Western Times Issue 3

The history periodical for students of the GWR and BR(W) ISSUE No.3 - SPRING 2022

ISSUE No.3 - SPRING 2022

Contents Introduction

3

The Dean Singles: Part 1 - The 19th Century

5

The Signalman’s Strange Pet

13

Country Stopping Places from the Archives of R C Riley

14

Western Weeds: Weed Killing on the Great Western

19

Fairfield Crossing

30

Experimental Motive Power: The Diesel Railcar Pairs

34

Leominster Interlude

38

From the Archives: The ‘322’ or ‘Beyer’ Class

41

Photographing the GWR & BR(W)

43

Modern Traction: D8XX ‘Warships’ in Colour

54

The Question of Bridge Loadings

60

Moretonhampstead in 1955: The Line South to Lustleigh

62

More About Milk

70

by R C Riley

Book Review

73

The Great Western Trust (GWT) - Bulletin No.2

74

Reading to Thame via Newbury: A Railtour Adventure

76

The Guard’s Compartment

79

© The Transport Treasury 2022.

ISBN 978-1-913251-26-0 First Published in 2022 by Transport Treasury Publishing Ltd. 16 Highworth Close, High Wycombe, HP13 7PJ Compiled and designed in the UK. Printed in Tarxien, Malta by Gutenberg Press Ltd. www.ttpublishing.co.uk or WesternTimes@mail.com 2

INTRODUCTION necdotal evidence suggests that railway-related A collections – working timetables, models, divisional correspondence – do not fare well

In the case of the largest photographic collection describing the GWR and it successor, the reverse applies. The identity of the party responsible for taking the photographs is well known – it was the railway itself – and in many cases, the purpose for creating the record can be deduced with reasonable confidence. The challenge lies in gaining access to the relevant registers and in tracking down the images. The scale of the issue cannot be minimised as the GWR was a large corporate body which naturally created considerable volumes of data in the operation of its business. Data only assumes value through the time-consuming processes of retention, storage, safe custody, registration thereby allowing accessibility and so creating information, which can prove so valuable in adding the collegiate fund of knowledge.

following the passing of their owners. Even with the presence of a Last Will & Testament, the next generation in a family may understandably fail to appreciate the significance of what has come into their hands, or may lack the knowledge to ensure that precious material is passed on safely to competent custodians. Ebay provides a means of redress but amateur terminology in the accompanying narrative can reveal that in tidying up a beloved grandfather’s or uncle’s affairs, the caring relative has little comprehension of the importance of what is being offered for sale.

This assumes that the collection is part of an estate protected by a Will. With death intestate – not unusual in the case of a life-long bachelor – survival prospects can be grim. Models may be regarded as tin toys of no intrinsic value and dusty old papers best despatched to the recycling centre. The Public Trustee was been held to have form in this respect, occasionally consigning treasures on a one-way journey to the nearest land fill.

Accumulation of information is a matter of custodianship for the benefit of current and future generations of railway enthusiasts who enjoy an abiding interest in the Great Western Railway. To accumulate and to share is at the core of the ‘mission’ for Western Times. The editors hope that readers will recognise the mutual obligations embedded in this cause and look forward to building co-operation with their partners (i.e. the readers) in this enterprise.

Photographic collections are equally vulnerable to these risks. WT Issue 1 included some images from a collection discovered by chance in a second-hand store in Shaftesbury a few years ago. There was no information about the photographer nor any accompanying notes but the location and date for the majority was Salisbury in the late 1930s. These images struck a chord with some readers; it is a great shame that the identity of the photographer and the background circumstances will most likely remain unknown.

--- o O o---

Editors: Andrew Malthouse and Kevin Robertson Editorial Assistant: Jeremy Clements

Rear cover: Another line that was transferred to Southern Region jurisdiction (like that between Winchester and Newbury) was the route south of Castle Cary to Weymouth, including the Bridport branch from Maiden Newton. In both cases certain buildings and stand-alone items of infrastructure lost their light and dark stone or even chocolate and cream mantle and instead were repainted ‘Southern’ green. Such a colour was well suited to the swish electric services operating out of the Southern’s London termini but Maiden Newton to Bridport had started off life Great Western operated and almost deserved to remain so. The lamp seen here is clearly gas lit operated by the chains and it is hard to relate that as recently as March 1969 when this view was taken, gas lamps of this type were still in operational service.

Roger Holmes.

The copyright holders hereby give notice that all rights to this work are reserved.

Aside from brief passages for the purpose of review, no part of this work may be reproduced, copied by electronic or other means, or otherwise stored in any information storage and retrieval system without written permission from the Publisher.

This includes the illustrations herein which shall remain the copyright of the respective copyright holder.

Every effort has been made to identify and credit photographers where known.

3

WESTERN TIMES

Above: Broad Gauge Convertible 2-2-2 Class 3001 No.3026 at Paddington. This locomotive entered service in August 1891 and its sparkling condition was typical of the manner in which express locomotives were then maintained. The tender was naturally significantly older than the locomotive. Standing behind is an ‘Alma’ Class 4-2-2 which is similarly smart. Despite its remaining career being nine months or less, it is still pristine in contrast to steam locomotives with limited life expectancy in the 1960s.

Locomotive Publishing Company.

Below: This view of Broad Gauge Convertible No. 3028 demonstrates the exposed nature of the driving and carrying wheels in this short-term transitional condition. In August 1892, together with No. 3024 this engine was the last to re-enter service in standard gauge form and from then on carried the name Wellington. It became a 4-2-2 in July 1894 and was withdrawn in February 1909.

WHS.

4

THE DEAN SINGLES PART 1 - THE 19th CENTURY lthough the Gauge Commission, through the A Gauge Act of 1846, ordained that 4’ 8½” should be the national standard, it would be 36 years before

To this list are added the eight members of 2-2-2 Class 3001, built as convertibles to help out the hard-pressed Almas which were bearing the brunt of passenger services to the West. The careers of these 2-2-2s in broad gauge service were the shortest of all the convertibles ranging from No. 3021 (March 1891 > May 1892) to No. 3028 (October 1891 > May 1892). With the demise of the Broad Gauge, their conversion to standard gauge started immediately: No. 3027 [May]; Nos. 3025/6 [June]; Nos. 3021-3 [July] and Nos. 3024/8 [August].

They concurrently received names and joined the remaining two of the batch [Nos. 3029/ 30] which had been completed as standard gauge locomotives in November and December 1891 respectively.

the herculean task of conversion by the GWR was completed. Construction of pure Broad Gauge locomotives of fresh design ceased at Swindon with introduction of the six members of 0-6-0T ‘Sir Watkin’ class in 1865/ 6. Twenty-five members of the ‘Alma’ or ‘Rover’ Class 4-2-2s were introduced from 1870 onwards to cope with growing traffic over the West of England main line. Three were effectively renewal of Iron Duke class locomotives incorporating parts from earlier machines but the remainder were brand new. The last built was ‘Alma’ Class Tornado which started work in August 1888 only to be withdrawn May 1892 having covered 192,200 miles.

The urgency of the need for the broad gauge versions is reflected in their construction out of sequence, before the main group of twenty standard gauge 2-2-2s on order entered service:

From 1876, other short term motive power needs were covered by the ‘Convertible’ fleet which were standard gauge locomotives temporarily modified to 7’ ¼’ gauge. Some reverted to standard gauge before May 1892; the maximum number of locomotives by wheel arrangement in this fleet were: Wheel Arrangement

Class

Number in Service

0-6-0

388

20

2-4-0 / 2-4-0T

3501

10

0-4-2ST / 0-4-4T

3521

20

0-6-0ST

1076

50

2-4-0

Nos 8,14,16

3

It had been long-established policy for standard gauge tender locomotives to be six-wheeled (2-2-2 for express passenger; 2-4-0 for intermediate and mixed traffic; 0-6-0 for goods duties). In weight distribution, Class 3001 followed the proportions of the preceding 2-2-2 classes, the Queens of 1873 and the Cobhams of 1878, with around 29-30% of the total weight carried by the leading axle.

Right: Broad Gauge Convertible No 3023 was named Swallow concurrent with its conversion to standard gauge in July 1892. This angle provides a good view of the tender which was taken from one of the Broad Gauge 4-2-2. The second of the Rover Class Renewals (also known collectively as the Almas) built in September 1871 had also been named Swallow.

R. de LacySpencer.

5

WESTERN TIMES However, Nos. 3001-30 differed significantly in overall size as the total locomotive weight at 44.2 tons was about 10 tons or 29% greater than the Cobhams. Enlargement required compromises in boiler dimensions as the driving wheel size limited the diameter of the barrel. The barrel length at 11’ 6” represented a significant increase and extra steam space around the firebox was created by raising the casing, a design technique used many years earlier and revived by Dean for the Singles.

On introduction, these 2-2-2s were the company’s largest standard gauge express locomotives but they quickly revealed unsteady riding qualities at speed, a characteristic that was less prominent in broad gauge form because of the lower centre of gravity. The need for design modification was confirmed when No. 3021 Wigmore Castle derailed on 16th September 1893 in Box Tunnel. The engine was taken out of service and the frames modified at the front end to accommodate a bogie. This incident emphasised that size and power had reached feasible limits with traditional design and construction techniques, and that faster, heaver trains would require more innovative thinking. A major result of the Dean-Churchward transitional phase was the rapid establishment of a new fleet well in advance of other companies’ efforts and admirably suited for the fresh traffic demands of the new century. In the meantime, the need for competent express motive power was provided through the 4-2-2 Dean Single family. These engines combined grace, elegance and opulence in

a stylistic flourish that would never be equalled by any of the more functional designs that followed.

Naturally, Great Western locomotives were the best looking of all and accordingly, in this regard the Dean singles were the best of the best.

Rebuilt No. 3021 returned to work in March 1894 concurrent with Swindon’s delivery of No. 3031 Achilles, the first Dean single to be built as a 4-2-2.

The programme to convert the other 2-2-2s continued expeditiously; Nos. 3003 Avalanche and 3019 Rover were treated in May 1894, and the exercise was completed with No. 3024 Storm King in December of the same year. Construction of new 4-2-2s of the Achilles version continued until March 1899 when No. 3080 Windsor Castle entered service. With conversion from 2-2-2, the cylinder diameter was reduced to 19”, the same as fitted to the 3031 series.

It might have seemed late in the day to establish a class of eighty single drivers but there were advantages. The type had served the broad and narrow gauge networks well. They were particularly smooth running locomotives proving fast and economical, aided by less reciprocating mass than in a four- or six-coupled machine, and thus less internal friction. A further advantage was lower hammer blow although this would not have been recognised or measured at the time. Their Achilles’ heel (with due apology to No. 3031) lay in lower adhesive capacity which imposed a penalty with heavier loads, slippery rails and adverse gradients.

Below: Class 3001 No. 3009 Flying Dutchman as built in Standard Gauge 2-2-2 form in March 1892. This engine was part of the initial batch of 20 order under Lot 84 that was deferred pending completion of Lot 86 to provide the eight urgently required 2-2-2 Convertibles. An eclectic collection of names was carried by the Dean Singles; this engine was named after a racehorse rather than the legendary ghost ship.

Photomatic.

ISSUE 3

The standard gauge 2-2-2s soon gained an unwelcome reputation for instability at speed. Derailment of No. 3021 Wigmore Castle in September 1893 in Box Tunnel was the catalyst for conversion of this engine and the other twenty-nine to the 4-2-2 wheel arrangement.

Photomatic.

No. 3021 Wigmore Castle returned to traffic in March 1894 concurrent with new 4-2-2 No. 3031 Achilles whose design had been changed during construction. This view shows No. 3021 retaining the underslung springs and wide cab from its earlier life as a 2-2-2. The coat of arms has been applied in transfer form to the splasher and the clackbox feed pipe slants at an angle down behind the splasher; in other cases the feed pipe went vertically down behind the inside frame. Other than the cab and springs modification carried out sometime between October 1895 and March 1897, this engine underwent no further significant changes and was withdrawn in May 1909.

Author’s collection.

7

Top: When converted to the 4-2-2 wheel arrangement, Nos. 3001 to 3030 retained the underhung spring arrangement for the trailing axle and the wide cab as shown in this view of No. 3011 Greyhound. Except for relocation of the trailing springs on the running plate and installation of the narrow cab, this engine remained otherwise unchanged and was a relatively later survivor being withdrawn in September 1911.

Middle: No.3020 Sultan following removal of the trailing springs to the running plate outside the narrowed cab. The deeper frame profile around the axle box is the only remaining evidence of the original spring arrangement. At this stage of their careers, this was the only feature that distinguished the 3001 series from the later series; compare with the photograph of No. 3065 overleaf. No. 3020 was withdrawn in February 1908, together with No. 3005 Britannia as the first to be taken out of service.

Bottom: Achilles was the prototype of the 3031 series.

This photograph is undated but shows the locomotive in later condition. The large brass clackbox on the boiler side has been removed in favour of a discrete feed at the bottom of the boiler. The tender lining detail is unclear but the ornate monogram has been replaced by ‘GREAT [Garter] WESTERN’ although the coal rails have yet to be replaced by side fenders.

Opposite top: This view of No 3056 Wilkinson at Westbourne Park shows detail of the livery transformation process. The splasher face is now in green and the brass coat of arms has been replaced with a transfer which means that the rest of the Indian Red parts have been painted black. This is supported by the single lining panel on the tender sides and unlike the view of Achilles opposite bottom, the tender is now fitted with side fenders. The loco still retains brass outside clackboxes on the boiler side but these are the later, smaller version with vertical feed pipe. The dome has yet to be painted green and there is still plenty of exposed, polished metal bright work.

Opposite bottom: Nos. 3076 Princess Beatrice and 3031 Achilles at the head of at least ten Clerestory coaches at Acton.

JN Maskelyne.

8

WESTERN TIMES To some extent this was off-set by the earlier invention of steam sanding which extended their utility but the inexorable increase in loads would enforce redundancy when they otherwise had years of life left in them. The factor of adhesion [adhesive weight divided by the tractive effort] for the 3031 series was about 3.2 compared with the generally accepted British optimum of 4.

Returning to 1894, at the front end the converted 2-2-2s (the 3001 series) looked similar to the 3031 series but there was a significant difference at the rear. William Dean had favoured underslung springs with some of his outside-framed types (e.g. 0-6-0 Class 2361 and 0-6-0ST Class 1661) and this feature was applied to all axles on the standard gauge 2-2-2s. The replacement bogie initiated the conventional GWR outside-framed style with springs above the axleboxes while underhung driving wheel springs were retained with all the Dean singles. However, the 3001 series kept the underhung springs on their trailing axles from their 2-2-2 condition in contrast to the 3031 series which had their trailing springs mounted on the running plate outboard of the cab side sheets.

Starting in October 1895, the trailing springs of the 3001 series were moved to the running plate thereby conforming with the layout adopted for the 3031 series. This change required narrowing the

cab and a reduction in the diameter of the spectacle plates. The frame profile at the rear remained and the 3001 series always differed from their companions in retention of the deeper contour that had accommodated the underslung springs. By March 1897, all the 3001 series had been so modified except for No. 3028 which was not apparently changed until early 1899. The early 4-2-2s had appeared with internal clackboxes but these were soon superseded by massive brass versions with brass feed pipes mounted on the boiler sides just aft of the smokebox. There were some cases where this form of clack box was carried on one side only. Starting in 1898, all wheels were fitted with thicker treads that added ½” to all diameters.

With delivery of No. 3080 in 1899 and completion of the changes to cab and springs with the 3001 series, all eighty engines presented an almost uniform appearance. It was this condition and the livery that helped them achieve international fame as the epitome of late-Victorian harmony in style and substance. Introduction of the front bogie had perhaps unintentionally transformed a somewhat stubby and apparently top-heavy 2-2-2 into an uncommonly handsome locomotive. It would have appeared impressive regardless of how it was painted but the good looks were more than complemented by the manner in which the class

ISSUE 3 From 1903, their resplendent livery started to be toned down but until then, the superstructure was painted in the standard lined mid-chrome green with running plates in black. Driving wheel splasher faces, valances, and outside frames were in Indian Red. The chimney carried the traditional copper rim while there was a profusion of polished brass including:- dome; safety valve bonnet; beading on cab, driving wheel splashers, and dust guards; external clack boxes and feed pipes; cast coats of arms on the splasher faces. The tender was in a matching style with three panel lining and the ornate “GWR” monogram at the centre, plus black running plates and Indian Red frames. The shade of Indian Red has been the subject of debate. With the reentry of City of Truro into traffic in 1957, there was a school of thought among enthusiasts of advanced

years whose memories stretched back to the early 1900s that the shade was too brown, and that the original was closer to scarlet. Reader’s views would be welcome for inclusion in the next issue together with the second instalment of the Dean single story.

An account of the later careers of these locomotives and the story of their rebuilding will follow in Part 2 in the next issue of Western Times.

The help of Stephenson Locomotive Society is gratefully acknowledged in providing images from its photographic archives except for those tagged “author’s collection”. The technical data for this article has been drawn from The Locomotives of the Great Western Railway Parts 2, 4, and 7 published by the Railway Correspondence & Travel Society.

Above: No. 3006 Courier leading No. 3073 Princess Royal on an Up service at Acton. Appearances can be deceptive as in this image where the Down Main is out of sight by virtue of the embankment in the foreground. Note also the spacing of the Up Main in relation to the abutments of the bridge in the left background and the rising course of the Acton Wells branch in the right background.

Left: When Driver Moses Clements arrived at Bristol (Pylle Hill) on 9 May 1904, having entered the history books, No. 3065 Duke of Connaught was waiting to take over the Ocean Mails and gallop them on to Paddington in 99 minutes 46 seconds.

This was a perfect division of labour as the almost new standard No. 4 boilered 4-4-0 (actually less than six years younger than the 4-2-2) had been ideal for whisking the featherweight load over Hemerdon, Dainton and Whiteball, and now the older generation was poised to maintain the pace along Brunel’s race track. No. 3065 entered service in July 1897 and displays the original boiler. This was replaced with a Type BR5 boiler in December 1910 which it carried until withdrawal in October 1914.

11

Circa 1907 and this image shows signs of changes to come. The dome of the pilot, No. 3046 Lord of the Isles, has been painted green and the external clackboxes have been removed. The train locomotive [No. 3063 Duke of York] is in more original condition and still retains its polished brass dome. That the train is double-headed suggests that the load would have taxed a single locomotive and that there was a case for a four-coupled locomotive or even a 4-6-0 on this service. The location is Bedminster, evidently before the down platform was extended.

THE SIGNALMAN’S STRANGE PET Extract from the GREAT WESTERN MAGAZINE of December 1909 (page 294).

“We give below an interesting photograph of a signalman feeding a somewhat unusual pet. Signalman Fowler is employed at Portishead Junction Cabin, Bristol, and is passionately fond of birds and animals of all kinds. His habit feeding the birds attracted several rats, one of which became so tame that when called it would come into the cabin to be fed and eat out of his hand. When he was on night duty the rat would usually be found patiently waiting his arrival and would follow him into the cabin. When the old signal cabin was demolished and a new one erected, the rat was often pursued by the workmen, and its master rather than have it hunted by the men, very reluctantly decided to poison it. This was done, and the rat, neatly stuffed, is now one of his treasured possessions.”

13

Martock was the only station with two platforms on the 13½-mile route from Yeovil Town to Langport (West) and No 5563, allocated to Yeovil, appears almost to have drawn to a halt at the head of a Taunton-bound service on 26 July 1958. The signalman is returning to his box with the token and a surprising number of passengers are awaiting the arrival. The train comprises the customary mixture of vintages with a large-windowed Collett Brake Third leading, following by one of the ubiquitous Diagram C54 All Thirds, then what appears to be a late Collett Composite and an early Collett brake coach.

In the bottom image, No 5563 is now under way and the presence of the second platform with its more modest facilities is now revealed. Staggered platforms were relatively unusual on GWR lines. The goods shed and yard have an empty look in contrast to the number of wagons adjacent to the industrial facility on the right.

RCR 12503/ 12504.

14

This view on a damp 22 October 1954 revealed Aynho station to be quite modest in size but impressively constructed of cut stone. The lesser facilities on the Up side were in a matching style. Access between the platforms, both of which have well-tended garden beds, was by means of an overbridge from which the photograph was taken. The proportions of the arch over goods shed road in the middle distance suggest broad gauge origins for this building (can any reader confirm?). In the far distance can be seen the embankment for the Paddington-Birmingham Down line which crosses the route from Oxford by means of a flying junction. Large prairie No 5170 of Banbury shed is passing through the station with an Up unfitted through freight train. A trace of steam just beyond the goods shed suggests that another train is standing in the Up loop. RCR 5593.

Fowey on 22 July 1960 showed prototypical opportunities for replication in miniature. The site is cramped with through lines and main platform on a sharp curve. The branch passenger service over the 8½ miles to Lostwithiel was in the hands of 0-4-2T Class 14xx No 1419. Allocated to St. Blazey in the 1950s/ early 1960s, it was for many years the regular motive power on this service and the only 14xx allocated to Cornwall, in contrast with the Devonian contingent. The locomotive is standing with its auto trailer in the bay at the St. Blazey end of the station. The normal train was a single trailer and the additional vehicle is probably a spare.

Prior to departure, the 14xx will draw forward and reverse into the platform before propelling the trailer up the river valley to Lostwithiel. The main purpose of this route was china clay traffic which necessitated larger locomotives. Here, B-B Warship Class No D816 Eclipse is returning with empties up the freight-only section to St. Blazey. RCR 15184.

WESTERN TIMES

16

ISSUE 3 Opposite top: Long Sutton & Pitney was located roughly half-way between Langport East and Somerton on the West of England mainline. A simple stopping place set in a cutting, the rather short platforms seem to be substantially constructed but traffic was never expected to be significant, judging by typical GWR pagoda-style corrugated iron shelters. These were little more than sheds but judging by the chimneys some form of heating was provided; that on the left is a doublechimneyed version. Curiously there appears to be no platform lighting. A partially obscured notice on the Down side apparently forbids public use of the conveniently placed board crossing. The date was 26 July 1958 and the train was the 8.15 am Saturdays Only Perranporth-Paddington whose OOC-based motive power needs no introduction. RCR 12505.

Opposite bottom: On 6 July 1961, 0-6-0PT Class 74xx No 7436 had arrived at Chard Central from Taunton with a 2-coach B-Set. This small town was well-served railway-wise being reached by the London & South Western branch in 1863 which terminated at Chard (renamed Chard Town between 1866 and closure in 1917). Three years later in 1866 the Bristol & Exeter Railway arrived from the north and established its own terminus nearby at Chard Central. The stimuli for the ornate B&ER station structure was presumably satisfaction of civic pride plus a determination to outshine the competition. It was not unusual for stations serving quite modestly-sized towns to be over-capitalised through excessive fixed asset investment. (Launceston was another West Country example of this wasteful practice). Chard’s railway connections were closed the following year and already an air of dereliction is evident. RCR 16010.

Above: A halt rather than a station, Shipton on Cherwell (note no hyphens), was the only stopping place on the 3½-mile journey from Kidlington to the terminus at Blenheim & Woodstock. Despite the meagre facilities, its presence was advertised by the large, elaborate signage at the roadside which stated:

GWR SHIPTON-ON-CHERWELL HALT FOR TRAINS TO BLENHEIM OXFORD BANBURY ETC The physical infrastructure could not have been simpler with access by means of a cinder pathway that descended from the far end to the roadway, a platform made from redundant sleepers, a backing fence that looks the worse for wear, the simplest of timber shelters, and one hopeful passenger. The oil lamps must have been needed infrequently; the more distant is completely out of commission, adding to the air of impending redundancy. Standing in the middle of rural nowhere, it must be questionable how many passengers started their journeys from here to Banbury or even ‘Etc’ down the years. RCR 5021.

17

In contrast to modest Shipton-on-Cherwell, Blenheim and Woodstock was a handsome branch terminus, no doubt reflecting both local civic pride and the dignity of the aristocracy who must have used this station to start or end their journeys in years past. The frontage was a fine example of GWR small station architecture and the solitary platform was of generous length. The track layout has been simplified by removal of the run-round loop. The motive power was 0-4-2T No 1420 while the auto trailer was 70’ Diagram A26 No W183W, built in October 1907 as Steam Rail Motor No 84, converted to this form in March 1930, and withdrawn in October 1954. On the siding to the right stands the branch “spare” which was another early auto-trailer, in this case gangway-equipped at the luggage/ guard’s end. The date is 27 February 1954 and the flag on No W183W recognises that this was the last day of passenger operations over the branch.

RCR 5028/ 5033.

WESTERN WEEDS WEED KILLING ON THE GREAT WESTERN estern weeds are essentially no different from W the Southern, LMS or LNER variety. They may vary according to climatic and local conditions but their proliferation leaves trackwork in an unsightly condition but more importantly in extreme cases can adversely affect permanent way in misalignment and impeded drainage.

Photographs from early days typically reveal welltended permanent way with ballast shoulder and cess devoid of unwanted growth. Initially, lines of route would have been maintained in pristine condition through plentiful, low-paid, manual labour but mechanisation of track replacement and maintenance seems to have started in the 1890s.

Between 1893 and 1901, the GWR built over 400 Diagram D7 12-ton ballast hoppers (later modified to 20-ton capacity). Some hoppers were equipped with ploughs and marshalled into sets with a plough van at the rear, they revolutionised the efficiency with which track could be re-ballasted in terms of both speed and reduction in necessary manpower.

The catalyst for these developments was the vast amount of tracklaying and baulk road replacement following the gauge conversion of May 1892. A corollary was recognition of the need to improve productivity by removing wherever possible the tedious physical chore of weeding by hand, a network of 3005 route miles. This was a considerable challenge for the GWR in having the greatest route mileage of all the pre-Grouping companies although not worked with the same intensity as for example the London & North Western, Midland, and South Eastern & Chatham railways.

Above: Muscle power involved in the physical replacing of a rail into metal chaired sleepers at an unknown location.

That metal sleepers are being used indicates this to be around the immediate post-war period, but the point to make is the ballast and area shows no sign of weed infestation. As an aside 22 men are actually involved in the lift. Assuming 96 lbs per yard weight of rail and a 60 foot length, this means each man would be expected to lift just over 87 lbs. One of those standing will be the Look-Out and aware that the stop signal is showing clear for a train to pass on the adjacent line. Finally notice at the base of the signal post itself, a ‘godfather’ has been added either side of the post. These were pieces of timber, approximately sleeper size, sunk into the ground either side of the post and then bolted to it. The purpose was to support decaying posts to extend their life until permanent replacement.

Below: GWR ‘water train’ recorded at Weymouth c1920-23.

Tenders from l-r: 1) Standard Beyer Peacock design of 1700-gal capacity, supplied in 1864-6 with the ‘322’ Class; 2) Sandwich-framed standard design built from 1855-1876 of 1780/1800-gal capacity; 3) Later version of the same type with asymmetrical 6’ 2” + 6’ 10” wheelbase; 4) As previous but modernised by provision of side fenders. The closest tender front has been partly sheeted, allowing the coal space to be given over to water carriage. Standard buffing gear has been added, but no vacuum hose means that the formation will run unfitted.

19

WESTERN TIMES There is general familiarity with the concept of mechanised weed killing but little seems to have been recorded about how it was operated. The photographs accompanying this article are informative but fall short of providing a complete explanation. To this end, readers’ contributions will be most welcome.

The familiar formation of rail-borne tanks containing water and chemicals coupled to a vehicle equipped to manage and distribute the mixture took time to develop. It was not until 1932 that the GWR started to experiment with the concept. With the benefits of a ‘motorised’ system generally accepted, albeit thus far only at slow speed, it was decided in 1935 to assemble a proper weed killing train. This development was some years behind progress made by the Southern Railway. The delay in employing high capacity vehicles working at faster speeds is strange, as movement of water in old locomotive tenders or in specially constructed drinking water tank wagons was a traditional practice. A further oddity was the use of aged, lifeexpired tenders as tank vehicles in view of the toxic nature of the mixture carried. It might be speculated that inter-divisional rivalry was a factor with dispute over how that the civil and mechanical branches should split the cost.

The earliest mechanical aid seems to have been a watering can containing noxious and probably deadly chemicals – to both plant life and human beings. It may be assumed that the mixture would have been far more toxic than would be legally permissible in the 21st Century. Such factors would not have been significant in the plentiful pre-World War 1 labour market but by the 1920s, productivity and cost reduction were increasingly significant, as was also employee welfare.

Mechanical spraying initially used equipment mounted on a permanent way trolley. Later, haulage by a motorised trolley introduced for permanent way maintenance, or by a locomotive greatly improved productivity. Limitations were tank capacity and the maximum speed (say 4-5 mph) at which the equipment could move and remain effective. Often this method was restricted to limited distances over branch lines and in yards and sidings. It might have been used on main lines but could not have been very effective. Weed control using motorised trolleys commenced around 1929 and it was reported that 1,000 miles of branch line, probably including loops and sidings, was being treated in this fashion by 1938. (This was presumably an annual figure as weed control was necessary at least yearly).

The first train used three redundant locomotive tenders having a combined capacity of 9,500 gallons (according to the GWR Magazine for November 1938), one of which was adapted as a spraying unit. The formation also included a 3000gallon tank wagon for the concentrate, a mixture of sodium chlorate and calcium chloride, plus a brake van and a mess van. The tender tanks were connected by a large diameter pipe linked by flexible joints.

Pressure spraying was achieved using a single action pump driven by the locomotive’s steam-heat connection. The pump served three purposes;

A basic method of weed control. A drum of mixture was mounted on a trolley and handpumped through a pipe and spray nozzle held by the operator – really only one step up from a watering can. The location is Welford Park and this labour method continued in use until closure of the line between there and Lambourn in 1960.

Charlie Marshall.

20

ISSUE 3 This is a motorised trolley that towed a second trolley on which the tank and spray equipment was mounted. The exposed chain drive from the axle to work the pump is clearly visible. This was the first truly mechanical means of spraying, used by the GWR from the early 1930s into Western Region days. It is hard to visualise that 1,000 track miles were serviced annually by such primitive equipment but it would have been preferable to doing the job by hand.

British Railways.

1 – To pump concentrate from the supply tank to the tenders which were effectively solution tanks.

The ideal spraying speed was 20 mph and this was maintained by use a motor car speedometer (the magazine’s actual description) fitted to the spraying tender and driven from a tender axle. An ‘electric gong’ (probably a bell) was provided so that the spray crew could indicate to the footplate when a change in speed was necessary. It is not clear whether this was a one- or two-way means of communication.

2 – To pump mixture from the solution tanks to the sprayer unit nozzles at a pressure of 40 to 50 psi.

3 – To draw water from an outside source if no railway-based supply was available.

It was important to maintain the correct mixture of chemical and water during the spraying operation.

The operator first noted the amount of water in the solution tanks and then pumped in the correct amount of chemical to achieve the pre-determined ratio e.g. water to chemical at 5:1. The mixing process was achieved by agitation of the liquid via perforated steam pipes laid along the bottom of the solution tanks. The ratio is that quoted in the GWR Magazine, implying alternative concentration might have been used where necessary.

A fitter and his mate were permanently assigned to the train. Each had a folding bed in the mess van which was fitted with cooking and living facilities.

Also, a permanent way official from the district where the train was working was included to provide local knowledge. The train apparently travelled across a relatively wide area and in 1938 the average daily distance sprayed was 50-60 miles. The most favourable climatic conditions were in May/ June sometimes stretching into July and occasionally later from which it is evident that one train was insufficient to cover the whole system’s running lines. Chemical action on the weed growth took effect 14-21 days after spraying, dependent upon the weather. Experience showed that grass was the most obstinate plant as despite being ‘killed’, it could rapidly regenerate. Cat-tail and columbine were also problematic but repeated spraying over a period would achieve the desired effect.

Mixture was forced through nine nozzles, and emitted in the form of spray. The pressure was achieved by the application of steam pressure, possibly aided by gravity – the GWR Magazine is not clear on this point. Three nozzles were aimed at the ‘4-foot’ (i.e. between the running rails), while three on either side covered the ballast shoulder and the cess areas. Covers with leather sides kept the spray off the rail head to reduce risk of wheel slip with following trains. The side nozzles were remotely controlled by an operator on either side and were swung inboard to clear fixed obstructions, signals, platforms etc. Independent shut off valves were also provided for use when necessary.

The operating speed of 20 mph must have provided difficulties over heavily trafficked routes and while unconfirmed, it seems likely that at night working

21

Left: A variation on the previous theme with increased operating range has been achieved by mounting a larger solution tank on a 2-plank permanent way wagon. The bar coupling between the two vehicles suggests that this was a fixed pairing and as such this equipment was probably confined to depots and yards.

The letters affixed to various parts of the ensemble appear to have been for instructional purposes. The motive power is provided by Simplex petrolengined yard shunter No 24.

Bottom: The same vehicles are seen possibly at Taunton, where the Divisional Engineer was at the forefront in developing mechanical weed spraying.

Both images British Railways.

was impossible given the risk of striking obstacles.

Careful planning of the spray programme was thus crucial and reserve tanks of concentrate were positioned at stations or depots where the train was scheduled to stable overnight.

A photograph of ‘Weed Spraying Train No 2’ was taken at Oswestry on 15 June 1948. Comparison of the Swindon and Oswestry images shows that the tenders were sequentially numbered in the Engineering Department series; Nos. W80-82 for Train No 1, and W83-85 in the Oswestry view. The latter has also gained the designation ‘Wolverhampton Division’. There is no further information on where Train No 1 was based.

Once stabled the first task was to replenish the water tanks which could take up to an hour, dependent upon the adequacy of the local supply.

Also, the usual practice was that the chemical solution tank would be refilled before the locomotive proceeded to shed, an exercise that probably required some shunting. The locomotive steam supply was also needed to agitate the mixture. On average, 9500 gallons of mixture would suffice for approximately 24 miles of route thus necessitating at least one complete refill during each working day.

The chemicals were having a corrosive effect on the inside of the tenders and the tank cars, as confirmed in a hand-written memorandum from Swindon Drawing Office dated 24 July 1953 to Mr M G R Smith, Chief Civil Engineer at Paddington.

This helpfully provides details on the vehicles’ condition and their earlier history. It appears from elsewhere in the paperwork that the necessary repairs had been carried out at Swindon in April 1950 and in just ‘a couple of days’. The short timescale suggests that the train was urgently needed. Perhaps it had been laid up for some time and a proneness to leakage had been recently discovered. A report comments ‘…all the tanks were originally taken from condemned stock and apparently have had their ‘life’. (‘life’ appears in the original paperwork) and “One boiler-maker foreman is of the opinion that further repair is an uneconomical proposition”.

It would have been logical for the train to be multiplied but this did not occur. The reasons are unclear but probably it was the intervention of World War 2, despite the system and its efficiency.

A crew of seven (two on the footplate, a guard, two operators, a fitter and a man with local knowledge) could do in a day what would take an army on the ground much longer to accomplish. Two trains were definitely in operation by 1946, one based in the north and the other in the south.

‘Weed Spraying Train No 1’ was photographed at Swindon in April 1946 with the tender wording slightly changed from the earlier label ‘Weed Spraying Plant’. For crew protection, the spray tender had acquired a rudimentary cab of a design unlike anything seen previously from Swindon. Now at least there was some protection to the operators but this would only have been effective when being towed as forward facing, the men were still exposed to the elements. The cab’s presence suggests that spraying took place regardless of weather conditions.

22

This Page: 0-6-0PT No. 5727 is depicted in charge of what is believed to have been the first weed killing train. The precise date of its formation is unknown; these images were recorded on 21 April 1937 and appeared in the GWR Magazine for November 1938. Starting from the brake van end, the train consists of: 16-ton Toad Diagram AA3 No 35615 (a type built between 1889 and 1901) and allocated to Old Oak Common; Permanent Way Brake Van Diagram AA6 No 40353 (1890-1900) labelled ‘CONSTRUCTION PT. WAY BRAKE’ and ‘Return to Taunton’; a tank wagon (for the chemicals) labelled ‘CORY FUEL OIL No 30’; the spray tender (probably 3500-gallon capacity) and two older 3000-gallon tenders. The Permanent Way Brake served as the Mess Van. The operators stood on the footplate of the spray tender which had no weather protection. By comparison, the Southern Railway’s system used a modified general utility van. The system was developed at the Taunton Engineering Department and the location is reported as Southall.

GWR B Box 298/20 & 298/21.

23

WESTERN TIMES Left: This image which accompanied the 1938 article in GWR Magazine was obviously a posed view to show the spray tender in action. However, there are only two nozzles aimed between the rails whereas other views reveal that there were three with three more on either side. Two individuals are controlling the swinging arms while the third in the centre is probably the fitter. In normal service, it would seem that the tank wagon was coupled to this vehicle and it has been removed to demonstrate the equipment in operation. It was reported that spraying could take place with the train operating in either direction. The mist to the right is hopefully steam exhausted from the pump rather than escaping chemicals. There is no evidence of other gauges and controls or of the gong that enabled communication with the locomotive. The absence of protective clothing and face covering for the crew is striking.

GWR – reference unknown.

Right: A posed view showing various adjustments being made to the spraying equipment by the fitters while the operators look on. The formation has apparently been reversed so that the ‘business’ end is leading. The width of the first tender, apparently a 3500-gallon type compared with the 3000-gallon version behind is notable. Also, it will be apparent the locomotive crew had only limited forward view when propelling.

STEAM - Museum of the Great Western Railway.

Above: Weed spraying train No 1 at Swindon on 8 April 1946. The vehicles look relatively clean so perhaps a pre-season overhaul had been completed. Livery is apparently all-over black in contrast with Images W 6 and W 7 but the vehicles appear to be the same. The spray tender has now been fitted with a cab to an apparently unique profile (for which no plans have been traced). This view reveals some of the special equipment and related modifications. The overhead feed pipe and flexible coupling between vehicles is prominent as is also the hose below the drawbar equipment that fed steam to agitate the mixture. Water pick-up gear has been removed; the tender to the left retains the old-fashioned combined dome and filler and has some form of box structure towards the rear of the coal space, perhaps to house tools. The other two tenders have the modern separated dome and filler. The train is unfitted, the only system being the tender hand brakes. Weights are carefully marked on the sides at the leading end. This information was probably necessary in connection with all-lines route availability.

GWR T1/148.

24

ISSUE 3 Train No.1

Tank No. W80 Old Tender No 904 (Capacity not given) All plates reduced in thickness and heavily patched.

Tank No. W81 Old Tender No 1484 (Capacity not given)

Built 1889 Built 1901

All plates reduced in thickness and heavily patches especially in the well.

Tank No. W82

Old Tender No 1744 (Capacity not given)

Built 1906

Front half of well completely renewed, rear half patched. Top plate patched, some internal plates renewed and others patched. This tank carries the pump etc.

Repairs carried out at Swindon in February and March 1953.

Train No.2

Tank No. W83

Old Tender No 1037 (Capacity 3000 gallons)

Built 1893

Broken bottom patched and welded up, general condition of tank is bad.

Tank No. W84

Old Tender No 1055 (Capacity 3000 gallons)

Built 1894

Top plate perforated, patched and welded up. General condition of tank is bad.

Tank No. W85

Old Tender No 1859 (Capacity 3500 gallons)

Built 1912

No repairs but tank is not in good condition. This tank carries the pump etc.

Not surprisingly the correspondence to Paddington included the request that two new trains be provided. Correspondence on the subject of replacement trains/ tanks continued and in August 1953 it was suggested 4,000 gallons tenders might be used to increase the range. The life of the tanks on Train No 1 was estimated to have a further three years. A similar question was asked re No 2 train but no response has been found. There was a suggestion to use the tender oil tanks from the aborted oil-burning exercise of 1945-1948 but the welded oil tanks used in the 4000-gallon (water capacity) tenders had a maximum capacity of 1950 gallons of oil which would have been insufficient.

Welded tanks were preferred as both heavy fuel oil and weed killing chemicals had a particularly

corrosive effect on seams between two rivetted plates.

It is believed that both trains were active until at least 1958. Clearly having learned from previous years, on 31 October MGR Smith wrote to RA Smeddle (CME at Swindon) asking for each train to be examined. A cost estimate was requested for reconditioning prior to the 1959 season plus an assessment of life expectancy. It was also noted that Paddington knew that Train No 1’s pump needed replacement. It transpired that this would be a problem as the item was no longer in production.

No dates are available regarding condemnation of either train. Further information and/ or illustrations would be welcome.

Two of the three tenders forming Train No 2, also fitted with cab at Oswestry on 15 June 1948. The electrical connection between the tenders led to the wooden bell box carried on the engine. The domes ahead of the filler caps remain in place.

Roger Carpenter collection.

Comparison with Other Railways In 1938 the GWR despatched a questionnaire to the home railways and some overseas. The responses were combined into a table for comparison purposes: Railway

LPTB LNER LMS GWR SR GSI German State PLM Canada Western Australia

Mileage sprayed in 1937

100 800 1360 680 1100 1979

Mixture

4-1 5-1 2-1 5-1 5-1

Range in one filling (miles)

Spraying speed

Average miles sprayed per day

4,000 12,000 7,000 9,500

10 30 45/48 25 53 45

18-20 20 16-20 25 25-28 30-35

12 30 50-100 50-60 70-90 45

6,000

4650 5903 3800

Solution capacity of train (gals)

5-1

22,980

15-20

16,000

30

34-37 25

16,800

84

15

80 40

Above: Spraying in operation at West Drayton on 11 September 1953. The mess van is coupled next to the spray tender with what appears to be a permanent way open wagon following.

British Railways.

26

Safety Factors

and I recommend that this method of working be revised to ensure, if possible, a greater measure of safety; the importance of men having their whistles handy at all times when on the tracks is a further point which might receive attention.”

A fatal accident relating to weed control methods occurred on the main line at Burnham (Bucks) in September 1944 when a lengthman was struck by a passenger train.

Subsequent investigations highlighted the degree to which old-fashioned methods remained and the adequacy or otherwise of protective measures for personnel engaged in hand weeding .

The Inspecting Officer added the surprising comment when he, “…agreed that a look-out man was not necessary in this case.” A flurry of correspondence between Paddington and Divisional Engineers followed concerning preferred working methods in their areas and the importance of providing warning whistles. The correspondence covered several pages of foolscap and included much detail including, for example, the need to provide small pockets in overalls for the whistles.

Whether a standardised approach was imposed and what that might have been is not reported.

Differences in working practices by division were summarised as at 28 December 1944:

The following extract is quoted from the Inquiry held by the Inspecting Officer, Ministry of War Transport: “…I understand that when the track is being weeded each man is made responsible for a rail length at a time, whilst this may have certain advantages from the work point of view, it is apt to result in the men being spread over a considerable distance, adding to the difficulty of giving warning, even when a lookout man is present. Had they been close together in this instance the accident might have been avoided Division

Detail of hand weeding

London

Practice varies.

60’ rails – four men per rail length; two in the cess and two in the four foot.

40’ rails – two men per rail length.

Men urged to have whistle with them – suggestion that small pocket be provided in overall trousers.

Bristol

General practice is for men to work closely together, as they afford protection for each other.

Taunton

Plymouth Newport Cardiff Valleys Neath Gloucester

Practice varies. three districts have one man per rail length except where view is obstructed.

Two districts have two men in the cess, one in the four foot, one in the six foot.

One district as per previous but also has a look out where necessary.

Divisional Engineer’s view is one man per rail length is best; the one nearest the traffic to keep a sharp lookout and blow whistle. If men are ‘bunched’ time is wasted talking and they tend to get in each other’s way.

General practice is for men to keep close together although one district has one man per rail length. Look out man only posted where visibility is poor.

Policy generally adopted is that each man is responsible for weeding six beds (?) of track. DE’s view is that men should keep together although tendency to talk would be greater so causing disturbed attention.

General practice is two men per rail length. DE does not consider bunching a sound proposition as this may cause lack of individual alertness.

Practice varies according to district. Inspectors’ views are not to favour grouping except when weeding in sidings, mileage yards etc. Men must face oncoming traffic (not always easy in yards).

Men work closely together. Men deal with one line at a time and where possible face oncoming traffic.

Men work closely together. The weakness of this is if using shovels the noise would deaden the

Wolverhampton sound of an approaching train. Lookout posted if view limited or other special feature.

Shrewsbury

General practice is that one man per rail length having whistles handy at all times. DE favours this method - distance between men is not great – and potentially less dangerous than if men working in a group where they would be inclined to ‘gossip’.

Central Wales

One man in each cess and one in the four foot per rail length. Men face traffic and always carry whistles. DE does not favour men being separated.

Eastern Docks

No details provided.

Western Docks

Men work in pairs. No passenger trains in Dock area and average speed of trains 5 mph.

27

WESTERN TIMES Several observations can be made. The variation in working methods reflected a possibly unwise measure of divisional autonomy in the application of best safety practices. In 1938 as part of the GWR’s ‘Safety Movement’, a small pamphlet had been published entitled Look Out! Permanent Way Men which included several warning illustrations of men working in the four foot while a train approached and the look-out man was otherwise distracted. There is an implication that however important was this pamphlet, there had been little or no consideration given to how the principles enunciated should be applied on the ground. Only one division raised the critical issue of sound i.e. that the noise generated Right: It is suspected that a brutal form of massage therapy would have accompanied this experiment apparently tried in the Bristol area and unsurprisingly found wanting.

British Railways.

Below: Here the train is at work in the London area (the next siding is clearly in need of attention). In this formation, a protective screen has now been fitted to the rear of the spray tender cab which has also received a side window. The mess van must have been ‘piped’ as it is inserted between the chemical tank and the tender furthest from the spray tender.

The motive power is Collett 2251 Class 0-6-0 No 2276.

British Railways.

28

by hand tools might camouflage an approaching locomotive which if coasting at speed and with the wind in the wrong direction could move quite silently. The intermittent use of look-out men might be explained by acute labour shortages in wartime preventing the employment of this ‘luxury’. In general, the casual and haphazard application of safety measures for personnel exposed to dangerous working conditions would be anathema in the 21st Century. Further consideration of the Safety Movement is planned for future issues.

ISSUE 3 Top: Believed to be ‘Train No 1’ seemingly stored at Bridgwater. Former 4000-gallon ROD tenders (apparently fitted with a form of external float gauge on the rear) have replaced two of the GWR type. Although weights were shown painted on the tender bodies, they were not always easily readable making is difficult accurately to calculate the train weight. It is unknown whether consideration was ever given to increasing the original three tender formation; this would certainly have improved the operating range. Only one incident involving a derailment is reported. This concerned tank wagon No W14997 due apparently to incorrect eye bolts fitted at an outstation.

John Hill.

Left: Even into BR days, it would seem that tackling the weed problem was a matter for individual approaches at divisional level. This creation was developed specifically for use in Cardiff Docks, based on what appears to be a Diagram G1 Loriot B, a type of well wagon of which all had been withdrawn from normal service in 1947. Thus it followed the tradition of using redundant vehicles on these duties.

It has been re-numbered W14997 in the engineering series and duly labelled regarding the ‘owning department’ and its duties. BR(W).

Below: This undated view near Swindon reflects a more sophisticated approach but still using the traditional system.

From the left, there is a standard BR brake van and then a modified outside-framed Diagram O11 Siphon G of 1913 to 1927 vintage. It is mounted on 9’ heavy duty American bogies and the spraying equipment is installed and fully enclosed at the end nearest the camera. The spray nozzles seem to be one on this side for the ballast shoulder and cess, and four directed at the four foot. The gangway in the end has been removed and two windows installed together with several more along the side. The solution tank (of larger capacity) is presumably set on the floor of the Siphon with the water feed pipe carried along the sole bar from the following vehicle which in turn connects with the four tank wagons. The mess coach is something of a mystery as following study of the lists, it has defied identification. The best guess is an ex-Taff Vale 49’ 3” non-corridor All Third built in 1902 and 1912 (readers’ views are invited – Ed). Next in line are four tank wagons with an aggregate capacity of 12,000 gallons which would have increased the operating range to about 68 miles. At the far end there is another BR brake van with a pannier tank providing the motive power.

Technical & General Press.

29

FAIRFIELD CROSSING he Great Western Railway, like every major T company, was a complex amalgam of static and mobile fixed assets that combined to form a fully

A resident crossing keeper was thus required who was accommodated in a small ‘two-up, two-down’ cottage constructed to the south of and adjacent to the Broad Gauge single track route, which was converted to standard gauge in 1874. Information about the working arrangements when the facility was commissioned is sparse but the equipment comprised a three-lever ground frame, probably located outdoors. The levers would have operated Up and Down signals, and the bolt that locked the crossing gates.

integrated transport system. The scale of the enterprise necessitated management of a vast inventory of buildings, earthworks, yards, trackwork etc., details of which were recorded in voluminous fixed asset registers. Part of this process included preparation of visual records by the GWR’s Photographic Department. The scale of the operation is evident in the diversity of structures, earthworks, facilities, locomotives and rolling stock for which photographs survive. These images provide useful information on many features that have been eradicated through the sanitisation process that has led to the 21st Century railway.

Many fixed assets escaped the attention of the official camera but some unusual, humble and remote establishments were fortunately recorded for posterity.

The route was doubled in 1898 and its importance as a trunk route was confirmed by progressive upgrading through completion of the Stert and Westbury cut-off in 1900, and the Castle CaryCurry Rivel Junction (for Langport) section in 1906.

The new through line from Reading to Cogload Junction near Taunton became known as the Berks & Hants Route. This new connection significantly reduced the distance travelled and elapsed journey time to the west compared with the traditional route via Bristol. Although outside the scope of this article, the tortuous junction layouts at Westbury and Frome were not avoided until completion of the relevant cut-offs in 1933.

Such a location was Fairfield Crossing whose inclusion in the collection was possibly to provide a record of a break section signal box. Fairfield is three miles to the west of Hungerford on the Berks & Hants Extension railway. The crossing came into operation in 1862 as the B & H was extended from its temporary terminus at Hungerford in its progress towards Devizes. It was necessary as the railway was crossed at that point by an unmetalled track that connected adjacent fields and also provided access to the Kennet & Avon Canal. The secondary nature of the track would have meant that an overor under-bridge was then unjustified but priority vested in a right of way required an occupation crossing with measures to protect conflicting traffic flows.

With the elevation in importance of the Berks & Hants route in 1906, Fairfield Crossing achieved the status of signal box as part of measures to improve line capacity. Located inside Wiltshire, the new signal box was just over three miles from Hungerford and two miles from Bedwyn to the west.

Fairfield Crossing Signal Box therefore broke that section.

This signal box diagram is undated and might possibly have been issued in early BR days but nevertheless provides an informative plan of the site. Note the up starting signal, No 3, appears to show ‘released by block’ (meaning released once a line-clear indication had been received from Hungerford West).

Signalling Record Society.

30

ISSUE 3 Looking at Fairfield’s facilities in 1906, the former crossing keeper’s cottage which remained in situ was unusual in its angled sides facing the railway.

This feature was probably incorporated to enhance the crossing keep’s line of sight from inside the building with the curvature of the line away from the cottage in both directions. In the early days, there was probably no means of communication with either Hungerford or Bedwyn so reliance on the timetable and a weather eye for approaching trains would have been essential. With only infrequent traffic on the unmetalled track, the gates were probably usually set in favour of trains. According

to Mike Dunn in his work Great Western Signal Box Nameplates (Kidderminster Railway Museum 2004), a cast iron nameplate ‘Fairfield Crossing Ground Fame’ was ordered on 22 February 1898 and may have been affixed to the wall of the cottage facing the railway.¹ The new signal box which replaced the ground frame was a wooden building to a standard design, possibly erected from a kit of parts sent provided by Reading signal works. Like the cottage, it was situated on the south side of the line.

The signal box was officially opened on 6 June 1906, and the nameplate was ordered on 12 June 1907. The condition of the of the structure confirms that the box was quite new when the photograph was taken and the workmen might still have to clear up their detritus (note the cans in the left foreground). Perhaps the nameplate in place was required before creation of the official record.

The angled windows of the crossing keeper’s cottage (which presumably became the resident signalman’s home) are apparent. There appears to be a wicket type pedestrian gate at this end of the crossing. The horse is impatiently waiting by the cottage (its head is blurred so was obviously nodding at the wrong moment). The ‘S’ and ‘T’ plates indicate all is well. If one were turned to show a reverse ‘white on back’ colouring this would be an instruction to the guard of a passing train to advise the next station that the presence of the signal or telegraph lineman was required. Round rodding will be seen emerging from the box as the gate lock, worked by Lever 4. The chimney shows that creature comfort in the form of a stove was provided; outside at the western end there is almost certainly a coal bunker.

This was one of three similar crossings on the Berks & Hants route. Travelling from east to west, the first was Hampstead Crossing [near mile post 56] between Newbury and Kintbury, then Fairfield Crossing, and finally Crofton Crossing [near mile post 68] between Bedwyn and Savernake. The Working Timetable for July 1901 showed that each was ‘always open’ except on Saturdays but were closed from 8.00 pm Sunday to 8.00 am Monday.

31

WESTERN TIMES Exactly how useful the crossing was this breaksection box is unclear. The Working Timetable dated November 1917 records the box as ‘closed 5.00pm weekdays to 7.00am the next morning’. At weekends the box was closed from 5.00pm Saturday until 7.00am Monday. These timings indicate that by then a block-switch had been installed thus allowing the box to be switched out of circuit and also that a single day shift signalman could cover the turn over six days. Probably a block telegraph or perhaps a telephone had also been installed. It is unclear what arrangements were in place to operate the gates for the lengthy periods each week that the box was closed. The normal procedure would be that with all signals ‘off’, the gate bolt would be engaged thus closing the unmetalled track which obviously enjoyed a legal right of way. Perhaps the locking mechanism was modified so that the resident of the cottage in the role of crossing keeper could release the gate bolt. Alternatively responsibility for opening and closing the gates might have been passed to users of the crossing which seems unlikely and a dangerous practice given the risk of gates being left so as to obstruct the main line.

The summer timetables for 1921 and 1924 include the entry ‘Box Closed’ which is surprising as with heavier seasonal traffic, the box would have been

most useful. It is an unusual entry as a more normal notation would have been ‘Opened when required’ or ‘Crossing Keeper always in attendance’. The No 3 area Sectional Appendix for 1931 refers to ‘Fairfield Crossing, Bedwyn’ noting that the box was closed but ‘provided with switch’ plus an additional note that ‘until further notice’ the signal lamps were not lit in darkness which confirms the minor status.

It is thus concluded that the box was rarely open as had been the case during 1924. Similar entries in 1941 and 1944 simply stated ‘box closed’, although formal closure did not take place until 7 March 1951.

In conclusion and with the benefit of 20/ 20 hindsight, it would probably have been cheaper to construct an over- or under-bridge for the unmetalled track in 1862, so avoiding the operating costs incurred over the following 90 years or so.

The site was probably cleared soon after the 1951 closure although the cottage remains and has been extended in recent years to form a comfortable residence. An entry in a recent estate agent’s sales spiel stated ‘Prospective purchasers should note the building is close to the main railway line’….. !

All images - GWR (Paddington ‘A’ Plates).

Notes: 1. – There was a similarly named location ‘Fairfield Crossing’ on the Roskear branch near Camborne. The same source reports that a ‘Fairfield Crossing’ plate was ordered in 1919.

2 – The subject of Whistle boards was mentioned in the official report following a pedestrian fatality at Fairfield Crossing in 2009. Any that might have existed were long gone by this time. It was mentioned in the 2009 report that the crossing’s closure had been attempted in 1973 but this initiative had failed. Another attempt to downgrade the location to a footpath crossing failed in 1976 on the basis that it was being used only as a bridleway.

Above: Probably taken at the same time as that of the exterior photograph, this interior view of the signal box reveals the basic nature of the equipment which was nonetheless adequate. The seven lever frame had stud locking and as was then common, the levers were at 5¼” centres (as opposed to the later standard of 4½”) . Three levers covered the Up line (to Hungerford) and three the Down (to Bedwyn). These levers were for distant, home and starting signals in both directions.

An additional lever, No 4 in the frame, bolted the level crossing gates – a single gate either side of the line plus possibly the pedestrian wicket gates as well. Behind the lever frame can be seen the derricks (the rods sticking up from the floorboards, surmounted by cast metal round handles). Their purpose was to adjust the tension in the wires for the home and distant signals. Both the latter were just over 1000 yards from the box. At an unknown date a separate two-lever wicket frame for up and down detonators was provided. The brass leads attached to the levers show the purpose of the respective levers and also the ‘pulls’ required before each might be moved. As an example that nearest the camera is the Down Main Distant which required No. 6 ‘Down Main Home’ and No. 5 ‘Down Main Starting’ to be reversed first. The distant signal lever was painted green as was then the custom. The all-important lever duster is hanging over lever No 3. The shelf immediately behind the levers has what appears to be two different styles of lamp repeaters. Not in the view but essential equipment would have been the clock, to record accurately the time of bell codes received and sent. On the block shelf was a bell and Spagnoletti block instrument for each line. The bells are of the ‘church’ and ‘cow’ type while the block instruments do not have reminder flaps - these were later fitted. There are also repeaters for the lamps in the distant signals. A basic diagram hangs off the wall behind the block shelf. There are detonators, a handlamp, an oil lamp to illuminate the box, a locker and a stool. There would also have been a desk with the train register but this is out of shot.

The box’s internal dimensions were 12’ 6” long by 10’ 0” wide. As there is no block-switch, the box would have to be manned any time a train might be due. Also, there was no block telegraph instrument so a change in working, e.g. a cancelled or additional train could not be notified to Fairfield signalman, except by means of a written instruction. This would be achieved by the guard of a preceding train waving as he approached the signal box and throwing out a bundle of papers containing the new information. An archaic system that worked and was not unique to Fairfield Crossing.

Left: The site looking east towards Hungerford. It is apparent that the single large hand-operated crossing gate on either side would not have closed off the railway completely. Standard GW 2-bolt chairs are in use on the permanent way with a neat cess and ballast shoulder. The location does not appear in the official Station Diagrams book, as intermediate block posts rarely did. There is no indication that an official Halt might have existed but stores, perhaps including drinking water, would have been carried by train and deposited according to a regular timetable. There is no sign of toilet facilities and no clue who might have been responsible for the signal lamps – possibly the signalman himself. It is not known whether ‘Whistle’ boards were provided.² Records vary indicating that the box was sited either 64 miles and 63 or 67 chains from Paddington. Any supervision was probably exercised from Bedwyn as the closest station. The images seen are from the Paddington ‘A’ series and are undated. Only two references are shown in the OPC list, the name and the numbers A 698 and A 760 ‘interior’ for the location. The intervening 62 negatives probably cover other local features and given the modest nature of Fairfield, these three might be the only visual records in existence.

33

EXPERIMENTAL MOTIVE POWER:

THE DIESEL RAILCAR PAIRS hese vehicles marked the final stage in the T pioneering evolution that started with “Flying Banana” No 1 of 1934. The sensational streamlined

Unit Nos 19 to 33 adopted a more angular profile with “Razor Edge” cab styling. They were intended for branch services and were geared for a maximum speed of 40 mph to enable haulage of a trailer; Nos 19 & 20 were fitted with dual range gearboxes that permitted speeds up to 60 mph where conditions would allow. No 34 had a similar body profile but without saloon windows, and internally equipped to carry parcels as had been No 17 of the earlier series. The superior operational flexibility of Nos 18 to 34 did not obviate the need to run-round trailing vehicles at journey’s end. In that respect, they lacked the operating convenience of the traditional steam-powered auto train.

art deco styling was repeated with subtle changes in sixteen more single vehicle units introduced over the next two years. Railcar No 18 of April 1937 externally followed the styling theme but was fitted with buffers and drawgear, equipment that the earlier vehicles had lacked. These features allowed addition of a trailer coach or haulage, for example, of horse boxes as on the Lambourn branch where No 18 spent much of its career. Another important change introduced with No 18 was installation of a fully automatic Vapor Clarkson oil-fired steam generator to heat the railcar(s) and any conventional trailing coaches. Nos 1 to 17 had been heated through circulation of radiator water, an arrangement prone to thermostat problems.

The final development came with gangwayconnected Diesel Railcar Twin Sets (‘pairs’), Nos 35 & 36 (introduced November 1941) and Nos 37 &

Railcar No 18, known as the ‘Lambourn Car’ was designed specifically for service over that branch and on 26 May 1953 it was standing in the bay platform at Newbury. This unit introduced features that were later used with the Railcar Twins. A substantially re-designed chassis allowed for the fitting of buffers and drawgear without significant weight increase thus enabling haulage of a conventional vehicle. The art deco styling was more restrained and absence of valences (skirts) enclosing the bogies improved access for maintenance On the 12-mile branch, one or more passenger coaches were hauled on market days, and horse boxes and vans at other times so No 18 filled a genuine mixed traffic role. Possible multiple unit usage was considered in plans for a matching non-powered driving trailer. No 18 provided seating for 49 passengers within a 62’ 6” long body, while the trailer would have accommodated 60 passengers within a 48’ 8” long body.

The intermittent need for extra passenger seating probably meant that the trailer was not viable as any available conventional coach could be commandeered as required. The fixed formation concept was ill-suited to fluctuating passenger levels, a generic problem that persists today.

Author’s collection.

34

ISSUE 3 38 (February 1942). There was a driving cab at one end only with a guard’s/ luggage compartment immediately adjacent. This was significantly smaller than the equivalent in units Nos 18 to 33 to maximise seating accommodation. Nos 35 and 37 provided seating for 60 in two all-third saloons with a single central access door amidships. The saloon nearer the cab accommodated 32 passengers with 28 in the other. Immediately before the gangway doors to the other railcar, there was a toilet on one side and on the other an insulated cupboard that housed the heating generator. With Nos 36 and 38, the cab/ guard’s/ 32 seat saloon/ central access layout mirrored that of the companion vehicle but the other saloon had seating for 12 while a buffet area took up the remaining space.

Railcar No 18 was considered sufficiently significant to be honoured as the subject for a WD & HO Wills cigarette card.

matching intermediate trailer vehicles would have been introduced in different circumstances.

With four 6-cylinder AEC diesel engines generating 420 hp, the pairs had a maximum operating speed of 75 mph and attracted business clientele travelling on a limited stop service between Birmingham and Cardiff. The potential for this traffic had been proven with single express railcars Nos 2 to 4 whose popularity had soon created capacity difficulties. This problem recurred with the pairs and was solved by modification of a conventional coach for insertion between each pair. Addition of a 70 foot All Third coach increased the total seating capacity to 184 i.e. a crew to passenger ratio of 1 to 61.

Conventional coach construction for most of the war years was limited to completion of outstanding orders (the last was All Third Diagram C81 in September 1941) and did not resume until Passenger Brake Diagram K42 in early 1945.

Despite much of Swindon’s carriage works being given over to war production, Nos 35-8 were ordered in May 1940. Construction was prolonged and indeed there would have been strong arguments for suspension of work for the duration.

Their entry into service in 1941 reflected the significance they were accorded by the company.

This was a considerable improvement over units Nos 2-4 whose similar range of facilities yielded an uneconomic maximum crew/ passenger ratio of 1 to 14. The extra coach reduced the horsepower per ton by about 30% with adverse effect on acceleration and speed maxima but overall performance remained competitive with steam services. The different body profile gave the ensemble a makeshift appearance and probably

In February 1949, No 37 was badly damaged by fire and withdrawn the following September. Single unit No 22 was adapted to work in multiple with No 38 but modifications were minimal and the arrangement was unsatisfactory. There were no toilet facilities available to passengers in No 38, and those in No 22 had no access to the buffet. (The editors have been unable to trace a photograph of this combination – can any reader oblige?).

Below: The first pair was Nos 35 and 36, seen here augmented by All Third Diagram C46 No 4509, probably intended for the Temple Meads-Weymouth service although this seems to be a posed photograph.

Swindon Drawing Office.

35

WESTERN TIMES

Above: On 18 July 1953, Nos 35 and 36 were entering Clifton Bridge station with a service from Portishead bound for Temple Meads. Diagram E146 Brake Composite No 6582 (down-rated to All Third) was inserted between the pair.

CRL Coles.

Right: Railcars No 33 and 38 with All Third diagram C77 trailer No W1096W awaiting departure from Reading General with a Newbury service on 31 July 1954. No 33 which is closer to the camera displays the extended luggage area created by removal of the second cab on conversion to work in a paired unit. The seating with this combination was No 33 [44 passengers], W1096W [64] and No 38 [44].

Authors collection.

Left: Buffet car No 38 outside Swindon shed on 27 January 1963, following withdrawal the preceding August. Passenger access was through a single door that swung inwards and was situated roughly halfway along each of the Twin Set vehicles. The door beside the three single windows at this end was for staff use in connection with the buffet facilities; a corresponding door was located on the other side, about three feet from the end. The bar, shelves, cupboards, coffee machine, hotplate etc occupied half the vehicle from that door to the end of the unit, a length of about 14 feet. The remainder of the space was standing room.

ISSUE 3 Presumably intended to be temporary, it was not until March 1954 that No 33 was modified by removal of the cab next to the guard’s/ luggage section and by provision of a gangway connection.

No 33’s internal layout remained as for branch single units Nos 19 to 32 i.e. two passenger saloons with that between the cab and the passenger access doors seating 16 while the main saloon accommodated 32. The guard’s/ luggage compartment in the branch units was 14’ 6* long but that in modified No 33 was increased by four feet.

This was a wasteful use of space but with more modern DMUs planned, further investment in a non-standard vehicle was presumably unjustified.

Thus there were three different body configurations among the four vehicles of the Diesel Railcar Twin Sets.

Twin Set Nos 35 & 36 were damaged by fire at St Anne’s, Bristol in April 1956 and withdrawn 12 months later. Nos 33 & 38 were withdrawn from Reading in August 1962. By then of course, the more modern concept of the DMU was much in evidence, largely following the format established with the GWR’s Diesel Railcar Twin Sets.

Endorsement of the company’s enthusiasm for the concept came in a roundabout fashion. The Great Southern Railways (of Ireland) which had been nationalised into Corás Iompair Eireann in 1945 had suffered from years of under-investment. The aged steam locomotive fleet comprised 503 units at the end of 1944, divided into about 120 classes (class definition was not always precise) and informed advice on modernisation was urgently needed. Sir James Milne had resigned in November 1947, eschewing any executive involvement with the new nationalised body. A native of Dublin, his training as a locomotive engineer and his years with the GWR made him ideally qualified to lead an enquiry. The resultant far-reaching Milne Report formed an important element in CIE’s planning processes.

Recommendations were based on the experiences of practising railwaymen from the United Kingdom and prominent among them was use of diesel multiple units on mainline passenger services.

In service, Nos 35 & 36 whose careers early on suffered less disruption recorded an aggregate mileage of 470,141 in a little over nine years to 31 December 1950.

Regarding the conventional coaches adapted to work with the pairs, 70’ All Third Diagram C46 No 4509 was initially used with Nos 35 & 36, and later Brake Composite Diagram E146 No 6582 (reduced to third class only). All Third Diagram C77 No 1096 worked with Nos 37 & 38, and later with Nos 33 & 38. These allocations appear to have been rotated.

In BR suburban dark green livery with speed whiskers, Nos 38 (left) and 33 were standing at Worcester on 19 August 1962, the month in which they were withdrawn. As with most of the ex-GWR diesel railcars, the shaft that coupled the driving axles by means of bevel gears had been long been removed, presumably to ease maintenance and because adhesion was adequate without this arrangement. RC Riley RCR16744.

37

LEOMINSTER INTERLUDE n July 1951, Dick Riley explored central Wales Isome and the Welsh Borders. On the 24 he spent time at Leominster in Herefordshire, a town

in the forlorn Aberystwyth.

of around 11,000 inhabitants on the GWR/ LNWR joint line from Shrewsbury to Hereford. This modestly-sized settlement was then served by what might appear disproportionately generous railway facilities including five passenger platforms. Nos 1 and 2 were used by mainline through trains while on the eastern side of the station, Nos 3 & 4 served the needs of the branch lines to Kington and Presteigne, and Nos 4 & 5 were used by trains to Worcester via Bromyard.

South of Leominster, the route of the Worcester, Bromyard and Leominster Railway branched away to the south and east. This 24½-mile single track cross country connection at the far end trailed onto the route from Great Malvern just north of Bransford Road at what was called Leominster Junction, 4 miles south of Worcester.

th

The Leominster and Kington Railway was opened in 1857, and leased to the West Midland Railway in 1862, in due course becoming part of the GWR. This 13-mile branch saw further expansion by the opening of a 5½-mile line north from Titley Junction to Presteigne in 1875. Also that year, the LKR route was extended 6½ miles westward to New Radnor

hope

of

one

day

reaching

Royal assent was given for the Bromyard line in 1861 but following a chequered development history, the through route between Leominster and Worcester was not completed until 1884. With declining traffic levels, all intermediate stations were reduced to unstaffed status in 1949.

Leominster-Bromyard passenger services were withdrawn in September 1952; the section beyond Bromyard closed completely in 1964.

In this first view, Castle Class No 7000 Viscount Portal (then allocated to Newton Abbot) was approaching Leominster with a Hereford-bound express. The inter-regional nature of workings over this route is evidenced in the make-up of the train; the first, third and possibly the fourth coaches are ex-LMS while the second is a Collett All Third. The signage against the pier of the footbridge was quite common, stating “PASSENGERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CROSS THE RAILWAY EXCEPT BY THE BRIDGE”. The bridge in view provides no access from the platform, the implication being that the only means of exit was by the bridge adjacent to the station buildings and behind the camera. The sign to the right reveals the declining fortunes of the subsidiary routes that converged on this station. The legend originally stated: LEOMINSTER CHANGE HERE FOR KINGTON NEW RADNOR PRESTEIGN AND BROMYARD LINE — but the letters of the third line have since been removed although their outline remains. While the branch terminus was spelt thus, the community it served is called “Presteigne”. The New Radnor section had closed to passengers the preceding February and would close entirely in December of that year. The Presteigne section also closed in 1951 (month uncertain) although freight services continued until 1964. The remaining Leominster-Kington section survived slightly longer with passenger services until 1955 and freight until 1964.

RC Riley RCR 3251.

38

It seems that Dick Riley travelled over the Kington branch during his visit to the area. This view was taken from the leading vehicle of a 2-coach B-Set bound for Leominster just under 4 miles away. The non-GWR architecture of Kingsland station was due to its construction by the preceding, independent Leominster & Kington Railway. Someone on the station staff was obviously a keen gardener.

RCR 3256.

Below: The train from Kington has arrived at Leominster’s Platform No 3 and apparently by this time formed a through service to Worcester via Bromyard. The Class 14xx and B-Set is waiting to depart southwards and a railway employee is gossiping with the fireman. In the left foreground there is one of the 4-wheel platform trolleys (described in Western Times Issue No 1) laden with baskets for shipment of small livestock (e.g. poultry).

In the background there is a freight train with its locomotive blowing off steam and apparently waiting for the road. Distance prevents identification but the motive power may be of LNWR origin i.e. an 0-8-0 Super D. To the west of this train stands a Sunshine-era Brake Third together with a Toad.

RCR 3257.

39

WESTERN TIMES

The B-Set’s motive power can now be confirmed as No 1455 (of Leominster shed) with evidence of new ownership in the form of the BR “Cycling Lion”, which seems to have been applied off-centre to the tank side. The B-Set is a bow-ended Collett type of 1932/ 3 era; the recessed guard’s door shows that it is of Diagram E145. This train is standing at Platform 3 and appears to be waiting to connect with mainline services such as the 4-coach stopping passenger service bound for Hereford which has arrived at Platform No 2 behind Castle No 5073 Blenheim (a Shrewsbury engine). The four-coach train comprises a Collett Brake Third of diagram D127 built 1938 to 1941 behind the tender, then what seems to be a Composite of Diagram E 151 (1936-built with lower waist than the D127). To maintain the customary generational mix, the third vehicle is a Toplight All Third while at the far end is another late Collett-era Brake Third. It is quite possible that some of these coaches still retained chocolate-and cream livery. The two locomotives exhibit a feature typical of the austerity period – a good layer of grime.

RCR 3258.

This final portrait of Leominster is looking south from a different angle. Another B-Set is standing at Platform No 3 (all-over maroon livery this time) and the open guard’s and van doors imply a lack of urgency. The central focus of this photograph is the splendid elevated signal box (with timber access staircase) whose height would have provided excellent views over the footbridges to the south and north. Much traditional GWR station furniture is in evidence but the station has a generally empty look. There is a railway employee to the extreme right and a little further back a pram under the station canopy suggests that there might actually be a passenger around somewhere. Little wonder that so many of the activities depicted in these views were on borrowed time. Leominster today is reduced to a two-platform sanitised affair. RCR 3260.

40

FROM THE ARCHIVES:

THE ‘322’ OR ‘BEYER’ CLASS he first locomotives built by the newly-formed T Beyer Peacock & Company (‘BP’) at their Gorton factory comprised a batch of four 4’ 8.5”

The Gooch/ Armstrong faith in BP’s abilities was well placed for the ‘Beyers’, as they were nicknamed, were highly regarded. Part 4 of The Locomotives of the Great Western Railway (RCTS 1956) described them as “… the most handsome and efficient 0-6-0s ever to work on the GWR” which was quite an accolade. Neither date nor location of this view of No 354 is recorded (although regarding the latter the large orderly coal stack in the background suggests a major depot). The locomotive has been partially modernised with addition of a cab and large leading sandboxes. The chimney appears to be a Wolverhampton product in replacement of the graceful BP copper-capped style which tapered gently inwards from the base.

The tender is a classic BP design of the period.

gauge 2-2-2s Nos 69-72 (makers Nos 1-4) delivered to the GWR in 1855. Nos 73 -76 (makers Nos 15-18) arrived the following year. All eight were renewed at Wolverhampton between 1872 and 1875, and rebuilt as 2-4-0s in the 1890s to form the “River” Class. The late Joe Lloyd, renowned Beyer Peacock devotee, recorded that the first four cost £23,373 to build against a contracted sale price of £21,280. Obviously, BP subsequently sorted out costing methods and pricing policies otherwise the company would not have survived long, much less achieved its enviable reputation for quality and reliability in its products.

Daniel Gooch was known for his direct interest in locomotive construction and for his policy of ordering the initial examples of a new type in modest numbers. In contrast, the GWR’s last 19th Century purchase from BP commenced with a batch of twenty 0-6-0s, the design and construction of which was left entirely in the makers’ hands. BP applied economies of scale wherever possible and had hedged its bets through having already sold four very similar double-framed 0-6-0s to the Egyptian Government Railway in 1863 and 1865.

The class was long-lived and underwent numerous modifications over the years, the most significant of which was conversion of six to saddle tanks between 1878 and 1875. One was withdrawn in 1921 but the other five received pannier tanks making them by extension “the most handsome” members of that vast fleet. The last Beyer pannier tank (No 323) was withdrawn in 1932 and the last of the tender version, none other than No 354, in 1934.

Notes for modellers: The first twenty Beyers had a curvaceous profile to the lower edge of the outside frames (as with the earlier Egyptian machines). The later ten had a more angular profile around the driving axle boxes as is evident here. A problem with 19th Century prototypes can be shortage of plans or illustrations that provide details of the tender fronts and rears, and also coal space etc. A BP tender in this style, albeit with slightly different carrying capacities and wheelbase, remains at the Whitehead depot of the Railway Preservation Society of Ireland. This vehicle type dates from the late 1860s, having been introduced with 0-6-0 inside framed Great Southern & Western Railway Class 101 (J15).

Nos 322-341 (makers Nos 463-482) entered service in 1864. Joseph Armstrong ordered ten more numbered 350-359 (makers Nos 581-590), delivered in 1866. His Swindon re-organisation was still in hand but soon the burgeoning need for standard gauge 0-6-0s would be satisfied through home-built ‘388’ or ‘Standard Goods’ Class, as reviewed in WT Issue 1. Originally concentrated at Pontypool Road to work coal traffic, engines of Class 322 mainly spent their later careers further north.

41

Cooper did not mention an assistant but here the photographer is foul of the ‘four-foot’ with no evidence of a ‘look-out’. Possibly such precautions were not then considered necessary. Some questions relating to the official collection can now be answered but research for this article raised others. For example, were any photographers ‘out stationed’ away from Paddington or Swindon? The National Railway Museum website advises that the former OPC/ Railprint archive comprises 330,000 images but views from other regions are included in this figure. Nonetheless, the GWR-related element must be substantial.

The Transport Treasury.

The photographer at work, attempting to record a moving train. His confident pose suggests that he was a GWR employee. In the view is the equipment essential for his work: the heavy timber tripod for stability, the camera and the box of glass plates. Harold Cooper described his ‘traveling apparatus’ as “…one case containing the 12” x 10” camera, two cases with slides and perhaps a dozen spare plates. Another case with camera legs and still another with lenses. The total weight being over 80 lbs.” There was also a ‘focussing cloth’ which the photographer would place over his head and over the camera.

PHOTOGRAPHING THE GWR & BR(W) t is impossible to calculate the number of Iimmediate photographs taken of the Great Western and its successor over the decades, but it

The department seems to have been Swindonbased, where an alpha-numeric index system was created to categorise different subjects. The ‘E list’ (E presumably for engine) is where the broad gauge locomotives were recorded. This list is subdivided into ‘E1’, ‘E2’, ‘E3’ and at least ‘E4’ sections although the numerical suffix does not necessarily follow a chronological sequence. For example, ‘E4’ No 39 refers to the 0-6-4PT crane tank Cyclops, whereas ‘E3’ No 1414 illustrates a new Western Class diesel-hydraulic. There seems to have been a specific criterion governing where an image should be placed in the E list but how this worked has yet to be identified.

probably runs into the millions. The largest single contributor to this vast total was the railway itself.

Thus the origins and development of the ‘official photograph’ form an important part of the GWR story from the late 19th Century through to the 1980s (acknowledging here the trespass across WT’s self-imposed 1977 constraint).

Although the medium of still photography came into its own in the final decades of the 19th Century, the railway industry was slow in recognising its value for record keeping and as a marketing tool.

Precisely when the GWR established a photographic department is unknown but it is surmised as prior to 1891, given the number of images that depict broad gauge motive power.§ CCC CDC CEC CFC CGC CHC CJC CKC CLC CMC AW BW CW DW GW HW JW LW MW NW OW PW SW

Third class coaches Brake third coaches Composite coaches and certain coach details Slip coaches

Swindon categorised coaching and wagon stock as per the table below and reasons for gaps in the sequence (e.g. EW, KW, RW, W1-3) are unknown.

For coaching stock, entry dates commence in the 1890s and continue to about 1959.

CNC COC CPC CQC

Horseboxes

C CMD C1 MT T

Coach details

TW VW WW XW YW ZW AAW BBW CCW DDW L1 W4 W5

Sleeper, engineers and signal departmental wagons

Milk vans and tanks Carriage trucks Inspection carriages

Saloons Restaurant cars Sleeping cars Passenger brake vans Mail vans Parcel and sundry vans Girder wagons Armoured plate and roll wagons Boiler and trolley wagons Glass wagons Agricultural, road vehicle and transformer wagons Flat wagons Rail and timber wagons (including twins) Match trucks Shunters trucks Coal and mineral wagons Open goods wagons Ballast, tip and sand wagons Fish wagons and fish vans

Breakdown vans Condemned stock; vehicles absorbed following Grouping Rail motors, trailers and auto trains Complete trains

Covered goods vans Cattle wagons Meat vans Fruit vans Gunpowder vans Brake vans Stores vans Workshop, tool, crane, testing and packing vans Tank wagons Loads Wagon details Containers

§ In the introduction to his 1985 book Through the Lens…. Colin Judge refers to the mid-1880s as the start date of the Photographic Department. This could well have been when images began to be taken of broad gauge subjects, as several appear in the Swindon list but undated. It is feasible that these broad gauge views were by third-party photographers whose services were commissioned by the GWR.

43

WESTERN TIMES

This portrait of Harold Cooper appeared in the GWR Magazine article of 1910. Great Western Magazine.

§§ This is the only reference made to colour photography. No list or examples from Great Western days has ever been found. Colour photography was certainly used by the BR Central Photographic Unit in later years, while BR (WR) used outside photographers such as John Ashman on occasions.

44

ISSUE 3

The Paddington files include numerous scenic images used for publicity purposes and clearly intended to show attractive destinations that could encourage passenger custom. This shows the 29 locks of the Caen Hill flight at Devizes on the Kennet & Avon canal, as one of several official views of this artery. No date appears on the reverse but the reference number indicates it was quite early. In later years, the locks were no longer a tourist destination as the canal was in a sorry state of disrepair (mainly due to the actions of the GWR).

GWR B546.

45

A damaged print from the Swindon ‘E’ series of No 2840. There is no reference on the reverse but a process of elimination reveals this to be E4/83 or 84 photographed in 1911. (As mentioned in the text, entries on the OPC / Railtrack lists are merely selected examples from the registers and fortunately the entry for No 2840 is shown.) It was industry practice until about 1930 to photograph locomotives painted in works grey to highlight the detail on contemporary film. The background was often painted out as with this negative.

GWR E4/83 or 84.

Helped by the OPC/ Railprint lists, this is identified as new Diagram E102 70’ First/ Third Composite No 7776, photographed at the carriage works in September 1920. (The list incorrectly described this as Corridor Brake vehicle). The livery is all-over coaching stock lake, applied from 1912 until 1922.

The inset shows the official stamp found on the reverse of this print, common for this period but sadly lacking a reference number.

GWR CEC/21.

46

Top: This Paddington B-Box reference 207 listing dated 11 April 1929 at first glance appears to be a 12” x 10” print, giving the impression of a larger format negative. It is actually the enlargement of a whole plate, the subject being the roof of Newport station. It was unusual to take a single image of a subject as there were no means of confirming quality until the negative had been developed. (In the 1980s it was the practice to order at least one number either side of the chosen subject; some wonderful results were obtained but at extra cost!). This image is noted on the reverse as ‘despatched’ – to whom and for what purpose?

GWR.

Middle: A successful early example of a moving train hauled by then unnamed 4-6-0 No 98 at Swindon with the 11.35 am Paddington-Fishguard express in September 1906. Subject information appears on the reverse but without reference details. This might possibly be a staged managed view.

GWR.

Below: Even in the 1920s and 30s, attempts to capture a moving train at speed could be unsuccessful with the film then available. This view of No 6007 King William III recorded as on the up Cornish Riviera express near Newton Abbot lacks the sharp clarity associated with official photography e.g. the blurring around the right side of the buffer beam (facing the locomotive).

There is no specific reference quoted but this view is probably from the Paddington ‘B’ series which includes some locomotive and train images.

GWR.

WESTERN TIMES “After 1900 formal staff pictures were regularly taken up until WW2. A photo of senior and supervisory staff at Swindon Works was taken every ten years from at least as early as 1911. The last was of retired staff taken 1991!, I think. These, and other similar views, were always taken by local photographic studios such as Banbury and Maybury. Another, William Hooper, who had retired from the Works after an accident, was allowed to come in and photograph general workshop scenes.

These he could sell as postcards from his shop in the town. They range from before the turn of the century, up to WW1.

contention supported by the absence of important developments from the Paddington lists. These include the power frame installation at Didcot North, route setting at Newport and Winchester, and the ATC trials on the Fairford and Lambourn branches.

Folklore holds that there was a room at Reading with wooden racks that might have been used for storage of large plate negatives. Despite this, there were numerous signal related views in the Paddington lists.

From the perspective of variety, the Paddington ‘BBox’ containing whole plates is the most diverse element of the archive. They start around 1920 /21 and extend to the 1950s. Possibly originally glass, by the mid 1930s nitrate and later cellulose acetate was in use. The B-Box listings might seem unusual but each reference number is a precursor to a single negative or perhaps several. For example, all of B-Box listing No 188 relates to Appleford viaduct near Culham, whereas listing No 36 comprises six views of a shunter’s cabin at Banbury and four of station buildings at Baschurch. Each box was literally a container of negatives that might contain up to 50 negatives on different subjects. It is this variety that makes the search process so exciting.

“Then there was the photographer(s) travelling across the system recording topical news items being covered by the GWR Magazine.

Photographic contributions, and information sent in, were also encouraged by the editor.”

Regarding distances a photographer might travel, the ‘A’ list includes over 50 scenes on the Isle of Man and on Guernsey. Probably these and other scenic views were intended for passenger compartments ‘under the luggage rack’ in those wooden frames that enthusiasts of a certain age will nostalgically recall. In this context it should be noted that there is a general misunderstanding that these safaris covered all locations and important structures. Generally, photographs were taken for publicity and to record the new and the unusual. As noted above, numerous stations, signal boxes, and equipment escaped the camera; why certain high profile topics were omitted remains a puzzle.

The Paddington ‘A’ list commences circa 1895. It was standard practice to use 12” x 10” size glass negatives, which must have been a reliable and proven technology as its was still in use at Swindon in 1961 and possibly later. Due to the nature of contemporary photographic emulsions, most of the earlier images were of stationary subjects which remained the predominant theme.

From around 1904 and until 1956, Paddington recorded images on whole plate size negatives 8½“ x 6½“ again on glass, these were the Paddington ‘B’ and later ‘B-Box’ series. It appears that over 16,000 were taken on diverse subjects from broad gauge signals to the latest (sic) type of motor omnibus.

The Chief Mechanical Engineer’s establishment was the only department with a listing system independent of that maintained at Paddington.

Other departments’ images (e.g. civil engineering, goods, docks, signalling) were combined within the various Paddington series, but with evident omissions as obvious subjects were excluded. It is rumoured that the Signal Works at Reading did once maintain its own photographic section, a

A new design pressurised paraffin lamp, known as the ‘Challow’ type because this was where it was first used.

GWR.

48

B-Box 29 (individual item number unknown) included this view of the station gardens at Henley in Arden. The variety in the B-Box series has already been mentioned, with further examples including accidents, bridges, cranes, damaged wagons, exceptional loads, farm removals, girders, ‘harvester’ tractors, Jersey Marine, Kidderminster, level crossings, milk trains, nameboards, Old Oak Common, permanent way, Vale of Rheidol railway, staff, timetables, uniforms, vehicles, water supplies etc.

GWR.

49

WESTERN TIMES

Moving to World War 2, the B-Box series included numerous ‘Progress’ views. This term, at first unclear, was later understood to refer to new works during and after the war. There was a vast amount of reconstruction in hand making it normal for photographic records to be made. Some bore the stamp ‘GWR Engineers Office, Aldermaston’ on the rear. This image shows work taking place on new up and down loops at Aldermaston itself. Although undated, the available OPC/ Railprint listing confirms the period as late 1942/ early 1943. The Chief Civil Engineer’s offices were located there during the war so the annotation refers to the headquarters’ rather than a separate ‘Aldermaston’ list.

GWR B-Box 389-29.

50

ISSUE 3 Right and Below: This image is from the era of smaller negatives with a timed exposure and depicts inspection on the airshafts within Caerphilly Tunnel. The stamp on its reverse is an example of later referencing which clearly states the index number and date of capture.

BR(W).

where official views were the principal component included the two-volume Great Western Miscellany, followed by branch line titles which invariably included official images. The success of these publications amply justified the joint venture’s establishment.

A location from which to administer the joint venture was also needed and premises in Holdenhurst Road Bournemouth were selected. Here the collection was stored in the basement, the shop floor being used as a railway book shop. The site was apparently selected because Jim Russell who was OPC’s ‘Historic Advisor’ (and author/ compiler of the locomotive, wagon, carriage, and miscellany books mentioned previously), lived in nearby Lyndhurst.

Initially, written enquiries were directed to his home address but later direct to the shop. Rumour held that during the BR/ OPC contract negotiations, other factions tried to prevent the arrangement.

Paddington and Swindon collections which confirmed the impression that Swindon’s registration system with its coded sub-divisions was more disciplined than its Paddington counterpart.

Paddington’s registers lacked clarity, for example an E prefix for engineering or ‘G’ for goods.

Perhaps logical sub-divisions had not been applied from the start and with expansion of the archive’s size, there became too much crossover between subjects. For instance, a country lorry scene might be filed under road transport, goods, commerce (general), or publicity. Even with information technology, retrieval and categorisation of data is a major challenge for the WT editorial team.

Another factor to consider is that relocating the collection and the resulting attrition, was an unavoidable risk when dealing with delicate glass plates. Indeed, a later tenant of the premises in Holdenhurst Road reported that in a corner of the basement was a pile of broken glass negatives, but it must be stated that these could well have been damaged prior to the OPC/ Railprint joint venture as much as during the actual transit. One further pitfall of the move to the Holdenhurst Road site was the strange looks visitors could receive from local residents, as next door was a shop of a different kind; the type with blacked out windows!

OPC (probably Jim Russell himself) produced lists for public consumption based on the original numbering and index entries. Mainly produced on typed pages, these were extracts from the full registers. Filing methods for the lists were inconsistent being in alphabetical, date or subject order. It was confusing but understandable as the best means of presenting as much as possible to the public. In the main, each OPC/ Railprint list was prefixed ‘P’ (for photos) related to one particular

OPC also held the original registers for the

51

WESTERN TIMES

Probably from the Paddington ‘B’ series, this reference lacks details except that it relates to the ‘lawn’ at the terminus on 13 November 1923, ‘prior to reconstruction’.

GWR.

Swindon or Paddington collection. Certain of the OPC/ Railprint lists were produced with the listing in alphabetical order. In those pre computer days it seems unlikely Jim Russell would have taken the trouble to go through each list sorting into order as he went and consequently it seems likely that in addition to a numerical list there may also have been a subject listing. This would make perfect sense if a particular department made a request for a view of say, a specific location. With the number of images taken it would otherwise have been a considerable effort to go through page after page looking for a particular topic.

The serious researcher could, by appointment, arrange to view the original registers. Each was a large bound book in which the same neat handwriting might be read over a 20 or 30 year period, i.e. until that individual moved on and another hand took up the narrative. Occasionally items might be struck through with the notation ‘negative damaged/ destroyed’ but mainly all was intact. Viewing the entries for the first time was like being a child in a sweetshop (where to start?) although practicalities including finance played a big part.

The negatives were printed locally and there was never any question of their being borrowed. Print quality could vary and at least one purchased batch was returned for being improperly ‘fixed’ while others might be too dark or light. All the images bore a note on the reverse recording ownership and reproduction and most used what is now known as plastic type paper. Today modern scanning techniques mean a negative need only be handled once, but no stock was held then so negatives depicting popular subjects might be handled many times. In consequence it was natural, especially with glass, that the risk of attrition grew.

The commercial success of this aspect of the joint venture is irrelevant here although ultimately there were 26 photo lists numbered P2 to P27 (P1 was a private collection held for OPC’s exclusive use).

GWR subjects listed went only to P20; higher numbers related to material from the Liverpool Street, Euston, Derby, Glasgow and York photo lists which suggests that the facility’s success encouraged other regions to come on board. The scheme also embraced copies of track plans, which are outside this article’s remit. It is believed that the lists were never revised or supplemented with further examples from the original registers.

52

ISSUE 3 The reasons for and the termination date of the joint venture are uncertain, but perhaps it was considered no longer viable. For a period the negatives remained stored with copies no longer available. Sometime after the mid-1980s the whole was moved to the former Deeds Office in Porchester Road, London, close to Paddington.

This was where Western Region’s historic paperwork was accumulated and sorted by BR staff, helped by volunteers before dispersal to the National Archives, the NRM or local record offices.

There was thought of the photographic collection being broken up with Welsh material going to the Maritime Museum at Cardiff. Some records did venture westwards but their fate after closure of that facility is unknown.

reposes. Sadly staff shortages, Covid restrictions, ‘red tape’, and cost combine to make it hard to obtain copies. To many including the author, this is a travesty as this national resource should be publicly accessible. Instead negatives remain in packets perhaps unopened for over a century and likely to remain so into the future.

Grateful thanks are extended to Gerry Beale, Peter Rance and the Great Western Trust, Stephen Spark, Elaine Arthurs at ‘Steam’ Swindon, Peter Timms, and the late Chris Watts (grandson of Sir Felix Pole) for help in the preparation of this article.

Western Times relies on historic information sources. Any reader holding official images, subject immaterial, obtained via the joint venture or previously is asked to contact the editors who are anxious to borrow for copying purposes. Thank you in advance.

Most of the collection eventually found its way to the National Railway Museum where it now

Immediate post-war scenes usually reflected the impact of six years’ conflict as typified by this grimy rear view of Reading locomotive depot on 26 April 1946. Despite restoration of its cabside windows, the filthy condition of the unidentified Class 22xx was typical of the period, as was the white ‘black out’ banding around the water column. For all the graphic detail, the purpose of this image remains unclear.

GWR B-Box 428-47.

53

MODERN TRACTION:

D8XX ‘WARSHIPS’ IN COLOUR Left: Introduced to service on 8 July 1959 and initially allocated to Plymouth Laira, D808 Centaur was captured at the north end of Bristol Temple Meads station on Sunday 20 September 1959.

The locomotive, which appears still to retain its exworks patina, is about to take over at the head of the 7.30am Paddington-Paignton (322) service for the remainder of its journey to South Devon.

The first thirteen members of the class were delivered with steam era three digit train reporting number frames as seen here. The four circular classification discs are all folded over in the blanked position, which the crew will alter to display the express passenger configuration once attached to the front of the train. Note also the oval Swindon worksplate affixed to the centre of the lower skirt, picked out in cream.

Douglas Twibell (5-35).

Right: Doyen of the class, D800 Sir Brian Robertson, approaching Newton Abbot with a Down express. This view is undated but the three digit alpha-numeric system of train reporting numbers was introduced for 1960/ 61 which suggests that this was the 1.30pm Paddington-Penzance.

In the background is the bulk of Newton Abbot East Signal Box which stood in the ‘V’ of the junction of the main line and the branch to Moretonhampstead and the Teign Valley line. Note too the double ground disc signal. When two (or more) discs or stop signals were placed vertically above each other the rule was always ‘from top to bottom read left to right’.

Coaching stock in all the livery variations routinely found on the Western Region at this time are in evidence, namely, carmine and cream, plain carmine, lined maroon and chocolate and cream.

54

In the summer of 1962, D803 Albion passes Cowley Bridge Junction with the Down Cornish Riviera Express (C30). The locomotive is in as-built condition apart from the addition of overhead live wire warning flashes, which started to be applied to the Warships from August 1961. The former London and South Western Railway route is seen diverging to the left, immediately crossing the River Exe behind the signal box. The formation at this point has always been suseptible to flooding following heavy rainfall, despite numerous remedial works over the years. The driver of the train will soon begin applying the brakes in preparation for the call at Exeter St Davids.

Roger Holmes RH2281.

Above: Leaving the only section of the Penzance-Paddington route that has always been single track, D868 Zephyr comes off the Royal Albert Bridge into Devon with a lightly loaded Up working. The locomotive received its yellow warning panels in May 1963 and it is surmised that this photograph was taken later that same summer, when the adjacent Tamar Road Bridge was still less than 2 years old.

To the left of the tracks is a motley collection of lineside huts in varying condition. To the right stands Royal Albert Bridge Signal Box with immediately beyond a Home, fixed Distant and Shunt Ahead arms. It was quite common practice for the GWR to place signals on the ‘wrong side’ where this would help the driver’s sighting.

Opposite top: Freshly released from Swindon Works following construction, an immaculate D823 Hermes is seen about to depart its birthplace with an Up train from Platform 5, on what is probably a running in turn. It officially went into traffic on 6 July 1960, allocated initially to Plymouth Laira depot. Destined to carry the full spectrum of Warship liveries, green, maroon and blue, Hermes was to be withdrawn from Old Oak Common at the start of October 1971 having accrued a total milage of 1,058,000.

Note the 4½ inch red route availability discs painted onto the cab access flaps (indicating an axle loading of between 17tons 12cwt and 20tons), a legacy of the system introduced by the Great Western Railway in 1919 and still applied to the early Western Region diesel hydraulics.

Opposite bottom: Monday 11 June 1962 finds D813 Diadem calling at Brent with 2C25 the 7.35am Penzance-Paignton working. D813 was the first Warship to be built with the new style of four digit train reporting roller blinds incorporated into the nose doors. It was released to traffic on 9 December 1959 and remained in this plain green livery until adorned with small yellow warning panels in April 1963.

In the loop platform to the left a Gloucester Single-Car Diesel Railcar (later Class 122) can be seen handling the Kingsbridge branch service. Dieselisation of ‘The Primrose Line’ passenger services took place in the Spring of 1961 and remained so until final closure on 16 September 1963.

Appeal to readers: The editorial team has encountered difficulties in train identification from the Autumn of 1961 through to abolition of Train Reporting Numbers in 1976. If any reader has details of TRNs during this period or can advise where such information can be sought (beyond the working timetables), please make contact.

57

Opposite top: In March 1964 a workstained D806 Cambrian is seen approaching Reading General with 1A30 the 7.50am Taunton-Paddington train, routed into Platform 5. The uniform rake of maroon Mk1 coaches is disrupted by a solitary Hawksworth All Third immediately behind the locomotive. D806 lost its original nose door number frame and circular classification discs in favour of the the four digit route indicator panels in October 1963. It was repainted into maroon livery in June 1966, blue in March 1971 and was withdrawn in November 1972.

Opposite bottom: On the same day as the previous image, D826 Jupiter enters Reading’s Platform 4 with a westbound excursion working (possible Newbury Race Special or FootEx). The untidy looking locomotive was to receive a full repaint, again in green, later that summer.

Reading Main Line East Signal Box can be seen, behind the six arm up signal gantry, the sighting of which was not ideal if obscured by a passing down train such as this.

Reading Southern station was to the right, at a lower level alongside the signal box and closed in September 1965.

Right: In September 1970, D844 Spartan still in maroon livery adorned with full yellow warning panels, heads a rake of corporate blue and grey Mk1 coaches north of Braunton on an Ilfracombe to Paddington working. This locomotive became the last NBL built example in revenue service, employed for its final weeks on carriage heating duties at Worcester before withdrawal in November 1971.

Below: No 818 Glory was withdrawn from service on 31 October 1972 and moved to Swindon where it was cosmetically restored and placed on display on a spur off the works 65ft turntable.

Despite the removal of most reusable internal components it received a further repaint back into BR Green in late 1980, but hopes of it passing safely into preservation were dashed when it was rather callously broken up in 1985 with closure of the works.

Lawrence Hassall.

THE QUESTION OF BRIDGE LOADINGS n recent years, the effectiveness and competence I(NED) of a particular brand of non-executive director has been called into question by business

over 20 years. Further, it transpired that there was a sufficient inbuilt safety margin to raise the MAL to 22.5 tons. It transpired that only four bridges between Paddington and Plymouth remained to be up-graded, the most significant being that over the River Kennet near Reading. As recorded many times, this revelation led to speedy upgrading of the remaining structures thereby heralding introduction of the King Class 4-6-0s.

commentators, summed up in the caustic joke: The distinction between a supermarket trolley and a NED is that the former has a mind of its own while the latter has the greater capacity for food and drink.

In contrast, the records indicate that the GWR was well served by its NEDs who for the most part took an active and responsible interest in how the company conducted its affairs. Their dedication was most honourably reflected by their flat refusal to accept compensation (uniquely among the boards of the Big Four) for loss of office on nationalisation with effect from 1 January 1948.

Pole recorded that a “critic of railway management” might well comment on the fact that the current General Manager, Chief Mechanical Engineer, and Superintendent of the Line were all unaware of a crucial decision taken by the board 22 years earlier to allow investment that would permit a significant increase in load capacities. It transpired that the 22 ton MAL for new or rebuilt bridges had been standard practice following a recommendation to the board’s Engineering Committee by Sir James Inglis, Chief Engineer, who like G J Churchward adopted a far-sighted view of the company’s future needs. Apparently, the pair had collaborated in the proposal but the approval had somehow slipped below the radar in the CME’s office. Perhaps, the most surprising aspect was that Collett could bemoan a significant restraint on locomotive design without bothering to approach his civil engineering colleague to up-date himself on the prevailing situation.

An example of constructive NED participation concerned the role of Sir Aubrey Brocklebank in 1926 in a matter that exposed a weakness in the GWR’s divisionalised administrative structure, a topic referred to in the first and second issues of WT. Brocklebank had a deep interest in all manner of railway matters but with a particular focus on locomotive design. Further, he was on friendly personal terms with Felix Pole and the latter recounted in his autobiography how the question of bridge loadings came under discussion.

Despite the impact that prototype Castle No. 4073 had made on the motive power scene in 1923, Pole records that Brocklebank opined that the type was not entirely satisfactory. Apparently, years later Pole could not recall the precise detail of this criticism but it had made sufficient impact for him to raise the matter of axle loadings with CB Collett, Chief Mechanical Engineer. In response, Collett lamented the fact that British locomotive practice was severely hampered by a maximum axle loading (MAL) of 19.5 tons, as compared with conditions in the United States. Collett said that a very fine locomotive could be created with an axle loading of 22.5 tons.

The Inglis/ Churchward initiative dated from a time when both had direct board access. They could (and apparently did) circumvent the General Manager prior to the re-organisation enacted concurrent with Pole’s appointment. The preceding structure showed that despite his job title, the GM had not effectively been the chief executive officer and that no-one really fulfilled that role below Chairman level. Nevertheless, the pair tackled this particular issue in an inter-divisional manner that was evidently lacking with the following generation.

It said little for senior executive communication that the bridge loading issue was only resolved through Brocklebank’s penetrating enquiries. It also said little for Collett’s ability to look beyond his own desk for solutions, as should be expected of a senior executive.

In further talks between Pole and Brocklebank, the latter probed the maximum carrying capacity of the main line and stated that with properly supported trackwork, there was effectively no limit.

Accordingly, the question rested solely on bridge strength and Brocklebank asked if it would be possible to prepare a diagram recording the MAL of every bridge. The matter was referred to J C Lloyd, Chief Civil Engineer who astounded the pair by advising that all new bridges were built to accept an MAL of 22 tons, as had been standard practice for

The matter of MAL and bridge strengthening has traditionally been considered in the context of the Kings alone. Questions of corporate prestige and publicity etc aside, a class of twenty large locomotives was peripheral to the demands of a motive power fleet that comprised 3990 machines as at 31 December 1926 (the need for ten more of 60

the type built in 1930 has been questioned).

However, the phantom MAL limitation had an impact on locomotive construction that had stemmed from the need to reboiler 2-8-0 No 4700.

The excellent Standard No 1 boiler was found wanting against the demands that were placed on this engine, leading to design and installation of the larger Standard No 7 type. The prototype’s performance was transformed and eight more followed thus setting the scene for a natural progression in locomotive enlargement.

Castle in 1926. Ever cautious and minimalist in design matters, Collett gave the proposal short shrift apparently before bridge loading came under scrutiny. Nevertheless, it might be speculated that their collaboration could have been a response in part to Brocklebank’s apparent reservations about the Castles.

Had the increased bridge loading limit been recognised earlier, locomotive development might have followed a different course. A Star with a No 7 boiler could have obviated the need for the “interim” design initially known as the Enlarged Star that was later styled the Castle Class. This might have offered a basis for further development without need for the Kings. Thus boiler types No 8 (Castles), No 12 (Kings) and perhaps even No 15 (4-6-0 Counties) would not have been required, yielding closer adherence to the principles set out in Churchward’s Standard Locomotive Scheme of 1901 with concomitant financial savings.

It was then proposed that the Standard No 7 boiler should be fitted to members of the Star, Saint and 28xx classes. Drawings Nos. 57830-2 (see example below) are undated but seem to have been prepared around about 1921/ 2 in a coordinated exercise. The MAL for the enlarged Star and Saint would have been 20 tons 10 cwt; that for the enlarged 28xx would have been 18 tons 5 cwt.

Thus the 4-6-0s would have been disqualified on the perceived but erroneous bridge loading factor.

The enlarged 28xx would have been acceptable but by then the company was acquiring war surplus ROD 2-8-0s based on Great Central Class 8K at significantly lower unit cost than could ever be achieved through new construction.

As described in WT Issue 1, Frank Potter (General Manager) stated in 1915 “A big organisation must have its departments and sections, but it is only insofar as they are not only integral and indispensable parts of the whole, but as all are corelated that each part assists and furthers the object of others”. This vital message was apparently forgotten or ignored in motive power development during the 1920s.

Another means of producing a more powerful express locomotive within the prevailing 19.5 tons MAL was explored by WA Stanier and FW Hawksworth who jointly proposed a compound

61

MORETONHAMPSTEAD IN 1955: THE LINE SOUTH TO LUSTLEIGH erry Beale continues the account of his father’s G visit to Devon to record the upper section of the Moretonhampstead branch.

Bovey, was one of the original intermediate stations that opened with the line on 26 June 1866.

It appears that he then continued his walk further down the line from Lustleigh as there is a final exposure taken at Pullabook Halt (previously Hawkmoor Halt until renamed in 1955) but there are no photos of Bovey Station. Perhaps he ran out of time or film, or both. At this point he may have used a Devon General bus to get back to Exeter as the return half of his train ticket was unused. We are left to surmise on this as he is no longer around for us to ask but we should be thankful that he left this record of a delightful and now long-gone Devonshire railway byway.

On Tuesday, 12 July 1955, my late father made a visit to the ex GWR Moretonhampstead branch in South Devon. His findings at the terminus of the line were published in the previous issue of Western Times and his survey continues here.

With his visit to Moretonhampstead station completed he walked for 3 ½ miles along the line, taking photographs as he went, to the next station which served the picturesque moorland village of Lustleigh. Here another detailed survey was made of this delightful wayside station which, along with

Above: Around the 10 ¼ milepost (measured from the junction at Newton Abbot) the line passes the extensive Sanduck Woods which border the railway and cover the valley sides hereabouts. This is the view down the 1 in 49 gradient which continues almost to Lustleigh station.

The accompanying A382 road from Moretonhampstead down to Bovey lies to the left of the line on the valley floor. It should be noted that although the village was known as Bovey Tracey the GWR station was always just Bovey, both on the running-in board and in all working documents.

Above Right: About a mile further the line passes, by means of a sharp curve, through the short but steep sided Caseley Cutting. This is the view looking back through the cutting towards Moretonhampstead and shows the ground rising to around 70ft above rail level.

Right: Approaching Lustleigh station the line passes beneath this granite road overbridge known as Bishopstone Bridge. Built to accommodate a broadgauge double track (as were most of the bridges on the line) it only ever spanned a single line of rails.

62

Above: Bishopstone Bridge from Lustleigh station platform with, on the left, the footpath leading down from the road giving pedestrian access to the station.

Below: Lustleigh station viewed from the public road leading to the village, with the GWR private road giving vehicular access in the foreground. There was a single platform of 245 ft in length and a single goods siding which, in 1955, was occupied by a Camping Coach.

64

ISSUE 3

Above: Looking through the goods yard which saw little use by 1955.

Camp Coaches, as they were termed by the GWR, had been introduced in 1934 and it is no surprise that, given its picturesque location, that one was placed at Lustleigh from the start of the scheme.

Opposite top: Exterior view of Lustleigh station from the forecourt side. Constructed of local granite under a slate covered roof the accommodation comprised a booking office, waiting room, station office and the ladies lavatory. The gentlemen’s lavatory was in a small extension at the further end of the building and was accessed from the platform.

Left: In this view the nearest structure is a timber clad goods lock-up doubtless painted in the attractive GWR paint scheme of Light and Dark Stone and making a pleasing contrast with the granite and slate of the station building. The shiny new galvanised dustbin in the right foreground would have been for the use of the holiday makers in the Camping Coach.

Right: The platform elevation of Lustleigh station taken from the ornamental garden that faced the building which, over the years, received many certificates in the annual station gardens competition.

At the time of the visit the station office had a luggage label rack that still contained GWR and even SDR labels and a small selection were taken as souvenirs as was the custom of enthusiasts at the time (inset).

A view through the station with the Camping Coach visible on the left at the end of the goods siding which had a capacity of fourteen wagons. Once the signal box had been taken out of use access to the siding was controlled by a ground frame. The Camping Coach in 1955 was a former 57‘ Toplight All Third coach, a type favoured for these duties and appearing to be painted in BR Crimson livery. The pre-war GWR Camp Coaches had been smartly painted in the traditional Brown and Cream livery.

ISSUE 3

Above: The goods lock-up is prominent in this view which also shows the door to the gentlemen’s lavatory.

In the foreground the aperture in the front face of the platform marks the position of the former Lustleigh Signal Box which was taken out of use in 1901. The signal box structure remained in use as a store but was later removed, probably in 1934 with arrival of the first Camp Coach.

Right: Lustleigh station was unusual for a country branch line in that it lay close to the village it served.

This is the view south along the line with the village on the right as my father continued his walk. Note also the concrete sleepers that were a feature of large sections of the well maintained branch.

67

WESTERN TIMES

Above: Constructed of iron plate girders resting on granite abutments, this low culvert allowed access from the village to the meadow on the opposite side of the railway. Above the Morris 8 Series 1 Saloon car can be seen a sign for the Cleave Hotel, a thatched 15th century inn that remains at the heart of village life to this day.

Right: This sturdy granitebuilt bridge carried the line over the Wrey Brook and the well trodden footpath from Lustleigh to the smaller settlement of Wrayland. The hamlet was home of Cecil Torr, author of the well-known ‘Small Talk from Wreyland’ - a collection of Dartmoor folklore first published in 1918.

68

ISSUE 3 Right: This picturesque cutting is south of Lustleigh as the line headed towards Pullabrook Halt and the next intermediate station at Bovey.

Below: Pullabrook Halt (situated at 7 miles 61 chains) was opened as Hawkmoor Halt on 1 June 1931 to serve Hawkmoor Hospital although that establishment was two miles away along winding lanes. With a platform 80 feet in length the halt was similar to that further down the line at Brimley which opened earlier on 21 May 1928.

Just a month prior to the visit the halt had been renamed, on 13 June 1955, reputedly in response to complaints from passengers who thought that the hospital was closer than it was. The line may be seen in the distance continuing its descent towards Bovey and Heathfield, but my father’s survey ends here.

MORE ABOUT MILK………..R C RILEY 2 of Western Times contained a detailed account by Dick Riley about operation of milk services Issue between the West Country and London. Here are four views to amplify that article.

Before introduction of the 4-wheeled milk tank wagon about 1929, and its 6-wheeled replacement roughly two years later, churns were transported in vehicles with the generic telegraphic code ‘Siphon’. These were purpose-built closed vans with slatted or louvred sides to help keep the cargo cool. Originally 4-wheelers, a letter suffix denominated each generational increase in size. The best known examples of the genre were Siphons G which were gangway-fitted, bogie vehicles of 50’ x 8’ 6” body dimensions. The roofs had a 3-centre low profile and there were four double doors on either side. Louvres for ventilation were set in the upper panels of the timber sides and doors. Early examples had outside timber frame bracing but with later vehicles this structural feature was placed inside. This was the only significant change in superstructure in the 365 examples built between 1913 and 1955. Several bogie types were used which was the main cause of the tare weight varying from circa 25.5 to 28.5 tons. The load capacity was 14 tons.

Migration to tank wagons rendered Siphons G largely redundant so far as milk traffic was concerned. Nevertheless, their flexibility made them useful for many other duties e.g. parcels, newspapers, perishable cargoes. They were used over many years to transport strawberries grown in the Cheddar area to large population centres. Construction continued into BR days and with the last diagram (O62) built between 1950 and 1955, they were still officially described as milk vans.

Siphons G seem to have been the last GWR-designed/ built bogie vehicles to remain in service in appreciable numbers, often with their louvres plated over and deployed on newspaper traffic. The two depicted here are in virtually original condition. The diagram of that closer to the camera cannot be verified but the more distant is Diagram O62, confirmed by the additional side louvres immediately above the solebar level which could be closed off by vertical sliding doors. There were originally eight of these but those in the end lower side panels have been removed. The location is Stenson Junction on the Midland Railway route from Derby to Burton-on-Trent and the date is 8 Oct 1979. Out of WT’s period but a good example of how long these vehicles survived.

Attribution: CJ Tuffs/ Author’s collection.

70

Above: This pre-war Dick Riley image depicts a milk train formation in the transitional period from vans to tankers. 2-6-2T No 6142 was caught at Langley on 25 May 1939 at the head of a Down train on the Relief. The first two vehicles are Diagram O37 Milk Tank Trailer Trucks, each carrying a 6-wheel tanker road trailer owned by CWS Milk Services. Next in line is a Passenger Brake Van (diagram indecipherable), then a low-roofed 6-wheel Siphon C, a Siphon H, and finally another loaded Milk Tank Trailer Truck. The reason why the batch of 20 Siphons H (Diagram O12) was built in 1919/ 20 is unclear.

Their body sides, length and width conformed in all essentials with the successful Siphon G (built 1913-1955). Siphons H differed in their high arc roofs and end doors, thus resembling Monster scenery vans. It has been speculated that they were designed with a dual purpose in mind i.e. milk traffic or large profile loads.

Below: Dick Riley commented that despite the move to bulk transportation, the traditional milk churn remained in use to a limited extent as seen here at Talyllyn Junction on 3 May 1951. A 4-wheeled platform trolley, of a type discussed in WT Issue 1, bears a variety of goods including churns which are being loaded into the van section of a bow-ended Brake Third. Dean Goods No 2401 was a resident of Brecon from where it was withdrawn in January 1953.

An official photograph of 6-wheel Milk Tank Wagon No 2021 bearing tank No 3 owned by West Park Dairy Company Ltd. This was the third of Lot No 1473 (running Nos. 2019-2022), Diagram O35 and part of the first batch of 6-wheelers to be introduced (built September-October 1931).

The tare weight was 14.4 tons which was roughly doubled when the 3000-gallon tank was full. The preceding 4-wheel milk tankers had proven unsatisfactory because their hunting movement had the effect of turning milk into butter. Dick Riley in his fascinating account indicates that the 6-wheel version was certainly kinder on the cargo but the wagons rode heavily so that while the all-up weight was roughly the equivalent of a bogie coach, their rolling resistance exerted greater strain at the drawbar. Maintenance of the tanks was the responsibility of the dairy companies and not the railway. Great care was taken to ensure internal cleanliness but externally they were usually covered in grime which conflicted with the industry’s keenness to promote its product’s healthy image. In view of this and the advertising potential on the tank sides, it is unclear why little or no effort was expended in keeping the exterior clean.

Author’s collection.

BOOK REVIEW The Broad Gauge Engines of the Great Western Railway Part 2: 1840-1845 The Reverend Canon Brian Arman Lightmoor Press (ISBN 978 1911038 764) Casebound, 144 sides, including 8 in colour. Art paper. 273mm x 215mm. £22.50 In days of old, and by that I mean the 20th century, many of us with an interest in the Broad Gauge would have turned to Book 2 in the RCTS series on GWR locomotives.

Originally published in 1956, its 56 pages represented the first real attempt to chronicle the locomotives of the GWR of that time. Looking back also, it is just possible some of those involved might just have been old enough to recall a ‘Rover’ or similar in actual service.

Move forward in time and it could be expected that interest in those days fast fading beyond living memory would simply wane. Not so, witness the formation of the Broad Gauge Society in 1980 and going strong four decades later.

Helping to keep that memory alive has also been the work of Reverend Canon Brian Arman of Bristol in his latest volume ‘The Broad Gauge Engines of the Great Western Railway. Part 2 1840-1845.’ If you thought the RCTS has said all there was to say almost 70 years ago, think again. Excellent though it was for its time, the RCTS book pales into insignificance with the standard of research now on display.

Students of the GWR from whatever area may have a liking for a particular locomotive designer or period of interest, yet all may learn something from this tome, for was it not on those very Broad Gauge foundations that the ‘modern’ GWR was built?

In detail it has been some years since your reviewer had actually picked up the RCTS volume. This new book refers back to the RCTS when appropriate but then expands the work to such an extent that it is almost like reading the detail of a hitherto unknown piece of Great Western history.

Despite only covering a brief period in years, Brian Arman has dug deep into the archives, quoting sources as necessary, to describe the various builds, dimensions, costings, allocations, work, relevant accidents, and disposals. Understandably there are some gaps but this is simply where information is not available. A number of previous areas of conflict are also discussed and corrected where necessary.

Illustrations are not forgotten either, eight pages of colour including some superb contemporary paintings

by Sean Bolan are included, whilst there are b/w drawings, sketches and I will admit, several photographs new to this reviewer.

This really is a book that opens new horizons. It deserves to succeed whilst we wait with baited breath for the next volume(s) in the series. Highly recommended.

KJR.

Have you had a book on the GWR published recently?

If so we would be happy to provide an objective review.

Speak to your publisher and ask them to send a copy to the address on Page 2.

73

THE GREAT WESTERN TRUST (GWT) - BULLETIN No.2 aving covered the Trust’s purposes and H collection in our previous Bulletin it is now an opportunity to give space to the illuminating insights

handbill is pasted onto sheets and on the adjacent page we have his longhand ink commentary (below and opposite). That detail generally includes the tickets sold at each station, train running aspects, lessons learned and sometimes extraordinarily, the weather! Within this vast, absolute treasure-trove of social history, my choice of one illustration, is the handbill of the weekly excursions that began in September 1859 to view Brunel’s Great Eastern steamship at Weymouth. Generally the trains were dedicated to the higher social classes, hence First and ‘Closed Carriages’ (i.e. Seconds) only. Hence the recorded annotation to the trip on 26 September is quite startling. “….it was so wet all day that Inspector Burton reports that on returning to Weymouth station, some passengers were actually taking part of their clothes off to wring the water out”. What state were the carriages in on arrival?

This one item has of itself a vast contribution to make to our appreciation of the GWR, its Victorian era, social history and the work and dedication of its operating staff.

our collection has to offer.

Much has been written about Railway Excursions in both railway literature and in the contemporary press with simply too many examples to offer readers references here. Before detailing relevant GWR materials however, I should explain that a deliberate Trust policy has been to ensure that our collection of modern and contemporary books, sufficiently reflects the broader public perception of railways as well as the works of the GWR’s contemporary competing companies. To extol the GWR in isolation, treating its contemporaries as unworthy of record, is to fail to appreciate the reality of the GWR’s existence and benchmark its pros and cons. It is most important for the Trust Collection and its purposes to give evidence of the “real GWR” (warts and all) to current and future students. By doing so, its positive, unique and lasting achievements can be all the more appreciated.

Postscript - I am shocked and saddened to record the death of Tony Rivers in December from Cancer.

Beyond a very long and vital role with the Great Western Society from its formative years and long service on its Management Council and as a Director of Great Western Preservations, Tony was one of the four founder Trustees of the Great Western Trust in 1984, and our longest serving Chairman topping 14 years in post! His other key contribution was Excel cataloguing a great part of the R K Bird Collection and specifically creating the very detailed listing of the handbills volume. Such volunteer effort over so very many years forms the bedrock of the Trust's work and achievements.

RIP Tony Rivers 1936-2021.

We believe, subject to correction, that the first GWR Excursion was that from London to Bath on Monday 2 September 1844. Today we can easily appreciate that Bath has many attractions worthy of our own visits but pause a moment to consider quite how the residents viewed this “inundation”. The Illustrated London News is a rich source of contemporary observation, and I extract snippets from its article of 12 October 1850:“On Tuesday a meeting of inhabitants of Bath opposed to running of excursion trains on Sunday was held in the Assembly Rooms. W. Hunt chaired the meeting and he feared railway directors had practically denied the obligation of keeping the Sabbath day holy, and openly invited the multitudes of London to act on an erroneous and irreligious principle. Three Sunday excursions had brought numerous passengers, the first alone 1,200. In the evening up to 2,000 people returned to the station.

It was adopted that a ‘Memorial’ would be presented to the GWR Directors requesting them to discontinue.” Memorials were the vernacular in Victorian days for our petitions.

By happy coincidence, and by the wonderful generosity of the massive collection donated to the Trust by the late Ron King Bird, (acquired by him in 1988 and conserved by the Manx Museum) we possess a treasured survivor of similar excursions from Bath, of no less than 161 spanning 1858-1865. So much for stopping them then?

We believe they were the personal record of an unidentified senior GWR Inspector. Each excursion

Peter Rance - GWT Trustee & Collection Manager.

74

ISSUE 3

75

READING TO THAME VIA NEWBURY: A RAILTOUR ADVENTURE ooking back through photographs can be both a L rewarding and a frustrating experience.

Frequently we might wish the photographer had

more surprising as the train in question was a special working from we might well report as ‘recent times’; 1952, although it is also easy to forget this is fast approaching 70 years ago.

turned to the left / right/ turned around – whatever – to capture a particular aspect that appears to have otherwise been completely forgotten.

The Reading Society of Model and Experimental Engineers (RSMEE) was formed in the early part of the 20th century and in the 1950s was one of many societies who would arrange rail tours, in this case likely a half day event.

The same is true with factual information, a new building, engine modification or as here, a special working, where despite searching through the available archives little is known. This is all the

Above: Outward bound at Welford Park, Sunday 20 July 1952; a warm summer’s day too judging by the occasional open neck collar and shirtsleeve order. Otherwise contemporary dress code still rules. The future of the Lambourn branch was very much in the balance at this time, as a competing road service meant much traffic had been lost. However, so far as Welford Park was concerned, the building of sidings and a connecting line to what was then RAF Welford from behind the signal box would extend the freight life at least for another two decades. The occasion of the tour was likely the most passengers the station had witnessed at one time for many years, 20+ persons being counted. On the right the bracket signal dated from 1909 and had been progressively reduced in height as the timber rotted. It was eventually replaced with a tubular post and a separate ground disc to afford access into the goods yard – the latter a single dead-end siding.

The Transport Treasury.

76

Diesel Railcar No 15 was one of ten introduced in 1936. The skirting over the bogie has been removed, revealing that the shaft connecting the two axles by means of bevel gears remains in place. The periphery of the image adds so much to the atmosphere – the torpedo water tank, the station roof showing signs of age, the corrugated iron hut, and the platform barrows.

The Transport Treasury.

At Lambourn before returning south. Fewer individuals are visible but probably some are taking the opportunity for a thorough exploration of this archetypal branch terminus. The informality of the occasion, typical of railtours in those days, is apparent yet there is no evidence of misbehaviour. Renowned photographer Maurice Earley was a passenger and this image is his work.

WESTERN TIMES Despite no information forthcoming from the various sources including contemporary magazines, it appears the special commenced at Reading General* running west to Newbury and thence on to the Lambourn branch where a photographic stop was made at Welford Park enroute to Lambourn. Returning to Newbury the next stop was at Compton on the DNS line between Newbury and Didcot and then the final known image was recorded at Thame. Was this the termination of the tour or might it even have continued on a circular route through Princes Risborough, High Wycombe, and Maidenhead?

Very much a locally organised event, diesel railcar No. W15W’s seating capacity of 70 would have limited the numbers. Can any of the participants be identified? * ‘Six Bells Junction’ website has the train starting and ending at Reading General with a ticket showing the route as Reading-Lambourn-Reading.

This is contradicted by the images, so perhaps the itinerary has altered after the tickets were printed.

Left: Unfortunately it appears the sunny disposition was not to last as by the time Compton had been reached it was beginning to look decidedly grey. Even so we doubt this would have affected anyone’s enthusiasm. With no regular Sunday service over the Newbury – Didcot line at this time we might have expected to have seen all the intermediate signal boxes switched out between Newbury East Junction and Didcot East Junction, in which case the home signal behind the train would have been ‘off’.

Clearly that was not the case so possibly at least one other special working would use the line today.

The Transport Treasury.

Right: Under the overall roof at Thame with a tail lamp attached – might this even then have been the limit of the tour?

Again it seems free access was permitted to all; some travellers visible in the distance by the signal box whilst there is also a rather disinterested looking cocker spaniel on the platform (plenty of lamp posts available at least).

Whether any further photo stops were made is not known.

The Transport Treasury.

78

THE GUARD’S COMPARTMENT ISSUE 1

ISSUE 2 Graham Thorne referred to the plaque at Moretonhampstead (Page 5). According to Tony Kingdom’s excellent history of the branch, this was set up on 26 June 1926 by Elias Cuming, son of one of the directors named thereon.

Mike Andersen referred to the panel displaying different baggage label styles (WT Issue 1, Page 71) which brought a smile to his face. He feels this is a neglected corner of the ephemera market and estimates that the GWR employed over 50 varieties of font for their labels.

Fred Finney stated that regarding Page 36, the location of ex-Rhymney Railway No. 40 is Cardiff East Dock shed, not Radyr. (Images taken near the coal stages at both locations seem to be scarce – Ed).

Kevin Regan, a retired driver from Salisbury wrote to advise that he showed WT Issue 1 to an excolleague (now aged almost 100 years) who can recall seeing Diesel Railcar No. 11 as depicted on Page 76. Added to stock 17 February 1936, it was brand new and on a driver training trip. A WestburySalisbury return service [morning from Westbury, return in the afternoon] was inaugurated in September 1936 and ran until the outbreak of war.

Kevin also mentioned that a lady, now deceased, from his village of Great Wishford used the service to attend school in Warminster. She would enthuse about how wonderful it was to be able to see the railway from the vehicle’s front and rear windows.

Mike Bradley wrote to help identify the diagram of the Toad depicted on Page 44, WT Issue 2: a) The buffers are early type probably with laminated spring behind operating both plus the coupling; definitely not Self Contained or RCH type which eliminates AA15 and later. b) AA1 was 6 wheeled; AA4 /5/ 6/ 9/ 10/ 12/ 14 were all Permanent Way Brake or Tunnel vans.

AA7/ 8 were special designs which leaves AA2/ 3/ 11/ 13. c) AA2/ 3 were 20’ 0” over headstocks with 6’ 6” veranda AA11/ 13 were 24’-0” and 8’-6” respectively. Allowing for the perspective, the veranda looks shorter than usual for most Toads. d) AA11 had 'J' hangers for the axlebox springs which are not on this van. e) AA11/ 13 had four brackets supporting the lower foot board of which one was just adjacent to the guard's step on the solebar. AA2/ 3 had three brackets one at each end and one in the centre.

This van has no bracket adjacent to the footstep f) AA2/ 3/ 11 had the stove chimney on the roof’s centre line; AA13 had this offset to one side. g) The side handrails are individual and turned down to bolt on the corners of each run, a feature of AA2/ 3/ 11. AA13 had the later style where the handrail passed through brackets extending from the body.

Alan Williams advised:- the location depicted in the Frontispiece was Cardiff (General), not Central. This station was re-labelled c. 1970.

On Page 7, it is likely that there is a 'slotting' arrangement on the nearest signal. It is clearly the starting signal for the box in the rear and the home signal for the box visible on the right hand side - the slot bar is just visible pointing away, between the two weight bars. If an extra weight were required, it would be placed on the one weight bar and behind the normal weight. Such arrangements were found when two signal boxes were in close proximity and the starting, or advance starting signal of one box was also the home signal of the box in advance, e.g., even in the 1980s, at Swansea Docks, King's Dock Junction Signal Box had this arrangement with Burrows Sidings Signal Box, a couple of hundred yards distant (both having 100-lever frames). Probably the further signal on the right of the photograph also had this slotting arrangement.

He thought the van is either AA2 or AA3 as the only diagrams conforming with all these details.

However, there are few photos of AA2/ 3. AA2 was 25-ton rated which would be useful for china clay trains but the only photos show timber sides to the veranda with angle bracing plus body side vertical handrails extending below the bottom horizontal handrail. AA3 was 20-ton rated but had metalsheeted veranda sides; also the vertical handrails did not extend below the bottom horizontal handrail.

He concluded it is probably AA3 but could be AA2 (unfortunately the tonnage number cannot be confirmed even under magnification - Ed).

The view on Page 11 of No 4228 at Salisbury reminded that No 4707 worked a freight to this location on 9 January 1962.

--- o O o ---

79

WESTERN TIMES

Matthew Pinto advised:- I think that there may be a mistake with the caption on Page 55. It states that milk tanks from the west country were discharged at an MMB depot at Kensington Olympia (KO) which I am pretty sure is incorrect. I have a full list of MMB facilities from 1948 and it doesn't mention Kensington. I have also looked at old maps and photos and there is nothing resembling a bottling plant at the trackside in any of them. The only railserved dairy in the area I have been able to find was the Henry Edwards and Son bottling plant on Hoffland Road near the junction with Sinclair Road.

This was a short distance from the railway and I think the company used Rotanks which were dismounted at KO and driven the short distance to the dairy rather than being discharged at the station itself. The area has now been redeveloped but the gate the milk floats used was still there up until about 10 years ago. HE&S was taken over by Express Dairies at some point so I don't know how long the Rotank service lasted.

Western main lines and concentrated at KO. They would then be split up and shorter rakes would be tripped to the various bottling plants that ringed the capital. Apart from the aforementioned Rotanks, I don't think any unloading of milk took place at KO, especially not to an MMB plant.

--- o O o --Alan Rutter sent in the photograph above of No 5963 Wimpole Hall approaching Hungerford with four coaches (first and third are Hawksworth/ second and fourth are late Collett) on what he believes might be a Newbury-Devizes-Trowbridge service. The period appears to be 1960/ 61 when 3digit alpha-numeric train reporting numbers were in use; in this case ‘X06’ has been chalked on the smokebox but this cannot be traced in the editorial files. However, Alan specifically queried the locomotive and three coaches standing in the yard to the right (coach nearest the camera is a Hawksworth; nothing else can be detected on magnification). He wonders whether this might be a Reading-Bristol stopping service that was routed via the Berks & Hants line around that time but what was it doing standing in yard? If a reader can elaborate on any of these points, please contact WT for inclusion in this column.

An MMB plant in London would not make a great deal of sense in any case. The MMB was concerned with ensuring stable supplies and prices for milk. Their plants tended to be at the country end to serve farmers and either get milk to London or process excess supply into longer lived products.

London was the biggest market for milk and was well served by many major dairies so there was no need for the MMB to get involved there.

--- o O o ---

I believe that Kensington Olympia was used as a marshalling point for milk trains rather than a location for discharging the tanks. Trains would come in from the Great Western and South

The Editorial team wishes to thank Martin Street for providing much additional information for the ‘Warships in Colour’ pictorial within this issue.

80