Annie's Virtual Pre-Grouping, Grouping and BR Layouts & Workbench

[Hroth]

A marvelous little engine, apart from the gauge it looks "almost" like a Hornby "Smokey Joe", or at least that looks closer to Raven than their model of "101" does*!

 

On a grey, cool, Bank Holiday Monday, I feel well cheered up!

 

* I mean, than "101" resembles the loco it is intended to resemble... 

 

Edited August 30, 2021 by Hroth

[Annie]

I'm glad you are feeling well cheered up Hroth.  

 

No.2145 is a fine little engine and I thought I'd include it just to show that Broad Gauge engines weren't all huge and magnificent.  Somewhere amongst the many topics discussed here in the pre-grouping forum there is a photo of a 'Smokey Joe' that was used as the basis of a Broad Gauge model engine.  The bodyshell was used 'as is' without modification, but I think that with a little extra work it could have been made to pass for No.2145.

 

Found it!  Crafted by BG John and posted December 5th 2017 in OnTheBranchline's topic 'For the dedicated GWR modeller - broad gauge!'.

 

Edited August 30, 2021 by Annie
A dreadful mistake

[Hroth]

5 minutes ago, Annie said:

The bodyshell was used 'as is' without modification, but I think that with a little extra work it could have been made to pass for No.2145

 

Amazingly so, a taller chimney and the safety valve cover would have nailed it.

 

[Regularity]

10 hours ago, Annie said:

She was eventually sold to the Wantage Tramway. She survived until around 1920.

Interesting snippet. Anyone know more about this?

[Caley Jim]

10 hours ago, Annie said:

A small complaint about this otherwise interesting picture is that I wish the photographer had included a lot more of that goods van in the background in their photo.

That was a frequent failure by these early photographers. They had a habit of cutting an interesting vehicle off at the edge of the shot, or posing the subject so that it partially obscured it. 

 

Jim 

Edited August 30, 2021 by Caley Jim
Typos

[Annie]

32 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Interesting snippet. Anyone know more about this?

From https://www.tramwayinfo.com/

 

"No.1329 - 0-4-0 saddle tank loco built for the Avonside Engine Co. in 1874 for the South Devon Railway. Sold to Wantage by GWR in 1910 but little used and so not renumbered."

 

[rocor]

2 hours ago, Caley Jim said:

That was a frequent failure by these early photographers. They had a habit of cutting an interesting vehicle off at the edge of the shot, or posing the subject so that it partially obscured it. 

 

Jim 

 If only the Victorians could have had iPhones. Today we would have so many more images of the rolling stock of that time. 

[Hroth]

36 minutes ago, rocor said:

 If only the Victorians could have had iPhones. Today we would have so many more images of the rolling stock of that time. 

 

More likely to have innumerable Victorian iPhone selfies posed in front of (and obscuring) interesting rolling stock, and reports of self-absorbed folk stepping off the platform edge right in front of the oncoming Flying Dutchman as they attempt to achieve a dynamic picture*...

 

* Excellent evidence for the inquest.

[Annie]

This is the mixed gauge point at the south eastern end of Crowcombe Heathfield station.  I thought the crossover at the other end of the station that I laid out first was going to be the more difficult to do, but oh dear me no it wasn't.  This one was the stinker.

Having driven several of my elderly mid-19th century engines up the climb from Bishops Lydeard to Crowcombe Heathfield using the 'realistic' steam controls on a number of occasions I already knew it was a nasty gradient.  The crossover had been a bit tricky to do since it was laid on the beginning of the downgrade, but with the aid of all the bits and pieces in the mixed gauge kit it all worked out fairly well.

At the Bishops Lydeard end of the station though the gradient dropped a bit more sharply and the one thing point kits based on TANE/TRS19 procedural track don't like is being assembled on a gradient.  On my first attempt the connections for the moveable point blades came up red as being faulty and weren't shaped properly.  I adjusted and levelled all the bits that usually give trouble and it made no difference; - the point blades were still red.  So I took it all apart and did it again being really (really) careful this time around, BUT it made no difference  (I see red, I see red, I see red......).

Following a hunch as to what might be wrong I assembled everything again leaving out the fixed track spacers.  The result was a bit untidy, but nothing was showing as being faulty.  So I put one of the track spacers back in........ and the colour red was back again (sigh).

What I ended up having to do was build up the point without the helpful spacers to hold everything in the correct position while putting it together.  The final result works Ok and it looks reasonable, though there is a very slight misalignment on one of the diverging rails.  I can only conclude that because the spacers are made to sit level, that placing them on a gradient puts a slight twist into any rails attached to them.  With the crossover I somehow managed to get away with it, but at this end of things the distortion was too much and caused a faulty flag to be displayed.  I think that this should be the only place on the branch I'm going to strike this problem, but fingers crossed and all that.

 

Looks like butter wouldn't melt on its transoms doesn't it.

 

 

  

 

An old video clip now, but you should get the idea of just how steep the climb is.  And yes I was being a bit cruel to my 1850's Manning Wardle Crampton by making it attempt a climb as steep as that.

 

 

[Caley Jim]

Looks like you've got a nasty leak at the stuffing box! 

 

Jim 

[Annie]

That might have happened because I made the poor Crampton climb that steep hill Jim  

 

Seriously though some of my older Trainz engines have been set up with a wee bit too much steam escaping from places where steam shouldn't be escaping in a healthy engine.  One day I'll see if I can figure out the magical incantations to knock it back a bit.

[AdamsRadial]

From the plaintive sounds of the whistle there can't have been much pressure left.

[Annie]

7 hours ago, AdamsRadial said:

From the plaintive sounds of the whistle there can't have been much pressure left.

That was a background sound squawk bird recording not the whistle.  It was a bit of a mission to get the Crampton to steam properly though.

[Hroth]

8 hours ago, AdamsRadial said:

From the plaintive sounds of the whistle there can't have been much pressure left.

 

30 minutes ago, Annie said:

That was a background sound squawk bird recording not the whistle.  It was a bit of a mission to get the Crampton to steam properly though.

 

Ruddy birds!

Whatever it was did a good Struggling Crampton impression... 

[Annie]

There's a reason why Cramptons didn't work out in Britain Horth, - too many hills.  In France though with long distances between stations and a much flatter landscape they were a major success with some lasting into the mid-20th century and one pair even managing to stay at work well into the 1950's.

I do like that Crampton model though despite its talent for doing 'Struggling Crampton' impressions, - it's just that the Minehead branch is definitely not the place for it to give of its best.

 

(An older screenshot from much earlier in the layout rebuild)

 

 

[Annie]

Stogumber!  The distance from Crowcombe Heathfield to Stogumber seemed like a much further distance than I remember what with having to replace the track as well as two bridges along the way.

 

I started out with placing the fixed track parts of the kit as I thought it would be fine since the yard at Stogumber is completely billiard table flat.

 

But it wasn't to be as it looks like some kind of strange bug has crept into TRS19 rendering the fixed track parts of the kits largely useless.  No matter what I did the red faulty flags were back with vengeance.

So what I did was start to layout the goods yard point work without the fixed track templates.  This is soooooo much easier to do on a flat site.  I found a GWR era photo of Stogumber station which showed me that the small sandstone station building should be closer towards the platform and that the track into the goods shed was curved and not straight, so I'll be shifting things about to be more like the photo.  The white fence in front of the station building is a preservation era addition so I've removed it.  Back in the day people must've been a lot more sensible about not casting themselves under passing railway engines.

The goods shed and platform shelter are based on the ones at Bourton and while not quite correct are close enough not to offend my eyes.

 

[Northroader]

It’s me back, sorry. Billiard tables and Stogumber aren’t synonymous. It’s a terribly cramped site due to the line running along the side of a steep hillside. The platform is perched on the edge of a shelf with a shelter and signal box on stilts, so the main building had to be across the track at the end of the approach road which climbs up from the main road passing under the line. There’s a very steep footpath up from the road to the platform as a shortcut to save going round on the approach road. They found just enough room for a goods siding with a small shed.

i found a film clip taken at a distance which might give an idea of the hilly nature, just hope this is playable in NZ.

 

[Annie]

50 minutes ago, Northroader said:

It’s me back, sorry. Billiard tables and Stogumber aren’t synonymous. It’s a terribly cramped site due to the line running along the side of a steep hillside. The platform is perched on the edge of a shelf with a shelter and signal box on stilts, so the main building had to be across the track at the end of the approach road which climbs up from the main road passing under the line. There’s a very steep footpath up from the road to the platform as a shortcut to save going round on the approach road. They found just enough room for a goods siding with a small shed.

Oh yes I do completely agree Mr Northroader, - it's a terribly cramped site and by the time I'm finished with this rebuild it will be all properly and nicely cramped up.  What I meant by the billiard table comment was that where the track has to go at Stogumber it's way more flat than the station yard at Crowcombe Heathfield.  That's going to help a lot with progressing the track conversion work so I can continue on towards Minehead.

Stogumber station yard as it was on the original TS2004 layout was completely wrong.  Even for the preservation era let alone the 19th century it was wrong; - so what I did was give it a quick and basic tidy up so that it was a lot closer to how it should be, but I knew it was likely that I was going to have to revisit it again.  I did include the steep footpath down to the road though which was bit of a tricky exercise, but I'm glad I did it.

Thanks for the video by the way as it will be helpful when it comes to reshaping the scenery. (Gosh, Evening Star was sounding a bit clanky though.)

 

I have a lot of photos of the preservation era station at Stogumber and they were helpful with developing the sandstone texture set for station buildings on the Minehead branch.  My present placeholder at Stogumber is a little too small, but once I find a better building mesh I'll make a proper job of it.

My major cheer up of the day though was finding this photo on the Bay of Fleas.  Now I have a really good guide as to how much to cramp up the station site so it looks as it should.

 

 

EDIT:  But be calm my beating heart, - is that narrowed baulk road track in the photo?  The GWR staff uniforms are all definitely Edwardian era so this isn't a post-grouping era photo.

Edited August 31, 2021 by Annie
Um.........

[Hroth]

1 hour ago, Annie said:

Oh yes I do completely agree Mr Northroader, - it's a terribly cramped site and by the time I'm finished with this rebuild it will be all properly and nicely cramped up.  What I meant by the billiard table comment was that where the track has to go at Stogumber it's way more flat than the station yard at Crowcombe Heathfield.  That's going to help a lot with progressing the track conversion work so I can continue on towards Minehead.

Stogumber station yard as it was on the original TS2004 layout was completely wrong.  Even for the preservation era let alone the 19th century it was wrong; - so what I did was give it a quick and basic tidy up so that it was a lot closer to how it should be, but I knew it was likely that I was going to have to revisit it again.  I did include the steep footpath down to the road though which was bit of a tricky exercise, but I'm glad I did it.

Thanks for the video by the way as it will be helpful when it comes to reshaping the scenery. (Gosh, Evening Star was sounding a bit clanky though.)

 

I have a lot of photos of the preservation era station at Stogumber and they were helpful with developing the sandstone texture set for station buildings on the Minehead branch.  My present placeholder at Stogumber is a little too small, but once I find a better building mesh I'll make a proper job of it.

My major cheer up of the day though was finding this photo on the Bay of Fleas.  Now I have a really good guide as to how much to cramp up the station site so it looks as it should.

 

 

EDIT:  But be calm my beating heart, - is that narrowed baulk road track in the photo?  The GWR staff uniforms are all definitely Edwardian era so this isn't a post-grouping era photo.

 

The goods shed is definitely Broad gauge, isn't it!  You can't really tell with the track, there's a lot of ballast shovelled over the sleepers so its not really clear. I can imagine the track into the shed could be, they wouldn't want to waste money relaying that...

 

3 hours ago, Annie said:

Stogumber!  The distance from Crowcombe Heathfield to Stogumber seemed like a much further distance than I remember what with having to replace the track as well as two bridges along the way.

 

It initially didn't click that Stogumber was the name of a place.  I assumed it was an Antipodean oath referring to the amount of work involved... 

 

Edited August 31, 2021 by Hroth
Spelin'n'rearrang

[Edwardian]

32 minutes ago, Hroth said:

 

It initially didn't click that Stogumber was the name of a place.  I assumed it was an Antipodean oath referring to the amount of work involved... 

 

 

It's somewhere near Strewthampton, IIRC

 

[Hroth]

4 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

It's somewhere near Strewthampton, IIRC

 

 

You've heard of the Rude Placename Tour ?

 

 

[Annie]

35 minutes ago, Hroth said:

The goods shed is definitely Broad gauge, isn't it!  You can't really tell with the track, there's a lot of ballast shovelled over the sleepers so its not really clear. I can imagine the track into the shed could be, they wouldn't want to waste money relaying that...

I have this very nice pre-grouping photo as well that shows the track in more detail.  It's definitely narrowed baulk road track.  Somewhere I read that the baulk road track stayed in place for a good while on the Minehead branch, - possibly not being relayed with transverse sleepers until after WW1.

 

[Hroth]

A nice timber platform!

 

Looks like they're rehearsing for a production of "The Railway Children"...

 

[Annie]

11 minutes ago, Hroth said:

A nice timber platform!

 

Looks like they're rehearsing for a production of "The Railway Children"...

 

At a guess I'd say they all belong to the station master.

 

Lots of nice detail in that photo.  I think I might be able to find a timber platform that will do the job.  I'm not so sure about the waiting shelter though.  Perhaps it might give me a chance to prove just how appalling my 3D modelling skills are.

[MikeOxon]

18 hours ago, Annie said:

................  One day I'll see if I can figure out the magical incantations to knock it back a bit.

Once upon a time, I used to enjoy fiddling with computer software to modify aircraft parameters in Microsoft Flight Simulator.  Nowadays just thinking about such things makes my head ache