A Borchester Market layout appreciation topic

[Willie Whizz]

There was of course a genuine railway project that followed an approximation of this route - the 'Newark and Ollerton Railway' from the 1880s, which would have been built with the support of, and probably operated by, the GN.  I'm not sure why it never materialised - other than, of course, the lack of a "real" Borchester to serve by a branch.  (There is a "real" Wellow, mind you - a smallish village whose main claim to fame appears to be the size of its maypole ...).

 

That proposal actually pre-dates by several years the east-to-west line shown in dark green passing through Ollerton - which although shown as 'GCR' was originally the 'Lancashire, Derbyshire and East Coast Railway' - which of course failed to reach two of the three places in its name and only barely penetrated the third - but was very important indeed in the area as an exit route for the many collieries around and to the north of Mansfield.

 

It was Frank Dyer's clever mix of real and imaginary (but plausible) locations and history that helped to keep Borchester Market so well-grounded and feeling authentic.

[Chris_z]

There was of course a genuine railway project that followed an approximation of this route - the 'Newark and Ollerton Railway' from the 1880s, which would have been built with the support of, and probably operated by, the GN. I'm not sure why it never materialised - other than, of course, the lack of a "real" Borchester to serve by a branch. (There is a "real" Wellow, mind you - a smallish village whose main claim to fame appears to be the size of its maypole ...).

 

That proposal actually pre-dates by several years the east-to-west line shown in dark green passing through Ollerton - which although shown as 'GCR' was originally the 'Lancashire, Derbyshire and East Coast Railway' - which of course failed to reach two of the three places in its name and only barely penetrated the third - but was very important indeed in the area as an exit route for the many collieries around and to the north of Mansfield.

 

It was Frank Dyer's clever mix of real and imaginary (but plausible) locations and history that helped to keep Borchester Market so well-grounded and feeling authentic.

Ah! You're pre-empting a lot of stuff I'm coming onto. I've done quite a bit of research on this. Please bear with me, because I have quite a bit to post.

You're quite right about the Newark & Ollerton Railway. The first route failed to get Parliamentary approval (1883), but the revised route was approved 1887. Had it been supported by the GNR, it should have been built within the usual 5 years an Act of Parliament allowed. I think it could have been opened by 1889; well before the Lancashire, Derbyshire & East Coast Railway received approval.

 

The very short version of what's coming is this:

- the N&OR would have been an agricultural line with hops as a major source of traffic

- coal mining didn't reach Bilsthorpe, Ollerton and Thornesbury (Edwinstowe) until the mid / late 1920s

- BM couldn't have been founded on coal

- coal was never mined east of those 3 pits, including the whole of Lincolnshire (SEE NOTE BELOW)

- Franks location for BM (Kneesall) is too close to Newark-on-Trent to be a market town

- as I will demonstrate, the layout doesn't fit the topography as Frank imaged

- a much better place would be New Ollerton!

 

I've worked this out in some detail and was hoping to take it stage by stage.

I've even used GIS (Geographic Information Systems) software to test the practicality of Kneesall as a location.

None of my research detracts from BM; it simply moves it to a new location which would require few changes to the layout as built.

So bear with me while I gather the material for posting.

The attached map (1:25000 scale - NLS website source) shows my attempt to georeference and rectify the central part of Franks location see (my redraw above). It doesn't work. I'll explain another day, but it involves differences in elevation, track distances and earthworks.

 

More to come.......

 

NOTE (May 2017): Further research on coal mining in the area complicates this statement. No new mine shafts were sunk east of these, but the extent of underground mining has surprised me. I am plotting this and will post information.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Chris_z

[Pacific231G]

Thanks to some excellent photos from Charlie of BM 1992, I now feel confident in producing a layout plan for 1992.

 

BORCHESTER MARKET 1992

Thanks for this Chris. This is the clearest plan of BM I've seen, excellent work.

BTW what is the "Flush Siding" in front of the goods shed siding? It's a term I've not heard before.

[Chris_z]

Thanks for this Chris. This is the clearest plan of BM I've seen, excellent work.

BTW what is the "Flush Siding" in front of the goods shed siding? It's a term I've not heard before.

Thanks very much for your kind words. I've always wanted to produce a coloured BM plan.

"Flush siding":

Have a look at online photos that show the Goods Yard. I had to do some searching, but there are images covering the 'NE corner'; or if you have a copy of the 1980 article.

Basically, there's a hard surface around the Goods Shed where road vehicles move around the yard. It butts up against the siding in question - flush with the rail top. If the hard surface had been extended across the track - as much of the siding through the Goods Shed - it would become 'inset' track. Does this help?

PS. I was once a member of the SNCF Society - amongst others - for awhile. Long time ago.....

[Willie Whizz]

Ah! You're pre-empting a lot of stuff I'm coming onto. I've done quite a bit of research on this. Please bear with me, because I have quite a bit to post.

 

...

- Franks location for BM (Kneesall) is too close to Newark-on-Trent to be a market town

- as I will demonstrate, the layout doesn't fit the topography as Frank imaged

- a much better place would be New Ollerton!

...

I've worked this out in some detail and was hoping to take it stage by stage.

 

Oops, sorry, wasn't aware there was a 'grand theme' to your posts - good luck, I shall watch with interest!

 

On those particular points, though, it has occurred to me in the past to wonder why he didn't choose Southwell for his bit of fiddling with History.  A real market town, though smaller than Newark, and about the same distance away from the GN main line as the crow flies as the hypothetical Borchester by its indicated route.  Only served by a piddling branch line with about 3 passenger trains a day from the MR's Nottingham-Lincoln route, Southwell was potentially an important place some hundreds of years ago but its growth was stunted by a variety of economic, historical and religious factors.  However, it was nearer the already-developed parts of the Coalfield (whose seams got deeper the more easterly they lay), so its rapid development might conceivably been stimulated had the deep mining revolution come say twenty years or so earlier.  So no further a leap of the imagination required, and in some respects less.

 

And there would have been a bloomin' great big beautiful Norman Minster to model or to show on the back-scene too!

[Chris_z]

Oops, sorry, wasn't aware there was a 'grand theme' to your posts - good luck, I shall watch with interest!

 

On those particular points, though, it has occurred to me in the past to wonder why he didn't choose Southwell for his bit of fiddling with History. A real market town, though smaller than Newark, and about the same distance away from the GN main line as the crow flies as the hypothetical Borchester by its indicated route. Only served by a piddling branch line with about 3 passenger trains a day from the MR's Nottingham-Lincoln route, Southwell was potentially an important place some hundreds of years ago but its growth was stunted by a variety of economic, historical and religious factors. However, it was nearer the already-developed parts of the Coalfield (whose seams got deeper the more easterly they lay), so its rapid development might conceivably been stimulated had the deep mining revolution come say twenty years or so earlier. So no further a leap of the imagination required, and in some respects less.

 

And there would have been a bloomin' great big beautiful Norman Minster to model or to show on the back-scene too!

No worries

Taking a step back, I'm going to try and go through a thought process.

Below is a map (National Library of Scotland has an excellent collection of online maps - and growing) of the main area I shall be dealing with. The 1:25000 maps online were published 1937-1961 for this area - depending on the sheet.

See index link - http://maps.nls.uk/geo/find/#zoom=10.868958822946428&lat=53.2153&lon=-1.0605&layers=14&b=1&point=0,0

I have annotated it to show the railways in the 1880s. Not many. There were no coal mines in this area either.

 

Here - http://www.healeyhero.co.uk/rescue/individual/Bob_Bradley/A-1.html - is an excellent website about coal mining history in the area. If you 'dig' (no pun intended) through it you'll see how mining developed from west to east over time. There's a lot about events and closures. Also some very informative maps of the mine workings extent.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Chris_z

[Chris_z]

No worries

Taking a step back, I'm going to try and go through a thought process.

Below is a map (National Library of Scotland has an excellent collection of online maps - and growing) of the main area I shall be dealing with. The 1:25000 maps online were published 1951-1961 for this area - depending on the sheet.

See index link - http://maps.nls.uk/geo/find/#zoom=10.868958822946428&lat=53.2153&lon=-1.0605&layers=14&b=1&point=0,0

I have annotated it to show the railways in the 1880s. Not many. There were no coal mines in this area either.

Here - http://www.healeyhero.co.uk/rescue/individual/Bob_Bradley/A-1.html - is an excellent website about coal mining history in the area. If you 'dig' (no pun intended) through it you'll see how mining developed from west to east over time. There's a lot about events and closures. Also some very informative maps of the mine workings extent.

Same map again, but with the 2 proposed alignments for the N&OR. The Railways of Newark-on-Trent by Michael A. Vanns is an excellent book with plenty of maps and plans.

[Chris_z]

Ah! You're pre-empting a lot of stuff I'm coming onto. I've done quite a bit of research on this. Please bear with me, because I have quite a bit to post.

You're quite right about the Newark & Ollerton Railway. The first route failed to get Parliamentary approval (1883), but the revised route was approved 1887. Had it been supported by the GNR, it should have been built within the usual 5 years an Act of Parliament allowed. I think it could have been opened by 1889; well before the Lancashire, Derbyshire & East Coast Railway received approval.

The very short version of what's coming is this:

- the N&OR would have been an agricultural line with hops as a major source of traffic

- coal mining didn't reach Bilsthorpe, Ollerton and Thornesbury (Edwinstowe) until the mid / late 1920s

- BM couldn't have been founded on coal

- coal was never mined east of those 3 pits, including the whole of Lincolnshire

- Franks location for BM (Kneesall) is too close to Newark-on-Trent to be a market town

- as I will demonstrate, the layout doesn't fit the topography as Frank imaged

- a much better place would be New Ollerton!

I've worked this out in some detail and was hoping to take it stage by stage.

I've even used GIS (Geographic Information Systems) software to test the practicality of Kneesall as a location.

None of my research detracts from BM; it simply moves it to a new location which would require few changes to the layout as built.

So bear with me while I gather the material for posting.

The attached map (1:25000 scale - NLS website source) shows my attempt to georeference and rectify the central part of Franks location see (my redraw above). It doesn't work. I'll explain another day, but it involves differences in elevation, track distances and earthworks.

More to come.......

I've had another attempt to fit Franks route onto the map. I'm not happy with the fit, but it's the best I can do unless someone has something Frank drew in its conceptual stage.

I've annotated a few things. Fortunately there is a curve - which I've estimated to be ~290m radius - in the vicinity of Ollerton, that is a useful reference. The fit I posted earlier is clearly far too tight. I've examples of actual curves similar to the 290m curve with speed limits of 25 - 30mph.

 

NOTE: Since posting this originally, I have found earlier photos of BM with a 30mph speed sign on the Departure (UP) line just after the last siding of the freight yard. It's no longer on the layout.

 

Getting from the nearest tunnel to approximately where the signal gantry is located can't be more than ~2000m. The difference in elevation is absolutely not less than 15m, but much more likely to be 20-25m. That means the final approach to Borchester Market would have a gradient of ~1 in 75, maybe 1 in 100 at the most generous.

On the question of earthworks, I tried to assess the Mid-Notts Joint LMS / LNER line built 1931 from the LMS line north to Ollerton. The maximum elevation of the line seems to be no higher than 45m. The deepest cutting seems to be ~15m+. There are no tunnels. When you look at the N&OR route, there are no tunnels shown, but it is obvious some fairly significant cut and fill would have been required.

I have to conclude that Franks solution is as much about creating a layout to fit the available space.

I think he missed a much better location - more on that later.

In the meantime my latest attempt at a fit.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Chris_z

[clecklewyke]

Very nice, but where's Ambridge?

 

Ian

[Grovenor]

Very nice, but where's Ambridge?

 

Ian

Different alternate reality.

regards

[The Johnster]

There are occasional references to the Malvern Hills being visible from Ambridge, and (with due deference to Frank Dyer) I have always sort of assumed that the Borchester in the Archers is Worcester, and think of it in a GW/Midland way in terms of railways.  Anywhere you can see the Malverns in the west from is a bit further west than the area around the model Borchester.  Many years ago I drew up a plan for an Ambridge branch terminus; it was to be a GW/Midland joint affair and was a sort of terminusised Bewdley with an MR branch coming in where the disused Hartlebury line does on the real Bewdley.  It would have been a far too grand affair for such a small village, and would never have survived Beeching!

[Chris_z]

Very nice, but where's Ambridge?

 

Ian

Hmmmm!

I think you're on the wrong thread.

Try this....

http://www.themapcentre.com/fictional-map-of-ambridge--borchester-district---the-archers-bbc-radio-4-8857-p.asp

Or better still....

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/8097-blog-the-railways-of-borsetshire-premise-for-a-fantasy/

And...

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/440/entry-2096-premise-for-a-fantasy/

[Chris_z]

I've had another attempt to fit Franks route onto the map. I'm not happy with the fit, but it's the best I can do unless someone has something Frank drew in its conceptual stage.

I've annotated a few things. Fortunately there is a curve - which I've estimated to be ~290m radius - in the vicinity of Ollerton, that is a useful reference. The fit I posted earlier is clearly far too tight. I've examples of actual curves similar to the 290m curve with speed limits of 25 - 30mph.

Getting from the nearest tunnel to approximately where the signal gantry is located can't be more than ~2000m. The difference in elevation is absolutely not less than 15m, but much more likely to be 20-25m. That means the final approach to Borchester Market would have a gradient of ~1 in 75, maybe 1 in 100 at the most generous.

On the question of earthworks, I tried to assess the Mid-Notts Joint LMS / LNER line built 1931 from the LMS line north to Ollerton. The maximum elevation of the line seems to be no higher than 45m. The deepest cutting seems to be ~15m+. There are no tunnels. When you look at the N&OR route, there are no tunnels shown, but it is obvious some fairly significant cut and fill would have been required.

I have to conclude that Franks solution is as much about creating a layout to fit the available space.

I think he missed a much better location - more on that later.

In the meantime my latest attempt at a fit.

Ah yes, where was I....

the 1890s...

[Chris_z]

Finally, the 20th century before Franks 1958 time period.

I've tried to coal mines and oil fields as context for my assessment and variation of Franks scenario.

[TonyW1960]

Hi,

I've done more work on trying to understand the signalling.

The attached diagram tries to encapsulate most of my queries. BM is a good example for trying to understand semaphore signalling. Not only do I want to understand, but it maybe useful for others.

BM rightfully got that award for signalling. I wonder if it had such awards in the past?

The diagram attached:

- I've created my own numbering system for simplicity. I know they don't match the control panel, but it shouldn't matter for this post.

- yellow disks cover the main (running & subsidiary) signals

- blue disks cover disc signals.

- disc signals on the right of the track have been identified (more than I thought)

- since doing this I realise there are at least 2 'main' signals on the 'wrong' side - 3-arm shunt bracket and the yard signal.

- I think I got one of the numbers wrong on the 3-number Theatre Indicator Panel - see diagram.

 

My question about the headshunt disc concerned 'real' life, not the model operation. I've got 6 books on signalling, but they don't answer many questions!

Does that ground disc (blue 20) cover the immediate right divergence?

If so, how is shunting allowed with the disc 'off'? I know the turnout is set for straight ahead moves, but how is permission given for shunts involving the headshunt?

 

That 'yard signal' has a blue notice board. I can read the large heading, but what does the rest of it say?

 

Have a look through the text. There are a number of questions I'd really like someone to provide answers.

 

Perhaps I may be permitted to answer some of the questions Chris poses in his drawing

• The headshunt ground disc (signal 7) is pulled for moves over the crossover using the outer end of platform 4 only, such moves also see platform 4's starter or shunt disc pulled.  Shunt moves are permitted past it into the goods yard with the signal on.  Some railways would have used a yellow disc for this move.
• The signal indicated adjacent to goods yard siding 4 (signal 21) controls exit from the fan of points onto the Up departure road.  Most departing freights use this route rather than the crossover using the end of platform 4.  It has a small arm indicating that it does not apply to passenger trains.  The blue board at its foot would have carried the local instructions to staff as to when they can pass this signal at danger - as indeed one does to access siding 4.
• The smaller arms on the gantry are indeed calling on arms, but not all railways marked these with a C.
• The top entry on the smaller theatre light should be 3 as, passing under this signal one can only access platforms 3, 4 and the yard

 

One "secret", is that the operators do not need to know the meaning of every signal, as the schedule tells them exactly which signals and points to pull (and the order in which to pull them).

 

I hope this helps

 

Tony

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/75514026@N03/albums/72157649004452418/with/20344807871/

Edited April 20, 2017 by TonyW1960

[TonyW1960]

I'm trying to redraw the Control Panel diagram, but am unable to read all the small text.

I've written over in black where it can be read.

The unreadable is marked with a red T.

Also, I cannot read all the numbers on the gantry diagram.

PLEASE CAN ANYONE HELP?

 

I cannot remember what all of the unreadable text says, but some I can help with.

 

The "Key", bottom left tells us:

• Blue are uncoupling ramps, numbered ones are moveable via a "signal" lever, blank are sprung.  Most of the sprung ramps have been removed as they foul modern tension lock couplers.
• Black numbers in a white circle correspond with the electrical on/off switches within each coloured section.  So the centre road between platforms 2 and 3 is the White section within which there are 3 on/off switches.  Each coloured section can be switched between the three controllers.
• White numbers within a black circle indicate point levers.  Many of these seem to have been replaced by yellow circular labels on the plan.
• Red numbers are signals

The black and white diagonal section has text around it explaining the electrical options for working this section as it can be operated by both the front and fiddle yard controllers.

 

The two "T"s near the signal gantry refer to notes that explain that the electrical control of the slips switches between the different coloured controller sections depending on the way the slip is pulled.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/75514026@N03/20330230562/in/album-72157649004452418/

 

Tony

[Chris_z]

I cannot remember what all of the unreadable text says, but some I can help with.

 

The "Key", bottom left tells us:

 

• Blue are uncoupling ramps, numbered ones are moveable via a "signal" lever, blank are sprung.  Most of the sprung ramps have been removed as they foul modern tension lock couplers.
• Black numbers in a white circle correspond with the electrical on/off switches within each coloured section.  So the centre road between platforms 2 and 3 is the White section within which there are 3 on/off switches.  Each coloured section can be switched between the three controllers.
• White numbers within a black circle indicate point levers.  Many of these seem to have been replaced by yellow circular labels on the plan.
• Red numbers are signals

The black and white diagonal section has text around it explaining the electrical options for working this section as it can be operated by both the front and fiddle yard controllers.

 

The two "T"s near the signal gantry refer to notes that explain that the electrical control of the slips switches between the different coloured controller sections depending on the way the slip is pulled.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/75514026@N03/20330230562/in/album-72157649004452418/

 

Tony

Hello Tony,

I know we've never met but were members of the same MES at separate times.

I have tried to e-mail you, so I am extremely glad you've been able to post these replies. Many thanks.

I hope you will be able to help further.

I did want to ask your permission to use some of your photos in this thread to help illustrate some points I try to make - possibly with annotations. Is this possible?

I was also wondering whether you have more photos not on Flickr? I'm especially looking for early photos of the layout and close-up photos of the signals.

 

As to your control panel comments, I need to seek clarification - in additional posts.

Are you able to clarify the red numbers I've previously highlighted as not being able to read?

 

Did you ever discuss the origin / ideas behind the layout? e.g. Did you ever get to see any of Franks notes and drawings of his research?

Very little of what I'm posting was in my mind when I met him. I was too busy thinking about what the layout would be like as Modern Image (1980s!). My perspectives and interest in history have changed somewhat.

 

Again, I'm very grateful for you contributing. I'll be busy editing and replacing previous images and posts to up-date them.

[Chris_z]

Perhaps I may be permitted to answer some of the questions Chris poses in his drawing

 

• The headshunt ground disc (signal 7) is pulled for moves over the crossover using the outer end of platform 4 only, such moves also see platform 4's starter or shunt disc pulled. Shunt moves are permitted past it into the goods yard with the signal on. Some railways would have used a yellow disc for this move.
• The signal indicated adjacent to goods yard siding 4 (signal 21) controls exit from the fan of points onto the Up departure road. Most departing freights use this route rather than the crossover using the end of platform 4. It has a small arm indicating that it does not apply to passenger trains. The blue board at its foot would have carried the local instructions to staff as to when they can pass this signal at danger - as indeed one does to access siding 4.
• The smaller arms on the gantry are indeed calling on arms, but not all railways marked these with a C.
• The top entry on the smaller theatre light should be 3 as, passing under this signal one can only access platforms 3, 4 and the yard

One "secret", is that the operators do not need to know the meaning of every signal, as the schedule tells them exactly which signals and points to pull (and the order in which to pull them).

 

I hope this helps

 

Tony

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/75514026@N03/albums/72157649004452418/with/20344807871/

Headshunt:

Have I interpreted you correctly - see annotated image.

I was certainly wondering about a Yellow Disc. Could it be changed and still correct for LNER / BM?

How would a driver know in real life to pass an 'on' Red Disc?

 

Thanks for clearing up the Yard Signal.

I suppose you happen to know what Frank wrote on the blue notice?

 

Again thanks for clarifying the gantry.

Much appreciated. Quite a few gantry drawings to change now....

 

I am looking at the signalling from a real railway perspective.

Edited April 22, 2017 by Chris_z

[TonyW1960]

Headshunt:

Have I interpreted you correctly - see annotated image.

​Yes

I was certainly wondering about a Yellow Disc. Could it be changed and still correct for LNER / BM?

​Sorry - I don't know!

How would a driver know in real life to pass an 'on' Red Disc?

​Local Instructions - part of route knowledge

Thanks for clearing up the Yard Signal.

I suppose you happen to know what Frank wrote on the blue notice?

​Nothing legible - it is just a set of white squiggles

Again thanks for clarifying the gantry.

[Chris_z]

 

Headshunt:

Have I interpreted you correctly - see annotated image.

​Yes

I was certainly wondering about a Yellow Disc. Could it be changed and still correct for LNER / BM?

​Sorry - I don't know!

How would a driver know in real life to pass an 'on' Red Disc?​Local Instructions - part of route knowledge

Thanks for clearing up the Yard Signal.

I suppose you happen to know what Frank wrote on the blue notice?​Nothing legible - it is just a set of white squiggles

Again thanks for clarifying the gantry.

 

Many thanks

[Chris_z]

Finally, the 20th century before Franks 1958 time period.

I've tried to coal mines and oil fields as context for my assessment and variation of Franks scenario.

As I understand it, the 1980 Model Railways article seems to be the most comprehensive on Borchester Market. It gives an insight into Franks imagery scenario.

What follows is edited text from the first page of that article.

 

"My old Borchester Town layout was dismantled in 1968, and due to lack of accommodation I could only dabble with small fold-away systems until 1975 when a lovely room about 13 x 10ft became available." ..."For reasons of continuity the name 'Borchester' was retained, my imaginary old town coming back on my railway map as Borchester Market."

"Right from the outset two priorities were to be firmly established":

- "reliability"

- "true, railway-like operation."

..."reliability...was to be paramount."

"Whatever happened I was determined that Borchester Market would always be worked truly like a section of real railway."

..."every inch of movement would have a true railway function, and run as far as possible at the right speed."

"True, railway-like operation, strictly at the proper speeds, can be interesting to all providing there is a continuous flow of events, with many movements overlapping. Long gaps, which do of course occur on the real thing, can be avoided without it looking unreal. In this way we can meet the needs of both layman and enthusiast."

 

"So a definite period had to be modelled. I chose 1958 because at this time I had made extensive records of what I actually saw in my chosen area." "My own interest has always been in the typical, everyday scene, which when modelled looks real and convincing. I will have nothing at all exceptional, or unusual; for the simple reason that results from this will never look real. Neither will I model anything for which I have to find a 'prototype' excuse. If a thing is not a common feature, or is not everyday practice, then it's out! My 1958 period was an interesting one for modelling. There was still a wealth of pre-nationalisation interest, and quite a lot of pre 1923-grouping, too. This applies to both lineside and rolling-stock. Yet at the same time the hand of nationalisation was strongly evident, with standard types of locos and coaches intruding here and there, and the early stages of the modernisation plan, with the first flush of the new diesels."

 

"The word 'Railway' has always meant to me the Great Northern, later part of the LNER, the line of my childhood on which I grew up."

During a later period I acquired a pleasant association with the lines of what was once the Great Central, another constituent of the LNER, for it was the line of my courting days, and I travelled on it extensively. I needed to find a district where these two lines rubbed shoulders and mingled. Joint lines, and places where both lines overlapped could be found in places between Merseyside and Lincolnshire, but it seemed that the parts just to the North of Nottingham offered the best possibilities. Here are the remnants of the old Sherwood Forest; green, wooded country with hills of red sandstone, a mixture of agriculture, parkland, and coal-mining. There was a lot of railway in this area, so I would invent a place which would be connected to existing lines, especially if I could have a service going on to the LNER main line and on to Kings Cross."

 

''So, the town of Borchester Market came into being, situated just about where the real village of Kneesall is marked on the Ordnance Map. This is about 10 miles N W of Newark-on-Trent. A line from Newark through this way was actually; proposed by the GNR in 1887, but it came to nothing. In my scheme I imagine":

- "a hefty coalmine near Borchester"

- ..."a double-track branch built by the GNR to a terminus in the town"

- ..."a single-track branch extending beyond it to the pit-head."

This branch would have provided a southward exit for Borchester's coal, and a direct train service would be possible between the town and London or East Anglia via Newark and the Kings Cross main line."

 

"A few miles to the North of my area runs the East-to-West line of the old LDECR (Lancashire, Derbyshire & East Coast Rly.) (later part of the GCR) and a further extension of the Newark to Borchester branch might have made connection with this line at Ollerton. (See sketch map.) Owing to the terrain, I imagine this extension as avoiding Borchester, but local demand causing a spur to be built later by the GNR to connect to the North, thus forming a triangle of junctions at Wellow. Services could then run from Borchester via this connection to LDECR* or MSLR stations at Nottingham Mansfield, Chesterfield and Sheffield. After these smaller companies became the 'Great Central' at the turn of the century, through-services might have begun between Sheffield and London, with a reversal at Borchester. This reversal of trains has in fact proved an interesting part of our pattern of working. It can be seen that the area modelled gives plenty of scope. There is the 'main' line to Newark, which has a definite ex-GN flavour, with 'fasts' to London or Cambridge, and locals to Newark or Grantham, and to Sleaford and Boston. And, of course, the heavy haul of coal to Peterborough for London and the South. Traffic on the other line which we call the 'loop' is much different. It has a more local nature. The fast trains, now reduced in length, go only as far as Sheffield, but there is much local traffic, both freight and passenger, and this all tends towards a Great Central inclination, especially as regards its locomotives."

 

The map Frank refers to is the one I redrew showing the general location.

 

I'm going to continue this in the next post....

Edited April 22, 2017 by Chris_z

[Chris_z]

As I understand it, the 1980 Model Railways article seems to be the most comprehensive on Borchester Market. It gives an insight into Franks imagery scenario.

What follows is edited text from the first page of that article.

"My old Borchester Town layout was dismantled in 1968, and due to lack of accommodation I could only dabble with small fold-away systems until 1975 when a lovely room about 13 x 10ft became available." ..."For reasons of continuity the name 'Borchester' was retained, my imaginary old town coming back on my railway map as Borchester Market."

"Right from the outset two priorities were to be firmly established":

- "reliability"

- "true, railway-like operation."

..."reliability...was to be paramount."

"Whatever happened I was determined that Borchester Market would always be worked truly like a section of real railway."

..."every inch of movement would have a true railway function, and run as far as possible at the right speed."

"True, railway-like operation, strictly at the proper speeds, can be interesting to all providing there is a continuous flow of events, with many movements overlapping. Long gaps, which do of course occur on the real thing, can be avoided without it looking unreal. In this way we can meet the needs of both layman and enthusiast."

"So a definite period had to be modelled. I chose 1958 because at this time I had made extensive records of what I actually saw in my chosen area." "My own interest has always been in the typical, everyday scene, which when modelled looks real and convincing. I will have nothing at all exceptional, or unusual; for the simple reason that results from this will never look real. Neither will I model anything for which I have to find a 'prototype' excuse. If a thing is not a common feature, or is not everyday practice, then it's out! My 1958 period was an interesting one for modelling. There was still a wealth of pre-nationalisation interest, and quite a lot of pre 1923-grouping, too. This applies to both lineside and rolling-stock. Yet at the same time the hand of nationalisation was strongly evident, with standard types of locos and coaches intruding here and there, and the early stages of the modernisation plan, with the first flush of the new diesels."

"The word 'Railway' has always meant to me the Great Northern, later part of the LNER, the line of my childhood on which I grew up."

During a later period I acquired a pleasant association with the lines of what was once the Great Central, another constituent of the LNER, for it was the line of my courting days, and I travelled on it extensively. I needed to find a district where these two lines rubbed shoulders and mingled. Joint lines, and places where both lines overlapped could be found in places between Merseyside and Lincolnshire, but it seemed that the parts just to the North of Nottingham offered the best possibilities. Here are the remnants of the old Sherwood Forest; green, wooded country with hills of red sandstone, a mixture of agriculture, parkland, and coal-mining. There was a lot of railway in this area, so I would invent a place which would be connected to existing lines, especially if I could have a service going on to the LNER main line and on to Kings Cross."

''So, the town of Borchester Market came into being, situated just about where the real village of Kneesall is marked on the Ordnance Map. This is about 10 miles N W of Newark-on-Trent. A line from Newark through this way was actually; proposed by the GNR in 1887, but it came to nothing. In my scheme I imagine":

- "a hefty coalmine near Borchester"

- ..."a double-track branch built by the GNR to a terminus in the town"

- ..."a single-track branch extending beyond it to the pit-head."

This branch would have provided a southward exit for Borchester's coal, and a direct train service would be possible between the town and London or East Anglia via Newark and the Kings Cross main line."

"A few miles to the North of my area runs the East-to-West line of the old LDECR (Lancashire, Derbyshire & East Coast Rly.) (later part of the GCR) and a further extension of the Newark to Borchester branch might have made connection with this line at Ollerton. (See sketch map.) Owing to the terrain, I imagine this extension as avoiding Borchester, but local demand causing a spur to be built later by the GNR to connect to the North, thus forming a triangle of junctions at Wellow. Services could then run from Borchester via this connection to LDECR* or MSLR stations at Nottingham Mansfield, Chesterfield and Sheffield. After these smaller companies became the 'Great Central' at the turn of the century, through-services might have begun between Sheffield and London, with a reversal at Borchester. This reversal of trains has in fact proved an interesting part of our pattern of working. It can be seen that the area modelled gives plenty of scope. There is the 'main' line to Newark, which has a definite ex-GN flavour, with 'fasts' to London or Cambridge, and locals to Newark or Grantham, and to Sleaford and Boston. And, of course, the heavy haul of coal to Peterborough for London and the South. Traffic on the other line which we call the 'loop' is much different. It has a more local nature. The fast trains, now reduced in length, go only as far as Sheffield, but there is much local traffic, both freight and passenger, and this all tends towards a Great Central inclination, especially as regards its locomotives."

The map Frank refers to is the one I redrew showing the general location.

I'm going to continue this in the next post....

Sorry didn't want to loose it. It crashed on me at one point.

Issues with this scenario:

1. No coal ever mined east of those shown on one the map with mines and oilfields.

2. Coal mining never came to East Nottinghamshire until the 1920s.

3. Topography issues already mentioned.

4. The GNR didn't promote the N&OR, nor were they interested in supporting / running it.

5. Kneesall (BM) is too close to Newark-on-Trent - a major market town.

6. The N&OR would have been a rural branch line for decades, relying on hops for a lot of its traffic.

 

Solutions:

1. Move the location of Borchester Market to New Ollerton.

2. Rename the railway: Newark & Borchester Market Railway.

3. Have the GNR support and run the railway, as Frank imagined.

4. Build it within the 5 years normally allowed by Acts of Parliament for railways and to a modified route.

5. Assume completion of the 'main' line in 1889.

6. Still a rural railway until the mines arrived.

7. The 'colliery branch' would initially serve Malt Houses and possibly a Brewery.

8. Branches to Edwinstowe and Eakring.

9. Coal mining arrives in 1920s - see map showing dates of bore holes, shaft sinking and first production.

 

I will elaborate on these and identify implications for the model of Borchester Market.

Edited April 22, 2017 by Chris_z

[Chris_z]

Now we're getting close to the alternative scenario.

Sorry about some of the small text; you'll need to double click to access the larger image - like all the others.

Food for thought and comments.

[Chris_z]

It might appropriate, at this stage, to see the wording in the London Gazette (25 November 1886) about the Act of Parliament.

I have faded out irrelevant text and darkened key text.

[Chris_z]

'NE CORNER'

The 1980 published plan shows a door into the layout room. I say 'room', because I think this represents the North London location. Can anyone confirm?

When I visited the layout near Caerphilly, the shed door was in a different location in that corner.

I can't explain the differences between the 1980 plan and the diagram, especially the lifting board.

It is clear from online images that the lifting board has been expanded and the corner a single board. Compared with the 1980 article, the Goods Shed road (line) has been extended. It would have been needed, because the Goods Shed photo in the magazine is much smaller and the line shorter. What's visible today is a larger site for the bigger Goods Shed now found on Hardwick Grange. Also, the yard crane was moved when this occurred.

Tony Walmsley has kindly allowed me to use his photos to illustrate relevant points.

His Flickr album on BM is at:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/75514026@N03/albums/72157649004452418/with/23156440910/

 

The overhead view shows most of the NE corner - pity about the heads.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1495/25587995783_81fd7e3507_o_d.jpg