GWR: the case for more replicas.

I think there's a bit of a catch 22 situation with any new Broad Gauge, no one is likely to lay any significant length of track with only FireFly, Iron Duke and 2/3 (?) coaches to run on it, and no one is likely to make many more replica rolling stock with only 200 yards at Didcot to play on.

 

There is plenty of scope for extension at Didcot now they have much more land than they had

 

Good news. How long a broad gauge line are they planning?

 

No idea, but the site is much bigger than it was nowadays

 

Did the triangle grow wider ?

 

no but the goods yard grew smaller. It's where the Steam railcar shed is built?

 

Their attitudes were more complex than we like to think. 'Fair Rosamund' was mentioned above. That was an odd one too, naming a loco for a Victorian Royal train after a King's mistress... I wonder who the train was for, the Queen or one of her sons, at least some of whom were no slouches in the mistress stakes...

 

It was the Woodstock Branch loco, not for the Royal Train

 

Something 'Atmospheric', perhaps...

 

Like this one?
http://www.martynbane.co.uk/2003Trips/AlsaceLorraine/museum2.htm

 

i would love to see a GWR Armstrong Standard Goods 0-6-0 built!
there are a number at the bottom of the English Channel having been sunk on the way to France in WW1
J.N.Maskelyne tried to preserve one (he was the main figure behind the preservation of LBSCR Gladstone in 1929). when he failed he then ensured many years later that Dean Goods 0-6-0 2516 was preserved in the 1950s.
cheers,
julian

 

My understanding was that she acquired the name when a Royal Train had to traverse the Woodstock Branch. Rosamund Clifford was associated with Woodstock.

 

There has been talks of taking the broad gauge line to the new ticket office to give it a longer run.

The Tetbury line was only opened in 1889 so would only have been built to standard gauge so most likely unsuitable to rebuild as broad gauge, but other wise a good idea with people going for 7 miles in open top coaches on wooden seats . The Cirencester Branch was built as broad gauge.

 

Surely that would be the line's USP.

 

No, I don't think they'd have wifi.

 

Wasn't there once talk about reinstating the Uffington branch as a broad gauge heritage line? Or was that just whimsy?

Tom

 

Well a longer set of axles and outside cranks could be made to convert Julian's Standard Goods when the time's right.

Meanwhile I'll light a cigar and put on my stovepipe hat and start lobbying the directors of HS2 as to the greater speeds attainable if they were to increase the gauge by 50%

 

Try tracing the Cirencester Branch on Google earth or on the ground & you will quickly realise why the Tetbury one was suggested irrespective of its actual non broad gauge history. There might, of course, be other suitable routes which are not really obstructed.

Whilst the Didcot demonstration lines are nice they don't actually go anywhere & don't in themselves generate essential ticket revenue.

 

Re Tetbury, there was actually someone whom proposed it as an heritage line back in 1986, but it never came to anything Im not sure why. Shortly after it fell through, the bridges were demolished by BR, and there is quite a lot of them on what is a pretty long line, ie 7 miles. Id love to see it come back, but I think looked at objectively its a far tougher prospect than it looks. It was laid on an ash bed, and I think judging by the amount of trees now along the line you are going to have a major subsidence problem. Then there is the not inconsiderable problem of the line running past what is now a pretty significant airfield. Not an issue when it was open, but I cant help but think the owners would have their own views on smoke obfuscation of the runway in some circumstances. Lastly, and this is pretty signfiicant, you have jackaments bottom, which If I remember goes from something like 1-66 down to 1-66 up whilst going around an S bend. Not ideal for running board gauge stock. Might be better considered for narrow gauge if anything I think. You also ahve the issue of the site of Culkerton station being up for sale. Hardly practical to restablish the line beyond this, a pity because Ive always liked hte idea of a Pub with its own railway station...

Cirencester, right till you hit the outskirts, by contrast is pretty open. Ok, you have 2 demolished bridges at Kemble, but I think all the others till you get to the outskirts of Ciren are still in place. The one of the canal is supposedly in place, which surprised everyone because it was supposed to have been demolished when the canal was filled in. If you didnt try to run into the old station, then I would suggest there are a number of areas around Cirencester that would be a good place to put a new line. If you skirted to the south you might even be able to route over the old MSWJR before its trunkated at South Cerney. The issue of the demolished bridges is not inconsiderable, but even if you didnt run into Kemble then you still have the better part of 2 and a half miles of running.

Re 97xx being shy of steam, perhaps we can get someone to redesign it with a Lempor.

 

Just a thought but when these replicas are built, will they then be dismantled by other groups wanting to build more replicas?