Private Siding Questions

[Clarence Yard]

EE 1378 is the preserved loco at Manchester and came from Kearsley P.S. iirc. It was originally built for service in South Wales (Trefforest) and that is where it got the GW PO plate. It went from South Wales to Kearsley. EE built their engines from this period mainly at the former Dick Kerr works.

The IRS quote the gauge of the electric loco at Great Harwood as standard and that would fit with the rebuilding of the site - the layout then needing an internal loco, rather than just relying on a main line engine and perhaps a horse.

I think any idea that the layout was relayed as narrow gauge is fanciful - the transshipment costs would have far outweighed any savings. From the OS track map of the area, it looks like it was standard gauge with a direct connection off the main line sidings.

 

[Gloster]

The shunter in Manchester, I note, is standard gauge and the details in paragraph 5 relate to that loco, not the one at Great Harwood. I believe the loco is Dick Kerr works number 1378, built in 1944. It is exhibited carrying the livery of Bolton Power Station though the GWR registration suggests it initially worked elsewhere (on the GWR system).

English Electric 1378/44 was an 0-4-0 electric registered by the GWR in 1946 as 258, possibly the second use of this registration number. It was registered to the South Wales Power Co., Upper Boat and located at Treforest Works and Maesmawr Sidings, all south of Pontypridd.

Source: Part 13 of the RCTS history of GWR locos, 1983.

 

[6Gman]

EE 1378 is the preserved loco at Manchester and came from Kearsley P.S. iirc. It was originally built for service in South Wales (Trefforest) and that is where it got the GW PO plate. It went from South Wales to Kearsley. EE built their engines from this period mainly at the former Dick Kerr works.

The IRS quote the gauge of the electric loco at Great Harwood as standard and that would fit with the rebuilding of the site - the layout then needing an internal loco, rather than just relying on a main line engine and perhaps a horse.

I think any idea that the layout was relayed as narrow gauge is fanciful - the transshipment costs would have far outweighed any savings. From the OS track map of the area, it looks like it was standard gauge with a direct connection off the main line sidings.

Where did you find that reference? I've been in touch with the IRS Records Officer and he says they have no record of a loco at Great Harwood!

But I agree with everything else in your post !

 

[Clarence Yard]

You need to tell him to look at IRS Bulletin 26/14 - the Book 7 amendment entry for Great Harwood (Std 4wBE ScR by /53) is there on that page between the entry for RH 244580 (NCB) and RH 313392 (NWGB).

 

[Andy873]

Thanks everyone, you all never cease to amaze me with the details and facts that you all take the time and effort to look up etc, I know that takes some time!

You can see my problem now, I'm never quite sure what my friend means at times. This is why anything I'm told I have to double check and why I've posted so many questions about my old branch line - sorry if it seems predictable - but I think you can see why I have to ask you these questions.

I'm told in 1915 the gas works had delivered 41,000 tons of coal - this one I believe as I've looked at official figures for other gas works around the country.

I just don't think all of the internal track (coming in) at the gas works was narrow gauge, surely it must have been standard gauge?

41,000 tons of coal per year, that's just over 13 wagons per day based on 10 ton wagons. That's a lot of wagons crossing the road every day! of course more would have been delivered during the winter period rather than the summer dur to demand.

Can we agree that the 1931 OS map (second map on #1) shows some tight curves that a standard gauge engine wouldn't have been able to cope with? this leads me back to a portion of the NS gauge being parallel with the standard gauge for the transfer of coal?

 

[Clarence Yard]

No, we cannot. Those curves are perfectly ok for a small standard gauge loco. There were many industrial locations in this country that had similar curves and a small wheelbase SG loco.

The OS map would show any parallel lines if there were any and the connection into the sidings is pretty clear to see, as well as the absence of any transshipment facilities.

 

[Gloster]

I fully agree that there is no reason why the lines in the gas works were not standard gauge: industrial locos could cope with very sharp curves. As far as narrow-gauge lines are concerned, there is no particular reason to think that there were any, although it is possible that there were some in the buildings: the evidence for them seems negligible and in the absence of any such evidence the assumption must be that there weren’t any.

Rule three of research: never rely on people’s memories.

 

[6Gman]

41,000 tons of coal per year, that's just over 13 wagons per day based on 10 ton wagons. That's a lot of wagons crossing the road every day! of course more would have been delivered during the winter period rather than the summer dur to demand.

Can we agree that the 1931 OS map (second map on #1) shows some tight curves that a standard gauge engine wouldn't have been able to cope with? this leads me back to a portion of the NS gauge being parallel with the standard gauge for the transfer of coal?

13 wagons a day would have meant one shunt move in and out per day taking a few minutes, likely at (e.g.) 11 in the morning or 2 in the afternoon so it would hardly bring the town to a stand! The A50 until the early 1960s had a level crossing in the Stoke area serving Shelton Colliery which would have been much busier, and this was the main road linking Hanley, Tunstall, Burslem and points north and south! There was a similar mineral railway that crossed the A5. Perhaps people just had more patience in those days?

As others have said those curves look fine for the wagons of the time and for a short wheelbase loco such as a battery electric. So I think there's no reason to assume any n.g. involvement.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

No, we cannot. Those curves are perfectly ok for a small standard gauge loco. There were many industrial locations in this country that had similar curves and a small wheelbase SG loco.

The OS map would show any parallel lines if there were any and the connection into the sidings is pretty clear to see, as well as the absence of any transshipment facilities.

Lever Bros' Port Sunlight Works had an extensive narrow gauge system for internal movement of the 'products' as well as a large standard gauge system. The large scale OS maps of the period correctly distinguish between the two and no doubt would have done so had Gt Harwood had a ng system.

 

[Andy873]

No, we cannot. Those curves are perfectly ok for a small standard gauge loco. There were many industrial locations in this country that had similar curves and a small wheelbase SG loco.

The OS map would show any parallel lines if there were any and the connection into the sidings is pretty clear to see, as well as the absence of any transshipment facilities.

I fully agree that there is no reason why the lines in the gas works were not standard gauge

As others have said those curves look fine for the wagons of the time

I think we are all in agreement that the internal track of the gas works was indeed standard gauge. Attached is my crude attempt to draw the layout as it would have been circa 1923 which appears on the 1931 OS map.

The black track is the original, the blue are the new additions. I've also included the sidings that were added to the railway goods yard circa 1900/5, these sidings were known as the "gas sidings". Note - I've not included the railway sidings in this one.

Rule three of research: never rely on people’s memories.

I've learnt that the hard way! I would suggest anyone who is going to research a line that went in the 1960's to get on with it sooner rather than later.

Lever Bros' Port Sunlight Works had an extensive narrow gauge system for internal movement of the 'products' as well as a large standard gauge system. The large scale OS maps of the period correctly distinguish between the two and no doubt would have done so had Gt Harwood had a ng system.

Yes, I agree the OS maps are generally accurate in detail and I also agree that any such parallel NS gauge at the gas works would have been shown - which it's not.

The other point I want to re-iterate are the specific details of all the private sidings on the old branch line in the L&Y society book I have about the line. They state very clearly Padiham's gas works did have a NS gauge track - there is no mention at all that the one at Great Harwood gas works was. I'm sure it would have been mentioned.

13 wagons a day would have meant one shunt move in and out per day taking a few minutes, likely at (e.g.) 11 in the morning or 2 in the afternoon so it would hardly bring the town to a stand

I agree with that too, even if you were on the road waiting (with the level crossing gates blocking the lane) you could always have turned around and gone round another couple of streets to end up on the other side of the lane - I've seen a few people do similar things at level crossings when they are closed to road traffic.

Question please:
Given that a railway company engine was not allowed out of the goods yard to cross the lane, would a private company shunter be allowed into the railway's goods yard?

On the attached diagram, inside the railway goods yard there is a head shunt (bottom right), I just wonder would a private shunter pull empty wagons or coke filled wagons all the way into the goods yard, detach and run round and back out again - would that have been allowed? probably not?

 

[Merle Haggard]

After making a couple of observations earlier in the thread, I have not been following it closely so the following may duplicate what's already been posted. However, I have been searching through Sectional Appendices etc to see if there's any references. I can't find anything for the gas works but in the L.M.R Northern Section S.A. there's a very long entry, too long to quote verbatim, but the essentials are;

Padiham; Overhead electric traction wires are provided on the C.E.G.B. lines leading into the sidings at this place.
All trains must arrive and depart from No1 reception line no 2 reception line must be kept clear as run round. Inward trains must stop at the 'Stop and await instructions' board /// staff to ensure no conflicting moves ///
The strong inference is that B.R. positioned trains in the reception road and it was moved from there by the C.E.G.B. electric loco which ran onto the train when it was on the reception road - the reception road being wired.
I've reduced three paragraphs to /// .... /// because it's a lot of instructions about basically making sure there isn't a conflicting movement taking place, that conflicting movement presumably being the CE.G.B. electric loco bringing wagons from the power station into the reception sidings.

Edit - forgot to write that the S.A. is dated June 1969

 

[6Gman]

Question please:
Given that a railway company engine was not allowed out of the goods yard to cross the lane, would a private company shunter be allowed into the railway's goods yard?

On the attached diagram, inside the railway goods yard there is a head shunt (bottom right), I just wonder would a private shunter pull empty wagons or coke filled wagons all the way into the goods yard, detach and run round and back out again - would that have been allowed? probably not?

The issue of what was allowed where would vary case by case.

At some locations the railway company locos might be allowed onto private sidings. Both parties would have to agree and be confident that nothing would go awry.

At some locations private locos were allowed onto railway company tracks; hence the registration referred to upthread in relation to the loco at the Manchester Museum. Again both parties would have to agree.

I believe there was a distilling company in Scotland where their loco was allowed to travel under its steam between two distilleries but only with a railway pilotman on the footplate.

In most cases though I think the railway company propelled in, and the private loco propelled out.

 

[Rescars]

The issue of what was allowed where would vary case by case.

At some locations the railway company locos might be allowed onto private sidings. Both parties would have to agree and be confident that nothing would go awry.

At some locations private locos were allowed onto railway company tracks; hence the registration referred to upthread in relation to the loco at the Manchester Museum. Again both parties would have to agree.

I believe there was a distilling company in Scotland where their loco was allowed to travel under its steam between two distilleries but only with a railway pilotman on the footplate.

In most cases though I think the railway company propelled in, and the private loco propelled out.

I wonder if, in times past, a somewhat flexible approach would have applied to who's loco did what, especially at more remote parts of the network. D L Smith tells of Dalmellington Iron Co's pugs working regularly over GSWR metals, apparently without pilotmen. Even further back, it would seem that various contractors locomotives and exotica made their way to and from Boulton's Siding under their own steam - sometimes driven by the proprietor himself!

 

[Andy873]

After making a couple of observations earlier in the thread, I have not been following it closely so the following may duplicate what's already been posted. However, I have been searching through Sectional Appendices etc to see if there's any references. I can't find anything for the gas works but in the L.M.R Northern Section S.A. there's a very long entry, too long to quote verbatim, but the essentials are;

Padiham; Overhead electric traction wires are provided on the C.E.G.B. lines leading into the sidings at this place.
All trains must arrive and depart from No1 reception line no 2 reception line must be kept clear as run round. Inward trains must stop at the 'Stop and await instructions' board /// staff to ensure no conflicting moves ///
The strong inference is that B.R. positioned trains in the reception road and it was moved from there by the C.E.G.B. electric loco which ran onto the train when it was on the reception road - the reception road being wired.
I've reduced three paragraphs to /// .... /// because it's a lot of instructions about basically making sure there isn't a conflicting movement taking place, that conflicting movement presumably being the CE.G.B. electric loco bringing wagons from the power station into the reception sidings.

Edit - forgot to write that the S.A. is dated June 1969

Thanks for that, I have a copy of the 1960 SA and it says the very same thing which is quite a long entry - but you have given me an idea!

The issue of what was allowed where would vary case by case.

At some locations the railway company locos might be allowed onto private sidings. Both parties would have to agree and be confident that nothing would go awry.

At some locations private locos were allowed onto railway company tracks; hence the registration referred to upthread in relation to the loco at the Manchester Museum. Again both parties would have to agree.

I believe there was a distilling company in Scotland where their loco was allowed to travel under its steam between two distilleries but only with a railway pilotman on the footplate.

In most cases though I think the railway company propelled in, and the private loco propelled out.

It looks like as the railway companies became larger i.e. the big four then BR it would have been more defined as to whom did what, but before then who knows?

I wonder if, in times past, a somewhat flexible approach would have applied to who's loco did what, especially at more remote parts of the network. D L Smith tells of Dalmellington Iron Co's pugs working regularly over GSWR metals, apparently without pilotmen. Even further back, it would seem that various contractors locomotives and exotica made their way to and from Boulton's Siding under their own steam - sometimes driven by the proprietor himself!

This would make for a great new post just on that subject.

Question again please:
Do any of you have a sectional appendix either LMS or BR pre 1954? if you do and it covers Lancashire could you please have a look for any mention of Great Harwood, especially the gas works there? - it might just put this specific question to bed? or perhaps a similar situation where there was a connection out of a goods yard, across a road and into a gas works?

 

[zwk500]

It looks like as the railway companies became larger i.e. the big four then BR it would have been more defined as to whom did what, but before then who knows?

I don't know for sure but I suspect there would have been wide variance in local practices even well into BR days depending on a wide range of factors, including but not limited to
- Legal powers under which railway (and customer) were constructed
- Level of traffic on main line (needing railway management of safe operations)
- Level of traffic (and nature of traffic) between customer and railway
- Any specific safety concerns about operating railway locomotives into an industrial yard or industrial locos onto the main line
- Economic value of sending a railway company loco (would it need to run light from shed or could it just drop off the pickup goods etc)
- General attitude of local staff and local and area management.
- The reputation of the customer concerned (or more specifically their owners/proprietors)

Increasing centralisation of accounting, concentration of signalling control, and much stricter safety oversight gradually would put paid to little jollies onto the main line, although I'd have no idea when the last such train ran.

In your case the presence of overhead lines may be a key reason why Railway locos were not to enter the site, with the extension to the reception roads an acceptable risk for operational reasons. Otherwise it might be that the railway had no right to run trains over the level crossing for legal reasons. but both of these are complete guesses.

 

[Gloster]

I would have thought that from the very early days of private sidings the point at which the main line company’s responsibility ended and the private company’s ones began would have been very clearly marked. Because of the liability in case of accidents both parties, but particularly the main line one, would be very wary of allowing the other’s staff and equipment to enter on to their property without having undergone some checks, in the same way that wagons, which did operate on both, had to be to an approved design, registered with the RCH and kept in reasonable order. I would doubt that the basic system altered much over the years, although it would likely change as it reacted to evolving technology, experience, legislation and other developments.

 

[Rescars]

I would have thought that from the very early days of private sidings the point at which the main line company’s responsibility ended and the private company’s ones began would have been very clearly marked. Because of the liability in case of accidents both parties, but particularly the main line one, would be very wary of allowing the other’s staff and equipment to enter on to their property without having undergone some checks, in the same way that wagons, which did operate on both, had to be to an approved design, registered with the RCH and kept in reasonable order. I would doubt that the basic system altered much over the years, although it would likely change as it reacted to evolving technology, experience, legislation and other developments.

Following Gloster's points, I have unearthed some comments in the writings of D L Smith about practices involving the Dalmellington Iron Co and the GSWR in Ayrshire back in the Victorian era. When the Iron Co sought powers to run its own trains over a six mile stretch of the GSWR's Dalmellington single-line branch to access a new colliery, the GSWR refused on the grounds they would be hauled by 0-4-0 pugs (despite the GSWR having worked trains routinely over the same stretch using 0-4-0 locos itself). The Iron Co overcame this objection by simply going out and investing in a 2-4-0WT.

On a subsequent occasion, the driver of an Iron Co train (hauled by the 2-4-0WT) encountered a GSWR officers' special travelling the other way on this stretch of line mid-section. Happily they saw each other in time and avoided a collision. The Iron Co's driver was quite properly holding the single line staff so he stood his ground and caused the officers' special to reverse to clear the section. Sadly DLS tells nothing of the pressure exerted on the local signalman to allow the officers' special to enter the single line section without the staff in the first place, or what sort of report, if any, was given further up the chain of command about the incident. What an exciting way of running a railway!