Midland Railway Company

[jamie92208]

52 minutes ago, DenysW said:

Although I agree completely that this would have been more rational than what happened, it wasn't compatible with how the Grouping was carried out. You handed in your old pre-Grouping shares and were given new Grouped shares at a set exchange rate. This did not allow for any transfers of one part of a pre-Grouped company to a different Grouped entity. This is also why Joint lines that were Joint across Grouped companies remained Joint, irrespective of common sense.

 

The LT&SR might have been transferrable as its capital value had only been set in 1912. But how would you transfer LNWR and Midland assets all across Wales to the new GWR to make it more of a Greater Wales Railway? Or the West Highland Extension to LMS from LNER? Rational but not possible.

Or even a share of the Forth Bridge to the LNER.  IIRC the Midland was a part owner. 

 

Jamie

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, jamie92208 said:

Or even a share of the Forth Bridge to the LNER.  IIRC the Midland was a part owner. 

 

Strictly speaking, part guarantor of the dividend to be paid to shareholders of the Forth Bridge Company, if I've understood the situation correctly.

[jamie92208]

3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Strictly speaking, part guarantor of the dividend to be paid to shareholders of the Forth Bridge Company, if I've understood the situation correctly.

I have a vague memory that they  put money into it's construction but am happy to be corrected. I think that English companies were heavily involved. 

 

Jamie 

[DenysW]

3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Strictly speaking, part guarantor of the dividend to be paid to shareholders of the Forth Bridge Company, if I've understood the situation correctly.

My fingers are on this one, not just my prints. Fortunately I was able to take them with me. Midland 1921 Accounts.

 

 

[DenysW]

6 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

I have a vague memory that they  put money into it's construction but am happy to be corrected.

I've not found any trace of the Midland putting money in. They report income from other railways in which they held shares (or paid line rental to) in the Net Revenue pat of the accounts, and there's nothing there from (or to) the Forth Bridge.

[Compound2632]

Matthew Thompson, Chairman of the Midland from 1880 to 1890, was Chairman of the Forth Bridge Railway Company, as well as being Chairman of the Glasgow & South Western, which despite several attempts he failed do have amalgamated with the Midland. 

[Dave Hunt]

10 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

As to stress and infighting, I think this is overstated, since insofar as it actually occurred, which was less than alleged by some, it was chiefly in the locomotive department, which receives more than its fair share of attention from lococentric railway enthusiasts and writers.

 

Even the locomotive dept. infighting has been vastly overstated. The only real problem came from the L&NWR when Anderson and Follows tried to standardise (which is what the Board consisting mainly of non-Midland people wanted) on the Midland Compound for the two hour Wolverhamptons and put the Midland's traffic control system on the WCML, again standardising on Midland engines for economic reasons, which upset the North Western. The latter was a failure as it didn't suit the block sections and other line characteristics so Anderson admitted his and Follows' mistake and set in motion the Fowler Pacific/Royal Scot saga. Hughes and Gass developed the Horwich mogul successfully before Hughes resigned and Fowler took over. The biggest problem the LMS faced compared with the other big three was the widely different loading gauge, weight restrictions and water pickup provision between its constituents and the inability in many areas to get the divisional engineers to agree on the solution, not helped by CMEs who failed to be sufficiently autocratic. That's where Stanier succeeded rather than in the engineering he brought from Swindon (low degree superheat and draughting of the Jubilees anyone?).

 

The above is fairly simplistic but a detailed examination of the subject would take a volume or two. Suffice it to say that the subject of the stress and infighting in the LMS of the twenties is, in my opinion, right up there with the Midland small engine policy (twaddle), the Midland takeover of the LMS (rubbish), the raging arguments between the Midland and L&NWR/L&YR loco men (also rubbish) and Stanier's supreme design ability (tell that to Tom Coleman) and annoys me intensely.

 

Note: O.S. Nock and E.S. Cox have a lot to answer for.

 

Dave       

[Dave Hunt]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

Matthew Thompson, Chairman of the Midland from 1880 to 1890, was Chairman of the Forth Bridge Railway Company, as well as being Chairman of the Glasgow & South Western, which despite several attempts he failed do have amalgamated with the Midland. 

 

I'm quite convinced that the Midland's involvement with the Forth Bridge Company was because it saw itself amalgamating with the G&SWR under Thompson and following on from the latter's relations with the NBR getting that into the Derby bag too. With the Midland's interests in Ireland via Stranraer it (i.e. Thompson) was aiming to become the London, Midland,  Scottish and Irish Railway Company.  

 

Dave

Edited September 11 by Dave Hunt

[bbishop]

Eric Langridge is an interesting read on early 1920s locomotive politics in the MR / LMS.  My impression from his writing is that no attempt was made to bring together Crewe, Derby and Horwich.  Even a decade later, there were trivial and unnecessary differences between the Black Fives and the Jubilees.  Langridge thought that the tragedy was the early death of Billington, the chief draughtsman (ex L&YR).

[DenysW]

11 hours ago, Dave Hunt said:

it saw itself amalgamating with the G&SWR under Thompson

But not at any cost in sane operations. My understanding is that the gap between Midland metal and GSWR metal from Gretna to Carlisle  - filled in the middle with Carlisle Citadel and covered by running powers - was the (largely spurious) reason given in Parliament by opposers of the merger/takeover. Early Victorians (and Watkin, for that matter) would have joined the tracks via either an Avoiding Line or a new Carlisle Midland Station and parallel line (to the Caledonian) to Gretna, which would not have survived Beeching, even if it survived Nationalisation.  Looking at the Carlisle map, the North Eastern actually did have an Avoiding Line to an end-on junction with the North British.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, DenysW said:

But not at any cost in sane operations. My understanding is that the gap between Midland metal and GSWR metal from Gretna to Carlisle  - filled in the middle with Carlisle Citadel and covered by running powers - was the (largely spurious) reason given in Parliament by opposers of the merger/takeover. 

 

Yes, but in the end (1892) amalgamation was defeated by a group of G&SW shareholders who felt that the terms on offer were not good enough: they were offered a guaranteed 4% but had had a better return in earlier years [P.E. Baughan, North of Leeds (2e, David & Charles, 1987) p. 273]. Baughan gives an account of the merry dance of amalgamation schemes in the late 1880s, which in addition to Midland and G&SW proposals, and Midland overtures to the NBR, saw a G&SW and NBR amalgamation proposal, countered by offers from the Caledonian - desperate to avoid such a union - to get into bed with one or other.

 

 

[Embedded link to Wikimedia Commons]

 

Looking at the map of Carlisle, one has to remember that the east-west axis of the Newcastle & Carlisle and Maryport & Carlisle pre-dated the north-south axis of the Caledonian and Lancaster & Carlisle. The Newcastle & Carlisle's Canal branch opened in 1837.

 

The Border Union Railway made a junction with the Caledonian at Gretna, so in theory an amalgamated G&SWR and NBR would have had an alternative route into Carlisle, though some work would have been needed to make it suitable for express running on the Glasgow route.

[DenysW]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

defeated by a group of G&SW shareholders who felt that the terms on offer were not good enough: they were offered a guaranteed 4%

And I'd say they were correct (Bradshaw Shareholder's Guide, 1913), but also showed the the 2.5% preference shareholders won't have had a vote.

 

 

Edited September 12 by DenysW

[Graeme Lewis]

Hi

 

A different topic relating to the Midland.

 

I am wondering if anyone has developed a font set for Midland Railway running boards - the "classic" style using the angled name board with raised lettering.  The reason I ask is that I am building a largish layout in 7mm scale and it will have four stations.  In the past I have used the closest font I could find in Word and laboriously cut out the letters - an example is shown below:

The Midland font is quite distinctive - especially the S - which I have completely failed to capture above.  I don't actually fancy doing over a dozen boards by hand, so what I am looking to do is to have the name board itself either laser engraved or 3D printed, and the rest of the board made up using brass and strip styrene.

 

If anyone knows of a suitable font set that would be a great help.  Oddly enough, Midland Style has a good selection of letter for signal box name boards, but not running in boards.

 

Regards

 

Graeme

[jamie92208]

1 hour ago, Graeme Lewis said:

Hi

 

A different topic relating to the Midland.

 

I am wondering if anyone has developed a font set for Midland Railway running boards - the "classic" style using the angled name board with raised lettering.  The reason I ask is that I am building a largish layout in 7mm scale and it will have four stations.  In the past I have used the closest font I could find in Word and laboriously cut out the letters - an example is shown below:

The Midland font is quite distinctive - especially the S - which I have completely failed to capture above.  I don't actually fancy doing over a dozen boards by hand, so what I am looking to do is to have the name board itself either laser engraved or 3D printed, and the rest of the board made up using brass and strip styrene.

 

If anyone knows of a suitable font set that would be a great help.  Oddly enough, Midland Style has a good selection of letter for signal box name boards, but not running in boards.

 

Regards

 

Graeme

Slaters sell plastic letters in the correct font. I use them on my layout. Believe that the originals were were cut out of wood.  The font is reproduced in Midland Style. 

 

Jamie

 

 

Edited September 13 by jamie92208

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, jamie92208 said:

The font is reproduced in Midland Style. 

 

As @Graeme Lewis says, not exactly. There is a drawing by Leslie (?) Ward on p. 34, showing the name GLOUCESTER, plus the text says '12in white sans serif letters, cut-out or painted'. Even the photo of an alphabet of signal box nameboard letters, p. 54, is captioned 'typical'. (The two sets of letters are quite different, not least because they were made by different departments.) Being cut-out, there was probably no great consistency and certainly in the case of station nameboards, there is compression or extension depending on the length of the name. 

 

A search of the Midland Railway Study Centre online catalogue on 'running in' or 'running-in' yields only photographs - it's interesting that there are many examples of single, straight boards in addition to the classic double angled boards, especially in pre-grouping photos. This is, I'm sure, partly because the angled boards were only at the running-in end of the platform (except at the largest, multi-platformed, stations) but also because they only dated from 1894/5 and it must have taken considerable time to install them. Traffic Committee minute No. 28738 of 15 November 1894:

 

Indication of station names at railway stations.

                              The General Manager submitted letter from the Board of Trade, dated July 10th, 1894, addressed to the Secretary of the Railway Companies’ Association, respecting the indication of station names at railway stations, together with minute G.M. 1047 of the meeting of the General Managers’ Conference on the 8th November, 1894, when the communication from the Board of Trade, with others on the same subject from private individuals, was discussed.

                              Agreed that in future all station name boards when first put up, or when renewed, be made in the form of a double board joined together at an angle, and that the General Manager bring up a report showing to what extent the practice of placing the names of the stations on the platform lamps is now carried out.

 

A search on 'nameboard' turns up a few more and also this drawing*:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 77-13555, also available as a 5.5 MB download.]

 

Whilst this is a good guide to the layout of lettering, I don't think the letters drawn are a good representation of the forms and thickness actually used. So my feeling is that photographs are the best guide. Unfortunately these are mostly taken at an angle to the board but this one from Ashchurch might be helpful:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue compressed image of MRSC 72384. Photo taken 1959.]

 

I think one can assume that the smaller lettering is adequately representative of the forms used for the standard letters. The only letters missing are G (always a tricky one), P (which is not R without the diagonal stroke; the loop of the P extends further down), Q, X, and Z.

 

*The running-in board secion of this drawing is reproduced in Anderson & Twells, LMS Lineside Part One (Wild Swan, 2007), p. 96.

Edited September 13 by Compound2632

[lezz01]

So I've managed to get my hands on a Ratio kit of the Johnson slim boilered  4-4-0 with a perseverance chassis. Whilst I've built three or four of the 2-4-0s I've never built the 4-4-0, well not to a finished state anyway. Now the problem I have is which wheels do I need for it. The destructions say the model represents the first 30 locos which were never re-boilered but the problem with that is the first 30 locos were two different classes the first 10 having 6'6" drivers and 3'3" bogie wheels the second 20 had 7' drivers and 3'6" bogie wheels. To complicate things even more the chassis kit states that the wheels required are 25mm which is 6'3" in 4mm so I'm a little confused as to which wheels to get. Oh yes the WB of the driving wheels is 8'6" which I think is right for both of the first 2 classes of 4-4-0s. I have both the Essery and Jenkinson books and also the Summerson books and I've had a quick read through them and TBH it's just made it more confusing. Any help is much appreciated.

Regards Lez.   

[DenysW]

1 hour ago, lezz01 said:

TBH it's just made it more confusing. Any help is much appreciated.

I'm not sure this is help, but weight diagrams are given in David Maidment's book, which also has some photos in as-built condition.  ISBN 9781 1 52677 250 3, Pen & Sword, 2021.

 

His wheel dimensions are as you quote.

[jamie92208]

1 hour ago, lezz01 said:

So I've managed to get my hands on a Ratio kit of the Johnson slim boilered  4-4-0 with a perseverance chassis. Whilst I've built three or four of the 2-4-0s I've never built the 4-4-0, well not to a finished state anyway. Now the problem I have is which wheels do I need for it. The destructions say the model represents the first 30 locos which were never re-boilered but the problem with that is the first 30 locos were two different classes the first 10 having 6'6" drivers and 3'3" bogie wheels the second 20 had 7' drivers and 3'6" bogie wheels. To complicate things even more the chassis kit states that the wheels required are 25mm which is 6'3" in 4mm so I'm a little confused as to which wheels to get. Oh yes the WB of the driving wheels is 8'6" which I think is right for both of the first 2 classes of 4-4-0s. I have both the Essery and Jenkinson books and also the Summerson books and I've had a quick read through them and TBH it's just made it more confusing. Any help is much appreciated.

Regards Lez.   

From experience with 4-4-0's I would go for the smaller bogie wheels as there are problems on models with clearances between the wheels and frames.  On mode, s on relatively small radius curves the wheels actually move under the frames, which didn't happen on the real thing.  The bogies need to have p, entry of swing built in.  I pivoted mine on the frame stretcher nearest to the front driving acpxle and had an arc shaped slot for the bogie centre bolt to run in.  Not prototypical but it works. 

 

Jamie

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, lezz01 said:

So I've managed to get my hands on a Ratio kit of the Johnson slim boilered  4-4-0 with a perseverance chassis. Whilst I've built three or four of the 2-4-0s I've never built the 4-4-0, well not to a finished state anyway. Now the problem I have is which wheels do I need for it. The destructions say the model represents the first 30 locos which were never re-boilered but the problem with that is the first 30 locos were two different classes the first 10 having 6'6" drivers and 3'3" bogie wheels the second 20 had 7' drivers and 3'6" bogie wheels. To complicate things even more the chassis kit states that the wheels required are 25mm which is 6'3" in 4mm so I'm a little confused as to which wheels to get. Oh yes the WB of the driving wheels is 8'6" which I think is right for both of the first 2 classes of 4-4-0s. I have both the Essery and Jenkinson books and also the Summerson books and I've had a quick read through them and TBH it's just made it more confusing. Any help is much appreciated.

 

Lucky dog. Not having ever had the 4-4-0 kit in my hands, I have the impression that the splasher/cab/half boiler mouldings are common to both kits. Therefore the 4-4-0 should have the same diameter drivers as the 2-4-0. The problem with this is, I've never been able to convince myself which of the three possibilities - 6' 6", 6' 9", or 7' 0", the 2-4-0 kit is supposed to represent... 

 

The key to identification is the relationship between the splasher, cab cut-out:

 

The 10 engines of the 1312 Class (or F Class), built by Kitsons, Nos. 1312-1321 / 300-309 had 6' 6" wheels:

 

 

[Embedded link to MRSC 91345, No. 1318 at Liverpool Brunswick, early 1890s - before the splashers were re-modelled with the full reverse curve.]

 

The top of the splasher is a smidgen below the bottom of the cab side-sheet cut-out. 

 

The 20 engines of the 1327 Class (or G Class), built by Dubs, Nos. 1327-1346 / 310-327, had 7' 0" drivers:

 

 

[Embedded link to MRSC 92724, No. 1346 trapped on the Leeds station turntable, c. 1900.]

 

The top of the splasher is clearly above the bottom of the cab cut-out. The Ratio kit certainly isn't like this.

 

The 30 engines of the 1562 Class, built at Derby, Nos. 1562-1581, 1657-1666 / 328-357, had 6' 9" drivers:

 

 

[Embedded link to MRSC 92300, No. 1665 at Hellifield c. 1905/6.]

 

The top of the splasher is more-or-less in line with, or just a smidglet below, the cab cut-out. 

 

So I think one can with confidence rule out the 1327 Class, with 7' 0" drivers, but it's a hard call between the 6' 6" and 6' 9" engines. The box art for the 2-4-0 shows the model as No. 254, which was a Neilson-built 1400 class engine with 6' 9" drivers. That for the 4-4-0 shows No. 306, a 1312 Class engine with 6' 6" drivers. The 1562 Class were rebuilt with H Class boilers in 1906-8; one can see that Ratio wouldn't want to suggest that their kit was for that class, as it would put off the then all-important LMS modellers. 

[41516]

By coincidence, I dug out the 4-4-0 kit I won from Ebay back in 2022 last weekend. Nothing like adding another project onto the pile, especially one that's not really relevant to anything else I'm doing! Just fancied some loco (re)building without a soldering iron.

 

I also decided on the kit being a 1312 Class, both based on outline and having an easier life down the line with the smaller wheels.  Probably going down the 'loco driven, motor in tender' route with a Jidenco 2950(?) gal tender I have somewhere.  Apart from the frames and rods, not much of the original chassis is going to be kept. It did come with a small Mashima motor rather than the original one provided by Ratio.

 

She looks much happier with a new face.

 

 

Nothing fixed in place yet as surgery still needed to remove the chimney and safety valve cover ready for more Gibson parts. 

 

 

Edit - Where we started

 

Edited September 13 by 41516

[lezz01]

Thanks very much Gents. I think I'll go with one of the first 10 1312 class then. I'm not too worried about the bogie wheels as I intend to lap the front of the frames. I'm probably going to go with the motor in the tender as that's what I did with the 2-4-0s on the last two I built. I have a very low profile GB and a tenderizer from HL that was destined for a 2-4-0 but it'll go in whatever I build first.

@Compound2632 I have another one if you'd like it however it's one of the original ones without the Perseverance chassis, it does have a full set of Romford wheels and the original wheels though.

Regards Lez. 

[Jol Wilkinson]

6 hours ago, lezz01 said:

So I've managed to get my hands on a Ratio kit of the Johnson slim boilered  4-4-0 with a perseverance chassis. Whilst I've built three or four of the 2-4-0s I've never built the 4-4-0, well not to a finished state anyway. Now the problem I have is which wheels do I need for it. The destructions say the model represents the first 30 locos which were never re-boilered but the problem with that is the first 30 locos were two different classes the first 10 having 6'6" drivers and 3'3" bogie wheels the second 20 had 7' drivers and 3'6" bogie wheels. To complicate things even more the chassis kit states that the wheels required are 25mm which is 6'3" in 4mm so I'm a little confused as to which wheels to get. Oh yes the WB of the driving wheels is 8'6" which I think is right for both of the first 2 classes of 4-4-0s. I have both the Essery and Jenkinson books and also the Summerson books and I've had a quick read through them and TBH it's just made it more confusing. Any help is much appreciated.

Regards Lez.   

It may be that the instructions say 21mm to allow sufficient clearance in the splashers. The combination of thick mouldings (c.f. etches) and overscale OO flanges might have been considered an issue by the chassis designer.

[DenysW]

19 hours ago, lezz01 said:

Now the problem I have is

Livery as well? Maidment has a photo of 1320 in the original Johnson light green c1882.

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, DenysW said:

Livery as well? Maidment has a photo of 1320 in the original Johnson light green c1882.

 

The red livery was adopted before the shape of the splashers was changed from the flat middle section to the full reverse curve - I think this may have been done at first reboilering in the early 1890s. So rather a lot of hacking needed to make a green one from the Ratio kit, the principal attraction of which is that it has done the splashers for you. There's a very nice model of a green 4-4-0, I think 1312 Class, on the model railway at the Museum of Making in  Derby - right next door to the Study Centre. 

 

The photo of a 1312 in early condition that I posted is one of a set of various members of the class at Brunswick recently accessioned by the Study Centre. All ten engines spent most of their working lives based in Liverpool. Shedded either at Brunswick CLC shed or Sandhills L&Y shed, working the Liverpool portions of London expresses to Marple etc., and of Scotch expresses to Blackburn, so rarely set foot on Midland metals!

[Graeme Lewis]

On 13/09/2024 at 18:02, Compound2632 said:

 

As @Graeme Lewis says, not exactly. There is a drawing by Leslie (?) Ward on p. 34, showing the name GLOUCESTER, plus the text says '12in white sans serif letters, cut-out or painted'. Even the photo of an alphabet of signal box nameboard letters, p. 54, is captioned 'typical'. (The two sets of letters are quite different, not least because they were made by different departments.) Being cut-out, there was probably no great consistency and certainly in the case of station nameboards, there is compression or extension depending on the length of the name. 

 

A search of the Midland Railway Study Centre online catalogue on 'running in' or 'running-in' yields only photographs - it's interesting that there are many examples of single, straight boards in addition to the classic double angled boards, especially in pre-grouping photos. This is, I'm sure, partly because the angled boards were only at the running-in end of the platform (except at the largest, multi-platformed, stations) but also because they only dated from 1894/5 and it must have taken considerable time to install them. Traffic Committee minute No. 28738 of 15 November 1894:

 

Indication of station names at railway stations.

                              The General Manager submitted letter from the Board of Trade, dated July 10th, 1894, addressed to the Secretary of the Railway Companies’ Association, respecting the indication of station names at railway stations, together with minute G.M. 1047 of the meeting of the General Managers’ Conference on the 8th November, 1894, when the communication from the Board of Trade, with others on the same subject from private individuals, was discussed.

                              Agreed that in future all station name boards when first put up, or when renewed, be made in the form of a double board joined together at an angle, and that the General Manager bring up a report showing to what extent the practice of placing the names of the stations on the platform lamps is now carried out.

 

A search on 'nameboard' turns up a few more and also this drawing*:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 77-13555, also available as a 5.5 MB download.]

 

Whilst this is a good guide to the layout of lettering, I don't think the letters drawn are a good representation of the forms and thickness actually used. So my feeling is that photographs are the best guide. Unfortunately these are mostly taken at an angle to the board but this one from Ashchurch might be helpful:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue compressed image of MRSC 72384. Photo taken 1959.]

 

I think one can assume that the smaller lettering is adequately representative of the forms used for the standard letters. The only letters missing are G (always a tricky one), P (which is not R without the diagonal stroke; the loop of the P extends further down), Q, X, and Z.

 

*The running-in board secion of this drawing is reproduced in Anderson & Twells, LMS Lineside Part One (Wild Swan, 2007), p. 96.

Stephen

 

Many thanks for your response.  As you note, there are plenty of photos of running in boards, but rarely square on, so the photo of Ashchurch is fabulous - and it includes nearly all of the letters of the alphabet as well!

 

Regards

 

Graeme