Information about the LMR

[Robert -372152]

Hiyas...Is it possible to do private conversations between members on this forum. I'm interested in discussing modelling the L&MR with Mr "What about the bee" who has provided valuable info in replies to my post looking for info on the L&MR railway.

[JJ73]

Hiya Robert

Sorry no - There is no 'Private Messaging' here on the Hornby Forum - you will have to find an other forum to do that.

Yes Bee is the Correct Person to Talk about L&MR - Bee is very informative about that!!! 🚂

[What About The Bee]

Hello Robert

Ask away! Anything at all about the LMR.

Always happy to share what I know. And if I don't know (it happens) I will tell you. Probably look it up to extend my knowledge too!

Bee

[96RAF]

Many folk are happy to publish on forums, but may not want to be dragged into a one-to-one direct contact situation. Also close contact methodology precludes Gen-Pop getting the same information that the thread was set up for in the first place.

[Robert -372152]

Hi Bee...Thanks so much for sharing your knowledge with the forum...I'm not overly eager to private message, I just mostly thought it'd lead to less clutter on the forum. The first topic I'm having trouble finding is : What did the loco servicing facilities of the L&MR look like and operate? ( or indeed of any UK railways of the 1840s era?) Are there any pics, drawings, and/or descriptions online that you know of that include service yards of the era. I'm interested in modelling a station and associated facilities. Thanks for any info you can provide...Bob

[What About The Bee]

Hello Bob

There are no contemporary photographs of the LMR, as the LMR preceeded photography! You will occasionally encounter an image of persons who were associated with the LMR, but these were taken much, much later in life, when photography became available.

There were two engine facilities for the entire railway. The first was the Ordsall Lane Works, near Manchester. The other was the Edge Hill Works, near Liverpool. No images of these facilities exist to my knowledge. Yet we do have the track plans of these facilities, from ordnance surveys.

If you want to investigate further, go to the National Library of Scotland web pages and find Ordnance Survey. Be careful of the year of publication. You certainly want near period representations.

Circles on the track are turntables. The LMR used turntables everywhere. ~2 meters in diameter. Just big enough for a locomotive. Not with a tender.

Now as to what the buildings would have looked like, I will present two images. They are clearly associated with the LMR.

The first is titled "Engine Works...Bolton". I believe this to be Rothwell & Hicks, based on the description. Rothwell & Hick made a few locomotives for the LMR, notably Rokeby and Roderick, LMR 59 & 60 respectively.

The second is the Bedlington Iron Works. Bedlington made the wrought iron fishbelly rails for the LMR. Note the large doors permitting entry for locomotives. The scale may be observed by the horsedrawn chaldrons in the image. Note, you can zoom these images.

I submit that Ordsall Lane and Edge Hill would look similar. Non descript multi story with a peaked roof, and certainly not purpose built for function. Large chimneys for iron work. Combine the track plans with the building types and you may get close to what the first part of your question was, to wit: engine works on the LMR.

About stations: Did you want passenger or freight?

Bee

[What About The Bee]

Bob

In addition to the main engine works at Ordsall and Edge Hill, the LMR maintained a watering facility at Parkside. The tiny LMR locomotives could not make the entire 31 mile journey without refilling midway.

On Opening Day, Member of Parliament Huskisson was run over by a locomotive at Parkside. The LMR erected a memorial close to the spot, which remains there to this very day. As such, the location of Parkside station in the images to follow is known. You may see it here

There are two images of Parkside. In chronological order, the first by Bury

The second by Colyer

I think the small building appears in both images, with Colyer getting the roof line different. Both provide unique and fairly trustworthy views of the LMR, so I am puzzled by that detail.

Both images include refill spigots for filling tenders. That main chimney is present because the LMR filled tenders and locomotives with hot water, decreasing locomotive down time. Hot water was provided by the LMR at Liverpool, Manchester and Parkside. Inside the shed, under the main chimney, we can observe a locomotive. This gives a great view of how Engine Shed doors were constructed.

Additionally, I think the small building in both images is the passenger station. Unlike the grand station at Lime Street in Liverpool, or the grand station at Hunt Street in Manchester, the Parkside Station is well suited to reasonably sized layout. You will not need 11 feet for the platforms!

The locomotive in the Bury image is a Rocket Class, although I cannot tell which one. It is pulling a first class train, consisting of glass / yellow carriages. The locomotive in the Colyer image is a Planet Class, again, I cannot say which one. The guard seated on the carriage is the signal man, who provides information to the guard on the last carriage to apply the brake. The guard in the image merely relays the engineman's command without applying his brake.

Bee

[threelink]

Hi, Bee. I am going to suggest that the buildings shown in the Bury and Colyer prints are not the same building. I suggest that the building shown in the Colyer print replaced the building in the Bury print. The trackside elevations are different, the roof line is different and the Colyer building has much more railway like appearance than the Bury building which has a roof pitch more appropriate to a thatched roof than a slated roof. The Colyer building also appears to be set back from the running lines and separated from them by a fence - safer perhaps than the Bury arrangement, which appears to place the front elevation of the building very close to the running lines. This is pure speculation on my part for which I have no supporting evidence except a tiny smattering of architectural knowledge about old buildings.

[What About The Bee]

Hi Three Link

You may very well be correct.

The Parkside facilities underwent a series of improvements and modifications. Indeed, in 1839, an entirely new station was built to the east of the spur in the map. This is the primary reason I show the location with a red arrow, so as to not be confused.

There is also the usual undercurrent of plagarism and artistic license to contend with.

The other day, I got very excited. I thought I had located a small bridge constructed by Vignoles for the St Helens and Runcorn. The St Helens and Runcorn, you will recall, constructed the "Intersection Bridge" over the LMR. One of those tiny, "underpass through an embankment" bridges. The photograph showed a single cart wide construction, tucked away down a path in the woods. Alas, while on the line, it was a late 1800s construction, not original and certainly not Vignoles.

Bee

[Robert -372152]

Wow!!! That's good stuff!! Thanks so much for the insights into the L&MR....and now...on to ballast. What ballast, if any, was used by the L&MR early years? I believe I read somewhere that by the late 1840s, much of the route's track was laid on wooden ties, as opposed to the stone block bases seen in some drawings.

[What About The Bee]

Hello Bob

You asked about ballast. This really needs to be a track bed question to answer your query completely. Nicholas Wood "A Practical Treatise on Railroads..." 1838 provides us with the requisite data. Within that authoritative tome is Plate V, which will provide us with informative sketches.

The Lithographs

In image after image, the artwork sold to the public that represents views of the LMR shows track and rail, all without ballast. Just scroll to my previous response about Parkside, and look specifically at the track and track bed. It appears as if the track is simply buried in the soil. This is a very consistent representation. No ballast, buried track. We never see chairs. We never see sleepers, stone or otherwise.

Nicholas Wood

Practical Treatise is the go to tome on early railways, authored by a participant in the development of those railways. If Nicholas Wood says something, it is on good authority. The description he offers for the track bed is the recommended practice, not necessarily the actual practice of any one railway in specific, unless he so states.  

There is ballast used under sleepers. It consisted of anything that would pass through a 2.5 inch aperture, the depth of about 9 to 12 inches.

Double track mainline should have a gap of 6 feet between the outside edges of the inside rails. It should be noted that the initial gap for the LMR was set to 4 feet 8.5 inches, such that a locomotive could run down the middle of the two lines, although there is no record of this ever having occurred. 

Drainage ditches should be 1.5 feet wide, on the outside of the track bed, which you may observe in Plate V

Figure 1, top left corner, merely shows that the track will remain level as the ground undulates, requiring cuttings and embankments

Figure 2, left side, shows a cutting in cross section.

Figure 4, shows the plan view of a double line. Note that one line is wooden sleeper, the other diagonal stone sleeper blocks. Drainage may be present between the two lines, and it is brought to the drainage ditches on the outside of the lines.

Figure 3, left side, shows a cross section of an embankment. The location of the ballast is most evident in this cross section. The ballast is UNDER the sleepers. With the sleepers firmly seated, fill is placed around the sleepers to hold them in place. This is entirely consistent with the lithographs sold to the public. Fill to about 3 inches under the tops of the rails.

Moving to the right hand side...

Figure 10, top right, is a cross sectional view of an LMR level crossing. The stone work you see would be all buried, with the top of the rail level with the top of the blocks. Three vertical columns of ballast for drainage are most evident.

Figure 12 provides us with a crystal clear view of the ballast under stone sleeper blocks, surrounded by fill, with the fill brought up to the top of the rail.

Figure 14 provides us again with the ballast location, but here without the small fill retainers. Note however, you will still only observe fill, not ballast

Figure 16, bottom right corner, shows the drainage arrangement on a bridge.

You may note I have skipped over some figures. These should be self evident upon inspection but if you require further information, simply ask. I didn't think those figures germane to the discussion.

Conclusion

An authentic representation of LMR track will be just as you observe in the Parkside image by Bury: buried.   

Bee

[Simon-372339]

Bury v Colyer the small building etc.

Both 'prints' have the same details but Bury's aren't very accurate.

My interpretation is Bury made a sketch then produced the finished article it in a studio.

Simple errors then get introduced, position of the fence to the rear, small building; 2 doors 1 window v Colyer 2 windows 1 door, and positioned wrong. And 2 chimneys on the small building?

[What About The Bee]

Bob,

Details about ballast will be found in the "previous page". A simple heads up. Hornby uses a slightly unusual navigation feature and you may miss the answer. Use the special Hornby navigation tab below. Your question was one I had not considered before and thus you have extended my knowledge. Thank you!

÷÷÷

Hi Simon

Your proposal also makes sense and this is what makes interpretation of the 2 century old data so difficult. We cannot assume that the LMR followed the standard model, they were busy creating it!

Could Bury have erred when drawing a minor building? Sure, the facilities on the other side of the tracks, including the hot water plant, were far more impressive and likely to catch the eye. It is entirely possible for the small building differences to be artist error.

As Three Link says, though, the building may simply have been reconstructed over time. I certainly cannot firmly decide this matter.

The thing that solidifies the location of the building is the fill spigot near the small building. This brought hot water to the locomotives. There would likely only be one hot water plant, not two, implying hot water was piped under the track during construction of the line. A fixed asset of railway infrastructure. What ever the shape or artistic rendering of the small building, the location of the hot water fill spigot seems definite and thus the building.

There also is the concern of plagiarism, an artist merely copying someone else's image. There is one notable Bury lithograph which is clearly and definitively plagarised from Booth. Yet Bury also offers unique depictions which cannot be plagiarized.

I do wish that photography had been invented a few decades earlier.

Bee

[Rana Temporia]

Hopefully people will find this interesting in association with the L&M. I came across this pamphlet yesterday while continuing to clear out my late father's railway room and thought it'd make a nice addendum to the info Bee has been posting. I have only scanned the first half of the document. I grew up very near the line of this railway and played on the abandoned trackbed. The Austerity tank 'Harry' as manufactured by Hornby was in the scrapyard at Chequerbent for years just off the line of the original track, along with an Avonside 0-6-0 tank works no 1600. Both have now gone for preservation I believe but there wasn't much left of the Avonside other than rust.

[ellocoloco]

FAO Bee,

Had this pop up on my FB feed today - https://www.facebook.com/events/1670023076858817/?ref=newsfeed - and thought it would be more your thing than mine. An online talk about Victorian Railway tunnels hosted on Bennerley Viaducts FB group.

[What About The Bee]

Keep it coming RT. 

The Lancashire Witch is quite the notable locomotive. The very first locomotive ordered by the board of the LMR, for the LMR. Some on the board opposed George ordering from his son Robert (nepotism) and hence a possible reason why Lancashire Witch was transfered to the Bolton and Leigh. 

The Lancashire Witch did perform ballast duty with Twin Sisters, in the construction of the LMR. Lancashire Witch did work the LMR, yet never in a revenue generating sense.

The valve gear may not be so evident, and is presented here. The oscillating handles present on Rocket and Planet are here as well, green arrow. 

The handles, as you may recall, permit the engineman to manually control the slide valve and admission of steam. Notice where they are, indicative of the tiny size of the boiler. 

Bee