Pre grouping Loading Gauge Diagrams Wanted

[JimC]

I want to create a web page which does a basic study of the various loading gauges in use before the grouping. There were, obviously, many of them since each line had its own and they were all different. I've got not very detailed drawings of the SR ones from Holcroft's book, and a GWR one, but I'm having a lot of trouble finding others. I'm particular interested in Scots ones - Cox, for instance intimates that the Caledonian loading gauge was wide at platform height but quite low, and other sources say some Scots lines had quite tall loading gauges.

[SED Freightman]

I want to create a web page which does a basic study of the various loading gauges in use before the grouping. There were, obviously, many of them since each line had its own and they were all different. I've got not very detailed drawings of the SR ones from Holcroft's book, and a GWR one, but I'm having a lot of trouble finding others. I'm particular interested in Scots ones - Cox, for instance intimates that the Caledonian loading gauge was wide at platform height but quite low, and other sources say some Scots lines had quite tall loading gauges.

Jim, I have a copy of the 1921 Railway Year Book which includes details of the principle loading gauges and will try and copy them when I get a chance. You are correct about the width of the Caledonian gauge - 9' 0" from 1' 0" ARL to 10' 9"ARL, but heightwise they are nothing special.

[JimC]

That would be great, thank you.

 

Already interesting to note that the LBSCR loading gauge was in some respects larger than the GWR one, being the same height in the centre but a flatter roof profile.It would have been good for container traffic!

[JimC]

If anyone is interested in this topic then I'm assembling the information here. 

 

http://www.devboats.co.uk/gwdrawings/loadinggauges.php

[SED Freightman]

Herewith British Railway Loading Gauges as published in The Railway Year Book for 1921.  I have included the first page as the preamble may be of interest in view of the publication date.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JimC]

Oh excellent, thankyou,

[Old Gringo]

Herewith British Railway Loading Gauges as published in The Railway Year Book for 1921.  I have included the first page as the preamble may be of interest in view of the publication date.

 

Railway Year Book 1921 - British Railway Loading Gauges - Pg 53.JPG

 

Railway Year Book 1921 - British Railway Loading Gauges - Pg 54.JPG

 

Railway Year Book 1921 - British Railway Loading Gauges - Pg 55.JPG

 

Railway Year Book 1921 - British Railway Loading Gauges - Pg 56.JPG

 

Railway Year Book 1921 - British Railway Loading Gauges - Pg 57.JPG

 

Does that edition also have the pages of tables listing all the Loading Gauges of British and Irish Railway companies and sections of each railway?

 

The 1911 edition of The Railway Year Book lists them all on pages 323 to 330: beginning with Alexandra Docks and Railway (3 sections listed) and ending with The Wirral Railway in G.B. followed by all the Irish Companies from the Ballycastle Railway to the West Clare and South Clare railways. 

 

Unfortunately, it's a tightly packed table with just the three major dimensions quoted (Width of load, Height in centre from rail and Height at side from rail) and the pages are not repeated in the 1919 edition, which has a Railway Officers Who's Who instead!

 

I wonder if it's repeated in 1920 edition, especially as Natonalisation had been discussed over the previous years following the Armistice?

 

All the best,

John

[JimC]

Unfortunately, it's a tightly packed table with just the three major dimensions quoted (Width of load, Height in centre from rail and Height at side from rail) 

 

I would be interested in seeing mobile phone quality snaps of that table, if anyone has a copy and would like to oblige. Those 3 key dimensions are quite informative even in isolation.

 

Jim C

[SED Freightman]

Does that edition also have the pages of tables listing all the Loading Gauges of British and Irish Railway companies and sections of each railway?

 

The 1911 edition of The Railway Year Book lists them all on pages 323 to 330: beginning with Alexandra Docks and Railway (3 sections listed) and ending with The Wirral Railway in G.B. followed by all the Irish Companies from the Ballycastle Railway to the West Clare and South Clare railways. 

 

Unfortunately, it's a tightly packed table with just the three major dimensions quoted (Width of load, Height in centre from rail and Height at side from rail) and the pages are not repeated in the 1919 edition, which has a Railway Officers Who's Who instead!

 

I wonder if it's repeated in 1920 edition, especially as Natonalisation had been discussed over the previous years following the Armistice?

 

All the best,

John

 

Alas, I have several editions of the Railway Year Book but they do not contain the table you mention.  1916 & 1919 have no loading gauge details as far as I can see, whilst 1920, 1921 & 1922 have the tables that I copied (see above) and the 1923 & 1926 editions only contain tables 1 & 2 of those I copied.

[Guy Rixon]

The Yearbook shows the width for SECR as 9'0". My understanding is that the SER gauge was 8'6" width (except 8'0" to Hastings and possibly down to Folkestone harbour) and the LCDR 9'0". Presumably the ex-SER section had been sorted out before 1921. I would very much like to know when these adjustments were made.

[Old Gringo]

I would be interested in seeing mobile phone quality snaps of that table, if anyone has a copy and would like to oblige. Those 3 key dimensions are quite informative even in isolation.

 

Jim C

 

Hi Jim,

 

Try these pages from the 1911 editon:

 

 

I hope you can see them okay, shot on a mobile in the kitchen!

 

All the very best,

John.

 

PS: No idea why it's put the last page there, modern technology baffles and infuriates me in equal measures!

 

Edit: From SED's reply (post 9), it seems that we need to know whether the tables were in the 1913 or 1914 editions for possibly the most comprehensive listing?

[Poggy1165]

This demonstrates the claim that the Great Central was built to Berne Gauge is a myth. I wish I had a pound for every time I have seen the myth repeated. Most of the GCR was built to the same loading gauge as the line between Manchester and Sheffield, which opened in 1845, long before anyone dreamed of running trains under the Channel. Some parts, like the Buckley Railway, were even more restricted.

[JimC]

The Yearbook shows the width for SECR as 9'0". My understanding is that the SER gauge was 8'6" width (except 8'0" to Hastings and possibly down to Folkestone harbour) and the LCDR 9'0". Presumably the ex-SER section had been sorted out before 1921. I would very much like to know when these adjustments were made.

 

from what I'm beginning to learn there were (and still are!) always exceptions to the standard gauges, so it may well be that many of the ex SER lines were still narrower.

[SED Freightman]

from what I'm beginning to learn there were (and still are!) always exceptions to the standard gauges, so it may well be that many of the ex SER lines were still narrower.

 

I'm sure you are correct, in anycase the loading gauges will only have been applicable to vehicles up to a certain maximum length and wheelbase / bogie centres.  The BR W5 gauge did not apply on the Canterbury & Whitstable and Tonbridge to West St Leonards (latterly Battle) sections and the more recent W6A gauge also has a number of restrictions on the tighter sections of the South Eastern Division.

[JimC]

I'm sure you are correct, in anycase the loading gauges will only have been applicable to vehicles up to a certain maximum length and wheelbase / bogie centres.  The BR W5 gauge did not apply on the Canterbury & Whitstable and Tonbridge to West St Leonards (latterly Battle) sections and the more recent W6A gauge also has a number of restrictions on the tighter sections of the South Eastern Division.

 

Curiously, going through that 1911 list, it doesn't seem to mention the Hastings line as being an exception to the general run of SECR gauges. I guess that's the trouble with secondary sources...

[SED Freightman]

Whilst not pre-grouping, the appended list of restrictions applicable to a batch of Hungarian Refrigerated Ferry Wagons may be of interest as although some are clearly axle weight related others will be gauge related.  I wonder if anyone in Hungary had ever contemplated sending chilled goods to Leysdown ?  More to the point, at the top of the restriction list is a reference to an "R.C.H. Pink Pamphlet" which might perhaps contain more detail of gauging restrictions if a copy can be located.

 

[JimC]

Two obvious loading gauge diagrams I ought to include are the post grouping composite ones for LNER and LMS. Has anyone got copies available?

[melmerby]

This demonstrates the claim that the Great Central was built to Berne Gauge is a myth. I wish I had a pound for every time I have seen the myth repeated. Most of the GCR was built to the same loading gauge as the line between Manchester and Sheffield, which opened in 1845, long before anyone dreamed of running trains under the Channel. Some parts, like the Buckley Railway, were even more restricted.

It depends how you view it.

Wikipedia (yes I know, the home of bull sh*t) states that one of the reasons that the platforms were islands between the tracks was that only the tracks needed to be slewed to allow continental trains to use the line.

If that is true then the line could have built to a larger gauge but but quite clearly you can't have UK passenger rolling stock calling at platforms with greater than normal clearances.

Therefore in normal use a UK loading gauge is in force.

it  might all be a load of twaddle though!

 

Keith

 

EDIT in a 1935 GWR rule book the LMS will accept 64' x 9' 3" GWR coaches over large areas of their network Including to Edinburgh, Holyhead, Glasgow, Blackpool, Bradford, Liverpool, & Bristol.

The LNER won't including the GCR

Edited April 22, 2018 by melmerby

[JimC]

Wikipedia (yes I know, the home of bull sh*t) states that one of the reasons that the platforms were islands between the tracks was that only the tracks needed to be slewed to allow continental trains to use the line.

 

I note the talk section of that wikipedia article contains a comprehensive demolishment of the Berne gauge myth, but the wikipedia editors decided it had to stay in because so many people had repeated it. That really says all one needs to know about wikipedia accuracy. I will admit that one of the motivations for doing the research and writing the page was another wikipedia article full of dubious information about loading gauges. One of the more bizarre attributes of wikipedia is that it frowns on proper research, preferring to quote secondary sources, so if, after consulting the primary sources, one wishes to see it corrected, one probably needs to generate the desired secondary source!

[JimC]

I've got a pretty good selection of re group loading gauges now thanks to folks on and off RMweb. To make the thing complete I really could do with LNER and LMS composite gauges. Can anyone oblige?

[Trog]

This demonstrates the claim that the Great Central was built to Berne Gauge is a myth. I wish I had a pound for every time I have seen the myth repeated. Most of the GCR was built to the same loading gauge as the line between Manchester and Sheffield, which opened in 1845, long before anyone dreamed of running trains under the Channel. Some parts, like the Buckley Railway, were even more restricted.

 

Lets face it at the time the GC was built the railways of France were not built to the Berne gauge, conversion taking until the 1930's..

[corneliuslundie]

"One of the more bizarre attributes of wikipedia is that it frowns on proper research, preferring to quote secondary sources, so if, after consulting the primary sources, one wishes to see it corrected, one probably needs to generate the desired secondary source!"

I was surprised when working abroad but with contact with Americans to find that they didn't want primary sources quoted either. Was this an isolated incident or is that why Wikipedia takes the viw it does?

Jonathan

[Poggy1165]

"One of the more bizarre attributes of wikipedia is that it frowns on proper research, preferring to quote secondary sources, so if, after consulting the primary sources, one wishes to see it corrected, one probably needs to generate the desired secondary source!"

I was surprised when working abroad but with contact with Americans to find that they didn't want primary sources quoted either. Was this an isolated incident or is that why Wikipedia takes the viw it does?

Jonathan

 

 

I have an interest in medieval history as well as railway history, and I find that in both arenas there are lot of people who do not want to know about primary sources if the said sources conflict with their established prejudices.

 

It seems to be part of modern culture that too many people prefer the BS they find in a novel, on the internet, or in an ill-informed article written by some well-known airhead to historical facts. Although, saying that, there are many areas where the historical "fact" is that we just don't know. 

[JimC]

I'm looking up stuff at Kew. I've found a useful folder of loading gauge diagrams from about 1919 which is clearly associated with a project to establish a standard go everywhere 57ft carriage. That the project, like the ARLE STD 2-6-0 , didn't come to much is suggested by a collection of minutes for an LNER loading gauge committee in the mid 20s, in which they are arguing the relative merits of standardising on 52ft or 60ft carriages. This collection is singularly irritating since it repeatedly refers to attached drawings, which are the gauge diagrams I'm after - but the drawings are no longer attached. Gnashed teeth...

Edited June 13, 2018 by JimC

[JimC]

The other amusing part of the LNE cttee deliberations is that seeking to do a thorough job they use government research to establish what would now be called dynamic envelope - carriage movement - and establish a proposed set of well founded standards on what could be safely run where. Then the traffic dept comes back and says the proposals would ban some stock from where it's been running for years. Let no-one tell you standards are easy....