Jump to content
 

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
7 hours ago, nick_bastable said:

alas I may never listen  to the Jupiter by Holst again  remembering terrible assemblies and school Dinners  but hopefully not morning a country past

 

UK  1914 perchance ?

 

Nick

EWJR, 1885.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, nick_bastable said:

the chamber appears over heated perhaps a calming breeze is required

 

i-C2fWgJ7-X2.jpg

 

 

Nick

 

Thank you. Fascinating picture. Is the leading MR/LMS vehicle carrying horses do you think.? I am not expert on equine vs bovine anatomy but the quarters on the animal at the rear end of the leading vehicle look horselike to me.

 

What with the rest of the train being horseboxes could this be an example of 'third class' accommodation for horses?

 

Both leading vehicles are presumably 'piped' rather than 'fitted', and I am happy to say I have made models of both the GN and the MR/LMS designs.

 

Do you have more information about the photograph?

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, drmditch said:

 

Thank you. Fascinating picture. Is the leading MR/LMS vehicle carrying horses do you think.? I am not expert on equine vs bovine anatomy but the quarters on the animal at the rear end of the leading vehicle look horselike to me.

 

What with the rest of the train being horseboxes could this be an example of 'third class' accommodation for horses?

 

Both leading vehicles are presumably 'piped' rather than 'fitted', and I am happy to say I have made models of both the GN and the MR/LMS designs.

 

Do you have more information about the photograph?

source  

A271 Troop special conveying Troops and horses Beckenham Corner 1929

 

 

Nick

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, drmditch said:

 

Thank you. Fascinating picture. Is the leading MR/LMS vehicle carrying horses do you think.? I am not expert on equine vs bovine anatomy but the quarters on the animal at the rear end of the leading vehicle look horselike to me.

 

What with the rest of the train being horseboxes could this be an example of 'third class' accommodation for horses?

 

That was my first impression too - the animals look too big to be cows. A fascinating train.

Martin

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s labelled ‘troop special carrying troops and horses’.

 

There have been troop trains with horses in cattle vans shown here before, and I think the consensus was that it was a normal practice.

 

I found a really neat picture the other day of a single cattle wagon being hauled by a loco propelling an auto coach (GCR) the other day, and I think that cattle van might have had horses in it too.

 

Another interesting formation that I found was a GWR 517 on a mixed train consisting on a 4W brake third, 4W composite, five goods trucks, and a 4W brake third. Quite obviously the ‘branch set’ was split to give a brake at the rear, rather than using a goods brake. Which has nothing to do with horses - sorry!

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 13/12/2019 at 09:10, Edwardian said:

Every cloud has, however, a silver lining.

Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing how "a period of reflection" turns out. 

 

800.jpeg.fc8d79607384b48202a67e61fcb20152.jpeg

 

what is the provenance of the above pic (where the driver has a sabre scabbard slung around him and the  #16 lorryload all seem to be aiming at the Chatsworth Anarchist picnic ) please?

dh

Edited by runs as required
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Nearholmer,

 

Quote

Another interesting formation that I found was a GWR 517 on a mixed train consisting on a 4W brake third, 4W composite, five goods trucks, and a 4W brake third. Quite obviously the ‘branch set’ was split to give a brake at the rear, rather than using a goods brake.

 

Any chance of seeing a copy or providng a link to said photo please?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, petethemole said:

Ah, yet another of those ponce picture selling outfits that claim to have the exclusive rights to pictures in the public domain and try to sell those rights to you for a fat fee.  May they all catch infestations of scabies in unpleasant places.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 3
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, drmditch said:

 

Thank you. Fascinating picture. Is the leading MR/LMS vehicle carrying horses do you think.? I am not expert on equine vs bovine anatomy but the quarters on the animal at the rear end of the leading vehicle look horselike to me.

 

What with the rest of the train being horseboxes could this be an example of 'third class' accommodation for horses?

 

Both leading vehicles are presumably 'piped' rather than 'fitted', and I am happy to say I have made models of both the GN and the MR/LMS designs.

 

Do you have more information about the photograph?

Officers horses in horse boxes,  troopers in the cattle trucks. 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Stolen from the Chacewater Railway Society website.

CFD9B6EA-EAE5-42DF-8393-4CC3E8507818.jpeg

 

Further to your comment about the brake being placed behind the wagons, it has stirred a memory about the GWR regs limiting the number of axles behind the brake, the figure of 8 sounds about right two bogie coaches or in this case there being 5 wagons one too many so the brake has to go at the rear.

Don

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don

 

It’s a BoT thing, not any railway specific thing, that in a mixed train (i.e. some continuously-braked passenger vehicles plus some vehicles with no continuous brakes) a vehicle with a hand brake worked by the guard must go at the rear. It’s there to prevent a broken coupling allowing loose vehicles to run away.

 

There were odd exceptions, the K&ESR being one, where a completely unbraked tail was permitted, but very few.

 

The thing I liked about this train was that they’d used the passenger brake, whereas most mixed trains had a goods brake at the end.

 

Most railways did limit the number of continuously-braked axles behind the brake, and the BoT rules can be read to say that there should be none, even continuously-braked ones, but I’ve never understood why. Seems like belt and braces to me. BR certainly did away with the idea c1967, and reformed fixed sets to put the guard’s accommodation in the middle.

 

Kevin

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
34 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Don

 

It’s a BoT thing, not any railway specific thing, that in a mixed train (i.e. some continuously-braked passenger vehicles plus some vehicles with no continuous brakes) a vehicle with a hand brake worked by the guard must go at the rear. It’s there to prevent a broken coupling allowing loose vehicles to run away.

 

 

 

Kevin

 

 

 

 

 

 

Something conspicuously ignored by the Highland Railway  for many years after the regulation was brought in. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The carriages in that mixed train have had me testing @Penrhos1920's website to the limit...

 

I think the train is top-and-tailed by former F19 31 ft 6-wheel slip composites of 1875 converted to T40 or possibly T29 brake thirds, the difference being that in the T29 version, the passenger compartment at the brake end was taken into the brake compartment, Midland-fashion. There were only 10 F19s to start with, Nos. 110-119 and not all were converted; the two conversions to T29 were in 1903, becoming Nos. 388 and 510; one had previously been No. 112. This and five others had been reduced to four wheels by 1893. Is the date of the photo known? If after 1903, I'm wondering if the T29s were specifically for the Woodstock branch?

 

The second carriage looks like a bog standard 31 ft centre-luggage composite, U16, of 1872-4; when T.G. Clayton left Swindon for Derby he started building very similar carriages, though only 29 ft then 30 ft long - 31 ft-ers didn't appear until 1882. Penrhos doesn't mention these loosing their centre axle, but I think this one has.

 

The wagons look to be an outside-frame wood mink of the 1880s, an iron mink, a PO coal wagon, and a couple of the standard 4-plank opens.

 

There or thereabouts.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nearholmer here, suffering an identity crisis due to weird behaviour by the RMWeb identity database .... document ........ this has only happened before when I logged-in from overseas!

 

Anyway .......... I checked the BoT "rules" (1885 as amended to 1902), and it is recommendation, not rule/requirement, that the guard's brake be placed "at or near" the tail of the train when continuous brakes are in use, so the railways did have a bit of scope.

 

That particular version doesn't seem to legislate for mixed trains, in fact it seems to ban non-continuously-braked vehicles from trains carrying passengers altogether, although later ones did cover mixed trains in some detail (see Appendix III of the 1928 version http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Requirements1928.pdf ), so c1900 railways were probably making things up a bit, or the BoT had circulated a memorandum that is now hard to find permitting it under given circumstances).

 

And no, I can't find the date of the photo. My gut feel is that it has been lifted from a book, so if anyone has books about GWR branch lines (i got shot of mine due to shelf overload), they might be able to tell us more.

 

 

Edited by Old-sparky
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
36 minutes ago, TheQ said:

Something conspicuously ignored by the Highland Railway  for many years after the regulation was brought in. 

That's note quite true, the Highland preferred to marshal its mixed trains with the wagons at the front, thereby making the whole train a loose coupled one!

 

I thought that it was the rules that if horses were conveyed in cattle wagons, then the cattle wagons had to have tarpaulins placed over the roofs and down the sides so that they couldn't see out, so keeping them calmer...

 

Andy G

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, that might be a railway company rule, rather than a BoT Requirement or recommendation.

 

This business of unusual train make-up is, I think, worth looking out for, and is very relevant to the CA period and atmosphere. Its easy to get tricked into thinking that what became normal in later years was "how it was always done", in all sorts of areas, from track layout conventions upwards, and thereby create a 1905 railway backwater that is actually more like a 1950 railway frontwater.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 hours ago, drmditch said:

 

Thank you. Fascinating picture. Is the leading MR/LMS vehicle 

 

 

It's an LMS-built vehicle, to diagram D1661. These were very similar to the final Midland cattle wagons, at least some of which went into traffic after grouping, wearing LMS livery. The distinguishing feature is that on the Midland vehicles, the drop flap had two planks; on the LMS ones, this was increased to three, the doors being correspondingly less tall, so the timbered and open sections were approximately the same size.

 

The third horsebox, with flat sides, is an ex-Midland vehicle and quite elderly: a 16 ft vehicle to Midland diagram D397, of which 249 were built 1883-1888.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 13/12/2019 at 20:32, Compound2632 said:

 

I will go away and re-read the period. I may be gone some time.

 

The Fox-Pitt the Younger period has surprising resonance with the Edwardian period: social upheaval leading to changing party loyalties; parties themselves collapsing and re-forming; trouble in Ireland and in relations with Continental Europe; casting the net a little more widely, the sense of national uncertainty associated with the transition of the crown from a monarch who had been on the throne for most people's lifetime - a model of family life - to a Prince of Wales who had been kept waiting far to long, whiling away his time in hobbies and infidelities...

 

Erm...

 

Perhaps we just have to accept that history repeats itself every hundred years or so, as living memory of previous follies dies out, and just believe and hope that each time round it can be done with less violence.

 

I have subscribed to a three-century cyclic theory of history: a century of intellectual ferment, working itself out in a century of war; followed, at least partly through exhaustion, by a century of careful progress. Thirty years ago, I was quite hopeful.

 

Apologies for my rather rambling train of thought. Think of this instead:

 

image.png.d72fe055b723613ae5b0e94a65c5d721.png

 

Charles Rous-Marten claimed to have timed a Belpaire at 96 mph but never published any details.

 

BTW that's the pre-1903 lamp iron positions and headcode for an express passenger train.

  • Like 5
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Stolen from the Chacewater Railway Society website.

CFD9B6EA-EAE5-42DF-8393-4CC3E8507818.jpeg

Having skimmed my copy of "The Woodstock Branch" - Stanley C Jenkins, Wild Swan 1987 (ISBN 0 906867 51 7) - I'm a bit suspicious of that picture's caption:

- 1473 bore the "Fair Rosamund" nameplates above its numberplates from 1896. I can't see them in the picture.

- 1473 had inside bearings to its trailing (carrying) axle. It looks like the loco in the picture has outside frames / bearings to the trailing axles?

- The only pictures of short coaches in the book are of the 1890 inspection train which consisted of two 4/6 wheel clerestory coaches hauled by a contractors Manning and Wardle 0-6-0ST.

- All other coaching stock shown in the book are either 8 wheel / bogie stock clerestory coaches or 70foot autocoaches.

- There are no references too mixed train working as far as I can see without a full detail re-read.

- The book makes no reference to "Fair Rosamund" being named in connection with a royal train - but it states "....and by March 1896 this locomotive had been given the romantic name Fair Rosamund in comemmeration of Rosamund Clifford (who was then enjoying something of a revival in the pages of local guide books)...".

 

It is worth noting that 1473 "Fair Rosamund" was the only standard gauge GWR built tank locomotive to be named. The Andrew Barclay built 2-4-0T "Lady Margaret" was an absorbed locomotive from the Liskeard and Looe railway.

 

Regards

Chris H

 

Edited by Metropolitan H
spelling
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
Just now, uax6 said:

That train looks far too uniform to be a proper Midland train, this should be a mix of arc roofs and clerestories!

 

 

Interesting point. It may be done from a posed photo, for which a uniform set of carriages has been assembled. Here's a well-known example, a set of non-corridor thirds flanking a third class dining carriage, top and tailed by bogie brakes - nonsense as a train but a nice uniform roof profile for the postcard-maker:

 

image.png.d2e4e974f21227754df48b8b389253e3.png

 

On the other hand, in the late 1890s/early 1900s, when the clerestories were new, the photographic record is heavily biased towards the principal express trains on the southern section of the London main line in the late 1890s. In such photos one does see predominantly clerestories, although it's quite usual to see one of the D522 54 ft 12-wheel lavatory brake composites of 1896 included - these were, after all, nearly new main-line carriages. The Scotch Expresses were particularly popular subjects; these were made up almost entirely of 50 ft corridor clerestory carriages. The postcard claims to show a Leeds and Bradford express, but here's a very similar monochrome postcard which shows what looks suspiciously like the same train, photographed from a slightly higher vantage point:

 

image.png.4db221cb6c404c7e57d0362f4e192f0e.png

 

Inspecting this on Ebay, where one can get a better enlargement, it is evident that this isn't a Scotch express. It's composed of non-corridor carriages, with no dining accommodation:

D508 48 ft clerestory lavatory composite brake

D525 48 ft clerestory composite brake

D508 48 ft clerestory lavatory composite

D530 31 ft clerestory passenger brake

D522 54 ft arc roof lavatory composite brake

D263 40 ft arc roof composite brake or D502 43 ft arc roof third brake with compartment converted to lavatories

D530 31 ft clerestory passenger brake

unidentified arc roof carriage, could be 6-wheel.

My gut feeling is that that is a real train, not a posed formation.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris

 

i don’t think the caption is saying that loco is ‘Fair Rosamund’ - I went nameplate hunting too, the re-read the ambiguous words.

 

As you hint, the photo may actually be of somewhere else altogether, but it’s still an interesting train.

 

K

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...