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 Since there was some interest in the 4-4-0T before and the picture I posted was out of date and not in very good light, I dug it out today for some better ones: Nellie 1 provided bunker, cab, most of the water tanks and the front frame extension (from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.

Layout shots included from the phone:

Hi all, In 2019, I purchased a 3'x1' laser cut baseboard thinking I could use it to quickly get a layout up and running, trying out some new techniques and gaining some experience on the way without overthinking the concept too much. Naturally (and even with the extra time at home in the past year and a bit), things haven't panned out that way and there's certainly more to do with the layout than has been done. I'm also probably starting to overthink some aspects too... Current case in point is I am close to completing my scratchbuilt signalbox and have reached the point where I am starting to consider what should be going inside, which has lead to a desire to have all the correct equipment and all the levers coloured correctly and in order (despite the fact the box faces in towards the backscene and the interior will be mostly obscured). After a while on the fence about this, my current thinking is that it might be a good exercise to learn more about the dark art of signalling, even if the ultimate visual impact is visible. I have seen members very graciously produce signalling diagrams on request on here. In this instance, I've tried to have a go myself and am open to feedback on the bits I've got wrong. With the exception of lever numbering, which I've left off for now. I've tried to include any required context, but let me know if I've missed anything off. The layout depicts Fossebridge station, roughly from the siding point (just off-scene) to the level crossing (marked as a red X in the diagrams below). This is my devised chronology for the site, including the line back to the branch junction at Chedworth: Circa 1877 - The Railway Arrives Those familiar with the MSWJR may recognise this section - I'm working in a slightly alternative universe where the Cheltenham Extension Railway (and Andoversford - Lansdown Junc.) was largely built by the East Gloucestershire Railway (as was originally intended) and operated by that company as an independent concern (which they almost certainly didn't intend). As such, the railway has reached Chedworth a little earlier although through running between Oxford and Cheltenham won't commence until 1881. Not much to see her signalling wise. Circa 1882 - Northleach Branch Connected Smarting from their exclusions from the original EGR route, the folk of Northleach and Burford formed their own railway company to get their settlements on the rail map. The first priority was to connect onto the EGR, with a short branches connecting Burford to Witney and Northleach to Chedworth. In the event of the EGR proving a profitable success (possibly getting sucked in to the EGR's promotional material), the two branches could be connected to form a more appealing through route (sidelining Fairford and Lechlade). The Northleach Branch was just over five miles in length, with an intermediate station at Fossebridge. Although the EGR at Chedworth and Northleach are at similar elevations, the land drops steeply away inbetween. To avoid the worst of the earthworks and a large viaduct, the branch followed the EGR route south for around half a mile as two parallel single tracks before divergining and desceding about 30m at 1 in 100 into the Coln valley. The EGR made what I assume to be almost minimum Board of Trade provision for the junction - a signal box and loop - and the Northleach branch itself was initially worked as 'one engine in steam' with no signalling other than one signal to protect the junction. Circa 1890 - Northleach Branch gets Signalled After several years of through running on a shoestring, the EGR started to consider making alterations and improvements. One of these was to provide signalling on the Northleach branch (although by no means busy, I assume a trip freight could occupy a 5.5mi branch operating on one engine in steam for a significant chunk of time and their timings were likely to be more irregular than other traffic). Fossebridge gained a signal box and goods loop, with the crossover set back inside the platform so as not to impact the crossing. Circa 1895 - EGR Mainline is Doubled With continued punctuality issues and grumblings from the MSWJR and GWR (with running powers over the EGR from Cirencester and Andoversford to Cheltenham, respectively), the EGR agreed to double the line between Cirencester and Cheltenham. Chedworth gains a second platform, but the twin single track arrangment is swept away and the Northleach branch junction is moved to the point at which the two routes diverge (now Chedworth Junction). To economise, the Chedworth Signal Box is moved south to the junction, with Chedworth's (rarely used) siding lifted. To simplify the Chedworth signaller's workload, the branch is also double-tracked between the junction and Fossebridge. A short second platform is added at Fossebridge, although it is only used when trains are required to cross (I assume they will be timetabled not to do so, but the operational flexibility was considered worthwhile) as the existing platform is longer and has the waiting room. The main loop now extends over the crossing, but the former goods loop cross-over is retained (I'll concede this seems unlikely - best excuse I can offer is that it supports attaching wagons from the siding to the rear of mixed trains, which would likely have been used at times in the branch's history). During WW1 - Fossebridge Becomes a Terminus The contrivance continues. This change is essentially driven by the fact I only have one fiddleyard, but the best I can do is suggest that a major earthworks failure during WW1 resulted in the closure of the line beyond Fossebridge, with the wartime economy and general unimportance of the Northleach traffic not supporting reinstatement. Fossebridge was retained as a terminus, acting as a railhead for Northleach (with road transport used to bridge the remaining 3.5mi) and the nearest convenient point at which trains could be turned without also reducing the level of service at Chedworth. Signalling Diagram So this is my stab at signalling the 1895 configuration. The signalbox was based on the MSWJR boxes at Withington and Foss Cross, which were provided by Duttons of Worcester. As Fossebridge Signal Box would be installed at a similar time in a similar part of the country, I'm assuming the same suppliers would have been used. If practices varied between companies, the EGR's nearest 'ally' is likely to be the Midland Railway (the GWR were heavily against; LNWR likely uninterested) so I'd expect it would lean that way operationally. Trains from Chedworth towards Northleach are straightforward - all pass through the original platform line; signals are distant > home > starter. I'm assuming no advanced starter is required as the middle crossover can facilitate shunting of the siding without passing the starter (or crossing the level crossing). Trains from Northleach towards Chedworth can be routed two ways: 'wrong line' through the original platform then over the leftmost crossover or over the rightmost crossover and through the new, shorter platform. To signal these moves, the signals are: distant > 'junction' home (to indicate route) > starter (one for each platform) > advanced starter. I have assumed fixed distant signals in both directions due to the level crossing (manually worked, so not interlocked with the signalling?) and as all trains will have to slow for a token exchange. The three blue lines denote FPLs. Assuming the cross-overs were worked by a single lever, I make this to be 14 levers (7 signals, 4 points, 3 FPLs). This seems good because it's the same size as Withington's frame (so the box is the right size); but also doesn't seem like an unreasonable number to have been installed when the box was new in 1890 (with a few spares) which I guess would be critical to any credibility for the middle cross-over being retained. Outstanding Questions Other than levers, what else needs to go in the box? Currently I'm thinking stove, chair, table, token machine for Fossebridge - Northleach single line and 2x bells for communication with Chedworth Junction and Northleach. Anything else? Storage? Would telephones be common in fairly remote boxes by the late 1910s/early 1920s? I've not accounted for a trap point on the siding at the moment. Were they always required? Although the 1 in 100 will ease off significantly before the station area, it in reality would probably still decend from left to right as the branch continued towards the Coln so would this adverse gradient (say 1 in 400?) be sufficient to guard against wagons rolling out of the siding and fouling the running line? Similarly, I've not accounted for any catch points protecting the station/level crossing from anything running away down the 1 in 100 gradient. Is this reasonable? The railways were a relatively mature system by the final track alterations in the mid-1890s, by which point uncontrolled runaways should have been relatively rare...? I've rambled a lot. I hope it made some sort of sense and thanks to anyone who read through the whole lot, as well as for any pointers/comments/questions its raises. Cheers, Matthew

Therein could lie the answer? The MSWJR seemed to mainly deal in through services - even sold on most of their tank engines. I fear we’re digressing a little bit, much as I am enjoying the discussion. Might either start my own topic (gulp) or move this over to the freelance PG thread.

I think the Cotswolds mostly just dealt in milk and livestock. The MSWJR did open their own quarry at Foss Cross (I’m fairly sure they used it for their ballast, not sure if any was sold on also) and there were exchange sidings for a short-lived quarry at Charlton Kings, both of which would have been on EGR metals had they opened the Cheltenham-Oxford route in advance of the BCDR and MSWJR. Possibly not very? It’s difficult to say. They even fairly extensively rebuilt their non-bogie stock (new roof profile, electric lights) not long before disposing of it. My best guess is that the company simply had enough bogie stock to cover for the timetable (possibly as the number of through services were reduced?) and the non-bogie stock became surplus to requirements. I’m not aware that any of it was sold on, though?

Lovely. Between that and the price you’ve found, I’m very tempted. Working theory for my EGR was that non-bogie stock had largely been withdrawn by my post-WWI period (this was the case on the M&SWJR, which is steering a lot of my decisions) but perhaps I could retain a full set or two for some of the unglamorous local traffic...

Expect I’d put my name on the list for that (although it remains to be seen if I can actually assemble a kit...) There’s a simple elegance to a lot of the MSWJR’s fleet - I’m a big fan. I believe the 4-4-4Ts were one of the companies poorer acquisitions, lacking adhesion, barred from freight turns and only run facing forwards (I think the short coupled wheelbase-long overall length combination made them quite unstable, particularly in reverse although I’d have to check my Mike Barnsley Vol.II again). The MSWJR spent most of its existence short on motive power and money and had relatively few sheds for its route length, so versatility was very much the name of the game. There are some photos (prototype and models) available on this site, if you’ve not seen them: http://swindonsotherrailway.co.uk It’s an excellent resource, but you do have to dig around a bit to find what you’re looking for.

Thanks - good to hear.

How did the 813 kit go together? I’m trying to put aside my reticence to work with metal and soldering and give kitbuilding a go, but kits seem really quite expensive (from the perspective of not knowing whether you can successfully assemble one - I appreciate RTR is increasingly expensive too these days) and few of the oft-recommended starter kits are of prototypes that motivate me. I have many fond memories of 813 on the SVR, though...

Well this is a hugely appealing concept... I may try and sketch out something similar (and inevitably never build it...). I like the mocked up buildings too - add real presence.

The Ports-to-Ports probably saw coaches from the North-East reaching South Wales. I’ve seen more references to it in my MSWJR research than actual photographs, so not too sure on the constitution pre-1923. The webpage I found about it suggests the GWR and LNER alternated coaching sets post-grouping. Edit: Actually that probably is the Barry - Newcastle service mentioned...