Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,562 Excellent

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Location
    North of Annesley Junction (Near Manchester, actually.)
  • Interests
    The Great Central Railway, pre 1923.
    (Most other railways are of interest too, particularly if they have steam engines, but I can't model them all.)
    Bury Corporation Tramways 1903-1949
    My other great interest is the middle ages, especially England and Wales in the 14th/15th century.
    I write historical novels. Two have been published.
    I also enjoy walking, beer and eating out. Sadly I can no longer walk as far as I did or drink as much as I should like.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,123 profile views
  1. If you read Dow's Great Central, Volume 2, you will find that just such a merger was contemplated. There was a a proposal that the MS&L, LNWR, Midland and GN should jointly absorb the NSR. The LNWR wanted the NSR stripped of all its running powers as part of the deal, while the Midland wanted all four companies to be able to use the NSR free of toll. The GN and MS&L rejected both points and negotiations were broken off in the autumn of 1875. The MS&L then proposed a straightforward merger between itself and the NSR. However the MS&L wanted a traffic agreement as a first step and the NSR would not agree. So quite early in 1876, the proposal was aborted, without troubling Parliament.
  2. Yes, that would fit in with what I remember. A zinc floor, I suspect, easier to keep scrubbed. Because fishes are exceedingly stinky traffic and their odour soaks into anything permeable. It seems slightly "odd" to put fish in open wagons, but the GWR certainly did so, to name but one.
  3. For an imaginary scheme you just have to imagine that railway history changed from what it actually was. No one will put you in jail for coming up with something improbable. In the 1890s or very early 1900s the GC had a scheme for a massive "cut-off" from the Nottingham area to the Manchester area by way of Leek and Ashbourne. (I came across this when reading a book about the history of the Leek and Manifold.) I have to say it was one of a number of grandiose schemes the GC was allegedly involved in at this time, for which greater or lesser amounts of evidence exist. How they (or anyone) imagined the capital might be raised is beyond me. However you could, for example, imagine a situation where the NSR granted running powers to avert such a proposal. If I wanted to model such a scenario, I'm afraid I would not allow trifles such as financial probability stop me, nor yet the likely opposition of the LNWR. After all, the London extension was not exactly built on the basis of the plaudits and support of other companies.
  4. The GC's workings usually ended at Macc. as there were no running powers beyond. However the GC exchanged quite a lot of goods traffic there with the NSR from both its own and the CLC systems. (In Per Rail the GC's goods handbook for the public there is a map showing the entire NSR as a "connection", a distinction not granted to the LNWR lines which are shown, if at all, as "other". In one timetable, I rather think the 1903 one, there was a passenger train off the GC to Stoke or Leek or some such place, but it is not clear whether the GC engine worked through. This practice was not perpetuated, and may have been a "one off".
  5. I think I am right in saying these were "fitted" wagons, or rather "piped" so certainly not used for coal or mineral traffic but for merchandise, including transit in "fast" trains. Of which the GC ran rather a lot, although mostly overnight which is why photos are rare. I have an idea I have read somewhere they were sometimes used for fish traffic, but don't quote me on that as I don't recall the source or whether it had any real authority. Anyway I suspect these things would have had tarps on them more often than not, and they would use two or even three tarps if it was necessary.
  6. At one time the GCR had some CCTs painted: DAILY MAIL WAR EXPRESS I have seen the odd photo. Apparently these dated from the time of the Boer War. (I could comment further about how this particular traffic developed, but it might be seen as "political" . Suffice it to say that demand for a particular type of war coverage increased in the Northern shires and the GC was able to get these papers from London up to Manchester in time for early morning distribution.) What colours were used I have no idea.
  7. Pretty much any goods traffic you can imagine, but bear in mind the CLC had its own fleet of wagons and in pre-group days these would predominate. Most (if not all) CLC wagons were GC/GN/Midland types - but often with subtle variations, particularly around brake gear. There are some photos in Tatlow's LNER Wagon book (vol one) and the HMRS has some others in its collection that are available for purchase. But ware post grouping stuff! (Because the CLC kept on buying new wagons through the 1920s, and brake vans to 47.) The Midland and GC both worked their own goods trains over sections of the CLC. The Wigan and St Helens (GC) branches produced a very considerable amount of traffic, the most important element of which was coal (mainly in PO wagons). But note that the Wigan coalfield (and to a large extent the one around St Helens) were apt to use antediluvian wagons and many of these can only (correctly) be produced by scratch-building. Moreover, some of the collieries are a tad obscure. Photos of Wigan Junction Colliery wagons (for example) are few and far between, although they do exist. St Helens (GC) also produced a useful amount of glass traffic, for which special (GC) wagons were provided. OTOH there was at one time a CLC block train of coal from Ashton-in-Makerfield (GC) to Northwich. (Not sure what route it took, but at a guess via Manchester, Fairfield, Woodley and Altrincham). It would have a GC loco but a CLC brake.
  8. Low melt solder would certainly give you more confidence that the joints would not (eventually) pull apart.
  9. The GC's Buckley Railway made a physical connection with the LNWR at Connah's Quay. However, the Buckley Railway was extremely primitive, with steep gradients and a very tight loading gauge and only the smallest of GC engines worked over it. (Actually, pre-group, mostly ex WM&CQ classes.) So I suspect only local traffic would have been exchanged, for example wagons from the various Buckley brickworks onto the LNW. You would certainly not see any of the big GC loco classes at Connah's Quay.
  10. The Midland provided locos for its own trains. These were chiefly expresses between Liverpool, Southport and either London, Derby or Chinley. (You would need to check your year.) Midland "Spinner" single wheelers were certainly used. I would not be surprised if there were also Midland goods trains. In fact, I'd be surprised if there weren't as the MR had its own goods facilities in Liverpool. I am less clear about the GN. If there were GN trains they would have been headed by GN locos, but I'm not sure they operated west of Manchester. The GC pretty much used all its knackered old engines on the CLC, particularly on goods trains. A J9 or J10 would be the last word in modernity. J12s would be quite normal, many were at Trafford Park. Pollitt singles were used on Manchester-Liverpool expresses, and you would also get D5, D6, D7 and D9, the latter (D9) being on the principal trains only. Much older engines were put on locals including sundry Sacre relics. You might also reasonably use tank engines of F1, F2 and C13, An awful lot of scratch building is going to be required. But that's nothing compared to the CLC coaching stock.
  11. I have been looking at this very question. In terms of size the '23 version seems little, if at all different from many pre '23 12 tonners. The axleboxes are certainly the main difference. I should also be inclined to change the buffers which are atypical of earlier practice. As so often in railway matters, there was not really an overnight change, more a slow evolution. If anyone can suggest any other significant differences, I for one would be grateful.
  12. The Turton books on PO wagons usually give details of whether or not transfers/special wagons were produced, and the source. But this of course would mean ploughing through Turton's books, and in any case I am sure his books do not cover every PO wagon that has had a transfer produced.
  13. Coal drops were (relatively) common on the former MS&L. There used to be a splendid set-up at Ardwick (Manchester) and I think they still exist at Penistone, albeit long converted into garages. Where they were not found was on the London Extension.
  14. Poggy1165

    MRJ 272

    I was thinking of not renewing. So they put a fantastic GCR layout in issue 272, and my cheque is in the post. Crafty so-and-sos. They may not have up-to-date attitudes to technology but they can obviously read my mind. Sad that the renewal is only for four issues though, as that means and extra stamp per year. Perhaps they think inflation is going up a lot!
  15. Those of you on Facebook who join the OA&GB Group will find a photo of Boulton's Siding Signal Box. This was on the OA&GB at the point where the line to the Boulton's facility diverged. I gather that the original belongs to Tameside Public Libraries, if anyone is interested enough to want a copy. I suspect this box was abolished circa 1911, when the GCR west curve to Ashton Moss was put in, and I certainly have not seen a photo of it before.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.