HonestTom

As Hesperus notes, it's a Prestwin cement wagon. It's fair to say that this version by Hornby isn't a great model, being highly compressed in order to fit on to a standard wagon chassis. I mostly bought it because it was cheap, approximately of the right era and distinctive.

A lot of what's now the Underground was built speculatively in the hope of generating traffic. The Hammersmith and City mostly served communities that barely existed. Unfortunately for the H&CR's backers, the area didn't acquire the wealthy commuters they were hoping for until relatively recently.

No, but there is another railway where they were - the Alderney Railway, following an incident where one of its engines ran off the end of the breakwater. Model Rail's version of the Alderney Railway's Molly sadly omits these... Charles Tyson Yerkes of what would become the Underground had a great deal of experience working with urban railways and tramways in Chicago, so he not only brought American money but also a certain degree of expertise. He was also so shady that one of his board meetings in Chicago was interrupted by a lynch mob, but that's another story. The big hindrance to electrification on the Inner Circle was the fact that the Metropolitan and District just couldn't see eye-to-eye on the subject, so much so that they didn't even bother to make the live rails the same height - when a District train went on to the Met's section for the first time, its collector shoes were knocked off. All very embarrassing, particularly given the fanfare surrounding electrification.

I've just come back from a week away near Malton (which in turn is not a million miles from York) and what I noticed was that the predominant building material was sandstone and pantiles were a common roofing material.

I'm imagining a magazine article from within this parallel universe about how this railway stymied the proposed Great Central Railway, titled "Sticking Their OAR In."

I briefly considered the concept of an imaginary Oxford and Aylesbury Railway, inspired by the original plans for the Oxford and Aylesbury Railway. I was planning to cheat on the rolling stock, though, using mostly semi-plausible cast-offs from other companies and older rolling stock from the days when model manufacturers preferred to make something that looked "about right." For locomotives, the OAR's own workshops would have a couple of representatives, made from a chopped-about Great British Locomotives C class (an idea I'm afraid I have shamelessly stolen from Nile of this parish) and a Triang 'Nellie' on a Bachmann Junior chassis (a project I've had in the works for a while). Like the LSWR and SECR, the OAR acquired a couple of second-hand Terriers. Possibly they also experimented with a second-hand Adams Radial. After the First World War they picked up a few ROD 2-8-0s, a concept made much easier by Bachmann's announcement of the ROD version of their O4. I don't think it quite lines up in terms of the timeline, but I had the idea of chopping up a Great British Locomotives N class and imagining that, like the Metropolitan, the OAR bought some of the Woolwich batch and assembled them as their own locomotive. For coaching stock, I'd use modified Triang shorty clerestories to represent local stock and those Graham Farish coaches they produced in every livery for the more prestigious through service to Baker Street. However, this idea has been shelved for the time being, as I'm currently playing with the idea of going back in time even further, and modelling a freelance line in a fictional part of Shropshire circa 1840...

An older A1 would probably be a more attractive proposition, as you'd need to do a bit of modification to get it looking like a miniature version of an A1. The reason I suggested Bachmann Gordon above was that it doesn't have much detail (so you can add scale rivets, controls etc) and certain details such as the cab windows are overscale. However, the tender looks like nothing that ever ran on any locomotive ever, so I guess a Triang or Hornby Gresley tender would need to be substituted.

I guess such a small loco is quite an attractive proposition as a private preservation project - it needs considerably less space than a standard gauge loco (nearly said "full size," that's a great way to get kicked out of the 009 Society) both to store and run, and I would imagine they were designed to be fairly low-maintenance. I think the fact that they were still working when the preservation movement was taking off also helps.

A really neat layout. I particularly like what you've done with the ground cover.

I've seen the Railroad one showing up in the bargain bins, too.

I think in an era when we have manufacturers producing very small and obscure classes, and even one-off locomotives, the lack of a modern Terrier is frankly quite astonishing. While it's true that there were many variants, manufacturers have catered for variations in such relatively small and restricted classes as the rebuilt Beattie well tank and the 1361 - if those are considered worth tooling for, then a Terrier makes just as much sense. They also have a wide area of operation, a wide variety of duties performed, a long life, several interesting liveries, celebrity status, cult appeal and many preserved examples. I don't think the argument about the Railroad range competing with newer models really holds up, given how many other Railroad models are already duplicates. The Terrier is the sort of model that could sell to both markets - they're a popular loco with kids, but they're also useful to serious modellers. I think a new Terrier is not a matter of if, but when.

I've often thought a US Bachmann 'Gordon' could be made into a passable RH&DR-style Pacific in Gn15.

Looks good. It'll be a fine companion to my Gresley suburbans when I finally get around to building my East London layout.

Assuming they keep it to that price, I can actually see this one selling quite well. As others have pointed out, it has good crossover potential for wargamers and military modellers, and I'd say that at that price it's cheap enough for the "oh go on then" market, who'll buy it because it's interesting rather than because they can use the railgun on their layout (that's how Hornby got me with their P2). It doesn't hurt that there's now plenty of WWI/WWII specific stock coming out these days.

I think a lot of what sells is what people like rather than what they actually need. How many people can actually justify a Beattie well tank, an Adams radial, a Metropolitan Bo-Bo or the prototype Deltic in terms of what they model? While in theory, only a handful of modellers could justify these coaches, I think a lot of people would buy them just because they look good. Might it be time to dust off the old Triang Fourgon tooling for the Railroad range?

The foreman at Ashfield Common was kind enough to let me photograph some of the rolling stock today. From top to bottom: Lima vans; a Lima open wagon and Triang mineral wagons; a Hornby Prestwin and Triang brake van being shunted by a Hornby Jinty. All have been weathered and some have been completely repainted. At normal viewing distance, you can’t tell that the wagon markings are just blobs of white paint.

Many thanks. The history is cobbled together from bits and pieces of real railways. One of my other hobbies is going for long walks, exploring the city, and it was a combination of walking along the Grand Union Canal near Old Oak Common and the bargainous 94xx that convinced me to set it in West London. The concept of a joint line between the GWR and the MDR came from the Metropolitan Railway and the GWR getting involved in the Hammersmith and City Railway. The line being routed to allow the directors to profit from land purchases also came from the H&CR, which similarly didn't see the level of suburban development its directors hoped. There are countless examples of lines that don't really serve the communities they claim to. My favourite that almost happened was the LSWR at Surbiton, which was originally going to be called "Kingston-Upon-Railway." The District line really was quite poor and keen to get involved in any scheme to extend their reach. At one point, they even jointly ran a service down to Southend. The spur to Ashfield Common was inspired by the similarly poorly patronised and inconvenient South Acton branch. The GWR station at West Ashfield was inspired by Greenford, which is notable for having some original working GWR signals still in situ. London Transport did dispose of a number of their more pointless services when they took over the Underground companies, with many services being moved over to other lines. The Central Line really was extended into West London as part of the New Works programme, albeit after the Second World War, so presumably the good people of Ashfield were without a Tube service for the duration. West Ashfield is a fake station owned by TfL for staff training. I just thought, "What if there was a real place called Ashfield?" This is probably far more history than a tiny micro with very little to identify it in geographical terms needs. I think I got a bit carried away. Of course, the history is liable to change if I find something I want to run that can't currently be accommodated... Re the backscene, I wasn't planning on having one. However, I am aware that the layout looks quite unbalanced with a factory and embankment at one end and nothing at the other, so I may well be adding one. Or at least, some low-relief buildings to balance things out.

I don't mind at all, in fact it's very useful. My brother is a big fan of that thread, being an enthusiast of the pre-Grouping Southern constituents. I just hope I can resist the urge to turn this from a quick one-off project into a full-on layout...

Ha, I was going to ask the very same question about bogies, having acquired a couple of these coaches this weekend. What a happy coincidence. Many thanks.

A Short History of the line to Ashfield Common Ashfield is a location in the suburbs of West London with little to distinguish it. Its location is often described as "out of the way" and "intentionally vague." While its Central Line counterpart West Ashfield is well known to commuters, Ashfield Common remains fairly obscure. In the 19th century, the area was largely rural aside from the small village of Ashfield and a couple of canalside factories. The Ashfield & Metropolitan Railway Company was, it's fair to say, not exactly founded with noble intentions. The hope was that it would stimulate suburban development (as had been the case with other suburban railways) and that they could poach business from the Grand Union Canal. They managed to persuade the Great Western Railway and the Metropolitan District to come on board, possibly through a certain amount of deception. As construction began, the District fell into dispute with the AMR over a change to the proposed route, which would actually bypass Ashfield itself completely. As the District was a constantly-broke company, their entire reason for coming on board was passenger traffic from Ashfield. It later emerged that the reason for the change in route was the recent purchase by two of the company directors of several parcels of land along the new route which they hoped to sell on for a profit. Fearing the total collapse of the venture, the AMR agreed to a spur to Ashfield itself. However, in the event, even this stopped short of Ashfield proper, hence the station being named Ashfield Common. The line opened in 1885 with passenger traffic being operated by the MDR and goods by the GWR. From the start, it totally failed to meet expectations. The line was not a very attractive prospect for commuters, being slow and indirect (thanks in large part to the deviation). An enterprising coachman began an omnibus service from the centre of Ashfield to the Great Western main line, which further impacted passenger numbers. So poor was the traffic that a single carriage was sufficient. In 1904, the GWR built West Ashfield on the New North Main Line which, ironically, would stimulate suburban development away from the AMR. By 1933, passenger services were being operated by a one-car shuttle operating only in mornings and evenings. When London Transport took over in 1933, they were keen to rid themselves of this white elephant, and the proposed extension of the Central Line through West Ashfield as part of the New Works Programme sealed its fate. The last passenger train ran in June 1938, with the tracks being lifted a couple of years later as part of the war effort. The remains of the route are depicted crossing the goods line on the left side of the layout. Goods traffic was more profitable, as the line directly served a number of factories. However, this traffic too was hampered by the indirectness of the route, and so inevitably the railway suffered with the rise of road haulage. The railway limped along, finally officially closing in 1983. The goods yard depicted here is now part of a retail park. So ends the sad story of the AMR.

Here are a couple more pictures, using only the layout’s original stock. The pannier takes on more coal while the diesel plays with trucks. (Apologies for the background by the way - my workspace is also my library)

Actually, I must confess that since "completion" of the layout, I've gone way over the initial budget with additional stock - partly because I've found I really enjoy turning cheapo stock into something more realistic. The layout as originally envisioned was to feature six wagons per Carl Arendt's reduced Inglenook concept and two locomotives, based on the idea that no modeller will settle for just one. My original budget breakdown is as follows: Baseboard, track and electrics Baseboard - free (old shelf being thrown out) Controller - £5 (swap meet, came with a section of track with power connection) Track - £6.75 (local model shop - actually, a couple of the smaller bits were free, thrown in as part of a larger purchase, but I thought it would be unfair to say "and you can save money by spending a lot more money elsewhere.") Points - £12 (local model shop) Scenic materials Ballast - £3 (model shop) Coal - £1.95 (exhibition) Hanging basket liner - 50p (online retailer) 1 A4 sheet corrugated card - £1 (local art shop) Offcut of mounting board - 10p (local art shop) 1 A4 sheet "Funky Foam" - 50p (art shop) 1 A4 sheet of foamcore - 95p (art shop) Bag of matchsticks - 99p (online retailer) PVA glue - 99p (W H Smith) Figures - £1.50 (exhibition stand) Ladders - £1 (eBay) Oil drums - £2 (eBay) Bridge - £1 (jumble sale) Painting and weathering Humbrol paints (brick red, BR crimson, black, white, primer) - £8.50 (online retailer) Railmatch paint (frame dirt) - £2.95 (local model shop) Eye shadow (black, white, light brown, dark brown) - £2 (Poundland) Watercolour paints - £3 (Wilko) Locomotives and stock 94xx pannier - £10.70 (eBay) Diesel shunter - £7.50 (eBay) Box van - came with 94xx Mineral wagon (full) - £2.50 (jumble sale) Mineral wagon (empty) - £3.70 (swap meet) Prestwin - £3 (antiques shop) Conflat - £3 (swap meet) Tanker - £4 (exhibition) Total - £88.08 The ex-Caledonian "Pug" you see in the photos cost £10 at a swap meet, on the grounds that the guy selling hadn't tested it (I decided to take a gamble, and in fact the loco ran sweeter than any loco of that vintage I've ever bought), so it is technically possible to get a third loco and still remain under £100. Or more wagons. Or more yard clutter (mine came from the scrap box).

Righto, here are the first photos from Ashfield Common. As you can see, the motive power is on the cheap side. The 94xx is the main locomotive, supplemented by a couple of industrial shunters. The yard also sees visits from a Jinty and a 4F, which is currently awaiting weathering.

Hi all. After months of inspiration from other modellers, I thought I'd post about my own effort at a micro-layout. Now, because I'm new to this whole smartphone caper, I won't be doing a step-by-step account of the build, because I built the whole thing when I didn't have the ability to easily photograph it. To be honest, there's nothing particularly revolutionary about my scenic methods. The layout is named Ashfield Common, set somewhere in West London, sometime during the BR steam era. It's a reduced Inglenook, 3 feet in length and 8 inches in width. As well as the length of the sidings, I have deviated from the standard Inglenook design by including a short siding with a coaling stage to store a second locomotive. The whole thing is intended to be self-contained. One additional challenge was that I wanted the whole thing, including controller, scenic materials and stock, to come in at under £100. Just to keep things interesting. I should explain that my other hobby is theatre, working backstage. With a constrained budget, we often have to build our sets and props on the cheap, the challenge being to make them look good without spending a lot of money on them. I wondered if I could apply a similar philosophy here. Next up: photos!

Thanks, I think I'm going to give the 4F chassis concept a go, then. Also, the R1 looks absolutely gorgeous. It's amazing what a good paint job can do for an old model. To be honest, I think I'm going to abandon the concept of using the Hornby 0-6-0 chassis, because the amount of modification I'd need to make to the loco is rather beyond my capabilities. I envision this as a quick-and-cheap project, just for a bit of fun.