Jump to content
 

Ogbourne


richbrummitt
 Share

Recommended Posts

Station building and signal box stand ins have been made. These were copied directly from MSWJR vol.1 since the drawings are thoughtfully reproduced at 2mm:1' :D They are size/shape suitable to Ogbourne. 

 

20200423_152706.jpg.614a1e0cfedc0ce06ea1ef55fa920896.jpg

 

The signal box is not the exact type but the size must be about right since Collingbourne had a similar number of levers. The station building has been shortened somewhat compared to the drawing of the type at Chiseldon and like locations too The window arrangements are therefore incorrect. The roofs look odd since they have to extended in height from the orthogonal views to avoid being short. I couldn't find any paper glue and opted for CA. Not the best choice: I stuck them to my fingers and tweezers several times and theres a hole in the non-viewing side of the signal box from separation.

 

I think a change the thread title is imminent. 

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

I updated the title of the thread to acknowledge that this has basically turned into Ogbourne. There's some differences: The real place is pretty much straight, although the line does a few wiggles to follow the contour lines around Marlborough just to the South; and the sidings are much shorter. The S bend adds visual interest and increases the divergence of the sidings from the main to enable them to be as long as they are so I feel that my choice here is valid. I thought that maybe this was an original location to have a model of but I did find a picture of a model of Ogbourne on the swindonsotherrailway website, presumably in 00. This is obviously of the later period since the picture is taken from a point that will not feature on my model but looking roughly South the view includes the GWR 'box that was built by American troops in the 40's. 

 

Current thoughts include the screening of the LH end, time period and whether an alternative reality is required. 

 

Regarding the screening of the LH end: The railway leaves a shallow cutting coming south through the station (R-L - the viewing side is from the East) onto an embankment over a bridge where there is a junction from the Marlborough to Swindon road into the village. Village might be an overstatement - it was possibly a hamlet. I like this idea and wonder if the hole in the sky will be disregarded with the mass of buildings and 'interest' being at the RH side. It's something that I can wait and see on a final decision. 

 

Regarding time period and bending reality: All my 2FS stock is early 1920's. That would be fine for the immediate post grouping era too. I have a very few wagons with 16" GW on. I really don't want to build much stock specific to this layout since the objective is build something in a short space of time that will try out methods and test my skills on scenery, something that historically I've never got too far with, before embarking on a slightly larger project. I'd like the stock to be usable on this other project rather than dilute effort. This is tied to the alternative reality: It was not until 1923 that the MSWJR line became the GWR, and there were all those red engines and red carriages still around. (I know most GWR carriages would have been red then too). Things do not change overnight though. Maybe the MSWJR vol.2 and vol.3 books by Mike Barnsley cover aspects of operation and changes post grouping with respect to motive power and rolling stock? Maybe it is plausible to suggest the line was sold or absorbed by the GWR earlier. That could mean more GW influence a little earlier with regard to some of the infrastructure and fittings, and also to suit the stock that I have and plan to build. 

 

Edited by richbrummitt
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to the catch points question, Rich, I've finally dug out a couple of pics that show them incorporated into a point where space is tight.  The real thing is the throat of the goods marshalling loops at Yeovil Pen Mill (ex-GWR in BR days) just inside the A30 road over-bridge, the 2FS track is the tandem turnout at the throat of the Yeovil Town goods yard - it is directly under a footbridge so you never get a photo of it, but it's exactly to scale taken from the LSWR & GWR 's own 1920 survey:

 

IMG_2684.JPG.2cfd4171b95c1d11f76a3be3ab40262e.JPG

 

image1-1.jpeg.ef5d3a81ea92aa530d2befb9ac60580a.jpeg

 

The Pen Mill one shows that the trap switch can be really quite short, so I'm sure you'd have room for something like that (single or double baldes) for Ogbourne.

 

Hope these might help,

 

Laurie

  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Since you changed the name,  to Ogbourne it immediately  attracted my attention since till 71 I used to regularly travel through.. 

Your paper models of the buildings are instantly recognisable,  I have a station baseboard for Collingbourne in plaster white at the moment... 

 

The MSWJR would have been better off if Midland / LSWR had taken over,  GWR didn't want the MSWJR,  they just didn't want the others to have it.  

 

I shall.follow this with interest. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, TheQ said:

Since you changed the name,  to Ogbourne it immediately  attracted my attention since till 71 I used to regularly travel through.. 

Your paper models of the buildings are instantly recognisable,  I have a station baseboard for Collingbourne in plaster white at the moment... 

 

The MSWJR would have been better off if Midland / LSWR had taken over,  GWR didn't want the MSWJR,  they just didn't want the others to have it.  

 

I shall.follow this with interest. 

 

Glad to have you along. I have an item of MR passenger rated stock, if that's any good? 

 

20200425_220310.jpg.250db43a6b9b11e3a19a1723d8cdf0c4.jpg

 

Probably just like the 'red" the GWR coaches will be when they're built and painted. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

MR,  had through carriages to Southampton on the MSWJR,  I'm guessing any item of passenger rated stock could have been taken as well. 

Certainly MSWJR bought MR carriages,  and most of their railway stock was to someone else's design. For instance their guards van were to a LSWR  Road Van pattern, with an additional roof support at the rear verandah. 

I need to find my copy of the Wild Swan  carriages and wagons book to see if that MR wagon had a MSWJR equivalent. 

 

Non passenger rated stock of course went everywhere anyway. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought GWR goods stock would have been very rare on the MSWJR certainly pre about 1926. Most of the traffic was Birmingham to Southampton. There was a later GW pick up freight Swindon Cheltenham Gloucester Stroud Swindon which ran for some years otherwise most goods seemed to be marshalled at Cheltenham Midland yard.  Most wagons would be MR or LNWR for Southampton, and from the other end LSWR if not private owner, but it was primarily export traffic so I guess most nortbound would be returning MR/ LNW etc stock. Trains were short in MSWJR days, about 27 wagons was max for the 4-4-0s I believe though the 2 X  2-6-0s were reputed to haul 60  Post 1940  43XX moguls double headed on 80 wagon trains to reduce track occupancy, special dispensation having been given D day build up and all that.   Locos will be a problem, they had 9(?) 4-4-0s. and 10(?) 0-6-0s and some (very) odd balls.   I had the MSWJR Vol 2 out of the library until the Monday before lockdown, dammit.

All passengers started at Cheltenham (Landsdown) Midland station, notable for one of the oldest station buildings in the world circa 1800. I believe. Many photos show  3 coach MSWJ trains waiting in the dock siding  for the midland train to detach the through coaches to add to the rear.   The MSWJ bought second hand Midland Compartment coaches and fitted them with electric lighting, no corridors,  I guess they were being replaces by corridor stock on the midland at the time.  Sounds like an interesting layout, lots of fast freight compared to other cross country routes, not much local freight as the main towns served also had GW or LSWR stations.  

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Being in the heart of GWR territory I suspect there would have been a fair amount of GWR wagons,  as the line would be a destination for stuff coming from the GWR. 

Certainly there would be trains even including GWR carriages ( and every other railway)  going to Ludgershall and Tidworth for/ from military exercises.  Deliveries of equipment and materials to the military would have come from wherever they were produced. 

 

GW wagons got everywhere,  in a book on Highland Railways, a just post grouping Photograph of Inverness  yard.. The majority of wagons were not HR,  but a large group were GW... 

 

That's annoying,  went to the railway books shelves,  The two copies of volume 1, the one of volume 2

And the volume 3 is missing.. Where did I put that.. 

Have you seen this thread?  There's a fair amount of info on MSWJR wagons.. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, TheQ said:

MR,  had through carriages to Southampton on the MSWJR,  I'm guessing any item of passenger rated stock could have been taken as well. 

Certainly MSWJR bought MR carriages,  and most of their railway stock was to someone else's design. For instance their guards van were to a LSWR  Road Van pattern, with an additional roof support at the rear verandah. 

I need to find my copy of the Wild Swan  carriages and wagons book to see if that MR wagon had a MSWJR equivalent. 

 

Non passenger rated stock of course went everywhere anyway. 

 

18 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

I would have thought GWR goods stock would have been very rare on the MSWJR certainly pre about 1926. Most of the traffic was Birmingham to Southampton. There was a later GW pick up freight Swindon Cheltenham Gloucester Stroud Swindon which ran for some years otherwise most goods seemed to be marshalled at Cheltenham Midland yard.  Most wagons would be MR or LNWR for Southampton, and from the other end LSWR if not private owner, but it was primarily export traffic so I guess most nortbound would be returning MR/ LNW etc stock. Trains were short in MSWJR days, about 27 wagons was max for the 4-4-0s I believe though the 2 X  2-6-0s were reputed to haul 60  Post 1940  43XX moguls double headed on 80 wagon trains to reduce track occupancy, special dispensation having been given D day build up and all that.   Locos will be a problem, they had 9(?) 4-4-0s. and 10(?) 0-6-0s and some (very) odd balls.   I had the MSWJR Vol 2 out of the library until the Monday before lockdown, dammit.

All passengers started at Cheltenham (Landsdown) Midland station, notable for one of the oldest station buildings in the world circa 1800. I believe. Many photos show  3 coach MSWJ trains waiting in the dock siding  for the midland train to detach the through coaches to add to the rear.   The MSWJ bought second hand Midland Compartment coaches and fitted them with electric lighting, no corridors,  I guess they were being replaces by corridor stock on the midland at the time.  Sounds like an interesting layout, lots of fast freight compared to other cross country routes, not much local freight as the main towns served also had GW or LSWR stations.  

 

It seems my fears are not wrong-founded. Thank you for your valuable input. It would have to be GWR days then, probably late enough that the canopies &c. will have been repainted. Maybe an altered history needs to be assumed and/or written? Most of the stock in pictures in the vol.1 book is GWR, although there are some SR moguls and a mix of coaching stock. I'm second guessing myself now and wondering; should I rethink again?

 

The fact that most things would not stop freight wise is an intention of modelling such a location for me. It seems Ogbourne never generated enough traffic to get a weighbridge and that will suit the fact that my coupling choice puts everyone off from an exhibition perspective. At home anything is fair game. Operationally and topologically there is much of interest in the layout that places like a goods only station/loop or bay of a larger station do not offer and being able to drop and add the odd bit off NPCS into the dock appeals. The fiddle yards  already exist and the length is limited as @bcnPete posted about a few back on the last page. Trains in pictures are generally short (2-4 coaches) and should be able to fit. An example in one picture in the book that I particularly like is PT 1520 with (from the engine) a pair of horseboxes, a pair of coaches and a pair of cattle vans. I did look at Burbage Wharf using the road overbridge and the goods shed as the view blockers to exit the layout and stations with an overbridge on the platform, such as Savernake, to form a scenic break. These locations have the potential to be built into a larger layout in the future but need very long off stage areas for the trains that should feature and the latter is entirely within a cutting - geographically a poor choice for a layout in my opinion. Lambourn bay at Didcot (knowing this has already been done) figured in my thinking too. This has some appeal but realistically would basically be railcar 18 and horseboxes over and over alternating with one or two other trains. For the reasons given (and probably some others) they've all been disregarded. 

 

Hmmm.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

If we modelled and operated any station on the MSWJR as per the real thing,  the visitors to shows would be bored to tears.  Half a dozen trains each way each day ish is not viewing material.  Compromises for a exhibition layout are always required. 

 

One of the nicknames of the line was I believe "the milky way",  which gives one idea for rail traffic,  but in churns not tankers.  Horse traffic of course,  and for you through military traffic.  A train of tanks or artillery or carriages from any company  of what ever date you choose would be possible. 

 

My choices for the layout were for family connections Ludgershall because I lived there,  several relatives,  worked on or around the line there.  Collingbourne because my mum was born nearby,  and another branch of the family owned the engineering works alongside the line. 

Ludgershall is way to big for an exhibition about 16ft long 6ft wide without fiddle yards in N and I'm working on modelling it in EM. 

Collingbourne station platforms are a fraction over 300ft long about 4ft in EM but the sidings are so long they would have to be bent,  and shortened for exhibitions. This may still eventually occur as a second show layout. 

Whilst I'll be modelling 27th May 1940, rule one means I intend to build eventually a MSWJR fleet and be able to back date the running. 

 

As it is having started the above, I then inherited a model railway ( N gauge)  actually built on Tiree , totally fictional,  but as I went to School on the Kyle line,  I've extended the fiction and am rebuilding that as the main exhibition layout. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TheQ said:

If we modelled and operated any station on the MSWJR as per the real thing,  the visitors to shows would be bored to tears.  Half a dozen trains each way each day ish is not viewing material.  Compromises for a exhibition layout are always required. 

 

There were still 8 different trains each way over the northern less busy part of the line in 1956.   That's more than most single track branch lines, many of which had two, one a daily or M,W,F , or Tu, Th, Sat only goods, and the same B set or Auto shuttling back and forth with the same engine all day.  Add in the Swindon - Marlborough workmen's and almost certainly a Swindon Marlborough local and it gets more interesting especially if trains pass in the loop.  Say 10 train sets. Many rosters were Passenger one way and Goods the other, so 10 locos and 10 trains   somewhere round 16 combinations per day,   It might bore the operators but it will take a fair old time to run that sequence even with 2 X Fiddle yard operators re marshalling trains.

Luckily the out via the MSWJR back via Stroud goods didn't run through Ogborne or that would have been a challenge to sneak from one Fiddle yard to the other.   

The big MSWJR modelling problem pre WW2 is locos.   MSWJR 4-4-0s both Taper boiler, parallel boiler and twin dome boiler, till about 1938 and from 1923 GWR Dukes and the small wheeled double framed 4-4-0s were the mainstay of the passenger and through freights and none are available RTR, with the 0-6-0s swiftly rebuilt with taper boilers post 1923 assisting till circa 1938.  The Peco 2251 can be carved in to a facsimile  of one of these 0-6-0s.  Panniers for the workmans ( the Swindon works shunters hauled the workmans trains certainly in later years)  and 45XX for the locals are easier to source, as are the 43XX, 78XX and 28XX which came later.  BR days is a problem as no one makes the various U classes the SR sent over the line to Cheltenham, both ex Rivers and those built as U's. Not so bad in OO as 98% of people can't tell the difference between an N and a U anyway.  Bigger problem for the northern end in late BR days is the lack of those supremely ugly Swindon built DMU sets destined for Scotland which were tested between Swindon and Andoversford.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Ah I had forgotten to add in the freight.

 The OP modelling in N his choices of loco are even more limited than me in EM. 

Though I have the same problem on my N gauge HR railway,  I'm always looking at N gauge RTR locos to see what can be butchered into something more appropriate. 

 

The MSWJR would dispute you calling it a branch line,  it had through express trains.... 

 

 

 

 

If somewhat slowly 

Edited by TheQ
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've long since accepted there's not much R-T-R N gauge that is worthwhile to me hence I went 2mm almost 17 years ago. If you want one you figure out how to make one. 

 

About 7 trains in a days sequence makes some sense. The fiddle yard boards were designed to have four tracks on each from the looks of them. 

 

Branch line is unkind to a company for whom it was their main or only line. Cross country route would be the best description I think...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, richbrummitt said:

I've long since accepted there's not much R-T-R N gauge that is worthwhile to me hence I went 2mm almost 17 years ago. If you want one you figure out how to make one. 

I quite agree Richard. For me the enjoyment is in the making of what I want from scratch - be that in 2D CAD design for etch artwork, 3D CAD modelling for 3D printing or full on cutting and filing bits of metal to make an engine from scratch. I count myself lucky that since returning to railway modelling I have the time available to allow me to do that (in fact the return was due to having the time!)

Ian

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

With the rail arrangement being close to completion another plonk and check of clearances siding lengths view blocks and the like. 

 

20200425_215719.jpg.1f56308470097f9cbd188c8b13ec1a78.jpg

 

Clearly two layers of corrugated box for the platforms is more than required. 

 

Still undecided in the left hand exit, maybe a rollercoaster to a vertical fiddle yard? 

 

20200425_215854.jpg.787eea0d3235cc2dfb9dfa66e3dbfbba.jpg

 

The packing is to make the station area level over the pre-existing terraforming. The final ground level will probably be a little lower compared to the backscene.

 

I'm feeling pretty happy about the arrangement now so the detail needs adding to the Templot now like timber shoving and sleeper/rail rolling. I'm thinking to build the whole lot on a separate base for insertion into the existing baseboard. 

 

I've also been looking at the fiddle yards again but more on that another time.

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Building the track on a sub-board would be a very useful way of being able to get at it from all sides during construction, which I find quite beneficial. Especially when waving the soldering iron around.....

 

Izzy

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Building the track on a sub-board would be a very useful way of being able to get at it from all sides during construction, which I find quite beneficial. Especially when waving the soldering iron around.....

 

Izzy

 

Yes, and I'm thinking to do it with the whole lot here. Should help to get all the turnouts working with mechanisms installed too whilst access is good. That's one big reason Littlemore stalled. There I built the crossing work separately but fixed it to a ply sub bed and then tried to add the TOUs. Later I had to change the operation style and mechanisms and I've really struggled. 

Edited by richbrummitt
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 20/04/2020 at 07:04, martin_wynne said:

Both of those turnouts need to be changed to curviform type V-crossings. This will improve the line of the curves and make more space.

 

I have now made a video to explain this a bit more:

 

 https://flashbackconnect.com/Movie.aspx?id=pu2F-wveux5-EWGYuqPd3g2

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, richbrummitt said:

 

Yes, and I'm thinking to do it with the whole lot here. Should help to get all the turnouts working with mechanisms installed too whilst access is good. That's one big reason Littlemore stalled. There I built the crossing work separately but fixed it to a ply sub bed and then tried to add the TOUs. Later I had to change the operation style and mechanisms and I've really struggled. 


I have faced the same kind of issues when trying to fit any kind of tiebar after laying trackwork in 2mm. Certain aspects like this that are no problems in larger scales can become so I find, which is why with Priory Road’s pointwork I attached the tou’s to it before laying. So I knew they worked and could be moved however I chose. This has turned out to be mechanically at present, but hacked servos might make an appearance instead someday. 
 

Izzy

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Over the weekend I made a start on the fiddle yard track. The fiddle yards themselves are traverser type made primarily from laser cut perspex, as already seen. The idea is that the stored trains / stock are also on display to counter the fact that the scenic section is only around a third of the total length. I therefore wanted as clean finish as possible. I've removed all the webs and fixed every other sleeper on the easitrac sprues with an acrylic double sided tissue adhesive tape sold for electronic device repair, which is black and comes on a roll slit at 2mm wide. 

 

20200427_225953.jpg.ea2220b1055f182d2feef76d46284f74.jpg

 

Electrical tape was carefully placed as a temporary straight edge to fix against and the picture shows things underway on the first line. At the bottom there is a PCB sleeper for strength at the end where most vulnerable.  It's also right where the holes have been pre-cut for electric feed. 

 

Threading the rail is a challenge unless it is well prepared as described in the book Track... over even a short length. The adhesive tape, despite being very thin, can move a bit. I've shown to myself it should be possible to put down sleepers first and rail afterwards. On the layout I'm now planning to do this and paint the sleepers and ballast prior to adding the rail. Here's the current state of one fiddle yard with two lines now in place.

 

20200502_213513.jpg.ab03d8188b362ff286bc0fa2abe4478b.jpg

 

The rails need fixing to the PCB sleeper and trimming to length still. I'm pleased with the display appearance, although I should have tidied up more, and despite the time taken to separate all the webs and individually apply tape to the sleepers it seems to be worth it. I'm also pleased that this aspect of the layout is done early rather than the afterthought that fiddle yards might otherwise become. Time only will tell how well the adhesive lasts!

  • Like 11
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I've been working through the track plan on the Templot forum here

 

That's taken a little while but in between I have laid the other two tracks on the one fiddle yard. The other has a single track laid on it for now. Put next to the layout there will be a height mismatch.

 

20200516_223901.jpg.9467deda308bdfea5dd9ae8cb59053e7.jpg

 

How to align and maintain that alignment between will need to be sorted out properly, but not much point until the final rail height on the scenic board is known. It would be fun to run some trains through though. :scratchhead:

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Adjustable feet with proper rubber pads is working well for me. Not sure how to do it in a way that fits the elegant see-through design you've got there, though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...