Nick Gough Posted September 2, 2020 Share Posted September 2, 2020 The Timber Tracks kits look as though they make up into nice models and had it been a simple alteration I would have gone for it, but I'm not going to risk major surgery at that price! My daughter was caught out by the weather this afternoon, with a full line of washing. Of course we happened to be driving past her house when it started raining, but didn't know! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJS1977 Posted September 2, 2020 Share Posted September 2, 2020 On 04/07/2020 at 14:12, Nick Gough said: You're welcome Paul. I don't recall whether you plan to include any of the station in your layout? I have a number of similar vintage photos of most of the buildings. This is the branch platform Trainshed: It is currently being re-erected at Wallingford on the preserved line. Almost finished - I think the last roof panels went on last week. Just the painting to finish and then the scaffolding can come down! :-) 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Gough Posted September 3, 2020 Share Posted September 3, 2020 9 hours ago, RJS1977 said: Almost finished - I think the last roof panels went on last week. Just the painting to finish and then the scaffolding can come down! :-) Looking forward to seeing it at its new home. I understand its removal wasn't carried out as carefully as it could have been? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tallpaul69 Posted September 3, 2020 Author Share Posted September 3, 2020 15 hours ago, RJS1977 said: Almost finished - I think the last roof panels went on last week. Just the painting to finish and then the scaffolding can come down! :-) Feel free to post any pics of the completed installation here? It is always great when a unique item of railway infrastructure is preserved and repurposed. I hope my model of the same will do the original justice! The main problem with the model is its location where its straight structure has to hide a sharp curve, Fortunately, my model train shed is partly hidden from view by my model of the Goods Shed and its extension. I have had to move the goods shed and its extension because my goods yard site is too narrow to house the goods shed. I will repost below the sketch plans of this area, originally posted a month or so ago to explain the above comments:- Goods Shed and Train Shed area showing the curve under the Train Shed behind the Goods Shed The narrow goods yard between the High Wycombe Branch and the Relief Lines- room only for the up relief loop and the coal sidings! Cheers Paul 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJS1977 Posted September 3, 2020 Share Posted September 3, 2020 12 hours ago, Nick Gough said: Looking forward to seeing it at its new home. I understand its removal wasn't carried out as carefully as it could have been? Well,put it this way, it was dismantled using chain saws and gas axes! I passed through Maidenhead station as it was taken down and (not knowing it was supposed to be coming to us) thought "That's a shame, we could have had that." Two days later I was at Wallingford and found all the bits in the car park. Given that, then, it's an absolute miracle both by the contractors and our Chairman that it's back together in (almost) one piece - 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tallpaul69 Posted September 4, 2020 Author Share Posted September 4, 2020 Unfortunately, Maidenhead Station lost some of it's character when the train shed went. On my visit there last summer, I thought that it was now just another WR suburban station! Such is progress(?). Meanwhile back home, postie was busy this morning delivering my subscription Hornby Magazine, and a LNER liveried Mallard bought on the dreaded 'Bay to go with the A4 TTS decoder I acquired some time ago. This will haul a preserved special of some of my BR liveried Gresleys. I have had a soft shot for A4s ever since early 60s spotting trips to Hitchin where I enjoyed them sailing through! I also visited AGR and returned with my first EFE Rail purchase, a weathered china clay hopper, to go with the two pristine versions I bought when they came out first time round. These will go on the "modern" incarnation of Lower Thames Yard, where Rule 1 allows that some of the sidings remained in use until recently! This incarnation does mean that my Goods Shed and Train shed will have to be removable for modern running. It also means that I have to get the right blend of architecture on the model so that changing eras does not mean wholesale changes of buildings. The street furniture will probably be the most difficult area. I am lucky that my eldest son is an architect and spends a lot of time ensuring the supermarkets he designs blend well into the surrounding buildings. All new items are currently undergoing "decontamination" in one corner of our conservatory, so I will have to be patient until tomorrow. Hope you are all safe, and making progress with your modelling? Regards Paul 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tallpaul69 Posted September 5, 2020 Author Share Posted September 5, 2020 Well, the Mallard, has turned out to be a saga! Was advertised as a R3371, but was in a unlabeled Hornby box and turned out to be something like a mid 90s tender drive R077! So the only thing right from my point of view was the livery. Seems this lady is selling items on behalf of her father in law and that he gave her the wrong loco! She is giving me full credit without any argument and will credit me my return postage. I thought we might be able to do a swap but she thinks the R3371 went to a dealer (probably at a R077 price)! So back to the Bay!! Keep smiling! Paul 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Gough Posted September 5, 2020 Share Posted September 5, 2020 Paul I've just come across this page on the internet: http://www.mrol.com.au/Pages/Vu/ModellingTetburyGoodsShed Might be helpful? 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tallpaul69 Posted September 6, 2020 Author Share Posted September 6, 2020 Well spotted Nick!, l had looked a couple of times for details on sheds such as Tetbury and not found anything. I think the details in the article will save me quite a bit of time in making Maidenhead Goods Shed. I will have to look out for a copy of the GWR Branch Lines Book mentioned. I have seen it on sales stands at exhibitions in the past but because at the time I had no interest in the branches covered I didn't buy it. Meanwhile the hunt is on via the Bay for a replacement for the LNER livery Mallard. Am bidding on one, which finishes in about 6 days, so we must wait and see! Best regards Paul 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tallpaul69 Posted September 8, 2020 Author Share Posted September 8, 2020 Today has been one of those odd days! This morning we had an earth quake! Apparently the epicentre was somewhere to the north of us here in Leighton Buzzard . It registered 3.7 on the scale which I understand is quite strong for the UK. We just heard two "thumps" and a few things jumped around. I was in the house at the time, so then spent the rest of the morning checking that everything was ok in the railway room, my workshop and the garage. Luckily nothing seemed to have jumped off any of the shelves or anywhere. Meanwhile my wife had been round the house and given the all clear. So, wondering if we might make the main news on TV at 6pm, or whether we just get a mention in the Look East at 6.30. Haven't heard of any damage to any one's property or anything. Still took everyone's mind off the Virus for a while! Started on plans for Maidenhead Goods Shed this afternoon. Scrapped the first version after an hour or so as it didn't look right. So, as they say, back to the drawing board. Best regards Paul 1 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 5BarVT Posted September 8, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 8, 2020 3 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said: we might make the main news on TV at 6pm You made internet news on BBC ‘cos I thought of you and wondered if the trains had stayed on the track when I read it was LBZ. Paul. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tallpaul69 Posted September 9, 2020 Author Share Posted September 9, 2020 17 hours ago, 5BarVT said: You made internet news on BBC ‘cos I thought of you and wondered if the trains had stayed on the track when I read it was LBZ. Paul. Luckily, no damage to us or our home. The effects of the quake seem to have varied widely around the LB area and were not linear with distance. It may be something to do with where there are fissures in the ground and any in line with the epicenter magnified the effect, but I am no geologist! The area is largely sand, clay and chalk. All three have in times past been extracted in large quantities, sand is still being extracted. So it could be that there are similar effects to what you get in old coal mining areas? Anyway, no real damage done anywhere although the Look East reporter, who we did not previously know lived here, did say in his report about a couple of new cracks in his house walls! So back to modelling. Not feeling like any drawing today, so the goods shed plans will have to wait. Having fitted Kadees to a number of trucks, have started looking at fitting them to a loco or two. I will be seeing what info is about on RMWeb to help me. Take care all, and by the latest virus statistics, looks like we should steer clear of the younger folk! Best regards Paul 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Gough Posted September 11, 2020 Share Posted September 11, 2020 Just to complicate your plan drawing - if you're working from the Tetbury plans - I now believe the windows on Maidenhead shed were slightly taller. If you look at the last two photos I posted on my Cholsey thread you might be able to see the difference. When I can I'll post a couple of close ups that show there are more brick courses at Maidenhead. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Gough Posted September 11, 2020 Share Posted September 11, 2020 Paul If you count the brick courses from the bottom of the blue brick arches (at the top of each window), to the top of the window sill, there are 24 courses at Maidenhead and 22 at Tetbury: Also, from the bottom of the window sill to the top of the splayed plinth brinks I count 29 courses at Maidenhead and 27 at Tetbury. Finally, above the windows, I count 6 courses of corbelled bricks below the guttering, at Maidenhead, and 5 courses at Tetbury. Therefore I estimate that the windows are approximately 6 inches taller at Maidenhead and the whole shed is approximately 1 foot 3 inches higher - so much for GWR standardisation! As far as I can tell the width dimensions of the various features remain the same for both. I hope this helps and doesn't cause too much of a problem? 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tallpaul69 Posted September 11, 2020 Author Share Posted September 11, 2020 Nick, Nothing cut yet, so no problem. In fact, this may partly explain why my first drawing didn't look right! I hope to get going on drawings Mk2 this weekend. Your detail photos will be useful in other aspects of the shed, so thanks for doing those. Meanwhile, today I have been on a trip to Bedford to pick up some weathered stock from my mate Malcolm. Not quite as easy as it sounds because being without a car we are dependent on the buses, and need to catch two for each journey. So left home at 0840, got home at 13.40, but only had an hour and a quarter in Bedford. These items went over there just before lockdown, but with my wife shielding then Bedford having a spike, followed by Luton having a spike (some of the buses I need to use start there) , I judged it had to be now before we all get restricted again!! I'll unpack them tomorrow and post a few picks. Regards to Nick, and everyone else reading this thread, Take care all, Paul 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium St Enodoc Posted September 11, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 11, 2020 5 hours ago, Nick Gough said: Therefore I estimate that the windows are approximately 6 inches taller at Maidenhead and the whole shed is approximately 1 foot 3 inches higher - so much for GWR standardisation! Perhaps Tetbury was designed for H0 scale? 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Gough Posted September 12, 2020 Share Posted September 12, 2020 8 hours ago, St Enodoc said: Perhaps Tetbury was designed for H0 scale? Perhaps the contractor was doing it on the cheap, and ripping off the company? 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tallpaul69 Posted September 12, 2020 Author Share Posted September 12, 2020 19 hours ago, Nick Gough said: Paul If you count the brick courses from the bottom of the blue brick arches (at the top of each window), to the top of the window sill, there are 24 courses at Maidenhead and 22 at Tetbury: Also, from the bottom of the window sill to the top of the splayed plinth brinks I count 29 courses at Maidenhead and 27 at Tetbury. Finally, above the windows, I count 6 courses of corbelled bricks below the guttering, at Maidenhead, and 5 courses at Tetbury. Therefore I estimate that the windows are approximately 6 inches taller at Maidenhead and the whole shed is approximately 1 foot 3 inches higher - so much for GWR standardisation! As far as I can tell the width dimensions of the various features remain the same for both. I hope this helps and doesn't cause too much of a problem? Guess the standardisation was in the overall look not necessarily in the actual sizes! If you think about it many GWR built stations are similar, but each is adapted to the constrains of the site and the needs of the service? I might just use the "Tetbury" sizings especially if I decide the shed needs to be a bit shorter than it really was. Cheers Paul 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Gough Posted September 12, 2020 Share Posted September 12, 2020 Paul I have sent you a message. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tallpaul69 Posted September 14, 2020 Author Share Posted September 14, 2020 Before commencing my second attempt at drawings for my version of Maidenhead Goods Shed, I have been giving some thought to the Shed Offices. On the real goods shed the offices were on the London end of the shed. However my shed is not a through shed as such although the track will pass through the London end wall, to terminate against the back (Reading end) wall of the Station Buildings. As drawn on the track plan sketches (posted a couple of times in earlier posts!), the road side London end corner of the goods shed also meets the station building .back wall because the two buildings are at an angle to each other due to them being on a curve in the track not on straight track. I could move the whole goods shed in the Reading direction which would as well as allowing space for the goods shed offices, allow the track through the goods shed to run a more realistic distance outside the London end of the shed. The downside of this is that it would reduce the length of the track clear of the goods shed for stock waiting to enter the goods shed. Another alternative would be to reduce the length of the goods shed so that its Reading end remains where it is currently shown, but the London end moves westward to allow room for the offices. This might be the best solution but I need to take care that the proportions of the shed remain believable! This could be achieved either by reducing the length of the 12 bays in the shed or by reducing the number of bays from 12 to say somewhere between 10 and 8? Reducing the width of the bays means reducing the width of the windows and also of the two road loading bays. Reducing the number of bays affects the proportions of the shed and the position of the road loading bays. So, I think I will sketch out both ideas and see what they look like. It also occurs to me that there is a benefit from the London end of the Goods Shed moving away from the Station Buildings. Doing this will allow a view over the Goods Shed Offices of the outside wall of the Bay Platform Train Shed. A difficulty with this is that, ideally, to block the view of the curve of the track through the Train Shed, it should move towards the Station Buildings, but this brings it further onto the sharper part of the track curve, which may make it difficult to maintain the straight side to the Train Shed! More on all this to follow! Regards Paul 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tallpaul69 Posted September 15, 2020 Author Share Posted September 15, 2020 I promised some pics of the kit built items that Malcolm has painted and weathered for me, so here they are:- A few points to bear in mind:- 1) The track they are standing on is some gash pieces that I use for taking photos , so the connections are not what I would have in running track. 2) These items have not been numbered, that is not one of Malcolm's skills, and I can live with that! 3) I apologise for the light source reflecting off some items. I thought the area too dark, not expecting the light behind the models to somehow reflect. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Neal Ball Posted September 16, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 16, 2020 On 12/09/2020 at 15:35, Tallpaul69 said: Guess the standardisation was in the overall look not necessarily in the actual sizes! If you think about it many GWR built stations are similar, but each is adapted to the constrains of the site and the needs of the service? I might just use the "Tetbury" sizings especially if I decide the shed needs to be a bit shorter than it really was. Cheers Paul Of course the other variable is that all the structures were built by local contractors. Presumably the plans though were still drawn by Swindon... On 14/09/2020 at 15:51, Tallpaul69 said: ......Another alternative would be to reduce the length of the goods shed so that its Reading end remains where it is currently shown, but the London end moves westward to allow room for the offices. This might be the best solution but I need to take care that the proportions of the shed remain believable! This could be achieved either by reducing the length of the 12 bays in the shed or by reducing the number of bays from 12 to say somewhere between 10 and 8? Reducing the width of the bays means reducing the width of the windows and also of the two road loading bays. Reducing the number of bays affects the proportions of the shed and the position of the road loading bays. So, I think I will sketch out both ideas and see what they look like...... More on all this to follow! Regards Paul I had a similar issue when I original designed the Henley station building and overall roof. You wouldn't see it now, but its length has been shortened by 2 bays, that saved about 60mm or so. My concern was that I would not have enough room for a decent length platform beyond the overall roof to run 6 carriage trains. As it turns out, I needn't have worried about it, I could have made it longer having made the move to Spain. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tallpaul69 Posted September 17, 2020 Author Share Posted September 17, 2020 On 05/09/2020 at 14:36, Tallpaul69 said: Well, the Mallard, has turned out to be a saga! Was advertised as a R3371, but was in a unlabeled Hornby box and turned out to be something like a mid 90s tender drive R077! So the only thing right from my point of view was the livery. Seems this lady is selling items on behalf of her father in law and that he gave her the wrong loco! She is giving me full credit without any argument and will credit me my return postage. I thought we might be able to do a swap but she thinks the R3371 went to a dealer (probably at a R077 price)! So back to the Bay!! Keep smiling! Paul Update:- I have got my money and return postage back, and also found another Mallard, which arrived today and is A OK!! Re Neal's comment about Spain, I don't think that is going to be on our agenda anytime soon Virus or no Virus. The 10 mile house move here 3 years ago, was enough to be going on with, thanks very much!! However, there are plans afoot to rejig the layout plan which will give more room for the yard and allow the goods shed to be in its correct position. So, watch this space. Take care All 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tallpaul69 Posted September 21, 2020 Author Share Posted September 21, 2020 Good Morning All, Unfortunately, the guys down to build the layout have concluded that they cannot see when in the future they can start again building complex layouts such as mine, which they do not want to commence unless they are certain that they can complete them. Most of them are of an age where the effect of the Virus would not be mild or short term. They have suggested that what is feasible is something that can be build in phases and would be operational to some extent after phase 1. My layout as currently planned can only be built in phases if built on site, and I just don't have the skills to do that! So they have suggested that one of their "standard" designs, which is self contained, could be expanded slightly to sit in one 12ft x 4ft side of my 12ft 8ft hobby room and is within their current capabilities. I am going along with this, but it does mean that Maidenhead can no longer be the basis of the layout. Sol the work that has gone into researching the Train Shed and the Goods Shed will not see light of day as a model, although it al helps with my GWR/WR knowledge, so is not wasted. Currently, I am working up a version of Thame on the Oxford to Princes Risborough line, and in my miniature world this would have survived as a useful diversion route! In its real life, this line saw a quite wide range of locos from 14xx up to Castles, as well as things like Black 5s. Also Thame had an overall roof, so the structural details of Maidenhead train shed walls will come in handy. While Thame was quite long , and on a single track, again in my world it has double track and is shorter by reason of the sidings are beside the station rather than along from it. I am possibly going to call the layout "Maybe Thame"! I have the key books on the line, and one contains the 1935 working timetable, so I will use this for the basis of slightly busier than reality 1960/2 workings. I did look at Princes Risborough with its still existing large Signal box, but like Maidenhead this would require too much length. So, once I have reached an agreement with the layout builders, I will start a new thread, and post here what it is called! Meanwhile, I will probably post a few more details on rolling stock etc. which will carry over to the new layout Thanks to everyone for their input and reactions to this thread. Best regards Paul 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 5BarVT Posted September 21, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 21, 2020 You may well know this from your timetable research; one of the Paddington Northern Lines parcels went via Thame well into the 60s. Paul. 1 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