Great Western - driving on the right

[Monjac]

The train in Turner's painting - Rain. Steam and Speed. The Great Western Railway 1844 . when viewed close up , is  crossing the viaduct over the Thames at Maidenhead  on the right hand track . Is this correct for 1844 ?  Does this explain why   Great Western drivers controlled from the right ? Or did Turner make a mistake .

Edited June 6, 2019 by Monjac

[Gwiwer]

As this is one of my favourite works of art (not just railway artworks) and one I have spent many hours gazing at I have long thought that the train appeared to be running along, or very close to, the centre line of the bridge rather than to the left or right as a double-track railway would suggest but have never heard a definitive answer to the question.  In my opinion the position of the train on the bridge is subjective and it could be interpreted as being on either of two tracks or centrally on a single line.  I shall defer to anyone with precise knowledge of the infrastructure around the date represented.

[Monjac]

I agree with what you say on Turners original painting. It is unclear but could be  central.. But the engraving presumably approved by Turner shows it on the right hand track incidentally also showing clearly a hare running away from the engine which on the original was just a black blob..

That is why I wanted to know if perhaps GWR in the early days ran on the right hand side track and would explain why the GWR  controls and driver were on the right hand side.

[The Stationmaster]

Turner could be very impressionistic in his work and this picture is an example of that.  In fact there is even a strong suggestion that he didn't base the original idea on Maidenhead Bridge at all but that the picture was based on, or inspired by, Gatehampton Viaduct (similar in construction to the bridge at Maidenhead although the arches are  not quite as flat) because he had stayed at nearby Basildon Park at some date before he painted the picture.  However unlike Maidenhead there is no nearby road bridge over the river at Gatehampton.    The topography in the original painted version of the picture is not quite right for Maidenhead but this could be, as much as anything else, down to Turner's impressionistic approach

 

It would be interesting to see if any of Turner's surviving sketch books and watercolours give any indication of what he looked at while at Basildon as he was a prolific sketcher often simply sketching visual ideas inspired by what he saw.  

[Steamport Southport]

I remember when they had Capital Of Culture in Liverpool they had an exhibition about railway art in the steam age. By far the best thing they did.

 

http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/walker/exhibitions/steam/

 

I was talking to one of the curators and Rain, Steam and Speed was meant to be the prime exhibit. But it was deemed too fragile to move (they had a video link up). It's also apparently too delicate to clean. So you can't see a lot of the finer detail that you can in the etching.

 

 

Jason

[Monjac]

Thank you Steamport. Very interesting especially about being too delicate to clean. Perhaps a good clean would have revealed the hare.

 

 

I am still hoping for an answer about GWR running on the right side track.

[jim.snowdon]

8 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Turner could be very impressionistic in his work and this picture is an example of that.  In fact there is even a strong suggestion that he didn't base the original idea on Maidenhead Bridge at all but that the picture was based on, or inspired by, Gatehampton Viaduct (similar in construction to the bridge at Maidenhead although the arches are  not quite as flat) because he had stayed at nearby Basildon Park at some date before he painted the picture.  However unlike Maidenhead there is no nearby road bridge over the river at Gatehampton.    The topography in the original painted version of the picture is not quite right for Maidenhead but this could be, as much as anything else, down to Turner's impressionistic approach

 

It would be interesting to see if any of Turner's surviving sketch books and watercolours give any indication of what he looked at while at Basildon as he was a prolific sketcher often simply sketching visual ideas inspired by what he saw.  

If you compare the railway bridge in the etching with Maidenhead bridge in its original form there is a significant difference by way of the shape and size of the cutwaters on the piers. Those on Maidenhead bridge are quite small, extending only a small distance above water level, whereas those on the bridge in the etching are much bigger and taller, with sloped tops in a style common on rather older bridges. Another difference is that the original Maidenhead bridge only had cutwaters on the central, in-river pier; Turner's bridge appears to have multiple piers with cutwaters. I would suggest that it is not in fact Maidenhead bridge at all, but a scene that Turner has assembled from bridges he has seen elsewhere and because of the juxtaposition of the railway and the road bridges, together with the impression of what looks typical of a Gooch locomotive, we have presumed that it is Maidenhead. It is superficially similar, but that may be as far as it goes.

 

Jim 

[Wickham Green]

Anyone know when Turner applied for his Artistic Licence ?

[LMS2968]

Unfortunately, many of the early artists had problems with the new railways and locomotives in particular. I have made a big study of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, and which road the train was on seems to have been optional for the artist; that Railway always used the left track so the number of trains running wrong road seems strangely high. Having said that, the works of Thomas Talbot Bury and Isaac Shaw show great detail of the line, although you do have to accept that the perspective is often suspect.

[The Stationmaster]

9 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

If you compare the railway bridge in the etching with Maidenhead bridge in its original form there is a significant difference by way of the shape and size of the cutwaters on the piers. Those on Maidenhead bridge are quite small, extending only a small distance above water level, whereas those on the bridge in the etching are much bigger and taller, with sloped tops in a style common on rather older bridges. Another difference is that the original Maidenhead bridge only had cutwaters on the central, in-river pier; Turner's bridge appears to have multiple piers with cutwaters. I would suggest that it is not in fact Maidenhead bridge at all, but a scene that Turner has assembled from bridges he has seen elsewhere and because of the juxtaposition of the railway and the road bridges, together with the impression of what looks typical of a Gooch locomotive, we have presumed that it is Maidenhead. It is superficially similar, but that may be as far as it goes.

 

Jim 

And as it happens they match Gatehampton Bridge (as does what cab be seen of the arches).

[eastglosmog]

Having read the official report on the Sonning cutting accident, it appears (though not explicitly stated) that in 1841 the GWR was using the left hand track (southern in this case for a train heading west).

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

8 hours ago, Wickham Green said:

Anyone know when Turner applied for his Artistic Licence ?

He was an artist. It's a work of fiction. Or if you prefer 'with imaginative input from the chap with the brush'.

 

Oh, and to me it suggests the loco is running on the left, but the proportions of the loco are exaggerated relative to the width of the bridge. There's a suggestion in the foreground of two pairs of rails. I am of the opinion that Turner was very gifted, and that this painting while evocative is not in the first rank of his work: (I'd take 'Temeraire').

[Compound2632]

Sorry this is an aside from Turner's painting but as T.T. Bury has been mentioned, it's worth noting that many of the early published railway illustrations were reproduced by lithography, which I believe reverses the artist's image. Lithographers got very good at mirror-writing but they might still make the occasional mistake. Here's J.C. Bourne, Primrose Hill tunnel.

[Miss Prism]

When Turner altered the number and shapes of the stones in his portraits of Stonehenge, no one batted an eyelid. Taking a liberty with a bit of railway track seems small beer.

 

[The Stationmaster]

30 minutes ago, eastglosmog said:

Having read the official report on the Sonning cutting accident, it appears (though not explicitly stated) that in 1841 the GWR was using the left hand track (southern in this case for a train heading west).

I can't find anything in Lt Col Smith's Report which suggests the train was running on the right hand line and in fact in one place he says that the engine was found with its nearside wheels  was found with its nearside wheels buried in the slope of the cutting but it had left the rails

 

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BoT_Sonning1842.pdf

 

It is however true that in the very early days, usually involving other than normal trains but various 'experimenters' and particularly engines sent out to look for heavily delayed trains were record as running on the wrong line.  Accordingly the Board, on 3 November 1840 approved two new Rules for Enginemen and Firemen.  The new Rule 10  stated that under no circumstabces were engines to move from or beyond stations except when proceeding to take their proper tuernon a train etc. More critically Rule 11stated 'Engines are never to move forward on the right hand road but always to move on the south road from Paddington towards Bristol and on the north road from Bristol towards Paddington except when specially ordered to do otherwise ... ... etc (i.e when appropriate special arrangements have been made).

 

If nothing else this confirma that for ordinary train working running on the left hand road was already applicable by then and, as an earlier incident affirmed, by 1838

[eastglosmog]

20 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I can't find anything in Lt Col Smith's Report which suggests the train was running on the right hand line and in fact in one place he says that the engine was found with its nearside wheels  was found with its nearside wheels buried in the slope of the cutting but it had left the rails

 

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BoT_Sonning1842.pdf

 

Neither could I, and as he talks about the drainage on the southern side, it seems reasonable to suppose that that is the side that failed, and there is no indication the failed mass crossed more than one track, so a Bristol bound train would logically be on the south (i.e. left) set of rails.

Regarding Turners use of artistic license, try counting the number of gun ports on his painting of the Temeraire - the number is way below what it ought to be, though I've forgotten what the precise deficit is!

[jim.snowdon]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

And as it happens they match Gatehampton Bridge (as does what cab be seen of the arches).

I'm not exactly convinced that they do, as the cutwaters visible in the etching are pointed and have sloped tops, but I am pretty sure that it isn't Maidenhead bridge. There is, I suggest, a great deal of artist's licence in the scene; it made a good painting but isn't actually anywhere in particular.

 

Jim

[Monjac]

This is the caption in the National Gallery describing the painting.I searched in vain to find the hare on the original. . But I accepted everything else which was said. Then I found the engraving with all the detail , plus I found the hare ..

[jim.snowdon]

I'd regard the National Gallery's knowledge of railway infrastructure as being just a little suspect.

 

Jim 

[kevinlms]

13 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

Unfortunately, many of the early artists had problems with the new railways and locomotives in particular. I have made a big study of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, and which road the train was on seems to have been optional for the artist; that Railway always used the left track so the number of trains running wrong road seems strangely high. Having said that, the works of Thomas Talbot Bury and Isaac Shaw show great detail of the line, although you do have to accept that the perspective is often suspect.

Every one knows that anyone re-creating a scene, model or painting, should work off a good photograph!

 

Seriously, it's hard to get moving objects correct. Just look at early paintings of race horses, where almost invariably, they are depicted with all 4 legs outstretched. It wasn't until cameras were fast enough to stop motion, that the true movement of a galloping horse was revealed.

[Chime Whistle Books]

As an aside, Cuneo was known not to be a fan of the painting, claiming that one could hardly see the loco!

 

https://www.chimewhistle.co.uk

Edited June 8, 2019 by Chime Whistle Books

[Compound2632]

Compare Juliet and her Nurse.

 

a). Where's Wally?

b). Why are they in Venice rather than Verona?

[Jonboy]

13 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

When Turner altered the number and shapes of the stones in his portraits of Stonehenge, no one batted an eyelid. Taking a liberty with a bit of railway track seems small beer.

 

 

Cough: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn310-concrete-evidence/

[melmerby]

Why has the GWR been picked out as the only right side driven company?

Many have/had the driver on the right. (It's easier to fire on the left, especially in a small cab, unless you are a southpaw!)

Weren't the Midland also a right side company? How about the NER? Industrial locos?

 

AFAIK no UK railway ever ran on the right with multiple track main lines.

[melmerby]

Most paintings are of what the artist wants to see not what he can actually see. It's about getting the ideal composition, why let reality get in the way?

There are plenty of examples of trees being moved to get a better layout, building orientation moved etc.

Sunlight from the north to illuminate the desired aspect is another, the list goes on.

Edited June 8, 2019 by melmerby