Annie's Virtual Pre-Grouping, Grouping and BR Layouts & Workbench

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

An inspiration to us all. I had never heard of this layout, but it is outstanding.

MRJ 63 and 269, plus a couple of extra articles.

 

It’s really very nice, but I struggle with it as the locos are generally designs specific to various companies and I tend to see them as such. A truly freelance line would use one or two of the independent manufacturers, such as Sharp Stewart, BP, etc. 

 

That’s a personal observation, by the way, and not a criticism: there will be many reasons why this selection of locos was made, and as long as the builder is happy, then that’s fine. It’s just that personally speaking, I feel that this part of the overall concept doesn’t work for me. A classic case of too much knowledge getting in the way of enjoyment.

 

The book will make for an interesting read, by the looks of it. 
 

PS I was quite excited on a web search to find a link to a video of a layout with the same name, but it was the BRM project layout, not this one.

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Regularity said:

MRJ 63 and 269, plus a couple of extra articles.

 

Thanks

 

1 hour ago, Regularity said:

 

It’s really very nice, but I struggle with it as the locos are generally designs specific to various companies and I tend to see them as such. A truly freelance line would use one or two of the independent manufacturers, such as Sharp Stewart, BP, etc. 

 

That, it always seemed to me, was the drawback of systems like Beale's WMR, which, really, needed not only its own Grouping-era standard designs, specific to it, but history in the form of constituent locos. Concentrating on the WNR scale of railway makes life easier as there are plenty of private builder designs, supplied both here and overseas, to choose from if one does not want to have the company design and build its own locos, so, yes, this could have been an option for the ECR.

 

Hence, indeed, CA's 'locomotive policy', which in large part seeks to source locos from private builders such as Sharps, BP and Neilson, but with some second-hand purchases that in the main can be justified by precedents in Primary World loco disposal and purchase.

 

Convincing fictions seldom stray too far from the truth!

 

1 hour ago, Regularity said:

That’s a personal observation, by the way, and not a criticism: there will be many reasons why this selection of locos was made, and as long as the builder is happy, then that’s fine. It’s just that personally speaking, I feel that this part of the overall concept doesn’t work for me. A classic case of too much knowledge getting in the way of enjoyment.

 

Yes, I assume that the builder had a wish to include certain locos from the Primary World and, perhaps, a way to run them together. And you certainly could stock a freelance railway entirely with second-hand purchases from mainline railway companies. How likely that is in the case of any given freelance railway concept, is another matter, especially in pre-Light Railway Act days.  I don't know enough about the freelance scheme in question.

 

1 hour ago, Regularity said:

The book will make for an interesting read, by the looks of it. 
 

 

Agree.

 

Overall I felt the quality of the scenic modelling is superb and has wonderful character. As with Madder Valley, it was this aspect that probably would inspire me the most. 

 

1 hour ago, Regularity said:

PS I was quite excited on a web search to find a link to a video of a layout with the same name, but it was the BRM project layout, not this one.

 

EDIT:

 

PS: One can hardly, I think, object to a Crewe Type, as I believe a number were flogged off (the MGN ended up with a pair of 2-4-0s, as you know), and the LNWR was an enthusiastic seller of equipment, even to the extent of unlawfully building stuff for the purpose! Also pictured were are a couple of industrial types from private builders, from the looks of things, so, again, unobjectionable. 

 

The only loco pictured in the linked article that caused a bit of a double-take was the GWR Metro (with rather GWR-liveried coaches on a distinctively Brunellian design of timber viaduct)*.  

 

I assume you commented with more knowledge of the fleet gleaned from the MRJ features?

 

* Though the article states it is a Devon-inspired layout, and Brunel could well have built an 'affiliated line' complete with trademark viaducts and the GWR might not be such an unlikely donor of stock.

 

 

Edited April 19, 2022 by Edwardian

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

One can hardly, I think, object to a Crewe Type, as I believe a number were flogged off (the MGN ended up with a pair of 2-4-0s, as you know), Also pictured were are a couple of industrial types from private builders, from the looks of things, so, again, unobjectionable. 

 

The only loco pictured in the linked article that caused a bit of a double-take was the GWR Metro (with rather GWR-liveried coaches on a distinctively Brunellian design of timber viaduct)*.  

 

I assume you commented with more knowledge of the fleet gleaned from the MRJ features?

Oh yes, no “objections” to old stock, particularly of the LNWR or other companies also inclined to sell off worn out (or at least antiquated) locos. The MRJ article had photos which showed a LNWR Jumbo, a Kirtley o/f 0-6-0 of obvious MR heritage, and an Aspinall “pug”. For circa 1890, I felt these to be incongruous mixture.

 

The GWR metro, well, the B&M had some built by Stephenson’s to the GWR design, so that is maybe more believable, but the coach appears to be a very up to date design. Perhaps it is a through coach?

 

To be honest, given the longevity of the layout and its gestation period, I think that many of the choices were driven by what was available as much as by anything else: most are or have been available as kits, so not much of any RTR straight out of the box here! Plus, the builder may have simply liked various prototypes and used the freelance nature of the layout to have whatever he felt like having, or not be that concerned over this issue. That’s entirely up to him, of course, but whilst “Rule 1” always applies and I always respect it, that doesn’t mean I have to like the results. As I said before, that isn’t a criticism but reflects a difference in personal tastes.

Quote

and the LNWR was an enthusiastic seller of equipment, even to the extent of unlawfully building stuff for the purpose!

 

Not quite. Their close working partnership and the obvious potential for joint operation or a full merger even as early as the 1870s (if not sooner!) meant they ordered some DX goods and Newtons, which alarmed the independent loco builders who banded together as the “Locomotive Manufacturers Association”, who successfully obtained an injunction to prevent railway companies from building locos directly for sale or hire to other companies, limiting railway workshops to supplying only their needs - at least as far as new construction was concerned. The legislation was not retrospective, so the LNWR nor the LYR were not engaged in anything illegal at the time. As a lawyer, you should be aware of not relying on secondary sources…

Quote

* Though the article states it is a Devon-inspired layout, and Brunel could well have built an 'affiliated line' complete with trademark viaducts and the GWR might not be such an unlikely donor of stock.

 

That Brunel bloke was involved in an awful number of ventures, even if mostly in an oversight capacity, and seems a bit dodgy to me!

[Compound2632]

For clarity, may I just confirm that my "agree" applies to all three sections of Simon's post with equal weight.

 

The Amberdale layout has to be appreciated on its own terms, I think, as a tour de force in the spirit of the Madder Valley; from that perspective it is clearly giving a great deal of pleasure to its builder and many others, myself included. It's not what one would aim for oneself but one can appreciate that others have different goals and have achieved them more completely than one is likely to do one's own.

[Regularity]

3 hours ago, Edwardian said:

the MGN ended up with a pair of 2-4-0s, as you know

Ex Lancaster and Carlisle, I believe. They must have been well worn-out, or in secondhand dealer speak, “Exceptionally well run-in, and at this price, great value for money.”

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

For clarity, may I just confirm that my "agree" applies to all three sections of Simon's post with equal weight.

 

Aha! You agree, then, that Brunel was a bit dodgy?

[Edwardian]

15 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Ex Lancaster and Carlisle, I believe. They must have been well worn-out, or in secondhand dealer speak, “Exceptionally well run-in, and at this price, great value for money.”

 

They're the ones. I believe the WNR made a similar purchase.

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

For clarity, may I just confirm that my "agree" applies to all three sections of Simon's post with equal weight.

 

The Amberdale layout has to be appreciated on its own terms, I think, as a tour de force in the spirit of the Madder Valley; from that perspective it is clearly giving a great deal of pleasure to its builder and many others, myself included. It's not what one would aim for oneself but one can appreciate that others have different goals and have achieved them more completely than one is likely to do one's own.

 

I would be surprised and grateful in equal measure if I pulled off something of the quality and charm either Amberdale or Madder Valley.  

[Edwardian]

6 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

They're the ones. I believe the WNR made a similar purchase.

 

I have checked the records and, yes, acquired 1883: 2-4-0 Crewe Type of 1857, ex Lancaster & Carlisle, WNR No. 24 – 5’1” coupled wheels - 3 sold by LNWR, the other 2 went to the E&MR

 

[Annie]

When I stumbled across the link to the Amberdale article I have to confess that I didn't pay all that much attention to the locomotives and rolling stock, - it was the quality of the scenic modelling that grabbed my attention.

[Annie]

4 hours ago, Edwardian said:

The only loco pictured in the linked article that caused a bit of a double-take was the GWR Metro (with rather GWR-liveried coaches on a distinctively Brunellian design of timber viaduct)

I did look a bit hard at that as Brunel timber viaducts tended to be built only on lines that were very much under the GWR and absorbed constituent companies umbrella.  Non condensing 'Metros' tended to inhabit fairly specific parts of the GWR network as well so that puzzled me somewhat as to what was being represented.

It is a very nice timber viaduct model though.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Regularity said:

Aha! You agree, then, that Brunel was a bit dodgy?

 

Inclined to put indulgence of his own genius before the commercial interest of his employers.

[Regularity]

34 minutes ago, Annie said:

When I stumbled across the link to the Amberdale article I have to confess that I didn't pay all that much attention to the locomotives and rolling stock, - it was the quality of the scenic modelling that grabbed my attention.

Like the Madder Valley, that is very much its forte, but to the higher standards we expect today, for which John Ahern paved the way.

 

My only quibble with the locos is that the mixture is less plausible that what our host is planning, or the work of some of the pioneers such as Dr. Sumner (if I have his name correctly. Article in MR in 1982, I think) who created their own style of loco and stock design.

[Regularity]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Inclined to put indulgence of his own genius before the commercial interest of his employers.

I agreed, but only because there isn’t an option for agreeing at “warp factor 10”…

[Compound2632]

39 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

I have checked the records and, yes, acquired 1883: 2-4-0 Crewe Type of 1857, ex Lancaster & Carlisle, WNR No. 24 – 5’1” coupled wheels - 3 sold by LNWR, the other 2 went to the E&MR

 

The E&M had as their Nos. 29 and 30, the engines that were originally L&C No. 3 Sedgwick and No. 8 Luck of Edenhall - names that continued in use, the former going to a Newton and then a Renewed Precedent (Large Jumbo), the latter to a Samson and then a Waterloo (Whitworth of Small Jumbo). That leaves a charming selection of names to help yourself to for the original identity of the WNR engine, though all west rather than east of the Pennines, as one would expect. 

[Compound2632]

I can feel the frown in @Annie's "Interesting/Though-provoking" response!

[Annie]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

I can feel the frown in @Annie's "Interesting/Though-provoking" response!

(Tee hee)  You know me so well Stephen.

[Annie]

Morning GWR Cheer Up Picture:  Atlantic No.40 'North Star' built 1906, - seen in original condition in this photograph from the Great Western Trust collection.  Converted to a 4-6-0 by November 1909 and was renumbered as 4000 in December 1912. She was rebuilt as a Castle class locomotive in November 1929.

I find the combination of Churchward's brutalism phase with the Atlantic's severe straight frames moderated by the elegance of the tapered boiler, copper capped chimney and brass safety valve bonnet rather appealing.

 

[Annie]

Afternoon GWR Cheer Up Picture:  Duke class No.3268 'St. Ives' complete with early type straight nameplate.  I'm having not so good day with not feeling well so additional cheering up woz needed.

 

[MikeOxon]

11 hours ago, Annie said:

Afternoon GWR Cheer Up Picture:  Duke class No.3268 'St. Ives' complete with early type straight nameplate. 

It's interesting to see this photo immediately after No.40 'North Star' - the angularity is beginning to creep in with only the curve of the splashers to soften the lines.  It's a good angle from which to view a Duke, as the set-back chimney looks a bit strange in more side-on views.

[Annie]

15 minutes ago, MikeOxon said:

It's a good angle from which to view a Duke, as the set-back chimney looks a bit strange in more side-on views.

Yes it does doesn't it.  A strangely odd lack of symmetry.

 

[Edwardian]

On 19/04/2022 at 16:11, Regularity said:

the work of some of the pioneers such as Dr. Sumner (if I have his name correctly. Article in MR in 1982, I think) who created their own style of loco and stock design.

 

That is new to me, I shall try to find the article.

 

Returning to Amberdale, there are a few images knocking around on line.  The more I see the more impressed I am by the art and skill of the layout. A thing of beauty.

 

Some of the road vehicles look positively Regency, however, with pre-leaf spring suspension!

 

Have ordered t'book.

[Annie]

Afternoon GWR Cheer Up Picture:  Dukedog No.9017 circa 1958.  Now owned by the Bluebell Railway where it has sometimes been No.3217 and named ‘Earl of Berkeley, - which woz wot it woz supposed to be named when it was kitbashed assembled at Swindon in 1938.  As a young slip of a schoolgirl I was horrified to discover that 'Dukedogs' weren't really pre-grouping engines, but I've got over that now.  Always a good cheer up though when a nice old engine like this one gets preserved.

(Image shamelessly borrowed from the Didcot Railway Centre)

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Annie said:

As a young slip of a schoolgirl I was horrified to discover that 'Dukedogs' weren't really pre-grouping engines, but I've got over that now. 

 

Well, they were de-facto pre-grouping engines since there was not much post-grouping about their design and they were intended to go places where flabby post-grouping engines could not go!

[Annie]

18 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Well, they were de-facto pre-grouping engines since there was not much post-grouping about their design and they were intended to go places where flabby post-grouping engines could not go!

True, - that sounds very much like the argument that I consoled myself with all those years ago.

I used to own a branchline book full of pictures from the early 1950s BR era and it contained many nice pictures of 'Dukedogs' at work.  Unfortunately I don't have it anymore.  😭