Upper Hembury, East Devon - a GWR / SR Branch line

[KingEdwardII]

On 23/05/2023 at 09:55, BWsTrains said:

we went back for a second lunch then cakes

Now, for me, it's the cakes that make a Viennese cafe into a true heaven.

 

I'd be very happy to visit such an establishment for a lunch that consisted of three or more courses of cakes and nothing else, except cream and an appropriate quantity of strong black coffee. Mmmmm

 

Yours,  Mike.

[BWsTrains]

Siphon O1(2)

 

Nearing the end for this kit, I've added end piping but still need to address the various underneath fittings. Some trimming of the roof weight edges is needed to allow for a snug fit but the photo will give the idea.

Around 550 or so of these low roofed 6 wheeled Siphons (O2, O1(2) O3 and O4) were built from 1880 up to 1903 and together with the later Diagrams remained in use well into the 1930s . By then it was O1(2) O3 and O4 along with the later high roofed O5 and O6s. So it is surprising that they are so poorly represented by commercial models and in layouts of that era.

 

Milk production and processing even in Devon, the Dairy "Heart of England" was rarely on a scale to warrant bulk transportation of milk so Siphons must have dominated the rail transport of that time.

 

In this regard, the Diagram3D kits can be turned into very fine models with excellent detail and the Ratio under-frames add to the finish and excellent operation.

 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2023 by BWsTrains
typo

[BWsTrains]

I've had a question about details of my build and as the response might have wider interest I'll post it here.

 

The Components which I sourced from Ratio Kits

 

I used components from the Ratio 4 wheel coach kit (612). I'd already kit bashed various of these (see my blog) into coaches for my WC&PR stock and had leftovers.

 

The parts used were the sole bar assemblies + the roof. A little wasteful if you had to buy the full kits just for those. There might well be better options e.g. the axle W Irons + bearing assemblies (Wizard perhaps? suggestions welcomed). There was card supplied in the kit for the roof but the Ratio one was the easy way out as it has the correct shape (low 3 arc) and rain strips.

 

TBH if you aren't a purist regarding close details you could use what I did for the middle axle assemblies.

 

 

I built my middle axle W Irons from 1mm PS sheet, Diagram3D provides a card assembly for the leaf springs which I've highlighted in situ. As @john dew said, after a bit of weathering rust, who would know?

 

All you'd need is the axle box externals (I've yet to add them on my middle axle) and an internal support for the end axle bearings. Eminently achievable I think. Sole Bar and foot rail could be assembled from PS angle of some sort.

 

Colin

[BWsTrains]

On 06/02/2023 at 19:32, 5BarVT said:

Most interested in your uncoupler modules when you have time to document them.  There is time, as I’m still in baseboard mode and not onto track laying.

Paul.

 

KADEE Uncoupling -  I'm well overdue to get back to this, so my apologies.

 

Previously I showed the well known problem encountered with standard Kadee uncouplers, viz. axle drag. There is a much watched Youtube on the topic (something about "the inconvenient truth"...) where the presence of a perpendicular magnetic field was rightly identified as the source of the problem. This is best illustrated by a few pics for the less familiar.

 

Uncoupling depends on a soft iron hanging pin (a bit like a mini elephant trunk) seen in 2 uncoupled wagons here. The default position being slightly right in direction of travel.

 

When coupled, the engaged pair looks like this

and uncoupling requires the hangers to be pulled to their respective sides, opening the jaws. (Red arrows).

From this is shouid be clear why a perpendicular field is appealing, both hangers lie in the field and will be drawn towards the nearer pole. It's just the unwanted side effect of the strong cross field which drags axles as per section 1 of the short video.

 

 

https://youtu.be/MgCePqwWfCs

 

My solution requires all upward facing poles to be the same. The magnets are thin flat ones polarised across their thinnest dimension.

 

 

Axle drag is mostly eliminated by the lack of the cross field. However achieving a functioning solution requires a little work and this will be covered in a following post.

 

 

Edited June 17, 2023 by BWsTrains

[BWsTrains]

KADEE Uncoupling - continued..

 

The single most important thing I discovered was the importance of using a steel "intensifier plate". This is simply a thin piece of mild steel (0.5mm will do) which holds the magnets and intensifies the "Up" directing field".

 

Repulsion between adjacent magnets is greatly reduced while the focused field above the magnets is increased. This is often found in Cup or Pot magnets.

 

Simply aligning all same poles up becomes easy as magnets lose their propensity to jump one on top of another. The end result is shown here on a 30mm * 50mm steel holder.

 

 

The black PS strip marks the mid point of the track and magnets have been aligned manually to get the best uncoupling in this location (all approach here is from right). Magnets when fully tested are held in final location with some drops of CA and then primed. While not shown, the rails would run directly above the centre of each line of magnets R -> L # The original uncoupling video in Feburary was recorded using this particular uncoupler plate.

 

These magnets are hi-intensity Neos extracted from an old Hard Disk Drive. I find this to be a very reliable source of material; on-line you need to be careful as there is much rubbish being sold and it's hard to identify good from other.

 

# bottom left magnet excepted, that looks to have moved and avoided detection.

 

Oh! and drill the mounting holes first up before magnets come anywhere near!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 17, 2023 by BWsTrains
clarifications

[BWsTrains]

The final step - installation

 

The magnet / plate assembly is typically 3.4mm thick and removing 2 ply layers from my baseboard provides a suitable slot for the uncoupler. By making the plate the same width as my sleepers it's easy to mark up the cavity and later ensure accurate alignment. These steps are shown below.

 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2023 by BWsTrains

[checkrail]

On 17/06/2023 at 08:59, BWsTrains said:

Previously I showed the well known problem encountered with standard Kadee uncouplers, viz. axle drag.

Had a similar problem with the 'Brian Kirby' modification to tension locks. Solved it by fitting 'shuntable' wagons with brass axles, obtained AFAIR from a source in California! Even then some of the axles needed a bit of friction applied to prevent unwanted uncoupling.

 

Your solution to your Kadee issue seems a good one.

[BWsTrains]

With uncouplers laid and working, and disrupted track reinstated, it was time to clean some residual paint and grime off the rails and achieve a minor milestone.

 

With no fanfare or town band attending, at 5.52pm Sunday a small mixed train from Cullompton pulled into Upper Hembury.

9728 headed up a Siphon O1(2), a Beetle prize cattle wagon and a pair of Collett non-corridor 57’ coaches. So, modestly, did operations commence!

 

 

Attention is now being turned to building a proper station building, the old one from Westown-Heathfield being overdue for retirement.

[BWsTrains]

The Station Build

 

There's background on the origins of the station design here https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/173620-upper-hembury-east-devon-a-gwr-sr-branch-line/?do=findComment&comment=5158415

 

It was a very early William Clarke build, longer than the well known basic line-side halts and a precursor to the later Kingsbridge with its original 56' design. The desire of the Earl of Southampton to have an impressive Clarke station ran headlong into the parsimony of the GWR in those tough times of the early 1880s. Hence, Upper Hembury is a far more subdued design than the better known buildings often popular to model.

 

Fortunately the excellent design drawings for Portesham give me dimensions and formats for Doors and windows and originially I'd considered getting these laser cut as per @Graham T for Chuffnell Regis. That did not happen due to the company's other commitments so out came the pens and scalpels to prepare much the same 4 layer designs DIY mode.

 

 

 

Seen above this was very much work in progress before tidying up and minor repairs.

 

My attention is turning next to cutting out all the sides, the Slaters sheet to cover them and suitable paints for GWR Light Stone #1 and Dark Stone #3

 

Edited June 24, 2023 by BWsTrains
tidy up + correction

[BWsTrains]

The sides have been cut and Slaters sheet fitted, seen here after priming.

 

Meanwhile the derived plan view has been tidied up to show the overall format of the extended Clarke design. Useful for planning the build as the two chimneys are internal rather than at the ends and I need to build to accommodate these in the construction.

 

 

It seemed logical to incorporate suitable internal walls first, rather than completing "the box". This is seen here along with all the completed doors and windows fully painted and glazed. in the real the #3 shade has more pink than is evident here. More on that later.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 26, 2023 by BWsTrains
typo

[BWsTrains]

All the Doors and windows have been fitted and the station body painted.

 

Some young helpers (C&S; 12 and 9 now) were enlisted during their stay. C charged with finding a good colour match for the lintels and future quions, S worked with me to extract some dimensions from the plans for the chimneys and these then were advanced to the preparation of the first half of one of them as seen here.

 

 

 

Some remaining rough edges under the harsh gaze of the camera but looking good in real life now.

[BWsTrains]

William Clarke Stations - The Mysterious Third Chimney

 

It has been pointed out to me by @john dew that in the standard small format stations (length 38' + 15' outbuilding) the third chimney serves only a small room in the outbuilding (8' * 5'9") designated "Stores and Lamps". It is shown in the end elevation as a rectangular opening in one corner of that room. The adjoining space on the opposite side of the outbuildings was the single ladies toilet cubicle. No heating there!

 

Suggestions please on why the room needed this facility. As John noted, it could hardly have been to heat an unoccupied room.

 

 

 

Edited July 2, 2023 by BWsTrains

[BWsTrains]

Moving back to the station at Upper Hembury, the question of the third chimney has some relevance to the floor plan for my outbuilding. We can draw on one 1906 image of Kingsbridge showing the original design, with a 56' long main station building and 21' outbuilding but no end chimney. The entire rear side of the latter space was toilets, simply a longer version of what can be seen at Portesham.

 

My speculation is that the lack of chimney at the end of the main building (or in the outbuilding) means the lamps were stored elsewhere and that the platform side of the area was used for parcels handling. After the extension to 90' there was a large parcels area which can be seen at that end of the station.

 

One useful thing I've found from working thru the various William Clarke station photos in my collection is that as at Portesham (see plan in previous post) the Gentlemens toilets were not platform side access. The entrance to the gents typically was reached beyond the far end of the station building, past the outbuilding and turning down the side along a fenced path. Quite some hike on a cold day.

[BWsTrains]

And to the the weekend's progress in one picture.

 

Ends glued on, quoins cut and installed, chimneys completed, and the main beams for the building and canopy, each one a 30' length as in the original design. A few interesting issues arose but those will have to wait until tomorrow.

 

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

Some interestimng questions there and of course one problem will always be that the use of various rooms changed over the u years.  I find it odd that t lamps would have been dealt with in a stores area - too much risk of lamp oil spillage and dirt plus keeping lamp oil in the main building sems a bit odd.    Equally there;s no room for the platform staff and they must have gone 'somewhere' when not actually out on teh platform etcworking.

 

If a room hada fireplace or stove then it's a pretty clear indication to me that it was  used by people who were there for at least part of the time - so maybe it was the Porters Room?  What is really needed is some clear photos of the exterior doors of rooms in this position to see what signs were on the doors, if any..

[BWsTrains]

Thanks Mike,

 

Disused Stations - Portesham

 

has a number of photos, the ones from 1950 and after closure in 1955 show the same overall structure for the outbuilding as seen in the plans. The left hand door at the side seems to have a sign on it "Gentlemen". Notable in earlier photos is absence of any room signs perpendicular to the station frontage or side.

 

This partial front view from the station drawings shows the door and window of the room seen in my earlier post marked "Store and Lamps".  The ratio of chimney to room size must be some sort of record!

 

[melmoth]

23 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Some interestimng questions there and of course one problem will always be that the use of various rooms changed over the u years.  I find it odd that t lamps would have been dealt with in a stores area - too much risk of lamp oil spillage and dirt plus keeping lamp oil in the main building sems a bit odd.    Equally there;s no room for the platform staff and they must have gone 'somewhere' when not actually out on teh platform etcworking.

 

If a room hada fireplace or stove then it's a pretty clear indication to me that it was  used by people who were there for at least part of the time - so maybe it was the Porters Room?  What is really needed is some clear photos of the exterior doors of rooms in this position to see what signs were on the doors, if any..

 

If I'm not mistaken, the drawings extracts above are from those prepared and dated 1886 by John Hancock for the building at Portesham on the Abbotsbury branch and reproduced in Brian Jackson's book on the branch. The similarly dated drawings for the larger building at Abbotsbury are also reproduced, and show a similar arrangement. Jackson's description of Portesham is as below. It is worth pointing out that at no time did either Portesham or Abbotsbury appear to acquire any extra station structures such as lamp huts.

 

 

[Neal Ball]

A couple of the photos show what looks like a water tank on the roof - perhaps it’s the Gents.

[The Stationmaster]

Of course one thing to bear in mind is that just because the chimney was that side of the wall it doesn't mean that the fireplace or a stove was on that side of the wall.  On the side of my house there is a chimney structure extending 2ft 3" out from the wall but the fireplace is inside the house on the other side of the wall and has no  chimney breast.

 

I do wonder if the rectangular outbuilding even had a roof or was fully roofed although from the presence of what could well be water tanks in a later photo there must have been something there to support them.  But i bet there were more gents' toilets without roofs than there were with roofs at one time on railway stations, and elsewhere, with only the WCs being undercover (if you were lucky).

[melmoth]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Of course one thing to bear in mind is that just because the chimney was that side of the wall it doesn't mean that the fireplace or a stove was on that side of the wall.  On the side of my house there is a chimney structure extending 2ft 3" out from the wall but the fireplace is inside the house on the other side of the wall and has no  chimney breast.

 

I do wonder if the rectangular outbuilding even had a roof or was fully roofed although from the presence of what could well be water tanks in a later photo there must have been something there to support them.  But i bet there were more gents' toilets without roofs than there were with roofs at one time on railway stations, and elsewhere, with only the WCs being undercover (if you were lucky).

 

The drawings of Portesham and Abbotsbury (as partly shown above in @BWsTrains posts) show fireplaces. In the part of the building designated as 'Stores and Lamps', the arrangement is different to that in the 'General Waiting Room' and the 'Booking Office'. It might suggest that a stove was provided in the store, rather than an open fire, as per the other two rooms. The stove/fireplace can be seen at an angle in the top right hand corner of the Store/Lamps room in the image posted by @BWsTrains above.

 

As far as I'm aware, none of the William Clarke designed station buildings had urinals/WCs open to the sky at any point of their existence. @Bulwell Hall has written a fair amount about Clarke, and he could probably clarify or confirm, if he's about.

[john dew]

@The Stationmaster - I think there is a room marked "Porters" in the main part of the building.

 

It does seem logical to have the toilets and utiliies (lamps,oil,coal etc) situated  in the flat rooved annexe. separately from the passenger and staff rooms.

 

I would agree with @melmoth, the arrangement in "Stores and Lamps" does suggest an enclosed stove rather than an open fireplace - which makes sense from a safety aspect. However,  there are two chimney pots shown and only one stove - the other fireplaces shown in the plan match up with the number of pots on the other two stacks. I had assumed that lamp rooms/huts required some form of ventilation to avoid a hazardous build up of fumes - could this be connected to the spare pot?

 

As Mike said, some interesting questions. Trivia research, one of the optional charms of our hobby

 

Regards  from Vancouver

 

[BWsTrains]

8 hours ago, melmoth said:

 

If I'm not mistaken, the drawings extracts above are from those prepared and dated 1886 by John Hancock for the building at Portesham on the Abbotsbury branch and reproduced in Brian Jackson's book on the branch. The similarly dated drawings for the larger building at Abbotsbury are also reproduced, and show a similar arrangement. Jackson's description of Portesham is as below. It is worth pointing out that at no time did either Portesham or Abbotsbury appear to acquire any extra station structures such as lamp huts.

 

 

 

Thx,

 

most helpful and it confirms what I've deduced from my source, the BRJ 1985 article "The Standard Buildings of William Clarke" where the Portesham plans are shown in detail. Most tantalising in your extract is what comes next....

 

"the Cast iron supports of the canopy had small cast shields bolted to them.......?" I'd be very interested to see the continuation if you could please.

 

[BWsTrains]

3 hours ago, melmoth said:

 

The drawings of Portesham and Abbotsbury (as partly shown above in @BWsTrains posts) show fireplaces. In the part of the building designated as 'Stores and Lamps', the arrangement is different to that in the 'General Waiting Room' and the 'Booking Office'. It might suggest that a stove was provided in the store, rather than an open fire, as per the other two rooms. The stove/fireplace can be seen at an angle in the top right hand corner of the Store/Lamps room in the image posted by @BWsTrains above.

 

As far as I'm aware, none of the William Clarke designed station buildings had urinals/WCs open to the sky at any point of their existence. @Bulwell Hall has written a fair amount about Clarke, and he could probably clarify or confirm, if he's about.

 

Thx again,

 

this makes excellent sense. The room appears to have stayed as such, given you mention there's no record of a separate lamp hut at either of the two small stations at any stage.

 

In contrast, Kingsbridge never had the telltale third chimney between main and out buildings leading to my conclusion that the larger available 21' space in the latter was designed for a different purpose. Circumstantial evidence points to this being "Parcels". It certainly was the case after the extension there. Consequently so it shall be for Upper Hembury.

 

2 hours ago, john dew said:

However,  there are two chimney pots shown and only one stove

 

John,

 

what you see in the early design are wind deflectors not chimneys. There were at least two for a 1 flue chimney and three for 2 flues. Sometimes additional deflectors were present to protect all sides. These were sometimes later replaced by pots. All the photos I have of Kingsbridge, from 1900 to 1960s show neither deflectors or pots.

 

Thanks to everyone for all the constructive input.

 

As @john dew says  "Trivia research, one of the optional charms of our hobby". Scratch the "optional" for me!

 

Colin

 

 

 

 

 

 

[melmoth]

9 hours ago, BWsTrains said:

 

Thx,

 

most helpful and it confirms what I've deduced from my source, the BRJ 1985 article "The Standard Buildings of William Clarke" where the Portesham plans are shown in detail. Most tantalising in your extract is what comes next....

 

"the Cast iron supports of the canopy had small cast shields bolted to them.......?" I'd be very interested to see the continuation if you could please.

 

 

That article is by Gerry Beale, a.k.a. Bulwell Hall (paged above) on here, and is very informative. I think the cast shields bolted to the supports simply had the letters 'AR' (Abbotsbury Railway - who built the line, although it was always operated by the GWR) on them, so not necessarily relevant for you. There's a image in Jackson's book...

[melmoth]

...et voila