The Calder Vale Mineral Railway

[Ruston]

Thanks, chaps.

 

The tipper in the ebay photos is very interesting. I have never seen one like that before. I wonder where they were used? Having a build date of 1925 it's a bit late for this railway though.

 

I've seen the Smallbrook tippers on their website before and I do like them but I don't like the wheels. They're quite expensive and once the cost of replacing the wheels with the split-spoke variety is added in they become very expensive. I may buy one and reverse-engineer it and make copies from plasticard.

 

I do have a drawing of a prototype "ship canal" type wagon, in an IRS book, so if I'm going to scratchbuild I may use that to work from.

 

There's another intersting side-tipping type that is all metal construction at Beamish - http://www.friendsofbeamish.co.uk/projects/index%20archive.html

 

Meanwhile...

 

Now don't tell me that isn't better than the previous effort! The flash has bleached out the detail of the as yet unpainted roofing so you can't see the individual roof tiles. I have decided to do it this way as I am going for the look of the local stone roof tiles that were used in this area and can still be found on many older buildings, dating from the 19th century and earlier. After all, they're not going to import slate from Wales when the railway carries stone from quarries producing this stuff.

 

I have borrowed a proper et of numbers and so have given a different build date to this one. The previous shed's build year wasn't out of choice but after thinking about it, it may have been earlier than the Manchester & Leeds Railway (one of the constituents of the L&YR) reached the Calder Valley, so there would be no reason for the mineral railway if there was no main line to connect to.

 

 

Edited November 4, 2022 by Ruston

[Ruston]

The shed is almost finished. All that remains is to glaze the windows.

 

 

 

I'm happy with that.  Making and fitting individual tiles was tedious but I think it's paid off and doing it that way means they have followed the slightly bowed timbers (card, soaked in superglue) underneath, which has resulted in a reaslistic sag between roof trusses (made of the wood from coffee stirrers). Perhaps the doors need a 3rd et of hinges?

Edited November 4, 2022 by Ruston

[Ruston]

More progress on the bigger picture.

 

 

Edited November 4, 2022 by Ruston

[jdb82]

Think you were spot on that this version of the shed fits into your layout better. I continue to marvel at your work!!

[Ruston]

A good few hours were spent modelling, this weekend.

 

 

That's the station building just about finished. I still need to glaze the windows on the ticket office and the ladies waiting room. I might try again with the roof colour. It's supposed to be red oxide.

Edited November 4, 2022 by Ruston

[Ruston]

Station building glazed and a couple of Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway excursion posters added to the inside of the shelter, along with a timetable of sorts.

The platform has also been built up from Wills sheeting, with coffee stirrers providing the base. I have deliberately made it a low platform in keeping with the industrial / light railway theme.

 

 

The last of the points and the surface point solenoids are now in place.

 

[RThompson]

If you are looking for ship canal side tipping contractors wagons, there's the RT Models kit

 

http://www.rtmodels.co.uk/rt_models_034.htm

 

[avonside1563]

 

I've got 6x10t opens, which would weigh about 4 1/2 tons each empty. That's 27 tons; a huge difference in weight!

 

I don't know exactly what a prototype 14-inch Barclay weighs but as a 16-inch is  35 tons   and a 10-inch is 22 tons it's probably around the 30-ton mark. I have a Ruston & Hornsby brochure for their 88DS diesel, which states that in 2nd gear it can haul 26 tons up a 1 in 20 and that the loco weighs 17tons, so I don't think it's unrealistic to assume that a loco 10 tons heavier, and with a higher tractive effort (5100lbs on the 88DS in 2nd gear, 19,430lbs on the 16-inch Barclay and 8343lb. on the 10-inch) can take a ton more up a slightly steeper gradient of 1 in 18.

 

Of course that's all just numbers and theory but I have seen similar-sized locomotives taking 4 empty 21t hoppers (around 9-tons each), plus brake van, up Foxfield bank, which is 1 in 19 so I'm confident that the numbers of wagons, the gradient and the use of a single locomotive, on my layout are well within realistic limits and I don't need to invoke rule#1

 

 

Just to add a little background to trains on Foxfield bank, a lot of it is down to the loco. For instance I have comfortably taken 6 empty 21T minerals up with Portbury, a 14" 0-6-0 Avonside, but I wouldn't put more than 4 behind a 14" 0-4-0 Barclay. A lot of it has to do with how well the engine steams, how good the adhesion is etc. etc. Cylnder size makes a big difference as does the condition of the loco. The 12" Beyer Peacock would manage 2 empty 16T minerals but 3 could prove it's undoing. Bellerophon has 16" cylinders but much bigger wheels and is getting close to her limit on 4 21T hoppers. When we had Brookes No.1 this summer that was almost on its limit with 6 21T hoppers, and that's a 16". So it's not just about cylinder size.

Edited October 18, 2018 by Ruston

[mike morley]

Something that has become apparent on the large EM gauge layout I'm involved with is that a hefty, powerful, well-balanced 0-4-0 can often be out-hauled up a gradient by a comparatively light, indifferently balanced, under-powered 0-6-0 even when the two locos are roughly the same size.

[eastworld]

Are those the Skytrex kilns?

 

Stu

[Ruston]

If you are looking for ship canal side tipping contractors wagons, there's the RT Models kit

 

http://www.rtmodels.co.uk/rt_models_034.htm

 

image.jpeg

 

Hi Robert. I already know about your tipping wagons. They look good but what puts me off is their whitemetal construction. They're going to be very heavy things to haul up the bank and with them being on plain bearings, as opposed to pin points, I imagine any of my small locos will only manage a couple at a time.

 

Just to add a little background to trains on Foxfield bank, a lot of it is down to the loco. For instance I have comfortably taken 6 empty 21T minerals up with Portbury, a 14" 0-6-0 Avonside, but I wouldn't put more than 4 behind a 14" 0-4-0 Barclay. A lot of it has to do with how well the engine steams, how good the adhesion is etc. etc. Cylnder size makes a big difference as does the condition of the loco. The 12" Beyer Peacock would manage 2 empty 16T minerals but 3 could prove it's undoing. Bellerophon has 16" cylinders but much bigger wheels and is getting close to her limit on 4 21T hoppers. When we had Brookes No.1 this summer that was almost on its limit with 6 21T hoppers, and that's a 16". So it's not just about cylinder size.

 

I'm sure Brookes is a 14-inch. The bank on this layout is much shorter than the real thing at Foxfield, being only approximately a scale 450ft. So perhaps it's still possible? Do you know what weight and length of train would have been taken up Foxfield bank when it was a working colliery railway? One of the photos in the portakabin there shows one of the resident NCB locos as being a relatively small Peckett 0-4-0ST (a W6?) - not a large loco by any means for working loaded trains up such a steep gradient.

 

Something that has become apparent on the large EM gauge layout I'm involved with is that a hefty, powerful, well-balanced 0-4-0 can often be out-hauled up a gradient by a comparatively light, indifferently balanced, under-powered 0-6-0 even when the two locos are roughly the same size.

 

I expect that's down to the coefficient of friction, or something like that. More wheels = more surface area on the rails?

 

Are those the Skytrex kilns?

 

Stu

Yes. They're big, heavy, solid lumps of resin. They're not that accurate to the prototypes that I've seen but they'll do and should look decent enough when I've finished painting and weathering them. They're certainly better than any I could scratchbuild.

[RThompson]

Whilst the contractors wagons are a little weighty, they are very free running as the run in a nickel silver chassis sub frame.

[Michael Edge]

Brookes No1 is a 14", considerably smaller and lighter than a 16" Hunslet.

[Respite]

Yes Brookes No.1 is a 14"

 

In response to the question "Do you know what weight and length of train would have been taken up Foxfield bank when it was a working colliery railway? I was told by Dave Donkin who owns two of the locos at Foxfield that the NCB austerities used to take 4 loaded wagons up the bank from the Colliery, I assume that these were 16 tonners.

[Ruston]

Part of the dyeworks, to fit in the far left hand corner.

[avonside1563]

Apologies, I knew Brookes is a 14" and meant to type that but got distracted (shouldn't be on here whilst trying to work!) My point was that just because one engine is nominally the same cylinder size as another it doesn't mean it will perform to the same level.

 

Foxfield never entertained a Peckett during the colliery's working life, the only other engines not listed by PGH were a Hudswell Clark 0-6-0ST 415/1893 'Foxfield' and a Walker Brothers 0-6-0T 4162(?)/1888 'Burnley', the Kerr Stuart was 730/1900 'Excelsior'. All these locos date from the earlier days of the railway.

[Ruston]

I have, at last, got around to doing some more wiring. The wires for the points on the RH scenic board have been pushed through tubes to the underside of the board and then fixed into connector blocks. Whilst the boards are still all seperate, and before all the wiring is decided upon, I ought to make a decision as to whether I put the point control switches along the front of the boards, approximately opposite the actual position of the points, or to put them all in a control box with a track diagram in the fiddleyard.

[Barclay]

Along the front opposite the points feels right to me on this kind of layout.

[Sandhole]

Along the front opposite the points feels right to me on this kind of layout.

I agree with Barclay.

Not that that means beggar all!!!

You've completed umpteen lovely layouts!!

What I mean is, you put the controls in the easiest place if you aren't going to exhibit the layout.

Saves both time and money.

I realise this is telling Granny how to suck eggs!!

I'll Get My Coat!!

                       Chris.

[Ruston]

Along the front opposite the points feels right to me on this kind of layout.

It would certainly make things easier to wire up but I'm not sure how well that would work with a visiting second operator. We'd just get in each other's way, Having said that, it's going to happen however the controls are laid out due to the split level track layout. I had thought of having a panel for each end/fiddleyard so that when I have a visiting second operator we can do the signalbox bell dingy block section thing* but that's only on the lower line, where passenger trains are worked. The high level line still needs a seperate operator and that's operated as a purely industrial railway, without all that block section stuff.

 

*Technical phrase - I'm sure it's in an old S&T manual somewhere.

[Regularity]

Follow the prototype. If there is, or should be, a frame grouping point, signal and other levers together, then do that. If the lever was mounted directly, put it at the baseboard edge.

If you think operators might fall over each other, shift the levers about to get the best ergonomics.

[Ruston]

Work on this layout is suspended whilst I get White Peak Limestone & Tarmacadam ready for the Wakefield Exhibtion. But I did collect something, today, for the future on the CVMR. Many thanks to 5050 Paul for getting this for me.

That's going to be quite a challenge to build.

[Sandhole]

Work on this layout is suspended whilst I get White Peak Limestone & Tarmacadam ready for the Wakefield Exhibtion. But I did collect something, today, for the future on the CVMR. Many thanks to 5050 Paul for getting this for me.

trees-023.jpg

That's going to be quite a challenge to build.

Not for you it isn''t!!

If I can build the chassis you'll breeze through it!!

My mate Mike, Coach Bogie, build the body as a Christmas present.

Once I'd built the chassis and it worked so well, I just kept on running it in sheer amazement!!!! I think Mike got tired of me not building the body!!!

He scratched the coach end to represent the later corridor end as well as the bogie 'cos you get the early bogie in the kit.

The powerdrive was 30 odd years ago , basic. A DS10 with 40-1 gearset. Works great!

The valvegear is massively scale and I assembled it using pins. The crossheads were two outers a filed inner between them and a piece of brass rod soldered on the end. A piece of brass tube for it to run in. Brass section for the slidebars.

Over the years, the valvegear has slowly fallen to pieces through use!!!

I have a complete unbuilt chassis and valvegear fret to replace it when it falls completely to pieces.

The other thing to replace the chassis with is the Blacksmith GWR railmotor chassis. I have been told, a far more user friendly piece of kit.

Having followed your thread, I know you are a man of engineering ingenuity and I'm really looking forward to see your take on doing the chassis.

                                                                                                     Chris.

[Michael Edge]

It's one of the better Jidenco kits but the motion is very delicate and fiddly. Here's one I built many years ago, recently back with me for repair.

10617 was the last survivor, withdrawn by BR without re-numbering.

[5050]

Well Dave, these last posts show it can be done!  Over to you mate...............................