Strand and its trains

[Joseph_Pestell]

I don't have my plan of Charing Cross in front of me but, from the north end of Hungerford Bridge to the Strand is about 250 yards, 750ft. So, for the railway to pass below the Strand, the gradient would only need to be about 1:50. To pass above the Strand, starting from the north end of Hungerford Bridge, the gradient would need to be steeper but I take your point about putting the junction south of the river and building an extra bridge. But that seems like an extravagance.

[Edwardian]

Why can't you simply cross the Thames with your own, higher, parallel bridge?

 

Why does it need to be the same level as the real Charing Cross bridge? 

 

If lines need to conjoin, can they not do so south of the river, where there might be more distance in which to equalise the levels?

[Jol Wilkinson]

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

 On behalf of the Pre-group Pedants Society, may I ask for the use of correct terminology.

 

Passengers were carried in Carriages or Coaches in Great Britain, the use of the word Cars being an Americanism.

[Edwardian]

 On behalf of the Pre-group Pedants Society, may I ask for the use of correct terminology.

 

Passengers were carried in Carriages or Coaches in Great Britain, the use of the word Cars being an Americanism.

 

Quite so!

 

Oh, hang on ...

Edited February 2, 2018 by Edwardian

[Guy Rixon]

Quite so!

 

Oh, hang on ...

 

 

Yes, but they actually were American - the Gilbert cars, yes?

[Nearholmer]

Jol

 

It is both an Americanism and correct terminology.

 

It was already in widespread us in London at the date in question, as a result of American ownership of the Tubes and the District, and is standard parlance on London Underground to this very day as a result.

 

Sorry to be pedantic about it ;-)

 

Kevin

Edited February 2, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Guy Rixon]

Replying to disparate posts...

 

Bridges: building the CCEJ needs either a new bridge or a widening of Charing Cross bridge. The original bridge at Charing Cross was barely adequate for that station and had to be widened any way in (IIRC) the 1880s. A separate bridge at a higher level is probably more expensive, but only slightly, and it's less disruptive to build one. Since it's close to the Charing Cross bridge, the constraint is that its piers must be in line with the latter so that the river traffic not be impeded. Also, it has to be minimally decorative enough not to get shouted down in Parliament. That last might be enough to block the bridge with the descending railway, which would look a little odd. So its possible that the CCEJ bridge is level and there's a long, shallow ramp down to meet the SER near Waterloo. Once we eliminate the steep bank over Villiers Street the details matter less.

 

Gradients: Joseph is right about the ~1 in 50 up or down to get over or under the Strand. However, getting the gradient down to 1 in 50-ish leaves no room for the station south of the strand. 1 in 40 gives just about enough room for half a station. For reasons stated above, I want to keep the station connected to Charing Cross, so moving it north of the bank is not my way, even though it makes engineering sense. I see three reasons to go down rather than up to clear the Strand. The first is to go below the West Strand development (and I've already decided to go round). The second is to run below existing streets. This is important for the 1870s and 1880s plans as new streets had already been built. In the 1860s, that part of London was an ancient, decaying slum and a railway company would be at liberty to knock it down and replan it, given only that they could afford the land. The third reason is the link to the MDR...

 

The District: ...which I'd forgotten about in recent planning. Back in the dreamtime, I wanted to include this link on the layout. I wanted it because I really like the MDR EMUs. However, with the CCEJ on a viaduct, the gradients are really, really give-up-and-go-home bad. Even to join the CCEJ in a tunnel under the Strand, the gradient from the MDR is bad, and that's for the north-to-east chord. Sure, this link would only carry passenger trains, so it can handle bad gradients, but basically the chord would need to tunnel separately under the Strand and join the CCEJ a fair way north; the trains would not be seen under the layout. What may work, even with the CCEJ on viaduct, is that the MDR chord exists, and is in tunnel under Bedford Street and meets the CCEJ underground some way north, so that the gradients are "only" 1-in 45 or so. From 1872, trains run from the LNWR to Mansion House and are quite popular, probably more so than the services over the SER round to Cannon Street. However, when Mansion House runs out of paths, sometime after electrification, most of the MDR trains off the CCEJ are done away with  and some are diverted to terminate at Strand. This gives a slightly stronger reason for MDR stock appearing at Strand than leasing the units to the LNWR. I do wonder how many of the LNWR trains might also have gone to Mansion House under these arrangements.

 

Splitting trains: nice though it would be to bring whole LNWR trains through to split at Strand, I don't think most LNWR passengers would like the arrangement. Therefore, splitting at Willesden seems most reasonable, with the main parts carrying on to Euston. Also, Kevin is right that a full-length train won't fit my fiddle yards. However, a few trains, perhaps one per day, could be partitioned the other way round, with the front going to Strand and beyond and the lesser portion at the rear taken on to Strand. And yes, electric haulage seems possible for this, provided that we assume that the LNWR pays for volts as far as Willesden.

[Nearholmer]

I’ve just remembered this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charing_Cross_roof_collapse

 

Be careful of your neighbours!

[Edwardian]

Yes, but they actually were American - the Gilbert cars, yes?

 

Yes and No.  The Hastings Car train used the American-built Gilbert Cars.  The Folkestone Car train used British-built American-type Cars.

 

Note both services were known as "Car Trains", hence I pictured them rather than Pullman services on other lines! 

[Andy Hayter]

 On behalf of the Pre-group Pedants Society, may I ask for the use of correct terminology.

 

Passengers were carried in Carriages or Coaches in Great Britain, the use of the word Cars being an Americanism.

 

Yes, but not exactly.

 

The Pullman company never had any carriages, only cars and when these moved to UK ownership the terminology remained.

[Guy Rixon]

Also, the MDR electric trains were always said to be formed of cars. Mr. Yerkes was engaging in a little American cultural imperialism. But he paid for a splendid telescope, so I forgive him.

 

[Compound2632]

 On behalf of the Pre-group Pedants Society, may I ask for the use of correct terminology.

 

Passengers were carried in Carriages or Coaches in Great Britain, the use of the word Cars being an Americanism.

 

This got me wondering about the earliest common usage of "dining car" in British English - still looking. But, although "Dining Car" is said to be an Americanism, with "Restaurant Car" the British form, I note that the Midland Railway's catering vehicles were lettered DINING CARRIAGE from the 1890s to Grouping, though there was a vogue for RESTAURANT CARRIAGE around 1910-14 (Dow, Midland Style); Wolverton lettered its magnificent vehicles DINING SALOON. DINING CAR seems to have come in very early in LMS days, with RESTAURANT CAR being post-war and post-nationalisation. (Sleeping vehicles mutatis mutandis.)

Edited February 2, 2018 by Compound2632

[Nearholmer]

Well OT, but anyone who hasn’t read a biography of Yerkes is advised to do so. It isn’t only his financial affairs that wouldn’t stand up to modern scrutiny.

 

On finances, his biographer said “Yerkes didn't invent corruption in Chicago. He merely perfected it, bringing order to what had been a chaotic system of bribery."

Edited February 2, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Guy Rixon]

The second coach in the "brown train" for the EDC service now has a body!

 

[Guy Rixon]

Having thought a bit about recent suggestions, I now offer a new route map for the CCEJ near Charing Cross.

 

 

Note that the map is rotated to fit it better on a page. North is roughly along the diagonal from bottom left to top right.

 

The black line is the CCEJ. It crosses the river on a high-level bridge, as previously discussed. The bridge is level, and south of the river the CCEJ descends at about 1 in 80 to meet the Charing Cross Railway (CCR) just before Waterloo SER. North of the river, the CCEJ is level until just north of the Strand. It then descends sharply - about 1 in 50 - until it is in tunnel at the top right corner of the map. It then proceeds north in cutting with numerous short tunnels. Streets are are widened above the CCEJ so that it need not be in full tunnel; notably, Tottenham Court Road becomes much wider.

 

Rail level on the CCEJ is about 18 feet above the Strand. (That's above the historical road level; possibly the road is altered to dip down a couple of feet to gain extra height.) That means that rail level matches street level roughly where it crosses Chandos Street and the cutting begins immediately to the north of that street.

 

The red line is the chord from the CCEJ to the MDR. It's a north-to-west connection facing away from the city rather than north-to-east sending trains to Mansion House station. This makes sense to me firstly because the CCEJ already has a link to the city via the CCR to Cannon Street. The SER are backers of the CCEJ when it is formed and do not want to lose their traffic to the MDR. Secondly, the MDR do not want more trains into Mansion House (paths are scarce), but they and the LNWR are interested in a service between Euston and south-west London. The MDR chord has to rise from slightly below river level to about 40 feet above and it is steep: somewhere between 1 in 40 and 1 in 50. It's only feasible at all because the CCEJ falls to meet it. The chord is in tunnel throughout, although there may be some short vents.

 

Where the two railways overlap on the map the box for the MDR chord is built into the foundations of the CCEJ viaduct. There are probably passenger platforms down there, too. This might have implications for the civil engineering of the viaduct, possibly turning it from brick arches to a series of iron bridges; I need to seek advice on that.

 

I'm still working on how the various goods facilities are woven in. More on that later.

[Nearholmer]

Whoa!

 

Congratulations on getting such a bold stroke, right through the middle of the West End, and soaring over the river, past Parliament.

 

Presumably the LNWR have undertaken some work a bit earlier than first intended, to push an electrified line at least as far as Willesden Junction, since the electrification of the District?

[Guy Rixon]

Current assumption is that the the CCEJ itself was electrified from the Met chord  - i.e. the west-to-south chord near the Euston Road -  down to Strand because the Met wanted it and paid. The bit from the Met chord up to Euston itself (strictly to the annex west of Euston) was paid for by the MDR because they wanted it. The volt infestation between Euston and Willesden was probably done by the LNWR themselves, as you suggest, although the MDR might have contributed to the cost. In a sane world, the electric trains would go on from Strand to Cannon Street. I assume that they do not, and instead reverse at Strand, because the SECR is still planning to electrify on an incompatible system and won't invest in "temporary" low-voltage gear.

 

It's not yet clear whether, in 1909, the LNWR has yet acquired any electric trains. It's possible that they may be leasing MDR stock that is spare, or I could bring forward the introduction of their own stock. That would give Strand electric trains from four railways: Met, H&CR, MDR and LNWR. Enough to keep me building into my old age!

[Nearholmer]

Mister Rixon, with all this electricity you are spoiling us!

 

I agree about not electrifying onto SECR Lines. They had multiple proposals on the go, at multiple voltages, some conductor rail and some overhead, couldn’t afford any of it, and (slightly later) devised a somewhat dodgy plan to finance a generating station through a stand-alone company (a very PFI-ish deal to keep capital at a distance, because nobody would buy shares with their name on).

 

Does the generating station at Lots Road have the capacity to feed all these extra services, I have to ask, temporarily donning my former professional hat. The LNWR haven’t built their generating station yet, and Neasden and Durnsford Road are at capacity feeding their own lines.

[Guy Rixon]

One has to presume that the power stations of the Met and MDR were built to give slightly more output to cover the CCEJ. Both companies knew what they were getting into when they invested, so could plan to cope. Durnsford Road wasn't opened until 1912.

 

Also, if the LNWR have done the electrification out to Willesden ahead of the historical timetable, they probably included the generating station.

[Nearholmer]

This might be what electrification displaced.

 

Did all their Met tanks have this valve gear (joy?) and cylinder layout? Looks ver French/Spanish, does it not?

This might be what electrification displaced.

Did all their Met tanks have this valve gear (joy?) and cylinder layout? Looks ver French/Spanish, does it not?

[Guy Rixon]

That, I believe, is one of Mr. Webb's specials. There was that one, a compound version of the Mansion-House tanks, and one more compound-tank type, the latter not fitted with condensers.

 

I have in mind that the rest of the Met tanks on the LNWR were simples with inside valve-gear. They had all been rebuilt to non-condensing 4-4-2T and rusticated before the electrification.

[Compound2632]

Yes, that's the "First Compound Tank", a three-cylinder compound 4-2-2-0T rebuilt from Met Tank No. 2063 in 1884. Confusingly renumbered 3026 (same digits, different order) in 1889, scrapped 1897 - and photographed working around Manchester. Ten of the LNWR's sixteen Beyer-Peacock Met Tanks were rebuilt as 4-4-2Ts when they were moved away from London in the early 1890s - again to work in the Manchester area. These rebuilds were veritable hippogryphs - head of a Beyer, body of a 5'6" tank [Ref: E. Talbot, An Illustrated History of LNWR Engines (OPC, 1985)].

[Argos]

I've always thought the Webb rebuilds of the Metro tanks were rather handsome

 

 

I've a plan to build one eventually as they operated in the Buxton area in the period I model.

 

A bit off topic for the Strand though.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Argos

[Clearwater]

Your plans have rather piqued my imagination! As I was walking up to the Strand from Embankment tube this am, I was thinking how the physical geography of London has changed. One of the things that always intrigues me is an inscription/tablet at one of the entrances to the gardens showing where the banks of the Thames used to finish pre Bazalgette. I think this tablet is pretty much on the line of your route. My reason for this diversion is I was wondering what impact the old, pre Embankment Thames would have had on how a railway would have been planned and built?

 

David

[Guy Rixon]

Here's a schematic of the track layout at Strand, according to current thinking. (Things may change significantly before any model track is laid.)

 

 

I've reverted to viewing the layout from the West (from the bottom on the track diagram), and bringing all the goods facilities to the West side. The extent of the layout will be roughy from the Waterloo end of the platforms to the far end of Chandos Street depot. The south half of the platforms are in the fiddle yard, screened by the train-shed roof and with the lines to the wagon hoist in front. Chandos Street depot, with its warehouse, screens the other fiddle yard. The carriage/exchange sidings are off-set because there isn't room for them.

 

The Up direction is towards Euston and Down is towards Waterloo.

 

Bear in mind that the gradient down to the tunnel starts immediately north of the station, so the pointwork in the north throat is necessarily condensed. That's why there's that double slip in the Up Main. It's not modeller's compression, it's real.

 

Down, through trains use platform 4. Terminating, down trains normally use platform 2/3, since they can depart north from that platform by the crossover. This platform road is also used to assemble through coaches into trains (through portions arrive in platform 4 and the pilot draws them back onto the Down Main before adding them to the back of the train in platform 2/3). When the centre platform-road is occupied, terminating trains have to shunt into the carriage sidings and then set back into platform 1. All Up trains use platform 1, and trains with through portions are split here (train engine off; condensing/electric engine backs on and draws out the through coaches; pilot pushes the rest into the carriage sidings).

 

Down freights that detach traffic at Strand (not all do) arrive on either of the down lines and set back into the sidings. Up freights typically run into the Up Loop to wait for a path. Any freight train starting from Strand typically sets back into the Up Loop before starting its journey.

 

The Market Sidings are for the fruit and veg traffic: two roads under a glass roof with an unloading bank between them; possibly the poshest private sidings in the land. They are at a high level, about a new Street, replacing the closed end of Chandos Street, underneath. The market porters unload the vans as they arrive and stack the produce under the railway, which is on iron viaduct here.

 

Signals are not shown; I'll attempt a signalling diagram later. There are two boxes, Strand North which controls the points and signals visible on the layout and Stand South for the other end.

 

That's the topology. I now need to do the cartographic version over the historic map... 

 

EDITS: added the loco-servicing sidings and turntable. Reversed the Market Sidings and added their description.

Edited February 13, 2018 by Guy Rixon