Direction Of Spurs

[Axlebox]

7 hours ago, Smardale said:

Fascinating! I've always wondered why Smardale Gill wasn't widened yet the Merrygill and Podgill viaducts were. I hope that legend is true 

Hi Smardale, unlike the viaducts you mention Smardale was built to take double track. When you walk down the Smardale nature trail, notice how all the structures down there are built to take 2 lines. There was a reason a second line of rails was never laid and the NER must have felt there was no profit to be gained from the expense. See link below to the Stainmore Railways facebook page...

https://www.facebook.com/KirkbyStephenEast/photos/pcb.2969840233052776/2969820829721383

 

 

[Smardale]

On 10/09/2021 at 06:53, Axlebox said:

Hi Smardale, unlike the viaducts you mention Smardale was built to take double track.

Well I did not know that. I always just presumed that there was not enough space to do so. Although looking back at some videos (and the splendid picture that you linked from the brilliant SRC page) it's obvious to see that there is. More evidence that I really need to get the Peter Walton book that you recommended! (I'm trying to find it at a reasonable price. I saw it on one website for £95..) 

In a related note, I picked up 'Modelling Branch Lines' by David Wright and 'Model Railway Operation' by C.J. Freezer. My railway 'background' is visiting heritage railways and catching steam specials on the national network, so they've been a big help as I feel like I knew nothing.

[Joseph_Pestell]

On 20/08/2021 at 15:55, Stubby47 said:

 

If you can automate a working 4mm bloke with a pinch bar, you'll make a fortune !!

But only after the fully moving shunting horse.

[Axlebox]

On 09/09/2021 at 19:52, KingEdwardII said:

I am sure that there are good explanations as to why the track layout was as it was - but I wonder if anyone today knows what they are!

Hi Mike

 

How KS East was operated all depends on which period you're interested in as the traffic flows changed over time...for example the passenger service used to run from Darlington to Tebay with the Eden Valley as the branch...this was later flipped with the Tebay service as the branch and Penrith-Darlington being the main service. (BTW the branch train (when not in use) sat in the link that joins the up and down passenger lines just east of the station). 

 

On the mineral side, traffic had split at KS with traffic for West Cumberland going down the Eden valley and traffic for Millom and Barrow going via Tebay...so the goods loops had to have access to both branches. The actual who worked what and when depends on the period you're interested in...as over the years Shildon, Darlington, West Auckland, Tebay (NER) and KS sheds all had a hand in working the mineral traffic. In later years all mineral traffic went out via Tebay, which simplified the workings (a little). There were strict guidelines on the length of mineral trains over Stainmore (all dependent on the motive power available)...so it wasn't unusual for mineral trains to be re-marshaled in the goods loops with trains being joined for the onward journey westwards or split for the journey eastwards.

 

General goods traffic wasn't huge, even though KS is/was a regional centre for the upper Eden valley. (I did once ask why there were so many PO wagons seen at KS and apparently the locals preferred Yorkshire coal to the duff that came over from Durham). The railway centre at KS have a rather interesting ledger from the mid 50s that lists all the wagons received and dispatched from KS. A lot of coal for the MPD came in, along with the usual suspects (cattle cake and building materials) and lime went out (from Merrygill?). 

 

All in all it would make a fascinating model...if you had a room big enough!

[Smardale]

I should probably rename this thread.. 

There's a chance (with much convincing..) that I may be able to set up my layout in the garage. The dimensions are 9 by 17 feet. I've been toying with having a summit on my layout as it'll create lots of operational interest. I could also have a shed for the bankers at a small station.

 

Any thoughts on the below? I've curved the summit as to meet the 9ft requirement, but am wondering if the two curved points will cause problems. I think I'll be making the refuge sidings a little longer as well, so that they can comfortably hold 4ft trains.
 

 

Edited September 15, 2021 by Smardale

[KingEdwardII]

7 hours ago, Smardale said:

wondering if the two curved points will cause problems.

I am not sure why you think that curved points will cause problems. I have several curved points on my layout and they give me no problems at all. You need to pay some attention to the transition to/from curved points, but since you are are already using a computer tool to plan the layout, this should not be an issue.

 

I am curious as to why you are using the 9' side of the garage for your station, rather than the 17' side - or do you already have plans for other things to occupy the 17' sides? I'd be licking my lips at the prospect of a couple of straight runs of 17' !! 

 

Yours,  Mike.

[5BarVT]

Another vote for curved points, and they do look good.

I have seen ‘worried’ comments about curved points, but have never had any issues with mine (PECO code 100 electrofrog).  Photos of the curved points are in the earlier part of my Heath Town thread.

Paul.

[Harlequin]

6 hours ago, 5BarVT said:

Another vote for curved points, and they do look good.

I have seen ‘worried’ comments about curved points, but have never had any issues with mine (PECO code 100 electrofrog).  Photos of the curved points are in the earlier part of my Heath Town thread.

Paul.

Curved turnouts are extremely useful in helping formations to fit in small spaces and I use them a lot in my layout designs but I confess that I am one of the worriers.

 

I have a Code 75 version on my test track that trails into a 26in radius curve. It's absolutely fine in the trailing direction but propelling long stock through it, or driving steam locos with a leading bogie or pony through it, in the facing direction is a source of derailments for me.

 

I haven't worked out exactly what's going on but the derailments happen at the common crossing (the "frog") and I suspect it's something to do with wheelset back-to-backs. So probably not a problem with the turnout itself, just that it exposes problems in the rolling stock.

 

That's just my experience.

 

Edited September 16, 2021 by Harlequin

[5BarVT]

3 hours ago, Harlequin said:

So probably not a problem with the turnout itself, just that it exposes problems in the rolling stock.

Not had that problem myself, but your explanation makes sense.

Paul.

[Smardale]

On 16/09/2021 at 08:29, KingEdwardII said:

I am not sure why you think that curved points will cause problems.

 

I've just read lots of stories about derailing! As Harlequin said in his post though, in his experience it seems to be ok for trailing points. If I'm using them for refuge sidings I'm hoping that the movements won't be fast enough to cause any issues. 

 

 

On 16/09/2021 at 08:29, KingEdwardII said:

I am curious as to why you are using the 9' side of the garage for your station, rather than the 17' side - or do you already have plans for other things to occupy the 17' sides? I'd be licking my lips at the prospect of a couple of straight runs of 17' ! 

 

Sorry Mike do you mean for the summit? I haven't featured any stations as of yet.

The problem with the summit I'm currently having is that I hate when trains go 'off scene' and so having to allow five feet on either side of the refuge sidings is a bit of a pain. I guess I could have the turnouts to the refuge sidings be opposite each other, with the main line cross over to the right or left of them. I just feel this wasn't prototypical as there's a reason for this track configuration? 

Edited September 17, 2021 by Smardale

[Smardale]

Hi everyone! Out of interest, does anyone have a summit track plan on a single track line?

Or alternatively, have a guess on what perhaps Ais Gill/Stainmore would have potentially looked like if the line wasn't double track? I presume that it would look something like below, with a passing loop and maybe a refuge siding? I'm probably way off though. 

 

I don't know of any single track summit layouts. The double track examples I've seen have both up and down refuge siding with a crossover in-between them. ('The Summit' for example).

I'm asking this because the more I play with the idea of having a small station with an engine shed for bankers (like Blair Atholl on the Highland Railway) the more I think it'll be enjoyable to operate.

I could perhaps have a layout with a station, then a viaduct/large bridge with a weight limit, followed by a summit. The weight limit would create scenarios such as pilot locomotives having to become bankers as to distribute the weight, or mineral trains (with a limited length) being combined in the station sidings before continuing on. That sounds really fun to me, especially when I add further operations that Axlebox has talked about over Stainmore. I think I've come to the realization that Smardale Station, unless part of a grander layout, may get a little boring after a while.

[wasdavetheroad]

10 hours ago, Smardale said:

Hi everyone! Out of interest, does anyone have a summit track plan on a single track line?

Or alternatively, have a guess on what perhaps Ais Gill/Stainmore would have potentially looked like if the line wasn't double track? I presume that it would look something like below, with a passing loop and maybe a refuge siding? I'm probably way off though. 

 

I don't know of any single track summit layouts. The double track examples I've seen have both up and down refuge siding with a crossover in-between them. ('The Summit' for example).

I'm asking this because the more I play with the idea of having a small station with an engine shed for bankers (like Blair Atholl on the Highland Railway) the more I think it'll be enjoyable to operate.

I could perhaps have a layout with a station, then a viaduct/large bridge with a weight limit, followed by a summit. The weight limit would create scenarios such as pilot locomotives having to become bankers as to distribute the weight, or mineral trains (with a limited length) being combined in the station sidings before continuing on. That sounds really fun to me, especially when I add further operations that Axlebox has talked about over Stainmore. I think I've come to the realization that Smardale Station, unless part of a grander layout, may get a little boring after a while.

Somewhat similar to Troutbeck on the CKPR. In the middle of nowhere but with a bigger goods yard than you would expect, sited where your refuge siding is. There is a long steep bank to the west and in the olden days the small locos tasked with heavy mineral trains would split the train and run 2 portions to Troutbeck. There was a long siding in the goods yard that could be used as a refuge. There was also a passing loop added and 2 platforms. Dualing to the East came later. This is my inspiration for my new layout, present name the BIG train set. For play value (operational interest) I have added another loop and some simple exchange sidings  for the fictional 'mineral branch'. Historical bridge weight restrictions allow for double heading on long freights and excursion trains. I am also planning on turning the fiddle yard into a terminus/exchange station, again to increase play value. Two layouts in one.

[KingEdwardII]

10 hours ago, Smardale said:

I've come to the realization that Smardale Station, unless part of a grander layout, may get a little boring after a while.

Well, you could always have a go at Kirkby Stephen 

 

You'd be forever changing points and signals! Bit of automation called for, I think...

 

Yours,  Mike.

[Smardale]

13 hours ago, wasdavetheroad said:

Somewhat similar to Troutbeck on the CKPR. 

I've just been looking at Troutbeck on disused stations and it has everything you need for a layout! Even an Industry right by the side of the station. Perfect!

Good luck with it. I think you're really onto something with that idea.

 

12 hours ago, KingEdwardII said:

Well, you could always have a go at Kirkby Stephen 

I'd hate to think about how much I'd have to spend just in points alone 

I have actually tried to do a 'simplified' version of the station on AnyRail, using the road bridge that cuts through it as a scenic break and just modelling one side. It would have to be on a peninsular I think, or at least in a layout where you could access it from both sides.

 

Edited September 22, 2021 by Smardale

[KingEdwardII]

26 minutes ago, Smardale said:

I'd hate to think about how much I'd have to spend just in points alone

Indeed, let alone the kind of space required.

 

It might make a good layout for a club somewhere, as long as they had plenty of space and enthusiasm available!

 

Yours,  Mike.