Derwent Mk 2

[Rowsley17D]

 

 

The above is an AnyRail plan of a station and goods yard for a model that might get built if a new house purchase goes ahead. Ignore length, width, deg of turnouts etc and some missing traps, is this plan workable/realistic? It won't be straight either but I'm not sure which way to gently bend it. The goods yard is based on Bakewell/Hassop with the addition of a junction to a single line branch that may be doubled, I'm not sure yet.

Edited July 22, 2017 by Rowsley17D

[clecklewyke]

Jonathan, it's good to see you back in harness. I hope the house move goes smoothly and I look forward to reports of wood-cutting, track laying etc.

 

And that's a pretty recognisable example of a Midland Railway junction, shades of Garsdale, with no facing points on the main line.

 

Best of luck!

 

Ian

[Rowsley17D]

Hi Ian, it's still ifs, buts and maybes at this stage, so we're keeping quiet about it at the moment. Glad the new arrangement gets your approval though and once see the potential of a new space you cannot but help making some plans, just in case.

Edited July 22, 2017 by Rowsley17D

[DCB]

Looks good, does the new house have a disused covered Olympic size swimming pool you can put the layout in as it does look rather large.

 

Only negative comment I can come up with is the route from branch to goods yard looks very awkward as you have to go past and reverse in.  I wonder if they would have connected to back platform road directly to the goods yard?

[Rowsley17D]

If all goes well and it's a BIG IF at the moment, I will have 30' of length to use, which by what most folks have at their disposal is massive. I did think of using the branch platform to enter directly into the goods yard but this would have meant facing points and would the sidings be directly off a running line? And yes, on the real thing, goods reversed in as it was shunted by down (going left) pickup goods from Rowsley.

[Three Cocks Junction]

Looks good, does the new house have a disused covered Olympic size swimming pool you can put the layout in as it does look rather large.

 

Only negative comment I can come up with is the route from branch to goods yard looks very awkward as you have to go past and reverse in.  I wonder if they would have connected to back platform road directly to the goods yard?

 

I could probably "Armchair model" this a dozen times over, so may I offer a few suggestions, based on "prototype affinity" rather than modelling necessity.

 

I think I understand that the intended "Down" is "going left". So let's work on that assumption. Whilst referring to the real-life track plans/signalling diagrams of Garsdale/Bakewell.

 

So how to make and configure a direct route from branch to goods yard, which would most probably have been referred to as "Down Sidings".

 

First. Straighten the curved dead-end siding leading from the crossover (from down sidings to up main at the station end of the goods yard), to run parallel to the down main line and join end-on to the branch platform line. This will need trap points to protect the branch platform road from the sidings exit. This can be done by moving the points of the run-round loop at this end to "outside of" the crossover from branch to down main These points then serve the dual purpose of trap/lead to the run-round. The other end of the run-round does need trap points to protect the branch. But this could be extended to make a siding or spur parallel to the branch (more stock storage/operational/shunting options).

 

Then to the junction itself. I don't much like it as I see it. First and most obvious improvement - put a single slip in the diamond crossing trailing to the down main and facing to the branch, to provide a direct connection from branch to down main. Or crib Tebay! Make the junction a double junction where the branch lines merge to single shortly after the junction, with a trap spur protecting the down main, having facing points in the down branch. Then the branch platform line can join the branch single line further along, as it already does! 

 

Another "Settle & Carlisle style" option that screams "put me in" is, add an up "Lie-by or Refuge" siding opposite the down sidings, with trailing points in the up main located between the platform and the crossover to the goods yard. There would of course have to be trap points or a trap spur at the exit from the Lie-by.

 

Then what about signal box placement? One or two boxes? One box might just do it, placed at the yard end of the station, perhaps between the branch and down main lines, or by the up line. The crossover from down sidings to down main would then have to be worked by ground frame. It would no doubt be necessary to "scale the distances" to ascertain whether or not the "maximum points pull" would be exceeded. Two boxes might be placed, one at the junction, and the other on the up side central between the two "yard connection" crossovers.

 

The crossover from down main to down sidings might be improved by making the connection in the down siding a double slip, which would enable the two sidings behind the goods shed to have a better alignment for clearance round the corner of that structure.

 

Such a scheme bristles with so many options and possibilities! But that will have to be enough.

[Michael Edge]

The diamond crossing into the goods yard should be a trailing single slip connection and the MR would very likely have provided another trailing crossover somewhere else. The branch junction does look a bit strange, double junction to single track would be better or no connection to the running line as at Hawes junction (Garsdale). A lay by siding at the other side would be very likely as well.

[Rowsley17D]

What appears to be a simple diamond is a single slip. However, on visiting the house a second time, the width in the loft is restrictive at "normal" baseboard height being a mere 6' between the purlins so baseboard width will be narrow, so I am going to see what would fit on a 28" wide baseboard.

[DCB]

What appears to be a simple diamond is a single slip. However, on visiting the house a second time, the width in the loft is restrictive at "normal" baseboard height being a mere 6' between the purlins so baseboard width will be narrow, so I am going to see what would fit on a 28" wide baseboard.

Not sure what normal baseboard height is, my spare room layout was at 62" and my garden line is ground level, well 12" below ground level in the tunnel.  

 

Watch your operating well size if you are short of width, we get larger and less supple, almost said stiffer, with age.   I ended up with less than 1ft width for a station on one side of the loft  but getting on for 18" width for the hidden sidings below it.   A spiral at each end with return tracks under the scenic section on the same side might work.

[ianwales]

Hi Jonathan

 

Like the plan although with regard to the junction I'm not sure there would even have been a connection to the up or down main from the branch in LMS days and if the Midland had anything to do with it no facing points at all depending on the importance of the branch, to cite the S&C as an example there was only 1 facing point on the northbound line, at Appleby, and no facing points at all southbound in the whole 72 mile length. If it was me I would base the junction on Garsdale where the train coming from Settle heading for Hawes used toi have to arrive in the northbound platform then reverse across to the bay before continuing to its destination.

 

Ian

[Rowsley17D]

I might scrap the idea of having a junction "on view" and have one off scene further along the line. I could then use a track plan like the original Millers Dale where branch trains arrive in the up platform to detrain and the reverse over to the down side and the down bay. Part of the goods yard is behind (or in front depending on where you're viewing) the station so saving length. Only one single slip to construct. The double slip in the yard on the original is replaced with two turnouts toe to toe.

 

This is it with the bay closest the viewer.

 

 

And the other way up.

 

Edited July 24, 2017 by Rowsley17D

[clecklewyke]

Hi, Jonathan,

 

Just a couple of heretical thoughts (which a vicar should have no difficulty in countering). These derive from ideas expressed by Cyril Freezer  50 or more years ago. Amazing how they have stuck!

 

What strikes me about these plans is the enormous length of rural stations - land was cheap in the Victorian countryside. And most trains will simply pass through or pause briefly, the once- or twice-daily stopping goods, the occasional branch train and possibly a through goods reversing into a lye-bye (sp?) to let a faster train pass being the only variations on this theme. Now this is fine if you have a lot of trains and your main interest is watching the trains go by but not much of a challenge if you want to operate a timetable with a group of operators.

 

With about the same number of points and only half the length I have built a four-platform city terminus with a small set of sorting sidings - a subsidiary to the main yards outside the town. For me this is a preferable use of my limited space. I think you will see that this sort of scheme dictates that there will be much more varied operation. Every train has to stop and be reversed, either by running round or attachment of a light engine. Trains are broken up and re-combined. There is constant shunting of wagons in the yard and justification for both long distance and local goods services and a wide variety of passenger and parcels trains.

 

The goods arrival line will sneak off-stage to the fiddle yard so there will be a continuous run for when I just want to see trains pass by.

 

All this can keep two signalmen and three drivers (and probably me as the Fat Controller) happily engaged for hours on end when the area group comes round, and is also worthwhile for just myself or myself and a fellow enthusiast neighbour who comes round most Thursdays.

 

I hope this alternative view gives something to think about, especially about how you want to operate your railway.

 

Whatever you do I hope you have fun!

 

Cheers,

 

Ian

 

p.s.  I failed to notice that facing point on your first plan. That would be real heresy for the Midland!

 

[Rowsley17D]

Hi Ian, perhaps I should have outline my rationale before embarking on a plan. I do like watching trains go by, so I want expresses passing through as well as long goods. I doubt there will be more than just me with the occasional visitor who would, no doubt, look rather than operate if experiences with my other layouts are anything to go by. I did think of a terminus and Buxton Midland came to mind and there's a plan in an old MRJ but I would want the Wessie as well! Another was Grassington but with double track. We've only just started on the long road that is house buying, so there will be plenty of time for blind alleys and things that may just come to pass.

[clecklewyke]

I do like watching trains go by, so I want expresses passing through as well as long goods.

 

I can see the attraction!

 

Best wishes,

 

Ian

[DCB]

I feel the first plan is better, you can operate two trains in the same direction, one on the branch and one on the main on the original plan which always looks interesting.    

I don't see any purpose to the "Bay" run round loop without the branch.   The MR stations I know have two trailing crossovers to allow running round and just a simple bay road and sometimes a parallel end load/loading dock.   With the branch the loco can run round and simply go back again so the loop makes sense.

All the plans require a train to reverse around a curve to enter the goods yard, or for the loco to run round before shunting which will be awkward.

[Rowsley17D]

Hi David, the plans in #11 are a copy of Millers Dale original station before quadrupling took place, so yes goods had to reverse. The first plan is Bakewell with the addition of a branch, but I can see it without a run-round loop.

[Rowsley17D]

 

 

Here's another variation with the junction off-scene. No run-round loop. The branch train approaches from left and terminates in the up platform No 1. Using the crossovers it runs round and draws it's train over the to the down line, then pushes its train in to the down bay, ready to depart. This saves a track width allowing more room near the goods shed. This is basically how Millers Dale was operated with push-pull working on Buxton trains.

Edited July 29, 2017 by Rowsley17D

[£1.38]

Going slightly further afield, I always thought that Duffield would be a nice junction to model. That has the branch coming in behind the main station building. Just that little bit different. It may be too wide for your site though.

[Rowsley17D]

Just a thought, are three crossovers a bit much. Should the middle one be left out? Fewer turnouts to build as well.

[Rowsley17D]

 

That's all for this thread. New house purchase in the offing so look out for my new build, hopefully not too long into 2018.

[clecklewyke]

(Sorry - posted in error. See Jonathon's Buxton site.)

 

Jonathon,

 

you might be interested in looking at the Scalefour site - 

 

 https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5582&sid=7a60450ee72c60e9a5af981f4928b8aa

 

where there is a wealth of information about Buxton (Midland) station.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers

 

Ian

Edited January 21, 2018 by clecklewyke

[Rowsley17D]

This topic is now dead as the house purchase which this layout was for did not materialise. Looks like it will be based on Buxton after all.