Midland Railway Company

[MR Chuffer]

Midland Railway water cranes vs. water columns - both are commercially available as 00 gauge models, but what determined which type for which location. I've scoured my books, particularly LMS Engine Sheds vol 2 - Midland, but there seems to be no consistency between crane and column, ground mounted and platform mounted and in loco shed areas. Or could you find them mixed on a large diverse site?

 

Can anyone provide any insights into which type was used for which location, or was it date-wise and/or regional? Thx

[Compound2632]

40 minutes ago, MR Chuffer said:

what determined which type for which location. 

 

Photos your best bet, I should think. Well worth putting both terms into the MRSC catalogue search: https://www.midlandrailwaystudycentre.org.uk/catalogue.php - lots of examples of both in all sorts of locations, plus circulars to signalman about not allowing engines to hog them.

 

40 minutes ago, MR Chuffer said:

Midland Railway water cranes vs. water columns - both are commercially available as 00 gauge models, 

 

Interesting. I thought any that were once available were from now defunct ranges?

Edited August 12 by Compound2632

[MR Chuffer]

 

16 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Photos your best bet

Fictional-ish location, had one platform mounted column type but I don't know if they had one by the loco shed.

 

16 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

now defunct ranges?

I picked a Bachmann Midland Water Crane (platform mounted) for a song last week, doesn't seem discontinued and there are several on the Bay. There are several ground mounted ones with the "kink" in the arm there too by P&D Marsh and by some retailers, but not that convincing to my eye. And then there are columns from NorthWesternModels which fit the bill.

 

Mix and match, period or region specific? All seems too random.

Edited August 12 by MR Chuffer

[Compound2632]

26 minutes ago, MR Chuffer said:

 

Mix and match, period or region specific? All seems too random.

 

Probably does depend on date and location. Sounds like an excellent subject for an article in the MRS Journal or Modelling the Midland.

[lezz01]

LRM do a floor mounted one. Cat number MRWC £5.50.

Regards Lez.

[Dave Hunt]

On 07/08/2024 at 13:32, Tricky said:

Fabulous Dave! Can I ask how you painted the gear wheels?

 

Sorry not to have replied sooner Richard but I've been a bit out of circulation recently. Anyway, I painted the teeth of the wheels with Precision oily steel then did the sides with gloss black using almost a dry brush technique and several coats to avoid getting paint in the teeth followed by weathering the sides with powders but leaving the teeth clean.

 

Dave

[DenysW]

I've often wondered about the deal the Midland's shareholders got on Grouping, especially compared to the other companies. Turns out they did quite well, once you recognise that they duplicated (a very dodgy dealing) their £100 share into £100 preferred PLUS £100 deferred. So all shareholders who got defined payouts retained them, the LNWR Ordinary shareholders got par, the Furness the same  the Midland (deferred recombined with preferred) got 130% of par, and the GSWR and Highland got a lot less than par (fair enough - they were not good companies viewed in terms of dividends). The Caledonian hadn't settled when the document (in the LMS accounts at Kew) was published, and the Maryport & Carlisle wasn't big enough.

 

However the LMS was an optimistic disaster in its first few years, extracting money from reserves every year 1923-1927 to falsely inflate its dividends to pre-War expectations or close thereunto. It then imposed a 2.5% across-the board pay cut in 1928 to try and make things less bad financially. Tsk, tsk.

 

 

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, DenysW said:

The Caledonian hadn't settled when the document (in the LMS accounts at Kew) was published, and the Maryport & Carlisle wasn't big enough.

 

Also missing is the North Staffs, which, like the Caledonian, didn't join the group until 1 July 1923. 

 

The Maryport & Carlisle was in the class of subsidiary companies, and not the largest by route mileage - that was the Stratford-upon-Avon & Midland Junction. What was the deal for shareholders of the subsidiary companies?

[Caley Jim]

5 hours ago, DenysW said:

 The Caledonian hadn't settled when the document (in the LMS accounts at Kew) was published, 

Because they were seeking better terms.

 

Jim

[DenysW]

12 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

What was the deal for shareholders of the subsidiary companies?

Not given in the memorandum at the start of the Accounts. Sorry!

 

9 hours ago, Caley Jim said:

Because they were seeking better terms.

I believe on the rather spurious basis that 1913 was a poor year (for them) and therefore did them an injustice. 1913 had been used by the Government as the reference point for paying the Railways ever since 1914, and it does not stand out as bad, based on the Dividends the Caley paid:

 

Company     Year   Dividend

Caledonian  1910   3.125

Caledonian  1911   3.375

Caledonian  1912   3.25

Caledonian  1913   3.5

[Compound2632]

6 hours ago, DenysW said:

I believe on the rather spurious basis that 1913 was a poor year (for them) and therefore did them an injustice. 1913 had been used by the Government as the reference point for paying the Railways ever since 1914, and it does not stand out as bad, based on the Dividends the Caley paid:

 

Company     Year   Dividend

Caledonian  1910   3.125

Caledonian  1911   3.375

Caledonian  1912   3.25

Caledonian  1913   3.5

 

No doubt they had noted that the dividend was increasing by 0.125% per year on average, so if it were not for Government control, would have been 4.75% by 1923.

[DenysW]

Final afterthoughts on the Somerset & Dorset after looking at Midland, LSWR, S&DR, and Somerset Joint Committee (SJC) accounts. It also corrects a false conclusion I drew and posted on here earlier.

 

- The S&DR was loss-making from formation until leased (by the SJC). After that the lease payments covered its loans and 3.5% on the Extension Ordinary stock, but zero on the original (Somerset Central, Dorset Central) Ordinary stock. As traffic grew and triggered extra payments, these went to the Extension Ordinary stock. This was still the case in 1910, and still specifies the breakdown of where the money  was going to as these original destinations. These lease payments were always greater than the SJC operating surplus, and thus represent a net loss to the lessees.

- The SJC covers this up by not providing a caption as to where this money comes from

- The amounts shown in the Debit columns on the Midland and LSWR accounts as S&D Line Rental are the same, and are net difference between the SJC operating surplus and the money paid to the S&DR to lease the line. Honesty!

- Further losses were incurred (in honest accounting, but not the SJC's, Midland's or LSWR's) because the SJC spend Capital money (just under £990k by 1913) and did not pay dividends or debt interest on it. 50:50 supplied by the Midland and the LSWR, for whom it probably cost between 3 and 4%

- There is no trace in the Midland's 1875-1880 Accounts of the spike in Revenue losses on the SJC that can be seen in the numbers the SJC reported to the Board of Trade.

 

Separately from all this, the Midland raised £1.9 M allegedly to purchase the S&D Stocks (below, Dec 1902 accounts), and did declare the interest on this as income from the SJC, which is consistent with where the SJC said it was going. But they were not winners of any candour award, and it displaces the entries they made to cover rental payments to the S&DR, which stop in the SJC accounts (contrast to the S&DR Accounts). The SJC Capital numbers do not correspond to the £1.9M having come to them to be spent on the line.

 

A possible explanation (consistent with the Railway Magazine's 1899 interview with the SJC's GM) is that the Midland's money was indeed used to purchase the S&DR's Stock & Debt, and that this effectively purchased the S&DR without the LSWR being involved. This is better than money laundering - the other possibility. However, I'd have expected the S&DR to note that (at least its debt) was no longer held by the original purchasers.

 

 

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, DenysW said:

A possible explanation (consistent with the Railway Magazine's 1899 interview with the SJC's GM) is that the Midland's money was indeed used to purchase the S&DR's Stock & Debt, and that this effectively purchased the S&DR without the LSWR being involved. This is better than money laundering - the other possibility. However, I'd have expected the S&DR to note that (at least its debt) was no longer held by the original purchasers.

 

So, in effect, the Midland was becoming both lessor and leasee?

[Mol_PMB]

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

So, in effect, the Midland was becoming both lessor and leasee?

Is the next twist in the tale going to be the Midland's 'offshore' interests, with the main purpose of the NCC being to launder the money more effectively?

[Compound2632]

18 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

So, in effect, the Midland was becoming both lessor and leasee?

 

On further reflection, it's more dubious than that. They were screwing their co-leasee.

[DenysW]

17 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

So, in effect, the Midland was becoming both lessor and lessee?

Yes (if I'm correct) but strictly 50% lessor, and only drifting towards 100% lessee. The Railway Magazine article (Vol IV, p193) emphasises that the transfers were voluntary, and this is in line with the wording of the 1889 and 1891 Acts. The Midland holding starts at about £1.23 M in 1891, then slowly increases. Don't compare capital numbers directly against S&DR holdings: they were getting 3.5%, but the Midland was only paying 3.0%, so it would issue 7/6 times the nominal value to compensate.

 

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

On further reflection, it's more dubious than that. They were screwing their co-lessee.

I'm not convinced. The Midland and the LSWR went on paying equally the (open) net revenue losses of the SJC, recognising that to both companies this was small change. They went on paying equally the (hidden) capital-cost-loss-of-income on upgrades to the Somerset & Dorset line. This wasn't especially small change on Capital (although mostly as small dribs and drabs), but it wasn't enough to fight over. If you were a LSWR shareholder, would you care that the SJC line rental (on which you made a small loss) went mostly to the Midland, or entirely to a random collection of historic small holders of stocks & debentures? Or even the same, via intermediaries? I suspect not.

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, DenysW said:

Yes (if I'm correct) but strictly 50% lessor, and only drifting towards 100% lessee.

 

I think you mean the other way round? the Midland and South Western were the joint lessees, the S&DR the lessor?

[DenysW]

41 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

Is the next twist in the tale going to be the Midland's 'offshore' interests, with the main purpose of the NCC being to launder the money more effectively?

I haven't looked at this, but I suspect not.

 

The Midland comes across as  having  rational but ingrained culture of paranoia (our neighbours are trying to destroy us) that meant that any acquisition that improved territory must be a good acquisition. Think LTS in 1912 - probably break-even, so other than culture - why bother?

[DenysW]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I think you mean the other way round? the Midland and South Western were the joint lessees, the S&DR the lessor?

DamN. I think you are right. So much for O-level English Grade 3, back in the day.

[Dave Hunt]

Cogitating on the above, what do you expect when the Midland in its early years learned its financial lesson from George Hudson?

 

Dave

[jamie92208]

They were always hard nosed in financial affairs.  When the West Riding Lines were abandoned in 1919 they were so desperate to avoid the capital costs of building from Saville Town to Manningham that they sold their accumulated land holdings in Bradford City Centre to the City Council for about 10% of what they had cast them. 

 

Jamie

 

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

9 hours ago, Dave Hunt said:

Cogitating on the above, what do you expect when the Midland in its early years learned its financial lesson from George Hudson?

 

Or that virtuous Quaker abolitionist, John Ellis, who (having done very well under Hudson) rescued the company after Hundson's fall. He wasn't averse to taking the main chance, as the Great Western discovered when he poached the Birmingham & Bristol from under their noses.

[Tom Burnham]

18 hours ago, DenysW said:

I haven't looked at this, but I suspect not.

 

The Midland comes across as  having  rational but ingrained culture of paranoia (our neighbours are trying to destroy us) that meant that any acquisition that improved territory must be a good acquisition. Think LTS in 1912 - probably break-even, so other than culture - why bother?

The alternative would probably have been for the SDR to become part of the Great Western, a possibility that neither of the joint partners would have been happy about.

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Tom Burnham said:

The alternative would probably have been for the SDR to become part of the Great Western, a possibility that neither of the joint partners would have been happy about.

 

Indeed, and that was exactly what triggered the Midland / South Western offer. The S&D was in negotiations with the Great Western, which, after consultation with the Bristol & Exeter, was ready to make an offer. The GW / B&E's error was to inform the LSW of their intentions, suggesting that the LSW might like to take the southern section of the S&D. Scott, the LSW General Manager, immediately went off to see Allport, his opposite number on the Midland, and agreed the terms they would offer the S&D for a lease; terms which the S&D promptly accepted, being rather better than the GW's offer. The GW accused the LSW of breach of faith and the Midland of breaching an existing agreement not to extend beyond Bath and opposed the Bill for the lease, but the chair of the Parliamentary committee set the public good (as he saw it) above the morality of the companies' behavior. [R. Atthill, The Somerset & Dorset Railway (David & Charles, 1967) p.p. 56-57.] 

 

The effect was to hasten the amalgamation of the B&E with the GW, though not before a brief flirtation with the Midland.

[DenysW]

20 hours ago, Dave Hunt said:

what do you expect when the Midland in its early years learned its financial lesson from George Hudson?

Hudson paid too much (10% on Capital) for the Leeds&Bradford and was both buyer and seller and was pilloried for it. But it included a station in Leeds that the Midland desperately needed. John Ellis paid too much (8% on Capital) for the Leicester & Swannington and wasn't pilloried for it despite being both buyer and seller. No strategic station here, but much lower absolute numbers. Ellis also paid generously (6% on Capital) for the Bristol & Birmingham, that was only paying 5% for itself, and was faced with the expense of going to mixed gauge (Bristol->Gloucester) and getting rid of Vignoles track (Gloucester->Birmingham).

 

The net result was a sag in the Midland share price (because the leased-line payments were taking too much of the operating surplus) with a share-price collapse down to low dividend payments on the company's shares in the early 1850s, and the LNWR only offering 60% on the Midland's Capital when a merger/takeover was mooted in the mid-1850s. The GWR did similar at the same time.  The LNWR also did similar, but was only faced with the worst consequences by about 1860.

 

What the Midland separately learned was that no line can expect another one to give it a fair access over bottle-necked track into London termini - hence St Pancras in the 1860s. Digswell still hasn't been quadrupled on the GNR.