Ex-Cambrian 6-wheel Observation Car

[Prometheus]

The Cambrian ran two of these interesting vehicles from Mach to Pwllheli and they passed for a while into GWR use. 
 

They measured 37’7’’ but I have not been able to find any drawings with measurements to advise whether this was buffer-to-buffer or over headstocks. Can anyone advise please?

 

incidentally, I have found a number of useful photos and also a line drawing of one. Unless the two vehicles had some slight dimensional differences, the line drawing is not wholly in accord with a broadside photo, particularly with regard to window size. I have also found an auction photo of an Exley-type model (manufacturer not given), attractive but way out!

 

Thanks.

 

Tony

[Miss Prism]

MRC Nov 1964, iirc. A good drawing, probably by Mike Lloyd.

[corneliuslundie]

Attached is the published drawing. I do not know about any inaccuracy but would be interested to hear.

Jonathan

[Prometheus]

That’s extremely helpful. Thanks. I’ll put up the photo when I find it again.

 

thanks again.

 

Tony

[Michael Hodgson]

The headboard says Aberystwyth-Pwllheli. 

So did they run a through service for tourists - would it have reversed at Dovey Junction or at Machynlleth?

[Chris116]

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

The headboard says Aberystwyth-Pwllheli. 

So did they run a through service for tourists - would it have reversed at Dovey Junction or at Machynlleth?

The plan above says it ran via Machynlleth.

[Prometheus]

I cannot post the photo as it will be in copyright, it appears on p71 of The Cambrian Railways: Portrait Of A Welsh Railway Network (Christiansen), and shows one of the two in GWR days.

 

Ignoring what looks like a small area of plated-over paneling and evident roof ventilator differences, it is the size of the windows which appear to be the greatest difference between the phot and the drawing.

 

The drawing shows three sizes of window, with those at each end being different from both each other and the four in the middle. The photo seems to show a only difference between the pair at one end and all of the others. In the photo, the single end window seems to be the same size as the middle ones (even when allowing for perspective).

 

This is what made be wonder whether or not there were subtle differences between the two coaches.

 

Finally, the MRC article states that its coach was converted from a single third class donor vehicle whereas the book maintains that its coach was formed from two such coaches. If both are correct then slight differences might well be expected?

 

Tony

[watfordtmc]

There were a number of follow-up letters commenting on the drawing in the November 1964 MRC, culminating in a lengthy letter published in the April 1965 issue which opened thus:

 

“Sir – Referring to the drawings of these vehicles in the November 1964 mrc, it is greatly regretted that those drawings showed several inaccuracies.”   The author of this letter was: RW Rush.

 

Mr. Rush went on to note elsewhere in his letter that “… the underframe is entirely wrong.”   He did however; accompany his letter with a further drawing of these vehicles, incorporating the amended/corrected detail.  This drawing was published at a stated 3mm-1 ft. scale, although measurement of the scale bar included in the drawing suggests that the printed version is fractionally under 3mm-1 ft.

Mr. Rush quoted dimensions of 37ft 6in over the bowed ends, and 40ft 10in over buffers.

 

The cars were apparently rebuilt from existing stock – during the First World War which seems rather ambitious - and originally operated Pwllheli – Aberystwyth, via Dovey Junction, in practice it seems, and not via Machynlleth.  From 1921 they then operated Pwllheli – Machynlleth until withdrawn in May 1936.

 

It seems the Great Western made some alterations to the bodywork quite early in their ownership which may account for some of the discrepancies noted, along with the erroneous drawing.

 

Mr. Rush concluded his letter by noting “It is deeply regretted that so much detail on the original drawings was incorrect.  They were made some three or four years ago, from a bad diagram purporting to have emanated from Swindon and an equally poor photograph – the only one available at the time – which did not show any detail clearly.  It was not until new information came into my possession, that the amount of inaccuracy was realised.”

 

He had the courtesy to particularly thank “… Mr Barnes of Colyton…” – this would be PE Barnes I think, a then quite well known commentator on railway matters, and also CC Green of Birmingham, who I suspect as being same person that had one (or more) books on the Cambrian coast line published by Wild Swan.

 

Speaking personally, and, of course, with the benefit of 60 years further understanding; I would today treat an RW Rush drawing with some reservations.  Whilst I don’t think Mr. Rush committed the egregious errors of Roche, as his letter demonstrates, he wasn’t working from official General Arrangements or builders drawings or even from personal measurements of his subjects.

 

Reference

Letters: Cambrian Railways Observation Cars, Rush R, Model Railway Constructor April 1965, vol 32, No. 372, pp95.  Includes amended drawing and an image of GW 4072 (Cam 178).

 

Note: All place name spellings as per the original correspondence.

 

Regards

TMc

27/01/2022

 

[Prometheus]

Fascinating! Many thanks for posting.

 

Tony

[ChrisN]

On 27/01/2022 at 17:35, Prometheus said:

I cannot post the photo as it will be in copyright, it appears on p71 of The Cambrian Railways: Portrait Of A Welsh Railway Network (Christiansen), and shows one of the two in GWR days.

 

Ignoring what looks like a small area of plated-over paneling and evident roof ventilator differences, it is the size of the windows which appear to be the greatest difference between the phot and the drawing.

 

The drawing shows three sizes of window, with those at each end being different from both each other and the four in the middle. The photo seems to show a only difference between the pair at one end and all of the others. In the photo, the single end window seems to be the same size as the middle ones (even when allowing for perspective).

 

This is what made be wonder whether or not there were subtle differences between the two coaches.

 

Finally, the MRC article states that its coach was converted from a single third class donor vehicle whereas the book maintains that its coach was formed from two such coaches. If both are correct then slight differences might well be expected?

 

Tony

 

Tony,

Mountford gives the date of construction of 176 and 178, as 1894, and length of 37' 7".  A footnote says that they were converted in 1915, so t appears that they were converted from one coach each.  My understanding is that they ran from Aberystwyth to Pwllheli. so would have reversed at Machynlleth.

Edited January 28, 2022 by ChrisN

[Prometheus]

Thanks for this, Chris.

 

What is fascinating is the amount of contradictory - or at least not entirely accurate - information one gleans depending upon the original source. A wee bit of a minefield for anyone contemplating this as a build unless they have cast their net fairly far and wide and can then make a reasoned decision re. dimensions, etc.

 

We'll see where this consideration leads!  I'm not put off, but still need to think carefully about it. The photo I have referenced, and the April '65 MRC information [ordered], should be influential though.

 

Tony

[bécasse]

As these two carriages were seemingly elaborate reconstructions of existing vehicles, it is more than possible that no drawings (and more certainly no general arrangement drawings) were ever prepared, although drawings of the under frames as originally constructed probably existed already. It is rarely appreciated these days that drawings rarely reached the shop floor in railway works, the men working from a mixture of the foreman's instructions and their own inherent professional skills. Sometimes general arrangement drawings were prepared after construction as a record, more or less, of what had been built but such extravagance is probably unlikely for semi-unique vehicles converted in the middle of the Great War. The diagrams, much simpler drawings intended for traffic purposes, were likely to be sufficient - and we know that they existed.

[corneliuslundie]

An interesting thing is that Mountford quotes the lengths as 37 ft 7 in. Were they rebuilds of 35 ft Thirds, as Ashbury built Thirds Nos. 85-88 and 176 to two different designs that year that were 35 ft? Though the same year Ashbury built a number of 30 ft brake vans as well. 

Jonathan

[watfordtmc]

It seems to me that whenever I comment on something ‘Great Western’ it always involves me in extra work!

 

I have reviewed the correspondence in MRC that arose from the original drawing.  The consensus of opinion is that there were two observation cars, although I don’t think this is in doubt, each converted from an Ashbury built 5-compartment lavatory third.  Neither length nor numbers of the original vehicles was noted, but they were originally built in July 1894.

 

M.E. Morton Lloyd advised that there was a “diagram” of the cars published in the February 1916 issue of Locomotive Magazine, for those wanting a nicely obscure source of information.

 

Mr. Morton Lloyd also noted that after withdrawal the body of one of the cars was sold off, and became a transport café – Mac’s Café - at Aldermaston, lasting long enough for a television to be installed.

 

One correspondent recalled riding in the cars and noted, despite what the headboards said, that the cars did not work through to Machynlleth, but stopped at Dovey Junction “… where … the Coast trains terminated.”

This correspondent also recalled seeing both cars at Birmingham Snow Hill around 1927, when newly repainted into GW livery.

 

The cars would be quite a quirky thing to model, but there are some challenges @Prometheus please note.  Foremost amongst these is that the underframes were of the sort with the axle guards outside the wheels.  The headstocks also followed the line of the bow ends, which meant the buffer stocks, which had four ribs, were an unusual length.

 

I suppose this could mean that the original vehicles were 35’ in length, with the bow ends of the rebuilds giving the 37’7” (or 37’6”) length referred to above.  Could the difference between 37’6” and 37’7” be accounted for by whether the measurement was over the headstocks or the beading of the body panels?

 

Judging by the image published in MRC the cars were very open, so an interior would have to be modelled as well.  The amended drawing in the April ’65 MRC does not include an interior plan, so reference will need to be made to @corneliuslundie's post for details.

 

M.E. Morton Lloyd (referenced by @Miss Prism) published a very nice set of drawings for some Cambrian six-wheeled stock in the September 1964 issue of MRC.  As these give rather better detail of the underframes than the Rush drawing it might be worth getting hold of a copy of this issue as well (Model Railway Constructor, September 1964, vol 31, no 365).

Incidentally, Mr. Morton-Lloyd subsequently wrote to MRC to draw attention to an error he had made in his drawings!  Even Homer nods….

 

Perhaps Mr. Rush got to the heart of the matter in his letter, when he noted “…one cannot take anything for granted, particularly with the Cambrian, which was an individualist among railways.”

 

Regards

TMc

28/01/2022

 

[corneliuslundie]

"each converted from an Ashbury built 5-compartment lavatory third"

That would make sense as Mountford describes No. 173 built that year as an Ashbury built 35 ft semicorridor Third though oddly he doesn't show it as having a lavatory, which would have made the corridor a bit irrelevant.

And here is the Locomotive Magazine article, courtesy of the GERS CD of LM:

LM No. 282 Vol XXII - February 1916 2.pdf 

LM No. 282 Vol XXII - February 1916 1.pdf

Sorry the pages are in the wrong order. I don't seem to be able to swap them around.

I think the diagram makes it clear how the vehicles were lengthened. And evidently they did have lavatories.

Jonathan

[Prometheus]

This is extraordinary and thank you, all, for your time and effort. I started off with just one poor photograph.......

 

1 hour ago, watfordtmc said:

Perhaps Mr. Rush got to the heart of the matter in his letter, when he noted “…one cannot take anything for granted, particularly with the Cambrian, which was an individualist among railways.”

 

 

That's pretty much the same with my modelling I'm afraid! This is becoming more complicated by the hour, but I'm not ready to give up yet.

 

I was sent this photo of the interior which may be of interest. Unfortunately I have no way of crediting it as the origin is unknown. Clearly there is no intention to breach copyright but I shall remove it if it is felt necessary.

 

 

Appreciate all of your comments and links.

 

Tony

[Quarryscapes]

There's a couple of good GW era shots available - one is Cambrain Railways Album 2 (C.C. Green) and the other in Railway Through Talerddig (Gwyn Briwnant Jones). I can't off hand recall a Cambrian era photo

[ChrisN]

A bit late to the party, but I have been out all day.  In 'The Cambrian Railways, A New History by Johnson it says on page 178:-

'Despite the War, on 4 November (1914) Williamson (The General Manager) obtained approval to convert two six wheel carriages into observation vehicles for use on the coast.......... Costing £165.00 each they were completed by October 1915, delayed by a shortage of materials.  The compartments were removed, tramcar type seats installed and large windows placed in the sides and ends; they seated 48 instead of 36.'

 

It makes sense as other sources say they were thirds that these two, 176, and 178 were the same as 173 which was a semi-corridor third as shown in the diagram in the article posted by @corneliuslundie.  Mountford list has 1st, 2nd, and 3rd compartments, plus Guards and Luggage, (Cupboards) compartments but does not have toilets.

 

When I said that the vehicles would go as far as Machynlleth, I thought it unlikely that they would have been left or changed at Dovey Junction, but it appears I was wrong.  The Cambrian Coast trains on their public timetable ended at Dovey Junction, (at least in 1895 they did and it appears they still did later).  The train then ran empty to Machynlleth.  In the same way if you were at Mach and wanted a coast train you had to leave on an Aberystwyth train, and wait for the empty coaching stock to turn up bound for Pwllheli.  So either the trains crossed at the same time, or the observation car was left behind.  The Cambrian was not always punctual.