Bilton Junction

[Pete_Saint1885]

Jon & Jessie, I managed to get around the too large photo by saving the other half as a separate photo.

This is the other end of the bridge/ramp leading up to the tar dock. It's amazing that the developers left this all intact when they built the houses. I wonder what it looked like straight after they had finished. 

 

[Jon4470]

1 hour ago, Pete_Saint1885 said:

Jon & Jessie, I was again down at Bilton junction this morning and took another couple of photos. This time I walked past the end of the Tar Dock and measured it at about 24 feet, that is 9 x my 32in steps, 9 x 32 = 288 and when divided by 12 = 24 feet (Approx). From the end furthest away from the cycle path I took the following picture which shows the steady climb up to the dock and where you can clearly see both but ends of where the bridge once stood. I could not post the full picture I took as you can only upload 10mb and the pano shot I took is 14mb. 

 

 

 

Lovely photos Pete - thanks for posting them.

 

Interesting estimate about the width of the tar dock........

 

Hopefully you are are sitting comfortably

 

Last night I was playing around with cardboard and track to plot out the size of the dock. I knew that the minimum was 100 ft (from the wagon standage). The maximum was 141ft - this being the length of the standard gauge siding. In 4mm scale this is 400mm to 564mm.

 I also thought that I knew that two tank wagons fitted beyond the point on the dock. There were buffers at each end as well which I estimate to be 30mm in 4mm scale. So quite quickly I got up to 30+165+90+165+30= 480mm. (This being buffers, two wagons, points, two wagons, buffers.)

I then remembered another photo that showed Barber plus two wagons past the point. So I added another 80mm for the length of Barber. Final length = 560mm or 140 ft. This was what you measured out a couple of days ago!

 

I then started to work out the width by slightly curving the track that leads into the point. I know that the bridge abutment was right at the end of the dock...so, where the track crossed the line marking the total length,  must be the width. Initially I got this at 80mm or 20 feet. I then realised that I was thinking in metric. It was far more likely to be 24 ft.......low and behold that is what you paced out today! Thank you for the confirmation.

 

The other dimension that I estimated was the height. I estimate it is 9ft above track level. This puts the top of the tallest standard gauge rectangular tanks on a level with the dock....which is what the photos show.

 

Hopefully I’ll make time to cut and glue the card over the next few days to get a mock up under way.

 

Sorry for the rambling post!

 

Jon

[AdeMoore]

Not rambling at all Jon, interesting how modellers arrive at a point to size a mock up.

A note for Pete you can change your upload size to be under the 10MB limit.

bottom of the choose a file pop up. I’m on IOS so select all photos then on selection the blue note at the bottom says choose an image size, actual medium or small something like that one option will get you there.

May loose some fine detail but I find it ok. See screen shot below.

 

Always like your thread and updates.
Cheers

Ade

[Pete_Saint1885]

Thanks for the update Jon and thanks for the photo uploading tip Ade. I will look forward to seeing the updates of your work Jon.

 

[Jon4470]

The mock up of the tar dock is taking shape:

 

 

 

the lighting isn’t the best but, hopefully, you can see the general proportions. At the left hand end you can see where I had to add in a section.....who said measure twice, cut once?

 

The base for the standard gauge siding is just cardboard... this is just to get the relative heights clear. On the other side of the dock the land slopes down from left to right ( as we look at it in the picture). That is what I will work on next.

 

One final picture. This is the view that you would have seen 60 years ago from what is now the cycle path

 

 

Ok....you still need a fair bit of imagination...

 

Jon

Edited July 15, 2020 by Jon4470
Spelling

[Pete_Saint1885]

Looks quality Jon, its starting to take shape thats for sure 

[jessy1692]

Love it, slowly but surely it comes together! Ill try head down this weekend for some pics 

Cheers

James

PS found a pic posted on facebook this week i havnt seen before, ill pm over.

[Jon4470]

This is the other side of the dock. 

 

 

The entrance way slopes from right ( road level) to left ( narrow gauge yard level). I was worried that this slope would be too steep but I think it looks ok. Before the Gas works railway came along, steam lorries used to carry the coal from the yard, up that slope and then off across Harrogate to the Gas works. I haven’t tried to do the entrance way full width...in reality I think it would be half as wide again.

 

At the left the piece of card held down by my engineers square represents the bridge. 

 

 

I’m not sure about the angle. Trying to get the track to curve from the turnout to go across the bridge will result in quite a sharp curve. Having said that, I think that the bridge may actually be even more close to a right angle in reality. The paper represents the wall curving around to the abutment....at least I think it curves and is not an angle.

 

At the other end the dock is not square in reality

 

 

 

I’m not sure which of the two dotted lines ( 1 or 2) it follows....basically the corner is cut off.

 

I think that the height from the yard to the top of the dock is about correct. I’ll be checking my notes and estimates on that next.

 

The tar dock is very important for the layout - it is a “signature” item I.e it is unique and identifies the location even without trains etc. It also defines the relative heights of the track levels..the yard is lowest, the standard gauge next and the top of the dock is highest. For those reasons I think it is worth messing around with bits of cardboard to get the dimensions and proportions correct.

 

Jon

 

 

[jessy1692]

1 hour ago, Jon4470 said:

This is the other side of the dock. 

 

 

The entrance way slopes from right ( road level) to left ( narrow gauge yard level). I was worried that this slope would be too steep but I think it looks ok. Before the Gas works railway came along, steam lorries used to carry the coal from the yard, up that slope and then off across Harrogate to the Gas works. I haven’t tried to do the entrance way full width...in reality I think it would be half as wide again.

 

At the left the piece of card held down by my engineers square represents the bridge. 

 

 

I’m not sure about the angle. Trying to get the track to curve from the turnout to go across the bridge will result in quite a sharp curve. Having said that, I think that the bridge may actually be even more close to a right angle in reality. The paper represents the wall curving around to the abutment....at least I think it curves and is not an angle.

 

At the other end the dock is not square in reality

 

 

 

I’m not sure which of the two dotted lines ( 1 or 2) it follows....basically the corner is cut off.

 

I think that the height from the yard to the top of the dock is about correct. I’ll be checking my notes and estimates on that next.

 

The tar dock is very important for the layout - it is a “signature” item I.e it is unique and identifies the location even without trains etc. It also defines the relative heights of the track levels..the yard is lowest, the standard gauge next and the top of the dock is highest. For those reasons I think it is worth messing around with bits of cardboard to get the dimensions and proportions correct.

 

Jon

 

 

Looking good Jon, i think it does curve does the rear wall to the bridge and like you say the bridge was more of a right angle but not quite, point geometry is a bit limiting so worth a compromise.

As for the road end wall, line no1 looks good, weirdly the corner where the dock is closest to the crossing is also angled

Ill head down over the weekend and try get better pics. It was better a few years back when the bike tracke wasnt put through to Ripley as it was quieter so you can climb up without causing suspicion, and there was a grit box to make it easier! I think an aerial shot from the top of the dock would be good to work out angles.

Hope this helps

James

Edited July 15, 2020 by jessy1692

[Jon4470]

Thanks James.....the shape of the road end makes more sense now. Making the end geometry complicated does seem strange as it just seems to add to the construction cost for no apparent reason.

 

As for the bridge angle I’ve just looked again at one of Pete’s photos a page back. It is taken along the end wall of the tar dock across to the opposite abutment. From the tree positions I would estimate that the offset from a pure right angle is about 2/3 of the bridge deck width. That confirms that the angle needs to change. There was a check Rail on the curve to the turnout in reality - so it must have been reasonably sharp.

 

Here’s the link to the photo (if I mastered the art of copying a link correctly)

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/134629-bilton-junction/&do=findComment&comment=4045711

 

 

Edited July 16, 2020 by Jon4470
Adding link to photo

[jessy1692]

1 hour ago, Jon4470 said:

Thanks James.....the shape of the road end makes more sense now. Making the end geometry complicated does seem strange as it just seems to add to the construction cost for no apparent reason.

 

As for the bridge angle I’ve just looked again at one of Pete’s photos a page back. It is taken along the end wall of the tar dock across to the opposite abutment. From the tree positions I would estimate that the offset from a pure right angle is about 2/3 of the bridge deck width. That confirms that the angle needs to change. There was a check Rail on the curve to the turnout in reality - so it must have been reasonably sharp.

 

Here’s the link to the photo (if I mastered the art of copying a link correctly)

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/134629-bilton-junction/&do=findComment&comment=4045711

 

 

Yeah it is very odd, there must have been a reason for the odd shape but i bet its lost to history Heres a pic iv found of when i went crashing through the undergrowth of the end of the dock facing into the narrow gauge yard:

It might have been closer to 90* but definitely has an offset to it, maybe 1/3 or 1/4 deck width? So would have been a sharp bend both sides

[Jon4470]

I made this, very quick, adjustment to the bridge angle this morning. It probably needs to move even further towards a right angle. One thing though - it explains why the wall curves into the abutment.....it will allow the track to curve onto the bridge.

 

 

I’ll work on better dimensions and estimates over the next few days for this end.

 

Jon

[jessy1692]

59 minutes ago, Jon4470 said:

I made this, very quick, adjustment to the bridge angle this morning. It probably needs to move even further towards a right angle. One thing though - it explains why the wall curves into the abutment.....it will allow the track to curve onto the bridge.

 

 

I’ll work on better dimensions and estimates over the next few days for this end.

 

Jon

Looking good, may have to compromise with track geometry but looking more like, from what i can recall from the top of the dock the recess in the abutment for the deck is about where you have it in the siding end. If im feeling brave ill scamper up

[Jon4470]

5 hours ago, jessy1692 said:

. If im feeling brave ill scamper up

 

Be careful!

 

I remember thinking about going down to the yard level ( from somewhere near the tar dock end). I thought that, even if I didn’t do myself any damage on the way down, then I’d probably be unable to climb back up and be stuck down there!

 

 

[jessy1692]

1 hour ago, Jon4470 said:

 

Be careful!

 

I remember thinking about going down to the yard level ( from somewhere near the tar dock end). I thought that, even if I didn’t do myself any damage on the way down, then I’d probably be unable to climb back up and be stuck down there!

 

 

Its pretty easy to get over the gate to the yard, just so overgrown and a lot of people there. Just wish i took pics about 15 years back when the 3 new houses wernt there against the drops, spent a lot of time messing around in the building site..

[Jon4470]

I was looking through photos yesterday - particularly looking for information about the bridge abutments and the yard retaining wall as it left the dock and headed towards the drops.

I came across these, that I took in 2015, when I first visited the site. Thought I’d post them (although I don’t think that they show anything new)

 

Tar Dock bridge abutment 

 

 

 

Incline bridge abutment 

 

 

View from the end if the dock into the yard ( it’s there under the vegetation- honest)

 

 

 

Jon

Edited July 17, 2020 by Jon4470
Multiple typos

[jessy1692]

Even more overgrown now Jon! 

[Jon4470]

How about this for a before and after shot

 

 

 

 

 

Pretty sure these are same spot!

 

First photo courtesy of James ( well his father I think!). Taken late 1980s or early 1990’s

 

Second photo is mine from 2015. You can just see the stone block in the centre of the photo.

 

Jon

 

 

[Jon4470]

And two other photos from James that I thought might be of interest.

 

This is looking the coal drops from the opposite direction to the previous post.

 

Can’t quite work out where the gas lamp bases are. There was one either side of the drops. There were there in 1949 and not there in 1928....from dated photos. Not sure when they were actually installed. I would have thought electric light was more likely if part of the WW2 changes.

 

 

This is on top of the tar dock. Bottom centre is the retaining wall curving around to the bridge abutment. The photographer is probably on the yard side edge of the tar dock.

 

 

I’m guessing that the bridge span is 18’ to 20’ from one abutment to the other.

 

 

Thanks due to James for letting me post these photos.

 

 

Jon

[jessy1692]

29 minutes ago, Jon4470 said:

How about this for a before and after shot

 

 

 

 

 

Pretty sure these are same spot!

 

First photo courtesy of James ( well his father I think!). Taken late 1980s or early 1990’s

 

Second photo is mine from 2015. You can just see the stone block in the centre of the photo.

 

Jon

 

 

I think it is pretty bang on! Iv got a pic from this year somewhere from the same spot, pretty much the same as 2015. Funny how we have all stood on that same spot over the last few years.

 

I think the gas lamp base is just to the right and out of shot of the pic looking to the dock. The pic above i think shows the stump of it.

Its still there today but i think shorter than it was:

 

Edited July 17, 2020 by jessy1692

[Jon4470]

I haven’t done much on the modelling front for the last few days. I’ve been busy with work...and this week I’m on holiday.....which means work in the garden, house jobs etc.

 

Last night I started to play around with the track curvature and the angle of the bridge deck. I think I’ve worked out what to do now. Not much to show yet though.

 

I also painted up some embossed plastic sheet. This one is from Slaters. I can’t seem to fine any that replicate the actual stone pattern, which is very regular, but I’m going to keep looking. If anyone has some suggestions please let me know.

 

Meantime I set about trying out some paints. In my head I wanted a base colour similar to golden sand ( the colour that I think the stone is when new). I used Vallejo flat earth mixed with varying shades of flesh colour and a bit of yellow. On top of the base colour I used a wash of soot black ( Model mates dye). Followed by a dry brush of very dark grey.

 

 

You can’t really tell the difference in the base coats! The whole thing is a bit heavy handed....especially some of the, so called, dry brushing! So I applied some white spirit on a cotton bud.

 

 

It took away the blotches at least!

 

To my eye it has a green tint.....what I want is more of a grey tint ( I think). So I need to play around with the colour combinations a little.

 

Plenty of practice required, must remember the “less is more” when it comes to weathering. Even so the paint does bring the stone sheet to life.

 

Jon

 

[AdeMoore]

Here’s one option Jon Wills sheet,

not looked but from memory Al’s Bakewell May have used something like it on the station.

Keep the updates coming looking good bit of paint works wonders.

 Cheers 

Ade

[AdeMoore]

Was the bridge not the station  slaters 7mm dressed stone used in 4mm.

[Jon4470]

5 hours ago, AdeMoore said:

Was the bridge not the station  slaters 7mm dressed stone used in 4mm.

 

 

Thanks Ade. The 7mm stone looks a much better shape. I think I’ll give it a go.

 

Jon

[Jon4470]

I managed a quick visit to the tar dock today. Armed with my notes and a tape measure I captured a few photos of areas that I couldn’t quite work out.

 

First the corner by the road:

 

 

 

There is a “column” here. I imagine it had a coping stone on top. I may even have an old photo that shows this ( or otherwise). 

 

The other area was the inset ( from the end of the dock) to the bridge abutment. By leaning out slightly and reaching out with the phone I could just about take a photo around the corner:

 

 

Based on the number of stones ( which seem to be 20-24” long) this inset is about 80-96”. The tape measure wouldn’t stay horizontal...but the distance was over 80”.

 

Finally I wanted to confirm where the retaining wall joined the tar dock at this end.

 

 

This photo is at the same angle as the one above. This shows the retaining wall runs seamlessly into the tar dock wall. It also shows that the wall is sloping down here. It ran at a low level here until closer to the coal drops where the wall rises to full height.

 

Shame about the barbed wire at this point. It would have been nice to get a photo facing this wall ( and to measure the span of the bridge)

 

Jon