Traeth Mawr -Building Mr Price's house , (mostly)

[MikeOxon]

Splendid story telling, Chris.  It brings railway modelling to life

 

Mike

[ChrisN]

45 minutes ago, Northroader said:

Oh yes, Chris, that’s classic, a real masterpiece! Happy Christmas, and more roofs to come in the New Year. Bob.

 

21 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Brilliant.

And Nadolig Llawen

Jonathan

 

3 minutes ago, MikeOxon said:

Splendid story telling, Chris.  It brings railway modelling to life

 

Mike

 

Thank you all.  I am glad you enjoyed it.

 

Have a good Christmas and stay safe.  One day I will have a proper layout to photograph.

[Donw]

Lovely modelling and storytelling. Anyone can have a layout, the imagination to come up with that is special.

 

Don

[Mikkel]

Excellent Chris  The year, the modelling, RMweb and Great British Detectives all covered in one story.  Those prisoners are nicely done, I suspect we will hear more from them in the future.  Also very interesting to see Benson at en earlier career stage, I think the encounter with Poirot will have rubbed off on him.

 

It is a good thing there is no station in Midsomer. There would be no passengers!

 

Thanks again for a good year in the Traeth Mawr universe, Chris.

[Nick Gough]

Nice one Chris.

Merry Christmas and happy modelling in 2021!

[corneliuslundie]

Not model railway as such but I think you and Mikkel at least will enjoy this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-5534859

Perhaps you can involve the family in your figure painting.

Jonathan

[Sasquatch]

Merry Christmas Chris.

Looking forward to more of your very entertaining thread next year.

 

Regards Shaun

[southern42]

Brilliant account there, Monsieur HP. I trust you had a good Christmas in Traeth Mawr and did not put on anymore...er...dare I say it...er...weight - just think of your poor tailor having to re-measure you - again!....He'll go spare...he had enough problems last year as it is with his shop having to keep closing and trying to keep his customers not only happy but safe...but I digress...

I have just popped in to wish everyone a Happy NewYear and to say how much I have enjoyed the stories and accounts emanating from TM.

Polly

[ChrisN]

One of my Christmas presents was 'The Locomotives of the Great Western Railway, part 5, Six-Coupled Tank engines'.  I would like to point out that it is thicker than my book which covers the whole of the Cambrian loco stock, and the 645 class had more locos in it than the whole of the Cambrian.  It is the 645 that I was after.

 

It states in the second column, "It would be difficult to fond a comparable series of engines about which less has been written'.  Great!  However, some things have been written.  They have noted which of the first series when rebuilt did not have their tanks extended, which is useful, so I have to assume the rest did.  Given the rebuild dates it leaves me with six original 645s with six section tanks in January 1895, 645, 648, 654, 757, 760, 766.  A couple were rebuilt in March 1895, but that is too late.

 

All the 1501s and 1801s had six section tanks to start with so are all available.  So what is the problem.  I attached the step plate before I realised it was not a three section tank and it is in the wrong place, it is also very well stuck on, for once.  The 655s were built with four section tanks, and it states that they were the only ones to have them apart from a few rebuilds.  1535 was rebuilt in October 1894, the only rebuild of this series before 1895, so was it with a four section tank?  Are there any photos of it between 1894 and 1917 to prove it either way.  Probably not unless I number my one 1535 and give it four tanks.

 

If I went for that as the 1801s were the first to be built with brass domes unpainted, I will have to repaint the dome which I have spent time scraping the paint from.  (Such a difficult life.   )

 

On the other hand I could go for one of the 655 class which really were 645s but a bit longer, making my model closer to the original.  (Ok, the tank is probably the wrong shape but apart from that it is perfect.  Yes, the filler cap might be in the wrong place but apart from that .......)  What is stopping me go for the 655?  Well, not a lot, except where were they based?  They were comparatively new so would they have been sent to run the Ruabon to Dolgelley line?

 

Answers please on a postcard, or reply to this thread.  (Also, if anyone knows of any other railway that ran single ended brake vans the same as the Cambrian, with photographs, and a kit of the same, several people would be very grateful.)

 

If you have been, thanks for looking.

[NCB]

I found the single-ended brake van (Jones design) not too hard to scratchbuild in 3mm/ft:

 

 

Could do with a bit more detail but in 3mm it doesn't really show.

 

Nigel

[corneliuslundie]

That is the later 18 ft version I assume from the number. There were at least three varieties, though I have not yet worked out what the differences were.

Jonathan

[ChrisN]

14 hours ago, NCB said:

I found the single-ended brake van (Jones design) not too hard to scratchbuild in 3mm/ft:

 

 

Could do with a bit more detail but in 3mm it doesn't really show.

 

Nigel

 

Nigel,

Lovely work as always.  I was intending to scratchbuild but the question was really to try and flush out if anyone knew of one of these vans in another railway.  I will probably cheat and cut the sides and ends on the Silhouette, mainly so that I can get the planking precise.

 

4 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

That is the later 18 ft version I assume from the number. There were at least three varieties, though I have not yet worked out what the differences were.

Jonathan

 

Jonathan,

I have drawing No1 which states the scale as 1" to the foot, which is really helpful as it has been scanned.  The wheelbase is stated but is too indistinct to read.  I can either work it out from the wheel size or the distance to the outside of the wheels.

 

The two differences I can see immediately between this one and my drawing is the side doors and the oil top, neither of which is on this variant.  Then there is the planking at the ends, the diagonal strapping, the half door on the verandah.  

 

I am interested as I think about is as to why it has doors on the side.  It seems more like a Road Van than a brake van.

[corneliuslundie]

I have four Cambrian brake van drawings from the HMRS.

Cambrian drawing 1187/GWR 71156 has no side doors and is 18 ft long, inside framing to the body.

Cambrian drawing 1153/GWR 71161 has no side doors and is 18 ft long, inside framing to the body.

Cambrian drawing no no./GWR 71158 has side doors and is 18 ft long, outside framing. I reckon this one is earlier as it has safety chains. It says No. 1 at the top right so I assume that this is the one you have. I can read the length on my copy.

Cambrian drawing no no./GWR 71162 has side doors and 9 ft 4 ½ in wheelbase, and is shorter (not stated but I could calculate it) and has outside framing. This one seems to be the one used by Mike Lloyd. It also has safety chains. This is the one which looks very similar to the M&M van.

All except the first (including the M&M van) have screw couplings.

I also have, but have not really looked at, Cambrian drawing 1322/GWR 71157? for the steel body framework for a 15 ton 18 ft long brake van. No side doors.

So yes, possibly used as road vans on the branches.

By the way, none of these are anything like the ex Mid Wales Railway brake van illustrated in the Elan Valley Railway book.

I think a future task must be to go through all the books I have and look for brake vans. I did have a quick look at a couple of books and there seem not to be many, the brake vans normally hiding away at the far end of the train while the loco smiles to the camera. There is one photographed at Kerry (Glanmule) in 1903 and another at the same station in the 1890s.

Jonathan

[ChrisN]

5 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

I have four Cambrian brake van drawings from the HMRS.

Cambrian drawing 1187/GWR 71156 has no side doors and is 18 ft long, inside framing to the body.

Cambrian drawing 1153/GWR 71161 has no side doors and is 18 ft long, inside framing to the body.

Cambrian drawing no no./GWR 71158 has side doors and is 18 ft long, outside framing. I reckon this one is earlier as it has safety chains. It says No. 1 at the top right so I assume that this is the one you have. I can read the length on my copy.

Cambrian drawing no no./GWR 71162 has side doors and 9 ft 4 ½ in wheelbase, and is shorter (not stated but I could calculate it) and has outside framing. This one seems to be the one used by Mike Lloyd. It also has safety chains. This is the one which looks very similar to the M&M van.

All except the first (including the M&M van) have screw couplings.

I also have, but have not really looked at, Cambrian drawing 1322/GWR 71157? for the steel body framework for a 15 ton 18 ft long brake van. No side doors.

So yes, possibly used as road vans on the branches.

By the way, none of these are anything like the ex Mid Wales Railway brake van illustrated in the Elan Valley Railway book.

I think a future task must be to go through all the books I have and look for brake vans. I did have a quick look at a couple of books and there seem not to be many, the brake vans normally hiding away at the far end of the train while the loco smiles to the camera. There is one photographed at Kerry (Glanmule) in 1903 and another at the same station in the 1890s.

Jonathan

 

Jonathan,

Thank you for that.  I have an old diagram from Railway modeller for the one that Nigel built.  I must assume that it would be too good to be true that it was the same as those built over a decade earlier?  Also on your No 1 drawing what is the height marked to the buffer centre?  On mine it looks like 3' 3" but that makes it a little low.  It also states that the wheelbase is 10' which scales correctly if it is 18' long, but the wagon list has outside framed Brake Vans with a wheelbase of 9' 5" and a length of 16' 7", except for one, which although is still 16' 7" long has a wheelbase of 10'.  The tare weight is exactly the same so that is possible..  There is one numbered 14 that was withdrawn in 1912 which has no lengths, so could be this one.  I could only have one though.

[corneliuslundie]

Drawing 1187 has the height to the buffer centres as 3 ft 5 1/2 in. It also states wheelbase 10 ft and length over headstocks and over pillars 18 ft, 21 ft over buffers. It also says "15 Tons Coal Wagon Oil Axlebox" which  dates it fairly late -  See the most recent Archive. So no use for you.

I have a feeling that for 1895 they would all have been the shorter ones with 9 ft 4 1/2 or 9 ft 5 in wheelbase (I suspect the same, just not measured accurately!)

Jonathan

[ChrisN]

2 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

Drawing 1187 has the height to the buffer centres as 3 ft 5 1/2 in. It also states wheelbase 10 ft and length over headstocks and over pillars 18 ft, 21 ft over buffers. It also says "15 Tons Coal Wagon Oil Axlebox" which  dates it fairly late -  See the most recent Archive. So no use for you.

I have a feeling that for 1895 they would all have been the shorter ones with 9 ft 4 1/2 or 9 ft 5 in wheelbase (I suspect the same, just not measured accurately!)

Jonathan

 

Jonathan,

 

Thank you.  I had hoped that the 1903 brake was just a rebuild of an older van.  

 

GWR 71158 as you have said, and I can just read has a 10' wheelbase and is 18' long.  Looking at the buffer height again it is 3' 5".  As you said it has chains so is probably an older version but one like that is not listed in the wagon list unless it is No 14.

 

It would appear that I will need 1153/GWR71161 is an older version of the inside framed Brake Van, and GWR/71162.  As there is no rush I will put it on my Christmas list.  I will just need to find someone with an A3 photocopier, as I am no longer at work.

[corneliuslundie]

I have a feeling that the lists in circulation only show for the most part those vehicles which survived to the Grouping, or at least the 20th century so their predecessors are lost in the mists of time.

Jonathan

[ChrisN]

I would think that somewhere, maybe in the Metropolitan Archives, there should be invoices, or an order book showing what the Cambrian bought.  Also, Oswestry must have had records of what they built.  Most likely though it went when there was a tidy up, "we don't need this anymore do we?  "Yes we do!" "Too late, it's gone."

 

We need someone with nothing else to do to go looking for it.  Suggestion for a History PhD?

[NCB]

The two drawings I have are 1153 and 1187, GWR  71161 and 71156, OPC 8207 and 8206. My model was from 1153. The only difference I can see between them is that 1187 has narrower planks and different boxes on the wheels; 1153 might be grease, I'll check again for further differences. 1153 has two dates on it, 9.4.1902 and 27.5.08. 1187 has a single date which I think is 7/6/09.

 

Nigel

Edited January 4, 2021 by NCB

[NCB]

Looking again at the drawings, the boxes on 1153 have a bottom which is curved rather than flat. I believe Cambrian oil boxes had a flat bottom; if so, this would suggest they are grease boxes. This would surprise me; at that date I would have thought they would have used oil.

 

The only other differences I can see are:

 

1) 1153 has a central stove and chimney; on 1187 this is offset to one side.

 

2) 1187 has the brake standard nearer the verandah end; 1153 has it nearer the other end. This affects the arrangement of break gear underneath.

 

Nigel

[corneliuslundie]

I had noticed the different axleboxes but was not sure of the significance. Most of the goods vehicles I have looked at seem to have round bottomed axleboxes. See

If you scroll down there are some Cambrian axleboxes.

Drawing 1187 has the axleboxes described on the drawing as "15 Ton Loco Coal Oil axlebox" - but has three link couplings whereas several of the others have screw couplings. I would have expected oil axleboxes and screw couplings to be the logical pairing.

Jonathan

[Compound2632]

31 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

I would have expected oil axleboxes and screw couplings to be the logical pairing.

 

Certainly any goods vehicle rated to run in passenger trains would be equipped with oil axleboxes, screw couplings, and either continuous brakes or a through brake pipe, by the mid-1890s. But oil axleboxes started to be used for ordinary goods wagons around the turn of the century. The Great Western was an early adopter - the switch being made in December 1897, half-way through the construction of a batch of iron minks. For your 1895 date, unless the Cambrian was very unusual I think it would be safe to assume that all goods wagons had grease axleboxes.

[NCB]

I've a Cambrian 1905 drawing of a 9' wheelbase van which has oil axleboxes, with a note bogie carriage oil axle box. The drawing seems meant to cover both fitted and unfitted vehicles. I've an undated 4-plank wagon drawing showing what looks like grease axle boxes. As far as I can see all Cambrian oil boxes had flat bottoms.

 

So far I've used oil boxes for all my Cambrian goods stock, which in some cases may not be correct!

[ChrisN]

10 hours ago, NCB said:

I've a Cambrian 1905 drawing of a 9' wheelbase van which has oil axleboxes, with a note bogie carriage oil axle box. The drawing seems meant to cover both fitted and unfitted vehicles. I've an undated 4-plank wagon drawing showing what looks like grease axle boxes. As far as I can see all Cambrian oil boxes had flat bottoms.

 

So far I've used oil boxes for all my Cambrian goods stock, which in some cases may not be correct!

 

Nigel,

It seems a time to trawl through all the images that we have of Cambrian goods stock and see what the axelboxes are; actually thinking about it the carriage stock as well.

 

I would have assumed in 1895 that everything was grease, but maybe not, and any foreign vehicles will be a further nightmare area of investigation.

[ChrisN]

I have not yet trawled through my books, but it shall be done.  I doubt if there is much as only locos got photographed.

 

Now I think I may have shared this image before.  It is a loco at Dolgelley.  Looking at it again all becomes clear, well apart from the number.  It is a saddle tank with 4 sections, and the number is 6 ^^, possibly 65%.  So it is possible that 655s were used on the Dolgelley to Ruabon line.  The date is 1904, but the dating on this album is a little erratic, to say the least.  

 

I then looked at where the dome was in relation to the tank sections.  The spacing is even worse than for six sections, which is not far off terrible.  If I knew when I started what I know now, I would not have to say, 'if I knew when I started what I know now', and I might have drilled holes and moved things around, but it is too late for that now.  My 645 started as a quick project to give me a reasonable representation of something that ran in the area at the time I am modelling.  The only other I have is a Bachmann Coal Tank, neither would have been seen on Cambrian metals.  It will be pulling a train of GWR coaches, which also would not have happened in 1895, although GWR through trains are pictured in the 19teens.  

 

So what to do.  Hand rail most probably, and then the tank sections will all be in the right place.  (You will also notice that the tank is a different shape and it has a wing plate.  Maybe a wing plate is possible, perhaps, but do not hold your breath.)

 

In other news I thought I would please Robert Parry the Coal Merchant and apply transfers to his wagon.  I have bought the HMRS Private Owner transfer sheet.  I took the cardboard off the back and looked at it.  It was tiny and white on whitish.    (I was going to supply a photo but I have not done one yet.)  I looked harder, then I took it and looked at it under my magnifying glass.  As I first thought, I cannot read it, the letters are too small.  (I hasten to add this is not a criticism of the transfers.)  I could possibly, if I had one of those Opti visors work on the sheet.  I wondered if it would be better in daylight.  No it was not.  Also, I thought they had some BIG letters for doing PARRY, but no.  I have some old Letraset, which apparently might not work any more.  

 

What to do?  I have a set of black felt tips, the smallest tip is 0.1mm.  Now my wife has a ton of craft stuff that we use in the church for community events.  She had white felt tips but not thin ones.  So, I have ordered a white Posca pen.  (Someone of some thread was talking about those for lettering, not sure whose.)  It states the tip is 0.1-1.0mm.  It looks like you can cut it to the right size, or as it wears out it just gets bigger.  So Robert Parry will get wibbly wobbly lettering on his wagon.  I will probably have to do a stencil for Parry.  Now someone is going to tell me that I cannot paint onto the gloss varnish that I put on the side of the wagon to receive the transfers.

 

I have a set of HMRS GWR transfers and they look probably alright, as they are coloured.

 

If you have been, thanks for looking.