Western Times

[craneman]

Hi Andy,

 

My comment regarding the red livery was not intended to suggest you had said the cranes were red, merely to reinforce the message that they were not! I'm sorry if it suggested otherwise.

 

I think we can conclude that the GWR view that black (even a light black, which most normal people would call dark grey) was the only colour for steam cranes persisted long after the formation of BR, and no-one in "head Office" was going to change that view!

 

The issue of the crane boilers is a fascinating one (albeit probably only to a minute proportion of people). The Swindon VFT boiler that has survived with No 2 is clearly designed to be capable of being fitted in either the Stothert & Pitt 36-tonner No 1, or the two Ransomes & Rapier 36-tonners, Nos 2 and 3. This is evident from the provision of alternative pads on the boiler for the main steam valve, a provision which only makes sense in this context. It would be easy to assume from this that when this boiler was built in 1917, it was the only one and was intended to be used as a standby for any of the three largest cranes when their boilers became due for overhaul. However we know without doubt from photographic evidence that the two R&R cranes spent most of their working lives fitted with VFT boilers, ergo there must have been at least two such boilers. It is harder to tell what happened with the S&P crane since there are no visual clues as to which boiler is fitted.

 

The two R&R cranes were supplied with strange boilers supplied by E R & F Turner of Ipswich which were a hybrid design with features both of vertical and horizontal types (the easiest way to describe them would be as a locomotive-type boiler compressed so that apparently there is only a firebox and smokebox with nothing in-between). They were by all accounts not particularly good, but it is important to remember the first R&R crane, No 2, is a very early crane indeed and in 1907 there were plenty of boilers being made which became archaic not long afterwards. It remains a mystery however why the GWR specified (or possibly accepted) such a boiler, since by then the GWR already had at least one Spencer Hopwood boiler in service, and these were already recognised as excellent boilers, in their squat form ideal for cranes. We shall probably never know the reason for this.

 

We also know that the first VFT boiler was built at Swindon in 1917, and again the question arises why did the GWR built their own boiler to a design which was already an anachronism when better boiler designs were already established (by 1917 the Hopwood boiler was well established as the optimal design for a crane boiler, and all three of the premier builders of cranes were fitting them). Again we shall never know for certain the answer, but it is likely that the date is the significant factor, since by 1917 the First World War had been underway for three years and conditions in England were probably almost unimaginable to people today. It is likely that there was simply no spare capacity to "buy in" a new boiler or two from a supplier committed to war work, especially when you are the GWR and have the resource to build one. It is equally easy to imagine that the GWR did not seek, or was not allowed, to licence the Hopwood design.

 

So we know that at least two VFT boilers were built, and I strongly suspect that as the years passed the usage pattern flipped from the VFTs being spares for when overhaul of the Turners was needed, to be the default boiler, and one (or possibly both) Turner boilers were held as spares for use when the VFTs needed overhaul. The last occasion on which we know that a Turner boiler was used is the period captured in the photo in your article, it is likely that this boiler was scrapped in the early 1960s. As far as I know, there are no surviving Turner boilers left anywhere, although it is possible that in a far-flung corner of the former British Empire one languishes in a scrapyard.

 

The four R&R 45-tonners with which the GWR was reluctantly supplied in 1939 were of course fitted from the start with Hopwood boilers, by now being built under licence from RSH (who had absorber the Spencer Hopwood company) by Cochran of Annan. All of the first six of these cranes (which are the ones that the excellent Bachmann model represents) were so fitted, and these six boilers all used GWR boiler fittings. They were, in effect, the boiler that Swindon should have built in 1917.

 

Records of the crane boilers (in fact records in general for breakdown cranes) are sadly lacking, and it seems the even the Swindon Boiler Register makes no mention of the VFT crane boiler(s). As a result there will undoubtedly be many things we can never determine absolutely, we can only draw conclusions based on the evidence we have.

 

It is in many ways pleasing that one of these six Cochran Hopwood boilers (originally from the SR crane S1560, which was scrapped in April 2010) has been secured for use in GWR No 2 in due course, since the VFT boiler is in need of significant (expensive) repairs. When fitted, externally the crane will be indistinguishable from the VFT configuration, but should be quicker to steam and more economical in service. The only fly in the ointment at present is the lack of funding for the restoration of the crane.

[Andy M]

Fantastic Craneman, thank you. 
There has to be an article in that, surely! Have you suitable images to illustrate?

 

Andy.

[craneman]

Some, probably not enough. I know of others however.

 

As you say, there may be an article somewhere in this lot, it would certainly tick the "niche" box!

[Andy M]

24 minutes ago, craneman said:

Some, probably not enough. I know of others however.

 

As you say, there may be an article somewhere in this lot, it would certainly tick the "niche" box!

Niche is good when it is a fresh subject like this. You would be surprised at the level of positive feedback received already regarding what I would have considered the less mainstream topics.

[Neal Ball]

This sounds intriguing, I've just ordered a copy, hopefully it doesn't get stuck at customs.

 

Look forward to reading it.

[Mikkel]

I have now received this and am reading it with much interest. 

 

Several articles are very useful to me, including on barrows and the divisional depts. A number of interesting photos too. As a pre-grouping modeller, my knees weakened at the sight of six good quality photos of Armstrong Goods, of which I had only seen one or two before.

 

I'll have to find another way to obtain forthcoming issues, as I got stung by EU VAT and handling fees which more than doubled the cost. But that's my problem, and should not detract from this excellent initiative.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Andy M]

Thanks for the positive feedback Mikkel and I'm glad you found Issue 1 of interest.

 

I guess the EU VAT issue is a factor of BREXIT. Would you be subjected to the same, if it was a private mail from an individual in the UK? Then you would just be paying postage cost from UK to Denmark. I'm not advocating flaunting the tax laws of course, but such a hike on top of the cover price seems pretty harsh!

 

Regards,

Andy.

[Not Jeremy]

Great publication, I have it stock here in Titfieldshire - I real must get it up on my website....

 

By the way, the VAT changes are not Brexit related, they apply across Europe:

 

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/vat/vat-e-commerce_en

 

All very headache creating!

[Robin Fell]

For any EU customers not wanting any nasty surprises from customs then it is best to buy the book from our ebay store here.

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/313589306680?hash=item4903611538:g:Wz8AAOSwCl5g3yWP

 

eBay add on the necessary taxes for the transaction so it sails through customs.... (hopefully)

 

Unfortunately whilst we can sell to the EU through the normal website - www.ttpublishing.co.uk - we are unable to process the VAT element.

 

[The Stationmaster]

17 hours ago, Andy M said:

Thanks for the positive feedback Mikkel and I'm glad you found Issue 1 of interest.

 

I guess the EU VAT issue is a factor of BREXIT. Would you be subjected to the same, if it was a private mail from an individual in the UK? Then you would just be paying postage cost from UK to Denmark. I'm not advocating flaunting the tax laws of course, but such a hike on top of the cover price seems pretty harsh!

 

Regards,

Andy.

Not exactly.  The VAT collection/payment issue is partly a result of Brexit but also a consequence of the way in which the collection of VAT/Sales etc Tax will be changing across many European  (and other I think) countries including those in the EU.  The UK Govt is simply a few  months ahead of the game because HMRC decided to synchronise the new collection procedures with the implementation of Brexit.

[The Stationmaster]

16 hours ago, Not Jeremy said:

Great publication, I have it stock here in Titfieldshire - I real must get it up on my website....

 

By the way, the VAT changes are not Brexit related, they apply across Europe:

 

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/vat/vat-e-commerce_en

 

All very headache creating!

Would you please hang on to a copy for me until I can 'phone on Thursday - always my preference to keep our friendly book retailers in business

[Not Jeremy]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Would you please hang on to a copy for me until I can 'phone on Thursday - always my preference to keep our friendly book retailers in business

Have done, thank you very much Mike.

 

I will make sure I turn up "on parade" in a timely and efficient fashion on Thursday!!

 

Best Wishes

 

Simon

[St Enodoc]

On 23/06/2021 at 14:01, St Enodoc said:

Ordered, together with the NPCCS book. Very reasonable shipping rate to Australia!

 

On 29/06/2021 at 11:10, kandc_au said:

Lucky devil,

Still awaiting mine in the colonies

 

Khris

 

My copy arrived yesterday, which, in current circumstances, is earlier than expected. Thanks.

[kandc_au]

8 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

 

My copy arrived yesterday, which, in current circumstances, is earlier than expected. Thanks.

Lucky devil. With luck mine "may" arrive tomorrow.
I am not surprised at how quick it has been. Anything bought from shops and businesses like Wizard, alan Gibson, and the like don't take a lot of time to get here.
Purchases from ebay on the other hand, take a while.

Khris

[The Stationmaster]

Interesting - I've now had a good look through my copy which arrived from  The Titfield Thunderbolt bookshop yesterday and  've found it a bit of a mixed bag to be honest.  I must admit to having a strong attack of pedantry when it comes to (G)WR place names because of the away they could differ considerably from what the locals and the OS called a place so Coaley (for Coley) and Colwell (for Colwall) grated a little.  Similarly with errors in captions although quite how Taunton at the top of page 48 became Swindon was a hard one to puzzle out - incorrect information with the original photo perhaps?.  in fact the diesels overall came off rather badly with the 'Warship' on page 49 very obviously pointing at Fowey and the only way it could get eastwards at Par would have been to propel back out of the siding and reversing at St Blazey station.  Kingswear also suffered from a spot of caption bother as a BRCW built unit was described as a Pressed Steel unit (an easy error but the way they were allocated when new made a big difference) and somehow a Swindon Cross Country units with its very obvious two window windscreen became a Gloucester Cross country unit despite the latter having a triple window windscreen.   But teething troubles are I suppose difficult to avoid.  

 

There's another oddity in the caption about the view from Reading Main Line West Signal Box (to use its correct title) as the back blinders on ground discs were painted in paler colours to enable Signalmen to see that they were responding properly to the movement of the lever.  The view incidentally change substantially with resignalling in 1965 when  a lot of the track layout in that photo vanished as well as demolition of the steam shed and lift shop while the various District Engineers' etc buildings on the Up side gradually went in succeeding years.  But it is true the scene has changed ever more substantially in this century with the construction of the flyover for the Main Lines.  incidentally I doubt if there's much more load behind that 'Grange' in the picture at the foot of page 25 because with 26 miltas plus a PBV it's getting near the 420 ton load limit for that class over the B&H. 

 

What I did find a little odd were some of the comments about the freight being assisted up to Dainton as the place where engines assisting rear dropped off was fairly well known and I do wonder about a 'District Inspector' having anything to do with assisting engine matters - surely that would be in the hands of a Traffic and possibly a Locomotive Inspector?

 

I also found the comments about the GWR's system of issuing an Appendix to the Service Timetable a little confusing.  As far as I know the GWR, and the early WR, was the only part of the Big four/BR to issue what amounted to a Sectional Appendix in that fashion.  All the other companies, and into the early days of BR Regions, issued their Appendixes on the sort of wider geographical basis that subsequently became the BR norm - in some respects very much based on the approach used by the LMS.   What I don't know is what happened when the timetable sections were reorganised in BR days but the WR 1960 Appendixes were  seemingly based on a mixture of the areas covered by District Operating Supts and in some cases Traffic Dept Divisions   (they changed over to reflect the final new Divisional structure for the subsequent editions published in the latter part of the 1960s).  And there was some inter=departmental overlapping as the DOSs' boundaries didn't always agree with the District Motive Power Supts' boundaries. (which also raises the interesting question of when what were called Divisions in WWI changed in many cases into Districts, often with boundaries that were not co-terminal between Depts (I might be able to pick up some of that from minute books).

 

So an interesting start but a little more care does, I think, need to be taken particularly with researching caption details although I know from experience that can be an irksome task that often requires wider research.

[Mike_Walker]

Whilst generally impressed there are a few things that disquiet me.  In addition to the caption errors listed above by Mike, it seems a little "disjointed" in places.  For example, following from piece about the Station Diagram Books on pages 76 and 77 we get a couple of pictures of railcar 11 which are captioned starting "Two further views taken at Salisbury... " but the only other pictures of Salisbury are on pages 13 and 15 within the Divisions article.  There is also a photo and caption on page 77 which, whilst interesting, appears to be "orphaned" and not part of the publication around it.

 

Also, regarding captions, wasn't the Tanners Road bridge at Goodrington (page 32) provided around that time to replace a level crossing rather than the renewal of an existing bridge?

 

Apart from that, a good effort and I look forward to issue 2.

 

[mdvle]

2 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

Also, regarding captions, wasn't the Tanners Road bridge at Goodrington (page 32) provided around that time to replace a level crossing rather than the renewal of an existing bridge

 

Yes.

 

From Wikipedia - "Work started on a bridge to replace the level crossing in 1939, but this was not completed until 1956 due to World War II." - this information is credited on Wikipedia as coming from C.R. Potts "The Newton Abbot to Kingswear Railway"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodrington_Sands_railway_station

Edited July 12, 2021 by mdvle

[Andy M]

2 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

There is also a photo and caption on page 77 which, whilst interesting, appears to be "orphaned" and not part of the publication around it.

 

Also, regarding captions, wasn't the Tanners Road bridge at Goodrington (page 32) provided around that time to replace a level crossing rather than the renewal of an existing bridge?

 

 

Mike & Mike,

 

Thank you both for your feedback, which is duly noted and we will endeavour to implement improvements for Issue 2.

 

If I may address a couple of the observations you raise above, the image on p.77 relates to the extract from The Railway Gazette that features alongside it and along with those railcar images on the opposite page were intended as standalone short pieces. I refrain from using the word 'fillers' as that sounds like they add no intrinsic value, but it is our intention to optimise the space available to publish as much rare and interesting material as we can, as an accompaniment to the longer articles.

 

The Tanners Road caption (p.32) could have been worded 'during the continued building', as I believe the bridge abutments had already been constructed some years previously, as part of the project to replace the level crossing to which you refer.

 

Kind regards,

Andy.

[The Stationmaster]

Andy,

 

I'm always happy to help when it comes to checking out information on photos and captions (as I already occasionally do for various other publishers when it comes to matters  associated with the GWR and WR).  Or indeed to checking articles particularly on signalling and operating matters which were areas where I spent lot of my time while working on the Region during the final 26 years of its existence.

[Andy M]

17 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Andy,

 

I'm always happy to help when it comes to checking out information on photos and captions (as I already occasionally do for various other publishers when it comes to matters  associated with the GWR and WR).  Or indeed to checking articles particularly on signalling and operating matters which were areas where I spent lot of my time while working on the Region during the final 26 years of its existence.

 

Mike,

 

That is very much appreciated and we may well take you up on your proofreading skills. There is nothing more infuriating than when errors and omissions creep in, some forgivable some not, but we will learn and improve from the process. What is abundantly clear in this business is that nobody knows everything about everything!

 

Best wishes,

 

Andy.

[Andy M]

20 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

in fact the diesels overall came off rather badly with the 'Warship' on page 49 very obviously pointing at Fowey and the only way it could get eastwards at Par would have been to propel back out of the siding and reversing at St Blazey station.

 

Mike,

 

Precisely so. Certainly in steam days, goods trains assembled in St Blazey yards would stand in the position occupied by the Warship before reversing out of the yard onto the Down line through the long closed station and then proceed wrong line onto the Par loop to gain the Up Main. Thus it could not be certain whether a train at this location was bound for Fowey or Plymouth. Were such procedures changed with dieselisation? I suspect not.

 

Your thoughts appreciated.

 

Regards,

Andy.

[The Stationmaster]

13 hours ago, Andy M said:

 

Mike,

 

Precisely so. Certainly in steam days, goods trains assembled in St Blazey yards would stand in the position occupied by the Warship before reversing out of the yard onto the Down line through the long closed station and then proceed wrong line onto the Par loop to gain the Up Main. Thus it could not be certain whether a train at this location was bound for Fowey or Plymouth. Were such procedures changed with dieselisation? I suspect not.

 

Your thoughts appreciated.

 

Regards,

Andy.

St Blazey wasn't originally laid out for trains to/from the mainline so a train to or from Par would always have had to propel out of or into the yard.  Nothing really unusual in that as the running line part of the move was in Station Limits so it was all very much a normal way of doing things at many yards around the railway network (and not just on the (G)WR).  All a departing train needed to do was set back clear of the trailing crossover by the signal box and then it could cross over and depart on the right line towards Par so no wrong line movement was involved.  The direct connection from the yard to the Down Breanch appears to have been removed in 1983 so beynd the scope of WT

 

The only potential problem would have been with trains heading west from, or arriving from the west at,  Par and they would either have to run round at Par or have an engine on both ends.  I haven't got the relevant 1960 Sectional Appendix but assisting in the rear between Par and St Blazey was authorised in both directions in the 1939 Appendix and still authorised in both directions in the 1968 and 1973 issues so an engine could be attached on the other end to avoid the need to run round at Par.  (The breakdown vans were authorised to be propelled in either direction between St Blazey and Par.)

 

Hope that helps.

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

The only potential problem would have been with trains heading west from, or arriving from the west at,  Par and they would either have to run round at Par or have an engine on both ends.

I have seen photos of clay trains, having arrived from the Burngullow direction, standing on the Up main with an engine at both ends, ready to move down to St Blazey.

 

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

I haven't got the relevant 1960 Sectional Appendix

Nor have I but I know a man who has! @5BarVT

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

 

 

Nor have I but I know a man who has! @5BarVT

I wonder if he'd swop it for a 1960 London Division book plus its second supplement ?

Edited July 13, 2021 by The Stationmaster

[MPR]

23 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

Yes.

 

From Wikipedia - "Work started on a bridge to replace the level crossing in 1939, but this was not completed until 1956 due to World War II." - this information is credited on Wikipedia as coming from C.R. Potts "The Newton Abbot to Kingswear Railway"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodrington_Sands_railway_station

Peter Gray took a series of images of this rebuild - the level crossing was still in place until this was completed. The images have been published elsewhere, but can all be found at Transport Treasury these days  -e.g  https://www.transporttreasury.com/p1039757392

(Images 725 to 728)

 

The Peter Gray gallery is well worth a look - I have purchased a number of large prints to provide information for "Torre" - the quality of the negatives is excellent (you can get FAR more from them than a typical book reproduction) Pricing and delivery were very good.

Edited July 13, 2021 by MPR