Schooner's (Mostly Maritime) Musings

[Flymo749]

21 hours ago, Schooner said:

 

For completeness' sake here's an as-built (1889 condition) Buckjumper 2, the definitive Blackwall Tank:

 

C'mon Hornby, Hattons and Bachmann, I'm waiting... 

 

 

 

 

Or you could build your own...

 

 

Connoisseur Models kit, the dome and chimney aren't quite right but that only became apparent when it was photographed.

 

The livery is remarkably pleasing, with just a touch of East End grime.  

 

 

I chose to build it as an 0-6-0. You never know when that extra traction will come in handy for hauling all those barrels of rum and sacks of spice around...

 

Cheers

Paul

 

[Regularity]

Drawings of the E22 and B32 variants of the LNER classification’s J65 are available from the Great Eastern Railway Society:

https://www.gersociety.org.uk/index.php/files-emporium-home/lg008-ger-lner-0-6-0-tank-locos?search=E22

 

Although not massively different, the two batches do differ from each other: different balance weights, and the B32s had broader but not so deep side tanks, which subtly affect the look.

[Edwardian]

Frankly, I should have thought Bromley tanks would be the thing for suburban work in your period; squat, black and somewhat brutish in appearance.  They probably are better suited to their original black, but perhaps not all blue in your 1880s scenario.

 

• E10 0-4-4Ts built 1878-83 for suburban work
• M12, the 0-6-0T version for handling goods around London, built 1880-1

 

The not-so-light light branch line 0-4-4T, the No.140 Class, you might get also away with.  Worth it for its particularly thuggish looks.

 

As rebuilt (from 1890) as 0-4-2Ts, they were more suitable as branch engines and I could just about get away with one on CA as the last went in 1905. 

 

Locomotive Magazine drawings for all in the Sharman volume. 

[wainwright1]

On 10/11/2020 at 09:47, Edwardian said:

 

A 7-coach set is not as long as I feared for an inner suburban train of the period.  Contemporary Brighton trains in the charge of Terriers could be anything from 8-11 4-wheel coaches.

I believe that the Terriers hauled 14 coach trains of four wheelers on the South London Line on a fairly intensive service and 12 coach sets on the East London Line, the smaller number being due to the gradient up out of the Thames Tunnel.

 

Ray

[Flymo749]

7 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Frankly, I should have thought Bromley tanks would be the thing for suburban work in your period; squat, black and somewhat brutish in appearance.  They probably are better suited to their original black, but perhaps not all blue in your 1880s scenario.

 

• E10 0-4-4Ts built 1878-83 for suburban work
• M12, the 0-6-0T version for handling goods around London, built 1880-1

 

 

An Iain Rice build of "Bromley's Be-riveted Drudge" (as he termed the M12) is the star piece in issue 0 of the MRJ...  It had me hooked at that!

 

"A new quarterly journal for the finescale model railway enthusiast" was how it was termed, and we all know what happened after that...

 

Cheers

Paul

 

[sem34090]

CDC Designs do a reasonable 3D Printed Buckjumper, in both LNER and GER condition, to fit the old Hornby Terrier chassis.

[Schooner]

On 11/11/2020 at 10:25, Edwardian said:

...your 1880s scenario.

Ideal, you're quite right and thank you for the drawings info.  The locos shown were those likely (I think, but as you know these are early days for my learnings!)  to have been involved in the 1883 accident at Millwall Junction, based on "At that time, [1883] examples of Robert Sinclair’s V class 2-4-2WTs, the ‘Scotchmen’ had been allocated the services, but these were gradually withdrawn throughout the decade as their boilers expired, and a steady succession of Adams, Bromley and Worsdell tank engines temporarily took charge."

 

On train length, perhaps the Fenchurch-Blackwall run just didn't generate quite the traffic of some other routes...?

 

On 10/11/2020 at 22:54, Flymo749 said:

Or you could build your own...

Not so beautifully! Mind you, RTR list for this layout is not a long one so I'll be getting some practice in...

 

48 minutes ago, sem34090 said:

...to fit the old Hornby Terrier chassis.

Ah, interesting - I thought it was more kit than bodyshell. Perhaps a recent development?

 

It seems CDC will be taking plenty of my money in time, between the Blackwall tank (which is inevitable at some point, if inaccurate), the essential MER Manning Wardles, and their Park Tank (NLR Class 75, which filled in for Swift shunting the West India Docks when the Fowler locomotive was away for servicing. Other kits are available too. Built 1879-1905, they'll look excitingly modern in comparison to the rest of the proposed goods stud:

 

[sem34090]

Ah, that's the Shapeways one...

 

www.cdc-design.net

 

Just realised that the J65 hasn't been done yet, but other GER 0-6-0t designs have been. I gather the J65 will follow.

[Schooner]

Hang tight everyone, there's been some actual work!

 

GER Society documents now restored, after my unsolicted computer wipe, so there are some little bits and bobs to fill in a few gaps.

 

These included a collection of articles, mostly from The Locomotive Magazine, on the railways of London's Docks. From which:

Ariel's Girdle was converted from her well-known Great Exhibition single-driver condition, to her equally well known MER condition thus: "Apparently the 5-ft. o-in. single driving wheels were not satisfactory, as the engine was converted at Stratford works, in 1868, into a four-coupled engine with 4-ft. o-in. drivers and cylinders 9-in. diameter by 15-in. stroke, the boiler remaining unchanged." She was subsequently renumbered 17A. at about the time she was assigned to the MER. Sept 15th, 1904. 

 

"ABOUT 1877 the G. E. R., as successor to the E . C. R., who supplied the locomotive power and rolling stock for working the line at this period, replaced No. I 7A by one of the standard single driver tank engines, built for the Blackwall Ry. by Messr . Jones & Potts, of Leeds. This engine, which started its career on th Blackwall Line immediately after the abolition of the original system of rope working with stationary engines, was named "Thames" but on transference to the G. E. stock it was numbered 97, and it is shown thus in our picture." Oct 15th, 1904

 

There is also confirmation, if any more was needed, that the MER Manning Wardles were built as side tanks, and agrees with livery choice: "At one period the engines were painted dark yellow lined yvry similarly to those of the L.B. & S. C. Ry . and had advertisements on the side tanks, sandboxes, etc.  They are now, however, painted brick red with black bands; they have bright brass domes, number plates and chimney caps." In 1885 I believe the former to be correct still, as per @Ian Rathbone's glorious rendition:

http://www.ianrathbonemodelpainting.co.uk/resources/MExR6-1w.jpg ...oh, it won't embed (despite still working perfectly on the OP), but do follow the link for a photo of a very smart little loco.

Also of note:

"Of these [Millwall Dock Co's other locos] the " Bee " [see post on Dock locos, and Marden's London Dock Railways volumes] has been used for the passenger trains on several occasions when some of the other engines [MER Manning Wardles] have been under repair. Standard G. E. goods engines work over the line with ballast trains for permanent way purposes. The limit of speed for these train across the swing bridges is four miles an hour."

"They were fitted with the Westinghouse brake at Stratford about 1892."

 

For reference, the source for the LM's info: "We have to acknowledge our indebtedness for much of the foregoing information to Mr. A. Church, who has had charge of the passenger stock since the opening of the line."

 

I'll check against the Marden tonight - I think there are one or two conflicts - but it's nice to return to a place and time that's becoming comfortably familar

 

EDIT: How wonderful! A letter, unsigned in the digital copy I have, makes clear that the J&P tank is not shown in MER condition, but likely post-GER but pre-Adams rebuild, in prose full of nostaligia for the good old Blackwall Co. days. I won't quote the detail differences, or the annecdotes, here but if you'd like to know more please do get in touch and I'd be happy to pass on what I can.

 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2020 by Schooner
As above

[Regularity]

4 hours ago, Schooner said:

For reference, the source for the LM's info: "We have to acknowledge our indebtedness for much of the foregoing information to Mr. A. Church, who has had charge of the passenger stock since the opening of the line."

I’ve found that to be the case with an awful lot of the articles in the LM, and also the RM: strong hints of a big-wig from a small company turning up at the magazine’s offices, and spinning things slightly.

[Schooner]

Just quickly:

 

The GWR WTT reproduced in Atkins' GWR Docks and Marine (undated as far as I could see), makes it clear that whilst their wagons were capable of running alongside ships in the West India and Millwall docks, the GW would really much rather goods were sent via their depots from which it could be lightered to/from the ship. A reduced presence for the GWR on the layout would be fitting, then. What this actually means in terms of stock numbers/variety I can't yet say. In terms of goods handled: "Iron, machinery and hardware were the main goods handled at the depot, but the Great Western Railway Company was said to refuse nothing." I have read somewhere that the depot was focused on export traffic, although now can't remember where. 

 

Cutty Sark's cargo: I was able to get home this weekend, and skimmed Lubbock's The Log of the Cutty Sark for information on the cargos whilst in the wool trade. Two things of general interest: even her homeward cargos were quite varied, especially early on (in the mid-1880s, the period of the layout); there's no mention of the West India Dock at all.

 

Dealing with the latter point first: In general, there is no mention of where she unloaded in London. London Dock is referred to once, where there was also a wool warehouse and trading floor, and it is possible that it's used as a general term - the London Docks rather than the specific London Dock - though I think this unlikely. The East India Dock is where she was loaded with her outbound general cargo (you name it - pianos, straw hats, beer, machinery, candles, sardines, hops etc etc etc), where presumably Willis (her owner)/the Victoria Line had warehousing. A shame not to have written confirmation that she unloaded wool at the South West India in March 1884 as I'm hoping to model...but hey ho.

 

Homeward cargos: If it sounds like I'm stalling above, I am. I've just realised that I failed to bring my notes with me, so a detailed breakdown of her manifest will have to wait. Quantities from memory and therefore a rough guide only found here, for 1885: 

• 4465 bales of wool  (this would increase through the years to well over 5000 being screwed into her in Brisbane for her last wool trip)
• 2342 packages of cobalt ore*
• 1345 bags nickel ore*
• 29,772 horns
• 122 cwt. 2 qr. 21 lbs. shank bones
• 76 cwt. 1 qr. 20 lbs. hoofs
• 1 cwt. of pith and
• 6 bales of sheepskins

 

*As stiffening. Casks of tallow were traditionally used for this, and 12 were carried on her first trip, along with c.4300 bales, but never subsequently - her fine lines making them difficult and inefficient to stow. Chrome nickle ore was also frequently carried. Wool was bulky but light, so these dense cargos were vital to get the vessels in their proper trim**

**The docker in Brisbane who got those 5,000+ bales into her reported she was the only vessel he'd loaded in his entire career who settled to her Plimsoll with a cargo of wool - a mark of just how fine her lines were.

 

Thermopylae (Cutty Sark's career rival, and for whom there is also a model kit available in 1:124 (and other 'Cutty's in 1:78 and 1:84) if there's ever scope for a bit of forced perspective) brought a similarly mixed bag, including several tons of "old iron rails". Anyone know why these would be shipped back around the world from Newcastle, New South Wales, to London? As ballast is a likely option, but they're listed as cargo...Ah, found it:

• 4638 bales of wool
• 650 bags chrome ore
• 1142 bags nickel ore
• 19 tons 19 cwt. old iron rails
• 15 casks of milk
• 1 cask of sheep shears

 

Milk?!

 

The point of all this is to try to work out plausible, if not quite accurate, requirements for type and number of railway trucks. Ideally including Railway Company, given typical regional industries. It's nice having the "because docks" excuse for pretty much any wagon, but it'd be nicer to do a little better  Most of a clipper's cargo would, I imagine, go straight to warehouses for sorting and stowing - but in time those goods would have to be distributed and the flow out must match the flow in so I think this approach is viable...?

 

The Peepshow of the Port of London (A. G. Linney) is an absolute hoot. Wonderfully observed, gloriously written and full of fascinating photos, albeit tiny and poorly reproduced. However, I didn't see a single mention of any form of railway in any way, shape or form. I charged through it apace, so it is possible I missed something, but chapters on WID, Millwall, the Isle of Dogs etc were all bereft of a single mention of a train, a truck or a rail.

 

Cheers all, happy Tuesday

 

Schooner

 

ps. my memory isn't that good. Digitised log of the Cutty Sark available here

Edited December 9, 2020 by Schooner
Digitised log discovered :)

[Schooner]

These are too good to wait! Getty seems to made many of its prints available to preview in 2048x2048, the highest resolution I've come across for those 1898 pics of the NLR and Midland Poplar Docks. There are 20 or so, and each one is utterly brilliant. Just one example to stop myself getting carried away:

 

 

Right click to open in a new tab and zoom  They're all that good, so much detail to unpack. They might be a bit late for the layout, but they're just wonderful!

 

This is a link to the Getty search I've got open, which has them all.

 

This is a link to NLS 1:1056 map, for context and because there are enough photos that for most you can work out the photographer's location and find it in another photo, and close enough together in time that you can follow wagons as they're process through the depots, or lighters around the basin.

 

This is a link to Galloway's at Grace's Guide. 

 

Dead chuffed  

 

 

 

[Nearholmer]

That is superb!

 

Did you notice that the bolsters on those 6W boiler trollies have "GCR ARDWICK" incised into them?

[MikeOxon]

On 24/11/2020 at 18:00, Schooner said:

These are too good to wait! Getty seems to made many of its prints available to preview in 2048x2048, ...

 

This is a link to the Getty search I've got open, which has them al

 

 

 

Many thanks for the link to the Getty site.  Putting in a search term for 'Great Western Railway' brought up a host of early engravings and photographs.  Sometimes, there are several different versions and it was salutary to note that the colouring of some etchings varied between versions.  For example, in one version, showing Abingdon Road Station, the carriages are coloured red and blue and in another version they are yellow.

[Schooner]

A case of no news being good news, the quiet here is down to two distractions.

 

Firstly, I'm slowly re-building the current plan in Trainz. Progress is glacial for all sorts of reasons, but the digital rendition is inching forwards which is jolly. Better still, I rather like this plan. There have been no more changes and much about it makes me smile. There is also a little movement on the Alternative Approach (a series of discreet scenes), a scheme given a solid dose of inspiration by the superlative Copper Wort.

 

Secondly, I'm getting geared up for some actual modelling! As previously threatened, it's looking like an Inglenook on a canal wharf (signalling etc; wiring and electrics). The idea is to assemble a grown-up (ha!) My First Layout kit, write a set of instructions for each stage and every component...and then throw myself at it in a future period of leave. Sub-optimal perhaps, but better than nothing

 

Anyway, that's not why we're here. I'd like some help, please. What are we looking at:

...?

 

Millwall Dock, August 1910. Cropped from full image held by Getty

Note also those 20-ton internal-use inside-framed grain trucks (I'm 90% sure...) on the far RHS, and the 3+ square riggers (in South West India Dock) in the LH background. Thirty years too late, but a lovely image full of useful detail  

 

Cheers,

 

Schooner

Edited December 15, 2020 by Schooner
Image embedded. Why the devil not

[Northroader]

What you’re looking at is six plank wagons with four plank doors. It’s dated 1910, and they’re dumb buffered. Coal wagons were usually built with through top planks, giving a bit more strength, and the coal shovelled out through the hole, but if used for general goods, the top planks got in the way of loading. These wagons are hand me downs from coal traffic, the dumb buffers making them unsuitable for future main line use, possibly part of the grand Midland Railway replacement programme. The docks folks have bought them cheap for internal user, and sawn the through planks off as getting in the way for loading general goods, particularly by crane. You can just pick out “MD” and a number on one of them.

[Schooner]

Thank you. I'd got into that optical illusion state where I couldn't un-see the wagons as 2 and half six-wheelers, rather than four (until the crane) 4-wheelers. The information is useful and helps to make sense of the image, cheers!

[MikeOxon]

I've delineated the edges of the sides to make it clearer.  The right-hand wagon is taller than the others, with, presumably, two planks removed above the doors.  It's an interesting photo.

Mike

 

[Schooner]

Another pair of tangentially-useful Getty images:

Southampton, 1895. Of interest for rolling stock placement and loading - exactly the sort of thing the proposed track plan can handle well...although are those coaches or vans on the RHS foreground?

 

Unidentified spot, captioned London in 1867, and part of a set. The date is indicative for Millwall Dock. Taken from the above, the below:

Interesting set of wagon-tops and bolsters beyond.

 

In fact, let's have the other one while we're here. It may shed some light on the hypothesis that the Millwall Dock Co's original internal wagons (grain trucks and timber flats, not the opens as in yesterday's photo) may have developed from the constructor's wagons on-site. We know there was significant cross-over of railway equipment, particularly locomotive, between the construction of the Royal Docks and the owners, the East and West India Dock Co (see here)...perhaps the same for Millwall? Anyway, here it is:

Date, mention of dry dock and engineering shops, and a less easily identified sense of familiarity makes me think we're here...but I've cocked up easier things! Note the three horses at a trestle in the middle of the image - water/feed? - the gantry cranes, and wheel barrow designs (RH mid). That's an awful lot of spars in the foreground, and quite the mix. Looking at the shakes and the fittings (the mast being sat on still has parrel hoops, to my great surprise, and there's metalwork everywhere), I'd say they're not new but in decent nick...was it cheap timber for piles etc?

 

An image I can't place, and which is of more personal interest as the logisitcs of the Victorian ice trade intrigues me, apologies, is this:

Any suggestions welcome!

 

That'll do for now, hope it was of some interest. I assume we've become a self-selecting group by now!

 

 

Edited December 17, 2020 by Schooner
Can't tell my left from right...

[Annie]

31 minutes ago, Schooner said:

although are those coaches or vans on the RHS foreground?

I'd say that they are coaches with oil lamp lighting.

 

Certainly a great selection of old photos that you've found Schooner.

[Northroader]

I’m with Annie for the first picture of Southampton. It looks as if it was taken from the roof of the Terminus offices looking across Canute Road, and I’d suggest the coaching set is the one used for the shuttle service to the Royal Pier.

[Schooner]

Dear pre-Groupers all,

 

Happy Christmas!

 

Thank you for giving so freely of you time, knowledge, wit and humour. It's been one hell of a year for all of us, to be able to carve out a little piece of the internet for things I find interesting and find it full of lovely folk has been of immense value. Thank you.

 

I wish you all a peaceful evening, a joyful day tomorrow (considering) and a nice bit of rest and relaxation! I look forward to the flood of new stock on all your projects in the coming days  

 

Take care, all the very best

 

Schooner

 

 

Edited December 25, 2020 by Schooner

[Annie]

A very happy Christmas to you as well Schooner.  (Love that silver ship)

 

Edited December 25, 2020 by Annie
Um.........

[Compound2632]

On 15/12/2020 at 10:42, Northroader said:

What you’re looking at is six plank wagons with four plank doors. It’s dated 1910, and they’re dumb buffered. Coal wagons were usually built with through top planks, giving a bit more strength, and the coal shovelled out through the hole, but if used for general goods, the top planks got in the way of loading. These wagons are hand me downs from coal traffic, the dumb buffers making them unsuitable for future main line use, possibly part of the grand Midland Railway replacement programme. The docks folks have bought them cheap for internal user, and sawn the through planks off as getting in the way for loading general goods, particularly by crane. You can just pick out “MD” and a number on one of them.

 

With the greatest respect to my learned friend @Northroader, I will offer a dissenting judgement.

 

The wagons are only 3 ft deep, or thereabouts, so are unlikely to be six planks on the sides (although I admit there appear to be six planks on the visible, raised, end. The further back one goes in wagonry, the wider the planks tend to be. I would suggest four 9" planks as likely, five 7" planks possible. Furthermore, 3 ft deep mineral wagons did not generally have a through top plank but rather a full height door - at least those built to the 1887 RCH specification, though there are examples of earlier dumb buffered wagons like these with three plank high doors and through top plank. Deeper wagons - 3'8" - 4'0" deep - did have through top planks, because a full height door would drop down too low and be too heavy to lift shut. So what we see here may be wagons that have had their doors cut down, or that have had their top plank cut away. 

 

I'm inclined to think that the deeper wagon is of the same sort but has had its sides heightened - it doesn't seem to have had the ends raised to match.

 

Notwithstanding the effort of the railway companies, led by the Midland, through the RCH, dumb buffer wagons remained legal on the main lines until shortly before the Great War. However I agree that these modified wagons are most probably internal user wagons confined to the docks' system.

Edited December 28, 2020 by Compound2632

[Lacathedrale]

Thought this may be handy, from the S-scale Newsletter of May 2006: