Brassey

Readers may have observed that the last picture of the baseboard end finishes on a curve and cant which is not the ideal way to enter or leave a fiddle yard. I had not really concentrated much on this end of the layout as the opposite end features the station building and a road over bridge which makes a natural scenic break. Under the bridge I had allowed for a straight, flat roadbed. Anyway, at the other end I need to add a transition piece to remove the curve and cant before the "minimal" fiddle yard. So it was back into Templot to add an "easement to straight" as I wanted a smooth transition from the existing transition curve (which might help prevent derailments in P4 too!). Herewith an image of the Templot plan which is not the most exciting piece of track ever drawn but shows what is required. Templot automatically created the additional piece in one panel length (294mm) which conveniently is about the the amount of room I have to play with at that end of the layout. The track is to LNWR spec.

Well not too much progress to report a year on. The track is laid on 2 of the 3 scenic boards with the 3rd started. A change in location though has required a rethink on the fiddle yards so I am occupied with that at the moment. Here is a shot from one end; point blades etc. still to be added when this shot was taken. Peter

Not sure whose make the GB4 gearbox is but some with grub screws recommend filing a flat on the axle where the grub screw engages. Otherwise the screw can throw the gear off centre when fully tightened resulting in too tight a mesh in places. Peter

Gordon, I've laid half my track with the chair keys pointing the wrong way - I know it's there but who else will notice so I've left it. Peter

Great photos all. It would be nice to see some much earlier examples from pre-grouping days

Both look very well David. Sorry that your flanges have taken a bashing again on the LNWRS Forum - guess it was I who started that one. Look forward to a lined version sometime soon. Cheers Peter

Hi David My kit is Brassmasters etched brass and I already have the wheels (Sharman's), I just wanted to make sure that I had not missed something with the flanges as all my drivers have them on. I have a set of wheels for my LRM C Class from Alan Gibson including a pair in a flangless version all in the correct H spoke profile. For me the C class 0-8-0 will be ahead of the Experiment though I have to make sure both will run round my curves; not sure which will be the most troublesome. In the meantime I might have a go at an LRM underframe kit inspired by your thread. i have a 32' 6 wheel PO vehicle to build. Peter

OK. I know some of the 0-8-0's had no flanges on a pair of centre drivers; I thought that I'd missed something on the Experiments. I too have one of these to build. Peter

It looks like your POW has no flanges on the centre drivers. Is there a reason for that?

I am not sure that the LNWR transfers are available as Methfix only Pressfix. Peter

In P4 I doubt we have the luxury of being able to reduce the axle length as the wheels are pretty much on the limits when set to the correct back to back. I have built a couple of the Brassmasters Cleminson underframes and a few of their bogies too in P4. IIRC they come with tophat bearings supplied and when I used these, i had no problem with 26mm axles. Thanks to Jol for reminding about the article in the latest S4 news about inconsistencies between different manufacturers of bearings; must re-read that one as it's more relevant than I thought! Cheers Peter Edit: looking again at the images on the thread Mike, you don't appear to have used the bearings supplied which are more cone shaped than the ones you fitted. You can see them in the first shot of all the components. Peter

Having read all the threads on here about using IPA to clean track, I went round all the Chemists including a large Boots and some Hardware stores last week and not one of them stocked any. I eventually managed to buy some on Amazon. Not tried it on my new track yet though. Peter

The cab interior is beginning to look good. I'll have to post some more pics of my ex-K's Dean Goods which is getting a similar treatment. Peter

Hi Darren Thanks for the post and sharing the image. I have indeed seen this rare view of this side of the station before and the photographer has shared higher resolution versions of this and another view with me. The LNWR Society last year acquired a folder of notes and images of this part of the line and I have copies of those images too which date from around the same time in the 1960's. What is far more rare are any views in pre-grouping days. I did enquire of Berrington Hall as to whether they had any pictures taken at the station as I would have thought the family in that house would have made much use of the station (and the loading dock). I have not yet received a reply. The Hall itself has quite a history too as it is reputed to be haunted because all 3 of the sons that were there at the time were killed in the First World War. I think the building was owned at the time by a cloth merchant from Manchester or something similar. Peter

I've mentioned this build of a GWR 6 wheeler elsewhere so by way of an update here's an old pic of the body coming together which looks a bit of a mess but should improve with painting. It's currently in the paint shop and I will post some more updates when it's a bit more presentable. Peter

Yes I did caveat my comment with "off shed". Here's an official LNWR pic to prove it. The black DX 1979 in the background is unlined.

I can't speak for the Midland but the lining on LNWR rolling stock was definitely very clearly visible. The locos were also spotless in pre-grouping days when they went off shed. I'm not referring to contemporary accounts; there are thousands of photos in the LNWR Society library that prove it.

Having reviewed the whole thread, I think the one at Didcot bears the closest resemblance. Thanks for posting. Cheers. Peter

Thanks all for bringing this thread to life again. I have only just caught up after the Xmas break! I have come to the conclusion that the original building in question is unlikely to have been used as a lamp hut and I inadvertently used that as a generic term for such a corrugated iron building of which, it now seems, there was considerable variety. I followed the suggestion of looking in Ericplans which does also have an LMS version so in fact the building at Berrington & Eye might not even have been erected by the GWR (it was on a LNWR/GWR Joint line); so it could have been one supplied by one of the independent companies manufacturing these around the 1890's 1900's. A number of other stations on the line had, what would appear to be, Good sheds/offices in this position. And as there is no other such building on the site, I am assuming that is what this building was used for. I will probably resort to scratch building using dimensions quoted on this thread. So all this has been most helpful. I have attached a crop of the station building showing the hut from another angle which shows the doors. This could well prompt more discussion as to the buildings origin. Cheers Peter

Thanks Nick, I was beginning to think that was the case myself - I do have some photos from other angles showing the doorway. Cheers Peter

Thanks once again Robin this time for suggesting the source for a model. Attached is a close-up of the offending article in 1932. It never struck me that this might be a standard GWR structure until I saw a RTR 2mm version for sale on a popular auction site. The maintenance of the buildings, permanent way, signalling switched between the LNWR and GWR over time; the signal box for example was commissioned by the LNWR, so I had not considered there would be any GWR structures in the station limits. In the foreground is what I think is a standard LNWR post mounted oil lamp (and a GWR trolley); anyone any ideas what the board/sign might have been leaning on the hut? (Order will be on its way to Dart Castings soon.) Peter

Just a quick update on the layout progress; there's not much to see from the photography which is not a strong point of mine. I have now completed all the road bed by laying a second layer of 6mm ply and achieving the desired cant by packing the road bed at the cross-members under the top. (See earlier pics to see the cross-members from underneath.) I have then stuck the Templot track plan onto the roadbed using PVA. I hope that you can make out in the photo that I have superimposed original LNWR turnout plans over the Templot output in the appropriate places using Photoshop. The plain track was already configured to LNWR specs in Templot with help from Martin Wynne via this site. I am now ready to start laying track which I plan to do directly onto the baseboard. I am going this route, rather than build the track off board, in order to preserve the flow of the transition curves. Hopefully ther will be more to see when I finally get some track laid but maybe not this side of Christmas. Peter Edited to move image!

Thanks Robin so much for finding this. On checking the o/s maps on old-maps, there is a structure on the platform in the1903 map that is not there in the 1888-1891 view so I guess that must be right that it was erected around 1903; I will therefore include one in my model. Actually, I don't find these huts that attractive and they are not in-keeping with the rest of the station but in the interests of accuracy, I'll build one. I have a modified version of the scaled map on my layout thread if anyone is interested in seeing where it was positioned. The earliest picture I have of that part of the station is 1936 so I was not sure whether it would have been there in 1912. Thanks all again for your responses. Cheers. Peter

I wondered if anyone knew when the GWR introduced their standard corrugated iron lamp huts? There was one on the station I am modelling but as I am building 1912 I doubt that it was in existence then.

It is precisely the liveries, the lining, the orderlyness of the permanent way etc. that make this period so attractive. One has to persevere to acquire the skills or work arounds to achieve the desired result though I have heard from some who have abandoned pre-grouping because these things are too time consuming.