Midland Railway Company

[DenysW]

28 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

The third route might well be Trent - Burton - Leicester?

No. Too sophisticated of you. Apologies if this is an insult.

 

Toton-Syston-Leicester-Market Harborough-Wellingborough (i.e. classic Midland Mainline post St. Pancras Extension)

Toton-Nottingham-Melton-Wellingborough (i.e. Midland Nottingham Mainline)

Toton-Syston-Melton-Wellingborough (i.e. Syston-Melton as a cut-across between the two Mainlines that together gave 4-track from Toton to London).

 

 

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, DenysW said:

Apologies if this is an insult.

 

Not at all. I am a mere seeker after knowledge.

 

BTW given your interest in the subject, have you joined?

https://www.midlandrailway.org.uk/how-to-join/index.html

Edited May 24, 2023 by Compound2632

[DenysW]

On 24/05/2023 at 12:30, Compound2632 said:

You might like to take a look at Midland Railway Study Centre item 13185:

 

https://www.midlandrailwaystudycentre.org.uk/documents/RFB13185.pdf

 

In this document, the apparent omission is the L&NWR gradients from London to/from Manchester and Liverpool. This turns out to be (duh!) because there (virtually) aren't any over 1:250, and these are given on the Euston-Carlisle page.

 

Given that the Midland's summit was at 982 ft above sea-level at Peak Forest, and the GN/GC route's summit was at 966 ft inside the Woodhead tunnel, it looks like L&NWR were just having a laugh at the cost of their competitors vastly more expensive routes to get to/from the same places for these destinations. It looks like they could probably have gone appreciably faster if they'd chosen (subject to the usual stuff about curves, signalling, etc.) but chose to run close to the maximum efficiency point of their express locomotives whilst chuckling. Probably also still being affected by the bad publicity from the Race to the North crashes. I haven't looked at ticket costs.

 

On the same theme but not as extreme: Ais Gill at 1168 ft versus Shap at 'only' 916 ft on the way to Carlisle.

 

No wonder the Midland didn't want to 'win' more Edwardian traffic to Scotland, especially given that it had to reimburse North British in this period for losses on the prestige services north of the border.

[DenysW]

After a visit, the Stretton Collection in Leicester Central Library is almost completely lacking in Midland-specific interest. This is despite his having written a History of the Midland Railway. It consists of a lot of general railway interest periodicals and Parliamentary Papers in bound volumes, a lot of books about steam engines, plus anything the Library post-1945 put into the Reference Section under Railways. Sadly no Midland photos, no Midland-relevant (or other) diaries, etc. etc.

 

So I learned that a Coroner was as cross with the deceased's father as with the Midland Railway that the father had let his child work an 18-hour turn of duty, especially that the last 6 hours only earned 7d. I learned that 'A MIDLAND SIGNALMAN' observed men being forced to work 15-hour shifts at 'a signal box not 100 miles from Market Harborough', and that Stretton was cross with both the L&NWR and the local authority - for Atherstone - that neither wanted to resolve a cyclist's level crossing which had a 4 mph railway speed limit that in turn added 4 minutes to travel time on this main line.

 

So endless fascination in the bowels of the Central Library, but not especially (or at all) focused on the Midland,

[Buhar]

1 hour ago, DenysW said:

endless fascination in the bowels of the Central Library, but not especially (or at all) focused on the Midland

Thank you for taking one for the team.

Alan 

[DenysW]

I've been mulling over how to check and quantify the common assertion that Midland's Mainline routes were tougher than the competition's. Using that 1903 document provided by @Compound2632 I come up with:

 

So the Midland never has the shortest route, and never has the least amount of rising gradients.

 

The only place where I'd expect debate is whether 4 miles at 1:75 up Shap is harder than 15 miles at 1:100 up to Ais Gill. For the avoidance of doubt, Your Worship, yes the Worsborough Incline does lead to the GC's summit at Woodhead on the GN+GC Manchester route, but it was goods only.

[jamie92208]

The Midland's 1 in 100 up the Long Drag was long enough that it couldn't be rushed by mortgaging the boiler so speed was constrained to what the sustainable output of engine power that was available.   Not good grammar but I can't think of a more elegant way of saying it.   The LNWR were never bothered by such matters.  Their 'New Line@ from Batteyford to Leeds had IIRC a ruling gradient of 1 in 70 and required double heading of expresses till the end of steam. The Midland in planning it's West Riding Lines up the same Spen Valley kept their ruling gradient to 1 in 200  thus keeping the operating costs down though with increased capital expenditure on earthworks and tunnels.

 

Different operating philosophies.

 

Jamie

 

[AVS1998]

Here's a question for you, folks. 

 

On the HMRS website, drawing no. 1504 describes an 'overseas brake' converted to a 10T ballast brake. What the devil is an overseas brake? The drawing shows a six-wheel carriage, possibly a third, fitted with a stove, end windows, and what looks like hoppers where the seats used to be in the compartments? 

 

 

[Dave Hunt]

It sounds like it could be one of the 29ft six wheeler composites that were converted into ballast brakes but I have no idea what an overseas brake would be.

 

Dave

[jamie92208]

3 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

The Midland's 1 in 100 up the Long Drag was long enough that it couldn't be rushed by mortgaging the boiler so speed was constrained to what the sustainable output of engine power that was available.   Not good grammar but I can't think of a more elegant way of saying it.   The LNWR were never bothered by such matters.  Their 'New Line@ from Batteyford to Leeds had IIRC a ruling gradient of 1 in 70 and required double heading of expresses till the end of steam. The Midland in planning it's West Riding Lines up the same Spen Valley kept their ruling gradient to 1 in 200  thus keeping the operating costs down though with increased capital expenditure on earthworks and tunnels.

 

Different operating philosophies.

 

Jamie

 

Forgot to mention that the 4 miles of 1 in 75 on the LNWR route was supposed to be a temporary solution till they could afford build a lower and better graded route via the Kent valley and a long tunnel through to the Haweswater valley (IIRC). This would have avoided both Grayrigg and Shap. It has turned out about as temporary as income tax. 

[Compound2632]

4 hours ago, AVS1998 said:

On the HMRS website, drawing no. 1504 describes an 'overseas brake' converted to a 10T ballast brake. What the devil is an overseas brake? The drawing shows a six-wheel carriage, possibly a third, fitted with a stove, end windows, and what looks like hoppers where the seats used to be in the compartments? 

 

In 1882-4, the Midland built a good deal of stock to work in fixed close-coupled sets for suburban traffic. For provincial services, these were made up of 6-wheelers - 30 ft first and 31 ft thirds and third brakes, 8 ft wide over body, seating six to a first class compartment, 7' 3" between partitions, and ten to a third, 6' 0" between partitions. However, for the Metropolitan services - i.e. London suburban trains, many terminating at Moorgate - rather more cramped vehicles were built, 4-whhelers, 27 ft long but 8' 6" wide over body. These included four compartment firsts, 6' 6½" between partitions and seating eight, and five  compartment thirds and equivalent third brakes, 5' 2½" between partitions and, I think, seating twelve. These sets of 4-wheelers were largely replaced by sets of bogie carriages in the five years or so before the Great War. [Lacy & Dow, Midland Railway Carriages (Wild Swan, 1986) Vol. 2 Ch 10.]

 

Seventeen of the withdrawn 27 ft thirds were converted for War Department use in France, receiving numbers WD 31756 - 31772; there were also 32 carriages, WD 31659 - 31690 sent France the identity of which is unclear from my source, which describes them as compo brakes - but also describes the thirds as compos. [C.E.R. Sherrington, ‘Rolling Stock of the Railway Operating Division, Royal Engineers, 1916-19, Part VII – British Wagon Stock sent Overseas’, The Railway Magazine Vol. LXXII No. 429 (March 1933).]

 

A Derby official photo of one of these converted vehicles survives; I presume it was taken before the vehicle was sent to France:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue image of MRSC 88-2014-0067]

 

There are some significant changes to the running gear, with 3' 2" wagon wheels in Ellis 10A axleboxes substituted for the 3' 7½" carriage wheels and oil boxes. The vacuum brake has been removed and a hand brake standard fitted in what had been the middle compartment (the handle is visible through one of the windows) and the partitions have been removed.

 

It is evidently these vehicles that are the subject of the HMRS drawing, which is a copy of Derby C&W Drg. 5112, dated 3 March 1920. 

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue image of HMRS 1504.]

 

This drawing is also in the MRSC collection, item 88-D1211, but I don't know whether it has yet been scanned.

 

The conversion to ballast brake seems to have included a reversion to 3' 7½" wheels, though these were probably of the spoked type fitted to 19th century goods and ballast brakes, and the addition of a centre axle. The transverse bench seating is also in the style of 19th century ballast brakes, whilst the end bench seats lift to provide storage bins underneath. The handbrake standard in the centre compartment has been retained and the all-important stove added.

 

I'm not aware of any photo of one of these conversions of conversions, neither is there any information known to me on how many were converted, if any. 

[Schooner]

Hunting for decent photos of end-tipping units, I can't move for unhelpful pics of wagons with M R plastered all over them

http://www.norgrove.me.uk/hoist.html

 

Nobody tell the Daleks.

Edited May 27, 2023 by Schooner
Sp.

[billbedford]

That wasn't a tipping unit. The sidings at Leytonstone were below and to one side of the running lines, with this lift used to move wagons between each. 

[Schooner]

56 minutes ago, Schooner said:

...unhelpful...

 

39 minutes ago, billbedford said:

That wasn't a tipping unit.

 

Quite.

[Compound2632]

One of a set of Derby officials, DY8965 - DY8969, entered in the register on 14 January 1909. I think this must be DY8965, "Leytonstone Hoist, No 1 with man".

 

The location can be seen in the top right of this OS 25" sheet: 

https://maps.nls.uk/view/104194287

at The Tottenham & Forest Gate Leytonstone Station (Bill's local station, I believe), as a rectangle at the east end of the sidings, linking the otherwise disconnected sidings serving the coal yard with the upper sidings alongside the station. That rectangle is there in an earlier edition (1893):

https://maps.nls.uk/view/101919747

So either the hoist wasn't new in 1909, or it replaced an earlier hoist. There is some new brickwork in the retaining wall either side of the hoist; perhaps that does indicate a replacement hoist.

Edited May 28, 2023 by Compound2632

[DenysW]

This double-headed-on-the-Midland stereotype is starting to make more sense. It's London-centric! From the attached Midland Railway Society review of working timetables:

 

"In May 1922, there were 29 weekday trains arriving at Brent with mineral traffic. The WTT now showed which trains were scheduled to be double-headed, so it is possible to determine some meaningful statistics. Of the 29 services, just two were shown to be a single engine, and eight were to be double-headed when required. The balance of 19 trains were all double-headed. Double-headed coal trains could be made up to some 80 wagons ..." Details are in the Appendix.

 

The 1893 instructions quoted therein want to reduce/eliminate marshalling of minerals at Wellingborough/Finedon, but show that single-heading was normal to get coal to Wellingborough.

 

I also suspect that expresses that were to split at Trent were double-headed to that point - more London-centric appearances of the practice.

 

30140.pdf

[Nick Lawson]

I'm improvising brake rodding on a 4mm 5'2” wheeled Johnson 2F and am looking for information on how these were arranged. I understand the distinction between small-wheeled-with-external-pull-rods and large-wheeled-with-internal-pull-rods.

 

In Essery & Jenkinson's “Illustrated Review of Midland Locomotives” vol 4, there is this comment on Plate 63, page 46:  “... whereas the larger-wheeled locomotives had their brake pull rods on the centre-line of the locomotive behind the wheels.”

 

I don't think this comment is universally true. The same volume, Fig 24, p166 reproduces the General Arrangement Diagram for the 4F, and this does indeed clearly show a centre-pull arrangement.

However, plate 50 on p38 clearly shows a pair of pull rods, either side of the centre-line, between the leading and centre drivers of 1591.

 

I had a quick search through the Midland Study Centre site and found a few other diagrams, particularly “General Arrangement of unidentified 0-6-0 Goods engine – possibly a Kitson built '1873' Class of 1899”. This diagram shows pairs of longitudinal rods articulating the three cross beams; with a triangular arrangement between the rearmost cross beam and the brake cylinder.

 

Am I safe to assume that any of the “2F” family would have had this layout?

 

Secondly, while I hope to get the right effect between the wheels, my kit doesn't actually have a brake cylinder and I may well not attempt to fake one. However, my curiosity has been aroused, so if anyone knows of a clear picture of the real thing I'd be interested.

[Rowsley17D]

35 minutes ago, Nick Lawson said:

I'm improvising brake rodding on a 4mm 5'2” wheeled Johnson 2F and am looking for information on how these were arranged. I understand the distinction between small-wheeled-with-external-pull-rods and large-wheeled-with-internal-pull-rods.

 

In Essery & Jenkinson's “Illustrated Review of Midland Locomotives” vol 4, there is this comment on Plate 63, page 46:  “... whereas the larger-wheeled locomotives had their brake pull rods on the centre-line of the locomotive behind the wheels.”

 

 

If it's any help there's plate 88 of the same book and it does not appear that the loco has a pair of pull brake rods. I must admit I put a double inside pair on my large wheeled 2F.

 

 

 

[DenysW]

Semi-random Midland notes from a trip to Kew:

 

-   Double-heading. Train Control was only extended to passenger services in 1916. Before then there had been ad hoc provision of pilot engines, with many places keeping pilot engines in steam in case they were needed, a practice that was then stopped. Hence the dramatic drop in double-heading between 1916 and 1920 - no available last-minute pilot, plus a reduced need. Punctuality improved as well. The article in the Railway Gazette is massive, and has colour pull-outs. It recognises no faults with the Midland's system that I noticed, save that travelling on trains longer than the platforms was formalised as being the passenger's problem, as it is to this day.

 

- The sketch of (three of) the various LMS loading gauges used in the Garratt book came from a Railway Gazette article specific to the Garratts (and how wonderful they were) so does not lead to a more general stash of pre-Grouping loading gauges. Sigh.

 

-   The contribution of the Midland & Great Northern Joint to the respective companies' finances was Not Worth The Effort. It wasn't very obvious where the 4% on the £1.2M Capital that the M&GN started-out with was paid (I didn't look intelligently enough at the Midland's accounts), but total Capital was within a gnat's whisker of £4M, and the joint owners got around £40k each every year 1913-1918. I make that to be a 1% return if it needed to cover the original owners' payments, and 2% if it didn't.

 

-   Bradshaw in 1876 does not include fare for the Midland and Great Northern services to Manchester, possibly just to keep the timetable to one double-page. On L&NW, third class from Euston was 15/5½, and first class was 24/6. I'd somehow expected a greater difference.

 

-   I'd wondered several times why the Leicester and Swannington joined the Midland so quickly and with such little discussion in either Williams or Stretton's books. Now I realise. Hudson agreed to pay them 8% in perpetuity - it's in the Midland's statutary accounts from 1873. Williams has it as (almost) an afterthought following a long account of a Hudson anti-Great Northern Bill speech.

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, DenysW said:

Semi-random Midland notes from a trip to Kew:

 

Please, if reporting on a trip to TNA, give the TNA references, in case anyone else wants to follow up on your delvings.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Nick Lawson said:

I'm improvising brake rodding on a 4mm 5'2” wheeled Johnson 2F and am looking for information on how these were arranged. I understand the distinction between small-wheeled-with-external-pull-rods and large-wheeled-with-internal-pull-rods.

 

@Crimson Rambler's the person you want on this. Leafing through Essery & Jenkinson Vol. 4, I think it's clear that all from the 1798 Class onwards had the single central brake pull rod. The 1698 Class had outside brake pull rods. The H or 1357 Class look to have had twin inside pull rods. The B or 1142 class were built without engine brakes but when fitted, had outside pull rods. 

 

Essery & Jenkinson Vol. 4 p. 29 Plate 36: Any offers on the number of the lowside wagon? Might end 22.

Edited June 2, 2023 by Compound2632

[DenysW]

20 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

if reporting on a trip to TNA, give the TNA references

Double Heading. Railway Gazette ZPER 9/34 pp 40-97, 122. Article indexed under Midland

Garratts Railway Gazette ZPER 9/48 and 9/49 p683, 690, 706. Article indexed under London Midland and Scottish

M&GN Accounts RAIL 1110/323

Midland Accounts RAIL 1110/330, supplied in the Maps reading room, not the main one. Sadly not the signed copies (Kirtley, Johnson, Deeley had to sign off on the locomotives, but only the pro-forma is included)

Bradshaw's timetables RAIL 903, 1876 was RAIL 903/51

Bradshaw's Shareholders Guides RAIL 1140, 1854 was RAIL 1140/7

[Compound2632]

11 minutes ago, DenysW said:

supplied in the Maps reading room, not the main one.

 

Thanks. It's always a bit of a pain when one's order is split between the two reading rooms, though I rather like the map room. i was in there yesterday for Vol. 4 of the PO wagon register, RAIL 491/923, but downstairs after lunch for Vol. 2 of the RCH Locomotive Carriage & Wagon Superintendents' Committees, RAIL 1080/387. 

[Compound2632]

I don't often buy photos but i was rather taken by this one that was on Ebay the other day. It's not in the MRSC collection so I will be passing it on. This scan is rotated and cropped to tidy it up, and compressed:

 

 

The location was given by the vendor as Lawley Street, which I see no reason to doubt.

 

Nos. 1090, 1091, 1092, 1094, and 1095 went to Birmingham on completion in November 1884 and were all there in 1908, by which time they had become Nos. 1740-1744. In the April 1892 allocation list, the first three were at Derby, and the 1899-1902 list gives 1090 and 1095 at Saltley, 1094 at Bournville, 1091 at Burton, and 1092 unknown. The group Nos. 1096-1100 built in January 1885 were also Birmingham engines, with 1096 being at Bournville in the 1889-1902 period [S. Summerson, Midland Railway Locomotives Vol. 3]. Here's 1100 at Central Goods sometime in the 1890s:

 

 

[Embedded link to Warwickshire Railways image mrcgy916.]

 

Note the double-sheeted opens towering over the covered goods wagons, which are the earlier sort with 5 ft high doorways.

 

So, around the turn of the century, eight engines of the 1377 Class, along with three of the A or 1102 Class, were sufficient for the work of the Birmingham district. One of the 1102 Class was on passenger work, running the Aldridge - Brownhills branch service; its fully-enclosed cab would have made it suitable for such work. The others certainly worked Lawley Street and Central Goods Stations. I suppose another would have worked Camp Hill Goods Station. Would the Goods Stations at Walsall and Wolverhampton have had enough traffic to warrant an engine stationed there? I imagine the trips from Walsall to the Midland Goods station at Dudley would have been worked by tender engines. The only photos of Washwood Heath marshalling yard at about this period show tender 0-6-0s at work. 

 

But back to my photo. Assuming the Lawley Street location is correct, it was taken on a day when 1091 was the allocated yard engine, before its sojourn at Burton, so perhaps any time in the 1890s. I wonder if anyone well up on uniforms can identify the grades of the staff? The three lads up on the footplate look very young. The Elementary Education (School Attendance) Act, 1893, set the minimum school leaving age at 11, raised to 12 by an amendment in 1899, but employed children under the age of 13 were required to have a certificate to show they had reached the educational standard [Wikipedia]. Bright lads unable to afford to remain at school might, I imagine, have been prime candidates for employment as goods department messengers, with the prospect of becoming clerks.

 

I don't think any of these Midland employees were relatives of ancestors of mine; several from my paternal grandmother's side, inhabitants of Nechells, worked in the LNWR goods department. 

Edited June 2, 2023 by Compound2632

[Nick Lawson]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I think it's clear that all from the 1798 Class onwards had the single central brake pull rod

Clear to your practiced eye anyway! Thanks Stephen.

 

From my point of view this is the right answer as it minimises my fitting work.