Jump to content
 

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

We went down this railmotor rabbit-hole from the Deeley 0-4-0Ts, on the theory that their motion may have been derived from that for the railmotors, which in turn just might be derived from Avonside.

 

I've got Summerson's monograph on the steam motor carriages and Vol. 4 Chapter12 of his Midland Railway Locomotives open side by side in front of me. It is, I think, clear that the only thing the motion of the two really have in common is that they are both Walschaerts.

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

 

10 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

We went down this railmotor rabbit-hole from the Deeley 0-4-0Ts

Just a little further and we'll emerge within shouting distance of the almost on-topic PLA No's 1, 2 and 3.

 

Im1963EnV216-p221.jpg

 

@Nearholmer, thank you. She's perfect, and available*. The locos of Gloucester docks and of the Nailsworth branch are high on the list of things to look into. The pre-Deeley "motley collection of small locomotives"? Yes please :)

 

Cheers all

 

*I was intending to reference a quote (Wilde?) along the lines of "there is nothing so attractive as availability"...but Google tells me it's not a thing. Ring any bells? 

 

Edited by Schooner
Pic added
  • Like 2
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

the only thing the motion of the two really have in common is that they are both Walschaerts

 

So why dis the 1528 have Walschaerts? They were to all intents and purposes "industrial" locos, and it was an exceedingly unusual valve-gear choice in that application in Britain at the time. I don't think they had well tanks, and they didn't have an exceptionally long wheel-base, or was it long enough to cause conflict with the ash-pan?

 

It was a good choice, making things nicely accessible when compared with inside-Stephensons, but about half a zillion industrial 0-4-0T/ST had exactly that, and it seemed to be considered a perfectly acceptable arrangement.

 

[If this is too irrelevant to the thread, say so, and I'll open a new one]

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

  • RMweb Premium

... but not a 0-6-0. The Lynn & Fakenham 4-4-0T + retired Pullman car combination worked by a wire linkage, the details of which I don't know. It was the next step in an experiment that started with the rail motors and branched out in two directions: the vacuum-controlled regulator system shown in the previous photo, which in due course became the LMS standard - perhaps the most widespread and successful motor train solution; and the Lancaster-Morecambe-Heysham electrification. The full fruits of the later - in the form of Derby-Manchester electrification - were never seen, thanks to the intervention of the Great War.

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

  • RMweb Gold
20 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

but not a 0-6-0. The Lynn & Fakenham 4-4-0T + retired Pullman car combination worked by a wire linkage, the details of which I don't know.

Yes, but 0-6-0T on push-pull is a bit boring, isn’t it (except maybe for the GWR “shrouded engines” nonsense)? Bit like an 0-4-2T or 0-4-4T.

 

The MR exchanged some 0-4-4Ts with the M&GN for 4-4-0Ts, I think 2 for 3 or 3 for 4, for a few years. They were used for testing out motor train ideas. This particular photo on disused stations is from the bay platform at Harpenden, for the service to Hemel Hempstead on the “Nickey line” (assonant with nik, not Nike). They also tried out the steam railmotor and the 0-6-0T you have previously posted.

 

Hemel itself was an odd station, almost a perfect model railway setting, and with the above 3 push-pull trains, plus a more normal branch service, and then the general goods service on top of that - presumably smaller 0-6-0s supplied by St. Albans shed, of which they had several candidates.

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

  • RMweb Premium
1 minute ago, Regularity said:

The MR exchanged some 0-4-4Ts with the M&GN for 4-4-0Ts, I think 2 for 3 or 3 for 4, for a few years. They were used for testing out motor train ideas.

 

The Midland engines were three 6 Class of 1875, Nos. 142-4 at the time of the loan in early 1906, not getting their new numbers 1232-4 until their return in 1912. They retained their red livery but were lettered M&GN. The four M&GN engines were 8, 10, 19, and 40, built 1878-81 and rebuilt with Derby boilers between 1894 and 1903. Initially they kept their M&GN livery but with lettering removed and the Midland coat of arms, per your photo, but by October 1906 they had been repainted red and renumbered to take the numbers of the Pullman cars they were attached to, 2, 5, 1, and 10. The 3 for 4 rate of exchange was based on approximate equivalence of capital value. Two, 1 and 10 (ex 19 and 40), were based at St Albans for the Hemel Hempstead branch and the other two at Derby for the Wirksworth branch. 

 

References:

S. Summerson, Midland Railway Locomotives Vol. 1 (Irwell Press, 2000) pp. 102-104; Vol. 3 (Irwell Press, 2002) p. 108.

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

The most gimcrack auto train was probably one owned by the IWCR. They had a semi-respectable steam rail-motor but, for days when that was indisposed, they also had an old 0-4-2ST, around which they erected a sort of upmarket tin-shed enclosure to make it look "modern", coupled to a driving trailer made from an old Midland clerestory coach.

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

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

The most gimcrack auto train was probably one owned by the IWCR. They had a semi-respectable steam rail-motor but, for days when that was indisposed, they also had an old 0-4-2ST, around which they erected a sort of upmarket tin-shed enclosure to make it look "modern", coupled to a driving trailer made from an old Midland clerestory coach.

 

I can't find the details now but IIRC one shouldn't be thinking of one of those magnificent Midland clerestories of the late Clayton / Bain era but a really ancient vehicle - possibly one of the 54 ft 12-wheelers of 1876? A truly historic carriage and no doubt "appreciated" as such by Vectians.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Regularity said:

Yes, but 0-6-0T on push-pull is a bit boring, isn’t it (except maybe for the GWR “shrouded engines” nonsense)? Bit like an 0-4-2T or 0-4-4T.

Having never seen a photo of a GWR 'shrouded engine' before I'm somewhat bewildered at the sight of the thing.

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

  • RMweb Premium
On 19/04/2021 at 07:37, Compound2632 said:

The Lynn & Fakenham 4-4-0T + retired Pullman car combination worked by a wire linkage, the details of which I don't know.......

 

4 hours ago, Regularity said:

The MR exchanged some 0-4-4Ts with the M&GN for 4-4-0Ts, I think 2 for 3 or 3 for 4, for a few years. They were used for testing out motor train ideas. This particular photo on disused stations is from the bay platform at Harpenden, for the service to Hemel Hempstead on the “Nickey line” (assonant with nik, not Nike).

Now that is absolute magnificence.  It would be difficult to beat the sheer elegance of that combination.

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

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

possibly one of the 54 ft 12-wheelers of 1876?

 

I don't know the date, but it seems to have had twelve wheels, which is something I'd not noticed before. Eight compartments, which look as if they began as four firsts/seconds in the middle, and two thirds at each end, so 54ft sounds about right.

 

One strange feature of it is that it doesn't seem to have had a dedicated driving compartment - the door to the end compartment looks as if it was still labelled for passenger use. Add that to the fact that the driver's window, cut in the end, is very high-up, and I wonder if the driver had to lay in the luggage rack, above the heads of commuters, or maybe he stood in a sentry-box the width of one seat cushion.

 

There's a danger that this will lead in the direction of me buying a detailed book about the IWCR, when I'd sworn not to own more than the two volume general history of IoW railways that I have.

 

The encased loco, BTW, looked a bit like an 08 diesel shunter in general shape.

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

  • RMweb Premium
4 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I don't know the date, but it seems to have had twelve wheels, which is something I'd not noticed before. Eight compartments, which look as if they began as four firsts/seconds in the middle, and two thirds at each end, so 54ft sounds about right.

 

That's them - the very first British 12-wheelers and among the first British bogie carriages. They were built after the Midland had abolished second, so T/T/F/F/F/Lug/T/T with the luggage compartment cunningly disguised to be indistinguishable from a first, which may have caused some confusion. Twelve were built by Metropolitan and twelve by Ashburys. Pullman-style bogies with equalising beams. 

 

Thumbnail of photograph, DY 255, MRSC Item 64315.

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

37 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

The encased loco, BTW, looked a bit like an 08 diesel shunter in general shape.

First thing I did was check the running gear in case a preserved line was having a giggle!

 

I had sworn no passenger stock, and the Millwall plan has clearly defined requirements so no excuses there, but...

 

Small and old, but clerestory and 12W like a proper carriage. Glorious. Could there be any circumstance in which a carriage was taken to its tail traffic then returned to the station? I'd love an excuse to get it on the wharf, at 54' it would fit well as a 'double-wagon' for puzzle purposes. Rule One only, or might there be plausible alternatives?

 

That's why off-topic is very welcome here :) And we have yet to touch of Walschaerts...

 

Night all, take care

20210419_202403.jpg.44fec4be5109c46d6859d9d13dd1b8d7.jpg

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 19/04/2021 at 22:58, Schooner said:

 

That's why off-topic is very welcome here :) And we have yet to touch of Walschaerts...

 

 

 

Can be very nasty, a touch of the Walschaerts, but I believe these days application of a topical lotion and a course of counselling should see you right. 

 

 

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

  • RMweb Gold
19 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Can be very nasty, a touch of the Walschaerts, but I believe these days application of a topical lotion and a course of counselling should see you right. 

Alternatives are available, for example, a look-up at Joy’s valve gear can be very rewarding.

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

3 hours ago, Regularity said:

Alternatives are available, for example, a look-up at Joy’s valve gear can be very rewarding.

Or something like this?

 

Scan_20210422.jpg.69c8383f5e757e3b91c0253ed91092b1.jpg

In model form:

 

DSCN0292.JPG.87d20016112df56dc92d605162d40936.JPG

 

Jim

  • Like 4
  • Craftsmanship/clever 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm...

20210424_185356.jpg.cdb164e0202fe201dd4faa48944a1abf.jpg

...I think I might want Skytrex warehousing*

31_67a63f64-03ad-46cb-990e-95c2270b7f92.

...and a (modified) Petite Properties 'Washtub Cottage' as a wharf-side warehouse...

DSCF8076.JPG

6023033_88a20e85_original.jpg

...and to move their Blackberry Farm (the wharf pub on the layout) from back left to back right; displaced by the distinctly-too-small Bachmann grain warehouse, whose diminutive scale can be used for a little light false perspective, and displacing the brick-and-white-weatherboard  Bachmann watermill. Aiming to rationalise the feel of either side of the layout.

 

Also from Skytrex: sleeper built platform (dimensions good, solid supports bad and I'm not sure the concept works for my purposes), and derelict barn (to be renovated). Also noted are their yard clutter items - sacks, barrels, bales and crates all look good.

 

Oh, I also impulse-bought another W4. Just in case @TurboSnail, no pressure... :)

 

The aim was to declutter the layout, after spending hours this week staring at the layout plan and finding it unconvincing. It seems I will achieve this by spending another lump on more buildings. Hmmmm. Too much time for thinking, not enough for modelling.

 

Sorry for the post entirely for my own benefit, I don't want to lose the info on all these open tabs. Sorry also if the pics are crap. I'm working off my phone (hence all the tabs) and it's hard to gauge resolution. Oh, and sorry for the sketch. I just meant to see what warehouse sections might be needed and got carried away. Hopefully it helps though.

 

*What I actually want is a warehouse following the Thames and Severn's distinctive architecture:

GRO%20GPS609.jpg

 

http://www.stroudwater.co.uk/cpsn/images/stroud/wallbridge hq 300902b.jpg

 

and of course

0_MLR_GLO_cirencester-basin07-01-2021.jp

...and I was about to cost up a commission before realising that to be worth the outlay the whole layout would need re-thought to make good use of them. Not off the table, but juice:squeeze equation currently unresolved.

 

Cheers and gone!

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 24/04/2021 at 20:29, Schooner said:

the whole layout would need re-thought

 

20210503_173831.jpg.2ac1480a4909ad1094160828b039f22e.jpg

?

 

Cheap and cheerful displacement activity. Main building would be the Brimscombe warehouse, with the Cirencester one mirrored for the LHS scenic block. RHS blocked with the end of the shed over the gauging dock. Stables and engine house in the background to excuse specific traffic. About 70% accurate to the real Brimscombe Port, but I think the feel would be pretty close.

 

The Inglenook has had to change a bit: to allow the track in front of the Brimscombe warehouse to be a siding rather than headshunt a loop is required. Numbers above sidings are for the normal puzzle, those in brackets below the sidings are for when operating in this alternative mode.

 

I think this approach would yield a 'better' layout if developed...but not one I would prefer to own. Worth exploring, glad to have returned to Plan A :)

  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cart keen to head horse off at pass.

 

Ingleford Rolling Stock Set 1b - Midland Railway, 1880s

Criteria: good for shunting puzzle - variety, visual interest and ease of identification; excusable on a Gloucestershire branch line; viable for the Port of London plan.

Motive Power: Manning Wardle Class H 0-4-0ST (Hardy's Hobies body kit on Hornby Pecket W4 chassis, detailed with RT Models MW parts). Liveried in Midland green*.

 

Base stock:

Wildcard stock:

Storage: Total stock + loco = 12 'units' = 4 X Peco loco lifts (old style) = 2 cassettes.

 

Issues: a couple are on the later side; meat van mostly for London; no horse van; see also London Road Models for LNWR, esp. deal (/impromptu wool) wagon. Other producers available, but who should I be looking at?

 

Critique please.

 

*Of which the sum of my knowledge is listed below:

  •  it's relevant 
  • Precision Paints does not supply it
  • This, from the MR Study Centre

 

07464%20Postcard.jpg

 

...and these from, erm, Google

 

8765b368922b6ddd7138f04edde39452.jpg

NY_NRM_1997_9462-001.jpg

 

Yup, that's a green. Is a copy of Midland Style in my future? How did this happen?! 

  • Like 4
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...