Rivermead Central

[40057]

First, thank you to @John R Smith, @Roger Pound and @James Spooner for your kind remarks. I have thought about/planned/dreamed of the vintage layout I am now building for over 30 years. It’s really great to see it IRL.

A brief update. A glitch with the short length of track I made to complete the centre road at Cairnie Junction. When I put it in place, it was too long by about 8 mm. I have now worked out why.

The track adjacent to platform 2 has the longest length of straight track there was room for. That is, three standard, factory-made, 15” track panels plus a short length of 168 mm I made out of original Lowko Track parts.

As seen here, on the right:



So, to make up the required length of straight track for the centre road I made up another 168 mm length. A mistake — because both the curves at the ends of the centre road are (will be) the curved roads of turnouts, whereas the curve at the south end of platform 2 is a plain-line standard curve. The radius of all the curves is the same. However, the outer rail of the plain line curve is 15” long, the inner rail is shortened by a few mm. The curved stock rail of the turnouts (i.e. the inner rail of the curve) is not shortened — it’s the full 15”. So the length of the curved track of the turnout is slightly longer than the length of the plain-line curves. I forgot this discrepancy in the track geometry.

I’ve shortened the rails on the centre road ‘distance piece’ this afternoon.

I’ve also started work on the sleeper-built boundary fence to go against the wall of the room south of the Cairnie Junction yard office:



These are original post-WW2 sleepers for Scale Permanent Way. I’m using these because I have a large quantity of unused ones and because they are much closer to scale size than Lowko Track sleepers. I feel slightly guilty using these original parts in this way. However, Bassett-Lowke clearly sold thousands — probably many tens of thousands — of sleepers for home track construction to enthusiasts who never got round to using them. They are readily available and most will probably never be used. So I am going to sacrifice about 50 to make a fence.

I will need to shorten the sleepers to correspond to the portion buried in the ground IRL. I’ll fix the fence to a strip of plywood which will be screwed to the baseboard. The same arrangement I used for the length of wall just installed on the layout.

My plan is to have the signal box controlling movements in and out of the yard in front of the sleeper-built fence. It will occupy the space just to the south of the yard office.

 

[40057]

Spot the difference!

Before:



Now:



OK, pretty obvious. The loading gauge is Bassett-Lowke from just before or after WW2. It has been used on a layout before, as shown by the paint damage around the holes for the fixing screws. It is also ‘naturally weathered’ — that is, I have cleaned off the easily removable dirt but the paint is still discoloured and stained from age and use.



These loading gauges are surprisingly common. You might think they were very much an optional extra amongst the range of accessories offered, and only really useable on a permanent layout. But they were clearly popular as they are easily found today.

The loading gauge is positioned to check the compliance of loaded wagons leaving the Benham’s private siding. I would have preferred to have had the post behind the rearmost track so it wouldn’t be an obstruction when shunting. However, that is not possible as in that position the post is too tall for the space below the sloping ceiling. Anyway, it was certainly less difficult to accurately position the post and fix it down closer to the front of the layout. Life would be a little easier using cross-head screws — but these are banned from Rivermead Central on the grounds of being anachronistic. There are many visible screw heads on the layout — all slotted, as they would have been at the time the rolling stock etc was made.

The loading gauge is another milestone. So far, in position on the layout, the buildings are all ‘vintage style’ but actually modern. A few building components are re-used vintage material. The track is period. Not counting the buffer stops (because they are track, sort of), the loading gauge is the first period accessory permanently installed on Rivermead Central.

Clearly, plenty more to come — but I don’t want to overdo it. I want the railway to look spacious and uncluttered.

 

[40057]

I am making steady progress assembling the length of sleeper-built fence, a bit at a time. It’s now just over 10” long:



The wood glue doesn’t seem to bond well to the treated wood surface, so, in addition to glue, I am putting in 1” long moulding pins as I go. Each moulding pin joins three sleepers:



The exact length of fence doesn’t matter. Around 18–20” is my intention.

As it happens, today I was able to examine a real sleeper-built railway boundary fence. Still in use and on Network Rail. Probably quite an uncommon survival in 2025. Points of note included that to make the fencing the sleepers had been cut in half longitudinally. The fence was built using upright ‘planks’ half the thickness of an intact sleeper. The sleepers used had clearly been previously fitted with rail chairs. Two horizontal strips of timber c. 2” x 4” ran the length of the fence, fastened to the ‘railway side’ of the upright ‘sleeper planks’. The fence was around 5’ tall and would be very difficult to climb over from the ‘road side’ — an effective barrier.

My sleeper-built fence is somewhat taller but it needs to be as it is next to track that is greatly over-scale in height. I have not cut my sleepers in half longitudinally. However, having seen the real thing, I’m inclined to add lengths of small-section strip wood to represent the horizontal strengtheners on the real fencing. I’m modelling the ‘railway side’ of the fence, so I think I need to add those.

Martin

 

[John R Smith]

I’m inclined to add lengths of small-section strip wood to represent the horizontal strengtheners on the real fencing. I’m modelling the ‘railway side’ of the fence, so I think I need to add those.

That sounds right. Traditionally, fence posts and horizontal rails go on the side of the fence which defines the ownership of the fence and property, in this case the railway company. On plans attached to deeds, this boundary ownership was usually indicated by a "T" symbol.

John

 

[40057]

No modelling progress for a week, until today. I went on a visit to the NYMR and came back with a cold. Felt terrible for several days, but got back to my sleeper-built fence today:



That’s its finished length; fifty sleepers, just over 19”. I’ve put on the top horizontal rail and will add a second about half way up. I’ll also put a piece of strip wood on the other side of the fence, but a much larger piece. That has two purposes — to hold the fence straight and horizontal, and to keep the fence a few mm off the wall of the room.

 

[40057]

I have added the second horizontal rail to the sleeper-built fence using a piece of walnut strip wood:





I still need to cover the heads of the brass tacks used to secure the horizontal rails. Also now fixed in place behind the sleepers is a piece of 1” x 1/4” pine strip wood running the length of the fence. The whole structure is thus strong and rigid. It’s also, overall, straight — but with small undulations along the way.

I have changed my mind about how to hold the fence in place on the layout. The north end will tuck in behind the yard office building, which will keep the fence upright. The other anchor point will be a nail or dowel projecting down from the bottom of the fence. Right at the back of the base-boards, a few mm from the wall, there are vertical holes drilled in all the boards at intervals of a few inches. I drilled these holes before the base-boards were fixed down thinking that holes against the back wall might be useful for securing scenery, but knowing it would be impossible to drill a vertical hole that close to the wall once the boards were fastened down. I haven’t used any of the ‘base board scenery fixing holes’ so far, but I think it does make sense to use one now.

One further observation. I read recently in someone’s WT thread — apologies, I can’t remember who the author was — the comment that modellers generally spend a lot of time trying to make one material look like another (plastic to look like metal etc etc). Often it is done very well. My fence however looks like a fence made of old sleepers — because it is made of old sleepers. To my eyes anyway, IRL, it is really quite convincing.

 

[John R Smith]

One further observation. I read recently in someone’s WT thread — apologies, I can’t remember who the author was — the comment that modellers generally spend a lot of time trying to make one material look like another (plastic to look like metal etc etc).

These days, I have decided that the best approach is like for like - metal for metal, wood for wood, and so forth. Plastic is the Devil's Work, and banned from my layout. I do have a problem with buildings, though, which like yours are basically wood when they should be made of little bricks. On my old Gauge One layout we actually did construct some of the buildings using individual stones (which probably says more about my sanity - or lack of it - than anything else). Your fence is just how it should be done.

John

 

[40057]

An interesting afternoon working on the layout. The principal achievement being that the centre road and the track serving platform 2 at Cairnie Junction are now connected at the southern end:



The turnout just laid, in the foreground, was an experiment a few years ago when I was realising just how scarce factory-made Lowko Track electric turnouts actually are. It’s almost scratch built using Lowko Track components. Not quite scratch built because I re-used the sleeper raft from a very rusty and dented tinplate turnout. This required some extra sleepers for fastening the third rail and I shifted the position of the point lever round 90 degrees. Otherwise, I copied what was done at the factory but with a couple of minor improvements:



I made the chair (top arrow) out of two modified standard Lowko Track chairs. It replaces what would be a transverse metal strip on a factory-made point, with the rails attached to it by soldering. These are amongst the soldered joints that routinely break during use. I filed down — to reduce its width — the 3rd rail support chair indicated by the lower arrow. This meant I could reduce the gap in the third rail (by one sleeper) yet still have clearance for flanges. These alterations to the standard production would not have been feasible for the factory, but both are definite improvements.

I don’t really want to scratch build any further turnouts — but I know it can be done if necessary. It is more work to scratch build than repair and modify factory production. Scratch building would allow some design improvements and different radii, Y turnouts etc not made in standard production.

Viewed at normal distances, without close inspection, my home made turnout looks like a factory production.

In order to get the two tracks to line up with the two arms of the turnout, I had to slew the centre road a couple of mm towards platform 1. The centre road is thus no longer absolutely straight, but there are no nasty kinks or dog-legs. I couldn’t move the platform road because of needing to maintain the clearance from the platform edge. I’m happy enough with the alignment of the tracks and have fastened everything down. One minor job still to do: black paint on the screw heads so the steel fastening screws don’t stand out bright on the track battens.

Once I had got both tracks and the turnout joined and well aligned, it was apparent that a little more clearance would have been preferable at the position shown here:



The photograph shows, with the tracks fastened in position on both high- and low-level base-boards, I could usefully have made the extension to the high-level boards another 5 mm or so wider. Too late now. I tested the clearance using some selected rolling stock. On the straight track of the newly installed turnout, everything is fine. On the curved road, further away from the wall end, coaches were fine and I’m sure wagons will be too. My concern was, in particular, 4-4-0 locomotives. Bassett-Lowke bogies are usually on a swing link. There is no side control and the bogie carries none of the weight of the locomotive body. On tight curves, the front of the locomotive projects at a tangent from the position of the leading driving wheel and will be well outside the normal loading gauge. I used an LMS Compound to test clearance and it too was fine. Tight, but clear. I then tried my Duchess. Facing south, the front footstep on that side of the Duchess hit the wall end. The combination of the locomotive’s great length, the footstep right on the front corner and the tight radius curve results in an enormous over-throw. So the Duchess, when it is eventually repaired and put back in running condition (a major task), will have to be banned from the centre road. An operational nuisance but such things were not unknown IRL (e.g. The Great Bear — for similar reasons). What is slightly alarming from this afternoon’s findings is the implications for station platforms. I didn’t have the Duchess when I put in position the side walls for the Cairnie Junction platforms. Clearance distances were established using a 4-4-0. I will have to test clearances again. The potential problem being that getting clearance for the Duchess requires a platform (on a 3’ 6” radius curve) absurdly far from the track.

Martin

 

[John R Smith]

Once I had got both tracks and the turnout joined and well aligned, it was apparent that a little more clearance would have been preferable at the position shown here:

The first thing I thought was "gosh, that's tight". One thing which is easy to overlook when checking clearances is the direction of travel. Because of the very generous amount of slop in coarse scale axle boxes, wheels back-to-back etc, the amount of overhang on rolling stock varies considerably depending on whether it is being hauled or propelled. The propelled state almost always needs a lot more clearance around lineside structures.

I didn't realise that you had a Duchess. Clockwork or electric?

John

 

[40057]

The first thing I thought was "gosh, that's tight". One thing which is easy to overlook when checking clearances is the direction of travel. Because of the very generous amount of slop in coarse scale axle boxes, wheels back-to-back etc, the amount of overhang on rolling stock varies considerably depending on whether it is being hauled or propelled. The propelled state almost always needs a lot more clearance around lineside structures.

I didn't realise that you had a Duchess. Clockwork or electric?

John

Hi John

The Duchess is a ‘project’. It has significant issues — which made it affordable — but requires considerable work. First, it needs a new motor. It is (was) a clockwork one, but the original mechanism is gone. It currently still has the electric motor someone fitted before it came to me. Since I don’t have a spare clockwork mech of the correct type to install, I’ve done nothing to the loco since purchase. Other issues include some bent plate work, two split soldered joints, areas of corrosion due to flux residue. Overall, the paint work on the loco is good, but the tender has substantial areas of discoloured and poorly adhering paint. Again, this will be inadequate cleaning prior to paint application. So some careful conservation, or even restoration, required.

However, suitably repaired, it will be a magnificent locomotive. Ever since childhood, I have had a terrible weakness for a BIG RED ENGINE. So it will be worth the time and work required to put it back in service.

Periodically, some astonishing Bassett-Lowke Duchess models are offered for sale at suitably high prices. They don’t just look like they have never been run — they look like they have never been touched or even breathed on. These, in my experience, are invariably post-WW2 production. My Duchess is pre-war. It wasn’t sold specifically as such, but it definitely is. Its faults in terms of split joints and flux residue are typical of models made in the immediate pre-WW2 period. I very much doubt if a ‘perfect’ pre-war Duchess model exists, because of the manufacturing methods used. So, I feel the repairs I will have to make are kind of inevitable, if you want a pre-war Duchess. I would say, in terms of appearance, the pre-war Duchess models are definitely better than the post-WW2 versions. Oval buffers (not round) at the front, better painted including a lined-out buffer beam and ‘7P’ on the cab side, larger diameter bogie wheels. Being pre-war, there is a production number on the D-coupling at the back of the loco. Mine is number 33 — the thirty-third Duchess made.

Martin

 

[40057]

The first thing I thought was "gosh, that's tight". One thing which is easy to overlook when checking clearances is the direction of travel. Because of the very generous amount of slop in coarse scale axle boxes, wheels back-to-back etc, the amount of overhang on rolling stock varies considerably depending on whether it is being hauled or propelled. The propelled state almost always needs a lot more clearance around lineside structures.

I didn't realise that you had a Duchess. Clockwork or electric?

John

Hi John

What isn’t clear from the photographs is the height of the wall relative to the trains. Because the track is so tall, the top of the wall is approximately at the height of the axles on a wagon or coach. Clearance with a coach body would be only a few mm, but in fact the coach body is well above the wall and the bogie has plenty of space. Similarly, with locos. Cylinders, buffer beams etc could pass over the wall if they needed to. It’s loco footsteps where there is a problem — when these are on the corners, so well out from the track on a tight curve.

Martin

 

[John R Smith]

Thank you, Martin. Very interesting.

My admittedly somewhat limited experience of the "big" B-L engines is similar. Post-war ones often do have many of the same problems, particularly "fluxing". But then I have just purchased a 2-6-4 tank which is perfect in this regard, so you never know.

The Duchess is a ‘project’. It has significant issues — which made it affordable — but requires considerable work. First, it needs a new motor. It is (was) a clockwork one, but the original mechanism is gone.

Finding the correct six-coupled mechanism in clockwork will not be easy. I did notice this one the other day on eBay -

Bassett-Lowke Mechanism

But there are not enough photos to ID it for certain. The axle spacing looks correct for a Duchess (close-coupled), and the winding arbour is the right type.

John

 

[40057]

Thank you, Martin. Very interesting.

My admittedly somewhat limited experience of the "big" B-L engines is similar. Post-war ones often do have many of the same problems, particularly "fluxing". But then I have just purchased a 2-6-4 tank which is perfect in this regard, so you never know.



Finding the correct six-coupled mechanism in clockwork will not be easy. I did notice this one the other day on eBay -

Bassett-Lowke Mechanism

But there are not enough photos to ID it for certain. The axle spacing looks correct for a Duchess (close-coupled), and the winding arbour is the right type.

John

The Duchess would undoubtedly have had the speed-control version of the mech currently offered on e-Bay. It won’t be easy to find — but then neither is a pre-war Duchess. I’ve plenty to do meantime with other ‘projects’. The Duchess will just have to wait in ‘the queue’.

 

[John R Smith]

Ever since childhood, I have had a terrible weakness for a BIG RED ENGINE.

I know just what you mean. My own red engine is not so big, but it is definitely one of my favourites -



I have another B-L compound, post-war and later than this first edition, and theoretically the clockwork mechanism should be exactly the same - but this red one is a much sweeter runner at low speeds. And the tinprinted finish on the old girl is almost as good as new!

John

 

[40057]

I know just what you mean. My own red engine is not so big, but it is definitely one of my favourites -

View attachment 248253

I have another B-L compound, post-war and later than this first edition, and theoretically the clockwork mechanism should be exactly the same - but this red one is a much sweeter runner at low speeds. And the tinprinted finish on the old girl is almost as good as new!

John

Hi John

Nice photo. I was using my 1190 for clearance testing yesterday. I prefer these early compounds fitted with the ‘Duke of York’ type of tender.

Martin

 

[40057]

Model railway-wise, a day of reflection and planning more than doing.

What I did do was to start cleaning another post-WW2 buffer stop recently purchased via ‘a well-known internet auction site’. I am having a good run of finding these just recently, this latest one being possibly the filthiest yet:



However, once again, under the dirt, it is in good condition with no significant damage. Another useful piece of track work for Cavendish Goods.

I also finished the length of sleeper-built fence:



The final stage was to spray very lightly with matt black. That gave a more consistent overall appearance without completely masking the variations in colour and reflectivity between the different sleepers. I’m very pleased with the finished fence and will definitely make further lengths of similar fencing. It looks right, is simple and quick to make and costs very little. It’s a good way of covering the back wall behind the layout.

In the light of completing the fence, and deciding to construct more, planning for continuing southwards with covering the west wall. Provisionally, my thinking is:



The section labelled ‘sleeper fence’ is the length just made. In front of it, between the point levers, the signal box controlling entry to/exit from the yard. I have the ‘box I’m intending to use. It’s Bassett-Lowke from just before or just after WW1. A crucial test this as to whether my ‘vintage style’ buildings will look right with a genuine 100-year-old model. The building labelled ‘?’ I ordered today, in kit form, from Intentio. I’ve ordered an LMS lamp hut made of corrugated metal sheeting and a GWR hut made of reinforced concrete. I’m not sure which I shall use at this location. I’ll need to work out which is most appropriate and how they work in the space available. I’m pretty sure there is room for either and I will use the other building elsewhere.

Martin

 

[76043]

I had the same dilemma with the buildings on my layout, Dublingham. I opted for card buildings as this was a popular method back in the time of Dublo. I chose Scalescenes, I think I got away with it, but it's definitely difficult. Likewise weathering. I opted not to weather the stock, but the Scalescenes brickwork is a little weathered, I think it's just about an ok balance.
Tony

 

[40057]

I had the same dilemma with the buildings on my layout, Dublingham. I opted for card buildings as this was a popular method back in the time of Dublo. I chose Scalescenes, I think I got away with it, but it's definitely difficult. Likewise weathering. I opted not to weather the stock, but the Scalescenes brickwork is a little weathered, I think it's just about an ok balance.
Tony

Hi Tony

I haven’t seen your layout in person but on the basis of photographs, you have more than ‘got away with it’. The layout looks great and the whole ensemble ‘goes together’ and looks in keeping. What I am about to do is the equivalent of adding a Hornby Dublo station building or, in my case, signal box to your layout created with card buildings. I won’t, of course, be weathering my vintage buildings (or rolling stock) but often time and exposure to the atmosphere before the Clean Air Act has done that. The signal box I am going to use represents a building built of wood — so a contrast to the nearby ‘brick’ buildings I have created. There won’t be an ‘old’ and ‘new’ similar building in proximity. I think it will be OK, but I am going to find out before much longer.

Martin

 

[John R Smith]

I won’t, of course, be weathering my vintage buildings (or rolling stock) but often time and exposure to the atmosphere before the Clean Air Act has done that. The signal box I am going to use represents a building built of wood — so a contrast to the nearby ‘brick’ buildings I have created.

Martin

I like the idea of a Bassett-Lowke signal box, it would be nice to see a photo of it in due course. Will you have to refurbish it before installation on your layout?

I have found B-L wooden buildings to be very well made, but sadly often in poor condition due to water damage and neglect. And of course these days, there is hot competition for the remaining ones, leading to silly prices often being asked (and obtained, it seems).



This is my pre-war Bassett-Lowke engine shed, and as you say there is no need for artificial weathering! Many times these lovely buildings are missing the ventilator cowls, doors, or windows. This one has plenty of age-related patina, but thankfully is complete and undamaged, and we note opening doors on proper hinges, and real glass windows. The MPD makes a nice focal point at this end of the layout. I know that we have an Exley BG parked in there instead of an engine, but that is because at this point in the timetable we have run out of siding space elsewhere.

The tunnel mouth is of course a fake, but at least it gives the impression that the running line goes somewhere. The huge bricks are actually doll's house brickpaper, so 1/12 scale (we will just pretend that they are sandstone blocks). It does however fit in with my policy of using period structures which have come from a previous coarse-scale layout - as does the little lamp hut beside it. And then of course the advanced starter is pre-war Hornby and obviously nearer to Gauge One rather than O Gauge, but I do have a weakness for these lattice-post signals. Last, but certainly not least, the track is post-war B-L Scale Permanent Way - and those with sharp eyes will spot that the section leading into the tunnel is pre-war B-L with separate wooden keys.

P.S. Rather than be coy about prices, I will mention that my engine shed cost me £200. Since I bought this one, which was about two years ago now, I have only noticed two others for sale - one fetched £180, the other was asking £400 (!) but I don't know if it sold. Both were in worse condition than mine.

John

 

[40057]

Martin

I like the idea of a Bassett-Lowke signal box, it would be nice to see a photo of it in due course. Will you have to refurbish it before installation on your layout?

I have found B-L wooden buildings to be very well made, but sadly often in poor condition due to water damage and neglect. And of course these days, there is hot competition for the remaining ones, leading to silly prices often being asked (and obtained, it seems).

View attachment 248348

This is my pre-war Bassett-Lowke engine shed, and as you say there is no need for artificial weathering! Many times these lovely buildings are missing the ventilator cowls, doors, or windows. This one has plenty of age-related patina, but thankfully is complete and undamaged, and we note opening doors on proper hinges, and real glass windows. The MPD makes a nice focal point at this end of the layout. I know that we have an Exley BG parked in there instead of an engine, but that is because at this point in the timetable we have run out of siding space elsewhere.

The tunnel mouth is of course a fake, but at least it gives the impression that the running line goes somewhere. The huge bricks are actually doll's house brickpaper, so 1/12 scale (we will just pretend that they are sandstone blocks). It does however fit in with my policy of using period structures which have come from a previous coarse-scale layout - as does the little lamp hut beside it. And then of course the advanced starter is pre-war Hornby and obviously nearer to Gauge One rather than O Gauge, but I do have a weakness for these lattice-post signals. Last, but certainly not least, the track is post-war B-L Scale Permanent Way - and those with sharp eyes will spot that the section leading into the tunnel is pre-war B-L with separate wooden keys.

P.S. Rather than be coy about prices, I will mention that my engine shed cost me £200. Since I bought this one, which was about two years ago now, I have only noticed two others for sale - one fetched £180, the other was asking £400 (!) but I don't know if it sold. Both were in worse condition than mine.

John

Hi John

A very nice Bassett-Lowke engine shed! I don’t have one (well, I do have a total wreck which could be a spares donor for some of the parts you mention are often missing). I don’t think I could live with the huge Hornby signals though.

I don’t seem to have any photos of my signal box but those will come once I get it out for placing it on the layout. There is a glimpse of one here:



Part of a photo on p.211 of The Bassett-Lowke Story, New Cavendish Books, 1984. This is part of the Bassett-Lowke stand at the Model Engineer Exhibition, 1921. I believe the same model signal box was offered pre-WW1. I have a feeling (not sure on what basis) the catalogue description was ‘Lever Frame Box’. It’s scribed to represent planking with prominent cross-bracing on the front and is painted cream (which may well have been white when new). It needed minor repair which I attended to long ago. A very nice building and not a common model.

Martin