Jump to content

Nick Holliday

Members
  • Content Count

    1,794
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,249 Excellent

3 Followers

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'm sure Chris or Burgundy (Woodham Wagon Works) will soon be on to put the record straight, but as I understand it the Roxey kits for dumb-buffered wagons came from WWW, whilst the rest of the Chatham range came from an entirely different source. I believe Chris Cox has produced an entirely new Stephenson Clarke wagon kit, to a different design from both the WWW and Brassmasters types, so even more variety!
  2. I don't know if this will help, These LNWR drawings are to be found in Edward Talbot's masterwork - An Illustrated History of LNWR Engines. Not SECR, but I would think they may be close enough,
  3. The Ironstone railways in Northamptonshire were mainly narrow-gauge, metre I believe in several cases, and they loaded into standard gauge wagons after long haulage distances. On a smaller scale, what about the Buckland Sand and Tile Works in Surrey. An extensive narrow gauge network feeding the tile works and standard gauge sidings? The run northwards from the train set reversing loop was in an avenue of trees. Map courtesy of old-maps
  4. I suspect you need to consult the HMRS Midland Style, if you can find a copy. The whole carriage livery subject is littered with "most" and "some", with nothing absolutely definite. If you have a six-wheel clerestory roof brake third, then I suspect that the drawing and photo in Vol 1 of Lacy and Dow will give you a pretty accurate picture of how your vehicle would have been painted, but without any crest, reserved for first class and composite carriages. Although the similar brake vans only sported M. R. as did many earlier arc-roofed six-wheelers, most clerestory roofed ones carried MIDLAND. From August 1906 the class lettering was replaced by the "3" on the lower door panel.
  5. I don't know how you missed this, but a simple Google search on Reading to Redhill locos came up with several potential sources, including this http://alburyhistory.org.uk/attachments/File/North_Downs_railway_by_Alan_Edwards.html The line probably had the most varied locos running on it, with examples from SER, SECR, LBSCR, LSWR, SR, GWR and BR running between Guildford and Redhill. I remember watching SR Moguls and LSWR/SR 4-6-0's from the viewpoint on Boxhill, but missed the BR stuff.
  6. I've suggested to the mods that this be moved to a more appropriate section of the forum, such as UK Prototype Questions.
  7. Back in 1891, the LBSCR had a few things to say about Horse Boxes and Carriage Trucks: HORSE BOXES AND CARRIAGE TRUCKS IN PASSENGER TRAINS In attaching these to Trains which are formed of two portions, Station Masters must see that the Boxes and Trucks are put in the proper portion of each Train to save shunting at any Station further on the road. HORSE BOXES, CARRIAGE TRUCKS, &c., TO BE TRANSFERRED AT JUNCTION STATIONS Stations sending Horse Boxes, Carriage Trucks and other Vehicles by Passenger Trains must advise, by letter, if time permits, or by telegraph if necessary, the Stations where a transfer has to be made, also to state in what part of the Train the Vehicles are placed, and their destination, so that the detaching and attaching at Junctions, &c., may be done with the least possible delay to Trains. PASSENGER TRAINS BACKED INTO SIDINGS OR ACROSS ROADS TO TAKE ON OR SHUNT OFF VEHICLES Vehicles on Passenger Trains have been thrown off the road through the Trains being backed into Sidings or across one line to another to take on or Shunt off Vehicles. This practice of Shunting Passenger Trains should be avoided as much as possible. In many cases it is done unnecessarily, and when the Vehicles could easily be put on the Train or pushed into the Siding, as the case may be, by hand, if a little more exertion was used by the Station Master and his Staff. Station-masters must please see to this, and prevent as much as possible the backing of Passenger Trains into sidings to attach or detach Vehicles. Travelling Inspectors must also give this matter their particular attention, and report every case of unnecessary Shunting of Passenger Trains. As The Station Master has concluded, the final placement of horse boxes in passenger trains would depend largely on how it was going to be dealt with at their destination. Bob Essery, in one of his many books on Railway Operation for Modellers, did promise to explain it all, but I haven't been able to find exactly where he hid his explanation, so I am none the wiser on this topic, but, as the instructions above suggest, the Station Master was expected to know when assembling the train, and, as modellers, we do tend to forget that man- (and horse-)power was a common shunting solution into BR days. What the instructions also remind us is that many trains had portions attached and detached en-route, and if there was any "tail-traffic" associated with a particular portion, ideally it would be made part of that portion, so that it would be dealt with easily. No doubt there were occasions when time pressure or other considerations made it easier for the attaching station to simply place the vehicles at the front or back, and leave it to the splitting locations to sort things out, but ideally each portion would have its NPCS included, and hence the occasional appearance of horse boxes etc scattered almost randomly within the train. Since most horse boxes had reasonable wheelbases and at least fitted with screw couplings and through brake pipes, they could safely travel anywhere in most passenger trains, but obviously they were a bit of a nuisance if within an otherwise corridor train, although I suspect on trains which split several times, this might be seen as a blessing to the staff who had to deal with the disconnections/connections at the junctions. It's interesting to see that the LBSC had the same problems as modellers regarding propelling stock across pointwork!
  8. Just a note that the apparatus under the off-side tank is not a Westinghouse pump, but a steam reverser. The SECR was a vacuum brake line, but adopted the steam reverser from quite an early date.
  9. If the previous suggestions are a bit too grandiose, what about the HQ of the Wantage Tramway? https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3841689
  10. Could it have been a bit of confusion with the instruction that loaded cattle wagons had to be immediately behind the loco? Presumably this would also apply if a laden horsebox were to be included in a loose coupled goods train, which I assume could happen, and being probably power braked it would be attached directly to the loco to increase the fitted head.
  11. What about Oswestry, the headquarters of the Cambrian Railways. Plenty of photos available and quite a splendid building? Or perhaps Maryport on the Maryport and Carlisle?
  12. In the 70's luffing jib cranes were very rare. As you say, Liebherr were the go-to company, with their 50HB being the most common. They were not particularly heavy lifters, less than a full cubic yard skip at full radius, and had a fairly short jib, which restricted their usefulness, although handy in confined spaces. By the eighties they were getting rather long in the tooth, and, being hydraulic, this manifested itself in the jib slowly sagging when out of use, which cold be quite awkward. The current designs of luffing jib cranes are considerably larger and more effective. Their proliferation came about partly because of the rise of the awareness of air-space trespassing, which many neighbouring land owners see as a blank cheque. When I started in the industry in 1980 it was the norm to oversail adjacent properties with your tower crane; you would just send each neighbour a nice letter, informing them of what you proposed to do, and assuring them that you were fully insured for any eventuality. If anyone objected, you would promise not to carry any loads over their property, but that was all. Once lawyers got involved, things got out of hand, and it became cheaper to pay £1,000 per week extra to hire a luffing jib crane which could be configured not to go beyond your site boundaries, than to pay the King's Ransom some people were led to expect. My first tangle with this came on a constricted London site next door to a church, when the rector cheekily asked for a £1,000 donation in compensation for our jib interfering with his direct line to head-office! My company were happy to do so, but perhaps this was the opening of this particular Pandora's box! There are/were a number of different tower crane suppliers, and each might have its own style of cab. Up until the eighties most major construction companies had their own plant divisions, and would tend to focus on one particular brand, for financial or maintenance reasons. So Taylor Woodrow site cranes might look very different from a Mowlem or Wates crane, apart from the distinctive liveries they carried. By the end of the eighties specialist crane hire companies had taken over most of the market, as contractors liquidised their assets, turning their plant yards into Tescos or housing estates. Some of the more modern cranes have most unusual cab designs and locations, as this website demonstrates. http://www.cranesetc.co.uk/photoarchive/photoindex.html As a construction planner, it was often my task to determine where the tower crane might be most effectively located. When I first started it was quite common to locate the crane in a lift shaft. It was then accepted that, although awkward, the positioning and removal of the formwork for the walls, and the placing of the concrete, could be carried out in a fairly safe manner, but with a bit of extra manual effort, but modern health and safety, combined with more sophisticated formwork systems, mean that this is now seldom an option. Walls were not generally slip-formed, a very expensive process in those days, but the walls would be cast in-situ on a floor by floor basis. As for leaving holes, on many occasions the location would be dependent on a variety of considerations, and sometimes the optimum positioning required the structural engineers to adjust their design to get things to work.
  13. I wonder if there are clues in the following? Taken from an excellent resource on the Industrial Locomotive Society website, this extract shows the finalconstracts of J T Firbank It seems to show that work was drying up, and after 1902 there were no substantial contracts on their books, apart from the two I have highlighted. The LSWR project seems to have been unduly prolonged - seven years for seven miles seems painfully slow progress. Were there problems with this contract? The other major works were at Fishguard Harbour, which probably absorbed most of the companies resources, and if it, or the LSWR scheme, had been financially disastrous, could this have lead to the company's downfall. Many of their locos seem to have been put on the market circa 1907, such as this snippet from the Industrial Railway Society shows:-pet
  14. i'm afraid I never did get round to finishing it. When I started there were very few affordable etched kits around, and I had even fewer skills, since then I have acquired many more, more-buildable ones, and it has sat on the back burner since!
  15. This etching looks very similar to the Jidenco L&YR fish van, which was my first attempt at an etched kit some 40 years ago. The real conundrum is that the side and end elevations, both inner and overlay, are all etched to the overall length of the drawn elevations, and the floor is also to the same dimensions. I didn't have the benefit of sensible instructions but rapidly concluded that it wouldn't work as a fold-up, and decided to cut the sides away from the floor, but I never really resolved how to cure the corner mismatch. Good luck!
×
×
  • 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.