jon price wrote:Very nice paint job. If the rest of the layout is as good as this it will be magnificent
ThanksJon.
I wondered how you got on in the end with the Craftsman 1FT? Any observations/hints/tips gratefully accepted.
Regards
Tim
jon price wrote:Very nice paint job. If the rest of the layout is as good as this it will be magnificent
John Bateson wrote:Tim,
I believe that Protocab are introducing new cylindrical batteries early in the New Year - do you intend to fit the battery in the boiler?
John
Le Corbusier wrote:Alan Turner wrote:I believe the wharf was soley used for the output of the mine that can be seen on some photographs (in fact the photo in your first posting). It is behind the station and up the hill.
This means empties in and loaded out. It will have been served by down trains.
Regards
Alan
I was under the impression from Bill Hudson's section on Monsal Dale that Coal Deliveries were made for the Mill? He mentions that from the construction of the engineering workshop installed in the late 19th century and therefore greater use of the steam engine he approximated an increase from 4-5 wagons per week to 27-28 weekly by 1922.
Is there any reason to believe that this is incorrect? If correct then I wondered if regular daily deliveries would all have come on the down line? and whether they would have been dedicated trains brought in by tank or part of a larger train (same question for the empties)?
Alan Turner wrote:Bill Hudson does say that but I find it incredible that such a way side goods facility could handle such a through put of coal as well as the out put from the mine. If we allow 7 days a week (which I don't consider would be the case) 28 wagons a week is 4 a day. At the very least that would take 4 men to deal with together with the associated carters, wagons and horses. If it is only 6 days a week (more realistic) then that is 5 wagons a day.
I simply don't see the infrastructure at Monsal Dale to accommodate such activity.
regards
Alan
Armchair Modeller wrote:One idea to alleviate the problem might be to use the same wagons for outbound and inbound traffic - but before common user wagon pools, that would be (theoretically) forbidden.
Armchair Modeller wrote:Of course, WTTs only tell us what was normally expected to run. Maybe there were extra workings on occasions, or other regular through goods trains that might be arranged to call at the station if circumstances required?
Armchair Modeller wrote:Wagons might be dropped off at Millers Dale instead, if there was insufficient room at Monsal Dale.
Highpeak wrote:One of the papers on the PDMHS site notes that in its declining years (the mine was worked until 1931, so the declining years are probably after your period) a lot of the output was taken to Long Rake in Youlgreave for processing.
Le Corbusier wrote:jon price wrote:
I wondered how you got on in the end with the Craftsman 1FT? Any observations/hints/tips gratefully accepted.
Tim
jon price wrote:well i wouldn't say I was necessarily the best source of wisdom, but after making up the 00 chassis as supplied because the tabbed construction guaranteed a square effort, and adding plastic sides to space to P4 I think this was false insurance, and I wouldnt recommend it. If I started again (and s far as thechassis goes I may well) I think I would go for the Brassmaster Bachmann conversion chassis as a starting point
Le Corbusier wrote:I assume that all of this 'small beer' could have been comfortably dealt with on the down stopping freight mentioned earlier (would empties have been taken away at the same time?). I assume that the spar would have been taken up to Millars Dale to be sorted and sent on as required.
Noel wrote:The 1911 photograph shows the original, shorter, wharf, all on one level. It is possible [even though one wagon is only a three plank open] that all of the visible wagons are carrying coal. Which rather begs the question of when the wharf was extended and the raised section added.
Le Corbusier wrote:Slightly curious as to why Bill Hudson would be so definite that three were being loaded with Spar ... right down to the calling out of the Butterley (private Owners) wagons etc ... if they are actually a delivery of coal? The loads visible in the first two wagons are certainly white in colour.
Tim
Armchair Modeller wrote:The three wagons at the front seem to be coupled together, whereas the last one most definitely isn't. I agree the load in the first two wagons doesn't appear to be coal. Looking at images of fluorospar on the Web, it is reflective and rather psychedelic in colour, rather than white. That might be purer than the output of your mine though. Would make an interesting load to puzzle the punters at an exhibition!
Armchair Modeller wrote:I don't know what livery Butterley wagons had in 1910, but I don't see much sign of lettering on those three wagons. Maybe they still used small lettering then - or the image just didn't pick it up very well. Maybe there was some note attached to the image that Bill referred to?
Le Corbusier wrote:The fact that the mine enquired about the possibility of having a second 'private' siding constructed in distinction to the 'public' wharf does suggest that at times things got pretty congested. From the indications on the various photos it appears that the wharf itself was extended from what initially appeared to accommodate up to 5 wagons to a length that suggest 7 or 8 could be accommodated.
Any thoughts/suggestion as to possible avenues to research this?
Tim
Alan Turner wrote:In the photograph the horse wagon is higher than the adjacent railway wagon. This means it is for off loading from the horse to the railway wagon. If it were the other way around then the horse wagon would be lower. This is why I don't see the facilities for dealing with the coal traffic stated by Bill Hudson. There must be some other aspect that we do not know to make sense of the facilities we see and the Bill Hudson records.
Regards
Alan
Do you not buy the idea of a split height wharf ... part for unloading and part for loading?
grovenor-2685 wrote:Do you not buy the idea of a split height wharf ... part for unloading and part for loading?
Yes but, that seems to depend on the date. As Noel said this morning, the photo with the Dec 23rd 09:22 post clearly shows only a single height, no raised section. The photos with the Dec 21st 11:35 post show the dual height version. But this does seem to be the addition of a higher section. There is no rail level section suitable for unloading coal in the usual manner unless its a very short section out of sight by the buffers.
Regards
There is no rail level section suitable for unloading coal in the usual manner unless its a very short section out of sight by the buffers.
Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot and 0 guests