pdeaves
Established Member
I think it's being mooted again with the changes associated with GBR being seen as a good opportunity.There was an idea for Merseyrail to take over its own infrastructure management a few years ago
I think it's being mooted again with the changes associated with GBR being seen as a good opportunity.There was an idea for Merseyrail to take over its own infrastructure management a few years ago
Just because there were paths in the WTT doesn't mean the trains actually ran. You'd need independent evidence such as observation of the trains or the conversion work to be sure.Padiham power station apparently never converted one unit to oil firing - it did, and the WTT's of the 1970's prove it, why else would daily oil trains make a trip there?
True, here it is:Just because there were paths in the WTT doesn't mean the trains actually ran. You'd need independent evidence such as observation of the trains or the conversion work to be sure.
If only all authors and website contributors were as diligent.True, here it is:
My L&Y society book states oil trains ran as well as coal to the power station.
There is a video on of an open day at the power station in the 1980's, you can see the Shell oil wagons there.
See here.
You can trace them leaving Stanlow refinery (Cheshire) to the power station.
Finally. I saw them on their way there several times.
I guess there isn't enough money in publishing to pay someone to do the checks now.I have noticed that the Railway Magazine appears to have increasing errors. Of course the following months edition will have corrections pointed out by readers but unless you go back and update the previous errors I doubt anyone in the future reading an isolated issue would be any the wiser that the photo of xxx taken on yyy was factually incorrect if the error was only a few months perhaps.
Part of the problem may be that proof reading is a lost art now. Frequently I see spelling (Farnham v Fareham for example) or grammatical errors that make the context change. I blame the spellcheck and predictive text available in computer programmes for much of this as its so easy to hit the button and think the computer knows best. Of course proof reading your own article is not always successful as I know many times I have read what I meant rather than what I wrote down !!
Not just them. The National Library of Scotland; the National Library of Wales in Aberystwyth; the Bodleian Libraries at the University of Oxford; Cambridge University Library and possibly also the Library at the Trinity College, Dublin, also all get copies.My general point about books:
Did you know that if you write a book and it\s given an ISBN number, the British library automatically gets a copy? - true.
Yes. And I have a British Library reader's card.My general point about books:
Did you know that if you write a book and it\s given an ISBN number, the British library automatically gets a copy? - true.
Not just them. The National Library of Scotland; the National Library of Wales in Aberystwyth; the Bodleian Libraries at the University of Oxford; Cambridge University Library and possibly also the Library at the Trinity College, Dublin, also all get copies.
Agreed, they did an article about Steventon Bridge a while back (June 2020) in which they wrote that the overhead was not electrified and energised when initially installed, whereas in fact it was but there was a 60mph limit imposed on trains with raised pantographs initially (the overhead wire had a sharp gradient down/up to get under the bridge) so trains that could use diesel did so to avoid the speed restriction. Modern Railways got this right. I wrote to Railway Magazine but never received an acknowledgement and nor, to my knowledge, was any correction printed subsequently. So anyone treating this one article as authoritative is going to propagate a falsehood.I have noticed that the Railway Magazine appears to have increasing errors. Of course the following months edition will have corrections pointed out by readers but unless you go back and update the previous errors I doubt anyone in the future reading an isolated issue would be any the wiser that the photo of xxx taken on yyy was factually incorrect if the error was only a few months perhaps.
Part of the problem may be that proof reading is a lost art now. Frequently I see spelling (Farnham v Fareham for example) or grammatical errors that make the context change. I blame the spellcheck and predictive text available in computer programmes for much of this as its so easy to hit the button and think the computer knows best. Of course proof reading your own article is not always successful as I know many times I have read what I meant rather than what I wrote down !!
There's so many examples coming up here.
Padiham signal box was stated to have closed with the others on my old line in 1964. It didn't close until 30/6/1969.
Padiham certainly received oil trains from Stanlow (I was slightly involved in operating them in the 1970s).True, here it is:
My L&Y society book states oil trains ran as well as coal to the power station.
There is a video on of an open day at the power station in the 1980's, you can see the Shell oil wagons there.
See here.
You can trace them leaving Stanlow refinery (Cheshire) to the power station.
Finally. I saw them on their way there several times.
Most coal fired stations started the burners on propane, then fuel oil, then pulverised coal. Sometimes the coal was aided by oil.Padiham certainly received oil trains from Stanlow (I was slightly involved in operating them in the 1970s).
Nevertheless, many 'coal fired' power stations used oil for 'lighting up' purposes and did receive occasional oil trains. It would be misleading to describe those stations as 'oil fired', however. You can see the discharge pipework in the video.
However, the four 'Shell' wagons most obvious in the video are clearly an 'exhibition' set. You wouldn't get a mix of 2 x 4-wheelers and 2 x bogie tanks in one short rake for Padiham. The white tank wouldn't have been used for heavy/bunker oil anyway. No doubt part of the general 'rail fest' exhibition of a wide range of traction and rolling stock.
Padiham certainly received oil trains from Stanlow (I was slightly involved in operating them in the 1970s).
Nevertheless, many 'coal fired' power stations used oil for 'lighting up' purposes and did receive occasional oil trains. It would be misleading to describe those stations as 'oil fired', however. You can see the discharge pipework in the video.
Most coal fired stations started the burners on propane, then fuel oil, then pulverised coal. Sometimes the coal was aided by oil.
Even if you could find any archives they may be unclear.Interesting, I guess unless I could find some archive of the CEGB I won't know, but I think we can all at least agree the power station did receive some oil - for now, purpose unknown.
The "Humber to Holyhead" flow of petroleum coke wasn't for 'fuel' purposes, so far as I understand. (The aluminium smelter used electricity, conceptually from nearby Wylfa nuclear station although obviously anywhere on the Grid really.) The coke was high in carbon and was manufactured into 'electrodes' - chemistry and physics teaching eluding me these days but hope you get the idea - for the electric arc smelting. It travelled in BRT leased hoppers.According to Wikipedia (I know, I know) there were plans for oil-firing at Padiham but only coal and petrocoke* were ever used as fuel.
* Petrocoke is a by-product of oil refining - it seems to be closer to coke than petroleum, principally in that it is solid rather than liquid. I have no idea how it would have been transported.
EDIT: We are drifting a little off-topic here, but . . .
It appears that petrocoke was transported in covered hoppers (that look a bit like grain hoppers). One flow that I've found on Flicker was from the Humber oil refinery to the Rio Tinto aluminium works at Holyhead back in the 1990s (?). So, maybe, it was also moved from Stanlow and possibly to Padiham?
There are some very dubious publications out there (think top shelves of newsagents for example). I wonder what the British Library does with those? Maybe it turns a blind eye to the requirement.Just to clarify things re-legal deposit of material.
"If you're a publisher, you need to give a copy of every UK publication you make to the British Library. Five other major UK libraries may also ask you to give them a copy. This system is called legal deposit and it's been a part of English law since 1662." (Source: British Library website).
So only the British Library needs to be sent a copy. The other libraries in Edinburgh, Aberystwyth, Dublin, Oxford and Cambridge can ask for a free copy if they want one.
I was at Cambridge University in the 1970s and 80s and the apocryphal story circulating at the time was that the University Library (UL) did indeed maintain a 'comprehensive & representative' collection of those sorts of publications.There are some very dubious publications out there (think top shelves of newsagents for example). I wonder what the British Library does with those? Maybe it turns a blind eye to the requirement.
NaCl?I was at Cambridge University in the 1970s and 80s and the apocryphal story circulating at the time was that the University Library (UL) did indeed maintain a 'comprehensive & representative' collection of those sorts of publications.
Allegedly, these were kept under lock & key in a 'special' section of the UL's tower (surely a dungeon would be more appropriate), and were only available for 'research purposes' on application to a senior librarian with a letter from your tutor / supervisor explaining precisely why you needed access.
Some medical students of my acquaintance claimed they could get access to the UL's stash without any difficulty (maybe for anatomy study, or as a preview of some of the 'I slipped and fell' stories they'd later encounter working late at night in A&E) - but I always took this with a grain of NaCl.
Cabinet papers and some Ministry files will get deposited with the National Archives and now available for research under the "30 year rule".Even if you could find any archives they may be unclear.
From what I was told years ago, the details of the coal-to-oil conversions during / prior to the Scargill strike were kept secret to avoid the NUM realising what was happening.
My main gripe with the Cambridge University Library is that they did not save all the papers of the Cambridge University Railway Club!So only the British Library needs to be sent a copy. The other libraries in Edinburgh, Aberystwyth, Dublin, Oxford and Cambridge can ask for a free copy if they want one.
Allegedly, these were kept under lock & key in a 'special' section of the UL's tower (surely a dungeon would be more appropriate),
Well, you gave me ideas there, so I had a look myself and found it!I have had a bit of a dabble in the National Archives catalogue for CEGB papers but not found anything yet.
When magazines published pages of loco failures, unusual workings and the like, weren't there a number of correspondents who found it amusing to send in false, implausible reports to try to catch the editor out and sometimes succeeded?I've come across errors in books, such as a reference to the Edge Hill Light Railway being in the Liverpool area and the Severn Tunnel having broad gauge tracks. These come into the "howler" category but other errors are less easily spotted. Some are perpetuated and become accepted fact such as the date of Preston shed fire frequently quoted as 1961, when it was actually a year earlier. With regard to magazines, the problem is inadequate checking in the rush to be as up to date as possible and on the bookshelves before the competition.
Thanks for this. You have given me a place to start for more dabbling!Well, you gave me ideas there, so I had a look myself and found it!
There's an application to convert Padiham power station to oil firing in 1973.
CEGB: application to convert Padiham 'B' power station (Lancs) from coal to oil firing | The National Archives
The official archive of the UK government. Our vision is to lead and transform information management, guarantee the survival of today's information for tomorrow and bring history to life for everyone.discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk
It still doesn't prove it ever happened, and the year 1973 is unfortunate as this was the year of the first oil crisis. So the CEGB did more than just talk about it with an application submission.
There were no oil trains in 1974 but by 1978 they ran weekdays MSX.
I've heard this too. It particularly related to one magazine that published a few things that were widely known to be incorrect, then people started to test their ability to separate fact from fiction.When magazines published pages of loco failures, unusual workings and the like, weren't there a number of correspondents who found it amusing to send in false, implausible reports to try to catch the editor out and sometimes succeeded?