And now for something completely different....

[Caley Jim]

2 hours ago, Schooner said:

.......I feel a visit to NLS coming on... :)

I can't see anywhere on the map which seems to fit the photo.  🤔

 

 

JIm

[Edwardian]

Hmm. They were built in other places, of course, Fosters of Lincoln, Beardmores, the Coventry Ordnance Works, Mirrlees Watson in Glasgow and Armstrong-Whitworth.

 

I am not at all sure this is even a Mark IV. If it's a Mark V, I don't quite see why it would need to go on a wagon not fitted for Continental use, as it would surely have gone to France via a train ferry, so perhaps something else is represented here.

 

 

 

Mark IV:

 

 

Mark V:

 

 

 

[brumtb]

35 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Hmm. They were built in other places, of course, Fosters of Lincoln, Beardmores, the Coventry Ordnance Works, Mirrlees Watson in Glasgow and Armstrong-Whitworth.

 

I am not at all sure this is even a Mark IV. If it's a Mark V, I don't quite see why it would need to go on a wagon not fitted for Continental use, as it would surely have gone to France via a train ferry, so perhaps something else is represented here.

 

 

 

Mark IV:

 

 

Mark V:

 

 

 

The following links may be of interest

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/how-birmingham-paid-65-million-9946980

https://tankmuseum.org/article/making-a-mark-iv/

Tony

[Nearholmer]

To me, the photo could easily align with the map, the key point being that the “loading dock” on the left in the photo is a timber cribbing erected over a line of track.

[Tom Burnham]

On 24/11/2022 at 17:02, Compound2632 said:

 

The wagon is another Midland Rectank. I've an idea this is another otably not in the first photo - is that an N on the Great Northern? But the tank seems to carry an inscription in Russian.

 

According to the Smithers book mentioned by CKPR, the first tanks had Cyrillic markings to support the cover story that they were water carriers for Russia. 

[41516]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

I am not at all sure this is even a Mark IV. If it's a Mark V

 

Edit- misread 9766 is Mark V says an article written by the Tank Museum's David Fletcher suggests a MkV,  available through a cached link as it doesn't seem to be live anymore.

 

"The Petty Officer is a reminder that all tank handling in Britain was done by No.20 Squadron, Royal Naval Air Service."

Edited November 26, 2022 by 41516

[Edwardian]

21 minutes ago, 41516 said:

 

Edit- misread 9766 is Mark V says an article written by the Tank Museum's David Fletcher suggests a MkV,  available through a cached link as it doesn't seem to be live anymore.

 

"The Petty Officer is a reminder that all tank handling in Britain was done by No.20 Squadron, Royal Naval Air Service."

 

Well, it certainly looks more like a Mark V to my uneducated eyes, but my opinions are necessarily tentative!

[Edwardian]

3 hours ago, 41516 said:

 

Edit- misread 9766 is Mark V says an article written by the Tank Museum's David Fletcher suggests a MkV,  available through a cached link as it doesn't seem to be live anymore.

 

"The Petty Officer is a reminder that all tank handling in Britain was done by No.20 Squadron, Royal Naval Air Service."

 

Thank you for that. This is where I ended up:

 

 

[Northroader]

This list might help in planning your rolling stock build/ acquisition, as it lists all the war department wagons, in part a load of wagons borrowed from the British main line companies, plus a series of new build specially ordered by the W.D., such as the “Saltley” wagons Stephen has commented on.

 

[Nearholmer]

Is that list complete?

 

just that I seem to recall a mass of LSWR-type brake vans, built for WD, which were scattered across multiple railways after the war, and possibly vans too. We discussed them in another thread - they were “designed” for WD by a consultant who also worked for LSWR and  are a clear case of borrowed drawings, probably with permission.

 

Hang on though, maybe that’s 71001-72000. So they are there. Sorry!

Edited November 27, 2022 by Nearholmer

[Compound2632]

On 27/11/2022 at 12:27, Northroader said:

This list might help in planning your rolling stock build/ acquisition, as it lists all the war department wagons, in part a load of wagons borrowed from the British main line companies, plus a series of new build specially ordered by the W.D., such as the “Saltley” wagons Stephen has commented on.

 

EDIT: references to "D302" in this and subsequent posts refer to the wagons built to Drg. 3843, indentified in Midland Wagons Vol. 1 as corresponding to diagram D302 but, I believe I have established, incorrectly so. Wagons built to this drawing had the same dimensions as wagons built to Drg. 5279 in 1921-23, and hence are represented by diagram D663A. I believe diagram D302 applies to a dozen wagons built in 1901. See:

 

 

That's very useful - I shall be analysing it carefully. One can clearly see a mix of 10-ton oil-axlebox D302 and 8-ton grease-axlebox D299 opens, so I'm afraid, @Edwardian, you have after all failed to find a D299-free zone!

 

From that list, I make out a total of 6,432 Midland wagons; in December 1920, Reid reported to the MR C&W Committee that of 6,128 wagons loaned to the war department, 5,974 had been returned. I wonder if that discrepancy of 304 can be accounted for by those number series not being full? 

 

This photograph of a D302 10-ton open modified for WD service is well known, having appeared in Essery's Midland Wagons:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue image of Midland Railway Study Centre item 88-2014-0068.]

 

@Northroader's list enables one to identify this as one of the 24 Midland 10-ton oil axlebox "pill box" wagons. This is a conversion of an essentially brand-new wagon, production of D302 having started with 250 to Lot 825, entered 21 Feb 1913, and only a further 1,000 ordered before the outbreak of war. It would be useful if there were some dates attached to this list* as there is a bit of a problem with the 3,000 10-ton open wagons WD Nos. 6001-9000. If one assumes that the whole of the 1,000 grease axlebox 10-ton wagons of Lot 529 of 1901, D301, were sent to France, that still means 2,000 oil axlebox D302 wagons must have been included in this batch but the total ordered up and including Lot 917 of August 1916 was only 2,750, with no more ordered until February 1918. There are a more 10-ton opens in the batch of 2,000 wagons WD Nos. 85001-87000 but the rest of the MR opens were 8-ton wagons, i.e. D299, of which there was a superabundance, and maybe some lowside wagons, D305.

 

*Though 37801-37824 can be dated to September 1917, according to the date on the solebar, as reported by Essery. 

 

One is forced to the interesting and previously unforeseen conclusion that pretty well all the 10-ton opens went to France, many of them direct from the Litchurch Lane works without putting in any company service first. And the Traffic Department had been waiting for these wagons since 1901!

 

Essery has a photo of meat wagon No. 51 [Midland Wagons Plate 47]. These wagons, WD Nos 51-150 in the above list, were built directly for WD service in France, to Lot 903, raised on 19 April 1915. This wagon does not have a Midland numberplate, so was presumably only added to Midland wagon stock on its return from WD service, although accounted as Midland property. Also a photo of 20 ton van WD No. 40001, built at Derby to the WD standard design [Midland Wagons Plate 45]. Lot 918 of January 1917 was for 750 of these, out of the total of 4,000 in the series 40001-44000.

 

This vehicle has been a bit of a mystery, but it fits with the range Nos. 31501-31800 "English comps. & brake vans":

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC item 64664.]

 

It started life as a  27 ft 4-wheel third for the Midland's Metropolitan Area suburban services out of Moorgate, D495, most of which were built in 1883/4 but with additional vehiclesbuilt over the following ten years; it is likely to have been withdrawn from service c. 1911-12 when new sets of bogie carriages were built for this service. Its running gear has been extensively rebuilt, with the long passenger carriage springs, oil axleboxes, Mansell 3' 7" wheels, and vaccumm brake stripped out and replaced by short wagon springs, Ellis 10A grease axleboxes, 3' 1" spoked wagon wheels, and hand brake - although still with clasp brakes.

Edited December 8, 2022 by Compound2632
punctuation

[Northroader]

In view of Stephens comments, I’d best put the two pages of notes following that list, which may add a fraction more information, particularly the coaching stock in the list:

 

[Compound2632]

Fascinating! I note the series Nos. 31756-31772 described as compos, which 31763 in the photo I posted certainly wasn't! But at least it's a Midland vehicle in a Midland series.

 

The dates for the various number ranges do seem to tie up.

 

The third page ends with No. 2728, whose history was mentioned a few pages back.

Edited November 27, 2022 by Compound2632

[Hroth]

The last paragraph about the bridge incident was interesting too!

 

It'd be nice to see the next page about 2728...

 

[Northroader]

You may also spot that the wagon in your picture,  WD 37819, which I see still has the MR cast numberplate on the solebar, also has a mention as in one range of wagons converted to carry cast concrete pillbox sections, which accounts for the “lime wagon” appearance, I suppose.

(presumably the cast numberplate indicates that the the wagons remain the property of the railway company, and are just on loan “for the duration”, which is why they were all shipped back after the war)

Edited November 27, 2022 by Northroader

[Compound2632]

14 minutes ago, Northroader said:

You may also spot that the wagon in your picture,  WD 37819, which I see still has the MR cast numberplate on the solebar, also has a mention as in one range of wagons converted to carry cast concrete pillbox sections, which accounts for the “lime wagon” appearance, I suppose.

(presumably the cast numberplate indicates that the the wagons remain the property of the railway company, and are just on loan “for the duration”, which is why they were all shipped back after the war)

 

Ah, that's what's meant by "pill box" wagon - from the general appearance, I think the presumption had been that they were for carrying ammunition!

 

Yes, as I said above, that wagon has its MR numberplate and is also otherwise in MR livery bar markings; the meat wagons built directly for WD service (but listed as Midland stock) did not have MR numberplates, just small cast WD ones, and were also finished in the dark livery (dark grey?) that seems to have been standard for WD wagons. 

[Chen Melling]

On 21/11/2022 at 20:34, Edwardian said:

Right, so, the three boilers were not swopped about prior to the Great War, so all three were still on the engines originally fitted with them at the time class members went east with the military. This makes the task far simpler than I anticipated.

 

The 3 Drummond boilers went respectively to:

 

0164 in 5/1907

515 in 4/1907

0436 in 11/1908

 

Of these three, one went for war service. 0164 was sold to the government un September 1916, still with her Drummond boiler and sent to Palestine, via Liverpool and SS Cameronia. A transaltlantic liner of 1911, the Cameronia had seen off a U-boat in 1915, having turned to ram it, but the Kaiserliche Marine got its revenge in 1917 when U33 torpedoed her. She was a troopship at the time and most of the soldiers and crew were saved. 

The Railway Magazine had a photo from the J.H. Price collection published in its October 1977 issue which purports to show No. 0164:

The resolution is too low for much detail, but the steam being let from the top of the dome confirm it has the Drummond boiler with appropriate safety valves.
(By the way, the loco is heading an LSWR(!) ambulance train on the Jerusalem line, this being one of 2 such 6-carriage trains of former "American Eagle" stock sent to Egypt, numbered 6 and 9 locally. The one seen here is, I believe, No. 48, nee 6, and the photo would be from the latter half of 1918)

Assuming this was the only such locomotive over here with such an arrangement, I can now identify the one in this photo, from the collection of my friend Alon Siton, as being No. 0164 as it lacks the Ramsbottom safety valves:

(The loco is shown here with the same train, this time in the Sinai Peninsula, but the photograph was taken earlier than the previous one, as the train still lacks the double roof added locally to help keep it cool).

[Schooner]

Saw this and thought of you:

 

1:76, 655mmx170mm,  £50* for a comprehensive kit 'tho being designed for RC it could use some sharpening of the details. Not sure it's an answer to your questions, but it's nice knowing it's out there.

 

*Hmmm...I note the kit isn't listed on their current website. 

Edited November 27, 2022 by Schooner
sp.

[Andy Hayter]

Good spot even if unfortunately no longer available.

 

It is of course necessary to remember that by 1914, paddle steamers were largely relegated to Estuary crossings and tourist jaunts down the coast, along lakes etc. and no longer used on cross Channel crossings.

 

I wonder if they might be induced to do a rerun.

[Northroader]

The Navy did build paddle steamers in WW1, used as mine sweepers. (All racecourse names!)

 

http://paddlesteamers.info/Royal Navy Minesweepers WW1.html

Edited November 28, 2022 by Northroader

[phil_sutters]

This paddle tug was the last built for commercial operators, completed in 1931. As of 2020 it was still awaiting decisions on its future - possibly a static exhibit at Chatham. So paddles remained a useful form of propulsion well into the 20th century. (edit - RN had new paddle tugs in WW2 - HMS Griper was one)

https://www.nationalhistoricships.org.uk/register/33/john-h-amos

 

Edited November 28, 2022 by phil_sutters

[Edwardian]

On 27/11/2022 at 20:39, Andy Hayter said:

Good spot even if unfortunately no longer available.

 

It is of course necessary to remember that by 1914, paddle steamers were largely relegated to Estuary crossings and tourist jaunts down the coast, along lakes etc. and no longer used on cross Channel crossings.

 

I wonder if they might be induced to do a rerun.

 

Yes, and, of course, railway companies commissioned ships for short-sea crossings, including the Channel. Not an area I have really looked into, but it strikes me, based on my limited knowledge of the LB&SCR, that:

 

- Cross-channel paddle steamers were fairly large - 230-250' long, compared with the sort of 130-160' coastal or river excursion paddle steamers.

 

- The Brighton Channel paddle steamers were, however, things of the 1880s and were being replaced with screw ships from the turn of the Century, which fits with what you say.

 

- Paddle steamers were built fairly prolifically in the 1890s for the sort of coastal and estuary traffic you mentioned. They were quite a big thing on the Thames, and these look quite large. The LB&SCR were still commissioning paddle steamers in the late 1890s, and again in 1911, but for the short crossing to the Isle of Wight along with the LSWR (they co-owner a joint stretch of line on the island to connect to this service). 

 

So, no paddle steamers on this layout!

 

The ones I adore are those fin de siècle excursion steamers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 29, 2022 by Edwardian
spelling

[Compound2632]

I'm sure I've mentioned this before elsewhere but the RN had paddle frigates in the squadron sent to the Baltic during the Crimean War. At that period, traditional cannon were still the order of the day; these ships had dummy gun-ports painted on the paddle boxes.

 

The drawbacks of such ships in conventional naval warfare soon became obvious but I believe that paddle steamers were also used by the RN in the far east, where their shallow draught and manoeuvrability made them ideal for expeditions up-river - in fact, a direct military equivalent of those coastal day trips - that photo of Lulworth Cove could equally be some colonial beach-head!

 

EDIT: As a Jane Austen enthusiast, I had in mind her brother Charles Austen's command at the taking of Rangoon during the second Burmese war, 1852. In fact his flagship, HMS Rattler, was a screw steamer but his squadron included two paddle sloops, HMS Hermes and HMS Salamander, along with a couple of sail-only sloops.

Edited November 28, 2022 by Compound2632

[Caley Jim]

While on the subject of paddle steamers, let's not forget the PS Waverley, still going strong and making annual visits to the south coast.

 

Several Clyde paddlers were requisitioned by the navy during WW1.

 

Jim

[Hroth]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

In fact his flagship, HMS Rattler, was a screw steamer but his squadron included two paddle sloops, HMS Hermes and HMS Salamander, along with a couple of sail-only sloops.

 

Earlier in her career, HMS Rattler was famous for towing HMS Alecto, an almost identical paddle sloop backwards at 2.8 knots, both ships being at full power.  She wasn't a "happy" vessel, running aground and striking rocks at various times and was broken up in 1856... 

 

Edited November 28, 2022 by Hroth