Henry Booth and the new Hornby LMR carriage

[What About The Bee]

Hornby have produced Train Pack R30090. In that pack are three carriages, two 1st class carriages and what I and others have termed a "2nd class carriage". 

Upon careful examination, the Hornby new tooling does not resemble the 2nd class carriages in the Ackermann prints. Ackermann prints are considered definitive. There are four types of 2nd class carriages depicted by Ackermann. The blue carriages without roof (early), the blue carriages with roof (improved), the 6 forward seated rows and the double box with center entry.  

There are other depictions of 2nd class carriages in period literature. Examples include Austen, Crane and Freeling, yet in general, these are simply re-arranged images from Ackermann.

What then is the source, the inspiration for the Hornby carriage?

Henry Booth was the Treasurer of the enterprise. In 1830, Booth published An account of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway. Among the plates in that book, we find a representative sample of the carriages used on the railway. These are the carriages used prior to and including 1830, not the carriages used afterwards. Henry Booth was Treasurer, so he would have been in a position to actually know what an early carriage would look like. The samples presented are a strange collection, with an odd perspective. One of them has distinctive sides and unusually shaped doors. Observe it here:

Even the casual observer can see the distinct similarities between these! Look at the center posts, there is a point in the side panels there. The exact shape of the doorway is present as is the odd square decorative panel between the doors. The number of doors. The seating arrangement. The curtains. Yes, there are some details that are different, for example, seating for the guard is not on the Hornby model. Some creative license must be allowed. But I think you will agree, it is the carriage depicted by Henry Booth.

So instead of a generic 2nd Class Carriage, Hornby have produced a unique Henry Booth carriage. My word! A sleeper is present!!

Bee

[What About The Bee]

After a long think, the square panels are situated right where the seats would be.

From the extant Robert Stephenson mechanical drawings of the blue carriages, it is known that the stowage of passenger baggage was under those seats.

Perhaps the square panels, depicted in Booth's image, are the access ports to under seat stowage for these carriages.

Just a thought

Bee

[JJ73]

W😮W - have times changed - imagine standing at the Platform now & a loco Pulls up pulling the above Carriages - you would be like 'What the??? - Is this for real???' 😄🚂

[What About The Bee]

Nearly two CENTURIES have passed JJ. That's a lot of time for technological improvement. The carriage Booth depicted was cutting edge for his time, the absolute pinnacle of achievement.

Bee

[Rana Temporia]

I’m not sure if the Hornby ones are based on some replica LMR coaches built by the LMS rather than the actual originals? I seem to remember reading that somewhere but may be totally wrong.

Also at that time there was nothing to base your designs on other than horse pulled stage coach type vehicles so everything would have been a prototype.

Another point to remember is that artists and others had no prior reference to relate what they saw to. If you look at some early paintings/prints signals are often the size of light houses and the locos and rolling stock are the artists impression of what they thought they were seeing.

In answer to JJs post, at the moment I think some people would be very happy to travel in one of those coaches vs the alternative of no train! grinning

[threelink]

What a fascinating thread. Very early railways are a source of endless interest. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the square panels between the dors on the Booth carriage are doors to dog boxes. As per stagecoach practice luggage would often go on the roof (hence the rails - although I accept that none such appear on the Booth drawing). The model underframe and buffing arrangements differ from the Booth drawing but hats off to Hornby for producing such a grand carriage even if it is generic rather than a model of a specific prototype

[threelink]

What a fascinating thread. Very early railways are a source of endless interest. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the square panels between the dors on the Booth carriage are doors to dog boxes. As per stagecoach practice luggage would often go on the roof (hence the rails - although I accept that none such appear on the Booth drawing). The model underframe and buffing arrangements differ from the Booth drawing but hats off to Hornby for producing such a grand carriage even if it is generic rather than a model of a specific prototype

[What About The Bee]

Hi Rana Temporia

When Hornby decided to bring Rocket back in 2020, they had some critical decisions to make. Should they model the reproduction carriages present at the museum, or use the period illustrations? Additionally, Rocket still exists, as both a reproduction and a preserved locomotive.

For the 1st class carriages, in yellow, and the third class carriages, in blue, Hornby have selected the reproduction museum carriages. Hornby have also selected Rocket in Rainhill Trials configuration.

For all the wagons and carriages after that 2020 release, Hornby have relied upon the illustrations.

@threelink The above provides a rational explanation of why the undercarriage is wrong for the Booth Unicorn in R30090. Hornby is using the undercarriage from the 1930s reproductions, across the rolling stock fleet. It follows then that undercarriage would be here.

An examination of the buffers in Wood 1834 shows only dumb buffers. The 1838 edition of Wood shows sprung buffers. The Booth Unicorn in R30090 was from an 1830 publication, pre-dating sprung buffers. Yes, in that it does not match.

Sometimes, I am envious of the wealth of photographic evidence present for other enthusiasts. That didn't exist for the LMR, simply because photography hadn't been invented yet!! On the other hand, I am thrilled with these models Hornby have boldly released. My layout would not exist without them, I would just revel in the books and the history. The models add a wonderful dimension for me and you will not catch me rivet counting

Bee

[What About The Bee]

With the interest shown, perhaps some other morsels are in order. Booth depicted several pieces of rolling stock on that plate, that plate shown here:

Top Left: Carriage in Train Pack R30090, which we have previously discussed.

Top Right: 1st Class Carriage Wellington. The yellow carriage now most commonly associated with the LMR in modern imagery.

Bottom Left: Yet another 2nd class carriage. It had to be a very early 2nd class carriage, as there was no roof, a feature swiftly added to prevent burns to passenger clothing from the locomotive exhaust. 

Bottom Center: double decked Sheep Wagon.  The LMR did a roaring trade in transporting sheep. Hornby have offered R40165 sheep wagon pack. I cannot wait for this to arrive.

Bottom Right: I believe this to be a pig wagon. Single decked. I suspect this will be offered by Hornby in the coming years, due to simplicity of adaptation.

And now on to the most unusual carriage. Top row, center. Zoomed for your convenience. This is absolutely not a horse drawn carriage loaded onto a flat wagons. Ackermann depicts horse drawn carriages loaded onto flat wagons. Not the same!

This carriage depicted by Booth carriage has only railway wheels and represents one of the very earliest 1st class carriages. The LMR turned to the carriage trade for ideas in early days. The carriage trade built the body of a horse drawn carriage onto a railway undercarriage!  When compared to Wellington, this carriage had far fewer seats. The guard would sit in the open seats on the front (left) of the carriage, where the horse drawn carriage driver would sit. Baggage in the rear compartment. The center inside could seat possibly 8, but much more likely 6 or 4, consistent with horse drawn carriages of the period. Go back and look at the Ackermann private carriage for reference. Carriage Wellington, yellow 1st class carriage depicted on the Booth plate, could seat 18 passengers.  

Bee

Mods: This will only be submitted once...I hope 😁

[81F]

I remember travelling in one of the replica blue third class coaches behind Lion when it came to Didcot sometime in the 1980s (or possibly late 70s) I am pretty certain they ran it on some of their dual gauge track and I remember how uncomfortable it was. As it rumbled over Brunels baulk road you could feel every rail joint through the soild wooden seats, so I spent the short journey standing up!

[threelink]

@Bee

The fascination continues. I wonder if Booth was trying to illustrate an early form of sprung buffer where the spring was contained within the buffer housing and the whole was stuffed with horsehair and bound in leather? Curiously enough I have a number of old Triang cast mazak wagon chassis on which the buffers bear more similarity to buffers of this type than to any other - probably just coincidence.

[Rana Temporia]

@Bee, thanks for the explanation, at least I was partially right. Fascinating stuff. I live near the original route of the Bolton and Leigh railway which again was one of the pioneering railways and had a number of firsts. The original railway had two rope hauled inclines, one up from the Bolton end and one down Chequerbent incline which were both later replaced by slightly different routes to allow trains to run through. Before closure the Chequerbent climb had some of the steepest normal rail adhesion gradients in the UK, allegedly getting to 1 in 19 at one point due to mining subsidence. Much of that line is now roads and footpaths although there is a section of one of the embankments still in existence near the M61 which I think is now classified as a protected structure due to its historical significance. When I was young there were still some of the stone blocks used as sleepers on the embankment. They are probably still there but it’s massively overgrown now and they would be difficult to find. That would be an interesting period feature to model.

[threelink]

@RT More fascinating info, great to read. Thank you. Your mention of stone block sleepers reminds me of a persistent rumour that Stephenson built his limeworks at Ambergate using, in part, redundant stone sleeper blocks from another early railway, the Cromford and High Peak. Many years ago I went for a poke round the Ambergate site (then a gas depot and largely but not completely inaccessible) to see if I could find any stone sleepers. All I found was a great pile of very overgrown rubble at one end of the site. Whether there were any stone blocks in it I could not tell. It was all a bit frustrating but a visit to an adjacent abandoned dyeworks more than compensated. A later visit to the C&HPR revealed an early waggon boiler partially buried in an embankment. Apparently it served a winding engine the house whereof was demolished and buried in the embankment when the railway was re-aligned. The boiler was left in situe and is still there today. I have only ever seen one other waggon boiler. These early railways are a never ending source of fascination and it is great to see models now being produced of some early prototypes.

[What About The Bee]

The dumb buffers illustrated by Henry Booth in his 1830 book show only dumb buffers. I have re-read that book just now, searching for an explanation of the plate, a description of the rolling stock and perhaps some information about the buffers. Booth does not even provide a description of the plate. In that, no joy.

I stated that the Nicholas Wood illustrations of 1834 shown only dumb buffers but that the 1838 Practical Treatise ... shows sprung buffers. This narrowed down sprung buffers into a 4 year period.

According to Wood, 1838, one Mr. Henry Booth received an 1836 patent for sprung buffers. This is obviously the same individual. What appears to be the patent drawing is opposite page 218. I present that here:

There are four springs mounted in the center of the undercarriage. The two outer, smaller springs ease the jerk during acceleration. They are connected to the center mounted hook by a long rod in tension. The two inner, larger springs ease the jerk during deceleration. They are connected to the four buffer rods under compression. This leads us to the method by which the carriages are attached to each other, by screw link coupling. Shown next to the undercarriage in the illustration. The ball at the end of the lever is designed to prevent the lever from unscrewing.

In practice, Booth specifies that the carriages are drawn up to each other by the screw link until the buffers are touching, then the screw link is turned "two or three times more...equal to about a fourth or fifth of the elasticity of the springs".

Wood goes on to say that the Booth patent was adopted by the Liverpool and Manchester, the Grand Junction and the London and Birmingham railways. Thismlikely was a generous source of income for Booth.

Upon closer examination of the Hornby under carriage, it is clear that the Booth patent was not followed. I do suspect that the Hornby undercarriage closely matches the replicas built in 1930.  

Bee

[What About The Bee]

@threelink Stone sleepers will be fairly evident, as they are ~2 feet square with a hole center drilled for a oak plug. That would be quite a thrill to find. Naturally, the responsible society should be informed and the block left in situ for archeological investigation.

@rana temporia. Modeling fishplate rails on stone sleeper blocks is a secret (well, not anymore 😁) desire of mine. This would require making my own fishbelly rail and rail joiners. I have been dreaming of this but have yet to come to a practical method of manufacture. Casting?

Of the 31 miles of the LMR, ~18 were in stone block and the remainder in wood sleepers. The rails were mounted directly to the rock substrate in the Olive Cutting. It is generally agreed that stone sleeper blocks didn't work well and were largely replaced over time. Wood sleepers maintain the gauge, but as the stone blocks were independent, I can easily see the gauge drifting over time.

Bee

[What About The Bee]

Threelink, you wrote:

I wonder if Booth was trying to illustrate an early form of sprung buffer where the spring was contained within the buffer housing and the whole was stuffed with horsehair and bound in leather?

 

 

Noted LMR historian Mr. Anthony Dawson agrees with your description of an early sprung buffer. In his book Locomotives of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway 2021, page 224, he goes on to quote Henry Booth's testimony before Parliament. Booth stated that the buffering arrangement was only provided to 1st class carriages for the first two years of LMR operation. 2nd class carriages received no such treatment.

Opening day on the LMR was 15 Sept 1830. The Booth book, and hence the carriage depicted, is from 1830. 2 years before early sprung buffers would be applied to 2nd class carriages.

An examination of the image in the original post (and I contend, the coach Hornby model in R30090) has strange objects where the buffers would be. Drawn cylindrical, consistent with a coiled spring. Certainly not the typical buffer. I must say, Threelink, you have a sharp eye. I agree with you.

Now putting that evidence together, we have a carriage with an early sprung buffer, depicted before 1832, when only first class carriages had such an arrangement. Does this mean the carriage depicted is actually a 1st class carriage? I think it does! If we accept early sprung buffer, the conclusion is inescapable. 1st Class.

I do believe Hornby will be getting another order for this train pack.

Thank you ThreeLink! I learned something today!

Bee

[Rana Temporia]

@Bee, one way to create the stone sleepers/fish belly rails would be 3D printing but you’d have to power the trains unconventionally. I have seen an article where a 009 layout was powered by battery power using radio control. No need for metal rails then.

[threelink]

@Bee. This thread gets more and more interesting. Naturally any archeological discovery should be left to the experts and I do not think I would fancy trying to cart off a stone sleeper block in any event. There was a small heap of them alongside the CHPR years ago. My son and I tried lifing one - impossibly heavy for 2 men but then I suppose they had to be, to do their intended job. I believe that their shortcomings manifested themselves fairly early on, not just interms of maintaining gauge but also in terms of maintaining a level road.

I did not know that Booth invented the transverse spring coupling/buffing arrangement. Thank you for the info. I think that you are right about the Hornby underframe but inaccurate or not Hornby deserve plaudits for their introduction of this range.

[threelink]

@Bee&RT. One way to imitate fishbelly rail would be to use a grinding disc to shape the underside of lengths of eg Code 100 or 75 rail to represent fish bellies and mount them on plasticard stone blocks to create lengths of fish belly track. Labour intensive to say the least but it should produce a usable track that could be hoooked up to a conventional power supply. There would have to be transverse knicks in the rail every scale 5 feet or so to replicate the rail joints ( I'm not sure of the length of a standard fishbelly rail or even if there was a standard). Gauge could be maintained by a plasticard cross piece every 10 cm or so, hidden beneath the the ballast/horseway.

[Rana Temporia]

Or even use PECO bi-block track with the central support hidden in ‘ash’ ballast, the track wouldn’t be authentic but with the sleepers cut down a bit it’d look almost correct.

[threelink]

@RT

Nice idea. I think that could be made to look quite convincing, maybe with a bit of grinding. I wonder how long it will be before Hornby introduce suitable track to match their growing range of older trains (and maybe further locos/stock)?

[threelink]

@Bee

I found on line a print published in February 1831 by Ackermann and described as "after" Thos Bury showing the loco Northumbrian, the Queen Adelaide, Chinese and Wellington carriages, the wagon mounted coach you mentioned earlier and two "cattle" wagons, one identical to the sheep wagon you mentioned. All clearly show spring/horsehair/leather bound buffers and are described on the print as being "to be employed" on the LMR. The wagon beneath the mounted coach shows that any extension of the buffer to a Booth type transverse spring would have been impossible because the centre line of the buffers is above the wagon underframe. All very interesting stuff. Makes me want to re-visit Liverpool.

[Fazy]

W😮W - have times changed - imagine standing at the Platform now & a loco Pulls up pulling the above Carriages - you would be like 'What the??? - Is this for real???' 😄

JJ I think it would have been super 200 years ago standing on a platform seeing this giant come rumble down the track to take you to another city.

before that you had to take a coach and you would have been exhausted from that. You would have gotten out black and blue. With the road’s little more the dirt tracks full of rocks holes and next to no comfort. The Horse drawn coach was slow and needed the team changed ever 20~ miles. So you might be able two get from Liverpool to Manchester in a full day if the coach company had a spare team kept at a inn, if not you had a two day journey which would likely have killed the weak and Ill! Suddenly 2 hours in an open wagon would have been luxury even in 3rd class.

[What About The Bee]

Hi Threelink

I am indeed familiar with that print, and have just posted that up under Wishlists for the Chinese Liverpool 1st class carriage.

Now carefully examine the wagon on the bottom middle. Notice the two openings on the end of the carriage? Mighty small for cattle if you ask me, and two levels aren't needed. That center wagon is for sheep, and you can see this in the Ackermann prints (Ackermann publisher, Bury artist). The wagon is shown with sheep drawn as cargo! I do not understand how the caption on that image could be so wrong.

The print is clearly derivative of the Booth print, and we know that Booth did not provide any explanation of his print. Northumbrian substitutes for the "Booth Unicorn" carriage. The strange open 2nd is replaced by the Chinese Liverpool carriage. The odd carriage in the middle left (horse drawn carriage body on a railway undercarriage) is subtly different. Yet it is, at root, the Booth image.

Bee

[What About The Bee]

I wrote to Mr. Simon Kohler. Among other things, I thanked him for the Booth carriage in R30090.

His response: "As for the Henry Booth carriage, you are most welcome."

I think that sorts any doubt over Hornby's intent about the carriage. It is indeed the Booth carriage, as strongly suspected.

Bee