rockershovel Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 The Tri-Ang Dock Shunter was a super thing. I had one as a survivor of my late father’s layout and along with the Hornby 2-6-4T, long outlasted all the other items - in fact I think it’s still in a box somewhere, having been passed to a cousin for HIS children. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted January 4, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 4, 2020 When you achieve a nice balance between the space available an the layout you imagine where the fiddle yard cassettes and the run round loops and siding capacities are in harmony. It produces a happy result. When out of balance it is never quite so satisfactory. Currently I have a layout in mind which was planned for a 23ft x 9ft spce which since the move is now only 11ft 8in x 9ft something has to give. Don 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 22 hours ago, Nearholmer said: These insane locos were never integrated parts of railmotors, they had even more insane ones for that! They were designed as ‘free standing’ locos to pull/push driving trailers, after bad experience with the integrated engines, but they were too weedy and slippy. If only someone made accurate and reasonably priced Gatestock to go with it! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted January 4, 2020 Author Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) Well, the loco is a freelance interpretation (= toy), so would probably look wrong with anything too fine. I do like the idea suggested above, that a scale r-t-r version of the loco should be marketed, but we can’t have everything. Getting very tempted to ‘superdetail’ mine, though. The emerging back-story for the Nelliebahn assumes it to be a “one horse” independent railway, maybe four or five miles long, linking a small, but prosperous market town to the LSWR main line that passed it by, with the company-owned engine perennially out-of-service for some reason or another, causing LSWR locos to be hired-in. Clearly Nellie is the first choice of hire loco, but I’m thinking that a Terrier would be the second, then a B4 ...... the last is a bit unlikely, given that they were very much in-demand; more likely would be one of the old crocks that they replaced. Edited January 4, 2020 by Nearholmer 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted January 4, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) The GWR had route availability and power classes. I have a map of the system downloaded. The route availability was as follows;- Uncloured up to 14 tons Yellow up to 16 tons Blue up to 17 tons 12cwt Red up to 20 tons Double red up to 22tons 10cwt These by the way were proper imperial tons not those feeble US ones nor the slightly underweight metric ones we have today. There were some variations the 5700 class panniers were found to have a low hammer effect for their weight and reclassified as Yellow in 1950 although over the weight. One suspects there was some dispute about the Civil engineers needing to upgrade some routes and it was cheaper to reclassifiy the 5700s as they were widely available. The Dean Goods was light enough to be classed uncoloured and could hence go anywhere on the system. A characteristic that propbably made it so appealing for war work. During WW2 the main line between Taunton and Exeter was damaged by a bomb and trains had to be diverted via Dulverton. Both the Somerset and Devon and the Exe valley lines were classed Yellow. To run the Cornish Riveria Express special dispensation was given for a 61xx and a 43xx coupled together (both blue engines) to travel the route. This meant the CRE had to reverse direction at Dulverton and the up and down trains passed at Bampton on the Exe valley line. This I give as an excuse to run whatever you like. Don Edited January 4, 2020 by Donw 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted January 4, 2020 Author Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) The LSWR seem to have got into the ‘cheap and cheerful’ spirit of the 1896 LR Act, in that they used whatever old crocks they had, and bought a couple more from the LBSCR, on the LRs that they built/acquired. Axle-loading was always the thing on LRs, and their other smallish engines were quite heavy -footed. Even the joke-a-minute C14/S14 had an axle loading about 50% higher than a Terrier (same overall weight; one axle fewer). The IoW is the place to look for not-LRs, but a network that had very light track ..... it had to be upgraded to accept E1 and O2. I think that the ‘going rate’ generally for axle-loading on light track was c10 (maybe 12) Tons, on heavier track c16 Tons, and on main lines 20 Tons. Edited January 4, 2020 by Nearholmer 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted January 4, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 4, 2020 The number of dips and humps in the ex-railway cycleways on the IOW does suggest the track bed was not as substantial as most. Mind you I would think it a good place for a cycling holiday. Don 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 10 minutes ago, Donw said: The number of dips and humps in the ex-railway cycleways on the IOW does suggest the track bed was not as substantial as most. Mind you I would think it a good place for a cycling holiday. Don Yes. I've noticed that when walking on some of them. I don't though think they were converted to hard surfaced cycleways until 2003, certainly many years after their railways closed, some of them in the 1950s, so a lot may have happened to them in the meantime. Some sections were probably used as farm tracks with all sorts of heavy machinery disturbing them, others were probably overgrown with bushes and young trees, culverts may have collapsed, embankments removed, drainage not maintained, all of which could have turned a well built railway formation (even if it ever was) into something with a lot more undulations. The Island does advertise itself quite heavily as a good place for cycling, not least because of the converted railways which seem to form the basis of a number of the "family friendly" cycle routes. It's also a lot cheaper to take a bike to the Island (free for foot passengers on some routes I believe) than a car. Do you happen to know which of the former railways have been turned into hard cycleways? I did walk from Sandown aerodrome to Ventnor a few years ago and much of that was on the former trackbed from Shanklin to some way after Wroxall but my recollection was that it was either access road to various caravan sites etc at the Shanklin end, and you had to know it was a former railway, or fairly rough footpath further south. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted January 5, 2020 Author Share Posted January 5, 2020 (edited) Hmmm ...... never thought of going cycling to the IoW. Last time we went on holiday there, about five years ago, I thought it was very good in many respects (we had wonderful weather!), but seriously over-run with cars, which sort of dampened my enthusiasm for the place a bit, but looking at the cycling map (as below, but zoomed-in) there is some potential. Too busy to potter about with toy trains today, but I think the Nelliebahn might have a name and location: Shaston, which is what Hardy called Shaftesbury in Dorset. It's a perfect case of a prosperous town that never had a railway because although it is only two and a half miles from the LSWR main line it is about 650ft above it, on top of a big hill. The Nelliebahn is assumed to run from Shaston Road Station ((Semley station in reality) to a location just outside and below the town, so has a lot in common with Brill in Buckinghamshire, where Tram Hill (a very stiff climb indeed) separated the tramway station from the town. Even so, my fantasy railway must be quite heavily engineered to avoid the gradient being unfeasibly steep, but the steepness does help excuse using chunky engines on short trains. Edited January 5, 2020 by Nearholmer 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockershovel Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 (edited) I’m reminded here of the Leek and Manifold Valley cyclepath, which is DEFINITELY a former railway formation - indeed, you can freewheel most of its length, at least South of the tunnel, if you are heading in the appropriate direction. “Little Wonder” contains a good description of an early inspection of the FR, in which the distinction between the formation (which is described as “well maintained”, ie of good and consistent gradient and profile) and permanent way (which appears to suffer from just about, every problem or deficiency known to man) is clearly defined. Railway formations are solidly built structures. Some of the erstwhile formations of the Fen country, have endured as roads; the former industrial railways of the Northamptonshire ironstone field, can be traced with ease in many places, as low embankments and farm access ways. Edited January 5, 2020 by rockershovel 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted January 5, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 5, 2020 8 hours ago, Pacific231G said: Yes. I've noticed that when walking on some of them. I don't though think they were converted to hard surfaced cycleways until 2003, certainly many years after their railways closed, some of them in the 1950s, so a lot may have happened to them in the meantime. Some sections were probably used as farm tracks with all sorts of heavy machinery disturbing them, others were probably overgrown with bushes and young trees, culverts may have collapsed, embankments removed, drainage not maintained, all of which could have turned a well built railway formation (even if it ever was) into something with a lot more undulations. The Island does advertise itself quite heavily as a good place for cycling, not least because of the converted railways which seem to form the basis of a number of the "family friendly" cycle routes. It's also a lot cheaper to take a bike to the Island (free for foot passengers on some routes I believe) than a car. Do you happen to know which of the former railways have been turned into hard cycleways? I did walk from Sandown aerodrome to Ventnor a few years ago and much of that was on the former trackbed from Shanklin to some way after Wroxall but my recollection was that it was either access road to various caravan sites etc at the Shanklin end, and you had to know it was a former railway, or fairly rough footpath further south. Yes I do know about the routes I will put together some details. The route you mention from Sandown Airfield is only partly on old railway track. There is what was probably an old estate road from the road to Lake which becomes metalled closer to Shanklin where it is used to access Campsites where this rejoins the main roads you access the old track south of Shanklin where there is a good cycleway to Wroxall on the old railway line. The is a pathway from Wroxall up onto the Downs and you can see the site of Ventnor from above the station site is now an industrial site. For walkers the is another route which starts at the edge of Apse Heath runs to and through America Wood crosses the road and over the Shanklin Wroxall cycleway heads up to the Junction of Shanklin down and St Martins Down. However there is a cliff face with steps at one point which would not be much fun for cross country cyclists. Once on the Downs you can walk right round. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Northroader Posted January 5, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 5, 2020 Shaftesbury, did I hear? (You can go biking there, too) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6Mq59ykPnAE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted January 5, 2020 Author Share Posted January 5, 2020 Young man’s job, that is. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted January 5, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 5, 2020 I wonder whether they had people ready to catch him at the bottom. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold JohnR Posted January 5, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 5, 2020 Maybe Nellie could haul a Triang Clerestory coach, painted in Salmon & Brown? 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted January 5, 2020 Author Share Posted January 5, 2020 Yes, my mind was already beginning to wander in the direction of the old clerestory coaches, although it has also wandered in the direction of the almost universally derided Triang-Hornby four-wheelers too, and various other things. In fact, my mind simply wanders. I just had a look at your Upottery essay, and am much impressed by the ingenuity and recycling involved .......... there are people in another thread telling some poor newbie that its completely impossible to build a 00 BLT in 4ft length at the moment! 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted January 6, 2020 Author Share Posted January 6, 2020 Iteration No.978, which isn’t anything like a piano! Sketched this while eating my lunch, and I think it has a lot going for it ....... more yer ordinary BLT, and it seems to balance OK. 13 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Northroader Posted January 6, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 6, 2020 Looks good, are those grey bits spilt caviar? 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobbler Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 Ive seen BLT mentioned in numerous posts and threads.... What does it mean? Thanks Scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted January 6, 2020 Author Share Posted January 6, 2020 Branch line terminus. Or, in a sandwich context: bacon, lettuce and tomato. Which, despite Northroader's suggestions that I recline all day on a chaise-longue, wearing a silk dressing gown, sipping champagne, and snacking on caviar, is pretty much what I had for lunch today (the rest is true, he just got the lunch part wrong). 2 1 5 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockershovel Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) 19 hours ago, Nearholmer said: Branch line terminus. Or, in a sandwich context: bacon, lettuce and tomato. Which, despite Northroader's suggestions that I recline all day on a chaise-longue, wearing a silk dressing gown, sipping champagne, and snacking on caviar, is pretty much what I had for lunch today (the rest is true, he just got the lunch part wrong). Reverting to an earlier discussion, would that be one of the distinguishing points between the Ladybirds and the Hornby-Dublos? Surely the Ladybirds would be BL owners, if not founder members of a preserved line? Edited January 7, 2020 by rockershovel 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted January 7, 2020 Author Share Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) I can imagine the Ladybirds as just about stretching to a modest BL layout, although I have to say that I’d never really thought of either of them as having a tendency towards decadence. Mrs L certainly looks rather ‘prim and proper’, but I suppose it could be a case of ‘what goes on behind closed doors’. Anyhow, enough curtain-twitching for one day, and back to the Nelliebahn. The plan of yesterday certainly looks good when laid out, so I thinks it’s time to start pinning track to boards. The FY will simply be 2ft lengths of set-track, used as sliding cassettes for now (which probably means forever knowing me). The carriage shed road can probably protrude under the lane in a hidden tunnel, to emerge in the FY area and act as a bit of extra storage too. I had to take a ‘long crossing’ back to the shop to exchange for the bits of set-track, and with the balance got a wagon to help check clearances, lengths etc. It seems to have wooden sole bars, the livery looks plausible, but has it got too much in the way of brake-gear, and should the tops of the ends be slightly raised in a curve? Advice welcome, providing that it falls short of “take it back to the shop”. The merchant was based a bit far from Dorset, so maybe the Nelliebahn will have to move to somewhere in Surrey, maybe as the never-completed stub of the electric 'interurban'LR that was supposed to go across Chobham Common. https://wokinghistory.org/onewebmedia/151023.pdf That might involve rethinking the exit to the FY a bit, because that area doesnt have any really steep hills ....... there is a bit called 'The Steep' near where what used to be my grandparent's cottage is, but it is only steep by local standards! Lunch today is a bagel, in case anyone is interested. Edited January 7, 2020 by Nearholmer 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted January 7, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 7, 2020 The wagon could run on the LSWR if Mr Bowler had ordered some coal from Radstock and had been transferred from the S&D at Templecombe. But there is no way it would senibly have got to the end of a light railway in Dorset. Unless of course you changed the place name. You might also want to change the wagon number to 10. 101 wagons suggests rather a large concern. Otherwise all is looking good I feel. Don 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted January 7, 2020 Author Share Posted January 7, 2020 Yes, that's why I thought that moving the railway to Surrey might be necessary. My guess is that Mr Bowler was a fantasist, who owned only one wagon, but wanted to feel important, so gave it a big number. Brookwood wasn't exactly a metropolis c1910 (a necropolis yes, a metropolis no), and the station yard was quite small, so probably couldn't accommodate ten coal wagons, let alone a hundred. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted January 7, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, Nearholmer said: Yes, that's why I thought that moving the railway to Surrey might be necessary. My guess is that Mr Bowler was a fantasist, who owned only one wagon, but wanted to feel important, so gave it a big number. Brookwood wasn't exactly a metropolis c1910 (a necropolis yes, a metropolis no), and the station yard was quite small, so probably couldn't accommodate ten coal wagons, let alone a hundred. I wasn't sure if there was a lot of nearby places with a demand for coal. The cemetary wouldn't use much I think. Don 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now