Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, john new said:

Stone bridge abutments and a York or Gateshead engine so is it north of York not south?

 

 

Good question John,

 

I mentioned before that I don't think it's the ECML proper, but the route is RA9.

 

Somewhere in Co. Durham?

 

Regards. 

[rowanj]

33 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good question John,

 

I mentioned before that I don't think it's the ECML proper, but the route is RA9.

 

Somewhere in Co. Durham?

 

Regards. 

The defining clue will be identification of the bridge, but my money is on the Leamside Branch, frequently used as an RA9 diversionary route between Newcastle and Darlington, and actually the original mainline. The track, telegraph poles and an NER -based loco (Bon Accord) make this a real possibility. 

[Blandford1969]

25 minutes ago, rowanj said:

The defining clue will be identification of the bridge, but my money is on the Leamside Branch, frequently used as an RA9 diversionary route between Newcastle and Darlington, and actually the original mainline. The track, telegraph poles and an NER -based loco (Bon Accord) make this a real possibility. 

I've posted it The Railway Identification Group'  we have got an incredible mix of people and knowledge who have helped to identify lots of unknown images and places. 

 

As someone else said- every little helps

 

[31A]

On 18/12/2021 at 22:01, robertcwp said:

I wonder if the East Coast expertise on this thread may help in identifying the location for this image, please:

 

60154_undated by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

Looks to me very much like one of the over bridges between Micklefield and Garforth on the York-Leeds line.

 

See here for example:

 

http://www.railwayarchitecture.org.uk/Location/Garforth/Garforth.htm

 

Above site doesn't say so, but I think there is more than one bridge of similar design on that stretch.

 

Edit:  Should have said, between Cross Gates and Garforth; same line though!

Edited December 19, 2021 by 31A

[robertcwp]

18 hours ago, 31A said:

 

Looks to me very much like one of the over bridges between Micklefield and Garforth on the York-Leeds line.

 

See here for example:

 

http://www.railwayarchitecture.org.uk/Location/Garforth/Garforth.htm

 

Above site doesn't say so, but I think there is more than one bridge of similar design on that stretch.

 

Edit:  Should have said, between Cross Gates and Garforth; same line though!

It does look similar to this one but the track here is curved.

[t-b-g]

14 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

It does look similar to this one but the track here is curved.

 

If you go a bit further East, there is a similar looking structure on straight track East of East Garforth station.

 

I had a look on Google Earth after the Garforth tip but couldn't see enough of the bridge to be sure that it is the same type but the embankment looks promising.

[Tony Wright]

Occasional a surprise can be a wonderful thing.........

 

This lunchtime, our postman delivered a little box.

 

In it was this..................

 

 

It's a gift from Dylan Sanderson, which he's built from a 51L white metal kit for a Dia. C10 NER 12T open goods wagon. 

 

The reason for making it for me is because I've given him assistance in his building models. He states 'It might not be up to LB standards' (he's talking b0ll0cks of course!). 

 

What a lovely surprise. Thank you ever so much, Dylan. 

 

I'll paint it, and it'll definitely find use on Little Bytham; especially since it's been so well-made. 

 

Dylan is one of the team in Scale Model Scenery. 

[Tony Wright]

In response to a request for suitable transfers, John Isherwood of Cambridge Custom Transfers supplied me with what was required to complete this................

 

It's an ex-GNR 10 ton ballast brake van, built from a D&S kit by Rob Kinsey (another gift!). 

 

On Page 255 of the March 2017 issue of British Railways Illustrated, there is a picture of just such a brake. 

 

John produced the lovely transfers based on this picture (Sheet LB02). Thanks John.

 

It's a cruel close-up of my weathering. With regard to this, my method is dry-brushing/washes using enamels. These transfers are very delicate and can be ruined by too vigorous application of this technique.

 

Interestingly, the prototype picture shows this wagon has having vertical planking on the sides, not horizontal as in the D&S kit. I suppose both sorts were built.  It also shows the vents having been removed by 1952. 

 

Anyway, any wagons I have are definitely 'layout trucks', and should be viewed in this context. Like this.........

 

 

Here's my engineers' ballast train. The new van fits in perfectly in my opinion.

 

A scratch-built J6 provides the motive power. 

 

 

And, on another occasion it's a Nu-Cast Parteners' J6.

 

It's in the context of scenes like these that my models should be viewed, not (always) under the close-scrutiny of a powerful camera. I'm not advocating an 'evasive' approach, but, I hope, a pragmatic one, especially where hundreds of different wagons are concerned. 

 

As for the 'accuracy' of this train. Who knows? It looks OK to me.

 

John Isherwood also sent me some transfers to complete the ex-GWR van seen some little time ago. 

 

Thanks again, John. 

Edited December 20, 2021 by Tony Wright
to add something

[John Isherwood]

3 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

In response to a request for suitable transfers, John Isherwood of Cambridge Custom Transfers supplied me with what was required to complete this................

 

It's an ex-GNR 10 ton ballast brake van, built from a D&S kit by Rob Kinsey (another gift!). 

 

On Page 255 of the March 2017 issue of British Railways Illustrated, there is a picture of just such a brake. 

 

John produced the lovely transfers based on this picture (Sheet LB02). Thanks John.

 

It's a cruel close-up of my weathering. With regard to this, my method is dry-brushing/washes using enamels. These transfers are very delicate and can be ruined by too vigorous application of this technique.

 

Interestingly, the prototype picture shows this wagon has having vertical planking on the sides, not horizontal as in the D&S kit. I suppose both sorts were built.  It also shows the vents having been removed by 1952. 

 

Anyway, any wagons I have are definitely 'layout trucks', and should be viewed in this context. Like this.........

 

 

Here's my engineers' ballast train. The new van fits in perfectly in my opinion.

 

A scratch-built J6 provides the motive power. 

 

 

And, on another occasion it's a Nu-Cast Parteners' J6.

 

It's in the context of scenes like these that my models should be viewed, not (always) under the close-scrutiny of a powerful camera. I'm not advocating an 'evasive' approach, but, I hope, a pragmatic one, especially where hundreds of different wagons are concerned. 

 

As for the 'accuracy' of this train. Who knows? It looks OK to me.

 

John Isherwood also sent me some transfers to complete the ex-GWR van seen some little time ago. 

 

Thanks again, John. 

 

Just to point out that these transfers were produced exclusively for Tony - hence the LB sheet number prefix.

 

As such, they are not available for wider sale - sorry.

 

John Isherwood,

Cambridge Custom Transfers.

[gr.king]

30 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I

It's an ex-GNR 10 ton ballast brake van, built from a D&S kit by Rob Kinsey (another gift!). 

 

Interestingly, the prototype picture shows this wagon has having vertical planking on the sides, not horizontal as in the D&S kit. I suppose both sorts were built. 

That is what the records show, vertical planking being the later style I believe.

[bbishop]

I spent two days playing with Southwark Bridge, one classifying Jubilees for the South Western photographic collection and today getting a Hepatitis B jab, so I'm a tad behind with WW.

 

If I might contribute to the wagon debate.  Basically it's all down to statistics, and here I must acknowledge those who tabulated the figures, especially Don Rowland.  Regarding freight trains, there was a fairly constant percentage of stock from the Big 4 throughout the Grouping era: LMS 44%; LNER 33%; certain other railway 17%; SR 6%.  This of course held until c.1950 then the output from the Ideal Stocks Committee began to appear.  Perhaps by 1960 about three quarters of the pre nationalisation stock had been replaced (anyone got a better guess?)

 

Then at grouping some 10% of stock comprised vans, most of the rest were opens.  By 1960, the proportions would be reversed, except I have not attempted to analyse the impact of containers.

 

And so to mineral trains.  Until 1950 the standard mineral train was almost entirely wooden bodied.  By then BR was desperately trying to get rid of the grease axleboxed 8 and 10 ton wagons.  Many of the 12 ton wagons (revised to 13 ton in WW2) survived until the later 1950s and then were seriously scrapped until few remained by 1962.  Perhaps the break even point was round about 1958.

 

Please criticise.    Bill

Edited December 20, 2021 by bbishop

[MJI]

I have noticed that a lot of BR wagons are basically prenationalisation designs.

 

Look at 12T Van's LMS corrugated ends and GWR sides

[john new]

The benefits of bringing it all together.

[Jesse Sim]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Occasional a surprise can be a wonderful thing.........

 

This lunchtime, our postman delivered a little box.

 

In it was this..................

 

 

It's a gift from Dylan Sanderson, which he's built from a 51L white metal kit for a Dia. C10 NER 12T open goods wagon. 

 

The reason for making it for me is because I've given him assistance in his building models. He states 'It might not be up to LB standards' (he's talking b0ll0cks of course!). 

 

What a lovely surprise. Thank you ever so much, Dylan. 

 

I'll paint it, and it'll definitely find use on Little Bytham; especially since it's been so well-made. 

 

Dylan is one of the team in Scale Model Scenery. 

@Dylan Sanderson lazy b*gger, ya didn’t paint it! 
 

Coupling hooks look good 

[31A]

3 hours ago, robertcwp said:

It does look similar to this one but the track here is curved.

 

Oh well perhaps not, then!  I just thought it looked familiar.  The construction of the bridge is very similar, even down to the stonework of the abutments.  Perhaps the North Eastern built similar bridges elsewhere.

 

The bridge I was thinking of is at 6 mins 19 secs on this video; the other (old) bridges on that stretch are all stone arches.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_5nZ7OpIDU

 

[jwealleans]

42 minutes ago, bbishop said:

Regarding freight trains, there was a fairly constant percentage of stock from the Big 4 throughout the Grouping era: LMS 44%; LNER 33%; certain other railway 17%; SR 6%. 

 

Bill,

 

This debate has been had before many times (possibly on this thread).  While I'm not about to dispute those figures, I have had sight of some of Roye England's notes on goods train composition from the 1930s which are held by Pendon.   They often show a much higher 'home team' (GW in this case) representation.

 

I think the significant factor which can be overlooked is whether the train is inter company or internal within one company.   Those exchanging with 'foreign' yards would have a higher composition of in- or outbound foreign vehicles than an internal trip or working.  The Common User agreement would have served to spread wagons more widely, but I think the distinction still remains between those kinds of working.

 

 

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

The Common User agreement would have served to spread wagons more widely, but I think the distinction still remains between those kinds of working.

 

There were roughly two-thirds of all railway company-owned wagons in the pool, pretty much all of which were ordinary opens and vans. So, I suggest, one is more likely to see something approaching the canonical Rowland proportions of these. It seems to me, though, that there are some factors that would tend to act against the statistical diffusion model. Wagons would, I think, have to be returned to a "home" wagon works for any significant repairs or overhaul, providing a periodic "reset". Also, there is the possibility of a wagon getting stuck in a particular circuit - say, for the sake of argument, Huntley & Palmer Biscuit traffic from Reading to Bristol docks (a made-up example). But, to counter that, my observation from photographs take in the period from the Great War to grouping is that it's unusual to see more than two ordinary open wagons from the same company next to each other, indicating that pooling did rapidly introduce a high degree of diffusion. Of course with the reduction in the number of companies at grouping, that becomes less obvious.

 

It also seems to me that even with special (non-pool) wagons, there's a good chance of seeing "foreign" types. Suppose a farmer in the west country buys an agricultural machine from one of the East Anglian firms making such things. It'll be transported on a lowmac or similar; being non-pool, it'll be an LNER one, not a GWR one.

 

I hope I've made it clear that that's all very tentative - I'd love to understand better what was actually going on. It would be interesting to understand what trains and vehicles are recorded in Roye England's notes. A fitted express goods is, pretty much by definition, going to contain a very high proportion of non-pool vehicles.

[LNER4479]

1 hour ago, 31A said:

 

Oh well perhaps not, then!  I just thought it looked familiar.  The construction of the bridge is very similar, even down to the stonework of the abutments.  Perhaps the North Eastern built similar bridges elsewhere.

 

The bridge I was thinking of is at 6 mins 19 secs on this video; the other (old) bridges on that stretch are all stone arches.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_5nZ7OpIDU

 

So maybe that takes us back to diversionary routes in Co. Durham ... perhaps?

[Headstock]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

In response to a request for suitable transfers, John Isherwood of Cambridge Custom Transfers supplied me with what was required to complete this................

 

It's an ex-GNR 10 ton ballast brake van, built from a D&S kit by Rob Kinsey (another gift!). 

 

On Page 255 of the March 2017 issue of British Railways Illustrated, there is a picture of just such a brake. 

 

John produced the lovely transfers based on this picture (Sheet LB02). Thanks John.

 

It's a cruel close-up of my weathering. With regard to this, my method is dry-brushing/washes using enamels. These transfers are very delicate and can be ruined by too vigorous application of this technique.

 

Interestingly, the prototype picture shows this wagon has having vertical planking on the sides, not horizontal as in the D&S kit. I suppose both sorts were built.  It also shows the vents having been removed by 1952. 

 

Anyway, any wagons I have are definitely 'layout trucks', and should be viewed in this context. Like this.........

 

 

Here's my engineers' ballast train. The new van fits in perfectly in my opinion.

 

A scratch-built J6 provides the motive power. 

 

 

And, on another occasion it's a Nu-Cast Parteners' J6.

 

It's in the context of scenes like these that my models should be viewed, not (always) under the close-scrutiny of a powerful camera. I'm not advocating an 'evasive' approach, but, I hope, a pragmatic one, especially where hundreds of different wagons are concerned. 

 

As for the 'accuracy' of this train. Who knows? It looks OK to me.

 

John Isherwood also sent me some transfers to complete the ex-GWR van seen some little time ago. 

 

Thanks again, John. 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

why not just produce a ballast train to go with your ballast brake?

 

2 hours ago, bbishop said:

I spent two days playing with Southwark Bridge, one classifying Jubilees for the South Western photographic collection and today getting a Hepatitis B jab, so I'm a tad behind with WW.

 

If I might contribute to the wagon debate.  Basically it's all down to statistics, and here I must acknowledge those who tabulated the figures, especially Don Rowland.  Regarding freight trains, there was a fairly constant percentage of stock from the Big 4 throughout the Grouping era: LMS 44%; LNER 33%; certain other railway 17%; SR 6%.  This of course held until c.1950 then the output from the Ideal Stocks Committee began to appear.  Perhaps by 1960 about three quarters of the pre nationalisation stock had been replaced (anyone got a better guess?)

 

Then at grouping some 10% of stock comprised vans, most of the rest were opens.  By 1960, the proportions would be reversed, except I have not attempted to analyse the impact of containers.

 

And so to mineral trains.  Until 1950 the standard mineral train was almost entirely wooden bodied.  By then BR was desperately trying to get rid of the grease axleboxed 8 and 10 ton wagons.  Many of the 12 ton wagons (revised to 13 ton in WW2) survived until the later 1950s and then were seriously scrapped until few remained by 1962.  Perhaps the break even point was round about 1958.

 

Please criticise.    Bill

 

The 1960 and 1950 dates are a bit random. A couple of things to consider, you really need the figures for the individual year that is being modeled. In the case of LB that should be 1957 I think. Railway modelers have a terrible tendency to extract information from one time period of railway history and transpose it onto another. As for the 'replacement' off big four stock after Nationalization, it is often forgotten that the newly created British railways continued to build pre Nationalised wagons for some time. many of them, such as the LNER high steel goods for example, became a BR standard types. On percentages, specialist wagons dominate on model railways, in reality and excluding mineral wagons, three quarters of the wagons produced by the big four were General merchandise opens.

 

1 hour ago, jwealleans said:

 

Bill,

 

This debate has been had before many times (possibly on this thread).  While I'm not about to dispute those figures, I have had sight of some of Roye England's notes on goods train composition from the 1930s which are held by Pendon.   They often show a much higher 'home team' (GW in this case) representation.

 

I think the significant factor which can be overlooked is whether the train is inter company or internal within one company.   Those exchanging with 'foreign' yards would have a higher composition of in- or outbound foreign vehicles than an internal trip or working.  The Common User agreement would have served to spread wagons more widely, but I think the distinction still remains between those kinds of working.

 

 

 

One of the biggest problems with model railway freight stock is the over emphasis on specialist vehicles and on pre WW2 layouts, fitted stock. Invariably the specialist stock is dominated by GWR types on the majority of model railways, as if the big builders of the LMS and LNER never built a bogie bolster or well wagon of their own, rather they unauthentically relied on the moderately produced products of the GWR. LB is rather guilty of this one.

Edited December 20, 2021 by Headstock
build singular.

[Andy Hayter]

1 hour ago, jwealleans said:

 

Bill,

 

This debate has been had before many times (possibly on this thread).  While I'm not about to dispute those figures, I have had sight of some of Roye England's notes on goods train composition from the 1930s which are held by Pendon.   They often show a much higher 'home team' (GW in this case) representation.

 

I think the significant factor which can be overlooked is whether the train is inter company or internal within one company.   Those exchanging with 'foreign' yards would have a higher composition of in- or outbound foreign vehicles than an internal trip or working.  The Common User agreement would have served to spread wagons more widely, but I think the distinction still remains between those kinds of working.

 

 

 

I agree we overestimate the effects of natural mixing.

 

20 years ago the Euro became a currency in peoples pockets.  So you would by now expect a very wide mix of coins.  But that is not really the case.  Here in Southern France, the coins I see most often are French, German, Spanish, Italian, Dutch and Belgian.  Others are much rarer and some barely seen at all - Greece, Finnish and perhaps understandably some of the newer entrants to the Euro club.

 

Just out of fun I have examined the coins in my wallet this evening:

French - 8

Dutch - 1

Irish - 1

Portuguese - 1

Spanish - 3 

German - 4

 

It doesn't quite fit with my preconception but if you convert that to wagons being mixed after a 20 year period, almost half remain local with a bias on the rest towards adjacent companies ( so Southern as foreign wagons more likely to be found on the GWR than LMS or LNER - simplification I know).

 

Don't take the numbers too literally since next week I am sure the distribution would be somewhat different but I do think it indicative of the lack of mixing when there is in theory complete freedom to mix.   

 

 

[Compound2632]

8 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

I agree we overestimate the effects of natural mixing.

 

But I'll refer you again to the photographic evidence from the 1918-1923 period. This film has been bandied about recently:

 

https://www.ampthill.tv/playvideo.html?id=94&fbclid=IwAR3eZd3oo2SmzR3lPCLlZFnI0z2UhhIrzBpa1gesRaXH8i5pKFLCL8hqur0

 

... see the bricks being loaded from 8:45. Pooled opens: NE, GN, GC, MR, ?, LNWR, MR, GW, ?, LNWR, NE, LNWR, TV, GC (then a jump in the film?), more MR & LNWR wagons, then: GE, LBSC, CR, LY, SECR, several more LNWR and MR, NE, LNWR, brake. This is a LNWR location; it's certainly true that there are a lot of LNWR wagons, with Midland ones being common too. These two companies, along with the GWR and NER, had the largest fleets of open wagons so naturally their vehicles predominate; also, there are several LNWR D10 20 ton wagons - originally for sand traffic - which I'm fairly sure weren't pooled because of their non-standard capacity; these may be dedicated to this brickworks traffic.

[LNER4479]

14 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But I'll refer you again to the photographic evidence from the 1918-1923 period. This film has been bandied about recently:

 

https://www.ampthill.tv/playvideo.html?id=94&fbclid=IwAR3eZd3oo2SmzR3lPCLlZFnI0z2UhhIrzBpa1gesRaXH8i5pKFLCL8hqur0

 

Cracking piece of filum all round, Stephen! Thanks for highlighting.

[MJI]

Cornish branch check of wagons around 1960 ROUGH % from about 20 or so pictures

 

GWR designs 23% (toads and opens)

GWR/BR designs 23% (Cattle, 12t vans with wood end)

BR Designs 40% (minerals, vans and more vans)

LMS designs 14% (hoppers and vans)

[St Enodoc]

5 hours ago, 31A said:

 

Oh well perhaps not, then!  I just thought it looked familiar.  The construction of the bridge is very similar, even down to the stonework of the abutments.  Perhaps the North Eastern built similar bridges elsewhere.

 

The bridge I was thinking of is at 6 mins 19 secs on this video; the other (old) bridges on that stretch are all stone arches.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_5nZ7OpIDU

 

Thanks Steve. I used to live within sight of the line at East Garforth. It was interesting to see how much has changed but also how much hasn't.

[Dylan Sanderson]

15 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Occasional a surprise can be a wonderful thing.........

 

This lunchtime, our postman delivered a little box.

 

In it was this..................

 

 

It's a gift from Dylan Sanderson, which he's built from a 51L white metal kit for a Dia. C10 NER 12T open goods wagon. 

 

The reason for making it for me is because I've given him assistance in his building models. He states 'It might not be up to LB standards' (he's talking b0ll0cks of course!). 

 

What a lovely surprise. Thank you ever so much, Dylan. 

 

I'll paint it, and it'll definitely find use on Little Bytham; especially since it's been so well-made. 

 

Dylan is one of the team in Scale Model Scenery. 

Glad it arrived safely @Tony Wright, sorry it's not painted, I definitely don't have the ability to paint and number wagons yet!

If the couplings aren't suitable, blame @Jesse Sim, I couldn't get them to work so he told me to just solder them in!

 

Merry Christmas everyone,

 

Dylan