Nick Holliday

I've done a bit of manipulation and guesstimation and come up with the following dimensions. Partly based on the adjacent Open A(?) and the fact that the GWR seemed to standardise on having the end platforms on their Crocodiles around 9' 6", the overall length of the Crocodile scales at around 53', which suggests they are Crocodile F's, of some variety or other. The loads appear to be around 48 feet long, 6' 6" wide and around 8' 6" high, possibly less given the timber baulks underneath. If they are intended for military use, I would suggest that they might have been involved in the infra-structure works in preparation for the main building of the MOD site, perhaps tanks, culverts, underpasses or shelters, although, as @Nearholmer has pointed out, they don't appear to be particularly robust to be simply buried. If they are more military orientated, it seems unlikely they would have been delivered before the MOD sidings were in use, and simply parked in the nearby goods yard.

Whilst browsing through Britain From Above, fortunately back on line, I came across a series of views of Warminster station, and noticed two rather strange loads in the goods yard, and wondered what they might be. I have searched the forum for "Warminster" and nothing has come up, so I am hoping it hasn't been discussed before.

I don't think the Highland "River" class could have caused any damage to the track before the sale to the Caledonian. There was confrontation between the Mechanical and Civil engineers at Inverness, the latter complaining that the locos were too heavy for the structures on the line. The situation wasn't helped by the two that turned up at Perth on delivery being found to be some 6 tons heavier than the designers had calculated. As a result they only ran clearance trials, and wouldn't have had many opportunities to spread any track. The Civil Engineer got his comeuppance after Grouping, when the Rivers returned to the Highland, and ran perfectly satisfactorily despite there being only minimal upgrading of the infrastructure, principally the Tay Bridge (not that one) at Dalguise, which was in need of repair anyway. The later "Clan" class, although over 10 tons lighter than the "Rivers", as @Metropolitan H says, had a higher hammer-blow, and thus had a greater impact on the underline structures, although whether this could be said to actually damage the track itself is debatable. It was some time before the full understanding of the differences between dynamic and static loading on structures was fully appreciated.

This may have been true in the early days, when the engineers were struggling to match growing traffic with the equipment available, but regarding the singles under discussion, the second wave as it were, this wasn't so prevalent. Most survived around thirties years, by which time they were thoroughly worn out, and there would have been little that could be recycled, as the technology had advanced, although on some lines, such as the GWR, there had been periodic improvements, such as boilers, and it is possible they were compatible with other classes, and could be re-used. I don't think any of this era were rebuilt as 2-4-0's, and only a couple of experimental GWR singles were rebuilt as 4-4-0's, the others of this persuasion were 2-4-0's. The reconstruction of the Sir Daniel class of single into useful 0-6-0's was an exception to the rule, and would make fascinating subjects for RTR! As regards the tank engines cited, the Stroudley "Pre-Terriers" only two of the three used boilers from earlier locos, the Raigmores 2-2-2, the third receiving a totally new boiler. The initial batches of the GNR J23 Class (later LNER J50) 0-6-0 tanks, consisting of 20 locos, did use re-used boilers, but these were all taken from the notorious 0-8-2 tanks, which had been rebuilt with larger boilers. The third batch of ten similarly used this type of recycled boiler, but three had been ordered for fitting to Stirling singles, but only one of them actually reached a single (No 872) the others having served time on the 0-8-2 tanks instead. (Courtesy N Groves RCTS GN Locomotive History)

As @Gordonwis suggests, there were around 26 classes under the 89 banner, although some were minor variants. The only other 0-6-0T outside this range was the BR 80 - the Einheitslok shunter equivalent. There was another class the model might be considered representational of, the BR 89.80, just two Borsig built clones for the Mecklenburgische Staatsbahn, small beer compared with the over 200 Prussian T3's.

To complete the piece regarding Caledonian thirling:- HE WAGONS INVOLVED Eight coal companies entered thirling arrangements with the Caledonian. The CR numbers of 4,371 wagons and their dedicated users are shown in the table below. The numbers allocated to these wagons occupied two large blocks from 51725-54124 and 57200-58670, plus 56500-56999. These numbers indicate that they were charged to the capital account. The 900 old wagons in the table were taken over by the Caledonian from the coal companies. The new wagons were all built by the Caley except for one batch of 200 from Pickering. The CR numbers were 52825-53024, originally Cadzow Coal numbers 500-699, but probably taken over by the CR as soon as they were built. Solid buffered wagons to Diagram 22 predominated, with the exception of the 800 wagons numbered 57400-57999, 58271-58370 and 58371-58470, all of which were built to Diagram 46, the sprung buffered development of Diagram 22. Random numbers, mostly in the 50XXX series, were allocated to a further 749 wagons, making 5,120 wagons in total. When the thirling arrangements reached their expiry date, John Watson Ltd threatened legal action over a claim to purchase the 1,000 thirled wagons from the Caledonian. The Board of Directors wrote to Watson, stating their willingness to facilitate settlement.4 The remaining parties to the thirling agreements seem to have handed the rights to their wagons back to the Caledonian.

Returning to railways.... This is the full wording from the Railway Archive magazine article Thirled Wagons (Railway Archive No 34) The term `thirled wagons' referred to a peculiarly Scottish practice and related to a system introduced by the North British Railway in 1887, in which the company purchased traders' wagons and then assigned them solely to the traffic of that trader. In some cases, new wagons were purchased with funds loaned by the trader and then `thirled' to that trader. In one case, the NBR actually paid for new wagons to be thirled to a trader in an area where competition for traffic was particularly fierce. Indeed, it was competition for traffic with the Caledonian Railway, or rather the avoidance of it, that lay at the root of the NBR's adoption of the thirling system. The NBR had long enjoyed a virtual monopoly of traffic in the mining area of New Monkland, which lay between Bathgate and Airdrie. However, the CR had plans to tap into the area and it was the purpose of these thirling agreements to bind traders to the NBR for a number of years, usually twenty-five, or for the duration of the trader's coal lease. The agreements usually included a clause requiring the trader to oppose, or at least not support, any scheme of new lines by a rival railway company, i.e. the Caledonian. In the years 1887 to 1891, the NBR spent £166,578 acquiring 5,891 wagons from twenty-six coalmasters. Some of the agreements included provisions to increase 'the number of thirled wagons as traffic grew and, by 1910, the total number of such wagons on the NBR had grown to 7,662. Not to be outdone, the CR retaliated by securing thirling agreements with coal masters in the heart of the Lanarkshire coalfield, around Hamilton, Motherwell and Wishaw. Agreements were made in 1890 to 1892 with eight coal masters for a total of 4,770 wagons but these were of much shorter duration than those of the NBR and most expired before the end of 1911. In 1910, the number of CR thirled wagons had reduced to 3,275 wagons on the traffic of four coal masters. In contrast, some of the NBR thirling agreements, particularly those with James Nimmo Ltd and William Baird & Co. Ltd, lasted well into the post-Grouping period. It is believed that Baird's agreements were terminated only on the formation of Bairds & Scottish Steel Ltd in 1938. In March 1892, the general managers of the NBR and CR agreed not to enter into any further thirling agreements but those already in place had to be left to run their course. The topic is also covered in Mike Williams' book on Caldeonian Wagons, including this extract: DETAILS OF THE THIRLING AGREEMENT (From Caledonian Railway Wagons – Mike Williams) The following extract from the agreement with John Watson covers the salient points of the relationship. The first party was the Caledonian Railway; the second party was Watson. The CR General Manager reported in July 1890 that the agreement had been signed.' The first party shall, with all reasonable despatch, provide and thereafter maintain and renew at their own expense not less than 750 eight-ton coal wagons, that is to say, 500 during this season, or by 31st December, 1890, and the remaining 250 in the following spring, or by 31st March, 1891, which wagons shall, during the subsistence of this Agreement, be appropriated to and used or employed by the parties hereto exclusively for the traffic of the second party's collieries at Eddlewood, aforesaid, and at Earnock on the first party's Railway, consigned by the second party on and by the first party's Railways, and shall not be used or employed for any other traffic than that of the second party on or via the first party's Railways. The said wagons shall be the exclusive and absolute property of the first party, and shall at all times be maintained and renewed by them, and shall bear their ordinary nameplate, and shall also be marked as follows, vizt., John Watson's Eddlewood and Earnock Collieries.'

This may be true for the E&WR, but, as my article in the LBSCR Modellers' Digest demonstrated, apart from one or two errors, the numbers chosen by Hattons, in the first release of information at least, for the LBSC liveries, were applicable to a near-equivalent prototype. Provided, of course, you can accept any differences in length or roof profile etc.

My response to the similar thread:- There is an excellent article by E McKenna in Issue 34 of the much-missed Railway Archive, covering the wider issue of Private Traders' Wagons in Scotland. Thirling was introduced by the NBR in 1887, partly with a 'political' intent, as the agreements usually included a clause that the trader would oppose, or at least not support, any proposal by the other company for any new scheme in the area. Eventually the NBR had 7,662 thirled wagons, and the Caledonian 4,770, for eight coal masters. In 1892 the warring parties agreed to stop the practice, and the CR, with shorter contracts, ran theirs until around 1911, whereas the NBR, with 25 year contracts, lasted longer. Some where extended, as with Nimmo and Baird, because the contracts were sometimes open ended, based upon the lifetime of the coal lease, and it is believed the Baird arrangement only finished in 1938, with the formation of Bairds and Scottish Steel Ltd. The article contains a bit more information about the idea, but the above is a reasonable synopsis for the moment.

There is an excellent article by E McKenna in Issue 34 of the much-missed Railway Archive, covering the wider issue of Private Traders' Wagons in Scotland. Thirling was introduced by the NBR in 1887, partly with a 'political' intent, as the agreements usually included a clause that the trader would oppose, or at least not support, any proposal by the other company for any new scheme in the area. Eventually the NBR had 7,662 thirled wagons, and the Caledonian 4,770, for eight coal masters. In 1892 the warring parties agreed to stop the practice, and the CR, with shorter contracts, ran theirs until around 1911, whereas the NBR, with 25 year contracts, lasted longer. Some where extended, as with Nimmo and Baird, because the contracts were sometimes open ended, based upon the lifetime of the coal lease, and it is believed the Baird arrangement only finished in 1938, with the formation of Bairds and Scottish Steel Ltd.

Nice work on the wheels, but, just for the record:- "The first issue is the wheels. As built they had 4’ 6” 10 spoke T section wheels. Later rebuilds had plain spokes, but that's after my time period. Nobody makes them, nearest offering is Gibson 11 plain spoke, so I’m going to have a go at converting them." Phoenix-Paints are listing Jubilee Pug wheels from the Sharman range as currently in stock. https://www.phoenix-paints.co.uk/products/sharman-wheels/4mm-steam-locomotive-driving-wheels/4-6-4-8/sw-m152

Bradley (RCTS) merely states that three Singles were sent to Italy from Deptford Wharf in August 1907, sold as scrap metal, not as working locos. Apparently there was a brisk trade in scrap metals to both Italy and Japan. It is possible that other scrapped Singles ended up being shipped abroad. Unlikely to be any identifiable photos taken in Italy, and I cannot recall any views of them on board or being loaded.

The Stroudley Singles didn't end up on single line branches in their later days. As per the photo, Stephenson was regularly rostered to take the Victoria to Eastbourne Pullman, which normally ran with two vans and four older Pullmans, well within the loco's capacity. Other survivors worked along the coast lines, and the Tunbridge Wells based ones ran often to Brighton via Uckfield and, on occasions, to Victoria. Legend has it that it was Abergavenny slipping in torrential rain near Lewes that precipitated Marsh into scrapping the final examples earlier than perhaps necessary. Stephenson spent its last year or so running around the system with a gauging train, to see where the recently redundant first class coaches from the South London electrics could safely be run, being longer and wider than other Brighton stock.

Not like this, then, in Deptford

The drawing and photo show what initially looks like a ladder at the rear. Closer inspection shows it to be three vertical rails with no apparent rungs. My best guess is that they are guard-/guiderails for raising and lowering heavy luggage to and from the roof without damaging the sides. Unless anyone knows better? Anyway, I fitted them using more brass wire. The drawings show fairly substantial rollers at the top of the rails, which would seem to confirm that they are intended for lifting and lowering the baggage, rather like the end of a conveyor belt.

Or this one, mainly for the Southern enthusiast, but also similar ones were sold on to the Alexandra Docks etc. so could be said to be GWR. Photo courtesy of the Dave Searle collection Four similar locos were built by the LBSCR in the 1860's, and three ended up in South Wales.

Lovely model. I must do something with a similar kit stashed away somewhere. Just a thought though, highlighted by the excellent close-up photos; most pictures of similar vehicles seem to show a polished metal (brass?) circular cover plate in the centre of the hub, which I think would set your model off a treat.

Don't want to be picky, but aren't the brakes the wrong way round? Seems like we are looking at the lifting link on this side, which reverses the action.

In the area served by the London Brighton & South Coast Railway there were around 90 gasworks, large and small. Of these 67 had NO connection to a railway line, despite some, such as at Sutton and Mitcham, being large sites. Most of their coal was moved by horse and cart from the railhead to the works, and 13 others had access to waterways. BTW, technically a gasometer is not a structure, it is the piece of equipment used to measure the amount of gas passing through (hence the use of the suffix -meter) often housed in a small building within the works . The large structures should be referred to as gasholders, because that is what they were. Sadly the word has been misused, even by the OS in Victorian times, and now appears interchangeable with the correct terminology.

There are still 330 Jet Petrol Stations in the UK!

Wallington Station in Surrey had a turnback siding between the mainlines. The headshunt for it can be seem in this picture, courtesy of Geograph. Occasional trains from London Bridge and Victoria, via West Croydon, would terminate at Wallington. When the siding was removed, the mainline tracks were left as they were, so the down line makes a chassé side step to this day.

The West Croydon to Wimbledon branch was worked almost exclusively by 2 car units, the branch platform at West Croydon only taking that length. The first units after electrification were converted from the initial LBSCR South London Line AC stock.

Regarding the passing stations, Cullingworth, like most of the stations I've looked at on the line, had a very traditional layout, found on most stations on double track lines, whereby access to the yard was achieved by backing the train into the yard, from either direction. For trains travelling to the left, there is a trailing point on the running line, and, probably, a single slip providing access to the yard loop. The slip thus forms a trailing crossover to allow the loco to run round, using the main line. Trains travelling to the right would back through the point beside the goods shed to get into the yard. This way the goods train is rapidly removed from the running lines, although, subject to the frequency of the service, there is still the possibility of leaving part of the train on the running lines if convenient, and safe to do so. Once in the yard any running around required will depend on the work to be carried out. At Cullingworth there are several additional loops in the yard, so use of the main line during shunting might be unnecessary, although other stations along the line have simpler arrangements that would not have been so flexible. I'm not sure what the purpose of the siding behind the signal box is, but, although it would be most easily served by a left-bound train, it would be a straightforward shunting move for the loco off a right-bound train, in a gap in the passenger service.

According to Mabbott's listing, the fourth and fifth locos MW produced, in 1859, were of the Old I class 0-6-0ST, and produced up at least to 1875. A well-photographed survivor, from 1861, was Siddlesham on the Selsey Tramway, or Lady Portsmouth and Jumbo on the LSWR, dating from 1862. The first K Class 0-6-0ST appeared around 1863/4. These were really industrial locos, and not originally intended for passenger service, although later some were used as such, such as on Colonel Stephens'' lines. Other manufacturers were making similar saddle tanks, such as the ones built by Hunslet in 1866, used on the Great Central main line construction, and well documented on-line, as well as a nice little book, Contractors Locomotives G.C. R. published by Leicestershire Museums ISBN 0 0500435 6 7, if you can get hold of it! Another interesting source book, if you can find it, is Part Ten of the RCTS GWR Locomotives series, Absorbed Engines. (Also Part Nine - covering 1854-1921) The early locos of a number of lines, primarily Welsh, are documented and illustrated with a wide variety of pre-1870 makers, and styles of tank, including well and side tank, and a few outside cylinder variants too. Many of these lines started off in dire financial straits and procured the cheapest locos then available to tide them over. Some, such as the Cambrian Railways, eventually prospered, whilst others continued as minor lines, occupying small niches in railway history. If you want something really unusual, but prototypical, you could try a standard gauge Fairlie loco. The Burry Port & Gwendraeth Valley Railway had a couple, one arrived in 1870 and survived until 1891. The Neath & Brecon Railway also had a couple, but they were even less successful, and only ran for a couple of years, although one was hired to the Brecon & Merthyr Railway for a few months in 1870 before slipping into obscurity. Perhaps an interesting purchase for your line at an opportune moment?

What annoys me even more is when, having overtaken, they actually slow down to a speed several mph lower than the rate I was travelling at before, so I either have to bow to their greater intellect, or have to decide to overtake them. I've known this farce to repeat itself several times, although I have always kept to the same speed throughout, thanks to cruise control, except when actually making the overtake. My other bugbear is when having steadily overhauled a car travelling at, say 60 mph, and pulling out to overtake, I suddenly find I am not making any progress relative to the slower car, as the driver puts his foot down, and accelerates to 70. As my internal speed camera won't allow me to exceed the limit, I am often forced to concede defeat, and pull in, only to find that the driver in front slows down too. I can understand how lorry drivers can get into their "racing" if this happens to them. Perhaps I should adopt certain German car manufacturers' driving habits, and not use any indicators, and catch these people unawares!