Castle Aching

[St Enodoc]

30 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

This was at about the same time that a BR CM&EE was dismissed, stripped of his pension, and spent a period detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure because he had failed to spot and deal with a huge outbreak of corruption in the rolling stock department which, among other things, involved the systematic misappropriation of paint from the stores system. Strange things happened in the 1970s!

If that's who I think it is, I heard that it also involved having work done at his home at BR's expense too.

[Martin S-C]

Thanks for the replies. The link to the blog about red/grey paint is just what I was looking for - thanks Stephen.

Regarding the general situation in the 1640s and the sudden need to acquire artillery I'm aware this was a very haphazard procedure and despite Parliament handing out contracts to supply guns was essentially an amateur process. Interestingly there are apparently extant contracts that specify "lead colour" for the woodwork and its this that generated my curiosity.

Parliament had access to England's principal arsenals in London and Hull and so could turn out artillery in a more homogenous manner than the Kings forces, if they had such a need. However there were a multitude of reasons why artillery of medium and heavy calibre was so little used in the ECW and I won't go into that. But one tends to find that cannon barrels were often cast and then kept in store at the principal arsenals and even in private homes (manors, castles, etc) and when they were needed a wooden carriage was sourced locally either by a village carpenter or the troops themselves, with the necessary ironwork also being forged locally on an as-needed basis at the same time. Pre-production of standard parts kept in store was unknown. I therefore suspect that most timber used would not have been seasoned and since no artillery piece would have been protected from the weather at all other than maybe a tarpaulin thrown over it at night or on a long march now and then, unseasoned wood would quickly have begun to distort. Not a huge deal except for issues like the trueness of the cradle supporting the trunnions and so on that would make aiming as well as overall strength/integrity of the artillery piece doubtful!

There is also something of a tradition that the troops would tend to lavish some affection on their artillery pieces, naming them and so on, a tradition carried on all through the centuries with soldiers and their weapons. Naming of guns, planes and tanks was common in the 20th century by all armies.

These issues make me think that the soldiers would take some care of the cannons and probably cover the bare wood with at least something, even if it was only grease or fat from an animal, or some form of vegetable oil obtained on the march by pounding some locally gathered materials. Re-enactors of course have invested a personal amount of cash in replica cannon and so tend to take greater care of them and therefore painted replica artillery is the norm and a dull red oxide colour is the most commonly seen on re-enactment battlefields.

I would think some protection of the wood was desirable but that needs to be balanced against the fact that there may not have been much time, money or technical knowledge to apply any sophisticated covering. The artillery crews tended to be non-specialists and even infantrymen seconded for the job but the gun captains and one or two other specialists who were skilled technicians and highly sought after would certainly have been aware of the need to protect the wooden frames from the weather. One issue in the 1640s in England was a dearth of skilled artillerists. Artillery was a branch of engineering at this time and skilled gunners were rare so it may have been an embarrassment to lose one's artillery in a battle but the guns themselves could be replaced more easily and quickly than these vital specialists, most of whom were effectively mercenaries and would fight for whoever paid them most.

Several wargamers have told me that ironwork was blacked; whether this means a chemical process or a black paint I am not sure but clearly it was important to ensure that critical iron parts didn't exhibit so much rust that the weapon's integrity was compromised.

Exotic colours like greens and blues were probably never used, simply out of cost and a yellow ochre colour maybe likewise although I have seen one replica ochre coloured cannon and very smart it looked.

I think I shall go therefore with a mixture of raw wood effects, stained/greased (that is darkened) wood, red oxide and greys. I think that's the safest course, if a little dull visually.

By the mid 1700s in the time of Frederick the Great paint pigments had technically advanced and artillery was becoming more militarised and homogenous and you do therefore begin to see more distinctive colours applied to all the cannon of a nation's armies - Prussians = dark blue, Austrians = yellow ochre or pale brown, French = pale blue, Hanoverians and Russians = a fairly bright red; and so on but that's a hundred years after my current period of interest.

 

[Nearholmer]

You clearly know at least part of the story. Things that I understand:

 

- a tendering process involving “ghost” bidders;

 

- letting contracts to a firm that, behind the scenes, he owned;

 

- Exaggerating scope and paying for work that didn’t exist;

 

- work to his own home using labour and materials paid for by BR (having orange curtains was part of the legend, although whether that is true I don’t know);

 

- etc.

 

Which all came to light due to a marital dispute.

 

The CM&EE wasn’t ’in on it’, but was somehow found to have failed in his duty.

 

The main protagonist spent a good long while detained, ten years I think, then came back into the wider business as a contract worker and had to work on to a very great age because he’d been stripped of his pension.

 

And, similar things happened in at least two other BR regions in different departments that I know of, and at LT, where famously a contract was let and paid for work to seven floors of a building that was only five floors high!

 

Put in context of things like ‘bent coppers’ and back-scratching in high places, it all gives a flavour for the 1970s not having been a high point for ‘standards in public life’.

 

 

Edited April 22, 2020 by Nearholmer

[DonB]

Has anyone in the war-gaming fraternity or with other interest in historic weapons approached the professional institute for their views?

 

http://www.materialsfinishing.org/The Institute of Materials Finishing - the international institute for industrial and academic professionals in surface finishing and coating.

 

The only person that I know who may be able to add to the general knowledge pool is George Geear at 

He is the owner of the Fort, and has a personal museum of weaponry on display there. The National Coastal Path passes the front door.

I believe that he and his wife are currently in residence, although the Fort will be closed to visitors due to the CV19 pandemic. 

He does do professional consultations, and has worked for The Tower of London .

I don't know how receptive he would be to a request for ad hoc information, although when I have met him I found him keen to chat on any aspect of weaponry.

[Edwardian]

I hear today that the EU has expressed "surprise" at the UK's explanation of why it failed to respond to invitations to join the EU's Joint PPE Procurement Scheme ... 

 

 

[nick_bastable]

44 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

I hear today that the EU has expressed "surprise" at the UK's explanation of why it failed to respond to invitations to join the EU's Joint PPE Procurement Scheme ... 

 

 

quelle surprise

 

Nick B

[Buhar]

I'm sorry your new coach appears to be unsuitable, James, but your comments set me wondering...

 

Jason (JCL), Andy (uax6). Mike Trice and Rob Pulham all made great contributions to developments with the Silhouette and carriages using the machine allied with variations on the Jenkinson approach to carriage modelling looked very good indeed.  Mike has slid over to 3D printing, Jason prefers laser cut wood and the other two don't seem quite as active as previously (or maybe they're just quieter).

 

I think, for our purposes, Shapeways has too often shown itself to be expensive and frequently unsuitable.  More so now with the availability of resin printers that are becoming a hobby in their own right and producing a finish that is more than good enough in a number of applications.  Shapeways possibly still has it's place for those who enjoy the CAD work but don't have a printer or don't want to spend the time required to print to order.

 

I think for the less well-trodden byways of rural lines before the Great War the answers lie in a mix and match approach, selecting from the best of these new techniques for the job in hand.  Cutters and plasticard for most of a coach or wagon, resin 3D for springs, axleboxes, buffers maybe with resin casting for some items, laser cut wood for buildings, bought-in commercial bits where required and maybe even some commissioned etches for really fine detail.  Of course getting on with in yourself (our host's doily-coach for example) remains an attractive option for many but the accuracy and options for repeating tasks make mini-mass-production using a variety of techniques very attractive.

 

Alan

[Schooner]

 Apropos of little, but harking back to @sem34090's request for "1900s British" tune-age and perhaps of interest more widely:

 

https://www.therodolfusfoundation.org.uk/virtual-evensong-info

 

Go for the Parry (I Was Glad, written for the coronation of Edward VII and so fairly on point) - even the guide is a good listen and an interesting watch, although obviously the finished product will be the exciting bit - or for a rather fine reading of David and Goliath from 1 Samuel; stay for all the other bits of loveliness...and then go and join in if you fancy It's open until Friday 24th, sorry not to have found it sooner.

 

 

Edited April 23, 2020 by Schooner
It's only just crossed my mind that this could be seen as straying into dangerous territory. That the first reader is Stephen Fry says all that needs said :)

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

14 hours ago, Martin S-C said:

Thanks for the replies. The link to the blog about red/grey paint is just what I was looking for - thanks Stephen.

Regarding the general situation in the 1640s and the sudden need to acquire artillery I'm aware this was a very haphazard procedure and despite Parliament handing out contracts to supply guns was essentially an amateur process. Interestingly there are apparently extant contracts that specify "lead colour" for the woodwork and its this that generated my curiosity.

Parliament had access to England's principal arsenals in London and Hull and so could turn out artillery in a more homogenous manner than the Kings forces, if they had such a need. However there were a multitude of reasons why artillery of medium and heavy calibre was so little used in the ECW and I won't go into that. But one tends to find that cannon barrels were often cast and then kept in store at the principal arsenals and even in private homes (manors, castles, etc) and when they were needed a wooden carriage was sourced locally either by a village carpenter or the troops themselves, with the necessary ironwork also being forged locally on an as-needed basis at the same time. Pre-production of standard parts kept in store was unknown. I therefore suspect that most timber used would not have been seasoned and since no artillery piece would have been protected from the weather at all other than maybe a tarpaulin thrown over it at night or on a long march now and then, unseasoned wood would quickly have begun to distort. Not a huge deal except for issues like the trueness of the cradle supporting the trunnions and so on that would make aiming as well as overall strength/integrity of the artillery piece doubtful!

There is also something of a tradition that the troops would tend to lavish some affection on their artillery pieces, naming them and so on, a tradition carried on all through the centuries with soldiers and their weapons. Naming of guns, planes and tanks was common in the 20th century by all armies.

These issues make me think that the soldiers would take some care of the cannons and probably cover the bare wood with at least something, even if it was only grease or fat from an animal, or some form of vegetable oil obtained on the march by pounding some locally gathered materials. Re-enactors of course have invested a personal amount of cash in replica cannon and so tend to take greater care of them and therefore painted replica artillery is the norm and a dull red oxide colour is the most commonly seen on re-enactment battlefields.

 

 

I copied this page from David Blackmore Arms & Armour of the English Civil Wars, Royal Armouries, 1990 which describes the "official" preferred pattern. Any use?

[RedGemAlchemist]

On 21/04/2020 at 21:04, sem34090 said:

Unfortunately you might find yourself outnumbered - I'm with the host on this one!

 

I personally think that there are just so many better options available: clerestory bashing and ratio bashing will generally result in a much better model for a relatively small extra outlay. Clerestories can be got cheaply enough if one can wait - I've never paid more than a fiver for one (besides the one which had a motor bogie in it).

 

My gripe with the Hornby 'model' is that it can't really be used to represent anything remotely realistic and the features it displays means it's not exactly easy to pass it off as a plausible freelance coach. The only thing I'd do with one is ditch the body and stick the chassis under an O-16.5 coach.

 

That being said, I wonder if one could fill in the gaps between the beading to represent panelling - That'd solve one of the problems at least. Then bash it a bit more to give you plausible compartment sizes, a new chassis... and you might as well have bashed a ratio kit or a clerestory.

 

On 21/04/2020 at 21:35, Edwardian said:

I have seen that done - filling between the beading - and it looked very effective. 

 

I was tempted to try it but concluded that a 3-compartment coach in that body style would be fairly unlikely/uncommon, added to which the proportions, the roof radius, the underframe etc all left something to be desired, so in the end I concluded that the game wasn't worth the candle. 

 

I may, of course, feel the same about my new purchase before I'm done!

 

I really hope the doily cut coaches turn out OK, because they're cheap as chips relative to 3D prints or brass kits and you can make want you want! 

...partly because they cost pennies online and are good for building up my coaching stock on the cheap, also because to me they fit the cutesy "make do with what we can get" style of the KLR.

 

On 21/04/2020 at 21:52, Schooner said:

Hit the Hatton's nail on the head*. Given the (often very successful) make-overs that the Clerestories and Ratio kits get, with bash- etch- and scratch options all well represented, I'm really quite excited to see what comes of this new addition to the pre-Grouping armoury.

 

*Now the model has had the benfit of extensive feedback from Parishoners, that is. An interesting process to witness, and speaks well for both Hatton's and the community here.

Hmm, yes. I've been watching their plans with great interest.

 

On 22/04/2020 at 00:57, Martin S-C said:

Hello everyone. It's been a while. Edwardian, I really do hope you don't mind if I drop in here to ask a quick question. I am asking here because I think this is the best place to find the largest gathering of astute minds who will know the answer. There was a discussion about railway liveries somewhere in RMWeb some time ago, perhaps a year, perhaps more, where if I recall, there was discussion of the colour "lead" which I think the railway research fraternity used to think meant "grey" but which we now know means a dull brick-red colour. Is anyone here able to recall this conversation and possibly point me to the thread where it occurred? Are there any other railway research documents (HMRS?) where a similar discussion took place?

My other hobby which is wargaming is currently focussed on the English Civil Wars period and I am presently painting model artillery pieces and was wondering what colour(s) they tended to be. Apparently someone very senior in the Pike & Shot Society has written in their journal that many guns were painted with their woodwork grey because (and yes, you guessed it) he has found many references to "lead colour" in original written contracts that have survived from the 1640s. I wanted to open a correspondence with the gentleman concerned because I'm coming to the realisation that what he thinks was a grey colour was actually a red oxide colour and I wanted to be armed with the discussions that have taken place in the railway research and restoration community in recent years about the types of colours that oxide of lead will generate.

I do apologise if this is taking things off topic and for non-railway reasons but if its possible that we can address this issue of colour for the wooden carriages of cannons dating to the 1640s it would be quite the significant achievement.

Lovely to see you back, Martin

[Martin S-C]

7 hours ago, Malcolm 0-6-0 said:

 

I copied this page from David Blackmore Arms & Armour of the English Civil Wars, Royal Armouries, 1990 which describes the "official" preferred pattern. Any use?

 

For gun models I am well supplied; in any case they varied considerably depending on the weight of shot from tiny things that a couple of men could push to absolute monsters needing 12 to 16 oxen to haul. It was the colours that first made me stop and think. Like railway modelling I then went off for a very pleasant evening into the wild depths of the internet reading about renaissance paints and dyes. I happen to have a pot of Railmatch LNER Doncaster green which is a really lovely colour and wondered if a green cannon was a thing but have since decided it would not be owing to the lack of a readily available green pigment in the 1640s.

Here's a couple of tiny guns called Falconettes which were only about 1 1/2 pound weight of shot. These are Thirty Years War styled carriages from the 1630s but were still around, if a little ornate. Then a light leather gun with twin barrels - I am uncertain about the blue carriage on that one but it makes a nice difference - and finally a Saker which was a 5-pounder. If you know your artillery, compare the massive barrel on this to a Napoleonic 6-pounder and you'll see how primitive these barrel castings were. Everything about these bigger guns was massive since they needed to bear the weight of the colossal barrels.

The yellow ochre colour is very tentative as well. There was jaune d'antimoine available from the 1620s which gave a yellow pigment but whether it was even available in 1640s England and at what price I can't say and I suspect soldiers wouldn't have thought in such decorative terms but again it makes a nice change among a sea of dull colours on a wargame table.

Edited April 23, 2020 by Martin S-C

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

I like the twin barreled leather gun - well done.

[Andy Hayter]

Is it possible that a green colour could come from Verdigris on a bronze based barrel?

[Martin S-C]

Yes, but its a case of how common might it have been and how easy/cheap to obtain. Military vehicle economics is the opposite of railway vehicle economics (he said, desperately trying to angle the discussion back nearer to trains) - railway companies spared no expense in making their trains look superb, especially in places where large numbers of potential customers would see them. Military hardware had to be entirely functional so no point in painting a cannon green at a cost of 2s 3d when a red lead oxide paint job would only cost 10 1/4d.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green

(Scroll down to the section headed Pigments, Food Colouring and Fireworks)

 

You also bump into lovely useful websites like this while searching for "Paint pigments in the 1600s"

http://www.webexhibits.org/pigments/intro/history.html

Edited April 23, 2020 by Martin S-C

[Schooner]

54 minutes ago, Martin S-C said:

...trying to angle the discussion back nearer to trains...

 

Shouldn't worry, no-one else does!

[Martin S-C]

I fear this may be as off-topic as we've ever gone. I am 260 years off target.

[Northroader]

 

stick some more wheels under it and it would make a nice, if somewhat ornate, railway engine. Someone should have told James II (of Scotland) about that.

[Donw]

Nice models. Those cannon would have been pre-Wilkinson I presume?

Don

 

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

Well to bring it back on topic -

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_18-inch_railway_howitzer

 

And technically it's pre-grouping.

[Edwardian]

3 hours ago, Malcolm 0-6-0 said:

Well to bring it back on topic -

 

 

Rare pictorial evidence of a WNR coach working through to Eastbourne ....

 

[Compound2632]

24 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

Rare pictorial evidence of a WNR coach working through to Eastbourne ....

 

Now you've got me pondering the route. M&GN and GN via Peterborough or GE via Cambridge? Widened Lines or East London?

 

 

[Edwardian]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Now you've got me pondering the route. M&GN and GN via Peterborough or GE via Cambridge? Widened Lines or East London?

 

 

 

Indeed, most interesting questions.

 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2020 by Edwardian
Spelling mistakes found when marked! Seriously, the letters have worn off my keys and I often type 'i' instead of 'o'. Sorry.

[Hroth]

18 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

mist interesting questions.

 

Lost in the fog of time?

 

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

 

 

Or just an over-enthusiastically fired locomotive?

 

 

[Compound2632]

I've realised what it is that looks wrong about those leading 6-wheelers - no lower footboard. And the leading one has spoked wheels. But I daresay you'll tell me that was usual Brighton practice.

[Hroth]

5 hours ago, Malcolm 0-6-0 said:

Well to bring it back on topic -

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_18-inch_railway_howitzer

 

And technically it's pre-grouping.

 

And, if you wish, you can get one for a very reasonable sum from Oxford Rail.  No idea how accurate ORs model is, but it's certainly very large!