More Pre-Grouping Wagons in 4mm - the D299 appreciation thread.

[Compound2632]

44 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

Joseph became a joiner and in 1871 was living in lodgings in Masborough Rotherham, from where he married Elizabeth.  They must have shocked Victorian Society as they got divorced on the 14th November 1876.  Elizabeth remarried fairly soon, joseph remarried 4 days after the decree and married Margaret Walker in Keighley. 

 

That got me reading up on the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, which had made divorce a civil law matter and more readily obtainable. From the Wikipedia article:

 

Quote

The Act allowed legal separation by either husband or wife on grounds of adultery, cruelty, or desertion. However, were the petitioner an accessory to or condoned the adultery, a divorce could not be obtained. Section 57 of the Act also enabled the parties to remarry after divorce as though the marriage had been dissolved by the death of one of the spouses.

 

and

 

Quote

The Act did not treat women's and men's grounds for divorce equally (largely on the grounds that women's adultery was more serious because it introduced doubt as to the paternity of possible heirs). Thus a husband could petition for divorce on the sole grounds that his wife had committed adultery, whereas a wife could only hope for a divorce based on adultery combined with other offences such as , cruelty, bigamy, desertion, etc. (or based on cruelty alone).

 

The Act also required that a suit by a husband for adultery name the adulterer as a co-respondent, whereas this was not required in a suit by a wife.

 

The fact that Joseph married so quickly after the decree must surely imply that the grounds were his adultery (or at least, that's what the Victorian public would assume) perhaps accompanied by desertion. But as Elizabeth also married soon afterwards, I smell some manoeuvring by both parties to obtain a divorce by mutual consent (or at least, that's what the Victorian public would assume. Oh dear, I hadn't realised how attuned to Victorian Values I am.)

 

Not something to discuss with the great granddaughters, perhaps!

 

Off the Kew today, with the express intention of adding more flesh to some of the Beadman entries in the PO registers. I think the GNR registers must exist as Turton does cite them. I think in Vol. 1 or somewhere he does give a guide to sources - it's possible that they're at a County Record Office somewhere rather than TNA or NRM. Will check.   

[jamie92208]

18 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

That got me reading up on the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, which had made divorce a civil law matter and more readily obtainable. From the Wikipedia article:

 

 

and

 

 

The fact that Joseph married so quickly after the decree must surely imply that the grounds were his adultery (or at least, that's what the Victorian public would assume) perhaps accompanied by desertion. But as Elizabeth also married soon afterwards, I smell some manoeuvring by both parties to obtain a divorce by mutual consent (or at least, that's what the Victorian public would assume. Oh dear, I hadn't realised how attuned to Victorian Values I am.)

 

Not something to discuss with the great granddaughters, perhaps!

 

Off the Kew today, with the express intention of adding more flesh to some of the Beadman entries in the PO registers. I think the GNR registers must exist as Turton does cite them. I think in Vol. 1 or somewhere he does give a guide to sources - it's possible that they're at a County Record Office somewhere rather than TNA or NRM. Will check.   

The Beadman divorce petition is at Kew if you have time.  The Keighley connectionhad obviously bee established before the decree absolute.  Elizabeth became Elizabeth Bolton and had several more children. 

 

I did email the GNR Society but haven’t had a response. Know from another source that BeadmansIbuilt some wagons for a Coal merchant at Ingrow which had both MR and GNR stations. 

 

Good luck at TNA. 

 

Jamie

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

The Beadman divorce petition is at Kew if you have time. 

 

Looked up the reference - J 77/161/3879 - "Divorce Court File: 3879. Appellant: Joseph Beadman. Respondent: Elizabeth Beadman" - so she was the adulterer (the easier route to obtaining a divorce). Definite collusion! (Assumes the Victorian public.) One wonders whether a sympathetic judge could get away with turning a blind eye to collusion?

[jamie92208]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Looked up the reference - J 77/161/3879 - "Divorce Court File: 3879. Appellant: Joseph Beadman. Respondent: Elizabeth Beadman" - so she was the adulterer (the easier route to obtaining a divorce). Definite collusion! (Assumes the Victorian public.) One wonders whether a sympathetic judge could get away with turning a blind eye to collusion?

I will have a look at the dates of birth of the Bolton children.   Joseph and Elizabeth did have a child who I think lived until 1940.

 

Jamie

[Compound2632]

I've had a look in Turton's First and Eighth, no info on the GNR PO wagon registers. It's possible, I suppose, that the GNR registrations he gives for J. & J. Charlesworth, which are from 1922, are from the start of the LNER register, which is at NRM along with those of the LMS (from 1927), GCR, GER, GWR, H&B, and NER. The TNA had only the Midland (LMS to 1927) and L&Y registers. The County Record Office holdings are generally records of individual builders and colliery companies, also gas works and other large customers.

[jamie92208]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I've had a look in Turton's First and Eighth, no info on the GNR PO wagon registers. It's possible, I suppose, that the GNR registrations he gives for J. & J. Charlesworth, which are from 1922, are from the start of the LNER register, which is at NRM along with those of the LMS (from 1927), GCR, GER, GWR, H&B, and NER. The TNA had only the Midland (LMS to 1927) and L&Y registers. The County Record Office holdings are generally records of individual builders and colliery companies, also gas works and other large customers.

Thanks.  More rabbit holes to peruse. 

 

Jamie

[corneliuslundie]

I understand that the HMRS GNR steward is unwell. He may be the same person who you tried to contact as he is/was very active in the GNR Society.

Jonathan

[jamie92208]

16 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

I understand that the HMRS GNR steward is unwell. He may be the same person who you tried to contact as he is/was very active in the GNR Society.

Jonathan

Thanks for that Jonathon.  I made the contact via the GNR Society website and got a reply saying that my query had been passed on to someone.  I will await a response in due course. 

 

Jamie

[WFPettigrew]

On 12/12/2023 at 12:34, jamie92208 said:

Harry Johnson Macklin of Ulverston

 

Thank you for this Jamie.

 

There are some documents relating to him the the archives in Barrow, so I will go and look at these when I get the chance, and will report back!

[jamie92208]

35 minutes ago, WFPettigrew said:

 

Thank you for this Jamie.

 

There are some documents relating to him the the archives in Barrow, so I will go and look at these when I get the chance, and will report back!

I've just been on Heritage rather than Ancestry and there appear tbe another 3 or 4 patents.  All to do with bearings  and axleboxes. I'll PM you when I've had a look. 

 

Jamie

[Compound2632]

I am informed by Simon Turner that the GNR PO wagon registers, in common with the LNWR ones, are not known to have survived. He thinks GNR register information quoted by Turton is from Charles Roberts records. 

 

I didn't get to the Beadman divorce papers today but have got more detail on Beadman wagons in the MR PO registers, which I will forward to you, @jamie92208.

[jamie92208]

Thanks very much for that Stephen. 

 

Jamie

[Mr T]

On 12/12/2023 at 14:40, jamie92208 said:

It's The East and West Yorkshire Union Railways by D L Franks published by Turntable Enterprises of Leeds.  ISBN in my copy is 0 902844 18 0 , I suspect that it would now start with 978 as well as ISBN's are now 13 characters.  My interest came about as my first posting a a police officer in February 1974 was to a town that I'd never heard of called Rothwell.  I worked there for 2 years and explored all the area on foot and in a car.  There was also a good collection of 6" maps in the police station on Haigh Road and I spent many hours poring over them.   Most of the EWYUR trackbeds was still extant and a Mk 1 Escort could drive along much of them.  The only track remaining then was the crossing on Milner Lane and the Exchange sidings for the GNR at Lingwell Gate.  Rothwell section, post 1974 uniquely contained the whole area served by the railway.  Much of the trackbeds have now gone under roadworks and housing developments.  

 

Jamie

 

 

 

On 12/12/2023 at 16:24, sir douglas said:

@Mr T

http://www.lostrailwayswestyorkshire.co.uk/E&WYUR.htm

Thanks everyone for the response. Part of the line of the railway is now a very decent foot and cycle path, which is part of walk I lead for a walking group. Most walkers are surprised it was ever a railway, until you point it out to them. 

My first nine years of life were spent near railway lines  the GNR line to Colwick and the Midland line to Lincoln, and the next nine near the remains of Thornywood station on the Nottingham Suburban Railway 

PS Haigh Road Police Station is still open, although not to the public. 

[Compound2632]

Well, our team won the club Christmas Quiz by a handsome margin, though failed miserably to name the last Scot to be rebuilt with taper boiler. In desperation, we wrote down "46138" as a random guess. Provokingly, we were only one out: 46137, The Prince of Wales's Volunteers (South Lancashire): 

 

 

[Embedded link to Flickr.]

[Mikkel]

With that, I see an opening to link to another photo of a fairly banal yet lovely subject.

 

We have had photos of Didcot's Provender store before, but not this one I think with some nice open GWR wagons. It's on Didcot's Facebook page I'm afraid. Right-click image to open large size in separate window: 

 

 https://www.facebook.com/DidcotRailwayCentre/photos/a.210517012308528/4946681282025387/?type=3

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Mikkel
Subject not photo

[Compound2632]

38 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

With that, I see an opening to link to another photo of a fairly banal yet lovely subject.

 

We have had photos of Didcot's Provender store before, but not this one I think with some nice open GWR wagons.

 

 

[Embedded link, after a short struggle.]

 

i did see this recently, in a copy of the Great Western Society's magazine that I had borrowed for the sake of an article on a 517 Class 0-4-2T in Wolverhampton livery but which also had an article on the provender store, brining together several photos that have been seen upthread or elsewhere [GW Echo No. 236 (Winter 2022)]. The freshly-painted Great Central covered goods wagon is a curiosity here, along with an open with a GCR sheet. Did "provender" include tobacco? The date is given (in the Facebook post) as 8 August 1900. Standard 4-plank opens dominate but not a cast plate to be seen. The one at the front right might be 67235 - reasonably confident of the 67 at least - Lot 184 if I've read the number aright, otherwise Lot 191, 194, or 200. It has grease axleboxes; it is well-established that iron minks went over to oil axleboxes in December 1897, part way through Lots 172 and 193. I've got a note in my lot and numbering compilation that No. 71058 of Lot 200, photographed for the sake of the Thomas brake, did not have cast plates, but I failed to record what axleboxes it had.

 

The earliest wagons, at least in the front row, are the two 3-plankers, No. 39805, possibly, and with curved end, No. 30905, possibly - again, I'm more confident of the leading digits and have used my lot and number list to exclude some possible readings such as 35xxx. Both are iron-framed. No. 30905 would be from old series Lot 210, so around 1880, with No. 39805 from old series Lot 325 - c. 1885/6? - in any case, after the change from round to straight ends, according to my note against old series Lot 284. I'm a bit dubious about the identity of the round-ended wagon, as my list says Lot 211 had flitched frames, which seems to imply that these early lots were timber rather than iron framed. But I await expert advice!

[corneliuslundie]

Now that would make an impressive background for a model - if you had a high enough ceiling.

And as you say an interesting collection of wagons. Thanks for your painstaking analysis.

Jonathan

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, corneliuslundie said:

Thanks for your painstaking analysis.

 

Done to lure the experts in to correct my errors - @Chrisbr!

 

Lack of modelling continues - both young men are here for Christmas so my stuff has been evicted from their rooms, plus the usual pre-Christmas activities...

Edited December 20, 2023 by Compound2632

[billbedford]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

The freshly-painted Great Central covered goods wagon is a curiosity here, along with an open with a GCR sheet. Did "provender" include tobacco? The date is given (in the Facebook post) as 8 August 1900.

 

That isn't a tobacco van. It's a standard 16' sliding door van to diagram 41. 

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, billbedford said:

That isn't a tobacco van. It's a standard 16' sliding door van to diagram 41. 

 

Was tobacco from Players always carried in the bespoke vans? Anyway, I did think tobacco was rather unlikely but was stuck for any other explanation for the presence of the GC wagons. However, I note that the GC's Banbury branch opened on 1 June 1900, just a few weeks before this photo was taken, so perhaps on reflection their presence at Didcot is not so unexpected, and anyway not necessarily associated with the provender store.

[MikeOxon]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

i did see this recently, in a copy of the Great Western Society's magazine that I had borrowed for the sake of an article on a 517 Class 0-4-2T in Wolverhampton livery but which also had an article on the provender store, brining together several photos that have been seen upthread or elsewhere [GW Echo No. 236 (Winter 2022)].

The version on Facebook is over-exposed and, on my screen at least, does not include the front row of wagons, all with small right-hand G.W.R  What is clear from the over-exposed version ( when copied to show the whole image) is that the wagon frames and undergear are the same shade as the wagon bodies.  Of course, the next question is "are they red?"

[Compound2632]

8 minutes ago, MikeOxon said:

The version on Facebook is over-exposed and, on my screen at least, does not include the front row of wagons, all with small right-hand G.W.R  What is clear from the over-exposed version ( when copied to show the whole image) is that the wagon frames and undergear are the same shade as the wagon bodies.  Of course, the next question is "are they red?"

 

The version on Facebook appears to be the same as in GW Echo. Check whether you need to scroll down as the front row of wagons are there, as discussed in my post. 

 

As to your last question, the answer is yes, or no. 

[billbedford]

28 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Was tobacco from Players always carried in the bespoke vans?

 

Yes, the tobacco was bonded so the vans were fitted with extra locks and seals to keep the Revenue happy. 

 

The GC had a few vans used for special traffic. These were known as Dummy Vans. I have diagrams of the ones used for fish and laundry and later vans used for tobacco, but not those contemporary with this photo. 

[drduncan]

In revenge for Stephen’s comments about things godly and wonderful on another thread @Mikkel do you have any more images of GWR round ended 3 plank  wagons you can share?

😁

Duncan

[Mikkel]

They are rare and usually distant or obscured. There's one here, I believe: https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/lnwra3641.htm