Edwardian

Having followed the link helpfully posted above by Ozexpatriate (and having finished drooling), I am facing a genuine dilemma. Pathetic in a grown man, I know. I had decided to leave it at just the Leaf Green version, not because I wanted to model Dodo's prototype line, but because a works livery Peckett can be used anywhere. I can, thus, justify it on my first layout (under-construction) and many potential projects, including 2 industrial micro-layouts that exist, so far, only in my imagination. I had reluctantly concluded that I could not possibly justify the H&P. If I bought it, I would have to run it somewhere it could never have been seen (Norfolk!), and, while I realise that Rule No.1 exists for just such cases, I am haunted by the fear that succumbing to the charms of the little blue Peckett would make me, well, there's no pleasant word for this, no better than a Collector! It is, in the flesh, irresistible! Still, no one ever died of a modelling dilemma, and it's a nice problem to have. Well done, again, Hornby!

Very much enjoying seeing these scenes revealed in the softly lighted and somewhat desolate dusk!

Indeed, I had thought about a "not an Ilfracombe Goods" for CA. By this I mean, one of the type, as I believe it was a BP design, not a LSWR design. Of course the Ilfracombe Goods were all accounted for!

They look superb. They deserve to do well; I am sure they will.

Simon, that is a wonderful collection. Thanks for the link. I was thinking that the locomotive had a familiar Beyer Peacock look to it, like the SMJ/E&WJR 0-6-0. Turns out that BP supplied similar locomotives to the Egyptian State Railways in the late 1850s and early '60s. I note that the cab sheet is built out to cover the splasher and the spring, and, of course, the (very shiny) dome casing has been removed, otherwise its not a bad match for the 1863 BP pictured below. What do we reckon?

Kevin, these pictures, and the ones of Whitstable, are simply stunning. The vessels, both sail and steam, are perfect for model harbours everywhere; Mereport, Wolfingham and Birchoverham Staithe included. I had just typed "sailors in sennett or sennit hats are proving to be a massive distraction". Then I thought about it for a second and decided not to. The photograph, in Alexandria in 1882, apparently, got me rummaging around in an outbuilding. I found these:

Oh bless you and thank you for that. That is everything I needed to know. One of the periods that I have been focussing on is 1912-14, so this fits in nicely. It means that I can accommodate the Heljan version on both a freelance layout and on any bit of the L&B I might tackle. If I want to go earlier, it is good to know that the Backwoods cab may be available separately, so this is all good! It also, of course, makes investing in some L&B literature in due course a much more likely and justifiable proposition!

That is very helpful. Thanks. I am afraid that I do not own the Big Book on the L&B, or much else about the line, and, in the meantime, am dependent upon the knowledge and patience of others. I still need to pin down the date, if only to avoid anachronisms, but your answer is a positive start to my consideration of the L&B as a subject.

Sorry, John, I did specify "kind soul", which bit you evidently missed as you rushed to slam me down! I hope you found that cathartic, nonetheless. Had I world enough and time to be an expert on every aspect of the prototype that interests me, doubtless I would never need to ask a question! Alas, I am not so blessed!

I knew there must be a link between sennet-hatted Tars and railways! (and I'm sure I have some wargames figures of this ilk somewhere!)

I have a definite view as to what I would do, but that's just me and you will have your own views, but I will explain my thought process, take from it what you will! The alcove site lends itself, right to left, to a platform fence and then a station building inset into the alcove, but hard against the flank wall. That is really the key to my thinking and everything else stems from that. So: The mirror image is suggested, not merely to confer originality to your "in the style of ..." station, but because, in the case of both Groombridge and Hellingly, this results in placing the tallest part, the 2-storey station master's house, nearest to the alcove wall. I suggest this (1) because it militates against the big right-angled bit of sky coming forward by helping to disguise it, (2) because it balances the height of the road that crosses the line. The rising profiles of the station building would mirror the rising approach ramp to the road, and (3) because of the direction of access to the forecourt. The bulk of the forecourt, including space for carriage turning, will be behind the station building, as, I think, Chris pointed out. The approach is envisaged as from the left. There is a logic to placing the station master's accommodation to the opposite side to the public access. You could do either Grrombridge or Hellingly -both would look great as mirror images. From your mock-up, Groombridge does not appear to take up any more of the platform length than Hellingly, however, Hellingly certainly looks smaller and I agree with you and Chris that it is the better of the two for your purposes. So, on the assumption that we are dealing with a mirror Hellingly, why did I want to chop off the low bit to one side? Well, because I would want the 2-storey section abutting the side of the alcove. This means EITHER, you chop off the domestic offices/stores block OR you run this as a façade only along the front of the protruding section of sky. I suggested axing this part of the building because it looked that you might not be able to mount the building sufficienly far forward to run the façade in front of the protruding sky. If you can, I would not axe the low part of the building, as it will mask the protruding sky better than a fence or lower wall. If you can't continue the low part of the building in front of the protruding wall, I still say 'axe it'. The plan is useful, but merely confirms my view that this part of the building can be dispensed with if to do so would be to the advantage of the overall composition. Why do I think this? Well, the block concerned housed the domestic offices of the station master's house. These can be imagined to be tacked onto the accommodation elsewhere. The block also houses station facilities, the lamp room and the store. Neither of these need to be attached to the station building, indeed, it was common for the highly flammable lamp store to be contained in a discrete lamp hut, typically located further along the platform from passenger accommodation. I don't know Brighton practice in this regard, however. The store, again, can easily be housed in a hut. I suggest the presence of 2 huts, further along the platform, can only add interest, and relieve the view of the rising bank behind the platform. The natural compromise position is to use huts for lamps and stores, but allow the station master's family to retain its domestic offices in modified form. Simply retain the higher portion of this block, where the pantry window is located. run all the domestic offices in a line back from there. This will minimise the distance between the 2-storey section and the alcove flank, helping to maintain the disguise.

With Hellingly, I would omit the low wall with the 2 doors and small window, and then build the rest as a mirror image

I have been catching up on this topic with growing interest. I am particularly interested in the Stelfox GE open. I have not heard of this producer. Do you know if they are still obtainable?

I wonder if some kind soul here with a greater knowledge of the subject than I could please comment upon the accuracy of the Yeo model, the one in L&B livery? I note Blobrick's comment about the cabs being smaller as originally supplied, and this begged the question when a larger cab was fitted to Yeo; was it even in L&B days? Peco, I know, produced L&Y livery coaches with tooling accurate for the SR version (apparently there should be toplights for the L&B period. Hatton's 4800 is a semi-con, because it includes liveries not generally associated with the wartime modifications that its tooling contains. In short, I am starting to get a bit paranoid about RTR releases! The two pictures below seems to suggest (1) As originally supplied, Yeo's cab did not extend over the bunker, but (2) shows an extended cab, but Yeo still appears to be in L&B livery. Any dates, details and confirmation of the position would be very welcome.

I have, I must confess, a bit of a 'thing' for tramp steamers. I think it is the itinerant nature, the carry anything service, and the fact that they invariably took a small number of fare paying passengers. A romantic way to travel now lost to us. Particular favourites are the '3-island' type of the early Twentieth Century. As Andy points out, these have 2 holds. The eponymous islands are formed by the raised foredeck, central bridge and raised after-deck. Some colliers were 3-island types, including this example from the NE built in 1904: http://www.east-durham.co.uk/londonderry%20fleet/londonderry_fleet.htm They are, however, likely to prove too large for Wolfingham, which, as Kevin points out, is probably silting up as we speak. The minor port on the north coast, Birchoverham Staithe, is in much the same condition and would have been restricted to sailing vessels of modest size and draft, even into its early 20th Century Dog Days. Further, I somehow feel that a tramp steamer is too modern for the backwater concerned, so, I wonder if there were still modestly sized sailing colliers in the early 1900s? I rather like this one, in the colour picture below. When these types were being built in the 1850s and '60s, they seem to have been all smart with gingerbread and chequered ports, like baby Clippers. By the turn of the Century, I imagine they bore a more work-a-day appearance. EDIT: Here is a picture of a collier being towed out of Seaham Harbour (what a wonderful scene!), said to be in 1904. perfect!

Well Chris, if you can find a second-hand Coopercraft GW O5 4-plank, you can easily back-date this to an un-diagrammed open from the 1880s. The main change would be to replace the brake lever with a conventional one. Since most wagons at your period (1895) would have brakes on one side only, any other wagon kit is likely to yield a spare brake lever. And wouldn't it be splendid to have the odd GW red wagon along with those light grey Cambrian?

Thanks, both. Agreed, that is what I had envisaged. The railway would need some coal - to heat its premises and for loco coal. I had thought that the railway might also be contracted to deliver coal to other users, e.g. Achingham Gas Works, Maltings, Breweries etc As to distribution generally, I had assumed local coal merchants each serving/competing in 3 or 4 local place, so as to provide some PO variety. A coal factor I had failed to consider. Could one be introduced in addition to smaller local merchants? Agreed. The link to socket protectors does perplex me, however. Usually I can follow Kevin's admirable chain of reasoning, but ... We should have Mr Masefield's dirty little coaster. A slightly later (1913) coastal collier is pictured below. She is not that large, perhaps 150-180' in length. It cannot be beyond the bounds of research to identify the types operating out of NE ports at the turn of the Century. Perhaps plans?!? A pertinent and interesting example, thanks. That would seem reasonable. Back to wagon building: - Don, I will look at that link to building method, thank you. EDIT: Very impressive and food for thought. - Andy G - I have long felt the need for a squarker in my life. I would be surprised if no one made such a thing, but, if not, presumably one can fashion such a thing from another tool. Does anyone have a suggestion for a squarker/groove making thing? EDIT: This? https://eileensemporium.com/index.php?option=com_hikashop&ctrl=product&task=show&cid=1622&name=plastic-cutter-scrawker&Itemid=189&category_pathway=1063 EDIT: Great Western wagon livery. Co-incidentally this was posted yesterday: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/113035-more-pre-grouping-wagons-in-4mm/&do=findComment&comment=2375075. See post 15. Now I think Compound2632 can justify producing an O4 in red; he is probably correct to observe that red is correct on the balance of probabilities. His observation that "It’s entirely possible that many/most/all of these wagons emerged from Swindon after the adoption of the 25” G W lettering, despite the lot authorisation dates" is interesting. I think I will stick to the idea of back-dating the kit to the 1895 example I mentioned as a neat way to side step both the envisaged and the un-envisaged uncertainties as to the 'as built' appearance of the O5.

Thanks all. Gary, I have a feeling that I might already have one of those Meakins wagons! One of the striking things about the c.1905 period is that the 'classic' pre-Grouping wagon liveries, i.e. with the larger company initials, are only just coming in, e.g. 1903 for GER, 1904 for GWR. As a result, the large initials are likely to be found on only the newest wagons, wagon repaints not being a high priority. This will give 1905 a very different look. Great resources for GER information are the GERS website (I really must join) and the Basilica Fields site (https://basilicafields.wordpress.com). Basilica Fields has a picture of a GE diagram 17 5-plank open general merchandise wagon. These were built between 1893 and 1903, so the wagon is a 'must' for CA. The picture shows one of the 1901 batch freshly painted with the large 'G E' in 1910. The caption states that this wagon lasted 8 years before a repaint. I suspect that was not untypical. More typical of the appearance of GE wagons c.1905 is probably the picture of the diagram 16 wagon (built c.1887-1893). This picture (below) is taken from the Basilica Fields site, where it is captioned as a public domain image. It shows the small lettering that I feel would be more appropriate for 1905. It also shows just the sort of square grease axle boxes that Simon mentions, and I take his point that really any other type of axle-box can be readily replaced by a home-made representation of this square grease type. GE diagrams, 16 and 17 5 planks and diagram 16's non-diagram 4 plank predecessor are all 9'6" w/b and 15' over the headstocks. I assume that kit u/f could have two 1mm slithers inserted either side of the 'V' hanger. We are, of course, in pre-common user days, so company wagons must be returned to their home territories within 5 days. The presence of a foreign wagon is deliberate, for a purpose, and not random as it would be during war-time pooling and post-war common user arrangements. We discussed several pages back that a load of Welsh slate is appropriate (pretty much anywhere in the country from the 1860s onward, I would imagine), so I think the Cambrian Kits Cambrian dropside is a clear choice. Thanks, Chris, for reminding me that Quarryscapes does the transfers. Turning the Great Western, I need a plausible reason/load for the Coopercraft kit just ordered. I imagine that a generic open merchandise wagon from a large pre-Grouping company such as the GW or LNWR could be justified almost anywhere, and not just on its own metals or that of its neighbours, but, pre-common user era wagons need a story behind their movements. As to the wagon itself, when I dusted off my Atkins, Beard and Tourret I bore in mind John's comments about the uncertainty concerning the date livery changed from red to dark grey. There is a useful summary of the scant evidence here: http://www.gwr.org.uk/liverieswagonred.html. This article quotes Atkins, Beard and Tourret as dating the change to 1898, but this is originally a 1975 work, and my combined edition was updated in 1998. As John suggests, the debate has moved on since then, with the alternative school of thought suggesting that 1904, the date of the change to big letters, was the time grey was introduced. Now, this is a particular dilemma for the Coopercraft O5 4-plank if, as I suggested, it is to be completed in 'as built' condition. The diagram was introduced in 1902, I believe. It featured cast iron plates in lieu of painted initials and numbers. At 1905 it is hardly likely that such a new wagon would have been repainted in the 1904 large-letter scheme. So, the question is, in 1902 would a new wagon have been out-shopped in red or grey? it seems that it is not possible to be sure. As John points out, however, the O5 is very similar to its non-diagrammed predecessors. The main difference is that the pre-O5 wagons were built with conventional brake levers. The O5s have the, then new, characteristic DCI brake. Back-dating an O5 would seem to be a fairly straightforward exercise. This gives me the option of depicting a red wagon built in the 1890s. At p276, plate 350, of Atkins et al, we find pre-diagram 10 Ton 4 plank open no. 64493 built to lot 122 in 1895. It sports the conventional brake handle, Simon's square grease axle-boxes and bears the small 'G. W. R.', not cast plates. The initials are on the right side, a feature standardised c.1893. As the earliest date suggested for the grey livery is 1896, and Atkins et al has the change at "about" 1898, it seems safe to conclude that I am here looking at a picture of a red wagon. The picture is dated 1901. It seems safe to assume no repaint to the 1904 scheme by 1905, so I would be on fairly safe ground if I ran this red wagon in 1905. The next plate depicts an even earlier version of the type, no. 44600, from lot 442 of 1888. This wagon also sports square grease boxes. Again, no cast plates. This time the company initials are on the left, which tends to suggest they were applied pre c.1893. As the wagon itself would hardly have been repainted between construction in 1888 and 1893, the photograph would appear to show the original, red, livery of 1888, notwithstanding that the photograph is dated 1902, some 14 years later! Caley Jim is quite right to point out that I have a wide degree of latitude in depicting the WNR's own wagons. One thought that occurs, if the westward extension forks to the coast to Wolfingham, where it was suggested there is a coal wharf, the means of bringing coal into the area in preference to rail, the WNRmight be expected to have a string of its own mineral opens to cater for the traffic, in addition to the wagons of local coal merchants. If this were the case, there seems no good reason why, in running coal trains from the coast on its own metals, the WNR of 1905 should not still be using dumb-buffered wagons for the task. Finally, I have just seen Andy G's response. I am indebted to him for the information that Wizard/51L cast axle-guards will take bearings. His sounds like a plan!

Brilliant ideas, John and Kevin. Some excellent wagons, there John, and you are quite correct to imply that CA is not a line that counts its rivets! I am beginning to think that red is the proper colour for GW wagons! I like the idea of adapting kits and RTR wagons. The standard to which I aspire is a standard metal wheel (Gibson) with brass bearing cups. I see no particular need to compensate, so, if I can use moulded plastic axle-box/springs with bearing cups inset, that works for me. Given that, adapting kit u/fs seems to be a logical choice. Thanks, Chris, you post as I type. Cambrian PO u/f and kits look adaptable. In Other News, I have Weakened, and acquired a Coopercraft O5 4 Plank from Ebay. It is to be finished 'as built' because, first, every layout needs to have at least one Great Western wagon, and, second, because at c.1902 it represents some modern rolling stock, for a change! Time to give Atkins, Beard and Tourret an airing!

Some little while ago it was pointed out to me that the WNR really ought to have something to run on it. In, I hope, the spirit of the piece - scratch-built track, scratch-built buildings and converted figures - I would like to scratch-build the stock. By 'scratch-build' I mean that I would utilise proprietary accessories, rather than manufacture components! I had thought to make a start with wagons. A brief consideration of the subject confirms that scratch-building is a necessity in any event; we are pre- 1907 RCH. Suitable subjects range from dumb-buffered POs from the 1870s through to 'modern' company wagons from the turn of the Century. I note that the GE wagons are 9'6" w/b. Others are 9', or less. It struck me that there were two basic routes: 1. Modify the nearest suitable u/f kit. I am comfortable working in plastic, so Cambrian and Parkside spring to mind 2. Scratch-build u/f, which, I suppose, is done using brass fold-up W irons and cosmetic axle-box/spring assemblies? In either case I anticipate scratch-building bodies from plastic-card. I thought to standardise on Gibson wheels. I wondered what topic Contributors thought of this? Certainly, I could benefit from identifying suitable components and from any advice on scratch-building techniques, particularly in relation to under frames. As ever, "economy" is the watchword. Best to you all. James

Gary, from what you say, I would imagine that the texture of the road surface is just what you need. I would think about masking it off, spraying with something considerably lighter, dry brush something even lighter to high-light the raised texture, add wear marks from the carriage wheels and add ordure, say, with tea leaves? I meant to say, I do like the mocked up building. You mentioned it is from Groombridge. This prompted me to check out Groombridge and I realised that a mirror image of Groombridge (so, platform face resembles forecourt façade) was pretty much what I'd had in mind when I made my earlier suggestion! Spooky.

Gary, good idea. On considering the composite photograph, the arrangement that suggests itself to me is: Place the station building to the right, up against the flank of the alcove wall, thus disguising it. Depending upon the width available, I expect the building would be full, or nearly full relief, remembering the need for a minimum platform width of 6' to the front of the structure. Gradually reduce the height of the embankment from the road overbridge to a station forecourt (at platform level) to the left of the station building. Do not forget to fence off the approach ramp from the edge of the embankment! You could place a station sign and gas lamp at the top of the approach ramp and, perhaps, a gate at the bottom before it opens up into the forecourt. The road crossing the railway looks as if currently this is a dark asphalt colour. For your period, rather than tarmac, I would try a light grey, chalky white or light buff road surface. I agree with ChrisN, that some horse-drawn vehicles would look the part. Small private 'buses were used as a local 'bus service, or by hotels and railway companies, and I reckon they seldom go amiss; I shall certainly include one on Castle Aching. PD Marsh supply one, which I believe is based on a GW prototype, but, really, it's a pretty generic item (http://www.pdmarshmodels.com/show_product.php?pid=397). A carriage that I feel seldom goes amiss was the Brougham (pronounced 'broom'). They could be private carriages, but many were used as cabs, and, personally, I like the idea of a rather shabby Brougham, with, in place of a liveried coachman in top hat, a rather scruffy cabby in a disreputable bowler. Langley has long featured them in its range, I remember wanting one as a child, but never got my wish! Langely has quite a good range of horse-drawn vehicles (http://www.langley-models.co.uk/acatalog/Online_Catalogue_OO_Horse_Drawn_Vehicles___Motorcycles__Incl_NEW_Items__21.html) and, beneath the Brougham, I notice a lovely horse-drawn omnibus, which, if I were you, I'd place on the road over-bridge, just to annoy the many folk that sort of thing seems to trouble! Well, it's your layout, and there are no doubt other equally interesting things you could do, but if any of that helps, you're welcome! Whatever you do will have a significant, and positive, visual impact on the layout, and is a great opportunity to make it more Brighton and more 'you'. I look forward to developments. BTW, water tower and coal stage looking good

RN Stokers, early 20th century, in a highly sanitised recruitment poster. Note the sennet hats in tropical locales top right and bottom right of the poster.!

I discover that the straw sennet hat was part of the Rating's uniform when it was first established in 1857, though, like other elements of the first uniform, it was probably an item that had been traditionally worn for some time prior to this. What surprised me is that it remained on the Royal Navy's kit list until 1921!

Indeed, Geoff, the chap on the right, did crop up earlier. it was only on viewing the larger than life image that I noticed Geoff still had an open shirt with turn down collar, so I have now trimmed these off.