Potential entry - Oxenholme(ish) Engine Shed c1939

[IanLMS]

Cheers for that. I downloaded his price list and if i can find my cheque book i will place an order for a few bits! Failing that, my mum still uses cheques so can get her to write one out

[Paul Willis]

Cheers for that. I downloaded his price list and if i can find my cheque book i will place an order for a few bits! Failing that, my mum still uses cheques so can get her to write one out

But how do you manage to pay your MRJ subscription then?

Best,
Paul
(currently writing the cheque for MRJ 302-305)

[Julian Roberts]

Hate to bear bad tidings, but just a warning that with Mike's products it's a month between sending off the order and cheque, and receiving the goods. But they're always worth the wait.

[IanLMS]

Thats one mag i have yet to subscribe to!! Need to cancel a couple of fhe mainstream subscriptions to make space for it lol!!!

But how do you manage to pay your MRJ subscription then?

Best,
Paul
(currently writing the cheque for MRJ 302-305)[/quote]

[IanLMS]

Hate to bear bad tidings, but just a warning that with Mike's products it's a month between sending off the order and cheque, and receiving the goods. But they're always worth the wait.

C&L took around that time and this is a hobby of patience!! I am sure they will be worth the wait. I always keep an eye out on ebay and shows as now and again his products pop up

[IanLMS]

So, after purchasing a 2013 back issue of Railway Modeller which had a layout depicting the shed area, it threw up a couple of questions. They determined the length of the shed to have been 120 ft. 480mm in 4mm scale. They based it on drawings from the Feb 1997 edition of British Railways Illustrated Magazine and site visits when the footprint of the shed was still visible. This is much smaller than the size of the shed depicted in the 1912 OS map, which i measured at 180ft using their measuring tool, with an additional 30ft or so for the office and open yard area. Looking at photos, the shed fitted at least 2 if not 3 locos inside, so 120ft might be about right. The locos fitted on a 42ft turntable, so 2 would equal 84ft, and 3 would be 126ft. I have ordered the 1997 edition of the magazine which will hopefully "shed" some light on the conflicting information (excuse the pun)!!

[Alan Turner]

So, after purchasing a 2013 back issue of Railway Modeller which had a layout depicting the shed area, it threw up a couple of questions. They determined the length of the shed to have been 120 ft. 480mm in 4mm scale. They based it on drawings from the Feb 1997 edition of British Railways Illustrated Magazine and site visits when the footprint of the shed was still visible. This is much smaller than the size of the shed depicted in the 1912 OS map, which i measured at 180ft using their measuring tool, with an additional 30ft or so for the office and open yard area. Looking at photos, the shed fitted at least 2 if not 3 locos inside, so 120ft might be about right. The locos fitted on a 42ft turntable, so 2 would equal 84ft, and 3 would be 126ft. I have ordered the 1997 edition of the magazine which will hopefully "shed" some light on the conflicting information (excuse the pun)!!

the 25" OS map of 1914 shows the shed to be 184' long (2chains 80 Links) with the office at the back an additional 14' giving 198' overall (3 chains)

width is 53' (80 links)

regards

Alan

[Hardwicke]

But how do you manage to pay your MRJ subscription then?

Best,
Paul
(currently writing the cheque for MRJ 302-305)

I'm doing the same. On my last cheque in the book. Took a lot of hassle to try and order a new one on line. Almost seems like the bank doesn't want cheques or customers. Online argument with AI "Cara" until presumably a human intervened and I got my way.

[IanLMS]

the 25" OS map of 1914 shows the shed to be 184' long (2chains 80 Links) with the office at the back an additional 14' giving 198' overall (3 chains)

width is 53' (80 links)

regards

Alan[/quote]

Thanks Alan and pretty close to what i measured so i am intrigued to see what plans are in the 1997 magazine and what evidence they had. I suppose the OS map could be inaccurate???

[Winander]

The walls should be as built by the LNWR who were famed for standardisation, so the shed should be sizeable by finding out what the standard unit looked like, its size and working out how many Oxenholme shed had. I wouldn't rely on an OS map for other than a general idea. You cannot rely on x units of the turntable diameter either because it was put in when the shed was built and locos smaller and all the literature notes it couldn't be enlarged because of its location - Windermere acquired larger turntables and engines went there if necessary.

[Noel]

The spans on a Webb northlight roof were 15ft centre to centre of the internal pillars according to Jack Nelson in "LNWR Portrayed".

[Winander]

At least now you know it will be a multiple of 15. The only picture I know of that might be useful is this one:
https://oneplacestudy.org/oxenholme/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/oxenholme-lnwr-shed-1906.jpg

[IanLMS]

This picture on Flickr has a side view of the engine shed. Assuming the north roof lights were supported by the columns of each wall 'panel' and using the 15' guide, i count at least 11 panels equalling 165 ft. Its quite feasible there are 12 panels l, the last hidden by the steam from the loco which would put it at 180 ft.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/96859208@N07/22953276874


Ian

[Martin Wynne]

the 25" OS map of 1914 shows the shed to be 184' long (2chains 80 Links) with the office at the back an additional 14' giving 198' overall (3 chains) width is 53' (80 links)

Here is the measuring tool on the NLS georeferenced map:

oxenholme_shed_length.png

Here is the map captured in P4 by Templot and measured using the ruler tool with the grid set to proto-feet units:

oxenholme_shed_ruler.png

Both showing 184ft.

Martin.

[Noel]

Both showing 184ft.

Which doesn't mean much without knowing what the accuracy was to which the map was drawn, and then how accurate the resulting printing plates were to the drawing. 25in to 1 mile equates to a scale of 1:2,534.4 if my maths is correct, which means that a 4 ft difference is equivalent to a very small fraction of an inch on the map, which could easily be a consequence of the manual processes used in its production.

[barrowroad]

LMS Engine Sheds Vol 1 has Oxenholme on pages 170 & 171. There are 4 photos two of which were taken by R.J.Essery in 1964. One of these shows a close up of the main line side of the shed and I count 11 panels. There is a track plan of 1930 which shows the main shed length as 2.73chains which equates to 180ft.
If you are not able to access a copy of the book please pm me and I can provide a copy of both pages.

Robin

[Martin Wynne]

Which doesn't mean much without knowing what the accuracy was to which the map was drawn, and then how accurate the resulting printing plates were to the drawing. 25in to 1 mile equates to a scale of 1:2,534.4 if my maths is correct, which means that a 4 ft difference is equivalent to a very small fraction of an inch on the map, which could easily be a consequence of the manual processes used in its production.

Indeed.

But Ian is building a model railway based on the map, not derived from the real thing (because it isn't there now to be measured).

A far greater cause of inaccuracy is age-distortion of the paper map used for the scan.

p.s. the original OS scale is 1:2500. The term "25in to mile" is an approximation for convenience. The scan from the paper copy held by the NLS has been resampled on a georeferenced projection to match other web-based "slippy" maps and aerial images. As a result, the shed outline may be twisted slightly from the original, and the sides of the shed may be shown slightly curved.

The original scan from the OS paper sheet is at: https://maps.nls.uk/view/125824620#zoom ... &layers=BT (marked Surveyed 1857, Revised 1912).

Martin.

[IanLMS]

Thank you all so much for helping with this and any plans, drawings, pictures erc are definately going to help me when it comes to building it. I think in am content with using 11 panels, length of 184ft as per the OS map and add on another 14ft for the office/rear yard. Width and height i will look at next and see what the RM drawings come out to and make sure thats accurate before deciding on how i plan on building it! No windows in the side walls makes it a bit easier, so will probably use 3mm ply or MDF as the main core clad with some nice brick embossed styrene sheet.

[Noel]

p.s. the original OS scale is 1:2500. The term "25in to mile" is an approximation for convenience. The scan from the paper copy held by the NLS has been resampled on a georeferenced projection to match other web-based "slippy" maps and aerial images. As a result, the shed outline may be twisted slightly from the original, and the sides of the shed may be shown slightly curved.

OK Martin, I take the point about the scale. However my point was that even at 1:2500 a significant error in a structure's dimensions or location is reduced to a small fraction of an inch, which is probably well within the margin of error arising from the manual methods used to create and print a map of that era. As you say, the scanning process is likely to introduce further errors.

[IanLMS]

The Feb 1997 British Railways Illustrated magazine arrived which has an article about Oxenholme shed from someone who worked there in the early 1960's. Although it does not reference the size of the shed, nor have any accurate drawings, it does however have some photos of the inside of the shed, showing the roof beams and ventilation detail, inside back of the shed plus the other (business) side of the coaling and water tower which will prove very useful when i come to building them! Def worth the £5 incl p&p!

[IanLMS]

Although i have been pretty quiet on here, i have been busy behind the scenes getting the layout room ready, sorting out the baseboards, researching the 3 main buildings and how best to construct them and general prep work.

For the buildings, i think i am heading down the laser cut mdf/ply route for the main parts and build it as a kit/scratchbuild project. I will be looking to Intentio who's business is very close to where i live and i had a good chat with them at the Bury St Edmunds exhibition a couple of weekends ago. Even if i get just the brickwork sheets done by them, i can cut them up and hopefully do a decent job of replicating the facilities.

Does anyone know if the old Signal box No2 which towered above the road bridge was a 60 lever type 4? I cant find much info on the old one. I just know it was taller than the engine shed with the northlight roof!

[Winander]

Saxby and Farmer signalled the Lancaster and Carlisle in 1871 according to Richard Foster, but the 'old' No 2 you are interested in would have been built when the bridge was put in, likely to be a LNWR type 'U' [Edit: it was size M see post below] if 60 levers. I can't recall seeing a photograph of it.

[IanLMS]

Thank you Winander!
I have found one quite blurry picture of it and can see it was built on a brick tower but cant make much more out.

I will look to see what a Type U looked like.

Thank you
Ian

[Neil Smith]

Ian,

You may well have tried this already, but I have just had a look on the online catalogue of the collection of the Cumbrian Railways Association charity, and they only have (numerous) photos of the later No 2 box on there.

They did recently republish the history of the Kendal and Windermere line, by Dick Smith. I don't yet have a copy of this one but there may be photos in there which aren't on the online catalogue, if they were used from other collections.

Best wishes

Neil

[Noel]

I have found one quite blurry picture of it and can see it was built on a brick tower but cant make much more out.
I will look to see what a Type U looked like.

"The Signal Box", The Signalling Study Group, OPC 1986 and "LNWR Portrayed", Jack Nelson, Peco 1975, give five types of LNWR boxes. Types 1 and 2 are actually Saxby and Farmer designs used up to 1873 [S & F type 1 up to circa 1869, then types 2a in the south and type 6 in the north*], type 3 (1874-6) has a hipped roof, type 4 (1876-1904) has a gabled roof with no overhang at the ends and type 5 (1904 onwards) has greater overhangs at sides and ends and 6ft windows rather than 4 ft 6ins. Type 3 onwards had standardised lengths based on the number of levers; for 60 levers the length was 38 ft 7½ ins, identified as size M by Nelson. In the period 1898 to 1904 a few type 4 boxes were given the larger windows to improve visibility.

*S & F type 2 = LNWR type 2 and S & F type 6 = LNWR type 1