More Pre-Grouping Wagons in 4mm - the D299 appreciation thread.

[Argos]

16 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

And today we worry about people lifting a 25kg (half hundredweight) sack.  We've all become soft.

 

As someone who had a labouring job on a building site whilst at university and expected to carry 2x 25 kg bags of cement, or occasionally one 50kg bag, it is not that we've gone soft. It is that we have recognised the impact on health and well being of regularly manually handling heavy loads. 

[Compound2632]

I do notionally have a separate topic for carriages but I hope all you who come here for wagons will excuse a brief excursion into the passenger department, This photograph of the 1893 station at Leicester West Bridge is well-known but there is something that has caught my eye:

 

 

[Embedded link to Leicester Mercury.]

 

When the Midland got into building 31 ft 6-wheelers for local services in the 1880s, a batch of seven - two luggage composites, a third, and four third brakes - were built only 7' 8" wide over the body, rather than the standard 8' 0", for West Bridge trains, on account of the narrowness of Glenfield tunnel:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64774.]

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue image of MRSC 28524-050]

 

 

31 ft luggage composite No. 213, one of the pair built 7' 8" wide for West Bridge trains, part of lot 201 of 30 January 1888 [Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64263.] 

 

Now, in the photo of West Bridge, we've got a train of four six-wheelers. The leading carriage is clearly a third brake; I think the third is a luggage composite, and at the rear probably another third brake. But the second carriage has a different profile - it looks wider, and the upper footboard looks different. I think it is a 29 ft first, one of a batch of 100 built by Ashbury and Metropolitan in 1875:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64309.]

 

These were built as 4-wheelers but converted to 6-wheelers around 1880 - the tell-tale is the "modern" J-hangers for the springs on the centre axle but the "antique" swing-links for the outer axles. They were widely used with the later 6-wheelers in local and suburban trains and can be distinguished from the 30 ft firsts of 1883 built for the close-coupled sets by the individual iron step-plates to each compartment door, rather than continuous upper foot board. What does look odd about the one in the West Bridge photo is the eves: the roof does not overhang. It looks to me as if this is a carriage specially modified to clear Glenfield tunnel by having its roof cut back so that it's no wider than the body.

 

While we're at West Bridge, here's a photo of the old station, with wagons:

 

 

[Embedded link to Story of Leicester website.] 

 

There's a nice dumb buffer ex-private owner wagon there and in front of it a D299 with the end-strap and also with Ellis 10A axleboxes, indicating a date no earlier than 1889-90; it can be no later than the rebuilding of the station in 1893, I suppose.

 

Chunky coal!

 

(The MRSC has copies of the two photos of West Bridge posted above, and also the photo with the early covered wagon, but the catalogue thumbnails don't reveal the detail so well.)

[Compound2632]

I've realised that what the diagram reproduced above [MRSC 28524-050] shows are the dimensions of the standard non-bogie carriages of the 1880s, the 6-wheeler being shown as the 32 ft length used for family carriages and saloons. The drawing is annotated Received with Mr Clayton's letter of Aug 4th/87 so I suspect this was attached to correspondence between The C&W Dept and the Engineer's Dept: Here's the standard stock, will it fit? 1887/8 was when the last Kirtley-period carriages were withdrawn; one can imagine that the West Bridge trains were low down the pecking order for new stock. 

 

West Bridge station, reputedly the third oldest in the world, closed to passengers in 1928. No doubt there was a variety of factors leading to this but I do wonder if the carriages that would fit through Glenfield tunnel having reached 40 years of age was one.

Edited March 1, 2023 by Compound2632

[magmouse]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

But the second carriage has a different profile - it looks wider, and the upper footboard looks different.

Yes, definitely wider - there is no dark vertical line between it and the carriage behind, whereas you have a dark line at each place the other  carriages meet. Also, the dark line between first and second carriage varies in width, suggesting a different profile to the tumblehome. The second carriage goes down straighter before tucking in more sharply. The bottom of the windows are also lower. All this is at the limit of what the photo can resolve, of course…

 

I wonder about the roof, though - is it cut back, as you suggest, or lighter in colour (cleaner), so we don’t see a dark edge?

 

The photo of West Bridge is interesting, with the passenger facilities so close to the goods, including the track infilled with setts. Also the buildings, centre in the picture, right by the tracks. All very modelable, perhaps as a cameo, with just half the platform, a few sidings and the buildings around. Has anyone done it?

 

Nick.

[MR Chuffer]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

catalogue thumbnails don't reveal the detail so well

My HN Twells book has this photo of the old West Bridge station cropped to the building and the wagon next to it reproduced to A4 size, which is what duped me as I thought it was another photo.

 

Reason for passenger services ceasing in 1928 could also include the 6-7 mile branch being 1 engine in steam and therefore interfering with the substantial coal traffic to the wharves there, which continued until April 1966. And also, the station was in a poor place for passenger access having been located there for offloading coal onto the Grand Union Canal, passengers were an afterthought and the main passenger services being through Leicester London Road were far more convenient. Though the Great Central was later to build its Leicester Central station close by the West Bridge terminus and which was equally inconvenient for the majority of Leicester citizens/travellers.

 

 

Edited March 1, 2023 by MR Chuffer

[MR Chuffer]

7 minutes ago, magmouse said:

Has anyone done it?

I was minded to do it 40+ years in Midland guise, I lived not too far away, but then lost the model railway bug. Now located in East Lancashire but I still have some Leicestershire PO coal wagons that demonstrate good eyesight and the steady hand of younger years.

 

Search the internet for Leicester West Bridge and you'll find lots of photos and materials to stimulate your interest, very modellable...

[Compound2632]

12 minutes ago, magmouse said:

Yes, definitely wider - there is no dark vertical line between it and the carriage behind, whereas you have a dark line at each place the other  carriages meet. Also, the dark line between first and second carriage varies in width, suggesting a different profile to the tumblehome. 

 

That would be right, since I think the West Bridge special carriages were the standard width at floor level, so the tumblehome would have a larger radius.

 

14 minutes ago, magmouse said:

The second carriage goes down straighter before tucking in more sharply. The bottom of the windows are also lower. 

 

That's a good spot. Clayton's earliest carriages, including these 29 ft firsts, had waist panels 2" less tall than became standard, with windows and eves panels correspondingly 1" taller each. This would also have led to the curve of the tumblehome being a slightly tighter radius, increasing the contrast with the West Bridge stock.

 

21 minutes ago, magmouse said:

I wonder about the roof, though - is it cut back, as you suggest, or lighter in colour (cleaner), so we don’t see a dark edge?

 

There's a strong shadow line under the eves of the West Bridge stock, which I think one would expect to see whatever the state of cleanliness. Besides, if standard carriages could pass through the tunnel unaltered, what would have been the point of the special stock?

 

23 minutes ago, magmouse said:

The photo of West Bridge is interesting, with the passenger facilities so close to the goods, including the track infilled with setts. Also the buildings, centre in the picture, right by the tracks. All very modelable, perhaps as a cameo, with just half the platform, a few sidings and the buildings around. Has anyone done it?

 

There's a splendid 2-chain plan [MRSC 20600] that shows the relationship between the original station, the later expansion of the goods station, the 1893 station, and the Great Central. I note Tudor Road along the western side of the site. Looking at a modern map, I see that the access road along the Soar for the industrial estate that now occupies the site has been named Richard III Road...

 

Here's a thumbnail of the photo that @MR Chuffer was thinking of:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 60842.]

 

Here's another, from a slightly different angle, but apparently showing the same ancient wagon:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue image of MRSC 30627-9.]

 

This shows the platform, which also appears in the photo with the wagons of chunky coal I posted earlier. According to the Story of Leicester website, the platform was added in 1876. Now I'm playing spot-the-difference between this and the chunky coal photo, taken in the early 1890s. 

[Asterix2012]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I've realised that what the diagram reproduced above [MRSC 28524-050] shows are the dimensions of the standard non-bogie carriages of the 1880s, the 6-wheeler being shown as the 32 ft length used for family carriages and saloons. The drawing is annotated Received with Mr Clayton's letter of Aug 4th/87 so I suspect this was attached to correspondence between The C&W Dept and the Engineer's Dept: Here's the standard stock, will it fit? 1887/8 was when the last Kirtley-period carriages were withdrawn; one can imagine that the West Bridge trains were low down the pecking order for new stock. 

 

West Bridge station, reputedly the third oldest in the world, closed to passengers in 1928. No doubt there was a variety of factors leading to this but I do wonder if the carriages that would fit through Glenfield tunnel having reached 40 years of age was one.

Interesting, Newtyle old station opened apparently in 1831, although long ago changed to goods only when the new station opened in 1868 and the old incline closed.

 

Still exists as well as one of the few remaining artefacts of the old Dundee and Newtyle Railway.

[Compound2632]

9 minutes ago, Asterix2012 said:

Interesting, Newtyle old station opened apparently in 1831, although long ago changed to goods only when the new station opened in 1868 and the old incline closed.

 

The "third oldest" claim for West Bridge does seem rather doubtful. There were intermediate stations on the L&M, weren't there? And anyway, one station implies another with the same opening date, unless you're just going round in circles or out and back for the fun of it.

Edited March 1, 2023 by Compound2632

[John-Miles]

20 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

There in a photo in "Midland Railway, Swansea Vale & branches" by John Miles and Tudor Watkins of a SVR van built by Gloucester. It is outside frames, very low with hinged double doors. Load is 6 tons. It has wooden brake blocks and the brake lever visible is at a high angle and curved upwards rather like those on some NER hopper wagons. The number is 75.

There is a high angle view of Ynysygeinon sidings with a row of what appear to my inexpert eye to be typical MR vans, probably too late anyway to be those discussed above. But there is not a single photo of a Midland period goods train with any vans.

Jonathan 

Sorry for being late to reply but I rarely look at RMWeb these days. For photos of Midland South Wales through goods trains consult Bill Smith's excellent book on the Hereford, Hay and Brecon. You will see Vans!!

[Andy Hayter]

21 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

And today we worry about people lifting a 25kg (half hundredweight) sack.  We've all become soft.

 

 

My apologies to those who found this post upsetting.  It was very much meant to be a tongue in cheek comment

 

As one who was responsible to ensuring that kinetic handling regulations were respected in our business for our workers and our customers; and more as one who still has to buy sand, cement and gravel in 35kg (no that is not a typo thirty five) bags, and wonders how that is even legal, I can assure you that I fully understand why there are limits on the weights of packages to be manually handled.

[MR Chuffer]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

what would have been the point of the special stock?

Quite, but the stock did have horizontal bars across the windows to prevent heads and limbs protruding whilst approaching Glenfield Tunnel. There is a photo somewhere of the explicit "special" stock newly outshopped at Derby clearly showing the bars which I cannot locate currently.

[Compound2632]

31 minutes ago, MR Chuffer said:

Quite, but the stock did have horizontal bars across the windows to prevent heads and limbs protruding whilst approaching Glenfield Tunnel. There is a photo somewhere of the explicit "special" stock newly outshopped at Derby clearly showing the bars which I cannot locate currently.

 

I posted the official of one of the pair of composites; here's a third brake, No. 1247:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64265]

 

and the solitary third, No. 929:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64262]

 

with the bars clearly visible in both. I suppose that a 29 ft first adapted for West Bridge use would also have had these fitted.

 

As with the regular 6-wheel thirds and third brakes, these were built to the same drawing.

[Compound2632]

To go back to early covered goods wagons: Henry Henson described his design of covered goods wagon in a paper read to the 30 July 1852 meeting of the I.Mech.E., at its house in Newhall Street, Birmingham, with J.E. McConnell in the chair. He exhibited a model and the Proceedings included this illustration:

 

 

Which in outline does look very like Johnson's wagon of 1848:

 

 

Detail drawings show variations on the roof hatch, which could either slide across the wagon, in the fashion of later LNWR vans, or in two halves along the wagon. In his paper, Henson spent a good deal of time puffing up the advantages of covered wagons compared to the sheeted opens of his time, seeing tarpaulin as a fire hazard in itself and giving alarmingly numerous examples of accidents in which vans of his type (and their contents) had survived rolling down embankments and so forth - "in fact exposed to all the violence of collisions taking place with trains of seventy wagons, travelling from 20 to 30 miles an hour, and loaded on an average with 3 1/2 tons each, the gross weight in motion being about 490 tons". 

 

Henson's wagon was wood framed with sheet iron panelling, "No. 16 gauge" - 1/16 inch thick, if that equates to modern standards - with a bedding of felt between the timber frame and the iron panels. The roof panels were also of iron sheet on wooden ribs. The side doors were sliding, not hinged. Henson also described a version in which the side and top doors were a single unit, that slid to one side - rather a modern concept, I think! A section drawing of the transverse sliding hatch shows the side door on one side only, again as in later LNWR wagons.

 

Henson drew attention to what he claimed was an improvement in the ratio of carrying capacity to tare weight of his design over contemporary open wagons, which led to a question as to whether this could be improved by building much larger wagons. Henson replied that "the great objection to any extension of the length of the wagons was the manner in which they were now confined by the station buildings, the approaches to the warehouses, and the turntables." 

 

Comparing Johnson's sketch with Henson's wagon, I think we see horizontal timbering for the sides, rather than iron panels. It is unclear which way the roof hatch slides.

 

My thanks to Adrian Marks for sending me the I.Mech.E. proceedings.

[corneliuslundie]

I was wondering whether the door on the Midland wagon was sheet iron with an iron frame as no planking is shown, but the frame has more of a feel of having been of timber, to me. And there is no clear indication of how it would open. unless the horizontal rectangles represent some kind of fixing, but if so why both sides of the door? I initially assumed that they were merely straps like those at the ends, which I presume carried round on to the ends and were carrying out the function normally carried out in later years by corner plates.

Unfortunately, they evidently didn't survive until 1912 as it would be fun to build a model - though brake gear if any would be guesswork.

Jonathan

[Compound2632]

9 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Unfortunately, they evidently didn't survive until 1912 as it would be fun to build a model - though brake gear if any would be guesswork.

 

But something very like Henson's wagon became the standard wagon in Ireland, lasting well into the 20th century, though they generally had canvas hatch coverings rather than solid sliding hatches.

 

 

[magmouse]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

A section drawing of the transverse sliding hatch shows the side door on one side only, again as in later LNWR wagons.

 

There is always a compromise somewhere. It seems some companies followed the logic of:

 

 - covered goods wagons a better at protecting the load/not catching fire than sheeted wagons

 - but have the disadvantage of not being able to crane a load into the wagon

 - unless you add a roof hatch

 - but that needs to open more than half the roof, so it is structurally better to only have doors one side (and that is where they chose to place the compromise)

 

For these companies, were goods sheds provided with platforms on both sides? Otherwise, what happened if a wagon with single sided doors arrived the wrong way round? Or were there always wagon turntables - even in smaller goods yards?

 

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

He exhibited a model

 

Was this common practice at this time? We are familiar with sketches and scale drawings as means to communicate design intentions, but I wasn't aware of models being used in this context. I am especially curious about this, as I am familiar with the history of models as design tools in theatre, which didn't get going really until the early-mid 20th century. Much earlier in architecture, of course, so there are precedents, but rarer in engineering, I think.

 

Nick.

 

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, magmouse said:

Was this common practice at this time? We are familiar with sketches and scale drawings as means to communicate design intentions, but I wasn't aware of models being used in this context. I am especially curious about this, as I am familiar with the history of models as design tools in theatre, which didn't get going really until the early-mid 20th century. Much earlier in architecture, of course, so there are precedents, but rarer in engineering, I think.

 

Henson exhibited his wagon at the Great Exhibition:

https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/1851_Great_Exhibition:_Official_Catalogue:_Class_V.:_Henry_H._Henson

Perhaps what was exhibited was this same model.

 

When Clayton took up his position as Midland C&W Superintendent, he found space taken up in the workshops by a model carriage built in February 1872 at the request of Sir Jas Whitworth, at a cost of £39 10s. He asked the Directors of the C&W Committee what to do with it and was instructed to write to Sir Jas Whitworth asking for his instructions. The outcome is not recorded. 

 

Jas is usually an abbreviation for James but I expect this is Sir Joseph Whitworth of screw thread fame; he had many connections in Derbyshire. . (I should check if he was a director of the Midland.)

 

1 hour ago, magmouse said:

For these companies, were goods sheds provided with platforms on both sides? Otherwise, what happened if a wagon with single sided doors arrived the wrong way round? Or were there always wagon turntables - even in smaller goods yards?

 

I gather Henson was at this time Wagon Superintendent of the LNWR Southern Division, based at Camden, though dismissed a few years later for privately selling off stores. Certainly it seems to have been with the LNWR that this type of wagon persisted longest and that company was a great user of wagon turntables - presumably having been first in the field, it perpetuated them. 

 

 

The offside of a LNWR diagram D32 covered goods wagon, a type built up to 1894 [Embedded link to LNWR Society website.]

[WFPettigrew]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Certainly it seems to have been with the LNWR that this type of wagon persisted longest and that company was a great user of wagon turntables

 

But there was a potential hitch in all this.  Any loaded LNWR covered wagon/van that was sent to a foreign line was then reliant on said recipient being able to unload the wagon. 

 

As an example, going by the OS 25 inch maps on the NLS website, there were only wagon turntables on the Furness Railway in the goods yards at Grange, Ulverston and Barrow.   There isn't even a single one shown at Carnforth (to spin any incoming LNWR vans to the right orientation before despatching onwards) or at the big Preston Street goods depot in Whitehaven (though there was the loco turntable at nearby Corkickle shed I guess). 

 

A LNWR single door van arriving into any of the other goods yards on the Furness could not be unloaded in the goods shed if the door was on the wrong side.  So either the LNWR would have had to be mindful of the orientation of the receiving station's goods facilities (including any reversals en route), and turn the wagon accordingly, or the FR would have to incur additional expense in tripping the van just to turn it, or the receiving station would have had to unload out in the open, from ground level, which would at least prompt a sense of humour bypass among the staff, and could result in the damage to goods which had been deemed necessary to travel under cover, if it was rainy the day the wagon arrived. 

 

All the best

 

Neil 

 

Edited March 2, 2023 by WFPettigrew
Typo

[Compound2632]

20 minutes ago, WFPettigrew said:

A LNWR single door van arriving into any of the other goods yards on the Furness could not be unloaded in the goods shed if the door was on the wrong side.  So either the LNWR would had to be mindful of the orientation of the receiving station's goods facilities (including any reversals en route), and turn the wagon accordingly, or the FR would have to incur additional expense in tripping the van just to turn it, or the receiving station would have had to unload out in the open, from ground level, which would at least prompt a sense of humour bypass among the staff, and could result in the damage to goods which had been deemed necessary to travel under cover, if it was rainy the day the wagon arrived. 

 

You should address your remarks to Geo. Findlay Esq., General Manager, London & North-western Railway, Euston Station.

[Compound2632]

Really, who are these finicky folk who want covered wagons for their goods? What's wrong with a sheeted open? Even when it needs two sheets?

 

 

I think this shows I didn't make my load tall enough. The M is completely obscured whereas on my reference photos, there's a good plank's-worth visible. i'm not entirely happy with the tying-off at the end:

 

 

A bit more poking an cautious application of PVA is wanted, I think.

 

Another thing Adrian Marks sent me is a copy of an article Wagons, Sheets, Strings and Labels by David Bousfield, from Great Eastern Journal No. 189 (January 2022) pp. 43-47. Quite apart from being a careful examination of the appearance and use of Great Eastern sheets, it has a useful bibliography, including urls for scans of volumes of Railway Clearing House Regulations from 1882-84:

https://archive.org/details/regulations03housgoog/page/n11/mode/2up?view=theater

 

That got me looking up "blue billy", which turns out to be a particularly noxious waste product of gasworks, which some companies objected to being loaded in their wagons, and "purple ore", which may be bornite but from the context is more likely some other offensive chemical by-product, equally unwanted in some companies' wagons.

[jamie92208]

On 01/03/2023 at 14:26, Andy Hayter said:

 

 

My apologies to those who found this post upsetting.  It was very much meant to be a tongue in cheek comment

 

As one who was responsible to ensuring that kinetic handling regulations were respected in our business for our workers and our customers; and more as one who still has to buy sand, cement and gravel in 35kg (no that is not a typo thirty five) bags, and wonders how that is even legal, I can assure you that I fully understand why there are limits on the weights of packages to be manually handled.

Yes Andy they do usec35kg bahs here in La Belle France.

 

Jamie

Edited March 2, 2023 by jamie92208

[magmouse]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

I think this shows I didn't make my load tall enough.

 

Or your sheet is too big? I was so concerned there wouldn't be enough of a gap for the straw to poke through on my sheeted-straw wagon, I made the sheet slightly under scale size. In the end I may have slightly over-done it, but - as they say - heigh-ho...

 

It's great to see this coming along. I hadn't realised, for some reason, MR sheets had yellow edges. I may have to do one now! I already have plans for an LNWR sheeted open...

 

A suggestion, if I may, regarding the folds at the ends. I found that I could use a pair of tweezers, with one prong slipped up under the sheet, and the other outside, to sharpen existing creases or add new ones by gently twisting the tweezers. So, for example, the hanging part of the sheet where the "44" is visible on the end could have a few small, vertical creases introduced. These help give a sense the sheet is flexible and hanging under its own weight, rather than being held up by the stiffness of the material.

 

Similarly, with the fold made by tying the corner of the sheet to the centre of the end, which starts above the letter 'R' and folds round the end of the wagon, might be persuaded into a slight curve, sagging under the weight of the material.

 

And going back to the visibly of the letters under the sheet, this is determined not only by the height of the load, but also whether the sheet was placed symmetrically on the wagon. Some of the GWR pictures I have looked at, with sheets rails providing a known height, I am pretty sure the sheet is off centre to either hide or reveal the amount of the wagon side that can in fact be seen. Either that or the sheet is a non-standard size, which seems unlikely.

 

I hope that helps -

 

Nick.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, magmouse said:

I hope that helps

 

It certainly does; I shall try out your suggestions. I've got the second sheet half on; there have to be ropes over it all too, three crossways and two lengthways.

 

1 hour ago, magmouse said:

Or your sheet is too big?

 

I've just checked an uncut sheet: 84 mm x 57 mm, or 21' 0" x 14' 4" near enough - the regulation size.

 

1 hour ago, magmouse said:

It's great to see this coming along. I hadn't realised, for some reason, MR sheets had yellow edges. I may have to do one now! I already have plans for an LNWR sheeted open...

 

The yellow border is attested by all the written sources but can you see it in a photo?

 

LNWR sheets are a bit of a minefield (and Caledonian too). Most suppliers offer a saltire cross extending from corner to corner, in red (or blue for the Caley). But I think the most informed opinion says that for my period (or maybe a little earlier) the design was a right cross, stopping short of the edges. But whether that's true for c. 1908... On the other hand, some earlier sources - 1870s/80s - suggest a saltire.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Compound2632

[magmouse]

15 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

LNWR sheets are a bit of a minefield (and Caledonian too). Most suppliers offer a saltire cross extending from corner to corner, in red (or blue for the Caley). But I think the most informed opinion says that for my period (or maybe a little earlier) the design was a right cross, stopping short of the edges. But whether that's true for c. 1908... On the other hand, some earlier sources - 1870s/80s - suggest a saltire.

I haven’t looked into this properly yet, I’ve just been collecting info as I have come across it, such as the following Getty Images picture, showing a right cross, and the clearest view of the distinctive font for the lettering I have found so far:

 

 

The caption says circa 1898, confirming your view for your period. But there is a suggestion it might have changed to the saltire a bit later?

 

The 1912 view linked below has the suggestion of right crosses both on the wagon with the newly painted sheet on the left (a faint line next to the ampersand) and on the wagon near the centre, on the same track (faint line running vertically on the sheet where it hangs down over the end of the wagon). Assuming (!) the dates are more or less correct for both these images, that strongly indicates the right-cross was the design through the first decade on the 20th century, unless the change to the saltire was very short-lived.

 

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/lnwrcs1503.htm

 

Nick.