The LNER Encyclopedia

Here is another one for you guys.
Someone over on the Yahoo! GWR group has raised the question of different loading gauges on different railways.
One Q amongst many regarding the LNER is whether the old MSL line differed from the London extension to Marylebone?

Tanya

My information is taken from George Dows' Great Central, volumes 1 and 2.

In July 1849, the direction was given that a loading guage be installed at every station at the height of the Hattersley bridge, this being the lowest on the network. No dimensions are given.

The loading guage of 1895, shows a distance of 13'5" from rail head, with a top radius of 5'.
Overall width for between platform coping is 9'3" (A).
To clear between lower than platform structures, a distance of 9'8" is specified.
This latter measurement is likely an error, because it is diagrametrically shorter than A, and possibly should be 8"8".

Kimball

Content deleted

The LNER forum members are quite used to doing there own research and answering their own questions and I'm sure that the members of Yahoo! groups for other lines are sufficiently capable of working these things out for themselves - those on the groups I belong to generally manage to do so.
[/quote]





This is the second time in a few days you have made such comments to polite questions. I read enough of such nonsense on the dark side , there is no need for it here.

A interesting question and no problem posting it on here IMHO.

65447 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:16 am
The new GCR loading gauge was substantially more generous and reflected the ambition for a direct link to the Continent.

Can you substantiate that?

The infrastructure drawings that were produced for the London Extension, which are in the National Archives, suggest that the MS&L loading gauge was used for the whole of the extension.

mick b wrote: This is the second time in a few days you have made such comments to polite questions. I read enough of such nonsense on the dark side , there is no need for it here.

A interesting question and no problem posting it on here IMHO.

Then you are welcome to answer. You obviously do not have previous experience of interacting with her. Bee in bonnet, flies off handle, uses those who respond as an easy source of further information and throws more questions often totally unrelated, disputes answers/seeks third party confirmation, forgets she asked, rarely offers thanks.

The London extension of the GCR was indeed built to the MS&L loading gauge. The papers presented to the ICE covering the construction of the line include several pages of infrastructure drawings including copies of what they describe as 'clearance gauges'.

Yes Tony thats what im led to believe, its a bit of a red herring about the extension being built to continental gauge. Was the Southern line that was to take the trains from London built to continental gauge?

So where it does come from? It is quoted in a lot in books, and the pages I have here might even say it.

I agree it is logical that an MSL or composite MSL/GWR gauge would have been used, so where does talk of the Berne gauge come from? Was it in an original proposal that was then dropped before or during building?

richard wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:23 am So where it does come from? It is quoted in a lot in books, and the pages I have here might even say it.

I agree it is logical that an MSL or composite MSL/GWR gauge would have been used, so where does talk of the Berne gauge come from? Was it in an original proposal that was then dropped before or during building?

The Berne gauge wasn't agreed upon until about 1910, so it would not have been possible to have built the London extension to a gauge that was at least 15 years in the future. In addition the railways in northern France used a structure gauge similar to that in southern England until they were brought into line with the Berne gauge after WW1.

However the MS&L structure gauge was higher than the LNER standard structure gauge and many GC locos were cut down so that they could work over the more restricted GN lines. This is probably the source of all the confusion.

I agree with both Bill and Richard, but I have a memory at the back of my mind that the far seeing MSLR, had envisaged a future possibility for carrying transcontinental traffic, and therefore employing as generous a loading gauge as possible, particularly on the London extension.

The evidence for this comes from the redoubtable George Dow and was mention in his Vol3 GCR. I have the book but cannot lay my hands on it pro tem, perhaps someone who has it can confirm.

Nick

There is an 1895 loading gauge in Dow Volume 2.

John

I have Dow's vol3....what page/chapter please.
This topic does indeed crop up very regularly, mostly from 'authors' who cant be bothered to do their homework and who don't want the boring truth to spoil a good story. The GN had a larger loading gauge at 13ft9" vertical by 9ft3" wide. As for cutting down ex GC locos...this was for the LNE composite loading gauge so they could work over the most restricted ( in terms of gauge)lines, ie the NBR. A lot of drawings were produced in 1895 for gauges ( clearance and loading) as well as all sorts of infrastructure, so that the contractors tasked with building the new line could be issued with them.
As for the view point of the SER in all of this I did ask some knowledgeable folks and it all seems to be a non event as far as schemes for gauge enhancement between Folkstone and London and yet you would logically expect this section to need altering first.