Southminster

[gobbler]

Well guys i've been a member now for a while and would like to share with you my trip into the wondeful world that we call model railways.

 

Anyway in for a penny in for a pound.....here's what i would like to accomplish....

this will be made in 4mm/oo using peco code 100 with insulfrog turn outs.

 

i've started the station, all sizes have been guesstimated til the size looks 'right'. i've got some good views of the signal cabin, i should be able to build the water tower.

 

haven't got any good views of the engine shed or the goods shed.....if anyone could help with pictures of southminster past or present please add them to the blog or maybe 'pm' me.....

 

will add more soon

 

Scott

[PaulG]

Scott

 

Interesting idea.

 

We published an illustrated article about the station in the Great Eastern Railway Society Journal (issue 102) and I have a small collection of BR drawings and photographs of the station. There is a lot of information in the museum at Mangapps and a full photographic survey of the station, goods yard etc was undertaken prior to the demolition of the buildings in the 1960s. There is even a photo of the top of the water tower! The only problem area is the loco shed - the roof caught fire in the early 1950s and the building was demolished in the mid-1950s, so few photographs exist.

 

What period will you be modelling? In "BR steam days", there was a regular turn for a B-12, but most branch line trains were worked by N-7 0-6-2T and I've photos of a J-19 0-6-0 on freight trains, so it looks like you will be "scratch" building the locos unless stories of Bachmann introducing an N-7 are true!

 

As you will note, I live in Southminster so if I can be of help please get in touch.

 

Regards

Paul

[Kenton]

this will be made in 4mm/oo using peco code 100 with insulfrog turn outs.

 

i've started the station, all sizes have been guesstimated til the size looks 'right'.

 

You don't give a size for the overall layout - it looks quite big.

Any reason for going down the Code 100 and insulfrog route?

 

Is the plan as it was for the prototype - I ask because that arrangement in and out of the goods shed seems a bit odd/unusual to me

[fegguk]

I don't like to critiise however the goods shed is the wrong way round.

 

The rail entrance should be on the main line side. The other side has the internal platform for unloading and doors to allow goods to be tranferred to lorries etc. Having rails either side of the goods shed would have been a health and safety issue even in the past as road an rail vehicles are using the same space.

 

Ask yourself the question what happens to people and stuff when it arrives at the staton and how is it going to leave

[Trevellan]

ScottI was commissioned to photograph Soutminster station and environs for a prospective model back in 1977 which is probably too late for your chosen period. I seem to recall the track layout being far simpler than your plan shows.All my shots are black and white and I can't recall offhand how many of the negs have been scanned. I'll try to find time to have a look over the weekend. Some of the views might help, as the local staff gave me free reign to wander around.

[Allegheny1600]

Hi Scott,

That looks to be a lovely plan there, however;

 

I don't like to critiise however the goods shed is the wrong way round.

 

The rail entrance should be on the main line side. The other side has the internal platform for unloading and doors to allow goods to be tranferred to lorries etc. Having rails either side of the goods shed would have been a health and safety issue even in the past as road an rail vehicles are using the same space.

 

Ask yourself the question what happens to people and stuff when it arrives at the staton and how is it going to leave

 

Also, may i suggest a couple of things?

You have a connection from the main-line (platform road) to the current road that passes through the goods shed, just before the loading gauge. Is this crossover not superfluous, therefore driving your costs up needlessly?

You have a point and crossing marked 'X' just after the goods shed, leading to the cattle dock - possibly replace this with a double slip giving increased flexibility into the cattle dock and also exiting the platform?

I do however, like the idea of the "3 way + L" just in front of the water tower - i think that would look good, HOWEVER if you were to follow my double slip suggestion - this too would become superfluous and could be replaced by a simple R/H point giving access to the loco facilities!

 

PLEASE NOTE: I know nothing about the original station plan at Southminster and if you have drawn your layout according to prototype practice (in your chosen period) please ignore everything i have just said! I'm only trying to offer my own perspective on your plan - it's your layout and you do it your way, of course!

 

Best regards,

John E.

[bike2steam]

As Kenton said, why code 100, and insulfrog?

As an 'Essex Boy' I'm always interested in Essex branches, and once part of a band of modellers that made Ongar - Blake Hall (pre-electrification) in 4mm, so it will be nice to see how this developes.

keep us posted

[gobbler]

well guys thanks for all your replies.

 

the idea is for the layout to be upto 1958, so i can run the odd derby lightweight, craven cl105 and metro cammell, when i can afford the kits/conversions and even possibly the acv experimental railbus.

 

the track plan is what dennis swindale has down in his branchline to southminster book. with the exception of the 3way behind the water tower.

 

as far as i can tell the goods building is correct, including the health & saftey issues, according to the only picture i have.

 

as for code 100 & insulfrog, although i'm diving in at the deepnend a bit, (with the grandness of the layout, approx 15ft exlcuding scenic swept curve that will be going at the bottom of my garage, returning down the other side into the fiddle yard.) i'm a bit scared of building my own track, and wiring with dtdp switches and live frogs.

 

i'll upload my station building soon....but this is what else i'm doing

N7 using Hornby J83 for the driving wheels, with a scrstch built body

ian kirk, 5 compartment all 3rd brake, suburban.

ian kirk, 3rd/1st semi corridor, suburban

 

there's a brilliant article i've found on rmweb regarding painting of the teak.

 

scott

[Kenton]

as for code 100 & insulfrog, although i'm diving in at the deepnend a bit, (with the grandness of the layout, approx 15ft exlcuding scenic swept curve that will be going at the bottom of my garage, returning down the other side into the fiddle yard.) i'm a bit scared of building my own track, and wiring with dtdp switches and live frogs.

 

thanks for indicating the length 15ft sounds quite realistic as usable - and makes the plan a bit clearer as it is quite compressed. I was especially concerned about the two sets crossings together at the left - a waste of railway company money with no purpose (something they would never do in the GER ) However if there was quite a length of siding in between it would make sense.

 

Cod 75 always looks better than Code 100 and is just as easy to use unless you have very old stock.

Insulfrog - the wariness about wiring frogs is understandable but you should try to conquer that fear as he benefits over than drop onto the nonconducting plastic far outweigh any initial fear of switching. Also if you intend to motorise the points it is straightforward if you use suitable point motors. Plenty of folk on here to give advice on wiring the layout if you have problems in that area.

Some of us find that aspect of model railways straightforward

[gobbler]

couple of other notes....

 

platform length = 3 coaches (3 coaches were typical for this branch i think)

black dots = round ground signals

the line itself out of the station is single track down to south woodham ferres (used to connect with maldon), where it is double all the way down to wickford.

the goods yard definitly is over the middle road,actual size is 52 yds x 15 yds

scale is 52yd x 3 = 156 ft 156 x 4 = 624mm

scale is 15yd x 3 = 45 ft 45 x 4 = 180mmm = 624 x 180 (i think i'll be cutting this down by 300mm)

[fegguk]

as far as i can tell the goods building is correct, including the health & saftey issues, according to the only picture i have

 

Obviously the "There is prototype for everything" rule applies here however illogical it must have made sense once.

[gobbler]

i've already got...

 

4 x LH short

2 x RH SHORT

2 x LH LONG

1 X 3 WAY

1 X DOUBLE SLIP

1 X SHORT 'X'

1 X SHORT 'Y'

2 X LENGHT CODE 100 FLEXI ..... ALL AS NEW.

 

unless anybody wants to give me what it has cost me (as every thing is still new & in its box) i can't now afford to change, over the last couple of years i've bought 1 turnout every 3 months or so when i could afford it.

 

I'M about 1 X RH , 2 x LH 12 lengths of flexi short of what i need to complete the station end of the layout.....

 

i'll be using a mixture of newish Hornby turnouts for the fiddle yard.

 

scott

[gobbler]

fegguk,

 

regards the goods, you could be correct, i'm only going by 1 photo and the drawing by mr swindale. the road entering the shed may be closer to the main platform road......i'll have to do a bit of jiggling around once the track is laid as i'm using stock turnouts.

 

scott

[Buckjumper]

the goods shed is the wrong way round.

 

Yep, see plan below.

 

Obviously the "There is prototype for everything" rule applies here however illogical it must have made sense once.

 

It's the Great Eastern - they wrote the prototype for everything rule: An engine shed in a goods shed (Wells); access to the maltings and mill grain house sidings through the engine shed (Hadleigh); a sheer drop at end of platform onto a level crossing (Ware), the goods shed siding ending on the main approach road without buffer stops (Ware)...ad infinitum. The fact that sidings formed a boundary around the goods shed at Southminster is a mere trifle in comparison.

 

Southminster c1932

 

[gobbler]

I like the plan above, makes a bit more sense.....

 

Q....where is the grain stored? inside the goods shed?

Q....dennis swindale's book refers to a crane (possibly for goods)....where is that situated?

Q....the cattle dock, how long was it (how many wagons did it accomodate?

Q....what is the 'PW' box at the extreme LH? plate layer hut?

 

cheers buckjumper

[Buckjumper]

There were two internal 1t 10cwt cranes in the goods shed, which was 120' x 48', and had four access points on the road side. Goods sheds often doubled up as warehouses, and I suspect the shed was able to store a considerable amount of grain. I believe one of the cranes was slated for being moved outside during WWII, but I don't know if this happened.

 

Looking at the OS, from the platform end to the end of the dock was approximately two chains - that's 132 feet, but someone else might be able to give chapter & verse.

 

The PW is indeed a plate layer hut. A platelayer's trolly was located station-side of the hut.

[eldavo]

That's a really interesting plan, well at least to a self-confessed trackwork junky it is. Could look really nice. Should be interesting to operate as well.

 

Cheers

Dave

[gobbler]

sorry buckjumper....another Q.

 

where was the ash dumped....

 

also on the track plan i have, there's what i can only describe as a type of headshunt that runs just behind the water tower off of the TT/engine shed siding which does not appear on your track plan.

 

what was that used for...the ash???

[Kenton]

BJ that is a much better plan - we have lost that double crossing into the goods shed on the left (saving 2 points) that was bothering me, and the length of the siding looks much more realistic.

 

But now we have an unprotected exit to the engine shed turntable - surely there would at least have been a catch point here? At least on gobbler's original plan the "headshunt" would have enabled a loco to be taken out of the shed and turned without fouling the main.

 

 

In terms of prototype info - the shed derelict and without a roof from the early 1940's and locos were serviced in the shed yard, it was closed in September 1956 ... but as always who cares (its your layout).

[Kenton]

BJ that is a much better plan - we have lost that double crossing into the goods shed on the left (saving 2 points) that was bothering me, and the length of the siding looks much more realistic.

 

But now we have an unprotected exit to the engine shed turntable - surely there would at least have been a catch point here? At least on gobbler's original plan the "headshunt" would have enabled a loco to be taken out of the shed and turned without fouling the main.

 

 

In terms of prototype info - the shed derelict and without a roof from the early 1940's and locos were serviced in the shed yard, it was closed in 1956 ... but as always who cares (its your layout).

[Buckjumper]

But now we have an unprotected exit to the engine shed turntable - surely there would at least have been a catch point here? At least on gobbler's original plan the "headshunt" would have enabled a loco to be taken out of the shed and turned without fouling the main.

 

Looking at the article PaulG mentioned, the headshunt was in situ at least as late as the 1922 OS. A photograph dated 1955 appears to show no trap point or headshunt in situ. My sketch was based on the one dated 1932 in GE Engine Sheds (Wild Swan) which doesn't show a headshunt or trap. As these sidings joined the loop, not the main running line, it could be construed as unnecessary. FWIW, originally it appears to have been a slip controlling access to the headshunt/turntable and engine shed.

 

Dunno where ash was dumped - within chucking distance of the shed pits I suspect.

 

I've amended the drawing to show the old headshunt/slip, but certainly more data is required for this location.

[Kenton]

I have a grotty OS map dated 1890' (or about) it doesn't show the headshunt - but then it doesn't show the catch either - but it surely must have been there. The coal stage is very clear along with the fact that the shed is 2 track through. There was a water crane - I believe in the vicinity of the coal stage.

 

I also have a photo of the shed taken 1955 - and when I say derelict - I mean totally out of use so I doubt if any real servicing was done there by that time. possibly only used as a turning point - though I have no record if the turntable was still in operation by that date.

 

As for the ash? No idea. By that 1955 photo there is concrete chain link fencing down the east side of the shed and no sign of any piles on the waste ground between shed roads and the main line (photo taken from approx north entrance of goods shed)

[Buckjumper]

There was an inspection pit in each shed road and one in the TT road. How far can you throw ash with a shovel?

[gobbler]

ScottI was commissioned to photograph Soutminster station and environs for a prospective model back in 1977 which is probably too late for your chosen period. I seem to recall the track layout being far simpler than your plan shows.All my shots are black and white and I can't recall offhand how many of the negs have been scanned. I'll try to find time to have a look over the weekend. Some of the views might help, as the local staff gave me free reign to wander around.

 

 

any chance of sharing your pix with me?

 

cheers

 

scott

[bike2steam]

i've already got...

 

4 x LH short

2 x RH SHORT

2 x LH LONG

1 X 3 WAY

1 X DOUBLE SLIP

1 X SHORT 'X'

1 X SHORT 'Y'

2 X LENGHT CODE 100 FLEXI ..... ALL AS NEW.

 

unless anybody wants to give me what it has cost me (as every thing is still new & in its box) i can't now afford to change, over the last couple of years i've bought 1 turnout every 3 months or so when i could afford it.

 

I'M about 1 X RH , 2 x LH 12 lengths of flexi short of what i need to complete the station end of the layout.....

 

i'll be using a mixture of newish Hornby turnouts for the fiddle yard.

 

scott

 

Sell it all on e-bay, and replace with Peco Code 75 (from Hattons,perhaps ). The running will be lots better.