Brassey

Carriage marshalling documents do survive and one can identify the carriage diagram sometimes by deduction for example if it states brake third with 3 compartments - there may not be many diagrams that fit that description. Most of the descriptions were looser than that though. But in the case of the LNWR for example, if it states 6 wheel break van, then the LNWR only made one diagram of that type in great quantity and was a vehicle in wide use in pre-grouping days. Regarding "strengtheners", in the marshalling documents (sometimes confusingly called diagrams) movements were balanced which showed how the vehicles were allocated in both directions. Sometimes the allocation was written on the solbar as per some photos in Russell so carriages usually worked the same train every day. So I don't get the impression there was much stock unallocated lying around in sidings. However, sometimes there may be a comments such as: on market days Shrewsbury to provide an additional 2nd class carriage, so there must have been some.

The bearings should be a loose enough fit in the guides so that they fall out under their own weight but definitely not sloppy. Were these acquire used? Both the MJT and LRM types are unsprung so will need either some beam compensation or CSB setup.

But Tony Wright is building for 00. For P4 you need to employ different techniques to rigid. I have a feeling this chassis is EM?

As we are dealing with some small tolerances between a free and stiff chassis, I am not sure how you can establish this without using the jig to assemble the chassis. I have never encountered a problem when soldering with 145 degree on my Hobby Holidays jig. One solution to the heatsink issue is to solder the side away from the main body of the jig first, take the chassis off, flip it and solder the other side. Another thought is that with an all horn block construction, the wheelbase is a moveable feast as things move up and down, so you will need to open out the rods slightly. However, looking at the pics, you appear to be using the Romford crank pins which IIRC are about 1mm whereas the Hobby Holidays jig is designed to use 1.5mm rod holes so I am wonder whether the jig was setup using these rods?

I am currently building the same chassis but I can't see how using the RR+ doesn't end up with the back end of the gearbox in the cab. I am going to resort to using the drive stretcher as per the Dean Goods configuration.

I live in Stretton. There are a number of Naval graves in the churchyard including a number of young ladies from the base that were killed on the road one night either to or from a dance in Warrington. Very sad.

The RCTS "The Birkenhead Railway" states: GW '3571' class 3577 worked from October 1895 to March 1949. In February 1912, 3577 was at Birkenhead. 3580 was also at Birkenhead that year...from 1907 the 3571's were augmented by Metro classes displaced from the London suburban lines electrification. At the turn of the century, tank engines generally took over from tender engines; 517's as well as the Metros. Herewith at Heswall with a 517 in charge of LNWR stock: "The larger passenger engines shedded at Chester rarely, if ever, saw Birkenhead and the Paddington expresses could be headed by almost anything from either company over this section." "The vacuum braked goods which the GW pioneered around the turn of the century were hauled by passenger engines."

This is a pic of a GWR 2-4-0 3240 at Manchester Exchange. It has probably come from Birkenhead and is being turned for the return Journey. It looks to me to be in the pre-1906 Indian Red livery. I do not know the date of the photo but might be within your time frame. In 1912 3240 was indeed shedded at Birkenhead by which time at had acquired a B4 Belpaire boiler instead of the round top pictured. The 3232 class is in the Martin Finney range now sold by Brassmasters and would avoid scratch building. Tender engines coming from Birkenhead heading for Manchester were facing the right direction whereas the GWR expresses heading West via Shrewsbury required a reversal at Chester so I think it is likely that a Chester engine took them forward from there and maybe a more lowly engine brought them out of Birkenhead.

The LNWR tender passenger locos were as follows: Birkenhead - 18 1912 ‘Small Jumbo’ 35 Talisman, 486 Skiddaw London Road Models provide a kit for these in 4mm All the other LNWR locos at Birkenhead were either tank engines, probably engaged on the Manchester services, or goods engines.

I have some listings for 1912 that are arranged by engine number not by allocation. If you are genuinely interested in building a certain class then I can see whether any of that class were allocated to Birkenhead or indeed Chester. Unlike the LNWR, the GWR did not issue its numbers so randomly so most are arranged by class but there are about 3,000 numbers to go through. As this was a joint line, the LNWR had a presence but you may have that information already.

Also minus its lookout duckets

The short answer is I don't know but it might be worth asking this on the LNWR Society Facebook page as there will be more knowledgable members on there than I.

It's the same as the Dean Goods.

Most cattle wagons were fitted so would have been near the engine with a fitted head or in a complete cattle train. To elaborate on my previous reply on horse traffic, if you intended to travel with your horse, you would likely need to order a horse box to your local station a couple of days beforehand. I do not think a train arrived with a horse box marshalled somewhere therein and you put your horse into that, though no doubt this did happen. So under the first scenario, the train engine would have to collect the loaded horse box from whatever siding or bay it was left. This is why most horse boxes ended up next to the engine. Also at the other end of the train the horse would be more likely to be thrown around even with passenger stock. My memory of this comes from the LNWR/GWR joint handbook which IIRC stated that all horse boxes on the Shrewsbury section ordered would be GWR and on the Birkenhead LNWR. I will look and see what the arrangements were. Obviously at large termini arrangements could have been different but most of us do not model large termini.

I tend to use the MJT Hornblocks with brass chassis and High Level in Nickel and there is no other justification for the preference. As previously alluded to though, one advantage of the High Level version is that soldering is not necessary in preparation although I do add a touch. I have used the Comet and Brassmasters sprung hornblox in sprung chassis and will use the system supplied with the Finney kits in those chassis. One element of the Hobby Holidays jig and other similar systems is that it is intended that the rods are used to initially set the jig up before fitting the hornblox. To proceed without this would be a leap of faith that the rods afterwards would fit without binding. I have done this once with Comet chassis in the trust that the frames and rods were on the same fret. However, if the rods are from different suppliers, then the likliehood of a mismatch are greater.

In my experience there is a certain amount of tolerance in the 6mm cutouts of Gibson milled chassis that obviate the need for further fettling. On the basis that the two sides are mirror images and if the first horn block goes in then the second should do also (assuming the frames have been assembled square). Another issue is whether the wheelbase for the rods are the same as as for the frames. I have encountered this problem with LRM chassis where the rods were out thus making the hornblocks tight. A further issue is getting the blighters soldered in square. I too have a Hobby Holidays jig and use that combined with an engineers square to do this. IIRC this may have been covered on the S4 Society Forum

OK, As Gibson hornblocks (which I have never used) are sprung then we can assume the chassis is being built sprung which obviates the need for a fixed axle. I too would support the previous endorsement of the High Level hornblocks as being exquisite though I am currently working on an Alan Gibson milled chassis using the MJT brass hornblocks. No connection etc.

Are you building this compensated or sprung?

I have found the original map in a 1912 LNWR timetable in amongst adverts at the back. There is no key on the original either thus the purpose of the map is to show the distance of principal stations from London. Having worked in publishing, I can assume that McC used this simple map as a “filler” to take up ad space they failed to sell. As an historical record of the entire LNWR system it has its faults. One can assume the LNWRS chose it for their website because it is mono and relatively simple. At the very back of the timetable there are colour fold out maps that are far more detailed

The key to the map is missing but it might have been helpful as it somewhat confusing. Bristol is shown which the LNWR never reached but it too was accessible by through carriage but so too was Penzance not shown. Scotland is omitted which was on the West Coast Joint route north of Carlisle.

Is it likely that such a train was not initially marshalled with the carriage truck but rather that was collected at a station en route. The train engine would have had been detached to enter the yard or bay to pick it up hence the carriage truck being next the engine. It's easier to do that than reverse a whole train into a siding. Also IIRC, carriage trucks were mainly end loading so could not be delivered with stock between them and the offloading facility. Makes for interesting movements at a small country station. Whilst on the subject, the land for the station that I model, was acquired from the Rodney family the then inhabitants of Berrington Hall. A condition of the sale was that the station was provided for their use and Lord and Lady had their own waiting room in the station building for their exclusive use. I rather fancy that the cattle/loading dock was also built for their own use for horse traffic movements. Again, I also assume the hunt might have come and gone by train in those days. The Working Timetable would designate to which trains such vehicles could NOT be attached. But I seem to recall that the most highest levels of society in those days had the power to stop any train, even expresses, to pick up their horse box particularly if the line crossed their land.

Interesting. I too have one of these to build. Which motor/gearbox are you planning to use?

Why EM rather than P4? If you are buying wheels and making track it might as well be P4 PS: I would do the Pannier first as it would be easier than the 45XX because it does not have outside cylinders to worry about. In EM you will have to be mindful of the clearance behind the cylinders. However, High Level chassis kits are the more complicated

I am sure this has been raised before but I wonder whether Horseboxes were ever finished in Crimson Lake.

Thanks Guys! The embankment was quite vulnerable due to the holes in the open frame through which any derailed stock could have fallen into the floor below. As I gradually build up stock, I thought fixing this was a priority. It’s a lot easier to work on the far side of the layout when it’s dismantled for a move. Might be a while before another update but I still need to paint the far up platform which was a job I ran out of time to do.