Lecorbusier

As far as Lomas is concerned I am back with Bill Hudson. In his entry under Monsal Dale he quotes Frank Lomas Junior anecdotally describing his (grand)father's delivery business in Monsal dale including fording the River. Also under the Hassop entry in the same book he also quotes Frank Lomas advising that on occasion wagons would be dispatched to Hassop and Monsal Dale to be unloaded by customers … usually Farmers.

I also have these images of the station siding which shows the kind of traffic. My conclusion here is that we are looking at coal deliveries. reasoning for this is twofold. Firstly the loads are pretty level which suggests they are coming in rather than loading out. Secondly, looking at the wagons (6 plank) edited following compounds analysis below, even at 12T loadings, they would be severely overloaded were they either limestone or spar .... so i am of the opinion that they are coal. Given that final wagon is detached from the other three ... I am hazarding a guess that 1 wagon is delivered for local consumption, and the others relate to the mine? Interestingly - in the top photo - the load in the end wagon appears 'lumpier' than the loads in the two closest wagons .... any thoughts?

Slippage occurred requiring remedial work to the viaduct at the east end .... here the centring is -: In 1907-8, remedial work was undertaken to counteract the effects of slippage. Timber centring was erected under one or more of the arches east of the river to carry this out. The south elevation has an extensive area of blue brick in the spandrel wall above the eastern arches, probably indicating the repairs. Other patch repairs over the years have been made in gritstone and red brick, marring the overall effect close up. This would suggest that the photo was taken post the renumbering.

Thanks for the input Stephen ... really helpful. Glad you liked the images. I may be wrong but might hazard a guess that the 5 sheeted wagons could be lime? The fact that the last arch of the bridge still has timber centring might help to date the picture ... can't remember when this was done off the top. The low wagons in the first photo might well be spar ... given the relative density? Tim

Tony, I thought it was a Tarrif Van. On the dating, all I have is pre war .... I am working on the basis that the train make ups will not have changed significantly from my chosen date.

Here is another image which again shows the 180 degree actuation rod bend locating into the switch independent of the front stretcher bar. Masborough, 1907 It does seem to suggest that pre WWI at least the Midland connected rodding independently of the front stretcher bar certainly within sidings and goods yards. I am still hoping to turn up a mainline trailing turnout to see if the practice differed - we know it was different for facing due to the requirement for locking.

Thanks for the input Richard, very helpful. I have been doing a little digging around regarding deliveries in and traffic out from the wharf at Monsal Dale ... to some extent it calls into question Bill Hudson's figures. It would appear that there was a siding located at Hassop named Monsal Dale siding, and given the facilities at Monsal Dale and the increase in coal delivery from 1900 to 1922 in Bill's figures the consensus currently is that the figures most likely relate to the siding rather than the wharf at Monsal Dale itself. The wharf is set 3'6" above rail top for its entire length and unloading even the 3 - 4 wagons weekly up in to carts and then transporting down the precipitous track and across the ford at the bottom would have been a big ask .... the later 22 wagons weekly is just not credible. I also have figures from the mine which suggest a few thousand tons yearly of calcite were being extracted by this time, and in addition to this there was a limestone quarry on the same site. I therefore suspect that the only incoming coal to the wharf was very small beer .... for domestic delivery by Frank Lomas ( perhaps 2 - 3 hundred tons yearly), and the coal to service the steam pumps to the mine. Apart from this I suspect the wharf was used mainly for shipping out from the mine (edit and quarry). So in terms of the wharf I am thinking in terms of a few Frank Lomas and maybe M.R. or Butterly coal wagons in (D299) and perhaps something else. For shipping out I am inclined to go for 3 plank wagons ... or perhaps 4 ... maybe Midland or perhaps the Buxton Limestone co or ..... ? I will then have to work out the make up of the stopping goods coming up from Rowsley and taking anything out (maybe dropping off empties) for sorting at Millers Dale. I then have the through goods ... both up and down and the stopping goods on the return back to Rowsley. So plenty of scope for some interesting wagons (though some will be either full or empty coal trains).

My reading is that there is a point detector rod running to the front of the nearest switch blade and linking to the ground signal. Then we have the front stretcher bar. Then we have the rodding which is behind the line of the front stretcher bar and appears to link separately to the switch blade just behind the stretcher bar. I think you can just make out the 'bump' of the 180 degrees attachment.

I think that these two images also suggest that the actuation from the rodding is not connected to the front stretcher bar.

I have thumbed through a few PO books .... Bill Hudson's, and a couple of the Keith Turton volumes .... and the first thing that struck me was that from memory not one of the wagons was built pre 1906 .... and most were after grouping. I have Bob Essery's excellent book on wagons that allows me to select appropriate Midland types. Given that the number of PO manufacturers was I believe relatively limited, I suppose I was wondering if it might be possible first off to pin down the likely wagon types and design .... one could then hazard a guess as to the companies and lettering to put on? I know for my line and period there would have been the ubiquitous coal trains from the relevant colliery, local coal merchants (of which I think I have the relevant ones), Butterly's wagons, MR wagons, Limestone quarry wagons spar wagons and lime wagons. Any guesses how I would track down the relevant 2, 3, 5 and 7 plank wagon types for 1902? (apart from the midland ones that is)

here's a question ...... being a relative newbie to all of this - How would I go about researching what private owners wagons might have run on the Midland Peak line passing through Monsal Dale circa 1902 .... and what kits might be available to represent them. Are photos available for this period? Would the wagons have been the same as the MR offerings or might they be to designs used by other railways of private workshops. A bit of a lesson on this would be appreciated. Tim

Can I put forward an analogy as a contribution to this track work debate. I like my music, and I appreciate a half decent pair of speakers to listen to it on. Poor equipment can be quite an unpleasant experience and be very detrimental to one's appreciation. With a little effort improvements at the lower end can be absolutely massive ... but then they become incremental along an ever flattening curve .... where you place yourself on that curve is a very personal thing. I remember going in to a hifi shop a few years back with my hard earned in my hands to buy a new pair of speakers. I let them know my price range and top limit. The sales expert sat me down in a sound booth to listen to a range of different pairs of speakers ... two of which I might add were above my top limit. Now what was interesting about this was that when comparing like for like one after the other, there were all sorts of nuances that could be heard and appreciated. However, all of the offerings were pretty damn good. At a certain point I got a little fed up with having the most expensive items pushed at me ... and yes I could discern a difference - so i tried a little experiment. I got the expert to go out of the room and give me the remote to switch between speakers. I got him to close his eyes on re-entering and rely purely on the sound. There were 4 speakers we had narrowed things down to with quite a price range. I got him to come in from outside the room 12 times and tell me which speakers were playing (so a significant pause between each assessment with a change in background ambience due to leaving the booth). His hit rate for the correct speaker was 30% and the one he thought was the best was actually the second cheapest! Yet when I got him to stay in the room and still with eyes closed compare like with like, he placed the speakers in the correct price order. ... interesting. In the end I bought the ones I liked the look of best. I have seen some pretty dreadful hand made track (actually some of it was mine!) .... not well made, badly ballasted with poor overall visual lines and curves and unrealistically painted ... but it definitely had the 'correct' width, profile and period makeup. I have seen some 00 fine scale track with beautiful flowing lines, wonderful ballasting and well painted - such that the 16.5 width became an irrelevance .... now I suspect that if you had shown me a P4 version of this layout, where everything else had been equal, just the track width was wider and the two had been placed next to each other I would have opted for the P4 .... but when is that ever the case? Track that doesn't run well for the intended purpose, such that the rolling stock becomes a distraction or actually de-rails is I would suggest an issue. If you have a cameo layout where you are focussing in on the minutiae of a scene, then one level of detail is applicable, if you have a large scale layout of the railway in the landscape then different criteria will take precedence. Everything in the end is a compromise anyway .... and whose to say which compromise is the right one? As I said ... with the speakers in the end I bought the ones I personally preferred and sod the expert!

For me there are perhaps two elements to modelling ... if we are in to gross generalisations (that was the caveat!). Others will obviously have different criteria. Firstly and perhaps most importantly a model is akin to a stage set where one creates a semblance of reality by a mixture of artistic skill, sleight of hand and suspension of disbelief. However this is achieved, so long as it succeeds on its own terms and brings pleasure coupled with a sense of appreciation to and from the observer, then great. The observer in this instance may be limited to its creator at one end of the spectrum, or multiple visitors to a show at the other .... and the judgement criteria will vary accordingly. Secondly it is a very personal 'craft' endeavour in pursuit of a specific goal (and I hope excellence) .... alone or with like minded friends. Such endeavour is often concentrated on specific areas of interest or expertise, which can develop to quite extraordinary levels of skill and execution. Interesting how two such simple elements can lead to so much debate .... and differences of opinion .... and such wide ranging disagreements on the relative importance of specifics. On the flip side they also lead to some breathtaking examples of the art. Subject matter and scale, alongside specific interest and resources (of money, time, available space etc etc) provide for a wonderfully rich melange to appreciate. Having a broad appreciation is surely the secret here? I model (or try to) pre grouping midland in P4. I do this for my own reasons and challenges. There are many many better modellers than me with layouts I think are fantastic in all the scales (N gauge, 2mm finescale, 00, EM, P4, 0, 7mm etc etc - you get the picture). I am a huge fan of Little Bytham with its long trains running at prototypical speeds through the landscape and though if I were to focus attention exclusively on the track work I might prefer it to be wider in gauge, does this detract in any way from the experience or appreciation .... no - for me it is not what the layout is about, and as a part of the whole looks pretty damn good anyway. If I want to study and revel in prototypical track work I would go and look at Howard Boltons Minories complete with fully operational mechanical lever frame, fully functional point rodding and semaphore signals. Would I be interested in this layout for experiencing trains running through a landscape .... no - in fact from a spectator standpoint unless you are interested in the minutiae of station operations I suggest it is quite a niche experience - but as a model absolutely stunning in its own way (as is Little Bytham). Luckily there is room for so many options, and so much to enjoy and appreciate.

I don't suppose on the off chance you would have a similar drawing for the arrangement on a typical midland trailing turnout without locking? Would a main line arrangement rodded back to the signal box have differed from actuation by hand lever? ..... meaning is the attached an anomaly or standard for sidings? I wish someone could turn up a drawing or better still a photographic example of the lug connection described earlier on the front stretcher rod which is a Midland example .... I have examples for other companies. All I have at the moment for the Midland is a dotted line on the switch drawing and a definitive text entry .... which is then directly contradicted by the examples posted - which definitely don't attach to the stretcher bar.

Do you have any thought as to how locking on facing points was laid out ?

Thanks for taking the trouble to do this. You are right about the casual observer ... which i am afraid in this case was me! "Each point has one short blade and one long blade' ... happily sorted things out. I assume the holes in the switch blades are because they would have been drilled in the shop for standard stretcher bar use .... but in the case of a 3 way turnout that would not be possible? The image is perfect for me to have a go at modelling the actuation .... assuming that the rod then links to a crank in my case. Regards Tim

Thanks Echo ... very interesting and thanks for the image references .... luckily I have both volumes. I attach an image of the switch blades to a 3 way turn out at Butterly, which is one of the things which has got me puzzling and a little muddled. If I describe what I think I am looking at perhaps the muddle will become apparent. To the left hand side of the image there appear to be two stretcher bars. The rear one appears to be attached to the front switch blade and I think is a simple stretcher bar. The front one appears to house through the front blades and in to the rear blades. This bar has a bolt connection at the centre and would appear to connect to an actuation rod running beneath switch blades and stock rail. (may be required for more complex formations ... or may be a late addition -but if so is there evidence of how it might have been actuated previously? To the right of the image we the front of the leading switch blades (not sure if this is the right terminology but hopefully it is clear what I mean). Quite clearly hear we have the single blade 180 degree actuation connection you describe. However I am confused that on the far switch blade there appears to be a vacant fixing hole in line with this connection? If we now move to what appears to be the front stretcher bar (I am assuming this because there appears to be a boss on the rear of the near blade indicating a connection similar to that on the far blade). However this bar appears to continue beneath the blade and the stock rail? To further complicate matters, this front stretcher bar does not appear to match what I had assumed was the typical bar and wedge fixing of midland stretcher bars. Any thoughts much appreciated.

Hi, I am currently researching trackwork and rodding connection for modelling a midland crossover and single slip at Monsal Dale station circa 1902. Would anyone be able to advise what the stretcher bar layout would have been on a typical trailing turnout for this period and how the main bar would have connected to the final crank on the point rodding run. I have examples of other railways (GWR) but not for the Midland. Any diagrams, pictures or examples modelled would be much appreciated, as currently I have pretty much drawn a blank.

Apologies for the basic questions below ... if you don't ask you never learn! The only image I have found of a permanent way team to date is a very poor one at Bakewell station, but you can I think just make out the Ballast Brake Van http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/b/bakewell/index.shtml

Slightly off at a tangent here, but......... I am looking to put together a permanent way set midland circa 1902 to run behind a Johnson 1f 0-6-0T. I wondered if anyone had any suggestion for a suitable make up and appropriate kits out there? I note Dave Green does a kit for the 8T double bolster wagon (from 1896) which might suite for rail/sleepers ? Would ballast be in a 2 or three plank? I note that Mousa are doing low sided midland wagons (C1882)? What else would have been on the train .... would there have been a workman's 4 wheeled coach? How many wagons would there have been? Grateful for any input, suggestions or leads

I wonder if there was a cost difference between three, four and 5 plank wagons .... otherwise why would you bother? .... perhaps ease of loading or unloading. I suppose tipping in to a 3 plank wagon would require less height in the loading wharf and if the wagons were all dedicated private user wagons then that would make some sense? Any thoughts?

Interesting that in the photo you link there are clearly some MR five plank wagons with 2/3 load stone .... so I assume loaded by weighing? or the 'good eye' of the quarryman. Are they 8T or 10T wagons do you think?

What a fantastic photo. Not surprised by the 1-2 plank wagons .... solid, in density terms, according to my figures is twice that of pulverised. Now ..... guess the date .... hmmm! It looks pre war to me .... 1910 ish?

Thanks, this is reassuring. Most of the photo's I have managed to uncover are for lime wagons ... which appear to be 4 plank for the 8T weight limit ... but frustratingly I am struggling to find wagons with freshly quarried limestone or spar being taken for processing.

Interesting Stephen, I have found images such as this one http://www.wirksworth.org.uk/x447.htm But this of course is a 12T wagon ... which would work with my figures above. I have also found this http://www.oswestry-borderland-heritage.co.uk/?page=133 Which is a 286 cuft 10T wagon .... so 11T if full of pulverised limestone as per my figures above .... given that they would never have been loaded to the brim this is also conceivable. However the 8T 5 plank dims would suggest at least 25% overloading with my figures? I have found some images in Bill Hudson's book ... through limestone hills ... under the Matlock section with 3 plank wagons for limestone. I am just trying to establish if it was the advent of the 10T wagon which prompted a shift to five plank for stone, or if the five plank would have just been 3/4 loaded .... I am mindful that the smaller wharfs such as at Monsal Dale did not have weighing facilities.