Carriage loading docks

Inside the fence.
andrewnummelin
Posts: 195
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:43 am

Re: Carriage loading docks

Postby andrewnummelin » Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:51 pm

Apologies for being so slow in posting these, but they may still be of interest. Unfortunately the originals were not very good and also suffered from a stint in the tropics.(So resolution greatly reduced for posting.)
The black and white one is of Blaenavon Low Level and was taken in 1962 a few months after the station had closed. The gates opened directly onto the street. I remember the dock having hinged metal plates and wooden beam (as shown in the photo of Pontypool).
Blaenavon_end-loading.jpg

The colour photos are of the up side goods yard at Pontypool Crane Street and were taken in 1968.
Pontypool_end-loading.jpg

I wonder why the outer flanges of both hinged plates have been reduced in height towards the hinge.
Several end loading docks here: always thought that this could form the basis for good layout (corner) with view blockers.
Pontypool_up_side_goods_yard.jpg
Regards,

Andrew Nummelin

martin goodall
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: Carriage loading docks

Postby martin goodall » Tue Jan 29, 2019 4:25 pm

I would respectfully disagree with Tim Lee's suggestion that the two photos he has posted are "probably not helpful or relevant" (!)

They are both very helpful, and entirely relevant. The use of steel plates as ramps is clearly in evidence. In the first shot, small plates are actually being used, but it is interesting to see some rather larger steel pates lying on the dock for alternative use where required. It is also interesting to see the use of sacking to avoid the wheels of the engine slipping as it is manoeuvred on or off the wagon.

In the second shot, temporary timber packing can be seen under the timber crossbeam of the bufferstop, as strengthening to prevent the weight of the engine causing possible structural damage to the bufferstop. Even the wheels of the railway wagon seem to have been chocked. They obviously weren't taking any chances! (There is a pile of loose timber on the adjoining siding for similar use when loading or unloading on that siding.)

junctionmad
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 3:38 pm

Re: Carriage loading docks

Postby junctionmad » Fri Feb 01, 2019 10:29 am

martin goodall wrote:I would respectfully disagree with Tim Lee's suggestion that the two photos he has posted are "probably not helpful or relevant" (!)

They are both very helpful, and entirely relevant. The use of steel plates as ramps is clearly in evidence. In the first shot, small plates are actually being used, but it is interesting to see some rather larger steel pates lying on the dock for alternative use where required. It is also interesting to see the use of sacking to avoid the wheels of the engine slipping as it is manoeuvred on or off the wagon.

In the second shot, temporary timber packing can be seen under the timber crossbeam of the bufferstop, as strengthening to prevent the weight of the engine causing possible structural damage to the bufferstop. Even the wheels of the railway wagon seem to have been chocked. They obviously weren't taking any chances! (There is a pile of loose timber on the adjoining siding for similar use when loading or unloading on that siding.)


Actually to me it seems the axle boxes were chocked to prevent the deflection of the springs during loading , today of course the same type of thing is accomplished by hydraulic feet / outriders

Lovely set of pictures , obviously this end dock was part of quite an extensive setup

User avatar
Andy W
Posts: 819
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 8:11 am

Re: Carriage loading docks

Postby Andy W » Fri Feb 01, 2019 11:09 am

I've been musing on the gap between the dock and the buffers. It struck me that the distance is perfect for small boys to slip down. Could this have been the reason it was incorporated? Attitudes towards children have changed significantly over the years.
Make Worcestershire great again.
Build a wall along the Herefordshire border and make them pay for it.

User avatar
steamraiser
Posts: 407
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 4:49 pm

Re: Carriage loading docks

Postby steamraiser » Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:36 pm

A couple of interesting pictures.
The first by Le Corbusier seems to suggest that the engine is being driven off / on the wagon.
The chimney is in its normal position which may foul the loading gauge.

The second shows a stationary boiler without a firebox or smokebox.

On Tuesday night the Bristol group was having a discussion re unloading steam ploughing / traction engines at Highbridge.

Gordon A

User avatar
Guy Rixon
Posts: 603
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: Carriage loading docks

Postby Guy Rixon » Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:01 pm

andrewnummelin wrote:I wonder why the outer flanges of both hinged plates have been reduced in height towards the hinge.
Pontypool_up_side_goods_yard.jpg

I guess that the cut-down flange allow a road vehicle to approach with its wheels slightly skew to the rail vehicle. One wheel rides over the cut-out in the flange until the other clips the full flange in the middle and is forced into line.

JFS
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: Carriage loading docks

Postby JFS » Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:46 pm

martin goodall wrote:...
This machine doesn’t seem to be as large as the model I was proposing to use, and it makes me wonder whether the Oxford Diecast model I have may be over-scale, although it is definitely labelled as 1:76 scale. I am coming to the conclusion that this model is just too darned big to be used as a wagon load.


My spies have tipped me off that Ploughing Engines are being discussed! My turn then!

Just to mention that ploughing engines come in four different sizes - this photo shows the smallest and largest

PE_loading.jpg


Tantalisingly, we can see in the background that the other engine of the pair has already been loaded but we cannot see what it has been loaded onto. These particular engines were the largest ever despatched to the UK - 99% of this size of engine was exported. They were 13' 10 1/2" to the top of the chimney. This would undoubtedly have been an Out of Gauge Load - not least because if its width - but that would not be true of more typical UK-based engines.

The Oxford diecast model - in its latest incarnation - just happens to be a model of MY engine! No they did not seek permission, but I forgive them since they obviously recognise it as being the best example of the 80-odd which survive!! It has previously masqueraded as 3 different examples of the same class - one in plain black, one in green and one in "rust" - none of these paint jobs represent the original. Not sure which one you have Martin?

Southwell PM 2013 start.jpg


This is what it looks like today, (no, not me on the footplate!) I did a lot of research to get the paint job spot-on and I will be cross if Oxford have not copied it perfectly! In particular the boiler bands are painted steel, not polished brass! What Oxford might not realise is that it is almost unique in having wide wheels and 2-speed ploughing gear. As to whether they have got the scale right (and I think they usually do) as-built, it was 12' 7 3/8" (well, that is what the drawing says!) to the top of the spout, but someone (cogniscent of these issues) fitted a chimney one foot shorter - probably in the late fifties. It is 8' 3" wide, though most engines are 8' wide.

Just also to mention that there is an excellent 4mm scale model of a complete set of ploughing tackle at Pendon. Oh yes - you do need a [edit] PAIR of engines, and an implement or two.

Hope that helps!

Best Wishes,

martin goodall
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: Carriage loading docks

Postby martin goodall » Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:58 pm

Many thanks to Howard for this information.

Unfortunately, my Oxford model is in rusty/muddy condition, so it will require a repaint to something closer to the photo in Howard's post.

I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that using this model as a wagon load on my layout is not really practicable, partly because of its being out of gauge. The chimney would have to come off even if it is carried on a Loriot or Lowmac, as shown in the photo I mentioned of one of these machines loaded for delivery from Fowler's works in Leeds. The other reason is that I very much doubt whether the light limestone soil of the Cotswolds ('cornbrash') would have required the use of a pair of steam ploughs, unless the significantly greater speed of ploughing by steam might have been a factor favouring their use even on light soils (?)

User avatar
Tim V
Posts: 2250
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Carriage loading docks

Postby Tim V » Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:10 pm

I saw a ploughing engine on a low loader, just behind it was a double decker bus. The engine was bigger than the bus :o
Tim V
Scalefour News Editor

JFS
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: Carriage loading docks

Postby JFS » Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:50 pm

martin goodall wrote:Unfortunately, my Oxford model is in rusty/muddy condition, so it will require a repaint to something closer to the photo in Howard's post.
I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that using this model as a wagon load on my layout is not really practicable...


That version is a model of 15145 which still looks like that but works a lot better than it looks thank goodness!
I would not dismiss the idea too quickly - removing the chimney is not too much of a job and under a sheet they all look much the same. By your era it would not be new but a secondhand re-sale of course.
It is true that there was a fair bit of grazing land around there but there was perhaps an equal amount of arable and arable meant steam because horses were not competitive and tractors did not make serious inroads until WWII. I have asked someone who knows about these things for details of who the local contractors were and what tackle they had - certainly from memory there were a number not too far away - I will let you know what I uncover.

Best Wishes,

martin goodall
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: Carriage loading docks

Postby martin goodall » Tue Mar 12, 2019 1:57 pm

I had decided that detaching the chimney would be unavoidable. My main concern was the width over the outside of the driving wheels, which on the Oxford model is 34mm.

The figures quoted by Howard (8'0" or 8'3") suggest to me that I might be able to shave a little off the insides of the wheels, and this might be enough to get them inside the side rails of a Loriot or Lowmac.

As to the likelihood of its use in the vicinity of Burford (West Oxfordshire, at the south-east corner of the Cotswolds), I would certainly be interested to hear of any agricultural contractors who carried out steam ploughing in this area. My chosen period covers the whole period between the two world wars (although I do extend it, with a different set of rolling stock, to an end date of 1962). I generally restrict the rolling stock on the layout at any one time to a five year period, in order to minimise anachronisms.

JFS
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: Carriage loading docks

Postby JFS » Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:25 pm

martin goodall wrote:I had decided that detaching the chimney would be unavoidable. My main concern was the width over the outside of the driving wheels, which on the Oxford model is 34mm.

The figures quoted by Howard (8'0" or 8'3") suggest to me that I might be able to shave a little off the insides of the wheels, and this might be enough to get them inside the side rails of a Loriot or Lowmac.

As to the likelihood of its use in the vicinity of Burford (West Oxfordshire, at the south-east corner of the Cotswolds), I would certainly be interested to hear of any agricultural contractors who carried out steam ploughing in this area. My chosen period covers the whole period between the two world wars (although I do extend it, with a different set of rolling stock, to an end date of 1962). I generally restrict the rolling stock on the layout at any one time to a five year period, in order to minimise anachronisms.


Hello Martin,

I think a width of 8'6 is sufficiently within the loading gauge and I would not worry about it overhanging the sides of the wagon - my engine overhangs the sides of almost all the low-loader trailers I use - which makes driving it on not a job for the lilly-livered... I also might have understated the width - the standard engines are 8' and the wide wheeled ones like mine (and "Rusty") are 8' 6" - each wheel being 3" wider- so it looks like Oxford have it right.

Regarding contractors locally, there were none "on the doorstep" but I suspect that is because the "big boys" had the area surounded being based in Cowley (Oxford Steam Plough) and Salford Priors (Bomford and Evershed), as well as South Gloucestershire and Worcestershire. And they did do work not far away from Burford - there is a photo of a Bomford's engine (from Salford Priors) doing dredging in Fairford Park in 1927. Which reminds us that these engines were employed on work other than cultivation, and also that the movement of tackle to jobs such as that might well have been by rail since it was probably cheaper than paying the crews to drive them over longer distances than could be covered in a day (30 miles) - Bomfords latterly being based in the station yard at Salford Priors, 40 miles from Fairford

There also were quite a few farmers locally who had engines - at places like Wantage, Fairford, Carterton, Moreton-in-Marsh etc. By the thirties, as engines were starting to need repairs and become surplus, they tended to change hands frequently. Unfortunately, the records are such that you have to go through the individual engine numbers to find all the owners.

Hope that helps, but I think the bottom line is - if you want it, you have it... And it is good to hear there there are still those, like yourself, who care about getting these things right!

Best Wishes,

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Carriage loading docks

Postby Noel » Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:35 pm

JFS wrote:I think a width of 8'6 is sufficiently within the loading gauge and I would not worry about it overhanging the sides of the wagon


It is within the loading gauge, but overhanging the sides is an issue on many GWR Loriots (Lowmacs if you speak BR) as they have got non-structural side raves, which won't take the load. G13, shown earlier, is different in that the sides of the well, which is only 7ft 5in wide in clear, are formed by the structural side beams, which can therefore take the load, albeit on packing. The other issue is that GW Loriots had their permitted loads reduced for traction engines. The 1936 GA shows loads [in tons, rated normally/for engines] of 15/10 (12T permitted in some cases], 20/16 and 25/18. After 1936 the position changes, but before that the only likely candidates for anything heavier than the 10T allowed on the 15T rated G13 seem to be G14 [1925, rated 20T, 15ft in well, 8ft 7in between side raves] or G27 [1931, rated 20T, 20ft in well, 8ft 8in wide, with no side raves to limit the width of the load]. The latter was designed for tracked excavators, and had to be loaded/unloaded from the side as it had no end ramps.
Regards
Noel

martin goodall
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: Carriage loading docks

Postby martin goodall » Fri Mar 15, 2019 7:39 pm

My thanks to both Howard and Noel for this further information.

I will make a point of looking in my copy of the 1936 General Appendix. I had assumed that this information would not be found in the GA. I should have looked at it earlier.

The Oxford version of the Fowler ploughing engine weighs 20 tons (without coal and water), so it seems to need something big in the wagon line to carry it (as Noel suggests).

I shall have to give further thought to this. I don't have access to my library right now, but will take a look at Atkins, Hyde & Tourret GW wagons bible.

Just one further thought: This engine dates from the end of the First World War, so what would the GWR have done if asked to carry this engine before 1925?

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Carriage loading docks

Postby Noel » Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:52 pm

martin goodall wrote:I will make a point of looking in my copy of the 1936 General Appendix. I had assumed that this information would not be found in the GA. I should have looked at it earlier.

Page 226, Martin.
martin goodall wrote:Just one further thought: This engine dates from the end of the First World War, so what would the GWR have done if asked to carry this engine before 1925?

Having listed Loriots of varying capacities, all with 'not exceeding' limits, the last line in the list is "35T Rectanks to carry steam rollers and engines exceeding 10T". Since British WW1 tanks were 27-30T, a Rectank should be OK, provided that the higher floor doesn't present a problem [although the edition of 'GWR Goods Wagons' I have refers to some being strengthened at some time after 1922 "to carry 20T steam rollers and traction engines" which, frankly, I don't understand]. Several railways acquired Rectanks after the war; the GW gave them diagram C20, later C21 after modification. Alternatively it might be possible to use a Crocodile and load over the side onto a temporary floor supported on the well cross beams. F1/2/3 are also possibilities, assuming they could be borrowed briefly for revenue use. These had end ramps, were for Engineering Dept Road Rollers and water carts and had a capacity of 25T.
Regards
Noel

JFS
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: Carriage loading docks

Postby JFS » Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:41 pm

Noel wrote:although the edition of 'GWR Goods Wagons' I have refers to some being strengthened at some time after 1922 "to carry 20T steam rollers and traction engines" which, frankly, I don't understand


My guess is that it is to do with the weight being concentrated on four wheels rather than being distributed more uniformly - ie by means of tracks. I suspect they experienced a bit of damage to the deck plating and the mod was to eliminate this.

Best Wishes,

martin goodall
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: Carriage loading docks

Postby martin goodall » Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:48 am

Noel wrote: Since British WW1 tanks were 27-30T, a Rectank should be OK, provided that the higher floor doesn't present a problem .


Regrettably, I have already established that a Rectank, which would be ideal from every other point of view, is too high in the floor to allow a ploughing engine to be carried within the loading gauge (even with its chimney removed). I have an ABS kit for a Rectank, and it was the vehicle I first thought of for carrying this load, but I established several weeks ago that I would be unable to load the ploughing engine on this wagon.

John Palmer
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:09 pm

Re: Carriage loading docks

Postby John Palmer » Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:18 pm

Well, if a BB1 is too big to remain within gauge on a Rectank then it's also going to be too big to do so on the F1, F3 and F4 road roller trucks, all of which had a railhead to bed dimension of 3' 6", which is only a fraction of an inch less than the same dimension on a Rectank (3' 6 and 5/8"). The F2 road roller truck is marginally better with a bed just over 2' 10" above railhead, but even with chimney hinged forward and safety valves and whistle removed it appears that the flywheel, being significantly off-centre, may still be foul to gauge.

In that case, what are the alternatives? Conveyance as an out of gauge load with all the complications (and expense) which that entails? Loading/unloading by crane or winch, as in the manner of the South Crofty engine referenced up-thread? The repeated jacking operations required for the 'sideways (un)loading' method will involve the best part of a day's work, and in these circumstances I suggest that roading it, even to a destination more than thirty miles distant, starts to look like a more attractive option, the more so given that some road work is still going to be required at the start and end of the journey regardless of whether part of it is by rail.

Even so, on an unsprung engine with no rubbers on the wheels a thirty mile road run is a long, hard day's work! Much would seem to depend on the overall length of the journey to be undertaken.

User avatar
jon price
Posts: 476
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:34 pm

Re: Carriage loading docks

Postby jon price » Sat Mar 16, 2019 2:25 pm

The LNWR had several 20T boiler and platform trollies with a platform 2'4" above the ground. I guess that the NER was likely to have some as well. Is it possible that these specialist wagons were hired between companies, or specifically hired by the engine manufacturer?

martin goodall
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: Carriage loading docks

Postby martin goodall » Sat Mar 16, 2019 2:59 pm

I had been thinking alomg the same lines as Jon Price. It appears to me that several of the companies in the north-west / north-east of England might well have had suitable wagons.

I suspect that the reason the GWR seems (until some time into the inter-war period) not to have had a wagon capable of taking the largest Fowler ploughing engines may have been that industry on the GWR did not produce such large items as the more heavily industrialised areas further north would have done.

JFS
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: Carriage loading docks

Postby JFS » Sat Mar 16, 2019 5:37 pm

Just to mention that in the photo I posted of the two PEs above, the engine which we can half-see already loaded is a "Special EE" class" - two sizes bigger than a BB1 and although we can't see much in the photo, it is clear that the flywheel has been removed. This is by no means the "big job" which it might seem and chimneys, safety valves and whistles are even easier.
Even though Fowler's works were on the LMS (Midland), the strange-looking van behind the engine, which we might assume to be part of the job, is marked "NE". The photo was taken on 19th June 1925

Best Wishes,

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Carriage loading docks

Postby Noel » Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:58 pm

Since it seems impossible for it to travel complete on any wagon available in 1918, then Howard and John have given the only other possible answers. It travelled partially dismantled, sufficiently to be within the loading gauge, for long distance movements, and by road for short distances.

JFS wrote:Even though Fowler's works were on the LMS (Midland), the strange-looking van behind the engine, which we might assume to be part of the job, is marked "NE". The photo was taken on 19th June 1925

Unfitted vans were common user from 6/1919.

jon price wrote:The LNWR had several 20T boiler and platform trollies with a platform 2'4" above the ground. I guess that the NER was likely to have some as well. Is it possible that these specialist wagons were hired between companies, or specifically hired by the engine manufacturer?

I don't think that the customer would have had any say in the matter, and, in any event, the company on whose territory the manufacturer's private siding was located would have had a legal obligation to provide the necessary wagon(s), as the railway companies were still common carriers at the time [and were until the 1953 Transport Act]. So far as hiring between companies is concerned, I don't know, but, if possible, it would presumably have been on day rates, which would have increased the cost significantly, especially if a shunter somewhere managed to "lose" the hired wagon in transit...

John Palmer wrote:The repeated jacking operations required for the 'sideways (un)loading' method will involve the best part of a day's work

The Photo of the South Crofty engine, from the 1950s, suggests that this is what was done if no other method was available. In 1919 manpower would have been even more freely available, and used to heavy, time-consuming, manual labour, as mechanical handling equipment was mostly a distant dream, apart from the occasional overhead crane, which would probably not be up to a 20T load anyway. No local station would have a crane with adequate capacity.

martin goodall wrote:I suspect that the reason the GWR seems (until some time into the inter-war period) not to have had a wagon capable of taking the largest Fowler ploughing engines may have been that industry on the GWR did not produce such large items as the more heavily industrialised areas further north would have done.

But see my comment above about common carriers. If a customer asked the GW to move one, they had to do it somehow.
Regards
Noel

John Palmer
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:09 pm

Re: Carriage loading docks

Postby John Palmer » Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:05 am

JFS wrote:Even though Fowler's works were on the LMS (Midland), the strange-looking van behind the engine, which we might assume to be part of the job, is marked "NE". The photo was taken on 19th June 1925

I'm reasonably confident that that van is a Pooley & Sons' weighing machine adjustment van to NER Diagram U17. Such Pooleys vans seem to have turned up all over the country; my best picture of a GWR Mink C was one in Pooleys' service taken at Highbridge around 1960.

A travelling crane quite similar to that shown in Howard's picture was installed at Leeds' Midland Goods Station - which was close to the Fowler works - but comparison with pictures of the area on the 'Britain from Above' website leads me to think that this is not where this photograph was taken.

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Carriage loading docks

Postby Noel » Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:06 pm

John Palmer wrote:I'm reasonably confident that that van is a Pooley & Sons' weighing machine adjustment van


I can't disagree with that; clearly I wasn't paying attention when I commented on this. Sorry, Howard.
Regards
Noel

martin goodall
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: Carriage loading docks

Postby martin goodall » Tue Mar 19, 2019 5:41 pm

I have now had a chance to look at my 1936 General Appendix, and have also consulted my copy of Atkins, Beard & Tourret.

I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that if I pursue the practicability of carrying my Oxford model of the 20-ton Fowler ploughing engine any further, the tail is going to end up wagging the dog. One of the F-diagram steam roller trucks might be a possible candidate, as Noel suggested, but I have never had any desire to model one of these wagons, and so I think I shall just have to admit defeat in face of all the logistical problems that it throws up.

This all started with an impulse buy of the Oxford model of the Fowler engine at a model railway show, with the idle (and entirely unresearched) thought that it might make an interesting wagon load. Ah, well; you win some, you lose some. But it's a nice model, anyway.

Going right back to my starting point, there will still be plenty of potential traffic for my carriage loading dock, and the information kindly contributed by various members to this discussion has helped me to understand the way it would be used. I haven't yet decided whether to rely entirely on steel plates for loading, or whether (at least partially) to fill the gap behind the bufferstop with timber baulks.

Now, just to stir up the natives another way, adjoining the carriage loading dock is a platform that serves as a horse landing / milk dock (and further along, also a cattle dock). The question is - What milk traffic (if any) would there have been from Burford? The Fairford Branch generated a significant amount of milk traffic, but that was quite a few miles further south. Was there much dairying in the Burford area? I am not at all sure there was. On the other hand, dairying increased quite significantly in many areas during the agricultural depression that began around 1870 and continued right up to the Second World War. The increase in dairying resulted from greatly increased demand from Britain's cities and urban areas, combined with the availability of fast rail transport to take the milk to its customers. The problem is that information on agricultural production (especially at a local level) is virtually non-existent before WW2, because nobody was obliged to keep the statistics in those days . This is a fact that academics trying to study historical agricultural production have frequently remarked on.

At present, I am relying on modeller's licence to justify adding a Siphon milk van to an early morning branch passenger train, but it would be interesting to know if there is any evidence of such traffic in the Burford area.


Return to “Railway Buildings”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest