Jump to content
 

Midland Railway Company


Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The first challenge is to find photos that show the back end of a goods train at any period, let alone pre-grouping Midland. The photographic record is heavily biased towards the front end of express passenger trains.

050_1916.jpg.777488190a4d27e2893cff195a0ffd71.jpg

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, Dave Hunt said:

I'm not sure whether I'll need to put some scotch blocks and/or a catch point on the road up to the elevated coaling stage; I'll have to do a bit more looking at photographs - anyone got any ideas?

 

 

Hawkins & Reeve, LMS Engine Sheds Vol. 2: p. 69 Burton and p. 75 Coalville - what appears to be a simple single-bladed sprung catch point half way up the ramp; p. 129 Kettering has a two-bladed catch half way up the ramp; p. 153 Mansfield and p. 164 Nottingham, apparently nothing. All BR era photos. 

 

I'm not sure that a raft of loaded coal wagons derailing down the side of the ramp would be particularly more desirable than running away into the loco release headshunt? The running lines are protected; at worst they're going to run into a locomotive and come off worse - hoping no-one gets in the way.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

but not on the 3-way point.

 

 

The first challenge is to find photos that show the back end of a goods train at any period, let alone pre-grouping Midland. The photographic record is heavily biased towards the front end of express passenger trains.

 

Here are a couple of photos of whole goods trains at Monsal Dale that @Lecorbusier posted:

The first photo, I think the verandah end is at the rear; in the second one, I don't think one can actually make out the brake. 

 

Here's another he posted - which way round is the brake?

Frankly, I'd stake my Midland Railway Society membership on there being no favoured way round and no turning of brake vans. With the Midland design of van, I don't think there can have been much difference in visibility for the guard in the van looking out either end or of the guard leaning out from the verandah waving his flag, rolled-up newspaper, or what-not from the point of view of the men on the footplate, a shunter, or a signalman.

 

Yes, I can't argue with that logic, the right way is anyway. I think - not sure - that the thread issue with the GW Toads was that the brake was on the verandah and not in the van, thereby subjecting the guard to inclement cross wnds or blow back from mineral trucks when it was being applied with the verandah forward.

 

BTW, I like the Half Cab hauling the mineral empties near Lea Green picture, just what I have in mind for my meagre loco stable to begin with.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear David & Caley Jim

 

In a year or two you will look back at your three-throws and wonder what all the fuss was about - especially if at the time you are struggling with something else!

 

Fascinated by the example of the interlaced three way point - although it is a logical extension of an ordinary point. I believe the Scottish companies (and the NER?) made quite considerable use of pointwork sleepered in this way i.e. maintaining it through the crossing, whereas while the Midland for example commonly used interlaced sleepers on points, the crossings were usually (always?) laid on through timbers. As far as I know the Midland did not use interlaced timbering on three-throws - that's code for me so far not having seen any piccies to the contrary!

 

 

Crimson Rambler

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
15 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I'm not sure that a raft of loaded coal wagons derailing down the side of the ramp would be particularly more desirable than running away into the loco release headshunt? The running lines are protected; at worst they're going to run into a locomotive and come off worse - hoping no-one gets in the way.

 

That was my thinking too Stephen but after I'd laid the track I started having doubts - hence my question. Having looked at H&R as well as all the other pictures I can find there doesn't seem to have been an overall policy so I'll probably take the easy option and leave it as plain track. Even if I change my mind, though, putting in a single-blade sprung catch wouldn't be difficult.

 

On a different topic, remembering our conversation at Warley regarding P.O. coal wagons that I could justifiably use on the layout, I'm thinking that it would be OK to use a couple of Slaters' Manvers Main examples in a vaguely North/West Yorkshire setting. What do you think? 

 

MR Chuffer - the late David Tee will be rotating in his grave at 'Half Cab'. I once used the term in the draft of a book that  sent to him for comment and it came back with OPEN CAB IF YOU PLEASE DAVID - THIS ISN'T A MIDLAND RAILWAY TERM in large red capitals. I sometimes find myself about to use it but the spectre of Christmas Past   DFT appears shaking his head and I repent.

 

Dave

  • Like 4
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

but not on the 3-way point.

He didn’t specify that he was talking specifically about that. (And I was pulling his leg, hoping Jim would respond with a picture of his own, which he did!)

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Fully enclosed cabs, with front and rear weatherboards, side sheets and full roof, seem to have been considered necessary for 0-6-0T engines working passenger trains - the 1102 Class, and the batch of five 1377 Class engines built for the K&WV. Other engines built with single cabs were given double cabs later in life, usually when given vacuum brakes and assigned to passenger work, e.g. 1347 at Barnoldswick and 1420 at Ingleton, along with others added to the K&WV stud. Engines used for shunting at Liverpool were given double cabs in 1906, with ten Kentish Town engines following suit in 1912. The 1121 Class engines were all built with double cabs, as of course were the 2441 Class.

 

Although Saltley was well-supplied with single cab 1377s that can be seen going about their intended business in photos of Central Goods and Lawley Street, it had three 1102s, Nos. 1129-1131, from the 1890s (although 1130 had wandered off to Upper Bank by 1908); I believe these were used for working the Brownhills branch:

 

1343556514_Aldridgestationc_1905.jpg.af1750751393012b2b0885afd0305953.jpg

 

I believe the large toolbox on the right-hand tank top distinguishes this from a double-cab 1377. Aldridge, c. 1905.

 

Ref. S. Summerson, Midland Railway Locomotives Vol. 3 (Irwell Press, 2002).

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Cabs and Double Cabs please

Cheers

Haha, has anyone told Bachmann's marketing departtment, then? Useful to know but I think it may be the case of Hansom Cabs of old becoming the taxis of today and half cab will become today's nomenclature in the minds of many of today's modellers without deep MR knowledge..

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 hours ago, Dave Hunt said:

On a different topic, remembering our conversation at Warley regarding P.O. coal wagons that I could justifiably use on the layout, I'm thinking that it would be OK to use a couple of Slaters' Manvers Main examples in a vaguely North/West Yorkshire setting. What do you think? 

 

 

The photographic evidence is for Dinnington Main wagons on the coal stage at Derby; Manvers Main started production a few years earlier (c. 1900) in the same coalfield so presumably producing coal from the same seams. It was connected to the Midland as well as the Great Central, so I don't see why not. But the D299s are more characteristic, I think.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 minutes ago, MR Chuffer said:

Haha, has anyone told Bachmann's marketing departtment, then? Useful to know but I think it may be the case of Hansom Cabs of old becoming the taxis of today and half cab will become today's nomenclature in the minds of many of today's modellers without deep MR knowledge..

 

It's one of those modellers' nicknames we're stuck with, like Jinty.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Must admit I've always referred to them as half cabs. Ive built three now in 2mm. 1667, along with 1870 and 1874 was a  long term residents of Bath. Ive recently completed two single or half cabs, one for me and one for a friend. Mine, with the Deeley smokebox door will be a Saltley engine - Ive never seen evidence of one at Bath but I like them........

 

More details on my Bath thread

Jerry

 

IMG_1497.PNG.784e30e23dc8bcb09da7b73a80686511.PNG

781305669_IMG_0165(2).JPG.facbd06f3d76aa7a40f6ffa39687b22c.JPG

 

1786766636_IMG_0168(2).JPG.2cdc311217bb0b3d2416b7bb19f0973e.JPG

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 8
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Found this whilst looking for something else - 1667 shunting the S&D sidings adjacent to Bath Junction - I had forgotten I posed this picture. Date is mid 1920s, essentially the same condition as I have built her albeit with the first 'LMS' on the bunker sides.

 

Jerry

 

1667_Bath.jpg.a3daa9505927363975de332333b6421d.jpg

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Yes, but those are all goods yard scenes - no proof which way round the van was out on the road. 

true ... but where it is attached to a run of wagons I suspect one can assume that this is the way round it was attached on arrival? The final image would suggest your guess is correct.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Fully enclosed cabs, with front and rear weatherboards, side sheets and full roof, seem to have been considered necessary for 0-6-0T engines working passenger trains - the 1102 Class, and the batch of five 1377 Class engines built for the K&WV. Other engines built with single cabs were given double cabs later in life, usually when given vacuum brakes and assigned to passenger work, e.g. 1347 at Barnoldswick and 1420 at Ingleton, along with others added to the K&WV stud. Engines used for shunting at Liverpool were given double cabs in 1906, with ten Kentish Town engines following suit in 1912. The 1121 Class engines were all built with double cabs, as of course were the 2441 Class.

 

Although Saltley was well-supplied with single cab 1377s that can be seen going about their intended business in photos of Central Goods and Lawley Street, it had three 1102s, Nos. 1129-1131, from the 1890s (although 1130 had wandered off to Upper Bank by 1908); I believe these were used for working the Brownhills branch:

 

1343556514_Aldridgestationc_1905.jpg.af1750751393012b2b0885afd0305953.jpg

 

I believe the large toolbox on the right-hand tank top distinguishes this from a double-cab 1377. Aldridge, c. 1905.

 

Ref. S. Summerson, Midland Railway Locomotives Vol. 3 (Irwell Press, 2002).

Some interesting observations here, can you put some livery context around them?

 

Take the morphing of MR goods locos to black, 1907-ish onwards? One presumes the 0-6-0Ts, full and open cabs (or single and double as quoted here), were migrated over time?

 

And then you mention some single cabs were given double cabs and vacuum fitted for passenger traffic. If this was in MR days, would they then be repainted in passenger livery/crimson lake?

 

I'm particularly interested in the Barnoldswick loco 1347 for which I have a photo as a single cab which appears as lined livery with vacuum and a makeshift back spectacle plate, and then I have another of the same loco with proper double cab hauling a passenger train but can't tell what livery it is in although it appears to have brass numbers on the tank side and Johnson smokebox door that could date it.

 

1347 0-6-0T.jpg

1347 0-6-0T2.jpg

Edited by MR Chuffer
add info
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Summerson says 1347 was fitted with a double cab about 1900, having previously had a rear weatherboard - I suspect his evidence for this is your first photo. He records it as being at Barnoldswick shed (sub to Skipton) in 1880 and 1899-1902 and allocated to Skipton thereafter until at least 1921, though for 1892 he lists it as being at Mansfield. In the great renumbering of 1907, 1347 became 1680. It would appear that many engines were initially renumbered by a shuffling of the brass numerals, only later getting the large transfer numerals (which had been introduced in 1905), possibly only when next due for a full repaint. However, in your second photo, the last digit of the number is clearly much more like a 7 than a 0, so the date is before the renumbering. This means that the engine is in the standard crimson lake livery - I think lining can be seen on the cab front. Black only came into general use for goods engines from 1910 although there had been some experiments before this but only with engines without vacuum brake. 

 

The carriages are an interesting lot. The leading vehicle is a 40 ft bogie brake composite, D263, a type built 1879-82, then probably a 28 ft composite of 1874 - built by Brown, Marshalls, as a 4-wheeler but later, c. 1878/9, converted to 6 wheels. The third carriage is much more modern: a square-panelled clerestory 6-wheeler of 1898/9. I think it is most likely an all-third to D491. The remaining carriages are all arc-roofed vehicles of the 1880s - a couple of 6-wheelers, a couple of bogie carriages (the give-away is the different height of the stepboard), and possibly another 6-wheeler at the rear.

 

I'd guess from the crowd on the platform, the composition of the train, and that it was worth of a photo, that it's a special or excursion of some sort. Disused Stations has a colourised postcard version of this, issued in 1908 but I'd say their dating to c. 1901 is about right. 

 

Refs.

G. Dow, Midland Style (HMRS, 1975).

R.E. Lacy and G. Dow, Midland Railway Carriages Vol. 1 (Wild Swan, 1986).

S. Summerson, op. cit..

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Summerson says 1347 was fitted with a double cab about 1900, having previously had a rear weatherboard - I suspect his evidence for this is your first photo. He records it as being at Barnoldswick shed (sub to Skipton) in 1880 and 1899-1902 and allocated to Skipton thereafter until at least 1921, though for 1892 he lists it as being at Mansfield. In the great renumbering of 1907, 1347 became 1680. It would appear that many engines were initially renumbered by a shuffling of the brass numerals, only later getting the large transfer numerals (which had been introduced in 1905), possibly only when next due for a full repaint. However, in your second photo, the last digit of the number is clearly much more like a 7 than a 0, so the date is before the renumbering. This means that the engine is in the standard crimson lake livery - I think lining can be seen on the cab front. Black only came into general use for goods engines from 1910 although there had been some experiments before this but only with engines without vacuum brake. 

 

The carriages are an interesting lot. The leading vehicle is a 40 ft bogie brake composite, D263, a type built 1879-82, then probably a 28 ft composite of 1874 - built by Brown, Marshalls, as a 4-wheeler but later, c. 1878/9, converted to 6 wheels. The third carriage is much more modern: a square-panelled clerestory 6-wheeler of 1898/9. I think it is most likely an all-third to D491. The remaining carriages are all arc-roofed vehicles of the 1880s - a couple of 6-wheelers, a couple of bogie carriages (the give-away is the different height of the stepboard), and possibly another 6-wheeler at the rear.

 

I'd guess from the crowd on the platform, the composition of the train, and that it was worth of a photo, that it's a special or excursion of some sort. Disused Stations has a colourised postcard version of this, issued in 1908 but I'd say their dating to c. 1901 is about right. 

 

Refs.

G. Dow, Midland Style (HMRS, 1975).

R.E. Lacy and G. Dow, Midland Railway Carriages Vol. 1 (Wild Swan, 1986).

S. Summerson, op. cit..

Excellent, this fills in many gaps in my knowledge. Thanks for your in-depth forensics, much appreciated.

 

As the http://www.oneguyfrombarlick.co.uk/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1199&FORUM_ID=45&CAT_ID=3&Topic_Title=Barnoldswick+Railway+memories&Forum_Title=All+Steamed+Up website describes, there were often excursions to both the north west resorts and to Scarborough, but the biggie of the year was always the Skipton Gala, of which this looks to be the case. And he himself details his working for the LMS from 1943 at various sites around the north, starting at Skipton and Barnoldswick with many interesting observations on the traffic patterns and working practices on this branch and the railways in general post-war, e.g. Barnoldswick was a station with a goods yards where chain shunting from the adjacent siding was allowed for. Now how would you model that in OO?

 

And so, in summary, is it reasonable to say that as a general rule once painted black, these locos would never revert back to crimson lake, whether or not they were allocated to passenger duties with their new vacuum brakes?

  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also remember DFT referring to them as open cabs - incidentally David was not the only one to be admonished by the MR loco guru not to refer to them as 'half cabs'! But I also recall teasing DFT if they were open cabs and the others were double or closed cabs what were we to call the cabs fitted to the Class Q engines Nos 2248-2252 built by Sharp Stewart and allocated to Kentish Town?

 

These engines were fitted with cabs that had no backs! Why they were built like that is not clear - but possibly because the five engines were originally destined for working in east London over some of the Great Eastern's branches with restricted height loading gauge might be significant? Was the open rear intended as a means of escape for the crew?

 

Of course what might destroy this hypothesis is why did two Class A (1102 class) engines (Nos 1126 and 1139), which were built with double cabs have the rear portions removed? No 1139 was a long-time Normanton engine while the other had for years been a resident at Derby - however No 1126 (later No 2258) was orginally a London area engine.

 

Coments and observations welcome.

 

Incidentally turning to locomotive coal matters - the bottom photo p145 of Essery & Jenks Vol 1 gives three different PO wagons containing loco coal at Kentish Town. The LMS branded some of its wagons 'Loco Coal Only' - presumably was that for the same reason the Midland did it.

 

 

Crimson Rambler

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Crimson Rambler said:

Fascinated by the example of the interlaced three way point - although it is a logical extension of an ordinary point. I believe the Scottish companies (and the NER?) made quite considerable use of pointwork sleepered in this way i.e. maintaining it through the crossing, whereas while the Midland for example commonly used interlaced sleepers on points, the crossings were usually (always?) laid on through timbers. As far as I know the Midland did not use interlaced timbering on three-throws - that's code for me so far not having seen any piccies to the contrary!

I recall reading part of a report by Donald Mathieson, after a trip to the USA in 1903, that the CR preferred to use interlaced 8'11" sleepers 'as they kept the gauge better'  (IIRC).

 

Here's a photo of how that same location looks now, with the bridge deck removed and ground texturing still to be carried out.

 

DSC_0766.JPG.b81aef7c44dd8138cb36dd7a62224b77.JPG

 

and with the bridge deck in situ.

 

1946509202_Telegraphpoles9.JPG.def1fcf5ff2ff5f94e58c89b9a191972.JPG

 

Jim

  • Like 5
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, MR Chuffer said:

And so, in summary, is it reasonable to say that as a general rule once painted black, these locos would never revert back to crimson lake, whether or not they were allocated to passenger duties with their new vacuum brakes?

 

By and large, the ones that got vacuum brakes did so in the late 19th century. Of the 1377 Class, Kentish Town engines 1385-94 in 1893 and Keighley engines 218/9 and 1397-9 in 1882, for example. Barnoldswick's 1347 is simply lised as "by 1900", suggesting that the equipment may have been added locally, whereas the two groups mentioned had the work done under a Derby order number. Once black, I'm sure they stayed black. After all, there were many hundreds of vacuum-fitted 0-6-0s that were black.

 

15 minutes ago, Crimson Rambler said:

Of course what might destroy this hypothesis is why did two Class A (1102 class) engines (Nos 1126 and 1139), which were built with double cabs have the rear portions removed? No 1139 was a long-time Normanton engine while the other had for years been a resident at Derby - however No 1126 (later No 2258) was orginally a London area engine.

 

Many of the 1102 Class, with their "passenger" double cabs, got vacuum brakes from 1883 onwards, including by Brumagem trio. Normanton's 1139 didn't; one theory is that the removal of the rear of the cab was for better visibility when shunting - this being the reason for the single cab arrangement on the majority of the 1377 Class engines. On the other hand, 1126 had vacuum brake and carriage warming apparatus, one of only three that got this without also being equipped for motor train working. That suggests to me that it was assigned to carriage shunting duties at St Pancras, and later Derby. The other two were 1103 and 1111 of Brecon and Upper Bank respectively. Presumably these two worked the Swansea Vale passenger service in the winter months, and heaven help the traveller on a day when one or both were out of service!

 

24 minutes ago, Crimson Rambler said:

I also remember DFT referring to them as open cabs - incidentally David was not the only one to be admonished by the MR loco guru not to refer to them as 'half cabs'! But I also recall teasing DFT if they were open cabs and the others were double or closed cabs what were we to call the cabs fitted to the Class Q engines Nos 2248-2252 built by Sharp Stewart and allocated to Kentish Town?

 

These engines were fitted with cabs that had no backs! Why they were built like that is not clear - but possibly because the five engines were originally destined for working in east London over some of the Great Eastern's branches with restricted height loading gauge might be significant? Was the open rear intended as a means of escape for the crew?

 

 

These five were steam brake only engines. I'm sure visibility is again the key factor.

 

30 minutes ago, Crimson Rambler said:

Incidentally turning to locomotive coal matters - the bottom photo p145 of Essery & Jenks Vol 1 gives three different PO wagons containing loco coal at Kentish Town. The LMS branded some of its wagons 'Loco Coal Only' - presumably was that for the same reason the Midland did it.

 

 

Yes, but what was that reason?

 

Of those PO wagons, the rear two are "...APLE & Co" and "...?NETWO.." - but are they actually wagons? The one on the coal stage ramp, is "CWMAMAN Coal Co Limited, Cardiff, Smokeless Steam Coal" - has this arrived via the Great Western?! (It looks like one of those Slaters / Powsides pre-printed kits where the builder hasn't bothered to paint the grey plastic solebars to match the black body!)

  • Like 2
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...