Castle Aching

[Edwardian]

2 minutes ago, ChrisN said:

 

James,

That is fine, and completely justifiable.  You have no choice about what the Directors of the WNR think, it is completely beyond your control.    I think I have said before the Cambrian tried to abolish third but because all the big boys around, well GWR and LNWR still had second they had to re-introduce it as it caused problems for through 2nd class passengers.  

 

If you populate your coaches then I would not have many in the second class carriages.

 

Ha! It might also be that, while the Chairman, Lord Erstwhile, is from a Whig dynasty, most of the Directors were traditionally High Church Tories.  This means that they do not share the Evangelicals' distaste for Sunday services, but do very much like the idea of putting distance between them and working folk, i.e. Second!

[Compound2632]

18 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Rub the lamp and the genie will appear - in a little while.

 

Right, I've finished polishing my lamp.

 

Going back to the beginning, here's a repost of the photo of No. 69A at South Lynn, probably summer 1907:

 

 

Turning to the post to which James linked:

I notice that I'd headed it 68A in error but I've checked through and the information therein is applicable without difference to 69A. (I've now edited the post to correct this.)

 

The 890 Class had Kirtley 2,000 gal tenders from new but between 1889 and 1890 102 3,250 gal tenders were built with footplate 4'1" from rail height as replacements for Kirtley tenders on Kirtley 2-4-0s. (The standard footplate height for Johnson engines was 4'2½"; the difference is negligible for a 4 mm scale model, even before one starts to think about compression of the springs when the tender was full.) It appears that most of the 890 Class got these tenders but some had 2,950 gal tenders - these appear to have been chiefly the Neilson batch, 890-909, with the Derby-built engines getting the 3,250 gal tenders [S. Summerson, Midland Railway Locomotives Vol. 2 (Irwell Press, 2007) p. 86]. So it seems reasonably safe to suppose that 69A had a 3,250 gal tender in 1905. 

 

It's the bodies of the tenders that differ; the frames and footplating were the same, as far as I'm aware. The 3,250 gal tender tanks were 19'3¼" long over beading (excluding flare), 7'1" wide over beading (excluding flare), and 3'11¼" high to the top of the tank - about the mid-point of the top horizontal beading, or 4'10¼" to the top of the flare; for the 2,950 gal tender these dimensions were 19'1¼" long, 6'7" wide, and 3'8" to top of tank / 4'5" to top of flare [S. Summerson, Midland Railway Locomotives Vol. 1 (Irwell Press, 2000) p. 130; R.J. Essery & D. Jenkinson, Midland Locomotives Vol. 1 (Wild Swan, 1984) p. 78]. Comparing the photo of 899 at Gloucester with the photo of 69A at South Lynn, I'd say it all fits - the tender tank of 69A looks to be close to the edge of the footplating or platform, which was 7'7" wide on both sizes of tender - i.e. only a 3" wide ledge, whereas the ledge does look wider on 899 - it would be 6" wide. 

 

Next question: what size tender does the Ratio kit represent? If one takes the box art on trust, the kit is supposed to represent 254 (pre-1907 1514). The 1400 Class were built with 2,750 gal or 2,950 gal tenders but several got 3,250 gal tenders by 1900. In 1927, most had 2,950 gal tenders but 16 had 3,250 gal tenders, including 254. So by rights the Ratio tender should be 3,250 gal...

 

I've had a rummage in the garage, armed with my vernier micrometer; the Ratio tender tank is 27.4 mm wide over beading, which is about 6'10" or half-way between the 2,950 gal and 3,250 gal tenders and it is 18.5 mm from top of footplate to top of flare - 4'7½", again about mid-way between the two! It lacks the beading along the bottom of the tank - this lack being a feature, I think, of smaller tenders than either of these sizes. So, it's a mongrel, which is hardly surprising, given the similar uncertainty over quite what the engine kit itself is supposed to represent!

 

London Road Models do etched kits for both the 2,950 gal and 3,250 gal tender. For myself, I would feel that given the limitations of the engine kit, I would live with the Ratio tender. It looks like a Johnson tender, although I would add the beading along the bottom.

 

Going back to the photo of 899 at Gloucester:

 

 

I would have confidence in the 1905 date. It's certainly after 1 Feb 1903 - the smokebox lamp-iron has been removed, with a round-headed bolt or perhaps a rivet filling the hole but otherwise it is in "full Johnson" livery - I think we can presume 69A was similar until its putative 1906 overhaul that gave it the smokebox number plate and new-style coat of arms on the splasher.

 

A secondary date indicator is the small ducket on the 6-wheel clerestory brake van, which says no earlier than 1902.

 

 

Edited September 23, 2021 by Compound2632

[Annie]

2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Could be, and I confess that it is a rather Victorian level of service, which to some extent is intentional; it is the WNR Holding Back the Tide! The MR was an outlier abolishing Third in 1875.  The GE did so, IIRC, in 1892.  The Great Western did not do so until 1912, and, as I've said before, if it's good enough for the GWR ....

With my own circa 1910 freelance/imaginary railways I've taken the continuing existence of second class as being according to the demands of the district.  The people of the district want it so it continues.  With increased penetration of GER coaches into the district it does get a bit awkward at times with no doubt more than few arguments on the platform and tickets being brandished at company staff, but in the essential heart of my little railway empire the existence of second class compartments remain unassailed by 'progress'.

 

I smiled at your listed A, B & C coach sets James since they are very much the same as the way I make up my own carriage sets and I would think they would be typical of the times.  Four wheel coaches on the Windweather and Tenpenny sections still rule unchallenged and on the Tenpenny section 1870s oil lit coaches can still be found in numbers.

 

4 hours ago, Edwardian said:

.........with two Sharp Stewart 2-4-0s and the Neilson 0-4-2T for the passenger work.  

 

Oh my that's a lovely engine and one that I would very much like to commision for my own little railway empire one day.

[Edwardian]

Here's where I think I've got to with the 4-wheel stock:

 

A note on lighting  

 

The 4-wheel stock is a mix of oil and gas lighting.  The mainline 6-W stock will all be gas lit. There is a Pintsch Gas plant at Aching Constable and a siding where the coach gas reservoirs may be refilled. As gas-lit sets are stabled at Birchoverham Market and Achingham, it might be an idea to send gas tank wagons out to these places to recharge the stock without the need to take them out of service at Aching Constable.  The M&GN built such wagons at Melton Constable. 

 

The only set that calls at Aching Constable, where the gas works is located, is, of course, oil lit. Bloody typical.

 

4-wheel Mainline coaches (17)

 

For local-branch services, the idea is to form 3 sets to work the following potential diagrams:

 

Set A: Achingham – Castle Aching – Birchoverham Market – Castle Aching - Achingham

 

Set B: Birchoverham Market – Castle Aching - Achingham – Castle Aching – Birchoverham Market.

 

Set C: Castle Aching – Aching Constable – Castle Aching - Achingham – Castle Aching – Aching Constable – Castle Aching

 

Set A, a set of early 1870s coaches (gas lit (save for Brake)):

-          Luggage Brake, 21’                                            1872 MC&WCo Freelance, 12’ w/b

-          First (4-compt.), 26’                                            1872-73 MC&WCo Block-Set First, 15’ w/b

-          Second (5-compt.), 26’                                      1872-73 MC&WCo Block-Set Second, 15’ w/b

-          Third (5-compt.), 23’8’’                                       1872-73 MC&WCo Block-Set Third, 14’ w/b

-          Brake Third (3-compt.), 25’                               1872-73 MC&WCo Block-Set Brake Third, 15’ w/b

 

Set B, a set of late 1870s-1880s coaches (gas lit):

-          Luggage Brake, 26’                                             1877-86 LT&SR Dia 29, 15’ w/b (Worsley Works)

-          First (4-compt.), 26’                                            1876-77 LT&SR Dia 2, 15’ w/b (Worsley Works)

-          Second (5-compt.), 28’3’’                                   1876-77 LT&SR Dia 13, 15’ w/b (Worsley Works)

-          Third (5-compt.), 25’9’’                                       1876-77 LT&SR Dia 12, 15’ w/b (Worsley Works)

-          Brake Third (2-compt.), 24’9’’                            1877-78 LT&SR Dia 19, 14’ w/b (Worsley Works)

 

Set C, a set of early 1870s coaches (oil lit):

-          Luggage Brake, 21’                                             1872 MC&WCo Freelance, 12’ w/b

-          First-Second Composite (4-compt.), 24’          1871-74 MC&WCo, 13’6” w/b

-          Third (5-compt.), 23’8’’                                       1872-73 MC&WCo Block-Set Third, 15’ w/b

-          Brake Third (3-compt.), 25’                                 1872-73 MC&WCo Block-Set Brake Third, 15’ w/b

 

Set D, Norwich line local set (not modelled)

 

Set E, Spare set, in works (not modelled)  

 

In addition, there will be two loose Thirds available to strengthen these services on market days (gas lit):

-          Third (5-compt.), 23’8’’                                       1872-73 MC&WCo Block-Set Third, 14’ w/b

-          Third (5-compt.), 23’8’’                                       1872-73 MC&WCo Block-Set Third, 14’ w/b

Other loose 4-wheel coaches:

-          Luggage Brake, 21’ (oil lit)                                 1872 MC&WCo Freelance, 12’ w/b

 

Set A, plus a strengthening Third, would be stabled at Achingham

Set B, plus a strengthening Third, would be stabled at Birchoverham Market

Set C would be stabled at Castle Aching

 

4-wheel Branch line sets (10)

 

Fakeney Branch, set of early 1870s coaches (oil lit):

-          Luggage Brake, 21’                                             1872 MC&WCo Freelance, 12’ w/b

-          First-Second Composite (4-compt.), 24’          1871-74 MC&WCo, 13’6” w/b

-          Third (5-compt.) , 23’8’’                                       1872-73 MC&WCo Block-Set Third, 15’ w/b

-          Brake Third (3-compt.), 25’’                                1872-73 MC&WCo Block-Set Brake Third, 15’ w/b

 

Wolfringham-Shepherd's Port (oil lit):

-          Brake Third (2-compt.), 21’8”                              1867, GER, 12’ w/b, Recreation 21 FUD print

-          First-Second Composite (3-compt), 21’              1864*, 12’6” w/b, Scratch-built  

-          Brake Third (3-compt.), 21’8”                              1867, GER, 12’ w/b, Recreation 21 FUD print

*25 such coaches were built by the ECR in 1859-60, and a further 30 were supplied to the GER (formed in 1862) by MC&WCo in 1864.  They were originally Firsts, but most were converted to tri-composites by 1875 (Journal 174). The MC&WCo also supplied the WNR with 6 of these Firsts in 1864. Later the WNR converted them to First-Second Composites (2/1/2). By 1905 a sole example survived, in the Wolfringham branch set.

 

Birchoverham Staithe (oil lit):

-          Luggage Brake, 21’                                             1861, Joseph Wright, 12’ w/b, scratch-built 

-          First-Second Composite (3-compt), 18’           1860, GER**, 10’ w/b, Scratch-built

-          Brake Third (2-compt.), 21’8”                             1867, GER***, 12’ w/b, Scratch-built                 

**This is the First-Second Composite (2/1/2) drawn by Alan Prior. Like the 3 GE Brake Thirds, it was purchased second-hand by the WNR at the time of its financial crisis in 1900-1901.

*** As the GER had converted its surviving 1860s era stock to gas prior to selling it off around the turn of the century, it is assumed that the WNR actually returned this vehicle to oil-lighting in order to form a set with two even older coaches.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 23, 2021 by Edwardian

[Annie]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

*25 such coaches were built by the ECR in 1859-60, and a further 30 were supplied to the GER (formed in 1862) by MC&WCo in 1864.  They were originally Firsts, but most were converted to tri-composites by 1875 (Journal 174).

Oooooo I seem to have one of those in West Norfolk livery.  Unfortunately with the way the texture mapping works I can't make it a tri-composite.  

 

[Adam88]

My father remembered the sound of footsteps as a man walked along the roof lighting lamps on ancient Victorian excursion stock.  This would have been in the late 1920s or early 30s.  Our railways then had some dangerous practices, or at least by present day standards they were.

[Edwardian]

12 hours ago, Annie said:

Oooooo I seem to have one of those in West Norfolk livery.  Unfortunately with the way the texture mapping works I can't make it a tri-composite.  

 

 

Here we are ....

 

 

Stratford drawing of an Eastern Counties First

[Annie]

Not an exact match then.  Considering that my version is a reskinned model of a 1870s Stoke Works built NSR coach it's not doing a too bad impression.  I saw that drawing in Journal 174, but as usual the society has reproduced the drawing too small to be of use to anybody.

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Annie said:

Not an exact match then.  Considering that my version is a reskinned model of a 1870s Stoke Works built NSR coach it's not doing a too bad impression.  I saw that drawing in Journal 174, but as usual the society has reproduced the drawing too small to be of use to anybody.

 

Not a bad match at all, and, don't forget, the WNR had a whole generation of Wright coaches prior to the same-as-ECR coaches; your coach is exactly what one would expect for the era. 

 

Notice on the ECR drawing the side the hinges, door and commode handles are.

 

 

[Annie]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

Notice on the ECR drawing the side the hinges, door and commode handles are.

Yes they match which is interesting.  I've just checked some of my other coaches and the doors are all hung/hinged on the left hand side except for my 6 wheel ex Broad Gauge tri-composite which has its doors hung/hinged on the right.  I wonder if this was typical of circa 1870s coaches and also I'm wondering when the convention (if there was one) was changed.

[CKPR]

19 hours ago, Edwardian said:

The M&GN built such wagons at Melton Constable. 

As per the old Wills / SEF twin cylinder gas tank kit IIRC

[Edwardian]

I think we may consider the development of the WNR's first coach substantially complete ....

 

 

I called into t'factory yesterday, to see a further test print.  It has not been finished; the 'pips' from the support structure have not been trimmed and there has been no sanding.  The idea behind applying primer (trusty Halfords) at this stage is to judge the print quality, because detail shows up better and the 'photographic' patterning that confuses the eye into thinking it's surface relief, is hidden. 

 

 

Thus, we have support pips on one long edge of the roof, on the top edges of the sides and ends, on the buffer guides, droplights, end steps and tops of the footboards, plus various places inside.  These will all go.

 

Supports have been re-introduced to the droplights to prevent sag.  On close inspection I think they should be added back to the quarterlights, too.

 

The roof shows some patterning. I'd find it acceptable and sand, but the manufacturer thinks he can improve matters by increasing the angle of print (at an estimated 7-10% price increase!).

 

There is some stepping on the lower body (the coach has a turn-under), so I think some careful sanding might be in order.  I might try filler-primer too. 

 

The chassis is still too short.  This was amended so either we need another go or the manufacturer used the un-updated file in error,  There is a point of failure with some loss of material to a corner of the solebar and a step end, so extra supports need to be added there.

 

The roof and end handrails are significantly thicker than I had wanted, but we need to ensure they will print reliably.  I may whittle them down a little,

 

On the other hand, we have successfully managed to thin the roof edge to a more acceptable appearance, 

 

The only issue of substance is a slight collapse distorting one of the end compartments, so I'll need to discuss this.

 

Finally, in order to ensure the commode handles and door handles printed reliably, we had to add 'ramps'.  These are discernible above and below the commode handles and should be carefully trimmed, 

 

 

I think that the representation of the vacuum brake gear has come out pretty well.

 

 

Inside we can clearly see that we have managed to avoid making the sides too thick above the waist, leaving a nice recess to mount glazing.

 

This leaves us able to press ahead now with the other classes of coach in this style.  Recent timetabling exercises my Kevin and my own thoughts as to the sets that may be employed on the services identified, means that these coaches may form the majority of those on the layout/needed in order to operate it,

 

 

Thus, by adopting these as a standard and the Cambrian Kits Gloucester POs as the basis for a standardised wagon fleet, we do arrive at a point at which WNR rolling stock is distinctive yet readily reproduceable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Annie]

What a lovely coach model James.  I know the test print has some issues to be tidied up, but once that's done the W.N.R. is going to be the proud owner of some very nice coaches indeed.  I hear and agree with what you are saying about the W.N.R. having its own distinctive rolling stock and identity.  Freelance railways don't have to be generic by any means.

[ChrisN]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

There is some stepping on the lower body (the coach has a turn-under), so I think some careful sanding might be in order.  I might try filler-primer too. 

 

James,

I used Halfords spray filler primer successfully on my loco, although it did take a few coats.

[Edwardian]

It just now occurs to me that soon, with luck, I shall need some WNR transfers, and, most importantly, some views of places on the line to place above the seat backs.

 

A series of photographs entitled "Beauties of Norfolk"

 

No, not Hilda!  

 

I'd better get the camera out .....

 

[Compound2632]

23 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

I'd better get the camera out .....

 

Just check that your developing chemicals have not been tampered with before you use them.

[Edwardian]

6 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Just check that your developing chemicals have not been tampered with before you use them.

 

Indeed .....

 

[Nearholmer]

Are you sure that’s not Kent? Fremlin was a Kent brewer, I think, or possibly a Brewer of Kent.

 

 

Edited September 25, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Edwardian]

5 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Are you sure that’s not Kent? Fremlin was a Kent brewer, I think, or possibly a Brewer of Kent.

 

 

 

Yes, it was filmed in Kent

[Northroader]

3 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

No, not Hilda!  

 

 

 

 

Now, you’re quite sure about that?

 

[Nearholmer]

Puts me in mind of an infants’ school hymn: Daisies are our silver, buttocks up are cold.

[westerhamstation]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Are you sure that’s not Kent? Fremlin was a Kent brewer, I think, or possibly a Brewer of Kent.

 

 

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/maidstone/news/are-you-a-man-of-kent-or-kentish-man-228500/

Fremlins Brewery was on the east side of the Medway. All the best Adrian.

[NeilHB]

For Custom Transfers if you haven’t sorted things out already, I can very much recommend talking to Corbs at Railway Mania. He produced my custom ETCo transfers for my goods stock. Very good quality and for a darn good price too. 

[Regularity]

47 minutes ago, westerhamstation said:

Fremlins Brewery was on the east side of the Medway. All the best Adrian

Which makes them not a Kent brewer, but a Kentish brewer.

(Presumably, if someone is from west of the Medway, there is more likelihood of them being of “diluted” blood. Those east of the Medway obviously feel more “pure”. But actually, it just means more inbred. Like - until recently - the Royal Family.)

[Andy Hayter]

3 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Which makes them not a Kent brewer, but a Kentish brewer.

(Presumably, if someone is from west of the Medway, there is more likelihood of them being of “diluted” blood. Those east of the Medway obviously feel more “pure”. But actually, it just means more inbred. Like - until recently - the Royal Family.)

 

No, no and thrice no.

 

East of the Medway - man of Kent

West - Kentish man

 

Easy to remember Kentish town (nothing to do with Kent) is in London.  West of the Medway.