Schooner's (Mostly Maritime) Musings

[Annie]

8 hours ago, kitpw said:

There are some pictures here https://www.flickr.com/photos/forest_pines/4123989563/in/photostream/ and there used to be some on the BGS website but no longer, which is a pity.

Wonderful photos, - thank you for posting the link.

 

9 hours ago, Schooner said:

Glad you liked it, me too! That combination of mixed gauge and atmospherics in London would lend itself to one hell of a Minories-cum-shunting-puzzle at rush hour. Piston carriage carnage!

 

In my head the system in the two engravings is linked by a full-length train hoist, a sort of steam-punk Falkirk Wheel...layout idea #74...

 

The whole business of decoupling and maneuvering about the piston carriage at terminal stations was a right old mess and it's one of the things that has stopped me from attempting any kind of representation of the early South Devon Railway.

[Annie]

3 hours ago, Annie said:

The whole business of decoupling and maneuvering about the piston carriage at terminal stations was a right old mess and it's one of the things that has stopped me from attempting any kind of representation of the early South Devon Railway.

On page 794 of the November 2022 issue of RM there's an article about a diorama made by Ian Carter of the Broad Gauge atmospheric railway at Dawlish circa 1848.  It's a great piece of model making, but the most noticeable thing about it is that the cast iron vacuum pipe is continuous  and there are no sidings.  I forget where it was I read about the awkward business of shunting and handling rolling stock & etc, but it was enough to knock the whole idea out of my head.

[sem34090]

Regarding Fowler's Ghost I seem to recall a suggestion that the locomotive depicted in the famous photo is not Fowler's Ghost, of which I seem to also recall being shown a drawing which showed a very odd looking machine indeed. Very different to the handsome locomotive in the photos.

 

My memory may, of course, be very much mistaken by this. But I'd be interested if anyone can tell me what I might be thinking of!

[kitpw]

1 hour ago, sem34090 said:

a very odd looking machine indeed

It's possible that the drawing you remember was of the Burnett (CME MET) designed 0-6-0 tank engines built in 1868 by the Worcester Engine Co for the St John's Wood branch.  They proved to be too powerful and were sold off.  I've done some research on the early MET, including the period prior to its opening when in contractor's hands: as far as I can make out, there were no tender engines present in the contract period or the first two years of its operation other than Fowler's Ghost.  This is the Worcester built engine, MET No 34.

[sem34090]

1 minute ago, kitpw said:

It's possible that the drawing you remember was of the Burnett (CME MET) designed 0-6-0 tank engines built in 1868 by the Worcester Engine Co for the St John's Wood branch.  They proved to be too powerful and were sold off.  I've done some research on the early MET, including the period prior to its opening when in contractor's hands: as far as I can make out, there were no tender engines present in the contract period or the first two years of its operation other than Fowler's Ghost.  This is the Worcester built engine, MET No 34.

Fairly sure it wasn't one of the St John's Wood tanks - I know those! Or maybe somewhere in my memory the two have become conflated without my realising. For someone of my (lack of) age my memory really ought to be considerably better than it is!

[kitpw]

44 minutes ago, sem34090 said:

Fairly sure it wasn't one of the St John's Wood tanks

This reference may be more likely - https://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/collections/collections-online/photographs/item/2012-50581. 

the LT Museum say this about the engineering drawing - "Reproduction of engineering drawing of Sir John Fowler's first design for a 'fireless' broad gauge steam locomotive, from an article in the Railway Magazine, January 1901, p 63. The drawing, provided by Robert Stephenson & Co, was said to be the finished 'Fowler's Ghost' loco, leading to much confusion".  They don't explain the 'confusion' and I must admit, I've never seen the drawing before (I googled it just now) in spite of research a few years ago.  The loco in the photo(s) above of the Ghost look much more like Robert Stephenson's "long boiler" 0-6-0 of 1867 (North Eastern Railway No 658), built only 5 or so years later, whereas the engine from LT looks to be much earlier in time - it's certainly an oddity!

 

 

[MrWolf]

The description also states that it's a broad gauge engine. Very odd.

[sem34090]

41 minutes ago, kitpw said:

This reference may be more likely - https://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/collections/collections-online/photographs/item/2012-50581. 

the LT Museum say this about the engineering drawing - "Reproduction of engineering drawing of Sir John Fowler's first design for a 'fireless' broad gauge steam locomotive, from an article in the Railway Magazine, January 1901, p 63. The drawing, provided by Robert Stephenson & Co, was said to be the finished 'Fowler's Ghost' loco, leading to much confusion".  They don't explain the 'confusion' and I must admit, I've never seen the drawing before (I googled it just now) in spite of research a few years ago.  The loco in the photo(s) above of the Ghost look much more like Robert Stephenson's "long boiler" 0-6-0 of 1867 (North Eastern Railway No 658), built only 5 or so years later, whereas the engine from LT looks to be much earlier in time - it's certainly an oddity!

 

 

That's the one!

 

The LT Museum isn't always the best on accuracy, but I can't think of anything else that could be other than Fowler's Ghost, whereas the other photos do seem like an altogether more conventional loco.

[Compound2632]

E.L. Ahrons, The British Steam Railway Locomotive, 1825-1925 (Locomotive Publishing Co., 1927) p. 162 mentions a 4-2-2 tank engine designed by R. Stephenson & Co.'s chief draughtsman for the Met and submitted to Fowler but not built. This is in the context of a discussion of the earliest use of 4-wheel bogies in British practice, so it seems unlikely that Ahrons was confusing this 4-2-2 with @kitpw's 2-2-2. These drawings were, he says, published in the Locomotive, June, 1924.

[kitpw]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

E.L. Ahrons, The British Steam Railway Locomotive, 1825-1925 (Locomotive Publishing Co., 1927)

...a few pages further on (p. 174), Ahrons refers to the MET's Burnett engines in the context of 6 wheels coupled tank engines.  Gooch's Broad Gauge tank engines for the MET (dated to 1862) are illustrated on page 153.

 

Ahron's book is available online here: it's a useful resource with a decent index! https://archive.org/details/britishsteamrail00ahro/

 

(I can't find the Locomotive for June '24 online).

 

 

[Schooner]

Layout design advice please. I think I've managed to do the quart/pintpot thing and squeeze a functional maritime BLT into my tabletop space. Concessions abound, unsurprisingly, but the ruling radius is R2 (or whatever those SetTrack points are in reality). In terms of setting I think something like this could be excused in the arse-end of Plymouth, built into a disused quarry with the rockface the backscene, 'tho the platform canopy and single-sided carriage shed from St Helier Snow Hill would be an attractive fit.

 

Operationally, it's got an unreasonable amount going but with lots of open space shouldn't, I hope, look too crowded. The platform could accommodate a small tender engine and a decent train of 6-wheel coaches, the run-round big enough to handle 'proper' trains, but small enough to constrain some moves. Likewise the loco release spur - it can, just, hold three wagons (IIRC 6 axles is the most pemitted for unfitted tail traffic?) but handling larger mixed trains would require some juggling. The warehouse/industry/whatever has a simple traffic flow but still requires a little thought to shunt efficiently. Quayside loop and spurs as per, enough to justify a dedicated loco (hello Rule 1, nice to see you here), enable plenty of moves, and has the inglenook ratio built in.

 

Quarry face backscene, mirror on the RHS...but

 

Question

What to do with the left hand side of the layout? What makes best use of that spur? How to embed the running line in the scene, and hide the edge of the board?

 

Thanks :)

 

PS. This is to tackle the other frustration I have with Ingleford. One is scale, hence the O plan, the other its restricted operations. Not a big deal, but enough that if I can cram a quay, an industry and a BLT onto the board I'll give it a go!

 

 

[magmouse]

I like this! A couple of thoughts -

 

The surrounding cliffs make me think of Newquay harbour, with its access via an incline in a tunnel. Something for the top-left corner? You could just about fit in enough of a tunnel for a wagon to disappear into, worked by a motorised winch, connected to the coupling hook of the wagon.

 

The space is obviously very tight, but if there was a way to avoid having everything parallel with the edges, even if only slightly, it would really help, I think.

 

Nick.

 

PS - if you had 9'6", you could do it in 7mm scale. Jus' sayin'.

 

 

[Schooner]

 

 

:)

[magmouse]

Thanks for the Newquay picture - I'd not seen that one before. Mmmm...

 

Nick.

[simonmcp]

Great picture of Newquay, those wagons are quite something! The two lines, away from the camera, went over a wooden bridge and then onto a stone built stand alone section of quay. I have always fancied modelling that.

[magmouse]

Yes, late 19th century Newquay harbour, like several other Cornish harbours at that time, was spectacularly atmospheric:

 

 
 

Embedded link from: https://pixels.com/featured/newquay-harbour-and-docks-cornwall-mary-evans-picture-library.html 

 

Nick.

[Schooner]

Yeah, it's a goody and very much on my list of go-to references for small harbours :) 

 

Talking of 7mm and small West Country quays, I had a little tickle of my Grand Plan last night and figure I might as well share here for feedback:

I'm sure it's been seen here before, but as a quick recap:

• 1880-1920, independent to GWR via LSWR (plans dictated by available RTR motive power) in one of the flatter South Devon valleys - the Teign or Exe
• Looks like a roundy, is in fact two end-to-ends stitched together. We have to hold a couple of realities in our head at the same time.
• The top station is a junction terminus on a harbour tramway, part Totnes, part Topsham with a dash of Kingswear
• Lower station is a BLT and riparian quay access, Looeish and Calstocky, and the lines between them are outlined below with links to flavour/inspiration routes.
• The old tramway, the RH run, was built to connect hinterland supply (3' hoist, top left) to harbour demand (tramway exit from upper station, RHS) and now exists to serve the industries which have developed along its route between town (top) and quays (bottom). Goods only, worked by an 0-4-0T. Think small harbour branch, like the pair of Sutton branches at Plymouth.
• The branch line, the LH run, was built as an independent line to link the town (top) to its locale, ending at the head of navigation of the local estuary (bottom), eventually bought out as a twig route from a 'main line' branch from the national network to the top station. Predominantly, 'tho not exclusively, mixed trains operated by an 0-6-0T. Light railway vibes.
• The main line connection (think Kingswear branch rather than Brixham branch), between the long 7' hoist lower left and the top station, serves to link the modelled scene to The Wider World. Fairly standard branch traffic behind larger tanks engines, with specials of up to eg 43XX and 5-6 bogie carriages allowed for in the design, although not required.
• Corners removable for access, hoists and TT operated from the centre (ideally by turning nice big heavy wheels, I've got a plan...)
• Example motive power for the Middle Period (LSWR 1900ish) would be a B4 for the tramway, Terrier for the branch and an Ilfracombe Goods for the main line/through workings.
• Former pair to be shedded on-scene (the independant origins of the line excusing the full, if diminutive, facilities of carriage shed, engine shed and wagon works, and long siding for engineers dept stock between them and the running lines), latter to be shedded off-scene along with normal 'main line' locos.
• Typically traffic is exchanged between systems at the top station, but some goods and PAX specials may reverse there and run through to the lower station.
• Erm...I think that'll do. A few small principalities under the umbrella of a Little Empire, with (I think) scope for just about every kind of working in a ambitious but attainable setting.

Go on then, help me make it better, please :)

 

In unrelated news, I was surprised this morning with a ticket to Ally Pally tomorrow. It's my first time in London for a spell and I don't know for sure how sociable I'll be feeling but it'd be lovely to know if any parishioners are round and about. Do feel free to get in touch.

 

Cheers,

 

Schooner

[Schooner]

So...about today...

 

 

[Compound2632]

We're not allowed to call him Richard; I've been assured on the best authority he always used the name Mountford himself.

[magmouse]

42 minutes ago, Schooner said:

So...about today...

 

Well isn't that pretty! And there was you, wondering if you really wanted to go to the show...

 

Nick.

[41516]

1 hour ago, Schooner said:

So...about today...

 

7mm College Models kit? (based on the dome and cab rainstrips from the one I have)

 

There seems to be a lot more running plate ahead of the smokebox than there should be...

 

 

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by 41516
spelling

[Schooner]

Sorry @Compound2632, you've lost me! Google turned up some educational results but nothing that rang bells...

 

Short answer is that I don't know @41516 Described as a scratch build, and a couple of idiosyncrasies like the running plate support that, but she might well have started out as a kit...? Sadly, I didn't think to ask more about the provenance because now I'm sat with her* in front of me I'm curious, but at the time I was too busy thinking about the revised price** and realising my willpower has the breaking strain of a wet KitKat. Love it :)

 

Would it be of interest to take a full set of photos tomorrow so people can see what they think? I was made aware that the running might not be the sweetest and it'll be my first foray into this world, so I would appreciate the extra input but I don't know if it's the sort of thing folks like a vicarious role in?

 

*On which

1 hour ago, magmouse said:

Well isn't she pretty!

Fixed it for you :) One of the few failings of our mother tongue is its reluctance to gender items which have souls. Mind you, the French think the boats are blokes and the Germans, as far as I can tell, have got them all arse over tit, so to speak.

 

**Turns out a loco isn't a bargain if it requires you to also buy track, controller, layout construction materials and stock. Who knew?!

 

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Sorry @Compound2632, you've lost me! Google turned up some educational results but nothing that rang bells...

 

The 1528 Class was designed, and the first five built, during Richard Mountford Deeley's tenure as Locomotive Superintendent.

[Schooner]

I absolutely should have got that, thanks for spelling it out.

 

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by Schooner
Although I'm pretty sure it would have been 'Sir' to me!

[41516]

18 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Would it be of interest to take a full set of photos tomorrow so people can see what they think?

 

Yes please.  Mine has the opposite problem, everything is a little too far forward where the cab should noticeably overhang the rear bufferbeam.

 

I could only find a couple of shots of unbuilt College Model kits, but with enough detail I could pin it down as matching  and not the Underhill/CSP kit.  If yours is the CM kit, then it's had the tank rivets removed and a few other changes to match the first batch of five (1528-1532) with flush rivetted tanks.

 

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by 41516