Mick Boyd Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I've searched without luck in trying to find the actual location of Woolston Grange after which GWR/BR Grange 6858 was named. My research seems to indicate it may no longer exist, any ideas please. Thanks in anticipation. Regards, Mick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bike2steam Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Bicknoller, Somerset. About 1/2 a mile from the WSR, halfway between Crowcombe, and Stogumber. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted March 9, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 9, 2015 Probably Woolston Grange, Shropshire (now a housing estate of some sort it would appear). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium petethemole Posted March 9, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 9, 2015 I agree with bike2steam; it's probably this one http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/en-265075-woolston-grange-bicknoller-somerset (and not a trading estate in Warrington) Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Boar Fell Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I agree with bike2steam; it's probably this one http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/en-265075-woolston-grange-bicknoller-somerset (and not a trading estate in Warrington) Pete No no, that was 6818 Hardwick Grange that was named after the trading estate in Warrington (https://goo.gl/maps/0ya5L) Wild Boar Fell Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Boyd Posted March 10, 2015 Author Share Posted March 10, 2015 Thanks for the replies, Bicknoller would seem logical. 6858 is the Grange that gained notoriety by escaping the grasp of the WR and finishing up "caged" at Huddersfield after striking the platform at nearby Denby Dale. Cheers, Mick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Well, just to add to the confusion, RCTS Part 14 suggests it is at Winchcombe in Gloucestershire and locally known as Woolstone grange... Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidH Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Maybe it's all of them - the GW couldn't duplicate the name? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted March 10, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 10, 2015 I agree with bike2steam; it's probably this one http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/en-265075-woolston-grange-bicknoller-somerset (and not a trading estate in Warrington) Pete Although the trading estate near Warrington is called the Grange, the big house there on the old maps was called Woolston Hall Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium petethemole Posted March 10, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 10, 2015 Yes, I spent some time with old OS maps and the Victoria County History on-line but failed to find an actual Grange. We have Woolston district here in Southampton, but having researched its history for work purposes I knew it was a non-starter; also of course not in GWR territory. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 ..also of course not in GWR territory. Whilst the majority of geographic names used by the GWR were within its territory, that was never a requirement. For example, Broughton Hall* is in Skipton and had a family association with Lord Vane-Tempest who was killed in the Abermule disaster.and Cobham hall is near Gravesend in Kent and was once the home of Viscount Cobham, a former Deputy Chairman of the GWR. Many more have no apparent association. Apparently, around a third of the geographic names are outside GWR territory. These and many other intriguing examples are from RCTS part 14. Nick * not to be confused with the Castle or Hall which were both in Banbury. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium petethemole Posted March 10, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 10, 2015 So if I decided to add to the class and create Swaythling Grange it wouldn't be hopelessly unprototypical. The now demolished house was close to here; I visited it in about 1972 before it went and I live on the site of the Grange Farm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted March 10, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 10, 2015 So if I decided to add to the class and create Swaythling Grange it wouldn't be hopelessly unprototypical. The now demolished house was close to here; I visited it in about 1972 before it went and I live on the site of the Grange Farm. Well the GWR never built/'rebuilt' all it had originally intended to order so you have an opportunity, and its trains did run through Swaythling Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I suspect the one third figure I quoted above includes all of the Crimean and Boer war examples and some of the classical examples too. However, in more recent times, the section on names in RCTS part 14 also recounts the origins of Avondale Castle, built in 1950. Although it sounds like it might be in GWR territory, the castle named in a 1925 Swindon list of possible names was, in fact, the one also known as Strathaven castle in Lanarkshire. They suggest that the compiler of names for the 1948 batch may have believed it referred to a castle in the Avondale district in the Cwmbran/Pontypool area. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclebobkt Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 Thanks for the replies, Bicknoller would seem logical. 6858 is the Grange that gained notoriety by escaping the grasp of the WR and finishing up "caged" at Huddersfield after striking the platform at nearby Denby Dale. Cheers, Mick. From search engine Google I see that the 'Grange's.' width overall is stated as 8' 11 1/4"., whereas a 'Black 5.' is but 8' 07 5/8".. Possibly the GWR. enjoyed a wider loading gauge thanks to its Broad Gauge antecedents? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted April 27, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 27, 2015 From search engine Google I see that the 'Grange's.' width overall is stated as 8' 11 1/4"., whereas a 'Black 5.' is but 8' 07 5/8".. Possibly the GWR. enjoyed a wider loading gauge thanks to its Broad Gauge antecedents? The GWR loading gauge was more generous than that of many other railways both vertically and horizontally and in some respects this was a consequence of the broad gauge although the main result of it was a wider 6 foot interval - as can still be seen at a number of stations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclebobkt Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 The GWR loading gauge was more generous than that of many other railways both vertically and horizontally and in some respects this was a consequence of the broad gauge although the main result of it was a wider 6 foot interval - as can still be seen at a number of stations. This characteristic would have been shared with the Great Central with its ambitions of linking-up with the Continent and the latter's more generous loading gauge. A wasted opportunity by most of the early and British Companies to have such a limited gauge - but one doubtless driven by gimlet-eyed accountants determinednot to waste a single & unnecessary penny. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted April 28, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 28, 2015 This characteristic would have been shared with the Great Central with its ambitions of linking-up with the Continent and the latter's more generous loading gauge. A wasted opportunity by most of the early and British Companies to have such a limited gauge - but one doubtless driven by gimlet-eyed accountants determinednot to waste a single & unnecessary penny. However don't overlook the fact that the Great Central was not built to continental loading gauge - it would have demolished various parts of the average continental passenger (in particular) vehicle with ease while at the same time taking bits off most continental mainline locos or losing bits of its infrastructure to them. It simply had a generous structure gauge compared with many British companies - as, for example, did the GNR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclebobkt Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 However don't overlook the fact that the Great Central was not built to continental loading gauge - it would have demolished various parts of the average continental passenger (in particular) vehicle with ease while at the same time taking bits off most continental mainline locos or losing bits of its infrastructure to them. It simply had a generous structure gauge compared with many British companies - as, for example, did the GNR. Thank you for this info.. But IIRC., and simply expressed, the GC. prefered to build its stations with 'Island' platforms wherever possible, so that before the day when continental gauge stock would run on its lines all that the PW. workers had to do was to lift and move the track farther away from the platforms. One presumes - often a dangerous thing to do! - that the GC. would have taken care to ensure that its bridges etc. etc. were built to suitable dimensions for the envisaged continental stock? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted April 29, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 29, 2015 Thank you for this info.. But IIRC., and simply expressed, the GC. prefered to build its stations with 'Island' platforms wherever possible, so that before the day when continental gauge stock would run on its lines all that the PW. workers had to do was to lift and move the track farther away from the platforms. One presumes - often a dangerous thing to do! - that the GC. would have taken care to ensure that its bridges etc. etc. were built to suitable dimensions for the envisaged continental stock? It definitely had quite a high (by British standards) vertical loading gauge (but still less than the GWR!) and its horizontal clearances were pretty good on the London Extension as it could take GWR 2 cylinder engines but the stories about it being built to a continental gauge are somewhat lacking in factual honesty. For example one source in the past claimed some affinity to Berne gauge for the London Extension which is hilarious as Berne Gauge didn't even exist when that was built! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclebobkt Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 It definitely had quite a high (by British standards) vertical loading gauge (but still less than the GWR!) and its horizontal clearances were pretty good on the London Extension as it could take GWR 2 cylinder engines but the stories about it being built to a continental gauge are somewhat lacking in factual honesty. For example one source in the past claimed some affinity to Berne gauge for the London Extension which is hilarious as Berne Gauge didn't even exist when that was built! Yes - I remember reading about the GC. having some affinity to the 'Berne Gauge.' - ha! Ha!! Quite a few years ago I saw a photo. of 'Pendennis Castle.' being eased gently backwards into King's Cross terminus, there was a group of mostly bowler-hatted & L&NER. gentlemen gazing intently to see if the Castle's cylinders fouled the platform's edge - they did not. Search-engine Google! shewed me that the Castle's width o/all. is 8' 11".. However, and as a comparion, I have been unable to find the A3's. width o/all. on Google! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted April 30, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 30, 2015 Yes - I remember reading about the GC. having some affinity to the 'Berne Gauge.' - ha! Ha!! Quite a few years ago I saw a photo. of 'Pendennis Castle.' being eased gently backwards into King's Cross terminus, there was a group of mostly bowler-hatted & L&NER. gentlemen gazing intently to see if the Castle's cylinders fouled the platform's edge - they did not. Search-engine Google! shewed me that the Castle's width o/all. is 8' 11".. However, and as a comparion, I have been unable to find the A3's. width o/all. on Google! According to the Charles Lake drawing the maximum width of an A3 is 9ft but don't know whereabouts that occurs (which makes a difference of course); he shows all the 'Castle' and 'King' as 8ft 11.5ins at their widest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclebobkt Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 According to the Charles Lake drawing the maximum width of an A3 is 9ft but don't know whereabouts that occurs (which makes a difference of course); he shows all the 'Castle' and 'King' as 8ft 11.5ins at their widest. Stationmaster, Thank you for this information; but would agree with you about where this MAXIMUM width occurs would be important. IIRC. Hughes of the L&YR. raised-up the cylinders on his 'Crabs.' so that he could fit the largest allowable cylinders and stay clear of the platforms' edges; from a data-sheet I see the the 'Crabs.' width o/all. is quoted as 8' 11".. Interestingly the 'Castles'.' cylinders are 16".x 26"., whereas the 'Crabs.' are 21". x 26". - hence Hughes' need to lift them up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bike2steam Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Yes - I remember reading about the GC. having some affinity to the 'Berne Gauge.' - ha! Ha!! Indeed so - the London extension from Nottingham Victoria ( to where exGW 4-6-0's were officially allowed) to Marylebone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.