Creating a believable freelance pre-Group company

[JimC]

At some point, we will be placing a cat into the steam chest...

Castle Class 7038 Schrödinger ...

 

Edited February 25, 2018 by JimC

[Roger.s]

Steam is Steam and Diesel is Diesel and never the twain ....

 

Oh yes they will!

 

https://www.lner.info/locos/IC/kitson.php

[Annie]

Fascinating.  I'd never heard of the Kitson-Still locomotive before.

 

On the Sharpie singles with cab subject I found an Irish one with straight frames that has made me think about getting some nice cardboard out and having a play with the idea.  Not so sure about the cab though and I might have to have a go at something of my own devising.

 

[HonestTom]

The western USA had lots of short-lived lines built to generate traffic which wasn’t there!

 

A lot of what's now the Underground was built speculatively in the hope of generating traffic. The Hammersmith and City mostly served communities that barely existed. Unfortunately for the H&CR's backers, the area didn't acquire the wealthy commuters they were hoping for until relatively recently.

[whart57]

 

Carriage design is another topic the creator of a believable pre-Group railway company has to consider. Those thinking of a short light railway or tramway will usually assume carriages are bought second hand or they are of the specialised, but rare, tramway style built by some carriage builders, the most classic example possibly being those of the Wisbech and Upwell. The two carriages I drew out for the Hampton Tramway were assumed to be ex-SER one with a little bit of local carpentry to turn a 4 compartment third into a third brake. The other I based on the Duke of Wellington’s carriage – which survived a long time – which was a first class compartment with curved quarter lights flanked by two second class compartments.

 

This sort of approach won’t do for a more mainline concern like the Surrey Railway. Here we have to assume a new build approach, and then what is design to be?

 

The actual period matters. The Railways Act came very early on in railway history – 1844. This didn’t outlaw the open thirds but made it unattractive for railway companies to keep them as they still had to provide covered thirds for the daily Parliamentary train. Some companies, the Brighton for example, got round the Act by instigating a fourth class, but that was a short-lived practice, it probably lasted no longer than the pre-1844 carriages.

 

Class mattered to the early Victorians and the classes in railway carriages were a continuation of stage coach practice. However it is a mistake to think that travel facilities were available to all. First class on the railways was the equivalent of inside seats on a stage coach and second class the equivalent of seats on the roof. Third class was the equivalent of the carrier’s cart, hence the practice initially of running third class in separate trains, often mixed passenger and goods trains.

 

Carriage design in the 1840s and up to the 1860s reflected stage coach heritage. First class carriages often looked like two or three stage coach bodies stuck together on a railway underframe. Second class were similar but often had smaller windows, usually square instead of curved quarterlights.

 

The design of third class carriages depended on the railway company viewpoint. Some companies saw third class passengers as valid customers, others saw the third class passenger who availed themselves of Parliament’s demand of penny a mile third class fares but who could afford more as an offence against company profits. The latter sort of company (hello South Eastern!) built third class carriages that grudgingly met Parliament’s requirements but nothing more.

 

Most carriages of the early period were four wheel, but that was limiting in size. Bogies had yet to be invented so various companies experimented with six and eight wheel carriages where the middle axles were allowed to move laterally. This worked all right at the low speeds of the early years but the fact that most disappeared as speeds increased in mid century suggests they were pretty rough riding.

 

A better way of mounting an axle so that it could help the entire wheelbase to follow the curves appeared around 1870 and that gave us the classic pre-Group six wheeler. Considering the Americans had already developed the bogie that would seem to be a retrograde step.

 

Around that time too the penny dropped with railway companies, well some of them, that third class passengers were more profitable, simply through numbers. It caused something of the same stir that Freddie Laker and Michael O’Leary caused in the airline industry a century later, and just as in the 1970s and 1980s in the airline industry many 19^th century railway companies were slow in adjusting to the new paradigm and continued to run trains that were lightly loaded with wealthy passengers paying high fares. The Midland Railway’s decision to abolish second class and increase third class accommodation on all its trains was a commercial success and its immediate competitors had to follow suit

These third class passengers came aboard in such numbers that larger carriages were needed, and bogie designs came to dominate. Six wheelers fell out of fashion and the only four wheelers built at the end of the century were for situations where lightness of construction was required, either for light railways or, in and around London, where smallish tank engines were expected to drag hundreds of passengers around in one train.

 

So where does that leave the carriage stock of my 1891 Surrey Railway? It is a south of the Thames line so the effect of the Midland Railway’s abolition of second class has not rippled through yet. Thus we still have three classes.

 

We are also assuming the Surrey Railway is perpetually short of cash so carriages from the 1860s are still around, filling in on locals and stopping trains. Larger carriages would have been built through the 1870s and 80s but the cash situation, as well as the lack of a pressing need to have them, means that the newest carriages are still six wheelers. Six wheelers could be from 27’ to 33’ in length whereas four wheelers of the time would not be longer than 25’

 

The three factors we need to consider for carriage design are compartment width and height and carriage width. Third class compartments could be as little as five foot from partition to partition and rarely more than six foot. First class on the other hand was at least six foot and usually more than seven foot.

 

Carriage width and height increased during the century, but as most carriages were still built of wood, 19^th century carriages were lower and narrower than early 20^th century ones.

 

So, for the Surrey railway I would have a fair number of six wheeled upper class coaches, four compartment firsts, four compartment composites and five compartment seconds. There would also be some six wheeled thirds with five or six compartments depending on length. On secondary trains I would still have some four wheeled thirds though. I’d also be tempted to have some six wheeled thirds that were really a pair of old four wheeled thirds as a cut and shut job on a six wheel underframe.

 

I would also tend to eschewing a single style, a mix and match of profiles and panelling is much more interesting in my opinion.

[Regularity]

Interesting points.

 

One thing to note is that whilst some designers had clear details which identify them, many didn’t, and some of the smaller (non light) railway companies simply bought off-the-shelf coaches from the various contractors such as the Birmingham and Gloucester RCWs. I have seen small 4 wheel 5 compartment 3rds built for the LTSR which are incredibly similar to coaches which ran on the NBR, M&GN, SMJ and the Isle of Wight Central. There were probably some in Wales, too.

 

So, there are certain companies where you simply can’t copy, but others where you can. I have always thought that the Midland “suburban” low-roof coaches produced by Ratio and Slaters are a great place to start: although Midlan Railway designs, they are less obviously so than many others and they are in fact quite “late-Victorian coachey” but can be cut and shut to create a series of vehicles maybe slightly shorter or slightly longer, have clerestory roofs put on, etc, even cut down to provide 4 and 6 wheel vehicles - maybe put the bogie coacheson Fox pattern bogies to make them look different. This would generate a consistency of style, suggesting one designer, and then you can do something similar with another source to create the changed look that the new Carriage and Wagon Superintendent brought in.

Edited February 28, 2018 by Regularity

[Joseph_Pestell]

My favourite "might-have-been" is the alternative that the South Wales coal owners wanted to compete with the Great Way Round.

 

This was a development of the Oxford to Fairford branch to Gloucester and onwards to South Wales. In conjunction with the OW&W, this gives a railway which would have been viable as an independent concern. My interest in this has always been the station that would have been created in North Oxford, spookily on about the site that Chiltern's Oxford Parkway is now.

[whart57]

To expand a bit further on carriage design, size and shape of windows and the style of panelling are important considerations. As is whether to have tumblehome on carriage sides. Many older carriages, second class and especially third class frequently did not.

 

As for windows, a general rule was the higher the class the larger the windows. Door droplights didn't vary quite so much, after all it's basically the same size human that has to pass through the door irrespective of whether they are heading for a third class bench or a first class armchair. Doors to third class might be a few inches narrower or first class a few inches wider but not much more than that.

 

Quarter lights though were a different matter. The first generation of post Railways Act third class coaches might grudgingly give the occupants a piece of glass about A4 sized, and that was not much more expanded to A3 ten years later. The higher classes were treated to more light. Not just during the day, after dark the upper class carriages would have at least one oil lamp per compartment, third class more often than not shared one between two compartments. Or in worst cases shared one with the whole carriage. What, third class passengers can read !?!?!?!  For the modeller this might seem academic but of course oil lamps were housed in big pots which stuck out above the roof so the number and position of oil lamps is highly visible. As is their superseding by gas or electric lighting.

 

Panelling styles also varied during the century. The sort of beading we associate with wooden compartment coaches was inherited from stage coach design so was present from the dawn of railways. Making curved beading was however a skilled carpenter's job - no Black and Decker routers in those days - so was expensive and only applied to first class carriages. Straight beading was easier to make and thus cheaper, and on many railways, or in the products from external builders, it was quite common to see second class carriages have rectangular windows and thus rectangular panelling. If pre 1860 third class carriages didn't betray their open wagon heritage - for example by being outside framed with heavy 8" planked sides reminiscent of cattle wagons - then they were likely to be panelled like this too.

 

It was only in the last quarter of the nineteenth century that the classic style of panelling started to emerge, along with a greater uniformity across the classes.

 

So on my Surrey railway I would have some carriages with a classic style, these being the newer six wheel types. I am however a sucker for third class carriages of the more bovine carrying heritage, so I'd find an excuse of having some of these horrors on local trains. In those local trains I'd like to mix not just panelling style but also shape and profile, with class differences being obvious from that and not just from the inscription on the doors.

[Nick Holliday]

To expand a bit further on carriage design, size and shape of windows and the style of panelling are important considerations. As is whether to have tumblehome on carriage sides. Many older carriages, second class and especially third class frequently did not.

 

Panelling styles also varied during the century. The sort of beading we associate with wooden compartment coaches was inherited from stage coach design so was present from the dawn of railways. Making curved beading was however a skilled carpenter's job - no Black and Decker routers in those days - so was expensive and only applied to first class carriages. Straight beading was easier to make and thus cheaper, and on many railways, or in the products from external builders, it was quite common to see second class carriages have rectangular windows and thus rectangular panelling. If pre 1860 third class carriages didn't betray their open wagon heritage - for example by being outside framed with heavy 8" planked sides reminiscent of cattle wagons - then they were likely to be panelled like this too.

 

It was only in the last quarter of the nineteenth century that the classic style of panelling started to emerge, along with a greater uniformity across the classes.

 

So on my Surrey railway I would have some carriages with a classic style, these being the newer six wheel types. I am however a sucker for third class carriages of the more bovine carrying heritage, so I'd find an excuse of having some of these horrors on local trains. In those local trains I'd like to mix not just panelling style but also shape and profile, with class differences being obvious from that and not just from the inscription on the doors.

If you are looking for a bit of design inspiration, and perhaps justification for retaining obsolete design concepts, have a look at the HIghland and Great North of Scotland Railways.  They were building new coaches into the 1880's which looked as if they were the product of Brighton Works (other works are available) some twenty or thirty years earlier.  Some of these carriages were intended for first class travellers, at a time when the Midland Railway had already abolished second class compartments.

[Nick Holliday]

I quite like the concept of the Reading to Redhill line being an independent company, although I am not too sure about the idea that it would form an independent route into London.  However, as a result of seeing this thread, I have mugged up on the line from Adrian Gray's book on the SER and noted that the financial affairs of the line were a real can of worms.  In particular, it would seem that the board of the Reading, Guildford and Redhill Railway were not that keen on many aspects of the SER's acquisition deal, and the SER shareholders were up in arms as they thought it would be a white elephant, so the final deal was very much in the balance. Even once it was opened, the line lost substantial sums of money, so I could imagine the SER board would have been very happy not to have it on their books.

What seems to have been ignored is the Portsmouth Direct Railway, from Godalming to Havant.  This line was built purely on spec by the contractor, Thomas Brassey, with a view to selling to the highest bidder, out of the three southern lines in the vicinity. However, both the LSWR and the Brighton already had routes to Portsmouth, and as fares were charged by the mile, they were both quite happy to leave things that way, with a fairly equal split of the takings, and this upstart newcomer would upset this comfy financial arrangement, and it was only after some behind the scenes skullduggery that the LSWR finally threw their hat into the ring.  What if the disgruntled burghers of Portsmouth, cheesed off with the "service" from the two incumbent lines, combined with the GWR, who had a burning desire to have a good outlet to the south coast, preferably Southampton, but the naval dockyards at Pompey were a good second best, and acquired the Portsmouth Direct and made an offer to the SER to buy the loss-making RGRR off them?  The SER board would have been happy to dispose of the line, although they did express an interest in retaining the line from Dorking to Redhill, which fits quite well with your proposals regarding the line heading northwards from Dorking to reach London via Epsom. 

This scenario would give you a potential for substantial goods traffic from Wales and the west country, courtesy of the GWR, with their standard gauge reaching ever further, running either to Portsmouth or Dover.  If you stick with Dorking as the station, this could mean stock from the LBSC and LSW coming down your joint line from Leatherhead, and SER stock coming from Redhill, with occasional GWR locos running through, all rubbing shoulders with your native stock. Not quite fifty shades of green, but gettting close, so a blue or red loco livery would stand out nicely, perhaps following the Furness Railway style with red locos and blue and white carriages.

[whart57]

There is one problem with considering the GWR in the Surrey Railway story and that is that 7 foot gauge it had. Surely the break of gauge would have killed any thought of a cross-country route to the Brighton line.

[Regularity]

That never stopped them from making a play to gain territory!

[Edwardian]

I may have lost track, but if the 'play' was made after 1846, wouldn't it have to be standard gauge anyway?

 

The Northern Division of the GW was happily standard gauge for decades before the conversion of 1892, so the GWR was no stranger to running 'narrow gauge' trains.

[whart57]

The thought occurred to me that Boxhill Junction might make a good loft layout, the various loops being in the bits under the eaves that are too low for proper scenic treatment. This sketch gives the idea

 

 

 

The grey shaded bit is the sceniced bit.

 

How you operate it depends on your approach. If like me you take the build stuff yourself approach then it would be 100% Surrey Railway. On the other hand if you want to run a collection of Edwardian locos and stock then perhaps forget the independent Surrey Railway operating itself but have it renting out its tracks to others. A feasible approach might be LBSCR trains running Leatherhead-Horsham, LSWR Leatherhead-Dorking, SECR Redhill-Boxhill, and GWR goods and through passenger passing over the bridge and bypassing Boxhill station.

[whart57]

 

This scenario would give you a potential for substantial goods traffic from Wales and the west country, courtesy of the GWR, with their standard gauge reaching ever further, running either to Portsmouth or Dover.  If you stick with Dorking as the station, this could mean stock from the LBSC and LSW coming down your joint line from Leatherhead, and SER stock coming from Redhill, with occasional GWR locos running through, all rubbing shoulders with your native stock. Not quite fifty shades of green, but gettting close, so a blue or red loco livery would stand out nicely, perhaps following the Furness Railway style with red locos and blue and white carriages.

 

The pedant says that in 1891 SER engines were black.

 

The uberpedant counters that in 1891 Stirling designed engines might have been black but the older Cudworth designs that ran secondary services such as Redhill-Reading were still green

[whart57]

Just a bit of fantasy to break up the weekend tidying

 

 

The loco is a Sharp Stewart offering, the carriages based on Brown-Marshall and Oldbury Carriage designs. So we have a road van (as full brakes were called in the 19th century), 3rd class. 1st class and 2nd class with luggage compartment

[Annie]

That is such a great image, - what's the source?

[whart57]

Basically it's made up of a number of scans stitched together. The carriages were drawn out using Inkscape - I already had some of the elements for use with a Silhouette cutter - but the underframes are a scan and the loco is a scan from a book on Dutch railway engines - both the Netherlands Rhine Railway and the State Railway were big users of British built engines. That book has drawings of a number of Sharpies and Beyer Peacocks, and a few by Neilson too.

[Annie]

I have to say though as a piece of fantasy stitching all those elements together really does work and it looks very plausible.  And of course I'm a keen fan of Sharpies and since they seem to have gone just about everywhere they're a good choice for a a 'what-if' railway.

[HonestTom]

I'm playing with ideas for my next micro, and I'm thinking in terms of going back in time to the late Victorian era for a light railway. Mostly because I really like pre-grouping wagons, private owner liveries and small engines. The rolling stock probably isn't going to be all that plausible (for one thing, the Lancashire and Yorkshire have apparently sold off a virtually new pug), but I've stitched a history for my company together out of various lines' histories, mostly the Surrey Iron Railway, the Liverpool and Manchester, the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway and the Wantage Tramway.

 

The line is the Irit Valley Railway, in a fictional part of Shropshire. I chose Shropshire partly because I have family down there, but mostly because of the painting 'Coalbrookdale by Night,' which I think is my favourite work of art. The story goes that the River Irit (rhymes with "spirit") is a fast-flowing, shallow river, wholly unsuitable for navigation but perfect for powering watermills, and it had several dozen along its length. The problem was transporting the goods produced. Deepening the river is not an option, as this would slow the flow. A possible option was to build a branch off the Shropshire Union Canal at Coulton to run alongside, but the canal company dragged its heels about building it. Another option suggested was to build a tramway, and this was the course chosen. The tramway opened in 1805. In 1848, the Coulton and Shrewsbury Railway reached Coulton (the GWR having little interest in Coulton), and the decision was made to re-gauge the tramway and adopt steam traction. At the time the layout will be set, the tramway is worked by a mix of small locomotives and a hotch-potch of second-hand rolling stock.

 

I envision the layout as being set around the point where the IVR meats the CSR, so I can have my tiny IVR locomotives, but also some larger CSR locomotives dropping wagons off.

[whart57]

I stand to be corrected but I thought the Coalbrookdale Company built a handful of engines, small 0-4-0's I think.

 

(I used to live in Telford around the time Blists Hill and the other museums were starting up)

[whart57]

I was right, the Coalbrookdale Company built the very first one - Trevithick's locomotive. Now that would be a conversation piece on a layout.

 

In the mid 19th century they also built some locomotives for their own use but the website I consulted was unclear whether they built any for sale.

[sem34090]

Don't set me off on another one... I'm already digging myself a hole with 'Derwent' and another 'thing'...

[JimC]

... isn't going to be all that plausible (for one thing, the Lancashire and Yorkshire have apparently sold off a virtually new pug)

 

Not beyond the bounds of possibiliy. The GWR sold some very new 0-6-0T some years earlier, and you can always imagine that your chosen line ordered a copy of the L&Y pug from say Vulcan foundry, who I believe built the prototype.

[whart57]

I'm thinking of a similar subterfuge. I built a Stirling O class some thirty years ago and it's a reliable runner. It could do with a repaint though as the SECR lining is a bit wobbly to say the least. So this is my story.

 

In the early 1880s through goods traffic from the SER at Redhill to the GWR at Reading was increasing and the London and Surrey's engines were struggling to cope. Double heading was occurring far too frequently for the CME's liking. More powerful goods locos were needed urgently. Discussions opened with the SER about the possibility of hiring some engines but conversations with the Loco Department of the SER elucidated that the SER had an order with Sharp Stewart for a batch of O class that they wanted to cancel so they could bring their construction to Ashford. However Sharp's had already laid down the frames of a couple. Ashford then suggested a deal was done so that these engines were completed for the L&S. The L&S saw they were getting a bargain and agreed with the caveat that they were fitted with a normal domed boiler as they weren't keen on Stirling's domeless design. Thus the L&S acquired two modern and powerful (for 1883) 0-6-0s to get them out of the hole.

 

So, all I need to do is put a dome on the boiler, move the safety valves to a more usual position and apply a coat or two of black paint.