Castle Aching

[Compound2632]

It would seem that the coach is GCR from Manchester, out of interest I looked at a LNWR map for a route for a Birmingham Norwich coach, and it would be through Rugby and Peterborough, whereas a MR coach from Brum would go through Liecester and Bourne. I was wondering if there's a change of level in the Norwich yard, the coach seems to be sitting very low?

 

If it's 1896, it's certainly not Great Central but Manchester Sheffield and Lincolnshire and as far as I'm aware, the two-tone livery came in with the London Extension, prior to which varnished wood was the order of the day. Of course, the date of the photo might be wrong.

[£1.38]

It has been mentioned back beyond somewhere that the MS&L style of panelling had curved edges to the tops of the windows. The coach in the photo clearly has square corners. Also, MS&L livery was varnished wood. The two tone livery was first introduced for the London Extension which was by then GC.

 

I think this is an just old coach that has been grounded and tarted up as a mess room for the loco staff. It is difficult to be sure, but I think the curved panelling above the windows is just painted on. There is no hint of shadow or relief of any kind to suggest real panelling.

[runs as required]

1

I realise now that I assumed that the loco was 1896 and that the photo was Edwardian - which is why I was so pleased with the relevance of my 1903 GCR timetable (one of my best impulse buys long ago in a lovely independent bookshop in Lendel, York).at the height of that company's delight in boasting of international connectibility with through journeys after the opening of the London extension.

I had convinced myself it could be a GCR through carriage because I had seen interiors of MS&L compartments in which the exterior radius of the upper window corners is scarcely perceptible.

2

In answer to K, I'd say Norwich City station's facade is a 'Freestyle' interpretation of Wren post restoration English Baroque.

Think Wren's facades at Hampton Court - or Bluecoat Chambers Liverpool  (1717 - allowing for timelag behind London)

Nicholas Pevsner lectured us on Victorian architecture as students. He argued it was being willing to don historic styles that first enabled architects to come to terms with new machine age building types' functional demands and proportional challenges. He particularly admired Waterhouse and Butterfield for their spatial dexterity - less so Scott for concealing Barlow's St Pancras train shed.

dh

 

Ed for pedant's apostrophe correction

Edited September 10, 2017 by runs as required

[£1.38]

This is the MS&L style of panelling

 

 

The coach is now restored in early GC livery

[Nearholmer]

Thanks R@R, my education is furthered. And, I'd forgotten Hampton Court, despite having been there several times. But, this does me think that there was crossover or parallel with the German style. It might be that they ran out of money, but the way canopies are arranged, rather than an overall roof, looks vaguely continental too.

 

Kevin

[£1.38]

Another thought that just occurred to me. Why would a through coach from another railway that was (presumably) being sent back whence it came pretty quickly be parked at the back of the loco shed? Norwich City was not exactly short of siding space much nearer the station. Servicing and storage would surely be in the carriage sidings or even in the station area itself?

[Edwardian]

Many interesting points to consider.

 

Poor Mr Essery; in fairness the book makes it clear that the focus is on the locomotives and that it is conceived as a necessary volume to complete Midland Railway loco history.  I just had a gentle dig because that really was a photo that warranted commentary on rather more than lamp irons!

 

I'll just add one further point for now.  I am not sure why Mr Essery concludes that the picture was ""circa 1896". The use of "circa" implies that the photograph was undated.

 

The wagon is not decisive. The change in lettering (on wagons) from "JT M & G N" to "M & G N" is said to date from around 1900.  I could probably feature both styles on CA.  On locomotive tenders, the change seems to have come earlier.  According to Essery, only the "first batch" (Essery does not say how many locos were in the first batch, but class was introduced in 1894) of the C Class 4-4-0s had the older style, and I have seen Eastern & Midland locomotives that were withdrawn before 1900 lettered "M & G N" on their tenders (e.g. the CMRs and rebuilds). 

 

The lamp irons have the pre-1903 Midland arrangement. The class subsequently adopted the 1903 arrangement.  Essery either knows, or assumes, that the change was made at the same time on the M&GN, but, I suppose, it is possible that it was later.  With M&GN locos running to an end-on junction with the Midland, one might expect it happened at the same time, i.e. 1903.

 

Another class member is pictured with the 1903 lamp iron arrangement in 1906. 

 

No. 12, the 22nd class member, did not gain an extended smoke-box until 1911, so would have remained in the 'as-built' configuration seen in the picture until then. The lamp irons seem the best, and perhaps, only clue of the date of the photograph to be derived from the locomotive herself.

 

Why, then, 1896?  From what I can tell, she could be pictured at least as late as 1903, which gives rather more latitude in terms of "foreign" coach liveries.

 

Further, is it reasonable to expect that degree of paint-loss, seen around the firebox area and on the smokebox saddle, "circa 1896" on a locomotive that was only built on November 1894?

Edited September 10, 2017 by Edwardian

[Edwardian]

 

 

Ahrons mentions coaches in GN and Midland liveries, and 'joint' teak, but makes no mention of any through carriages from other railways.

 

 

 

I interpret what I have read to mean that trains of Midland Railway coaches would run through from the Midlands, via Bourne.  Following an initial period in the 1890s, when, due to motive power shortages, Midland and GN locomotives continued to work the Joint's lines west of Lynn, as had been the case on the E&M, a Joint locomotive would takeover, I believe, at Bourne.

 

The M&GN replaced the E&M air-brakes with vac brakes, which would facilitate the Joint's motive power taking over Midland, and indeed, GN, stock.

 

I believe that trains running through from King's Cross would have utilised GN stock and, I assume, would be conveyed by a Joint engine from Peterborough.

 

However!  In 1903, due to an acute shortage of coaching stock on the Joint the GN and Midland transferred a number of 4 and 6-wheeled coaches to the M&GN.  These retained their respective liveries, but were re-lettered for the M&GN.

 

I keep coming across Edwardian views of GN 6-wheelers on the Joint, and it is impossible to know in many cases whether these are GN or M&GN coaches!

[Edwardian]

This is the MS&L style of panelling

 

 

The coach is now restored in early GC livery

 

Sorry to make 3 posts in a row, but I am having to catch up with some of this excellent coach speculation a bit at a time.

 

So, while the timetables may favour it, it is not not MSLR if this picture is anything to go by:  Great Eastern above the waist and Great Northern below!

 

Then, of course, there is the livery.  But if Essery is wrong to estimate 1896,it could be anytime up to 1903. Wouldn't that allow for a coach in Great central livery?  Might the GC have owned such a coach?   

 

Returning to the coach, is that not a 'top hat' gas lamp top, as favoured by the Great Western, and some others?

 

Is it a low arc roof or a semi-elliptical?

 

Are the squared opening panels in the eave strip rectangular vents, or, does the coach have the more conventional vents.  If so, are we looking at opening toplight windows.

 

I'm not suggesting that this coach is of GW manufacture, by the way.

 

By a process of elimination, we may yet conclude that this is a West Norfolk coach!

[Nearholmer]

You're getting to the same place as I've reached: in the first post on the topic, you said that it was a WNR coach; and, it probably is!

 

I might mention the LBSCR, as another briefly bi-coloured railway. The very smart umber and white was instituted in 1903, and supersed in 1911. This livery was copied by Pullman, to give uniform trains. The LBSCR did paint one coach in WNR livery, as part of the 1903 livery-selection process, though!

 

My knowledge of LBSCR coaches isn't anything like comprehensive, but so far, I can't match the mystery coach to any.

 

Kevin

Edited September 10, 2017 by Nearholmer

[Compound2632]

E.L. Ahrons, Locomotive and Train Working in the Latter Part of the Nineteenth Century, Vol. 1, L.L Asher, ed. (Heffer, 1951). The chapter on the M&GN first appeared in The Railway Magazine in 1923. Ahrons states that following the Midland/GN take-over 1n 1893 and the delivery of the Johnson 4-4-0s, the Joint took over working of the lines west of Lynn. From at least 1898, the Johnson 4-4-0s worked the Kings Cross trains to/from Peterborough - 1:10pm ex KX in the summer months and 4.40pm (from Peterborough) all year round. Midland expresses were worked by Midland engines to Bourne, one from Leicester and one from Birmingham. "The working, by which Norwich engines have run the Midland expresses right through to Leicester, is a product of the present century."

 

R.H. Clark, An Illustrated History of M&GNJR Locomotives (OPC, 1990). Plate 41, p. 68, shows No. 37 with the same "Midland pre-1903" lamp-iron layout as in the photo under discussion. The date is given as 1917 which I simply don't believe - the condition of the engine is simply too clean and well-cared-for. (Some other captions in this book are questionable - Plates 53 and 54, p. 89, rebuilt Johnson 0-6-0s Nos. 68 and 62 are mis-identified as Ivatt engines.) The only other photo which unambiguously shows this lamp-iron layout is Plate 67, p.102, South Lynn shed; both engines visible have this arrangement - front view of Johnson 0-6-0 No. 59 and Ivatt 0-6-0 No. 86.

 

Conclusion re. lamp-irons - the "Midland pre-1903" layout has nothing to do with working through to the Midland.

 

Plate 65, p. 97, South Yard, Melton Constable works - two-plank dropside wagon lettered J^T M & G N on the top plank, 122 bottom plank right, tare on curb rail left.

 

Frontispiece, the beautifully-polished Johnson 4-4-0 No. 5, tender lettered M & G N, isn't brand new (1894) - it has the post-1903 lamp iron arrangement. However, the only evidence for the very early tender lettering J^T M & G N R in this book is a works grey photo of No. 44, presumably at Sharp, Stewart's works. Is there evidence for this lettering style in service?

 

EDIT: The photos and drawings in Clark's book are unattributed which is (a) unhelpful and (b) a bit naughty.

 

The carriage remains a mystery.

 

EDIT: Great North of Scotland? (!) - but as far as I can find out, not their panelling style either.

Edited September 10, 2017 by Compound2632

[Compound2632]

I wonder if the coach is actually a grounded body. As has already been pointed out, it is sitting quite low compared to the coal wagon. Looking at the OS map for the era there is something looking suspiciously like a coach body shape, off the rails and in roughly the right place

 

Nor1.jpg

 

I'm coming round to agreeing with this. The engine is standing on the three-way point at the engine shed throat (this road leads to the turntable; the loco coal wagon is on the spur that runs behind the rectangle I take to be a coal stack - it appears there's no coaling stage as such. There is no line behind this, just flat ground to the river with the large malthouse beyond. See http://maps.nls.uk/view/120851828 for the whole picture in 1883/4 (no small structures on the river bank); http://maps.nls.uk/view/125885810 in 1905 (structures have appeared); and http://maps.nls.uk/view/120851831 for 1912 (they've gone again).

 

Someone's had fun painting up their new bothy. This still begs the question of the origin of the grounded body, since it doesn't correspond to any known panelling style for M&GN or Eastern & Midlands carriages, or anything else for that matter.

[£1.38]

Sorry to repeat myself, but I think there is no way that coach is sitting on the track. It has to be a body sitting at the side of the river

 

1. Looking at the photo, the top of the coach roof is no higher than the top of the coal truck, which can't be if it is on wheels, because...

 

2. all the tracks in the loco shed area appear on maps to be at the same level

 

3. The maps suggest a coach-shaped building next to the river

 

4. Why park a through coach at the loco shed, which is some way from the station. there are many sidings much closer to the station that are likely to be used for carriage servicing etc.

 

5. The very odd mix of panelling and windows suggests something very unusual. The rounded panels could possibly be just painted on to make an old coach look modern.

 

6. There is possibly a large stovepipe chimney sticking out of the roof - notice just above the coal wagon.

 

I think it is an old coach body that has been grounded and tarted up. Either a mess hut for railway employees, or maybe a fishing hut, as it is right next to the river.

[Compound2632]

Sorry to repeat myself, but I think there is no way that coach is sitting on the track. It has to be a body sitting at the side of the river

 

1. Looking at the photo, the top of the coach roof is no higher than the top of the coal truck, which can't be if it is on wheels, because...

 

2. all the tracks in the loco shed area appear on maps to be at the same level

 

3. The maps suggest a coach-shaped building next to the river

 

4. Why park a through coach at the loco shed, which is some way from the station. there are many sidings much closer to the station that are likely to be used for carriage servicing etc.

 

5. The very odd mix of panelling and windows suggests something very unusual. The rounded panels could possibly be just painted on to make an old coach look modern.

 

6. There is possibly a large stovepipe chimney sticking out of the roof - notice just above the coal wagon.

 

I think it is an old coach body that has been grounded and tarted up. Either a mess hut for railway employees, or maybe a fishing hut, as it is right next to the river.

 

I'm not convinced that pipe is anything to do with it but otherwise, yes.

 

Under the loco buffer, there appears to be a hole in the ground with a girder over. Possibly the body is sitting on this girder?

 

On the map, the turntable is very close to the river; by the 1938 map it's been moved to a location north of the shed - maybe the river bank was being eroded and could no longer take the weight. Maybe that's why this grounded body had gone by 1912.

Edited September 10, 2017 by Compound2632

[Echo]

There seems to be less than nothing on M&GN and constituents' carriages on the web. I guess the E&M and previous companies could have owned a pretty varied roster. Are there even any books covering the subject?

[Fenman]

I just had a look at nls maps, and the only building that I can see that might be the one in the background is across the river , behind the loco shed, which would put the carriage on a siding round the back of the shed. If that is where the photo was taken, it must have been with a long lens, to give the degree of compression.

 

Anyway ....,., in my ignorance,I didn't know what an amazing edifice Norwich City station was. What school of architecture do you call this? Is iy rundbogenstil? It looks as if it was designed by a German, as a kursaal.

 

Since no-one else has deigned to answer...!

 

I'd call it "lumpen Italianate", but you might want to delete the "L" word to be technically more correct.

 

I've also always thought it was a mightily impressive edifice - and all the more surprising since the M&GN treated Norwich as an unimportant branch off the "main line" from Yarmouth (dear God) to the west. Much of the rest of the station architecture in the eastern part of the M&GN system was built to standard designs by the contractors, Wilkinson & Jarvis, in a rather nice "pavilion" style.

 

Paul

[Compound2632]

There seems to be less than nothing on M&GN and constituents' carriages on the web. I guess the E&M and previous companies could have owned a pretty varied roster. Are there even any books covering the subject?

 

The M&GN Circle might have a pamphlet on it.

[Compound2632]

 the M&GN treated Norwich as an unimportant branch off the "main line" from Yarmouth (dear God) to the west.

 

That's clearly not how the Midland saw it - through carriages to both destinations from Leicester and Birmingham. (1903 TT)

[£1.38]

Just wondering if the coach could be ex-North London Railway. Some 4-wheelers were bought secondhand for use on what became the M&GN. These had square cornered windows.

[wagonman]

There seems to be less than nothing on M&GN and constituents' carriages on the web. I guess the E&M and previous companies could have owned a pretty varied roster. Are there even any books covering the subject?

 

 

Nigel Digby did something in one of the magazines some years back... Sorry, can't be any more precise.

Edited September 10, 2017 by wagonman

[Fenman]

That's clearly not how the Midland saw it - through carriages to both destinations from Leicester and Birmingham. (1903 TT)

Lots of interesting through coaches throughout the M&GN's history, although things deteriorated as time went on. By the 1950s the daily east-west express, "the Leicester", had just a single through coach to Norwich but (from memory) 4 or 5 to Yarmouth (and Lowestoft). And 2 to Cromer.

 

I was surprised that the bulk of the M&GN's trains were Yarmouth-Peterboroughs (4 a day each way by the 1950s), but Norwich mostly had to make-do with a connecting service, change at Melton Constable.

 

Paul

[£1.38]

Bingo?

 

Old North London Railway coaches had relatively large oblong windows, rectangular shaped ventilators above the door windows and rounded panelling above the other windows. Some were definitely sold to the E&M or predecessors.

 

Pity we can't see below window level, as the panelling was quite distinctive.

[Edwardian]

More excellent avenues to explore re coach.  Wish I'd had more time to spend on it today, but, in my defence, I have been working on the layout.

 

LB&SC had struck me as likely enough to require looking up, though I haven't yet.  £1.38 and Compound may have something with the grounded body theory, and that girder might, indeed, be what it's sat upon. 

 

One of the hold-ups with the layout was the lack of a finalised track plan.  It would be a squeeze, and I needed pretty much the entire track plan, full size, in order to finalise the size and shape of the 2 front boards. DonW solved this for me, with his excellent track plan, and I've been itching to get cracking on the boards ever since.

 

Below shows the basic framework of the 2 front, railway carrying, boards, lying over DonW's Mark II track plan.  The rear 2 boards were made some time ago.  The village board has been kept in the house, but the rear left board (the church board, it will be) has been living in the railway room and so is exhibiting some of the Norfolk Fish Oil & Guano Co.'s produce.   This is why the village board lives in the house usually.

 

The station board (left hand board) will have an angled extension, terminating with the turntable.  This is so that, from the entrance to the room, one will be able to look down the length of the station, with the castle in the background, which is how I first envisaged the scheme when the idea of CA came to me in an idle moment.

[£1.38]

This foto on the Furness Railway Trust site shows the kind of panelling I mean

 

 

The Norwich body is probably not another one of that particular coach, but a very distinctive style so probably another ex-NLR vehicle or combination thereof.

[Shadow]

Just came across these 3-d printed ones on shapeways.

 

https://www.shapeways.com/product/7S4WC5A6T/early-1860s-nlr-north-london-railway-coach-set

 

 

Just off to try and find an online copy of "The Engineer" 1869!