National Heritage Week began yesterday and runs until August 23.
Unfortunately due to the current Covid Crisis, Laois County Library Service is not in a position this year to host any of the usual historical and heritage talks/events which would normally take place in our branches.
So they are trying to deliver these in other ways where possible – starting with this article.
A train service had once operated from Portlaoise (Maryborough) to Mountmellick between 1885 and 1963.
This campaign is just one element from a much larger and ongoing nationwide debate over the issue of rural transport links in Ireland and the necessity for improved services which not only meet economic and social needs but which also address Climate Change concerns as the government looks to increase public transport use in order to dramatically reduce Ireland’s carbon footprint and the country’s consumption of fossil fuels by 2030.
The issue of improving rural transport is nothing new in Ireland, but in the 1880s an interesting piece of legislation was introduced with the intention of providing greater transport links around the country and making rural areas more accessible.
The Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883 was passed with the aim of promoting the extension of tramway communication within Ireland.
No sooner had the Act passed when many promotion companies were set up proposing to introduce schemes all across the country. Tramway legislation had been in place since the 1860s but this sudden entrepreneurial interest was down to a particular provision contained within the 1883 Act.
Under previous Acts all the risk and expense of constructing, maintaining and working the lines had to be borne by the promoters themselves.
However, the 1883 Act included a baronial guarantee which was a guarantee given by the barony or baronies in the county where a tramline was established to pay dividends not exceeding 5% per annum on the capital put up by shareholders to construct the line.
Not alone that, but if the line proved to be a failure, or was unable to pay the dividend guarantee to the shareholders, or even was unable to pay its working expenses, all the cost and liability would fall immediately on the ratepayers of that barony or baronies.
They would be obliged to keep up the line and work it at a loss and could potentially find themselves in a position far more pressing than the shareholders of a private company who could cut their losses and dispose of their line should it prove to be a failure.
Such a relatively risk-free opportunity for investors prompted a flurry of proposed tramway schemes during the autumn of 1883. One such proposal involved the towns of Portarlington and Mountmellick.
The Leinster Express from Saturday, 20th October 1883 details a meeting held in the Town Hall of Mountmellick “to consider the advantages of having tram communication established to connect this town with the Great Southern and Western Railway line.”
The meeting appeared to take place amidst an atmosphere of vagueness about what exactly this entailed.
Chairman, Colonel Carden, said he was not very well acquainted with this particular Act of Parliament and it was not established at which point on the Great Southern and Western Railway line that the tram would intersect so as to provide a connection to Mountmellick. Was it to be at Carne or Portarlington Railway Station?
There was also an air of suspicion among those in attendance. Mr. Cobbe advised the meeting to stay clear of “foreigners.” He stated that speculators would not come to the locality to spend their money unless they expected to profit from it.
The case for Carne was put forward on the basis that it offered a more direct route to Mountmellick as it was only a distance of three miles away.
Establishing a connection between Carne and Mountmellick had been suggested as far back as 1845 and was to be called The Mountmellick Junction Railway, although in the end it never materialised.
The connection to Carne still seemed to occupy a space in the minds of the Mountmellick townspeople in 1883.
The view was put forward that the Great Southern and Western Railway Company would prefer Portarlington Railway Station because they already had in place there the requisite staff and infrastructure which made it a more cost-effective option.
It was mentioned that not all trains would be able to stop at a small station like Carne. Along with this, it was suggested that additional freight would be charged if the line went to Carne instead of Portarlington Railway Station.
The construction of a railway line between Mountmellick and Maryborough was already underway at this time which seemed to complicate the issue somewhat.
This line was being constructed by the Waterford and Kilkenny Railway Company and would open in March 1885. Passenger and goods services ceased in 1947 but the line remained open for sugar beet and specials until January 1963.
The complication stemmed from the question of whether this new railway line joining Maryborough to Mountmellick would significantly reduce the need for a tramline from Mountmellick to either Carne or Portarlington Railway Station.
Would this imminent service render the tramline redundant? Therefore, should a tramline between Geashill and Mountmellick be built instead in order to provide a connection for passengers to the forthcoming Maryborough line?
This was countered by a remark that the line to Maryborough was travelling south and would not interfere with neither traffic nor passengers travelling in the direction of Carne or Portarlington.
It was added that the fairs in Mountmellick would be greatly enhanced by a line to Portarlington which would bring greater numbers to the town.
The point was then raised of possible opposition from the Canal Company if a tramline was made between Mountmellick and Portarlington. The idea was put forward that this company was planning to reintroduce the old system of fly-boats carrying passengers between the two towns.
Mr. Condran brought the meeting back into focus by suggesting time was being lost with irrelevant talk and first of all it should be decided whether there should be a tramway or not and secondly where the line should be made to.
A resolution was proposed: “That we form a Promoters’ Company for the purpose of making arrangements for the construction of a line of either tramway or light railway from Mountmellick to Carne.”
It was decided that the shares of the Promoters’ Company should be £1 (limited liability). The Mountmellick Branch of the Bank of Ireland was appointed treasurer; Mr. Morgan was appointed secretary and Mr. Turpin as solicitor.
About £60 was subscribed at the meeting and it was agreed that the share list would be left at Mr. Morgan’s shop in Mountmellick and those who wished to subscribe in the undertaking could add their name to the list of shareholders.
Before the meeting concluded, however, a hugely significant matter was raised: that of taxation to pay for the line.
The baronies of Portnahinch and Tinnahinch would have to pay for the line as it was within these two baronies that the tram would travel.
As the entire population of each barony could not directly avail of this line, the question was posed as to the fairness in taxing everyone in the said baronies for a service which only a section of their population could, in all probability, take advantage of.
This was a matter which would ultimately prove extremely problematic. Tellingly, caution was urged not to act too hastily in making a commitment to the construction of a tramway.
The Leinster Leader from Saturday, 3rd November 1883 reported on a further public meeting held in Mountmellick to discuss the promotion of a tram or light railway to connect the town with the Great Southern and Western Railway. Again, the point on this line where the connection would intersect was high on the agenda: Carne or Portarlington Railway Station?
From the outset of the meeting there was a sense of reticence over the whole proposal which was summarised by Mr. Turpin who spoke about letting this matter lie until the Summer Assizes and seeing how similar tramway schemes had developed in other parts of the country first before committing Mountmellick to its own scheme.
At this meeting Carne once again was put forward as the preferred destination for the reasons already outlined at the preceding meeting.
However, the secretary, Mr. Morgan, read out a letter from an engineer named Mr. Price working on behalf of an unnamed Tramway Company who outlined the view that building a new station at Carne would not be feasible in terms of cost and practicality, but rather that constructing a tramway alongside the county road between the towns of Mountmellick and Portarlington would better serve the town’s interests.
Mr. Honnor, representing the same company as Mr. Price, spoke in person at the meeting. In a deliberate act of diplomacy, he made reference to the “foreigners” remark made by Mr. Cobbe at the previous meeting and assured those in attendance that he had been born and reared in the Queen’s County and that the company he was representing was indeed an Irish one, albeit “supported by men of unlimited means in London.”
Mr. Honnor reiterated the point that his company would only countenance constructing a tramline between Mountmellick and Portarlington Railway Station along the county road for a steam tramway travelling at a speed of twelve miles per hour with a five-feet-three gauge.
Mr. Honnor boasted that this steam-powered tram could stop in six yards to pick up any passenger. This particular tramway was deemed most appropriate because the trucks that run on a railway could run on the tramline meaning that goods leaving from Dublin, for example, could arrive in Mountmellick on the same trucks.
The Dublin and Lucan Steam Tramway was the first roadside steam tramway to operate in Ireland when the line opened in 1881.
A separate, enclosed engine locomotive with a tall funnel hauled the passenger car which could be single or double decker.
Apart from a protective screen to shield from smuts and smoke emanating from the locomotive’s funnel, passengers travelling on the top deck of a double decker tram could be quite exposed, hence a cheaper second class fare being charged for a seat on the top deck as opposed to the relative comfort which a first class fare afforded the passenger on the deck below.
Mr. Honnor reassured those in attendance that his company would pay all the expenses in ascertaining the viability of the line and its submission before the Grand Jury for approval.
If their submission failed then they would bear the loss. He also mentioned that two-thirds of the guaranteed shares would be made available to people within the district to be taken up within a specific time-frame, but his company would take them up themselves if they were not availed of locally.
However, it appeared that Mr. Honnor was representing an embryonic company with the funds and financial backing to deliver a tramway rather than one which had already been set up and was fully functioning.
There seemed to be a tangible sense of disappointment at the meeting that the line from Mountmellick to Carne was declared a non-runner by Mr. Honnor and perhaps this disappointment coloured the reaction to his proposal.
Mr. Conran urged extreme caution “before we put ourselves into the hands of those financial gentlemen. Once you put yourselves into their hands you won’t get out of them so easily.”
Mr. Pim reiterated the concern of potential complications with the Mountmellick to Maryborough railway line and the pre-existing canal conveyance between Mountmellick and Portarlington.
He also advised waiting until the Summer Assizes to decide.
Both Messrs. Cobbe and Turpin displayed a definite desire to create distance from Mr. Honnor’s company and suggested it had ample means to act independently in terms of presenting their proposal before the Grand Jury to gain the baronial guarantee.
In the Leinster Express from Saturday, 15th December 1883 a Parliamentary Notice appeared making an application in pursuance of the provisions of The Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883 for a Portarlington and Mountmellick Tramway and Light Railway.
This was made by a solicitor, Mr. Roe, working on behalf of the Portarlington and Mountmellick Tramway and Light Railway Company (Limited).
Incidentally, identical notices appeared by the same solicitor in relation to applications for lines between Ballybrophy and Rathdowney, Mountrath (Kilbricken Railway Station to Mountrath Town), Maryborough and Stradbally.
The notice stated that the line would commence “at a point in the road on the north side of the Portarlington Railway Station” and would travel through the townlands of Cooltederry, Ballymorris, Kilbride, Portarlington Town, Coolaghy, Ballykillane, Carne, Ballycrossal, Lauragh, Knightstown, Dangans, Kilmainham, Kilnacash, Debbicot, Strahard, Ballycullenbeg and would terminate in Mountmellick Town “26 yards or thereabouts north-westward of the north-west corner of the Market Square (O’Connell Square).”
To place this route in a contemporary context, it would appear, based on the areas listed in this Parliamentary Notice and with Messrs.
Honnor and Price’s earlier comments outlining their company’s intention to construct the tramline alongside the existing county road, that the proposed steam tramway would have begun its journey outside the Railway Station in Portarlington and proceeded along Station Road into Portarlington Town.
From there it would have made its way out of the town on the R419 Portlaoise road before turning at Blackhall Bridge to travel the L3153 road via Skeagh Cross and Limetree before joining the R422 Emo to Mountmellick road which would have brought the tram the remainder of its journey towards O’Connell Square in the centre of Mountmellick Town.
This particular route tallies with the figure of nine miles which was set forth in proposals as the distance to be traversed by the Portarlington and Mountmellick Tramway and Light Railway.
The Leinster Express from Saturday, 8th March 1884 provided an account from the Queen’s County Spring Assizes which stated that the County Surveyor, Mr. White, presented to the Grand Jury of the Queen’s County a report on the projected tramway and light railway schemes for which the promoters of said schemes sought baronial guarantees from the Grand Jury.
It was declared from the outset that for all schemes it was a requirement that a clear roadway of not less than eighteen feet was to be left throughout between the road boundary or opposite footpath and the tramway itself.
The total estimated cost of the Portarlington to Mountmellick line was £32,122 11s.7d. Assuming the Baronial guarantee to be 4.5% -2.5% paid by the County and 2.0% paid by the Treasury – the total interest would be £1,449.
The line, in order to pay interest on the capital, needed to earn a gross annual income of £2,898 at the very least.
As it was believed that the baronies of Portnahinch and Tinnahinch would benefit equally from the line then both would be assumed to pay an equal share of any deficiency or to contribute equally to the moiety of the annual subsidy.
Colonel Carden declared immediately that the general opinion of the ratepayers was that they were strongly opposed to the scheme.
Mr. Bewley Q.C., appearing alongside Mr. Gerrard on behalf of the line’s promoters, urged the Grand Jury to hear the evidence first before coming to a decision.
He claimed that the company he was representing included Mr. Jameson, the Dublin distiller, and was further supported by a company in England which included some of London’s most eminent businessmen.
The Foreman of the Grand Jury, Captain Cosby, sardonically remarked on this claim that very few gentlemen would not invest their money if they were guaranteed a return of 5%!
In reply to the concern raised that the Grand Jury could be called upon to construct the line themselves should the line’s promoters fail to meet their commitment, Mr. Bewley reminded the Grand Jury that the promoters would be required to lodge 5% of the capital in the Court of Chancery as security that the line would be completed and if the tramway ceased to work within a year the Grand Jury could apply to the Lord Lieutenant who could authorise the abandonment of the line.
The company engineer, Mr. Price, gave evidence which supported Mr. Bewley’s statement and three extensive merchants and rate-payers from the town of Mountmellick, Messrs. Smith, Pim and Goff Pim all offered their support to the line in terms of the economic benefit which the town would derive from its construction.
However, opposition to the project was quite firm. Mr. Smyth and Captain Croasdaile, representing the baronies of Portnahinch and Tinnahinch respectively, questioned the validity of asking both baronies to be entirely liable for the line.
Mr. Stubber reminded the Grand Jury that the Maryborough to Mountmellick railway line was already under construction and he argued that it therefore would be illegal to sanction the proposed tramway.
Mr. Bewley rejected this claim by stating that the provisions of the Tramways Act alluded to by Mr. Stubber referred to direct communication lines only, and that the line from Maryborough to Mountmellick was not direct communication between Mountmellick and Portarlington.
Mr. Staples and Colonel Carden alluded to the canvassing of Grand Jurors by the promoters of the Portarlington and Mountmellick Tramway and Light Railway which they viewed as dishonest behaviour.
Mr. Goodbody, clerk of the Mountmellick Union, produced the resolution passed by the Mountmellick Board of Guardians in opposition to the line.
Mr. Young reminded the Grand Jury that the evidence given in favour of the line was from merchants in the town of Mountmellick but there was no evidence of its support from rural ratepayers.
Mr. Staples added that said rate payers had not been consulted at all and “it simply imposed on one class the duty of imposing an enormous liability upon another.” He objected to the Grand Jury undertaking that responsibility. He also went further in expressing his personal opinion that the tramway schemes being proposed were “a fad and a humbug.”
Mr. Gerrard protested that although strong and insulting observations were made regarding the project, “no valid objection” had been raised.
However, Mr. Gerrard’s plea was in vain and 22 of the 23 Grand Jurors, with the exception of Captain Bland who abstained, voted against granting the guarantee applied for and the application by the Portarlington and Mountmellick Tramway and Light Railway Company (Limited) was subsequently refused.
The decision by the Grand Jury of the Queen’s County to refuse this application was consistent with the overall dismissive attitude of other Grand Juries around the country towards similar tramway schemes submitted to them for approval.
The main opposition to the schemes was put forward by ratepayers who argued persuasively that such schemes had little substance to them and were apparently started with a view to the profit of the promoter rather than the good of the public.
In 2004 Dublin City returned to the electric tram in the shape of the LUAS, having completely abandoned it as a form of public transport by the late 1940s where it had been in operation since the early 1870s (outside of Dublin City, the Hill of Howth Tramway continued in service until 1959). A similar light rail system has been proposed for Cork City on the back of the success of the LUAS in Dublin.
Hindsight is always with 20/20 vision. However, considering Dublin returned to a tramway system of public transport half a century after it had been deemed obsolete, it is interesting to ponder, although some may argue fanciful, that had the Grand Juries not been so inherently sceptical and immediately dismissive of the tramway schemes proposed to them, then perhaps a core tramway infrastructure and a nationwide culture of tramway use could have been established in Ireland from the 1880s which may have been modernised so as to evolve into a public transport system still in place today at a time when the twin issues of rural transport links and carbon emissions are key topics.
SEE ALSO – Weekend Read: An examination of the Laois Link to the Orange Order as July 12 approaches
