(first posted 2/3/2018) Glasgow is a great city, and perhaps one of the most individually distinctive in Britain, with a historic importance that is obvious to any visitor. But you have to look a little harder to see one of the city’s gems – the only underground cable railway in the world, and the only underground railway in Britain outside London – and unlike anything else anywhere else.
Glasgow, on the River Clyde on the west coast, is the largest city in Scotland and its industrial history and economy contrasts sharply with its stately rival Edinburgh, just 50 miles away on the other side of the country. In the 19th century, Glasgow was the economic powerhouse of Scotland, with major ship and locomotive building and one of the most important ports in Britain, and was surrounded by an industrial hinterland full of coal mining and steelworks. Calling itself ‘the second city of the Empire’ was not hyperbole. The city grew rich on this bounty, and it shows in the city centre’s grand architecture, if not in the working people’s housing on the edge – the city had some of the worst slums in Britain.
And, in 1896, the city built only the third underground railway in the world, following London and–you might be surprised to hear, and by only 7 months–Budapest, the privately financed and owned Glasgow District Subway. But while London has developed one of the most comprehensive (and still expanding) underground railway systems in the world, Glasgow has remained faithful to its original simple network – and it really is a simple circle of just 6½ miles, with trains running on the outer (clockwise) and inner (anticlockwise) circles. And the ‘Subway’ name has stuck, despite attempts over the years to get us to call it the ‘Underground’ – everywhere else in Britain, a subway is a pedestrian underpass, usually beneath a major road.
Perhaps the ‘Subway’, with the grid layout of the city centre (very unusual in Britain) and its dramatic architecture was a subconscious nod to the city’s historic links with New York?
But the Subway is more interesting than just a circle of underground railway line should be. And here’s why.
Firstly, the route may be a simple circle, but it shows the variety that is Glasgow. From the city centre, with its impressive Victorian architecture – this is the subway’s own original headquarters, doubling as St. Enoch station – it heads under the Clyde into what the locals call the Southside, and turns west towards the shipyards of Govan. It then heads back north, crossing under the Clyde again towards the more genteel areas of Partick and Hillhead – known as the ‘West End’ and then, as now, the most desirable part of the city. Then, back east and south to the city via the much less affluent Cowcaddens. All told, 6½ miles, with a journey time of around 30 minutes. All the route is in tunnel, mostly built by ‘cut and cover’ techniques and following the street layout, and not far below the surface – but the geography of Glasgow means it is not flat! There are some significant gradients in the West End in particular, and under the river – reaching 5%. Tunnels average 29 ft below ground, and range from 7 ft to 115 ft (at Hillhead). There are 15 stations – eight north, seven south of the river.
Second, it is compact. Track gauge is just 4 feet (1,220mm), not the standard 4 ft 8 ½ inches used in London, and the twin tunnels have a diameter of barely 11 feet. The cars (as they were always called from the earliest days in Glasgow, while British mainline railways had carriages) are thus significantly smaller than anything on even the deep London tubes.
Third, it had the simplest of track layouts. Simpler than a child’s first train set. It was two circles of track. No crossovers, loops or sidings. Not a set of points to be seen. Trains couldn’t cross from one to the other. They could go round and round and that was it. Being cable driven, they couldn’t even reverse. There wasn’t even a rail connection to a maintenance depot. Instead, at Broomloan Road (between Govan and Ibrox on the Southside), a gap in the tunnel roof allowed trains to be lifted from track to shed for maintenance – all of them, every night – and then lowered back down in the morning. Just like your model railway.
The simplicity was turned into a virtue. At each station, the two tunnels opened out into shared spaces, most of which were lit by glazed roofs rather than artificial lights. The station platforms were arranged as an island between the track, so only one platform and one set of stairs, and always on the same side of the train at every station, so doors were only needed on one side. Only one station, Kelvinbridge, was provided a passenger lift – it was stairs only everywhere else.
Privately funded and operated, the Glasgow District Subway opened in December 1896 after 5 years of construction. Trains ran at frequencies of up to every 3½ minutes, with early fares of 1d (one old or pre-decimal penny, of which there were 240 to a pound, so less than half a new (well, 1971) decimal penny) for up to 4 stations, and 2d for a full circuit, from 6am to 11pm. Signalling was a simple electrical system that set a red light at the exit from each station until the train ahead had left the next station, when it passed a treadle that turned the signal behind to green – so a train was always at least one station behind the one in front. Speed was a max of 15 mph.
The trains were driven by a continuous cable between the tracks, itself powered by huge steam engines at a powerhouse at Scotland Street, above the tunnels on the industrial Southside. The two engines were single cylinder monsters, with cylinders 72 in x 42 in, capable of generating 1,500hp. One was usually sufficient for the power needed to run both cables. They were powered by up to six of eight boilers, each 8 ft x 30 ft, and mechanically stoked.
Trains gripped the cable, which was carried by 1,700 ‘sheaves’ or rollers in each tunnel, through a ‘gripper’ over 2 feet long that allowed the driver to grasp and release the cable as required. This was similar to how San Francisco operates its cable cars to this day, but with the cable above the rails rather than below street level. Numerous advantages made this the obvious option in 1896 – notably, electric power had only reached the point where a separate heavy locomotive would be needed, meaning heavier rail and longer platforms would have been necessary.
The two cables were quoted in a magazine article in 1898 as each being 36,300 ft long (or 6.875miles), and weighing 57 tons. They were 1½ inches in diameter, of up to 16 strands containing 600 miles of steel in each cable. The gearing between engines and cable was a complex system, which included the equipment to regulate the tension in the cable to match the density of the traffic at any time.
The first cars were built in England, by the Oldbury Carriage and Waggon Company, of Birmingham, which was one of the constituents of what became the Metro-Cammell railway and road bodybuilding business. 20 were completed in 1896, and another 10 in 1897, based on twin bogie chassis with wooden bodies, originally in a plum and cream livery. Metro-Cammell ultimately built the Virgin Pendolino as part of the Alstom group before the last factory at Washwood Heath, Birmingham, was shut in 2005.
The interior of the cars was very elaborate; look at this wood and engraved glass. The seats were attached to the sides of the car, but not the floor, which created a unique rocking motion known, in one of those wonderfully onomatopoeic Scots words, to generations of Glaswegians as the ‘Shoogle’.
From 1898, trailer cars were added, built by Hurst Neilson of Motherwell, close to Glasgow in Lanarkshire. These were shorter vehicles, on a simple four wheel chassis, and obviously no gripper mechanism or driving position. This is the preserved 39T at the city’s impressive new Riverside Transport Museum.
The little two car trains became a Glasgow institution. Their uniformity allowed for ‘Q here’ to be painted on platforms adjacent to the door at the rear of the leading power car, leaving the front door clear for exiting passengers. Red leather and that elaborate panelling in the front car, brown and a plainer finish in the rear, shoogling their way round the inner or outer circle day after day, year after year.
And so things were until 1922, when the Glasgow District Subway company entered terminal financial difficulties. The City Corporation rescued the Subway by buying it from the dying company, but things hardly changed; the cars became red and white, and kept on shoogling round.
In 1935, things did change. The system was electrified, just like contemporary trainsets. That is, an electric third rail replaced the cables, and electric motors replaced the gripper on the same cars. Nothing else changed. Clearly municipal ownership had not brought financial riches! Still just two separate loops, still cars from 1896, still shoogling.
The stations were simple too, with separate ticket machines for the two types of ticket.
Electrification was also when the corporation tried to get the name Underground accepted. The word appeared on stations and cars, but the people loved their Subway and refused to change.
And that was pretty much it until 1977. For 80 years, the same cars had shoogled under the River Clyde and the city’s streets, faithfully if simply serving the people of Glasgow. It outlasted even the famous Glasgow trams, the last of which were retired in 1962 – Glasgow was the last city in Britain to lose them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGeHgdMVujM&feature=related
But eventually, it was apparent that the end was near unless something drastic was done. You can’t keep something even this simple running forever on nothing. Reliability dropped, and with no loops, a failed train had to be pushed to Broomloan and lifted away before the system could flow again.
So, in 1977, the Subway–sorry, Underground–closed for a three year makeover, under the auspices of the Greater Glasgow Passenger Transport Executive which had also taken over local buses from the city and its neighbours. When it returned, it looked very different.
Stations were enlarged, with bigger platforms at the busy points in the West End and city centre; tunnels were repaired and relined; and a moving walkway linked Buchanan St subway and British Rail’s Queen St stations. New ticketing systems used vending machines and automatic barriers. New, heavier track was laid, and Broomloan modernised and, at last, a rail connection to the depot was built.
And new trains, after just 80 years! 33 new cars were built at Metro-Cammell, with contemporary styling; another eight followed in 1992, with trains formed of two driving and one trailer car. Colours changed from red to bright orange. The driver’s role became one of controlling the doors, and pressing a button to start the train only – automatic train operation did the rest. All in all, apart from the cramped size, the system leapt forward 100 years.
Today, after just 40 years, another modernisation is underway, with new trains coming in 2020 that will be fully automatic. And periodically, there are calls and plans for extensions to the Subway, usually to serve the economically challenged east of the city, where car ownership rates are among the lowest in Britain and rail services few. Sadly, it’s hard to see that ever happening; Glasgow is not London, so the UK government isn’t interested and the devolved Scottish Government can’t afford such expansive projects.
London, on the other hand, has the most comprehensive underground and mainline system in Europe, and is about to get £15 billion worth of east to west Crossrail – a 70-miles-long link built to mainline standards from the western to the eastern outskirts and tunnelling for 20 miles under central London, and has already been promised Crossrail 2, for another £30 billion, from north to south, on top of the massive investment in the Underground’s Jubilee Line and the mainline Thameslink in recent years. Projects like extending the Glasgow subway, renewing the Tyne and Wear Metro or electrifying railways in the industrial north have to wait – but a fraction of the largess freely lavished on London could be economically transformative in such areas, and are needed now more than ever. But the government in London has repeatedly stymied such projects, which looks more short sighted every year. Modernising the Subway is costing under £300m; £400m would rejuvenate the Tyne & Wear Metro, but convincing the Treasury takes years, if at all. You sense their first response to being asked is to shrug their shoulders and say ‘but that’s in the North’, but London just has to say ‘Can we have..’
But, in 2003, at least the Subway became, officially, the Subway again, so something’s been put right.
And you have to smile at the map, while topping up your season ticket on the app – the i-Shoogle.
It’s not strictly true to say that Glasgow has the only Underground railway in the UK outside of London. The Tyne and Wear Metro runs underground for much its length, as does a large part of the Liverpool city network. They both have tracks and stations above ground, but so does the London network.
In fact Glasgow has two underground railways. There’s also the Argyle Line (which now seems to be called The North Clyde Line) running underground below the city centre from Dalmarnock in the east through four further underground stations to Exhibition Centre in the west. The underground section is around five miles, compared with the 6.5 miles of the circular underground.
Charming though it is, the Glasgow circular underground is limited in its usefulness by high fares and a hopeless lack of integration of ticketing systems with the bus and railway networks.
Every European city i’ve visited gets this right without any problems – even bloody Edinburgh manages…
I’m poor and the fares don’t seem terribly high to me. The lack of ticketing integration is hardly unique in the UK.
Edinburgh has a bewildering range of monthly passes and the local bus tickets are integrated with the pointless trams but…
I rode this back in 1974 when it was a wonderfully quaint system. It had that ‘old’ underground smell (ozone?) and lovely wooden panels in the coaches, albeit stained by tobacco. Made a contrast to then then newly electrified ‘Electric Scot’ trains we went to Glasgow on.
The colour of the trains led to the system’s nickname ‘The Clockwork Orange’.
I had no idea this existed until today. I have been to Glasgow, and would have enjoyed a ride in those scaled down cars. Alas, my travelling days, overseas at least, are about done. A wonderful article.
Haifa, Israel, also has an underground cable railway, though it,s more like a funicular.
That’s the Carmelit which is getting overhauled now and is a funicular. It is however relatively short and not as effective as it would be were it extended all the way to the top of Mount Carmel. The really big project is however in Tel Aviv where – after talking about it for almost 100 years – they are constructing a “proper” underground at last, with the first line expected to open in 2022. Yes, Haifa is Israel’s equivalent of Glasgow as compared with Tel Aviv’s London, and that explains much.
Absolutely wonderful article.
I liked the map illustration of the four systems at the end of the story. I’ve ridden the three complicated ones multiple times but on my one and only visit to Glasgow (in 1984) I did not even know this system existed. It seems more like a scaled up amusement park ride than a real “system”. Nevertheless, I would love to see and ride it.
In Phoenix area, where I am writing from, we have the opposite of this system. It is one (and only one) “light rail” surface line that goes many miles back and forth from Mesa to northwest Phoenix. I find it neither useful nor safe but it does provide urban views of the huge city and a certain diversity factor too.
This is fascinating .
I’ve been to Glasgow too (albeit 35+ years ago) and nobody told me about the “underground”. But it’s not the “underground” – it’s the TUBE !
I’m familiar with this, because not too long ago a stumbled into an excellent documentary on this system on Youtube. But this is a good refresher.
Yep! Seen that Youtube documentary also. Pretty good for a Saturday afternooon.
This is fascinating! My mum was born in Glasgow and talked about many things growing up there but I never heard about this until today!
The cars reminded me of those used in the A line of the Buenos Aires system. Being from 1913, they were retired in 2012!
Oh and they swung due to the flexibility of the wooden bodies. I guess what the Shoogle is about…
Great piece! Thanks
I’ve ridden many times on the pre 1980 Glasgow Subway. Main memories are the
strange but not unpleasant smell, the deafening noise, the “no spitting” sign and the constant flickering of the lights .
We were in Glasgow in 2008 for 10 days and rode “Clockwork Orange” several times. Great little system and quite cheap!
I find it truly amazing that they lifting the cars off the track on a daily basis. Seems like a time consuming and dangerous process.
Very interesting post – having never been up in Glasgow, I never knew of this line.
The metro in Lausanne was initially cable-operated when it opened in 1877 (nicknamed “la ficelle” (the string) for this reason). It then became a cog system, then was closed for decades before being refurbished as an automated electric line (with tyres, which help in steep gradients) about 10 years ago. In the interim, a second line going west was established as a light rail, but both are now part of the same network, well integrated with buses, mainline trains, boats, etc.
So be patient, Glaswegians. Your circular subway is only 120 years old – it may yet one day be linked with the restrictive transport system…
The proportions of those cars are not much different than larger standard gauge subways, so you don’t realize how small they are until the pictures with people on the platform.
As well as the lack of direct financial support from the government, British cities suffer from a general absence of independent finance. No local tax-raising outside Scotland (and that’s pretty limited and politically challenging), and none of the opportunities to issue municipal bonds like US cities. Our local government is emasculated.
The pieces on CC about trains, planes etc are terrific. Specialist sites tend to be overrun with specialist commentary (“that loco would not have pulled the Royal Scot out of Euston that day in 1937 as my Dad was rebuilding her boiler in Crewe at that precise moment”). CC’s pieces are informed, comprehensive and available to all, so thanks to everyone who submits them.
The company I worked for 30 years ago had a sister location in Greenock (up the firth from Glasgow). I was in Glasgow, but unfortunately didn’t see the subway. We left our rental car at Prestwick, somehow got over to Edinburgh for the weekend, then took the train into London from where we departed back to the US.
One of my stock stories I probably tell way too often happened there (though I wasn’t present, I heard it from my best friend, who was riding in the front passenger seat of a rental car, not sure who was driving (probably my manager at the time), but seated right behind my friend was our 2nd level manager (his name was Clyde, coincidentally)..who asked my friend a question, to which my friend twisted completely around in his seat to face rearward to answer the question…upon which Clyde got a horrified look on his face…of course, being from the US, he had the “position bias” thinking that from where my friend was seated he was in the drivers position and should have been paying attention to the (rather narrow) road rather than to Clyde’s question, no matter how seemingly important at the time.
However entertaining the story, attentive driving is paramount when you’re in a different environment. The car we rented was a Vauxhaull but was one of the models that was a Honda Civic clone, but did have an automatic, so I was better able to concentrate on navigating than trying to shift with my left hand. One of our neighbors in Virginia was killed driving during a business trip to Britain in the 70’s; of course he was in my mind during the trip.
I love these pieces on rail systems. It is amazing the basic durability engineered into this setup. Quite an undertaking by a private company, something unimaginable today.
I assume you’re aware that essentially all transit systems and subways in the US and UK were built by private companies? There was no concept of municipal undertakings like this in these bastions of capitalism back then. Railroads and transit were big money-makers back in the day; and by far the biggest sector of the whole private sector, in terms of capital. They were the equivalent of the tech sector nowadays.
How could they make it work? Simple. Labor was dirt cheap.And the poor (mostly) immigrant labor that built the railroads and subways and elevated trains mostly couldn’t afford to ride them; they were for the “nice” folks.
The first NY subway line that opened in 1904 charged 5 cents; that was not exactly cheap. Subways were seen as a premium service to get somewhere quicker than surface transport.
There may be some exceptions but all transit in the US was private through WW2 (actually NYC bought the first two lines in 1940). After the war, transit use started dropping precipitously due to suburbs and cars, and cities initially started providing subsidies to private companies, whose wages were now much higher and couldn’t cut it anymore. Subsidized private transit was common in the US right up until 1970 or so, when a massive surface transportation bill unleashed a huge amount of money for equipment and building systems. But by this time, no private company was going to make that work anymore, and systems were invariably taken over by cities or regional transit districts, which often had taxing power.
Th rising standard of living made operating transit too expensive for private companies. And transit increasingly became an essential service for the lower-income sector, so government felt it was a social good to provide affordable transit. Transit evolved from a premium for-profit service to a universally used socialized service.
If the NYC Subway (or any transit service) had to live off its fares, the fares would have to be 3-5 times (or more) higher. That would just move more people into cars, taxis, illegal jitmeys, etc.. As it is, transit is in crisis at the moment, as many systems (not NYC) are experiencing a substantial drop-off in ridership, especially buses. Ride-hailing services like Uber, which are subsidized by its investors (Uber loses billions per year) are cheap enough to be eating into bus service. And the improving economy is allowing more to buy cars. The bad traffic is on reason given, as bus speeds are slower. Unfortunately people moving out of buses into cars only slows traffic down further.
Which explains why Elon Musk is digging tunnels, for a private, premium service for the affluent.
Yes, these systems were built in a world that no longer exists. Today even good usable systems in dense cities like NYC and Chicago are perpetually broke. Cities that are less dense and that developed with automobiles, well the less said about the state of their transit systems the better. I would love to make at least occasional use of transit but that is just a nonstarter where I live in Indianapolis because virtually no busses run in my area of older suburbs. Here mass transit is reserved as a last ditch option for the poor. And even the poor usually have a car here and will avoid the busses if they can.
May I add that, when the subways in New York, London, Paris and most of the other cities were built, aside from a few autos owned by the upper crust, the only competition was literally horse powered-picturesque and, perhaps, charming, but also slow, limited in range and capacity and with its own peculiar pollution problem.
Indeed. When San Francisco started the Municipal Railway in 1912 to complement the private Market Street Railway, you would have thought Karl Marx had landed in the Bay, so great was the outcry against the socialist concept of municipal ownership.
One thing that really did in the private street railways, besides the rising cost of labor, were the franchise agreements that required them to pave their right of way and maintain it, as well as provide street spraying and snow plowing.
In Pittsburgh, they also had to maintain bridges used by cars as well as streetcars. And in some less developed areas, the street was only the paved railroad right of way. All of this shifted to other municipal departments or agencies after the private systems were taken over.
And many were cobbled together from dozens of underlying companies that were never consolidated, making their financing both expensive and confusing. Not to mention clever cross charging for corporate services that kept operating profits low, but dividends from the holding company high.
Also, let’s not forget two other factors in private transit system ownership:
– The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 sought to prevent regulated utilities from owning unregulated businesses. This forced many electric utilities to divest the electric trolley companies they owned. Many of these electric railways depended on low electric rates to remaining profitable on even a pure operating basis, to say nothing of being able to cover the cost of capital for improvements!
– The interurban railways like the Pacific Electric were primarily built as real estate development tool. Building the railways provided transportation that allowed the development of otherwise isolated land, vastly increasing its value. Once the property was developed, however, the railways became unprofitable on their own as costs that Robert mentioned above rose.
Ah, fun times, thanks for sharing this. When I was a student Kelvinbridge was my local subway station – the blue stripe and quieter platform was always so much nicer to me that bustling Hillhead. As I got older I became a Southsider, moving to Queen’s Park (well…the southernmost edge of Govanhill) which meant using the (overground) Cathcart circle instead. We love a good circle here, apparently.
I always thought it would be smart to add a walkway connecting Bridge Street underground to the regular rail just before the bridge over the Clyde into Central station – that way, the whole Southside would have basically been on the subway, for SO much less than extending it. But I’m not in charge of anything 🙂
I’m Edinburgh-based now, but I still really miss Glasgow and its still shoogly subway.
Perhaps this has nothing to do with the article, but I have always wondered why the British loading gauge is so constrictive compared to the USA. After all, the track gauge is the same: 4′ 8+1/2″.
Loading gauge has nothing to do with the track width. The reason the British loading gauge is smaller is simply because they built so many railroads with tunnels so early, at a time when trains and carriages were all still very small in size, width and height.
The European loading gauge is larger, but still less than in the US. And the loading gauge in the US varies; in the northeast, where the early railroads were first built, it’s quite a bit less than out further west. That’s why Amtrak can’t run its bi-level trains on the East Coast.
And speaking of track gauge, in some cities, street railway lines were built to a different track gauge to prevent interchange with the railroads, 5′ 2 1/2″ was the law in PA, and the surviving Pittsburgh and Philadelphia systems use it, as does New Orleans. Cincinnati Street Railway was also broad gauge.
LA Railways used a 36″ narrow gauge, while Pacific Electric was standard gauge. Not sure why they did this, maybe because of the number of narrow gauge logging railroads in the state and the lighter weight of streetcars. As a result, downtown LA had a fair amount of dual gauge track.
The other factor that affected steam locomotives in particular was our raised platforms which restricts the amount of space near track level, limiting the size of cylinders, though a few classes had quite angled cylinders to help here.
Not a problem for electric traction though where the motors usually sit between the wheels.
Another one of your fascinating rail articles! Made my weekend – many thanks.
Great article! I love these pieces on metro systems and I’d love to see more!
Thank you for the great and informative article!
Toronto also calls its system a Subway. But compare to other large cities it’s a pathetic layout and capacity issues during rush hour!
Hi,
Thank you so much for this article. I was a kid in Glasgow in the 60s, and though most of the time I’d be on the buses, taking the subway was really the treat. I can clearly recall the particular dusty smell of the stations and that smell intensifying with the whoosh of air as the subway came into the station.
Oh and did it shoogle, loved it.
Cheers
Alistair
Great article. I’m a big subway/el/street railway fan and I’d never heard of this. Where is the museum? Looks like its in/around the old shop complex.h
It’s in Glasgow, on the edge of the city centre in Partick on the north side of the Clyde. Only 0.6 mile from Partick Subway, according to Google maps. And it’s free
https://beta.glasgowlife.org.uk/museums
https://www.visitscotland.com/info/see-do/riverside-museum-p995001
Ayr held out until the 65th min when the Govan side’s efforts finally paid off.
Fascinating article! Made my day, many thanks.
What a strange collection of coincidences. I’ve been a lurker here for years, but must have missed this article the first time around. And I was sitting here looking at Broomloan Depot on Google Earth – Saturday evenings are just a mad whirl at my house – noticing that the southern end, where they keep the new trains (which still aren’t in service yet), is actually further from Govan station than Ibrox station is, when the next thing I do is visit CC.
It’s a fun little “system”. I have fond memories of the old Victorian trains and the gloomy old stations, including the lift at Kelvinbridge. As far as I recall, it only took you from ground level up to that of the bridge (similar to the current covered escalator for those who know the place; the old entrances were the adjoining tenement block). To be fair, I was only six years old when it closed for the Great Refurbishment, but I vividly recall being taken by my mum to look down the hole under the old St. Enoch station building. They actually moved the whole thing a few feet to make way for the new entrance.
There was quite a detailed plan a few years back (maybe around 2010, or so?) to join up disused mainline tunnels in the East End of the city to create a second circle which would share the existing line between Buchanan Street and St. Enoch, but – so the story goes in Glasgow – the money went to build the new Edinburgh trams instead. Pity. It would have been a useful extension. The Subway’s small size is it’s biggest drawback, and greatest enemy in a way. It struggles to attract passengers because it serves so few places. A larger network would be greater than the sum of its parts.
I have an interest in subway systems, but I was unaware of this one. My father was involved in the building of the first Toronto subway and in 1954 as a 4 year old I got to ride with the driver on the inaugural run. Whenever we traveled as a family to somewhere with a subway we all had to go for a ride. Toronto was doing so well with subway construction and then it just stopped around 1970. Transit is now a disaster as is surface traffic.
I have only been to Glasgow once in the 1990s for 3 weeks on business. Looking at the map now I realize the office was fairly close to a couple of stations, but not being aware of it, I missed my chance. I am a big fan of designer Charles Rennie Macintosh and I did get to see some of his work ( Willow Tearooms and Glasgow School of Art). It looks as if I will have to make a return journey to see the subway.
Well, you just added something to my bucket list. I would love to ride that subway even if it is not the original 1896 model. Great essay and much thanks for it.
Wow, never knew about this, Auckland is getting suburban underground rail of sorts finally.
A most excellent article Big Paws! It combines two of my interests.
1. Any transportation device attached to and propelled via cable or any type of electrical catenary cable system.
2. All things underground.
While only partly related, six months ago I stumbled upon two excellent UK Urban Exploration websites. One caters to all urbex types but also has an extensive “Underground” and “Drainers” section that covers nearly everything underground including culverted rivers, storm drains and sewers in England’s major metro areas. The second focuses only on drains and sewers with most excellent photography. The brilliant engineer Joseph Bazalgette created and the associated bricklayers executed some of the most beautiful and intricate brickwork very few had ever seen until recently. The quality of which is just as superb as that found in England’s many underground stations.
28DaysLater.Co.UK
SubStormFlo.Com