mpeffers

Well this is a hugely appealing concept... I may try and sketch out something similar (and inevitably never build it...). I like the mocked up buildings too - add real presence.

The Ports-to-Ports probably saw coaches from the North-East reaching South Wales. I’ve seen more references to it in my MSWJR research than actual photographs, so not too sure on the constitution pre-1923. The webpage I found about it suggests the GWR and LNER alternated coaching sets post-grouping. Edit: Actually that probably is the Barry - Newcastle service mentioned...

Beautiful

Or in my case, I had seen it before but forgotten (well, in a manner of speaking): https://mobile.twitter.com/crikey_fell/status/716773284553953281/photo/2 If you’ll forgive the Wikipedia regurgitation, it seems you’ve done the opposite of what the LSWR did - the 415 Class seemingly being a development of the 4-4-0T 46 Class. I came across the picture a while back whilst looking for RTR options for locos that might have been sold on to a minor independent railway during the 1880s. The timing was correct - the 415s replaced the 46s - but the LSWR didn’t dispose of them. Instead they were converted into 4-4-2Ts and integrated into the 415 Class. If you’ll forgive the tangent, the EFE Rail 0298 Class is currently looking like my best lead in this regard. In particular, a few were apparently converted to tender engines, which could be an interesting prospect. Sounds like any back-dating of these would still be quite an involved process, though...

I wonder if maybe the contrast between the wood panelling and the black firebox draws attention to the fact that it wraps around the firebox and protrudes further into the cab? Should all be less visible with the cab on, crew, weathering, etc. but cutting the wood in line with the firebox edge the whole way along may also add to the illusion.

Interesting. I have considered taking this approach (I am also unconvinced by my abilities to cut plasticard straight and square, although I think - hope? - I’m getting better). Do you cut through the centre of the printed lines? Or pick a common horizontal and vertical edge? I have reservations about the accuracy of my home printer, although I guess printing in a single colour should weed out any calibration issues. Maybe worth a try before forking out for a Silhouette cutter...?

Certainly would think so. Others here have achieved nicely proportioned 0-6-0Ts with the same body shell using Terrier, Electrotren and Toby chassis. The Bachmann Junior chassis is perhaps a bit more awkward? I gather they run quite nicely, which is a bonus, but looking through an old @relaxinghobby thread from 2011 I’m minded to agree that the larger driving wheels sit better under a tank engine with a bit more... heft? It’s also not been easy to get hold of these chassis (at a reasonable price) for a while, at least online. I do have an Electrotren chassis (earmarked for something else) and a Dapol J94 that I could look at, but this was mostly an exercise in razor sawing and plasticard for me. That said, handrails and transfers are still aspects I need to practice, so I hope to press on at some point. Maybe sell it on at the end.

I certainly wasn’t suggesting they were equivalent machines, just baulking at the suggestion that the 14xx’s couldn’t win a race against anything It’s trivial, I just happen to be fond of them and certainly their usage in Gloucestershire seems largely at odds with the way they’re typically considered by modellers...? I fear we’re digressing; here’s a Dowlais-bash. Sadly, I have to confess I’ve not touched it in a while. Going for a GWR-absorbed-and-modified sort of look. Still find the 4’ wheels at 8’3” wheelbase a bit disconcerting though. Out of interest, has anyone turned up any prototypes to these sorts of dimensions?

Some thoughts on the above. Whilst I appreciate you’re not going for modelling a prototype, basing your layout on an real life location (or elements of) is a good way of making the layout make sense. It is tough - even modest branch termini generally require a lot of compression to fit a reasonable space. Bridge/Tunnel is the traditional fiddle yard exit disguise, but sometimes feel a bit... unsatisfying? I think because of their size, they are features of the layout and they draw the eye in. If the topology around the area doesn’t seem to fit the rest of the scene or, for example, there seems to be an easier route for a road to reach where it’s going without requiring a bridge, it can feel a little too obvious what it’s trying to disguise. Things like hedgerows, trees, pipe bridges and even just a backscene hole can be effective despite not acting as a full view-blocker. 4’ should be adequate for a traverser for a tender engine +3. Hattons’ website is quite good for posting images of RTR stock alongside a ruler if you want to know more about lengths before purchasing anything. As ever, there’s a prototype for everything. The Fairford Branch had a turntable at the terminus end and almost everything used it - even pannier tanks. Equally, the Lambourn Valley branch made significant use of tender engines but without the facility to turn them at the far end. (The original intention was for the Manors to replace the Churchward Moguls, so not unreasonable to run the former if you do the latter, btw) As a general rule, platforms and loops at branch termini seemed to be significantly longer than the ‘usual’ trains. This often lost to compression in models, but I’d suggest lengthening the loop if you have the capacity to. Goods yard and engine shed swapping positions seems sensible for the relative space they tend to occupy. Looks likely that the turntable wouldn’t fit at the back (not look as good?) if you want to keep it.

You’re a cruel bunch. They allegedly did race - and beat - LMS expresses between Tuffley and Standish junctions on the four-track section south of Gloucester. Now I wasn’t there, and memories of these events might be clouded by personal allegiances, but you haven to imagine it did happen on occasions and at least have been close to pass into railway folklore...

This was discussed the the Pre-Grouping sub-forum recently. I believe someone said Sketchup defaults to 20 flat sides when representing circles - a lot for, say, rivet heads but far too few for a boiler.

Unfortunately not an NER expert either - I did briefly think of Northallerton, but it’s not really the same scenario. It looks possibly a bit over-complicated to my eye...? What happens if you take the passenger lines over the goods rather than the other way around? I assume this would be better from a space/cost/performance perspective. According to Wikipedia, at least the LSWR installed a grade separated junction in the 1890s, so it wouldn’t have been novel to the UK but everything on the flat feels instinctively more likely. Your main route would have to be very busy to struggle to path goods trains through the junction without disrupting the flow. If there was limited arrivals capacity, probably the incoming goods trains would be stacked in Goods Loops on approach to wait their turn?

If it is a representation of an absorbed GWR 2-4-0T, I’d suggest Neath & Brecon Railway No.6 (Google Image search pointed me to a nice-looking build here) mainly based on the cab and bunker. The Cambrian had some 2-4-0Ts too, although I think slightly less of a likeness. It does look a bit long/slender though, and the fittings perhaps a bit different. 1170 doesn’t correspond to an absorbed 2-4-0T either (although close - they were around 1190, numbered in sequence) so perhaps it’s an ‘inspired by’ freelance?

This scheme seems relevant here: http://swindonsotherrailway.co.uk/chrismsr.html My own freelance scheme approaches Cirencester from the other side, supposing the East Gloucestershire Railway completed its link between Cheltenham and Oxford and operated it as an independent concern. There's an early map here of the scheme: http://www.canbush.com/eastglos.jpg Completing the route doesn't seem too outlandish as most of it was eventually built: Witney to Fairford by the EGR itself; Cirencester to Andoversford by the Swindon and Cheltenham Extension Railway (which merged with the Swindon, Marlborough and Andover Railway to form the MSWJR - incidentally, their Act also included provision for a Cirencester - Fairford link); Andoversford to Cheltenham by the Banbury and Cheltenham Direct Railway. Perhaps in an alternate universe, the Midland and backers of the SCER and BCDR would have lent their support to the EGR's scheme in order to see useful sections of their own routes completed, presumably with favourable terms of access negotiated. The EGR's independence is probably more of a stretch. The GWR operated the Fairford Branch, but were staunchly opposed to the through route; I'm not sure that the LNWR would be that interested in essentially a long extension to the Buckingham Railway and the SMAR/MSWJR likely lacked the resources or inclination to take it on. If you assume that the Midland's interests stopped at the divergence of the MSWJR from the EGR just north of Cirencester and that they didn't see the Cirencester - Oxford arm as sufficiently lucrative to make antagonising the GWR and LNWR by appearing in Oxford worth their while, you do start to run out of other options... I'm going with it anyway. I sat on the fence for a bit, but frankly it seems like a slightly lower-pressure route to cutting my teeth in kit-building, scratch-building and RTR-modding that are skills I would definitely need to develop if I intend to do any more prototypical pre-grouping modelling in the future.

Hi Martin, First of all, good to see you back. Just on this point, I do agree that it’s actually a nice visual effect not often seen on layouts (for obvious reasons). However, since the MSWJR has been mentioned, it’s maybe worth noting that their platforms weren’t actually all that long. The Swindon’s Other Railway site has a set of diagrams produced by the GWR at grouping with platform and siding lengths noted and most are around 300’ (which I assume to be usable length, excluding the ramps?). Some are much longer (Ludgershall, Swindon Town, etc.) but there are some 275’s and a 250’ in there. Even 180’ at Chedworth. Plenty of photos of MSWJR trains of 5+ bogie coaches that would likely have matched or exceeded the platform lengths. Even in the 1950s, the usual three-coach sets were strengthened by an extra two at weekends on at least one CWN I’ve seen, which would have pretty much filled the 300’ platforms by that point. I don’t have a lot of knowledge or info on other lines to say if the MSWJR was an exception in this regard. If I was to hazard a guess at some reasoning, I wonder if the comparative lateness (no dates to hand, but I think the SMAR was opened in the 1870s, Cheltenham Extension commenced in the early 1880s and opened as a through route in 1891), focus on through traffic (large parts of particularly the Cheltenham Extension were fairly sparsely populated) and general lack of finance led to more pragmatic thinking regarding platform lengths?

It should definitely be possible. Whether it proves practical, particularly for the purpose of a test track/running in circuit, is probably more the question. Two considerations from my brief, (semi-)related experience trying to get a similar radius of curve to work reliably in N gauge: I believe flexitrack tends to experience a bit of gauge tightening if you try and bend it through quite a harsh radius - essentially the sleepers splay out slightly away from perpendicular to the rails. This is the opposite of what you want in this scenario - if anything, a bit of gauge easing would be better to accommodate the relatively large angle of attack between the fixed-wheelbase wheels and the outer running rail. It’s also difficult (although not impossible) to achieve a nice constant radius of curvature which would improve running. Derailments will almost invariably be to the outside of the circle - intuitive really. Maximising your radius of curvature should give you the best running, but something around the edge of up drum to stop anything leaping into the void below definitely advisable. It’s a neat idea if you can get it to work. I can think of a few avenues to explore depending on how much time/effort/resource you want to invest.

I have my MSWJR Vol.3 to hand. The vents do feature on the drawing although aren’t specifically dimensioned. There are pictures of No.2 as a grounded body so not sure if the positions were measured on site or estimated from photos. The outer vents are drawn on the roof centreline and inner two are offset by 1’ either side (left then right). Spacing along the roof is 3’6” - 4’3” - 3’6”. (Essentially, as per the van above ) I’ll do some MSWJR modelling one day...

Again, the Gloucestershire Railway Memories site has a picture of a Super D running (I believe) north through Cheltenham, although it’s dated 1960 (so a bit late for your period) and the destination isn’t stated so can’t say for sure if if continued up Lickey. The caption also states they occasionally worked into Gloucester from Hereford and I presume they were no stranger to the ex-LNWR metals around Birmingham, so seems possible one might have bridged that gap at some point, but like you say it was unlikely to be a common appearance. Ex-WD locos probably a better bet.

Ah, yes. Missed that.

Not to mention one real one (albeit not for very long) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Midland_Railway

From the excellent Gloucestershire Railway Memories site: https://56a0cc30-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/gloucestershirerailwaymemories/home/locomotive-sightings/unusual-loco-workings-in-gloucester-in-1957/47994.jpg “2-6-6-2 Beyer-Garratt 47994 under the coaler at Barnwood on 7 July 1956 when it was an 18A Toton engine. These locos were sometimes seen in the early 1950s, working from the East Midlands through to Westerleigh on coal trains, but became less common as the decade wore on. I saw four of them go through Hatherley in the mid-1950s. As it happens, 47994 was the last of the class of 33 locos to be withdrawn, in April 1958. Photo Stephen Mourton collection.” For those less familiar with the area, Barnwood is in Gloucester and Hatherley the south-west side of Cheltenham. This wouldn’t preclude them having been routed via the Honeybourne Line, but the Lickey route would seem more likely...?

I agree they’re too bright. Gut feeling is that they’re also a bit too big? Could just be me, but I feel like the large wheel-short wheelbase combination draws the eye in as something that doesn’t quite look as you would expect.

I guess a lot of the 0-4-0 configuration was dictated by the short overall length. Extending from the middle to add an extra axle doesn’t look right to my eye (although I’d say the same of more than a few prototypes that did exist too). I guess conventionally you would centre the firebox between the rear two axles and the front of the cab would sit slightly ahead of the rear axle (which is more or less as shown above). Then if there’s enough space for the coal bunker to fit at the back of/behind the cab, it would go there. Would be tempted to shorten the water tanks back and expose the smokebox to improve the proportions although you might then be looking at a lot more scratchbuilding or an alternative donor for the smokebox and chimney.

Had a sudden feeling that I had the literature to be helpful on here for a change but sadly my collection of books on Gloucestershire’s Railways and the MSWJR are somewhat lacking in detail regarding turntable lengths... To start with the good news, in pre-grouping days T9s were no strangers to the MSWJR and Cheltenham’s turntables were pretty short. 723 was loaned by the LSWR to the MSWJR for a time in 1915 (although likely not long) and would presumably have worked through to Cheltenham during that time. 115, 119, 280, 284, 287, 707, 710, 714 and 722 were also recorded working through trains over the MSWJR between 1916 and 1918 (I believe ambulance trains, at least some of which went through to Cheltenham). A side-effect of this is that the T9, among other LSWR designs, were route-cleared to Cheltenham - this fact is still recorded in some of the Western Region WTTs, so evidently persisted. As mentioned, I’ve not been able to find any quoted lengths for the turntables at Cheltenham. St. James’ (GWR) was long enough for a Manor (52’ 1.75”) but too short for a Castle (54’ 6.25”), so I’d guess 54’? High St. (MSWJR) I have even less information about, but the same companies’ table at Swindon was apparently 55’. Logic would suggest that Cheltenham could be the same although the logical assumption isn’t always correct. I’m also not sure how long it was there for - the GWR closed the shed in 1935, but the turntable itself was by the carriage sidings which were used into the late 50s (along with Landsdown Rd. station) so it would still have been useful. Bad news is as follows. The short turntables at Cheltenham were an operational inconvenience rather than a limit - engines (including those that would fit on St. James’ turntable) were often noted using the triangle at Lansdown Junction to turn, or ran through to Gloucester to turn at Horton Rd. I’m also not aware that the MSWJR route handled raceday traffic although most references to it that I’ve seen have been for the post-nationalisation era. Depending on the era you’re representing, I suspect LSWR/SR visitors between the the end of the 1890s (by which time, the MSWJR had got their house in order) and 1950s (when Andover Shed was transferred to the Southern Region - 30120, 30707 and 30719 were known to have run on MSWJR metals in the 50s and 60s, although not getting much north of Swindon) were probably rare outside of the two wars. Most of my resource material focuses on the pre-grouping and post-nationalisation eras though. I guess you can take the above whichever way you would like. All the groundwork is there for a plausible excuse for your T9...

Looking through here, it seems 4569 is a potential candidate. Not sure on the source though - had a quick look for discernible images and it was definitely lined out/late crest by the end.