Dale Posted January 10, 2016 Author Share Posted January 10, 2016 I like the premise, but the end result looks a bit contrived, Why would there have been an engine shed there when it was a through line? If they put in stabling facilities after truncation, I doubt if they would include a shed. I also doubt if the engine release crossover would have been added, when you can just shunt back and use the existing crossovers. If you make these changes. I think you end up with an interesting station with a main platform used for arrivals and most departures, and a second platform which can be used for departures when the timetable is busier. Thanks again for your thoughts Clach, I agree the engine shed is contrived as it was a through station originally. The line was rationalised in the early 40's but there was no engine shed. This may be as aspect which I can afford to loose for credibility's sake. The engine release crossover was added though as you will see from the photo's (credited to Alan Brown). Whilst not accurate, i have tried to place suitable RTP buildings to give the flavour of this shot. Interestingly enough, when the line was rationalised, only a single line was used for traffic, effectively becoming a single line branch, with the other line used for storage or left to grass over. That may be a nice feature to include on the model, one line obviously falling into disrepair. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightbe Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 It would be a great feature if the 'front' running line was grassed over on the viaduct. Perhaps even the rightmost 7-odd feet even. It is interesting that you removed the siding you'd placed the engine shed on--because it actually was there, and is visible in photographs, also grassed-over. (What is the footbridge for? It seems misplaced) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted January 10, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 10, 2016 That picture is excellent, why not have the up line disused as in reality it was out of use from about 1950 until closure in 1965. You will have to bend reality a bit with another signalbox at the other end of the layout to the real one as in the real world the box closed and signalling was abolished when closed as through route in 1958 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted January 10, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 10, 2016 I don't envy you being out at sea at the moment, when are you home. What are you using for buildings? Some of the many versions of Goathland may be OK but I did see one where the signalbox was far too small Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 10, 2016 Author Share Posted January 10, 2016 It would be a great feature if the 'front' running line was grassed over on the viaduct. Perhaps even the rightmost 7-odd feet even. It is interesting that you removed the siding you'd placed the engine shed on--because it actually was there, and is visible in photographs, also grassed-over. (What is the footbridge for? It seems misplaced) I like the idea of the disused line, nice opportunity for the static grass machine to come out to play. The footbridge is for the old drover's path where it crosses the lines. The foot path runs around the back of Valley Farm and along the bottom of the embankment, then up over the tracks. At least that's my story behind it. today it remains and public right of way and foot path so the bridge has to be kept in reasonable condition. Or, my friend has a beautiful NER nickle silver bridge which is too nice to see getting sold on for pennies and deserves to be on a layout.. mine as it turns out. A foot bridge on the platforms would look a little daft as a terminus although as a through station it is more plausible. Of course Stokesley didn't have a bridge but how tied down by the prototype do i let myself become. Stokesley Bridge is a flavour or homage to the real place, not a copy. Does the bridge belong as part of the old drovers path, on the platforms harkening back to the stations glory days as a busy through station, or flogged on ebay. Clearly not the latter but of the former, i quite like the drovers path. I imagine there would be few Saturday's back in the day when a young lad or two were not stood up there wiping soot from their eyes. i may putt that siding back in, as i ssupect it would have been a refuge siding to set goods trains back into but who knows? It would certainly be lost amongst the weeds and encroaching hedgerow. I don't envy you being out at sea at the moment, when are you home. What are you using for buildings? Some of the many versions of Goathland may be OK but I did see one where the signalbox was far too small Due off on Friday but we will see how the weather pan's out. The flight backlog will be building each day the storms last for so friday becomes Saturday, becomes Sunday and so on. I think we are carrying one flight from the end of last week over but there is no way the weather will come down enough for choppers tomorrow so that will be 4 flights backlogged going into Tuesday. Buildings wise I have the TMC Bachmann Prosser station buildings, the Hornby waiting room and goods shed and also their water tower. The signal box is the Townstreet plaster cast NER one. The rest of the buidlings will be scratch built i suspect (Stables, Station MAsters house, railway cottages...) The farm is all from Townstreet too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted January 10, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 10, 2016 I like the name. Having the disused up line gives you a chance to put old wagons on the layout as it was used for wagon storage Although Stokesley didn't have a footbridge the truncated plan gives you more of an excuse to put one on the platform as the only access would be the footpath on the level crossing Must be a pain not knowing when you are getting home especially when there's no pub! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 11, 2016 Author Share Posted January 11, 2016 I have continued to work on this plan and tried to free myself of the prototype shackle a bit. instead I have laid things out as I think they should be for a station that has been truncated. We have Up and Down refuge sidings and I have included the engine release crossover as it was in reality. Thats the hard part as its the wrong way around for the top line to be used as the running line. Do I swap it to make more sense or stick to reality. I can see why it would ave been laid once the line was truncated but why oh why did they lay it as a trailing crossover - incase the line reopened again? As a former through station, there is also every justification for the footbridge to return to the platform. I am also going to play around with the layout as it was originally planned, a normal BLT llosly based in the Esk Valley area. I think since I found out that Stokesley (and Ingleby) had stations I have gone a bit 'off mision' and lost the freedom i had to begin with. On the bright side, the storms have abated and their are choppers in the air. No more queasy stomach and a chance of getting home on Friday! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clachnaharry Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 That kind of works for me. Your bottom refuge siding now becomes a coach stabling siding. Add a pit and perhaps a coal stage to the top (ex) refuge siding and you have it all. The coal stage can be served by a loco coal wagon sitting on the coal drop siding. I would place the signal box closer to the goods yard exit, to increase the distance from the disused signal box at the other end. Perhaps consider replacing 2 of the yard points with a three way, to give you longer siding lengths and a bit of visual variety. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 It's got a bit removed from the question you originally asked. Not necessarily a bad thing, but does this latest idea do what you wanted to start with? And if not, do you still want to do that? For what it's worth, a semi derelict model is quite an appealing idea to me, but I would pick a different name to have a bit more freedom, since you didn't set out to replicate anything from actual reality (then design the full scheme, and rationalise it like BR would have). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted January 11, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 11, 2016 Hi Dale, that works brilliantly. Looking at a map there is a water course that the line crosses to the east but its only Broughton beck. However the Helmsley road also crosses the line so you could use that as a scenic break. How long does it take to get back home? Take it you won't be back early enough to get to a model shop !! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejstubbs Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 I'd agree with clachnaharry, I think your latest version looks like it should work well. I wouldn't worry about the trailing crossover, you seem to have plenty of length in your run-round as it is. Regarding the footbridge, I think you mentioned before about having it there because otherwise the only way to cross between the platforms when it was a through station would have been across the level crossing. This wasn't uncommon on the NER: both Grosmont and Levisham are like this. On the other hand, if you have a nice model, of the right railway company, then off course 'rule 1' can easily and justifiably be applied. Have a safe trip home! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 11, 2016 Author Share Posted January 11, 2016 mUST DASH, ON ot TONIGHT, BACK AROUND 9PM... cLACH, HOW ABOUT THIS. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clachnaharry Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 Yes - that would get my attention at an exhibition. Just a little bit different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach bogie Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 You are of course aware that Stokesley signal box still stands, now in a garden and painted a truly awful shade of yellow? Stokesley Station also features in the BTF film Farmer Moving South https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bWp1-_voBM Mike Wiltshire Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted January 11, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 11, 2016 Stokesley box is a little bit like the wills one. That at the crossing end and the town street one at the other would look great Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightbe Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 I like this version much better than the last--this seems more true to the truncated aspect, and flows well. I wonder though, why not use Peco code 75 so you can use their tandem turnout? It also looks somewhat finer. I would question the ash pit and coaling area--the line probably would've been truncated in the mid-1950s cuts (say, 1954 or so?), but I doubt in that economy BR would feel the need to provide any sort of 'loco recuperation area' and would've simply left the refuge siding as-is. After all, trains before the truncation would've been through trains and therefore took on coal and water at the original termini. Similarly, I doubt the branch loco(s) would be serviced at the extremity of the (probably shortish) branch line--there would likely be a substantial MPD at the mainline connection where these locos would be based. In the age of austerity, the name of the game is consolidation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 11, 2016 Author Share Posted January 11, 2016 Thanks for all the responses folks and sorry for the erratic typing earlier on. I was on OT and had a few minutes to grab some food and post the new plan before going back out to work. Quintin i believe the truncation happened in the early 40's but will have to look into it. The pit is certainly questionable but that road may still have been used for raking out clinker, throwing fires out or topping up the bunker. Its one of those areas where i am employing modellers licence. Whilst it may not have been what we started out with, i think Clach's right - it's evolved into something thats different from every other BLT. Its a fantasy but one based on historical facts. A Bernard Cornwell of model railways. Sure, its not an exact model of Stokesley but i think in Stokesley Bridge you can see both the flavour of that station and a flavour of the wider area? I think it's safe to say "There's 15 shillings on the drum, for those who'll volunteer to come". Station Master Hakeswill's ongoing battle with the crew of the Stokesley Donkey Driver: Sharpe and Fireman Harper? Sorry, drifting off on a tangent there... Operationally we know that the local services would be the trains into Middlesbrough and the service down the valley to Whitby. I will have a look at the farmers vid as soon as I am home and have more than a gnats fart of bandwidth. D. Have we got to a point when the plan below is the one to move forward with? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwealleans Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 It's almost the same as Uppingham, if you allow for variations in the lengths of sidings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted January 11, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 11, 2016 I hope the weather stays good as it looks like your going to have a busy weekend! The line was truncated in 1958 I believe, the passenger service ended in 54 but the up line had been used for wagon storage since about 1950. An Stokesley as a one engine in steam goods branch from Battersby closed in 65. I'm not sure when the crossing was taken out of use but I would think that the rails in the road and the gates would have been there until the end. Rail built buffer stops were probably erected in the platforms. The gates at ingleby lasted until the late 70s Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clachnaharry Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 One aspect which needs a bit of thinking about is the loco release crossover. The premise on your layout is that this was installed when the line was truncated. As both platforms remain in use for passenger traffic, this requires facing point locks and signalling which would require the installation of a ground frame - so where would that be situated? Or would these be connected to the disused gate box which would then remain in use as a groundframe? If we surmise that there was originally a crossover beyond the crossing, and this was just moved to the right to allow the crossing to be closed, then this may be plausible as the correct levers and interlocking would already be in place. Can you think of any prototype where such an arrangement occurred? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 I have to say I think what you've arrived at would be a very interesting and different layout. Personally I'd run it as in its last couple of years - weeds everywhere, no passenger trains, bare signal posts, one engine in steam shuffling wagons around some dereliction (it would also be raining...). You just never see that kind of thing. Though if you'd rather have some semblance of happier times then it would still be interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 12, 2016 Author Share Posted January 12, 2016 Hi folks. I suspect the crossover would have been as you said, run from the crossing signal box. We know it was installed as the early photo's are continuous lines and the post truncations photo's (as above) clearly show it, and as a trailing crossover for normal double track working. I suspect i will put point rodding in from the crossing box to that cross over and include FPL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted January 12, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 12, 2016 Actually looking at the plan Dale, that cross over might be better the other way round as the real one didn't deal with passenger traffic. The down line would be your main platform Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clachnaharry Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 As a double track line, all arrivals have to run into the bottom platform, so in effect - it is the main platform. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted January 12, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 12, 2016 But the buildings are the other side, so I'm sure staff would request the trains into the downside in case there were parcels to unload Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.