Cwmtwrch

The Southern Region issued one for the whole line; when the WR took over the northern part the WR included the S& D in their Bristol Division WTTs. See https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/62840-somerset-dorset-working-timetables/ - I don't know what the SR did, but presumably something similar.

A Google search produced https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/394980715237. I know nothing about the seller, but since it is a reprint there may be other copies available elsewhere on the internet.

9 hours ago, Neil Urquhart said:

I wondering whether I'll get away with requesting articles from the 60s from Modern Railways and British Transport Review?  

Modern Railways maybe not, but you might be surprised. British Transport Review was a serious and worthy thrice-yearly [twice yearly for the last few years] publication of the British Transport Commission, with serious articles intended for senior or specialist staff and very few pictures. What could be more respectable? They even had to buy it, at 1/- for each issue 🙂.

53 minutes ago, Neil Urquhart said:

I'll try and tack down more info on CPC.

I have a poor photocopy of the MR article, but the actual magazine is probably available second hand. The BTR article is actully more useful, I think, as the MR one is clearly based on it; I obtained mine as a by-product of buying a DVD with all the Transport Age issues from https://www.gersociety.org.uk/files-emporium-home/transport-age-and-british-transport-review-dvd. A download version is also available on the site, but it's quite large...

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

CPC alas fell into the RIRO camp

I presume what is known in IT as GIGO 😄.

I have, quite unintentionally [I was looking for something else altogether], found the article behind the MR one, which is in "British Transport Review", VII No. 4, Jan 1964. It refers to the use of an English Electric KDN2, which was their first transistor machine; previous EE machines used valves. It would have been one of very few such machines in commercial use at the time, with very  limited capabilities by modern standards. Input checking might have been beyond its capacity, and the need for such checking would also probably not initially have been evident to the users working with something that was very new and strange at the time.

Not TOPS, but prerhaps of some use, is an article in Modern Railways Feb 1964 "The Western Region modernises in South Wales", which includes information on the 'Continuous Progress Control' system set up in Cardiff in 1962, plus photographs, and refers to the considerable improvement in wagon control that resulted. The system was overtaken by TOPS, but did have some influence on the later system, according to one of the operators. He later joined the Welsh Railways Research Circle just before they published a reprint of the MR article and wrote to express surprise at seeing his photograph, and providing some background, the letter appearing in Newsletter 158 [dated to 2019/20 based on internal evidence in the letter, at which time the writer would have been in his early 80s], which was sent to members only.

Not an answer to your questions, I know, and you may well be aware of CPC already, but I though I should mention it in case it is of interest. If it is, the WRRC should be able to supply a copy of the relevant part of the Newsletter, I imagine.

The current [as of 2021] owner of TOPS seems to be Network Rail https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Catalogue-of-Railway-Code-Systems.pdf see page 12 onwards.

18 minutes ago, Hal Nail said:

No that other wagon isn't a conflat but I posted that having read in Rowland yesterday that a batch was built with them. I might have read roller bearings but in my head was thinking of them! I'll have another look later.

 

I can't recall ever seeing a conflat with roller bearings either!

Rowland attributes Oleo buffers and roller bearings to the whole of 1/069, which amounts to over half of the Conflat A production. He indicates that this note is taken from the diagram, in the caption on p36 of a 1/069 which does not have roller bearings [it does have modern buffers and 8-shoe clasp brakes]. I've not come accross a Conflat A with roller bearings either, so possibly the diagram is not correct.

3 hours ago, Evertrainz said:

As the BM and BD had similar dimensions I don’t see why they couldn’t be loaded on the steel flats.

If you mean the container chassis, they were not flats, having no floor. The LMSR built 25 BM containers with bodies 16ft long [the others were shorter], to which can be added 125 BR containers, and the chassis for them seem also to add up to 150. BR built over 21,000 Conflat A, to which can be added over 1,500 GWR Conflat A, and over 2,200 LNER Conflat S, plus various SR flats used for containers and motor vehicle traffic as necessary. Even if the chassis and the BM/BR containers didn't stay together, the odds on ever seeing a BD container on a BM or BR chassis must have been vanishingly small. Containers, of course, could also travel in the tens of thousands of Highfits and Opens available to BR as well...

Interested to see that some are marked with the bearing size - one 9 x 4 and two 9 x 4¼.

19 hours ago, Evertrainz said:

Thank you. Was there such chassis for “A” type containers?

Neither "The LMS Wagon" nor "An Illustrated History of LMS Wagons" show one.

3 hours ago, Aire Head said:

9ft wheelbase vehicles could travel in passenger trains. They could not however travel in Express Passenger trains.

Memo to self - make sure you haven't left an important word out.

12 hours ago, 57xx said:

The GWR didn't paint underframes and axleboxes black though. It is very well established that they used the same dark grey paint all over the wagons. There are plenty of pics in Atkins et all that do not look like black livery. One in particular has an N4 next to an AA8 and they look to be the same shade of grey.

I have a copy of the first edition of Atkins et al, which doesn't have that picture, but I have a photo of 53356 and 17594 in GW Wagons Appendix which I assume is the same one. According to Russell this is one of a small number relating to livery trials with large GW letters, and he dates them to 1904. Another of the series shows 53236 with smaller GW differently located, the basic colour of which Russell describes as black; another shows a three plank 1072 and an iron loco coal 9631, which seem to be different colours. Russell is not entirely reliable*, and 53356 and 7594 do look to be the same colour, so I don't know, but there does seem to be a reasonable case for Loco Dept wagons being black rather than grey, generally.

* He describes the underframe colour of white Mica As and Tevans as black, but it could be dark grey. I'm glad I model BR...

50 minutes ago, Evertrainz said:

I take it that BR is LMS’ version of the BD container?

The LMS BR container was an insulated, ventilated, meat container, effectively an insulated BM. The category was not perpetuated. LMS container chassis were dedicated to specific types because the locations of the brackets which located the container had to vary to match the specific container dimensions.

1 hour ago, Evertrainz said:

The LNER had steel ”Conflat S” container chassis; did these enter production in both 9ft and 10ft wheelbase variants?

There was an early 9ft version, although it wasn't coded Conflat S. There was also an early conversion on a 9ft wooden underframe, coded Conflat V.

BR built, or had built, a lot of 10ft wb Conflats A, and 9ft wb vehicles could not travel at passenger train speeds [so no XP branding officially], and therefore tended to disappear fairly early in BR days.

Generally only grouping containers built from the late-1930s onwards lasted beyond about 1960, and those only for a few more years.

4 hours ago, bécasse said:

I have long suspected that it was bituminised black paint which the GWR was fond of using on its corrugated iron structures (even to the extent of specifying c/i which was already so coated). That would have started life a very distinctive black (especially in comparison with the dark grey used on freight stock) but would gradually have faded over time much in the same way, but much more slowly, that road surfaces do. Using it would obviously have been more expensive than using ordinary paint but the whole life cost would have been lower, especially for wagons intended to carry and hold coal.

I don't knw about GWR practice, but BR apparently had the insides of its mineral wagons and coal hoppers painted matt black [not gloss, which the outside pale grey was, as was the black underframe], and I agree with the logic of using bitumenised paint on the insides of coal wagons, wet coal being more or less acidic and mild steel* having very little resistence to acid. However, the same doesn't apply to the outsides, where any such contact would be negligable, so I would suggest that the outsides were the same black enamel which was used for the underframes.

There is a colour picture from 1937 on the back of Modellers' Back Track Vol.2 No.4 [Oct-Nov 1992] which shows two Loco Dept hoppers, one in post-1936 small letter livery, one in the previous livery. Both look to be all black, with no difference between body and axleguards. The background shows several ex-works vans with white roofs; there is just enough of the body of one to suggest that it is a different colour to the hoppers. I accept that, given the date of the photo and the variability of colour film and processing at the time, any evidential value is somewhat limited.

* N13 were wrought iron, not mild steel, which would affect the rate of corrosion a bit, and perhaps the logic of painting decisions, but they would surely have been rebodied before WW2, so when photographed 9313 may well have had a steel body.

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

I think this is probably what has happened here, with the D prefix added when the wagon is transferred out of revenue into departmental stock. 

GWR 10T coal wagons were built for loco coal traffic to small sheds with just one or two locos. The OP suggests N19, and it does look like a round corner type, which would be consistent with that. It's difficult to say more without seeing more of the wagon. GW Loco Dept wagons were usually black, as far as I know. It's definitely not a traffic coal wagon, as the GW didn't have any that size. 

14 hours ago, Garethp8873 said:

I happened to come across this GWR 10t Loco Wagon 9313 (diagram N19 I think) located at Machynlleth in BR (W) Grey livery

It's isn't the normal BR pale grey [no black patch and high contrast with the numbers] so it could be either GW loco. dept. black, GW wagon grey, the very dark grey sometimes used immediately post-nationalisation owing to paint shortages, all with white lettering, or BR black with straw lettering for service wagons. Comparing the body colour with the axleguard, and in view of the "DW" I can't rule out the last possibility, but the number digits are pure GWR, so I suspect the first possibility is most likely.

38 minutes ago, Evertrainz said:

I think I saw or heard about a book titled detailed “inherited prenationalization stock and containers” but now I can’t find it, of course..

'The Acquired Wagons of British Railways Volume 4: General Merchandise Vans & Containers, Special Purpose Vans & Cattle Wagons', David Larkin, perhaps? I don't have it, so no idea about actual content, I'm afraid.

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Anyway, I was quoting this drawing for the position of the vacuum pipe!

Being rather interested in banana traffic, albeit in BR days, it was the reference to

8 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

the banana vans as built in 1906/7 were fitted with steam heating through pipe, so the drawing is representative of practice at that date

which to me, being much more familiar with BR practice, implies no steam heating, which I noted. I agree entirely that steam heating would not have been appropriate for meat vans. There was no banana traffic, so far as I know, between Autumn 1914 and late 1918,  when voyages resumed, as virtually all Fyffes ships were requisitioned  by the Royal Navy, so the conversion order in May 1918 was not particularly well timed!

Thanks for the information on Midland banana vans; the figures for costs are rather interesting. Building cost for the batch of 200 was £143 per van, and for the batch of 100 £118 per van, a difference of £25, but fitting steam warming pipes eight years later costs £7 per van. It's tempting to see the 1914 work as retro-fitting the 100 from 8 years earlier, which may be the case, but the figures seem to suggest that there were other differences between the two batche as well?

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

But the banana vans as built in 1906/7 were fitted with steam heating through pipe, so the drawing is representative of practice at that date.

Curious, since post-grouping LMSR banana vans were all steam heated [not piped] and fitted with ventilators, and the caption to https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/smj_misc333.htm indicates that the Midland's were as well [I know that the photo is not of a banana van according to the caption description]. Steam heating and ventilators were provided to meet importers' requirements for temperature control in transit, depending on the season. I don't know about pre-grouping practice, but a Fyffes ship at Avonmouth needed several hundred vans to take her cargo [presumably shared with the GWR] so how often they appeared in passenger trains I don't know. In later days they were normally run in block trains, or in through freights, apart from local distribution.

There is a colour photo of 4358 by R C Riley in his "The Heyday of Swindon and its Locomotives" taken 16/6/1957 on Swindon shed; the above photo must have been taken  from very slightly to the left of Riley's position on the same day. He refers to 4358 having been overhauled at Caerphilly, explaining that the red-painted reversing rod was their distinctive trade mark. This may also explain the lined out side rave on the tender, which may be unique to this engine.

RCH 1927 specification 12T [later 13T] minerals were 16ft 6ins oh, while GWR merchandise traffic opens and vans were 16ft oh until the mid-1920s when they switched to 17ft 6ins. SR 7 plank wagons with top doors were generally used for coal if unfitted, merchandise traffic if VB, at least in BR days, although there might well be exceptions. There are photographs from the 1950s and early 1960s which show traffic 13T highs and highfits, including VB steel bodied wagons as well as 5 or 6 plank wagons, carrying coal. Whatever the official rules were, staff sometimes used whatever was handy.

3 minutes ago, Phil Bullock said:

Would a merchandise wagon generally have drop sides and rigid ends? Whereas a mineral might generally have small side doors and an end tippler door? 

Very few merchandise opens had drop sides; they usually had a central drop door in each side. End doors do imply a mineral wagon, most likely for coal traffic, but there were coal wagons without end doors.

On 09/11/2023 at 11:03, Robin Brasher said:

The Railway is facing unfair competition from the buses as a lot of people in Swanage have free bus passes and for other people the bus fare is capped at £2. If it is cheaper to travel from Swanage to Wareham by bus people will not use the train.

What constitutes 'unfair' competition in this context? Free bus passes and capped fares were not created by the bus operators. If this is a real problem for the railway, then why not just stop running the service? The unmentioned factor is that the buses are more convenient; they go where people want to, not to a station some way from the centre of town, and the service may be more frequent, at least along major roads. The population density in the surrounding area being what it is, the major competitor for both buses and trains is the private car of course...

Perhaps 'rules' is the wrong word; I was not intending to refer to formal books of rules, but to a different approach to operation:

With a main line railway, goods yards, sorting and storage yards were generally used by departments responsible to a senior Traffic manager, whereas sheds were the responsibility of the CME, and each would have specific functions, with separate requirements and responsibilities within the organisation, which probably only met at General Manager level. The CME would want free access to the shed at whatever times he wanted locos to arrive and depart, which would change over time possibly, and would commonly involve operations at multiple locations elsewhere. The Traffic manager would want to be able to shunt the yard whenever the current timetable made it necessary, which could also vary over time. As you say, the potential for conflict here is obvious and would normally not be acceptable, I think. An access to the shed directly from the tunnel probably would be, as there should then be no conflict, although the question of why a shed is needed there at all still remains.

With private sidings [and private railways, such as the Lambton, Hetton and Joicey] there could be a wide variety of internal lines of responsibility, largely dependent on the size of the railway operation in relation to the overall size of the owning company, but in all cases the railway would be a relatively subordinate part of a much larger organisation with wider objectives. This could mean that what was convenient or acceptable in operational terms would be decided on criteria potentially very different to those applied by a main line company, and probably at a lower level within the organisation. Although shed access would still be as straight forward as possible, the shed could be much more closely associated with other facilities.

40 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

whether it’s kosher for a mainline goods yard I’m less sure.

Pretty sure not - even when alongside a yard of any sort the shed would normally have its own access, possibly alongside the yard access, or even using a common access, but not through the yard. This is not necessarily the case for an industrial private line, but they worked by different rules to a main line railway.

43 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Didn’t the LMS have a shed down in the docks near Poplar? Devon’s Road, the first fully diesel depot on BR?

The ex-NLR shed at Devons Road, Bow was about a mile north of the docks, immediately south of Devons Road. The PLA had several sheds in various docks areas, but my comment above about different rules applies.

58 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

The station was at the end of a 3/4-mile double track branch from Church Road, where it made a double junction with the main line (facing access to the branch) which was worked as a regular block section.

According to the note on the diagram, there is also a ground frame close to the other end of the tunnel, unlocked by Annett's key/staff. Taking it out of the frame locks 6, 7 and 22 normal, so that nothing can leave the yard. Presumably the staff allows a wrong line return?

The tunnel isn't really a problem; such situations could be dealt with by a local instructon that the signalman on the other side of the tunnel must not permit any train to proceed to the yard without telephone confirmation from the person in charge at the yard that the line and loop are clear and the train can be sent, and similarly in reverse for trains leaving the yard. Since it isn't a passenger line there is no requirement for absolute block working, or signals or a signal box.

I think that the loco shed is what is raising questions; in reality I don't think it would have been there. Where an inner city yard had an dedicated steam shunter it would normally be allocated to the appropriate major shed and appear each day light engine, or on the first inbound train. It would leave at close of play, again either light or on the last outbound train. A diesel shunter would be fuelled for several days, and might just be left overnight, switched off, on a convenient siding, apart from a weekly visit to the shed for inspection and refuelling. As it is, access to the shed means shunting has to stop, and vice-versa. Since the staff involved would belong to two different departments there is the possibility of conflict...

Would you consider making the shed area into a industrial siding? A private siding off a yard was not unknown, and would make operation more straightforward.