Holcombe - an SDJR branch line terminus

[KingEdwardII]

2 hours ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Catch points are one of the things I look for on layouts;

There were 7 of them in the real-life S&D Priory Road station at Wells in the 1930s, all controlled from the signal box, with associated ground signals. Together, they represented about 1/3 of the levers in the box at that time.

 

Yours, Mike.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Of course, I should have called them "trap points"...

[RobAllen]

23 minutes ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Of course, I should have called them "trap points"...

Good to know the right term.

Am I correct in thinking that the physical thing is the same regardless of whether it is a trap or a catch point?

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Basically, yes Rob. BUT...

Both catch and trap points could be single or double-bladed. I'd say catch points (in steam days) were more likely to be single-bladed than double. Conversely, trap points (or "traps") were more likely to be double-bladed. Though the GW seemed to have a lot of single-bladed traps too.

Trap points would invariably be worked by a lever in the signalbox/ground frame, often in conjunction with other points. In steam days, catch points were usually spring worked; so no intervention required by the signalman. 

Best look at photos of the real thing in the area/railway company you're modelling.

Edited November 19, 2023 by Peter Kazmierczak

[RobAllen]

Still playing in RailModeller Pro. This is definitely a balancing act that would be easier if Peco did bullhead curved points!

Considering a double slip to save space. Not sure if I’m up to wiring one though :)

[Harlequin]

13 hours ago, RobAllen said:

Still playing in RailModeller Pro. This is definitely a balancing act that would be easier if Peco did bullhead curved points!

Ah, yes. I forgot about that and my suggestion used two curved turnouts.

 

13 hours ago, RobAllen said:

Considering a double slip to save space. Not sure if I’m up to wiring one though :)

Double slips also inject straightness where you really want curves.

 

Have you considered using British FInescale turnouts? They are kits that use Code 75 bullhead rail and are quite easy to put together by all accounts. One big advantage is that although the turnouts are supplied as straight they can be flexed to become curved fairly readily.

 

Edited November 21, 2023 by Harlequin

[RobAllen]

12 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Have you considered using British FInescale turnouts? They are kits that use Code 75 bullhead rail and are quite easy to put together by all accounts. One big advantage is that although the turnouts are supplied as straight they can be flexed to become curved fairly readily.

 

The British Finescale website is currently closed, so I'll wait until end of November to look at the options there.

The idea of building my own points even from a kit sounds scary, but @NFWEM57 has posted about their build and maybe it is within my capabilities. 

Definitely something to investigate and think about!

[David C]

If you are interested in prototypical operation, then another consideration is what kind of trains you run. Push pull trains are pretty boring: all you can do is run them in and out. The same is true of railcars and DMUs. A conventional train is marginally more interesting as the loco has to run round, but even then, it can get boring! The most fascinating part of model railway operation - for me, at any rate - is shunting. NCPS vehicles carrying parcels, milk churns etc can be added to and detached from passenger services and shunted to and from a loading dock, private siding etc. More heavily patronised trains can have additional coaches added or detached in a similar fashion. 

 

But the really interesting part of operation is running goods trains. Passenger trains tend to run at set times with the same stock almost every day, as do freight trains, but the amount and kind of traffic conveyed varies considerably, particularly agricultural. In the days of steam, most food was grown or reared in the UK and this was seasonal. The same was true of coal which in pre North Sea oil days was the primary source of energy for both homes and industry. The secret to adding interest to shunting is to have a lot of "destinations" at your station e.g. goods shed, crane, coal merchants area, feed merchants store, end loading dock etc etc. Specialised traffic wagons, such as cattle wagons  would not appear very often and when they did, they would have to be shunted to the dock. Wagons carrying heavy loads and containers would need to be placed next to the crane and so on.

 

Then of course on those lines which did not necessarily have a lot of goods traffic, these were often handled on mixed goods and passenger trains. These lasted well into BR days, too.

 

Finding information on prototype timetables and the way trains were handled is pretty difficult. One of my layouts is an ex GWR BLT (see Woodstowe in Layout Topics - sorry, digitally challenged and can't post a link) which I play with using the timetables of two real life branches, Cardigan and Helston. The timetable for the former is reproduced on page 2 of my Woodstowe thread  if you're interested. I found the information in the Oakwood histories of the lines plus a great deal more detail in the late lamented Great Western Journal.   The latter has included a great deal of info on other GWR branches over the years as well, much of which has been gained from the reminiscences of railwaymen who actually worked the lines. For other prototypes, I don't know what other similar sources other than the histories of specific lines and possibly prototype societies . Is there a S & DJR one? Alternatively, there are members of RM Web who were professional railwaymen who might be able to help.

 

Have fun with playing trains prototypically!

 

David C

[RobAllen]

1 hour ago, David C said:

Finding information on prototype timetables and the way trains were handled is pretty difficult.

Thanks for your insights @David C; I have had it in the back of my mind that I should think about operations more and you've prompted me to move it up in my thinking.

Fortunately for me, the SDRT sell working timetable reprints for the S&DJR. In addition, @Peter Kazmierczak wrote a rather fantastic article about planning a timetable in the July 1987 Railway Modeller ("The Westcombe branch, Part 2 - compiling the timetable" for anyone looking for it). It's generally applicable, but incredibly helpful for me, Peter's example is S&DJR based.

[RobAllen]

I have also found @David C's 5-part series on operating branch line layouts in July - November 2010 in Railway Modeller. Looks like a very interesting read for this evening.

It's so helpful that all the old issues of RM are available online.

[phil_sutters]

Burnham didn't have an engine shed, as Highbridge was only a couple of miles away. Generally speaking local trains used the original platform, while excursions used the longer platform, built for that purpose. Illustrations are provided!

I was interested to see your back-story and map. I lived at Wells, Coleford and Highbridge in the 1950s & 60s. My father started a layout, in the late 1960s, with the rather unlikely premise that the GWR built a branch from Mells Road to Coleford, via Vobster where there was a junction with an S&D branch from Radstock, I think. The GWR gave the S&D running powers from there to Coleford.  I built most of the rolling stock from Triang clerestorys and Kenline wagon parts, with the locos part repaints, conversions (e.g. SR L1 to S&D 2P) and part scratch tops on HD and Triang chassis. Those still around are gradually being worked into a highly compressed version of Highbridge Wharf. Gathering additional rolling stock and building buildings is a fairly bonkers way of doing things, as I almost certainly will have too much of both when I actually get into baseboards and track!

Although it has photos from way before your period, The Mendips in Old Photographs, compiled by Chris Howell, has a photo of the brewery's locos, Oakhill and Mendip, and lots of atmospheric scenes from the area.

I shall look forward to seeing how Holcombe progresses. Best of luck with it.

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by phil_sutters

[RobAllen]

Have to admit that I like the excursion platform at Burnham, but very difficult to justify for Holcombe!

[phil_sutters]

Isn't that a brilliant family group, Granny & Grandad, Mum, Dad, boy in his school blazer, bucket in hand, spade over his shoulder, three toddlers and another in the push-chair probably. There could even be another boy in a blazer - between the grandparents. Grandad looks as if he has the lunch. Not sure what Dad has got in his shopping bag. All of them crossing within feet of the 4F.

[slow8dirty]

Did you know of the act of of parliament in 1873? To build a line from the vicinity of Binegar into the Nettlebridge valley ending in a field adjacent the coal workings near Edford and Holcombe. I had a look but the link for the justice commission document looking to repeal all the unused railway acts is no longer valid. I used it as the inspiration for a small S&D branch a decade or so back. 

[RobAllen]

16 minutes ago, slow8dirty said:

Did you know of the act of of parliament in 1873? To build a line from the vicinity of Binegar into the Nettlebridge valley ending in a field adjacent the coal workings near Edford and Holcombe. I had a look but the link for the justice commission document looking to repeal all the unused railway acts is no longer valid. I used it as the inspiration for a small S&D branch a decade or so back. 

 

I did not! How interesting. I mostly studied the British Geological Survey's information on the coal mines and quarries in Somerset and then used railmaponline.com to see where the SDJR and GWR lines were and invented a route that picked up a couple of quarries and a couple of coal mines.

[slow8dirty]

You obviously think like an 1870s rail promoter!

Sorry the original document has disappeared, from the blurb in my archived Holcombe thread I wrote this "As an adjunct to the Bath extension, the Somerset and Dorset sought an act of parliament to build a branch from the vicinity of Binegar towards the Nettlebridge Valley, specifically to tap into the traffic from the West Mendip Colliery. This never came to fruition, until you look at the map through Rose Tinted TM glasses and see that the line indeed reached West Mendip Colliery and, later was planned to drive further into the Nettlebridge Valley, construction started but ultimately failed and the temporary terminus nr Holcombe and Edford became Permanent for the rest of the lines history."

 

The first half was pretty much as the act was, the latter my fiction, the only other bit I can remember was the act actually stated to end in a field adjacent to the coal workings. If I find a copy on my old laptop I'll let you have it.

Now to return to your creation 😁

 

[phil_sutters]

Of course you are in the territory of the western end of the Dorset and Somerset Canal branch, which should have run from Vobster, through Coleford on the aqueduct, to Edford, had the funds not run out.

https://www.dorandsomcanal.org/features.htm

[RobAllen]

I've gone down a bit of a rabbit hole on this and found the Nettlebridge Valley Railway (Abandonment) Act 1878, which references the Nettlebridge Valley Railway Act 1874. However this is a GWR plan for a branch from Mells via the Westbury Iron Company Ltd to Lower Stock Hill in Chilcompton and obviously never happened given the 1878 Abandonment act.

 

More playing with Google and I discovered the Somerset and Dorset Railway Act 1873 which I didn't know about, as I was aware that the Bath Extension act was the Somerset and Dorset Railway (Extension to the Midland Railway at Bath) Act 1871.

The 1873 act provided for:

A railway (Nettle Bridge Branch), one mile, five furlongs, six chains, in length, commencing in the parish of Binegar by a junction with the Bath Extension, at the road leading from Shepton Mallet to Bristol, and terminating in the parish of Midsomer Norton, in a field situate on the south side of, and adjacent to, the mine or pit called or known as the Strap Pit of the Downside Colliery Company.

(interesting that it's "Nettle Bridge", not "Nettlebridge" here).

Very much fertile ground for a plausible what-if!

[RobAllen]

Baseboards have arrived. I'll be able to put track on them soon and then have to make some decisions!

 

[RobAllen]

I've been thinking about what's around the station. In my history, Holcombe is a big enough market town to warrant taking the railway to it. As such, I'm wondering how built-up up would the area around the station be in the mid-to-late 1930s? Maybe not as much as I thought.

 

This is my thinking.

I imagine that when the railway came to a country town in the 1880s, it would have been on the edge of town, with probably countryside around most of it and the town close by on one side. This makes sense as I guess that the land would be cheaper and there's less uprooting of existing buildings, etc. We can see this with Yovil, Minehead, Frome, Burnham or Wells on NLS maps.

This is Wells, where we can see that the city is to the north east of station and there's not a lot around the station:

 

What about in 1930's though? Wells is a little more built up in this 1929 map, though not as much as I would have thought:

 

 

 

Interestingly, it looks like more houses have been built on the road to the south of the station and also just north of the goods yard where the cricket pitch was. There looks to be fields directly to the west and north-west of the station. I would have expected more industry or at least warehouses much closer, particular to the goods yard. However, looking at West St on Google Maps, we see this:

 

They look like post-WW1 houses to me and I'm wondering if that's the original wall that separated the road from the goods yard?

 

To circle round to the start of this post, I'm thinking that even though Holcombe station has been built to serve a market town, as it's in the countryside it's likely that there'll be fields around the station and just some light urban features.

Have I missed anything obvious in this thinking?

 

 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2023 by RobAllen

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Rob, what the maps clearly show is that the freight facilities were more extensive than those for passengers. Something to bear in mind in your layout design.

[Typographer]

On 20/11/2023 at 19:42, RobAllen said:

Still playing in RailModeller Pro.

Hi Rob - I enjoy planning (and just doodling) in RailModeller Pro - I wonder if you might share your layout file when its done (I spent hours on mine but only got really useful criticism when I showed it on this forum). I did upload a nearly final version on the app’s community page.

 

Paul

[KingEdwardII]

7 hours ago, RobAllen said:

Have I missed anything obvious in this thinking?

The problem with using Wells as a prototype is that it has *3* separate goods yards for the one small town. And the SDJR goods yard you are focussing on is not the biggest of them. The East Somerset yard on the east side of Priory Road had the Gasworks, while Tucker Street yard to the north west had a large feed mill. Not quite so rural - and these industrial premises were dependent on the railway.

 

It is true that the railways were built on the edge of these small market towns - and that it took some time for development to surround the lines. However, I think that it is common for one side of the lines to have housing/buildings next to them - the railways encouraged the development of housing between the old town centres and the lines/stations in Victorian times. This can be seen by the presence of classic Victorian houses in those areas - I can see this in Station Road in my local town of Romsey, for example. I doubt that the areas near the station really looked rural.

 

Note that Wells already had a major building on the south side of the railway even in Victorian times (see your first map) - this was the local Workhouse. By the 1930s, as well as the 3 streets of houses on the south side, there were at least 2 industrial enterprises in that area - which were just off the bottom of the later map that you have, beyond the houses.

 

Yours, Mike.

[phil_sutters]

Burnham only had any significant buildings on the north and east sides of the station. The area to the south was only really developed after the railway was closed. There are a few rather grainy snaps of the buildings to the north in this album. To the south the line passed through fields and further south past brick works, as it made its way to Highbridge. By the way, does anyone know where the little hut from the through platform at Highbridge has ended up? It was in the grounds of the County Infants School, when I lived next door in the early 1970s. But when I looked more recently it had disappeared - maybe onto a bonfire!

 

Edited December 3, 2023 by phil_sutters

[RobAllen]

1 hour ago, KingEdwardII said:

The problem with using Wells as a prototype is that it has *3* separate goods yards for the one small town. And the SDJR goods yard you are focussing on is not the biggest of them. The East Somerset yard on the east side of Priory Road had the Gasworks, while Tucker Street yard to the north west had a large feed mill. Not quite so rural - and these industrial premises were dependent on the railway.

 

That’s a really good point that passed me by. Thanks! less field, more building it is. Though, with 18”, there’s not a massive amount of room!