Author Archives: rogerfarnworth

British Railways: 1948 – Part 2

We all know that nationalisation of the UK’s railways took place on 1st January 1948.

It is interesting to ask when the idea was first promoted. There were, after all, two periods of effective nationalisation prior to 1948. Both of the two world wars saw UK railways under government control. ……….

So, was the idea of nationalisation first thought of in the preparations for the major conflict which was looming in the early part of the 20th century?

When conflict was declared on 4th August 1914, the Railway Executive Committee, which had been formed in 1912 as an intermediary between Government and the 120 private railway companies, moved swiftly to take control of the network. Within 24 hours of the start of the conflict, the Committee used the powers of the Regulation of the Forces Act 1871 to secure its ascendancy. Direct, day-to-day operations were still the remit of the railway companies but, as Jones explains in ‘The Nation’s Railway‘, “the remuneration for the owners was fixed by the government, which could secure whatever priorities it required for different classes of traffic, a facility with economic as well military significance.” [1: p12] Clearly, this mechanism was already in the mind of the Committee before the start of the conflict.

We know that David Lloyd George was sympathetic to trade union calls for nationalisation of the railway network. He was prime minister from 1916 to 1922. [1: p16] His plan was opposed by Andrew Bonar Law who was the then leader of the Conservative party and followed Lloyd George as prime minister. Bonar Law favoured a grouping of companies into regional monopolies. This was enshrined in the Railways Act 1921 and postponed any thoughts of nationalisation.

Speaking of this time in the development of the railways, Wikipedia tells us that, “during the First World War the railway network was taken under government control and run by the Railway Executive Committee of the Government. This revealed some advantages in running the railways with fewer companies, and after the war it was widely agreed that the required development of the rail network could not be achieved under the conditions that had existed before the war. The nationalisation of the railways, which had been mooted by William Ewart Gladstone as early as the 1830s, was considered, but was rejected by the government and the owners of the rail companies. A compromise was created in the Railways Act 1921. Under this act, almost all of the hundreds of existing rail companies were grouped together into four new companies.” [2]

Back to my question … Was it in the period from 1912 to 1921 that nationalisation was first considered? Or was it earlier?

It appears that the matter was seriously considered much earlier than this. In the midst of the railway mania of the 1840s, it was, surprisingly, the Conservative government of Robert Peel that first proposed nationalisation as a solution to specific problems in the railway industry. The Railway Regulation Act, 1844  was designed to “force the railways to reduce charges in the interests of the whole body of capitalist manufacturers and traders, by holding over their heads the threat of nationalisation.” [1: p8]

W.E. Gladstone

The Act was promoted by W.E. Gladstone, then a Conservative Minister and President of the Board of Trade. He “threatened British railway companies with a state takeover of they did not cut fares for poorer sections of society.” [1: p7]

His threat was the secondary purpose of the 1844 Act. It “enshrined in law the requirement to provide affordable ticket prices for the poorer sections of society, to enable them to travel to find work. … Gladstone’s Act … stipulated that one train with provision for carrying third class passengers, should run on every line, every day, in each direction, stopping at every station, with a fare of no more than a penny a mile and up to 56lb of luggage per passenger carried free of charge. The average speed should be not less than 12mph, and third class passengers should be protected from the weather and be provided with seats.” [1: p8]

Ian McLean asserted, in a paper about the history of regulation in the UK, that “Gladstone’s bill of 1844 was ‘a personal rather than a departmental measure’ and he persevered with it despite the ‘indifference to hostility’ of the rest of the Cabinet … He argued that the need for regulation arose ‘owing to the great and almost unparalleled extent of capital unemployed’ in Britain. Early railways had seemed to be dubious investments. By 1844 they had proved themselves technically and economically and were earning large dividends. Therefore there was a sudden rush to promote new schemes, and the Private Bill Office had more railway bills in hand than ever before. Gladstone did not think that the entry of new railway companies would bring the railway business into competitive equilibrium. Rather, if Parliament were to allow competing routes between the same towns, ‘it would afford facilities to exaction … an increase of the evil, … a mere multiplication of monopoly’ (Hansard 3rd series vol. 72, cols 232-6).” [3]

So, Gladstone proposed, among other things, a power to cap the rates of new railways after a period of years, to a level such that their dividends would be held at 10% of the value of their issued capital, and a power to nationalise any such lines after the same period of time.

The Act’s provision for nationalisation was not invoked. However, it remained as a possibility which the government could use if circumstances were right, or if railway companies failed to deliver on promises made in the future.

It seems as though the events of 1947 and 1948 were part of a long political saga. As we know, those events were in no way the end of the story!

References

  1. Robin Jones; The Nation’s Railway: Birth, Beeching and Beyond; Morton’s Media Group, Horncastle, Lincolnshire, 2017. 
  2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_Great_Britain_1923%E2%80%931947, accessed on 23rd January 2020.
  3. Iain McLean; The origin and strange history of regulation in the UK: three case studies in search of a theory; Paper for ESF/SCSS Exploratory Workshop: The Politics of Regulation, Barcelona, November 2002; https://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/politics/papers/2002/w29/The%20origin%20and%20strange%20history%20of%20regulation%20in%20the%20UK.pdf, accessed on 23rd January 2020.

Unusual Locomotives and Railcars – Part 2

Some further examples of unusual locomotives and railcars.

1. A First Michelin Pneumatic-Tyred Railcar (Type No.9)

The 1973 Railway World Annual edited by Alan Williams contained an article by W.T. Thornwell entitled, “Forward from Steam,” which featured a number of different proposals for developing passenger and freight services in the 1930s. One of the experimental vehicles which could be seen on British rails was the Michelin Pneumatic-Tyred Railcar. A picture appears in the Railway World Annual © M.W. Earley  [1: p81]

Whether these railcars were small is perhaps a moot point, their appearance was certainly unusual as far as the UK was concerned. As far as I can ascertain, the railcars were trialed at two different locations in the UK.

The GWR put one through its paces between Banbury and Wolverhampton. The LMS used the route between Bletchley and Oxford. Neither company was sufficiently impressed by the trials to order one of the units. It appears that the LMS did go on to trial other railcars as a result. [2][3]

The Commercial Motor Magazine carried an article about this railcar on 16th February 1932, entitled, ”The Michelin Railcar in England.” [9]  The article is full of praise for the railcar and somewhat exaggerates its top speed at 92 mph. Perhaps that should have read kph?

There is an excellent discussion about this railcar on the Disused Stations Website (http://www.disused-stations.org.uk). [10]  It is surprising that the railcar is featured on a page about Cambridge Station as it is very unlikely that it ever visited Cambridge. Nonetheless, the detail provided about the railcar is excellent.

 

2. Guinness Factory Narrow Gauge Locos and their Standard Gauge conversion vehicle.

I have written about these locomotives elsewhere. [4] A series of small locomotives were purchased to move a variety of goods and produce around the brewery site in Dublin. Once the decision had been taken to use a narrow gauge rail system across the St. James’s Gate site, the basic system was laid between 1873 and 1877 under the supervision of Samuel Geoghegan who joined the brewery engineering staff in 1872 at the age of 28 and rose to the position of Head Engineer in 1875. The track gauge was settled at 1ft 10in, the loading gauge was to have a headway of six feet and a maximum width of five feet, and the maximum gradient was to be not steeper than 1 in 40. [6]

Two years after construction of the line had started, the first of the narrow gauge locomotives was delivered. This was a small Sharp Stewart 0−4−0 saddle tank costing £445, with inside cylinders (unusual for a narrow gauge locomotive) and numbered ‘1’ in the narrow gauge locomotive stock. It weighed only about two tons and proved to be inadequate for the work. One problem encountered with it was maintenance of the motion, which, being very near the ground, was inaccessible whilst the locomotive was on the road. Later, as more engines appeared on the scene, No.1 was used only for hauling the visitors’ special passenger train, and it was eventually withdrawn from service in 1913. [5][6]

In the following year, 1876, two locomotives were obtained from Stephen Lewin, of Poole, Dorset, at a cost of £366 each; they carried numbers 2 and 3 and were named HOPS and MALT respectively.

These locomotives were geared and had large flywheels, similar to steam rollers. Weighing about five tons each they were more powerful than No.1, but repair costs were high, they  damaged the track and were slow and troublesome in operation. [5][6]

1878 saw two new arrivals, Sharp Stewart 0−4−0 side tank engines weighing six tons each and having outside cylinders. As they survived until 1925, they must have had a certain measure of success. [5][6]

After this Geoghegan designed his own locomotives. These were also an 0−4−0 side tank engine with horizontally mounted cylinders. An IRS article says that the cylinders were ”situated above the marine-type boiler driving through a dummy crankshaft and vertical connecting rods, which in turn drove the wheels. Instead of the cylinders being bolted to the boiler, they were fixed to the frames which were carried the full height of the locomotive above the top of the boiler. The side tanks were also attached to the frames. Another novel feature was the independent spring frame which consisted of eight steel leaves in pairs, two pairs on each side of the locomotive and one pair each above and below the axleboxes. It was attached to the front and back stays, so that by removing the pins and connecting rods, and with the locomotive lifted, the spring frame could be wheeled out from beneath the locomotive to receive attention and maintenance. The general layout of these engines was one of accessibility for repair but with maximum protection from dirt.” [5][6] Geoghegan’s drawing is shown in the image above. [5]

Ellison, the author of the IRS article, says that a “prototype locomotive was built in 1882 by the Avonside Engine Company, of Bristol, at a cost of £848, and numbered ‘6’ in the locomotive stock, This was also the last of Guinness’s narrow gauge steam locomotives to be built in England, all others being built by William Spence, of the Cork Street Foundry and Engineering Works, in Dublin. This firm built locomotives 7 to 9 in 1887, 10 to 12 in 1891 and 13 to 15 in 1895. A further four, the largest single order for these engines, were turned out in 1902, whilst 20 and 21 were delivered in 1905. 22 entered traffic in 1912 and the last two finally appeared in 1921. No.6 was withdrawn in 1936 but all the others survived the Second World War and lasted until the introduction of diesel locomotives.” [6]

Locomotive  No. 15. [7]

Locomotives Nos. 22 & 23. [8]

Thompson describes the first of these locos as being “rather odd-looking. To solve the dirt problem it had a heavy box-like frame with the two cylinders mounted on the top horizontally. Their valve gear drove vertical connecting rods which engaged the wheels below. The boiler was inside the “box” with the funnel barely visible. The side tanks were an integral part of the frame.” [5]

The Irish standard gauge lines on the St. James’s Gate site dated from the late 1870s or early 1880s. It connected the brewery with what was at the time known as Kingsbridge goods yard, and at its greatest extent possessed about two miles of track, out of the brewery’s one-time overall mileage of ten. Ellison says: “The line started at the loading and unloading banks and then ran out of the premises and along the public highway for about 500 yards to the goods yard. Compared with the narrow gauge lines, this section had a largely level route, as Kingsbridge yard and the lowest part of the brewery, where the line started, were much the same height above the river. This section of line along the public road was laid in granite setts, rather in the manner of a street tramway, right up to the time of closure. Probably unique in Ireland the rail used was of the centre-grooved type on which the wagons ran on their wheel flanges instead of their treads, whilst another notable feature was the unusual points necessary with this type of rail, wherein the whole rail was moved like a stub point.” [6]

Initially horses were used to convey wagons on the broad gauge, but from 1888, hauling and shunting was undertaken by narrow gauge locomotives mounted on unique vehicles called “haulage wagons”, another of Geoghegan’s inventions.

A narrow gauge locomotive in a haulage wagon. [7]

“The way in which the haulage wagons functioned was most interesting. A narrow gauge locomotive was lifted by an hydraulic hoist which stood astride a short section of gauntletted, dual gauge track. A haulage wagon was then propelled under the narrow gauge engine and the latter lowered between the frames of the former. Both ends of the locomotive were engaged in the wagon and the wheels of the narrow gauge engine rested on rollers whose shafts were geared to the running wheels of the haulage wagon at 3 to 1 reduction.” [6][7]

A view of a haulage wagon from aboveOn the left are the broad-gauge wheels, and in the centre is one of the rollers driven by the wheels of the narrow-gauge locomotive. Immediately to its right is the casing for the 3 to 1 reduction gears. The curved bit of metal at top right was presumably to prevent fore-and-aft movement of the locomotive on the rollers. [7]

3. Colonel Stephens Railcars

These were tiny railcars which usually ran in pairs and occasionally with a filler coach. Stephens bought a number of sets based a on Ford chassis and they were known as Railmotors.

Ford Railmotor set No. 1 arrived on the Kent and East Sussex Light Railway in 1922, featuring in the Commercial Motor Magazine of 12th December 1922. [11] It came from Edmonds of Thetford. The bodywork was made by Eaton Coachworks of Cringleford. The seating capacity was 20 in each car. Later models had the same capacity in seating but some design differences. Set No. 1 can be seen in the picture below. Compared with the locomotive, it is small!

Railmotor No. 1 on the K&ESR at Tenterden in 1923, sitting alongside an Ilfracombe goods loco  (c) Colonel Stephens Museum. In its early years the railmotor sets had headlamps either side of the radiator. Later a headlamp was sited on the roof. [12]

References

1. W.T. Thornwell; Forward From Steam; in A. Williams; Railway World Annual; Ian Allan, Sheperton, Surrey, 1973, p76-84.

2. https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrwm421.htm, accessed on 2nd January 2020.

3. http://mikes.railhistory.railfan.net/r146.html, accessed on 2nd January 2020.

4. https://rogerfarnworth.com/2019/04/26/the-guinness-brewery-railways-dublin.

5. https://www.beervisits.eu/brewery-visit/brewery-visit-europe/246-bv-ireland-republic/961-dublin-co-dublin-guinness-brewery-part-2, accessed on 26th April 2019.

6. https://www.irsociety.co.uk/Archives/22/Guinness.htm, accessed on 26th April 2019.

7. http://douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/gaugechange/gaugechange.htm, accessed on 27th April 2019.

8. https://www.google.com/search?q=guinness+broad+gauge+engines&client=tablet-android-lenovo&prmd=sinv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiO8Y3O5_DhAhV0QRUIHWUvB-MQ_AUoAnoECAwQAg&biw=1280&bih=800#imgdii=S5Hd0zqysW0cnM:&imgrc=2A9QGRU_nRYBPM:, accessed on 27th April 2019.

9. http://archive.commercialmotor.com/article/16th-february-1932/49/the-michelin-railcar-in-england, accessed non 3rd January 2020.

10. http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/c/cambridge/index6.shtml, accessed on 3rd January 2020.

11. http://colonelstephenssociety.co.uk/rollingstock%20topics/ford%20railmotors.html, accessed on 27th July 2019.

12. https://twitter.com/KandESRailway/status/923509399003549698?s=19, accessed on 27th July 2019.

Unusual Locomotives and Railcars – Part 1

Across the railway network, and particularly on some of the light railways which sprang to life after the Light Railways Act 1896, [1] there were a number of unusual locomotives and railcars.

One of these was ‘Gazelle’ which was fabricated by Dodman’s in King’s Lynn. [2] Gazelle was eventually used on the Shropshire and Montgomeryshire Light Railway and remained there until closure of that line before being relocated as a static display. The Railway World Annual of 1981 has a picture of Gazelle at Longmoor Camp in June 1953, © R. E. Vincent. [13] Ultimately, Gazelle was moved to the Colonel Stephens Museum at Tenterden. [3]Colonel Stephens made use of a wide range of locomotives, railcars and carriages to keep the costs of running his network of light railways to an absolute minimum. He would mix-and-match, make-do-and-mend until he was satisfied that a particular solution was appropriate for one of his lines. [4][5]

Similar experiments were undertaken on other light railways. For example, the Brill Tramway made use of a version of a road-running steam engine but of a redesign which enabled it to operate on rails. I came across the small Aveling and Porter locomotive while reading ‘British Independent Light Railways’ by John Scott-Morgan. [6][12]

Old Chainey is a chain and flywheel-driven loco built in 1872, for use on the tramway between Quainton Road and Brill.  It was not very successful, especially if loads were heavy. It lasted in service on the Tramway until 1895 when it was sold for use at Nether Heyford Brickworks in Northamptonshire, where it continued working until the Second World War. Indeed the Industrial Railway Society provides a photograph of this Locomotive a (see below) at Nether Heyford in 1936. [11]

It is now a static exhibit. It was placed, first at the London Transport Museum and then on long-term loan from the London Transport Museum to the Buckinghamshire Railway Centre. [6]

The locomotive was Aveling and Porter No. 807 (and became Wotton Tramway No. 1). It was nicknamed “Old Chainey” because it was noisy. It had a flywheel which drove a large-linked chain which in turn drove the wheels. [9]

It was the first steam locomotive used on the Wotton Tramway. [6]

The lightly laid track on the Tramway with longitudinal sleepers limited them to about 9 tons [7] and necessitated the use the lightest locomotives possible. [8: p13] No. 807 was the first of two locomotives converted for use on the Tramway. They cost £398 each. [8: p13] No. 807 was delivered to the Tramway in January 1872. The second loco was delivered in September of the same year. [8: p18][10: p29]

Although the two engines had a top speed of 8 miles per hour, they averaged 4 mph between Brill and Quainton Road. [8: p18]

As we have already noted, No. 807 was sold for industrial use. It appears in the adjacent image at Nether Heyford Brickworks on 11th April 1936, © G. Alliez. This image accompanies an article from ‘The Engineer’ reproduced by the Industrial Railway Society. [11]

That article, discussing  a series of tramway locomotives produced by Aveling & Porter, appeared first in the Industrial Railway Record, Volume No. 48. It talks of No. 807 in the following terms: …

Aveling & Porter 807 of 1872 is shown above “at the Nether Heyford Brickworks (Northamptonshire) of Henry Martin Ltd. The engine was one of a pair which were obtained by the Blisworth & Stowe Brick & Tile Co Ltd  Martin’s predecessors  from the Oxford & Aylesbury Tramroad Co in 1894. Originally supplied in January 1872 to the Duke of Buckingham (for the Oxford & Aylesbury Tramroad), 807 had a single cylinder (7¾in by 10in) and was carried on wheels of 3ft 0in diameter. … The brickworks closed in 1940 but was used as an ammunition store by the War Department. Happily, 807 survived the War, being stored until March 1951. It was then secured by the Industrial Locomotive Society, and is now on display at the Museum of British Transport, Clapham.” [11]

As noted above, it can now be found at the Buckingham Railway.

References

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Railways_Act_1896, accessed on 1st January 2020.

2. https://rogerfarnworth.com/2019/07/21/gazelle.

3. https://www.tripadvisor.co.za/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g503919-d261283-i102801148-Kent_East_Sussex_Railway-Tenterden_Kent_England.html, accessed on 1st January 2020.

4. https://rogerfarnworth.com/2019/07/27/gazelles-trailers.

5. https://rogerfarnworth.com/2019/08/02/ford-railmotors-on-colonel-stephens-lines-in-general-and-on-the-smlr.

6. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brill_Tramway, accessed on 1st January 2020.

7. Vic Mitchell & Keith Smith; Aylesbury to Rugby; Middleton Press, Midhurst, 2006.

8. Ian Melton, “From Quainton to Brill: A history of the Wotton Tramway”;  R. J., Greenaway (ed.). Underground, Hemel Hempstead: The London Underground Railway Society, 1984.

9. Bill Simpson; A History of the Metropolitan Railway; Lamplight Publications, Whitney, Oxon, 2005.

10. Bill Simpson; The Brill Tramway. Oxford Publishing, Poole, 1985.

11. The Industrial Railway Record httpsVolume No. 48, p34-38; https://www.irsociety.co.uk/Archives/48/AP%20Locos.htm, accessed on 1st January 2020.

12. https://images.app.goo.gl/T3ytjyL6xWxAmwqKA, accessed on 1st January 2020.

13. Railway Work Annual, Ian Allan, Shepperton, Surrey, 1981, p87.

Sunday 29th December 2019 – Matthew 2: 13-23

Matthew 2:13-23

If I’m honest with you, I hate this Gospel passage, I wish it had not been written. I wish I could conveniently ignore it, suggest it is untrue and set it aside. … I’d keep the bit about Jesus being a refugee. … Now that is a helpful image .. and it has been used down the centuries to infer that God understands the plight of the refugee and the homeless. And rightly so, for I am sure that God does place the needs of the underdog, the dispossessed, the homeless, very high on his list of priorities.

Yes, I like the bit about Jesus being a refugee – I could write about that now. I could use some material from Christian Aid, Oxfam, Save the Children, Tear Fund or CAFOD, perhaps write about the plight of those who are still unable to go home – like the millions of Palestinians trapped in what is one big refugee camp called the Gaza Strip. I could continue to talk about the refugees from the conflict in Syria, starving, this winter, in the Beqaa Valley, or I could talk of the many people who seek asylum in this country in fear of their lives who are not believed by the authorities.

But that is not what horrifies me about this passage. No, what leaves me floundering is the murder of those innocent children and God’s intervention to save his Son, while leaving others to die – at least that’s what the story seems to say. … What kind of God can save one and leave perhaps 30 or 40 (or maybe many more) to die!

Yet God does seem to intervene in favour of one & not the other…. That is the way the story of the Bible unfolds, and it is also the experience of many people around our world. So, if God is able to intervene, and if God sometimes does intervene, why doesn’t God always intervene?

I really do not like this story of the massacre of the innocents, for it holds me to account. I cannot, without discarding the story altogether, talk of a God who does not intervene at all. But if I have any integrity, I must be left with difficult questions about a God that I believe is a God of love and whose love at times seems arbitrary.

I do not like the story. And I’m not sure that I want to try to ‘justify’ it. What I want to do, in just a few short words, is at least to help us reflect on it.

There are two questions that many people ask about faith: Firstly, “Why does God treat some differently to others?” And secondly, “If God could do something, why didn’t he?” … Honestly facing these kind of questions, has to be part of living by faith. … At times, being a Christian is about ‘Arguing with God’. It is about tenaciously holding him to account for what we see as wrong. It has, at times, to be about ‘wrestling with God’ like Jacob did at the Brook Jabbok. Sometimes we argue for ourselves: “Lord, you are treating me like dirt. How can I continue to believe in you, when you allow me to face such injustice?” Sometimes on behalf of others: “Lord, I watch the injustice persistently meted out on the Palestinian people and other refugees – why do you not intervene?”

There is injustice in our world. While human beings exist there will always be injustice. Lust for power, greed, fear & insecurity are all motivators to self-protection. We protect ourselves and our own even at cost to others. And evil is magnified as it is played out on a world stage between aggressive, powerful men (And it is most often men!). Powerful tyrants, who are also insecure & afraid of being deposed. … Herod was just one of these. So insecure that he saw a baby as a threat. So numbed by previous acts of evil that he saw no problem in killing a few young children to extinguish the threat.

One child escapes Herod, and goes on to be God’s answer to the actions of tyrants throughout history, God’s answer to the ugly evil which invades all our hearts. Not an immediate answer. Not a rescue mission to protect the innocents. Not even a political solution that restricted the action of evil people and evil forces. Not much of a solution at all, if you were to judge it by the standards of the world.

God’s answer, to the massacre of the innocents, to all the injustices in life, was to allow the child, that escaped the massacre, … to die. The Bible suggests all history points to this moment – to the death of Christ. “I’ve heard all your questions,” God seems to say, “here is my answer. The death of my Son.”

It’s almost as though God draws a line under the discussion. “This is my answer,” God says. “No ifs, no buts, it’s my last word. I’m happy for you to judge me on this basis – it’s my final word.”

And we shout out, “but it isn’t enough, I still don’t understand.” And God uses no more words, but continues silently to point to the cross. He draws our attention to a shattered, tortured, broken body which has taken the worst that humanity can throw at it. … Even that seems inadequate – just one death among so many. Yet God invites us to question him only in the full knowledge of the suffering of Christ, and on the basis of that suffering. Whatever else we may accuse God of, we cannot accuse him of not caring. We may not want his answer. We may not like his answer. But it is the one he gives us to ponder on.

There is a debate throughout the Old Testament about why God chose Israel – with different authors struggling to understand that they were chosen not for their own benefit, but so that God could use them for the benefit of the whole world. That they were chosen to serve. That they were special because they were chosen, not chosen because they were of themselves special. The New Testament places Jesus at the centre of the story, and he himself says, “The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” … We are left with our questions, even with our anger, staring at the cross and pondering the love which meant that God had to die, pondering the love which meant the break-up of the relationship at the heart of the Trinity.

The Christ-child was chosen, was rescued, in the story of our Gospel this morning, not ultimately for his own benefit, but for ours. The events of the first Christmas are just as messy as the events which ended Jesus earthly life. They are just as messy as the world has ever been, just as messy as our world today.

God calls us to continue struggling with the realities of life in our world, and to do so in the context he provides for us. The death and resurrection of Christ. That is God’s invitation to each of us as Christains, to place the reality, the mess of our world in context, as we come to Holy Communion and as we encounter once again the self-giving love which is at the heart of our faith.

Holy Trinity, Ashton-under-Lyne

A very small congregation in a Church of England Church in Ashton-under-Lyne has been having a dramatic impact in its local community.

Holy Trinity Church in the West End of Ashton-under-Lyne meets for worship on Thursday afternoons. Its regular congregation is less that 10 people.

Visionary leadership resulted in the completion of a Community Centre in the church nave, and has resulted in the Centre being used extensively by the local community.

St. Peter’s Ward, in which Holy Trinity Church is situated, is in the 2.5% most deprived wards in the UK. The area immediately around Holy Trinity Church has a history stretching back to early Victorian times. Throughout much of its history the neighbourhood has been a diverse place to live.

After the Second World War the local community had a high proportion of Ukrainian and Polish Immigrants. More recently the area has hosted a cosmopolitan mix of different nationalities. The local Church of England Primary School has a delightful mix of children for many of whom English is not their first language. Predominantly children come from families that have their roots in Asia.

Church members in the later part of the 20th century became aware of the changing demographics and decided that the building needed to be a place for the whole community.

A series of grants were obtained to allow major work inside the building. Since the millennium, the very small congregation has first enabled significant projects funded by others to use the building and then more recently has sought grants and employed its own staff to address some of the needs identified by the local community.

Holy Trinity Church and Community Centre was awarded its first ‘Reaching Communities’ grant from the Big Lottery in late 2016 for a project to enhance prospects for women in the immediate community. That project has been running since April 2017 and has just received the news from the Community Fund of the Big Lottery that it will receive a further 3 years of grant funding.

Outreach workers employed by the church have been making a significant difference within the local community. Tameside College is now partnering with the Centre to provide much needed education at a level below usual college entry requirements. The local social housing provider, New Charter (Jigsaw), is funding a number of different projects with the aim of empowering local people and developing skills. Other partners provide, or fund, youth-work, martial arts, sewing classes and slimming classes. One group knits to support the work of neonatal units is a number of local hospitals, another provides much needed community space for older Asian women. The centre provided essential advice and guidance, in a number of languages, for those navigating the increasingly complex, often on-line, world of benefits and asylum claims.

The work at Holy Trinity is visionary by its very nature, as no attempt  is made to dictate to the local community. The work is founded on the understanding that a local community has all the skills needed to make its own decisions. Provided wider society, particularly local and national government and the National Health Service, is willing to provide sufficient resources without dictating to the local community then real change is possible. For many people this seems counter-intuitive, but this (asset based community development) approach has a proven record of success.

Dynamic project leadership is resulting in local people effecting real change.  Community members are growing in self-confidence, local people are developing their skills through being at the Centre and through volunteering. For some, moving on through a process we call ‘Grow Our Own’ into employment with the Centre or in the wider local community.

There is real hope and joy in the faces of many involved with this project.

This is Christian Mission at its best! The Kingdom of God is growing. Christians, those of other faiths, and others who profess no faith, working together to bring hope to one local community.

The grant award  secures this work for a further three years, until April 2023.

Copyright

Copyright on Internet Images and Text

The situation relating to copyright on the internet is confusing. The detail of laws in different parts of the world is different and as a result the issue is confusing to most people.

So, for example, the ‘socialmediaexaminer.com’, [1] which is an American page, says the following:

Copyright laws were established not to give the author the right to deny their work to other people, but instead to encourage its creation.

Article I, Section 8, clause 8, of the United States Constitution states the purpose of copyright laws is “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

It’s a delicate balance between the rights of the creator and the public’s interest. When in conflict, the balance tips more heavily toward the public’s interest, which is often contrary to what the creator believes to be fair or just. [1]

However, The UK government [2] says:

Sometimes permission is not required from the copyright-holder to copy an image, such as if the copyright has expired. Permission is also not required if the image is used for specific acts permitted by law (“permitted acts”, or sometimes referred to as “exceptions to copyright”).

People can use copyright works without permission from the copyright owner, such as for private study or non-commercial research, although some exceptions are not available for photographs. Further details are available here:

http://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright

If permission is required to use an image, permission will need to be obtained from all the copyright owners, whether it is a single image with numerous creators, a licensed image, or an image with embedded copyright works. Sometimes there will be one person or organisation that can authorise permission for all the rights in that image; in other cases separate permission may be needed from several individual rights owners.
The creator of a copyright work such as an image will usually have right to be acknowledged when their work has been used, provided they have asserted this right. If you are unsure whether or not the creator has asserted this right, then it is recommended that you provide a sufficient acknowledgement when using their work. [2]

The key question for many of us who write blogs and who both quote from other sources and make use of pictures from those sources, is what is meant by the words in bold italics above.

1. Text on the Internet and in other primary sources

The first question to address is what is meant by ‘fair dealing’. Another government website [3] talks about ‘fair dealing’:

Certain exceptions only apply if the use of the work is a ‘fair dealing’. For example, the exceptions relating to research and private study, criticism or review, or news reporting.

‘Fair dealing’ is a legal term used to establish whether a use of copyright material is lawful or whether it infringes copyright. There is no statutory definition of fair dealing – it will always be a matter of fact, degree and impression in each case. The question to be asked is: how would a fair-minded and honest person have dealt with the work?

Factors that have been identified by the courts as relevant in determining whether a particular dealing with a work is fair include:

  • does using the work affect the market for the original work? If a use of a work acts as a substitute for it, causing the owner to lose revenue, then it is not likely to be fair
  • is the amount of the work taken reasonable and appropriate? Was it necessary to use the amount that was taken? Usually only part of a work may be used.

The relative importance of any one factor will vary according to the case in hand and the type of dealing in question. [3]

‘Fair dealing’ is one element of this issue.  A more critical question is: What is meant by ‘Non-commercial research‘? One place to look for answers is with Wikipedia (Creative Commons) and specifically their comments relating to this matter. [4]

Non-Commercial (NC) “means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation. The definition is intent-based and intentionally flexible in recognition of the many possible factual situations and business models that may exist now or develop later. Clear-cut rules exist even though there may be gray areas, and debates have ensued over its interpretation. In practice, the number of actual conflicts between licensors and licensees over its meaning appear to be few.” [5]

However, this site, which makes images widely available on the internet and specifies the licence on each item, is an American website and so governed by US Law rather than EU law. A while back I joined the ‘Copyright Aid’ forum so as to be able to check whether particular activity on my blog met the requirements of the law. My usual practice in relation to images is to ask the photographer or copyright-holder for permission to use the image. There are however circumstances when this is unnecessary or it is impossible. Under these circumstances two matters are important, first, a commitment to ‘fair-dealing’ as discussed above. And second, the status of any blog as a non-commercial activity.

Before turning to the advice provided Copyright Aid, here are the comments about these issues carried by the Jisc in the UK (formerly the Joint Information Systems Committee) whose role is to support post-16 and higher education, and research, by providing relevant and useful advice, digital resources and network and technology services. [6] Their website comments as follows (the emphasis is mine):

However, in addition, an image may appear on a blog even if no specific authorisation is provided by the copyright-holder provided a hyperlink is used rather than ‘copy and paste’.

References

  1. https://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/copyright-fair-use-and-how-it-works-for-online-images, accessed on 15th December 2019.
  2. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/481194/c-notice-201401.pdf, accessed on 15th December 2019.
  3. http://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright, accessed on 15th December 2019
  4. https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpretation, accessed on 15th December 2019.
  5. This conclusion is borne out by the “Defining Noncommercial Study,” https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Defining_Noncommercial, accessed on 15th December 2019.
  6. https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/copyright-law/exceptions-to-infringement-of-copyright, accessed on 15th December 2019.
  7. https://artuk.org/about/copyright-exceptions#, accessed on 15th December 2019.
  8. https://www.copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2788&p=8043#p8043, accessed on 15th and 16th December 2019.
  9. https://artuk.org/about/what-is-non-commercial-use-vs-commercial-use, accessed on 15th December 2019.

Horwich Loco Works 18” Gauge Railway – Part 1

Horwich was transformed by the building of the Locomotive Works. [11]Horwich Locomotive Works in 1930. [12]

76, Wight Street, Horwich was my grandparents’ home right in the centre of the old village of Horwich, between Chorley Old Road and Chorley New Road. I stayed there frequently as a child (Google Streetview).

For a number of years in the 1920s and possibly also the 1930s my grandfather worked as a blacksmith in Horwich Loco Works. The works have always, as a result, had a specific interest for me. It has been somewhat saddening over the years to see their gradual deterioration and eventual closure.

Horwich Locomotive Works “was the last major British railway works to be established on a green field site.  There were traditionally very strong links between the Lancashire & Yorkshire and London & North Western railways, and John Ramsbottom, late of the LNWR was in 1883 appointed consultant to the LYR regarding the planning of Horwich Works.  He advocated an 18in gauge internal transport system similar to that he had earlier installed at Crewe. Originally extending to 7½ miles, this enjoyed a longer life as the last surviving locomotive built for it, ‘Wren’, was not retired until 1962. The system was used for moving components around the works.” [10]

I am at present (November 2019) reading Issue No. 27 of the Railway Archive Journal published by Black Dwarf Lightmoor Press of Lydney, Gloucestershire.

I have enjoyed reading Jeff Wells article in the journal about the Manchester Exhibition of 1887. [1] The article highlights a number of railway exhibits on display at the exhibition. Among these exhibits was ‘Dot‘ a Beyer Peacock 1ft 6 inch gauge 0-4-0T engine. ‘According to the official catalogue, Dot was ‘specifically built for working on tramways in yards and workshops, and also adopted for tail-rope shunting of ordinary wagons‘. After the exhibition, ‘Dot found work at the L&YR’s Horwich Works, joining two other Beyer, Peacock 18 in engines, Wren and Robin, which had arrived in April 1887. Such engines were considered necessary to convey materials around the seven miles of internal works’ railway.’ [1: p67]Jeff Wells was unable to find a picture of Dot but could find a picture of Robin which is reproduced here along with the accompanying text from his article. [1: p68] The image included in Jeff Wells article is the Beyer Peacock works image of the locomotive from 1887. Some limited further details of the image can be found on ‘picclick’ and in an edition of the Model Engineer. [17][19] Drawings produced in 2012 can be found on the site ‘Laurel Today’. [20]

This short excerpt from Jeff Wells article prompted further investigation of the internal railway system at the Horwich Loco Works. …

An 18-inch (460 mm) gauge railway, with approximately 7.5 miles (12.1 km) of track was built to carry materials around the works complex at Horwich. It was modelled on a similar system at Crewe Works. John AF Aspinall ordered two 18″ Gauge 0-4-0 tank engines from Beyer Peacock of Leeds at a cost of £250 each. They both arrived at Horwich Loco Works on 7th April 1887 and were named ‘Wren‘ and ‘Robin‘ respectively. A third Locomotive was ordered on the 8th November 1887 at a cost of £300 and on arrival was named ‘Dot‘. A further five similar locomotives were built at Horwich Loco Works and were named, ‘Fly’ ‘Wasp’ ‘Midget’ ‘Mouse’ and ‘Bee’. From 1930 they were gradually withdrawn from service, the last, ‘Wren’, was withdrawn in 1961/1962 and was originally renovated and placed on display in the Erecting Shop. [2][3] It is now preserved at the National Railway Museum. [4: p 215][5: p128-129]

The excellent book by M.D. Smith about Horwich Locomotive Works [6] has a picture on its front cover of the diminutive ‘Wren’ as can be seen in the adjacent image.

As noted above, this locomotive is now preserved at the National Railway Museum as a public exhibit illustrating the use of industrial and military railways. Photographs of ‘Wren’ at work in Horwich follow below. The first comes from the D. Prichard Collection and is in the public domain. [7] The second from Steam World Magazine. [9] ‘Wren’ was fitted with a strongbox on the tender for distributing wage packets. [10]

 

‘Wren’ Horwich Works in the 1950s. [18] A similar picture was in Steam World Magazine. [9]

The name of the loco shown in the adjacent image cannot be picked out in the picture. Radii were tight and locomotives had to manouvre around many different obstacles. The picture was taken in 1905 within the Locomotive Works (© National Railway Museum / Science & Society Picture Library) [13][18]

M.D. Smith’s book about the Works is a comprehensive review of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Loco Works in Horwich and contains a myriad of monochrome pictures of the works which. Illustrate maintenance and construction practice at the Works over the years. In many of the photographs an 18″ gauge railway can be seen running down the central corridor in each workshop. In some shops the 18″ gauge track runs between the rails of a standard-gauge track serving the workspace. Two images will suffice to illustrate this point. The first shows the north side of the Smithy in 1902 with  the 18″ gauge track running down the centre of the workshop. The second shows the Wheel Shop in 1920 with both track gauges present. [6: p52-53]. Smith’s book is a fantastic exploration of the Works of great interest to anyone with connections to it or with a desire to better understand its workings.Horwich Locomotive Works: The Smithy 1902 [6: p53]Horwich Locomotive Works: The Wheel Shop 1920 [6: p52]

ZM32 (in ‘wasp’ livery) and ‘Wren’ at Horwich works on 4 March 1961. [8]

In 1957 a Ruston & Hornsby Class LAT 20Hp diesel locomotive (ZM32) was built for the system and arrived in British Railways Green with Yellow and Black ‘Wasp’ warning panels.

With works number 416214 it worked up until 1965 when the 18″ gauge railway was abandonned and the diesel loco was put into store.

It had been intended for this loco to be sold to a railway in British Honduras but this fell through and in 1971 it was sold to RP Morris.

The loco was re-built and re-gauged to 2′ gauge and worked at Pen-Yr-Orsedd Quarry, Nantlle and Gloddfa Ganol.

It was finally acquired for preservation in 1997 by The Steeple Grange Light Railway near Wirksworth in Derbyshire. It was fully overhauled and the 18″ gauge wheels were re-instated. It received original British Railways Green and in its honour was named ‘Horwich’.

The Steeple Grange Light Railway website comments that “In the summer of 2004, ZM32 topped an informal poll amongst narrow gauge enthusiasts to determine the ten most popular non-steam locomotives in the UK.” [8]

Other relevant resources:

Notes on RMWeb: ‘An Illustrated History of 18 Inch Gauge Steam Railways’, by Mark Smithers (OPC 1993) devotes 13 pages to the Horwich system, with photos, drawings and a track plan. There are 2 photos in “Lost Lines, British Narrow Gauge” (by Nigel Welbourn, published 2000) on pages 95 & 96 showing Wren and ZM32. A model of ‘Wren was produced in “O-9mm” and can be found here: http://www.springsidemodels.com/id153.htm. [14]

The GN15 Forum: Notes and pictures of a model in GN15 can also be found at the end of a discussion on this forum: http://gn15.info/forum. [21]

Blackrod Station: owed its ongoing existence into the late 20th Century to the Works. [15]

The Condition of the Works in January 2011: is illustrated on the 28 Days Later Urban Exploration forum. The pictures on that site provide a very atmospheric look at the old buildings of the Works. As well as modern monochrome images, the site also has a number of archived images of the Works. [16]

References

  1. Jeff Wells; The Railways Involvement in he Manchester Royal Jubilee Exhibition of 1887; in Railway Archive Issue No. 27, June 2010, Black Dwarf Lightmoor Press, Lydney, Gloucestershire, p57-69.
  2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horwich_Works#, accessed on 15th November 2019.
  3. “Motive power miscellany: Midland Region Central Lines”. Trains illustrated. Vol. XIV no. 154. Hampton Court: Ian Allan. July 1961. p. 441.
  4. John Marshall, B.W.C. Cooke (ed.), “Notes and News“, The Railway Magazine, Westminster: Tothill Press, vol. 110 no. 759, July 1964.
  5. John Marshall; The Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway, Volume 3; David & Charles, Newton Abbott, 1972.
  6. M.D. Smith; Horwich Locomotive Works; Amadeus, Huddersfield, 1996.
  7. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LandYR_Horwich_Works_locomotive_%27Wren%27.jpg, accessed on 10th December 2019.
  8. http://www.steeplegrange.co.uk/locos-zm32.htm, accessed on 10th December 2019.
  9. https://steamworldmag.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/sw321-horwich.compressed.pdf, accessed on 10th December 2019.
  10. https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com/wren-0-4-0st-lyr-horwich-works-narrow-gauge, accessed on 10th December 2019.
  11. https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/13573684.how-the-loco-works-transformed-a-town (5th August 2015), accessed on 10th December 2019.
  12. https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/17827041.loco-works-changed-horwich-sleepy-village-hive-industry (19th August 2019), accessed on 10th December 2019.
  13. https://www.ssplprints.com/image/117089/locomotive-at-horwich-works-c-1905, accessed on 10th December 2019.
  14. https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/50746-horwich-works-narrow-gauge-railway, accessed on 10th December 2019.
  15. http://www.blackrod.org.uk/industry_locoworks.html, accessed on 10th December 2019.
  16. https://www.28dayslater.co.uk/threads/horwich-loco-works-nr-bolton-jan-2011.57166
  17. https://picclick.co.uk/LNWR-loco-ROBIN-at-HORWICH-WORKS-built-BP-142881232407.html, accessed on 10th December 2019.
  18. http://britbahn.wikidot.com/horwich-works-railway, accessed on 10th December 2019.
  19. Jim Robinson; Prototype Locomotives and Railway Practice; in Model Engineer Centenial Celebration Collection, Volume 1 No. 3, 1997, p13. https://www.model-engineer.co.uk/sites/7/documents/me-cen-3-pt1.pdf, accessed on 10th December 2019.
  20. https://laurell.today/prototypes/uk/horwich.html, accessed on 10th December 2019.
  21. http://gn15.info/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6983, accessed on 10th December 2019.

Appendix No. 1

The Bolton News: 5th August 2015 [11]

“Horwich Loco Works was a major source of employment for local folk. It became synonymous with the town. You could barely mention Horwich without reference being made to the Loco Works.

Prior to the building of the works Horwich was described as a “sleepy village” with far fewer residents. It would be transformed into something few could have imagined and this transformation was not without its concerns. According to Horwich Heritage Society chairman Stuart Whittle, fate played a hand in the arrival of the works 130 years ago and, ultimately, in the formation of the popular local society too.

“It is remarkable to think that I wouldn’t be writing this article but for two major twists of fate that completely changed the fortunes of the town of Horwich,” says Stuart. For a start, Horwich was not even on the list of possible sites for a new Loco Works when the directors of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company met on May 21 1884.

However, with those sites on offer not looking promising, the company’s surveyor and land agent, Elias Dorning, mentioned an announcement in that very morning’s paper that 650 acres of land was for sale in the village of Horwich. This land was to be auctioned at the Mitre Hotel in Manchester in six days time so time was of the essence to decide whether it was suitable.

John Ramsbottom and William Barton-Wright were the two men charged with reviewing the whole of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company’s railway system and, together with Dorning, they visited the area and reported back favourably, explains Stuart.

“Although the area of land on offer far exceeded their requirements, the directors authorised Dorning to attend the auction and purchase the site for not more than £65,000.

“In the event, Dorning was able to acquire this major part of the village of Horwich for only £36,000 and that Tuesday afternoon, May 27 1884 marked the beginning of a remarkable transformation for the sleepy village. “Within four months site drawings had been approved and in December detailed plans for the buildings were submitted by Ramsbottom.”

The land allocated for the works, south of Chorley Old Road, was relatively flat and presented few problems with the exception of the hill on Old Harts Farm.

“Site works commenced in January 1885 and by the end of July the erecting shop foundations were nearing completion. On November 15 1886 Horwich Loco Works was officially opened and work began immediately.”

The existing Horwich population of fewer than 4,000 most of whom lived on the “top side” (Church Street) were both intrigued and appalled by the prospect of a major influx of new residents and they were right to be concerned, adds Stuart.

“The population more than tripled in 10 years as navvies and new employees came from all over the country to work on and at the new works.

“Such an increase put an incredible strain both on the town’s physical and social infrastructure as the Local Board, Railway Company and local builders struggled to build enough houses, shops, schools, churches and other social facilities.

“This strain was bound to tell and there was increasing tension both on the works’ site and in the town, particularly amongst the navvies.”

Apparently the local police presence had to be increased but this did not prevent a major incident breaking out in 1886 when ill-feeling between English and Irish navvies (allegedly provoked because of different rates of pay) erupted into fighting which extended over a wide area of the town and lasted on and off for a week. “Weapons used in the violent incidents included bricks, pokers, blocks of wood, belts and a scythe,” explains Stuart.

Within the works industrial relations were generally good in the early years but, with so many trades represented by newly-established unions, strikes and lock-outs did occur. The worst was a 12-week strike in 1906 which resulted in real hardship for workers’ families. Soup kitchens were provided by local shopkeepers followed by a bitter nine-week dispute in 1911 which involved a full scale riot and the drafting in of hundreds of extra police to deal with the local unrest. Despite this turbulent start the works quickly got into its stride. Initially it catered for locomotive repairs but on February 20 1889 the first designed and built loco, No.1008, steamed out of the erecting shop.

“The locomotive production age at Horwich had begun. “At its peak the works employed around 5,000 men and would go on to build 1,830 steam locos, 169 diesels and five 18 inch gauge locos.

“Some 50,000 locos were repaired there. The Loco Works effectively built the town of Horwich we know today and many Horwich families have ancestors who arrived from all over the country to work there. The works became the educational, social and recreational centre of the town through the building of the Railway Mechanics Institute and even today, many local clubs and societies still bear the famous RMI initials,” adds Stuart.

The second twist of fate occurred on December 23 1983 when the unthinkable happened — the works closed down almost 100 years after that fateful day in 1884 when the decision to buy the site was taken and 97 years after the first locomotives were taken in for repair. This left a whole community devastated. A hard campaign had been fought to save the works but to no avail. The town had lost its main employer and the industry that was synonymous with the town. So what would the future hold?

It was in the middle of this devastation that Horwich Heritage was formed to raise the spirits of the townsfolk and help them believe that they still had a wonderful town to be proud of. Remarkably, without the closure of the works, there may not have been such an urgent need to recognise the town’s history, particularly its great railway legacy and Horwich Heritage may not have happened at all, says Stuart. “So in a perverse way, we have the closure of the works to thank for everything we have achieved and enjoyed over the past 30 years. Quite a thought!”” [11]