Jump to content
 

Whiston and Cogenhoe Quarries


Warspite
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...

how remarkably convenient.  I'm sure it will be very happy in its new home :)

Simon D,

 

Don't be taken in by Stephen's tea-stained artwork!

No. 19 (like No.18) had a wrap-over cab roof distinct from the Minerva offering.

 

I'd appreciate sight of a photo if anyone has one, please.

Photos of No.18 tend to be as modified at Lambton :-(

 

David 1/2d

Edited by tuppenced
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

I cannot believe that it is nearly two years since I last posted something on my embryonic East Midlands ironstone layout. Those of you who have been with me so far will know that I dismantled my previous ‘minimum space’ layout to make way for some rather significant building work at home. The building work was completed on schedule (so no excuse there) and a new ‘shared’ study/railway room was one happy outcome. However, life has been somewhat hectic in the intervening months with many time-consuming distractions.

 

When the building work was completed, I had a 3650mm x 910mm (12’ x 3’) steel frame fabricated and a lighting valance (with hidden LED lights) fixed to the sloping ceiling.

 

Baseboardframe.jpg.4dc73a43d0ac297867912ca24bbf5f12.jpg

 

 

The white polystyrene edging under the frame is to protect my head when retrieving things dropped on the floor!

 

The frame is 50” from the floor and, with a foamboard sub-base, rail height will be 57” from the floor which should give a realistic viewing height. I’ve used 5mm foamboard before and found it strong and light as long as the supporting base is solid. The sub-base slopes down at the front to provide some variation in the terrain and draw the eye into the layout. That's the idea, anyway. 

 

 

I started drawing up some layout designs last year and even made up a 1/10th scale mock-up but it didn’t look right. That, combined with a lack of time and other priorities meant that further work came to a grinding halt.

 

It takes something like this year’s Guildex to rekindle the enthusiasm. Mind you, I did go to Telford last year and came back home with some goodies but other things got in the way again and there was still no further progress. This time I’m determined to make some headway with the layout and have started to develop another design. More progress reports soon … I hope!

 

Stephen

 

Edited by Warspite
Edited to replace lost images.
  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I’ve finally got back to the layout planning stage. Although I haven’t had time to do any modelling in the last few months, I have done a lot of research using particularly my trusty collection of Eric Tonks’ books.

 

In drawing up a suitable design, I’ve tried to combine some elements of a ‘typical’ ironstone quarry yard. Of course, there is no such thing as a ‘typical’ yard layout but like most industries, the ironstone yards developed through factors such as location, land formation, volume of traffic etc. However, one important factor which was significant for ironstone quarrying was the opening and closure of different quarry areas and how these affected the provision (and removal) of feeder tracks

 

One premise I have adopted in my Whiston and Cogenhoe design is that the yard developed at the intersection of both the lines from the Cogenhoe quarries (west) and Whiston quarries (east) with the ‘main line’ to the exchange sidings with BR (formerly LMS).  This was shown in the 1929-1970 map in post 6 above. I have assumed that the quarries to the west of the yard had been worked out by 1960 and the only active quarries are those to the east of the yard. In practical terms, I don’t have room for hidden sidings representing the tracks to the western quarries to the left of the layout.

 

I had intended building primary and secondary crushers which would be non-working (disused) and placed to the right of the layout. They would act as vision blockers for the hidden sidings but I am now not convinced that the main running line would have run between them. My original design also used Peco curved turnouts but again I think it unlikely an ironstone quarry yard would have something as complex as curved turnouts … unless somebody knows different! I’m therefore using Y turnouts throughout which I think are probably better suited to an industrial yard and are of course more compact.

 

I’m still undecided whether to include the disused crushing plant but for the moment have retained it to provide some interest on the left of the layout and balance the loco shed on the right. It would also provide a view blocker to the left hand back corner. However, I don’t want it to dominate the layout and an alternative would be to move the maintenance hut over more to the left.

 

I wanted to include some of the features of the ironstone quarries I had researched. For instance, an engine shed between two working lines (Cranford) and a coal stage between the engine shed track and a siding holding coal wagons (also Cranford). Storefield had a slight variation in levels between the main running line and the engine shed and Blisworth had a fairly compact yard and single road engine shed, a weigh office with water tower behind and the fitting shop all in close proximity.

Whiston01.jpg.5e2687737dab3492cf44ef89cf79ad79.jpg

I’ve drawn a new version of my ‘Whiston Quarries 1963’ plan showing how the layout fits into my ‘what might have been’ scenario.

Whiston02.jpg.080e600f7be35b7f98342aea605d6102.jpg

I am building a couple of rakes of 27T tipplers, both the original height variant and the slightly lower height wagons introduced from diagram 1/183 onwards. Rakes consist of just five tipplers, quite common at a number of quarries in the 1960s. Tonks has a photo of a train of four loaded tipplers at Blisworth with two locomotives, one pulling and one pushing!

 

One limited flow will feature a rake of ex-LMS 20T hoppers that would have been loaded at the crushing plant when it was operational but have now been cascaded to quarry service.

 

Operationally, loaded tipplers are brought into the yard from one of the ‘eastern’ quarries (top hidden siding). A loco runs from the shed and couples up to the rear of the loads. It brings these under the overbridge and then propels into the weighbridge siding. Before taking the loads to the exchange sidings, a train of empties enters the yard from the exchange sidings (bottom hidden siding). In the meantime, the ‘quarry loco’ has either gone ‘on shed’ or is waiting by the shed to collect the empties which have just arrived and will take these to the quarries. This process means that between four and six operational locos are required at busy times. There will also be light engine movements to and from the quarries. Many of the quarries had an eclectic and diverse stock of locomotives, Irchester being a good example with a mainly second hand fleet. Incidentally, Irchester also had an operational Ruston steam face shovel which was still working as late as 1967, another ‘prototype for everything’ example.

 

Well, that’s the theory. I just have to start building something! I would really appreciate thoughts and observations on the layout design, both in terms of operational interest and visual balance.

 

Stephen

 

Edited by Warspite
Edited to replace lost images.
  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

I empathise with your dilemma of trying to combine your favourite bits from a variety of ironstone quarry lines, as I'm a stage or two behind you.

There are so many interesting features in these characterful lines that are unfortunately incompatible - it is almost an impossible job.

 

However I must say it does look like you have achieved the impossible in your yard scheme above!

 

Keep the regulator fully open!!

 

Tony

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I empathise with your dilemma of trying to combine your favourite bits from a variety of ironstone quarry lines, as I'm a stage or two behind you.

There are so many interesting features in these characterful lines that are unfortunately incompatible - it is almost an impossible job.

 

However I must say it does look like you have achieved the impossible in your yard scheme above!

 

Keep the regulator fully open!!

 

Tony

 

Thanks Tony.

 

That's all I'm trying to achieve: to create the 'feel' of an ironstone quarry yard in the space I've got.

 

More progress soon ... I hope.

 

Stephen

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot believe that it is nearly two years since I last posted something on my embryonic East Midlands ironstone layout. Those of you who have been with me so far will know that I dismantled my previous ‘minimum space’ layout to make way for some rather significant building work at home. The building work was completed on schedule (so no excuse there) and a new ‘shared’ study/railway room was one happy outcome. However, life has been somewhat hectic in the intervening months with many time-consuming distractions.

 

When the building work was completed, I had a 3650mm x 910mm (12’ x 3’) steel frame fabricated and a lighting valance (with hidden LED lights) fixed to the sloping ceiling.

 

attachicon.gifBaseboard frame.jpg

 

The white polystyrene edging under the frame is to protect my head when retrieving things dropped on the floor!

 

The frame is 50” from the floor and, with a foamboard sub-base, rail height will be 57” from the floor which should give a realistic viewing height. I’ve used 5mm foamboard before and found it strong and light as long as the supporting base is solid. The sub-base slopes down at the front to provide some variation in the terrain and draw the eye into the layout. That's the idea, anyway. 

 

attachicon.gifFoamboard sub-base.jpg

 

I started drawing up some layout designs last year and even made up a 1/10th scale mock-up but it didn’t look right. That, combined with a lack of time and other priorities meant that further work came to a grinding halt.

 

It takes something like this year’s Guildex to rekindle the enthusiasm. Mind you, I did go to Telford last year and came back home with some goodies but other things got in the way again and there was still no further progress. This time I’m determined to make some headway with the layout and have started to develop another design. More progress reports soon … I hope!

 

Stephen

Stephen,

What material will you use for the top-surface of the framework? I have been considering foam-board for the framing of a new layout.

 

Regards,

 

Chris K

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen,

What material will you use for the top-surface of the framework? I have been considering foam-board for the framing of a new layout.

 

Regards,

 

Chris K

 

Chris

 

On my previous layout, I used a simpler sub-base topped with a sandwich layer for the track bed: two 5mm foamboard layers sandwiching 25mm high supports. I used heavy Heljan diesels on that layout but I'm not intending to run anything much heavier than my Ixion and Minerva industrials on this one. The new sub-base has better bracing (see pic below) so a single layer of 5mm foamboard for the top surface should be sufficient. Hope this helps.

 

Stephen

 

post-1610-0-53431500-1545334970_thumb.jpg

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris

 

On my previous layout, I used a simpler sub-base topped with a sandwich layer for the track bed: two 5mm foamboard layers sandwiching 25mm high supports. I used heavy Heljan diesels on that layout but I'm not intending to run anything much heavier than my Ixion and Minerva industrials on this one. The new sub-base has better bracing (see pic below) so a single layer of 5mm foamboard for the top surface should be sufficient. Hope this helps.

 

Stephen

 

attachicon.gifFoamboard1.jpg

Thank you Stephen. How do you hold the track in place on 5mm foamboard  and what devices will you use for throwing the points? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 20/12/2018 at 22:52, 81A Oldoak said:

Thank you Stephen. How do you hold the track in place on 5mm foamboard  and what devices will you use for throwing the points? 

 

Chris

 

In the past I've used double-sided tape to attach the track to the foamboard. I used plasticine to provide a base for the weed strewn yard track which also helps to keep the track firmly in place.

 

These pictures from the old layout show the foamboard track base with the plasticine layer before painting and weed planting.

 

Track1.jpg.9eb63330e090d47b1b2c67ec14bef35e.jpg

 

Trackandroad.jpg.f39b0724b9100ef40818342fdffb3100.jpg

 

I’m glad you asked about point control as it was a question I was going to put to you. I have previously used Peco solenoid point motors (mounted under the point and with frog switching) but would prefer a servo operated ‘slow action’ device. When I was researching the Peco SmartSwitch system, I saw you had tried this. I also saw your YT video using the servo linked to a signal (looked very good, by the way).

 

I like the idea of ‘plug and play’ functionality and the ability to control points with my NCE Powercab -  I understand I would need to use a PLS135 (Stationary Decoder) to do that. I know other systems are available but I am looking for a simple, ‘all-in-one’ package. My electronic skills are probably even less accomplished than my carpentry skills! I would be interested to know what you think.

 

Stephen

Edited by Warspite
Edited to replace lost images.
  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Cook-noe is how a lot of Northamptonians pronounce Cogenhoe. And some say Cog-en-hoe!

 

Good luck with the building of this layout, nice to see something based in Northants. I know both Cogenhoe and Whiston relatively well living in nearby Billing and used to pass through on the way to my nans in Yardley. And strangely enough, those industrial buildings near to where a level crossing would have been, was a farm & 'Pick Your Own' site back in the 80's and 90's.

 

I wasn't aware of the quarries until a few years ago when I purchased the Northampton area Tonk's book. I can well imagine the line from the quarries to the old LNWR to be very steep as it's quite an incline from the road and up the hill. Also strange that I would have picked strawberries right next to the rail line as I walked up the hill! Shame I didn't know at the time.

 

Simon.

Edited by unknown
Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris

 

In the past I've used double-sided tape to attach the track to the foamboard. I used plasticine to provide a base for the weed strewn yard track which also helps to keep the track firmly in place.

 

These pictures from the old layout show the foamboard track base with the plasticine layer before painting and weed planting.

 

attachicon.gifTrack1.jpg

 

attachicon.gifTrack and road.jpg

 

I’m glad you asked about point control as it was a question I was going to put to you. I have previously used Peco solenoid point motors (mounted under the point and with frog switching) but would prefer a servo operated ‘slow action’ device. When I was researching the Peco SmartSwitch system, I saw you had tried this. I also saw your YT video using the servo linked to a signal (looked very good, by the way).

 

I like the idea of ‘plug and play’ functionality and the ability to control points with my NCE Powercab -  I understand I would need to use a PLS135 (Stationary Decoder) to do that. I know other systems are available but I am looking for a simple, ‘all-in-one’ package. My electronic skills are probably even less accomplished than my carpentry skills! I would be interested to know what you think.

 

Stephen

Stephen,

The PECO SmartSwitch system is simple to install, programme and operate and requires no specialist knowledge other than the ability to read English.  The kit comes with everything required and comprehensive instructions. It could probably be done cheaper with MERG parts, but the simplicity and completeness of the PECO system is very convenient.

 

Regards,

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cook-noe is how a lot of Northamptonians pronounce Cogenhoe. And some say Cog-en-hoe!

 

Good luck with the building of this layout, nice to see something based in Northants. I know both Cogenhoe and Whiston relatively well living in nearby Billing and used to pass through on the way to my nans in Yardley. And strangely enough, those industrial buildings near to where a level crossing would have been, was a farm & 'Pick Your Own' site back in the 80's and 90's.

 

I wasn't aware of the quarries until a few years ago when I purchased the Northampton area Tonk's book. I can well imagine the line from the quarries to the old LNWR to be very steep as it's quite an incline from the road and up the hill. Also strange that I would have picked strawberries right next to the rail line as I walked up the hill! Shame I didn't know at the time.

 

Simon.

 

Thanks Simon

 

When I did the 'on-the-ground' research back in 2016, it was fascinating to see how nature had taken over with no trace of the old quarry workings and incline. Even some of the locals I spoke to didn't know of the existence of the old ironstone workings.

 

The steepness of my 'altered reality' line to the exchange sidings on the ex-LNWR line gives me the justification to use more powerful industrial locomotives than would normally be the case with a relatively small quarry. As if I need an excuse anyway ... 

 

Stephen

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen,

The PECO SmartSwitch system is simple to install, programme and operate and requires no specialist knowledge other than the ability to read English.  The kit comes with everything required and comprehensive instructions. It could probably be done cheaper with MERG parts, but the simplicity and completeness of the PECO system is very convenient.

 

Regards,

 

Chris

 

Chris

 

Thanks for this. That's very helpful.

 

By the way, did you surface-mount the servos or place them underneath the baseboard?

 

Stephen

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Warspite.

 

A comment you made above to Chris K ref the yard track work caused a "was it" "is it" moment for me.  You refer to the yard track as being imbedded in PLASTICINE ?

 

After doing a re-read of your original post [enjoyed the refresh] on your layout build I found some comments about the material you used.

 

***   I actually use Newplast from Newclay Products which they describe as a 'modelling material'. (I still call it plasticene but I guess that is a brand name?) I find it very pliable, easy to paint and can be reshaped easily if I change my mind or make a mistake!   ***

 

I'm about to sort my yard and the plasticine appeals because of its flexibility, I was going to use Das but would prefer to use a plasticine material.  How does it last, can you paint directly over it or does it need some covering adding first?  The advantage of Das would be it dries hard and is paintable straight away.

 

Thanks

 

 

Any comments tips appreciated.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris

 

Thanks for this. That's very helpful.

 

By the way, did you surface-mount the servos or place them underneath the baseboard?

 

Stephen

Stephen,

My servos are mounted under the board. I intend to experiment with them for  point control because they are small. My board frames are 4" deep to accommodate the Tortoise motors, but if I can use a shallower frame there would be considerable weight savings for timber boards. 

 

Regards,

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 02/01/2019 at 15:56, Barnaby said:

Hello Warspite.

 

A comment you made above to Chris K ref the yard track work caused a "was it" "is it" moment for me.  You refer to the yard track as being imbedded in PLASTICINE ?

 

After doing a re-read of your original post [enjoyed the refresh] on your layout build I found some comments about the material you used.

 

***   I actually use Newplast from Newclay Products which they describe as a 'modelling material'. (I still call it plasticene but I guess that is a brand name?) I find it very pliable, easy to paint and can be reshaped easily if I change my mind or make a mistake!   ***

 

I'm about to sort my yard and the plasticine appeals because of its flexibility, I was going to use Das but would prefer to use a plasticine material.  How does it last, can you paint directly over it or does it need some covering adding first?  The advantage of Das would be it dries hard and is paintable straight away.

 

Thanks

 

 

Any comments tips appreciated.

 

Hi Barnaby

 

I will be using Newplast on the new layout. It seems to last well, is very easy to work with and you can paint it straightaway without any treatment. It is a non-drying product but for me, this is one of its advantages as it does give you a lot of flexibility. In time, it will harden and become a little brittle but this has never caused me a problem. I would suggest trying some on a small area and see how you get on. 

 

I've found another photo from the old layout showing the ground cover (in progress at the back). The grass banks, footpath, road and track 'gunge' were all created with the plasticene, painted and then covered with various textures.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Stephen

 

Weedcoveredtrack.jpg.35e0a57e85b39eb6e4ced93bd219bdd7.jpg

 

Edited by Warspite
Edited to replace lost images.
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that's very useful Stephen, I liked the way you did the ground work on your earlier model but assumed you had just used Das but the plasticine/Newplast will be more useful to me.

Am I right in thinking that the plasticine holds down well with no pulling away at the edges or cracking?

I'm most interested in its ability to take paint.

 

I'll take your advice and get me a trial pack for a play.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Due to lots of other distractions, progress on the new layout has been very slow. However, since my last post, I have taken the opportunity to think again about the track plan.

 

This was the plan I had originally developed, combining some of the elements from ironstone quarry yards I had researched.

 

480603858_WhistonQuarriesYard-v1.jpg.02c2c5c21a45ca987eea7f1d0bf69d90.jpg

 

Although this plan ticked most of the boxes, my main concern was that it looked too busy and cluttered. Ironstone quarry yards were generally (though not always) simple affairs and I had perhaps fallen into the trap of putting in too much track in too small a space. I decided therefore to go back to basics and work out what sort of yard the ironstone company would have built with working quarries on both sides of the yard and a separate line to the exchange sidings. All loads between the west quarries and the exchange sidings would have passed over the ‘weighbridge track’ and this would have been the 'main' line before the quarries were opened on the east side. The track plan should reflect this as the ironstone company would not necessarily make major modifications to the layout. I’m still undecided about the redundant crushing plant but if I include this, it should be linked to the opening of the new lines to the east quarries.

 

The revised layout is shown below. I want to limit the ‘straight lines’ of the layout (difficult in a 4:1 rectangular space), but as I’m using three link couplings, I need to balance that with the difficulty of uncoupling on a curve.

 

One other advantage of the revised plan is that the hidden sidings are closer to the operating side of the layout.

 

404843241_WhistonQuarriesYard-v2.jpg.5930ae9b6714b8990cc65d84dccd0bce.jpg

 

Again, any thoughts, ideas or improvements would be really appreciated!

 

Stephen

 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen, set track or diy?

 

if you build your own, you have much more flexibility, and probably smoother curves.

 

And you could (if the prototype used it) include gauntlet track over the weighbridge. This would look good, but you’d still need your loop to run around, so wouldn’t save any space.

 

Templot is only a download away ...

 

best

simon

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Simond said:

Stephen, set track or diy?

 

if you build your own, you have much more flexibility, and probably smoother curves.

 

And you could (if the prototype used it) include gauntlet track over the weighbridge. This would look good, but you’d still need your loop to run around, so wouldn’t save any space.

 

Templot is only a download away ...

 

best

simon

 

Simon

 

I'm using Peco 124 bullhead track with Y turnouts. The turnout to the crushing plant is a Setrack one I got some time ago to try in an industrial setting and the exit angle suits that location.  As the plant is disused, the track will be overgrown and I won't necessarily use the curved part.

 

I don't mind the geometry of the Peco Y points as it is an industrial yard and they are reasonably space saving. 

 

Yes, I know I should be building my own track. I've been toying with the thought ever since I got into 7mm but I just don't have the confidence (or the skill) to attempt it. Every time I go to Telford, I hang round the C&L stand and look at 'Kit in a Bag' and other bits and then walk away shaking my head. One day perhaps ...

 

Most of the weighbridges in the quarry yards had gauntlet tracks and I was tempted to show that in the track plan. I just need to have a go at putting one in using Peco components ... unless I try a short section of C&L track. No, let's not go there!

 

Thanks for your advice.

 

Stephen

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Warspite said:

Due to lots of other distractions, progress on the new layout has been very slow. However, since my last post, I have taken the opportunity to think again about the track plan.

 

This was the plan I had originally developed, combining some of the elements from ironstone quarry yards I had researched.

 

480603858_WhistonQuarriesYard-v1.jpg.02c2c5c21a45ca987eea7f1d0bf69d90.jpg

 

Although this plan ticked most of the boxes, my main concern was that it looked too busy and cluttered. Ironstone quarry yards were generally (though not always) simple affairs and I had perhaps fallen into the trap of putting in too much track in too small a space. I decided therefore to go back to basics and work out what sort of yard the ironstone company would have built with working quarries on both sides of the yard and a separate line to the exchange sidings. All loads between the west quarries and the exchange sidings would have passed over the ‘weighbridge track’ and this would have been the 'main' line before the quarries were opened on the east side. The track plan should reflect this as the ironstone company would not necessarily make major modifications to the layout. I’m still undecided about the redundant crushing plant but if I include this, it should be linked to the opening of the new lines to the east quarries.

 

The revised layout is shown below. I want to limit the ‘straight lines’ of the layout (difficult in a 4:1 rectangular space), but as I’m using three link couplings, I need to balance that with the difficulty of uncoupling on a curve.

 

One other advantage of the revised plan is that the hidden sidings are closer to the operating side of the layout.

 

404843241_WhistonQuarriesYard-v2.jpg.5930ae9b6714b8990cc65d84dccd0bce.jpg

 

Again, any thoughts, ideas or improvements would be really appreciated!

 

Stephen

 

 

Hi Stephen,

 

Personally I much prefer the revised plan. It is less cluttered and has more space to breath (if that makes sense!). Also, although I cannot quite put my finger on the reasons why, it looks more prototypical. I am in agreement that an industrial railway such as this would only lay the amount of track that was absolutely necessary for operation, due to cost factors, therefore the simpler 'less is more' approach would seem fitting. Again just a completely personal opinion and no doubt others will disagree......

 

I really like the use of the Y-points as well. I think it gives the trackplan a really nice, natural flow. 

 

David

Edited by south_tyne
Terrible spelling....
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen,

I prefer the second, simpler plan. The inclusion of a loop adds greatly to the operational and play value and allows space for scenic interest. . I'm not convinced that you should use Code 124 flat-bottom rail in a 1960s industrial complex, especially a quarry. It needs to look quite decrepit. 

 

Regards,

 

Chris K

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...