Traeth Mawr -Building Mr Price's house , (mostly)

[ChrisN]

41 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Surely if the station was being worked as a double-ended terminus, there would be a Cambrian and a Great Western platform, with arrivals and departures at each. Is that borne out by the signalling? (Which platform was which? - if the Cambrian platform was on the North side and the Great Western on the south side, I can see how it might work, since arrivals would be "right line".

 

6 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

This link is to the relevant Signalling Record Society page:

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gww/S3278.htm

It appears to be signalled as a conventional double track station on a single line. What is not at all clear is the date of the diagram, nor that of Dolgelley West which is even more provisional. But the fact that Dolgelley West is in the Cambrian section suggests that it may be pre 1922.

I have a friend who is active in the SRS. I shall have to ask him.

Jonathan

 

The Cambrian was on the South side.  

 

Thank you Jonathan.

[MikeOxon]

According to 'The Story of the Cambrian', by C. P. Gasquoine (download from Gutenberg):

"...even when Dolgelley was eventually approached, passengers had to alight at a platform some little distance from the town. Only when the Great Western Railway from Ruabon was completed did the trains from Barmouth Junction run into Dolgelley station proper."

 

That doesn't help to explain why the south-side station is labelled 'Cambrian' on early OS Maps and a street map dated 1890

[ChrisN]

27 minutes ago, MikeOxon said:

According to 'The Story of the Cambrian', by C. P. Gasquoine (download from Gutenberg):

"...even when Dolgelley was eventually approached, passengers had to alight at a platform some little distance from the town. Only when the Great Western Railway from Ruabon was completed did the trains from Barmouth Junction run into Dolgelley station proper."

 

That doesn't help to explain why the south-side station is labelled 'Cambrian' on early OS Maps and a street map dated 1890

 

Reading what I have so far, it appears that the line was complete but the station was not.  Also the GWR was being difficult.

 

Cambrian Railways, A New History p99 states that when the extension from Penmaenpool was connected to the Bala and Dolgelley Railway the Cambrian had running powers over it into Dolgelley.  The GWR would not allow goods trains in as they said there was not enough space, so the Cambrian built a platform at the junction for both goods and passenger.  The GWR were remodelling the station at the time.

 

C. C. Green in the Coast Lines of the Cambrian Railways, vol 2, p 256 states that as part of the agreement that ran from 1st August 1869 the Cambrian had use of all lines, sidings and station in perpetuity as long as they paid through the nose for it.  Well 50% of the running costs, but they probably could not get 50% of the income.

[Nick Gough]

Friog

 

I've just noticed these on another forum:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-58615510

 

 

 

[ChrisN]

48 minutes ago, Nick Gough said:

Friog

 

I've just noticed these on another forum:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-58615510

 

 

 

 

Nick,

Thank you for this.  Once you begin to know anything about the Cambrian you get to know about Friog, but I have not seen this video before, or that paper cutting.  They do now at least have an 'Avalanche shelter' there.  

[Compound2632]

Have you seen this (the 1883 accident, to which the above newspaper cutting relates)?

Edited September 21, 2021 by Compound2632

[Edwardian]

Well, I followed Stephen's link, and was immediately and uncannily possessed by the spirit of the late Brian Sewell, which spoke through me thus: While there is undoubted virtue in much of what is called 'naive art', I fear that the term can be used unjustly to elevate the status of the simply bad.  Here we dignify the 'artist' with membership of a 'school', yet it is in painting what McGonagall is in poetry; a talentless outpouring in response to a railway disaster of the most piteous kind.    

 

[ChrisN]

31 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Have you seen this (the 1883 accident, to which the above newspaper cutting relates)?

 

10 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Well, I followed Stephen's link, and was immediately and uncannily possessed by the spirit of the late Brian Sewell, which spoke through me thus: While there is undoubted virtue in much of what is called 'naive art', I fear that the term can be used unjustly to elevate the status of the simply bad.  Here we dignify the 'artist' with membership of a 'school', yet it is in painting what McGonagall is in poetry; a talentless outpouring in response to a railway disaster of the most piteous kind.    

 

 

Thank you both.  The painting I had not seen, the picture I have not had a soft copy of,   Notice the boy next to the engine, I doubt he would be allowed within a mile of the accident these days.

[Compound2632]

I have just had a read of the reports into both accidents. It is intriguing that such similar disasters, with such similar results that one might mistake the photo of the wrecked engine of one for the other, seem to have had such dissimilar causes. (Though one might suspect vibration caused by the train, as discussed by Lt.-Col. Mount, also to have been a trigger for the 1883 collapse, though not considered by Col. Rich.) I note that both use the spelling Vriog, which caused me some difficulty when searching the Railways Archive accident database.

 

As to the painting, which James so dislikes on aesthetic grounds: the painter has put his viewpoint out at sea; I very much doubt that he actually had the opportunity to observe or sketch the scene from a boat, so it is a work of imagination (James might dispute that choice of word; I pass no judgement.) But he knows what colour a Cambrian engine should be and he's represented the characteristic Beyer, Peacock splasher. The Graphic's artist's depiction is a work of the imagination in different ways; he's less familiar with the technical details but probably gives a more realistic impression of the terrain, though I suspect him of exaggerating the slopes. I must say the rubbernecking lady brings to mind certain stereotypes that I had better not repeat here.

 

We know nothing of the circumstances of the painting; it may have been a well-meaning memorial; it may even have been gratefully received as such. (Tastes change, especially between Victorian West Wales and urbane modernity, if James will forgive my so describing him!) I note that all we know is that it was acquired from a local firm of estate agents and general auctioneers - perhaps it came into their hands from a house clearance. I think what I'm trying to say is, view it as an artefact rather than an artwork!

Edited September 21, 2021 by Compound2632

[MikeOxon]

30 minutes ago, ChrisN said:

 

 

..... Notice the boy next to the engine, I doubt he would be allowed within a mile of the accident these days.

Accidents seem to have been spectator events.  Note the people on the bank in the following.  i suspect that one or more of my wife's family may be in the photo, since at least two relatives worked for the GWR at Bullo Pill at the time:

[corneliuslundie]

I recently started another thread about Friog as there is concern about the road.

But back to Cambrian platforms, I went to Aberystwyth by train today. One of the standard announcements at that station I heard is that one should take care with prams, wheelchairs etc because the platform slopes towards the track.

Jonathan

[corneliuslundie]

A bit more on Dolgelley signal boxes thanks to my friend Ray Caston.

There was a GWR box covering the whole station from 1884 until 1894, McKenzie & Holland, 19 levers.

In 1894 this was replaced by a GWR East box, 25 levers, and a Cambrian West box, 21 levers. Both closed in 1922.

In 1922 the East box was replaced by a new box with 35 levers which eventually closed in 1965. But the old East box structure remained, in use possibly by the engineers.

Nothing about a new West box at this point and the increased number of levers suggests that the 1922 box signalled the whole station. The SRS has a late diagram, possibly even from the BR period, which shows the station signalled as a simple through two-platform station on a single line route with no provision for reversing trains. It also has a diagram for a Cambrian West box but it is only a pencil sketch and has a note saying that it is incorrect.

This doesn’t answer the question of how there came to be an 1860s Cambrian building on one platform.

I have more details of the signal boxes such as dimensions, but I suspect that the above is more than enough.

Jonathan

[ChrisN]

2 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

A bit more on Dolgelley signal boxes thanks to my friend Ray Caston.

There was a GWR box covering the whole station from 1884 until 1894, McKenzie & Holland, 19 levers.

In 1894 this was replaced by a GWR East box, 25 levers, and a Cambrian West box, 21 levers. Both closed in 1922.

In 1922 the East box was replaced by a new box with 35 levers which eventually closed in 1965. But the old East box structure remained, in use possibly by the engineers.

Nothing about a new West box at this point and the increased number of levers suggests that the 1922 box signalled the whole station. The SRS has a late diagram, possibly even from the BR period, which shows the station signalled as a simple through two-platform station on a single line route with no provision for reversing trains. It also has a diagram for a Cambrian West box but it is only a pencil sketch and has a note saying that it is incorrect.

This doesn’t answer the question of how there came to be an 1860s Cambrian building on one platform.

I have more details of the signal boxes such as dimensions, but I suspect that the above is more than enough.

Jonathan

 

Jonathan,

Thank you.  My understanding, again I cannot prove it, is that as soon as the GWR got in control they removed the Cambrian signal box which is why they needed a bigger one.

[ChrisN]

A progress report on the station.

 

 

 

You see the stonework on the sides is done.  The stonework on the ends will get done when I fix them together, so as to cover the ends of the card.  The windows should be next, but I found I do not have any Hob-e-Tak to glue the glazing to the frames.  I do not have any glue-n-glaze either, which I thought I had.  What I do have is Tacky Wax, and Tacky Glue, and even though I bought the Tacky Wax from Hobby Holidays, I still cannot make Hob-e-Tak.   Yes, I need to buy some, but I need to have enough to order to save on postage.  (The shop in Porthmadog did not stock it.)  

 

II also realised that I am making this building as if it is going to slot into a hole in the platform, and this is flat.  I realised, of course that the front of the building where passengers go in is of course raised from the ground, see Barmouth and Newtown, and even Porthmadog.  This is not a problem as such, it just needs thinking about.  Probably the lower course of platicard and the cardboard strip underneath will get removed and replaced.  BUT, and it is a big but, I really need to actually have a platform for it to slot into.  (In case you are wondering it has to be removeable as in theory the layout should be able to be taken down.)  

 

To sort out the platform means I can also plot on the baseboard where everything else will go.  It should look something like this.

 

 

 

 

Now this is an early plan and has been superseded with the addition of more track and sidings, but this is what I am aiming for.  I have a thought though.  The station building, which is actually more to the left than on this diagram, where should it be in relation to the bay.  Should it be in line with the bay, giving an awning of 16ft and the platform behind the bay a width of 10ft, or should it be in line with the back of the bay making everything about 5ft wider, or somewhere in between?  Does it matter?  I need the platform behind the bay to unload from the station whatever is unloaded in the bay, such as carriages, or horses.  Thoughts, if you have any.

 

If you have been, thanks for looking.

Edited March 13, 2023 by ChrisN

[NCB]

Hi Chris

 

I'd suggest just having the station what seems to you the right distance back from the through road. Where it's placed in relation to the bay doesn't really matter.

 

Nigel

 

 

 

[Nick Gough]

I would suggest the layout at Criccieth is similar to what you want Chris:

https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5474365

 

You wouldn't want the building too far back from the platform edge as it could obstruct access for loading/unloading at the bay/loading dock.

[ChrisN]

2 hours ago, NCB said:

Hi Chris

 

I'd suggest just having the station what seems to you the right distance back from the through road. Where it's placed in relation to the bay doesn't really matter.

 

Nigel

 

 

 

 

Nigel,

Thank you.  It is in fact the other way round, once I have finally decided where the station goes, and the connected parts, goods delivery yard, station master's house, coal yard, entrance yard, then I can decide where the road is.  There is space, for one row of houses facing the road and hopefully a lane behind.

 

 

1 hour ago, Nick Gough said:

I would suggest the layout at Criccieth is similar to what you want Chris:

https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5474365

 

You wouldn't want the building too far back from the platform edge as it could obstruct access for loading/unloading at the bay/loading dock.

 

Nick,

Thank you.  I had not seen this picture before, and did not investigate the station when I was there, although I did investigate the Fish and Chip shop behind it on the High Street.  This is the one the locals use and is to be highly recommended. (Usual disclaimer, other Fish and Chip shops are available, well at least one.)

 

I intend to move the station building far enough away from the bay to unload from it.  I had thought of having that end of the building to act as a buffer in case a carriage slips and moves.  All it would do would be to frighten whoever was sitting in the ladies loo at the time.  The picture of Criccieth is interesting as it appears that the platform goes behind the station building which is something I thought I should not do, but If I did, it would mean a shorter distance to unload whatever is there.  I am not sure it will be used greatly but I suppose was when the Earl was in residence.  

 

I need the platform behind the bay to access a footbridge.  I had intended to avoid footbridges like the plague as often in the early days they made the passengers walk across the rails, at a level crossing of course.  The level crossing is a bit far away and means the down platform would not be secure from people not wanting to pay their fare.  There is not room at the end of the normal platform.  (Barmouth started with a footbridge but has reverted to making people cross by the level crossing.)

Edited September 23, 2021 by ChrisN

[corneliuslundie]

Another consideration is that the further back from the tracks you site the station building the less space there is for the "town" behind. I know we are only talking about 20 mm but that may be useful when you come to laying out buildings etc.

Jonathan

[Edwardian]

So long as you have the station building far enough away to use the bay as an end-loading dock, I don't think it matters.

 

I need to ensure this at Castle Aching

 

Query whether ground level in the station forecourt cannot be closer to platform level than track base level?

[Nick Gough]

The platform doesn't continue behind the building.

Google satellite view probably shews the layout better:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.9183882,-4.2370341,20z/data=!3m1!1e3

 

Also, you don't need a footbridge if you don't want one. Criccieth never had one.

In the satellite view, on the right, a public footpath crosses the line at the bottom of the platform ramps. When the station still had a down loop, passengers crossed the line here.

 

You can see the crossing in this photo:

 

Edited September 23, 2021 by Nick Gough

[Edwardian]

E.g. Pwllheli

 

[ChrisN]

57 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Another consideration is that the further back from the tracks you site the station building the less space there is for the "town" behind. I know we are only talking about 20 mm but that may be useful when you come to laying out buildings etc.

Jonathan

 

Jonathan,

That is a good point.  I am trying out various positions to see how much room I have, how big the station courtyard should be, etc.  I have decided the road is 12ft wide, which is wide enough to be useful and narrow enough to be really annoying in the 20th/21st century where cars are trying to go both ways down it.

 

38 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

So long as you have the station building far enough away to use the bay as an end-loading dock, I don't think it matters.

 

I need to ensure this at Castle Aching

 

Query whether ground level in the station forecourt cannot be closer to platform level than track base level?

 

James,

I would prefer the station forecourt to be the same level.  The main reason is that although I will have a slope in the gardens of Station Road, as in theory it should be able to be easily taken down, building up outside the station will give me problems.  I do not think it will cause a problem with the station building, I will just have to think how I do it.

 

[ChrisN]

32 minutes ago, Nick Gough said:

The platform doesn't continue behind the building.

Google satellite view probably shews the layout better:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.9183882,-4.2370341,20z/data=!3m1!1e3

 

Also, you don't need a footbridge if you don't want one. Criccieth never had one.

In the satellite view, on the right, a public footpath crosses the line at the bottom of the platform ramps. When the station still had a down loop, passengers crossed the line here.

 

You can see the crossing in this photo:

 

 

Nick,

Thank you.  Yes, I see what you mean, but it is different from Traeth Mawr in two ways, 1) the platform is at the same height as the forecourt and so can be unloaded directly, and 2) it is next to the slope of the main platform so things can go down that.

 

I had originally intended for there to be a crossing but within the station, as it has been so compressed, it really needs about 20ft as all/most Cambrian stations are long and thin, there is no where where passengers can cross without going over a point or running the risk of crossing where wagons are.  The only place is right on the left hand side where there will probably be the level crossing.  The footbridge is not too onerous.

 

I love the picture of the signal box, just typical.  Mine wil be similar but not on the platform.

 

The other issue that I have is that I have always thought the platform slope should be 1 in 8.  Now as the platform height about the ground is 15mm, or 3ft 9" in real money, that gives a slope of 30ft.  (The height of the cork and rail is 7mm.)  The length of slope at Criccieth is 20ft from the Google map image so I shall use that length.  I just need to decide if it runs into the forecourt or not.

Edited September 23, 2021 by ChrisN

[Edwardian]

15 minutes ago, ChrisN said:

 

Jonathan,

That is a good point.  I am trying out various positions to see how much room I have, how big the station courtyard should be, etc.  I have decided the road is 12ft wide, which is wide enough to be useful and narrow enough to be really annoying in the 20th/21st century where cars are trying to go both ways down it.

 

 

James,

I would prefer the station forecourt to be the same level.  The main reason is that although I will have a slope in the gardens of Station Road, as in theory it should be able to be easily taken down, building up outside the station will give me problems.  I do not think it will cause a problem with the station building, I will just have to think how I do it.

 

 

OK, its just that unlike train set stations, where we need this sort of thing:

 

 

 

Often on the prototype the track bed is significantly lower than the station forecourt. 

 

This eases the transition from, say, a side or end-loading dock adjacent to a platform.  End-loading docks often were, as they would handle things like carriages or motor cars off passenger trains, or a side-dock handle horse boxes. 

 

This is often an area not clearly seen in period photographs, but the Pwllheli pictures clearly showed there was only a slight change in level, accommodated by a gentle ramp, from the platform to the road level.  This is ideal.

 

My challenge at Castle Aching is that the goods yard is the same side as the passenger station forecourt and end dock, so somewhere I need to accommodate a change in level.  Of course, my 1850s-height platform helps.  I suspect the loading docks will require the level to go up and down more dramatically. 

[ChrisN]

4 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

OK, its just that unlike train set stations, where we need this sort of thing:

 

 

 

Often on the prototype the track bed is significantly lower than the station forecourt. 

 

This eases the transition from, say, a side or end-loading dock adjacent to a platform.  End-loading docks often were, as they would handle things like carriages or motor cars off passenger trains, or a side-dock handle horse boxes. 

 

This is often an area not clearly seen in period photographs, but the Pwllheli pictures clearly showed there was only a slight change in level, accommodated by a gentle ramp, from the platform to the road level.  This is ideal.

 

My challenge at Castle Aching is that the goods yard is the same side as the passenger station forecourt and end dock, so somewhere I need to accommodate a change in level.  Of course, my 1850s-height platform helps.  I suspect the loading docks will require the level to go up and down more dramatically. 

 

Unfortunately, several of the stations on the Cambrian are a bit toy like.  This is Newtown.  This is the same at other stations which I will not list.  I shall have to work around it.