Rufford Red Lion Square

[richard i]

Have the carriage separate at the solebars rather than the roof and fit the interior to the floor. Easier to hide that join as well.

richard 

[James Harrison]

14 minutes ago, richard i said:

Have the carriage separate at the solebars rather than the roof and fit the interior to the floor. Easier to hide that join as well.

richard 

 

I did consider that and I think it's probably how I'll end up solving the issue, my only concern is making sure the seating and bulkheads line up with the windows and doors.  The other problem I've got is that I've fitted the bufferbeams to the body ends and fitted the couplings to the bufferbeams (this is another one I've fitted up with three links).  I'm sure you can see the problem, the back of the couplings stops the body fitting over the floor.  I'm reluctant to remove the couplings because they were a pain in the proverbial to assemble and fit in the first place (before I realised the sides were twisted).  I want to have a good think about this before I start tearing couplings and bufferbeams off because I'll then have to refit them, around and about the solebars and the bogies. 

 

Hmmm.  Another month or two on the roundtoit shelf beckons. 

[richard i]

Perhaps cut a slot in the floor for the coupling to go through when you lift the body off. If you do a sub floor you can measure and build off the model but it also gives a little wriggle room to move it to get the compartments to line up in the right place.

just ideas

richard 

[James Harrison]

On 13/11/2022 at 09:17, richard i said:

Perhaps cut a slot in the floor for the coupling to go through when you lift the body off. If you do a sub floor you can measure and build off the model but it also gives a little wriggle room to move it to get the compartments to line up in the right place.

just ideas

richard 

 

In the end, that's exactly what I did. I then found that the body was so warped that it wouldn't sit on the chassis correctly... I know this is a very old example of the kit, but I doubt it could have been built successfully when new.  Parts are either badly moulded, or warped, or bent.  This being one of a job lot of six that I bought, I've had a look at three of the others and conclude that of those three

- One looks like it could be acceptable

- One looks like it 'might' be buildable

- One has both warped floor and sides, rendering it unuseable. 

 

I think the conclusion I'm drawing from this is if I want to use these kits for rolling stock, I need to buy brand new rather than second hand or new-old stock.  That way if it's warped to the point of being unbuildable I've at least got a route to recompense. 

That said though to be honest this kit has been such a dog that it's made me reconsider using them.  I'm now thinking of either

1. Buying up Traing/ Hornby short clerestories and standardising on those (using the roof profile from the Ratio kits on some of them)

2. Biting the bullet and buying 3D printed GCR non-corridor stock

3. Hoping that somebody announces suitable generic early 1900s bogie stock. 

[James Harrison]

Well, not quite all is lost it seems. 

I'd got an old Triang clerestory (one of those where the bogies are rivetted into the bodywork and the wheels are more like cookie cutters), with a bit of care after breaking up the Ratio wreck I've found it's possible to transplant the Ratio bogies.  The Ratio roof is a bit too wide - or the Triang body is a bit too narrow - but I think I can sort that out.  Then there are of course bits like the ventilators and the vacuum pipes that can still find use.  So it's only the sides, the ends and the floor of the Ratio kit that are bound for the scrapheap (in other words, about 90% of the kit). 

Broadly I think I'll be to get a useable arc-roofed carriage out of the best bits of the two.

[richard i]

Try warm water and then books to unwarp them. Not too hot or they will just melt the plastic. Worth a try the worst that happens is they still have to be discarded.

richard 

[James Harrison]

Might be worth a shot, as I do rather baulk at the money potentially wasted on these otherwise. 

[James Harrison]

It's been an expensive few weeks.

- I've bought a pair of 3D printed matchboard carriages;

- My pre-order for the Sonic Models 9N arrived;

- My pre-order for 7 Hattons Genesis carriages arrived. 

 

I would love to say that the Genesis carriages are the GCR examples, but unfortunately they wouldn't be any use to me, being in the pre-1903 livery.  Personally I think GCR brown and cream or teak would be a better bet, however I can also see the argument that the one livery is too similar to GWR and the other too close to GNR/ LNER/ LBSC.

 

So I've got a nice repainting job on my hands.  

 

I also think I'm erring toward a layout that can be operated both circa 1910 and circa 1920, I've certainly got enough stock to do it.     

[James Harrison]

So, current state of various things;

 

- Hattons Genesis carriages - safely stored away in their shipping box, these will be guinea pigs of a sort because I'm trying to find an alternative to tension lock couplings.  I'm looking at three links for freight stock and I was starting to use Kadees on the passenger side but the vacuum pipe lookalike magnetic type have also caught my eye.  So I'm going to try those out on these carriages.  I want to get more practice in, before I repaint them, so....

 

- Mainline 57' panelled stock - I was looking for cheap second hand carriages I could practice repainting and lining on, and I found a rake of three of these.  So they'll be going into GCR brown and cream.  I'm under no illusion that they're anything like GCR carriages (though if you scrape the panelling off and scribe matchboarding on they do look vaguely like post-1910 stock), but if they come out OK they might see use as generic layout stock.  Dimensionally they're a few feet longer than the corridor stock the GC bought/ built in the early 1900s (53' versus 57') and although the panelling looks similar the windows are considerably different, and I think the roof profile differs too.  

 

- Decision has been made for bogie non-corridor stock to standardise on Triang/ Hornby short clerestories.  The Ratio suburban kits I've got (new-old, second hand kits) I've decided are going to be too much work to build satisfactorily.  

 

- I've sketched out an island platform option for Red Lion Square that in layout looks rather like Birmingham Moor Street, or Kidderminster Town.  I think I prefer it to my Marylebone-derived version, partly because of a particularly elegant flow to the station throat (including twin-track junction to the single track branch) and because I think visually there will be better balance between passenger and freight provision. 

 

 

[James Harrison]

Cross Post from the Hattons Genesis thread; I've fitted my rake of 7 six-wheelers with Hornby R7399 20mm magnetic couplers this evening.

 

Analysis; it was a simple swap-over and it massively improved the appearance.  However; because the buffers are unsprung I think they are now route-limited to 3rd radius curves or better. Possibly 2nd radius at dead slow but in my experience this evening I got buffer locking.

 

When I do get around to repainting these, I think I'm also going to look into fitting sprung buffers.

[James Harrison]

Well, that's the first practice piece approaching done;

 

 

 

It's funny how despite it having absolutely no GCR provenance about it at all, it still wears the livery surprisingly well. 

[James Harrison]

Some further thoughts and a few numbers on the transition from brown and cream to teak livery. 

 

Jenkinson in 'British Railway Carriages of the 20th Century, Volume 1' gives an interesting table on page 86 of numbers of passenger rated coaching stock in 1901, 1911 and 1921. 

 

Let's look at just the passenger-carrying vehicles (so we're excluding non-passenger coaching stock). 

 

In 1901 the GCR had 998 carriages.  By 1911 this had increased to 1489.  So 1489 - 998 = 491 carriages.  I'll average this out at an increase of 49 carriages per year- considering that several large orders were put into external builders in 1903 - 05 and then everything calmed down until the Barnums and matchboard stock started in 1910 this is unlikely but for my purposes it seems a reasonable approximation. 

 

By 1921 this figure stood at 1694 carriages.  1694 - 1489 / 10 = 20 carriages per year. 

 

The decision to switch from brown and cream to teak was taken in November 1908.  So 7 years increase in stock at 49 per annum since 1901 = 343 for a total of 988 + 343 = 1,331.  Now, granted, some of that new stock might be replacements for existing vehicles rather than a material increase in its own right.  I don't have exact figures for how much stock was scrapped between 1901 and 1908, but if we say that it was probably expected to have something like a 30-year service life (similar to the lifespans of later pre-grouping, grouping and BR standard stock) then we're saying by 1908 that anything predating 1879 had been withdrawn and scrapped.  

 

So the question then becomes how many carriages were 30 years old in 1908.  If you say the turnover rate was 20% then we're saying (1331 * 0.2) = 266 vehicles were scrapped.  Is this realistic? - well it sounds quite high to me (especially considering the GC were in a financial tight spot and would probably be trying to keep their older carriages in service for as long as possible). Then again I don't have stock books so I can't really comment.     

 

Scratch that.  The table simply says '1901 = x and 1911 = y' so has already considered withdrawals.

 

So with some caveats I cautiously estimate that as of 1908 the GC had 1331 passenger carriages to refinish into teak livery.  

 

Naturally all of these could not be repainted at once, also the carriage works is trying to repaint existing stock at the same time as trying to complete new vehicles.  Add in, too, that around 1908 - 1910 the carriage and wagon works are being relocated from Gorton to Dukinfield, with all the upheaval that that would have entailed. However in a limited way Dukinfield went 'live' in 1908 so I will assume the paintshop opened prior to the switch.  

 

So what would the paintshop capacity be?  Considering the new Dukinfield paintshop was part of one building also containing the new erecting shop and several other functions, I can't see that it would be more than a few sidings and platforms.  Maybe enough space to deal with 30 vehicles in one go. 

 

Jenkinson handily says (page 83) that a turnaround of three weeks could reasonably be expected to repaint a carriage. 

 

Let's assume that Dukinfield threw out its stocks of brown and cream paint as soon as the decision was taken in November 1908 and began repainting existing stock just as quickly as it could.

 

Let's also say that carriages were taken in in batches every three weeks, and that each batch was a mixture of new build stock and existing.  At 49 carriages per year that's 49 / 52 * 3 = 2.8 new carriages in each batch.  Say 3 new carriages per batch.  

So in December 1908, through 1909 and 1910 every three weeks, 27 old carriages are being released to service in teak.  This assumes of course that none of the 1331 vehicles are in fact coming due for replacement. 

 

52 weeks x 2 years + 4 weeks (December 1908) = 108 weeks, / 3 weeks = 36 batches at 27 vehicles a time = 972.  

 

So by my reckoning, January 1911 saw 1331 - 972 = 359 carriages still in brown and cream.  

 

Remember I mentioned above 20 new carriages per year after 1911?  

 

20 / 52 * 3 = 1.15, say 1 new carriage in every painting batch from January 1911 onward.  So that's now 29 existing carriages per batch.  

359/ 29 = 12 batches, or 36 weeks.  

 

So GCR brown and cream could have been gone by September / October 1911.  

 

Now you can see there are a fair few assumptions I've taken here, and I'm sure someone will point out 'but you haven't considered x/y/z and that could affect your date' - and if they have additional data then I'd be very interested.  But the interesting thing is that working it out numerically from rough estimates and assumptions seems to match tolerably closely with the photographic record (at least that bit of it that has been published and that I have seen) that broadly suggests a period around 1910 where the coaching stock quite quickly switched from being mostly brown and cream to wholly teak.  

 

Is it possible the brown and cream survived longer?

 

Yes, absolutely so. 

1. The published photographic record concentrates on the London Extension, which was given the newest and most up-to-date stock.  It's entirely possible, in fact probable, that in the areas where older stock was relegated (such as Sheffield and Lincolshire), brown and cream hung around longer. 

2. If there were significant stocks of paint in the shops, would these have been written off and thrown out?  Maybe, maybe not.  If not, then it could push back the start of the switchover by a few months. 

3. One of my main assumptions is that the switchover prompted a mass repainting exercise.  If what actually happened was stock was repainted as it happened to pass through the works for repairs and maintenance, or when it came due for a repaint, the old colours could have lasted until around 1913/ 1914 - perhaps longer considering the outbreak of WWI - taking a lifespan of five years for the paint and varnish. 

 

So what am I saying here?

 

It is probably unlikely that front line post-1910 motive power (Directors, Sam Fays et al) actually hauled brown and cream stock - at least on expresses on the principal GCR mainlines.  However, it is possible that the brown and cream livery overlapped with the introduction  dates of those classes.  Certainly I don't think the lack of a definite photograph showing a post-1910 locomotive alongside brown and cream stock is definitive proof that it didn't happen. 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Edited April 9, 2023 by James Harrison

[James Harrison]

Whilst I've got far, far too much going on at the moment to start building RLS (or even progress with the various locomotive and rolling stock builds that are paused midway), I do have time, occasionally, to interrogate my concept and tweak my plans. 

 

What generally happens is I draw something up and come back to it a few weeks later and ask, 'is that really what I want?  Am I satisfied with it?'

 

The latest thought is, do I really need double track throughout on the main line.  If we look at the full extents of the GCR, there are stretches of single line;

-From New Holland to Barton-on-Humber has always been single track;

-The last mile or so to Wigan Central was single track;

-Various of the branches in Lincolnshire would appear to have been single track.

 

My thought is, as the whole concept of Rufford is as a point where two branches terminate, is double track appropriate? For all that I've been talking about the occasional long-distance express coming in and a healthy level of local traffic, I don't see that the timetable would justify it (at least, not double track throughout- much like the Wigan line I imagine both routes becoming double track a few miles out- as we've discussed previously for the Mansfield branch).  So I've been roughly sketching out what a pair of single lines would look like.

 

 

I think this has a fair bit going for it.  You've got a stretch of double track (well it looks like double track, could be used as formal double track, but could equally well be two adjacent single lines), an interesting junction which I think I've laid out on prototypical lines (even if much compressed), and I've started to sketch in a lead-in to a goods yard (I always seem to struggle planning that aspect, either I end up with a cats cradle, or a fairly boring-looking ladder of sidings).  The whole thing just looks a little less... quart in a pint pot? 

[Andy Hayter]

I think that is a brave but very sensible decision.  Operability is another issue to look at.  Could you sensibly have run 2 trains at once on the double track, given the short distances involved?

 

I too grappled with this for the entry to the fiddleyard on my layout and came to the decision that the short distances involved meant that as a sole operator, it was more than likely that a train would take the plunge of doom off one end of the layout or the other while I was concentrating on the second train.   So a single track entry it became with all of the simplifications in build and operation that come with it.

[James Harrison]

Under my filing system, this is iteration #8 of the plan.  However I suspect if we were to go back over the 40-some-odd pages and 6 and a half years of the thread to date, it would be more like #20. 

 

 

I always seem to struggle when planning out a goods yard, either I end up with a very space-hungry cats cradle or alternatively a ladder of dart-straight sidings, which is fine except for it's not exactly the most visually exciting of arrangements (also I have a 'thing' about lots of parallel straight tracks, especially if they're parallel to the board edge).  I usually end up with something unacceptably weighted toward either the passenger or freight side of things too.

 

What I've tried here- and I really don't know why it's taken me so long to think of it- is to take my entry road (and therefore by extension the reception road and loco release run-round) on a 'scenic tour' around the outer perimeter of the yard.  The yard itself then sits inside a triangle formed on one side by the platform roads and on the others by the run round.  Whilst, yes, that yard is (again) a ladder of straight sidings, somehow (I think because every element is at an angle relative to its neighbours) it looks more interesting.  Couple that with one siding being somewhat longer than the others, and a couple of (very tight!) sidings coming off the run-round itself - to a small coal merchants yard, I imagine - and it has the makings of something that answers the trinity of being compact, visually interesting and operationally satisfying, whilst still being of a scale comparable to the more formal passenger side. 

[Caley Jim]

Your two sidings off the run-round are crying 'local industry' to me.  Coal merchants could be on the end of the long, curving siding.

 

Jim

[Edwardian]

On 09/04/2023 at 19:46, James Harrison said:

Some further thoughts and a few numbers on the transition from brown and cream to teak livery. 

 

Jenkinson in 'British Railway Carriages of the 20th Century, Volume 1' gives an interesting table on page 86 of numbers of passenger rated coaching stock in 1901, 1911 and 1921. 

 

Let's look at just the passenger-carrying vehicles (so we're excluding non-passenger coaching stock). 

 

In 1901 the GCR had 998 carriages.  By 1911 this had increased to 1489.  So 1489 - 998 = 491 carriages.  I'll average this out at an increase of 49 carriages per year- considering that several large orders were put into external builders in 1903 - 05 and then everything calmed down until the Barnums and matchboard stock started in 1910 this is unlikely but for my purposes it seems a reasonable approximation. 

 

By 1921 this figure stood at 1694 carriages.  1694 - 1489 / 10 = 20 carriages per year. 

 

The decision to switch from brown and cream to teak was taken in November 1908.  So 7 years increase in stock at 49 per annum since 1901 = 343 for a total of 988 + 343 = 1,331.  Now, granted, some of that new stock might be replacements for existing vehicles rather than a material increase in its own right.  I don't have exact figures for how much stock was scrapped between 1901 and 1908, but if we say that it was probably expected to have something like a 30-year service life (similar to the lifespans of later pre-grouping, grouping and BR standard stock) then we're saying by 1908 that anything predating 1879 had been withdrawn and scrapped.  

 

So the question then becomes how many carriages were 30 years old in 1908.  If you say the turnover rate was 20% then we're saying (1331 * 0.2) = 266 vehicles were scrapped.  Is this realistic? - well it sounds quite high to me (especially considering the GC were in a financial tight spot and would probably be trying to keep their older carriages in service for as long as possible). Then again I don't have stock books so I can't really comment.     

 

Scratch that.  The table simply says '1901 = x and 1911 = y' so has already considered withdrawals.

 

So with some caveats I cautiously estimate that as of 1908 the GC had 1331 passenger carriages to refinish into teak livery.  

 

Naturally all of these could not be repainted at once, also the carriage works is trying to repaint existing stock at the same time as trying to complete new vehicles.  Add in, too, that around 1908 - 1910 the carriage and wagon works are being relocated from Gorton to Dukinfield, with all the upheaval that that would have entailed. However in a limited way Dukinfield went 'live' in 1908 so I will assume the paintshop opened prior to the switch.  

 

So what would the paintshop capacity be?  Considering the new Dukinfield paintshop was part of one building also containing the new erecting shop and several other functions, I can't see that it would be more than a few sidings and platforms.  Maybe enough space to deal with 30 vehicles in one go. 

 

Jenkinson handily says (page 83) that a turnaround of three weeks could reasonably be expected to repaint a carriage. 

 

Let's assume that Dukinfield threw out its stocks of brown and cream paint as soon as the decision was taken in November 1908 and began repainting existing stock just as quickly as it could.

 

Let's also say that carriages were taken in in batches every three weeks, and that each batch was a mixture of new build stock and existing.  At 49 carriages per year that's 49 / 52 * 3 = 2.8 new carriages in each batch.  Say 3 new carriages per batch.  

So in December 1908, through 1909 and 1910 every three weeks, 27 old carriages are being released to service in teak.  This assumes of course that none of the 1331 vehicles are in fact coming due for replacement. 

 

52 weeks x 2 years + 4 weeks (December 1908) = 108 weeks, / 3 weeks = 36 batches at 27 vehicles a time = 972.  

 

So by my reckoning, January 1911 saw 1331 - 972 = 359 carriages still in brown and cream.  

 

Remember I mentioned above 20 new carriages per year after 1911?  

 

20 / 52 * 3 = 1.15, say 1 new carriage in every painting batch from January 1911 onward.  So that's now 29 existing carriages per batch.  

359/ 29 = 12 batches, or 36 weeks.  

 

So GCR brown and cream could have been gone by September / October 1911.  

 

Now you can see there are a fair few assumptions I've taken here, and I'm sure someone will point out 'but you haven't considered x/y/z and that could affect your date' - and if they have additional data then I'd be very interested.  But the interesting thing is that working it out numerically from rough estimates and assumptions seems to match tolerably closely with the photographic record (at least that bit of it that has been published and that I have seen) that broadly suggests a period around 1910 where the coaching stock quite quickly switched from being mostly brown and cream to wholly teak.  

 

Is it possible the brown and cream survived longer?

 

Yes, absolutely so. 

1. The published photographic record concentrates on the London Extension, which was given the newest and most up-to-date stock.  It's entirely possible, in fact probable, that in the areas where older stock was relegated (such as Sheffield and Lincolshire), brown and cream hung around longer. 

2. If there were significant stocks of paint in the shops, would these have been written off and thrown out?  Maybe, maybe not.  If not, then it could push back the start of the switchover by a few months. 

3. One of my main assumptions is that the switchover prompted a mass repainting exercise.  If what actually happened was stock was repainted as it happened to pass through the works for repairs and maintenance, or when it came due for a repaint, the old colours could have lasted until around 1913/ 1914 - perhaps longer considering the outbreak of WWI - taking a lifespan of five years for the paint and varnish. 

 

So what am I saying here?

 

It is probably unlikely that front line post-1910 motive power (Directors, Sam Fays et al) actually hauled brown and cream stock - at least on expresses on the principal GCR mainlines.  However, it is possible that the brown and cream livery overlapped with the introduction  dates of those classes.  Certainly I don't think the lack of a definite photograph showing a post-1910 locomotive alongside brown and cream stock is definitive proof that it didn't happen. 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

Broadly, I would agree with your logic. Carriages on express work would be dealt with first? Sounds plausible, but so does dealing with the coaches in the order of  their of last painting date. All modified by when something can be taken out of service or otherwise needs attention. IIRC, the cream and brown livery was short-lived. What are the chances that the whole coaching stock was in that livery at any point?

 

To take a couple of Grouping examples. The Night Mail film, IIRC 1936, the train has a combination of fully lied LMS crimson and the plainer 1933 livery. Well, that is to be expected. I spent a lot of time in a previous life pouring over photographs of GW trains of the mid 'thirties, say 1934-7. While it is often harder on a prototype model than it is with a model to identify the fine upper-body lining, I don't recall ever once feeling I'd seen the fully-lined chocolate and cream applied up to 1927.

 

Of course,a Grouping company, with its facilities, modern pre-mixed paints and progression to simpler liveries might be expected to be capable of moving on faster.  

[James Harrison]

20 hours ago, Caley Jim said:

Your two sidings off the run-round are crying 'local industry' to me.  Coal merchants could be on the end of the long, curving siding.

 

Jim

 

My thought was to put the coal merchants simply because, at that point, the board is going to have to be quite narrow.  Some coal bins and a small office is likely all that I'm going to have room for there.  As it usually is, about half an hour after wrapping up that iteration of the plan I started seeing how I could improve it, so that long siding with the weird dogleg in it is going to be revisited. 

 

9 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

Broadly, I would agree with your logic. Carriages on express work would be dealt with first? Sounds plausible, but so does dealing with the coaches in the order of  their of last painting date. All modified by when something can be taken out of service or otherwise needs attention. IIRC, the cream and brown livery was short-lived. What are the chances that the whole coaching stock was in that livery at any point?

 

To take a couple of Grouping examples. The Night Mail film, IIRC 1936, the train has a combination of fully lied LMS crimson and the plainer 1933 livery. Well, that is to be expected. I spent a lot of time in a previous life pouring over photographs of GW trains of the mid 'thirties, say 1934-7. While it is often harder on a prototype model than it is with a model to identify the fine upper-body lining, I don't recall ever once feeling I'd seen the fully-lined chocolate and cream applied up to 1927.

 

Of course,a Grouping company, with its facilities, modern pre-mixed paints and progression to simpler liveries might be expected to be capable of moving on faster.  

 

Those are a couple of useful examples to fall back upon in lieu of any specific GCR coach-painting data.  (I'm also buying up as many back issues of 'Forward' as I can lay my hands on to see if somebody gave a definitive answer to the question back in 1983 or whenever). 

 

I think investigating the single track option is really moving the design away from a 'modern' mainline and more toward a middling secondary route or even branch line approach, and I really don't see that as a bad thing.  For all that the likes of the Sam Fays and Directors are amongst my favourite locomotive designs, the conclusion I've been coming to is that to run them convincingly means a layout which can accommodate rakes of 5 or 6 60' carriages- which is something I just don't have room for.  So if they're off the table the raison d'etre for my 1913-1914 period is gone, and at that point I might as well decide to set the layout in 1910/1911, and not have to worry about exactly when the brown and cream disappeared. 

[Edwardian]

58 minutes ago, James Harrison said:

 

My thought was to put the coal merchants simply because, at that point, the board is going to have to be quite narrow.  Some coal bins and a small office is likely all that I'm going to have room for there.  As it usually is, about half an hour after wrapping up that iteration of the plan I started seeing how I could improve it, so that long siding with the weird dogleg in it is going to be revisited. 

 

 

Those are a couple of useful examples to fall back upon in lieu of any specific GCR coach-painting data.  (I'm also buying up as many back issues of 'Forward' as I can lay my hands on to see if somebody gave a definitive answer to the question back in 1983 or whenever). 

 

I think investigating the single track option is really moving the design away from a 'modern' mainline and more toward a middling secondary route or even branch line approach, and I really don't see that as a bad thing.  For all that the likes of the Sam Fays and Directors are amongst my favourite locomotive designs, the conclusion I've been coming to is that to run them convincingly means a layout which can accommodate rakes of 5 or 6 60' carriages- which is something I just don't have room for.  So if they're off the table the raison d'etre for my 1913-1914 period is gone, and at that point I might as well decide to set the layout in 1910/1911, and not have to worry about exactly when the brown and cream disappeared. 

 

Or earlier. There is an advantage to trains in which the longest vehicles are c.50' bogie carriages. 

 

Then there is that livery

 

There are reasons why Denny chose to go no further 'Forward' than 1907.

 

And will you not have a line that can have through trains with Pollit 4-4-0s and so forth?

 

 

[James Harrison]

Parker and Pollitt 4-4-0s, the earlier Robinson designs and even some Sacre types hanging around, with a mix of carriage liveries, in a semi-industrial north-east Midlands urban setting.  It's going to be quite recognisably 'all my own work'- when I get around to it.   

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, James Harrison said:

Parker and Pollitt 4-4-0s, the earlier Robinson designs and even some Sacre types hanging around, with a mix of carriage liveries, in a semi-industrial north-east Midlands urban setting.  It's going to be quite recognisably 'all my own work'- when I get around to it.   

 

There, you have the vision

[richard i]

4 hours ago, James Harrison said:

I'm also buying up as many back issues of 'Forward' as I can lay my hands on to see if somebody gave a definitive answer to the question back in 1983 or whenever). 

Or join the gcrs and get access to every forward for free as electronic soft copies on the website.

richard 

[James Harrison]

7 hours ago, richard i said:

Or join the gcrs and get access to every forward for free as electronic soft copies on the website.

richard 

I'm already a member- I didn't realise the back catalogue had been digitised! Thanks for the heads-up.

[James Harrison]

I'm sure it will keep getting tweaked here and there, of course, but at the moment I think this is quite satisfying. 

 

 

The separate headshunt in the yard has gone (I thought that was making the goods yard entry look quite short and visually compressing the apparent distance between the station and the junction).  The weird dogleg siding has been cut back and its neighbour has been omitted, and this gives me room to fit a decent-sized goods shed and office in there.  The next siding down does double duty and acts as a headshunt for the two kickback sidings.  Quite what function those sidings might fulfil I'm not entirely certain, you could run a narrow road up alongside them and put a derrick or a small overhead crane in there but it would be cramped.  Or some sort of loading dock, maybe.  Somewhere for livestock pens? 

 

In any case in terms of buildings for the yard I'm probably looking at a warehouse and office block, stable (already to hand), bothy (already to hand), weighbridge, coal merchants office...

Edited July 4, 2023 by James Harrison

[richard i]

15 hours ago, James Harrison said:

I'm already a member- I didn't realise the back catalogue had been digitised! Thanks for the heads-up.

Good man. As a committee member I approve.