Castle Aching

[Edwardian]

44 minutes ago, ianathompson said:

 

I certainly concur with this argument.

When I worked the boxes on the Lynn branch there were only two over bridges between Lynn and Ely.

These were for Lynn by-pass (1970s/80s?) and the older one over Hardwick Road.

I suppose to counterbalance this one should consider that the M&GN had crossed the GER on a bridge just outside Lynn into the 60s.

 

The WNR will cross the MGN via a bridge over the latter just west of Massingham. The real geography at this point fully supports this.

 

44 minutes ago, ianathompson said:

We are, however, talking about the Fenland edge here.

Once you go eastwards the landscape subtly changes to become more hilly.

You only have to walk into Downham from the station and stand beside the church to realise this.

This "High Norfolk" is the area occupied by the layout.

Alright we are not talking about the West Riding valleys, where I grew up, but there are more bridges.

There was, for instance, one over the Wells harbour branch, a couple of hundred yards from the sea, that is still there.

 

That again reassures me. Much of this high Norfolk still allows roads toi slope up or down to LCs and save the cost of a bridge, but it is by no means flat and I may be being too recitent about bridge use. 

 

44 minutes ago, ianathompson said:

Re cassettes: I would be loathe to hide them behind anything.

They really need clear access to fiddle with stock.

They can be disguised or dressed up but they definitely need easy access.

I use a couple  on my own layout to allow for extensions of the modelled area.

In effect they are removable "fiddlesticks" rather than true cassettes.

 

 

This crude one was retrospectively fitted to serve a new paper mill (totally off the layout).

It curves on a grade to cross the mainline seen in the right foreground.

There is no requirement for such attatchments to be flat, level and square!

(It wouldn't fit in with the rest of the layout otherwise!)

 

It also requires removable scenery so it is a pain to use.

It is still easy to access however, once set up.

I assume that train formations are adjusted on the Castle Aching ones.

 

Train formations. Generally there will be dedicated passenger rakes. Most services will require nothing more than taking the loco off one end and turning it to place at the other end (or replace with fresh loco) to go back the other way.

 

There will be strengthening coaches and NPCs to add from time to time. 

 

Minimum fiddling but separate loco cassettes essential, I would say.

 

 

 

44 minutes ago, ianathompson said:

The stock for the mill resides in a drawer across the aisle to allow for different formations.

 

 

This is the main terminus with the standard gauge which is effectively a "dressed" fiddleyard.

It looks plausible (in my opinion any way, and that is all that maters, Rule 1 etc!)

It is just two narrow gauge sidings loaded from the far end.

Once again access is easy and the platform nearest the aisle has no obstructions for reaching in to lift stock off. 

The hut in the foreground is loose to allow for knocks.

Loading is from the short pieces of track beyond the footbridge and the train is pushed into the scene by hand.

Trains can credibly stand here as they make connections and there is a (working) signal whilst freights await access to the single line.

 

Mad, magnificent and much to be emulated

 

44 minutes ago, ianathompson said:

At the end of the day James has to decide for himself what he wants to achieve.

Designing the layout has become an interesting excercise for a number of us but it is his own choices that should prevail.

It reminds me of the story about a horse designed by a committee.

They took everyone's ideas on board and ended up with a camel!

Don't know if it was a Bactrian or a Dromedary!

 

As an aside I would be interested to know, from some of the other people who post on here, and who own largish layouts, how much they consulted others before building their little empires.

 

I have Definite Views about a lot of the WNR. A lot of it is open to input, however, and this certainly inclides the technical aspects of protypical track layouts, signalling etc where my gratitude is truly boundless. There are almost no aspects of this universe that have not benefitted from and been enriched by the contributions made here. It will literally be all the better for the arcane passion of you all. 

 

 

44 minutes ago, ianathompson said:

I know that I definitely took no advice but there were no internet forums at the time and I have never been a club member.

 

Iconoclastic views perhaps but there we go!

 

Ian T

 

[Schooner]

I've written this in between other things over the course of the day, during which time the thread has progressed significantly and some things have moved on but rather than re-write I'll just add anything extra at the end. I hope you're sitting comfortably...

 

On 18/02/2023 at 10:25, Edwardian said:

So, first thoughts are ...

I enjoyed this post very much indeed. Thank you for taking the trouble to illustrate it so nicely, well worth the effort (says the lazy beneficiary).

 

On 18/02/2023 at 10:25, Edwardian said:

Line 2 is shared by Birchoverham Staithe and Birchoverham-Next-the-Sea. 

Ah, my mistake. I hadn't cottoned on to this, thinking both branches went via Birchoverham Town. Mental route map and service roster updated.

 

On 18/02/2023 at 10:25, Edwardian said:

I am not keen on a halt.

Fair! The thought was more 'how could that space justify a train being stopped on-scene with something for it to do?' but you're quite right that a halt isn't the thing.

 

15 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Generally preferring earlier plan!

That's a great answer!

 

15 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Also, I do feel that the singling between Achingham Junc and Aching Constable junction looks very artificial.

It shouldn't, as (in my head at least) one shouldn't be aware of it.

 

The change to trackplan comes with a change in how the operating aisles would work/be used/be viewed: the singling closes the 'Southern Range' aisle (CA-AM, via AM Jnc) - trains running through it to the North simply go 'offstage'. Likewise, the other aisle, the 'Northern Range' of AC Jnc-BM, opens at the junction with trains from AC coming onstage via twin-track mainline at the rear, and from CA via single track at the front.

 

Before, the entire double junction was one scene, viewable and part of the world of both operating aisles. This was a significant compromise, requiring a redrawing of the map, because I wasn't clever enough to get anything better to fit. The update comes with an assumption that the scenes - the junctions - are separate, as they should be, and that 12" or so is enough single-track line to have some sort of scenic break. A bridge (occupation? foot?), a copse, a building/hamlet, a hole in the sky - could be anything!

 

The point I hoped to make was simply that there's space for such an approach to lose the previous compromise if desired. It 'cost' a tightening of the twin-track minimum radius to 4', a slight rework of the AM throat to maintain aisle width for BM and slightly changing the curvature of the single track run to CA. As per, these plans are only to be viewed as descriptive sketches, not prescriptive schemes!

 

Moving on to the other changes then. For convenience I'll repost the 'approved' and current WIP versions of CA:

 

15 hours ago, Edwardian said:

I like the planned depth of CA.

Good! Me too! But...

 

...the space for CA - castle, town and station - is c.12' x >4'. Your mileage wilI vary, but to me that's 'the best part of five full Inglefords'. Is the best use of this space to have 12' x 2' of buildings behind 10' x 2' of station? If the format of the CA end of the shed is up for debate (I appreciate it might not be), then I'm no longer sure it is. Two reasons.

 

Reason the first:

I spent some time this morning stood, as I quite often do, at the ends of Ingleford looking at the view. It does 00 no favours but I like the aspect, looking along the lines. It makes a welcome change to the norm and is often a much more natural viewpoint than the one a layout operator is forced to assume. This alone strikes me as a significant pro to the current End Cutout CA design, which would be a shame to lose.

 

I tried a little coupling and un-coupling stood at the end. IIRC, this is the fundamental reason for the cutout beyond the buffer stops at CA. I use a lightly magnetised, smooth and straight 'shunting pole', which makes it about as simple as it can be to pick up a link chain, catch it on a hook and slide the pole out leaving the wagons coupled. I find this relatively simple to do seated, with the layout at what autocorrect will force me to call armpit-height, to a range of about two feet looking at the layout side on. I found it very difficult to do end-on, stood with with layout at pocket-height, at ranges much over 18". I was limited not by what I could reach, but by what I could see and what I could articulate arm and wrist to achieve.

 

First factor in re-considering the design, then, is that it doesn't work. It adds cost (lost space), but no value - we should check it's still worth it. However, this is me. You may not share my difficulties, or view!

 

Reason the second:

2' is deep. As wide as my entire layout. It is also, being behind +2' of station, far away. There's little rise of ground to accommodate (as in the wider scenic sections of the Madder Valley or Ambleside), nor on which to present the town. Looking at my own layout (not ideal I know, but the best I can do) I think the full effect ( 2 streets' worth?) can be achieved in about 1' width. Also, your architectural models really are glorious, and the feature buildings fully deserve to be at the front of the layout where full benefit can be had from them. So again, I found myself thinking that the cutout costs a lot, but fails to achieve its aims in return.

 

Lose the cutout, and there's still depth for a fully developed town behind the railway, and plenty of room in front of it too. It actually makes the scene bigger by a couple sq ft, and places the railway better within it...whilst taking less space, which translates to neater benchwork, wider aisles and gentler curves on wider baseboards. A significant return, I think, including some real quality of life improvements as well as layout improvements.

 

Overall:

The cutout idea falls short in form and function. If one were designing from scratch, it probably wouldn't present itself as a solution to our problems. However, CA exists, and there are significant benefits to re-using it as-is. Is the juice worth the squeeze? Only @Edwardian can say! The rest of us can play with interesting alternatives though, to weigh up and offer, whilst we're still in the hypothetical stage.

 

General:

I've also been wondering if the layout is a model of the WNR...or if it is the WNR. I suspect the latter? It'd be useful for us all to bear this in mind, as it informs approaches (and compromises) likely to succeed.

 

On compromise: Cassette access. Tricky, in short. My own experiments with Intentio cassettes suggest they locate best horizontally - slid into position. This allows a little flexibility in distance to one end of the cassette trough, at least. Not to say it's ideal, but that it might be possible, and necessary to fit the system in the shed. On which...

 

On little empires: I suspect the WNR is unique in being particularly well developed as an entire system before existing in the physical world. I don't know, but suspect (eg) MVR and Ambleside developed in concert with the build - the layout and the lore feeding off each other. Perhaps @Martin S-C's inspiring Nether Madder project is a good example. We're in slightly different territory here, and it does have an impact on what is likely to work, and why.

 

2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

I have Definite Views about a lot of the WNR.

 

Quite right too. Thanks for indulging the rest of us tramping all over it!

 

 

Edited February 19, 2023 by Schooner
Sausage fingers

[Schooner]

On the other plan, a little progress showing some areas of potential and the major concession:

Still very rough, but it shows that acceptable station footprints can work with the same minimum curves - aiming for 34" even on the non-scenic upper-right single track curve.

 

Pros

Longer runs, making the most of the length of the shed. This is the primary 'improvement' of this idea. Biggest gain is on the single track run, on which it's now really worth running a fast 5' long train, but the twin-track run should end up about 30% longer too.

 

Really makes the point about the junctions being separate!

 

Cons

AC Jnc N is Not Right. This is both annoying and, I think, unavoidable until someone has a Bright Idea.

 

BM requires a bit of a re-work.

 

The Northern cassette yard is not a good use of space...but there is perhaps room for some kind of scenic development, or use as a work area?

 

General

For the layout to be functional, easy access from the aisle to the S cassette yard is essential. However, perhaps worth noting that there is space in this area for an access well where the label is on the plan.

 

Question

Is it interesting? Critique sought :)

 

Alternative approach:

Can't say I much like either yet, but they do get more railway into the shed.

 

Edited February 19, 2023 by Schooner
Second attempt, now with extra added Birchoverham...which doesn't really work, but that's enough for one weekend!

[Nearholmer]

2 hours ago, ianathompson said:

As an aside I would be interested to know, from some of the other people who post on here, and who own largish layouts, how much they consulted others before building their little empires.

I’ve had to downsize my little empire to become a small offshore banana republic (is that a one sentence summary of a century of British history?), but I certainly got some good suggestions when I was building it, and some very good suggestions (most of which I couldn’t follow due to various constraints) for the smaller version.

 

But, in some ways, I’ve learned more from e-chatting about my other hobby, cycling, than about model railways, because although I’ve cycled on and off  since c12yo, there was a period of 25+ years when I didn’t really have time to put in much time, and bike tech changed massively over that period, necessitating a lot of catching up. Toy trains I always managed to find time for here and there, so never “got out of the loop”.

 

The internet is often a curse, but it is often a blessing too.

[Donw]

I have been a bit vocal about this it is partly visual but also backed for me by the traffic flows. The section from CA the Aching junction will have trains from CA to BM and CA to A  over single track. THe section from Aching JCN to AC Junction  will have the service from CA to BM only over double track . The section from AC JCN will have the AC to BM and CA to BM trains. 

 

However against this it is only a junction and not a major point of focus. Provided it looks right most people would not be thinking about what is actually represents focus will be on the three stations. As for a visual section break a free trees arranged either side of the line between the two junction is all you need.  From CA  and BM you would be looking at different sides of the trees.

 

All layouts require compromises and you have to choose where to make them based on your own desires. 

 

Don 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ianathompson]

4 hours ago, Schooner said:

On little empires: I suspect the WNR is unique in being particularly well developed as an entire system before existing in the physical world. I don't know, but suspect (eg) MVR and Ambleside developed in concert with the build - the layout and the lore feeding off each other. Perhaps @Martin S-C's inspiring Nether Madder project is a good example. We're in slightly different territory here, and it does have an impact on what is likely to work, and why.

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.

Maybe it's me that's the problem!

 

I cannot imagine that too many people set off to build a system without having some idea of what they are roughly trying to achieve!

My own line covers 70 imaginary kilometres and has two branches.

It also runs on three levels in some places.

The line did not just leave the bottom terminal without there being any idea of what would be found around the corner at the next station.

 

A large number of drafts were produced, and many hare brained ideas discarded, before any wood was butchered.

As Edwardian noted, aspects of it are probably still the height of madness.

 

There are eight main stations, two branch termini and five minor stations with sidings as well as some halts.

This is in a room roughly 22 feet by 10 feet in 7mm narrow gauge.

Such a complex plan required a juggling of space allocations for each station based upon the traffic anticipated at each site.

Basic station sketches were prepared for each location, as with CA, to see what would fit.

They reflected the imagined economy of each settlement.

Like many military plans, they rarely survived contact with the enemy.

 

If you mean that a complex backstory has evolved for CA whilst the model doesn't physically exist I would agree.

I have been quite surprised how my own layout has conceptually developed since it was built.

Even so I had anticipated that there would be linguistic and cultural differences between the mountainous areas and the valley floor before a length of track was laid.

I even went so far as to draw out the system on corrugated cardboard and to run through the initial timetable with drawing pins representing trains.

 

I would not have thought that such basic procedures were so unusual in planning most large systems.

 

I don't want to hi-jack the thread so:

The basic layout plan is available here for anyone who wants to see it with individual station plans here.

The backstory is here, although some of it evolved after the layout was built.

Warning! It is long and detailed!

 

Ian T

[Schooner]

3 hours ago, ianathompson said:

Maybe it's me that's the problem!

God, quite the reverse! I've already lost count of the hours spent exploring your glorious world, being informed, educated, and entertained via your website, and look forward to many more. Any slight given was unintended, and I apologise.

 

3 hours ago, ianathompson said:

I cannot imagine that too many people set off to build a system without having some idea of what they are roughly trying to achieve!

Exactly this - they set off to build a system, make a plan, and set to. During the build the plan develops the legend, and the legend develops the plan.

 

How many people do you imagine spend, IIUC, twenty years developing a railway company, its network, people, and the fold in the map which it serves, without practical consideration but with extensive historical and geographical sympathy...and then set out to model that network? This was my point. The man can speak for himself, but the impression I get is that @Edwardian didn't set out to build a system, and even now the way the layout has developed suggests it's not so much a 'system layout' as a model of some of the WNR system.

 

I'm not sure I've explained any better, it's the difference between something with a fictional backstory and a thing with counterfactual history, but that's why I find the design challenges it throws up so intriguing!

Edited February 19, 2023 by Schooner
Sp

[Donw]

I think what you are trying to say is that having spent a long time thinking about the WNR the full size WNR has become real in Edwardians mind ( not that he thinks it is real but can image how it would be real) so he is trying to model a full size railway based on something in his imagination.

I suppose some of it exists in my mind too hence the comments. So I am commenting on how Edwardian should model something that exists in his imagination. Quite weird. 

PS I find it interesting how many different solutions you can find for your plans

Don 

[Nearholmer]

So far as I’m concerned, the WNR existed, so all of this is about trying to represent historical fact as accurately as possible in miniature, within the confines of a garden shed, without it looking like a nest of pythons.

 

 

Edited February 19, 2023 by Nearholmer

[Annie]

10 hours ago, Edwardian said:

The WNR will cross the MGN via a bridge over the latter just west of Massingham. The real geography at this point fully supports this.

I remember you discussing this with me over some screenshots of the area around Massingham on my modelled bit of the MGN and whether I could fit in the WNR crossing over the line on a bridge.  Something I never got around to I'm afraid (sigh).

[St Enodoc]

13 hours ago, ianathompson said:

As an aside I would be interested to know, from some of the other people who post on here, and who own largish layouts, how much they consulted others before building their little empires.

I don't think I consulted anyone, as such, but I certainly absorbed lots of knowledge and experience from others - consciously and subconsciously - in the fifty years or so leading up to starting to build the Mid-Cornwall Lines.

[Edwardian]

13 hours ago, Donw said:

I have been a bit vocal about this it is partly visual but also backed for me by the traffic flows. The section from CA the Aching junction will have trains from CA to BM and CA to A  over single track. THe section from Aching JCN to AC Junction  will have the service from CA to BM only over double track . The section from AC JCN will have the AC to BM and CA to BM trains. 

 

However against this it is only a junction and not a major point of focus. Provided it looks right most people would not be thinking about what is actually represents focus will be on the three stations. As for a visual section break a free trees arranged either side of the line between the two junction is all you need.  From CA  and BM you would be looking at different sides of the trees.

 

All layouts require compromises and you have to choose where to make them based on your own desires. 

 

Don 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I did rather like the idea  of making the junction for the Achingham branch at Castle Aching station, so that two gradually diverging single lines ran out of CA station. This avoided the need for a BoT doubled track junction further up the line for Achingham.

 

It would also allow for the single CA -BM line to double only at its approach to the junction with the double-track AC to BM line.

 

To me this arrangement had the uncluttered beauty of simplicity, and seemed a comprised that still appeared railway-like, but really only worked before we changed Achingham's orientation and lost the beautiful indulgent S-bend and the potential for Doughton Abbey station. 

 

 

[Donw]

That scheme does make sense of why the trains to Aching run from CA 

 

Don

[Schooner]

3 hours ago, Edwardian said:

I did rather like the idea  of making the junction for the Achingham branch at Castle Aching station

 

Yes, on balance that's still my favourite version.

 

It also had some practical benefits with the dedicated cassette area and AM and BM operable from the same space (a boon to a solo operator, I imagine).

 

The main downside was that it didn't have a BoT junction for CA-AM! Without that as a priority, the scheme still has a lot going for it...

 

EDIT: Plans here

Edited February 20, 2023 by Schooner

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Donw said:

That scheme does make sense of why the trains to Aching run from CA 

 

Don

 

Avid historians may recall that CA is a lesser place than Achingham, but was the original mainline terminus of the 1850s Birchoverham and Castle Aching Railway. In the early 1860s the line's first branch was built to Achingham, CA being the nearer and most convenient place from which to start. 

 

With the GER connection and the WNRs later Bury and Norfolk extensions, all reached via AC Junc., CA is a rather side-lined mainline terminus!

[Hroth]

19 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

Avid historians may recall that CA is a lesser place than Achingham, but was the original mainline terminus of the 1850s Birchoverham and Castle Aching Railway. In the early 1860s the line's first branch was built to Achingham, CA being the nearer and most convenient place from which to start. 

 

With the GER connection and the WNRs later Bury and Norfolk extensions, all reached via AC Junc., CA is a rather side-lined mainline terminus!

 

It seems to have some similarities with the Somerset Central Railway and the Somerset&Dorset!  🤪

 

 

[Schooner]

I'd lost the most recent iterations of this version, so gave an old one a bit of a dust-off and added some of the recent things like 5'6" for cassettes:

Pros: 

Doughton Abbey!

Reasonably practical (?)

 

Cons:

Short runs

The top run to the left of AC Jnc is wasted, not really adding to either operating space although visible from both.

 

Changes:

Cassette space is the major one, I think, which required

Slight change in AC Jnc. It's ugly, but we know it works so I'm not too fussed about that

BM loading bay moved to the other end of the station so it can be shunted in the same direction as other sidings. (Cattle dock retains kickback stub as a trap and for aesthetics. Prize cattle bay, perhaps?)

 

Questions:

I forget, does DA need its loop back for the noble steeds/goods yard, or is that why it had such a long loading bay (before I shortened it in the above)?

Where do BM branch locos live? What about strengtheners/overnight carriage storage? Could this be the basis of the lower/North cassette board scenery?

Does there need to be a direct connection from the Fakeney branch to the goods loop at BM? Easily done by joining up the current headshunt, I think.

 

Station trackplans, for review and reality checks:

Castle Aching

 

Achingham

 

Birchoverham Market

[Nearholmer]

** Thread Diversion Alert **
 

Knowing Edwardian’s expertise in these matters, can I ask a c1905 military uniforms question?

 

A photo has come up on the local history Facebook group for the area where I grew up, showing a rather tired bunch of 2nd Volunteer Battalion of the Royal Sussex Regiment “marching” up a notoriously lng and steep hill in 1906, even the officer’s horses look fagged-out.

 

They are kitted with “Baden Powell” type broad-brimmed hats, each one a tad differently moulded from the next, which has caused confusion with Australians in previous discussions of local photos from similar dates, partly because Aussies were encamped locally during the 1910 coronation period.

 

Did the VBs hang onto their Boer War uniforms to this date?

 

 

Edited February 20, 2023 by Nearholmer

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

** Thread Diversion Alert **
 

Knowing Edwardian’s expertise in these matters, can I ask a c1905 military uniforms question?

 

A photo has come up on the local history Facebook group for the area where I grew up, showing a rather tired bunch of 2nd Volunteer Battalion of the Royal Sussex Regiment “marching” up a notoriously lng and steep hill in 1906, even the officer’s horses look fagged-out.

 

They are kitted with “Baden Powell” type broad-brimmed hats, each one a tad differently moulded from the next, which has caused confusion with Australians in previous discussions of local photos from similar dates, partly because Aussies were encamped locally during the 1910 coronation period.

 

Did the VBs hang onto their Boer War uniforms to this date?

 

 

 

Certain volunteer units that served in South Africa certainly retained the Boer War 'slouch hat' as it was known. I've seen pictures of Yeomanry wearing them where these men had served in that war in the Imperial Yeomanry.

 

Here is a germane example. I have a better reproduction, but not on this machine. Here we see a member of one of the two Norfolk Regiment volunteer battalions and I believe the date is 1905. The 3rd I believe served in the Boer War, so retention of the slouch hat was a legacy of that. Otherwise a volunteer battalion would typically wear a 'glengarry' side cap at this period. 

 

 

This uniform has a number of interesting points:

 

- Home Service khaki was introduced for the army in 1902, but took time to filter through to the volunteer battalions (what would become part of the Territorial Army from 1908), so this chap is still wearing the Victorian Home Service scarlet tunic and blue trousers.

 

- The Norfolk Regiment's facing colour was yellow, but this tunic has white facings. this is because in the 1880s it was decreed that all infantry regiments were to wear one of a small number of standardised facing colours. All English line/county regiments were ordered to wear white facings. This was unpopular (there is much esprit de corps invested in such things as regimental distinctions) and the old facing colours were restored in the 1890s, it is, however, absolutely typical to see 3rd and 4th volunteer battalions kitted out in the old 1880s white faced tunics.

 

- The slouch hat in the lighter overseas khaki is entirely incongruous, but is no doubt a distinction claimed with pride in the case of a volunteer unit that had seen service in the Boer War.

 

- Were the slouch hat not worn, a volunteer battalion is likely to have the aforementioned glengarry, which would have dark blue matching the trousers as its base colour, rather than the Victorian Home service helmet with spike that the Regulars had worn.

 

There were two regular battalions of the Norfolk Regiment, later Royal Norfolk Regiment, while Volunteer Rifles and Militia battalions became the regiment's 3rd and 4th volunteer battalions.

 

Formerly there had been two Norfolk regiments, the East and West Norfolks. The Victorian Childers reforms did away with all regiments that only had a single battalion. This included the West Norfolk Regiment. The East Norfolks, having had two battalions, survived and became the Norfolk Regiment.    

 

In the Achingverse, however, the West Norfolks had their second battalion re-instated following the end of the Peace of Amiens in 1803, so were a two-battalion regiment throughout the Nineteenth Century and, thus, survived the Childers reforms, so Norfolk retained both East and West regimenst

 

The West Norfolk facing colour was green, however, consistent with our example, the volunteer battalion soldiers that inhabit the CA Drill Hall wear the white-faced jacket, in this case with glengarries. 

[Hroth]

A very dashing gent with that hat!

[Nearholmer]

Many thanks.

 

the chaps in the picture that prompted my question look, so far as an old black and white photo allow one to judge, to be dressed in a single colour, which I’d guessed to be green/khaki, and they look very much “in service”, rather than “on parade”.

[Tom Burnham]

As an aside, one of Malcolm Burr's autobiographical books (he was the son of Arthur Burr, the dodgy financier behind the Kent coalfield and the East Kent Light Railway, trained as a geologist at the Imperial School of Mines, was a world expert on insects and a linguist and translator) is titled "Slouch Hat" because when he was in command of a rather scratch construction unit in Salonika in the Great War he had official permission to wear one instead of the approved officer's cap.

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Many thanks.

 

the chaps in the picture that prompted my question look, so far as an old black and white photo allow one to judge, to be dressed in a single colour, which I’d guessed to be green/khaki, and they look very much “in service”, rather than “on parade”.

 

I would need to see it. It could be Home Service khaki, or it could be something non-standard, e,g, look at the 1902-1908 drill order uniform in the plate below. Looks like it is grey or Home Service khaki (I would suggest grey, a typical volunteer rifle colour), but it's not the regulation cut for the regular army khaki tunics of the period.

 

[Schooner]

These photos

sprang to mind. 

 

EDIT: Found some embeddable (?!) links, but I'm on my phone and from memory they're pretty low res. Will hunt for better tonight. Pics from one of the best-illustrated station history webpages this side of Warwickshire Railways.

 

Members of E Coy, Wiltshire Volunteers about to embark for training,1903. I'd wondered about the uniform, glad to have some more info.

Edited February 21, 2023 by Schooner
Pics

[Northroader]

All you need now, is a stirring Regimental March:

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ8i0FZ90Rw