Castle Aching

[Northroader]

On the matter of hedges, looking at Annie’s branch line which kicked off this job, if the farmland is flat level fields, more often than not the field boundary is a deep ditch, necessary for drainage, and the hedge is secondary, a bit of a bank, and straggly bushes. (If you’re out walking and lose your way, it’s the very devil to cross!) The other angle is barbed wire, which I think is a late era Victorian introduction. These days it is commonplace for farmers to string a strand or two along to fill gaps in the bushes, pre WW1 farm labourers were more common and cheaper, and hedges would get better attention without any barbed wire. The economics would be reversed following WW1.

Two threads I follow are the Southwold Railway preservation blog, and the Lynton Rail preservation news, and these have both carried volunteers work on fencing recently, replication of the SR wood post and rail, and renewal of L&B post and wire.

[Old Gringo]

Keeping close to the rails, the boundary we most often have to model is that erected by the railway itself. Midland Style gives drawings of six styles, most of which I believe were confined to station areas where a fence that was not easily climbed by humans was wanted - the well-known diagonal-slatted fence:

 

keighley-and-worth-valley.jpg

 

two varieties of vertical paled fence:

 

the-railway-children-perks.jpg

 

and a tall close-boarded fence. The most effective obstacle must have been the "unclimbable" iron fence, either 4'6" or 6'0" tall, very pointy. I suspect that most of the ordinary lineside boundary was the post and five rail fence - this has 7" x 3" posts at 9'0" centres, projecting 4'6" above ground level, with 3.5" x 1.5" rods of 18' length, the bottom one being centred 6" above ground level, then at centres of 10", 10", 12", and 12". Vertical stays 3.5" x 2.5" at 3' centres provided stiffening between the main posts. This type of fence was at the bottom of my parents' garden, adjoining an ex-LNWR line; the posts were on the railway side of the fence. It is stock-proof but easily climbed by humans of most ages:

 

railwaychildren7-2.jpg

 

Happy New Year!

 

Railway fencing, who would have thought that it might become a subject almost as interesting as the signals each railway used?

 

Stephen's description and measurements of the post and five rail boundary fence is I believe derived from the drawing on page 30 of Midland Style (first published by the HMRS in 1975, ISBN 0-902835-02-5).  One of the key factors connected with this drawing of the Midland Railway's fence of this style is that the rails are attached to the posts on the 'field' side of the boundary.  There is currently a photograph on the LNWR web-site of an even cheaper four rail version of this type of fence near Shackerstone.

 

This method of construction differs from the Standard London & North Western Railway five rail boundary fence, which used slotted main posts of a minimum of 7" x 5" (many 9" x 5") set on 8 foot centres, with the intermediate strengthening posts (4" x 4") set on 30" centres between the main posts.

 

In 'LNWR Portrayed' by Jack Nelson (Published by Peco in 1975, SBN 900586-45-1), figure 17-5 on page183 has a drawing at approximately to 5m/m to one foot scale.  However, the text says that the drawing shows the side facing the railway, but this is incorrect in most cases.  I quote from the LNWR 'Webbsite' (17th Jan. 2011) "Any fencing has the supports, especially the intermediary vertical bars, on the side of the land-owner who erected the fence (Law of Boundaries: - in the case of fences with posts or stints on one side, the law presumes that the owner on that side owns and is responsible for repairing the fence" - James is this still the case?).

 

As luck would have it, before building the fencing for the 'Black Country Blues' layout, I happened to discover a section of LNWR fencing still in situ, alongside part of the Stafford to Wellington (S.U.R.) track-bed in March 2008 and was able to measure the remaining posts and rails (Grid ref: SJ. 7965 / 1940, it might still be there).  The measurements obtained suggested that when newly erected, the top rail of LNWR five-rail fencing stood at five feet above the ground level, each of the bored slots to take the rails were 5.5" with a rounded edge to the top and bottom of the 1.75" wide slot.  The main posts were 6" taller than the top slot, which was set 10.5" above the slot for the fourth rail.  The following slots were set at 7.5", then 5" and 5", which would make the bottom rail around 5-6" from ground level.  Intermediate vertical posts protruded 3" above the top rail.

 

Interestingly (!) and possibly to save timber use during WW1, there are photographs of just a single intermediate post in some photographs of LNWR fences near Whitmore on the WCML, but I have yet to find out whether this was a later (cheaper) option or just a temporary repair to the 'Crewe' standard (which of course was Premier fencing for the Premier Line!).

 

I hope this proves of interest to the 'Castle Aching' community and would like to wish you all a very Happy New Year.

 

Best wishes, John.

[Compound2632]

Railway fencing, who would have thought that it might become a subject almost as interesting as the signals each railway used?

 

Stephen's description and measurements of the post and five rail boundary fence is I believe derived from the drawing on page 30 of Midland Style (first published by the HMRS in 1975, ISBN 0-902835-02-5).  One of the key factors connected with this drawing of the Midland Railway's fence of this style is that the rails are attached to the posts on the 'field' side of the boundary.  There is currently a photograph on the LNWR web-site of an even cheaper four rail version of this type of fence near Shackerstone.

 

This method of construction differs from the Standard London & North Western Railway five rail boundary fence, which used slotted main posts of a minimum of 7" x 5" (many 9" x 5") set on 8 foot centres, with the intermediate strengthening posts (4" x 4") set on 30" centres between the main posts.

 

In 'LNWR Portrayed' by Jack Nelson (Published by Peco in 1975, SBN 900586-45-1), figure 17-5 on page183 has a drawing at approximately to 5m/m to one foot scale.  However, the text says that the drawing shows the side facing the railway, but this is incorrect in most cases.  I quote from the LNWR 'Webbsite' (17th Jan. 2011) "Any fencing has the supports, especially the intermediary vertical bars, on the side of the land-owner who erected the fence (Law of Boundaries: - in the case of fences with posts or stints on one side, the law presumes that the owner on that side owns and is responsible for repairing the fence - James is this still the case?).

 

That's the drawing I was referring to. The photo of JA* sitting on the fence is a bit of a fudge as I think that has fewer the five rails - but the posts are on the railway side. Come to think of it, the fence at the bottom of the garden had slotted posts - I'll take a tape measure along next time I visit my father, though I'll have to fight my way past the firs.

 

*First JA of 2019!

Edited January 2, 2019 by Compound2632

[Nearholmer]

Some of the most venerable ‘lineside fencing’ still in-situ is on the approach to Euston, where there are still bits of original London and Birmingham iron balustrading on Camden Bank. It’s very distinctive, and in places very overgrown by escaped back-gardens, but next time you go that way, give it a wave.

 

You can see it in this picture, so you know what to look for.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Martin S-C]

The term pletching comes to mind in any discussion about hedge layering.  It may be a Herefordshire term.

 

Or not.  It was commonly used in Herefordshire, and l don't know the origin.  Though it was used in rural Wales as well.

 

It consists of cutting a stem almost through, and then bending it and pinning it down with other off-cuts from the hedge, so as to form a uniform surface.  It was done in Herefordshire, almost as a matter of course.  I did a layering, though inexpertly, and l was quite satisfied with the result.

"Pletching" would make a good name for a micro-layout.

[Edwardian]

"Pletching" would make a good name for a micro-layout.

 

Preceded by "Much ...", "Little..." etc.

 

Perhaps "Pletching Parva"?

 

For my part, I find much romance in the idea of "Far Pletching".

 

Up here we have "Far Hope" and, less hopefully, "Killhope". 

 

But, then, in my mind, I live among the Achings!

[Martin S-C]

I've a hunch that in general, 19th Century Military uniform was designed to look pretty on the parade ground.  The side effect that it drew attention to the wearer and provided a good aiming point was not of even secondary importance, it probably wasn't even considered!

Those pretty dangly pom-poms may have been removed or covered with a waterproof "condom" on campaign. Most military art of 18th-19th C is of parade ground dress because that is what the public saw 9and was intended to see). The mess, mud, improvisation and reduced clutter of an army on a campaign often presented a very different sight. As a military modeller its a source of mild irritation to me to see wargame army figures painted wearing uniforms in a battle that the troops would have left in their barracks.

Preceded by "Much ...", "Little..." etc.

 

Perhaps "Pletching Parva"?

 

For my part, I find much romance in the idea of "Far Pletching".

 

Up here we have "Far Hope" and, less hopefully, "Killhope". 

 

But, then, in my mind, I live among the Achings!

What, not "Noe-Hope"?

[Talltim]

Live in Hope, die in Castleton

[Martin S-C]

All this talk of fences and hedges reminds me that my autumn field trip to the Forest planned for last year never happened due to a bout of illness but I will be going that way as spring approaches for a week of walking, note-taking and photographing anything that doesn't move. I'd rather go before the trees get into full leaf so that views are less obstructed but walling, fencing and the like are now on my list of things to make note of.

[Edwardian]

Those pretty dangly pom-poms may have been removed or covered with a waterproof "condom" on campaign. Most military art of 18th-19th C is of parade ground dress because that is what the public saw 9and was intended to see). The mess, mud, improvisation and reduced clutter of an army on a campaign often presented a very different sight. As a military modeller its a source of mild irritation to me to see wargame army figures painted wearing uniforms in a battle that the troops would have left in their barracks.

 

Yes, the 1860s, for such is the uniform in question, saw the adaption of regulation uniforms when on campaign, which was generally somewhere colonial. 

 

Already in the Sikh Wars a plain red drill tunic seems to have been worn along with an undress cap, covered and with neck cloth.  Still red, but rather plainer and more practical than the pre-1852 picture of the Northumbrian Fusiliers posted earlier, but see the officer in the plain tunic and cap standing in front of the mounted field officer.

 

Similar kit along with the adoption of blue coats seems to have found favour in the 1860s in the Maori Wars, but in the Opium Wars, the taking of the Taku Forts was, I believe, undertaken in the full 1860s red uniform, with only headdress adapted to the climate. 

 

A special campaign uniform was invented (by Wolseley) for the Asante War in the early '70s.   The Mutiny had seen great innovations and the widespread use of more practical clothing, often in khaki ("drab"), particularly for the newly raised Sikh regiments. Thereafter, India was generally ahead when it came to practical campaign dress,

 

What would the campaign version of home service uniform have been had we fought a European war in the 1860s?  Well, I suppose you can look to the Crimea.  What you found there was an essentially Napoleonic British army inasmuch as it wore its uniform, adapted to campaign conditions, there being little conception of different uniforms for parading and for fighting. I suspect plumes and pompoms would be removed. Headgear could be covered. 

 

Perhaps the best comparison is the dress of the Canadian Militia on campaign in the 1860s. They would have worn something not dissimilar to the regulation British infantry uniform of the time (see the second of the Northumbrian Fusilier plates), I suspect with either the quilted shako or the Kilmanock cap. I'm afraid I know little of this theatre, but they had to fight Fenian incursions from the US and then a rising by indigenous people in 1870. Apart from cold weather kit when necessary, I suspect that they fought in the same uniform they paraded in, with only minor adaptions. 

[Talltim]

Wonder what they'd think of these guys? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghillie_suit#/media/File:British_and_French_Snipers_During_Ex_Boars_Head.jpg

Edited January 2, 2019 by Talltim

[Nearholmer]

Off at a complete tangent ........ I've often wondered why set-piece battles, like giant, bloody chess-matches, with everybody in fancy-dress, remained the standard way of settling differences between nations for so long.

 

Light, mobile, harry-and-run, and quasi-guerilla methods have probably been employed at various times through history, but it seems to have taken 'forever' (The American Civil War; The Boer Wars?) for nation-states to work-out that there was a different option for going about warfare.

 

The odd thing about set-piece battles is that they almost require an agreement to fight ......... you can't have one if the opposition decides "bngger that for a game of soldiers" and decides to do something else instead, like split their forces into small units and attack your supply/communication chain longitudinally.

 

Why didn't people decide not to play set-piece battles sooner? Was poor communication the real issue?

[NeilHB]

A locomotive for the West Norfolk.

 

Once the Drill hall is done (home straight now, surely?!?), I promise to turn my attention to stock, ignoring once again the elephant in the room, which is the need to re-lay the three bullhead turnouts, wire the layout and make the points operable.

 

I will have a go next at WNR general merchandise opens and the first three of the locomotives.

 

To re-cap, these are No.1 Colne Valley 0-4-2T, No.2 Fox Walker 0-6-0ST and No.3 Sharp Stewart 0-6-0T.

 

No.1 is the Achingham branch passenger engine, No.3 is envisaged as a goods tank, and No.2 is to be vac fitted to work both passenger and goods traffic on the Wolfringham branch.

 

Turbosnail of this parish has kindly produced a Fox Walker body for No.2. There some compromises in order to utilise the Eletrotren 0-6-0 chassis, which is not the correct wheelbase, but hopefully something characteristically Fox Walker results.

 

My profound thanks to Tom for this. He has really done a great job, correcting a couple of points on the Essery drawings in the process, and has achieved a great looking loco body and the poured resin finish is everything one could wish (and much to be preferred to the very expensive FUD and FXD offered by Shapeways, I might add). I understand that in due course he may produce an industrial version for general release.

 

EDIT: Pictures of the supposed prototype.

A very well done to Tom - WNR No.2 looks wonderful! I will admit that I am somewhat jealous, and this is one of the rare times that I wished that I still modelled in 4mm rather than 7mm.

 

Drill Hall is looking splendid James - a very good job with it.

[Martin S-C]

Off at a complete tangent ........ I've often wondered why set-piece battles, like giant, bloody chess-matches, with everybody in fancy-dress, remained the standard way of settling differences between nations for so long.

 

Light, mobile, harry-and-run, and quasi-guerilla methods have probably been employed at various times through history, but it seems to have taken 'forever' (The American Civil War; The Boer Wars?) for nation-states to work-out that there was a different option for going about warfare.

 

The odd thing about set-piece battles is that they almost require an agreement to fight ......... you can't have one if the opposition decides "bngger that for a game of soldiers" and decides to do something else instead, like split their forces into small units and attack your supply/communication chain longitudinally.

 

Why didn't people decide not to play set-piece battles sooner? Was poor communication the real issue?

There have always been petits guerre, its just that you often don't see it mentioned much in the Big Histories. Small forces of irregular troops such as the Austrian Empire's Croats, Pandours and Hussars; the Russians with the Cossacks and a number of other 18th C states with their Freikorps all conducted small actions against weak targets. In our English Civil Wars small forces of dragoons, commanded foot and such were used to enforce security or to threaten communities. The key to the Ancien regime system of conflict was that kings fought kings and the prize was land. You would capture a fortress or other significant place and hold it so that when the war was over you had a bargaining chip for the peace discussions. You cannot achieve such goals by means of guerilla style tactics, a formal army and formal battle or siege are required.

 

And, yes, a formal battle required both parties to want to participate although many battles were forced on unwilling opponents who were either aware of the threat and trying to avoid it, or were caught by surprise, unaware an enemy was close.

 

Wars in Europe have always been about the increse in influence of the royal houses and the slow growth of states (which is the same thing) and formal warfare was required for such claims to be effective.

 

There were other forms of warfare - in the medieval period where sudden territorial expansion from an external threat (e.g. Mongol Horde) or genocidal cleansing (e.g. Teutonic Knights vs various Slavic peoples) were the criteria for waging war, the different objectives led to diferent forms of warfare and significantly more severe levels of suffering and misery for the general populace but on the whole these events were not usual.

 

Religion played its part as well. The Muslim presence west of the Bosporus was always a problem for the Christian states of Austria and Russia and warfare waged to secure lands and peoples for God would require very formal combats and the destruction of the enemy's army or at least forcing him to accept a defeat without immense military loss. The Thirty Years War was fought on religious pretexts - Catholic and Protestant usually being willing to show their faith in a loving God by killing heretical beleivers!

 

With the arrival of Napoleon military force became a political tool on a whole new level  - the army was used to crush an enemy's ability to resist. An army was an immemnsely expensive thing to maintain and to build in the first place so that maintaining an army as a threat and as a toll to defend ones self was paramount. Thus Napoleon sought to physically destroy large parts of his enemies forces as a means to make a peace favourable to him - this was a new concept and was one of the major changes he brought to western warfare.

[Hroth]

Wonder what they'd think of these guys? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghillie_suit#/media/File:British_and_French_Snipers_During_Ex_Boars_Head.jpg

 

MUM!!!!

 

The hedge is moving!

[Northroader]

I had a look for camouflage uniforms, but I couldn’t find any.

[Martin S-C]

I saw what you did there Bob.

 

EDIT: Aha, no wonder you didn't find any. They only show up when wearing the wrong boots.

 

EDIT No.2: Corrected deeply embarrassing wrong name!

Edited January 2, 2019 by Martin S-C

[Northroader]

I’m Bob,

 

 

He’s Kevin.

 

Edited January 2, 2019 by Northroader

[sem34090]

A locomotive for the West Norfolk.

 

Once the Drill hall is done (home straight now, surely?!?), I promise to turn my attention to stock, ignoring once again the elephant in the room, which is the need to re-lay the three bullhead turnouts, wire the layout and make the points operable.

 

I will have a go next at WNR general merchandise opens and the first three of the locomotives.

 

To re-cap, these are No.1 Colne Valley 0-4-2T, No.2 Fox Walker 0-6-0ST and No.3 Sharp Stewart 0-6-0T.

 

No.1 is the Achingham branch passenger engine, No.3 is envisaged as a goods tank, and No.2 is to be vac fitted to work both passenger and goods traffic on the Wolfringham branch.

 

Turbosnail of this parish has kindly produced a Fox Walker body for No.2.  There some compromises in order to utilise the Eletrotren 0-6-0 chassis, which is not the correct wheelbase, but hopefully something characteristically Fox Walker results. 

 

My profound thanks to Tom for this. He has really done a great job, correcting a couple of points on the Essery drawings in the process, and has achieved a great looking loco body and the poured resin finish is everything one could wish (and much to be preferred to the very expensive FUD and FXD offered by Shapeways, I might add).  I understand that in due course he may produce an industrial version for general release.  

 

EDIT: Pictures of the supposed prototype.

WOW!

 

A really nice job on that one. In retrospect I'm glad I gave the project up as a far nicer model will result from the print that would have resulted from my never-finished CAD.

[Hroth]

I’m Bob,

 

EEF8AB15-2606-4CA2-B9A3-B8FFB5CAB498.jpeg

 

He’s Kevin.

 

B4B6C363-BF86-4A74-9319-D866FFFB7F61.jpeg

Wouldn't trust either.... 

 

 

I saw what you did there Bob.

 

EDIT: Aha, no wonder you didn't find any. They only show up when wearing the wrong boots.

 

 

EDIT No.2: Corrected deeply embarrassing wrong name!

 

What an ingenious bolster cushion!

[Annie]

On the matter of hedges, looking at Annie’s branch line which kicked off this job, if the farmland is flat level fields, more often than not the field boundary is a deep ditch, necessary for drainage, and the hedge is secondary, a bit of a bank, and straggly bushes. (If you’re out walking and lose your way, it’s the very devil to cross!) The other angle is barbed wire, which I think is a late era Victorian introduction. These days it is commonplace for farmers to string a strand or two along to fill gaps in the bushes, pre WW1 farm labourers were more common and cheaper, and hedges would get better attention without any barbed wire. The economics would be reversed following WW1.

Two threads I follow are the Southwold Railway preservation blog, and the Lynton Rail preservation news, and these have both carried volunteers work on fencing recently, replication of the SR wood post and rail, and renewal of L&B post and wire.

In some visible places along the line I have patched hedges with different species of hedging plants as well as the odd bit of barbed wire and fence posts and I would like to do some more of that kind of thing once I actually have all the basic hedge models in place.  Ditches are tricky things to set up in Trainz due to the landscape tools not really being precise enough so I tend to leave such details.  Attempting to replicate a small drainage liet for a very modest sized water mill on one layout I built was almost enough to drive me to drink, so since then ditches and drains have not made an appearance on my layout 'to-do' lists.

[TurboSnail]

WOW!

 

A really nice job on that one. In retrospect I'm glad I gave the project up as a far nicer model will result from the print that would have resulted from my never-finished CAD.

 

Thanks, it has some fairly difficult design features that I'm sure the engineers only put there to confound future modellers... Got there in the end though. And Edwardian's post gives you a heck of a clue to one of the mystery locos posted on my thread...

 

Given the topic of high technology on this thread currently concerns hedges, I'd probably best keep quiet about printing things, all a bit too 21st Century...

Edited January 2, 2019 by TurboSnail

[Edwardian]

Off at a complete tangent ........ I've often wondered why set-piece battles, like giant, bloody chess-matches, with everybody in fancy-dress, remained the standard way of settling differences between nations for so long.

 

Light, mobile, harry-and-run, and quasi-guerilla methods have probably been employed at various times through history, but it seems to have taken 'forever' (The American Civil War; The Boer Wars?) for nation-states to work-out that there was a different option for going about warfare.

 

The odd thing about set-piece battles is that they almost require an agreement to fight ......... you can't have one if the opposition decides "bngger that for a game of soldiers" and decides to do something else instead, like split their forces into small units and attack your supply/communication chain longitudinally.

 

Why didn't people decide not to play set-piece battles sooner? Was poor communication the real issue?

 

If you want to destroy the Enemy's fighting strength, winning a set-piece battle is the way to go.  

 

Setting one up is usually the result of intent, though I'd suggest not so much by agreement.

 

Generally one side wants to attack and the other defends.  Where the attacker determines the venue it's because it thinks it has found the opportune time and place at which to win. Generally I would say because the necessary concentration of force at a single point necessary for a decisive encounter is believed to have been achieved. So, one side tends to have planned the encounter to an extent.  Sometimes it's planned by the defending force. At Waterloo, Napoleon dictated that there would be a battle by marching on Brussels. Wellington chose where on the road to Brussels it would be fought. 

 

Relatively rarely are "encounter battles", where both sides blunder into each other.  This illustrates the fact that more than half the struggle was locating the Enemy.

 

Napoleon hit on something with his corps system. Each was a mini-all arms-army and they tried to operate within  a day's march of each other.  This enabled them to cover a lot of ground, but, when one corps made contact with the Enemy army, the others could concentrate on the spot relatively rapidly, allowing the decisive application of superior force where and when Napoleon needed it.

 

Of course, lining up your army for a slogging match against a comparable force, e.g. Borodino and Waterloo, seems less intelligent. Neither were the manoeuvre battles of his glory years.

 

At Waterloo, Napoleon had tried to do the sensible thing, dispatching a third of his force to harry the defeated Prussians, but in the event, Marshal Grouchy neither destroyed the retreating Prussians (he hadn't the men for that even if he'd caught up with them), nor prevented their juncture with Wellington. He merely followed the Prussians to Waterloo. 

 

Wellington feared an attempt at Waterloo to sweep around his right flank, which would sever his line of communication to the coast, so he stationed a considerable force some distance from the battlefield, and they did not take part in the battle.  What he did not do was place such a force off his left flank to guard against a flank attack that might divide him from the Prussians. 

 

In the event, Napoleon did neither, but, as any subaltern might put it, "went straight up the middle with bags of smoke".

 

Anyway, attempts to set up and win a "set piece" battle are predicated upon the idea that defeating the Enemy's army in the field and then occupying his capital means you've won.  Napoleon found that both the Prussians and the Austrian got this, but that neither the Russians nor the Spanish quite saw it like that. 

 

Colonial encounters were, for the British, often also ones that did not play by the rules. The First Afghan War left the East India Company sitting in Kabul pondering much the same problem Napoleon faced in Moscow. No enemy army to defeat and we occupy the Enemy's capital.  So why haven't we won?  The situations resulting in a similarly disastrous retreats.  

 

The Sikhs played by the rules - set piece battles with European trained and equipped armies - and nearly beat us. Mostly, though, the Colonial Enemy, like the Guerillas and the Cossacks, were not set up for the set-piece and, wisely, played by their own rules. Only the Mahdists at Omdurman obliged the British by indulging in a pitched battle against artillery, Lee Metfords and Maxims.  

 

What you find, though, is that irregular forces plying irregular warfare do not win.  Often, they cannot ultimately be beaten, but nor can they deliver a decisive blow to defeat a conventional Enemy.  If they ultimately triumph, its because the conventional force no longer chooses to endure the attritional loss and realises that it cannot win either. 

[Shadow]

 

May be a bit late, but have you seen these church windows from York Model Making?

[Compound2632]

 

May be a bit late, but have you seen these church windows from York Model Making?

 

See earlier comments about Victorian machine-cut stonework vs. Ruskinian-Morrisian handicraft methods!