A typical S&DJR train, c. 1902?

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, phil_sutters said:

Highbridge built circa 1969 

 

Splendidly illustrative of my post! 30 ft 6-wheel passenger brake van - the arc-roof style of the earlier-built vans; 24 ft 4-wheel milk van; 25 ft 4-wheel milk van (Derby-built).

Edited September 21, 2023 by Compound2632

[Compound2632]

21 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

A possibility is the Nos 1A-6A were old passenger brake vans that were on the duplicate list. This sort of fits, because Garner lists 6-wheel passenger brake vans Nos. 1, 3-6 as built in 1887 and No. 2 in 1892.

 

Looking back at my posts from four years ago, I see that I noted:

 

On 27/12/2019 at 16:40, Compound2632 said:

Garner has a photo of No. 1A, DY 8473, as a milk van - this matches the Roxey kit - although that could well be because the Roxey kit is based on this photo.

 

which appears to confirm that the 1892/3 milk vans did at some point get put on the duplicate list, though what they were replaced by in the main list is far from obvious. A number of the photos of S&DJR goods wagons in the Derby photograph registers appear to date from 1904, on the basis of painted lifting &c. dates on their solebars, so that's a possible date for the photo, but others are clearly earlier, and others clearly later.  

Edited September 22, 2023 by Compound2632

[phil_sutters]

On 21/09/2023 at 18:18, Compound2632 said:

 

Splendidly illustrative of my post! 30 ft 6-wheel passenger brake van - the arc-roof style of the earlier-built vans; 24 ft 4-wheel milk van; 25 ft 4-wheel milk van (Derby-built).

Having got the rather dusty trio out of the garage, where they were badly photographed, I had a closer look at them and took the 24ft milk van indoors for a better look. I then realised that I had made it more or less from scratch. I am still puzzled by where the axle guard & springs came from and why there is a short brake lever on one side. Does the Roxey kit have a brake lever on one side - the other side from the one shown in their advert?*** Or indeed is there prototype photo information available? The windows, which had been from a thin bit of plastic packing, I suspect, had buckled and two had fallen in. To replace them the Plasticard roof had to be hacked off. In the process the brittle foot boards have suffered to the extent that the whole lot need replacing. However I am quite impressed with the panelling done by 20-something me. OK it  is lined in gold and black, rather than yellow and black, but with the thinness of the lines and the varnish over the top, it don't look bad. Once I have finished its refurb and upgrade I will upload a picture. It will be the first of my old stock to have such a treat. The next will be the little open carriage truck No.4, which took a dive off the bench when I was exhuming the three in the picture. 60 year-old Plasticard is not a resilient material when abused like that.

Of course that does mean my LSWR engineers' bogie rail wagon and 40ft bogie bolster wagon still haven't had their load chains fixed on, but that's the way I muddle through. Those two were seen on the Wharf being loaded with rails shipped over from South Wales.

The Derby milk van was also scratch built with rather heavy panelling. The passenger break van is one of my Triang clerestory hacks.

Thinking about seeing if the S&DJR liveried 4 & 6 wheel stock now produced would be worth a small investment, I found that the only ones still available from a couple of retailers were the brake vans with the lookouts and associated windows at the end. Clearly that degree of inauthenticity won't wash with S&DJR fans.

*** Looking at Stephen's unpainted kit above I can see a very short brake lever. Is that a single-sided lever arrangement or was there one on both sides? It is so small that the advert view doesn't really shew it, lurking in the shadows.

Edited September 24, 2023 by phil_sutters

[Compound2632]

19 hours ago, phil_sutters said:

I am still puzzled by where the axle guard & springs came from and why there is a short brake lever on one side. Does the Roxey kit have a brake lever on one side - the other side from the one shown in their advert?*** Or indeed is there prototype photo information available?

*** Looking at Stephen's unpainted kit above I can see a very short brake lever. Is that a single-sided lever arrangement or was there one on both sides? It is so small that the advert view doesn't really shew it, lurking in the shadows.

 

Garner's Register has a photo of No. 1A, a Derby official DY 8473. It's reproduced rather small but one can just see a brake lever on the side nearest the camera. As for the Roxey kit:

 

 

Having just had a look at mine, brake lever one side only. But I'd have to check the instructions to see if the kit provides for both sides.

 

On the Midland, coaching stock vehicles apart from brakes were originally unbraked (i.e. no hand brake) then were eventually all fitted with the vacuum brake. this meant that NPCS vehicles standing loose were unbraked. Hand brake levers were fitted from sometime in the 1890s - I'll have to check when - working the cross-shaft already fitted for the vacuum brake, and then from 1904, were fitted with Morton clutch levers, so that the brakes could be applied and released from either side.

 

No doubt S&DJR stock followed a similar course, since I expect these changes were universal, being the fruit of decisions made at the RCH General Managers' Conference.

[phil_sutters]

Thanks very much, Stephen.

The refurb. is progressing. The brake lever, that was on, is a bit too long so that needs attention, now I have seen yours. I now remember how much I hate footboards!

Have a good week.

[Compound2632]

I now have the Casserley book* and so am in a fair way to reconstructing Garner's carriage and NCPS &c registers from the source material! Casserley says he knew well Alfred Whittaker's son, A.H. Whittaker, who was the S&DJR's last locomotive superintendent, in 1929, and then District Locomotive Superintendent at Bristol. So it is clear Casserley knew the line too; it is also clear that he had access to official information since he includes in his appendices listings of the S&DJR coaching stock taken over by the Southern in 1930, relating the SR numbers to the S&DJR numbers, and of that portion of the LMS's half that survived to be renumbered in 1933, giving the pre- and post-renumbering numbers but unfortunately the relationship to the S&DJR numbers had been lost. By 1933, the LMS had withdrawn all its share of the non-bogie passenger-carrying vehicles, so some interpolation is needed. Both listings give builder and date for each vehicle. The SR had a substantial share of the 6-wheel thirds and brake thirds built by Cravens in 1890-91 but the 6-wheel thirds built by Oldbury in 1886 had evidently all gone to the LMS.

 

But I think I have got my head round numbering, with a postulated history that explains, to my mind, some of the anomalies in Garner's register. It's clear that up to at least after the abolition of second class in 1893, there were separate number series for the four categories of first, composite, second, and third class carriages, but by no later than 1900, there had been renumbering into a single list of 127 capital stock vehicles. Between 1877 and 1912, the only additions to stock were the 20 thirds from Oldbury and the 20 thirds and 5 brake thirds from Cravens, all other carriages built being renewal of old vehicles:

 

 

There was some movement between classes, with seconds being downgraded or renewed as thirds and firsts renewed as composites. My inference is that the Oldbury thirds of 1886 were numbered 34 - 53, which with three seconds downgraded to or renewed as thirds 54 - 56 in the same year, brought the third class list up from 33 to 56. In 1889, four seconds were renewed as composites 28 - 31 (from their dimensions, I suspect these may have been built as first/second composites), bringing the composite list up to 31, and then by April 1890, three more seconds had been downgraded or renewed as thirds 57 - 59 (and subsequently renewed as bogie thirds). The Cravens thirds of 1890/91 were 60 - 79 and the brake thirds of 1891 were 80 - 84. The third class list reached its final total of 89 vehicles in 1893, when the remaining four seconds and one composite were downgraded to third. (Garner lists No. 86 as a 4-wheel second, from a photo of a Workmen's set, where it was on the duplicate list as 86A, presumably after 1902 when bogie third No. 86 was built; bogie thirds 86, 87 and 88 would all be replacements of these vehicles.)

 

Back in 1884, the stock of firsts had been depleted from 12 to 8, with two renewed as composites and two as seconds. Thus after the abolition of second class, the stock consisted of 8 firsts, 30 composites, and 89 thirds. Now what it seemed to me happened was that there was a reordering into a single number series, with firsts and composites numbered 1 - 38 and thirds numbered 39 - 127. I think the surviving firsts kept their numbers, with the displaced composites being renumbered 31 - 38. These will all have been elderly vehicles as 33 - 38 were renewed as bogie composites in 1898 - 1904. Two of the firsts, Nos. 1 and 3, were renewed as bogie composites in 1905 and two more, Nos. 5 and 10, in 1909. Firsts Nos. 4 and 7, and first saloons Nos. 6 and 8, survived to become Southern stock, though by 1930 downgraded to thirds. Therefore firsts Nos. 2, 9, 11, and 12 were the vehicles downgraded or renewed as composites and seconds in 1884 (when they took new numbers in the composite list - 26 and 27 - and second list - 13 and 14).

 

At the postulated renumbering in the 1890s, the thirds were at the end of the list; this was achieved not by adding 38 to all their numbers but by adding 89 to the numbers of thirds 1 - 38. Thus the first four of the Oldbury batch, 34 - 38, became 123 - 127; Garner has No. 125 listed as an Oldbury third. The 4-wheeled brake third No. 33, which appears in an 1890s photo, became No. 122, then was put on the duplicate list as 122A, having been renewed by a bogie third in 1907, but survived to SR stock. 

 

There is a batch of twelve Highbridge-built 6-wheel thirds and brake thirds built between 1885 and 1895 that became SR stock, with S&DJR numbers 101, 104, 109, 110, 112 - 114, 116 - 119, and 121; my thinking is that these were originally numbered 12, 15, 20, 21, 23 - 25, 27 - 30, and 32, being renewals of carriages of 1860s vintage - Johnson's 1885 letter gives 25 of the then 33 thirds as over 25 years old. Apart from the bogie thirds and brake thirds 55 - 59 and 86 - 88 that renewed downgraded seconds, there were thirteen bogie thirds and brake thirds 90, 91, 95, 96, 100, 102, 103, 105 - 107, 111, 115, 120, and 122 which will have renewed thirds originally numbered 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 16-18, 22, 26, 31, and 33. I think these bogie thirds must have renewed thirds built as renewals in the first fifteen years after 1875, i.e. the eight Johnson says had been built as renewals by August 1885 and five more built soon after as part of the accelerated renewal programme. 

 

There was also saloon No. 108, built in 1891, which would originally have been No. 19, leaving Nos. 92 - 94 and 97 - 99, originally 3 - 5, 8 - 10 unaccounted for. I suspect that these passed to the LMS along with the surviving Oldbury thirds, and were also 1885 - 1895 renewals of 1860s carriages. Casserley has No. 98 as built by Cravens in 1894, so possibly there was a small batch of thirds built as renewals by Cravens, supplementing Highbridge's output; if so, the minutes should include a record.

 

*H.C. Casserley, Britain's Joint Lines (Ian Allan, 1968).

[phil_sutters]

There is a listing of S&DJR passenger stock drawings from Model Railways and Model Railway Constructor, from the late '70s and early '80s, in a Model Railway Constructor Special No7. Model Drawings Reference Book, by Clive S. Carter published in 1985. There are loco and goods drawings listed as well. There are some from other magazines as well and from earlier dates.

As I typed this I got the feeling that I have mentioned this somewhere before, so forgive me if this is old news. I don't know what the quality of the drawings listed is or whether there are accompanying photos. I have the October 1973 edition of Model Railways on order from an on-line back numbers seller. This has a drawing of an S&DJR 4-wheeled milk van, so I shall see what that brings forth.

[KeithMacdonald]

On 28/08/2019 at 20:53, down the sdjr said:

Thank you,

A mile to the south of Blandford? thats some distance, "a lane that led to the downs" im trying to think where that may be, close to the current bypass maybe?

I am really interested in where the 1st station may have been as i have never seen any record of it.

 

Wiki says

 

Quote

The Dorset Central Railway, which opened on 1 November 1860 from the LSWR station at Wimborne, had a station in the village, serving the neighbouring important market town of Blandford Forum. This was demolished when the line amalgamated to be part of the Somerset & Dorset Railway, and a bridge was built over the river Stour to the station at Blandford.

 

Blandford Town Council says

 

On May 5th1860, The Salisbury & Winchester Journal reported, "The ground is being marked out for the temporary station at Blandford St Mary and it is stated that the first section of the
line will be opened June or July next." The line ran in a 10-12ft cutting, temporarily ending at Ward's Drove. To put station facilities on the same level as the track involved a huge amount of added excavation, leaving the drove at the top of a vertical cliff. The solution may have been to curve the drove 60ft northwards, possibly sloping the chalk down to the station (perhaps with a staircase) for passenger access. The drove still follows the curve between the parapets of the bridge, and chalk ramps remain either side of almost-buried Bridge 201. They can be seen from the Trailway towards Charlton Marshall, near trees at the top of the field.  A run-round loop was laid to get locomotives back from the end of the line to head the coaches for the return trip. With so little time, and because of its temporary nature, the Company used timber and possibly steel, farm-type buildings for the station. The engine shed may have been similar to the Dutch barn near Ward's Drove bridge today.

 

https://blandfordforum-tc.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/construction-board-lores-9th-july.pdf

 

Just like @Compound2632 said, Ward's Drove is the lane with a kink in it, the result of it being diverted around the cutting.

 

 

https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=16.9&lat=50.84529&lon=-2.15580&layers=168&b=1

[KeithMacdonald]

Blandford Town Council also says

 

There was almost certainly a siding to the goods shed towards the Poole Road, with a turntable for the locomotive and hand crane for bulky goods. Facilities for passengers were minimal: a wooden platform, perhaps constructed from railway sleepers, and a small, timber booking office. Wealthier travellers used local carters, such as Thomas Hammond of Whitecliff Mill St, to get to and from the station.

 

Here's my interpretation of their interpretation.

 

 

[KeithMacdonald]

Actually, having slept on it, I have to say my interpretation can't be correct.

They say:

There was almost certainly a siding to the goods shed towards the Poole Road,

But how did the siding get up out of the cutting and towards Poole Road?

[Compound2632]

38 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said:

Actually, having slept on it, I have to say my interpretation can't be correct.

They say:

There was almost certainly a siding to the goods shed towards the Poole Road,

But how did the siding get up out of the cutting and towards Poole Road?

 

Indeed. Although there's no trace on the ground today, one would expect the early editions of the OS 25" survey to show some break in the cutting side, but no:

https://maps.nls.uk/view/106009503. 

[bécasse]

And just as pertinently, the 25" OS maps show land ownership boundaries (and acreages) and there is no indication that the land concerned was ever in railway ownership. Irregularities in depicted boundaries are often important clues to the one-time existence of railway facilities, in this case there is absolutely nothing to suggest that there was ever anything other than plain single track through this area, even the previous existence of a single platform would normally show up as a slight widening of the cutting and, perhaps, an adjustment of the land boundary to facilitate access to it from the road.

 

As a passenger facility, whatever was provided must have been inspected by the BoT, I wonder what their inspector's report said (assuming one can read his handwriting).

[KeithMacdonald]

Here's my "Mk 2" guess, with nothing outside the cutting.  The siding (if there was one) might have been "inline" instead of off one side. and beyond the platform. Perhaps the timber platform was built with unequal length legs into the sloping side of the cutting?

 

[phil_sutters]

On 27/09/2023 at 21:14, phil_sutters said:

There is a listing of S&DJR passenger stock drawings from Model Railways and Model Railway Constructor, from the late '70s and early '80s, in a Model Railway Constructor Special No7. Model Drawings Reference Book, by Clive S. Carter published in 1985. There are loco and goods drawings listed as well. There are some from other magazines as well and from earlier dates.

As I typed this I got the feeling that I have mentioned this somewhere before, so forgive me if this is old news. I don't know what the quality of the drawings listed is or whether there are accompanying photos. I have the October 1973 edition of Model Railways on order from an on-line back numbers seller. This has a drawing of an S&DJR 4-wheeled milk van, so I shall see what that brings forth.

The drawing, by T.W.Bourne, based on the Highbridge Works blueprint and the Loco and General collection photo no3575, is of 1A. October 1973 is fairly late in my early S&DJR modelling era, after which I switched to painting historical wargames figures, but it must have been this drawing that I used for my model. As well as the photo quoted Mr. Bourne refers to the loan, by Harold Tumilty, 'of some train shots which showed these vehicles a fair distance from their native heath'.

Edited October 2, 2023 by phil_sutters

[Compound2632]

27 minutes ago, phil_sutters said:

The drawing, by T.W.Bourne, based on the Highbridge Works blueprint 

 

One wonders where he got that, and where it is now. There's nothing corresponding in the catalogue of Highbridge works drawings at the NRM, which is pretty skimpy.

[phil_sutters]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

One wonders where he got that, and where it is now. There's nothing corresponding in the catalogue of Highbridge works drawings at the NRM, which is pretty skimpy.

Quote 'I was fortunate to obtain the Highbridge Works blueprint through the kind offices of my fellow-LMS members and a photo from the Loco and General collection (No.3573).'

The MRC special has about thirty passenger stock drawings listed mainly in Model Railways, with a handful in MRC, some of which appear to be duplicates. I have photocopies of a few of them.

[Compound2632]

I wrote a little essay on S&DJR 8 ton high side wagons over in my wagon modelling topic:

 

Being laid up recovering from a stomach upset, I indulged my obsession with data by analysing the wagon table in Garner's Registers, particularly looking at the many wagons for which he gives build dates which do not correspond to wagons built by Derby, Eastleigh, or the trade as additions to stock, and are therefore to be presumed to be Highbridge-built renewals. Garner's information on these wagons is from his private correspondence with Harold Tumilty; one trusts that the original material upon which it is based is preserved, perhaps in the archives of the S&DRT. My guess is that it is a list of ex-S&DJR wagons passing into SR hands. (There are some notes at the end of Garner's table on numbers of bolster wagons remaining on 1 Jan 1924 "on SR records" that come from the same source.) These would therefore be the LSWR's share of the divided goods stock, less withdrawals over the following decade. Therefore they represent somewhat less than half of S&DJR wagons built as renewals, that were extant in 1914. With that caveat, here's my rather lurid chart of wagons built as renewals between 1889 and 1912:

The diagram numbers are those assigned by the SR. I have not included goods brake vans or the thirty cattle wagons posited by the authors of Southern Wagons Vol. 1 to have been built in the period 1903-1912. The 8-ton low side wagons given no SR diagram I think include ones that remained in S&DJR service stock after 1914, as ballast wagons, passing to the SR in 1930. Likewise the loco ash / coal wagons.

 

With at total wagon stock by c. 1903 of over 1,200 and a renewal rate of 5% per annum, one would expect Highbridge Works to be turning out at least 60 wagons per year. Alternatively, taking into account the 250 wagons built as additions to stock in 1896-1902, it might be better to calculate the renewals based on the previous stock total of a bit under 1,000 wagons, i.e. around 50 wagons per year, in line with S.W. Johnson's recommendation of 52 wagons per year made to the Joint Committee in August 1888 [S&DJ Cttee minute 1,583, TNA RAIL 626/4]. The latter is a reasonable fit with my chart, for the period 1900-1905, if one assumes half the wagons built as renewals in those years went to the Midland. 

 

The smaller numbers recorded for years before 1900 I'm sure simply represents the failure of wagons built in those years to last until 1924. What is more curious is the marked drop from 1906 onwards. Does this represent a change in renewal policy, or that the Midland got more than its half share of the newest wagons? Or simply incomplete data? I suspect the latter. For example, only one SR D1305 10 ton high sided wagon is recorded, built in 1912, but from the information in Southern Wagons Vol. 1, it appears that 69 were extant in 1914, of which 35 passed to the SR. 

Edited October 31, 2023 by Compound2632

[Compound2632]

Last Thursday I had another trip to Kew and made notes from RAIL 1110/419, S&D Joint Committee Reports and Accounts, 1913 - 1946, and RAIL 626/6, S&D Joint Committee minutes, 1908 - 1919. The latter covers the period when the bulk of the goods wagons were divided between the owning companies. The former has clarified some things relating to coaching stock in Garner's Register that had been confusing me.

 

Up until the half-year ending 31 October 1912, the Return of Working Stock in the Half-Yearly Report and Accounts gives simply the number of each type of vehicle in capital stock, so at that date there were:

• 4 first class carriages
• 21 bogie composites
• 13 ordinary composites (i.e. 6-wheelers)
• 22 bogie thirds
• 67 ordinary thirds
• 14 horseboxes
• 11 carriage trucks
• 18 milk vans
• 22 passenger brake vans
• 192 coaching stock vehicles total.

In consequence of the Railway Companies (Accounts and Returns) Act, 1911, for subsequent years the Accounts are given annually and the Return of Working Stock presented in a different form, as part of a Statistical Report. (I was already familiar with this change from looking at the equivalent reports for the Midland Railway.) There were two significant changes as regards coaching stock: the return itemises number of seats of each class as well as number of vehicles; and the duplicate stock crawls out of the woodwork.

 

Thus at 31 October 1913 there were:

• 96 carriages of uniform class, with 69 first class seats and 4,162 third class seats - i.e. 4 firsts and 92 thirds, with the duplicate stock thirds Nos. 90A, 91A, and 122A putting in an appearance;
• 35 composite carriages, with 432 first class seats and 1,160 third class seats, with, I think, the inspection saloon No. 32A appearing;
• 14 horse boxes
• 10 carriage trucks (presumably one had been withdrawn and not replaced during the year)
• 24 milk vans - the mystery vans Nos. 1A - 6A now being confessed to
• 22 "luggage, parcel and brake vans" - in fact, all 6-wheel passenger brake vans.

Taking the composites first, these numbers correspond to:

• 2 bogie composites with three first and four third class compartments (Nos. 37 and 38), total seating 36 first and 80 third;
• 19 bogie lavatory composites with two first and four third class compartments, total seating 228 first and 760 third, no allowance being made for toilet doors;
• 1 bogie lavatory composite with two first and five third class compartments (No. 28, built during the year, replacing an ordinary composite), seating 12 first and 50 third;
• 12 ordinary composites with two first and two third class compartments, total seating 144 first and 240 third;
• Query: is the 35th composite inspection saloon No. 32A or family carriage No. 6?

This gives totals of 420 first and 1,130 thirds, which would mean the 35th carriage had 12 first and 30 thirds, which doesn't sound right. However, over the next four years, the number of third class seats increased by 75, which (given that the annual increase is in multiples of 5) probably corresponds to the conversion of the luggage compartments in 15 of the bogie composites to third class coupes. If the other four bogie composites had already been modified by October 1913, that would account for 20 third class seats, leaving the mystery 35th composite with 12 first and 10 third seats, which does sound rather more like family carriage No. 6. (This conversion to coupe compartments is earlier than the "early 1920s" suggested by Garner but is consonant with the Derby official photo of No. 34, showing the converted end; in the Derby Photographic Register this and the photo of No. 28 are dated June 1913:

https://www.midlandrailway.org.uk/derby-registers/negl10.html#DY2347)

 

In 1923, there was a drop of 32 in the number of third class seats, which may well include the conversion of third class compartments in Nos. 37 and 38 to lavatories (as noted by Garner), then in 1927/8, a decrease of 48 first class seats and 109 third class seats - 8 and just under 11 compartments' worth. I think this corresponds to the withdrawal of three ordinary composites, leaving nine, and the conversion of composite No. 28 to a brake third motor carriage - i.e. it moved from the composite list to the uniform class list. Finally, in 1929 there was a further loss of 5 first class seats and gain of 31 third class seats, which might be the conversion of a bogie third brake to motor carriage - the vehicle that became LMS 15751 / 17999, possibly - along with some other shuffling not understood!

 

Thus, referring to Casserley's Joint Lines book, the division of composite stock in 1930 was:

• 2 bogie lavatory composites Nos. 37 and 38 to LMS as Nos. 15828 / 19998 and 15837 / 19999;
• 19 bogie lavatory composites with luggage compartment converted to third coupe, 15 to SR (Nos 1-3, 5, 10-12, 22, 24-27, 31, 33, 34, SR Nos. 5717-5731) and 4 to LMS (Nos. 9, 32, 35, 36, LMS Nos. 15709 / 19995, 15634 / 19997, 15971 / 19996, 15755 / 19994, going by the building dates );
• 1 bogie lavatory composite No. 28, converted to motor brake third, LMS No. 14791 / 22499;
• 1 mystery motor composite LMS No. 15751 / 17999, which might be a converted bogie third or brake third;
• 12 ordinary composites; 9 to SR (Nos. 29, 30, 13-20, SR Nos. 5732-5740) and 3 withdrawn 1927/8, Nos. 21, 23, and one other - which latter has me puzzled.
• family carriage No. 6? (SR No. 7998)

That's enough for now. Next: "carriages of uniform class". I think the discrepancies I'm finding may be down to the various saloons slopping around between the different categories! This is all probably of no interest to anyone else but to me it's as satisfying as a jigsaw, where the stock that passed to the SR is the edge pieces and everything else has to be puzzled into place.

Edited November 6, 2023 by Compound2632

[03060]

I'm here and reading with interest Stephen, although I may have to re-read this after I've finished my night shifts on Friday in order to fully understand it (ie when I'm back on Planet Earth !)

 

Thanks for sharing your work, I intend to print out the relevant posts and keep them with my Garner's book to help me in my choice of kit builds and purchases.

 

Kind regards,

Ian.

[phil_sutters]

Looking a bit tired, at about 53 years old, and with gold instead of yellow in the lining. I have yet to replace the GWR grab handles with the elongated reversed 'S's in SDJR style. I only put steps on the 4 & 6 wheeled stock and did little to the under-solebar areas, apart from LSWR white metal bogies.

 

Edited November 7, 2023 by phil_sutters

[Compound2632]

On 07/11/2023 at 15:16, phil_sutters said:

Looking a bit tired, at about 53 years old, and with gold instead of yellow in the lining. 

 

Now as far as I can work out, No. 36, built in 1900, was the first of the bogie lavatory composites with LSWR-style cove or three-arc roof; indeed the first carriage in that style, the two bogie composites of 1898, Nos. 37 and 38, being arc-roof vehicles without lavatories, though these were added, probably in 1923. As built, the compartment at the left-hand end was a double-doored luggage compartment, converted to a third class coupe compartment no later than October 1917. From Casserley's book, one deduces that it became LMS stock in 1930, No. 15755, renumber 19994 in 1933. It was withdrawn in September 1937, after 37 years' service. Thus your model has outlasted its prototype by 16 years!

 

The question that interests me is, what carriages did these bogie vehicles replace? I think one can make at least an informed guess as to the date at which they had been built. In 1889, the number of second class carriages decreased by four and the number of composite carriages increased by four, from 27 to 31, in the Returns of Working Stock; the additional composites would have taken Nos. 28 - 31. From Casserley, we know that Nos. 29 and 30, which survived to become SR Nos. 5732/3, were built in 1889. I make the inference that all four were built at the same time, i.e. old seconds were renewed as composites. No. 31 was renewed as a bogie composite in 1910, becoming SR No. 5729, and No. 28 was likewise renewed in 1913 by the last new carriage built at Highbridge, which, after conversion to a third class driving trailer in 1927, became LMS No. 14791 / 22499, putting in long service on the Wells Branch motor train. Presumably had the programme of building bogie carriages as renewals not ceased in 1913, Nos. 29 and 30 would have been the next to be replaced. These carriages (photo of No. 30, Maggs, plate 103) are stated to have been 28' 5" long; the outer compartments are unusually roomy for thirds so I think they must have been built as first/second composites; running a ruler over the photo, I think 7' 3" firsts and 6' 6" seconds seems about right.

 

Bogie lavatory composite No. 25 was built in 1912 (it became SR No. 5726), replacing a 6-wheel composite of the same type as Nos. 28-31, of which there is a photo (Garner, p. 17). It seems reasonable to infer that it was built about the same time, c. 1889; it would have been a renewal of one of the old Midland composites bought in 1877, which itself was probably built in the late 1860s. (There were six of these, bought as additions to stock, and therefore numbered 20-25.)

 

Bogie lavatory composites Nos. 26 and 27 were built in 1909 and 1910. Is it reasonable to suppose that they too replaced 6-wheel composites of the same type as Nos. 25, 28-31? In 1884, the Returns of Working Stock show a decrease of four in the number of firsts, compensated by increases of two each in the numbers of composites and seconds, to new totals of 27 and 14 respectively. On the strength of the photo of second No. 13 (Garner p. 16) these were highly antique vehicles, possibly dating back to 1861/2. The two that became composites would have been renumbered 26 and 27. The fact that No. 13 was photographed as a second suggests that these four carriages were not immediately renewed, so it is plausible that Nos. 27 and 28 ran for five years until being renewed by 6-wheel composites of this "1889" type. Further candidates for this style are Nos. 22 and 24, renewed by bogie lavatory composites in 1911, and perhaps Nos. 21 and 23, the carriages withdrawn in 1927/8. 

 

This all points to a programme of renewal after around 21 to 23 years, up to 1913 when renewals ceased; this would suggest that No. 36, built 1900, replaced a composite built in the late 1870s, and originally number 6 in the composite series.

 

From all this, I think one can identify three designs of ordinary (non-bogie) composites:

 

Nos. 21-31: 28' 5" 6-wheel first/second composites, built c. 1889, Nos. 21-25 renewing ex-Midland composites, Nos. 26, 27 renewing downgraded firsts, and Nos. 28-31, built as renewals of withdrawn seconds. 

 

Nos. 13-20: 31' 0" 6-wheel centre luggage first/third composites, built 1891-1894, No. 20 renewing the remaining ex-Midland composite, the remainder renewing carriages six carriages built for the old S&D company as additions to stock c. 1870 (need to look at the Somerset Central minutes for evidence of this).

 

Some but almost certainly not all of the range 9-12, 32-38 (the latter block originally numbered 1-8 with one missing but renumbered to make way for the firsts, when the separate number series were consolidated into a single list): 26' 6" 4-wheel first/second composites, examples known from photos being Nos. 4 (Garner p. 16) and 12 (Maggs, plate 57). These were renewed by bogie composites built between 1898 and 1909, so were carriages built between c. 1876 and c. 1887. Specifically, bogie composite No. 34 was built in 1904 and No. 12 in 1906, narrowing down the date range for this type to c. 1882-1884.

 

This is rather speculative in places, but as I said, it's a jigsaw puzzle.

Edited November 8, 2023 by Compound2632
26' 6" 4-wheelers built as first/second not first/third, per photo of No. 4

[Compound2632]

Pictures.

 

No. 25, one of the "1889"-type 28' 5" composites, presumed built first/second, first/third after the abolition of second class in 1893:

 

 

[Embedded link to Ebay]

 

No. 12, an "1884"-type 4-wheel 26' 6" composite:

 

 

[Embedded link to Getty images]

 

No. 13 in the second class series, probably one of the firsts downgraded in 1884:

 

 

[Embedded link to MRSC 61785]

[Compound2632]

Carriages of Uniform Class:

 

The Return of Working Stock 31 October 1912 reports four first class carriages, which I have taken to be the two four-compartment 6-wheelers Nos. 4 and 7, which survived to SR days, albeit downgraded to thirds, as Nos. 1405 and 1406 (the body of No. 4 is of course now splendidly restored by the SDRT), and the two 6-wheeled saloons Nos 6 and 8, which became SR Nos. 7998 and 7997. I'm fairly sure that bogie composites Nos. 1 and 3 of 1905 and Nos. 2 and 5 of 1909 were renewals of firsts, since the number of firsts decreased by two in each of those years.

 

In the Return for 31 October 1913, this translates to 69 first class seats. The two ordinary firsts Nos. 4 and 7 account for 2 x 4 x 6 = 48, so the remaining 21 must have been divided between the saloons, maybe 12 and 9? The first change is in 1921, when the number of seats decreases by 9, without any change in the total number of carriages of uniform class, implying the downgrading of the 9-seater saloon to third class. Then in 1928, all 60 remaining seats disappear, as the remaining saloon and the two ordinary firsts were downgraded to third. The open question is, how many third class seats did that create? Did a first class compartment seating six simply become a rather luxurious third seating the same number, or were the arm-rests taken out in the expectation of seating ten, as in an ordinary third class compartment?

 

As to thirds, at 31 October 1912 there were 22 bogie thirds and 67 ordinary thirds on the capital list, a total of 89. At 31 October 1913 this becomes 4,162 third class seats in 92 carriages (the total for carriages of uniform class being 96), with the three duplicate carriages, thirds Nos. 90A and 91A and brake third No. 122A. Bogie brake thirds Nos. 90 and 91 were built in 1900/1901 which suggests that the note in Garner that 90A and 91A went on the duplicate list in 1907 isn't quite right. On my renumbering theory, these two would have started out as thirds Nos. 1 and 2; Casserley gives a building date of 1890, so renewal as early as 1900 is a bit peculiar. No. 122A probably did go on the duplicate list in 1907, bogie brake third No. 122 having been built in that year. Casserley gives it a build date of 1887; on the renumbering theory it would have been none other than No. 33, of which there is at least one photo.

 

This number of seats would correspond to:

• 2 bogie thirds, 7 compartments, with luggage compartment, total 140 seats;
• 4 bogie lavatory thirds, 7 compartments, total 272 seats (making allowance for toilet doors);
• 16 bogie brake thirds, 3 compartments, total 480 seats;
• 61 ordinary thirds, 5 compartments, total 3,050 seats;
• 11 ordinary brake thirds, 2 compartments, total 220 seats;

where any saloons have been swept under the carpet!

 

The number of seats increased by 5 in 1915 and again in 1919: is this the conversion of the end luggage compartments in the two non-lavatory bogie thirds to coupes?

 

In 1921, there was an increase in 28 in third seats, along with the decrease of 9 in firsts - which makes the downgrading of one of the first class saloons look a bit drastic. There's an increase of 20 the following year, which I've not yet accounted for.  

 

In 1925, the number of carriages decreased by 5, with the loss of 250 seats; in 1926, 7 carriages and 350 seats, and in 1927, 5 carriages and 275 seats. This looks like the withdrawal of 17 ordinary 5-compartment thirds, 850 seats, with 25 unaccounted for. In 1928, 15 more carriages were withdrawn, with a loss of 707 seats - a net loss, since at least 60 seats were gained from downgraded firsts. The withdrawal of 15 ordinary thirds would equate to the loss of 750 seats, which would imply the downgraded firsts were "worth" 41 seats. So things don't quite add up! (And saloons No. 89 and 108 are counted somewhere in the non-bogie totals.) Finally, 3 more carriages were withdrawn in 1929 with the loss of 160 seats - three more ordinary thirds with 10 seats unaccounted for.

 

The final count at the end of 1929 was 61 carriages and 2,438 seats. From the list in Casserley, we have:

 

To the LMS:

• bogie third motor, prob. No. 86, LMS 15983 / 15857, seats 70?
• bogie lavatory third, prob. No. 88, LMS 15998 / 18999, seats 68
• 5 bogie brake thirds, prob. Nos. 106, 120, 57, 96, 55, LMS 15928, 15932, 15696, 15803, 15608 / 22215-9, each seating 30, total 150 seats
• 3 bogie brake thirds converted to motor driving trailers, prob. Nos. 91, 103, 115, LMS 15996, 15834, 15839 / 22496-8; assuming the driving compartment was at the brake end, each seating 30, total 90 seats
• 1 bogie brake third driving trailer converted from composite No. 28, LMS 14791 / 22499, seating?
• bogie lavatory third No. 90 converted to composite motor LMS No. 15751 / 17999 - this keeps the numbers of bogie composites and bogie thirds balanced at 22 each.

To the SR:

• 3 bogie thirds Nos. 58, 87, 95, SR Nos. 1402-4, each seating 68, total 204 seats
• 8 bogie brake thirds Nos. 56, 59, 100, 102, 105, 107, 111, 122, SR Nos. 3759-66, each seating 30, total 240 seats
• 2 downgraded firsts Nos. 4, 7, SR Nos 1405/6, each seating at least 24, total at least 48 seats
• 20 ordinary thirds, Nos. 62, 63, 66, 68, 69, 70, 72, 74, 75, 78, 79 (12 of the Cravens batch of 1890-91), 98 (listed as built by Cravens in 1894), 109, 110, 112, 114, 116-8 (7 built at Highbridge as renewals in 1890), SR Nos. 1407-26, each seating 50, total 1,000 seats
• 2 duplicate list thirds, Nos. 90A and 91A, SR Nos. 1427/8, presumed each seating 50, total 100 seats
• 10 ordinary brake thirds, Nos. 80-84 (5 built by Cravens in 1891), 101, 104, 113, 119, 121 (5 built at Highbridge between 1885 and 1895), SR Nos. 2783-92, each seating 20, total 200 seats
• 1 duplicate list brake third, No. 122A, SR 2782, with 20 seats
• 4 saloons, two ex-first class, Nos. 8, 6, 89, and 108, SR Nos. 7997-8000, third class seating unknown.

This gives 61 as the total number of carriages of uniform class passing to the LMS and SR, the same as the number reported at the end of 1929; this indicates that no carriages were withdrawn by the LMS between 1930 and the 1933 renumbering.

 

The list above accounts for 2,190 seats, with 248 seats unaccounted for to be divided among: additional seating in the two downgraded firsts, seating in the ex-composite No. 28 driving motor trailer, and the four saloons. 

 

The number of ordinary brake thirds in 1930 appears to be the same as the number in 1913, 11.

 

The reduction in the total number of carriages of uniform class from 96 in 1913 to 61 in 1929 is therefore entirely down to the withdrawal of 35 ordinary thirds, a total loss of 1,750 seats.

 

Those withdrawal included all 20 of the thirds built by Oldbury as additions to stock in 1886, Nos. 39-53 and Nos. 123-127 (presumed originally Nos. 34-38). It also must have included 8 of the 20 built by Cravens as additions to stock in 1890-91, as 12 passed to the SR, the withdrawn carriages being Nos. 60, 61, 64, 65, 67, 71, 73, and 76. The remaining seven vehicles must have been Nos. 54, 85, 92, 93, 94, 97, and 99, all but the first of which are blanks in Garner's register. In his August 1885 report Johnson lists three thirds and three brake thirds as having been built in the preceding four months, so these could well be among these seven.

 

The 22 bogie thirds and brake thirds built 1900-1912 were presumably renewals of ordinary thirds, probably built between 1878 and 1890. This would give the following third class list in the late 1890s, all built at Highbridge as renewals of previous thirds except where noted:

• Nos. 39-53 thirds built by Oldbury in 1886, as additions to stock
• Nos. 54-59 thirds built c. 1890, as renewals of old seconds downgraded in 1886/1890
• Nos. 60-79 thirds built by Cravens in 1890/91, as additions to stock
• Nos. 80-84 brake thirds built by Cravens in 1891, as additions to stock
• Nos. 85-88 thirds downgraded in 1893 from seconds (and one composite) originally built in c. 1875-80? (No. 86 became No. 86A presumably in 1902 when it was replaced by a bogie carriage and was photographed in the Highbridge workmen's train; it is evidently an ex-second by comparison with the adjacent third No. 103A, and both are in the three-layer panelling style.) 
• No. 89 third saloon, downgraded in 1893 from second class saloon? Known to have been built in 1887
• Nos. 90 / 91, originally Nos. 1 / 2, built in 1890
• Nos. 92-97, originally Nos. 3-8, possibly thirds / brake thirds built in 1885; though there is a photo of No. 6, a 4-wheeler in the three-layer panelling style, so perhaps c. 1875-80, cf. No. 103 below,
• No. 98, originally No. 9, built by Cravens in 1894 (Had there been a carriage written off in an accident, which might justify a contractor-built renewal?)
• Nos. 99 / 100, originally Nos. 10 / 11, built c. 1885-8
• No. 101, originally No. 12, built in 1895
• No. 102, originally No. 13, built c. 1882
• No. 103, originally No. 14, built c. 1875-80? (Became No. 103A in 1902 when replaced by a bogie carriage, see No. 86 above.)
• No. 104, originally No. 15, brake third built 1885
• Nos. 105-7, originally Nos. 16-18, built c. 1882/3?
• No. 108, possibly originally No. 19, saloon built 1891
• Nos. 109 / 110, originally Nos. 20 / 21, thirds built 1890
• No. 111, originally No. 22, built c. 1890
• No. 112, originally No. 23, third built 1890
• No. 113, originally No. 24, brake third built 1888
• No. 114, originally No. 25, third built 1890
• No. 115, originally No. 26, built c. 1885
• Nos. 116-8, originally Nos. 27-29, thirds built 1890
• No. 119, originally No. 30, brake third built 1889
• No. 120, originally No. 31, built c. 1885
• No. 121, originally No. 32, built 1889
• No. 122, originally No. 33, brake third built 1887, No. 122A in 1907.
• Nos. 123-7, originally Nos. 34-39, thirds built by Oldbury in 1886 as additions to stock.

Pictures:

 

Third No. 66, SR No. 1409, built by Cravens in 1891:

 

 

[Embedded link to HMRS photo AAC324]

 

Brake third No. 80, SR No. 2783, built by Cravens in 1891:

 

 

[Embedded link to HMRS photo AAW928]

 

Third No. 6, in the three-layer panelling style, later renumbered 95?

 

 

[Embedded link to HMRS photo AAC403]

 

Third No. 103A, originally No. 14, and third No. 86A, ex-second class, both in the three-layer panelling style:

 

 

[Embedded link to HMRS photo AAC411]

 

No awkward questions about No. 3 please!

 

The SDRT has the bodies of two thirds, Nos. 114 and 98, built at Highbridge in 1890 and by Cravens in 1894 respectively, both carriages that became SR stock. I'm itchingly curious to know if restoration will reveal original numbers 25 and 9 stamped somewhere!

Edited November 10, 2023 by Compound2632

[Compound2632]

Are there are any known / published photos of ex-S&DJR carriages in Southern days - i.e. post-1930 (though later 20s would be interesting too) - especially odd vehicles such as the 4-wheel inspection saloon No. 32A / SR 440S that lasted to 1947?

[03060]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Are there are any known / published photos of ex-S&DJR carriages in Southern days - i.e. post-1930 (though later 20s would be interesting too) - especially odd vehicles such as the 4-wheel inspection saloon No. 32A / SR 440S that lasted to 1947?

 

Yes, I have at the least photocopies of an A5 ish sized book which had listings of S&DJR carriages that transferred to the Southern region which contains a small number of photos of them in Southern livery ... however I can neither remember the publication's title or currently get to them in my room (of doom) but if you can bear with me I should be able to from Weds after my latest batch of 12hr shifts finishes. I think though that they were by Casserley ?

 

Another 'potential' photo springs to mind but I have no idea as to which book it is in and may also be wrongly identifying the carriages in that photo.

I'll see what I can find later on in the week.

 

Regards,

Ian.