218. From Coal Tracks to Railways: What Britain’s First Waggon Ways Really Did

The early waggon ways of Britain, built long before steam engines, were not the beginnings of a public transport system. They were something much more specific and much more powerful. They were the physical infrastructure of the coal economy.

From the early 1600s onwards, hundreds of miles of wooden and later iron-railed tracks were laid across Northumberland, Durham and parts of Yorkshire. Their purpose was simple. They moved coal from pitheads to rivers and ports. Almost every early line ran from a colliery to a staith on the Tyne, Wear or Tees, where coal could be tipped straight into ships bound for London and other cities.

This was not a minor trade. By the late seventeenth century, London was burning well over half a million tons of coal each year. Houses, breweries, glassworks, brick kilns, metal workshops and lime burners all depended on it. Without cheap, reliable coal transport, the city would have stalled.

Waggon ways made that possible. Iron-tyred wagons running on wooden rails created far less friction than carts on muddy roads. A single horse could pull a load five or six times heavier than it could on an ordinary track. The cost of moving coal collapsed, and the volume surged. These lines were, in effect, long, thin conveyor belts feeding the capital with energy.

Because of this, the geography of the system was highly specialised. Tracks ran downhill from pits to rivers. They did not link towns to towns. They did not form networks. They were industrial arteries, not public roads.

This brings us to the question of farm produce.

In practice, waggon ways carried almost no agricultural goods. Farmers did not use them to send grain, vegetables, milk or animals to market. There were three reasons.

First, the lines were privately owned by coal companies. They were built, maintained and controlled to serve pits and staithes. They were not open-access routes for the surrounding countryside.

Second, their layout made them useless for farming. They ran from mine to river, often across open moorland or along narrow industrial corridors. Farms lay scattered across fields and lanes, nowhere near the rails.

Third, agriculture already had a transport system that suited it better. Farm produce moved in small, mixed loads to many different markets. That was done by carts, packhorses and later canals. Waggon ways were designed for one thing only, moving huge volumes of a single heavy commodity in one direction.

There were a few later exceptions. Some lines carried stone, lime or iron ore where those lay close to collieries. But these were still extractive, bulk materials, not the outputs of everyday farming.

When steam locomotives appeared in the early nineteenth century, they did not create a new pattern of movement. They inherited an old one. The first railways ran where the waggon ways had already gone, from coalfields to ports and industrial towns. Passenger services and agricultural freight came later, layered onto a system that had been built to serve energy first.

In that sense, Britain’s railways did not grow out of a desire to connect communities. They grew out of the need to feed a distant city with fuel.

The iron roads that eventually carried people and food across the country began life as wooden tracks whose sole purpose was to move black rock to the sea.

217. Remembering the Scammell Scarab – and the Future of Freight in the UK

Scamell Scarab three-wheeled delivery tractor used by British Railways in the 1950s.

When I was young in the 1940s and 50s, there was a very particular sight around country railway stations that many people today have forgotten.  It was the small three-wheeled delivery tractor with a single wheel at the front and two at the back, pulling a flat trailer of goods from the station yard to shops, farms and businesses.

Many of these vehicles were Scammell Scarabs.  They were not lorries in the modern sense.  They were designed to work in tight spaces.  Their triangular shape allowed them to turn almost on the spot, which made them ideal for crowded goods yards and narrow village streets.

In those days, the railway goods (freight) system was intensely local.    Trains brought coal, fertiliser, food, animal feed and parcels into small towns and villages.  From there, these little tractors took the goods the last mile.  Rail did the long haul.  The Scarab did the short haul.

That system was not scrapped because it was inefficient.  It disappeared because diesel lorries and motorways enabled the centralisation of everything into distribution centres far from where people lived.  For a while, that seemed cheap and convenient.  But ithas tied the whole freight system to liquid fuel and long road journeys.

Now we are moving into a very different world.  Diesel is not literally running out, but it is becoming more expensive, more politically sensitive and more vulnerable to disruption.  At the same time, the government is pushing to end the sale of new diesel heavy goods vehicles over the next fifteen years.

Electric lorries may work well for some jobs, especially where vehicles return to base and can charge overnight.  But for long-distance heavy freight, they remain difficult.  Batteries are heavy.  Charging takes time.  Motorway service areas do not yet have the electric power required to recharge fleets of lorries.

This is why rail will come back into the conversation.   Rail is already one of the most energy-efficient ways to move heavy loads over long distances.  If the main routes are electrified, trains can then run on domestic electricity rather than imported diesel.

But rail on its own is not enough.  Every load still has to get from local stations to its final destination.  That last mile is where modern electric vans come in.  They are the modern descendants of the old Scarabs.

This is where the idea of rebuilding some branch lines and local stations with goods yards becomes essential.  We do not need to reopen every rural railway.  But having more rail-connected local freight hubs would allow containers, pallets and bulk goods to be brought close to where they are needed.

From there, local electric vehicles could quietly and cheaply deliver the goods.  Villages would no longer need streams of heavy lorries coming from distant warehouses.   Instead, they would be served from nearby rail hubs, just as they once were.

In effect, we would be recreating a modern version of the old system.  Rail for the long distance.  Small electric vehicles for short distances.  It is not nostalgia.  It is simple energy logic.

[ChatGPT created the picture at the top of this article.  It shows a Scammell Scarab doing that job in the 1950s.  But it shows the vehicle on the passenger platform.  I could not persuade ChatGPT to place the vehicle on the other side of the building.]

205. The possible revival of UK heritage railways in a shrinking economy

Heritage railways exist across the UK, mostly as leisure attractions. They are usually short lines, often between five and fifteen miles long, using restored steam or early diesel locomotives. Many follow the routes of former branch lines closed in the mid-20th century. There are over 150 heritage railways, with a combined track length of roughly 550 to 600 miles. Most are run by charities or trusts and rely heavily on volunteers.

In their current form, heritage railways depend largely on tourism and discretionary travel. Families visit for days out. Enthusiasts travel long distances to ride behind particular locomotives. This model assumes spare income, cheap fuel, and a willingness to travel for pleasure. In a shrinking economy, those conditions weaken. Discretionary spending falls. Tourist travel declines. Long journeys become less affordable and less frequent. As a result, the existing heritage railway model becomes increasingly fragile.

However, decline in tourism does not automatically mean decline in usefulness. It may instead force a change of purpose.

In the 19th century, Britain’s railways flourished in an economy far smaller than today’s. Total economic output was a fraction of current levels. Average incomes were low. Most people lived close to where they worked. Travel was limited and purposeful. Yet by the 1870s Britain had more than 15,000 route miles of railway, much of it serving small towns, villages, farms, quarries, forests, and ports. Many lines were slow, lightly used, and short. They existed to support everyday life, not leisure.

The key difference lies in the nature of travel. Victorian railways did not depend on tourism or discretionary trips. They carried workers, food, fuel, tools, animals, mail, and local passengers making short journeys. A five or ten mile trip was normal. Speed was modest. Frequency mattered more than comfort.

A shrinking economy pushes society back towards that pattern. As discretionary travel declines, people travel less often and over shorter distances. Car ownership becomes harder to sustain. Fuel costs become uncertain. At the same time, economic activity becomes more local. Food production, repair, care, storage, and small-scale manufacture take place closer to where people live.

In that context, heritage railways could evolve away from tourism and towards local utility.

Many heritage lines already connect small towns with their surrounding countryside. Some pass close to farmland, woodland, former industrial land, or edge-of-settlement sites suitable for workshops and depots. Their low speeds are not a disadvantage when journeys are short. A train running at 20 miles an hour over five miles is slow only by modern, long-distance standards.

Energy use also matters. Steam traction, often dismissed as obsolete, is adaptable. Steam locomotives can operate on coal, wood, or charcoal. In a future where liquid fuels are scarce or expensive, this flexibility becomes valuable. Heritage railways already possess the skills, tools, and workshops needed to maintain such systems without digital dependence.

Employment is another factor. Heritage railways are labour-intensive. They require drivers, firemen, track workers, maintenance staff, signal operators, and administrators. In a shrinking economy, labour becomes more available while capital becomes more constrained. What is now volunteer activity could shift towards modest, locally paid employment, embedded in the locality rather than dependent on visitors.

Socially, local railways function as shared assets. Stations become practical places again, not attractions. Timetables respond to local needs rather than tourist peaks. Governance remains close to the ground, fitting naturally with a wider shift from centralised systems towards informal, locally managed ones.

Not every heritage railway would be suitable for this transition. Some are isolated. Some serve routes with no remaining local demand. Some are too closely tied to the visitor economy. But others could adapt gradually. Tourist services might reduce while regular local services increase. Goods wagons could return alongside passenger coaches. Income could shift from visitor fares to subscriptions, local contracts, or support linked to food, fuel, and materials movement.

As tourist and discretionary travel declines, systems built around leisure struggle. Systems built around necessity endure. The revival of heritage railways would not be about nostalgia or days out. It would be about rediscovering a form of transport that works at small scale, with low energy use, high human involvement, and strong local purpose.

The 19th century railway network grew in an economy far smaller than today’s and with very limited discretionary travel. As the modern economy contracts, similar conditions re-emerge. Under those conditions, heritage railways may find that what once made them seem obsolete is precisely what makes them relevant again.

BUT. The construction of the vast railway network in the 19th century was an essential element of the growing capitalist economy. Not so now.