Great Southern Railway (Fictitious) - Signalling the changes...

[Annie]

All good points Regularity.  I guess my little clockwork brain was interpreting 'generic' as being 'off the peg' from one of the makers of railway carriages.

[RedGemAlchemist]

That sounds like a plan... I was thinking "generic" on the basis that post-grouping modellers who want some four-wheel stock for a branch-line for, say, an LNER layout could acquire something that, if not exactly an exact replica of, say, an ex-GNR four wheeler would at least be better-proportioned than yet another repaint of that awful Hornby 4-wheeler, and with a more-appropriate beading style.

 

This doesn't look like any GNR/GER/NBR/etc carriage I've ever seen!

 

r4674.jpg

 

I wasn't aware of any standard designs by, say Gloucester or Birmingham. I would have thought these would have been more likely to be used on light railways, which weren't quite what I had in mind, it being rather more tricky to model a light railway without the skills needed to build brass kits! I may have to do some research and see if I can find examples, though - that would be a truly generic coach, with a very wide area of interest.

To me it looks like either a GER four-wheeler, only not in teak:

 

 

Or an H&BR one squashed a little lengthways:

 

(Only picture I could find, sorry)

[Regularity]

The first Hull & Barnsley 4 wheel coaches were designed (as were the locos) by Matthew Kirtley of the LCDR, acting (with permission from the Board) as consulting engineer. They were 6” longer than his Chatham coaches, but otherwise identical.

 

GER 4 wheel coaches were probably painted brown: varnished teak was for the mainline stock - and even then, when the varnish became old, brown paint would be applied.

Edited June 2, 2018 by Regularity

[Edwardian]

To me it looks like either a GER four-wheeler, only not in teak:

 

13.jpg

 

Or an H&BR one squashed a little lengthways:

 

coach1-unloading.jpg

(Only picture I could find, sorry)

 

Top picture is specifically a suburban 4-wheel GE coach

[RedGemAlchemist]

The first Hull & Barnsley 4 wheel coaches were designed (as were the locos) by Matthew Kirtley of the LCDR, acting (with permission from the Board) as consulting engineer. They were 6” longer than his Chatham coaches, but otherwise identical.

 

GER 4 wheel coaches were probably painted brown: varnished teak was for the mainline stock - and even then, when the varnish became old, brown paint would be applied.

 

Top picture is specifically a suburban 4-wheel GE coach

 

Thanks. Coaching stock isn't my strong suit.

[Skinnylinny]

Hmmmmm, well having slept on the matter (until 11am, which I think is my body shouting at me that I need to get more sleep!), I'm coming around more and more to the idea of "off-the-peg" coaches. This may or may not be due to my (relatively small) freelance company, the rolling stock designers of which seem to have been trained on the GWR, looking at my clerestory stock! (I'm justifying the use of the Tri-ang clerestory stock as it's not *quite* any GWR design, and at 46'6" is a nice short length), but which in its earlier days (as the Linton and Bagshot Railway, and the Guildford and Surrey Railway) would most likely have bought in stock from builders. I imagine the bogie stock is mostly used for the prestige London-Linton services, while 4- and 6-wheel coaches would be more likely for shorter distance trips.

 

The main question is which builder's off-the-peg coaches should I do, which would be determined by popularity and, more importantly, availability of drawings!

[Compound2632]

From what I've seen of carriages built by the various carriage & wagon firms in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, they seem to be bespoke rather than off-the-peg designs - the same also tends to be the case for wagons built for the railway companies and even for the larger coal factors such as Stephenson Clarke. This is in contrast to their general wagon-building business, which was built around the builder's standard designs. 

 

I suspect this difference is at least in part due to differences in the business model. Stock for the railway companies and the large coal operators would be bought outright and maintained by the purchaser; it therefore made sense for the stock to conform to their own designs and use their standard patterns for components. Wagons for the majority of colliery companies and coal merchants was on hire-purchase or simple hire with a maintenance contract; it was therefore desirable to use the builder's standard range of parts to simplify maintenance at their repair outstations.

 

Where this distinction breaks down is, possibly, for minor lines which could not afford either a resident drawing office staff or a consulting engineer who could supply specifications and drawings - in some cases from his day job as locomotive superintendent to one of the main-line companies. But I think this would only apply to very minor lines. Even small companies such as the Great North of Scotland or Maryport & Carlisle seem to have used in-house designs for passenger stock.

 

Discuss!

[Annie]

The Liskeard and Looe Railway (pictured above) seem to have used a basically off the shelf design of coaches from the Metropoltan Rly Wagon & Carriage Co.  They never owned many coaches so an 'off the peg' solution was what they went for.

[Devo63]

Hmmmmm, well having slept on the matter (until 11am, which I think is my body shouting at me that I need to get more sleep!), I'm coming around more and more to the idea of "off-the-peg" coaches. This may or may not be due to my (relatively small) freelance company, the rolling stock designers of which seem to have been trained on the GWR, looking at my clerestory stock! (I'm justifying the use of the Tri-ang clerestory stock as it's not *quite* any GWR design, and at 46'6" is a nice short length), but which in its earlier days (as the Linton and Bagshot Railway, and the Guildford and Surrey Railway) would most likely have bought in stock from builders. I imagine the bogie stock is mostly used for the prestige London-Linton services, while 4- and 6-wheel coaches would be more likely for shorter distance trips.

 

DSC_1287.JPG

 

The main question is which builder's off-the-peg coaches should I do, which would be determined by popularity and, more importantly, availability of drawings!

The paint scheme on that clerestory is identical to my fictional Glamorgan Railway except that I use Ratio Midland suburbans in that livery. I have also done "cut & shut" jobs using pairs of the Hornby four wheelers to make short six compartment bogie coaches as a bit of variety and a couple of shortened Triang clerestories as four wheelers (with the clerestory removed) painted plain blue for workers trains.    

[Caley Jim]

....To my mind the availability of accurate and detailed drawings would be the biggest factor.

The HMRS has the Metro-cam drawings collection.

 

Jim

[sem34090]

The paint scheme on that clerestory is identical to my fictional Glamorgan Railway except that I use Ratio Midland suburbans in that livery. I have also done "cut & shut" jobs using pairs of the Hornby four wheelers to make short six compartment bogie coaches as a bit of variety and a couple of shortened Triang clerestories as four wheelers (with the clerestory removed) painted plain blue for workers trains.    

So that would be the same as Nile's London & Mid Western Railway then!

 

Add to that the fact that it is also identical to the Furness...

[Devo63]

So that would be the same as Nile's London & Mid Western Railway then!

 

Add to that the fact that it is also identical to the Furness...

That's about the sum of it. I was looking for a livery which was a contrast from the other South Wales companies. The scheme for the coaches is as outlined above. The goods stock (mainly old Triang, Lima, Mainline etc.) is a mid grey with all ironwork in black, dark grey or white rooves and a large white G R identification mark. I have two brake vans which are painted in vastly different finishes. One is similar to the rest of the freight stock but with the lower end panels painted a pale red. The other is in a paler blue with a white roof. I haven't decided yet which of these is in the final finish. The locomotives are painted in a shade similar to LNER Garter Blue with black & white lining - the passenger engines have red wheels and the freight locos black. I'm currently hacking up a Bachmann 'Emily' into a 2-2-2 to head up my coaches. It has a GWR Dean stack, 517 class dome, Ross Pop safety valves and a modified cab and I'm thinking about using a spare Triang B12 tender. It does look a bit like the outcome of a midnight encounter by a Dean Single and a LNWR Problem class. I'm planning on naming it 'Castell Coch' but haven't yet decided whether to commision etched plates or to have a painted name similar to LBSC locos.

[Skinnylinny]

Well, a quick redesign has led to a much stronger and simpler design of the interlocking tabs for the compartment dividers, and after several assembly/disassembly cycles, I'm content that a coach shell can be made from these parts without the tabs being mangled. I think this design might be best assembled as a push-fit, then applying thin superglue to the joint and allowing it to wick into the card. Experiments to follow!

The picture below shows the Push-Pull set third push-fitted together with no glue. The ends fall out, but the compartment dividers stay in place nicely.

 

On to test-cutting the panelling!

 

 

[Caley Jim]

 I think this design might be best assembled as a push-fit, then applying thin superglue to the joint and allowing it to wick into the card. Experiments to follow.

Why not apply PVA to each partition as you fit it?  It will fix the parts together very quickly.  Alternatively run thinned PVA into the joints after assembly.

 

Jim

[Skinnylinny]

You could do that - I've not assembled anything like this before, though with this being mount board, I'd be nervous about water-thinned PVA softening and warping the card... but again, I can experiment with that too!

[Nick Holliday]

From what I've seen of carriages built by the various carriage & wagon firms in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, they seem to be bespoke rather than off-the-peg designs - the same also tends to be the case for wagons built for the railway companies and even for the larger coal factors such as Stephenson Clarke. This is in contrast to their general wagon-building business, which was built around the builder's standard designs. 

 

I suspect this difference is at least in part due to differences in the business model. Stock for the railway companies and the large coal operators would be bought outright and maintained by the purchaser; it therefore made sense for the stock to conform to their own designs and use their standard patterns for components. Wagons for the majority of colliery companies and coal merchants was on hire-purchase or simple hire with a maintenance contract; it was therefore desirable to use the builder's standard range of parts to simplify maintenance at their repair outstations.

 

Where this distinction breaks down is, possibly, for minor lines which could not afford either a resident drawing office staff or a consulting engineer who could supply specifications and drawings - in some cases from his day job as locomotive superintendent to one of the main-line companies. But I think this would only apply to very minor lines. Even small companies such as the Great North of Scotland or Maryport & Carlisle seem to have used in-house designs for passenger stock.

 

Discuss!

I may have misinterpreted the points made, but, admittedly in the earlier years of the nineteenth century, a number of erstwhile major companies, such as the LBSCR and LSWR et al, bought their coaches from companies such as Joseph Wright based on the builders' standard designs, resulting in a great commonality between their early passenger fleets.

As for very minor lines, what is often forgotten is that many started life with rakes of brand new coaches, even if in later years they had to rely on main line cast-offs. When you examine what was supplied, it's amazing the variety of designs that appeared, and it is difficult to see what standard designs were involved, as they all seem to be one-offs, at least in the UK. Perhaps they were copies of design for the colonies or other destinations, as many, Lambourne Valley, Garstang and Knott End, WC&PR and the Brill Tramway, for example, had open balcony ends and other details more familiar from American railways. I don't know who would have actually designed them, presumably a task for a draughtsman in the builders' offices.

[Skinnylinny]

So! A first test for cutting out of panelling and alarm gear. The finished models will have door gaps engraved in the top layer of beading. However, here's a couple of photos of bits simply stacked atop each other, with no gluing.

 

 

It's half past nine now though, so I should probably think about heading home for the evening. More lasering may well happen tomorrow, however.

[Caley Jim]

You could do that - I've not assembled anything like this before, though with this being mount board, I'd be nervous about water-thinned PVA softening and warping the card... but again, I can experiment with that too!

I would try applying just a very little neat PVA to the edges of the partitions before you insert the tabs into the sides.  Don't put any on the edges of the tabs, as they won't be butting up to anything!  I've used PVA to seal card and it doesn't cause any warping, in fact the card underlay under the main line tracks on Kirkallanmuir were coated with that before the Templot prints were glued to them and there were no problems when they were sprayed with water later to fix the ballast.

 

Jim

[Skinnylinny]

More design work is happening on these kits. The degree to which they're going to be more complex than the Stroudleys is starting to become clear. While each Stroudley coach used a total of one A4 sheet of card (half a sheet of 1mm, half a sheet of 250gsm), the drawings for the 3-coach set are sitting at nearly 4 A4 sheets (2x 1mm mount board, 2x 250gsm card). One of these is purely the thick card parts for the underframes, so can be omitted if not required (Edwardian, I'm looking at you!) I'm currently working on the left-most sheet...

 

To give myself a little bit of a break from the screen, however, I have been playing with my new toy - the Noch Gras-Master 2.0. I have some nice areas of grass on my test scenic board, and I'm delighted with how the grass has turned out. The sheep field is a mixture of 2mm and 6mm grasses, while the area outside the fence is 2mm and 2.5mm, as is the small section of the next field (out of sight in this picture - I assume the sheep have just been moved from there into this field with better grazing). It's not to the same standard as some of the best stuff on here, but it still looks miles ahead of the old dyed-sawdust style scatters in my opinion.

 

[Marly51]

More design work is happening on these kits. The degree to which they're going to be more complex than the Stroudleys is starting to become clear. While each Stroudley coach used a total of one A4 sheet of card (half a sheet of 1mm, half a sheet of 250gsm), the drawings for the 3-coach set are sitting at nearly 4 A4 sheets (2x 1mm mount board, 2x 250gsm card). One of these is purely the thick card parts for the underframes, so can be omitted if not required (Edwardian, I'm looking at you!) I'm currently working on the left-most sheet...

Push-Pull.png

 

To give myself a little bit of a break from the screen, however, I have been playing with my new toy - the Noch Gras-Master 2.0. I have some nice areas of grass on my test scenic board, and I'm delighted with how the grass has turned out. The sheep field is a mixture of 2mm and 6mm grasses, while the area outside the fence is 2mm and 2.5mm, as is the small section of the next field (out of sight in this picture - I assume the sheep have just been moved from there into this field with better grazing). It's not to the same standard as some of the best stuff on here, but it still looks miles ahead of the old dyed-sawdust style scatters in my opinion.

 

Grass.jpg

I'm experimenting with a home made fly swatter/small sieve static grass applicator. The finished effect is more like soft felt - will persevere, but think I may have to cough up and buy one which has a stronger charge. Edited June 3, 2018 by Marly51

[Skinnylinny]

I'm currently at the Hacklab (going to try to cut a test-chassis before I go home tonight) but I'll see if I can get a low-down shot of the grass to give a better idea. It isn't all standing up on end, but it at least has a 3-dimensional feel to it.

I found that getting the applicator as close as possible to the grass once it's hit the glue helped make it all stand up on end better, although I am finding this Gras-Master much more effective than the electric teastrainer.

Edited June 3, 2018 by Skinnylinny

[Marly51]

BTW - very impressed with all the work you are putting into your kits!!

[sem34090]

Very impressive!

 

By the way, that LSWR Coach behind the Radial... spill the beans!

[Skinnylinny]

Haha that's nothing special, just a Ratio 4-wheeler painted in LSWR colours. Something to complete the picture! I may eventually look into producing some LSWR coaches of my own but they are a long way off so the Ratio 4 wheeler and a modified Ratio Midland brake 3rd provide me with a bit of LSWR ish stock.

 

A first test piece of the 6-wheel chassis has been cut out and seems to run freely on the straight track I have at the lab. I am about to head home, and depending on how sleepy I am when I get there, I might test it on some set-track.

 

 

Edited June 3, 2018 by Skinnylinny

[Skinnylinny]

After a quick test, the chassis seems to handle set track happily. I don't have a matching body/chassis pair, but have a picture to get a feel for the relative size of the coaches. This shows the Third mounted on the chassis of the Driving Third (which is two feet longer than the other two coaches). I cut out the longer chassis as it has the longest wheelbase and thus is the most likely to bind on curves.