Making a Start - The Peak District Midland / Monsal Dale pre 1903

[Noel]

In the photograph the horse wagon is higher than the adjacent railway wagon.

Actually it isn't, its wheel is on a level with the bottom of the wagon body, so it can't tip into it. It is clear that the loading bank is level with the bottom of the wagon body if you look at the end wagon. This is why the higher level was there, to bring the cart above the top of the wagon body. It would still be possible for someone standing on the cart bed, with the cart at the lower level, to shovel material over the top of the wagon side, which might explain why the man leaning on the shovel is as high as he is relative to the cart wheel and the horse [which I think it is in view of its size and the "feathers" around its hooves].

[Le Corbusier]

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.

Which seems to be what you are inferring as your low section. But the much higher section as in the pics of 21st at 11:35 does not seem to be there in the other pics.
Regards

In my reading, I think that the higher section is where the loading is taking place in the picture with the cart. I think the lower section starts at the end of the stone wagons and encompasses the separation space, what we are calling the coal wagon and then back to the buffers (room for two wagons and at a push 3). The higher level appears to have had a coping placed upon it when the extension was done as evidenced in the later photos. Depending on the angle that photos are taken fore shortening appears to make one length or the other appear longer or shorter.

The recent current photo I put up was the best I could find which showed the two sections reasonably proportionally. This is another image which to me again shows the lower and upper sections as would have been in 1911

5540416002_3217eaf7b7_o.jpg

The next one shows it from the other direction.

6892987367_934d6c8dcd_o.jpg

The extension I believe was the portion masked by the trees and then lowered towards the end of the platform.

The length of the wharf from the OS is 135ft which at 15ft per waggon would allow up to 7 wagons in a rake?

Tim

[grovenor-2685]

Well, to me the higher section in these photos looks much higher than the wagon floor, closer to the top of the wagon sides, ideal for tipping into the wagons, the lower section looks close to wagon floor height as in the pic with the horse and cart.
Seems we have different perspectives.
The height could be measured on a site visit.
Regards

[Le Corbusier]

Well, to me the higher section in these photos looks much higher than the wagon floor, closer to the top of the wagon sides, ideal for tipping into the wagons, the lower section looks close to wagon floor height as in the pic with the horse and cart.
Seems we have different perspectives.
The height could be measured on a site visit.
Regards

Keith,

I see what you mean and it certainly does look high in the later photographs .... measurement is the only way I suspect to decide for certain - I hope to do this next year.

The attached enlarged image from the 1950s is interesting though. I have put on red lines tracing the relative heights of the upper and lower levels across the wagon on the siding. This suggests that the lower wall is below the floor height of the wagon and the higher is at (or perhaps the new coping stone above) the floor height.

4821520160117_17371533 copy.jpg

This reading marries with the 1911 image.

I had assumed that the higher level would ideally be set at the floor height of the wagon for loading purposes, and that the lower level would be ideally set at a level such that the wagon floor corresponded to coal cart height?

Anyway, enough of this ... have a very happy Christmas!

[Noel]

The length of the wharf from the OS is 135ft which at 15ft per waggon would allow up to 7 wagons in a rake?

8T and 10T wagons were generally 15' 6" oh or 16' 6" oh, I think [it's a bit before my period]. To this must be added the length of the buffers, which, after the dumb buffer era, were generally about 1' 8", making a total of 3', giving total wagon lengths of 18' 6" or 19' 6", so a maximum of 7 wagons.

The extension I believe was the portion masked by the trees and then lowered towards the end of the platform.

Agreed, but the bank ends where the height reduces. The rest of the walling is at right angles to the track and is retaining the end of the bank.

Goods loading platforms were 3' 6" above the railhead, so just below the body of goods wagons. Ones used for tipping had to be high enough for a cart to tip into the wagon, so around 7' to 8', depending on the height of the wagons used, and allowing for the height of the cart bed above the floor level. I agree with Keith; the photo with the cart shows a bank on a single level at the 3' 6" height. In any event, there would have been no requirement for the raised bank until just before the mine started production, at the earliest [it could have been done later, after the mine was producing enough traffic to make it worth doing].

The stats you posted only show coal & limestone traffic in 1902, whilst the 1922 figures show a small amount of mineral traffic [amounting to less than 20 wagons worth], which is presumably the mine traffic, since no other possible source has been mentioned, and about 850-900 wagons of coal. These figures equate respectively to averages of less than a wagon every two weeks, and 17-18 wagons per week. The 1922 figures, incidentally, disprove my suggestion that the traffic might have moved to Millers Dale.

I have put on red lines tracing the relative heights of the upper and lower levels across the wagon on the siding.

Unfortunately these lines are not parallel, and the upper one is not parallel to the edge of the bank. Projecting this edge will produce a line well above the wagon floor.

Best wishes for Christmas and the New Year.

[Le Corbusier]

I will go with your reading Noel (and Kieth's) ... the balance of experience on the forum appears to be pretty much of the same view!

That is to say wharf being set primarily for coal and therefore at standard goods height ... and then raised later for the quarry? .... not relevant for me in 1902.

Happy Christmas to you too.

Tim

[Le Corbusier]

Hope that everyone had a relaxing Christmas.

On my Clayton coach build, and with specific reference to the interior, could anyone suggest how I might go about fitting the luggage racks to the interiors. I note that in 7mm scale there do appear to be etches for such things, but am not aware of similar for 4mm?

6957397559_aa38bc4d24_o.jpg

Regards

Tim

[jon price]

Balancing prototype, perception, and practicality I would suggest a piece of transparent plastic, with slivers of the same for the pierced brackets, with the detail scratched on and filled with brown ink, matt varnished to avoid glare. This will look as accurate as you need through the windows. If however you want to look at the interiors with the roof off through a magnifying glass you may well be on the road to custom etches.

[Will L]

On my Clayton coach build, and with specific reference to the interior, could anyone suggest how I might go about fitting the luggage racks to the interiors. I note that in 7mm scale there do appear to be etches for such things, but am not aware of similar for 4mm?

While I definitely subscriber to the "getting it all right" mantra, and I admire your ambition, they would be very very fiddly to do and next best thing to invisible except from very funny viewing angles. And I find the space above the windows is best used to provide a removable and rigid roof structure that wont warp away the coach sides. But its your train set...

Edited for spelling (a stich in time)

[Le Corbusier]

Thanks Jon,

Sounds like an option.

Thanks for your observations Will.

If this is not something that is regularly modelled ... i.e. there are not examples of others to springboard from ... then for the time being I think I will put it into the ' a step too far' category. The roof is removable so I can always come back to it in the future if the mood takes me!

Regards

Tim

[Mark Tatlow]

[

The attached enlarged image from the 1950s is interesting though. I have put on red lines tracing the relative heights of the upper and lower levels across the wagon on the siding. This suggests that the lower wall is below the floor height of the wagon and the higher is at (or perhaps the new coping stone above) the floor height.4821520160117_17371533 copy.jpg This reading marries with the 1911 image.

These two level loading banks are relatively common on the Highland. The reason for this is that the Highland used double deck cattle wagons for the transhipment of sheep (which are conveniently smaller than a cow to enable double stacking!).

I could see that they would have wider uses though. Loading loose material into an open wagon would be one that would crop up nationally, for example. You couldn't do this with the door open, so the goods needs to be lifted over the side - so much easier to do this from a bank that is at or near the top of a typical wagon side?

I would suggest that the higher tier of the loading banks is for this reason. I would caution you about measuring from site now. I would say that the formation that is apparent in your photographs has been built up significantly, with the effect that the platforms appear to be much lower than they really would be.

[martinm]

I would caution you about measuring from site now. I would say that the formation that is apparent in your photographs has been built up significantly, with the effect that the platforms appear to be much lower than they really would be.

I would suggest that there is also room to discuss a possible change in the stone platform height. For some reason, the Midland had a habit of low platforms.
regards,
martin

[Le Corbusier]

I would caution you about measuring from site now. I would say that the formation that is apparent in your photographs has been built up significantly, with the effect that the platforms appear to be much lower than they really would be.

Thanks Mark

The dims I was thinking might be interesting to get from the site were the copings of the two wharf levels in relation to the platform edge capping on the down line. From the photos, it would appear that these are those that were in existence in the 1950s.

If as has been suggested the higher level in relation to platform level is up at 7' or 8'ft, then this I think will indicate that the wharf was built up higher than in the 1911 photo. I am also curious about the lower wharf level in relation to the platform. If this ties in (there or there abouts) with floor level of a wagon, then this would suggest that the whole wharf was originally at this level. If however it is set lower, then this would suggest the wharf was always intended to be split, with a lower unloading level for coal .... from a wagon directly into a cart.

Regards

Tim

[Le Corbusier]

This I am afraid is a basic question. I am starting to consider painting my Andrew Stadden edwardian loco crew. I have been looking through my copy of Midland Style and although there is plenty of information on uniforms, there doesn't appear to be anything on colour.

Would i be right in assuming that jackets/trousers/caps were all dark blue? What about shirts etc ... white?

Tim

[Le Corbusier]

I thought I would post my initial forays into the housing of the Protocab kit into the tender.

I decided to place the jack point for re-charging the battery in the coal space itself. It is located top right set in amongst the coal. The idea is to make up a loose laid portion of coal to place over the top when not in use. The jack point is laid against the side of the tender walls and held in place by the chassis mounting cross members so it can't move vertically but can still be easily removed if reqd (the jack point mounting can be cut and filed to size to achieve this).

DSC_0003.jpg

Looking from underneath the battery is slid beneath the chassis mount holding the jack point in position. The Loco Control chip unit (LCU) is then fixed at the other end beneath the other mount and located using the heat dissipation pad provided.

DSC_0001.jpg

The final photo shows the copper sheet fixed to the side of the tender which is the switch. Due to the metal body this means that the whole side of the tender effectively becomes the switch and to wake the LCU from sleep you simply touch the tender side. The double wire is the feed to the motor mounted in this instance to drive the rear axle of the engine housed up in the smoke box. This means that the twin wires will be visible below the fall plate connecting the tender to the loco itself.The wires can be disconnected from the LCU should I wish to separate tender and loco.

DSC_0002.jpg

In due course I will see if I can post some video of the Barney running up and down my test track.

The battery took a little under 3 hours to charge from fully drained. You can top the battery up at any point as it does not have a memory - so there is no necessity to drain the battery.

I used the battery for running in the chassis. As I do not have a rolling road this process is a little crude ... I sit the chassis on a varnished smooth piece of veneered mdf with blocks either end and run it in both forward and in reverse for 10 min intervals simply allowing the wheels to slip. This appears to have bedded the motor, bearings and rods in nicely and things appear to be running nice and freely. Running the engine at 3/4 speed in this scenario I found a single charge of the battery lasted a smidgen under 1.5 hours. Given that this is faster than I would generally run the loco prototypically, the friction I suspect is considerably greater on the mdf than free running on a track and the usage was constant, I hope that even without topping up the battery will last for a descent operating session ... particularly as I intend running three or four engines at least in any given session with pauses btwn movements.

Anyway, that is where I have got to so far and I am reasonably encouraged.

Hope everyone had an enjoyable Christmas

Tim

[Noel]

This I am afraid is a basic question. I am starting to consider painting my Andrew Stadden edwardian loco crew. I have been looking through my copy of Midland Style and although there is plenty of information on uniforms, there doesn't appear to be anything on colour.Would i be right in assuming that jackets/trousers/caps were all dark blue? What about shirts etc ... white?

You could try asking http://www.midlandrailwaystudycentre.org.uk/.

[Le Corbusier]

You could try asking http://www.midlandrailwaystudycentre.org.uk/.

Good Plan .... why didn't I think of that?

Cheers

Tim

[Le Corbusier]

My thoughts are now turning towards making a start on my Johnson 1F Tank loco. As the basis for this I have a Craftsman kit. The prototype I am currently considering is-

RFBMCT24710 MR No 1424.jpg

Though there are quite a few to choose from and my final choice I think will be driven by the one I feel has the most attractive livery combination ... all else being equal.

Anyway, I am currently pondering what to do about the chassis. The craftsman Chassis is an OO effort and neither overly sophisticated nor overly accurate.

DSC_0006 copy.jpg

Currently I am thinking that I will try and use the frames, guard irons, rods (adapted to allow splitting rather than in one piece) and the rigging. I have some Perseverance P4 spacers I can use and a set of High-level Guides and horn blocks to have a go at my first attempt at CSB springing.

I have a copy of the original MR GA drawing for the 1F and I have traced off the actual frame profile. John Redrup at LRM has also been kind enough to let me have some spare etches of springs and firebox ashpan profiles.

Johnson 1F 0-6-0T frames.jpg

DSC_0007.jpg

My idea is to fix the springs to the base of the horn blocks and have the brakes detachable so the wheels can be dropped out (I have been studying Will's posts on all of this). The firebox/ash pan I will fix in behind the frames dropping down in line with the drawing. On the frames themselves I was thinking of filing out the main scalloping to give the correct profile, cutting the horn guide recesses and adapting the ends to be closer to profile whilst still keeping the designed points for the hanging of the rigging.

I would be interested in thoughts on all of this and also if there is anything else I should be thinking about.

Regards

Tim

[Le Corbusier]

Would anyone happen to know the arrangement for the splashers internally on the footplate of the johnson 0-6-0 tank (as might have been on the loco above)?

I can see the curve of the splasher at the entrance appearing to rise up in some of the photos in the E & J illustrated review Vols, but am not certain what happens then.

My current best guess is that timber boarding at the footplate level lines through with the backhead. The splashers appear to rise on either side and then from some photos it would appear that there is a boxed out flat portion from the top of the rise moving forward.

If anyone has a clearer idea/view of the arrangement I would appreciate a steer. All the photos I have concentrate on the backhead and above, cutting of just before the floor arrangement becomes clear.

Regards

Tim

[Le Corbusier]

For a bit of fun I thought I would upload my first run of the Barney using the protocab system. The clip shows the loco initially running with the battery and LCU simply laid on top of the tender. I was testing the sensitivity of the controller, and whether the train would slip when hitting a barrier to ensure that the motor didn't become stalled with maximum power applied. I then re fitted all the kit into the tender and had the novel experience of running the loco without track on the dining room table.

All a bit of fun really. The system seems to run ok, even on a chassis which has been rebuilt four times and so is not as slop free and true as it might be.
All in all I am reasonably satisfied with the trial.

Tim

[Le Corbusier]

Does anyone have a recommendation for a set of fire irons to go along with my Stadden loco crew for this period ... I will need sets for both tender and tank engines.

Thanks

Tim

[jim s-w]

Have you thought about the brassmasters easychas instead for the 1f?

http://www.brassmasters.co.uk/bachmann_ ... sichas.htm

[RobM]

Does anyone have a recommendation for a set of fire irons to go along with my Stadden loco crew for this period ... I will need sets for both tender and tank engines.

Thanks

Tim

Tim, Scalelink?.......http://www.scalelink.co.uk/acatalog/Shire_Scenes_1_76_scale.html half way down the page, etched rather than white metal. Plus some made up of brass wire.
Rob

[Le Corbusier]

Have you thought about the brassmasters easychas instead for the 1f?

http://www.brassmasters.co.uk/bachmann_ ... sichas.htm

Thanks Jim,

It will be my fall back if current plans prove beyond me. I would still have to shape the frames for the earlier profile (I understand there is a etched line on the frame) and make up a new fire box.

Something in me makes me want to see if I can improve the kit frames sufficiently to be satisfied with the result.

Tim

[Le Corbusier]

Tim, Scalelink?.......http://www.scalelink.co.uk/acatalog/Shire_Scenes_1_76_scale.html half way down the page, etched rather than white metal. Plus some made up of brass wire.
Rob

Thanks Rob .... that looks just what I was after.

Tim