Nick Holliday

10 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Fair enough - I was thinking of running round a terminating passenger, which would of course be unnecessary with a push pull set.  I'm not convinced there's any need for a goods to run round, but I'm sure we've discussed that before so I won't labour the point any more.

Since pull-push operations only started in the early 1900’s, if the services before then had required trains to terminate at this station, there would have to have been some way for the loco to run round, and it is unlikely that the arrangements would have been removed until modernisation in the sixties or thereabouts.

As for the goods run round, the loco needs to be at the left hand end of the train to shunt the yard, so, without a run round, the only trains that could serve the yard would be those running clockwise. A not uncommon situation in real life, but reducing the operating potential on the model.

5 hours ago, Izzy said:

Okay, hope this will help. A quick play with Templot. Others could no doubt do much better and clearer.

 

 

Top, a LH A6 point. An A6 has blades with a deflection of 1:24.  As you will see the blade deflection, as you might expect, is to the left.

 

Next, the same but with curvature to the right of the 'main' road. The blade deflection is still to the left.

 

Bottom, an A6 with equal blade deflection. So the total deflection of that 1:24 is 1:12 each side.

 

The advantage is a larger radius with both routes. But general opinion seems to be that they only found use in goods yards etc.

 

Bob

Sorry.  I am probably being totally thick, but none of that makes any sense.  Like many, I suspect, I still have no idea what blade deflection is, and I certainly could not expect it "to the left".  Your second diagram looks, to me, like the first but distorted to give a curve to the previously straight rail.  Can it still be called an A6 turnout and how do we tell that the blade deflection is still to the left?

If you superimpose the two contra-flexed diagrams, there is little to chose between the two, but as the equal blade(?) version is shorter, I cannot see which has the advantage of a "larger radius".

Looking through several albums, from L&YR to GER and LBSCR for starters, I came across plenty of examples of contra-flexed points, particularly at junctions where the two main lines disappear in different directions; so how are we to tell which is which; and did the real track designers call some of them y-points or what?

20 hours ago, 57xx said:

 

For anything in particular? There is a few variations there.

 

This is the layout on a Siphon C for example:

@57xx Thanks for the photo. I was thinking more along the lines of the unfitted versions. On fitted ones like your Siphon the brake handles connect fairly simply to the main operating rod, whereas I am having difficulty visualising how everything fits together on the unfitted wagons, the various bits being fairly visible on a layout model.

@kada33 Thanks for the offer of the John Lewis diagram, but I think I have got it somewhere. I was rather hoping that you had created G1 models of the various forms of D-C brakes, with the brake gear in Stroudley’s Improved Engine Green, as your first picture made everything so much clearer.

8 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Speaking, as we were, of London coal factors, here's one for Stephenson Clarke spotters:

 

 

Embedded link to photo on "Our Bow" website, credited to Science Museum.]

 

Broad street station approaches, 1898. No. 89 is my some very large margin the lowert number I've seen on a Stephenson Clarke wagon. I presume this is a renewal of one of the earliest wagons in their fleet.

 

EDIT: I don't believe the 1898 date given in the caption. That brake end looks distinctively LNWR in style; I suspect this is the replacement stock built at Wolverton after the LNWR takeover in 1909. And there's a plum-and-spilt-milk set over on the left, though the LNWR did work some trains to Broad Street well before the takeover, I think. 

I like the poses of the two gentlemen pausing in the unloading of the SC wagon. Straight out of the Modelu catalogue!

That’s a very clear picture of a complex area. Is there any chance of a similar type of picture of Dean-Churchward brake gear?  I can never quite get my head around what goes where!

BTW, what’s the purpose of the U shaped item joining the pair of safety hangers nearer the centre?

8 hours ago, jcredfer said:

 

As far as I an aware, the white Zig Zag lines are about the safe zone around a pedestrian crossing and there are "no" exceptions to the rule {Fire, Police, Ambulance & other Emergency Services aside}.  

 

If she was stopped on the double yellows, she might have{?} been able to claim "loading / unloading" which is permitted - for business purposes...  ummm!!.....   But, she wasn't, anyway.

 

Is not also the case that, theoretically, any driver of a motor vehicle overtaking a stationary car at a zebra crossing is also guilty of a traffic offence, with possible points and a fine? There might be a defence in that the law applies specifically to a car stopping to let pedestrians cross, but that could be hard to prove.

On 27/05/2022 at 00:09, Hroth said:

 

Holme Fen

 

Source:  https://www.greatfen.org.uk/about-great-fen/heritage/holme-fen-posts

 

 

I thought this was the inaugural meeting of the Wireless Maypole Dancing Club, or perhaps detectives investigating the theft of a playground roundabout.

11 hours ago, AndyB said:

 

 

Depending on the topography and the use of the river, I think it's unlikely the railway would go to the expense of the third (headshunt) line bridging the watercourse.  It would have been cheaper to divert the river to give sufficient room for the siding.

This OS map, courtesy of the NLS website, shows a typical example, Oxted station on the LBSCR in pre-grouping days. The mapper seems to have been having a bad day, as some of the trackwork looks a bit iffy, and I think that the connection to the yard would have been a single slip, but otherwise I think it demonstrates the points being discussed.

Scalelink do some nice capping stones with lots of relief, but mainly 8" square ones (6mm)

https://www.scalelink.co.uk/acatalog/Scenic___Scale_1_76__OO_.html

The brick piers look a bit tall.  I would have expected them to stop around the top of the girder.

“Wenhaston” is based upon the Southwold Railway loco, and is probably built straight from a Golden Arrow white metal kit, on a modified MiniTrix chassis 

On 16/05/2022 at 08:13, Rivercider said:

I too have seen a few of those signs over the years, and not noticed that feature.

 

Here is one at Bath without weights.

Kennet and Avon Canal in Bath, 

 

cheers

It is interesting that much of the text is in lower case. The vast majority of similar cast iron official railway signage seems to be all upper case. For example, of all the No Trespassing signs I’ve seen, only the LBSCR ones have used lower case.

43 minutes ago, Nick C said:

Far more than the real thing too, I suspect! 

Not really.  In this view, from the Mike Morant collection, this Jubilee is hauling 9 bogie coaches, and it is around 40 years old!

On 13/05/2022 at 17:35, alastairq said:

An old style double deck bus [not a modern plastic-fantastic]...with close to 90 including standing passengers, ran to around 19 or 20 tonnes!

 

London dockers weighed even more.

 

Since an RT seems to only come in at a mere 7½ tons unladen, that would mean your average passenger weighed 21 stone, so I hate to think how much bigger a docker would be.  Can't imagine getting 90 of those man-mountains onto a double-decker bus, especially up the stairs to the top deck!

18 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

Have I bottled the LNWR Horsebox because I'm scared to line it and muck the whole thing up? Yes I have.

 

In the meantime, the Parry P.O. wagon is together and is starting to look like a wagon. I'm afraid my first real efforts at hand lettering leave much to be desired, but I'm only going to get better by practising so better started now than never:

 

 

I'm really impressed with the cast details - the angled washer plates running on the inside of the wagon and then shown through the floor to the outside of the solebars, the various bolts, etc. - but so many problem sto get the rest of the way:

 

- Aforementioned floor issue

- Whitemetal brake v-hanger completely useless and snapped off in a stiff breeze, and no brake lever or ratchet bracket supplied (etched replacements from S4 store)

- Ridiculously undersized cast drawbar plates (ditto)

- Cast brake blocks for an 8'6" wheelbase instead of the 8' as here so required lots of filing back to fit.

- Spring castings aren't the correct width to align with the bolts and (imagined) timbers on the solebar,  and needed to be split and re-worked to permit the rocking axle to rock. Given the accuracy elsewhere I'm most unhappy with this, but we need stock for a layout, not a display cabinet...

I've just dug out a Parry wagon that I built using the original Woodham Wagon Works (@burgundy) castings, and I can't see the problems you cite. 

No flooring was provided, so a plastic rectangle was cut to fit, rather than trying to match the etching to the castings.

The brake gear appears to fit correctly at 8' wheelbase, the V-iron is pretty solid and there was a lever and bracket provided.

I don't understand why you think the drawbar plate is "ridiculously" small.  Tavender's book on Private Traders' Wagons shows a wide variety of size and shape of these plates, and I am not aware of a definitive photo of the end of this wagon to be able to judge.

The springs in the WWW castings match the side view in a book on the North London Railway.  They are not meant to align with the bolt heads on the solebar, which are intended to represent the fixings for the W-irons.  The WWW kit was intended to be built using rocking W-irons (not supplied) which could be positioned to suit the mouldings and the axle box/spring casting could be fixed to the etched irons, with a small allowance to permit the rocking.

I suspect the problems are down to the provenance of the kit.  When @burgundy stopped producing his own kits, most of the masters and moulds passed to 5&9 Models @5&9Models but the two LBSCR ballast wagons and the Parry and Stephenson & Clarke PO wagons went to Roxey Mouldings, where they were incorporated in the Chatham range of wagon kits.  They were improved with the addition of the etched floor and W-irons, to make a complete kit, and it is possible that the moulds have been revised as well and maybe in this process errors crept in, or perhaps this was just a packing error, with more items in the range making things more complicated.

On 10/05/2022 at 18:25, Edwin_m said:

That might depend on whether aerodynamic and other resistance forces have been considered.  I seem to recall Dionysius Lardner ignoring these and predicting an improbably high exit speed if a the brakes of a train were to fail in Box Tunnel.  I make the speed without resistance to be around 170mph, in a lot less than three pages, so I assume the calculation allowed for these resistances.  

The writer has taken both kinetic friction and air resistance into account in his calculations. He has also allowed for the different gradients on the incline itself, and explains each step carefully, hence the three pages. Thankfully, he avoids the calculus method of solution, espousing a form of finite element analysis instead, using a loop technique where the velocity is recalculated every 0.001 seconds.

If you want to carry out the calculation yourself, the writer assumed that kinetic friction reduced the effect of gravitational  acceleration by a third, and used a unitless drag coefficient of 2.02 based upon work published in the Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics.

38 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The first Nos. 41 and 42 were 2-4-0Ts built by Neilsons in 1859/60 for the Morayshire Railway, taken into Great North stock in 1866, and withdrawn in 1883/5. The replacement No. 41 was one of Manson's Class E 0-6-0Ts built by Kitsons in 1885, surviving to become LNER Class J91, as noted by @Dungrange. The Cowan Class L 4-4-0s were numbered 43-48; they were also built by Neilsons, which is, I suppose, a possible source of confusion. [Wikipedia, citing Vallance and other authoritative writers on Great North loco history.]

Just to complete the picture, Nos. 28-36 were new build 4-4-0's, built by Robert Stephenson in batches between 1862 and 1864.  In 1866 the GNoSR acquired the Morayshire and Banffshire Railways, and re-numbered the MR ones as 41, "Glen Grant" of 1859, and 42 "Lesmurdie" of 1861. The Banffshire Railway brought four locos to the party, 2 No. 0-4-2 tanks and 2 No. 0-4-2 outside cylinder tender locos, one of the latter was built by the Vulcan Foundry of Warrington, the rest by Hawthorns of Leith, which were re-numbered 37-40. New build acquisitions re-commenced with the "28" Class, later K Class, Nos. 43-48, from Neilsons.

12 hours ago, pH said:

John, I think you’ve got the right class (GNOSR ‘K’ class), but the original version. They were later rebuilt by James Manson, and here’s a rebuild:

 

https://www.lner.info/locos/D/d47.php

 

which looks like the engine in the OP. The number and build date are wrong, though. The ‘K’ class were numbered 43-48 and were built in 1866.

 

I suspect that the image is that of No 45A as it appeared at the 1925 Stockton and Darlington Railway celebrations.  It was assembled from parts of 45A and 48A and an old four-wheeled tender sourced.  The building dates may have been confused, as a No 35 was built in 1864, to a similar, but smaller, design. The batch of the "28" (later K class) of 43-48 appeared in 1866.

As the pictures that @Edwardian had included have disappeared, people might be interested in these, which give an idea of h the quality of modelling being discussed.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10716633/Dedicated-hobbyist-completes-detailed-model-busy-market-town-starting-project-1959.html 

27 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Do you happen to know the date of that transaction? Also, do you know if it was a direct sale by the Midland to the B&M or, as some other sales to minor lines were, through a broker (usually one of the wagon firms)?

 

Have you seen any photo or drawing? I'm particularly interested to know if they were the early type with angled headstock ends or the later type with door-stops on the sides?

All my information came from the WRRC pamphlet on Welsh wagons. No date given, but they refer to the Railway Modeller October 1977 for a drawing. Barrie in his history seems to ignore wagons, and I haven’t seen any photo either. Ominously the numbering of these wagons is consecutive from No 1!

19 hours ago, sir douglas said:

a quick question if you may

 

i am currently painting up an midland 3 plank drop side but i want some variety since i already have some wagons in MR livery, though i dont want to do it in LMS or BR, is there some other way to paint them?

 

with the S&DJ 3 plank being a Derby design, is close enough to the MR 3 plank do it?

 

The Brecon and Merthyr Railway acquired a number of Midland Railway wagons, including over forty three-planks. Most were allocated for ballast use, but ten were used as general goods vehicles and, presumably, could have ranged away from home. B&M livery was a light grey, and several made it to grouping, with two actually receiving GWR numbers, 71870 and 71881.

Some of the S&DJR versions  that @Compound2632 has mentioned were allocated to the LSWR in 1914, I believe, and would have run in their, and Southern, brown liveries.

On 07/05/2022 at 00:22, The Lurker said:

About 15 years ago we stayed in Rosedale Abbey and the cottage had a book about the railway, which I had never heard of before. It certainly didn’t have the details you are mentioning but did talk about the engines and the incline at Battersby and the story of a train being snowed in for IIRC 6 weeks. The book mentioned that there were unofficial passengers on the incline which makes sense given the general nature of the area- hopefully they were never caught up with a runaway 

The book I acquired is the 2021 updated version, and much expanded.  Excellent value, thanks, probably, to having Heritage Funding, with over 150 pages and plenty of photographs and maps, many in colour. No connection, just a happy purchaser.

https://sahs.sumup.link/product/rosedale-mines-and-railway-2021-updated-edition

PS If the line had not been lifted in 1929, and had survived into BR days, I'm sure it would have been as well known as the Cromford & High Peak.

18 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The only Railway Year Book of which I have a complete pdf is that of 1922, giving statistics for the year ended 31 Dec 1921, the last year before the LNW / L&Y amalgamation. It's not an ideal comparison, as things were still distorted by the War; one would want to look at, say, 1899, to get a picture of the heyday of the pre-grouping companies. There is very little difference between the "big three" - LNW, Mid, and GW. All were capitalised to a bit over £100 million and net receipts a bit over £6 million - about 6% of capital. 

 

Passenger business is a bit difficult to disentangle since the Year Book only gives number of journeys, not passenger miles or passenger receipts; for that one wants the Railway returns made to the BoT (MoT) - I only have the Midland pages of those. In millions:

 

                         LNW         Mid          GW

1st class          1.16          0.91         1.08

3rd class       53.34        52.57       71.34

workmen      28.96        28.39       18.54

 

As you say, many of the Midland journeys will have been short-distance on the LTS whereas the LNW undoubtedly had a considerably higher proportion of the long-distance journeys - but what was the relative proportion of long to short distance journeys even on the LNW?

 

In fact, the greatest number of passenger journeys were made on the Metropolitan District Railway - about twice as many as on any of the "big three" - while the greatest number of first class journeys was 1.9 million on the...

... wait for it ...

... Lancashire & Yorkshire.

(So much for northern frugality!)

David Jenkinson's British Railway Carriages of the 20th Century Volume 1 includes a variety of interesting tables comparing various elements of passenger traffic, with figures for 1901, 1911 and 1921.  Unfortunately it doesn't break out the workmen's figures from the total of 3rd class traveller, and the Metropolitan and Metropolitan District are ignored.

In terms of total passenger bookings, in 1901 it was the GER at No. 1, with 120 million, with the LNWR and GWR at around 80 million, and SECR 4th.  In 1911 it was the GWR on top, with 102 million, GER second and LNWR third, and LSWR 4th. It was only in 1921 that the MR crept into the top three, just pipping the GER who had slipped to fourth with only(!) 78 million.

There are some interesting tables showing revenues from different parameters, where the commuting lines around London feature, such as the LBSCR achieving the highest revenue per route mile.

And as for the L&YR and first class traffic, it was the Caledonian that trumped all the other lines in all years, 3.1m in 1901, 2.5m in 1991 and 2.5m in 1921, against the L&YR 0.9m, 1.1m and 1.9m in 1921. The Midland's figures for those years are 1.4m, 1.6m and 1.3m. Perhaps this is all a reflection on the quality of the third class accommodation!

I recently got hold of a fascinating book on the Rosedale Mines and Railway, from the Scarborough Archaeological and Historical Society.  The line itself was built by the NER in 1871 to serve ironstone mining,  and was about fourteen miles long, mainly running along the top of a ridge in the Yorkshire Dales at over 1,000 feet, connected to the main network at Battersby by the Ingleby Incline, some 1,430 yards long, and, for most of its length, around 1 in 5 in gradient.  The line was worked at high level by various 0-6-0 tender locos, and a full shed and workshop was available at the end of the branch, at Bank Top.  The incline was so precipitous that the centre driving wheels had to be removed from locos when they were moved up or down the incline, and the works at Bank Top had shear legs to carry out this operation.

What I found interesting was an appendix that calculated the possible terminal velocity of wagons if the cable were to break as they started their downward journey. This was no finger in the air bit of inspired guesswork, but three pages of formulae that would have been at home in "The Big Bang Theory" and which, with a bit of computer assistance, came up with the impressive answer of 113 m.p.h.! There were plenty of runaways on the line, but I suspect none actually achieved this speed, meeting their ultimate fate before they reached it.

It would be interesting to see similar calculations for the various cable operated inclines in Britain, especially the ones in the Welsh slate quarries, but I don't suppose they were as long as Ingleby, but perhaps steeper.

There are a few other suppliers around. Scalelink do three rather nice etched brass kits, whilst Osborns sell a range of laser cut wagons etc, very similar to the Ancerton ones noted earlier. It is also useful to know that, within the Dart Castings’ range, Shire Scenes have a number of etched brass road vehicles, some matching the Dart white metal casting versions.