Compound2632

Ascot?

I'd go for one of the Baldwin engines, as I can neither spell nor pronounce Shenektadey Schenenekady Schenectady. But at least the tenders for the latter are available off-the-shelf being standard Midland 3250 gal tenders later coupled to Class 4 goods engines. EDIT: oops, no they're not - non-standard shorter 12'3" wheelbase, apparently. Thinking about the Baldwin moguls and that rather nice Roundhouse HO one, if anyone happens to have one could they post the leading dimensions? The Midland's Baldwin engines had coupled wheelbase 6'3" + 8'6", and 5'0" diameter wheels - 25 mm + 34 mm and 20 mm diameter at 4 mm scale. The Roundhouse model looks to have about the right proportions though the leading and centre drivers look a little close together. In HO, these dimensions would correspond to 7'2" + 9'8" and 5'7" diameter - perhaps a little tall in the wheel for an American mogul?

Mike, did you do that soldering on or off the model? What heat will the material stand?

This is your post-Great War fleet going by the number painted below the M on the D299?

9" is 57ft in 4mm scale - still a large TT by most UK standards. Easily big enough for most 4-6-0s.

These. For full details see the standard works on Midland Engines! Likewise the Great Central and Great Northern examples. Many years ago there was an article on converting an O Gauge plastic "Casey Jones" kit (possibly this Rivarossi kit?) to represent one of the Baldwin engines - the article was entitled "Casey Johnson".

In the absence of any advance in materials technology, increasing boiler pressure came at the price of increased weight as the boiler plates got thicker - as can be seen if one looks at Johnson's Midland standard goods where, with no significant change in external dimensions, the pressure went from 140 psi in the 1870s to 160 psi in the 1890s, with the weight going up by about two tons. Of course earlier engines may have later received the higher pressure boilers. I'm not sure when there was a general change from iron to steel, which would have given some weight saving. I believe iron was favoured for a while as iron boilers corroded more slowly.

I think the limit of development was reached with the adoption of piston valves and superheating - i.e. Robinson's Great Central J9 of 1909 and its near contemporaries such as the Midland Class 4 goods and Ivatt's Great Northern J21 (LNER J2), both of 1911, and Hill's Great Eastern E72 (LNER J18) of the following year.

I don't think Atlas has the 8'0" + 8'6" wheelbase... ... really established by Matthew Kirtley, who cut his teeth on the B&DJR's squad of 5'6" singles of what we would think of as quite conventional design.

Sweeping? Is that machine really capable of sustained 50 mph running?

Do we need a separate thread on Georgian locomotives?

That looks the business. Handrail knobs would interrupt the smooth flow of the handrail as seen in the prototype photo.

The fortuitous effect of a light fall of snow is appropriate!

Have people seen the photos of the Spitalfields wagon hoist that appear on the @OldLondonImages twitter feed? (Scroll down to the entry for 24 October 2017).

No, it is, as Annie hints, far to apple a green for that. Park railings are surely by default a darker green - a tradition continued in modern security fencing.

Whose idea was the green ironwork?

My copy of A.J. Watts, Private Owner Wagons from the Ince Waggon & Ironworks Co. (HMRS, 1998) arrive today. I'd like to thank those who recommended this. Although most of the wagons in the book are out of period or area for me, it's certainly worth £7 for the essay on the development of the RCH regulations and standards and the profuse drawings relating to the 1887 and later standards. I was interested to note that the Midland Railway's Carriage and Wagon Superintendent, T.G. Clayton, appears as Chair of the Wagon Superintendents' Committee (presumably an RCH committee) in association with the 1887 standard. Whilst Clayton is principally remembered for his magnificent passenger carriages - from his early adoption of bogie vehicles through to the magnificent square-panelled clerestory carriages at the close of the nineteenth century, it is unsurprising to find him deeply involved in wagon standardisation, given that the Midland had the biggest goods and mineral traffic of any line in the country. And of course it was his drawing office that designed the single most numerous item of railway rolling stock of the pre-Grouping period, the D299 8 ton goods and mineral wagon. Watts refers to the Midland's policy of the early 1880s of buying up the PO wagons on its system - £2M spent acquiring 66,000 wagons, about £30 per wagon - as 'bold if misguided' and 'an enormously expensive mistake', on the grounds that the private owners simply spent the money on new PO wagons. I'm still unconvinced that this is a reasonable conclusion to draw. It seems that the intention was to rid the Midland's lines of decrepit and ill-maintained wagons of outmoded design - low capacity, dumb buffers - that were a liability to the efficient operation of its mineral traffic. It also seems that the D299 building programme was intended to provide railway-owned replacements for these, to a uniform standard. However, one-for-one replacement was never going to be sufficient (a) because of the different mode of operation and charging arrangements for PO and company wagons and (b) because of the continued growth in output of the coal industry in the last decades of the nineteenth century. At the very least, the new PO wagons that were bought with the Midland's money were to the 1887 specification and subject to registration and inspection by the company. The board may well have considered that £2M well spent, along with the building cost of all those D299 wagons. (Which would have been charged to revenue, not capital, as they were replacements.) Another interesting snippet is the item about wagon painters employed by the various collieries - further evidence for the view that PO wagons in the pre-Grouping era and beyond were well turned-out. What particularly caught my attention was the statement that "tar was applied to most of the ironwork on the underside of the wagon" - which I interpret as meaning, below the solebar. Was it standard practice to use tar rather than black paint?

There is the occ There is the occasional flashback to Dennis' dad's day, when everything was red and black. Alas my younger son decided he'd grown out of the Beano last summer, so our subscription stopped.

It is clearly a D353 covered goods wagon that has been adapted down the years. Apart from the replacement cupboard doors and reversal and removal of some of the diagonal framing, it rather looks as if the sheeting has been renewed with wider boards. If you run a tape measure over it, it should stand a tad under 10ft high to the top of the roof. The brake gear has clearly also been modified. Most interestingly, it still has its original 8A axleboxes, befitting a vehicle built in the 1880s; the later Ellis 10A type coming in in the 90s. Between 1880 and 1892, 1,440 of these wagons were built. The Midland Railway Study Centre holds a copy of the relevant drawing, Drg. 401 of March 1879, though this isn't yet one that is available as a digital scan. I'd call this an historically important vehicle.

There are the examples of the Highland Castles for the Ouest built by NPL in 1910 and the earlier Belgian Dunalastairs, built by Neilsons. In the case of the Dunalastairs, Neilsons had the drawings by arrangement with McIntosh and the Caledonian board but as far as I can make out the Caley's only reward was to bask in the reflected glory. In the case of the Castles, of which NBL built 50 for the Ouest, having been building them in dribs and drabs for the Highland, it would seem to be a case of making free with the drawings in hand - were the Highland even consulted?

Are those buffers or mushroom stools? I don't quite understand the urge to make the entire model in one piece or even all as a 3D print - different materials suit different components. I like Mike Trice's "basic kit" approach.

Marked on the 1906 25" map as Midland Railway Receiving Warehouse - not rail connected. It was common for the railway companies to have receiving offices for small consignments at premises around many towns and cities - often in other shops (much as one has PO counters in convenience stores these days); there would be a cart come round to collect and take to the goods or passenger station, depending on the consignment. I think it's unusual for it to be done on such a grand scale but Liverpool was probably something of a special case where competition for traffic was intense - note the strategic location between the city centre and the LNWR's Lime Street Station!

Here's a well-documented example, albeit from a provincial city. Here the principal station was joint; one of the owning companies had three large goods depots nearby - one on each of its approaching lines, while the other had two. It's notable that four of these were developed on sites that were the original passenger termini of the various lines, with only one being built on a green-field site.

No. They were selling them new. As far as I'm aware they had to desist once the Locomotive Manufacturers Association got their injunction. After that, second-hand sales were only of well-worn engines in very small quantities to minor railways (for example the DXs sold to the E&WJR).

Indeed, the story as usually quoted (Nock?) is that a set of drawings was requested and the request was declined.