity to ensure that the line passed by Lourdes.

In October 1862, the council agreed to compensate any land-owners who suffered, even from the railways’ surveys. In May 1863, councillors asked the railway to site its station as close as possible to the centre of town and complied with every one of the company’s requests. They admitted the navvies and railway workers to the local hospital and ignored their riotous behaviour.

“Their reward came in 1866 with the simultaneous opening of the grotto and the railway from Tarbes, which connected with trains to Bordeaux and far-off Paris. Between 1870 and 1878 a total of 958 pilgrimages to Bernadette’s shrine brought 661,000 pilgrims to Lourdes, 100,000 of them on a single day, 3rd July 1876, to rejoice in the newly-proclaimed doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and affirm the idea of la France Catholique.

“At much the same time similar ideas were being spread throughout France by another railway-based religious order, the Assumptionists, who exploited the railways to assemble mass rallies, largely of the most humble of folk. The Assumptionists were a strange, and in their time highly important, sect, founded by the scion of a rich land-owning family, who acquired considerable political influence through their ability to mount mass rallies.

“But the railway’s most dramatic influence was not on Christianity, but on Islam. Throughout the 19th century increasing numbers of pilgrims had made the difficult and dangerous journey to Mecca. In September 1900, Sultan Abdul Hamid proposed to build a railway to Mecca as a pious gesture on the twenty-fifth anniversary of his accession to the Ottoman throne. The idea was immediately greeted as an important affirmation of Muslim values.

“The Sultan naturally insisted on building a purely Muslim railway. He decreed that, ‘only Muslim workers and Muslim materials ought to be employed; timber from the vast forests of Anatolia and Macedonia; ballast from the country being crossed, rails and wagons from the Imperial workshops; engineering regiments would provide the workforce, the schools of Constantinople the engineers and the foremen.’ [4]

“In the event, much of the material had to be bought in Europe, together with some skilled labour, supervised by the German engineer who had built most of the railways in the Levant. The combination of ferocious piety, the Sultan’s will-power and German organising ability ensured that this railway, nearly a thousand miles in length, was built within eight years.

“Meissner Pasha, the German chief engineer, was simply given the two terminals, Damascus and Mecca, and told to connect them by rail as best he could. He was a genius. He had to handle a huge construction force composed of a dozen nationalities. The line was built across some of the bleakest, hottest, most implacable terrain in the world, without natural resources of any kind. His worst problem was with the Bedouin, furious at being deprived of the pilgrims who had been their prey, ruffians eventually hunted down by an implacably efficient Turkish general, Kaisim Pasha.

“Meissner was not allowed to complete his work. Neither he, nor any other infidel, was allowed to venture beyond Medina Saleh, the 587th mile-post on the line. Fortunately he had trained up a highly-accomplished Turkish engineer, Muktar Bey, who brought the line into Medina in August, 1908. But then the Bedouin took their revenge, wiping out a whole construction camp, and thus scotching any idea of building the railway the final 300 miles to Mecca itself. Unfortunately the line ran for a mere eight years, until T. E. Lawrence blew it up. Since then it has lain abandoned, the break-up of the Ottoman Empire signalling the end of any hope of cooperation between the peoples along the lines.

“In Anglo-Saxon countries deep religious faith produced, not railways, but strong hostility to the very idea of running them on the Sabbath, as a serious challenge to the fundamental Sabbatarianism which was as much a feature of the age as the railways themselves.

“The famous Versailles accident of 1842 was naturally exploited by the Sabbatarians as an awful lesson meted out to the Godless foreign travellers who had dared desecrate the day. After an equally appalling accident in Clayton tunnel just outside Brighton twenty years later ‘plenty of people rushed about proclaiming the accidents as a judgment of God.’ In between times the railways’ Sunday excursions were denounced as ‘trips to Hell at 7s 6d.’ [5]

“But it was not the excursionists (who included such devout souls as Thomas Cook) who forced the railway companies to break the Sabbath. According to Michael Robbins in The Railway Age, it was the absolute need for mail trains to run on a Sunday which broke the resistance of the Sabbatarians in both Scotland and Wales. They were never as powerful as was made out, and most clerics probably reacted like Dr Grantley in Trollope’s Barchester Towers: ‘If you can withdraw all the passengers the company I dare say will withdraw the trains. It is merely a question of dividends’.

“Nevertheless the argument rumbled on. In 1883 the inhabitants of a small Highland village managed to prevent a load of fish from leaving on the Sabbath and were greeted as heroes when they returned from serving the jail sentence to which they were sent-enced. Six years later ‘the anti-Sunday Travel Union’ had 58 branches with some 8,000 adherents. Partly owing to its activities, trains on suburban lines normally ceased running on Sundays during the hours of Divine service.

“Similar battles were fought in the United States. In Galesburg, the railroad was the blunt instrument which broke the power of the Sabbatarians. The first Sunday train was boarded by the impressive figure of President Blanchard of Knox College, who was told to go to Hell when he ordered the engineer to take the engine back to the roundhouse. And that, wrote Ernest Elmo Calkins, was the end of the powerof ‘the little group of pious men who had founded Galesburg to be a Christian town after their own ideal’. [6]

In South Africa, the Reverend Van Lingen managed to prevent any Sunday trains from desecrating the Sabbath at the settlement of Paarl. After denouncing the railway from the pulpit, he founded a Sunday stage coach service for passengers from Cape Town which successfully kept the railway at bay for half a century.

“There was, and remains, a strong counter-current, a positive railway-worship among clergymen of the Church of England. Bishop Eric Treacy and Canon Roger Lloyd were famous railway writers; Canon Reginald Fellows wrote a history of Bradshaw, founding father of railway timetables (which Archbishop William Temple was reputed to know by heart); and more recently the Reverend Wilbert Awdry made a fortune by recounting the adventures of Thomas the Tank Engine and his friends.” [1: p266-270]

The Rt. Revd. Eric Tracy, Bishop of Wakefield at Christ Church Halifax in 1971, after a wedding, © R. J. Stott and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 3.0). [25]

On 13th May 1978, Treacy died from a heart attack on Appleby Station on the Settle-Carlisle Railway whilst waiting for a railtour hauled by BR 92220 Evening Star. A slate plaque is displayed on the main station building in his memory, © RuthAS and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY 3.0). [25]

In 1979 LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0 number 45428 was named Eric Treacy. It is now preserved on the North Yorkshire Moors Railway. The Treacy Collection of 12,000 photographs forms part of the National Railway Museum’s archive of over 1.4 million images. [25]

In the 19th century, the rapid expansion of railways in the UK was met with both profound spiritual revival and fierce religious resistance. While some religious leaders initially condemned trains as ‘rank infidelity’ and decried Sunday travel, railways ultimately revolutionized religious life, opening up previously remote pilgrimage sites like Glastonbury to the masses.

The massive influx of migrant workers, known as ‘navvies’, who built the complex rail lines had squalid living conditions. In response, religious groups established dedicated missions. In the Western Dales, the construction of the Settle-Carlisle line and West Coast Mainline left behind a trail of small chapels, churches, and meeting houses dedicated to these workers. [11][12]

The Railway Mission, founded in 1881, continues to provide support and solace to everyone associated with the railways. [21]

The Railway Mission was founded in 1881. It was a Christian philanthropic organization designed to combat the ‘sinful behaviour’ of railway workers. It provided spiritual guidance, reading rooms, and temperance advocacy to railway employees. [13][14]

Spiritual Metaphors: The advent of steam engines gave birth to rich new religious vocabulary. Preachers and poets of the era often invoked railways as metaphors for salvation. In popular broadsides like ‘The Spiritual Railway’, repentance was the ‘station’, the Word of God was the ‘first engineer’, and Faith was the passenger train! [15]

Nikolaus Pevsner transcribed the following lines from a memorial in the cloister of Ely Cathedral to two victims of an accident on the Norwich to Ely railway line in 1845. Pevsner finds it “eminently characteristic of the earnestness with which this new triumph of human ingenuity was still regarded.” [9]

“The line to Heaven by Christ was made,
With heavenly truth the Rails are laid,
From Earth to Heaven the Line extends,
To Life Eternal where it ends.
Repentance is the Station then,
Where Passengers are taken in ;
No Fee for them is there to pay,
For Jesus is himself the way.
God’s Word is the first Engineer,
It points the way to Heaven so clear,
Through tunnels dark and dreary here.
It does the way to Glory steer.
God’s Love the fire, his Truth the Steam,
Which drives the Engine and the Train;
All you who would to Glory ride,
Must come to Christ, in him abide.
In First, and Second, and Third Class,
Repentance, Faith, and Holiness,
You must the way to Glory gain,
Or you with Christ will not remain.
Come then poor Sinners, now’s the time,
At any Station on the Line,
If you’ll repent, and turn from sin,
The Train will stop and take you in
.” [10]

Dedicated Chapels in entirely new settlements, such as Tebay in Cumbria, sprang up around major railway junctions. The influx of workers forced the Church of England and Nonconformists to erect new places of worship (like the 1885 Methodist chapel in Tebay) specifically to serve the growing railway community. [16]

Tebay Methodist Chapel built in 1885 to serve the railway community. [Google Streetview, September 2024]

Michael Ainsworth wrote an article in 2015 which reflected on Railways, Clergy, Religion and the Law. [17] In it he said:

“The coming of the railways in the 19th century excited deep passions among churchmen, as many novels of the time illustrate. The manner in which building was legally driven through, line-by-line, has been exhaustively documented. For some the speed, the smoke, the ‘blot on the landscape’, were unnatural and diabolical – particularly when Sunday trains broke the sabbath commandment. The vast church of St Bartholomew Brighton was built on a commanding site, and allegedly on the dimensions of Noah’s Ark, as a witness to those travelling down for ‘dirty weekends’. However, one of the most ‘proper’ films ever, Brief Encounter, takes place in a railway station … at Carnforth,” [17]

“Clergy joined with landowners in resisting encroachment. (They had limited success – note, for example, how the line curves round Sacred Trinity Church in Salford.) The perils of rail travel were brought home early by the first railway fatality, in 1830, of William Huskisson MP at the opening of the Liverpool to Manchester line: a memorial at the site, still clearly visible on the line over Chat Moss, was erected in 1913. The dangers were confirmed by the Tay Bridge disaster of 1879 which evoked what has been widely hailed as the worst poem in the English language (but curiously enjoyable) by William McGonagall.” [17]

“But others hailed railways as a godsend and a sign of divinely-blessed progress (despite blighting the urban landscape) … By the latter part of the century, they had certainly revolutionised episcopal ministry. The late 19th-century renewal of enthusiasm for confirmation would not have been possible without the railways. For example, of James Fraser, Bishop of Manchester 1870-85, it was written he spent the week travelling through his diocese, so that there were few days in which he was not somewhere on the railways.” [17]

James Fraser, Bishop of Manchester, 1870-1885, consecrated 99 new parish churches across Manchester Diocese.. He was a frequent railway passenger. [24]

Michael Ainsworth moved on to reflect on clergy interest in railways (model, real or fictional). He said:

“Among clergy who have been ‘keen on railways’, perhaps Eric Treacy, Bishop of Wakefield from 1968-76, significantly described in his Google entry as railway photographer and Anglican bishop, in that order, was pre-eminent. He died in 1978 on Appleby station awaiting a rail-tour arrival. One of the few lapses in Alan Bennett’s chronicling of northern life is in his … Bed Among the Lentils where ‘Mrs Vicar’, the alcoholic wife of a Leeds incumbent (in the diocese of Ripon, as it then was) entertains the bishop who leaves on the pretext of having to bless a steam engine in Keighley (then in another diocese: Bradford, as it then was). However both – plus Treacy’s diocese of Wakefield – are now within the diocese of West Yorkshire and the Dales, aka Leeds (whichever it has decided to call itself), so no harm is done. Appleby remains in Carlisle diocese.

“It has often been said that the reason why some clergy – probably male rather than female – and others, including church musicians, are keen on railways is because they are reassuringly ‘closed systems’, and Awdry’s setting of his railways on the Isle of Sodor confirms this. Lines and boundaries are set, detailed timetables can be pored over, structures are clear: a joy for those who run model railways in their attics for their own pleasure, or larger versions in their gardens to raise funds – both, according to various reports, threatened from time to time by health and safety regulations.

“This joy is less pronounced now that the real railways have been franchised and fragmented. Responsibility for trains, track, signalling, stations and all else is dispersed among many bodies – providing more benefit to lawyers than to passengers, or ‘customers’. Connections, where they exist at all, cannot be held because they will incur a fine for stopping too long in the station. Problems are always someone else’s fault.” [17]

In their book, ‘The Railway Station: A Social History‘, Jeffrey Richards & John M. McKenzie also make connections between Religion, the Clergy and the Railway (particularly the Railway Station):

“Many … have come to the conclusion that the role and atmosphere of the station large and small is essentially ecclesiastical. G. K. Chesterton, a self-confessed station saunterer, celebrated the station as a temple of tradition, a comforting source of continuity in a world increasingly dedicated to change:

“The only way of catching a train I have ever discovered is to miss the train before. Do this, and you will find in a railway station much of the quietude and consolation of a cathedral. It has many of the characteristics of a great ecclesiastical building; it has vast arches, void spaces, coloured lights, and above all, it has recurrence of ritual. It is dedicated to the celebration of water and fire, the two prime elements of all human ceremonial. Lastly, a station resembles the old religions rather than the new religions in this point, that people go to it. In connection with this it should also be remembered that all popular places, all sites actually used by the people, tend to retain the best routine of antiquity very much more than any localities or machines used by any privileged class. Things are not altered so quickly or coarsely by common people as they are by fashionable people. … If you wish to find the past preserved, follow the million feet of the crowd. At the worst the uneducated only wear down old things by sheer walking. But the educated kick them down out of sheer culture. I feel this profoundly as I wander about the empty railway station, where I have no business of any kind. I have extracted a vast number of chocolates from automatic machines; I have obtained cigarettes, toffee, scent, and other things that I dislike by the same machinery; I have weighed myself with sublime results; and this sense not only of the healthiness of popular things, but of their essential antiquity and permanence is still in possession of my mind.” [26: p11-12][27: p219-224]

Richards & Mackenzie note that a similar sense of ecclesiastical peace was detected by Karel Čapek in Czech country stations:

“There are little stations threaded on the lines like beads on a rosary; they stand in the solitude like places of pilgrimage, far from the profane noises of the world; they are the real chapels dedicated to the silent ceremony of Waiting. They are led to as a rule by a country lane with a straggling row of trees; the longer it is the more profound and lasting is the silence which embraces the pilgrim who comes to the station to wait. … We who are waiting, shuffle from one foot to the other and cough under our breath like worshippers in a chapel; we are dressed in clean clothes and depressed in a Sunday sort of way. … ‘Mummy!’ says the piping voice of a little girl. ‘Be quiet’, her mother reproves her in a whisper. ‘Mummy, when will the train come?’ Be quiet, little girl, we have to wait for the train to come. If you aren’t as good as if you were in church, the train won’t come, and we shan’t go away in it to the ends of the earth.” [28: p99-101]

Ricahrds & Mackenzie comment that it is appropriate that Canon Roger Lloyd spoke of the quietude of Marylebone Station:

“It is essentially peaceful and when some rather fussy penitent told his father confessor that he could find nowhere in London where he could meditate in quiet and peace, he was astonished to hear the caustic answer: ‘Have you tried Marylebone, my son?'” [29: p99]

Richards & Mackenzie argue that it is possible to extend the metaphor ad infinitum:

“For if the station is seen as cathedral or chapel, it can also be seen to possess in its heyday a Bible every bit as imposing and sometimes even as impenetrable as the Authorized Version (Bradshaw), incense (steam), and liturgical chanting (‘The train now standing at platform 3 is …’, ‘Close the doors and stand clear’, ‘All change’). In some countries nature imitates art and makes this fancy reality. In Tsarist Russia, icons were often placed in railway-station waiting-rooms and in Greece there were shrines at stations where the traveller could light candles to protect him on his journey. The ceiling of the Great Hall at the old Euston Station was deliberately modelled on that of the church of St. Peter extra muros in Rome.” [26: p12-13]

So, they go on to note that:

“Somehow sensing this connection, clerics have been drawn as if by a magnet to the rails. Bishop Eric Treacy of Wakefield, who had an engine named after him, was a tireless photographer of and writer about railways. Similarly prolific and passionate in their dedication were Canon Roger Lloyd, author of, among other works, The Fascination of Railways, Canon Reginald Fellows, researcher into the history of Bradshaw, Canon Victor Whitechurch, creator of the fictional railway detective Thorpe Hazell, and Revd Wilbert Awdrey, author of the much-loved children’s books about Thomas the Tank Engine and his friends. Archbishop William Temple when headmaster of Repton had a complete mental recall of Bradshaw and would set as an imposition for an errant boy the best way of travelling from Great Yarmouth to Exeter or Penrith to Ipswich without touching London, complete with changes and times. He would then correct it from memory. It was therefore entirely fitting that, in the celebrated Ealing comedy about the last age of steam, The Titfield Thunderbolt should be driven by the local vicar and fired by a visiting bishop.” [26: p13]

Richards & Mackenzie also talk of trainspotters taking up their hallowed places at the end of station platforms and holding well-thumbed copies of the Ian Allan Guide: “the Bible of their cult.” [26: p13]

They reflect too on the use of railways on pilgrimages, particularly in India:

“The religious metaphor is never very far from the pen of the writer on railways and stations. But railways have also had a powerful literal effect upon religious movements around the world. Stations everywhere took on the role of the Tabard Inn at Southwark, where Chaucer’s pilgrims assembled for their journey to Canterbury. Muslims flocked to the stations of Russian Central Asia, up-country India, Malaya, and North Africa to commence their long journeys to Mecca. The leaders of Eastern religions which had resisted the appearance of the railway, as in China and Japan, soon found that their co-religionists swiftly took to the rails to visit temples and shrines. The stations of the South African Boer Republics, themselves huge concessions to the modern world which the Boers would originally much rather have done without, took on some of the dour, flinty character of Dutch Reformed Calvinism.

“But it was in India that the railways produced their most dramatic religious effect. Hinduism is one of the most mobile of all religions and Hindus found in the railways a hitherto unimaginable opportunity to travel to shrines, pilgrim centres, and important ceremonies. The Murray’s Handbooks to India are punctuated with references to stations much used by pilgrims. In 1906, the Chief Superintendent of the East India Railway provided readers of the Railway Magazine with a graphic description of a pilgrimage to Allahabad. [26: p172-174][32: p326-328] Every twelve years, a ceremony known as the Kumbh mela took place at the confluence of the Jumna (Yamuna) and Ganges rivers just outside Allahabad. The ceremonies lasted for a month and millions attended, many coming only for a few days.

For the duration of the mela as many as twenty pilgrim trains a day, each carrying a thousand passengers, might be brought into Allahabad in addition to the normal traffic. It was necessary to use all the Allahabad stations, Naini, Kotaparcha, Kyogunge, Allengunge, as well as the Main and Fort stations to distribute the tremendous pressure of passengers. Temporary booking-offices, thatched and constructed of railway sleepers, were built near the site of the mela itself to sell tickets to returning pilgrims. At the station barriers, barricades and pens had to be constructed to separate ‘up’ from ‘down’ passengers and avoid crushing and injury. Most of the special pilgrim ‘rakes’ were made of goods wagons with a mat on the floor to sit on, and an oil lamp hung from the roof for illumination. Superintendent Huddleston assured his readers that pilgrims found this accommodation perfectly comfortable and never made any complaints. Pilgrims, he went on, were the most patient of passengers. But even they had been known to take direct action when driven to desperation. Some years earlier a train carrying pilgrims had been so seriously held up that its journey had taken twenty-four hours rather than seven or eight. Towards the end of the journey the pilgrims discovered that their train had been shunted into a siding at a station in order to give precedence to the mail train:

“They thought it time to take action on their own account. Several of them thereupon left their carriages and placed their heads on the rails vowing that, rather than allow another train to pass by they would sacrifice their lives. After this demonstration it is needless to say which train got away first, but, of course, there was an outcry because the Mail ran late!” [32: p328]

Sometimes the lack of co-ordination among the different Indian railway companies made things difficult for pilgrims. There were, for example, no through trains from the East India Railway to the Oudh and Rohilkan railway, and pilgrims together with other travellers had all to change trains at Moghalsarai junction, a mere ten miles from the great pilgrim city of Benares (now Varanasi). Huddleston described the scene:

“During pilgrim rushes, surging, struggling crowds filled the platforms and the waiting halls, and while the masses changed from one train to another the station was a Babel. The delays between connecting trains often being considerable, it is needless to remark that the position was one of intolerable discomfort, though it was accepted by both passengers and railway staff as part of the day’s work.” [32: p501-502]

Through trains were eventually provided, and ‘the convenience to pilgrims and relief to Moghalsarai station is immense’.

The complexities of the arrangements made for pilgrimages is borne out in a number of ways. The Government Health Department sent men to examine pilgrims alighting from trains. Their job was to watch out for cases of smallpox and cholera. The railway also had its own medical department, which attempted to take action when cases of plague, small-pox, or cholera were reported:

“During the mela a slight outbreak of cholera occurred at a small station called Manickpore on the Jubbulpore line. The company’s doctor was on the spot in no time, attended the patients, examined the sanitary arrangements, disinfected and closed the station well, and arranged for tanks of pure water to be conveyed from 62 miles away.” [32: p425-426]

The traffic arrangements for the Kumbh Mela in 1906 were entrusted to the same officer who had made all the arrangements for the Great Delhi Durbar organized by the Viceroy Curzon in 1904. He was provided with 450 employees to help. The earnings from the pilgrims, who travelled at very low fares, amounted to £53,500 in 27 days. Superintendent Huddleston noted with evident self-satisfaction that ‘everything worked without a hitch, and there was not a single accident of any kind’. [26: p172-174]

‘The Railway Age’, according to Richards & Mackenzie had many faults. But:

“But it was an age which saw the slow, sure, and steady progress of social improvement and it was an age of hope, of optimistic belief in the future, unashamed aspiration for better days and better conditions in the world. The great stations stand, if they do still stand, as towering monuments to that belief, public meeting-places where faith in the perfectibility of man by his own ingenuity and the blessing of a divine providence was daily affirmed. In this respect, the oft-quoted cathedral metaphor is not inapt. Stations were cathedrals of the new technology. They were also places of hope, faith, and inextinguishable humanity, embodiments of that spirit that Charles MacKay captured so well in his poem ‘Railways 1846’. [26: p17]

John MacKay’s poem reads:

‘Railways 1846’ by John MacKay. [30: p69]

For a more about Clergy and Railways, please click here. [7]

It is also worth listening to Railway Mania Podcast Episode 19 to gain an understanding of the way in which Christian non-conformists in the UK were so instrumental in the development of the railways in the UK. [8]

Railway Chaplains

As we have already noted, The Railway Mission is a British mission devoted to the rail industry. It was founded in 1881 based in mission halls, and now operates a chaplaincy service across the rail network in the UK.

In the early days of the Railway Mission there were a number of mission halls at railway stations throughout the country. These days Railway Chaplains cover hundreds of miles by train. Lorraine Worsley-Carter points to one of these chaplains – Revd. Mike Roberts: “Mike works under the auspices of the Railway Mission. He covers a vast area in the North West from Stafford to Carlisle, Blackpool to the Pennines. This includes 11 Passenger and Freight Operators; Network Rail; 11 depots; over a hundred stations and 50 signal boxes. He is also a chaplain to the British Transport Police.” [20]

The Railway Mission is committed to making a real difference to the lives of people in the “railway family.” [21] The Railway Mission says this about its work on the railways:

“Every day, rail colleagues keep passengers and freight moving safely. When something difficult happens a fatality, a serious incident, an assault, a sudden death in the team – it is people who carry it home. … Railway Mission chaplains are present across the network. We offer calm, confidential pastoral support in the moment, and we stay alongside staff and managers as they take the next steps. Sometimes that is a quiet conversation at a depot or station. Sometimes it helps a manager hold a team together after devastating news. … In 2025, our chaplains recorded 9,157 support interactions across the industry. 23.5% were requested by a manager or director, a sign that chaplaincy is valued not only for individual care, but also for coordinated, time-critical support after incidents. …

“Independent social value work using RSSB’s Rail Social Value Tool has estimated that for every £1 invested in Railway Mission chaplaincy, around £3.13 of social value is generated. That is why partner support matters. It keeps chaplains present where and when staff need them most.” [22]

Lorraine Worsley-Carter says: “The introduction of railway chaplains in the United Kingdom has been a significant development in the provision of spiritual and emotional support to both railway employees and passengers. These dedicated individuals serve a crucial role in an industry that operates around the clock, often under stressful and challenging conditions. … One of the primary attributes of railway chaplains is their ability to provide emotional support to railway employees. Working in the railway industry can be physically and mentally demanding, with long hours and often unpredictable schedules. Railway chaplains offer a listening ear and a supportive presence, helping employees cope with the stresses and challenges of their jobs. They provide a safe space for employees to discuss their concerns, anxieties, and personal issues, which can have a positive impact on mental health and job satisfaction.” [20]

What About Patron Saints?

Some are highlighted by John Bull (inspired by writer Anne Thériault). [18] Here they are!

  1. Saint Christopher – Patron Saint of Travellers – St Christopher’s sainthood is based on his, allegedly, having carried the baby Jesus across a river. As such he is the generic Patron Saint for travellers. He is also Saint Patron of Truck Drivers!
  2. Saint Montague – Patron Saint of Railways – Montague was the abbot of a monastery, but died when he was hit by a locomotive. This is likely another of the Catholic Church’s canonisations to keep up with new transport technologies.
  3. Saint Galthus – Patron Saint of Steam Engines – Saint Galthus is the patron of steam engines. Having run the Pope’s private rail line, he was martyred by a faulty boiler. His body was found to be incorruptible after death and he was duly canonized. Although, it is said his Pope just really loved trains.

4. Saint Catherine of Alexandria – Patron Saint of Railway Workers – Catherine was a 4th century martyr, was well educated, and is also the patron saint of philosophers and preachers. It is not clear why she was anointed Patron Saint of Railway Workers, although the social media posts of some railway workers do point to a degree of philosophising and preaching! [18]

Painting by Caravaggio (1598–99) in the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum in Madrid. [31]

According to John Bull there are other patron saints who can be considered as being closely allied to railways. [18] Here are a few:

  • St Dominic de la Calzada – Patron Saint of Civil Engineers – worked on building bridges and paved causeways to help pilgrims in Spain – calzada means causeway in Spanish. [18]
  • St Bénézet – Patron Saint of Bridge Builders – Bénézet saw a vision during the eclipse of 1177 that propelled him to build a bridge over the River Rhône at Avignon. He built the bridge single-handedly, as church and civil authorities refused to help him, thus becoming an early advocate for community based transport planning. [18]
  • Saint Barbara – Patron Saint of Tunnellers (and Mining Engineers) – Saint Barbara, has often been invoked to protect diggers and mine engineers in such dangerous work, and so is also the patron saint of miners. And by extension the patron saint of railway tunnels and tunnellers. To this day, tunnels under construction often have a small alcove in which a small statue of her is placed, for her divine protection. The medieval miners also named digging equipment after women in her honour, and this tradition is still followed to the present – tunnel boring machines (TBMs) are still given female names! [18]

In addition to religious saints, John Bull also provides some suggestions for ‘Secular Saints’, including these. [18]

  • Thomas Rammell – Patron Saint of Pneumatic Railways – Engineer Thomas Rammell had a single-minded obsession with pneumatic railways, beginning with his London Pneumatic Despatch Railway … Although this seems more like a case for Saint Jude, the Patron Saint of Hopeless Causes.
  • Antonio Gaudí – Patron Saint of Trams – Architect Antonio Gaudí was struck & killed by a tram right next to his under-construction La Sagrada Familia Basílica. Unfortunately he looked quite dishevelled, so passersby thought he was a vaigrant and he didn’t get the medical help that could have saved his life.
  • Saint Harriet – Patron Saint of the Underground Railroad – some Anglicans consider Harriet Tubman a saint, as she was the conductor of the Underground Railroad in the US. Whilst not a physical railroad, but more a concept, Harriet deserves inclusion.

And finally … Having Faith in the Rail Industry (A Muslim Perspective)

CPMS-Egis Scheme Project Manager Farah Sajwani on the challenges to make the railways inclusive to all religions. As a Middle Eastern Muslim Farah Sajwani never thought she’d be working in the railway for a company in England. Farah’s journey into the industry began when she left Oman to pursue an undergraduate degree in chemical engineering in Australia. She then moved to Manchester, where she completed her postgraduate degree in engineering project management. It was from here that she moved to London and joined the graduate scheme at CPMS-Egis where she has been for nearly three years. [June 2021]

This is an article from RailDirector magazine: [23: p46-47]

“Landing a job in a railway-focused company was very exciting, yet overwhelming, as I came from a country that did not have a railway,” said Farah. “I was a little apprehensive at first as I was concerned about being credible and having a successful career there, not knowing much about rail, but everyone has been very welcoming and helpful and I’m really enjoying it. Another pleasant surprise was getting a graduate placement in a company that is understanding and inclusive of other cultures and religions. I’d often heard friends saying that the working environment can be tough and that people from a different ethnicity, religion, education and national origin can sometimes feel left out in the workplace, but I have been fortunate at CPMS-Egis. I have felt included from the outset of my placement and am now Scheme Project Manager. I am also actively involved in the company’s EDI and Community Kindness Groups.”

In February [2021], Farah was invited by Women in Rail (WR) to join the Equality Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Charter Working Group created by Women in Rail (WR) and the Railway Industry Association (RIA) following its launch last November. “I’ve joined the Charter Working Group because I want to make a difference and help organisations understand better how to attract a more diverse workforce and be more inclusive,” she said. “I think every person, regardless of their ethnicity, religious beliefs and background should be able to contribute equally to the growth and wellbeing of the organisation they work for, thrive in their job and realise their full potential.”

The EDI Charter has already been signed by more than 160 organisations which demonstrate the industry’s commitment to the equality, diversity and inclusion agenda. The EDI Charter Working Group comprises young professionals in rail chosen by WR and RIA on the basis of their personal commitment and qualities and the fact that they represent a spectrum of the backgrounds, ages, genders and identities and various grades, roles and companies within the UK rail industry at this particular point in time.

“Being part of the working group is the opportunity to share my experiences and to help organisations understand better what may be holding them back from attracting a diverse workforce and being more inclusive,” she said. “It is also a way for me to be the voice of the people who share my background who may be facing challenges in the workplace but are not able or prepared to speak out. Each member of the group brings a different perspective on EDI and the challenges to inclusion so the group is not only about sharing my experiences, explaining how companies can be more inclusive of Muslim women, but also about learning about others, listening to their experiences, their challenges, and understanding how I can myself help foster better inclusion in the workplace and the railway.”

Farah is using her voice to inform the industry about what can be done to encourage more Muslims into the rail sector. Like nearly all industries in the UK, Muslims face universal barriers to employment, with prejudice believed to be a contributor as to why unemployment rates are more than double that of any other community. … “I am keen to use my voice to raise awareness to the need to create more flexibility around the working environment in the railways for people like me,” she said. “For instance, as a Muslim, I don’t celebrate Christmas and I don’t do anything special on Boxing Day, yet as an employee, it is automatically assumed that I will take those days off because it is a bank holiday. It would be good to be able to work those days and use that credit to take time off on the days I celebrate my religion such as Eid-al Fitr (Festival of Breaking the Fast) which follows Ramadan (a month of fasting).”

“Again, with Ramadan it would be good if organisations could make people more aware that they have colleagues fasting and ask them to be a little bit more understanding. I have found my colleagues at CPMS-Egis to be really supportive, but I am aware that it is not always the case for other Muslim people. … In the long term, it would be good to see employers make prayer space available for everyone. I pray five times a day so it would be nice to have a personal space to do this, but this space could also be used as a meditation room for individuals or just somewhere where anyone who needs to take a moment can decompress, … I am pregnant at the moment and flexibility is important to me, to go to hospital appointments for instance. As long as I am doing my job right and making up the working hours, that should be the main focus.”

It is these sorts of ideas that Farah hopes to promote and move forward as part of her role in the working group of the EDI Charter. “When I first joined the rail industry, I did feel a little awkward when I was taking time off to celebrate my faith and during Ramadan when I was fasting,” she said. “Organisations could look at offering more flexible hours for employees during these times, because for example I don’t take a lunch break when fasting. … A lot of it comes down to raising awareness, which is a priority for me with the EDI Charter Working Group. Inclusion is not a case of one size fits all and what works for one organisation. might not work for another. Employers need to connect with their employees, open the discussion and both need to work together to make it work for them.”

“Our role as the EDI Charter Working Group is about understanding our respective challenges and come up with ideas and suggestions as to how employers can address them so they can attract a more diverse workforce and create better inclusion. … I have really enjoyed my time in the rail industry so far and I really want to play my part in making sure I help everyone feel included, whilst at the same time encouraging others to join the industry. … Based on my overall experiences so far, I would recommend the rail industry to everyone and I would encourage everyone to speak up if they face challenges. … There are lots of opportunities to work in the railways. You just need to understand the industry and make sure the industry understands you.” [23: p46-47]

References

  1. Nicholas Faith; The World the Railways Made; Pimlico, London, 1990, 1994, p259-270.
  2. J. N. Westwood; A History of Russian Railways, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1964.
  3. https://rogerfarnworth.com/2020/03/23/railways-in-iran-part-1-tehran-to-rey-1888.
  4. Eleuthere Eléfteriades; Les Chemins de Fer en Syrie et au Liban; Beirut, 1944.
  5. Jack Simmons; The Railway in Town and Country 1839-1914; David & Charles, Newton Abbot, 1986.
  6. Earnest Elmo Calkins; They Broke the Prairie; UI Press, Illinois, 1989.
  7. https://rogerfarnworth.com/2020/11/14/clergy-and-railways.
  8. https://youtu.be/9VeRcXnPGCc?is=wYW6d7pU_9LPEOrw, accessed on 4th July 2026.
  9. https://lawandreligionuk.com/2016/04/18/thoughts-on-railways-clergy-religion-and-the-law, accessed on 8th July 2026.
  10. Nikolaus Pevsner; The Buildings of England: Cambridgeshire; Penguin, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1954, p365.
  11. https://www.methodistheritage.org.uk/visit/railways-and-religion-western-dales, accessed on 8th July 2026.
  12. https://cockermouthhistory.uk/religion/railways-and-religion, accessed on 8th July 2026.
  13. https://shura.shu.ac.uk/21510/1/Mallery_2018_PhD_CrossingTheLine.pdf, accessed on 8th July 2026.
  14. https://railwaymission.org/home/messages-of-hope, accessed on 8th July 2026.
  15. https://songsfromtheageofsteam.uk/fantasy-metaphor/religion-temperance/107-fantasy-metaphor/religion-temperance/2287-bar396, accessed on 8th July 2026.
  16. https://www.ctfc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/railways-and-religion.pdf, accessed on 8th July 2026.
  17. Michael Ainsworth; Thoughts on railways, clergy, religion and the law; in Law & Religion UK, 17th April 2015; via https://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2016/04/17, accessed on 8th July 2026.
  18. John Bull; Let’s Get Metaphysical – Patron Saints of Railways & other Transport Modes; 19th December 2024; via https://londonreconnections.com/lets-get-metaphysical-patron-saints-of-railways-other-transport-modes, accessed on 9th July 2026.
  19. John Eade; The Changing Role of Railways in the Life of a European Pilgrimage Shrine; via Researchgate; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289637979_THE_CHANGING_ROLE_OF_RAILWAYS_IN_THE_LIFE_OF_A_EUROPEAN_PILGRIMAGE_SHRINE, accessed on 9th July 2026. This paper examines the changing role of the railway in the development of one of the most important Roman Catholic shrines – Lourdes in France. During the second half of the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth century, trains were vital in establishing Lourdes’ position as a major national and international shrine. Although the expansion of car ownership and tourism after the Second World War have vastly increased, the numbers visiting the shrine, the importance of the railway has declined. This paper examines the changing role played by the railway in the shrine’s development, the declining importance of organised pilgrimage groups and the growth of individual choice and the flexibility provided by diverse modes of transport. It concludes with a consideration of the relevance of this case study to the study of pilgrimage and tourism in Europe and beyond.
  20. Lorraine Worsley-Carter; Finding the RIght Track with a Railway Chaplain; via https://quayslife.com/people/finding-the-right-track-with-a-railway-chaplain, accessed on 9th July 2026.
  21. https://railwaymission.org, accessed on 9th July 2026.
  22. https://railwaymission.org/onewebmedia/Railway_Mission_Chaplaincy_Support_Report_2025%20%28v18%29.pdf, accessed on 9th July 2026.
  23. https://issuu.com/raildirector/docs/001-080_rdjune2021/46?ff, accessed on 9th July 2026.
  24. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Fraser_(bishop), accessed on 10th July 2026.
  25. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Treacy, accessed on 10th July 2026.
  26. Jeffrey Richards & John M. Mackenzie; The Railway Station: A Social History; Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1986.
  27. G. K. Chesterton; Tremendous Trifles; Methuen, London, 1909.
  28. Karel Čapek; Intimate Things; George Allen & Unwin, London, 1935.
  29. Roger Lloyd; The Fascination of Railways; George Allen & Unwin, London, 1951.
  30. Samuel Carr (ed.); The Poetry of Railways; Batsford, London, 1978.
  31. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Alexandria, accessed on 11th July 2026.
  32. The Railway Magazine Volume 18, 1906, p326-328.

The Trans-Caspian Railway

The featured image for this article shows a  train of oil-tanks on the Baku-Batoum Railway, part of the original Trans-Caspian network. [31]

The original Trans-Caspian Railway is a historic, 19th-century railway built by the Russian Empire across Central Asia, stretching from Turkmenbashi (formerly Krasnovodsk) on the Caspian Sea to Tashkent, Uzbekistan. Today, it serves as the foundation for the modern Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (also known as the Middle Corridor). [1]

The station of Baharly on the Trans-Caspian Railway, circa. 1890, © Public Domain. [1]
The main routes of the original Trans-Caspian Railway, © Peter Christener and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 3.0). [1]

This article looks at the developments in the Middle Corridor which have occurred from the end of the 20th century into the 21st century. A future article (or articles) will focus on the earlier line built by the Russian Empire. …

Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (in some sources TMTM as an abbreviation (Trans-Caspian International Transport Route) or TITR (Trans-Caspian International Transport Route) is a multimodal transport corridor, which connects China with the European Union through Central Asia, Caucasus, Türkiye and Eastern Europe. [2]

The modern Middle Corridor is a vital 4,000+ kilometer multimodal trade network that connects China and Central Asia to Europe via Kazakhstan, the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Türkiye. It consists of roughly 4,256 km of rail lines combined with 508 km of sea crossings using specialized train ferries. Cargo trains can travel from the Chinese border to Eastern Europe in about 14 to 18 days. [2]

As of 2026, 86% of the work on the project has been completed. It is planned to finish the remaining 14% of the land at the expense of funds allocated by the Government of Azerbaijan. The work already undertaken includes the refurbishment of existing lines and the construction of new sections of railway line. [2]

The Russian-Ukrainian war has limited freight transport through the Northern Corridor, so the Middle Corridor is considered a great alternative in terms of distance and duration. The Middle Corridor route is around 7,000 kilometres in length compared with 10,000 kilometres by the Northern Corridor. The alternative route is the Southern Corridor which requires good to travel around 20,000 kilometres by ship and through the Suez Canal. [2]

With the Northern Corridor closed to traffic between the EU and Asia as a result of the Ukraine-Russia conflict. The remaining possible routes are the existing Southern Corridor (predominantly by sea), the Northern Sea Route (dependent on prevailing ice conditions in the Arctic). Establishing a competitive land route not directly controlled by Russia is of great geopolitical and economic significance. [2]

Wikipedia tells us, however, that:

“Obstacles to the further use of the Middle Corridor include the limited capacities of seaports and railways, the absence of a unified tariff structure and single operator, and the alignment of geopolitics along the route. [3][4]

“Since the Russo-Ukrainian war began in February 2014, cargo traffic in the Middle Corridor has grown to nearly 3.2 million tons in 2022 as goods shifted from the Northern Corridor. Turkey positions itself as a key player between China and Europe through the Organization of Turkic States for the Middle Corridor, with cargo transportation increasing six-fold in the last decade. [5] Since 2022, China also increased its involvement in the Middle Corridor projects, signing agreements with Kazakhstan, Georgia, and Azerbaijan, [6] to develop infrastructure along the route.” [3][7]

Nigar Jafarova tells us that:

“The Middle Corridor offers a route that is at least 2,000 kilometres shorter than the Northern Corridor, which passes through Russia. This translates to reduced travel time, with the potential to shorten the journey between China and Europe to as little as 12 days, while the Northern Corridor currently takes 19 days. Most importantly, the Middle Corridor helps companies mitigate risks, uncertainties, and sanctions-compliance issues associated with transit through Russia. The development phase of the route also opens up new opportunities for B2B and B2G engagements in logistics, transportation, and infrastructure construction, as the countries strive to modernize and expand their railway systems and seaports. It also offers access to new markets, with an estimated population over 80 million along the route.” [4]

Yunis Sharifli comments that:

“Amid the ongoing crisis in the Red Sea and the Russia-Ukraine war, the Middle Corridor has emerged as a stable route for China. The Middle Corridor was officially launched in 2013 through multilateral cooperation involving Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Türkiye. Its primary aim was to enhance East-West trade connectivity and facilitate the interaction of member countries with key economic hubs such as the EU and China.

“Despite the completion of critical infrastructure projects—such as the Trans-Kazakhstan railway in 2014 and the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars (BTK) railway in 2017, which significantly strengthened the corridor’s hard infrastructure—China’s engagement with the Middle Corridor remained minimal during this period. Beijing’s perception of the Middle Corridor can be divided into two phases: the first from 2013 to 2022, and the second from 2022 to the present.” [7]

Between 2013 and 2022, China’s limited involvement in the Middle Corridor could be attributed to a combination of political, security, economic, and technical factors. Politically, the Middle Corridor emerged as an alternative yet complementary route to the Northern Corridor through Russia, but China’s deepening relations with Russia post-2014 made proactive engagement with the Middle Corridor potentially risky for the Chinese.

The Chinese position was further influenced by a number of different factors:

  • the EU’s preference for using the Northern Corridor for trade with China – before 2022, around 90% of EU-China land-based trade passed through the Northern Corridor via Russia. [8]
  • Security concerns and economic factors. The volatile situation in the Nagorno-Karabakh region, marked by a fragile ceasefire between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
  • Despite the development of critical infrastructure the cost of using the Middle Corridor remained significantly higher than the cost of using the Northern Corridor. Sending cargo through the Middle Corridor cost between US$3,500 and US$4,500 per forty-foot equivalent unit (FEU), [9] with some estimates reaching US$5,000 per twenty-foot equivalent unit for the Urumqi-Aktau-Baku-Poti-Constanta-Burgas-EU route. [10] Contrast this with the Northern Corridor costs of between  US$2,800 to US$3,200 per FEU. [9]
  • Technical challenges – the Northern Corridor did not require transhipment and minimised border crossings but the Middle Corridor was (and still is) a multi-modal transport route involving both land and sea travel. This complexity inherently increases cargo transit times and complicates logistics.
  • Hard infrastructure issues – congestion at Caspian and Black Sea ports caused significant delays, introducing uncertainty in cargo arrival times. The imbalance between rail capacities and insufficient ferry and port services on both sides of the Caspian Sea exacerbated traffic issues and delays. [11]
  • Soft infrastructure deficiencies – the lack of unified regulations, technical standards, and digitalization resulted in unpredictable transit times and extended waiting periods at checkpoints. The absence of coordinated tariffs for pricing increased transportation costs and made it difficult for freight forwarders to plan budgets effectively. [12]

The geopolitical shifts that unfolded after 2022 significantly elevated the strategic importance of the Middle Corridor for China. The disruption of global supply chains, primarily due to international conflicts, coupled with the growing significance of the Middle Corridor for land-based trade between the EU and China, prompted Beijing to adopt a more proactive approach in its engagement with countries along this route.

Bilateral agreements were negotiated by China with Kazakhstan (2023), Georgia (2024), and Azerbaijan (2024).

Sharifli continues:

“In addition to strengthening bilateral relations, Beijing has also expanded its engagement at a multilateral level. Notably, China’s formal involvement in the Middle Corridor Multimodal Joint Venture established by Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Georgia through the China Railway Container Transport Corporation (CRTC) signals Beijing’s intention to diversify its transport routes and mitigate geopolitical risks. [13]

“China’s efforts go beyond agreements and statements, encompassing tangible projects to boost the corridor’s development. A significant example is Georgia’s announcement that a Chinese group is the sole bidder for constructing a large deep-sea port in Anaklia on the Black Sea coast.”[7]

Sharifli also highlights:

  • The agreement between China and Kazakhstan to build the Tacheng-Ayagoz railway line and establish a third railway checkpoint between the two countries. “This new railway line is expected to increase annual rail freight capacity between China and Kazakhstan from 28 million tons to approximately 48 million tons. The new checkpoint will also ease pressure on the Dostyk-Alashankou and Altynkol-Khorgos crossings, reducing transit times in the long term. Additionally, Kazakhstan Temir Zholy and Lianyungang Port Group agreed to jointly invest in a container hub at the port of Aktau on Kazakhstan’s Caspian coast, which will boost the port’s handling capacity and further alleviate congestion.” [14][15][16]
  • Geopolitical developments – Sanctions imposed on Russia following the Russia-Ukraine war have led to the exit of EU companies from Russia and made transportation via the Northern Corridor more challenging. Restrictions on insurance for shipments, sanctions on Russia’s banking sector, and growing uncertainty in Russia’s domestic policy have further deterred foreign companies from using this route.
  • The Middle Corridor attracted the attention of major global shipping companies such as MSC (Italian-Swiss), Maersk (Denmark), CMA CGM (France), COSCO (China), and ZIM (Israel). These companies are launching new services along the Middle Corridor, primarily through Georgia’s port of Poti. [17]
  • Disruptions in traditional maritime routes caused by Houthi attacks on both commercial and military ships in the Red Sea have further complicated global shipping for Chinese companies. These disruptions have forced about 90% of the usual container capacity transiting through the Red Sea and Suez Canal to be rerouted around the Cape of Good Hope, South Africa, adding up to 10 extra days of transit time for shipments from East Asia to Europe. [18]
  • Against the backdrop of sanctions on countries like Iran and Russia, along with disruptions in both the Northern and maritime routes, the Middle Corridor has emerged as the most stable and reliable route for China and its companies. Consequently, transportation volume via the Middle Corridor surged from 784,000 tons to 2,764,000 tons in 2023. [19]
  • “The resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has also contributed to a more stable environment in the South Caucasus, enhancing the security and reliability of the Middle Corridor for Chinese companies. Ongoing peace talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan are expected to promote long-term regional stability, further solidifying the corridor’s importance.” [7]
  • Reduction in the cost of shipping via the Middle Corridor – tariff rates for transporting cargo via the Middle Corridor have dropped from US$4,500 per FEU in 2020 to a range of US$2,500 to US$3,250 in 2024. [20][21]
  • Regional active investments in both hard and soft infrastructure have enabled the optimization of the Middle Corridor. Sharifli notes: the 2024 completion of the BTK railway modernization, which has increased its handling capacity from 1 to 5 million tons of cargo per year; [22] the joint investment by Kazakhstan and Georgia in a new multimodal terminal at the Port of Poti, boosting its capacity to 450,000 TEUs annually; [23] the establishment of the Middle Corridor Multimodal Joint Venture by Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Georgia. [7][24]
  • the increasing involvement of Western countries in the development of the corridor – for example, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) announced a US$103.7 million investment in Kazakhstan Temir Zholy’s bond issuance, aimed at strengthening the nation’s railway operator’s financial and operational resilience while modernizing alternative freight routes between Asia and Europe. [25]

Sharifli concludes:

“China’s evolving approach to the Middle Corridor represents a strategic shift in its Eurasian policy, driven by recent global events and changing geopolitical dynamics. The COVID-19 pandemic, the ‘Ever Given’ [26] crisis in the Suez Canal, and ongoing disruptions in the Northern Corridor and the Red Sea have underscored the risks of relying on single trade routes. In response, China has intensified its engagement with the Middle Corridor, viewing it as a stable alternative for sustainable trade with the EU. This route not only connects China to Northern and Southern European markets but also provides access to the Middle East through Türkiye. By diversifying its trade options, China aims to mitigate geopolitical risks and enhance its economic resilience in an increasingly unpredictable global landscape.

“Moreover, China’s active involvement in the Middle Corridor serves multiple strategic objectives beyond mere trade diversification. It allows Beijing to expand its economic influence across Central Asia and the Caucasus while delicately balancing its relationship with Russia. By investing in the corridor, China is helping regional countries reduce their dependence on Russian routes—a significant factor given that 80% of Uzbekistan’s trade and a large portion of Kazakhstan’s oil exports currently pass through Russian territory. This strategy not only strengthens China’s economic leverage in the region but also positions it to play a more influential role in shaping Eurasian connectivity. However, the success of this approach depends on overcoming challenges such as infrastructure development, maintaining regional stability, and ensuring the route’s economic viability. As the Middle Corridor develops, it has the potential to redraw the economic and geopolitical map of Eurasia, with far-reaching implications for global trade patterns and regional power dynamics.” [27]

But …

But, and perhaps this is a very significant proviso: …

The Much-Touted Middle Corridor Transport Route Could Prove a Dead End!

Friedrich Conradi wrote on 29th April 2026 in an online article for Carnegie Politika, [29][30] that:

“In the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the most recent wars in the Middle East, experts and politicians expected a major transport route to emerge through Central Asia and the South Caucasus, bypassing sanctioned Russian and Iranian territory: the so-called Middle Corridor. For the EU and United States, the corridor holds dual promise: as a trade link between China and Europe and as a strategic pathway for Central Asia’s vast reserves of critical minerals, which are essential for the energy transition and defense industries.

“In 2025, the planned ‘Trump’ Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) through Azerbaijan and Armenia further established the Middle Corridor as a widely discussed alternative to transit through Russia. But obstructive governance, persistent infrastructure gaps, climate change, and geopolitical risk stand in the corridor’s way and may impose a time horizon on its viability. Accordingly, for Central Asian states, the Middle Corridor offers not a permanent pathway to European markets, but a window of opportunity that should be leveraged strategically.

“The Middle Corridor, or the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (TITR), is a 4,000 kilometre multimodal transport network linking western China to Eastern Europe via Central Asia, the Caspian Sea, the South Caucasus, the Black Sea, and Türkiye. In 2024, cargo volume along the Middle Corridor across the Caspian Sea increased by more than 63 percent year on year, reaching 4.1 million tons (compared with 500,000 tons before Russia’s full-scale invasion). The increased throughput of Georgia’s biggest ports, Poti and Batumi, suggests this trend continued in 2025, as the full data are not available yet.

“Historically dominated by energy products, the corridor is shifting toward containerized traffic and is increasingly promoted as a future route for Central Asia’s mineral wealth, including uranium, copper, tungsten, and titanium. For the region’s landlocked states, the Middle Corridor represents an opportunity to reduce export dependence on China by diversifying toward EU and U.S. markets. For the EU, it is a flagship project of the Global Gateway strategy, envisioned as an alternative route to diversify critical mineral and energy supply chains while reinforcing strategic autonomy and de-risking from Russian transit.

“But impressive growth rates obscure a sobering reality: the Middle Corridor remains far from competitive. It only handles about 6 percent of the Northern (Russian) Corridor’s annual capacity of 100 million tons, and while many in the West expect the Middle Corridor’s continued growth, several indicators point in the opposite direction.” [29]

Conradi points out that until the proposed TRIPP corridor becomes operational, Georgia will remain the Middle Corridor’s sole gateway to Europe. But Georgia has just cut its 2026 support for the new port at Anaklia by 66% (from 150 million lari ($56 million) to 50 million lari). Tbilisi seems uninterested in building the new port. It also seems unwilling to meaningfully expand the ports of Poti or Batumi.

Why? Perhaps lack of confidence in growth forecasts? Perhaps pressure from Russia intended to prevent the Middle Corridor replacing its Northern Corridor? Perhaps China is relatively disinterested in the completion of the new port?

Whatever the cause, the Middle Corridor’s critical infrastructure remains stalled. As a result the USA has been seeking to establish the TRIPP route through Armenia.

Conradi points out that “bypassing Georgia may mean trading one set of risks for another. Iran’s demonstrated willingness to escalate horizontally by destroying nearby infrastructure it deems tied to Western powers renders the TRIPP route through southern Armenia (27 miles from the Iranian border) contingent on a regional stability that cannot be assumed.” [29]

In short, the South Caucasus, offers no easy route east or west. “Georgia is paralyzed by political dysfunction and stalled infrastructure. Armenia offers a potential alternative, but one shadowed by Iranian volatility. For the Middle Corridor to fulfill its promises, one of these routes must become scalable. At present, neither is.” [29]

A very different matter is the drying up of the Caspian Sea. Russia has dammed and regulated the Volga River which provides about 80 percent of the sea’s inflow. Rising global temperatures are intensifying evaporation and accelerating desertification in the region. States around the Caspian sea are increasingly  turning to Caspian desalination for civilian purposes. The net result has been an annual average drop in water level of 30 centimetres.

Conradi says that the drop in water levels is “already affecting operations, having reduced rail tank car ferry transport by 22 percent and wagon transport by 10 percent on the Baku–Kuryk route, according to the Azerbaijan Caspian Shipping Company. … Should this trend continue, Kazakhstan’s ports of Aktau and Kuryk could face a critical threshold: a projected sea level drop of up to 6.5 metres could leave current berths landlocked by 2045, potentially forcing a transition from shoreline operations to offshore deep-water terminals and constant multimillion-dollar dredging to remain functional.” [29]

As Conradi says, “the Middle Corridor has hard bottlenecks and likely a limited shelf life.” [29] Perhaps the most critical question is whether there is sufficient commitment from the various countries involved to sustain a converted effort to secure a second functioning east-west land-based corridor that can effectively compete with the Northern Corridor controlled by Russia.

References and Notes

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Caspian_railway, accessed on 10th July 2026.
  2. https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/d8files/event-documents/1.%20Azerbaijan.pdf, accessed on 10th July 2026.
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Caspian_International_Transport_Route, accessed on 10th July 2026.
  4. Nigar Jafarova; The rise of the Middle Corridor; FrontierView, 25th May 2023; via https://frontierview.com/insights/the-rise-of-the-middle-corridor, accessed on 10th July 2026.
  5. Sagar K. Chourasia; The rise of the Middle Corridor: What is India’s response? ; Observer Research Foundation, 17th June 2023; via https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/the-rise-of-the-middle-corridor, accessed on 10th July 2026.
  6. Robert M. Cutler; How Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan Are Rewiring the Middle Corridor; The Times of Central Asia, 3rd April 2025; via https://timesca.com/how-kazakhstan-and-azerbaijan-are-rewiring-the-middle-corridor, accessed on 10th July 2026.
  7. Younis Sharifli; From Disinterest to Strategic Priority: China’s Changing Approach to the Middle Corridor; Trends, 24 November 2024; via https://trendsgroup.org/insight/from-disinterest-to-strategic-priority-chinas-changing-approach-to-the-middle-corridor, accessed on 10th July 2026.
  8. Eurasian Development Bank; The Eurasian Transport Network; 2024,  https://eabr.org/en/analytics/special-reports/the-eurasian-transport-network, accessed on 10th July 2026.
  9. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); Realising the Potential of the Middle Corridor; 2023; via https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2023/12/realising-the-potential-of-the-middle-corridor_c458041c.html,accessed on 10th July 2026.
  10. Evgeny Vinokurov & Taras Tsukarev; The Belt and Road Initiative and the transit countries: an economic assessment of land transport corridors; Area Development and Policy 3, No. 1, 2017, p93–113, via https://doi.org/10.1080/23792949.2017.1385406, accessed on 10th July 2026.
  11. Jakub Jakóbowski, Konrad Popławski, and Marcin Kaczmarski; The Silk Railroad: The EU-China rail connections: background, actors, interests; Centre for Eastern Studies, 28th February 2018; via https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-studies/2018-02-28/silk-railroad, accessed on 10th July 2026.
  12. Yunis Sharifli; Optimization Efforts to Improve Transit Through the Critical Middle Corridor; The Jamestown Foundation, 4th August 2022; via https://jamestown.org/program/optimization-efforts-to-improve-transit-through-the-critical-middle-corridor, accessed on 10th July 2026.
  13. Kazakhstan and China Collaborate on Container Hub for Aktau Port; The Times of Central Asia, 3rd July 2024; via https://timesca.com/kazakhstan-and-china-collaborate-on-container-hub-for-aktau-port, accessed on 20th July 2026.
  14. Kazakhstan, China set to start building Ayagoz-Tacheng railroad; Interfax, 17th October 2023; via https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/95559, accessed on 10th July 2026.
  15. Kazakhstan launches construction of new rail link to China; New Silkroad Discovery, 29th December 2023, https://www.newsilkroaddiscovery.com/kazakhstan-launches-construction-of-new-rail-link-to-china, accessed on 10th July 2026.
  16. Kazakhstan and China to Build Container Hub in the Port of Aktau; The Times of Central Asia, 23rd September 2024; via https://timesca.com/kazakhstan-and-china-to-build-container-hub-in-the-port-of-aktau, accessed on 10th July 2026.
  17. Konrad Popławski, Sandra Baniak, Adam Michalski, & Marcin Popławski; The Middle Corridor: A Eurasian alternative to Russia;  Centre for Eastern Studies, 26th January 2024,; via https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-report/2024-01-26/middle-corridor, accessed on 20th July 2026.
  18. Hunter Stoll; The Middle Corridor: A Renaissance in Global Commerce; The Diplomat, 11th March 2024, https://thediplomat.com/2024/03/the-middle-corridor-a-renaissance-in-global-commerce, accessed on 10th July 2026.
  19. Trans-Caspian International Transport Route; Transportation volume via TITR, thousand tons; via https://middlecorridor.com/en, accessed on 10th July 2026.
  20. Trans-Caspian International Transport Route; EY, 15th April 2024; via https://www.ey.com/en_kz/strategy-transactions/trans-caspian-international-transport-route, accessed on 10th July 2026.
  21. Eurasian Rail Alliance Index; ERAI Eurasian Rail Alliance Index; via https://index1520.com/en, accessed on 10th July 2026.
  22. Trans-Caspian International Transport Route; Modernization work of the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars (BTK) railway line has been completed;  6th May 2024, https://middlecorridor.com/en/for-clients/info-clients/modernization-work-of-the-baku-tbilisi-kars-btk-railway-line-has-been-completed, accessed on 19th July 2026
  23. New multimodal terminal in Poti starts construction; RailFreight.com, 14th August 2023, https://www.railfreight.com/intermodal/2023/08/14/new-multimodal-terminal-in-port-of-poti-starts-construction, accessed on 10th July 2026.
  24. Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan Create Joint Venture to Develop Middle Corridor’s Multimodal Service; The Astana Times, 27th October 2023; via https://astanatimes.com/2023/10/azerbaijan-georgia-kazakhstan-create-joint-venture-to-develop-middle-corridors-multimodal-service, accessed on 10th July 2026.
  25. EBRD Invests in Kazakhstan Railway Bonds to Upgrade Alternative Freight Route Between Asia and Europe; The Astana Times, 25th July 2022; via https://astanatimes.com/2022/07/ebrd-invests-in-kazakhstan-railway-bonds-to-upgrade-alternative-freight-route-between-asia-and-europe, accessed on 10th July 2026.
  26. The Suez Canal was blocked for six days from 23rd to 29th March 2021 by the ‘Ever Given’, a container ship that had run aground in the canal. The 400-metre-long (1,300 ft), 224,000-ton, 20,000 TEU vessel was buffeted by strong winds on the morning of 23rd March, and ended up wedged across the waterway with its bow and stern stuck on opposite canal banks, blocking all traffic until it could be freed. Egyptian authorities said that “technical or human errors” may have also been involved. The obstruction occurred south of the two-channel section of the canal, so other ships could not pass. The Suez Canal Authority (SCA) hired Royal Boskalis through its subsidiary Smit International to manage marine salvage operations. The blockage of one of the world’s busiest trade routes slowed trade between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, tying up goods worth an estimated US$9.6 billion per day.  By 28th March, at least 369 ships were queuing to pass through the canal. [28]
  27. Yunis Sharifli; China’s Dominance in Central Asia: Myth or Reality?; Royal United Service Institute, 18th January 2023; via https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/chinas-dominance-central-asia-myth-or-reality, accessed on 10th July 2026.
  28. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Suez_Canal_obstruction, accessed on 10th July 2026.
  29. https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2026/04/middle-corridor-transport-prospect, accessed on 10th July 2026.
  30. Carnegie Politika is a digital publication that features unmatched analysis and insight on Russia, Ukraine and the wider region. For nearly a decade, Carnegie Politika has published contributions from members of Carnegie’s global network of scholars and well-known outside contributors and has helped drive important strategic conversations and policy debates.
  31. https://www.railwaywondersoftheworld.com/trans_caspian_railway.html, accessed on 10th July 2026.

Ex-Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway (L&YR) 0-8-0 Locomotive in LMS Days at Liverpool, Bank Hall Locomotive Shed – 1937

The featured image for this short article is a relatively poor/grainy photograph taken on Sunday 25th July 1937 at Liverpool Bank Hall Engine Shed. Prominent in the photograph and identified by the photographer, is ex-L&YR 0-8-0 7F Locomotive No. 12981. In the background LMS 4-6-0 No. 5229 can be glimpsed. [Unknown Photographer]

In June 2026, I was given an image printed on a postcard in 1937. The photograph was taken at Liverpool Bank Hall Engine Shed (Code 27A) which was in north Liverpool, located just off Stanley Road in Kirkdale/Bootle. This is a ‘down-the-rabbit-hole’ kind of article in which I follow my nose from the photograph above and see where that leads. ….

Also seen at Liverpool Bank Hall Locomotive Shed (27A) was No. 12782, another ex-L&YR 0-8-0 locomotive. No. 12782 is one of the survivors of a once numerous class of L&Y Aspinall Class 30 0-8-0 6Fs dating from 1901. It was withdrawn in 9/50, almost the last of its Class. Note the most obvious difference from No. 12981, the cab. This photograph was taken on 20th June 1948, (c) Ben Brooksbank and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike license 2.0 (CC BY-SA 2.0). [1]
Another view of Locomotive No. 12782 at Bank Hall. On the same road is ex-L&Y 1F 0-6-0T LMS No. 11535, fitted with dumb buffers and swinging spark-arrestor for working in the Docks, (c) Ben Brooksbank and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike license 2.0 (CC BY-SA 2.0). [2]

Bank Hall Shed was and L&YR shed which was later operated by the LMS and later British Railways, it housed L&YR ‘Pug’ 0-4-0Ts for dock shunting, Class 02 shunters like D2852, and Stanier Class 5s for Liverpool Exchange passenger services.

Ex L&YR ‘Pug’ 0-4-0T locomotive – LMS No. 11246 at Liverpool Bank Hall Locomotive Shed on 20th June 1948, (c) Ben Brooksbank and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike license 2.0 (CC BY-SA 2.0). [3]

Records available online give details of the locomotives on Bank Hall Shed on Sunday 7th March 1937, Sunday 27th February 1938 and Sunday 7th September 1941 do not show No. 12981 as being on shed. This is not conclusive evidence that No. 12981 was not allocated to Bank Hall as it may, in each case, have been out on duty. However, No. 12981 is recorded as being on shed on Saturday 3rd October 1942. [4]

No. 12981 was one of a number of L&YR 0-8-0 locomotives transferred to the LMS at the grouping. L&YR Class 30 locomotives were classified by the LMS as 6F locomotives there are a couple of images of one of these locomotives above. No. 12981 was a L&YR Class 31 locomotive. This class were given a power-rating of 7F by the LMS. “The class was designed by George Hughes and introduced in 1912. The class comprised 115 new locomotives (the 1546 Class, built 1912–21) and 40 rebuilt from two other classes: the 91 Class (built 1900–08) and the 9 Class (built 1918).” [5][6][7][8]

A LMS (ex-L&YR) 7F 0-8-0 at Normanton Shed in 1947. This is No. 12928, built by Hughes c. 1920, withdrawn in September 1947 – soon after this photograph was taken. Note the style of cab on this locomotive matches the cabs on the Class 30 locomotives. (c) Ben Brooksbank and licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike license 2.0 (CC BY-SA 2.0). [9]

This image was for sale on eBay. It shows the same cab as the featured image for this article above. The vendor describes the locomotive as LMS ex-L&YR Class 91 Loco. No. 1440 (LMS 12981). It appears that No. 12981 was a locomotive rebuilt at Horwich from a Class 91 Locomotive built between 1900 and 1908. [10]

This is also a Class 91 0-8-0 – it has the same cab as the Class 30 locomotives. [11]

Another image for sale on eBay shows another Class 31 – No. 12856. This has the same cab detail as the Class 30 locomotives. [12]

An ex-works photograph of L&YR locomotive No. 1427 which was one of the L&YR’s Class 91 locomotives. It became No. 12990 in LMS days. Note that the cab is the same as No. 12981. Given that this is an ex-works image, it is clear that this batch of locomotives were given a different of cab compared with their cousins. [13]

Bank Hall Locomotive Shed was situated off Stanley Road close to the Kirkdale tunnels. The depot was opened in 1865 and closed in 1966. At the time of closure it had two sheds – a brick-built 8-road dead-ended shed and a brick built shed with 4 through roads and 4 dead-end roads. The next two map extracts are taken from the 1st Edition 25″ Ordnance Survey. Two sheets cover the area of the Bank Hall Sheds. The locomotive depot sat to the East of the Liverpool, Crosby and Southport line and Northwest of North Docks Branch (through Kirkdale Railway Station) which were in turn alongside the Cheshire Lines Railway.

One of the two sheds at Bank Hall Locomotive Depot can be seen at the bottom left of this map extract. Immediately North of the shed is Atlantic Docks Junction (LNWR) which was established on 5th September 1881 It was the point at which the Alexandra Dock branch diverted from the original Bootle branch just east of the Canada Dock Tunnel. Stanley Road is at the bottom left of the extract, with tram lines heading North and South along it. A tramway depot is just to the North of this map extract. Northeast of Kirkdale Station which sits in the top right of this map extract. The North Docks Branch (L&YR) and the Cheshire Lines Railway (CLC) enter Kirkdale tunnels and underground separate with the CLC lines heading Northeast towards Walton-on-the-Hill Railway Station. Two turntables can be seen within the curtilage of locomotive depot. [14]
The second of the two engine sheds can be see centre-top of this map extract. Bankhall station can be seen top-left with the Liverpool, Crosby and Southport line curving away to the Northwest. The 4 through roads sit on the west side of the shed. the four dead-end roads enter from the North end of the shed. A multiplicity of marshalling sidings sit to the East of the depot. Stanley Road with its tramway are to the West of the locomotive sheds. [15]

This map extract shows the depot in 1906. The OS Sheet was surveyed in 1906 and published in 1908. There are no obvious differences from the map extracts above. The next edition of the OS mapping of 1924/25 shows no further change from this map extract. [16]

The same location in the 21st century. The site is occupied by Kirkdale Traction Maintenance Depot. It is home to Mersey Rail’s 777 fleet of trains and the engineers workshop for the old 507/8s. [Google Maps, July 2026]

In 1903, the Mersey Railway was electrified; this was the world’s first full electrification of a steam railway. It was followed by the electrification of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway line from the Liverpool Exchange railway station to Southport railway station three years later. In 1937, electrification of the Wirral Railway lines to New Brighton railway station and West Kirby railway station enabled service into Liverpool via the Mersey Railway Tunnel. Bank Hall continued to serve and stable steam locomotives, by the 1937, it had one of the large reinforced concrete coaling stages. Shed Bash UK provides details of locomotives stabled/allocated to Bank Hall MPD in the period from 1937 to 1966 when it closed. [4]

Memories of Bank Hall Sheds (27A) in the period 1960-1966 can be found here. [17]

After 1966, with Bank Hall MPD closed remaining steam-powered services were supported from elsewhere and 1968 waw the last of regular steam use in the country.

Between 1966 and 1980, the Mersey Railway became part of the Merseyrail network which was radically transformed from a fragmented group of suburban lines into a unified, metro-style urban transit system. This era saw the introduction of the Merseyrail brand, the construction of the underground city centre tunnels, and the replacement of aging pre-war rolling stock with modern electric trains. Merseyrail made use of the older Class 502 EMU units until 1980.

The British Rail Class 502 was a n EMU originally built by the LMS at its Derby Works. Introduced in 1940 and withdrawn by 1980, they spent the whole of their working lives on the electrified railway lines north of Liverpool. Their original livery was LMS maroon. [20]

In the 21st century, modern traction on Mersey Rail includes the older Class 507/8 EMUs and the more modern Class 777 EMUs. These are maintained on the site of the old MPD at Bank Hall.

The British Rail Class 507 electric multiple unit (EMU) passenger trains were built by British Rail Engineering Limited at Holgate Road carriage works in two batches from 1978 to 1980. They are a variant of British Rail’s standard 1972 design for suburban EMUs which eventually encompassed 755 vehicles over five classes (Class 313, 314, 315, 507 and 508), (c) Vanmanyo and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 4.0). [18]

The British Rail Class 777 METRO is a class of electric multiple unit passenger trains delivered by the Swiss rolling stock manufacturer Stadler Rail, being used on the Merseyrail network, (c) Rodhullandemu (2021) and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 4.0). [19]

References

  1. https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2606508, accessed on 7th July 2026.
  2. https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2217586, accessed on 7th July 2026.
  3. https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2224499, accessed on 7th July 2026.
  4. https://shedbashuk.blogspot.com/2013/01/bank-hall-1954-1964.html, accessed on 7th July 2026.
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%26YR_Class_31, accessed on 7th July 2026.
  6. H. C. Casserley & S. W. Johnston; Locomotives at the Grouping, No.3, LMS; Ian Allan, Shepperton, 1966, p130.
  7. John Marshall; The Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway, Volume 3; David & Charles, Newton Abbot, 1972 p186–8, p260–2, p266, p267–9.
  8. Eric Mason; The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway in the Twentieth Century; Ian Allan, Shepperton: 1975 [1954], p147–9, p152–6.
  9. https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2785803, accessed on 7th July 2026.
  10. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/362614969179, accessed on 7th July 2026.
  11. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/192886948146, accessed on 7th July 2026.
  12. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/362613433191, accessed on 7th July 2026.
  13. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/334283762825, accessed on 7th July 2026.
  14. https://maps.nls.uk/view/126523040, accessed on 7th July 2026.
  15. https://maps.nls.uk/view/126523070, accessed on 7th July 2026.
  16. https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=17.0&lat=53.43776&lon=-2.98547&layers=168&b=ESRIWorld&o=100, accessed on 8th July 2026.
  17. https://www.derbysulzers.com/birkenhead.html, accessed on 8th July 2026.
  18. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/507021_Bidston.jpg, accessed on 8th July 2026.
  19. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:777010_at_Hooton_Station_20210728-1.jpg, accessed on 8th July 2026.
  20. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_502#/media/File:Sandhills_1979001_1.jpg, accessed on 8th July 2026.

The Thinking About Light Railways before 1896 (and the 1896 Act of Parliament in the UK).

The featured image for this article shows a brand new standard-gauge locomotive – 0-6-4T Mersey Railway No. 1 ‘The Major’. It had not yet received its nameplates when it posed in ‘works grey’ at the Beyer, Peacock works at Manchester in 1885. The locomotive served on the Mersey Railway until that line decided on electrification. Four engines from the line, including ‘The Major’ found employment in Australia, on John Brown’s private light railway – the Richmond Vale Railway in New South Wales. The image comes from “Light Railways – Australia’s Magazine Industrial and Narrow Gauge Railways.” It is included here as an example of a standard gauge locomotive employed on an industrial line recognised as a light railway by ‘The Light Railway Research Society of Australia’. Not all ‘Light railways’ were narrow gauge, nor were their locomotives small 0-4-0T or 0-6-0T locomotives. [7]

W.J.K. Davies tells us that in the 1870s, it became apparent both in the UK and other countries that “many districts, while they would benefit immensely from the facilities afforded by a railway, just could not maintain a line built and operated to main line standards. And so, gradually, during the 1870’s and 1880’s, the concept of the light railway was formulated; a sub-standard means of bringing the advantages of rail transport into rural districts with the deliberate intention of opening them up and improving them. It must be made clear that this concept was different both from the idea of a standard gauge branch line which, although single track, was built and equipped in such things as signalling, stock and staffing to the same standards as the main lines, and from those narrow gauge lines already in existence which had been constructed in difficult country for a specialized purpose, normally the carriage of minerals; the best example of which was the Ffestiniog Railway, in Wales. These lines were not light railways in the true sense of the term.” [1: p24]

“The true light railway developed first beyond the confines of the UK, “while at home even the minor railways, both standard and narrow gauge, were still largely restricted by custom which demanded such things as raised station platforms, separate goods yards and elaborate signalling arrangements; and by Board of Trade regulations framed for more ambitious projects. Even abroad, ideas developed in various ways in different countries, usually by trial and error methods, and it was not until the 1890’s, when the International Railway Congress debated the situation at several of their annual conferences, that anything resembling a clear picture of what constituted a light railway emerged.” [1: p24-25]

“The term, as might be expected, proved difficult to define, for what was a light railway in one country, might be considered main line in another; it might be of standard or narrow gauge depending on the circumstances. In Britain, a light railway usually meant a light branch line of an average length of about ten miles, while on the other hand, in France, metre gauge lines substantially built with considerable engineering works and often fifty miles or more in length were also classed as light railways as indeed they were in comparison with the cost of building and maintaining a standard gauge line in the same circumstances. Perhaps the best definition is that a light railway is a line of railway constructed deliberately below the standard of a country’s main line railways for the sake of economy in construction and working and intended to open up a poor district, at the same time producing additional traffic for the main lines. It must, if it is to obtain all the advantages of being a light railway, be freed from many restrictions imposed on main lines for safety reasons, such as elaborate signalling, manning of level crossings, etc. It must be able to throw off sidings at convenient points and even perhaps have portable tracks laid right into the farms. In order to have these advantages, it will also have to put up with some restrictions the imposition of a low maximum speed, the need often for special light locomotives and rolling stock so as not to strain a light trackbed, a lower standard of comfort, and problems of interchange of goods with the main line.” [1: p25]

In the 1890s, a light railway was seen as having desirable and undesirable features. “It must be borne in mind that some of the theories have been disproved in practice over the years and also that subsequent developments in road-motor transport particularly have invalidated many of the points put forward as advantageous for instance, no minor line could now tolerate the somewhat slow and leisurely method of operation which some of the ideas presupposed – but, nevertheless, at the time all the arguments for light railways had validity and much construction was based on them. Even now in remote, hilly districts such as one finds in Austria, or under special conditions (e.g. concentrated agricultural traffic such as sugar beet) they may have relevance.” [1: p25]

“The basic tenet of all light railway theory was that the line must be suited to the traffic it was to carry initially and for a period of some years after the opening. Remember that, ipso facto, light railways were to open up poor districts – if the district was rich it could support a full-scale railway from the beginning – and so traffic would have to be generated by the railway. Thus, the argument ran, if a district was estimated to support a traffic of, say, 10,000 tons a year, then it was foolish initially to lay down a railway with a capacity of 50,000 tons a year. Track and equipment would be uneconomically used and, more important, the original capital outlay with its interest charges would be unnecessary and perhaps even fatally large, whereas if the line was constructed in a manner suited to the traffic available it stood a much better chance of paying its way and building up a strong reserve. Then, if and when the increase in traffic caused by its construction warranted the improvement of the railway to higher standards, perhaps even to main line standards, this could be undertaken with evidence of a solid backing, and a considerable amount of goodwill already gained; while if no development occurred, the capital loss was smaller.” [1: p25-26]

The question of suitability for the traffic expected, prompts a consideration of the type of railway required. “Once the traffic was estimated, the best and most economical way of handling it had to be considered, and immediately the problem of track gauge arose. Now this comes only third in the International Railway Congress’s [IRS] table of conditions influencing the cost of railways in easy country.” [1: p26] The conditions were:

  • the axle-load, on which the weight of rail depends;
  • the speed of trains;
  • the gauge;
  • the station accommodation. [1: p26] cf. [2]

“Nevertheless the gauge is a very important factor and in hilly or otherwise difficult country its importance becomes paramount. There were two schools of thought, the supporters of the standard gauge (of the country concerned, whether it was 5ft 3in, 4ft 8lin, or 3ft 6in) and those of the narrow gauge, the latter being somewhat divided among themselves by the multiplicity of gauges in use. The proponents of the standard gauge suggested that this was most convenient in all respects, particularly in ‘easy’ country where extensive earthworks were unnecessary. The railway, they said, could at first be laid with light rail and worked by specially designed light locomotives and stock until traffic had increased sufficiently for it to be brought up to ordinary branch line standard. To the objection that such stock would not remove the need for transhipment since light waggons could not be worked in with main line equipment, they suggested that the line could be made just strong enough so that the lighter types of main line stock, in particular goods waggons, could be worked over it, and then, when the time came for upgrading, the trackbed was already there. They pointed out that the narrow gauge had several major disadvantages. First there was the problem and expense of transhipment of goods; then there was the problem of maintaining enough rolling stock for peak periods without too much lying idly by at other times; and thirdly there was the need to maintain expensive separate workshops to service the line’s equipment.” [1: 26]

“The narrow gaugers retorted that there was a considerable difference in capital cost, which might often mean the difference between success and failure; that the transhipment bogey was greatly overrated; that, especially in agricultural country, the narrow gauge had the advantage of being able to use sharper curves and thus to run right into the very farms and warehouses it served, and down the streets of towns if necessary; and that with small railways extensive workshops were not required. Running repairs could be carried out by a competent fitter and the engine crews, and for all heavy repairs it would be more economical to send the stock away to a main line depot. They pointed out, moreover, that the standard gauge had an additional disadvantage that its users might demand an improvement in standards without the necessary traffic to justify these and public opinion might force the railway company to comply. This did in fact happen in several places such as South Australia, where feeder lines were constructed on the standard gauge of 5ft 3in with 40 lb rails, a maximum axle load of 7 tons, 20-ton locomotives and a maximum speed of 20 mph; a set of conditions eminently satisfactory for economical working. Unfortunately, public opinion forced successive increases in weight and speed until the railways were running 35-ton locomotives with a 9-ton axle-load at speeds of up to 35 mph on the original track, which was certainly not a satisfactory state of affairs! As the narrow gauge protagonists said, this was unlikely to happen on the narrow gauge where customers would cheerfully put up with conditions which, on a standard gauge line, would draw forth howls of wrath.” [1: p26-27]

No clear-cut conclusions were possible. The International Railway Congress concluded after meetings over several years, that, “while light railways on the standard gauge might very well serve for fairly short distances over easy ground, there was nothing to be lost from a break of gauge should circumstances require it and indeed in many cases it would be advantageous, through leading to a substantially lower capital cost with consequently lower interest charges and lower maintenance costs. The following Table drawn up by the Congress may be of interest.” [1: p27]

Table 1: Construction Costs per Mile (in £ sterling) in the 1890s. [1: p27]

The cost difference rises rapidly under certain conditions. This is particularly true as the length of line increases or the topography becomes more difficult. Davies notes that Mackay [2] quotes instances of construction costs from: the Indian Sub-continent (one, 17 miles in length) and Australia (one, 6 miles in length and one, 16 miles in length).

India:

  • Standard-Gauge (5ft 3in): £2,927 per mile
  • Metre-Gauge: £1,969 per mile
  • 2ft 6in-Gauge: £1,817 per mile

Queensland, Australia:

  • Standard-Gauge (4ft 8.5in): £46,000 per mile
  • 3ft 6in-Gauge: £15,000 per mile

Davies observes: “there is not a very great difference in the lndian figures, though the difference will become more important as the line lengthens, ln the case of the Queensland line, however, the adoption of a narrower gauge with its sharper curves and smaller road-bed allowed a tremendous reduction in initial cost which would, no doubt, be also reflected in the maintenance costs. If this is considered to be rather an extreme example, then the case of the Styrian Local Government railways in Austria may be of interest. Here the light railway on the standard gauge from Cilli to Woollan cost £9,000 per mile, while the cost of several narrow gauge lines constructed by the same concern in similar terrain averaged under £4,000 per mile and even the 750mm gauge railway from Kapfenberg to Seebach (still in service [in 1964] for goods) which ran through very difficult country cost only £4,265 per mile, including the provision of stock.” [1: p28]

The figures quoted “could of course only be realized if the narrow gauge line was planned to take full advantage of economies in route layout and construction. The IRC pointed out that not too much notice need be taken of laying out the track for easy conversion to a standard gauge railway for, if the expected traffic materialized, then capital could be found to make any modifications to the route that were found necessary; thus if a district would only support a narrow gauge line, it would be folly to make the substructure similar to that of a standard gauge one.” [1: p28]

“The IRC also pointed out, and its opinion was endorsed by many authorities, that even the lightest standard gauge line would often be of too great capacity for the needs of a district and that by adopting a gauge in accordance with the estimated capacity required, all interests would be better served. The Indian railway system, then being extensively developed, is a good example of the sound reasoning behind this theory. In India, the main arteries were built to a gauge of 5ft 6in. Larger areas which were poorly developed but which had a definite potential, were served by metre gauge lines substantially laid and worked to high standards but with a considerable saving in costs these were secondary systems rather than true light railways. Poor or isolated districts, or those in which difficult country made a broader gauge financially impossible, were served either by sub-standard metre gauge lines or by what were termed ‘special gauge’ railways, normally on the military 2ft 6in gauge but occasionally, if conditions warranted it, on the 2ft gauge. It is interesting to note that, except where military expediency decided the gauge (not always 2ft 6in) the gauges chosen seemed well proportioned to their work. A survey in 1895-96 showed that in practice traffic and costs decreased proportionally with each narrowing of gauge, as long as each railway worked within its calculated capacity, and most of the railways are still in use at the present time; [1964] many indeed having been extended and otherwise improved.” [1: p28-29]

The IRC did, however, disapprove of the wide variety of narrow gauges being put into operation. It was considered that: “in order to encourage the development of light lines, the greatest possible liberty should be left them to choose the width of their gauge. … But, it is also advantageous to keep to certain recognised patterns which practice has already approved. … The four ordinary standards, 4ft 8.5in; metre;2ft 6in; and 2ft are only ones which ought to be recommended.” [1: p30]

Davies points out that “It was considered that this would help to increase standardization in the event of lines connecting or the authorities concerned wishing to re-use material. This latter possibly requires a little explanation. One of the points put forward in support of building the smallest possible line to start with was that, if traffic developed to the extent where the railway had to be rebuilt, the original material could be taken away and used again to open up a new district; this of course presupposed some kind of central or local authority control over the construction and working of light railways.” [1: p30]

Davies notes that, “in common with many engineers of the time, members of the International Railway Congress considered that the 2ft gauge was really too narrow, leading to unnecessary slowness and problems of stability. (Those who cited the Festiniog in reply were told quite truly that this was not really a good example; it merely proved that the gauge could, if the need arose, bear a heavy traffic but that no one would suppose it to be ideal for a heavily engineered line carrying some 150,000 tons a year.) The gauge had its champions, however, particularly the Decauville Company in France, who advocated it as very suitable for light roadside tramways, in particular in agricultural areas where sharp curves and many side lines were desirable. This company later built up several quite extensive systems. … It was also used further afield, a typical example being the Darjeeling-Himalaya line in India. The South African Railways especially have shown that the 2ft gauge is by no means a toy [cf. 3] if properly handled.” [1: p30]

Davies says that a narrower gauge was advocated by some for specialized purposes such as estate railways or agricultural lines. Decauville produced the 500mm gauge (about 16in) and in England Sir A. P. Heywood’s pioneering work with the 15in gauge is noted by Davies. Smaller gauges did not, however, catch on and 2ft/600mm remained the smallest gauge in general use. [1: p30]

Whatever the width of the narrow gauge, there was one thing which exercised the minds of all light railway theorists in the 1880s and into the 1890s – “that of transhipment of goods between main line and light railway. It was, of course, a major argument for those who advocated light standard gauge lines but, after considerable study, the experts, both amateurs like Sir Arthur Heywood and professionals like the members of the International Railway Congress came to the conclusion that the problem was not nearly so serious as it seemed. They pointed out that transhipment was taken as a matter of course in other circumstances, that goods were freely transferred from waggons to railway trucks and vice versa without any complaints. A survey of methods in various countries showed that at that time (mid-1890’s) it could be economically done for between 1 1/2 d and 3d a ton; where rates were higher than this, they considered that the procedure should be overhauled and greater co-operation secured between the companies concerned. Co-operation, in fact, was rightly considered the most important factor in transhipment. It was emphasized that the main line concern should encourage the light railways in every possible way since it was to their own advantage to stimulate as much traffic as possible. Several continental countries, such as Austria and Hungary, wrote into their light railway Acts clauses which compelled the main line concerns to give their smaller neighbours every facility and encouraged the initiation of partnership arrangements.” [1: p31]

As to the actual arrangements for transhipping goods, the IRC considered that: “Several special cases may justify the erection of special transhipment fittings but apart from these exceptional cases, as a general rule the most ordinary and most simple methods of transhipment from waggon to waggon, on roads at the same level, should be recommended.” [1: p31]

Davies says that, “A transhipment shed with the lines so arranged that waggon floors were on the same level with a platform between them, or even with the light railway on a slightly higher level so that the interchange platform sloped gently down to the standard gauge, was thought to be the most sensible arrangement and was widely adopted. Considering the basic idea behind a light railway, that it was intended for a comparatively light, general traffic in both directions and including much agricultural produce which would be difficult to tranship in bulk anyway, this was undoubtedly a sound idea, since the capital cost of gantry cranes, tipplers, etc., would only be justified if there was a fairly large, one-way flow of bulky traffic. This did apply in many cases, particularly overseas and when mineral traffic was an important feature of the railway’s economy. Our own Glyn Valley Tramway, for example, although very much a rural steam-worked light railway as far as general traffic was concerned, had a big outgoing granite and slate traffic which justified the installation of fairly elaborate loading banks and two waggon tipplers.” [1: p31]

The considerations around this subject were very different depending on ‘light railway’ practice in any particular country. French metre-gauge light railways could be many kilometres in length and were at least equivalent to a busy shorter branch line in the UK. Traffic generated could be significant. Davies notes: “Here the cost of transhipment became a more important factor than the theorists of the 1890’s realized, especially as road transport with its ‘door-to-door’ capabilities became more competitive. They had advocated the container system as the most suitable but somehow this idea was never widely adopted, while the transporter waggon which allowed standard gauge trucks to be ferried over narrow gauge lines and which had been thought uneconomical because of the time a standard gauge waggon was out of traffic, saw a great development in the [1920s and 1930s]. ” [1: p32-33]

“Success appears to depend largely on the relationship between the gauges involved; 2ft is too narrow to take a 4ft 8 in gauge waggon safely, but with 2ft 6in and metre gauge the system is quite satisfactory and has been extensively used in Belgium, Germany, Austria and other continental countries. Provided the main line is well equipped with rolling stock, the ‘time-out-of-traffic’ problem has not proved important. Its main drawback is that the narrow gauge railway must have sufficient clearances to enable standard gauge stock to pass over it, and this means that many earthworks and all bridges, tunnels, etc., must be to the main line loading-gauge or even slightly larger. In practice this has restricted the use of transporters to lines passing through fairly easy country where such obstructions are at a minimum and the extra cost involved is therefore low. In hilly districts even such considerable systems as the French Vivarais system must keep to the traditional methods with straightforward interchange sidings.” [1: p33]

“The gauge to be used and its associated problems were, however, only one of the factors that had to be taken into account. There were many other considerations, particularly with regard to where economies could safely be practised; and most of these were greatly influenced by the second basic tenet of light railway theory which was that the line should serve the district it ran through otherwise its potentialities would be largely wasted. This axiom may appear self-obvious but it was often neglected with dire results, especially in this country. If it was heeded, it largely determined the theoretical course of a railway, for such a line might well not be able to follow the most direct course or the easiest one from the engineering point of view. For example, a line might be projected to join A and B, some 50 miles apart by the most direct route. Then the promoters would have to consider whether a deviation to serve C, involving about 4 miles extra track mileage would be justified from the point of view of the additional traffic it would create, or the benefit it would give to the district. If it was being sponsored by a local authority specifically to open up a district the line would probably go the long way round but if it was being privately financed this was a major problem, for mileage was inevitably an important factor in determining the cost of the line. The IRC needless to say had very definite views on the subject. A light railway, in its opinion, should provide transport virtually from door to door, or at least from farm to market, and should be laid out to facilitate this in every possible way.” [1: p33]

“But if this was to be done, other problems immediately arose. Laying out a line on the route best calculated to serve the countryside inevitably meant that obstacles that could otherwise have been avoided had to be surmounted. Steep gradients, river and road crossings, sharp curves, particularly where the railway followed a road, were all likely to occur more frequently. Here, incidentally, the narrow gauge scored on all counts; it could take sharper curves, it took up less space on a roadside verge, the proportion of dead to live weight hauled was lower than on a standard gauge line, so that better payloads could be hauled up the gradients, and it was easier to run off both permanent and temporary sidings. Whatever gauge was to be used, however, the problems remained. Was it better to have a shortish, steep gradient or to make a deviation round the rise? Should the railway run along a public road or on its own right of way? Opinions differed, but obviously the need for economy often dictated the final decision. Quite elaborate Tables were calculated to show the effect of varying gradients on working and one is given below.” [1: p33-34]

Estimates provided by Davies of the effect of various gradients: Davies says that “No real account need be taken of gradients of less severity than 1 in 200 but that the stiffer the gradients that were encountered, the more economical it would be to avoid them, particularly as the carrying potential of a train would be determined to some extent by the stiffest gradient of any length found on the railway.” [1: p34]

“Thus one or two fairly steep gradients could be tolerated providing, first, that they were short enough to be rushed, and second that the ruling gradient was sufficiently gentle so as not to exhaust the steaming powers of the locomotives. A ruling gradient of not more than 1 in 80 was recommended but 1 in 50 was, it appears, more often accepted as the maximum in practice.” [1: p34]

This table shows the sharpness with which load hauling powers drop off as the gradient increases. Taken from a thesis of the period, it assumes locomotives with a tractive force of about 321 Ib per ton weight (then thought to be the optimum for light railway engines) working at a maximum speed of 7 mph on gradients of any reasonable length. It will be seen how quickly, proportionately, the tonnage which can be hauled drops away once the ruling grade exceeds about 1 in 80. [1: p35]

Roadside running “was recommended wherever possible, especially for the smaller lines, both because it was economical in first cost, the land involved already being in most cases the property of the local authority, and because it was the route most likely to serve the community.” [1: p34]

Davies goes on to say that, “On one thing … all were agreed whatever was done about the route, economies should not be practised on the track itself. The initial cost of a well-built trackbed, with an adequate weight of rail, would pay for itself many times over in reduced maintenance costs and smoother running; and an interesting sidelight – many authorities, from Decauville to Sir A. P. Heywood, recommended steel sleepers rather than the usual wooden ones, as being stronger and longer lasting. This last suggestion was not widely adopted, although it proved its worth on light lines but the consequences of neglecting the earlier warning soon became all too plain. Minimum recommended rail-weights per yard for the various gauges were:” [1: p34-35]

  • 2ft gauge: 25 lb
  • 2ft 6in gauge: 30 lb
  • Metre gauge: 50 lb [1: p34-35]

“These proved satisfactory in practice providing that adequate sleeper spacing and ballasting was provided, since these two factors have a considerable influence on the axle-load a given weight of rail will safely bear. The troubles of many light railways in their later years sprang from a parsimonious outlook when they were built, which compelled their constructors to use too few sleepers and very inferior ballast, often containing a high proportion of earth. … The main economies which it was felt could be effected came under three headings: accommodation, working arrangements, and manning, the first one of these being the most controversial, especially in this country. Collectively they make up the third tenet of light railway theory as propounded in the 1890s, which might well be summed up in Henry Ford’s famous slogan ‘Simplify and add Lightness’. All unnecessary frills were to be omitted. Complex signalling, interlocking of points and signals, gated level crossings, fencing, even the normal staff and token system used on single line railways, virtually all the safety measures so dear to the administrators, should be ignored and, indeed, were forgotten in most countries where the light railway idea took firm root. A system of train orders and, later, telephone communication, proved perfectly satisfactory for the slow and infrequent trains of such lines and could well have functioned over here, as was proved by the Glyn Valley Tramway which was a roadside light railway of continental type but which profited by its official classification to run its operations in a very free and easy manner without any serious mishap. As for gated level crossings, when these theories were being worked out, there was, of course, very little traffic on the roads and many lines were roadside anyway; even now [1964] the majority of continental lines do without gates. They have the occasional accident but rarely one sufficient to disturb anyone’s equanimity for long.” [1: p35-36]

“This urge for economy extended, too, to the lineside buildings which, it was stressed, should be of the simplest and of a limited number of standard patterns. … Such things as raised platforms were considered unnecessary and, indeed, an encumbrance as, in order to increase the economy of working at wayside stations, goods and parcels sheds were often combined with the station house and the very sensible plan adopted of having a siding or loop directly in front of these for goods waggons, the main running line being a short distance away.” [1: p36]

The diagrams below illustrate the difference between UK practice and that on the continent.

Typical layouts of stations on light railways in the UK (A and B) and on the Continent (C and D). A and C represent typical intermediate stations, B and D represent passing/crossing places. Davies suggests that it is important to note the differing arrangements of goods facilities and the usual practice on continental railways of providing toilets at stations, something that was unusual for lines in the UK. [1: p41]

“Places of little importance were to have halts only, which, on the Continent at least, were and are often just a nameboard at a level crossing, with the possible addition of a small shelter.” [1: p36]

There was also the question of staffing. The IRC claimed that, in effect, railwaymen should be able to put their hands to almost everything. Among other things they suggested:

  • The possibility of giving up the fireman, or, at all events, being enabled to make him assist in other work apart from the engine, and engaging him as a simple fireman apprentice.
  • The use of carriages with a central gangway which allows of their being looked after by a single guard to examine tickets even in trains of as many as eight carriages.
  • Allowing the train staff (brakesmen of goods trains and firemen) to share in working points, handling baggage, etc., at the stopping places and intermediate stations.
  • People other than railway employces being engaged to look after stopping places of small importance.
  • Station-houses could be inhabited by men employed at various jobs on the railway, the stations being looked after by their wives, and it was even proposed that the wives should issue and collect tickets on trains. (In practice many light railways employed far too large a staff, although in later years, as competition grew, and conditions worsened, the staff numbers were of necessity reduced. Davies says that “Regrettably, it was often in the essential posts such as gangers that economies were made rather than in the more expendable administrative personnel.”) [1: p37]
  • In respect of the trains, “economies could, it was considered, be obtained by such devices as composite carriages for the lesser used classes, reduction of the number of classes, waggons of similar capacity to those on the main line if this was practicable, and particularly by careful study of the maximum axle-load and the maximum speed required, both of which, if kept to a reasonably low figure, would ease maintenance all round. A prominent supporter of this view was E. R. Calthrop, who advocated a uniform axle-load for all vehicles on a railway, adopting in practice a maximum load of 5 tons for a 2ft 6in gauge line laid with 30 lb rail, with a relatively low maximum speed of 15 mph; that his theory was sound is indicated by its success on the Barsi Light Railway in India; and by the Leek & Manifold Valley Light Railway in Staffordshire, the track of which needed no replacement at all during the thirty years life of the line.” [1: p37

However, that the track of many light railways lasted as long as it did was due not so much to careful planning as to infrequency of traffic. “Generally speaking it was considered that two trains a day would meet the requirements of most districts. ‘Transport‘ commented in 1894: ‘Almost all the places where light lines are asked for have at present only two connections by public vehicle each way daily, one in the morning and one in the evening. It would therefore be reasonable for poor lines to have only two trains each way daily’.” [1: p37]

Davies goes on to note that “it is of interest … that the same Journal also advocated the introduction of ‘motor trains’ or, as the French call them, ‘trains legères’ if circumstances justified additional services over busy parts of the line. These in practice, in the early years, usually consisted of an engine hauling one or two coaches but later on, of course, railcars were used. When one considers cases like that of the all-stations mixed train on the ‘Le Blanc-Argent’ line in Touraine, which took 14 hours to cover its 191 kilometres and was indicated on the public timetables as three separate trains, one realizes why such trains legères were considered desirable. Admittedly the [Le Blanc-Argent] train had to struggle through no less than four standard gauge junctions with their attendant complications but it was by no means alone in its tardiness. Even in the 1890s, however, the disadvantages of mixed trains had been recognized and the IRC recommended that, as soon as traffic on a line justified it, they should be abolished.” [1: p37-38]

Davies concludes that the theorists’ arguments of the 1890s, before the Light Railway Act of 1896 were that a line should be:

  • suitable for the traffic expected;
  • of service to the community; and
  • simple in construction and operation.

The theorists thought “of light railways as sub-standard lines designed to open up a district and to contribute traffic to the main line railways; they were to be constructed on the simplest pattern compatible with operating efficiency. This … entailed a number of restrictions in carrying power, train size and speed, but did not mean that the railway should be a ramshackle concern. If it was properly suited to its traffic there should be sufficient capital to build it substantially in comparison with that traffic it was to carry. Economies were to be realized mainly through throwing overboard all the elaborate trappings and working practices of the main lines and, depending on its circumstances, a line classed as a light railway might range from a 2ft gauge steam tramway only a few miles long to a fully equipped metre or 3ft 6in gauge line up to or even exceeding 100 miles in length. Standard gauge lines rarely came within this category unless they were of feeble length and laid with very light rails and equipment, since narrow gauge lines offered economies in capital cost which out-weighed their disadvantages.” [1: p38]

In practice, the UK was a relatively late adopter of light railway schemes. “A fair amount of legislation for, and, indeed, construction of local railways had already taken place by the end of the 1880s in various countries. But development was very patchy and the lines that had been built tended to adhere to the physical conditions governing the main line railways in their own country, more from lack of fresh thoughts on the subject than for any other reason. Thus, in Britain, for example, minor lines had high platforms, and goods sheds detached some distance from the main station buildings, neither of which practices, as we have seen, was considered necessary by the theorists. Indeed as late as 1902 there was so little clearly formulated planning on the subject in Britain that an eminent practising engineer found it necessary to write a manual to inform his colleagues of the practical principles involved in laying a light railway.” [1: p39][3]

There was “a surprising amount of agreement among existing continental light railway builders as to the basic requirements of a light railway except, of course, in the always invidious matter of gauge; and it was on the basis of existing practice that the theorists of the 1890’s were able to formulate their ideas. Nor was the considerable body of light railway theory so built up entirely the work of amateurs. The professional ‘International Railway Congress Association’,† an official body set up by most European and some other countries, maintained a standing committee to consider the subject of light railways and to sift out the best elements of existing practice.” [1: p39]

The recommendations relating to light railways by the 19th century theorists were followed to a significant extent. A good example is the case of railway gauges, always a thorny problem. Before the 1890’s there was a multitude of gauges in use, but very few light railways built after about 1895 did not conform roughly to one of the IRC’s four recommended gauge groups. There was general agreement over fencing, signalling and standardisation, although the rigour with which standardisation was persued depended on the country concerned. Davies highlights a problem experienced in France during WW1. … “France, merely laid down general rules and left individual companies to produce their own detailed specifications. The disadvantages of this were not apparent while vehicles remained on their home lines, but became plain when they had to run on other railways, as the French found out when the 1914-18 War forced them to strengthen their north-eastern light railways with stock from lines all over the country. The variations in coupling and braking systems in particular were numerous and severely taxed the ingenuity of the operating staff; while the Austrians, who had standardized with just this eventuality in mind, were able to reinforce their military railways with no trouble at all. The disadvantages also showed in peace-time when railways started to close down and other lines wished to buy their equipment.” [1: p40]

Steam Locomotive on the Tramway de Royan at the turn of the 20th century, (c) Public Domain. [5]

Davies highlights a few interesting matters:

A. Rather hazy distinctions between ‘light railways’ and ‘tramways’ – Tramways were usually lines of only local interest and running for the most part alongside public roads, these were typically exempt from state railway laws. Promotion and control were usually left in the hands of local authorities. “Yet these lines might not be ‘tramways’ in the generally accepted sense of the term today, but true light railways which just happened to run by the roadside. Indeed some considerable systems of what were officially classed as tramways arose, a typical example being the Tramways de la Sarthe in France, operating 20 connected lines of metre-gauge track, with a total length of 406.1 kilometres. Such lines usually had … wayside stations, … steam traction, and carried goods as an integral part of their traffic.” [1: p40,42] Ultimately, the only distinction between such tramways and a ‘light railway’ would be the likelihood that the light railway probably mainly kept to its own right-of-way.

B. The use of ‘concessions’ in most countries in Europe for their light railways – this practice was unusual in the UK in respect of light railways. It was, however, relatively commonplace in respect of tramways built in local roads in the UK. These were granted a fixed length of operation by a contractor with a first refusal for the local authority when the term came to an end.

In Europe, almost every country used some form of ‘concession’ system, “whereby companies did not simply go out and buy land with the right to build a railway on it and use it in perpetuity after an initial authorization, but were simply given powers to build a railway and run it for a fixed period as contractors, after which the position would be reviewed. Alternatively they might operate a railway already constructed by the state or by some other organization; and often the state reserved to itself the right to purchase the line at a specific time after construction. These concessions were of two main types which may conveniently be referred to by their French titles of ‘concessionaire’ and ‘fermier’.” [1: p42]

Davies tells us that “The ‘concessionaire’ company normally undertook to work a railway or railways ‘at their own risks and perils’. In other words. it had to pay its way or close. This was not quite so bleak a prospect as it might seem since the operation of the railway was often subsidized by a state or local authority and guaranteed interest might even be paid on the capital of the railway company concerned. Such companies often built their railway(s) in the first place and provided their own rolling stock.” [1: p42]

“The ‘compagnie fermière’ on the other hand, was solely an operating company and worked a railway on behalf of an owning organization, usually a local or municipal authority. It worked either as a completely controlled subsidiary to the authority, in which case profit did not come into the matter, or else contracted to operate the line for a fixed percentage of the gross receipts. This type of concession was used frequently in later years when the railway concerned was almost certain to make a loss but was considered of sufficient benefit to the community for its continued operation to be worth while.” [1: p42]

Davies continues: “It was in the granting of these concessions and in the various ways by which the concessionary companies were helped, that the attitudes of different countries showed themselves; and it was the terms under which such concessions were granted that often determined whether the light railway network of a country was a success or a failure. Where the state organized its secondary rail system, either by judicious financing or by direct control, lines were built sensibly and with reasonable success; a fruitful co-operation grew up between the State and the concessionaries. But where the State was not quite sure what it wanted, or where local authorities were allowed to have the major say in authorizing and constructing systems of any importance, the results, generally speaking, were not so good. This was probably due mainly to over-enthusiasm and to the desire to meet the demands of poor districts which felt the need of a railway as much as their more prosperous neighbours. The result in both cases was that promoters tended to be offered unduly favourable terms, with insufficient security on their part in return. Hence many lines were built that were of very doubtful viability under any circumstances and certainly unlikely to be a paying proposition. The construction of these uneconomic lines was often justified by the explanation that they were not expected to pay their way, initially at any rate, but were designed to benefit a region by opening up new districts, the local authority being quite willing to pay a subsidy to achieve this end. This argument was possibly valid where the operating company did not make a considerable profit out of the situation but such lines inevitably had to be offered under guaranteed terms which cost the local authority dearly. Moreover, the lines concerned were naturally very vulnerable to any improvements in road transport.” [1: p42-43]

C. Other Factors – affecting the viability of ‘light railways included:

  • Prestige: “The local company usually had its pride, and this led to considerably more expenditure on lineside fittings than was strictly necessary. In particular, station buildings tended to be substantial, … often of brick and stone, and of two stories where a simple hutment would have sufficed. Too often, also, unnecessarily elaborate workshops were provided for each small company although big private concerns, to give them their due, often had a central workshop where all heavy repairs were done.” [1: p43]
  • An operational problem: often ignored by early theorists. For “minor railways which formed dead-end branches, the obvious place for the operational headquarters and running sheds was at or near the junction with a main line railway. Yet traffic flow usually required the first train out in the morning to be from the far terminus to the junction. Hence a sub-shed, capable of storing one or two locomotives, and equipped with fuelling facilities, and even at times living accommodation, had to be provided at the far terminus. On a system with several branches this could well be a considerable expense.” [1: p43]
  • Staffing: was often on a more lavish scale than the theorists or IRC would have liked. Dvvies, in 1964 writes: “It was far more lavish in many cases than was strictly necessary, as has been shown by a number of French minor lines in recent years. Such lines as the CFD du Vivarais, or the late-lamented CFD du Tarn have, since the war, cut their personnel by almost half; and for a 55 miles system like the Tarn this meant a decrease of some forty men. It is being wise after the event, but it is plain that the fortunes of some minor concerns would not have been so bad, had they controlled their staffing ratios more realistically in the first place.” [1: p43]
  • Dual Effects of Traditional Ideas of Railway Building: Davies sees these as a ‘standard gauge mentality’ and a failure to appreciate the results of improvements in road transport. Both, he says, led to stagnation of ideas: “The standard gauge mentality was, as the name implies, a fixed idea among officials involved in planning light railways, to avoid the, as they saw them, disruptive effects of a multiplicity of gauges and standards. It implied a large degree of conformity with main line standards in signalling and other matters as much as conformity in the actual gauge. It was by no means always destructive but in many cases a railway built on these principles meant one far too large and elaborately equipped, hopelessly uneconomic for the traffic it was to carry and for the revenue which could be expected. In extreme cases it simply meant that no railway was built at all.” [1: p44] … Davies goes on to say that on the Continent and in Britain from about 1910, the “light railway builders of the period often stuck too closely to the mass of theoretical dicta which had appeared about the turn of the century. In France especially, but also in other countries they went on planning tortuous roadside lines, designed for slow and infrequent trains, without realizing that road competition was becoming even then a very real factor. The theorists had not visualized motor transport; the builders of the 1910’s seem to have ignored its presence to a surprising degree. The result was the construction and operation of such systems as the Tramways de la Corréze in central France. This was an extensive system of no less than five separate lines on the metre gauge, totalling 179.5 km and opened as late as 1913-14. Yet it was for the most part roadside, serving small communities, laid with light rail and equipped with 4-wheel stock of a pattern already outdated. Even the locomotives were small 0-6-0T’s designed for the haulage of light trains at slow speed. Even after the 1914-18 War some of the light railways that were promoted then followed much the same pattern and it is all the odder that, while sticking religiously to what were becoming, in the circumstances, outmoded concepts, the builders of such lines were not afraid of constructing considerable engineering works if the need arose. The TC [Tramways de la Corréze] mentioned above had, for example, the viaduct of La Roche Taillade, a huge suspension bridge noted throughout France for its superb design, … while the Côtes du Nord system, which was building such lines as late as 1925, was also a pioneer in the use of pre-stressed concrete structures and used the material extensively for viaduct work.” [1: p44]
Viaduc de Roche-Taillade sur la Luzege 92 metres high, 160 metres long with piers/stanchions of 126 metres in height. [4]

Conclusions

The success of a light railway was likely to vary in practice with the conditions it encountered rather than its adherence to a particular set of ideas. Davies concludes that “in virgin territory overseas, the light railways had ideal conditions for survival; long hauls; great potential for traffic development; and a fair chance of expansion provided the ‘standard gauge mentality’ of colonial administrators could be overcome. On the Continent and at home, on the other hand, they were more hidebound by traditional ideas, problems of prestige, etc., and were far more subject to competition which developed from other forms of transport. ” [1: p45]

A short article picks up on a short piece in The Railway Magazine of August 1905 which reflected on the early years of Light Railways after the 1896 Act. This can be found here. [6]

References

  1. W. J. K. Davies; Light Railways: their rise and decline; Ian Allan, London, 1964.
  2. J. C. Mackay; Light Railways for the United Kingdom, India and the Colonies; Institution of Civil Engineers (facsimile ed.), London, 2011.
  3. R. M. Parkinson; Light Railway Construction; Longmans, Green & Co., London and New York, 1902; via https://archive.org/details/lightrailwaycon00parkgoog/page/n3/mode/2up, accessed on 4th July 2026.
  4. https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/EV8AAOSwsRpneCcF/s-l1600.webp, accessed on 6th July 2026.
  5. https://de.wikipedai.org/wiki/Datei:Locomotive_vapeur_de_Tramway_de_Royan.jpg, accessed on 6th July 2026.
  6. https://rogerfarnworth.com/2024/09/17/light-railways-in-the-uk-the-early-years-after-the-1896-act-the-railway-magazine-august-1905
  7. https://media.lrrsa.org.au/irok230/Light_Railways_230.pdf, accessed on 6th July 2026.

The Campbeltown and Machrihanish Light Railway. …

The featured image for this article shows ‘Argyll’ (a Barclay built 0-6-2T) taking its train Southeast out of Campbeltown before turning Southwest to run round the South side of the town. This image was shared on the Machrihanish Online Facebook Page on 26th July 2023. (c) Public Domain. [22]

The Campbeltown and Machrihanish Light Railway was a 6-mile, 2 ft 3 in (686 mm) narrow-gauge railway in Kintyre, Scotland, operating between 1906 and 1934. It ran from Campbeltown’s New Quay to Machrihanish, primarily serving coal traffic while also transporting tourists and locals across the peninsula.

It replaced an earlier industrial tramway which was built in 1876 and used by the Argyll Coal and Canal Company, which before this had replaced a canal.

In 1876, the line followed the line of the old canal that used to be used to transport coal.

In 1905/6 the curves were improved and the steeper gradients eased.

Most of the output from the colliery was used locally – by residents and the 34 distilleries. The coal business was largely seasonal and the owners looked for a use during the summer months and in 1905/6 a light railway (2’3″ gauge/686mm)was built to replace the tramway and at the same time it was extended to Machrihanish and along the front in Campbeltown.

Opened in 1906, the Campbeltown and Machrihanish Light Railway was Scotland’s only passenger-carrying narrow-gauge railway and operated as an isolated line with no connection to the national rail system.

Ultimately, the railway suffered from increased road competition from bus services, financial problems, and reduced coal quality in the early 1930s, closing in 1932 (officially 1933) and being dismantled in 1934.

Stenlake Publishing has recently published a new ‘Oakwood Press’ 3rd edition of a book first published by David & Charles in 1970. A second edition was published in 1993 by Plateway Press. The new edition has minor updates and some ‘new’ old photographs. The author, now in his 90s, visited Campbeltown in the early 1930s and again in 1941 thus sparking his interest in this operation. In the 1950s he decided to build a scale model and his new bride was only too happy to accompany him to Campbeltown on their honeymoon so he could take the necessary research photographs of what was left of this line built to move coal economically from pit to ship. The route was from the colliery near Machrihanish across the Kintyre Peninsula to the pierhead at Campbeltown. Coal strikes in the 1930s, competing services from buses, financial problems and the fact that Machrihanish coal wasn’t of especially high quality, all contributed to the inevitable demise in the mid 1930s, but traces of the line remain visible along the route today.

The Route of the Line – Campbeltown to Machrihanish

The route of the line is shown below on contemporary Ordnance Survey mapping which was revised in 1914/1915 and published in 1921. These map extracts are supported by Google Maps satellite imagery and Google Streetview images. Occasionally other images illustrate the particular section of the route. …

The Railway Harbour branch ran out onto New Quay and along Hall Street. Ordnance Survey mapping revised in 1915 and published in 1921. [4]
The same area in the 21st century. [Google Maps, May 2026]

The Harbour branch did not just see use by goods trains. Once steamer traffic began to bring tourists to Campbeltown, the train would take them across to Machrihanish, © Public Domain. [3]

A similar view in the 21st century: Hall Street is a dual carriageway with a central verge. The light railway occupied the centre of the carriageway where there is now a grass verge. [Google Streetview, November 2021]
Another postcard view: this is a closer view of the passenger train sitting in the centre of Hall Street. This image was shared on the Disused Stations Facebook Group by Gordon Thomson on 15th February 2023, © Public Domain. [8]
A single-coach train sits on Hall Street: both locomotive and coach seem to be in a pristine condition. This photograph  could have been taken as early as 1906, © Public Domain. [9]
The route of the Harbour branch followed the shore before crossing Kilkerran Road. [4]
‘Argyll’ (a Barclay built 0-6-2T) takes its train Southeast out of Campbeltown before turning Southwest to run round the South side of the town. This image was shared on the Machrihanish Online Facebook Page on 26th July 2023. (c) Public Domain. [22]
The same area in the 21st century. There is a footpath visible through the park between Kilkerran Road and the foreshore. The old railway route approximates to the line of the footpath.  [Google Maps, May 2026]
This view looks Southeast along the line of the old railway. [Google Streetview, November 2021]
A closer satellite view of the point where the old railway route crosses Kilkerran Road. [Google Maps, May 2026]
Looking back from the location of the level crossing, through the park towards the harbour at Campbeltown, the centre line of the old railway runs through the first tree at the centre of this image and then follows the path back towards Hall Street. [Google Streetview, November 2021]
Looking forward from the location of the road crossing along the route of the old railway. The path at the centre of this image follows the line of the old railway. Ahead among the trees was a length of relatively deep cutting. [Google Streetview, November 2021]
Looking back towards Kilkerran Road from the line of the old railway, © James Emmans and authorised for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 2.0). [11]
The Harbour branch ran in deep cutting towards the location of sidings on Stewart Street. These map extracts come from the Ordnance Survey mapping, revised in 1915 and published in 1921. The NLS provides these maps free and without copyright restrictions. [4]
The same area as it appears on Google’s satellite imagery in the 21st century. [Google Maps, May 2026]
The cutting mentioned and shown above. The photograph shows the footpath which now follows the line of the old railway, © Steve Partridge and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 2.0). [10]
The deep cutting on the right side of this colourised postcard image suggests that the train shown has just left the seashore to the Southeast of Campbeltown and is heading Southwest along the South side of Campbeltown. AT that location there is a significant stand of trees much matching that shown behind the train in this image, but I would have expected there to be some signs of the yard which can be seen on the OS map extract below. This picture was shared on the Machrihanish Online Facebook Page on 15th May 2019, (c) Public Domain. [25]
The sidings which sat behind the Gaelic Church, off Stewart Street. The Harbour line enters this map extract in the bottom-right. The line to Machrihanish leaves in the bottom-left corner of the image: the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1914 published 1921. [4]
The same location on the 25″ Ordnance Survey revision of 1898, published in 1899. This shows the older ‘tramway’ which did not have access to the harbour and Hall Street, terminating instead at a ‘station’ with road access from Stewart Street. To the West of this location the old tramway formation became the light railway formation. [13]
A similar area on Google’s satellite imagery in the 21st century. The Gaelic Church sits approximately in the centre of this image. The area occupied by the old light railway which sat to the West of the church had now been redeveloped. The location of the triangular junction, coal depot and carriage shed remains undeveloped, with the exception of a helicopter landing pad for the hospital which sits on the old railway site. [Google Maps, May 2026]

The next few photographs show the site of the sidings as it is in the 21st century, beginning at the North end and wandering to the South. …

Looking South from Stewart Street, the buildings on the left straddle the top of the site. The ginnel behind the blank gates and the single-storey building to the right were present when the site was in use by the old light railway. [Google Streetview, December 2021]
Looking South through the site with the arch of the modern buildings behind the camera. [Google Streetview, October 2015]
Further South through the site, this view continues to look to the South. [Google Streetview, October 2015]
This view from the hospital access road looks North through the site of the old sidjngs towards Stewart Street. [Google Streetview, December 2021]
Turing through 180°, the view faces South from the same location as the image above. Hospital buildings sit directly over the old site. [Google Streetview, December 2021]
Further to the South, peering over the wall we can see the open grass area that was once the triangular railway junction in Campbeltown. [Google Streetview, December 2021]

The line to Machrihanish set off just to the South of West and immediately crossed what is now Ralston Road at an unmanned, ungated level crossing. ….

The road crossed by the railway is now known as Ralston Road. [4]
Approximately the same area as it appears on Google satellite imagery in the 21st century. The fence line on the right of this image on the North side of Limecraigs Road marks the approximate Centreline of the old railway. The line of the old railway now passes through the hosing estate on the West side of this image. [Google Maps, May 2026]
Looking East from Ralston Road, the fence line sits on the line of the old railway. [Google Streetview, November 2021]
Looking West from Ralston Road, the Centreline of the old light railway passed through the house at the centre of this image. [Google Streetview, November 2021]
The line continues West but on a West-southwest trajectory. [4]
A series of red dots give an approximation to the route of the old railway. A relatively modern housing estate sits over the old line. [Google Maps, May 2026]
The old line curved round to just North of West before crossing what is now Tomaig Road. [4]
Again, red dots show the approximate alignment of the old railway on this next extract from Google’s satellite imagery. The alignment becomes visible once the housing estate is left behind. [Google Maps, May 2026]
A closer view of the location of the level-crossing. The red dots indicate the line of the old railway. [Google Maps, May 2026]
Looking back along the line of the old railway towards Campbeltown. [Google Streetview, November 2021]
Looking West from the same crossing, along the route of the old railway, towards Machrihanish. [Google Streetview, November 2021]
The line ran on Northwest from the crossing at Tomaig Road. [4]
The same length of railway shown on the 21st century ESRI satellite imagery provided by the NLS. Its route is easy to see. [14]

This next map extract shows the line as far West as the edge of the Ordnance Survey map sheet. [4]

A similar length of the line as it appears on the ESRI satellite imagery provided by the NLS. The resolution on this image is not as good as that on the satellite imagery provided by Google but none-the-less, the route of the old light railway can easily be made out. [15]
The line continued Northwest to another level crossing (top-left) over what in the 21st century is the B843. [5]
A similar length of the line is shown in this satellite image. The route of the line can be picked out, running from the bottom-right towards the top left, where it crosses the B843. [Google Maps, May 2026]
A closer view of the location of the level-crossing. The red dots approximate to the line of the old light railway. [Google Maps, May 2026]
Looking back along the line of the old railway from the level-crossing at the B843, the fence line beyond the tree in the middle fairground marks the line of the railway. [Google Streetview, November 2021]
Turning through 180° at the same location, the tree in the centre foreground sits on the line of the old light railway. [Google Streetview, November 2021]
From the level-crossing, the line ran on to the West. [5]
The field boundary running West from the location of the level-crossing marks the line of the old light railway. [Google Maps, May 2026]
Two relatively tight curves on this next map extract saw the line turning to the Northwest. [5]
The field boundaries running across the centre of this satellite image mark the line of the old railway. [Google Maps, May 2026]
A wide sweeping curve took the line on to the West. [5]
The red dots show the approximate line of the old railway. The two most westerly of these dots are perhaps a little too far to the North to actually sit over the old line. [Google Maps, May 2026]
The line continued West-southwest. [5]
Again, the line of red dots approximate the route of the old railway. By the 21st century, much of the formation has been ploughed into the fields surrounding it. [Google Maps, May 2026]
This next map extract shows the old railway as it continued heading West-southwest. [6]
A similar length of line is again shown on the 21st century satellite imagery provided by Google. The line of the old light railway is a little easier to identify running West-southwest from the top-right of the image towards the lower-left side. [Google Maps, May 2026]
The line continues heading West-southwest before beginning to curve round to the West. [6]
The route of the old railway follows the field boundaries which run from top-right to a little below centre-left on this Google satellite image. [Google Maps, May 2026]
The line crosses this map extract from right to left at the centre of the extract. [6]
Approximately the same area as it appears on Google’s satellite imagery. The line of the old railway runs East to West a little below the centre of the image. [Google Maps, May 2026]
Only at the left hand side of this extract does the line turn a little towards the Northwest. [6]
The route of the old railway is a little harder to make out on the satellite image. The string of red dots show it’s approximate alignment. [Google Maps, May 2026]
The turn to the Northwest is much more evident on this next extract from the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1914/15 published 1921. [6]
The line of red dots on this next extract from Google’s satellite imagery is the best that I can do to show the approximate line of the old railway. Much of this length of the line has been ploughed back into the landscape. [Google Maps, May 2026]
Now curving back towards the West, the line approaches the Machrihanish Water. [7]
The red dots on this image mark the approximate line of the old railway at each edge of the satellite image. The field boundary between marks the line of the railway. [Google Maps, May 2026]
Adjacent to West Machrihanish, Machrihanish Water ran alongside the railway. Just to the West of the access road to West Machrihanish the light railway branched to serve the colliery and the village of Machrihanish. The line to the colliery ran parallel to Machrihanish Water, that serving the village turned away to the Southwest. [7]

West Machrihanish farm in 2026, also showing the access road and Machrihanish Water. The line of the old railway turning away for Machrihanish village is marked in red. The line to the Colliery ran alongside Machrihanish Water. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The next map extract shows the site of Argyll Colliery which mined the Machrihanish Coalfield, the ‘Main Coal’ was the principal coal seam at this location and is some 3 to 4m thick. A further, higher seam known as the ‘Kilkivan Coal’ has also been worked by the colliery.

The site of Argyll Colliery. [7]

A similar area in the 21st century. The lines drawn are only approximate. [Google Maps, June 2026]

Mining was taking place at the site of the colliery “before the 16th century, largely in connection with a local sea-salt industry. Similar but very small scale activity also took place on the northeast coast of the nearby Isle of Arran. It continued at a low level through to the late 18th century when a new pit was sunk at the Argyll Colliery, ushering in the coalfield’s busiest period which lasted until the closure of the mine in 1929, following a fire in 1925. Much of the coal was used to fuel the area’s numerous distilleries. The coalfield was linked to Campbeltown by a canal from the late 18th century and by a tramway/narrow-gauge railway at the end of the 19th century.” [16]

After closure in 1929, plans were in the 1930s “to distil oil from Machrihanish coal, but they were never put into practice. The mine was reopened in 1946, … with two drift mines … serviced by modern machinery.” [17]  The mine, however, closed permanently in 1967.

A colourised postcard image of the pit head at the Argyll Colliery. This image was shared on the Machrihanish Online Facebook Page on 11th August 2019, (c) Public Domain. [2]

For more about Argyll Colliery, please click here, [18] here. [19]

We continue to follow the main line through to Machrihanish Station. …

Having turned to the Southwest away from the branch into the colliery the main line then crossed the road from Campbeltown to Machrihanish. The crossing can be seen at the right side of this map extract. [7]
Approximately the same area as shown on the map extract above. The red line gives the approximate route of the old railway. It is difficult to finally fix the location of the crossing as no historic features remain at the location and the caravan park post dates the line by some time. The exact location of the crossing may be as much as 50 metres to the West of the point that the red line crosses the road, perhaps not as much to the East. [Google Maps, June 2026]

Looking West along the B843 at the approximate location of the railway crossing. [Google Streetview, November 2021]

Looking East along the B843 at the approximate location of the railway crossing. [Google Streetview, November 2021]

About 50 metres to the South of the B843, the line ran parallel to the road. [7]
Approximately the same area as shown on the map extract above, as it appears in satellite imagery in the 21st century. [Google Maps, June 2026]
The line to the South of the relatively large homes which fronted onto the B843 in Machrihanish. [7]
Roughly the same area in the 21st century. The line ran behind the properties which still face out onto the B843. [Google Maps June 2026]
A coluorised postcard image showing ‘Argyll’ arriving at Mchrihanish Railway Station sometime in the 1920s. This image was share on the Machrihanish Online Facebook Page on 26th July 2019, (c) Public Domain. [25]
Machrihanish Railway Station sat behind (to the South of) the village. It was a simple two road station with passing loop. [7]
Again, approximately the same area as covered by the map extract above. The red lines approximate to the railway – with a simple passing loop in the old station. As can be seen a modern estate has been built over the site of the old railway station. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Machrihanish: the railway sat behind the buildings shown here, (c) Public Domain. This old postcard image was shared on the Machrihanish Online Facebook Page on 8th September 2019. [

The backs of the buildings at Machrihanish in 1905, before the railway arrived in the village, (c) Public Domain. [20]

A view of Machrihanish village from the Northeast soon after the turn of the 20th century (c) Public Domain. [21]

Machrihanish railway station with ‘Argyll’ a Barclay built 0-6-2T which can be seen more easily in the image below. (c) Public Domain. [1]
‘Argyll’, Andrew Barclay & Sons 0-6-2T Works No. 1049 of 1906, is in charge of a rake of what appears to be 4 of the 6 coaches owned by the Campbeltown and Machrihanish Light Railway. The six coaches built for the line all came from R. Y. Pickering. The location is probably Machrihanish Railway Station. This image was included in The Railway Magazine of February 1920, © E. A Gurney-Smith, Public Domain. This image can be found in various places online, it was shared by Dan Quine on the Narrow Gauge Enthusiasts Facebook Group on 5th April 2021. [12]

A superb painting of ‘Argyll’ by Jonathan Clay can be found here. [23]

Looking South along the short station approach road, now named ‘Bayview’. [My photograph, May 2026]
Looking North on the same length of road. [My photograph, May 2026]
At the same location as the last image but facing South. [My photograph, May 2026]
Turning to face East into what was once the site of the Railway Station and is now ‘Bay View’. [My photograph, May 2026]
Looking East along what was the line of the old railway from the location of Machrihanish Railway Station. [Google Streetview, November 2021]
‘Argyll’ or ‘Atlantic’ awaiting a next duty on the line. This image was shared on the Disused Stations Facebook Group by Gordon Thomson on 15th February 2023, © Public Domain. [8]

The railway owned two large tank engines built by Barclays of Kilmarnock named the “Argyll” and “Atlantic” together with three smaller engines inherited from the colliery. Its six unique large coaches handled the passenger business and there were 150 colliery owned coal wagons.

Links to other sites, blogs, articles

References

  1. https://www.facebook.com/groups/169965873834335/posts/1720525862111654, accessed on 30th June 2026.
  2. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2350515415035270&set=pb.100063155654203.-2207520000&type=3, accessed on 1st July 2026.
  3. https://www.airbnb.co.uk/rooms/1333351742651568177?_set_bev_on_new_domain=1779435972_EANDk3YzNmMTIyZG&set_everest_cookie_on_new_domain=1779435972.EAOTg3NDhlNmVkMDlkOW.nzC8ycC2pcO-Eo_DbSM_xowJUhqVWkKW93L_Y-WO6NI&source_impression_id=p3_1779435973_P3gs1P0wiIMMOgVk&modal=PHOTO_TOUR_SCROLLABLE&modalItem=2067524742, accessed on 22nd May 2026.
  4. https://maps.nls.uk/view/82866012, accessed on 13th May 2026.
  5. https://maps.nls.uk/view/82866006, accessed on 13th May 2026.
  6. https://maps.nls.uk/view/82866000, accessed on 13th May 2026.
  7. https://maps.nls.uk/view/82865994, accessed on 21st May 2026.
  8. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1H6s5J2QDR, accessed on 22nd May 2026.
  9. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Campbeltown_and_Machrihanish_Light_Railway_-_Argyll_-_0-6-2T_built_1906_by_Andrew_Barclay_-_2ft_3inch_light_railway_built_in_1905_and_closed_in_1933.png, accessed on 22nd May 2026.
  10. https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/618505, accessed on 22nd May 2026.
  11. https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5154005, accessed on 22nd May 2026.
  12. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/17YGPh2uQz, accessed on 22nd May 2026.
  13. https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=16.8&lat=55.42136&lon=-5.60560&layers=168&b=ESRIWorld&o=100, accessed on 23rd May 2026.
  14. https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=16.7&lat=55.41981&lon=-5.62128&layers=168&b=ESRIWorld&o=0, accessed on 23rd May 2026.
  15. https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=16.7&lat=55.42049&lon=-5.62441&layers=168&b=ESRIWorld&o=0, accessed on 23rd May 2026.
  16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machrihanish_Coalfield, accessed on 9th June 2026.
  17. https://www.machrihanish.net/mining-at-machrihanish/nggallery/slideshow, accessed on 9th June 2026.
  18. https://theroadtodrumleman.wordpress.com/2017/02/08/argyll-colliery-the-pit-baths, accessed on 30th June 2026.
  19. https://www.facebook.com/groups/411524423288996/posts/1531038634670897, accessed on 30th June 2026.
  20. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/358620977945, accessed on 30th June 2026.
  21. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/396540988984, accessed on 30th June 2026.
  22. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=618175316964318&set=pb.100063155654203.-2207520000&type=3&locale=en_GB, accessed on 1st July 2026.
  23. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=3840078236082171&set=p.3840078236082171&type=3, accessed on 1st July 2026.
  24. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2399835046769973&set=pb.100063155654203.-2207520000&type=3, accessed on 1st July 2026.
  25. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2323275297759282&set=pb.100063155654203.-2207520000&type=3, accessed on 1st July 2026.

The Guardian Lifestyle Travel – 23rd May 2026 – Part 6 – Over Land & Sea: Magical Views and Sea-Hugging Routes on Europe’s Best Coastal Train Lines – Part B – Spain and Italy

The featured image for this article comes from the FEVE lines of Northern Spain. It shows a typical DMU in use on the FEVE network, together with a number of single-car units, these vehicles provide services across the network, (c) Elfo del Bosque and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 3.0). [151]

The travel section of the Saturday Guardian Magazine on 23rd May 2023 included a few pages about train journeys in Europe (pages 72 to 77). This is the sixth part of a look at those pages. …

Nicky Gardner is lead author of Europe by Rail: The Definitive Guide (Hidden Europe, £21.99). The 19th edition of the book was published on 22nd June 2026. To order a copy for £19.79 go to guardianbookshop. com. Delivery charges may apply!

The featuredis second part of a look at the coastal routes highlighted by Nicky Gardner focusses on two railways – one in Spain and the other in Italy.

D. Spain: Galicia’s Spectacular Fjords

This railway journey runs from Ribadeo to Ferrol. Best advice is to sit on the right as the train sets out on the journey. This is a 91 mile journey which will take 3hours and 10 minutes. A single ticket will cost about €11.15 single. four trains a day are operated by Renfe.

Nicky Gardner writes:

“This is a superb short journey that follows the western extremity of Europe’s most extensive narrow-gauge rail network, which runs from the French border at Hendaye through the Basque Country and along Spain’s north coast through Cantabria, Asturias and Galicia. I have mixed feelings about the route as a whole, which veers well inland and is often quite humdrum. Hendaye to Ferrol demands 20 hours on trains, but the short ride on the final section is a slow travel adventure running west from Ribadeo, with twists and turns as the train navigates the rugged coastline around Ortigueira.” [1: p77]

“The tacky beach-front development west of Ribadeo is best ignored. Soon we cut away from the motorway and regain the coast, waves breaking to the right and rich eucalyptus forest to the left. There are superb views across the great fjords which are a hallmark of the Galician coast. These are called rías. Look out for Cape Ortegal away to the north. When I rode this route on a mid-winter morning, there were barely a dozen passengers aboard for most of the journey, although numbers picked up on the final half hour as we were joined by shoppers heading into Ferrol.” [1: p77]

“This is the humblest of local trains – those in search of luxury on rails may prefer the El Transcantabrico charter train, which includes Ribadeo to Ferrol as part of a wider seven-night itinerary – at eye-watering prices.” [1: p77]

The train operates as a slow, scenic commuter-style railcar on metre-gauge track. It offers sweeping views of the Atlantic, dramatic eucalyptus forests, and passes directly by the dramatic cliffs and rugged rias (estuaries) of the Rías Altas coast. The journey is only a part of a metre-gauge network which runs West from Bibao. Nicky Gardner suggests that the line between Bibao and Ribadeo is of lesser interest. Other commentators are more positive. “There are two outstanding sections of the Santander to Oviedo section of the railway. Firstly, between Roiz and San Vicente de la Barquera you enter a real wilderness alongside the Rio del Escudo. Secondly, climbing out of Ribadesella towards Oviedo, there is half an hour of very dramatic scenery, cliffs and drops to the river, alongside the River Sella.” [2]

Spain’s FEVE (Ferrocarriles de Vía Estrecha) was a vast,1,250-kilometre network of metre-gauge railways spanning Northern Spain. These lines are now operated by the national rail company Renfe-Feve. The network offers slow, Immersive, scenic travel from Bilbao to Ferrol through the rugged mountains and fishing villages of España Verde. [3]

This MapCarta extract shows the length of the line to the East of Ribadeo. It serves to illustrate the way in which these lines must be seen as an immersive experince of slow travel. The journey is the holiday! [4]

Staying within the length suggested by Nicky Gardner we set off West from Ribadeo. …

Ribadeo Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]

Ribadeo Railway Station seen from the South from the road LU-P-5207 which bridges the line. [Google Streetview, July 2025]
At the North end of the station site the line passes over the N-634. [Google Streetview, August 2019]
Trains travelling West from Ribadeo set off North from the station, crossing the N-634 before heading West. [Google Maps, June 2026]
On this extract from MapCarta Ribadeo Railway Station is in the very bottom-right of the image – marked ‘A Estacion’ [4]

The line passes in tunnel under the Autovia del Cantabrico (A-8). [Google Maps, June 2026][Google Streetview, August 2023]

The photograph of the tunnel under the Autovia was taken from the minor road which bridges the line just to the East of the tunnel.

A glimpse of the line back towards Ribadeo and an even more fleeting view of the line ahead to the West. both views come from an industrial access road bridge over the line. [Google Streetview, August 2019]

The line East towards Ribadeo from the overbridge carrying the LU-P-5202 road, and the line ahead to the West. [Google Streetview, July 2025]

Typical of the construction of a number of underbridges on the line is this masonry arch structure. It spans a minor road which Goggle sees no need to name. Parapet protection is limited to a tubular steel two-bar fence on both sides of the line. This view is from the South. [Google Streetview, January 2014]

Rinlo is the first station on the route out of Ribadeo. [Google Streetview, July 2025]

The next stop on the line – Os Castros. The short platform is seen here from the Southwest on the approach to the bridge carries the LU-P-5208 road over the line. [Google Streetview, July 2025]

Our first glimpse of one of the two-car DMUs which are part of the fleet serving the line. This is the next stop – seen from the Southwest. The tram/DMU is stationary at the next station on the route – Esteiro.
[Google Streetview, July 2025]

The same stop seen on another occasion from the overbridge to the West of the station. [Google Streetview, January 2014]

A little further West, the line bridges a more significant road – Praia das Catedrais. The single span bridge is of concrete construction, possibly of reinforced beams made of prestressed concrete.
[Google Streetview, July 2025]

The next stop on the line is Reinante which is followed by Barreiros. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The next significant location on the line in the crossing of the estuary of the Rio Masma near Foz. This view looks from the West and shows the two span arch bridge at the western end of the embankment across the estuary. [Google Streetview, October 2013]

This extract from OpenStreetMap.org shows the immediate area of the Masma estuary/Ria del Foz. The embankment and bridge are shown clearly, so is the tunnel which trains enter soon after crossing the bridge heading Northwest. The Green flag in the top-left of the image is the location of Foz Railway Station. [5]

Foz Railway Station: This is the first passing loop on the single-track line West of Ribadeo. This is easier to make out on the extract from MapCarta. [Google Maps, June 2026]

This Mapcarta extract shows the passing loop at Foz Railway Station. [6]

The next station is just a short distance further along the line – Marzan. It is shown here on the extract from Google’s satellite imagery. [Google Maps, June 2026]

Visible also in this close up of the image is another 2-car DMU either entering or leaving the short tunnel under the N-642. [Google Maps, June 2026]

A closer view from above of Marzan Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The station/halt seen from the Southwest on Rua Pena Parda. [Google Streetview, July 2025]

The next significant location is the rail bridge over the estuary of the Rio Ouro close to Bargado, which is one of three bridges in close proximity. [6]

Two of the three bridges are road bridges. [Google Maps, June 2026]
The three-span rail bridge over the Rio Ouro near Bargado. [Google Streetview, July 2025]

North of the Rio Ouro, the line runs through Bargado and into the station at Fazouro, as can be seen on the MapCarta extract above.

Fazouro Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]

Fazouro Railway Station seen from the South. [Google Streetview, July 2025]
Fazouro Railway Station seen from the Southeast. [Google Streetview, October 2013]

Looking West from the bridge carrying Camiño Praia over the railway, we can see that the line North of Fazouro begins to run closer to the coastline. [Google Streetview, July 2025]

The next stop on the route is Nois Railway Station/Halt, seen here from the road bridge over the line to the South of the station. [Google Streetview, July 2025]

The location shown by MapCarta. [6]

The line continues Northwest on a straight path. This view is taken from the bridge carrying Estrada Ribela over the line at Moreiras. [Google Streetview, July 2025]

The location shown by MapCarta. [6]
The next station/halt is at Canga de Foz, seen here from the South on Cam. Paralelo a Via.
[Google Streetview, July 2025]

Northwest of Cangas de Foz, the line curves over the tightly wooded valley of Rego Real, although close to the N-642 it is well camouflaged by the vegetation. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The line then curves sharply to the North to pass under the Estrada Xeral (N-642). This photograph is taken from the N-642 and shows the line appearing from under the road and then turning back towards the Northwest. [ Google Streetview, July 2025]

The line continues heading Northwest. It is seen here from a minor road running parallel to it. [Google Streetview, August 2019]

Also facing Northwest, this view shows the line running through the eastern suburbs of Burela. [Google Streetview, August 2019]

The station at Burela is another crossing point on the line. [Google Maps, July 2026]

MapCarta also shows the existence of a single siding at the station. [6]
The station in Burela seen from the South, from Rua do Correo. [Google Streetview, August 2025

By this time trains are running very close to the coast. This view from the bridge carrying Estrada Marosa (LU-P-1510) over the line illustrates this. [Google Streetview, August 2025]

MapCarta shows the next length of the line. [6]
A little further to the West, the line dramatically bridges the estuary of the Rio Xunco (c) Jose Enrique Lopez (2018). {google Maps, June 2026]
It then reaches the station/halt of Madeiro, seen here from the access road to the South.
[Google Streetview, November 2013]

The next stop is in the seaside town of San Cibrao. [Google Maps, July 2026]

San Cibrao as shown by MapCarta. [7]
The station at San Cibrao seen from the Southwest on Estrada Cuina Urbana.
[Google Streetview, August 2025]
On the West side of the town of San Cibrao the line bridges the Rio Covo. This view is from the North on Ctra. General -San Cipri [Google Streetview, August 2025]

The next stop travelling West is Bidueiros Halt/Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]

After travelling a little further inland, the next stop is Lago Halt/Station which is seen here in a photograph looking West from the LU-P-2602 road. [Google Streetview, July 2025]

Lago Halt on Google’s satellite imagery. [Google Maps, June 2026]

Xove Railway Station is the next when travelling West along the line. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The station as it appears on MapCarta which shows that two loops leave the main running line at the station, one of which allows for passing traffic, there is also a single storage siding which is in use in the Google Maps image above. [7]

A short distance further West is Xove Apeadero Station/Halt. This halt also appears on maps as Xove-Pobo. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The view from the bridge carrying Calle Urbanizacion el Palmeiro across the line at the West end of the station site. [Google Streetview, August 2025]

A few kilometres further West after passing through a series of wooded areas the line dives into tunnel. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The view West from the bridge carrying the minor road over the line which can be seen on the right of the Google satellite image above. [Google Streetview, November 2013]

The tunnel runs almost due West as shown on this extract from OpenStreetMap.org. [8]

The western end of the tunnel is camouflaged by the tree cover and not visible on satellite imagery.

A short distance further West trains stop at Xuances Station/Halt.

Xuances Railway Station/Halt. [Google Maps, June 2026]

Xuances Halt seen from the Northeast. This image is a still from a short video and is low resolution, (c) Ezequiel Donadio, October 2013. [Google Maps, June 2026]

Beyond Xuances, the railway passes under the CG-2.3 road and runs through woods to the South of the road before passing under the LU-862 and running through the woods to the South of that road which eventually is first (according to Google Maps) given the name ‘Estrade Ribadeo’, then ‘De Viveiro a Ribadeo’. Both these lengths of road are named ‘Estrada da Marina’ on MapCarta and ‘Estrada Marina’ on OpenStreetMap.org.

The MapCarta extract below shows the line as it runs through Celeiro, Viveiro and Covas around the estuary of the Rio Landro (Ria da Viveiro).

Ria de Viveiro and the Rio Landra require the railway to run inland to a suitable river crossing point. [9]

Celeiro appears not to have its own halt on the line, Viveiro has two halts – ‘Viveiro Apeadero’ and ‘Viveiro’.

Viveiro Aperdero Railway Station seen from the North, (c) Vanbasten 23 and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 3.0). [12]

‘Viveiro Apeadero’ or ‘Viveiro Apeadoiro’ Halt. [10]

The Halt seen from the East on Camino Alamira. [Google Streetview, October 2015]
Seen from the West, this is the viaduct which spans both Camino Alamira and Bo. Campo de Verdes (OpenStreetMap.org shows the second of these two roads as being named ‘Rua Campo de Urraca) to the South of the Halt. [Google Streetview, October 2015]

Immediately after crossing the viaduct to the South of Viveiro-Apeadero Station trans entered a tunnel which took the line to the station throat of the main station in Viveiro.

The tunnel between the two stations in Viveiro. [13]

The railway leaves the tunnel and curves round into Viveiro Railway Sation. The points at the throat of the station can be made out towards the top of this image. This is the view looking Southwest from Rúa Alonso Pérez. [Google Streetview, August 2023]
Viveiro’s main railway station sits to the South of the Ria de Viveiro waterfront. [11]
The same area as it appears on Google’s satellite imagery. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Viveiro Railway Station building. [Google Streetview, November 2013]
Looking West along the platform at Viveiro Railway Station, (c) Certo Xornal and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 2.0). [14]

West of Viveiro Railway Station the line crossed the Rio Landra/Ria de Viveiro via a causeway and bridge.

The bridge across the bay/river at Viveiro. [Google Maps, June 2016

The bridge seen from the  Av. Ferrol (LU-540). [Google Streetview, August 2023]
The next station on the line is at Covas (Covas de Viveiro). [15]
Covas de Viveiro Railway Station. [Google Streetview, November 2013]
Beyond Covas, the line runs parallel to Lugar O Cruceiro with the ocean close by, before it turns inland again to run through a short tunnel and on into forested hills. This view looks West along the line.
[Google Streetview, August 2023]

After wandering through the woods, the line passes through Folgueiro Station/Halt and then into tunnel under the village of O Folgueiro. [Google Maps, June 2026]

Folgueiro Station/Halt facing Southeast. The Viaduct carrying the line over Rego de Escourido can be seen in the distance, (c) Martín Rei Leis. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The Village of O Folgueiro sits over the FEVE line’s tunnel. [16]

The next station on the line is Mosende Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]

Mosende Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]

Mosende Railway Station seen from the Northeast on Ave Fraderia. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

North of Mosende, the railway runs under the next forested hill-side in tunnel and wanders around above ground but heavily camouflaged by the forest, then enters another tunnel which runs North-northwest. AT the end of the tunnel trains burst out into open air just short of the LU-862 road.

The line passes under the LU-862 twice after leaving the tunnel. [17]

The tunnel mouth is there in the darkness! [Google Streetview, June 2025]

The line ahead seen from the bridge carrying Lugar O Cruceiro (LU-862). [Google Streetview, June 2025]

There is little to see from the road at the second bridge location the tree canopy obscures the view from the bridge down onto the railway.

Running on the South side of the LU-862, the line crosses the valley of the Rio Sor and enters O Porto do Barqueiro. [18]

The next Halt is at O Vicedo. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

A Satellite image of the station. [Google Maps, June 2026]

Continuing heading West, the line runs immediately alongside the LU-862/AC-862 before swinging left into a tunnel and then bridging the Rio Sor as shown below. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

A short tunnel gives way to a bridge over the Rio Sor before the line enters another tunnel and curves round to the North. [19]
The three bridges over the Rio Sor: the railway bridge is furthest from the camera. The bowstring arch viaduct is a wooden deck footpath across the river. The parapets of the LU-862 road bridge can be seen in the right-foreground. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

In tunnel the line swings round through North to North-northeast, before swinging back to the Northwest and entering the Railway Station at O Barqueiro.

The station ‘O Barqueiro’ is on a Southeast-Northwest axis and has a passing loop. [20]

The station seen from the West-Northwest. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

Beyond the station the line turns West and runs in tunnel under O Barqueiro.

O Barqueiro is in the bottom-right of this next OpenStreetMap extract. [21]
The line remains in the hills above the coast wandering around to follow the contours of the land. [22]

The next stop is at Loiba near Pimpin on the map extract above. [Google Streetview, December 2013]

This photograph is taken at the bottom-left of the OpenStreetMap extract above. The camera is facing Southwest from the AC-862 at O Fecellido. [Google Streetview, July 2025]

This image heralds the next length of the line on the extract from OpenStrweetMap.org below. O Fecellido in in the top-right of the extract.

The line now seems to be heading generally Southwest, another relatively long tunnel features on this section of the line. [23]
On this next length of the line trains pass through Espasante Railway station and then a further tunnel. [24]

The view West from the bridge carrying Luger Abasteira over the Line. [Google Streetview, December 2013]

A short distance after the line is bridged it runs into Espasante Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026][25]
Espasante Railway Station, seen from the West. [Google Streetview, July 2025]

The tunnel mouth to the Southwest of Espasante. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The southern portal of the same tunnel. [Google Maps, June 2026]

Breaking out of the tunnel trains travelling West crossed the estuary of the Rio Baleo by means of a bridge and an embankment/causeway.

The Rio Baleo bridge and causeway. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The bridge over the Rio Baleo, (c) Burli 1 (October 2025). [Google Maps, June 2026]
The bridge and causeway seen from the Southeast, (c) Tom Unterwegs (2024). [Google Maps, June 2026]
This extract from OpenStrretMap.org shows the route between Rio Baleo and Ortigueira Railway Station. [26]
The line crossing the tidal zone of the estuary close to the shore, seen from the AC-862 near A Brea.
[Google Streetview, July 2025]

On the approach to Ortigueira Railway Station the line curves to the South passing under three road overbridges. This is the view of the line ahead from the first of those bridges which carries the DR-6123 over the railway. [Google Streetview, July 2013]

This is the view of the line ahead from the second of the two bridges, in Cortés. [Google Streetview, July 2013]

The third of the overbridges carries Estrada da Praia over the line. The site of Ortigueira Railway Station can be seen opening out ahead. [Google Streetview, July 2025]

Ortigueira Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]

Ortigueira Railway Station as it appears on MapCarta. This is one of the more significant stations on the route. [27]

Ortigueira Railway Station building as seen from the East on Av. Juan Luis Pía Martínez. [Google Streetview, July 2025]

To the Southwest of Ortigueira Station the line runs at high level the AC-862.

The view Southwest under the railway line on the AC-862. [Google Streetview, July 2025]

The line just to the Southwest of the bridge above, seen from Rúa Vía Feve. [Google Streetview, July 2013]

To the Southwest of Ortigueira Sation the line turns beyond South towards Southeast before crossing the next bridge and embankment/causeway. Just before reaching the water it passes under both the older and more modern AC-862. [28]

The view from the older road bridge ahead along the line. [Google Streetview, July 2025]
South of the latest bridge and embankment the line passes through Senra Halt and under a couple of accommodation bridges before once again running over an embankment (quite short this time) with the waters of the Ria de Ortigueira on either side, before passing through San Claudio Halt and then accompanying the AC-862 on its journey West. [29]
A minor road runs immediately alongside the line with the AC-862 visible to the left of this image.
[Google Streetview, July 2025]

The line passes through a short tunnel under the AC-862. [Google Streetview, July 2025]

And runs alongside the AC-862 heading West-northwest. [Google Streetview, July 2025]

The next length of the line turns inland following the valley of the Rio Mere. [30]

As the line turns inland it runs through A Ponte de Mera Railway Station which has a loop to allow services to pass each other. [27]

The same location as it appears on Google Maps satellite imagery. [Google Maps, June 2026]

Two views of A Ponte de Mera Station, both seen from the South. [Google Streetview, July 2013]

South of the Station, the line is carried over the River Mera on a high viaduct. These images show the North end and the South End of that viaduct both seen from the West. [Google Streetview, July 2025]

Given the density of the trees at this location, the viaduct is best seen from the air. Click here and then scroll down through the photographs. [64]

South of the Viaduct, the line continues to follow the west bank of the Rio Mera heading South. [32]

At Raxeiro de Abaixo, the line bridges a minor road, seen here from that road looking East through the bridge. [Google Streetview, July 2025]
The Halt at Santa Maria de Mera is marked as ‘O Rio’ on the OpenStreetMap extract. [Google Maps, June 2026]

A short distance South of Santa Maria de Mera Halt the line crosses the steeply sided and wooded valley of Rego de Guitin (a tributary of the Rio Mera. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The line continues South through relatively dense wood land on the Westside of the valley of the Rio Mera. [33]

The line continues South through the hamlet of A Cuqueira following the valley of another tributary of the Rio Mera – Rego de Loureira. [34]

The Halt which serves the hamlet of A Cuqueira is a couple of hundred metres North of the hamlet as can be seen on this satellite image. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The view North from the road bridge over the line at A Cuqueira. The halt is visible a short distance to the North of the road bridge.

Further South, the line follows the West bank of the Rego de Loureira until close to Cerdido. The line then crosses the river before curving to the West, crossing the river again and, after a short tunnel, heading North for a short distance. The line then curves through West to Southwest and enters the station at Cerdido. [35]

The Rego de Loureira is crossed from West to East bank, then the line curves West. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The track layout at Cerdido Railway Station is shown on this MapCarta extract. [36]

The station on Google’s satellite imagery. [Google Maps, June 2026]
The station building. [Google Streetview, June 2025]
The line bridges two roads to the South of Cerdido Railway Station. The arched bridge on the left spans the old road, the later bridge on the right spans the modern AC-110. [Google Streetview, June 2025]
South of the bridge over the AC-110, the line heads Southwest away from the road and then turns West. [37]

The view Southwest along the line from the minor road overbridge one third in from the right side of the OpenStreetMap extract above. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

The next halt along the line is at Entrambarrias which can be seen at the bottom left of the last OpenStreetMap extract. [Google Maps, June 2026]

There is little of note along this next length of the line. [38]
Approximately at the centre of this next length of the line is the hamlet of Labacengos. [39]

The hamlet of Labacengos had its own Halt. [Google Maps, June 2026]

Labacengos Halt seen from the minor road on the hillside above. This view looks Southwest through the site of the Halt which is visible in the distance. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

The bridge over the road at the East end of the halt, seen from the Northwest. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

At the centre of this next length of the line shown as an extract from OpenStreetMap.com, is the Halt at Moeche. [40]

The line heading West-northwest from the overbridge carrying the CP-4904 across the line. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

A short distance to the West this is the view of the line from the track which provides access to the East side of the track at the halt at Moeche. [Google Streetview, August 2019]

The Halt at Moeche, as it appears on MapCarta. [41]

The Halt at Moeche: seen from the East. Pedestrian access to the Halt was from the West where a gravel track left the minor tarmacked road to the Northwest of the line. [Google Streetview, August 2019]
An accommodation bridge Southwest of Moeche, seen from the track to the South. [Google Streetview, September 2011]

The line turns South after passing over another local road. As it heads South it passes under another local road and then runs into the Halt at A Palia. [42]

The rail-over-road bridge mentioned first above. [Google Streetview, September 2011]
The road-over-rail bridge mentioned above. Google Maps, June 2026]

Before looking at A Palia Halt, it is worth noting the single car DMU on the line just North of the minor road bridge in the last image.

The Halt at A Palia. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The Halt at A Palia seen from the North. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

The line leaves A Palia heading South but then turns first to the West and then to the Northwest before curving round to the South and then West again.

The next length of the line as described above. [43]

Just as the line turns to the North is passes over and then under access roads from the farm seen here. [Google Maps, June 2026]

This photograph is taken from the minor road running on the North side of the line at the left hand side of the image, looking back towards the structure at the centre of the image above. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

Looking back along the line from the next overbridge. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

Looking ahead along the line from the same overbridge. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

The line bridges the next minor road. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

At Vilaverde, the line passes under one village access road. [Google Streetview, September 2011]

And then a second access road bridges the line. [Google Streetview, September 2011]

The line continues heading generally in a westerly direction. [43]

The next halt is at Lamas, shown here with the bridge to its Southwest over the AC-862. [Google Maps, June 2026.

Lamas Halt next to the AC-862. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

The bridge over Rivoira (AC-862) to the Southwest of the Lamas Halt and seen from the North. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

A short distance to the West, the line is bridged by another minor road. [Google Maps, June 2026]

Then it is bridged by a farm access track. [Google Maps, June 2026]

A 180 degree loop takes the line round towards the station at San Sadurnino (just of this extract to the bottom left0. As it runs round the loop it passes under three accommodation bridges and over the Rio Aceiteiro – all shrouded in tree cover. Approaching the station, it is bridged by a minor road at A Casa da Miguela. [44]

The view Southwest along the line towards San Sadurnino Railway Station. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

San Sadurnino Railway Station sits at the top right of this next extract from OpenStreetMap.com. [45]

San Sadurnino Railway station as it is shown by MapCarta, [46] and by Google’s satellite imagery, below. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The Station seen from the South. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

Looking back towards San Sadurnino Railway Station from the bridge carrying the DP-7603 across the railway line. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

The old road bridges the line literally only a couple of metres to the West of the more modern road bridge. Theis view looks ahead down the line from the older bridge. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

Further West the line crosses a minor road by means of this arch bridge. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

Perhaps 800 metres further West the line in bridges by another minor road. This is the view West from the bridge. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

The next length of the line heads West through Pedroso de Naron Halt. [47]

A short distance before reaching Pedroso de Naron Halt the line bridges Aldea Catasol. This image is taken from a point just to the North of the bridge. [Google Streetview, December 2013]

Pedroso de Naron Halt. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The Halt seen from the East. [Google Streetview, December 2013]
The Halt from the Southeast on the AC-112 [Google Streetview, June 2025]

To the West of the Halt the AC-112 (Aldea Pedra) bridges the line. This is the view East from the bridge carrying the AC-112 over the line. The halt can be glimpsed, almost hidden by trees, in the far distance. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

The line heading West relatively close to the AC-112 is seen here from the road just to the Northwest of the bridge above. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

This next length of the line shows it continuing to run West, passing through the halt at Sedes and crossing the AG-64 (Autovia Ferrol Villalba), before turning to the South [48]

This view looks back along the line to the East from the Camino da Borrallada de Sedes which runs on the South side of the line. The accommodation bridge in the picture has two ramps on the South side of the line which run parallel to it and the road. [Google Streetview, December 2013]

Further West, the line is bridged by Aldea Carbello which links the Camino da Borrallada de Sedes with the Aldea Placente (AC-112) to the North of the line. [Google Streetview, December 2013]

Looking back East along the line from the bridge carrying the Camino de Vilallonte over the line, and below, looking West from the same bridge. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

The Halt at Sedes sits to the North of the Camino da Borrallada de Sedes, which bridges the line immediately to the West of the Halt. The line then bridges the AG-64 (Autovia Ferrol Villalba). [Google Maps, June 2026]

Two views from the bridge carrying Camino da Borrallada over the line. The first shows the Halt at Sedes, the second shows the bridge over the AG-64. [Google Streetview, December 2013]

A short distance to the South of the AG-64, the line bridges Camino do Monte Aberto/ Lugar Prados. This photograph looks Southeast to Northwest under the bridge. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

As the line continues South it bridges one track and is then bridged by another beofre being crossed by, first Camino da Presa do Rei and Estrada do Trece, before passing through the Halt at As Ferrerias.

Camino da Presa do Rei bridges the line. [Google Maps, June 2026]
The view of the bridge from the Northeast on Camino da Presa do Rei. [June 2025]
Just to the North of the Halt the line bridges Estrada do Trece. This is a view of the bridge from the South. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

The Halt at As Ferrerias, seen from the North. [Google Streetview, August 2019].

The line continues South-southeast from As Ferrerias Halt. [49]

As Ferrerias Halt seen from the South, from the DP-5404. [Google Streetview, June 2025]
The next bridge along the line carries Camino Pena Parda over the line. This view looks South from that bridge which can be found bottom-left on the extract from OpenStreetMap.com. [Google Streetview, December 2013]
Along this next length of the line it passes under another road bridge before entering the site of Xuvia Railway Station. The line is now in the suburbs of Ferrol and wanders its way into the conurbation. [50]

The rail bridge over Estrada San Xiao, seen from the Southeast. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

A satellite image of Xuvia Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]

Xuvia Railway Station seen from the South on Tra. Feve. [Google Streetview, August 2022]

Xuvia Railway Station facing West, (c) Jose Abuin, January 2021. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The bridge over Rua Camino da Revolta. [Google Maps, June 2026] and seen from the South. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

Estradado Feal crosses the line just prior to the line passing through the Halt at O Ponto. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The view Southwest from the bridge. [Google Streetview, July 2025]
O Ponto Halt is at the top-right of this next extract from OpenStreetMap.com. The line continues heading Southwest towards the Ferrol terminus of the line. [51]
O Ponto Halt seen from the North end of Lugar Pedregal. [Google Streetview, July 2025]

The next structure to note along the line is a road overbridge which carries Rúa Rio Deza) across the line. This image shows the line looking back towards O Ponto Halt from the bridge. [Google Maps, June 2026] The image below shows the same location from above. [Google Streetview, July 2025]

Looking back along the line from the next bridge which carries Rúa Ortega e Gasset over the line. [Google Streetview, August 2017]

The bridge location. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Looking North through the bridge. [Google Streetview, August 2017]

Turning to the South, the line immediately passes through Piñeiros Halt. [Google Streetview, August 2017]

The next bridge carries the AC-566 over the line. Views from the bridge are shown below. [Google Streetview, August 2022]

Looking East and West along the railway. [Google Streetview, July 2025]

The line crosses two major modern highways before entering the O Alto do Castiñeiro Halt. It then wanders through the Ferool suburbs, through Santa Icia Halt and on Southwest towards the terminus. [52]

The line bridges a minor road and then passes over the FE-12 and the Rio de Santa Cecilia. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The bridge over the minor road (Rua Perez Arevalo) and the river. [Google Streetview, August 2022]
The rail bridge over the FE-12, seen from the South. [Google Streetview, July 2025]

The high level bridge carrying the railway also spans the AP-9/E-1 and Rua Santa Tecla before running through O Alto Do Castiñeiro Halt. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The bridge carrying the railway extends across the E-1/AP-9. It is seen here from the East. [Google Streetview, July 2025]
It also crosses the Rua Santa Tecla. Seen again looking West. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

The O Alto Do Castiñeiro Halt. [Google Maps, June 2026]

One of the single-car units which provide regular service on the line is seen from the Southeast sitting at O Alto Do Castiñeiro Halt. [Google Streetview, August 2022]
The O Alto Do Castiñeiro Halt seen from the bridge carrying the Rúa Bon Xesús which is to the South of the halt. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

The view South from the bridge carrying Rúa Bon Xesús over the line. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

A short distance Southwest, the line is bridged by Camiño Roibo. This is the view of the line ahead from Camiño Roibo. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

Again, only a few hundred metres Southwest the line is bridged by Av. Santa Icia. The next halt bears the same name Santa Icia Halt and is seen here looking West from the road bridge. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

A footbridge crosses the line connecting Rúa Fonte da Cruz to Rúa Estación. The line then crosses Rúa Virxen de Covadonga, seen here from the South. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

This next extract from OpenStreetMap.com shows the line meeting the standard gauge line heding West into Ferrol. [53]

The line next crosses Rúa Marina Española before passing through Virxe Do Mar Halt. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The railway bridge and Virxe Do Mar Halt seen fromt he Southeast. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

The line then crosses Rúa Illa de Arousa. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

The metre-gauge line joins the standard-gauge line to the West of Ponte das Cabras, and the lines run parallel to each other. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The line passes under both the FE-13 and Estrada San Xoan. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The view West from the bridge carrying the FE-13. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

The view West from Estrada San Xoan. Bothe this and the last image show the difference in gauge between the two railway lines. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

The next structure of note is the bridge carrying Rúa do Cabalo Branco over the line. [Google Maps, June 2026]

Looking West from Rúa do Cabalo Branco. [Google Streetview, June 2025]

The final length of the line running into Ferrol Railway Station. Top right of this map extract there are two footbridges crossing the line. These are shown on the first image below. [54]

Two footbridges span the two railways. The first encountered is Nueva Pasarela Peatonal de Santa Marina,

Nueva Pasarela Peatonal de Santa Marina, seen from the Northeast on Loureiros.
[Google Streetview, August 2022]

The second footbridge to the West of the first, also seen from Loureiros. [Google Streetview, March 2014]

The station throat of Ferrol Railway Station. The metre-gauge lines remain on the Northwest of the site. The turntable and the buildings with sky-blue roofs are metre-gauge facilities. [Google Maps, June 2026]
The remaining length of line can be seen splitting into two sections the first heads into Ferrol Railway Station the other runs outside, to the Northwest of, two railway buildings and an access road. [Google Maps, June 2026]
This closer view highlights that the metre-gauge line has three platform faces in Ferrol Railway Station, one of which sits on the Northwest side of the main station complexe, two of which are a double bay on the Northwest side of the standard-gauge platforms. [Google Maps, June 2026]
This MapCarta extract shows all of the track/platforms at Ferrol Station but does not distinguish between metre-gauge and standard-gauge lines. [55]
Ferrol Railway Station seen from Calle Cardosas to the North. [Google Streetview, June 2025]
The Southwest end of the loop outside the platform at the Northwest side of Ferrol Station, (c) Public Domain. [57]
Ferrol Rail;way Station Building seen from the South, (c) Pepedo Couto and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons Licence. (CC BY-SA 3.0). [56]

It is worth noting that the length of the FEVE metre-gauge line covered in this article is the Western ‘half’ of the line. The Eastern ‘half’ will need to be covered elsewhere on another occasi

E. Italy: Along the Calabrian Coast

There are two rail lines which hug the Calabrian Coast and provide a spectacular mix of dramatic cliffs, azure waters, and historic fishing villages. Two lines are worthy of note – one on the Costa degli Dei (Coast of the Gods) and the other, the remote Ionian line.

The Costa degli Dei runs along the coast of the Tyrrhenian Sea on the Northwest of the peninsula between Lamezia Terme and Rosarno, with the breath-taking town of Tropea serving as the center-piece. The line hugs the cliffs, providing uninterrupted views of white sandy beaches and rocky coves.

The Ionian Railway running along the coast of the Ionian Sea on the Southeast coast from Reggio Calabria towards Taranto, is one of the most consistently sea-hugging routes in all of Europe. The route is 473 km long running past capes and bays, passing villages like Melito di Porto Salvo and Brancaleone-Marina.

The Ionian Railway, (c) Arbalete and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 3.0). [61]

It is to a part of this line that Nicky Gardner draws our attention. … The length she recommends runs from Reggio di Calabria to Soverato – about 100 miles. It is covered in around 2hrs 20 mins. A ticket will set you back €11.90 single in 2026. Trains run every 1 to 2 hours. The best views will be seen if you sit on the right side of the carriage when leaving Reggio do Calabria!

The full length of the line was built between 1866 and 1875 to standard-gauge. It runs through the regions of Apulia, Basilicata and Calabria. The dates of opening of the different lengths of the line are tabulated below.

On 13th November 1989 the line between Taranto and Sibari was electrified. The line has also been electrified between Melito di Porto Salvo and Reggio Calabria to allow for the operation of a suburban service. [58]

On 21st February 2013 the station serving Reggio Calabria Airport opened, linking it to the city. On 9 June 2013 the station Melito di Porto Salvo opened in Annà. [58]

Nicky Gardner writes:

“Most tourists on the smart Frecciarossa train down the Calabrian coast decant at Villa San Giovanni to join the ferry to Sicily. From here it is just 15 minutes on to Reggio di Calabria where the fast trains from northern Italy and Rome all terminate. This seems to be the end of the line and the end of Italy. But not quite! For a local railway contours the coast of Calabria, leaving the Strait of Messina to reach Ionian shores.

“No other railway in Europe hugs the coast as consistently as this stretch of the Ionian Railway, part of a longer route which extends all the way to faded Taranto in Puglia, more than 290 miles from Reggio di Calabria.

“This recommended taster of the line follows the coast around the southernmost tip of mainland Italy. It is a route of capes and bays, olives and oleander, the bright drama of a changing coastline and a sharp contrast to the dark forests of Aspromonte that dominate the hills on the left. Away to the right, there is nothing but the sea between here and the Libyan coast!” [1: p77]

The journey starts at Reggio di Calabria Centrale Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]

Reggio di Calabria Centrale Railway Station, (c) Simon Legner and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons Licence (CC BY-SA 4.0). [59]

“The first station was opened on 3rd June 1866, as southern terminal of the first track of the Ionian Railway to Catanzaro, Crotone, Sybaris and Taranto. In 1881, it was linked to the port with a link from Reggio Lido to Reggio Marittima, the port station. The northern track to Villa San Giovanni, linking the station to the Battipaglia–Reggio di Calabria railway, was completed in 1884.” [60]

A new station building designed by futurist architect Angiolo Mazzoni, was inaugurated on 18th April 1938. It is a one storey structure which faces the sea shore. [60]

Looking South from Via Oronzio Pugliese along the line of the railway to the South of the Centrale Station in Reggio di Calabria. [Google Streetview, September 2024]

Looking North towards the Central Station from the level-crossing on Via Soccorso. [Google Streetview, September 2024]

Looking South along the line from the level-crossing on Via Soccorso. [Google Streetview, September 2024]

Looking South from the level-crossing at Via Gebbione through the Reggio Di Calabria Omeca station. To the left of the line is the large facility owned by Hitachi Rail Italy. {Google Streetview, September 2024]

Reggio di Calabria Aeroporto Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The Airport Railway Station as it appears on OpenStreetMap.com. [62]
A dry river channel just to the South of the Airport Railway Station, seen from Via Nazionale S. Gregorio. [Google Streetview, September 2024]

This next OpenStreetMap.com extract shows the dry river bed pictures above and two further similar locations. Spanning the first of these next two dry river beds is another Station, Reggio Calabria San Gregorio Station. [63]

The Station at Reggio Calabria San Gregorio sits over a dry river channel. [Google Streetview, October 2024]
Reggio di Calabria San Gregorio Railway Station. [Google Streetview, October 2024]
The next dry river channel, seen from Via delle Industrie. [Google Streetview, October 2024]

As the line runs down the coast a series of underpasses allow access under the line. This one is on Via Torrente Filici II. [Google Streetview, October 2024]

Another relatively dry river channel is bridged by the line and by Via Nazionale. this view looks West from the road over the railway towards the sea. [Google Streetview, October 2024]

Another underpass beneath the line takes Via Industriale to the west of the line. This view looks east towards the bridge. [Google Streetview, June 2022]

Via Industriale is top-right on this extract from OpenStreetMap.com which shows the next station on the line – Reggio di Calabria Pellaro. [64]

The Reggio di Calabria Pellaro Station as it appears on Google’s satellite imagery. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The Reggio di Calabria Pellaro Station seen from the Southeast, from Piazza Vittorio Veneto. [Google Streetview, October 2024]

Just to the Southwest of Reggio di Calabria Pellaro Station Via Sottolume, seen here looking Northwest towards the railway, seems to burrow under the tracks with very low headroom. It is typical of a number of low=height bridges supporting the line as it runs Southwest along the coast. [Google Streetview, October 2024]

The next length of line as far as Reggio Di Calabria Bocale Station. The underpass on Via Sottolume is just off the top-right of this extract from OpenStreetMap.com. [65]

Towards the top-right of the map extract there is another dry watercourse, seen here looking Northwest from Via Nazionale. [Google Streetview, October 2024]
Reggio Di Calabria Bocale Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The line continues to closely follow the coast through the next Station at Motta San Giovanni Lazzaro. [66]

The Railway Station at Motta San Giovanni Lazzaro seen from the North Via degli Scalpellini.
[Google Streetview, October 2024]
This next length of the line continues to hug the coast. Includes one relatively significant tunnel. [67]

Towards the top-left of the map extract above and at the location of another dry river channel (which is just visible as it enters the sea on the right of this image); we see the railway and the Via Nazionale (Strada da Statale 106 Jonica) immediately alongside each other. This is the view Southeast along the line. [Google Streetview, October 2024]

The Northwest portal of the tunnel seen from the Via Nazionale (Strada da Statale 106 Jonica). [Google Streetview, October 2024]

At the Southeast end of the tunnel there is gallery with views out over the ocean. This view looks Northwest from the Via Nazionale (E90) the railway tunnel is on the left of the image below the road. The road itself is in tunnel for a short distance. That tunnel is visible on the right of the image in the distance. [Google Streetview, November 2024]

A local road (Via dei Tritoni) runs parallel to the railway and a lower level. This view looks Northwest along that road. The railway is carried on a viaduct as it approaches the tunnel noted above (which can just be seen at the end of the viaduct). The Via dei Tritoni passes under the last span of the viaduct before the tunnel portal. [Google Streetview, October 2024]

The next length of the line includes another dry river channel and a large rail-served maintenance facility – Officine Grandi Riparazioni di Saline Joniche (OGR) was a major industrial railway maintenance facility. The site was developed (perhaps as early as the 1970s) and inaugurated in 1989 It specialized in the maintenance of railway vehicles for Ferrovie dello Stato (Italian State Railways).After its closure in the early 2000s, the facility has been considered for redevelopment, including plans for a photovoltaic park as of 2024. [68]

This photograph is taken looking Northwest from a location close to the dry river channel (at Saline Joniche) and shows the railway viaduct which spans it. [Google Streetview, October 2024]

Looking Southeast along the E90 with the railway between the road and the sea. the viaduct crossing both road and railway is a rail access to the Officine Grandi Riparazioni di Saline Joniche (OGR) railway maintenance facility. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

The Officine Grandi Riparazioni di Saline Joniche (OGR) railway maintenance facility. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The plant was opened in 1989 but after 12 years of operation, the plant was closed in 2001 as a result of the rationalisation process of the maintenance facilities implemented by the Italian State Railways. The plant remained abandoned, used for some time also for the storage of rolling stock. [69]

An attempt was made to sell the site in 2017, apparently with little success. At that time a TV news report featured the site and the item can be watched on Facebook, here. The video was posted on the Associazione Ferrovie in Calabria Facebook page on 20th March 2017. [70]

Just a short distance Southeast is the Station of Saline di Reggio. [71]

Saline di Reggio Railway Station. [Google streetview, June 2022]

The platforms at Saline di Reggio Railway Station. [Google Streetview, June 2022]
The next length of the laine as far as Anna di Melito di Porto Salva Railway Station. [72]
The line bridges another access road to the coastal strip to the South of the line, the Northwest abutment of an older bridge can be seen here., together with a pier (to the right. A viaduct at the location spanned (and spans) another dry river bed which sits off to the right of this photograph. This view looks North under the railway line. [Google Streetview, October 2024]

This view looks South from the Via Nazionale and shows the line, running right to left (visible on the right of the image. The greenery here is within the channel of the dry river bed. [Google Streetview, October 2024]

Just a short distance prio to Anna Railway Station, another typical underpass give access to the seashore and Via Lungomare. [Google Streetview, December 2008]

Anna Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]

Anna Railway Station is entered soon after crossing the dry river bed notes above. This view of the station is that seen from the North on Via Strapuntello, which, as can be seen, passes under the railway to meet Via Lungomare. [Google Streetview, October 2024]

The bridge under Anna Railway Station seen from Via Lungomare. [Google Streetview, October 2024]

The length of the line as far as the Station at Melito di Porto Salva. [73]

Another underpass to the Southeast of Anna Railway Station. [Google Streetview, October 2024]

Another dry river channel, seen from close to the seashore with the railway bridge in the distance. [Google Streetview, October 2024]

Looking East along the line from Via Marco Centola which runs parallel to the line on its North side. [Google Streetview, December 2008]

Again looking East along the line this is a view from Via Cristoforo Colombo which also runs on the North side of the railway line. [Google Streetview, November 2024]

The Railway Station at Melito di Porto Salvo. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Melito di Porto Salvo railway Station looking West, (c) Benjamin Smith and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-SA 4.0). [74]
The line to the East of Melito di Porto Salvo. [75]
And on through the stations at Marina di San Lorenzo and Condofuri. [76]

To the East of Melito di Porto Salvo there is another dry river bed which is crossed by the railway and Via Pilati on two adjacent viaducts. as of the mid-2020s the road bridge has been closed for safety reasons.

The road and rail bridges seen for the West in 2010. [Google Streetview, September 2010]

The same view in 2024. [Google Streetview, October 2024]

The railway viaduct seen from Via Pilati at the East end of the road bridge. [Google Streetview, October 2024]

The railway crosses another dry river channel, seen from Via Pilati. [Google Streetview, November 2024]

The railway between he road and the sea, seen from Via Pilati. [Google Streetview, November 2024]

The railway crosses another fry river channel on its approach to Marina di San Lorenzo Railway Station. [Google Streetview, November 2024]

The railway on its approach to the Marina di San Lorenzo Railway Station. [Google Streetview, November 2026]

The Station at Marina di San Lorenzo. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The Marina di San Lorenzo Railway Station seen from the Southwest. [Google Streetview, August 2022]

This is the view from the road crossing on Via Ipponatte shown on the Google Maps image above. It looks West through the Station at Marina di San Lorenzo. [Google Streetview, November 2024]

Tonthe East of Marina di san Lorenzo, the railway bridges another dry water course by means of a two span warren truss girder bridge. This view looks North from the seashore and Via Trinità. [Google Streetview, August 2022]

A number of underpasses allow dry watercourses under the line or take link roads from the coast in land. We show three of them. This the first of the three seen from Via Lungomare on the seashore and looks North. [Google Streetview, February 2021]

The second of the sample bridges. [Google Streetview, February 2021]

The third example is this structure seen from the South on Via Lungomare. [Google Streetview, October 2010]

Condofuri Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The railway station building at Condofuri is very similar to that at Saline di Reggio, seen here from the North on Via Prassitele. [Google Streetview, November 2024]

MapCarta shows that there are a number of loops and sidings at Condofuri Railway Station. [77]
The line from Condofuri to Bova Marina Railway Station. [78]

East of Condofuri another large dry watercourse is crossed.

Looking East between the viaduct carrying the SS-106 (on the left) and the railway. The length of the truss-girder viaduct is obscured by vegetation. [Google Streetview, November 2024]
The length of both viaducts can be seen on this satellite image. [Google Maps, June 2026]

Further East, with road and rail in close proximity a footbridge spans both.

As the line enters Bova Marina, a footbridge spans both the E-90 (SS-106) and the railway (which is on the right of this image). This view looks East along the road.

In Bova Marina the railway bridges both a watercourse and road. The two span viaduct is seen here from the South on Via Marina. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

Another dry watercourse is crossed before trains travelling East enter Bove Marina Railway Station.

Bova Marina Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Bova Marina Station has long passing loops. [77]

The view West from Corso Umberto across the two bridges at the East end of the railway Station site. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

East of Bova Marina the line continues to hug the coast. [79]
The line continues East through Palizzi. [80]
It passes through Spropoli without stopping. [81]
And then turns Northeast to run through Galati, Brancaleone-Marina and Spatolicchi also without stopping! [82]

Looking back to the West along the line of the railway from a point about a kilometre to the East of Bova Marina Railway Station. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

Looking East at the same location, the railway runs in tunnel through the headland ahead. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

Beyond the headland road and rail accompany each other along the coast. The view looks East from the Via Nazionale. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

Multi-span viaducts across dry watercourses are commonplace along the route.
[Google Streetview, October 2020]
Looking back in a westerly direction, the railway continues to trundle along the coast. [Google Streetview, June 2024]
Via Nazionale enters Palizzi with the railway running alongside both here bridge the Flumara di Palizzi which has a regular water flow year round. [Google Streetview, June 2024]
Palizzi Marina Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Palizzi Railway Station building. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

Looking West through Palizzi Railway Station, (c) Ndr Fnt, March 2023. [Google Maps, June 2026]

Another dry watercourse bridged by the railway. This view looks South from the Via Nazionale. [Google Streetview, June 20204]

East of Palizzi, the line enters a short tunnel under Torre Mozza. [Google Maps, june 2026]

Looking back West from the Via Nazionale above the West portal of the tunnel. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

Looking East from above the East portal of the tunnel. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

Yet another dry watercourse bridged by the line. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

Apart from a number of small dry drainage ditches this is the next significant structure on the line – seen from the E-90 – near Spropoli. [Google Streetview, June 2024]
Often. along this length of the line, road and rail run in quite close proximity. [Google Streetview, June 2024]
The next signific structure on the line is encountered as the coast begins to turn towards the Northeast. The dry watercourse is named ‘Torrente Aranghia’. Road an rail cross the watercourse in clos proximity. [Google Streetview, June 2026]
The line now continues on a Northeast bearing along the coast through Brancalone-Marina and Brancalone. [83]

A drone’s-eye view of another drainage channel to the southwest of Brancaleone-Marina, (c) Giuseppe Billa (July 2020). [Google Maps, June 2026]

Another dry watercourse and a minor road (Traversa VIII Via Zelante) pass under the line close to Brancaleone. This view looks South towards the line along Traversa VIII Via Zelante. [Google Streetview, October 2010]

Brancaleone Railway Station. [84][Google Maps, June 2026]

A trackside view of the railway station building at Brancaleone, (c) Giovanni De Medici Dalle Bande Nere (May 2025). [Google Maps, June 2026]

A roadside view of the same building. [Google Streetview, January 2009]

The next length of the line from Brancaleone to Ferruzzano. [85]

Looking back Southwest towards Brancaleone Railway Station from the level-crossing at Via Vittorio Emanuele III. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

Turning to the northeast at the same road-crossing – this is the view ahead along the line. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

The viaduct which carries the line over Via Tripoli and a dry watercourse. This view looks West under the line. [Google Streetview, June 2024
The railway and the E-90 run immediately next to each other for much of this length of the line. This is the location of another dry watercourse on the approach to Marinella looking Northeast. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

Ferruzzano Railway Station as shown on MapCarta and OpenStreetMap.com. [86][87]

Ferruzzano Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]

Ferruzzano Station seen from the North on the station approach road – Via Giacomo Matteotti. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

A Regional train in the station at Ferruzzano, seen from the Northeast on Via Rossini. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

The next length of the railway heading North includes two short tunnels through small headlands. There is a Halt at Africo Nuovo. [88]

To the Northeast of the station at Ferruzzano, the line crosses Via Rossini and a watercourse. [Google Streetview, June 2024]
Further to the Northeast and looking tot he Northeast, the line can once again be found in close proximity to the E-90/Strada da Statale 106 Jonica. [Google Streetview, June 2024]
Around the first headland, space for the road and railway is tight and there is a short shallow tunnel which carries the road above the line. The Southwest portal of the tunnel is glimpsed here. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

The North portal of the tunnel cannot be seen from the road above it. This is what can be seen from the beach below, looking South. [Google Streetview, November 2017]

Another headland and another tunnel, the South portal is not visible from the road and can only be glimpsed from the beach. [Google Streetview, November 2017]

It is even harder to see the North portal which is hidden just to the left of the white building in this similarly zoomed and therefore grainy photograph. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

The Halt at Africo Nuovo. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The station building at the Halt appears quite run down. [Google Streetview, May 2024]

The line continues North to the next station at Bianco crossing Flumara La Verde. [89]

The rail bridge crossing Fiumara La Verde. [Google Maps, June 2026]
A distant view of the bridge, seen from the E-90 to the West. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

Bianco Railway Station as shown by MapCarta. [90]

The crossing at Via Vittorai to the South of the station facing South. [Google Streetview, June 2024]
The same road-crossing looking North. [Google Streetview, June 2024]
Bianco Station seen from the South on Via Lungo Ferrovia. [Google Streetview, May 2024]
Biaco Station building seen from the Southwest on the E-90. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

The underpass at the North end of the station site in Bianco seen from the East on Via Lungo Ferrovia. [Google Streetview, May 2024]

The railway bridge over relatively small watercourse seen from the West on the E-90 (Strade da Statale 106 Jonica). [Google Streetview, June 2024]

Also seen from the E-90 (Strade da Statale 106 Jonica) is this more significant Warren Truss viaduct which spans the Fiumara Bonamico. [Google Streetview, June 2024]
Another substantial Warren Truss girder viaduct spanning the Fiumara Careri just a few hundred metres North of the structure above, also seen from the E-90. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

Seen looking Southeast from the Via degli Oleanri another rail bridge spanning an access road to the beach and a small watercourse. [Google Streetview, May 2024]

Looking Southwest from the road crossing at Via Cirillo. [Google Streetview, May 2024]

Looking Northeast from the road crossing at Via Cirillo. [Google Streetview, May 2024]

Bovalino/ bavalino Marina as shown on OpenStreetMap.com. [91]
Bovalino Railway Station as it appears on MapCarta. [92]

Bovalino Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2024]

Bovalino Railway Station with a DMU standing at the platform, seem from Via Lungomare. [Google Streetview, May 2024]

This is the location marked on Google Maps as the station. The platforms extend this far along the line. Is this an error on Google’s part, or was this once the location of the railway station? This view looks North from Via Lungomare. [Google Streetview, May 2024]

The line to the Noertheast of Bovalino Railway Station. [93]

Looking Southwest into the station site from the level-crossing at Travers I Lenza Pelaia. [Google Streetview, May 2024]

Looking Northeast along the line from the level-crossing at Travers I Lenza Pelaia. [Google Streetview, May 2024]

A very short distance Northeast this underpass takes Strade Nuova underneath the line. Low bridges like this are typical on the line. [Google Streetview, April 2021]

A typical underpass for pedestrians in Bovalino, seen from Via Sant’Elena. [Google Streetview, May 2024]

A few hundred metres to the Northeast, this structure permits vehicular access from Via Sant’Elena under the line to the beach. [Google Streetview, May 2024]

On the way Northeast out of Bovalino, the line bridges another watercourse – Vallone Pintammati, alongside Via Treccarlini Ponte. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

Another bridge over an access track and watercourse (Vallone Scio) seen from Via Giacomo Leopardi. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

The next station is in Ardore. [94][95]

The approach to Ardore railway Station seen from the level-crossing on Piazza Giuseppe Marando. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

Just a short distance to the Northeast the line bridges an access road (seen from the Southeast). [Google Streetview, April 2024]

Ardore and its railway station. [Google Maps, June 2026]

Ardore Railway Station appears to be undergoing refurbishment in this view, seen from the Southwest on Strade da Statale 106 Jonica. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

To the Northeast of Ardore Railway Station, the line crosses another access road and dry watercourse, seen here from Via Marina, looking Northwest. There are, along the route of the line, a lot of small structures providing either for pedestrians, vehicles or floodwater, not all of which are shown in this article. [Google Streetview, April 2026]

Some structures clearly need to be recorded, this is another Warren Truss girder viaduct which, alongside the E-90/Strade da Statale 106 Jonica, spans another watercourse – Fiumara di Condojanni. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

This used to be the location of the stazione ferroviaria di Sant’Ilario (Sant’Ilario Railway Station. The station is now closed. This rail side view of the building is taken from the road-crossing just to the Northeast of the building on Via Lungomare. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

The same building seen from the main road. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

The view Northeast from the crossing on Via Lungomare. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

Another significant structure – a Warren Truss girder bridge spanning Fiumara Portiglia. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

Another small structure a few hundred metres to the Northeast. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

Again, a few hundred metres to the Northeast another underpass giving access below the line to the beach. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

Another Warren Truss two-span viaduct spanning Fiumara di Gerace
Locri Railway Station is the next station on the line. There are no significant structures or road-crossings between the bridge over Fiumara di Gerace and the station. [Google Maps, June 2026]

The small town of Locri and its railway station. [96][97]

The station building at Locri seen from Via Giuseppe Garibaldi. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

Looking back through Locris Railway Station site for the level-crossing on Viale della Regina. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

Looking Northeast along the line from the same level-crossing. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

Another underpass a few hundred metres along the line to the Northeast, seen from Via Arenile. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

Again, a few hundre metres t oteh Northeast, a single Warren Truss girder bridge carries the line over Via Lungomare and a dry watercourse. The view lokks towards the lien from the Southeast. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

A longer span Warren Truss girder bridge carries the line over Fiumara Novito.
[Google Streetview, June 2024]

Looking Southwest from the level-crossing at Via Amedola. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

Looking Northeast from the same road-crossing. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

Looking Northeast along he line from Via Christofore Colombo. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

The town of Siderno and its railway station. [98][99]

Looking back to the Southwest along the line from the level-crossing at Via Tasso. [Google Streetview, August 2022]

Looking forward to the Northeast from the same road-crossing. [Google Streetview, August 2022]

Another road-crossing within a hundred metres of so carries Via Torquato Tasso across the line. This view looks back to the Southwest from the road-crossing. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

Turning to face Northeast, this is the view ahead along the line from the same location. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

Looking back Southeast from Via Genova. There is a track panel stored to the left of this photograph (a point). [Google Streetview, June 2024]

At the same road-crossing, this is the view Northeast towards the railway station in Siderno. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

The view Northeast into the station platforms from Via Christofor Colombo. {Google Streetview, April 2024]

Siderno Railway Station is the large building at the centre of this image, unmarked. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Siderno railway Station. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

A short distance Northeast, vehicular underpass carries two lanes of traffic under the line. [Google Streetview, August 2022]

Another Warren Truss girder bridge carries the line over a local road – Lungomare del Palme and a watercourse – Torrente Lordo. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

This and the next image show two similar three-arch structures spanning watercourses. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

In this image a vehicular underpass sits alongside the water course bridges by a more modern concrete structure carrying the railway. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

The line continues Northeast still close to the coast and often flanked by the road closest to the coast. In this case the road is Contrada Grotteria Mare. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

Leaving Siderno behind the line crosses Fiumara Torbido on a multi-span Warren Truss girder viaduct, Seen here from the E-90. [Google Streetview, April 2024]
The Northeast end of the same viaduct seen from the Northwest on Via Palmiro Togliatti.
[Google Streetview, April 2024]
The length of the line from Fiumara Torbido Northeast through the station at Gioiosa Jonica as the line curves round to the East. [100]

Looking back Southwest along the line from Piazza dei Mille in Marina di Gioiosa Ionica. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

Looking Northeast along the line from Piazza dei Mille in Marina di Gioiosa Ionica (towards the station named Gioiosa Jonica). [Google Streetview, April 2024]

Gioiosa Jonica Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Gioiosa Jonica Railway Station showing the full length of the passing loop and sidings. [101]

Gioiosa Jonica Railway Station seen from Via Fratelli Rosselli. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

An underpass just East-northeast of the station seen from Via Napoli on the North side of the railway line. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

The line ahead seen from the level-crossing on Strada Telegrafo Vecchio. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

The line is carried over another torrent which seems to be unnamed on the various online maps. The structure carrying the line is a three-arched viaduct. It is seen looking North from Via Cristoforo Colombo on the seashore. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

Another torrent is crossed as the line continues to the East-northeast – Torrente Barruca. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

The railway line from Torrente Barruca to Roccella Jonica Railway Station. [102]
Along this length the railway runs immediately adjacent to the beach and is penned in by the E-90. There are a number of culverts beneath the line, most of which are camouflaged by vegetation.
[Google Streetview, April 2024]

Typical of structures beneath the line on this section is this twin-arched culvert. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

Underpasses are only sufficient to accommodate the smallest of vehicles – this is Via Porto in Roccella Ionica. [Google Streetview, February 2009]

At Roccella Jonica Railway Station mouth a level-crossing takes a link road across the line. This is the view back to the West from the road-crossing. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

Looking East into the site of Roccella Jonica Railway Station. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

Roccella Jonica Railway Station. [Google Maps 2026]
Roccella Jonica Railway Station seen from Piazza Mazzone. [Google Streetview, Aprilo 2024]
The line to the East of Roccella Jonica Railway Station. [103]
Roccella Jonica Railway Station. [104]

The underbridge immediately to the East of the Station, seen from the South on Via Marina. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

Looking East-northeast along Via Porto delle Grazie which is on the South side of the line. [Google Streetview, May 2021]

The embankment of the line is breached at various points to allow for floodwater flows. This concrete underbridge is typical, seen from Via Porto delle Grazie. [Google Streetview, May 2021]

The line Northeast to Caulonia. {105]
A two-span Warren Truss girder bridge spans the Fiumara Amusa. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

Arched underpass over Via Mare Jonio, Caulonia Marina on the approach to Caulonia Railway Station. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

Caulonia Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Caulonia Railway Station building as seen from Strada da Statale 106 Jonica (E-90).
[Google Streetview, June 2024]
The came building seen from Via degli Emigrati, looking Northwest. [Google Streetview, April 2024]
Caulonia Railway Station. [107]
The line to the Northeast of Caulonia. [106]
The railway spans Via Francesco Genovese and Fuimara Allaro by means of a 6-span Warren Truss girder viaduct. [Google Streetview, April 2024]
The same viaduct seen from the E-90. [Google Streetview, June 2024]
Another multi-span viaduct carries the railway over Fiumara Precariti. [Google Streetview, June 2024]
The railway continues to the Northeast. [108]
A two span concrete bridge carries the railway over Fiumara Favaco. [Google Streetview, June 2024]
An access road to the E-90 crosses the railway at high level. This view looks bask Southwest along the line from the flyover. [Google Streetview, April 2024]
The view Northeast along the line form the same flyover. [Google Streetview, April 2024]

A flyover carries the E-90 across the line at high level. This view looks back Southwest along the line. [Google Streetview, April 2024]
The view Northeast along the line form the same flyover. [Google Streetview, April 2024]
The next station on the route is Riace. [109]
Looking Northeast along the line from Via Pescopio. [Google Streetview, May 2021]
Contrada Pipedo crosses the line at a level-crossing. This is the view Southwest from the crossing.
[Google Streetview, April 2024]
From the same crossing this is the view Northeast into the site of
Riace Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Riace Railway Station. [110]
Riace Railway Station seen from the South on the E-90. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

An arch-bridge carries the line over Fiumara Guardia – seen from the Via Nazionale. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

OpenStreetMap.com shows the line continuing Northeast alongside the SS106. [111]
Contrada Ellera crosses the line at high level. This is the view Southwest from the bridge.
[Google Streetview, June 2024]
This is the view Northeast from the same bridge. [Google Streetview, June 2024]
A short distance further Northeast the line bridges another watercourse which is not named on the online mapping. [Google Streetview, May 2011]
The Warren Truss girder bridge carries the line over Fiumara Stilaro. [Google Streetview, June 2024]
The same bridge seen from the Northeast (from Strada Provinciale 9) with the line heading back towards Riace. [Google Streetview, May 2024]
The view North from the same bridge. [Google Streetview, May 2024]

This next extract from OpenStreetMap.com shows the line continuing to follow the coast and in doing so turning North. As it does so, it passes through Monasterace-Stilo Railway Station. [112]

Lambrosi-sottopassaggio passes under both the railway and Strada Provinciale 9. [Google Streetview, February 2011]
The approach to Monasterace-Stilo Railway Station, seen from Via Aspromonte. [Google Streetview, April 2024]
An underpass on the approach to Monasterace-Stilo Railway Station, seen from Via Aspromonte.
[Google Streetview, April 2024]
Monasterace-Stilo Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Monasterace-Stilo Railway Station. [113]
Closer to Monasterace-Stilo Railway Station, at the points which give access to the passing loop, seen from Via Aspromonte. [Google Streetview, April 2024]
Still closer to Monasterace-Stilo Railway Station also seen from Via Aspromonte. [Google Streetview, April 2024]
A ide-angle view of Monasterace-Stilo Railway Station seen from Via Aspromonte. [Google Streetview, April 2024]
A closer view of the Monasterace-Stilo Railway Station building seen from Via Aspromonte.
[Google Streetview, April 2024]
Monasterace-Stilo Railway Station building seen from the West, from Piazza Stazione. [Google Streetview, April 2024]
The E-90 crosses the railway at high level to the North of Monasterace-Stilo. This is the view South from the bridge. [Google Streetview, June 2024]
The view North from the same bridge. [Google Streetview, June 2024]
Further North the line crosses the Fiumara Assi. [Google Streetview, June 2024]
Just a short distance further North the line crosses Fiumara di Guardavalle. [Google Streetview, May 2024]
The same bridge seen from the East, from the access road to the beach. [Google Streetview, February 2011]
Heading North towards the railway station in Guardavalle, this photograph is taken from Via Lungomare on the East side of the line. The passing loop for the station is evident in the two tracks visible here. [Google Streetview, February 2011]

The line North through Guardavalle. [114]

Guardavalle Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2024]
Guardavalle Railway Station. [115]
Guardavalle Railway Station seen from Via Nazionale. [Google Streetview, June 2024]
The level-crossing to the North of Guaravalle Railway Station on Via Lungomare, looking South towards the station. [Google Streetview, April 2024]
Looking North from the same road-crossing. [Google Streetview, April 2024]
A single-arched bridge carries the line over another watercourse. [Google Streetview, May 2024]
Another Warren Truss girder bridge, partially hidden by vegetation, carries the line over Torrente San Giorgio. [Google Streetview, May 2024]
Another access road to the seashore and another underpass. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

Santa Caterina dell’Jonio is the next station on the route. [116]

Another arched bridge carries the line over a dry watercourse on the approach to the Railway Station. [Google Streetview, June 2024]
Via Giosuè Carducci Passes under the line. [Google Streetview, May 2024]
Santa Caterina dell’Jonio Railway Station. [117]

Santa Caterina dell’Jonio Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]

Santa Caterina dell’Jonio Railway Station seen from Strada da Statale 106 Jonica. [Google Streetview, June 2024]
North of the station another dry watercourse is bridged by an arch bridge. [Google Streetview, May 2024]
Not all underpasses are easy to see on Streetview. Typically they are single-span concrete bridges. [Google Streetview, May 2024]
Another typical underpass sits a few hundred yards further North. [Google Streetview, May 2024]
And another typical underpass sits a few hundred yards further North. [Google Streetview, May 2024]
And another underpass a few hundred yards further North. Not every underpass has been shown in this sequence of photographs. [Google Streetview, May 2024]
Another Warren Truss girder bridge carries the line over Torrente Carciamite. [Google Streetview, May 2024]

Badolato is the next railway station as the line runs North. [118]

On the approach to Badolato Railway Station the crosses Torrente Voda by means of another truss bridge. [Google Streetview, May 2024]
Badolato Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]

Badolato Railway Station. [119]

The underpass beneath Badolato Railway Station seen from the Northwest. [Google Streetview, May 2024]
Badolato Station building seen from the west on the station approach road. [Google Streetview, August 2022]
North of the station, the line bridges another dry watercourse. [Google Streetview, Jun 2024]
A three-span truss girder viaduct crosses the Fiumara Galliapari, seen from Via Aquilia. [Google Streetview, April 2021]
The three-span truss girder viaduct over the Fiumara Galliapari, seen from the E-90.
[Google Streetview, May 2024]

The next station is Sant Andrea dell’Jonio which appears towards the bottom of this extract from OpenStreetMap.com. [120]

This next bridge carries the line over the Torrente Valle Oscura. [Google Streetview, June 2024]
A long underpass takes a linkroad from Viale Francesco Lucifero under a road, the railway and then the E-90.
Sant Andrea dell’Jonio Railway Station. [Google Maps, June 2026]
Sant Andrea dell’Jonio Railway Station. [121]
Sant Andrea dell’Jonio Railway Station building. [Google Streetview, June 2024]

The view back South towards Sant Andrea dell’Jonio Railway Station from the next highway bridge over the line. [Google Streetview, May 2024]

The view North from the same bridge. [Google Streetview, May 2024]

Another Warren Truss girder bridge (2-span) carries the railway over the Fiumara Alaca.
[Google Streetview, June 2024]

This next extract from OpenStreetMap.com centres of the Railway Station at San Sostene. [122]

Just before the line enters San Sostene Station, another long underpass takes Via delle Gardenie under the railway. This view faces West along the road. [Google Streetview, August 2022]

The location of the Station/Halt at San Sostene. [Google Maps, June 2026]

Access to the Halt at San Sostene is not celebrious! [Google Streetview, February 2009]

The final length of our journey, running into Soverato. [123]

A three-span viaduct bridges the Fiume Secco. [Google Streetview, June 2024]
An overhead view of both the highway and railway bridges. [Google Maps, June 2026]
An arched underpass takes Via Enrico Fermi under the line. [Google Streetview, March 2021]

Via Francesco Froiio passes beneath the line by an underpass. [Google Streetview, March 2021]

Via Grazia Deledda also runs under the line. [Google Streetview, August 2022]

A 4-span truss bridge carries the line over another wide watercourse. Much of the structure hidden from the road bridge by vegetation. [Google Streetview, September 2022]

Looking back South from the bridge carrying the SP-124 over the line. [Google Streetview, September 2022]

Looking forward towards Soverato Railway Station. [Google Streetview, July 2023]

Soverato Railway Station and the end of the journey! [Google Maps, June 2026]

The lines approaching Soverto Railway Station seen from Viale Stazione (Strada Provinciala 124). [Google Streetview, July 2023]
Soverato Railway Station. [124]

Soverato Railway Station, as it appears on MapCarta. [125]

Soverato Railway Station building is hidden behind trees. [Google Streetview, September 2022]
Soverato Railway Station building seen from the North. [Google Streetview, September 2022]
Soverato Station, looking South, (c) Nicholas Gemini and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons Licence (CC BY-SA 3.0)

The journey highlighted by Nicky Garner finishes at Soverato. There is more of the line to see and to write about but that is definitely for another occasion.

And Finally …

To complete this article here are some notes from Grokipedia about the whole line. … [126]

Current Usage

Passenger services on the Ionian Railway are operated by Trenitalia, providing regional (Regionali) and InterCity connections along the line from Taranto to Reggio Calabria Centrale. [129] Regional trains run frequently, with services departing every 1-2 hours during peak daytime periods on weekdays, offering local stops at coastal towns such as Metaponto, Sibari, Crotone, Catanzaro Lido, Roccella Jonica, and Locri. [130] InterCity services connect the full route from Taranto to Reggio Calabria Centrale, as well as northern and southern segments to intermediate points like Sibari or Catanzaro, with approximately 5 daily direct services end-to-end. [131] Typical journey times for the full route vary by service type: InterCity trains cover the distance in approximately 4.5 hours, while regional trains with more stops take 6-8 hours. [131]

Train types include diesel multiple units on the predominantly non-electrified single-track sections, with some electric multiple units or hybrid configurations used on electrified portions near urban areas, including hybrid InterCity services introduced in early 2024. [130][132] Services see a significant boost during peak summer tourism seasons, particularly along the coastal route serving popular destinations in Puglia, Basilicata, and Calabria, though overall ridership remains modest outside holiday periods and is concentrated in key towns like Rossano and Gioia Tauro. [133]

Ticketing is managed through the official Trenitalia app or website, allowing integrated booking for regional and InterCity services with options for digital tickets and refunds. [134] Fares for the full Taranto to Reggio Calabria route typically range from €15 to €35 for standard class, depending on advance booking and service type, with discounts available for youth, seniors, and weekend returns. [131]

Passenger and Freight Traffic

The Ionian Railway primarily facilitates regional passenger services, accounting for the majority of its traffic, while freight operations remain limited and focused on bulk commodities such as agricultural products including olives and citrus fruits, as well as minerals, cement, and cereals transported to and from coastal ports. [135] These freight movements are managed by Mercitalia, the freight division of the FS Italiane Group, which operates diesel locomotives on the largely non-electrified single-track line to handle intermodal cargo like containers and general merchandise linking ports such as those in Crotone and Corigliano Calabro. However, freight volumes have declined significantly since the 1990s, largely due to competition from road trucking and the closure of local industries, reducing the line’s role in high-volume transport. [136]

Overall, the traffic mix on the Ionian Railway is dominated by passengers at approximately 80%, with freight comprising the remaining 20% as of 2018, concentrated at key nodes like Taranto port for export-oriented goods and Crotone for regional agro-industrial shipments. [135] Annual freight tonnage stood at around 500,000 tons as of 2018, primarily supporting local bulk movements rather than long-haul international flows, though the line integrates with EU TEN-T corridors such as the Scandinavia-Mediterranean route via connections at Sibari and Gioia Tauro for Adriatic-Ionian links. [135]

Economically, the railway bolsters tourism through passenger connectivity to coastal destinations and aids agriculture by enabling the distribution of regional products, contributing an estimated indirect impact of about 0.5% to Calabria’s regional GDP as of 2018 via logistics and employment in port-related activities.[35] This role is particularly vital in underserved areas, where rail supports cabotaggio-dominated ports handling over 7 million tons of goods annually at Reggio Calabria alone as of 2018, fostering sustainable transport alternatives despite infrastructure constraints. [135]

Challenges and Future Plans

Operational Issues

The Ionian Railway, running along Italy’s southeastern coast from Taranto to Reggio Calabria, faces significant reliability challenges primarily due to its exposure to natural hazards in the seismically active and geologically unstable Calabrian region. Frequent landslides and flooding, exacerbated by heavy rainfall common in coastal areas, often disrupt operations; for instance, a landslide triggered by recent rains halted train circulation between Reggio Calabria and Melito Porto Salvo for over an hour, resulting in delays of up to 60 minutes for four regional services. [137] Similarly, severe flooding from the Ferruzzano torrent in 2015 destroyed sections of the line near Brancaleone, suspending services entirely and requiring extensive repairs. [138] The railway’s diesel-powered sections, lacking electrification in much of Calabria, are particularly vulnerable to weather-related breakdowns, as diesel locomotives struggle with wet tracks and debris accumulation, leading to prolonged outages. [139]

Underutilization stems from chronic low investment, resulting in outdated rolling stock and infrastructure that fails to attract passengers or freight. Much of the fleet consists of aging diesel trains from the 1980s and 1990s, prone to mechanical failures and offering uncomfortable travel experiences, which discourages usage despite the line’s strategic coastal route. [140] This neglect is compounded by competition from the parallel A2 Autostrada del Mediterraneo highway, which provides faster and more reliable road travel, drawing away both passenger and freight traffic; regional transport plans note that the railway’s heterogeneous track conditions prevent it from effectively competing or complementing the highway. [141] Consequently, the line operates well below capacity, with passenger numbers stagnating amid decades of deferred maintenance. [142]
Safety incidents, though rare, highlight vulnerabilities inherent to the single-track configuration and level crossings. A notable 2023 collision in Cosenza province between a regional train and a truck at a level crossing resulted in the death of the train conductor, underscoring concerns over inadequate signalling and barriers on the mostly single-track line, where opposing trains must coordinate closely to avoid conflicts. [143] Reports from the 2010s also include allegations of sabotage in Calabria, such as deliberate interference with infrastructure works near local stations, which delayed operations and raised security issues along remote stretches. [144]

Socio-economic factors further exacerbate operational inefficiencies, as depopulation in the rural and coastal areas served by the railway diminishes passenger demand and complicates staffing. Calabria’s ongoing exodus, with many small towns losing residents to urban centres, has led to reduced ridership on regional services, making the line economically marginal. [142] This trend contributes to staffing shortages at remote stations, where low passenger volumes and isolation deter recruitment, resulting in unmanned facilities and reliance on centralized control that slows response times to disruptions. [145]

Proposed Upgrades

The proposed upgrades for the Ionian Railway focus on addressing infrastructure gaps through electrification, technological enhancements, and capacity improvements, primarily funded by Italy’s National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR) under Mission 3, Component 1, Investment 1.7 for the potentiation, electrification, and resilience of southern railways. [146] These initiatives aim to integrate the line into the EU’s Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) Mediterranean Corridor, enhancing north-south connectivity and intermodality with ports like Gioia Tauro. [146]

Electrification efforts target the completion of the approximately 472 km line by 2030, with upgrades covering 573 km including transversals, aligning with EU TEN-T guidelines requiring full electrification of core and comprehensive network lines to support seamless rail operations and reduce diesel dependency. [147] Current projects include the electrification of the Sibari-Crotone section (112 km) and Crotone-Catanzaro Lido section (58 km), involving the construction of 11 electrical substations, overhead catenary installation, and trackside upgrades, with works underway since 2024 and electric train operations expected from late 2026.[128][148] This phase, valued at €438 million and partially financed by the PNRR, extends to the transversal Catanzaro Lido-Lamezia Terme Centrale line for improved regional links. [148]

Modernization includes high-speed upgrades to enable maximum speeds of up to 160 km/h in key segments through engineering adaptations, such as the Cutro Tunnel modification and axle load increases to category C3 for better freight compatibility. [127] Technological enhancements feature the implementation of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) Level 2 over 172 km, replacing outdated signaling with computerized command systems to boost safety, regularity, and capacity on the single-track sections.[148] Track doubling initiatives are planned near Crotone and Reggio Calabria from 2025 to 2030, including the restoration of a fourth track at Melito Porto Salvo and new connections like the Sibari bypass, to eliminate bottlenecks and support higher traffic volumes. [127]

Sustainability objectives emphasize a transition to electric rolling stock, projected to cut CO2 emissions by enabling Frecciarossa high-speed services and integrating with Calabria’s regional mobility plans for low-carbon transport. [148][146]

Overall funding for these upgrades forms part of the €2.4 billion allocated by Investment 1.7 across 573 km of southern infrastructure; progress has faced delays from environmental impact assessments and site preparations. [146][149] As of December 2024, some PNRR-funded interventions on the line face cancellation risks. [150]

References

  1. Nicky Gardner; Over Land & Sea: Magical Views and Sea-Hugging Routes on Europe’s Best Coastal Train Lines; in Saturday (the Guardian Magazine), 23rd May 2026, p76-77.
  2. https://davesweekends.weebly.com/blog/ribadesella-by-narrow-gauge-rail-october-2024, accessed on 9th June 2026.
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renfe_Feve, accessed on 9th June 2026.
  4. https://mapcarta.com/Ribadeo/Map, accessed on 9th June 2026.
  5. https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=foz&zoom=17&minlon=39.2793095111847&minlat=-6.831542380340727&maxlon=39.292205572128296&maxlat=-6.824351778650712#map=15/43.55282/-7.26068, accessed on 9th June 2026.
  6. https://mapcarta.com/36337914, accessed on 9th June 2026.
  7. https://mapcarta.com/18567250, accessed on 10th June 2026.
  8. https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=foz&zoom=17&minlon=39.2793095111847&minlat=-6.831542380340727&maxlon=39.292205572128296&maxlat=-6.824351778650712#map=16/43.68704/-7.54543, accessed on 11th June 2026.
  9. https://mapcarta.com/N286303666, accessed on 11th June 2026.
  10. https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=foz&zoom=17&minlon=39.2793095111847&minlat=-6.831542380340727&maxlon=39.292205572128296&maxlat=-6.824351778650712#map=18/43.663033/-7.591872, accessed on 11th June 2026.
  11. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/43.657557/-7.600868, accessed on 11th June 2026.
  12. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Estaci%C3%B3n_de_Viveiro-Apeadero.jpg, accessed on 11th June 2026.
  13. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.65974/-7.59431, accessed on 11th June 2026.
  14. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Estaci%C3%B3n_Viveiro_Feve_2010.jpg, accessed on 11th June 2026.
  15. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/43.668423/-7.612941, accessed on 11th June 2026.
  16. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/43.695020/-7.635702, accessed on 11th June 2026.
  17. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/43.730584/-7.652321, accessed on 11th June 2026.
  18. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/43.73371/-7.68914, accessed on 11th June 2026.
  19. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/43.731236/-7.699077, accessed on 11th June 2026.
  20. https://mapcarta.com/W328576103/Map, accessed on 11th June 2026.
  21. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/43.73811/-7.71103, accessed on 11th June 2026.
  22. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/43.73079/-7.74266, accessed on 11th June 2026.
  23. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/43.71519/-7.77107, accessed on 11th June 2026.
  24. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/43.70651/-7.79497, accessed on 11th June 2026.
  25. https://mapcarta.com/N367984328, accessed on 12th June 2026.
  26. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/43.686650/-7.848884, accessed on 15th June 2026.
  27. https://mapcarta.com/25060338/Map, accessed on 15th June 2026.
  28. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.67585/-7.84794, accessed on 15th June 2026.
  29. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/43.66542/-7.87065, accessed on 15th June 2026.
  30. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/43.65763/-7.90207, accessed on 16th June 2026.
  31. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Viaducto+de+Mera/@43.6561806,-7.9069427,312m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0xd2df7d738ea0d8b:0xc0e09e9030e165e0!8m2!3d43.6561806!4d-7.9069427!16s%2Fg%2F11rnk7gzql?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDYxMC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D, accessed on 16th June 2026.
  32. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/43.64017/-7.91099, accessed on 16th June 2026.
  33. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/43.62247/-7.91773, accessed on 16th June 2026.
  34. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/43.60541/-7.92232, accessed on 16th June 2026.
  35. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/43.59065/-7.92996, accessed on 16th June 2026.
  36. https://mapcarta.com/W271684182/Map, accessed on 16th June 2026.
  37. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.58100/-7.94531, accessed on 16th June 2026.
  38. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.57304/-7.96244, accessed on 16th June 2026.
  39. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.56512/-7.97905, accessed on 16th June 2026.
  40. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.56040/-8.00138, accessed on 16th June 2026.
  41. https://mapcarta.com/N1625258092/Map, accessed on 17th June 2026.
  42. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.54869/-8.03290, accessed on 17th June 2026.
  43. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.54799/-8.05875, accessed on 17th June 2026.
  44. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.55175/-8.07158, accessed on 17th June 2026.
  45. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.54346/-8.08879, accessed on 17th June 2026.
  46. https://mapcarta.com/W490270413/Map, accessed on 17th June 2026.
  47. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.53679/-8.11420, accessed on 17th June 2026.
  48. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.53873/-8.13512, accessed on 18th June 2026.
  49. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.52341/-8.15129, accessed on 18th June 2026.
  50. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.51753/-8.16478, accessed on 18th June 2026.
  51. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.51141/-8.18504, accessed on 18th June 2026
  52. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.50259/-8.19970, accessed on 18th June 2026.
  53. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.49446/-8.21313, accessed on 18th June 2026.
  54. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.48992/-8.22819, accessed on 18th June 2026.
  55. https://mapcarta.com/Ferrol/Map, accessed on 20th June 2026.
  56. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5809045#/media/File:Estaci%C3%B3n_de_Ferrol_Fachada.JPG, accessed on 20th June 2026.
  57. https://wikimapia.org/53491/Ferrol-Train-Station#/photo/4578684, accessed on 20th June 2026.
  58. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionian_Railway, accessed on 21st June 2026.
  59. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reggio_Calabria_Centrale_(IMG_20220607_091827).jpg, accessed on 21st June 2026.
  60. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggio_di_Calabria_Centrale_railway_station, accessed on 21st June 2026.
  61. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mappa_ferr_Jonica.png, accessed on 21st June 2026.
  62. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/38.06608/15.65087, accessed on 21st June 2026.
  63. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/38.05961/15.65039, accessed on 21st June 2026.
  64. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/38.024743/15.649150, accessed on 22nd June 2026.
  65. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/38.01236/15.63979, accessed on 22nd June 2026.
  66. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/37.97719/15.65763, accessed on 22nd June 2026.
  67. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/37.95983/15.67232, accessed on 22nd June 2026.
  68. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/37.94917/15.70003, accessed on 22nd June 2026.
  69. https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officina_Grandi_Riparazioni_di_Saline_Joniche, accessed on 22nd June 2026.
  70. https://fb.watch/HV5AKirJAQ, accessed on 22nd June 2026.
  71. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/37.93988/15.70500, accessed on 23rd June 2026.
  72. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/37.93137/15.73096, accessed on 23rd June 2026.
  73. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/37.91868/15.76916, accessed on 23rd June 2026.
  74. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melito_di_Porto_Salvo_railway_station#/media/File:Melito_di_Porto_Salvo_-_Stazione.jpg, acessed on 23rd June 2026.
  75. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/37.91495/15.80255, accessed on 23rd June 2026.
  76. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/37.92253/15.85100, accessed on 23rd June 2026.
  77. https://mapcarta.com/17392706/Map, accessed on 26th June 2026.
  78. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/37.92707/15.90069, accessed on 23rd June 2026.
  79. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/37.92873/15.94597, accessed on 23rd June 2026.
  80. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/37.92006/15.98803, accessed on 23rd June 2026.
  81. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/37.92385/16.03034, accessed on 23rd June 2026.
  82. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/37.93239/16.07124, accessed on 23rd June 2026.
  83. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/37.95327/16.08785, accessed on 24th June 2026.
  84. https://mapcarta.com/N9257681511/Map, accessed on 24th June 2026.
  85. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/37.99143/16.11317, accessed on 24th June 2026.
  86. https://mapcarta.com/N9257681512/Map, accessed on 25th June 2026.
  87. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/38.016092/16.133766, accessed on 25th June 2026.
  88. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/38.03319/16.14311, accessed on 25th June 2026.
  89. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/38.07056/16.15547, accessed on 25th June 2026.
  90. https://mapcarta.com/N9265120916, accessed on 27th June 2026.
  91. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/38.14863/16.17780, accessed on 27th June 2026.
  92. https://mapcarta.com/W89621194/Map, accessed on 27th June 2026.
  93. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/38.15744/16.18552, accessed on 27th June 2026
  94. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/38.17046/16.20471, accessed on 27th June 2026.
  95. https://mapcarta.com/N9265086177/Map, accessed on 27th June 2026.
  96. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/38.23697/16.27187, accessed on 27th June 2026.
  97. https://mapcarta.com/N9254103174/Map, accessed on 27th June 2026.
  98. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/38.26858/16.29775, accessed on 27th June 2026.
  99. https://mapcarta.com/N9260960592/Map, accessed on 27th June 2026.
  100. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/38.29930/16.33212, accessed on 27th June 2026.
  101. https://mapcarta.com/N9265145845/Map, accessed on 27th June 2026.
  102. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/38.31395/16.38675, accessed on 27th June 2026.
  103. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/38.32765/16.42572, accessed on 28th June 2026.
  104. https://mapcarta.com/N9254103173/Map, accessed on 28th June 2026.
  105. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/38.33984/16.45846, accessed on 28th June 2026.
  106. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/38.34936/16.47666, accessed on 28th June 2026.
  107. https://mapcarta.com/W292431927/Map, accessed on 28th June 2026.
  108. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/38.35707/16.48473, accessed on 28th June 2026.
  109. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/38.37699/16.51674, accessed on 28th June 2026.
  110. https://mapcarta.com/N9278022486/Map, accessed on 28th June 2026.
  111. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/38.41128/16.55354, accessed on 28th June 2026.
  112. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/38.44855/16.57991, accessed on 28th June 2026.
  113. https://mapcarta.com/N9278023371/Map, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  114. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/38.49478/16.57906, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  115. https://mapcarta.com/N9278074138/Map, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  116. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/38.54461/16.56695, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  117. https://mapcarta.com/N1529758606/Map, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  118. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/38.57971/16.56361, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  119. https://mapcarta.com/N9278630226/Map, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  120. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/38.62022/16.54790, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  121. https://mapcarta.com/N9278630227/Map, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  122. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/38.64962/16.54970, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  123. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/38.67204/16.54867, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  124. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/38.68271/16.54947, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  125. https://mapcarta.com/N1768779086/Map, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  126. https://grokipedia.com/page/ionian_railway, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  127. https://www.rfi.it/it/rete/i-nostri-progetti/I-nostri-progetti-regione-per-regione/calabria.html, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  128. https://www.rfi.it/it/news-e-media/comunicati-stampa-e-news/2024/12/6/rfi—calabria–consegnati-i-lavori-per-l-elettrificazione-delle.html, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  129. https://www.trenitalia.com/en.html, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  130. https://www.trenitalia.com/content/dam/trenitalia/allegati/info/orario-digitale/orari-regionali/Regionale_Calabria_Sicilia.pdf, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  131. https://www.thetrainline.com/en/train-times/taranto-to-reggio-di-calabria-centrale, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  132. https://www.fsitaliane.it/content/fsitaliane/en/strategic-projects/lamezia-terme-catanzaro-lido-dorsale-jonica.html, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  133. https://www.legambiente.it/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Rapporto-Pendolaria-2024.pdf
  134. https://www.trenitalia.com/en/information/regional-online-ticketandpasses.html, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  135. https://www.regione.calabria.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/delibera-n.-100_2018-ed-allegati.pdf
  136. http://www.ferrovieincalabria.com/2012/04/, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  137. https://www.soveratoweb.com/maltempo-frana-sulla-linea-ferroviaria-jonica-ritardo-dei-treni/, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  138. https://www.ferrovie.it/portale/articoli/9001, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  139. https://www.ferrovieincalabria.it/ferrovia-jonica-alluvione-sibari-crotone/, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  140. https://www.lacnews24.it/attualita/treni-vecchi-e-una-rete-ferroviaria-scomparsa-la-crisi-dei-trasporti-in-calabria-per-legambiente-e-un-caso-nazionale-jnkguxif, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  141. https://www.regione.calabria.it/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/ddg-7408.pdf, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  142. https://ecodellojonio.it/articoli/attualita/2024/07/la-calabria-isolata-e-il-karma-della-ferrovia-jonica-vittima-di-decenni-di-disattenzioni, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  143. https://www.consrc.it/portale/BancheDati/SindacatoIspettivo/DettaglioIIM?numero=190&tipo=INTERROGAZIONE&leg=12&titolo=Messa%20in%20sicurezza%20dei%20passaggi%20a%20livello%20della%20ferrovia%20jonica, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  144. https://www.ntacalabria.it/reggio-calabria/lavori-ferrovia-jonica-associazioni-rete-fibc-vogliamo-vederci-chiaro.html, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  145. https://www.citynow.it/ritardi-record-per-i-treni-in-calabria-siamo-al-medioevo/, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  146. https://www.rfi.it/content/dam/rfi/chi-siamo/piano-commerciale/edizione_pnrr_13_agosto_2021/Piano_Commerciale_Straordinario_2021.pdf, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  147. https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-themes/infrastructure-and-investment/trans-european-transport-network-ten-t_en, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  148. https://ecodellojonio.it/articoli/politica/2025/05/ferrovia-jonica-al-via-realizzazione-di-14-sottostazioni-elettriche-rapani-portiamo-qui-treni-veloci, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  149. https://www.railwaygazette.com/in-depth/italy-eu-funding-deadline-looms-over-major-projects/69558.article, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  150. https://ecodellojonio.it/articoli/attualita/2024/12/fondi-pnrr-cancellati-due-importanti-interventi-sulla-ferrovia-jonica, accessed on 29th June 2026.
  151. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Trenfeve.jpg, accessed on 29th June 2026.