What's wrong with Southern?

[Southernman46]

Let's face it the GWR couldn't even get the gauge right first time round !!!

[Guest Max Stafford]

Interesting topic, Olddudders.

 

[Not be confused with "our" Southern Railway (Southern Serves The South), which was a first-class operation in almost every regard.]

 

Right with you on that one Paul. That railway is the what the designation 'Class 1 Railroad' was coined for...! B)

 

Dave.

[Graham_Muz]

To answer the question of the OP - Absulty nothing! although I guess that will not be a surprise answer to most that know me.

 

At the end of the day there was and always will be rivalry between competing companies and therefore their supporters / enthusiasts too. As far as I am concerned as long as it is light hearted and taken as such then it's ok.

 

 

When painting & lining was a full time occupation prior to 2005, more SR locos passed through my paintshop than LNER and GWR, so in the world outside of plastic RTR, the SR was/is very popular. I should add that the Malachite era from 1939 to 1947 was not at all popular, in fact my cellulose malachite green was so rarely I darkenned it a few years ago for use on BR (S.Region) coaches.

 

Larry

 

Ahh that would explain the darker shade than I was expecting on my Northstar ex LSWR 48' Pull-Push set

[Barry Ten]

I have to plead guilty to taking that picture and posting it, more than once. But it does show the lines of the S15 tender nicely enough

 

 

Brings home how long I've been on the forum, as it feels like I saw that picture years ago ... gulp!

[grahame]

Whats wrong with the Southern?

 

Nothing of course, but you'll always find a few oddballs who think otherwise. Just like there are a few who think the Scots can play football and that they brew decent beer north of Birmingham. B)

 

G.

[Pinkmouse]

Fair comment Adam - I reckon that trumps the GW

 

Not quite. According to Bennett in "The Chronicles of Boulton's Siding" the GWR experimented with a battery electric loco on the Met in 1863, (which they then operated on broad gauge). Does that count?

[jamie92208]

In our club in Wakefield the rivalry is so entrenched that when we decided to have club shirts they had to be in a neutral grey, presumably because all companies used lined grey for works photos.

 

Jamie

[Natalie]

The Hammersmith and City line was originally incorporated in 1861 as an independent venture to feed the Metropolitan Railway but made working arrangements with both the GWR and the Met being vested jointly in those companies on July 1st 1867. There was however a strong GWR feel to the route especially that west of Bishop's Road- indeed it was originally built to broad gauge although this only lasted for a short time- it certainly did not make the end of Broad Gauge in 1892. I think the GWR and WR had maintenance commitments to this section which were only removed with nationalisation in 1948 when they passed to LT.

 

Rolling stock wise the rolling stock was supplied by both the GWR and Met until electrification in 1906 when the new 6 car electric units were operated in the name of the Joint Railway (this was the name of the Joint Committee set up in 1867 to manage the line) with stock finished in Met style teak with white cant and waist rails were branded 'Great Western & Metropolitan Railways' although it is believed that originally the car's owning company was that written first on the car itself. Some cars were GWR owned and the rest were Met owned although the Met maintained all the vehicles and operated the running shed. In addition the power to supply the line was provide by a new GWR power station at Park Royal with substations at Royal Oak and Shepherd's Bush. The GWR continued to own and operate these until nationalisation when they too passed to LT control/ownership. WR involvement with the route continued well into the 1960s with the running of a coal train (at night) to the goods yard at Hammersmith.

 

Take a look along the line even today and you will see GW structures abounding- especially at places like Hammersmith which to this day retains a GWR terminus and buildings and GWR car shed. Unfortunately the large ex-GWR type 7 signal box there was replaced in 1951 by the current LT structure. I think Ladbroke Grove (an ex GWR structure) was the last mechanical box on the Underground- although I stand to be corrected.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Southern, nothing at all. The Midland was of course "The Best Way" and we wouldn't have had the S&DJt without them

[Natalie]

Further to my epic above I would like to say that the Southern is my second favourite mainline- after the Metropolitan even though I am from the Midlands deep in ex-LNWR (with a bit of Midland thrown in too) territory. What is it that attracts us to particular railways- maybe in my case it is because of the very things that a lot of people disliked- electric units- both the Southern and the Met had a tremendous variety of such units and also possessed a variety of other traction for working 'conventional' trains and a lot of information abounds in archives regarding the train working- take a look at old Met WTT for the level of detail in them such as diagram/working numbers of sets etc and of the signalling systems. I just find that these systems fascinate me more than any of the others- simple as that- although it is very hard not to take more than a passing interest in other railways too such is the depth of my nosiness, I mean curiosity.

[Invicta]

It seems daft that any implied criticism should be made due to the number of models we've had over the last few years? After all, we've got a good tank engine (M7), two good mid range tender engines (T9 and schools) and some top link passenger stuff (KA, LP and MN). Oh and some decent coaches. Thats the bear minimum that the southern should have, and is less than many other regions have had.

 

There has always been some sniffines from the western region, and I wonder if that has translated across to others....

 

Being a predominantly LMS/LMR modeller, I've always read comments about the manufacturers' alleged Southern bias with a degree of amusement, bearing in mind the wealth of LMS/LMR releases we've had since I returned to the hobby about 10 years ago...

 

Yes, I can see the entertainment value in a bit of good-natured leg-pulling of your clubmates about their chosen railway; I remember with great delight a trip to the Bluebell a couple of years ago with a group of mainly Southern enthusiasts, and the reaction when 'our' train arrived behind a GWR Prairie- (as I remember, on loan from Llangollen?), but I really don't see the point in taking it to the lengths of making negative comments about a layout, or exhibition simply because of the region or company it represents.

 

Personally, (born and bred in the heart of Midland territory, but transplanted to the Southern about 20 years ago), I can find something interesting in pretty much any railway, and at exhibitions the region or company that's portrayed certainly doesn't influence whether I enjoy a layout or not- Equally, if I'm helping to operate someone elses' alyout at a show, I'm more than happy to play with T9s, M7s and Maunsells

[The Evil Bus Driver]

I like the Southern too. Even so, I have no problem with the GWR however, as they did produce some engines that could only be described as masterpieces. I don't see what the fuss is about. Like the above posters said, if it means some good banter then that's cool but the frothing hatred some individuals get up to is beyond comprehension. Purism is one thing but do some of these people actually enjoy the hobby or do they simply suffer from it?

 

What I like about the Southern is the innovation, some things worked (Bulleid's Light pacifics), some didn't (Leader). The LBSCR, SECR, LSWR and Southern gave us such names like Bulleid (Who worked with Gresley - Another great name), Billinton, Stroudley, the GWR gave us Brunel and the Midland/Metropolitan gave us Watkin. All great men who gave us the railway we have today (there would have been more had it not been for that idiot Marples).

 

I think in modelling terms lately the Southern has simply been having it's turn. There has been plenty of stuff from the other companies so it is simply time. It will pass and it'll come around again.

[Engineer_London]

Just a little supplement to Natalie's input on the H&C Joint Stock, in case it's of interest. The symbolic "H&C" emblem came in two alternate versions, exchanging the order of two railways' names. There are a few of the old emblems around, and the M-GW version pictured below was part of a collection of artefacts and Met 1/24th scale models put on show in the 1980s by J.C.Y. Baker, author of a book on the Metropolitan.

 

Below is the other version, this time on a steel panel:

 

Must declare an interest on the SR/GWR debate, in order to stay within the subject of the thread:

 

You must have worked out that the Metropolitan is the railway I study more closely than any other. It employed my father and his father. I have sympathies for other railways, too, though with a selfish rather than a scientific basis:

 

GWR - runs close to my territory, has had close affinities with the Met and its successor [and Met staff had one free pass a year on the GWR];

LNWR and LMS - other grandfather, and his father, worked at Broad Street Goods Depot;

 

and the Southern? - much respect for its excellent use of electric traction, for its Schools Class [a personal favourite], and for my own happy visits to Amberley Station, many years ago.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

All railway companies had their strengths.

 

The GW, loco design initiated under Churchward and a forward looking management under Felix Pole.

 

The MR, passenger comfort with thought even for the 3rd class passenger.

 

The SR, an efficient electrified suburban system under the eye of Herbert Walker.

 

The NER, for efficient freight handling, notably using hopper wagons.

 

The GCR, for enterprise and dash.

 

And so one can go on...............

[Natalie]

Thanks to Engineers_London for those pictures- very nice indeed. All this talk of 'my railway is better than yours' (why do men seem to like comparing things?!) reminds me of a shift I did a while ago at Loughborough on the GCR. I was looking out of the box window at the 8F (or it might have been Leander) that was standing outside being prepared and talking to someone about the very subject of inter railway rivalries. If you looked at the features of the loco you could see the influence of other company's practice. There was a lot of similarity physically between the Castles and Jubilee class in areas like the boiler design with top feed etc which is not surprising considering the GWR ancestry of William Stanier.

 

The CMEs it seemed all were very much aware of each other (maybe even on a social level too) and were not shy of using each other's ideas- no doubt helped by the existence of such organisations as the Institute of Mechanical Engineers. A lot different from the early years of railways where, it is said, that Trevithick had to wait until Boulton/Watt's patent had expired until he could develop the high pressure steam boiler which ultimately led to the first steam locomotive (albeit a road one). Often they had worked for each other at different railways- Bulleid at the LNER under Gresley (who served his apprenticeship at Crewe Works on the LNWR and later worked on the L&YR under Aspinall) with Stanier under Churchward at the GWR. Indeed Bulleid also married Henry Ivatt's (with whom he had also worked with at Doncaster) daughter who was of course George Ivatt's (who later became CME of the LMS) sister. So it seems that the 'big names' (certainly those connected with engineering) of the companies enjoyed each other's company and ideas.

 

I feel that one of the problems of some enthusiasts is that they can be very insular when looking at their 'own' line or railway and look at them in isolation without taking into account developments on other lines had an impact on how things development. This extends to not looking at 'overseas' railways and dismissing them as 'foreign' when British practice was both influenced by and influenced other country's systems. I include Ireland (both before and after partition) in this.

 

My overriding point is sure have a favourite line, railway but do not be blinkered into thinking that they existed in isolation- if you do have this opinion then you are missing out on a great deal. Let us look at our railways with an open mind and you might be surprised what you learn!

[Guest Max Stafford]

Whats wrong with the Southern?

 

there are a few who think the Scots can play football and that they brew decent beer north of Birmingham. B)

 

G.

 

What? Don't we put enough lemonade in it for you...?

 

Dave.

[The Stationmaster]

Not quite. According to Bennett in "The Chronicles of Boulton's Siding" the GWR experimented with a battery electric loco on the Met in 1863, (which they then operated on broad gauge). Does that count?

 

I reckon it must B)

[The Stationmaster]

 

 

At the end of the day there was and always will be rivalry between competing companies and therefore their supporters / enthusiasts too. As far as I am concerned as long as it is light hearted and taken as such then it's ok.

 

 

 

Exactly so Graham but it can occasionally turn into something more serious. On the first ill-fated GW150 run down to Plymouth we arrived at Exeter one steam engine short of a pair (having detached the 'King' at Taunton, hot box). There were therefore two crews available to work forwards but only one engine so a debate was bound to ensue - however it turned into something nearer a stand-up fight with two men hanging onto the same shovel and pulling in opposite directions and one loudly telling the other 'You're a Southern man so it must be our engine 'cos it's Western'. Things were satisfied in a rather indirect way by failing the 'Manor' as well (another hot box).

 

And even in the 1970s there was an intense rivalry between Aberdare and Radyr depots and although anyone who had been there at the time had long gone a lot of it had sprung from one originally being Taff Vale and the other GW - 50 years earlier!

[brushman47544]

I too was born in Surrey and my interest in railways stemmed from my parents taking me on the short walk up to the local overbridge on the Redhill-Guildford line, which at that time was still steam worked, to view the trains. So I still have a strong affinity for the Southern. But I did also get rather bored with it as an almost exclusively unit railway, so I also developed a particular interest in all things Western Region, from school trips and because Reading was easy to get to by train. As a result, my modelling interests are now primarily based round where Southern and Western Regions trains did, or could have, met plus the superb Westerns, Warships and Hymeks.

 

Now, any passenger train with a loco on the front does it for me - which is probably why I'm more interested in the French and Italian, rather than the British, current scene.

[PhilJ W]

Not quite. According to Bennett in "The Chronicles of Boulton's Siding" the GWR experimented with a battery electric loco on the Met in 1863, (which they then operated on broad gauge). Does that count?

 

So Seimens did not build the first electric locomotive in 1883 then? Actually you are probably thinking of 'Fowlers Ghost', that was a 2-4-0 engine with the firebox full of pre-heated bricks in an attempt to build a steam locomotive that could operate underground. Another proposal in the 1870's was for a compressed air locomotive to operate in the Channel Tunnel, this would have looked like a carriage gas cylinder wagon (with 3 storage cylinders) on a 2-4-2 or 2-6-2 locomotive frame.

[Allegheny1600]

Thanks to Engineers_London for those pictures- very nice indeed. All this talk of 'my railway is better than yours' (why do men seem to like comparing things?!) reminds me of a shift I did a while ago at Loughborough on the GCR. I was looking out of the box window at the 8F (or it might have been Leander) that was standing outside being prepared and talking to someone about the very subject of inter railway rivalries. If you looked at the features of the loco you could see the influence of other company's practice. There was a lot of similarity physically between the Castles and Jubilee class in areas like the boiler design with top feed etc which is not surprising considering the GWR ancestry of William Stanier.

 

The CMEs it seemed all were very much aware of each other (maybe even on a social level too) and were not shy of using each other's ideas- no doubt helped by the existence of such organisations as the Institute of Mechanical Engineers. A lot different from the early years of railways where, it is said, that Trevithick had to wait until Boulton/Watt's patent had expired until he could develop the high pressure steam boiler which ultimately led to the first steam locomotive (albeit a road one). Often they had worked for each other at different railways- Bulleid at the LNER under Gresley (who served his apprenticeship at Crewe Works on the LNWR and later worked on the L&YR under Aspinall) with Stanier under Churchward at the GWR. Indeed Bulleid also married Henry Ivatt's (with whom he had also worked with at Doncaster) daughter who was of course George Ivatt's (who later became CME of the LMS) sister. So it seems that the 'big names' (certainly those connected with engineering) of the companies enjoyed each other's company and ideas.

 

I feel that one of the problems of some enthusiasts is that they can be very insular when looking at their 'own' line or railway and look at them in isolation without taking into account developments on other lines had an impact on how things development. This extends to not looking at 'overseas' railways and dismissing them as 'foreign' when British practice was both influenced by and influenced other country's systems. I include Ireland (both before and after partition) in this.

 

My overriding point is sure have a favourite line, railway but do not be blinkered into thinking that they existed in isolation- if you do have this opinion then you are missing out on a great deal. Let us look at our railways with an open mind and you might be surprised what you learn!

 

 

Hear, Hear!!!

Very well said, Natalie - thanks!

John E.

[coachmann]

Lets face it, the Southern was lucky being in London! Had it been in the North East or Scotland, manufacturers would be saying there was little appetite for Bullied Pacifics when they only ran within a confined area.........

[trisonic]

Lets face it, the Southern was lucky being in London! Had it been in the North East or Scotland, manufacturers would be saying there was little appetite for Bullied Pacifics when they only ran within a confined area.........

 

So, what is their excuse for ex-GER services out of London's Liverpool Street station (3rd busiest in the City)?

 

Best, Pete.

 

 

 

[PhilJ W]

So, what is their excuse for ex-GER services out of London's Liverpool Street station (3rd busiest in the City)?

 

Best, Pete.

 

 

 

It's about time some one came up with a 'Claud'. And while they are about it a J15, N7, and a 'F' class tank loco.

[coachmann]

It's about time some one came up with a 'Claud'. And while they are about it a J15, N7, and a 'F' class tank loco.

Hey I agree completely. If the proprietory manufacturers were'nt spending so much time continually upgrading and duplicating locos for the D&E contingency, they would have more time to produce the ordinarry LYR, GNR, NER, GER, NBR, CR, MR 0-6-0s, 0-6-2Ts, 4-4-2Ts, 4-4-0s and 4-6-0s that modellers keep asking for. No one will ever know if such models will sell in suffiently profitable numbers until a start is made. The forthcoming MR 3F 0-6-0 will give modellers the opportunity to put their hands in their pockets and show Bachmann that such models are appreciated and worth their while producing.