37175

Wow - that's gorgeous! I'd love to make something like that but I'm no model maker as my fingers are like Cumberland sausages. 12" to the foot I can just about cope with!

Problems with typos like that are because the person doing the proof reading doesn't know what they're looking at. So if the person who originally typed it got it wrong then the whole thing has simply slipped past two people (or more ) who have no real idea what they were looking at. For people who know how to ID a loco there's several easy differences between a 26 & 27 front end. For people who simply look and think a zero looks like an eight it throws the whole class thing into doubt and gives rise to queries like yours. Editors beware!

I shouldn't be doing this as it's giving away parts of the book each time I do, but here's a snippet about 20s & 27s on the Waverley Route: ".... and the 1250hp class 27s were extremely rare, with very few recorded instances of workings on the line, and even less photographic evidence of such occurrences. Training runs took place with class 27s D5384, D5411, D5382 and D5387 from Cricklewood West & Leicester Midland depots in April & May 1964, each double headed with class 20s D8074, D8070 (twice) and D8122 from Eastfield & Polmadie." Any use to anyone asking about 20s & 27s?

I'd always assumed it was simply a typo. [Edit: in the book, that is]

Part 3 of the commemoration articles is now on the WRHA blog. More previously unpublished photos and several audio clips from that night, 50 years ago. https://waverleyrouteha.wordpress.com/2019/01/05/commemorating-50-years-since-closure-part-3/

Part 2 of the commemoration articles is now on the WRHA blog. Featuring a few brand new images never published online or in books. https://waverleyrouteha.wordpress.com/2019/01/04/commemorating-50-years-since-closure-part-2/

Just posted this up to the WRHA blog, in case anyone wants to hear Madge Elliot talking about the visit to Downing Street to deliver the petition. https://waverleyrouteha.wordpress.com/2019/01/03/commemorating-50-years-since-closure-part-1/

I went through it a few months ago and came to an agreement with TT for them to have an advert in The Waverley in return for us being able to publish unlimited photos. So you should be able to see plenty of Waverley Route photos in future issues, along with the ones that were published in the latest issue a couple of months ago. Is that 60027 photo labelled Riccarton the other Riccarton (the one in Ayrshire)? When I found it I pretty much ignored it, assuming that it wasn't Waverley.

What's the hose hanging out of the cab on this photo taken at the same time? https://www.transporttreasury.com/p677100019/hbcd10582#hbcd10582

The closest I can find is from 22nd April 1858 when Sir James Graham (Netherby Hall, just north of Longtown) was cross examined by the House of Commons Select Committee, questioned by the counsel Mr Denison. Here is the only time I can find "flourish/ing" and "manufacture/ing" mentioned at the same time. It may well be that I've missed it elsewhere, but there are hundreds if not thousands of pages to go through and this is the only text I keep coming back to - hope it's of interest: Is there any local reason why manufacturers should not flourish at Longtown as much as at Langholm? - No ; I should confidently hope, if railroad communication were obtained, manufacturers might be encouraged there and might thrive; there is a population inadequately employed, and poor from the want of employment. The population is about 2,400, I think! - Yes ; it was 2,050 at the last census, and I believe from enquiries I have made, that it may be fairly now put at about 2,400. As far as population goes, there is no very great difference between Longtown and Langholm, though Langholm is no doubt a more flourishing place! - I should think not ; there is a woollen manufactory at Langholm which has been very advantageous to it indeed, and it was the success of what I had seen at Langholm that made me more anxious to confer, if possible, on Longtown similar benefits.

I'll see if I can find the full debate from which that quote was taken.

Not sure where you got that idea; they didn't say that. Here's part of the (lengthy!) debate that I recently typed out, and featured in the latest issue of The Waverley magazine that goes some way to explaining the virtues of the Liddesdale scheme. [19/11/1858] In preparing for the Parliamentary struggle, the advocates of the Langholm scheme have shown at least capital “pluck,” vigorous self-reliance, and a determination not to be over-crowed by their opponents. But that is about the most that can be said on their behalf. They have, it is true, so far conceded to their antagonists as to propose carrying their line somewhat nearer Longtown. That, however, is all; and no amount of subscriptions at Langholm, of jokes about the one miner at the Plashetts, and his probable consumption of “pork from Annan and herrings from Dunbar,” or of sarcasms about miraculous “seams of soft soap” having been found intersecting the limestone beds of Liddesdale, will make up for the inherent deficiencies of their project. Their line would, it is granted, accommodate Langholm better than the opposing one, but it would accomplish none of the other objects which ought to be kept in view in forming such a railway, and which, we take leave to say, are not at all secondary in importance even to the convenience of the principal town of the district. The Liddesdale line would accommodate both Langholm and Newcastleton; it would not merely open up the coalfields of Canonbie, but it would give free access to the lime-kilns of the Liddel, and an outlet to their productions; it would, moreover, give access to a virgin coal-field that is but waiting for the operations of the engineer and the navvy to pour forth its riches, and would bring Hawick 40 miles nearer to Newcastle and the eastern ports whence it draws its materials and whither it sends its manufactures. In addition to this, there would be security that the line would be managed so as to develop to the utmost extent the traffic that could be brought to it, and that exertions would be made to give it a beneficial place in the railway system of the country – a security that is totally absent in the other project, which has indeed been concocted expressly with a view to exclude these advantages. All the clever speeches of Mr. Chisholme and his supporters cannot talk away the solid reasons for giving precedence to the Liddesdale line which Sir James Graham so forcibly put before the meeting at Edinburgh on Monday. : - “I am glad that your plan of this year embraces a branch to Langholm. I adhere to the opinion expressed by me before the committees of last session, that this alone was wanting to render your scheme of railroad accommodation for this border district of England and Scotland as good as local circumstances would admit. You will tap every source of traffic; you will open up new supplies of coal and lime, breaking down existing monopolies; you will afford to passengers throughout a large tract of country new access to railway accommodation; and you will bring to Carlisle as to a common centre, without deviation from a direct line, the largest amount of passengers and goods seeking transport, whether west or south – to Ireland or England. The combination of these advantages is the strength of your case.” Among the many mistakes that have been made in the course of this complicated and violent contest, not the least important is that which the Caledonian railway and its allies and adherents have made as to the view that ought to be taken of their rights and position. Mr. Chisholme, the other evening, in his speech at Langholm stated that “at the last conference meeting Sir James Graham frankly admitted that the Caledonian railway were fairly entitled to protection for their through traffic;” and from this he drew the hasty inference that it was inconsistent in Sir James, holding these views, to support the North British line. But, even admitting that Mr. Chisholme has rightly put the admission of Sir James Graham, to what does it amount? Surely not that the Caledonian has a vested right in all the traffic between the north-west of England and the east and north of Scotland. It once set up the same claim as regards Glasgow and the west of Scotland, with what success is testified by the present existence of a competing line running straight from its own station in Carlisle to its most important Scotch terminus. Because the Caledonian Railway Company have constructed, greatly to the public benefit, a line from Carlisle to Edinburgh, have they thereby acquired an interest in all the traffic between Carlisle and Hawick, Melrose, Selkirk, Galashiels, Kelso and Berwick? Is it not, as Sir James Graham puts it, as reasonable to say that the North British, by virtue of its existing line to Hawick, has a right to carry all the traffic going from Tweedside to the south-west? In truth there never was a clearer case of competing schemes which ought to be decided solely as they benefitted the public. If the Parliamentary committees can devise a method of “protection for the through traffic” of the Caledonian that would save it from such reckless and mad competition as it was itself the first to introduce into Scotland, in its attempts to drive the Edinburgh and Glasgow to terms, everybody will be satisfied; for it can never be the interest of the public to diminish the reasonable profits of an important railway so as to slacken the energy of its management, and, by consequence, to lessen the benefits conferred by it upon the districts which it traverses or connects. But if, in the event of the decision going against it upon the main question, the Caledonian should find some difficulty in obtaining such protection, it will have itself chiefly to blame. The line from Carlisle to Hawick, by the vale of Liddel, as now laid down, is entirely independent of any connection with the Caledonian – which, therefore can no longer put in the plea that it would be unfair to allow a part of its own rails to be employed in carrying out a direct system of competition against its own interest. The “Border Union Railway” is now planned to enter Carlisle by crossing the Eden near Stainton and joining the Port Carlisle line, while its branch to the west would simply cross the Caledonian at Gretna. The features of the new line are thus those of an independent and directly competing one, and while we should grieve to see such a competition spring up as would cause loss to both companies, and ultimate disadvantage to the public, it is to be confessed that, by their own obstinacy, the Caledonian Directors have rendered that result a great deal more probable than it was.

Indeed it was Bill, and there were in fact two shots, not just one - Bruce kindly reminded me! I must have seen them whilst looking through Robin's shots at Bruce's house when carrying out location-finding for them.

D5307 at Fountainhall on 17th August 1966 with the 1445 Edinburgh Waverley to Carlisle. Photo CJM Lofthus From: https://6lda.wordpress.com/test-history/26020d5307/

Please can you send me a message ... I've got something that *may* help you.

I'm reliably informed that it stood just into the cutting off the south end of the up platform, around 30 yards south. Awaiting precise mileage.

Make sure you get the correct gradient for your slope ... here's the gradient sign from Stobs, currently at my house.

The Officers are - in uniform, Sergeant Albert Murdoch; in civvies, Detective Sergeant Bobby Tait and behind them Detective Constable Andrew Farquhar. More detail about this night will be in the first-hand account written by Brydon Maben's son, Police Constable Graham Maben who was present that night - in the next issue of The Waverley. It's a cracking read and a worthwhile reason to join the Waverley Route Heritage Association!

Seen a photo of a 47 crossing the Golden Bridge southbound with the Royal Train - looked on Railscot but can't see it. Any clue, Bruce? It might have been one of Robin's colour shots that you once showed me.

Just to add some further interesting detail to this, I compiled an article in Issue 28 of The Waverley, autumn 2016, about A2s and the railtours that 60528 undertook. The following is an extract from the article: "On 4th December 1965 Warwickshire Railway Society organised a steam charter (diesel hauled for the first section) from Birmingham New Street to Edinburgh Waverley entitled the Waverley Rail Tour. It was routed north via the Waverley Route, returning south via the East Coast. However, this tour was postponed and it ran a week later on Saturday 11th December 1965. Courtesy of the Confessions of an Ageing Trainspotter site: “We were 46 minutes late into Carlisle, arriving at 1.51pm. We now found ourselves with another problem. We now had to follow, rather than precede, the 1.40pm Carlisle to Edinburgh service, which stopped at every station as far as Galashiels. It was 2.02pm before 60528 Tudor Minstrel departed from Carlisle, so no doubt we would soon catch up with the slower train ahead. But the crew decided to take things easily, and we fell to 21 mph beyond Riccarton. But then we were checked at Shankend, and were 69 minutes late at Hawick, where we took water. Thereafter, we ran to Edinburgh, mainly downhill, losing another 3 minutes. Arrival time was 5.02pm.” The contemporary report from the RCTS Railway Observer reads as follows: “On 11th December a rail tour special (1X20) ran from Birmingham to Edinburgh (Waverley) via Leeds and Carlisle and back via Newcastle and York. A3 60052 Prince Palatine (64A) was to have worked this train from Carlisle to Edinburgh (Waverley) but failed a boiler examination at St Margaret’s Shed on the 8th and A2 60528 Tudor Minstrel of Dundee, was used instead. A2 60532 Blue Peter, the first substitute, worked the 05.03 MX Class 4 freight on the 10th but failed at Kingmoor shed on the same date, whereupon Tudor Minstrel was hastily despatched to Carlisle the same night. Departure from Carlisle was fifty minutes late at 14.05 and due to signal checks from the preceeding 13.45 Carlisle – Edinburgh (Waverley) passenger a further twenty minutes were dropped between Carlisle and Hawick.”"

https://www.sixbellsjunction.co.uk/60s/680501_1.html The return journey of the Flying Scotsman 40th Anniversary Non-Stop Run from Kings Cross to Edinburgh.

Bingo!

https://waverleyrouteha.wordpress.com/2016/04/10/the-deltic-borderer/

Sadly, they probably don't - copyright is held with the photographer for life then for 70 years after the death of the photographer it's held with the estate. However, I would suggest that for research purposes such as this is, then a photographer may well relent on any action as he himself may not have seen his photo for almost 50 years - it does happen! It's a tricky one as in this instance there's no malice or monetary gain involved. If scanned from a magazine I may personally have posted it up but quoted where it's scanned from and who the photographer is, stating no intentional copyright breach as it's simply for research and others don't have the actual magazine to view the image. Copying and posting up slides and other photos that are quite obviously someone's copyright is not on though, and I'm known for sending (rather snotty in some instances!) emails on behalf of several photographers to request they are removed or are credited correctly, directing them to the Intellectual Property Office document on the subject, at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/481194/c-notice-201401.pdf

A fantastic report about the geology encountered by William Ritson's group of navvies between 1859-62 on the Whitrope Contract, whilst creating Whitrope Tunnel. http://www.forgottenrelics.co.uk/tunnels/whitrope.html Includes a cross sectional diagram of the shaft locations: http://www.forgottenrelics.co.uk/tunnels/images/whitrope/CrossSectionShafts.pdf