Traeth Mawr -Building Mr Price's house , (mostly)

[richard i]

I have to support your wife, it does not look quite right and it is not necessarily the height but the presence of her. He is not a "fat" man to put it simply, so the lack of bulk to a thin woman would not be as much, now do her as a daughter and it has millage, I find you can get adults and perhaps small kids but the middle size ones are a pain to source.

Richard

[uax6]

I'm sitting on the fence. Paint the lady and then re-take the photo, there is probably a bit of optical illusion going on with her being unpainted. The idea to use her as a child is a good one, but I don't see any problem with her being a shortie. My brother is 6'9" and his Mrs is just about 5'...

 

Andy G

[ChrisN]

Thank you everyone, firstly for your ratings which I meant to mention in my last post but the dodgy internet took t from my mind, and secondly for your comments on the couple.  I will put them together but he does look quite old and she looks quite young, (Stadden's figures, especially the ladies mostly look quite young), so it will be up to people to guess whether it is his daughter or he has married someone a lot younger than him. This will be a 'one off'.  The Stroudley figure is fairly large, both in girth and height so it is a little bit of a joke really.  If there was a 00 lady of that height then this lady could definitely be the daughter.

 

It has been said elsewhere that you can mix H0 and 00 to get varying heights, but to paraphrase something, it is not the height, but the width.  I think ladies of this size with normal Stadden size figures would look better, but H0 track gangers?  The short people I have known have as much bulk as I do, and often more. 

 

I have thought about the HO ladies as daughters.  My understanding is that girls when corsets were worn, wore them from their mid-teens, but wore their hair down.  My mother-in-law always said that unmarried girls wore their hair down and out it up the morning after they were married and wore it up after that.  I never doubted that until I looked at lots of images from the period and now I am not so sure.  They may have stared to put their hair up in their later teens, or maybe after they were 21.  My mother-in-law came from St John's in Newfoundland so what she says may have just related to there.  I have not investigated this myself.  However, the point is that if they are daughters, the silhouette is correct but I may have to add hair.

 

What Richard I has said is quite correct, the teenage years are the most difficult to find figures for, although the Preiser Edwardian ones do have a good mix of ages for girls.  What is lacking I think are teenage boys.  They are very difficult to backdate as they tended not to wear shorts, but either trousers or breeches.  I said on Mikkel's thread that I would try and use an H0 workman figure as a boy figure on the station staff.  The problem is that I would need one with a sleeved waistcoat and the only one that fits, has a beard!  Oh dear.

 

I know I have been putting figures together as couples and in reality this is fine as I know who they are but in fact they may not be next to each other on the layout.  What works for it is that there could be visitors as it is a coastal resort, against, early March, for, it is market day and there is a parade and chaos in Station Road and a market in the Market Square o the other not yet even started layout.

 

Sorry for rambling but I am thinking on paper, so to speak and as you know I tend to build the railway around the people and not just tack them on at the end.

[ChrisN]

I think you are quite hard on yourself Chris you cameo from the hiring fair is excellent the figures create the right atmosphere. As for the 'odd' couple they look fine but as others say the exception rather than the rule. Incidentally one couple in my wife's family were the reverse small gentleman with a large lady.

 

Don

 

Don,

Thank you.  I think the whole thing will look better I a busy scene.  I am quite pleased with how they look but I always see how I could improve. I know what I want them to look like and maybe I will get better with practise but age and eyesight might be against me.

 

I think what makes it is the poses.  The Dart figure is an amazing pose and I have used it before and when I saw the picture I knew which one to use immediately.  The girl I found by trawling through Preiser figures until I found one with exactly the right pose.  I had thought of taking a child and chopping it about but I did not need to

[mike morley]

 My brother is 6'9" and his Mrs is just about 5'...

 

Andy G

 

A humorous aside, courtesy of Radio 4 stalwart Lucy Porter (4'11") about her relationship with her husband Justin Edwards (6'4")

"In the bedroom it looks like a ventriloquist's act that has gone to a very dark place."

[Donw]

A humorous aside, courtesy of Radio 4 stalwart Lucy Porter (4'11") about her relationship with her husband Justin Edwards (6'4")

"In the bedroom it looks like a ventriloquist's act that has gone to a very dark place."

 

I missed that on the radio but had a good chuckle when I read it.

Don

[ChrisN]

I have been doing a few things, some painting, some gluing and trying to sort three axles under a coach but more of that later, some much later.  I fitted the bay siding, well at least the part up to the join, this weekend.  Now I have a rule, 'Do not do things in a hurry'.  As you know rules are for the guidance of the wise, so I decided that as I went upstairs to do things then I could solder the wires on, and then drill the holes, and finally glue it all down.  When I do things in a hurry I forget things, which is why one of my points has no hole for a point motor, (I a sure it is fixable but it will be a nuisance.)  As I placed the track to drill the holes I was more thinking about the curve and how far out it came than if it was straight to the slip.  Yes you guessed it.

 

 

It just curves out a little.  The copper sleeper was then slipped under it once the PVA was dry and glued into place and today it was soldered to the track and the track cut. I will finish the bay line when I decide exactly how long I want it.

 

I am almost at the point of cutting ply for the down platform, the one near the edge.  I have calculated that it ought to be 20mm high, that is 3mm cork, 5mm track and the standard 12mm track to top of platform.  I know some Cambrian stations were low but I do not think the Coast Line platform were. 

 

 

What I had intended was to take the down platform all the way to the red arrow and have a very long platform but I have decided that probably it would be more prototypical to take it to the green arrow opposite the end of the bay platform at the blue arrow.  This will give a line crossing as shown in brown.  The Up platform starts at the blue line and if you take the standard 1 in 8 slope, if I ignore the depth of the cork then it gives the length of the ramp as 136mm, or rather 14cm.  This means the level part of the platform starts where the coach is nearest to the camera, just his side of the cardboard.

 

 

You may wonder why I have a Mk1 and two others together but this is almost all my coaching stock.  The train is 28" long and is probably about the length of the longest length of coaches I will have, although hopefully most trains will be shorter.  The issue is that to make it fit I would have to draw it over the points and then back it up.

 

 

This is something that I would not put past the Cambrian at all.  The reason I mention this is that when I have two or maybe three through coaches, and I know the GWR ones may be 46ft clerestory bogie coaches I am likely to be short of platform length.  I am fairly certain the LNWR used/will use six wheelers, and so would the GWR if I had not seen that photo earlier, and they probably will on occasions. 

 

Thoughts welcome  If you have been, thanks for looking.

 

 

[Simond]

Chris

 

I don't like the "back it up" scenario at all.

 

There are those wiser, and better educated in these matters than I, but i am pretty sure you would need an FPL if you would wish to do that, and that implies that the rearmost vehicle would have to pass at least a vehicle length past the point blades in order to clear it, before setting back. And given non-power door operation, half the passengers would have started disembarking before the signalman was able to let the driver know it was safe to back up, which move would need to be properly signalled as the FPL and switch would need to be in the frame & interlocked with the signal (which could be a disc or shunt arm, I guess).

 

And the other half would have fallen on the switch to the bay siding, or be rolling around in the cess.

 

Apart from these minor impracticalities, I suspect there might be some rather demanding regulations too.

 

If he's not a regular on this thread, maybe a prompt to Stationmaster Mike would get some sage advice.

 

Best

Simon

[ChrisN]

Chris

 

I don't like the "back it up" scenario at all.

 

There are those wiser, and better educated in these matters than I, but i am pretty sure you would need an FPL if you would wish to do that, and that implies that the rearmost vehicle would have to pass at least a vehicle length past the point blades in order to clear it, before setting back. And given non-power door operation, half the passengers would have started disembarking before the signalman was able to let the driver know it was safe to back up, which move would need to be properly signalled as the FPL and switch would need to be in the frame & interlocked with the signal (which could be a disc or shunt arm, I guess).

 

And the other half would have fallen on the switch to the bay siding, or be rolling around in the cess.

 

Apart from these minor impracticalities, I suspect there might be some rather demanding regulations too.

 

If he's not a regular on this thread, maybe a prompt to Stationmaster Mike would get some sage advice.

 

Best

Simon

 

Simon,

Thank you.  You are right, although I know that the Cambrian did strange things like if the train was too long it would take up the whole of the loop but I have never seen an explanation of how they got the passengers off the front and back coaches.  All stock would be non corridor so it is not as if you could walk into the next carriage.  You could have 'Front Four Coaches for Traeth Mawr' as you have for some stations but how they did this before the doors could be locked at that station I am not sure.  I do know, (which means I read somewhere but cannot prove it), that in BR days trains too long for a platform would stop, and then draw forward to let the other passengers off.  Bodmin station is now too short for the trains it runs and the engine has to back the train so that it can then run round it, and once attached it backs it into the station but every available member of staff is around, including the ladies from the offices,  policing the train to make sure that there are no accidents.

 

I will have to make sure that unless the train is starting there then it is a short train.  The other possibility is that it could be signalled so that the train can enter the other platform.  Now I know that some stations were signalled like this, and I may have to do that anyway but I will post my thoughts on that later.

Edited October 8, 2015 by ChrisN

[uax6]

My only experience of trains too long for the platforms in the BR days were at:

Magdalen Road (now Watlington), here at Littlport and somewhere on the Western.

At Maggy Road and here, the way it was done was to tell the punters that it was the first three coaches for both stations. No doors were locked, but I seem to recall the guard would check tickets just after Ely and move poeple to the front three.

 

On the Western we were on a cycling holiday and joined an HST set at one of the shortest platforms I have ever seen, just about long enough for one coach. I seem to remember there was some sort of setting back so we could get the bikes in the van...

 

As for back in the day, I would have thought that when the tickets were bought the station staff would make sure you were in the correct carriage, lots more platform staff in those days....

 

Andy G

[Donw]

I think the most likely scenario in 1895 would be to stop for the front coaches then draw forward for the rear ones.  However it would be likely the loop would be long enough to hold the train just the platform being a bit short. However there would have been cases where this was not always the case. At Dogelley trains of 14 coaches were reported as the platforms were only about 350ft long this would have been an issue. At the Up platform stopping for the front coaches would have blocked the loop points at the Cambrian end. Thus would not cause a serious issue for the GWR as the loop was extremely long and a train could be brought into the ticket platform without affecting the Cambrian end.

 

These sort of problems were quite common. The platform at Staunton on the GWR Gloucester to Swindon line was only long enough for two coaches. I travelled regularly on the Cheltenham to Paddington HSTs there would be several announcements advising those intending to detrain at Staunton to move to the rear two coaches.

 

Incidentally the shortest platform I am aware of is at Hendy on the Talyllyn less than the length of a short Talyllyn coach.

 

Don

[corneliuslundie]

I think I agree with the others about long trains. You comment that long trains could only start from Traerth Mawr. That may be a good option as the long trains would be the through ones.

 

I am not sure about your comment on platform height. I suspect that although Coast Line platforms may be 3 ft now they would originally have been lower. At many stations throughout the country there is evidence that platforms have been raised, or extensions built to the regulation height but the old part left, with a slope between. Those Victorians were expected to be agile, even the women in their long skirts.

 

So if say 10mm above track level turns out to be more convenient I would not worry.

 

Interesting that for compliance with European interoperability regulations HS1 has platforms 760mm above rail level.

[ChrisN]

I think the most likely scenario in 1895 would be to stop for the front coaches then draw forward for the rear ones.  However it would be likely the loop would be long enough to hold the train just the platform being a bit short. However there would have been cases where this was not always the case. At Dogelley trains of 14 coaches were reported as the platforms were only about 350ft long this would have been an issue. At the Up platform stopping for the front coaches would have blocked the loop points at the Cambrian end. Thus would not cause a serious issue for the GWR as the loop was extremely long and a train could be brought into the ticket platform without affecting the Cambrian end.

 

These sort of problems were quite common. The platform at Staunton on the GWR Gloucester to Swindon line was only long enough for two coaches. I travelled regularly on the Cheltenham to Paddington HSTs there would be several announcements advising those intending to detrain at Staunton to move to the rear two coaches.

 

Incidentally the shortest platform I am aware of is at Hendy on the Talyllyn less than the length of a short Talyllyn coach.

 

Don

 

Don,

Thank you.  That is probably what I will do.  I think most trains will be fine it is just the ones that have the through coaches on.  It makes life interesting anyway.

[ChrisN]

I think I agree with the others about long trains. You comment that long trains could only start from Traerth Mawr. That may be a good option as the long trains would be the through ones.

 

I am not sure about your comment on platform height. I suspect that although Coast Line platforms may be 3 ft now they would originally have been lower. At many stations throughout the country there is evidence that platforms have been raised, or extensions built to the regulation height but the old part left, with a slope between. Those Victorians were expected to be agile, even the women in their long skirts.

 

So if say 10mm above track level turns out to be more convenient I would not worry.

 

Interesting that for compliance with European interoperability regulations HS1 has platforms 760mm above rail level.

 

Jonathan,

Thank you.  The photos that I have of the Coast Line stations all appear to be the standard height but I have not found any of Traeth Mawr yet but when I do I might find it is a low platform.  Was there a standard low height?  Should I be looking at 10mm?  My 6mm ply is really only 5mm I think.  The cork I was going to use to surface part of it is 3mm.  I am thinking about what to do as the parts around the building will be paved and I have plasticard for that so matching will be difficult anyway.  I know the model shop near where I work has some 1mm cork rolls but then it is the trade off between ease of working and cost.

[ChrisN]

As we have been talking about what  and what not to do with trains at stations here is a subject for which I would like your thoughts.  Barmouth at least up until 1895 had one occasion where two trains were timetabled to arrive at the same time, and another where one train had to wait for the arrival of another.  Now it is quite possible in the second instance that as at the beginning of 1895 it had 50 minutes to wait the train would have been shunted into the bay platform after removing the through coaches for Barmouth had been removed.  This does not help with the first instance.

 

There are two track and signalling diagrams from the website 'The Signal Box', Barmouth North, and Barmouth South.  Now in the accompanying posts it talks about two trains using the same platform and calling on signals.  I have a problem with this.  Although the track diagram is labelled 'Cam' it has the platform south of the level crossing which I thought was built by the GWR.  I am not sure therefore if this is actually the correct layout for 1895 and I am uncertain if the 'North' platform would have been long enough for two trains.  Therefore did they 'wrong road' one of the trains, and would an earlier track diagram show this?

 

The reason I am asking is that the Barmouth timetable is what is going to be used at Traeth Mawr.  Now the first pair of trains both terminate at Traeth Mawr.  One is the Dolgelley train and departs after ten minutes so the second train could be kept outside the station until it has been moved to the up platform.  The second is a 'Passenger and Goods' and was expected to be late but if on time could well have been held at Barmouth Junction to allow the Dolgelley train to proceed first and so would always be second in even if the timetable said the same time.

 

The second pair is the express which has come from Machynlleth and the Dolgelley train could arrive in the down platform, or would the first train arrive in the up platform and wait, or would the Dolgelley train arrive in the down platform.  The signalling for the last two scenarios would need to be different from the first to allow for either platform arrival.  This pair of trains is the last pair of the day so if the first train was moved to the down platform to wait there would be no chance of another train being impeded. 

 

Thoughts on a postcard please.  If you have been, thanks for looking.

[Donw]

 

I don't think the lplatform at Barmouth was that long . I will have a look in the GW stations books (cannot remember which vol contains Barmouth) . It may be that the loop was a lot longer than the platform and could accept a second train while the first was still in the platform. Which would then be 'called on' when the platform was clear. This would enable the single line over the bridge to be cleared. Possibly however that was not until GWR days. It was in GWR days that the platform South of the level crossing was installed (just a short dock before I think).

Don

[Jock67B]

Morning Chris,

Just wanted to say that I find the twists and turns of your thread fascinating - I'm hard pushed to think of any other that is so well researched! I thought at first that restricting yourself to a short period of time would simplify things, but the exact opposite would seem to be the case. It is lovely to see the large number of knowledgeable people involved in research and advice, and no sign of animosity or patronising like some RMweb threads that are best avoided - what gentlemen I'm sure you'll agree!

Kind regards,

Jock.

[Mikkel]

SNIP

 

hiring fair.jpg

 

Yes, it is the Carlisle Hiring Fair.  I had intended to leave the photo and the figures to when/if I build my 009 layout as it will have a market but having shared it the temptation was too great, so:-

 

Hiring Fair.jpg

 

Here is the moment that Catherine Edwards buys/ hires Annie Owen with her mum Ann Owen looking on.

 

SNIP

 

Chris, can I echo Jock's comment above, and also say that this cameo (which I must have missed earlier) is such a brilliantly executed and very touching idea. I like the creativity you've used to compose the scene, with figures selected from different manufacturers, etc.

 

Now that we are beginning to see a new generation of figures coming out, a new modelling opportunity is opening up: Ie representing actual scenes and situations from photos and historical documents, just like we do with trains, track and buildings. You cameo (and research) here shows how interesting that can be, I think.

[Donw]

Chris from A Historical Survey of Selected Great Western Stations by R H Clark publ. OPC

It confirms that the Excursion platform was created in GW days previously there was a long siding with a kick back to a Horse and Carriage dock. Also the loop had not be extended so my comment s about a train waiting in the loop would not be possible. However the plan dated 1921 does show the platform to be 520 ft long so possibly could accommodate two short trains but I don't think the signalling would allow that. The later signal plan from GWr days does indicate a calling on arm from the loop alongside the excursion platform. It is possible that earlier two trains were held using a hand signal from the box but the 1889 act requiring the use of a block system had stopped some of those practices by 1895.

The distance from Barmouth Junction was quite short so I could imagine some smart station working allowing two trains through Barmouth quite quickly.

 

Don

[Simond]

I seem to remember that in BG days, Reading used to have only one, very long, platform, and trains used to cross over to use it.

Not sure where I saw this, or I'd post a link.

I think there was a scissors in the middle, which is not as weird as the single platform - it was a feature that remained in many places.

 

I suspect that this kind of operation was not so unusual in the 1800's

 

Best

Simon

[BG John]

I seem to remember that in BG days, Reading used to have only one, very long, platform, and trains used to cross over to use it.

Not sure where I saw this, or I'd post a link.

I think there was a scissors in the middle, which is not as weird as the single platform - it was a feature that remained in many places.

 

I suspect that this kind of operation was not so unusual in the 1800's

 

Best

Simon

Two platforms, but on the same side.

http://maps.nls.uk/view/104197876

 

There were a number of single sided broad gauge stations, and non Great Western narrow gauge* ones too, but as far as I know they were major stations on the edge of a town/city centre to make both platforms easily accessible. In less important places, passengers had to cross the line to get to the other platform.

 

*Narrow gauge AKA standard gauge to those with non broad gauge interests. Causes great mental confusion to those of us who model broad gauge, standard gauge and less than standard gauge (Broad, Narrow and Narrow Narrow?)!

[corneliuslundie]

Cambridge still has one long platform with central crossovers, though at last a new up platform has been built linked by a footbridge. And I have a feeling that several major stations have central crossovers allowing platforms to be used in two parts - York? Birmingham NS platforms often have two trains in but I don't think many of them have crossovers - usually too busy to notice and too gloomy to see.

 

Could it be that the two trains actually combined/split at the Junction? Or am I starting another hare running?

 

Jonathan

[Donw]

The legacy of the original station left Reading with the long platform 4 (has the recent remodelling changed that?). One example of crossovers in the mid platform area was Exeter Central which facilitated breaking the expresses from London into Portions typically Plymouth and Ilfracombe and removing the dining cars. 

To answer Chris' questions the Dolgelly train would have terminated at Barmouth so may have either gone into the up platform if signalling permitted ready to form a departure or moved quickly out of the way to allow the other train to follow. A train advised as Passenger and goods would be a bit variable on timing as it would depend on the shunting required.

Similarly with the second case the Dolgelley would probably run in first as there may be through vehicles or passengers going forward. Unless I suppose any such exchange was done at Barmouth Junction. I suspect it was done at Barmouth.

Have you checked timings at Barmouth Junction Chris?

 

Don

[Simond]

The mid-platform scissors certainly was quite common - Oxford for sure I believe Bristol TM too. Not sure if they still do.

 

Best

Simon

[ChrisN]

Morning Chris,

Just wanted to say that I find the twists and turns of your thread fascinating - I'm hard pushed to think of any other that is so well researched! I thought at first that restricting yourself to a short period of time would simplify things, but the exact opposite would seem to be the case. It is lovely to see the large number of knowledgeable people involved in research and advice, and no sign of animosity or patronising like some RMweb threads that are best avoided - what gentlemen I'm sure you'll agree!

Kind regards,

Jock.

 

Jock, I will reply to your post first as although I have read all the posts this morning we had a 90th birthday celebration to organise so I have been a little busy and the posts just keep coming.

 

I agree with you about the contributions.  I am grateful that there are a number of contributors who know a lot more than I do about various things and whose skills are different so it does make a good mix.  I am glad that others, although not everyone, seem to like what happens on this thread.  As for it being simple limiting the time to 1895 the problem is that it is not only quite tightly defined but it is so long ago we have to re-discover what everyone then took for granted.

 

All the best,