A fictional station on the Callander & Oban (Caledonian) line cir 1900

[Londontram]

My current health situation and resulting financial restraints means I've had to rain in any plans for anything extensive and have settled on using the box room in my house to build something round three walls 8ft by 7ft by 6ft (this being the fiddle yard area)

 

Its the west coast of Scotland cir 1900 and the Caledonian had planned to extend the Callander and Oban line from Connel ferry to the west coast near Gortonfern with a extension to a new harbour at Kentra Bay. The route was even surveyed but due to lack of money and the North British and the Highland railway already pushing into that area the line never got beyond Ballachulish so this is a sort of what if the extension had gone ahead opening up this what is still today a quiet but beautiful part of the west highlands instead of a road to nowhere ending in a quarry.at Ballachulish.

 

The route of the proposed extension. The existing line ended at the point marked Ballachulish hotel on the top right of the map just before the line turned west

 

 

The layout design though not a copy is based very heavily on elements of station and yard on the Callander & Oban line but altered to suit my needs but it does mean all the features here existed and worked operationally. This seems logical as if the branch had of been built it would have been by the same contractor who would have favoured the same style through out the extension..

 

The location Kentra bay is real an would have made an ideal harbour as when the proposed line was being surveyed the locals that lived around the bay said the west side of the bay was a natural Haven and was often used as such for ships seeking shelter from storms. This was backed up by an admiralty survey had shown deep water to the west side of Kentra bay to the depth of seven to eight fathoms close into the shore with mud shingle and soft sand at the waters edge making the dredging for a harbour an easy prospect.

 

This line would have opened up the area for development with fishing, cattle and freight to Skye, Eigg, Rum and the Outer Hebrides also lumber from some of the great expanses of woodland bordering the railway something the existing line to Oban was possibly not in the best location for. On top of this was the late Victorian boom in tourism with people keen to visit and experience the Highlands

 

The normal traffic will be 0-4-4 tanks with four and six wheel plus early 45ft bogie coaching stock with freight handled by 0-6-0 jumbos or 0-6-0 standard Caley tank locos. the small harbour has seen a developing fish trade with the railways giving a high speed access to England and the south (well high speed for 1900s that is) Kentra bay is a very sheltered harbour giving fairly direct access to many of the inner Scottish islands all year round and lately the area has seen a surge in the late Victorian day trip to experience the highland with a few Saturday only direct trains from Glasgow and other major cities bringing in people for the west coast The country side and steamer trips either on the sea to the local islands or the local Loch Shiel with a station at the developing Loch side town of Acharacle (This also exists but as the railway never came is still to this day only a small village) So the whole area remains a great what if.

 

So thats about it folks I'd welcome you views and any input but I hope using the original line as a guide pretty much most of this here was used in a working situation so I'm hoping that I've not made any great blunders.

          Steve

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 5, 2019 by Londontram
Edit for spelling

[Stubby47]

The exit for platform 2 looks a little tight with the reverse curve, but I'm guessing this is only a plan and not necessarily the accurate geometry.

[Londontram]

Yes thanks Stubby its all very much work in progress at this stage. Due to that ever present models bane "space" I'm having to use medium radius points round the station area which will be cut back to there absolute minimum (and dont worry rebuilt with interlaced sleepers in case any one was wondering) 

 

The points on the approach to the loco shed and yard will be a large radius and a large curved point and as you can see theres a bit of room to play with between the yard point and the platform set.

 

Length is always going to be a problem but thankfully width is not so that can move in or out width wise as required to help "fit" thing in

[uax6]

 

 

 

Length is always going to be a problem but thankfully width is not so that can move in or out width wise as required to help "fit" thing in

 

Fnarr, fnarr!!

 

Andy G

Edited May 12, 2017 by uax6

[DCB]

I can't get anyrail to work on this computer and it won't do screenshots but it did find a  plan of Ballachulish and it is not all, that much like your plan.  The engine shed and turntable don't seem to exist at Ballachulish, the sidings are on the other side and there is a kick back sidings to sort of protect against stray wagons running away.

 

I think the Turntable lead needs moving, I would put it on the inside of the curve on a kick back from the goods sidings and the run round loop needs to be longer, right to your engine shed lead ideally.

 

As drawn if you adapt a Hornby T9 to a Caley bogie and it holds the rails like ours it will derail on the engine shed point just about every time....    M7 derived Caley 0-4-4Ts are not too clever at staying on the rails either, quite prototypically as the M7s had to be taken off Plymouth expresses after a couple piled up spectacularly.   

 

Edit. My plan was a signal box diagram and obviously didn't show most of the sidings but the full track plan is not much like the proposed layout.

 

The curves look too tight on the proposed layout, I don't think you can get all that pointwork at the left hand end in and still leave decent siding length, I think it would have to be more like my alteration of your drawing.

Edited May 16, 2017 by DavidCBroad

[ejstubbs]

There was an engine shed at Ballachulish - see these two photos on Railscot.  The loco shed was situated to the north of the goods shed.  As far as I can tell there never was a turntable - there's no sign of any remnant in some of the clearest photos of the site, which date from after the rails were lifted.  Rule 1 can obviously be applied at the layout builder's discretion.

 

All the sidings, and the engine shed, were on the north side of the station.  AFAICT from this photo the order was: goods shed road, two open sidings, loco shed and I think there may have been another siding beyond that.  There was a headshunt for the goods yard and loco shed which also acted as a trap.  I've seen reference to a narrow gauge feeder from the slate quarries.  There are certainly traces of the old narrow gauge system extant in the vicinity of the quarries themselves.

 

There seems to be an unusual paucity of information about Ballachulish station online.  The large scale OS maps on the NLS maps and old-maps.co.uk (1898 and 1976) seem to manage to neatly avoid the period of the existence of the station.  There might be more information on the Crassoc forums - there certainly seems to be a thread about it, but you have to be a member to register for forum access.

 

There don't seem to be many books about the line.  There was a Ballachulish layout as plan of the month in the March 2015 edition of Railway Modeller.

 

TBH, if you're after a romantic Highland location then Ballachulish probably isn't it.  With apologies to the local inhabitants, the place has a rather drab feel to when approached along the main road, from either direction. The slate quarries rather dominate the village and can seem very grey, grim and foreboding in typical Highland weather (they don't get that much friendlier when the sun comes out).  Beinn a' Bheithir is a fine hill but the ground closer to sea level is rather uninspiring IMO.  Loch Leven becomes a lot prettier once you head beyond Glencoe village towards Kinlochleven (and there's a cracking seafood restaurant on the north shore, half way between Kinlochleven and North Ballachulish).

Edited May 15, 2017 by ejstubbs

[uax6]

The first of those shed photos show a table pit on the left hand side....

 

Andy G

[Londontram]

Morning chaps

 

Oh dear do I detect decent in the ranks? Hello David the engine shed and turntable did exist at Ballachulish as some of the previous photos show and the shed is very well covered in "LMS engine sheds volume five the Caledonian sheds" here is another picture of the shed and the turntable well can be seen on the right hand side which was a 50ft Cowans Sheldon unit

and can also be seen in this track plan of Ballachulish

 

The model its self is to be called Kentra bay and as stated in the OP it will feature strong elements of Ballachulish but is no way a direct copy, the track plan also has features of Peebles in it maybe more so as Peebles loco shed and good yard were split either side of the platforms.

 

The features copied are going to be the station and station buildings. The basic shed and table layout which are side by side though I've not decided if the shed is to have one or two roads yet.

 

Yes the good yard has been flipped to the other side as this is to service a small quay and again is NOT a model of Ballachulish but will feature the same idea of track layout with like the shed a facing point access, like the yard at Ballachulish will also feature a fairly long head shunt. Again the style and layout of signaling at Ballachuish strongly influenced what I intend to use here working on the theory that it must have been an exceptable working system to survive 80 years of use.

 

So yes it has been influenced by a real location which is why virtually every GWR branch layout you see uses elements from real locations to get the right feel and atmosphere but once again it is NOT a copy of a real location but many elements can be seen in Ballachulish which is a classic example of a west of Scotland Caledonian worked line. Yes the real Ballachulish can be a grim place on a wet drab day but Kentra bay which is NOT a copy is based instead on a small quay so references to Ballachulish are only ever going to be academic really

 

Finally David I'm afraid I'm not quite sure where your coming from with the reference to de railing on the loco shed points this is going to be one of the few locations where I can pretty much guarantee using a long set of points and all my loco builds are tested over combinations of medium points so I fail to see what point your trying to make.

         Steve

Edited August 19, 2017 by Londontram

[ejstubbs]

 

The first of those shed photos show a table pit on the left hand side....

 

Andy G

 

 

So it does!  Good spot.  I think you can just about see it peeping out from behind the shed in this view of the station from the direction of the slate quarries.  And if I'd bothered to look at the 1974 1:2,500 map on old-maps.co.uk I'd have seen it there, too - it's right next to the building marked "garage", which is what the engine shed was used for after the line closed:

 

 

As far as I can tell, the alumina wagons in the second photo I posted must be sitting on the turntable road, possibly even on the turntable itself.  The presence of wagons there is what probably caused me to dismiss that part of the site as a possible turntable location.

 

I think that also rules out another freight siding north of the loco shed - albeit the turntable road seems to have been put to that use.  What the OS appears to show as the boundary of the railway property seems to be too close to the turntable pit for there to be another siding beyond it.

 

That 1966 long shot also suggests that there was another siding alongside the north platform, between the platform and the goods shed.  The goods shed certainly isn't right up against the rear of the platform like the OP has it in his layout plan.

 

My understanding is that the white building next to the north platform further away towards the signal box was a private house that pre-dated the railway.  It appears to be present on the 1898 OS map:

 

 

and it's still there on the 1974 map, although the goods shed appears to have gone by then.  You can still see it on Google StreetView today, though the whitewash has been replaced by pebbledash, and it's obviously got a new roof.  If you swing the view round to the east then the loco shed is still there too, though looking pretty ramshackle these days  Next time I go up that way I'll have to have a look see if there's any trace of the turntable pit in that bit of rough ground beyond the engine shed.  From the OS aerial view it looks like it's been filled in:

 

 

Looks like I'll have to spend a bit more time in Ballachulish after all.  I still have to bag the second peak on Beinn a' Bheithir anyway.

Edited May 15, 2017 by ejstubbs

[ejstubbs]

Thanks for those clarifications, useful to see a decent track plan of Ballachulish.

 

the track plan also has features of Peebles in it maybe more so as Peebles loco shed and good yard were split either side of the platforms.

 

That would be the Caley station in Peebles, I take it, not the NBR one.

[Londontram]

Thanks ejstubbs those are interesting views and I think your right about the second photo and although the well its self is hidden by the under growth I think the table its self is under the couplings of the second and last wagon as there defiantly looks like a change in the rail at this point.

 

Do remember this is all academic as my Layout Kentra bay is a fictional layout using only elements of the Ballachulish plan it also has elements of other places like Peebles as well as many others

 

Sorry yes Peebles Caley station I think our posts must have crossed

Edited August 19, 2017 by Londontram

[Signaller69]

Looks a good project Steve, much interest in railways in that part of the world, will follow with interest.

[Londontram]

Thanks for those clarifications, useful to see a decent track plan of Ballachulish.

 

 

That would be the Caley station in Peebles, I take it, not the NBR one.

That's not actually a good track plan as it doesn't show the goods yard head shunt but also features like the engine release were much nearer the end of the platform as can be seen in this view

[DCB]

I just flipped the Ballachulish plan and curved the approach.   I wonder of Mallaig would be a better starting point or even the very compact Fort William station.

Ballachulish seems to have a massive fan of sidings but doesn't seem to have had a quay which is unusual and a nuisance as much scottish tourist traffic seemed to continue by steamer.

 

The curved route on the facing facing point, point, which I made is based on 50 years experience, my mate's Triang M7 and B12 kept derailing taking the curved route on Super 4 track in the 1960s and our Hornby T9 does not like the 5ft radius facing point at the junction and often derails, as does our venerable M7 this one equipped with Romford wheels.   A facing lead to a siding where the main line takes the curved road is something I avoid.

[uax6]

Is your T9 and M7 equipped with side control on the bogies at all? I wonder if the fact that as they come the bogies do nothing to actually guide the drivers is the cause of the woes..

 

Andy G

[Londontram]

Thank you David unfortunately I just haven't got the size of room to be able to use the plan to this extent especially in the depth on the right hand side where also access to the rear most areas for track cleaning or general maintenance would be near impossible hence the idea of moving the shed and turntable to the redundant corner on the top left to allow some compression bottom left. The remaining goods yard does have the room for more sidings but I wouldn't want it to look to crowded plus if too wide were back to the access to the rear again.

 

Ballachulish did have a lot of sidings but as you say no quay - unusual as its right on the Loch edge but then Ballachulish had the quarries which was its main form of income.

 

But remember this is not going to be Ballachulish but Kentra bay a small fictional might have been layout that takes ideas and elements from Ballachulish but also many other Scottish stations in the area.

 

Of interest my 439 0-4-4 is a DJH kit yet to be built. like wise so is the class 55 a real C&O highland loco. but most of the others are on RTR chassis either Bachmann or Hornby-0-6-0 with only a 104 class tank on a Hornby chassis converted to a 0-4-4 The two 4-4-0 tender locos i have are on converted B12 chassis with one axle removed and the driving wheel base altered. All locos get extensively test run through a multi point test track which includes a curved point.

 

Edit add - David I've just seen the picture on your earlier edited post with the suggested revisions and I quite like them. Nothings set in stone at this stage and the plan is open for tweaking and I especially like the moving of the station points nearer to the loco ones so may well play around with my original plan. I think this is going to be one of those cases where the final tweaking wont take place until the boards are down and I see how things look in the flesh.

Edited August 19, 2017 by Londontram

[duncan]

David, there was a Ballachulish Ferry Station before the terminus, you walked down a path to the Ballachuilish ferry, the terminus was for the slate quarries.

[ejstubbs]

That's not actually a good track plan as it doesn't show the goods yard head shunt

 

 

The head shunt does seem to be there, at the bottom left above the single track main line.  I'd agree that it's not particularly clear that it is a headshunt, though, since the bufferstop doesn't seem to be shown.  Can I ask where you got the plan from?

 

there was a Ballachulish Ferry Station before the terminus, you walked down a path to the Ballachuilish ferry, the terminus was for the slate quarries.

 

And there was a fairly sizeable harbour for the slate traffic from the main Ballachulish slate quarries, which I believe survived even after the railway arrived.  There was also a smaller harbour for the smaller slate quarries to the west.  Both would have been quite industrial, I'd have thought, and not well suited to tourist traffic - not that the area around the slate quarries really lends itself to attracting that kind of traffic anyway IMO.

 

The village which is generally referred to these days as Ballachulish is marked on the older OS maps as being two neighbouring groups of houses called West Laroch and East Laroch (those names still appear on the current 1:25,000 OS map).  On the older maps, the name Ballachulish seems to have applied to a broader area stretching from the narrows where the ferry ran to the slate quarries.  That area is also sometimes marked as South Ballachulish.  On the current OS map the name South Ballachulish is specifically applied to the settlement on the south side of the narrows at the mouth of Loch Leven, matching its neighbour on the north side of the loch.

 

Wiki says:

 

The name Ballachulish was more correctly applied to the area now called North Ballachulish, to the north of Loch Leven, but was usurped for the quarry villages at East Laroch and West Laroch, either side of the River Laroch, which were actually within Glencoe and South Ballachulish respectively.

 

It goes on to say that the name Ballachulish means "the Village by the Narrows", which the current Ballachulish isn't.

 

Somewhat confusingly, there was also a Ballachulish Pier a further mile or so west of the narrows where the ferry crossed.

Edited May 22, 2017 by ejstubbs

[Londontram]

Please please can we all stop getting hung up on Ballachulish. Kentra bay the layout is a fictional layout on a proposed extension beyond Ballchulish and is NOT Ballachulish I'm just using elements of Ballachulish as well as many other Scottish stations as ideas in the planing of Kentra bay.

                                                                                                                                                                Steve

Edited August 19, 2017 by Londontram

[Perthshireman]

Don't forget that like most (all?) Scottish pre-group companies, the Caley used interlaced sleepers on its point work.....

[Londontram]

  Hmm thanks I've got that pleasure to come, still at the planning/pondering stage but thinking new Peco bullhead track with either kit made (Not the favoret option) or modified ready to lay points with the plastic ties cut away in staged and progressively  replaced with copper clad ones that way not loosing the geometry of the points.. I've seen this done very effectively and the method appeals to me and my modeling ability,

 

 I know lots of you are going to say "Oh point making is easy" but each to their own within there comfort zone I guess is how I see it.

[Signaller69]

thinking new Peco bullhead track with either kit made (Not the favoret option) or modified ready to lay points with the plastic ties cut away in staged and progressively replaced with copper clad ones that way not loosing the geometry of the points.. I've seen this done very effectively and the method appeals to me and my modeling ability,

I used this method many years ago to convert some 'N' gauge points for 009 use and it is fairly straightforward; I left the original sleepers/spring arrangement around the tie bar, and also the plastic under the frog area (with half sleepers fitted from the outside). I can't see the 00 versions being any more difficult - just be sure to work on a flat surface.

 

I would say the effort was more than repaid in that the eye is not drawn to the obvious discrepancy between sleeper styles. Ok so maybe the "chairs" are wrong (ie blobs of solder unless cosmetic ones are added) but to my eyes this is far less noticable than the sleeper spacing/length.

 

Like yourself I am considering this option for my next layout, depending on what range Peco do to go with the new bullhead track.

 

Martyn.

[Londontram]

  Thanks Martyn. That's handy advice, I hope once laid and ballasted I should be able to make a decent job of them. A lot of people use out the box Peco points quite happily and I personally have never been worried by the split switch rails and other compromises so with the sleepers changed they should do fine for what I need.

 

  I've got a selection of old code 100 points from previous layouts which are getting a bit long in the tooth now so I might get some sleepers and have a practice on one of those. Any one got any suggestions of who supply's the best standard length copper clad sleepers?

[Signaller69]

I have used Marcway's sleepering in the past, not got any new bullhead track to compare but they may do something to suit: http://www.marcway.net/list2.php?col=head&name=PCB

 

Edit: these come in c. 1ft lengths iirc and need cutting to length. I think they also do standard length packs but you'd need to check which length you need.

 

HTH.

Martyn.

Edited July 12, 2017 by Signaller69

[duncan]

just to wind you up Steve, could be Oban