mpeffers

Skimming through my Gloucestershire railways books, having a pair of autocoaches trailing (or leading) as opposed to one either side of the engine doesn't appear to be uncommon. I don't know if practices changed over time - most of the photos are from the final years of the services. I don't think you could have more than two autocoaches on either side of the engine though, unless anyone else knows different? Possibly due to slack in the mechanical linkages.

I tried making a bogie full brake out of two ends of two Triang clerestory brakes, which swiftly lead me to the question of how short could a bogie coach be? I don’t have it to hand to measure, but I think this scaled out at around 30’. I had to shorten and re-centre the Triang bogies to prevent them from physically clashing. At a push, I think it could pass as a conversion from a six wheel coach - I think the body length is comparable to the Ratio four wheelers and the more recent generic Hornby coaches - although I’m not sure if such a conversion would improve the ride enough to be worth it? It’s also significantly shorter than the SECR coach you identified, so I suspect that might be a reasonable length to aim for.

Very interesting - will keep my eye out for this. I've been collecting MSWJR projects for a while now but lacking the confidence to start them just yet. Hence the freelance/RTR bashing I'm doing at the moment. Since there was some interest in the 4-4-0T before and the picture I posted was out of date and not in very good light, I dug it out today for some better ones: Nellie 1 provided bunker, cab, most of the water tanks and the front frame extension (from which I regret removing the steps as they now need to be replaced in almost exactly the same place). Nellie 2 provided the front of the water tanks and smokebox. Most of the moulded details have or will be removed - in the 4-4-0T configuration, the sandbox and toolbox positioning seemed illogical, the boiler band locations didn't look right and the handrails and smokebox door handles felt very clunky. Third and fourth tank filler caps also not required, although I debated which ones to keep. The odd cab front windows were filled in and then front and back windows opened up to take jump rings as per @Corbs suggestion a while back. I also opened out the space under the boiler and added some false frames to try and improve the look, although the chassis won't allow a clean view through to the other side without some major surgery. Lots still to do, as ever. The chassis (a Spectrum Baldwin 4-4-0 that was still pretty expensive given it was sold as a non-runner and was missing a crank pin) needs a complete rewire to operate without its tender and there are some American details still to be removed. It also arrived covered in static grass, so needs a clean. Yet to confirm it runs, either. I also need to find a way to attach the body to the chassis. Cab definitely needs some more interior details (although a good chunk of the space is taken up by the chassis) and I have some modifications planned for the bunker. Filler, sanding, primer, repeat... And the usual small details (boiler bands, handrails, etc.). I think the Drummond safety valves will go. I might retain the dome - trying to decide if it's a bit small - but will probably relocate the whistle and fit a Ramsbottom safety valve on the firebox. Feels like a lot when you type it all out 😒

I think I had the Yankee Tank (or similar) in mind when I purchased the constituent parts and started scheming. Searching for images of 4-4-0Ts to get the proportions right lead me to the NBR R Class though, with a lot of Nellie’s familiar Drummond features: I’m keeping the outside cylinders, though 😉

Or the lesser-spotted 4-4-0T: relaxinghobby’s post prompted me to share my own effort earlier this year (including finding a reasonably convincing prototype!). I had planned to pop it in here in due course too.

Aha, snap. I fancy it best resembles an NBR R Class although with outside cylinders. Chassis is a Bachmann/Spectrum Baldwin 4-4-0 and I too have yet to tackle the wiring. I got the distinct feeling that American H0 RTR steam isn’t intended for disassembly…

Very nice. Also acquired a J15 at a reasonable price recently with similar plans in mind. Was thinking of just changing the cab and some of the boiler fittings, but keep looking at the tender thinking it looks a little… distinctive.

If it helps, @Annie, I first visited this sub-forum a few years ago as a bit of a novelty and it’s steadily become my most visited section. For a long time, I believed I lacked the skills and resources to actually partake, but maybe I’m getting somewhere? As you can probably see, I’ve started too many projects to actually finish anything yet - aim for this year is to not start anything new... 813* is I guess particularly out of place in this freelance East Gloucestershire Railway scene, but probably the most critical as to whether my future pre-grouping musings might be realised. As someone who currently has zero faith in their ability to solder (neatly - there is a High Level gearbox contained within) but can passably design components on a computer, 3D printing is likely to be either a big stepping stone or a permanent fixture in future non-RTR endeavours. *Not overtly relevant, but I’m wondering if present day 813 passes as pre-grouping? I understand the arrangement between the PTR and GWR means Swindon fittings would likely started appearing before 1923. Going for a preservation finish anyway (if I ever get that far).

Do you mind me asking where? Really enjoyed your build in the Pre-Grouping section and it did get me thinking about a project or two I could attempt with them, but searches so far for the base model have returned only a few models at mostly well over £100 a piece. This could be down to my grasp of the prototype/German industrial rail terms, though.

16mm wheels, 33mm wheelbase I believe.

All sounds very reasonable, Corbs. Thanks for persevering. Think I’ll get sketching...

Discussed here recently, although I don’t doubt it’ll be in the Castle Aching thread somewhere also.

The S-R-S also has the 1943 diagram for Withington (I knew I'd seen it somewhere), with the point indicators still present. This was when the loop was extended to accommodate wartime traffic and I'm not aware of any subsequent changes, so they were likely there too until the box closed in 1956. All 14 levers are in use by this point, so this figures. I'm not certain if they were retained from installation, or removed when the line was singled in 1928 and reinstated in 1943. I have had a go at drawing up the following, with some amendments suggested by The Stationmaster (although just noticed I have left the Outer Home in). Hopefully correctly interpreted. 1895 1920 Catch and trap points added, along with ground signals (hopefully in the correct places). I've also converted the line up to the box into a second siding - possibly mostly because I'll want to use it as such on the model but also in the scenario, Fossebridge will also handle Northleach's goods do some improvised additional capacity might have been welcomed. On a similar note, I feel like I want to keep the platform/dock for the visual effect. Leaning towards placing cattle pens at the Chedworth end (I assume they were positioned in accessible parts of yards for swift onward transit). Milk seems like the other plausible regional traffic that could be loaded from a platform (perhaps a wagon or two left overnight to attach to the morning Cheltenham train?). The signal box is probably poorly located for this scenario, and would be better placed on the platform. This arrangement maybe hints at future intent (or at least provision) to extend the double track through to Northleach though. I think I'm happy with what we've proposed?

Also, this is the box: I thought I had a picture of it to include last night, but I did not. Doesn’t add anything to the scenario (maybe a maximum frame size?), it’s just I only recently managed to cut plasticard square and I’m feeling unduly proud of myself.

Thanks all for your contributions. Hugely informative. Even as I was sketching out my diagrams, it felt tenuous. The justification in my mind is that the original platform is around twice as long as the new one and had all the amenities, although the station building/waiting room being adjacent to the crossing probably makes the difference in distance negligable. The new platform has 112' of usable length, which conveniently does just about accommodate the doors of my adopted non-bogie branch set (luggage brake - third - comp. - brake third) if the driver nails his stopping point. Strengtheners would break this, and trailing loads would risk fouling the crossing. Maybe this is sufficient though? It sometimes crosses my mind, if only because a set of crossing gates to cover twin track at PECO's 00 gauge track spacing would need to be wide. I've not mocked them up yet but I sometimes wonder if they will look a bit silly. It would essentially kaibosh ever 'reopening' the Northleach side if I ordered another fiddle yard and opened up a hole in the right-hand end (the stopping point for trains in either direction would end up being in the fiddleyard) but, to be honest, 3 scenic feet seems like quite a poor return on a 9' long layout so I probably won't bother anyway. Interesting to know - even in quiet backwaters? I think I read somewhere that the red disk on the crossing gates was to be interpreted as a de facto stop signal by engine crew, so assumed that the positioning of the starter could sit either side. A quick Google survey of preserved stations I can think of with adjacent gated crossings suggests that you're correct though. This is important as it would be on scene! Ok, that makes sense. I have some C&L chairs still somewhere so I should be able to knock something up. I think I was trying to save a lever in this exercise, but as you point out, it doesn't matter either way... If not linked to the signalling, does that mean the catch point would be sprung and on the 'uphill' line only? Shunt signals have proven the limit of my understanding of signalling so far. I guess I was hoping with a loop and one siding, there were sufficiently few available movements that they might not be required? Going back to Withington, the 1902 signalling diagram has a ground signal at each end of the goods loop but they don't have a corresponding lever number. I believe they were operated by the crossover lever and just showed which way the points were set (siding or mains). Not sure how common this arrangement was, though? Obviously saves levers, although Withington had three spares so could have accommodated them. There might have been a spare lever or two (or levers for the mothballed section of the line beyond the level crossing could be repurposed), although I guess these changes would require alterations to the interlocking even if the levers were available and maybe that would be sufficiently onerous to put the company off? It would have been operationally interesting to use the new platform a departures platform and shuffle the stock around. Sadly my fiddleyard won't accept it (currently one-third siding point, two-thirds sector plate). Plenty to consider here. I'll get a pen and paper out when I get the chance and try and craft this knowledge into some definitive decisions. I do appreciate all the contributions here - aware that I'm trying to overlap some prototypical theory onto a mildly nonsensical scenario to justify what I've already created... A Slight Aside Following a train of thought I had, could a passenger train on a single line branch pass a goods train to the right (i.e. 'wrong line') if the goods train was in a loop not signalled for passenger traffic? Or did all opposing direction passes have to occur to the left? I envision a single morning and evening passenger train continuing through to Cheltenham (it'll vary the stock a bit, but maybe some of the rural folk would take to commuting), but the rest of the passenger service will be provided by a single set, shuttling between Andoversford and Fossebridge/Northleach so it's unlikely both platforms would ever be occupied at the same time. I'm just wondering what operational constraints downgrading the loop to goods only (either with it continuing over the crossing or not) would impose if a Chedworth-bound passenger train met a Northleach-bound goods.