Bath Queen Square

[Rowsley17D]

Hi Jerry a bit of a late-comer to your thread but have been following with interest. Your coaling stage intrigues me as the inside could be similar to the one at Buxton Midland loco although theirs had a four gabled roof. Do I take it the locos were coaled by a hoist?

[Compound2632]

The Bath coal stage seems to be of the type that was standard at Midland sheds built in the 1860s - 1880s but was replaced at many sheds in the late 1890s by a larger design with a ramp up for the loco coal wagons, as seen here:

 

 

 

NRM DY 2115.

 

There are a few photos of the earlier design of stage in C. Hawkins and G. Reeve, LMS Engine Sheds Vol. 2 (Wild Swan, 1981). Mannigham (Bradford) had a large one that survived to the end, Lincoln had a really diddy one that didn't cover the loco coal wagon siding but just sat between the tracks. They must have been much more labour intensive than the 1890s design which made much better use of gravity.

 

EDIT: looking at 25" maps on the National Library of Scotland website, I think Saltley and Holbeck had these high-level coaling stages by 1890 but Kentish Town didn't get one until c. 1900.

Edited March 17, 2019 by Compound2632

[queensquare]

16 hours ago, Rowsley17D said:

Hi Jerry a bit of a late-comer to your thread but have been following with interest. Your coaling stage intrigues me as the inside could be similar to the one at Buxton Midland loco although theirs had a four gabled roof. Do I take it the locos were coaled by a hoist?

 

Hi Jonathan, as Compound says,  the Midland coal stage at Bath was the earlier type with a coal hoist. It was demolished in 1938 to make way for a bigger turntable so consequently pictures of it are like hens teeth, probably the best one I have is on page 30 of this thread. 

 

Jerry

[Rowsley17D]

The photo and your model seem to convey what Buxton's coaling stage arrangements seem to have been. Some photos from the web.

 

 

Photos from the early 30s by W Potter and E R Morton. As you say, locos tended to get in the way. (Coal wagons were pushed up a slight incline into the stage*) but in one photo in a book I have shows part of a hoist to coal the engines. What I cannot understand is why the earlier built one at Rowsley old shed had the same type as at Bath yet the later one at Buxton was of an older, less efficient, design. Perhaps there was not enough room for the incline to be high enough?

 

* I have since found out from another photo that there was no delivery incline, the line was on the same level as the rest of the yard.

Edited March 17, 2019 by Rowsley17D
New information

[queensquare]

It's amazing that no matter how long we pour over photos we still only see those things we are looking for. Looking through the relevant Hawkins and Reeve volume on LMS engine sheds it occurred to me that the location of the water columns might be marked on the maps  - and they were, well it was, there's only one, right outside the coal stage!  Armed with this knowledge  I went back to the best two photos of the coal stage I have and there it is, starring me in the face. Not only that but careful study of the picture of 155 also suggest that the ash pit was opposite the stage as well.

 

 

The slightly disapointing result of this newly acquired knowledge knowledge is that the water column is of the rather dull, but easy to make, stand pipe variety rather than the much more attractive and curvaceous Midland standard water crane with its potential for animation.

 

The wooden building to the left of 155 is the SDJR coal stage with loco coal being delivered in an LNWR open.

 

Jerry

Edited March 17, 2019 by queensquare

[queensquare]

All the track is now laid and awaiting TOUs and wiring up. The last few inches of track are left 'flexi', the joy of Easitrac, so that when the time comes to join it permanently to the rest of the layout there is a little wiggle room. I'm really enthused by this little scene. A single handed project on the scale of Bath can sometimes be a bit daunting but doing it in these bite size chunks makes it very manageable and is an approach I will certainly use for other parts of the layout.

 

 

On a related issue, I'd like to enter the shed for the jubilee challenge but, as I said in an earlier post, it's too big at around 3' x10". I think I can sneak the extra .58 inch depth past the judges (nobody tell them!!) but the length is a dead giveaway. There are two options, I try and blag a scenic fiddle yard (unlikely to meet with approval but worth a try) or make up a simple backscene that will drop over and reduce the scene to the requisite 2'. I propped a sheet of paper in place as a mock up and all looks ok  - I will contact the steering committee and see what they say.

 

 

Jerry

Edited March 24, 2019 by queensquare
Edited to remove forty years from the challenge!

[Yorkshire Square]

Bring it anyway. Who cares about rules and stuff? 

[2mm Andy]

centenary challenge? I think you might be about 40 years too early...

 

Andy

[Ian Smith]

4 minutes ago, 2mm Andy said:

centenary challenge? I think you might be about 40 years too early...

 

Andy

He's still got to finish it yet! ;-)

[queensquare]

44 minutes ago, 2mm Andy said:

centenary challenge? I think you might be about 40 years too early...

 

Andy

Well spotted Andy although the  full Bath project may need that long;:-))

 

So, is Bath Midland  shed elligable?

 

Getting it finished?- its over a year away so no problem there. As for filling it with fully painted locos........

 

Jerry

Edited March 22, 2019 by queensquare

[richbrummitt]

49 minutes ago, queensquare said:

As for filling it with fully painted locos........

 

If you're short a splendid red engine I can loan you James 

[Caley Jim]

11 hours ago, richbrummitt said:

 

If you're short a splendid red engine I can loan you James 

And I can give you some nice blue ones (without any fancy faces)!  

 

Jim

[2mm Andy]

Jerry,

 

Ping me a quick email and i'll forward it to the rest of the "steering committee" (who aren't on RMWeb) for discussion. 

 

thanks,

 

Andy

[queensquare]

This morning, with the aid of some card and ply offcuts and a couple of clothes pegs, I mocked up a proscenium arch with a 600mm viewing opening which can be temporarily fixed to the front of the shed to see how it would look, areas outside the 600mm would be regarded as off scene. If its deemed acceptable within the rules I will be entering the shed into the jubilee challenge.

 

Jerry

 

 

 

Edited March 24, 2019 by queensquare

[Chris Higgs]

1 hour ago, queensquare said:

This morning, with the aid of some card and ply offcuts and a couple of clothes pegs, I mocked up a proscenium arch with a 600mm viewing opening which can be temporarily fixed to the front of the shed to see how it would look, areas outside the 600mm would be regarded as off scene. If its deemed acceptable within the rules I will be entering the shed into the jubilee challenge.

 

Jerry

 

 

 

 

Perhaps we could do the same to Copenhagen Fields, and enter that.

 

Chris

[Caley Jim]

2 hours ago, Chris Higgs said:

 

Perhaps we could do the same to Copenhagen Fields, and enter that.

Make it into a series of such 'windows' and have multiple entries !  

 

Jim

[queensquare]

4 hours ago, Chris Higgs said:

 

Perhaps we could do the same to Copenhagen Fields, and enter that.

 

Chris

 

Im not sure a model just shy of 3' long can be compared to CF but in theory I don't see why not. Presumably, the object of the exercise is to see what can be achieved in a length of 600mm - the fact that the 600mm chosen is part of a much bigger project would seem irrelevant.

Seriously, I think the 600mm length is too restrictive to tempt me to build anything worthwhile so was just trying to look for a way to participate and support the challenge, Im not massively bothered either way.

 

Jerry

[bécasse]

3 hours ago, queensquare said:

 

Im not sure a model just shy of 3' long can be compared to CF but in theory I don't see why not. Presumably, the object of the exercise is to see what can be achieved in a length of 600mm - the fact that the 600mm chosen is part of a much bigger project would seem irrelevant.

Seriously, I think the 600mm length is too restrictive to tempt me to build anything worthwhile so was just trying to look for a way to participate and support the challenge, Im not massively bothered either way.

To me, the obvious thing to build in such a short (even in 2FS) space is a "hole in the ground", double track (could even be quadruple or, perhaps, double with a further pair disused) between two tunnel/bridge mouths in an urban setting. They could be plain track or perhaps there could be a trailing crossover, and perhaps there could be platforms (in use or disused) or a signal box (but perhaps no actual signals). Something like that wouldn't be too far away from a snapshot on the CF concept (the widened lines?), although there obviously isn't part of the actual layout which would fit it, even screened. Perhaps it would even be worth building as a sort of very exhibitable (and portable) taster/promoter for CF?

[CF MRC]

Maybe we should enter Randall’s Knob off CF.  But the tracks would be invisible in the goods shed and the York Road tube would be invisible under ground. 

 

Tim

Edited March 24, 2019 by CF MRC

[John57sharp]

9 hours ago, bécasse said:

To me, the obvious thing to build in such a short (even in 2FS) space is a "hole in the ground", double track (could even be quadruple or, perhaps, double with a further pair disused) between two tunnel/bridge mouths in an urban setting. They could be plain track or perhaps there could be a trailing crossover, and perhaps there could be platforms (in use or disused) or a signal box (but perhaps no actual signals). Something like that wouldn't be too far away from a snapshot on the CF concept (the widened lines?), although there obviously isn't part of the actual layout which would fit it, even screened. Perhaps it would even be worth building as a sort of very exhibitable (and portable) taster/promoter for CF?

...which is exactly what I’m trying to do! Double track lower tier between 2 portals, with a small shunting layout above, surrounded by warehouses etc. I’m still not sure I’ll finish it for the competition, but I’m enjoying trying and it’s a very manageable starter for 2FS in my space. 

Cheers

John

[NHY 581]

17 hours ago, Chris Higgs said:

 

Perhaps we could do the same to Copenhagen Fields, and enter that.

 

Chris

I don't think that's doable. I seem to recall that Copenhagen Fields is quite a big train set, even though it's N gauge. 

 

 

Rob. 

[Donw]

I suspect if you turn up with CF  large truck and all the committee will rather regret not having put a limit on the size of the 'offstage' bits.  Randall's Knob would be a posibility but would there be a working point in the visible section?

 

Jerry's idea seems to me to be within the scope. I would hope many of the entries could be extended after the challenge to make a more satisfactory layout.

 

Don 

[CF MRC]

1 hour ago, NHY 581 said:

I don't think that's doable. I seem to recall that Copenhagen Fields is quite a big train set, even though it's N gauge. 

 

 

Rob. 

????

 

Tim

[Ian Morgan]

It must be N gauge, it appeared on the cover of a Graham Farish catalogue a while ago

 

1994:

 

Edited March 25, 2019 by Ian Morgan
Added image

[MinerChris]

22 hours ago, queensquare said:

This morning, with the aid of some card and ply offcuts and a couple of clothes pegs, I mocked up a proscenium arch with a 600mm viewing opening which can be temporarily fixed to the front of the shed to see how it would look, areas outside the 600mm would be regarded as off scene. If its deemed acceptable within the rules I will be entering the shed into the jubilee challenge.

 

Jerry

 

 

 

I hope that this is accepted Jerry, as otherwise I'll have to withdraw my entry as well...

 

Needless to say but you've got more progress in a couple of weeks than mine has in six months.

 

Chris.