Castle Aching

[wagonman]

On 02/04/2023 at 12:23, Andy Hayter said:

Works for me too but slow to load the clip.

 

Clip? It's the whole ***** movie. All 90 minutes!

[drmditch]

Re: The purity of music.

Beethoven late quartets, a summer evening, good whisky (I know what my choices are others may differ.) and a seperate glass of iced water. Watching the sunset, then possibly bats and hopefully an owl.

 

Even better would be a sunset over water but I'll settle for being home and well.

[drmditch]

Re: Alston Roof.

I think that one book does have drawings of the earlier version

I'll try to check over the weekend.

[Edwardian]

3 minutes ago, drmditch said:

Re: Alston Roof.

I think that one book does have drawings of the earlier version

I'll try to check over the weekend.

 

If it's Hoole's North Eastern Branch Line Termini, it doesn't, but there is a suggestion of an extant drawing of this original 1851 train shed, details from which are quoted, but it is not reproduced. Naturally, I'd love to see it.

 

From this we learn that the original 1851 train shed was arc-roofed. I might have considered such a design, as authentically period, had I seen a drawing, though, to be quite honest, I always had a simple pitched roof in my mind's eye for Castle Aching, for which GWR Brunel-style train sheds give me a handy precedent.

 

Turning to what Hoole's book does disclose about the 1851 shed:

 

•  The roof was supported off the station building façade by a mere 3 /2" projection of the string course. Hoole opines that this is the likely reason that the canopy had to be replaced after a mere 20 years. For this reason I am considering corbels and/or engaged masonry pillars, and I point to the fact that a GWR Brunel-style wooden train shed is capable of lasting a century, and, perhaps, more if they had been maintained properly by rubbish British Railways.

• The 1851 roof comprised 22' 6" radius arch ribs and the cladding followed this profile.

• The 1851 drawing apparently shows the top of the supporting string course as 12' 10" above the track, but Hoole considers it was built at 12'4".  Castle Aching has a low platform, at 18" above the rail height, as befits a station of the 1850s. WNR carriages have retained lower foot boards, obviating the need to raise the older platforms. This should result in the top of the corbels sitting 12' 6" above the rail tops. A happy medium, perhaps, but I note the average height of the English loading gauge is 12' 10", so it's just possible that the canopy might be too low! Better measure the height from the rails of some WNR chimneys! 

 

Above pulled from the internet and apparently from a 1930's carriage and wagon builders pocket book.

 

[ianathompson]

21 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Thus, a generic revival architectural style for the period, but a station ultimately cobbled together from SER, N&CR and GWR design influences, all, I hope, successfully blended and rendered irrefutably Norfolk by the use of carstone rag as the main material. 

 

 

 

Wow! A nice photo of the town station, where I used to sign for the box and use the (now long gone) bar.

Not at the same time of course!

 

More seriously though, I would be wary of indiscriminately using carr stone as a "characteristic West Norfolk" building material.

Its use is confined to a very small area around Downham.

It was not an ideal building material but it was all that there was locally.

It is very friable and any new building in Downham that employs it tends to use it for decoration only, rather than for structural purposes.

The modern practice is to leave a shallow rebated panel to be later filled with the stone.

If you are going to use it make sure that the supporting quoins use the pale whitish-yellow brick, because that was now the local clay fired up, as seen on the photo.

 

As I live in the town I get used to seeing the stuff everyday.

The town markets itself, I believe, as the "Gingerbread Town" for tourist purposes, although why any tourist would wish to visit benighted Downham is beyond me.

The carr stone is not generally found elsewhere, except in the closely surrounding villages.

If you used Google Earth and 'landed' on Lynn or Swaffham you would be hard pushed to find one example.

 

Knapped flint and supporting quoins, generally in a redder brick, are a more typical building material over a much wider area, including most of North Norfolk.

 

Ian T

 

[Edwardian]

2 hours ago, ianathompson said:

 

Wow! A nice photo of the town station, where I used to sign for the box and use the (now long gone) bar.

Not at the same time of course!

 

More seriously though, I would be wary of indiscriminately using carr stone as a "characteristic West Norfolk" building material.

Its use is confined to a very small area around Downham.

It was not an ideal building material but it was all that there was locally.

It is very friable and any new building in Downham that employs it tends to use it for decoration only, rather than for structural purposes.

The modern practice is to leave a shallow rebated panel to be later filled with the stone.

If you are going to use it make sure that the supporting quoins use the pale whitish-yellow brick, because that was now the local clay fired up, as seen on the photo.

 

As I live in the town I get used to seeing the stuff everyday.

The town markets itself, I believe, as the "Gingerbread Town" for tourist purposes, although why any tourist would wish to visit benighted Downham is beyond me.

The carr stone is not generally found elsewhere, except in the closely surrounding villages.

If you used Google Earth and 'landed' on Lynn or Swaffham you would be hard pushed to find one example.

 

Knapped flint and supporting quoins, generally in a redder brick, are a more typical building material over a much wider area, including most of North Norfolk.

 

Ian T

 

 

Nothing indiscriminate about the WNR's use of carstone!

 

It seemed to see a vogue in Norfolk in the 1840s and 1850s and not just in the immediate area of Downham. There are plenty of examples in the area of Hillington-Flitcham and across to Castle Rising and the Sandringham Estate, including more substantial structures even than my station.

 

As well as domestic buildings, it was a preferred material for mid-C19th statement buildings in the area, so was chosen as a more likely choice for the WN's architect than the brick-quoined flint that otherwise predominates. Later examples include the Edis extension at Sandringham in the 1880s

 

The WNR's original line bisects this pocket, so it is perfectly sensible that some or all of the original stations could have used it. This was on my route to the north Norfolk coast, the landscape that inspired the layout, hence why the WNR runs that route!  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by Edwardian
Further thoughts

[ianathompson]

True enough!

My mistake. 

I had a nagging feeling that there were other examples but I don't play cricket or football any longer so I don't go up that way nowadays!

 Thanks for reminding me.

 

Ian T

 

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, ianathompson said:

True enough!

My mistake. 

I had a nagging feeling that there were other examples but I don't play cricket or football any longer so I don't go up that way nowadays!

 Thanks for reminding me.

 

Ian T

 

 

You are right to make the point that it is not found over all of the west of Norfolk, and is nowhere near as prevalent as flint. The concentration of buildings to which I referred suggests another source in that vicinity. We did have geological maps up at one point. I seem to remember that there were coastal deposits, which suggests its use spread inland, but only so far. 

 

EDIT: Dredged memory banks. Carstone is a form of sandstone and I think is another name for ironstone. Ironstone exists in an area of Leicestershire where I lived and there it has a sort of golden hue. I was married in an ironstone church. Not very durable.   

 

I also now recall that it was the fact that it is ironstone (it contains iron oxide) that got us to its use for smelting and the activities of the Norfolk Minerals Railway. How one forgets!

 

In Norfolk it's a sort of yellowy or rusty brown. There's a silver coloured version, but the one we're discussing is "ginger". I was correct to recall deposits on the adjacent coast, as this is near Hunstanton:

 

 

 

So, on the map below follow the deposits coloured tan from Downham Market up. You will see it runs to the north a little inland but converging with the coastline until it hits the coast, at a point that looks to be just south of Hunstanton. 

 

 

You will see it passes Hillington, a large blob of it under Sandringham and that Snettisham sits by another great lump of it.

 

Here, in Snettisham, we see it used as both small coursed stone and also, on the gable wall, something more like the rag seen in Hillington, though with large pieces.   

 

 

Here is St Mary Magdalene, Sandringham:

 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by Edwardian

[Edwardian]

Please excuse the sorry remnant of the original Castle Aching station board (long story), but it is time to see if the station fits the intended position.

 

The proposed train shed position is edged red and the engine  shed base is present, showing where it will be.  

 

[Hroth]

8 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Please excuse the sorry remnant of the original Castle Aching station board (long story), but it is time to see if the station fits the intended position.

 

The proposed train shed position is edged red and the engine  shed base is present, showing where it will be.  

 

 

CA looks as if its been Beechinged...

 

But as they say, Great Oaks from little acorns grow. Bravo!!!

 

[Schooner]

Sun shining and CA out to play?! Big smile this end, turning out to be a fine day :)

[Edwardian]

Regarding the train shed roof, I have decided this should have clearance equal to the loading gauge of 12'10" above the rail top.

 

Alston's drawing shows the eaves mounted at 12'10" above the rails, but Hoole states that it was in reality at 12'4", the height of the string course. If I built it at the level of the string course at Alston, it would be too low.

 

 

You can see how the 1870s replacement roof is mounted significantly higher

 

 

However, I do not want to mount it too high, 13'6" or 14', because I think that might have been a little higher than they would have thought to build it in the 1850s. 

 

For convenience, then, I will mount this at 13' or 52mm from the rails. Critically for the architecture, this is 46mm above the platform surface, which I can accommodate with the architecture. The original 1850s eaves line would not cut through original 1850s windows that way the raised 1870s roof does at Alston. In order to ensure adequate clearance, I have truncated the landing window further, but that works better than before as on the SER design the landing cuts across the window and it doesn't on CA now. 

 

Next I have to decide on the train shed length and whether or not it was extended. Now, I am not governed by Alston, or any prototype, but it's always good to set parameters with reference to the prototype. 

 

At Alston the train shed was originally 125' (50cm at scale), extended when replaced to 150' (60cm at scale).

 

I note that on the original board I had drawn it shy of 18", seen as black marks on the cork, so was evidently aiming for a length of 125'/50cm. 

 

 

That seemed a little short when I picked up the project later; that red outline in the picture above is about a 19" shed. Currently I am considering a length of 20", representing 140', and as the original length of the shed, which has not been extended. Why? 

 

Well, CA was conceived as a mainline terminus, albeit of a very modest local line, and I would say that five 1850s coaches would be a reasonable train for the line. Rather than increase from there over time, CA has stood still, with the increase in mainline traffic being to and from other places, via Aching Constable, all of which bypasses CA.

 

A typical 1850s coach might be 22' over the body, add buffers and that's 4" at scale; five fours are twenty!  

 

However, I thought I'd set out this conclusion and my 'workings' for consideration and comment in case the collective wisdom is in favour of a change.

 

 

 

[Schooner]

Thoughts having been provoked, response updated to *like*. Sounds good, and I think it'll look very well also.

[St Enodoc]

9 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Regarding the train shed roof, I have decided this should have clearance equal to the loading gauge of 12'10" above the rail top.

 

Alston's drawing shows the eaves mounted at 12'10" above the rails, but Hoole states that it was in reality at 12'4", the height of the string course. If I built it at the level of the string course at Alston, it would be too low.

 

 

You can see how the 1870s replacement roof is mounted significantly higher

 

 

However, I do not want to mount it too high, 13'6" or 14', because I think that might have been a little higher than they would have thought to build it in the 1850s. 

 

For convenience, then, I will mount this at 13' or 52mm from the rails. Critically for the architecture, this is 46mm above the platform surface, which I can accommodate with the architecture. The original 1850s eaves line would not cut through original 1850s windows that way the raised 1870s roof does at Alston. In order to ensure adequate clearance, I have truncated the landing window further, but that works better than before as on the SER design the landing cuts across the window and it doesn't on CA now. 

 

Next I have to decide on the train shed length and whether or not it was extended. Now, I am not governed by Alston, or any prototype, but it's always good to set parameters with reference to the prototype. 

 

At Alston the train shed was originally 125' (50cm at scale), extended when replaced to 150' (60cm at scale).

 

I note that on the original board I had drawn it shy of 18", seen as black marks on the cork, so was evidently aiming for a length of 125'/50cm. 

 

 

That seemed a little short when I picked up the project later; that red outline in the picture above is about a 19" shed. Currently I am considering a length of 20", representing 140', and as the original length of the shed, which has not been extended. Why? 

 

Well, CA was conceived as a mainline terminus, albeit of a very modest local line, and I would say that five 1850s coaches would be a reasonable train for the line. Rather than increase from there over time, CA has stood still, with the increase in mainline traffic being to and from other places, via Aching Constable, all of which bypasses CA.

 

A typical 1850s coach might be 22' over the body, add buffers and that's 4" at scale; five fours are twenty!  

 

However, I thought I'd set out this conclusion and my 'workings' for consideration and comment in case the collective wisdom is in favour of a change.

 

 

 

Your reasoning is sound but might not reflect the reality of the (model) WNR. I suggest that you measure the height of your tallest vehicle (actual or anticipated) above rail level and add 2 - 3mm, to ensure that you have enough clearance.

[WFPettigrew]

18 hours ago, Edwardian said:

I have decided this should have clearance equal to the loading gauge of 12'10" above the rail top

 

I too think this is a tad low.  I know in previous pages (possibly approaching summers seventeen past?!) you have expressed admiration for the loco products of Sharp Stewart, such as the 0-6-0s sold to the Cambrian and Furness.  So if I may offer a word of warning - the only three years earlier 0-4-0 variant as exmplified in Furness Railway 20 is just over 13' from rail to chimney top (13'1 or even approaching 13'2 from memory) - and then you need some clearance.  

 

I take your point about what your research into 1850s trainshed practice suggests in terms of not going for some cathedral-like high roof in a small provincial terminus, but even within that constraint, as well as fitting the darned thing in, there is also more light to be gained from even a modest increase in the roof height.  And from a purely practical point of view of this as a model, whilst a roof is a lovely way of blocking out some of the view to make the viewer experience more interesting, it is also nice to be able to see a bit of what's underneath, and to be able to get a hand in when the inevitable derailment does occur. 

 

Hope this helps.

 

All the best

 

Neil 

[Edwardian]

12 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Your reasoning is sound but might not reflect the reality of the (model) WNR. I suggest that you measure the height of your tallest vehicle (actual or anticipated) above rail level and add 2 - 3mm, to ensure that you have enough clearance.

 

2 hours ago, WFPettigrew said:

 

I too think this is a tad low.  I know in previous pages (possibly approaching summers seventeen past?!) you have expressed admiration for the loco products of Sharp Stewart, such as the 0-6-0s sold to the Cambrian and Furness.  So if I may offer a word of warning - the only three years earlier 0-4-0 variant as exmplified in Furness Railway 20 is just over 13' from rail to chimney top (13'1 or even approaching 13'2 from memory) - and then you need some clearance.  

 

I take your point about what your research into 1850s trainshed practice suggests in terms of not going for some cathedral-like high roof in a small provincial terminus, but even within that constraint, as well as fitting the darned thing in, there is also more light to be gained from even a modest increase in the roof height.  And from a purely practical point of view of this as a model, whilst a roof is a lovely way of blocking out some of the view to make the viewer experience more interesting, it is also nice to be able to see a bit of what's underneath, and to be able to get a hand in when the inevitable derailment does occur. 

 

Hope this helps.

 

All the best

 

Neil 

 

Slightly difficult to check unbuilt locos, but that is my problem, and you both make a good point!

 

So, my chosen height - 13' or 52mm, only clears the top of a Sharp chimney on the drawings of the standard classes by about 0.5mm!  Too close as I cannot assume that the models will turn out exactly the same, then there are non-standard WNR locos and visiting motive power to consider.

 

I am aware that the replacement 1870s Alston had an eaves height of 13'10", plus a camber to the end screens that brought it up to 14'2" over the platform road. 

 

This does reinforce the merits of a rethink.

 

So, next stop, the GWR. A more generous company, judging from Ashburton, where the distance from rail height to the train shed cross beam appears in excess of 17'.

 

All things considered, 14' would seem more comfortable than the present height of 13'.

 

So, what it the maximum height I can accommodate at CA?

 

My constraints are (1) the platform height, which is restricted to 18" (6mm) above rail height as this fits with the lower carriage footboards; and, (2) the height of the base of the lintel of the lowest upper window.

 

The distance resulting is 58mm, however, I assume 4mm of this is taken up by a 1" deep timber sitting atop the corbels and forming the eaves of the shed.  

 

So, 54mm or 13'6".

 

Hmm.

 

Better get measuring locos!

 

EDIT: So, thinking about this, I can posit that the height to eaves and cross timbers from rail tops was 12'10" or 13' when built, if I am that concerned about what would have been deemed sufficient in the 1850s, but can have it raised to 14' subsequently.

 

14' is possible, I think, if I allow the eaves timbers to overlap the stairwell lintel.  I can even allow a very subtle camber to the cross beam, which might gain me another mm over the centre of the platform road, making my nominal 14' 14'3".

 

   

 

 

Edited April 7, 2023 by Edwardian

[Schooner]

6 hours ago, Edwardian said:

I can even allow a very subtle camber to the cross beam

 

This sounds like a productive (and pretty) compromise, if one needs sought.

[Edwardian]

Well, I'm certainly not going any lower than 14'!

 

[Caley Jim]

Maximum height for CR stock was 13'2".

 

Jim

[Edwardian]

3 hours ago, Caley Jim said:

Maximum height for CR stock was 13'2".

 

Jim

 

Which ties in with this suggestion that the Scottish loading gauge was generally more generous in point of height than the English.

 

Like the whisky measures.

 

A hallmark of an advanced civilisation in my view!

 

 

 

[Curlew]

Scottish railways had to allow for far more snow on the roofs???

[Compound2632]

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BoT_Farringdon-KingsCross1875.pdf

[RedGemAlchemist]

On 04/04/2023 at 14:14, Edwardian said:

Nothing indiscriminate about the WNR's use of carstone!

Compared to the amount of it their neighbour under my purview uses, it's pretty subdued.

[Edwardian]

Very pleasant and productive afternoon at the York Show yesterday. Bumped into Brother Buhar, we last met at the Hartlepool show in 2019 and it was a pleasure to do so again.

 

Yesterday I just did the afternoon, but it was enough. The last York show took me two full days. 

 

It was also the first time I'd seen Colin and Mrs Colin at Alan Gibson since before the plague, so, now, I am very, very poor, but I do have all the wheels and rods required for the WNR standard classes. Yes, it's high time the WNR had some motive power. The Sharpie 0-6-0s should be fine, but the 5'6" 2-4-0s are going to be a real struggle. Essentially, if you model in OO you have a choice between the front driving wheels and a boiler. You can't have both. Wish me luck.

 

Another problem is that the 3D prints were designed for a Mashima 1020 motor, as was the London Road motor mount and gears. I only ever bought two motors and two sets of mounts and gears. I need 11. If I cannot find the Mashimas (pretty unlikely by this stage), I need a re-think. 

 

A High Level Road Runner Plus set geared to 1:60 might be the answer. It can be orientated down between the frames to the base of the firebox if the boiler lacks sufficient space. There are problems, aside from the fact that it's more expensive than the previous arrangement. The 7.8mm width of the mount might not fit between my OO gauge 3D printed frames. How much filing back the frames would take before splintering to dust will be interesting to see. The kits look a lot more complicated and all the advice on the website about how precisely engineered it is and, therefore, how precisely the tolerances must be hand finished and fitted is enough to give me the heebie-geebies.  I think I need to order a set to try out.  

 

But I do have custom transfers for the goods and carriage stock, thanks to Ian MacCormac, so have what I need to move pretty much all rolling stock projects through to completion. 

 

World enough and time would be welcome at this point. 

 

Finally, by way of update, a new book on the MGN was published this year, forcing me to spend yet more money (albeit at a show price; I think I'll leave the price label as evidence of my admirable thrift, and because it obscures some wretched diseasel):

 

[Schooner]

Old news I'm sure, but these were sourced/developed as direct replacements the Mashima range, around which the HL loco kits were based. If nothing else the drawings ease planning/remedial CAD and 3D printing work...

 

https://www.highlevelkits.co.uk/motors