Jump to content

LNER4479

Hills of the North - The Last Great Project

Recommended Posts

Loving the posts here and eagerly anticipating seeing the whole ting develop over the years; this must one of the greatest railway modelling projects in the country.

 

Just out of interest here is a photo Warley club's Garsdale in N, or Hawes Junction as we call it. Ed Purcell has carried out research on Garsdale and also made the buildings in the photo He may be a useful source of information for you. I'm sure Barry can get in touch with Ed if you want.

 

 

IMG_20190514_192901.jpg

  • Like 11
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesse, stop being a wuss! We found out that ballasting is enough activity to keep you alive. Its keeping the glue from freezing is the problem.:jester:

Baz

  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Southern Hemisphere softie!

 

Mike.


Corrected that for you...

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

it's solidly braced so think it should be OK.

Hmm...

  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Hmm...

 

We used well braced chipboard on Deepcar 35 years ago, despite much muttering from the club 'sage'. It's been stored in varying conditions and found itself in some odd situations for an exhibition layout at times.

The only problem was in it's early life when having scenery added, we hadn't sealed the ends properly and water from ballasting got into it at a baseboard joint. Suitably repaired it's given no trouble since.

  • Informative/Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, as I say I'm not generally a fan of the stuff but should be OK where I've used it in a limited, non-scenic environment. You'll be the first to know if it causes any trouble!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, great central said:

 

We used well braced chipboard on Deepcar 35 years ago, despite much muttering from the club 'sage'. It's been stored in varying conditions and found itself in some odd situations for an exhibition layout at times.

The only problem was in it's early life when having scenery added, we hadn't sealed the ends properly and water from ballasting got into it at a baseboard joint. Suitably repaired it's given no trouble since.

 

1 minute ago, LNER4479 said:

Yes, as I say I'm not generally a fan of the stuff but should be OK where I've used it in a limited, non-scenic environment. You'll be the first to know if it causes any trouble!

I think that sealing the cut faces will help. I was given this tip years ago when I was refitting my kitchen and I sealed them all with a film of Evo-Stik. No warping, no swelling, all good.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/04/2020 at 07:14, Chris M said:

Loving the posts here and eagerly anticipating seeing the whole ting develop over the years; this must one of the greatest railway modelling projects in the country.

 

Just out of interest here is a photo Warley club's Garsdale in N, or Hawes Junction as we call it. Ed Purcell has carried out research on Garsdale and also made the buildings in the photo He may be a useful source of information for you. I'm sure Barry can get in touch with Ed if you want.

 

 

IMG_20190514_192901.jpg

Apologies, Chris for not replying sooner to your post and offer of assistance. 

 

Yes, have 'clocked' your Garsdale (Hawes Junction) at Warley show and in mags. Very nice.

 

It's certainly a popular prototype choice. But I always say (with tongue firmly in cheek) that I 'discovered' it first! It was 1979 and Flying Scotsman was working the Cumbrian Mountain Express. With my Dad, we traversed most of the famous section of the route, Ribblehead, Dentdale, Ais Gill (Dent and Ais Gill boxes still operational) ... but it was Garsdale that made the biggest impression on me.

 

What an outlandish spot to build a railway station! And a junction to boot! I was fascinated and captivated from that moment. I visited in 1983 (on my push bike!) to undertake my own survey and produced my own drawings from which to produce a model ... one day.

 

One thing that catches my eye on your model is the canopy on the island platform. I think this was removed c.1955 and have been musing over whether to include it on my version (or not). There aren't many photos of it, let alone a drawing. So would be interested to hear of Ed's approach to that one.

 

No immediate hurry though! Next item to tackle on the Garsdale scene is the north end curve over Dandry Mire viaduct. I'm in the relatively happy position of being able to set this out in its correct orientation (although it was planned like that) - for an exhibition layout it's curving the 'wrong' way!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got quite a few photos of the canopy but I would leave it off - it went after passenger services to Northallerton were withdrawn in 1954. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Evening all.

 

Been doing some planning for the north end of Garsdale, as indicated above. Quite like an opinion or two, if I may, especially from any who might be familiar with the location. I am very familiar with it myself(!) but just wanting views as to whether I've made best use of space available to create as effective a vignette as possible. As ever, the dreaded 'C' word - 'compromise' (had you wondering for a moment!) - looms large.

 

DSC09800.jpg.a426a7b167d3115f61db7f296cb13736.jpg

Here's a general view of the site showing how the 'to be built' section will link in to the existing (but yet to be completed) Garsdale Boards. Not very apparent (but it is there) is the trackbed of the line to Hawes which will disappear behind the mainline scene.

 

DSC09801.jpg.84784c97a530224f86d904411f8c9aa7.jpg

This was one of the 'red line' aspects of the overall plan, in the sense that I wanted to include the gradual curve north of the station, as it passes over Dandry Mire viaduct, followed by the distinctive A684 road bridge before disappearing into the handy Moorcock tunnel.

 

DSC09846_1.jpg.6df43966a309b118b0e185aaa2f0d30a.jpg

Right, getting into the detail now. The very temporary, wobbly boards show in the pictures above were marked out and have been turned into slightly more accurate templates. These are set out on a 90 degree, six foot radius curve so I have a total track length of nine feet to play with. Taking that in an anti-clockwise direction from 12 o'clock (where the to-be-built section joins the existing tracks, the first two feet is used up with the trailing crossover at the end of the down loop. I've then allocated three feet to a depiction of the viaduct, a further foot or so until the road bridge with the remaining length to allow for the land to rise from below the railway to take it into the tunnel.

 

DSC09850.JPG.ab7e1c7995e8d041c451b69b423f7e80.JPG

Here are the mock-ups for the viaduct and the road bridge. It might not look too bad ... until I tell you that the real Dandry Mire viaduct is 12 arches and even my reduced length actually scales out a 50% of the size it should be, even at 8 arches. The distance from the viaduct to the road bridge is also ridiculously short!

 

DSC09849.JPG.996b23fed55b2095a704d296ee197ced.JPG

It's when you put a train on it that the relative size becomes apparent. To try and keep some sense of scale, I've mocked the road bridge as 80% full size. Any smaller and two road vehicles wouldn't fit side-by-side without looking silly.

 

DSC09848.jpg.2c91897990bd5be1a2727a1cae4de3d3.jpg

This is a popular viewpoint of the prototype, showing both viaduct and road bridge in shot. Doesn't look too bad, maybe?

 

DSC09852a.jpg.4741e6720839bbea2b4c5e0b2b7079e8.jpg

And a view looking the other way, with some crude blocking in to show more of the overall effect. Am I worrying unnecessarily?

 

There's two things I could play with. I could compromise further with the viaduct, reducing it further to six arches but occupying the same space, such that it is more like two-thirds scale rather than 50%.

 

The other concerns the afore-mentioned down loop. Going back to that for a moment:

706286833_DSC09846_1(2).jpg.7ddd309fbb10575f45be7febf6ab1e7d.jpg

This shows the total length of the loop and (I've just measured it), it's a very modest 34" between the left hand and right hand points. That's a paltry 10 wagons; by the time a loco is taken into account (say an 0-6-0 4F goods loco), that's probably a maximum of seven wagons. It should of course be MUCH longer. I'm tempted therefore to lose the left hand trailing crossover (such the the loop just becomes a siding) which would thus allow the viaduct to start sooner and could therefore possibly be a little larger.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Edited by LNER4479
  • Like 9
  • Friendly/supportive 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Graham,

 

The generous curve looks lovely and the general topography is a good representation.  However, a loop for seven wagons is no more use than ornament and maybe enlarging the viaduct is a better use of space.

 

Alan

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I have seen of the track plan the other end of that "loop" is a single slip. If you don't have the point at the end  then the only entrance to the siding (and therefore turntable) is from the up line and the branch. It maybe better to move the point closer to the turntable and accept that it just isn't going to be used to hold a train. It would still be well wrong but probably look less wrong so long as you didn't back a freight train into it and it gives a bit more space for the viaduct. Viaducts are always a star feature so probably more important than a little used loop. That way you still get access to the turntable from both lines and therefore can do things with pilot locos and you still have the three tracks which are needed in that area for the location to look right. Fitting a resemblance of a real location into whatever space is always an uncomfortable compromise but often ok once you have done it.  I would say keep the arch sizes the way you originally proposed. Smaller arches will look worse than too few arches even though you have quite a few too few.

 

The most important thing is make sure the features that are most strongly in your mind are emphasised as these are the ones you will be looking at most. Its a great project and i'm loving you sharing it but ultimately it has to be right for you.

 

Looking good, and progressing well.

  • Like 5
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 arches you can count and you know it is not 12 but 8 arches the eye sees as lots and does not Register that it is not 12 so quickly.  So stay at 8. As for the road bridge, only have one Lorry near it and it will be less obvious that it’s width has been compromised.

richard 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Graham,

I don’t know the location well enough to comment fully, so perhaps I shouldn’t.  But anyway.

How crucial is the road bridge to the overall scene?  Strikes me that you have a lot to fit in, and from the end of the viaduct to the road bridge and then the tunnel, the topography might need to look a bit odd to accommodate all three.  So if you just had the viaduct, the rise of the land relative to the railway could just make the transition from viaduct to tunnel more real, as well as allowing you to have a more representative viaduct and include what’s at the Garsdale end more effectively. 
I stress this is just an alternative viewpoint and I doubt it’s useful!

Hope all well with you.  Ply for the scenic side at Camden has arrived!

Best wishes,

Iain

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm thinking quarts into pint pots myself.

I personally would model the viaduct full size and do away with the road bridge, as others have said it comprises the topography somewhat and would look more "open" with just one structure.

 

Mike.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Though I grew up not too far south of the location (somevpeople have all the luck) it's not the part of the S&C I know best.  However I do know it a bit.  My feelings are that the road bridge is an essential part of the landscape. I would suggest cutting out the thick centre anti collapse pier as they were only every 6th arch, and then doing a 6 arch viaduct as high as big as you can.  The other feature would be the bulge in the lanscape alongside the viaduct where all the spoil created a sort of standing wave in the mire.  The road bridge acts nicely to break up fhe scene between the viaduct and the tunnel.

 

I had to make several  similar decisions on Green Ayre and Greyhound Bridge has ended up with 4 spans instead of 11 all about scale size. The altered geometry meant that they couldn't be exactly scale but I think that it looks OK though others are entitled to hold different opinions.

 

Jamie

Edited by jamie92208
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to use Garsdale station and catch the community bus along the open road, under the road bridge into Hawes to go walking. I think the bleak road is a major part of the scene, as is the pub just beyond the bridge!  Everything is a compromise but I think the feel of the location is very important.

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Graham,

 

I favour the idea of a longer viaduct and no road bridge. One smaller compromise rather than two larger ones. A longer viaduct could make a stunning model.

 

Not sure about the loop; to me it depends how you intend to compromise on the operation of Garsdale, will trains just pass through or will you be shunting etc.

 

Tom

Edited by LMS29
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Your "helicopter" shots look fine. Of course there is a lot of compromise but the overall effect is fine.

 

But looked at from the side, the viaduct does not work. I think that 4 or 6 arches of correct size/height is going to look better.

 

The "loop" may as well be shorter, just serving as access to the turntable. 

Edited by Joseph_Pestell
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, many thanks for all your comments. I appreciate you taking the time.

 

The most consistent opinion is 'lose the loop' and I think I'm persuaded about that, although it grates just a little as I would otherwise have replicated the trackplan spot on. But the saving of up to two feet I think will be critical in getting the balance of the key features right.

 

2133337703_Moorcock-158drone.jpg.95b41538ca4eec88d87a6b6ac7bd5dfb.jpg

This rather dramatic drone picture (from the internet, consequent upon the search "Dandry Mire viaduct") shows how close the start of the viaduct is to the end of the station area - the loop ended more or less level with the still extant sidings on the up side. By contrast, it is a lot further from the far end of the viaduct to the road bridge.

In passing, this view highlights the alignment of the Hawes branch diverging away to the east.

 

164129507_DSC09857(LMSSkipton-Carlisle).JPG.ae8a2af65215218a27571daac29f7d71.JPG

This view (my photo of an image in Bradford Barton 'LM Steam Skipton to Carlisle') emphasises the distant between the viaduct and the road bridge - eight (Gresley!) coach lengths to be exact, in 4mm scale about seven feet - current mock up has this distance as a mere 14.5 inches!

An interesting mix of opinions re the road bridge - for me, it is an essential part of the scene (I think Lofty.Ian summed that up best); it also has a sentimental aspect for me as it was from more or less this viewpoint that I witnessed No.4472 pulling away from its photostop (remember them?) at Garsdale and head towards me with its 1979 Cumbrian Mountain Express, on the day that I first 'discovered' Garsdale. More recently, we also walked along this road on a lovely starlit winter's evening, on our way from station cottage No.4 to the Moorcock Inn for our tea!

In passing, another interesting glimpse of the Hawes branchline, in the background.

 

moorcock-broadside.jpg.e8fd325df35b5e2f827edef71b6ae25b.jpg

Sorry, Jamie - Dandry Mire has a strengthening pier every fourth arch! I think I'd like to retain as many arches as possible (richard i expresses this quite well) but a full size representation would require virtually the whole nine feet (227 yards long) which would be completely overwhelming.

(picture from the internet, consequent upon the search "Dandry Mire viaduct")

 

I think, therefore, I move the south end of the viaduct to within six inches of the existing station board, expand the size of the viaduct slightly (3.5 feet long, rather than 3 feet) which would increase the distance between the viaduct and the bridge to more than two feet - I might be able to nudge the road bridge along a touch to get this to 2.5 feet, which would get the two key dimensions more or less in proportion (8 Gresley coach lengths is about 165 yards).

 

As a final thought, the bit of Garsdale already built was with exhibitions in mind. So - as a fully confirmed candidate for the funny farm - that would require a complete repeat, second version of the Dandry Mire scene to be constructed!! But, at least that would allow me to depict the down loop as it should be - result!

  • Like 8
  • Friendly/supportive 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Chris M said:

From what I have seen of the track plan the other end of that "loop" is a single slip. If you don't have the point at the end  then the only entrance to the siding (and therefore turntable) is from the up line and the branch. It maybe better to move the point closer to the turntable and accept that it just isn't going to be used to hold a train. It would still be well wrong but probably look less wrong so long as you didn't back a freight train into it and it gives a bit more space for the viaduct. Viaducts are always a star feature so probably more important than a little used loop. That way you still get access to the turntable from both lines and therefore can do things with pilot locos and you still have the three tracks which are needed in that area for the location to look right.

 

So glad you brought that up! I love talking track layouts.

 

Below is the track layout / signalling diagram (courtesy of Mike Edge, I think?).

22419543_Garsdalesignallingdiagram.jpg.3a6dac171c97224f8a9a31d8a593123a.jpg

Traditional railways were generally averse to facing points and the Midland Railway especially so. Famously, the S&C only had one facing point within its 72 miles up until WWII (at Appleby, part of the connection to the adjacent NER route), hence none at Garsdale. The diagram in fact refers to what I've hitherto described as the 'down loop' as the 'down siding' and, with all the other sidings, can only be accessed by a reversing (propelling) move off the mainline. Even more interestingly, the north end crossover that has been the focus of comment does not appear to be operated directly from the 'box but looks to be ground frame operated, unlocked by No.40 lever. This presumably because it was too far from the box for a crossover (max allowable distance for a crossover was 185 yards, I believe). As a result, there are no signals to move into or out of the siding at that end.

 

So, unlikely though it might first seem, a train (or loco) on the down line would first have to reverse over to the up side (sig No.34) to get the road into the down siding. In fact, I'm not so sure that sig No.34 doesn't actually read into the branch platform road, from where there are two shunt signals (29 & 30), the top one of which (30) would read into the down siding. Pretty certain that the first half of this move (reversal from sig. 34) was how the through train to Hawes accessed the branch line.

(Any signalling experts out there like to 'read' the diagram for us?)

 

All of which(!) makes it somewhat unlikely that the 'down siding' was used to recess a down goods train. There were lie-bye sidings at Ais Gill, only three miles further on, that could be used for that. So, 'losing' the north end crossover perhaps not such a loss afterall?

 

Edited by LNER4479
  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The layout is very similar to Long Preston, which had an up siding for the cattle dock which could only be accessed, either by reversing off the down main or by going out of section and reversing in from the up line via a set of points operated by a ground frame, locked from the box for the same reason. There were no signals for the reversing move it was done under instructions from the shunter/porter. According to a signalman who worked the box this was a regular procedure with passenger trains to detach tail traffic of cattle vans. The two single slips to produce a crossover was a regular feature as well.

 

Jamie

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.