Midland in Tewkesbury

[lezz01]

Roger that. Carry on that man!

Regards Lez.

[Tricky]

Ticking along with some small jobs: the mill has a roof and some internal strengthening fillets. It’s also painted black inside, as well as the window reveals have been painted already so that I can fit the windows without fear of getting brick paint all over them. 

 

On the engine shed I’ve also painted the inside black, apart from the far wall which will be dirty white. I’ve also painted the window reveals and fitted the windows, but no glazing at the moment. From a colour photo of the real shed, the arches over the side windows appear to be a yellow brick, with the main doorway arch being engineering blues. Indeed, the whole wall above the arch seems to be in blues but I shan’t replicate that as I fear in model form it will look like I’ve got it wrong! 

 

The windows in the far wall have just been stuck on the outside of the mdf wall as that side will never be seen. 

[lezz01]

Hi Tricky.

Don't get sucked in by the colour photos of the shed mate. The blue gable end in the 70's photos were a later addition probably from when the engineering company took it over and bricked up the entrance. If you compare the older photos you will see that the end wall is exactly the same shading as the sides which indicates to me that they are in red brick and not the blue of the later photos.

Regards Lez. 

[Tricky]

Not much happened in Tewkesbury lately, other than the first of many coats of brickwork painting. Plus I noticed while painting the gable end that I made a mistake on the brickwork drawing; the top of the walls should have a soldier course. I’ll get round this by adding stone coping stones. @lezz01take note!!

 

Weird evening lighting gives the building a nasty orange glow - not so in real life!!

Edited July 14, 2021 by Tricky

[Tricky]

A little update - I did a bit more painting on the engine shed roof; picking out some individual slates and going over the lead work with a washed-out white. Adding some lead staining streaks brings it to life. 

[Tricky]

Also on the bench is a private owner wagon which will get lettered in the Healings Mill livery. This is of course the Slaters kit straight out of the box with the exception of sprung w-irons. The body been sprayed with red primer and then brushed over with Humbrol 70 thinned down and applied quickly with a broad-ish brush. 

Plus I finally got round to finishing the GW open which has been waiting for a set of sprung W-irons. I couldn’t find transfers of the correct height so hand lettered it. 

 

 

They’re both posed on what will be a photo plank, when I can get round to it!

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Tricky said:

Also on the bench is a private owner wagon which will get lettered in the Healings Mill livery. This is of course the Slaters kit straight out of the box with the exception of sprung w-irons. The body been sprayed with red primer and then brushed over with Humbrol 70 thinned down and applied quickly with a broad-ish brush. 

 

Wot about the solebars?

 

I like that wagon. (Assuming it's No. 5 you're going for per the photo in Montague and in Pope.) It was delivered in Jan 1900 and is inscribed Empty to Netherseal Colliery , near Burton-on-Trent. So it's ideal to be included in a loaded or empty mineral train passing through Birmingham by the Midland route c. 1902! The Gloucester official photo shows the wagon before it received its registration plate. Ian Pope, Private Owner Wagons of Gloucestershire (Lightmoor Press, 2006) records that it received MR registration No. 29993.

 

 

Edited July 20, 2021 by Compound2632

[Tricky]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Wot about the solebars?

 

I like that wagon. (Assuming it's No. 5 you're going for per the photo in Montague and in Pope.) It was delivered in Jan 1900 and is inscribed Empty to Netherseal Colliery , near Burton-on-Trent. So it's ideal to be included in a loaded or empty mineral train passing through Birmingham by the Midland route c. 1902! The Gloucester official photo shows the wagon before it received its registration plate. Ian Pope, Private Owner Wagons of Gloucestershire (Lightmoor Press, 2006) records that it received MR registration No. 29993.

 

 

I don't have that photo - I was basing it on a dodgy photo of an RTR example...!

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Tricky said:

I don't have that photo - I was basing it on a dodgy photo of an RTR example...!

 

Here you go - HMRS ACH526.

[Tricky]

8 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Here you go - HMRS ACH526.

Super! Do you reckon ‘chocolate’ all over including solebars and no ironwork picked out in black (as I’ve seen done elsewhere)?

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, Tricky said:

Super! Do you reckon ‘chocolate’ all over including solebars and no ironwork picked out in black (as I’ve seen done elsewhere)?

 

Certainly chocolate solebars. Black ironwork is trickier; it would be standard Gloucester practice but it's hard to be sure from the photo. To my eyes the ironwork looks different to the woodwork but that could be a consequence of texture rather than colour.

 

At least it's clear that it's white lettering shaded black.

[t-b-g]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Certainly chocolate solebars. Black ironwork is trickier; it would be standard Gloucester practice but it's hard to be sure from the photo. To my eyes the ironwork looks different to the woodwork but that could be a consequence of texture rather than colour.

 

At least it's clear that it's white lettering shaded black.

 

I am not sure that it is that clear. If you zoom onto the image, you can see that the shading on the lettering is 100% certainly lighter than the bodywork.

 

If I was guessing from that photo I would be going for black bodywork, white letters shaded red. Red shaded letters on a brown or red wagon would be most unusual.

 

I spent a while looking at PO wagons for one of my layouts and the more I looked, the more I decided that published records were misleading at best.

 

I found a cracking picture of Maltby Colliery yard with about 8 or 10 wagons in Maltby livery and no two were alike, sometimes the variations are quite considerable. In the background to the photo are two wagons in a livery that was described in a very highly regarded book as "Only one wagon was ever painted in this livery as an experiment that wasn't adopted".

 

Even if some "Healey" wagons were painted red or brown, I would be as certain as I can be that the one in the HMRS photo is black.

 

edit to add: On a second viewing, it looks as if the very end section of the solebar, at both ends, isn't the same colour as the rest of the solebar. That is not something I am familiar with and I haven't seen it before. Is it a "trick of the light" or am I imagining it or are they a different colour?

 

 

Edited July 21, 2021 by t-b-g
To add content

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I am not sure that it is that clear.

 

I agree with your doubt but I draw confidence from the Gloucester photo "data" board which states:

 

Painted Chocolate

Lettering White

Shaded Black

 

I agree that the shading looks a lighter tone than the bodywork (as does the ironwork) but I would attribute that to the black paint having a different reflectivity to the chocolate brown. The Gloucester "data" boards don't as a rule state black ironwork - which is of course evident on lighter coloured wagons.

 

Interesting to compare with John Burgum's wagon No. 42 of June 1899, Montague Plate 75 (for those that have that book - unfortunately not in the HMRS catalogue) for which the photo board reads:

 

Painted Black

Lettering White

Shaded Red

Ironwork Red

 

I think if one did not have the photo board information, one would struggle to say from the two photos that the wagons were painted differently.

 

BTW the dimensions given on those boards are the internal dimensions, so add 6" for length over headstocks and 6" for width over side sheeting - 14'11" x 7'5" for the Healing wagon.

 

[t-b-g]

7 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I agree with your doubt but I draw confidence from the Gloucester photo "data" board which states:

 

Painted Chocolate

Lettering White

Shaded Black

 

I agree that the shading looks a lighter tone than the bodywork (as does the ironwork) but I would attribute that to the black paint having a different reflectivity to the chocolate brown. The Gloucester "data" boards don't as a rule state black ironwork - which is of course evident on lighter coloured wagons.

 

Interesting to compare with John Burgum's wagon No. 42 of June 1899, Montague Plate 75 (for those that have that book - unfortunately not in the HMRS catalogue) for which the photo board reads:

 

Painted Black

Lettering White

Shaded Red

Ironwork Red

 

I think if one did not have the photo board information, one would struggle to say from the two photos that the wagons were painted differently.

 

BTW the dimensions given on those boards are the internal dimensions, so add 6" for length over headstocks and 6" for width over side sheeting - 14'11" x 7'5" for the Healing wagon.

 

 

I don't have that book but given a choice between black with red shaded lettering or chocolate with black shades lettering, I would strongly suggest that the HMRS photo shows the first style and that the notes added to the photo by Gloucester are simply wrong. There is no way that the shading is darker than the bodywork, so the shading is not black. It is therefore very likely red. The chance of photographs in that period picking up a difference between red and chocolate are very slim, which makes me think the body is black rather than chocolate. The second livery reference fits the photo perfectly. The Gloucester "plate" does not.

 

It is one of those little things we may never know for sure but if I was painting one of those it would be black!

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, t-b-g said:

 

I don't have that book but given a choice between black with red shaded lettering or chocolate with black shades lettering, I would strongly suggest that the HMRS photo shows the first style and that the notes added to the photo by Gloucester are simply wrong. There is no way that the shading is darker than the bodywork, so the shading is not black. It is therefore very likely red. The chance of photographs in that period picking up a difference between red and chocolate are very slim, which makes me think the body is black rather than chocolate. The second livery reference fits the photo perfectly. The Gloucester "plate" does not.

 

It is one of those little things we may never know for sure but if I was painting one of those it would be black!

 

Tony, I profoundly respect your knowledge of things pre-grouping but in this case I'm afraid I struggle to acquiesce. Firstly, the livery information is not a note added to the photo but information painted on a board which was placed in front of the wagon, on the left, with a second board on the right reading, in the case of the Healing wagon:

 

GLOUCESTER  RAILWAY

CARRIAGE   &   WAGON

COMPANY        LIMITED

Jany  1900   Photo  2107

 

the y of Jany being superscript.

 

The board on the left gives the type of wagon, its internal dimensions, and livery as given above.

 

In the HMRC photo thumbnail, it may look as if these boards are post-processing additions to the photo but from many other Gloucester photos it is evident that they are signwritten boards placed on the ground next to the wagon. So any discrepancy would be obvious, though I suppose it might go unnoticed. However, chocolate is an unusual colour so the chance of error seems to me to be slight. I haven't come across a photo where the board is self-evidently wrong. I wonder if they had a stock of boards with different livery descriptions? Though they would have to cover the various standard dimensions too. There is evidence that the right-hand board would have the photo number overpainted and the month too as required (for those with Montague, e.g. plate 279).

 

Why should an interpretation of the apparent tones in the photo take precedence over the plainly written information?

 

I'm with St Thomas Aquinas on this: Præstet fides suppleméntum / Sénsuum deféctui.

 

[meil]

34 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Tony, I profoundly respect your knowledge of things pre-grouping but in this case I'm afraid I struggle to acquiesce. Firstly, the livery information is not a note added to the photo but information painted on a board which was placed in front of the wagon, on the left, with a second board on the right reading, in the case of the Healing wagon:

 

GLOUCESTER  RAILWAY

CARRIAGE   &   WAGON

COMPANY        LIMITED

Jany  1900   Photo  2107

 

the y of Jany being superscript.

 

The board on the left gives the type of wagon, its internal dimensions, and livery as given above.

 

In the HMRC photo thumbnail, it may look as if these boards are post-processing additions to the photo but from many other Gloucester photos it is evident that they are signwritten boards placed on the ground next to the wagon. So any discrepancy would be obvious, though I suppose it might go unnoticed. However, chocolate is an unusual colour so the chance of error seems to me to be slight. I haven't come across a photo where the board is self-evidently wrong. I wonder if they had a stock of boards with different livery descriptions? Though they would have to cover the various standard dimensions too. There is evidence that the right-hand board would have the photo number overpainted and the month too as required (for those with Montague, e.g. plate 279).

 

Why should an interpretation of the apparent tones in the photo take precedence over the plainly written information?

 

I'm with St Thomas Aquinas on this: Præstet fides suppleméntum / Sénsuum deféctui.

 

The problem of course is Orthographic photographic emulsion - as would have been used at that time. Thus making the Brown and Red look almost identical. In my view the "Chocolate" would be the usual and typical Venetian red ie a Haematite based paint mixed in the paint shop from dry ingredients.

[Compound2632]

Science teacher alert: "orthochromatic".

[Tricky]

It’s an interesting discussion for sure. I think, though I’m inclined to go with the photo board description, so ‘chocolate’ body with white shaded black lettering. The jury’s out whether it will get black ironwork but probs not. What constitutes ‘chocolate’ is debatable. It needs to be a pre-mixed colour rather than one I will make up as I will need to touch up after lettering. 

[t-b-g]

54 minutes ago, meil said:

The problem of course is Orthographic photographic emulsion - as would have been used at that time. Thus making the Brown and Red look almost identical. In my view the "Chocolate" would be the usual and typical Venetian red ie a Haematite based paint mixed in the paint shop from dry ingredients.

 

24 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Science teacher alert: "orthochromatic".

 

I would agree and they do make reds and browns hard to distinguish and in many cases, red is almost invisible against black. I have spent many a happy hour looking for traces of red lining on black GCR locos! The process doesn't pick up well on reds and they often look black in photos.

 

But the process doesn't make black look lighter, as the shading looks in the photo.

 

The fact that the shading is visible in the photo at all would suggest that it was taken by a panchromatic process. Whether it be red on black or black on red/brown, it shows up rather too well for it to be orthochromatic.

 

Anyway, if Tricky has decided that he is happy to go with chocolate, further debate is probably a bit pointless!

 

 

[Tricky]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

 

I would agree and they do make reds and browns hard to distinguish and in many cases, red is almost invisible against black. I have spent many a happy hour looking for traces of red lining on black GCR locos! The process doesn't pick up well on reds and they often look black in photos.

 

But the process doesn't make black look lighter, as the shading looks in the photo.

 

The fact that the shading is visible in the photo at all would suggest that it was taken by a panchromatic process. Whether it be red on black or black on red/brown, it shows up rather too well for it to be orthochromatic.

 

Anyway, if Tricky has decided that he is happy to go with chocolate, further debate is probably a bit pointless!

 

 

It's still a useful discussion to have...!

[Penlan]

6 hours ago, t-b-g said:

edit to add: On a second viewing, it looks as if the very end section of the solebar, at both ends, isn't the same colour as the rest of the solebar. That is not something I am familiar with and I haven't seen it before. Is it a "trick of the light" or am I imagining it or are they a different colour?

... and the Gloucester Plates have a square base, replicating the same 'colour' difference outside of the 'G' as at the end of the solebars.  
 

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Penlan said:

... and the Gloucester Plates have a square base, replicating the same 'colour' difference outside of the 'G' as at the end of the solebars.  
 

 

Good spot! That applies to the one on the body side (That looks like a Gloucester plate next to the number 5 - perhaps a "hire plate") as well as those on the solebars. Oh for a colour photo taken then.

 

I wonder how much extra detail shows up in the original negative that is lost in a low resolution internet view.

[Compound2632]

5 hours ago, t-b-g said:

But the process doesn't make black look lighter, as the shading looks in the photo.

 

What the photograph can distinguish is two surfaces of the same colour but different reflectivity - matt or gloss, if you like. So my contention is that the black shading is glossier (or possibly matter) than the chocolate.

 

12 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I wonder how much extra detail shows up in the original negative that is lost in a low resolution internet view.

 

Ian Pope's book mentioned above has a good print - bigger than the one in the Montague book. 

 

The plate sitting in the forks of the V-hanger is the Gloucester owner's plate - I can't quite make the number out. Pope states that this wagon and another, No.6, were new wagons bought on seven years deferred terms (i.e. hire purchase). The plate to the left of this is the Gloucester builder's plate and the one on the body side, the "For repairs advise" plate. POWSides (and others - Fox?) do these.

 

Pope gives further details of Healing's wagons, going back to 1869. Around 1902, they had three 8 ton wagons that had been on successive repair contracts with Gloucester since 1893 (probably not Gloucester-built wagons, though) and four second-hand 10 ton wagons that had been on simple hire since 1900, as well as these two on hire-purchase.

[t-b-g]

3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

What the photograph can distinguish is two surfaces of the same colour but different reflectivity - matt or gloss, if you like. So my contention is that the black shading is glossier (or possibly matter) than the chocolate.

 

 

Ian Pope's book mentioned above has a good print - bigger than the one in the Montague book. 

 

The plate sitting in the forks of the V-hanger is the Gloucester owner's plate - I can't quite make the number out. Pope states that this wagon and another, No.6, were new wagons bought on seven years deferred terms (i.e. hire purchase). The plate to the left of this is the Gloucester builder's plate and the one on the body side, the "For repairs advise" plate. POWSides (and others - Fox?) do these.

 

Pope gives further details of Healing's wagons, going back to 1869. Around 1902, they had three 8 ton wagons that had been on successive repair contracts with Gloucester since 1893 (probably not Gloucester-built wagons, though) and four second-hand 10 ton wagons that had been on simple hire since 1900, as well as these two on hire-purchase.

 

I had seen references to some wagons being hired and with having three plates on the wagon I wondered if one might be builders number plate, one a "repairs to" and the third maybe a "hired from or owned by" type but the internet version just doesn't have enough resolution.

 

I am happy to agree to differ on the colour. To my eyes, the shading on the lettering is quite a bit paler than the body side paint and therefore cannot be black but if you and others see it otherwise, I will defer to a majority decision!

[Dave Hunt]

As far as the colour of 'chocolate' is concerned I agree that it was more than likely Venetian Red. The Midland used both descriptors with regard to the colour used on its buildings and the colour swatch in Midland Style indicates a close match to Tamiya red brown.

 

Dave