GWR broad gauge conversion

[buffalo]

...There were also a few interesting items of rolling stock designed to be able to be changed from BG to SG. In the main these look to have been wheels on the outside of the frames for BG and then replaced by wheels on the inside/between the frames for double framed items. Why scrap something that still had some life in it?

I assume your mention of frames means that you are referring to Dean's convertible locos. In the 1880s there was still a need to replace older broad gauge engines but it was known that they would only be needed for a short time. Several classes were designed as double framed engines to run on the standard gauge but they could be built or converted to broad gauge as needed. Most were converted back to standard gauge in 1892 or soon after.

 

Apart from locos, some broad gauge coaches were converted simply by taking a lengthways slice out and rejoining the two sides. However, in the latter days, many were produced with narrow bodies but were mounted on broad gauge underframes. When running in this form the brake vehicles were usually fitted with extra wide guards' lookouts so they could, if necessary see past wide bodied vehicles in the same train.

 

All very much a deliberate policy of designing for the change over rather than simply keeping the old stock going.

 

Nick

[wagonman]

 

Apart from locos, some broad gauge coaches were converted simply by taking a lengthways slice out and rejoining the two sides. However, in the latter days, many were produced with narrow bodies but were mounted on broad gauge underframes. When running in this form the brake vehicles were usually fitted with extra wide guards' lookouts so they could, if necessary see past wide bodied vehicles in the same train.

 

Interestingly, Holden (who was of course a Swindon man) did the opposite - sliced coaches lengthwise and inserted an extra panel - when he converted GER suburban stock to "six-a-side" for the Jazz.

[John_Hughes]

Bridge rail was still being rolled - occasionally - well into the 20th century and was used by both the GWR and WR for various places in loco depots. Plus of course redundant bridge rail was used for the straining posts in post & wire fences.

 

There's quite a bit of old bridge rail along the course of the old Manchester and Milford in use as regular fence posts in places, not as straining posts; presumably the original rail was cut down and sent out as a stock item for such purposes.

 

The WR habit of specifying 'odd' rail for depots certainly continued into the 1960s; Bath Road shed when new was completely laid in specially-rolled bullhead, despite the edict that all new work was to be done in f/b.

[Sheffield]

Bridge rail was rolled for overhead crane use until recent times, and thus would have been available for railway use without any problems.

[buffalo]

Bridge rail was rolled for overhead crane use until recent times, and thus would have been available for railway use without any problems.

Any idea what sizes/weights were produced for crane use? The GWR used a wide range from 45lb to 120ib per yard over the years.

 

Nick

[Castle]

Hi All,

 

Just for fun, there are a few pictures of the broad / dual gauge track at my home shed on Little Didcot. They are about half way down the page here:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/51212-little-didcot/page__st__25

 

Enjoy!

 

All the best,

 

Castle

[melmerby]

If we are talking odd junctions between broad/mixesd gauge and standard, how about Cheltenham, where there was a system to send the standard gauge trains north towards Brum and the broad gauge trains east to the GWR Cheltenham station without any moving parts!

 

I have never seen any pictures or diagrams of this. Does anybody have any information?

 

Keith

[Miss Prism]

There was such a 'no moving parts' turnout on Dorechester Junction at Scaleforum this year. The broad gauge has a single checkrail to keep it on its path, and the opposite wheel runs on its flanges at the point of divergence - the standard gauge follows its running rails uninterrupted.

[buffalo]

I don't remember seeing anything on that particular junction, Keith, but the idea is quite simple. It relies on a check rail on the non-common rail of the diverging line to steer the wheels across a small gap on the between the continuing common rail and its diverging rail. Like typical broad/mixed gauge crossings, it usually involves some running on flanges to cross the gap.

 

Nick

 

Edit: ps. Miss P beat me to it

 

pps. the current edition of the BGS Broadsheet has a couple of fascinating photos of Cowley Bridge junction, one in 1862 where the single line mixed gauge to Crediton diverges from the B&E double track main line. There are four rails involved as the narrow gauge to/from Crediton has to be directed to/from the appropriate side of the up and down main lines. Through this section, each of the outer (broad gauge) rails act as the common rail in one direction. Now that would be an interesting challenge to model!

[kevinlms]

If we are talking odd junctions between broad/mixesd gauge and standard, how about Cheltenham, where there was a system to send the standard gauge trains north towards Brum and the broad gauge trains east to the GWR Cheltenham station without any moving parts!

 

I have never seen any pictures or diagrams of this. Does anybody have any information?

 

Keith

 

Here is an example of the earlier arrangement as described & the later version enabling a run round for both gauges. At Southern Cross station, Melbourne Australia, platform 2. Standard gauge & 5ft 3in. Note notch in platform face to allow for body swing.

 

http://www.railgeelo...om/location/430

 

 

 

Edited to include.

 

The draw back to these type of points is that they have a speed limit of 15 kph, OK for a run round in a terminus, but not good for the mainline.

 

http://www.vline.com.au/pdf/networkaccess/trainoperatingdata/southerncross_to_bendigo.pdf

 

The West Footscray Junction to Sunshine section has such a set of points.

[buffalo]

Interesting photos, Kevin. It's a pity the second one doesn't show the arrangement at the toe of the turnout at the bottom because that could well be exactly what Keith described. The third and fourth photos are also interesting in that they show different examples of check rails being used to "steer" wheels with no other moving parts.

 

Nick

[Fat Controller]

Any idea what sizes/weights were produced for crane use? The GWR used a wide range from 45lb to 120ib per yard over the years.

 

Nick

It would appear from this site:-

http://www.crane-rail.co.uk/products-railsections.htm

that bridge rail is still manufactured.

Appart from the use in fencing, I've seen it used for posts for signage ('SW' boards, 'All down Goods and Mineral...')

[buffalo]

It would appear from this site:-

http://www.crane-rai...ailsections.htm

that bridge rail is still manufactured.

Interesting, some of those 'crane rail' sections are reminiscent of early Vignoles rail profiles.

 

Appart from the use in fencing, I've seen it used for posts for signage ('SW' boards, 'All down Goods and Mineral...')

Yes, I'm surprised no one has mentioned that before. Other uses included mounting on posts as a protective barrier, rather like modern Armco, to protect fencing and buildings from vehicles, and in constructing cattle docks.

 

Nick

 

ps. I've just spotted another late surviving section of narrow gauge baulk rail. Plate 479 in Vaughan's Pictorial Record of GW Architecture is a 1948 photo showing a siding running along by the ground frame towards the stone p/w hut on the north side of the line at the western end of Box tunnel. Presumably at that date it was just for p/w use as there is an "Engines must not pass..." board.

[The Stationmaster]

 

ps. I've just spotted another late surviving section of narrow gauge baulk rail. Plate 479 in Vaughan's Pictorial Record of GW Architecture is a 1948 photo showing a siding running along by the ground frame towards the stone p/w hut on the north side of the line at the western end of Box tunnel. Presumably at that date it was just for p/w use as there is an "Engines must not pass..." board.

Bridge rail was used for those little 'sidings' (more like parking places) for PW motor trolleys and which were laid out at right angles to the running line (no, there wasn't a turntable!).

[corneliuslundie]

Back to the specific question, or almost.

 

In the November 1992 issue of Welsh Railways Archive there are two articles about gauge conversion. One is about the South Wales Mineral Railway, which was engineered by Brunel. The other is a summary of two articles published in the Railway Magazine in 1898 and 1899. They were written by Lancaster Owen, who was chief engineer of the GWR in the latter part of the 19th century. His articles have two themes - why he thought the broad gauge had been a mistake, and how the GWR coped with its elimination. He gives quite a lot of useful information about the procedures used. The first conversion, between Grange Court and Hereford, was used as a test of the methods proposed, not all of which worked well. When the South Wales Railway was converted it was double track and a skeleton service was maintained. This was not possible in the south west.There were also alternative routes for much of it, such as via the Vale of Neath Railway (already converted) and the Taff Vale Extension Railway, or from Carmarthen via the LNWR and Central Wales.

 

There are several references to gauge conversion of the Vale of Neath Railway in the published history of the line (Briwnant Jones and Dunstone, Gomer, 1996), but I don't think they are very useful in the present context.

 

There is also a quite a bit about gauge conversion on the Severn & Wye in print (eg in the four Wild Swan books), though there the process was complicated by having only recently been converted from tramways some of which were still in use. On part of the line mixed gauge was laid but used for less than a month.

 

I think there are also references in print to gauge conversions in Devon, both of the lines which did not become part of the GWR and the branches which did.

 

By the way, old Barlow rail didn't usually come about as a result of the gauge conversion. It had already been found to be unsuccessful. There is a large amount about it in various issues of Welsh Railways Archive. Brunel hoped it would be cheaper than his normal design of broad gauge track but it didn't hold its gauge.

 

Most backnumbers of Welsh Railways Archive can be obtained from the Welsh Railways Research Circle or its distributor, Lightmoor Press, though probably not the one with the Lancaster Owen articles. Its website will give details.

[MarshLane]

Sorry for reopening an old post, I found this fascinating reading. But it brought a couple of queries to mind?

 

I always thought that GWR broadgauge was always laid on baulk road longitudinal sleepers, but the suggestion above is that some was in later years relaid on what is now normal transverse sleepers. Was this done because the methods changed over the years, or purely in preparation for the regauging? 

 

Also, does anyone know how long each of the baulks were in length, I am assuming it was the same as a length of bridge rail? 

 

Rich

[Miss Prism]

 

11 minutes ago, MarshLane said:

I always thought that GWR broadgauge was always laid on baulk road longitudinal sleepers, but the suggestion above is that some was in later years relaid on what is now normal transverse sleepers. Was this done because the methods changed over the years, or purely in preparation for the regauging? 

 

I'm sure I've seen a pic (at Redruth??) of transverse sleeping under 7' gauge, but I think it was very close to 1892, so in preparation for the switchover.

 

Baulks were normally 30', i.e. double the length between the vertical piles (if these were present).

 

[melmerby]

In 1892 when the gauge conversion took place only about 171 miles of purely broad gauge needed to be done, much of the rest of the system was mixed gauge track, a lot of it baulk road.

The broad gauge rails were subsequently removed from the mixed gauge leaving quite a lot of "narrow gauge" on baulk track, which was only converted to sleepered track sometime afterwards.

[russ p]

On a slightly different note when was the last broad gauge lifted?  It states earlier that all remaining stock from the south west was worked to Swindon for disposal so this implies that dual gauge track was still extant to Swindon and presumably elsewhere.

I wonder when this had its broad gauge rail removed?

[melmerby]

9 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

I'm sure I've seen a pic (at Redruth??) of transverse sleeping under 7' gauge, but I think it was very close to 1892, so in preparation for the switchover.

 

There is a picture in the "150 Glorious Years" volume of a broad gauge (only) double track at Torquay where the down line is baulk road and the up line is sleepered track

[MarshLane]

52 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

 

I'm sure I've seen a pic (at Redruth??) of transverse sleeping under 7' gauge, but I think it was very close to 1892, so in preparation for the switchover.

 

Baulks were normally 30', i.e. double the length between the vertical piles (if these were present).

 

 

Thanks Miss P. Reading through the original thread, it seemed to suggest that the relaying to what we would now term sleepered track was potentially in preparation for the switchover, but I assume it would still have been on the traditional bridge rail, rather than bullhead for both broad and 'narrow' gauge?

 

39 minutes ago, melmerby said:

There is a picture in the "150 Glorious Years" volume of a broad gauge (only) double track at Torquay where the down line is baulk road and the up line is sleepered track

I can imagine that is an interesting photograph!  Is there a date on it at all?  I did wonder if there was a point at which, when the decision to abandon broad gauge had been taken, the PW department said right, from this point forward all renewals and relaying will be done on sleepered track to make the conversion easier.  If so, has such a date ever been discovered I wonder?

[melmerby]

35 minutes ago, MarshLane said:

 

I can imagine that is an interesting photograph!  Is there a date on it at all?  I did wonder if there was a point at which, when the decision to abandon broad gauge had been taken, the PW department said right, from this point forward all renewals and relaying will be done on sleepered track to make the conversion easier.  If so, has such a date ever been discovered I wonder?

It just says "Days before the end of the broad gauge"

Most of the remaining broad only baulk track was narrowed by cutting the transverse timbers and narrowing it.

So there were three different versions

Mixed gauge baulk (only the broad rail needed to be removed when convenient.

Broad only baulk where the transverse timbers nedd to be cut

Conventional sleppered track where just the rail needed to be moved.

 

As regards the decision to abandon the broad gauge, it seems that by the 1860s it had been accepted as "going to happen" sometime

Not many realise that Broad & Mixed gauge track wasn't only on the GWR

The Bristol & Gloucester was an ally of the B&E but was bought by the Midland

Exeter to Barnstable was also allied to the "Western" camp but bought by the LSWR.

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, MarshLane said:

Sorry for reopening an old post, I found this fascinating reading. But it brought a couple of queries to mind?

 

I always thought that GWR broadgauge was always laid on baulk road longitudinal sleepers, but the suggestion above is that some was in later years relaid on what is now normal transverse sleepers. Was this done because the methods changed over the years, or purely in preparation for the regauging? 

 

Also, does anyone know how long each of the baulks were in length, I am assuming it was the same as a length of bridge rail? 

 

Rich

It was originally found that when one of the baulk sleepers was moved in to narrow the gauge it could be subject to dipping because the ballast beneath it was not as compacted as that under the other running rail.  Transverse sleepers were introduced to tackle this problem but were far from universal on sections where only broad gauge existed and of course this problem was not so prevalent on mixed gauge sections where narrow gauge trains were already running.

 

 At the time of the final gauge conversion in 1892 the GWR only had 171m 6ch of purely broad gauge track, and 252m 26ch of mixed gauge (fascinating perhaps to realise that at 31 December 1875 it had had only 8m 16ch of broad gauge track and 122m 18ch of mixed gauge against 1402m 38ch of narrow gauge, yes I did write eight miles 16 chains of broad gauge track).  And of what was converted in the big changeover in 1892 only 100 miles of principal or 'main line' broad gauge track still existed - all wholly within Devon and Cornwall plus various branches.

 

The mixed gauge officially ceased to exist, and be recorded as such from 23 May 1892 but obviously recovery of the third rail would have taken some time after that.

[russ p]

Is there any evidence of mixed gauge sleepered track ever existed?

[Miss Prism]

1 hour ago, MarshLane said:

Thanks Miss P. Reading through the original thread, it seemed to suggest that the relaying to what we would now term sleepered track was potentially in preparation for the switchover, but I assume it would still have been on the traditional bridge rail, rather than bullhead for both broad and 'narrow' gauge?

 

I get the impression that bridge rail wasn't fancied for narrow gauge, at least for running lines. Flat-bottom section seemed, if not widespread, common as a sort of interim measure before bullhead became properly established:

http://www.gwr.org.uk/440-pics/3355-at-bath.jpg