Mount Bellew, MGWR

[2996 Victor]

Dear All,

in case anyone's interested, I've posted my workbench thread here, and its also linked in my signature. I hope it'll prove to be useful, and I'm always open to hints and tips for new and better ways of model making, so please don't hesitate to add your posts and photos there as well as here.

With kind regards,

Mark

[2996 Victor]

On 4/30/2020 at 3:41 PM, 2996 Victor said:

Ballast Wagon, 9ft w/b, 15ft o/h dated 1894

Dear All,

I'm returning to the question of ballast wagons, and the 3-plank in the HMRS link above, dated1894.

I have yet more questions (!), which hopefully the erudite among will be able to help with - Jonathan @jhb171achill and John @Mayner will, I'm sure know the answers (no pressure, chaps!).

Ernie Shepherd gives details of wagon liveries in his book, of course, and we've already touched on these in this thread. He states that PW wagons were painted a sand-beige colour, which I've seen mentioned in other threads on this Forum. I would like to assume that this was the case for many years and would be appropriate for my my era!

That being the case, presumably the lettering would have been black? But what would that have consisted of? Presumably "MGWR" and the vehicle number, plus "ENGINEER'S DEPT" or "PW DEPT"? In the photo on page 101 of Ernie Shepherd's book, is Power Van No.1 this livery?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts, folks!

With kind regards,

Mark

[Midland Man]

The powers can was on the Breatland track layer and would have never been on branch lines.

[2996 Victor]

1 hour ago, Midland Man said:

The powers can was on the Breatland track layer and would have never been on branch lines.

Hi MM,

Many thanks - understand that as it was far too big (and far too late for my chosen period), but what I wondered was whether the Power Van would have been in the sand-beige livery Ernie Shepherd's book mentions, as the form and colour of lettering could/would be a clue to MGWR PW wagons in general.

With kind regards,

Mark

[Midland Man]

Don't have a clue of the colors but I suspect it was grey. The problim is I am only really  good on the midlle of the midland but I can tell you what would pull it along and that would be a MGWR B class 0-6-0 whitch would have been never on a branch for two reasons 

1. When the midland used them it was only for the mainline.

2. In the 20s the midland got the great F class or cattle engines as drivers called them. These took out every 0-6-0 tender apart from. The L/LM class ( they were basically turned into J15s by the GSR with superheated Z boilers).

Hope This will help in any way.

Edited May 2, 2020 by Midland Man

[jhb171achill]

6 hours ago, 2996 Victor said:

 

Ernie Shepherd gives details of wagon liveries in his book, of course, and we've already touched on these in this thread. He states that PW wagons were painted a sand-beige colour, which I've seen mentioned in other threads on this Forum. I would like to assume that this was the case for many years and would be appropriate for my my era!

That being the case, presumably the lettering would have been black? But what would that have consisted of? Presumably "MGWR" and the vehicle number, plus "ENGINEER'S DEPT" or "PW DEPT"? In the photo on page 101 of Ernie Shepherd's book, is Power Van No.1 this livery?

 

Yes (and the C & L, a century ahead of their time, painted at least a couple of open wagons YELLOW for ballast trains!), the beige colour would have been current in 1900-05. Certainly after 1925, but possible as early as the mid 1910s, they became standard grey with white lettering.

It would seem that they had black lettering when beige; I do not know whether the chassis was the same beige, or black. It was usual, as well known, for Irish companies to paint wagon chassis the same as the body colour, but there some exceptions.

As for the lettering, I cannot be sure, but it is possible they only had the normal "M G W (number)". Most old photos of most maintenance vehicles I've ever seen tend to have "P W DEPT." rather than "Engineering" - and in a model I'd be more inclined to go for that - or, even, only use "M G W" and a number, pending anything more specific turning up. Sorry that's the best that I can do!

I assume a ballast plough would be the same beige, or possibly the brown that some vans were then. It would not be green.

I will have a poke about tonight and see if I can find anything else.

[2996 Victor]

4 hours ago, Midland Man said:

Don't have a clue of the colors but I suspect it was grey. The problim is I am only really  good on the midlle of the midland but I can tell you what would pull it along and that would be a MGWR B class 0-6-0 whitch would have been never on a branch for two reasons 

1. When the midland used them it was only for the mainline.

2. In the 20s the midland got the great F class or cattle engines as drivers called them. These took out every 0-6-0 tender apart from. The L/LM class ( they were basically turned into J15s by the GSR with superheated Z boilers).

Hope This will help in any way.

Hi MM,

Thank you for the extra info, very useful as always, and although the later period is after my preferred era, it's always useful as well as interesting to know what changes took place and when.

With kind regards,

Mark

[2996 Victor]

1 hour ago, jhb171achill said:

Yes (and the C & L, a century ahead of their time, painted at least a couple of open wagons YELLOW for ballast trains!), the beige colour would have been current in 1900-05. Certainly after 1925, but possible as early as the mid 1910s, they became standard grey with white lettering.

It would seem that they had black lettering when beige; I do not know whether the chassis was the same beige, or black. It was usual, as well known, for Irish companies to paint wagon chassis the same as the body colour, but there some exceptions.

As for the lettering, I cannot be sure, but it is possible they only had the normal "M G W (number)". Most old photos of most maintenance vehicles I've ever seen tend to have "P W DEPT." rather than "Engineering" - and in a model I'd be more inclined to go for that - or, even, only use "M G W" and a number, pending anything more specific turning up. Sorry that's the best that I can do!

I assume a ballast plough would be the same beige, or possibly the brown that some vans were then. It would not be green.

I will have a poke about tonight and see if I can find anything else.

Hi Jonathan,

Thank you so much for once again coming to the rescue - I thought you'd have the answers!

The distinctive sand-beige livery with black lettering may have been considered sufficiently different to discriminate between traffic and PW stock without PW Dept (or similar) branding, so I'd say your suggestion to just use the MGWR and number pending firm evidence is a good option. I can see a short PW train being on my list of things to build!

Did all PW brake vans have ploughs - presumably there's a drawing somewhere.....

By the way, are there any stock books in existence that give running numbers?

Thank you once again for all your help and advice.

With kind regards,

Mark

[Mayner]

The Plough Vans were introduced in 1904 for use with the new ballast hopper trains Padraic O'Cuimin notes in Wagon Stock of the MGWR that 4 Ballast Vans 42,43,46&48 were introduced in 1883 one of which 232A was in Departmental service in 1970.

A number of GSWR Ballast Brakes from the same period survived into the 1960s in use of lifting trains, they were long wheelbase outside framed vehicles with a birdcage look out at one end and a large compartment for accommodating the men and their tools, possibly doubling as a mess and sleeping van. 

The 1883 Ballast Vans are not listed in POC's list of MGWR GAs drawings and diagrams and do not  appear in the IRRS Compendium of MGWR Goods Vehicle Drawings.  Intriguingly his schedule of drawings includes a Diagram which he prepared of a 1874 ballast wagon with "Guards Compartment" in .

It might be worth asking Richard McLaughlin whether POCs personal MGWR archive was bequeated to the IRRS.

Richard Chowan's No 11 may be a model of one of the Incline Brake Vans built by Metropolitan for the MGW in 1883, POC had no particulars of their appearance but they were listed as 1 compartment 4 wheel vehicles.

[2996 Victor]

10 hours ago, Mayner said:

The Plough Vans were introduced in 1904 for use with the new ballast hopper trains Padraic O'Cuimin notes in Wagon Stock of the MGWR that 4 Ballast Vans 42,43,46&48 were introduced in 1883 one of which 232A was in Departmental service in 1970.

A number of GSWR Ballast Brakes from the same period survived into the 1960s in use of lifting trains, they were long wheelbase outside framed vehicles with a birdcage look out at one end and a large compartment for accommodating the men and their tools, possibly doubling as a mess and sleeping van. 

The 1883 Ballast Vans are not listed in POC's list of MGWR GAs drawings and diagrams and do not  appear in the IRRS Compendium of MGWR Goods Vehicle Drawings.  Intriguingly his schedule of drawings includes a Diagram which he prepared of a 1874 ballast wagon with "Guards Compartment" in .

It might be worth asking Richard McLaughlin whether POCs personal MGWR archive was bequeated to the IRRS.

Richard Chowan's No 11 may be a model of one of the Incline Brake Vans built by Metropolitan for the MGW in 1883, POC had no particulars of their appearance but they were listed as 1 compartment 4 wheel vehicles.

Hi John,

many thanks for your comprehensive reply, most imformative as always! The photo of Richard Chown's brake van is intriguing: presumably the incline vans were used specifically on the cattle specials to the docks? The 1883 ballast vans you mention sound like what would be necessary to accompany some ballast opens in a PW train - I'm afraid I've only got the first page of POC's Wagon Stock paper, so apologies if you've had to repeat some information!

Many thanks as always and kind regards,

Mark

[jhb171achill]

17 hours ago, 2996 Victor said:

 

Did all PW brake vans have ploughs - presumably there's a drawing somewhere.....

By the way, are there any stock books in existence that give running numbers?

Thank you once again for all your help and advice.

With kind regards,

Mark

Mark

I’m unaware of any wagon stock list but I will delve and if I find out anything I’ll get back to you.

No, not all vans had ploughs - the plough van was a different animal and would have only been out with ballast trains.

[2996 Victor]

On 4/30/2020 at 3:41 PM, 2996 Victor said:

Ballast Wagon, 9ft w/b, 15ft o/h dated 1894

As the HMRS is in lockdown, I've been a bit naughty with this drawing and taken a screen-shot, and printed it to fit an A3. It certainly looks like a drawing that's been rolled up for a long time.

Although the HMRS logo is still present, it's come out pretty clear, clear enough to start to produce my own drawing, except that the underframe details are not that clear. The underframe appears to be channel section iron or steel with what look like wooden extensions to headstocks to act as door buffers.

Now, I'm an engineer by trade and I pride myself on being able to read an engineering drawing, but the lack of clarity is mildly frustrating.

Bearing in mind that the drawing is from the Metro Cammell archives, and hence from a private builder, there's no reason why these wagons couldn't have had iron or steel underframes. But apart from a few goods brakes, the photos of MGWR wagons that I've seen all have wooden frames.

I'll have a fresh look at it tomorrow!

In the meantime, though, I've sent my membership application to the IRRS 

Edited May 3, 2020 by 2996 Victor

[airfixfan]

Looking for something else today and came across IRRS Journal 51 with an 18 page article with photos on MGWR wagons only!

[2996 Victor]

1 hour ago, airfixfan said:

Looking for something else today and came across IRRS Journal 51 with an 18 page article with photos on MGWR wagons only!

I'll have to try and get a copy of that - it sounds like essential information!

Thanks for the tip, @airfixfan, it's hugely appreciated.

With kind regards,

Mark

[2996 Victor]

On 5/6/2020 at 3:40 PM, 2996 Victor said:

I'll have to try and get a copy of that - it sounds like essential information!

Thanks for the tip, @airfixfan, it's hugely appreciated.

With kind regards,

Mark

Now that I'm a fully paid-up member of the IRRS  I've been in touch about obtaining the appropriate back issue of the Journal. There was also a second article on MGWR wagon stock in Issue 55 for June 1971, and one on carriage stock in Issue 56 for October 1971 - looking forward to their arrival!

With kind regards,

Mark

[2996 Victor]

Returning to the topic of open cattle wagons, as mentioned above the HMRS has a drawing available from its archives, although they are of course completely closed at present.

I've taken a screen shot, however, and in between looking at ballast wagons I've been studying that as well. Although definitely "do-able", it's a complicated vehicle for a scratchbuild and the idea of building a large number is quite daunting. However, it occurs to me that it's a perfect vehicle for 3D-printing.....

There are a few photographs coming to light, so the next stage with this is to determine how many variations in design there were, and which were the most common.

There's an excellent photograph of a rake of four open cattle wagons at Westport Quay in "Rails to Achill", by Jonathan Beaumont @jhb171achill, and the photos posted above by @Mayner.

Anyway, that's all on the "to-do" list!

With kind regards,

Mark

[Angus]

I've just joined the IRRS myself, I hope there is some left!  I'm also looking forward to the new Manchester area meeting when they get underway post lock-down (whenever that maybe).

 

[airfixfan]

IRRS Journal 55 may say MGWR wagon stock on the front cover. However it was the first of a 2 part feature on MGWR carriages

 So issue 51 February 1970 is what you need.

[2996 Victor]

3 minutes ago, airfixfan said:

IRRS Journal 55 may say MGWR wagon stock on the front cover. However it was the first of a 2 part feature on MGWR carriages

 So issue 51 February 1970 is what you need.

Ah well, c'est la gare, to coin a phrase! It's all useful info, and I've got all three issues on their way.

Kind regards,

Mark

[2996 Victor]

Hi All,

Guess what? Yep! Yet another question, but on a different subject!

I think I've read somewhere, but can't now find where, that the MGWR used McKenzie & Holland signalling equipment, including their standard design signal boxes. Am I correct or did I dream that?

Many thanks for any advice!

With kind regards,

Mark

 

[jhb171achill]

Dunno about literally everywhere, but I think so, largely speaking.

[Mayner]

There is very little published information on MGWR signalling, many of the cabins were destroyed during the Civil War in the early 1920s and replaced with a new design with an imitation stone base, internal staircase, wide eaves overhang and Railway Signal Company frames.

Hill of Down on the Dublin-Galway main-line and Multyfarm on the Sligo Road and listed as having McKenzie & Holland signal frames in "Railway Lines of CIE & NIR" ( Oliver Doyle & Stephen Hirsch" 1985.) though the structure of Multyfarm appears to be a post Civil War re-build with the new style of suprestructure retaining its original base and frame.

 

Woodlawn and Galway cabins are typical of the older design of Midland Cabin with modern glazing.

The ETS instruments were housed in the station building at some branch terminals including Balinrobe & Loughrea and the lever frame housed in a smaller version of a standard cabin.

Loughrea cabin was a post Civil War replacement of the original

http://eiretrains.com/Photo_Gallery/Railway Stations L/Loughrea/IrishRailwayStations.html#Loughrea_20100118_101_CC_JA.jpg

The cabin at Ballinrobe was similar in design to that at Ballyhaunis

http://eiretrains.com/Photo_Gallery/Railway Stations B/Ballyhaunis/IrishRailwayStations.html#Ballyhaunis_20060526_0009_CC.jpg

 

[2996 Victor]

18 hours ago, jhb171achill said:

Dunno about literally everywhere, but I think so, largely speaking.

 

15 hours ago, Mayner said:

There is very little published information on MGWR signalling, many of the cabins were destroyed during the Civil War in the early 1920s and replaced with a new design with an imitation stone base, internal staircase, wide eaves overhang and Railway Signal Company frames.

Hill of Down on the Dublin-Galway main-line and Multyfarm on the Sligo Road and listed as having McKenzie & Holland signal frames in "Railway Lines of CIE & NIR" ( Oliver Doyle & Stephen Hirsch" 1985.) though the structure of Multyfarm appears to be a post Civil War re-build with the new style of suprestructure retaining its original base and frame.

 

Woodlawn and Galway cabins are typical of the older design of Midland Cabin with modern glazing.

The ETS instruments were housed in the station building at some branch terminals including Balinrobe & Loughrea and the lever frame housed in a smaller version of a standard cabin.

Loughrea cabin was a post Civil War replacement of the original

http://eiretrains.com/Photo_Gallery/Railway Stations L/Loughrea/IrishRailwayStations.html#Loughrea_20100118_101_CC_JA.jpg

The cabin at Ballinrobe was similar in design to that at Ballyhaunis

http://eiretrains.com/Photo_Gallery/Railway Stations B/Ballyhaunis/IrishRailwayStations.html#Ballyhaunis_20060526_0009_CC.jpg

 

Many, many thanks as always, gents, for coming to the rescue and providing so much valuable information.

I thought it was the case that McKenzie & Holland had provided much equipment, photographs seem to show their design of cabin, views of Achill cabin in particular struck me as being M&H.

[I've been studying McKenzie & Holland designs recently in respect of my Cambrian Railways project - M&H supplied some equipment to the Cambrian although most was from Dutton & Co - Dutton had been an M&H employee before setting up his own company, and his designs owe much to M&H practice.]

Presumably, the paintwork would be the cherry red and cream, the darker colour on the wooden frames and the lighter on the panelling? Window frames white?

Many thanks once again, and kind regards,

Mark

Edited May 9, 2020 by 2996 Victor

[airfixfan]

You need to track down a book called Signal Box Register Volume 9 Ireland and IOM for full details. The MGWR relied on English signalling companies up to 1920/1. The MGWR signal cabins suffered a lot of damage in this period especially during the Civil War.

 

[jhb171achill]

3 hours ago, airfixfan said:

You need to track down a book called Signal Box Register Volume 9 Ireland and IOM for full details. The MGWR relied on English signalling companies up to 1920/1. The MGWR signal cabins suffered a lot of damage in this period especially during the Civil War.

 

Very good point. I may have that somewhere; will delve later on.

[2996 Victor]

3 hours ago, airfixfan said:

You need to track down a book called Signal Box Register Volume 9 Ireland and IOM for full details. The MGWR relied on English signalling companies up to 1920/1. The MGWR signal cabins suffered a lot of damage in this period especially during the Civil War.

 

Hi @airfixfan,

many thanks for the heads-up on the SRS Signal Box Register book. I'm certainly interested in finding a copy, but they seem non-existent on the second-hand market and the SRS Bookstall is completely closed until further notice.

I'll just have to keep looking!

With kind regards,

Mark

[seagoebox]

This one is also very useful...

[jhb171achill]

Had a look - can't find the details I had - but, yes, I do recall from somewhere that a lot of M & H stuff was used by the MGWR.

[airfixfan]

Volume 9 has many photos and full details of all MGWR lines and signal cabins. Got mine from.our IRRS friends at a meeting in London. Ask Leslie of this parish?

[2996 Victor]

1 hour ago, seagoebox said:

This one is also very useful...

 

57 minutes ago, airfixfan said:

Volume 9 has many photos and full details of all MGWR lines and signal cabins. Got mine from.our IRRS friends at a meeting in London. Ask Leslie of this parish?

Hi @seagoebox and @airfixfan,

Thanks for both of those suggestions, I'll pop a PM to @leslie10646 and see if he can help!

With kind regards,

Mark

[BSGSV]

While other contractors, including McK&H, did supply equipment to the MGWR, the most significant contractor, and certainly from the mid-1880's onwards, was the Railway Signal Company. Achill, Ballinrobe, Woodlawn, Galway, Moate etc. etc. are RSCo. design cabins, more or less altered by CIE. 

The War of Independence and, especially, the Civil War, produced a signficant requirement for new and rebuilt signal cabins. Where a brick base and frame were re-usable, the MGW seem to have built a new timber operating floor to a gabled roof design, but retaining external stairs. Where a completely new cabin was required, the same design, but in concrete blocks (with the base having a mock stone effect on the outside), was used, with a timber top and internal stairs. The involvement of the RSCo. was still present as several cabins featured RSCo. tread plates on the stairs and RSCo. frames were the norm. The new cabins had rear frames and stoves in the middle of the front.

The McK&H frames in Multyfarnham and Hill of Down are likely to be second hand ones fitted on singling in the early 1930's. The RSCo. frames employed by the MGW had 5.5" spacing between levers, whereas the McK&H ones had 4". It is reasonable to suppose that the cost conscious GSR would have looked to re-use servicable old equipment, in preference to building a new frame of the GSWR design (which also had 4" spacing). GSWR design cabins (with hipped roof) were also built on the MGW during the time of singling, Athenry and 46th Mile being examples. 

[Midland Man]

You have to remember that if you want to do a branch line the signal box will be a lot small than that on a main line.

[jhb171achill]

9 hours ago, BSGSV said:

 It is reasonable to suppose that the cost conscious GSR would have looked to re-use servicable old equipment, in preference to building a new frame of the GSWR design (which also had 4" spacing). GSWR design cabins (with hipped roof) were also built on the MGW during the time of singling, Athenry and 46th Mile being examples. 

This is very much the case.

There were numerous examples of the GSR moving lever frames, signalling equipment and even footbridges about the place owing to the need to save money. Ballinasloe's current footbridge originally came from Oughterard on the Clifden branch, but had spent time at Ballyglunin in between.

Track from lifted branches was another thing. Go to any town in Ireland where the railway no longer exists, and you'll be told the urban legend "oh, when they lifted the track they melted it down and dropped it on the Germans as bimbs in the war". Such tales are largely or completely nonsense; but what DID happen was similar re-use of old rails - seven miles of the Clifden line ended up as several relaid sections in West Cork. Rails were lifted from parts of the "Burma Road" after it closed - though replaced with older track for the annual post-closure weedspray - and used to replace sidings elsewhere. And that was long after GSR days....

[2996 Victor]

Crikey, its been a while since I posted anything here. That's not to say that nothing has been occurring, but unfortunately what has been occurring hasn't been particularly tangible! 

I'm still looking into the signal box issue, and it's looking increasingly likely that, as a fairly large proportion of MGWR cabins seem to have been to McKenzie & Holland pattern, that will be the style of cabin I'll go for for my project layout, which has the working title of Mount Bellew. As far as a model cabin is concerned, I have been looking closely at the Ratio kit of Highley Signal Box on the Severn Valley Railway because, yep, it too is a McKenzie & Holland cabin! The orientation of the planking seems to be at odds with at least some of the MGWR cabins, but hopefully not all which will give me the "could have been" get out of gaol clause.....

In other news, I've been spending a few pleasant hours looking at the historic OSI 25-inch maps of the MGWR's terminii, in an attempt to get a feel of how they were laid out. The reason for this is to hopefully come up with a track layout for Mount Bellew that is "typically MGWR", and to accomplish this I've been making pencil sketches of the terminii so that they can be more easily compared. I've only Loughrea to do to complete the set (I've not sketched out Clara as its a bit of an odd one, being part junction).

Far from there being a "house style", however, they all seem to be different: the only recurring theme throughout is the turntable. However, the goods shed is often sited behind the platform adjacent to the station buildings, and in the "western" terminii, i.e. Achill, Clifden and the "Baronial Lines" the presence of multiple loops is a distinctive feature. Its quite funny, really, when looking at the "western" terminii how they're actually quite train-set-like in their layouts! Now, where did I put my childhood Hornby track.....? 

So hopefully there should be some progress soon toward a definitive track layout for Mount Bellew, and when I actually "cut the first sod" I'll start another thread over in Irish Model Layouts, but I suspect that won't be for a while yet.....

Stay safe and stay well, everyone!

With kind regards,

Mark

[Mayner]

Funnily enough I used the Platform/Ground Level version of the Ratio on a minimal space MGWR branch line terminus many years ago.

If you feel reasonably confident about building complex point work, it might be worth while considering a double slip in the crossover from the running line to the run round loop and goods yard, the Midland used this arrangement at both Edenderry and Kingscourt. It might be feasible to fit a mirror image of Edenderry into the area "behind the houses" between the R358 from Ballinasloe & the N63 to Ballygar & Mount Talbot. Edenderry had the advantage of having the cattle bank and goods shed on one side of the station/baseboard.

I mounted a flying survey of the area while trying to track down the location of the ancestral farm of my Grandmother in 2018.