Crichel Down

I think Chris is right. I was getting muddled up between LPC and the Railway World periodicals (which included MRC). I have sometimes joked that the article on 'the Crichel Down affair' must have bored the pants off the readers of MRC, and thereby contributed to the demise of the magazine only 18 months later. (But that is an unwarranted libel on Chris's editorship.)

Since it has generated some discussion, perhaps I could clarify the position with regard to the ownership of Model Railway News, Model Railway Constructor and Railway Modeller. Model Railway News was founded by Percival Marchall in 1925 (who was also the founder of Model Engineer in 1899 and was its publisher). The Percival Marshall publishing group was acquired in the mid-1960s (about 1966?) by Model Aeronautical Press (‘MAP’), who changed their name to Model & Allied Publications (also ‘MAP’) to reflect their broader range of publications. MAP later became Argus Press, and was then swept up in further amalgamations. MAP changed the name of MRN to Model Railways in the early 1970s, but successive relaunches (including the short-lived ‘Your Model Railway ' title) failed to revive its fortunes, and it ceased publication in 1993. Model Railway Constructor was founded in 1934 and privately published. It eventually came under the ownership of the Locomotive Publishing Company, who in their turn were taken over by Ian Allan in the mid-1950s (about 1957?). The Constructor was therefore ‘inherited’ by Ian Allan at that time with LPC’s other publications. Publication ceased in 1987. The Railway Modeller was founded by Ian Allan in the late 1940s, but it failed to take off and was sold to Sidney Pritchard of Peco in 1951, who formed a subsidiary company, Peco Publications & Publicity for the purpose. Cyril Freezer had become editor of Railway Modeller before the takeover, and moved with the magazine to Peco’s HQ at Seaton. The magazine was given a makeover in January 1952, and after that the title never looked back. It remains part of the Peco group, and is now the longest surviving model railway magazine, having the been the market leader since the mid-1950s.

I would be happy to pre-order one of these models of the Diagram N autotrailer if I could understand which catologue number applies to which livery variant. (Am I the only modeller who is confused about this?) Perhaps "coeurdelyon" could clarify Dapol's intentions regarding the livery variants that they intend to offer. I am unclear whether the fully lined out version of the chocolate and cream livery (1922 to 1927) is one of those to be offered, and if so which catalogue number applies to this variant. If only the plainer chocolate and cream livery is to be offered (1927 onwards) this would be equally acceptable, but again, I would be grateful to know precisely which catalogue number applies to that variant.

Oh dear! I've just noticed that the digital mock-up shows a BLANK luggage end (correct for BR versions, but NOT for this vehicle in pre-2WW condition). This means that 13 of the advertised variants will be wrong if supplied as shown, and only the 3 BR variants would be correct. I don't want to have to cut out the luggage end windows myself. (It's bad enough having to do it on the A30 trailer), so I hope that Dapol will correct this detail before they go into production.

I learnt about this when I got an email from Hatton's yesterday. I have wanted a 4mm version of the Diagram N autrotrailer for a long time, and it seemed a logical step for Dapol to produce this model, when they have had the 'Lionheart' 7mm version in their range for quite a few years. Whilst there were only six of them, this model will be the first 4mm model of a purpose-built timber-panelled trailer (as distinct from SRM conversions). The only query I have is the distinction between the 002 ("lined chocolate and cream") and 003 ("Twin cities crest - Chocolate and Cream") livery variants. 003 is self-explanatory (the 1927-1934 livery). But is 002 intended to be the fully lined 1922-1927 livery, with the beading picked out in black? I would be happy with either, but if both are going to be offered I would like to be clear as to the livery differences between these two models before choosing which to order.

I am aware of the source from which my information came, but I received it indirectly, and so I do not have sufficient certainty to enable me to quote the reported statement. I am not in the business of peddling rumours, so I don't think it right to comment further. I had expected that something definite would have emerged by now, but in the absence of any further news during the course of today I am beginning to doubt the accuracy of the information that was passed on to me. Which makes it unwise to add anything further at this stage.

I have been informed this morning of an announcement that has been made by or about Eileen's Emporium, but because I have not seen the actual text of the announcement itself, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on it. Hopefully, more definite news will be published fairly soon.

Re postal delivery of MRJ. The current problem is the same for the postal delivery of all publications that are sent out by that means. Subscribers are at the mercy of Royal Mail so far as delivery times are concerned. The publishers can't be blamed for items taking up to a week to drop through individual readers' letterboxes. Patience is not only a virtue; it is an essential attribute for any serious model-maker. MRJ is widely available in shops if postal delivery is too slow for you. I have maintained my subscriptions to several publications by post, simply because of lockdowns in the past two years, and continuing uncertainty about the covid situation.

On the subject of the display of enamel adverts, I strongly agree with 'Rule 1'. I like these adverts too. My 'base' period on the Burford Branch allows me to add them with a clear conscience, but I sometimes run stock on the layout from a later period, and I just shrug my shoulders at this and other anachronisms in those circumstances. My general approach is that I like to know what the correct position was, and then (if I choose to do so) I simply ignore it - Rule 1 again.

It has been obvious throughout this thread that Kevin knows exactly how buildings are put together, and his professional knowledge has clearly informed the construction of his model buildings. They are an object lesson for model-makers - accurately observed and correctly detailed. (Mark Tatlow, whom I mentioned earlier, is also a building surveyor. So is, or was before retirement, Chris Lamacraft, among others. Building surveyors are well represented among the ranks of railway modellers.)

Aha! So the secret is out; Kevin is/was a 'civil' (i.e. civil engineer). I wonder if you knew Peter Tatlow, Kevin? He was with Mouchel. Long since retired and living in Hampshire. He started his career as a bridge engineer on the Southern Region, and while at Mouchel's did a lot of work on ground anchors. He is an expert on the Highland Railway (as is his son Mark). Peter is also a prolific railway author.

I see that the artwork shown by Kevin on this thread earlier this afternoon includes reproductions of a selection of enamel adverts. These were a colourful and attractive feature of the period railway scene (and were also seen elsewhere). However, there was a discussion on the S4 webforum in April of this year (on page 17 of the thread dealing with my own layout) here - https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1846&start=400#p83980 about the rapid disappearance of enamel adverts from GWR stations in the mid-1930s. It seems that this resulted from the termination of the contract between the GWR and Wyman’s who had been responsible for booking and displaying these adverts on GWR stations. It seems that this type of advertising was considered obsolete, and (with one notable exception, mentioned below) reliance was thereafter placed solely on paper posters. So, for a layout based in the late 1930s (i.e. post-1935), maybe no enamel ads should be displayed (except the famous VIROL ads, which lasted into the 1950s, and seem to have disappeared in 1958). It is possible that some enamel ads may have continued to be seen on private commercial premises through simple inertia, but they seem to have been systematically removed from railway premises by 1935, being replaced by printed paper posters (which had begun to appear earlier in the 20th century). This no doubt accounts for the omission from the 1936 General Appendix to the GWR Rule Book of instructions for the display of enamel ads that had appeared in earlier editions of the Appendix, whereas detailed and prescriptive instructions for the display of enamel adverts had been included in the 1920 General Appendix.

Sorry for a rather belated response. It is helpful to understand that there is a distinction between, on the one hand, complete repainting, (i.e. stripping down to bear wood or metal, sanding it down, applying primer again and then building up the paint layer by layer, plus lettering and final varnishing), which I understand was infrequent, and on the other hand, a rather less thoroughgoing refurbishment of the paintwork, involving no more than rubbing down the topmost layer of paint and varnish, which would also remove the lettering and lining, and simply applying another topcoat of paint, fresh lettering and lining, and a coat of varnish. I believe the GWR would give their coaches this lighter cosmetic treatment at roughly two-yearly intervals, but this would have resulted in the coaching stock being returned to service displaying the latest livery, even though this had not been a total repaint. It follows that new livery details and revised insignia would appear on coaches over a period of no more than two years or so after a livery change was first introduced. So the plain 1927 coach livery would have been universally applied no later than 1929. One other point of interest. The 1927 coach livery was very plain indeed, with only a single thin black line separating the cream upper panels with the brown lower panels. By 1928, the powers that be at Swindon had decided that there should be a gold [yellow] and back line along the waist. So by 1930, this further alteration would have been universally applied to coaches, followed a short time afterwards (and I can’t remember exactly when) by a second line of yellow and black on what would originally have been the lower waist moulding (although, not on suburban stock, so far as I am aware).

The same query relates to all GWR service vehicles. BR(WR) seem to have painted these wagons black, but the general consensus seems to be that the GWR painted them freight stock grey. However, I did an experiment a good few years ago, in which I painted one GW LOCO coal wagon black, and another grey but heavily weathered. The resulting appearance of both wagons, when weathered, was identical, and it was impossible to say which had been painted grey and which had been painted black. I suspect that this is the practical answer to this question.

In case it may be of interest, in December 2017 I posted these details of a couple of models I made : https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=5660#p57501 In one case, I had to 'fudge' the SIPHON branding; in the other I established that the Siphon branding wasn't carried at all. (Very convenient!)

My understanding is that GWR passenger stock got a partial repaint and revarnishing at intervals of about two years. This was not a total repaint, but simply redoing the top coat and fresh coat of varnish, but it did involve re-lettering and re-lining, so the coach would be returned to traffic displaying the latest livery. The GWR 'roundel' replaced the coat of arms in September 1934, so by 1938 all passenger stock would display the roundel. However, I follow the same practice that Neal Ball suggested, namely covering a five-year period. I too chose 1934-1938 for the 1930s period on my layout. This would mean that the 'B' set could still display the double-shield crest, which might be seen as late as the Autumn of 1936.

Me too. I used ‘Railmatch’ 606 “GWR Light Stone” and 607 “GWR Dark Stone” as the best starting point from which to mix my own colours for my station building and train shed (shown above) and for other GWR buildings on the layout. Both colours were let down with Matt White. For “Light Stone”, I found it necessary to add a few drops of Signal Yellow to reproduce a satisfactory ‘buff’ colour which was not too yellow in hue, and which still retained a subtle hint of pink. For “Dark Stone”, the Railmatch version, when seen against the “Light Stone” lacked the salmon pink tint I was seeking, so I added a few drops of Signal Red to reproduce the ‘pinkish’ tint I was looking for. So I can recommend the Railmatch colours, but some slight modification may be required, as explained above, (depending upon individual taste).

By the inter-war period pre-mixed paints were being supplied to the GWR under contract by commercial paint suppliers. They worked to colour samples supplied by the company, but pre-WW2 colour photos (e.g. in the Colourail collection) seem to confirm that one paint supplier's idea of what matched the GWR's standard tints may have differed from another's (!) At the end of my researches, I came to the conclusion that one could never reach a definitive view as to the precise reproduction of the GWR structure colours. The best that can be hoped for is a reasonable approximation of the colours that the GWR used. Standard Tint No.1 "Stone" [unofficially known as 'Light Stone' - a creamy buff] Standard Tint No.2 "Stone" [also referred to (confusingly) as 'Light Stone' - a yellowish buff, sometimes with a slight hint of pink] Standard Tint No.3 "Stone" [unofficially known as 'Dark Stone' - a salmon pink colour that could vary from a fairly dark pink to a lighter salmon pink shade] Standard Tint No.4 "Chocolate"* [the original colour of the confectionery, i.e. a reddish brown.] [*This colour was called "Purple Brown" before WW1, but was almost certainly the same colour as post-WW1 “Chocolate”] Before WW1, ST No.4 was extensively used on station buildings, as an over-all colouring on both doors and window frames. For a time after WW1, ST No.4 hardly seems to have been used at all; it came back to use to a limited extent in the 1930s, but was no longer applied in the same way as it had been used before WW1. But in the pre-WW1 period signal boxes were usually painted in colours that more closely resembled the post-war colour scheme applied to station buildings. In the inter-war period, a two-tone colour scheme was generally applied. The top coat could be ST No.1 with ST No3, or ST No.2 with ST No.3. (Where the top coat was ST No.2, ST No.1 was used as an undercoat. Where the top coat was ST No.3, either ST No.1 or ST No.2 could be used as an undercoat.) In this period, the glazing bars of windows were painted white. Here is a photo of a GWR station building and train shed I have modelled. I have rendered the colours as weathered and faded versions of the Stone colours, but I can’t claim that these colours are ‘correct’ – they are my interpretation (an “artist’s impression”):

I suggest you re-read Andy York's post (as moderator) on 28 March. Your post (and others like it) was exactly the sort of thing he had in mind. First sighting of a particular issue of a magazine is helpful, so that we all then know that it has been published and is being or has been distributed to retail outlets, but reports of subsequent sightings are of no interest. My admonition was not directed specifically at your post (although it happened to appear immediately after yours) . However, if the cap fits, wear it. You were certainly one of the offenders. The fact that there is also a copy of the Railway Muddler in Snodgrass's Newsagents in Great Snoring really is of no interest. So I am sure I am not the only reader who would appreciate it people would kindly refrain from posting that sort of nonsense.

It became clear some time ago that copies of MRJ 278 are available from retail outlets (where these are open), and so reports that someone has seen copies at such and such an outlet are really of no interest. The only outstanding issue relates to the distribution of subscription copies, due to the problem that Jerry [Queensquare] reported last week. It is to be hoped either that the MRJ team can find a way round this problem, or that an offer of help, such as that from Zero Gravitas, could be accepted.

I did a bit of research into this some years ago. As everyone knows (I hope), the GWR painted their buildings mainly in two shades of 'stone' (actually two shades of a salmon pink / buff colour). Photographic evidence shows that some stations were not repainted for many years after Nationalisation, especially on branch lines, and a few were not repainted at all before being closed. Photographic evidence also shows that different stations on the same line could be 'missed out'. So, for instance, Fairford never got a repaint, whereas Witney did. Chocolate and cream, as has been pointed out, was a BR(WR) colour scheme, which was later replaced [in the 1960s] with an 'all cream' colour scheme, but examples of GWR colours nevertheless persisted in some places, as outlined above.

I haven't troubled Paul about this, but I wonder if he is aware of Zero Gravitas's offer. As Jerry is clearly in touch with MRJ HQ, maybe he could draw this to Paul's attention (assuming that delivery of issue 278 to the Post Office still hasn't been sorted out yet). Through no fault of the Cygnet team or of the Post Office, I am now suffering distinct withdrawal symptoms. I have even had to resort to doing some model-making, forsooth!

For an example of a non-auto loco working with an autotrailer, see the Watlington Branch. A trailer was used in order to access the low (track level) halt platforms on the branch, but the trailer had to be run round at each end of the journey, at Watlington and at Princes Risborough . Pannier tanks [2021, later 5700/8750] were routinely allocated to the Watlington branch, and were photographed hauling (but never propelling) the branch trailer . There were also examples of auto-fitted tanks sometimes propelling an autotrailer without the auto-gear connected up. The driver would use bell signals to tell the fireman to close the regulator and apply the brake. The inevitable was bound to happen eventually, for example at Clevedon, where the autotrailer collided with the buffer stops, and the crew were hauled up before the Divisional Superintendent in Bristol for what was, on any view, serious misconduct.

The top rail was always a weak point on the Coopercraft kits. I broke several, and eventually resorted to strengthening them with wire at the back. I believe the Dapol RTR model to which I referred may have been the Wrenn model re-issued. My recollection is that Dapol purchased the old Binns Road [Meccano (HD)/Wrenn] tooling. There is a rather prominent protruberance inside each end of the vehicle, so I bought only the totally enclosed Goods Fruit van version (Diagram Y10) that Dapol also produced. As I mentioned, it's slightly over-length, but I don't have any problem with that. Sorry, Kevin; we're hi-jacking your thread, although there is one of these Dapol Y10 Goods Fruit Vans running on Little Muddle, so it's not totally irrelevant.