Castle Aching

[wagonman]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

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

 

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.

 

 

Could the Composite be a U12? In which case it would have been 4 wheeled from new.

[Metropolitan H]

27 minutes ago, Metropolitan H said:

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

 

Correction,

 

Having read a bit more of the book the Woodstock Branch did work "Mixed" trains from Kidlington - including with autocoaches - through till at least the mid 1920s. But I still haven't seen a picture that definitely ties in with the photo shwn earlier.

 

Chris H

[Nearholmer]

Now I’ve got everyone thinking about GWR Branch trains, can anyone explain the 4-4-0T in the photo here http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/r/radley/index.shtml ?

 

Doubtless the carriages have baffling designations too!

[Edwardian]

7 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Stolen from the Chacewater Railway Society website.

 

I suspect this was taken on the GW Highworth branch, or the Swindon & Highworth Light Railway to give it its proper name.  The features in this picture seem at least congruent with that line; the line was restricted to 517s and 4-wheel coaches, both seen here, and a mixed train does not seem out of place on such a line.  

 

I suspect it isn't 1473 and isn't on the Woodstock branch.  perhaps it is intended to illustrate a 517 before going on to talk about 1473.  Odd, inasmuch as there were plenty of photographs of Fair Rosamund later in life and I expect that an Edwardian picture or two exists.

 

1 hour ago, Metropolitan H said:

 

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

 

 

In fact no, because there were three named pannier crane tanks, No.17 Cyclops, No.18 Steropes (both built1901) and No.16 Hercules (built 1921).

 

And not just Lady Margaret, but a surprising number of named absorbed tanks had and retained their names under GW ownership.

[Donw]

6 hours 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.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not sure if it was on all lines but in the Forest of Dean if there was no brake van on a cut of wagons they used to put a branch (with some green leaves) across the buffers of the last vehicle to show that the train was complete. Possible only used on the mineral loop and colliery lines. This was told to me by Ian Pope (he of all the books) and would be replicated on his layouts. Whether this was official or just a practical thing I cannot say now.

 

Don

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, wagonman said:

 

Could the Composite be a U12? In which case it would have been 4 wheeled from new.

 

Possibly. Now you've got me squinting at the photo again, trying to decide if, allowing for the perspective, it's shorter or the same length as the leading carriage. But the weight of numbers is on the side of the U16: 175 vs. 20.

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Now I’ve got everyone thinking about GWR Branch trains, can anyone explain the 4-4-0T in the photo here http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/r/radley/index.shtml ?

 

Ex Monmouthshire Railway & Canal Co., built in that company's works at Newport, taken into Great Western stock in 1880 as Nos. 1304-7, somewhat rebuilt and also used on the Bridport branch [B.L. Jackson and M.J. Tattershall, The Bridport Branch (OPC, 1976)].

 

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Doubtless the carriages have baffling designations too!

 

Brake third diagram T34; composite diagram U4; brake third diagram T32?

[Donw]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

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

 

This may explain the reason for the name.

In the park at Blenheim is Fair Rosamund's Well, supposed site of a house built by Henry II for his mistress, Rosamund de Clifford. Several legends surround Rosamund. One claims that the king built his lover's bower at the centre of a maze, through which he alone knew the path. Another tale claims that Rosamund took her own life, but an alternative version tells that Henry's volatile queen, Eleanor of Aquitaine, poisoned her rival for the king's affections.

 

The posted picture does not specify the location and could well have had nothing to do with the Woodstock branch. Also Annies picture show earlier on the East and West Junction railway is a Metro tank. "4-0T rather than 0-4-2T of a 517)

 

Don

[Annie]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Now I’ve got everyone thinking about GWR Branch trains, can anyone explain the 4-4-0T in the photo here http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/r/radley/index.shtml ?

 

Doubtless the carriages have baffling designations too!

A very Broad Gauge-like wheel arrangement for a GWR tank engine to have Mr Nearholmer.  

 

I was trying to think of all the 4-4-0T engines I knew about, but that isn't one of them.

 

Edit:  It seems the wise and learned Mr Compound has beaten me to it.  The Monmouthshire Railway & Canal Co., - now that was something I didn't know before.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2019 by Annie
More information

[wagonman]

1 hour ago, Donw said:

 

 

 

The posted picture does not specify the location and could well have had nothing to do with the Woodstock branch. Also Annies picture show earlier on the East and West Junction railway is a Metro tank. "4-0T rather than 0-4-2T of a 517)

 

 

 

The EWJR loco that Annie showed was not a Metro though it was a 2-4-0T. It was one of three built by Beyer Peacock for the SMAR (later the MSWJR) in 1884. The Swindon company was so broke they could only afford to pay for one of them so the other two were sold to the EWJR/SMJ where they became nos 9 and 10 coincidentally. None of them ever came into GWR stock.

 

 

[Annie]

12 minutes ago, wagonman said:

The EWJR loco that Annie showed was not a Metro though it was a 2-4-0T. It was one of three built by Beyer Peacock for the SMAR (later the MSWJR) in 1884. The Swindon company was so broke they could only afford to pay for one of them so the other two were sold to the EWJR/SMJ where they became nos 9 and 10 coincidentally. None of them ever came into GWR stock.

And they were such pretty engines too (sniff).  That particular Hamilton-Ellis carriage print is one of my favourites.

[Nearholmer]

Many thanks for that MR&C attribution - I was guessing in the back of my mind that it was some sort of London inner suburban engine, because it has a strong whiff of NLR about it.

 

Is there a book that gets into all these pre-everything-looking-much-the-same GWR branch line trains, or is it a case of wading through tens of individual branch histories?

[Metropolitan H]

11 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

I suspect this was taken on the GW Highworth branch, or the Swindon & Highworth Light Railway to give it its proper name.  The features in this picture seem at least congruent with that line; the line was restricted to 517s and 4-wheel coaches, both seen here, and a mixed train does not seem out of place on such a line.  

 

I suspect it isn't 1473 and isn't on the Woodstock branch.  perhaps it is intended to illustrate a 517 before going on to talk about 1473.  Odd, inasmuch as there were plenty of photographs of Fair Rosamund later in life and I expect that an Edwardian picture or two exists.

 

 

In fact no, because there were three named pannier crane tanks, No.17 Cyclops, No.18 Steropes (both built1901) and No.16 Hercules (built 1921).

 

And not just Lady Margaret, but a surprising number of named absorbed tanks had and retained their names under GW ownership.

The Woodstock Branch has a couple of very good clear photographs of 1473 "Fair Rosamund" with nameplates dating back to Victorian times - 1896 - as well as through the Edwardian times. It also provides a good record in photographs of the changes (bunkers / cabs / boilers) to the loco through the years till its withdrawal in 1935.

 

Regarding "Lady Margaret", I used that reference to absorbed named tank engines  as it is a personal particular favourite.

 

I accept that I had overlooked the three Pannier type "Crane" tanks, but they were a rather special case - "Internal works locos", rather than general traffic locos.

 

Regards

Chris H

[uax6]

12 hours ago, Donw said:

 

Not sure if it was on all lines but in the Forest of Dean if there was no brake van on a cut of wagons they used to put a branch (with some green leaves) across the buffers of the last vehicle to show that the train was complete. Possible only used on the mineral loop and colliery lines. This was told to me by Ian Pope (he of all the books) and would be replicated on his layouts. Whether this was official or just a practical thing I cannot say now.

 

Don

 

A similar thing has happened throughout the railway years if a tail-lamp could not be found when making a train up. I have heard first hand stories of loo rolls, newspapers, and hi-vis vests being used as tail lamps, and all the bobbies along the line of route being told that these were the tail lamps..... (on passenger as well as freights).

 

As a tail lamp's primary job is only to indentify the rear of the train, there was no problem with doing this.

 

Andy G

[Nearholmer]

Using freshly-cut branches of leaves possibly goes back to horse-tramway days, and it is still widely practised on peat-bog railways - I’ve seen it done as a routine in Ireland and seen videos of it being done in Germany.

 

Industrial railways have no guards, no signalmen, no tail-lamp conventions, or continuous brakes, so detached couplings and runaways are quite common. The great  thing about a branch is that you can see it wagging about from the loco. Mind you, seeing that it is no longer there poses dilemmas....... it’s often best to keep going in the hope that the missing bit doesn’t catch-up and smash into the train!

 

 

Edited December 15, 2019 by Nearholmer

[webbcompound]

12 hours ago, Annie said:

 

If I didn't have too big a list of locos to build, and if this loco (probably not) lived anywhere near  my area of interest I would have to build this No13.  Although the plate, dome and valve cover looks GWR I can't find anything in the 1925 list of absorbed engines. So what is it?

Edited December 15, 2019 by webbcompound

[Nearholmer]

I think it was Liskeard and Caradon, it certainly ran on the Looe line.

 

Edit: I’m half right. “In addition, experimental locomotive No. 13, then a 4-4-0T and originally built by the GWR in 1886, was recorded as being allocated to Moorswater shed in 1922.”

 

Edited December 15, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Compound2632]

47 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Mind you, seeing that it is no longer there poses dilemmas....... it’s often best to keep going in the hope that the missing bit doesn’t catch-up and smash into the train!

 

Reading D.L. Smith, Tales of the G&SWR, that's not just an industrial line concern - with a loose-coupled goods train on a hilly route, the game was to go hell for leather downhill to keep ahead of the train and the couplings taught, to avoid a snatch in the dip at the bottom. If there was a breakaway, even more important to keep ahead of the loose section as there was no guarantee that the guard was awake or aware!

[Regularity]

11 hours ago, wagonman said:

 

The EWJR loco that Annie showed was not a Metro though it was a 2-4-0T. It was one of three built by Beyer Peacock for the SMAR (later the MSWJR) in 1884. The Swindon company was so broke they could only afford to pay for one of them so the other two were sold to the EWJR/SMJ where they became nos 9 and 10 coincidentally. None of them ever came into GWR stock.

 

 

They were intended to be 9&10 on the SMA.

They were 5 and 6 on the EWJR.
Make a nice model...

 

[webbcompound]

42 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

. “In addition, experimental locomotive No. 13, then a 4-4-0T and originally built by the GWR in 1886, was recorded as being allocated to Moorswater shed in 1922.”

 

 

no wonder it wasn't in the absorbed list. .Curiouser and curiouser. I looked in Russel, where it isn't listed as a 4-4-0T in the index, because it was built as a 2-4-2T (the first of this arrangement to run on GWR standard gauge), working on the St Ives branch, and the Abingdon line before being rebuilt into a 4-4-0T (the driving wheels didn't move, the back was chopped off, the front extended) and it moved to Highworth before ending up at Looe in 1901. But Why??

[Nearholmer]

Why Looe? Or, why chopped about?

 

The answer might be the same in both cases: The connection between Coombe and Liskeard and the smart little terminus at the latter were, I think, built by the GWR when they took the line over [Wrong! It was built when the line was independent, but worked by the GWR, opening in 1901, which matches the arrival date of No.13]. The connection is unbelievably steep and twisty, and there is nothing like a 4-4-0, especially one with small drivers and a short coupled wheelbase, for dealing with steep and twisty.

 

The Highworth LR wasn't steep or twisty, though, was it? Did it have very 'jinky' pointwork or something, being a LR? Or, was it just a convenient temporary billet for the loco after chopping, until the L&L was finished (which took three years of digging)?

 

I think the light, tramway or LR style, coaches in that picture above might date from the same time - light enough and flexible enough to get up the hill.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2019 by Nearholmer

[nick_bastable]

2 hours ago, uax6 said:

 

A similar thing has happened throughout the railway years if a tail-lamp could not be found when making a train up. I have heard first hand stories of loo rolls, newspapers, and hi-vis vests being used as tail lamps, and all the bobbies along the line of route being told that these were the tail lamps..... (on passenger as well as freights).

 

As a tail lamp's primary job is only to indentify the rear of the train, there was no problem with doing this.

 

Andy G

KESR hung  a sign marked LV  between the last vans buffers

 

Nick

[Metropolitan H]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I think it was Liskeard and Caradon, it certainly ran on the Looe line.

 

Edit: I’m half right. “In addition, experimental locomotive No. 13, then a 4-4-0T and originally built by the GWR in 1886, was recorded as being allocated to Moorswater shed in 1922.”

 

What a superb picture. The train looks like a set of "Falcon" coaches that are almost identical to those that ran on the "hundred of Manhood and Selsey tramway" (new in 1897)!

 

Etched kits for the coaches are (or were ?) available from Australia - see http://www.steamandthings.com/page14.htm .

 

Regards

Chris H

[Donw]

2 hours ago, Metropolitan H said:

What a superb picture. The train looks like a set of "Falcon" coaches that are almost identical to those that ran on the "hundred of Manhood and Selsey tramway" (new in 1897)!

 

Etched kits for the coaches are (or were ?) available from Australia - see http://www.steamandthings.com/page14.htm .

 

Regards

Chris H

 

Looks like they stopped doing the etching by 2018 but there is something about getting them done for yourself.

Don

[Tom Burnham]

On 14/12/2019 at 16:15, TheQ said:

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

The SE&CR always referred to officers' chargers in special train instructions; other ranks just had horses....

Tom

[wagonman]

GWR #13 is covered in the RCTS Locos of the GWR part 6. It was 'on loan' to the Looe line from 1901 (when freshly reboilered)  to 1908, when the GWR formally took over the company. It carried on working there until 1922. After that it seems to have been used as a Swindon Works shunter until withdrawal in May 1926.-

 

 

This is the loco in its original form, before the 1897 rebuild. You can see why Ahrons reckoned the old frames were re-used – just chopped off at the rear and extended at the front. The new boiler of 1901 seems to have been identical to this one apart from an extended smokebox.

 

As for the bogie coaches, they were, according to Messenger, built by Hurst Nelson in 1901 in time for the opening of the link to Liskeard station. they were not very successful and were sold in 1904 when the L&C bought a number of more conventional coaches from the Mersey Railway. Although sold, they remained at Moorswater until destroyed by a runaway train on 14 June 1906! the Mersey coaches were not in the best of health either and were condemned on sight when the GWR took over. At least the old – very old – L&C stock got to be photographed before the inevitable happened.

Edited December 15, 2019 by wagonman
forgot the smokebox!