Compound2632

I think you must be thinking here of carriages in the dining / sleeping saloon style? In fact the Midland's square-light carriages of 1896-1905 had quite deep beading in lieu of eves panels, which was always painted black.

Why is this wagon marked Load 5 Tons ? I see that the photo of it on the heritage wagon database: http://www.ws.rhrp.org.uk/ws/WagonInfo.asp?Ref=8460 shows it with (for a fictitious livery) rather more prototype-literate grey solebars, headstocks, and end-pillars with black ironwork - it has evidently had the misfortune to be repainted by someone brought up on steel-framed wagons. I note the database says "ex-Fife Coal Company".

Looking at the spacing of the spring shoes and assuming 3 ft springs, 6 ft wheelbase fits with the wagon in the photo. So, coupled with the carriage being an E19 built 1888/9, the date of the photo is narrowed down to 1888-1896.

Not 28841 as 28832-65 were wood minks of old series lots 269 and 321. Much of the 26xxx series was given over to cattle wagons - up to about 26689 - but my notes from Atkins et al. haven't captured anything in the top end of this series. The corner plates of this wagon are untypical of GWR practice at least by the early 1870s. The more I look at the photo the more I become convinced that the lettering is shaded, not just blurred, and that there is some sort of plate on the middle plank, above the figure 2. A hired wagon? The three-arc roof style of the adjacent carriage dates from 1887, so the photo cannot be earlier than then.

Well, it's not as if they haven't been producing under-gauge 4 mm scale models for a generation or more now...

Well, to be specific, way back upthread in response to a comment of mine about the latitude remaining to builders within the 1907 specification, Linny said: But the liveries chosen are not exclusively those of Chas Roberts 7-plankers and Thos Burnett 5-plankers... (Unless I have missed variations in the tooling introduced since the first announcement.) The comparison with the big bad boys is, I confess, unfair since their vice is to put liveries culled from 8 and 10 ton pre-1923 wagons on their (however nice) 12 ton 1923 specification wagons, to the ludicrous extent of leaving on the 8 or 10 ton makings and unfeasible tare weights; at least all your non-fictional liveries are being put on wagons of the stated capacity. I did try a second career as a secondary science teacher - I wasn't very good at it. One failing that was noticed was that I wasn't good at giving praise - I was too prone to take good work for granted. ("Dr Lea doesn't give many stars does he?" was a Year 8's comment reported back to me.) So let me try to make amends by saying that as far as I can see (not having handled one of these models in the flesh) they are very good and in every respect an enormous leap forward compared to any previously-produced pre-RCH 1923 specification PO wagon. My niggles about specific liveries, not a great enough proportion of colliery-owned wagons, etc. are at the grade 7/8 boundary, not the grade 3/4 boundary! Anyway, you should take no notice of my puritanical posturing, since I am not your market for these models: I model 1902, or try too, within my limited skills.

Latnav?

The screen capture could have been in landscape...

But that is only current usage. In discussing, for example, the history of the Talyllyn Railway, it is entirely appropriate and legitimate to refer to the town at the lower end of the line as Towyn, rather than by its currently accepted name of Tywyn. If one put "Tywyn" of the destination board of a carriage on a model of the Cambrian in the 1930s or 1950s, you'd certainly have a whacky sign.

A very profound point. I differ from you, though: it's clear to me that the layout is a model of the WNR; we know that the 'real' WNR (the Railway of the Lore) has many features that are not intended to form part of the model, but that firmly exist in the documented contents of James' imagination.

Alas Taunton is not many miles or minutes closer to here than is Wirksworth!

Excellent list, emphasising that despite Rapido having carefully researched their wagons, they have been not much more particular about applying appropriate liveries than the bad big boys. I take it "twirly" stands for "too early", i.e. pre-1907 - though these Gloucester GW and GC hire examples may be of the same or very similar dimensions as the model? I've been looking in the MR PO Wagon Registers at TNA, mostly at the period around 1900 - two years or so either way - so a few years before the 1907 specification. The vast majority of registrations are of 10 ton wagons, many 16 ft over headstocks. (And the great majority colliery company wagons.) Many entries are marked up with withdrawal dates (and what I take to be reference codes for the withdrawal instructions), these dates being mostly in 1946 - 1949. Whether this means that wagons without such notes were still in service after 1949, I don't know.

A starting point for finding the relevant photos being Joe Greaves' index: https://lightmoor.co.uk/BDLpdf_files/Private_Owner_Wagons_Index.pdf

That's an exhibition train "Development of Midland carriages 1883 - 1923": 43 ft arc roof third, 1880s 48 ft square-light clerestory lavatory third, 1898-1902 50 ft square-light clerestory corridor brake composite (ex-M&GSW / M&NB joint Stock), 1899-1900 54 ft square-light clerestory corridor brake third (Bain), 1904-5 54 ft round-light third with reduced height and width of clerestory, c. 1909-13 57 ft elliptical roof corridor third, possibly one of the handful of vehicles built with Reid's angle-truss underframe in 1922 but more likely an early LMS standard vehicle. NB I've not got out of bed and checked Lacy & Dow, so E&EO.

I was catching up on your layout topic just recently, as with excellent timing a new post had appeared when I first looked after we got home. I see it is starting to get out and about so hope to see it in the flesh at some point!

Sorry, yes, with you now; Princetown. Prisoners certainly a subset of P.

Heck. I declare that the WNR mileage is measured from CA, so departures from thence by either the main or branch are down trains and arrivals are up. In which case, I believe one needs a pair of down starters at the platform end, one for the main and one for the branch, with down advance starters a train's length further on on both lines, so that shunting moves remain within station limits. There would be an up home on each line in rear of the junction, with up distants further out (offstage). Possibly outer homes, to protect moves within station limits up to the advance starters. Alternatively, shunting moves could be regarded as occupying the sections and the advance starters and outer homes dispensed with, though I'm not sure how that would work since the sections on both main and branch would be occupied. I doubt that at this period at a place of this sort there would be ground signals, shunting moves being controlled by hand signals.

G = gricers L = loafers H = hobos

Many LNWR carriages were rather quickly repainted into LMS livery - possibly more quickly than would have been the case on a normal repainting cycle - especially those used on the principal expresses, very much in the public eye. Say within 2-3 years. But local and inter-district sets were perhaps not such urgent candidates and may in some cases have lasted in LNWR livery into the later 1920s. Where these 50 ft corridor carriages built 1898-1902 sat in that spectrum is an interesting question. Quite a few were transferred to the Midland Division; in photographs of Midland Division expresses in the later 1920s they are in LMS livery, so far as one can tell.

Heck, I'm in: the club layout I'm involved with is BR(W) c. 1955. (Though at the Blandford exhibition I did smuggle in a 3F on the excuse of a bit of S&DJRness being locally appropriate.) I understood that middle chrome green was a technical description of the pigment used whereas Brunswick green was a non-technical description of the resulting appearance. However, by the post-war period, the paint technology was probably changing, so the paint used in BR days was presumably intended as a match to the GWR colour.

The reason for the question "which way is up?" was prompted simply by the desire to be able to refer to signals as being for the up and down directions - up home, down starter, etc., rather than: "the starter signal for trains going from left to right on the plan"!

D. Jenkinson, LNWR Carriages (2e, Pendragon, 1995) Plate 87, D268 third, after conversion to a camping coach but still in first, fully lined, LMS livery. What are you wanting to know? As far as livery is concerned, they followed the standard LMS carriage liveries. There was a general removal of lower footboards except at brake ends around 1930. I'm not sure of the extent of conversion to electric lighting.

Ah well, perhaps the end result will be a gain in ecological value.

The RCH Handbook of Stations had letter codes for the facilities that were available, and hence the traffic that could be handled, at each station. If the entry for your station includes the letters F and C, then it had such an end-loading ramp or bay. F = Furniture Vans, Carriages, Portable Engines, and Machines on Wheels - i.e. the sorts of things that would be loaded on a traction wagon or lowmac, etc. C = Carriages by Passenger Train - i.e. loaded on an open or closed carriage truck. It's unusual to have one without the other - the exceptions being stations that had either no goods facilities or no passenger facilities. In the 1904 edition of the Handbook (David & Charles reprint, 1970), Princetown has the full gamut of facilities: G P F L H C. The meaning of the four letters G P L and H should be self-evident...

A garment that reveals more than it conceals. (A Freudian comment in itself.) A poster with a sense of humour. If you read back you will see that this is Annie's standard terminology for the post-nationalisation period.