Cwmtwrch

36 minutes ago, JZ said:

Line in the bottom left on this one. You can see the proximity of Bargoed station.

It looks as though the track has been lifted. The parapet of the bridge is visible and the three pubs close to it are clear. The end wall of the Smiths Arms appears above the roof of the Travellers' Rest, but how much else is left is not very clear.

25 minutes ago, JZ said:

The cars look to be 1930's, but maybe some who knows their Foden buses can date it. From this you can start to get some idea of the tortuous nature of the turn to get under the railway.

The bus is No. 1, carrying its original body, which dates the photo to some time between July 1949 and February 1953. The Government of the time was prioritising exports, so pre-war cars were still much in evidence.

On 06/03/2024 at 11:33, Halton Boy said:

I have made a image of what I want using a picture of a altered conflat.

To avoid possible confusion it might be as well to make it clear you are looking for transfers for a B type container [assuming I have understood you correctly]. The Conflat is the GW wagon it's on. 

7 hours ago, JZ said:

The Smiths Arms Hotel was probably demolished shortly after this picture was taken, as the Middleton Press book has a picture from the far end of the platform that has a clear view of the Traveller rest across the road.

The Smiths Arms was still there in 1959; there was a lane in front of it, visible in the aerial view, which would have allowed a view of at least part of the Traveller's Rest from the far end of the platform.

4 hours ago, GMKAT7 said:

Plus, a bus under a bridge

Which was quite notorious until the route was diverted in 1963. The bus is just starting to turn to its right, to bring it almost parallel to the railway before immediately turning 90 degrees left to go under it. The whole manoever was on a gradient of about 1 in 5 down. The bus, incidentally is going to Bargoed Square [it's coming from Markham], which was a triangle in shape...

2 hours ago, GMKAT7 said:

what looks like a gasworks in between

Certainly a gas holder. The station is Bargoed.

The road behind the railway, which the bus has just come down, climbed about 170ft in 950ft, on gradients between 1 in 4.77 and 1 in 7.19.

Such a small set up would never have a spare loco for shunting purposes. It would spend virtually all its time with nothing to do, which is very, very, expensive in real life. If you extend D 'offstage' it can form the end of a loop with A giving a run-round for the freight, perhaps with a loco cassette offstage to minimise handling of the loco. The EMU/DEMU/DMU will just shuttle in and out of the platform as timetabled, while freight will probably appear, do its work, and disappear again in the time between two passenger trains, so that there is never more than one train present at any one time. All that is then necessary is a ground frame to allow the guard to shunt as needed. The g/f can be released by a single line token or remotely by a control centre, depending on era; either way, no signalling is necessary, just a telephone. If you have space for a second siding it would probably make operation more interesting...

37 minutes ago, davidge said:

Or perhaps I simply need a ground frame (yet another confusing topic

A signal box is equipped to accept or refuse trains from the next box along the line [hence it is sometime described as a 'block post', the block being the space between two boxes, which should only ever be occupied by a single train]. The functions formerly controlled by multiple signal boxes are often now controlled by a remote signalling centre. In either case a ground frame is there solely to operate one or more points, but has no control over trains.

17 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Possibly electrical cables

At that period, electrical cables of various sorts, as far as I know. Now Prysmian Cables and Systems, although Aberdare Cables apparently still exists, in South Africa.

10 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I think I am correct in saying that only the GWR designed a 64’ non-gangwayed ‘suburban’ compartment coach, the Swindon-built Hawksworth all-third introduced in Western Region days.

C83 all third, D132 brake third, officially shown as 63ft ¾in x 8ft 11ins.

10 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Some LMR 57’ mk1 suburbans were transferred to the WR in the late 50s, 1958 ISTR, all seconds with no brakes, and dispersed over the region as strengtheners.

Fair exchange, I suppose, as Swindon built 35 E156 composites for the LMR in early 1953.

The cable drums belong to Aberdare Cables, and the train is westbound at Quakers Yard High Level, so the drums are empties going back to Trecynon.

I can't identify the origin of the first wagon, but it's not seen a works for some time, judging by the state of the paint and of the unpainted top plank in the end. The second is an ex-GWR open which is not long ex-works, having had all the wood replaced, apart from the addition of steel channel for the two lowest planks in the ends, with blocks inserted for the circular sheet cleats, and the nearest is an elderly wooden underframe ex-LNER unfitted open which probably won't last much longer. It's not often that you get such a helpfully clear colour photo of this sort of variety in wagon condition.

A lot of non-corridor coaches disappeared from the late 1950s onwards, due to cessation of services post-Beeching or replacement by DMUs and EMUs. How many actually survived long enough to be repainted in lined maroon is a good question; a lot did not.

6 hours ago, ikcdab said:

There is also the camping coach evidence. This was situated on the goods yard siding close to the crossing and I believe would have been visible (ie not hidden behind the train). The camp coach was there during the "summer" only from 1934 and was withdrawn on the outbreak of war.

If there was only one, then it may be out of shot nearer the road.

6 hours ago, BluenGreyAnorak said:

Unfortunately, despite being published in 1962, according to its legend it was last revised prior to 1930 and only for 'major changes' in 1957-58, so is not at all conclusive. It also doesn't show the pillbox, for example.

It does show that the gap between buildings to the West of the road in the 1928/30 map has been filled in by new structures, though, so that aspect was part of the changes.

21 hours ago, MartinRS said:

Yes; your point being what? That you mistakenly thought the train was about to jump the track and plough a route in front of the building? I know that the GWR was different in the way it did things, but not that different, surely?

 

On my screen when I put a sheet of paper with a straight edge above the top edge of the coaches I don't see any curvature in the roof-line of the coaches. I suspect the inverted V of the hipped roof building is causing an optical illusion. (It could be similar to the inward pointing/outward pointing parallel lines of equal length optical illusion which members of some cultures see as being of different length).

 

When I mark off the distance of the leading edge of the third coach (behind the loco) to its trailing edge I measure a distance of 25mm (on my screen). When I measure the distance of the leading edge of the first (clerestory) coach to the trailing edge of the second coach I measure a distance of 60mm, which, taking parallax into account, appears to be consistent with two 'normal' length bogie coaches. There is no need to invoke the use of smaller six wheel coaches.

1) I was suggesting that the loco might be from a different picture, because it seemed not to be at the angle I would have expected if it was on the line behind the building, in a reply made to a suggestion, by someone else, that the line ran in front of the building.  I should have credited the Signal Engineer, though. Apologies to both. The Signal Engineer's latest post has, however, made the respective angles much clearer, and made me question my original conclusion.

2) I have never referred to any curvature in the roof lines. My interest in the cantrail and roof lines is that, using the same method as you do, both appear to be slightly higher than I expected, compared to the other coaches, on the clerestory, when they should be the same.

3) I made no suggestion of short coaches; I actually pointed out that they were very improbable.

2 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

Of course they are - the line climbs quite steeply up into the station and inland from near sea level along the coast :  - 

At the wrong angle to the camera, horizontally, not vertically. To me, it looks as though it's coming closer to the camera, which contradicts the line of the railway, which is actually going further away.

15 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Different building. If you look closely at the original picture the building is behind the loading gauge in the sidong

There is no structure behind the railway at that point in the 1928 map linked to earlier, nor in this 1930 map https://maps.nls.uk/view/101461123, nor in the 1962 map https://maps.nls.uk/view/189240228, just someone's back garden or a field, depending on the actual angle of the shot. The photo linked to by MartinRS shows that the railway is behind the building.

I think the Frith photo is probably correctly dated [the one VRN which can be read at all appears to be from 1935], and may well have been taken the same day, by the same photographer, so I suggest that the year is 1939. The last 4/6 wheel GWR stock was built in 1902; the last with clerestories was built in 1894, so 4/6w stock can probably be ruled out. On that basis I think the photo has been altered, probably at the time of issue rather than more recently. Not only does the leading carriage appear to be far too short, but the roofline of the clerestory is higher than the elliptical roofed coaches. Also, the loco and first coach appear to be at a somewhat different angle to the coaches to the right of the building, and http://www.britishrailholidays.co.uk/ suggests the train should be going behind the pale building, not in front of it.

On 16/02/2024 at 11:27, Compound2632 said:

So any 8-ton wagon will do - at least that seems to have been the Midland's philosophy.

This load is apparently completely unsecured and one rough shunt would probably reduce the load rather abruptly and potentially dangerously. Someone has taken the trouble to have it posed for an official photographer, so I suspect that it may be intended as an example of how NOT to do it...

14 hours ago, Dungrange said:

I've seen these codes in reference to British Railways, but were such codes in use in the pre-grouping era?  I think the Great Western Used telegraphic codes from early on, but did the other pre-grouping companies have similar codes?

Wagon codes were only a very minor part of the system - see http://www.railwaycodes.org.uk/features/telegraph.shtm. Unfortunately the LNWR Society link at the bottom no longer works. However, two of the biggest pre-group railways regarded them as useful timesavers and a method of reducing misunderstandings, and the practice continued into BR days, so it seems likely other railways would have done something similar for similar reasons.

20 minutes ago, YT-1300 said:

Businesses want extra sales of course, but that has to be weighed up against delivering a good service,  Extra sales may not generate enough revenue to take on an extra employee, so part of the business will suffer.

Not only that, but extra sales generate extra costs in other areas, as others have implied. Potentially those additional costs can be bigger than the benefit gained. Staffing is only one area where taking on extra costs may need to be considered against the probable/possible extra benefits. Getting it wrong may be costly, both in reduced net income and in  resulting reputational damage. There may also be time implications arising from less time being available to do other things.

Wagons were generally ordered by telegraph message for years, hence the various codes railways used to minimise the length of messages, whilst maintaining clarity. The methods used eventually changed, as did codes as needs changed, but telegraph codes existed well into BR days, hence codes such as Low, Lowfit, Med, Medfit, High, Highfit, Hybarfit, Shock, Cartruck, Carfit, Clay, Pigiron, Salt, Sandwag, Sleep, Sodash in the BR code book for various types of open wagons. You ordered what you needed, according to what the instructions for handling the traffic in question required. 

I lived in various parts of London for several decades, and avoided the tube lines if reasonably possible [particularly Stratford on the Central line - I know too much history], especially if I wasn't in a hurry. Some of the routes I used to use are apparently no longer possible, although alternatives exist. That has happened in thirty years or so; I wonder whether naming the overground routes will "freeze" the current pattern and make it more difficult to change the system to meet evolving needs in the future?

I don't have the magazine in question, but:

SR and BR wagon sheets were black. Special purpose sheets sometimes came in other colours.

"Wartime" didn't end in 1945; the war was over, but the consequent shortages of materials lasted significantly longer, and the the black used for wagon sheets was probably one of them.

I would be a bit surprised that an LNWR van was still around in the mid-1950s [not saying it's impossible, though].

The early BR emblem was applied from quite early in 1949, I think.

Wagon sheets could last for up to five years before return to sheet works. There are photos of pre-nationalisation sheets in use in the very early 1950s.

No idea what the colouring material was, if indeed there was any, but the boiled linseed oil used for waterproofing can be yellow-brown, reddish-brown or a red; the exact colour is variable and depends on its intended use. I don't know how it changes over time. The material to which it was applied was flax, hemp or Jute, often combined.

I suspect, based on the above, that your dating is probably too late, and should possibly be 1949-50 at the latest, and the photo shows wartime, or immediately post-war, sheets still fit to use. 

PIKO are a [formerly East] German firm, and the track gauge indicates that the stock is HO, which is 1:87 scale, so slightly smaller than OO [1:76] but uses the same track gauge. The problem here is that PIKO make both DC and AC motored locos. They do have a website [in English] at https://www.piko-shop.de/en/warengruppe/h0-scale-20.html, and Gaugemaster https://www.gaugemasterretail.com/model-railways/piko-brand5.html sell their trains in the UK [there may be others , I don't know], either of which will give you an indication of their power supply equipment. As for finding out whether the locos are AC or DC, I don't know. If you aren't sure, and you have a local model railway club they may be willing to help.

The stock is all German, mostly in 1950s/1960s liveries at a guess, although the electric loco may be earlier and the brown wagon seems to be in pre-WW2 markings. Definitely not Hornby. Track gauge would be helpful as there is no indication of scale.

1 hour ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

I did wonder if Salisbury could have been used as a holding point for empties from thr south of England. A convenient place for sending extra wagons to Southampton or Avonmouth depending on what was docking.

I believe that the general storage of banana empties for Southampton was at Eastleigh, but temporary storage at Salisbury if Eastleigh was full is a possibility. Another is that these vans are an arrival off the WR via Westbury and just parked, waiting for the SR loco to take them onwards.

1 hour ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

The one at the Bluebell is interesting. An LMS van complete with LMS plate but no casing or steam pipe in a photo there (on Flickr IIRC) dated 1970. Unfortunately in that photo it has been painted all over in a light colour. I wonder if it had a yellow spot under that coat?

https://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/pics/570027.html The liveries are not to be taken seriously. The article is interesting, some info I have never seen elsewhere, but consistent with other info, and some which is at best half-truths, despite the credit to "Fyffes and the Banana" (which I have a copy of). The page states the van was withdrawn in 1965, and a photo caption states that the Bluebell rebuilt it, so it doesn't help much. A photo when it was delivered to the Bluebell would hopefully be more informative😀.

10 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Pity no-one seems to have taken a photo without a loco there.

It's possible someone did. I've found five shots in the Rail-Online set at Salisbury, including the one in your link, one of which includes B880763. Colour-Rail 25095 is accompaned by a second shot, 25096, probably taken at the same time, I think, which also includes B880763. There doesn't seem to be quite enough evidence to definitely link all these different shots to the same train, nor to link partials in one shot to complete views in another, but it's an interesting collection.

On 01/02/2024 at 23:25, TheSignalEngineer said:

Just to throw another grenade or two into the subject,

I've now found another at https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p783278790/h9567f169#h9567f169. LMS underframe, so LMS 2111 or BR 1/240, but cover plate rather than external steam pipe casing, which should mean it's been converted. Shame that the running number is not visible! So, two conversions in error or an indication that all BR ordered vans were converted [or all post-war vans]?

1 hour ago, Wickham Green too said:

Of course a lot of what we think of as BR 16 tonners started out with the Ministry ( whichever it was that week ) and only gained BR numbers later ..

Only the B prefix was new, the numbers didn't change. The MoWT/MoT wagons inherited by BR amounted to approximately 55,200, those built for BR to just under 240,000, to which can be added about 9,100 built for the MoS to be used by the SNCF, which were purchased by BR in 1950, a total of a little over 300,000.