Engines on a What If GCR Main Line in 1907 - and visitors?

[1165Valour]

Assuming the Manchester - Huddersfield - Leeds line had gone to the MS&LR instead of the LNWR, what GCR locos would you see on it in 1907 and thereabouts? In addition, what kinds of engines one might see at junctions with other companies, like the the L&Y, the LNWR at Guide Bridge, the Midland at Huddersfield, the GNR at Batley, and the NER at Leeds? Is there any chance a stray GWR engine could appear for some reason?

Edited October 1, 2023 by GWRSwindon

[Steamport Southport]

6 hours ago, GWRSwindon said:

Assuming the Manchester - Huddersfield - Leeds line had gone to the MS&LR instead of the LNWR, what GCR locos would you see on it in 1907 and thereabouts? In addition, what kinds of engines would you see from foreign companies, like the the L&Y, the LNWR at Guide Bridge, the Midland at Huddersfield, the GNR at Batley, and the NER at Leeds? Is there any chance a stray GWR engine could appear for some reason?

 

No regular GWR engine was allowed as north as Huddersfield. The one known time that happened it didn't go well!

 

6858 Woolston Grange worked through to Huddersfield whereas it supposed to have came off at Leicester (or Nottingham). It then preceded to hit virtually every platform en route, most notably Penistone where it suffered damaged to it's cylinders.

 

Here it is in Nottingham.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/64518788@N05/36597548503

 

ISTR that Liverpool and Manchester was the northern limit for GWR engines in normal service.

 

 

As for the "foreign" locomotives scenario I would look at what the CLC was doing. GCR locomotives were working alongside GNR and MR locomotives on a daily basis there. I would assume it would be something similar.

 

 

Jason

Edited October 1, 2023 by Steamport Southport

[The Johnster]

The ‘wandering Grange’ sags occurred in BR days; pre-grouping practice was to change locos at an established location close to the territorial border, Banbury for GW-GC traffic.  Sorry, zero chance of a GW loco in your scenario.  Stock, possibly; the two companies cooperated in through workings. 

[Steamport Southport]

13 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

The ‘wandering Grange’ sags occurred in BR days; pre-grouping practice was to change locos at an established location close to the territorial border, Banbury for GW-GC traffic.  Sorry, zero chance of a GW loco in your scenario.  Stock, possibly; the two companies cooperated in through workings. 

 

The GWR worked regularly into Liverpool and Manchester before nationalisation.

 

Here's the GWR map, notice the bit between Warrington and Manchester? That was the northern limit of the GWR and you are virtually in GCR territory, GCR mainline just below the L&MR. Many forget that the LNER went to Liverpool and Manchester!

 

ISTR pre grouping it was GWR 4-4-0s with the running rights. Saints and Stars were definitely banned. Later the 2 cylinder 4-6-0s were allowed.

 

 

 

Jason

[The Stationmaster]

19 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

The GWR worked regularly into Liverpool and Manchester before nationalisation.

 

Here's the GWR map, notice the bit between Warrington and Manchester? That was the northern limit of the GWR and you are virtually in GCR territory, GCR mainline just below the L&MR. Many forget that the LNER went to Liverpool and Manchester!

 

ISTR pre grouping it was GWR 4-4-0s with the running rights. Saints and Stars were definitely banned. Later the 2 cylinder 4-6-0s were allowed.

 

 

 

Jason

GWR 43XX moguls worked regularly into Manchester Exchange pre-war when the GR passenger service operated to Manchester.

 

PostWWIi the following GWR classes were permitted to work to Manchester Exchange  - 29XX and 49XX 4-6-0, 43XX 2-6-0. 'Duke' and 'Bulldog' 4-4-0s and all 0-6-0s.  aAll were permitted into Liverpool Road Goods Depot subject ti various siding restrictiosn plus the 4-6-0s and 2-6-0 were permitted to work cattle trains onto a limited part of the Ship Canal branch.  All classes listed above permitted in Ordsall Lane Carriage Sidings subject to certain indvidual siding restrictions.

 

The listed 4-60w and 2-6-0s were permitted to work between Warrington and Manchester Exchange via Tydesley in a

 

All GWR classes except 'Kings were permitted to work between Chester and Birkenhead subject to various local restrictions in the Birkenhead area emergency.

 

Most GWR tender engine classes were permitted between Wellington and Crewe - only 'Kings' were barred.

 

28XX were definitely permitted to Warrington in Pre-Group days but don't appear in the post WW!! list except between Wellington and Crewe.

[1165Valour]

What kinds of LNWR engines would you see at Guide Bridge? Would the LNWR have been willing to work with the MS&LR/GC for Huddersfield/Leeds trains?

 

@Compound2632 Was the state of Midland/GC relations such that the Midland might be willing to use the GC (in this world) Huddersfield station? It might be helpful for Scotland - Manchester trains. What kinds of engines could you see at Huddersfield and Dewsbury here?

 

[1165Valour]

At present, here are my thoughts on what Great Central engines would be likely, based on engines that were historically used on the Cheshire Lines, and other secondary main lines around 1907:

 

- For passenger trains, Classes D6, D7, D12, and Sacré 2-4-0s. Local passenger trains would be handled by F1, F2, and C13 locomotives. The top link Leeds - Marylebone expresses will likely be handled by 'Jersey Lily' C4s. 

- For goods trains, Classes J10, J11, J12, B9, and older Sacré 0-6-0s. Perhaps Q4s as well?

- For shunting duties, I expect J58s, J59s, and N5s.

[65179]

7 hours ago, GWRSwindon said:

At present, here are my thoughts on what Great Central engines would be likely, based on engines that were historically used on the Cheshire Lines, and other secondary main lines around 1907:

 

- For passenger trains, Classes D6, D7, D12, and Sacré 2-4-0s. Local passenger trains would be handled by F1, F2, and C13 locomotives. The top link Leeds - Marylebone expresses will likely be handled by 'Jersey Lily' C4s. 

- For goods trains, Classes J10, J11, J12, B9, and older Sacré 0-6-0s. Perhaps Q4s as well?

- For shunting duties, I expect J58s, J59s, and N5s.

 

I'd be careful about too many comparisons with the CLC. If this line had been built and good relations maintained with the GN (and worked on with the NER) then this line together with think that over Woodhead would have been the mainlines. I think we can be confident that Q4s would have found use, with larger numbers ordered.  The B5s and the first of the B4s may have appeared too, particularly if more were ordered given the extra line. 

 

Regards 

Simon

[Flying Pig]

53 minutes ago, 65179 said:

 

I'd be careful about too many comparisons with the CLC. If this line had been built and good relations maintained with the GN (and worked on with the NER) then this line together with think that over Woodhead would have been the mainlines. I think we can be confident that Q4s would have found use, with larger numbers ordered.  The B5s and the first of the B4s may have appeared too, particularly if more were ordered given the extra line. 

 

Regards 

Simon

 

Assuming the Manchester to Leeds route was built at about the same time as it actually was, it would have affected railway development in Manchester from the 1840s onwards.  I think it is likely that the MS&L would have an independent route to Liverpool with trains continuing to that city as they did in real life.

[Forward!]

14 hours ago, GWRSwindon said:

At present, here are my thoughts on what Great Central engines would be likely, based on engines that were historically used on the Cheshire Lines, and other secondary main lines around 1907:

 

- For passenger trains, Classes D6, D7, D12, and Sacré 2-4-0s. Local passenger trains would be handled by F1, F2, and C13 locomotives. The top link Leeds - Marylebone expresses will likely be handled by 'Jersey Lily' C4s. 

- For goods trains, Classes J10, J11, J12, B9, and older Sacré 0-6-0s. Perhaps Q4s as well?

- For shunting duties, I expect J58s, J59s, and N5s.

 

Feasibly, you might just see the Pollit Class 13 singles (LNER X4) on your finctional line too.

 

Will

 

[1165Valour]

17 minutes ago, Forward! said:

 

Feasibly, you might just see the Pollit Class 13 singles (LNER X4) on your finctional line too.

 

Will

 

Possibly double headed with a Class 2 or 11A?

[1165Valour]

It would be nice to include fish trains from Grimsby bound for Leeds or Huddersfield. The West Riding & Grimsby Joint would be the fastest route to Leeds, but maybe some could use the Huddersfield & Sheffield Junction. The H&SJ will be even busier than they were historically, as it would likely be the route that trains would use from the West Riding to Marylebone. 

 

Would the GCR and LNWR cooperate on running trains? I wouldn't mind having the LNWR appear at Guide Bridge.

[DCB]

1907  the GCR and GWR had very few big engines,  about 40    4-4-2 and 4-6-0 locos each and fewer still medium size ones as  the GWR Moguls  GCR  4-6-2 tanks etc  had not been invented..
Basically you are looking at Pollitt and Sacre 4-4-0s  Pollitt and Robinson 0-6-0s  the Robinson 0-8-0s  of which only the J11 is available RTR   Not a great period to model, Red GWR Coaches, lots of outside frame locos.
1920 might be better,  2-8-0s   Directors etc

 

Edit  1907 was right in the zone of lots of effectively redundant  2-2-2 and 4-2-2 locos  on  many lines  as the could not cope with the bogie stock and especially corridor stock on express trains which pretty much doubled the weight of trains for the same number of seats. So maybe a 4-2-2 working out it's time on locals?

Edited October 15, 2023 by DCB

[65179]

2 hours ago, DCB said:

1907  the GCR and GWR had very few big engines,  about 40    4-4-2 and 4-6-0 locos each and fewer still medium size ones as  the GWR Moguls  GCR  4-6-2 tanks etc  had not been invented..
Basically you are looking at Pollitt and Sacre 4-4-0s  Pollitt and Robinson 0-6-0s  the Robinson 0-8-0s  of which only the J11 is available RTR   Not a great period to model, Red GWR Coaches, lots of outside frame locos.
1920 might be better,  2-8-0s   Directors etc

 

Certainly harder to model, but a fascinating period and different to most modellers, Rev Denny and one or two others aside. It also has the advantage of shorter trains not looking silly which is always useful for modelling purposes.

 

Simon

[65179]

6 hours ago, GWRSwindon said:

It would be nice to include fish trains from Grimsby bound for Leeds or Huddersfield. The West Riding & Grimsby Joint would be the fastest route to Leeds, but maybe some could use the Huddersfield & Sheffield Junction. The H&SJ will be even busier than they were historically, as it would likely be the route that trains would use from the West Riding to Marylebone. 

 

Would the GCR and LNWR cooperate on running trains? I wouldn't mind having the LNWR appear at Guide Bridge.

 

It's your alt history. If you decide that the LNWR reasoned that cooperation was necessary and that more than limited interchange at Guide Bridge etc was needed, then why not? Alternatively assume that in a fit of pique they built some sort of expanded Spen Valley line scheme and had a competing route throughout!

 

Simon

Edited October 15, 2023 by 65179
Spelling

[AMJ]

Knowing the the GCR and GNR also ran a joint line in West Yorkshire I think that you could feasibly run GNR stock in your world  All the northern based companies are so interlinked on both sides of the Pennines that nearly anything could be run on these services.  

 

Often looking at the photos of private owner wagons can be interesting in determining things like that as they often are empty to ... full to... and each as a registration plate for the company tracks that it can run over.

 

[1165Valour]

12 hours ago, 65179 said:

 

It's your alt history. If you decide that the LNWR reasoned that cooperation was necessary and that more than limited interchange at Guide Bridge etc was needed, then why not? Alternatively assume that in a fit of pique they built some sort of expanded Spen Valley line scheme and had a competing route throughout!

 

Simon

True, though following Peter Denny and others, I would prefer that my alternate history not be too implausible.

[1165Valour]

21 hours ago, AMJ said:

Knowing the the GCR and GNR also ran a joint line in West Yorkshire I think that you could feasibly run GNR stock in your world  All the northern based companies are so interlinked on both sides of the Pennines that nearly anything could be run on these services.  

 

Often looking at the photos of private owner wagons can be interesting in determining things like that as they often are empty to ... full to... and each as a registration plate for the company tracks that it can run over.

 

The LNWR proposed to extend their Birstall branch to Bradford in the 1860s, but the GNR's proposal via Adwalton won out. As the MS&LR/GCR will probably still enjoy good relations with the GNR, perhaps the GNR's West Riding lines are constructed as a joint GNR/GCR concern here? 

 

Liverpool to Leeds trains could use the Stockport, Timperley & Altrincham Junction Railway, possibly with a connecting line to Stalybridge. 

Edited October 16, 2023 by GWRSwindon

[62613]

On 15/10/2023 at 07:55, 65179 said:

 

It's your alt history. If you decide that the LNWR reasoned that cooperation was necessary and that more than limited interchange at Guide Bridge etc was needed, then why not? Alternatively assume that in a fit of pique they built some sort of expanded Spen Valley line scheme and had a competing route throughout!

 

Simon

Remember that in any case, the MS&L had a line from Guide Bridge to Stalybridge. Stalybridge Station was "Joint" between the them and the LNWR. Both companies shared the rebuilding costs in the 1880s when the Micklehurst loop was built. The LNWR trains from Manchester ran to there courtesy of the LYR branch from Miles Platting. They also ran from Stockport. At one time, the MS&L were going to build a line further up the Tame Valley from Stalybridge, I don't know what stopped them. Exchange yard at Diggle, anyone?😁

[1165Valour]

On 20/10/2023 at 10:33, 62613 said:

Remember that in any case, the MS&L had a line from Guide Bridge to Stalybridge. Stalybridge Station was "Joint" between the them and the LNWR. Both companies shared the rebuilding costs in the 1880s when the Micklehurst loop was built. The LNWR trains from Manchester ran to there courtesy of the LYR branch from Miles Platting. They also ran from Stockport. At one time, the MS&L were going to build a line further up the Tame Valley from Stalybridge, I don't know what stopped them. Exchange yard at Diggle, anyone?😁

Of course, if the Huddersfield & Manchester Railway (& Canal Company!) had gone to the MS&L along with the Leeds, Dewsbury & Manchester, there would have been little real need for the line from Guide Bridge to Stalybridge. I suspect you may see the MS&L and LNWR collaborating on trains to Huddersfield and Leeds. Historically, their relationship soured in the 1850s and tended to stay that way, so perhaps the LNWR will attempt their own line to Leeds in a fit of pique. Alternatively, they may be sensible and work with the MS&L/GC on Leeds traffic.

 

The GNR would be interesting. The MS&L could be a helpful ally in the West Riding, and the lines around Bradford, Queensbury, and Halifax may be joint MS&L/GN, much as the West Riding & Grimsby was historically. Of course, once the GCR builds the London Extension, they'll surely want to start running Bradford-Marylebone and Leeds-Marylebone trains, competing with the GNR trains to King's Cross.

Edited October 21, 2023 by GWRSwindon

[62613]

15 hours ago, GWRSwindon said:

Of course, if the Huddersfield & Manchester Railway (& Canal Company!) had gone to the MS&L along with the Leeds, Dewsbury & Manchester, there would have been little real need for the line from Guide Bridge to Stalybridge. I suspect you may have been the MS&L and LNWR collaborating on trains to Huddersfield and Leeds. Historically, their relationship soured in the 1850s and tended to stay that way, so perhaps the LNWR will attempt their own line to Leeds in a fit of pique. Alternatively, they may be sensible and work with the MS&L/GC on Leeds traffic.

 

The GNR would be interesting. The MS&L could be a helpful ally in the West Riding, and the lines around Bradford, Queensbury, and Halifax may be joint MS&L/GN, much as the West Riding & Grimsby was historically. Of course, once the GCR builds the London Extension, they'll surely want to start running Bradford-Marylebone and Leeds-Marylebone trains, competing with the GNR trains to King's Cross.

IIRC, the branch from Guide Bridge to Stalybridge was almost on the original prospectus of the SA&MR. The LNWR built its Guide bridge bypass, from Denton Junction to Stalybridge (The Hooley Hill line) a bit later

[t-b-g]

On 15/10/2023 at 05:31, DCB said:

1907  the GCR and GWR had very few big engines,  about 40    4-4-2 and 4-6-0 locos each and fewer still medium size ones as  the GWR Moguls  GCR  4-6-2 tanks etc  had not been invented..
Basically you are looking at Pollitt and Sacre 4-4-0s  Pollitt and Robinson 0-6-0s  the Robinson 0-8-0s  of which only the J11 is available RTR   Not a great period to model, Red GWR Coaches, lots of outside frame locos.
1920 might be better,  2-8-0s   Directors etc

 

Edit  1907 was right in the zone of lots of effectively redundant  2-2-2 and 4-2-2 locos  on  many lines  as the could not cope with the bogie stock and especially corridor stock on express trains which pretty much doubled the weight of trains for the same number of seats. So maybe a 4-2-2 working out it's time on locals?

 

If you like building models, the lack of RTR for your chosen period is an advantage, rather than a problem.

 

I see little point in building models of locos that are covered, often very well indeed, by RTR manufacturers.

 

So choosing a date that isn't well covered by the RTR firms is a good way to go as far as I am concerned. 

[1165Valour]

4 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

If you like building models, the lack of RTR for your chosen period is an advantage, rather than a problem.

 

I see little point in building models of locos that are covered, often very well indeed, by RTR manufacturers.

 

So choosing a date that isn't well covered by the RTR firms is a good way to go as far as I am concerned. 

It can also be helpful for modelling in scales such as EM, P4, or 2mm.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, GWRSwindon said:

It can also be helpful for modelling in scales such as EM, P4, or 2mm.

I agree. My work has been mostly in EM for over 40 years. If you are building your own models, putting the frames further apart and fitting finer wheels is a nice advantage. If you have to make most things for yourself, doing them to a finer standard is usually of no greater difficulty and can sometimes be easier.

[65179]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I agree. My work has been mostly in EM for over 40 years. If you are building your own models, putting the frames further apart and fitting finer wheels is a nice advantage. If you have to make most things for yourself, doing them to a finer standard is usually of no greater difficulty and can sometimes be easier.

 

Modelling in 2mm gives me the options to model the ex-GC and MR in a way that the limits of N gauge simply would not have. As it is the 2mm Association shop affords me the wheels, gears, motors etc to allow my brother and I to produce this sort of thing:

 

 

Simon