Woodburn / Longwitton (was Billingborough)

[Richard Hall]

Might be getting a bit ahead of myself here as I haven't started cutting timber for baseboards yet, but I think I have found a nice little prototype for my first venture into 2mm. Billingborough and Horbling was a through station on the Great Northern's Bourn-Sleaford branch.  I grew up in Lincolnshire and have a longstanding love of hopeless railways so this one appeals on various levels.  The branch lost its passenger service in 1930 and was closed north of the level crossing at Billingboro in 1956, although the northern section was used for wagon storage for a few years afterwards.  Freight (mainly grain, potatoes and other farm traffic) lasted until 1965.

 

(Photo: Ben Brooksbank)

 

It's a nice simple station but with a bit of interesting trackwork (three slips).  Attractive buildings, a decent goods shed and a lovely little GN signal box. The closed crossing gates at the north end make a good scenic break but I'll have to fudge the other end somehow.  I don't even know what that bit looked like: from the map I suspect a level crossing.  Billingboro had two signal boxes, which seems a bit extravagant for such a small place.  The whole lot should fit on 8' x 2' (excluding fiddle yard) with B7 turnouts and not too much compression.

 

 

In later years the daily trip seems to have been a Boston (40F) job.  Ivatt 4MTs and ex GN J6s certainly worked the line, as did various diesel shunters in the final years.  A Gresley K2 turned up on a railtour.  Spot the problem?  Apart from the diesels, none of the above are available even as kits AFAIK.  However Boston also had several J39s (got one of those) and a trio of J94s in 1961/2, That is enough to get me started. 

 

If anyone has photos of this station, or other useful information, I will be most grateful.  The Bourn & Sleaford branch wasn't exactly a magnet for railway photographers.

 

Richard

 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by Richard Hall

[bécasse]

Even without a level crossing at each end, two signal boxes would not have been unusual at a crossing station with a reasonable length loop. There was a limit (which gradually increased over the years) on how far the toe of a facing point could be from the box that worked it making the provision of two boxes almost obligatory until motor worked points started to become available. With each box working a level crossing, it probably wouldn't have been the case here, but it wasn't uncommon to find the single line instruments located in the station building so that the boxes themselves only needed to be manned when there was a train in the immediate vicinity.

[Richard Hall]

10 hours ago, bécasse said:

Even without a level crossing at each end, two signal boxes would not have been unusual at a crossing station with a reasonable length loop. There was a limit (which gradually increased over the years) on how far the toe of a facing point could be from the box that worked it making the provision of two boxes almost obligatory until motor worked points started to become available. With each box working a level crossing, it probably wouldn't have been the case here, but it wasn't uncommon to find the single line instruments located in the station building so that the boxes themselves only needed to be manned when there was a train in the immediate vicinity.

 

I didn't know that, thank you.  I wonder if I can hunt down a signalling diagram for Billingboro?  I haven't yet established whether it needs any signals at all: the Down Starter was out of use after 1956 but I can't see the Up Starter in any of the photos. It is possible that the branch was worked from Bourn as a single block section, with Billingboro North Box being nothing more than a covered ground frame.

 

Back on 2mm topics, eyeing up a Farish Standard 4MT which, compared to the Roche drawing might make a tolerable Ivatt "Flying Pig" with some plastic surgery.  The valve gear is a bit daunting though for a second bash at 2mm chassis building.

 

Richard

[SandHutton]

I believe the valve gear produced by Nigel Hunt for the Fairburn tank conversion can probably be used for your 4mt conversion.  Thats what I am doing for my own 4mt 2-6-0

 

[Richard Hall]

Zero progress on the layout itself, but I did manage a field visit today while passing through the area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Station is now used as a transport yard and is remarkably intact although the trackbed either side has been obliterated by new houses.  That yard office is gorgeous with its bargeboards and finials.  I might contact the owners and see if they will let me have a prowl round with a camera.

 

Richard

 

 

[Richard Hall]

This keeps happening to me.  I find a nice little station to model, get as far as posting my intentions on the Internet, then start having second thoughts. Last weekend I was up North and had a couple of hours free so I walked along part of the trackbed of the Rothbury branch. My interest in the railways of this area goes right back to 1977 and seeing Ian Futers' "Longwitton" at an exhibition, after reading about it in the Railway Modeller. I had forgotten just how much I love this part of the world.

 

A couple more nudges to derail my plans: Sovereign Colliery Junction in this month's RM, and seeing Ballyconnell Road (3mm Irish and gorgeous) at the Spalding show.  Now I'm pondering circular layouts and wondering whether West Woodburn (on the Morpeth - Reedsmouth "Wannie Line") would make a good subject, seeing as the entire station and goods yard curves through ninety degrees.

 

Main disadvantage is that like my currently stored and unfinished Waverley Route layout "Stobs", a circular model won't fit in the small house where I live.  With "Stobs" I made the mistake of building the baseboards so big and heavy that the thing needs a crew of roadies to transport and erect it, which killed my idea of working on sections at home and then taking them to my workshop for running sessions.  Time to start looking seriously at lightweight board construction.

 

A Templot session beckons...

 

Richard

[VRBroadgauge]

Hi Richard.

I would suggest finding a location that ticks all your boxes and research it within an inch of it's life and make a design.

It took me a long time and many unfinished bits and pieces to realize this.

For me I have an overarching concept that I started building bits of. These bits will be assembled later into the overall concept. I have a shed that needs to be prepared for the intended design. I learned early on that lightweight benchwork is your friend. I'm using lightweight plywood and insulation foam as as basis for construction.

I've planned my layout off actual locations and am trying to build most of these to scale. Some things work fine - others are tradeoffs.

 

The big thing is the subject. I picked something that meant a lot to me. I enjoy learning about the history and doing the research nearly as much as designing and building. If the subject spins your wheels then the building will follow.

 

There's some pics on my broad gauge thread that show a few of the things I've done and plan to do. They may be of help.

 

Bruce

Edited November 7, 2022 by VRBroadgauge
typo

[Izzy]

On 06/11/2022 at 17:04, Richard Hall said:

A couple more nudges to derail my plans: Sovereign Colliery Junction in this month's RM, and seeing Ballyconnell Road (3mm Irish and gorgeous) at the Spalding show.  Now I'm pondering circular layouts and wondering whether West Woodburn (on the Morpeth - Reedsmouth "Wannie Line") would make a good subject, seeing as the entire station and goods yard curves through ninety degrees.

 

Ballyconnell is great isn't it, my idea of a perfect circular layout. Also living in a small house I've been trying to produce a small workable circular layout in 2mm since 2010. I still haven't managed it! There's been 5 so far and part of the problem I've discovered is that there is a minimum free space you need to erect and use one taking into account your size doesn't alter when you go down the scales. In 2mm basically around 8'. Either a 4'6" min dia with enough room to get all around it, or 8' dia to give enough room inside.  I just don't have anywhere there's that amount of totally free floor space without disrupting the whole house - except outdoors. I wish you luck.

 

Bob

[Richard Hall]

17 hours ago, VRBroadgauge said:

 

I would suggest finding a location that ticks all your boxes and research it within an inch of it's life and make a design... The big thing is the subject. I picked something that meant a lot to me. I enjoy learning about the history and doing the research nearly as much as designing and building. If the subject spins your wheels then the building will follow.

 

 

That is very good advice and very much what I tried to do with "Stobs".  I think I have seen just about every published photo of the Waverley Route and some unpublished ones as well.  One of the reasons I have drifted away from the idea of modelling Billingboro is that the Bourne & Sleaford did not attract photographers or writers: information about the line has turned out to be very hard to find., especially on the operational side.  

 

West Woodburn on the other hand I already know a fair bit about.  I have a shelf in danger of collapsing under the weight of Borders railway books. The area has changed very little since the line finally closed in 1966 and most of the structures and trackbed are still there.  There is still plenty of information to discover: I didn't know until last night that there was a shed housing a Wickham trolley just beyond the road bridge, with a short siding leading to it.  It isn't marked on the 25 inch OS plan that I was using to for the track layout so I suspect it was added post-war.  

 

There comes a point where you have to accept that you will never be able to model everything that takes your fancy.  Better perhaps to just stick to doing one thing and try to do it well.  My distant ancestors were Border Reivers from upper Redesdale and would have known West Woodburn, if only as a good place to steal cattle from.  Perhaps that is why the railways of the area have always fascinated me.

 

Richard

[Richard Hall]

Been dipping into Ernie Brack's magnificent photo archive which has plenty of Wansbeck Valley stuff. I'm turning up all kinds of loveliness, including D5177 (Derby Sulzer Type 2) on a troop train, which is rather handy as I have this very locomotive, and with 2FS wheelsets as well!

 

 

Woodburn seems to have been a final resting place for elderly vans, possibly used as sack / sheet stores: photos from the early 1960s show two ex North British outside framed box vans, a big four wheeled tranship van still in LNER livery and most remarkable of all, an NER bogie road van in BR grey. Farish produced that one in N gauge a long time ago: I never thought I would find a legitimate use for it.

 

I tried using Templot to overlay some trackwork onto the 25 inch OS map, but the results were not good, partly because the OS map doesn't pay as much attention as it should to track geometry. And partly because the curve through the station will need tightening a fair bit to fit a 7x7 space.  With "Stobs" I had enough room to overlay the track plan onto the map with no compression but I can't do that here.  So I think I will start again, draw a 3'3" radius circle of track and go from there. I'll have to fudge the scenic break at the eastern end, a typical NBR cattle bridge won't look out of place.

 

Richard

[Richard Hall]

A bit of Templot doodling.  My first thought was to create a perfect circle in an area about 6'6" square.  I started putting in a few sidings and quickly ran out of space on the north side. Nonetheless I managed to get most of the key features including a rather fearsome curved three-way point which should be a good test of my trackbuilding skills.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I thought I would see what happened if i extended the baseboard to 8' x 6' Somehow I find this version less pleasing than the first one.

 

 

There is also a very short siding for an end loading dock which I haven't put into the first plan yet, and the Wickham trolley siding is also absent.  I haven't established how far the two headshunts extended.

 

Now giving some serious thought to unconventional baseboard construction.  I don't really like the idea of using thick PIR board as I can see it causing all sorts of issues with mounting and adjusting point servos: but having built two layouts in three years I have really gone off plywood as a constructional material.  It is horrible splintery stuff and warps every which way. I'm wondering whether sealed MDF top bonded to PIR frame members might give me the combination of lightness and rigidity I am looking for. 

 

Richard

[bécasse]

I have built several small exhibition layouts over the last decade using MDF as the sheet material throughout and have experienced no problems whatsoever. I use a mix of 2,5 mm and 4 mm thicknesses simply because that is what is readily available. For curved baseboard sides I would initially use a single 2,5 mm thickness because it takes the curved shape readily and then bond a second 2,5 mm thickness to it using professional quality PVA glue - and plenty of cramps until the glue dries. MDF is heavier than ply but on a small layout that isn't necessarily a disadvantage.

 

I use matt varnish wherever I need to seal the MDF.

[bécasse]

This photo shows the underside of a pair of my MDF baseboards with a complex shape.

[Ian Morgan]

MDF is carcengenic, so avoid dust when cutting or drilling.

PIR produces lots of lethal gasses, including hydrogen cyanide, if it catches fire.

 

Is anything considered safe these days?

 

 

[Caley Jim]

4 hours ago, Ian Morgan said:

Is anything considered safe these days?

My father used to say 'Anything you enjoy is either illegal, immoral, or fattening!'. Nowadays it's either illegal, non-PC, or it will kill you! 😁 

 

Jim 

[Richard Hall]

10 hours ago, Ian Morgan said:

MDF is carcengenic, so avoid dust when cutting or drilling.

PIR produces lots of lethal gasses, including hydrogen cyanide, if it catches fire.

 

Is anything considered safe these days?

 

 

 

Having read the above I have decided to knit my own baseboards from hemp fibres. I think that should be OK.

[Izzy]

All this is why I switched to card based baseboards. Currently foamcore covered each side in mountboard. Needs care with design, slow to build, but clean using minimal tools, and is very light when finished. Joints do require reinforcement but it’s all doable. 
 

Bob

[Richard Hall]

7 hours ago, Izzy said:

All this is why I switched to card based baseboards. Currently foamcore covered each side in mountboard. Needs care with design, slow to build, but clean using minimal tools, and is very light when finished. Joints do require reinforcement but it’s all doable. 
 

Bob

Sounds interesting.  I suspect most baseboards are far too heavily built, as if we were all still modelling O gauge coarse scale.  We have one chap in the Norfolk group who has built his baseboards from balsawood.  At the other end of the scale the boards for Longframlington are MDF tops bonded to welded steel frames, and although quite small are actually heavy enough to be difficult to handle (although I can be confident they won't warp).  I might try building a 4x1 board to test some of my ideas, and if that isn't an excuse for another layout I don't know what is.

 

Richard

[VRBroadgauge]

Try plywood and foam. If you get the design right it’s strong and lightweight. 

[Richard Hall]

Does anyone remember "Longwitton"?  Built by Ian Futers in 1976/77 in EM gauge, a very simple little station on the Rothbury branch, and circular.  I saw it, probably at the Easter York exhibition, and for some reason it fascinated me. I was ten years old.

 

I was reminded of it by seeing the circular folding test track on the "Workbench" thread.  The Norfolk group has been looking at building a test track but the design I came up with was a bit too big and complicated.  A 4 x 4 folding test circle is a much more sensible proposition, but I cannot see a bare baseboard without wanting to landscape it.  So I thought I would see how Ian Futers' design would look in Templot...

 

 

 

I have extended the sidings slightly, and I'm not convinced by the pointwork geometry on Futers' hand-drawn original.  It certainly looks doable and doesn't stray too far from the concept of a simple circular test track.  Realistically I won't be able to start building Woodburn unless I move to somewhere with a larger railway room:  meanwhile I will be building locomotives and rolling stock for Woodburn, most of which will be entirely appropriate for Longwitton.  

 

Those two curved turnouts are D12s, and even then the radius is down to 17" coming off the running line into the siding.  Is that too much to ask of a six-coupled locomotive in 2mm?

 

Richard

[Laurie2mil]

10 hours ago, Richard Hall said:

Those two curved turnouts are D12s, and even then the radius is down to 17" coming off the running line into the siding.  Is that too much to ask of a six-coupled locomotive in 2mm?

 

Richard

It might be, but personally speaking I’d lengthen it a bit and try and get the minimum radius closer to 2’  through the point. The tight spot will be the check gauge at the crossing; slight gauge widening might help, and be prepared for some “fettling”.  You’ll have to build your own with that geometry so soldered construction gives you scope for adjustment. The 0.5mm file will be useful too. 
If it does prove too tight, don’t be afraid to lengthen the point - the 2FS track and wheel standards will still give smooth running. (The longest point on Yeovil is an E15, admittedly on a much larger radius, which runs very well - just needed two functioning tiebars yoked together to keep the flangeways open through the switch). 
You just have to experiment when you’re pushing the boundaries. 

Laurie

[richbrummitt]

13 hours ago, Richard Hall said:

Does anyone remember "Longwitton"?  Built by Ian Futers in 1976/77 in EM gauge, a very simple little station on the Rothbury branch, and circular.  I saw it, probably at the Easter York exhibition, and for some reason it fascinated me. I was ten years old.

 

I was reminded of it by seeing the circular folding test track on the "Workbench" thread.  The Norfolk group has been looking at building a test track but the design I came up with was a bit too big and complicated.  A 4 x 4 folding test circle is a much more sensible proposition, but I cannot see a bare baseboard without wanting to landscape it.  So I thought I would see how Ian Futers' design would look in Templot...

 

 

 

I have extended the sidings slightly, and I'm not convinced by the pointwork geometry on Futers' hand-drawn original.  It certainly looks doable and doesn't stray too far from the concept of a simple circular test track.  Realistically I won't be able to start building Woodburn unless I move to somewhere with a larger railway room:  meanwhile I will be building locomotives and rolling stock for Woodburn, most of which will be entirely appropriate for Longwitton.  

 

Those two curved turnouts are D12s, and even then the radius is down to 17" coming off the running line into the siding.  Is that too much to ask of a six-coupled locomotive in 2mm?

 

Richard

I have some circular baseboards in 6 pieces going spare but from memory the dimensions are a bit smaller than what you are drawing I think the diameters are 3’ internal and 5’ external. 

[GER_Jon]

I've always wanted to do this sort of layout after seeing those articles (the oval one as well). There's also a brilliant 3mm Irish layout balyconnel road? I've seen that one live. My version if ever made would probably be based on Widford from the Buntingford branch.

[Richard Hall]

7 hours ago, richbrummitt said:

I have some circular baseboards in 6 pieces going spare but from memory the dimensions are a bit smaller than what you are drawing I think the diameters are 3’ internal and 5’ external. 

At the risk of my simple little test circle suffering from "mission creep" I'm interested.  An extra six inches radius would make a big difference.  Whereabouts and how much? 

 

I have form for this kind of thing: here's my "simple little test oval" in N gauge which somehow ended up as a  model of Midford Yard on the S&D with about twenty locomotives acquired specifically to run on it. I have no rational explanation for how that happened.

 

[richbrummitt]

<content removed>

 

 

Edited November 25, 2022 by richbrummitt
deleted by author