The original parallel boiler Scots were very good engines for their time. They did, though, date from just before a number of marked improvements in detail design, piston rings that could go a lot longer and remain tight for example, that made them so much more even of an improvement in their rebuilt form.
True, although the smokebox design was poor - the Great Western (and others) had been building locos with cylindrical smokeboxes resting on a saddle for years.
A good authoritative resource for LMS locomotive design is LMS Locomotive Design and Construction, AF Cook, pub RCTS 1990. It includes a good discussion of the shortcomings of the Schmidt wide-ring piston valves, leaving the reader wondering why it took so long to put them right.
The beauty of modelling railways is you can have a Claughton, a Sam Fay or whatever, and all the alleged deficiencies of the prototype are immaterial. All you need is a free-running chassis and a good quality motor and gearbox and you're away.
In the real world, most of our railways were pretty good at producing mediocre locomotives. The GWR were well ahead of the rest - but then became a tad complacent.
In the real world, most of our railways were pretty good at producing mediocre locomotives. The GWR were well ahead of the rest - but then became a tad complacent.
I think that the GWR had everything it needed, and had it right such that it didn’t need to do much other than keep things ticking over and export people like Stanier to the LMS so as to raise the average IQ of both railways…
Meanwhile, Maunsell on the Southern Railway was building more, and improved, King Arthur and S15 class 4-6-0s, along with the famous Schools...not only that, he designed an elegant light 4-4-0 (the L1 class), and rebuilt a number of the Wainwright/Surtees Ds and Es to D1 and E1, making them even better than before. I recall seeing these 4-4-0s at Our Town, and on Our Shed, as they were widely used on a variety of mixed traffic duties
In addition, of course, there were the various Moguls (dating back to WW1). and the splendid - if not entirely satisfactory - Lord Nelson class.
The unfortunate River class tanks - it was the track, Sir Herbert! The track! - behaved themselves impeccably when given nice tenders. The later, but rather similar, W class tanks were always used on freight work, following a very exciting trial of one - with passenger stock - on the Oxted line.
Bulleid, when he arrived on the Southern, actually had little to do to improve steam power on a railway committed to electrification, but WW2 led to the Pacifics and the Q1s...and, subsequently, to the Leader (but we'd best not go down that rabbit hole!).
Whilst all this was going on, Gresley was busy on the LNER providing a wonderful stock of locomotives of every type you could think of, with a few false starts on the way.
The GWR just carried on building skinny engines that all looked alike.
In addition, of course, there were the various Moguls (dating back to WW1).
I think that these, as some of the first truly "modern" locomotives, don't get the credit they deserve.
The GWR just carried on building skinny engines that all looked alike.
I was trying to find a way of contradicting this but failed, unless one counts the "Dukedogs" which is probably cheating. Of course the Kings and 47xx locos were quite fat!
In addition, of course, there were the various Moguls (dating back to WW1).
I think that these, as some of the first truly "modern" locomotives, don't get the credit they deserve.
The GWR just carried on building skinny engines that all looked alike.
I was trying to find a way of contradicting this but failed, unless one counts the "Dukedogs" which is probably cheating. Of course the Kings and 47xx locos were quite fat!
Yes, Maunsell was underrated, certainly as far as the Moguls were concerned.
The GW Kings may have been fat, but they still didn't have the correct number of wheels.
In addition, of course, there were the various Moguls (dating back to WW1).
I think that these, as some of the first truly "modern" locomotives, don't get the credit they deserve.
I certainly agree with that. It seems to me that GW locomotives could have evolved along similar lines, but the GWR, like General Motors, never spent a penny more on development once they had a product that served its purpose. And in that, I'd have to concede that they were good business people.
Up to a point, maybe, but it was the Southern Railway - in the 1930s - which showed good business acumen by electrifying as much of the system as they could before WW2 intervened.
The policy of introducing clean, comfortable, new* electric trains, running to an improved regular interval timetable, before making any improvements to stations and other infrastructure (other than what was required straightaway) paid dividends.
(*new-ish, given that a lot of electric multiple unit stock for suburban and local services was partly made up of former steam-hauled stock - much of it not especially old, but the Southern never threw anything away if it might possibly be useful somewhere. Model railway kit-bashers in full size!)
Sure, but the Southern largely served a relatively densely populated area which could support the service it offered - although, of course, development often followed the railway. The same could be said of the Tube, both benefitting hugely from Government grants. The LNER, which was perpetually broke, would have electrified to Shenfield had not the War intervened - who knows if it would have then managed Chingford, Bishop's Stortford and Hertford etc? And of course electrification progressed well in the Liverpool area although not, of course, on the scale of the Southern which did indeed show good business acumen. (Mind you, its rural branch lines were another story ...).
It's certainly true that the Southern reaped the rewards after electrification, although whether covering the Home Counties with huge tracts of semi-detached villas was a Good Thing is open to question...
It's also only fair to say that Other Companies' suburban electric stock was sometimes more up-to-date than the Southern's, but the latter had some longish runs, and the policy was to provide as many seats as possible.
Ironically, some of the more rural lines which were never electrified received - almost at the last minute - some very fine push-pull sets converted (kit-bashing again!) from Maunsell corridor coaches. From the driving trailer end, they were not unlike EMUs or DMUs to look at...
It's certainly true that the Southern reaped the rewards after electrification, although whether covering the Home Counties with huge tracts of semi-detached villas was a Good Thing is open to question...
Weren't there Acts of Parliament in the 1920s/30s which stimulated or permitted the granting of mortgages and hence the building more houses?
[quote[It's also only fair to say that Other Companies' suburban electric stock was sometimes more up-to-date than the Southern's
[/quote] The LMS Wirral/Mersey stock in particular. (I think I'm right in saying that some of the rather similar Shenfield/Woodhead suburban stock were at least part-built when WW2 broke out).
It's certainly true that the Southern reaped the rewards after electrification, although whether covering the Home Counties with huge tracts of semi-detached villas was a Good Thing is open to question...
Weren't there Acts of Parliament in the 1920s/30s which stimulated or permitted the granting of mortgages and hence the building more houses?
[quote[It's also only fair to say that Other Companies' suburban electric stock was sometimes more up-to-date than the Southern's
The LMS Wirral/Mersey stock in particular. (I think I'm right in saying that some of the rather similar Shenfield/Woodhead suburban stock were at least part-built when WW2 broke out).
[/quote]
There may well have been incentives for the spread of new housing, apart from the attraction of new electric trains! An interesting area for social history study.
Our House (when I was a lad) had been built - along with many others in the adjacent streets - soon after the Railway arrived in Our Town in 1842. Many of these houses were paid for by means of an early form of mortgage, whilst others were owned by the Railway Company, and let to their employees.
The LMS electrics were still quite modern-looking even in BR days, as were the Shenfield etc. stock. They didn't have many seats, though, compared to Our Trains...
It's certainly true that the Southern reaped the rewards after electrification...
Just on electrification, the line from Sydney to Newcastle was electrified in 1984 (small news video). My paternal grandmother came from Newcastle, and had relatives up there, so we would often leave early from Leightonfield -- once the site of a munitions factory; 3,000 people worked at the plant there for the development of military weapons for WWII (closed 1945) -- on The Newcastle Flyer, a diesel [once steam] train: the abiding memory I have is getting my thumb stuck in the toilet door when young and being in a lot of pain. Usually hauled by a 38 class, later 48.
I'll bore you one day on the Newcastle line. It has some spectacular scenery; and a railway station seemingly in the middle of nowhere [there is a house and quarry] at which I once alighted / rejoined as you can start a bushwalk [hike] there: Wondabyne.
My dad, who worked as an electrician on regional trains, bought me a book on the history of NSW [New South Wales] and one on Australian railways in my teenage years, which I read, looked at [photos], and re-read.
Thought you may be interested. Back to your scheduled programming...
There were several provincial electrifications that were up and running before September 1939. The line from Liverpool to Southport was electrified by the Lancashire and Yorkshire before the grouping and the line under the Mersey was also electrified by then. The section on out to Hoylake etc I think was electrified at the end of the 1930s. The Liverpool Overhead was also electric, but closed and was pulled down in the fifties. The small version of me had the good fortune to be taken on it as a treat. I was very excited by the entire trip but in later years the family memory of this was blemished by my mother's protests that it was not just dilapidated but also full of fleas.
The electric service from Euston to Watford was also a pre-grouping scheme and was still running rather antique LNWR coach sets in the late 1950s. The Manchester to Altrincham was electrified by the LMS, I think at the beginning of the 1930s. The North Eastern electrified some of its services in the Newcastle area and the Midland had an AC system between Lancaster and Morecambe.
There was also the unique L&Y side-contact 1200v DC Manchester-Bury line (plus the experimental Holcombe Brook branch). I can't think of any others (except for tramways such as Immingham).
These are the new (not yet) trains travelling some intercity routes from Sydney. I heard, ineptitude, they are too wide to fit through some tunnels on the Blue Mountains line. These are the main ones currently, though we do have these older ones, and 2 other more recent types as well. They have toilets in certain carriages and a place to get water.
The trip to Newcastle by the Hawkesbury is probably one of the most scenic; for a while you are travelling along a bay after a bridge. You can see the old bridge pylons there. Several tunnels too.
In Britain, the tunnels on the Hastings line were too narrow for ordinary trains (I think that they were rather fragile and had to be reinforced with extra brickwork inside). So they had special trains until someone realised that, if you singled or interlaced the double track through them, you could use normal trains. Not so easy operationally though.
No. The original bridge was from 1889. There were design / cracking problems from the beginning, it was a single track bridge I think, and speeds were massively reduced. In 1939 they began plans for a new one, primarily due to WWII transport needs, and it opened in 1946.
A friend's friend in the western suburbs is very thankful for a metro opened earlier than the new one you refer to [expansion from existing line]. Driverless trains. As I bored you with regional maps, here is the Sydney one: M for Metro.
In Britain, the tunnels on the Hastings line were too narrow for ordinary trains (I think that they were rather fragile and had to be reinforced with extra brickwork inside). So they had special trains until someone realised that, if you singled or interlaced the double track through them, you could use normal trains. Not so easy operationally though.
Apologies for my ignorance, what does interlaced mean? And with "singled": did they take out a double track and re-lay a single?
@Climacus - thanks for the information on railways in NSW - I'm afraid Australia is rather under the railway radar as far as the UK is concerned, which is a shame, as there is much of interest.
Wikipedia's article on gauntletted or interlaced track:
On the railway from Tunbridge Wells to Hastings, built in 1851, the original contractor failed to build the tunnels properly, with the result that extra layers of brick lining had to be added. This was OK until rolling stock became wider, and for many years coaches with slightly narrower bodies had to be used. The diesel-electric multiple units introduced in the 1950s also had narrow bodies.
When the line was electrified, some of the tunnels were either gauntletted or singled, which, as you surmise, means one track only, serving both directions. The reduction in freight traffic, along with a revised passenger timetable, meant that operational difficulties could be more easily avoided.
@Climacus - thanks for the information on railways in NSW - I'm afraid Australia is rather under the railway radar as far as the UK is concerned, which is a shame, as there is much of interest.
You are kind; thank you. I have enjoyed reading the posts here and thought I'd contribute something. I can understand why us down here may not feature as prominently as other countries.
Wikipedia's article on gauntletted or interlaced track:
I lived for a time in Lisbon. The passage of trams (and vehicles) through the single-track and gauntletted sections used to be controlled by men sitting in shop doorways, armed with red and green paddles and whistles. Now traffic lights are used - cheaper but less interesting and flexible!
Up to a point, maybe, but it was the Southern Railway - in the 1930s - which showed good business acumen by electrifying as much of the system as they could before WW2 intervened.
The policy of introducing clean, comfortable, new* electric trains, running to an improved regular interval timetable, before making any improvements to stations and other infrastructure (other than what was required straightaway) paid dividends.
(*new-ish, given that a lot of electric multiple unit stock for suburban and local services was partly made up of former steam-hauled stock - much of it not especially old, but the Southern never threw anything away if it might possibly be useful somewhere. Model railway kit-bashers in full size!)
I don’t think the two are necessarily mutually exclusive - companies had to play the cards they were dealt.
If the GWR had been in the position of the Southern (mixed bag of locomotives from former rival companies, ageing in many cases, high density commuter traffic) then I dare say they’d have done much the same.
But they weren’t so they didn’t. OTOH they did have fairly well advanced plans to electrify down to at least IIRC Taunton as part of Paddington-Plymouth electrification, but then the war started.
Less jokingly than my last post, I do think that the GW stopped trying to develop steam because they felt - probably correctly - that they were largely covered with the locomotive fleet they had.
I think they were clear that the future was electrification and diesel/gas turbine, but they were happy to run with the steam fleet they had in the interim. Because it worked and they could still pay a dividend.
As an aside, the only one of the Big Four that wasn’t run by canny business men was probably the hot bed of internecine warfare that was the LMS. The LNWR vs Midland conflict went on in all departments (never mind the famously dysfunctional relationship on the loco side.
The GW merrily absorbed the Cambrian and carried on with normal jogging.
The Southern got a grip of disparate interests and worked well to maximise its commuter income.
The LNER was a railway run by gentlemen, that arguably might have collapsed a lot earlier had they not been so competent*
*interestingly and often forgotten that they tried to jump the gun on nationalisation by asking if the government would mind buying their stations and track, leaving the LNER as Train Operating Company…!
I do think that the GW stopped trying to develop steam because they felt - probably correctly - that they were largely covered with the locomotive fleet they had.
I think they were clear that the future was electrification and diesel/gas turbine, but they were happy to run with the steam fleet they had in the interim. Because it worked and they could still pay a dividend.
I disagree, as they kept on building locos such as "Castles", "Halls" and - later - "Counties", not to mention lots of pannier tanks and rebuilding the Moguls. To be fair, some of the designs were developed over the years: a "Castle" of 1946 was a rather different beast to one of 1923 although it looked much the same. And, of course, the GWR had easy access to Welsh steam coal.
As an aside, the only one of the Big Four that wasn’t run by canny business men was probably the hot bed of internecine warfare that was the LMS. The LNWR vs Midland conflict went on in all departments (never mind the famously dysfunctional relationship on the loco side.
The GW merrily absorbed the Cambrian and carried on with normal jogging.
Oi! You forgot (on the LMS side) the Lancashire & Yorkshire (which actually amalgamated with the North Western shortly before the Grouping), not to mention "bit part" players such as the Knotty and the Furness.
Perhaps more significantly, you didn't mention the south Wales lines such as the Rhymney and Taff Vale, which certainly had an influence on motive power (the 56xx tank locos). Many of their own locos got Great Westernised and lasted until the late 1950s, too. The GW did carry out some sensible rationalisation of the south Wales lines at a time when demand for coal was dropping, eg they closed quite a bit of the Barry Railway fairly early on.
I do think that the GW stopped trying to develop steam because they felt - probably correctly - that they were largely covered with the locomotive fleet they had.
I think they were clear that the future was electrification and diesel/gas turbine, but they were happy to run with the steam fleet they had in the interim. Because it worked and they could still pay a dividend.
I disagree, as they kept on building locos such as "Castles", "Halls" and - later - "Counties", not to mention lots of pannier tanks and rebuilding the Moguls. To be fair, some of the designs were developed over the years: a "Castle" of 1946 was a rather different beast to one of 1923 although it looked much the same. And, of course, the GWR had easy access to Welsh steam coal.
Agree that they kept building (tweaked) versions of what they'd already got. But that's in the context of the Depression, the Loan Act, and World War Two.
I'm not sure that that contradicts the idea that they were broadly happy with their fleet. They on the other hand didn't build the Cathedrals, etc, and did build diesel railcars, order the gas turbine pair, and plan seriously (pre-war) for electrification to Plymouth and South Wales.
I do buy the argument that the GW did not spend time and money trying to get much beyond what Churchward gave them in the early years of the 20th century when it comes to steam power (IIRC weren't the Granges and probably the Manors envisaged though not build by him?). The Counties were an attempt to take such learnings as there were from the Poor Man's Hall Derivative (Black 5) and bring them back in-house at Swindon.
I stand by the GWR being broadly content with their steam locomotive stud for as long as they expected to be operating steam. Other Railways (TM) had more of a blank canvas and a need to innovate post 1923, the GW was mature.
As an aside, the only one of the Big Four that wasn’t run by canny business men was probably the hot bed of internecine warfare that was the LMS. The LNWR vs Midland conflict went on in all departments (never mind the famously dysfunctional relationship on the loco side.
The GW merrily absorbed the Cambrian and carried on with normal jogging.
Oi! You forgot (on the LMS side) the Lancashire & Yorkshire (which actually amalgamated with the North Western shortly before the Grouping), not to mention "bit part" players such as the Knotty and the Furness.
Perhaps more significantly, you didn't mention the south Wales lines such as the Rhymney and Taff Vale, which certainly had an influence on motive power (the 56xx tank locos). Many of their own locos got Great Westernised and lasted until the late 1950s, too. The GW did carry out some sensible rationalisation of the south Wales lines at a time when demand for coal was dropping, eg they closed quite a bit of the Barry Railway fairly early on.
Exactly, the L&Y had shown their hand by amalgamating with the LNWR, so they were one bloc as the Midland saw it. I'm not sure the poor old Knotty was much courted by either side when it came to playing Silly Little Games in the 1920s/30s!
South Wales was treated by the GWR as a bigger version of Cornwall. They ran the rule over the locomotives they acquired, scrapped the duds, and assimilated anything worth having while standardising their parts as much as possible. You can trace the SW lineage back in the coal traffic locomotives the GW built, in exactly the same way as the Cornish mineral tanks. The GW weren't stupid, they kept/adopted/adapted what worked and ruthlessly disposed of what didn't or was too old (basically almost the entire locomotive stock of the Cambrian).
I wonder if the 15xx tanks show the way that GW steam might have developed if it had continued? High running plate with everything accessible, outside cylinders with Walschaerts valve gear - a 4-6-0 would have ended up rather like a GW version of a BR Class 5.
The 15xx class wasn't elegant but (if the picture of the preserved one I've seen is correct) it still had a copper-capped chimney! Was there any practical reason for this?
I wonder if the 15xx tanks show the way that GW steam might have developed if it had continued? High running plate with everything accessible, outside cylinders with Walschaerts valve gear - a 4-6-0 would have ended up rather like a GW version of a BR Class 5.
The 15xx class wasn't elegant but (if the picture of the preserved one I've seen is correct) it still had a copper-capped chimney! Was there any practical reason for this?
There's a school of thought that with the 15XX Hawksworth was seeing what he could get away with! On the other hand, I'm not sure they'd have changed very much - I suspect they'd have built more Counties, and more (Modified) Halls. The idea has taken root that Collett was a bit of a plodder, content to tinker with Churchward's legacy, and then Hawksworth's innovative bent was cut off at the knees by nationalisation.
Personally I don't buy that - if nothing else (aside from the courtesy of giving the CME the honours), Hawksworth essentially designed the Kings! OTOH the GWR would have been facing the same issues the nationalised BR faced - increasing labour costs, falling recruitment, staff shortages (especially in the lower MPD grades) so outside motion etc would have made sense.
Remember that we do have a Swindon standard to look at in terms of what the drawing office could do post war - the Standard Class 3MT tank has a GW boiler and everything...
My First Love is the Southern Railway, and, in view of where I grew up, the South Eastern & Chatham...but I think the Great Western does deserve credit for its diesel railcars, built and operated successfully at a time when other railways were still mostly wedded to steam.
There is a stark contrast between the early development, and widespread use, of diesel (mostly) railcars in many European countries, with the lack of enterprise in the UK until very late in the day. The GWR, for all its conservatism, showed what could be done...and their railcars, like many of those in Europe, were capable of hauling a worthwhile trailing load.
Remember that we do have a Swindon standard to look at in terms of what the drawing office could do post war - the Standard Class 3MT tank has a GW boiler and everything...
True (although the boiler gained a dome along the way), but I think the loco owed more to LMS practice than GW ... although of course Stanier had been GW and set up the tradition. These locos looked nice in lined green, as did their smaller brothers: https://tinyurl.com/znfn8nps (yes, I know it's a model). The bigger Class 4s looked awful in anything but black!
I lived for a time in Lisbon. The passage of trams (and vehicles) through the single-track and gauntletted sections used to be controlled by men sitting in shop doorways, armed with red and green paddles and whistles. Now traffic lights are used - cheaper but less interesting and flexible!
Wow! That would've been a sight to see!
Not sure if it counts as a railway as such, but in South Australia at Victor Harbor [yes, US spelling] they have a horse-drawn carriage going along rails to an island. Not directly related, and I guess these exist elsewhere, but your mention of "ye olde times" [not so ye olde in your case] caused me to recall [I was there in January].
The Spurn Point railway (which was a military line) used steam power, too, and a number of early railcars. The sail trollies were used by the local lifeboatmen and their families!
The train service between Fintona and Fintona Junction in Northern Ireland was provided by a horse drawn tram until the branch closed in 1957. Hence, the trick quiz question 'what were the two unusual things about the loco shed at Fintona'? Answer, it was a stable and had no tracks leading to it. It was ordinary Irish gauge, 5' 3", and I think goods services were worked by ordinary locomotives.
It's easy to forget that railways owned a lot of horses. Not just for cartage (though that was sometimes contracted out) but in many locations for shunting. IIRC the last BR shunting horses were at Newmarket.
There were also some very obscure horse-worked appendages, like the Peak Forest Tramway which ran from Bugsworth canal basin (now Buxworth) to sundry quarries in the Peak Forest area. This was a very ancient affair which just survived into LNER days. The canal it served was also railway-owned and there was a fair bit of traffic up until around WW1.
The GCR owned a quarry at Peak Forest that it could only access by RP over the Midland. Again, this ended round about the time of grouping, when the lease was given up, but it was a source of limestone ballast. Also some stone sold to the public - how they got away with this without being ultra vires I'm not sure, but maybe no one noticed.
It's easy to forget that railways owned a lot of horses. Not just for cartage (though that was sometimes contracted out) but in many locations for shunting. IIRC the last BR shunting horses were at Newmarket.
There were also some very obscure horse-worked appendages, like the Peak Forest Tramway which ran from Bugsworth canal basin (now Buxworth) to sundry quarries in the Peak Forest area. This was a very ancient affair which just survived into LNER days. The canal it served was also railway-owned and there was a fair bit of traffic up until around WW1.
The GCR owned a quarry at Peak Forest that it could only access by RP over the Midland. Again, this ended round about the time of grouping, when the lease was given up, but it was a source of limestone ballast. Also some stone sold to the public - how they got away with this without being ultra vires I'm not sure, but maybe no one noticed.
I walk around Bugsworth, and I've seen some of the inclines around there. Talking of quarries, those up the rails from Talysarn on the very last end of what had been the Nantlle tramway were served by horse / tractor pulled wagons until the very end, joined to the conventional railway at Talysarn itself. That's a spectacular place to scramble around, even now, and there are things to be seen around the Caernarfon end near the current terminus of the WHR, too. Boyd books were the ruin of me when we used to take our kids camping in North Wales :-)
The train service between Fintona and Fintona Junction in Northern Ireland was provided by a horse drawn tram until the branch closed in 1957. Hence, the trick quiz question 'what were the two unusual things about the loco shed at Fintona'? Answer, it was a stable and had no tracks leading to it. It was ordinary Irish gauge, 5' 3", and I think goods services were worked by ordinary locomotives.
Yes, engines worked the goods traffic. I read somewhere that, in the days when the Great Northern offered three classes of passenger accommodation, the tram had first class on the lower deck, at the end furthest away from the horse, the second class was behind the horse (!), and third class was on the open upper deck. Here's an archive film:
You may notice that the horse retires to a little shed at the Junction, to avoid having to put up with the noise of the steam locomotives on connecting trains...
The tram is preserved at the Transport Museum near Belfast.
On inclines, I give you an old photo and history of the Blue Mountains' (haze from eucalyptus trees) Scenic Railway tourist attraction: 52°. Once used to transport kerosene shale from coal mines in Katoomba from the 1880s.
Comments
In the real world, most of our railways were pretty good at producing mediocre locomotives. The GWR were well ahead of the rest - but then became a tad complacent.
I think that the GWR had everything it needed, and had it right such that it didn’t need to do much other than keep things ticking over and export people like Stanier to the LMS so as to raise the average IQ of both railways…
Meanwhile, Maunsell on the Southern Railway was building more, and improved, King Arthur and S15 class 4-6-0s, along with the famous Schools...not only that, he designed an elegant light 4-4-0 (the L1 class), and rebuilt a number of the Wainwright/Surtees Ds and Es to D1 and E1, making them even better than before. I recall seeing these 4-4-0s at Our Town, and on Our Shed, as they were widely used on a variety of mixed traffic duties
In addition, of course, there were the various Moguls (dating back to WW1). and the splendid - if not entirely satisfactory - Lord Nelson class.
The unfortunate River class tanks - it was the track, Sir Herbert! The track! - behaved themselves impeccably when given nice tenders. The later, but rather similar, W class tanks were always used on freight work, following a very exciting trial of one - with passenger stock - on the Oxted line.
Bulleid, when he arrived on the Southern, actually had little to do to improve steam power on a railway committed to electrification, but WW2 led to the Pacifics and the Q1s...and, subsequently, to the Leader (but we'd best not go down that rabbit hole!).
Whilst all this was going on, Gresley was busy on the LNER providing a wonderful stock of locomotives of every type you could think of, with a few false starts on the way.
The GWR just carried on building skinny engines that all looked alike.
I was trying to find a way of contradicting this but failed, unless one counts the "Dukedogs" which is probably cheating. Of course the Kings and 47xx locos were quite fat!
Yes, Maunsell was underrated, certainly as far as the Moguls were concerned.
The GW Kings may have been fat, but they still didn't have the correct number of wheels.
I certainly agree with that. It seems to me that GW locomotives could have evolved along similar lines, but the GWR, like General Motors, never spent a penny more on development once they had a product that served its purpose. And in that, I'd have to concede that they were good business people.
The policy of introducing clean, comfortable, new* electric trains, running to an improved regular interval timetable, before making any improvements to stations and other infrastructure (other than what was required straightaway) paid dividends.
(*new-ish, given that a lot of electric multiple unit stock for suburban and local services was partly made up of former steam-hauled stock - much of it not especially old, but the Southern never threw anything away if it might possibly be useful somewhere. Model railway kit-bashers in full size!)
It's also only fair to say that Other Companies' suburban electric stock was sometimes more up-to-date than the Southern's, but the latter had some longish runs, and the policy was to provide as many seats as possible.
Ironically, some of the more rural lines which were never electrified received - almost at the last minute - some very fine push-pull sets converted (kit-bashing again!) from Maunsell corridor coaches. From the driving trailer end, they were not unlike EMUs or DMUs to look at...
[quote[It's also only fair to say that Other Companies' suburban electric stock was sometimes more up-to-date than the Southern's
[/quote] The LMS Wirral/Mersey stock in particular. (I think I'm right in saying that some of the rather similar Shenfield/Woodhead suburban stock were at least part-built when WW2 broke out).
[/quote]
There may well have been incentives for the spread of new housing, apart from the attraction of new electric trains! An interesting area for social history study.
Our House (when I was a lad) had been built - along with many others in the adjacent streets - soon after the Railway arrived in Our Town in 1842. Many of these houses were paid for by means of an early form of mortgage, whilst others were owned by the Railway Company, and let to their employees.
The LMS electrics were still quite modern-looking even in BR days, as were the Shenfield etc. stock. They didn't have many seats, though, compared to Our Trains...
I'll bore you one day on the Newcastle line. It has some spectacular scenery; and a railway station seemingly in the middle of nowhere [there is a house and quarry] at which I once alighted / rejoined as you can start a bushwalk [hike] there: Wondabyne.
My dad, who worked as an electrician on regional trains, bought me a book on the history of NSW [New South Wales] and one on Australian railways in my teenage years, which I read, looked at [photos], and re-read.
Thought you may be interested. Back to your scheduled programming...
The electric service from Euston to Watford was also a pre-grouping scheme and was still running rather antique LNWR coach sets in the late 1950s. The Manchester to Altrincham was electrified by the LMS, I think at the beginning of the 1930s. The North Eastern electrified some of its services in the Newcastle area and the Midland had an AC system between Lancaster and Morecambe.
These are the new (not yet) trains travelling some intercity routes from Sydney. I heard, ineptitude, they are too wide to fit through some tunnels on the Blue Mountains line. These are the main ones currently, though we do have these older ones, and 2 other more recent types as well. They have toilets in certain carriages and a place to get water.
The trip to Newcastle by the Hawkesbury is probably one of the most scenic; for a while you are travelling along a bay after a bridge. You can see the old bridge pylons there. Several tunnels too.
Here is our Sydney intercity map. And NSW's train/bus network -- orange train; blue bus. Not sure how much people know about NSW, but there are some European comparisons (scroll down a little) and it overlayed with Texas to give a size indication. June 2024: 8,484,000 people,
Didn't the old Hawkesbury bridge collapse?
The French had a problem with too-wide trains, too: https://tinyurl.com/muhxt8cc
In Britain, the tunnels on the Hastings line were too narrow for ordinary trains (I think that they were rather fragile and had to be reinforced with extra brickwork inside). So they had special trains until someone realised that, if you singled or interlaced the double track through them, you could use normal trains. Not so easy operationally though.
A friend's friend in the western suburbs is very thankful for a metro opened earlier than the new one you refer to [expansion from existing line]. Driverless trains. As I bored you with regional maps, here is the Sydney one: M for Metro.
edit: Metro train photo.
Thanks. Interesting.
Wikipedia's article on gauntletted or interlaced track:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauntlet_track
On the railway from Tunbridge Wells to Hastings, built in 1851, the original contractor failed to build the tunnels properly, with the result that extra layers of brick lining had to be added. This was OK until rolling stock became wider, and for many years coaches with slightly narrower bodies had to be used. The diesel-electric multiple units introduced in the 1950s also had narrow bodies.
When the line was electrified, some of the tunnels were either gauntletted or singled, which, as you surmise, means one track only, serving both directions. The reduction in freight traffic, along with a revised passenger timetable, meant that operational difficulties could be more easily avoided.
Interesting. Thank you both.
I don’t think the two are necessarily mutually exclusive - companies had to play the cards they were dealt.
If the GWR had been in the position of the Southern (mixed bag of locomotives from former rival companies, ageing in many cases, high density commuter traffic) then I dare say they’d have done much the same.
But they weren’t so they didn’t. OTOH they did have fairly well advanced plans to electrify down to at least IIRC Taunton as part of Paddington-Plymouth electrification, but then the war started.
Less jokingly than my last post, I do think that the GW stopped trying to develop steam because they felt - probably correctly - that they were largely covered with the locomotive fleet they had.
I think they were clear that the future was electrification and diesel/gas turbine, but they were happy to run with the steam fleet they had in the interim. Because it worked and they could still pay a dividend.
The GW merrily absorbed the Cambrian and carried on with normal jogging.
The Southern got a grip of disparate interests and worked well to maximise its commuter income.
The LNER was a railway run by gentlemen, that arguably might have collapsed a lot earlier had they not been so competent*
*interestingly and often forgotten that they tried to jump the gun on nationalisation by asking if the government would mind buying their stations and track, leaving the LNER as Train Operating Company…!
Perhaps more significantly, you didn't mention the south Wales lines such as the Rhymney and Taff Vale, which certainly had an influence on motive power (the 56xx tank locos). Many of their own locos got Great Westernised and lasted until the late 1950s, too. The GW did carry out some sensible rationalisation of the south Wales lines at a time when demand for coal was dropping, eg they closed quite a bit of the Barry Railway fairly early on.
Agree that they kept building (tweaked) versions of what they'd already got. But that's in the context of the Depression, the Loan Act, and World War Two.
I'm not sure that that contradicts the idea that they were broadly happy with their fleet. They on the other hand didn't build the Cathedrals, etc, and did build diesel railcars, order the gas turbine pair, and plan seriously (pre-war) for electrification to Plymouth and South Wales.
I do buy the argument that the GW did not spend time and money trying to get much beyond what Churchward gave them in the early years of the 20th century when it comes to steam power (IIRC weren't the Granges and probably the Manors envisaged though not build by him?). The Counties were an attempt to take such learnings as there were from the Poor Man's Hall Derivative (Black 5) and bring them back in-house at Swindon.
I stand by the GWR being broadly content with their steam locomotive stud for as long as they expected to be operating steam. Other Railways (TM) had more of a blank canvas and a need to innovate post 1923, the GW was mature.
Exactly, the L&Y had shown their hand by amalgamating with the LNWR, so they were one bloc as the Midland saw it. I'm not sure the poor old Knotty was much courted by either side when it came to playing Silly Little Games in the 1920s/30s!
South Wales was treated by the GWR as a bigger version of Cornwall. They ran the rule over the locomotives they acquired, scrapped the duds, and assimilated anything worth having while standardising their parts as much as possible. You can trace the SW lineage back in the coal traffic locomotives the GW built, in exactly the same way as the Cornish mineral tanks. The GW weren't stupid, they kept/adopted/adapted what worked and ruthlessly disposed of what didn't or was too old (basically almost the entire locomotive stock of the Cambrian).
The 15xx class wasn't elegant but (if the picture of the preserved one I've seen is correct) it still had a copper-capped chimney! Was there any practical reason for this?
There's a school of thought that with the 15XX Hawksworth was seeing what he could get away with! On the other hand, I'm not sure they'd have changed very much - I suspect they'd have built more Counties, and more (Modified) Halls. The idea has taken root that Collett was a bit of a plodder, content to tinker with Churchward's legacy, and then Hawksworth's innovative bent was cut off at the knees by nationalisation.
Personally I don't buy that - if nothing else (aside from the courtesy of giving the CME the honours), Hawksworth essentially designed the Kings! OTOH the GWR would have been facing the same issues the nationalised BR faced - increasing labour costs, falling recruitment, staff shortages (especially in the lower MPD grades) so outside motion etc would have made sense.
Remember that we do have a Swindon standard to look at in terms of what the drawing office could do post war - the Standard Class 3MT tank has a GW boiler and everything...
There is a stark contrast between the early development, and widespread use, of diesel (mostly) railcars in many European countries, with the lack of enterprise in the UK until very late in the day. The GWR, for all its conservatism, showed what could be done...and their railcars, like many of those in Europe, were capable of hauling a worthwhile trailing load.
Wow! That would've been a sight to see!
Not sure if it counts as a railway as such, but in South Australia at Victor Harbor [yes, US spelling] they have a horse-drawn carriage going along rails to an island. Not directly related, and I guess these exist elsewhere, but your mention of "ye olde times" [not so ye olde in your case] caused me to recall [I was there in January].
http://www.douglas.gov.im/index.php/info/item/146-history-of-the-douglas-horse-tram-service
The tramway is now owned and worked by the Isle of Man's nationalised transport system:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Man_Transport
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurn_Point_military_railway
Apparently all Dutch trains have been wind-powered for some years ... but that's indirectly, via turbines and electricity, not sails!
!
Wow. What a time to be alive!
(not trains, but I always wished I had've visited England when the hovercraft went to France...)
Yes, the lighthouse people sailed as well - there was quite a civilian community at Spurn Point at one time, in addition to the military presence.
There were also some very obscure horse-worked appendages, like the Peak Forest Tramway which ran from Bugsworth canal basin (now Buxworth) to sundry quarries in the Peak Forest area. This was a very ancient affair which just survived into LNER days. The canal it served was also railway-owned and there was a fair bit of traffic up until around WW1.
The GCR owned a quarry at Peak Forest that it could only access by RP over the Midland. Again, this ended round about the time of grouping, when the lease was given up, but it was a source of limestone ballast. Also some stone sold to the public - how they got away with this without being ultra vires I'm not sure, but maybe no one noticed.
I walk around Bugsworth, and I've seen some of the inclines around there. Talking of quarries, those up the rails from Talysarn on the very last end of what had been the Nantlle tramway were served by horse / tractor pulled wagons until the very end, joined to the conventional railway at Talysarn itself. That's a spectacular place to scramble around, even now, and there are things to be seen around the Caernarfon end near the current terminus of the WHR, too. Boyd books were the ruin of me when we used to take our kids camping in North Wales :-)
Yes, engines worked the goods traffic. I read somewhere that, in the days when the Great Northern offered three classes of passenger accommodation, the tram had first class on the lower deck, at the end furthest away from the horse, the second class was behind the horse (!), and third class was on the open upper deck. Here's an archive film:
https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=mcafee&p=fintona+horse+tram&type=E211GB642G0#id=2&vid=cccf3d243083bfe157004f56c7388e95&action=click
You may notice that the horse retires to a little shed at the Junction, to avoid having to put up with the noise of the steam locomotives on connecting trains...
The tram is preserved at the Transport Museum near Belfast.
https://australiaspastpresent.com/2013/09/27/703/
A bit different now: https://www.scenicworld.com.au/attractions/scenic-railway