Micro layout loosely based on Bradford Interchange

[Flying Pig]

2 hours ago, jonhinds said:

Doesn’t look like there’s a trap point available for code 55 (Peco does a code 80 one). Could I just trim off part of a regular turnout?

 

Frankly, I'd just mock up a non-working one if using Peco track.  The tips of the switches will be pretty much out of sight behind the front bridge pier anyway.  You could perhaps use a couple of bits of Peco code 55 rail with the extra foot sawn off.

 

[jonhinds]

18 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Frankly, I'd just mock up a non-working one if using Peco track.  The tips of the switches will be pretty much out of sight behind the front bridge pier anyway.  You could perhaps use a couple of bits of Peco code 55 rail with the extra foot sawn off.

 

Good point (no pun intended).

[kryten65]

If your going to put the trap point in, please bend the fence next to it for authenticity.... my predecessor shunter at Bradford, had a parcels train end up in the car park via that trap point!

[jonhinds]

2 minutes ago, kryten65 said:

If your going to put the trap point in, please bend the fence next to it for authenticity.... my predecessor shunter at Bradford, had a parcels train end up in the car park via that trap point!

Trap point and bendy fence will indeed be included for authenticity.

[jonhinds]

Incidentally I can’t find any photo evidence of freight passing through the Interchange around this period. 
 

There looks to have been scrap trains from Laisterdyke hauled by EWS 66’s later on. I could presuppose that a 47 might have done this run in 89/90, even if it’s not strictly period accurate.

[jonhinds]

Well, once again I’ve answered my own question. Apparently freight workings were uncommon but did occasionally run round at Bradford at this time. Pic of a 47 hauling ballast wagons from ‘88:

 

[kryten65]

I was there 91-98, the Laisterdyke scrap runs were sporadic at that time, the only other freight we saw were a few diverted steel trains heading for Blackburn. 

 

and i do remember a visit from a 37 and an inspection saloon, and before my time there was a few cross country services starting from there

 

 

[Steven B]

23 hours ago, jonhinds said:

Might be able to cobble together a 155 on a Sprinter chassis (I recall seeing a body kit somewhere).

 

For a 155, the easiest route is to do what BR did but in reverse - i.e. take two Dapol class 153 (one dummy if you can find one). You'll need to fill in the small cab end windows and reinstate the blanked out passenger window(s).

 

Steven B.

[Flying Pig]

2 hours ago, kryten65 said:

and before my time there was a few cross country services starting from there

 

A search for 'bradford' in a flickr group covering 1980s cross country trains.  Most are too early for a 1990s layout but there a few of the Bradford Poole train in the late 1980s: 

 

https://www.flickr.com/search/?group_id=2858277%40N21&view_all=1&text=bradford

 

Laisterdyke scrap train 1985 (note 47/4 so you can thriftily run the same engine on your passenger):

 

 

[jonhinds]

1 hour ago, Steven B said:

 

For a 155, the easiest route is to do what BR did but in reverse - i.e. take two Dapol class 153 (one dummy if you can find one). You'll need to fill in the small cab end windows and reinstate the blanked out passenger window(s).

 

Steven B.

That’s a good idea. I saw a thread on RMWeb where someone had done the same thing in OO.

 

41 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

Laisterdyke scrap train 1985 (note 47/4 so you can thriftily run the same engine on your passenger):

 

 

Are those SSA scrap wagons?

[TomJ]

I made a dummy trap point in N gauge with some code 40 easitrack rail filed down and glued in place

 

I also liked the bemused look of all the passengers on the platform as the loco ran round. I suspect some were worried that was their train (although is it as bad as a pacer?)

[jonhinds]

Nothing could be as bad as a nodding donkey, surely!

 

So I’ve got my potential stock inventory to start amassing, based on roughly ‘88-‘92 period:

 

DMUs: 142, 150, 156 (101+108 if modelling late ‘80s)

 

DPU: 128 (RevolutioN)

 

Locos: class 47, 31

 

Stock: Mk1 BG vans (blue + white, Royal Mail)

 

Not RTR but modifiable from stock: 155 in WYPTE red

 

??: Scrap wagons from Laisterdyke 

 

 

Edited July 17, 2020 by jonhinds

[AndyB]

So I think what I'd perhaps counsel is to draw this out in full scale on some lining paper and use it to plan out all the possible moves of rolling stock. 

 

I did this with Chestnut Lane  (link on page 1) and felt that it would be OK. 

 

However, after a while I came to appreciate that the vast majority of moves were a loco moving about 2' off the traverser and coming to a halt in the bitsa station. OK, I had shunting potential too with a line side factory.

 

But quite soon though I "knocked through" the backscene, tacked on a reversing loop and additional storage at the back.

All to give the trains that bit extra room to run. 

 

So I guess my point is this. After all the effort you'll put into this build, will you be satisfied with the operational potential?

 

Might it be possible to go off piste a little and have a fan-type FY with, say, a parcels depot in front?

 

I appreciate of course that your interest is in recreating a slice of Bradford Exchange and my suggestion would obviously take you away from that concept.

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, AndyB said:

So I guess my point is this. After all the effort you'll put into this build, will you be satisfied with the operational potential?

 

Might it be possible to go off piste a little and have a fan-type FY with, say, a parcels depot in front?

 

I get what you're saying about operation, but the only way to give trains somewhere to run would be to make the layout considerably bigger.  As it is, it relies heavily on the fiction that there is a lot more station beyond the bridge to avoid looking unrealistically cramped - adding a different scene in that space may not help the appearance of the layout as a whole and isn't going to increase operation much.

[jonhinds]

1 hour ago, AndyB said:

So I guess my point is this. After all the effort you'll put into this build, will you be satisfied with the operational potential?

 

Might it be possible to go off piste a little and have a fan-type FY with, say, a parcels depot in front?

 

I appreciate of course that your interest is in recreating a slice of Bradford Exchange and my suggestion would obviously take you away from that concept.

I take your point about the limited set of operations available.

 

As a newcomer to the hobby I’m seeing this as a testbed to learn baseboard and traverser construction, wiring, ballasting, scenics etc., with a bit of simple prototypical operation as a bonus at the end. In some ways the plan is a little more than a working diorama, but that’s fine.

 

I do have a somewhat more ambitious plan to model a section of the Keighley & Worth Valley railway, but at the moment I don’t have the space or financial resources to tackle it. 

[Flying Pig]

33 minutes ago, jonhinds said:

I do have a somewhat more ambitious plan to model a section of the Keighley & Worth Valley railway, but at the moment I don’t have the space or financial resources to tackle it. 

 

There doesn't seem to be much continuity of rolling stock between the ideas.  Are you happy to start again from nothing if you get the chance to build the Worth Valley layout?  

[jonhinds]

10 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

There doesn't seem to be much continuity of rolling stock between the ideas.  Are you happy to start again from nothing if you get the chance to build the Worth Valley layout?  

I did put the cart before the horse and amass a fair number of KWVR locos before realising (on joining RMWeb and taking the time to understand layout design) that a 5ft x 1ft space wasn’t going to give them a lot to do. The KWVR layout plan is door-sized, so it’s certainly feasible down the line. I’m just in a *very* small rental and a move currently isn’t on the cards for a variety of mundane reasons.

 

I really like both heritage railways and the late BR era so I don’t regret splurging, but it was definitely an expensive lesson in doing proper research first.

[AndyB]

For what it's worth you won't have been the first modeller - or the last - to somewhat over provision your layout. At least with a heritage line you'll have the excuse of a Steam Gala. Failing that Rule 1 applies!  

 

A word about traversers if I may?  

Firstly you need to be able to move a number of the traverser's tracks to line up with each of the tracks on the scenic section. Make sure you can do this for the 2 outer tracks of your plan.  If you don't you'll end up unable to swap stock around unless you physically remove the item. 

 

You may be better off with a cassette system?

 

Also have a think about how to line up the tracks. This needs more care in N gauge as the rolling stock is proportionally lighter, so has to be done more accurately than in OO gauge. You can use two small triangles of plasticard to help channel the wheels.  

Edited July 19, 2020 by AndyB
Typo

[jonhinds]

On 19/07/2020 at 12:59, AndyB said:

For what it's worth you won't have been the first modeller - or the last - to somewhat over provision your layout. At least with a heritage line you'll have the excuse of a Steam Gala. Failing that Rule 1 applies!  

 

A word about traversers if I may?  

Firstly you need to be able to move a number of the traverser's tracks to line up with each of the tracks on the scenic section. Make sure you can do this for the 2 outer tracks of your plan.  If you don't you'll end up unable to swap stock around unless you physically remove the item.

Rule 1 definitely applies on the Worth Valley, especially given the wide range of diesel and steam that pass through on real-life Gala Days. Prototype HST, GBRf-liveried 66; you name it, it’s been there!

 

I should be able to comfortably fit a five track traverser to align with all tracks in the scenic section. I’ve eliminated the stabling siding for simplicity’s sake (can’t find photo evidence it was used much by 1990).

 

I’m in two minds whether it’s worthwhile going DCC for this given its modest size and the potential cost. Additionally, I don’t have the first clue about layout / traverser wiring so I’d be grateful if there are any recommended resources.
 

[AndyB]

So to wire the traverser all you'd technically need is a single flying lead that can then be soldered to one track, and then copied across one by one to the rest of the tracks.  This would work for DCC. There may be a photo on my Chestnut Lane thread. 

 

The complication would be if you were working in analogue. If you energise all the tracks the way described all the trains would move at once. So some kind of on/off switch, or dial, that would energise only the track (s) you want would be needed.

[jonhinds]

Many thanks @AndyB. Looks like DCC might be the way to go then.

[AndyB]

35 minutes ago, jonhinds said:

Many thanks @AndyB. Looks like DCC might be the way to go then.

 

Happy to help. I'd stress that to wire it for analogue isn't complicated, nor expensive. Certainly cheaper than DCC.

 

So I'd not use thend wiring as the only justification to go down the DCC route.

 

Have a think maybe about whether the other benefits of DCC, like sound, appeal. Do you envisage any double heading....or in the future might you have a layout which would make full use of DCC?

[jonhinds]

1 hour ago, AndyB said:

Have a think maybe about whether the other benefits of DCC, like sound, appeal. Do you envisage any double heading....or in the future might you have a layout which would make full use of DCC?

I do envisage the future Worth Valley layout as being significantly more complex and potentially using DCC sound.

 

I’d like to be able to run two DMUs in tandem - is that easier in analogue or DCC? I also have the impression (perhaps mistakenly) that some stock is more reliable at slow speed running on DCC. Given the short lengths each train is running, that’s important.

[AndyB]

So one option would be to have the second dmu as a dummy (no motor, so cheaper too). Not sure if those are RTR for your particularge choice.

 

Yes, I believe DCC would allow you to run two together; check whether your choice of controller would support this before buying.  

 

It's been many years since I owned an analogue controller so I couldn't say whether a modern analogue controller would offer low speed running such as you are after. 

 

DCC can by playing around with speed steps and motorcstarting voltages. But you might want to pursue that with the real DCC experts on here!

 

Hope this helps.

[simon b]

2 hours ago, jonhinds said:

I do envisage the future Worth Valley layout as being significantly more complex and potentially using DCC sound.

 

I’d like to be able to run two DMUs in tandem - is that easier in analogue or DCC? I also have the impression (perhaps mistakenly) that some stock is more reliable at slow speed running on DCC. Given the short lengths each train is running, that’s important.

 

I've got no experience of DCC, but I regularly run pairs of lima loco's together on DC. I use old H&M controllers and slow speed running isnt an issue.