Langwathby or perhaps Embsay New track plan advice

[Graham70]

Hi guys,

So i am looking at building a new OO layout and have found a plan of Langwathby which i think suits what i want with some slight mods.

The main layout will be in a shed  7m long by 4.5 m wide containing a caravan on one side.  plan will be to have the main layout to one side 7m x 1m  with the twin tracks then going around the inside of the of the shed with the caravan off center with lift out bridges at either end to allow the van to go in and out front or back.

Layout will be twin mainline steam era. 

 There is 3 either single or can be double slips to try and be able to bring trains in and out from both directions.

Each end has to complete a 90 deg turn fairly quickly so as to end up onto the lift out bridges but I will have some small extra distance where to transition to the bridges,

I would like to have longer platforms if i can find room to the move things to the left.

Unsure if i have the right amount of line lengths around the working areas to make operations viable or can i shorten up the track areas on the left to give longer platforms?

I haven't worked  out the colliery track plan yet. 

I would like to be able to have coal trains travel up and down the colliery line with the loco up front and then be able for the loco to do a run around  in the main yards so as to be able to leave in either direction.

I am considering building the colliery on a deck underneath or above this current level, which would look better?

The track plan is just to give an idea of what i am looking for.

I have attached both the original and my modified plan for any and all comments.

Any ideas and feedback appreciated.

Thanks Graham.

[Joseph_Pestell]

If the engine shed is for colliery locos, it is in the wrong place. The lead to it needs to be from the line (long siding) that leads to the colliery.

 

Ideally, you would have at least a loop on the colliery line for wagon exchange between the colliery and the main line railway.

[TonyMay]

You shouldn't have *any* facing points on an S&C layout.  Save yourself the cost of a single/double slip.  It should be as per the upper track diagram.

 

Goods trains were reversed into the yard.  This is to render impossible a route being set that misroutes a train off the mainline into a siding, which would lead to a derailment or a potential collision.

Edited May 20, 2020 by TonyMay

[Compound2632]

Langwathby is a classic Midland layout with trailing connections from the goods yard line to the running lines. The pointwork nearest the passenger station should be a trailing crossover to the down line only. From the plan and signalling diagram I have*, the two trailing crossovers to the up line incorporate single slips, so that they can be used as crossovers between the running lines. There is a double slip at each end of the goods shed loop; you should certainly keep the one at the cattle dock end. (I'm taking the up line to be the one for trains travelling to the left, for consistency with the real Langwathby.)

 

For the steam era, you should certainly avoid facing points anywhere, not just Settle & Carlisle, except at running junctions and at large stations. The Board of Trade was very much against at the time most stations were laid out and by the time their attitude became more relaxed - with advance in point design - there wasn't the money to invest in infrastructure improvements at wayside stations. Running loops with facing points were installed from WW2 onwards, to increase line capacity, but these would generally be laid out so as not to conflict with existing goods yard facilities.

 

I like the idea of adding a colliery branch - something I have sketched out too for the "classic" Midland layout. Such a branch would not have a facing connection to the main line - even the Hawes branch at Hawes Junction had no facing connection. Kingsbury Junction (south Tamworth) is a classic example.

 

Having no facing points makes for much more interesting operation. Suppose you have a train of empties for the colliery arriving on the down line. There are two choices: set back into the headshunt, then proceed down the colliery line, or set back onto the up line, then through the crossover onto the colliery line. The latter means the length of train isn't limited by the headshunt and was also, according to T. and R.J. Essery, the usual procedure at Kingsbury Junction. Hours of fun!

 

*V.R. Anderson and G.K. Fox, Stations and Structures of the Settle and Carlisle Railway (OPC, 1986).

[Harlequin]

It's OK for tracks to still be turning when they reach the lift out bridges, if that helps to ease the end curves.

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

Thinking about this a bit more, I don't think that the S&C type layout with the goods shed on a loop works very well in this context. He would be better with the local goods yard (including the shed) on sidings behind the station platform. That frees up space for exchange sidings.

[meil]

If you want a colliery connection then I suggest you look at Horton -in-Ribblesdale.

[Joseph_Pestell]

44 minutes ago, TonyMay said:

You shouldn't have *any* facing points on an S&C layout.  Save yourself the cost of a single/double slip.  It should be as per the upper track diagram.

 

Goods trains were reversed into the yard.  This is to render impossible a route being set that misroutes a train off the mainline into a siding, which would lead to a derailment or a potential collision.

 

Not enough coffee this morning! I had not noticed the facing lead. Only acceptable at Appleby.

 

That gives an idea. If he swapped colliery for a quarry somewhere on the Warcop stub...….

 

But sticking with the colliery idea, I might sketch out something that works better. The difficulty is that unless it is a very small pit, it needs its own trains. So the exchange sidings need to be accessed fairly easily from both directions. And that adds length...lots of length.

[Reorte]

Might I suggest an anhydrite or gypsum mine rather than a colliery? It would be much more in keeping with the area. Cocklakes (a bit further north) had a short branch off the S&C for a mine (Long Meg was the best-known anhydrite mine on the line but close enough to not have a branch).

Edited May 20, 2020 by Reorte

[Aire Head]

As detailed above if designing an ex Midland line facing points should be avoided at all possible costs.

 

With the space you have you should be easily able to accommodate a realistic representation of the station and goods yard.

 

I have attached some images which I have found helpful through the design process of designing my own ex Midland station. I hope @Compound2632 won't mind me attaching the diagram he has helpfully drawn showing some typical midland station and goods yard track plans.

 

The map shows Kildwick and Crossbills on the Aire Valley Line between Skipton and Keighley. I chose this one because of the Gasworks and associated exchange siding which could be suitably modified for a colliery or quarry.

 

I have attached a copy of one my own plan which hopefully will help should how it is possible to create a convincing goods yard entrance on the curve which can create more space for you.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Done a few doodles. Will tidy up and post later.

 

But to me, the keys to success:

- reduce the platform lengths a bit and put them on a slight curve;

- put the goods shed and local goods sidings behind the station in the "corner" to make best use of space;

- put the exchange sidings (3) alongside the main line;

- add a longer headshunt to the left hand end;

- connection to the quarry / colliery should be from the headshunt.

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 hour ago, Graham70 said:

Hi guys,

So i am looking at building a new OO layout and have found a plan of Langwathby which i think suits what i want with some slight mods.

The main layout will be in a shed  7m long by 4.5 m wide containing a caravan on one side.  plan will be to have the main layout to one side 7m x 1m  with the twin tracks then going around the inside of the of the shed with the caravan off center with lift out bridges at either end to allow the van to go in and out front or back.

Layout will be twin mainline steam era. 

 There is 3 either single or can be double slips to try and be able to bring trains in and out from both directions.

Each end has to complete a 90 deg turn fairly quickly so as to end up onto the lift out bridges but I will have some small extra distance where to transition to the bridges,

I would like to have longer platforms if i can find room to the move things to the left.

Unsure if i have the right amount of line lengths around the working areas to make operations viable or can i shorten up the track areas on the left to give longer platforms?

I haven't worked  out the colliery track plan yet. 

I would like to be able to have coal trains travel up and down the colliery line with the loco up front and then be able for the loco to do a run around  in the main yards so as to be able to leave in either direction.

I am considering building the colliery on a deck underneath or above this current level, which would look better?

The track plan is just to give an idea of what i am looking for.

I have attached both the original and my modified plan for any and all comments.

Any ideas and feedback appreciated.

Thanks Graham.

The other worry with this proposed design is that the baseboard is a bit too wide. Shunting moves in the colliery might be too far away to reach when derailments occur.

 

Given the length available, the Peak District may give some better templates to work from than the S&C. Millers Dale, for instance, minus the viaducts, would fit well in this space with its loading sheds for the local limestone. No need for a branch if the stone / coal is brought to the railway by conveyor belt or even a narrow gauge feeder line. 

[Compound2632]

The engine shed is, as @Joseph_Pestell has said, anomalous. It's most unlikely that there would be a railway company engine shed at this location, through workings to the colliery branch being worked by the engine arriving on the main line (assuming the colliery branch is railway company-worked e.g. Kingsbury branch). If there are locomotive facilities, there needs to be rather more than just the shed - coaling and watering facilities, ash pit, and a turntable (a small one :42 ft most likely - big enough for a 4F - or 50 ft maximum). Of course that makes for an interesting sub-layout on its own. A railway-owned/worked colliery branch may serve several collieries, which adds to the interest.

 

If the colliery branch is worked by the colliery with its own engines, then as Joseph has also said, there need to be at least three exchange sidings (loaded out, empty in, and cripples). I feel sure the colliery loco shed would be at the colliery - handy for the fitters who would double up on maintenance of the colliery machinery.

 

I've assumed that you've just used Langwathby for the example of the layout, rather than particularly wanting to model a Settle & Carlisle location?

[DCB]

No sound reason the station platforms can't be on the lift out or lifting section.  Ours is.

Colliery engine shed more likely to be at pit rather than at a remote wayside station.

Quite a lot of exchange sidings had three loops, inward traffic, outward traffic and run round, otherwise operation becomes difficult.

[Graham70]

Thanks for all your comments it's greatly appreciated. 

This is my first full attempt at a layout so no wonder I have not got the track setup the way it should and that is why i have asked all of your advice so as to nut it out correctly so as to avoid planing issues. 

 

The facing points issue I didn't even think about truthful but thank you for pointing it out.   I was just thinking in the ability to move trains whichever way they needed to go as I had thought to have both empty and full coal trains coming and going on both main lines.

I am really just using Langwathby as a track plan not a location as such if that helps to clear it up a bit. I was more thinking that it could be  a possible mainline  station in the north hence the colliery branch line. 

I am definitely in need of your advice on the correct layout of the yard, sheds station areas etc.

Had thought I could add the engine shed and possibly a coaling station as this is on the mainline and they would serve a purpose but if they would not normally be at this style of station/yards then can easily do away with them. 

The plan is to have the colliery on a separate level most likely above this level  as a second stage of the build.

Definitely planning on having engine shed, turntable etc at the colliery itself but that will come later. 

It was mentioned that I could move the station area onto one of the lift out bridges,  the lift out sections will only be very narrow as they will have to go between the rear of the caravan and roller door then along the wall then back across in front of the van to complete the circuit.

I know the scenes I want to create but not how to get a track plan that suits and works. 

Again much appreciate your input and any plans or ideas that you may come up with to fine tune this layout idea of mine.

 

[mdvle]

One of the concerns (mentioned above) is the ability to reach all of the track.  Related to that, what height is the layout going to be at?   This could influence how much space you have for a colliery to be behind the station area.

[Aire Head]

Have a look at Embsay as a plan.

 

http://www.davidheyscollection.com/page94.htm

 

You could easily modify the design so that the exchange sidings on the down line which were at the bottom of an inclinebin reality are in fact the end of private loco operated line instead.

 

Helpfully it's not on a mainline but a branch so train lengths are easily modelled sizes. Passenger services are between 2/5 Coaches and most goods train seen in the photos don't appear much longer than 20 Wagons. Also get the full range of what would be considered Mainline motive power for the area.

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Aire Head

[Graham70]

6 hours ago, Aire Head said:

Have a look at Embsay as a plan.

 

http://www.davidheyscollection.com/page94.htm

 

You could easily modify the design so that the exchange sidings on the down line which were at the bottom of an inclinebin reality are in fact the end of private loco operated line instead.

 

Helpfully it's not on a mainline but a branch so train lengths are easily modelled sizes. Passenger services are between 2/5 Coaches and most goods train seen in the photos don't appear much longer than 20 Wagons. Also get the full range of what would be considered Mainline motive power for the area.

 

Thanks this looks interesting, would it still work if you were to flip the plan so the line to the quarry {colliery}  was on the top instead? or rotate 180deg so the station end up on the right and the quarry line is top left?

Edited May 21, 2020 by Graham70

[Harlequin]

Rotate: Yes, Flip: not really.

 

If you geometrically flipped the whole plan (once, in any axis) then the trailing connections would all become facing, which would be bad. You could of course flip the positions of the major features but then you would have to draw new pointwork to connect them while maintaining all the usual conventions.

 

Edited May 21, 2020 by Harlequin

[Compound2632]

A good feature of Embsay is that it separates out the goods yard and the colliery branch junction.

 

If you want to see how Langwathby should be if "flipped" (rather than rotated), look at Armathwaite.

[Aire Head]

Out of interest

 

What radius are the curves leading to the lift out sections?

 

Do you have a particular time period you wish to set this layout in?

 

What size of trains would you ideally like to run?

 

Do you have a preference for a particular region or railway companies locomotives?

[Graham70]

1 hour ago, Aire Head said:

Out of interest

 

What radius are the curves leading to the lift out sections?

 

Do you have a particular time period you wish to set this layout in?

 

What size of trains would you ideally like to run?

 

Do you have a preference for a particular region or railway companies locomotives?

I am planning on 900mm radius curves on either side. Perhaps i could have the platforms starting just into the curve to give more space at the other end?

Big 4  would like LMS and LNER.

As for train size, passenger from 2 up to  4 to 5 or longer if suits.

Coal trains well i dont really know what length coal trains would have been running on this line? perhaps smaller trains from the colliery down to the main yard then put together to make a longer train?? 

What sizes would long and short coal trains be??

Am thinking with the colliery line i will have  7m or more to rise {partly hidden, tunnels, back scene} to the upper  or lower deck where i will have the colliery ect.

Edited May 21, 2020 by Graham70

[Harlequin]

Can you tell us more about the plans for the colliery on another level, please?

• Will it be sited above the scene we're talking about? If so, how much separation do you foresee to allow the lower level to be viewed unencumbered? (7 metres at 1 in 50 gives a rise of 140mm - not very much, even if you didn't want to see the lower level!)
• Or do you mean it's just on higher ground behind the current station? That could work well, given the depth of scene but, as others have said, the depth raises access questions. Might need some hatches.
• How will the layout operate before the colliery level has been built? Will the junction and whatever exchange sidings you decide on serve some useful purpose in the meantime? (Might be wise to connect the colliery line to the fiddle yard and have a virtual colliery for a while.)

 

Edited May 21, 2020 by Harlequin

[Aire Head]

44 minutes ago, Graham70 said:

I am planning on 900mm radius curves on either side. Perhaps i could have the platforms starting just into the curve to give more space at the other end?

Big 4  would like LMS and LNER.

As for train size, passenger from 2 up to  4 to 5 or longer if suits.

Coal trains well i dont really know what length coal trains would have been running on this line? perhaps smaller trains from the colliery down to the main yard then put together to make a longer train?? 

What sizes would long and short coal trains be??

Am thinking with the colliery line i will have  7m or more to rise {partly hidden, tunnels, back scene} to the upper deck where i will have the colliery ect.

 

If your running 5 coach + loco trains a coal train of the same size would be approximately 14/15 + loco and brake at most. Presuming that the fiddle yard is designed to take trains of a similar length although you could always have longer sidings for your goods trains rather than your passenger ones.

 

I must confess to have a locational bias as my own modelling preferences are of the ex Midland lines in the West Riding however given your desires I feel that what you want can be obtained easily here.

 

The Wharfedale line as it is now know is composed of the ExMR railway line from Skipton to Ilkley and the joint NER/MR line from Ilkley onwards.

 

As such the line saw trains from both the LNER and LMS during your desired period.

 

Motive power from the LMS would include 8Fs/Black 5s/4Fs/3Fs/Ivatts 4MTs/Ivatt 2MT tanks/Fowler/Fairburn 4MTs and L&Y 2-4-2Ts - all of which are available RTR

 

Motive Power from the LNER includes J39s/WD 2-8-0s/B1s and D49s - again all of which are available RTR.

 

While a colliery would not be correct for the area a Limestone quarry would be. In the pre-nationalisation period these would predominantly have used the 9' WB RCH 5 Planks as produced by a number of manufacturers, these would have been in the private owner livery of the quarry owner most likely (you could have a bit of fun here and invent your own).

 

Passenger Trains should range from 2-5 coaches depending on requirements.

 

Goods Trains include Coal (travelling loaded in both directions aswell as empties), "General Goods" trains, Oil and particularly Ammonia trains (these were frequently hauled by large locomotives while still being of a modest enough length to be depicted in a realistic way and also the local pick-up goods carrying whatever was required to be dropped off at the local stations 

 

All stations on the line included provision for cattle aswell and it is not beyond the realms of possibilitys that special trains would be run for cattle only on Market days in Skipton/Otley/Ilkley and some of the larger towns.

 

Also the line was used as a diversionary route for the parallel Aire Valley Line which gives potential for Anglo-Scottish Express trains and any other associated traffic.

 

As mentioned by @Harlequin you will need to give thought as to how this will be achieved, model trains in particular steam outline do not like gradients, gradients take up a lot of space.

 

When I can access the computer later today I will see if I can draft up a designed based on what we have discussed so far if you want?

[Aire Head]

Ok so I had a play around and I must I am insanely jealous of the space you have!

 

So below is the plan i Can up with an a provisional Idea.

 

The main area i focused on is the station and goods yard area. While doing some further research in the area I saw Bolton Abbey station in which the quarry was a similar location as in my proposal. I would be concerned about access to this area in the case of a derailment.