Nick Holliday

A trio of Long Tailed Tits paid a visit to our garden yesterday. One of my favourite birds - always bring a smile to my face just by being there. One did something I've never seen before - it transferred the sunflower seed heart to its foot, and managed to hold it whilst it carefully ate the whole kernel, unlike the gold finches in the video above, who consign most of the seed to the ground, for the pigeons to feed upon at their leisure. Sadly there wasn't time to get my camera to record the event.

If you are right about the railmotor, then it is fortuitous that London Road Models have just produced an etched brass kit for it in 4mm. The earlier kit was from Jidenco/Falcon Brass, I don't think D&S ever did any railmotor, sadly, and their only loco kit was a W&U Tram loco.

There is a pair of books Sussex Engineman - The Hubert Hobden Memoirs - Volumes 1 and 2, published in 2007 by Buggleskelly Books that describe his career from being a steam loco cleaner to motorman, from 1913 to 1961. The second volume covers his electrified career, but I only have the first, which is devoted to his steam career on the Brighton Line, based mainly at Eastbourne. However he does describe how he transferred. "At the beginning of 1935 it became known that electric services between Brighton and Eastbourne and Hastings would start in June. Notices were posted of motormen vacancies. Twenty-six would be required at the new electric depot being built at Ore. Eastbourne would require ten, so quashing the hopes of any junior driver getting a job without moving. Seaford needed eight. This was less than fifty in all and caused much concern as many more men than this were redundant over the Southern area.....It was turmoil all along the line at the depots and it dominated most conversations. I said little, preferring to think and work out my destiny quietly. I knew that we would have to sell up as my seniority would not give me a job at Eastbourne. "One day in early March I was walking down the shed and met Old Sandy, the list clerk. 'Erbert, we do not appear to have your application in yet for a motorman's post.' I explained that I was considering before committing myself. 'Well don't leave it too long, Erbert.' I realised the applications were going fast and he wanted me to have a chance. The next day I applied with an Eastbourne preference, most unlikely as fast as I was concerned. I followed up with Ore or Seaford as a back up. My application had gone in .... but I still had t wait for an allocation and with low seniority I could not make any claims. "After a few weeks the allocation sheet was posted and was scanned eagerly by all, whether they were concerned or not. I was happy to be posted as a motorman at Ore. It was something definite. I could now plan my life."

The Normandy Historians (Guildford branch) website has a selection of old Highway Codes to examine, from 1946 https://normandyhistorians.co.uk/hwc/index.html https://normandyhistorians.co.uk/hwc/1954hwc/index.html https://normandyhistorians.co.uk/hwc/1959hwc/index.html However, white lines of any sort hardly get a mention, and the lines at junctions not covered at all.

According to Talbot the initial batch of 4' 6" tanks were built in 1876 as 2-4-0 tanks, not as per the photo. He is not exactly clear, but gives the impression that all 50 of them were fitted with condensing gear, for work in Manchester, Birmingham and to Mansion House. Once the 2-4-2 tanks had proved themselves, in the 1890's most of these earlier tanks were recycled as 2-4-2 tanks, with new frames, the remaining 10 being stripped of their condensing pipes for use on the Cromford and High Peak section. The 2-4-2 tanks, as pictured, were built from 1879, sadly Talbot doesn't specify how many had condensing pipes, but 2524, built in 1890, had them when new, so not just an initial batch. Apart from the Met tanks, there were three other condensing locos. Euston and Liverpool were Special Tanks, but built with unfortunate square saddle tanks and fitted with condensing gear to work the Wapping Tunnel in Liverpool. Finally, I have to mention "The Second Compound Tank". This was a variant of the Mansion House tank design, built new as a three cylinder compound, with a 2-2-2-2 wheel arrangement and condensing gear.

You could try the NLS maps and use their measuring tool on a suitable subject. This is a random example from Gloucestershire.

The UK Model Shops directory has this entry, which might prove a lead - it does have a large OO gauge layout, and in another MRC directory is called " Crewe Model Railway & Engineering Society" : Someone mentioned a live steam engineering society at Willaston, which seems to be this one: http://southcheshiremes.com/ and appears to be a completely different organisation.

Whilst I agree about the problems of reach, so often overlooked, even by some "professional" layout planners, I am puzzled as to why the operating well will shrink. This might apply if you are trying to squeeze a 4mm version into the same space as the N/2mm design, but I got the impression that @MartynA was scaling up the N gauge design to fit into roughly four times the space (2x2) i.e. 3' x 18" becomes 6' x 3'.

Interesting. We discussed the question of when NJ and HG yards really came into their own, and how goods trains to/from the north were handed-over before that, in the "cross London services" thread, and I still can't claim to have got that bit of the history of logistics nailed-down in my mind. The standard company histories tend to concentrate on passenger services, and in the case of several of the earlier ones locomotives, at the expense of boring (to the guys at the time) stuff like goods trains. I can't speak for HG, but Norwood Yard as a goods destination was developed from the 1870's onward. It appears that West Croydon and New Cross supplied locos as required. What is confusing is that the 1918 Goods Working Timetable only refers to Norwood Junction, with 14+ daily workings. There is no mention in the workings or the timetables themselves as to light engine working from WC or N+, but there are a couple of similar workings assigned to Sutton and East Croydon, neither of which had their own loco shed. There is a suggestion that the opening of Norwood Junction depot saved £2,000 a year in light engine movements.

This may cause more confusion at this stage, but it might be worth having a look at the downloadable building guides to Kemilway coaches. (The website is still up and running, but I wouldn't suggest trying to contact the owners unless you have more patience than I have!) They are very specific to their own kits, which are generally in 7mm, which they acknowledge use different design ideas from many other kit makers, but they do go into a lot of (perhaps too much) detail which could be useful - one file is on the construction of Fox bogies, which might provide some snippets for this build, at least.

Try https://www.cdc-design.net/thanet-loco-works.html There is a thread here on their products

There are a lot of interesting aerial views on the Britain From Above website, some dating back to 1920.

Earlier I had said "Although the brick arch had been discovered, almost by accident, around 1858/9, it wasn’t a Damascene event and several years of further development was required before the idea became generally accepted." The "quotation" was merely my summarisation of Ahrons' description of Markham's work, and I apologise if the turn of phrase has upset you. I wrote that piece back in August to provide a degree of back-ground information to a query regarding the demise of coke wagons on the LBSCR, and I was trying to avoid the idea that the concept of the brick-arch suddenly emerged fully formed - I did say 'almost by accident'. As you said, Markham started experimentation in 1856 (according to Ahrons) and the brick arch came later and seemed to have been finalised by 1859, and there must have been a period between the initial idea and the final adopted design. And, although it might have been embraced by the Midland and some other lines, as I noted, the LBSCR only tried it out 7 years later, and the LSWR continued using Beattie's double firebox design until 1877, hence my use of 'general acceptance'.

A similar topic was discussed in the Brighton Circle e-Group, although looking in the opposite direction - considering the design of the company's Coke Wagons. Just to confirm the comment @Compound2632 made re the swiftness of the Midland's changes, I'd come up with: "However, if the experiences of the Caledonian and North Western are typical, the process is reasonably simple. The Caledonian, having acquired its first coal fired loco in 1857, instigated a rapid transformation, and by 1859 it was 100% coal-fired, as far as locos were concerned. Similarly, the LNWR went from 97% coke in 1856 to 92% coal in 1862." On the other hand, on the LBSCR, progress was rather more sedate. "Although the brick arch had been discovered, almost by accident, around 1858/9, it wasn’t a Damascene event and several years of further development was required before the idea became generally accepted. At the same time, other inventors, such as Beattie, McConnell and Cudworth, were designing twin firebox locos that could burn coal and consume the smoke, which was the critical requirement to appease the Local Authorities. Craven dabbled with these types, so coal was being used from around 1854, when Bradley (RCTS) notes: “No. 41, like six coupled goods No. 44 of January, 1854, was provided with a McConnell patent firebox, but this did not find favour and in June, 1857 was replaced. The drawings of this fitting show a long firebox with three longitudinal partitions and a combustion chamber. The short boiler barrel was packed with 245 two-inch brass tubes. Firing was through two doors, and must have been a very difficult process, since each door catered for two partitions of the firebox. Coal was burnt, and, although cheaper than coke, had to be carefully graded and broken to suitable size for firing through the small doors.” Further experiments with double fire-box locos continued “A double firebox was fitted, and for some months in 1859 No. 101 was used for a series of coal and coke burning trials over the main line to Brighton. ” Finally - “No. 150, in January, 1866, was the first Brighton-built engine to have its firebox fitted with a brick arch and deflecting plate, following advice given by Derby Works as to the best means of burning coal instead of coke and not incurring the displeasure of the Law by emitting excessive smoke.” It would appear, therefore, that the use of coke predominated until Stroudley’s arrival." Finally "Bradley mentions, whilst discussing Stroudley's Belgravia Class, that, as part of his May 1870 appraisal, Stroudley and the Committee came to the conclusion that: "The coke ovens at New Cross were to be gradually closed down, since all engines were to burn coal within the next five years."" I suspect the delay was mainly because of lack of funds, with Brighton Works requiring a heavy investment, but also partly due to the point that was made earlier, that the price differential, in London, between coal and coke was less significant, as both accrued considerable transportation costs, and there was also the problem that the major loco sheds at Battersea and New Cross were close to residential areas, and subject to frequent prosecutions for emitting too much smoke, so it would have been prudent to have made sure the coal burning fireboxes were effective, with less incentive to make the changes.

Not that it makes any difference to the excellence of the work but I don't think ABS made the kit - most probably a David Geen product.

Certainly looks similar to this model from LS Trains, others here https://gibitrains.pagesperso-orange.fr/en/train/voiture_nord_express-ls_models.htm

I'm not too sure. I visited Hornby earlier this year, and was surprised by the number of howlers in the captions in the various displays. I'm not an expert on aeroplanes, but I do know what a Lancaster looks like, even if the curators didn't!

The story can be traced back even further, to 1946 at the latest, as this fascinating article on the influential modeller John Ahern shows: http://tbmod.com/rm/Madder Valley MRJ 1994 dec.pdf His historic model railway, The Madder Valley was started before the war, but by 1946 he had extended it to a new terminus, called, eventually, Gammon Magna. Ahern lived and worked in London, and although he was modelling bucolic rural scenes, some of his inspiration came from the local railways he saw around him, together with sources such as Ernest Carter's drawings of buildings and lineside equipment, which were largely based on LBSC examples. Coal bins (he regrettably calls them staithes, so I suppose 75 years of usage has to be grudgingly accepted) close to the tracks was a common feature in the London area, particularly in the south, so he had no qualms introducing the feature. His modelling became the blueprint for later scenic layouts, so it is no wonder that this London-centric idea became rather more widespread amongst the modelling fraternity than in real life.

One of my pet subjects! Coal bins or pens (better not to call them staithes as that confuses them with the proper article) were quite a rarity away from the South East of England. Even rarer was their placement alongside the tracks. As your layout photo demonstrates, their presence severely restricts access to the tracks for all the other customers that needed to load or unload wagons. Placing the coal office next to them would be even more outrageous, at least in those times when the yard was busy with all sorts of general traffic. As you noted, as areas such as cattle docks and loading platforms became less used for general merchandise, the coal merchants would stealthily take advantage, but, at the majority of smaller stations, the coal would have been unloaded directly from the wagon onto the delivery cart, and any small amounts left over after the railway wagon had been sent away would have been left on the ground to be dealt with the next day, before the stationmaster got too annoyed. I'm not sure if there was a minimum load that could be ordered - most of the big suppliers talk about "truckloads" but that might only mean 4 tons in a wagon, and, if loaded into the merchant's own wagon, the colliery might well be happy to only load 2 or 3 tons, enough to satisfy a single customer. Storing coal in bins would generally only be a temporary measure; the burning quality tends to lowered in storage, particularly in the open air; there is the danger of spontaneous combustion destroying the pens; and there would always be the problem of pilfering. It must also be remembered that there was a huge variety of coal types available, and customers would have their preferences, so a merchant might need several different bins if he is going to keep them all separate, although during summer he might be tempted by the generous discounts the collieries offered to clear their stocks at times of low demand to build up a supply of his most popular ones. Since having bins next to the track is uncommon, the next most likely place is around the edge of the goods yard, leaving the tracks clear. So, on your layout, there might have been a couple of pens set into the embankment to the left of your weighbridge, with the merchant's small office alongside, although this location is rather tempting for any light-fingered raiders.

This is the contents page, with 0-6-0 side tanks highlighted. No W&U trams or the J67/8/9 types, as far as I can tell. Probably would have been in Part 2 if that had ever appeared.

I've just been watching the video of Byford that @richard.h has recently posted and I thought it had neatly captured many of the concepts that you were trying to achieve, in a space of 7m x 3.5m, so well within your parameters.

I don't know which drawing you have used, but there are a number of excellent drawings of dumb-buffered wagons in Len Tavender's Coal Trade Wagons book. Unlike your rendition, all but one feature the dumb buffers as being effectively an extension of the solebars, the buffer beam/headstock fitting between them, with no protrusion. Another feature most of them would have possessed is the provision of the inside knees to provide the necessary support to the planking either side of the doors - described in one drawing of a Gloucester wagon as 'knees forged from 2½" x 1⅛" iron - upper limb tapered in thickness - external cover plate 2¼" x ¼".' In addition, for most of the ones shown, there was a curved plate over each axleguard on the wooden solebar and the ends were seldom flat, many being slightly raised at one or both ends, and the use of a double hanger for the brakes is a bit modern for most dumb-buffered wagons. There is one drawing in the book, perhaps the one you have, of a GRCW wagon, which does have the headstock at one end protruding through the solebar, and no plates above the axleguards, but the author notes 'This wagon was one "built ...not conforming to the Clearing House specifications" which was offered for registration to the GWR and which when rejected became the subject of an action.' The wagon does not appear to have been new, but only a refurbished one, so it may not have been a typical design.

Having spent too much time trawling through the Railway Modeller archives, the initials seem to ring a bell, probably from the late fifties/early sixties, when it was quite common for modellers to create their own system, often with proprietary locos painted in a distinctive livery. This ex-LSWR M7 repaint is a bit later than that period, though. It is interesting to follow @Edwardian et al continuing this tradition, albeit with far more panache and background research, creating a thoroughly believable alternative scenario.

The interesting Swithland-Signal-Works website http://www.swithland-signal-works.co.uk/plans/plans.htm has a superb range of original infrastructure drawings from the MS&L/GCR, including these that might be relevant to this topic:- http://www.swithland-signal-works.co.uk/plans/13_PLATFORM_WHARF_WALLS.jpg http://www.swithland-signal-works.co.uk/plans/14_Timber_Platforms.jpg and several others worth exploring. It might not be your chosen railway company, but the principles were often generally applied.

Nothing else, apart from the 2 streamlined B17 and W1, to be pedantic. One might include certain incarnations of the P2 as well, perhaps.