Dungeness query

[Not Jeremy]

Being born in Kent , and remembering Dungeness, shingle and the RHDR from my early years, I was delighted to come across  Dungeness station in WSP's "Branch Lines of the Southern Vol 2", the perfect answer to my search for a very small station building for my minor garden line.

 

Here is the plan of the building as reproduced in the book.

 

 

And here is my paper mock up 

 

 

The "mystery" is that there is no visible sign of any chimney or chimneys on the building as seen in photographs, which there surely must have been, given the two stoves shown on the plan.

 

I was thinking that they aren't seen as they are on the "other side" of the curved roof, but given the position of the stoves this seems a bit odd(?)

 

 

I can't imagine anyone will know, and it isn't of huge importance (I'll stick two stovepipes on the rear in the absence of any info) but if anyone can shed any light on the matter then I would be very pleased to hear their thoughts.

 

Thank you

 

Simon

[Wickham Green too]

No too many clues here : - 

 

28/8/17

 

6/8/16

[The Stationmaster]

Depending on the design of stove it is possible that the flue came out of the back of the stove  horizontally and went through the wall before turning to the vertical.  Thus the final, vertical section of the stove pipe might have n been on the back of the building.    But the stoves as shown on the plan so seem a bit far away from the wall for that arrangement.

 

(And, as is far more common than might be thought, was what was on the plan representative of what was actually built?  But i do appreciate that it clearly is not a Swindon Works drawing so it might accurately represent what was built!)

 

[meld]

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/d/dungeness/

 

If you scroll down there is a picture of a group leaving yhecsration and a very oblique view of thecrear of the building from the opposite end, cannot see any flues/stacks/chimneys on the rear wall.

 

Although the Telegraph pole is visible with space between it and the rear wall.

 

HTH.

 

Meld. 

Edited July 8 by meld

[t-b-g]

There is a photo on the disused-stations.org website that shows that the rear wall didn't have any flues on it. I wonder if the stoves just had holes in the roof with no projecting chimney, so in effect the chimney/flue was inside the building?

 

Edit to add that this ended up duplicating Meld's post but that is the same photo I spotted.

Edited July 8 by t-b-g
To add content

[GrumpyPenguin]

1 hour ago, Not Jeremy said:

Being born in Kent , and remembering Dungeness, shingle and the RHDR from my early years, I was delighted to come across  Dungeness station in WSP's "Branch Lines of the Southern Vol 2", the perfect answer to my search for a very small station building for my minor garden line.

 

Here is the plan of the building as reproduced in the book.

 

 

And here is my paper mock up 

 

 

The "mystery" is that there is no visible sign of any chimney or chimneys on the building as seen in photographs, which there surely must have been, given the two stoves shown on the plan.

 

I was thinking that they aren't seen as they are on the "other side" of the curved roof, but given the position of the stoves this seems a bit odd(?)

 

 

I can't imagine anyone will know, and it isn't of huge importance (I'll stick two stovepipes on the rear in the absence of any info) but if anyone can shed any light on the matter then I would be very pleased to hear their thoughts.

 

Thank you

 

Simon

Looks like a perfect building - the trackwork in your picture looks excellent.

[fulton]

I would guess they were never installed, the two flues would be a prominent feature, they would have needed to stick out of the roof to create a draught for the stoves. Dungeness is one of those prototypes that appeals to me, with the siding towards the beach, I believe a special type of flint/stone was collected there and the sidings going the other way to the ballast pits. I even bought the Langley Models lighthouse, ( a bit small ) for such a project.

Edited July 8 by fulton
correction

[Not Jeremy]

Thank you for all your responses, some good thoughts. I'd seen the picture showing the back wall, but  hadn't really clocked the absence of flues. I think my money is on there being two chimney pipes on the "rearward curve" of the roof, perhaps the internal dividing wall was built the "other way around", I think that's what I will assume happened.

 

Of course there must have been a downpipe for all that guttering too, I'm guessing on the rear Appledore corner of the building for that. Then vents from the soil pipe(s)?, could have exited in the open air gents area I guess, they couldn't have been earth closets.

 

Then could the stoves be paraffin heaters, surely not?

 

My grandmother had one of those, could explain a lot....

 

Boom boom boom blue, Esso Blue!

[Wickham Green too]

Very confusing how that drawing shows the elevation the opposite way round to the plan ! ........ having got my head round that and determined that the gents was at the lighthouse end of the building, it can be seen that this annexe was built on a concrete base rather than the timber foundations of the main building ...  

... but don't ask me what the plumbing was like underneath ! ........ though p.74 of the OPC book shows what might be a vent pipe.

[Not Jeremy]

6 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Very confusing how that drawing shows the elevation the opposite way round to the plan ! ........ having got my head round that and determined that the gents was at the lighthouse end of the building, it can be seen that this annexe was built on a concrete base rather than the timber foundations of the main building ...  

... but don't ask me what the plumbing was like underneath ! ........ though p.74 of the OPC book shows what might be a vent pipe.

I can see why you say that, but having studied all the pictures, I came to the conclusion that the whole building was built on a concrete base and that this is the only part of it that is left. A picture from the other end shows the edges to be broken and suggesting that they carried on.

 

At the end that we are seeing here, the "open L" supported the modesty screen that obscured the entrance to the gents, the doorway to which is preserved. The missing building and its base going on beyond was wider

 

How all this came to be is anyone's guess, it isn't as if the area is lacking in loose stone!

 

Then again I could be wrong, but the whole building was put up at the same time and the shadows and visible planking support the "whole concrete base" theory, I think. Against that, the plan shows timber framing under the floor, so perhaps I am wrong!

 

Who'd have thought the remains of a super shed could be so interesting, well I find it interesting.....

[The Johnster]

I can't imagine that there was no heating provided in what is a very open and bleak location (sister lived in New Romney at one time, brother/law on contract installing switchgear in the then new power station, so I know the spot)  There was once a manned ticket office and my knowledge of railway employees is that, if there's no heating provided, they'll burn the furniture...  Perhaps Calor or even electric heaters.  Stoves with pipes cut off at roof level simply wouldn't work (I agree there were no stoves, whatever the drawing says), not just not drawing properly but the wind, which is epic down there in winter, would simply blow the fire out of the stove into the building.

[Artless Bodger]

5 hours ago, fulton said:

I believe a special type of flint/stone was collected there

From what I've read, blue flints, also collected around Rye Harbour. Transported to the Potteries and ground to make glazes. I think there is a thread elsewhere regarding Rye Harbour and Nearholmer has written an article about the traffic and ballast workings there.

[Wickham Green too]

7 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

...  Perhaps Calor or even electric heaters.  Stoves with pipes cut off at roof level simply wouldn't work ...

Now, the drawing is not dated but I'd guess it's based on construction plans in the Ashford Library archives - or elsewhere - and that the pair of stoves fitted in 1883 might have been superseded by electric heaters before the photos were taken ( also undated ).  The absence of stove pipe(s) is mirrored on the tiny hut into which the ticket office moved at some time before closure in 1937 ....... maybe Dungeness became connected to mains electricity ??!? ( The lighthouse lamp was paraffin lit until 1959 though the tower was floodlit from 1952 to deter migrating birds.)

[The Johnster]

Which begs the question of why would perfectly adequate stoves which could easily be supplied with fuel superceded, assuming they were provided in the first place.  I think I'm far enough down this particular rabbit-hole now, though; I can't handle the truth...  We never got to the bottom of why the roof ventilators were 'handed' on Collett 57' four-coach suburban sets as produced by Hornby.  Some things are hidden in the eldritch machinations of railway design, known only to men dressed in black cowls who assemble in unholy rooms to chant obscure Satanic Latin scripts to the light of black candles and the sound of the sacrifice's screams as the High Priest raises the obsidian blade... Mwa ha ha ha haaa.

[Not Jeremy]

Great stuff, not quite as exciting as Dr Syn, but in the same territory...

 

Thinking about plumbing and pipes, like I do, I wondered whether the extensive connected gutters on the station might have discharged into a tank in the WC, just the sort of economical thinking that might have taken place back in 1883, when the station opened to passengers. So I looked at the pictures for evidence of a downpipe in the relevant area.

 

 

Looking at this picture, page 73 in the book, I can't see any such pipe, but it does rather look like cladding under the back wall of the building, together with timber verticals going right down to the base of whatever the construction is, which supports Wickham Green's thoughts, not to mention the drawings. There seems to be a sort of concrete wall going across the end of the building, albeit at a lower level, perhaps the main building's timber framed undergubbins was built up against this? 

 

Also I think Wickham Green has correctly identified the vent pipe, it is out of view on the postcard picture because of the angle, but can be seen in the above picture from the book. Also, when you look at the remaining concrete you can see an appropriately shaped vertical "groove" where it was, so well done and thank you twice over!

 

The drawings in the book were prepared from drawings in the original contracts, so as others have said, reality could have been different. On the other hand I'm with Johnster, there's no way that building wasn't provided with heating of some sort or another!!

 

Of course, as my version is just north of Falmouth at Devoran, on the by now ex Southern  Railway's Central Cornwall route, I don't have to follow reality too closely, but it would be nice to model what actually was at Dungeness.

 

I guess we'll never really know.

 

Simon

Edited July 8 by Not Jeremy
To acknowledge Wickham Green's superior powers of observation!

[Michael Hodgson]

Drawing in a book isn't necessarily what was originally built. 

 

Heating and plumbing might have changed a few times.  Photos would show what was there at the time

 

Stoves are consumable items, they typically need replacing every 10-20 years, life would depend on usage.  Likely a different model, different so flues might need to be  moved - those would rot and need to be replaced too.

 

There seems to be a vent pipe at the front of the toilet annexe by 1910 (but not there in 1905).  Might the stove flues have been run inside the building to the toilet vent pipe (improving draughting from the bogs?).  Seems unorthodox.

 

[The Johnster]

Bit of a fire risk, I'd have thought, running flues to the stench, and a marvellous mental picture of someone in the stall giving it his all to such effect that smoke was emitted!

[t-b-g]

Do we know the story behind the drawing? It doesn't look like a "proper" railway one.

 

In other words, can we be 100% sure that the drawing shows the building accurately and if so, at what period in its history?

 

It could be that the stoves were only there for a short time and the the photos show the building when they weren't there.

[kevinlms]

11 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Which begs the question of why would perfectly adequate stoves which could easily be supplied with fuel superceded, assuming they were provided in the first place.  I think I'm far enough down this particular rabbit-hole now, though; I can't handle the truth...  We never got to the bottom of why the roof ventilators were 'handed' on Collett 57' four-coach suburban sets as produced by Hornby.  Some things are hidden in the eldritch machinations of railway design, known only to men dressed in black cowls who assemble in unholy rooms to chant obscure Satanic Latin scripts to the light of black candles and the sound of the sacrifice's screams as the High Priest raises the obsidian blade... Mwa ha ha ha haaa.

And we aren't even talking about the GWR, here!

[Not Jeremy]

As an aside, on the page 73 picture, is that a dog cocking its leg against the rail with the sign on the top?

 

And what did the sign say - "way out"?

 

The plot thickens....

 

As regards the stoves, thinking about it, with both going in such a small building wouldn't it have been unbearably hot?

 

But in winter.....

 

Going back to the concrete (lovely stuff), from the very good website http://www.forgottenrelics.org/stations/dungeness-station/ is this picture, which shows the vertical channel for Wickham Green's well spotted plumbing ventilation pipe.

 

 

And a very des res in the middle background...

 

 

Edited July 9 by Not Jeremy
photo reference

[Wickham Green too]

34 minutes ago, Not Jeremy said:

... is that a dog cocking its leg against the rail with the sign on the top? ..... And what did the sign say - "way out"? ...

Is that the vent pipe behind the top of the rail with the sign on top ? ........................... the sign probably said "THE END".

[fulton]

If someone can read this sign.

Edited July 9 by fulton
correction

[Michael Hodgson]

21 minutes ago, fulton said:

If someone can read this sign.

All persons are warned not to trespass ..... etc ?

[IWCR]

Could  the  stoves  have  been  parrafin  and  just  relied  on  open  windows  for  ventilation  or  small  wall  mounted  vents  on  the  back?

There  would  have  been  parrafin  traffic  for  the  lighthouse  and  possibly  for  the  local  chalets.  Some  coal  for  the  lighthouse  cottages  and  the  admiralty  signal  station.  There  are  various  photos  of  the  building  up  to  its  collaspe  in  the  1960's  but  nothing  visible.

 

Pete

[Wickham Green too]

54 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

All persons are warned not to trespass ..... etc ?

The sign at the other end of the platform is deeper - more like the usual trespass notice shape.