Jump to content

mikesndbs

S&DJR connections with the GWR

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

The shortest route was the LNWR one and it was the shortest by a long way. It was also the less hilly, a major advantage.

 

But the LNWR was for very many years complacent on the subject of speed. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The LNW was parsimonious with coal! Actually it's paramount position in the matter of Lancashire services gave it the ability to ignore much of the opposition. Enthusiasts tend to like the idea of racing and so lionise the MR etc. I think the LNW knew it could afford to ignore much it, and as far as the Liverpool traffic is concerned, all of it. The MR, GCR, GNR just couldn't compete at all as far as Liverpool is concerned and their affect on the Manchester traffic was negligible excepting for those cities the LNW couldn't conveniently reach anyway. Freight was a different story, but there was plenty for everybody until WW1 intervened.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It always amazes me how far RMWeb threads can get from their original starting point. How do people who might like a debate about the relationship of the LNWR with its neighbours in the north-west find it is when it is lurking in a thread entitled SDJR connections with the GWR?

  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, phil_sutters said:

It always amazes me how far RMWeb threads can get from their original starting point. How do people who might like a debate about the relationship of the LNWR with its neighbours in the north-west find it is when it is lurking in a thread entitled SDJR connections with the GWR?

 

Ah, but the driving theme is the Midland's tentacular approach to railway politics, which is as relevant to the north west as to the S&DJR.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 04/08/2020 at 09:24, Compound2632 said:

 

Ah, but the driving theme is the Midland's tentacular approach to railway politics, which is as relevant to the north west as to the S&DJR.

That wasn't the driving theme of the original post - which was looking at the possibilities for a layout which could have SDJR and GWR running with some sort of connection. As it happens the layout my Dad and I had in the 1960s tried to do just that, with SDJR running over a GW branch in the area of Coleford (Somt), as shown below. When one bears in mind that at the same time Mac Pyrke was running Bulleid light pacifics and black fives to the sand-dunes of Berrow, passing within half a mile of our layout, that doesn't seem too far fetched.

 

My point was - how does someone who might enjoy a conversation about the LNWR and Midland in the north-west spot the discussion that is taking place in a thread about the SDJR and GWR in the south-west?

 

Returning to the subject of GWR v SDJR animosity, there is, in Chris Handleys Maritime Activities of the S&DR, a photo of a railway crane lifting the boiler out of one of the S&D's coasters at Highbridge Wharf, ready for transfer to Highbridge Works for repair. It appears that this may have travelled from Bristol on GWR metals, rather than traipse around via Bath & Evercreech. That I saw on a local history site I can longer locate. So perhaps not total non-cooperation.

P.S. the PO wagons, with the exception of a couple of Peco Wonderful Wagons, were all hand lettered.

14 Highbridge Vicarage layout mk3.jpg

Edited by phil_sutters
  • Like 5
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

E.L. Ahrons, Locomotive and Train Working in the Latter Part of the Nineteenth Century Vol. 2 (Heffer, 1952, reprinted from The Railway Magazine), p. 98:

 

After describing the through coach workings by great Western train, he continues: "On the other hand the Midland ran goods trains with its own engines right through from Brecon to Birmingham over the Great Western line between Hereford and Stoke works." 

 

The Midland's Running Powers in that part of the world were a very mixed bag -

Abbots Wood Jcn - Worcester     All trains

Hereford - Swansea via Pontypool Road and Hirwain (sic)  -  Not Exercised

Hereford Barrs Court - Brecon Curve Jcn -   GoodsTrains

Hereford  Brecon Curve Jcns (13 chains). -   Goods trains

Stoke Prior or Stoke Works Jcn - Worcester  - All Trains

Worcester - Shekwick Jcn. -   Goods Trains

Worcester Tunnel Jcn - Malvern Jcn - Occasional special passenger trains

 

They'd also at one time obviously had Running powers over the GW and LNW Jt section between Shelwick Jcn and Hereford etc.

 

On 03/08/2020 at 14:22, PenrithBeacon said:

The rail connection to the Manchester docks was over the LNWR over whose tracks it also operated its Chester-Manchester services into Exchange. I am not aware of any GWR service into the Manchester docks (powered by its own engines that is), but the GWR did run into Liverpool Road goods and it had a goods office in the centre of Manchester, but I can't remember where. The GWR didn't own any tracks in the Manchester area.

See 

 

 

The GWR had Running Powers over the LNWR between Walton Jcn and Manchester (no detailed locations specified) via Newton-Le-Willows 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

The Midland's Running Powers in that part of the world were a very mixed bag -

Abbots Wood Jcn - Worcester     All trains

Hereford - Swansea via Pontypool Road and Hirwain (sic)  -  Not Exercised

Hereford Barrs Court - Brecon Curve Jcn -   GoodsTrains

Hereford  Brecon Curve Jcns (13 chains). -   Goods trains

Stoke Prior or Stoke Works Jcn - Worcester  - All Trains

Worcester - Shekwick Jcn. -   Goods Trains

Worcester Tunnel Jcn - Malvern Jcn - Occasional special passenger trains

 

They'd also at one time obviously had Running powers over the GW and LNW Jt section between Shelwick Jcn and Hereford etc.

 

I suspect there may have been adjustments over the years. What is the source/date of your information?

Edited by Compound2632

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Midland originally had full running powers from Worcester to Hereford Barton (Not Barrs Court) but in the deal that was done with the GWR over the latter's obstruction of the Midland's access to Barton for Hereford, Hay and Brecon traffic and the subsequent arrangements to move all passenger traffic to Barrs Court, they gave up the right to run passenger traffic from Malvern Wells to Hereford (note not Worcester). I think this was a no brainer on their part as they weren't making any money from the passenger trains. So the arrangement was they would run a through passenger carriage from Birmingham to Worcester which would then be attached to a GWR train to be worked to Hereford.

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I suspect there may have been adjustments over the years. What is the source/date of your information?

The official Railway Clearing House published list of Running Powers.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

...

The GWR had Running Powers over the LNWR between Walton Jcn and Manchester (no detailed locations specified) via Newton-Le-Willows 

These running powers came with joint ownership of the Birkenhead Rly. Before the LNW/GW takeover of that railway the BR had running powers over much of the Cheshire/Lancashire lines of the LNW as far as Stockport via Timperly Jc. Negotiation between the GW&LNW limiting those running powers gave the arrangement you describe. This meant that GW trains couldn't have access to the South Jc line, a big no-no for the LNW because of congestion.

Edited by PenrithBeacon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

The official Railway Clearing House published list of Running Powers.

 

I had no doubt of that your information would come from authoritative official sources. However, I will press the question: date?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Midland had to have running powers for passenger traffic from Malvern Wells to Malvern to operate their services.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 04/08/2020 at 18:29, Compound2632 said:

 

I had no doubt of that your information would come from authoritative official sources. However, I will press the question: date?

Early Post Group list.  Hence any Midland over LNWR/GWR joint lines is therefore not listed.  But otherwise the list is complete and includes RPs no longer exercised or never exercised but extant.  Any short term arrangements will have been excluded.  I didn't bother to include the short link section at between Malvern Jcn and Malvern but the MR's Running Powers to Shelwick Jcn did not include passenger trains    This latter probably dated back to one of the original Parliamentary Bills for the Worcester & Hereford which required it to offer the Midland Railway 'the facility of running its trains over the line' and if these were withheld Running Powers were to be granted in lieu thereof.     Thus there was no need for the MR to have running Powers in order to run its passenger trains between Worcester and Hereford unless either the W&H, or its successor West Midland, or following amalgamation the GWR withdrew the facility given to the MR to use the lne. 

 

While subsequent Parliamentary decisions excluded the MR and LNWR from having any control over the Worcester & Hereford presumably the original decision in favour of a facility to run trains prevailed although Running Powers were instituted for freight trains.   Don't forget that Companies sometimes had trains running over the lines of other Companies where they did not have Running Powers and it was done by reciprocal or other arrangements between the Companies concerned.

 

Perhaps we can also settle the question of the Midland becoming involved with the B&ER.  following the LSWR doing the dirty on the GWR and showing what they were bidding for the S&DJt to the MR which led to allport agreeing with the LSWR to put in a higher bid (which of course succeeded).  The B&E's directors were feeling distinctly uncomfortable and worried about losing traffic to the S&DJt so they decided it would be better for the Company to join with another.  Both the GWR and MR were reportedly considered by members of the Board but the majority were in favour of an allegiance with the GWR and that began with the Company granting to the GWR taking a lease to operate the B&ER.     No doubt any animosity at senior level which  the GWR harboured towards the S&DJt stemmed from the action of the L&SWR  and the S&DJt accepr ting the L&SWR/MR offer without seeking further discussion in respects of the GWR offer.

Edited by The Stationmaster
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Railway Clearing House 1913 

Running Powers & Working Arrangements

MR over GW

Abbots Wood Jn and Worcester = All traffic

Hereford and Swansea (via Pontypool) = Not exercised

Hereford, Barrs Court Jn, North (Barton) and Brecon Curve Jn = Merchandise

Hereford, Brecon Curve Jns (13 chains) = All traffic

Stoke Prior or Stoke Works Jn and Worcester = All traffic

Worcester and Hereford, Shelwick Jn = Merchandise

Worcester Tunnel Jn and Malvern = Coaching

MR over Shrewsbury & Hereford Joint

Hereford, Brecon Curve Jn and Hereford Station = Coaching

Hereford, Shelwick Jn and Barrs Court Jn North (Barton) = Merchandise

LNW over MR

Hereford, Brecon Curve = Merchandise

 

Joint Lines and Worked Lines: MR

Own and work Worcester Shrub Hill  Passenger Station Line jointly with GW

Have the right to run over the GW Line between Malvern Jn and Malvern Link free of toll

 

1915 Additions and Alterations:

LNW over MR

Hereford, Brecon Curve Jn and Hereford, Moorfields , Goods = Merchandise

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That 1915 addition looks like a sign of the closer working arrangements between the two companies, with shared goods station facilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

That 1915 addition looks like a sign of the closer working arrangements between the two companies, with shared goods station facilities.

Or it might just have been that a clerk omitted to include the whole of the entry and it was missed at the proof-reading stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

That 1915 addition looks like a sign of the closer working arrangements between the two companies, with shared goods station facilities.

It was probably done to complete the coverage at Hereford, possibly because as peter says 'somebody' had missed something.  I'd be surprised if it was about closer working because apart from their initial involvement in the Worcester and Hereford the MR and LNWR were frequently  at a daggers drawn situation over the NA&H with companies spending a lot of time putting in Bills for competing lines or briefing council to object to them, in the 19th century.

 

The biggest oddity of all was almost a reversal of the S&DJt situation where everybody except teh GWR was assiduously courting the West Midland and the GWR stepped in and snatched it from under their noses although the WMR had already told the LNWR to go away after a major argument over mineral traffic routing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

That 1915 addition looks like a sign of the closer working arrangements between the two companies, with shared goods station facilities.

Given the year of publication might the needs of the war effort not also have had something to do with it?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While statutory powers existed in many cases, would arrangements be made to allow other companies trains to run on a companies lines where these did not exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

While statutory powers existed in many cases, would arrangements be made to allow other companies trains to run on a companies lines where these did not exist.

Yes, refer to my post above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Click the picture for video) This is an important video to me, one which has taken a considerable amount of research and production, it features no less than 18 locomotives types ranging from a Dean Single to a BR blue class 47. It is also the last production to take place on my layout in its current form as it is now packed away. I really must say thank you to the members of the RMweb forum for their kind assistance in researching this video, also the web page for Nine Elms.

Similarly I am grateful to the many drivers and guards who have given me real life experiences of working milk trains.

It’s a very long video at 33 minutes and I will be providing a time code index to the four main sections later.

Stay tuned for more, regards and stay safe. Mike.

Loco type appearing at least once listing:

GWR 1361 class

GWR Dean Single

GWR 14xx class

GWR King class

GWR Prairie class

SR K10 4-4-0

SR M7 0-4-4

SR Q1 0-6-0

SDJR 7F 2-8-0

SR King Arthur class

SR Merchant Navy class

Ruston 48

Class 08 shunter

GWR 57xx

Class 14 Teddy Bear

Class 35 Hymek

Class 52 Western

BR Class 47

Edited by mikesndbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/07/2020 at 00:29, Pacific231G said:

By the mid 1950s traffic to and from Bason-Bridge was definitely being worked via Highbridge. I know, because my ex LNWR and LMS grandfather was one of the signalmen at Highbridge (which by then was WR) and just before he retired he arranged for me to ride on the footplate to Bason Bridge and back- I was only four at the time but I think we were taking milk tankers there and bringing back the empties. I'm also pretty sure the loco was a tank.

Small update. The loco wasn't a western type and, though I can't be sure, I'm fairly certain that it was a short working from and to Highbridge so the milk tankers would have been worked to and from Highbridge on the WR line either on separate trains or at least by different locos. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/08/2020 at 16:04, John-Miles said:

I'm sorry but this is also wrong. The Midland had running powers for all traffic from Stoke Works through to Hereford. The running powers from Stoke Works to Worcester were granted by the Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway which was later absorbed by the GWR. The Midland was a major investor in the Worcester and Hereford and as a result obtained running powers. The Midland ran through goods to South Wales from Washwood Heath and Worcester ( Worcester Shrub Hill was a joint station and the Midland had a loco shed in Worcester)

The Midland definitely had through Running Powers for freight but according to MacDermot passenger working was covered by an agreement not to hinder (for want of a better term) the Midland's ability to run its passenger trains through to Hereford and it had no formal Running Powers.  That was agreed as part of the negotiations over the West Midland with the proviso that if proper access was not granted for Midland passenger trains then Running Powers were to be conferred.   Thus the Midland was able  to run its passenger trains or attached coaches through without formal Running Powers.

 

The RCH lists (Post Group printing) shows the following for LMS (ex Midland) over GWR in the Worcester area and thence to Shelwick Jcn -

Stoke Prior or Stoke Works Jcn  - Worcester.  All (types of train) 

Malvern Jcn - Great Malvern.    Coaching (only) 

Worcester - Hereford Shelwick Jcn.  Goods Trains (only). (it would have originally been to somewhere in the immediate Hereford area of course).

Worcester Tunnel Jcn - Malvern Jcn.  Occasional Special Passenger Trains (only)

 

So unless the Powers had for some reason lapsed the Midland had no Running Powers for Passenger (Coaching) trains between Great Malvern and Shelwick Jcn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Midland's Summer 1903 timetable shows passenger trains between Ashchurch and Great Malvern only, with connections to Ledbury, Hereford, and Worcester by Great Western train.

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding of this is that originally the Midland had full running powers between Worcester and Hereford but there was then a long running dispute with the GWR over access to Barton station for Midland trains from the HH&B. This was resolved by the Court of Chancery and then the Midland and GWR with LNWR entered into further negotiations about the Midland having access to Barrs Court because all other passenger services used this station. As a part of this agreement the Midland gave up their passenger running powers from Worcester. It was no great loss for them because their passenger trains between Worcester and Hereford were replaced by a single carriage which the GWR worked so presumably the number of passengers were low. Interestingly the Midland advertised connections from Swansea to places as far away as Edinburgh using this service.

  • Like 1

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.