Station identification if possible please

[bike2steam]

I can't wait for some one to come up with an answer, I thought I knew most of the former LMS stations (less so the exGW) in the Black Country area, but this has certainly got me guessing.

[melmerby]

Looking  at the  picture:

  The  building  in  the  left  background  is  odd,   certainly  industrial  but  it  appears  to  slope  uphill to  the  left,  if  not  the  gable  end  is at an  extreme  angle  to  it.

 

Pete

Don't forget this is an earlyish photograph, not taken one assumes on a studio grade camera.

I think you will find the picture is distorted pin-cushion or barrelled (or a combination of both), so the left and right top edges appear to bend upwards (the "station" fencing is banana shaped if you check.

Assuming the tower behind the lady is vertical, that should used as the reference as it is almost in the centre.

I also think whoever took the photo did not hold the camera completely level.

That would also account for the strange angle of the industrial building.

 

Keith

Edited July 2, 2017 by melmerby

[bike2steam]

Or considering the area was literally riddled with old worked-out small coal mines, even by the beginning of the 20th century, there was a lot of subsidence  (tongue firmly in cheek)

[Steamport Southport]

 

You might want to start your rethink by flipping the photo, there's appears to be some text on the building on the left that looks to me like it's reversed.

 

 

Looking at the writing it appears to be the Banks's logo, which is a brewery local to Wolverhampton. Could that be a pub?

 

 

 

Jason

[TheSignalEngineer]

I can't wait for some one to come up with an answer, I thought I knew most of the former LMS stations (less so the exGW) in the Black Country area, but this has certainly got me guessing.

Looks like it has a canal arm going under the platform. The only one I can remember like that was Tipton Owen Street which was wooden construction on an embankment, but I can't tie in the houses and there should be a towpath bridge where the abutment is (still there I think). There were blast furnaces and an iron works on the opposite side of the line next to the canal basin.

[melmerby]

 there should be a towpath bridge where the abutment is (still there I think).

Sure is:

https://goo.gl/maps/FLHdf3tmNPr

 

Arm truncated a short way in.

 

There never have been as far as I can see houses in a terrace at a right angle to what we think is a station.

 

Keith

[PatB]

Although the smart clothes have been referenced as indicating a day out, I would suggest that, pre-WW1, having ones photo taken, even by a friend or relative, would still have been a significant occasion and considered worth dressing up a bit for, even at home.

[melmerby]

Although the smart clothes have been referenced as indicating a day out, I would suggest that, pre-WW1, having ones photo taken, even by a friend or relative, would still have been a significant occasion and considered worth dressing up a bit for, even at home.

Although photography had been invented in the first half of the 19th Century it was still in it's infancy for the masses and possesion of a camera even a relatively cheap Brownie, was something of a status symbol.

Even in the 1950s a lot of people still didn't own a camera.

Processing and printing were a substantial cost for the average manual worker.

 

Keith

[John_Hughes]

Gosh, there's obviously a lot more to this than I'd thought!

 

The 'original' photo is the same way round as then one I posted, but I suppose it's possible that it was reversed in the original development and printing stages. The possible brewery sign is a nice pointer - well spotted!

 

As regards places where these folk lived, we're looking at either Swan Village (GWR!) or Oldbury & Bromford Lane (LNWR and they lived right opposite the station, but I knew the house well - it's long gone now - but had no garden fronting onto the road so it's not there either!)

 

I agree that there's an LNWR look to the tower, but - assuming that the camera didn't distort it too much - the fencing is quite certainly slanted Midland-style. And the glass in the old Box Brownies was surprisingly good, so distortion shouldn't have been a serious problem.

 

The plot thickens! Thanks to all who've made suggestions!

[melmerby]

The top of the photo is quite clearly not linear (and the bottom also presumably but there is nothing to reference to).

The "station" fencing curves and the industrial building's perspective is incorrect.

The verticals are OK but the picture does lean a little.

 

I've tried doing a skew correction on the industrial building and it looks a lot better but the programs I have only do one partial correction not whole pictures - the rest looks worse! (must find someother program!)

 

As to the two choices, so far, Oldbury & Bromford Lane and Swan Village; neither have the right juxtaposition of railway, canal(?) and houses (with possible corner pub)

I'm still looking on the maps.

Personally I think Heath Town was a non-starter

 

Cheers

 

Keith

[Shadow]

I think that the original photo may be the correct way around, this is because you can see a ring on the left hand of the woman at the back left hand side. Assuming either a wedding or more likely engagement ring (middle finger). No rings on the other hand.

Possible that the other woman at the back also has a ring on her left hand.

 

Reversed or not reversed???

[ejstubbs]

I think that the original photo may be the correct way around, this is because you can see a ring on the left hand of the woman at the back left hand side. Assuming either a wedding or more likely engagement ring (middle finger).

 

The tradition in the majority of the West is for both wedding and engagement rings to be on the ring finger.  The only reference in that article to the wedding or engagement ring going on the middle finger is in certain Jewish traditions.  Of course some people are happy to ignore such conventions eg for the sake of comfort or convenience.  Equally, some people choose to wear rings that don't signify engagement or marriage - but usually will avoid wearing such rings on the ring finger.

 

Basically: I wouldn't regard that as being as strong an indication of the correct orientation of the photograph as the writing on the sign.  Mind you, I can't for the life of me make that out!

 

I think it would help if the OP could post a higher-resolution scan of the photo.  Many of the details that people on this thread are claiming to see are invisible to me in what's been posted so far.  For example, the fencing mentioned in the OP is just a mushy blur as far as I can see (to be fair, the OP did say that it is clearer in the original print, but even a half-decent flat bed scanner or multi-function printer/scanner should be able to resolve that kind of detail so that it is visible in a low-compression jpeg).  I suspect that the original print isn't all that large (many amateur prints weren't even postcard size in those days, especially if cost was an issue) so a scan at a decent resolution shouldn't even be all that big in terms of bytes.

[PatB]

  I suspect that the original print isn't all that large (many amateur prints weren't even postcard size in those days, especially if cost was an issue) so a scan at a decent resolution shouldn't even be all that big in terms of bytes.

 

Indeed. I have a small album, inherited from my maternal grandmother, of photos taken in the 1920s and the prints are small enough that I suspect them to be contact prints from the relatively large format film of the era.

 

They also point to a genetic origin to my lack of photography skills but that's  another matter .

[£1.38]

I am not sure about the fencing. I blew it up on my high resolution screen and TBH it looks vertical to me. In fact the near "fence" may even be iron railings, with a wooden fence on the far side of the tracks.

 

 

Look at the top of the fencing to the left and right of the women in this enlargement. The top, at least looks way too thin to be wood.

[brigo]

Could this be the view ?

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Sandwell+%26+Dudley+Station/@52.5080839,-2.0117984,3a,75y,17.63h,75.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skrZ4Y7TDujMzcMVXF8H-VQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x4870978c64c82fb9:0xaf1ea0ded7850454!8m2!3d52.508755!4d-2.012459

 

This is looking towards Oldbury & Bromford Lane station from McKean Road. On a 1919 map on Old Maps there were 2 rows of terraced houses on the left with a small gap between. These houses were built after the date of the NLS maps.

 

https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/399294/289984/12/101147

 

In fact if you use Google Earth and wind the view back to 1999 or 2001 the houses are still there. The large building on the top right could be the goods shed in the station yard. I get the impression the lens on the camera used had a small telephoto effect.

 

About the rings, which aren't very clear to me, some people wear family rings, parents possibly, on their right hand.

 

Brian

 

Edited for spellin, etc

Edited July 3, 2017 by brigo

[brigo]

I think this is the basic layout, apologies for the rubbish drawing, but position of station and goods shed taken from the maps. X marks where the ladies were.

 

Brian

 

[IWCR]

I  think  we  have  a winner

These  houses  are  not  long  gone.

There  is  a  local  history  group  who  have  an  internet  site.

It  may  well  be  worth  contacting them  and asking.

Very  likely  they have  photos.

 

Pete

[John_Hughes]

The family house on McKean Road was on the section directly opposite the railway, not the part which curves away from it, and the front door opened directly onto the street. It certainly lacked any sort of front garden, so no, this absolutely can't be there!

 

In my courting days I often sat in the dining room there on Sunday afternoons and watched the down home come off for an express some time around four in the afternoon - I never knew which train it was, but this was at the time when electrification was in full swing and a lot of traffic was diverted onto the ex-GWR line.

 

The ring? Yes, the putative date of the photo would be either just after or just before my grandmother-in-law's marriage, so either a wedding or engagement ring would be right. She never to the best of my knowledge ever wore any other jewellery.

 

My brother-in-law, a mad Baggies supporter, has I believe the only original print; all I've had is a scan of a scan, which is clearly less than ideal. I'll be with him up in Scotland in August and will see what I can get from him!

 

I agree that the Black Country Society and/or the Black Country Museum may be sensible places to try too. In the meantime thanks again to all who've had a go!

[brigo]

Possibly the property which I suggested the picture was taken from belonged to a relation or friend. The 1911 census shows that no 53 McKean Road was occupied by Joseph Jones, his wife Fanny, their 6 children and 4 nephews and nieces of the Bate family. Talk about overcrowding. In 1939 the house was still occupied by a Joseph Jones (son of the earlier one) and one of the Bate's. Maybe your brother-in-law will find a connection.

 

Hopefully a picture of the original station building will emerge at some point.

 

Brian

[£1.38]

Had you considered the possibility that the photo was taken in a neighbour's garden? Why would it have to be on their own property? They may have visited a neighbour for tea or something like that.

 

Having studied the maps,and recent photos, I personally think this is a perfect fit for Oldbury & Bromford Lane station. The goods shed roof and the chimneys of the iron works in the background, platforms on an embankment, wooden LNWR station building, the number and alignment of the houses behind the women, with a gap in exactly the right position for the alleyway shown on the maps, the lower ground to the right of the road etc. etc. It all fits perfectly. I can't imagine there could be another location like it TBH.

[TheSignalEngineer]

Having had a play around with the original photo and another study of the maps I think it is Oldbury and Bromford Lane. The houses on the corners to the south of Broadwell Road junction had big gardens on the corner. The water would be the River Tame. As £1.38 says the cimneys fit in with Bromford Iron Works and the roof is probably the goods shed. The end of the Down platform building was about in line with McKean Road.

[£1.38]

There are few pics of the station on the web as far as I can see

 

This one is best, with the bit of the station we can see at the far right

 

 

The building style is very much like what we see in the original photo with an elevated structure, flat roof, timber construction and prominent valance around the edge of the roof.

Edited July 4, 2017 by £1.38

[TheSignalEngineer]

Rolling back Google Earth to 1999 I think the camera is positioned about where I have put the pin.

 

[Shadow]

There's two photo's of Mc Kean Road on this Genealogy Site. One says No4 Mc Kean Rd, that's the right end of the road, but may be on the part adjacent/parallel to the railway. (i.e around the corner!) 1914 and 1920

 

https://www.genealogyforum.co.uk/forum/gallery/album.php?album_id=14&sort_method=image_name&sort_order=ASC&start=144

Edited July 4, 2017 by Shadow

[Shadow]

Looking at the image linked to above, and assuming that it is the correct road (& No.) then the houses do not match.

lookin at a map (1938) os 1;25000 on NLS http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=17&lat=52.5074&lon=-2.0118&layers=10&b=1 and 6" to mile http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=17&lat=52.5074&lon=-2.0118&layers=6&b=1 there were no houses around the corner. Therefore it looks like these are the ones that we are trying to match up to. However, the gables, roof line doesn't match, so is it correct?

 

Edit to remove spelling and a keyboard that keeps giving me any extra "ee"

Edited July 4, 2017 by Shadow