Midland Railway Company

[Tricky]

This - believe it or not - is the smokebox/boiler/firebox. I’ve turned it up from some nice hard maple, primed it and rubbed it down prior to removing it from the lathe. Once I chop off the ends, I anticipate adding a wrapper around the smokebox to create the saddle for it, as well as cutting away the top part of the smokebox to receive the saddle tank, and a recess for the motor/gearbox. 
Unconventional to say the least!

[DenysW]

On re-reading F.S. Williams' History of The Midland Railway, the illustrations show balk track at Monsal Dale (p109) and a timber-construction rail viaduct at Bugsworth (p164). Are these correct? Mostly the drawings ignore the sleepers and only give the rails, so the balk leaps out at you. I knew the Lickey Bank had balk/Vignoles track, but not anywhere else.

[Compound2632]

30 minutes ago, DenysW said:

a timber-construction rail viaduct at Bugsworth (p164)

 

 

Embedded link to catalogue image of MRSC 77-12462-07. The extensive online catalogue description of this item reads:

 

Quote

Category: Miscellaneous Document

Bundle of miscellaneous papers, including: 240mm x 170mm print of early lithographed illustration showing train crossing a wooden trestle bridge with new, unopened, stone arched viaduct to the right, a deep cutting through an escarpment forms the backdrop. Pencil note on the back 'Bugsworth?'.

Based on information from Tony Whittaker: The original viaduct at Bugsworth was built on a slipping rock formation and cracks started to appear soon after the line was opened in 1867. A landslip caused the valley side to fall into the Black Brook Valley. The solution was to realign the railway slightly closer to the village, and build the temporary wooden viaduct seen in this view. It was then infilled around the wood to make the earth embankment that exists today. An abutment for the original stone viaduct is still visible in a field near to the former Buxworth Station which is notable for being back-to-front on the line.

 

Embedded link to catalogue image of MRSC 70780, Bugsworth station building, Nigel Hadlow photograph.

 

As for baulk road, @Crimson Rambler.

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, DenysW said:

On re-reading F.S. Williams' History of The Midland Railway, the illustrations show balk track at Monsal Dale (p109) and a timber-construction rail viaduct at Bugsworth (p164). Are these correct? Mostly the drawings ignore the sleepers and only give the rails, so the balk leaps out at you. I knew the Lickey Bank had balk/Vignoles track, but not anywhere else.

 

The Monsal Dale illustration is on p. 148 of this edition:

https://archive.org/details/midlandrailwayit00will/page/148/mode/2up.

 

I wonder if what we're seeing is track with the sleepers ballasted over except at the rail joints?

 

Compare this pre-1867 photo of Bedford:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 60128]

 

and Kirklington in 1871:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 61747]

Edited March 25 by Compound2632

[DenysW]

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

track with the sleepers ballasted

That would explain why the majority of the illustrations ignore the sleepers, but they ignore them completely, not giving a baulk-track look by showing the joins every 45(?) feet. The picture of Bedford appears to be showing missing ballast only at the points and a pedestrian/employee crossing, not a regular omission of ballast.

[Compound2632]

27 minutes ago, DenysW said:

That would explain why the majority of the illustrations ignore the sleepers, but they ignore them completely, not giving a baulk-track look by showing the joins every 45(?) feet. The picture of Bedford appears to be showing missing ballast only at the points and a pedestrian/employee crossing, not a regular omission of ballast.

 

I suspect that the artist has distorted the proportions a fair bit. Rail lengths at this date were no more than 20 ft. Even if it is baulk road, the cross-timbers would be much closer together than in the picture. 

[DenysW]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

... the artist has distorted the proportions a fair bit.

Before we try (retrospectively) to withdraw an Artistic License, I give you the (very similar) view of the genuine Vignoles/Baulk track up the Lickey Bank, as a screen dump from Wikipedia - it gives the (lack of) copyright:

 

 

[Compound2632]

 

{Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 60914.]

[Dave Hunt]

I'm with Compound on this one. The only piece of MR track that I am aware of that ever had baulk timbering was the Lickey incline, which was originally laid thus as shown in the painting reproduced above. Even that, as far as I am aware, was relaid with standard MR track shortly after the takeover, although I can't give a date. 

 

Dave

[DenysW]

27 minutes ago, Dave Hunt said:

Even that, as far as I am aware, was relaid with standard MR track shortly after the takeover, although I can't give a date. 

I assume it was in the £900k of track upgrades that caused a fuss with the auditors in August 1849. 35 miles of Birmingham & Gloucester is certainly mentioned, as well as 35 miles of Midland Counties, and some other bits and bobs.

[Compound2632]

S.W. Johnson's Presidential Address to the I. Mech. E. includes a plate illustrating early Midland permanent way, which is reproduced in Midland Style, Fig. 1. This shows what at first glance looks like baulk track (and is so interpreted in Midland Style) but is in fact Barlow rail:

 

 

Johnson described it thus:

 

Quote

Mr. W.H. Barlow's Saddle-back pattern, introduced 1849, used on portions of main line and branches. Wrought iron rails, originally about 125 lb. per yard, laid directly on ballast without chairs, and held together by angle iron ties 3 in. by 3 in. by ½ in. placed 10 ft. apart. These ties not preventing the rails from rocking and spreading, they were replaced by wrought iron sleepers of similar section to the rail, 10 ft. apart, and finally by triangular timber transverse sleepers, into which the rails were notched and held down by dogs. Weight of rail finally, 92 lb. per yard. See "Proceedings" Inst. C.E., 1850, vol. ix., page 391; and 1857, vol. xvi., page 246.

 

(Text cut, pasted, and tided up from pdf of The Engineer, 10 June 1898. Adobe's OCR struggles a bit; in place of "sleepers" it gave me, appropriately enough, "bloopers".)

Edited March 25 by Compound2632
Corrected Vignoles to Barlow.

[DenysW]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

looks like baulk track ... but is in fact Vignoles rail

I believe that the Lickey was Vignoles rail as well.

 

Mea culpa. I hadn't realised that Vignoles rail did not have the longitudinal sleepers of IKB's baulk track (nor his original then abandoned vertical pillars), so was a distinctly different (and cheaper) design. That seems to have looked to artists indistinguishable.

 

Shame it seems to have rocked.

Edited March 25 by DenysW
Correct an error in my Latin spelling

[Compound2632]

9 minutes ago, DenysW said:

I believe that the Lickey was Vignoles rail as well.

 

I don't know what led me to write Vignoles instead of Barlow - corrected in post. Vignoles rail was more of a low-profile wide flat-bottomed rail; similar idea.

[DenysW]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Vignoles instead of Barlow

The rails in both seem to have been very similar to IKB's Great Western shape.

[Dave Hunt]

To my shame I had completely forgotten about Johnson address and Midland Style and that Barlow rail had been used on the Midland. Must be old age I guess (hangs head in shame).

 

Dave 

[John-Miles]

The Swansea Vale Railway used baulk PWay. The Midland relaid it with sleepered track when they took over.

[Compound2632]

Mystery photos:

https://www.midlandrailwaystudycentre.org.uk/mystery.php.

 

No. 18 has Birmingham area written all over it:

[Embedded link]

... but I just can't match it to anywhere on the main line either between Kings Norton and Halesowen or Saltley and Water Orton. W.L. Good does seem to have been standing on a possibly disused platform that isn't matched by one on the other side. It's June 1931, rather after the 'classic' W.L. Good 1920-1926 period. The goods lines clearly continue beyond the box, with a crossover to the fast; a train is signalled to run through on the goods line.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Was the Bristol & Gloucester built as broad gauge? And if so was it double track? 

 

Having walked through the (disused) Staple Hill tunnel between Mangotsfield and Fishponds, the dimensions don't appear sufficient for double broad gauge track.

Just a wonderin', as the books I've read lack clarity on this.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

12 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Mystery photos:

https://www.midlandrailwaystudycentre.org.uk/mystery.php.

 

No. 18 has Birmingham area written all over it:

[Embedded link]

... but I just can't match it to anywhere on the main line either between Kings Norton and Halesowen or Saltley and Water Orton. W.L. Good does seem to have been standing on a possibly disused platform that isn't matched by one on the other side. It's June 1931, rather after the 'classic' W.L. Good 1920-1926 period. The goods lines clearly continue beyond the box, with a crossover to the fast; a train is signalled to run through on the goods line.

 Could it be somewhere like Kibworth?

[Compound2632]

12 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

... but I just can't match it to anywhere on the main line either between Kings Norton and Halesowen or Saltley and Water Orton. 

 

Turns out the date matters. Cough, cough; hint, hint...

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Was the Bristol & Gloucester built as broad gauge? And if so was it double track? 

 

Having walked through the (disused) Staple Hill tunnel between Mangotsfield and Fishponds, the dimensions don't appear sufficient for double broad gauge track.

Just a wonderin', as the books I've read lack clarity on this.

 

Yes, and, yes, but with restricted clearances: the Wikipedia article is interesting:

 

Quote

MacDermot (citing "Gauge Commission evidence") states that "At this stage, the works were already partly made so that Wickwar and Fishponds Tunnels and several underbridges were in place, built for standard gauge double track," and this is repeated by Christiansen. They are saying that the works were made for a double line standard gauge track; and that the Bristol and Gloucester Railway was opened as a broad gauge line. They do not explain how two broad gauge tracks were squeezed through, and this seems to be a mistake.

 

Lewis observes that "Some structures on the B&GR, including the Stroudwater Canal Bridge, were only 26 ft (7.9 m) (rather than the more usual 28–30 ft (8.5–9.1 m) on other broad gauge lines) due to the late decision by the B&GR to conform to the GWR broad gauge."

 

The assertion is contradicted by the evidence of James Edward M'Connell, locomotive superintendent of the Bristol and Birmingham Railway in evidence to the Gauge Commissioners on 11 August 1845:

 

"Q: Is the Wickwar tunnel adapted to the broad gauge?

 

A: It is; it was constructed for the broad gauge.

 

Q: Then the broad gauge was determined on before that tunnel was constructed?

 

A: The bridges and tunnels were all made sufficiently large to accommodate the broad gauge, but till that meeting that I allude to [at which the Bristol and Gloucester decided on the broad gauge], it was perfectly understood that it was to be a narrow [i.e. standard] gauge [line], although the bridges and tunnels were made to suit either."

 

Remember, too, that although the gauge was 2' 3¾" greater than normal, the actual dimensions of the rolling stock of the time were pretty much within the later loading gauge. 

[Compound2632]

27 minutes ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

 Could it be somewhere like Kibworth?

 

That stretch of the Leicester & Hitchin was only ever double track. There was a section between Wigston South Junction and Kilby Bridge that had goods lines outside the fast lines, but this isn't it.

[kevinlms]

14 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Mystery photos:

https://www.midlandrailwaystudycentre.org.uk/mystery.php.

 

No. 18 has Birmingham area written all over it:

[Embedded link]

... but I just can't match it to anywhere on the main line either between Kings Norton and Halesowen or Saltley and Water Orton. W.L. Good does seem to have been standing on a possibly disused platform that isn't matched by one on the other side. It's June 1931, rather after the 'classic' W.L. Good 1920-1926 period. The goods lines clearly continue beyond the box, with a crossover to the fast; a train is signalled to run through on the goods line.

It seems to be the opposite view of this one.

 

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/mrknpreg291.htm

[Compound2632]

8 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

It seems to be the opposite view of this one.

 

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/mrknpreg291.htm

 

Close, but not close enough, I'm afraid. There's no signal box just the other side of that bridge.

 

But what is interesting about that photo is the leading vehicles:

 

 

[Resized crop from Warwickshire Railways mrknpreg291.]

 

At first sight I thought the leading 6-wheel passenger brake van was one of the S&DJR ones but looking more closely, neither it nor the following 4-wheel van have waist panels, though they do have eves panels. I think that makes them L&SWR vehicles, which have either come via the S&DJR and Bath, or the M&SWJR and Cheltenham.

[billbedford]

13 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Close, but not close enough, I'm afraid. There's no signal box just the other side of that bridge.

Isn't the signal box hidden by the train?