LB&SCR Modellers' Digest

[rue_d_etropal]

According to back issues here, HMRS have a drawing for railcar no 3, but I can't find it on their website, any clue?

[Nick Holliday]

According to back issues here, HMRS have a drawing for railcar no 3, but I can't find it on their website, any clue?

There certainly is a good drawing in the HMRS archives, but I don't know if it is properly listed. I have access to a copy, and unfortunately it highlights some of the short-comings of the drawings in the Digest, which seems to be based on a much cruder drawing that was more easily available. Now that this topic has been flushed out, I'll have to try to prepare drawings of GNR/LBSCR No 1, and LBSCR Nos. 3 & 4, with help from some good photos providing some infill detail, which might form another article in the next Digest, if Burgundy can stand all this modern-image stuff!

[rue_d_etropal]

The more info the bette. I found that with the Colonel Stephens items I have being doing, that when I turned over the first stone, more appeared. It does seem odd that these railcars are not documented better.

I did have a good search of the HMRC site, but nothing under LBSCR or Dick Kerr.I might have another look. No hurry, plenty to do on other designs. I am looking at doing one of the small LBSCR signal boxes.The Cuckoo line ones are a bit fancy(?), but ones liike the one at Isfield look more suitable.

One question, did the LBSCR favour English bond or Flemish bond. I have seen examples of both, not just for signal boxes but for the station buildings.

[Nick Holliday]

The more info the bette. I found that with the Colonel Stephens items I have being doing, that when I turned over the first stone, more appeared. It does seem odd that these railcars are not documented better.

I did have a good search of the HMRC site, but nothing under LBSCR or Dick Kerr.I might have another look. No hurry, plenty to do on other designs. I am looking at doing one of the small LBSCR signal boxes.The Cuckoo line ones are a bit fancy(?), but ones liike the one at Isfield look more suitable.

One question, did the LBSCR favour English bond or Flemish bond. I have seen examples of both, not just for signal boxes but for the station buildings.

It is strange that the various Edwardian petrol railcars seemed to have been largely ignored by the press and enthusiasts, with very limited photographic coverage. In some cases, like the GNR and LNWR, the cars never ran in public service, so photo opportunities would have been rare, but others, notably the NER and GCR ones, ran for many years in general service. I wonder if the traditionalists were trying to ignore these pesky newcomers, hoping that they would just go away, rather like many spotters in the fifties tried to ignore the new diesels?

As for the LBSC cars, once they went out of public service they fell into the black hole of "Service Stock", that no-mans-land which seems to be overlooked by railway writers, compounded by the fact they probably became nocturnal, making photography rather difficult. They also seem to have created confusion wherever they went, with the relevant Brighton registers incomplete, and containing errors and spurious entries that make it difficult to track them, and I believe the normally infallible Bradley made a couple of mistakes, and other commentators have added to the confusion.

Regarding Brighton signal boxes, I would recommend studying the Signalling Record Society's Southern Register as that identifies the various design type each box was, which would show what was the most popular type. The Brighton modeller is particularly lucky in that the sizes of its boxes were well recorded and are known for almost every one, and a complete set of signal box diagrams, albeit for 1922, has been published. One problem, though, is that almost every signal box was of different dimensions, so an exact model of, say, Isfield, might not match any other one precisely, although the differences might be small. Unlike the impression one gets of companies such as the LNWR and Midland having a production line system whereby the size of the frame dictated the size of box, each Brighton signal box seems to have been a one-off, and often built by local contractors. Even the windows seem to be bespoke for each box, not even being the same on the front and ends, which caused immense frustration to a Brighton Circle member who wanted to create a "standard" etching!

As for brick bond, I am not in a position to say. There was a book published on Sussex Railway Architecture but I cannot recall if any statement was made in respect of this. I suspect that the Brighton as a company had no rules on this matter, which is largely an aesthetic concern, and would have just followed the current trends. I think English bond would have predominated, especially in earlier construction, Flemish bond seemed to become popular later, although I am only guessing. Again, unless the architect was specific, the individual contractor and his bricklayers would use whatever bond they were happiest with.

[Nick Holliday]

Had a look though the John Hoare book on Sussex railway architecture, and although there are plenty of references to polychromatic brickwork, the actual bond is never mentioned. Sadly, although profusely illustrated, the photos are generally unclear.

In the early days many of the station buildings were constructed using flints, with red brick quoins, or they were rendered or slate hung. To illustrate the problem of identifying any trend, a picture of Amberley shows the original station building rendered, with an extension in English bond, with a further wing in Flemish bond!

[rue_d_etropal]

Although the Great Western was well known to only use English bond, I think other railways left it up to the local builder.

I think the station buildings on the Bluebell line are a mixture. I personally think Flemish bond would have been more common, certainly for small buildings such as signal boxes.

I agree, it is difficult to see the bond in many photos.

I probably take more interest in the bond as I am now based in Lancashire, just down the road from the NORI brick works, and to complicate things , a variant of English bond, often referred to a Garden Wall bonfd is more common round here on industrial buildings. I have seen some Welsh railway buildings also used this bod. It is normally a repeat every 6 rows, but 5 is sometimes used. 7 rows is normally referred to as Colonial bond, and is as the name suggests more likely to be found on buildings in USA/Canada and possibly elsewhere where the Empire touched.

[Oldddudders]

Although the Great Western was well known to only use English bond, I think other railways left it up to the local builder.

I think the station buildings on the Bluebell line are a mixture. I personally think Flemish bond would have been more common, certainly for small buildings such as signal boxes.

I agree, it is difficult to see the bond in many photos.

I probably take more interest in the bond as I am now based in Lancashire, just down the road from the NORI brick works, and to complicate things , a variant of English bond, often referred to a Garden Wall bonfd is more common round here on industrial buildings. I have seen some Welsh railway buildings also used this bod. It is normally a repeat every 6 rows, but 5 is sometimes used. 7 rows is normally referred to as Colonial bond, and is as the name suggests more likely to be found on buildings in USA/Canada and possibly elsewhere where the Empire touched.

The LBSCR Country House-style stations, of which there were 17 including those on the Bluebell, were designed by T H Myres, of Preston Lancs, but the precise details seem to have been interpreted by each of the local builders according to the site needs. No doubt the type of bond fell into the same discretionary category.

[Nearholmer]

Most, if not all, of the Myers stations were built by one contractor, a firm based at Hayward’s Heath ...... i’ll try to check the details later. Whatever bond they used was complicated by the branding of colour in the brickwork, all very pretty by design, and all very clever craftsmanship.

[rue_d_etropal]

I have had a good study of photos of signal box at Isfield. Front is a variation on Flemish bond, to cope with lower windows, but sides look like standard Flemish bond. I am assuming back will be similar. both the card kits produced have had English bond, correct for the particular boixes done, and a lot simpler to bend round windows.

It might sound as bad as counting rivets, which I don't, but when some are so careful to get everything correct on locos, coaches and wagons, then have something completely wrong on buildings , I get frustrated. I don't expect everything to be perfect, but should be consistent.

Other reason I am interested is that first building I scratchbuilt9nearly 50 years ago) was based on the one Vivien Thompson did of Rotherfield station. As it had no drawing I worked from her photos. Probably wasn't very accurate. I now have her book, in which she refers to drawing inMRN 1960, which I now have. Drawing is not much better than those in Cuckoo Line book(again only 2mm/ft) but does incude more detail in platform canopies. I am hoping I might be able to repeat my scratchbuilding but this time using 3D printing. As much for interest, and to take Vivien's philosophy of preservation by modelling. The small signal box is possibly of more interest to more people.

[Gareth Collier]

 Drawing is not much better than those in Cuckoo Line book(again only 2mm/ft) but does incude more detail in platform canopies.

The Cuckoo Line book does have some handy drawings but you can't rely on them especially around canopies. When building my model of Horam I had to base a lot on the Hellingly drawings but they omit the canopies so you need to go on the overhead drawing of Rotherfield. However it just doesn't work on the right hand end by the toilet block. A site visit to Hellingly where the old station still retains its canopy cleared up the drawings errors nicely.

[rue_d_etropal]

The MRN article has some good drawings showing detail of canopies, in particular the columns and support structure.

Please I started with a signal box, as that has enough odd detail to keep me going. I can see why some builders preferred English bond, but Flemish bond was more typical of local architecture so some would have favoured it to fit in locally.

As to when brick replaced flint would depend on area. When canals were constructed, and clay was dug out, then there was a good reason to start a brick works and sellsuplus to other buildrs in the area. That certainly was case further west in Surrey where I used to live.If the railway was there first(and later tha the canals), the brick would have come into use later, and the railways may have been keener to use material to hand. The railways would have then made it easier to bring in brick from other areas and brick was becoming the 'material' to use in late 19th century. Up here in Lancashire, brick only really took over from stone after new brickworks opened in late 19th century, and for houses came in with introduction of stretcher bond at start of 20th century. You can see how it spread, with one row of houses being stone, the next brick.

At least by the time these stations were being built, brick size had standardised and that makes it easier to do drawings from photos. One by-product of my 3D print designs may be some decent scale drawings. I find it easier to design in 3D, then use that to do 2D drawings.

[rue_d_etropal]

I am beginning to think that English bond would have been preferred for these small signal boxes. Flemish bond without a lot of messing around does not fit. I have analysed front of Isfield box and it is complex, and Iwonder how the builder worked it out. he side with entrance is mainly Flemish bond but must have a bodge in the middle. The other end is mix up like the font. The back I have not cecked yet. Photos of back not common, but fortunately Google map has views from roadside so plenty of detail.

Wondering if I might look for another signal box as Isfield does not look typical. One which has some nice photos is Grange Road. It definitely uses English bond, but need to do a bit of checking.

 

Every boxI look at has some bit of bodging on brickwork. Seems standard lengths of box don't exactly fit any bond. Different builders bodged it in different ways. Isfield might be the way it is because it has two lower windows. Then it depends on which brick sizes are available, and maybe only full and quarter sized. A 3/4 one would have made it easier. I know each of thes sizes has a name.

Edited June 29, 2018 by rue_d_etropal

[JCL]

There certainly is a good drawing in the HMRS archives, but I don't know if it is properly listed. I have access to a copy, and unfortunately it highlights some of the short-comings of the drawings in the Digest, which seems to be based on a much cruder drawing that was more easily available. Now that this topic has been flushed out, I'll have to try to prepare drawings of GNR/LBSCR No 1, and LBSCR Nos. 3 & 4, with help from some good photos providing some infill detail, which might form another article in the next Digest, if Burgundy can stand all this modern-image stuff!

Hi Nick, I saw your email this morning. In the digest I did mention they are to the best of my knowledge - if nothing else they have started this conversation. The plans weren’t even based on a crude set of plans of #3, but on the plans of one of the other rail cars that were then overlaid on a side view of #3 along with any dimensions I could find.

 

I looked through the HMRS archive, and could only find a plan view of a small service vehicle. Obviously if better plans are out there then that would obviously be interesting. I do know that there is not a great deal more information held by the GNR Society - in fact, putting the article together was partially to ask for help in that regard. It would be great if a better set of drawings could be created

 

According to Groves, the GNR passed on the vehicle because it was in the workshop too often.

 

I’m away for Canada Day weekend, and will send you an email when I have read yours properly and get back home later in the week.

 

Cheers

 

Jason

Edited July 3, 2018 by JCL

[burgundy]

The "glass of port and a mince pie" edition of the LB&SCR Modellers' Digest should be available shortly before Christmas.

SHOCK, HORROR

The front page pictures include a black locomotive and a green carriage. Is this the end of civilisation as we know it?

All will be revealed in two weeks time. 

Best wishes 

Eric

[kirtleypete]

A green locomotive with GWR on the side would be much more terrifying!

Peter

[Oldddudders]

A green locomotive with GWR on the side would be much more terrifying!

Peter

Were those once seen at Victoria?

[Regularity]

Yes and no.

GWR locos, yes, but early suburban tank engines for the most part, which I think were unlettered. (All part of that complex network of joint lines and running powers around West London, which were largely killed off by busses and underground trains.)

Linked image:

Edited December 11, 2018 by Regularity

[Nearholmer]

I think stationmaster made a case for there having been GWR shunting locos outbased at Lambeth, and for trip and milk trains having continued well after passenger services ceased, but no GWR on the tanks I. Brighton days, I guess ..... unless the livery changed to Great ‘cabbage’ Western pre-grouping, I’m never sure.

[Northroader]

A GWR tank loco disgraced itself around 1900 by getting derailed at Victoria with a train to/ from Southall, but it was using the Chatham side.

[burgundy]

For those of a nervous disposition, I can confirm that there will be no pictures of GWR locomotives in the forthcoming edition. 

As I understand it, the GWR's access to Victoria was the result of the LCDR being in "difficult" financial circumstances and getting a number of other companies to contribute to the construction costs. As a consequence, some of the Chatham side platforms were mixed gauge.   

Best wishes 

Eric 

[Oldddudders]

A GWR tank loco disgraced itself around 1900 by getting derailed at Victoria with a train to/ from Southall, but it was using the Chatham side.

ISTR Lady Bracknell says “The line is immaterial!”

[sem34090]

I just found it very telling that he deemed the LBSCR to be superior!

[burgundy]

Mince pies within reach?

Suitable liquid refreshment to hand?

LB&SCR Modellers' Digest 8 is now available!   

Brace yourselves for a black loco and a green carriage on the front cover...……... 

Happy Christmas reading!

Best wishes 

Eric 

[rue_d_etropal]

Nice to see it. 

Eric,I have not had any messages from you relating to the well wagon,I wonder if some messages are disappearing again. Often worth trying all my links, ie RMweb, Facebook, Shapeways as well as my email.

I based the model on the drawings in the book on Southern wagons(LBSCR).Drawing is only to 4mm scale so is possibly not as detailed as it could be. It was actually Javier who asked me to do it in the first place

Just had a look at both my original CAD design, and the computer generated image  on Shapeways, and the vertical bars are not in the design. I suspect they are left over from the extra supports Shapeways add to create in the finer plastic. They have to cut these off after printing, and it has been known for detail to be removed by miske, so they probablyprefer to leave odd bits rather than chancing it.

 

While I am here, I wonder if there are ay drawings for that Drewry unit, would make a nice model for 3D printing.

On loooking through my copy of Drewry book, the onlyreference I could see(I might have missed others) was to a 'ladder car'. I wonder if one was originally supplied for this, but then adapted with a new body as shown. Possibly riginally intended to service overhead electric cables.

Also I wonder if there are drawings fior the pullman coaches built on ex L&Y ambukance train chassis. Lates copy of L&Y society magazine has a photo of some being pulled by nobn less than H1  La France.

Edited December 20, 2018 by rue_d_etropal

[Nick Holliday]

Nice to see it.

Eric,I have not had any messages from you relating to the well wagon,I wonder if some messages are disappearing again. Often worth trying all my links, ie RMweb, Facebook, Shapeways as well as my email.

I based the model on the drawings in the book on Southern wagons(LBSCR).Drawing is only to 4mm scale so is possibly not as detailed as it could be. It was actually Javier who asked me to do it in the first place

Just had a look at both my original CAD design, and the computer generated image on Shapeways, and the vertical bars are not in the design. I suspect they are left over from the extra supports Shapeways add to create in the finer plastic. They have to cut these off after printing, and it has been known for detail to be removed by miske, so they probablyprefer to leave odd bits rather than chancing it.

 

While I am here, I wonder if there are ay drawings for that Drewry unit, would make a nice model for 3D printing.

On loooking through my copy of Drewry book, the onlyreference I could see(I might have missed others) was to a 'ladder car'. I wonder if one was originally supplied for this, but then adapted with a new body as shown. Possibly riginally intended to service overhead electric cables.

Also I wonder if there are drawings fior the pullman coaches built on ex L&Y ambukance train chassis. Lates copy of L&Y society magazine has a photo of some being pulled by nobn less than H1 La France.

With regards to the well wagon, on my print there are no vertical lines on the buffer beam, although there some fine teeth on the top and bottom edges, which should be easy to deal with.

Apropos the Drewry car, as the builder of the model, I hope I can cut any misinformation off at the pass. There seems to be more confusion regarding the Brighton line's internal combustion machinery than any other group of British railway vehicles.

The tiny Inspection Car under discussion was built by Drewry in 1915, their works number 615, to replace earlier cars from around 1904, based on simple road vehicles, such as the East Croydon Engineers' Alldays and Onions car.

The "ladder car" would have referred to the vehicle that became LBSC Electrical Department No 2, also supplied by Drewry in 1915 for £560! This latter vehicle is the one known from the OJ Morris photo, taken around 1929, looking like a shed on wheels, with an elaborate raised working platform, and scrapped a couple of years later, being involved for all its life on the overhead electrification. This one was photographed at the builders with open sides, but ended up fully enclosed.

The Inspection Car seems to have escaped the camera in Brighton days, so we cannot be sure when it was enclosed, but it was in that state in Southern days, and survived, somehow, into the fifties, at Clapham Junction, having worked at times on the south western lines, and receiving attention at Eastleigh 1933/4. I wrote an article for Southern Way Issue 13 on the confusion between the two LBSC Inspection Cars as in the Digest that got mixed up during their time at Eastleigh.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Nick Holliday