Nick Holliday

Boxhill was at Brighton until 1911 (your chosen date) when it was sent to Tunbridge Wells, as a 2-4-0T. As I noted before it is very unlikely that it would have retained IEG as late as that, probably reverting to umber prior to it becoming shed pilot at Brighton in 1909. If you want an A1 in black, then, for your period, 638 (Millwall) is your answer. It had been pumping at Three Bridges from 1901 and, rather surprisingly for such a relegated loco, it was towed to Brighton in October 1905 and emerged shortly after in black with red lining, lettered LOCO DEPT and fitted with wooden number-plates but without condensing pipes. (Photo in Middlemass - a must if you're modelling Terriers) It remained on duty at Brighton until 1918 when it was sold to the Admiralty for use at Invergordon. Bradley reports that 673 was initially allocated in 1907 to the Hayling Island branch and 679 was sent in 1906 for Chichester to Portsmouth workings. This would suggest that they were shedded at Fratton. In 1912 (close to your date) 673 had moved to Tunbridge Wells, with 679 still at Fratton. In March 1912 Brighton had 642, 644, 647, 674 and 681, the last (681) NOT fitted for motor train use. As two A1X were rebuilt in 1911 (albeit in November) they meet your chosen date criteria. However, those two, 677 and 678, were at Tunbridge Wells and Horsham respectively. However, only just outside your chosen year, 647 was a Brighton loco emerging in January 1912 amd another was 644, a touch later, coming out in November 1912.

As I said earlier, the history of Iis quite complex, and I forgot to refer to another source, Maskelyne's Locos of the LBSCR which says In 1909, Nos 642 and 682 - to use their later numbers - were taken over by the Locomotive Department and employed as Yard shunter at Battersea and Works shunter at Brighton respectively. For several years they both had no numbers and were lettered “Locomotive Department” but in 1922 the Battersea engine was re-transferred to the Running Department, she had her number reinstated: and the initials of the Company painted on the side tanks in the standard style. It is also worthy of note that this engine, always retained the umber brown livery adopted by Mr. Marsh for passenger engines, while the Brighton shunter was painted in the standard Goods livery, black with red lining, though she was afterwards altered to umber. The latter engine was never transferred to the Running Department but remained in the service of the Locomotive Department at Brighton right down to the end of 1923, and, latterly, was lettered "Locomotive Department, Brighton.” This is not quite compatible with other printed sources, but perhaps as it was written in 1928 JNM was a little closer to the events than later commentators.

As @Wheatley suggested, check the Caley Coaches and DJH websites, where you’ll find some.

As I understand it, every gas works had a gasometer, which was the equipment needed to measure the quantity of gas being produced, before it was stored in the gasholder. Unfortunately, and rather confusingly, the g**meter name got applied incorrectly fairly early on - even the Ordnance Survey used both terms apparently at random, at least from their Victorian editions.

William Any chance of you slowing down to give us lesser mortals a chance to catch up with you? Not sure where you are getting your information from, but Gipsy Hill was originally numbered 43, and was put on the Duplicate List as No. 643 in April 1902. It lost its name in May 1906, and would have been painted in the then new(ish) umber livery and left the shops ready for service on the motor trains - one of the earliest after the pioneering pair, working on the Hayling Island branch. 1919 was the year she received the new boiler and became an A1X. Minories had a similar history - lost her name in July 1906, painted umber and fitted out for motor train working the same year. Renumbered 679 in 1907 and to A1X in 1912. Does any of that fit in with the Rails model? BTW the last loco to run in Stroudley IEG was E5 Tillington, which, thanks to cosseting by New Cross depot staff, retained it until September 1917! Boxhill's history is complicated. There is much dispute as to the exact livery she received when converted to 2-4-0 and motor working in 1905. Written sources note she was in a green livery, but as Stroudley's "yellow" was titled "Improved Engine Green" there is scope for ambiguity, but it is difficult to see why commentators would get excited if the only change was the revised corners to the lining. I have no record as to when Boxhill lost her name and received umber paint - your 1909 date is not unlikely, and certainly it would have gone by the time of her return to six-wheel drive, which was in June 1913. However, she received her duplicate number of 682 in November 1911. She continued to be employed on motor train duties from Tunbridge Wells until 1920, when she was transferred back to Brighton Works, where she had spent a year after her re-conversion, and an early stint from 1898 to 1905, before she was plucked from obscurity for here transformation. In 1920, however, she was actually lettered for the task, Loco Works Brighton, lost here number, but had it replaced by a Brighton crest on the bunker, which survived until grouping. It should be noted that, apart from Boxhill, to the best of my knowledge no other Terrier worked a motor train in Stroudley livery, carrying a name. For the record, No. 662 was fitted with motor train gear in October 1909, at the same time losing its name and emerging in umber, as did No. 678 in May 1907. However 662 had to wait until December 1912 to receive its new A1X boiler, 678 getting hers in November 1911. In 1912, 662 was stationed at West Croydon and 678 at Horsham, where she had been since around 1907, but by 1916 they were both stationed together at Littlehampton. (Your 1911 date is getting a bit battered!) If I remember correctly the original Dapol model is rather a mongrel, and does not accurately represent a pukka Brighton A1X conversion, as the sandboxes above the running plate have been retained, as per the home-brewed Isle of Wight conversions.

I'm deeply envious that you have acquired a bounty of Triang clerestories. I also admire your prodigious output, as I am lucky to turn out a wagon a year! However, I suggest you perhaps have a re-think of your proposals, if you are still pursuing the versions you outlined earlier. 54' Carriages @t-b-g if I remember correctly Mr Denny had an article on converting the Tri-ang Clerestories to GCR coaches in RM and I seem to remember one of the changes was the pivoting arrangement to the bogie to reduce the ride height, as well as scale wheels? I'm studying Terry Gough's articles and they've required a bit of re-reading but I think I've distilled it down to the following (the ones I actually need are highlighted in green): 2 Tri-ang Brake 3rds can make: 6 Compt. Brake 3rd D139 5 Compt. Brake 3rd with Luggage D74 5 Compt Brake 2nd with Luggage D129 8 Compt. 3rd D140 2 Tri-ang Composites can make: 8 Compt. Tri-composite D151 The D74 is actually a much more common vehicle than the D129, but I already have an embarrassment of brake thirds and frequently bogie trains ran with 6w brake carriages - maybe it can come later. 48' Carriages While I'm at it, I may as well note the Ratio MR coaches are a bit less fertile ground: Ratio MR Suburban All First 7 Compt as D60 (converted Suburban to Mainline 7 compt. All First) Ratio MR Suburban All 3rd 8 Compt. as D67 Ratio MR Suburban Brake 3rd 6 Compt. as D63 (add new end duckets) I'll tackle the Tri-ang carriages first I think! One problem is that the Triang Composite is no such thing. It is actually based on a full-second, so all the compartments are the same width, 6' 6", as compared with the thirds in the brake which are 5' 10". The D151 composite had compartments 5'9"/7'4½"/6'5"/7'4½"/7'4½"/6'2½"/6'2½"/6'2½". I'm not sure that the 7'4½" width is actually possible to derive from the moulding, and if it were, there would be an incredible amount of cutting and a lot of wastage to achieve it. The D139 and D74 are feasible, but the D129 is only possible by grafting 5 compartments from one of the seconds onto a brake section, as the compartments are 6'3¾". The D140 that you quote as being 8 compartments was a one-off, and also appears to have actually had 9 compartments. The other types of nine compartment third were far more numerous , with 9 x 5'10½" compartments. Although you are embarrassed by your brake thirds, it should be remembered that the majority of these coaches ended up as three-coach sets, with a composite of some type sandwiched between two brake thirds, but not a full third. One composite that might be should easily created using half a second and half a brake third is D61/86. This comprised 4 first class (!?) compartments of 6'6" and 4 third class ones, at 5'8½" and was an unusual length of 50'. It is probably worth noting that the Ratio kits have almost the same compartment size, so they don't really offer a viable alternative to create some of the more unusual arrangements, being 5'10½" and 6'8½". The D60 first and the D67 third could be produced from the Triang coaches, although a bit harder to achieve, and slightly under-length, and the 50' composite could be produced from Ratio kits as well. It might be worth re-evaluating which source gives you the best result, especially if you have a good supply of the Triang models. The Triang moulding is much closer to Brighton dimensions, but the solid design of the coach means that all cutting is much more awkward, the roof and end mouldings have to be disposed of, but the brake ends may offer greater scope for re-use, including the duckets, although much cutting and splicing might be required. The Ratio sides have an incorrect deeper waist moulding which might show up badly against the Triang one, or any brass kits, although the impact could be reduced if they are presented in all-over umber, so that the white panels don't emphasise the difference, but the sides are separate and thus easier to cut and splice, and they may be available from Peco separately, saving buying whole kits to throw much away, the ends might be recyclable by straightening out the turn-under and the roof has potential. On both the door grab rails need to be removed - I have found this quite easy on a Ratio side, but I've not attacked by Triang specimens yet.

The whole thing is rather more complicated than this! There were two B4’s called Sussex. The first was number 72, which carried its name until July 1907, so totally compatible with the painting, as the H1 Atlantics appeared 1905/6. The confusion arises from the fact that, at the time the decision was made to perpetuate the name Sussex, both 52 (Siemens) and 72 (Sussex) were in Brighton works. No 52 had less work to be done on it, so it emerged first, having acquired its new name and umber livery. The Circle entry probably refers to the situation that No 52 was included in the livery trials, in September 1905, so it lost its Stroudley livery, receiving instead one of the green variants, but retaining its name, so the three year gap is likely to cover this; there seems to be little documentary evidence to say how long these experimental liveries survived.

Could it be an Exley model which has seen rather bad times? The quality of the paintwork suggests a factory finish, the only problem is that it seems that they used aluminium sheet, not tinplate, although things may have changed over the long period they were in production, and I don’t know if they produced this particular type of carriage.

According to the information here http://www.gwrcoaches.org.uk/index.html there were a couple of broad gauge composites built in 1874 with clerestory roofs, later converted to narrow gauge, but the main production of such roofs on six and eight wheeled stock began in 1876.

It looks as if you could hide a HighLevel gearbox in what I assume is the cylinder housing, with the motor in the boiler. They have conveniently provided connections between the boiler and cylinders to hide the drive shaft, and the gearbox can be off-centre to suit, if necessary.

Just for the record this is an RCH drawing from 1923 of a three link coupling from the https://www.cs.rhul.ac.uk/~adrian/steam/RCHWagons/index.html website

According to Russell et al, the GWR built at least one “posting saloon”, a four wheeled broad gauge saloon with a clerestory roof in 1838, which may have survived to 1856, built there seems to be little evidence of other examples until an 1876 bogie coach, although there may have been some slightly earlier six-wheeled ones, but Russell is not clear on that point.

Careful, Stephen, a factoid is not what you may think it is - I blame Steve Wright. Qoute from the Guardian

Not sure why my name has been given as an "expert" on LBSC liveries, as I know no more than the books tell me, and I have a degree of scepticism regarding the proper experts' ideas of different shades. After all, we all perceive colour differently so we all may be right. But, any way, just to try to answer William's queries. Very few of the four-wheeled stock received the umber and white livery, so I suspect that they probably continued in mahogany colour for quite some time. Many were on the verge of being scrapped, so the repainting option may not have been worthwhile anyway, and, to be honest, to my eyes, the difference in colour between an aged mahogany style finish and umber is marginal. Survivors after 1910 or so might have received an all-over umber finish. This would not apply to any six-wheel RTR stock, which mostly would have received the umber and white during its short reign, and so mahogany would be inappropriate for 1910 onwards. As for the type of umber used, the livery books refer to the main colour as raw umber, with a darker umber edging on locos, if that helps. I am not really sure of the difference between raw and burnt umber - various websites and you-tube videos try to demonstrate it, but my suspicion is that there could be as much difference between two suppliers of the same shade as between the two shades themselves. Combine that with the visual effect of colours at 1:76 and the whole thing is debatable, and I don't think there would be a wrong colour.

I like the idea of possessed cheese, presumably only to be eaten when on exorcises.

Although you’re quite right about the GWR being a vacuum braked company, and the LBSC Westinghouse, I think the highly visible cylinder is a gas tank, and thus acceptable on a Brighton vehicle, although perhaps not exactly correct for size.

I had exactly the same problems back in October last year, although it was eventually resolved in February. Perhaps I should have posted on RMweb to get quicker results!

As the Cranleigh Gas Company's sidings, which also served Messrs. Elliott and Son, were private and were remote from the station itself, perhaps deliveries were not recorded for the station yard itself, or maybe only the quantity of wagons recorded; as they were not left in the station yard there was no need for their numbers to be recorded for siding charges etc.

Just for the record, in 1918 the Cranleigh Gas Company received, on average, 18 wagons a month. The large number of wagons from Mendips Granite suggest some sort of major project, with deliveries concentrated over a limited period. This extract from Wikipedia might be an explanation: "Stephen Rowland was a resident who had a major role in the development of the infrastructure of the village. He formed the Cranleigh Gas Company in 1876, and arranged for a mains water supply in 1886. In 1894 he laid out an estate between the Horsham and Ewhurst Roads, building New Park Road, Avenue Road, Mead Road, Mount Road and Bridge Road. He also set up a grocery store. His name is commemorated in that of Rowland Road" In Richard Kelham's book on Somerset PO Wagons, he has reproduced a Mendip Mountain Granite advertisement, coincidently from 1894, which notes they can supply a range of building materials:- Mendip Granite - "The very best material for Macadamizing on heavily trafficked roads" Black Rock - "Especially adapted for ordinary Macadamizing" Building Stone - "A stone for Quoins, Plinths, Base-Courses, Kerbing, Paving, Guttering, &c. ...at a comparatively low cost" "Prices quoted or delivery free at all railway stations" Mr. Rowland may have taken advantage of durable building materials - at a comparatively low cost - resulting in a bulk delivery to his development. There might have been sources of stone from nearer to hand, such as Portland and Bath stone, but they could have been much more expensive, and perhaps less suitable for the tasks in hand. Local stone was not exactly noted for its durability, generally more suitable for lime making.

Your track plan looks very similar to this one, Mike Ball's Ferring - an LBSCR seaside terminus. The only difference is that he has only two platform roads. Mike is an expert on Brighton signalling, so I would think his installation would be a good guide as to what you might require, although Ferring is set at the later end of your proposed dates.

Just for the record, the 48' carriages are the Billinton ones. The 54' ones are the later, post-1906 stock, and the first appeared, in December 1906 when Marsh was in charge, and consisted of pairs of six-wheeled coaches mounted on new underframes. Subsequent 54' carriages were a mixture of similar conversions and new builds to the same basic design.

By way of comparison / contrast, these figures are given in an 1876 symposium on permanent way, regarding renewal costs on a mainline: Rails - per ton - £10.0.0 (Credit £3.15.0) Chairs - per ton - £4.10.0 (Credit £2.15.0) Fishplates - per ton - £8.15.0 (Credit £4.10.0) Fish bolts - per ton - £17.0.0 Spikes - per ton - £14.0.0 Keys - per 1,000 - £3.15.0 Trenails - per 1,000 - £3.15.0 Sleepers - each - 3s 11d Ballast (inc labour) - 2s 6d per cu. yd. (Roughly 1 linear yard's worth) Labour for permanent way - 1s per yard The figures are mainly very similar, notwithstanding the twenty years' difference. I wonder if the colliery was allowing for second-hand rail, chairs and sleepers in their costings?

What about lime works? Found almost everywhere, from the Southeast to the Northeast and into Wales. The landscape might be different, depending on whether chalk or other limestones was the source, but the structures involved were similar wherever you were.

Rumney Models do two types of detailing kits for Bachmann tanks which include four etched ladders in each one. https://website.rumneymodels.co.uk/wagon-detailing I don't know if they are suitable for older models, though.

Your memory is correct. Two Ironclads, Nos. 273 and 275, were transferred from Redhill to Reading in 1903 (some time into SE&CR days). This pair spent much of their time working the Ash-Aldershot shuttle services, although occasionally they appeared on the 7.12 a.m. Reading to London Bridge, which ran non-stop from Reigate. As more of Stirling's F's and B's were cascaded down, life for Ironclads was getting close to the end. 273 and 275 were some of the last to go, in 1906, but they had been transferred away from reading in the meantime. As for Ash shed itself, it is covered well in Hawkins and Reeve's book on Southern Sheds, complete with a drawing of the 1905 version of the building, which, at around 80 feet long is unlikely to have housed the pull-push coaches as well as a loco. It was originally a two road structure, one for locos and the other for goods, but in 1905 the goods shed was removed and, presumably, the engine shed upgraded. It was classed as a sub-shed of Reading, and in SR days received SE&CR 0-4-4T's. In 1933 it became a sub-shed of Guildford, and M7's became the usual residents. However, in SECR days the LSWR also stabled a small tank there, from Guildford shed, to work the Tongham line.