Richmond, NER

[Edwardian]

Rather than clutter up CA, I thought I'd start a new topic because, even though any progress might prove sporadic, there is certainly a bit by way of 'notes and queries' to crank through.

 

So, parts of a layout based on Richmond have been acquired. Richmond in the North Riding of Yorkshire, that is. Or, if you prefer, Richmondshire. I rather like the older designation, the Honour of Richmond. Anyway, it's an absolute joy for me to contemplate a layout based on one of the former railways local to me. 

 

As the staged photographs below suggest, the intention would be to run Richmond with pre-Grouping era stock. TMC's Class O is on pre-order!

 

To recap and summarise, what we have.

 

We have some boards covering the station area. Hopefully the other boards will come this weekend.

 

The buildings are Louis Heath's model of the station itself, re-roofed by Chris Grouse, and several models made by Matthew Darlington for the layout. These include a representation of the Andrew's engine shed, though this features only 4 of the 8 bays' length, so looks to be about half the length. I doubt it will be easily extendable.

 

Then we have the two goods warehouses, the signal box and the pump house and chimney.  I have not checked measurements, but visually they appear pretty faithful to the prototypes.  

 

 

Station Building-Train Shed

 

I am given to understand that Louis Heath's model of the station dates from 1975.  If that is so, it's a full decade before Hoole's book on NER branch termini was published, containing annotated scale drawings.  This makes the model, to my mind, all the more impressive.   I have a weakness for old card/wood/paper built models and this one has character in spades. I love the treatment of the stone work in particular.  It has a wonderful 'patina'. Being very familiar with the prototype (it's my local cinema), I can say that the model does a wonderful job of capturing the character of the building. The train shed is certainly enhanced by the replacement skylights; a very good use of 3D print technology to deliver something not possible in 1975 and resulting in a very fine appearance. 

 

 

The panoramic picture below has been reproduced in a couple of places. In Hoole it is undated, elsewhere I have seen it dated for 1910, though I have reason to doubt that.

 

It is useful as it shows three discrepancies with the LNER/BR era model.  Left to right:

 

• The room under the water tank has two windows, not a door and a window, in the view below. A study of the pictures in Hoole suggests that the door was not added until some point second half of the '60s or later.  Further, I don't know when the wall was built out in the angle around what the plan refers to as the 'fish room'!
• Second, under the porte-cochère the main entrance was, and is, behind the right most arch. You will see that the model has an additional door towards the centre.  This is a later addition. It is absent on the picture below. Hoole's drawing notes say that it might have been added as early as 1913. There is a case, then, for leaving this be. 
• Third, and this is the most obvious detail, the model shows the large goods-type doorway at the right end of this elevation.  Photographs show that road vehicles used it to enter the train shed.  The picture below shows the original window.  I suspect this is large doorway a much later addition, probably Grouping and certainly later than the years-either-side-of-1912 condition I'm aiming for. 

 

 

Finally, there is a little slatted/louvred wooden gable on the roof above the porte-cochère section, I assume for ventilation.  It is featured on the drawings in Hoole, suggesting it was there by 1912. It's certainly there today, though is seen neither on the model nor the photograph above. The additional door placed centrally behind the porte-cochère was associated with swopping round the functions of internal rooms and I cannot help but think that this little gable might be associated with these changes.

 

This little gable is seen on this photograph below, said to depict a military funeral in 1916. 

 

 

Goods Warehouses

 

The panoramic picture (below again for convenience) also shows the two conjoined goods warehouses.

 

Later, two little wooden structures were added. One in the angle between the two buildings and one as a porch to the little office building. Neither are present in the photograph below.  I suspect that the one in the angle might be a Grouping era addition (IIRC similar treatment was given to the structures at the first Barnard Castle station, which lived on as a goods station).  The porch, however, is dated to 1909 on the drawings in Hoole, so should probably be retained. 

 

The Hoole drawings show where the skylights were added, but I don't think they mention when. so another point to be checked.  

 

Here is the model for comparison.

 

 

Above, to the left the 1846 warehouse, with 1872 office, is represented. On the right is the 1872 warehouse with the 1909 wooden porch. The 1874 awning on the far side of this structure has not been included in the model. 

 

My current assumption is that the porch (the wooden addition on the right) stays, but the little corner structure (you can just see the steps and the door above) should be left off.  The skylights I am unsure of, so if anyone can date their addition, I'd be grateful. 

 

There will need to be a raised platform on this side of the model, the ramp down to track level appears to start at the left edge of the 1846 warehouse (see plan below).  There will also need to be a platform in the area behind to be covered by the 1874 awning.

 

General layout

 

Finally, the panoramic view above is a good guide to the layout.  It was clearly taken from the high path on the opposite bank of the Swale, and shows well the change in ground level down towards the river and the use the coal drops make of this.  As I mention, it shows the various associated dwellings: rear left the dormers of the railway cottages, with the ruins of St Martin's Priory above and to the left; rear right the station master's 'villa', and in the foreground, left to right, the goods agent's house and the pair of brick cottages.  All these structures are extant.

 

Nearer to the viewer, but obscured by the foreground trees, should be a further two coal drop sidings.  Interestingly these were reached through the engine shed.

 

The best plan I have seen is this LNER one, hanging on the wall of the Richmond Museum and it is helpful to relate it to the picture. 

 

 

And to this picture of the Museum's model, which takes a similar view point to our view from across the Swale, though here the two lines over the further drops have been taken down.  You can see on the Museum model the foundations of the cell walls, the cut back walls capped in concrete, above which the two sidings ran.  The plan above reflects their removal, showing them crudely scribbled out.

 

 

There are a lot of minor details to check, but I don't despair of a reasonable depiction in the end.  Currently I'm thinking of c.1909-1915.  Note much of this period (August 1911 to some point during or after the Great War) Raven's mechanical cab signalling apparatus was in use. Only locos fitted with it  (like the O Class below, with the bracket seen suspended below the centre of the buffer beam) could use the branch.  I suspect, though this is surmise, that the construction traffic for Catterick Camp (1915) may have led to it falling out of use on the branch.

 

 

The train is worth noting. It's understood to be a Darlington-Richmond service. I am tempted to interpret the last three coaches as clerestory brake - clerestory - clerestory brake and to think that such a formation was often used on the branch. In front of these I think we have a further clerestory, one of the 1907 elliptical roof coaches and, at the front, one of the earlier 49' low roof coaches.

 

It is undated, but the class designation on the buffer beam means from 1904, the second coach means from 1907, but the clincher is the Raven mechanical cab signalling gear, which puts it from August 1911.  Obviously, if anyone can date this more precisely, I'd be grateful.

 

References

 

North-Eastern Branch Line Termini, Ken Hoole, Oxford 1985

 

The Catterick Camp Military Railway and the Richmond Branch, A J Ludlam, Oakwood, 1993

 

Links

 

Chris's original layout topic:

 

There is also a Youtube Channel

 

This video, if the link works, shows the model station building as received by Chris in August 2018.  From this one can appreciate how it benefited from Chris's TLC and roof replacement.

 

The 2mm version!

 

 

The prototype:

 

The Station

 

Disused Stations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 25, 2022 by Edwardian
Additional content

[Edwardian]

Maps!

 

Here is the locus in quo in the OS 1911 revision.  It dates from before the road to the station was taken beyond the station master's villa to join with the road to Catterick.  It is odd to recall that for many years the station bridge only led to the station and that the road there was a dead end. 

 

 

Compare with this one  below, which is dated, I assume erroneously, as 1904 in the 1993 Oakwood volume and, I suspect consequentially, on the Disused Stations website. Hoole has the date of the new road's construction 1917, as a direct route to Catterick Camp, which it is, and makes perfect sense at that date.  Another point to check.  I suspect this would set an effective upper limit to the time frame, depending on the layout's eventual footprint.

 

 

Pulling back and including a scale, below  shows the area more broadly to a point past the outermost point-work. 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

[MarkC]

Good luck with this - I'm pleased that this superb model has found another good home.

 

Will watch your progress with interest.

 

Mark

[Dick Turpin]

59 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 It is odd to recall that for many years the station bridge only led to the station and that the road there was a dead end. 

 

 

Yes the road to the Garrison was built by German POWs in WW1. Adjacent to the station entrance is a large boulder inscribed in German script to the effect of, 'I cannot be moved'. I guess they were forced to give up that one!

[Edwardian]

The LNER plan at the Museum again:

 

 

Now altered the better to resemble the 1911-1912 condition.  I may, however, have been wrong to delete the wooden addition in the angle of the two goods warehouses, because arguably it's shown on the OS 1911 revision.

 

[JimFin]

On 26/01/2022 at 08:11, Edwardian said:

It is odd to recall that for many years the station bridge only led to the station and that the road there was a dead end. 

 

The very first plan was to have a railway bridge where the Mercury bridge currently stands and the line would have run up hill turning to the rights and the station roughly along the line of Ryders Wynd. Gradients killed that off PDQ and left the station in it's current location with the road bridge access.

 

There is a further map showing the planned extension of the line from the sidings to the south of the main building through Billy Bank Woods and Round Howe as far as Reeth to the lead mine. Gather that the mine was worked out before this got beyond the survey stage.

 

The Museum holds the original map /plan and section from 1844 and can be viewed by appointment ( accession number 5217)  if that helps.

 

 

[Edwardian]

8 minutes ago, JimFin said:

 

The Museum holds the original map /plan and section from 1844 and can be viewed by appointment ( accession number 5217)  if that helps.

 

 

 

Thanks very much, Jim.

 

I would very much appreciate access to the  original map /plan and section from 1844, as well as re-visiting the LNER map, if that could be arranged. 

[Dick Turpin]

19 hours ago, JimFin said:

The very first plan was to have a railway bridge where the Mercury bridge currently stands and the line would have run up hill turning to the rights and the station roughly along the line of Ryders Wynd. Gradients killed that off PDQ and left the station in it's current location with the road bridge access.

Interesting, thanks. That explains why the Mercury Bridge is numbered in sequence with other structures along the line, despite only being one for road access.

Edited January 28, 2022 by Dick Turpin

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Dick Turpin said:

Interesting, thanks. That explains why the Mercury Bridge is numbered in sequence with other structures along the line, despite only being one for road access.

 

Yes, it was a 'railway' bridge. The Mercury Bridge title dates from after the line closed, named for Royal Corps of Signals,  of course.  I did my basic training at Catterick* with the Signals before moving later into armoured recce. For the entire history of the railway, however, it was known as Station Bridge, so that's what I'll call it here.

 

Anyway, according to Hoole, it was c.1917 when the road was taken from the bridge, past the station master's house and linked to an existing road from Richmond to Hipswell and Scotton to form a convenient route to Catterick Camp.  Thereafter, c.1920, the Station Bridge ceased to be a railway bridge as it was adopted by the highway authority.  Hoole points out that, nevertheless, it retained its NER bridge plate (No.8).

 

* ''On the opposite ridge line is a prominent grass tuft.  This will be known as 'Tuft.' Every time I give the word of command 'Tuft', you will all run to the Tuft, run round the Tuft and run back here. 'Tuft!!!!'''

 

 

[thetalkinlens]

I followed Chris' progress on his Youtube channel and enjoyed it very much. I'm now very much looking forward to seeing Richmond taking a new direction in particular with it being pre-grouping. The opening photographs including the NER locomotives and stock are very enticing already.

[Edwardian]

So, my very great thanks go to Jim Fin of this parish. He I know as the creator of the excellent Neuburg 1913-2013 layouts, which he has kindly exhibited at Darlington MRC's shows.

 

This morning he kindly gave of his time to take me to the Richmondshire Museum's archive, in Richmond, and I also revisited the transport gallery.  This was all tremendously pleasurable and useful, not least in circumstances in which the Museum does not open until later in the year.

 

Thanks to Jim, I made Important Discoveries, in some cases at variance with the published material, which will greatly assist a representation of the station from 1909 onwards. Some of my assumptions have Proved Wrong.

 

But more of that in a later post.

 

For now, here is the archive map I was kindly allowed to peruse:

 

 

 

It is clear from the plan quite why the line was not taken across the Swale to terminate in the town ...

 

 

The gradient profile says it all:

 

 

The road as built seems to have  ended where it was able to join the existing road, and, specifically, the town block under the red line was not demolished, indeed, the Museum occupies a premises in that section.

 

So here is the 'railway bridge' that takes the road to the station.  The gothic buildings behind on the right bank is the school, also, I believe, designed by the station architect, G T Andrews. Richmond Castle's Norman Keep looms in the background. As in Norfolk, as in the North Riding!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

[Annie]

What a lovely old map.  One of the joys of pre-grouping research is old maps and beautiful draughtsmanship. 

[Edwardian]

10 hours ago, Annie said:

What a lovely old map.  One of the joys of pre-grouping research is old maps and beautiful draughtsmanship. 

 

It was a joy to handle such a map. And it came in a splendid metal tube container with a hinged top and clasp that looked like the sort of thing precious naval charts would have been kept in.

 

Turning to the Advance in Knowledge achieved yesterday  ........

 

Let's start with this photograph again.  It omits a number of features on both the warehouses and the station that were found later.

 

 

It's reproduced in North-Eastern Branch Line Termini, Ken Hoole, Oxford 1985. No date is given. The image formed part of Ken Hoole's collection.  It may, therefore, reside in the archive at North Road. 

 

It is also reproduced on the excellent Disused Stations website.  The copy there is from the John Mann collection. I wonder if it is from a glass plate or a black and white postcard (see below) and why it was dated c.1910.  I said above that I had cause to doubt this. Note the lack of the wooden porch to the right-hand (1870s) goods warehouse, which Hoole states was added in 1909. 

 

Here is that porch on Matthew Darlington's model of the warehouses:

 

 

Now this view was used for postcards, and I have seen colourised versions online, but the Museum has an original in its archive:

 

 

Turning it over, I note that the card, printed in Saxony of all places, was posted from Meltham (for those not familiar, this is elsewhere in Yorkshire, the Holme Valley SE of Huddersfield, aka Last of the Summer Wine Country) and is dated 13 August 1906, so the view was taken sometime before that. 

 

 

So, given that the panoramic view dates from some period prior to mid-1906, the absence of certain features, like the wooded additions to the warehouse and the changes to the station building I've flagged above, are less significant. Indeed, the fact that the picture does not date from 1910 or later is quite important, as we shall see ... 

 

In my first post I mentioned changes to internal arrangements of the station.

 

The drawings in Hoole aim to show the position in 1912 and include:

 

(i) The little louvred dormer roof over the rooms behind the porte-cochère section

 

 

(ii) No additional central door behind the porte-cochère 

 

 

(iii) The original window at the east end of the forecourt elevation, and a scrap section showing the large doorway as 'later'

 

 

The model omits the wooden doors.  These are still seen on the building today.

 

I quote from Hoole's volume:

 

The drawings show the station as it existed in 1912 ... The booking office was altered in 1913 and it is possible that the window in the centre of the porte-cochère was replaced with a door at this time. 

 

So, if I take my three features, I am told that by 1912:

 

(i) The little louvred dormer was already present

 

(ii) The central window behind the porte-cochère  had not been replaced with a door. This came possibly as early as 1913

 

(iii) The original window at the east end of the forecourt elevation had not yet been replaced by the large parcels doors. This came 'later'

 

So, you can imagine that I found this Quite Interesting:

 

 

Yes, it's dated 1909

 

 

Now, it is possible that, having drawn this up in 1909, the alterations themselves were not made until 1913, however, I think I would want evidence of that. I think in the meantime I must assume that the changes were made shortly after the date of the drawings, May 1909. 

 

Thus, to return to the three station building features under consideration:

 

(i) The little louvred dormer may, I posit, be associated with the changes to the rooms below drawn/made in 1909, or, was already present.  Either way it seems reasonably likely it was there by mid 1909. 

 

(ii) The central window behind the porte-cochère  was replaced with a door in mid-1909, not 1913 or later

 

(iii) The original window at the east end of the forecourt elevation was replaced by the large parcels doors in mid-1909. 

 

So, if the notes to Hoole's drawings are wrong in relation to the date of these changes to the station, can I rely on the notes to the warehouse drawings that place the wooden porch as dating from 1909? Well, I have no contradictory evidence in this instance and I think that both wooden additions are discernible on the 1911 OS revision. Thus I am happy to accept the porch as dating from 1909.

 

 

Comments, corrections and queries welcome as ever.

 

And many thanks again to Jim Fin for his company and his assistance yesterday.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Edwardian]

Addendum to the above post.

 

I am becoming increasingly convinced that I see the little louvred dormer faintly on the pre-August 1906 panoramic view. I suspect it was there all along. It's still there, so I wonder why Louis Heath left it off his 1975 model?

 

On the basis of the post above, I am going to assume all the other structural changes discussed  date from the second half of 1909. That, thus, can be the start date for the period the layout will represent.

 

I dug out some of my pictures.  I now need to add these doors to the aperture on the Louis Heath model:

 

 

I think that leaves me with three further areas:

 

(i) On the station, in the angle between the porte-cochère and the water tank, I do not think the masonry wall was originally there, though there may have been a smaller lean-to.

 

(ii) To the west of this feature, as previously noted, I think we should have two windows not a door and a window. Based on the captions  in Hoole, there were still two windows in 1966, but there is a window and a door on the model that I am told dates from 1975.  Frankly I cannot see British Rail making a sympathetic alteration in the last three years of the line's use, so I wonder if this was done at the time the site became a garden centre in the 1970s?

 

Here it is today (well in the twenty-teens):

 

 

 

Here is the Museum model:

 

 

Here is the Louis Heath model:

 

 

Turning first to the door. 

 

Here is a picture reproduced in Hoole that shows the site after the two coal drop sidings had been removed, a Future Event, so far as we're concerned.  The room under the tank has retained both windows.

 

 

Here is a picture that Hoole captions as 1966.  Both windows are still there:

 

 

Finally, here is a picture that Hoole simply describes as later than the 1966 picture.  There is now a door!

 

 

So, we are on safe ground supposing that our model should be amended to show two windows.

 

But what about this section here:

 

 

The drawings in Hoole show this in dotted lines, as a feature not present in 1912, though he does not say when the walls were added:

 

 

 What the drawing appears to show as present in 1912 is a smaller lean-to stricture, 15 on the plan key, which is given as the 'Fish Room"!

 

Note the other two wooden lean-tos, labelled 1 and 2 on the above plan, are give as 'ashes' and 'coals'. 

 

Returning to the pre-1906 view, is this dark area the wooden lean-to Fish Room that is shown on the Hoole plan?

 

 

The above picture also seems to show that lean-tos 1 and 2 were already present pre-1906.  The rather skinny lean-to on the Heath model us too small to represent these adequately.

 

(iii) Back to the skylights on the Goods Warehouses: Still no indication of when the skylights were fitted. 

 

This view, said to be mid-Thirties, doesn't show the side of the roof in question. 

 

 

 

The Museum model has the skylights, but the buildings show the late condition of the station.

 

 

 

[phil_sutters]

I trust that this whole enterprise hasn't just been built around the need to use the gargoyles I sent you some time back!

 

 

Edited February 2, 2022 by phil_sutters

[Caley Jim]

Irrelevant to your model, James, but comparing the 1966 and 'later than 1966' photographs there are also two large doors on the end where the lean-to(s) were which have ventilation louvres.  I'm wondering if this was due to the installation of a boiler for a heating system for the building following it's change of use?  Clearly, whatever was installed required ventilation and could explain the change from a window to a door to allow access from outwith the building..

 

Jim

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, phil_sutters said:

I trust that this enterprise hasn't just been built around the need to use the gargoyles I sent you some time back!

 

They are/were intended for St Tabitha's, Castle Aching. But now you mention it .... 

 

43 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

Irrelevant to your model, James, but comparing the 1966 and 'later than 1966' photographs there are also two large doors on the end where the lean-to(s) were which have ventilation louvres.  I'm wondering if this was due to the installation of a boiler for a heating system for the building following it's change of use?  Clearly, whatever was installed required ventilation and could explain the change from a window to a door to allow access from outwith the building..

 

Jim

 

According to Hoole the room (originally the Porter's room and accessed from the platform) had been converted to an electricity sub-station.

 

 

OK, I am going to bombard anyone still with me with a third post today, because I do  feel I am making progress on my understanding of the site.

 

Now: Platforms and Walls or A Tale of Three Maps.

 

The original platform was rather short, as seen in this wonderful and well-known 1860s view:

 

 

Hoole states that "The platform was extended between 1860 and 1892."

 

Indeed, it was, but that does not mean that by 1892 we were seeing the long sweeping unfenced platform we are used to seeing in LNER and BR era photographs. 

 

 

On the contrary, the maps suggest that:

 

(i) the extended platforms were still rather short, at least in the pre-Great War or pre-Grouping era; and,

 

(ii) the passenger platform was walled or fenced off from the loading dock behind.  Photograph evidence supports this (more on that below).

 

Now, I realise that the Ordnance Survey did not always update such details, but consider the three maps below.  On each one the face of the passenger platform is overdrawn in yellow, while the wall or fence separating it from the loading dock platform are in mauve.

 

1891-1892 Survey:

 

 

The track layout at this date precludes a longer platform.  The turnout leading to the loading dock siding blocks further extension.  Here the platform does not even reach past the end of the Goods warehouses.

 

Note also (in the red circle) the little wooden structure in the angle of the two Goods warehouses is already there!  The 1909 porch is not. 

 

Here now the 1911 Revision:

 

 

There is no change in the platform length, although we do have the face of the loading dock platform properly defined, teminating, it appears, in steps. So, has the OS failed to update, or was there really no further extension by this point?

 

Well, I've read that trains of 6-7 bogie coaches were seen by this date. The picture of the Class O in the opening post shows five 52' bogie coaches and a 49' bogie coach for the period 1911 to c. Great War. I'll have to check the platform capacity this map shows.

 

Here is the 1927 Revision:

 

 

It still has a section of wall or fence, but there has been a very significant extension to the platform since the 1911 Revision.

 

When was this done? Wartime military traffic?  The long extension is concrete faced, or refaced. The earlier extension was brick.

 

Which brings me to the wall or fence.  A LNER era picture shows some fencing, but I would say that the original feature was a low wall, just inside the row of lamps.  I base this on the simply wonderful picture below. This picture is worth a post to itself, and it is found on the excellent Disused Stations website, together with a fascinating caption suggesting the date is 1903:

 

 

Again, any comments, corrections or queries welcome.

 

EDIT: Postscript: 

 

The point occurs that, if the pre-1906 panorama does not show the corner wooden building (and it doesn't look as if it does) and yet the 1891-1892 OS Revision has picked it up, perhaps this photograph actually dates from before 1891?

 

 

Further, here is a rare LNER era shot showing the platform extension faced in brick, and what appears to be fencing behind:

 

 

Nice Tenant, too!

 

Edited February 2, 2022 by Edwardian
Further information

[Compound2632]

Excellent stuff. 

 

The station layout is long - as branch termini tend to be - and in this case the point of divergence of the goods and passenger sides is a good way out. What length is at your disposal and what compression do you propose? I presume both Louis and Chris must have addressed this issue.

[Edwardian]

12 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Excellent stuff. 

 

The station layout is long - as branch termini tend to be - and in this case the point of divergence of the goods and passenger sides is a good way out. What length is at your disposal and what compression do you propose? I presume both Louis and Chris must have addressed this issue.

 

Well, I may be homeless and likely to lose the outbuildings currently at my disposal, as my Evil Feudal Landlord wants to increase my rent by over 15%, so the current answer is "no room"!

 

I reckon 20' should do it.  The other side of a shed for CA would seem to be the answer. 

 

The greater difficulty might be width.  Even on the compressed riverside 'shelf' location would probably scale out at something like 6'6" from the station master's villa to the outer coal drops.  The Richmondshire Museum model omits the station master's villa on one side and one of the two outer coal sidings on the other, but is, nevertheless, quite compressed to fit a 4' wide board.

 

    

 

Note that, despite the late condition portrayal, the platform is nowhere near the length of the Grouping era platform.  Assuming that the 1911 map shows the correct length for that date and that the relationship between the station building and the Goods Warehouses is broadly correct, the platform on my model would be even shorter than this. 

 

Note also the non-prototypical layout of the turntable, here on a kick back from the Engine Shed.  Compare with the map:

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Caley Jim]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

According to Hoole the room (originally the Porter's room and accessed from the platform) had been converted to an electricity sub-station.

That was another option that came to mind.  In fact, looking again at the doors, they are very similar to those found on sub-stations.  Had it been for a heating system I would have expect vents at the bottom of the doors as well.  That fully explains the change from a window to a door as the Electricity Board would require access without having to enter the building and will date when the alteration was done.

 

Jim

[ChrisN]

21 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

Which brings me to the wall or fence.  A LNER era picture shows some fencing, but I would say that the original feature was a low wall, just inside the row of lamps.  I base this on the simply wonderful picture below. This picture is worth a post to itself, and it is found on the excellent Disused Stations website, together with a fascinating caption suggesting the date is 1903:

 

 

Again, any comments, corrections or queries welcome.

 

James,

The lady on the right at the front is wearing a dress with a bustle, and so apparently,(my eyes are not that good), is the lady behind her.  This style went out by the 1890s.  The middle lady in a coat appears to have a coat large enough for a bustle and most of the ladies wear the same style hat.  (I have not checked to see when they were fashionable but if you are really interested I will go and check.)

 

Now, second hand clothes, and third, fourth and fifth were common, BUT, (its a big but), the only picture I have seen of an obvious second hand dress was one from the 1850s in a shot from 1875.  In the 1850s they wore crinolines and this was worn without it.  Therefore, if these were second hand I would think they would be worn without the bustle.  

 

Even if you assume that North Yorkshire is not the centre of fashion, I cannot imagine that they would be the best part of 15 years out of date.  Photos of Barmouth, which may not be typical as it would have had lots of fashionable visitors, show the fashions being worn as fairly up to date.

 

I would say that the photo is well before 1903. 

[Edwardian]

26 minutes ago, ChrisN said:

 

James,

The lady on the right at the front is wearing a dress with a bustle, and so apparently,(my eyes are not that good), is the lady behind her.  This style went out by the 1890s.  The middle lady in a coat appears to have a coat large enough for a bustle and most of the ladies wear the same style hat.  (I have not checked to see when they were fashionable but if you are really interested I will go and check.)

 

Now, second hand clothes, and third, fourth and fifth were common, BUT, (its a big but), the only picture I have seen of an obvious second hand dress was one from the 1850s in a shot from 1875.  In the 1850s they wore crinolines and this was worn without it.  Therefore, if these were second hand I would think they would be worn without the bustle.  

 

Even if you assume that North Yorkshire is not the centre of fashion, I cannot imagine that they would be the best part of 15 years out of date.  Photos of Barmouth, which may not be typical as it would have had lots of fashionable visitors, show the fashions being worn as fairly up to date.

 

I would say that the photo is well before 1903. 

 

That was exactly my thought upon seeing it, though not with such detail as you have given with the greater knowledge you have of period dress.

 

IIRC the second Peak Bustle was the later 1880s and I agree, I would not expected the style to be in evidence as late as 1903.

 

So far I have posted this picture without embarking on any investigation that might establish its date range.  Thus far I have posted it merely as the picture I have showing the wall. If I had to choose what to do on the basis of the information to date, I would model:

 

(i) That wall up to where  (on the LNER map) an apparent change occurs indicating the original platform extension.  The platform would be a little low and faced in stone. 

 

(ii) Then I would model the extension faced brick and slightly higher and continue the wall line with the fence seen in the early LNER view of the Tenant.  The original platform was increased in height and back-sloped to the buildings, but I recall seeing one picture that shows a discernable ramp up to the extended platform.

 

Now, turning to the picture more generally, the theory behind the caption writer's view that this is 1903 is that the name on the shield on the lamp post can be determined as saying "Powell". 

 

Now, 1903 is a sensible year to see bunting for a returning Boer War Hero, though I had thought Powell's appointment at Richmond dated from 1908.  I simply have not yet looked into the point. 

 

However, if one leaves aside for a moment that 'Powell' legend, to my eye, everything about this picture suggests it is earlier than 1903 and I am in total agreement with you there. 

 

One might, thus, be tempted to see the bunting as celebrating one of Queen Victoria's jubilees, 1887 or 1897.  If I had to choose, I'd probably go for the former save that the wall seems to bear enamelled advertising signs. IIRC, the factory that first produced these got going around 1886.  There is, again IIRC, some discussion of this on the Saltdean layout topic.  If that is correct, then a proliferation of such signs, including one in rather worn condition, suggests the 1890s, perhaps the 1897 Jubilee, though, I agree, that makes the bustle ladies rather old-fashioned dressers.  Indeed, my general, thought inexpert, impression of the dress of both sexes is that it lends a rather 1880s look. But, then, those enamel signs! 

 

Whether 1887 of 1903, some of those carriages are likely to have been out of service for any but excursion trains, I should have thought, though I have yet to look at them closely.  Then again, bunting might equal excursion traffic. Funnily enough, Hoole mentions that there were many excursions to Richmond in June 1903!

 

Those were just my initial thoughts, and I do need to look unto the matter before offering a more decided view. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 3, 2022 by Edwardian
spelling

[Compound2632]

Perhaps pointing to an event marking the Golden Jubilee of 1887?

[ChrisN]

25 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

That was exactly my thought upon seeing it, though not with such detail as you have given with the greater knowledge you have of period dress.

 

IIRC the second Peak Bustle was the later 1880s and I agree, I would not expected the style to be in evidence as late as 1903.

 

So far I have posted this picture without embarking on any investigation that might establish its date range.  Thus far I have posted it merely as the picture I have showing the wall. If I had to choose what to do on the basis of the information to date, I would model:

 

(i) That wall up to where  (on the LNER map) an apparent change occurs indicating the original platform extension.  The platform would be a little low and faced in stone. 

 

(ii) Then I would model the extension faced brick and slightly higher and continue the wall line with the fence seen in the early LNER view of the Tenant.  The original platform was increased in height and back-sloped to the buildings, but I recall seeing one picture that shows a discernable ramp up to the extended platform.

 

Now, turning to the picture more generally, the theory behind the caption writer's view that this is 1903 is that the name on the shield on the lamp post can be determined as saying "Powell". 

 

Now, 1903 is a sensible year to see bunting for a returning Boer War Hero, though I had thought Powell's appointment at Richmond dated from 1908.  I simply have not yet looked into the point. 

 

However, if one leaves aside for a moment that 'Powell' legend, to my eye, everything about this picture suggests it is earlier than 1903 and I am in total agreement with you there. 

 

One might, thus, be tempted to see the bunting as celebrating one of Queen Victoria's jubilees, 1887 or 1897.  If I had to choose, I'd probably go for the former save that the wall seems to bear enamelled advertising signs. IIRC, the factory that first produced these got going around 1886.  There is, again IIRC, some discussion of this on the Saltdean layout topic.  If that is correct, then a proliferation of such signs, including one in rather worn condition, suggests the 1890s, perhaps the 1897 Jubilee, though, I agree, that makes the bustle ladies rather old-fashioned dressers.  Indeed, my general, thought inexpert, impression of the dress of both sexes is that it lends a rather 1880s look. But, then, those enamel signs! 

 

Whether 1887 of 1903, some of those carriages are likely to have been out of service for any but excursion trains, I should have thought, though I have yet to look at them closely.  Then again, bunting might equal excursion traffic. Funnily enough, Hoole mentions that there were many excursions to Richmond in June 1903!

 

Those were just my initial thoughts, and I do need to look unto the matter before offering a more decided view. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

James,

This is a fashion plate of 1887.  It is not conclusive, but the year before the bustles are bigger.  It appears that these ladies all went to the same hat shop but none are as grand as in the plate.

 

That enamel plate does not look that old.  Either way it supports your decisions that you have made about what to model.

[Compound2632]

37 minutes ago, ChrisN said:

This is a fashion plate of 1887. 

 

The trouble with these fashion plates is that they do not depict elderly provincial ladies. However, I note your comments above about old clothes. Who, after all, would willingly wear a bustle if it was not fashionable?