Castle Aching

[Caley Jim]

 

edit The next boards are piggy backed and only need a single pair of legs

The only problem with piggy-backing boards is that if you want to work on the underside of the first board, you have to dismantle the others first. I learned this lesson with my first layout 'Connerburn'.

 

On Kirkallanmuir I have arranged things so that I can take any one of the three boards out to work on it without having to dismantle the whole layout (and in the process having to remove all the rolling stock).

 

Jim

[Donw]

The only problem with piggy-backing boards is that if you want to work on the underside of the first board, you have to dismantle the others first. I learned this lesson with my first layout 'Connerburn'.

 

On Kirkallanmuir I have arranged things so that I can take any one of the three boards out to work on it without having to dismantle the whole layout (and in the process having to remove all the rolling stock).

 

Jim

 

I take your point Jim but I try to avoid the need to work on the underside of the boards after the initial construction.  There is normally stuff stored underneath so access isn't easy. For a fixed layout I would extend the droppers out to the front and make the connections there. I would cover them with the fascia creating access hatches. That way you can have cupboards underneath or just store things. For a portable layout it would not be an issue. I have on other layouts used Tortoise motors mounted above the baseboard for access making removeable scenery covers. 

However it is simple to make the piggyback base separate from the baseboards proper. The main board with 4 legs uses a piece of deep ply to hold the legs apart, By using a similar piece of ply to hold the piggy back legs apart the whole base could be set up before the boards were dropped on top. If fact I think I will do that myself. I am taking the layout to SWAG 2018 so I can do that by then. I made the whole base separate of my Sparrows Wharf layout it made the baseboards sections light enough to carry one handed and facilitated set up at shows.

Incidentally Railway Modeller did publish an article on my baseboards earlier this year.

 

Don

[PeterR]

how about an Essex tin Tabernacle. This one is on the way to the fantastically named Chignal just outside Chelmsford. There are two Chignals, St James and Smealy. The Chignals are surprisingly remote considering their position. I have an Aunt and Uncle who still live there, when it snows it can be very difficult to get out.

 

Wasn't there a programme called Chignal, oh no that was Chigley!

There is a 20 page PDF re corrugated iron buildings in Scotland, though they could be, and were anywhere really at the following link -

 

https://www.arct.cam.ac.uk/Downloads/ichs/vol-3-3097-3116-thompson.pdf

 

Wales also had some: put 'Tintown at Bronaber' into a search engine and the 'images' - that was built when the Army had a Artillery Range in the hills at the left of the (southbound) road. There is not much left now a couple of buidings I think.

 

Bronaber is on the A470, south of Trawsfynydd.

 

Peter

Edited September 18, 2017 by PeterR

[Fenman]

James,

 

Your assumption about the prevalence of, usually Primitive, Methodist chapels in north Norfolk is correct. There were also a number of Quaker meeting houses, mostly in the towns: Wells still has an active Quaker house though most of the chapels have been sold off and converted into holiday homes or youth hostels. Catholics seem to be rather thinner on the ground and more recent arrivals – Walsingham apart. Blakeney has a newish Catholic church which looks rather like a generous double garage, as well as a still just about functioning Methodist chapel.

 

There is an excellent book on religious dissent in East Anglia edited by Tom Williamson and Norma Virgoe should you feel Castle Aching to be in dire need of a whiff of religious non-conformity...

 

I had forgotten about the Suffolk Tithe War. For once the BUF were on the right side. There are other connections with fascism in East Anglia in that one of the main financiers of Mosley was Henri Deterding of Kelling Hall. He was the man who engineered the merger between Royal Dutch and Shell oil companies. But I fear this is a digression too far!

 

Quite right: I was also going to mention the Quakers, who were strong in Norfolk (Thomas Paine is perhaps the most famous of them).

 

But from the sublime to the ridiculous...

 

Unfortunately, fascists also seem to have been strong here; or, at least, strong among the upper classes: to go with those mentioned so far, the inhabitants of nearby Narford Hall (the Fountaine family, who came to prominence in the 17th century) spawned at least one particularly unpleasant member, who was one of the very high-ups in the British National Front. I understand the grounds of Narford were used for summer camps when the NF came out in force to play. That Fountaine died in 1997.

 

Paul

[Edwardian]

The assemblage of components is slow.  Today, however, a little box arrived from Shapeways.

 

Not only did it contain a further 5 of Mr Guy Rixon's excellent GER 6-Wheel coach components, so I now have sufficient for an initial rake of GE coaches, but I mastered my techno-phobia for long enough to upload a file  to, and order a print of something from, my own account.  This is the work of ATT (Antti) of this parish, who has an excellent and atmospheric Finnish layout on the go (http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/116561-finnish-countryside-in-1930s/. 

 

Antti very kindly designed a dome for WNR No.1.  This, you may recall, is the GE Class T7/Colne Valley No.1 0-4-2 passenger tank that I am endeavouring to hack out of an old Hornby 14XX (I know there's a T7 in there somewhere, just longing to be released!!).

 

Nothing was suitable for the dome.  It is rather more squat that the Midland Railway Johnson dome produced by Allan Gibson, though of that ilk.  Mr Gibson now supplies the Salter valves separately, so that is the next order I'm saving for.

 

The dome was based upon a drawing of a T7 from The Locomotive magazine, as reproduced in 7mm scale for Mike Sharman's Oakwood Press Portfolio series volume. 

 

I think Antti has captured the look of the prototype superbly well.  I am suitably in awe and I think he should have a round of applause from the WN Directors.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Edwardian

[Donw]

That sets it off nicely.

Don

[Tom Burnham]

I think Antti has captured the look of the prototype superbly well.  I am suitably in awe and I think he should have a round of applause from the WN Directors.

 

Or even an illuminated address!

[Edwardian]

Or even an illuminated address!

 

The Directors agree!

[Nearholmer]

Good job, really; I'd hate to think how stern and grumpy they'd look if they disagreed!

[Edwardian]

Ask a North Eastern man about Alexander McDonnell, and I doubt a very positive account will be forthcoming. 

 

McDonnell, apparently, had Views, views about modernisation and standardisation.  However, sound and Forward Thinking such views might have been, when he produced a 4-4-0 no more effective than the 2-4-0s his predecessor, Fletcher, and an 0-6-0 that, again, failed to offer any improvement upon Mr Fletcher's, his fate was sealed. He served for just under 2 years, 1882-1884, and the North Eastern was content for him to leave before a successor was appointed.  The interregnum was managed by a committee, headed by a director named Tennant, which did rather well in producing the Tennant 2-4-0, an ECML 'flyer', one of which happily survives.

 

In terms of English railways, Mr McDonnell is thus written off. 

 

But.

 

For almost 20 years preceding his ill-fated appointment to the NER, McDonnell, an Irishman, had been the locomotive superintendent of the Great Southern & Western (1864-1882).  There his policy of standardisation had born fruit, and he presided over the famous Inchicore works, which was to produce Aspinall, Ivatt and Maunsell in due course.

 

During his tenure, he produced a number of successful designs, not least of which was the numerous Class 101 or J15.  111 of these were built under McDonnell and his successors between 1866 and 1903.

 

According to this month's Model Rail, OO Works is about to produce the class - 2 versions in rather dull modern liveries (grey and black).

 

It seems unlikely that I will have £295 spare, or, put another way, that I will sell the house before OO Works sells out.

 

But, just in case, could this be a RTR release suitable for Castle Aching?

 

McDonnell died in 1904.  What did he do between 1884 and his death? Apparently he was connected with Sir William Armstrong's and the Maxim-Nordenfelt Companies for short periods, and was also engaged in consulting work in connection with which he twice visited Brazil and once Australia (Grace's Guide).  

 

What if McDonnell had consulted for the West Norfolk and provided a a standard gauge version of his most popular design?  Small batches of the Class 101s had been built by Sharp Stewart and Beyer Peacock, and the West Norfolk was a good customer of the former.

 

I think the OO Works model would look very fine indeed in WNR lined green, valances in Lake, and with a polished brass dome.

 

What do you think?   

Edited September 19, 2017 by Edwardian

[£1.38]

Looks a bit Beyer Peacock to me. The loco bit could probably be disguised as one of their products.

[Hroth]

You know those Dean Goods that Oxford make??????

 

[Edwardian]

Looks a bit Beyer Peacock to me. The loco bit could probably be disguised as one of their products.

 

I see what you mean ...

[Compound2632]

The interregnum was managed by a committee, headed by a director named Tennant, which did rather well in producing the Tennant 2-4-0, an ECML 'flyer', one of which happily survives.

 

As an aside, it seems highly likely that Wilson Worsdell had more than a hand in the 'Tennant' 2-4-0s. Henry Tennant was the General Manager. In 1883 McDonnell recruited Wilson to join him at Gateshead as Assistant Mechanical Engineer. He then continued in this post working for his elder brother William (T.W.) - repeating a pattern set when Wilson had tried to escape William's shadow by going to Stratford in a similar position, only to have William appointed his boss. Second time round he stuck it out, no doubt grinding his teeth at the Worsdell-von Borries compounds the while.

[Nearholmer]

This is wandering right down my track!

 

Periodically, I try to ignite enthusiasm for late-Victorian 0-6-0 goods engines among the coarse-0 fraternity, and have been trying to get a spark to take again lately. Talk about damp firewood! Everyone likes big, fast, passenger engines; Gordon and Henry always trump Donald and Douglas.

 

Let's hope that your house does sell soon (I remain staggered that such a house could take so long to sell), because the WNR definitely needs something of this kind. A really useful engine, that could pull goods trains, and the occasional excursion ........ I imagine hundreds of people wanting to escape London for a day at the CA Museum of Military Headgear.

 

Kevin

[Northroader]

I fancy McDonnell must have had some difficulty with the NER folks, quite what the underlying causes were has never been properly explained, maybe his new locos didn't fulfil expectation, maybe the drivers could have been handled better, hard to say now. Quoting from "The GS&WR" Murray & McNeil, I.R.R.S, 1976;

"McDonnell was the son of a Dublin medical doctor and took his M.A. degree at Trinity College, Dublin, in 1847. He went to learn engineering under Charles Liddell in West of England, and after gaining further experience in Great Britain, went East to take charge of the locomotives of the Danube & Black Sea Rly. .. ( The Inchicore works had been run by the chief civil engineer Miller, with Wakefield as his loco assistant, during which time 44 locos had been built there. Miller died in 1864, Wakefield went to the DWWR, and the GSWR directors split responsibility for civil and mechanical engineers, McDonnell getting the latter post).. The GSWR loco dept. presented a challenge to McDonnells sense of order. Most of the original engines wer still officially in service, and those which had been built at Inchicore were of low power and diverse design. A reliable train service could not be operated by such a collection and the new locomotive engineer began a reorganisation. Since his training and experience had been more in civil than mechanical engineering, he sought good outside advice. In Eastern Europe he had been impressed by the workmanship and dependability of locomotives constructed by Beyer Peacock of Manchester, and he now consulted with that firm about an order for some 0-6-0 goods engines for the GSWR. Before the engines were delivered he rebuilt two 0-4-2s as 0-6-0s, giving them a distinctly Beyer Peacock appearance, it would seem safe to assume that some drawings had found their way from Manchester to Imchicore, and that the GSWR draughtsman derived ideas for the rebuilding.The Manchester built goods engines arrived in 1867 and at once proved their worth, the design being adopted as a standard to which locomotives were built for nearly forty years.they were known as the 101 class, majority being numbered 101-200. In all, 119 were built, 12 by Beyer Peacock, 8 by Sharp, Stewart, also at Manchester, and the rest made at Inchicore."

You've done well with the research of all the BP 0-6-0s, lovely collection of pictures.

Edited September 19, 2017 by Northroader

[Nearholmer]

Interesting insight that, because it points up something that enthusiasts tend to overlook: that the role of the CME (and indeed C Whatever E) demands a combination of political nous, to allow good relations with The Board, managerial/organisational competence to get the best from the available resources, human and other, and, finally, technical expertise. It is too easy from an enthusiast standpoint to think that it is all about the last of these.

 

A look at history suggests that it was/is possible to succeed with the first two, and only a good, general engineering knowledge, short of deep expertise in the particular field. And, that being a great expert, but being wanting in one of the other areas is a recipe for trouble (e.g. Bulleid).

 

Maybe the NER actually needed a deep technical expert at this particular point, and got the wrong man for the job, whereas the GSWR had been in desperate need of managerial/organisational ability.

 

I guess the real "greats" had all three. I'm thinking of Stroudley, for instance, who seems to have been a great organiser (of a terrible mess left by his predecessor), seems to have kept 'on side' with the Board (I have a theory about the 'card' he played there), and was undoubtedly a practical expert ...... and all this while becoming a hero with his staff.

 

Kevin

[Edwardian]

Familial likeness well spotted by £1.38, and the reason for it revealed by Northroader. 

 

So, really, it's just a case of painting one up as a WN loco and calling it a Beyer Peacock!

 

Just the question of £295!

 

Interestingly, the two preserved 101s featured in the period romp The First Great Train Robbery.

 

To judge from the number given to the loco used to haul the train, it was pretending to be a standard gauge South Eastern Folkestone Class Crampton!

 

All I will add is that I have my fingers crossed concerning the latest hurricane, and hope news emerges from the BVI during the course of tomorrow.

[runs as required]

I agree about the lovely Beyer Peacock gallery - always high on aesthetics.

What do we think were the preferences about where to locate the dome?

We saw roughly amidships, forward and then right over the crown of the firebox topped by the safety valve (as sometimes the centred version was).

 

Was it perhaps to minimise piercings of the boiler (i.e. weakening it).

Would the forward dome be closer to the steam chests, or more prone to priming or the firebox location notorious for running out of steam?

And were there preferences about hillier roads as opposed to fenland lines, in terms of steam collection?

dh

[Northroader]

"The Great Train Robbery" about the SER bullion robbery was filmed in Ireland, with a J15 pretending to be a single driver, and the London Terminus of Charing Cross being Kingsbridge, as it was then. First thing you did in Ireland was fall over a J15, in around 1952 it was one on cattle empties heading west from New Ross, 1957 there was a spirited run through the Dublin suburbs on a boat train from Dun Loaghaire. Never mind the age, feel the quantity, in 1949 there were still 96 around in a fleet total for the C.I.E. of 491 locos, the youngest one would then be 46 years old.

[Edwardian]

"The Great Train Robbery" about the SER bullion robbery was filmed in Ireland, with a J15 pretending to be a single driver, and the London Terminus of Charing Cross being Kingsbridge, as it was then. First thing you did in Ireland was fall over a J15, in around 1952 it was one on cattle empties heading west from New Ross, 1957 there was a spirited run through the Dublin suburbs on a boat train from Dun Loaghaire. Never mind the age, feel the quantity, in 1949 there were still 96 around in a fleet total for the C.I.E. of 491 locos, the youngest one would then be 46 years old.

 

Great fun as a film, but a really terrible representation of the SER in the 1850s!

 

I understand that communications with the BVI have been turned off.  I think they will have been hit yesterday.  we shall have to see.  

[Edwardian]

Looks a bit Beyer Peacock to me. The loco bit could probably be disguised as one of their products.

 

... McDonnell  ...  his training and experience had been more in civil than mechanical engineering, he sought good outside advice. In Eastern Europe he had been impressed by the workmanship and dependability of locomotives constructed by Beyer Peacock of Manchester, and he now consulted with that firm about an order for some 0-6-0 goods engines for the GSWR. Before the engines were delivered he rebuilt two 0-4-2s as 0-6-0s, giving them a distinctly Beyer Peacock appearance, it would seem safe to assume that some drawings had found their way from Manchester to Imchicore, and that the GSWR draughtsman derived ideas for the rebuilding.The Manchester built goods engines arrived in 1867 ... In all, 119 were built, 12 by Beyer Peacock, 8 by Sharp, Stewart, also at Manchester, and the rest made at Inchicore."

 

 

So, in substance, this is a model of a Beyer Peacock.  While I would hesitate to attempt to match the OO Works Class 101/J15 with any other specific example, it is probably fair to say that if you were the Locomotive Superintendent of a small independent railway company, the OO Works model represents the sort of 0-6-0 machine that you might have received if you'd ordered one from Beyer Peacock in the period c.1880-1900.

 

Clearly it's a model better suited to represent a standard gauge locomotive, albeit to the compromise OO Gauge, rather than 5'3" (21mm) gauge. It seems to me that the model's natural home is on the West Norfolk and any other English, Scottish or Welsh freelance company we care to dream up.

 

I note the following from the OO Works' website, further confirming that this is, essentially, a Beyer Peacock design:

 

Originally designed at Beyer Peacock, the first started work in 1867, although the GSWR’s Engineer, Alexander McDonnell had rebuilt an earlier 0-4-2 to an 0-6-0 (doubtless having the use of BP’s drawings for the planned engines) and in time this locomotive became a standard member of the class. Although ten were produced by Beyer Peacock and eight by Sharp Stewart, the vast majority were built by the GS&W in their Inchicore works ...

 

Now, I had noticed that older pictures of 101s often featured a sloping firebox front (as also found on LNWR 0-6-0s) and double doors.  I had wondered whether the OO Works' model could be back-dated.  This is probably not essential, as the later smoke-box arrangement might well have obtained due to rebuilds on the WN by 1905,  but it's a fun option.

 

Anyway, in that regard, I also note from the OO Works website:

 

The original locomotives had typical BP features including a sloping front to the smokebox, fitted with double smoke box doors, these being replaced with a single vertical door in the course of rebuilding.

 

Of course, if I win the lottery, I'll buy 2 and have one of each!

 

Another option would be to replace the dome with a Midland Johnson type with Salter valves.  Alan Gibson do these in lost wax cast brass, an they would buff up nicely!

[Echo]

Studio Scale Models do a kit, but that is 150 Euros and you still have to buy wheels, motor, gearbox and assemble it and paint it.

 

http://www.studio-scale-models.com/j15.shtml

 

For such a specialised model, the OO Works model is reasonable value for money really.

[Edwardian]

Studio Scale Models do a kit, but that is 150 Euros and you still have to buy wheels, motor, gearbox and assemble it and paint it.

 

http://www.studio-scale-models.com/j15.shtml

 

For such a specialised model, the OO Works model is reasonable value for money really.

 

Echo, thank you, I had not come across that supplier.

 

Despite being an humble OO-Gauger, I think, that if I were to tackle Irish railways, I'd probably want to do so at 21mm, not 16.5mm, gauge; 2.3mm or so of disparity is probably the limit of what I could cope with!  In such a case, brass kits would be the way to go. 

 

Given post-Article 50 exchange rates, the kit, wheels, motor etc come to £216.  Then I need the skill and time to build it.  Currently, I lack both.  This is a big reason why I have no plans to tackle Irish railways, despite the inspiration offered by Castle Rackrent and The Irish RM!

 

So, yes, I agree, certainly for my English standard gauge subject, £290 for the RTR model supplied to OO Gauge is a better bet and reasonable value for money, as you say.

[wagonman]

Echo, thank you, I had not come across that supplier.

 

Despite being an humble OO-Gauger, I think, that if I were to tackle Irish railways, I'd probably want to do so at 21mm, not 16.5mm, gauge; 2.3mm or so of disparity is probably the limit of what I could cope with!  In such a case, brass kits would be the way to go. 

 

Given post-Article 50 exchange rates, the kit, wheels, motor etc come to £216.  Then I need the skill and time to build it.  Currently, I lack both.  This is a big reason why I have no plans to tackle Irish railways, despite the inspiration offered by Castle Rackrent and The Irish RM!

 

So, yes, I agree, certainly for my English standard gauge subject, £290 for the RTR model supplied to OO Gauge is a better bet and reasonable value for money, as you say.

 

 

 

Few things look more ridiculous than a 4mm scale model of an Irish loco on 00 track! Mast, colours, nailed. That said, the model of the 101/J15 looks to have been tweaked to suit the narrower gauge and is thus a model of a Beyer Peacock loco wearing a GS&WR-style cab, rather than the actual Irish loco. 

Edited September 20, 2017 by wagonman