Tom Burnham

I imagine the rebuilt Rother Valley Railway will involve some new private occupation crossings where it cuts across fields where the previous earthworks had been wiped out.

As I recall, timber buildings on the SE Division of Southern Region were in almost white with almost black doors and other trim. Not very inviting, and not particularly historic either.

James Phillips (later James Phillips and son) seem to have been holding cattle auctions in Minehead from about 1882, but they weren't advertised as "close to railway station" until 1896. That's no proof that they didn't use that field earlier, of course.

Thank you for this comprehensive report.

Interesting. Have you ever made a South Eastern Railway wagon with Mansell wheels?

I think the thought is that you may know the numbers but you don't appreciate what the size is until you see the finished (or with traditional methods part finished) model.

Did the underfloor water tanks use pumps or were they under pressure? I have memories of washing up in the kitchen of Pullman car "Barbara" in the early days of the K&ESR Wealden Pullman and we had a caravan type hand operated water pump to get water up from the underfloor water tanks which had been pressurised in the car's main line service but we're so no longer. And water heated in kettles - things are much different these days.

I'm not an expert on Blackpool trams but I'm pretty sure they used trolley poles rather than pantographs until comparatively recently. No doubt pantographs were available off the shelf, though. Bracknell Willis (sp?) comes to mind

I think in the 1920s the Government wouldn't have minded if all the amalgamations had happened voluntarily. This was a definite change of policy as previously there had been a definite view that mergers between larger companies weren't in the public interest. The LYR and the LNWR had had close relations for years - the LNWR had build some locos at Crewe for the LYR in the 1870s until stopped by an injunction. The "Eastern" group companies had promoted an amalgamation Bill before the First War, but had eventually given up because of the conditions which Winston Churchill as President of the Board of Trade wanted to impose. I think opposition from Hull interests (which had always seen the Hull & Barnsley Railway as a challenger to the North Eastern monopoly of the city and its docks) would have ruled its acquisition by the NER out of the question pre WW1. There had been quite strong opposition to the working union of the South Eastern and LC&DR from towns and traders who thought they benefitted from their competition, and that was a relatively strong case compared with some of the others.

I've suggested elsewhere that if Gilbert Szlumper - who was an engineer - had continued as general manager of the Southern instead of Eustace Missenden (who was an excellent operating man but had only an elementary education), Bullied might have had more constructive criticism.

Returning to the original question, in browsing the 1920 Railway Magazine I've come across an article about Sir Eric Geddes's White Paper that eventually led to the Railways Act. It envisaged 7 groups, the Southern, Western and North Western groups were essentially what became the SR, GWR and LMS. The Eastern group would have included the GN, GC and GE, there would have been a North Eastern group to include the NER and the Hull & Barnsley, a London group (local lines) and a Scottish group (the whole of Scotland). The London group would presumably have combined the Underground group railways (unclear whether it would also have taken in the extensive bus and tram interests) and the Metropolitan. Quotes the White Paper as "it is hoped that the amalgamation of companies in the respective groups will be carried out voluntarily; but ... powers will be sought in a future Transport Bill to compel amalgamations". And "it is recognised that a more logical grouping of the existing systems might result if regard were had exclusively either to geographical or to operating considerations; but the amalgamation of complete undertakings as the initial step will avoid many of the difficulties which would arise if undertakings had to be divided. It would be open to the new group companies to exchange between themselves lines which project from the territory of one group into that of another, and at a later stage it may become necessary to require them to do so."

This has resulted in a very interesting discussion. In the case of the LCD/SER which was mentioned, it's surprising how little of what were seen as purely competitive lines have actually closed - Chatham Central (though its Medway bridge is still in use), Greenwich Park (part still open and probably busier than ever, although without intermediate stations), Gravesend West. Arguably the Elham Valley and Port Victoria/Grain/Allhallows. The Thanet lines were sorted out by the Southern early on.

Yes, I'm sure that would be so. The significant thing for users of the maps would be who was responsible for operation and maintenance, and legal ownership would not be of particular interest. For instance I believe the North Cornwall Railway continued as a company until 1923 although it had always been worked as part of the LSWR system.

Just noticed an item in the "Why and Wherefore" column of the Railway Magazine for August 1920 which is relevant to this discussion: "Although the electric motor and trailer cars employed for the Metropolitan District trains working through to East Ham and Barking over the London, Tilbury and Southend section of the Midland Railway are also used on a general basis on all District routes, a considerable number are actually the property of the Midland Company, as their contribution towards the material for working their services, and are so marked. Many of these coaches have not yet had the name "Midland" substituted for London, Tilbury and Southend Railway, presumably owing to the delaying influences of the war."

I was leafing through the July 1920 Railway Magazine and noted Cecil J Allen's comments on the Midland in 'British Locomotive Practice and Performance', particularly the improvements to MR services in the May timetable. He says "it seems a great pity that those who prefer the Midland route for scenic or other reasons should still be precluded from using these trains between London and Edinburgh; surely the time has now come for withdrawing war-time restrictions of this character!". I hadn't been aware that there were restrictions of this sort and wonder how they were applied?

Didn't the South Eastern describe Bricklayers Arms as the Grand West End Terminus when it opened? I think the argument was that there was a horse bus that would take you to Westminster Bridge...

The section of "locomotives donated since 1953" is a bit curious. "Gladstone" had been in the York Museum since 1927. Possibly it was only on long term loan from the Stephenson Locomotive Society?

Although I also seem to recall gold lettering on varnished wood ..

The SE&C scheme would have extended to Tonbridge and Redhill in its second stage. The potential growth was definitely seen as being from the middle and outer suburbs - the inner stations had been largely written off as growth points - and they thought electrification would allow running faster and more frequent trains over the existing lines. The Government at the time were keen to develop a national electricity grid fed by large (for the period) power stations and the SE&C's plan to build their own dedicated power station (at Angerstein Wharf if I remember rightly) fell foul of that idea. In the end the Southern 's Eastern Section electrification of 1925-6 covered much the same ground as stage 1 of the SE&C scheme, but at a lower voltage and with more substations.

And I'd guess that stock that's not used very often would have a higher rate of wheel wear than those used every day, rather like rail wear on occasionally used lines. (As rust has time to form a good layer before being worn off...)

Coupling would have involved slightly more fuss than usual as the LNER generally used Pullman gangways and buckeye couplings for corridor stock while the GWR retained British Standard gangways and screw couplings. You'd need adapters for the gangways and to drop the buckeye hooks.

I just did a quick search on British Newspaper Archive. The earliest use of "mixed traffic engine/locomotive" I found was in 1891 with reference to engines being built for export. In 1894 there was a mention of "four wheels coupled mixed traffic engines" under construction in a report of a visit to Stratford Works. Use of the term becomes distinctly more frequent from around 1910. Probably warrants a more thorough investigation to confirm this.

Although if these consumers required goods in less than wagon load quantities, they wouldn't necessarily arrive in the same wagons they started in. If you read descriptions of big city goods depots of the period - and indeed well into the 1950s - there was an awful lot of transhipment going on, with assorted crates, boxes and things wrapped in straw being barrowed along platforms. So a number of smaller consignments for the Wisbech area, might have been unloaded at, say, Bishopsgate and put in a single wagon for there. I suspect there would probably have been an Upwell road van from there on...

The Tenterden Town signal box was originally at Chilham (South Eastern Railway). It's interesting that it was actually a fairly generic design.

Collection of Hornby Dublo and other items built up since the 1940s to be auctioned - https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/heritage-and-retro/heritage/Hornby-astonishing-model-railway-layout-dating-back-to-the-1940s-with-131-locomotives-to-go-up-for-auction-after-yorkshire-collectors-death-4466711