Wright writes.....

[Headstock]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Grahame,

 

It's very important that not everyone is the same.

 

My point (perhaps ambiguous) is that I (personally) cannot see anything worth modelling at LB today. I'm sure modelling OHLE equipment is very demanding (not that I'll ever consider it) and I've never been much into making trees. 

 

I suppose the acid test will come long, long after I'm gone - in a further 60 years. Can you imagine anyone building a model of Little Bytham in 2080, representing how it looks today? Remember, it's even more overgrown that when I took the shot in 2007. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Good morning Tony,

 

I'm not interested in modern railways, that doesn't mean that there isn't interesting things to be seen in modern railways, I'm sure there is. Little Bytham is a great model railway, however I wouldn't want to model it myself. Having to do all my own painting and lining, the liveries are too repellent and likely to make me ill, and all those MK1's.............we've been there.

 

Having become a train spotter geek during lockdown and acquired the authentic smelly anorak of the bay of fleas, a plea to keep taking photographs please. How am I supposed to continue to write the numbers of locomotives down on your published sequence, if you have run out of digital film or 4 MM lamp posts to ascend?

[Headstock]

2 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

 

While I agree with you in the sentiments about a lack of interest in this period for me, I have to point out that your lack of interest in the prototype leaves you missing a wealth of detail.

 

That 30+ wagon container train does not just have different coloured (liveried) containers.  It may well contain 20ft, 30ft, 40ft and even 45ft containers, with heights of 8ft, 8ft 6in, 9 ft, 9ft 3in and 9ft 6in - and possibly more.  Spotting those differences might be akin to telling the difference between an ex-LMS van and an ex-LNER one.  

Afternoon Andy,

 

since when did Tony know the difference between EX LNER and ex LMS vans?

Edited June 3, 2020 by Headstock

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, lee74clarke said:

Good Morning Tony,

 

I would have thought the Blue Pullman at 90 mph with 6 cars, may have been a more likely alternative for the Master Cutler perhaps? I have seen photos of that being pulled by a Brush Type 2, I think they were 90mph maximum?

 

This is October 1965, not my photo, PH Wells from 'Modern Railways' in April 1966

 

 

Best Regards,

Lee

 

Thanks for showing us the picture, Lee - fantastic.

 

I'd doubt the month as October, however. The Spinney trees are in full summer leaf, and the shadows seem too short for autumn in this mid-afternoon shot.

 

Another reason for the Blue Pullman's rejection on the ECML was the really poor ride in comparison with loco-hauled cars.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Jim Martin]

31 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

A surprising amount. Not only are there different liveries/colours and sizes but some are refers, some are sheeted, some are open, some half height, some are missing, some are designed to carry waste, some for powdered/pelleted loads and so on. And then theres quite a variety in wagon types, some low floor, some pocket wagons, some articulated, some as sets, etc. Overall they might give an impression of looking similar but so too does a train load of 2-axle brown box vans which has a similar lack of individuality of design. It's a matter of looking and seeing.

 

 

 

I'm frequently surprised at the way people who will practically fight you if you suggest, for example, that all GWR 4-6-0s look pretty much the same can airily dismiss container trains as having no variety. What's even more startling to me is goods wagon enthusiasts (of which I am one) who'll point out that their collection of BR vans are all different by dint of various underframe details - 4-shoe, 8-shoe, Morton clutch, axlebox design, buffer type etc. - but can't see that container trains have widely differing underframes, because the things that the boxes are riding on are actually totally different wagon types.

 

 

36 minutes ago, SD85 said:

The modern railway scene can still be interesting if one knows where to look...

 

That said there are still areas of interest to model...

 

1) The WCML around the Hemel Hempstead area. This is a part of the West Coast line I've become fond of as I do a lot of fishing on the Grand Union Canal which interweaves with it many times round here. The passenger services are a little dull (Pendolinos and 350s interspersed with Voyagers, Southern 377s on the MK services, and the odd steam special) but the freight is still quite interesting - it's not just container trains, there are tankers, the odd mail train with a 325 unit, and third rail stock being towed to and from Wolverton (Networker units in particular). Yes the motive power is overwhelmingly 66s, but I've also noticed 60s, 70s and 90s, plus the doubleheaded 86s which Freightliner are still (I think) using. The condition of the 66s varies from clean(ish) to shabby, to one-off liveries. Finally there's the 92s on the Caledonian Sleeper services.

 

4) Manchester Oxford Road area. The stretch of line along Deansgate is only double track but all on viaducts and very intensely used, by both passenger and freight traffic. There's also the option of modelling diverted Anglo Scottish trains being dragged through to Preston (this happened in the 2000s quite a bit, not sure if the route through Bolton has been wired since). Oxford Road station itself has distinctive 1960s architecture which would be a challenge to model, and the Metrolink system also crosses the railway on the old Central Station viaduct.

 

My mother lived in Berkhamsted until recently and I agree that the WCML would be a good subject for a "watching the trains go by" layout. You'd need an awful lot of 350s, mind: at least five or six units so that you could have an 8-car in the slow platforms while a 12-car blasts through on the fast lines. Also, don't forget that in recent years there have always been a few units of other classes that live in the sidings until the peak periods: these were class 321s  until 2015, when they were replaced by 319s.

 

Cross Street, while not a faithful representation of Oxford Road (it was very small, for a start) was inspired by the line between Deansgate and Piccadilly:

 

 

 

52 minutes ago, Bazza said:

I think another problem with modelling the current scene is that things change so quickly, particularly liveries. We see so many modern layouts where many locos or units are in different colour schemes rather than the majority in the dominant normal livery. In the LB period change came slowly and there was a homogeneous look to the railway which has been captured so well on this most realistic layout.

Anyone wanting to correctly model the modern scene will have a more restrictive timeframe than those of us who model steam or even BR blue periods.

Bazza

 

This is a fair point. I aim for 2006, give or take a year or so, so the freight services are almost all EWS or Freightliner. In another instance of finding interest if you look for it, this was very much a transitional period on Northern Rail, so there were all sorts of liveries to be seen.

 

I remember a layout which used to appear quite regularly in Model Railroader several years ago: the owner had a policy of reflecting prototype changes as they happened, even to the extent of selling off his locomotives as they were replaced by the real railroad (and at one point repainting all the signal posts from black to silver). I don't think I'd have either the heart or the money to do that...

 

Jim

 

 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, grahame said:

 

A surprising amount. Not only are there different liveries/colours and sizes but some are refers, some are sheeted, some are open, some half height, some are missing, some are designed to carry waste, some for powdered/pelleted loads and so on. And then theres quite a variety in wagon types, some low floor, some pocket wagons, some articulated, some as sets, etc. Overall they might give an impression of looking similar but so too does a train load of 2-axle brown box vans which has a similar lack of individuality of design. It's a matter of looking and seeing.

 

 

'Overall they might give an impression of looking similar but so too does a train load of 2-axle brown box vans which has a similar lack of individuality of design. It's a matter of looking and seeing.'

 

Then please look at the following shots, Grahame.

 

 

I took this shot this morning to show LB finished overall. The train represents the Scotch Goods, nearly 50-wagons long. 

 

Granted, it shows mainly the roofs of the vans (not all brown), but look at the huge variety. Apart from the two Southern vans (7th and eighth in the rake) I doubt if any other two other vans are the same (neither are the two Southern ones, exactly). Then look at the different vans in the sidings, please. 

 

I don't care how many different types of modern wagons can be cited, they are a tiny fraction in terms of differences from the types depicted on my model of Little Bytham. 

 

 

The same train, but this time hauled by an A4. There are a few different vans in the sidings as well. 

 

 

In LNER days, there was probably even greater variety. 

 

I know personal preference and prejudice come into discussions like this (in my case, much of the latter), but I cannot believe how anyone could consider the present-day Little Bytham as interesting a subject for a model as it is depicted on my model. 

 

I'm nor denying the modern railway (in general) has some interest with regard to modelling, but if it were possible to get the same 'prototype' shots from the same angles as those shown above, there would be almost nothing of interest to see in comparison. Just four track, no points, no sidings, no signals (apart from two MAS colour lights), no railway buildings (apart from the booking hall and stationmaster's house). Even if those two surviving buildings were modelled, they been invisible behind rampant Mother Nature. I cannot concede anyone, even a post-steam modernist, ever contemplating modelling LB as it is today. 

 

Perhaps someone will prove me wrong!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

[Steven B]

17 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Just out of further interest.........

 

 

Anyone who tells me that modern railways are just as interesting subjects to model as the scenes from more than 60 years ago, I just don't believe! No architecture to model, no civil engineering and no pointwork - just a mass of infesting wires. Oh, I forgot; yes, there's a signal, and hundreds of trees!

 

 

 

To be fair, move a mile or two up or down line from Little Bytham and you'd have a similar (although better kept) scene even in the 50s and 60s with no buildings or pointwork to model. Switch to any of the ECML stations in existence today and there will be plenty of things to keep the modeller occupied for years.

 

Even in the photo above there's plenty to model to end up with a good "watch the trains" go by type layout. There's a huge variety of undergrowth and trees to get right, all of which will change with the season.  The track formation will take some careful sub-roadbed work to get looking right and that's before you start looking at the variation in ballast colours. Getting the OHLE looking right would be a huge task on its own.

 

Then you need to start looking at the trains. Even on a Class 91 set, are you looking at a Pullman set with a second class coach replaced by first class. Has the 91 been refurbished? A Freightliner train can have just as much variety in wagon types and box designs as a steam era train. If you want a boring train, what about a rake of 16t minerals?

 

One reoccurring theme in this thread is that steam era modelling is better than anything that's come after. That just isn't true, it's just different but no less worth modelling. Take a look at The Sidings, Maentwrog Road & Trawsfynydd or Shirebrook  and tell me that the modelling isn't on a par with much of the steam era models we see on this thread.

 

 

Steven B.

[Tony Wright]

12 minutes ago, Steven B said:

 

 

To be fair, move a mile or two up or down line from Little Bytham and you'd have a similar (although better kept) scene even in the 50s and 60s with no buildings or pointwork to model. Switch to any of the ECML stations in existence today and there will be plenty of things to keep the modeller occupied for years.

 

Even in the photo above there's plenty to model to end up with a good "watch the trains" go by type layout. There's a huge variety of undergrowth and trees to get right, all of which will change with the season.  The track formation will take some careful sub-roadbed work to get looking right and that's before you start looking at the variation in ballast colours. Getting the OHLE looking right would be a huge task on its own.

 

Then you need to start looking at the trains. Even on a Class 91 set, are you looking at a Pullman set with a second class coach replaced by first class. Has the 91 been refurbished? A Freightliner train can have just as much variety in wagon types and box designs as a steam era train. If you want a boring train, what about a rake of 16t minerals?

 

One reoccurring theme in this thread is that steam era modelling is better than anything that's come after. That just isn't true, it's just different but no less worth modelling. Take a look at The Sidings, Maentwrog Road & Trawsfynydd or Shirebrook  and tell me that the modelling isn't on a par with much of the steam era models we see on this thread.

 

 

Steven B.

Thanks for those observations, Steven,

 

However, where have I ever said that steam-era modelling is better than anything that's come after? Or that the models you've cited are not on a par with the steam-era stuff on this thread? The general modelling looks superb. Other than, unless I'm mistaken, the motive power on the layouts you've illustrated seems to be RTR. If I'm wrong in this observation, my apologies. I'm not being disparaging with that RTR statement, but it'll  never be enough to encompass the variety seen on Little Bytham. 

 

I suppose it's because I was a steam-age trainspotter that I'm drawn towards that period. It WAS much more interesting than anything today, if only because of the variety. I know locos are not the be all and end all, but just make a list of locos to be seen passing through LB in 1958 compared with what's on offer today; Classes A1/1, A1, A2, A2/1, A2/2, A2/3, A3, A4, A5, B1, B12, B16/1, B16/2, B16/3, B17, C12, J6, J11, J39, K1, K2, K3, L1, O2/1, O2/2, O2/3, O4/1, O4/3, O4/6, O4/7, O4/8, O1, V2, W1, plus all the Standards. Before we even start on the early diesels. 

 

Surely nobody can deny that there is much less variety today than in steam days? That is my point. Fewer variations means less interest, at least to me.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

A couple more from the 'before & after' series of pictures......

 

 

Taken when the footbridge was under-construction, the original girder bridge (just visible) was still there and there were no station cottages.

 

 

Taken from a similar angle this morning, with just about everything complete. The loco, K2 61759 (Nu-Cast/Wright/Haynes) is the same, but the stock is different.

 

 

[t-b-g]

28 minutes ago, Steven B said:

 

 

To be fair, move a mile or two up or down line from Little Bytham and you'd have a similar (although better kept) scene even in the 50s and 60s with no buildings or pointwork to model. Switch to any of the ECML stations in existence today and there will be plenty of things to keep the modeller occupied for years.

 

Even in the photo above there's plenty to model to end up with a good "watch the trains" go by type layout. There's a huge variety of undergrowth and trees to get right, all of which will change with the season.  The track formation will take some careful sub-roadbed work to get looking right and that's before you start looking at the variation in ballast colours. Getting the OHLE looking right would be a huge task on its own.

 

Then you need to start looking at the trains. Even on a Class 91 set, are you looking at a Pullman set with a second class coach replaced by first class. Has the 91 been refurbished? A Freightliner train can have just as much variety in wagon types and box designs as a steam era train. If you want a boring train, what about a rake of 16t minerals?

 

One reoccurring theme in this thread is that steam era modelling is better than anything that's come after. That just isn't true, it's just different but no less worth modelling. Take a look at The Sidings, Maentwrog Road & Trawsfynydd or Shirebrook  and tell me that the modelling isn't on a par with much of the steam era models we see on this thread.

 

 

Steven B.

 

I looked at those layouts you mention and see Class 37s, 16T mineral wagons and other things from 30 to 40 years ago.

 

Did you read the articles in Modellers Backtrack about the history and variations in the humble 16 ton mineral wagon? Loads of subtle variations to get right for different lot numbers and periods, not to mention an ideal wagon to show off various weathering skills.

 

Nice layouts but are they really modern?

 

When Tony Wright started modelling the ECML, it was probably in the more recent past than those layouts are today, so his modelling was more "modern image" than they are! In 1980, 1957 was only 23 years earlier!

 

 

 

 

[Northmoor]

9 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Surely nobody can deny that there is much less variety today than in steam days? That is my point. Fewer variations means less interest, at least to me.

 

That was exactly the point I was trying (and obviously failing) to make, Tony.  At least 90% of freight trains are now hauled by just one type of diesel loco, the class 66.  In the mid-1980s, there were a dozen significantly different classes in freight operation and those that had grown up in the steam era thought even this lacked variety by comparison.  The list of interesting locations above are well described but personally, not one of them is a MORE interesting location to watch trains now than it was at least 30 years ago.  However, I would never tell anyone - and I don't think you have either - not to bother modelling the present day if that's what interests them. 

Of the "modern image" layouts mentioned, I would add Loftus Road as an outstanding example of a 21st Century layout, but note that Shirebrook (N) is actually based on a period about 30 years (more than a generation) ago.....

 

[Tony Wright]

Two more........

 

 

An early shot after Bob Dawson and Scott Waterfield completed the signal box. 

 

The original girder bridge is present in the background, and my early attempt at point rodding needs attention. 

 

 

Taken this morning from a similar position, but now with the right bridge in place, signals on the MR/M&GNR (and ground signals) and my completion of the point rodding.

 

Both locos are modified Hornby A3s.

[Tony Wright]

29 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I looked at those layouts you mention and see Class 37s, 16T mineral wagons and other things from 30 to 40 years ago.

 

Did you read the articles in Modellers Backtrack about the history and variations in the humble 16 ton mineral wagon? Loads of subtle variations to get right for different lot numbers and periods, not to mention an ideal wagon to show off various weathering skills.

 

Nice layouts but are they really modern?

 

When Tony Wright started modelling the ECML, it was probably in the more recent past than those layouts are today, so his modelling was more "modern image" than they are! In 1980, 1957 was only 23 years earlier!

 

 

 

 

Thanks Tony,

 

When I built my first A1 (in the early-'70s), the last one had been withdrawn less than a decade earlier. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[grahame]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

'Overall they might give an impression of looking similar but so too does a train load of 2-axle brown box vans which has a similar lack of individuality of design. It's a matter of looking and seeing.'

 

Then please look at the following shots, Grahame.

 

I know personal preference and prejudice come into discussions like this (in my case, much of the latter), but I cannot believe how anyone could consider the present-day Little Bytham as interesting a subject for a model as it is depicted on my model. 

 

I'm nor denying the modern railway (in general) has some interest with regard to modelling, but if it were possible to get the same 'prototype' shots from the same angles as those shown above, there would be almost nothing of interest to see in comparison. Just four track, no points, no sidings, no signals (apart from two MAS colour lights), no railway buildings (apart from the booking hall and stationmaster's house). Even if those two surviving buildings were modelled, they been invisible behind rampant Mother Nature. I cannot concede anyone, even a post-steam modernist, ever contemplating modelling LB as it is today. 

 

 

 

Yep, I have looked, but, to me, the majority of the wagons are short wheelbase 2-axle box vans mostly brown or in another similar colour. However, I accept them for what they are and show interest, particularly in the modelling and in appreciating the effort to replicate an actual scene, rather than claim it's all dull, dreary and lacking interest because it's not the period I model.

 

A lot of comments posted here do come across as very dismissive of anything 'modern' and negative towards anything outside of a small historic period. I'm pleased that people find interest such subjects (although outside my preferred interest) but I'm not negative towards the railways in those periods and I'm very happy to appreciate any modelling. I wonder how many people carefully look at modern trains and models rather than quickly dismissing them.

 

I don't think anyone has suggested or considers that the current LB area scene is worth modelling, especially with the station razed to the ground, but there are other current locations where new stations, junctions, and infrastructure has been built. But keep up the modelling, I enjoy it, even if not the era I prefer. 

 

 

[grahame]

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

 At least 90% of freight trains are now hauled by just one type of diesel loco, the class 66.  

 

 

Class 66s seem to be on their way out nowadays. There have been several more recent classes of diesel locos introduced. For example, these are not class 66s and the operation/service is of a flow with wagons that wouldn't have been seen in the steam era:

 

 

 

 

[4630]

6 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

Class 66s seem to be on their way out nowadays. There have been several more recent classes of diesel locos introduced. For example, these are not class 66s and the operation/service is of a flow with wagons that wouldn't have been seen in the steam era:

 

Whilst not wishing to hijack Tony's thread, I think your point above Grahame, that I've put in bold text, might be stretching a point a bit too far.

 

Whilst the oldest of the class 66s in service are over 20 years old and there are of course examples of newer classes, such as the class 68 that you cited, at least one freight operator has been on record in the recent past as interested in acquiring further class 66 derivatives from European operators to convert to UK specification.  Having a largely uniform fleet of a proven type and adding to them with locomotives that, whilst not new, do benefit from 'grandfather rights' on the rail network should keep the cost of operation lower.

 

The issue at the moment is the downturn in some freight traffic that is being experienced by the operators which has led to a few class 66s being stored.  But in the main from, what I've observed, the storage of individual locomotives seems to be for a short duration and rotated with others of the class.  By comparison, one operator, Freightliner has taken to storing all of its class 70s, although many had been in long term storage in any case, in preference to storing some of its class 66s.

 

In short, for good or bad, I think they'll be around for a while yet.

 

[Tony Wright]

Two more...........

 

This picture, taken a few years ago, has appeared quite recently, but it's included here to show the original mock-up of the M&GNR three-arch overbridge (which, thankfully, still survives).

 

The horrid Hornby Gresley disappeared long ago! 

 

 

Though not quite taken from the same angle, here we have the proper bridge (built by Bob Dawson) and one of Tony Gee's lovely MR signals. 

 

I'm out of suitable rattle can paint, so the J17 will remain 'in the raw' for the time being. 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2020 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[Headstock]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

A couple more from the 'before & after' series of pictures......

 

 

Taken when the footbridge was under-construction, the original girder bridge (just visible) was still there and there were no station cottages.

 

 

Taken from a similar angle this morning, with just about everything complete. The loco, K2 61759 (Nu-Cast/Wright/Haynes) is the same, but the stock is different.

 

 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

I have given up train spotting, and put my anorak up for sale. It's all down to your lack of captioning I'm afraid. For example, is K2 61759 on the Flying Scotsman or the Afternoon Talisman?

[Theakerr]

Whilst I model 1955 to about 1962 and have no plans to change, I think one modern image model that might be interesting is an in and out Kings Cross.  Lots of activity and relatively easy to run because coach sets with end details would not have to be turned, neither would locos.   Also, it would be fairly easy to vary the time periods.

[Chamby]

3 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Tony,

 

I have given up train spotting, and put my anorak up for sale. It's all down to your lack of captioning I'm afraid. For example, is K2 61759 on the Flying Scotsman or the Afternoon Talisman?

 

The lamp suggests neither...  

[Tony Wright]

The last before and afters for the day.........

 

 

A fair bit done in this overall scene from three years ago, but no station cottages, no distant buildings and only the merest hint of point rodding. 

 

 

From last year, all of the buildings in place, the proper girder bridge temporarily installed for testing, and the point rodding finished at this end. 

 

 

And the same scene this morning. Finished! 

 

That's a heck of a lot of point rodding...........

 

More tomorrow.

 

 

[jacko]

Good evening Tony.

Mention has been made several times today of the current Little Bytham scene. Do you have images of what's left to show us?  I have a particular fascination with wandering around disused or overgrown sites trying to envisage what they must have been like in their heyday.

 

Graeme

[Clive Mortimore]

4 hours ago, Theakerr said:

Whilst I model 1955 to about 1962 and have no plans to change, I think one modern image model that might be interesting is an in and out Kings Cross.  Lots of activity and relatively easy to run because coach sets with end details would not have to be turned, neither would locos.   Also, it would be fairly easy to vary the time periods.

I am going to go into a rant "MODERN IMAGE", do you mean Diesel or Electric model?

 

Speaking to Cyril Freezer, he told me that the term Modern Image came out of an editorial meeting for the Railway Modeller, but he could not remember who said it first. It was used to high light the changes happening to the railway in the 1960s, architecture, electrification, rolling stock, signalling, as well as motive power. It is a term for those changes no more no less. it does not mean diesel and electric modelling.

 

As someone who models diesels and electrics I find the term quite patronising and offensive. Even shows like Warley label layouts with models of diesels and/or electrics "Modern Image. I have even had my description of one of my layouts from a "Sixties Diesel Depot" changed to a "Modern Image Layout" by an exhibition manager. It is a term that Diesel and Electric Modellers United do not use.

 

Off me soap box.

 

If you want to see what Cyril Freezer called the only proper modern image layout at Model Rail's 1992 Diesel and Electric show held at Bletchley, click on Pig Lane. That was what the person who is credited with the term Modern Image considered to be Modern Image , despite my own personal feelings.

Edited June 3, 2020 by Clive Mortimore

[Tony Wright]

8 hours ago, jacko said:

Good evening Tony.

Mention has been made several times today of the current Little Bytham scene. Do you have images of what's left to show us?  I have a particular fascination with wandering around disused or overgrown sites trying to envisage what they must have been like in their heyday.

 

Graeme

Good morning Graeme,

 

'Do you have images of what's left to show us?'

 

I'm afraid there's very little left, now. 

 

These pictures were taken some time ago, but the examples illustrated still stand (in the case of the booking office, just!). 

 

 

 

Taken in 2007; there was an idea to turn it into some form of rural museum (meaning it's full of rusting junk!)

 

 

Fortunately, this wonderful structure still survives in Station Road. It carried the MR/M&GNR east-west route, closed at the end of February 1959 (and lifted with indecent haste). 

 

Since this shot was taken (in 2007), the 30 MPH signs have been moved further south.

 

Picking up on what was posted yesterday, rather than being a railway modeller, if one wished to model LB today, one would have to be a botanical modeller! 

 

 

Taken in 2009, this is the surviving M&GNR overbridge, taking the private road to Grimsthorpe Castle across the abandoned trackbed. Just think what used to pass beneath this......

 

More to follow.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

Things constantly change (in everything), and railway sites are no exception. 

 

The site of Little Bytham's goods yard is now occupied by four, large detached houses, and only the concrete posts once supporting the sign adjacent to the booking office (shown in the last post) remain to tell of its former use. 

 

Astonishingly, the goods shed survived until 2008.

 

 

In this shot, taken in 2005, from the remaining abutments of the girder bridge (a shot now impossible because of new fencing having been erected), the goods shed can be seen in the left background, and behind it the stationmaster's house, which still survives as a private dwelling. 

 

Recently, there was a comment that my backscene was too 'bright'. Considering this picture was taken in the March, before any colours were at their peak, I think it's about right. Note how close the horizon is. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is what it looked like in 2007, now abandoned after being used by a stone-cutting firm (which also seems to have cut holes in the walls as well!).

 

I'm having to split these posts because of the file sizes. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

Driving home for lunch one day in the early spring of 2008, looking across the valley from the Witham Road I was appalled to see this happening.......

 

 

 

The deed was done in less than a morning, with no forewarning at all. 

 

The goods shed had lasted over 150 years!