Jump to content

Recommended Posts

From the Photo St Enodoc posted the turnout at the tunnel mouth it a 4 way tandam  (quad?)  rather than a true 4 way as the blade tips look staggered. If you were to reduce the number of sidings than could be reduced to a 3 way available commercially.

 

I agree with reducing the number of sidings. It produces a better model in my view.

 

Don 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What a wonderful prototype to be modelling James!! and I don't say that just because it's got my name in it!!

 

Can't wait to see these 2 done with Rails Terriers! Number 81 regained her condensing pipes and kept her Stroudley numberplate when she became a 2-4-0 (The Umber lining was also slightly different to later umber engines, Boxhill's lining was also simplified compared to other IEG locos) I really must get around to finishing the lining on the other side of 81 and get some matt varnish of her!!

 

1657715144_2020-11-2608_25_20.jpg.57f40ad51f0d3ed3e05148bf686e509e.jpg

  • Like 6
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

Yes, contemplating the map, I was rapidly coming to that conclusion .... 

 

1418663818_25inch1909survey-Copy.jpg.7cb0bb4b33d98aa42255472679edef95.jpg

 

Even with digital modelling where space is no object I'll condense down siding capacity.  Just recently I re-jigged a goods yard on my Hopewood tramway down to a smaller size because I wasn't using anything like all the sidings that were available.  I would say that if every second siding shown on the OS map was removed I don't think anyone looking at your layout would notice the difference even if they were a dyed in the wool LBSC enthusiast.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Donw said:

From the Photo St Enodoc posted the turnout at the tunnel mouth it a 4 way tandam  (quad?)  rather than a true 4 way as the blade tips look staggered. If you were to reduce the number of sidings than could be reduced to a 3 way available commercially.

 

I agree with reducing the number of sidings. It produces a better model in my view.

 

Don 

 

Thanks, Gary.  A couple of inspirational Terriers there.

 

Turning to Don and Kevin, yes the trackage needs pruning.

 

The more elegant, and the more, to my mind, modeller's solution, is to rationalise the track plan.

 

This, however, results in a model that is like Kemp Town, but not of Kemp Town.  Like the two modellers Kevin referred to, I'd have to name it something else. 

 

It struck me that, yes, as Don says, this would reduce the 4-way to a 3-way point at the entrance.

 

An alternative approach would be to model a slice of Kemp Town

 

Less tidy, with extraneous stubs of turnouts and truncated tracks, it would not appeal to many, but it would allow the layout to remain a model of Kemp Town, just not of all of it.

 

You'd work out what bits you actually want in order to operate it, and just confine the modelled scene to the area necessary to contain that.

 

So, A Slice of Kemp Town? Perhaps something like ....  

 

977429443_25inch1909survey-Copy-Copy.jpg.d9e0015ff38abe7435cf14c1e68f9ee5.jpg

  • Like 5
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, BlueLightning said:

What a wonderful prototype to be modelling James!! and I don't say that just because it's got my name in it!!

 

Can't wait to see these 2 done with Rails Terriers! Number 81 regained her condensing pipes and kept her Stroudley numberplate when she became a 2-4-0 (The Umber lining was also slightly different to later umber engines, Boxhill's lining was also simplified compared to other IEG locos) I really must get around to finishing the lining on the other side of 81 and get some matt varnish of her!!

 

1657715144_2020-11-2608_25_20.jpg.57f40ad51f0d3ed3e05148bf686e509e.jpg

 

Re the simplified lining, I see that the panel lining has plain incurves at the corners and that the later, thinner, lettering is used on the tank side.

 

IIRC, there is a reference to an experimental green applied at the time of the conversion.  I think that's in Bradley's RCTS volume. I've never been convinced of this., assume the reference was to be taken to mean IE Green, but the re-lining does suggest the possibility that a new colour was also applied at the time of the conversion!

 

 

1287869485_Boxhill1905.jpg.2192df7307c1f24ac90352779a49feb6.jpg

 

 

15 minutes ago, Annie said:

Even with digital modelling where space is no object I'll condense down siding capacity.  Just recently I re-jigged a goods yard on my Hopewood tramway down to a smaller size because I wasn't using anything like all the sidings that were available.  I would say that if every second siding shown on the OS map was removed I don't think anyone looking at your layout would notice the difference even if they were a dyed in the wool LBSC enthusiast.

 

In many ways the best solution, but would I feel happy claiming it was 'Kemp Town'.

 

I have a tender conscience about such things.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

n many ways the best solution, but would I feel happy claiming it was 'Kemp Town'.

 

I have a tender conscience about such things.

A good point.  Perhaps 'Kempton Town', - or 'Kemp Town Road'.  If you call it 'Kemp Town Road' you wouldn't need to model any of the surrounding town buildings, - just a lot of fields and hedgerows instead.  Possibly that's a bit silly though........

  • Like 4
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

IIRC, there is a reference to an experimental green applied at the time of the conversion.  I think that's in Bradley's RCTS volume. I've never been convinced of this., assume the reference was to be taken to mean IE Green, but the re-lining does suggest the possibility that a new colour was also applied at the time of the conversion!

 

Like you I am not convinced of Boxhill receiving a green livery, I have heard people claim it was put into goods green, but the photo you posted clearly shows it is still in 2 separate colours which goods green was not, and the difference between the inside and outside of the panel looks the same as similar photos of locos in IEG, and in fact the loco behind it (I realise this is a terrible way of ascertaining colour in B/W photos) which to me makes me think it was most likely still in the same colours. When I finally get around to modelling Boxhill as a 2-4-0 I will be doing it in IEG

 

Gary

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d forgotten the “Was it actually still IEG?” controversy.

 

You seem to be heading for a layout that is a stick of Brighton rock, which is OK, because part of ‘Brighton Rock’ is set at the nearby race-course. 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I’d forgotten the “Was it actually still IEG?” controversy.

 

You seem to be heading for a layout that is a stick of Brighton rock, which is OK, because part of ‘Brighton Rock’ is set at the nearby race-course. 

Which gives me the cue I was waiting for, to say that the layout could then be called Kemp Town Races (doo-dah, doo-dah).

  • Like 1
  • Round of applause 4
  • Funny 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, BlueLightning said:

 

Like you I am not convinced of Boxhill receiving a green livery, I have heard people claim it was put into goods green, but the photo you posted clearly shows it is still in 2 separate colours which goods green was not, and the difference between the inside and outside of the panel looks the same as similar photos of locos in IEG, and in fact the loco behind it (I realise this is a terrible way of ascertaining colour in B/W photos) which to me makes me think it was most likely still in the same colours. When I finally get around to modelling Boxhill as a 2-4-0 I will be doing it in IEG

 

Gary

 

I think that's right.  The most reasonable response to the information we have is to represent the 2-4-0T Boxhill with the slightly simplified lining (it's still obviously otherwise the same style of lining as IEG livery, not Goods Green lining) in IEG with Dark Olive borders.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

A slice of Kemp Town ....

 

Let us assume that, having learnt at the knee of Iain Rice, we go for reasonably high baseboards, at least 4', probably more, from the ground; the masonry screen behind the platform shelter actually blocks off a reasonable length of the sidings.  This to some extent might lessen the visual impact of losing the bulk of the yard behind the platform.

 

The plan below allows three goods sidings to be represented in their entirety at the top/rear of the plan.  These would need to be operated from the top/rear of the layout, as the platform shelter screen is in the way to their front.  

 

The chosen slice also allows for two long sidings at the front.  Useful for spare stock. 

 

There are 4-5 turnouts that could either be omitted, for neatness, or represented as cosmetic turnouts to, or on, truncated lines, which terminate at the edge of the modelled scene. I prefer the idea of including them, thus causing the layout, at least to the extent modelled, to be true to Kemp Town. 

 

1642846460_Picture3-Copy.jpg.d2e26292ed7db892f6d38f81fb0cbbe3.jpg

 

We end up with a plan that harks back to an early school of thought; modelling only what lies within the line side fence.  A current example of this is the LNWR London Road

 

With my enjoyment of architectural modelling, constraining the scene to railway company property is not something I would generally expect to do, but it works for this location, as it would for Ventnor, which I think Kevin mentioned as a similar site to Kemp Town.  

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

 

 

  • Like 12
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One drawback is that shunting moves - at least shunting the goods yard - involve the train practically disappearing off-stage into the tunnel, which for the viewer blurs the distinction between shunts and arrivals / departures. I started building a similar layout, a goods station based on Birmingham Central goods, that also has a tunnel at the throat, but there the approach through the tunnel was double track with all shunting done on the departure line, so there was less ambiguity - not least because I was the only person looking and I know what was going on!

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/11/2020 at 11:09, Schooner said:

 

'I'm gonna take my horse to Kemp Town Road, I'm gonna riiiiiiiiiide 'til I can't no more...'

 

LBSCR E3 class 165 BLATCHINGTON with a horse box

 

 

:) 

This is the first time I have seen 'Blatchington'. It interests me as I now live in East Blatchington, which is part of Seaford, in East Sussex. West Blatchington is part of Hove. The AA says they are 20+ miles apart, via their recommended route. Would anyone know which Blatchington this loco was named after?  Neither has its own station although both have stations nearby - Seaford and Bishopstone for us and Aldrington for West Blatchington.

 

The builder of this 2mm version has not attempted the 4-way point at the tunnel mouth.

 

Edited by phil_sutters
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I realised that; the fiddleyard/traverser or whatnot must provide the headsunt to the yard. That is a constraint imposed by the prototype, so cannot be helped. 

 

I suppose that if the same wagons that arrive then go off and onstage as they are distributed, it will look and feel like shunting the yard, rather than a succession of trains.  I'm probably too lazy to do more than short one daily goods in a fairly desultory way. 

 

At least I can run round passenger trains (almost) on stage.

 

As the 1905 2-4-0Ts were trialing elsewhere, I doubt they would have been seen at Kemp Town before 1906.  That year certainly saw not just one, but both of the petrol railcars tried on the branch. This is interesting, as the bodies were different do they were quite distinct.

 

1199268685_LBSCRPetrolRailcarNo.3.jpg.14902c92434f75bbe5b3378ebad4c84d.jpg

 

835263181_LBSCRPetrolRailcarNo.4.jpg.0cf9d15390b611a7f17faeb9d77d0ff3.jpg

 

Here No.4 appear to be at Kemp Town.

 

So, what with Stroudley sets, umber and cream balloon trailer motor trains and petrol railcars, the passenger side of the layout could be quite interesting.  Factor in a locomotive livery change in 1905, so locos will between them show four liveries, and I think there is quite enough variety for such a simple layout. 

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
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
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
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

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
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

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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.