Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

Here's how the trailing crossover and goods shed loop could fit:

707948469_EastburnConcept2e.png.eda963897ba21aa16f579afcba676fa9.png

 

You can see that the route into the loading dock (the old shed siding) has to turn through the double slip.

The down siding and the new shed loop could be longer but only by sacrificing the river crossing.

 

Edit: The abandoned back siding is in light grey.

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

There has to be some compromise somewhere.  The siding which would have done for mileage and coal has (in the latest suggestion) been sacrificed in order to have a more Midland placement of the goods shed.  SO if you want that, then unless some extra siding can be wangled in off the loop behind the good shed going either left of right (using a diamond crossover?) there ain't much space left.  This is an excellent design for a small space - but in the end you cannot have everything (however much you want it.  Rule 1: The Coal Merchants have agred only to use the next staion down/up the line?

Edited by imt
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have coal instead of cattle pens personally, if it came down to that.

 

Or say that just the other side of the station (Eastburn East?) there's a relatively large coal handling facility, so no need to have one right here.

 

It probably would be possible to have everything, but at the cost of curve radius and/or train length...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Coal bins/pens are, I think, an un-Midland thing, whereas for this part of the world cattle pens are de rigueur and correctly located.

 

Ideally there would be a siding alongside the "road" side of the goods shed and with a good bit of space between it and the goods shed, for coal and other traffic that can be unloaded in the open but I appreciate this gets expensive on baseboard width.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

Where's the coal siding in this idea? There has to be one in this area.

 

2 hours ago, imt said:

There has to be some compromise somewhere.  The siding which would have done for mileage and coal has (in the latest suggestion) been sacrificed in order to have a more Midland placement of the goods shed.  SO if you want that, then unless some extra siding can be wangled in off the loop behind the good shed going either left of right (using a diamond crossover?) there ain't much space left.  This is an excellent design for a small space - but in the end you cannot have everything (however much you want it.  Rule 1: The Coal Merchants have agred only to use the next staion down/up the line?

 

47 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Coal bins/pens are, I think, an un-Midland thing, whereas for this part of the world cattle pens are de rigueur and correctly located.

 

Ideally there would be a siding alongside the "road" side of the goods shed and with a good bit of space between it and the goods shed, for coal and other traffic that can be unloaded in the open but I appreciate this gets expensive on baseboard width.

 

Goods yards in this area typically handled coal and mileage in the same siding and as was mentioned above cattle docks were present at every station.

 

At this stage it's all just a case of playing around with it to see what can be done. Certainly no harm in trying!

 

In regards to placements of respective facilities there really is a prototype for everything in this neck of the woods.

 

For instance look at the plan for Kildwick and Crosshills which is a mile and quarter away from the location of the actual Eastburn village.

 

 

Screenshot_20200313-173759~2.png

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The other two stations which existed between Keighley and Skipton are Steeton and Silsden (a mile and quarter in the opposite direction towards Keighley from the actual Eastburn village).

 

Connonley is the last Station before Skipton and once again has a completely different design of goods yard and station area.

Screenshot_20200313-174400~2.png

Screenshot_20200313-174519~2.png

  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Aire Head said:

For instance look at the plan for Kildwick and Crosshills which is a mile and quarter away from the location of the actual Eastburn village.

 

Remarkably similar to your earlier plan ;) and could be even more so with a few tweaks.  Indeed a large goods shed bottom right and a long mileage road next to the down siding would probably work quite well.  You might even fit in the exchange siding for the gasworks on the up side... (*coff* 48DS *coff*).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Remarkably similar to your earlier plan ;) and could be even more so with a few tweaks.  Indeed a large goods shed bottom right and a long mileage road next to the down siding would probably work quite well.  You might even fit in the exchange siding for the gasworks on the up side... (*coff* 48DS *coff*).

 

I do like a good Ruston...

Edited by Aire Head
Damn autocorrect
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Nice to see someone modelling my local line. I can see it from my house. The station buildings are very interesting & some of them still stand although in private ownership. There are certainly some interesting locations here on the Midland. A good book is the one by Jan Rapacz & Alan Whittaker Bradford railways in colour volume 1 midland lines. Itll hive you inspiration for freight & passenger we used to have here in this corner of west yorkshire

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 27/03/2020 at 22:26, Rhb Simon said:

Nice to see someone modelling my local line. I can see it from my house. The station buildings are very interesting & some of them still stand although in private ownership. There are certainly some interesting locations here on the Midland. A good book is the one by Jan Rapacz & Alan Whittaker Bradford railways in colour volume 1 midland lines. Itll hive you inspiration for freight & passenger we used to have here in this corner of west yorkshire

 

I shall have to look out for that! I have very rarely seen it modelled and I suspect that's due to the S&C which is only a short distance away meaning it always seems like a poor cousin. Personally I find it fascinating because I like the mundane!

 

On 06/04/2020 at 19:29, DavidCBroad said:

London terminus in 8ft X 8ft 9".  Were you thinking T gauge?

 

I've always said I was ambitious!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an update this project is still very much on the go but has had to take a backseat due to the current climate. The upspin is that in busier than ever, getting lots of work in and therefore extra money which can only help towards the construction

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Its back!

 

So with work having stabilised somewhat I have been able to return back to planning.  Sadly due to computer issue all of my previously saved plans have gone the way of the Dodo so I have had to start from scratch.

 

This hasn't proved to be too much of a major drama as I have been able to go back and approach the plan with a fresh eye.

 

I have attached the revised plan as stands, I have been able to increase the fiddle yard to 5 roads, I can increase the lengths of the loops by adding headshunts as was done on previous plans and potentially make some of them bi-directional to increase the play value. The goods news is at least 2 of the roads are longer than 4' and the remainder can be made up to be longer than 3' giving me sufficient storage space for my desired length of rakes.

2020-05-11 (2).png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
9 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I see you have used the SL-99 three-throw in the goods yard which AFAIK is available in code 100 only. 

 

 

I don't think that Aire Head has said whether he is using Code 75 or Code 100.

 

You are right that the symmetrical 3-way point, as shown on the plan above, is Code 100. I don't think that it will make much difference if he uses the asymmetrical 3-way point from the Code 75 range. 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have gone for code 100 at the moment as this will be the first track I've laid in over 10 years, some of my stock is older models and the majority of my goods stock is kitbuilt and I'm not sure I'm confident enough in my abilities that it will run smoothly on code 75. It's still up for debate however.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Aire Head said:

I have gone for code 100 at the moment as this will be the first track I've laid in over 10 years, some of my stock is older models and the majority of my goods stock is kitbuilt and I'm not sure I'm confident enough in my abilities that it will run smoothly on code 75. It's still up for debate however.

The kitbuilt stock will have finer wheels. They will run much better on the Code 75. The issue then is how easily you can convert the older stuff if necessary.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

Back to the plan, I don't understand why you are still not starting the outer fiddleyard with a right hand point further left (end of the curve from the viaduct). That has two advantages: greater length for the sidings and no reverse curve.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.