Strand and its trains

[Brassey]

Were condensing engines allocated anywhere other than London? Presumably they were all built for services over the Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railways?

 

I can't find any allocations for numbers 721 and 761 so presumably they were at Crewe works at the time.  So all 4' 6" 2-4-2T condensing engines were indeed at Willesden.

[Nearholmer]

I’m no expert on the LNWR, but I think that the condensing engines were used for the outer circle services, because they ran in tunnel on District tracks Earls Court to Mansion House. It was a very intensive service (three or four an hour in each direction, I think) so would have tied-up a lot of locos over the whole route from Broad Street. [Edit: it was actually two trains an hour, which I think would have needed maybe 10or 12 engines in traffic, so a fleet of about 16 to 20 in total, given typical availability.]

 

I can’t readily think of any other ‘condensing’ jobs on the LNWR in London, although maybe the Euston carriage pilots were condensers, because there were two ‘Special’ tanks so fitted, I think for that duty.

 

After electrification, the District electric locos were used for that section, with the engine change at Earl’s Court, which must have released about five condensing engines for other duties/scrap ....... with the steam service there must have been two or three LNWR locos east of EC at any time, and accounting for availability make it five at fleet level.

 

I think the outer circle was cut back to Addison Road within a few years of electrification of the District, even before the electrification of the NLL (it certainly didn’t go east of EC after about 19090), so that would have released a few more locos, another three maybe?

 

PS: Are you Gents discussing 2-4-2T condensers, or the Met Tank 4-4-0T rebuilt to 4-4-2T? I ask because I’m in a cafe, and my little book of LNWR loco numbers (pub 1899, and kept up to date by an avid trainspotter until WW1) is at home.

 

Picture stolen from ‘Basilica Fields’.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Joseph_Pestell]

 I ask because I’m in a cafe, and my little book of LNWR loco numbers (pub 1899, and kept up to date by an avid trainspotter until WW1) is at home.

 

OT, but that's an interesting snippet of information. Most folk believe that trainspotting began with Ian Allan in the 1940s.

[Nearholmer]

IA definitely didn’t invent trainspotting books.

 

I can’t remember the publisher of the one I have, but someone based in the arcade outside New St Station, and it’s not a mega-rare book even now, so must have been printed in quantity, and it ran to several editions.

 

There were similar ‘spotters books’ for at least a few other pre-grouping companies, too, certainly the LBSCR, which, along with the LNWR, was a bit of a superstar railway, with lots of fans. And, a bit later, ‘Great Western Railway Engines - Names, Numbers, Types and Classes’, or whatever it’s called, which they published themselves from 1927 I think [the first edition was actually 1911 !]

 

Not only books, but a lot of photographic postcards of railway locos were published too. The Bennet Brothers who were prolific photographers of the LBSCR offered lots of such photos for sale by post, for instance.

 

If you look at things like Railway Magazine and Model Railways and Locomotives from pre-WW1, it is quite evident that train spotting and railway enthusiasm in general (they called themselves ‘railwayacs’) were popular hobbies, and had been for a good while. Ahrons was a sort of dignified train spotter in Victoria’s time, was he not, and LPC started in the 1890s. LGRP was started much later, but it started because of concern over the loss of much older railway photograph collections ...... people were pointing cameras at engines from the start!

 

Kevin

Edited February 1, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Guy Rixon]

I’m no expert on the LNWR, but I think that the condensing engines were used for the outer circle services, because they ran in tunnel on District tracks Earls Court to Mansion House. It was a very intensive service (three or four an hour in each direction, I think) so would have tied-up a lot of locos over the whole route from Broad Street. [Edit: it was actually two trains an hour, which I think would have needed maybe 10or 12 engines in traffic, so a fleet of about 16 to 20 in total, given typical availability.]

 

I can’t readily think of any other ‘condensing’ jobs on the LNWR in London, although maybe the Euston carriage pilots were condensers, because there were two ‘Special’ tanks so fitted, I think for that duty.

 

After electrification, the District electric locos were used for that section, with the engine change at Earl’s Court, which must have released about five condensing engines for other duties/scrap ....... with the steam service there must have been two or three LNWR locos east of EC at any time, and accounting for availability make it five at fleet level.

 

I think the outer circle was cut back to Addison Road within a few years of electrification of the District, even before the electrification of the NLL (it certainly didn’t go east of EC after about 19090), so that would have released a few more locos, another three maybe?

 

PS: Are you Gents discussing 2-4-2T condensers, or the Met Tank 4-4-0T rebuilt to 4-4-2T? I ask because I’m in a cafe, and my little book of LNWR loco numbers (pub 1899, and kept up to date by an avid trainspotter until WW1) is at home.

 

Picture stolen from ‘Basilica Fields’.

 

 

The immediate topic is the 4'6" 2-4-2T condensing tanks. IIRC, the 4-4-2T rebuilds of the Met. tanks had no condensing gear, presumably because there were enough condensing engines. With the CCEJ in operation things might have been different, but I am unhappy about building a model of a condensing tank that never existed historically. I might stretch to a history change such that the Met tanks remained in their original form into the 20th century.

 

There are also the Webb compound tanks. I think there were three kinds of which two types were condensors and operated the Outer Circle at one time. These latter were 2-2-2-2T and tended to oscillate their trains; they were sometimes known as the "fore-and-afts". They would make splendid models, if one could build the Joy valve gear.

 

Finally, my memory insists that there were some condensing 2-4-0T, some being rebuild to condensing 2-4-2T, other avoiding the rebuild and finally some 2-4-2T being cut down to 2-4-0T (for no good reason that I can see). Somewhere I have a magazine article summarising this (Model Railways Illustrated?) but it might take a while to find.

 

PS: the memory imp is now insinuating that there were two condensing 2-4-0T as station pilots at Lime Street, so equipped because they spent much time shunting in the tunnels. Can anybody confirm or did I dream this?

Edited February 1, 2018 by Guy Rixon

[Brassey]

PS: the memory imp is now insinuating that there were two condensing 2-4-0T as station pilots at Lime Street, so equipped because they spent much time shunting in the tunnels. Can anybody confirm or did I dream this?

 

 

Your memory is not totally playing tricks: two special condensing tanks No.3021 LIVERPOOL and No.3186 EUSTON were built for Wapping tunnel traffic in Liverpool.  This was a goods line from the docks

[Nearholmer]

Ah! Those are the engines that I thought were Euston pilots.

[Brassey]

Regarding the "Chopper" 2-4-0 Tanks, according to Baxter, only 10 lasted into the 1900's all 10 of which were at Buxton shed in 1912.  Presumably by then the condensing gear had been removed.

 

Five 2-4-2T's were cutdown to 2-4-0T in 1905 and were motor fitted not condensed.  Baxter speculates that this is where the term "Chopper" is derived from. 

 

Edit re cutdowns

Edited February 1, 2018 by Brassey

[Guy Rixon]

Your memory is not totally playing tricks: two special condensing tanks No.3021 LIVERPOOL and No.3186 EUSTON were built for Wapping tunnel traffic in Liverpool.  This was a goods line from the docks

 

 

Bingo! When were these built, please, and when were they withdrawn?

[Brassey]

Bingo! When were these built, please, and when were they withdrawn?

 

According to An Illustrated History of LNWR Engines (Talbot) both were turned out in January 1876.  In 1895 they were vacuum fitted and assigned to work boat specials to Riverside and were painted in passenger livery.  During WW1 they lost their condensing apparatus and were transferred away from Liverpool. In LMS days they could well have worked Euston; there is a photo of 3186 Euston at Camden.  3186 scrapped 7/28.  3021 scrapped 3/39

[Guy Rixon]

OK, so some extra, contrafactual, special condensing tanks could be running on the CCEJ in 1909, as goods engines with the ability to work fitted goods trains. I shall investigate kits.

[Nearholmer]

I’ve been trying to flog the concept of the two GNR 0-8-0T that were built for the Widened lines on another thread ...... interested? One careful owner and all that?

Edited February 1, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Brassey]

OK, so some extra, contrafactual, special condensing tanks could be running on the CCEJ in 1909, as goods engines with the ability to work fitted goods trains. I shall investigate kits.

 

London Road Models do a 4mm Special Tank and Alan Gibson the H spoke wheels.

[Jol Wilkinson]

IIRC, the Liverpool Special Tanks had square saddle tanks, unlike the normal ones. The tanks would have to be scratchbuilt, although I am sure Guy could do a 3D printed version.

 

The Perseverance LNWR 4' 6" 2-4-2T apparently has some dimensional inaccuracies. I can't recall what, but having bought one and showed it to John Redrup of London Road Models, he suggested it would be better to sell it on! Some years later, after I had already designed several other LNWR loco kits for him, he persuaded me to design the one now available from LRM.

[Clearwater]

I work on Bedford Street, I think where your exchange sidings are located. Generally, I walk up / down to Embankment at least once a day. It's quite a steep slope both down to the extent of the original pre Bazalgette river banks by Embankment Tube and up Bedford Street itself. Once at the top, it's relatively level / slope gently upwards towards 7 dials. I'd have thought that any line crossing the river would have stayed level with the summit and been increasing elevated over the Strand down to the river?

 

David

[Nearholmer]

This might be of interest https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/23682/page/5282/data.pdf

 

Ditto https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/22791/page/5797/data.pdf

 

Ditto ditto https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/22791/page/5798/data.pdf

 

Another bash at it https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/25418/page/5471/data.pdf

 

And a Wikipedia page on one of the iterations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Western_and_Charing_Cross_Railway

Edited February 1, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Guy Rixon]

I work on Bedford Street, I think where your exchange sidings are located. Generally, I walk up / down to Embankment at least once a day. It's quite a steep slope both down to the extent of the original pre Bazalgette river banks by Embankment Tube and up Bedford Street itself. Once at the top, it's relatively level / slope gently upwards towards 7 dials. I'd have thought that any line crossing the river would have stayed level with the summit and been increasing elevated over the Strand down to the river?

 

David

 

 

Remember that the CCEJ has to meet the line into Charing Cross somewhere so it has to drop about 40 feet between Seven Dials and the south bank. Running level from Strand across a double-deeck bridge is a possibility, giving a longish back from the south end of the bridge down to the CCR somewhere near Waterloo. Descending at, say 1 in 100 from Seven Dials to Strand seems sensible.

[Nearholmer]

This is good for old street names http://london1872.com/stanford20.htm

 

There is a version of it on line somewhere with all of the hundreds of railway mania proposals marked on it, for use by a parliamentary commission, but I can’t find it right now. Found it! http://london1864.com/stanford20.htm

 

And, you can have hours of fun with this. Try zooming in, and tapping to get spot heights, which will illustrate why all the proposals for this Railway were largely subsurface http://en-gb.topographic-map.com/places/London-92172/

Edited February 1, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Guy Rixon]

Nearholmer, Clearwater and Wagonman have almost convinced me to bury the CCEJ rather than elevating it. (This is probably how the parent companies felt about the whole enterprise when they saw their receipts dwindling in the 20th century.) However, I'm not prepared to make Strand an underground station as it would lose all its presentation value. If I wanted trains in a ditch I'd do Farringdon.

 

The new proposal is this. The CCEJ follows some of the route of the historical NWCCJ as shown on the maps raised by by Nearholmer. It is in cutting, with numerous but short tunnels for most of the route. Notably, it runs along Tottenham Court Road, which is significantly widened to the west side and has the railway in open cutting in the centre. As per my original plan above, non-condensing engines may pass when there are fewer trains per hour, but condensing engines are required for most trains. Electric trains are considered a major advantage in operation. The chord to the Inner Circle is now level, with the CCEJ dipping to pass under the Inner Circle itself. There is one intermediate station, where Tottenham Court Road meets Oxford Street.

 

At the north end, the CCEJ can either follow the NWCCJ route and bypass Euston station, or it can deviate slightly to the north-east and appear on the west edge of the main-line station as per my original plan. (Both these routes work to some degree, but they provide different patterns of trains, so a choice is needed and advice invited.) If the railway misses Euston, then there is a separate station nearby on the CCEJ with a subway to the main-line station.

 

At the south end, the CCEJ deviates from the NWCCJ route, for the reasons stated at the head of this thread. It goes further to the east through Seven Dials, then turns to run nearly parallel with Bedford Street. Strand station is astride the road of that name, as per the original plan. South of the station, the CCEJ runs onto a high-level bridge that is close to but separate from Charing Cross bridge. It joins the SER south of the Thames.

 

The gradients are eased as much as possible. There are two sharp banks where the CCEJ dives under the Inner Circle, and these are awkward as they are in tunnel. They are not as bad as those on the Widened Lines; perhaps 1 in 60. The railway descends gently in its cutting across London, staying below Street level until Seven Dials. Here, it rises very sightly and fairly gently to align with the level of the station. Rail level is 25ft above street level where the railway crosses the Strand, between Bedford Street and Agar Street. It is level through the station, then descends at, say, 1 in 100 on the bridge, so that the junction with the SER is not too far from the south end of the bridge. (I'll look at the spot heights to work out the best gradient here.)

 

Stand good depot (SER, LNWR & GWR) is still connected to the SER at the level of Charing Cross bridge, but the CCEJ is now a bit further east, so the line to the depot, instead of huddling around the feet of the viaduct, now approaches the CCEJ at a wider angle. The depot itself is partly built under the viaduct, and part of it emerges on the east side of the CCEJ.

 

Because of the rearrangement of the low-level goods-depot, it's now sensible to put the high-level goods facilities on the east side, connecting with the buffer-stop end of the lower depot. There is probably a small warehouse on this side, accessible from both levels, and the wagon hoists are here. Therefore, it's likely that I'll redraw the layout itself for viewing from the east, which is what I originally wanted. Maps to follow.

[Joseph_Pestell]

It is difficult to make a good presentation of a line that is in a cutting, but by no means impossible. It just needs the station building and approach road to also be in the cutting so the viewer is looking across them. But I like the idea of the station being on a viaduct. Perhaps Strand is not the right location? Somewhere a bit further north at the top of the incline which took the line below the Strand?

 

It does not matter in the context of your layout, just a bit of speculative fun, but how this line would get past Euston is quite an issue. Euston was built very much as two stations, arrivals and departures. That combined with the start of Camden Bank could make for very awkward operations if this through route got in the way.

[Nearholmer]

JP

 

If you look at the maps I linked to, you will see that the original promoters went for a route to the west of Euston station, avoiding the very issues that you raise, with a junction outside the station throat (roughly where that big old carriage shed currently is on the Down side, I think). As Guy says, this implies a separate station for these trains at Euston, a bit like Bishop’s Road at Paddington, which the promotors would have been familiar with after 1863.

 

I’ve already caused too much disruption here (Guy, tell me to hush if it gets annoying), but a model of this Bishop’s Road-ish station would be quite fun.

 

Incidentally, the builders of the real things were making it up as they went along too. Bishop’s Road was never in the original Met plan, which envisaged a terminus outside the front of Paddington, under Praed Street (slightly west of where Praed Street Station was later built). They did wha5 they did, and in the process created an accident prone flat crossing of lines on the throat at Paddington, to give the Hammersmith line direct access to The City. Much discussed here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/107223-bishops-road-paddington-what-do-we-know/

 

Kevin

Edited February 2, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Joseph_Pestell]

JP

 

If you look at the maps I linked to, you will see that the original promoters went for a route to the west of Euston station, avoiding the very issues that you raise, with a junction outside the station throat (roughly where that big old carriage shed currently is on the Down side, I think). As Guy says, this implies a separate station for these trains at Euston, a bit like Bishop’s Road at Paddington, which the promotors would have been familiar with after 1863.

 

I’ve already caused too much disruption here (Guy, tell me to hush if it gets annoying), but a model of this Bishop’s Road-ish station would be quite fun.

 

Incidentally, the builders of the real things were making it up as they went along too. Bishop’s Road was never in the original Met plan, which envisaged a terminus outside the front of Paddington, under Praed Street (slightly west of where Praed Street Station was later built). They did wha5 they did, and in the process created an accident prone flat crossing of lines on the throat at Paddington, to give the Hammersmith line direct access to The City.

 

Kevin

 

Kevin,

 

That's exactly what I meant. Putting the new station on the west side involves all the southbound trains on the up slow crossing in front of both departing mainline trains and empty coach stock movements.

 

But, as with the motive power, we have to put ourselves in a parallel reality. When this line was first proposed, Charing Cross was still being built so that end could have been very different. Euston was more established but entirely possible that such an important new line as this could have justified extensive rebuilding there.

[Nearholmer]

Got it.

[Guy Rixon]

It is difficult to make a good presentation of a line that is in a cutting, but by no means impossible. It just needs the station building and approach road to also be in the cutting so the viewer is looking across them. But I like the idea of the station being on a viaduct. Perhaps Strand is not the right location? Somewhere a bit further north at the top of the incline which took the line below the Strand?

 

It does not matter in the context of your layout, just a bit of speculative fun, but how this line would get past Euston is quite an issue. Euston was built very much as two stations, arrivals and departures. That combined with the start of Camden Bank could make for very awkward operations if this through route got in the way.

 

I'm not understanding you about the incline. If the line passes below the Strand, then the incline is south of that road with the high end to the south. If you go level from ~20 below street level, then you don't have enough clearance below the river bridge and the plan would be rejected in Parliament. Having dived to get from the river bridge to under the Stand, then I guess the railway would rise only slowly going north and would be quite deep for a while.

 

I'm more or less convinced that the Euston link should follow the NWCCJ route and miss the main-line station. I suspect that it would have been built initially with a flat crossing over the main line and fairly quickly altered to a burrowing junction. This makes it easier to run through trains, but a fair bit harder to run through coaches from trains terminating at Euston. It's possible that trains conveying through portions woul have to call (or slip!) further north on the LNWR. Possibly the through portions are detached at Wiilesden. For main-line through trains, it also calls into question the practice of LNWR main-line engines exchanging with SECR at Strand: it might be easier to change at Willesden. Or perhaps Willesden is too busy. Or just rule 1. :-/ 

Edited February 2, 2018 by Guy Rixon

[Nearholmer]

Couldn’t entire LNWR trains from the north run to Strand, some cars terminating there, while others cars taken onward to The South?

 

In reality, that would need a bit of careful station design to avoid interfering with local services (Herne Hill again?), and in modelling terms it would need a big old layout and the building of a lot of carriages, so off the agenda?

 

Otherwise, to keep things manageable, a split at Willesden, which they did for WLL portions, sounds best, with an LNWR tank engine or, better still, an electric loco, bringing the cars forward to Strand. It sounds needlessly complicated, but it is no different in principle from the MR to Herne Hill thing we’ve thrashed in the other thread.

 

I’m still obsessing about levels, and wonder if having your station over the top of Villiers Street, and raising the level of the Strand, to cross your railway as it enters a tunnel/cutting, might work better. That would keep a level run off of the river bridge and through your platforms. The detail of the connection with the District would need a bit of thought, though, if it is to be west-to-North. If it goes East-to-North, it’s not at all bad, because you’ve got the length of Savoy Gardens that you can disfigure with a curve and gradient. That land was being reclaimed from the river at your date, by the building of the embankment and railway, so perfect for a bit of terraforming.

 

In actuality, there is a huge void under the bottom of Villiers Street, which used to contain the District traction supply substation. The bottom of the void is down so far that the Northern Line Tunnel apex protrudes above it. One can stand on top of the tunnel rings, and feel the trains rattling past below.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Nearholmer