2251

The reason for horsemeat butchers being specifically identified was the requirement in section 38 of the Food and Drugs Act 1938 that "No person shall sell, or offer or expose for sale, or have in his possession for the purpose of sale, any horseflesh for human consumption elsewhere than in a shop, stall, or place over or on which a notice in legible letters stating that horseflesh is sold there is displayed in a conspicuous position so as to be visible whenever horseflesh is being sold, or offered or exposed for sale." The purpose is obvious enough -- to prevent consumers unwittingly buying horsemeat.

That is an interesting building – outwardly, apart from the statue, so typical of the nineteenth-century chapels of Protestant non-conformity, but in Catholic use. The dedication to “St Joseph the Worker” gives a clue as the feast of St Joseph the Worker was not introduced until 1955. The building started out as a Baptish chapel and was adopted for Catholic use in the second half of the 1950s. It would make an interesting talking point on a layout.

Indeed, but much reduced from its glory days. Prior to rationalisation, the Shrub Hill/ Foregate Street/ Tunnel Jct area had no fewer than seven signalboxes: 1. Wylds Lane Jct 2. Worcester Shrub Hill Station 3. Worcester Goods Yard 4. Worcester Shrub Hill Jct 5. Rainbow Hill Jct 6. Worcester Tunnel Jct 7. Foregate Street Station

Is AW 2409 capable of showing a proceed aspect, is it is really just a limit of shunt indicator?

The NR website is still saying it will be open “not before” 10 June: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-routes/western/nuneham-viaduct-monitoring-and-stabilisation/ If the desire is to stop at both Banbury and Snow Hill, I can’t see how that can be achieved without a reversal somewhere if it starts from Snow Hill. But would it not be more logical to start at Banbury and route Tyseley – Snow Hill – Stourbridge Jct – and thence to Minehead?

If I ever get round to it, I might work up a layout design for somewhere on the Stratford-Banbury section of the SMJ during the (fairly short-lived) period of 9F-hauled iron ore trains.

There really were some oddities at old New Street. No 3 deserves that over-used word, "unique": https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/lnwrbns_str1848.htm

Yes -- the various (lengthy) single line sections between Oxford and Worcester/ Hereford.

Indeed. There are some very clear photos here showing a formerly waybeam bridge converted to ballast under repair: http://bridgestobroadway.blogspot.com/ What appear to be small square riveted patches riveted on at regular intervals are the remains of the steelwork that used to hold the waybeams in place.

I think we are talking at cross-purposes. While it is correct that the RCH “brand” continued in use until c 1963, that does not mean that the RCH as such continued to exist. Let me explain why that is so. The RCH became a statutory corporation under the Railway Clearing Committee Incorporation Act 1897: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/Vict/60-61/116/contents/enacted The Transport Act 1947 created the BTC: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/10-11/49/enacted The entire undertaking of the RCH was transferred to the BTC by the 1954 Order and the RCH then dissolved. In other words, by statute, the BTC assumed the entre undertaking of the RCH and the RCH ceased to exist as a separate legal person. What then happened was that the BTC used the RCH “brand”. But this was merely a trading style of the BTC. When a document was headed “RCH”, or someone said he was an employee of the RCH post-April 1955, all that meant is that the document was produced by the BTC trading as the RCH or the employee was employed by the BTC trading as the RCH. The RCH was in no sense separate or distinct from the BTC after April 1955. Indeed, this is clear from the publications at the time. For example, the 1956 Hand-book of Stations makes clear that it was “PUBLISHED BY THE BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISION (RAILWAY CLEARING HOUSE”: in other words that “Railway Clearing House” is just a brand of the BTC, not a legal person separate from the BTC. There was then the Transport Act 1962. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/10-11/46/contents/enacted This created four public authorities, including the BRB, to which the railway parts of the BTC’s business were transferred, including what had been transferred to the BTC by the 1954 Order. Thereafter, while it is correct that the BRB ceased to use the RCH “brand”, that was not in consequence of the powers in the Transport Act 1962 – but presumably reflected a decision that it was no longer administratively necessary or useful to continue with the use of the RCH “brand”.

I don't think this is right. The Railway Clearing House Scheme Order 1954 (made under section 38 of the Transport Act 1947 which allowed for a scheme to be prepared to deal with the RCH) provided by clause 8 of the Schedule for dissolution of the RCH: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1954/139/schedule/made The Minister gave a certificate under that provision on 18 March 1955: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/Edinburgh/issue/17275/page/227 The result was that the RCH was dissolved when that certificate was published in the various Gazettes. I have not tracked through each Gazette , but infer the date of publication of each was about the same (8 April 1955 in the case of the Edinburgh Gazette, linked above). In short, the RCH ceased to exist in April 1955.

What I had in mind was rather earlier than the 1970s -- and I have now found some material, via the magic of the internet, that dates it to 1947 and 1952: https://cdn.ca.emap.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2012/09/GE-Sept-2012-The-stabilisation-of-slips-in-cuttings-and-embankments-Ayres.pdf

Is that the section where experimental cement grouting was tried shortly after the war?

The battles between the builders and the railway companies in the latter part of the nineteenth century were far more complex than that. As for the Southern-built 8Fs, I think the power to build them came from the wartime emergency legislation, so it was not really a case of an established rule being "broken" but rather something being allowed under the exigencies of wartime conditions.

I am sure the Stationmaster is more than aware of this, but it is worth noting that that that acknowledged free-running was a function of both the lower frictional losses and considerably lower piston speeds. On the latter point, at 60 mph, a Castle's drivers (with a circumference of 21 ft) are turning at 250 rpm, whereas those of the single (with a circumference of 24.2 ft) are only at 218 rpm. With valve-events and steam-circuits more the product of intuition and experience than science, that made an important difference.

The Tyseley-allocated sets had been repainted by that date, but other photos show M53454 +M59189 in all-over blue as late as 1989/1990.

Whenever the subject of Carstairs comes up, I always find myself wondering why the cut-off line from north of the Clyde bridge to the Edinburgh line was closed in the first place and not rebuilt since. It seems far more suited to high-speed running than the current alignment.

That is a good example of a story being "improved" by an author. While it is true that the dead man's handle was tied down and that the driver was killed, it is far from clear why he did what he did. As the inspecting officer put it: “There is little object in speculating upon Skinner's reasons for leaning out of the train as he did. They may have been legitimate or they may have been the reverse.” The report is here: https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_ManorsJunction1926.pdf

While the direct trains, when they existed, were certainly quicker, they were not very frequent. Here is an extract from the 1947 timetable:

Given the amount of space available, there must have been a pretty good reason to incur the expense of a traverser compared with conventional pointwork. This aerial view gives a good idea of the scale of the thing: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.3652922,-1.168377,3a,60.1y,351.02h,64.72t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipPbrVtdTViVhSWwo-x0SqJGUxrySZKeQDMxjcys!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipPbrVtdTViVhSWwo-x0SqJGUxrySZKeQDMxjcys%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi0-ya26.708231-ro0-fo100!7i8192!8i4096

The five miles of new double-track railway (the old route was only single track) opened to goods traffic on 28 March 1908 and passenger traffic on 19 May 1908 (although between Nottar and St Germans the new line was single-track only until 31 May 1908).

At the risk of being accused of extreme pedantry, it may be noted that they are not clerics, but female religious (NB, not nuns), namely Daughters of Charity of Saint Vincent de Paul.

Indeed. The thing smacks of something constructed for experimental purposes, built using what was to hand. The fact it is described as a "bevel drive vehicle" certainly lends considerable support to the view that the purpose was to test the practicability of bevel drive (as opposed to something else).

I take it this was the report in question: https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Lapworth1969.pdf

I am by no means an expert on this topic, but I believe it is rather more complex than that and was part of the late-1960s efforts to put in place an integrated service. By the 1960s, it was a matter of complaint that two nationalised industries (as well as the Post Office) dealt separately with sundries. Under the Transport Act 1968, the rail sundries traffic (apart from passenger parcels -- ie, parcels conveyed by passenger train) was transferred to the National Freight Corporation. Section 1(1)(a) of the 1968 Act required the NFC to provide "properly integrated" services and "to secure that, in the provision of those services, goods are carried by rail whenever such carriage is efficient and economic". Thus while BR continued to convey non-passenger parcels, I believe it was doing so as contractor to the NFC (probably more accurately, the NFC's subsidiary) rather than on its own account, albeit under a scheme requiring rail use wherever "efficient and economic".