Glasgow

[philipmartin]

British Transport Film https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot-9-aTrAjk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[george matthews]

Glasgow once had a number of terminal rail stations, built by the several railway companies of the 19th century.

It now has two main stations: Queen Street and Central. Central is the main station for trains to the south (England) and also to the southwest of Scotland. Queen Street is the main station for Edinburgh and the North. I can remember arriving at St Enoch in the 1940s on a train from London during the war. This station is now closed. It represented the inefficiency of the competing companies. I think some trains to Edinburgh via a different route also go from Central.

You must remember that in Britain almost all lines have far more passenger trains per hour than most of the United States.

[philipmartin]

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..

[george matthews]

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.

[philipmartin]

Good video about Glasgow.

[philipmartin]

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.

[george matthews]

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.

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.

In Glasgow the main events of my lifetime have been the electrification of most lines entering. The closure of St Enoch was a response to the lessening of demand. It was an extra station unneeded when the lines all came under the same ownership and management. The same thing you will note has happened in Chicago.

I first entered Glasgow in 1944, fleeing with my mother from the German Flying Bombs. I remember the journey from London on a long distance train at night, especially the sound of steam as we passed other trains, and the feel of the seat being used as a bed. I remember the Central station and coming out on the streets to see the famous Glasgow trams. The Flying Bombs didn't reach as far as Glasgow. We stayed with my grandmother in a village outside Glasgow. I remember quite a lot about that time. I even attended the village school for a while.

When I attended Edinburgh university I used to travel to Glasgow from time to time. So I am quite familiar with the railways of that area. There are three different routes connecting the two cities. In the 1960s they were nearly all diesel powered but since then the most important - busiest - lines have been electrified.

You have to realise that whereas railways are a minor part of US transport, in Britain and the rest of Europe they are an important part of transport and have attracted far more modernisation than in the US. When I travel by train in the US I am always struck by how old fashioned the trains are there - and how slow they are.

[philipmartin]

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. My interest in steam is common to railfans. The rest of your post about your experiences during WWII are quite interesting.

[george matthews]

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]

My experience is hat 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 surprised at the end when I looked in the mirror with my black face.

[george matthews]

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.

I would add that I spent two years working in the laboratory of the London Chest Hospital. What was the most common condition treated there? Bronchitis, whose main cause is breathing polluted air. And what was the main pollutant in the 1950s? Coal smoke from trains. Getting rid of coal smoke was a great medical benefit. At about the same period coal smoke was phased out of ordinary houses. The Clean Air Acts passed by parliament allowed local governments to designate areas where burning coal in houses was replaced by electricity and gas to heat houses. There is a much reduced coal industry in Britain now.

[philipmartin]

I think obsessed is an accurate description of your attitude. You write about nothing other than the rather distant past,

False, George.

[johnthefireman]

George and Philip, I often wonder what this disagreement is actually about.

George says, "As a practical mode of transport they had outlived their welcome". That's a statement of fact, no disagreement. They no longer exist as a "practical mode of transport" and have not done so for decades, except in one or two special industrial cases (the SAPPI-SAICCOR paper mill in South Africa, where they finally stopped last year, and the coal industry in China, where a handful of steam locos are still clinging on as diesels rapidly take over). Clearly they are never going to return as a "practical mode of transport".

On the other hand, Philip says, "most people who ride steam trains don't find it unpleasant". Note the tense - "ride" (present tense), not "rode" (past tense). And George agrees when he says, "As toys on preserved lines, where people aren't forced to use them, perhaps they have an entertainment value". Precisely - that is the only way people can ride steam trains these days, and most people who do so enjoy the experience, so there is little point in harking back to the days when they were the normal mode of transport. Yes, "Most people were glad to see the back of them" as a normal mode of transport, but several decades later (ie now) most people are quite pleased to see the handful of preserved ones whether as toys, or entertainment, or working historical artefacts, or as an incredibly important reminder of our industrial heritage which helped to create society as we know it.

As to obsessing about the past, the word "obsessing" is pejorative and value-laden, but basically it's what historians do. It's why people are interested in vintage cars, old aeroplanes, old ships, old postage stamps, old books, old military uniforms, old weapons, old medals, dinosaurs, English stately homes, palaces, antique furniture, agricultural machinery (I know a bloke in South Africa who has 400 old tractors), re-enacting old battles, making TV programmes where celebrities live in a Bronze Age village, etc. It's why we have museums. It's part of educating ourselves about the past and how it led to the present. It's also entertainment. It's why people visit the Tower of London, or Hadrian's Wall, or the Somme battlefield, or ancient cities like Rome... or ride on steam trains.

[philipmartin]

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.
There was a bit of soot in the air in New York, the 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.

[george matthews]

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.
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.

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.

Manhattan showed the wisdom of the local government there which implemented what London has done later - forbidding steam inside the city.

Glasgow is another city where air quality has hugely improved in recent years. I remember it when it was at its worst in 1944 - with impenetrable fog, full of coal smoke. It is now much better. The cause was the elimination of coal burning, not just in steam engines but also in houses.

What should we do with coal? Leave it in the ground.