Nether Madder and Green Soudley Rly

[Compound2632]

14 minutes ago, Nick C said:

What's probably more odd is that photo appears to show a vacuum pipe - I'm assuming that it was through-piped for the TV show (No 10 was restored for the "Great Rail Restorations" TV show a couple of years ago)

 

Did they not have all the restored vehicles running together for the final programme?

[Nick C]

10 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Did they not have all the restored vehicles running together for the final programme?

I believe so, yes (I didn't see it), so presumably the pipe is for that.

 

@Martin S-C are the prints commercially available? I wouldn't mind a couple myself, even though they all went way before my modelling era!

[Martin S-C]

15 minutes ago, Nick C said:

I believe so, yes (I didn't see it), so presumably the pipe is for that.

 

@Martin S-C are the prints commercially available? I wouldn't mind a couple myself, even though they all went way before my modelling era!

As far as I know he is still producing them. I'll send you Mr Luce's contact details in a PM.

[Martin S-C]

On 18/10/2021 at 12:09, Regularity said:

What’s the vertical separation between the exchange sidings and the station?

I'm curious why you asked. I imagine its because you have a Cunning Plan that involves visualising the two as separate due to vertical separation and I'm keen to hear all possible views before I commit to a yay or nay on this.

[Regularity]

3 hours ago, Martin S-C said:

I'm curious why you asked. I imagine its because you have a Cunning Plan that involves visualising the two as separate due to vertical separation and I'm keen to hear all possible views before I commit to a yay or nay on this.

Just wondered if a retaining wall would look too urban, that’s all.

[Martin S-C]

I don't think it would since small retaining walls were very common in the Forest due to steep sided narrow valleys. The problem is going to be the crowded nature of the tracks I think

[Martin S-C]

Nothing to report on the next stage of the baseboards for the layout yet but in the meanwhile some more wagon modelling.
 

Three recently kit built wagons. I realised the other day that I've got a shed load (well, a double garage load to be honest) of private owner wagons and vans and a fair few company covered vans but not many company opens. And that needs correcting since as you all know most railway wagons were opens.
 

I painted up two ex-GW 4-plank opens for the WELR a couple of years back as well as some for other fictional railways like the Craig & Mertonford, the Aire Valley and the Madder Valley but I don't think I've got a single open wagon ready yet for the NMR, GSR or NMGS. So here's three. A 3-plank dropside Midland 8-ton; a Wheeler & Gregory 4-plank and a rather out of place North British 8-plank coal wagon. The 8-plank has a very low profile and it uses typically early narrow sheets (or planks) which makes it - to me anyway - quite characterful. All three are merchandise wagons and will carry various 'clean' loadsso will probably spend much of their time with innocuous sheets over them; or empty.
 

The Midland 3-plank was a K's white metal kit from the Cretaceous period of railway kits and really horrible! It was a total headache to get the chassis square and running true. There's horrible lumps of metal at the internal corners and it came with no floor so I scribed up a sheet of plastic card. Even so, it has a very dodgy interior! Its only redeeming factors are its a model of an early wagon (so falls into the small and cute category) and its nice and heavy.
 

The Wheeler & Gregory 4-plank is a nice common wagon. Its a Cambrian kit and glued together beautifully. I like the curved ends which speak to me of it being an early vehicle.
 

The North British coal wagon was a D&S kit and much more pleasant to put together with good design and true-fitting corners. It's got an end door of typically Scottish design (see the Greenhill 4-plank open I put up a picture of a week or two back) so feels a little odd to me in Gloucestershire but I keep reassuring myself that my inspiration is John Ahern and his Madder Valley empire and since he had American box cars and Cabooses and even broad gauge engines on his model railway, I think my 'fantasy' elements are by that standard not too outrageous.
 

I've painted them all in the basic NM&GS mid grey livery (which is close to the Midland Railway freight grey) with decals from the HMRS range as well as some rub-down lettering from POWSides (which is a massive pain in the rear end to use but is cheap and effective once it's on).
 

They then got a light weathering after some problems with the decals were fixed and have been given a dusty dry brush to suggest light wear from non-grimy loads. I had an attempt at picking out with a very light rust effect the internal knees and door strapping on the 4-plank and at the door end of the 8-plank.

810 prior to weathering

810 weathered


833 prior to weathering


833 weathered


826 prior to weathering


826 weathered


826 weathered internal view.

[Harlequin]

I think you have nothing to worry about regarding track density near the colliery.

 

Maybe a passing station was just a step too far but if you could push the colliery tracks together like I suggested and then run your single track main line and wayside station along the front with a reasonable space between them and the colliery then layer up the scenery in between; hillside, retaining walls, scrub, the occasional tree, etc, I think the apparent density on plan will disappear.

 

[Martin S-C]

On 18/10/2021 at 11:35, Harlequin said:

If the exchange sidings were aligned with, and closer to, the sorting sidings there would be more room for a passing station further to the left. Something like this:

 

It also makes the colliery look a bit more "organised", if I can put it that way.

I haven't shown a new position for the brake van siding but I'm sure it could be found a home.

Would the levels and gradients still work?

Phil, are you saying this proposal would work?

Given the majority of the advice on here I had laid the idea aside, though I still like that junction arrangement.

[Schooner]

If you like it, plan for it. It is possible, and a damn sight easier to take it out than add it in...

[Harlequin]

Hi Martin,

 

Sorry, I wasn't being clear. I think the passing station could work OK but on balance (just) I thought that the majority advice was probably right and a simpler station would be better.

It was on that basis that I was saying you'd have nothing to worry about. Something like this to give plenty of separation (but don't take it too literally).

 

 

 

 

It is a fine balance.

 

Edited May 7, 2022 by Harlequin

[Caley Jim]

One comment on that NB wagon.  It should have two metal 'ring' over the beam at the door end.  These were what the door hinged on.  They were continuous with the inner and outer washer plates on the door and rubbed on metal plates on the top of the beam.

 

You can see them on this CR loco coal wagon.

 

Jim

[Compound2632]

I do wonder if any Scottish-type mineral wagon was ever seen south of the border. I can't see what occasion there would be for it. I suppose the rationale here could be that this was second-hand stock bought by the NM&GSR.

Edited October 24, 2021 by Compound2632

[Regularity]

13 hours ago, Martin S-C said:

Phil, are you saying this proposal would work?

Given the majority of the advice on here I had laid the idea aside, though I still like that junction arrangement.

Have you tried printing it out, and mocking up a few thinks like the retaining wall with card? Put the higher level on some foam board or whatever raised to the appropriate height, then putting a few wagons in place?

TBH, I think this is the only way you will really know.

On 20/10/2021 at 00:04, Martin S-C said:

I don't think it would since small retaining walls were very common in the Forest due to steep sided narrow valleys. The problem is going to be the crowded nature of the tracks I think

But in a steep sided valley, then crowded tracks is a natural consequence: what you have here is the higher level line was maybe in place, then the lower level was squeezed in due to the discovery during the construction of the high level of (yet another!) easily accessible seam of coal.

[Martin S-C]

My 'history' of the line is that the higher level line was a horse drawn tramway (which covered the Forest like spider's webs in pre-steam railway days) which served lime kilns and a stone cutting works as well as this colliery. At that time the coal was accessed by a less professional arrangement and at a higher level in the hillside. The WELR bought the tramway, or the tramway operators chose to upgrade their line to a steam hauled railway, upgraded it to a railway (though still operating under steam tram regulations) set out a passenger station as well as two halts and operated passenger trains. The main line was built a little later and did not interconnect. The connection of tramway and main line (which would have been broad gauge initially) was made later. The Forest is also pock-marked with hundreds of tiny coal mines many of which were no bigger than single shafts, wells or even open pits and worked by either one man and his family or very small assemblies of local miners. The bigger mining concerns arrived later but were prevalent by the early 1800s. With the building of the main line in about the 1850s or 60s or works associated with the change of gauge in the 1870s or 80s, the coal mine gained rail access at a lower level and became a bigger concern. However the geology of the Forest (and carboniferous geology generally) became understood a little earlier than the steam hauled railways so it was probably known there was likely to be a workable deeper coal seam under that valley slope at around, or before the 1840s/50s.

Usually in the Forest the sequence went like this:

1) Small mines of local nature worked, 1400s to early/mid 1700s.
2) These, if profitable, attracted investors. Often horse tramways built at this time to carry coal west to Lydney Docks or east out of the Forest to the Wye Valley, early 1700s to mid 1800s.

3) Coming of the (broad gauge) railways, which in many cases laid lines on top of existing horse tramways and so would have been well-placed to serve existing mines, about 1850-60.
4) Railways were narrowed to standard gauge c.1870-80. This was the boom time of the biggest Forest mines and industries (coal, iron, limestone, dressed stone, tin, timber, etc).
5) Mines were worked out and slowly closed - 1910 to 1930s period. Serious flooding impacted other mines as nearby pumps of neighbouring shafts were shut down, etc.

This doesn't move the discussion forwards much about where I lay my model railway track but it helps me to relate to what is in the model, where it is and why.

[Martin S-C]

15 hours ago, Caley Jim said:

One comment on that NB wagon.  It should have two metal 'ring' over the beam at the door end.  These were what the door hinged on.  They were continuous with the inner and outer washer plates on the door and rubbed on metal plates on the top of the beam.

 

You can see them on this CR loco coal wagon.

Part of me wishes you'd kept that information to yourself! I do enjoy the small twiddly bits but these hinge rings (is that what they are?) were very nearly a pair of Twiddly Bits Too Far. They took two attempts; after bending the first pair to shape I clipped off the ends too short and they didn't reach the holes I'd drilled.  Then I enjoyed a few minutes on my hands and knees on the carpet under the workbench looking for one of them, then there was a fair application of Anglo-Saxon language before I was done. They look okay from a couple of feet away but the close up lens is not at all forgiving.

[Caley Jim]

Reluctantly putting my pedant hat on, they should be more of a circle, rather than an inverted 'U'!   I'll let you off this time, but don't let it happen again! 

 

I make mine by winding annealed phosphor bronze wire round a suitable drill and cutting off individual coils, but a wee bit less than a full circle.  And yes, my carpet monster has a prodigious appetite for these (among other things).  

 

 

Jim

[Martin S-C]

On 23/10/2021 at 20:55, Harlequin said:

Hi Martin,

 

Sorry, I wasn't being clear. I think the passing station could work OK but on balance (just) I thought that the majority advice was probably right and a simpler station would be better.

It was on that basis that I was saying you'd have nothing to worry about. Something like this to give plenty of separation (but don't take it too literally).

 

 

 

 

It is a fine balance.

 

It is, yes. I think you are probably right - as are several others here. The passing station gives me the ability to pass two trains on the circuit or in and out of the terminus - but then so does the fiddle yard so I do not operationally gain very much - a little more visual action but not much more. The scissors junction appeals but again it doesn't actually gain anything and it all does stuff more track into a small space.

On a very different subject does anyone know what these are? They are clearly meant to push into NEM coupler pockets but there's no where to attach a hook for the hook and loop tension lock system. I am bumbling about (again) searching for a close or permanent coupling system for set rakes of coaches that will need to allow rakes to be propelled around 24" curves and through PECO medium radius points. I am not sure where I picked these up, probably in a box of bits n pieces in a job lot of goodies on e-Bay.

[Nearholmer]

Wouldn’t that mate with a simple wire down-hook, rather than face-to-face, to give a (not very) close coupling? It does seem odd as a coupling though, because the front face is dead square, which won’t really work.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Wouldn’t that mate with a simple wire down-hook, rather than face-to-face, to give a (not very) close coupling? It does seem odd as a coupling though, because the front face is dead square, which won’t really work.

 

 

And grossly unnecessarily wide. Unless it's design for shunting chaldrons?

[Corbs]

I've been using these for semi-permanent rakes (or for grouping wagons into pairs or triplets)

https://www.shapeways.com/product/Y7ZBZB96R/nem-oo-type-8-couplings-step-up-instanter-x10?optionId=63332869&li=shops

 

They go into NEM slots, there are lots of types available, they are solid so act as drawbars and good for propelling, and they look good. Because they are NEM fitment you can pull them out if you want to fit something else. Plus they are cheap.

[Compound2632]

59 minutes ago, Corbs said:

I've been using these for semi-permanent rakes (or for grouping wagons into pairs or triplets)

https://www.shapeways.com/product/Y7ZBZB96R/nem-oo-type-8-couplings-step-up-instanter-x10?optionId=63332869&li=shops

 

Unlike most NEM-based couplings, they bring the coupling into the correct plane. My personal preference for semi-permanent rakes of wagons is to use three-links with proper drawbar hooks and eliminate the NEM socket altogether. This gives a significant visual improvement, particularly for 19th/early 20th century wagons where there's not much below solebar level anyway. But chacun à son goût.

[Phil Himsworth]

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

It does seem odd as a coupling though, because the front face is dead square, which won’t really work.

Unless it's some kind of system for being close coupled when on straight track, but pushing the vehicles apart when on a bend?

[Martin S-C]

1 hour ago, Corbs said:

I've been using these for semi-permanent rakes (or for grouping wagons into pairs or triplets)

https://www.shapeways.com/product/Y7ZBZB96R/nem-oo-type-8-couplings-step-up-instanter-x10?optionId=63332869&li=shops

 

They go into NEM slots, there are lots of types available, they are solid so act as drawbars and good for propelling, and they look good. Because they are NEM fitment you can pull them out if you want to fit something else. Plus they are cheap.

Thanks Corbs, those look good and the seller makes various height adjusted ones as well. What spacing between vehicles do they give - have you a photos of them in use please?
 

19 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Unlike most NEM-based couplings, they bring the coupling into the correct plane. My personal preference for semi-permanent rakes of wagons is to use three-links with proper drawbar hooks and eliminate the NEM socket altogether. This gives a significant visual improvement, particularly for 19th/early 20th century wagons where there's not much below solebar level anyway. But chacun à son goût.

The spacers I'm in search of are for coach rakes. I always have all my goods stock as singles. A dummy screw link with an inclusive pair of dummy brake hoses would be fantastic but I don't know of any like that.

My other option is to attach a simple L shaped hook on one vehicle with the end rising vertically and just drill a loose hole or short slot in the underside of the adjacent vehicle (or it's bogie). This allows the vehicles to turn relative to each other and keeps a fixed distance.

Edited October 26, 2021 by Martin S-C

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Martin S-C said:

The spacers I'm in search of are for coach rakes. I always have all my goods stock as singles. A dummy screw link with an inclusive pair of dummy brake hoses would be fantastic but I don't know of any like that.

 

The nearest to that I know of are the Bachmann fixed couplings that are made to look like a pair of pipes - but those lack any representation of the actual coupling; they rely on the corridor connections hiding the lack of that! 

 

I'm not sure about a pair of pipes for those 4-wheelers of yours though, unless they're dual fitted, which seems to me unlikely for such humble stock. I doubt they have steam heating either, so that's just one brake pipe. It's more complicated if your stock is non-corridor and vacuum braked, since the flexible pipe is mounted on an upstand on the carriage end, so the flexible connection is well above buffer beam height. Westinghouse hoses are usually lower down, but still on a short upstand.