Blobrick

Thanks for the link BTS, its a good clear photo, with the lining clearly visable. I note that the photo is dated 11963, so she carried that livery for quite so time. Cheers Bob C

Thanks Ray

Further to your info on 1453, Ray, I ve found a photo of her in 1962 0n FlickR, if you look on the tank side she still was carrying the lined early crest livery, but you do have to look very closely at the photo. Interestingly she has also lost her smoke box door number plate, I wonder what happened to it? Cheers Bob C

Thanks Ray that's a big help. So that's at least two 14xxs carried this livery in the late 50s Thanks for digging this info out Cheers Bob C

Hi there You could be possibly referring to 1470, which was for many years the Ashburton branch loco. There are a few photos of it in BR mixed traffic livery, lined black in the early 1950s. Once Ashburton closed l believe 1470 worked on the Churston Branch until it was replaced by DMUs Bob C

Quick question if l may to the 48/14xx experts , No.1444, the Auto tank most associated with the Wallingford Branch in the 1950s, carried the livery of BR Green, being fully lined with early crests. Was this the only example of this short lived intermediate livery on 14xx tanks? I ve trawled through my library, and can not find other examples, however l believe l saw a photo of another 14xx somewhere on the Cambrian in the late 50s, in this livery, but as usual l can not locate it! Bob C

Thank you Gents, I really appreciate your input to this subject. You ve all given me lots to think about. As an aside, l ve in Belper for a few years , whilst working in Derby, and did a bit of exploration around the Denby and Wirksworth branches. Lots on Midland items still standing, but these areas just don't have the feel of further north. Thanks for the link to MrKirtley800's page, but l m already following that one too! Thanks so much guys

Hi Aire Head, funnily, l only just put out a request on RMweb last week, to identify which early 1970s Railway Modeller contained the article of a proposed Kettlewell branch (April 1974) of whichI which l now have a copy of. Kettlewell has always been on my list of possibilities , especially as the proposed extension could have gone as far north as Hawes and then onto the S&C. Bob C

Thank you for taking the time to both look this up and add it to the thread. Bob C

Thanks for the link Pen-y-Ghent, that interesting,.

Good morning No Decorum Thank you for taking the time to reply to this post, its much appreciated. I think you are right, in that the Radial trucks could be part of the problem. I ve noticed that they both seem to be electrically dead, which caused me to take a quick look at them. I noted that they can move to both vertical and horizontal plains whilst running and seem to be able to move out of line as they traverse track work . i wonder if they are not in the correct position when presented to an on coming set of points? The stall you noticed in one of the videos, was in fact the model "catching" on something whilst passing over the point, it turned out to be the drive wheels in this case. I ran the model very slowly over a few points and noted that it seemed to be the drive wheels that arrested progress each time. This may have something to do with the Radial trucks not positioning the following wheel sets correctly? However l also noticed that the loco seemed to rise up on one side as the drive wheels passed over the crossing nose of the various points, so l gently push the loco through the same crossing and found that the drive wheels would bind between the check rails. So in conclusion l believe the back to back is out between the drive wheels, which is allowing the drive wheel to strike the crossing nose head on as it attempts to enter it. Unfortunately l do not possess back to back gauges so can not check Sadly l will be returning this model to the retailer, such a shame, as its such a good model Bob C

Once again late to the party, but i ve got obtained an 31-169 version of the L&Y tank. As l do with all my new models, l giave it a good run around my layout. For the 1st 30 mins or so the loco ran through all the Peco code 75 point work on the layout without any issues. However after about 40 mins l noticed that the model seemed to be striking something on passing over point work. I examined the points and checked the loco, with no obvious cause found. I continued to try the loco through various points both in the facing and trailing directions, but the minor striking sound became a thump accompanied by the loco derailing. I ended up pushing the loco through the point work by hand and found the drive wheels were catching the crossing wing rails. I will attempt to attached a couple of videos to show the issue, which l suspect is possible a back to back issue with the loco. I also ran a Bachmann 1P through the same point work without any issues Any thoughts Gents? https://youtu.be/V3ckOMBHCV0 https://youtu.be/9OVnjs2xqy8 https://youtu.be/RxzUR5kri2Y Bob C

I ve spent a few days thinking about this facet . This would not have been the first scheme to think "big" and plan for future up grades like double track, just like the East Somerset Railway built with an eye on becoming double track, but never built due to the expected traffic not materialising. However l wondered if a situation similar to Chard jct on the LSWR could have arisen? Chard Road (later Junction) as it was called when first opened, was about 3 1/2 miles from Chard itself, the "Road" part of the name gives the game away that this station is not in Chard. The GWR had a station actually in Chard and as l understand it the LSWR decided to build a short branch from their main line station on the LSWR to an end on connection with the GWR at Chard. I seem to recall there was a connection with allowed freight traffic (Milk tanks perhaps) to be exchange between lines. Could a similar situation have developed between the Midland BLT station in Hebden Bridge and the L&Y Hebden Bridge station, where it could be viable to have a connection between the two companies without a full blown double track connection? It would have been the cheapest way to test the waters without committing to much capital, and could have been up graded if traffic was generated. Bob C

Hi there Compound Yes you are absolutely correct, with the existing lines already in place, there would be little or no justification in extending the line south from Oxenhope to Hebden without some form of major advantage. This is why l ve revised my thinking , and I now trying to work around a simple (Cheap!) continuation of the existing line to Hebden Bridge, without any form of connection to the L&Y as was originally planned. As previously discussed it would be a shot in the foot to push the line further to HB and not have any form of connection with the L&Y, but with a connection, the whole thing then starts to snow ball ending up with a double track secondary route. So currently l m thinking of the most basic (Cheap) way of extending the line south, but as you have mentioned earth works /tunnels etc. are a major expense, so please pardon the pun, but without freight traffic as justification is a bit of an up hill struggle to justify any further extension from Oxenhope. However imagination is a wonderful thing, and it does keep me off the streets! Bob C

This photo has got me thinking again. As we ve discussed, a through connection at HB off the L&Y Calder Valley lines would mean double track infrastructure , with heavier trains. So if we stick to the Midland Railway BLT at HB, we can maintain the lighter single line infrastructure. If once the Midland BLT was built at HB, could it possibly have became apparent that some of the existing services on the branch could be extended further north to say, Skipton? As the above picture show a Skipton - Bradford service, would it be to much of a stretch to assume a similar service connecting the L&Y to Skipton via Keighley? Bob C

Many thanks for this info Aire head, that offers possibilities and maybe an excuse to add just one 2-4-2t to my loco roster

Unfortunately l now have to totally agree

Absolutely, the local service along the branch in my early 1950s period was indeed a 1P and two non corridor coaches. However l ve yet to find any photos showing freight traffic on the branch. I sadly doubt that by this point, the 1fs would have ventured far from Keighley, leaving the 3F 0-6-0 to work goods traffic? Up until 1952, a 0-4-4t, a 0-6-0 3F, and 2 x 1f 0-6-0t were allocated to Keighley shed, which l believe was a sub shed of Manningham. Its possible other locos from Manningham were diagrammed to work up and back along the branch in their daily roster, but l ve found no evidence. I had hoped that the L&Y connection at Hebden Bridge would have allowed 2-4-2t s to work traffic off the L&Y network through to Keighley, however from where? I think Manchester via Hebden to Keighley although under 50 miles, is asking a lot of a 2-4-2t and would most likely be a larger tank loco? So l m starting to struggle with validity of using a 2-4-2t in the first place

A more direct route to the west sounds sensible, cutting out the congestion around Bradford and Leeds. However l suspect that would mean a double track layout to accommodate the expected freight traffic, ever though the branch ws built with doubling in mind, this distracts from the branch atmosphere l wished to maintain. So whilst a through connection to the L&Y at Hebden Bridge is attractive, if l wish to maintain a single line railway, perhaps a BLT at Hebden is a better answer? There goes my chance of using Aspinal 2-4-2 tanks! Bob C

Very interesting thought, so the L&Y could have decided to link up with the Midland, extending north from Hebden bridge to meet up around Oxenhope. As they would have had the major benefit, logically the L&Y would have carried the majority of the cost. With agreed running powers over the L&Y section, the Midland would gain access to the west with minimal outlay.

Totally agree, l don't see this scheme in terms of the West Riding scheme, with through passenger traffic north/south, but more of a logical completion of an existing scheme. Allowing local freight traffic an open route to the west without having to work east first. Any additional passenger traffic would be light, as it still very much a secondary/branch line railway. To me that's the fun of this type of exercise, in that its working out what is feasible and suitable for the infrastructure all ready in place. It would not be the same atmosphere if the branch were to be up graded to allow heavier trains. According to Google, the distance to Keighley from Manchester is a little under 50 miles approximately via this route, so l feel its not beyond the realms of possibility for a passenger service between these two points to be worked solely by small light tank locomotives, without the requirement to upgrade the branch for bigger locomotives?

Yes indeed, l wonder how much of a consideration the topography was when the line stopped at Oxenhope? Could that have been one of the reasons the line never progressed further? Agreed that the trade and industry was there in sufficient quantity to make the scheme viable.

Your second point is most interesting, a possible alternative freight flow. I had not considered that. However if that were the case, then the weight of trains and/or locomotives might put the damper on that possibility, as l am assuming that the Hope valley line would not have been more heavily engineered than it was.

Hi there Aire Head Totally agree, l would like to think that the Hope Valley Mill owners etc , who put up the " their hard earned Brass" for the Hope valley scheme would have been fully behind and potential improvements in freight traffic flow, especially to the west. Whilst the freight traffic would have most likely made or broke the proposals, it is interesting to wonder what the two companies would have considered as additional traffic over and above the bread and butter flows? Bob C

Some of the older RMweb members will remember the "just Supposing" series of article which appeared in the Railway Modeller in the early 1970s. My favourite was the Dewsbury Midland scheme, an article by A Whitehead, which appeared in the December 1973 edition, which looked at the Midland railways west Riding proposals around Dewsbury and Halifax. I mention these articles, as they invariably took an existing railway line and looked at the possible developments that could have taken place had things been different. Always a great excuse for a spot of armchair modelling. This kind of thinking has always provided me with endless hours of entertainment looking at existing railways and researching history, to find what else could have been. This approach found me looking at the history of the KWVR . The line runs between Keighley through to Oxenhope along the Hope Valley. (Now preserved as the KWVR) Looking at Oxenhope station, l noticed that the station layout would have allowed the railway to be extended beyond Oxenhope without major changes to its existing layout. A little research proved this suspicion to be correct, as originally planned, the station at Oxenhope was to have been built a little further away from it current position. It transpires that a bridge was constructed to take the line further before the decision was take to terminate the line in it current position. The bridge ended up by being used for road traffic. However in amongst this information was a couple of lines stating that as proposed, the line had been envisaged to be extended beyond Oxenhope and run through to Hebden Bridge on the Calder Valley line (L&Y). Had this come to pass, what form would the KWVR line taken? Would it have terminated in a bay platform at the L&Y station at Hebden Bridge, resulting in a requirement for passengers to physically change trains, and the capacity to only be able to transfer light parcel traffic between lines, or more interestingly, would it have taken the form of a junction connection? This would have allowed textile and goods from the Hope valley direct assess to Manchester and the west and vice versa. I can see no advantage for the Midland Railway to provide passenger services beyond Hebden Bridge, however the L&Y would be able to run through to Keighley, offering a quicker connection with Midland Anglo-Scottish services at Keighley than having to go through to Leeds or Bradford. It could have also open up the Hope valley area to tourism more directly from the large towns and cities of the west, with excursions into Bronte country on a Sunday perhaps? This is the option l m running with currently. I envisage a junction at the existing Hebden Bridge station, allowing through running to and from the Hope Valley. The Midland would have required a goods marshalling facility near the junction to allow local traffic to be marshalled in to suitable trains for onward despatch, plus to handle incoming goods traffic from the L&Y network. This due to urban development and geography would have had to be just to the north of Hebden Bridge itself, and more than likely it would have had its own single platform station in keeping with the rest of the line. I suspect it may have even been called Hebden Bridge Midland, to differentiate from the L&Y station. I would very much like to hear other members thoughts on this concept, eg would it have been practical in both engineering and financial terms, and if so what would the locos and rolling stock used been, be if this concept had come to pass If nothing else it would be a great excuse to have an Aspinal 2-4-2t tank making is way up the Hope valley to Keighley ! Bob C