MikeOxon

This 'virtual' modelling is great for repetitive designs - I shudder to think of all the card-cutting and glueing that would be needed in the real world. I am thinking, though, of using this method to try out ideas for a 'real' layout - it's easy to iron out problems digitally, before building anything. 'Stables' appear in the accounts right at the beginning of the works, so I suspect they were 'on-site' somewhere. On the other hand, Janet Russell, in her book 'GW Horse Power' wrote: "The London horse stud relied on rented stable accommodation or elderly stalls at Smithfield and Poplar from which the horses had to be led before starting a day's work from Paddington station, a task carried out by the van lads. It was therefore proposed in 1875 that new stables for 120 horses should be erected as near Smithfield as possible" This proposal led to construction of the Mint Stables. See this video for more about the Mint Stables. Whatever was built initially must have rapidly become totally inadequate for the growing demand.

Thank you Annie. It caught my interest when I started to unravel the geometry of the structure. I'm not sure, though, that I'll be able to do much more with the Paddington site, unless something turns up about the other buildings. The goods office looks as though it could be very similar to the one at Cheltenham that you showed in commenting on my previous post. I don't like simply 'making up' buildings, without some reference to work from. What also caught my interest at Paddington was the track layout, which looks very alien to modern eyes. They were really having to feel their way when trying to cope with the requirements of those new-fangled railways 🙂 Mike

“Towards the end of July 1837 I heard that Mr. Brunel wanted some one to take the post of locomotive engineer on the Great Western Railway, and I at once went to him, on July 20th, preferring that department to railway making.” Thus wrote Daniel Gooch about the event that changed his life when he was just 21 years old. As a result, he left Manchester and went to London, beginning his duties with the Great Western Railway at West Drayton on the 18th August 1837. Because no engines had actually arrived at that time, he recalled that his first work was to prepare plans for the engine-houses at Paddington and Maidenhead, In such circumstances, one might have expected the engine-house designs to be rather perfunctory affairs, something to fill in the time until some ‘real work’ on engines became available, but my investigations into the design of the engine-house showed this to be far from the case. For Paddington, Gooch designed a ‘round house’ shed which, I suspect, was probably the first example of its kind. He was severely constrained in both timescale and costs. The accounts show an extraordinarily low figure of £1,402 for ‘general construction costs’, plus £216 for ‘other items’. An early site plan, probably dating from 1837, shows the engine shed as below: Paddington Site plan, 1837, showing the Engine Shed. At first glance, the octagonal form seemed to match the track plan but I was surprised to see that the locations of the tracks corresponded with the vertices of the octagon, rather than being placed centrally in the sides, as I would have expected. Indeed, an illustration of the interior in ‘Measom’s Guide to the GWR’, dated 1854, appears to show such a layout – a reminder not to trust all those early engravings! Looking more closely at the plans, however, I saw that the vertices were ‘squared off’, with entrance doors, where required, or short segments of wall. Thus, I started my modelling of the shed by copying the above drawing as a ‘canvas’ into ‘Fusion 360’ and tracing the foundations of the perimeter walls. That was the easy bit but where to go from there? I had a couple of sources to draw on for guidance: An early photograph of the demolition of the original station includes a glimpse of the engine shed roof in the background. This gave me a slope of 15 degrees for the main roof. Incidentally, several of the iron columns from the original station can be seen lying amongst the debris in the foreground, while a very tall disk & crossbar signal appears to the right. The sheer-legs appear on early plans of the original station layout. Paddington Demolition works, c 1854-5 The other source was a much better engraving than the one in Measom’s guide. This one shows the clerestory roof over the centre of the shed and a rather bewildering forest of wooden supports for the roof. After studying this illustration for some time, I decided to take a ‘Stonehenge’ approach to the design of my model by concentrating on the locations of the upright pillars and hoping to fill in the rest of the details later! Engine Shed Interior c.1846 (Firefly-class ‘Ganymede’ was new in 1842) From this illustration, I deduced that there were two rows of pillars along the sides of each track between the entrance doors and the clerestory. Taken together, these formed an inner ‘ring’, supporting the edges of the clerestory, and an intermediate ‘ring’ between the perimeter. walls and the clerestory. Creating a 3D Model As I laid out the locations of all the pillars in ‘Fusion 360’, a very ingenious geometric pattern started to emerge, reminiscent of the vaults of a mediaeval cathedral. This seemed to me a far more sophisticated design than I had expected from a young man who had joined the GWR to do work on engines! It was a portent of the illustrious career that lay ahead for young Daniel Gooch. Once I had determined the locations of the bases of the various pillars, I had to adjust their lengths to correspond to a slope of 15 degrees in the roof that they were designed to support. Rather than attempting to describe the process in many words, I have made a series of ‘screen shots’ of each stage, as my construction progressed in ‘Fusion 360’ Steps in my ‘Stonehenge’ approach to Modelling Paddington Engine Shed Now that I’d worked out the overall layout, I decided to go back to the beginning and start again! This time, having worked out the geometric pattern, I used the ‘Pattern on Path’ tool in ‘Fusion 360’ tu ensure that all the pillars and their linking ribs were aligned in a regular, symmetrical pattern around the central axis. Bird’s-eye View showing Symmetrical Design of Shed The various ribs connecting the tops of the pillars, in order to support the roof, were all copied from an initial 3D drawing of a square-section bar. After placing the first pair of ribs, I could use the ‘Pattern on Path’ tool to complete the rest of the pattern around the central axis. Adding details As an initial check on the general validity of my structure, I set up an internal view of my model in ‘Fusion 360’, to compare with the contemporary engraving shown above. I couldn’t match the perspective exactly but it gave me a good idea of what needed to be done to capture the ‘atmosphere’ of the original interior. I started by adding the diagonal ties at the tops of my pillars. This was a fairly easy ‘tweak’ that I could apply to one pillar and then copy around the complete array, again using ‘Pattern on Path’ to maintain the alignment around the central axis. The result at this stage is shown below. I have included my model of ‘Vulcan’ to indicate the overall scale: Interior view of my basic model of Paddington Engine Shed I could find no information about the entrance doors but then I remembered some drawings that Gooch created for Maidenhead depot. These included shed doors (NRCA161482) so I extruded my model from the Maidenhead design and found that these doors were a perfect fit into the doorways of the Paddington shed. An early example of standardisation! My enhanced version of NRCA161482 showing Doors for Maidenhead Depot I didn’t have much to go on for the design of the interior walls, except the engraving shown above, which indicates vertical planking and window openings with vertical bars. I took some further design cues from the Broad Gauge Transfer shed at Didcot Railway Centre, which suggested diagonal cross-bracing on the large panels. I started from a single rectangular panel on which I incised one ‘slot’ to represent a single vertical plank. I then used ‘Pattern on Path’ to complete the planking of the whole panel. Next, I created the various frame pieces and attached these to the inside face of the panel. Finally, I cut the rectangular openings for the windows and added an array of vertical bars within each opening. My model Wooden Planked Wall with Bracing The result looked pleasing and made me loath to add the roof, which would hide all this from view! Nevertheless, the roof was necessary to provide an overall impression of the interior scene. Adding a Roof For the roof, I could again take advantage of the circular symmetry of the structure, to reduce the amount of design work that was needed. I had only to design one triangular roof panel and one rectangular one, which then alternated around the ‘ring’. The clerestory roof is even simpler and only involves triangular panels. I started with what seem the easiest one to draw – the rectangular panel. I checked the lengths of the support ribs with the ‘measure tool’ in ‘Fusion 360’, to ensure that panel would be a correct fit. After that, the detailing followed similar methods to those I used for the sides, with a pattern of rafters as indicated on the contemporary engraving shown above. The triangular panels were rather more difficult. I established the lengths of the sides by again using the ‘measure tool’ and I also checked the angle at the top vertex, remembering that, because of the slope of the roof, this is not simply a fraction of the circle defined in the ground plan. I then added the intermediate supporting battens and finally the numerous cross-battens towards the apex. I wanted to use the ‘Pattern on Path’ tool again but realised that, if I started copying from the bottom edge, the battens would become too long as the roof segment tapered towards the apex. My solution was to create an array of same-length battens, which I then cut by applying the ‘Splitting’ tool to the plane defined by the edges of the panel, as shown below: Applying the 'Splitting' tool in 'Fusion 360' The triangular segments of the clerestory roof followed, by using the same methods, so I now had three different type of roofing panel, as shown below: Three Types of Roof Panel for my Engine Shed Model I should probably have done lots of trigonometry to work out exactly how to place these panels on the roof, sloped at 15°, but I opted for an empirical approach and used the ‘Move’ and ‘Twist’ tools, while checking from different directions until they were seated neatly over the relevant rafters. After that, it was back to the ‘Pattern on Path’ tool to complete the circular symmetrical pattern of the complete roof. The end result is shown below: External View of my model of Paddington Engine Shed 1840 It all looks rather plain from the outside – a bit like a Victorian Gaol – but for a more interesting view, I could use the ‘Camera’ in the ‘Render’ section of ‘Fusion 360’ to look inside. Here is an internal view with ‘Vulcan’ on one of the turntable roads: Internal View of my Model Engine Shed, showing panelled walls and roof I think the overall impression is in reasonable agreement with the contemporary engraving shown above and is probably as good as can be achieved on the surviving information. Another view, which includes the clerestory roof is shown below: View into my Model of Paddington Engine Shed, through open Doors Overview of Paddington Depot c.1840 Finally, I have placed my model within the context of the overall site, as it was laid out in 1840. See my previous post for details of the other models shown. Overview of my Current Collection of Paddington Models There are still several more structures to consider, although with very little information to work from. One item, listed in the accounts, is ‘stables’ but these are not marked on any of the drawings that I have. I am currently thinking that they might be the extension on the side of the Engine Shed. I have not completed this part, except for the outer walls as marked on the overall plan. There would perhaps be a 19th-century logic in grouping together all the available sources of motive power within one overall building. Horses still played an important part in manoeuvring rolling stock between the various small turntables. If anyone has any other suggestions, I shall be interested to receive them. Mike

I always enjoy reading these 'worked examples', showing how you actually did things 🙂

That is my intention - eventually. there's a lot more to do on the rest of the site, yet. Mike

This second one is the image I had in mind when I created my own view of the Arrivals platform, above. You are more charitable regarding the smokebox doors than I felt - I assumed it was what the artist thought went on behind the smokebox doors - which were, so far as I know, never like that! In fact. I made my own version of that image, substituting my model of Firefly in place of the 'artist's impression' My favourite part of the image is the pattern of shadows cast by the lanterns on the platform - very atmospheric 🙂 Mike

All good questions, Chris. As I wrote in a reply to Annie above: "It was a steep learning curve for those working on the prototype". No-one had built a railway terminus like this before. Road coaches were loaded individually and I expected this influenced the way in which 'trains' were assembled. When there were only a few trains a day, it probably worked for a while but, gradually, the methods evolved. The later plans show that considerable changes had already been made by 1845, with additional arrival platforms. Building a model like mine helps in visualising the problems they faced. Mike

I tend to use a mixture of both. For the relatively simple items that I've produced so far, they are all in one model file. I create them by extruding from 'canvases' in the appropriate planes and then move them around over the groundplane 'canvas'. For more complex structures, I create them separately and use 'insert derive' to being them together for assembly. This was how I brought in different models, such as the engine and carriages.

Such a pity your earlier photos all went in the 'great extinction'. I'm very impressed with what you have achieved with Fusion 360, especially with the rendering tools that I have not got to grips with yet. Do you add additional texturing in photo-processing after the initial render? I tend to tweak my images with Photoshop to try to achieve the effects I want.

'Plan' is not a word that applies to much of my modelling. At present, I'm thinking about the Engine House and Carriage shed to the West of Bishop's Road. I haven't given any thoughts yet to the Goods Depot to the East but probably will 'one day'. I am looking at the earliest period c.1840 and am not yet sure what facilities were there at the beginning.

It's just the same in the case of Paddington. Some plans were for designs that never materialised, while others show alterations that were made quite early on. For example the arrangements on the Arrivals side were already changing by 1842. It was a steep learning curve for those working on the prototype as well as those trying to model it 🙂 For those who haven't see this sort of thing, here's an example of what one has to work with: Mike

Indeed it does and I've done very little detailing so far. The good thing though is that once the basics are in place, one can go on adding details as much as one feels like. I have a lot to lean still about rendering and your results are inspirational 😃 Very close indeed if you wish! I haven't done very much detailing yet but here's a view from the Arrivals platform with 'Vulcan'. It's great fun moving around to seek new angles 🙂 Eventually, the carriage shed and other building should be in the background. As I said to David, I've a long way to go in learning the possibilities with this software. Another potential application is to use it for planning the layout/diorama that I hope to build 'one day' Mike

I'm very pleased you like my investigations into the earliest days of the GWR, Annie. I can see that a lot of early Broad Gauge modelling has been done for the Trainz simulator and perhaps someone will follow up my findings to make a virtual working layout of Paddington. It could be a great project.

Brunel’s great arched roof is to many people the epitome of Paddington Station but this was not built until 1854. The passengers who first travelled on the line from Paddington to Maidenhead, which opened on 4th June 1838, started their journey from a far less imposing structure – little more than a collection of wooden sheds. A London terminus for the GWR was needed in a hurry, after negotiations with the London & Birmingham Railway for a joint terminus at Euston broke down. With the line to Maidenhead almost ready, the GWR Directors desperately needed to start generating passenger revenue and, since authorisation for a route into Paddington was only agreed by Parliament on 3rd July 1837, there was no time for grand designs! A quick solution was to build the station offices into the arches of the new Bishop’s Road Bridge and provide simple wooden platforms to the West of this bridge. Goods facilities were established on the other side of the bridge, alongside the Forecourt from where passengers entered the booking office, under one of the arches. The great artist of early railways, J.C.Bourne, produced a lithograph of this façade of the station. I have annotated the locations of the passenger facilities on his illustration, as shown below: Paddington Station 1843 by J.C.Bourne (colourised Mike Flemming) I have not found any early illustrations of the layout of the platforms beyond the bridge but there are several early drawings, mostly in poor condition, that provide plans of the tracks and platforms, as well as details of the platform canopies. A selection of these drawings is available on-line, in the ‘Historical Engineering Collection’ of the Network Rail Corporate Archive (NRCA). 3D Station Drawing I decided, as an experiment, to see whether I could use ‘Fusion 360’ to create an impression of the original station by using the techniques of extruding from drawings, just as I have done for my models of rolling stock. The NRCA drawings include sketches of various alternative proposals, from which I chose the plan view in NRCA161183 as a suitable base from which to create a 3D model. First of all, I had to digitally ‘clean’ the original drawing to create my working version, shown below. My annotated ‘working copy’ from NRCA161183 There are many features of the track-work that seem strange to modern eyes. Note, in particular, the widespread use of wagon turntables and traversers for moving the small carriages and wagons of the time between tracks. Several tracks ended in carriage loading ‘shoots’ at the end of the central carriage road, between the Arrival and Departure platforms. This arrangement is shown in a lithograph of, Slough Station by J.C Bourne, of which I show an extract below: Slough Station (detail) by J.C. Bourne I also found a less detailed re-drawn plan of Paddington Station, which provided the all-important scale, in the book ‘Paddington Station - Its history and architecture’ by Steven Brindle, published by English Heritage 2013. With this additional information, I could import the NRCA plan into ‘Fusion 360’ as a canvas and use the ‘calibrate’ command to adjust it to the correct scale. I decided to work directly in ‘feet’, since these units are used throughout the NRCA elevation drawings. Bishop’s Road Bridge My first 3D extrusion in ‘Fusion 360’was from the plan view of Bishop’s Road Bridge (shaded pink in my annotated version, above). Initially, I extruded the rectangular ‘body’ to a height of 30 feet. I then compared my structure, marked with the locations of the various arches, as indicated on the plan, to check the proportions against the Bourne lithograph. (It is known that Bourne used a ‘camera obscura’ as a drawing-aid, so I was confident that his illustration is accurately proportioned.) Steps in creating my model of Bishop’s Road Bridge Once I had made sketches by tracing over the Bourne canvas, imported into ‘Fusion 360’, I could overlay these sketches onto the face of my rectangular Bridge ‘body’ and extrude the various arches. Platforms Details of the platform canopies are shown in drawing NRCA161326, of which my ‘cleaned up’ version is shown below. This drawing shows the end elevations of the canopies over both the Departure and Arrival platforms, together with details of the cast-iron support pillars. My ‘Working copy’ from NRCA161326 As before, I imported this drawing into ‘Fusion 360’ and sketched the outlines of the roof trusses. I also created a model of a single pillar by drawing over the profile and then using the ‘revolve’ tool to create a cylindrical ‘body’, as shown below: Using ‘Revolve’ in ‘Fusion 360’ to create 3D-model of Pillar Once I had a single model of a pillar, it was simply a matter of using the ‘Pattern on Path’ tool in ‘Fusion 360’ to create the array of pillars shown on the NRCA plan of the platforms. Note that I have raised the platform surfaces and carriage road by 3 feet, above the level of the track bed. My 3D-model of the Arrivals Platform with Pillars and a single roof truss I was very pleased to find that the dimensions derived from the elevation drawings corresponded very closely to those derived from the plan view, indicating that my ‘calibration’ in ‘Fusion 360’ had been successful. After duplicating the trusses as required, again by means of the ‘Pattern on Path’ tool, I added roofs by extruding from the profile set by the trusses at one end of the structure. The end result of this stage of my modelling is shown below: My 3D-model of Paddington platforms viewed from the West Of course, the advantage of having a 3D-model in the computer is that I can choose to view it from whichever direction and in whatever detail I choose, for example: View across my model of Paddington Station from above the Forecourt. The above view demonstrates the sharp angle between the platforms and the approach road, by which passengers arrived at the station. Carriages could proceed through the central arch to reach the carriage dock set between the Arrival and Departure platforms. At that period, wealthy patrons of the railway loaded their carriages and their horses onto trains and, in some cases, chose to travel inside their own carriages, rather that the coaches provided by the railway. Adding other models Once the basic 3-D model was in place, I realised that it was perfectly easy to add some of my existing models into the scene. The ‘Insert Derive’ tool in ‘Fusion 360’ allows model data to be imported into a design from other folders already held in the computer. To demonstrate this procedure, I imported my existing models of Brunel’s Britzka and of a Carriage truck. I realised that these models had been dimensioned in millimetres, as 4mm-scale models. When first imported, they appeared at their small ‘model scale’. I could, however, select these model bodies and use the ‘Scale’ command in ‘Fusion 360’ to increase their dimensions by a factor of 76, so that they conformed to the overall building model. After re-scaling, I could use the ‘Move’ tool to position them as I wished within the Station, as shown in the example below: Loading my model of Brunel’s Britzka onto a Carriage Truck at Paddington Station Taking this idea a little further, I imported some other models, including my Horse Box, a horse, and the locomotive ‘Vulcan’, to create the following scene: Brunel’s carriage and horses being loaded for travel from Paddington Station Conclusion As I wrote at the outset, this is all experimental and I have had a lot of fun exploring the possibilities of scene modelling in ‘Fusion 360’. I realise that I am venturing into the territory of digital ‘Train Simulators’, which @Annie demonstrates in her thread can be very impressive and allow you to drive the trains as well. My own modelling has allowed me to bring to life some long-forgotten scenes and I intend to continue by re-creating some of the other buildings around the old Paddington Station. Apart from the offices within the Bishop’s Road bridge, there was also a remarkable ‘round-house’ engine shed, designed by Daniel Gooch, a Carriage shed and, on the other side of the bridge, the entire Goods Station, with sheds and offices. I think all this can keep me occupied and entertained for some time to come 🙂 Mike

By now, Chris, you should have learned that things are NEVER straightforward 🙂

I think the term 'box' at that time covered a wide range of packages - what we would now call packing-cases. The term indicated a general purpose wagon other than for bulk materials, such as ballast, coke, or coal. In those days of no brakes and dumb buffers, I doubt a goods train would travel at much more than 12 mph. Goods train passengers faced very long and slow journeys, compared to the 1st and 2nd classes! The original 'temporary' Paddington Station had its offices and waiting rooms under the arches of Bishops Road bridge, with the platforms to the West of the bridge. The present grand station was built in the area previously occupied by the goods sheds on the right of the painting.

It's been interesting to create all these variations from the same basic design in the computer. I'm rather enjoying working in the virtual world - it's a pity the Trainz modelling methods are incompatible.. I am thinking about creating more 'scenes' in Fusion 360 - I must look at possibilities for buildings next. Perhaps it's related to my preference for still photography rather than video but I'm more interested in creating static scenes than in running trains. That lithograph can only be described as fanciful. He seems to have only a passing knowledge of railway matters.

I shall round off my modelling of the early wagons, produced for the GWR during the formative years before 1840, by considering three types intended for specific duties, rather than the ‘general purpose’ wagons described in my previous two posts. Sheep Truck 1840 A sheep truck is one of the types mentioned in Whishaw’s ‘The Railways of Great Britain and Ireland’, published 1842. He described these ‘trucks’ as having high sides, four wheels, and to weigh 8,237 lbs. Apart from that, there is very little documentary evidence to work from. There is a rather fanciful lithograph by L.Haghe, dated c.1840, which is supposed to show a GWR train at Kelmston near Bath. Some of the wagons are suspiciously similar to ones shown in an illustration of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway but they also show some ‘Broad Gauge’ features – notably the large wheels set outside the wagon bodies. The engine carries the name ‘Wharncliffe’ – not a known GWR engine name but that of the MP who steered the GWR Bill through Parliament. Eddy Brown deduced that the low weight rules out most of the known vehicle types of the time, except the Small Box Wagons. An additional factor supporting this idea is that these wagons, with their wheels outside the body, are the only ones with unobstructed floors, which would probably be essential for carrying small livestock, such as sheep. A stock list of 1842 includes a ‘wagon’ (no description) with a Tare Weight of 3T.-14cwt, which corresponds to 8,288 lb – close to Whishaw’s figure. Another drawing by Seymour Clark, dated Dec.1841, illustrates modifications that were carried out on three Luggage Wagons that were returned to Goods traffic after use on Passenger trains. These had underslung springs, which seem to have been applied to most wagons by this date. Based on these fragments of evidence, Broad Gauge Society (BGS) Data Sheet 413 shows the possible appearance of one of these ‘Sheep Trucks’, as mentioned by Whishaw. For my conjectural model, I have raised the sides of my model of a Small Box Wagon and exchanged the axleboxes and springs for the underslung type, which I had already created for other models. Raising the sides in ‘Fusion 360’ was simply a matter of selecting the top faces and using the ‘move’ tool. The software automatically extends the sides at the same angle as the existing sides. My 3D Model of an 1840 Broad Gauge Sheep Truck I felt very tempted to introduce slats in the sides but this would be pure conjecture on my part. I decided to complete my model as shown on BGS Data Sheet 113. Coke Wagon – 1840 The Coke Wagon is the other variant mentioned in Whishaw, 1842. Following a detailed description of the 4- and 6-wheel wagons, described simply as ‘small’ and ‘large’, he mentions that there were also coke-wagons, mounted on six wheels, and each holding from 150 to 200 bags of coke. It is hardly surprising that these wagons were needed from the outset, as the steam locomotives of the time were fuelled by coke, to meet the Government requirement that ‘locomotives should consume their own smoke’. Whishaw reports that “The coke-ovens are situate at West Drayton, about half a mile to the east of the station ; and are very similar to those of the north of England and Scotland, being without a lofty chimney, which adds so greatly to the cost. They are conveniently placed on the level of the railway, which saves much labour in filling the wagons.” At the time, West Drayton was the central depot on the first stretch of line from Paddington to Maidenhead, opened to the public on 4th June, 1838. Wishaw notes that in thirteen weeks, including July, August, and September, 1839, the quantity of coke consumed amounted to 3,323,376 lbs (almost 1,500 tons) so, even at this very early stage, the coke traffic was considerable. BGS Data Sheet 406 states that 9 coke wagons were listed in a Stock Account dated 6th Oct.1840, and that these were based closely on the 6-wheel Utility Wagon, although with several minor modifications. The modifications included new wheel sets, with 11 split spokes, splayed outwards towards the hub. These represented my first new modelling task for this wagon. I created the flanged outer rim, and a hub to fit around a 2mm steel axle. I then drew a single spoke to the new design and completed the wheel by using the ‘pattern on path’ tool in ‘Fusion 360’. This automatically created a circular pattern of spokes around the central axis of the wheel. My models of both the original Losh wheel and the splayed-spoke wheels are shown below: My 4’ Dia Wheels modelled in ‘Fusion 360’ In addition to the drawing included in BGS Data Sheet 406, the Coke Wagon is also shown in a more detailed drawing in Alan Prior’s book: ‘19th Century Railway Drawings’. I imported this drawing as a ‘canvas’ in ‘Fusion 360’ and compared it with my existing 6-wheel Wagons to determine the additional modifications required. The required changes included new 2-plank sides, without drop flaps. Because of the simplicity of the new sides, I decided that it was easier to create new sides than to remove the details of the doors from the existing model. In fact, when I created my previous variants, I sometimes felt it might have been easier to re-start some parts from scratch, rather modifying the old parts, which was often a very fiddly task. Other parts, including the end flaps and strouters could be re-used without modifications but the top rails along the side were now metal bars, for adding strength to the sides. Modified features in Coke Wagon There were some subtle changes to the chassis. The springs were now longer, still underslung, but mounted on bearings placed 3’ 6” apart under the frames (rather than 3’ 0” as previously). I created one new axle box and spring assembly and then copied this for all 6 wheels. The floor planking continued to run lengthwise and was laid over the headstocks and intermediate transverse bearers, which were higher than the tops of the Solebars, leaving a visible 3” gap underneath the floor, when viewed from the sides. This feature is shown clearly in Alan Prior’s book.. In addition, the Solebars were extended at both ends, so these could ultimately act as dumb buffers on tight curves. With these modifications applied, my 3D model, rendered in ‘Fusion 360’ is shown below: My 3D Model of 1840 Broad Gauge Coke Wagon Coal Wagon 1842 These wagons are not mentioned in Whishaw’s account dated 1842 and probably came too late for inclusion there. The possibility of taking coal traffic in competition with the Kennet & Avon Canal presumably occurred to the Directors after the main line was completed between London and Bristol, with its proximity to the Somerset coalfield. According to Eddy Brown’s BGS Data Sheet 412, the evidence for existence of these wagons, specifically intended for carriage of domestic coal, comes from the 1842 Truck list, where one such vehicle has the description ‘Coal‘ and 9 others share similar Tare weights. There is also an 1840s drawing with the hand-written annotation ‘Coal Wg’ The annotated drawing indicates a three-plank structure with sides supported by strouters and drop flaps at both sides and ends. Additional strengthening plates were shown over the axleguards, outwardly offset to disperse the greatest stress. As in the case of the coke wagons, described above, there was a clear space between the underside of the floor and the tops of the solebars. These coal wagons display most of the features included in the other ‘revised’ wagons, which were produced to meet the overall requirement for 250 wagons in time for the opening of the complete line between London and Bristol. My model is closely based on my Standard Box wagon. Because I had kept the various components as separate bodies within ‘Fusion 360’, it was easy to delete the original wheels and axle guards and replace them with the newer type, which I had already designed for the Coke Wagon, described above. I made a new top rail to encircle the whole body, above the sides and ends. In the prototype this rail was split into removable sections to facilitate loading and unloading. Following all these minor adjustments, my model of an 1842 coal wagon appeared as shown below: My 3D Model of 1842 Broad Gauge Coal Wagon For anyone interested in the onward development of Broad Gauge wagons, I have previously modelled another Coal Wagon, dating from the 1850s, described in an earlier post My 3D Model of 1853 Broad Gauge 12T Coal Wagon (iron frame, springs behind W-irons, brakes, & sprung buffers) Summary Over the course of three posts, I have described the creation of nine 3D models of Broad Gauge goods wagons dating from the earliest days of the GWR. Strictly, the Horse Box belongs to Passenger traffic since, at that time, horses were often transported along with the carriages owned by passengers. It seems, however, that some of these horse boxes were converted to Fish Trucks and appear as such in the July 1842 Goods Truck List. Conversely, some of the early goods wagons were used for the carriage of passengers, until the Government intervened and insisted on minimum standards for 3rd class passengers. The various wagon designs can be traced to three basic types – small box, large box, and 6-wheel box. My modelling has been an exercise in adapting models for different applications, which mirrors the procedures actually used for their prototypes. There are several cases where the amendments required for a new version were simply added to existing drawings. The complete ‘family’ of my 3D models, produced in this series, is shown below. Continuing my musical analogy with Trio Movements, I could describe these as ‘Variations on a Theme’: Mike

At first glance I thought the man in the foreground was painting the fence - it does look very fresh and bright. I was also noticing the state of the road to the left, with plenty of horse droppings in evidence - essential items for the modeller.

Thank you for posting these @Annie. It looks as though Steve Flanders was delving into this early BG period long before I got into it 🙂. In a comment on an earlier post you wrote "I can't help wondering how easy it might be to turn them into models for Trainz." - I could now ask the opposite: Could Steve's models be made '3D printable'? While Steve's black ironwork looks good, most early painting instructions sent by GWR to contractors specify 'all-over' brown, on every part. That made my 'rendering' very easy. Mike

One advantage of underslung springs is that it can allow more suspension movement before the top of the axle-box hits the stops. In the early day of the GWR, the baulk road was not providing the smooth running that Brunel had promised. Two remedies were tried: one was removing the piles that had been used to hold down the baulks - this gave more 'spring' to the track. The other was to improve carriage suspension, with longer springs and greater movement. An additional factor, which always concerned Victorian railway engineers was maintining a low centre of gravity to improve stability. the underslung spring is better in this respect

In my previous post, I described modelling of some of the earliest wagons ordered for the GWR in the late 1830s. At that time, much of the railway was still under construction – the complete route from London to Bristol was not opened until 30th June 1841. Information on these early wagons is sparse, although we are fortunate to have several illustrations by J.C.Bourne, which are sufficiently accurate to indicate the main features. Bristol Goods Shed – J.C.Bourne 1842 The late Eddy Brown went through a GWR Stock Account dated 27th.Sept.1840 with the proverbial fine tooth comb, to separate the goods vehicles into various types, depending on their descriptions and features such as Tare Weight. There were 61 vehicles, broadly described as ‘Luggage Wagons’, which he broke down into 5 categories, as follows: 2 x Small Box + 3 transferred to passenger stock 24 x Standard Box 20 x Standard Tilt 10 x Standard Utility 5 x 6-wheel Box The first two categories were covered in my previous post, including the addition of canvas covers to some of the Small Box wagons to adapt them for use as Passengers’ Luggage wagons. Now it’s time to consider the other three. The first 20 Standard Tilt wagons were a type that was to become characteristic of the Broad Gauge and continued to be used until many ended their lives on the Swindon Dump in 1892. Over the years, there were many variations in the style of the raised ends, between which canvas covers carried on hoops could provide a totally enclosed space. These wagons had many uses – for example, according to MacDermot’s ‘History of the GWR’, there were no dedicated cattle wagons until after 1853, the Tilt Wagons being used for this purpose. [N.B. – I have previously modelled a later iron-bodied Tilt Wagon in an earlier post in this blog ] Standard Tilt Wagons - 1840 Although no proof can be found for the 'standard' format having being adopted in these wagons, Eddy Brown considered that the later GWR method of over‑drawing amendments, such as the bonnet-like structures was probably used for this design. I adopted this process of ‘amendment’ for my own models – re-using many of the components from my ‘standard’ Box wagon and adding new ‘bonnets’ and hoops. My first step was to make a digital copy of my entire 3D model of a standard Box wagon. I then placed the model, in ‘Fusion 360’, over a ‘canvas’ image of the Tilt Wagon drawing from Broad Gauge Society (BGS) Data Sheet 403. This confirmed that all the major dimensions were virtually identical. The most obvious differences were the ‘bonnets’ at each end, so I created these as new ‘bodies’ and deleted the previous drop flaps at the ends of my model. This is another advantage of creating my models as collections of individual parts – I do this mainly to make printing easier but it also facilitates changing individual parts for different versions. After drawing one bonnet as shown below, I used the ‘mirror’ command in ‘Fusion 360’ to create its counterpart at the opposite end. My conversion of Box Wagon to Tilt Wagon I used the ‘Pattern on Path’ command in ‘Fusion 360’ to create the planking running around the curved hood of the bonnet – I only needed to draw one plank and the software did the rest. The chassis and wheels continued unchanged but longer springs were fitted to the Tilt Wagons, bowed to run beneath the axles. I created new axle-box assemblies by extruding from the ‘canvas’ in ‘Fusion 360’, then copied the design to replace the four boxes on my previous model. Revised Axlebox with Underslung Springs With these alterations, plus the addition of hoops to support the canvas tilt, I now had a new model as shown below (rendered in ‘Fusion 360’): My 3D model of an 1840 Tilt Wagon. Standard Utility Wagons - 1840 10 of these were built as another variant on the original ‘standard’ Box wagon, designed to be adaptable to a variety of applications. The body sides were reduced to 2’ 6” in height and the strouters were extended upwards to form an Enclosure rail, over sides & ends. The existence of these Utility Wagons is confirmed by J.C. Bourne's Litho, of Bristol Goods shed (shown above), which includes both covered and uncovered versions. These wagons, less covers, were notable for being given over to ‘Goods Train Passengers’, later referred to as 3rd.Class Passengers. Seating was probably arranged with 9 cross Benches 24" apart, seating 6 persons on each, resulting in a loading of 54 persons per wagon. Little modification to the ‘standard’ Box wagon was needed to create my model – narrower top planks and an additional rail. The axle boxes were fitted with underslung springs, as on the Tilt Wagons, described above. My 3D Model of 1840 Utility Wagon (uncovered) I also created 3D views of my models, with the hoops and a canvas tilt cover in place: Two of my 3D models with Hoops and a Canvas Tilt cover 6-Wheel Goods Wagons – 1840 These 5 wagons were substantially larger than the 4-wheel designs and set a pattern that persisted throughout the Broad Gauge period of the GWR. Initially, their field of application was rather limited, because they were too long to be turned on the small wagon turntables that were commonly used, in the early period, at stations and depots for moving stock between tracks – using a mixture of horse- and man-power.. Several of these wagons were adapted for the use of Goods Passengers, for whom seating was provided by 11 cross benches, set 24" apart, each seating about. 6 persons, giving 66 passengers per wagon. Following an accident at Sonning, in December 1841, the Board of Trade report expressed concern that passengers were thrown out on impact. The recommendation was that the sides should be raised to at least 4’‑6" height and this modification was soon applied. It was also recognised that the boxes over the central wheels created a problem with centrally placed drop-flaps. Replacement of these flaps with doors, between the wheels, was another of the modifications in adapting these wagons for passenger use. Further modifications were required later, as a result of the 'Railway Regulations Act 1844', which required “carriages protected from the weather and provided with seats”. The GWR anticipated this change in 1842, by amending the original drawings of these 6-wheel wagons with superimposed outlines of ‘seating and roof’ additions BGS Data Sheet 120 contains an account of the timeline leading up to the building of these ‘Parliamentary’ carriages. This account indicates that the GWR started operating ‘Goods Train Passenger’ services, once the line had reached Reading in 1840. Before that, contractors had offered places to ‘passengers’ in regular goods wagons! The term ‘3rd class passenger’ only appeared later, after the line was completed through to Bristol in May 1841. After this date, new 6-Wheel Trucks were ordered specifically as 3rd class Passenger vehicles, with sprung buffers and sides raised to 4’-6” height. I have previously created a 3D-printed model of one of these 3rd class ‘Parliamentary’ carriages, described in an earlier blog post, and shown below: My 3D-printed model of a 3rd-class ‘Parliamentary’ carriage For my model of a 6-wheel goods wagon, I decided to re-use the chassis design from my earler model, then add a body based on the original low-sided design of 1840. My 6-wheel BG chassis from a 3rd-class Carriage I re-used the ends designed for my Utility Wagon, described above, and lengthened the sides to fit the 6-wheel version. I also re-used the strouters and buffer beams from the shorter version. By drawing on these earlier designs, I did not need to make any completely new parts for the following model: My 3D Model of 1840 6-wheel Wagon (uncovered) That completes my set of models of the wagons originally ordered for the GWR. It took a while for the Board to realise the potential revenue to be obtained from good services, on what they had originally conceived as a passenger railway. As a result, a crash programme of orders were raised, intended to increase the wagon stock to 250 vehicles by the time the line opened through to Bristol. This rapid expansion led to ‘revised’ versions of all the types of wagons described above. According to the BGS Data Sheets, new wheels were fitted with refined open spokes and the suspension springs were deeper in form, but, overall, the bodies and frames remained the same. In addition, some new types of wagon were ordered for specific types of traffic. These included Sheep Trucks, and wagons for coke and coal. These will be the subjects of my next post. Mike

These Bourne illustrations are often the only information we have, confirming the existence of variations amongst the early GWR wagons. These seen in the Bristol litho are a slightly later design, with narrower top planks and extended strouters supporting a top rail. These were described as 'Utility Wagons' and were intended as multi-purpose wagons that could be used as Box or Tilt wagons or for goods passengers. Both 4 wheel and 6 wheel versions were built. There are plenty more BGS Data sheets for me to work my way through 🙂

Another thought is to alter a model to have open doors, then place it at a loading dock. I have that set up at North Leigh, where there is a rake of modified Airfix cattle wagons, of which one is loading at the cattle dock.

My hope is that my posts will encourage others to have a go at creating their own models. When I first started scratch-building, I thought it would be too difficult - I'm not a 'practical engineer' type of person. It was a pleasant surprise to find I could 'roll my own', initially with brass sheet and then with computer-controlled aids, leading me into 3D computer modelling. It is my personal challenge to explore how to do these things. I am pleased to be allowed to use Fusion 360 software at no charge, on the condition that it is for personal use only and non-commercial. I don't wish to do anything that could jeopardise that concession. All that is basically a long-winded way of saying 'no' - I have not considered distributing my models in any way.