Trams versus The Railways

[Andy873]

I've just been looking again at some old OS maps (1895 & 1909) of the Burnley area, and of course I can see the tram system running along some roads. I was surprised to read that not long after the railway from Padiham to Burnley was opened to passengers (1876) that a tram system was installed in the area including a route from Burnley to Padiham (opened in 1881).

The railway went via Rose Grove to Burnley, the tram route went directly to Burnley.

Originally, the trams were steam hauled and the track was single with passing loops and was standard railway gauge.
The tram system was purchased by Burnley corporation who re-laid the network to a gauge of 4 feet and made the system double track with electric overhead wires in 1901. from then on until 1935 (on closure) the trams were electric driven.

The tram system reach all the way from Padiham to Nelson.

What effect did the tram systems have on the railways? It looked serious by 1903, have a read of this about Bott Lane Halt from the disused stations site.
Was it cheaper to travel on them as opposed to the trains?
How frequent were the trams?
The steam hauled ones could travel between 4 and 8 MPH, presumably the later electric ones went quicker?

Thanks,
Andy.

 

[edwin_m]

Trams, and later buses, were a major source of competition to the railways for shorter-distance urban journeys in the early 20th century. The train was probably faster station to station, but the tram was often faster door-to-door through having stops in more convenient places, and it was usually more frequent and often cheaper. Tram competition was one reason some companies with major commuter flows adopted frequent electric services, notably around Newcastle, Manchester and Liverpool. In London, short-distance services on the main line network were usually out-competed by trams or more often the Underground, and the rail companies tended to focus on the longer-distance market.

By time time traffic congestion started to significantly affect bus journeys (by which time the trams had gone), most of the railways that could have provided an alternative had been closed. Ironically some have now been re-born as modern light rail systems.

 

[Falcon1200]

Early in the 20th century the Caledonian Railway took over, during construction, the beautifully engineered, complete with several stations, railway from and around Paisley and through Barrhead to a junction with the Lanarkshire & Ayrshire Railway at Lyoncross, between Patterton and Neilston. There was also a branch to Paisley East. However, by the time the line was completed trams were running, more directly, between Barrhead and Paisley and the line never opened for passenger traffic!

There is an excellent book about the railway, 'The Paisley & Barrhead District Railway' (Jack Kernaham, Lightmoor Press 2016).

 

[Rescars]

As well as electrification, some of the halts (frequently upgraded to stations later) around London were opened in response to tram competition.

Some believed steam could compete. Holden proved the point to some extent with his Decapod loco. Others will know the extent to which tram and bus competition contributed to the creation of the Jazz service from Liverpool Street.

 

[Snow1964]

The London and South Western Railway suburban electrification was direct result of electric tram competition. Although they were helped by the stroppy Borough of Richmond blocking trams.

In Richmond a horse tram line (single with passing places) had been opened earlier from Kew bridge south side to near Richmond station), but never became part of the electric system, and they blocked tram tracks on the then new 1903 Kew bridge so trams terminated both sides. Richmond refused to allow line to be doubled and electrified. Tram tracks also ended at Twickenham side of Richmond Bridge, and at Ham boundary from Kingston (then nearer Bank Lane, before boundary was moved nearer Ham), and from Putney direction.

The electrification of SW London rail lines ground to a halt in 1915 due to lack of workers due to First World War, initially getting to Claygate, Hampton Court, Shepperton and Hounslow loop

 

[eldomtom2]

The London and South Western Railway suburban electrification was direct result of electric tram competition.

Well, that and buses and the District.

 

[Rescars]

IIRC, it was tram completion which caused the GWR to use steam railmotors on suburban routes in locations like Plymouth.

 

[Taunton]

IIRC, it was tram completion which caused the GWR to use steam railmotors on suburban routes in locations like Plymouth.

To an extent, but the principal use there was on the Plymouth to Saltash operation, across the bridge (no tram competition anyway) to Saltash, where the very restricted space available prevented normal run-round facilities, with frequent through trains on the main line, so the train just reversed in the station platform.

 

[Rescars]

Ah! Good points. I forgot about the Tamar. Oops!

 

[Cricketer8for9]

Trams, and later buses, were a major source of competition to the railways for shorter-distance urban journeys in the early 20th century. The train was probably faster station to station, but the tram was often faster door-to-door through having stops in more convenient places, and it was usually more frequent and often cheaper. Tram competition was one reason some companies with major commuter flows adopted frequent electric services, notably around Newcastle, Manchester and Liverpool. In London, short-distance services on the main line network were usually out-competed by trams or more often the Underground, and the rail companies tended to focus on the longer-distance market.

By time time traffic congestion started to significantly affect bus journeys (by which time the trams had gone), most of the railways that could have provided an alternative had been closed. Ironically some have now been re-born as modern light rail systems.

Broad Street was, I think the third busiest station in London in 1900. The traffic collapsed significantly with electric trams running to Dalston Jct, Highbury & Islington and Hackney. Similarly the South London Line lost huge amounts of traffic with the trams running more frequently and often more directly than the roundabout railway line.

 

[Roger1973]

A number of inner south London stations closed around / during the 1914-18 war, and tram compeition (more frequent, more door to door, possibly cheaper with 'workman' fares) was certainly a factor in this.

The 'Disused Stations' website has more on some of these stations, including Walworth Road, with some figures for takings before and after electric trams.

The other factor would have been the gradaual drift to the outer suburbs of the sort of passengers who commuted by rail to 'the city' and 'the west end' and inner London becoming home to a greater proportion of people who would work locally, or at more dispersed workplaces.

 

[Ken H]

The other side of the coin was the interferance of the rail companies in bus companies. Many bus companies were part owned by railways. MidlandxRed for a start.
In Yorkshire there were the joint operation committees made up of bus and railmen in Halifax, Todmorden, Huddersfield ans Sheffield. Some of this structure was still extant in the 1970's

 

[The exile]

In the early part of the century trams (electric) were clean and modern, as opposed to elderly, dirty steam trains. Fifty years later they were old, rattle and a hindrance to traffic. Add another 50 years and they’re the clean, modern, environment-friendly solution to local public transport…

 

[Ken H]

In the early part of the century trams (electric) were clean and modern, as opposed to elderly, dirty steam trains. Fifty years later they were old, rattle and a hindrance to traffic. Add another 50 years and they’re the clean, modern, environment-friendly solution to local public transport…

..Not helped by reusing old trucks with high unspring mass, only 4 wheels that must have punished the track. The DC motors were heavy and axle hung. And councils still running trams in the 1950's could get second hand trams from closing networks very cheaply.
In Leeds they had the rail cars which could have changed things. But they scrapped the trams. Here is a pic (not mine) of a Leeds railcar in N Leeds (Chapel Allerton) https://www.flickr.com/photos/fred_bear/50922976361 These vehicles had bogies so were better riding. I suppose a modern tram has AC motors which are lighter.
Spose modern power electronics came to late to save UK trams.

 

[Dr Hoo]

It's easy to forget how incredibly successful electric trams were, mostly generating completely new traffic although there was obviously some modal shift from horse-drawn omnibuses and pre-existing railway lines and stations.

In the heyday of 'peak tram' in the early to mid 1920s they carried 4.5-4.7 billion passengers annually, the vast majority in urban and industrialised areas. At this time heavy rail journeys, including long distance and in rural areas, were only around 1.7 billion.

 

[Ken H]

It's easy to forget how incredible successful electric trams were, mostly generating completely new traffic although there was obviously some modal shift from horse-drawn omnibuses and pre-existing railway lines and stations.

In the heyday of 'peak tram' in the early to mid 1920s they carried 4.5-4.7 billion passengers annually, the vast majority in urban and industrialised areas. At this time heavy rail journeys, including long distance and in rural areas, were only around 1.7 billion.

Then we built huge estates of low density housing- 'Homes fit for heroes'. The type of area its impossible to make a tram pay - indeed its hard for buses today

 

[edwin_m]

..Not helped by reusing old trucks with high unspring mass, only 4 wheels that must have punished the track. The DC motors were heavy and axle hung. And councils still running trams in the 1950's could get second hand trams from closing networks very cheaply.
In Leeds they had the rail cars which could have changed things. But they scrapped the trams. Here is a pic (not mine) of a Leeds railcar in N Leeds (Chapel Allerton) https://www.flickr.com/photos/fred_bear/50922976361 These vehicles had bogies so were better riding. I suppose a modern tram has AC motors which are lighter.
Spose modern power electronics came to late to save UK trams.

Most UK tram networks closed between the 1930s and the early 1960s, so before power electronics were a thing. The main reasons were the spending needed to replace worn out infrastructure and vehicles, trams obstructing or being obstructed by the increasing number of cars, and buses (occasionally trolleybuses) being more modern and therefore more attractive. Even places such as Leeds, which built reserved tracks in the outer suburbs, were still reliant on street running on older sections further in, and it's probably not a coincidence that the only survivor (Blackpool-Fleetwood) was almost 100% on its own right of way.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Tram tracks also ended at Twickenham side of Richmond Bridge, and at Ham boundary from Kingston (then nearer Bank Lane, before boundary was moved nearer Ham), and from Putney direction.

Ah, that explains why the trolleybus wires (which replaced tghe trams in 1932) never reached the Hawker aircraft factory, about a mile north of the boundary, despite the factory being used to build large numbers of trolleybuses between the wars.

Ham was a separate borough until 1933, when most of it became part of Richmond.

 

[Springs Branch]

One contributing factor (amongst others) in the success of trams over local trains was that trams were often more conveniently routed than trains regarding where passengers actually lived or wanted to travel to.

I suspect this was less of a factor in big cities like Birmingham, Manchester or London, but was quite prevalent in the industrial towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire which had local tramway systems - such as @Andy873's Padiham / Burnley / Nelson example.

In northern industrial towns, the original steam tramways and their electric successors tended to be built along existing main roads with one simple purpose of servicing the demand for local short-distance travel. However the railways had mostly been built with the objective of shifting freight and coal over both short and longer distances. Local passenger traffic would generally have been low on companies' priority lists.

Plus, hilly geography towards the Pennines meant that the course of main railway lines and the location of stations were not necessarily optimal to serve pre-existing towns and villages - e.g. the station might need to be a distance away from the town centre, or at the top of a steep hill. You could perhaps tolerate this for your once or twice a year trips to the seaside, but it would be a major nuisance for regular workaday journeys to work, shopping or leisure & entertainment.


The Wigan area had its own tramway system, outwardly quite similar to that around Burnley. It started with steam trams, then electrified, then closed completely in the 1930s.

Whilst there were local railway stations dotted around the Wigan area, these never carried a great deal of 'suburban' traffic, nor had particularly frequent local services. The stations at, e.g. Hindley, Standish or Pemberton, were usually poorly located for the main population of those districts, whilst the competing Corporation trams ran along the main roads and through the town centres - possibly right past your front door, or at the end of your street with a stop nearby. The trams were very well suited to local travel patterns of the era.

Another nearby example was the Bolton - Atherton - Leigh corridor, where the tramway was a much better option for the vast majority of people than the historic Bolton & Leigh railway, even with a change of tramcar part way along the route at Four Lane Ends. The busy 582 bus service still follows the route of the trams (and subsequent trolleybuses) today, but the parallel local steam trains via Atherton Bag Lane and West Leigh were discontinued pre-Beeching in the 1950s.

Then there was the frequency.
Apart from certain suburban lines around Manchester & Liverpool, you certainly needed a timetable if using the train, but trams were pretty much always Metrolink-style 'turn up and go'. See attached timetable summary for the Wigan Corporation Tramways in 1909 (electrified at this stage).

Typically trams every 10 - 15 or 20 mins, depending on section of route, running from 04:30 to 23:30.
Source is E.K. Stretch's book The Tramways of Wigan, pub. Manchester Transport Museum Society, 1978.

How frequent were the trams?
The steam hauled ones could travel between 4 and 8 MPH, presumably the later electric ones went quicker?

With electric trams, the ~3 miles Wigan to Hindley route was scheduled for 15 to 20 mins end-to-end. So around 9 to 12 mph - maybe up to double the speed of the steam trams (although in other towns & cities, in different operating environments, I guess 'your mileage may vary')

 

[Falcon1200]

Then there was the frequency.

Yes indeed; Even today, in the era of mass car ownership, there are 6 buses per hour, on what was at one time a tram route, between Barrhead and Paisley, something the railway could never have matched, even if both the Caledonian and Glasgow & South Western Railways had operated passenger services!

 

[Rescars]

One contributing factor (amongst others) in the success of trams over local trains was that trams were often more conveniently routed than trains regarding where passengers actually lived or wanted to travel to.

I suspect this was less of a factor in big cities like Birmingham, Manchester or London, but was quite prevalent in the industrial towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire which had local tramway systems - such as @Andy873's Padiham / Burnley / Nelson example.

In northern industrial towns, the original steam tramways and their electric successors tended to be built along existing main roads with one simple purpose of servicing the demand for local short-distance travel. However the railways had mostly been built with the objective of shifting freight and coal over both short and longer distances. Local passenger traffic would generally have been low on companies' priority lists.

Whilst more conveniently routed, trams didn't always run along the high street, even in LBSC territory with its extensive suburban rail traffic. As a specific example, Carshalton High Street was too narrow and awkward to accommodate trams, so Ruskin Road was constructed to provide a reasonably convenient bypass. The width of the B271 remains generous even now. There must have been lots of other similar examples.

One of the problems with trams in narrow town centres was finding the space for other road traffic to pass trams, as the tracks tended to be towards the centre of the roadway. Thus the dreaded roadsign warning about a "tram pinch" when things became a bit too narrow for comfort.

 

[edwin_m]

One of the problems with trams in narrow town centres was finding the space for other road traffic to pass trams, as the tracks tended to be towards the centre of the roadway. Thus the dreaded roadsign warning about a "tram pinch" when things became a bit too narrow for comfort.

This also meant that at many stops, traffic could pass between the tram and the kerb, and passengers had to board and alight across this lane, often at road level unless there was space for a raised island. I think there was a rule that drivers of other vehicles weren't allowed to overtake a stopped tram on the left, and some trams had warning signs. None of which was very good for passenger accessibility and safety, or for traffic flow.

 

[scragend]

I think there was a rule that drivers of other vehicles weren't allowed to overtake a stopped tram on the left

This is still a rule in Melbourne, where the tram network is kind of comparable to the ones the UK used to have. You aren't allowed to overtake a stopped tram until its doors are closed and the road is clear of pedestrians.

 

[Dr Hoo]

All of this stuff about the suitability of conventional tramways in the 1920s and 1930s and the economic problem of lack of provision for major renewals after around 30 years is hardly relevant to how trams undoubtedly knocked most urban railways in to a cocked hat in the Edwardian era.
In many ways this was a similar problem to what BR faced in the 1950s and 1960s - ageing infrastructure, rising car ownership and dispersed population against which many lines couldn’t really compete.

 

[eldomtom2]

All of this stuff about the suitability of conventional tramways in the 1920s and 1930s and the economic problem of lack of provision for major renewals after around 30 years is hardly relevant to how trams undoubtedly knocked most urban railways in to a cocked hat in the Edwardian era.

I have no idea how the rapid decline of tramways after their fairly brief heyday is irrelevant.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I have no idea how the rapid decline of tramways after their fairly brief heyday is irrelevant.

Err, because the OP was asking about events at the turn of the century (not what happened decades later)?

 

[randyrippley]

It's simple if you think about it.
Railways in the main followed existing natural contour lines like river valleys, often bypassing existing settlements but also catalysing new ones.
Trams followed relatively new synthetic contour lines along roads and town centres running through existing settlements.
Trams work best when added to existing built areas. Trains work best with new developments

 

[Andy873]

Thanks for all the replies.

I've joyed reading those replies and views, most interesting!

If we take a local journey from Padiham to Burnley in the 1880's this is what we can generally assume using @Springs Branch's Wigan tram timetable as a template...

By railway: In 1882 the train times from Padiham are at 1.5 to 2 hour intervals.
If we say there was a tram leaving every 20 minutes, that's 3 per hour.

If you had to wait two hours for the next train, you could have caught six trams in that time period. Now add in the cost factor, a tram ticket need only be what, say 2d cheaper for it to be more popular that the train. The down side is of course, you'd be travelling slower than the train and then there's all those stops along the way.

From the L&Y's point of view, their main interest was freight of course, but still you wouldn't be best pleased with a tram system opening just four years later touting all your potential passengers from one section of the line.

I've mentioned on another thread about Major General Hutchinson, he not only inspected the railways, but also the tram systems. One point of interest were hills.
During his inspections he would commonly ask the public to jump on the tram, deliberately overloading it to see if the engine could make it up to the top. He would commonly stop the tram half way up to see if it could continue from a standing start.

He also would take the overloaded tram back down to test the brakes!

One thing he could do (and did) was to object to a route going down a narrow road due to safety reasons including the risk of fire and the smoke from the engines.

A found a great site listing many tram systems from all around the country, this section covers Burnley:

Burnley and District Tramways

www.tramwaybadgesandbuttons.com

 

[Spartacus]

The LNWR's Birstall branch line was soon outcompeted by the parallel tramline for passengers, passenger services on the line ceasing during WWI and never resumed. However, the branch outlasted the trams in the end, the trams ending in the early 30s, beaten by a combination of competition from motor buses and being unable to bear the cost of renewing the fixed infrastructure (having been prompted, it seems, to convert to electric by competition from the railways), but the line remained open for freight until the early 60s.

 

[Rescars]

So far we have discussed the impact of competition of trams on railways. A different angle is the role that trams and tramways played as low cost feeders to the main line. As examples, Wantage, Wisbech and Upwell, Wolverton and Stony Stratford - all steam worked. Cruden Bay was electric. No doubt others can add to this list.