Nick Holliday

As one of the prejudiced next persons, I have to agree that 32' is rather too long for a low roof style, although your 31' S&DJR examples are very close, and the North Staffordshire, if R W Rush's drawings are to be believed, built around 60 low roofed vehicles that were 35' 6" long, although their Wolverton panelling doesn't make them a good match. Without spending too much time looking through various carriage books, it would seem that, with a higher roof line, 32' is good median length, as such stock ranged from 30' to nearly 40' on the NBR. What I really bemoan is that the two ranges, instead of being complementary, are, at least with regard to the six-wheelers, almost identical. This means that those, like @Edwardian who are striving to create an authentic looking ambience, won't be able to get the variation in coach styles they would like. Many impecunious lines started off flush with investment money, and happily bought a small fleet of the latest stock, only to find that later, with increasing traffic, but decreasing returns, any additional carriages had to be bought second-hand, giving rise to, on occasions, the battlement effect as each coach was a slightly different height or profile. The other factor is the relationship between locos and carriages. For example, this view of an LNWR Coal Tank, from the SmugMug collection, shows the coach is higher than the cab roof, yet, on the models, the coach roofs are level with the top of the cab roof.

I must confess that I hadn't realised that the LBSC later roof profile was higher than elsewhere. I didn't mean to say that the 10 ft radius was unrealistic, what I was trying to point out was that its adoption potentially affected the ability of the Genesis range to reflect a wider range of generic types. Making a sweeping statement, based on limited information, I would generalise that there were 3 to 4 times as many 6 wheeled coaches with the higher roofs, and most of those would have been 32 feet long, ±2 feet or so either way, whereas many of those with lower roofs would have been around 28 feet long (the length of the Genesis 4 wheelers). Apart from the S&DJR stock noted above, I would repeat that a 32' carriage with a higher roof would have been representative, given the various compromises inherent in the design, of a large proportion of the 6 wheeled stock on British railways in Edwardian days, with potential survival into BR days in certain circumstances. Much of the lower roofed stock was being phased out from the turn of the century, as it was getting long in the tooth, and new building materials and techniques ware seeing them replaced with, mainly, bogie stock, and their survival in large numbers into Big Four liveries was unlikely.

Where did you get that information from? I'm looking at 1870s/1880s 6 wheelers in Russell's GWR coaches and they fall into 3 main classes. Low arc roof, tri-arc roof (e.g flattened centre) & Clerestory.. Not much evidence of high arc roof coaches I suppose it's partly my fault for not being more precise about what I felt was low arc and ignoring other profiles such as the tri-arc roof. As a Brighton fan I was looking at the Stroudley outline, which had a measurement of 11' 2½" from rail to the top of the roof itself, and the Billinton version, which was 11' 10". I appreciate that these dimensions need to be taken with a pinch of salt, as much could depend upon the loading, and the condition of the springs and the wheelsets, and I know that many will say that a difference of 2.5mm is undetectable, but it is very obvious if the two are side-by-side, and, at the moment, no-one has posted pictures of the Hattons and Hornby stock against other pre-grouping stock, they have always been in splendid isolation, both measuring around 44.7mm in height. Regarding @melmerby's comments, there are other railways other than the GWR, and I feel that Russell's scatter-gun approach, with limited information on dimensions, dates and numbers built, can make interpretation difficult. Looking at his books, and Richard Spratt's rather more detailed website http://www.gwrcoaches.org.uk/index.html suggests that there were more variations than listed above, different roof profiles seem to have been used within ostensibly identical batches of coaches, and that the draughtsmen weren't too bothered about the height of the carriage roof. However I haven't seen any analysis of these changes. There was certainly a low arc design, with a roof height of 11' 2", which fits with both model ranges, but there was an intermediate version of 11' 5", still a plain arc, before the adoption of the 11' 5½" tri-arc roof with its higher shoulders, or the clerestory. The tri-arc seems to have come into vogue in the early 1880's, after which no more plain arc coaches were built by the GWR. A number of other lines, such as the GNR and the NBR adopted a tri-arc profile at an earlier date. It is difficult to assess the numbers of low and high arced roof 6 wheeled carriages that were built, as the information is not always available. The LBSC built 150 compartment coaches and 70 full brakes to the lower profile, whilst 450 and 250 of the later version were built. On the Cambrian Railways the proportion was roughly 11 passenger and 23 brake vans, at 11' 2", and 80 carriages with 11' 7" high roofs. According to North Eastern record some 1,400 six wheeled passenger carriages were built with roofs between 11' 5½" or 11' 7½" high, before a high elliptical roofline was adopted. On the Midland, they had stopped producing 6 wheeled coaches in 1875, and, when they restarted production in 1882, they had a higher 11' 8" roof profile; ultimately around 220 were built, the relatively low figure being due to the company's preference for bogie stock, the six-wheelers mainly being confined to 5 suburban areas. What has interesting possibilities for the Genesis items, in particular, is that many of the low arc carriages were only 28' long, although on six wheels, which could bring the 4 wheelers in the range into play, with the addition of a central set of wheels! On the down side, the fact that the majority of the lower roofed versions were built prior to around 1885 means that most of them would have been taken out of service by around 1914, apart from a few stragglers, so their appearance in Big Four or BR colours, except perhaps in an engineering capacity is very unlikely. The higher roofed examples had generally disappeared by 1939, but at least the Big Four liveries would be possible.

These photographs some of my reservations regarding the Genesis range. They clearly show that both ranges have, unfortunately, a very similar roof profile, like the low profile adopted by Stroudley and others for construction during the 1870’s and early 1880’s, whereas the bulk of 6 wheelers, at least, were built with a distinctly higher roof profile, usually matching that of later Edwardian bogies coaches. If Hattons had adopted a more modern outline, it would have broadened their appeal considerably. Another detail they reveal is the difference in treatment of the LNWR livery. Hornby have chosen to apply the dark colour of the lower panels to all the mouldings, highlighting the fact that they look different from the Wolverton style of panelling, whereas Hattons have cleverly applied colour only where necessary to give the correct LNWR effect, which looks really good from a distance, but the lower picture clearly shows how the redundant mouldings appear as ghost lining. Although the Hattons livery does look the part, I would suggest that the Hornby coaches could have another life as Caledonian or LBSCR stock, in its umber and cream form, with perhaps a light colour wash to subtly correct the shades. I appreciate that there are some compromises with the Caledonian usage, but fewer than have been happily made for other lines which have been enthusiastically received. Apropos another thread asking about Caledonian coaches on other lines, in Mike Williams’ book on CR Carriages he cites a series of Drummond’s 6wheel lavatory composites, built before 1890 with a low arc roof, that were dual braked for such duties, with one being involved in an accident at Carlisle whilst part of a Bristol to Glasgow regular service. The Hornby lavatory composite in LNWR livery would almost fit perfectly, but for the fact that the real thing was arranged as 331L13, rather than the 31L13 of the model.

Just checked Turton, and Hoare Brothers opened their roadstone works at Marsh Mills in 1932. They had quite a large fleet of specialist steel wagons for handling the roadstone, and a handful of second hand coal wagons to supply their works at Marsh Mills and Tavistock.

Volume 11 of Keith Turton’s PO books has an entry for Hoare Brothers of Tavistock.

The Caley Coaches website reveals that some of the Caledonian's grand twelve wheeled coaches definitely ran on other lines. One design was built specifically for a Glasgow to Taunton service, and many of the rest of this type were dual fitted, with the express purpose of running on other lines, and often substituted for WCJS when required. It was obviously highly inconvenient that their close ally, the LNWR, failed to adopt the superior Westinghouse brake, stubbornly hanging on to Webb's chain brake before eventually adopting the vacuum, and it seems the Scottish company generously did what they could to accommodate these foibles.

I have recently been introduced to an absorbing website containing thousands of photographs and postcards from around the UK. It appears to contain a few photographs that even avid collectors have not seen, but it takes a lot of searching to find them. The compiler is not afraid to include less than perfect views, or sets of pictures taken at different angles of the same scene, such as the well-known turntable incident at Tunbridge Wells West on the LBSCR. On the down side, however, there are quite a few duplicates and some of the captions leave a lot to be desired, and shouldn't always be taken at face value. dating is sometimes suspect, and some of the locations are interesting; it is divided into counties, and it is odd to find that Fakenham is in London. Of the many delights therein, I thought these might be of interest, although probably old hat to the likes of @Compound2632. Taken at Bingley Station in Yorkshire, they show the platform full of excited excursionists from a local mill, waiting for their train, https://www.jbarchive.co.uk/yo-110---englands-mill-trip-bingley-railway-station-yorkshire-1904---6x4-photo-29091-p.asp and then a fine view of them on board, ready to depart. https://www.jbarchive.co.uk/yo-2220---englands-mill-may-trip-1904-railway-station-yorkshire---6x4-photo-32820-p.asp All the visible coaches are virtually identical MR 6-wheeled Picnic Saloons; this seemed unusual usage to me, but, according to Lacy & Dow, was quite common on the MR. It is interesting to note that the buffers appear to be short, suggesting that this was a fixed set; the one in Lacy & Dow has standard long buffers.

The 65mm dimension for a modern brick is actually just over 2.5 inches, and most pre-metrication bricks were slightly smaller than that dimension, usually around 2.5”. Hence four courses, including allowance for mortar, come to 12”, an easy dimension for bricklayers to set their string lines to.

Slaters list both drivers and trailing wheels specifically for the D1 such as here https://slatersplastikard.com/linePage.php?suffix=JPG&code=7853LB

As I understand it, the loco body would come already painted black, but without numbers or lettering, which CDC can add for a modest fee. It may fit directly on the Electrotren chassis with the minimum of work. Others in the range can have their appropriate proprietary chassis fitted within a few minutes, however there is no information currently displayed showing the work required for the NLR loco, but it may well within your skill-set.

Although not RTR there is this https://www.cdc-design.net/nlr-75-class-park-tank.html which fits on an Electrotrain chassis. Their other products have received positive reviews, bit I’ve no idea about this particular one. Ace Products also have recently introduced an etched kit in 4 & 7mm, although their products can be “challenging”.

I don’t want to be a Jeremiah but what you have is a D1 0-4-2T, The larger front splasher and the shorter bunker are the clear markers. photos courtesy of SmuMug.

Albion Models did the LBSCR E1 and the range has now been taken over by Roxey Mouldings. It might be worth contacting them to see whether the chassis is available separately.r

Interesting ballasting here. If you modelled it this way, everyone would wonder when it was going to be finished properly.

Interesting that the minimum radius is only 5 chains. That scales out at a reasonable 4’ 4” in 4mm. And why is it down as a 4-8-0?

I suppose I was thinking of the overall massing of the buildings. Yes, the station building at road level is only single storey, but the platform buildings on the viaduct give it length and the lift tower gives it height. Presumably the geography of your layout doesn’t fit in with this arrangement. As for the remains of St. Helier station!!!

You should see it now!! Southern Nouveau has a fairly comprehensive rundown of Art Deco buildings although only plans for one of the Chessington line buildings. I’m surprised that the latter are considered too small and not grand enough, as some of them look quite impressive to me.

At the risk of sounding impertinent, what is I about Whitefield that you are trying to encapsulate? The driving factor for the prototype layout is that the Manchester to Bury line carried an intensive passenger service; so much that the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway invested millions at the turn of the century to electrify the line, running around sixty trains a day, between 5 in the morning and 11 at night, each way. Hence double track was essential and, there being no gaps in the service during the day, provision of run-rounds in the goods yards was important if any daytime goods trains were to be run. Bury engine shed alone has over sixty goods locos on hand, so there must have been a fair amount of goods traffic throughout the day to keep them employed. Looking along the course of the line, there are a number of places where parallel goods run rounds were provided, even for private factory sidings. The number of changes you are proposing to make takes the track layout far from the original. Would it be better to start with another station on the L&YR that looks more like your proposals, perhaps ThongsBridge on the Holmfirth line? Something like that could be a starter into which you might be able to incorporate some of the features of Whitefield that you want to reproduce.

Some forty years or so ago I was entertained by the MD of a demolition company on one of those fancy and expensive floating restaurants on the Thames. He had supplied the exquisite timber panelling that had been used on the boat, and the owner was his friend. I’d opted for cauliflower as one of the vegetables, each portion of which cost an arm and a leg, probably around £6 or more in today’s money. Being young I didn’t have the heart to tell my generous host that it was still frozen in the centre!

Basically, a more sophisticated version of what was fairly common in coal mines, etc., where the horizontal movement is cable hauled to the hoist cage. Technically it is a funicular, as it is rope-hauled, but the terminology is usually reserved for railways where steep inclines are involved; this one looks pretty level. However, I did think the occupants of the carriage we saw arriving at the bottom looked as though they had just been on Oblivion at Alton Towers, perhaps being able to see all the gubbins and the rather crumbly looking walls to the shaft had scared the living daylights out of them.

Although not the same date, there are several views showing Bexhill West on the Britain from Above website, like this one https://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/EAW022972 The only problem is that they all seem to have been taken from south of the LBSCR show present similar distant, angled views of the SECR establishment.

Are you suggesting that the Westinghouse brake was banned at some time? Because of the special nature of the GER commuter services from Liverpool Street station, the LNER Quint-Art sets provided post-grouping continued the use of the air brake, which wasn’t discontinued until the mass withdrawal of that stock around 1960, presumably around the time of the electrification of those services. I seem to recall reading about an interesting problem in the 1950’s when the Southern Region had to handle some Quint-Art stock which was going to the Farnborough Air Show, and had to search around for suitable ex-LBSCR locos that had retained the Westinghouse brake to handle the trains involved.

To the best of my knowledge the Brighton had no daytime headcodes that required both lamps and discs. Lamps were substituted during the night and in fog, usually in similar positions to the day time discs. I believe the photos showing both are a result of the spare lamps being placed on any convenient spare iron. Some of the LBSC tanks had an array of irons on the nearside tank top for the lamps instead. As for the original question, the tall lamp irons were shaped at the top with a taper to engage with the lamp or disc. There was only one on each iron, there being a separate shorter iron directly in front, which could give the impression that both discs were on the same iron.

@D3489gibson 's photo highlights something that has disappointed me about the Genesis coaches, and represents a wasted opportunity on Hattons' part. As can be clearly seen, both coaches are roughly the same height, with a shallow arc roof. For the Hornby range, rather unashamedly based on LBSCR practice, the profile is pure Stroudley, and when you compare it with other stock they do look, correctly, low. This was highlighted in an early Hornby video, which showed their coaches being pulled by a large, post-grouping, tank loco, and looking more like a Talgo train! When the Hattons' project was announced, and once the design discussions on RMweb had settled down, I did an early appraisal, which appeared in LBSCR Modellers' Digest 12. Based on the drawings and images available at the time, I had persuaded myself that the roof profile was close to the later higher, Billlinton, profile, and that the proposed 28' four-wheelers would be an excellent match for the batch of coaches Billinton produced in the latter part of the 1890's, although I appreciated that the guard's end and duckets would need some alterations. In view of the encouragement of the cognoscenti providing advice, I had expected the roof to reflect the more modern styling and length proposed. On the same basis, I concluded that the Hattons' six-wheelers would be, mainly, a reasonable match for the LBSC stock produced through the 1890's and beyond. (Brighton bogie coaches with a similar roof line were being built into the 1920's) I then pre-ordered a short rake of the four-wheelers, as they have never been produced in etched brass format, having plenty of kits for all the other styles. The coaches have now arrived, and, as the photo above shows, their roof profile is virtually identical to the Hornby/Stroudley one. For me, that means that I will have to source new ends and roofs for all of them to create a more accurate model, and @ianmaccormac is looking into this, but for everyone else there is the issue that the Hattons' stock will look similarly dwarfed, even by slightly more modern pre-grouping carriages, such as the forthcoming LSWR stock and Bachmann SECR birdcages. The low profile was very much a child of the 1870's, and although it was used on some early six-wheeled stock on various lines, they were generally much shorter, say 28 feet long, and usually disappeared around the turn of the century, whereas the majority of 6-wheelers carried the higher arc roof, or more complex shapes, and these would have had a longer life. Instead of being able to create a mixture of H&H items, with an interesting up and down profile as above, (Stroudley third and first coaches sandwiching a Billinton third) any mixture will lose that character, but all will contrast sharply with most bogie stock, or kit-built items. Instead of the Hattons' range complementing the Hornby one, it is competing with it, which I am sure will affect sales of both ranges, and offering far less variety. From a Brighton modeller's perspective, the report I prepared in Modellers' Digest 13, covering the Hornby six-wheelers, is a more accurate reflection of the suitability of the Hattons' 6w ones, apart from the full brake. An odd point is that Hattons are marketing the LBSCR stock as being in Umber Livery, whereas they are plainly in a rendition of mahogany finish, as the heading photo shows. I wonder what they will call the proper umber if they get round to producing it?