Engineer

La Cour stirs the memory cells for me, too, somewhere in distant past technical reading. An aside, I wonder if the electrified Addison Road spur warranted an additional feed.

Are there any clues on the opening and life of the GWR generating station at Park Royal? As noted earlier, there was a GWR sub-station at Shepherd's Bush, dealing with the Hammersmith end of the Joint line and in modern times I believe the next sub-station along is Royal Oak. So, though Jackson's book on the Metropolitan, with good archive sources, suggests OOC was involved in feeding to the line, it may either be wrong information or a reflection of changed system design over time. A small aside - I believe that the Bouverie Place site originated as a small two-road steam shed.

Suggestion? - Old Oak Common - one of the substations for the Great Western and Metropolitan Joint route to Hammersmith when electrified. Others were Royal Oak and Shepherd's Bush. Great Western generating station feeding this and others - Park Royal. [see NLS OS and https://britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/EPW033754 https://britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/EPW041853 https://britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/EPW055718]. Source: London's Metropolitan Railway, Jackson, A. A., 1986.

Just some lateral thoughts: A 24.5mm bogie wheelbase crops up quite a lot for H0 European trams but the 10.5mm wheel might be a bit large. Bogie centres would be pretty close for driving the centre section of a Sheffield Supertram vehicle - about 6m prototype. On the Underground, the District electric loco has a 6' 6"' bogie wheelbase, 36" wheels, and 12' 10" bogie centres. Even more left-field, the ex-Ford BoBo diesel loco has 7' wheelbase bogies, 38" wheels and 18' bogie centres. I know the latter two locomotive bodies are available as 3D prints.

Up front admission, that my various specialist subjects don't qualify to comment on main line matters, other than the relevance of the LondonExtension to the Metropolitan. When I first saw the question, I immediately thought of seeing various images of A3s on the southern half of the route, and also of seeing [in my distant past] a mid-1950s speed-distance curve for an A3 with 9 coaches/300 tons over the Met route Harrow to Aylesbury. Now I see the note a little while ago excluding A3s, I can't helpmuch more ... but I did remember a picture seen recently in another search. It shows a Pacific, wrong class in this case, on an empty 'Pigeon' train on former GC territory, I believe. Could such a working provide a 'long-distance' excuse? [copyright image link sourced via Flickr and seems to have shown the picture by itself]

With a little more time, I've studied more of the relevant services and sources that may help. It may be that the original question, and some of the side comments, still need closure. I've had quick looks at other sources and at Pullman workings for years 1921 and for 1926 and thereafter, to look for changes in approach, as follows: Pullman Car workings were reduced to one car on 7 August 1917 and restored to two-car workings fron 25/2/1918. 1921 workings look, superficially, very similar to 1919 for trips, paths and timings. The second supplenent to the 1926 WT, dated 1 November, retimes Inbound train 90 [0809 Quainton depart] with the aim of passing Northwood [previously a calling point]. There are clues in the Metropolitan GMs circulars that 1926 was a tough time all round with rising costs. Further changes, simplifications and shifts in services followed in subsequent years. The 11 July 1927 WT has broadly familiar workings for two Pullman Cars. The 1 May 1928 WT has a single Pullman working, named Mayflower. Looking superficially at Saturdays Excepted, this has the morning trip Quainton Road to Liverpool Street, then Aylesbury, Baker Street and stow at Neasden. The pm trips were Liverpool Street, Aylesbury, Baker Street, Chorley Wood and Chenies, Baker Street and Aylesbury, finishing 2519 with the Pullman detached and stabled to join the 0730 Down. The Saturdays Only working is quite similar in pattern, but middle day trips adjusted for the Saturday return peak. There is no overt explanation for the change and we could speculate many reasons, As in 1917, it may simply be hard times. The Galatea or No. 2 working is relatively less active than its companion, so may have been curtailed, or the travel market may have changed. Given that there were two Pullmans plus the Rothschild Saloon as cover, I think it's unlikely that the change was forced by the non-availability of sufficient vehicles. The 1 October 1929 Working Timetable returns to a Two-Pullman Car pattern, and is the first to designate the published two SE + SO workings as No. 1 and No. 2. Trip patterns are broadly familiar but this is the first instance where the No.1 service has the Pullman Car in the train consist [albeit Empty] from Neasden 0538 to Quainton Road 0742. This sets the style and format for subsequent publication of Pullman Car workings. The question of Pullmans serving Verney Junction: Workings from the start until about 1918 show one instance of an outbound trip to Verney Junction at the end of a working day [Saturday being an earlier finish of work than MF]. After a fairly substantial layover, 101 minutes in one instance, the train returns inbound as a Pullman service. Even though the service pattern evolves over time, there is solid evidence from various Working Timetables that at least one of the Pullmans spent overnights at Aylesbury, even after the end of Metropolitan services further North. I acknowledge that Working Timetables are not the absolute and perfect statement of what goes on around the railway - I can remember instances of variations on the ground for practicality, service regulation or local optimisation. So, it could theoretically be possible for a Pullman to find its way to Verney Junction for overnight - attachment to a Goods working from Aylesbury may be one option to consider but there don't seem to be footnotes or column notes to support this. However, the Inbound morning Pullman service starting from Quainton Road was variously 0801 or 0809, getting to the City just before 1000. That train originated from Neasden a little after 0530, and there was not sufficient time in the schedule to extend the train to Verney Junction and return to Quainton with added Pullman. The early am travel option from Verney Junction does need exploring. I sense that, for the service over the Verney Junction route, the original questioner will need little more detail from me except by request. In the January 1919 timetable it is shown as a GC service, nominal interval 1.5 to 2 hours during the weekday between Aylesbury and VJ, though not running at times when the scheduled Metropolitan pm service covered the route. It looks as if this 'GC' service originated on a Weekday from Aylesbury at about 0640 and its first return trip from VJ, depart 0727, terminates short at Quainton Road at 0750 and returns to VJ at 0808, so providing a two-way through connection with train 27. As for commuter use of the Inbound service, I remembered mentions of this and now have found a couple of references, admittedly second-hand or third hand. Closest to source is a short article by C. Gooch and E. J. S, Gadsden, reporting their visit to Sir Harry Verney at Claydon House. He was the powerful local landed interest for the area and had long-standing close personal connections with the Metropolitan Chairman. The Verney family owned the land served by the railway, selling a small portion to the Metropolitan to enable its presence at Verney Junction. Sir Harry was a commuter user of the railway and was, from 1920 to 1929, a Director of the Metropolitan. The article reports Sir Harry as saying: "... I travelled each day from Grandborough Road, and was always the first passenger in the Pullman Car, quite often the only one on the train as far as Aylesbury." These words may be interpreted either that the morning Inbound Pullman Train consistently served Grandborough [albeit off timetable] but it could be simply that the distinguished traveller made the one-station hop from Grandborough to Quainton and was able to transfer to the London train with freedom to enjoy any seat in the Pullman Car. I do recall other references and images which would enable more comment on train consists related to Pullman workings, and on using a Pullman and the Rothschild Saloon in the Stanmore opening train. These will take a long while to unearth, so I'll avoid opening a rolling stock discussion here where we concentrate on operational and business matters.

Some years ago I had much assistance with research from The Cumbrian Railways Association and subsequently wrote a few aeticles for their journal. It appears that the webmaster has been unwell and access to their internet material for maintenance has been difficult. The internet archive found some residue: http://www.cumbrianrailways.org.uk/home.php There's a page for modelling information, with mention of Worsley Works etches for some vehicles: http://www.cumbrianrailways.org.uk/Railway_Modelling.php Their photograph archive seems partly available, and there are photographs of models of Furness stock: https://cumbrianrailways.zenfolio.com/f478866991 http://cumbrianrailways.zenfolio.com/p592347142

With limited time, progress made on analysis of Pullman workings at several moments, using various sources including the Jackson Metropolitan Railway history and some Working Timetables. As this is an analysis and involves transposition of information, there may be errors. 01/06/1910 Pullman services commenced October 1911 Morning Pullman trips started from Aylesbury and Chesham. Verney Junction outbound and return trips included. Saturdays only: Liverpool Street 1359 depart to Verney Junction 1619 arrive Saturdays only: Verney Junction 1800 depart to Baker Street arrive 2010 Saturdays excepted: Liverpool Street 1814 depart to Verney Junction 2020 arrive Saturdays excepted: Verney Junction 2115 depart to Baker Street arrive 2317 WT 113 18/11/1912 Verney Junction had one Pullman service per weekday. Each Pullman was assigned its own working Galatea MF and Saturdays working Aylesbury depart [Pullman empty] 0753 arrive 0748 Quainton Road 0808 depart Quainton Road arrive Liverpool Street 0956 Trips during the day to Aylesbury, etc. MF 1814 depart Liverpool Street and return 2115 Verney Junction to Baker Street Saturday 1359 depart Liverpool Street and return 1805 Verney Junction to Baker Street Mayflower - MF and Saturdays working Aylesbury depart empty 0624 arrive 0714 Chesham 0855 depart Chesham arrive Liverpool Street 1005 Trips during day to Harrow and Aylesbury, etc 29/01/1917 Morning Pullman trips were from Quainton Road and Great Missenden. Verney Junction trips included: Saturdays excepted: Liverpool Street 1814 depart to Verney Junction 2023 arrive Saturdays excepted: Verney Junction 2114 depart to Baker Street arrive 2317 WT 154 13/01/1919 No Pullman trips to Verney Junction. Timetable detail and notes reveal that the named paths [Mayflower and Galatea] were designed to exchange actual vehicles each day during the week. Between trips, trains move empty between City termini and Neasden Mayflower - MF and Saturdays working Pullman [empty] coupled into Down train 27 at Aylesbury depart 0730 arrive 0743 Quainton Road and forms 0801 departure Up train 27 0801 depart Quainton Road arrive Aldgate 0957. All stations to Chorley Wood and Chenies, then Northwood, Wembley Park for loco change, Baker Street and all stations to Aldgate. MF timetable has Chesham pm trip. All stations to Baker Street, Wembley Park for loco change, Pinner, Northwood, Rickmansworth and all stations to Chesham. Saturday Only has afternoon and late evening trips to Aylesbury Saturdays Excepted finishes Neasden 2212, Pullman to be formed in next day 0738 departure Wembley Park to Great Missenden Saturdays Only finishes Aylesbury 2412, Pullman to be formed in 0730 departure Galatea MF and Saturdays working Pullman [empty] formed into Down train 28 Wembley Park depart 0738 arrive 0832 Great Missenden to form 0826 departure Up train 28 0826 depart Great Missenden arrive Liverpool Street 1040 Saturdays Only Early afternoon trip to Aylesbury Saturdays Excepted finishes 2436 Aylesbury. Pullman to be formed into next day 0730 departure Saturdays Only finishes 1334 Aylesbury. Pullman moved Aylesbury 2007 to Great Missenden 2029 in readiness for Monday working WT 33 13/03/1933 No Pullman trips to Verney Junction. Timetable describes No.1 and No.2 services for the two Pullmans. Between trips, trains move empty between City termini and Neasden No.1 Service Saturdays Excepted [Monday only] Train 98 [5x coaches + Pullman] Depart Neasden 0544 to Baker Street, then to Aylesbury arrive 0718, then to Quainton Road. Pullman empty throughout. [Except Mondays] Pullman [empty] and 2x additional coaches coupled to Down train 98 at Aylesbury depart 0732 arrive 0744 Quainton Road and forms 0809 departure Up train 98 0809 depart Quainton Road arrive Liverpool Street 0953 Late afternoon trip Aldgate to Amersham, evening trips Baker Street to Chorley Wood and Chenies then Baker Street to Aylesbury, finish 2519 to form next day 0912 departure No.1 Service Saturdays Only Pullman [empty] coupled into Down train 98 at Aylesbury depart 0732 arrive 0744 Quainton Road and forms 0809 departure Up train 98 0809 depart Quainton Road arrive Liverpool Street 0953 Afternoon trip Aldgate depart 1333 to Chesham 1446, returns Sunday depart 0730 to Neasden, for Monday 0544 departure No.2 Service Saturdays Excepted Up train 100 0912 depart Aylesbury arrive Liverpool Street 1041 Down train depart Liverpool Street 1730 to Aylesbury arrive 1858 No.2 Service Saturdays Only Pullman coupled into train 100 at Aylesbury, depart Up 0912 to Liverpool Street arrive 1041 Afternoon trip Liverpool Street 1258 to Aylesbury arrive 1433. After arrival, Pullman removed, to be added later to train 96 Evening trip train 96 Aylesbury depart 2017 to Baker Street 2140 Late evening trip Baker Street depart 2206 to Chorley Wood and Chenies arrive 2248 Chorley Wood and Chenies depart 2253 to Baker Street arrive 2341 Baker Street depart 2400 to Aylesbury arrive 2519, to form Monday 0912 Up train WT 69 17/7/1939 No Pullman trips to Verney Junction. Timetable describes No.1 and No.2 services for the two Pullmans. Between trips, trains move empty between City termini and Neasden No.1 Service Saturdays Excepted [Monday only] Train 118 Depart Neasden 0532 to Baker Street, then to Aylesbury arrive 0721. Pullman empty throughout. [Except Mondays] Pullman [empty] coupled into Down train 118 at Aylesbury depart 0824 arrive Liverpool Street 0952 1/2 Late afternoon trip Aldgate to Amersham, evening trips Baker Street to Amersham and to Aylesbury, finish 2522 to form next day 0910 departure No.2 Service Saturdays Excepted Up train 120 0910 depart Aylesbury arrive Liverpool Street 1039 1/2 Down train depart Aylesbury 1732 1/2 to Aylesbury arrive 1905 No.1 Service Saturdays Only Pullman [empty] coupled into Up train 118 at Aylesbury depart 0824 to Liverpool Street 1039 1/2 Afternoon trip Aldgate depart 1330 1/2 to Chesham 1450, returns Sunday depart 0730 to Neasden, for Monday 0532 departure No.2 Service Saturdays Only Pullman coupled into train 120 at Aylesbury, depart Up 0910 to Liverpool Street arrive 1041 Afternoon trip Aldgate 1306 to Aylesbury arrive 1438. After arrival, Pullman removed, to be added later to train 115 Evening trip train 115 Aylesbury depart 2017 to Baker Street 2148 Late evening trip Baker Street depart 2158 to Amersham arrive 2252 Amersham depart 2301 to Baker Street arrive 2353 Baker Street depart 2406 to Aylesbury arrive 2521, to form Monday 0910 Up train

I can't give a proper response immediately - checking required for a proper response in due course. My recollections, from when I was approached to answer this question before, are that Verney Junction had very little Pullman service over the years. I remember checking samples of 1919 and late 1920s-early 1930s Working Timetables and it seemed Quainton Road was the furthest extremity for inbound Pullman workings. Outbound workings didn't seem to go beyond Aylesbury.

Alas, two replies disappeared, so third attempt. Additional footnote to the original image, following checks with robust sources: The grounded saloon vehicle in the background is LT number 6233 [Hammersmith & City Third Driving Trailer formerly no. 128]. Three recognition details are the truncated 'ramp' at the end of the clerestory which is a feature of driving ends built in that era, the trace of a single upper marker light above the end gangway door [H&C Stock only], and the bracket that holds the outer end of the metal destination plates on the car end just below the driver's lookout window. The car number comes from post-war observations recorded in 'Underground News' and Brian Hardy stock publications. For completeness, the other grounded body observed at Neasden was LT number 9210 [Metropolitan Third Trailer no 34] which had slightly different features. I suggest there's a tiny trace of this vehicle's end at the extreme left of the image. Metropolitan and GC design contrasts, mentioned in a previous post: I know that the Metropolitan and the Great Central had a bond that might be described positively as creative tension. There is ample evidence for this in the archived correspondence of Fay [GC] and Selbie [Met.], over matters such as fares and station naming on the Joint Line. The tension went back much further, though. I'd suggest that there was no direct influence on the Met's design choices in this case. The Met. was pretty good at noticing its collaborators' and competitors' activities, and keeping up while doing things slightly differently. The electrification saga with the District Railway is one example that didn't quite come off, and there is another example, a hypothesis that the Met's Haltes of the 1900s took multiple cues from the GWR precursors to the extent of going to the same supplier for some small platform waiting buildings, but carefully avoiding the GWR style of roof. Briefly, and cutting corners, the Metropolitan's Saloon Stock came in various batches over a number of years, evolving in design to match fashions and service needs. Builders were Metropolitan Amalgamated, who would have experience or knowledge of contemporary UK practice for commuter saloons, and other main line vehicles. Another influence would be the transatlantic styles of the time for electric trains, which were followed closely by the District but interpreted more liberally and gently for the Met's early stock. I'd conclude there was negligible direct GC influence on the Saloon Stock design. As an aside, there was a GC influence in vehicle design a little later, again following the principle of learning while avoiding direct imitation. The GC introduced very high quality coaches in the 1900s. The Metropolitan's vehicles on the same route were much less attractive by comparison [These were the 'Bogie Stock' - the official name used by the Metropolitan and London Transport]. Among tracings, prints and papers from the Metropolitan I saw one or two GC carriage drawings, and one cross-section of a 3rd class compartment showing the quality of the interior, and I suggest this indicates Met, desire to learn and improve from others in order to maximise revenue - in business today it might be called Benchmarking! With a surplus of Saloon Stock trailers by 1910, the Metropolitan commissioned Metropolitan Amalgamated to rebuild some of these to compartment coaches, officially 'Main Line Stock' but soon acquired a second name of Dreadnought. The body style was piloted just before with the reconstruction of two crash-damaged Saloon Motors for use as single vehicles - the loco-hauled reconstructions followed. One reconstructed vehicle, a third brake, survives with the Vintage Carriage Trust alongside two others of later builds.

Sorry to join in as an outsider, and apologies if I have it wrong. I have a a left-field comment on the image of 2661 and its background. Particularly if it is Neaden 1947, I suggest the items in the background are grounded bodies of Metropolitan Railway Saloon Stock cars. I am researching this stock to provide robust information for some modeller colleagues. Given a bit more time, I should be able to find some information on the particular vehicles. Vehicle now identified, see post dated April 25, 2020

Closest quick match to the original area. Same elaborate shelter on left side of both images, same lay of tracks, but just a bit lower, nearer the Embankment proper. In this image, the 38 tram is on the other road to the original, clockwise on the Embankment and about to turn for the bridge and South London. https://www.londontramways.co.uk/search/tram_picsview.php?pic_id=26220 Map extract showing the area and the curving of tracks in the vicinity of the bridge. Couple of additional images in the vicinity, source Crich Tramway Museum. First is an opposite direction view, LCC Class A in original livery, second is 1950s.

LCC had a 'Pullmanisation' programme from the mid-1920s, including updating the vehicle interior and exterior. The E, E/1 and M Class would be included, earlier classes not. The main livery colour was red, and without checking books my recollection of the description was something akin to Fire Engine red [is this in any range of model paints?] which is fairly rich and deep. The LCC symbol was a small shield shape, centre of the upper of the lower bodyside panels. Can't see in the image whether this is present. Transition to LPTB initially involved changing to the LT bodyside name and legal lettering, but not an immediate change of numerals, and might be a couple of years to get round to full repainting. The presence of an M Class vehicle on the 84 suggests [again without looking at books] that it is not LT era image, because [I believe] the HR/2 vehicles [bogie, equal wheel cars] took over the 84 and related routes while LCC were in charge. https://www.tramwayinfo.com/tramways/Lcc/Picload.htm?l18078ar.jpg M Class in 'Pullman' form

Agree with the post just now, it is the section of tramway on the Embankment close to Blackfriars Bridge, confirmed by the curvature of the track and presence of shelters. Looks like the tram is descending from Blackfriars to the river side 'inner rail or anti-clockwise line towards Westminster, thereafter to Peckham Rye. Can't offer any suggestion on the background other than there would be street furniture and buildings in the distance. Clearly, the tram body is M Class [readily converted from the Tower E/1], 3 side windows up and down, and can just make out the unusual and bulky truck side. It's the right type for the 84 which traversed Dog Kennel Hill. Livery of the tram, and the type, puts the image at maybe late 1920s to early 1930s. Not much later, routes like the 84 were taken over by the new HR/2 types.

A supplementary item of information, with thanks to a former colleague sharing in the past few days some research work in progress: After replacement of Aldgate signal box and locking in 1908, the role of outer and inner platform tracks was reversed in 1909, the outer pair becoming the through lines. On the post from Monday 6th, agree that loco-hauled Jubilee stock had been used for some Metropolitan services until its retirement. The 1919 plan included a Main Line Stock [Dreadnought] order but also two reconstruction projects involving the original electric locomotives and one 6-car train of Saloon Stock. The latter was to evaluate a new vehicle layout with the potential to improve capacity, which could form a new design for more electric stock in the next couple of years. The advantages did not justify the design change and an evolved form of Saloon Stock was ordered instead. Traction equipment and other parts from the original electric locomotives found their way into the new Saloon Stock and to other modifications. This amounted to a planned cascade programme to squeeze the most out of the fleet with careful use of finance, the other noteworthy component being the creation of W Stock, made up of converted Bogie Stock displaced by new Dreadnought coaches and formed into 8-vehicle trains using pairs of existing Saloon Motor cars. Some more work on the question of terminating loco-hauled trains at Aldgate at the City. It's a summary of terminating trains at each site, and combines information from working timetables at three moments - 1919, 1930 and 1939. The timetables have more than one section - broadly No,1 covers Hammersmith and City and Circle and GWR operations, No.2 in 1919 covers Metropolitan services north of Baker Street to Harrow and Uxbridge, and in 1930 and 1939, No.2 covers all services going North of Baker Street. No.3 [1919} covered the services that run North of Harrow. Unavoidably, the scope of each book overlaps the others to some extent, so double-counting and other errors are possible, and this quick estimate isn't perfect. I have some research in progress that will require a more thorough analysis of some services. The summary table indicates how service and terminating patterns changed over time and includes for context the Circle and H&C trains and Metropolitan electric stock trains that terminated in the City.

In response to the Aldgate discussion, I've also looked at the OS 25-inch 1914 revision for the area in order to compare to a scale plan. The OS shows a three-track section under the Stoney Lane covered way and converges to two tracks in the open section just before passing under Harrow Alley. The loco siding is there, reaching back into the tip of the island platform between Inner Rail through line and the adjacent terminating line. Off the through line at the departure end of the platform there are two successive turnouts to short sidings. The first siding definitely ends in the open space to the West of the line and the second siding may continue into the covered way - can't tell from the OS. Long ago I took a couple of pictures of a scale plan of Aldgate from 1926, in archives. It showed the new signalling and signal box [with power frame]. The difference shows up where the two west side sidings have been removed. The vacated open area is the location for the new signal box. Dimensions suggest the 3-track section extends west for roughly 300' west of the North junction. In response to the post last Wednesday, it's hard to generalise on locomotive positioning moves and use of sidings by the Metropolitan and LT over time - getting on for 60 years of loco use in passenger service. The analysis earlier in this thread outlines some of the movements in the last timetable or two of loco haulage, with examples of 'loco on rear'. I believe this was one of several techniques used over the years, scheduled and unscheduled. Positioning moves of a single locomotive or up to four together [only on doing the work] were used, and most of these were shown in working timetables but not all. I'm working on research to do with the electric locomotives, including some analysis of workings, so I'll extend this to see what I can find, but I may be a while. I can give some hints of terminus workings for the May 1919 timetables but it is a work in progress and I don't have a full count yet nor a guarantee of freedom from errors. For Aldgate [based on a Weekday/Saturdays Excepted timetable] there seem to be at least a couple of loco-hauled Metropolitan trains terminating there during the day, one with a Pullman car. There were large numbers of other terminating[and sometimes dividing or coupling] trains, a mix of Metropolitan electric trains [Saloon Stock at the time] from North of Baker Street, Circle trains and Hammersmith and City trains. There were no terminating GWR trains from Paddington Bishop's Road. By contrast, there are seven GWR loco-hauled trains terminating at Liverpool Street through the service day. Loco-hauled Metropolitan trains terminating at Liverpool Street were in double figures, including one with a Pullman car, and a couple of visits from a loco-hauled train formed of ten GWR coaches. These latter are believed to be four-wheelers of suitable design hired to strengthen hard-pressed Metropolitan services to northern suburbs, pending arrival of additional new and reconstructed stock. More analysis on this and a few more timetables through the inter-war years in due course.

Very many thanks and much respect for the superb professional images of the Heljan M-V Bo-Bo, earlier on this page. I put up the image of loco 2 to complement the loco naming discussion and conscious of the cricket connection. Loco 2 is interesting, though, the first of the 'new' locomotives to leave Vickers in Barrow after they'd produced some initial 'reconstructions' of existing locomotives. Loco 2 is the only one of out of the twenty to have a complete name change - it carried 'Oliver Cromwell' until the Second War. In response to the model images, here is my father's picture of loco 5 on 12th August 1961, near to the end of its service career, though it survives in the London Transport Museum. My father was a Met Railway employee and keen amateur photographer who regretted his late start to photographing railways. Compare the above to the views of the model loco. We are looking at the 'Down' or 'Country' end in Met language [D End in LT terminology], and there is some subtle handing in a couple of features. Loco 5, the 9th to leave Vickers, Barrow in 1922, is a one-off in one particular respect - take a look at the footsteps below the doors. There were [broadly] two types of steps in the fleet - plus loco 5 with an unique set. This picture was taken with a 6x6cm format camera, Rolleiflex 3.5F, my father's favourite. My mother and I were close by. Just a couple of images to illustrate the exploits of the still-active Loco 12. First my picture at Harrow in 1982 [Minolta SLR, 35m] My father's picture at Gloucester Road Junction, Selhurst, 1983, also Minolta SLR, 35mm. Apologies for image quality here, it is a low-res copy of a 16x12 print, quickest to lay hands on. Finally, my half-started work on a 7mm kit. My aim is to include a new all-axle drive and revised chassis, and I'll incorporate the detailed subtleties of the particular prototype. I took great care and time with the 'face' of the model - very tricky to get just the right expression.

Agree on the wonders of transporter bridges. Up close, they are massive, powerful structures. Here are sample images from fleeting visits to see the Middlesborough and Newport [second two] bridges on consecutive days in June 2016: Below, Newport

Great recollection, many thanks. Sounds like you had an interesting role in LT. I've had some contact with the locos over the years and a life in LT and now I'm researching and writing a definitive explanation of how the locos came into the world. For a small fleet of 20, there's a lot of variety similar to all the intricacies of individual steam machines discussed here. There are some urban myths to be discussed, some information to work from [but never quite enough], and a story to tell. I'm getting a lot of help from people that worked on the locos, from modellers and from archivists. I have a couple of pictures to post, when I can sort myself out.

While the discussion of loco names remains in sight, here's an appealing name - Thomas Lord - one of an interesting small fleet. Sorry, image may not appear directly. Image notes Thomas Lord could be seen often in good company with Sherlock Holmes, Michael Faraday, W. E. Gladstone, Sarah Siddons, John Lyon, etc

Have to be careful as this is a thread about creating kits/RTR for 3' 6" prototypes. Just for completeness from previous post, confirm that Nigel Lawton-type motors were used on the two tram layouts, 2mm scale/7mm gauge. Even included bogie cars, typically two motored trucks, two-stage gear reductions, excellent creativity. I have my own dreams for model trams [someday], 3'6" gauge prototypes, 4mm scale 14mm (probably + 0.2mm) using existing 4mm kit material for bodies and I have a proof-of-concept mechanism which will be ok for the gauge..

A brief supplementary on stabling matters to add to the previous note, and also connecting back to the third post in this series that mentioned a 1958 WT. The analysis is a bit fiddly to work out, bound to be a few errors, so subsequent editing very likely. The 1960 WT 185 was a one-off for the extension of electric services to Amersham and Chesham. I've referred to its Rolling Stock Working pages, and made brief but not exhaustive checks in the main body of the timetable, MF services only. I have converted times to 24+ hours to reduce the risk of me making mistakes. Each working of a coach set and of a locomotive is given a number for the traffic day [03:00 to 27:00 (03:00 next day] and this number allows the workings to be followed through the timetable via its column headers or notes. Loco workings are similar to ‘diagrams’. The 'diagram' for the coaches uses the assigned train number for the day as the identifier. The next day’s workings use the same number pattern, but of course allocated with different real vehicles, and it is quite common for real vehicles to be assigned to different trains during a day, for example to ensure vehicles return to a particular location for maintenance or as a tactic to manage service recovery post-disruption. When stabling a train [set of coaches], the train number/coach working number at the finish is not the same as the number used for the departure next day. Example for Steam Stock 6-coach [SS6], WT 185, MF service: Train 114 Empty from Aylesbury (Town) arrives Wendover 20:47 and shunts to Yard. Departs next morning 06:45 as train 112 Empty to Aylesbury (Town). Loco working examples Overall, the rolling stock working [meaning the starts and finishes, stabling and out-stabling] is quite similar to the 1958 WT: At maximum, nine locos required for MF service out of an overall fleet of sixteen. Eight locos return to Neasden at night, and one loco [working 5] remains at Liverpool Street overnight and becomes working 9, taking over the first train that arrives in the morning. Two locos also remain during the day at Liverpool Street, loco working 3 [arrives at 09:40 with train 113 and departs with train 117 at 15:43] and 9 [arrives with train 117 at 09:55½ and departs with train 115 at 16:19]. Specific details from the timetable on Chesham loco moves Train 118 [loco working 5, plus loco working 6 at rear] depart Neasden (North) 06:00 empty to Chesham p2 arrive 06:59 Train 118 [loco working 6] depart Chesham 07:31 to Baker Street p1 08:27 Train 119 [loco working 5] depart Chesham 08:12 to Liverpool Street arrive 9:20½ Train 112 [Loco working 2] depart Liverpool Street 17:14½ arrive Chesham p2 18:27. Coaches [Steam Stock set] moved to siding. Train 113 [Loco working 6] depart Liverpool Street 17:41 arrive Chesham p2 18:57 Train 113 [Loco working 2 plus loco working 6 at rear], depart Chesham 19:21, in service to Harrow-on-the-Hill, empty to Neasden (North) 20:08. This means that coaches from incoming train 112 at 18:27 will form train 119 at 08:12 next day I guess that related questions will arise for priming and conclusion of layovers: Loco working 2 [alone] departs Neasden (North) 06:31, arrives Rickmansworth 07:00 Loco working 8 [alone] departs Neasden (North) 06:58, arrives Rickmansworth 07:30 Loco working 4 [alone] departs Rickmansworth 18:40, arrives Neasden (North) 19:12 Loco working 3 [alone] departs Rickmansworth 24:37, arrives Neasden (North) 25:03 [conveys staff] Loco working 7 departs Neasden (South) 06:09 at rear of train 116, arrives Baker Street 06:26½ Loco working 9 departs Baker Street 20:25, arrives Neasden (South) 20:25 One tiny diversion from stabling and out-stabling, but with a Chesham context - there is a morning working of interest, an LMR train: Class C 03:55 ex Marylebone Empty Coaches + Newspaper Van 04:53 Chesham arrive [infer Van remains at Chesham] Class B 05:38 Chesham depart in passenger service Calls at stations to Rickmansworth then Northwood and stations to Harrow-on-the-Hill. Arrive Marylebone 06:32

In response to this morning's post I confirm the practice of loco at rear of train, and it's featured in several photographs in publications and internet places. It's an important technique to use when train paths are at a premium. The additional loco extends the train length a little and still carries a crew, but as a separate loco movement it would occupy more or the railway and add to the signalling and control workload, so overall a positive effect on capacity. The Met would be pretty busy generally, heading to and from Neasden, but also Chesham is a long single line, and the junction area at Chalfont remains capacity-critical today. It's a practice that was in use back in Metropolitan times in various ways to suit situations, and similar practices were sometimes - but not always - used for coaches and vehicles based at Neasden which were added to or removed from trains at suitable locations to suit demand. Sometimes these moves show up in WTs, sometimes not. When time permits, I'll look up the WT for the electrification North of Rickmansworth - might be some interest in the movements that were scheduled, though danger of heading off-topic for the originator of the question!

I'd need to do more research in timetables and photographs of the time. Quick checking of the closest fit WT [1958] shows nine locos required for am peak weekday service out of an overall fleet of sixteen. Eight locos returned to Neasden at night, and one loco remained at Liverpool Street overnight to pick up the first returning train in the morning. At Neasden, the electric locos would not have been in the steam loco part of the depot [not electrified], and didn't have a separate shed. I have no hard evidence in mind but suggest that locos arriving at Neasden that didn't require any more than nightly test may well have been left on a yard stabling road or shed road at Neasden with their incoming train. However, highly likely that the loco would need to be uncoupled and positioned with its train for the next day, depending on direction of departure. Conventionally, the Depot Foreman would allocate trains in the yard for the next day's workings and there would be a fairly consistent plan for this. Ideally, Incoming trains [all but one of the evening/night finishers coming into Neasden North from Wembley] would be directed to the stabling place that suited their next [day] activities but if there was work to be done on the train, a different berth was arranged and the train redirected as it entered. If a locomotive needed examination or inspection, or more, after stabling its train the loco would be uncoupled and moved to the appropriate shed road for the work to be done. By the 1960s there would be a small number of locomotives in excess of service requirements and spare locos would probably be placed on a suitable road, either in the yard not far from the depot office, or maybe in the Exam or Cleaning Shed. Broadly the aim was for a convenient place for depot staff to retrieve and move as required. Some of the locos in the fleet would be on Lifting roads for planned major work/equipment change or, up to about 1959, at Acton for Heavy Overhaul

Thanks for including in the fun the ACV vehicles, with their several London area and London Underground connections. For a future selection, how about the Adkins-Lewis Neverstop Railway vehicles? - several vehicles later repurposed as Ashover Light Railway coaches.