Wantage Road 1880 4mm Broad Gauge

[Nick Gough]

2 hours ago, Charlie586 said:

There's a plan in the Pearce Higgins book, heavily cropped 

 

 

Shows what I reckon is another office at the London end.

 

 

Very cropped back of the shed from the late photo. There's something visible, possibly steps? 

 

I think you can disregard this extension for your purposes.

 

I have revisited the NLS website. There are two maps on there, for 1898 and 1910. The extension features at the later date but not the first. The goods shed is in the top left corner.

 

1898

https://maps.nls.uk/view/104196040

1910

https://maps.nls.uk/view/104196037

 

However, it does tend to confirm the view that there isn't a vehicle entrance at that end of the shed.

[Charlie586]

2 hours ago, Nick Gough said:

 

I think you can disregard this extension for your purposes.

 

I have revisited the NLS website. There are two maps on there, for 1898 and 1910. The extension features at the later date but not the first. The goods shed is in the top left corner.

 

1898

https://maps.nls.uk/view/104196040

1910

https://maps.nls.uk/view/104196037

 

However, it does tend to confirm the view that there isn't a vehicle entrance at that end of the shed.

 

Thank you. I notice on the map before that there is no extension on the left (Swindon end), not sure I trust that. It appears in a picture dated 1896, and the bricks don't seem any different to the existing brickwork in all the photos.

https://maps.nls.uk/view/102339929

The two maps you posted do also show the different signal box footprints for the first and second signal box. Again (as with everything else) there's a real lack of information on the first box, just a long distance grainy photo of one end.

[Nick Gough]

1 hour ago, Charlie586 said:

 

Thank you. I notice on the map before that there is no extension on the left (Swindon end), not sure I trust that. It appears in a picture dated 1896, and the bricks don't seem any different to the existing brickwork in all the photos.

https://maps.nls.uk/view/102339929

The two maps you posted do also show the different signal box footprints for the first and second signal box. Again (as with everything else) there's a real lack of information on the first box, just a long distance grainy photo of one end.

 

The six inch scale maps, being less detailed, don't seem to be as reliable as the 25 inch versions and often give a more vague rendition of a building's shape.

 

I don't believe there is any doubt that the shed and office, at the Swindon end, were built together, at the same date.

[Nick Gough]

Adrian Vaughan has this to say (in Heart of the Great Western):

"Wantage Road signal box existed by 1874 and presumably was a little brick 'Type 1'. This was replaced on 5  December 1915..."

 

In Railways through the Vale of the White Horse he says:

"There is no record for the size of the original lever frame. However, from the 1875 survey it is clear that four levers were required for points and six for signals, so probably there were 10 working levers and maybe four spares, as at Steventon."

 

The same book has a photo of Steventon station box which also dated to 1874, and may be to the same design.

[Charlie586]

Thanks Nick. More similarities to Steventon again. I've not got the railways through votw book. Is the photo the same as the photo here from 1973 or is it a different box

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/9361567.last-man/

I've got a built ratio signal box somewhere, I was hoping I'd be able to bash it a bit to represent the box. The layout will be viewed facing towards the back of the box (looking south) So I did think about leaving the back off or it will just be a wall and roof from that angle. 

[Nick Gough]

No. The 1874 box was actually at Steventon station until it was abolished in 1928.

 

After that the station was controlled from a box sited at Stocks Lane level crossing, to the west of the station.

 

The box in the article was at the Causeway level crossing, slightly further west.

[Charlie586]

Thanks Nick.

I have seen a photo now, but can't post it here. It's a totally brick box, I may be able to use the ratio windows, but haven't measured for size yet. 

I'll definitely leave the back off and try to detail the inside, but it won't be as good as MrWolf or ChuffingHell's interiors. 

 

Found this timbertrack goods shed that's close to the right footprint. I'll be building my own, but it's always handy to find any sort of picture. 

http://www.timbertracks.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=18_2&product_id=9

[Nick Gough]

The Grade I I listed Stroud goods shed dates from 1845, although the office block was added in the 1890s.

 

Looking at online images it has many design features similar to Wantage Road, although it's larger and stone-built. The buttressing, roof gable ends, central rear door and window arches in particular.

 

There are planning applications on the Stroud council website that include downloadable drawings of the shed that may be useful:

https://publicaccess.stroud.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=KKYOYWPN5H000

 

Edited November 7, 2021 by Nick Gough

[Charlie586]

6 hours ago, Nick Gough said:

The Grade I I listed Stroud goods shed dates from 1845, although the office block was added in the 1890s.

 

Looking at online images it has many design features similar to Wantage Road, although it's larger and stone-built. The buttressing, roof gable ends, central rear door and window arches in particular.

 

There are planning applications on the Stroud council website that include downloadable drawings of the shed that may be useful:

https://publicaccess.stroud.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=KKYOYWPN5H000

 

Thanks. I downloaded the files but they won't open on my phone. I'll try again on my laptop.

[Charlie586]

Bit of a catch up on work on turnouts and the new test track 

 

 

I started cutting out the copperclad but fretting double sided copperclad was a bit slow. So I switched to the single sided stuff I've got,  scored it lengthwise a few times then gently snapped into strips. The scrawker style Stanley blades I found a year or so ago,  it feels safer to use than a normal blade. 

I stopped work on turnout to check if anything would actually go around a 1:6 .

I'm using an old shelf, lolly sticks for straight bits with track superglued. For the curves Copperclad chunks on top of a scrap of cardboard (old prescription box ) to match height of sticks. Rail soldered a copperclad chunk a time trying to match the 1:6 curve.

 

 

Other rail was soldered using track gauge to try and hold in right place. I need a 3 point gauge really for this so will have to make one. 

 

This was as far as I got. Obviously gave it a little test,  there's a big step down on the left lolly stick, there's a few lumps of solder fouling flanges and it goes out of gauge in a few places 

 

So needs a bit of adjustment. I should have taken more photos,  but everything derailed going left to right (or down to up in big photo) on the lolly drop, but right to left a 4 wheel carriage chassis and the hawthorn went through with a bit of wobbling. I didn't bother trying the rover it only ever went straight through the station and I know it wouldn't have made it. I didn't bother trying 6 wheels on the carriage chassis as the central axle just wouldn't make it. 

This would be the bendiest part of the planned layout, 2 turnouts back to back.  In reality the turnouts were about 50% longer but I could do with compressing wherever I can. The spare bedroom has a 10ft wall and although I've got no agreed running rights, thd very worst case would be taking apart and packing up every now and then. I'll clean the track up and sort the obvious problems and have another play.

What I do need is a standard gauge chassis and to lay the standard track. I've realised from the hawthorn that coupled chassis seem to do better for me than singles. Maybe a small metro?

If it does prove too tight and unreliable, then it's try a 1:7 then 1:8 . If that fails we're onto plan d... 

 

 

[lezz01]

A 6 wheeled SG loco, be it a 2-4-0, 0-4-2 or 0-6-0, should go through a 1:6 turnout with no problems at all. You will need a little side play in the wheel sets but not more than 1-1.5mm, if you do then something is wrong. What standards are you using? Either EM or P4 standards can be used with BG. I find EM more forgiving but with the clearances between wheels on some broad gauge locos P4 is often the preferred standard.   

Regards Lez. 

[lezz01]

Back in the day I did have a plan to model something on the B&G, what with it ending up in Midland hands and not with the GWR, but the total lack of available stock or even drawings for stock meant it was a non starter. There aren't even drawings let alone photos for the Kirtley convertible engines so it would have been a total scratch build effort and I just didn't have the time at that period of my life. The internet didn't exist then so even research was a total faff. I do know that the original locos were sold to Slaughter and ended up in LSWR hands on the Biddeford line and I found just one photo of a loco with a haystack firebox at Biddeford but it was impossible to glean any details from it apart from the firebox. There is a drawing in a LSWR loco book but it's a very bad reproduction of a GA and not much use so as I said it was a non starter. I was also a little disappointed with the BGS. I joined it expecting the same sort of resources that I had with the EM and S4 societies but I found them somewhat lacking to say the least. I'm sure that they are better now but they will still have nothing for the B&G modeller.

Regards Lez.     

[Charlie586]

6 hours ago, lezz01 said:

A 6 wheeled SG loco, be it a 2-4-0, 0-4-2 or 0-6-0, should go through a 1:6 turnout with no problems at all. You will need a little side play in the wheel sets but not more than 1-1.5mm, if you do then something is wrong. What standards are you using? Either EM or P4 standards can be used with BG. I find EM more forgiving but with the clearances between wheels on some broad gauge locos P4 is often the preferred standard.   

Regards Lez. 

Thanks Lez

I'm doing P4, though I do often think about converting to EM for the extra flange depth. The BGS recommend P4 mainly because of splasher clearances and the kits are all designed for P4. I'm not sure if they even do any EM gauges? It's probably too late for me to change now, unless absolutely necessary. Most of the layout the broad gauge will go on is straight, just expresses and the odd goods by 1880, but it would be good if some of it could come off the main line and get into the yard.

The double turnout / reverse curve would be the worse it would have to encounter.

 

I haven't read much about the B&G, but there's a lot about early railways that I don't know. I never had much spare time until a few years ago and I'm trying to catch up now. The internet has made research a lot easier. I can't imagine the trouble people had to go to in the past, visiting Kew all the time when all we have to do know is type a few words in a search engine.

[chuffinghell]

It never ceases to amaze me how people are able to build their own track 

[lezz01]

35 minutes ago, chuffinghell said:

It never ceases to amaze me how people are able to build their own track 

A chap with your modelling abilities would have no problem with it Chris. 

Regards Lez.

[MrWolf]

3 hours ago, chuffinghell said:

It never ceases to amaze me how people are able to build their own track 

 

Likewise. I was an engineer for years and trying to picture the mechanism necessary for a mixed gauge turnout or worse still a double slip is giving me a short circuit!

[Annie]

On 05/11/2021 at 20:02, Charlie586 said:

Any help is useful, Annie,  but please don't risk damaging the drawing if it's fragile. 

Sorry Charlie, unlike my old and now obsolete scanner my new one doesn't allow the cover/lid to fold back out of the way so I can't position the drawing on the scanner to properly scan anything in a useful way, - and of course I definitely can't fold the several decades old drawing either.  I have got some photos of the drawing from before I purchased it, but they are too small and some of the details on the drawing are to be too faint to be any use at all for model making.

[lezz01]

1 hour ago, MrWolf said:

 

Likewise. I was an engineer for years and trying to picture the mechanism necessary for a mixed gauge turnout or worse still a double slip is giving me a short circuit!

Well mostly it's just a case of the BG going one way and the SG going another then there is only one crossing but if both gauges diverge together then there has to be 5 crossings so it can get a tad complicated. 

Regards Lez. 

[Charlie586]

12 hours ago, chuffinghell said:

It never ceases to amaze me how people are able to build their own track 

 

9 hours ago, MrWolf said:

 

Likewise. I was an engineer for years and trying to picture the mechanism necessary for a mixed gauge turnout or worse still a double slip is giving me a short circuit!

Thanks. I'm just trying to break everything down into small chunks and do a bit at a time. Reading other people's track building threads really helps. 

As Lez said, with the level of fine detail you both do, you'd walk it. It's just using skills in a different way.

[Charlie586]

8 hours ago, Annie said:

Sorry Charlie, unlike my old and now obsolete scanner my new one doesn't allow the cover/lid to fold back out of the way so I can't position the drawing on the scanner to properly scan anything in a useful way, - and of course I definitely can't fold the several decades old drawing either.  I have got some photos of the drawing from before I purchased it, but they are too small and some of the details on the drawing are to be too faint to be any use at all for model making.

Thanks for trying,  Annie. It's not worth risking damage to it. I've got rough dimensions now so can draw up a plan.

[Charlie586]

7 hours ago, lezz01 said:

Well mostly it's just a case of the BG going one way and the SG going another then there is only one crossing but if both gauges diverge together then there has to be 5 crossings so it can get a tad complicated. 

Regards Lez. 

Luckily I haven't got any slips to worry about. 

This will be the most complex point, on board 3 so a fair way off. It's not a triple point, more like two staggered points. It needs the broad gauge line adding on the left of the three lines. When I get to it I'll draw the lines first, maybe in cad, then probably find something else to do to put it off.

[lezz01]

To be honest mixed gauge track wasn't that common. Take Gloucester for instance, I've been going through one of my books and during the GWR, B&G and the Br&G days when the gauge war was raging there was only one line of mixed gauge track in the goods yard area and one line into the roundhouse and the round house itself, the rest was either broad or standard gauge. There seems to be only one mixed gauge point outside the goods shed and this is Gloucester where the gauge war was at it's hottest.

Regards Lez 

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, lezz01 said:

To be honest mixed gauge track wasn't that common. Take Gloucester for instance, I've been going through one of my books and during the GWR, B&G and the Br&G days when the gauge war was raging there was only one line of mixed gauge track in the goods yard area and one line into the roundhouse and the round house itself, the rest was either broad or standard gauge. There seems to be only one mixed gauge point outside the goods shed and this is Gloucester where the gauge war was at it's hottest.

 

But there was mixed gauge between Gloucester and Cheltenham, to cater for the broad gauge Cheltenham & Great Western Union and the standard gauge Birmingham & Gloucester; this must have featured a mixed-gauge double junction at Lansdown junction and something of hideous complexity at Tramway Junction: by the early 1850s the Birmingham platforms at the Midland's Gloucester station were on the south side, with the broad gauge lines (in fact mixed) on the north side, and the broad gauge only lines to the Great Western station to the north of that! See plans in P. Smith, An Historical Survey of the Midland in Gloucestershire (OPC, 1985).

[lezz01]

Yes Stephen that's the book I was referring to.

The 1853 plan shows only 3 lines of mixed gauge track. One where the standard gauge joins the broad gauge to the east of Asylum lane, one to the round house and the round house itself and one to the south of the western most goods shed which is shown as the transfer shed in the 1851 plan. As for the double junction it isn't shown in BG days so I have no information of that.

Regards Lez.  

[The Stationmaster]

In terms of running line track miles GWR mixed gauge varied considerably over the years.  it reached its first peak in excess of 200 miles (237m.15chs) in186  in which year the b.g. mileage was 596m.28chs and the n.g mileage was 427m.54chs).  From there the b.g. and m.g mileages both continued continued a gradual until 1875 by the end of which year the b.g mileage was a mere 8m.18chs while the m.g. mileage had dropped to 122m.18chs - thus exceeding the broad gauge mileage.

 

The 1876 amalgamation of the companies west of Bristol and into Cornwall brought about a considerable change with b.g. mileage leaping back to 268m.26chs while the m.g. mileage also increased - to 273m.73chs. In 1878 the m.g mileage, at 276m.16chs finally exceeded the b.g mileage which was down to 270m.4chs and that pattern remained the case until the abolition of the broad gauge with the m.g mileage stabilising at around 250 miles while the b.g. mileage continued to decrease.  Thus at the end of 1891, the final complete year of broad gauge operation, the b.g mileage was down to 171m.6chs and the m.g mileage stood at 252m.16chs.   So as well as 1892 seeing the end of the broad gauge it also saw the end of a considerably greater mileage of mixed gauge running line.