Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, ianathompson said:

The reason, of course, was for personal convenience and to make for an easier life.

 

That was my thinking, though I hadn't allowed for the possible benefits of finishing earlier!

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

However, since we generally don't operate our model railways to real time, it doesn't matter too much.

 

Not always true.  I intend to run my layout to time and as there were on average less than 4 trains an hour I think I can cope with the fiddle yard demands.

 

Others have clocks on display such as the awesome Southwark Bridge, also set in 1912 and based on traffic through Waterloo,  This video is from the September 2020 virtual Scalefourm.  This has more trains per hour and 3 clocks

 

Southwark Bridge Scaleforum 2020 Part 2 - YouTube

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

....... I was really looking for Midland / MSJS through carriages and found one at Aviemore in July 1887 - a 12-wheeler sandwiched between WCJS and ECJS 6-wheelers.

The 7:00am Perth-Inverness on 7th August 1888 (comprising 37 vehicles from 9 railway companies) included 5 MR vehicles, but I have no details of what these were, nor can I find the source of that information.   I have it in a presentation I've given to the local U3A, and other groups, on how the railways changed society in Victorian times.

 

Jim

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Caley Jim said:

The 7:00am Perth-Inverness on 7th August 1888 (comprising 37 vehicles from 9 railway companies) included 5 MR vehicles, but I have no details of what these were, nor can I find the source of that information.   I have it in a presentation I've given to the local U3A, and other groups, on how the railways changed society in Victorian times.

 

That's E.L. Ahrons, Locomotive and Train Working in the Latter Part of the Nineteenth Century Vol. 3 (Heffer,1952, reprinted from The Railway Magazine, 1921) p. 95, quoting E. Foxwell and T.C. Farrer, Express Trains, English and Foreign (Smith, Elder & Co, 1889) p. 62*. Rather than typing it all out, courtesy of Google books I can give you the horse's mouth - with all those horseboxes, there were enough witnesses to vouch for the veracity of their account.

 

The composition of that mammoth train is basically the same as the one that came to grief at Aviemore - WCJS, Midland/MSJS, and ECJS carriages in front of an ordinary Highland rake.

 

*In the minds of Foxwell and Farrer, the Highland Railway fell in the "English" rather than the "Foreign" category.

 

EDIT: Now I've started reading Foxwell & Farrer. There's a section on fast goods trains, showing average speeds exclusive of stops of around 30 mph. Trains cite include LNWR London-Leeds and London-Carlisle; Midland London-Manchester, Great Northern London-Liverpoool, Great Eastern Doncaster-London, and Great Western London-Wolverhampton and London-Exeter, the latter still broad gauge.

 

I laughed out loud at the footnote on p. 33!

 

 

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I've been reading through reports on accidents on the Highland, on Railways Archive. There's a run of accidents in the mid 1880s practically every one of which features a mixed train. These were marshalled with the goods wagons leading - as many as two dozen or more in some cases - with a first, a third, and a brake at the rear. Convenient for shunting, no doubt, but not good from the point of view of braking, as HMRI were quick to point out.  

 

The wagons in those trains are mostly Highland, with a smattering of North British and Caledonian and the odd LNWR - the only English company represented. I haven't worked through the Great North reports yet.

 

I've had a look through the available GNoSR accident reports - most are there for the 1880s but not after that. Again, a good few mixed trains, marshalled the same way as those HR ones with the carriages at the rear. The accidents are spread around the GNoSR network. I was quite surprised that for such a small line, virtually all the wagons mentioned were from the home company - I came across just one CR and one NBR wagon; no HR ones. Coal was being conveyed in GNoSR wagons, so I suppose this was coming in to Aberdeen by sea.

 

Maj. Marindin's report on the accident at Kintore on 11 September 1888 includes a table giving details of the loads, destinations, and points of origin of all the wagons in one portion of the train. Of these twelve, eight were carrying coal, including one NBR wagon - the only one not originating from Waterloo. The remainder were one each of lime, grain, casks of oil, and "general". 

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

More foreign wagons home empty. At about 9pm on the evening of 11 July 1900 Wednesday near Tubs Hill station, Sevenoaks, an up passenger train from Margate ran into the rear of an Ashford to Hither Green train of 41 empty wagons. Lt.-Col. von Donop's report lists the damaged stock. SECR goods brake No. 6549 was broken to pieces; fortunately the guard was not in it at the time. Seven wagons were damaged: two Great Northern, one of which was a timber truck, the other had a number beginning 0, which I believe indicates a hired wagon, presumably mineral; two London & North Western; one Midland, from its number very probably a high-sided open (D299) which could have been in either merchandise or mineral traffic; and two private owners: Charrington, Sells, Dale & Co - i.e. Charringtons, the well-known London coal factor; and Burniston & Co, which I've not identified.

 

It's probable that most of these empty wagons were in coal traffic but the presence of the GN timber truck indicates not exclusively so. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Burniston & Co was a Canterbury coal merchant – details in John Arkell's PO wagons of the South East (Lightmoor Press).

Edited by wagonman
spelling
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Brighton Circle have published on their website a copy of the LB&SCR's Instructions for Goods Staff dated 1 Dec 1903. This is a generally interesting document for understanding how goods traffic was handled. The section Traffic for Foreign Lines, paragraphs 91 - 100, is especially relevant to the present discussion; also paras. 76-77 on demurrage and siding rent, para 74. on the folding and return of foreign sheets, and para. 34 on the return of foreign ropes and other loading equipment. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I hadn’t realised that the term ‘foreign’ was an official one - I thought is was a colloquialism.

 

Midland Railway Study Centre Item 14194 (and similar); also numerous Goods Manager's Circulars "Foreign Wagons and Sheets" that I want a read of once conditions permit!

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

The Brighton Circle have published on their website a copy of the LB&SCR's Instructions for Goods Staff dated 1 Dec 1903. This is a generally interesting document for understanding how goods traffic was handled. The section Traffic for Foreign Lines, paragraphs 91 - 100, is especially relevant to the present discussion; also paras. 76-77 on demurrage and siding rent, para 74. on the folding and return of foreign sheets, and para. 34 on the return of foreign ropes and other loading equipment. 

Fascinating, that's this morning taken up reading...

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I hadn’t realised that the term ‘foreign’ was an official one - I thought is was a colloquialism.

 

 

And then there was the EU

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

The Brighton Circle have published on their website a copy of the LB&SCR's Instructions for Goods Staff dated 1 Dec 1903. This is a generally interesting document for understanding how goods traffic was handled. The section Traffic for Foreign Lines, paragraphs 91 - 100, is especially relevant to the present discussion; also paras. 76-77 on demurrage and siding rent, para 74. on the folding and return of foreign sheets, and para. 34 on the return of foreign ropes and other loading equipment. 

 

Sheets should be folded loosely and stood on end. 
 

I wouldn’t have thought of doing it like that. It would be good to know a little more about how to load a wagon of sheets being returned. It would make something interesting and different, but clearly usual in the pre-pooling era. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/02/2021 at 06:29, Compound2632 said:

 

But passenger timings were never exactly brisk on the Great North, were they?

Don't fall into the trap of considering a small railway to be inefficient. The GNSR ran a very effective timetable including a mainline and suburban services. Like most railways at the time the running of branch lines was done at a pace that today we may consider to be leisurely.

  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/02/2021 at 23:47, ianathompson said:

 

I find the whole question of shunting time allowances to be interesting.

My Great North of Scotland Railway facsimilie WTT for summer 1911 appears to make no provision for shunting  at all.

Looking at the Macduff branch, as my imagined lines branch off at Turriff, the goods train gets roughly the same timings as a passenger train.

The lack of shunting time seems to have been quite a commom practice in the pre Grouping WTTs that I have seen (mainly published in line histories).

 

I assume that the timings were advisory and that the trains did not keep to them, nor were they expected to.

By implication the timings shown were the very earliest time that a goods train could possible reach a given station.

The relevant staff, including signalmen and  PW track walkers, would presumably know to keep an eye out for its imminent passing once this time had gone by.

I also assume that the goods trains went forward to the next station when it was convenient, provided that they did not delay passenger trains.

 

Reverting to my main interest, the AFK, which may not be strictly relevant here, I run freight trains on the model on the basis outlined in the second paragraph.

Trains are, however, booked a reasonable time for station work but if traffic is light they run early.

If there is a lot of traffic to be dealt with they run late and keep out of the way of more important trains.

 

Ian T

Ian do you have access to the 1914 WTT? There seems to be more of a separation of timings for goods workings as well as clear indications for when train cross at stations. 

 

There are also specific notes on arranging of 'waggons' in order to avoid further shunting, exchanging with Caledonian and NB which are helpful to the modeller.

 

The main pick-up appears to be the 9.20 am from Macduff which is timed into Turriff at 10.02 and allowed 11 minutes to shunt. A further note instructs small consignments for the NB route to be placed into wagons for Aberdeen NB or returning empty NB wagons. There is no corresponding instruction for the other connecting railways.

 

John

 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/02/2021 at 21:21, Compound2632 said:

 

I've had a look through the available GNoSR accident reports - most are there for the 1880s but not after that. Again, a good few mixed trains, marshalled the same way as those HR ones with the carriages at the rear. The accidents are spread around the GNoSR network. I was quite surprised that for such a small line, virtually all the wagons mentioned were from the home company - I came across just one CR and one NBR wagon; no HR ones. Coal was being conveyed in GNoSR wagons, so I suppose this was coming in to Aberdeen by sea.

 

Maj. Marindin's report on the accident at Kintore on 11 September 1888 includes a table giving details of the loads, destinations, and points of origin of all the wagons in one portion of the train. Of these twelve, eight were carrying coal, including one NBR wagon - the only one not originating from Waterloo. The remainder were one each of lime, grain, casks of oil, and "general". 

 

One other consideration might be the relationship between private trader wagons and the CR and NB. There were around 30 private traders on the GNSR system but their wagons were registered with either the Caledonian or the NB. Other private traders coming onto the GNSR system from the Scottish coal fields for example would also be regarded as either Caledonian or NB wagons as it was they who held the registrations for them. 

 

For the modeller this means that a wagon listed as CR or NB may not have either railway company livery but instead be in the livery of the trader.

 

John

 

 

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sulzer27jd said:

For the modeller this means that a wagon listed as CR or NB may not have either railway company livery but instead be in the livery of the trader.

 

The source of the information for train composition and damaged stock in the accident reports is an interesting question. Sometimes it is clear that it has been supplied by the railway company, sometimes it's in the recorded evidence - usually guards are better up on the composition of their trains than drivers, who will only know how many wagons or, for passenger trains, "nine equal to twelve" or suchlike. There are clearly cases where the ownership of the stock is outside the inspecting officer's railway knowledge - Midland Scotch Joint Stock is a favourite for this, the initials MSJS being variously interpreted as "Midland and Sheffield" or "Manchester and Sheffield"! So, the question is, whether the inspecting officer or whoever took down the information would distinguish between a PO wagon that was the property of the trader, leased from a wagon company, or on hire from the CR or NBR, especially if he, as an Englishman, was unfamiliar with the Scottish system of railway companies hiring wagons to traders. Certainly in England, it's the name of the trader that is recorded, not the railway company with which the wagon is registered. 

 

In the particular cases I noted, at Kintore on 17 September 1888, the company provided Maj. Marindin with a table of the loading and destination of each wagon; the NBR wagon was No. 10520 laden with coal from Aberdeen Joint Station (having presumably arrived from the south by NBR train) for Kemnay, whilst at Brucklay on 25 July 1889, the Locomotive Department at Kittybrewster provided the information on damaged stock to Col. Rich; the Caledonian wagon was No. 5986.

 

I did not mean to impugn the Great North's efficiency, only its velocity.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pre-Grouping is not my main area of interest, but while searching my books for something else I found details of an incident at Barnstaple Junction in 1922 involving a train of 22 wagons and brake van, the nine wagons that were damaged were mentioned in the L&SWR enquiry.

1 LNW No.77314

2 GN No.36548

3 MR No.42366

4 GC No.14479

5 NE box wagon No.16797

6 MR No.79070

7 GW No.25514

8 LNW No.9986

9 LSW box wagon No.9446,

 

cheers

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Rivercider said:

Pre-Grouping is not my main area of interest, but while searching my books for something else I found details of an incident at Barnstaple Junction in 1922 involving a train of 22 wagons and brake van, the nine wagons that were damaged were mentioned in the L&SWR enquiry.

1 LNW No.77314

2 GN No.36548

3 MR No.42366

4 GC No.14479

5 NE box wagon No.16797

6 MR No.79070

7 GW No.25514

8 LNW No.9986

9 LSW box wagon No.9446,

 

This exemplifies the change brought about by the pooling arrangements introduced during the Great War: the companies with the largest wagon fleets are represented with just one wagon from the local company. As far as goods trains are concerned, pooling had a much greater impact than grouping. The period between the Great War and the grouping is a sort of limbo-period; the golden age of "pre-grouping" had ended in 1914; the grouping set out in the 1921 Act was seen as an inevitability in most quarters and indeed the LNWR/L&YR/MR and GN/GE/GC "groups" had been working towards it since the first decade of the century. One could say that the SER/LCDR working union started the rot.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sulzer27jd said:

Ian do you have access to the 1914 WTT?

 

Strictly speaking, no!

I have access to the GNoSR Society reprint, however, which  I assume is what you mean.

 

4 hours ago, sulzer27jd said:

The main pick-up appears to be the 9.20 am from Macduff which is timed into Turriff at 10.02 and allowed 11 minutes to shunt.

 

Turriff is a rather important place (in the context of the area) to be shunted in eleven minutes.

This is what makes me think that the timings must be notional.

 

Without wishing to hijack the thread, the same train is given absolutely no time to shunt King Edward or Plaidy.

It is timed to run the 11 3/4 miles to Turriff in 42 minutes thereby averaging around 15 miles per hour.

Given the propensity for the 'wee trainies' to loiter along the way I cannot imagine that it stopped anywhere, if the timing is correct.

As one of only two up goods trains on the branch it has passed two stations for which only one time is shown.

 

You would miss Plaidy if you did not know that it was there, but the yard is trailing to this train and could not be shunted by a down train.

This train, or the afternoon goods, which has a similar timing, are the only ones that could work it.

 

King Edward is so small that I had to look it out specially, the last time that I was in the area, to photograph what remains.

In the period of the timetable it was a block post with a loop and a couple of trailing sidings.

This train must surely have been expected to work the yard, but no time allowance is made.

 

It is not just on this branch that this is the case.

Similar timings are shown on all the branches or sections as well as on the mainline.

I cannot imagine that these timings were more than notional.

 

Hope that this is of some wider interest.

 

Ian T

Edited by ianathompson
typo
  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Further thread drift, but I might as well get hung for a sheep rather than a lamb!

 

Further to my above comments a similar scenario arose on my own model layout today.

For those who are unaware I model a continental narrow gauge system but the shunting principles are the same.

 

8-190.jpg.7c6e6ea6f324d0d34664394d40b9a99a.jpg

 

 

Apologies for the size of the image but there does not seem to be any way of controlling this. 

 

A local goods train has arrived at the (incomplete) Cadsuiane-Fanhuidol.

There are two wagons to be picked up and two to be dropped off.

 

This is a wayside station where the yard, a single siding, is trailing to the up train, as at Plaidy.

The yard/siding cannot be worked by a down train.

 

I operate using a home made "click-clock" where each move counts as three minutes. 

Extra clicks were added to represent tying down the wagons on the steeply graded main line  and speaking to the stationmistress about the work to be done.

 

The wagons will run away on the model gradient and have to be held on a track brake.

The stationmistress is the wife of a PW ganger who's work for the railway subsidises their rent.

 

It took half an hout to complete this job.

I would expect the same type of work at Plaidy to occupy a similar amount of time.

This is in effect just to dump the wagons in the yard rather than carefully place them for loading/unloading.

 

At large stations a shunting horse would be employed for this.

Given the size and remoteness of Plaidy I assume that this was done by a local farner's horse as required.

 

Ian T

 

 

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
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.