Jump to content

Nick Holliday

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

959 Good


Profile Information

  • Location
    - Sutton, Surrey
  • Interests
    LBSCR P4 (Fittleworth)

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I agree with Martin that the masonry work would most likely be in brickwork, rather than stone. What we really need is a brief history of your scenario, as this would impact on the solution adopted. Introducing a substantial brick or stone skew arch crossing an existing line would close the line for quite a period of time, and if the bridge is a foreign interloper this would be totally unacceptable. Similarly, the extent of foundations permitted within the ownership of the lower line would also be severely restricted, if not totally disallowed, and construction would require access to the lower line's property. I would also suggest that, given the rather restricted height that seems to be available there is insufficient room to accommodate the depth required for the arch itself, together with the depth of construction required for the rail bed above, and the length of the middle arch and the extreme skew of it would make the stability of the whole thing rather suspect. I would therefor suggest that probable solution would involve, at least for the middle arch, the provision of a steel structure, probably a fairly simple girder type, although the extreme skew might require a grid-iron solution, as per the Metropilitan Widened Lines. This would maximise the depth of road bed above, and also reduce the track occupation period to a minimum. There is a similar situation near Stewart's Lane depot, and a photo of a similar bridge on the M&GN being erected shows how this could be done by lifting from the high level tracks, without impinging much on the line below.
  2. The quatrefoil was a so-called illiterate symbol, and the inverted crescent gives the painting date. See https://www.nbrstudygroup.co.uk/nbr/wagons.php for application.
  3. There have been a couple of threads on modelling NER coal drops which might be worth reading.
  4. There are quite a few suppliers of wheels out there. It would greatly help if you indicated the scale you're working in, the sort of vehicle the wheels are for, and the size and type of wheel you want to represent.
  5. I don't know if it makes any difference to the discussion, but I am pretty sure the photo of the B4 is post-grouping, since the cab-side number plate is of SR origin. This would make a possible re-routing of the Midland service, for whatever reason, more easily organised to run, at least in part, on ex-Brighton tracks.
  6. According to discussions re the composition of the Lancing Belle that occurred here a couple of years ago, from around 1934 the elderly Stroudley four and six wheelers were replaced by short bogie LSWR stock, and I think that is what you are seeing. If you count the ventilators on one of them, I made it eight compartments, rather long for a six-wheeler.
  7. There's a nicely detailed drawing of a 40' turntable in Alan Prior's 19th Century Railway Drawings. It is dated as c1850 and built by Lloyds, Foster & Co. I think it is probably better to take one of the older designs, and if necessary, lengthen it, rather than to shorten and back-date a later and bigger one.
  8. There are lots of detailed works drawings in the third volume of LBSCR carriages, by Ian White. If you need a quick fix then you can see some of the vital bits by viewing the thumbnails that the HRMS provide in their drawing catalogue, such as Drg 2238, First Class, 6 compartments, 48ft o/b
  9. I have an old Wills E2 body which doesn't seem much of an improvement on the Hornby model, as both were compromised by fitting them on the Jinty chassis. I don't know whether the newer kits have been updated, apart from th etched chassis. It might be worth investigating Sparkshot Custom Services' 3D printed bodies and other bits, as there is the extended tank version, and the body seems to be much closer to scale. It has been featured heavily on RMweb.
  10. The idea that it would be a simple procedure to produce different roof profiles overlooks the fact that each would require a completely different end moulding as well, and, depending on how Hattons propose to configure the body moulding, this could mean doubling the costs. it is interesting that Terry considers the roof profile is more important than the panelling style. I suspect everyone really needs to see the models in the flesh and use their own judgement, based on their understanding of the prototype and personal preferences, to decide whether or not there are compromises, and, if the latter, whether they are acceptable or not. I have been surprised by the enthusiasm for the LNWR and SECR liveries, as I consider the Wolverton style of panelling is so different from this generic design as to being completely awry, but that is obviously my perception, and not shared with those who have eagerly pledged their backing. One aspect that doesn't seem to have been discussed is the door grab handles, as many lines adopted very distinctive styles, which are instantly identifiable. Hattons have shrewdly shown a small rectangular design, which is very discreet. In reality, although the current six wheeled proposal would be a very close fit to those on a number of lines, GWR, MR, NER, LBSCR. Cambrian, and GSWR, CR, GER and possibly others, many of these had very distinctive handles, luscious curves for the GWR, tall and thin on the LBSC, down to floor level on the GER etc. It always puzzles me that many excellent modellers, having spent hours cutting and shaping Hornby and Ratio GWR coaches to create different companies' stock, leave the handles untouched, generally spoiling, for me, all their hard work. It would be interesting to know whether Hattons are going to stick with the current scheme, or have simple ways to change the handles for each livery.
  11. A little bit unfair on Roxey Mouldings and Branchlines, who between them have produced brass kits for LBSCR, LSWR and SECR stock for at least twenty years, if not longer. There is some further support for the LBSC from EBM, but it is a pity that Branchlines has, currently, no on-line presence to make the range more widely known. 5&9 also have a range of mainly LBSC four wheeled carriages in their range, but I am not sure of their availability.
  12. I was merely quoting the author, Bob Miller's idea. Regarding length, the first batch of composities, 276-279 were probably 54' 6" long. (Many of the CLC records have been lost), the second batch, 280-291, were recorded by the LMS as being 56' 0" long. The brake thirds of 1881 were probably 50' 0" long, as were some full thirds for the Southport service in 1884. Unfortunately the article doesn't give any lengths for the later twelve wheeled stock.
  13. Another early and rather surprising entrant in the six wheeled bogies stakes was the Cheshire Lines Committee. According to a splendid article in the much missed Modellers' BackTrack, they had probably the first trains completely made up of twelve wheeled stock. They ultimately had built for them four sets of massively built coaches, six in each set, the first vehicles being delivered in 1879 from the Ashbury Raileay Carriage and Iron Company, with more arriving until by 1881 they could form complete trains using them. CLC coaching stock was designed by one of the joint owners, the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway, later the Great Central, but the author suggests that another partner, the Midland, may well have provided input into the design, having produced their first twelve wheelers in1876, and had demonstrated their superior riding qualities, although visually they are different, and the massive underframe design might have come from the builders. They had a long life, all surviving to grouping, and some lasting just into the thirties.
  14. As an alternative scenario, and keeping the ex-LBSCR theme from the OP, what if Bricklayers Arms had prospered as a passenger terminal, rather than closing in 1852? If it had caught on, it's possible to imagine that the London business district, and suitable infrastructure, could have extended towards the station, and, perhaps, if some political grandee wanted to reduce or remove steam from the centre of London, and in particular London Bridge Station, the remaining outer suburban steam services, after the general electrification, would have been concentrated at Bricklayers Arms, with perhaps some electric services included. This would be handy as the main steam depot was next door. It also ups the potential for goods traffic. So you could have trains serving the Oxted line, East Grinstead, Tunbridge Wells with Central Section flavour, and Reigate and Reading services, and probably others I can't think of, for a touch of Eastern magic. Although the peak services might be eight coaches, off-peak I'm sure three or four coaches would have sufficed. It might be possible to contrive a two coach pull-push train service, superimposed on a more regular electrical timetable to meet certain, unspecified, local needs.
  15. What about using a clear varnish like Klear? It might leave a bit of sheen, but that might capture the slightly wet look of the original photo.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.