MidlandRed

Absolutely - the 350 hp were very limited beyond yard use - slightly less so the 204 hp - indeed in the mid 60s the NE Region were modifying them to run in multiple so they could be used on heavier work. Rather similar to what the WR did for the BPGV later. The WR tank locos could operate at a decent speed so as you say, were more flexible in terms of usage. Direct replacements I noticed on the LM were EE Type 1s (Bescot’s) singly on trains previously hauled by Mickey Mouse 2MT and standard 76xxx. It was not too long before these diesel locos had been banished to work in useful pairs (often) replicating a weighty class 40 at Toton, but could work singly on lighter trains on colliery branches - the WR type 1s, built to a lower spec, did not have this flexibility. The 20s (about 15 of them) were replaced by even more type 2 Sulzers of both the 1160 and 1250 hp types (there were already a lot of them in the Birmingham Division), which worked generally singly but sometimes in pairs (effectively making a heavier Peak). As a spotter, in the early 60s tank locos were few and far between on the LMR around Brum, but Panniers, large and small praries and 56xx were very common on the ex GW lines, reflecting @The Stationmaster’s comment that the GW was very much a tank engine railway - well certainly parts of it were - I recall Halls and Granges being pretty ubiquitous as well. One element of note in respect of my earlier comments about pick up and local freight at the southern end of the WCML - it was quadruple track which meant the type 2 hauled freight only had to compete with the AM10 local passenger and other freight rather than express passenger.

Probably - maybe 94xx as well. WR seemed to use a lot of 0-6-0Ts till the end - despite having replaced yard shunters with diesels. Hence their desire for v large quantities of type 1s (400) as late as the early 60s.

I actually can’t remember what locos were used on pick up goods on WR lines like Snow Hill through to Stourbridge but there were numerous goods yards en route such as Rowley Regis and Cradley Heath amongst others. Also were there not pick up goods along the more important main lines on the WR? And could these have had larger engines? What makes me ask is I recall quite vividly the pick up goods on the southern end of the WMCL in the mid 60s - they were often hauled by new D766x type 2s, built in BR blue (this sticking in the mind) and used also on the Kensington to Willesden portion of motor rail trains.

This is really interesting and entertaining stuff @The Johnster - I’ll look forward to these.

@The Johnster I don’t disagree with you regarding the ‘Death Steam’ era. And receipt of a new Ian Allen Combined Volume was always a fervent read in the early 60s to see exactly what steam had disappeared (and what modern image had appeared). However apart from the Dave F photo, my observations were from 1961-4 on LMR lines around Birmingham. During this era I also saw 70042 (in very clean condition) pulling a short freight train through Sutton Park - tender first as well! I’d say Saltley may have had its first allocation of type 2s by then, but full dieselisation wasn’t till 1966 ish (Bescot - receiving amongst a host of others, brand new D8134-43) and if you ventured to the ex WR lines radiating from Snow Hill, in 1966 much freight was steam hauled and even one or two peak period local passenger trains (Stanier 8F, Black 5 and 9Fs predominated on heavy freight by then though there were plenty of ex GW locos) (except Castles and Kings - express passenger was Brush type 4 post late 1963, preceded for a short period of about a year by Westerns). I suppose ‘Death Steam’ occurred locally for me around 1965-6, maybe 1967 if you travelled as far as Shrewsbury - I can’t remember the exact date but probably late 1966 I wandered around one of the dilapidated roundhouses at Tyseley where there several steam locos including pannier tanks, some in steam - the place was virtually deserted, although the DMU depot and diesel repair depots were hives of activity. This really was ‘Death Steam’!! The energising of the WCML electrification Birmingham area in early 1967 heralded a large change generally in motive power including the adjoining non electrified routes (banishing of several hitherto ubiquitous DMU types, I discovered subsequently to Chester and the bucolic Cambrian being one). Snow Hill downgrade and removal of through traffic occurred as well. And then we got some Warships……extraordinary!!

This is very interesting (particularly having observed the dieselised equivalent in the later 1960s). Im very impressed by the 4F rating - these were replaced in many cases by Sulzer type 2s, although some of these operated bulk freight services previously operated by 8Fs. Also, would a 9F be rated similarly to a Garratt (9Fs replaced them on Toton/Brent)? I wonder what the ratings were for the GC ‘Windcutters’, although ER until the 60s?

With great and due respect to the members referring to GWR/WR practice, would the relative amounts of 2-8-0 locos available have a bearing on availability to operate a pick up goods train? The LMS/LMR is obviously a much bigger network but had over 1000 2-8-0 or 0-8-0 locos available, in comparison to the low hundreds for GW operations. I know I’ve seen LMR 8Fs operating short trains (for instance depositing wagons at a water softening plant) and there’s a couple of photos recently uploaded of an 8F on a pick up goods operating on the Settle and Carlisle in Dave F’s photos. I suspect it was a case of what’s available was used - and the volume of 8Fs might have a bearing on it. J0861 and J0863 depict this. https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/85326-dave-fs-photos-ongoing-more-added-each-day/page/944/

Another very evocative set of photos from 1967 - this thread never fails to get the nostalgia going - great photos as well - J0907 shows a class 108 in what appears to have been Doncaster Works’ initial and apparently unique interpretation of blue livery with a large(r) yellow warning panel!! There’s another thread in prototype questions asking about the use of large locos on pick up goods and the 8F shows a good example - fabulous weathering as well. I think the LMR used these for this purpose quite often (or more likely any loco available) - I saw 8Fs in the Birmingham area in use on such trips in the early 60s, including one in a siding dropping a few wagons at a water softening plant and one at a colliery (Hamstead) collecting a few wagons.

Aha - you must be referring to the private junction off the M4 with an access road going north across the downs!! I think I saw a convoy appear there on one occasion!! I think it’s signed as ‘Works Unit’ - access is on to the eastbound carriageway only. There’s a blank area on OS maps to the north of the location. I had a similar experience - however having been ‘fitted’ with a large number of radioactive studs it was somewhat amusing (or maybe alarming) when part of the discharge process was for the urologist to point a Geiger counter at me and for it to make a great deal of noise…… the radioactivity gradually reduced to zero over 12 months but written instructions like no animals or small children to be sat on your lap for the first two months and various other matters indicates the potential for affecting others (beyond providing effective treatment, for which I’m most grateful). For all of those referring to ‘nuclear free zones’, there’s nothing wrong with local authority Committees voting to state their opposition to nuclear based power and its bi-product, nuclear warhead fuel - however the signs were, of course, illegal as such legend was not prescribed, and there were examples of the SoS, via the DfT instructing removal. However this type of thing is not unheard of - there have been other instances of instruction to remove such varied items as non compliant box junctions, or to place reflective studs in non compliant double white line systems. It’s also interesting that Planning systems proposed by the current administration considers ‘local support’ must be demonstrated for on shore wind farms, but not for new nuclear power stations (unless indirectly via the development consent order process) - not sure which are more visually intrusive or potentially dangerous to the local populace.

178 deaths in the U.K. (see attached Wiki article)(apologies off topic but posted to correct info). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_BSE_outbreak

If only - however it also affected the labelling/lettering of hauled stock, including data panels (also on locos) - this can be a major headache when trying to select items like RTR wagons if you’re modelling pre TOPS. It’s mentioned quite often.

There’s a lot to be said for this @The Johnster. The only disagreement I would have is the changeover from period 4 to 5. I would put this at the introduction of TOPS - this would affect all stock. Thus the earlier rail blue corporate era, which started in 1965 would be in era 4 (along with blue electrics, Pullmans etc, right up to blue fye with the original numbers). This would mean neatly that any BR locos and stock with TOPS paraphernalia would be beyond era 4. This doesn’t, of course, work for preserved stock - I well recall viewing with slight disdain the KWVR stock in fictitious liveries on a visit in about 1969 (and especially the railbus) - it wasn’t only the KWVR that did this sort of thing at the time - however seeing photos of that era now I rather like them - perhaps it’s an age thing!!!

And for me, this will be the ‘acid test’ of the Accurascale - does it run reliably? I guess we won’t know for quite a while. I think the Dapol class 22 is an excellent model and also think the Accurascale class 37 will find it difficult to beat the new Bachmann class 37 - but let’s see what appears in due course! And what about the Sutton’s baby Sulzers? Surely at the pinnacle of RTR diesels. If Hornby applies the 9F treatment to any of their diesels, then we’ll have another contender!!

Yes an absolute must (preferably WR versions - and I don’t mind if they are Vulcan versions (by far the most prolific) or RSH (only 40 WR ones although included the D688xs - so probably the Central Wales headlight fitted ones - not initially but eventually)!!

I agree - however the decision to permit cruise missiles at those US bases was a current matter at that time, in the public eye (as was the transportation of nuclear waste, and the import of nuclear waste - the strap line at the time was U.K. was the dirty man of Europe, nuclear dust bin etc etc). I guess the irony is the bases concerned were all closed down within a decade or two!!

These photos are great, as always. I notice in C415 you have captured a pair of the High Dyke branch token fitted class 30/31s - from this and previous sets of photos of them posted in the thread, it appears the handful of locos managed to be in a number of livery variants including of rail blue in this period!! Let’s hope those masters of super-detail, Accurascale, get round to doing a couple of these variants at some stage (@McC 😁)

No irony - just stating fact. And yes I remember and was fully aware of the public feeling regarding the potential for nuclear Armageddon - in that era you couldn’t fail to notice the televised reports of protests of various types against nuclear weapons, not least Greenham Common. To spell it out, people’s concern, as well as the more general one regarding nuclear war at the time (which had been around since the 50s in the U.K.), was fuelled by the decision in the 80s to permit nuclear weapons at various US bases in the U.K. at the time, many people being concerned this would make those parts of the U.K. direct targets. Although this background against nuclear existed (as did arguments that nuclear power was far too expensive), I think it’s rather fanciful to think the PR exercise at Old Dalby was not a direct result of public mistrust of the Government and nuclear power industry caused by previous issues in the industry and the fact the flasks were being transported through highly populated areas - any leak being likely to affect a very large area. It probably fulfilled its purpose, although as I said previously, I recall a documentary where various experts said the flask had sustained damage (contrary to official statements). It can’t have been significant enough to cause a leak I guess. The use of Sellafield to process other country’s nuclear waste in that era was also something of public concern - a multi-faceted issue in reality. I thought the protestors at Dover were as likely to be surrounding lorry loads of sheep and the like (live animal import/export) - however somewhat off topic, sorry!!

Sorry I must have missed that post - so you’re saying it hit the abutment of an overbridge head on, or was it a glancing blow whilst passing under? It would have likely knocked a parapet over, and although that wasn’t the scenario I had in mind I suppose the wagon falling off a viaduct or bridge in a built up area might create more force when it landed. An Interesting scenario anyway. I don’t doubt there are lots of procedures - I just wouldn’t have fancied dealing with a freight train derailment involving a collision with a flask train back in those days - although I guess the days of mounds of splintered wagons and loads mixed together in such circumstances had probably gone largely by the early 80s - that’s usually what confronted investigators when they arrived on site in earlier times. I guess it’s only natural for the public (and even professionals) to be interested and even sceptical about official or political statements - after all it wasn’t too many years later the same Government was attempting to assure the public BSE couldn’t be transmitted to humans and a rather foolish Secretary of State participated in a televised PR stunt where he fed a burger from a mobile van at an agricultural show to his young daughter, in a bid to assure the public it was safe to do so. What could possibly go wrong 🙃

Extraordinary photo - platforms newly extended and 3rd rails in place, all part of the Kent Coast scheme presumably - are the platform extensions to allow for six or eight car trains (presumably the direct peak services to/from London)? Also incredibly rural in this direction - the left side is completely developed now.

Already did, several times but thanks for the advice (or was it a telling off 🤪)

There is a difference in magnitude and thus ultimate risk in having a nuclear leak - even from a minor break in integrity of the container - this is majorly so in a nuclear power station let alone on a train. However I agree regarding some of the concoctions which travel around our rail and road systems! Have we had a flask collide with an immovable object (eg bridge parapet) - I’m aware we’ve had several passenger and freight incidents involving bridges but I’m not sure we have empirical evidence of how various items behave in such collisions - apart from the drop tests which were used to prove the flasks in the first place (and the questioning of which led to the Old Dalby PR show). Remember Great Heck resulted in a fundamental change in how most rail over bridges (and other scenario) are protected from incursion. Standards change as a result of operational experience - the system of analysing risk for containment by vehicle restraint systems has changed fundamentally as a result of design standard review.

I wasn’t really aiming to make a political point, more to set a historical scene - and of course the base rate was in the hands of politicians back then to manipulate as they wanted - it took Blair’s Government to place it completely in the hands of the now independent BoE. The interest rate was generally very high during the 80s, and exceedingly so in comparison with modern times. However the point of this was simply to use one (of many pointers) to the need for grandiose PR exercises like the Old Dalby crash in that rather difficult period (for many although not all) in our history.

But plenty of scope for a derailment with the flask(s) colliding with some immovable object like a bridge abutment, in relatively close proximity to very significant volumes of population. The times when the ‘test’ were done were different, the Thatcher Government dealing extremely unsympathetically with lots of social issues created by their actions (such as increasing interest base rates to 15%!!!), and the problems of massive protests in the context of US nuclear missiles being stationed within fairly close proximity of such Home Counties locations as Newbury!! There was much disquiet about these trains rumbling through the conurbations of the country, and the problems created by sealing the waste off the coast was another issue, so the ‘test’ was an excellent PR exercise. However I seem to recall some years later a TV documentary concluding that the allegation the flask was undamaged after the collision was in fact, incorrect - I don’t recall the details or whether the damage had any level of significance. As for the timing of the trains, I recall seeing one whilst waiting for a train, within the last few years, pass through Bromley South in the up direction after the morning peak - presumably travelling from Dungeness - not likely now as Dungeness is out of operation currently - but this seems to contradict some of the comments here on timing of trains - certainly the passenger trains might not have been quite as full as in the peak then, but South London was certainly pretty busy at the time and any leak (or potential for) would affect a massive area and not just impact rail operations. Nuclear power is an interesting one - I recall a few years back my EDF bill showing the cost of each form of electricity provided - at the time nuclear was 70% of my bill and was significantly more expensive than any other form!! The Chernobyl incident (which affected such diverse items as Welsh lamb), did nothing to improve the PR of nuclear either!! It has always had a dual role, partially providing as a by product material for the nuclear weapons programme. So I am a little sceptical of it as a reasonably priced form of power - although I’m not anti it - having worked for a design consultant which was heavily involved with Hinckley Point amongst other stations, which was an on/off/on/off feast, creating massive mobilisation issues, I also realise this industry is massively costly and that from time to time the operators and their contractors (including rail) need to engage in significant PR exercises to help maintain support.

There are plenty of signs at the interfaces of the overhead system with third rail (have been since South Eastern High Speed commenced operation) at Ebbsfleet and Ashford. Not only do they change from/to third rail in the platform at Ebbsfleet station but they also change to/from cab signalling. The overhead extends some distance beyond the changeover point also. Not sure whether there have been any incidents there but I’m not aware of any. I suppose this is more of a change of electrical system rather than an electric train being routed off the electrified network though.

To an extent, the success (or willingness) of the strategic local authorities to lobby for major national infrastructure to reap benefits for the areas they pass through has a bearing on this. Look at HS1 and Kent - as well as the series of environmental features, way beyond HS1 one of the trade offs was to receive comprehensive train services making use of the new facilities which resulted in South Eastern High Speed. Whilst technically more difficult (slotting into the very high speed through services), it remains surprising there is no link to a hub serving say, Aylesbury. It’s surprising Buckinghamshire haven’t been doing the same - my understanding was they were in full opposition mode rather than anything else - probably a reflection of public feeling in that area, but also the fact they get all the disbenefits and few tangible benefits is somewhat surprising given the aspiration for development, especially on the Oxford/Cambridge corridor, which crosses HS2.