Jump to content
 

Recommended Posts

Petition signed and I've written to my MP!

 

Since she is one of the New Blues who skipped over the Red Wall by hanging into Bozza's coat tails, she might not be too inclined to take Mr Shaps to task!

 

I'll let you know whatever platitudinous guff I get back, if anything!

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

You do not have to be UK based.  But if you are not, you do need to be a UK national - signed.

Thanks - done. I am no 3,034 (I am not a number, I am a free man - oh, wait...).

  • Like 4
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ian said:

 

Signed. I encourage all UK based parishoners to do likewise.

I shall sign it as well, otherwise it might spread like a virus or Katie Hopkins and start happening to railway bridges here too and we wouldn't want that.

image.png.65413eb02be85c59d78e666ddf98b2eb.png

 

Edited by monkeysarefun
  • Like 5
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 hours ago, ian said:

 

Ah, but governments and their agencies - and by extension their contractors - are spending someone else's money which, by definition, is not as valuable as normal money.

Yes. 
Ultimately my money,and yours, and his, and hers, and…

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Edwardian said:

After the widespread horror at the treatment of Great Musgrave bridge, it may be felt that Highways England are not fit custodians of the Historical Railways Estate. I, however, view this as more of a communications issue, to be solved by amending the HRE Group logo to reflect better what it does:

 

1917481879_HRENewLogo.jpg.7ee0fbaaf4df8ce865959102bc80821c.jpg

 

 

Erratum:

 

The HRE Group, whose logo it is I think I despoiled, appear to be nothing to do with Highways England, who sent me the email below:   

 

Highways England’s Historical Railways Estate (HE HRE) team has been responsible for the maintenance what was formerly the burdensome estate on behalf of the Department for Transport, since BRB (Residuary) Ltd was abolished in September 2013.

 

A journalist started to call himself The HRE Group in December 2020 and has no role or responsibility.

 

HE HRE infilled the bridge at Great Musgrave.

 

 

 

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

I  have just signed the petition, and I see that the number of signees is now 3086.

 

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions?page=5&state=open

 

The requirements are for 10,000 to sign before the Government responds?  and 100,000 before it will be considered for debate in Parliament.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To court controversy and un-popularity, I'm in two minds about this petition, and haven't signed it yet.

 

Why?

 

In favour of signing it: it would act as a "warning shot across the bows" of HE, of which they've had several before over this topic.

 

Against signing it:

 

- as written, it places a demand that is effectively without limit. "...which could prevent extensions of the heritage railways ....." could imply every bridge, everywhere, and I'm especially wary of the pipe-dreaming of railway enthusiasts in a land where the amount of heritage railway in being already is barely sustainable;

 

- as written, it makes no mention of the other, possibly more socialy-beneficial, non-heritage-railway uses of old trackbeds;

 

-I'm not sure I'd actually want HE to have a tax-funded obligation to keep all old trackbeds viable, because that might be poor use of tax revenue when compared with competing calls.

 

So, I'm still stroking my chin. There's clearly a need for something to protect some track-beds for possible railway-reuse, but whether what is being asked for is that "something", I'm a lot less sure.

 

As a BTW, I'm not totally convinced by the brouhaha that exists around the particular bridge that has precipitated this. It seems to stem from a quite old structural assessment report, the condition of the bridge could well be different now from then, and I think, looking at the photos, that the horrible concrete lump is actually only a shot-creted skin over aggregate infill, to stop it washing away, which, if correct, suggests that the infill would be very simple to remove, not a solid concrete plug.

 

HE surely haven't managed this well though. They could easily publish their most recent structural report for all to see (I can't find it anywhere); they could publish a clear description of the infill arrangement; they could make overt what their long-term intention is; they could be transparent about whether they believe they are exercising temporary or permanent Permitted Development Rights ........ in short, they could be transparent, and having overseen many construction jobs in London under PD rights, where all eyes are on every job, I know that transparency can be achieved, fairly easily, and that it pays dividends in terms of trouble avoided.

 

And, I dont think the local authority has done a great job either; I'm 90%+ sure that their press briefing cites the legislation around PD incorrectly, and theyve clearly been "wrong-footed" by all this.

 

TBH, my gut feel is that the best medicine that HE could be given is the medicine they are getting right now: loads of bad publicity and effort-consuming hassle. If that doesn't teach them the merits of proper "stakeholder engagement" nothing will.

 

Hard-hat now donned.

  • Like 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

To court controversy and un-popularity, I'm in two minds about this petition, and haven't signed it yet.

 

Why?

 

In favour of signing it: it would act as a "warning shot across the bows" of HE, of which they've had several before over this topic.

 

Against signing it:

 

- as written, it places a demand that is effectively without limit. "...which could prevent extensions of the heritage railways ....." could imply every bridge, everywhere, and I'm especially wary of the pipe-dreaming of railway enthusiasts in a land where the amount of heritage railway in being already is barely sustainable;

 

- as written, it makes no mention of the other, possibly more socialy-beneficial, non-heritage-railway uses of old trackbeds;

 

-I'm not sure I'd actually want HE to have a tax-funded obligation to keep all old trackbeds viable, because that might be poor use of tax revenue when compared with competing calls.

 

So, I'm still stroking my chin. There's clearly a need for something to protect some track-beds for possible railway-reuse, but whether what is being asked for is that "something", I'm a lot less sure.

 

As a BTW, I'm not totally convinced by the brouhaha that exists around the particular bridge that has precipitated this. It seems to stem from a quite old structural assessment report, the condition of the bridge could well be different now from then, and I think, looking at the photos, that the horrible concrete lump is actually only a shot-creted skin over aggregate infill, to stop it washing away, which, if correct, suggests that the infill would be very simple to remove, not a solid concrete plug.

 

HE surely haven't managed this well though. They could easily publish their most recent structural report for all to see (I can't find it anywhere); they could publish a clear description of the infill arrangement; they could make overt what their long-term intention is; they could be transparent about whether they believe they are exercising temporary or permanent Permitted Development Rights ........ in short, they could be transparent, and having overseen many construction jobs in London under PD rights, where all eyes are on every job, I know that transparency can be achieved, fairly easily, and that it pays dividends in terms of trouble avoided.

 

And, I dont think the local authority has done a great job either; I'm 90%+ sure that their press briefing cites the legislation around PD incorrectly, and theyve clearly been "wrong-footed" by all this.

 

TBH, my gut feel is that the best medicine that HE could be given is the medicine they are getting right now: loads of bad publicity and effort-consuming hassle. If that doesn't teach them the merits of proper "stakeholder engagement" nothing will.

 

Hard-hat now donned.

 

Given its terms, what the petition asks for will not be granted in full, if at all.

 

I would treat it as nothing more than an ingredient in the Cake of Bad Publicity.  Some icing, perhaps?

 

No harm in it.

 

Don't over think, just sign.

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

Progress creeps forward with the GER wagons.

 

These are D&S kits.  For me they take time to beat into submission.

 

The two wagons are both Diagram 17s, showing Holden's rather GW-like steel channel underframes. I suspect the axleboxes may be a little late. They represent different batches; the one on the right is fitted with Monarch door-balancing gear, which is faked up with bits of styrene.

 

Whereas the wooden underframe Diagram 16 wagons had double V hangers, these have a single V, behind which is a centrally mounted dropper.  This is not part of the kit, so, again, scrap styrene is used, though as I used black you can't really see them.  Using the thinnest styrene I had, I also added the safety guards to the brake lever ratchet. 

 

As with the Diagram 16, they are only braked on one side.

 

They are a bit crude, but they run well enough.

 

EDIT: I think I need to amend the left-hand one to have twin door stops; it's another one that is to have the single stop, having checked my notes!

 

20210724_144511.jpg.ac73170ac292fea507b659a1c93c90d6.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Edwardian
  • Like 16
Link to post
Share on other sites

Work has commenced on WNR goods stock, so, I hope, something to see soon.

 

I have decided that the most practical route is to base all the wagons on the Cambrian Kits PO underframes, ever so slightly de-Gloucestered by altering the V hanger brackets, but, otherwise, straight builds.

 

Some will use Cambrian Kits bodies and others may be scratch-built or pilfered/converted from other sources.

  • Like 8
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had, at some point, explained my intentions for WN goods stock, but now would seem a good point to revisit, and, there have been some changes.

 

The Cambrian Kits POs are based upon RCH 1907 standards, but, as we know, these standards reflected practice as it had already evolved in many instances.  The main point, however, is that they will be used to represent company wagons, so they have to stack up against what other companies were producing, bearing in mind that the WNR is a relatively modest 'mainline' company.

 

From what I've seen, for many railway companies the 'modern' goods wagon is something standardised and built in great quantities from the 1880s. Coming from a 'classic' steam age (1930s-1950s) perspective, where the 1923 RCH 7-plank is the norm, it may seem odd that companies, e.g. the Great Eastern, would designate a 15' 5-plank as 'high sided', but that designation reflects how relatively low many Victorian wagons had been.

 

If I take a Cambrian Kits' RCH 1907 15' Gloucester fixed end 5-plank, I have a direct equivalent of a GER Diagram 16 high sided general merchandise open, as built from 1885 or 7. Indeed, in terms of its dimensions, the Cambrian Kits wagon is also the equivalent to the GER's pre-diagram 4-plank, built from 1883.

 

278504729_Gloucs5-Plank.jpg.c2db6158f68d46c58d46f6e2d439f42f.jpg

 

The GER is an ally and an influence; it was important not to let the WN fall prey to the Eastern & Midland conglomerate and subsequently emerge as part of the MGN. WNR's (new) No.1, for instance, was a Neilson locomotive built to Stratford drawings, evidencing co-operation stretching back to the late 1870s.

 

When, in the early 1880s, the WNR got into the swing of wagon building at Aching Constable, it initially built 1, 2 and 3-plank wagons, but, from the mid-'80s, had followed the GER in building high-sided 4-planks, and then, again following some 2-3 years behind GER practice, it changed to a 5-plank design of the same dimensions.

 

These were wooden underframe wagons, and I had initially, assumed that the WN would next follow Holden's subsequent adoption of steel channel underframes. I have re-thought that, however, considering that the home-built wagons of the WN were more likely to have continued to use wooden underframes throughout the Edwardian period. I have, however, allowed for the WN to adopt high capacity 6 1/2 or 7 plank wagons following on from the GER's Diagram 48. These high capacity wagons would be very new at the time of CA.

 

    1522661390_Gloucs6.5Plank.jpg.df0bcd76bbbcea4b70e8b0e5d8ecc8c1.jpg

 

There should be relatively few covered merchandised wagons, and I posit two types. One with outside framing and a more modern, 16' design. These will, again, use the Cambrian Kits wooden underframes.

 

Finally, I will provide for dropsides and bolsters.

 

All of these will be based on Cambrian Kits Gloucester underframes, conferring some uniformity to Aching-built wagons. 

 

Coal wagons will be a different category, utilising in the main a variety of older, dumb-buffered, types.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Edwardian
  • Like 13
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

A big question is: Would the WNR actually build any wagons at all themselves? My guess would be that they wouldn't. There were plenty of firms at the time that built wagons, that it would be more likely that they would be bought in. The Highland (not renowned for spending money) bought in large amounts from 'The Trade'. 

 

If that is the case then they could well have bought in from the GE whatever the latest GE wagon was. Or conversely carried on buying from the cheapest 'trade' supplier they could find, which would probably mean either secondhand wagons or timber framed ones.

 

Just how affluent the WNR is at that point is another interesting question..

 

Andy G

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, uax6 said:

A big question is: Would the WNR actually build any wagons at all themselves? My guess would be that they wouldn't. There were plenty of firms at the time that built wagons, that it would be more likely that they would be bought in. The Highland (not renowned for spending money) bought in large amounts from 'The Trade'. 

 

If that is the case then they could well have bought in from the GE whatever the latest GE wagon was. Or conversely carried on buying from the cheapest 'trade' supplier they could find, which would probably mean either secondhand wagons or timber framed ones.

 

Just how affluent the WNR is at that point is another interesting question..

 

Andy G

 

The early 1880s was a time of great investment and expansion on the WNR, with the development of Birchoverham-Next-the-Sea paying dividends and lines built to Bury St Edmunds and Norwich.

 

Aching Constable was established at this period, with both carriage and wagon building brought in-house. Witness the 3D print coaches under-development; they represent designs from the Metropolitan Carriage & Wagon Works.  Within a decade, the WNR was building its own designs.

 

It was the financial crisis at the turn of the century that set the company back, retarding further development and making it reliant on second-hand purchases. By 1905, however, its fortunes have largely recovered. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

All highly credible. I don't know about the Great Eastern but on many lines the "original" merchandise wagon was a simple 1-plank open; these were often very long lived - the North Staffs had some originally built by Metropolitan in the 50s and 60s that were still running* in the first decade of the 20th century. The Cambrian 15 ft 1-plank (on their Gloucester underframe), kit C60, would be ideal to represent this type. 

 

Although Cambrian advertise the 15 ft Gloucester 5 and 7-plank wagons as 1907 type, they are essentially the same as the 1887 type. They have the Gloucester 4S square-bottomed axleboxes that came in in the late 90s replacing the round-bottomed type 4 represented in the equivalent Slaters kits. (Which I believe can be got through POWSides though I hope their reintroduction by Slaters themselves is not too far away.)

 

*Falling apart causing an accident, according to the primary evidence!

 

29 minutes ago, uax6 said:

A big question is: Would the WNR actually build any wagons at all themselves? My guess would be that they wouldn't. There were plenty of firms at the time that built wagons, that it would be more likely that they would be bought in. The Highland (not renowned for spending money) bought in large amounts from 'The Trade'. 

 

If that is the case then they could well have bought in from the GE whatever the latest GE wagon was. Or conversely carried on buying from the cheapest 'trade' supplier they could find, which would probably mean either secondhand wagons or timber framed ones.

 

Not from the Great Eastern - the case brought by the Locomotive Manufacturers against the LNWR when the latter built engines for the L&Y established the principle that it was outside the powers of a railway company to build stock for another. But that would not prevent the WNR from ordering stock to GE designs from the trade. When the Hull Barnsley & West Riding Junction Railway & Dock Co. was setting up in business in 1885 they ordered large quantities of wagons to William Kirtley's LCDR designs from numerous builders and continued to buy from the trade. As far as I can determine, the Springhead wagon shop built no new wagons though it rebuilt many and was well-equipped to maintain the company's fleet. On the other hand, Highbridge, a much smaller works, did build its own wagons (derived from Midland types) but I think (working on this...) that many parts were supplied by Derby or bought in from the trade - wheels, springs, etc. So Aching Constable could go either way, or a mix. But the point is, in buying from the trade, the company could perfectly well be obtaining wagons to its own specification and drawings, not the builder's.

Edited by Compound2632
sentence structure corrected
  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

All highly credible. I don't know about the Great Eastern but on many lines the "original" merchandise wagon was a simple 1-plank open; these were often very long lived - the North Staffs had some originally built by Metropolitan in the 50s and 60s that were still running* in the first decade of the 20th century. The Cambrian 15 ft 1-plank (on their Gloucester underframe), kit C60, would be ideal to represent this type. 

 

Indeed, yes; I have a pair of these in the to-build pile.

 

3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Although Cambrian advertise the 15 ft Gloucester 5 and 7-plank wagons are advertised as 1907 type, they are essentially the same as the 1887 type. They have the Gloucester 4S square-bottomed axleboxes that came in in the late 90s replacing the round-bottomed type 4 represented in the equivalent Slaters kits. (Which I believe can be got through POWSides though I hope their reintroduction by Slaters themselves is not too far away.)

 

*Falling apart causing an accident, according to the primary evidence!

 

 

Not from the Great Eastern - the case brought by the Locomotive Manufacturers against the LNWR when the latter built engines for the L&Y established the principle that it was outside the powers of a railway company to build stock for another. But that would not prevent the WNR from ordering stock to GE designs from the trade. When the Hull Barnsley & West Riding Junction Railway & Dock Co. was setting up in business in 1885 they ordered large quantities of wagons to William Kirtley's LCDR designs from numerous builders and continued to buy from the trade. As far as I can determine, the Springhead wagon shop built no new wagons though it rebuilt many and was well-equipped to maintain the company's fleet. On the other hand, Highbridge, a much smaller works, did build its own wagons (derived from Midland types) but I think (working on this...) that many parts were supplied by Derby or bought in from the trade - wheels, springs, etc. So Aching Constable could go either way, or a mix. But the point is, in buying from the trade, the company could perfectly well be obtaining wagons to its own specification and drawings, not the builder's.

 

What, I hope, will emerge are WNR 4 and 5 planks that have clearly been inspired by GER practice and are of essentially the same dimensions as their GER equivalents.

 

What will help distinguish them is that the WNR's mid-grey should be a little lighter than the GER's 'slate' grey, and the strapping is different. The GER wagons have external diagonal strapping and a vertical strap in the centre of the door, whereas the WNR wagons will have internal diagonal strapping and a conventional centre-door door bang plate. 

 

Of course, there is nothing to stop the WNR out-sourcing some of its wagon construction to private builders, as many companies did. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Cattle wagons will be a challenge. There are not many plastic kits about: off-hand the only ones I can think of that don't look far too modern are the Slaters Midland wagon and the Parkside LMS wagon, both of which are pretty distinctive designs. Another candidate for a bespoke 3D print?

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
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...