Her Majesty's Saloon (Carriage)

[What About The Bee]

In Hornby's 2023 range launch, you may have noticed R40357 "L&MR Coach Pack, Wellington, Globe & Queen Adelaide's Coach". The first photograph is of Globe and Wellington, which are standard 1st class carriages. You are to be forgiven if you didn't scroll to the second image. The carriage presented in the second image isn't the standard LMR 1st class carriage by that name. No it is not!

The little brown carriage in the second image is Queen Adelaide's personal carriage, made especially for her in 1842.  A royal train carriage is more properly termed "saloon".

The Queen, painted in 1832, some time after ascension.

The saloon has attracted interest for quite some time. This old composite postcard shows Her Majesty and the saloon.

The front of the saloon is on the right. There are three compartments and a small area for luggage in the rear.

The center compartment is for seated travel, what the LMR would call "4 inside", 2 facing front, 2 to the rear, legs in the center. The sumptuous furnishings are far beyond standard LMR 1st or even Royal Mail 4 inside. Yet the seating arrangement is consistent with the phrase, 4 inside.

I believe the rear compartment is for sleeping. The compartment could be arranged such that Her Majesty could nap. Some external images show long curtains in the rear compartment, which are also in this image. Long bed curtains are consistent with darkness. I might be wrong here and the bed was made up in the center compartment. 

The front compartment is just two front facing seats, with a glass wall. I think this might be for Queen Adelaide to be viewed by the public as she rolled on by. I can picture her doing the ubiquitous 'queen wave' from inside, to her adoring public.

The front buffer beam shows the rich appointment as it is carved and pin striped. That will be a difficult challenge for Hornby. The front, gilded and carved flourishes are quite a noticable feature and yet another challenge for Hornby.

Even the door artwork is complicated!

Given that this saloon exists at the museum, Hornby will have every opportunity to examine this saloon in detail and as often as they would like. Hornby should do themselves proud.

I pre-ordered R40257 within 10 minutes of range launch. I recognized that saloon, and I ordered instantly.

Now I cannot state that Queen Adelaide's carriage ever was on the LMR. It did exist during the LMR's time frame of existence but was for a different railway. Yet the saloon is a preserved period carriage and this is my layout. So it will be making appearances. The 1st class carriages Globe and Wellington are a bonus, but frankly, I would have paid the asking price, even without them.  

A royal carriage on my layout!  

Bee

[threelink]

@bee It is my understanding that the bed was made up in the rear compartment and that the small "boot" was not for luggage but as an extension to the compartment to allow room for the royal feet when Her Majesty lay down in the bed.

[What About The Bee]

Hi ThreeLink

Thank you for clarifying the location of the bed. I can only examine photographs and suffer from an inability to inspect it first hand. Some day!

The extension into the boot was something I did not anticipate. I noticed the hatch, but assumed Her Majesty traveled feet first and thus the hatch opened into the middle compartment. Placing Her Majesty's feet into the boot makes sense. I just didn't realize her feet were so large*.

No need for a luggage boot anyway. Her Majesty would have personal staff and they would likely travel with her in other carriages. The luggage would simply go with staff.

The sleeping compartment shows the closeness of the 4 inside seating arrangements. The leg well is narrow when looking at the seat depth. Even with the most sumptuous of cushions, the compartment appears 5ish feet long. The internet tells me the average height of a woman in the 1800s hovers around 5'2". The extra length into the boot was required!

I wonder if Hornby will include a fine scale Adelaide in the pack? Her Majesty can ride about in the front compartment of the saloon, giving the ubiquitous 'queen wave'.

Bee 

*a joke, obviously. Meant respectfully. I'm not about to insult British institutions.

[threelink]

@Bee. I get the impression from the few portraits that shew other people with Queen Adelaide that she may well have been of above average height. I have never seen her saloon and would much like to because I have always wondered whether the "boot" extension was an hurried but necessary afterthought - it seems to me to lack the finesse of the rest of the carriage both in design and execution. I think it was a question of long legs rather than big feet. I love the idea of a working Adelaide waving to the plebs in 4mm scale.

[What About The Bee]

I have always wondered whether the "boot" extension was an hurried but necessary afterthought - it seems to me to lack the finesse of the rest of the carriage both in design and execution.

 

 

+1.

The saloon is a custom designed carriage. Whilst it may have its roots in a 1st class carriage, the entirety of the saloon is a bespoke effort. Just as a cobbler might want to know the size of the royal feet, I would think the royal carriage maker would want to know how how tall Adelaide was before designing a custom sleeping compartment. The undercarriage was absolutely adjusted in length for the front compartment, why not for the rear sleeping compartment?

Which leads me into these questions.

1) Is this the first sleeping compartment for British trains, or were other sleepers about? None on the LMR that I know of, but that was a short run.

2) What locomotive pulled the saloon? I'd imagine the honor of being selected for the royal train caused just a tiny bit of competition in the engine house.

3) What carriages, beyond the saloon, were in consist? Where in consist was the saloon?

[threelink]

@Bee. I have no answer to your questions 2 and 3 but on question 1 yes, I believe this was the first sleeper. The very fact that it was a bespoke vehicle reinforces my feeling that the boot was an afterthought. Perhaps it was never intended as a sleeper and was modified at the last minute, possibly to suit a royal desire expressed late in the building process? I cannot help but think that the builders would have come up with something much more elegant had the desire for a sleeping compartment been known ab initio.

[What About The Bee]

Since we are very early in the Hornby process for Saloon No. 2, I thought to plant a seed in Mr. Kohler's imagination! So I sent him an email, stating 'ubiquitous queen wave' and a 4mm Queen Adelaide in the forward glass compartment.

I did ask his intentions

His response was vague, as you would expect, but he did say "interesting thought".

So the seed has been planted, perhaps it will flourish!

Bee

[What About The Bee]

Earlier in this thread, I asked about the locomotive and the consist for the Queen's Saloon. After research, I think I can answer some of my own questions and would like to share that with you.

The London and Birmingham Railway only existed until 1846, when it was amalgamated into the London and North Western Railway (L&NWR). As Queen Adelaide's saloon was created in 1842, we have a very small window to consider indeed, 1842 to 1846.

The Engineer for the London and Birmingham Railway was Edward Bury. He specified 2-2-0 for passenger and 0-4-0* for freight, naturally of his design. It is very probable that the locomotive used for Queen Adelaide's Saloon looked like this

There is no definitive word on the consist of Queen Adelaide's train, but Queen Victoria's first train ride, dated 13 June 1842, via the GWR will be instructive. The locomotive engineer was Daniel Gooch, himself, Superintendent of the GWR. I do not think anyone can blame him for taking that honor. The consist was 7 carriages, with Her Majesty's carriage two back from the locomotive, which was Phlegethon. Phlegethon was a member of the Fire Fly class, as was Actaeon. We have a photograph of Actaeon, designed by Daniel Gooch.

A question later asked in Parliament about the journey confirmed that the two carriages between the royal carriage and the engine was in case of an accident as those two carriages would act as a buffer to the royal carriage.  

I do think that Queen Adelaide would have been afforded near identical treatment on the London and Birmingham Railway. Very likely that buffer carriages were in place and that there were other carriages for support staff.

And with that, a Bury 2-2-0 passenger locomotive enters my wish list!  

Bee

* Copperknob, Furness Railway No. 3, is an example of a Bury 0-4-0

[What About The Bee]

I check in periodically to items I have on preorder. R40357 Queen Adelaide Saloon, with Globe and Wellington 1st class has taken a schedule delay.

The due date was previously Summer, 2023. I did think that was an aggressive schedule. In the listing, the image is of the real Saloon, in the museum. Even now, in February, not even a CAD image.

The due date, er, season of the year is now Summer, 2024.

I do suppose it could be argued that the Summer, 2023 season was an error that they just now discovered.

I'm going to pretend that's the reason.

Bee

[What About The Bee]

Normally, Hornby changes the expected release date to delay it. The item will come later than originally expected.

It is with a degree of excitement that I note that Hornby have hastened the expected release to Spring of 2024, in advance of the Summer of 2024. That's fairly unusual and indicates confidence.

Still no word if Adelaide will be providing the ubiquitous Queen Wave from the front observation compartment!! 🙂

Bee

[What About The Bee]

Those of us waiting for Hornby carriage pack R40357 have been looking to see a Hornby render of Queen Adelaide's Saloon, instead of a photograph of the prototype. That still hasn't occurred

Yet we do have an update, albeit in R40437, wherein Hornby will offer Queen Adelaide's Saloon as a single carriage. It appears to be a CAD render, not a sample, yet I will not expire on that hill 🙂

I grabbed the image and, placing them ever so carefully using my photo edit tools, compared detail after detail. The Hornby render vs the image in the postcard above. Why the postcard? It offers a reasonably good side elevation. Just like the Hornby render.

So here is that comparison

Now nearly every detail is letter perfect. It looks absolutely fantastic from my point of view. I did detect a small difference, but you would have to look really, really hard to see it. I've written to Hornby, requesting clarification. When that comes, I will update.

Until then, feast your eyes!

Bee

[What About The Bee]

I have heard back from Hornby. A reasonably fast response, in just days.

In the very first post in this thread, I wrote: "The front buffer beam shows the rich appointment as it is carved and pin striped. That will be a difficult challenge for Hornby."

Well, exactly that was the difference.

Hornby replied: "I’m afraid we have production parameters that will not allow us to put the lining around the buffers stocks. Also the very ends of the chassis we have had to simplify the lining to make it possible to mass produce." 

So am I terribly fussed over this? Not really. I found a difference because I went looking for one. If I had not been examining the model in fine detail, I would never have noticed it. My order stands. Still holding steady at Spring 24

Bee

[Simon-372339]

I think there may have been a 'cock up' on LBR's side. The body should have been '3 carriage based' but the underframe was too short so that is why the end compartment is truncated. The middle compartment door would be also be central. The step board may have been a later modification as royal carriages tended to have individual steps for each compartment. Added when raised platforms became more common?

[Rana Temporia]

For anyone modelling an independent light railway this royal carriage could be used quite legitimately to represent a couple of prototypes. The Rother Valley Railway (Later the Kent and East Sussex Railway) had a very similar ex-royal carriage in its stock.

The Shropshire & Montgomeryshire Railway had a different design of 4 wheel ex-Royal carriage that was regularly used on normal service trains, as well as a number of interesting locos including tender ones.

[threelink]

I am not qualified to comment on any cock up by L&BR. Carriage lengths, as I understand it, were dictated by the length of the turntables at Euston used for carriage turning. What does puzzle me is the internal layout of the carriage. It would have been unthinkable to allow a member of the royal family to travel alone, so there must have been accommodation for ladies in waiting but how did they get from compartment to compartment? Are there internal doors? Can anyone who has seen the carriage in the flesh clarify the point?

[Simon-372339]

And a 'cat amongst the pigeons'

Morning Post Friday 28th March 1845

' The directors of the London and Birmingham Railway- Company, with their accustomed liberality, have recently- constructed a new state carriage expressly for the use of her Majesty, which will be brought into use for the first time- on Tuesday next.'

This could explain why the discussion on RM couldn't find any ref. to the carriage being built in 1842.

It has been written QAs coach was built to a similar style to QVs coach.

QVs coach for LSWR was built Oct 1844.

[What About The Bee]

Hello Simon

One of the reasons I do not participate on RMweb is the constant negativity by a very small group of individuals.

Queen Adelaide's Saloon was a bespoke carriage body placed onto a railway chassis by Hooper. Hooper has possessed a Royal Warrant since 1830. Hooper is still in business. You may contact them here

https://www.hooperinternational.com/contact/

Now perhaps it is just me, but I would think any work for a member of the Royal family would be very well recorded by Hooper. Further, my expectation is that the Science Museum have already thought to ask Hooper, and received the date the Science Museum states, to wit: 1842.

In the end, I am not overly fussed by this. The Saloon does exist at the Museum. The Hornby model is fairly faithful to it. It isn't LMR so it was a stretch for me in any event.

Bee

[What About The Bee]

Hello Three Link

I have not seen the Saloon in real life. It is on my list though!

The photographs show no inter-compartment communication or passageway. What we do see is 4 inside seating in the two aft compartments. 2 inside in the front compartment. That takes up the full width.

Unless the seat backs remove to reveal a secret passageway, like the extension in the rear compartment for the bed into the boot, there would be no room for a passageway.

As to staff, I think they would follow in other carriages, likely a glass carriage. In this period image of the LBR at Euston, you may observe one, on the left.

There are other times when members of the Royal family travel in compartments inaccessible. The horse drawn carriages spring to mind. Certainly, that horse drawn carriage could be stopped, should staff need to do something. But so could a locomotive.

The only alternative would be for staff to ride in the compartment with Adelaide. I have no familiarity with Royal protocol, particularly to understand if that is acceptable or not.

Bee

[Simon-372339]

Yes you would think the science museum (SM) would check.

SM mentions the body was built in Gough St, for the period we have Joseph Wright coach builder.

I have emailed the science museum to supply provenance for the date they have quoted.

[What About The Bee]

Hi Simon

From the web page: https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co205850/queen-adelaides-saloon-no-2-railway-carriage

"... bodywork being by Hooper..."

From the webpage: https://www.hooperinternational.com/history-hooper-co/

"The company was founded as Adams and Hooper in 1805 and held a royal warrant from 1830..."

For those who do not know https://www.royal.uk/royal-warrants

So we have Hooper, making the body (not the chassis) of the Saloon, because they possessed a royal warrant. That is, the London and Birmingham Railway turned to Hooper to make the carriage body, because Hooper had the royal warrant. It is extremely likely that there is a Hooper maker's plate on the Saloon, which would tie directly into Hooper's records. Again, I expect Hooper to keep immaculate records of goods provided to the royal family.

I look forward to any response you may receive from the Museum. It will be amusing to see how terribly I have that wrong!!

Bee

[threelink]

Hi, Bee. I find it hard to believe that any member of the monarchy would be left to travel alone. Perhaps the coupe compartment was for staff even if there was no communicating doorway. Like you, I have the carriage on my bucket list so may one day get to give it the once over.

Threelink.

[Simon-372339]

RE:makers plate, I would expect to see Adams & Hooper and maybe a date.

London gazette 1851

Timothy George Adams and George Hooper, carrying on

business as Coach Makers, at No. 28, Haymarket, in the

city of Westminster, under the style or firm of Adams and

Hooper, expired by effluxion of time, and was dissolved on

the 6th day of July 1845.—Witness our hands this 25th day

of September 1851.

Timothy George Adams (1784-1851)

George Hooper (1795-1878)

Hooper Internationals version of their own history may be also wrong, 'The company was founded as Adams and Hooper in 1805' Hooper may not have joined until 1829-1830, the previous partnership was between Adams & Edridge.

RE: travelling alone, very very unlikely.

QA suffered regular bouts of illness, a grave one occurring at the end of 1841. She then took up a lease on Witley Court some time later in 1842, the three year lease expiring March 1846. The normal method of travel from Witley court would be horse and carriage with escort to Droitwich station then by train to Euston.

Was it truly a bed carriage for 'overnight stays' or convertible to a sick bed carriage?

[threelink]

@S3. I do not know the nature of Her Majesty's illness but the sick bed notion, rather than the overnight idea, carries a lot of weight.

[What About The Bee]

I had no idea what "effluxion of time" meant. Was it the usual 1800s literary flourish? I looked it up. To save others the effort, here is the legal definition:

"Effluxion of time is the expiration of a lease term due to a natural passing of time rather than from a specific action or event. This phrase can also be used to indicate the conclusion or expiration of an agreement in simple writing when the conclusion or expiration occurs through a natural course of events. "

So, rereading the legal notice in the London Gazette, it appears that the firm Adams and Hooper ends in 1845, as their contract concluded.

Simon, Are you inferring that the Saloon could not have a Hooper maker's plate, since Adams and Hooper terminated in 1845?

The most simple way to explain this is service. After construction, the carriage may need service, for whatever reason. The successor firm Hooper, formerly Adams and Hooper, replaces the old tag with the new one at time of service. I would think this normal practice. My mechanic changes his service tag out on my vehicle upon every visit.

Another way. The Science Museum abbreviated the carriage maker description. It is a tiny phrase in long description, the writer was sloppy. It refers to the firm by the modern name, instead of the predecessor. If so, shame on the museum.

I am not dying on this hill. I'm just going by what the Science Museum states, 1842.

Bee

[Simon-372339]

I have received a reply from the Science Museum. I am disappointed.

'It’s widely reported as being built in 1842 by the London and Birmingham Railway. I would assume that the Morning Post would have received their information from the L&BR at the time they published the article.'

No primary source, just repetition of a commonly held view. The view being perpetuated by the Science Museum who would be regarded as a trusted source which makes the date become an accepted fact which is then repeated.

Adams also had another carriage building partnership that was 'terminated' in 1845, the notices only appearing in 1851 probably due his financial affairs being put in order due to ill health, he died Nov 1851. I suspect he 'retired' in 1845.

As to the makers plate if it had one it would be Adams & Hooper, if serviced later it may have been amended as Bee has suggested. The problem I have at present is whether the carriage was actually used.