Edwardian

Mine, at any rate

Yes, keeping access at that end to the rear cassette road is vital to allow the loco casstte of a returning service to be placed. Logically, yes, Aching Constable, besides, Brother Compound says I'm not allowed one of thes 'cos my railway isn't important enough ... So, my thought here, ever since the bright idea of a carriage shed was suggested, was to leave clear ground at eithe end of the cassette 'trough' so that a loco in a cassette could be take off one end and place at t'other. Thus, in the case of the scenic end, I thought a masonry wall the height of the cassette side was all the masking I need, and, as discussed, the current plan would be to use the Intentio cassette system: Given that this cassette trough is to be a minimum of 54" long, and locos are all under 9", I reckon, if I really wanted I could have a 3' carriage siding, much of which would be the shed! That, however, would be excessive and the thing might be to extend it as far as the shorter cassette trough for the Fakeney branch, located at the front of the baseboard, though I suspect it may need to overlap the carriage shed, the shed thus marking the transition between scenic and non-scenic areas at the front of the layout. The Fakeney branch train is only 21", but one must allow for strengtheners, NPCs etc. An 0-6-0 10 wagons and a brake would seem a generous allowance for the branch. and would be double that at 42". The minimum length I think I'd want for the carriage shed itself would be the 17" required to accommodate the Fakeney branch set, the other road accommodating a couple of extra thirds and a luggage brake or van or two. I would probably plump for something in the region of 21" for the carriage shed, which would give me room for 5 short 4-wheel passenger carriages on each siding.

[sigh]

A chestnut roasting on the open fire. Oh course, I forgot, only 'modellers' of the Monoperiod are allowed to want things RTR. My mistake.

Understood, you know, I had the same thought and tried to imagine how that would be worked ... and falied. I would have just put a single turnout to form a second siding in the shed, without the kick back. Of course, then I worry that I am missing something obvious! Over to Brother Schooner on that one

Interesting. I think this is an example of a wider issue; locomotives often last longer in service than rolling stock. The need to stretch toward the Monoperiod remains, hence Rapido have done a bunch of pre-Grouping wagons, but it's all useless for the pre-Great War modeller, save the GW stuff, of which, half should arguably be red, not grey, so.... So, where would you (buck)jump here? Conventional wisdom would seem to be in favour of the Quins you mention, leaving the pre-Grouping modeller a Cinderella without a carriage, a mere cabinet queen of a model. But, then weird stuff happens, such as the Dapol Mainline & City stock, which no one should really have wanted, or needed, and yet... I am a great believer in 'build it and they will come' where pre-Grouping is concerned, but that is easy to say when I am not shouldering the commercial risk! I remain convinced that the way to sell carriages is with locomotives, and, while there are more pre-Grouping releases than ever before, there is still precious little 'joined-up thinking'. No doubt there are necessary commercial reasons for all this, but we get releases of locos for which there is no stock and stock for which there are no locos. Take the excellent announcements by Accurascale of various NE hopper wagons. These will no doubt be of great use to Grouping and BR modellers, but there are 3-4 sets in NER livery (which I have enthusiastically pre-ordered) yet to my knowledge no one has announced a six or eight copupled mineral engine in NER livery. So, if the NER versions do not sell so well as the later condition ones, will that be because significantly fewer people are potentially interested in them, or is it because they might quite like them, but reflect that they would have nothing to pull them?

Now, perhaps we have gone off topic, so back to it. For those interested in these surburban tanks and their services, I can highly reccommend Adrian Marks's excellent Basilica Fields to anyone who has not yet had that pleasure: Link Trigger warning, some of the pictures include carriages, and I particularly noted the one of the No. 248, running as a 2-4-0T, with a train of five six-wheel carriages on the 1.35pm Blackwall – Fenchurch Street service in 1913. There is, then, the 'third way' of GER 6-wheel stock, which would also support the release of a T26/E4, if anyone was so minded, and can thus be used to represent both mainline and suburban services. Of course, it might be felt that the release of Hattons's generics in GE livery will dilute the demand, though, of course, GER carriage style is very different from that of the Hattons coaches.

Respectfully, no. The mods may well decide that, but I agree with the previous caller that a discussion of possible stock to go with this release is not irrelevant. Some potential customers are obviously willing to ponder the rolling stock options. This inevitably involves some thought as to the state of the market for such stock. The Dapol Mainline & City stock RMWeb topic, conversely, has featured much discussion of appropriate motive power. I do not recall anyone appointing themselves citizen militia to stamp that out. So, maybe skip the posts that do not interest you, rather than be keen to police others who may be open to them, and, yes, "think first, post later" is generally good advice. If the mods close this digression down, I will not be in sympathy with that desicion as I think that such 'digressions' are supportive of the release to which they relate, but that is a decision they can make. You, on the other hand, well ...

Indeed! I confess, all this talk of Met Class As just prompted thoughts of a different class A entirely!

I don't disagree, but I suspect that doing more than one type represents limited savings on toolings. For instance, a bogie carriage body, say of a 10-compartment third, is perhaps not easily produced when you have tooled for a 4-wheel 5-compartment third, you cannot literally stick two of the latter together to make one of the former. You still need two sets of tooling, presumably. Of course, given the same style and compartment spacing, it would, presumably, be less effort to produce CAD for both 4-wheel and bogie versions, but I suspect that's all the saving you'd get. You might, might, persuade a manufacturer that one set of matching suburban stock is worth the risk, but I suspect that is the outer limit of ambition here.

But I think this was a limited run of carriages, and whether it would save more than some CAD work I am not sure. The 4-wheelers seemed to dominate Chingford, Enfield, Palace Gates and North Woolwich at Grouping, the GER having never built enough bogie coaches to supplant them. As it's not really my period of interest, I do not know how long it took the cash-strapped LNER to replace them. The alternative are GER bogie suburban coaches. Thus I suspect one might find pre-Grouping types lasting into BR, albeit at leaving pre-Great War modeller (in this case the pre-1911 modeller, and even then excluding anyone not depicting the Loughton line) in the lurch, as the need, actual or perceived, to accommodate the BR modeller so often does. A suite of 54' bogie coaches seems a more ambitious and expensive proposition. But here we are with the weird way this works. I am delighted to see Dapol release GWR toplights, yet they have chosen the objectively least useful set they could. These sets are so late (1921) so as to be practically Grouping era coaches, and they were used only on certain very specific suburban services out of London. There is relatively little GWR motive power suitable for them - really nothing for the earlier liveries of the release and it's not until the '30s that there is really a go-with engine. They don't even look similar to coaches used elsewhere on the GWR; you would be better getting Hattons Genesis coaches to pass as GWR coaches on local services outside the Smoke than running the Dapol toplights away from their defined territory. They are just really niche! In many ways they have much less utility than, say, a set of Holden and Hill 54' GER bogie suburbans. What they have going for them is the degree of commonality of tooling permitted by the set. That explains why Dapol can afford to make these sets, yet does not explain why sufficient people should want one! Yet, they seem to be excellent models. They have received excellent reviews. RMWeb has noticed them, and there is a buzz surrounding them. They are things of beauty. In stark contrast I have not seen such a buzz in relation to the hopelessly under-promoted EFE Rail LSWR set in pre-Grouping livery. This EFE set represents coaches used all over the LSWR system from 1906 on a variety of services, indeed, I suggest there is no modeller of LSWR or ex-LSWR lines post 1906 who could not justify a set of these. There are some RTR choices for go-with motive power in LSWR days and many more for Southern days and beyond. It is the antithesis of the Dapol toplight set in these regards. It is a genuinely useful set and I therefore actually have a use for such a set. Nevertheless, I still managed not to hear about them until last week, so relatively discrete has been their release! Compound of this parish mentioned the EFE coaches en passant, and I immediately ordered some as they were starting to become sold out. These are stunning, by the way, and serve as a great example of a pre-Grouping bogie set of genuine utlility: In contrast, I have wrestled with buying the Dapol set. I'd love to have them. One day I might. Two sets in lined lake would be a thing of beauty, but I cannot possibly find any use for them. Yet, I assume, they will nevertheless sell in sufficient numbers. Why? Is it because they are Great Western? Is it because they have been properly promoted? Here, with so many versions of the GER/LNER J tanks announced, and with the Oxford Rail K85/N7 released, there is an abundance of motive power suited to GER suburban coaches. Objectively, I suspect a set of Holden 4-wheel six a sides or Holden and Hill 54' bogie suburbans would have been more widespread and have more utility on GER lines than Dapol's Mainline and City toplights did on GWR lines. Logically, therefore, they should be the better choice for the manufacturer. Logic, though, seems to have little to do with what people will buy! Hence my suggestion of train packs, of selling the carriages in a set with the locomotive. That might overcome inertia in people committing to the coaches in a loco-centric hobby. If certain versions of each release only came, or initially only came, with the coaches, that might work. Of course, there will always be some people who object, but the complaint that "you made me buy a set of the only coaches available that match my R24, you b*st*rd!" is probably one I could live with if I were Accurascale!

Be careful what you wish for

I don't see that they need to. A prototype point, but as the purpose of carriage sheds is to keep carriages nice, I imagine the last thing one would want is to send a dirty steam engine in there to pollute with trapped smoke. With goods sheds I imagine it's as much the fire risk as the risk of spoiling the goods. So, what about that coach at the far end of the shed? Did men/horses wheel these out to within reach of an engine? I surmise that Brother Schooner's plan shows cassettes stored beyond the carriage shed, however, there only need to be two cassette roads, one for each route north out of the station: One that will need to accommodate engine and train cassettes up to 4 1/2 ' (54") for the mainline to Birchoverham Next the Sea, and that would also be used for much shorter Birchoverham Staith branch trains. This is is the one along the shed wall; and, One for the Fakeney branch, which would be at the front of the baseboard. The carriage shed acts as a view blocker, not cassette access, so the sidings terminate at the end of the shed.

Of course, I know this. But the question was posed regarding a suitable 'go-with' and that was my suggestion. If the W&U 4-wheelers are not reckoned viable - and I quite see that would be the case - all similar proposals are likely to be similarly doomed, until one isn't, that is. When you consider the number of J67-9 variants proposed and the existence of the Oxford loco, the suggestion is not as far-fetched as some. Could it reach the viability threshhold for injection moulded tooling? That has to remain doubtful, but if Accurascale used a set of, say, four or five of these short coaches in train packs including each of the loco classes/sub-classes proposed, much as Hornby has done with it's Liverpool & Manchester stuff ....

I remain fond of those PC kits. I idly wondered whether EFE would have a crack at the corridor set. PC also did the splendid clerestory diner, which is a nice extra to add to the corridor set.

I would offer the GER six a side 4-wheel suburban stock built 1898-1903. They were 27' long, which I think is about what the Hattons 4-wheel generics scale out at, but were 9' wide. They also had those distinctively 'Metropolitan' round-topped doors. As they used steel sheeting on the lower body, I would guess that they were painted coach brown rather than finished in varnished teak from the outset, going into crimson from 1919. With the round-top door, and width, with recessed doors, I think they are distinctive enough to appeal. You would need to produce just 3 bodies, assuming I am correct in supposing no physical exterior difference between the thirds and seconds, making up a long suburban train with more than one of each: - 4-compartment 1st (Dia. 113) - 5-compartment 2nd (Dia. 308) - 5-compartment 3rd (Dia. 408) - 2-compartment Brake 3rd (Dia 520 or 522) There were two 2-compartment variants and these were seemingly more prevelant than the 3-compartment version (Dia. 521)

Not the only one. Toby, in my view, was always ambiguous, and IIRC the good Reverend suggested at one point he was a Y6, though I think the final answer is that he was a J70. If so, there's a J70 on passenger duties right there! Headcode disc. In the position for an ordinary passenger service, IIRC, notionally in the above the smokebox position. These tended to be white, green or red. Single lines. IIRC, tended to be red, but could be green. Some lines had special rules. I cannot recall if the W&U did off hand. Would need to look up the point.

Quite.

This is a GER G15. It is clearly still in GER livery, as one can see the initials. I would guess the picture dates in the period 1903 to the Great War. G15 No. 129 was of the second batch, to order number N17, of 1885. It was withdrawn in 1933. The confusion no doubt arises from the fact that this loco was placed on the duplicate list, as 0129, in 1921, and the number 129 was thereupon transferred to one of the newly built C53s/J70s.

No, that's Prince Albert. Hat ... coat

Yes, but he also claimed to be a doughnut, so ...

Trying to match an exact shade of colour on a prototype, even if known, is a fool's errand for a whole bunch of reasons. To me, the ultramarine looks like a shade mid-way between the colour ranges one sees on the preserved J15, which can range from bright blue to near black in pictures. I think that is a sensible choice. Even my own pictures of the train pack show a real contrast in the blue on pictures taken at the same time and place but from slightly different angles. Similarly, grey is grey for these purposes. If it was anything like the SE&CR wartime grey, it changed shade quite rapidly out in the atmos. French grey is reputedly a slightly warm grey, but how light or dark it appears at any given point is, again, subject to a thousand variables. Thus, I should think you could take 50 shades and few if any would be objectively or demonstrably wrong! I am very impressed with the 1919 livery set and the crimson really does suit the carriages, but it is out of period for me, and I think the GER coach brown is very well done, so is the ultramarine.

Quite agree! 😉

I might be smiling, but I'm clearly still jaundiced