An Unusual Collection

A fascinating thread thank you - not least die to the many pictures showing the Met permanent way.
I am thinking of building a very small section of Metropolitan track and was wondering if there are any details anywhere for modelling the conductor rails; the way points and crossings were handled; sources for components etc etc. Any and all advice greatly appreciated.JM
 

AJC

Western Thunderer
A fascinating thread thank you - not least die to the many pictures showing the Met permanent way.
I am thinking of building a very small section of Metropolitan track and was wondering if there are any details anywhere for modelling the conductor rails; the way points and crossings were handled; sources for components etc etc. Any and all advice greatly appreciated.JM

This is the best I know: 3rd and 4th rail dimensions and settings (and welcome, by the way).

Adam
 

oldravendale

Western Thunderer
Hello Jon, and welcome.

I've seen a few fourth rail based layouts in 4 and 7mm, but none so far in 2mm - oh yes I have - Copenhagen Fields - so parts for fourth rail are either available or can be constructed, but I can't help with info on where you may get the necessary materials. Certainly a huge fount of knowledge of things Met is Ken de Groome of Ken's Profiles ( The Bungalow Fen Road Newton Wisbech Cambridgeshire PE13 5HX
Email: ken.degroome@btinternet.com. As far as I know his kits are only available in 7mm but he may well have the knowledge to put you in touch with someone who knows about track building in general.

Are you building in 2mm, 4mm, 7mm or other?

Alternatively, if you stay with WT for a bit I'm sure that someone will be along in a minute with chapter and verse.

Delighted that this collection of photos has stimulated interest.

Brian
 

Engineer

Western Thunderer
100% support the advice above.
Dating is an important factor in Metropolitan conductor rail and associated engineering, and representing it. Metropolitan designs and standards were noticeably different to those of the Underground Group and London Transport which are relatively much more photographed and documented. From the late 1930s any new works and renewals would not have used Metropolitan standards unless there was some special good reason. Existing installations would remain undisturbed for a long time until renewed or replaced, of course.
 

Yorkshire Dave

Western Thunderer
Hi Jon

In addition to the advice above and if you're modelling later LT (Met), visit the outer reaches i.e. Amersham, Chesham or at least north of Harrow on the Hill to see the later conductor rail. Or anywhere where there are stabling points e.g. Rickmansworth where track renewals are seldom carried out as Engineer has noted.

I was travelling to Aylesbury earlier this week and noticed the conductor rails south of Harrow on the Hill have been replaced with that similar to tube square section and the new style insulators.

Parts for 3rd and 4th rail are certainly available in 4mm scale (Peco insulator pots/chairs for their code 60 conductor rail and Scalefour Society parts).

For 7mm Roxey have SR style conductor rail chairs in whitemetal or brass Model railway kits, model train kits, model locomotive kits, narrow gauge kits, Roxey Mouldings and Karlgarin show 7mm conductor rail on their website www.karlgarin.com/whatsnew.htm
 

Engineer

Western Thunderer
These are changing times, and a lot of surviving Met. material has gone with conductor rail renewals and line upgrades in recent times. I can think of some possibilities but it's always a case of checking to see if it survives. An example is conductor rail ramps, with the Met using several unique styles according to purpose. Ramps of one particular Met. type were removed with the layout changes made at Uxbridge last year.

My father and I looked out for these things and speculated whether each instance was a true Met survival. It really isn't possible to be certain without knowing what's been done to the track over the years. Having made a detour today, there is still a section of running line where there are short lengths of conductor rail that are extremely worn yet definitely of much lighter section - there are butt joints into much larger standard conductor rail. I'm confident that this rail has been there as long as I can remember, has survived the arrival of flat-bottom rail and some of this seemingly old rail is supported on the modern forms of insulator. It can only be a matter of time before it is replaced by the new rail, which is aluminium alloy section with a steel cap as rubbing surface. Note that the Met. used 100lb & 120lb sections compared to the LT 150lb.

An example of the effects of renewals comes up in this thread, post 234, showing loco 11 at Baker Street, late 1930s. The siding has a Met. buffer. By 1943 the siding was extended slightly with a concrete stop block. Around 1946, this in turn was replaced by a buffer to LT New Works standards of the time, when the siding was shortened again to make space in advance of major building works on the Baker Street site. So, easy to blink and miss the changes. There is a surviving Met. rail-built buffer, now derelict and unconnected, at the base of the former connection into Willesden Green yard, visible from [fast-moving] passing trains.
 
Last edited:
A

Arun

Guest
A fascinating thread thank you - not least die to the many pictures showing the Met permanent way.
I am thinking of building a very small section of Metropolitan track and was wondering if there are any details anywhere for modelling the conductor rails; the way points and crossings were handled; sources for components etc etc. Any and all advice greatly appreciated.JM
I recall [but can't lay hands on it at present] that an early MRJ had an extensive article describing creating LT track and turnouts.
A lifetime ago I also prepared a load of masters for ceramic pots for Ken de Groome in various styles.. Hopefully he will still have a few about!

Edited to add - It was issue 30 of MRJ pages 89-95inc
 
Last edited by a moderator:

daifly

Western Thunderer
I’m old enough to consider it to be “fount of knowledge”. Font is a size of printing type or a water receptacle in a church. It has, sadly, become a bit of an eggcorn. If you don’t know what an eggcorn is you’re probably using them regularly!
Dave
 

John K

Western Thunderer
I’m old enough to consider it to be “fount of knowledge”. Font is a size of printing type or a water receptacle in a church. It has, sadly, become a bit of an eggcorn. If you don’t know what an eggcorn is you’re probably using them regularly!
Dave
I like eggcorns I used to get sent lots when I was editing a well known comic.
Many were like damp squids that wouldn't pass mustard when cut to the cheese.
John K
 

adrian

Flying Squad
If you don’t know what an eggcorn is you’re probably using them regularly!
I didn't know the word and had to look it up - but I would have called them malapropisms. Allegedly there is a subtle difference in that an eggcorn replaces a misheard obscure word with a more common word and a malapropism replaces a misheard word to create a nonsensical phrase. However the problem I have is that if you know the definition of the more common word in the eggcorn replacement then by default the phrase is nonsensical and ergo a malapropism. On the other hand if you don't know the definition of the replacement word in the eggcorn then you won't recognise it as such. So a strange paradox which I can't quite resolve in understanding the existence of eggcorns. :confused:
 

simond

Western Thunderer
Dave,

I had never heard the term “eggcorn”, however when I researched (Googled, obs*...) the font/fount dichotomy, the opinion I found was that this use of “font” is a mondegreen, which is rather similar, I guess, and that the words in this sense are more or less interchangeable in the good ol’ US of A. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I’d hate to be speaking American English, whatever that is :)

However, one website suggested that I’m in good literary company, Byron, way back in 1806...

Friend of my heart, and foremost of the list
Of those with whom I lived supremely blest,
Oft have we drain’d the font of ancient lore;
Though drinking deeply, thirsting still the more


* as used by my offspring, “obviously”, not “obsolete”.

Cheers
Simon
 

Engineer

Western Thunderer
Continuing to research various images and the various people involved, with moderate success.

Post 247 shows Met loco 16 at Uxbridge, on its own. In post 249 I made a mistake in diagnosing this as a test run. It is a plausible option as these trips are very common, even today, and I'd not found any instances of electric loco-hauled specials visiting Uxbridge that fitted the bill. I'd not considered steam-hauled specials, however. There is a high probability that the date of the photograph is 4 July 1954 and the special train was to celebrate 50 years of the Uxbridge Branch. The train was hauled by steam loco L44, which we know in modern times as No. 1, and it ran from Baker Street to Uxbridge, then returned via Acton Town and High Street Kensington to Baker Street. Loco 16 was involved. but not as part of the train proper as far as I can establish. By this time, Uxbridge station had no run-round in the platforms, so the steam loco hauling the incoming train needed to be released and the train run round on the yard outlet and lines a short distance towards London. So, the image seems to show loco 16 arriving at Uxbridge, approaching the platform before coupling to the train to begin the manoeuvres. There is other photographic [copyright] evidence of the special train that confirms loco 16's role. Although I've worked out the identities of many of the photographers involved in the collection here, the attribution in this case is 'KD' and I've not yet found a match for this, but still hunting.
 

Engineer

Western Thunderer
Another item to correct/improve on a past response:

Posts 401/402: Originally I'd speculated that the grounded coach body at Aylesbury was rigid 8-wheel stock . From another source, the work of Ken Benest who has come up previously in this story, he advises that the coach body was examined before its demolition in the 1960s and confirms it as a brake with luggage compartment. Paint evidence suggested it was coach 212. Having cross-checked with another reference, I can say 212 was an 1881 build vehicle, Third Class, in the 8-wheel family of vehicles.
 
Last edited:
Top