- Wilson's lorries
- PS Waverley not to be rebuilt just yet
- Woolwich Arsenal and railways
- Deptford Gas Works
- Pharos Marine and other news from Brentford
- The Lett's Wharf Dust Destructor
- A Guernsey coincidence
- The Nostalgia Piece
- Pedestrian Subways
- What is industrial archaeology?
- Letters
- 181news.pdf
GLIAS member Chris Salaman kindly sent a photocopy of an advert for Wilson's Lorries (GLIAS Newsletter February 1999) from a 1945 Meccano Magazine and yes, they were 4mm scale. There is an illustration of a P'6 kit which cost four shillings and tenpence halfpenny (petrol tank 4d extra). Diecast radiators cost 4d each. An illustrated catalogue could be obtained for a shilling.
Then Wilson's were at number one, Great Winchester Street, EC2. According to Mr Salaman they later moved to Bermondsey. Bob Carr
PS Waverley not to be rebuilt just yet
News from Scotland is that the planned rebuilding of the Paddle Steamer Waverley (GLIAS Newsletter December 1997) will now take place from the end of October 1999. This means that if the ship visits the Thames as intended in early October this year she will still be her old self and you will have another last chance of a sail in her before modernisation.
Apparently the delay is due to a change in European legislation regarding passenger vessels. Provisionally Balmoral is to be on the Thames in June but the programme is not yet finalised. Bob Carr
Write to Waverley Excursions Ltd, Waverley Terminal, Anderston Quay, Glasgow G3 8HA, enclosing an A5 size stamped addressed envelope for the full sailing programme which will be sent when ready. The telephone number is 0141 221 8152
The mention of refurbishing locomotives at Woolwich Arsenal after the war by Bob Carr (GLIAS newsletter 180) reminds me of their involvement after the previous conflict. It was proposed to construct locomotives to standard designs of 2-6-0 and 2-8-0 wheel arrangements. This came to naught, but in 1919 the Ministry of Munitions initially placed orders for 50 of each. However, with an excess of large freight locos on their books, the Ministry opted for the small locomotives. Since no standard design had been agreed, drawings for the SE & CR 'N' class 2-6-0 designed bv R E L Maunsell were used. The Arsenal was not best suited to build locomotives, and the construction ended up largely as kits of parts. The price for these offered to railway companies was such that there were no takers. Faced with large quantities of surplus material the Government sought assistance from private enterprise, and the loco kits were sold off by George Cohen and Armstrong Disposals Corporation Ltd. 27 sets went to Ireland, and six sets were purchased by the Metropolitan Railway and completed as 2-6-4 tank locomotives used for goods traffic. 50 sets were purchased by the Southern Railway and completed as 'N' class locomotives. These operated over much of the Southern system for many years, and because of their origin were often referred to by enginemen as 'Woolworth's' The full story of these locomotives' construction at Woolwich is to be found on p87 to 90 of the Locomotive History of the South Eastern & Chatham Railway by D L Bradley, published by the RC&TS, revised 1980. Brian Sturt
I was surprised that Mary Mills in her delving into the finer details of the 19th century gas industry, has dug up an article I originally wrote for the Segas Standard (the house journal of South Eastern Gas) some thirteen years ago for a general audience who were only concerned with basics (GLIAS Newsletter February 1999). Very little has come to light since I undertook the research for this article, however I am certain that there was a Greenwich Railway Gas Works.
Before use could be made of it, the lighting on the railway viaduct was abandoned as also was the use of gas for dwellings built under the arches of the viaduct, an idea years ahead of its time. So the works were already redundant. After an unsuccessful attempt to sell to the Phoenix, the proprietors reformed as the cumbersomely titled Deptford, Rotherhithe and Bermondsey Gas Light and Coke Company, established by deed of settlement dated 15th November 1838. The manager of this concern from 1839 was Thomas Vince Barnard, who gave detail of the works as a Witness in proceedings referred to later. He suggested the works was in operation in 1838, though possibly without use of a gas holder, which no doubt had its moments.
A plan of these works, situated on the 'up' side of the railway by Deptford Creek, is in the South Metropolitan's 'Terrier'. The new concern intended to supply the same area as the Phoenix and the South Met, who until then were peacefully coexisting. The resulting rivalry was resolved in 1841 with the Phoenix and in 1844 a truce was made with the South Met, when the Deptford agreed to confine its activities to the parishes of St Paul and St Nicholas, Deptford. Peace reigned until 1849, when partly from public discontent, and partly from political agitation, the Surrey Gas Consumers Association set up shop in Rotherhithe. After various trials and tribulations the Surrey Consumers were distributing gas by 1851, making a total of four companies supplying the same area. Agreements went by the board and a free-for-all ensued. The Deptford Co. feeling threatened, was incorporated by Act of Parliament in 1852 as the Deptford Gas Light and Coke, ratifying the area of supply agreed in 1844. In 1853 commonsense prevailed and all gas companies in South East London agreed to a districting agreement. In 1854 the Surrey Consumers incorporated and two years later obtained an Act to purchase the Deptford Company. Arbitration proceedings for the purchase lasted nearly two years, where Barnard gave details of the Deptford works, which were closed in 1857. The Surrey Consumers for much of their existence were short of space in Rotherhithe for construction of adequate plant and storage, so it appears a separate holder was built at Blackhorse Bridge before 1858 alongside the Surrey Canal. This is erroneously referred to as the Deptford works by Garton. There is no mention made of the Deptford and Greenwich Company mentioned by Mary, in any of the local gas legislation of the period, and thus they probably did not obtain an Act, and like others before, faded into oblivion. Brian Sturt
Pharos Marine and other news from Brentford
SEE LIGHTHOUSES, by Stephen Croad, (GLIAS Newsletter February 1999)
The most recent news of Pharos Marine Ltd. mentioned in Stephen Croad's article, is that the company left Brentford in December 1998. They have moved to an industrial estate in Hounslow. The Beacon Works was located on the High Street in Brentford and their premises ran along the east side of Dock Road.
Wilson & Kyle Ltd., former manufacturers of fuel injection systems for marine engines, have also ceased operations in Brentford and closed down in March 1998. Their premises occupied most of the west side of Dock Road. Industrial Blowers Ltd, who for many years used the former Hay & Straw Depot in Dock Road, have just moved to Hanwell.
South Brentford is being bought up for redevelopment and anyone interested in the planning brief can get a copy from Environmental Services, The Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow, TW3 4DN. Ask for the Planning/Urban Design Brief for Land South of the High Street, Brentford, Ref. DS2.
Now that Pharos Marine have moved out, it is possible to see the inside of the wooden boundary fence between the Pharos Marine site and Dock Road. The bottom of the fence consists of a row of broad-gauge bridge-rails laid on edge facing the road. Now it can be seen that the fence uprights are reinforced on the inside by more of these rails. Each rail is about 20 feet long, twelve and a half inches wide and five inches high lying flat. There are ten holes in a line near the edge of each flange, four at the ends and two in the middle. Broad gauge ceased to be used on the Dock line in 1876 and the broad gauge rails were presumably lifted at about that time. The future of these rails must now be uncertain - does anyone have any suggestions for suitable action? Dock Road is not the busy place it used to be, and Brentford has yet another big redevelopment area. Diana Willment
The Lett's Wharf Dust Destructor
The less-discussed outputs from the densely-populated City of London in the second half of the nineteenth century came under the headings of human excreta, household, trade and market refuse, street sweepings, and condemned meat. The cleansing and disposal functions fell within the responsibility of the Engineer & Surveyor of the City's Commissioners of Sewers - William Haywood (GLIAS Newsletter February 1999). Unlike many other areas of London, Haywood had succeeded in getting virtually all premises connected into the newly completed sewer system by the mid-1850s and so human excreta was virtually absent from the material to be collected that was however making its way through the sewers directly to the Thames to cause a separate problem. Street sweepings were composed more-or-less equally of mineral and organic material, the former mostly from the action of steel rims of wheels grinding away granite setts, and the latter largely horse manure, of which there was a vast quantity. Only one street - Finsbury Circus - was left of macadam construction, the remainder being either surfaced with stone setts or wood blocks.
Cleansing of the City and disposal of refuse had long been a problem and in the early years of Haywood's time in office, dust contractors were employed causing many problems. In the year Haywood was appointed Surveyor (1846), the City Commissioners received £5,000 from the successful tenderer to undertake the work but then the contractors entered into a combination and in the following year the City had to pay the tenderer £300. By the time Henry Mayhew was writing in 1861 this had increased to £4,900 divided between four contractors. The City was not alone in having problems with cost and quality of contracted work and, like many other local authorities, the City took on the work itself.
In 1869, Haywood established a scavengers' depot at Lett's Wharf, not in the City but on the south bank of the Thames on Lambeth Marsh, a little to the east of Waterloo Bridge and close to the former landmark of the Square Shot Tower (1789-1937). (This tower was one of two on the south bank - on the other side of Waterloo Bridge was the Round Shot Tower which acquired fame at the time of the Festival of Britain in 1951.) Lambeth Marsh was a low-lying, unhealthy area used for generations for dumping the refuse of the metropolis, it was also favoured by industries needing large amounts of water, or ready access to the river, others came in the category of 'noxious' and several were associated with the recycling of the material of waste tips. A map of 1785/6 identifies Lett's Wharf as 'Lett's Timber Yard', another map of 1806 shows several other timber yards in the vicinity.
The City took out a long lease on Lett's Wharf in 1875 and Haywood designed and equipped the depot which was ready for occupation in 1876. Haywood's report of 1881 to the Commissioners described the operation of the depot. He noted that in 1880, house, trade and market refuse amounted to 31,161 cart loads, and street sweepings and 'slop' another 30,078 - a cart-load ranged from one and a quarter to two tons. In addition, condemned meat to be disposed of amounted to 273 tons - evidence of the extent of market activity in the City and its diligent market inspectors!
Soon after the depot started functioning, Haywood complained that he was being harassed by the local sanitary authorities' - presumably because of smells, and in the City's defence he stated that it was the regular practice for offensive material to be burnt on site or barged away within 24 hours of receipt. He argued too that the operation of the site was not unhealthy either to his workforce or to the surrounding area. Nevertheless, Haywood took the hint and one relatively new development which would reduce substantially both the volume and the offensiveness of refuse was incineration - the amount of combustible material in refuse was typically 70% to 80% of the total. He, in the company of members of the Street Committee, visited incinerator installations in Leeds, Warrington and Farnworth.
The first 'dust destructor' was marketed by Albert Fryer in 1875 and was rapidly and successfully adopted by several northern towns. As a consequence of the City's visit, the decision was made in 1881 to purchase an installation for Lett's Wharf, and this came into operation in 1883.
The Lett's Wharf incinerator was described in a book by R K Gordon from a publisher one would hardly associate with such matters The Religious Tract Society! It was entitled 'How London Lives', it is undated but appears to have been published about 1894/95. One substantial chapter - 'How London is Cleansed' - deals with the cleansing of the City's streets and collection and disposal of refuse. Like other social observers of his time, Gordon had an appetite for statistical and human data which he assiduously collected.
The incinerator, as described by Gordon, consisted of a set of ten furnaces, arranged back-to-back over a dust chamber 10ft 4in. wide by 6ft high, the flue from which led to a 30hp boiler and then to a tall chimney shaft, the chimney being conspicuous for its 'bird-cage' top - a spark arrester? In the 1890s the furnaces operated continuously from midnight Sunday until 8.30 p.m. on Saturday evening accepting 16,000 loads of refuse each year which, after burning, left a residue of ashes and cinders of about 3,000 loads. Any incoming material to the depot which might be of possible value was sorted by a gang of contract 'pickers' to recover anything which could be recycled - metals, bones, rags, oyster shells, string, etc. - in a manner familiar to readers of Dickens' 'Our Mutual Friend', all other activities were carried out by the City's own employees.
When Gordon was writing, some 500 men, boys and women were working at or controlled from the Wharf - some of these would have been at a depot for street sweepers and refuse collectors in Stoney Lane, off Houndsditch. Worthless material was not sorted but left in the refuse carts, the carts being designed such that the bodies could be lifted off the underframe by an overhead crane and the contents emptied onto a platform from which the refuse was fed to the furnaces by a team of men. The daily cart from the hospital was dealt with differently in that its contents could be emptied discreetly and directly into a furnace such that 'no-one sees what it has brought to be destroyed'. The residue from the furnaces was sent away by barge, mostly to the Medway for brickmaking. The wharf could accommodate seven barges at a time and three barges were despatched daily from each berth; a barge load being about 70 tons.
The detachable bodies of the carts enabled the body to be replaced with a water tank for watering streets when needed. About 80 horses, 70 vans and other specialised carts were based at Lett's Wharf plus hand and mechanical tools for cleansing streets and pavements. Clearance of heavy falls of snow made heavy demands of the City's workforce and it was usual to employ contractors to make up any deficiency in resources. The great snow storm of 1889 gave employment to 1,800 extra men and 456 additional horses and carts!
Gordon noted that destructors in London similar to the City's were in use at Battersea (1887), Hampstead (1888), Mile End and Whitechapel. The destructors did not necessarily solve pollution problems - Canon Samuel Barnett, the famous East End priest and founder of Toynbee Hall, regarded the installation in Wentworth Street, sviauls Whitechapel as a mixed blessing, complaining that it was not so much a 'dust destructor' as a 'dust distributor' for it coated the surrounding area in fine grey dust! Gordon noted that the destructor was within a foot of adjacent houses!
It is not clear when the Lett's Wharf destructor was taken out of use but a new Public Cleansing Depot was built for the City in 1958-62 at Wallbrook Wharf on the north bank by Cannon Street railway viaduct, from which refuse was barged away.
The depot was refurbished in 1996 - the dock being filled in and containers holding compacted rubbish loaded onto barges by a riverside crane. A container has the capacity for about 12 tons of refuse and each barge can take 26 containers. The Lett's Wharf site is now occupied by the National Theatre. Don Clow
In GLIAS Newsletter 180 (GLIAS Newsletter February 1999), Judy Dunbar tells us of her study of IA whilst staying at Guernsey over Christmas. I, too, went to Guernsey to escape the rigours of a family Christmas at home (do I hear murmurs of 'Scrooge' 'Humbug', etc.?) and likewise I spent my time researching IA topics in the libraries and museum. As I do not know the lady, it might be that we sat at adjacent tables in the library whilst doing our respective studies! Before I went I could find nothing on IA in the Channel Islands in any reference books but there is certainly enough to be of interest on Guernsey and adjacent islands.
Cider-making was formerly a notable activity on Guernsey and many of the granite troughs of apple crushers still survive as well as a few apple-pulp presses. Granite quarrying was an extensive industry and there remains much evidence of this, including the harbour works at St Saviour's. In the 19th century, wooden ship-building was a major activity which I find a puzzlement. As there was no indigenous timber of consequence, all the materials would have had to be imported. Unless local labour was so very cheap to make it worthwhile, I would have thought it cheaper to build the ship on the mainland and then sail this to Guernsey rather than transporting the timber (including the inevitable waste portion) and building there.
There are still a few remnants of the Guernsey railway, though we would have called it a tramway, and also some evidence of the extensive German narrow gauge systems established during the occupation. However, my main study was of the silver mining on Sark. Although a little silver was produced, the mining activities lost several fortunes of those who got themselves involved. Ruins of some Cornish enginehouses built for pumping still exist in decrepit and well-overgrown condition but I managed to gather sufficient information to write a paper on the topic in due course. Alan Birt
Dr Robert Carr's nostalgic reference to Wilson's lorries in GLIAS Newsletter 180 (GLIAS Newsletter February 1999) brought back many memories. Wilson's lorries were advertised in 'Meccano Magazine' - prices from only 7/6d, I think - but as I then received one shilling each week, even the cheapest one was beyond my means. He also mentioned the Keil Kraft rubber-powered model aeroplane. Another maker's name of similar models was FROG. This had nothing to do with amphibians but was an acronym; their models were claimed to Fly Right Off the Ground unlike the others which had to be thrown into the air as the wound-up propeller was released. There were various rubbers to power these aeroplanes - one type was like white tape about half an inch wide and quite thin so many strands were used. Another type was black and of square section, about one eighth of an inch for smaller models and a quarter of an inch for larger ones. However this rubber was primarily manufactured for another purpose; it was fitted on the inner edge of billiard tables under the green baize to give the bounce to balls when playing off the cushion. Does anyone else remember 'Micro Models'? These were card cut-outs. They were sold in packs of several cards, about postcard size and thickness. Some cost only a few pence but larger coloured sets might be several shillings. The pricing system was rather odd - a few sets cost a shilling and a half-penny! The models were mainly of ob railway subjects but some other topics were available. One had to cut out carefully the printed shapes and glued them together to make locomotives, trucks, carriages, etc. It was also possible to buy what must have been reproductions of aerial photographs of railway track printed at the right scale on which to line up the models. Pictures of points and cross-overs were available, too.
These models were static, of course, and about what is now known as 000 gauge scale. The cheap sets were black printing on white card which one could colour appropriately by using a Reeves paintbox (there's another name of memory). The more expensive ones were colour printed. These, too, were shown in 'Meccano Magazine' and ow advertised as 'Costs pence, sells for guineas' but I never found anyone who would buy the completed models, not even for shillings! (If I had I would have gone into mass production!) But one thing still puzzles me - when finished, it was recommended the card models were given a coat of 'Banana oil'. I never did find a stockist of this elusive substance. Was it really made from bananas? What was its worth? Did it give a metallic sheen to the models perhaps? Was it expensive? If anyone knows, please tell me. Alan Birt
I was interested in your reference to Pedestrian Subways in Newsletter No. 190 (GLIAS Newsletter February 1999), as I have recently been drawn ed into investigating the history of the subway which runs from South Kensington station and a point in Exhibition Road just north of the Science Museum.
This investigation began with apparent evidence from railway tickets that intermediate museum exits had existed in 1885/6. (The first and second years of daily opening. After 1886 it was open for special events only, until 1908, when the toll was removed.) Research at the Victoria & Albert Museum archives, the Public Record Office and the Kensington Library has finally disproved the intermediate-exit theory (exits to the Natural History and Victoria & Albert Museums were opened late in 1912), but each investigation has produced further queries. Oddly, the history of the subway in the first World War is easier to find than its history in the second. During part of the first war, it housed art treasures from the Imperial Institute, which had been taken over by civil servants working on food rationing. In the second war, Kensington Council had schemes for two air raid shelters in the subway, but what really happened, and the closure and re-opening dates, await further research. Another query is whether a separate, direct exit to the Science Museum existed in the years to 1939.
Research will continue, but it is much simpler to find the history of a real railway! Desmond Croome
What is industrial archaeology?
What is industrial archaeology? One definition is the study of artefacts since c1600, ie the archaeology of the industrial period, while another is simply the archaeological study of the development of industrial processes. The second definition will take us back well into pre-history. In practice we have a kind of duality.
It has been pointed out that if industrial archaeology is to be the archaeology of the industrial period it is presently incomplete. For instance we do not investigate Victorian ecclesiastical structures. However chapels are included and generally it seems most industrial-period artefacts are being covered so long as they relate to working people. Is it only socially up-market buildings that are being excluded?
Judging by a recent photograph by John Powell in Industrial Archaeology News (a good example of the adage 'a photograph is worth a thousand words' — see issue 107 page 7) the practice of our subject is becoming the preserve of young women. Retired engineers are getting thin on the ground. Future developments are likely to be intriguing. Bob Carr
I thought you might like to know that, although the National Postal Museum has now closed, the stock is now in the process of 'relocation' and I have been informed that items are to become available for sale, and possibly for lease. I'm sorry if this sounds vague, but I am not certain as to what is to come on to the market but I do know that Postboxes and Pillarboxes are certainly included.
I have obtained from the curatorial staff details as to who should be contacted if any members should wish to make enquiries about postal artefacts. As far as Postboxes and Pillarboxes are concerned I understand that there are records as to the original sitings. The Royal Mail Access Development Managers, I am informed, are responsible for the sales and should any member need information on Postbox or Pillarbox history contact names are as follows:
Dave Howell, Access Development Manager, 35 Rathbone Place, London W1P 1HQ and C Marcus, Information Officer, 4 Hampden Road, Shaw, Oldham, Lancs OL2 8QB.
In Newsletter No. 180 (GLIAS Newsletter February 1999) you included an article on 'Wilson's Lorries'. I remember getting one late in 1946 when I was in Manchester. I can date this as in the spring of 1947 I moved to Chester. It was labelled as gauge 00 and mine was a short wheelbase open truck.
I must disagree with two points in the article:- (1) Balsa wood cement, para. two and (2) no plastic kits, para. three. Balsa wood cement was available when I started to build flying models in 1940. Yesterday at a SIHG meeting one of my older friends told me that he used it pre-war. One make I remember was sold under the name of 'Joy' or 'Joyplane'. It came in yellow tubes and I think it was made in the Tooting area by a firm with a name like Turnbridge Manufacturing Co. Older members will recall that flying models were limited to a wing span of only 28 inches under the wartime Defence Regulations.
(2) Plastic kits were on sale in the late 1930s. I received my first one in 1938. It was a 1/72 scale Percival Proctor. The kits were sold with the trademark 'Frog' and were a product of International Model Aircraft, part of Lines Brothers Group. Their factory was on the East side of Morden Road, SW19. (the A24). Other trade names used by the Group included 'Minic' tinplate clockwork cars, 'Pedigree' dolls and 'Triang' lorries and cranes. The latter were of a strong steel construction.
The factory was demolished some years ago and I think that it was redeveloped.