Traeth Mawr -Painting Season, (mostly)

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Courtesy of Compound on CA, Board of Trade requirements for new platform construction (there being no requirement to make existing works comply with these standards) were:

 

1885: The height of the platforms above the rails should not be less than 2 feet 6 inches.

 

1902: The height of the platforms above rail level to be 3 feet, save in exceptional circumstances and in no case less than 2 feet 6 inches.

 

What I don't know is whether the 1885 requirement for 2' 6" minimum was new in that edition of the Requirements or first came in an earlier edition.

 

These were of course requirements for passenger platforms - the BoT's principal concern was the safety of the travelling public. The height of goods platforms was dictated by practicality. However, I have a feeling I've seen a Board of Agriculture regulation for the height of cattle platforms, made under the authority of one of the Infectious Diseases (Animals) Acts. 

Edited May 6, 2023 by Compound2632

[ChrisN]

1 hour ago, Nick Holliday said:

The problem is that the approximate heights for various unloadings varied.  Passengers were expected to be able to use steps, and so early platforms were low, as noted, say 2' 6", later raised to around 3' 0" with, I believe, modern platforms are nearer 3' 6" to ease access for wheelchairs and pushchairs.  Many old stations showed various levels as they were progressively raised to meet the latest regulations, which didn't, then, demand that older levels had to be raised.

Livestock generally required a fairly level transition from floor to wagon, but needed enough to be able to lower the door flap/ramp, so were around 3' 6", and end unloading of wheeled vehicles required something higher still, around 4' 0" or more, to allow the loading flaps to be just above the height of buffer heads.

This can be seen in this view of Fittleworth on the LBSCR, although the "bay" was not used for passenger services.  The difference between the passenger platform level and the height of the unloading ramp is clear, although perhaps exacerbated by the gradient of the running line relative to the siding. (The cattle dock is just off picture to the right.

 

 

 

 

 

50 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Those heights were BoT standards for new works from, I think, the 1880s (2' 6") and c. 1900 (3' 0"), with a great many stations built before the 1870s having (and retaining well into the 20th century) platforms as low as 1' 6" above rail, at the rails. I have the impression that work on raising platform heights concentrated on major and suburban stations with high passenger volumes.

 

Culham had low platforms - certainly below 2' 6" above rail - when I was using it in the early 1990s. It was quite a climb up into a Mk1 carriage.

 

43 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Courtesy of Compound on CA, Board of Trade requirements for new platform construction (there being no requirement to make existing works comply with these standards) were:

 

1885: The height of the platforms above the rails should not be less than 2 feet 6 inches.

 

1902: The height of the platforms above rail level to be 3 feet, save in exceptional circumstances and in no case less than 2 feet 6 inches.

 

Thus Fittleworth (LB&SCR), opened in 1889 I believe ought to have had 2'6" high platforms from the start, yet the loading bank is considerably higher. Side and end loading might require different heights, as the Fittleworth picture suggests.

 

Take a horsebox, for example. This needs a side loading dock. Pictures suggest that there is only a slight incline on the door ramp down to the platform.

 

 

Measuring my GER horsebox, for instance, there is about 16mm from rail height to the top of the solebar, so 4' . From this I conclude that a side loading dock should be about 3'6" above rail height. 

 

That is taller than even a 1902 regulation passenger platform, thus, we see when unloading on a passenger platform (this time it is a GER horsebox!), the door ramp is chocked up a bit. 

 

. 

 

To be fair, given the ramp angle on road horseboxes to ground, I'm not sure this was necessary from the horse's point of view, but the take away point us that side loading dock platforms are nearer the height of the solebar than passenger platforms, as shown at Fittleworth.

 

Fittleworth has an even higher end, because end loading is assumed to be at the floor level of the vehicle, so, say 4'.

 

Here is GWR Great Malvern, opened in 1860. You can see how much higher the side loading bank is on the left to the passenger platform in the right. In between, a timber baulk raised the end to buffer height. I do not think there is necessarily an end loading bank in this example, as provision was made for that across the line.   

 

 

Thus Castle Aching (1855), with a passenger platform at 18" above the rails will need a side loading dock over twice that height probably rising further to a 4' high end loading ramp. 

 

Returning to Fittleworth to ascribe suggested heights to the masonry:

 

 

37 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

What I don't know is whether the 1885 requirement for 2' 6" minimum was new in that edition of the Requirements or first came in an earlier edition.

 

These were of course requirements for passenger platforms - the BoT's principal concern was the safety of the travelling public. The height of goods platforms was dictated by practicality. However, I have a feeling I've seen a Board of Agriculture regulation for the height of cattle platforms, made under the authority of one of the Infectious Diseases (Animals) Acts. 

 

Thank you all.  Complicateder, and complicateder.  

 

The whole of the Up platform is built to passenger standards as of 1867.  I had originally intended to have what is now the coal siding as the goods siding, but it is not long enough to do both.  I will also need a place to unload cattle, especially as it seems now, that meat came 'on the hoof  to the butchers.  It would I suppose be possible to have a raised section at the goods end of the platform.  

 

There was an accident on the Cambrian when a Station Master, insisted that they unload horses onto a passenger platform when he knew a train was due as 'it was easier'.  It was foggy and the driver of the oncoming goods train was known to 'drive recklessly'.  The inevitable happened.  I will have to check where it was and see if I can ascertain the platform height.

 

The far side of the bay is also used for passengers as it is the way to the footbridge for the Down Platform.

 

The slate exchange siding is off scene, as is the siding for the gas works, so maybe other things will need to be as well.

[ChrisN]

The accident was at Forden in 1904.  The goods train was unloading horses on the down platform when a train went through a signal and hit it.  Why were they unloading on the down platform?  It was higher than the up platform and therefore more suitable to the unloading of horses.

 

I am not sure that is possible at Traeth Mawr.

[ChrisN]

I have tried to look at the OS 25 inch 1892-1914 map of Forden on the National Library of Scotland Georeferenced Maps, (the ones wot are stuck together), and Forden Station is in the top right hand corner of one that is not there. Hmm.  However, the six inch 1888- 1913 map is and shows the rebuilt station with two platforms and two sidings, presumably goods.  One appears to have a building next to it so probably a Goods Shed.  One line appears to be at the back of the down platform, so I wonder why they did not unload the horses there.  There are no pictures of the sidings at Forden to inform me, probably goods sidings were less photogenic than the actual station itself. Forden Map.

 

I am still deciding if I can unload cattle, horses and sheep onto the Pwllheli end of the down platform.

 

Barmouth, which does have a 25 inch map, for at least part of it, shows a separate siding with a cattle pens, which maybe further down the same siding as the coal staithes, and a goods siding which at one point caresses the up platform.  (It is quite long so I am not sure how locos did not work through it, unless of course they had horses. Barmouth Map.

[corneliuslundie]

Tony Cooke’s Welshpool to Aberystwyth volume shows Forden as interlocked in 1890, a new passing loop and signalbox in 1897, and from 1886 a west facing siding with the connection at the west end of the loop and with the goods shed, and an east facing siding with the connection at the east end of the station.

The latter was later replaced by a second west facing siding which ran behind the platform, a bit shorter. Off this there was a second parallel siding. There was then a kick back off this siding which had some kind of loading dock, but whether this was a cattle dock is not shown. Initially these sidings were accessed from an extension of the down loop, so access for an up train would have been tortuous. In 1925 the loop was extended at the down end, after which it would have been possible for an up train to access the sidings without reversals.

Clear as mud?

Jonathan

[ChrisN]

15 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Tony Cooke’s Welshpool to Aberystwyth volume shows Forden as interlocked in 1890, a new passing loop and signalbox in 1897, and from 1886 a west facing siding with the connection at the west end of the loop and with the goods shed, and an east facing siding with the connection at the east end of the station.

The latter was later replaced by a second west facing siding which ran behind the platform, a bit shorter. Off this there was a second parallel siding. There was then a kick back off this siding which had some kind of loading dock, but whether this was a cattle dock is not shown. Initially these sidings were accessed from an extension of the down loop, so access for an up train would have been tortuous. In 1925 the loop was extended at the down end, after which it would have been possible for an up train to access the sidings without reversals.

Clear as mud?

Jonathan

 

Jonathan,

Thank you.  The map runs to 1913, so is probably the last iteration of what you have described, so makes sense, in a particularly Cambrian way.  There probably was not access to the down platform in 1904 except by the down main line.

 

I have looked at my coal siding and it is not extendable, so the only option, unless off scene is the down platform.

 

I am surprised that so much fuss is made about railway loading and unloading of animals, as I am not sure what the gradient is into the back of  a horsebox, or a sheep trailer, and they will have to walk down a 1 in 8 ramp anyway to get off the platform.

Edited May 8, 2023 by ChrisN

[ChrisN]

I think it is probably time for an update, but progress has been slow and has a scattered approach, and updates are hampered by lack of photos.  I thought I had taken more, but they were not on my camera or already downloaded, so I must have imagined them.

 

 

We have had the tilers on the roof.  I drew a line for the first row, and then used the cut marks for the subsequent rows.  This was not particularly good, but it was not easy to do much else with the porch.

 

 

I did mark the back though, or rather platform side, and lined each row up to the marks.

 

The tiles are sticky back plastic vinyl which have been cut out on my Silhouette cutter.  Now, I did one tile, they are Duchess size, 24" x 12" or an easy 6mm x 3mm, and then copied that, so I had two.  I then copied those two so I had four and so on until I had a row.  Doing that each tile was the same.  Er, no.  When I was putting them on, one tile in so many was smaller.  (If you look hard enough.........)  In 1895, they did not start or finish a row with half a tile, they used a tile and a half size so I made a few of that size and started the second, fourth, sixth row etc with those.

 

The vinyl was much thinner than I expected and the overall effect is that the whole set together almost lays flat, which I am not particularly happy with, but is too late to change it.  I shall do the same on Mr Price's house but will try paper and Prit Stick after that and see how that looks.

 

There are bits that are not covered around the porch but I am hoping that any flashing will cover that.

 

If you have been, thanks for looking.

[Mikkel]

I like the look of that, Chris. Probably a silly question: So these are tiles not slates? In scale terms, I think a slate roof should be almost flat - a tile roof perhaps less so. But I may be missing up things, in Danish the terms are different.

 

[Nick Holliday]

24 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

I like the look of that, Chris. Probably a silly question: So these are tiles not slates? In scale terms, I think a slate roof should be almost flat - a tile roof perhaps less so. But I may be missing up things, in Danish the terms are different.

 

Given the location, and that @ChrisN quotes a Duchess size, we are talking slates, and I have to agree that the result should be virtually flat, so I would say the result is perfect, especially as Chris has noted the need for larger slates at the end of alternate rows, to avoid the use of half sized slates, which tend to be unstable as they may only have one fixing.

[ChrisN]

1 hour ago, Mikkel said:

I like the look of that, Chris. Probably a silly question: So these are tiles not slates? In scale terms, I think a slate roof should be almost flat - a tile roof perhaps less so. But I may be missing up things, in Danish the terms are different.

 

 

1 hour ago, Nick Holliday said:

Given the location, and that @ChrisN quotes a Duchess size, we are talking slates, and I have to agree that the result should be virtually flat, so I would say the result is perfect, especially as Chris has noted the need for larger slates at the end of alternate rows, to avoid the use of half sized slates, which tend to be unstable as they may only have one fixing.

 

Yes, sorry.  I posted in a rush and was not precise enough, they are slates.

 

Mikkel,

I know you have done it this way and if you feel it should be that flat then I will go with it.

[MikeOxon]

14 hours ago, ChrisN said:

We have had the tilers on the roof. 

I see trouble ahead in Traeth Mawr!  The slaters, or slate masons as they prefer to be called will be looking for you, with their 12 inch hammers and zax!  - and it won't be slates that they're thinking of splitting.  'Tilers' indeed - we''l show 'im  😠

[Nick Gough]

I agree with the others, Chris.

You don't want slates to be any thicker.

That's exactly how I have made mine and I'm happy with the result.

You will probably find that they look better, and more defined, once you have painted them.

[Edwardian]

Looking good Chris.

 

I just use redundant office letterhead paper for slates, which are generally a printed downloaded texture. 

 

So, simplicity itself.

 

It's pantiles that make a chap's life interesting. Why did I have to choose Norfolk!!!!

[Nick Gough]

My goods shed roof, also cut from sticky back vinyl on the Silhouette:

 

[MikeOxon]

For anyone interested, I did some experiments with different roofing methods, described in my blog, back in 2015

 

[ChrisN]

2 hours ago, Nick Gough said:

My goods shed roof, also cut from sticky back vinyl on the Silhouette:

 

 

Nick,

Thank you.  Your slates seem to have more profile than mine do, which may I suppose just be the photo.

 

Humbrol Slate Grey is a green grey whereas slates from this part of Wales are blue grey, so I will have to check out which colour that I want.  (I know there is a blue grey.) I had promised myself that once the weather warmed up and the back door was open I would start painting.  (I will not get complaints about the smell that way and be banished upstairs to the railway room.  However, my desk looks like this at the moment:-

 

 

Yes, my son has been around again and suggested, "Dad, it will be really good when the point motors actually work and the points are automatic."  Sigh, what can I do?

[ChrisN]

Random post warning!

 

I was looking at my favourite web site and came across this postcard of Barmouth.  It would appear to be a colourised photograph taken from the footbridge.  The train appears to be typical and in proportion so it is not, I think, an artists impression.  Annoyingly the coaches are Pheonix 'Bronze Green', rather than the Revell 'Bronze Green' that I have painted my coaches.  Mr Price has not complained so my coaches will not be repainted.  Happily the engine, or rather the tender appears slightly green, so obviously it is 'Invisible Green', rather than black.

 

However, more importantly, it shows a water tower, at the end of each platform.  This type appears to have survived for a while, so is not a figment of the artists imagination.  They were changed at some point to ordinary column ones, but one survived at Dolgelley, up until the 1950s, so I have some details of actually what they looked like.  It seems I have an addition to my station.

 

My only concern is that it might impede the view from the signal box.

 

 

What is not clear from this plan is that there will also be a footbridge between the box and the platform.  I can account for this as the Down Platform is only two years old and so the footbridge is new, but it just might make things awkward.  (For the signalman that is.)

 

If you have ben, thanks for looking.

 

[Dana Ashdown]

10 minutes ago, ChrisN said:

Annoyingly the coaches are Pheonix 'Bronze Green', rather than the Revell 'Bronze Green' that I have painted my coaches.  Mr Price has not complained so my coaches will not be repainted.

Mr. Price is right. I wouldn't depend on the postcard for the actual colour. It has a lot to do with the artist's own impression of the colour/tint, not to mention that of the printer or colourist. Ambient lighting will also play tricks.

[ChrisN]

Just to prove how trustworthy postcards are, in the postcard earlier, there is a garden behind the down platform shelter.  That is interesting I thought so I had a look through some more photos, and found this one.  A small garden, probably a municipal one not a house garden.

 

What is interesting is the line of carts.  Tumbrils?  They appear to be there to take passengers luggage away.  The hotels are not very far, and perhaps it is luggage that has been forwarded.  These carts also appear in photographs as well, so they are actually there.  I am getting a collection of horse drawn vehicles, all so far just made up from kits and not modified, and perhaps I will need a few more.

[Edwardian]

7 hours ago, ChrisN said:

Just to prove how trustworthy postcards are, in the postcard earlier, there is a garden behind the down platform shelter.  That is interesting I thought so I had a look through some more photos, and found this one.  A small garden, probably a municipal one not a house garden.

 

What is interesting is the line of carts.  Tumbrils?  They appear to be there to take passengers luggage away.  The hotels are not very far, and perhaps it is luggage that has been forwarded.  These carts also appear in photographs as well, so they are actually there.  I am getting a collection of horse drawn vehicles, all so far just made up from kits and not modified, and perhaps I will need a few more.

 

First off these are marvellous photos, particularly the first, colourised, one; what a train! A very modellable 5-coach train of 6-wheelers hauled by - judging from what looks like a Sharps 4-wheel tender - a Little Passenger 2-4-0.

 

Second, the garden in the first photograph - dated with what accuracy I could not say as 1904 - looks to me to be for produce, an allotment type garden on railway property and doubtless for the staff. 

 

I love the row of tumbril carts lined up for luggage.

 

The second, black and white, picture - dated with what accuracy I could not say as 1906 - shows the allotment garden grubbed up and the wall pierced in two places to form in and out gates. So we now have a carriage drop-off road to the platform with the shelter. I do not think we feature in and out gates enough in period modelling, but they would have been useful wherever turning a horse-drawn carriage was inconvenient. Be that as it may, two little greenswards are left by the carriage drive, and these appear newly planted with saplings and with incomplete fencing, with just the posts installed.

 

Later in this series of pictures is another, also stated as 1906, in which the wall around the allotment garden remains intact Link}. This is captioned for its view of the police station, which appears, from a picture of the date stone also in the series, to date from 1906 (Link). Anyway, for at least some period the 1906 police station and the allotment garden seem to have existed at the same time.  

 

 

Edited May 21, 2023 by Edwardian
Spelling!

[ChrisN]

7 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

First off these are marvellous photos, particularly the first, colourised, one; what a train! A very modellable 5-coach train of 6-wheelers hauled by - judging from what looks like a Sharps 4-wheel tender - a Little Passenger 2-4-0.

 

Second, the garden in the first photograph - dated with what accuracy I could not say as 1904 - looks to me to be for produce, an allotment type garden on railway property and doubtless for the staff. 

 

I love the row of tumbril carts lined up for luggage.

 

The second, black and white, picture - dated with what accuracy I could not say as 1906 - shows the allotment garden grubbed up and the wall pierced in two places to form in and out gates. So we now have a carriage drop-off road to the platform with the shelter. I do not think we feature in and out gates enough in period modelling, but they would have been useful wherever turning a horse-drawn carriage was inconvenient. Be that as it may, two little greenswards are left by the carriage drive, and these appear newly planted with saplings and with incomplete fencing, with just the posts installed.

 

Later in this series of pictures is another, also stated as 1906, in which the wall around the allotment garden remains intact Link}. This is captioned for its view of the police station, which appears, from a picture of the date stone also in the series, to date from 1906 (Link). Anyway, for at least some period the 1906 police station and the allotment garden seem to have existed at the same time.  

 

 

 

James,

Yes the images are amazing.  Hugh Roberts has catalogued a whole community, and it is very interesting to see how it has changed over time.  The train is typical and has a 5 compartment third,  two which appear to have seven compartments but the Cambrian  only had 6 compartment six wheelers,a full brake, and I am not sure what the other is without looking it up, probably a luggage composite.  They have gas tops so either they are 'modrrn stock', 1894-1895 or later, or the artist got it wrong.

 

After I posted the two pictures I wondered whether the two way entrance was new, as the shrubs are quite small, and probably new.  There is another of the same view later that shows the shrubs much bigger.  On the picture you posted I convinced myself that the cart was backed into one of the openings, but of course it is not.  THe building which is in front of that is the Down Shelter, although the sign on it appears to say 'Refreshment Room'.  So there is something I have never seen modelled, an allotment directly behind a station building.  Carriages and tumbrils could have gone in there to pick up passengers as tickets would have been checked at, I think, Barmouth Junction.

 

 

[ChrisN]

Just a quick update to show how my tiles slates actually look.

 

 

 

 

 

Almost flat, but with a slight raised bit.

[Nick Gough]

Looks just right to me Chris.

[ChrisN]

Life has been a trifle busy recently, (yes making lots of deserts 🙂), and I have been tangled up in point wire so actual modelling has been a little scarce.  I did however manage to get to Kew National Archive last Wednesday, by taking my wife to work at lunch time, and picking her up on the way back as she might not have been able to park where she works.  I finally, finally got to view Rail 938/1, 'Great Western Railway: through coach programmes bank holidays and summer division notices, 1892- 1898'  At the start of Covid I emailed them and asked how many pages from this were titled, 'Northern Expresses', and got the reply, 'None'.  When I finally managed to get there, I found that they were right, the relevant pages were titled, 'Northern Trains'.  (Sigh).  I thought as they were summer notes I would photograph any relevant pages from 1894 and 1895 summers.  Having done July and August 1894 I turned the page and found, 'Through Coaches from October 1894 until further notice'.  (Hooray!) 

 

Bradshaws for that period has the train to catch for Barmouth Traeth Mawr as the 9: 50 am, but I could never understand that as any through coach would have been waiting at Ruabon for about an hour, whereas if it was attached to the 10:02 am it would be about five minutes.  The through coach pages were of course highly informative, as the 9:50 am had a through coach, a brake Tri Composite, for Aberystwyth, and written in red ink, on the list for the 10:02 Brk Tri Comp Barmouth.  Success!  There are two coaches crossed out on that train for Trowbridge, and dated 18/2/95, so it was in use on 21/3/95, Mr Price's Groundhog day.  (I assume that prior to this coach you had to get the Aberystwyth coach and change at Dovey Junction.)

 

I have had through data from a document sent me by @Donw which is for a later year, and has through coaches to Pwllheli.  These do not appear on these sheets, so I have removed them from my timetable, and it means less coaches to build.  (It also casts doubts on the other through coaches, but they shall remain unless I get evidence to the opposite, and why not?)

 

I did love looking at this document as it was obviously a working document as it was covered in red ink.

 

Next, update, horse drawn vehicles, probably.

 

If you have been, thanks for looking.

[corneliuslundie]

On Saturday I picked up a copy of Great Western Railway Journal No. 69, Winter 2009. It has two articles, the longer one being a detailed description of Newtown station and the train workings in the 1950s and 1960s. Lots of information from staff who worked there or drove locos which worked through. Far too modern for you, of course, but fascinating.

One thing it did confirm is that the Down platform shelter at that time had glazing in the openings in the front which are now just openings. Does this mean that you have to alter your shelter or had you already picked that up?

Jonathan