Jump to content
Forum software upgrades have taken place today and we will be monitoring performance as it could take a while to get back up to speed.

RRU

Locomotive photo`s Pre-Grouping through to BR

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Ian Hargrave said:


I don’t dispute what you say but the image is far too grainy and indistinct for me to evidence one way or the other the numbering on the V2 cabside.

 

The loco number is noted in the caption to the photo.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/01/2020 at 15:32, cctransuk said:

 

Overhead wire inspection train - Woodhead line, possibly.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Something of that ilk I think - but more likely on the LMR somewhere ..... MSJ&A p'raps ? - though it could easily stray across to t'other side of Piccadilly London Road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

241)  No 696 is one of the Worsdell two-cylinder Atlantics built under Raven’s aegis, NER class V/09.  The LNER classification, C6, can be seen on the buffer plank.  Prior to 1932, Darlington used the NER class here.  Renumbered 2939 in December 1946 and withdrawn on the LNER’s last day.

242)  Another V/09.  The Westinghouse gear was removed from 702 at its overhaul in the third quarter of 1932.  Withdrawn 1946, without receiving its new number.

243) According to Yeadon’s, B13 No 761 had its number transferred to the cabside in June 1931.  With the smokebox door still tightened by a wheel, the photograph is probably not too long after that.

244)  B15 No 820, withdrawn December 1947 as 1696.

246)  This photograph is in the RCTS ‘Locomotives of the LNER’, part 2B, where it is stated to be a Leeds express, about 1924.  B16 No 925 was destroyed in the bombing of York Shed on 29 April 1942, along with A4 No 4469.

247)  Ex-NBR Wheatley engines, LNER class J31.  No 1223 was withdrawn in May 1924.  1162, latterly 10162, survived till January 1927.

248)  B1 1175 entered traffic in June 1947.

249)  A7 No 1180, Worsdell 4-6-2T.

250, 251)  LNER class D21.  Ex North Eastern Worsdell 4-4-0s built 1908/9.

 

Sources: Yeadon’s Register and RCTS ‘Locomotives of the LNER'.

 

D

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LNER1470NatGanwick.jpg.ae2347fe57e788e69a9ea6d10e35610c.jpg

252) No. 1470N "Great Northern" at Ganwick. No date.

 

LNER1475atNeepsendShedSheffield.jpg.b1e8ed5dcb325162e28d12dbafe3872a.jpg

253) No. 1475 at Neepsend Shed Sheffield. No date.

 

LNER1524.jpg.d3725a0509420f0e2cae6f70818bfd6f.jpg

254) No. 1524. No details.

 

LNER1880atCarlisle.jpg.423db21e852bc7d29429489b3bc7c28b.jpg

255) No. 1880 at Carlisle. No date.

 

LNER2000atGrantham4-24-48.jpg.3cdf7ee3e037bc35dd7f519c9bc9c243.jpg

256) No. 2000 at Grantham 24-4-48.

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

B9 1475 appears to be at Brunswick shed Liverpool rather than Neepsend. 

 

Simon

 

 

Edited by 65179

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

252)  ‘Great Northern’ was renumbered 4470 in March 1925.

253)  B9 No 1475, renumbered from 6111 in October 1946, and to 61475 in February 1949.

254)  H1 No 1524, one of 45 Raven 4-4-4Ts, NER class D.  All rebuilt as 4-6-2Ts to LNER class A8 between 1931 and 1936, this one being dealt with in August 1934.

255)  D17/2 No 1880, withdrawn January 1933.

256)  D3 No 2000.  Fitted with a side-window cab in 1944 for working officers’ specials, and as such one of only two engines ever to carry the LNER’s coat of arms.  The late Percy Banyard had this engine for a week on the 10.32 Belgrave Road to Grantham and back, and thought it a ‘poor thing’.

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/01/2020 at 12:12, Old Gringo said:

I understand from David that the Kidderminster Photographic Archive has all the surviving glass plates, 

 

Agreed, can we please ensure any posted material is the original property of the poster or explicit permission has been granted by the copyright holder in all cases or provide links to wherever they may be posted on the internet. Do no copy and upload any material to our server which is in breach of copyright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For photographs over a certain age (and what exactly might that be?) what is the legal situation? Is the owner (or holder) of the original plates automatically the copyright holder? What happens when the original negative no longer exists but there are several prints?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Darryl Tooley said:

252)  ‘Great Northern’ was renumbered 4470 in March 1925.

253)  B9 No 1475, renumbered from 6111 in October 1946, and to 61475 in February 1949.

254)  H1 No 1524, one of 45 Raven 4-4-4Ts, NER class D.  All rebuilt as 4-6-2Ts to LNER class A8 between 1931 and 1936, this one being dealt with in August 1934.

255)  D17/2 No 1880, withdrawn January 1933.

256)  D3 No 2000.  Fitted with a side-window cab in 1944 for working officers’ specials, and as such one of only two engines ever to carry the LNER’s coat of arms.  The late Percy Banyard had this engine for a week on the 10.32 Belgrave Road to Grantham and back, and thought it a ‘poor thing’.

252 again; 1470 was the first LNER pacific, class A1, in 1922. It was still class A1 when Edward Thompson selected it to be rebuilt to his new "Standard" class A in 1943 (?). All the remaining class A1s (180 psi boiler) were then reclassified A10. Renumbered no. 113 after 1946, 60113 under BR. Not sure when it was scrapped. No. 61475 lasted until May 1949. The number was re-used in December 1949 as B16/2 no. 61406 had to be renumbered to clear the way for a new B1 class loco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

256)   Is that an articulated twin or an optical illusion ? ........ some of Gresley's non-gangwayed artics ended up in Scotland and the bodies were flogged off to local farmers by Inverurie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Wickham Green said:

256)   Is that an articulated twin or an optical illusion ? ........ some of Gresley's non-gangwayed artics ended up in Scotland and the bodies were flogged off to local farmers by Inverurie.

You'e correct, it's a non-gangwayed twin-art. Brake third/composite with the first-class accommodation in the middle? Suspect D210, 3rd brake with 6 compartments/lavatory composite, with 2 first and 5 third class compartments. Info from M. Harris, Gresley's Coaches

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of posts yesterday suggested there is copyright on some of the photos I posted earlier. I have not seen any of these photos before, so I cannot tell which ones have been published before and ones that haven't. Therefore the only way to make sure there is no more breaches of copyright is to end this topic.

 

It appears to have been quite popular and I would like to thank those people who posted extra details on many of the photos and all those who gave a “thumbs up”.

 

Peter.

  • Friendly/supportive 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh heck, just as it got interesting (to those of us who love all things LNER).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JeffP said:

Oh heck, just as it got interesting (to those of us who love all things LNER).

Agreed!

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RRU said:

A couple of posts yesterday suggested there is copyright on some of the photos I posted earlier. I have not seen any of these photos before, so I cannot tell which ones have been published before and ones that haven't. Therefore the only way to make sure there is no more breaches of copyright is to end this topic.

 

It appears to have been quite popular and I would like to thank those people who posted extra details on many of the photos and all those who gave a “thumbs up”.

 

Peter.

 

There are always those who are determined to spoil the enjoyment of those who innocently post and view railway photos. To them I would say - if you are so precious about the 'copyright' of 'your' images - don't put them on the internet !!

 

Collecting photos taken by others, by buying the images 'with copyright' is, IMHO, as reprehensible as those who buy paintings by 'the great masters' and then keep them in a private environment to gloat over. In fact, again IMHO - it's even worse to buy images 'with copyright', post them on the internet so that others may see what you 'own', but deny them the opportunity to further disseminate them. You can't hope to 'let the cat out of the bag' and then seek to control it - it's pointless.

 

OK - there is copyright law; but who is going to invest considerable money in pursuing a private individual for posting 'copyright' images on a model railway discussion group - especially when they can 'legally' post a link to the same image? The age of the internet has rendered image copyright irrelevant so, if you're precious about such things, don't post 'em.

 

Me - I have harvested 70,000 plus images of BR steam locos, and am TOTALLY unrepentant - if they weren't there, I couldn't have collected them.

 

Peter - post the rest of the images and to h*ll with the spoil-sports - no-one can 'own' the results of light hitting a photo-sensitive medium - especially if they didn't take the image in the first place !

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've all bought postcard photos at model shows with no identification on the back ........ if the copyright 'owners' have been stupid enough to allow them to be copied ( or are simply not bothered ) we can only offer them on attributed to "Wickham Green Collection" or whatever.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wickham Green said:

We've all bought postcard photos at model shows with no identification on the back ........ if the copyright 'owners' have been stupid enough to allow them to be copied ( or are simply not bothered ) we can only offer them on attributed to "Wickham Green Collection" or whatever.

Big difference what we buy at shows are for our own use - not for publication by us..  In this instance there is, I suppose, no matter of personal gain but equally it might be said that publishing copyright photos on the 'net could deprive the owner of the copyright of income should they decide to sell copies.

 

For example were I so inclined I could download, with ease, a copy of every photo which has appeared in this thread - and elsewhere on RMweb.  But has somebody who has posted his own original photos on RMweb I would hope that my copyright is respected and while I have no issue at all with people downloading copies for personal use both they and RMweb/Warners would be in serious trouble should one of my photos copied from this site be used in any way at all for commercial purposes without my permission, or without payment to me if the photo is used for commercial purposes.  That is where the real problem lies with images posted on the 'web and as far as I am aware AY has always made it clear that he will respect the copyright of photos we post and will respect the rules and laws in respect of copyright.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

There are always those who are determined to spoil the enjoyment of those who innocently post and view railway photos. To them I would say - if you are so precious about the 'copyright' of 'your' images - don't put them on the internet !!

 

 

The point is that the images were not on the internet, they were scans from prints of images where no copyright was held. If I receive a complaint from the copyright holder about copying and re-use I cannot ignore the issue; I could take the position of saying we are not the publisher, you'll have to argue it out with the user who posted them (but we can't tell you who they actually are due to GDPR) but I don't - I side with the copyright holder (where they can prove ownership) and act accordingly.

 

14 hours ago, cctransuk said:

OK - there is copyright law; but who is going to invest considerable money in pursuing a private individual for posting 'copyright' images on a model railway discussion group - especially when they can 'legally' post a link to the same image? The age of the internet has rendered image copyright irrelevant so, if you're precious about such things, don't post 'em.

 

I don't care what you think in this respect, everyone has to abide by the forum rules. I don't suppose you'd be too happy if I scanned and reproduced your transfers and made them available to readers to save them buying from you. There's no difference between doing that and this case.

 

1 hour ago, Wickham Green said:

We've all bought postcard photos at model shows with no identification on the back ........ if the copyright 'owners' have been stupid enough to allow them to be copied ( or are simply not bothered ) we can only offer them on attributed to "Wickham Green Collection" or whatever.

 

A completely indefensible position; please go and read the topic I posted yesterday which relates to this and one other issue.

 

The complainants have been perfectly civil in the cases noted, more pleasant than they had to be in fact.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AY Mod said:

 I don't suppose you'd be too happy if I scanned and reproduced your transfers and made them available to readers to save them buying from you. There's no difference between doing that and this case.

 

It wouldn't be the first time !!

 

I can have some sympathy with originators of material, be it written, artistic, photographic, graphic, etc.; who claim copyright. What I find wholly unsupportable is the buying and selling of copyright. The current practice of buying slides and prints on the internet 'with copyright' is, frankly, stupid. What guarantee does the buyer have that the purchased image has not been duplicated? Are they going to monitor the internet 24/7 to make sure they have bought something unique? To then post the 'with copyright' image on the internet, and expect it to remain 'unique' is, frankly, foolhardy.

 

If secondary 'owners of copyright' wish to ensure that they have purchased something unique, they should do as other hoarders do and keep their 'possessions' to themselves.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Further to that, unless the print or negative comes with a complete documented history, they is no guarantee that the vendor had the rights to sell the copyright. 

Edited by billbedford
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I have to agree with Andy on this issue; there are potential issues to third parties such as the site’s operators and rules are not, despite what some people, or criminals as they are more commonly known, tell you, made to be broken, they are there for good reasons.  Most of the time, anyway...
 

I recently went for a flight in a friend’s microlight aircraft, and took my camera with.  He asked me not to put any of the photos up on the internet or anywhere else as to do so had implications to his pilot’s licence, as it infringes his amateur status.  He also refused a fuel contribution from me for the same reason.  I had no idea that this was important, but an amateur pilot at his flying club (Swansea) had been hauled in front of the CAA after photos taken by one of his passengers had appeared in publicity for a Gower caravan park. 
 

It is a shame to lose what is a very interesting thread, though.  I had never seen any of this material before, it was of superlative quality, and I must express my appreciation to  Peter for it.

Edited by The Johnster
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn! Why did the LNER have to come third?

I suppose they were fourth, really, always were in the old combined volumes. Typical.

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two albums on this site for which this discussion may have implications. They are both collections of postcards, although many photographic prints were presented in the postcard format, whether they were for publication or personal use. One album is a collection of mainly coloured pre-grouping postcards from familiar publishers. The other is a large collection photos, mainly in postcard format, of LNER & constituent companies locos. & trains. This collection my Dad acquired from a Mr Beckerlegge. I say acquired because I don't know if he bought them or was given them, They are clearly from the early 1920s. Many of them have publishers' names on the back, but some are plain. I have no wish to incur copyright litigation for myself or the site, so Andy's advice would be welcome.

The rest of my photo albums are the work of my late father and myself and I hold the copyright for both of us. There are also a few maps from an 1884 gazetteer which I would assume to be well out of copyright.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.