Alsop-en-le-Dale (third time lucky?): a return to the drawing board

[Tortuga]

Third time lucky? Hopefully!

 

My two previous attempts at a “proper model railway” (Gibbs Sidings and Rylstone), for various reasons, didn’t make it much further than the baseboard stage, but this time I’m hoping to actually end up with an operating railway rather than a stack of wasted wood, scrap track and broken dreams.

 

Like “Gibbs Sidings”, Alsop-en-le-Dale is located on the (mainly) closed ex-LNWR Buxton to Ashbourne line in Derbyshire. However, this time I’m aiming to model an actual station, which, due to its more southerly location on the line, saw much less traffic than “Gibbs Sidings” would’ve done - a factor that contributed to my scrapping of that layout.

That’s not to say Alsop-en-le-Dale was essentially dead operationally - unlike my second attempt, Rylstone - particularly during the early 1950s when there were still three daily passenger services in each direction as well as two freight services per day in each direction and a mineral train that served Alsop Moor Works located a mile to the north and had to reverse direction here.

The locomotive stud is a touch more varied than Rylstone as well. Large Fowler and Stanier Class 4 2-6-4 tank engines handled the local passenger services; trains usually consisting of two coaches; while freight services were in the hands of ex-LNWR G2a ‘Super D’s. Fowler 4Fs were used on the mineral train serving Alsop Moor Works, originally in tandem, later one double heading with a Super D. Some photo captions in my research material suggests additional variety in the freight motive power; a Stanier 8F on a special freight working to Ashbourne and an Ex-Midland 3F on a freight working “from Ashbourne”.

 

So (hopefully) Alsop-en-le-Dale fills the criteria I’m looking for:

- an interesting timetable which is possible for one person to operate in its entirety, alone.

- passenger and freight services.

- a relatively simple track plan (I’ve talked myself into hand building the track despite never having done so before).

- a variety of motive power, but not requiring too large a locomotive stud.

Right, I’ve waffled enough for one post. Hopefully I’ve managed to lay out what I intend to achieve while clarifying why my previous attempts failed.  I actually started construction in January and have got as far as getting some rail down, but I’m going to leave the tail there for now.

 

Update Jan 2024: having got so far, work on the layout stalled, mainly due to increasing dissatisfaction resulting from decisions made earlier in the build. As a result, the revised-re-revised plan (mk2) v3.6 was scrapped and a new plan, taking all the available space into account, was started from scratch.

Edited January 30 by Tortuga
Title Update

[Alister_G]

As you know, I have a soft spot for anything Derbyshire related, so will be following with interest.

 

Al.

[Tortuga]

As I mentioned at the end of my last post, construction of Alsop* started back in January this year. Originally I’d intended to use the same method of construction as both previous layouts (lightweight ply frames with a solid top being cut to the track bed after the track was laid), but in the months prior to actually making a start, I’d chanced upon @LNER4479’s “Hills of the North” thread and decided to shamelessly pinch his method of baseboard construction.

I’m not going to repeat the method here - check out @LNER4479’s thread for details - but essentially I liked the idea of very lightweight boards using a central spine supporting the track bed; particularly as my intention was to store the baseboards in the loft and work on them downstairs, meaning they would have to be carried up and down the stairs and up and down the loft ladder. Both previous layouts were too heavy for being repeatedly thrown around like this despite being of supposedly lightweight construction.

 

Anyhow, photos!

This is the first board comprising the southern end of the station. At this point the line is in a cutting (useful to disguise the exit to the south fiddle yard) the profile of which can be seen to the top left of the photo. The track formation at this point is straight and parallel to the baseboard edge with three lines at the left hand end reducing to one at the right hand end. Of the three lines, the centre one runs the full length of the board, the furthest from the camera swings in to join it while the line nearest the camera terminates about halfway along the board with the cutting also narrowing at this point.

A view along the track bed looking north. You can see the goods siding terminating (left) and the south end of the loop joining the single line (right). Also obvious in this view is the double track formation the line was constructed to and the fact that I’ve placed the line off centre from the centre of the baseboard, since the goods siding (on the second baseboard) curves out to run parallel to the front edge of the layout (the left side of this view).

 

Formers for the scenery between the ends of the board, together with front and back edges (and, to be fair, the other baseboards) still need to be constructed. However, at this point I’d decided to press on with just this board as I was heading into unknown territory, both in terms of baseboard construction and the fact I was going to be hand building the track, and I didn’t want to complete the woodwork stage only to find track building was not for me.

 

Incidentally, both photos show I’d already made an error; one which I didn’t realise until I’d already started timbering up the turnouts.

 

Can anyone spot it?

 

(*I’m already regretting modelling a station with so many hyphens; henceforth I’ll be referring to Alsop-en-le-Dale as Alsop)

Edited May 11, 2021 by Tortuga
Missed a footnote

[Alister_G]

11 hours ago, Tortuga said:

Incidentally, both photos show I’d already made an error; one which I didn’t realise until I’d already started timbering up the turnouts.

 

Can anyone spot it?

 

Does your central spine get in the way of adding point motors to the turnouts?

 

Al.

[Tortuga]

11 hours ago, Alister_G said:

 

Does your central spine get in the way of adding point motors to the turnouts?

 

Al.

Good guess, but no cigar I’m afraid Al.

 

Somehow - this kind of forethought is not my specialty - I managed to anticipate that placing the spine down the centre of the track bed would get in the way of point motors and placed the spine along the centreline of the double track formation, allowing any potential point motors to fit either side of it.

 

 The track bed will eventually gain additional support from the scenery formers, so I’m not too bothered about the “central” spine not actually being central.

[LNER4479]

Evening - LNER4479 here!

 

Thanks for the mention - hope it works out for you. Looks good so far.

 

Re the question about dodging point motors, here's the underside of the Shap summit board:

 

 

Point motors shown circled with two further ones (arrowed) yet to be installed. So, within reason, it is possible to position the spine to avoid them, especially as you have the option to mount the motor to one side as an alternative to centre operation. We even have one mounted on the top of this board (inside the signal box!) with rod and cranks to operate the point (always causes comment at exhibitions).

 

Great line to base your project on. I've walked parts of the Tissington trail. Will keep looking in with interest.

[Tortuga]

Many thanks for your interest @LNER4479!

 

And now for a post that perfectly illustrates how gradual progress on Alsop is. Back in January I’d got the track bed and baseboard ends of the first section made and the cork fixed down; this was the state of play come the 14th February:

Ta da! Two C&L Finescale point templates stuck in position with double sided tape. I have no idea if the southern end of the loop and access to the goods siding at Alsop was by way of a three way point; it looked to be on all the historical maps I found, although I am aware those aren’t the most accurate records of what was actually on the ground. Annoyingly, all the photos of this part of the station that I’ve seen to date have trains obscuring the southernmost end of the loop.

Oh well, I’ve had to compromise elsewhere on the layout in order to save space, so if it’s wrong, the three-way is a space saving compromise! For those that are interested in such things, the turnouts forming the access to the goods siding are B-6s while the end of the loop is a smoother B-8.

 

Anyhow, this is how far I’d got just under a month later;

Most of the three-way timbered up and a few of the timbers of the blind siding laid. Wow. Some people’s progress is akin to a snail, others is glacial; mine is apparently geological.

 

And it was at this stage (having carefully laid those extended timbers at the start of the blind siding), that the error I’d made at the start became blindingly obvious. I only spotted it thanks to a photo in a newly purchased book, but I’m sure everyone will have realised what I’d messed up now I’ve given a better view of the track centres.

[Alister_G]

3 hours ago, Tortuga said:

I have no idea if the southern end of the loop and access to the goods siding at Alsop was by way of a three way point; it looked to be on all the historical maps I found, although I am aware those aren’t the most accurate records of what was actually on the ground. Annoyingly, all the photos of this part of the station that I’ve seen to date have trains obscuring the southernmost end of the loop.

 

It was very common practice on the Midland Railway to use 3-way points at the entrance to the smaller goods yards, and it may well be the case that the LNWR did the same. A sort of standard track layout was a reverse crossing with a single slip and a threeway point to access the sidings.

 

You can see this clearly in this Stan Roberts' photo of Bakewell:

 

Copyright Stan Roberts Collection - used with permission.

 

Although Bakewell was somewhat special in that it had, at one time, three 3-way points all joined to each other, two symetrical back to back and one asymetrical which you can see above, leading off the far right road of the first one.

 

Al.

Edited May 17, 2021 by Alister_G
clarification

[Tortuga]

14 minutes ago, Alister_G said:

It was very common practice on the Midland Railway to use 3-way points at the entrance to the smaller goods yards, and it may well be the case that the LNWR did the same. A sort of standard track layout was a reverse crossing with a single slip and a threeway point to access the sidings.

Good point Al. The possibility that where one company had done so, others might have done the same had also crossed my mind.

I know Hartington, the next station to the north from Alsop, had a three-way point allowing access to the headshunt from the quarry siding, the goods yard and the down side of the loop (via a diamond crossing of the up side of the loop); there’s a clear photo at the bottom of page 82 of Scenes of the Past: 32 Railways of the High Peak Buxton to Ashbourne (by J M Bentley and G K Fox) - I’m not sure on the legality of posting a copy of a photo from a book, otherwise I’d put it up on here to prove that such an odd arrangement existed!

[Alister_G]

Are you aware of the J.W. Sutherland collection? See here:

 

http://www.sutherland.davenportstation.org.uk/aaprint/ash.html

 

Al.

[Tortuga]

By the beginning of May I’d made a touch more progress:

Both turnouts fully timbered and even some plain track sleepers in place! The plain track is C&L 60’ track panels, which gives me the correct sleeper spacing without having to hand build ALL the track, although the molded chair and key detail is not as crisp as that of the individual chairs used in the construction of the points...

I’d even sorted out my error (did anyone spot it?) - the goods loop is now the correct 10’ spacing (188” track centre to track centre) from the down running line - which means in the intervening time between this photo and the last, I’d had to remove all the timbering I’d done previously. Oh well.

 

Up until last week I’d only got a little further than this, managing to fix the straight stock rail in place along the down side of the goods loop into the blind siding. Then two things happened: 

Firstly a closer look at photographs of Alsop revealed the point work (and apparently the goods siding, goods loop and blind siding) to all be laid with 4-bolt chairs. Curses! Guess who’s used 3-bolt ones?

Oh well. To save me having to take it all up again, guess I’ll just invoke Rule 1 and ignore it. Who looks at track that closely anyway? At least the sleeper spacing is correct, right? Right?

Nope. Second thing was a chance reading of a post on the handbuilding track section of the forum; specifically that 00 C&L templates are not to the correct sleeper spacing.

 

Honestly. I could’ve cried.

[Poor Old Bruce]

Nil illegitimi carborundum

[SGP]

Quote

Nil illegitimi carborundum

No silicon carbide allowed.

[Tortuga]

Following on from my discovery that all my tracklaying to date has been little more than a learning exercise, I’ve been having a play with Templot. Specifically the tandem point and crossover into (what I’m referring to as) the goods loop (although it’s a bit short to actually be used as a loop).

 

I’ve managed to get the tandem point itself drawn up - just need to shove the timbers about a bit; especially under the crossings at the left hand end. I’m not an expert on how the LNWR timbered their points and most photos of Alsop and Hartington concentrate on the trains rather than the track, but from photos of the scissors crossover at Parsley Hay, it looks like long timbers were used up to nine timbers back from the crossing nose and that timbers were not interlaced.

 

The left-hand point of the crossover is where I’ve hit problems. Somehow I’ve lost the rails that form the blind siding (bottom of above photo) and, as shown below, I’m missing the timbers under the centre section.

I’ve also got more timber shoving / resizing to do here - anyone know how you can measure the timber spacing on Templot?

[Tortuga]

Well it’s not a train running, but I’m a bit further forward than at the start of the week:

 

There is a shot in the book on the table (Middleton Press; Uttoxeter to Buxton via Ashbourne by Vic Mitchell and Keith Smith) showing the daily meeting of the trip workings in 1955 where a northbound train of similar composition to the one on my dining table is shown passing the small ‘goods loop’. Looks like I can get away with a touch more selective compression in this area - the consensus on the signalling thread I started for Alsop seems to be that the ‘goods loop’ wouldn’t have been used to run around trains, so I’m happy to shorten it a touch more than it is here.

 

Modelling mojo has definitely received a boost with this!

Edited April 3, 2022 by Tortuga
Reinstated photo

[Tortuga]

Following on from the weekend’s “virtual” modelling of the first two boards, I’ve managed to use Templot to double check if what I have in mind for the third board will actually work.

 

So here we have most of the tracks which will be scenic (I haven’t sorted out the yard siding as yet)

 

Not shown is the ‘off-scene’ 2’ radius 90 degree curve leading to the fiddle yard at the left-hand (Ashbourne) end and the fiddle yard at the end of the curve to the right (Buxton end).

 

The dark track is the third board where most of the compression has taken place - that curve transitions from straight to 2’ radius, part of which will be hidden by the A515 road bridge/tunnel.

 

The positions of the platforms are shown - including ramps they are roughly 1 metre long; far shorter than reality, but they should handle a train of two coaches plus Fowler/Stanier 2-6-4 tank loco, which was the normal size of passenger train on the line.

 

Now a question. The short length of single line (a scale 60’) at the Ashbourne end could be lost / reduced in length to either increase the transition of the curve at the right-hand end or increase the length of the platforms.
Which option do people think might be best? a) keep as is; b) increase the transition of the curve; c) increase the platform length?

Edited June 29, 2021 by Tortuga
Forgot the road number

[Tortuga]

Thinking it over (it’s another slow day on site), I can gain an extra 150mm if I leave the short section at the LH end but change my fiddle yard at the Buxton end to points instead of a traverser…

 

I just need to have another play on Templot - hopefully I’ll get time tonight when the little ones are in bed and T’Missus is watching the football.

[Alister_G]

It's a difficult one to advise you on, as operationally it might be better to increase the transition of the curve, but aesthetically it would be better to lengthen the platforms as much as you can. Leaving it as is would probably look better as trains will approach on a straight rather than the curve into the platform area.

 

As you can tell, fence sitting is a speciality of mine

 

Al.

Edited June 29, 2021 by Alister_G

[Tortuga]

Thanks Al. Ideally I think lengthening the platforms would be my preferred option. Do you think losing the 240mm section before the tandem point would make a big difference? Bearing in mind trains immediately enter the scenic section from a 610mm radius curve (which will be disguised by a cutting) at that point?  At the moment it means locos remain “on scene” when running round for shunting, but if losing it helps balance the scene, etc. then…

If it helps, here’s a link to a photo of the station in the JW Sutherland collection: http://www.sutherland.davenportstation.org.uk/aaprint/ash.html#00-16

 

The curve approaching the station from under the A515 can be seen in the top right of the photo. There’s also a small under bridge on the double track section between the ends of the platform and the end of the loop, just visible above the bush as shown here;

http://www.sutherland.davenportstation.org.uk/aaprint/ash.html#00-11

I really need to have a play and print out the different versions full size: typical that I seem to have plenty of spare time on site recently, yet nearly none once I get home!

 

Edited June 29, 2021 by Tortuga
Adding missing words and links not working

[Alister_G]

If at all possible I would keep the straight section for the two reasons you outline: running round will be on-scene, and trains will approach on a straight rather than a curve. But that's only my personal preference.

 

Al.

[Tortuga]

The results of tonight’s playing with Templot:

Longer platforms on the left, greater transition on the right.

 

Personally, while I prefer the nice sweeping transition curve from this direction, the increase in length of the platforms does look better overall. Seen from the operating side, there’s not much in it as I’m on the inside of the curve.

 

Incidentally, on the real thing, both tracks of this end of the loop seem to curve more sharply toward each other, with the curve of the main line being a much gentler radius.

[Alister_G]

It really does help to be able to see it like that, and yes I agree the longer platforms do look better.

 

Al.

[Tortuga]

I’m sure anyone reading this thread must be fed up with these Templot plans and desperate to see some proper progress, but I’ll put these up, mainly for completeness sake:

 

First off is the full plan with longer platforms, which I liked better than…

 

…the second option, the larger transition curve.

 

However, I wasn’t 100% happy with either,?so I had another go this evening and got this:

 

By lengthening the straight section of the track in question I’ve managed to get platforms a scale 300’ long (albeit including ramps) and the reverse curve on a curve at the Buxton end of the loop, plus there’s enough room for the small underbridge without looking too cramped.

 

So overall I’m happy with this and aside from some timber shoving of the turnout and end of the loop, this is the final version. Most importantly it fits the space I have and I haven’t had to lose the short straight at the Ashbourne end, so I can start hacking about the board I’ve already started and hopefully show some real progress.

 

(Once my replacement 4-bolt chairs and turnout timbers arrive that is…)

[Tortuga]

Thanks to the football, I spent most of yesterday on Daddy Duty, so didn’t get much done on Alsop, apart from managing to stick down the Templot plan for the first board to its track base.

 

Fortunately I got more time today and quickly took apart what I’d already done. I quickly turned the old track base into a new spine, trimmed the new track base to size and put the whole thing back together.

Next, I cut to size and stuck down the cork track bed using a combination of Carr’s chamfered cork strips and cork.

 

 

From the prototype photographs the ballast appears to be the same level between the “goods loop” and the down line of the loop, so I used one solid piece of cork sheet to cover this area, but I did use chamfered strips to leave a dip in the ballast between the main line and the blind siding.

 

While the glue was drying, I removed the spine and marked up the positions of the half-width cross beams. There will be three on the higher side of the cutting and four on the viewing side of the line (although I messed up and in a hurry, mistakenly measured up and drilled for five - grrrr). I also cut two cutouts for the base plates for the blades of the tandem point, just in case the point operation mechanism does interfere with the central spine as Al suggested earlier in the thread.

 

 

Thats all for now. I need to fit blocks to the spine so I’m not securing the track base to the spine from above, but from below - just in case I need to remove the spine for any reason in future - and to make the half-width cross beams.

Edited April 3, 2022 by Tortuga
Reinstated photos

[Tortuga]

Way back in June I said “I’m happy with this” in reference to the just finalised template plan. Three months of “taking a step back and mulling it over” later and it turns out I’m not “happy with this”.

 

It turned out that using points in the Ashbourne fiddle yard would unacceptably reduce the lengths of the storage sidings. So I switched back to the idea of four track traversers at either end: could I lose the 200mm needed for this elsewhere on the layout without adversely affecting its overall appearance and operation?

 

 

As it turns out, yes.

I got rid of the short straight section in the ‘goods loop’ and started a much greater transition curve about halfway along the straight section: after printing and laying out the earlier full Templot plan, I began to dislike the “long straight with a corner” appearance. This incarnation seems more balanced to my eye, plus that nice 1200mm radius 90 degree corner gives more room for scenery.

I doubt removing the short straight from the ‘goods loop’ will affect operation: a previous discussion on the signalling thread concluded that the loop was too small to be used for running round and Tissington had a similar arrangement to that shown in any case.

Edited April 3, 2022 by Tortuga
Reinstated photos