Prototype for everything corner.

[big jim]

Johnster, You say your scenario driver is driving at low speed, 40mph heading to assist another train, sorry but that’s not slow speed in my book knowing there is a possible obstruction ahead

[royaloak]

Yes; as i said, most (probably all) of us who have been involved in working trains have made similar mistakes and got away with it, which is mostly what happens, and it is very easy to criticise from a warm dry sitting room when you have not actually experienced the disorientation and uncertainty life out in the dark on a mucky misty night, never mind the ultimate confusion of fog.  Route knowledge is vital, but humans are not perfect and, while the systems designed to protect them from their imperfections are good, they are not perfect either, mostly because they are designed, built, and maintained by humans...

 

The driver in my example, who royaloak wants to throw off the railway, is driving at a low speed and has been given incorrect information about the train he is looking for, which he can hardly be blamed for.  This in turn is the result of a genuine mistake by the other driver who can also hardly be blamed; it is a dark and misty night.  All staff have carried out the correct procedures, yet an accident has occurred and a life has been lost, as well as several injuries being sustained.  They may well be facing dismissal or disciplinary procedures.  Do you drive a car, royaloak?  Do you always know exactly where you are, do you always drive it within the bounds of legality, and is it always in a 100% roadworthy condition in all situations?

 

Little bit of tolerance, please!

40mph when being told to proceed at caution is not a low speed, in fact it is a very high speed because being told to proceed at caution means that you must be able to stop short of any obstruction.

 

If you think it is an acceptable speed then I hope I never have the misfortune to be travelling on your train.

 

Yes I do drive a car, what has that got to do with anything?

Edited November 6, 2017 by royaloak

[Guest]

Can we get back on topic please? Nobody can deny this is a very interesting thread. It won't be half as interesting with a little padlock icon attached to it.

[Colin_McLeod]

The unfortunate driver of the train involved in the Hilden crash was killed when he did not drive at a suitable speed when passing a signal at danger. He too had beem led to believe that a failed train was further along the line. However the inspecting officer from HM Railway Inspectorate concluded that irrespective of the actual words used by the signalman the rule was very clear. Proceed with CAUTION prepared to stop before any obstruction and to stop at the next signal and contact the signalman again.

[stewartingram]

I was in the cab of a D stock train from Wimbledon northbound on the District line of LU. At the time the driver told me that the infrastructure was actually NR until mid way across Putney Bridge, pointing out a marker board to me. There was a signal failure somewhere north of Southfields, and trains were instructed to pass with caution. He told me that he had to take the next 2 signal sections at walking pace - it seemed to take forever - even though he had good sighting distances all the way.

 

Stewart

[jonny777]

Can we get back on topic please? Nobody can deny this is a very interesting thread. It won't be half as interesting with a little padlock icon attached to it.

 

 

As the thread originator, I don't mind diversions off topic as long as the discussion stays polite and non-confrontational. 

 

In respect of the most recent photos I posted, I think Bill Bedford has it spot on. This is a train of vehicles en-route to the NRM, because looking through their list of acquisitions most of the items that I can identify from the photos are now NRM exhibits; albeit many of them are at Shildon. 

 

I still maintain the 2-BIL theory, because one is preserved at Shildon according to the NRM website; and although a 4-SUB driving vehicle has been restored to original condition, the restoration would have been done after arrival at the NRM, not while in store at Preston Park or wherever. 

[billbedford]

I still maintain the 2-BIL theory, because one is preserved at Shildon according to the NRM website; and although a 4-SUB driving vehicle has been restored to original condition, the restoration would have been done after arrival at the NRM, not while in store at Preston Park or wherever. 

 

 

But it's not a 2BIL. They have first class compartments and thus uneven door spacing on the compartment side.

[jonny777]

Oh dear. That's my attempt at electric unit recognition out the window. 

 

I wonder what it is, in that case? Would two ancient 4-SUB motor coaches have survived in mid-50s livery?

[Guest]

And a third slide turns out to prove that the truth really is stranger than fiction.

 

Scan-171105-0003.jpg

 

Was this when Preston park was cleared? Definitely looks like Langham junction

 

If you take a look at the peculiar little low cab shunter on the lowmac 4 wagons back from the brake van in Jonny's slide (above, post #866), I have an idea it is a stock clearance from Preston Park.

The photo below shows selected items of stock from Preston Park waiting to be moved into Brighton station for a 1976 open day in aid of Woking Homes. Behind the Q1, that could well be the same shunter. If we could ID the shunter, we could find out where it ended up (preserved or scrap) and then maybe answer the original question. Sadly I have no idea what it is/was.

 

Copyright The Brighton Motive Power Depots website.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Pete 75C

[jonny777]

There is no problem with that low cab shunter. 

 

It is here - http://www.nrm.org.uk/ourcollection/locomotivesandrollingstock/CollectionItem?objid=1978-7003&cat=All&comp=All&ipp=96

 

 

An ex-Waterloo and City line loco. 

Edited November 6, 2017 by jonny777

[big jim]

I was in the cab of a D stock train from Wimbledon northbound on the District line of LU. At the time the driver told me that the infrastructure was actually NR until mid way across Putney Bridge, pointing out a marker board to me. There was a signal failure somewhere north of Southfields, and trains were instructed to pass with caution. He told me that he had to take the next 2 signal sections at walking pace - it seemed to take forever - even though he had good sighting distances all the way.

 

Stewart

Yep, LUL rules, I had the same happen at Moor Park when I worked for chiltern, it was then ‘at caution’ all the way to Northwood! Also as the signal I needed to pass at danger was on the end of the platform there the platform staff is the person who gives you authority to pass the signal at danger not the signaller! Edited November 6, 2017 by big jim

[Guest]

There is no problem with that low cab shunter.

It is here - http://www.nrm.org.uk/ourcollection/locomotivesandrollingstock/CollectionItem?objid=1978-7003&cat=All&comp=All&ipp=96

An ex-Waterloo and City line loco. 

 

Thanks Jonny. Here it is on display at the open day at Brighton in the 70s.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/12a_kingmoor_klickr/27376571140

[SRman]

As the thread originator, I don't mind diversions off topic as long as the discussion stays polite and non-confrontational. 

 

In respect of the most recent photos I posted, I think Bill Bedford has it spot on. This is a train of vehicles en-route to the NRM, because looking through their list of acquisitions most of the items that I can identify from the photos are now NRM exhibits; albeit many of them are at Shildon. 

 

I still maintain the 2-BIL theory, because one is preserved at Shildon according to the NRM website; and although a 4-SUB driving vehicle has been restored to original condition, the restoration would have been done after arrival at the NRM, not while in store at Preston Park or wherever. 

 

Definitely not a 2 BIL as both are Motor Brake  coaches with van sections; even if both were from BIL units, one would have the corridor side towards the camera. 

 

I agree with the suggestion of SUB MBS coaches (3 SUB/4 SUB) pre-Bulleid style. There were many variations on the SUBs depending on the origins of the coaches, whether Eastern, Central or Western section (SECR, LBSCR or LSWR styles).

[Budgie]

Definitely not a 2 BIL as both are Motor Brake  coaches with van sections; even if both were from BIL units, one would have the corridor side towards the camera.

Also they only have one periscope on the roof; motor brake coaches from 2-car units had 2 periscopes.

[Guest]

I agree with the suggestion of SUB MBS coaches (3 SUB/4 SUB) pre-Bulleid style.

 

Could it originally have been 3(4?)SUB 8143 of 1925, one driving motor brake 3rd preserved in the NRM collection? I know of no definitive list of what was stored at Preston Park over the years, but perhaps possible.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nigelmenzies/15042428656/

Edited November 6, 2017 by Pete 75C

[iands]

Can we get back on topic please? Nobody can deny this is a very interesting thread. It won't be half as interesting with a little padlock icon attached to it.

You're absolutely right, my apologies for perpetuating a debate that has gone off topic. I must learn to be more disciplibed in this respect.

 

Regards, Ian.

[lanchester]

You're absolutely right, my apologies for perpetuating a debate that has gone off topic. I must learn to be more disciplibed in this respect.

 

Regards, Ian.

Back sort of on topic, an improbable prototype from an impeccable source.

An 0-4-0 of very long wheelbase working the staithes at Blyth. Captured by the hand of the renowned artist LS Lowry, no less, (so it must be true) and the source image is yours for around £850,000 from Sothebys (none of your cheap e-bay stuff here). 

See link http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/lot.17.html/2017/modern-post-war-british-art-l17143 

 

(Actually, the great man seems to have had a blind spot with trains - he could do highly accurate and detailed architectural studies, but his well-known attempt at a level crossing in Burton on Trent features what is quite clearly the Hornby clockwork 0-4-0T. I love Lowry's work - I'd like to see a 'grim North' layout with a Lowry backdrop, could work? - but Cuneo he ain't).

[eastwestdivide]

...Actually, the great man seems to have had a blind spot with trains  ...

the people in that painting aren't very realistic either! 

[highpeakman]

Browsing through the Transport Treasury recent uploads, I found this

 

https://goo.gl/bHnhvS

 

054/15 LNWR crane No 10 at Huddersfield 8/60

 

Useful? Probably not.

 

Regards

 

Ian

 

Ian

 

I like that picture. I have never seen a crane mounted that way on a old wagon(?) on a separate short piece of track before. Good modelling piece indeed.

 

You mention Huddersfield but it is in a set of pics from Biggar and the grassy bank and conflat seems to fit with the preceding pictures of Biggar in that photoset.

 

The detail intrigues me. A six wheel chassis - an old tender chassis or was it originally built as a crane in that manner?

 

It appears to have just unloaded the conflat in front of it but it is difficult to see what it would load the container on to behind it. I presume the bank is hiding a road? Anyone know?

Edited November 6, 2017 by highpeakman

[Ian Smeeton]

Ian

 

I like that picture. I have never seen a crane mounted that way on a old wagon(?) on a separate short piece of track before. Good modelling piece indeed.

 

You mention Huddersfield but it is in a set of pics from Biggar and the grassy bank and conflat seems to fit with the preceding pictures of Biggar in that photoset.

 

The detail intrigues me. A six wheel chassis - an old tender chassis or was it originally built as a crane in that manner?

 

It appears to have just unloaded the conflat in front of it but it is difficult to see what it would load the container on to behind it. I presume the bank is hiding a road? Anyone know?

 

I see what you say about Biggar.

 

This is the extract from  the List of Negatives.

 

054/13 Biggar stn and SB 8/60

054/14 Biggar stn showing truncated loop line 8/60

054/15 LNWR crane No 10 at Huddersfield 8/60

054/16 Broughton stn 8/60

054/17 Broughton stn and site of SB 8/60

054/18 End of the line at Broughton 8/60

 

I agree that the grassy bank does look similar, however, I have no further info to offer. It is quite possible that the neg is wrongly captioned, but unless someone can come up with other photographic evidence, it will remain a mystery.

 

I will have a hunt through the NLS maps and see if I can see anything.

 

Regards

 

Ian

[Ian Smeeton]

2 Cranes marked on this 1960 map of Biggar, however, neither seem to be located on track.

 

http://maps.nls.uk/view/82894554

 

I found this in a search for images of Biggar Railway station, and it looks as if you are correct.

 

This photo seems to show the crane we were looking at in Transport Treasury.

 

https://canmore.org.uk/collection/682552

 

I canno get it to zoom in enough to be certain, but it certainly looks correct.

 

Regards

 

Ian

[highpeakman]

I see what you say about Biggar.

 

This is the extract from  the List of Negatives.

 

054/13 Biggar stn and SB 8/60

054/14 Biggar stn showing truncated loop line 8/60

054/15 LNWR crane No 10 at Huddersfield 8/60

054/16 Broughton stn 8/60

054/17 Broughton stn and site of SB 8/60

054/18 End of the line at Broughton 8/60

 

I agree that the grassy bank does look similar, however, I have no further info to offer. It is quite possible that the neg is wrongly captioned, but unless someone can come up with other photographic evidence, it will remain a mystery.

 

I will have a hunt through the NLS maps and see if I can see anything.

 

Regards

 

Ian

 

Please understand that I was not in any way disputing your information, it is just that I looked at the other interesting photos along with that one and noticed the similarity with Biggar - it may indeed only be a similarity. 

 

Such views intrigue me and I do enjoy finding out more about such things if I can. I have already looked at the NLS maps which clearly show the siding and bank of the other photo.

 

http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/side-by-side/#zoom=16&lat=55.6201&lon=-3.5248&layers=6&right=BingHyb

 

Curiously the map shows a crane but not next to the track. I doubt it will be possible to find out more but I am looking through my bag of bits to see if I can make an attempt at modelling it. 

 

Thanks very much for posting the pic.

[sir douglas]

there were many of these rail mounted hand cranes, the chassis were built specially for them and not just old wagon chassis', some of them on the midland were later re used as yard cranes by fixing them down  to a short length of track

 

southern

https://www.flickr.com/photos/94416723@N00/14020213951

 

LNWR

https://antstrainphotos.smugmug.com/Midland-Railway-Centre/Railway-Wagons-Cranes/i-VmMtK58/A

 

GNR

http://www.nrm.org.uk/ourcollection/locomotivesandrollingstock/CollectionItem?objid=1978-7120

[ejstubbs]

This photo of Biggar from 1964 seems to show the same crane adjacent to the siding: https://www.railscot.co.uk/img/38/700/ The crane jib and counterweight look right.  You can only see one big gear wheel in the Transport Treasury photo but that could just be due to the angle it was taken from (see below for more about this).

 

Looking at the aerial photo posted by Ian Smeeton, I'm convinced that the OS map has the crane between the signal box and the signal post too close to the signal box - it should be roughly half way along the narrow triangular area backing on to the sheep pens.  (It helps if you download the photo from the Canmore web site and zoom in a bit using Windows Photo Viewer or similar.)

 

The aerial photo also shows the railings behind the crane in the Transport Treasury photo, which are there to fence off the sheep pens from the siding next to the main line.  I think the aerial photo also shows how the perspective in the Transport Treasury photo is a little bit confusing.  The crane is mounted on a fairly low bank next to the siding adjacent to the main line.  You can see in the aerial photo that behind the crane is some level ground, and beyond that is a higher bank on top of which are the sheep pens. I didn't realise until I tried to work out how everything fits together that you can actually see the underside of the container in the Transport Treasury photo, and there's room beneath it for a flatbed vehicle to stand.

 

There's an OS air photo mosaic on the NLS web site which shows a similar view from vertically above: http://maps.nls.uk/view/75221464 (it seems to be from around the same date as the oblique view on the Canmore web site).  This also helps to clarify the layout of that part of the goods yard: you can see the crane as a dark blob, surrounded by some lighter ground (tarmac/gravel/hardcore?) then a narrow strip of ground which is lighter still (the grass bank - perhaps catching the sun?) and then the line of the railings, and the sheep pens.

 

The Biggar station building, signal box and goods shed appear to be still standing within Biggar Business Park - although the station building is currently listed on the Buildings at Risk register for Scotland: https://www.buildingsatrisk.org.uk/details/900977 

Edited November 7, 2017 by ejstubbs

[melmerby]

You need a slightly different link:

 

https://www.railscot.co.uk/img/38/700/

 

Keith