Ian Simpson

@Pacific231G Thanks for a very interesting comment. I'm not sure how far Crompton was inspired by Norris's locos, but he can't have been unaware of them. There is one noticeable difference between the two engineers' locos: on Crampton's designs the driving wheels tended to be large for speed, while Norris's drivers tended to be small for power. The Birmingham and Gloucester Railway used its Norris 4-2-0s to haul freight trains up the Lickey incline, but used more traditional British 2-2-2s with large driving wheels for its express mails. BTW the forerunner of the Norris design is Edward Bury's small bar-frame locos, as used on the London & Birmingham, London & Southampton, Liverpool & Manchester, etc. William Norris nicked Bury's design, beefed it up a bit and replaced the front axle with a bogie to cope with the roughly-laid track of the early American railroads. Bury tried to sue him in the US courts (Norris was based in Philadelphia) but lost. I often think that an H0 Norris could be made into an 00 Bury pretty easily. Yes, in the late 1830s and early 1840s British, European and American railways are using very similar designs, mostly British as you say. And the British companies all tended to buy standard locos and stock from a few commercial builders, so that most early models can be used in a range of settings. For example my own little layout could represent a small branch in New England or southern Austria just as much as one in Gloucestershire. It would just need a change of backscene to move the layout to a completely different country.

Thanks so much for the comments! I’m gobsmacked at the blog getting so much attention today. Can I suggest the following RMWeb blogs and topic threads to anyone who would like to know a bit more about modelling the 1840s: Rudititanic’s 3D printed 1840s locos and stock, available in both 4mm and 2mm Tabitha and Edwardian’s North Eastern-themed school project layout A general discussion thread on early British railways Chris Cox’s very impressive Bricklayer’s Arms layout Chris also produces wonderful 1840s / 1850s 4mm white metal kits as 5and9 Models. A very useful review of Trix’s Adler locomotive by 47137

I don't know of any clubs, I'm afraid. But what a good idea!

Probably not much use, but one of the Terriers sold to the Admiralty (37 Southdown) worked at the Mine Depot in Grangemouth around 1919 - 1920. (Source: Brian Haresnape's Stroudley Locomotives,​ page 57.)

Would the horse's size be less noticeable if you just had its head sticking out over the bottom part of a stable door? I suspect (which of course means "I've no idea but I'm guessing") that even if the railway companies did buy juvenile horses, they would have been kept in paddocks out in the sticks rather than taking up valuable space in a working goods yard.

Hang on in there, Linny! I do hope the NHS steps up with something useful soon; having to wait months with such a crippling condition would be appalling. You're absolutely right to avoid stressing about kits for us at the moment. Selfishly I hope you'll want to return to the kits one day, because you have such a gift for making brilliant models. I'm really looking forward to reading about progress on the GSR. Wishing you (and in fact, all of us) a much better New Year!

Then I'll say it. You should ALL be modelling LBSCR.

Personally I wouldn't change it at all. After all, there's a reason why bureaucrats use the bossy voice when they want us to do something. It's because we tend to ignore everything else.

The REC co-ordinated the railways during WW2, answering directly to the Minister for Transport. It's a reminder that a bossy tone has always been popular with bureaucrats. The lack of a final posting date does seem strange, but if everyone had waited to the final posting day that might have put extra strain on an already very overstretched system. Perhaps the very vagueness of the exhortation was designed to make people post earlier than necessary. At least the REC poster has reminded me to wish everyone a Very Happy Christmas! And your parcel? Probably delayed by enemy action, I'm afraid ...

Wow, what a difference a paint job makes! And those other wagons look wonderful, Linny. Anyway, Happy Christmas to you, and to all your readers!

I'm not sure about the demand for this suggestion, but I've always thought that the standard locos produced by the leading builders and bought by lots of early railway companies would be very useful. They may not be as charming as some of the one-off locos, but they would allow the modelling of many more lines. The Stephenson Patentee (easily bashed into the clones produced by other builders) and the Bury 0-4-0 are certainly a good start here. Many congratulations on having such a good range already. Personally I'd love to see Sharp Roberts and Rennie singles, which would make it possible to model the early railways south of the Thames, and a Bury 2-2-0 would be wonderful as well. [EDIT: But in fairness, only early railway geeks would spot many of the differences between one single and another. Perhaps a basic generic 2-2-2 single with different domes, chimneys and outside frames for individual builders available as extras might work?] And to be completely unrealistic, 3.5 mm versions of some of these models would be amazing. (Some of the standard designs were sold to European railways as well.)

Looks good! If it helps, in Edit mode (the mode that appears when writing a post or blog entry) simply browse and attach your full-sized photo using the box at the bottom of the page. The name of the graphic file then shows up in the list of attachments, also at the bottom of the edit screen. Put your cursor at the point in your text where you want to photo to appear, then go back to the bottom of the page and press the "Add to post" link next to your chosen photo. The actual photo doesn't appear on the screen in the edit mode, but a reference to it should show up at the relevant point in your text - and when you actually post the message, your photo should magically appear.

Never mind the three people with more talent. Compare yourself with the rest of us who have less talent, Sem! I can't do one-dimensional design, much less three of 'em.

Somehow just pressing Supportive didn't seem enough, Sem! I just wanted to let you know that I'm really impressed with everything you've done, and that you should be very proud of your talent. And if you need homespun philosophy to go with the praise, then,I'll add it is a hobby and no one actually dies if a model takes a bit longer to develop than originally planned.

Many thanks, Cypherman, that does look interesting as well. At 20p a kg that's definitely within my modelling budget ... and the remaining 24 kilos will find a home on the patio!

Many thanks! Kris, you've confirmed my suspicions, but ever the optimist I thought it was worth a try. Thanks for the chinchilla sand suggestion, Spikey - I'm kicking myself for not thinking of that as I've used the stuff for 1840s ballast in the past. I do want some variation in colours, so I'll try 3-4 different brands and see if the colour changes between them. Jeff, using generic sand seems a good idea too - at least I should be able to get some decent colour variation if I mix together chinchilla and other fine sands. Of course, it will be a bit ironic modelling Brighton beach with sand when that's the very thing the resort lacks in real life!

At the risk of restarting last year's hats 'n' caps debate, this looks an interesting way to add a smart titfer to plastic figures: https://www.shapeways.com/product/596TDEZEY/bowler-and-top-hats-large-assortment-ho-scale-1-87?optionId=41278322&li=marketplace Shame it's just in HO, but might work with smaller 4mm figures too?

I want to model a section of shingle beach for a micro-layout of Brighton's Volks Electric Railway. The pebbles on Brighton beach are relatively small, so a mixture of grey and reddish-brown N gauge ballast might be suitable. But the shingle has been worn smooth by millennia of wave action, unlike the jagged ballast normally found on railway track beds. Is there a brand of N gauge ballast that is more rounded / smoother than other brands? Does anyone have any tips on other materials or techniques to mimic beach shingle? Thanks for any advice and suggestions!

Perhaps it's time to build a shoe box layout? Anyway, hope the home search goes well.

Sounds interesting. I'm certainly looking forward to any hints on modifying Pugs!

A wonderful video, and outstanding modelling.

I've tried to sort out Rocket's evolution to my own satisfaction (thus setting the bar conveniently low), mostly using Michael Bailey and John Glithero's (2002) The Stephensons' Rocket; A history of a pioneering locomotive (NRM, York): (a) A few weeks after the Liverpool and Manchester line opened, one of Rocket's tender axles broke, killing a rail enthusiast who had hitched an unauthorised ride. Because Rocket was already outdated, the company decided to add several improvements to the general repairs: a steam dome, an internal steam pipe, a shorter chimney, a raised fire grate and a smoke-box and ash-box. The improvements allowed Rocket to be upgraded from goods to passenger trains. (b) But in January 1831 Rocket was badly damaged when it came off the rails and fell on its side. This is when the repairing contractors lowered the cylinder angle to the near horizontal position (along the way, swopping over and inverting the two cylinders). This work also added the large, cylinder-carrying frames ,as well as the front buffer beam. © In the autumn of 1831 Rocket was involved in a collision while loaned to the Wigan Branch Railway. The cylinders were re-bored and improved pistons fitted, but there were no visible changes that I can see. (d) Following a few years relegated to L&M works traffic, Rocket was sold to the Earl of Carlisle for colliery work at Naworth in Oct 1836. Although Bailey and Giithero talk about "further repairs and modifications" before it went into service, the main visible change that I can see is the extensions bolted beneath the front buffer beam to work with chauldron wagons. (e) The colliery withdrew Rocket from service around 1840, storing it in a shed at Kirkhouse. During storage all its brass and copper components were sold off for scrap, reducing it to an outline of the loco. (f) In 1851 there was a plan to show Rocket at the Great Exhibition, and it was sent to Robert Stephenson's factory for refurbishment. But the plan fell through because so many fittings had been stripped and sold; Rocket was simply pushed into a corner of the factory and left there. (g) Stephenson & Co did do some refurbishment after the loco was donated to the Patent Office in 1862, but seem to have done rather a poor job which "resulted in an artefact that represented neither its original nor its end-of-service appearance". Eventually Rocket made its way to the Science Museum, where the curator Ernest Forward tried to restore it to a more accurate condition, including the replacement chimney fitted in 1936.But otherwise Forward seems to have just removed the incorrect later additions, rather than replacing them with more accurate ones. That's probably more detail than most people need, but I thought it might be worth posting it for reference. Various drawings were produced during the 1830s and 1840s because of the Rocket's historic significance, and I think it's useful to be able to spot the changes that had taken place over time.