The Pre-Grouping Modelling Showcase.

[Caley Jim]

4 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Perhaps a bit of Pullman influence? The LNWR generally only used clerestory roofs on some of the 12 wheel diners and sleppers, Royal train carriages and some other Diagrams including a45ft Family Saloon and some 45ft bogie vans (some of which were converted for use in WW1 Ambulance Trains).

The WCJS had dining saloons and sleeping cars in the same style, they all being built at Wolverton.

 

Jim

Edited April 11, 2019 by Caley Jim

[Jol Wilkinson]

Just now, Caley Jim said:

The WCJS had dining saloons and sleeping cars in the same style, they all being built at Wolverton.

 

Ji

Jim,

 

The LNWR and WCJS carriages were often virtually identical but had different diagram numbers, The LNWR numbers starting with D, the WCJS with W. The WCJS were, IIRC, all dual fitted but the LNWR Diagrams had vacuum brakes only. There were exceptions to this, the dual fitted 12 wheel diners were "D" classified but dual fitted to run to Glasgow and Edinburgh over the Caledonian route.

 

Apologies if you already knew this but I felt the uninitiated should be enlightened. I still have to read Jenkinson's or the HMRS books to remember what's what.

 

Jol

[Mrkirtley800]

14 hours ago, Ruston said:

There aren't many more photos as it's still a work-in-progress but you can see more of the layout if you click on the link in my signature line, below.

Thanks, I will try that.

[Mrkirtley800]

1 hour ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Jim,

 

The LNWR and WCJS carriages were often virtually identical but had different diagram numbers, The LNWR numbers starting with D, the WCJS with W. The WCJS were, IIRC, all dual fitted but the LNWR Diagrams had vacuum brakes only. There were exceptions to this, the dual fitted 12 wheel diners were "D" classified but dual fitted to run to Glasgow and Edinburgh over the Caledonian route.

 

Apologies if you already knew this but I felt the uninitiated should be enlightened. I still have to read Jenkinson's or the HMRS books to remember what's what.

 

Jol

 

No need for any apols.   My memory is a bit sieve like, so nice to be reminded of the relevant facts.

Derek

[Compound2632]

One curious feature of the "standard" or non-diner WCJS carriages in arc-roofed days - up to c. 1903 - was that they were six inches wider than their LNWR counterparts (8'6" over panels compared to 8'0"). 

[Jol Wilkinson]

8 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

One curious feature of the "standard" or non-diner WCJS carriages in arc-roofed days - up to c. 1903 - was that they were six inches wider than their LNWR counterparts (8'6" over panels compared to 8'0"). 

To match the earlier 12 wheel diners and sleeping cars? The D10 was 8' 6" wide but the later D9, etc. was 9' 0". I think the change to the wider 9' carriages came about 1903.

[Compound2632]

The story is more complicated than I at first thought but careful reading of R.M. Casserley and P.A. Millard, A Register of West Coast Joint Stock (HMRS, 1980) reveals that the 8'6" width for WCJS came in with the 42 ft corridor carriages of 1893. Before that, the WCJS 42 ft &c. non-corridor carriages had been the same 8'0" width as standard LNWR carriages, though some set trains for London and Lancashire expresses built in 1884-5 were 8'6" wide. The distinction in width continued through to the 50 ft corridor carriages of 1902 but non-corridor 45 ft carriages built for the WCJS in the mid-1890s were 8'0" wide.

 

Dining and sleeping cars in the "Wolverton diner" style were 8'6" wide for both WCJS and LNWR up to 1903, when the 9'0" width became standard for both.

 

Apologies Jol if I'm teaching you to suck eggs. Pontificating on LNWR matters is light relief from the frustration of not being able to go to the Midland Railway Society AGM today! The solenoid lock to the fuel filler flap of my car has failed in the locked position, so I can't get any petrol in the tank... 

Edited April 13, 2019 by Compound2632

[Andy Hayter]

9 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

To match the earlier 12 wheel diners and sleeping cars? The D10 was 8' 6" wide but the later D9, etc. was 9' 0". I think the change to the wider 9' carriages came about 1903.

Maybe a silly question Jol, but what changed to allow a wider loading gauge for the coaches?

I note other companies also made similar changes in the early 1900s and onwards, but as far as I can see without major changes to the infrastructure.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Andy,

 

I don't think they had to change the loading gauge, the changes in width (and length) were simply to carry more passengers and/or provide better accommodation. The underframes for the 8' 6" twelve wheelers was the same for for later the 9' versions, IIRC. So platform, .etc. wouldn't need changes.

 

I think that the Caledonian loading gauge was slightly wider, so Caley stock couldn't run south of Carlisle.

 

Jol

[Brassey]

16 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

 

I think that the Caledonian loading gauge was slightly wider, so Caley stock couldn't run south of Carlisle.

 

Jol

 

Jol, not sure this generalisation is totally correct as there was a Caledonian 12 wheel break composite through carriage from Glasgow to Weston-Super-Mare via the North West route.  Caley Coaches produce this in 4mm and it was advertised in the LNWR Soc. Newsletter a couple of years back.  Peter

[Regularity]

30 minutes ago, Brassey said:

 

Jol, not sure this generalisation is totally correct as there was a Caledonian 12 wheel break composite through carriage from Glasgow to Weston-Super-Mare via the North West route.  Caley Coaches produce this in 4mm and it was advertised in the LNWR Soc. Newsletter a couple of years back.  Peter

Any vehicles built for through traffic would need to be built to the most restrictive loading gauge (or composite thereof) of the intended route, so I am not sure that this contradicts the generalisation.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Another interloper on London Road, a NER G1 4-4-0 on the lines into the engine shed on the other side of the bridge. Opposite a LNWR  50ft Corridor Composite carriage is alongside the carriage cleaning platform.

 

 

 

Edited to add that the photo is courtesy of Tony Wright, taken at the 2018 York MRS

Edited April 14, 2019 by Jol Wilkinson
Additional text

[Argos]

On 14/04/2019 at 11:07, Regularity said:

Any vehicles built for through traffic would need to be built to the most restrictive loading gauge (or composite thereof) of the intended route, so I am not sure that this contradicts the generalisation.

 

Apart from the fact that the carriages in question appear to be built to the standard Caley loading gauge.

 

https://caley.com/D95B.php

 

https://caley.com/assets/pdfs/Grampian.pdf

 

There are photos of Caley stock working south of Carlise but this seems relatively rare.

Also I seem to recall reading the Caley and the North Eastern (I think) exchanged carriage stock to provide additional rolling stock on each railways peak holiday period.

 

[billbedford]

On 14/04/2019 at 10:35, Brassey said:

 

Jol, not sure this generalisation is totally correct as there was a Caledonian 12 wheel break composite through carriage from Glasgow to Weston-Super-Mare via the North West route.  Caley Coaches produce this in 4mm and it was advertised in the LNWR Soc. Newsletter a couple of years back.  Peter

 

I'm surprised at this because the 9' wide GWR Centenary was banned from the southern end of the North West route (Maindee North jcn - Little Mill jcn). Although I suppose they could have run via Hereford and Gloucester

[Brassey]

I can’t comment on post-grouping GWR stock as it’s outside my sphere of interest

[Jol Wilkinson]

On 14/04/2019 at 10:35, Brassey said:

 

Jol, not sure this generalisation is totally correct as there was a Caledonian 12 wheel break composite through carriage from Glasgow to Weston-Super-Mare via the North West route.  Caley Coaches produce this in 4mm and it was advertised in the LNWR Soc. Newsletter a couple of years back.  Peter

Peter,

 

have had a look at the Caley Coaches site and that Diagram is too late for my period, so tempted though I was, I can't justifying buying one.

 

I have a vague recollection of an incident where a Caledonian carriage struck some lineside "infrastructure" removing the carriage door handels, etc. in Carlisle, but can't find a reference.

 

Jol

[Regularity]

3 hours ago, Argos said:

 

Apart from the fact that the carriages in question appear to be built to the standard Caley loading gauge.

 

https://caley.com/D95B.php

 

https://caley.com/assets/pdfs/Grampian.pdf

Well, the simple truth is that if the standard Caley loading gauge was bigger than any on the route intended, then the vehicle would have simply been refused by the other company as posing a danger. Wasn’t me making the claim about Caley through coaches, I simply pointed out the obvious: through vehicles must fit within the most restrictive dimensions of the various loading gauges on the lines travelled, unless a special traffic notice was to be issued. Not something a railway company would want to do for a regular service, so if there was a Caley coach running to Weston-s-m, and there were more restrictive clearances en route, then the coach would need to comply. At a guess, that coach was within the composite loading gauge for that route.

[Caley Jim]

Diagram 36 in the CRA reprint of 'Diagrams of Caledonian Railway Coy's wagons, Vans, Horse-Boxes Carriage Trucks Etc.' is a 'Diagram Showing Dimensions of the Authorised Loading Gauge' :-

 

Width above platform level 9'0"

Width below platform level 7'6"

Width 3" above rail level is 6'6"  (shown as the 'height to which ballast is heaved')

Centre of rail to Platform edge 2'0"

Height of platform above rail 3'0"

 

Jim

[Argos]

On 15/04/2019 at 18:15, Regularity said:

Well, the simple truth is that if the standard Caley loading gauge was bigger than any on the route intended, then the vehicle would have simply been refused by the other company as posing a danger. Wasn’t me making the claim about Caley through coaches, I simply pointed out the obvious: through vehicles must fit within the most restrictive dimensions of the various loading gauges on the lines travelled, unless a special traffic notice was to be issued. Not something a railway company would want to do for a regular service, so if there was a Caley coach running to Weston-s-m, and there were more restrictive clearances en route, then the coach would need to comply. At a guess, that coach was within the composite loading gauge for that route.

 

Indeed it does seem a bit odd.

I believe these carriages also formed a Glasgow - Southampton working so would have travelled over various companies metals.

[billbedford]

On 15/04/2019 at 18:15, Regularity said:

Not something a railway company would want to do for a regular service, so if there was a Caley coach running to Weston-s-m, and there were more restrictive clearances en route, then the coach would need to comply. At a guess, that coach was within the composite loading gauge for that route.

1

 

But for most journeys in the UK, there would have been multiple possible routes and sometimes non-obvious (to us) reasons for using them. So without knowledge of the routes used it will be almost impossible to say whether particular stock was likely to have been used.

[Compound2632]

But to go back to the original point, it wasn't until very late in the 19th century that the loading gauge started to be a serious consideration in carriage design. Most companies were quite happy with arc-roofed carriages 8'0" wide over the panels or moldings, which provided adequate comfort for the spreading Victorian first class passenger in his three-a-side compartment (about 2'6") and was wide enough for five-a-side in third (around 18") - dimensions the modern airline passenger can sometimes look on with envy.

[LNWR18901910]

I don't know if you have read The Railway Series but I was inspired to make my own Henry Mk1 model which I am christening the Gresley V5 4-6-0 later reclassified as the LNER B19 4-6-0.

This locomotive was built for the GNR under the design by Sir Nigel Gresley in 1919 as an experimental mixed-traffic locomotive that was mainly seen in express passenger services and fitted freight duties. The locomotive proved successful and was reclassified as B19. A total of 35 were built between 1919 to 1922 at which point Gresley would have designed the later A1 4-6-2 Pacifics.

 

I intend to make this locomotive with a Bachmann Hall Class chassis, a heavily-altered Hornby B17 body and complimented with a B12 tender. I tried to give this loco a GNR livery with a number, but I had trouble making a number 3 so I just left it at the number you see here.

[Jol Wilkinson]

An Edwardian version of the bus on the bridge. 

 

 

Edited April 27, 2019 by Jol Wilkinson

[Guy Rixon]

Is there a name for that kind of horse minibus?  Is it a governess cart?

[Jol Wilkinson]

25 minutes ago, Guy Rixon said:

Is there a name for that kind of horse minibus?  Is it a governess cart?

 

It's a Trap, with fore and aft seating, from the Shire Scenes etched range (part of Dart Castings). There is a Governesses cart in Darts own cast w/m range.