by philipmartin
British Transport Film https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot-9-aTrAjk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Railroad Forums
Moderators: Komachi, David Benton
philipmartin wrote:Yes, a year or so ago we spoke about Queen street being a North British terminal where departing trains were pulled up an incline with a cable, the trains passing the Cowlairs shops..You seem obsessed about the distant past. We now have a modern rail system with, for instance, NO STEAM at all. We have a much more modern system than you have in the US which now has little more than a skeleton service for passengers.
george matthews wrote: You seem obsessed about the distant past. We now have a modern rail system with, for instance, NO STEAM at all. We have a much more modern system than you have in the US which now has little more than a skeleton service for passengers.Yes, George. Not being stuck in the past we in North America have progressed beyond trains, and do very well without them. By the way, "obsessed" is a peculiar word to use in this context.
philipmartin wrote:I think obsessed is an accurate description of your attitude. You write about nothing other than the rather distant past, whereas the present situation is the one we have to live and travel with. There is for example no steam on the modern railway, and because of its harmful effects on the environment - adding to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - I hope it will never return.george matthews wrote: You seem obsessed about the distant past. We now have a modern rail system with, for instance, NO STEAM at all. We have a much more modern system than you have in the US which now has little more than a skeleton service for passengers.Yes, George. Not being stuck in the past we in North America have progressed beyond trains, and do very well without them. By the way, "obsessed" is a peculiar word to use in this context.
philipmartin wrote:George, your comment "We now have a modern rail system with, for instance, NO STEAM at all" seems obsessive to me since steam wasn't previously mentioned. The rest of your post about your experiences during WWII are quite interesting.You go on and on about steam, without apparently realising how unpleasant it was actually to have to travel behind a steam locomotive. I once commuted to London for about an hour each way behind steam locomotives about five days a week. It wasn't a pleasant experience and I am glad they are gone.
philipmartin wrote:Most people who ride steam trains don't find it unpleasant. Being born in 1935 I have ridden steam trains myself, even on one occasion with my head out the window most of the way. I was quite surprised afterwards when I looked in the mirror and saw that I had a black face."Most". They did surveys of people about the time steam was phased out. Most people were glad to see the back of them. They were dirty. Clothes needed to be cleaned far more often than today. Smuts in the eye were a constant problem and the NHS had special clinics for dealing with them (I had to use it once myself). As a practical mode of transport they had outlived their welcome. As toys on preserved lines, where people aren't forced to use them, perhaps they have an entertainment value.
george matthews wrote: I think obsessed is an accurate description of your attitude. You write about nothing other than the rather distant past,False, George.
philipmartin wrote:Thank you, John, for your reasoned response. I can only add that I am speaking from my limited personal experience. I was born and raised in Manhattan, where there were no steam trains. In the summer I would visit family on Long Island who would commute 75 miles to New York, most of it behind steam, on a daily basis. I don't remember complaints other than about the length of time it took.In London there was a great deal of coal smoke in the air. I am sure there are records of the amount which can be found on line but I don't know where. And the smoke was the cause of a great deal of lung disease - which I have seen myself. There are scientific papers on that too. There are also literary descriptions of the coal smoke as far back as the early 19th century. Phasing out the coal driven locomotives was a huge medical benefit. It would have been done in Britain during the 1940s but was postponed because of the war. Many electrification schemes were planned in the 1930s but only implemented in the 1950s and later. Diesel was a slight improvement, though I can remember being in Paddington where diesel exhaust was almost as bad as the former coal smoke. That too is now being phased out as electrification will replace the diesel trains quite soon.
There was a bit of soot in the air in New York, many buildings being heated by coal among other causes, but it wasn't noticeable. You just didn't put food out the window to cool or clothes out to dry. Smog was a west coast phenomenon.
Sure there are cases of lung disease, many caused by cigarette smoke.