Castle Aching

[Hroth]

8 hours ago, monkeysarefun said:

 

 

This one was due to arrive at  Spencer Street at 19:21 but didn't get there until around 19:32. Does that help?

 

 

 

 

The track looks late Victorian too..

 

 

1 hour ago, monkeysarefun said:

 

This one will turn that frown upside down too!

 

 

Sweet!

 

You could make one of those by grafting a "Nellie" onto a Triang Clerestory coach...

 

 

[Edwardian]

Random musing.

 

Mr Compound is right to urge caution in the use of the Ratio Bain MR suburban coach kits for other railways; the waist panels are rather deep. Another issue is that the relatively generous compartment width of the Midland vehicles does not favour other companies.

 

We have seen, however, that some GER coaches have similarly deep waists.

 

This vehicle, yet another company's take on apparently similar paneling, also appeared at first sight to have relatively deep waist panels, but I wonder if it is rather that the waist is relatively low, they don't look any deeper than the eaves panels.

 

 

Of course, there are many other factors, such as the height of the waist and the depth of eaves panels, and dozens of other details, so a perfect match between one company's coach-building practice and another is a Fool's Errand.  Stephen knows better than most, in the context of the Hattons' generic coaches, that no two companies' practices match and, further, that to arrive at the typical, one has to depart from the specific.

 

For those of us prepared to accept reasonable approximations, however, it is useful to assess the options. 

 

 

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Mr Compound is right to urge caution in the use of the Ratio Bain MR suburban coach kits for other railways; the waist panels are rather deep. Another issue is that the relatively generous compartment width of the Midland vehicles does not favour other companies.

 

 

The panelling is of course good for Mr Bain's North Eastern carriages! The problem with the compartment spacing can actually be that Bain's suburbans are a bit mean - compared to Clayton's, certainly - going down from 7'9" firsts and 6'6" thirds to 6'9" and 5'10" in these suburban carriages, though his corridor carriages settled down to something a bit more generous. Clayton built some 6-compartment clerestory firsts that were 47'6" long, Bain's 7-compartment firsts were 48'0" long.

[Nearholmer]

36 minutes ago, Hroth said:

You could make one of those by grafting a "Nellie" onto a Triang Clerestory coach...

Someone, EDM I think, made models of that in 0 scale (which actual 0 scale I’m not certain, possibly 1:48 rather than 1:43.5) ready-to-run a few years back. They cropped-up on slightly freelance British

0-16.5 layouts.

[NeilHB]

8 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Someone, EDM I think, made models of that in 0 scale (which actual 0 scale I’m not certain, possibly 1:48 rather than 1:43.5) ready-to-run a few years back. They cropped-up on slightly freelance British

0-16.5 layouts.

 

That would have been the Ixion Coffeepot, not EDM. EDM did sell them for a time, along with the conversion kits by Banta models. 

[sem34090]

And I must say that they're beautiful models. A friend of ours has one and we have another in bits downstairs.

[Andy Hayter]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another random thought and nothing to do with yours James, but your picture raised it in my under-occupied brain.

 

Does anyone know why British coaches have a tumblehome?  I had always thought it to be to do with loading gauge, but looking at how the bottom door hinge protrudes, it clearly does not. 

 

Continental coaches at this time were very often slab sided.

 

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiture_OCEM

 

[In French but we are looking at the pictures.]

 

Built only just outside our pregrouping period, these were typical of the designs for several decades earlier as well.

[Nearholmer]

I've often wondered that, because it is a feature that requires more time/effort to create.

 

By no means definite/definitive, but three thoughts have occurred to me:

 

- style, in that it does look rather good, possibly carried-over from road-coach building;

 

- weight, in that subtracting some framing timber where it doesn't reduce effective passenger accommodation (seated humans being widest at hips and shoulders) might have been thought worthwhile. This again might be a carry-over from horse coach days, where getting weight down was hugely important, and it might inter-play with the above;

 

- wood-rot. It is certainly the case that slab-sided steel vehicles tend to be prone to corrosion in the lower body-sides, presumably because water doesn't shed quite so well, and this may be true with wooden vehicles too, although I have to say it does feel a bit tenuous.

[Edwardian]

16 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

 

Another random thought and nothing to do with yours James, but your picture raised it in my under-occupied brain.

 

Does anyone know why British coaches have a tumblehome?  I had always thought it to be to do with loading gauge, but looking at how the bottom door hinge protrudes, it clearly does not. 

 

Continental coaches at this time were very often slab sided.

 

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiture_OCEM

 

[In French but we are looking at the pictures.]

 

Built only just outside our pregrouping period, these were typical of the designs for several decades earlier as well.

 

It does allow for the use of the foot board.  Otherwise they might end up protruding out of gauge.  

[Andy Hayter]

That may very well be it James, Thanks.

The OCEM coaches and those built from around 1900 onwards have recessed doors and footsteps remain inboard of the body.  They are all corridor end vestibule.  Looking back earlier with individual compartments the tumblehome is there on the French coaches.  

[Compound2632]

Another consideration is how the body is supported on the frame. The solebars are typically 4" or 4½"-thick timber, usually with a flitch plate of iron or steel on the outside, ¼" or ⅜" thick, or else iron or steel section of similar dimensions. With axles with 6'6" journal centres, the solebars have to be at similar centres, as they are in line with the springs. This means that the width over the outside faces of the solebars is around 6'11", inside 6'1" or so. 

 

The lengthways foundation of the body framing is another substantial piece of timber, which needs to overlap the solebar. (The body does not sit directly on the frame but on a set of wooden spacer blocks, typically 1" thick - or possibly a more flexible material, rubber?) For an 8'0"-wide carriage body, if slab sided, this timber would need to be about 12" wide; with an 8'0" radius tumlehome, the width of the body at its base comes down to 7'6" and the foundation timber needs only to be 9" wide. 

 

If the body width is increased to 8'6", the width at body base is 8'0" and a more elaborate support is needed. In the example shown below, the solebar flitch plate becomes an L-section plate with a top flange about 4" wide; other styles of construction included the use of brackets on the solebar to support the pads that support the body. These are prominent on arc-roof WCJS vehicles, which were 8'6" wide over the body - an aid to distinguishing them in photographs from similar LNWR vehicles, which were 8'0" wide.

 

My examples are Midland, of course, but I believe pretty typical. First an 8'0"-wide carriage:

 

 

 

Crop from a scan of Derby C&W Drg. 547, Midland Railway Study Centre Item D88-D0001.

 

And second, an 8'6"-wide carriage:

 

Crop from a scan of Derby C&W Drg. 1128, Midland Railway Study Centre Item 88-D0119.

 

Both these scans are available for download on the Midland Railway Study Centre's website, subject to the T&Cs.

 

Edited September 17, 2020 by Compound2632
Correct version of crop substituted

[Compound2632]

NB The width-of-frame argument doesn't apply to bogie stock, though the same dimensions seem generally to have been applied, at least in the 19th century.

[Northroader]

Just for Brian, lightening things up with an Emmett. Sadly my own whimsyfication has withered on the vine for now, I’m finding modelling broad gauge on O much easier than narrow gauge.

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, Northroader said:

Just for Brian, lightening things up with an Emmett. Sadly my own whimsyfication has withered on the vine for now, I’m finding modelling broad gauge on O much easier than narrow gauge.

 

Note how the tumblehome of the carriage ends enables a shorter frame to be used.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Note how the tumblehome of the carriage ends enables a shorter frame to be used.

 

You laugh, but it's a serious point! A Midland 31'0" 6-wheeler is only 30'5" over headstocks. 

 

As I think someone said, the width (and length) is where it's needed - at the hips. When carriages went up to 9'0" at the waist, the width over eves stayed at 8'6" or thereabouts - loading gauge coming into play, or rather what is now called dynamic envelope. Annoyingly, I can't find online the rather marvelous Derby official of one of the 8'0" wide 60ft 12-wheel clerestory dining carriages of 1896, fitted with frames sprouting lolly-sticks all over, at the ends and amidships, for testing clearances through the Peak Forest tunnels for the 8'6"-wide square-light clerestories [D. Jenkinson and R.J. Essery, Midland Carriages An Illustrated Review (OPC, 1894) Plate 17]. Unfortunately, nobody thought to check clearances of two similar vehicles passing on adjacent lines, with the result that the original rather grand guard's lookouts had to be removed rather hurriedly and eventually replaced with the rather slim-line ducket that was used right through LMS days.

Edited September 17, 2020 by Compound2632
sprouting

[uax6]

I was under the impression that the tumblehome is due to the network being restricted at and about solebar level, the legancy of low platforms from the beginning of the railways. There is no such restriction above that point (in the majority of cases, but there are exceptions, like the Hastings line as was) so the body can extend outwards to accommodate hips at seat leave. Indeed the next restriction tends to be at cantrail height, and gave rise to the 'clipper' body shape, which exists even today on 387 and 379 EMU's. (Obviously the 6 foot restriction prevents massive width).

 

Andy G

 

(Oh re the previous train of thoughts, I'm aready beginning to suffer from painful thumbs, which makes things like modelling something I can't do for long periods of time, so I'll have to live with whatever outcomes come).

[Phil Traxson]

9 hours ago, Hroth said:

 

The track looks late Victorian too..

 

 

 

Sweet!

 

You could make one of those by grafting a "Nellie" onto a Triang Clerestory coach...

 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2020 by Phil Traxson
Repeat of a mention earlier in thread, I should return to Specsaverss

[St Enodoc]

11 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

the width (and length) is where it's needed - at the hips

Quite so.

[drmditch]

21 hours ago, Northroader said:

Just for Brian, lightening things up with an Emmett. Sadly my own whimsyfication has withered on the vine for now, I’m finding modelling broad gauge on O much easier than narrow gauge.

 

Thank you.

 

Is this a preliminary sketch for 'A Quiet Afternoon at Cloud Cuckoo Valley', currently featuring at Locomotion in Shildon?

 

(Which I hope is still open today, and will find out in an hours time.)

 

Could you give us the source for the picture?

[Northroader]

I gather “quiet afternoon in cloud cuckoo valley” was given to the NRM recently. I hope you enjoy it, it thought it was marvellous when I saw it displayed at the Birmingham Art Gallery some time ago.

The picture is entitled “ the Evening Shrimp Train”, so a different theme. To get the picture, I googled “Rowland Emett Trains”, then “Images”. There’s also an Emett society, currently having a website renewal. “Emett2”

 

Edited September 18, 2020 by Northroader

[Hroth]

As large portions of the Nation go into "covid local lockdown", with possibly a complete national extension to come, I hope that the Parish isn't tempted to hibernate merely due to the Equinox...

 

 

It's being so cheerful as keeps me going!

 

 

[Edwardian]

I'm in a bit of a mental lock-down at the moment, I'm afraid.

 

 

[drmditch]

I do have sympathy for everyone affected by the problems of these times, and I do hope that Mr Edwardian may be able to enjoy some therapeutic modelling.

 

Also, I hope that the WNR has not been terrorised by:-

... beware of falling tortoises....

Perhaps top-hats may become essential PPE?

 

But perhaps Norfolk is better off than Lincolnshire, .... where you just get sworn at....

 

Right back to some soldering. Will find to work on some pre-grouping material soon!

 

 

Edited September 30, 2020 by drmditch

[Edwardian]

Hello all, and thanks Drmditch. Today, I confess, is not a good day, but generally I'm managing to stay on the level. I am genuinely confused, though, about what I can and cannot do here in the "Protected Area" of the NE and have more or less given up trying to work it out. I think I can still go to the pub, so long as I don't sit next to myself. Once again, glum for all those badly affected by it in whatever way.

 

The Covid crisis doesn't affect the way I work, but it's killing the economy and that is losing me business, which is a worry. I haven't done any modelling, I'm afraid, just reading. Re-reading Tolkien at the moment, which, like Wagner, is basically all about death. The older I got, at each re-reading, the Lord of the Rings became darker. I'd left off it for a while, but picked it up again recently and am happy that I can now see plenty of the light as well as the shade.  

 

Anyway, I am also boning up on the Border Reivers. I am fascinated by the subject, having been up to the Wall recently for my first Covid-era tourist jolly, and picked up an intriguing and very readable book by Graham Robb on the Debatable Land. So, also I'm now tucking into the classic George MacDonald Fraser (he of Flashman) treatment of the subject, The Steel Bonnets.

 

 

In a near total flight from reality, I am now almost entirely divorced from what, in Tolkien terms, we might think of as the 'primary world', preferring to walking in other realms. 

 

Occasionally, however, I am reminded of the wider world, usually, I'm happy to say, when it sends me something nice. It raised my spirits today by sending me this ....

 

[Nearholmer]

Glad to see you open the lid of the mental lockdown bunker at least by a chink.

 

Confronting actual real reality is bloomin' 'orrible at the moment, isn't it?

 

I've "cheered myself up" by watching a truly excellent three part history of the Battle of the Somme (iPlayer, look for "The Somme from both sides of the wire") between desultory bouts of paying work and enthusiastic bouts of fresh-air and exercise. Not sure it was the best tonic really.

 

TBH, its the children that keep me just-about on the right side of sanity at the moment.