Dzine Posted October 20, 2019 Author Share Posted October 20, 2019 Hi 1Whitmoor, I think it's about how well it's been done. Have a look at the first photo, there's just a very small dip, centre, along what is otherwise a straight piece of track. When writing the article for Model Rail, my main concern about modelling colliery track was that most people model to mainline standards and this is what looks wrong to me, no matter how much weathering and clutter you add. Kind regards Paul 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rope runner Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 Hi Paul, I accept your point - a lighter gauge rail might also serve to improve appearance as many industrial lines were laid with 75lb flat bottom rail. The one observation I would make about colliery railway modelling in general, and indeed track work falls into this: Colour photography was not widely available until industrial railways ( particularly steam orientated) were in rapid decline. There is a danger that we as industrial modelers use such resources and conclude that systems at the end of their lives which were essentially being run into the ground were typical of industrial railways in general through time. That is not the case by any stretch of the imagination. In my view poorly maintained trackwork in collieries is more typical of the 1960's onwards (disposal points excepted). Compare the much photographed prototypes of Ashington Colliery/Workshops and with those of Lambton Colliery/Workshops and associated railways via google images from around the late 60's. Same era and geography, but vastly different levels of continual maintenance as one system was earmarked for closure. See also Mountain Ash 1955 vs. 1979 for an even more extreme example, it looks like a different site altogether. Paul A. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dzine Posted October 23, 2019 Author Share Posted October 23, 2019 Hi Paul, You're absolutely right about post 1960's locations and being in rapid decline, including one of my local favourites the Middleton in Leeds (prior to modern day preservation). Kind regards Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Respite Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 On 22/10/2019 at 13:48, 1whitemoor said: In my view poorly maintained trackwork in collieries is more typical of the 1960's onwards (disposal points excepted). I would agree with this to some extent and apply it to the locos also. Something seemed to happen to the NCBs maintenance from around 1968, photographs of locos at collieries before this date often show clean locos or at least wheels and motion that had been wiped over from there on the locos were neglected, the locos at Hafodyrynys being one example. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
5050 Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 Could a distinction be made between 'colliery' and 'industrial' track? My observation is that 'industrial' track is/was kept in a better condition than colliery track. For example, industrial estate trackage (eg Trafford Park or Slough) was generally nearly up to main line standard. The Pensnett Railway was basically 'industrial' but seemed to be - from photos of their 'mainline' at least - well maintained. I generally try to make my 'industrial' track look 'well used' but still in relatively good condition. However, if I was going to model a latter days colliery line, this wouldn't be the case! Unless perhaps I was modelling the Waterside system? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
doilum Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 More distinctions. Some colliery lines were well used permanent links between two collieries or leading to a central washery or exchange sidings . These would be reasonably well laid perhaps with coal waste as the main ballast. Other lines went out on to the muck stacks and were of a more temporary nature. Lightly laid and easily washed out by heavy rain they became uneven switchbacks. Landsale yards were usually paved and other lines lay between the two extremes. Study photographs carefully and remember the effects of the long lens. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dzine Posted October 23, 2019 Author Share Posted October 23, 2019 5050, You're absolutely right though like all things there are exceptions, the Middleton again in its last days, serving a steel fabricators and stockholders, some track was terrible, particularly what I call straight curves (see photo's). Kind regards Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sb67 Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 Interesting topic that caught my eye in Model Rail, I think when done well it would look fantastic and I don't recall seeing it on many models. So much time and care goes into laying track flat, straight and true it seems funny trying to lay it wonky. I think the key would be not to go overboard with it as I think it's one of those things that are difficult to translate into model form, especially the dips. I'm looking forward to seeing some more progress. Steve. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve howe Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 Because of perspective and foreshortening, wonky track always looks worse when viewed at ground level. Probably when seen from our 'normal' viewing heights, it would look smoother. Steve 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Regularity Posted October 23, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 23, 2019 (edited) This might interest you: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/80705-pidcock-lines-thinking-about-a-backscene/&do=findComment&comment=2980151 Post to search for: On 30/12/2017 at 22:33, The Bigbee Line said: Edited October 23, 2019 by Regularity Used to be easy to link to individual posts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rope runner Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 Not colliery-related but If anyone is feeling particularly brave: https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidwf2009/5577092176 This is a fairly extreme which is mainly due to the fact the track is laid directly on top of iron ore bench. There is no ballast which means that the track is free to be slewed every few months, as was the practice in open cast mineral railways. This way the line could follow the quarry face, which is fairly shallow here. Note the kinks stemming from the fishplates, exacerbated by this activity, but also seen in poorly maintained industrial track work generally. Paul A. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dzine Posted October 23, 2019 Author Share Posted October 23, 2019 Here's an aerial view of the test model which dips slightly in the middle. Note the sleepers covered by 'water' (clear varnish). Paul 12 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porcy Mane Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 And there's this. Network Rail track seeing twelve (sometimes more) very heavy trains daily. Taken with a 35 mm lens so no foreshortening or compression of perspective. In my seventeen years with the NCB I saw considerably worse that this but never witnessed a derailment. (Underground was a different story). P 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike morley Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 (edited) Seen at Rocks by Rail, Rutland, a couple of months ago. The sleepers clearly bear little resemblance to those used on "standard" track. I've not been there recently, but certainly until not too long ago the Foxfield Railway had what I guess must have been ex-NCB track, which also had comparatively short sleepers with sloped ends and edges. Edited October 25, 2019 by mike morley 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
doilum Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 12 minutes ago, mike morley said: Seen at Rocks by Rail, Rutland, a couple of months ago. The sleepers clearly bear little resemblance to those used on "standard" track. I've not been there recently, but certainly until not too long ago the Foxfield Railway had what I guess must have been ex-NCB track, which also had comparatively short sleepers with sloped ends and edges. I don't recall seeing anything but timber sleepers on colliery railways. That said, someone will know different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rope runner Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 1 hour ago, mike morley said: Seen at Rocks by Rail, Rutland, a couple of months ago. The sleepers clearly bear little resemblance to those used on "standard" track. I've not been there recently, but certainly until not too long ago the Foxfield Railway had what I guess must have been ex-NCB track, which also had comparatively short sleepers with sloped ends and edges. The plan over the winter as I understand it is to completely re-lay the mainline and cut out the dipped joints where appropriate. The sleepers you've photographed are ex-Ministry Of Supply obtained from Corby steelworks upon closure. I can't say I've seen these in any colliery images but they were certainly used at cement works and quarries. They are on Ambis Engineering's "to do" list in 4mm scale. There are two patterns of these - one for flat bottom rail as you've linked and one for bullhead as shown below: Paul A. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike morley Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 Yes! The one's in 1whitemoor's picture are the same as those I saw on the Foxfield. Not as difficult to model as the scalloped variety in my pictures, but still a tricky proposition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porcy Mane Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 1 hour ago, mike morley said: The sleepers clearly bear little resemblance to those used on "standard" track. I have read who manufactured that type of sleeper. I think it was for GWR or MOD use but until I can find my references I'm just speculating. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold john new Posted October 25, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 25, 2019 On 23/10/2019 at 20:00, Regularity said: This might interest you: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/80705-pidcock-lines-thinking-about-a-backscene/&do=findComment&comment=2980151 Post to search for: On 30/12/2017 at 22:33, The Bigbee Line said: Still is, and the new option incorporates an improvement, Top right corner of every post has a sideways V with three blobs symbol. That generates the copyable link. Why better than the old number based system - self updates if a post before it gets deleted or moved changing the number. Hope this helps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Regularity Posted October 25, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 25, 2019 I used that, and it sent me to the thread! Second attempt: OK. Having managed a help desk many years ago, I know that when something is blamed on the system, 95% of the time there are two errors involved, including that of blaming the system... Prototype wavy track from an infrequently used short line, taken in the 70s: 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted October 26, 2019 Share Posted October 26, 2019 (edited) 12 hours ago, Regularity said: Prototype wavy track from an infrequently used short line, taken in the 70s: Ooh, that's an image I've not seen before. Is it the (in)famous Maumee & Western, again? Edited October 26, 2019 by F-UnitMad Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Regularity Posted October 26, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 26, 2019 Hope. Louisville and Wadley, just north of the latter place. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
5050 Posted October 26, 2019 Share Posted October 26, 2019 1 hour ago, Regularity said: Hope. Louisville and Wadley, just north of the latter place. Well, I hope Louis doesn't waddle to much and fall off! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Burnham Posted November 3, 2019 Share Posted November 3, 2019 At the risk of sounding like the Four Yorkshiremen, "Sleepers! We used to dream of having sleepers..." On the line down to Queenborough Wharf (Isle of Sheppey) in the early 70s, the sleepers were gradually returning to the soil from which they had sprung. Some of those where decomposition had been fastest had been replaced by odd planks of wood salvaged from the wagons being scrapped down at the wharf, some of the planks still with lettering or numbers visible. Quite a lot of rolling stock made it to the end of the line, even if it was a one-way trip for most. It's fair to say that the track was greatly improved in 1979 on the basis of a Government grant of £112,000 under Section 8 of the Railways Act, 1974. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sb67 Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 I'd like to lay some 'dodgy' track on my next layout and was wondering how would industrial track have been laid, would it be in standard 60ft sections or by any means necessary using whatever was around? Steve. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now