Leaderboard

The following are my notes on GWR stable blocks – a subject that does not seem to have received much attention. I am about to build one for Farthing, and have noticed various style differences that may be of interest to others. Chipping Norton stables in 1983. Built 1904. Rebuilt with end doors to serve as a garage, but otherwise it features the main elements of the "archetype" standard design, ie "hit and miss" vents in windows and above doors, and those characteristic boxy roof vents. Image copyright and courtesy Alan Lewis. I first became interested in GWR stables some years ago, and received some very helpful advice and material from several RMwebbers on here. Many thanks gents! However, I wanted to obtain an overview of the designs of stables built by the GWR, and this proved tricky. While there are a number of drawings and photos in various books and line histories, I couldn’t find an actual overview anywhere (or have I missed it?). Janet Russell's wonderful "Great Western Horse Power" comes closest with a handful of selected GWR plans and descriptions, but no attempt to provide an overview of the different styles. Vaughan’s "Great Western Architecture" and Stephen Williams’ "GWR Branchline Modelling vol 2" have a few pictures and drawings each. The stable block at Uxbridge Vine Street, illustrating how stables were sometimes located well away from the center of stations, although usually they would be found near the yard entry/exit. Source: Britain from above. Embedding permitted. So I have tried to make my own overview. Please note that this isn't based on extensive archival research or a systematic review of the various line histories. I have used a few key books and what others have shared. I first divided the stable blocks into three overall types: * The standard design, with 3 major permutations * The small "ad hoc" designs, sometimes inherited * The very large designs for major goods depots In the following I focus especially on the standard designs. The standard designs Various books refer to the emergence of a "standard" design of stable blocks around the turn of the century. However, looking at drawings and photos I realized that there were detail differences in this design, which could be divided into 3 main “styles”. Two immediate caveats: Most of what I have found seems to have been built from approximately the 1890s to grouping. I have not found evidence of standard designs before this time, but that may just be my lack of information. Little seems to have been built after grouping as horses were disappearing, but many stables remained in use for other purposes long after that. Although I identify 3 main styles, there also seem to have been hybrids and possibly also “retro-fitting”. So rather than seeing the three styles as entirely different designs, it is probably better to see them as different expressions of a standard design that evolved over time. The standard designs were single-story and followed classic GWR style features, i.e. red brick structures with blue engineering bricks around doors and at corners. The main style differences were in the ventilation, windows and doors. Sizes differed widely across the same style, from a few stalls to 20+. The footprint was simply stretched in length to accommodate the necessary no. of stalls (thanks for pointing that out, Ian). They were mostly rectangular, although there are one or two examples with a V or U shaped footprint to fit in the surroundings. In the following I have used sketches of quite large stable blocks to illustrate the styles, as they are of particular interest to me at the moment - but the same styles could be found across different sizes. STYLE A “Simple” Plain stable doors and sash windows with 3x4 panes. Limited ventilation. No roof-mounted louvred vents, no vents in doors and windows. Examples: Uxbridge Vine Street, Castle Cary. I’m having trouble dating this style, but my theory is that it is the earliest expression of the standard designs, because it pays so little attention to ventilation. My reproduction of the GWR drawing of Uxbridge Vine Street, illustrating Style A. An attractive option for the modeller who doesn't want to model the complicated ventilation seen on other types. Based on the original GWR drawing in Russel's "GWR Horse Power", which also has a drawing of the smaller stable block at Castle Cary to the same design. STYLE B “Archetype” Classic boxy louvred roof vents. Stable doors have “hit and miss” vents above, while windows have the same vents below a 3x3 glazing pattern. Examples: Abingdon, Chipping Norton (see header photo), Westbury, Hayes (original), Hayle, Park Royal, Thame, Little Somerford. Again there are dating difficulties. Chipping Norton’s stable was built in 1904. Westbury was totally rebuilt in 1901, so maybe the stable is from that date? Park Royal doesn’t seem to have been developed until the late 1900s. Park Royal, illustrating the archetypical features of Type B. STYLE C “Later” Stable doors have 2 rows of small windows/lights above doors, main windows are 4x5 panes. No vents in doors and windows, but large roof vents that are flatter and longer than the classic style. Examples: Weston-Super-Mare, extension block at Hayes, and the unidentified large new stable block in Russel's Great Western Horsepower p. 209-210. I’m calling this the “later” style because (i) the roof vent design seems more modern and functional and (ii) the original block at Hayes was style B design, but when it was extended (no date) the new blocks were to style C. Weston-Super-Mare, illustrating what I call Type C. Twenty stalls is a lot, there weren't many stables this big. A much smaller version of Type C. This 5-stall block was erected to extend the existing Type B block at Hayes & Harlington. A comparison with Weston-Super-Mare shows that the style is the same, and was simply shortened or stretched according to need. HYBRIDS/REBUILDS One or two stables I have seen could be hybrids between the main permutations. However, this is confused by the fact that (i) stables may have been retrofitted with new ventilation by the GWR, and (ii) stables were often rebuilt when no longer used for horses, and so latter day photos may confuse. For example, the latter day photos of Witney (built 1905) show windows like a Style A, but with the boxy roof vents of a Style B. However, the stable block was rebuilt to house motor lorries, and a closer look at the photos suggests to me that the windows and doors did originally have vents, but were replaced/modified (ie it is a rebuilt style B). The stable block at Minehead is more tricky, as described in the caption below. The preserved stable block at Minehead. As seen here it would seem like a Style A, but an earlier hand-drawing (not GWR) shows it with hit-and-miss vents in the windows, suggesting a Style B - except that the drawing does not show vents above the door or on the roof. Were they removed before the drawing was made (when the end doors were installed, for example), or was Minehead a hybrid? Shared under Creative Commons license. Attribution: Chris Osment/West Somerset Railway. Non-standard designs This included "all the rest", worthy of a whole study in themselves, but broadly speaking: Ad Hoc small designs A number of usually small, non-standard ad hoc stables, typically built during the early years, and often by independent companies. In some locations, the GWR simply hired space in a building for the local shunting horse with private individuals. Examples: Henley-in Arden, Princetown (built ca 1910), or how about Camborne! Very large and unique designs Very large stables for the major goods depots, including (i) single-story designs such as Hockley, (ii) two-story designs, rare but see Handsworth & Smethwick (and Paddington originally) and (iii) in a league of its own, Paddington Mint. The stables at Paddington Mint. Copyright Getty Images, embedding permitted. So those are my notes for now. Many thanks to all who have provided info and allowed use of photos so far. I am hoping that this will also bring new insights to light from others, as I have probably only scratched the surface. Edit: For further notes, see this blog entry.

What goes through a modeller’s mind? 'Very little', my wife would say, and she’s not far off! Am I the only one who enters a Zen-like state of mind when operating the layouts? It begins like this. You decide to run some trains, forget all the worries. Get the gear out, set up on the dining table. The engine purrs into life, pulls a train off the traverser. You get down to eye level, begin to dream. What if there was something else behind those windows? Distant spires maybe? Lots of spires! Then even that melts away, and you enter a world of dreamy blue skies. Floating freely… …in an uncomplicated world… …where time… …stops… …and the light… …is mellow. Peace, man. Then reality kicks in. It seems I’m expected to lay the table. Ah well!

Here’s a summary of my recent 'experiments' (a.k.a. mucking about) with Modelu and other 4mm figures, and how to store them. I have previously modified figures from the Andrew Stadden, Dart Castings and Preiser ranges. So obviously, the Modelu range had to suffer too! The resin used in these figures cannot be bent (it will break), but clean cuts with a scalpel worked OK. Joins were sanded, fixed with superglue and smoothed out with putty. Not everyone will think it’s worthwhile, but I find it relaxing and you get quick results. This driver was shortened and had his feet repositioned to fit in the cab of my Dean Goods. Another driver had a head fitted from an Andrew Stadden figure, in order to enhance the Edwardian look. That left a headless Andrew Stadden body, so a head was transposed from a Modelu station master who I felt looked a bit too modern for my Edwardian period. I have also been experimenting with painting, especially those difficult eyes. The pro painters do some amazing work in this respect, but as a mere mortal I’m just looking for a simple way to achieve a rough indication of eyes without spending too much time on it. The approach illustrated below has helped. First, two black stripes across the eyes. The stripes can then be narrowed and shortened by painting skin colour carefully around them. I find this much easier than trying to paint the eyes directly. The same technique can be used for the eyebrows and mouth. Eyebrows can be tricky when hats etc get in the way, but do add character. I suppose the next step on the learning curve is to fill in those blank, black eyes. Not sure I'm up for that! Reading up on brushes led to the purchase of these Windsor & Newton Series 7 brushes (not the “miniature” range). The sizes are 00 for faces (right), and 1 for larger details (left). These are bigger sizes than I have normally used. This is based on online advice from pro painters. The theory is that larger brushes give better control and the paint doesn’t dry as quickly on the way to the face. If you look closely at the lady above, you can see that her face isn’t quite smooth, because I let the paint become too dry on the brush. A larger magnifying glass has also helped, although I’m still struggling a bit with the weird hand-eye coordination that this requires. The field for extra magnification is useful and tells me that it may be worth investing in an even stronger glass at some point. Because we now live in a flat I have to pack away the layouts in-between operating sessions. This has led me to consider how to store the figures and other fragile items. If stored too casually the paint easily chips, noses are flattened or accessories break. So, inspired by Chris' storage box for figures, I had a look around the web and came upon “pick and pluck” foam trays. These are available on ebay, or from military modelling manufacturers like Feldherr. After plucking out the foam as desired, a base layer is added, and the tray is ready to use. The foam trays come in different thicknesses, this is 15 mm (0.6 inch) plus a base layer: For my horse drawn wagons I used 30 mm (1.2 inches). In retrospect it would have been better to go for something even deeper so the wagons could be placed upright. The trays can be stacked… …and fitted in an appropriate box. This is just a shoebox. I added an extra protective layer of foam on the top. In order to handle the figures, I fitted a bit of felt to a pair of old tweezers. Having made the trays you end up with a lot of foam cubes that are supposed to be discarded. This seemed wasteful so I decided to use the cubes for making additional storage boxes for my “second-tier” stuff. They have a sticky underside so it’s very straightforward. The box is a takeaway food container. Ever since Northroader pointed out the usefulness of takeaway boxes we have been eating a lot of Thai food! Some of my figures are fitted with wire in order to fix them on the layout, which takes up a lot of space in the “pick and pluck” boxes. So these are stuck into a bit of good quality dense foamboard... ...and fitted in yet another takeaway box (Phat Kee Mao, if I remember correctly!). There is room for a lot of figures this way... ... and the boxes stack up nicely. That's it for now, I'm off to run some trains!

This is an early Poole chassis model fitted with gaugemaster dcc92 decoder and marwick brush. The model has a brass drive gear and surprisingly copper pickups which look like they have been a replacement for the original silver ones as the lower plate retention screw is cosmetic, there is no chassis screw hole in which to insert it so it has been cut short at some point. It runs remarkably well on dcc as can be seen here https://youtu.be/-gGwGoswxpE Does anyone know the exact vintage of the model?

I’ve been making my own crates and tea chests from printable veneer. Today I installed them in the goods depot at Farthing. The mezzanine floor at Farthing was used as a storage facility. Traders could have their wares stored while awaiting dispatch and distribution. Space was literally at a premium, and this floor was always tidier and more well organised than the busy decks below. Farthing wasn’t far from Britain’s first Nestlé factory, built at Chippenham in 1873 for the manufacture of condensed milk. This part of the goods depot was inspired by the balcony floor at Hockley Goods, which seems to have been used for similar purposes. The following is a description of how the crates were made, summarized from the workbench thread: I like the smallish wooden crates that could be seen in goods depots before cardbox boxes became common. So I began by designing a few of these. The top one above is photoshopped from a pic of an original Nestlé crate. The rest are tongue in cheek I wanted to capture that light wooden look of a new crate, and wasn’t quite happy with the texture of ordinary paper. After searching the web I came across these veneer sheets intended for creative photo printing. I bought mine from Crafty Computer Paper (no connection). It’s important to note that these sheets only work with top loaded ink-jet printers. They will jam if you use a printer where the paper bends over on itself. I have a cheap top loaded Canon IP2850 printer, which cost about 30£ a year ago (colour cartridge included). It does take the sheets, although each sheet needs to be pressed down gently when the rollers try to “grab” it. I would be weary to do this on a high-end printer! Test prints suggest that the wood effect is pretty much as I had hoped. The lettering comes out OK I think, although I’m sure a more expensive printer could give an even better result. The veneer sheets can be cut fairly easily with a normal scalpel. I've experimented with two different ways of building the crates. The first and most laborious method is to cut out each side separately, and glue them on a block of laminated plastic rod as seen above. This method gives a fairly neat final appearance, as seen above. This pic also shows the texture of the veneer, and how the different shades of the sheets can be used to add subtle variety: The ones on the left are from one sheet, the ones on the right from another. A quicker method is to cut each crate out in one piece, and lightly scribe the rear of the veneer at the corners with the back of a thick scalpel blade (a sharp scalpel or deep cut will break the veneer). The crate can then be folded and glued with a good quality card glue or similar. You inevitably get a light tear at the corners though - so this method is best for crates that aren't seen close up. I've made rows of stacked crates by glueing individual sides to the front of a long block of laminated styrene strips, as seen above. Saves time, and can't be seen once completed. The fake rows can then be stacked and glued or just blu-tacked together. The tea chests are based on real ones but photoshopped to fit my setting and period. The metal edges on the "East India" one didn't really come across as I hoped in the printing... ... so thanks to Dave and other RMwebbers I tried using the dull side of foil for the metal edges. I cut the foil in strips and then fixed it with card glue to one side first. It can then be bent around the edge and stuck to the other side. It’s worth the effort to spend some time cleaning up the edges afterwards. With a ruler and sharp scalpel, edges can be trimmed straighter and narrower as required. The superfluous foil can be scraped off leaving no visible mark. Small problem areas can be fixed with a quick lick of metallic paint. The veneer is very forgiving, so paint can also be scraped off if necessary. The crates are strenghtened inside like this. The tea chests represent different types and sizes, some with metal sides and some without. Judging by photos I have seen, the metal edges don't seem to have been common until the 1920s or so. As mentioned earlier, the sheet itself is quite forgiving and glue and paint can be scraped off without leaving much trace. The lettering is another matter. The print on the right has been treated to a light coat of Vallejo matt varnish! Finally a comparison between a veneer crate, an earlier paper-printed effort (right) and a parcel made from Manilla envelope paper. The crate has that nice and square look. Thanks to all who have helped and contributed to this little project, see the discussion in the workbench thread for more ideas and suggestions.