Traeth Mawr -Building Mr Price's house , (mostly)

[NCB]

Here's some Barmouth Bridge ones taken 1995:

 

 

 

 

 

Nigel

[Nick Gough]

9 hours ago, ChrisN said:

 

My pictures of the bridge are not so stunning, and from the usual angle

 

 

A view from the bridge

 

 

Along the walkway

 

 

and the other way.

 

 

One with a train.  They appear to have withdrawn the Albions.

 

 

Finally one with the tide out.

 

 

What surprises me is that I did not take any from the other end.

 

Whichever position, or angle, you photograph it from there is no doubt that we are looking at an impressive structure!

[corneliuslundie]

Not a very good photo. I'd better go back and take it again. But it is on the "other side".

 

Taken on one of our first holidays in the town.

Jonathan

[Nick Gough]

14 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Not a very good photo. I'd better go back and take it again. But it is on the "other side".

 

Taken on one of our first holidays in the town.

Jonathan

 

With the Barmouth South fixed distant signal still in place, before the bridge.

Must be pre 1988.

[corneliuslundie]

Early/mid 1970s though I cannot remember which year.

Jonathan

[ChrisN]

As, I think, we have crossed Barmouth Bridge, we come to Barmouth Station.  I had not realised until I looked for the photos of the bridge, that I had actually taken some of the station.  I had forgotten as I knew I had not gone into the station but the ones below are quite revealing.

 

The down platform

 

 

 

and the up platform

 

 

 

Hopefully, you should be able to see what I see when it is enlarged.  The down platform has three brick courses above what must be the original stone platform, and the up platform has four courses.  It gets a bit messy at the slopes on the end but I think most of that is rough filler as the slope is still 1 in 8 and starts earlier for the higher platform.  

 

And BINGO!  A picture of the platform wall in 1905.  Just ask the men to move if you cannot see it properly.

 

If you have been, thanks for looking.

Edited March 13, 2023 by ChrisN

[Mikkel]

7 hours ago, ChrisN said:

And BINGO!  A picture of the platform wall in 1905.  Just ask the men to move if you cannot see it properly.

 

A lot of good stuff in that photo, if you enlarge it. The texture of the ballast, the track keys, the uniforms. And the faces.

 

[corneliuslundie]

I assume that these platforms were raised in height when 3 ft became "mandatory", but I can't remember when that was. Presumably slightly before lower footboards went out of use.

And I have taken photos from the hill above the town too. Not much use for detail but this one gives the overall picture.

 

On our first visits I used colour film but then I went back to black and white for a while.

Jonathan

[Nick Gough]

13 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

I assume that these platforms were raised in height when 3 ft became "mandatory", but I can't remember when that was. Presumably slightly before lower footboards went out of use.

And I have taken photos from the hill above the town too. Not much use for detail but this one gives the overall picture.

 

On our first visits I used colour film but then I went back to black and white for a while.

Jonathan

That's Barmouth as I remember it from my first visit in 1978.

I'm sure the level crossing still had gates then.

[Nick Gough]

9 hours ago, ChrisN said:

As, I think, we have crossed Barmouth Bridge, we come to Barmouth Station.  I had not realised until I looked for the photos of the bridge, that I had actually taken some of the station.  I had forgotten as I knew I had not gone into the station but the ones below are quite revealing.

 

The down platform

 

 

and the up platform

 

 

I have not sized these, (naughty boy), so you should be able to see what I see when it is enlarged.  The down platform has three brick courses above what must be the original stone platform, and the up platform has four courses.  It gets a bit messy at the slopes on the end but I think most of that is rough filler as the slope is still 1 in 8 and starts earlier for the higher platform.  

 

And BINGO!  A picture of the platform wall in 1905.  Just ask the men to move if you cannot see it properly.

 

If you have been, thanks for looking.

Some useful detail on the platforms in your photos. The sort of things you don't notice unless you're actually looking for them.

 

I can't help but think though, away from the immediate area of the station itself, how sterile and dull the modern railway is, in the town, compared with Jonathan's photo.

[ChrisN]

7 hours ago, Mikkel said:

 

A lot of good stuff in that photo, if you enlarge it. The texture of the ballast, the track keys, the uniforms. And the faces.

 

 

 

This one and the one next to it, has some interesting details.  The Station Master in the 1901 census is down as Willings, (Obviously transcribed incorrectly), has eight children,  and he lived in one of these two houses, behind the blue car..  (1 Cumberland Place, Barmouth, which was a Cambrian house at that time.)  Mr Price is waiting for me to build his version of it.

Edited September 19, 2021 by ChrisN

[MikeOxon]

5 hours ago, ChrisN said:

 

 

This one and the one next to it, has some interesting details.  The Station Master in the 1901 census is down as Willings, (Obviously transcribed incorrectly), has eight children,  and he lived in one of these two houses, behind the blue car..  (1 Cumberland Place, Barmouth, which was a Cambrian house at that time.)  Mr Price is waiting for me to build his version of it.

There are some wonderful photos in that album by Hugh Griffith Roberts.  Also a salutary reminder about how far to trust technical details in 'artist impressions'  Compare the photo and engraving of the 1883 Fairbourne accident:

 

[Compound2632]

12 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

I assume that these platforms were raised in height when 3 ft became "mandatory", but I can't remember when that was.

 

I don't think there was such a think as a mandatory height, except for new works; or at least, there was no compulsion to bring platforms up to a standard height, though there may have been persuasion or at least recommendation. Certainly when I was using Culham station in the early 90s, the platforms were still very low- it was quite a climb up into the train - though some rebuilding has gone on since, possibly when the Thames Turbos were introduced in the mid 90s. The old platform at the Brunel building has been left, out of use, with a new platform to the north, while the down platform has been raised and given a new bus shelter, as seen here.

 

The accident at Wellingborough in 1898 has been mentioned. The bitter irony was that all the other platforms had been raised, so sloped away from the rails, as part of the works for the opening of the Higham Ferrers branch in 1894. Only the down main platform was unaffected by that work and remained sloping down towards the rails.

Edited September 19, 2021 by Compound2632

[corneliuslundie]

Thanks. Perhaps it only affected new works, which would of course have included major alterations. Certainly though a lot of platforms seem to have been raised in height well before Nationalisation. Mind you I remember the occasional station with portable steps.

Jonathan

[ChrisN]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I don't think there was such a think as a mandatory height, except for new works; or at least, there was no compulsion to bring platforms up to a standard height, though there may have been persuasion or at least recommendation. Certainly when I was using Culham station in the early 90s, the platforms were still very low- it was quite a climb up into the train - though some rebuilding has gone on since, possibly when the Thames Turbos were introduced in the mid 90s. The old platform at the Brunel building has been left, out of use, with a new platform to the north, while the down platform has been raised and given a new bus shelter, as seen here.

 

The accident at Wellingborough in 1898 has been mentioned. The bitter irony was that all the other platforms had been raised, so sloped away from the rails, as part of the works for the opening of the Higham Ferrers branch in 1894. Only the down main platform was unaffected by that work and remained sloping down towards the rails.

 

What is interesting is that Barmouth platform had been raised by 1919 if this picture is correct.  I have not seen mention of it is any book though.  This picture further down the platform seems to be unaltered but is dated 1924.  (Some dates in the series are completely wrong.)  This one on the other side further down shows a course of bricks.

 

The picture is also interesting as the second coach is a GWR clerestory.  I would think the leading coach is a Cambrian Full Brake, so a through coach from Pwllheli has been inserted into the train, rather than at the back or front.  This one has two clerestories inserted and one at the back.  Nice view of the bridge as well.

[NCB]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I don't think there was such a think as a mandatory height, except for new works; or at least, there was no compulsion to bring platforms up to a standard height, though there may have been persuasion or at least recommendation. Certainly when I was using Culham station in the early 90s, the platforms were still very low- it was quite a climb up into the train - though some rebuilding has gone on since, possibly when the Thames Turbos were introduced in the mid 90s. The old platform at the Brunel building has been left, out of use, with a new platform to the north, while the down platform has been raised and given a new bus shelter, as seen here.

 

Aberdyfi had fairly low platforms until quite recently. The up platform at Achnasheen still used steps in 2016, although the down platform had been raised:

 

 

Nigel

[corneliuslundie]

Another diversion, sorry.

At least it is Cambrian.

Dolgelley station had a GWR building on one side and a Cambrian one on the other. However, the RCH Junction Diagram for 1915 shows the boundary between the two companies 30 chains to the west of the station, and the list of running powers states that the Cambrian had running powers from Dolgelley Junction to Dolgelley station.

In such circumstances how come the Cambrian station building?

As compensation here is a photo of Dolgelley sent to me some time ago by Stephen Rowson.

 

Not the elusive Cambrian signal box I am afraid.

Jonathan

[Compound2632]

33 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Another diversion, sorry.

At least it is Cambrian.

Dolgelley station had a GWR building on one side and a Cambrian one on the other. However, the RCH Junction Diagram for 1915 shows the boundary between the two companies 30 chains to the west of the station, and the list of running powers states that the Cambrian had running powers from Dolgelley Junction to Dolgelley station.

In such circumstances how come the Cambrian station building?

 

I read that the Cambrian was the first company in town, from Barmouth Junction. Presumably the original arrangement once the Great Western arrived was two stations side-by-side - as happened at a number of places - and the RCH Junction Diagram represents a later rationalisation of ownership or at least responsibilities (for PW maintenance, for example).

Edited September 20, 2021 by Compound2632
sp.

[corneliuslundie]

The Bala & Dolgelley opened on 1 October 1868.

The Aberystwyth & Welsh Coast line to Dolgelley opened 21 June 1869. But it might have ben completed a little earlier as there were problems with Savin.

I'll have to reread the "new history".

Jonathan

[Compound2632]

Either way, I stake my money on the two stations side-by-side theory. There are other examples - though I confess to struggling to put my finger on one right now. Was the station worked as a bi-directional terminus in Cambrian days?

[ChrisN]

24 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Either way, I stake my money on the two stations side-by-side theory. There are other examples - though I confess to struggling to put my finger on one right now. Was the station worked as a bi-directional terminus in Cambrian days?

 

Yes it was.  Out of about 5 or 6 trains in the winter of 1894/5, three of them actually made connection with the other company so there was no waiting if you wanted to go from Barmouth to Ruabon.  This was the route that the GWR sent most of its through coaches down.

 

I am still trying to find a time that I can get to Kew to see if they have an 1894/5 list of GWR through coaches going north.  There is a list of through coaches from 1892- 98 in one document but there are about 35 pages per year and they say there are no 'Northern Expresses'.  It would cost an arm and a leg to get them to photocopy them for me.  The main express north in 1895 was the 9:50 am from Paddington, but if the coach(es) went on this one they would have an hour wait at Ruabon.  If they went on the 10 o'clock it was a much slower train but there is hardly any delay at Ruabon.  Bradshaws for December 1895 has for the last train of the day entering Barmouth that the time leaving Paddington is 10 o'clock.  It would be interesting to get confirmation.

 

I shall also look in my books.  I know the Cambrian deliberately built towards Dolgelley to prevent the GWR reaching the coast, but I am not sure if they got as far as building a station.

[NCB]

3 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

Another diversion, sorry.

At least it is Cambrian.

Dolgelley station had a GWR building on one side and a Cambrian one on the other. However, the RCH Junction Diagram for 1915 shows the boundary between the two companies 30 chains to the west of the station, and the list of running powers states that the Cambrian had running powers from Dolgelley Junction to Dolgelley station.

In such circumstances how come the Cambrian station building?

As compensation here is a photo of Dolgelley sent to me some time ago by Stephen Rowson.

 

Not the elusive Cambrian signal box I am afraid.

Jonathan

 

Interesting shot. It shows that the original access to the Cambrian station was by steps, not the later ramp.

 

Did trains use the platform of their respective companies, or was the station worked as conventional up and down platforms?

[ChrisN]

1 hour ago, NCB said:

Interesting shot. It shows that the original access to the Cambrian station was by steps, not the later ramp.

 

Did trains use the platform of their respective companies, or was the station worked as conventional up and down platforms?

 

Nigel,

I have always had the impression that they were worked as Up and Down platforms, but I cannot remember why.  

 

I thought the GWR had a ticket collection platform just outside the station, which drew complaints from passengers that it lengthened journey times, and I think this was on the line to the Cambrian platform.  Also, the turntable, which would have been used for the GWR engines, they did not allow the Cambrian to use it, is on a line off the road into the Cambrian platform.  Citations needed for all this and if I get time I will have a go at finding some.

 

I seem to remember that the signal boxes had to be able to communicate, which of course might just be for engines running round trains, collecting through coaches and goods etc.  @Donw should know as he is/was building a layout of Dolgelley.

[Compound2632]

Surely if the station was being worked as a double-ended terminus, there would be a Cambrian and a Great Western platform, with arrivals and departures at each. Is that borne out by the signalling? (Which platform was which? - if the Cambrian platform was on the North side and the Great Western on the south side, I can see how it might work, since arrivals would be "right line".

[corneliuslundie]

This link is to the relevant Signalling Record Society page:

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gww/S3278.htm

It appears to be signalled as a conventional double track station on a single line. What is not at all clear is the date of the diagram, nor that of Dolgelley West which is even more provisional. But the fact that Dolgelley West is in the Cambrian section suggests that it may be pre 1922.

I have a friend who is active in the SRS. I shall have to ask him.

Jonathan