Wydabridge

[Rhys]

Heres something that has been muling round in my head for quite some time, but has just coalessed in the last couple of weeks.

 

I've had an interest in railways of the 1880's and 90's for quite a while, with the main companies to pique my interest being the LNWR and GWR. Being in 2mm finescale the former is not overly well supported, but...well, actually, neither of them are. However there are now some GWR kits done by individuals that are becoming avaliable.

 

For a track plan I was struck by this thread by Brinkly on modeling Horrabridge in the 1950's. The station area and long sidings on a curve appealed to me. Also back in the 1880's the line was shared by the GWR and LSWR.

 

Scenery wise I came across this site with a stack of period pictures from various parts of the country (being on the other side of the world is abit of a pain).

A couple from Devon especially interested me. A couple of photos from Cockington, and a bridge at Tavistock.

 

Putting this all into one gave me something that looks like this. I've never been one for fancy trackdrawing programes, I prefer the good old pencil and paper, just remembering to keep it simple. making a model of the layout is very usefull to sort out land contours (thanks to Barry Norman).

 

 

The station is on the left next to the road bridge, with the goods shed on the siding beside it. the other end of the station has a long siding running to a mill with water wheel and weir. The area at the front is taken up by the village. I've already decided that the village are should be flatter with a steeper shorter slope down to the river, The exit on the right is to be covered with trees as is the river running into the hillside. Projected size is 5' long and 2' deep at its widest point, with fiddle yards at each end.

 

The twist in all this is that its going to be 7' broad gauge with baulk road and dual gauge on the mainline and siding to the mill for the LSWR. This gives me just one dual gauge point to make, and 2 others with just the 7' line switched. Locos yet to be decided as is rolling stock. I have yet to join the broad gauge society (I have a large New Zealand layout to feed, which consumes much of my modeling money). This is a long term project, So don't expect any progress any time soon. I just thought I would toss it out.

The name tends to explain itself....

[Kris]

Looks like an interesting project. I see your biggest challenge being making the broad gauge rolling stock.

[Donw]

If you are interested in Broad gauge joining the society is a must. Could make a lovely project.

Don

[Joseph_Pestell]

This looks very attractive and I know from organising exhibitions in the past that Broad Gauge always attracts a lot of interest. Agreed with Kris that rolling stock and locomotives (particularly) will be the most difficult. Very little room for motors and gears in those locos and you might have to cheat a bit with some motorised wagons/carriages. Wagons and carriages probably best built by drawing on computer and getting etched (or modifying existing 4mm etch drawings if anyone has some.

 

Look forward to seeing progress in the layouts section.

[Rhys]

I'm not so sure about a lack of space. Compared to the average 2mm loco the frames are much further apart, and there is plenty of room to drop a motor down a bit in a tender, or make more space in the loco between the frames.

The track plan would work quite well just as standard gauge but the challenge of something different is what attracts me to it.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I'm not familiar enough with 2FS standards to be able to work it out exactly. But you are probably right that you can drop a motor down between the frames which will be a big advantage. I'm feeling tempted now but if I felt that I had the necessary skills for all that scratchbuilding I would probably go for 3mm scale.

[Guest Natalie Graham]

I don't think the problem with a lot of these early locos is as much getting the motor in, given the tiny motors now available, as finding some way of disguising the gear drive on the driven axle.

[Katier]

I'm not familiar enough with 2FS standards to be able to work it out exactly. But you are probably right that you can drop a motor down between the frames which will be a big advantage. I'm feeling tempted now but if I felt that I had the necessary skills for all that scratchbuilding I would probably go for 3mm scale.

 

7ft = 14mm right?

 

I know for a fact, 14.2 frames for 3mm/ft give enough room to drop a motor down into the frames if you need as you should have at least 10mm inside between the frames (so it'll take a Mashima 1015 or similar).

 

Off topic slightly but 3mm has 100's of kits, so not entirely scratchbuilding .

 

Agree with Natalie, biggest issue is hiding the drive. Even in 3mm/ft it's a pain with some kits to do it which is why I'm umming over a BTP... given it doesn't have side tanks hiding the drive is gonna be a pain!!!

[Rhys]

 

Off topic slightly but 3mm has 100's of kits, so not entirely scratchbuilding .

 

 

100's of kits for 1880's GWR/LSWR? What must the rest of the range be like...

 

Seriously though, the doesn't seem to be that much modeling going on in 3mm if this website is anything to go by. the 2mm crowd seem to be far more active (or at least more vocal about what they are doing).

I'm still unsure about what 3mm bits I could actually gte, with one supplier being quite unhelpful. I'll stick with 2mm for the moment i think, 3mm just does not float my boat in teh same way, and there seems to be far less of a challenge to build in it

(As an aside my main modeling is TTn3.5 narrow guage modeling New Zealand prottypes on N gauge track. I'm now starting to employ regauged 2mm wheels on my models and hand laid track to NMRA standards, which surprisingly does work)

[Katier]

100's of kits for 1880's GWR/LSWR? What must the rest of the range be like...

 

Seriously though, the doesn't seem to be that much modeling going on in 3mm if this website is anything to go by. the 2mm crowd seem to be far more active (or at least more vocal about what they are doing).

 

3mm is defnitely a minority on this site at the moment ( the 3mm section is a LOT newer than the 2mm ) - meant 100's overall of course

 

LSWR is fairly well representative, broad gauge GWR unsurprisingly needs kitbashing/scratchbuilding.

 

Surprised your finding one supplier unhelpful, they are usually pretty good.

[Donw]

HAving stood on the footplate of the Iron Duke in steam I reckon that it is a fairly big boiler/firebox more so than a lot of locos. Mind you you cannot hide much in the cab!

Don

[Rhys]

I've been doing a bit more thinking about this in the last week or so, and moved from a 3D back to pencil and paper for a bit. I was not overly happy with the left hand end of the layout, and I thought that the station and bridge should be a bit more towards the center. I also wanted to have a bit more of a play round with roads etc. As I don't have a functioning scanner at the moment, a camera will sufice.

 

 

Right, where to start. The marked track is dual gauge and I also idly sketched out the detailed rail layout above. The back scenes curve round the front slightly to form wings to limit visibility. the off stage exits are hidden by trees at each end, with the station end in a shallow cutting as well. I've sketched in the mill buildings on the right, along with the bridge and also the weir. I may yet add a dock or landing downstream. The town will sit at the front but I'm not exactly sure about the overall setup, apart from a few building at the crossroads. For the railway buildings I am planning to use the ratio n scale station, train shed and goods shed. I've added a signal box on the platform opposite the station but will look at that later. I'm not overly confident that my building making skills are quite up to it. I'm going to try to aim for more of an overall feel rather than a highly detailed model (oil painting vs photograph might be the best description). Plenty of hedge rows to round out the scene and provide scenic breaks. I've dotted the crest of the hill and the back will slope towards the rear of the layout.

 

I'm also going to send off the broad guage society application this weekend. If nothing else the rolling stock plans will be useful. I'm not sure if they still do 2mm scale bits.

 

Now if i can just stop my team of helpers generating more ideas and bits for my TTn3.5 layout, then I might make a start on this.

(the latest is laser cut ends for a freemo style TTn3.5 setup, and they are now merrily kicking ideas round for posible track plans)

 

Cheers,

Rhys

[Rhys]

A wee bit of an update here. I've sent off my membership application for the broad gauge society (and the money has gone from the paypal account).

So hopefully there is a package of goodies winging its way to the other side of the planet. Hopefully my similar reaplication to the 2mm chaps arrives in time for me to not be removed from the roll.

 

Second up, and something that I did several months ago but just re-discovered the other night.

 

 

The sleepers are 2mm ones 18mm long and look about right. However they don't 'feel' deep enough, so I may have to get them cut locally from thicker PCB. the rail is code 40 flat bottom that arrived precoloured. This is a b####r to work with as the chemical layer has to be scraped off before any soldering can be done. I'm not overly cut up about not attamepting to accurately model bridge rail. Looking at photos from Didcot I'm not sure I could tell the differece from a distance (and I'll put on my tin hat and duck behind a rock to prepare for the incoming).

[Donw]

I got used to seeing lumps of Bridge rail as it was used for fencing in the Forest of Dean. The profile seems much lower than flatbottom rail. Some sections of Broad gauge were laid (or re-laid in transverse sleepers before the gauge change. I like your test peice but the lack of the long bulks under the rail shows. I would try using small section balsa for the bulks and cross ties if you could use brass pins to fix the balsa down and then solder the rail onto the pins it might work.

Don

[buffalo]

I forget what you information you get when you join the BGS, but you'll find they have a very wide range of data sheets available on both stock and track. The bridge rail we often see re-used as fence posts is just one of many options and, over time, came in a wide range of weights and sizes. Not all broad gauge track was bridge rail on baulks. Some Barlow rail was used in the 1850s and sixties. Vignoles or flanged rail, which was very much closer in profile to the later flat bottomed rail, was laid by bolting directly to the baulks as were bridge and Barlow rail. Some of the heavier flanged rail profiles were up to about 5" high. In the 1860s/70s, bullhead or double headed rail was used with inside-keyed four hole chairs (2 spikes, 2 trenails) with the more familiar two hole chairs, again inside keyed at first, appearing in the 1870s. The chaired types were normally laid on cross sleepers measuring 12' x 10" x 5". Dual gauge track was found in almost all of these types.

 

Here's some inspiration, first a piece of baulk rail with a 50p for scale (from flat to point, about 1¹/₁₆" or 27mm):

 

 

and a piece of Barlow rail, about 12" wide and 5" high:

 

 

Both from the entrance to Hallatrow station on the Bristol & North Somerset.

 

Nick

[Rhys]

I like your test peice but the lack of the long bulks under the rail shows. I would try using small section balsa for the bulks and cross ties if you could use brass pins to fix the balsa down and then solder the rail onto the pins it might work.

Don

 

I never got round to adding the baulks under the rails on this ets piece. However I think I would stick with PCB sleepers as I tend to build track formations at the workbench before I position then on the layout. its also easy to solder them up. I think pins and balsa might be asking for trouble in the long term.