Jump to content

Nick Holliday

Members
  • Posts

    2,168
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Nick Holliday

  1. Knightwing do a plastic kit for a horizontal tank, and give the dimensions as 39mm diameter and up to 145mm in length. Ignoring the thickness of the plate, that gives a full size of 2.9 metres diameter and 11 metres long. Plugging those figures into the formula gives a capacity of around 76 m³, or 76,000 litres, similar to the figures that @Jeremy C estimated.
  2. I think that should be Volume of tank = π r ² h cm³ or (π d ² h)/4 cm³ where d is diameter. So the capacity in litres is the volume divided by 1,000 to get litres. Looking at The Tank Shop website came up with this specification, actually for a liquid fertiliser storage tank, which might clarify matters: Specifications: Capacity: 10000 Litre (2200 gallons) Height: 2500mm Diameter: 2400mm
  3. The plates probably helped to reduce corrosion of the old rail that seems to have been used to prop across the opening.
  4. As @Nick C said in the Warren Branch thread - "Having a quick look at some prototype photos shows them either way around, about 60/40 in favour of pointing to the toe." Looking through various books, I came to much the same conclusion, so I leave it to the mathematicians to work out what a 50/50 decision on a 60/40 chance is, or means. But it should mean nothing in this context is wrong, not to mention the large proportion of this type of lever that was positioned perpendicular to the track, or the way all the other designs of point lever might be orientated.
  5. This useful webiste https://stationcolours.com/gwr gives details of what was what in GWR days. Whether it changed after Nationalisation I don't know. I noticed that on the Southern Region the instructions were to paint railings in a SR green -"If not already tarred"
  6. The Brighton was fairly parsimonious with regard to roof ventilators. In the main they confined them to smoking compartments on bogie vehicles when first built, but, as always, there were exceptions, such as some full thirds which received vents to all compartments, and it is difficult to tell whether the electrics had any. There were, also, many subsequent changes, as smoking habits fluctuated, mainly perpetrated by the Southern. By the way, the type of ventilator fitted to the smoking compartment doors was know as the Anderson Ventilator (Thanks to Ian White and his quartet)
  7. Britain from Above has some interesting aerial views of Ridham Dock, dating only from 1930 and 1936 and concentrating on the docks themselves, showing the narrow gauge tacks mainly, but on some the standard gauge tracks are visible in the distance, such as here.
  8. Assuming you are modelling in 4mm, then Chris Cox @5&9Models might be able to supply you with his castings for the LBSCR bell communicator, as per this photo and Wizard have an etching for station signs which includes one PRIVATE notice, but I don't know if it is the correct size for your task.
  9. As @Rail-Online stated - It's one from an earlier period. Different van design entirely, but the lettering is similar.
  10. The LT&SR van was actually to carry bullion, hence the windows to provide a bit of light to the safes at each end. A very elusive pair of vehicles.
  11. This is the one you want, according to their station finder function.
  12. The wonderful Britain From Above website contains a number of views of Garleston, in both 1927 and 1948, but sadly they concentrate on the seafront, River Yare and the bread factory. The station only appears in the distant background, but shows a busy yard, but the crucial areas are hidden by the signal box, trees and other buildings. This is one of the better views, from 1948.
  13. The LBSCR was not an all non-smoking railway! It was, back in the mists of time, as, at the time of the start of railways, according to Simon Bradley in 'The Railways' The habit (of smoking) was widely considered eccentric, rather foreign and mildly disgusting ..... regarded as a bachelor habit. No surprise that the Liverpool and Manchester Railway in 1831 used its first by-law to ban smoking in first class carriages 'even with the consent of the passengers present', on the grounds the lingering effects would annoy those using the vehicle afterwards." Most other lines had similar bans, and there was a forty shilling fine, with the additional punishment of ejection from the train without a ticket refund, although some guards were open to persuasion! Even the Prince of Wales was caught, allegedly, for transgressing the ban. In the early days smoking was not only uncommon, but fairly pungent, but gradually more sophisticated smoking experiences were developed, and cigarette smoking began to grow after the Crimean War. Some lines did introduce smoking compartments from around 1854, whilst the Railway Regulations Act of 1868 included a section decreeing that smoking compartments were to be designated on any train consisting of more than one carriage of each class. By 1905, if not much earlier, the railway companies' (including the LBSCR's) by-laws contained details of fines and punishment for smoking in non-designated carriages and station areas. The Brighton Appendix to the WTT for 1922 notes: The proportion of smoking accommodation provided in Main Line Trains should be 50 per cent. and in Suburban Trains 75 per cent. of the total seating for both 1st and 3rd classes. The LBSCR used a number of methods to indicate the smoking/non-smoking status of a compartment, as this photo shows. As can be seen there is a notice (etched?) on the window glass and, above the head of the door, is an enamelled sign. However, both indicators were not always present. In addition, a Brighton smoking aficionado could tell by the ventilator bonnets:- Smoking compartments generally were fitted with a more open ventilator, whereas non-smoking had the less draughty 'louvred' type, so it was possible for the keen-eyed to spot where the smokers were, from a distance, although it was always possible that the designation had been changed without modifying the ventilators. The company also tended to install more robust seat coverings in smoking compartments, more resistant to burns, such as leather in first class. The problem with the South London electric units is that, for some reason, the company, for some reason, failed to place any external notification, and used the same type of ventilator bonnet throughout. Notwithstanding this lack of identification, there were, indeed, smoking and non-smoking areas in both motor brakes and the first class intermediate coaches. The carriages were opens, with low partitions and a gangway on one side, so to separate the two areas there was a full height partition, presumably with a door, between the zones. There were four of both in the driving cars, and four smoking (with leather seats) and five non-smoking in the first class trailers. These figures don't quite match up with the target percentages noted above, but I suspect the average was made up by the vast number of workmen's carriages still extant which probably were considered as mainly smoking.
  14. I won't comment on the shade of pink(!) but I would suggest using capital letters, rather than lower case. Lower case was seldom used for sign-writing until the sixties, and as you as adopting steam traction, I can only assume that your period is around or before that date. The reason is wasn't popular was due to the descenders on letters like the p and y in your title, upsetting the balance of the lettering. You could make the initial letters of each word larger, rather as the LBSCR did to good effect: and possibly centrally on the tank side, both vertically and horizontally.
  15. From the photos on the Penrhos site, and in Russell, I'm afraid that it does look as if it was the default installation, as most show it this way. The ones that are different (i.e. normal!) seem, generally, to be in their dotage, and perhaps replacement with standard steps had been effected, perhaps without the fitter being aware of the difference. I wonder if the high level brackets that appeared later reduced or removed the need for the lower lamp-iron?
  16. Serves me right for working from memory. Russell (Coaches Part 1) suggests this was the reason, but without any evidence.
  17. Not a mistake. See this drawing from the superb Penrhos website I seem to recall someone noting that this was done to avoid the tail-lamp being kicked by the climber.
  18. SR fencing was between 4' 4½" and 5' 0" tall, which matches my image. It is very dangerous to scale horizontal dimensions from vertical ones. See my previous answer regarding the sizes of vertical boards and the door ledges and braces. Why do you think it's a thin batten? It is probably 2 or 3" thick, and if you've ever tried to lift a length of 9" x 3" you would be in for a surprise!
  19. When the hut was built I suspect that the timber was prepared either by the LSWR or the contractor using larger timber sections, and not even necessarily imported, and would be sawn to whatever size suited the project, or the optimum reduction of round timber to planks and beams. Imperial or metric units of measurement don't make any difference. Looking at the photo again the ledges remain at 9", otherwise the door height would be only 5' 4", and the braces are 3".
  20. GIMP only deals with things in the same plane, anything else is prone to distortion. In this case the lamp is a long way from that plane, and, looking at the original photo, I would suggest that the sign is slightly on the skew, although I may have under-estimated the height to eaves as well.
  21. Using GIMP to reduce the impact of the perspective I got this image. The NLS map seemed to suggest that the hut is around 18 feet long, so I have assumed that might be correct, and the height to eaves around 8 feet. This gives the width of the door as around 4' 6", and the vertical planks about 6¾ - 7 inches, in visible width - they might be T&G or similar. I'm not sure about this fixation with 3, 6 or 9 inch planks - they didn't get their timber from B&Q - although the rather massive looking horizontal timbers on the door that is off its hinges does come in at 9".
  22. The Magnem system is sold on this website https://www.glrailways.co.uk/oo-gauge-magnem-standard-width-omni-couplings---these-ignore-magnetic-polarity-821-p.asp and the Hunt Elite here https://www.westhillwagonworks.co.uk/hunt-couplings-c-2/hunt-couplings-elite-oo-gauge-c-21/ Westhill seem to offer alternative NEM pockets to make their coupling fit non-NEM fitted stock, and GLR have some non-NEM couplings - coded MagNoNEM (see what they've done there?)
  23. That looks like Battersea Park - ex-LBSCR - taken post-grouping as the wagon on the right is lettered LMS.
  24. If you are going to alter them, this diagram might be useful, as it shows that the drive rod that actually actuates the point runs to the switch rail itself, where the manufacturer has his stretcher bar. The fancy rodding shown on the drawing beyond the toe only applies to points with facing point locks, and there are extension pieces on the end of the switch rails to suit. FPLs are unlikely on what look like siding points operated by a ground frame.
  25. My Brighton Railway search seemed to indicate that well over half the gas works located at or near stations didn't have a siding immediately serving the works. Presumably the coal was unloaded into carts etc and moved across the yard to the retorts. As for the amount of coal delivered, a Goods Working Book from the LBSC from 1918 has a list of expected wagon loads serving various sidings, including a number of gas and electricity works, which may be enlightening. An alternative source suggests that the Mitcham gasworks, over a mile from the yard that served it, received around 200 tons a day in the 1930's, which tallies, roughly, with the 20 wagons a day from 1918.
×
×
  • Create New...