Rufford Red Lion Square

[Echo]

Another thought - I was once told that late MS&L stations were very similar to Metropolitan Railway country extension stations, except that the MS&L used wood and the Met. used brick. Apparently they used the same architect. There are Met. stations still in situ. Might give you an idea of typical dimensions for various facilities. The architecture is relatively plain though.

[Echo]

I am guessing you are probably already aware of these drawings of Rugby Central, but include a link just in case

 

http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lner/rugbygr.htm

[James Harrison]

Quite a useful set of drawings, just a shame they're a little too small to read easily.  Still pondering things over at the moment but I should have some sketches and drawings to show soon. 

[James Harrison]

That rather lovely moment when you're agonising over critical dimensions of various rooms and somebody then posts scale plans of another station. 

 

https://www.facebook.com/NottsVic3D/posts/2403760046516614

 

Far too large for my purposes as-is of course but still giving an idea of how large I should make my rooms.  I have a rough idea of how I want my station to look- and the arrangement of the various elements of it- I even got so far as a rough sketch!.... which I have proceeded to lose somewhere.  

 

And I still have that first building to actually get on with too.

[Echo]

Chesterfield Market Place had some similar design features to some of the stations illustrated here, as does Nottingham Midland. Not sure if it was just the 'in' style of the period or whether they came from the same school or even were the same architect. Nottingham Midland and Victoria were both supposedly by the same man, I believe.

 

Edit

 

Pressed the enter button too soon! Mind you, a modernist building of this period might look out of place in a conservative, sleepy Nottinghamshire market town. Shame you want to knock the original building down really. Some of the early MS&L (and predecessors) buildings look(ed) really impressive - Worksop, Gainsborough, New Holland Town etc etc.

Edited November 12, 2017 by Echo

[James Harrison]

Chesterfield Market Place had some similar design features to some of the stations illustrated here, as does Nottingham Midland. Not sure if it was just the 'in' style of the period or whether they came from the same school or even were the same architect. Nottingham Midland and Victoria were both supposedly by the same man, I believe.

 

Edit

 

Pressed the enter button too soon! Mind you, a modernist building of this period might look out of place in a conservative, sleepy Nottinghamshire market town. Shame you want to knock the original building down really. Some of the early MS&L (and predecessors) buildings look(ed) really impressive - Worksop, Gainsborough, New Holland Town etc etc.

 

Chesterfield Marketplace is kind of the sort of appearance I am driving at; a little more refined perhaps (there are bits of it I really like and others I'm not quite so keen on). 

 

It's getting the time of year that I tend to break out my copies of George Dow's books for a read; dark nights with the fire blazing and curled up in a chair with a good book!- perfect excuse to research a bit about the earlier 1840s stations.  Maybe a part of the original station would have survived...

[Echo]

Go on.. you know you want to...

 

http://www.worksopheritagetrail.org.uk/index.asp?page=trail14

[Compound2632]

Nottingham Midland and Victoria were both supposedly by the same man, I believe.

 

A. E. Lambert - the rebuilt Nottingham Midland in 1904, spurred on by Nottingham Victoria. A local man; he seems to have cornered the market in Methodist churches.

[Echo]

Something to get you started might be to think how the original terminus would have looked before the rebuilding. This would quite possibly have a strong influence on your model - especially as your Rufford station seems to be situated in a rather tight spot.

 

Two obvious early, small GCR termini are Hayfield and Glossop. The latter is very interesting in that the local lord built the railway because the Sheffield-Manchester main line had missed the town. The terminus ended up boxed in by the town. The goods shed etc was built parallel to the passenger station, so could have been used to extend the passenger side if ever required. The real goods sidings at Glossop were extended along the line towards Manchester as the town developed. The railway seems to have been crucial to the town's development and prosperity.

 

There is an 1880 1:500 OS map showing the interior detail. The building itself is rather plain, but could I am sure be embellished, given your obvious talents. It could form one corner of the rebuilt station. Just an idea to try and help, nothing more.

[James Harrison]

Something to get you started might be to think how the original terminus would have looked before the rebuilding. This would quite possibly have a strong influence on your model - especially as your Rufford station seems to be situated in a rather tight spot.

 

Two obvious early, small GCR termini are Hayfield and Glossop. The latter is very interesting in that the local lord built the railway because the Sheffield-Manchester main line had missed the town. The terminus ended up boxed in by the town. The goods shed etc was built parallel to the passenger station, so could have been used to extend the passenger side if ever required. The real goods sidings at Glossop were extended along the line towards Manchester as the town developed. The railway seems to have been crucial to the town's development and prosperity.

 

There is an 1880 1:500 OS map showing the interior detail. The building itself is rather plain, but could I am sure be embellished, given your obvious talents. It could form one corner of the rebuilt station. Just an idea to try and help, nothing more.

 

I think there's quite a lot to be said for that.  I mean, originally it would have been a small terminus at the end of, in effect, a branch from a cross-country line.  So originally the service would have been mostly Rufford to Sheffield locals, maybe a few longer distance services on to Manchester, and Rufford to Lincoln and the East Coast- again locals.  Once the London Extension is in the offing though it becomes less a branch line and more a spur off a trunk route- somewhere where it would be obvious to change locos on London- Manchester trains prior to taking on the Pennines.  Likewise southbound traffic would call in to drop the six-coupled engine in favour of something lighter and more appropriate to the 'London Branch'.  Even if this only adds a few trains each way a day it still places additional demands on the station fabric, plus the direct service to London might reasonably result in the town elders petitioning for a new station to make a good first impression of the place.  

 

There are/ were a fair few MSLR termini in Lincolnshire that would be a good basis for the original station.  The question then becomes how much of the original station gets incorporated into the 1890s rebuild. 

[James Harrison]

Go on.. you know you want to...

 

http://www.worksopheritagetrail.org.uk/index.asp?page=trail14

 

Actually.... actually... that would make a degree of sense.  Arguing the Rufford line was a part of the Sheffield & Lincolnshire Junction it would be reasonable to think the original station would be of a generally similar style.  There's a nice picture of the frontage of Worksop circa 1900 in 'Great Central East of Sheffield' by Geoffery Hurst that suggests at least a part of it is quite similar to what I have in mind.  Say that that forms the original station and the 1890s rebuilding extends to new offices whilst the original building gets converted to refreshment and waiting rooms.... which then neatly gives a reason why I'd have an ornamental entrance archway (think along the lines of the one going into Marylebone) between the waiting rooms and booking office. 

 

Specifically this bit, the single storey section between the two Dutch gables. 

 

 

Except I'm thinking of it being in brick, and part of the alterations involving a couple of bay windows inserted, plus some dormer windows to the attic space and of course chimney stacks. 

 

Then to the left of it the ornamental terracotta entrance arch

 

 

Just the central four-centre arch, then to the left of that the new 1890s period station offices. 

 

It would be quite a pleasing facade and an interesting roofline, and then with a glazed concourse roof behind it (which would stop about level with the buffer stops and merge into the platform canopies).... I think we might about have the overall concept. 

[Poggy1165]

I think the style of the station has more to do with era than it does with company. So you need to pick the era for your station to suit your taste. No use having an 1850 building for a station supposedly built in 1900.

 

Some years back I had a business meeting on the Wirral and went by train. The station at my destination had many features which struck me as "typical MS&L circa 1895" but of course the station in question was GW and LNWR joint. Hence my theory on the influence of architectural fashion. 

 

An interesting MS&L terminus no one has mentioned was Wigan Central. Very grand in its way (far too grand for its traffic) with a lot of wood in its construction. There are some nice images on Google. At the other end of the spectrum, perhaps, St Helens Central. (Which might be better referred to as St Helens (GC) now to avoid confusion with the re-named Shaw Street.) A very rudimentary affair, especially at platform level where originally it was entirely wood, with a draughty shelter set high on an embankment. Always thought it would make a nice model - but the goods yard was huge, and in 7mm scale would need a space somewhere between a billiard table and a tennis court.

[James Harrison]

I think the style of the station has more to do with era than it does with company. So you need to pick the era for your station to suit your taste. No use having an 1850 building for a station supposedly built in 1900.

 

Some years back I had a business meeting on the Wirral and went by train. The station at my destination had many features which struck me as "typical MS&L circa 1895" but of course the station in question was GW and LNWR joint. Hence my theory on the influence of architectural fashion. 

 

An interesting MS&L terminus no one has mentioned was Wigan Central. Very grand in its way (far too grand for its traffic) with a lot of wood in its construction. There are some nice images on Google. At the other end of the spectrum, perhaps, St Helens Central. (Which might be better referred to as St Helens (GC) now to avoid confusion with the re-named Shaw Street.) A very rudimentary affair, especially at platform level where originally it was entirely wood, with a draughty shelter set high on an embankment. Always thought it would make a nice model - but the goods yard was huge, and in 7mm scale would need a space somewhere between a billiard table and a tennis court.

 

I agree completely with the argument that architectural style goes more with era than company. There's no such thing as an identifiable 'Victorian' style because the architectural history of the 19th Century is a confused mess of Revivals of earlier fashions (Gothic being the most immediately obvious but there was something of a closely-fought battle with neo-Classicism and then you've got curveballs such as an Egyptian Revival on top of that....)

 

Broadly speaking in the earlier half of the 19th Century the Gothic Revival was of a more scholarly and ecclesiastical bent, being more closely patterned on true Medieval architecture, mostly to be found in churches and monastic ruins.  By the 1850s/ 1860s that was evolving into what most people think of as 'Gothic Revival' and what architectural historians call 'High Victorian'.  St Pancras falls into that category.  It would be inappropriate to use that style for Rufford as it postdates the opening of the line and predates the new/ rebuilt station.  The 1840s buildings for Rufford I envisage would be Jacobean Revival- similar to other contemporary stations on the Sheffield & Lincolnshire Junction- which would be in keeping both chronologically and geographically.  

 

By the time the 1890s roll around the High Victorian style had fallen out of fashion in favour of something more pared back.  Dressed and carved stone was replaced with terracotta mouldings and polychromatic (multi-coloured) brickwork whilst architectural style itself was taking more hints from vernacular buildings- almost heading back to the scholarly approach of the 1840s and with an aesthetic not exactly a million miles removed!  (You can see Jacobean influences in a lot of late Victorian/ Edwardian architecture).  Then a few years later, around 1900, a stripped-back Baroque tone started to be added to the mix....

 

So you can see it's a real minefield to try to pick your way through.  The idea I'm working through is articulating how an 1840s building might be integrated into a later 1890s structure; this is of course entirely prototypical (the vast majority of stations are something of a palimpsest of either ad-hoc or phased development).  Because of the cyclical nature of architectural tastes I don't anticipate that it will look jarring at all- you'll be able to tell the two apart because their style will be different- but they will harmonise.

 

I'm rapidly finding that the MSLR termini are an eclectic bunch!- no two are the same and there are elements of all of them that would be nice to try to emulate, if it could be done without ending up with a folly.  

 

I think it might be time to try to produce a sketch or two and see which of my ideas are go-ers, which ones need further work and which should be quietly let go. 

[Edwardian]

I think the style of the station has more to do with era than it does with company. So you need to pick the era for your station to suit your taste. No use having an 1850 building for a station supposedly built in 1900.

 

Some years back I had a business meeting on the Wirral and went by train. The station at my destination had many features which struck me as "typical MS&L circa 1895" but of course the station in question was GW and LNWR joint. Hence my theory on the influence of architectural fashion. 

 

An interesting MS&L terminus no one has mentioned was Wigan Central. Very grand in its way (far too grand for its traffic) with a lot of wood in its construction. There are some nice images on Google. At the other end of the spectrum, perhaps, St Helens Central. (Which might be better referred to as St Helens (GC) now to avoid confusion with the re-named Shaw Street.) A very rudimentary affair, especially at platform level where originally it was entirely wood, with a draughty shelter set high on an embankment. Always thought it would make a nice model - but the goods yard was huge, and in 7mm scale would need a space somewhere between a billiard table and a tennis court.

 

I agree completely with the argument that architectural style goes more with era than company. There's no such thing as an identifiable 'Victorian' style because the architectural history of the 19th Century is a confused mess of Revivals of earlier fashions (Gothic being the most immediately obvious but there was something of a closely-fought battle with neo-Classicism and then you've got curveballs such as an Egyptian Revival on top of that....)

 

Broadly speaking in the earlier half of the 19th Century the Gothic Revival was of a more scholarly and ecclesiastical bent, being more closely patterned on true Medieval architecture, mostly to be found in churches and monastic ruins.  By the 1850s/ 1860s that was evolving into what most people think of as 'Gothic Revival' and what architectural historians call 'High Victorian'.  St Pancras falls into that category.  It would be inappropriate to use that style for Rufford as it postdates the opening of the line and predates the new/ rebuilt station.  The 1840s buildings for Rufford I envisage would be Jacobean Revival- similar to other contemporary stations on the Sheffield & Lincolnshire Junction- which would be in keeping both chronologically and geographically.  

 

By the time the 1890s roll around the High Victorian style had fallen out of fashion in favour of something more pared back.  Dressed and carved stone was replaced with terracotta mouldings and polychromatic (multi-coloured) brickwork whilst architectural style itself was taking more hints from vernacular buildings- almost heading back to the scholarly approach of the 1840s and with an aesthetic not exactly a million miles removed!  (You can see Jacobean influences in a lot of late Victorian/ Edwardian architecture).  Then a few years later, around 1900, a stripped-back Baroque tone started to be added to the mix....

 

So you can see it's a real minefield to try to pick your way through.  The idea I'm working through is articulating how an 1840s building might be integrated into a later 1890s structure; this is of course entirely prototypical (the vast majority of stations are something of a palimpsest of either ad-hoc or phased development).  Because of the cyclical nature of architectural tastes I don't anticipate that it will look jarring at all- you'll be able to tell the two apart because their style will be different- but they will harmonise.

 

I'm rapidly finding that the MSLR termini are an eclectic bunch!- no two are the same and there are elements of all of them that would be nice to try to emulate, if it could be done without ending up with a folly.  

 

I think it might be time to try to produce a sketch or two and see which of my ideas are go-ers, which ones need further work and which should be quietly let go. 

 

I could not agree more. 

 

Sometimes there are buildings that are to a recognisable house style for the period, e.g. GW 20th Century standard designs, or the GER's 1863 style.

 

Most of the time, however, it's a particular style or revival style that was popular when the line was built.  We recently discussed a M&GNJR layout that featured a model of a North Staffs station, but it is better understood as a Dutch-gabled Jacobean revival style station, of which the North Staffs was one of many adopters.

 

Castle Aching had to decide upon a style for the station, but, apart from the fact that it was freelance, there were precious few railways nearby built in the mid-to-late 1850s, and the date was the determining factor.  In the end, we adopted a suggestion by, IIRC, Nearholmer of this parish, to adopt and adapt a South Eastern Railway design, changing the material to suit the Norfolk location.

 

This is why we were, I recall, looking at prototypes such as the Great Western's Birmingham Moor Street.

[Compound2632]

I could not agree more. 

 

Sometimes there are buildings that are to a recognisable house style for the period, e.g. GW 20th Century standard designs, or the GER's 1863 style.

 

Most of the time, however, it's a particular style or revival style that was popular when the line was built.  We recently discussed a M&GNJR layout that featured a model of a North Staffs station, but it is better understood as a Dutch-gabled Jacobean revival style station, of which the North Staffs was one of many adopters.

 

Castle Aching had to decide upon a style for the station, but, apart from the fact that it was freelance, there were precious few railways nearby built in the mid-to-late 1850s, and the date was the determining factor.  In the end, we adopted a suggestion by, IIRC, Nearholmer of this parish, to adopt and adapt a South Eastern Railway design, changing the material to suit the Norfolk location.

 

This is why we were, I recall, looking at prototypes such as the Great Western's Birmingham Moor Street.

 

But James seems to be going a step further - he's very close to making the assumption that his station building (or at least its extension) was designed by a particular architect, examples of whose work on similar buildings can be taken as inspiration.

[Edwardian]

But James seems to be going a step further - he's very close to making the assumption that his station building (or at least its extension) was designed by a particular architect, examples of whose work on similar buildings can be taken as inspiration.

 

Indeed.  And this is huge fun.  In my planned, but never executed, Isle of Eldernell & Mereport Railway, constructed in the 1860s, I 'identified' the architect of Fenmarch station, as recorded in this excerpt from the Line's history:

 

The promoters were fortunate in their choice of the architect Charles Henry Driver, whose station buildings and engine sheds of 1862-4, though not particularly large, were delightful essays in yellow brick, with stone and coloured brick details in the Gothic style of the day. In its fully realised Gothic vocabulary, it is work that anticipates Driver’s vast Abbey Mills complex at Newham, part of Sir Joseph Bazalgette’s great London sewerage system, rather than reflecting his contemporary designs for the LB&SCR, such as Peckham Rye.

[James Harrison]

But James seems to be going a step further - he's very close to making the assumption that his station building (or at least its extension) was designed by a particular architect, examples of whose work on similar buildings can be taken as inspiration.

 

Now there's an idea.  I hadn't seen it going down that route as such; there are certainly parts of various MSLR/ GCR stations of various dates that I like and am trying to work into an amalgam building- the idea that we were discussing a few weeks ago that has quite taken me is to try for something of a palimpsest with an original 1840s station building, or part of one, remaining in the wake of a mid-1890s rebuild.  Considering this is how a good many urban stations developed it's probably a more realistic idea to follow rather than believing the whole station would have been pulled down and razed to the ground.  

 

Now, I've recently broken out my copy of Dow's Great Central for the bi-annual winter re-reading.  Volume one, in discussing the engineering works of the Sheffield & Lincolnshire Junction Railway, makes the interesting comment that Worksop station was about the most elegant on the line, being built of local stone.  The next station, Retford (which was demolished in the 1870s) is referred to as being red and white brick.  The difficulty (or opportunity!) therefore is; if I decide to retain a part of the 1840s building, what should it look like?- Worksop would be a good prototype to follow, in that it's about the only original station in the area surviving, but at the same time we know it was very much an exception rather than the norm. 

 

If you head further east there is a further example of 1840s original station architecture surviving- Brocklesby.  Again like Worksop, in about equal measure useful and useless.  Useful in that it's a further example of Tudor/ Jacobean Revival style railway architecture, strengthening the case that the original Rufford station would have followed that pattern.  Useful in that, unlike Worksop, it's built of brick.  For some reason I have in mind that Red Lion Square should be largely brick and this provides a precedent for that material.  But useless in that, like Worksop, it's exceptional.  Brocklesby was built for the use of Lord Yarborough- Chairman of the MS&LR and incidentally a host to Royalty. 

 

The easy way out would be to use handwavium and come up with some excuse to make Rufford an exception!- but that stuff is just about as hard to come by as unobtainium and my supplies of it are short.  Let me think it through a moment.  Sheffield & Lincolnshire Junction- principal through stations Worksop & Retford (change for GN)- didn't make it into Lincoln (that part was thrown out by Parliament and had to be built by the Sheffield & Lincolnshire Extension)- didn't have it's own station in Sheffield either.  So the Rufford branch would have been the only terminus anywhere on the S&LJ.  Also Rufford itself being not exactly a major town, but at least bustling in the 1840s- and of course with the Midland building their Sherwood Line through it too- do we argue those circumstances work toward justifying a special treatment for the station? 

 

I think that could work. 

 

Now for the later 1890s block- a bit easier this one!  Firstly you've got the MSLR 'pavilion' style of station coming into vogue- indeed replacing most of the original 1840s stations in the area- and then aside from that the principal stations on the London Extension following another, later, Tudor/ Jacobean revival fashion (rebadged that time around variously as a vernacular revival or the Arts & Crafts style or, nowadays, Edwardian Baroque).  I've previously suggested that it was the building of the Derbyshire Lines and London Extension that provided the catalyst for the recontruction of the station, so it makes sense to me that the newer buildings would follow that sort of a style. 

 

I stil need to draw it!

[Edwardian]

Now there's an idea.  I hadn't seen it going down that route as such; there are certainly parts of various MSLR/ GCR stations of various dates that I like and am trying to work into an amalgam building- the idea that we were discussing a few weeks ago that has quite taken me is to try for something of a palimpsest with an original 1840s station building, or part of one, remaining in the wake of a mid-1890s rebuild.  Considering this is how a good many urban stations developed it's probably a more realistic idea to follow rather than believing the whole station would have been pulled down and razed to the ground.  

 

Now, I've recently broken out my copy of Dow's Great Central for the bi-annual winter re-reading.  Volume one, in discussing the engineering works of the Sheffield & Lincolnshire Junction Railway, makes the interesting comment that Worksop station was about the most elegant on the line, being built of local stone.  The next station, Retford (which was demolished in the 1870s) is referred to as being red and white brick.  The difficulty (or opportunity!) therefore is; if I decide to retain a part of the 1840s building, what should it look like?- Worksop would be a good prototype to follow, in that it's about the only original station in the area surviving, but at the same time we know it was very much an exception rather than the norm. 

 

If you head further east there is a further example of 1840s original station architecture surviving- Brocklesby.  Again like Worksop, in about equal measure useful and useless.  Useful in that it's a further example of Tudor/ Jacobean Revival style railway architecture, strengthening the case that the original Rufford station would have followed that pattern.  Useful in that, unlike Worksop, it's built of brick.  For some reason I have in mind that Red Lion Square should be largely brick and this provides a precedent for that material.  But useless in that, like Worksop, it's exceptional.  Brocklesby was built for the use of Lord Yarborough- Chairman of the MS&LR and incidentally a host to Royalty. 

 

The easy way out would be to use handwavium and come up with some excuse to make Rufford an exception!- but that stuff is just about as hard to come by as unobtainium and my supplies of it are short.  Let me think it through a moment.  Sheffield & Lincolnshire Junction- principal through stations Worksop & Retford (change for GN)- didn't make it into Lincoln (that part was thrown out by Parliament and had to be built by the Sheffield & Lincolnshire Extension)- didn't have it's own station in Sheffield either.  So the Rufford branch would have been the only terminus anywhere on the S&LJ.  Also Rufford itself being not exactly a major town, but at least bustling in the 1840s- and of course with the Midland building their Sherwood Line through it too- do we argue those circumstances work toward justifying a special treatment for the station? 

 

I think that could work. 

 

Now for the later 1890s block- a bit easier this one!  Firstly you've got the MSLR 'pavilion' style of station coming into vogue- indeed replacing most of the original 1840s stations in the area- and then aside from that the principal stations on the London Extension following another, later, Tudor/ Jacobean revival fashion (rebadged that time around variously as a vernacular revival or the Arts & Crafts style or, nowadays, Edwardian Baroque).  I've previously suggested that it was the building of the Derbyshire Lines and London Extension that provided the catalyst for the recontruction of the station, so it makes sense to me that the newer buildings would follow that sort of a style. 

 

I stil need to draw it!

 

I think you are going along the right lines, both in terms of the original 1840s style and the rebuilding/extension.

 

I had assumed red-brick for the station.  Seems rights for a Nottinghamshire town. 

[Echo]

Retford wasn't demolished all in one go. You can still see the main station building in one of the Britain From Above images. I suspect the overall roof and maybe the westbound platform buildings etc were demolished, but the main building (on the north side of the line) survived much longer. OS maps also show the main building lasting a long while.

 

EDIT

 

1948 shots here

 

https://britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/EAW016456

 

https://britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/EAW016454

Edited November 27, 2017 by Echo

[James Harrison]

Those Dutch gables are something of a characteristic design feature, aren't they?  They seem to crop up all over the eastern half of the MS&L.  Those chimneys at Brocklesby likewise, there's something quite pleasing about them.  A very strong vertical element to the design. 

[Compound2632]

Brocklesby was built for the use of Lord Yarborough- Chairman of the MS&LR and incidentally a host to Royalty. 

 

The Earl of Yarborough was good at probability - so I suppose his involvement with the Money Sunk & Lost was purely disinterested as a major Lincolnshire landowner.

 

I think you are going along the right lines, both in terms of the original 1840s style and the rebuilding/extension.

 

I had assumed red-brick for the station.  Seems rights for a Nottinghamshire town. 

 

Red brick tending to green, there...

[Edwardian]

The Earl of Yarborough was good at probability - so I suppose his involvement with the Money Sunk & Lost was purely disinterested as a major Lincolnshire landowner.

 

 

Red brick tending to green, there...

 

Ah, the damps of Lincolnshire. James's Notts version will more likely be black with coal dust!

 

Consider Thetford.  I was helpfully reminded of this station as it was mentioned in a recent edition of Model Rail.  I mentioned to Lord Erstwhile that Mr Dent, Deputy Editor of that august organ, referred to Norfolk as "Alan Partridge country".  I am told that there is now no chance of him making up a shooting party at Aching Hall.

 

Be that as it may, Thetford is another fine example of this 1840s Dutch-gabled style, albeit of stone-edged flint.  Too early to be poached for Castle Aching; it was on an Eastern Counties line opened in 1845.

 

Anyway, it came to mind because it, too has a substantial red-brick extension, dated 1889, but fairly unfussy in the sort of stripped-down classicism that would have been good up to at least the turn of the Century.

[James Harrison]

I've been ruminating about this station for a few weeks now and the real stumbling block I keep running into is a lack of suitable drawings and floorplans for a guide.  I have an clear idea of what I want it to look like but I want to get away from the notion of constructing a model of a building that could never have worked in real life.  By which I mean, there is no easily available design data for how large or small a booking office should be.  There is little in the way of literature about how large a waiting room should be, or taken the other way how many people could be comfortably accommodated in a waiting room of set dimensions. 

 

The drawings that are available tend to fall into one of two categories.  1. No scale, no scalable dimensions, no indication of whether a wall is 10' or 30' long. 2. Dimensioned drawings, but sized so small as to be illegible. 

 

It was whilst idly browsing online a few days ago that I think I found a drawing that fits all of my criteria, for the 1890s building at least.  1. An appropriate and legible size.  2. Dimensioned.  3. Detailed enough that I can use it as a guide whilst altering it to suit my needs. 

 

The caveat?  It's not an MSLR or GCR station.  It's.... quite some distance from the GCR in fact.  The Transvaal. 

 

 

You might think that that small fact rules it out completely for further consideration, but for a few factors.  Firstly it's the same architectural style I'm looking to ape, secondly I think it is of an appropriate size (considering I'm planning to retain at least a part of the 1840s station), thirdly I think it has real potential for extension and switching elements around. For instance, I'm thinking about building it as a mirror image of the original and then also adding a carriage archway to the far end (the lean-to being omitted). 

 

I'm also erring toward the station buildings forming an L- shape.  The vertical of the L would be the retained 1840s building, which I am going to argue would have been remodelled from the station offices in their entirety to waiting rooms and a refreshment room.  The horizontal of the L would be the new 1890s building providing the station offices and parcels depot. 

 

The difficulty then is how to adequately articulate the corner between the two.  Just stopping the two short of each other would make an awkward gap, flying the one out past the other would make for a bit of a disjointed appearance.  I could I suppose go for a two-and-a-half or three storey tower of some description, but I don't know.  The area it in plan might be a bit excessive, alternatively building it in proportion it might well look a little lost in there.  Unless....  if I put the parcels office at that end of the new building I've got a reason to need to put cartage access there.  I could then just extend the external walls around it, forming a courtyard, with a gateway through it on an angle, similar to the parcels office at Leicester Central. 

 

 

Something a little like that. 

[Caley Jim]

The caveat?  It's not an MSLR or GCR station.  It's.... quite some distance from the GCR in fact.  The Transvaal. 

I wouldn't let that put you off!  Flinders Street station in Melbourne was reputedly intended for a city in India, but the drawings went astray in transit!

 

 

Edited to add that this shows a way to join the two buildings, put the main entrance on the corner at an angle?

 

Jim

Edited December 11, 2017 by Caley Jim

[James Harrison]

Once again I find myself doing the scatter-gun approach. 

 

A few years ago I read somewhere, I forget where now, how a fair number of WWI tanks had survived into the 1940s, stuffed and mounted as town war memorials.  Aside from a few which escaped that fate, they were hauled in as part of the WWII scrap drive and melted down.  Ashford for instance still has its plinthed tank. 

 

 

I can't recall ever seeing a model of one in stuffed and mounted condition... you can see where this is going... so of course when I saw Airfix selling off their Mk.1 Male tank for a song a few years ago I picked one up.  Well, it's sold as a Mk.1 tank, but at the time it was designed (circa 1965/66?) there were no known surviving examples- there are now because one turned up and was donated to the Tank Museum- so the one that Airfix measured up was actually a Mk.2 supply tank, which the Tank Museum had matched up with a surviving steering axle from a Mk.1.  Ergo you could call the Airfix tank a Mk.1.5.

 

Then of course I decided that my tank would have to be one of those which was lost in the War, you can't very well build a model of one which was actually stuffed and mounted elsewhere!- so I chose the Mk.2 Male Lusitania, which broke down during the Battle of Arras and was then hit and destroyed by our own artillery.

 

 

So this then is going to be my annual Christmas Week Project.  The kit itself is very simple and only took an hour to build!- now for painting it.