webbcompound

With regard to whether either of the Joint Stock entities were companies, this is merely a terminological issue. They were unincorporated, as intially were all Joint Stock companies but by virtue of operating they were companies. They had boards, they had assets (funded by and apportioned apportioned to the companies which made up the board in a formal agreement which to all intents and purposes defined the relative stock holding), and they had potential liabilities. Being unincorporated each of the participant companies had in principle unlimited liability, but in practice any situation in which a liability was likely to be incurred would be found to be the responsibility of the company constructing the rolling stock, or operating the locomotive, or the track and signalling. the only exception to this would have been if an item of rolling stock incurred an entry on the railway Clearing House Mileage Suspension Account by travelling on the rails of a company which was not a member of the relevant joint stock company. The rolling stock was funded by the aforementioned apportionment, but in the case of the WCJS was all manufactured by the LNWR. Somewhere in the accounts of Wolverton will be the income from the Caledonian Company relating to the 36.54% cost of the stock. I am not familiar with the equivalent agreement between the three East Coast companies.

Mark Tatlow has made an etch for the bogies for these coaches. All you need to do is scratchbuild the rest! He said (back in 2016) that they were available if you contacted him via www.highlandmiscellany.com. There is also a nice photo of an Atlantic pulling a rake of six twelve wheelers in the link https://highlandmiscellany.com/2016/05/22/going-long-part-1-the-underframe/ I would say snap up any bits you see. When I was still employed and had money I failed to buy the kits for the entire LNWR Corridor twelve wheelers (Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen sections) which were available for a couple of years. Then, as these things do, things changed hands and the kits have disappearted from the face of the earth.

With regard to the ECJS stock this contemporary document describes the new six wheel carriages built in 1893, just before the arrival of twelve wheelers. So are these the six wheelers that are turning up in the 1905 ish trains? Maybe not as they all have side corridors. 1163187491_ecjr6wheelstock.pdf

Although there are those who say that the weight and size of the ECJR stock was needed to compensate for the bumpy track, unlike the Premier line whose track was of high quality. The LNWR introduced quite comfortable 50ft corridor stock from 1897 and the marshalling instructions for 1906 show the 2.00pm from Euston having thirteen of these, whereas the the ECJS trains I have seen (not my area of particular knowledge I admit) don't appear to be of an equivalent length. A lot of the difference in approach I think though is down to the West coast having a single company running to the Scottish border, whereas on the East side it was necessary for two companies to co-ordinate their efforts.

Progress so far on 1939 Broadway Limited. Head end cars PB70M and B70.

slow but steady progress on the Illinois Central commuter electric (pantographs just resting in place), plus the beginning of the first car in the 1939 Broadway Limited consist.

Not aware that he painted this subject but it is reminiscent of the style of Alan Sorrel (better known known for reconstruction illustrations of roman and mediaeval stuff).

There was nevertheless an amount of pragmatism in play where necessary as they ran a passenger service to Birkenhead which alternated GWR and LSWR trains on different days. Presumably GWR hauled at the Northern end.

Well no-one has answered this yet so I will: With a 9v battery you just touch the battery contacts to the wheels as the are the right distance apart to use without wires

For your 009 track I recommend the controllers made by Mark Clark at Locos n Stuff. link here They are designed to work with the small motors that will sit in your (inevitably growing) stud of NG locos (but are also fine with any size of motor). I made the mistake of using a Gaugemaster controller which burnt out the motor on a power bogie which I had just built. Mark explains why this happens on his site, apparently they are "only half rectified and have no inbuilt power restrictions", and this may be a problem with other controllers, although old Hornby and H&M are fine.

this is very nice, although as with my layout there is an amount of speculation needed to finish many of the details. My rolling stock is better though!

Although lots of US railroads were broad gauge initially (6ft, and 5ft6inches were popular). Gauge standardisation wasn't finally completed in the South, (where most of the lines were 5ft gauge) till 1886 (just before the GWR finally converted).

considering where we are I'm surprised there has been no discussion of railroading (to force something to happen or force someone to do something, especially quickly or unfairly)

I think the mistake inherent in our hobby is imagining we can be competent in all aspects of layout delivery. research, planning, scenics, rolling stock building, ditto painting, building locos, track, electrics. Logically the answer is do what you are good at and like, and buy the rest off the shelf, or accept a less than perfect result in some areas which nevertheless satisfies the owner. More difficult with electrics, but the answer there is bribe someone else with some of the stuff you are good at to do it for you. As for wargaming, most armies I am aware of spend most of their time on the shelf or in the box, with rare outings to fight. It will all be perfect in the end, but if it isn;'t perfect it just means you havn't reached the end yet.

In the post armageddon world of "A Canticle for Liebowitz" technical knowledge is kept alive through the dark ages in monastries where surviving blueprints and circuit diagrams are carefully hand transcribed onto vellum, (with of course the addition of marginalia and illuminated capitals). Wait a few months and we might yet get there.

From Scalefour Soc: In the early 1960's a group of modellers formed, interested in creating more accurate scale models than the then available commercial options. Initially calling themsleves the Model Standards Study Group, they became known as the Model Railway Study Group (MRSG) as they formalised their work. Comprising: J.S. Brook Smith, D.E. Jones, M.S. Cross, W.L. Kidston, B. Morgan and Dr. B. Weller, they acted to create new, more accurate, standards to build models to. An initial proposal was called EEM, and then the Protofour and related 'Proto' standards were developed. Formalised by the MRSG, these were promoted in a pair of articles in Model Railway News, published in August and September 1966. A further thirteen part series in Model Railway Constructor started the following year, and became a seminal introduction to their ideas and the Protofour and other Proto standards. The group went on to form the Protofour Society, founded in 1969.

Edwardians projects are fasciniting and his approach erudite. They are one of the few sources of light in the current darkness. This has been a long year of isolation and it was perhaps stupid of me to imagine that online communities would provide support, however everything has to end and that includes Webbcompound.

Regularity. Do you make this kind of picky crappy response to everyone, or is it just me?

And hence why I said "it was an early (failed) attempt to make railways conform to 00/H0 instead of EM or P4"". All the information is there, it just needs to be read.

It was an early (failed) attempt to make railways conform to 00/H0 instead of EM or P4. In the end only the Redruth and Chasewater, and the Padarn got it right at 4ft

In the 18th Century a lot of countries had civilian artillery drivers. Of course they couldn't be relied on when fighting started. Can't help feeling that we have been here before

This is also my perception. This leads to the conclusion that by and large macro scale generalisations about traffic are relatively pointless, and attempts to draw on "foreign" (ie just down the road) examples are similarly problematic. This means that without detailed research on the particular location it is not possible to say what is happening, (for example a major flow might exist, but it might simply bypass a particular location) and in many cases very little actually exists to suit the fine detail we (mostly) require. After a lot of searching, and after locating very few photos, I can be confident I know which mines were operational at my chosen date (1906-7), in my chosen location (Connah's Quay). I cannot be confident about what wagons they were using. Some wagons "probably" got repainted whilst others didn't, some wagon orders give an indication of numbers of wagons bought, but not necessarily how many were in service, some references to coal factors and merchants may indicate which of their wagons were present, but these are rarely date specific enough to be sure, so I have a spread that suits my own ideas, and anyone else looking at them is probably not in possession of sufficient data to disagree.

Agree that a blanket statement is unwise. I would be surprised however if coal was travelling beyond the LNWR system in LNWR wagons at this point simply because of the way coal was ordered and purchased, either direct from the colliery, or through a merchant. The use of an LNWR wagon would to me imply coal bought to be delivered within the LNWR system, which could easily soak far more than 7000 wagons.

The coal, wherever it came from is unlikely to be in Railway Company wagons. My own (admittedly limited) look at Connah's Quay suggests that coal would mostly arrive in Colliery wagons, or in coal merchant wagons (the latter can be misleading as some merchants were not just local single wagon operations but could rival the biggest collieries in wagion fleet size). Interestingly the contracts held by these merchants could lead to coal from strange (to us) sources, probably as a result of either competitive bidding, or of surpluses in an existing contract..

I think the young person response to this discussion is OMFG. I have relatives in the medical professions in hospitals. They are pretty clear how close we have sailed, and are sailing to public health disaster. They live it and work it every day. The problem is caused by pitifully low levels of medical facilities for a civilised country but it is too late to do anything about that at short notice. The issue of businesses suffering is not that restrictions should be eased, but that support for businesses should be provided (we manage it for finance with "quantitative easing" which has been authorised this month at the level of £875 billion, or over £13,000 for every adult and child in the UK). My current view as a humane liberal sort of chap is that those who consider precautions too strict should be allowed to enjoy their freedom in special holiday camps for everyone else's safety, and those who deliberately flout mask requirements should be shot.