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

[SteamingWales]

10 hours ago, ChrisN said:

Now @SteamingWales, when he does his brickwork, does the brick with enamel, and the mortar with acrylic.  He then, using acrylic thinners on a cotton wool bud, works away to remove the mortar colour from the bricks.  I have considered this for next time, and in fact have a large bottle of acrylic thinners, but now I am not so sure.  There is a lot of stone work to be done, and life is short, and also I understand that there are as many ways of doing brickwork as there are modellers.  I am not sure if this is a fundamental law of the universe, but if I do what @SteamingWales does then the number of methods will equal number of modellers minus one, and who knows what may happen.

 

Just been catching up on the thread and brilliant modelling as always 

 

Just to clarify on Cambrian Shed  EVERYTHING is painted using acrylic. I fell out with enamel a few years ago and only use it on very rare occasions now. The method is as described, taken from Everard Junction on YouTube. His modelling is top drawer so mine should be too? Right? 😅😅

[ChrisN]

4 hours ago, SteamingWales said:

 

Just been catching up on the thread and brilliant modelling as always 

 

Just to clarify on Cambrian Shed  EVERYTHING is painted using acrylic. I fell out with enamel a few years ago and only use it on very rare occasions now. The method is as described, taken from Everard Junction on YouTube. His modelling is top drawer so mine should be too? Right? 😅😅

 

Thank you for your kind comments.  I certainly would not say that your modelling is not top drawer.  It is an impressive structure you are building in many ways than one.

 

If both the base and the mortar are acrylic, how do you not wipe off the base colour when wiping off theexcess mortar colour?

[SteamingWales]

32 minutes ago, ChrisN said:

If both the base and the mortar are acrylic, how do you not wipe off the base colour when wiping off theexcess mortar colour?

 

The wash is pretty light. It is just a case of going over very lightly with cotton buds. They do come out a little pink but it doesn't take off the brick base or the brick highlights 

[ChrisN]

No, not a modelling update, but a question.

 

If you look at this picture of Barmouth Station from 1889, you will notice that the chimneys appear to have no chimney pots, but on this one they have been remodelled and they do.  Now, the pictures I have of Aberdovey from @NCB appear to show the chimneys in original condition as it was being closed, with a step inwards to the top on the last four courses of brick.

 

 

I have an early picture of Newtown which shows the same, but I am not sure where it is from so cannot post it, but the modern chimneys have been redone, but again without obvious pots.

 

Now, with this sort of shape chimney, are there pots inside where I cannot see them or is there internal brickwork that acts to constrict the space and thus cause the draft, or did they not worry and the smoke just rolled off the top and down the roof?  (The side phots of Aberdovey just show stretcher bond on the brick and no obvious linking with anything inside.)

 

Yes, you guessed it, I am on to the chimneys.

 

Thanks in advance for any answers, and if you have been, thanks for looking.

 

[tanatvalley]

Maybe some answers Here.

[ChrisN]

Several things have happened, but let us start with the station.  (I still have a harmonium up my sleeve.)

 

 

Now this is how the end walls looked.  They have not changed for months, mainly as I realised that the coverings of these end walls needed to cover both the card and the plastic of the sides as they were going to be between the two.  (I have not got a photo of them in position and not clad.)

 

So my method of fitting the stone cladding to the window surrounds was to lay the plasticard next to the window and mark with a scalpel where the notches needed to be,  cut back a little, and then file with needle files until it all fits.  (I had put off going back to doing this for a while by doing other things, then one evening I said, 'What is the problem?' and just got on with it.)  The fitted strip was glued in place but was longer than the side, so when it had dried, I held the building on its end and cut the excess off.  Repeated for the other side.  Cardboard strip at the bottom and a strip of cladding above it.  Then, the building was put on its end again, with the cladding underneath, but butting the top white plasticard 'stone' strip.  I then drew round it so I had a gable shape.  When it was cut out, I drew round that for one for the other end.  Glued in place and trimmed.

 

 

That was the easy end.  The other end of course has the high level ventilation 'window'.

 

I measured the distance of the four sides and drew it on the back of the cladding.  I then cut out a square smaller than this.

 

 

This was offered up to the end with the ventilation and using needle files I gradually made the hole bigger until it fitted.  It is not as neat as I had hoped as some files must be sharper than others so needed different amounts of pressure, which was not always clear as I started to use them so took too much out.  Finally, it looked like this:-

 

 

And fitted like this:-

 

 

From normal viewing distance, it is not noticeable.

 

 

If you have been, thanks for looking.

 

 

[kitpw]

On 26/02/2023 at 23:50, ChrisN said:

Yes, you guessed it, I am on to the chimneys

I don't have a good answer to your question about pots... But, pots were not used before the C17th (and most of the pots we see date from the C19th or earlier C20th) and flues seemed to work ok without them.  It's possible that the design of the station building was seen by its architect as being vaguely medieval and deliberately left out chimney pots to enhance the effect. To achieve a working chimney, we could assume that there was parging/corbelling inside the flue to reduce its size in the part of the chimney above roof level to assist in drawing the fire below.  Later, the chimney stack was rebuilt (without internal corbelling) and fitted with pots.  I'm not hugely convinced by this story but I can't think of another explanation!

I'm enjoying your modelling though - very nice work.

 

 

[Nick Gough]

28 minutes ago, ChrisN said:

(I still have a harmonium up my sleeve.)

 

Does it play a tune when you walk?

[Sasquatch]

A taller chimney will have a better draft, this is important when starting a coal fire. If you're modeling a very early period when fires would be wood fired the pots might better be left off. They most likely would have been added when wood became either expensive or harder to come by and a switch was made to coal! 

I have the same issue on Queensbury's platform buildings, although I don't think pots ever got put on the chimneys there at all!

 

The reason we don't have a problem with smoke filling the house when I build a fire every morning is because the house is quite well insulated, so once I open the stove doors the warm air readily rises up the chimney. Just can't start a fire if its warmer outside on a warm spring evening after we've been out all day because the insulation keeps the house cool! There's no draft and the house fills up with smoke real fast!

 

Hope this helps.

 

Regards Shaun.

[Mikkel]

That's a significant milestone on the station, with the cladding all in place now. Quite a substantial structure, a church for the railway-God. The decorative strip (what's the right word?) does add a lot to the appearance.

[Edwardian]

9 hours ago, ChrisN said:

Several things have happened, but let us start with the station.  (I still have a harmonium up my sleeve.)

 

 

Now this is how the end walls looked.  They have not changed for months, mainly as I realised that the coverings of these end walls needed to cover both the card and the plastic of the sides as they were going to be between the two.  (I have not got a photo of them in position and not clad.)

 

So my method of fitting the stone cladding to the window surrounds was to lay the plasticard next to the window and mark with a scalpel where the notches needed to be,  cut back a little, and then file with needle files until it all fits.  (I had put off going back to doing this for a while by doing other things, then one evening I said, 'What is the problem?' and just got on with it.)  The fitted strip was glued in place but was longer than the side, so when it had dried, I held the building on its end and cut the excess off.  Repeated for the other side.  Cardboard strip at the bottom and a strip of cladding above it.  Then, the building was put on its end again, with the cladding underneath, but butting the top white plasticard 'stone' strip.  I then drew round it so I had a gable shape.  When it was cut out, I drew round that for one for the other end.  Glued in place and trimmed.

 

 

That was the easy end.  The other end of course has the high level ventilation 'window'.

 

I measured the distance of the four sides and drew it on the back of the cladding.  I then cut out a square smaller than this.

 

 

This was offered up to the end with the ventilation and using needle files I gradually made the hole bigger until it fitted.  It is not as neat as I had hoped as some files must be sharper than others so needed different amounts of pressure, which was not always clear as I started to use them so took too much out.  Finally, it looked like this:-

 

 

And fitted like this:-

 

 

From normal viewing distance, it is not noticeable.

 

 

If you have been, thanks for looking.

 

 

 

Getting there. Looks good, Chris and good to see.

[Northroader]

The station is shaping very well. On the matter of chimneys, the smoke passing through from a coal fire would have sulphuric compounds , and as these cooled out, you could have a weak acid mixed in with the soot deposits in the chimney, leading to corrosion of the stonework. This is particularly noticeable on the old GWR Brunel built stone stations, where twentieth century pictures show the original limestone chimney has been replaced by blue engineering bricks. There is a likelihood of Cambrian stations having similar problems as the structure ages, and chimneys needing attention.

[Compound2632]

28 minutes ago, Northroader said:

On the matter of chimneys, the smoke passing through from a coal fire would have sulphuric compounds , and as these cooled out, you could have a weak acid mixed in with the soot deposits in the chimney, leading to corrosion of the stonework. 

 

But remember that Chris is modelling 1895, when the building was scarcely thirty years old.

[Northroader]

So the point is that you need photos of chimney’s appearances current to the time you’re modelling them.

[Edwardian]

This is, what, an 1870s structure?

 

If so, there might have been some purist Gothic ideal that induced the archtiect to build chimneys without external pots.

 

If so, and big if, mind you, I wouldn't necessarily bet on pots by 1895. Possible, perhaps even probable, but absent evidence I would default to as-built condition. If and when you know what that was!

 

Do we know the name of the architect of the protoype buildings on which yours is based?

[Northroader]

Taking it on a bit further, the Cambrian was reputedly hard up, so maybe chimney pots were regarded as an expensive frill when the building was constructed.  Then. again, if you had a rectangular flue terminating as such at the top of the chimney, would this be an invitation for smoke to eddy about and linger, whilst a narrower pot would turn the rising heat into a sort of jet flow, speeding the passage of smoke out at the place where it would want to start to condense out? So practical experience would show a need for chimney pots over time.

[corneliuslundie]

And bear in mind that modern photos showing no pots may be because the flues are no longer being used, central heating of some kind having been installed in recent years. The post often then seem to be removed.

I have been looking on the web for old photos of the stations like Barmouth. Towyn is hopeless as 95% are of the Talyllyn station. But I did find one ofDolgelley Cambrian side. Not very old (1955) but no chimney pots.

 

 

Jonathan

[ChrisN]

Thank you one and all.  I will try and answer your replies.

13 hours ago, kitpw said:

I don't have a good answer to your question about pots... But, pots were not used before the C17th (and most of the pots we see date from the C19th or earlier C20th) and flues seemed to work ok without them.  It's possible that the design of the station building was seen by its architect as being vaguely medieval and deliberately left out chimney pots to enhance the effect. To achieve a working chimney, we could assume that there was parging/corbelling inside the flue to reduce its size in the part of the chimney above roof level to assist in drawing the fire below.  Later, the chimney stack was rebuilt (without internal corbelling) and fitted with pots.  I'm not hugely convinced by this story but I can't think of another explanation!

I'm enjoying your modelling though - very nice work.

 

 

 

Kit,

Thank you that is very interesting.  I had thought that if they narrowed the bore of the flue that they would not need pots, but it is one of those things that you do not consider until you want to model it..

 

12 hours ago, Sasquatch said:

A taller chimney will have a better draft, this is important when starting a coal fire. If you're modelling a very early period when fires would be wood fired the pots might better be left off. They most likely would have been added when wood became either expensive or harder to come by and a switch was made to coal! 

I have the same issue on Queensbury's platform buildings, although I don't think pots ever got put on the chimneys there at all!

 

The reason we don't have a problem with smoke filling the house when I build a fire every morning is because the house is quite well insulated, so once I open the stove doors the warm air readily rises up the chimney. Just can't start a fire if its warmer outside on a warm spring evening after we've been out all day because the insulation keeps the house cool! There's no draft and the house fills up with smoke real fast!

 

Hope this helps.

 

Regards Shaun.

 

Shaun,

The fact that the Queensbury station buildings never had pots encourages me to think the Cambrian did the same.

 

1 hour ago, Northroader said:

So the point is that you need photos of chimney’s appearances current to the time you’re modelling them.

 

I do have several photos of stations about a similar time, and they have no external pots, but I wondered if they had internal pots.  

 

 

This picture which comes from here, and will take some more 'blowing up', is from 1889, and actually appears not to have internal pots, but it is not conclusive.

 

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

This is, what, an 1870s structure?

 

If so, there might have been some purist Gothic ideal that induced the archtiect to build chimneys without external pots.

 

If so, and big if, mind you, I wouldn't necessarily bet on pots by 1895. Possible, perhaps even probable, but absent evidence I would default to as-built condition. If and when you know what that was!

 

Do we know the name of the architect of the protoype buildings on which yours is based?

 

James,

The structure was built in 1867, or at least that is when the station opened.  Only Barmouth had its chimneys rebuilt, and I was wondering if the addition of external pots was an indication of internal pots originally, but probably not.

 

Architect?  That is a good question.  The architect is, I think, not known.  The original architect of Welshpool, which is similar, was a Mr Poundley, probably John Wilkes Poundley of Kerry.  (I would think Kerry in Wales, not County Kerry.)  There was a J. M. Penson of Chester was the Architect of the Oswestry and Newtown Railway, and became the architect of the Newtown and Machynlleth Railway, and perhaps for the Welsh Coast Railway, at least to  Aberystwyth.  James Ward, a colleague of Savin the railway's builder was thought to have designed and built Penrhyndeudreath Station, and perhaps others along the coast, but that station had pots.  You pays your money, you takes your choice.

 

 

[ChrisN]

14 hours ago, Nick Gough said:

 

Does it play a tune when you walk?

 

I am working on it.  🙂

[ChrisN]

7 hours ago, Mikkel said:

That's a significant milestone on the station, with the cladding all in place now. Quite a substantial structure, a church for the railway-God. The decorative strip (what's the right word?) does add a lot to the appearance.

 

Mikkel,

Thank you.

 

Yes I think decorative strip is the correct word, although in the original building it was a plain stone layer.

[ChrisN]

1 hour ago, corneliuslundie said:

And bear in mind that modern photos showing no pots may be because the flues are no longer being used, central heating of some kind having been installed in recent years. The post often then seem to be removed.

I have been looking on the web for old photos of the stations like Barmouth. Towyn is hopeless as 95% are of the Talyllyn station. But I did find one ofDolgelley Cambrian side. Not very old (1955) but no chimney pots.

 

 

Jonathan

 

Jonathan,

Thank you that is another helpful picture, and one of Dolgelley that I do not have.

[kitpw]

A few further notes/thoughts about chimneys and pots.  Air in / smoke out: of little or no interest to modellers, combustion needs air input in order to do air/smoke output: turn of the C19th stations were draughty so plenty of air in. The chimneys on the prototype building are set on the ridge line in an exposed location; as long as air gets in at the bottom, I suspect that smoke would go out and disperse at the top, pots or no pots.  Comparing the two versions of the building (photos above), it is noticeable that the brick part of the chimney stacks with pots are shorter than the original brick stacks which were potless. If you ask Google "what are chimney pots for", it returns the answer that they improve the weathering of a chimney which is to say, it's reckoned that less rain gets down the flue.  It's also cheaper to place a chimney pot (the one outside my window with a plant in it is 3' tall) than to build up a stack to the equivalent height in brickwork, particularly if there are several flues. Therefore, best guess about Traeth Mawr: no pots but taller brickwork as per the earlier photo: it also fits with my earlier remarks about vaguely medieval styling.

 

 

 

[ChrisN]

20 minutes ago, kitpw said:

A few further notes/thoughts about chimneys and pots.  Air in / smoke out: of little or no interest to modellers, combustion needs air input in order to do air/smoke output: turn of the C19th stations were draughty so plenty of air in. The chimneys on the prototype building are set on the ridge line in an exposed location; as long as air gets in at the bottom, I suspect that smoke would go out and disperse at the top, pots or no pots.  Comparing the two versions of the building (photos above), it is noticeable that the brick part of the chimney stacks with pots are shorter than the original brick stacks which were potless. If you ask Google "what are chimney pots for", it returns the answer that they improve the weathering of a chimney which is to say, it's reckoned that less rain gets down the flue.  It's also cheaper to place a chimney pot (the one outside my window with a plant in it is 3' tall) than to build up a stack to the equivalent height in brickwork, particularly if there are several flues. Therefore, best guess about Traeth Mawr: no pots but taller brickwork as per the earlier photo: it also fits with my earlier remarks about vaguely medieval styling.

 

 

 

 

Yes, Thank you, and thank you for your kind comments earlier about my modelling.

 

Although that type of pot was not restricted to the coast, on the coast, although it can be nice in the summer, I am sure it certainly blows hard in winter.  Many of the station houses, and signal boxes were built to withstand storms.

 

[kitpw]

7 minutes ago, ChrisN said:

Many of the station houses, and signal boxes were built to withstand storms

Like 1923...?

 

My comment about exposed location was really shorthand for there being no other buildings close by to cause turbulence: a nearby tall gable, for instance, could increase turbulence and with a too short a chimney, send the smoke in all directions, so height of chimney is important. A tall (enough) chimney also gets above the pressure difference that arises on either side of a pitched roof, even in a light breeze, which, if the chimney is too short, can cause the smoke to go down rather than up.  All that's interesting but arises (like we hope the smoke will) in the context of modelling the chimneys and I look forward to seeing how you do that as it's all corners, stepped courses and corbels!

 

 

 

 

[ChrisN]

3 hours ago, kitpw said:

Like 1923...?

 

My comment about exposed location was really shorthand for there being no other buildings close by to cause turbulence: a nearby tall gable, for instance, could increase turbulence and with a too short a chimney, send the smoke in all directions, so height of chimney is important. A tall (enough) chimney also gets above the pressure difference that arises on either side of a pitched roof, even in a light breeze, which, if the chimney is too short, can cause the smoke to go down rather than up.  All that's interesting but arises (like we hope the smoke will) in the context of modelling the chimneys and I look forward to seeing how you do that as it's all corners, stepped courses and corbels!

 

 

 

 

 

For once, I do have a plan.

Edited March 7, 2023 by ChrisN