Jump to content

Nick Holliday

Members
  • Content Count

    2,060
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Nick Holliday

  1. I think you might need to be a bit more specific about what you want - company, geographic location, period - as there are plenty of plans out there. Have you tried looking on Google? Loads there for the taking.
  2. Very common, I would say, e.g. M7, O2. (Unless I have misunderstood your question.) I would think that almost every 0-4-4 and most 0-4-2 designs were similar in this regard. The Caledonian Railway had four locos that show this clearly, and they may have been influenced by the Forney tank design that was developed in the USA for intensive suburban working. Photo from the wonderful ETH Zurich collection
  3. I read somewhere that on the LMS, which used a vacuum system of control, the gear was so unreliable and ineffective that the pipework was hardly ever connected, usually when an inspector was due to visit, and even then the fireman still did what was necessary, on his own behest.
  4. The LBSCR was a great user of slip coaches, largely due to the need to service two London termini, and with several seaside resort to deal with, apart from Brighton. (All this talk of vacuum brakes - however pronounced - the LBSC used the superior Westinghouse air brakes!) So a north bound train would slip the Victoria portion off at East Croydon, often including Pullman cars, from where it would be taken, non-stop, to Victoria, allegedly, on occasions, hauled by a Terrier. In the reverse direction, an Eastbourne portion might be slipped at Haywards Heath, and continue its journey from there.
  5. The LBSCR Appendix to the WTT for 1891 lists three modes of shunting - Single Shunt - propelling one lot of wagons coupled together - but uncoupled from the engines propelling them - from one line of rails to another line of rails Double Shunt - propelling two lots of wagons - uncoupled from each other and the engine - from one line of rails on to two other different lines of rails Fly Shunt - While an engine is drawing wagons attached to it towards a set if facing points, the wagons are uncoupled from the engine and the engine is run on to one line of rails and the wagons
  6. The LBSCR used rectangular timbers, 1¼" high x 1" wide.
  7. This sounds like a good suggestion, if it's feasible, but we have no idea where the OP lives, or if the idea is acceptable. Whether such a large layout can be maintained easily will depend on how complex the layout is - fairly simple circuits with one or two major stations would seem doable, but with so much space, there is the temptation to incorporate lots of track - multiple stations, goods yards, loco sheds etc., which will increase the maintenance required, and add to the potential for faults developing. Given the number of locos, and the likelihood that conversion of all to DCC is
  8. Where do the 2-4-0 Metro tanks fit in to this equation? Both types were in production at the same sort of time.
  9. Back in 1998 Smokey Models produced an etched brass kit for all five coaches of the LBSCR Royal Train. Mine is still in flat-pack form, but I think there are some running, somewhere!
  10. Could those cap stones be re-cycled stone sleepers, the holes being for the spikes holding the rails?
  11. I'm not sure if I have read it correctly, but Mike King's book on Southern Pull-Push Stock notes that the gate-stock converted from the steam railmotors were not used in P-P from 1931, although these are not the ones the EFE models are based on. However, it seems that the stock assigned to the Portland Branch was also taken out of P-P operation in 1931, so it would not be unreasonable to run some with non-pull-push fitted locos, although the comment reegarding the Radials still holds.
  12. To get back to the original question, in a simplistic answer, GNR coaches were in teak until grouping. Whether the teak finish is "correct" is very subjective, and will always be debatable, but if they look right to the buyer, that's all that really matters. The lettering used on both the Hattons and Hornby versions looks pretty accurate for a period from 1870 to at least 1905, with written class designation and the GNR monogram on each door. In 1905 Gresley became responsible for coaches and introduced much larger lettering, with, in certain cases, Great Northern in full, and numerals on th
  13. Set 31 is another possibility, formed originally with two ex-LSWR non-corridor P-P conversions, Diagrams 235 and 286, but in 1951 the Dia 235 vehicle was replaced by an ex-SECR driving trailer. The ex-LSWR coaches are available from the @rue_d_etropal Recreation21 website, as well as the Maunsell pair used in the 600-612 sets. For the latter, I might suggest using the chassis from (damaged?) Farish Maunsells, but I don't know what could go under the Set 31 coaches. It might be worth exploring the Worsley Works etching range. They don't actually show much for N scale (1:148) but have a l
  14. Having realised that I have a copy of the L&YR Society's Branchlines book on the branch (No. 5) and, even more surprisingly, been able to find it on my shelves, I can provide a bit more detail. At Netherton, an early signal cabin, not a block post, was replaced in 1896 by three ground frames, at each end of the goods loop and at the end of the platform at the entrance to Netherton Tunnel. Healey House, similarly, had a cabin replaced by a pair of ground frames, one at each end of the goods loop. Until 1896 the line had been worked by staff only, but a new signal box was ten built a
  15. Looking at the OS maps, it would seem that there were loops at both of the intermediate stations, associated with the goods yards which, like the terminus, were not immediately adjacent to the single line passenger platforms. These could allow passenger trains to pass whilst the goods train is shunting the yard, is suitably signalled as @The Johnster notes. The earlier maps do show a number of signals, including a pair on a remote stretch of line, and there are small buildings shown which could potentially be small ground frames, but none are labelled SB, as customary. However, a later one, ci
  16. Having wasted a few hours looking through these volumes, I think there is a lot in them, but tricky to find. Apart from the statistics there are analyses of various accidents, brief reports of significant incidents, and I have found full BoT accident reports tucked away in the text. A search for "accident" can be very interesting and time consuming. I was taken by this analysis of staff death rates in 1884. Life as a goods guard looked dangerous then!
  17. There's a film of a 1921 otter hunt on YouTube - the idea is rather gristly by today's standards, but obviously popular at the time. Look like foxhounds to me.
  18. Sorry, BrickArch is the title of the exe file, but the download is here: http://www.bwwmrc.co.uk/bricks/index.shtml courtesy of the Beckenham & West Wickham Model Railway Club.
  19. Veering slightly off-topic, the dogs aren't Otterhounds, although they may be Fox Hounds going to hunt otters. The true Otterhound is a lovely hairy beast, and has a different livery.
  20. The reason the arch looks so flat is that the bridge is very skewed, so at the end we are looking at a slice through the arch at about 45° to the actual line of the arch. Stretching the Scalescenes arch will distort the brickwork, especially the spandrel panel above the arch. I would suggest trying a free programme called BrickArch which allows you to prepare bespoke brickwork designs, within certain limits. The result can look like this: The plain brickwork above the arch has to be cut to fit, but that will retain the brick sizes and coursing you want.
  21. A number of companies built raised end wagons with a tarpaulin bar for carrying "floor cloth" a.k.a. linoleum. The GWR had a few, and, if I have interpreted Atkins correctly, they survived with round ends beyond grouping, and the NBR had 6 wheeled wagons, with triangular ends. Although most PO wagons with raised ends had only an extra plank or two at the ends, many of the lime and salt companies went for higher profiles. Some were clones of the LBSCR style, whilst others had triangular ends, with bars. These were in addition to the cottage roof wagons, that were used more like vans - the
  22. Who could forget the GWR stealth locomotive And the Rhymney Railway had 0-4-2 loco units as well.
  23. Not sure if this is the right thread to answer, and I have no idea about the validity of the following comments, but in a fascinating slim volume called "Our Railway History" written by Rixon Bucknall, published in 1944, there is a listing of liveries for most of the main pre-grouping railway companies and some smaller ones. It doesn't claim to be comprehensive, but it does note most of the major changes to loco and coach liveries, even covering steamer funnels, when appropriate. For the Great Western it says; Coaches - Brown, with cream upper panels. In 1909, brown all over: in 1912, Cr
  24. The array of points in the entrance is more complex than the original and doesn't seem to add anything to the operation of shed, and I think could be simplified and result in a more spacious look. I also wonder about modelling the shed building in its entirety. It will be around 4 feet long, and whilst you will be able to have some 30 odd locos in it under cover, you won't be able to see them, which I thought was the main point of the layout. If space had been your problem, in the beginning I would have suggested modelling only the front of the shed, perhaps reduced to only 6 tra
×
×
  • 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.