End of Branchline terminus layout advice

[davegardnerisme]

Hi all,

 

I'm looking for advice on my track plan. The scene is rural end of branch line, with a small station and a couple of industries - specially cattle and wool (the mill is the main feature). I have been researching, reading "How to design a small switching layout" by Lance Mindheim, and also "60 plans for small locations" by CJ Freezer. 

 

 

I previously posted in probably the wrong part of the forum. I include it just to compare how plans have evolved. 

 

 

Since then, I've actually made a start, building out baseboards in detachable sections, and trying to mock up in 3d.

 

 

 

I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions before I start chopping things up? Thanks in advance!

[JohnR]

First thing I can see, is that the headhunt (where the 47 is sitting) is too short, and it looks like that is the only way to get wagons into the Warehouse/Mill sidings.

 

Could that come off further up the platform, with the warehouse etc partially hiding the fiddle yard?

[The Stationmaster]

What is the period modelled please?

[Nearholmer]

That warehouse/mill is going to be a bngger to shunt, but I quite like it, because it hints at it having originally been served by a wagon turntable on the other siding, which is a very realistic proposition.

 

Otherwise, the only issue might be a the paucity of general goods yard siding space.

 

You could make things simpler by moving the mill, but railways sometimes have quirks like this - maybe the mill was there before the railway, or the original turntable acccess was thought a perfect solution in 1858.

Edited September 1, 2019 by Nearholmer

[davegardnerisme]

1 minute ago, The Stationmaster said:

What is the period modelled please?

The 47 is early sixties .. so I think I’m heading for that. 

[Ramrig]

I take it that must be a double slip on your second siding to allow your loco to run round it’s train and access to the mill siding from either line?

[Nearholmer]

So, if the 47 is going to haul the trains, there’s definitely trouble at t’mill, there not being enough room for a loco and even one wagon in the headshunt.

 

Longer headshunt; shorter loco; or, capstan and cable.

 

 

Edited September 1, 2019 by Nearholmer

[davegardnerisme]

10 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

That warehouse/mill is going to be a bngger to shunt, but I quite like it, because it hints at it having originally been served by a wagon turntable on the other siding, which is a very realistic proposition.

 

Otherwise, the only issue might be a the paucity of general goods yard siding space.

 

You could make things simpler by moving the mill, but railways sometimes have quirks like this - maybe the mill was there before the railway, or the original turntable acccess was thought a perfect solution in 1858.

 

I'm imagining a scene that has evolved over some time - with the mill really approaching the end of its useful life at this point (I'm probably stretching this). I was considering trying to include a shadow-model of older workings; perhaps a hint at where steam-era fixtures would have been placed. Thanks for the comments - they resonate with me.

[davegardnerisme]

14 minutes ago, JohnR said:

First thing I can see, is that the headhunt (where the 47 is sitting) is too short, and it looks like that is the only way to get wagons into the Warehouse/Mill sidings.

 

Could that come off further up the platform, with the warehouse etc partially hiding the fiddle yard?

 

I realised this right at the end, and added the double slip and the second siding. My thinking was this could be the head shunt for accessing the mill. I have a class 08 for shunting, so the thinking was that the 47 would be pulling the trains in, and then the 08 would be putting the wagons where they need to go for industry.

[Nearholmer]

Expensive provision of motive power for little traffic.

 

How about a road tractor with buffing plates to do the shunting, or maybe the mill bought itself a Ruston 48hp loco ....... as conveniently in Hornby’s catalogue.

 

Or, can the 08 work the branch freight itself? Prototypical.

[davegardnerisme]

These all sound excellent suggestions. Thanks Nearholmer. 

[Rivercider]

From my early childhood when we had no family car I can half remember a few places in the West Country in the 1960s, that had either closed, or were hanging by a thread. I agree that it does look like a place that was once busier, cattle traffic would probably be gone by then, but the siding might well remain. A longer headshunt for the mill is definitely required.

I would also think that a class 03/06/08/22/24/25/26/27/33/35  (depending on the geographic location) might be more appropriate for the local freight work.

Perhaps the class 47 might appear on a railtour?

 

cheers 

[Nearholmer]

Yes, it would help to know where we are, and maybe what the mill mills. Is it taking coal in as fuel; does it send anything out by rail?

[uax6]

I’m not so sure that you do want to lengthen that loco release much more. Looking at the platform edge I’m guessing that it extends another wagon length at least. Also a 47 would probabl6 be unlikely to be used on this sort of branch as it is a heavy beast, and that branch may not be able to take it. A 25 on the other hand (or any other type 2) would be perfectly at home here, and will be able to have probably two or three wagons with it in the release to get to the mill...

 

Andy g

[davegardnerisme]

Location is Yorkshire Dales. Green hills, dry stone walls, hill farming. 

 

The mill is a woollen mill. I’m imagining it will need deliveries of wool bales, and then will send out woven material by rail.

 

Good question about coal. I think I need to do a bit more research about eras. The mill would have needed coal at one point in its life. Whether it would have been coal powered in 60s I’m less sure. 
 

Perhaps I need to step back in time a bit to make it more coherent. 

[Nearholmer]

There’s something particularly interesting about ‘hanging on by a thread’ (a woollen thread?) goods operations in the late-60s to early-70s though, so stick with it.

 

Maybe your mill has a big contract for something particular that is just about keeping it going ........ maybe it weaves that specially thick serge cloth used to make firemens’ uniforms before better PPE came into being, or something like that.

 

I know nothing about Yorkshire, but if there were 03/04 locos in that area, they’d definitely be a good bet.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 1, 2019 by Nearholmer

[davegardnerisme]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

There’s something particularly interesting about ‘hanging on by a thread’ (a woollen thread?) goods operations in the late-60s to early-70s though, so stick with it.

 

Agreed - I'm going to stick with it.

 

Some more research suggests that mills moved to electric looms after the Second World War

 

Quote

The Railway’s demise is frequently portrayed as being due to the decline of the local textile industry; this is far from the reality. The introduction of individual electric motors to each loom in the mills after the Second World War put paid to the industrial coal traffic.

 

https://kwvr.co.uk/explore/the-local-area/

 

So I can either leave out the coal siding, or I could have it disused/in disrepair.

 

I also found some fascinating aerial pictures of northern mills which show how large they are:

• Rural mill, 1947, still burning coal https://britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/EAW005624
• Great shot that gives some ideas for scenic elements https://britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/EAW009178
• One next to a railway https://britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/EPW024335

 

I have spent far too many hours on Britain from Above now!

[Nearholmer]

My only extended excursion "up north" was to attend university at Lancaster, and there is a beautiful mill, set close to the WCML, at Galgate, just south of the campus, which I used to walk past on my brain-de-fogging rambles, when studying became too intense. Picture here, with steam train in shot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellel,_Lancashire I think that mill, which spun silk, closed in 1971.

 

Maybe your BLT has a bit of domestic coal traffic left, and maybe there is another traffic source further back up the branch, so that together these things justify a short goods train a couple of days each week.

 

 

Edited September 1, 2019 by Nearholmer

[PatB]

Don't forget that, until the advent of natural gas, even quite modest towns would have gasworks which needed to get their feedstock from somewhere. Given that I've seen at least one miniaturised gasworks built to serve a large country house (complete with tiny gasholder and everything) I reckon you could justify some gasworks coal traffic pretty much anywhere and up until the late 60s.

[Harlequin]

Hi Dave,

 

Could you move the mill to the right of the river? That would allow the headshunt to be longer, balance the composition a bit better and give you a really interesting feature of two bridges in close proximity (very northern industrial).

 

Maybe you could then avoid the need to cut the oil siding in half with the diamond crossing? (But maybe that’s an important feature?)

 

How do you plan to get the river to pass under the track?

[uax6]

I would be surprised if the mill had got rid of its steam plant. A witness to this is that Queen Street Mill in Burnley (a museum well worth visiting) was working until 1982 with steam. The few electric looms and tools they have are driven by a feed off a dynamo that is driven from the line shafting that feeds the looms....

Of course if that river is a decent size it could be water driven! But I doubt it would have survived..

 

Andy g

[caradoc]

I agree it is unusual, but a Class 47 could be used for a branch freight; One of TVP's excellent East Anglian DVDs (sorry, can't remember which one !) shows a 47 shunting the coal sidings at Cromer in the late 1960s, and I recall going on holiday near Burnham-on-Sea at around the same time and when alighting at Highbridge, a 47 was on the Bason Bridge milk tanks.

[The Stationmaster]

17 hours ago, davegardnerisme said:

 

I realised this right at the end, and added the double slip and the second siding. My thinking was this could be the head shunt for accessing the mill. I have a class 08 for shunting, so the thinking was that the 47 would be pulling the trains in, and then the 08 would be putting the wagons where they need to go for industry.

I was a little puzzled when I first looked at the plan until I checked that the SL90 is indeed a double slip -  which makes the mill siding shuntable of course.  I think, albeit in a quirky way (which I like), it's a fairly  good layout plan which is rather cramped (a good topographic explanation would help there of course).

 

My only criticism is the lack of general goods/domestic coal siding space.  And as for early '60s I seriously doubt a B rush Type 4 - as 47s then were - would have been found on a small branchline.  'Oop north'  it would like as not still be a steam worked freight service or possibly a Type 2 had arrived and a DMU for passengers.

 

BTW we used to have to shunt an oil - actually bitumen - siding on a branch on my patch through a diamond crossing on the mid 1970s.  Great spot for occasional spectacular derailments.

[davegardnerisme]

8 hours ago, Harlequin said:

How do you plan to get the river to pass under the track?

 

The base board frames don't have the ply on yet. My plan is to build another frame and raise the whole thing ~10cm or so to give me room for the river to be landscaped below the track level. On the right hand board the ground level will continually rise from the river. The railway will be embanked initially (near river), moving into level ground, and finally into a tunnel.

 

For bridge I have the WILLS SS49 OO SCALE DECKED GIRDER BRIDGE.

 

I tried out your suggestion to move the mill. I agree that the double bridge could be interesting, and maybe it would make more sense to have the mainline go over something more substantial than the girder bridge, perhaps the WILLS SS82 OO SCALE RIVER/CANAL BRIDGE.

 

This is the updated plan, which results in a head shunt length of just over 70cm (27.5 inches). This removes the double slip. It also adds in a coal siding.

 

The diamond crossing is just because I want one more than anything!

 

[uax6]

I don't like that new plan without the double slip as much somehow. Also I was wondering if you could do away with the front siding and put the cattle dock on the line that is now marked headshunt.

I think the earlier plan actually looks better (with the cattle dock moved as above). Could the reason for the cramped site be that there is a hill growing up from the river on the righthand side, which prevents expansion (railway in cutting heading to the tunnel)? If required the bridge could be wider allowing the point to be on it, to give a little more room.

 

Andy G