Midland and South Western Junction Railway

Pretty much anyone can bring a 'WIBN' closed railway - or at least part of it - back to life, thanks to the joys of model railways.

Maybe NatPres could have a section devoted to encouraging 'WIBN' schemes being reopened in miniature? I rather like the idea of the KESR Headcorn Extension in the preservation era. Locos and rolling stock present no problem, thanks to messrs Hornby, Bachmann and now DJ Models.

 

Actually I would think not. It was not just the S&D which continued (for a while) as a joint line with a large degree of independence but the M. & G.N. as well. In contrast both the Cambrian (whose links with the L.N.W.R. were stronger) and the M. & S.W.J.R. were bundled into the G.W.R. This would suggest than an independent line's fate was solely decided on geography rather than previous trading alliances.

Paul H

 

Indeed, very true. Here's one I made earlier, Andoversford Jct, now dismantled, just like the real thing!

 

I would concur. See also: Hull Corporation's lobbying for the Hull & Barnsley to be placed in the LMS group, which was ignored. (It was of course a strongly-NER chap who put the Railways Act together, but I think that can be discounted).

There was never any serious suggestion that companies should be split as part of the Grouping process, so the S&D was always going to end up remaining part-owned by whichever group the Midland was placed in.

 

Were they identical to the M&SJR locomotives?

 

Try asking the Austrailian Authorities can we export one, once they have picked themselves up off the floor, and untied you from the bilabong tree , and put you on the very next quantus flight home, you might get your answer, " Stewth blue, you want what !! quick pass me another fosters "

 

TBH, that doesn't really answer @SpudUk's question: he asked "are they identical?", not "can we repatriate one?" I for one would be interested in a knowledgable answer to the original question.

Tom

 

Having just looked at a photo of a M& SWJR 2-6-0, it looks like a typical Beyer Peacock standard design, there are a lot of similarities between the Australian export locos, and the ones made for UK orders, so it may well be that both designs may have had been laid down from the same drawings, with minor differences to customers specs.

 

Yes, hence my curiosity - it has been stated that the M&SWJR locos were "typical Beyer-Peacock standard design", but the Australian one you linked to was built by Dubs. So what were Dubs doing building a B-P design for export? Who was responsible for the design?

Tom

 

As does this one, on a trespass warning notice of the Peking-Mukden Railway in Mangapps Railway Museum. Some doubt exists as to whether this is a B-P or NBL product; a sister engine in the Chinese NRM is said, by them, to have been built in China, but I think "assembled from a kit of parts" is probably more accurate.

Note that a well-aimed stone has obliterated the driver. Inspection of a similar sign belonging to a friend in Winnipeg reveals that he was European.

 

The attached is a description of these locos. No mention of Tangshan using a kit of parts.

 

There were a lot of standard designs after WW1 by Messrs Rendell,Palmer & Tritton(BESA). Not sure if the latter is related to the inventor of the Tank but would be VERY interested to find out. These standard designs could be built by all. I think if they were busy at BP then they'd let NBL 'knock up'(build quality!) a design but be interesting if standard export designs were used this early on, or cooperation. The later designs were perhaps excellent, save for thinking of the weather.
Thanks

 

Going back to some earlier suggestions..................

My suggestion for the WIBN - much simpler & cheaper is a gala based around locos that either served abroad with the Army or were built for the military. Many of the obvious dates have now passed but there is still the 100th anniversary of the end of WW1 in 2018 for such an event.

I suggest however that if we have a WIBN proposal we need to ask what does it give us that we don't have already? As a 'for example' the GWS Railmotor both as an object and for some of the things it has done such as working 'main line' on the Looe Branch & in the London area.

 

Way off of topic, but one of my all-time WIBNs is for Network Rail to shut the St. Ives Branch and for it to be taken on as a heritage railway, reinstating a run-roudn at St. Ives and having a MP depot at St. Erth

 

Does it matter? This is the WIBN thread - practicality is a secondary (or tertiary, or quaternary...) consideration!

Tom