West Sands - BR (SR) Electrified south coast branch terminus - MISSING PHOTOS SLOWLY BEING RESTORED

[Geep7]

13 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

You could always highlight, rather than attempt to disguise, the alterations (subtly different brick colour etc) because by c1970 the real thing might well have been altered a bit.

 

That's a good point, and maybe I'll do that around the mini-cab office.

 

The other alteration should have been there when originally built, so I'll need to make it look like it's always been there.

[Geep7]

So I've been slowly working on the station building over the past couple of weeks. It how has a roof, and the lower concrete trim, plus I've added lintels above the doors and windows.

 

Here are some pics of the station building in situ.

 

 

 

 

The last picture shows that I need to do a bit of work to square up the building on the left hand side.

 

It still needs a small extra level at the right hand corner to contain the water tank, plus some flag poles....

 

There won't be any progress this weekend, as I'm down in Eastleigh at the Southampton MRS show, helping to operate my friends layout Horsebridge Wharf. Come along and watch me, no doubt, struggle with 3 link couplings... 

Edited February 24, 2023 by Geep7

[leopardml2341]

That's really looking the part Chris, I like it

[Geep7]

Ok, so I have question, which I think followers of this thread may be able to assist with.

 

I'm looking at expanding my Class 33 fleet, and I currently have a Pull/Push fitted 33/1 in Blue and a Green 33/0 with syp. I would like to get another 33 in Blue, and I've been looking around, and I have a choice between a 33/0 and a 33/2.

 

Now a 33/2 "slim-jim" would be nice, but in the late 60's/early 70's, how likely would they have been to venture away from the Eastern section? I guess they would be seen down the Brighton Main Line on occasions, but would they have gotten as far west as Chichester / Portsmouth?

 

If it's a case of very rarely, I.e maybe once or twice a year, then I'll probably go with a 33/0.

 

[Mike Storey]

3 hours ago, Geep7 said:

Ok, so I have question, which I think followers of this thread may be able to assist with.

 

I'm looking at expanding my Class 33 fleet, and I currently have a Pull/Push fitted 33/1 in Blue and a Green 33/0 with syp. I would like to get another 33 in Blue, and I've been looking around, and I have a choice between a 33/0 and a 33/2.

 

Now a 33/2 "slim-jim" would be nice, but in the late 60's/early 70's, how likely would they have been to venture away from the Eastern section? I guess they would be seen down the Brighton Main Line on occasions, but would they have gotten as far west as Chichester / Portsmouth?

 

If it's a case of very rarely, I.e maybe once or twice a year, then I'll probably go with a 33/0.

 

 

There were only 12 Class 33/2 locos, and the bulk were kept on the SED for Hastings work, in your era, particularly the Mountfield moves and other, departmental traffic. So whilst it would not have been impossible to find a Slim Jim on the SWD, it would have been rare, perhaps mainly on departmental or commercial moves from Eastleigh, Pompey and so on, across the Coastway.

[eastwestdivide]

On the 33/2 workings, the pages at Derby Sulzers https://derbysulzers.com/class33.html etc list unusual workings for 33s, and there are very few mentions of "escaped" 33/2s.

[Geep7]

Thanks to both of you. As I thought, it would be a rare occurrence. I think even in the 80s & 90s you rarely saw a Slim Jim west of Brighton, mainly due to there being so few of them.

 

I certainly don't think I've ever seen one "in the flesh", of the few Class 33s I've actually seen.

 

I think it'll most likely be the 33/0 joining the loco roster then.

[Nearholmer]

I'm not sure this is going to be easy to answer definitively, because "unusual" for a 33 was "off the southern" or "hauling a passenger train that was not usually loco-hauled", so a 33/2 going west on a freight or engineering train might not have been taken much notice of. What you really need is the knowledge of a Controller.

 

Turning it another way, and thinking of what they were needed for, my dim recollection is that the only regular freight on the Hastings Line at the time was Gypsum from Mountfield (there might have been a late-lingering coal flow to Battle too), which definitely needed them, maybe two or four locos each day, plus wagonload coal to Tunbridge Wells Central Goods, and block oil trains to High Brooms, and I don't think the one tunnel involved in those is/was a restricted one. There were also diverted(?) parcels/newspaper trains, sometimes a 73 in struggle mode, and whatever engineer's trains the line needed (no big rush on that until electrification).

 

Which suggests that, even allowing for maintenance and overhauls, some could be spared to go a-wandering for short periods and I think (dim recollection) that I recall odd ones being used on Hoo Junction-Meldon-Hoo Junction ballast trains.

 

 

 

 

[eastwestdivide]

Think you're right about the amount of actual Hastings line freight.  

But trainspotting in the Medway Towns around 1980, the 33/2s were very very common on the various freight trains out of Hoo Junction/Grain/Cliffe/Sheerness/Dover etc, including cross-London traffic to Willesden/Brent. Wouldn't be surprised on the Meldon ballasts.

I might look out some spotting books to find out the most I saw in a single day!

 

[Geep7]

The intention is to use it mostly on freight, parcels and engineers trains anyway. So maybe I could get away with a 33/2, say on an ex-London Bridge newspapers train, for instance?

[Geep7]

So here is the latest arrival at West Sands....

 

 

D6558 is a Hither Green allocated Class 33/0.

 

As I now have D6511, D6551 and D6558, I think at least one of them will need to be re-numbered, as I don't like the fact that they all have fairly similar numbers.

 

I've also been working on the entrance / gates to go across between the end of the platforms and the concourse area. Constructed from sheet plastic and micro-strip.

 

 

These are based on the ones at Hampton Court. The gates are just place loosely for now, the probably won't extend out so far once finished.

Edited February 24, 2023 by Geep7

[AireValley1962]

Geep7,

 

I just spent an enjoyable couple of hours reading through your layout thread here. Looks like a lovely BR(SR) setup you have.  I'm actually planning something similar, so it was a timely read too.

 

I'll be following with interest the coming proceedings.

 

Cheers,

Will

[Oldddudders]

I like the Bostwick Gates. 

[Geep7]

12 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

I like the Bostwick Gates. 

 

They were a lucky find at the Southampton exhibition. I'm not sure of the providence of them, and I've searched around the internet and not found them anywhere else.

[david51]

HHi Chris

I was just catching up on your thread when I noticed the  comments about Class33/2

perhaps I could just add a few comments.

whilst it's true that 33/2s were largely found on the South east division by the late 60s the number of freight turns on that section were substantially reduced and as a result 33/2s ventured further afield certainly down the Southwestern main line and could be found regularly in Reading.

Also in 1970 a number were sent to Eastleigh to have slow control equipment added so they could be found in Hampshire on test runs .They also worked to Lavant and Botley from time to time so you could certainly find an excuse  to run one 

Anyway rule one applies -it's your railway.

Hope this helps

[Geep7]

I'm lucky enough to have a couple of days where I can work on the station building board away from the layout in the comfort of the living room.

 

Yesterday I moved the board and have been looking at something that's been bothering me for a while.

 

 

This road that crosses the track to the fuel depot sidings. When I originally did it, I widened it out on the right-hand side to give road vehicles enough swing to get round the corner. But everytime I look at it, it looks too wide.

 

 

Here is a view from above.

 

 

 

Does this look ok to everyone, ie, is it prototypical, or does it need narrowing?

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by Geep7

[eastwestdivide]

On 31/01/2020 at 13:36, eastwestdivide said:

I might look out some spotting books to find out the most I saw in a single day!

 

On the 33/2s, if it's any interest, a random trawl through a few spotting books in 1980-81 gave me a max of 6 different ones in a week around Medway/Hoo Jn, including 3 on one day. This doesn't include the Mountfield/Northfleet gypsum, or any engineers' work around Tonbridge/Hastings/Ashford.

That's just from random daytime spotting rather than any definitive figures though.

1-7 July 1980, 33201/202/204/206/207/209

4-10 Aug 1980, 33201/203/204/205/206/209

[Enterprisingwestern]

1 hour ago, Geep7 said:

I'm lucky enough to have a couple of days where I can work on the station building board away from the layout in the comfort of the living room.

 

Yesterday I moved the board and have been looking at something that's been bothering me for a while.

 

This road that crosses the track to the fuel depot sidings. When I originally did it, I widened it out on the right-hand side to give road vehicles enough swing to get round the corner. But everytime I look at it, it looks too wide.

 

Here is a view from above.

 

Does this look ok to everyone, ie, is it prototypical, or does it need narrowing?

 

 

I would say, not having any practical road building experience mind, that it looks a tad too spacious, I would have thought that the road would be a narrowish carriageway for single lane traffic with a bit of added elbow room.

What would the minimum width of the road be to allow an artic to swing round the corner, have you tried running an actual lorry round and seeing what clearance would need to be?

 

Mike.

 

Mike.

[Geep7]

1 minute ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

I would say, not having any practical road building experience mind, that it looks a tad too spacious, I would have thought that the road would be a narrowish carriageway for single lane traffic with a bit of added elbow room.

What would the minimum width of the road be to allow an artic to swing round the corner, have you tried running an actual lorry round and seeing what clearance would need to be?

 

Mike.

 

Mike.

I don't have any artic lorries to run round. I based it on allowing for my buses to swing round, the longest being the Leyland Leopard I think (the other is a Queen Mary).

 

If I remember, I think I was trying to work it out on 2 buses being able to pass each other, but as you say, I think I've gone a bit too generous, and should really have kept it as a single track road....

[Nearholmer]

The thing that leapt out at me was the need for a barrier to stop road vehicles straying onto the track.

 

The sort of thing I have in mind is scrap-rail posts about 2’6” high, with scrap rail longitudinals. Just the place for loads of weed-growth and rubbish accumulation.

 

Thiscwould be needed even if there was something like a mesh fence.

[Geep7]

15 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

The thing that leapt out at me was the need for a barrier to stop road vehicles straying onto the track.

 

The sort of thing I have in mind is scrap-rail posts about 2’6” high, with scrap rail longitudinals. Just the place for loads of weed-growth and rubbish accumulation.

 

Thiscwould be needed even if there was something like a mesh fence.

Ah! That's the sort of info. I need. Thank you. It's seems impossible to find photos with those sorts of specific details.

 

Now the decision of whether it would be standard SR concrete fencing, the SR pale concrete fencing, or the mesh fencing with concrete posts..... tbh, I already have loads of the standard concrete fencing on the layout, so something different would be nice.....

[Nearholmer]

The thing to ask is: when was the roadway put in? And, is it inside the overall railway property boundary, or is it at the boundary?

 

In reading it to be inside railway property, so no fence, just a vehicle barrier, possibly one added, or upgraded from a simple kerb, when lorries took over from dobbin.

[Nearholmer]

The thing to ask is: when was the roadway put in? And, is it inside the overall railway property boundary, or is it at the boundary?

 

In reading it to be inside railway property, so no fence, just a vehicle barrier, possibly one added, or upgraded from a simple kerb, when lorries took over from dobbin.

 

Cart kerbs could also be lengths of old rail, sometimes with the ends bent into really tight curves to give an anchor in the ground - they must have been done in workshops in a forge.

Edited February 17, 2020 by Nearholmer

[Geep7]

4 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

The thing to ask is: when was the roadway put in? And, is it inside the overall railway property boundary, or is it at the boundary?

 

In reading it to be inside railway property, so no fence, just a vehicle barrier, possibly one added, or upgraded from a simple kerb, when lorries took over from dobbin.

 

Cart kerbs could also be lengths of old rail, sometimes with the ends bent into really tight curves to give an anchor in the ground - they must have been done in workshops in a forge.

Ok, so it's meant to be a public road, and would have been there when the original station was built.

 

The fuel depot sidings to the left are assumed to be on the fuel companies property, so are private sidings, hence an ungated crossing. There will be a gate on the right of the crossing a cross the tracks to close the sidings off from the BR tracks, although will probably be in a rough state of repair.....

[Siberian Snooper]

If it's a public road across a private siding,  I would say that there would be barriers or gates across the siding which would be manually operated when being shunted. I would use concrete fence panels between railway land and the road and probably a high wire mesh fence with a couple of barbed wire strands on top between the fuel companies land and the railway, infact it would be a high gate across the railway on the fuel company side,  they don't like trespassers due to the fire risk.

 

Don't forget a pavement for pedestrians, at least on one side of the road.