Schooner's (Mostly Maritime) Musings

[Nearholmer]

My instant reaction was that 12" square seemed too big for the frame members, but on studying the photo, I think you could be right, or very close ......... trouble is they look exactly like contemporary narrow gauge wagons, and I'm really having trouble not seeing that flat-bed as 3ft or less gauge.

 

However, on some wagons like this, the frame members are twice as tall as wide, and the buffer part is strengthened by having a slab of the same dimensions bolted to the inside to give the square buffing face. The bolts and washer-plates visible in the photo of the flat might be a clue that is true here. you can also see the tie-rod across the frame that holds the frames tight on the headstock - there will be similar cross member(s) and tie-rod(s) at the mid point of the frame, or at one-third or one-quarter spacing.

 

I think your "between frames" dimension is possibly a bit large, and I'd want to loose 3" each side, rather than 2".

 

Do you think they were "gable bottomed"? 

[Schooner]

...?

 

The lines between different timbers are there if you know to look for them (thank you @Nearholmer), but it's a risky game proceeding on the basis of scanty information. Looks like I'll have to be ordering some books on constructors' wagons...

 

It's interesting to note that several of the locomotives which worked the various Londoon docks were also used in the building of them. There were obviously close links between dock railway engineers and those of the contractors; that the reported designer of the Millwall system wagons was the architect F.E.Duckham also suggests that they might actually have been design by someone with a railway background, even allowing for Victorian arrogance can-do attitude!

 

Actually much credit is due to Duckham. He seems to have been most capable, designing and overseeing everything from cheap standardised storage facilities for the Millwall Dock Co when money was very tight in the early days through to the vast and innovative Central Granary thirty years later (including designing much of the unique hydraulic equipment, largely made by the East Ferry Road Engineering Works, which had close ties to the Millwall Dock Co through Duckham), and the method by which the Dock could charge for the transfer of grain from ship to barge (usual source). This in turn allowed it some financial security and allowed Millwall to remain (uniquely) independant until the formation of the PLA in 1909...but I digress...

 

 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2020 by Schooner
Gable-bottomed...no idea :) Does the depiction of the side doors in the sketch of 1883 give any clues if one knows what to look for?

[Nearholmer]

Gable-bottomed wagons have a floor that looks like the roof of a gable-roofed shed.

 

Sometimes there is a tell-tale set of bolts visible on the wagon ends marking where the "rafters" are fitted inside.

 

They usually have top-hinged doors in the lower part of the side, often the whole length of the side, so that the wagon self-discharges into a pit below the rails as soon as the door catches are released ....... the doors on the wagons in the sketch look as if they might be of this form.

 

Another clue is that they are often quite tall, to accommodate a load sitting on top of a gable (mind you, grain isn't very dense, so grain wagons are quite tall anyway).

 

I still think the frame and running-gear of these is a direct copy from a contractor's wagon and that possibly the whole thing is a cross-breeding between a contractor's wagon and a specialist road-cart used to carry grain.

[Schooner]

All hypothetical, but working with what we've got:

Elevation of the Eastern Granary, looking North, suggests self-discharging, and so gable-bottomed, trucks.

 

Wondering if it can be worked out from the operation of the Grain Depot?

 

 

'b' in the above is the West elevation of the Depot. Note the continuous platform.

 

c.1894 OS map. Note the continuous platforms at the North and South ends of the Western side. What happens in the middle?

 

"It was an open-sided steel-and-iron structure covering 5½ acres. It had 78 sidings with space for 800 grain trucks. The sidings were ramped up to a railway loading platform along the west side. There were 27 bays, all but the endmost measuring 44ft by 213ft, with radiating-strut bowstring roof trusses." 

 

Why ramp the sidings, not the platforms? It seems expensive and inefficient, two things architect F.E.Duckham appears adept at avoiding. Interestingly, Vernon-Harcourt's Harbours and Docks (printed 1915, but citing information given by Duckham "dock engineer"...Duckham had retired as General Manager and Engineer of the Millwall Dock Company in 1905; it makes reference to the 1884 granaries, but not the 1903 Central Granary...The information comes from the top, but its date is uncertain. Anyway, where was I...) says the depot "...has been erected for receiving the trucks containing grain till they are forwarded to their destinations." (p.496) and does not mention railway transfer. 

 

There are some fascinating 1930 aerial photographs, but the depot and surrounding area had changed significantly in the 50 years since construction, and I think it is of limit use for working out the original operations of the depot.

 

"In 1900 about a third of London's grain imports and 10 per cent of its river-borne timber trade came through the Millwall Docks. Of the grain, 57 per cent was immediately lightered out, 30 per cent stored and 13 per cent delivered direct to the railway." Back to the fag-packet: ballpark 1,000,000 tons of grain imported through London, c.300,000 tons through Millwall, c.3900 wagons-worth. Almost three times that in storage, of which a fair proportion would also have been distributed by rail over the same period. Busy...

 

 

Two suggestions on operations at the depot, the first the more likely, the second more interesting.

Option 1

• Grain trucks propelled up ramped sidings, from the East
• Grain truck doors opened and trucks unloaded by hand. Into sacks perhaps?
• Grain moved by hand along the platform to railway company stock waiting in the loops alongside the platform at the West side
• Trucks and wagons hauled out and sent about their business

Self-discharging grain trucks beneficial, but not essential.

 

EDIT: Note to self to look into how grain was handled by railway companies, which seems relevant.

 

Option 2

• Grain trucks propelled up ramped sidings, from the East
• Railway company wagons propelled into interleaved ground-level sidings, from the West
• Grain truck doors opened and trucks discharge directly into waiting wagons alongside and below
• Trucks and wagons hauled out and sent about their business

Self-discharging grain trucks very beneficial, if not essential.

 

Option 2 makes sense of the ramped sidings to me, but I can't quite see it in the 1894 (and likely original) trackplan as partially seen in the linked OS Map. Those look more like loops to me, which matches the continuous platforms seen in the elevation and aerial photographs. I just can't see why would wouldn't have all the sidings at ground level and make the porters walk up the ramp instead, especially if the depot was as much for storage as for transfer.

 

So. I suspect gable-bottomed, but have found absolutely no real evidence one way or the other!

 

Makes counting sheep look like a nail-biting sport

 

 

Edited May 29, 2020 by Schooner
Note to self

[Nearholmer]

Option 1 would have been a great deal quicker and less hard work if the wagons did self-discharge. 
 

I imagine small chutes/funnels being used to load sacks at a prodigious rate, with gangs of guys with sack-barrows whizzing to and fro.

[Edwardian]

As an alternative approach, I think this sprawling mass of docks and railways could be tamed if made into a series of boxed and framed linked scenes. Kevin, I'm sure, will know the example I have in mind, where the layout is in a series of 3-4 boxes, with frames separating the scenes - one is a mine, one the countryside, one a town, IIRC - but the line is continuous.  It's a way to edit out the distance between each discrete-but-linked scene. This system effectively disguises the bending of a straight line round a room; the scenes are straight, the curving round happens in between them and the viewer is on the inside of a segment of a polygon. The framing also controls the view point.  If combined with view-blocking structures and forced-perspective modelling, one could create a wonderfully sense of space, with vast warehouses and basins of ships in the distance of a relatively modest and reasonably achievable model railway.  

 

On the basis that the Millwall docks traffic and locos must have run along the MER route in order to move around its system, concentrating on the MER stations might be a good way to go. 

 

The docks system comes on and offstage, not always in a way the can be easily accommodated by traditional view-blockers on an 'open' layout.  Boxing the scenes in allows the dock lines to appear and disappear where necessary from behind the fascia boards between each scene.  That said, while the branchings out of the dock system may be hidden, the dock companies traffic does appear to run the whole length of the MER corridor  until the two lines diverge in the vicinity of the Graving Dock, between Millwall Dock and North Greenwich. 

 

One could, say. represent each of the stations and environs.  It is assumed that the viewpoint in each case is from the left of each map, looking east.

 

South Dock: The line emerges between two vast timber shed, only the the ends of which would be modelled, passes through the station and exits behind the fascia. Here you might just be able to glimpse in the rear right corner of the scene, perspective modelled shipping filling the South Dock Basin

 

 

Millwall Dock:  This emerges from behind buildings/the fascia and crosses the bridge.  Behind this station on stilts, we have forced-perspective terraced housing stretching into the distance. One of the advantages of this boxed in system is that there is no need for any transition; one can have contrasting scenes right next to each other.  Here we trade a backdrop of ships' masts for one of terraced housing.  Again, the absence of a convenient building on the right is no problem, as the exit is screened by the fascia. 

 

This scene has two parallel tracks.  I suggest the rear one in the MER line and the front one takes the dock company traffic.  Again, the entrances and exits of the dock line are hidden

 

 

North Greenwich:  The dock company  lines have terminated between these two scenes, behind the fascia.  In reality they parted ways south of the Millwall Dock basin.  Thus, we just have the MER in this scene. If we had the space, the line would emerge from behind the fascia just north of the Manchester road bridge and the scene would end with the ferry stage on the muddy Thames foreshore. 

 

 

Given the orientation, for once we would be viewing the rear of the station, though we would see the front of the signal box. 

 

 

I would be tempted to have this final scene, or a portion of it, viewable from both sides, for which one would have to create space behind it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Schooner]

A very good idea, @Edwardian, and I enjoyed reading your take on it. A fine triptych it would make, and a lot could be said about period and place with it.

 

A similar scheme had occured to me earlier this year - as pointed out, it's an excellent method of bringing complex areas to heel -  but it seemed counter to my intentions with this layout. Coming from the early stages of planning a sprawing West Country empire, filling a large room, I was keen to work on something 'small' (initially 8'x12', now down to 8'x8ish'), focused and claustrophobia-inducing

 

However, as a follow-up project it's at the top of my list! It'd be nice to open the scope up, perhaps to six scenes

• the S end of Millwall Jnc Station + N exchange sidings
• S exchange sidings and swing bridge
• South Dock Station
• quayside scene - probably South Dock again.
• The start of Millwall Viaduct
• North Greenwich Station

to allow a full depiction of the MER but also of all the freight movements. Anyway, thanks again for the excuse to re-visit the idea

 

Not much to report in terms of useful progress, but the digital mock-up has taken a step forward with (long awaited) addition of a bridge. In the real thing this will be a lifting (most likely) section, with a cassette option for the centre road. Only a small change, but it makes a big difference to the feel of the layout in Trainz, and the relative ease with which I was able to realise what I had in my mind was gratifying.

 

So, as of this afternoon, the Dock bridge

is open to all traffic, both goods

and passenger

 

Thanks to @Annie and her guidance, there are now yards towering (sort of, I think the steamer's rig is about half the height of a clipper's...) over the dock sheds and warehousing (some also new, as in the background of the first pic).

 

The view from the top of those masts isn't too bad either:

 

And finally, a brace of reciprocal views between the Goods Depot and the Station:

 

Still a long way to go, and lots to be learned before there's a version ready for public consumption - indeed, I'll do an entirely new build when the time comes - but a pleasant evening of making small improvements.

 

Till next time

 

Schooner

Edited June 7, 2020 by Schooner
Possible scenes added

[HonestTom]

If you're looking to research the Dockland area, I recommend the book Dockland: An Illustrated Historical Survey of Life and Work in East London. There are some copies here. It's very comprehensive, and includes information on just about every aspect of the port's history. There's a very useful section on the development of cranes, including diagrams, and a section surveying historical buildings. From a more recent history standpoint, it's interesting because it was published before widespread development altered the area beyond recognition.

[Schooner]

Thank you @HonestTom, that looks great  Thanks also for another thread of yours which provided some early inspiration.

 

So then, The Buildings of Southish Dock

The chosen prototypes, below, are to inform the scratch building of the structures envisaged at the various locations. They will I'm sure need modified to fit both the layout and my skill level! All suggestions for others to look at are welcome as ever

 

A: Customs House

The Jamaica Hotel, formerly the Customs and then Excise Office, located between West India Dock Station and the Dock gates themselves. Built 1807-9, and used by the Dock until c.1830. "There is some uncertainty regarding the original internal arrangements, although it seems likely that twin doors from the porticoes opened into spacious entrance halls with staircases to rear centre, large offices to the south, and smaller ones to the north." Converted to Jamaica Inn in 1846, and is, I believe still extant:

 

Function on layout: Lend credance to it being the 'start' of the Dock scene; help justify the barrel-field in front, a typical scene from the Docks, and support cameo scenes of barrel measurement and Excise duties being carried out; provide variation from the otherwise industrial architecture. View-blocker to the top-right corner.

 

B: South Dock Station

Although financed and built by the East & West India Dock Co (each landowner being resonponsible for the construction of 'their' section of railway), I wondered if this might be a recognisable GER building design for any of our learned parishoners?

 

Note also the roofline of the timber sheds behind.

 

Function on layout: Nod to reality; primary passenger location; MER passing loop.

 

C: Gatehouse/office

No explicit prototype for this yet, and space on the layout may prove too tight to fit this or the other small huts along the wall (between the Dock and MER), but the idea would be for a small two-room brick building. Somewhere for the Dock bobby to keep out of the rain, do his paperwork and stick the kettle on. A coal office or weighbridge office would be make a useful stand-in.

 

Function on layout: Nod to reality; cameo opportunities.

 

D: Engine house

Hydraulic Pumping Station, Works Yard, West India Docks, east elevation as proposed in 1854, and ground-floorplan in 1855. If that proves too large in practice, or compression makes it look silly, then there a slightly smaller go-to:

Blackwall Entrance Lock Impounding Station, looking north in 1894.

 

Function on layout: Representative of wider Dock infrustructure. View blocker to lower-right corner.

 

E: Signal cabin

There is a photo of one of these boxes, used particularly for controlling the swing bridge movements, somewhere on the web but I now can't find where. What I have in mind is something like

 

Although the bog standard Wills SS48 Signal Box isn't too far off.

 

Function on layout: Suggests the line continues straight, crossing the entrance to the dock seen at the bottom of the layout on a swing bridge. View blocker. Cameo opportunities.

 

F: Engine Shed

Based on Millwall shed, which turns up in the background of several PLA loco photos online and in Marden:

 

I might also nick the coaling stage/water tower from North Greenwich which has the twin wins of height and compact footprint:

details of which turn up in the background in Marden. It could just be persuaded to fit along the lower edge of the layout, outside the shed.

 

Function on layout: Loco destination, coal destination, mask off and provide interest in the lower corner.

 

G: Railway goods depot

To be based on the GWR Poplar Depot

Which is fairly self-explanatory really!

 

Function on layout: provide a cover story for the storage yard, provide cover to hide the corner.

 

H: Warehouse

Based on the central section (between the round windows) of the elevation below*:

No. 3 (later C) Warehouse, South Quay, South Dock, West India Docks, north elevation and section of an inner division looking south. (Sir) John Hawkshaw, architect, 1869.

 

*to my slight surprise there's plenty of room allowed on the model for this. I think I've been over-cautious in all my building footprints. No bad thing...

 

Depending on what sight-lines end up like I might reduce the height of each floor to allow some view over the top, but so far trials seem successful full-height. I would also need to drive a cart-arch through the RHS to allow the operator to see through to the siding behind (which represents all foreign-going docks).

 

Function on layout: Essential scene-setting; wagon destination.

 

I: Transit shed

As it says on the tin, based on those of the Rum Quay for which there is good information and which strike a reasonable balance between visual interest and imposition on the scene.

Rum Quay Shed, West India Import Dock, section looking east, also showing the lean-to roof added in 1814 to cover thegap between the shed and the warehouses. John Rennie, architect, 1813–14.

Looking east in 1897 after damage by shipping.

 

The inaccuracy of having a transit shed next to the warehousing, as in the layout plan, rather than it should be (as seen in the photo above) is bugging me a bit, but I think it's worth it to allow the viewer a good look at both shed and warehouse, and to use both the front and back of each for more varied operation. If anyone has an opinion on this please share it

 

J: Flour Mill

The 'end' of the layout. Uncertain prototype, although there are plenty to choose from, and lots of information on which to base a freelance option. It seemed obvious to use McDougal's Wheatsheaf Mill at Millwall:

...but the only information I can find is for the post-1898-fire rebuild, and it looks too modern.

 

Perhaps a less 'accurate' approach would be a) more interesting and b) more suitable. Along these lines perhaps:

or

 

Open to suggestions, including on how to manage/hide the two running lines!

 

Backscenes:

While we're here, a quick run around the backscenes for your consideration

Top right corner - sightline depending, but suggested further basins and industry

Mid right - Timber sheds, in low relief:

Mahogany Shed (later Nos 3 and 4 Sheds), East Wood Wharf, South Quay, West India Import Dock, plan, section lookingwest (A-B), part section showing overhead hoist (C-D), and part section looking north showing the roof truss (E-F). John Rennie,architect, 1817–18.

 

Lower-right - Timber stacking yard, possible suggestion on basin beyond

Lower side - Clear perspex or similar, with mirror-film applied to the 'upper' side. The aim is to a) be able to see the layout from the 'bottom', which is envisaged as a modelling space and b) increase the visual size of the layout for the operator. Thoughts?

Lower left - industry

Mid left to top - housing beyond the Dock wall; possibly a road-traffic gate in the corner...?

Alternative (entire) LHS:

No. 1 and No. 2 Warehouses, North Quay, West India Import Dock. George Gwilt & Son, architects, 1800–3. Elevations in 1827, after No. 1Warehouse and the Link Block had been heightened, and ground-floor plan in 1987. The vertical and horizontal broken lines indicate the original height of the warehouses and link blocks: the sloping broken line on the south elevation of No. 1 Warehouse indicates the levels above which the interior was gutted in the 1901 fire.

 

That'll do for now, cheers!

 

Schooner

Edited June 18, 2020 by Schooner
Oh, K is just something on the map that also makes sense as something to frame individual scenes. I was thinking a small clock/bell tower, along the lines of the Trainz images in a previous post. Further investigation into what was really there required..

[Schooner]

A pleasant hour snatched from the world to play trains. Made a nice find in the exchange sidings:

They're a fair way from home, but beat the sailing barge down from Fakeney to the London!

 

 

[Tom Burnham]

On 18/06/2020 at 17:07, Schooner said:

E: Signal cabin

There is a photo of one of these boxes, used particularly for controlling the swing bridge movements, somewhere on the web but I now can't find where. What I have in mind is something like

 

Although the bog standard Wills SS48 Signal Box isn't too far off.

 

Function on layout: Suggests the line continues straight, crossing the entrance to the dock seen at the bottom of the layout on a swing bridge. View blocker. Cameo opportunities.

 

Schooner

This one?  Connaught swing bridge and signal box in 1971.  The view from here now is mostly London City Airport.

 

Tom B  

[Schooner]

Thank you - wasn't the one I had in mind (which I'm thought was a c.1900 pic along the MER), but could well be an improvement

 

Research-wise I keep throwing myself at an operating pattern for the layout and bouncing off; going to look up suitable wagon prototypes instead and getting intimidated; trying to find 4mm wagons suitable for the 1880s and failing. Not much to show, in short.

 

There have been some minor developments to the trackplan in an area I was never happy with:

With the warehouse now having a dedicated siding. That 90-degree crossing might be a wagon turntable. The formation of siding with stub release to loop seems pretty common around the docks, particularly the West India.

 

Hope you're having a good weekend, thanks for stopping by.

 

Schooner

[Edwardian]

The 1880s seems to have been a bit of a watershed in wagon development, with many companies starting their diagram books off with a series of standardised and recognisably modern designs built in large quantities.

 

For the 1870s, and before (given wagon lifespans), try Chris Cox at 5 and 9 Models

[Schooner]

A request: recommended references for the goods wagons of all railway companies in the period c.1850-1880. Any information keenly sought.

 

I seem to have fallen into a black hole of Google's search algorithms, and cannot find my way to useful information for love nor money either online or even relevant books. They must be out there...

 

Plan A was to list connected railway companies, discount those with depots at Poplar (on the ground they would've lightered goods from the nearby docks to their own rail depots), then go kit-hunting. Well, not only do I not know if this is based on a reasonable set of assumptions, but I barely found anything suitable.

 

Plan B is simply to marmalade any wagon of suitable vintage into a suitable livery and call it good enough. Not ideal, but more achievable. This skirts around issues like 5 and 9's excellent catalogue being focused on the LB&SCR and the SER, (whose wagons were not, I suspect, brought North of the river*), or PO. Despite this cop-out, there's much to learn before such an approach could be made reasonably convincing...and for my own interest

 

The real plan is to educate myself and then have another crack, based on more informed decisions.

 

*They (shurely - Ed.) hired lighters to go to the India etc Docks, load direct from the ships, return to eg. the LB&SCR's Deptford Wharf - although I've only circumstantial, if substantial, evidence for this to date.

 

A little development:

On 08/04/2020 at 08:50, Northroader said:

My gut reaction just glancing at your plan is what a lot of points you have?

 

Not much change, but a little better?

There's been a slight rationalisation of the trackwork around the operating well, largely focused on de-tangling the MER and Dock networks. There are other benefits too (for example it allows, I think, for a better visual trick to be played top right to suggest the running lines go behind the Mill). The storage yard remains very similar. Still WIP, all feedback appreciated.

 

For sceneic changes, The Other Station, as was, on the left hand side might be seen just as the back of a station.  I'm thinking of stealing the fencing and stylings from the reverse of Millwall Dock Station:

with the intent of hiding the MER line to some extent, and disgusing the fact that the line here is an MER storage spot.

 

More width would be required (probably regardless), but the buildings could also be used to mask the start of the storage yard at the bottom of the layout

 

Nothing wildly exciting, but any variation in building style may be welcomed by both builder and viewer! 

 

In other news...not much really. There should be a copy of Dockland: An Illustrated Historical Survey of Life and Work in East London waiting when I get to So'ton next month, thanks for the steer @HonestTom. The rest of my fledgling library was evacuated to safety a while back and I've missed having something informative to read, not that there's been much time for it the past few weeks. Rolling stock remains the subject on which I'm most ignorant, fingers x'd for a way forward soon, and operating patterns for the layout are coming together, but are still the focus of layout-planning energies. Counting myself very fortunate indeed to be so busy, but work is rather getting in the way of the important things at the moment!

 

Sorry for the long pause between updates, and the paucity of interesting findings in this post. More as and when I have it...

 

Cheers and gone,

 

Schooner

 

 

Edited August 13, 2020 by Schooner
Missing words, typos etc etc etc etc EDIT 13th Aug: slightly updated trackplan, but not worth a new post

[Northroader]

Nice to see the rationalisation, it does look better, and you’ll find simplification will pay off when you start laying track and operating the layout. Just the storage yard to go? Wagons for that particular time are difficult to run down, one source of O kits (don’t look at the prices) which could give a lead is Parliamentary trains. After the 1880s information gets better, try a look at Furness wagon kits.

Another thought, can you get to the large yard at the bottom of the plan from below that side of the plan? Access from the operating well side will be too far to reach.

Edited July 27, 2020 by Northroader

[Flymo749]

6 hours ago, Schooner said:

A request: recommended references for the goods wagons of all railway companies in the period c.1850-1880. Any information keenly sought.

 

<snip>

 

Plan B is simply to marmalade any wagon of suitable vintage into a suitable livery and call it good enough. Not ideal, but more achievable. This skirts around issues like 5 and 9's excellent catalogue being focused on the LB&SCR and the SER, (whose wagons were not, I suspect, brought North of the river*), or PO. Despite this cop-out, there's much to learn before such an approach could be made reasonably convincing...and for my own interest

 

The real plan is to educate myself and then have another crack, based on more informed decisions.

 

*They (shurely - Ed.) hired lighters to go to the India etc Docks, load direct from the ships, return to eg. the LB&SCR's Deptford Wharf - although I've only circumstantial, if substantial, evidence for this to date.

 

 

Implausible, but not impossible...

 

I've more extensive references to the East London line in various issues of the Great Eastern Journal, but it was a moderately used conduit for goods traffic north and south of the river.  Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_London_line#Early_use for a short summary.

 

Includes ownership by the LBSCR  and SER,  You know you want some of those kits...

 

Cheers

Paul

 

[Schooner]

5 hours ago, Northroader said:

Just the storage yard to go?

Shhhh! I find solace in thinking of it as three simple yards superimposed...

 

5 hours ago, Northroader said:

can you get to the large yard at the bottom of the plan from below that side of the plan?

Yes - one of the fundamentals features of the plan, which is envisaged in a shed with doors at either end. There area 'beneath' the lower edge, as it were, is penciled in as a modelling space with access/fiddling/layout contol and second operator considerations. 

 

Thanks for the wagon leads, much appreciated.

 

44 minutes ago, Flymo749 said:

Implausible, but not impossible...

 

Interesting, I look forward to following that up. Thank you.

 

41 minutes ago, Flymo749 said:

You know you want some of those kits...

I want (and, after weeks of daydreaming  have plans for) all of those kits, PO included! Beauties 

 

Regardless, once I've got a better understanding of the history/reality I feel some CAD software might be in my future. Terrifying prospect. It's all @TurboSnail and @Skinnylinny's fault for setting such a good examples..!

[HonestTom]

With wagons, within reason, anything goes. I've seen a photo of a North British wagon in East London (I think at Poplar?) in the 1930s, so not only out of territory, but out of period! As @Flymo749 notes, the LBSC and the SER both made use of the East London Railway, and the LBSC at one point looked into building a connection to the London and Blackwall Railway (hence the fact that the Bluebell Railway has Terriers named Stepney and Fenchurch - they were named after places the LBSC wanted to serve). There was also the London, Chatham and Dover's river crossing at Blackfriars and the Snow Hill tunnel, although obviously the tense relationship between the SER and the LCDR complicates matters.

 

Railways in London were pretty crazy. When you look at running rights and obscure services, it seems like just about everyone got just about everywhere. Honestly wouldn't be surprised if it turned out the NBR really did have a regular working to Poplar from 1878 to 1880 or something.

Edited July 28, 2020 by HonestTom

[Nearholmer]

Hmmmm ....... if there was a good reason for schlepping something from the E&WI docks down into Kent, Sussex and Surrey, yes, the LBSCR or SECR might provide a wagon, but was there?

 

Everything I can think of, there was an easier or cheaper way of getting imports to those places. Timber was a huge import, and that went to the Greenland Dock or Deptford Wharf, then by lighter up the Surrey Canal, for instance. Grain, another big volume import I’m less sure about, but I imagine it going to The many coastal ports by sailing barge. 
 

A very significant volume of goods in and out of these counties went by water as it was.

 

We analysed goods flows in a aprevious thread, and concluded that the SE counties were surprisingly self-sufficient.

Edited July 28, 2020 by Nearholmer

[Regularity]

24 minutes ago, HonestTom said:

With wagons, within reason, anything goes. I've seen a photo of a North British wagon in East London (I think at Poplar?) in the 1930s, so not only out of territory, but out of period

By then, such a wagon was part of the established “common user” pool of opens and vans, so could turn up anywhere.

As for the livery, quite a few wagons lasted into the 1930s without a repaint, although obviously in ever decreasing numbers. (Repaints would only happen with a full overhaul, which might be many years apart, especially with small on-site repairs for minor damage.)

 

In the nineteenth century, railway companies were very jealous about using their own wagons as much as possible (which led to a lot of empty wagon mileage, hence the development of the “common user” pool) and whilst inbound traffic for export might turn up in “foreign” ownership, most outbound traffic would go out in wagons belonging to the company which operated the docks, or if the dock company owned no wagons except for internal use, in wagons belonging to the company over which most of the route travelled - if such companies could exert such pressure. This is why there were goods depots apparently disconnected from their host systems (e.g. Midland in Poplar Docks) spread all over London: using another company to forward your traffic from your system to your own depot was cheaper than building your own line, cheaper than exercising running powers, and cheaper than being charged for wagon storage at the terminal destination.

 

Given the access to their own dock systems in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen, etc, why would the NBR regularly ship via London?

[HonestTom]

3 minutes ago, Regularity said:

 

 

Given the access to their own dock systems in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen, etc, why would the NBR regularly ship via London?

 

They probably wouldn't, I was being whimsical.

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, HonestTom said:

 

They probably wouldn't, I was being whimsical.

Given that it was a genuine question, that probably wasn’t very helpful. 

[HonestTom]

4 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Given that it was a genuine question, that probably wasn’t very helpful. 

 

No, probably not, but I would have thought in context that it was obvious that I was joking. Obviously this is one of those Super Serious Threads with No Fun Allowed, so I guess I'll bow out.

[Schooner]

Thank you @Regularity, just the sort of information I need Not strictly relevant, but on empty wagon mileage: about the turn of the last century, I have a figure of c.60% of wagon mileage being made empty in my head. Seems high...?

 

@HonestTom, I managed to navigate your posts with senses of humour and curiosity in full working order - please do stay. It's been a while, but I think I remember Fun and would be willing to give another go

 

@Nearholmer has the crux of it: regardless of whose wagons were rattling along nearby systems, who would send their wagons into the West India or Millwall Docks for loading and who would lighter goods to an alternative depot or wharf for trans-shipment, and for what reasons? Cost, convenience and specific cargo (thinking particularly of bonded warehousing) spring immediately to mind as relevant factors. This gives something to work with, but I could do with the Parish Council Knowledge Bank to get somewhere useful.

 

3 hours ago, Regularity said:

...inbound traffic for export might turn up in “foreign” ownership, most outbound traffic would go out in wagons belonging to the company which operated the docks, or if the dock company owned no wagons except for internal use, in wagons belonging to the company over which most of the route travelled - if such companies could exert such pressure.

Ideal. Another piece of the puzzle falls into place!

[Regularity]

3 hours ago, HonestTom said:

context that it was obvious that I was joking.

Apologies, but it wasn’t.