Jump to content
 

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

So, here is the Kemp Town station building.

 

There are missing bits, like a chimney and pots and the guttering and downpipes, and the model has suffered damage in transit (rather than protect it, the vendor merely wedged it in the box, and the model has cracked badly in one place as a result.

 

It is also clearly unfinished.  The most significant missing element is the ground floor bay to the platform façade.  

 

The quality of the work is clear, however, most of the work is done for me and it will be an honour to restore and complete the work in due course. 

Oh that's a shame such a lovely model was damaged due to the vendors carelessness.  I sometimes wonder if such folk think that parcels are wafted safely through the air by benevolent cherubs and not tossed in and out of vans and suffer having other parcels dumped on top of them.

 

I do hope it can be repaired James.  Such a lovely model needs to be made perfect again.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
10 hours ago, Edwardian said:

So, here is the Kemp Town station building.

 

There are missing bits, like a chimney and pots and the guttering and downpipes, and the model has suffered damage in transit (rather than protect it, the vendor merely wedged it in the box, and the model has cracked badly in one place as a result.

 

It is also clearly unfinished.  The most significant missing element is the ground floor bay to the platform façade.  

 

The quality of the work is clear, however, most of the work is done for me and it will be an honour to restore and complete the work in due course. 

 

20201128_200835.jpg.d753ead81d0c687c54c37e9ef2d5b44b.jpg

 

jg_22_130.jpg.ed13ef6590299ac612f81e04de9f4d8e.jpgjg_22_136.jpg.f8067a017f0a61ea00f6dba68d524e7f.jpg 

 

20201128_200909.jpg.847abdf9936b403949ea39c9538d83c9.jpg

 

137748042_KempTown06.jpg.e839f5a9ad28fe17053d734d844bcfad.jpg1372155219_kemp_town5showinggroundfloorbay.jpg.5eeabe901579db9a89386b16544efe96.jpg

 

20201128_200952.jpg.ba00338b77e68d41c4df49b529f957af.jpg

 

 

 

 

Never mind the station - I wonder what that Zodiac and Zephyr were doing there? The shot looks as though it was posed.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Never mind the station - I wonder what that Zodiac and Zephyr were doing there? The shot looks as though it was posed.

Or the subtle message that Ford owners were largely responsible for vandalising lovely old stations

  • Like 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now, I've actually bought something of use to the CA project.

 

 

Right, that's quite enough of that. 

 

To recapitulate, the original line from Castle Aching to Birchoverham Market and Staithe was constructed in the 1850s. The station features fine buildings in the Jacobean revival style favoured at the time.

 

1469145259_WateringburyStation-Copy.jpg.64f11f13b3efb0ad3f40e7c3463a3e8a.jpg

 

The configuration of the station is that the platform road and run-round loop pass under a train shed and a locomotive shed road passes through the engine shed built onto the side of the train shed. 

 

All three roads - platform, loop, shed - terminate at a turntable.  Think 'Alston', if that helps at all. 

 

That table, dating also from the 1850s, was originally 40' in length. I have a design in mind, taken from the Alan Prior book of 4mm scale drawings.

 

20201130_113209.jpg.a7ecd15de333c102e2b541dc8cf79093.jpg

 

Of course, things change. Extensions are made to the station buildings and to the platform (twice) and it is found that the turntable is too short, so the pit is dug outward and new sections are welded onto the 1850s table, extending it to 42'. [EDIT: I am reminded that the extension was to 46' (thanks Stephen)]

 

This, I believe, means that the length [EDIT: 46'] will be adequate for the longest locomotives employed on the line, the WNR's Sharp Stewart 4-4-0s (think Cambrian 'Small Bogie' and Furness 'Small Seagull') and the Johnson 4-4-0s of the M&GNR.

 

So far, so good.

 

Of course, Achingham would also need a turntable.  Achingham (think 'Fakenham') may be on a branch, but as a place it's a bigger deal than sleepy Castle Aching.  It's a market town, with a livestock market, flour mill, gasworks, extensive maltings (think 'Dereham') etc. (see post #1 of the topic for details).  The line dates from the 1860s and the station has a rather stripped-down classicism of many stations of the period.  It too has a train shed.  Think 'Aldeburgh'. The lines also terminate at a turntable. This table also needs to be 42'. [EDIT: 46']

 

So, that is why I have purchased a rather charming home-made 42' table [EDIT: Advertised as such, but, in fact 52']. The idea is to use it for Achingham.  The shed has room for Achingham, so I may as well organise a board, even if not very much happens on it for a while.  I can at least try to install the table and see if I can rig it up to work. 

 

In so doing, I hope to learn something of use that will in turn aid the construction of a table for Castle Aching. So, slightly wrong order of things, but there is a certain logic.

 

Here's what I have received. Any advice as to what the bl00dy Hell I do with it now, gratefully received. 

 

 20201130_103255.jpg.ead631fa07e6dfa91aa1dd9854a1f3db.jpg

 

My assessment is that 42' [EDIT: a 46' and a 52!] tables will do me just fine.

 

Now, I don't have a Johnson 4-4-0 to hand (though I have one somewhere), and I certainly have not yet built a Small Seagull, but I do have a Stirling Single, which will I hope one day run through to CA with GN services from Boston or some such place. As we can see, she fits comfortably on the table (even without the tender coupled).

 

20201130_102056.jpg.d9e9d343be1515690e37dd1c00498ec1.jpg

 

It turns out that even a large modern 4-4-0 can squeeze on, though whether in reality turning such a beast on such a table would have been a practical proposition I'm not at all sure.

 

20201130_101650.jpg.fe177c52abf05c6b0445614dcd9a1d06.jpg

 

It is even possible to fit a modern 4-6-0!

 

20201130_102445.jpg.70c2f04d4cf16a3bc2788bb41407df89.jpg

 

All in all, I think it will do very nicely. 

 

In the meantime, the poor thing continues to wait and wonder if trains will ever call at Castle Aching ...

 

1972452793_WaitingforEdwardiantofinishthetrack.jpg.9c80e1973abff29a793505e185b6607b.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Edwardian
spelling!
  • Like 18
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Looks more like 50ft to me (the overall wheelbase of an Experiment was 48'4¼"). This is just as well as the total wheelbase of a M&GN Class C (MR 1808 / 2581 Class) was 43'4¼".

Edited by Compound2632
  • Thanks 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

That's one seriously big pulley wheel.  I don't think that would have been cheap to buy.

 

A nice turntable model though and I bet someone spent a while making that.

 

Poor Jenny, perhaps a kind person will bring her a nice cup of tea.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Looks more like 50ft to me. The overall wheelbase of an Experiment was 48'4¼". This is just as well as the total wheelbase of a M&GN Class C (MR 1808 / 2581 Class) was 43'4¼".

 

Ah, I may have misremembered our earlier discussion, which in light of what you say doubtless resulted in the CA table's extension to 44'.

 

I should write these things down so as not to make them up each time inconsistently!  Now I think about it, I seem to recall that  I had originally posited an extension to 42', but you had pointed out that this would not suffice for the MGN C Class, so the extension to 44' was assumed. 

 

That would give a table length (for 44') of 176mm and I have checked and discovered that I have left a hole 190mm in diameter on the board to accommodate the put walls within it and leave room for a 44' deck. [EDIT: the CA table is to be 46'/184mm]

 

So far, so good. 

 

You are right, however, the larger locos pictured should not fit on the table I have just bought.  I am a trusting fellow, and did not think to measure a table sold as 42'; I took the seller at his word.  The item was listed as a 42'Pre-Grouping turntable, which was repeated in the description. The listing read:

 

I AM SELLING MY 42' SCALE, PREGROUPING TURNTABLE WORKED WELL ON ITS ORIGINAL LAYOUT

 

THE WELL WAS TURNED FROM MDF

THE BRIDGE TRACKS AND TOP TRACKS ARE PECO CODE 75

THE BRIDGE IS MADE FROM SOLID BRASS WITH TIMBER TOP SECTION

A HEAVY STAINLESS STEEL EX-FLY WHEEL HOLDS BRIDGE DOWN FROM UNDERNEATH

WHOLE THING IS DRIVEN BY A SMALL ELECTRIC MOTOR, WHICH IS HELD AGAINST THE FLY WHEEL BY MEANS OF A SPRING

 

THIS WOULD BE VERY HANDY FOR SOMEONE WHO LIKES TINKERING AS THIS WAS PART OF A LAYOUT, WHICH I HAVE NOW DISASSEMBLED

 

* PLEASE NOTE LENGTH OF TURNTABLE WILL NOT TAKE THE MORE MODERN 4-6-0 OR 4-6-2 LOCOMOTIVES

 

I don't know why he was shouting, but still.

 

So, I have now measured it, and I think what he meant was fifty two foot turntable. Actually, the rails scale out at 52 1/2'.

 

So, I can still use the TT, but would have to rationalise why Achingham would need a 52' table when any trains thence would have reversed at CA, which only has a 46' table?  A waste of 6'! 

 

At least, as you say, I did not buy a 42' table as that could have been a problem.  Better 6' too long than 4' too short! 

Edited by Edwardian
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

So, I can still use the TT, but would have to rationalise why Achingham would need a 52' table when any trains thence would have reversed at CA, which only has a 44' table?  A waste of 8'! 

 

Tender first both ways between CA and Achingham? Turning the engine at CA would add several minutes to the overall journey time.

  • Like 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

So, I can still use the TT, but would have to rationalise why Achingham would need a 52' table when any trains thence would have reversed at CA, which only has a 44' table?  A waste of 8'! 

 

Because they got a good deal on it.

 

When they were in the market for the girders someone just happened to have some from a cancelled order (probably some colonial country that couldn't pay) and it was cheaper to dig a larger pit than get the length they wanted.

Edited by ian
  • Like 5
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Tender first both ways between CA and Achingham? Turning the engine at CA would add several minutes to the overall journey time.

 

Except they cannot run-round if they cannot turn.

 

Assuming that a Claud would be too long for the CA TT, a Royal Train (very exceptional traffic) would have to have the coaches pulled away and shunted into the loop to allow the loco to back out of the platform road and then couple onto the other end of the train, which it would then pull tender first.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Except they cannot run-round if they cannot turn.

 

Hum. Snag. Perhaps worked by WNR engines between CA and Achingham? I envision a build-up of foreign engines at CA, then all departing together to run light engine to Achingham for turning, then back to CA to await their return workings? You could end up with a Highlandesque cavalcade of through coaches attached to the CA - Achingham local; maybe needing several WNR engines...

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ian said:

 

Because they got a good deal on it.

 

When they were in the market for the girders someone just happened to have some from a cancelled order (probably some colonial country that couldn't pay) and it was cheaper to dig a larger pit than get the length they wanted.

 

Perfect.

 

Thank you. 

 

Any larger than usual engine straying onto the WNR would have to be sent to Achingham to turn.

 

See reference to Royal Claud above.

 

At Wolferton, there was no table.  So, the Royal Train arrived, and, after the King had alighted, the coaches shunted out of the way and the loco, a Royal Claud by our period, ran light tender first to Lynn to be turned and then ran light tender first back again to collect the train when the King was ready to leave Sandringham.

 

Likewise at CA, the Claud, once released from the platform road, runs tender first to Achingham to be turned and then tender first back to haul the occupant of the Royal Train away.

 

Prototype for everything, see. 

  • Like 6
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
22 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

You are right, however, the larger locos pictured should not fit on the table I have just bought.  I am a trusting fellow, and did not think to measure a table sold as 42'; I took the seller at his word.  The item was listed as a 42'Pre-Grouping turntable,

To be fair, a 4mm scale 50' turntable is almost spot on for a 42' table in S scale, which is what I am doing...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

........whether in reality turning such a beast on such a table would have been a practical proposition I'm not at all sure.

It's not just whether the wheelbase fits on the 'table, but whether the loco can be balanced on it, i.e with the CoG directly over the pivot, so that there is minimum weight on the carrying wheels at either end (of the 'table) and so less force required to turn it.  The CoG is unlikely to be at the mid point of the wheelbase and will vary depending on how much coal and water is in the tender, firebox and boiler.

 

Jim

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Right on your doorstep, they used to have a turntable at Barney Castle and that could take a Q6. One fine summer day, such a loco left the shops to go there on a test run after shopping. Normally the fitter who had set the valve gear had a ride out as well, but this time our gang chargehand decided he’d go, pulling rank. Alright until they got on the said turntable, and as Jim says, you have to balance the loco. There was very little coal had been put in, and the crew decided it was too stiff to turn, so they set out back tender first. That was alright until they rode into a cloudburst, spoiling the chargehands outing. Great glee in the gang when the story got out next day.

  • Like 6
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

It's not just whether the wheelbase fits on the 'table, but whether the loco can be balanced on it, i.e with the CoG directly over the pivot, so that there is minimum weight on the carrying wheels at either end (of the 'table) and so less force required to turn it.  The CoG is unlikely to be at the mid point of the wheelbase and will vary depending on how much coal and water is in the tender, firebox and boiler.

 

Jim

 

Yes, that was what I was driving at.  With the wheels only just on the table, there is no room for adjustment. It would not be satisfactory if the coal and water needed to be 'trimmed' just to turn. 

 

Which brings me to this:

 

20201130_143442.jpg.0650036c473d62f942bdebb840ae4d83.jpg

 

Here is the Stirling Single showing that her wheelbase just fits within the proposed 176mm/44' table (rather, this assumes the rails are 176mm/44' long, so the centre line of the deck would be a little longer).

 

I assume the situation will be similar with the Johnson 4-4-0.

 

This brings me to your point; fitting on the table is not the same as being able to turn it. 

 

As Stephen reminds me, the total wheelbase of the M&GN Class C (MR 1808 / 2581 Class) was 43'4¼" (for these purposes, we assume that model is the same, even though the tender might not be coupled that closely); 173 odd mm, so pretty close to the 175mm I'm seeing on the GNR Single.  

 

In the circumstances, should I consider a longer table?  

 

This is for Castle Aching, of course.

 

The hole I've cut is 190mm.  Now, I have some choice as to how thick the walling I install will be.  I had assumed I would fit stout card inside the hole, reducing its diameter.

 

If I use a single thickness of mount board, that reduces the available diameter to 184mm, making a 46' table possible.  Did I intend a 46' not 44' table when I cut the hole?  

 

Perhaps I already went through this whole thought process before, to arrive at the same conclusion?  Trouble is, it's years since I cut that hole! 

 

 

 

Edited by Edwardian
  • Like 2
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Officially, a 46ft table should be big enough for a 8'6" coupled wheelbase Midland 4-4-0 (incl. M&GN Class C) and also any Midland single except the 2601 Class with their bogie tenders.

 

"Officially", i.e. rated by the Midland as suitable for those types? That suggests to me that this was accepted as the practical length of table for turning those classes, i.e. it had the margin necessary to balance the loco and turn?

 

I do wonder if we did not plump for 46' when this was discussed?

 

Ah yes, we went  through this whole thing a little over 3 years ago, with the conclusion that the CA table would be extended to 46'! 

 

 

After that I cut a hole that, when a 1.5mm thick mount board is installed, leaves a 184mm diameter. 

 

Edited by Edwardian
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
17 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

"Officially", i.e. rated by the Midland as suitable for those types? 

 

My information is from C. Hawkins and G. Reeve, LMS Engine Sheds Vol. 2 (Wild Swan, 1981), which gives a list of Midland turntable sizes and locations, with the engines they could turn (by blocks of 1907 numbers) "issued by headquarters in 1911" and supplied to the authors by J.B. Radford.

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Lovely find with the station building. Kemptown was one of the shortest branch lines ever built. All it consisted of was a viaduct, cutting and tunnel! Quite a substantial bit of civil engineering for a journey that was just over a mile walk.

Most goods were propelled from Brighton and I have faint recollections of an 08 gronk inching it's way over Lewes road viaduct. 

There's a fantastic video on Youtube filmed in 1966 by one of the signalmen at Lewes road junction I watched last week but I can't seem to find it now.

That station could also be modified a little to represent Seaford. Just a thought!

 

Here's the famous Stroudly 060 Terrier "Brighton Works"  at Kemptown showing the run-aroung crossover.

471001655_brightonworks.jpg.4f38ae2fa0f6ba32c4087ded948320c9.jpg

 

This was the main arch of Lewes Road viaduct which was demolished to make way for a roundabout and a supermarket.

143_lewes_road_arches_from_north2.jpg.45522e404c9de3c02f1064a0f53db4d8.jpg

 

Regards Shaun

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I might be being a bit previous here, but given the discussion of turntables and running round, have you considered the arrangement  formerly to be found further up the East Coast at Withernsea ? If not the turning and run round arrangements, then the arrangement of a seaside convalescent home served by a branchline terminus sounds like a good idea to me !

 

https://withernsea1.co.uk/Railway.html

 

Edited by CKPR
  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...