Eastburn - Aire Valley 1950s

[Joseph_Pestell]

I think that you can do much better by simplifying the fiddleyard so that only the two centre roads are reversible.

 

By doing that, you can use ordinary turnouts throughout and get some longer roads.

[Michael Edge]

You could use the fiddle yard for the second crossover, in your last plan it's the other end of the station so quite logical.

[Zomboid]

If you're mainly into freight, why have any platforms on scene? The station could be the other side of the scenic break and you'll have more room for the stuff you're most into. Passenger trains can still run without a station to stop at.

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 minute ago, Zomboid said:

If you're mainly into freight, why have any platforms on scene? The station could be the other side of the scenic break and you'll have more room for the stuff you're most into. Passenger trains can still run without a station to stop at.

 

Very true.

I took a look at Keighley on old-maps.co.uk. A much simplified version (the goods yard there was large) of the area north-west of the passenger station could work well as a layout with two bridges (and the station building) as scenic breaks.

[Aire Head]

8 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

I think that you can do much better by simplifying the fiddleyard so that only the two centre roads are reversible.

 

By doing that, you can use ordinary turnouts throughout and get some longer roads.

 

I must apologise and say I haven't quite got my head around what you are suggesting here sorry 

 

6 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

You could use the fiddle yard for the second crossover, in your last plan it's the other end of the station so quite logical.

 

I have been trying somewhat to keep the shunting "on scene" so to speak and would prefer to keep the fiddle yard separate so i don't end up interfering with what is stored in there.

 

6 hours ago, Zomboid said:

If you're mainly into freight, why have any platforms on scene? The station could be the other side of the scenic break and you'll have more room for the stuff you're most into. Passenger trains can still run without a station to stop at.

 

6 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Very true.

I took a look at Keighley on old-maps.co.uk. A much simplified version (the goods yard there was large) of the area north-west of the passenger station could work well as a layout with two bridges (and the station building) as scenic breaks.

 

A very valid point and something I will play around with! So far when i tried it hasn't really freed up any more space due to the platforms being on a corner where it is difficult to create the trailing crossover into the goods yard.

 

But I have done some playing around and I submit these plans for your dissection based on previous feedback.

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 hour ago, Aire Head said:

 

I must apologise and say I haven't quite got my head around what you are suggesting here sorry 

 

 

I have been trying somewhat to keep the shunting "on scene" so to speak and would prefer to keep the fiddle yard separate so i don't end up interfering with what is stored in there.

 

 

 

A very valid point and something I will play around with! So far when i tried it hasn't really freed up any more space due to the platforms being on a corner where it is difficult to create the trailing crossover into the goods yard.

 

But I have done some playing around and I submit these plans for your dissection based on previous feedback.

 

 

This simplified version looks much better.

 

I will do a sketch for the fiddleyard early tomorrow. But I will try to explain.

Inner track: Immediately after the footbridge, a left turnout. Then another left turnout where you have the double slip to form a crossover. At the other end a right-hand curved turnout. I don't usually advocate small radius curved turnouts but they work OK in the trailing direction.

Outer track: A right hand turnout instead of a curve after the lift-up section. A left-hand turnout instead of the slip to form a crossover. Two turnouts rather than the 3-way.

[Aire Head]

35 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

 

This simplified version looks much better.

 

I will do a sketch for the fiddleyard early tomorrow. But I will try to explain.

Inner track: Immediately after the footbridge, a left turnout. Then another left turnout where you have the double slip to form a crossover. At the other end a right-hand curved turnout. I don't usually advocate small radius curved turnouts but they work OK in the trailing direction.

Outer track: A right hand turnout instead of a curve after the lift-up section. A left-hand turnout instead of the slip to form a crossover. Two turnouts rather than the 3-way.

 

That would be great thanks as I seem to having a moment figuring it out!

[DCB]

Why not keep the double slip but move it left?  That way all roads remain available for departures either way.    Modern RTR doesn't like being handled so I prefer to leave it on the tracks as long as possible, years at a time for some items

Also the lower loop is very short. If you put a couple of stub roads on you could increase the train lengths by running in to one stub and setting back into the other before departing.       

I

[Joseph_Pestell]

On 10/02/2020 at 11:43, Joseph_Pestell said:

I think that you can do much better by simplifying the fiddleyard so that only the two centre roads are reversible.

 

By doing that, you can use ordinary turnouts throughout and get some longer roads.

Sketch attached.

Aire Valley Fiddleyard.pdf

[Zomboid]

The latest plans do look better, but I'd have a close look at whether the sidings could be on the inside of the loops. Where they are now, your shunting (hence uncoupling, coupling and most likely derailments) will be at just about the furthest point from the operating area. Can you reach that far?

 

Putting the shunting inside the loops would mean a bunch of other compromises, of course.

[Aire Head]

17 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

The latest plans do look better, but I'd have a close look at whether the sidings could be on the inside of the loops. Where they are now, your shunting (hence uncoupling, coupling and most likely derailments) will be at just about the furthest point from the operating area. Can you reach that far?

 

Putting the shunting inside the loops would mean a bunch of other compromises, of course.

 

The boards are 2' wide and I'm 6'4" tall so will be completely accessible to me.

 

44 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Sketch attached.

Aire Valley Fiddleyard.pdf 52.22 kB · 5 downloads

 

I will have a play tonight and see what that give me thanks.

[Aire Head]

So I'e had a good play around (slightly behind schedule due to an unplanned situation involving a VW Passatt interfacing with an unexpectedly deep puddle) and the plan below is what seems to be to me the best compromise in respects to the fiddle yard. It allows for all 4 storage lanes to access both mainlines while also allowing for the largest possible trains the space allows.

 

By my reckoning both the outer and inner loops are capable of holding a rake of between 15/20 4 Wheel wagons and a brake van. Naturally I will be holding my breath until construction as to see if this is actually the case.

 

Also had a play around in the goods yard by removing the platforms and creating a road overbridge with a station building on it similar to Keighley for a scenic break and using the space created to make a more sensible access to the goods yard. I would appreciate feedback on this area as something still doesnt feel quite right here.

[Chimer]

I think I would probably move the bridge an inch or two further "north" and have at least a foot of platform visible on the scenic side (as per the plan with the footbridge)

[Flying Pig]

Like @Chimer I would keep the platform ends.  However, I'm not convinced that a bridge is the best view blocker - I prefer your earlier idea of using a large mill.  BTW, have a go at sketching in buildings etc freehand (print the plan out, or import it into a drawing program), so that you can experiment to find more natural-looking orientations for them.  Placing things at right angles to the board edge can look sterile.

 

As for the goods yard, while it's not in the right area you might find Bakewell a good Midland prototype to look at. Note how a loading bank and the cattle pens are incorporated into the platform in a way that would fit your curved site well.

 

I still think @Joseph_Pestell is right about simplifying the fiddle yard.

[Harlequin]

The middle goods siding should probably lie alongside one of the other sidings. Then you would have a simple open yard - but it depends if you can then make their intended purpose work properly.

The goods loop seems a bit long in proportion to the sidings, perhaps?

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

4 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

so that you can experiment to find more natural-looking orientations for them.  Placing things at right angles to the board edge can look sterile.

 

 

 

Yes, the bridge and station building on the bridge could be at an angle (approx. 60 deg) to the backscene rather than 90. Would look much better as it creates the illusion that the railway is not curving so sharply. 

 

For what is a rather small space for a double track mainline, this plan creates quite a spacious effect. I like it a lot.

[Aire Head]

On 14/02/2020 at 12:25, Chimer said:

I think I would probably move the bridge an inch or two further "north" and have at least a foot of platform visible on the scenic side (as per the plan with the footbridge)

 

On 14/02/2020 at 13:23, Flying Pig said:

Like @Chimer I would keep the platform ends.  However, I'm not convinced that a bridge is the best view blocker - I prefer your earlier idea of using a large mill.  BTW, have a go at sketching in buildings etc freehand (print the plan out, or import it into a drawing program), so that you can experiment to find more natural-looking orientations for them.  Placing things at right angles to the board edge can look sterile.

 

As for the goods yard, while it's not in the right area you might find Bakewell a good Midland prototype to look at. Note how a loading bank and the cattle pens are incorporated into the platform in a way that would fit your curved site well.

 

I still think @Joseph_Pestell is right about simplifying the fiddle yard.

 

I am surprised to see that the original scenic break idea was so popular!

 

On 14/02/2020 at 13:35, Harlequin said:

The middle goods siding should probably lie alongside one of the other sidings. Then you would have a simple open yard - but it depends if you can then make their intended purpose work properly.

The goods loop seems a bit long in proportion to the sidings, perhaps?

 

 

On 14/02/2020 at 18:13, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Yes, the bridge and station building on the bridge could be at an angle (approx. 60 deg) to the backscene rather than 90. Would look much better as it creates the illusion that the railway is not curving so sharply. 

 

For what is a rather small space for a double track mainline, this plan creates quite a spacious effect. I like it a lot.

 

I have played around a bit more with the station end. Designing an access to the goods yard that seems to work was causing me a headache however I have had the idea to separate the Station and Goods Yard via a level crossing with an entrance to the goods yard off of the road.

 

I tried to work out what could be realistically fitted into the goods yard and the most I can manage is three. I've dedicated one to a cattle dock, one to a goods shed and the remaining will have to serve as a joint mileage/coal siding.

 

The footbridge has returned with two mill buildings either side to cover the scenic break at this end.

[Zomboid]

Is a cattle dock a typical feature of this kind of place? If you've got big mill buildings, wouldn't a siding associated with those be a more typical feature? (I'm assuming that they didn't typically take delivery of wool that was still attached to the sheep...).

 

In terms of the track layout I think you're into the realms of diminishing returns, but the one other thing I'd consider would be a lay-by siding on the inner circuit. No idea if that kind of thing was common in the Aire valley, but it would add a bit of play value.

[Joseph_Pestell]

My "agree" was in relation to the idea of a lay-by siding off the inner circuit.

 

As to the cattle dock, worth looking up (either documents, books or maps) whether they had cattle docks or not at Aire Valley stations. Getting rid of the cattle dock and extending that siding into the warehouse (or in front of it) could make for a good scene.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Joseph_Pestell

[Aire Head]

5 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Is a cattle dock a typical feature of this kind of place? If you've got big mill buildings, wouldn't a siding associated with those be a more typical feature? (I'm assuming that they didn't typically take delivery of wool that was still attached to the sheep...).

 

In terms of the track layout I think you're into the realms of diminishing returns, but the one other thing I'd consider would be a lay-by siding on the inner circuit. No idea if that kind of thing was common in the Aire valley, but it would add a bit of play value.

 

I've considered this as well and yes it definitely was as this was the main English feeder line for the S&C so those slow goods train have to go somewhere

 

4 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

My "agree" was in relation to the idea of a lay-by siding off the inner circuit.

 

As to the cattle dock, worth looking up (either documents, books or maps) whether they had cattle docks or not at Aire Valley stations. Getting rid of the cattle dock and extending that siding into the warehouse (or in front of it) could make for a good scene.

 

Kildwick and Crosshills station certainly did. Between Keighley and Skipton is quite rural and certainly has plenty of farming.

 

Extending to a warehouse however is always a possibility, there was also a gasworks at Kildwick and Crosshills which was railfed and Eastburn (between Kildwick and Steeton) had a foundry aswell so plenty to choose from here 

Edited February 19, 2020 by Aire Head

[Zomboid]

So here's another silly idea that just hit me, this time for your off scene loops.

 

First, make the top left one on the inner track straight (curve it earlier, perhaps) so you can use a loco lift. The mid right on the outer track is already straight so all good there.

 

Then you can drive a train into the loop, set it back ready for departure, uncouple the loco and drive it forwards onto the lift. Then, on one of the otherwise blank sections of board you have a few disconnected straights which are powered up. Drive the loco off the lift and onto one of those where it'll wait until it's needed next. Reverse the process for the new train engine. No need to handle locos, but you can still change them - and you'd only need one loco lift.

 

Works best if you're using DCC I would imagine, but either way don't align these loco storage roads such that you could drive off them and onto the deck...

Edited February 19, 2020 by Zomboid

[Aire Head]

Ok so I'm back and I've had a bit of play around and started thinking about scenics etc.

 

But firstly whats in a name? Ive settled on a name for the proposed layout which is Eastburn. Eastburn is a real place between Skipton and Keighley and is roughly beside the Aire Valley line on the 1.5 miles between Steeton and Silsden and Kildwick and Crosshills Station. Eastburn never had a station but I think it makes a good "what if".

 

On the design front I've added a refuge siding on what would be the "Up" line towards Keighley and played around with the goods yard which is on the "down" being slightly rearranged.

 

Scenery wise I am thinking of having the majority of the scene showing the railway on an enbankment, I thinking this will firstly help to hide the backscene and also is true to the location I am depicting. The lift out flap I am planning to do as a bridge (surprise surprise) which works with the location as there is a bridge at Eastburn (it collapsed in 1947 with a train on top of it during heavy rains).

 

I've also added signals based off my limited knowledge and understanding of period signalling, which means of course that they will be completely wrong, any feedback on correct locations for signals would be greatly appreciated.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Great to find a name from the right location.

 

Signals look pretty good. Just one missing on the up (?) main just before the lie-by siding (inner home). You probably know that the exit signals from the loop and the lie-by would most likely be on a bracket, but I am guessing those are not available on your software.

 

I found yesterday that I still have my copy of the 1904 RCH Station List. That would answer the question raised earlier about the likelihood of livestock traffic from stations on the Aire Valley mainline.

[Aire Head]

11 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Great to find a name from the right location.

 

Signals look pretty good. Just one missing on the up (?) main just before the lie-by siding (inner home). You probably know that the exit signals from the loop and the lie-by would most likely be on a bracket, but I am guessing those are not available on your software.

 

I found yesterday that I still have my copy of the 1904 RCH Station List. That would answer the question raised earlier about the likelihood of livestock traffic from stations on the Aire Valley mainline.

 

That would certainly be interesting to know re cattle docks.

 

I'm glad to hear the signalling is mostly right, I was agonising about whether it was right to have a signal on the main line just before the access to the refuge. I've only added home signals on the assumption that the distants are "off scene".

 

FYI the Up line in this case in the inner loop and the down vice versa.

[Joseph_Pestell]

7 hours ago, Aire Head said:

 

That would certainly be interesting to know re cattle docks.

 

I'm glad to hear the signalling is mostly right, I was agonising about whether it was right to have a signal on the main line just before the access to the refuge. I've only added home signals on the assumption that the distants are "off scene".

 

FYI the Up line in this case in the inner loop and the down vice versa.

 

Yes, you have rightly avoided distants as the distants for this section would indeed be offscene.

 

The exception would be if there is another signalbox close by, controlling a junction or an access to sidings. In which case you might have distant arms on some of the home signals. These are controlled by the off-scene signalbox but a mechanism on the signal, known as "slotting", stops the distant arm being pulled "off" when the home signal is "on".