S&DJR connections with the GWR

[The Stationmaster]

19 hours ago, John-Miles said:

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.

Interesting.  So while MacDermot refers to the original agreement (no Running Powers for passenger trains) it looks as if at some time they were enforced because the GWR had not honoured the original agreement?

 

As for 'far away' connections I think that wasn't at all uncommon among various Companies.  One of the cheekiest was probably the GWR advertising a service from Paddington to Liverpool (Landing Stage) complete with through booking!

[John-Miles]

If this is correct why would the GWR do the Midland a favour in allowing them to run passenger trains from Worcester to Hereford when they blocked the Midland's trains from the HH&B (despite rulings from the Court of Chancery that their actions were unlawful).

[Compound2632]

42 minutes ago, John-Miles said:

If this is correct why would the GWR do the Midland a favour in allowing them to run passenger trains from Worcester to Hereford when they blocked the Midland's trains from the HH&B (despite rulings from the Court of Chancery that their actions were unlawful).

 

But isn't that down to the different histories of the two lines, with the Midland (and LNWR) being backers of the W&H along with the GW? As so ably described in a forthcoming article in the Midland Railway Society Journal, by J. Miles?

[The Stationmaster]

11 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But isn't that down to the different histories of the two lines, with the Midland (and LNWR) being backers of the W&H along with the GW? As so ably described in a forthcoming article in the Midland Railway Society Journal, by J. Miles?

Most likely so I would have thought.  The W&H, and into West Midland, thence GWR, involved a considerable amount of debate, and what looks to have been horse trading, between those involved - which is presumably why the odd arrangement emerged in respect of Midland passenger trains between Great Malvern and Shelwick Jcn while Running Powers were agreed for freight trains.  But it was the passenger train agreement in any event protected by the threat of having  Running Powers imposed if the GWR didn't behave properly?  Which leaves the open question of when and why the passenger train Running Powers were added?

[John-Miles]

So I have now dug out my original source of information which is Gough J., 1989, The Midland Railway: A Chronology, Railway & Canal Historical Society. He states that the agreement with the Worcester and Hereford Railway was "Between Worcester and Shelwick Junction and between Barr's Court Junction and Barton station the Midland Railway possessed running powers for all classes of traffic - also as a user of the W&H it possessed running powers over the S&H from Shelwick.

 

Gough is well regarded by Midland historians and in my experience is accurate although as a secondary source not infallible but this also applies to McDemott. What he is quoting here is so far as I am aware the original agreement which was later amended so that the running powers were for goods only.

[PenrithBeacon]

26 minutes ago, John-Miles said:

...

Gough is well regarded by Midland historians and in my experience is accurate although as a secondary source not infallible but this also applies to McDemott. What he is quoting here is so far as I am aware the original agreement which was later amended so that the running powers were for goods only.

I've been wondering when somebody would come up with the primary source issue, which McDermott clearly isn't.

The primary sources are the Acts and the registered agreements between the companies supported by the WTTs.

[Compound2632]

40 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

I've been wondering when somebody would come up with the primary source issue, which McDermott clearly isn't.

The primary sources are the Acts and the registered agreements between the companies supported by the WTTs.

 

Plus also the minutes of the relevant committees of the board. For the Midland and the Great Western, these are all at TNA. 

[PenrithBeacon]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Plus also the minutes of the relevant committees of the board. For the Midland and the Great Western, these are all at TNA. 

Although the minutes are a complete record of the meetings of the boards, they don't necessarily completely record such details as running rights as I found years ago looking at the MSLR & LNWR.  You need to look elsewhere to be sure of these.

Acts and BoT agreements are the place to go followed by WTT to make sure the rights were actually exercised. They weren't always.

Cheers

[Compound2632]

Agree, one needs to take all the available information together to get close to the true picture. It's a frustrating feature of the minute books that they record decisions but not, by and large, the reasons for them.

[The Stationmaster]

15 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Agree, one needs to take all the available information together to get close to the true picture. It's a frustrating feature of the minute books that they record decisions but not, by and large, the reasons for them.

Quite agree although whether any of these early historians might also have had access to things such as Officer's or Director's day books would also be worth knowing as they are bound t reveal more (assuming they kept day books of course).  But surely in this particular instance the ultimate authority would be what had been recorded and published by teh Railway Clearing House (if their records still exist)?

 

MacDermot clearly had a considerable freedom of access to GWR Minute books and he quotes directly from them in a number of places.  On a totally separate matter I happen to have a GWR Service Timetable (for the last full year of the broad gauge) which at one time had been in his possession and has his name written on the cover in place of that of the original owner.

[phil_sutters]

On 30/07/2020 at 14:30, Karhedron said:

 

In the real world, sadly not. The 7Fs were withdrawn by 1964. Bason Bridge milk only started running via the WR in 1966 and was in the hands of diesels (normally Hymeks but other classes did turn up).

 

However if you are running your own "what if" scenario, maybe you could say that milk from Bason Bridge started running via the WR after nationalisation. The Wellington milk train ran via Taunton and Puxton until the early 60s and could have picked up tanks from such a flow. All Rule 1 of course but it might be plausible with a bit of a leap of imagination.

If it's not too rude to include a relevant photo in this off OP thread. Warship cl D868 Zephyr at Bridgwater 25 2 66

Edited September 4, 2020 by phil_sutters