Jump to content
 
  • entries
    2
  • comments
    12
  • views
    231

From McDermott, History of the Great Western Railway, Vol1, pub GWR1923


JimC

229 views

P65 on. 

This is from Brunel's July 1838 report to the board. 

To my mind the report contains some special pleading and rather mixed logic! 

At this stage Brunel is envisaging carriage bodies set between large diameter wheels, and there is no thought of mixed gauges. 

He notes that larger track gauge does not necessarily mean a larger loading gauge. 

It appears that the concepts of loading gauge and structure gauge are still somewhat loose at this time, although Brunel is writing for a non technical audience and doubtless must keep to plain language and simplify. 

He notes that the Liverpool and Manchester was constructed with 9'10" between verticals -, eg structure gauge, and this proved too small. The London and Birmingham was constructed with 11ft between verticals, and this is considered too small by some (wonder if by this he means himself!) 

He proposes to build the GWR to 13ft between verticals to permit 12ft loads, mentioning hay and other light weight traffic. 

He also talks about tunnels, clearly twin track. The London and Birmingham has 24ft tunnels, and he purposes to build the GWR to 30ft tunnels, "more with a view of diminishing the objections to tunnels and maintaining the same minimum space which hereafter may form a limit to the size and form of every thing carried on the railway, than from such a size being absolutely necessary.

 

And from P211 in the section on the Gauge war, it mentions that Wickwar and Fishponds tunnels on the Bristol and Gloucester, which was planned as narrow gauge but constructed as Broad gauge, were 26ft.

 

To put this in perspective, here are leading dimensions from when structure gauges were more firmly defined. 

 

By 1872 the GWR broad gauge structure gauge was 14ft9 wide at height, 14ft3 wide above the platform, and 11ft 2.5in wide at platform height. 

In 1908 the Narrow gauge GWR structure gauge was 14ft 2.5 in wide, and 25 ft. 5in for double track. 

By 1950 the official requirements from the Ministry of Transport Board of Trade were 25ft6 minimum, 26ft6 desirable for double track, and14ft4 minimum, 15ft4 desirable for single. 

Edited by JimC

  • Like 2

7 Comments


Recommended Comments

Since I last looked at it Network Rail's on line historical archive has greatly expanded, and looks to provide much fruitful material. Here for example is material on Box tunnel including many original drawings.
https://history.networkrail.co.uk/?name=so_8b606b1a-94fe-49ea-a1a2-6ea4717aa993

The drawings for Box Tunnel on the GWR mainline show it was indeed 30ft. To my surprise, as I've never considered such things before, the internal cross section and height appears to vary considerably, presumably with the strata each section was going through. Parts of it were not brick lined at all.

Those for Newport old tunnel on the broad gauge South Wales Railway (opened 1850)  show 28ft.

The single track Marley tunnel at Rattery, on the South Devon Railway, is shown as 16ft maximum, but is a good deal narrower at rail level.

Mickleton tunnel on the Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway is shown as 28ft. This was a mixed gauge line, initially with Brunel as engineer.  

Harbury tunnel on the mixed gauge Birmingham and Oxford Junction Railway shows 28ft.

  • Like 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold
On 01/09/2024 at 19:36, JimC said:

Since I last looked at it Network Rail's on line historical archive has greatly expanded, and looks to provide much fruitful material. Here for example is material on Box tunnel including many original drawings.
https://history.networkrail.co.uk/?name=so_8b606b1a-94fe-49ea-a1a2-6ea4717aa993

 

Some beautiful drawings in there, I especially like the simpler ones.

 

The website says the following about the Scope and Content: A collection of engineering drawings and other historical records held by Network Rail relating to today's railway infrastructure. They have been selected and appraised with reference to their connections to early railway infrastructure planning and design, notable engineers and their historical / engineering / architectural significance.

 

It is unclear to me whether this pertains to their collection as such, or only to what has been selected for upload. Or in other words, is there more?

 

Link to comment
On 08/09/2024 at 10:18, Mikkel said:

It is unclear to me whether this pertains to their collection as such, or only to what has been selected for upload. Or in other words, is there more?

I suspect that there is more.  For example, drawings of West Drayton Station [1855] are commercially available from Media Storehouse (attributed to Network Rail) but I cannot find them on the Network Rail Historical Archive website.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

Thanks Mike. I undertand why Network Rail would still need some drawings in these collections, but it seems to me that it would be good if the complete collection could also be held and accessed at one of the national museums/archives.

Link to comment

I imagine that adding drawings to the online archive is a low priority task only done when convenient. And I presume that many even most of their 'historical' drawings are actually still current, because the structures are still in use so one needs to know how they were built - with the exception of the Hastings lines tunnels of course, which weren't built to the drawings! One wonders how often they find other cases of contractors cutting corners. The Victorians were no more honest than we are, sometimes worse! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...