My "Location Undecided" layout

[Mike Bellamy]

The viaducts at the North end of the station, where the line crosses Wharf Road and Harlaxton Road and then heads through the town on an embankment. Watching an express race through the town centre is one of my main impessions of Grantham;s railways.

The views in that area are due to change as reported only a few days ago in the Grantham Journal. Properties on the corner of Wharf Road have been served with Compulsory Purchase Orders

It is hoped the site will be transformed into retail units, a hotel, a business innovation centre and new homes on a four hectare site, with a pedestrian boulevard connecting the train station to the town centre.

 

Like most plans for Grantham, I'll believe it when I see it !!

 

Mike (Grantham 1960 - 1976)

[ianwales]

Hi all

 

A bit more progress to report, I have laid the approach crossovers at what will become the London end of the storage yard

 

 

 

the storage yard is at the top of the picture while the 4 lines at the bottom. reading from right to left are, the line leading to the low level loco depot, next is the down main for trains leaving the storage yard coming from London, then the up main for trains heading to London and finally on the left the road whch will become the exchanges sidings on the low level and a continuous run for testing purposes.

 

Ian

[ianwales]

Hi All

 

 

Almost 12 months since I started this thread and I have finally got the storage yard tracklaying completed, I get frustrated sometimes at the slow rate of progress, but, I suppose it is a consequence of having a young family and having to work for a living all meaning I don’t get as much time to spend on the layout as I would sometimes like! Still I am making progress.

 

 

The 2 kickback sidings on the top right of the photo were not originally planned, I had intended just connecting the 15 loops up, but, when I realised that all the DMU services would come into the station from the north it made sense to put in 2 spurs to hold them at this end of the yard rather than as originally envisaged at the other end which has had 2 bonuses, the DMU’s can run straight into their sidings without reversing and I’ve gained 2 extra storage sidings, one of which is earmarked for my Blue Pullman set.

 

 

A view looking the opposite way and shows some of the stock which I have been acquiring ready for the train services on the layout. Finally a photo showing the first 2 locos ready for the new layout, both of which are Bachmann sound fitted examples. The Brush type 4 No D1733 is out of place for a 1960 ECML layout and a throwback to a planned WR early diesel layout, but, having paid for a custom repaint on a Class 47 coupled with there being a photo of this loco with the XP64 train on the cover of the first Ian Allan ABC I owned means I don’t really want to part with it so on the ECML it will remain. The 2^nd loco is a Bachmann D5061 which could possibly have been seen at Grantham as its first allocation according to the BR database site was 31B March, the model is a body swop onto a Bachmann class 24 sound fitted chassis.

 

 

 

 

Ian

[chris p bacon]

Don't worry about slow progress, you're not alone.

 

I just keep beavering away, sometimes it looks like not a lot has happened then bingo there is enough for a piccie, if you take regular pics when you refer back to them you can see how much progress you have actually made. I find that helps spur me on.

[ianwales]

Hi All

 

Since I don't have room for the actual shed on my "Grantham" there will be a shed on the low level.

 

 

I have been siting the shed buildings and turntable, Scenecraft and Fleischmann, because the hatched area in front of the coal stage shows where the main lines will be on a rising gradient to the station therefore the shed area will be the next to be laid to avoid having to reach over the main lines to lay track at a later stage.

 

Ian

[ianwales]

Hi all

 

A couple of queries before I start laying the track in the depot area

 

1. Would it be correct to have the ashpits under the coal stage or beyaond the coal stage before reaching the turntable, the reason for the question being I read somewhere that the ash was disposed of by using the empty wagons that had brought the loco caol to the depot?

 

2. Am I correct in my assumption that the track across the coal stage lifting plate would be devoid of sleepers possibly using chairs or similar fixed directly to the lifting plate?

 

Thanks in anticipation

Ian

[LNER4479]

Hi Ian,

 

Glad you're able to fit in a loco depot somewhere - layout wouldn't be the same without it!

 

I'll 'jump in' first, as I suspect you might get one or two views on loco depots as they're so popular. I think I'm fairly safe in saying that, as a general rule (and of course there will always be exceptions!), the coaling and ash disposal areas were kept separate on steam loco depots. One very practical reason for this was that the men would require access to the ashpan at the side of the loco and being under a coaler would hamper this. The other more likely reason is that, wherever possible, depots were laid out so that there was a cyclical 'flow' round the depot, with designated spots for the different activities. This was to keep the locos moving and avoid congestion.

 

I'm pretty certain that the designated ash disposal place at Grantham was indeed immediately beyond the coaling tower and in fact the track split into two so that two locos could be dealt with at the same time (there are several pictures taken from the top of the tower showing this configuration). If you're then going to take the road on to the turntable then I would suggest, if you have room (which you look to have), that a second road leads off the turntable to run back alongside the ash and coal road. That then establishes the prototypical 'flow' round your depot.

 

I'm not aware that there was any form of mechanical disposal of the ash from the pits at Grantham so yes it would be blokes labouriously shovelling it into wagons. And yes, typically these would be the same wagons that had brought the coal for the coaler, so at least good use was being made of them (rather than returning empty). And of course the ash would then go on to be used to ballast sidings and other less important parts of the network.

 

I believe that the rails on the coal hoist plate were attached direct to the decking (ie no sleepers). I think I'm right in saying that locos were banned over such devices so you might want to think about from which direction the shed pilot approaches the coal stage with the coal wagons(!)

 

The coaling tower was installed at Grantham right in the middle of my period (1930's) so it's one of those decisions on my version as to whether I include it or not. Given that I need to build the old brickbuilt coaling stage in any case (as this structure lasted until the end) I think I'm going to omit the coaling tower... (but I might yet get persuaded otherwise).

 

 

Look forward to seeing how your loco depot progresses.

 

'Robert'

[ROY@34F]

Ian,

I worked at Grantham from'57 to '63,as you may know from previous posts,as cleaner,passed cleaner,fireman. On arrival on shed fires were often cleaned before the coaling stage,if waiting in a queue,which was frequent.If the engine was fitted with rocking grates and hopper ashpans(eg.A1's etc) the ash may be dropped as well,though I'm not sure if there was a pit there.We often filled up with water along the side of the old coal stage where there were 2 water cranes.Certainly no pit alongside coaling plant.

As Robert says,2 ashpit roads after the coal plant were where disposal really took place.These would each accomodate 3 or 4 tender engines. Going underneath in the pit to rake out and swill out the ashpan with hoses on the pit walls, sometimes clamboring over heaps of hot ashes,I may add!!

Robert is also correct in saying the ash was all shovelled out of the pits,and then again into a wagon,though I question the use of coal wagons.I did'nt think that happened,but may be wrong.

Also correct about coal wagons feeding the hopper skip to load the plant. ".Engines Not Allowed",the notice said..Loaded wagons were pushed up the bank,using a barrier wagon or two or more,entering from the north end. The plant operator would then,of course,pin all the wagon brakes down. Then as required,let them roll downhill onto the decking with shunting pole as a lever on the brake handle. The Grantham plant I'm sure had a hopper which loaded a skip,which was then hoisted up and tipped into the main hopper at the top .I don't think any two coaling plants were alike .I have tried,to no avail,to find pictures or drawings of the Grantham plant,but I believe the bottom hopper that the wagons tipped into was below ground level, the wagon simply rotated some 45 degrees or so held with some rubber faced steel arms. from there the skip was loaded somehow, maybe by some hydraulically operating hopper door, but I'm not certain of the detail in that area.

Hope this helps a little.

Regards , Roy .

[ianwales]

Hi All

 

 

Feeling a bit fed up, This project may have come to a premature end. I've been reading of Gordon's(Eastwood) struggle with gradients on his layout and so I've been doing some measuring and experimenting with gradients on mine, using a 12mm thick baseboard even with the very minimum clearance above the hidden sidings the surface of the baseboard for the top level is nearly 4 inches above the lower level, now as you know I have 22ft length in my railway room, take away 3ft either end for the curves it leaves me with a 16ft length for the gradient, 4ins in 16ft is 1 in 48 and the Bachmann and Hornby pacific's just won't pull 8 coaches up that sort of gradient very easily, diesels are no problem, but, the steamers struggle even if they get there at all so I'm not sure which way to progress next, sorry for the moan but I seem to be a bit stuck at the moment.

 

Ian

[davidw]

Try googling 'Bullfrog snot'. horrible name but there are remarkable claims. Increasing haulage capability. Just a thought

[BrushVeteran]

Hi All

 

 

Feeling a bit fed up, This project may have come to a premature end. I've been reading of Gordon's(Eastwood) struggle with gradients on his layout and so I've been doing some measuring and experimenting with gradients on mine, using a 12mm thick baseboard even with the very minimum clearance above the hidden sidings the surface of the baseboard for the top level is nearly 4 inches above the lower level, now as you know I have 22ft length in my railway room, take away 3ft either end for the curves it leaves me with a 16ft length for the gradient, 4ins in 16ft is 1 in 48 and the Bachmann and Hornby pacific's just won't pull 8 coaches up that sort of gradient very easily, diesels are no problem, but, the steamers struggle even if they get there at all so I'm not sure which way to progress next, sorry for the moan but I seem to be a bit stuck at the moment.

 

Ian

Hi Ian

 

Firstly, don't stress about it or make any hasty decisions. I've also been there with this one and have two tee shirts for my efforts.......I got rid of all my ER Steam locos and have regretted it ever since.

 

Looking at your track plan, is there any possibility that you could start your gradients each side of your storage area at each end before the curve starts so that in effect you end up with a constant gradient over say 24ft. That would make the gradient approx 1 in 72 and would make quite a difference even with the gradient on a curve which would be sufficiently easier at the start and finish of the raised section. I would think it worth experimenting with anyway and you may be pleasantly surprised. It would be a great shame if you stopped now as you were really getting into the spirit of things and all you need to do is just think this one through. I really like Grantham and wish I had modelled it.....maybe next time!... and I am really looking forward to your continued developments, just as I have enjoyed...and still do Gordon's Eastwood Town and Gilbert's Peterborough North.

 

The gradients on my layout are 1 in 40 which the diesels quite happily manage 40 wagon freights and nine coach passenger trains with but the steam locos just couldn't face the struggle. I made quite a hasty, ...and costly decision I feel but unlike you had had already completed the infastructure and the top level was firmly installed and track laid.

 

Give it a bit of time and thought and I'm sure you will get over the problem. I wish you good luck and look forward to hearing how you conquered the small set back.

 

Grahame

[LNER4479]

Sound advice from Grahame methinks Ian, particularly the bit about not doing anything rash!

 

Have you definitely made your mind up about the two levels and the gradients? Earlier in your post you seemed to be considering your options in this regard. It might be a shorter run but at least you'll get a complete circuit running quicker which can be a morale booster. Perhaps you could put the loco depot on top of the fiddle yard and have the gradient up to that? Or perhaps the Nottingham lines with their shorter trains?

 

Look forward to hearing better news soon.

[jukebox]

Hi All

 

 

Feeling a bit fed up,

*snip*

the surface of the baseboard for the top level is nearly 4 inches above the lower level, now as you know I have 22ft length in my railway room, take away 3ft either end for the curves it leaves me with a 16ft length for the gradient, 4ins in 16ft is 1 in 48

*snip*

Ian

 

Hi Ian

 

As the others have said, I hope you persevere and find a soloution amongst the suggestions being proffered.

 

Although you do seem to be along way along with tracklaying, and the idea is somewhat extreme, you could combine the idea Kris posted a while back (post #6) of splitting the gradient, and BrushVeteren's suggestion above to increase the lengths of the approaches.

 

A third suggestion, that could even be applied in combination with both of the above, is that you modify your plan so that the storage yard is directional - a too-steep-to-climb-with-8-coach-train slope down on the arrival road (1:30?) to get you down to the storage yard level quickly, and use the distance saved to ease the slope of the outbound climb up from the storage tracks. That arrangement might even introduce some operational interest in needing to provide a loco at the correct end of a train once you've brought it "on scene" from the wrong direction, as it were... although you then start to veer away from protoypical accuracy (even if you did mention "frequent engine changing: in your list of "wants"!!!)

 

I'm going to experiment with something along those lines, as the space I have to run into and out of my yard is assymetrical; I have 3m less length of ramp on one side than the other because the door to my railway room is not mid-way along the long wall of that room.

 

Keep at it - I'm sure you'll crack a compromise you can accept.

 

Scott

[ROY@34F]

Hi All

 

 

Feeling a bit fed up, This project may have come to a premature end. I've been reading of Gordon's(Eastwood) struggle with gradients on his layout and so I've been doing some measuring and experimenting with gradients on mine, using a 12mm thick baseboard even with the very minimum clearance above the hidden sidings the surface of the baseboard for the top level is nearly 4 inches above the lower level, now as you know I have 22ft length in my railway room, take away 3ft either end for the curves it leaves me with a 16ft length for the gradient, 4ins in 16ft is 1 in 48 and the Bachmann and Hornby pacific's just won't pull 8 coaches up that sort of gradient very easily, diesels are no problem, but, the steamers struggle even if they get there at all so I'm not sure which way to progress next, sorry for the moan but I seem to be a bit stuck at the moment.

 

Ian

 

 

 

Ian , I had the same problem , and my inclines are about 1 in 40 . I overcame it completely by putting lead in the boilers . The Hornby and bachman pacifics will now pull 11 coaches at least !! I take out all the gubbins related to DCC , so if you are planning DCC it may not be so good , but you could still give it thought . I melt lead in an old baking tin and then pour it into a piece of copper pipe (15 mm dia. I think) and about 40 mm long , which sits vertically on a piece of wood in a vice . Using a blowlamp it is quite easy . I have also stuck sheet lead in the sides of the firebox , there is a lot of space there . Sheet lead from "Eileens" is ideal I find .Others on these pages have also done this successfully . All it needs is a bit of time . Best wishes.

Roy.

[gordon s]

Hi Ian, it would seem our layout ideas are very similar and I really feel for you and the issues you are facing right now. If I have understood correctly, the two areas of concern are the gradient itself and then the clearance/access issues of hidden areas. Just to be clear in my own mind, is the station board going to sit directly over the storage loops? If that is the case, then the gradients are something that need careful planning, but the bigger issue is the access one around hidden storage.

 

On the gradient front, one of the first mistakes I made on gradients was allowing 70mm clearance and the completely overlooking the 12mm ply board thickness of the upper level, so 70mm immediately became 82mm, an easy mistake to make. From your notes I see you have picked this up and talk about 100mm (4") to the top board surface. Can you increase the start/finish points of the gradient by moving some pointwork in the station area? One of the things Martin Wynne also picked up for me was also the length of 'vertical curves' or the transition from flat to gradient. The minimum he was suggesting was a change in height difference of 1.5mm in 300mm, so you also need to allow 1' each end of the gradient for that transition. Something worth considering if problems in the future are to be avoided.

 

The other questions I have are related to the top level boards.

 

What depth of framing will you use for the main station board, because if this is going to sit on top of the storage area, then you will have to cut away a lot of the bracing to clear trains underneath. You've already flagged up access for maintenance, but there is also the issue of knowing what is where in hidden areas and dealing with derailments. How are you planning to build the station boards? Assembled and wired as a separate unit and then lifted into place? Have you allowed clearance for the underboard wiring and point motors?

 

Apologies for the number of questions....

 

Having suffered the similar challenges in the past, I'd be happy to share some ideas with you and try to help you see a way forward. I would agree with others though, step back and take a break before do anything hasty.

[gc8andy]

Your using DCC you can have a couple of locos on shed ready to give a push up the incline.

[ianwales]

Hi

 

Thanks for the advice so far, I this could be the first of many times that I will be turning to the RMweb members for advice as the project progresses, I think I may have a couple of solutions, a couple of ways of easing the gradient, but, which may prove complex or another idea is to choose a different location to model possibly Leeds Central, the only problem with the 2nd idea is having to pick up then relay the storage yard. but, not sure which one to go for yet,

 

In the meantime I have been working on a couple more locos, this time a pair of Steamers -

 

 

 

67727 a Hornby L1 with the detailing bits added and just awaiting coaling and weathering, I was going to renumber it as a Grantham allocated example until I realised i had bought one of the models with a curve front footplate, not a split footplate so only suitable for renumbering as one of the first 30 hence this became a Colwick loco

 

61251 Hurrah, a genuine Grantham loco this one a renumbered Bachmann new type B1, although Oliver Bury was going to figure wherever I modelled as my eldest Son is Oliver so this is his loco, for the same reason my other son will have a Britannia 70034, one of the A4's will be 60027(the dog was named after the loco) while 2 of the Pullman cars on the layout will carry ficticious names Liz & Dulcie after my wife and daughter!!

 

Ian

[davidw]

Hi

 

Thanks for the advice so far, I this could be the first of many times that I will be turning to the RMweb members for advice as the project progresses, I think I may have a couple of solutions, a couple of ways of easing the gradient, but, which may prove complex or another idea is to choose a different location to model possibly Leeds Central, the only problem with the 2nd idea is having to pick up then relay the storage yard. but, not sure which one to go for yet,

 

In the meantime I have been working on a couple more locos, this time a pair of Steamers -

 

 

 

67727 a Hornby L1 with the detailing bits added and just awaiting coaling and weathering, I was going to renumber it as a Grantham allocated example until I realised i had bought one of the models with a curve front footplate, not a split footplate so only suitable for renumbering as one of the first 30 hence this became a Colwick loco

 

61251 Hurrah, a genuine Grantham loco this one a renumbered Bachmann new type B1, although Oliver Bury was going to figure wherever I modelled as my eldest Son is Oliver so this is his loco, for the same reason my other son will have a Britannia 70034, one of the A4's will be 60027(the dog was named after the loco) while 2 of the Pullman cars on the layout will carry ficticious names Liz & Dulcie after my wife and daughter!!

 

Ian

Can you clarify what you mean by this comment?"67727 a Hornby L1 with the detailing bits added and just awaiting coaling and weathering, I was going to renumber it as a Grantham allocated example until I realised i had bought one of the models with a curve front footplate, not a split footplate so only suitable for renumbering as one of the first 30 hence this became a Colwick loco"I renumbered my late crest L1 as 67784 have I got it wrong?

[ianwales]

Can you clarify what you mean by this comment?"67727 a Hornby L1 with the detailing bits added and just awaiting coaling and weathering, I was going to renumber it as a Grantham allocated example until I realised i had bought one of the models with a curve front footplate, not a split footplate so only suitable for renumbering as one of the first 30 hence this became a Colwick loco"I renumbered my late crest L1 as 67784 have I got it wrong?

 

Hi David

 

The detailing bits I have added came with the loco, brake gear, cylimder pipes, the one I bought was 67722 with a late crest R2914. The first 30 L1's were built at Darlington and a curved front footplate like mine and can only be renumbered 67701 to 67730, the rest were built by outside contractors and had a split front footplate like the Hornby R3007 weathered model -

 

http://www.ehattons.com/35831/Hornby_Model_Railways_R3007_Class_L1_Thompson_2_6_4T_67759_in_BR_weathered_black_with_late_crest_/StockDetail.aspx

 

HTH

Ian

[davidw]

Thanks Ian. Looks like I need to re-renumber mine.

[ianwales]

Hi All

 

Justa very quick post to explain the lack of progress on this thread, simple answer is I just don't seem to find the time at the moment(or the cash flow if I'm honest) with looking after my family and working full time to make any significant progress with this layout, also, another significant factor is the failure to get a gentle enough gradient to allow the sort of length of trains that Grantham would warrant and I would want so after a lot of heart searching I have decided to draw a line under this layout for the present and try to do something simpler, on one level, and one I can make progress on in the odd few moments I seeem to have spare these days in between taxing the children to Band, scouts etc.

 

Ian

[Mallard60022]

So it's Grantham Shed then Ian?

P @ 36E

[LNER4479]

Aw that's a shame Ian

 

I can totally empathise with the kids taxi service syndrome! All I can say is that it does eventually pass. My son is at university now; oh, how I miss standing on those muddy touchlines in the wind and rain - NOT!!!

 

I'd certainly be tempted to satisfy myself with a basic circuit for the time being, just to enjoy seeing some trains run. Can be a great boost. Afterall, you've done the boring part by building yourself an excellent looking fiddle yard?

 

Hope to hear further in due course

[tetleys]

Ian,

 

I've just discovered your post and having read earlier comments about gradients and 8-9 coach trains plus 2'8 radius curves I was cringing but noted these comments were posted in 2011 so I was sorry to read that you discovered for yourself what I found with Tetleys Mills a few years before 2011. 1:50 gradients and steam locos do not mix and I never managed more than seven coaches, worse in winter when condensation on the rails was a problem.

 

However, don't give up hope, just lower your expectations, there are plenty of protoypes out there that can fully occupy a solo modeller /operator, my Tetleys Mills was nothing like as complicated as your Grantham but even ignoring my own gradient problems I could never operate at full potential, my own new layout will have much simpler trackwork, be more 'user friendly' and therefore, I believe less frustrating.

 

Take time out, research some alternative locations and keep to one level, good luck.

 

Dave S.

[jukebox]

Ian;

 

Whatever choices you make, do not make them in a hurry. A large layout is a long term commitment, and it would be a shame to find in 2,3, or 5 years time that you find yourself in a place where you do have time, and resources to move forward.

 

Please keep us posted here as to how you proceed - I am sure the followers and casual visitors alike would want to know how you get on.

 

Regards

 

Scott