Professional thinking in London in the early 1950s was that tramway modernisation would reduce road accidents. Accordingly, The Light Railway Transport League was invited to exhibit at a number of post-war Road Safety Exhibitions. [1: p59]
However, on 1st January 1954, a London Transport Executive press release carried the title ‘Tram Scrapping has reduced London accidents’. [2] This claim was based on a study “undertaken … by the Road Research Laboratory of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and summarised in a Report issued towards the end of [1953].” [3]
The Modern Tramway noted that the report was a serious well-intentioned piece of research into trends in London traffic accidents. It was “cautious in its approach and highly qualified in its conclusions.” [1: p59] However, the article continues, “the fact is that the parts of this Report, divorced from their contexts, which received notice in the Press appears to have given an incorrect impression, and this we point out lest students of transport fail to draw a proper distinction between the study itself and the conclusions drawn from it.” [1: p60]
This has often been a malaise which had affected public reporting of detailed technical papers. The LTE release chose to remove all qualifying statements and ignored the manifest caution in the way conclusions were expressed by the original report. It perhaps is also symptomatic of a general presumption that tramways (and also railways) were not the transport of the future. The internal combustion engine was seen as the future. At the time, this was not necessarily an unreasonable view. It has, however, been proven to be a significant miss-step in policy direction as the years have unfolded.
“The original accident study considered all London accidents from 1950 to 1952, and compared the general trend of all kinds of accidents with those on ex-tram routes; only if the ex-tram route reduction was significantly greater than the more general reduction could the greater reduction be associated with tram-scrapping. So far, so good. BUT of all the accident classes surveyed, only that of ‘Accidents involving public service vehicles’ was found to have a reduction which was statistically significant, and within this class, fatal accidents actually increased, serious accidents were not reduced significantly, and the much-vaunted reduction was, in fact, limited to ‘slight accidents involving public service vehicles’. The L.T.E. handout omitted all mention of this vitally important word ‘slight’ and … gave the same statistical weight to all … classes of accident.” [1: p60]
Surely, one fatal accident is more concern to the community than fifty ‘slight’ accidents, “and the Report confirms the views of the Road Safety Organiser for Greenwich that by disciplining other traffic, London’s trams did at least keep the proportion of fatal or serious accidents well below the average for the whole country. It may well be that in this way, and by the tendency of the tram’s life- guard to reduce the proportion of fatalities in accidents, the tram has saved many valuable lives.” [1: p60]
The Modern Tramway comments that, “the over-simplification of this theme in the L.T.E. handout is the more regrettable in view of the fact that the London Transport Executive were the sole agency through which the results of the study were made public. A different body with no direct interest in the justification of tramway abandonments might have presented the results in a totally different way.” [1: p60]
Perhaps of even greater significance in that contemporary debate was the way in which the different transport authorities and borough councils had created a context in which tramway accidents were more likely to occur. “For eighteen years, every suggestion that would have reduced accidents was turned down on the excuse that the trams were to be scrapped, and dozens of urgently needed road improvement works were held up on the excuse that they must await the final abandonment; no wonder acci- dents happened.” [1: p60]
The Modern Tramway highlighted a number of issues/examples which are worthy of note:
Many tram stops in South London desperately needed to be equipped with loading islands but, except in two isolated instances, nothing was done, even where the road was sufficiently wide to leave room for two lines of traffic between the island and the kerb.
On 11th March 1948, Croydon Highways Committee, acting on the recommendation of their Accident Prevention Sub-Committee and with the approval of the local police, asked London Transport to lay a double tram track through the bottleneck at Crown Hill, Croydon, in place of the single track. This proposal … was rejected.
As part of the general determination not to spend money on the tramways, the headlamps of London’s trams remained obscured until the end by their wartime masks. In most other towns trams would long since have been fitted with separate rear lights, and sometimes also with stop lights and indicators.
The same excuse of eventual abandonment was given when complaints were made about the type of tramway paving adopted, yet when the new lines were constructed in Lambeth for the Festival of Britain it was shown that even conduit tracks could be given a surrounding surface equal to that of the best modern roads.
The cars themselves, although efficient and extremely reliable vehicles, were not always maintained to the best possible standards; this is shown by the fact that in 1947 the men of Telford Avenue Depot actually staged a one-day strike to draw the attention of the public to the state of the vehicles which they were expected to drive. It is also significant that the Ministry of Transport would not allow the sale of ex-L.C.C. cars to other cities unless the braking systems were improved.
The consequences of the LTE’s shoddy approach to the dissemination of the report’s findings were also of significance. The Modern Tramway continues:
“Wherever tramways are the subject of Press attacks, the London figures were triumphantly reproduced with a “We told you so” air, often omitting the fact that only accidents involving public service vehicles were concerned and thus making it appear that tramway abandonment reduced all road accidents by a third, which is sheer nonsense. Other papers such as the Yorkshire Evening News developed their own patent theories as to the probable effect of tram-scrapping in their own areas, consequently, ignoring the different conditions. We have not forgotten how this newspaper treated two accidents in Leeds on 10th December, 1953, when the fact that a tram had grazed the side of a lorry, injuring no one, was reported with headline while the case of a 12-year-old girl knocked down by a bus on the same day was relegated to a small paragraph.” [1: p61]
The Report itself extrapolated its own findings, suggesting that if the effects in other towns were the same as in London, then the replacement of all the remaining tram services in Great Britain would result in a further saving of about 1,100 accidents per year. “In fact,” says The Modern Tramway, “any tramway officer outside London would have pointed out … that this gratuitious extrapolation is quite pointless.” [1: p61]
The Modern Tramway went on to point out some of the key distinctions: [1: p61-62]
London tramways, for the most part, retained the outmoded conduit system of current collection, with a central slot and broken road surface. Except on the semi-reserved Embankment area lines, no one would have recommended its retention had the tramways been modernised.
London tramways were almost completely devoid of reserved tracks, loading islands, and other modern aids to tramway safety. Where tramways on reserved tracks were replaced by buses running on the public highway, the opposite effect has been the case, and accidents had increased.
The use of modern vehicles and well maintained tracks in other locations invalidates any comparison.
In London, motorists were permitted to overtake stationary tramcars. Elsewhere this was usually prohibited by local bye-laws.
In London, buses and trams shared the same road space. Elsewhere, they were kept on separate roads wherever possible.
London’s trams relied on a magnetic brake, elsewhere, by 1953, air brakes were in use.
Experience in Sheffield and in a number of German towns suggests that the findings of the report about London were not replicated. In those cases “accident figures had risen as a result of tramway abandonment.” [1: p62]
The Modern Tramway concludes it article with two further thoughts:
Prior to the period examined by the Report, a considerable proportion of the public service vehicles involved in accidents would have been buses and coaches. The article states: “In our experience, a mixed service of buses and trams running along the same road is far more obstructive and dangerous than an equivalent service of one type of vehicle only; in these circumstances the replacement of the trams by extra buses may well result in fewer accidents, but exactly the same effect would be obtained by replacing the buses by extra trams. We understand that this is the case in Brussels, where several pre-war bus routes are now tram-worked and of 14 bus routes in 1939, only three now remain.” [1: p62]
“All public service assessments, “the article continues, “should be made, not on a ‘per vehicle’ basis, but on the basis of per unit service to the public. Since it is acknowledged that the replacing bus service is 5-10% less than the corresponding tram service, it follows that there are roughly 73% fewer vehicles, and each has 56 rather than 73 seats, ie., there are 29% fewer replacing seats – and it is seats, on road public service vehicles, which represent service to the public. Assuming, however, that a third of the public service vehicles operating along tram-served roads were buses, there were still 20% fewer public service seats available along ex-tram routes after the scrapping of the trams. If it further be assumed that proportionality might be the criterion for accident assessment, a decrease of 20% in accidents might be permitted before significance is attached to the type of vehicle providing the service; after all, a 20% reduction in tram service might well have produced a 20% reduction in accidents involving trams. The actual decrease in accidents was nearly 30%, so it remains to be tested whether the unexpected extra reduction of 10% was significant in the light of the total number of such accidents.” [1: p62]
In fact, performing a “chi-square” test of significance with the revised figures, in the light of the service provided, showed that any reduction in accident numbers was no longer statistically significant.
The Modern Transport article concluded firstly that London Transport and the Press made far too much of a Report in which its D.S.I.R. authors qualified their conclusions very heavily. And insisted that the observed decrease in accidents is only in ‘slight’ accidents with other accident numbers not having changed appreciably.
It seems to me that there is a salutary lesson here for us all which relates to the need to treat press reports with care particularly where those publishing press releases about those reports may have their own agenda.
References
Trams and Road Accidents: A Fresh London Analysis; The Modern Tramway, Volume 17, No. 196, April 1954.
Tram Scrapping Has Reduced London Accidents; LTE Press Office, G.P.N. 257, 1st January 1954.
DSIR Road Research Laboratory Report R.N. 2061, October 1953. … It is worth noting that the report was not released to public scrutiny but that its substance appeared in reports within the technical press of the time.
The April 1954 edition of ‘The Modern Tramway’ included an article about the introduction of new articulated tramcars in Stuttgart. It is interesting to listen to the discussion about the relative merits of articulated cars and trains of two or three cars coupled together. …..
In April 1954, the first of these new cars were going into service, supplied by H. Fuchs Wagonfabrik A.G. of Heidelberg. As far as I can ascertain, Stuttgart sourced later articulated tramcar sets from manufacturer Maschinenfabrik Esslingen. [2]
“The decision of the Stuttgart authorities to order articulated cars rather than the standard German grossraumwagen was reached after careful consideration of local conditions. The city is very hilly and of 116 route Km.
20 Km. have gradients of from 3-5%.
21 Km. have gradients of from 5-8%.
5 Km. have gradients more than 8%.
and only a very few routes (15 Km. in length), are so slightly graded that they can be considered level. In overcoming the differences of gradient the tramways are very sharply curved and there are many curves with a radius of 20 metres. The city centre is narrow and congested and high speed running is impossible. In order to raise average speeds, the uphill speeds of the trams must be increased.
The articulated design was partly chosen as it gave increased adhesive weight (69% of the available weight is carried on driving axles with forward and rear bogies motored). The new cars are slightly wider than the older types and some realignment of curves was necessary.
Each unit has 60 seats and room for 160 standing passengers. To obtain the greatest advantage from the extra width, sliding doors are fitted, with folding stops. Whilst the capacity is roughly that of a two-car car grossraumwagen set, the total length Is about 5 metres shorter and actually 6.8 metres shorter than a standard Stuttgart three car four-wheeler set. This represents a 20% saving. The reduced length is also an asset in traffic.
Passengers enter through the centre pair of doors and alight from either front or rear. Waiting passengers can therefore concentrate at one point on the loading island and British type queue barriers are being erected to guide passengers to the point where the centre doors will be; alighting passengers are not discharged into the waiting queue. The two conductor’s desks face the entrance doors and passengers can either pass forward or rearward according to the accommodation available.
The new cars will not entirely replace the existing three-car tram-trains of four wheel cars-at least not for some years. The capacity of these sets can be matched to traffic demands, using one, two or three units as required. The articulated cars have not this adaptability and will, there- fore, be used on routes where traffic remains fairly constant through the day; on these routes they will replace 3 car sets (used intact all day), thus representing a saving of one conductor per unit.”
Modern Articulated Cars for Stuttgart; The Modern Tramway, Volume 17, No. 196, April 1954, p70-71. [1]
It is interesting to note that each articulated set was to be staffed by 3 people, a driver and two conductors. Modern UK articulated sets only have a driver and if two articulated sets are paired there would still only be one driver.
The article in The Modern Tramway goes on to provide technical descriptions which came from the manufacturer of the tramcars, starting with leading dimensions:
“Overall length of car, 25 metres (82 ft.); Distance between bogie cen- tres, 18 metres (59 ft. 1 in.); Wheel base, 1.750 metres (5 ft. 9 in.): Overall height from rail level, 3.115 metres (10 ft. 3 in.); Height of floor, 0.82 metres (32.25 in.); Overall width of car, 2.2 metres (7 ft. 2.625 in.); Weight of car including electrical equipment 26,000 kg. (25 tons 11 cwt.); 4 motors having each 58 kW. …
The whole car body including the underframe is built up of edged columns and girders welded together, so that the supporting structure is formed by side wall, underframe, and car roof.
The car roof, which is of the arched type, is fitted with an all-around rain gutter drained by means of outlet pipes located in various columns.
The windows are embedded in rubber, so no draught and rain water can enter. The windows are fixed at the bottom, and sliding at the top.
The car is single-ended. There are four sliding doors arranged on the outside, of identical size and operated from the conductors’ seats through an electro-pneumatic door valve. The door opening or closing operation simultaneously operates the folding footsteps through air cylinders, thus preventing any person from hopping on the car whilst in motion. Should the door remote control fail, the doors can be opened by hand, by reversing an emergency cock.
The two car sections are separated from each other, in the centre, by a “corridor connection.” This was necessary to enable the car to nego- tiate narrow curves, and to compensate for the various movements.
Each of the two car sections includes a conductor’s place of the stationary type, where all necessary controlling apparatus and push- buttons are arranged to operate the doors, loud-speakers, heating systems, etc.
The space available between the two conductors’ places serves as a collecting point for passenger flow. The arrangement of the hand-rails guide the passengers past the conductor to the inside. Since the conductor’s seat is elevated, he has a good view over the passengers entering or leaving the car.
The driver’s cab is separated from the passengers’ compartment by a partition. This partition has been so formed that the electrical controllers are at its upper part, leaving some space for a cupboard below to store lost property. The access is by means of a hinged door.
The controllers and levers to be operated by the driver are arranged so as to be easily accessible.
The lighting equipment of the car consists of fluorescent type tubes running through lengthwise. There is an illuminated number plate on the roof, and an illuminated direction board in the upper part of one side window.
The whole of the cable wiring is arranged in the underframe, and this in suitable conduits adequately protected from splash water. Separate cable tubes lead to the various electrical appliances. The entire Bosch type pneumatic equipment is also located in the underframe. The brake equipment consists of the following:-
Service brake: Electrical braking through the motors;
Additional brake: Electro-pneumatic, hand-operated air brake having at all times at its disposal a brake force supply from bent springs (so- called spring storage brake);
Emergency brake: 6 electro-magnetic rail brakes being fed from a separate battery and directly opera- ting on the rails with a 24,000 kg. force.”
Modern Articulated Cars for Stuttgart; The Modern Tramway, Volume 17, No. 196, April 1954, p71-72.
The article concludes with details of suspension and bogie centre pins:
Suspension of axles: Through helical springs with no damping at all. There are intermediate rubber layers for silencing, in conjunction with the helical springs.
Steering of axles is through a suspended and continuous spring leaf transmitting the longitudinal and transverse forces to the bogie frame. There are auxiliary axle guards to protect from spring breakage.
Bolster suspension: Undamped helical springs located far on the out- side, with built-in hydraulic shock absorber, serve to quickly eliminate any lateral up-and-down movement. In addition, to cushion the lateral bolster movement and to transmit the force longitudinally from the bolster to the bogie frame, there are rubber pieces arranged on each bolster end, and these pieces are vulcanized on metal plates. The bolster springs are housed in cross-bars suspended on the frame by means of a pendulum. The bolster is led through small stop plates, eliminating wear and tear.
Bogie centre pins: There is an entirely rigid pivot pin transmitting all forces to the bolster. Thus, no lateral sliding pieces subject to wear and tear are necessary. The torsional friction moment is practically non-existent compared with that obtained by use of sliding pieces, resulting in minimum wear and tear of tyres and rail, and insignificant impact effect when curves are being negotiated.”
Modern Articulated Cars for Stuttgart; The Modern Tramway, Volume 17, No. 196, April 1954, p73.
References
Modern Articulated Cars for Stuttgart; The Modern Tramway, Volume 17, No. 196, April 1954, p70-73.
The featured image above shows one of the last tram journeys in Belfast. This tram is travelling along Castle Place on 27th February 1954, heading for Ardoyne Depot. [7]
In ‘The Modern Tramway’ of August 1953, [1] there was a report of an expedition by members of the Light Railway Transport League in June 1953 which toured a number of Ireland’s Light Railways. [1: p150-155] The visits included:
CIE., Tralee and Dingle section, 3 ft. 0 in. Steam.
Irish Turf Board, Clonsast bog railway … 3 ft. 0 in. Steam & diesel.
In 1953, this represented all the remaining Irish narrow gauge railways and tramways, with the exception of the derelict Schull and Skibbereen and Ballycastle lines and certain industrial lines (Guinness Brewery, British Aluminium Company, several Irish Turf Board lines and a few others) The Lough Swilly and Tralee and Dingle railways were both to close in the summer of 1953.
The tour commenced in Belfast on Saturday, 6th June and the morning was spent on the Belfast Bangor section of UTA, which was served by 3-car diesel trains. In the afternoon, a tour of Belfast Corporation Tramways ran from the Mountpottinger Depot in an old tram (No. 340). It was noted that tramcars and track on the Belfast network were in a very poor state. Belfast had just purchased 100 surplus London buses which would hasten the closure of the tramway network.
A visit to the Hill of Howth Tramway consumed much of the next day.
On the Cavan and Leitrim, the tour party travelled behind 2-4-2T No. 12L. The train consisted “two open platform coaches and a sting of vans, some of which were detached and shunted at Mohill.” [1: p152] The description of the time on the Cavan & Leitrim continued: “At Ballinamore our coach was transferred to another, smaller train behind 4-4-0 tank locomotive No. 31, complete with cowcatcher for the roadside journey, to Arigna. This line is the last roadside steam tramway with passenger service in the whole of the British Isles, and is kept open by reason of the fact that it serves the Arigna coal mines. The speed is quite brisk, despite some really abrupt curves and switchback gradients, but the journey was cut short by an encounter with a road vehicle at Mahanagh (Shannon Crossing), through no fault of the train crew.” [1: p152]
After a short hiatus while a policeman from Drumshambo took everyone’s particulars the tour continued to Manorhamilton and then to Enniskillen and Fintona Junction where they enjoyed a short return journey on the newly reconditioned Fintona horse tram (G.N.R. No. 381), continuing later to Omagh and then Derry (Londonderry).
From Derry, the tour party travelled to the border behind 4-6-2T No 15. This loco was replaced by 4-6-2T No. 10 for the remainder of the outward journey to Buncrana. The article continues: “The return journey from Buncrana was run as a mixed train. At Pennyburn sheds were locomotives Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 – Nos. 5 and 6 are 4-8-4 tanks, the most powerful locomotives ever built for the Irish narrow gauge.” [1: p152]
The article reported that at the time of the visit, Derry had “four quite separate railway termini, each served by a different company and linked only by mixed gauge tracks laid along the quays and across the lower deck of the Craigavon Bridge. One railway, the 3 ft. gauge Londonderry and Lough Swilly, is to close down very shortly, and the special 3-coach passenger train provided on 9th June to take the L.R.T.L.-I.RR.S. party to Buncrana and back is likely to be the last; regular passenger service ceased in 1948.” [1: p152]
After a morning spent on the Lough Swilly, the party travelled to Strabane to explore parts of the Co. Donegal Railways system. They were taken from Strabane to Stranorlar in Railcar No. 19 and toured the company’s workshop. They noted what at the time was “probably the oldest surviving railcar in the British Isles, a small 8-seater built as an inspection car in 1906 and fitted latterly with a Ford engine for use in pass- enger service; it [was] still in working order, and … stored at Stranorlar together with the Directors’ Saloon, which [was] still used once per year for an annual inspection by representatives of the Joint Committee. The locomotive shed housed two locomotives in startling brick-red livery as [were] the coaches and railcars.” [1: p153]
From Stranorlar, Railcar No. 19 took the party non-stop through Barnesmore Gap to Donegal town, where it coupled with Railcar No. 10 and ran on to Killybegs. Returning to Donegal town the party transferred to a train of “Railbus No. 14, observation saloon No. 30 and trailer No. 1 for the last section to Ballyshannon, which ran fast to Rossnowlagh Friary halt and there picked up about 70 churchgoers from the Tuesday evening service at the Fransiscan Friary, some of whom were subsequently set down at their cottages along the line.” [1: p153]
Wednesday, 10th June started with a long cross-country journey to Ennis for a visit to the West Clare section. In 1952, the section had received 4 new railcars and a demonstration run between Ennis and Kilkee was provided for the tour group.
The following day saw the group travelling on the Tralee and Dingle Railway. By this date only monthly trains timed for the Dingle Fair were timetabled. The visit was on a Thursday and a special train was provided. 2-6-0T No. 8 took charge of two bogie vans fitted with new wooden benches and a few from the station platforms. The journey to Dingle took more than three hours and was followed by a return journey which also lasted longer than three hours and included a marvellous view of the sun setting over Tralee Bay.
Other visits followed before the tour returned to Dublin. None of which quite measured up to their experiences on the Tralee and Dingle!
Associated news carried by The Modern Tramway in the same issue of the journal included:
The end of the Londonderry and Lough Swilly
“The Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway, a light railway, which together with the Burtonport Extension, was once Ireland’s largest narrow gauge railway (99 miles of route) closed finally on 1st August. At its fullest extent, the line once extended from Londonderry to Burtonport with a long branch to Cardonagh. The Company, unlike its railcar-minded neighbour, the County Donegal Railway, decided that its future lay on the roads, and in 1929 began to operate buses, closing the railway between Buncrana and Carndonagh six years later. The Gweedore Burtonport section was closed on 3rd June, 1940 and the Letterkenny-Gweedore section in 1949. Occasional passenger trains during the holiday season, to relieve double-deck buses, ran to Buncrana until August, 1951.” [1: p159]
Belfast
“The General Manager stated recently that in conformity with the policy of abandoning tramcar operation at the earliest possible date, tramway repairs and maintenance have been reduced to the minimum consistent with safety. The Queen’s Road tramway will not be replaced by trolleybuses but by motorbuses as the movement of large pieces of machinery to and from the shipyard is inconvenienced by overhead wires (in the past the tramway wires have occasionally been temporarily removed to allow “out-of-gauge” loads to pass along this way). During June and July the following tramcars were withdrawn and scrapped: [300, 301, 320, 337, 338, 340, 341, 369, 392, 394, 400, 413, 415, 419, 428].” [1: 159-160]
Late News from Ireland
“Two steam-worked light railways visited during the Irish Tour have just been finally closed. On the Tralee and Dingle Railway, the last train ran on Wednesday 22nd July, to collect wagons from Dingle station yard. On the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway, the last goods train was due to run on 10th August.” [1: p160]
August 1953 saw the publication of Volume 16 No. 188 of ‘The Modern Tramway’ Its own editorial focused on another editorial. The ‘South London Press’ of 21st July 1953 which suggested that the travelling public were beginning to see the advent of buses, replacing trams, on London streets as a little less positive than was first thought. …
“It is now about a year since the last tram left South London, and that is perhaps a reasonable period in which to judge whether the change to boses has brought the anticipated relief to traffic and passengers.
No comment comes from the great majority of people so long as they set to and from home with no great hitch or discomfort. It is when something goes wrong, and the victims of an unusually long queue at the top per home full of their grievance, that the cry is heard: Why did they ever scrap the trams?
The silence of motorists is more significant. These were the road users who used to complain about the hold-ups by the juggernauts of the streets There are still traffic jams, varying from the normal to the sensational (as at the Coronations). but it is hard to single out any one class of vehicle as guilty of creating the nuisance.
A reader, Mr. C. B. Smith, has argued very reasonably in the Letters Column that, for a scheme costing £9 million, the improvement is not impressive. Queues are not shorter, and fares continue to rise, he says. Buses still cause confusion on the Victoria Embankment and – this is a newer objection – buses are held up by fog and snow far more than trams ever were.
He is supported today by another correspondent who has a newer complaint; pollution of the air by the fumes of diesel-engined buses. She has been surprised by “the look of filthy, oily, sooty air.”
We had not seen this sooty air, but anyone can smell it in the main roads. It is the reek of heavy vehicles, especially lorries, and before long the use of diesel oil may spread to cars, being cheaper than petrol.
This was probably not foreseen when buses first replaced electric trams, but it is really a separate question. When will the exhaust fumes of internal combustion engines be recognised as a danger to health?
The main reason why trams were abolished in London, was that they were in antiquated form of transport in streets too narrow for modern traffic which goes on swelling though there is no chance of widening the streets owing to the cost of the land.
The campaign by “tram lovers” against their abolition was based on this fact that they were antiquated. It was asked why London did not bring itself into line with other great cities of Britain and the Continent by introducing modern trams.
The problem was to say whether any sort of tramway system with fixed lines in the middle of the road – there was no hope of moving them to the side – was suitable for a town so jammed with traffic. First, the LCC, and then Parliament agreed that London could not now take trams of any sort.
The present generation of road users knew trams, and many remember them with affection as something we grew up with, a part of the setting of our golden youth. To get a fairer perspective on trams, imagine the next generation, which will never have known them, and see how they would react to a proposal to introduce them.
A sort of light railway running down the centre of high roads, we would say. and passengers get on and off by making their way through the motor traffic on each side. These electric coaches do not go very fast, so they would not be dangerous, but of course following traffic would be slowed down to the same speed.”
‘The Modern Tramway’, August 1953, Volume 16 No. 188, p147-148, quoting ‘The South London Press’ of 21st July 1953. [3]
Some interesting questions are raised in the editorial which appear prophetic. Particularly, the reference to the increasing use of diesel for car engines, the reality of heavy diesel pollution on city centre roads and the lack of investment in infrastructure.
I guess we now know the answer to the question of acceptance of trams by future generations. (Viz: To get a fairer perspective on trams, imagine the next generation, which will never have known them, and see how they would react to a proposal to introduce them.)
In cities where new (LRT) tram systems have been introduced, the construction phase seemed to produce significant negative responses but, in action, the trams have generally been well received.
References
Robert J. Harley; London Tramway Twilight: 1949-1952;
‘TheModern Tramway‘ was the title of the journal of the Light Railway Transport League.
I picked up a small batch of copies of The Modern Tramway Journal which included volumes from the 1950s, 1960s and 1980s and have begun reading through them. The first Journal that I have is dated 15th July 1953. At the time of writing it is 70 years old. This is the second article about its contents. The first can be found here. [1]
Volume 16 No. 187 of July 1953 includes an article about Tramways and Traffic Planning in Munich which reflects on decisions taken by leaders in the Munich municipality which were implemented by the Munich Municipality Roads Department in the years,it appears from the article, following the First World War (1925) [2: p136-138] The article is dated 1925 in the introduction in The Modern Tramway but, as we will see later, considers action undertaken in Munich in the 1930s, in Rome at the beginning of that decade, and in Cologne and Lübeck in 1945. It is likely, therefore, that in giving the date as 1925, two digits got transposed and that the article actual came from the German language press in 1952, after the Second World War. [2: p136, 137, 138]
“In Munich, some extremely costly plans to replace the trams in the central area by motor buses and three underground railway lines have been discarded. It has been decided that all the main local passenger traffic will continue to be carried by tramways; the construction of sub-surface tramways as in Boston, Philadelphia and as projected in Toronto, has been considered but rejected on the grounds of cost. It has been stated that a modern and well-planned tramway system with a 50% increase in speed, supplemented by an extensive and well-planned network of trolley and motor bus services in the suburbs could provide the Munich of the future with transport services which would be far cheaper to build and maintain and almost as fast as the services enjoyed in cities which have installed expensive and unprofitable underground railways.
The objections to the present Munich tramway system and the way in which these objections will be overcome are summarised below:-
1. That present 50-year old trams moving in the overtaking lane of the carriageway constitute an obstacle to fast traffic flow even when they are moving, owing to their slow speed. This disadvantage will be eliminated by the use of fast modern tramcars.
2. Double track tramways in one-way streets. It is desirable that tramways should obey the one-way regulations but this is only practicable in fairly long streets or where broad parallel streets are available. Unlike the American cities with their regular street patterns, European cities rarely have such parallel streets and one-way working for tramcars is not often possible. Where it can be done, tramways in one-way streets should be laid so as to allow for two traffic lanes to the right of the track used by trams running in the same direction as the other traffic, thereby allowing the use of three lanes in one direction and only one lane, occupied by the trams, running the other way, against the stream. It may also be possible in some streets to leave a parking lane between the track of the “against the stream” trams and the kerb.
3. Alleged congestion caused by tram-trailer trains. In America single tramcars 15 to 17 mtres (49ft. 24in. to 55ft. 9 in.) in length and 2.5 to 2.6 metres (8ft. 2in. to 8ft. 6in.) wide have a capacity equal to that of an old fashioned European two-car tram train but single cars of such dimensions are not generally possible in Europe and in many cases it is impossible to dispense with the two or three-car sets. It is however possible to build cars which will clear junctions and curves more rapidly. An old type Munich three-car set requires 15 to 20 seconds to clear a 40 metre (131ft) crossing with its acceleration of 2 to 36 metres (7in. to 1ft. 2in.) per second. High speed cars of modern design will reduce this time by half. It should not be forgotten that three of the most modern oil buses require more time over a crossing than an old type three-car tram set. It is interesting to note that Stockholm and Zurich, which have adopted high capacity tramcars, have re-introduced trailers, Four large Italian cities use articulated cars.
4. No loading can be provided in a carriagway only 12 metres (39ft. 4 in.) wide. This can be overcome by making use of every opportunity available to build loading islands and by eliminating stops at points where no loading island can at present be built. In the main streets loading islands will be provided at all stops; they create better traffic conditions than would be available if oil buses were used. Oil buses, apart from being uneconomical, require twice as much road space in spite of the fact that they have a smaller capacity than a tram. Loading islands in broad streets where the tramways are not on reservation force road users to keep to their own traffic lanes and impose driving discipline on motorists. Overtaking on the wrong side of the street becomes almost impossible and pedestrians are provided with a welcome resting place enabling them to cross the road in two stages. The oil bus, by continually turning out of the traffic stream and also across the cyclist stream, to reach the curb and repeating the movement as it restarts, hinders traffic flow.”
Tramways and Traffic Planning in Munich; The Modern Tramway, Vol. 16 No. 187, [2: p136-137]
After this careful explanation of the municipality’s plans. The author, Dr. Ing F Flugel, Chief Officer, Munich Municipality Roads Department, considers the relative merits of trolleybuses, buses and trams. It is worth noting that trolleybuses were introduced on Munich’s streets in 1948 and that the last trolleybus services ceased in 1966. [3] He said:
“When the removal of tramways from city centres is advocated by the oil and trolley bus patisans as a pancea for traffic congestion it is always forgotten that buses require nearly twice as much road space as a tram, leaving less space for other traffic; also that fares would be doubled and many passengers would no longer enjoy direct services as they would have to change vehicles and endure longer journeys. In 1933, Christian Weber wanted to remove the tramways from the Theatiner Strasse and Sendlinger Strasse and accordingly introduced a bus service from Sendlinger Tor-Platz to Odeonsplatz: tram services 6 and 26 were diverted via Karlsplatz. As a result, trams on these services emptied at the Odeonsplatz. and Sendling Tor-Platz and even at rush hours travelled empty via Karlspatz The number of passengers leaving the trams at the Sendlinger Tor and Odeonsplatz in rush hours was so large that the buses could not cope with the traffic in spite of a 90 second headway. The trams were very quickly restored for the rush hours and the buses only ran at slack hours; this entirely unnecessary bus service cost the undertaking several hundred thousand marks yearly. The section between Theatiner Strasse and Sendlinger Strasse was very badly damaged during the war and owing to traffic congestion on this badly damaged route tramway service has not been restored since the war; consequently there is at present no north-south tramway through the heart of the city. This is a great improvement for fast motor traffic but quite the reverse for 80% of the population who rely on public transport. These unfortunates are obliged to travel via the Karlsplats and so to lose 5 or 10 minutes on every journey.
A suggestion has also been made that the tramway across the city in the east-west direction be replaced by buses in the city centre and the trams diverted round the city centre. At rush hours trams on the east-west route work a one minute headway and at each change of the traffic lights at Marienplatz (about every 2 minutes) tram sets pass through in each direction – eight buses would be required to replace them. The 9.5 to 11 metre (31 ft. to 36 ft.) wide street traversed only just allows four traffic lanes when trams are in service. If the trams were replaced by buses, traffic lanes would be reduced to two owing to the width of the buses and their inability to operate with such small clearances as the trams.
In the street concerned (Kaufingerstrasse) there are 2,000 private cars, passing through to every 120 tram sets (16:1) in London one out of every four vehicles is a bus; this comparision demonstrates that buses leave much less space available for other traffic in streets. Apart from the chaos, loss of time and general inconvenience this project would cause if it were put into effect, the idea of penalising the majority in order to appease the car owning minority is anti-social; the diverting of motor car traffic round the edge of the city would cause much less inconvenience,
In Rome, Mussolini ordered the closing of the city centre tramways in 1930 and passengers had thereafter to transfer to inadequate motor and trolley bus services if they wished to travel within the area bounded by the Inner Circle tramway: fares had to be raised considerably. In contrast, in Milan only one or two tramways in very narrow streets have been abandoned, the tramway remaining the backbone of public transport in the city centre, There are three 6 metre (19 ft. 6 in.) wide streets where trams only are allowed, to the exclusion of all other traffic. As a consequence of the retention of her central tramways, Milan enjoys extremely efficient and cheap passenger transport. In Cologne and Lübeck tramways inside the “Ring” Avenues were mostly abandoned in 1945 but contrary to the plans of the bus advocates, many tramways have been and will be re-opened in these city centres. Public transport, whether buses or trams, should always run to the town centre; congestion can always be eased by diverting through traffic, banning it from the central streets. Replacement of trams in the centre of Munich would be extremely unwise economically and operationally and would be a reactionary step socially. The Munich Roads Department is endeavouring, with the limited means at its disposal, to carry out as many street improvements as possible, always taking into account the needs of all road users and always with a view to making a sound basis for the future high speed tramways system.”
Tramways and Traffic Planning in Munich; The Modern Tramway, Vol. 16 No. 187, [2: p137-138]
Once again, given recent experience in cities in the UK, it is worth noting the highlighted text above. …
“Public transport, whether buses or trams, should always run to the town centre; congestion can always be eased by diverting through traffic, banning it from the central streets. Replacement of trams in the centre of Munich would be extremely unwise economically and operationally and would be a reactionary step socially.” [2: p138]
It does seem as though we may have been better advised to heed these words in the mid-20th century. The recent revival of the LRT networks in major cities in the UK suggest that greater heed should have been taken of these voices in the way tramways were considered in the late 1940s and early 1950s in the UK.
The featured image above comes from the London Day at the East Anglian Transport Museum it shows a London trams running alongside one of the trolleybuses that ran alongside them and along with RT buses replaced them. [6]
‘TheModern Tramway‘ was the title of the journal of the Light Railway Transport League.
I picked up a small batch of copies of The Modern Tramway Journal which included volumes from the 1950s, 1960s and 1980s and have begun reading through them. The first Journal that I have is dated 15th July 1953. At the time of writing it is 70 years old.
Volume 16 No. 187 of July 1953 starts with an item entitled, “Tramways and the Press.” Starting with a specific instance of dubious reporting by the national dailies about tram parts being sent to Egypt, the article bemoans the way that tramways were increasingly being seen by the public, led by the press, as an outmoded form of transport.
It concludes with these words:
“In working for the retention and extension of tramways, The Modern Tramway has to cope, not only with ignorance, which is to some extent forgivable, but with interests far more difficult and involved; vested interests which care not for the economy of the country or the pocket of the citizen. We believe that tramways can not only give a better, cheaper, healthier service to the public than any other form of road passenger transport, but that they will materially contribute to the economic wellbeing of the nation as a whole. We believe this is worth striving for.” [1: p132]
In the intervening years, the UK saw the removal of almost every tramway network in favour of trolley buses and ultimately in favour of bus networks which were, at the time, seen both as a more modern and a more flexible solution to local transport needs.
There are a good number of examples on the continent of places which did not chose to follow a similar path.
In the light of development at the end of the 20th century and on into the 21st century, it is interesting, if not salutary, to consider the wisdom of the quote from July 1953, particularly in the light of the approaching 70th anniversary of that particular edition of the Journal.
“Tramways can not only give a better, cheaper, healthier service to the public than any other form of road passenger transport, but that they will materially contribute to the economic wellbeing of the nation as a whole. We believe this is worth striving for.” [1: p132]
We have discovered how valuable Light Rapid Transit options are within our larger conurbations and perhaps it is worth reflecting on, and appreciating, some of the prophet voices of the past!
Where would we be now if the debate which saw the removal of most of our trams had included more clearly the environmental benefits associated with those and future trams?
Also of interest on the same page of the Journal is an item about a visit by Councillor Hayward, a member of the London County Council, to Vienna for an international local government conference. Councillor Hayward praised Vienna’s local government, “with the exception of the city’s antiquated tramway system.”
‘Better left unsaid‘ was the title given to the editorial comment on the conference comments by the Councillor:
“We wonder how a Viennese visitor to London, standing in a rush-hour queue, would describe our inefficient bus service? The Vienna tramways, although not among the most wealthy, do their job well and efficiently; the tracks are in good condition, and if ancient open-ended trailers do appear on the streets in rush hours, this is at least the sign of an honest attempt to cater for the rush hour passenger who receives such a raw deal in London. Vienna received no new tramcars between 1930 and 1944, but a start has now been made on new construction; apart from 42 modern bogie cars from the Third Avenue Transit System of New York, post-war fleet additions include 50 4-wheel motor trams and 90 trailers, and the 1953 plan envisaged 36 modern bogie cars (18 motors and 18 trailers.). In addition, 217 older cars are to be completely reconstructed and modernised.” [1: p132]
A quick look at the tramway network which still serves Vienna, illustrates how valuable the historic network has become.
The trams in Vienna “are a vital part of the public transport system in Vienna. … In operation since 1865, with the completion of a 2 km (1.2 mi) route to industrial estates near Simmering, it reached its maximum extent of 292 km (181.4 mi) in 1942. In February 2015, … it was the fifth largest tram network in the world, at about 176.9 kilometres (109.9 mi) in total length and 1,071 stations.” [3]
References
Tramways and the Press; in The Modern Tramway, Volume 16 No. 187, July 1953.
At the end of a fortnight’s holiday in Co. Donegal my wife and I had 3 nights staying close to Dublin. We chose to stay in Howth as it was at the Northern end of the DART, but perhaps also because of its history and particularly for the Hill of Howth Tramway, or to give it it’s formal title, “The Sutton and Howth Electric Tramway.” The tramway should not be confused with the Clontaff and Hill of Howth Tramroad.
The Tramway served Howth Head, near Dublin. The termini were at Sutton railway station, by the entrance to the peninsula, and Howth railway station by the village and harbour of Howth.
The tramway operated from 17th June 1901 to 31st May 1959 and was run by the Great Northern Railway (Ireland) (GNR(I)), which viewed it as a way to bring more customers to its railway stations at Sutton and Howth. The tramway replaced a horse bus service, which had run since 1867. [1][2]
When it opened, “the Hill of Howth Tramway had eight trams, open-top 67-seaters built by Brush of Loughborough. … Traction current at 550 volts dc was drawn from the overhead wires by conventional trolleypoles. … In 1902, two further trams … were obtained. Nos. 9 and 10 were 73 seaters built by Milnes, the firm which also supplied Dublin’s first electric trams in 1896. There were 41 seats upstairs and 32 inside seats.” [9]
“The tramway also had a freight and engineering car, No. 11, built in 1903. This … had a cab at each end, with a wagon body between. No. 11 also had a maintenance tower and at least in its later years was fitted with a telephone which could be connected into the wires along the line.” [9]
“Around 1918, the original crimson lake and ivory livery gave way to varnished grained teak. When the colours changed again around 1930 to blue and cream, Nos. 9 and 10, being used so seldom, remained in teak. Reasons for their lack of use included [an] awkward seating layout and a tendency to derail because the motors were outside the wheelbase. Furthermore, cross springs were not fitted between the bogies: when these were added in the fifties, their performance improved. By then these two cars were in constant demand and the invariable choice of the many enthusiast groups visiting the line in its twilight years.” [9]
“No. 9 was the last tram to run in public service on the Hill of Howth on 31st May 1959, and thus the last to operate anywhere in Ireland. Following the closure, No. 10 was sent to Britain’s National Tramway Museum at Crich in Derbyshire, while No. 2 went to California and No. 4 to Belfast. Due to vandalism and apathy, No. 9 was the only survivor of three cars set aside for inclusion in a future museum” [9] at the National Transport Museum at Howth Desmesne.
“On 1 October 1958, Córas Iompair Éireann (CIÉ) took over GNR(I)’s operations in the Republic of Ireland, including the Howth Tram. [7: p32] A year later, the tramway was closed down. It was initially replaced by two CIÉ bus routes – numbers 87 (Sutton to Ceanchor Road) and 88 (Howth to Windgate Road). [8] Two routes were necessary, as several narrow hill curves were not passable by the buses used. Eventually, sections of the disused tram route between the Baily post office and the Summit were expanded to form an extension of Carrickbrack Road; this enabled a single bus route (number 88) to be used.” [1]
The area was then served by the 31, 31a and 31b bus routes, which operated from Abbey Street in the city centre. In winter, icy roads on the hill occasionally cause the bus service to be suspended, unlike the tram, which ran in all weather conditions. A public footpath now follows the tram route between Howth station and the Summit.
It is important not to confuse the Hill of Howth Tramway with the Clontarf and Hill of Howth Tramroad, a completely different company which ran trams from Dublin to Howth.
The Clontarf and Hill of Howth Tramroad Company (C&HoHT) “operated a tram service from central Dublin via Dollymount in Clontarf to Howth Harbour in the Dublin area of Ireland from 1900 to 1941. Formed in the 1880s, it was a separate entity from the other Dublin tramways, notably the Dublin United Tramways Company (DUTC), but worked closely with the latter, who owned the line as far as Dollymount, for most of its operating existence.” [5]
A horse-drawn or steam tram service for the Howth area was first proposed in 1883, by the Great Northern Railway (Ireland) (GNR), to bring more passengers to Howth and/or Sutton railway stations. The Clontarf and Hill of Howth Tramroad Company (C&HofHT) raised the idea of a circular line around Howth Hill. “Neither idea progressed, not least because the slopes of the hill were too steep to be safe for horses, or practical for steam power, though a line may have been considered using a viaduct over Balscadden Bay, just beyond Howth village, to keep gradients within the range of steam propulsion.” [5]
In 1890, the C&HofHT sought an Order in Council to allow it to build a tram line from Howth Harbour to Dublin’s fish market. It was intended that the line should have “a gauge of 3 feet, with lines running from Mary’s Lane past Halston Street to Capel Street, and then along Parnell Street and Summerhill, through Ballybough, Fairview, Killester and Raheny, then along the coast through the fields of Kilbarrack to Sutton and Howth. While this matter did not proceed, the company developed two new proposals after the DUTC received permission to electrify its lines. The proposed lines, at a gauge of 5 feet 3 inches, were from the DUTC’s terminus in the Clontarf area, via the hamlet of Raheny-on-the-Strand and Sutton, to Howth Harbour, and from the Summit on Howth Hill down past Howth Station and the Howth Estate to the gates of Claremont. The GNR made a two-part counter proposal, seeking to electrify their railway line from Amiens Street Station to either Sutton or Howth, and to provide a circular tram line, with connections at Sutton Cross and Howth, and with the trams able to move all the way to Dublin’s centre. The C&HofHT added a third element to their proposal, for a tram line from Sutton Cross to the Summit, and the GNR then objected to the whole package, and won. The GNR then received permission for its proposed circular line, which became the Hill of Howth Tramway, and dropped the idea of electrification from the peninsula to Amiens St., and so of trams through-running around Howth and to the city centre.”
The C&HofHT eventually received “permission for a line from the DUTC’s depot at what had become Dollymount in Clontarf to Howth Harbour, and this was enshrined in a Private Local Act of 1898, The Clontarf and Hill of Howth Tramroad Bill, 61 & 62 Victoria I, cap. clxxxii. This Act had its Second Reading on 3 March, and on 18 July was the subject of debate about the possible insertion of a clause requiring the purchase of rolling stock from England, the promoters having expressed a preference for buying from the DUTC, or failing that, from the United States. The bill was returned to the House of Lords on 26 July, and later completed its passage.” [5][6]
Construction costs ultimately came to £71,624. Much of the work was “straightforward, allowing for the challenges of building at the water’s edge, but there were difficulties with Lord Ardilaun, the Guinness heir, whose estate of St. Anne’s ran to the coast where the line was to be laid. At the time, there was no coastal road, and Lord Ardilaun sought multiple conditions in return for removing objections to the project. He received most of what he sought, including the provision that the trams would not stop along the margin of his property, and line construction proceeded. The line opened on 26 July 1900.” [5]
The company purchased twelve large tram cars (larger than those of the DUTC) “for its operations, each seating 74 passengers, 29 inside and 45 on the upper deck. The enclosed lower deck had a driver’s cab, and separate areas for each of First, Second and Third Class. The journey from Nelson’s Pillar to Howth took 45 minutes, and the price for much of the operating period was 2 shillings and 6 pence.” [5]
The C&HofHT approached Howth on the main road across the isthmus, ran close to St. Mary’s Church and to the railway station, under the viaduct which carried the actual Hill of Howth Tramway, before running along the Harbour wall. [10]A C&HofHT approaching the terminus at Howth on the main road and passing under the viaduct carrying the Sutton and Howth Electric Tramway just as a tram is crossing that viaduct. This photograph was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 7th March 2021 by Liam McLoughlin. [28]The terminus of the C&HofHT was at the East end of Harbour Road close to the Martello Tower at the landward end of the East Pier. [10]Looking East along the harbour wall towards the terminus of the C&HofHT. This image was shared by Hugh Walsh on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 22nd February 2023. [14]A C&HofHT tram standing at the terminus at the landward end of the East Pier at Howth. This photograph was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 12th October 2020 by Liam McLoughlin. [31]Another C&HofHT tram standing at the terminus. This photograph was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 13th March 2020 by Liam McLoughlin. [33]
“During the 1930s, the line became unprofitable, and when the GNR put forward a proposal to run a competing bus service on the Howth Road, and launch a bus to Malahide, the Board of the C&HofHT offered to end their service if the GNR agreed not to run a bus to Malahide. The line ceased operation on 29th March 1941, with the last tram to Howth, No. 294, departing Nelson’s Pillar at 11.45 pm, driven by Dick Ward. The company was wound-up on 1st July 1941, and the remaining tram cars were transferred to the DUTC’s Dalkey route, where they served until that line closed in 1949.” [5]
As we have noted already the Hill of Howth Tramway was more correctly called the ‘Sutton and Howth Electric Tramway‘. It was GNR(I) owned but made little or no profit for the Company. When Córas Iompair Éireann (CIÉ) took over GNR(I)’s operations in the Republic of Ireland, it reviewed all of the lines (including this tramway) over which it took control and the Howth Tram was replaced by buses within 8 months. It’s removal opened the way for the construction of a housing estate over a length of the route from Howth to the Summit Station. As we will see, this makes it difficult to be precise about the course of the line over that length. Much of the rest of the line can be followed relatively easily, either on foot or in a car.
The Routeof the Hill of Howth Tramway
The Ordnance Survey of Ireland (OSi) have relatively recently released both a 6″ and a 25″ national survey from the early 20th century. We will follow the route of the tramway as shown on the 25″ beginning at Howth and finishing at Sutton.
On this 25″ OSi map extract the ‘headshunt’ of the Hill of Howth Tramway can be seen running alongside the GNR(I) lines from the Claremont Hotel into Howth Railway Station. The C&HofHT can be seen as a single track tramway with a passing loop on the bed to the East of the Manse. [10]That headshunt was long, seemingly much longer than necessary. It certainly provided some storage space for the trams owned by the Tramway. This is a second extract showing the Tramway from the 25″ OSi mapping. [10]This next extract from the 25″ OSi mapping shows the terminus of the GNR(I) line. The Hill of Howth Tramway can be seen running to the rear of the railway station platform and then turning away onto the viaduct which took it over the Harbour Road. [10]A very similar area as shown on Google Maps satellite imagery in 2023. [Google Maps, 8th May 2023]
The photograph above shows Tram No. 3 about to leave Howth Station for Sutton via Summit Halt. This image is embedded here from David Bradley’s webpages with his kind permission. [13]
Looking West from the end of the platform at Howth Station. a single tramway line ran parallel to the main GNR(I) lines for some distance beyond the Signal Box before it was lifted with the rest of the tramway tracks. [My photograph, 8th May 2023]This view of the GNR(I) station at Howth from close to the signal Box, looking East, shows the tram stop backing onto the platform. This photograph was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 22nd December 2020 by Shay Larkin. [27]A view from adjacent to the Signal Box in 2023, looking East along what was once the tram line. [My photograph, 8th May 2023]Tram No. 2 and a sister tram at Howth Station. This image was shared by Liam McLoughlin on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 6th October 2015. [18]Tram No. 4 at Howth Station. This image was shared by Hugh Walsh on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 22nd February 2023. [19]A particularly crisp image of Tram No. 6 at Howth (c) Eamon J. Martin and shared by him on the Old Howth photos Facebook Group on 28th December 2021 [20]Howth Station with the tram stop backing onto the GNR(I) platform. This photo was shared by Liam McLoughlin in the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 22nd August 2020. [24]A similar view of Howth Station, this time in colour. This picture was shared by Liam McLoughlin on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 4th October 2015. [25]Tram No. 6 at Howth Station. The Signal Box beyond the tram faces out onto the platform of the GNR(I) Station at Howth. This photo was shared by Liam McLoughlin on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 8th April 2020. [26]Tram No. 7 leaving Howth Station with a service for Sutton via the Summit of the Hill of Howth. This photo was shared by Liam McLoughlin on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 4th October 2015. [25]Tram No. 3 arriving at Howth Station just having crossed the viaduct. This photo was shared by Lorenzo Caira on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 4th October 2015. [36]Tram No. 1 comes off the viaduct on its way to the terminus at Howth Station. This picture was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by Liam McLoughlin on 25th August 2020. [34]Looking along the viaduct at Howth from the GNR(I) Railway Station. This photo was shared by Lorenzo Caira on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 4th October 2015. [35]The Hill of Howth Tramway Viaduct facing West towards Sutton. This photograph was taken in 1902 early in the life of the tramway. [11]The Hill and of Howth Tramway Viaduct facing East towards the Harbour. This photograph was taken in March 1959 shortly before the closure of the line. It is in the public domain and is held by the National Library of Ireland and shared by them on Flickr [12]Given the vehicle visble under the viaduct this photo dates from the era when only trams No. 9 and No. 10 remained in the teak livery mentioned above. This probably means that the tram on the viaduct is No. 9 or No. 10. This photo was shared by Liam McLoughlin on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 17th June 2021. It was also shared by Gary Hitchcock on the same Group on 1st March 2019, he dates the photo as being taken sometime in 1959. [37]Looking East under the viaduct in the 1950s. This photograph was shared by Liam McLoughlin on the old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 7th January 2016. [38]The viaduct, looking West. This must have been taken very early in a morning as there is no sign of any road or tramway users/vehicles. This photo was shared by Liam McLoughlin on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 17th June 2021. [39]Looking across the R105 along the line of the old viaduct (from the South). [My photograph, 8th May 2023]The abutment of the viaduct hidden by the advertising hoarding. [My photograph, 8th May 2023]This extract from the 25″ OSi mapping shows the old tramway running away to the South after crossing the Viaduct. [10]Google Maps staellite imagery for the same area shows a footpath on the alignment of the old tramway. The length of the footpath which follows this length of the tramway is shown in photographs below. [Google Maps, 8th May 2023]After a short steep length of footpath from the R105 the footpath joins the formation of the old tramway which curves away to the South.[My photograph, 8th May 2023]These two photographs show that curve which brings the tramway onto a southerly path. [My photographs, 8th May 2023]The old tramway route heading South, viewed from the North. [My photograph, 8th May 2023] The footpath continues South. [My photograph, 8th May 2023]And again, looking South. [My photograph, 8th May 2023]A view back along the tramway looking North. The fencing is the boundary of Howth Deer Park. [My photograph, 8th May 2023]Looking South once again, with the Deer Park on the right. [My photograph, 8th May 2023]And again, further South and looking South. [My photograph, 8th May 2023]This view looks Southeast alongside the line of the tramway which at this point has begun to curve to the East through the back gardens of properties built after its demise which are on the left of this image behind the trees. The footpath leaves the tramway at this point. A housing estate has been built over the line of the old tramway from this point. [My photograph, 8th May 2023]Looking back along the old tramway route as it begins to curve to the East. Behind the camera, the footpath heads South away from the tramway, which at this point is approximately under the hedging to the right of the photograph. [My photograph, 8th May 2023]The 25″ OSI mapping shows the tramway curving first to the East and then back to the Southwest. [10]The satellite imagery from RialMapOnline.com becomes very useful from this point on as it maps the old tramway over the satellite image of the 1960s estate. The footpath, in grey, can be seen diverting away South from the line of the tramway as it turns East. [4]Tram No. 6 heads North towards the Howth terminus. The deer park is behind the trees to the left. The tram is just about to enter the straight length of line which bordered the deer park. This image was shared by Liam McLoughlin on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 6th October 2015. [21]Tram No. 4 in the final livery version is heading North towards the camera and Howth Station. The passing loop seen here is not shown on the early OSi 25″ mapping that is available. The school in this image also postdates the mapping. This image was shared by Liam McLoughlin on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 8th April 2020. [16]Looking Northeast on Grace O’Malley Drive with the school on the right. The green line superimposed on the photograph illustrates the line of the tramway. [Google Streetview, July 2019]This photo is taken looking down the line towards Howth. The low white wall prominent in this image can be seen beyond Tram No. 4 in the photograph of that tram in the last but one image. This image was shared by Liam McLoughlin on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 22nd August 2020. [22]The 25″ OSi mapping then shows another sharp curve which swept the old line back again towards the East. [10]The same area in the 21st century. The Deer Park is to the left of the image. [4}Looking Northeast on another length of Grace O’Malley Drive. The green line superimposed on the photograph illustrates the line of the tramway. [Google Streetview, July 2019]Tram No. 6 in its earliest livery climbing through the curves on its way to the Summit. It is probably travelling along what became Balkill Park. This image was shared by Liam McLoughlin on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 8th April 2020. [17]Looking North on Balkill Park. The old tramway route seems to skirt the left side of the end of terrace above, continuing to bear right through its garden and the properties on Grace O’Malley Drive behind. [Google Streetview, July 2019]Turning through 180° to look South, Balkill Park follows the line of the old tramway. [Google Streetview, July 2019]This next extract from the 25″ OSi mapping shows the tramway crossing Balglass Road at a level crossing. [10]The same area as shown on the map extract above as it appears on RailMapOnline.com. [4]Looking East-southeast from Balkill Park across Balglass Road/Balkill Road. at the junction the route of the old tramway heads East-southeast. [Google Streetview, July 2019]An unidentified tram crossing Basglass on 31st May 1959, (c) Barry Lacy. This image was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by Kevin Rickard on 27th September 2020. [15]Very approximately the same view as the monochrome image above but in the 21st century. The route of the old tramway is indicated by the green line. [Google Streetview, July 2019]Looking ahead to the Southeast along the route of the old tramway from the junction of Balkill Park with Balglass Road/Balkill Road. [My photograph, 7th May 2023]Looking back towards Howth along the line of the old tramway with Balkill Park ahead. [My photograph, 7th May 2023]The 25″ OSi mapping shows that the next passing point on the line was Dungriffan Halt which was situated to the North of Dungriffin Road between Cliff House and Boggeen Lane. [10]The same area in the 21st century shows a similar road layout and the footpath following the route of the old tramway. [4]Looking Southwest towards what was the location of Dungriffan Road Halt. [My photograph, 7th May 2023]Trams passing each other at the next halt on the route, Dungriffan Road Halt. This photo was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by Lorenzo Caira on 9th January 2022. [23]Tram No. 7 seems to be leaving Dungriffan Road Halt heading South towards the Summit Inn. This photo was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 6th October 2015 by Liam McLoughlin. [43]Looking Southeast into the site of what was Dungriffan Road Halt. [My photograph, 7th May 2023]The location of Dungriffan Road Halt as it appears in the 21st century. This view looks Southeast from the centre of the Halt towards Dungriffin Road. [My photograph, 7th May 2023]Looking South across Dungriffin Road. [My photograph, 7th May 2023]Looking back North across Dungriffin Road. [My photograph, 7th May 2023]The view South from Dungriffin Road in 2019. [Google Streetview, July 2019]This image shows an unidentified tram heading South towards the Summit Inn from Howth. It was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by Lorenzo Caira on 4th October 2015. [44]This view looks back towards Howth. Another unidentified tram heads towards the Summit Inn. This photo was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by Lorenzo Caira on 4th October 2015. [40]This view looks North down this length of tramway and appears to show Tram No. 6 heading South towards the Summit of Howth Hill. This photo was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by Liam McLoughlin on 6th October 2015. [41]The view South along the line of the old tramway between Dungriffin Road and Grey’s Lane. [My photograph, 7th May 2023]Looking South across Grey’s Lane. [My photograph, 7th May 2023]The view Northwest along Grey’s Lane across the line of the old tramway. [Google Streetview, July 2019]Looking North across Grey’s Lane. [My photograph, 7th May 2023]The next length of the tramway Southeast from Grey’s Lane as shown on the 25″ OSi mapping. [10]The same area as shown by RailMapOnline.com. [4]Looking South along the line of the old tramway a 100 metres or so from Grey’s Lane. [My photograph, 7th May 2023]Looking South along the line of the old tramway a 100 metres or so further from Grey’s Lane. [My photograph, 7th May 2023]In this extract from the OSi mapping the old tramway first crosses Kitestown Road and then turns to cross what was Lighthouse Road and in the 21st century is called Balkill Road. The Summit was reached after crossing Lighthouse Road. [10]The same area as shown on the map extract above as it appears on RailMapOnline.com. The new road is the route of the R105, Carrickbrack Road, which from this point follows the line of the old tramway. [4]Looking North along the line of the old tramway across Kitestown Road. [My photograph, 7th May 2023]Looking Southeast along Kitestown Road across the line of the old tramway. [Google Streetview, July 2019]Looking Southeast from Kitestown Road along the line of the old tramway. [Google Streetview, July 2019]Looking North along the line of the old tramway from the junction of Balkill Road and Carrickbrack Road. [My photograph, 7th May 2023]The view Southwest along Carrickbrack Road (R105). The green line marks the route of the old tramway. [Google Streetview, July 2019]The Summit Cafe. This photo was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by Liam McLoughlin on 6th October 2015. [42]The Summit Inn in the 21st century. [Google Streetview, July 2019]Two trams pass at the Summit. Tram No. 3 is heading for Howth and Tram No. 4 for Sutton. This picture was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 7th September 2016 by Liam McLoughlin. [49]In this image it is trams Nos. 6 and 7 passing at Summit Station with No. 6 heading for Howth and No. 7 for Sutton. This photo was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 4th October 2015 by Lorenzo Caira. [47]Tram No. 10 at the Summit Station. This picture was shared by Dermot Kane on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 2nd June 2020. It looks Northeast along Carrickbrack Road. The Summit Inn is visible on the right of the picture. (R105). [50]A similar view at the Summit in the 2020s. The Summit Inn is visible on the right of both this and the colour photograph above. The single storey building near the centre of this image can be seen behind the tram in the last image. [Google Streetview, March 2023]What looks like Tram No. 6 at the Summit Station heading for Sutton with two unidentifiable trams behind. This image was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 4th October 2015 by Lorenzo Caira. [46]Looking Northeast again at the Summit with Tram No. 1 in the foreground, heading for Howth and an unidentifiable sister tram beyond, heading for Sutton. This photo was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by Lorenzo Caira on 4th October 2015. [45]Looking Northeast at the Summit Station with Tram No. 10 waiting to set off for Howth. This photograph was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 6th October 2015 by Liam McLoughlin. [48]
The Summit was the usual tourist stop and was accessed either from Howth or from Sutton. Having reached the Summit from Howth, we now start the journey down to Sutton.
Trams left Summit Station in a Southerly direction. The road to the East of the line is Thormanby Road which was not suitable for the bus service which replaced the trams on the closure of the line. [10]The same area as that covered on the map extract above. This time as it appears on the satellite imagery on RailMapOnline.com. This length of Carrickbrack Road was constructed after the closure of the line. [4]This next extract from the 25″ OSi mapping shows the line continuing South. [10]The same area in 21st century. Carrickbrack Road continues to follow the route of the old tramway. [4]This next extract from the 25″ OSi mapping shows the next passing point on the line which was at the point the line met Thormanby Road. [10]The same area as it appears on RailMapOnline.com’s satellite imagery. [4]The confluence of the old tramway and Thormanby Road. The passing point on the OSi mapping is just off the image to the left. The picture was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by Lorenzo Caira on 4th October 2015. [56]Tram No. 3 at the same location. The passing loop is just visible beyond the tram. The building on the right appears on the postcard image above. This image was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 9th October 2019 by Padraig Druimeanach. [55]The same location again, after the lifting of the tramway tracks and before the construction of Carrickbrack Road. This image was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 25th February 2020. [53]The Tramroad continues in a westerly direction towards the Stella Maris Convent, as shown on the 25″ OSi mapping. [10]The same area on RailMapOnline.com. [4]The same location in the 21st century, Carrickbrack Road (R105) eventually replaced the old tramway. [Google Streetview, March 2023]Stella Maris Convent (Glenavena) owned land on both sides of the old tramway. The tramway was carried over the driveway on a stone arch bridge with retaining walls extending upwards on each side. [10]Approximately the same area as portrayed in the map extract above. [4]The tramway leaving Thormanby Road/Carrickbrack Road and crossing the stone arch bridge over the driveway.Tram No. 7 travelling to the Summit from Sutton is about to cross Thormanby Road/Old Carrickbrack Road. This image was shared by John Maguire on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 22nd January 2021. John tells me that the wall still has the hinges in place for the gate that can be seen in this image. [82]Looking West on Carrickbrack Road, the high wall on the left behind the speed limit sign is the same wall as shown in the monochrome images above. [Google Streetview, March 2023]About 100 metres West of the last photograph, this is the route the tramway was followed, alongside the high wall. [Google Streetview, March 2023]The full height wall and bridge carrying the tramway. The tram in this image is in almost exactly the same position as the one in the monochrome image above. This image was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by Shay Larkin on 3rd March 2017. [51]The next length of the tramway on the 25″ OSi mapping. [10]And a further length of the tramway on the 25″ OSi mapping. [10]RailMapOnline.com shows the area covered by the two map extracts above. [4]Looking West along Carrickbrack Road towards the location of Baily’s Post Office Halt which was sited just beyond the location of the bend ahead. [Google Streetview, March 2023]The next passing loop at Baily Post Office Halt. [10]The new Carrickbrack Road somewhat smooths out the tramway alignment through the site of Baily’s Post Office Halt. [4]Tram No. 9 at the Baily Post Office Halt. This image was taken facing Southeast and was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by Liam McLoughlin on 23rd October 2018. [52]Tram No. 1 at Baily’s Post Office Halt. This picture is taken facing West through the location of the Halt and was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 3rd March 2017 by Shay Larkin. [54]Looking West through the location of Baily’s Post Office Halt in 2023. [Google Streetview, March 2023]Looking East through the location of Baily’s Post Office Halt in 2010. [Google Streetview, July 2010]The tramway continued Northwest from Baily’s Post Office Halt. The 25″OSi map extract shows that from this point the old Carrickbrack Road ran alongside the old tramway, with the tramway on its South side. [10]The tramway continues Northwest on its way towards Sutton. [10]This RailMapOnline.com satellite image shows the length of the old Tramroad covered by the two map extracts above. [4]Looking Northwest from the location of Baily’s Post Office Halt along Carrickbrack Road in 2010. [Google Streetview, July 2010]And again, further to the Northwest. A passing loop can be seen to the Northwest of Rockfell. This was the Barren Hill Halt. [10]This extract from RailMapOnline.com’s satellite imagery shows much the same area as that in the map extract above. [4]Two trams pass at Barren Hill Halt. The nearest tram appears to be No. 6, the tram heading towards the camera is either No. 9 or No. 10 ( both of which retained the teak livery through to the closure of the line. The picture was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 15th October 2020 by Phil Hanlon. [57]The view Northwest through the site of Barren Hill Halt in the 21st century. [Google Streetview, March 2023]The 25″ OSi mapping continues to show the tramway heading Northwest for Sutton, at this point, before curving round to a northerly trajectory. [10]The next passing loop was just to the North of St. Fintan’s Well. [10]This extract from RailMapOnline.com covers the combined length of the two map extracts above, from Barren Hill Halt to the location of St. Fintan’s Halt. [4]Tram No. 3 at St. Fintan’s Halt, looking South. This photo was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 6th October 2015 by Liam McLoughlin. [58]The tramway continued Northwest running alongside St. Fintan’s Graveyard. Another passing loop can be seen at the top of this extract from the 25″ OSi mapping. [10]Tram No. 4 in the passing loop mentioned in the notes to the OSi map extract above, heading for Howth. This photo was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 9th October 2015 by Liam McLoughlin. [59]The tramway continues heading Northwest. [10]And again, the tramway runs on towards Sutton in a northwesterly direction. [10]This extract from RailMapOnline.com covers the same length of the old line as the two map extracts above. [4]This next extract from the 25″OSi mapping shows the passing loop adjacent to Strand Road. [10]This RailMapOnline image shows the ame area as the 25″ OSi map extract above. The Strand Halt is in the bottomright corner of each image. [4]Tram No. 10 sits at the Strand Road Halt on its way Southeast towards the Summit of the Hill of Howth. This image was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 22nd February 2023 by Hugh Walsh [61]The tram in this picture is just to the Northwest of the Strand Road Halt. It is difficult to make out whether it is travelling towards Howth (ahead via the Summit of the Hill of Howth) or Sutton (behind the camera). The photo was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 6th October 2015 by Liam McLoughlin. [62]This image is not clear enough to be able to give the tram number. The tram pictured has just left the Strand Halt heading for Sutton. The image was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 18th December 2015 by Liam McLoughlin. [60]Bus No. 31 heading for Sutton at a similar location after the closure of the tramway. This image was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 9th April 2017 by Liam McLoughlin. [63]The tramway ran Northwest along the South side of Carrickbrack Road with the water on its left. [10]it continued alongside the road heading towards the Strand Hotel. Both these map extracts are from the 25″ OSi mapping. [10]This extract from the satellite imagery on RailMapOnline.com shows the length of the tramway route covered in the two map extracts above. [4]Sutton Cross as shown on the 15″ OSi mapping. Its tramway halt was immediately to the Northwest of the junction. It can be seen on the top-left of this extract. [10]A similar area on RailMapOnline.com. As throughout this article the green line represents the Hill of Howth Tramway, the yellow line indicates the route of the Clontaff and Hill of Howth Tramroad. [4]Looking through Sutton Cross junction from the Southeast. The halt can be seen ahead. This image was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 18th December 2015 by Liam McLoughlin. [64]A tram crosses the main road at Sutton Cross. The road to Howth is ahead of the camera. This photo was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by Liam McLoughlin on 12th October 2016. [67]The view along the R105 towards Howth taken from a similar location to the photograph above. [Google Streetview, November 2022]Tram No. 3 just setting off from the Sutton Cross Halt. It appears to have just met and passed another tram heading towards Sutton Railway Station. That tram can be seen in the distance on its way to the terminus. This photo was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by Liam McLoughlin on 28th August 2017. [65]The site of Sutton Cross Halt in the 21st century. This view looks along Station Road from the junction at Sutton Cross. [Google Streetview, May 2021]A tram has just crossed the main road at Sutton Cross and is entering the Halt on its way to Sutton Railway Station. This photo was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by Liam McLoughlin on 3rd December 2018. [69]Tram No. 1 is just leaving Suttion Cross Halt and will cross the main raod before heading for the Hill of Howth. This photo was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by Lorenzo Caira on 4th October 2015 [70]Tram No. 5 sits in the loop at Sutton Cross Halt. Given the height of the photographer it is likely that they are at the front of the top deck of another tram which has left Sutton Railway Station on its way to the Hill of Howth and eventually to the Howth terminus of the line. This photo was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by Liam McLoughlin on 21st March 2018. [66]Tram No. 3 at Sutton Cross Halt heading towards Howth via the Hill of Howth. This image looks to have been taken from the top deck of another tram waiting in the loop at Sutton Cross, looking toward the terminus at Sutton Railway Station. It was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by Hugh Walsh on 22nd February 2023. [68]This extract from the 25″ OSI mapping shows the final approach to the terminus at Sutton Railway Station. [10]A similar length of Station Road Sutton as it is shown on Google Maps in 21st century. The tramway ran along the South side of the road. [Google Maps, May 2023]The view Northwest on Station Road in 2023. [Google Streetview, March 2023]The end of the line, or the beginning of the line, depending on your perspective! This last extract from the 25″ OSi mapping shows the GNR(I) railway station at Sutton, the Tramway Depot and the Electricity Generating Station built for the Tramway. [10] The same area in the 21st century. [Google Streetview, May 2023]Thye approach to Sutton Station from the Southeast on Station Road (R106). The tramway lines are represented by the green line superimposed onto the photo. The station building is much as it was when trams were running. The road is probably a little wider. The signal box is still present (in dark green on the left of this image). [Google Streetview, March 2023]
The photograph above shows a tram running parallel to Station Road with Sutton Cross 200 yards to the right and Sutton Station 25 yards to the left on the opposite side of the road. This photo is embedded here from David Bradley’s webpageswith his kind permission. [29]
Looking Southeast from close to the point where trams would swing to their right to cross Station Road and enter the tram terminus which sat directly alongside the GNR(I) Railway Station at Sutton. Sutton Cross is some distance ahead of the camera. The photo was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by Phil Hanlon on 15th December 2020. [76]Tram No. 6 or No.8 is just setting off from the Sutton terminus towards Sutton Cross. This photo was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by Liam McLoughlin on 5th August 2019. [75]Sutton Railway Station with a tram approaching on the Sutton and Howth Electric Tramway. This photograph looks East from what is now the R106. The photo was taken in 1902. [30]The view of the station approach from adjacent to the level crossing gates in 2023. While the tram tracks are long gone, the station building is very similar in appearance to that shown on the 1902 image above. [My photograph, 8th May 2023]Tram No. 6 waits at the Sutton Terminus before setting off towards Sutton Cross. This photo was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by Lorenzo Caira on 4th October 2015. [79]Sutton terminus once again, this time on the final day of the service. There is a suggestion in the notes under the photo that this is the final tram on that day. It may have been, although the numbers waiting toclimb aboard suggest that there may be other trams in the depot waiting to move forward to take a full load of passengers. This photo was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by by Hugh Walsh on 22nd February 2023. [71]Tram No. 1 leaves the depot and prepares to cross Station Road as it heads for the terminus at the railway station. This photo was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by Hugh Walsh on 22nd February 2023. [71]The 21st century view alongside the signal box looking to where the Tram depot was sited. [Google Streetview, March 2023]Tram No. 10 leaves the depot and is about to cross Station Road to enter service at the tram terminus at Sutton Railway Station. This photo was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by Lorenzo Caira on 4th October 2015. [74]Tram No 10 retained its teak livery until the end of the network’s life, as did Tram No. 9. Tram No. 10 is waiting for the tram to the right of the picture to clear the road from the terminus, before setting off from the depot to collect passengers. This photo was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by Lorenzo Caira on 4th October 2015. [78]The road crossing at the West end of Sutton Station. The tram depot was immediately West of the Station. This image was shared by Liam McLoughlin on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 3rd July 2017. [32]Tram No. 6 sits outside the shed in the tram depot waiting to go out on service. This photo was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by Liam McLoughlin on 13th December 2020. [73]Two other trams (no. 1 and No. 3) sit outside the shed in the tramway depot. GNR(I) main line carriages sit in the siding adjacent to the shed. This image was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by Liam McLoughlin on16th June 2019. [72]Tram No 10 is being wheeled out of the shed by hand. This photo was taken after closure and after the removal of overhead power lines. It was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by by Hugh Walsh on 22nd February 2023. [71]Tram No. 9 in its teak livery sits in front of sister trams inside the shed at the Tramway depot. This photo was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by Liam McLoughlin on 10th January 2016. [81]Another view of the interior of the shed at the tramway depot. The rather odd looking tram on what seems to be the central road is Tram No. 11 which was used for maintenance work on the network. This photo was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by Padraig Druimeanach on 15th October 2019. [77]Tram No. 11 out at work on the network at St. Fintan’s. This photo was shared on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group by Liam McLoughlin on 9th October 2015. [80]The Tramway Depot seen from the East with the Electricity Generating Station behind. This image was probably taken after the closure of the network. It was shared by Liam McLoughlin on the Old Howth Photos Facebook Group on 7th March 2021. [31]
As we have noted already the Hill of Howth Tramway was GNR(I) owned but made little or no profit for the Company. When the nationalised compnay, Córas Iompair Éireann (CIÉ) took over GNR(I)’s operations in the Republic of Ireland on 1st October 1958, it reviewed all of the lines (including this tramway) over which it took control and the Howth Tram was replaced by buses within 8 months!
London: Hansard, vol. 62, c. 1291 – 26 July 1898, House of Lords Sitting, Private Bill Business, “Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments, ‘Clontarf and Hill of Howth Tramroad Bill'”
Michael Corcoran; Through Streets Broad and Narrow — Dublin’s Trams; The Sir John T. Gilbert Commemorative Lecture, Dublin City Public Libraries, 2008.
Hill Of Howth Tramway Closure; in Irish Railfans’ News. Railway Preservation Society of Ireland. Volume 5 No. 3; 6th July 1959.
The headline image above shows a steam engine on the Viaduc du Caramel – in steam. [3]
My wife purchased two books for me as a birthday present a while back. They are written in French by Jose Banaudo. They cover the tramway network of the TNL, the Tramways de Nice et du Littoral. In the first volume there is a section about the tramways which meandered into the hills behind the Coast, one of which was the tramway from Menton to Sospel.
Among a whole series of different pictures, mainly old postcards, were some pictures of the line showing the operation of steam locomotives on the line and others of goods wagons in use between Menton and Sospel, particularly to deliver material to the construction work on the PLM Nice-Cuneo line..
One shows a small 0-4-0T No. 212. The manufacturer and the owner are not known. The locomotive is pulling a bogie truck and a wagon. Another photograph shows one of several locomotives destined for the construction sites of the PLM Nice-Cuneo line which were transported by tram to Sospel. It shows a German-built 0-6-0T which was partly deconstructed to be transported on a TNL wagon in September 1912.
A further photograph was taken in 1914. In this image the 0-6-0T Orenstein & Koppel steam locomotive No. 6871 of the Francois Mercier Company is about to leave the goods station at Carei in Menton, coupled with the shunter No. 13 of the TNL. This loco was photographed on a number of occasions by Engineer Jacques Schopfer coupled with the shunter No. 13 of the TNL on numerous occasions in 1914 – on the Viaduc de Monti, on the approaches to the Viaduc du Caramel, and stationary on the viaduct.
The Menton-Sospel tramway was used for the transport of material for the construction of the PLM line from Nice to Cuneo. In other pictures in Banaudo’s book we can see shunter No. 7 with a load of tubes on a flat wagon at the goods station at Carel in Menton and shunter No. 13 with a load of rails on two wagons before the stop at Villa Caserta.
The bogie motor-trams of the 213-216 sub-series with more powerful engines and braking systems were also used for goods traffic on the Sospel line: two pictures in the book show: one with a wagon loaded with a small steam locomotive at Castillan; and another with a load of long poles on the Caramel viaduct, from the collections of André Arutur & Jean-Jacques Stefanazzi.
This postcard dates from around 1914 and shows the Caramel Viaduct, with one of the bogie trams pulling a goods van. [2]
Goods trains were a feature of the line from the start, but there was a serious runaway of a goods service at Monti on 12th September 1912 which destroyed tractor 4 and killed its two crewmen. From 16th June 1913 a new service was started with two tractors 6, 7 (and 13 added in 1914) in the form of motorised box cars (known as fourgons in French), which were fitted with the same powerful equipment and brakes as the bogie passenger cars, and which pulled a variety of goods wagons.
Banaudo also tells us that in 1914, four passenger trips and three or four goods trips were made on the line each day, but like the rest of the T.N.L. network traffic fell off in the 1920s. During the building of the P.L.M. main line railway from Nice to Breil via Sospel, the line had a boost of goods traffic carrying many construction materials, but once complete in 1928 there was a huge drop in traffic.
Roger Farnworth 
