Pre Grouping general discussion

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, whart57 said:

I would question the presence of that Stirling R myself. Not a well travelled locomotive. The Canterbury and Whitstable (with cut down boiler fittings), the Folkestone Harbour branch and carriage shunting. 

 

What was used for shunting the exchange sidings at such places as Hither Green and Norwood Junction? Didn't Reading have one?

 

I rather fancy 1899 for the SER. I'd go for a layout encompassing Earley and the rather fine bridge over the Loddon. Stirling Fs and Os unadulterated, along with the LSWR trains from Waterloo, GWR through carriage, and some interesting goods and mineral working too.

[ChrisN]

@whart57 beat me to it.  The Cambrian had 5 0-4-2's from Sharp Stewart which were classified as 'Mixed Traffic'.  They were all gone by 1898.

 

They also had 2-4-0 passenger locos from 1863, almost the start, and 0-6-0 goods locos from the same time.  On the Coast Line at least I think they were interchangeable on duties and although very little photographic evidence exists, it is the only way I can make the 1895 Coast timetable work simply.

 

Brakes?  Brakes!  The Cambrian did not go in for such modernity, well not until forced to by legislation but still had two unbraked trains, (mixed trains), a day until the end of 1895.  Both types were then vacuum fitted.  (No heating though, not until the 20th century, 1912, I think.)

 

They also had 4-4-0s from 1878.  (Beautiful locomotives.)

 

 

[bbishop]

10 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I rather fancy 1899 for the SER. I'd go for a layout encompassing Earley and the rather fine bridge over the Loddon. Stirling Fs and Os unadulterated, along with the LSWR trains from Waterloo, GWR through carriage, and some interesting goods and mineral working too.

..... and of course the LSWR means Jubilee 0-4-2 mixed traffic locomotives.

Bill

[Caley Jim]

2 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

I would expect that the PO loco wouldn't be permitted onto the "main line" but that the railway companies loco would enter to collect the already sorted wagons to  add to an existing train and brake van.

In some cases PO locos were permitted to run over defined local areas of the railway company network on trip working such as between nearby, but not otherwise rail-connected, collieries or industrial sites or to/from exchange sidings.

 

My own layout is supposedly set in the rather broad 1880-1910 period, but there are many temporal anomalies.  I have one loco which was scrapped before another was built and locos in the Drummond livery which had disappeared by 1890's.   Rule 1 applies, the main objective being to re-create the atmosphere of that period.

 

Jim

[Compound2632]

11 minutes ago, bbishop said:

..... and of course the LSWR means Jubilee 0-4-2 mixed traffic locomotives.

Bill

 

But were they actually described as "mixed traffic" when introduced? Or are we simply projecting a later concept back onto the period in an anachronistic fashion? That's the besetting evil of pre-grouping. Research into the period often challenges these 1950s-conditioned assumptions. I would say that's the most important lesson Bob Essery came to teach.

Edited December 31, 2021 by Compound2632

[Lacathedrale]

@t-b-g having read the Buckingham Branch Line books the biggest take-away I had (well, one of about a dozen) was Peter's insistence that a model railway isn't simply a real railway scaled down, and as such one might consider picking battles (length, detail) and seeing what works in model form better than it would in real life (bay platforms, carriage sidings, loco sheds and turntables, etc.)

 

Certainly that's a pattern I'm struggling to emulate, I always gravitate immediately towards precise detail as we have described above!

[Compound2632]

14 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I would say that's the most important lesson Bob Essery came to teach.

 

I think I phrased that unsatisfactorily. I do not mean that Bob Essery was divinely ordained as a prophet of the gods of pre-grouping*; rather that, it was a lesson that he himself seems to have learned the hard way.

 

*Though I wouldn't necessarily rule that out.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Lacathedrale said:

@t-b-g having read the Buckingham Branch Line books the biggest take-away I had (well, one of about a dozen) was Peter's insistence that a model railway isn't simply a real railway scaled down, and as such one might consider picking battles (length, detail) and seeing what works in model form better than it would in real life (bay platforms, carriage sidings, loco sheds and turntables, etc.)

 

Certainly that's a pattern I'm struggling to emulate, I always gravitate immediately towards precise detail as we have described above!

 

When I spoke with Peter about the design of Buckingham, it was something he talked about. It was the main reason why he didn't build models of real places. He really liked the idea of being able to create a layout that included what he wanted to have on it rather than copying a real one one exactly. It closely matches my own thoughts on the matter, that there are very few real places that have everything needed to make a successful model. Those factors (these are mine rather than Peter's) would include variety of traffic, operational interest, a good scenic setting and being able to be built in a reasonable space. I have never been able to come up with a real place that offers all those requirements.

 

Somebody once said that it was the difference between building a model railway and building a model of a railway. I think I understand what they meant! Buckingham is a model railway rather than a model of a real railway.

 

It is rather too easy to get bogged down in the small details but to me, if you are modelling a real place, it is wrong if you run things that didn't really appear there. If it is fictitious, all that matters is that something could possibly have run there.

 

It is up to each of us to decide how particular they wish to be over dates, regions etc. Peter Denny was pretty strict on the date but happy to bring in "outsiders". Others prefer to allow a leeway in dates but stick to locos and stock that would have really appeared in that part of the country (real or imagined) and some like to keep things fairly tight on both aspects or are happy to accept variation in both. 

Edited December 31, 2021 by t-b-g
To add content

[whart57]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

What was used for shunting the exchange sidings at such places as Hither Green and Norwood Junction? Didn't Reading have one?

 

I rather fancy 1899 for the SER. I'd go for a layout encompassing Earley and the rather fine bridge over the Loddon. Stirling Fs and Os unadulterated, along with the LSWR trains from Waterloo, GWR through carriage, and some interesting goods and mineral working too.

 

This is bad, you've had me consulting Bradley .........

 

The allocation of Rs at the start of 1899 was

 

Canterbury    2   (for the C&W)

Ashford           2    (also equipped for the C&W and kept as spares)

Folkestone      3    (for Harbour Branch)

Bricklayers Arms    8

Deptford         2

Maidstone      2

Reading          2

and one each at Hastings, Strood, Redhill and Tonbridge

 

According to Bradley only the Canterbury and Folkestone ones regularly worked traffic, the rest were employed on yard shunting, although Bricklayers Arms did sometimes roster some onto local goods in the London area

[whart57]

To go back to the "mixed traffic" conundrum.

 

In 1867 Cudworth had Ashford build six 0-4-2WT locomotives. Apart from details regarding the mounting of the trailing wheels, these were identical. However the SER loco register had two listed as goods tanks and the other four as passenger engines. There subsequent careers were as yard shunters, local goods workings and short passenger workings such as Ramsgate-Margate and Hastings-Rye

[Penlan]

t-b-g, I think what I found I liked about Buckingham, and I saw it in various guises over the years when I visited Peter at both Newlyn East and Truro, was the sense that he got everything balanced, holistic might be a modern term, it all worked as an 'illusion', fitted in.   Soft lighting too.

[Regularity]

4 hours ago, Dave John said:

The thing is Lacathedrale you would know.

That’s the only metric that matters.

 

If you know, and getting it wrong or omitting it bothers you, then you need to do it and to do it right.

 

You are engaged in a hobby, not paid employment, not voluntary service and not a competition. For all of those, there is some external expectation/standard. As a hobby, you are passing your own time entertaining yourself as you see fit. What anyone else thinks is irrelevant: you set your own standards, and you work to them. Then the only question that anyone can put to you is, “Are you satisfied with your efforts?” That’s true even if they don’t like what you have done (be that in terms of era, location, prototype railway, standard of workmanship, level of detail or what have you).

[Compound2632]

But if you put your handiwork before the paying public who will take it for an accurate representation of the past...

[Regularity]

Just now, Compound2632 said:

But if you put your handiwork before the paying public who will take it for an accurate representation of the past...

Separate issue: depends how honest you are about any known inaccuracies when writing/talking about your layout…

[t-b-g]

 

1 hour ago, Penlan said:

t-b-g, I think what I found I liked about Buckingham, and I saw it in various guises over the years when I visited Peter at both Newlyn East and Truro, was the sense that he got everything balanced, holistic might be a modern term, it all worked as an 'illusion', fitted in.   Soft lighting too.

 

You are quite right about that. Everything just looked as if it belonged together. The lighting in the room was rather lovely and added to the period feel. The "light shades" in the railway room were old tins (coffee or cocoa) covered in green paper if I recall correctly.

 

I loved the control panels illuminated with either car or bicycle lamp bulbs.

 

Everything about the layout just seemed right.

 

Edit to add a second photo, which shows the lighting in the railway room. This was my first visit!

 

Edited December 31, 2021 by t-b-g
To add content

[Penlan]

t-b-g, I had the impression at Newlyn East the whole house was more or less lit by 40watt bulbs, lovely and mellow.

[Tom Burnham]

15 hours ago, whart57 said:

 

This is bad, you've had me consulting Bradley .........

 

The allocation of Rs at the start of 1899 was

 

Canterbury    2   (for the C&W)

Ashford           2    (also equipped for the C&W and kept as spares)

Folkestone      3    (for Harbour Branch)

Bricklayers Arms    8

Deptford         2

Maidstone      2

Reading          2

and one each at Hastings, Strood, Redhill and Tonbridge

 

According to Bradley only the Canterbury and Folkestone ones regularly worked traffic, the rest were employed on yard shunting, although Bricklayers Arms did sometimes roster some onto local goods in the London area

The Maidstone (SER) examples seem to have worked on the Tovil Goods branch across the Medway, as part of their yard duties.

[NHY 581]

15 hours ago, Regularity said:

That’s the only metric that matters.

 

If you know, and getting it wrong or omitting it bothers you, then you need to do it and to do it right.

 

You are engaged in a hobby, not paid employment, not voluntary service and not a competition. For all of those, there is some external expectation/standard. As a hobby, you are passing your own time entertaining yourself as you see fit. What anyone else thinks is irrelevant: you set your own standards, and you work to them. Then the only question that anyone can put to you is, “Are you satisfied with your efforts?” That’s true even if they don’t like what you have done (be that in terms of era, location, prototype railway, standard of workmanship, level of detail or what have you).

 

 

That is spot on. That is all that  matters. It's when others will not accept this that it goes wrong. 

 

 

14 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

But if you put your handiwork before the paying public who will take it for an accurate representation of the past...

 

Then you need to manage those expectations if that's not actually the case. 

 

 

14 hours ago, Regularity said:

Separate issue: depends how honest you are about any known inaccuracies when writing/talking about your layout…

 

Indeed. Sadly, there is an element in this hobby of ours who delight in picking holes in other peoples efforts and will do so in the loudest of terms. 

 

I wholly accept that I am incapable of total accuracy and remain content to model in the spirit of the broad brush school of railway modelling. 

 

An impression of.......

 

 

Rob. 

Edited January 1, 2022 by NHY 581

[Caley Jim]

31 minutes ago, NHY 581 said:

Indeed. Sadly, there is an element in this hobby of ours who delight in picking holes in other peoples efforts and will do so in the loudest of terms. 

One sometimes wonders how many of these people have actually built any models to show us how it should be done!  It's one thing to provide constructive criticism but quite another to condem another's efforts off hand for a minor inaccuracy. 

 

Jim 

Edited January 1, 2022 by Caley Jim
Typos

[Regularity]

14 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

It's one thing to provide constructive criticism but quite another to condem another's efforts off hand for a minor inaccuracy.

I think that’s the nub, Jim: constructive criticism is perfect - it’s how to make things better (next time). Off-hand condemnation on the other hand, is just rude - and the sign of a very over-inflated self-opinion.

(And yes, some things do jar, and sometimes the information is available, but the source used for information when building the model may have been faulty.)

[Lacathedrale]

Speaking of blurring the edges, one thing I'm finding quite tough is photographs or drawings of early P.O. wagons - is there an obvious source I'm missing? I have the Wild Swan "the 4mm coal wagon" and MRJ's 1-50 - Chris Croft's articles being wonderful in issue 12-15 but similarly both seem to cover post-1923 RCH designs rather than pre-1905 ones.

Edited January 1, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[whart57]

Coal Trade Wagons, L Tavender, ISBN 0 9510987 1 3

 

This book covers the whole story but there are a fair number of nineteenth century drawings along with a few only just into the 20th century. Some undated too but I think we can assume dumb buffers was before 1900.

Edited January 1, 2022 by whart57

[Compound2632]

11 minutes ago, whart57 said:

Coal Trade Wagons, L Tavender, ISBN 0 9510987 1 3

 

This book covers the whole story but there are a fair number of nineteenth century drawings along with a few only just into the 20th century. Some undated too but I think we can assume dumb buffers was before 1900.

 

It's an excellent synthesis of material from a variety of sources with superb reconstructed drawings by Tavender himself - that is to say, they are not original works / GA drawings but mostly based on photographs and either known or estimated dimensions and a thorough understanding of how a wagon goes together - so the best you're likely to get, in most cases. He does in fact span the entire history of the wooden coal wagon, with drawings of wagons in BR condition.

 

A really good source for understanding the evolution of the PO wagon is A.J. Watts, Private Owner Wagons from the Ince Waggon & Ironworks Co. (HMRS, 1998) - still available from the HMRS at a truly bargain price.

 

Wagons built to the RCH specifications of 1887 onwards - and hence passing inspection and qualifying for registration by one of the main-line companies - would, I believe, of necessity have had sprung buffers. But many older dumb-buffered PO wagons remained in traffic until well into the 20th century, being finally banned in 1913 in England and Wales, possibly a few years later in Scotland owing to the pressure of the Great War. There was some friction between the wagon trade and the railway companies; the railway companies continued to build dumb-buffered timer trucks and also in some cases continued to offer their own dumb-buffered mineral wagons for customer use.

[Andy Hayter]

1 hour ago, Lacathedrale said:

Speaking of blurring the edges, one thing I'm finding quite tough is photographs or drawings of early P.O. wagons - is there an obvious source I'm missing? I have the Wild Swan "the 4mm coal wagon" and MRJ's 1-50 - Chris Croft's articles being wonderful in issue 12-15 but similarly both seem to cover post-1923 RCH designs rather than pre-1905 ones.

 

Have you tried early volumes of HMRS Journal?  At one stage they were describing themselves as the PO wagon society or some such - jokingly of course.  Lots of drawings and some photos.  You probably need to go back to the 80s and 90s.

[hmrspaul]

2 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

Speaking of blurring the edges, one thing I'm finding quite tough is photographs or drawings of early P.O. wagons - is there an obvious source I'm missing? I have the Wild Swan "the 4mm coal wagon" and MRJ's 1-50 - Chris Croft's articles being wonderful in issue 12-15 but similarly both seem to cover post-1923 RCH designs rather than pre-1905 ones.

The main PO Books have some early stuff - Turton, Hudson. 

 

This has some PO wagons going back before the turn of the 20C. 

Montague, Keith (1981) Private owner wagons from the Gloucester Railway Carriage and Wagon Company Ltd. Oxford Publishing Co. Oxford, SBN 86093 124 2. 182 pages

 

Paul