Itshall to Knower Vale

[CameronL]

Itshall to Knower Vale

 

I suppose I’m jumping the gun a little in starting a layout thread, when the layout isn’t anything more than a gleam in my eye and pixels in a jpeg file, but the gleam has been there for a couple of years and could soon start to become more than just that, so here goes.

 

A bit of history to start with – my first proper layout was an 8’ x 4’ OO gauge with three loops on two levels. I could let the trains run round all day. (Give me a break – I was only 11).

 

But it also had two stations – one on each level. While the trains were chasing their tails the thing I enjoyed most was to assemble a mixed goods at one station, run it to the other and then shunt it, taking the wagons that were already there back to the other station. I found this a lot more enjoyable than just watching the trains go round and as a result collected goods stock until the only way to store it all was to have most of it going round the layout in a mixed goods train (pulled as I remember by one of the original Hornby 9Fs with a ring-field motor that could handle anything I could hang off its coupling). It led me to a revelation about myself.

 

I am an unrepentant Shunt Hog. This was confirmed when I saw the Aire Valley Adventure in Railway Modeller. The idea of a layout with several stations where goods traffic could actually move around the system with a purpose was really what I wanted. I was hooked on small empires. Other layouts followed, all with a focus on a good shunt.

 

Well, after years of several layouts (and years with none) I finally get to build the layout I want. In the space available (28’ x 20’) it would be possible to build an oval with a fiddle yard on one side, a mainline station on the other and have fourteen-coach expresses thundering through.

 

Trouble is, at scale speeds they’d only be visible for about 45 seconds and once they were back in the fiddle yard I’d have to get another one out.

 

I’d much rather follow a little train from A to B (or A to F if possible), dropping off and picking up wagons on the way so that at the end of the journey the only parts of the train that started it are the engine and brake van. This means several stations and short trains, which points at light railways.

 

So, a light railway it was. I’m not enough of a modeller to want to accurately replicate a prototype, so a fictitious light railway seemed the obvious solution. Apart from anything else it gives the modeller a certain leeway in terms of stock etc. and a much wider variety of RTR and kit stock to work with, as irrespective of where they came from you can repaint them to your own livery.

 

Following on from that pre-grouping really appealed. The pre-grouping scene in the UK has always interested me. It had a diversity and individuality that was lost after the Big Four were formed, much like the British motor industry before it all became British Leyland and then the Rover Group (possibly because it was going to the dogs). Engines from those days weren’t just engineering; they had some art about them as well; a beauty which seemed to have been totally lost in the Standard engines of later years.

 

Surely somewhere in pre-grouping Britain there would be a small corner for the type of railway I was contemplating.

 

Next I had to settle on a purpose for this railway, and it didn’t take much time to realise that it had to be coal. I know that light railways existed to carry many types of freight as their main purpose: china clay, iron ore, fruit etc., but coal seemed the best for me because not only does it need to be shipped out of the system but it can be supplied throughout for both domestic and industrial purposes. A coal mine opens the doors to a huge range of train movements, full and empty.

 

Was it going to be a standalone system, with a coal mine at one end and a harbour at the other? No. I love modelling a harbour and was tempted but that’s more for narrow-gauge operations (and if you want a really beautiful example of exactly that have a look at Ted Polet’s Craigcorrie and Dunalistair layout - http://www.009dutch.nl/cdr/ ), but a standard gauge line would have a link to a larger company somewhere. So, my layout would have to hint at the larger company and have exchange sidings. I still wanted a harbour somewhere in the system though, especially if I could run trains down the quayside road like they used to in Weymouth. Bring on the trams (even if the GWR didn’t feel the need).

 

A pre-grouping, coal-carrying fictitious railway with a link to a larger network was therefore the plan.

 

Having settled all this my next move was to decide exactly what I wanted from the layout. The first thing was no duckunders – the back problems are such that I was thinking of modelling a wood products factory called “Cameron’s Lumber Compression” to see if anyone spotted the pun. (I thought that referring to some chronic joint problems by calling one of the stations “Stiffing Badney” was going a bit too far).

 

The second thing was taken directly from Derek Naylor’s Aire Valley. There would be “no lines crossing over one another that were supposed to be miles apart”.

 

But more than that I wanted to give the railway’s operators (should anybody want to) the feeling of isolation. An operator standing at any station should be able to focus on their own segment of the line, so when a train appears the imagination can fill in the miles of track it’s covered since leaving the previous station, even if it’s only 15 feet away. Scenic breaks using tunnels, road bridges or even strategically-placed buildings were a must to split the layout into discrete sections. Using this technique I could also change the landscape, from grimy industrial through suburban and rural to woody upland and finally bare moorland around the colliery.

 

And lastly I wanted plenty of variety in the operation. There would be passenger trains, of course, and each station would have the facilities for the 3 Cs (coal, cows and cargo) but I also wanted enough lineside industry to add to the interest. Industries that needed more than one type of wagon to service them were my preference, and if there was a degree of interdependence, with one industry producing something that would be used by another that was even better. Research into various light railways often revealed a lot of sidings labelled “Private Siding” which meant I could pile on the industries as much as I wanted.

Anyway, here’s what I came up with.

 

 

To keep the mainline element to a minimum, interchange with the larger rail company (which I currently think of as the XXXR) is hinted at Itshall Junction (pronounced “It’s-Hall”, not “It-Shall”). The backdrop on the lower side of the Itshall baseboard is going to be the wall of the XXXR’s mainline station. Somewhere along that (off-scene) platform will be a hole in the wall with a sign above it saying “Trains to Knower Vale”. Step through it and that’s where this layout starts. Goods interchange is handled in the three hidden sidings, which are accessed by a line which disappears under a road bridge and doesn’t come out on the other side, thanks to some jiggery-pokery with backscenes.

 

After that the line meanders through Milton Gate, Saddler’s End, Difford Junction with its branch to Moorhaven (Yay, I got my harbour! It’s tram time.) and Overth Hill ending at Knower Vale with its colliery. Lots of lineside industries along the way should lead to many happy hours of shunting. Even non-stop, at scale speeds a train will take nearly five minutes to travel the full length of the layout, so with stops for pickup and set down of goods wagons it should be a lot longer.

 

So what do people think? This is the first time I’ve designed anything on this scale, although Knower Vale itself is based on a BLT I once built. In designing each station I tried to consider it from the operator’s point of view – would there be enough to keep him or her interested? The intention was to produce a series of stations which hung together and told the story of the layout, but individually could be connected to a fiddle yard, rather than a small empire, and therefore still provide enough variety to stand alone for the operator. (The little halts with one siding are left to the operators’ imaginations). I hope I’ve managed.

 

I will be getting the baseboards professionally made, and probably the wiring too. If I try to wire up a DCC layout this size the engines will probably play Radio 2 or interfere with low-flying aircraft.

 

Comments please (as long as they don’t end in “off”).

 

Cam

 

PS – I must give mention to the “Nether Madder and Green Soudley” thread posted by Martin S-C. https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/135768-nether-madder-and-green-soudley-rly/ . I look forward to and read his postings with a dropped jaw and a feeling of déjà vu, as he’s much further along a journey I’ve just started with the same type of layout. I just hope that I will be able to produce the same magnificent modelling that he shows in his postings.

[scottystitch]

On first impressions, this looks fantastic. A little railway empire, this is going to be epic. Please, do continue!

 

Again at first glance, does Difford Junction perhaps look a bit grand for a light railway single track junction station? Not a criticism, just an observation......... Ignore that, I see it's the only true passing station on the line and does serve the harbour branch. As you were.

 

Topic Followed 

 

Best

 

Scott

Edited March 6, 2019 by scottystitch
Reconsidered thoughts!

[CameronL]

Thanks scottystitch. I did have my worries about Difford and had thought about making it a single island platform (like Tan-y-Bwlch) but it needed to be this grand. One of the boats in Moorhaven is the passenger ferry to Northolme island, so probably three times a day there will be a boat train (tram) from the harbour plus up and down passenger workings to take the passengers from the boat further on the KVLR. Whoever gets Difford to operate will be sure of some busy times. 

[Pacific231G]

I like it and think it's a great stage at which to start a layout blog. The complete railway with trains wandering from station to station always seems a bit of a neglected theme in this country. Perhaps that's because it doesn't fit our very exhibition layout based culture but it's very popular in N. America where even quite small layouts often include several station between which the daily peddlar freight (pick-up goods) can ply its trade. They used to be very popular here too if you think of Edward Beal's West Midland or John Ahern's Madder Valley  (the inspiration for the Aire Valley)

Such a line can be operated by a single operator crewing the local goods train on a single engine in steam branch or by signalmen at each station complete with bells and block instruments and drivers for each train.

 

There's also no reason not to have a railway that runs from mines or quarries to a port even if it does have a mainline connection. Just because your coal, ore or even grain or cattle has been loaded into railway wagons doesn't mean that it has to get to its final destination that way. Coastal shipping rates were often sufficiently lower than railway rates to make it worthwhile using the railway just to get to the port. A lot of the mainly coal railways  in S. Wales and on Tyneside and even in the Forest of Dean sent some of their coal out via interchanges  with the main line and the rest to staithes or docks. The only catch is that docks handling coal tended to be far less picturesque than the smaller ports handling general cargoes but railways like the Liskeard and Looe/Liskeard and Caradon combo handled both mineral ores, granite and the needs of local farmers a lot of that via the quays at Looes rather than the connection with the GWR.

 

Was it your intention for this to be essentially a light railway so with its own station separate from the main line? The carriage and locomotive works do suggest that though I wonder whether  a Standard Gauge light railway actually would have had its own works (though a small pre-grouping railway might and the S&DJR had Highbridge). The presence of turntables also does suggest rather heavier trains than a light railway would be limited to so I wondered whether there should be a direct link from the hidden sidings to allow excursion trains etc.  to pass through.

 

A couple of other points. Unless it was a separate  tramway I think the Moorhaven line would have a direct through connection onto the main line to Itshall junction. Even if it did have a dedicated platform face for the branch train/tram you might not want every goods wagon to have to use it so it would probably be at the Moorhaven end of Difford Junction.

 

 

Edited March 6, 2019 by Pacific231G

[CameronL]

36 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

I like it. The complete railway with trains wandering from station to station always seems a bit of a neglected theme in this country. Perhaps that's because it doesn't fit our very exhibition layout based culture but it's very popular in N. America where even quite small layouts often include several station between which the daily peddlar freight (pick-up goods) can ply its trade. They used to be very popular here too if you think of Edward Beal's West Midland or John Ahern's Madder Valley  (the inspiration for the Aire Valley)

Such a line can be operated by a single operator crewing the local goods train on a single engine in steam branch or by signalmen at each station complete with bells and block instruments and drivers for each train.

 

There's also no reason not to have a railway that runs from mines or quarries to a port even if it does have a mainline connection. Just because your coal, ore or even grain or cattle has been loaded into railway wagons doesn't mean that it has to get to its final destination that way. Coastal shipping rates were often sufficiently lower than railway rates to make it worthwhile using the railway just to get to the port. A lot of the mainly coal railways  in S. Wales and on Tyneside and even in the Forest of Dean sent some of their coal out via interchanges  with the main line and the rest to staithes or docks. The only catch is that docks handling coal tended to be far less picturesque than the smaller ports handling general cargoes but railways like the Liskeard and Looe/Liskeard and Caradon combo handled both mineral ores, granite and the needs of local farmers a lot of that via the quays at Looes rather than the connection with the GWR.

 

Was it your intention for this to be essentially a light railway so with its own station separate from the main line? The carriage and locomotive works do suggest that though I wonder whether  a Standard Gauge light railway actually would have had its own works (though a small pre-grouping railway might and the S&DJR had Highbridge). The presence of turntables also does suggest rather heavier trains than a light railway would be limited to so I wondered whether there should be a direct link from the hidden sidings to allow excursion trains etc.  to pass through.

 

A couple of other points. Unless it was a separate  tramway I think the Moorhaven line would have a direct through connection onto the main line to Itshall junction even if it did have a platform face for the branch train and that would probably be at the Moorhaven end of Difford Junction.

 

 

Thanks for that. A lot to consider. Moorhaven does have a small coal dock, mainly for a small coaster which will take coal to the island of Northolme (the reason behind a lot of traffic destined for Moorhaven). However, when I looked into coal to sea transfer the facilities aren't pretty and are quite large (having seen Moorhaven on rmweb now I'm beginning to think it's too big and needs downsizing anyway). Coal transfer at Moorhaven will probably be achieved using a simple wagon tipple like the Victorian one on the iron ore railway at Watchet in Somerset. There's a photo at  http://www.westsomersetmineralrailway.org.uk/watchet.php  and it makes a person think that Watchet must have been a pretty quiet place if simply unloading a wagon could draw such a crowd. (At Moorhaven the loads of course will actually be lifted out of the wagons using the 0-5-0 shunter). 

 

As far as general facilities go on the line, carriage and loco works aren't strictly necessary or even prototypically accurate, but I was trying to re-create a complete system, and also these facilities create more customers for the forge at Knower Vale, therefore more train movements. As for the turntables, I have a couple of old 0-6-0 tender engines from the right period which I want to repaint and use on the system, probably to pull trains heavily loaded with Rule 1. The odd excursion train might appear from under the road bridge as well, although I think the 9F will have to stay in its box.

 

It's a simple matter to redesign Difford to make things easier for the trams. I think after starting this thread there will be quite a lot of similar tweaks to the plan. I'm already thinking that the colliery also needs some work as there are too many straight parallel tracks. It looks like a fiddle yard. I might bite the bullet and narrow the aisle between the colliery and Moorhaven to allow the colliery baseboard to curve out to 3' and allow a less geometric shape to the section.

 

I'd much rather get all this design stuff sorted out before I start building. Shoving a few pixels around is much easier.

 

Thanks again for the comments. 

 

Cam

[David C]

I'm deeply envious of the amount of space you've got - if I was in the same situation, I'd use the area exactly as you plan to do, by building a complete section of railway.

 

I shouldn't worry too much about Difford Junction either. The Mid Suffolk Light Railway (wonderful prototype!) planned a junction to Debenham at Kenton. Although the branch was partly built, it was never opened, leaving Kenton station with two platforms, which given the railway never really had more than 2 or 3 trains a day, was a little excessive. There was (and still may be) a lovely model of Kenton in S4 which was featured many years ago in MRJ.

 

What sort of motive power are you planning to use? And stock, come to that! I shall be interested to follow progress on the line in the future.

 

All the best 

 

David C

[CameronL]

Dear David.

 

Thanks for your reply. Motive power for the layout will be what's appropriate from my collection (currently in storage as I've been abroad for several years). There's all sorts in it; some useful, some not. The BR 9F will probably never set wheels on the layout but a whitemetal GWR 1361 class from the 70s might after a repaint, as will an ancient Hornby M7 and a Stroudley Terrier. There's also a wide variety of goods wagons which with a repaint will probably fit in, and several GWR Ratio four-wheelers (which I actually plan to fit bogies to in order to improve the running). This is the beauty of a fictitious layout. Nobody can say "Wrong" because what you're doing isn't true to a prototype. There is no prototype. I've also been quietly building up a collection from eBay and various other sources of period-appropriate RTR stock. It's all a bit up in the air at the moment. 

 

Regards

 

Cam

[F-UnitMad]

Awesome space and layout idea.

 

AWFUL pun name!!

 

Go for it!!!

[mpeffers]

I guess space is key here, really. Not sure what software you’ve used for this? Is the overall area to scale? And pointwork, etc.

 

There is a danger to trying to fit too much in - it tends to be curve radii, loop lengths and siding lengths that get compromised to make everything fit and that then has downstream impacts on stock, train lengths and operations which may probe frustrating in the long run. You’ve obviously put a lot of thought into this, so apologies if you’ve already considered it, but it’s worth working out what your traffic flows will be. Presumably through coal traffic is the main driver for the railway, so those trains will not be insubstantial. And with lots of waypoints, pick-up freight services may ultimately be of a reasonable length, at least for some portions of their journey.

 

Definitely agree with the direct connection from the dock through to the ‘main’ line. Or some form of transfer sidings if you’re limiting the dock to tramway-type locos only.

 

Itshall Junction also might need some further consideration? I presume this is the main entry/exit point for traffic to and from the rest of the network but it looks very awkward to work. I’d almost be tempted to sacrifice Milton Gate to devote more space to it.

 

Also, are the walkways definitely big enough? If you envisage having more than one operator, is there room for two people to pass each other comfortably? Don’t know if you could set Moorhaven directly in front of Overth Hill (which is relatively simple to operate) and free up more space in the aisles and for Knower Vale.

 

All that said, I’ve never attempted anything that ambitious so feel free to take my advice with a pinch of salt...

 

And good luck. Hope it comes to something.

[Stubby47]

I'd also be tempted to make provision to join the brewery to the foundry, using a removable bridge, to enable you to sit back and watch trains go round and round, should you feel like it.

[woodenhead]

I was going to say you need to confer with @Martin S-C but I can see he's already been here - I do like these mini system layouts.

[Martin S-C]

Hi Cameron, many thanks for your pointer bringing me here. Your plan looks marvellous and you are clearly made from the same mould as I as regards model railway operations.

I am deeply envious of the amount of space you have. As you know the NM&GSR has about the same length room but only 1/3rd the width and it was the narrowness of my site that caused me to accept a number of compromises such as a lifting entry flap and break your rule of “no lines crossing over one another that were supposed to be miles apart”. My own narrow room meant that my system has to spiral over on itself and consequently one of its drawbacks is a lot of gradients and the complexity of construction that comes with it.

Others have already provided a good deal of very helpful input. A form of direct connection from the docks line to Itshall at Difford Junc might prove handy, even if its hardly used. Conversely you could signal a movement to allow a train to reverse over the double slip and draw forward into one of the through platforms - such a movement would make operations more interesting and I suspect that would be to your preference.

 

Your gangways at 3 feet wide look reasonable enough. My own longer operating well is that wide and two people can pass, even if one of them is a bit round, like me! You may need to plan to avoid tall delicate structures, such as trees or cranes, near the baseboard edges however.

I'm with Stu on setting up a continuous run, if for no other reason that when you want to run a new loco in or just relax and watch a train while drinking tea or chatting with friends. Where he suggests it is a wise location or you could have a curved temporary bridge from the buffer stop at Knower Vale around to a converging "V" platform at Milton Gate.

Plenty of independent railways had their own workshops such as the M&SWJ and WC&P to grab just two names from the air. Bigger overhauls might be sent away to the works of the nearest big company the independent concern was on good terms with. Had you considered where in the country your system exists? Or, like John Ahern, do such details not matter? For coals to ships at small docks Bullo Pill on the Severn is a classic example of a tiny concern. Certain features of Lydney Docks might also inspire, even if the back up yards and infrastructure there were on a bigger scale.

Another idea to allow foreign stock to be introduced could be a boat train at Moorhaven, even if its just a couple of 4- or 6-wheel coaches and goods trains of 4 wagons. The idea of such an expensive feature is more than a little whimsical but that never stopped finer modellers than all of us from doing such fantastical things. In effect a boat train model becomes a cassette fiddle yard, so you don't even have to handle the models.

 

Mr Woodenhead - touche! I was typing a post when you posted. I'm very excited about Cameron's project - to say it is right up my street would be the understatement of the decade.

[CameronL]

Wow. Thanks for all the replies and useful information and positivity. Some points I feel need addressing. 

 

The exchange sidings at Itshall were never intended to be much more than a hint at a larger company and a way to store extra goods stock (although on reflection I think a cassette system might be worth including). Personally I don't think they're that much of a problem to operate. An up goods destined for the exchange sidings will pull into the loop at Itshall, reverse to drop its brake van on the siding next to the gasworks and then simply pull forward and propel the entire train into the sidings. An engine taking a train from the exchange sidings will pick up a brake van, propel it into the sidings to pick up the train, pull it back into the loop and run round it to take it off down the line. I quite like that approach, and it's why I didn't feel the need to design a runaround on the hidden sidings. Engines will always be at the right hand end of trains entering or leaving. 

 

As far as train length goes, I designed the layout with platforms a maximum of 3', but passing loops at least 4'. This gives me a chance to run trains consisting of (for instance) a tank engine, twelve wagons and a brake van. Even with a tender engine I should get at least ten wagons and a brake van. I don't want any longer - they'd look too big for the sections of layout they're running through and I want trains running through scenery, not dwarfing it. Large demands for freight movement will have to be handled by inventive scheduling.

 

I know Itshall looks cramped and busy, but it does what it needs and gives me more room for other things. 

 

Difford Junction does have transfer sidings - the two at the lower end of the station. These can easily be used to switch stock from one company to the other. However,  I take the point and will redesign with an easier connection to the mainline. 

 

As far as moving coal by sea goes, there's a lot to think of. It would be possible to fit a larger coal wharf at Moorhaven to allow more shipment that away. I've decided Moorhaven is going to get a redesign anyway. It sprawls far too much and I want to make it more compact. Doing so shouldn't be too much of a problem and I think I'll manage to get a larger wharf in the process, if still with a simple wagon  tipple system as at Watchet or Bullo Pill. The photo I referenced earlier was taken in 1907, which is close to the period I'm aiming for. 

 

I think I'm also going to tighten up Saddler's End. The layout is unusual, but like Moorhaven it sprawls too much. I think a more conventional layout with the platform alongside the passing loop would be neater.

 

And finally, to Martin. Where is this layout based? England. That's all I can say. After much consultation of information on the coal fields of Britain I couldn't really find anywhere that fitted what I wanted so I've left it vague. The names are English sounding, so it's in England. I suppose I could try for a Scottish feel and have "The Railway of the Glens" starting at Nyeton Town and passing through Glen Morangie, Glen Fiddich, Glen Livet and Glen Kinchie to a terminus at Bauchle Hame (that's Scottish for "stagger home"). A Welsh setting would involve names like Caer-yn-Siwrans, Llandahoy and Pant-y-LLaen, but as each of the names is either an eye-watering pun or has a special meaning I'm keeping the English setting.

 

Thanks to all. 

 

Cam

[Martin S-C]

To my mind Saddler's End is one of the more interesting station layouts because it separates the passenger area from the goods area so cleanly. Unless you intend passenger trains to pass each other here I don't see any benefit gained in changing it. Is it your intention to allow passenger trains to pass anywhere other than Difford? If it is you might wish to consider having two platform faces. Its very unusual railway practice to have a timetabled station stop where there is no platform egress for passengers - it is done at small wayside halts that use footsteps to ground level (the Weston Clevedon & Portishead comes to mind once again) but your model appears to deal with all the minor halts as off-scene between the more significant stations.

[south_tyne]

What a fantastic space you have available there. It's a really wonderful concept, idea and plan. I love these type of "system" layouts that depict a whole railway and where there is a focus on operation. It's something that is sadly all too rare nowadays for a variety of reasons. I too would encourage you to include provision for a continuous run mind, if at all possible - I think it offers so much in terms of those occasions when you just want to relax and watch the trains go by!

 

I applaud your ambition and really look forward to following your progress 

[CameronL]

Following on from all the amazing advice and positive comment about this layout I've had a bit of a re-design. 

 

And firstly, having taken on board a lot of comment I've turned Milton Gate into a junction and Knower Vale into a through station (well, actually I've included a lifting flap to create a continuous run from the brewery to the forge as suggested). This will hinge from one side or the  other to facilitate this. It does make for quite a long spotting track leading to the forge, so I've put in another point to include a siding which might be used for a small Permanent Way train. I didn't want to change Knower Vale too much as it's probably my favourite station on the layout and harks back to a previous BLT I once built. 

 

I have redesigned the colliery to be on a curve and lose the "fiddle yard" look a bit. I know this reduces the gangway  to 2', but only for a short space and I'd already decided that if clearance was an issue with operators' extremities interfering with the modelling anywhere on the layout some Perspex screens attached to the baseboards at the problem points will solve this, so the colliery and Moorhaven will definitely have them. 

 

I've also reduced the size of the brickworks at Milton Gate and the creamery at Saddler's End as I felt they were too large for the scenes. Martin - otherwise I've left Saddler's End alone. I like the design too but was worried that it was a bit of a sprawl. However, after your kind words I think I'll leave it as is. 

 

I also take your point about passing places on the line. Previously Difford Junction was the only intermediate station where two passenger trains could pass. To include another one I've redesigned Milton Gate with an island platform accessed by a footbridge from a station building on the road overbridge which forms the scenic break. Unusual, but I like unusual and Stretford Station on the Manchester Metrolink (which used to be a four-platform station of the Manchester South Junction and Altrincham railway) has a similar arrangement. As far as wayside halts go, I've largely left them off the layout, although Overth Hill has a halty feel about it. I plan this to have a simple wooden station building, and there's not as much in the way of goods facilities as at other stations. It mainly serves as a way to shunt trains for the quarry and forestry sidings. 

 

As such for me it's probably the least satisfying design on the layout, and not because of the halty feel to it. It's just a bit too much of the industry/platform/industry configuration I've tried to avoid if possible. Maybe a redesign with a mineral line going off to hidden sidings could replace the quarry, with an exchange siding and maybe even an engine shed for a light tank engine to work the mineral branch.

 

The track at Difford Junction has been redesigned to allow the trams easier access to the mainline. 

 

And finally there's Moorhaven, which is a lot more compact without losing any function. Thanks to everyone who pointed me in the direction of light railway transferring coal to sea (Martin, Pacific 231). Having realised that you don't need a structure like Tyne Dock to put coal on boats I've decided to place more emphasis on moving it by sea from Moorhaven, by the simple expedient of adding another siding so that more wagons can be handled. There will be a simple chute or tipple to handle the transfer. 

 

I've found a lot of rail to sea facilities where the only function was "putting rocks on boats" but I was aiming for a general purpose harbour like Madderport or Saltaire (aiming high there). For me the new more compact design still allows both interesting operation and the space to create the feel of a bustling town harbour, and the valley down to Moorhaven will be a major scenic feature on the layout. I've even put a gradient on it, realising that it's the only one on the entire layout so far. Going a bit out there it makes me wonder if there could be room for some kind of freelance articulated tram to handle the coal trains. I know there were Garratt trams in Belgium and the New York Central had some Shay trams for use on road lines (although they had to be preceded down the road by a man on horseback to reduce pedestrian deaths) so I'll give it a thought. 

 

Thanks to everyone for your advice and positive comments. I get the feeling that there's a few people who, if we ever meet, will hear me saying "The first beer's on me."

 

Cam

 

[Martin S-C]

I like the improvements to both the colliery and Milton gate. Milton has a GCR theme about it now. There is ample room for another storage siding if you need one under the footbridge. Removing the small shed between Moorhaven and Difford was an inspired move as you now have a lovely long length of open rural run where your electrostatic grass skills can have free rein!

I checked again the other day and my layout's main operating well is 3 feet wide throughout and this is ample for two persons of normal girth to pass comfortably. On your plan its no hardship for the colliery operator to step aside if someone needs to get by that pinch point.

[CameronL]

Thanks again. The extra siding at Milton Gate hadn't occurred to me. I'm sure it'll find its way in. As for the scenery on the Moorhaven branch,  I think that hillside will be a bit cliffy and wooded. I know a few such roads like that (OK, without a tramline down the middle) and I'd like to model it that way. It will also provide a bit of a scenic break for the Moorhaven operator, who will see a train come into view from behind the hill and chug down the valley. 

 

The hills either side of Saddler's End will have plenty of scope for static grass. Joy.

 

Cam.

[Titanius Anglesmith]

What a brilliant concept, and that track plan! Lots of goods workings, lots of shunting....... right up my boulevard 

 

Watching with interest

[Zomboid]

I think it's great and I love the concept, but there's too much infrastructure for a light railway - heavy rail would rarely stretch to a 3 platform junction station with a footbridge on a quiet backwater, and a light railway would be even more sparsely equipped.

 

Saying that, if it were some kind of optimistic, late Victorian scheme in the manner of the M&SWJR or M&GN or Meon Valley, then something like your plan would make perfect sense.

[CameronL]

On ‎12‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 12:08, Zomboid said:

I think it's great and I love the concept, but there's too much infrastructure for a light railway - heavy rail would rarely stretch to a 3 platform junction station with a footbridge on a quiet backwater, and a light railway would be even more sparsely equipped.

 

Saying that, if it were some kind of optimistic, late Victorian scheme in the manner of the M&SWJR or M&GN or Meon Valley, then something like your plan would make perfect sense.

 

Thanks for that (and Titanius Anglesmith too). I never considered the Meon Valley when I was originally planning this, but I think it was designed with ten coach passenger trains in mind.Difford Junction is only the way it is because I thought it needed to be so for operational reasons - a train from the Moorhaven branch would have to connect with up and down trains on the Itshall to Knower Vale line. Three trains, three platform faces. Silly me. Having read your post and given it some thought I realised this could be sorted out operationally rather than with lavish infrastructure. The following sequence sprang to mind -

 

• Tram arrives at Difford  from Moorhaven with passengers from the ferry. Passengers get off.
• Tram runs around its train then shunts into one of the exchange sidings.
• Up and down passenger trains arrive at Difford from Itshall and Knower Vale. Passengers for Difford and Moorhaven get off. Passengers from Moorhaven get on.
• Up and down passenger  trains  depart.
• Tram backs out of exchange siding.
• Passengers for Moorhaven get on.
• Tram departs for Moorhaven.

Eureka! The two platforms with three platform faces can be replaced by two platform faces and some shunting (which is what this layout is all about).  Two platform faces are provided by one island platform, and all of a sudden Difford has a much simpler design. I've kept the footbridge because I've based it on Tan-y-Bwlch on the Ffestiniog railway. I've always liked the "lazy S" platform there. It's still quite a big station because of the exchange sidings (got to have somewhere to shunt those coaches) but the station layout is a lot simpler. Below is a "Before and After" of how it might appear. What do people think? I know that the "After" has lost one siding, but that was planned to be a short Permanent Way siding, which has now moved to Knower Vale since the redesign for the continuous run.

 

 

OK. That's it. Now I would be the first to acknowledge that this layout isn't quite a Light Railway. Maybe I should just call it a "fictional  pre-grouping" system. I just want short trains in a landscape and lots of shunting interest. If it includes turntables, footbridges and loco works, well, so be it. It's the layout I've dreamed about for a long time. 

 

But thanks to everyone for their input. My Dad was an engineer, and he used to have a saying that "A camel is a horse designed by a committee", meaning that if too many people get involved in the design of something it's not going to end up what was originally intended. OK. I'm loving my camel of a layout. The input I've had so far has produced something much better than I started with. Other viewpoints on things have produced something much better than I achieved on my own. Thanks to everyone.  Any ideas about Overth Hill?

 

Cam

[Zomboid]

The revised design (and Milton Gate) just struck me as being similar to Haven Street. (There's no bridge there, but that doesn't matter). It then occurred to me that the whole thing has parallels to the Isle of Wight system. An isolated Island railway would credibly allow this kind of thing. (Of course, someone else famously invented something similar). The railways of Jersey might also be instructive, and obviously other countries would have similar things to look at. Though if you did something like that the port would probably be the main town and not the quiet branch.

 

Feel free to disregard, just a pre-breakfast brainwave. And whilst I'd enjoy running trains on what you've got planned, don't let us armchair commentators convince you to remove things that you want from the plan, or add things that don't appeal...

[Martin S-C]

The discussion here is similar when I first revealed my track plan. The issue of light railways and so on came up. Rather than a light railway I see the NM&GSR as an independent railway, holding out against the financial and traffic odds until the grouping. I know that James (Edwardian) sees his WNR railway as a similar concern. A few lines did survive independently until 1923 and this gives you a precedent for more substantial works, something like the M&SWJ comes to mind, or the M&GNJ. The well known Light Railway Order was quite late on in the scheme of things - the 1880s IIRC (though I don't know exactly and beg to be corrected on the exact date) and by then several independent lines were well established. While these may have had light railway features they were technically not.

 

It is, however, first and foremost YOUR railway and you need to be the only one 100% delighted with it. I too enjoyed a lot of really good advice during my early stages but I was also confident of what it was I wanted and was aiming to achieve and felt comfortable rejecting some of the excellent advice simply because I wanted things a certain way. There is no requirement to justify your choices. This isn't a parliamentary planning committee! Its the ultimate expression of Rule No.1 and you need to bear in mind that while helpful people with more prototype knowledge than you might consider this topic for a short while, you are the one who will live with it for years.

My only comment on the Difford change is that it now bears a resemblance to Milton Gate in terms of passenger facility layout. I would have stayed with three platform faces for reasons of traffic efficiency and to enjoy a different layout simply for the sake of it being different!

 

P.S. I really like curved platforms as well.

Edited March 14, 2019 by Martin S-C

[Stubby47]

I think the change to two platforms introduces more complications into a passenger timetable, which is therefore more operationally  interesting.

 

The direct access to the harbour line is also a good change, as this will ease freight operations (contradictory to my previous comment).

 

My magnus opus would be to replicate the Chacewater to Newquay branch, so very envious of the space and plan you have here.

Stu

[woodenhead]

The more I look at this and Martin's magnus opus the more i think when i get that my chance go back to N gauge and do a preserved line.

 

These systems have a purpose rather then enter stage right and exit stage left.