Consulter nos archives / Consult our archives

La majorité des documents conservés par le Centre d'archives et de documentation de l'ACHF sont disponibles pour consultation.

Most of the documents kept by the ACHF Archives and Documentation Center are available for consultation.

Canadian Rail 489 2002

Lien vers le document

Canadian Rail 489 2002

ISSN 0008-4875
Permit No. 40066621
SNOWPLOW MISADVENTURE -1940 ………………………………………. A.S. WALBRIDGE………. 150
THE ACADIANTOURTRAIN ………………………………………………….. FRED ANGUS……………..
THE BUSINESS CAR…………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………… 158
FRONT COVER: Former London Brighton & South Coast locomotive No. 54, Waddon, poses at the Canadian Railway Museum
on May
15, 1965, a year and a half after its arrival. This engine, the oldest in the CRHAs collection, was designed by William
Stroudly and built at the
railways Brighton Works in 1875. It was a gift by British Railways to the CRHA in 1962.
Photo by Fred Angus
BELOW: An elevation drawing of a typical Stephen
sol1-gauge locomotive of the late 1830s, about ten years after the Rainhill Trials.
It somewhat resembles our John Molson . Contrast this with the Brune! broad gauge locomotive of the same era on page 136.
Woods Practical Treatise 011 Rail Roads, 1838.
For your membership in the CRHA, which
includes a subscription to Canadian Rail,
write to:
CRHA, 120 Rue St-Pierre, St. Constant,
Que. J5A 2G9
Membership Dues for 2002:
In Canada: $36.00 (including all taxes)
United States: $31.
00 in U.S. funds.
Other Countries: $56.00 Canadian funds. Canadian Rail
is continually in need of news, stories
historical data, photos, maps and other material. Please
send all contributions to the editor: Fred
F. Angus, 3021
Trafalgar Avenue, Montreal, P.Q. H3Y 1 H3, e-mail . No payment can be made for
contributions, but the contributer will be given credit for
material submitted.
Material will be returned to the contributer
if requested. Remember Knowledge is of little value unless
it is shared with others.
EDITOR: Fred F. Angus
CO-EDITOR: Douglas NW. Smith
Hugues W. Bonin
LAYOUT: Fred F. Angus
PRINTING: Procel Printing
Postexperts .
The CRHA may be reached at its web site: or by telephone at (450) 638-1522
Fruit of a Poisoned Tree
The Stephensons and the Standard Gauge
by Jay Underwood
,–:- ::
While this photo of Great Western Railway of Canada No. 27 has often been reproduced, it is of interest because of the NG
sign on the front. This indicated that there were narrow gauge (i.e. 4 ft. 8 1/2 in.) cars in the train to which the locomotive was,
presumably, about
to couple. This was near the end of the era of the Provincial Gauge in Canada, during the time when the
Great Western was operating dual gauge track. Photo given by
John Loye to Donald Angus.
There is a tenet of law which posits that evidence
obtained by illegal means is tainted and inadmissible in
court as fruit of a poisoned nee. This principle can be
applied to the adoption of the current North American
standard gauge for railways, with the poisoned tree being
rooted in British history.
The year 2002 marks 130 years since Canada repealed
the act
of 1851, and thereby adopted the 4 8 W (1.44 m)
gauge as tile standard for its railways. This move was brought
about more by poEtics and pragmatism than by the technical
of the gauge made so prominent by George Stephenson,
the acknowledged father
of the British railway system.
The conversion began in November of 1872, when
the Grand Trunk Railway converted its line between Sarnia
and Buffalo (via Stratford and London) in order to
accommodate the interchange of traffic with connecting
American lines. The remainder of the Grand Trunks system
in Canada retained the 5 6 (1.67M) Provincial gauge until
October of 1873, when the line from Stratford to Montreal
was converted, and continued until 1874, when all the
railways lines east of Montreal were tumed over to Standard
gauge. The move effectively forced the Provincial gauge
Intercolonial, and smaller lines connecting with the
federally-owned railway, to follow suit in 1875, which may
be said
to be the year of the official adoption of Standard
This change has previously been documented in
Omer Lavallees Rise and Fall of the Provincial Gauge
published in Canadian Rail No. 141 (February, 1963). His
is somewhat pessimistic, for as we shall see, the Provincial
gauge has survived, and is alive and well
in several countJies
of the world.
Cross Sectiorv or SuperslrudureJ
N.B..R S.JJ.
_______ e ______ __
.–. -…. –…… __ • ___ … 24 _, __ .,._. _____ _
One of the few places in Canada where three gauges coexisted
was on the Niagara
Suspension Bridge. This 1855 scale
drawing shows the Stephenson (4 8112) gauge in the middle,
with the Erie
(6) gauge between the outside rails, and the
(5 6) gauge between the second and fourth rail.
The difference
is quite apparent.
There was no such official date in the annals of U.S.
railroading, the
change occurred gradually as the nations
network expanded from the northeast and later westward
with the construction of the Union Pacific-Central Pacific
national transcontinental line. As a brief history of the
of American Railroads notes:
In 1871, more than 20 different gauges were in
in the United States -ranging from two feet to six feet.
Moving passengers and freight was nothing short
of chaotic.
One railroads locomotives, passenger cars and freight cars
often wouldnt
fit on another railroads track.
Although there was no formal organization that
accomplished it, the railroads informally agreed to a
standard gauge
of 4 feet 8 l2 inches. Most American railroads
had converted to it by 1887.
For the most part, the early U.S. railways built on
4 8 12 gauge because the earliest locomoti ves were
imported from England, several
of them from Stephensons,
then the leading exporter
of locomotives.
While the motives for the change in the Canadian
gauge are clear, less well-examined are the reasons for the
of the Stephenson gauge, effectively taken in 1846
by an act
of the British Parliament, and in order to fully
understand the underlying causes, this investigation must
go back more than 170 years.
The first question that has
to be asked, is how the 4
8 Yz gauge was decided upon, and despite the often quite
scholarly debate conducted on the topic, it can only be
concluded it was a matter
of pure serendipity.
There is a popular notion the gauge was derived
from the width of the wheel ruts left by Roman chariots on
their roads in ancient Britain. This fanciful observation
patently untrue, and fails on two points. The first is that few
of the chariots preserved in museums today match the gauge.
The second
is that Roman roads were engineered specifically
to withstand the passage
of the chariots, and of the heavier
baggage wagons that accompanied a legion on the move.
These roads were designed for military purposes and did not
see frequent commercial traffic. The ruts found in the
remnants of the roads known today were left by wagons
built much later, after the Roman occupation had ended and
the roads had fallen into disrepair.
With the
British railways developing from the
northeastern coal mines like the Wylam (William Hedley
and Timothy Hackworth) and Killingworth collieries (George
Stephenson,) it is probably more true
to say the gauge came
about simply because it was the width decided upon by the
local wainwrights, hence all that was available to Hedley
and Stephenson
to use as part of the train. It is probably no
stretch of the truth to say the gauge owes its existence more
to the breadth of the backside of a stout Yorkshire pit pony
than any Roman thorQughbred!
While there
is no doubt the. father and son team of
George and Robert Stephenson were already on their way to
pre-eminence in the pantheon of engineers as Great Britain
led the way into the railway age, it was the nine days
of trials
at Rainhill which established them firmly at the head
of the
pack, and set the industry on a course
dominated by their
methods and principles even today.
Popular history maintains the Stephensons triumphed
at Rainhill as the result
of their superior engineering in the
now famous locomotive
Rocket, but a closer look at reports
of the times indicates the Stephensons indulged in some
conniving, to the extent one might legitimately claim they
The famous trials were held by the Liverpool &
Manchester Railway Co. prior to the completion of their 32-
mile track between the two great industrial cities,
to determine
what kind of locomotive would best serve the need of the
There were five principal conditions
of the trials:
1). Each
engine should weigh not more than six
tons, and be capable
of pulling a train equal to three times
that weight at ten miles per hour over a flat course, with a
cylinder pressure of
no more than 50 pounds per square inch.
The engine and boiler should be mounted on
springs, rest on six wheels (none of the locomotives met this
of the cri teria), and be no greater in height than 15
feet from the ground to the top of the chimney_
3). The engine should effectively consume its own
smoke. This did not mean there should be no steam.
By an
act of Parliament, the locomotives were not to be allowed to
emit smoke from their chimneys, thereby reducing the
nuisance about which a great many anti·railway interests
This rather fanciful illustration from a British newspaper shows Rocket triumphantly ahead of Sans Pareil and Novelty at the
Rainhill Trials. The scene gives the
impression the competition was more like a race, which Rocket has easily won, when in
fact it is doubtful the three
locomotives ever appeared on the track at the same time, and certainly never raced against each
other. Such
composite engravings were commonplace in the newspapers. Note the error in the illustration, which shows
Sans Pareil pulling its tender in the rear of the locomotive, when in fact it ran at the head of the train.
4) .. Each engine should have two safety valves, one
of which had to be placed well out of the reach of the engineer.
This was
to prevent engineers from tampering with the engine
in order to get more work out of it, a common practice in
those days, which occasionally resulted in devastating, and
spectacular boiler explosions.
5). The locomotive should not cost more than £550
to purchase.
The October 1829 trials offered a prize of £500 to
the engineer who demonstrated his locomotive could operate
within these parameters, determined by the engineers
of the
chief of whom was George Stephenson.
This is the first piece of evidence to suggest the
were not conducted in an equitable fashion, and that
fact George and Robert Stephenson had the unfair
advantage over the five other engineers who did manage to
get to the start line at Rainhill.
The importance
of the trails cannot be understated,
as Frederick S. Williams noted
in Our Iron Roads, published
… and though that amount [the £500 prize] was
comparatively insignificant, it was obvious that on the
successful engineer would devolve the construction
of the
stud of locomotives for the new line.
Robert Stephenson brought the now legendary
Rockei to the trials, and walked away with the prize even
though -contrary to the claims of popular histories -the
engine did not prove to be the best entered. Born
in 1803, to
father who was already well established, the younger
Stephenson enjoyed an exclusive education. In 1823 Robert,
his father,
Michael Longdridge, and Edward Pease formed
the Robert Stephenson & Company, at Forth Street,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and became the worlds first
commercial locomotive builders. It was George Stephenson
who recruited Timothy Hackworth as superintendent of
locomotive production.
Hackworth would become a competitor at Rainhill,
entering his locomotive
Sans Pareil, and a business rival of
the Stephensons for years afterwards.
Timothy Hackworth was born inWylam, near
Newcastle in 1786. Trained as a blacksmith, he became
involved in locomotive production when he was recruited
by Christopher Blackett
in 1808 to work at Wylam Colliery,
where he helped Hedley produce Puffing Billy. He also
worked with George Stephenson on Locomotion and was on
the engine as it
made its first public journey on September
27, 1825, the opening day of the Stockton and Darlington
The three competetors at Rainhill. From left to right: Rocket, Sans Pareil, Novelty.
Three years later the boiler of Locomotion exploded,
killing the driver.
The locomotive was rebuilt but did not
perform well, due to its inability
to produce enough steam
for a twenty-mile run. Hackworth assumed responsibility for
the project and enlarged the
Locomotions boiler, installing
his revolutionary return fire tube. This improved the
perfOlmance of the locomotive, but in 1827 it was surpassed
by Hackworths Royal George.
Hackworth, then manager of the Stockton &
Darlington Railway, brought Sans Pareil, to the Rainhill
trials straight from his workshop (he did not then have his
own factory), as did the team
of John Braithwaite and John
Ericsson, the only other serious contenders for the prize,
The entries of Thomas Brandreth (Cycloped, a horse­
powered contraption that was obviously unsuited
to the task)
Timothy Burstall (Perseverance, a similarly unlikely
candidate) are not considered here because their poor
showing was testament to both their design and operation.
The first suspicion that is aroused concerns the
of time the competitors were gi ven to prepare their
engines, if indeed, they were designing locomotives
to meet
the specific requirements
of the competition.
The interval between the advertisement of the event
and the opening day
of the trials, for example, did not give
John Braithwaite and John Ericsson
enough time to ensure
the seal of the boiler on Novelty, had set sufficiently to
prevent a rupture, which spoiled their chances of winning
the money, despite the fact Novelty demonstrated a prowess
equal to, and in some cases superior to, Stephensons
This was alluded to in the Liverpool Mercury,
published the day after Braithwaite and Ericsson withdrew
from the competition October 14:
It is much to be regretted that 77le Novelty was
not built in time
to have the same opportunity of exercising
MI: Stephensons engine had, or that there is not in
or its vicinity, any railway where experiments made
with it could have been tried.
Also significant to the trials was the absence of
Edward Bury, an innovative locomotive builder who could
not complete his engine
in time to compete. Had he done so,
given the standard of his work exhibited in other engines,
he would almost certainly have offered the Stephensons some
severe competition. Many
of Burys engines would find work
on the Liverpool & Manchester Railway, as they did on
other roads upon which Bury would later work. Robert Stephenson, on the other hand, arrived with
a locomotive that needed no repairs -in part due
to superior
construction at his Newcastle plant, but perhaps equally in
part to his prior
knowledge of the stipulations laid out for
the test.
George Stephenson designed Rocket specifically
for the trials, for which he helped draft the entry requirements.
Rocket came equipped with a multi-tube boiler, similar to
that designed by
French engineer Marc Seguin (intended
for marine use) which had been refined and patented a year
It has been claimed that George Stephenson was
in his design by Henry Booth, the secretary of the
Liverpool & Manchester Railway, and thus another
individual with a vested interest in the success of Rocket at
Rainhill is revealed. Other evidence suggests the
Stephensons were heavily favored from the outset.
order to appreciate this evidence, it is best to
review the trials on a day-by-day basis, using the authoritative
of Mechanics Magazine.
Day One: Thesday, October 6 1829
The questionable conduct of the trials began on the
very first day
when Rocket made the first test run, despite
listed third on the official running order. It is not clear
whether this was by oversight, because Novelty and Sans
(first and second on the list respectively) were not
ready, or because the Stephen sons wanted to make the
lasting impression. Mechanics Magazine made a wry
observation in its brief description of the engines
performance (bold type has been added for emphasis):
The engine which made the first trial, was the
of Mr. Robert Stephenson (the son, we believe, of
Mr. George Stephenson, the engineer of the railway.) It is a
large and strongly built engine, and went with a velocity,
which, as long as
the spectators had nothing to contrast it
with, they
thought sUlprising enough. It drew a weight of
twelve tons, nine cwt. At the rate of ten miles four chains in
an hour, (just exceeding the stipulated maximum,) and, when
the weight was detached from
it, went at a speed of about
eighteen miles an hour. The faults most perceptible
in this
engine, were a great inequality in its velocity, and a very
partial fulfillment
of the condition that it should effectually
consume its own smoke.
If the Stephensons had thought to set the standard
of competition, and make the most favorable impression on
the crowd and the judges by going first, they had
The inability of Rocket to consume its own
smoke was later explained away, but the magazine would
ABOVE LEFT: Diagram of the firebox of Rocket, showing
the multi-tubular boiler.
ABOVE MIDDLE: George and Robert
ABOVE RIGHT: Side elevation of Rocket.
BELOW RIGHT: Table of the performance of Rocket on the
first day of the trial, October 6,1829.
diagrams, as well as those for Novelty and Sans
Pareil, are from A Practical Treatise on Rail-Roads by
Nicholas Wood, printed in 1838.
I Time In
Time taken TIme in TJDlC taken stopping
find further fault with the design, a point frequently
ignored in popular history. Whatever advantage the
Stephensons might have sought by going first quickly
evaporated when Braithwaite and Ericsson drew
Novelty up to the start line, as Mechanics Magazine
duly reported:
gettin~ up
No.of: an
when the
t:>o~nlo~f Engine
. I Time In
own when the and getting
from Engine up the
The great lightness of this engine, (it is
about one half lighter than Mr. Stephensons) its
compactness, and its beautiful workmanship, excited
universal admiration; a sentiment speedily
into pelfect wondel; by its truly marvelous
performances. It was resolved to try first its speed
merely; that is at what rate it could go, carrying only
its compliment of coke and watel; with Messrs.
Braithwaite and Ericsson to manage it. Almost at once
it darted off at the amazing velocity of twenty-eight
miles an hour, and it actually did one mile in the
incredibly short space
of one minute and 53 seconds!
Neither did
we observe any appreciable falling off in
the rate of speed; it was uniform, steady, and
Some historians would disagree with this
appraisal, like Robert H. Thurston, in his History of
the Growth of the Steam Engine, (1878):
The little engine does not seem
to have been
very possessing
in appearance, and the Novelty is
said 10 have been the general favorite, the Stephenson
engine having few, if any, backers among the
Such was the confidence of the builders, that
Braithwaite publicly offered to stake £1,000 that he
could cover the entire length of the line wi thin an
hour, once the Liverpool & Manchester was complete
and open. A shortage of water and coke put an end to
the first day of the trial, with Novelty still to display its
ability to pull tluee times it weight.
Observations. Trips. stopping
No. ~ to Post p-the .peed of
No.1. No.1 to o.t No.2 the Train.
H. M • .. iI. H. a. H. H. S. R.M.S. H. M. B. H. M. a.
H. M. 8.
0 1 2510 ·SS 15 o 7 43 10 45 58
&alt.d 10 36 ro
…… …………
;;2i4 )
10 54 55 0 6 43 ……… 10 48
12· …….. •
10 58 87 ………… o 7 811 5 45
Slopptd to oil
2 11 18 42 0 8 22 ……… 11 10 20
11 21 10 ………… o 7 5211 29 2 ……….
o 2 45)
3 ……….. 11 8950 0 8 S …… _11 81 47
(0 2 55
………. 11
42 45 ………… 0 6 711 48 52 ……….
0 2 20)
4 ………. 11 58 15 0 7 3 ……… 11 51
12 ……….
(0 2 27
7 18
0 o 42 ………… 0 6 31
o 2 27)
0 15 45 0 6 5 ……… 0 9
40 ……….
0 17 50 ………… P 5
55 0 23 45 ……… ·
o 2 53)
Slopped to toke 6
0 35 20 0 8 42 ……… 0 26
38 ……….
in rix buckets
ofwater, fQual
0 S9 25 ………… 0 5 55 0 45 20 ……….
to 19 imperial
o 2 35) pliO.
055 SO 0 7 35 ……… 0 47
55 …… · .. ·
57 54 ………… P 5
40 1 3 34 ……….
o 3 14)
I IS 45 0 6 57 ……… 1 6
48 ……….
1 17 10 ………… 0 5 18 1 22 28 ……….
o 4 2)
1 33 35 0 7 5 ……… 1 26
30 ……….
1 35 50 ………… 04 12 I 40 2 ……….
o 2 1)
~~Ped at I 48 38
m the
10 0 I 23 1 47 15 0 5 12 ……… I 42
3 ……….
time of
mrting ——————
till noon 1113 10 028 84 1 11 471 2 21 0 29 6
oW time 3ll(8

Time in}
o 28 34

Time in gOin~}
14 8
30 miles atrul 2
Peed —
5todPi~g, 05740
Fiaton •.
Took in 16
Imperial Ual·
lona of Water.
TOP: Elevation view of Novelty.
ABOVE: Cut-away view of the boiler of Novelty.
BELOW: Table of the performance of Novelty at the trials.
Unfortunately bad weather ended them prematurity.
Diagrams from Wood, op.cit.
TIme In Time in iTlme taken getting up TIme taken Time In
No 0
and wben the coming up going down when the
Observation •. stoppang engane from post from
poet, engine trips. tbe .peed of
pused tbe No.2. to No.
I. to pused the
tbe train
at post No.1. post No. I. post No. ~ I POlit No.2. west end.

H. M. 8., B. H. M. S. H. M. S. H. M. S. M. S.
}{. M.S.
7 24
Started II 0 28
••• 1 •• o 1 20 11 1 48 •• II •••• II ••
o 5 86,11
11 16 88 o 640 ………… 1
11 9 58
I, II. It •••••
Time in
stopping and
~etting up t e speed
the eD~ine.
11:. M.8.
0 .. ··2·54)
It ••••••••
• I •• I. 0 1 20 ………… 0 640 o 5 86, ………… 0
2 94
o 6 40

Total timE – 0 12 16
distance 8 mile<;,
Day 1vo: Wednesday,
October 7 1829
The day belonged to
Braithwaite and Ericsson, as
Novelty continued to amaze the
crowd and ou t-perform the
Stephensons entry. Mechanics
The Novelty engine
of Messrs. Braithwaite and
Ericsson was this day tried with
a load
of three times its weight
to it, or 11 tons 5 cwt.;
and it drew this with ease at the
of 20 miles per hour; thus
itself to be equally good
for speed as for powet: We took
particular notice today of its
power of consuming its own
smoke, and did not any time
observe the emission of the
smallest particle from the
The weather put an end to any further
trials on the second day, but
Mechanics Magazine
noted while the attendance was down (the trials
had become a public spectacle):
.there were few of those absent -the
rs, men of science, &c.-whose presence
was most desirable.
Day Three: Thursday, October 8 1829
By far one of the most suspicious events
indicating the Stepbensons were enjoying
preferential treatment came as the judges
announced considerable changes to the
stipulations and conditions originally set out for
the trials.
These nine new stipulations -termed
the ordeal-affected the operation
of the engines
and the
manner in which the weight of the fuel
would be
considered part of the weight of the
locomotive. It is clear from
Mechanics Magazine
that the propriety of this sudden change was

We shall not go into a question
which has been raised, as to the
of the judges making any
alteration in the conditions
originally promulgated. We have a
pelfect persuasion that they have
no other desire than
to ascertain,
in the best manner possible, the
relative powers
of the competing
engines, and shall not quarrel with
for any mere irregularity in
the mode
of their proceedings. The
new appears
to us to be also, on
the whole, a
much amended
That these amendments were made before three
other competitors had been given an opportunity to perform
Rocket and Novelty had done, appears to have been lost
on the editors
of the magazine. It was clear, however, that in
one instance, observed by Mechanics Magaz.ine, the effect
was to handicap Braithwaite and Ericsson:
In the original stipulations and conditions, it
first ordered, that the load attached to each engine
should be three times the weight
of the engine; and then,
that the load drawn should be equal to twenty tons,
including the tender
and water-tank. To reconcile these
contradictory stipulations,
and to make provision for the
of an engine carrying (as Messrs. Braithwaite and
Ericssons does) its own fuel and watel; and therefore not
requiring any tender, the mailer
of weight was thus arranged
in the new conditions: The tender-carriage, with the fuel
and wat
er, shall be considered to be, and taken as a part of
the load assigned to the engine. And those engines that
carry their own fuel and water, shall be allowed a
proportionate deduction from their load according to the
of the engine. At first sight these seem very fair
conditions; and we have no doubt the intention of them was
to do equal justice to all parties.
The editors went on to note:
When attentively examined, however, they will he
found to have this defect in that they serve to place the
e, which uses a great deal of water and fuel,
on the same level with one which uses very little; thou
gh a
of fuel and water consumed, is one of the most
important improvements which can be introdu
ced into a
locomotive engine. As the judges could have no other
intelition than to place all parties on equal terms, they would
have done
better simply to stipulate, that the weight of
each engine should be considered to consist of its entire
working power; that
is, of the whole of the machinery, and
whole of the materials necessary for putting it in
motion. The matter would then have been
placed on its
just basis; and there would have been no chance of
any arithmetical mystification in the results.
It is again suspicious that Rocket was the only
locomotive to undergo a trial on the third day, according to
amended stipulations of the ordeal.
Day Four: Friday October 9 1829
Braithwaite and Ericcson were to have taken
Novelty onto the track for its test under the ordeal, but
elected to put any runs off until the next day.
Day Five: Saturday October 10 1829
The day nearly proved disastrous for Novelty, when
a s
mall pipe burst, forcing Braithwaite and Ericsson to send
for n
ew parts, and giving the Stephensons an opportunity to
Rocket twice along the track without any load or tender.
This was clearly not in accordance with the original
stipulations of the amended ordeal, but it gave the
Stephensons an opportunity to impress the large crowd with
the engines speed, which was nearly equal to Novelty.
Mechanics Magazine
noted, however:
The Rocket performed the seven miles in the space
of 14 minutes 14 seconds, being the rate of 30 miles an
hour.1 This was a rate
of speed nearly equal to the utmost
which The Novelty
had achieved; but as it carried with it
neilher fuel nor watel; it is not a speed which it could have
long sustained.
With Novelty repaired, Braithwaite and Ericsson
took the engine out for a run that was not considered to be
of the trial, but which was measured by an independent
engineer -Stephenson associate George Vignoles. Perhaps
in an
attempt to upstage Rocket, Braithwaite and Ericsson
then put on their own exhibition:
Another carriage, with seats for the
of passengers was now substituted for the
loaded wagons attached to The Novelty, and about forty­
five ladies and gentlemen ascended to enjoy the great novelty
of a ride by steam. We can say for ourselves that we never
enjoyed anything
in the way of traveling more. We flew along
at the rate
of a mile and a half in three minutes, and though
the velocity was such that we
could scarcely distinguish
objects as
we passed by them, the motion was so steady and
equable, that
we could manage not only to read, but write.
This observation would become an important
distinction between Novelty and Rocket.
Day Six: Thesday October 13 1829
Timothy Hackworth brought Sans Pareil up to
steam and immediately ran afoul of the judges for a weight
violation. Popular histories have always dismissed
Hackworths engine as being overweight, and therefore
unworthy of consideration at the trials. Frederick S. Williams
appears to have been one of the first to spread this
When the Sans Pared was examined, it was found
10 have been constructed in precise accordance with
the stipulations of the company, and therefore was, in
strictness, disqualified; but it was resolved that a trial should
be mad
e, and that, if it displayed marked superiority, it should
be recommended to the favorable consideration of the
In fact, under the original stipulations of the contest,
Sans Pareil was a qualified entry. At four tons, eight
hundredweight and two quarters, Sans Pared was only
slightly heavier than Rocket. Under the amended ordeal,
however, when the weight of the fully-fueled tender was
factored into total engine weight, Hackworths machine was
over the six ton limit by less than three hundredweight.
While it performed admirably, pulling three times
weight, in the eyes of Mechanics Magazine, Sans Pareil
proved it was at least second best in the competition
(although the magazine did not say which of Rocket or
Novelty was in first place.)
Before the trial was fully complete, however, a feed
pipe burst (an accident
similar to that suffered by Novelty)
and the judges agreed Hackworth would be allowed to
continue his trial on
October 16.
TIme In I
Time In
getting up Time taken coming
No. 0
and when the upfloom
Ob6ervations. TrIps.
8toPP~ Engine
J:~. the .pe of pasaed post the train
at No. I. to poet
west end. No. I.
H. :&{. s. H. M. S. H. M. S.
Time In
ing Tlmet&ken
when the
fIoompos t engine
No. I. pas.ed po,t
to post No.2.
H. M. S. H. Y. 8.
Time In
stopping and
~ettlng up t e
opeed 0
the train at
east end.
H. w. s.
LEFT: Side elevation of Sans Pareil.
boiler of Sans Pareil showing the return
of the performance of Sans Pareil
at the Rainhill Trials.
from Wood, op. cit.
BELOW: Portrait
of Timothy Hackworth.

Obsenllt!on •.

Started at 10 10 21 …… 0 I 910 II SO .,. I. ••. o 5 910 16 39
1 IO 26 22 o 7 37 IO 18 45 …………
(O …. ~ .. I.~
( ~~:~~:~:~
s ……….
(? … ~ .. ~.~
4 At •••••••••
(? … ~ .. ~.~
5 ……….
( ? … ~.~.~
( ~:::~:~:~
One of the wag-
e ~:::~::?~
gons got loooe.
8 ……….
Stopped at 0 ¥1 02
TIme till
noon -14939 0 19 47

Total time, 2 17 11

10 28 54 ……… P 6 3 10 34 37
10 43 46 078 10 36 38
IO 45 57 Q 6 810 52 5
?::::~::~~ )
11 I 37 07 21 t. tf •••• IO 54 16
II 4 12 ……… 05 34 11 946
O …. i .. S2 )
11 18 120 6 54 . …….. 11 II 38
……… ,
11 20 47 ……… o 5 39 11 26 26
O …. i·:~5)
11 35 170 6 56 . …….. 11 28 21
1] S7 57 ………
10 6
III 43 58
~· .. 4 .. ii)
o 55 21 07 12 ……… 11 48 9
…. · .. • ..
o 58 15 ……… o 6 22 0 4 37
0 15 12 08 1 ……… 0 7 11
0 18 43 ……… 05 31 o 24 14
~· .. 3 .. i8)
………… ……… …… . 0 27 32
…….. ,.
050 49iO 46 27 020 8
0 19 47
Time in going Time
In }
22 miles and a} 1
37 16
starting, ,
o 39 55
half at full
topping, speed – –
&c. –

Oiling car-riages, and repalring forcing pump.
in 8
imperial gai-
Ion. ofwater.
Took in 8 gallon. of
forcing pump.

Day Seven: Wednesday, October 14 1829
The full trial of Novelty proved to be
the undoing
of Braithwaite and Ericsson, for
not even the repaired pipe, or minor alterations
to other parts,
could prevent the boiler from
splitting at the green seams, where the
cement sealing the flanges of the boiler had
not been
given sufficient time to cure. This
ident was not, as popu lar histories have
stated (but which Mechanics Magazine
categorically denies), a boiler explosion. Later
the day, Braithwaite and Ericsson
announced they were withdrawing from any
further trials, and were prepared to let
be judged on its past performance.
Also participating that day was
Burstalls Perseverance, but its performance
was so
unexceptional compared to the three
previous entries, that the magazine saw fit to
dismiss it outright.
Significantly, the Stephensons chose
the seventh day of the trail to take Rocket on
another run that was clearly beyond the
of the contest, but which may have
been designed to upstage Hackworth.
After losing the battle for speed to Novelty, the
Stephen sons were well aware that Hackworth excelled at
producing industrial locomotives capable of hauling great
loads up some relatively steep inclines. Royal George had
proven the superiority
of Hackworths designs in that respect.
in order to attract attention away from the very large
load that
Sails Pareil would successfully pull in its first trial,
Robert Stephenson took Rocket to another part of the
Liverpool & Manchester line, in what Mechanics Magazine
called an experiment:
We were informed that, early on Wednesday
morning, before we reached the course, an experiment had
made with Mr. Stephensons engine on part of the
railway which runs with an inclination
of 1 in 96, and that
it drew up this plane a carriage containing
25 passengers,
with great ease.
In order to perform this experiment, Robert
Stephenson would have needed the approval and co­
operation of the railways chief engineer -his father.
The withdrawal
of Novelty, at least in the mind of
the Li verpool Mercury, left Robert Stephenson the clear
winner of the Rainhill trials, but another twist in the tale
made the victory appear even more inevitable, as
It appears that the gentlemen who were appointed
to act as judges, have had only the name and not the usual
of judges conferred upon them. All that they have
been required and permitted
to do is make an exact report
the Directors of the performances of the competing
engines; the Directors reserving to themselves the power of
deciding which is best entitled to the premium.
This clearly left George Stephenson in a position
to sway the board of directors, who would turn to him to
provide technical guidance to a body
of men who were not
Among those men would sit George Booth who
reputedly helped develop the multi-tube boiler used in
Had the competition been held in the modern era,
involvement of George Stephenson in the organization
of a trial in which his own son was competing would have
seen as a bl atant conflict of interest. In the business
ethic of the pre-Victorian era, however, there were no such
restrictions. Indeed, it was considered beneath the dignity
of gentlemen of honour and reputation to publicly suggest
another (or in this case two other) gentlemen of repute would
connive to
rig the outcome.
This suspicion was first hinted at by Mechanics
Magazine. In the October 10 edition, the magazine roundly
applauded the directors
of the railway, noting they were owed
a vote of thanks:
.. from the owners of the competing engines,
for the liberal encouragement by which they were induced
to start
for the plate, and the impartial spirit, (divested of
all local and personal influences) in which the competition
been conducted …
The three judges, however, were all men with close
ties to the Stephensons. John Rastrick was a personal friend
George Stephenson, as was Nicholas Wood, the manager
of Killingworth Colliery. Wood had been a mentor to Robert
Stephenson. John Kennedy, although not an engineer, was
one of the original incorporators of the Liverpool &
Manchester Railway, and participated in the hiring
of George
Stephenson. As it turned out, they would not make the
decision which ultimately favored the Stephensons.
Day Eight: Thursday, October IS 1829
This day was given over to the trial of Brandreths
horse-powered contraption Cycloped, which proved to be
not only inefficient, but so faulty in design the poor animal
fell through the floor while straining to draw the load.
Day Nine: Friday, October 16 1829
The final trial of Sans Pareil proved to be
Hackworths undoing, but it too is not without some
considerable suspicion. Although the first trial had gone
well enough, Hackworth had not pulled his train the sufficient
distance, all that
remained was for his engine to complete
the 20 trips along the three-mile length
of track. !;,/
This was made impossible by another mechanical
failure, when one
of the engines cylinders cracked, bringing
Sans Pareils trial to an end. Williams differs in his account
of Hackworths failure:
On its eighth trip, however, the pump that supplied
the water failed, and the accident terminated the
Because the cylinder had been cast at Robert
Stephensons foundry, there has been some speculation that
it may have been a case
of sabotage. Later historians believe
this may have also been George Stephensons intent. On his
internet website ( ukl
hackworth/hackworth7.htm) honoring Hackworth, John
Metcalfe claims, without offering examples:
In a series of letters to the Secretary of the
Liverpool and Manchester Railway, Stephenson did his
utmost to degrade Sans Pareil, clearly demonstrating that
he considered it a serious rival
to his own locomotive ….
The letters were probably unnecessary, since the
secretary was Henry Booth. Certainly Hackworth was
convinced his entry had been derailed. Spectator James
Dixon, writing to his brother on the day of the failure, noted:
Timothy Hackworth has been sadly out of temper.
openly accused all George Stephensons people of
considering to hinder him of which I do believe them
innocent, however, he got many trials but never got half of
his 70 miles done without stopping. He burns nearly double
the quantity
of coke that the Rocket does and mumbles and
roars and rolls about like a Empty
Beer Butt on a rough
This seems oddly out of character for a man who
also a lay preacher, but his Christian beliefs did not
prevent Hackworth from voicing his suspicions in a letter to
the railways board
of directors:
You are doubtless aware that on a recent occasion
the Loco Motive Engine Sans Pareil failed in performing
the task assigned
to her by the Judges. It were now useless
to enter into a minute detail of the causes. Suffice it to say
that neither in construction nor in principle was the engine
but circumstances over which I could not have
any control from my peculiar situation, compelled me
to put
that confidence in others which I found with sorrow was but
too implicitly placed ……
In the same letter, Hackworth denied having a
similar suspicion
of the board itself, yet perhaps by this point
he was also becoming aware
of the favoritism being bestowed
upon the Stephensons. Consider the failure of Rocket to
consume its own smoke on the first day of its trial. This
was later explained away by Mechanics Magazine as a
simple oversight:
We have heard that on the first day there was an
accidental intermixture of coal with the coke; a
circumstance which,
if true, would sufficiently account for
the appearance of smoke on that occasion.
Noting that in its later trials, Rocket showed no
signs of producing smoke, Mechanics Magazine appears
satisfied with the explanation. It does not explain how an
experienced engineer could mistake coal for coke, and raises
the possibility that after the superior performance
of Novelty,
Robert Stephenson made some well-timed adjustments to
locomotive. Indeed, over the years, Stephenson made
numerous adjustments to Rocket, resulting in a number of
different illustrations of the same machine.
It is also evident the directors, in awarding the prize
to the Stephensons, overlooked some design deficiencies in
Rocket, while similar deficiencies were held against Sans
and Novelty, both of which failed to complete the full
In their report
to the directors the judges attempted
to be fair in evaluating the performances of all three engines
on the basis
of the load pulled over the time of operation,
rather than the distance. This was meant to compensate for
the mechanical failures. Popular history has
judged Rocket
to be the winner based on its mechanical merit, but it is
evident the directors overlooked some serious faults that
were pointed
out by Mechanics Magazine:
The performances
of this engine indicate a very
and well sustained production of steam; but the
of sU/iace which it has been found necessQ/y to expose
to the heat, in order to obtain that effect, the great size of all
the parts,
and the quantity of fuel required -are faults
which even a still more copious generation of steam would
scarcely compensate.
It is not by means of its heavy weight
alone that such an engine would operate injuriollsly on the
rails. The chimney from its great height -a height necessary
to obtain that draught which in The Novelty is produced
by means
of the air-forcing apparatus -gives a swaying
to the engine from side to side; and the rails have
thus a lateral as well
as a longitudinal force applied to jerk
them out
of their places.
These same forces would make Rocket less suitable
passenger service than Novelty, something Robert
Stephenson would correct in the post-Rainhill improvements
he would make to his fathers locomotive. As for
Stephensons competitors, only Timothy Hackworth would
remain prominent in the locomotive market, founding his
Soha Works at Shildon in 1833. Braithwaite, Burstall
Brandreth would all fade from the scene, while Ericsson, a
Swede, would travel to America and continue a career in
marine engineering. In 1862, during the American Civil
War, he achieved his greatest triumph with the
Monitor, an
iron gunboat which revolutionized naval warfare.
The final judgment of Rainhill should be left to
Mechanics Magazine, although popular history has failed
to take note of what was written:
Now, though we are of opinion that The Novelty
is the sort of engine that will be found best adapted to the
of the railway; and are inclined to think that The
Sans Pareil
is at least as good an engine as The Rocket;
yet as neither the one nor the other has equalled The
Rocket in a performance, which had the winning of the
of £500 expressly for its object, we do not see how the
Directors can
in justice do otherwise than award that prize
to Mr: Stephenson. Besides, whatever may be the merits of
The Rocket, as contrasted with either of its rivals, it is so
much superior
to all the old locomotive engines in use, as to
entitle M f: Stephenson to the most marked and liberal
for the skill and ingenuity displayed in its
Others were more sympathetic toward Hackworth,
as Williams notes:
The opinion has been confidently expressed to.
the writer, that after all the Sans
Pardi was as good an
engine as the Rocket. The accident that led to its
withdrawment from the competition was trifling, and could
now-a-days have been repaired in two minutes. But it
frightened the driver, and he gave in.
It WOUld, not be the last time that a Stephenson
engine, though coming in second best, would end up in first
The most immediate effect of the Rainhill trials
would be to make stock in the Liverpool & Manchester
Railway a hot commodity. Some 10,000 people turned out
on the first day
of the trials, and the excitement generated by
event was unprecedented. The £500 award given to
Robert Stephenson was paltry compared
to the hundreds of
thousands of pounds the company made in the sale of stock.
It was also a paltry sum for Stephenson, compared
to the money he would make in orders for locomotives from
British companies, and from European and American
railways eager to get their hands on what was then perceived
be the best technology available. (The first British
locomotives imported into the United States were
Stourbridge Lion, made by John Rastricks firm in 1829.
and Stephensons
America. The America blew up the same
year, and the
Stourbridge Lion proved too heavy for the
& Hudson Canal Companys 4 3 (1,3 m) gauge
light rails and spent most
of its time in storage.)
As Williams noted:
The engines that issued, month by month, from the
factory, were a
continuous improvement on their
predecessors, until the Newcastle factory became the largest
and most famous
in the world. As railways increased, it sent
to all the countries of Europe, and to the United
States, and it manufactured about a thousand locomotives.
Economic success was
not necessarily an indicator of
technical merit, however. Ameri­
can railway official J.G.
Pangborn of the Baltimore &
Ohio Railroad, writing in 1893,
Hardly any two of
Hackworths engines have been
alike. Stephenson, on the other
hand, when
getting hold of a
good idea, repeats it
over and
over again. The result is
ephenson is making lots of
money and Hackworth is not; but
latter is compelling loco­
motive designers all over the
to step right lively to keep
up with him. 133
For the Stephensons
there were other benefits to be
leaned from Rainhill, not the
least of which was the hero
worship bestowed upon them by
a society in awe of its technology
inexorably driven in the
pursuit of progress. The
Westminster and Foreign
Quarterly Review was almost
obsequious in its praise of Robert
In this 1836 cartoon, satirizing the first railway mania, the gentleman on the left of a
porcine John Bull is saying; I as friend Mr. Bull, say that you are now rather intoxicated,
and would advise you before you give your money for these things to get a little sober.
Bull replies: I will have some shares, dont tell me … It is interesting to note that the seedy­
looking speculator with the map is also holding a prospectus for Stephensons railway to
Brighton, while
his nearest competitor holds a prospectus for a similar line bearing the
of the Rennies.
Healthy-bodied and
healthy-minded, apt in emerg-
encies, and yet
of slow, and generally of sound judgment,
Robert Stephenson may be regarded as the type and pattern
of the onward-moving English race, practical, scientific,
energetic, and, in the hour
of trial, heroic. Born almost in
the coal-mine,
of the racy old blood of the north, with a
father strong in mothenvit, stern of purpose, untiring in
patience, careful
of his small resources, keenly conscious of
the bounded sphere his want of early education had kept
him in till a later period
of life, and determined to pare off
from himself all luxuries, all but the merest necessaries, in
order that his after-coming should start fair
in life with that
knowledge he
himself held above all price -born thus,
Robert Stephenson was emphati
cally well-born. With natural
talents, good educati
on, a healthy /rame, the rising prestige
of his fathers name, little money, and a large demand for
original work in a working and energetic old world, he
went f
orth to the New World, and in the mines of South
America and their environs added new manners and customs
to his varied stock
of knowledge. More than all this, the
genial spirit that ever looked kindly on his fellow-creature,
with the intellect that could generally winnow the
from the true, marked him out for a leader of men. Not to his
mere mechanical skill does he owe his success
in life. That
might have been thwarted
in five hundred ways by interested
rivals; but men wish not
to thwart those whom they love;
and probably no c
hief of an army was ever more beloved by his soldiers than Robert Stephenson has been by the noble
of physical workers, who under his guidance have
wrought at labors
of profit, -made labours of love by his
earnest purpose and strength
of brotherhood.
Just as the Rainhill victory persuaded locomotive
to place their trust in Stephensons designs, it likewise
persuaded railway builders
to follow Stephensons practices,
notably the use
of the 4 8 W gauge. As a marketing tool, the
Rainhill Trials were a spectacular success, both in England
and in North America, as William
H. Brown noted in his
History of the First American Locomotives (1871):
experiments of Mr. Stephenson had been
carefully watched. His name and fame, as an eminent
engineeJ; were familiar to the minds of the people of this
country. His success with his Rocket excited the liveliest
interest here, and equally as much so as in England. His
bearing of the £500 prize was hailed with rapture by
thousands in America, who admired him
for his genius and
indomitable perseverance.
The events were also witnessed first hand by
American observers, as Brown notes:
The competition in England for the £500 prize
attracted many distinguished enginee
rs, scientific men, and
enterprising gentlemen, from all parts of the world, to
witness the contest. Among the engineers from America was

.P ~()
This beautiful example of Victorian engineering drawing shows a Great Western broad gauge locomotive. This was very
much larger and more impressive than the contemporary standard-gauge engines.
From The Railways of Great Britain and Ireland
by Francis Whishaw, printed in 1840.
notes in Life of Robert Stephenson (1864):
As a
member of parliament Robert Stephenson
voted steadily with his party, but he abstained from taking
in debates, unless the Commons stood in need
of his professional information or judgement. You
find a dying railway; you say to it, Live,
blossom anew with scrip; -and it lives, and blossoms into
umbrageous flowery scrip, to enrich with golden apples,
surpassing those
of the Hesperides, the hungry souls
of men.
Another powerful Stephenson ally, and
conunission witness, was George Hudson, the MP
for Sunderland (1846-59), and the major
shareholder in the Midland Railway. Hudson had
amassed a fortune in railway speculation -for
himself and others like the Duke
of Wellington –
through bribery and the liberal use of
stockholders money. Constantly speaking in
Parliament against any proposed government
supervision of railways, Hudson earned himself
the nickname of Railway King, and the
disapproval of such critics as the philosopher
George Hudson
Hudson was a close friend of George
Stephenson (at least until his political misdeeds began
catch up with him, at which time Stephenson
attempted to distance himself from the King.) He
was also Stephens
ons partner in some coal, iron and
limestone quarry ventures in the
Chesterfield area.
From 1840 to 1845, Stephenson
sat on the board of
the York & North Midlands Railway, one of the many
lines controlled by Hudson. By 1844, those
companies operated 1,016 miles (1,625 km) of track
built on
Stephensons gauge, Hudson had a vested
interest in ensuring his lines were not obliged to
Thomas Carlyle, who denounced him as a coiner, a gambler
and a bully
in the 1851 Punch alticie Hudsons Statue:
undertake the capital expense of converting their rights of
way and rolling stock to the Brunei gauge.
Monarchs and magistrates are seen paying homage to Railway King George Hudson in this 1845 cartoon published in
Punch. Although he was universally distrusted by the British press, Hudson managed
to retain his political power in the face
of public criticism, to the point that friends rallied to help pay his debts and secure his release from prison. Many attempted
to erect a statue in
his honour.
The two men moved in high circles, as this
biography of Queen Victorias reign observed:
The great man of 1845 was Hudson the railway
the Railway King. Fabulous wealth was
to him; immense power for the hour was his. A
seat in Parliament, entrance into aristocratic circles, were
trifles in comparison.
We can remember hearing ola great
London dinner at which the lions were the gifted Prince,
husband of the Queen, and the distorted shadow of
George Stephenson, the bourgeois creator of a network of
railway lines, a Bourse of railway shares; the winner, as it
was then supposed, of a huge fortune. It is said Prince Albert
himself had felt some curiosity
to see this man and hear him
and that their encounter on this occasion was
and not accidental.
The great man soon met his downfall, when a
committee began investigating his business
practices, and found Hudson habitually bribed other
Members of Parliament in order to secure favorable terms for
railways. Before long Hudson found himself in York
prison for
non-payment of debt stemming from his stock
trading practices. It is interesting to note Hudson also held
considerable influence in the affairs of Whitby -Robert
Stephensons riding -building several streets of houses in
the town, one
of which is named after him. No doubt he also
played a role
in helping the younger Stephenson get elected.
George Stephenson had his own stable of friends in high
places, even in retirement, as Thurston noted
in 1878:
His son had now entirely relieved him of all
business connected with railroads, and he had leisure to
devote to self-improvement
and social amusement. Among
his friends
he claimed Sir Robert Peel, his old acquaintance,
110W Sir William, Fairbairn., DI: Buckland, and many others
of the distinguished men of that time.
Peel was the Home Secretary when the Liverpool &
Manchester RaiJway opened, and Prime Minister when the
Gauge Commission held its inquiry.
The only witnesses who might have been expected
testify in support of the Great Western, were Brunei,
Seymour Clark (the GWRs superintendent of traffic), Richard
Down (contractor on the broad gauge Bristol & Exeter
Railway), Gooch, and Charles Saunders, the secretary of the
GWR. Most
of the other witnesses were either colleagues of
the Stephensons, or worked on a railway with which they
had been associated.
This is not
to suggest Brunei was deprived in any
of getting his views across. He was an able orator in his
own right, as John Pudney noted
in his 1976 work Brunei
and his World,
quoting a witness to Bruners abilities as the
engineer presented his arguments in favor of establishing
the Great Western to a parliamentary committee in the early
The committee room was crowded with landowners
and others interested in the success or defeat of the Bill,
and eager
to hear his evidence. His knowledge of the country
surveyed by him was marvelously great, and the explanations
he gave
of his plans, and answers to questions … showed a
profound acquaintance with the principles of mechanics.
He was rapid
in thought, clear in his language, and never
said too much, or lost his presence
of mind.
In fact, Brunei had political connections of his own.
His brother-in-law was Benjamin Hawes, the Conservative
MP from Lambeth (1836) who later became under secretary
of state for the colonies (1846), and author of the ambiguous
letter which Nova Scotias Joe Howe mistook as expressing
Imperial support for a rail link between Halifax, Saint John
and Boston.
As it was, even though the commission found
Bruneis seven-foot gauge to be superior to the Stephenson
gauge, it recommended adoption
of the narrow gauge simply
because so many lines in England had been built on the
Stephensons practice, made sublime
by the Rainhill victory.
The commission noted:
… that as to the safety, accommodation and
convenience of the passengers, no decided preference was
to either gauge; that with respect to speed the advantage
was with the broad gaug
e; that in the commercial case of
the transport of goods, we believe the narrow gauge to
possess the greater convenience,
and to be more suited to
the general traffic
of the country; that the broad gauge is
the more costly …
The report concluded:
Therefore, estimating the importance of the
highest speed on express trains for a comparatively small
of persons -however desirable it may be to them –
is of far less moment than affording increased convenience
to the general traffic of the community -we are inclined to
regard the narrow gauge as that which should be preferred
for the general convenience.
It is important to note that the commission based
its decision
not on the technical merits of either gauge –
although it certainly heard enough evidence from both sides
-nor did it
consider the merits of any intermediate gauge,
but leaned heavily upon the convenience of what had
apparently already become the de facto standard of railway
engineering at the time.
The Gauge Act was given Royal Assent on August
18, 1846.
The Great Western was not compelled to change
although the cost of conversion spread over
the 40 years was still significant. A point often missed by
popular histories, is that the difference in mileage between
the two gauges was less than 300 miles (480Km). At the time
of assent, the Great Western operated 1,901 miles (3,041
krn) of track, and the Stephenson gauge of the various other
railways totaled 2,176 miles (3,481
Ian). Almost half of that
mileage was controlled by
Hudsons interests.
Once again the
Stephensons had triumphed when
they had not proven their superiority, once again the
poisoned tree had borne fruit.
In the
United States, Stephensons gauge found a
champion in the
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, which ran its
own Rainhill-like trials in 1831, offering a $4,000 prize to
the winner. This was perhaps an attempt to emulate the
financial success
of Rainhill as much as it was to determine
what kind of locomotive would run on the B&Os track.
Unlike the Rainhill stipulations -which automatically
assumed the competitors would build to Stephensons gauge
-the B&O was quite definite in its preference:
The flanges are to ntn on the inside of the rails.
The form
of the cone and flanges, and the tread of the wheels,
must be such as are now
in use on the road. if the working
parts are so connected as to work with the adhesion
of all
four wheels, then all the wheels shall be of equal
diametel; not to exceed three feet; but if the connection be
such as
to work with the adhesion of two wheels only, then
those two wheels may have a diameter not exceeding four
feet, and the other two wheels shall be
fWO and a half feet in
diametel; and shall work with Winanss friction-wheels,
which last will be furnished upon application to the
company. The flanges
to be four feet seven and a half inches
from outside to outside. The wheels to be coupled
four feet from center to centel; ill order to suit curves of
short radius.
The competition was described by Brown as having
attracted .. .
… an odd collection of four or five original
American ideas, of which it is much to be reg relied that
and indeed detailed drawings have not been
preserved. Among these was a rotary engine, by a
M,: Childs,
which, I believe, never made a
revolution of its wheels,
certainly not
in the form of the locomotive. The engine which
took the premium was built by
MI~ Phineas Davis, which
was the model for those built after it
for three or four years.
British historian John Westwood (The Pictorial
of Railways, Bison Books, 1988) takes a different
perspective on the U.S. gauge question:
The coexistence in some parts of the United States
of 4-foot 8 liz-inch, 4-foot JO-inch and 5-feet gauges was
just as much an obstacle to low-cost long-distance
transportation as the coexistence in Britain of the standard
4 feet
8 Vz inches with fhe GWRs 7 feet. It .is quite likely that;
left to themselves, the British and American companies would
have never agreed on a standard gauge …
…In the United States a final decision on gauge
came latel; and standardization resulted not from
governmental coercion, but from the federal choice of 4 feet
12 inches for the first transcontinental railroad. This gave
standard gauge a valuable seal
of approval at a time when
it was used on barely
50 per cent of Unites States mileage.
The gauge question took a different route in the
British North American colonies. The first Stephenson gauge
line to open was the Albion Rail Road, a coal mining
operation owned by the General Mining Association of
London, in Nova Scotias Pictou County. Ironically, the first
three locomotives delivered
to the mines six-mile (lOKm)
route were built by Timothy Hackworth. Samson remains
today, in restored condition, at the provincial museum built
on the site
of the GMAs original mine.
The narrower gauge did not gain much acceptance
in the colonies. In
July of 1851, just three years after the
mother country adopted Stephensons gauge, the united
province of Canada (now Ontario and Quebec) adopted the
5 6 Provincial gauge as its standard. This gauge had been
to the legislatures of Canada, New Brunswick
Nova Scotia by Major William Robinson of the Royal
Engineers in 1848, after he surveyed the route for a possible
intercolonal railway from Halifax
to Quebec City.
Warning against the dangers
of building a cheap
railway, and using
some American railways as examples,
Robinson noted:
The whole of that part of British North America
through which this line
is intended to be run, being as yet
free from railways, the choice
of gauge is clear and open.
Locomotive Samson of the Albion Railroad was built by Timothy Hackworth in 1838. This drawing shows it in 1893 when it was
at the Worlds Columbian Exposition
in Chicago as part of the exhibit of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. It returned to Nova
in 1927 and is preserved. Worlds Columbian Exposition Illustrated Journal, May 1893.
Without entering into and quoting the arguments
which.have been adduced in
favor of the broad or narrow
oj England, as it is more a question of detail than
it will be deemed sufficient for the present report
to recommend an
intermediate gauge. Probably 5 feet 6
inches will be the most suitable, as combining the greatest
amount of practical utility with the least amount of
increased expenditure.
the object of proceeding on to the
consideration of expense of construction, the proposed trunk
line will be supposed
to have a single track with one-tenth
additional for side lines and turn
OlltS, to have rail 65 lbs.
to the yard, supported upon longitudinal sleepers with cross­
ties, similar
to the rail used upon the London and Croydon
line, the wood to be prepared accmding
to Paynes process,
to have a gauge of 5 feet 6 inches, and as a principle, the
of the rails to be kept above the level of the surface of
the ground, at a height equal to the average depth of the
American railway promoters were perfectly happy
with the cheaper narrow gauge, as Brown noted
in 1871:
In England the roads were virtually straight, or
with very long curves; but in America they were full of curves,
of as small a radius as two hundred feet. There
was not capital enough in the United States applicable
railroad purposes, to justify engineers in setting Nature at
defiance in their construction. If a tunnel through a spur
could be saved,
in an American railroad, by a track round it,
the tunnel would be avoided, and a circuitolls route adopt
although the distance was increased for miles in
so, if embankments could be saved by heading
in place of crossing them, it was done.
One reason Robinson recommended a broader
gauge was that his line was intended to have a military
purpose -the movement of troops and munitions from
Halifax to the Canadian interior in winter. As such, the
railway needed
to be able to transport heavy equipment like
cannons and shot as quickly as possible.
The eventual result of the adoption of the
Provincial gauge, was to oblige the Great Western Railway
of Canada to lay a third rail on the Stephenson gauge, in
much the
same way as BruneIs Great Western in England
would lay a third rail to run mixed gauges for more than 40
years after the adoption of Standard gauge. The Canadian
Great Western preferred to build on the Stephenson gauge.
Testifying before the legislatures railway committee in 1851,
Robert William Harris, president of the company gave the
following reasons:
First, its established character; second, the saving
of money in the superstructure (ties and rails requiring extra
for broader gauge); third, saving of expenses in
running machinery, for all time
to come; and fourth, to form
an easy and economical junction with the railroads of
Michigan and New York, from which the company expect to
receive very large additions to the traffic on their road, a
considerable portion
of which is expected to follow a Trunk
Line through the Province to Montreal.
It must be noted, however, that the Great Westerns
investors included directors of the New York Central
Railroad. The committee heard a great deal of contradictory
testimony from so
me very credible witnesses.
Erasmus Corning, chairman of the Utica &
Schenectady Railroad, spoke in favor of the Stephenson
gauge, for its ease of interchange with American lines, but
he admitted the relative advantages
of each gauge depended
upon the ability
of the roadbed to sustain the weight of cars
and engines. This was certainly true, and a telling
condemnation of the American proclivity for building
cheap railways.
Seymour, state engineer of New York,
acknowledged the difficulties caused by transshipment
between lines of differing gauge, but suggested all objections
to the broader gauge had been refuted by actual experience.
John A. Roebling (builder of the Niagara and
Cincinnati suspension bridges, and later the Brooklyn
Bridge) told the committee the Stephenson gauge was likely
to be the safer of the two, but he supported the broader gauge
it allowed for the construction of wider passenger
cars. He also noted the
Great Western should be allowed to
remain on the
Stephenson gauge because it formed a rival
route between
New York and Chicago. to the New York &
Erie Railroad, which would be of great importance to U.S.
shippers, and the principal investors
of the Great Western.
Thomas Rogers, of Patterson, New Jersey, the
celebrated locomo.tive builder who might be suspected of
having a vested interest in the construction o.f Stephenson
gauge engines, gave several practical objections to that
gauge, most notably the increased demand for trains of higher
speed. Kilally, then engineer for the provinces public
works department, testified the broad gauge should be cho.sen
because several miles
o.f it had already been built on the
trunk line
between Toronto. and Montreal. Kilaly rejected
the transshipment argument saying cars would always have
to be changed at the border. In this respect his judgment
ultimately proved to be faulty.
The committee, led by John A Macdonald (who
would become the first Prime Minister o.f the new Dominio.n
in 1867), decided in favo.r
of the Provincial gauge on July
31, 1851. The principle of the Provincial gauge was
enshrined in the colonys Guarantee Act of the same year,
to offer subsidies to railway pro.moters.
Clearly, what Messrs. Stephenson thought held less
sway with Canadian politicians than it did with their British
co.unterparts. By the time the gauge questio.n was being asked
in Canada, however, the Stephensons had begun
to lose thei.r
political clo.ut in Great Britain, beginning with Geo.rges
death in 1848 and culminating in Roberts failure
to be re­
elected in Whitby in 1857 (he would die in 1859), and
Hudsons fall from grace in 1859.
The Pro.vincial gauge decision was still being
questioned as late as 1871, by James and Edward Trout, in
their work
The Railways of Canada:

We incline to think that the weight of the evidence
was in Javor
of a four feet eight and a half inch gauge,
while that of five feet six was adopted. Even Mr rc. Keefer
[the noted canal and railway engineer] did not venture to
suggest a greater breadth than
five feet while expressing
the opinion that time would vindicate the sufficiency
of the
narrow gauge, and most of the authorities to which he
referred, including that
of Robert Stevenson [sic] were in
of the narrow gauge.
In the same year, the To.ronto Globe (Octo.ber 4,
1871) made a lengthy comment on the subject
of an article
Herapaths Railway Journal on the gauge question:
The general tenor of the article is of course what
might naturally have been expected from an organ
of the
Grand Trunk Railway. The article points out that while there
not a straws difference between the working expenses,
cost of construction must be materially less for the
narrow than
for the broad gauge, and concluded that not
a very wise and economical course will have been adopted
by the Canadian Government
if it builds the Intercolonial
on the broad gauge, and then afterwards the Pacific on that
of the 4 feet 8 Yz inches. Notwithstanding that the adoption
of the broad gauge for the Intercolonial renders it a feeder
for the Grand Trunk Railway.
The journal had argued that should the
Intercolo.nial change its gauge to the Stevenson gauge, the
federal government should pay the Grand Trunk fo.r the
of changing its gauge from broad to standard. The
journal, noting the GTR had already planned to change the
gauge on a po.rtion of its Buffalo and Lake Huron branch,
went on
to suggest:
… as to the greater part of the Grand Trunk, unless
the Canadian Government sustain the burden
of of gauge
alteration the Grand Trunk will not, we feel assured, spend
pound in change of gauge. A committee of Canadian
parliament in 1851 decided in favour of the 5 feet 6 inch
gauge, and therefore upon the Canadian Government rests
the responsibility
of the adoption of broad gauge. If a clwnge
is wanted, let the Government bear the expense.
The Globe bridled at this notion, observing:
We have always contended that in the selection
of route as in the choice of gauge of the Intercolonial railway,
the Dominion Government acted disastrously
for the best
interests committed to their charge; and so general had this
impression become that last session they were saved but by
a paltry majority
of one from a defeat on the latter question.
To argue, however, that by reason of now changing the
gauge of the Intercolonial to four feet eight-and-a-half
inches the country assumed the responsibility of changing
the entire
gauge of the Grand Trunk Railway is simply
The newspaper no.ted the Grand Trunk had already
decided upo.n a change of gauge for its own commercial
Already a change of gauge has been decided on
for one portion of the line, and if an equal necessity should
for a similar change to be made over the whole line,
we presume that it will be made. The projected railway from
Riviere du Loup to Fredericton, N.B. -taking that short
route which should at this time be occupied by the
Intercolonial -is to be built on the
American gauge, and
if the Grand Trunk
Railway wishes
to constitute it in any way
a feeder
to its own line, it will be formed
at any rate
to make its cars convertible.
This may, to a certain extent, solve the
whole question, in a slipshod
Provincial gauge, and intending at some
later date
to link with the Grand Trunk at
Quebec City. The scope
of the change of
gauge in 1875 need not be imagined; Ivan
Smith makes it clear in the notes on his
extensive web site
nshist06.html) of Nova Scotia history:
Beginning in the evening of
Wednesday; June 30, 1875, and
continuing through the night, many work
It is impossible to discuss seriously
proposition submitted by a
Ministerial Journal that the
Government should adopt the narrow
gauge on the Intercolonial, and expend
the amount thus saved in placing a third
rail on the Grand Trunk. Both matters
must be decided on their respective merits.
The neat operation proposed is
far too
of jobbery for it ever to gain
general approval.
The only real way in
which the matter can be effectively
disposed of is by at once altering the
of the Intercolonial to 4 feet 81fz
inches, and then leave the Grand Trunk
to do as
it pleases in the matter. If it
to lose so impprtanta feeder
by still. continuing its wide gauge it, will,
of course, do so. That it will not persist
in doing so
is certain.
I !T. m, m ,mlo ,m-Rm, /_
I ., , .. ::::::.:: -I
crews accomplished the task of changing
the gauge
of the Windsor and Annapolis
Railway, between Windsor Junction
Annapolis, from 5 feet 6 inches [167 em]
to 4 feet 81fz inches [143.5 em). This was a
complicated job, which included
changing all track and all switches to
the new gauge. Extensive
had been made in advance; a spike was
driven inside
to the new gauge on every
other tie and inside spikes were pulled
from alternate ties of the broad gauge, so
that when the time came to make the
it was only a matter of removing
the remaining inside spikes on the broad
gauge and sliding the rail over
to the new
and driving new outside spikes
on every other tie. Only one rail was
moved, with the
other remaining in its
original location. Marguerite
Woodworth, in her 1936 book History of
i . . .~6NllIRAJ.: . : J
~ • , ,,,,,, Y ,n, ~w., •. m … . . ~
, ~~_, ____ ~~~L ~ _____ A ,
A.C. Morton, Chief Engineer of theSt.
Lawrence & Atlantic, was a strong
There is too wide-spread a belief
in the corruption
and mismanagement
which has hitherto characterized the
financial dealings of the Grand Trunk,
for the Government
of Canada, no matter
, advocate of the 5 6 gauge; This 1847
report explains why the St.L&A, and
its U.S. counterpart the A& St.L,
adopted the wide gauge despite the
act of 1846 which recommended (but
not require) a gauge of 4 8 1/2.
how reckless it may be in other matters, ever to have the
to propose that any more of the country s money
should be handed over
to it. Apart from all other aspects,
M,: Brydges has a too well-known penchant for jobbery for
the general public ever
to see with unconcern money from
the national exchequer go into his hands
for the propping
up of his 1,400 miles of crash-ups and smash-ups. The idea
will not bear discuss
ion. A general change of gauge, to the
4 feet
80 inches standard will, we doubt not, at some time
take place. The Canadian Pacific and the New Brunswick
roads will be built
on it; the Intercolonial should be changed
to it at once; the Northern and other roads will very shortly
follow; and
if the Grand Trunk alone desires petulantly to
be left out in the cold, it will be its own fault. Of a certainty,
the tax-payers of Canada cannot be expected to contribute
another cent
to a road on which they have already laid out
so much, and which treats them so ill
in return.
On July 15, 1853, the Grand Trunk Railway was
incorporated by the amalgamation of the Grand Trunk
Railway of Canada, Grand Junction Railway, Grand Trunk
Railway Company of Canada East, Quebec & Richmond
Railway, St. Lawrence & Atlantic Railway and the Toronto
Guelph Railway. The Provincial gauge line between
Montreal and Toronto was opened October 27 1856.
In the meantime, Nova Scotia had opened its own
of the proposed Halifax-Quebec railway as the Nova
Scotia Railway, between Halifax and Truro, also using the the
Dominion Atlantic Railway, wrote:
The whole work was done in a Little over ten hours, with no
of train service. After trains resumed running
the new gauge, track crews went back and completed the
work by driving all missing spikes. All rolling stock, including
locomotives and freight and passenger cars, had to be
converted to run on the new gauge. The Dominion
Government exchanged the old, broad-gauge locomotives
for nine standard-gauge engines, and, in exchange for
similar quantities of broad gauge equipment, the
provided 14 pairs of standard gauge passenger
trucks and 145 pairs
of freight car trucks. Rolling stock was
nverted at Kentville by lifting each CQ/; then removing
old broad-gauge trucks, and placing new standard­
gauge trucks.
North Americans (and the British for that matter)
would do well to remember, however, that what they call the
gauge is not necessarily the international standard.
It is claimed that at least 27 gauges are in use on the worlds
railways, Indeed, the Provincial gauge, although no longer
in use in
Canada, still exists in Argentina, Chile, India,
Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Australia, Brazil and Ireland still
have lines built on the
5 3 (1.60 m) gauge, and the Russian
and Finnish railways operate on the
5 (1.52 m) gauge.
Safely insulated from the influence of the
Stephensons and Hudsons of the British railway world, other
railways were not so enthusiastic about using the Stephenson
In Russia, the adoption of the five foot gauge was
achieved through less democratic measures than a
parliamentary commission. Despite the fact that Stephenson
locomotives were among the first imported for Czar Nicholas
1s Tsarkoseloye railway
(1837), linking his palaces at St.
Petersburg (then the imperial capital) to his holiday residence
15 miles (24 km) away, and that at least two other lines had
been built in the intervening period, the Czar was persuaded
by his
American engineer George Washington Whistler
(1800-1849), to use the five foot gauge on the St. Petersburg­
Moscow railroad when construction began in 1846.
The line
opened in 1851.
Whistler, a graduate of the West Point military
academy, had previously surveyed the Western Railroad
(incorporated in 1833) from Worcester, Massachusetts the
State Line to New York, to connect Boston with the Erie
Canal. He was given the challenge
of engineering the route
through the Berkshire Mountains. [He was also the father
the well known artist James McNeil Whistler whose painting
Whistlers Mother is world famous].
The five-foot gauge became the standard by royal
decree, and was used when the TransSiberian railway was
begun in 1891, but this did not
prevent smaller, privately­
built Russian lines from adopting narrow gauges.
The Stephenson gauge might have gained favor in
Spain had George
Stephenson shown more enthusiasm for
the region. He lost his opportunity
to influence the Spanish,
however, when he wrote his famous 29-word report on the
potential for railways there in 1845:
I have been a month in the country, but have not
seen during the whole time
of that enough people of the
right sort
to fill a single train.
One can only wonder what Stephenson meant by the
right sort
of people. As it happened, royal decree was also
to establish the Castilian gauge of five foot six inches
to the Canadian Provincial gauge) in 1844. This was
also a strategic move by the Spanish to prevent French
railways from making direct connections into the Iberian
Peninsula; such was the measure of distrust between the two
The Portuguese were not long in following suit,
with conversion
of the Stephenson gauge Eastern Railway
111 1861, and the Southern Railway in 1864.
is not to suggest the British influence was lacking
Portugal. On May 13, 1853, a contract between the
government and British engineer Hardy Hislop, director and
representative of the Peninsular Central Company, was
signed for the construction
of a railway from Lisbon to the
Spanish border, passing through Santarem. This line was
built on the Castilian gauge.
With British military
engineers so involved in the
of railways in India, Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon)
and Pakistan, it is little wonder the Provincial gauge would
find favor in that part
of the empire. Indeed, as construction
of many of the British North American railways got underway
according to the Robinson recommendations of 1848, the
first railway on Indian sub-continent opened over a 21-mile
km) stretch from Bombay to Thane. As the web site
( of Indian
Railways notes:
The idea of a railway to connect Bombay with
Thane, Kalyan and with the Thal and Bhore Ghats inclines
first occurred
to MI~ George Clark, the Chief Engineer of
the Bombay Government, during a visit to Bhandup in 1843.
The formal inauguration ceremony was peliormed on 16th
April 185
3, when 14 railway carriages carrying about 400
guests left Bori Bunder at 3.30 pm amidst the loud applause
of a vast multitude and to the salute of 21 guns.
The Indian railways spread quickly, and although
the meter
gauge and two other narrow gauges were used in
mountainous areas, the five foot six inch width became the
without having been designated by any governing
authority, as the Indian Railways web site notes:
In south the first line was opened on 1st July, 1856
by the Madras Railway Company. It ran between
Veyasarpandy and Walajah Road (Arcot), a distance
of 63
miles. In the North a length
of 119 miles of line was laid
Allahabad to Kanpur on 3rd March 1859. The first
section from Hathras Road to Mathura Cantonment was
to traffic on 19th October, 1875.
At no time, it seems, did the colonial British feel
obliged to follow the conventional wisdom of the
Stephensons at home, or in the American colonies, and even
today, under what the Indian government calls Project Uni­
gauge, the five foot six inch gauge
is triumphing where it
failed in North America:
Project uni-gauge has been undertaken to develop
alternative routes to connect important places with the
broad gauge network, develop
backward regions and avoid
problems faced at transshipment points. During the Eighth
6,733 km .of meter and.narrow,gauge track were
In the Ninth Plan, conversion of another 6,200
km has been, pl.anned.
A different approach was taken in Ireland, where
the Stephenson gauge was the first adopted. It did not meet
with the political approval it enjoyed in England, and
compromise appeared to be out of the question, as Mike
lrlams web site ( history
The first three railways had lines of three different
gauges, the
dimensions being: Dublin and Kingstown
Railway, 4 ft. 8Y2 in.; Ulster Railway, 6 ft. 2 in.; Dublin and
Drogheda Railway,
5 ft. 3 in. According to one legend, the
of the Ulster Railway and those of the Dublin and
Drogheda line deliberately planned the tracks on different
gauges, so that
if two lines ever met, neither company could
use the rolling-stock
of the other.
The six-mile long Dublin & Kingstown Railway
was constructed by William Dargan, and opened on
December 17, 1834. Durgan consulted with George
Stephenson on the design of the railway, but it is clear the
of Stephenson did not hold the same weight it had in
England, as Irlam notes:
A Royal Commission was set up to report on the
muddle, with the result that the width
of the Irish gauge was
fixed at 5 ft. 3 in. The gauge of the Ulster Railway was
altered about 1846, and that
of the Dublin and Kingstown
Railway in 1857, the alteration costing the latter company
The last Provincial gauge railway in Canada was the Carillon & Grenville, which did not connect with any other line. It continued
to use 18505 equipment until it was .abandoned in 1910. This view dates from the 18905.
The commission was headed by Major General
Charles WilJiam Pasley
of the Royal Engineers, on behalf of
the Board of Trade. Irish legend claims Pasley effected the
ultimate compromise, simply halving the difference between
the narrow (Stephenson) gauge and the Ulster Railway (the
of the three). In fact, since Irish railways were built
more for the transport of passengers than freight, his prime
consideration may have been the broad gauges ability to
carry people
in more comfort, while the Dublin & Drogheda
Railway had the greater length
of track.
In Outline of Irish Railway History (David &
Charles, 1974), H.C. Casserly maintains the Stephensons
were consulted by Pasley:
The Stephensons suggested as a compromise for
Ireland something between 5 ft. 0 in. and 5 ft. 6 in., where­
upon the major-general came up with the discovery that the
average between the
two figures was exactly 5 ft. 3 in., and
this was the figure which was decided upon.
In doing so, the engineer unwittingly validated
the benefit
of the broader gauge so readily dismissed by the
Gauge Commission:
The little extra width in most Irish coaches makes
an appreciable difference in comfort to the four-a-side
arrangement in main-line coaches, both of the side corridor
and center gangway type.
Australias experience proved to be an even more
tangled web than Ireland, best described by Westwood:
Australia was less fortunate. The British
government, bearing in mind the trouble experienced with
the Great Western broad gauge at home, was anxious that
each of the colonies in Australia should have the same
gauge. Australias first railway, from Melbourne
to Port
Melbourne, was
of the 5-foot 3-inch gauge, whereas the second, from Sydney
to Parramatta, was 4 feet 8 i2 inches.
New South Wales administration was persuaded to
to 5 feet 3 inches, but before doing do it reduced the
of its chief engineer, who resigned. His successor,
from England, was a strong supporter
of the 4100/ 8 i2-inch
gauge and persuaded the New South Wales government to
continue with that gauge. Any hope of a standard gauge in
Australia was thereby lost. Latel; Western Australia and
Queensland chose three feet six inches, South Australia
stayed with adjacent Victoria on the 5-/00t 3-inch gauge
while Tasmania, starting with 5 feet 3 inches for its
Launceston to Deloraine line in
1871, soon changed its
mind and adopted 3 feet six inches.
Australia did not come close to adopting the
Standard gauge until 1960.
The evidence presented here is admittedly
circumstantial, but it is also substantial, and compelling
enough to allow the conclusion that North America adopted
the wrong gauge for the wrong reasons, and that the merits
of a broader gauge deserve review.
As the railway industry seeks ways
to compete with
the surface and airline modes for both freight and passenger
business, it seems broad gauge offers the greater advantages
of increased loads and more comfortable passenger
accommodation at higher speeds.
If a link with European and Asian rail systems by
of an Alaskan-Siberian tunnel, an idea that has been
vaunted at several times in the past, comes to fruition it
could mark the next engineering milestone in the
development of the North American railway system. However
Stephenson gauge, whether or not it is the fruit of a
poisoned tree, is here to stay and any connection with the
Russian railways will have to contend with that fact.
A Second Look at Canadas First
Railway Timetable
by Herb MacDonald
•• i!1
~ connection wilh the SLeamcr PRI:CESS
Ht,;(OHIA …. ·ill he f1r1pand to c:nnny
…. ctlll~n !Jl!lI!~1l ~10NTlt~:AlJ Ind ST.
JOfl:~.:;. UII .iO;-;n.-y I lll., ~,jlh lU.L.t.tll •••
(ullu,,· •. –
::0)1 )lo~n.t.:,L.
~ (j·c!cll·k. A. ~.
~ c:v r.~.
.a do r.)t.
luX IT. HltiSS.
tI u<:lotlt •• A )1.
, :::! do ,. 1I.
July 23, 183G,
rRl))l ,.rltA 1 M 1 r..
~ IIcluck, ~. l.I.
!i d.1 P.)C.
r,,(I~1 L …. RA! RtE.
6o·(,lor.k, A. M.
9 co A.. M.
3 ~o r. )1.
The Morning Courier, Saturday, July 23 and Monday,
25 1836. At that time the Courier published daily
except Sunday,
The introduction of public service by the
Champlain & St. Lawrence in 1836 marked the beginning
of the railway revolution in Canada. For passengers, the
C&SL introduced all the obvious new experiences for people
who had never seen a train
in operation let alone traveled on
one. In addition, it also seems likely that on the first day or
of service some adventurous traveler had the dubious
of becoming the first person in Canada to miss a
train or a ferry because
of an inaccurate railway timetable.
Unheralded a
nd unsung in the annals of our railway history,
it is probable that at least one frustrated individual must
have stood
in amazement on either a C&SL station platform
or one
of the docks for the Laprairie-Montreal steamer after
being told, Sorry, it left an hour ago.
How could there have been any doubt about
departure times for the C&SL service? The lines first
timetable has been widely reproduced in both general
surveys I and specialized works about tl1e C&SL1 over the
65 years. This timetable is almost as well known an
image as the famous photo of Donald Smith and friends at
Craigellalachie in 1885. This timetable, which I will refer
_.Q .
.INconlle~tion wilh tho SLea.mer PR.J~CE~S.
,flCTdfClA. II nllW prepuce 0 convey
Pautngera betweon MON1ltEAL and ST. JOHNS,
as rullowl :-
SltQwur from Montreal.
R·on.1n~1c ..L. Jl.
! d~ I, N,
5 do P.W.
CGrlrom St, John,.
7 ol!Jock, A. )1.
2 do 1.)1.
Car, from Laprairie.
~ ~lcJock. Y.
G do P; M;
Steamer fr~ LllprGirit •
6.oc1ock, … lit
9 ·du .l. K.
.. d9 .,11.
F oLre to St. JUhIl8. SI, includilll baUIl~e not
txcceciin, GO Ih ••
l Illllvin: lInntrcIlJ nt fight ol;l~k.
will be l:l limn fort-hI! L,ko ChlLlUl,lainboall.-
J ul1 23, 1836. Hl3 I
———-___________ 1
The Morning Courier, Tuesday, July 26, Wednesday, July
27, Thursday, July 28, 1836. Five time changes had been
made since the first published timetable.
as the traditional version, first appeared in the Montreal
Morning Courier on Saturday, July 23 and again on the
of Monday, July 25, the day when C&SL public
service started. The Montreal
Gazette of the 23rd also carried
a timet
able with the same departure times as those appearing
in that days Courier though I have seen no example of the
Gazette printing being reproduced
There is no doubt that
were Canadas first published timetables but it is
if they actually reflected the C&SL schedule for
the introduction
of public service.
Problems regarding the times shown in those first
published timetables
appeared very quickly. On Tuesday,
July 26, the seco
nd day of regular C&SL service, the Courier
and the Gazette hit the streets of Montreal with timetables
containing a number
of changes. That dayS Courier altered
of the original ten departure times. The Gazette of the
showed four of those changes in its printing. On Friday,
July 29, the
Courier reversed one of its changes and brought
the two papers into agreement. The evolution
of the sets of
advertisements is shown in the reproductions from the two
.. RAILKO~D ~O)jPA.~l·, i
NOAn,*(ion with the Steamer PRl!CBSS I
. YIC1,O~l~, ·1. nn prer-atcd to conter
·P.Nen~er.beteen MON1RE.~L and ST.
,JOIlNS, u .tollovu:-
tBuamer front Motreal.Car, from Lpprairit ..
1 ocl:k..;: ~.. ~ oclock, A. )t. I
S do P. M. 6 do r. M. ~
~d1 from ~Sr. JoAn.. Sttamtr from Laprairie. :
6 -oclock, A. N. l
., Qr.1Ock, A. M. 9 do A. II. !
9 do P. II. do P. •• I
Fue S~. JOhD 5 •. inell1dlui baU, not
tJIIM4~1 60 IbL ·
laueoJJI1Uar Monttbl at .~b~ odoek, t
.ut be in Ume 10r the IAk. etr.mpliia ~ !
~~, I3r l~~. . 103 1
The Morning Courier, Friday, July 29, 1836 and
following. One time change has been reversed. The times
shown here were retained through August.
After July 29, the times advertised for Monday­
Saturday service stayed the same in both the Courier and
the Gazette till the beginning of September though
alterations regarding fares and Sunday service were made in
August printings
of the timetable
Could the changes which appeared over the period
July 26-29 have affected travelers?
Most definitely! The
alterations were not great, only an hour in each case, but
showing up to catch a train or ferry an hour after departure
time was probably as high risk an activity
in 1836 as it is in
I have been unable to locate original C&SL
documents to shed light on the schedule(s) actually followed
during the first week
of service. As a result, we have to assess
what the available newspaper evidence tells us. Since the
advertised departure times remained the same for over a
month following the confusion
of the first week of service,
two alternate conclusions can be drawn.
possibility is that the schedule followed on
the first day or two
of service was that advertised prior to
July 26 with changes being made over the next few days.
that schedule had been followed on even the second day of
service, however, someone depending on the times printed
in the
Courier and the Gazette on the 26th would have been
an hour early for the morning train from St. Johns. At the end
of the day, however, the real problems would have appeared.
Courier reader would have been an hour late for the last
three ferry runs and the last train south from Laprairie. A
Gazette reader would have fared slightly better, missing only
the last two ferries or the afternoon train from Laprairie.
The other possibility is that the first published set
of times was in fact incorrect, presumably a result of an error
by the C&SL since the likelihood
of the Gazelle and Courier
making almost identical typographical mistakes seems
remote. If this had been the case, passengers depending on
the times shown prior to the 26
in the Gazette or the Courier
would have arrived too early for departures at the end of the
day and too late for the morning train from St. Johns.
Which was the case? As a point
of historical detail, it
doesnt matter at aIL Even in a worst case scenario, few people
would have been affected during those first few days of
service. The problem would surely have been considered as
just one of the minor birth pangs of the railway and blame
would probably have been attributed to whichever newspaper
had provided affected passengers with the incorrect
information. In perspective, the contradictions among the
timetables over that first week are little more than amusing
sidebars about the beginning of railway operations in
At another level, however, one could suggest that
this confusion has some significance -as an indicator of the
pitfalls awaiting the reader or writer
of railway history.
The written history of the origins and opening of the
C&SL has six cbre components, the five works identified in
footnote # 2 plus the chapter on the C&SL in GJJ Tulchinskys
The River Barons
In all except Tulchinsky (who did not
use any illustrations), the traditional timetable, as
originally printed in the Courier, was reproduced and
identified as Canadas first timetable without recognition
of the fact that it had an in print life of only 72 hours.
Four of the five works (Brown, Gillam, Cinq-Mars,
and the Mikas) credit CN or CN Archives as the
immediate source of the timetable reproduced. But when
the question of where the timetable originally appeared
arises, we find considerable uncertainty. Angus, Brown,
Gillam, and Cinq-Mars all provide an original source in
imprecise ways rather than by identifying the timetable as
from the
Courier. Angus, for example, notes it on page 11 as
having been published in the newspapers starting on July
23, 1836. Browns earlier attribution had been similar,
describing the illustration as having been in the various
newspapers. The Mikas, however, on page 35 opposite their
illustration, state that the company placed in the Montreal
Gazette a timetable, the first ever published in Canada.
While it is true that the Mikas do not explicitly state that the
illustration they offered actually came from the
Gazette, the
reader is certainly left with this incorrect impression.
The fact that the illustration of the traditional first
timetable has reigned almost supreme since 1936 points
the risks inherent in accepting secondary works that have
not been checked against the primary
sources. One could
also suggest that any writer working on the C&SL really
should have been looking at both the Gazette and the Courier
as obvious critical sources for the subject matter. Had any
done so, the original sowce
of the CN copy of the timetable,
the printing
of another copy of that timetable in the Gazette
of July 23, and the appearance of the post-July 25 revisions
with their changes to the schedule should have all emerged
as points to deal with.
From Montreal.
8 oclock, A. M.
2 OdlCk, p. M.
4 oclock. P. M.
•••• , AF_-W •••• -·
The Montreal Gazette , Saturday, July 23, 1836. At that
time the
Gazette published on Tuesday, Thursday and
Saturday. Note the mis-spelling of Lawrence.
This observation is supplemented by the fact that
. the final form
of the post-July 25 revised timetable was
identified as the original schedule in JB
Thomsons 1971
of Jason Pierce
Thompson, however, presented his
timetable details
(covering the full period 1836-51) as a
data table and we must recall the old adage about the power
of illustrations over text or tables. Angus, Gillam, Cinq-Mars,
and the Mikas all
went to press without noticing that their
first timetable
didnt match the first times identified in
s paper.
Which timetable was actually followed
by the C&SL
on opening day? We
dont know. I personally believe that
the odds are in favour
of the final revised version with its
four changes, primarily because
of the fact that once those
changes appear, starting with the
Gazette on the second day
of service on the 26 they remained in all the known
advertisements till the beginning of September
The fact
that the
Gazette printing of July 26 made changes to the
times without fixing the Larwence typographical error also
to say something about the relative importance of the
es being shown. It is conjecture but it does not seem
likely that the traditional schedules times would have
been used on opening day and changed by the company
within a day or twos. Thompsons 1971 data table ignored
the times shown in the traditional timetable, presumably
a result
of a similar conclusion. It seems to me quite likely
that Thompson got it right
in 1971 and those who reproduced
the tr
aditional timetable since then got it wrong, a result
of ignoring Thompsons details and not reviewing the
available newspaper
. The Cbamplain & St. Larwenoo
Raliron.d Company,
N connf~tion tlril.b Ib~ Sl~~mel PriCtll Vic,
. toriel wil1 [)e pre!p&red to COIIty berl
bet~e(n MOS1·R~A;t … of ST. JOHNS OD
MON DAY ~ tbe 251 imt .. , I rl>lIo, .. :;
From Honlrcal.
8 oclock, A. M.
2 ocluck, p. )1.
5 oclock. P. ·M.
Fr(ff1l. St. J(J}uu.
7 oclOCK, A.1II.
2 ocl~ P. M.
Fllre to Sc. .r obnl,
clcecdin, 60 Ibl..

From Lapr(lirl,.
~ 0 clock, A. M.
6 o<11ock, P. M.
Pror LaFrairlt.
6 0 clock, A. M.
90elodc, A. M.
J oclock. P.M.
S .. ,ill,Yudlul: bllggl~ not
PA&~.Ilgc … Ira,inC ;!uMtR ItA t. At eig ht o·cloek
-.ili lie in. tillle rur tbe Lak~ Champlllin bQ4lta .:
. Ttn •
. • ~uly ~~ ..
The Montreal Gazette, Tuesday, July 26, 1836. Four time
chages were made but the mis-spelling remained.
These times
were retained through August .
As noted previously, the question of which schedule
was actually followed by the
C&SL on opening day is of
little consequence. But the fact that the question has never
been raised has implications for the methodology often used
in recording the history
of Canadian railways.
See for example, N & H Mika, Railways of Canada: A
Pictorial History,
Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1972, p
2 See RR Brown, The Champlain & St. Lawrence, Bulletin
of the Railway & Locomotive Historical Society, # 39, 1936,
P 8b; N & H Mika,
Canadas First Railway, Bellevile: Mika,
1985, p 34; LF Gillam, The Champlain & St. Lawrence
Rotherham, Yorkshire: undated, (c 1986), p 31; F
Cinq-Mars, LAvenement du Premier Chemin de Fer au
St Jean sur Richelieu: Editions Mille Roches,
1986,p 155; FF Angus, ed., 1836-1986: A Tribute to
Canadas First Railway on its Sesquicentennial , SI.
Constant: CRHA, 1986, P 21. (The Angus volume includes
collection of papers from several decades of Canadian
Only one of these papers is directly relevant to the
able affair. It will be referred to below while the rest of
the Canadian Rail papers are consolidated for the purpose
of this note in the Angus collection. )
J This may be a result of the fact that a copy of the July 23rd
Gazette containing the timetable is hard to come by. The
readily available microfilm copy (as filmed by the Canadian
Library Association
in 1958) has the issue of July 23 but the
copy used had the timetable neatly removed prior to filming.
complete original copy has been located in the
Bibliotheque nationale du Quebec in Montreal and was the
source of the first of the three timetables reproduced here
from the
The Gazette revision with these additional changes, first
printed on August 6, has also been inaccurately reproduced
as our first rail timetable. See Via Rail Canada,
Rails Across
Canada: 150 Years
of Passenger Train History, 1986, p 19.
5 Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977, chapter 7, pp
6 Jason C. Pierce: The Man and the Machine, Canadian
Rail, 229, February, 1971; see Appendix IV, p 52, for
Thompsons details regarding C&SL schedules drawn from
Gazette. See Angus, 1986, p 21, for the schedules within
his reprint
of Thompsons paper.
7 In addition to the Gazette and the Courier from June to
September, the only other
paper I have been able to fully
review was The Vindicator. It is not surprising that this
radical paper did not receive any advertising revenue from
theC&SL. I have been able to locate only partial runs of the
Herald and the Transcript and cant say with certainty that
those papers could not make additional contributions to
interpreting the timetable affair. Given the fact, however,
that the Gazette and Courier appear to have been the
dominant English-language papers of the day and carried
much more
in the way of business news and advertising, I
feel confident that they provide the critical evidence needed
assess the case of the first timetable. The French­
language papers, I should note, have not been reviewed in a
comprehensive way but those examined have not brought
any additional light to bear on the subject.
8 This assumption rejects the possibility of the timetable
changes made after July 25 being triggered by the fact that
c ……..
f·rtll &; J~fU.
1 oeIQCk, A.-M.
% o c: Jo…JL., P. )t.

frntli rP,.,,.i ..
~i l.Ic,uck, Iv. ,I.
1 hi 1..111,..
6, C1I~lti ~ ft ••
9 ,cll)(}, A, M.
4 uq¢Ck,· r: ~ )If.
. I
Fa.rc to ~t. JDb~., ~
C1cucliD(f:iO Ib&.
o« bltQatd bet
P, • .cd,tn In91nJC :-.rVT·U;-l .~t (Irt ~·clodl ..
,.ill boe ia tiu.c (IJ( th /,.oJ(( (.:~.)Jp«i,>..u at
Jutr ~t.
—-~———————~ ., ,
The Montreal Gazette, July 28, 1836 and following. The
Larwence typo has been corrected.
the locomotive was out of service for an undetermined period
after July 25.
The Gazette of July 28 seems to indicate the
engine went to the shop on the 26. The return date is
It could have been as early as August 3 (see WD
Lindsays report to C&SL Annual Meeting in the Gazette of
December 13) or as late as August 9 (see the Gazette of August
9). Regardless
of the date, however, the revised timetable
in effect when the engine returned. This makes me
suspect that the revisions
of July 26-29 did not have anything
to do with the problems with the locomotive.
CHAMPLAIN 11011 Sr. LAWlfHC.f Rfll1.ROAD
lOC.O/WIOTJV& ·Do.utl!. S T l :
18J &
Engineering: An Unexploited Resource
For Pre-1880 Canadiall Railway History
by Herb MacDonald
This woodcut of the Canada Southern bridge at St Thomas appeared in Engineering for December 6, 1872.
Between March of 1878 and June of 1881, a London­
based weekly journal called
Engineering published a series
of 49 accounts on Canadian railways. Though not all existing
lines were included, the series is an extremely valuable
resource for anyone interested in the early railway history of
the Maritimes, Quebec, and Ontario. Perhaps because of the
journals London origins and its limited availability in
Canada, it does not seem
to have been discovered as a source
by those working in the field
of Canadian railway history. It
is hoped that this brief note may help make the series known
and lead
to its examination and use.
The 49 articles are generally quite detailed
regarding the railways covered and also tend to provide
extensive backgrounds for the geographic, political, and
economic contexts for the lines. No author is identified for
the series and there
is no firm indication that the research for
the articles was done on site. But from close examination
the articles on the Maritimes and sampling those on lines in
Upper Canada, I suspect that the series was the product of a
Canadian tour by someone, closely interested in railways,
mining, and civil engineering, who visited many
of the sites
and/or had access to reliable contemporary sources about
the history and operations
of the lines covered.
Based on its coverage
of lines in the Maritimes, the
best benchmark I have
to assess the series, the articles appear
to be more generally and
consistently reliable than most
other pre-1900 secondary sources I have seen and I highly
recommend this series. The Engineering series must,
however, be viewed with a critical eye. Its components, like
any secondary source, are open
to both errors and oversights
and there are pitfalls present. However, anyone with a serious
in any of the lines covered should make the effort to
track down the relevant issues.
An outline
of the series content follows but a note
about availability of the journal is also in order. Though
published in London, Engineering had international stature
and did circulate in North America. I have taken only a
cursory look for holdings in some Canadian libraries,
primarily those at engineering schools which I thought were
the most likely sites for the 1878-81 issues. The following locations
seem to have issues containing the series (though
there may also be a full set
in the library you use):
All 1878-81 isssues appear
to be available in hard
copy (though they may be in storage and require lead time
for access) at: DalTech Library, Halifax; Queens University
Engineering & Science Library, Kingston; U
of TEngineering
& Computer Science Library, Toronto; Museum of Science
& Technology Library, Ottawa; and the Main Library at UBC
in Vancouver. A
partial set (without 1878) is located at
McGills Schulich Science & Engineering Library in
Montreal. Microfilm sets with all
19 century issues appear
to be held at
the Science Libraries at Laval university in
Quebec City, Ecole Poly technique de Montreal, and
McMaster University in Hamilton.
Content Summary for Canadian Railways series in
Engineering, 1878 -1881
Vol. Date
25 8 Mar 1878
25 22
Mar 1878
25 26 Apr 1878
10 May 1878
25 24 May 1878
25 28 June 1878
26 26 July 1878
Series #
Article Topic(s)
Railways of
Canada -In­
Champlain &
St Lawrence;
future lines
ICR part 2
ICR part 3
Ottawa & Oc­
QMO&O part
26 16 Aug 1878 138-9 8 QMO&O part 29 20 Feb 1880 141-4 31 Great Western
3 Railway
26 30 Aug 1878 182-3 9 QMO&O part 29 26 Mar 1880 237-9 32 GWR part 2
4 29
23 Apr 1880 316-8 33 GWR part 3
26 20 Sept 1878 228-9 10
QMO&O part
2921 May 1880 391-3 34 GWR part 4 5 29
4June 1880 428-9 35 GWR part 5 26 6 Dec 1878 447-50
II Nova Scotia
2925 June 1880 487-9 36 GWR part 6
30 30 July 1880 86-7 37 Credi t Valley
26 27 Dec I 878 504-5 12 Windsor & 30 20 Aug 1880 154-6 38 CVR part 2
30 24 Sept 1880 245-8 39 A Ib i 0 n
17 Jan 1879 44-5 13 W&A part 2
27 7 Feb 1879 108-9 14 Western
Halifax &
Cape Breton
Railway 30 29 Oct 1880 368-71 40 Glasgow &
27 7 Mar 1879 188-9
15 New Bruns-Cape Breton
wick & Can-3012 Nov 1880 421-4 41 Cape Breton
Coal Railways
21 Mar 1879 228-9 16 European &
3026 Nov 1880 481-4 42 Prince Edward
North Amer-ISland
27 4 Apr 1879 270-1 17 Grand Trunk
30 17 Dec 1880 561-3 43 PElR part 2
31 21 Jan 1881 58-9 44 St Lawrence &
27 25 Apr 1879 338-41 18 GTR patt 2 Ottawa
27 9 May 1879 398-9
19 GTR part 3
31 11 Feb 1881 136-9 45 Canada
27 30 May 1879 452-4 20 GTR part 4
31 25 Feb 1881 190-3 46 CCR part 2
28 18 July 1879 45-8 21 GTR part 5
31 II Mar 1881 245-6 47 CCR part 3
1 Aug 1879 84-7 22 GTR part 6
31 15 Apr 1881 374-5 48 The Chaud-
28 8 Aug 1879 102-5 23 GTR part 7; iere Bridge
Buffalo and
31 10 June 1881 581-4 49 Hamilton & Lake Huron Northwestern
28 5 Sept 1879 181-4 24 GTR part 8
After article # 49, the series ended abruptly.
28 17 Oct 1879 295-8 25 Toronto and Examination of the next three volumes, ie to the end of
1882, provided no sign of any additional articles in the series.
28 7 Nov 1879 353-6 26 Toronto, I found no explanation for its
demise though some brief
note may have appeared after 10 June 1881 to account for Grey & Bruce what happened.
28 21 Nov 1879 389-91 27 Northern I should note that for those whose interests extend
Railway of
beyond railways into other aspects of the history of civil
and mechanical engineering, this journal is a gold mine!!
28 26 Dec 1879 481-4 28 Midland
The scope of its content from its first issue in 1866 is quite
amazing, as is the vast array
of detailed plans and diagrams
Railway of
that appear in virtually every issue. Unfortunately, the
Canadian Railways series was not rated highly enough by
29 9 Jan 1880 21-4 29 Coburg,
the journals editor to warrant inclusion of any illustrations.
I must express my thanks to Dr. Michael R. Bailey
& Marmora
of Manchester, England, who first drew my attention to
Engineering and the extent of the journals coverage of early
29 23 Jan 1880 61-4 30 Erie & Ont-
Canadian rail lines and to the staff of the Manchester Public
Welland Library for a warm welcome and access to their collection of
Railway this journal.
Snowplow Misadventure 1940
by Stephen Walbridge
The in thing for young Montrealers to do on winter
weekends in the late 1930s· early 1940s was to board a
Canadian Pacific Ski Train
to spend part of Saturday, and/or
Sunday in the Laurentian hills north of the city. As most
office employees worked until noon on Saturday, train
departures were conveniently timed; and on Sunday, trains
left about 7 a.m. arriving about 9.30 so as
to permit a full
days skiing.
Trains were generally ten or more cars, all wood. Seats
bamboo woven -always in sets of four so that skis
could be stored upright in the space between two reclining
The trains were often hauled by CP locomotives in
the 5100 series. They returned about 5.00 p.m. for arrival
Montreal for a late supper.
Easter in 1940 came in early April. A friend and I
boarded a Sunday morning train for Ste. Marguerite so
could ski south to Mt. Rolland. After skiing we boarded a
late afternoon train for home. On reaching Ste. Therese, the
train stopped, and stayed. No explanation was given; those
on the train who had something
to eat shared it. Late in the
Mil …
Eutern Time
Heure de Ieat
Lv Mo·ntruIBWindaorStn.
W..,mount.. …….. .
Montr •• Wnt ….. .
f-Q. Iv Mont, .. , R place Viger
~:8 Montrull Park Ave.
IO:~ ~~:rR:pid~~:::::::
t~:g ~:: ~:~:~·J·uno …..
17.2 St •. RD ••… -, .•• . _.
17.9 Ao •• m.r •…………
19.9 N St.. Th.r ……….. .
–olj Lv 8te, Thereso ….. •…
1:8 st. Lin June ..• : …… .
4. I Ravin…….. . .
7.4 Lepage …….
9 3 Bruchesl.
12:3 La Pla;ne .. …..
16:9 St. Un …. …. .
~ l1St •. Th.r •••..
21:1 st. Lin Juno .. ..
24. Bouch.rd ……….. .
27. St. J.nvler ..
33. St. J.rome …… : ..
40. L … g •…….
41.8 Shaw-brldg •……….
468 ~:~~~~:I(~~:.a.~~~~
~t6 St •. M.rgu.rlt •…
~~:~ ~:: ~o:ll;: …
~~J AI :~:~OA!~~~:[i::::::::
6 ;.4 Iv.. …… .
6 I D.grnbol, .. .
71.5 rtanUI ….
76.9 St. Faultln …….. ..
80.6 Morlllon …. .
85.0 St. Jovlt •………..
90.6 Mont Tr.mbl.nt ….
93 .. 8 Conelpotlon ..
00 I II LA..:LU ..
431 45~. 445 451 455 465 463..
. Ex. Ex. Ex ..
Sun. .Sun. Sat. t~. Sat. Fri. Fri.
:~:~::.Hf :T: ::::: r~ :::~:: :~:> ~
TI q:i~·l]—rn i:zD T:f~ 11] =
iU2 .923 U6 5.44 7.26 8.51 11.51
:::::: .9: :::::: ::::: :::::: ~UBII:rs ::::::
IUVi:~ :::::: 556h:i7/UFI~L6~ :::::
…… I j; ../5.58 19.0411.04 ….
~ …J4-~ 6.02 ~….1:..Ul .IQr-=–
.. ….. , . . , .. , ………. .. …… :-::::0. , .. .
.: … ::.:::::: …. : :::::::: :::::: ::: :,;; ::::::
~::::: … ::. ::::::: :;;::::::?:::::: J~,/ ::;:::
?~ I:q~: :r: ~;;:?rn ~I;X~: :::.
I ~:~ 16:o~ U~ 6:33 ~: T8 I UF1~ ,:::::
…… /0.2613.39 6.51 I 8.26 f. 9.51 liz,· . …
H~ 18j~ t~ U§ n~ I~~ 12:~ ::::
9.g .49 4.03 7 15 8.47 10.12 . .. 9
01 76 4.15 7.27 8.59 10.24 I. . …..
I. g Ut n~ tlg IU~ H40:
O:?~/ J~ {4.4017·53 19.20 10.45f4S .. ·
10.20 1I.3O~…L2!l 9.25 1050.-U9.~
llH ..
57 8089.n .. …. .. .. ..
10. I .5.05 g.16 I 9·40 .. _ … ,: ….
8.9/. 150918.21 … …. ….. .:, ……. .
I.~ 1.59 5.15 8.26 9.50 … oJ.. ….. , …..
10.;(9 12·16 5 34 8.43 10.05 …….. :t:-.•
.06f12.24 15.0/851.. . .. , ..
~UUt U~ U~ ~gJL:::: :::::: .. .
. j2f12.s( (6,14/9.19 . .. ; .:,., .. .

.45~ 629~~==~·~
II] :1] U~ ::::::::::: :::::::
12.18 . 7.02 10.07. . … ,..
l~:~ :::~::: ~:l~ l~:ll :::::: ::~:::. ::: .. :~:
I~~~ ::::::: I n~ 18J& ::::::. :::::: ::: :::
11.09 ….. 1755111.00,, .
~ iU : :::::: ; t~ ~iiJi :::::: ::: ::: :::::: .
1.55 . 8.40 11.45
,…. ….. …… P.M. .l1li. P… A.M.
evening, we were informed that there had been a wreck.
About midnight, the CPR station agent at Ste. Therese
invited us in for sandwiches. By that time, there were five
trains waiting. Its a mystery how
he fed that many people.
After daybreak on Monday,
we slowly began to move.
I was carrying a Kodak camer
a. Rolls of film were 8 exposures.
I stood on the second
to bottom stair at the end of the car .
awaiting whatever there was to see. There was a rasping
as the rear end of the locomotive tender scraped along
the cars. The results of my fast shooting, (sometimes
forgetting to wind the film, as you see.) showed the reason
for our delay.
We were near St. Martin Jet, in flat farm country. The
snow had been whipped
by a strong cross wind, and become
very hard. A snowplow, pushed by locomotive CP 2624 h
apparently hit the hard snow at sufficient speed to toss the
plow onto the bank, and
derailed the locomotive at a 45
degree angle into the ditch. Dozens
of men had spent a long
night shovelling the hard snow so that the delayed ski trains
could pass.
Happy Easter!
Eut.rn Tim. Altla
,.-feu,. d. . tude ..
lr MONT-LAURIKflI •••• , ••• H3
Brun.t ……. ,. .•••• ~
Barr.tte.. ……..••. 9 •……… ,.. 14
B.d.rd. , …..•••••.. 10
~::.~::~~.:::::::.::: Rl~
::~~~:::~~::::::::: . 3~~
UOOllt…… ..•••.••• ~50
~~:~;:.I~~~~n…….. 7b~
~oonno:~~::;;br~~t:::: 4~
St. Jovita……….. I
Mo,tllon. …..•…•. 9
St. r.u.tln1~4
H.ntel. . . ….••.•••• 6S
O.roabola … , •• ,.,… 5
It ~;.·A.:THii:::::::: ~)
Ii STI:. AaATMI. ••••••••• f7
~afontaln……….. 063
Vel Dnld……….. 054
~ V.I Morin …….• :.. mB
~ St •. Mara uerl ……. .
b ~:;:n::~~~~.~a~·.n.;.) ~~
b Sh.wbrldll… …….. 596
L … ae…………… 579
~t. Jeome………. 308
Janv •• .. ~JB
………… 32
st. In Jun……… 19
., ………… ~
~~ M~f,; …•.. f~§
~ruch&ai~:::::::::: ~: 1
~p~ae.. .. .. .. …. .. . B7
St 1 232
It sf T~ June………. 219
USt:·. T:~~ –W­
😮 .. m.r.~~::::::::: 1~1
~r£:o~:~.j~~~ .. :::: ,~
i:;~~a~~Dld~~……. 7S
.. Mont …. I·Pa;1( Avi,:r 19~
. Montr .. 1 Place Viger. 58.
Montr .. 1 w .. t ……. ~
WMtrnount i52
Mont_, WindlO;sinj 109
464 452 454 458 460
Dally .• Ex. . .Ex .. &In. Sun.
Sun. Sun.
P ….
This CPR timetable for the winter of 1942·43 is much like that in effect in 1940. Extra ski trains were also operated.
On this page and the next are
the photos taken that day. They
are an excellent record
considering the conditions
under which they were taken!
Notice the ghostly outline
of a
locomotive in the photo on the
right; this was a double
exposure which, fortunately,
was not dark enough to spoil
the original image.
We hope you enjoy these photos
from the days before king
automobile began his reign in
the Laurentians.
The Terriers That Exchanged Wheels
by Fred Angus
Among the longest serving locomoti ves on British
Railways were the so-called Brighton Terriers of the
London Brighton and South Coast Railway. Designed by
William Stroudley in the middle years
of the Victorian era,
fifty of these small 0-6-0 locomotives were built in the
Brighton Works of the LB&SC between 1872 and 1880.
Originally intended for hauling suburban trains out of
London, they later were used in branch line service in many
places in the south
of England. Although the first retirement
of the class occurred as early as 1899, some of the group
in service another sixty years. In the 1950s a few
remained in passenger service, notably on the Hayling Island
branch, while others were used
as shop switchers. Today no
less than ten of the original fifty Terriers have been
preserved, a 20% survival rate, including one at the Canadian
Railway Museum. This story concerns three locomotives
that were still in existence in. the 1950s.
At the end
of World War II a small locomotive, 380S,
was a switching locomotive at the Brighton Works. In 1946
she was retired from service after 66 years. This was before
era of large-scale preservation of locomotives, yet
someone in the Southern Railway (soon to become the
Southern Region
of British Railways) realized that this little
0-6-0 was the least rebuilt of the remaining Terriers and
should be preserved. The official records revealed that 380S
had originally been No. 82, named Boxhill, built
in 1880,
of the last of the series. Accordingly in 1947 the Brighton
Works restored the locomotive to its original appearance,
name and number, and it left on its own steam for a tour
Britain that lasted more than a year.
To replace 380S, another 0-6-0, No. 2635, was sent
Brighton and renumbered 377S. This was also a Terrier,
the former No. 35, Morden, which had been built
in 1878.
Soon it too was restored
to the original Stroudley livery and
lettered Brighton Works on the side.
It immediately went
to work and was there when the Southern Railway, along
with most railways
in Britain, were nationalized and became
of British Railways on January 1, 1948.
in January 1949 Boxhill, rather the worse for
wear after its long tour, arrived back at Blighton Works and
was placed
in outside storage. A few weeks later it was joined
by yet another Terrier, 680S which was one of two switchers
at the Lancing car shops. This locomotive, the oldest
of the
three, had had quite a checkered career. Built originally
1875 as No. 54, Waddon, it had been sold by the LB&SC
to the Southeastern and Chatham in 1904. During its stay on
the SE&C it had undergone some changes, notably its
and wheels. However in outward appearance it was
less altered than most Terriers still in existence. With the grouping
of the railways in 1923 both the LB&SC and the
SE&C became part
of the Southern Railway, so this Terrier
once again became part
of the same roster as the others. By
1949 it had long since been retired from passenger service
and was,
as we have seen, a works shunter.
There was a very good reason why 680S came
to the
Brighton Works early in 1949 -its wheels were worn out.
Since the operating career
of Boxhill had ended, and its
wheels were still good, it was decided that Boxhill and
680S would interchange wheels
I It was at this time that a
very interesting discovery was made. As most steam
enthusiasts know, the dri ving wheels of a steam locomoti ve
are quartered, i.e. the crank on one side is 90 degrees ahead
of the other. There is no universal standard as to which side
leads and,
as it turned out, the LB&SC locomotives had the
right side leading, while the SE&C locomotives led with the
left side. During its 19-year career on the
SE&C,former No.
Waddon,had been converted to the SE&C standard
and since then had remained a left leader.
So it was that
when the two locomotives swapped wheels in 1949,
Boxhill became a left leader and 680S became a right
Soon after the wheel swap the two locomotives parted,
Boxhill to go into the national collection of preserved
locomotives, and 680S back to work in Lancing Works where
it was later renumbered DS680. Meanwhile 377S remained
at work
in Brighton and in 1958 was renumbered DS377.
In 1961 the CRHA asked British Railways for a steam
locomotive and, on June 4 1962, DS680 was officially
presented to the Association at a ceremony at Brighton.
However it could not yet be actually handed over for it was
in service at Lancing Works at the age of 87 years. Finally
it was retired in 1963 and restored
to its 1875 appearance, in
full Stroudly livery.
At that time its original number, 54, and
name Waddon, were restored.
We mentioned above that it
had received the wrong type
of chimney during its SE&C
This was easily rectified be yet another swap. The
chimney on Waddon was exchanged for that on DS377,
however Waddon
s chimney was never fitted to the latter
engine, for time had finally run out for old DS377, formerly
35, Morden. After Brighton Works closed the engine was
renumbered 32635, but never ran under that number and in
1963, still chimneyless, was towed away for scrap. Later in
1963, Waddon, now fully restored, was shipped
to Canada
and, late one evening in the autumn of that year, was
delivered to the Canadian Railway Museum.
Today it
is almost 40 years since Waddon came to
It is still the oldest locomotive in the collection of
the Museum, and one of the half-dozen oldest in Canada. It
still has Mordens chimney and, yes, Boxhills right
leading wheels. It is thus technically more like its original
LB&SC configuration than Boxhill itself, for the latter,
of the prize exhibits of the British National Railway
Museum at York, still has the left leading wheels it received
in 1949.
It is safe to say, though, that not one person in
I 0,000, looking at these locomotives, would notice that fact.
this, the 40th anniversary of Waddons
presentation to the CRHA, this little tale may add some more
to the long history of the oldest locomotive in our
collection, now in its 128th year.
The following article, by the late Omer Lavallee,
appeared in Canadian Rail in October 1963. It tells more of
the story of Waddon and explains why it is in the museum.
A Stroudley Terrier in Canada
o. s. A. Lavallee
Normally, the arrival of an ocean vessel in the
Harbour of Montreal holds little interest for the railway
amateur, unless, as is frequently the case, the individual
is also interested in ships and shipping. However, the
progress of the Norwegian freighter TAUTRA, of
Trondheim, under charter
to Cunard Steamship Company,
was of considerable Interest to the members of our
Association, as
it made one of its periodical transatlantic
in the latter half of August, for its hold contained
one of the museums most interesting acquisitions, the
British steam locomotive Waddon.
The arrival of Waddon,
an eighty-eight-year-old
0-6-0T locomotive, was
in accord with the pattern set by
previous British prototype locomotives which have visited
North America: King George
V of the GWR in 1927,
Royal Scot of the LMS
in 1933, and Coronation Scot,
also of the LMS,
in 1939. There was one notable
in this latest arrival, however: Waddon had
to North America to stay, and is the first standard­
gauge British locomotive to
do so for historical reasons.
The background of the story takes
us to the winter
of 1960-61, when, the initial
task of acquiring and
preserving sufficient examples of Canadian motive power
and rolling stock being well under way, the Railway
Committee turned its attention overseas. One might well
. ask how non-Canadian equipment fits into
an admittedly
Canadian museum, and the answer was and is quite
simple. The Association feels that a few well-selected
non-Canadian exhibits will supplement and contrast with
the Selkirks and
61 OOs, the X-1 Os and D-4s, which have
such a familiar part of the Canadian railway scene.
In planning our museum, the directors were impressed
by the fact that
in no railway museum now existing is
there an exhibit showing a European and a North
American railway locomotive, side by side. Despite the
fact that the railway locomotive traces a common
ancestry back to the Peny-darran locomotive of 1804,
its development took place,
in the ensuing century, along 154 JUILLET-AOUT 2002
vastly different lines
on either side of the Atlantic, induced
principally by geography, by economics and by natural
resources. With the advent of the electric and the diesel
locomotive, technology has tended
to reconcile the two
fields, with the concessions, if we may so call them,
being made more by the European school than by the
American, with the former adopting designs long used
on this side of the ocean.
Accordingly,it was resolved that just any
locomotive would not do; and that the candidate or
candidates would have
to represent what we considered
be the classical period of locomotive development,
the last quarter of the Nineteenth Century. At this time,
divergence between transatlantic practices was
probably at its height. From these conclusions,
it was
but a natural step to select one of several remaining
examples of a famous locomotive design the
0-6-0T small
passenger tank locomotives which were designed by
William Stroudley of the London Brighton
& South Coast
Railway, and built between 1872 and 1880.
To these
tank engines the Brighton Lines passengers
characteristically appended the endearing nickname of
Terriers .
A letter dispatched by the then-Secretary of our
Association, Kenneth Heard, to the Chairman of the
British Transport Commission, General Sir Brian
Robertson, elicited a reply that British Railways would
be very pleased to donate a Terrier locomotive to the
Association, provided, of course, the CRHA would
underwrite the cost of its transport
to Canada.
The Association neither specified, nor did. British
Railways indicate, at that time, which particular
locomotive would be selected for this purpose. We had
to wait for another year, until the spring of 1962, when
we were advised that the locomotive selected was
departmental carriage and wagon service at Lancing
Works, Southern Region, and was
No. 680s.
Receipt of this advice precipitated a flurry of
research activity.
In short order it was determined that
No. 680s had been built at Brighton Works in December
as London Brighton and South Coast Railway No ..
54, Waddon. The engine had been named Waddon
after a village in Surrey
on the London-Epsom line
between West Croydon and Sutton.
It had pursued an
interesting career thereafter, having been sold to the rival
of the LBSCR, the South Eastern
& Chatham Railway,
in 1904. At the time of grouping, in 1923, the locomotive
came into Southern Railway and thereby rejoined its
remaining sisters, which had come into the SR when
the Brighton road was absorbed at the same time.
the interim, the remaining locomotives had been
reboilered and changed somewhat, and the erstwhile
Waddon was relegated
to works service from that time
it was alternately in storage and in service for
the next thirty years.
In 1948, it was absorbed by British
Railways along with the whole Southern Railway system,
and was withdrawn finally
on December 31 st, 1962.
Our close connection began with
it when in June,
at a ceremony at the Preston Park works of the
Waddon immediately after its restoration in 1963. Photo courtesy of British Railways.
Pullman Company at Brighton, England, the locomotive
was officially presented
to Mr. Donald Angus, Honorary
of CRHA, representing the Association. During
the winter
of 1962-63, negotiations were entered into with
British Railways, who agreed to restore the original
Stroud ley brown-and-green livery for the sum
of £500.
This work was completed during the spring and summer
of this year [1963], culminating
in the loading of the
locomotive aboard the steamer TAUTRA at King George
V Dock, London,
on August 24th. After a stormy ocean
crossing, the little locomotive was unloaded
by one of
the Montreal Harbour floating cranes on Friday,
September 6th, its polished pipes, copper-capped
chimney and brightly-painted decor reflecting splendidly
the bright late-summer sun. Along with
it came a 21-
foot section of original LBSCR track, complete with
rail, chairs, and keys. An unexpected gift was
the locomotives vacuum automatic brake apparatus,
in the process of restoration (the LBSCR used
Westinghouse air brakes) mounted
on a piece of frame
of a scrapped locomotive. By prior arrangement with
Canadian National Railways, locomotive, track and brake
exhibit were whisked away
to Point St. Charles shops
for interim storage, pending a motive power exhibit which
it is planned to stage in Montreal on the weekend of
October 19/20. At this time, appropriately enough,
Waddon will
be displayed alongside an equally-classic
North American contemporary, the CNs nonagenarian
Portland-built 4-4-0
No. 40. This locomotive was built for approximately the same type of service as the British
engine, and
of about equivalent tractive effort.
Following the display, the Terrier will go to its
new home at Delson, there
to be joined in due course by
one or two other non-Canadian exhibits, selected with
equal judiciousness, to make our museum truly
For thebig-power enthusiasts
who may be inclined
to sneer at the Terriers small size (26 ft. 1/2 in. overall)
and weight
(28 tons 5 cwt.), it is worthy of note that a
sister engine, Brighton, won a gold medal
at the Paris
of 1878 for design and performance. On a
power/weight basis, possibly the only means of
comparing locomotive capabilities fairly,
it considerably
outranks the CPR Selkirks and CNR
41 OOs, with a 7,600
pound tractive effort at 85%
of boiler pressure, for a
locomotive weighing only 56,500 pounds.
Far from its early duties at New Cross Shed,
the south of London, our Brighton Terrier will represent
in a fitting and dignified manner, the land of birth of the
railway locomotive engine. More than that, Waddon,
along with its sisters Stepney
in operation on the
Bluebell Railway preseNation
in England,and Boxhill
in the British Transport Museum at Clapham [today at
Ed.], will remain a permanent tribute to the
competence and genius of William Stroudley, one
Englands, and the worlds, most renowned locomotive
The Acadian Tour Train
ABOVE: The three special cars on their
first run on the rear of the
Adirondack. Taken at Port Kent, New
York on June
7, 2002.
RIGHT: Another view
of the northbound
Adirondack near Chazy, New
York on
7, 2002.
All photos by Fred Angus.
of the most spectacular scenes
on the Short Line
to Saint John is the large
bridge at Ship Pond near Onawa, Maine. In
the days
of regular passenger service on this
line, trains
in both directions usually crossed
this bridge at night. This photo shows the
eastbmmd Acadian crossing the bridge on
the rainy morning
of June 11, 2002.
During the summer of 2002 a tour group, known
as the
Acadian Railway Company, is operating tour
trains in
eastern Canada and the United States. This
Texas-based company also runs tours in Mexico
during the winter. The stainless-steel train is hauled
former Amtrak locomoti ves 293 and 311. Three
cars are operated weekly on the rear of Amtraks
Adirondack between New York and Montreal, while
a special train leaves every Sunday from the Canadian
Railway Museum at Delson and mns to Saint John
Brunswick over the former CPR Short Line,
with a
two-night stop at Greenville Maine. It leaves
Saint John on Wednesday morning and arrives back
at Delson on Friday night.
LEFT: Immediately after crossing the Canadian border
at Lacolle, Que. on June
7, 2002. The customs house is
on the left, but the clearance is done at Cantic, Que. a
few miles farther along.
RIGHT The impressive station at McAdam, New
is the backdrop as the eastbound
Acadian pulls in on June
/I, 2002.
RIGHT: A passenger train in Saint John once again! The
Acadian awaiting passengers
for its return trip on June
12, 2002. The building on the left is the former VIA station,
from which the last Atlantic left
in December 1994.
LEFT: Backing into Saint John on the
of June 12, 2002, the Acadian
is preparing for its return trip
westbound. In the background is the
to the harbour bridge as well
as the central portion
of the city.
LEFT: Crossing the
Reversing Falls, the
departs Saint John in
morning of June
12, 2002.
The Busilless Car
CRICH, England -When the Red Lion pub reopened
its doors for business at the end
of March 2002, Jim Soper
had more reasons than most to relax with the first pint. Soper,
an architect, had knocked down then rebuilt the pub
by brick 80 kilometres from its original home. He hand­
cleaned everyone of the thousands of bricks before
reconstruction started and finally he was able to drink a
toast to the completion
of a 30-year dream.
Soper, 67, stepped in after the Red Lion, built about
1803, faced demolition when
it stood in the path of a road
scheme in Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire county, in 1973.
Along with other regulars there, he decided the ornately
glazed and tiled building would be perfect for the Victorian
street scene
at the tramway museum in Crich, Derbyshire,
where Soper
is a volunteer. So they had the pub taken down
brick by brick, crated and freighted to the Crich
Village in the scenic Peak District of England.
It remained stored
in a field until 1986, when Soper
began the enormous task of ferrying the bricks to his home
in Wetherby, West Yorkshire. Each week for four years, Soper
packed his car
wi th bricks and took them the 160 ki lometres
home, where he painstakingly cleaned them and glued
broken ones back together. .
Then he started
to rebuild the Red Lion with the help
of volunteers in 1991 and the external shell was finished in
October 2000.
The interior was completed just in time to be
opened this Easter -complete with a lifesize terracotta lion.
As well as restoring the bricks Soper also
made the pubs
stained glass windows by hand. Now visitors to the Tramway
Village can enjoy a bar that serves food downstairs, and a
full Calvery upstairs.
Source: Montreal Gazette
CALGARY -Reviving passenger service at Canadian
Pacific Railway is one way to make better use of an
underutilized national rail network, says the head of the
company. Rob Ritchie, chief executive
of the 120-year-old
railway, said CPR
is talking to the federal goverrunent about
increasing the role of the largely invisible rail industry.
Canadas rail network
is definitely underused, Ritchie said
at a meeting of the Conference Board of Canada in April
2002. We have
to find an imaginative way in which to use
that capacity. Ritchie said passenger rail has the potential
be an efficient means of connecting people to nearby
ci ties. For example, passenger cars attached to freight trains
could link the Alberta cities
of Edmonton, Red Deer, Calgary, Medicine
Hat and Lethbridge. Currently, Via operates the
line from Vancouver to Jasper, Alta., and
Edmonton, then
east to Saskatoon. The only passenger rail available from
Calgary are tourist lines. Ritchie said passenger rail service
was dropped by the company because it was unprofitable. If
transportation policy were reworked
to make it sustainable,
CPR would be interested.
Source: Montreal Gazette
The first rail of a north-south rail link through the
of Australia was laid on April 9, 2002. The new line,
between the northern
port of Darwin and Alice Springs in
the centre
of the country, will cross 1,200 kilometres of bush
and desert and join
up with the existing rail route to Adelaide
in the south. The plan was first proposed
in 1878. For many
years the train
to Alice Springs, called the Ghan was narrow
gauge, but today the entire route is standard gauge
Saturday, June 15 saw our first Salem & Hillsborough
pubEc excursion train trip
of the season. On Saturday, June
22, the railway opened its gates daily for the season, with
the normal schedule
of Excursion and Dinner Trains. Hope
to see you, or perhaps drop down and bring some friends!
In an endeavour to increase the S &
Hs attendance
and hopefully make a larger impact on the
countys tourist
traffic, the
S&H is networking to cover more locations with
Railroads Brochure. Besides the Moncton Life Style
Show, S&H representatives and the NB Recreational Motor
Car operators attended Saint Johns Loyalist Day
celebrations, and on June 4, the Moncton Motorcoach
Committee, made up of tourism operators and city
representatives, visited the Railroad. The railway
management is on track to make Hillsborough, The Railway
of New Brunswick.
is only the second month for the S & H to be part
of Heritage Canadas (CHINs) interactive educational web
site. However,
CHlN reports that their interactive educational
games, posted on the Virtual Museum
of Canada (VMC) site
have been a popular portal, and since its original launch
March 2001, the VMC has received an average of
approximately 228,000 visits per month. This cant hurt!
Preliminary work related to the plans to rebuild the
old Hillsborough Station is moving ahead, and the Station
Project team
is now working on various preliminary details
to ensure it will be able to respond quickly with construction,
should the plans get a final go-ahead.
Remember, members and all supporters of the
Railroad are always welcome at Hillsborough. We are looking
towards a great season! Cheers: Art Clowes
Secretary, S & H Railroad.
As part of a new series of stamps depicting Canadian
tourist attractions, Canada
Post has issued a 65 cent stamp
depicting the Agawa
Canyon train of the Algoma Central.
There is a set of ten stamps, five for 65 cents (for postage to
the United States) and five for $1.25 (the rate for overseas
They come in booklets of five stamps each and are
self-adhesive, so do not have
to be licked.
In addition to the stamps there
is also a set of post
cards, including the Algoma Central one. The card design is
identical to the stamp except it does not show the
denomination. However all these post cards are prepaid for
mailing in Canada for delivery anywhere
in the world.
Mr. Michael Grant, of Hamilton Ontario, has sent this
very interesting letter: As a resident
of St. Lambert Quebec
until early
1951, let me comment on two recent articles.
Train 6217 transporting boy scouts [March-April issue, page
69 bottom] – I was one
of those scouts on the way to a scout
camparee at St. Albans Vermont on June 2 1950.
The picture
of stores in the background was on the border of Ville Ie
Moyne. The train was completing a semi circle from the
train station. The tracks have long gone and been replaced
with homes.
No transfers were used
on the M&SC system, except
if a streetcar came from St. Lambert or Montreal South and a
passenger had to transfer to Greenfield Park
or Mackayville
[or the reverse direction]. The transfer spot was on the south
of Victoria Bridge around the corner from where your
picture of car 611 on the cover of your issue in 2000 was
in 1951. I remember that transfer when I took my sister
to our sitter who lived at the end
of the Mackayville section
(La Fleche). Thanks for the memories.
Dave Scott of Toronto writes: Issue 488, May-June
2002, was very good. The picture on the front cover brought
back memories.
The engineer whose arm is leaning out the
window was Mr. Jean Eugene Langlois, who was CRHA
member 271. While I was taking my pictures of the train, I
got to talk with Mr. Langlois. I explained that there was a
group of
CRHA members going to Brockville; he stated that
he was a CRHA member and upon his pulling out his
membership card it was number 271, and mine was 270.
After the end of the pool trains he went on the Montreal to
St. Hyacinthe commuter train, and as I lived in St. Lambert,
I was invited on numerous occasions to ride with him to St.
Hyacinthe and return. I also had the occasion to ride to
Ottawa on the head end. So you can see how this picture
brought back memories.
There was plenty of interest at a Nova Scotia Utility
and Review Board hearing in Sydney about the fate
of Cape
Bretons only rail service. Peter Touesnard, G.M. of Cape
Breton and Central Nova Scotia Railway, told the Nova Scotia
Utility and Review Board that a $50,000 a month operating
loss in
Cape Breton is cutting into the companys annual
profits. He said the company tried to buy Devcos rail line,
but was shut out by the federal agency, then headed by
trucking giant Joe Shannon, and was never invited despite a
request, to make a bid, he said. Donald Dunbar, a Transport
2000 member, said he has learned that VIA Rail intends to
double its Bras
dOr tourist trainss frequency next year, to
twice weekly, meaning increased revenue for the railway.
Good news from Vancouver Island: The passenger
train is safe for a little while longer. The Vancouver Island
Rail Development Initiative (VIRDI) reached agreement with
E & N (Rail America), the
current operator of Island rail
services, that will permit VIA to continue operations on
present terms through September. A VIRDI release stated this
will allow for the transition to a new, integrated rail service
company for the Island that will ensure the continuation
rail services well into next year. This agreement is an
important step toward the development of an integrated,
sustainable and economically sound rail service for the
VIA Rail will operate its overnight Montreal -Toronto
Renaissance equipped Enterprise train via Ottawa from
October 27th.
The train will stop at the Ottawa Station and
at Barrhaven, a new stop to open this fall in south-west
Ottawa. Montreal trains will not start there as previously
proposed, however in related news, Transport Minister
Collenette recently said that some more capital expenditure
on VIA may be made.
For example, capacity improvements
in the Greater Toronto area on the east-west CN main line.
After an interruption of several months, tenders will
be called, as soon as theconstructiol1
holiday ends at the
of August, for the final work needed to complete
the new Exporail building at the Canadian Railway
Museum. The new facility will be ready, and will open to the
public, when the Museum begins its 2003 season next May.
More details will appear
in the next issue of Canadian Rail
as well as in the next CRHA Communications.
BACK COVER, TOP: French National Railways (SNCF) locomotive 030-C-841, buill in 1883, is about to touch Canadian
track at the Port
of Montreal, en route to the Canadian Railway Museum, on May 11 1965. The gauge was the same!
BACK COVER, BOTTOM: The 100th anniversary of Confederation, July 1 1967, saw a display of historic rolling stock at the
National Museum
of Science and Technology in Oltawa. The yellow coach was built in 1859 as a broad gauge cm: Locomotive
40, built
in 1872, was part of the order of standaJd gauge equipment al the time of the change of gauge. Photos by Fred Angus
This issue of Cnnadian Rail was delivered to the primer on July 18,2002.

Demande en ligne