Proceedings of the Castle Aching Parish Council, 1905

[Edwardian]

London & St. Katharine Docks Company. It had a passenger service because some passenger ships docked at Gallions.  There was even an hotel.

[Edwardian]

PS: I think you edited to refer to the coach.  Very like the 3-compartment brake third the GER sold to the Rother Valley, which was late 1860s. Not the single windows rather than quarter lights between the compartments, with the partition visible behind the glass.   

 

Panel style, long commode handles and brake end all unmistakably GER, as you ho doubt spotted.

[Annie]

Thanks very much James.  The engine looks very much like a rebuilt Crewe type of some description.

I immediately thought of Schooner and his docks railway layout project when I saw the photo.

 

Edit:  Yes I recognised the coach as being very like the K&ESR drawing you gave me earlier today.

Edited June 12, 2021 by Annie
more to say

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, Annie said:

Who can tell me more about this wonderful photo I've just purchased.  The photo was taken at Gallions Station and that's all I really know about it.

 

According to Wikipedia, the locomotive was formerly LNWR No. 431 Hercules but reference to John Goodman's LNWR Locomotive Names shows this to be incorrect. The name Hercules was carried by Liverpool & Manchester No. 39 of 1835; a Ramsbottom DX No. 261 built 1859; and finally a Webb Precedent No. 1105 built 1877 and renewed as an Improved Precedent in 1897, lasting until 1928.

 

The engine in the photo looks like a member of the Vampire or Glyn classs of 5ft 2-4-0 goods engines, built 1848-53, many of which were rebuilt with side tanks from 1856, carrying their curved nameplates on their side tanks. Those classes don't include a No. 431.

[Annie]

Thank you Stephen.  So it looks like I've got a copy of the 1890 photo then.  Various photos were being sold to raise money for a vintage bus restoration and as soon as I saw it I knew I wanted to buy it.  I suppose the engine in the photo's past history shall every remain a secret, but it is an awfully good photo for me to add to my Crewe type stash.

I have mentioned before that I would be keen to own a digital model rebuilt 2-4-0T Crewe type even though in this particular situation the GER seems to have bundled them all off smartly after taking over.

[Schooner]

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY - ROYAL ALBERT DOCK RAILWAY - No.7 - 2-4-0T - built 1847 by LNWR as 2-4-0 No.102 HERCULES - rebuilt as 2-4-0T, No.436 - 1881 withdrawn - sold to Royal Albert Dock Co. as No.7 - 07/1896 withdrawn when GER took over services - seen here at Gallions with a train for Custom House in about 1890. The Royal Albert Dock Co. built a short railway line from Custom House to Gallions in 1880 to enable it to move goods and employees to and from the Docks and also to carry passengers joining liners within the Docks. Three venerable 2-4-0T's were bought from the LNWR, No.5 (ex-LNWR No. 1819, built 1850), No. 6 (ex-LNWR No. 1927, built 1849) and No. 7 (ex-LNWR No. 436, built 1847). All three were withdrawn in July 1896.

 

The photo is familiar, and is definitely somewhere within the Port of London Research Library* along with further information. Whilst glorious, it fell outside my direct interest** so I'm afraid I didn't pay enough attention and now can't relate anything more than the Transport of Delight caption.

 

*Don't get too excited, it's just a shelf at home. A small shelf. I'll check it when I'm next back.

**Although it is marked down for Rolling Stock Expansion Pack A!

Edited June 12, 2021 by Schooner
Got distracted re-visiting PLA photos, sorry for the multiple cross posting! Post itself un-edited

[Compound2632]

OK. Looking up No. 102 in Goodman, we have two engines named Marquis. Both were goods engines - 2-4-0s. The first was built in 1847, renumbered and renamed 261 Hercules in 1863 and sold in 1881. The second was built in 1850, allegedly to replace the first. Rebuilt as a 2-4-0T in 1861, not known if name retained then but certainly removed by 1873. Scrapped 1883. So it does sound as if the engine in the photo is the first Marquis, apart from the fact that there's no mention of it being rebuilt as a 2-4-0T. Not all renumbering is recorded in Goodman's book, I think. The numbers mentioned for the others, 1819 and 1927, are certainly renumberings, since the capital list was nowhere near that at the dates given for the building of the engines.

[Edwardian]

In the news ....

 

I've been saying for a long time that those set above us are knaves and fools. Here's one who's both ....

 

 

[Andy Hayter]

Can I just ask, who is Gina?

I thought her name was Useless.

 

I am sure I read last week that Boris sent an SMS that Hancock was f***ing Useless.

[wainwright1]

1 minute ago, Andy Hayter said:

Can I just ask, who is Gina?

I thought her name was Useless.

 

I am sure I read last week that Boris sent an SMS that Hancock was f***ing Useless.

I thought that it was hopeless !

[Nearholmer]

Didn't HMQ say that he was "poor", which could have meant several different things.

[alastairq]

In respect of which, I find his behaviour to be exceptionally human, and completely in line with society's expectations!

 

I'd rather he were doing option three, than being filmed snorting cocaine...[like all good 1st World War soldiers...if the scientists' discoveries were anything to go by?]

 

Option one is a bit disappointing, and begs the question of why employ advisors anyway?  Anyway, option two is thoroughly admirable. 

 

{I have zero confidence or support for society as a whole....after society didn't want to pay for public transport for the few [unemployed?} plebs who wanted to use it....and the buses were privatised in the 1980's.  Zero public support!]

[Edwardian]

Just now, Andy Hayter said:

Can I just ask, who is Gina?

I thought her name was Useless.

 

I am sure I read last week that Boris sent an SMS that Hancock was f***ing Useless.

 

You may, here, be confusing two different cabinet minsters:

 

- Totally F--king Hopeless (Secretary of State for Heath and Social Distancing)

 

- George Useless (Secretary of state for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) 

 

All other nondescript ministers may be summed up as Robert Generic. 

 

"Gina" is Mr Hancock's aide, with whom he's formed a bubble.

 

 

[Nearholmer]

I find this report of it brilliantly deadpan https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/matt-hancock-claims-he-broke-social-distancing-guidance-in-embracing-aide-40580209.html

 

"It is unclear whether Mr Hancock believes his embrace was part of a work meeting."

[Compound2632]

23 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Didn't HMQ say that he was "poor", which could have meant several different things.

 

Not quite as wealthy as the PM? Richer than you and I, certainly, or else he wouldn't be in his current position, whatever that is.

 

1 minute ago, Nearholmer said:

I find this report of it brilliantly deadpan https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/matt-hancock-claims-he-broke-social-distancing-guidance-in-embracing-aide-40580209.html

 

"It is unclear whether Mr Hancock believes his embrace was part of a work meeting."

 

Voluntary and charitable?

[Edwardian]

2 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I find this report of it brilliantly deadpan https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/matt-hancock-claims-he-broke-social-distancing-guidance-in-embracing-aide-40580209.html

 

"It is unclear whether Mr Hancock believes his embrace was part of a work meeting."

 

Gina might have been providing Hopeless with "charitable services", the other exception to the social distancing rules then in force. 

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Edwardian said:

 

Gina might have been providing Hopeless with "charitable services", the other exception to the social distancing rules then in force. 

 

Well, so long as it was voluntary. Does raise questions of her judgement though. Mind you, could have been the other way round. 

[Nearholmer]

3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Not quite as wealthy as the PM?

 

Impecunious.

 

Inadequate.

 

Pitiable.

 

She could have meant any, or possibly all, of those.

 

Did she know about the alleged Hanky Panky when she said it, I wonder.

 

 

[alastairq]

Apparently in Roman times, this sort of carrying-on was referred to as ''delicias delicias''

 

Nothing new really [when I think back to Blunkett's homely secretarial shenanigans?}

 

Apparently, the divorce rate is currently falling.

 

Perhaps not so many significant halves are getting caught?

 

Or are more couples simply taking a bit of side work as normal?

 

I reckon the individual concerned, should be admonished, not for 'doing it', but for , getting caught?

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, alastairq said:

Apparently, the divorce rate is currently falling.

 

Is that not simply a consequence of falling marriage rate?

 

1 hour ago, alastairq said:

I reckon the individual concerned, should be admonished, not for 'doing it', but for , getting caught?

 

Generally viewed as bad morality, I'm afraid.

[DonB]

I'd like to know who by, and how the photo was taken and how much the newspaper paid for it , and will the fee be taxable ? Just in the public interest of course 

[alastairq]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Generally viewed as bad morality, I'm afraid.

 Depends on what, or who, constitutes the 'generally' bit?

 

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

s that not simply a consequence of falling marriage rate?

Not as such, it has been identified as a percentage of marriages, and isn't necessarily related to the numbers of marriages.

What it might show is that these days.....as with people not bothering to get married, it also might show, people are not bothering to get divorced....but, are still not 'together';....

[Edwardian]

Priceless.

 

Cabinet Minister Robert Generic last night stated on the BBC

 

''Matt is on the job''

[Welchester]

32 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Priceless.

 

Cabinet Minister Robert Generic last night stated on the BBC

 

''Matt is on the job''

 

Ooh. Like the Danish dentist in the film.

[wagonman]

The affair does raise a few interesting questions such as:

1. the photo was reputedly taken on 9 May so who has been sitting on it since – the Sun or the whistleblower – and why?

2. who put a CCTV camera in the Minister's office (assuming that is where it is) without his knowledge?

3. how did Door Matt get the job in the first place?

4. is Gina now totally screwed? She will probably lose her government sinecure but her main job is with the fashion house owned by...her husband.