John-Miles

Fox House near Hathersage. Do keep up.

No, I went to Chesterfield Grammar, which I hated. I once broke a finger and my mum took me to A&E. A nurse came in a shouted John Miles and two other people besides me stood up so it must be a common name in the area.

There is also the complication that Yorkshire has stolen part of Derbyshire. Really the boundary should be around Beauchief and Fox House should be well within Derbyshire. Give us back our land!

There is a discussion of the whitemetal and lubrication in a book by Adrian Tester called "in Defence of the 4Fs" published by the author. You can buy copies from the Midland Railway Society. It's not what you would call an easy read.

It's interesting the different techniques people use. I have cardboard formers at 50 mm centres (very approximately) which are then covered with plasterer's scrim coated with pva and then kitchen towel glued down with pva. I let the towel wrinkle so the "grass" is not too smooth. As always it's a matter of what works for you which is mostly down to experience with a particular method.

The Super Ds were worse on axle box performance than the ex-Midland types but they get a much better press. The reasons why Midland axle box performance deteriorated during the 1930s, as Stephen says, have been well aired elsewhere on RMWeb and were in part due to the LMS cutting costs by using inferior whitemetal in bearings and changing the type of oil used. Also inside cylinder locos with internal valve gear don't have much room left for axleboxes.

The Midland had to have running powers for passenger traffic from Malvern Wells to Malvern to operate their services.

The Midland originally had full running powers from Worcester to Hereford Barton (Not Barrs Court) but in the deal that was done with the GWR over the latter's obstruction of the Midland's access to Barton for Hereford, Hay and Brecon traffic and the subsequent arrangements to move all passenger traffic to Barrs Court, they gave up the right to run passenger traffic from Malvern Wells to Hereford (note not Worcester). I think this was a no brainer on their part as they weren't making any money from the passenger trains. So the arrangement was they would run a through passenger carriage from Birmingham to Worcester which would then be attached to a GWR train to be worked to Hereford.

Later the GNR trains used the Hope Valley route to get to Manchester.

This would be to gain access to the Midland's Ancoats goods station. The MSLR and the Midland did a deal giving the Midland access to what is now called Piccadilly station. The Midland used the MSLR part of the station for some years until Central was built. As part of the deal the MSLR line from New Mills to IIRC Ardwick became joint with the Midland.

I'm sorry but this is also wrong. The Midland had running powers for all traffic from Stoke Works through to Hereford. The running powers from Stoke Works to Worcester were granted by the Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway which was later absorbed by the GWR. The Midland was a major investor in the Worcester and Hereford and as a result obtained running powers. The Midland ran through goods to South Wales from Washwood Heath and Worcester ( Worcester Shrub Hill was a joint station and the Midland had a loco shed in Worcester)

I would be very interested to see your source of information for the above. I am the main author of the books on the Swansea Vale Railway and I have done a huge amount of research into the takeover. I found no evidence to support your assertions. Indeed, the evidence I found was entirely to the contrary. The Midland spent a lot of time and money helping the SVR out including loaning it substantial sums of money, locomotives and rolling stock. The initial loan and subsequent takeover seems to have been an entirely amicable affair.

Well I watched the video. Very interesting but 0/10 for pronounciation. Welsh is always a challenge for Anglophone people. Devynock is pronounced Day-vun-ogg. They also managed to mess up Llangammarch but 10/10 for enthusiasm. If you do intend to visit please be aware part of the route is on MOD land.

This isn't strictly correct. As stated above the Midland obtained access to South Wales via the N&B, it also took over the Hereford, Hay and Brecon and the Swansea Vale Railway as part of its route. In the early days of the SVR there were extensive discussions and even Acts of Parliament for the South Wales Railway (a GWR proxy) to take over the SVR but these failed. There was also a brief possibility that the GWR might take over the HH&B but this also came to nothing. The N&B promoted and started to build a line northwards from Devynock and Sennybridge to Llangammarch Wells on the LNWR's Central Wales line. Extensive earthworks still exist. This was never finished because of the bankruptcy of the contractor. The N&B appealed to the LNWR for help but they were ignored. The SVR tried to sell its line to the LNWR (and also the Llanelly Railway - in fact anybody who would give them a reasonable amount of cash). This got as far as an inspection by LNWR directors but they decided against it although they did obtain running powers from Brynamman to Ystalyfera which were never used. So both the GWR and the LNWR had opportunities to block the Midland. It might also be of interest that the Midland came very close to taking over the Brecon and Merthyr and were making eyes at the Monmouthshire Railway. The B&M deal failed because of the debenture holders not liking the deal and so it became impossible for the Midland to get to Newport and hence it had no direct contact with the Monmouthshire.

Well that's a first, Ripley described as a paradise. Have you ever been there. It's not exactly the jewel in the crown.

Have you had a look at the Midland Railway Society's web site. There is a search engine there and it gives you access to their Study Centre which contains around 50000 items relating to the Midland.

Just catching up because the dreaded "list " emerged a few days ago and I have been forced to do some decorating. First the Stephensons, under-rated in my opinion. George put a huge effort into persuading the L&M to adopt locomotives rather than stationary engines. This was a huge step forward and given the state of locomotives at the time a bit of a leap of faith but it paid off handsomely. Robert with Fairburn invented the box girder, a type of bridge which has since been used all over the world. Interestingly it has been contrasted with Brunel's Saltash bridge which is always quoted as being cheaper but I can't find any reason why the Saltash form of construction has never been copied. I can guess that it was partially a suspension bridge which has never suited rail traffic. Secondly - steam circuit - what exactly is meant by this. The pipe from the regulator to the cylinders. I believe the diameter used by the Midland was relatively small which would lead to higher friction losses. Does it also include the design of the regulator, which again could lead to pressure losses. As the valves come in for separate consideration are these excluded. When the Midland invested in the Forth Rail bridge, its chairman was a Scot and so maybe this was part of the reason?

Comparing Locke and Brunel as Dave did above is in my mind a heresy but not in the way that most people will think. Brunel is often described as a genius, which IMHO he was not. He was a brilliant structural engineer but his ideas for locos were a disaster, his choice of gauge was poor and cost the GWR a fortune, his treatment of contractors was scandalous, he spent a fortune on the relatively untested concept of atmospheric propulsion and his schemes went massively overbudget. And then there were his ships which contained some good conceptual ideas but were also flawed. On the other hand, Locke built railways on time and to budget. There were no flashy expressions of ego but instead as an engineer he did his job and did it well. If I was a shareholder, I would be much happier if I invested in one of Locke's schemes. He deserves to be much more famous than he is but as always history favours the showman.

My dad was a mechanical engineer and knew Tuplin. He thought Tuplin was a bit of a showman at the expense of accuracy..

If you really want to get technical, the surface area of a small engine in relation to its power output will be proportionately larger than that of a large engine (surface area increases as a square of the lateral dimensions, volume as a cube) so the frictional resistance from the air will be greater for a small engine.

According to Wikipedia, City of Truro was hauling 150 tons down a 1 in 90. Mallard was pulling a dynamometer car and 6 coaches - say 190 tons down a gradient of roughly 1 in 180 but it was a much bigger engine and streamlined. When you look at the comparison what the compound achieved is quite outstanding

The speed attained by the Compound is interesting. It was a reasonably lengthy train and therefore the drag caused by air resistance/ friction would be appreciable. There would also be a drag effect on the front of the train. Drag and friction increase as a square of the velocity and at the same time engine power decreases with speed due to internal resistance factors. So attaining a speed in the 90s is a major achievment.

There are photos of the Baltics being used on coal trains.

The wagon in front of it is really interesting. You don't often get a good view of the underside.

Last time I looked, before lockdown, the Portsmouth trains were 5 coach (3 plus 2) Thames Turbos.