Jump to content
 

Input / Ideas on Planning a Timetable and Creating a Location?


Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Ray Von said:

Ok, here goes:

 

Location - Fictional, north coast of Kent, somewhere ranging between Dover and Whitstable.

 

Era - Late Seventies, early Eighties.

 

Infrastructure - Passenger / Commuter, large Railfreight depot, scrap yard- partly served by rail (waste oil and general metal removal and delivery) private dispatch business occupying original BR goods shed.

 

Layout:

 

919041318_IMG_20210210_1450337032.jpg.d55e52743c67299d419876432dc5e016.jpg

1521998040_IMG_20210210_1453088792.jpg.0309b70dc0e4962ef31cb9f0c1f7c494.jpg

Top track from traverser - traffic from Fictional Location "A" - serving platform one (Railfreight and "Suder's Worldwide Dispatch" no third rail) and platform two (mainly passenger - this section has third rail.)

 

Bottom track from traverser - traffic from Fictional Location "B" - serving (top to bottom) holding siding, platform three and platform four, commuter and passengers mainly.

Plus access for shunting / holding / siding for Scrap Merchant directly opposite these platforms. All Third Rail.

 

Platforms are four coach lengths (loco plus three standard coaches.)

 

Rolling Stock:

Mk1 corridor brake comp x 3

Mk1 corridor second x 2

Mk1 corridor first x 1

Mk1 second open x 2

Mk1 mini buffet 

Mk1 pullman bar

Mk1 first sleeping car

Mk1 brake gangway coach

57ft newspaper packing van blue

57ft express parcels blue grey x 2

Single vent van brown

Railfreight van x 8

BP oil tanker wagon

 

Loco's:

Class 20

Class 40

Class 47

Class 25

Class 411 four car emu x 2

(I have a class 08, but it's due to be retired.)

 

I think that's all, apologies if I've omitted any vital info!  

Cheers!

 

 

 

 

 

Given the location, and the unusual twin-station layout, the history is obvious. One station was built by the SER and the other by the LCDR, these two companies being engaged in a death-struggle all over Kent for 30 years to 1898. From 1899, the two railways were run by a single management, the SECR and later inherited by the SR.

 

This means that the lines leaving the station go to significantly different places. The ex-LCDR line goes only a short distance, to the ex-LCDR main line --- this puts the layout on the north coast of Kent. The other one goes much deeper into Kent, down to the SER territory around Ashford.

 

If you haven't electrified both stations on the physical model, it's plausible that the ex-SER one was not electrified by the '80s. That lets you run the passenger service with your DMU, although a DEMU, possibly a 3H, would be more typical for this corner of the country.

 

The SER and LCDR would not have been exchanging passenger trains, so the lack of a connection between the two stations is thus made plausible. I think there would have been a connection from your platform-2 road into the centre siding for exchange of freight. You could either add that or consider that BR rationalised it away. Perhaps you add the sleepers from the lifted track?

 

Given that both stations are old --- and we know this because essentially no new railways were built in Kent after 1899 --- you would need to retcon the built layout with the steam-era layout. Primarily, where were the run-round arrangements, given that the SER and LCDR had no push-pull or railmotor stock? For the upper station, I suggest that there used to be a loop outside platform 1 but BR removed it. For the lower station, where you still need run-round for the freight, I think the line second from the bottom needs to be promoted from siding to down running-line and you assume a second cross-over just off-scene. You don't need many sidings for '80s freight operation.

 

The ex-LCDR station is the one with the busy, electric service, as outlined by Nearholmer. I think this is the lower station as built. The ex-SER one is the top station: just a minimal BLT on the end of a relatively long branch.

 

Since the distance from the LCDR station to the main line is small, trains can be quite frequent; they clear the section quickly. On the SER line, which is single, expect longer intervals while the trains trundle down to the next passing loop.

 

In earlier times, there might have been Saturday excursion trains into both stations, bringing in different stock and locos. Late '70s might be pushing it a bit for these.

Edited by Guy Rixon
  • Like 1
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

You are certainly not alone in having models that bare no relation to their intended layouts: I have an SNCF 'CC' nez casse AC-electric HO loco bought as a birthday present from my parents when we were on holiday and highly prized (so beautiful!), and now want a Class 13 shunter for my S.R. goods yard if it is ever made.  I muse occasionally on what it is that makes a train 'attractive' or not: good design (Hymek, Class 53 Falcon, H.S.T.), sentimentality from one's childhood (33, 73), or just downright ugly (modern Class 70, Class 68).  My old Lima '40' will be staying in its box, but I want a 25/3 to call at my yard with an inter-regional Company train.  Perhaps you could use your 25 for a brief, seasonal, intensive, freight flow (but I have no idea what.  Hops to go northwards to Burton-on-Trent?).

 

Keep up the good work on your layout and letting us know how you get on.  It looks splendid, and I am sure I am not alone in finding inspiration for my own project.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Frank Dyer did a series of "Model Railway Operation" articles for Model Railway Journal, part two of which was titled "Layout Traffic Planning", appearing in MRJ No. 31 from 1989.

 

There was also another article in "Modellers Backtrack" Vol 1 No 5 (Dec 1991  - Jan 1992) which was titled "Passenger trains and their operation" which provided a general survey of considerations from both prototypical and modelling standpoints.

 

The September 1973 issue of "Model Railways" has an article by Martin Waters describing classification and operation of goods trains.

 

Finally there was a book published by Silver Link Books under the title "The Living Model Railway: Developing, Operating and Enjoying Your Layout" written by Robert Powell Hendry (ISBN 978-1857940275).

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Guy Rixon said:

Given the location, and the unusual twin-station layout, the history is obvious...

Wow, that's great! Having a "history" and a backstory is quite a satisfying feeling!

 

I love the ideas that you've had and the thought that's gone into them, thank you!

 

Here is a quick sketch I just did of (one possibility) of how the layout could be situated:

 

1706463321_IMG_20210211_0939199112.jpg.fe9c79ebf460d7d6f59a6fc405558117.jpg

 

The "hammer-shaped" block is platform one/two the straight block is three/four.

In this scenario, the line could have continued on after my location - but for whatever reason, line damage etc... it now terminates here.

 

My other idea (and I believe Nearholmer suggested it too) was that the line be inverted - with both platforms aligned to the coast and therefore each receiving traffic from the capital in the west and the coast in the east...

 

I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like Guy's "both railways" idea, and mixing it with a bit of Canterbury & Whitstable, I get this:

 

 

Quite why the rambling ex-SER bit has remained alive, I'm not sure, maybe it has a major freight source on it, like the cement mills and paper-works that kept the Gravesend West Branch open.

 

The passenger traffic on this rambling, non-electrified, route, would probably be one of the 2H (not 3H IIRC) that were used on the Ashford-Hastings at the time, I have a feeling that 1119 to 1122 were based at St Leonards, but whichever ones they were, I'm pretty sure they were 2-car.

 

The electrified ex-LCDR could run pretty much as I postulated before.

03DD27DD-DFFF-4C81-A09B-2E527C45F291.jpeg

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I take my hat off to what has been proposed so far.  Just a quick thought, looking at my rail atlas, how about running a DEMU as an extension to the Ashford-Hastings service?  I assume your station would be served by a branch from Ashford, but this means removing the Third Rail...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, yes, instead of the rambling route just going as far as Canterbury, run the trains to Ashford and Hastings, ....... economical to run, because it would probably only need one more unit in traffic to provide a two-hourly service as an extension of alternate trains from Hastings, and makes it easier for the depot at St Leonards.

 

Or, run to Folkestone via the Elham Valley Line, which was long-closed by 1980, but we could reopen it!

  • Like 1
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

The passenger traffic on this rambling, non-electrified, route...

I should clarify that it's only platform one on this route that lacks third rail (I am undecided whether to add it there...)

Platform two on the ex-SER has third rail - if this changes things?IMG_20210211_120545210.jpg.482c45a0277db2bc9cc5773a41c68631.jpg

Feeling very inspired by all the great input so far, thank you so much! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 minutes ago, Ray Von said:

Feeling very inspired by all the great input so far, thank you so much! 

 

You haven't even scratched the surface.  Ask us what freight could be handled at your warehouse... :imsohappy:

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, C126 said:

I take my hat off to what has been proposed so far.  Just a quick thought, looking at my rail atlas, how about running a DEMU as an extension to the Ashford-Hastings service?  I assume your station would be served by a branch from Ashford, but this means removing the Third Rail...

Which map scenario does this follow C126? Or could it be applied to both?

I have just posted clarification that there is indeed third rail at platform two on the top line, I wouldn't like to sacrifice it really.

Love the ideas, thank you very much!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 minute ago, Ray Von said:

Which map scenario does this follow C126? Or could it be applied to both?

I have just posted clarification that there is indeed third rail at platform two on the top line, I wouldn't like to sacrifice it really.

Love the ideas, thank you very much!!

 

Sorry to confuse; have I read the maps incorrectly?  I wondered if the "rambling route" (pls 1 & 2) could be more 'run down' like the Ashford Hastings line - which would mean using diesels - and so have an extension to the Ashford-Hastings service.  I am not very au fait with Kent, so do put any errors down to my reading Wignall's 'Complete British railways maps...'.  I have your station placed just North-west of Ashford and South-west of Faversham, so perhaps a junction near Charing?  However, if you want to keep the electrified platform, then you can dispense with the diesel provision.  Hope this makes sense.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It may break your heart, but I think that conductor rail on the ex-SER bit has to go, and that side of the station should look very basic and dilapidated, with weeds on much of the platform, just 2-cars worth of weed-free. 1980 was before Mr Green's new broom swept-in, and backwaters of the southern looked rather "faded glory".

 

Having the ex-LCDR looking semi-respectable, all modernised c1960 for KC-electrification, and the ex-SER looking tatty, and forever the subject of closure proposals, would help emphasise the "two stations".

 

You really do need a runaround in the ex-LCDR bit.

 

KentRail.org has a lot of very good photo of this period, worth looking at because it was as distinctive as any other period, with weed-growth a signature feature, where the railway had contracted in the 1960s, but the land-sales and general tidying-up of the 1980/90s hadn't yet happened. I loved it, because there was still so much pre-grouping and SR stuff in situ, and the operating practices were still very 'steam age'.

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, C126 said:

Hope this makes sense

It does, thank you.  I can see my little station becoming quite a busy place from now on! 

The possibilities are very broad, on the one hand - I do like the idea of Nearholmer's, where the location is very much on the coast (this explains the terminating lines aspect well.)

But I also like the possibility of it being more inland too!  Decisions, decisions...

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

6 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

It may break your heart, but I think that conductor rail on the ex-SER bit has to go, and that side of the station should look very basic and dilapidated, with weeds on much of the platform, just 2-cars worth of weed-free. 1980 was before Mr Green's new broom swept-in, and backwaters of the southern looked rather "faded glory".

 

Having the ex-LCDR looking semi-respectable, all modernised c1960 for KC-electrification, and the ex-SER looking tatty, and forever the subject of closure proposals, would help emphasise the "two stations".

 

You really do need a runaround in the ex-LCDR bit.

 

KentRail.org has a lot of very good photo of this period, worth looking at because it was as distinctive as any other period, with weed-growth a signature feature, where the railway had contracted in the 1960s, but the land-sales and general tidying-up of the 1980/90s hadn't yet happened. I loved it, because there was still so much pre-grouping and SR stuff in situ, and the operating practices were still very 'steam age'.

 

 

You are making a lot of sense, and I love the idea of making it as believable as possible.

However....

I don't wanna lose my third rail!! :cry:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Continuing with crazed imagineering ...........

 

Two steps:

 

1) We make the location Reculver, assuming that instead of falling-down and being abandoned in C18/19th, the place remained in being and became a seaside resort, latterly with holiday camp. Ex-LCDR line remains as we've roughly decided.

 

2) Rather than the second line being ex-SER, it is in 'fact' a continuation of the East Kent LR, built to give them yet another failed harbour from which to ship non-existent coal. 

 

The land from Wingham, where the EKLR ran out of money in the middle of nowhere, to Reculver is pretty much flat and marshy, so running along the edge of that will be cheap to build. The distance from Reculver to where the EKLR formation was built to at Wenderton Woods is c9 miles, with change of elevation c70ft - dead easy.

 

Now, the EKLR, or rather part of it, was still operating in 1980, I know because I walked it all at about that date, and encountered an 08 bringing coal wagons to the mine. So, let us imagine that some of the coal traffic comes off the EKLR at its (newly invented) northern end, and that there is also a diesel passenger service from Shepherdswell to Reculver over the line, rather that BR having shut the passenger service c1949.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

I do like Guy's "both railways" idea, and mixing it with a bit of Canterbury & Whitstable, I get this:

 

 

Quite why the rambling ex-SER bit has remained alive, I'm not sure, maybe it has a major freight source on it, like the cement mills and paper-works that kept the Gravesend West Branch open.

 

The passenger traffic on this rambling, non-electrified, route, would probably be one of the 2H (not 3H IIRC) that were used on the Ashford-Hastings at the time, I have a feeling that 1119 to 1122 were based at St Leonards, but whichever ones they were, I'm pretty sure they were 2-car.

 

The electrified ex-LCDR could run pretty much as I postulated before.

03DD27DD-DFFF-4C81-A09B-2E527C45F291.jpeg

If the modelled stations are north of the ex-LCDR main line, then one needs to be careful of where on the coast the layout is placed. Between Whitstable and Margate, the main-line stations are within walking distance of the coast, so there's no justification for the LCDR branch. West of Whitstable there are marshes and the mail line goes landward of them; but there are no towns on that bit of coast. 

 

However, if one postulates resort development near Botany bay, then there might have been a need for branches. The SER branch then goes to the SER lines near Margate, presumably, rather than all the way down to Canterbury or Ashford.

 

You're right about 2H rather than 3H (the Hampshire ones). Bachmann make (or at least used to make) a blue 2H.

 

If there is, say, cement traffic on the SER branch, then it might run round at the terminus, if there were a run-round loop. If the siding link between the two stations were built on the model, then there could even be some weirdness like the cement traffic is now ('80s) worked along the SER branch into the terminus and then out again along the LCDR branch, because the connection to the main line is better that way. In fact, if the traffic source is very close to the modelled area, the cement trains could be propelled along the SER section and run round on the LCDR section.

Edited by Guy Rixon
  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Guy Rixon said:

but there are no towns on that bit of coast. 

 

Reculver was quite a place a long time ago, so it feels fair game for development.

 

It is very close to the main line, I agree, but perhaps the town worthies got annoyed about being missed-off, and promoted their own short branch, a sort of "Abingdon-by-Sea".

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, on the east coast, the Filey branch lasted until 1977, so it wouldn't be too much of a stretch for Kevin's grim holiday camp to still be receiving inmates via loco hauled interregional specials in 1980.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we are, the EKLR's intended extension  was actually along the other side of the marsh, but the fiction is very sound:

 

Wickhambreux via Gore and Sturry to a coal jetty on Plumpudding Island west of Birchington, with spurs enabling SECR to run from Canterbury to Birchington and Herne Bay, 1920. This was in conjunction with the "Birchington Development Co", which proposed to convert that rather louche village resort into a fully fledged town (with no success).[28]

 

 

  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

All very fine, but "with spurs enabling the SECR to run from Canterbury" kills the two-adjacent-railways idea. Too modern and efficient. And I still think that LCDR/SECR/SR would plonk a station on the main line and run a bus to the town for the holiday-makers. Or just let them walk.

 

But I suppose if the LCDR had already built a short branch, then the EKR might run parallel to that for a mile or so, especially if the EKR's jetty was slightly away from the resort.

  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Guy Rixon said:

But I suppose if the LCDR had already built a short branch, then the EKR might run parallel to that for a mile or so, especially if the EKR's jetty was slightly away from the resort.

 

That's the way I was seeing it:

 

- main line gets built, just missing the prosperous and long-historied town of Reculver;

 

- after much grumbling, locals promote and build a branch-line, which inevitably falls into the clutches of the LCDR fairly quickly;

 

- LCDR converts junction to triangle and runs some trains in and out (think of the daft arrangement at Sheerness), a situation which simply carries on to this day;

 

- EKLR staggers into view in 1920 to build its jetty and its scruffy-little station;

 

- EKLR bit eventually closes in the 1980s when the various Kent Collieries close after The Miners' Strike.

 

I'm even wondering whether to give the EKLR bit to the NCB, and have steam running in commercial service ..........

  • Like 2
  • 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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...