Hills of the North - The Last Great Project

[LNER4479]

8 minutes ago, scottystitch said:

I haven't seen/thought of that alignment pin arrangement to ensure the proper curvature before.  An excellent idea.

 

 

Thanks Scott.

 

If you feel so moved, the full process is described below:

 

(Approx two-thirds of the way down page 96)

 

 

[scottystitch]

28 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

 

Thanks Scott.

 

If you feel so moved, the full process is described below:

 

(Approx two-thirds of the way down page 96)

 

 

Excellent! I did start to go looking so that saved me some time.

 

Thank you

best

Scott.

[Enterprisingwestern]

3 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

 

Thanks Scott.

 

If you feel so moved, the full process is described below:

 

(Approx two-thirds of the way down page 96)

 

 

 

That's a versine of the times.

 

Mike.

[Compound2632]

16 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

That's a versine of the times.

 

That's a tangential remark.

 

Why? Cos it is. 

 

Sine'd,

 

A. Pedant

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

That's a versine of the times.

 

Mike.

 

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

That's a tangential remark.

 

Why? Cos it is. 

 

Sine'd,

 

A. Pedant

[LNER4479]

Ah, at last - a sensible post. You can rely on Clive.

 

Enough of this frivolity; there's a layout to build.

 

As planned, the rail head has advanced by a further yard. Watchya mean, you can't tell?

Importantly, this means that there's now a meaningful amount of track laid such as I can lay the cork on the far side to set out the goods lines.

 

In the meantime, couldn't resist positioning a train thus: caught on the Upperby curve. This threatens to become a favourite viewpoint of trains getting into their stride, leaving Carlisle southbound - as captured by many photographers back in the day. The hustle and bustle of Upperby yard and depot in the background should be an enticing backdrop.

Edited September 29, 2023 by LNER4479

[LNER4479]

Tracklaying is also continuing at Dentonholme.

 

The tracklaying gang spotted an opportunity with the yard relatively empty.

 

Possession given up (for now). We now have the full eight track width. From left-to-right:

East (southbound) yard (lines 1 & 2); through lines (3 & 4); west (northbound) yard reception line (5); sorting / transfer sidings (lines 6-8).

 

Meanwhile, trains are still running (!) We haven't featured the S&C route for a while ...

 

Here's one of my favourite trains: Newfoundland heads the Waverley ... across Dandry Mire viaduct and into Garsdale.

 

Where it meets that local stopping that departed Central some while back.

 

You know - that one with the horsebox at the front.

 

Stay tuned ...

[LNER4479]

Latest construction update. Rarely can a piece of cork have caused so much excitement.

 

With the WCML running lines laid, we can now lay the cork for the other lines in the Upperby area. This bit was quite fiddly, as perhaps you can see. In addition to the shape, I also had to solder then insulate the wires for the frog switching. The perils of laying track on a bridge.

 

For the rest ... aw, what the heck; might as well cut it from a single piece. This is approx 10ft long(!)

 

A bit floppy as first positioned (steady!)

 

The 'take my weight' nature of the main Upperby board coming into use to check it's all aligned.

 

Beginning to be tamed.

 

Part 2 to follow...

Edited October 4, 2023 by LNER4479

[LNER4479]

With all trimmed to shape, out with the paint.

 

There we go. Looking a little bit like a post-apocalyptic track lifted yard but of course we know better. The location of the roundhouse turntable is readily obvious (only cut to rough shape at this stage).

 

The full extent. It's no less than 16 feet from the junction points (bottom right) to the wall in the district. That's a lorra, lorra cork.

 

Let the tracklaying commence!

Edited October 4, 2023 by LNER4479

[New Haven Neil]

Phwoaaar!  Really getting the feel of the layout now.

[LNER4479]

Thanks for continued interest being shown. My early evening session tonight resulted in this:

 

Don't get too excited - it's not laid (yet!); just left like this overnight for me to 'muse' over. I often find that helps, tempting though it is to rush into the next step.

 

This is the track controlled by Carlisle No.13 signal box, the southernmost box to carry the 'Carlisle' name. It's significant in my scheme as it's the point at which (heading towards Carlisle) representative becomes actual. So I'm keen that it replicates the real thing, so far as is possible.

Compare with the actual signalbox diagram and you'll see that it's a pretty close match https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/lmsr/M895.gif

 

The only piece of pointwork I'm not showing - apart from the trailing crossover, which I don't intend to replicate - is the trap point on the Up Goods (departure) line, just before the double junction. You can see that the equivalent one is there on the Down Goods (arrival). I think the missing point was another simple trap point (I can't find a prototype picture to 'nail' it for certain); however, a proper point leading into a short, blind spur seems quite attractive to me? I would end the goods headshunt road a little shorter if I were to do that. In terms of authenticity, the signalbox itself is going to end up on the wrong side of the line as it is, so perhaps I've already licensed myself a slight deviation from prototype?

 

Thoughts?

 

[St Enodoc]

12 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Thanks for continued interest being shown. My early evening session tonight resulted in this:

 

Don't get too excited - it's not laid (yet!); just left like this overnight for me to 'muse' over. I often find that helps, tempting though it is to rush into the next step.

 

This is the track controlled by Carlisle No.13 signal box, the southernmost box to carry the 'Carlisle' name. It's significant in my scheme as it's the point at which (heading towards Carlisle) representative becomes actual. So I'm keen that it replicates the real thing, so far as is possible.

Compare with the actual signalbox diagram and you'll see that it's a pretty close match https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/lmsr/M895.gif

 

The only piece of pointwork I'm not showing - apart from the trailing crossover, which I don't intend to replicate - is the trap point on the Up Goods (departure) line, just before the double junction. You can see that the equivalent one is there on the Down Goods (arrival). I think the missing point was another simple trap point (I can't find a prototype picture to 'nail' it for certain); however, a proper point leading into a short, blind spur seems quite attractive to me? I would end the goods headshunt road a little shorter if I were to do that. In terms of authenticity, the signalbox itself is going to end up on the wrong side of the line as it is, so perhaps I've already licensed myself a slight deviation from prototype?

 

Thoughts?

 

I think you need that trap point. There doesn't seem to be room for a full point and spur.

 

Where should the trailing crossover be and why are you omitting it?

[Sharky]

7 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

I think you need that trap point. There doesn't seem to be room for a full point and spur.

Agreed. 

The running lines should be protected from potential runaway wagons or driver's over shooting signals. 

It will certainly add to the realism of the location. 

Trains need to be protected from other trains. Signals don't stop trains, the brakes do. And when they don't, then they should be diverted away from potential collisions. 

[LNER4479]

Thanks for comments guys ... but it appears that I'm not explaining myself very well (it was quite late last night!), so let me try again.

 

I know I need a trap point (or trap arrangement) - that's not the question. The question is, do I arrange it like this:

 

 

or like this:

 

 

Visually, I prefer the latter; however, it appears that on the prototype it was a simple (single blade) trap point, which would derail an errant vehicle as opposed to sending it towards a stop block. Additionally, on the prototype, the shunting spur (called the 'Third Line') ended sooner than I've shown but I want to maximise its length (as ever, things are much compressed on a model compared to the real thing ... despite my apparently luxurious 16 feet).

 

I feel this is one of those situations where the practical needs of a model railway clash with absolute prototypicality. The location pictured is relatively inaccessible and not within reach of the operating position. Consequently if I have a simple trap point, and it does its job (operator error), then I have a derailment to attend to in an awkward place. Conversely, if I have a spur leading to a buffer stop then the loco simply hits the buffer stop and the operator (hopefully!) realises their error.

 

We have a similar arrangement on Grantham:

 

Happily, in this case it is per prototype. If the operator forgets to throw lever 22 (the crossover from the down relief - opposite the hut on the right) - it does happen! - then the loco heads into the spur and is stopped. In fact, it never reaches the buffer stop as these rails are never cleaned - it's just a blank, emergency spur, so the rails would never be shiny. In an exhibition environment, that's far more preferable than having a derailment close to the public edge of the layout. Although I'm not in an exhibition environment in the chapel, I feel that this arrangement would better suit the layout than a derailing trap point. I've already got one of those on the down (arrival) side - there's no choice in its case - and I suspect it's going to cause enough trouble as it is.

 

I've also realised that the link to the SRS file doesn't work directly. If you navigate your way around the website, the link I was attempting to post brings you to here:

So, as I was trying to show, what I have laid out is pretty accurate, in terms of being able to replicate the signalled moves. John - hopefully you can now see the trailing crossover, on the mainlines to the south of the junction. It would perform no useful function on my layout. I suspect it was just the standard emergency crossover to facilitate wrong line running in abnormal circumstances. It could, however, also have been used as an alternative way of getting a loco off shed (coming along the 'Third line' from top left). That would account for the additional shunt signal on the up goods bracket signal. That then brings a train out onto the up main, inside the stacked ground signals, and hence a set back along the down main towards Carlisle. This could have been used to get round any congestion at Carlisle No.12, where the main crossovers there would be a busy location, potentially blocked by shunting moves, etc. But, as I say, can't see the need for it in model form. That ship has sailed anyway, as the WCML tracks are already laid for keeps.

 

A final observation for now. Although the above plan is low-res, you can at least see that the trap point under discussion (No.10) does NOT work in correspondance with the main point (No.11); they were obviously seperate levers, with the necessary protection provided by the interlocking (11 reversed first presumably?). The trap point had a EFPL on it - I wonder if that was why? On the arrival (down) side, the trap point does work in correspondance (lever No.12) but there is a seperate FPL (No.13), as one would expect on a mainline. Interesting.

 

[St Enodoc]

4 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Visually, I prefer the latter; however, it appears that on the prototype it was a simple (single blade) trap point, which would derail an errant vehicle as opposed to sending it towards a stop block. Additionally, on the prototype, the shunting spur (called the 'Third Line') ended sooner than I've shown but I want to maximise its length (as ever, things are much compressed on a model compared to the real thing ... despite my apparently luxurious 16 feet).

 

I feel this is one of those situations where the practical needs of a model railway clash with absolute prototypicality. The location pictured is relatively inaccessible and not within reach of the operating position. Consequently if I have a simple trap point, and it does its job (operator error), then I have a derailment to attend to in an awkward place. Conversely, if I have a spur leading to a buffer stop then the loco simply hits the buffer stop and the operator (hopefully!) realises their error.

I agree that operability trumps authenticity in this case and that the full point and spur is preferable, notwithstanding the loss of length for the Third Line spur. A dummy single blade would be feasible but the derailment risk then becomes a collision risk which would be worse.

 

7 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

So, as I was trying to show, what I have laid out is pretty accurate, in terms of being able to replicate the signalled moves. John - hopefully you can now see the trailing crossover, on the mainlines to the south of the junction. It would perform no useful function on my layout. I suspect it was just the standard emergency crossover to facilitate wrong line running in abnormal circumstances. It could, however, also have been used as an alternative way of getting a loco off shed (coming along the 'Third line' from top left). That would account for the additional shunt signal on the up goods bracket signal. That then brings a train out onto the up main, inside the stacked ground signals, and hence a set back along the down main towards Carlisle. This could have been used to get round any congestion at Carlisle No.12, where the main crossovers there would be a busy location, potentially blocked by shunting moves, etc. But, as I say, can't see the need for it in model form. That ship has sailed anyway, as the WCML tracks are already laid for keeps.

I agree with all of that.

 

[60027Merlin]

The second arrangement is the better of the two. Much cleaner/tidier.

 

 

[Sasquatch]

With the second arrangement that spur could come in handy doubling as a pilot stabling point. 

Vis. Down semi fast goods is held on the down main while the rear portion is detached and placed on the rear of another train waiting in one of the sidings. The cross over comes into its own but the pilot needs a resting point! 

If there's no pilot then none of that is relevant! 

 

Bradford exchange had two station pilot spurs (one each for the GNR & L&Y). I'm regretting not having found space for one having started to work the model.

 

Also, when it comes to modeling catch points you can get away with just modeling them cosmetically from a scrap of rail etc. They don't actually need to work on model railways. Unless, you're genuinely concerned for the health and safety of the plastic figures! Also alleviates any unwanted derailments.

 

Regards Shaun

Edited October 5, 2023 by Sasquatch
To add middle paragraph

[Tortuga]

Could you use a similar arrangement to what you’ve shown on Grantham, but using a double slip in the position of the Y-point? Wouldn’t that combine the trap and the longer shunting spur?

[Clive Mortimore]

8 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

Thanks for comments guys ... but it appears that I'm not explaining myself very well (it was quite late last night!), so let me try again.

 

I know I need a trap point (or trap arrangement) - that's not the question. The question is, do I arrange it like this:

 

 

or like this:

 

 

Visually, I prefer the latter; however, it appears that on the prototype it was a simple (single blade) trap point, which would derail an errant vehicle as opposed to sending it towards a stop block. Additionally, on the prototype, the shunting spur (called the 'Third Line') ended sooner than I've shown but I want to maximise its length (as ever, things are much compressed on a model compared to the real thing ... despite my apparently luxurious 16 feet).

 

I feel this is one of those situations where the practical needs of a model railway clash with absolute prototypicality. The location pictured is relatively inaccessible and not within reach of the operating position. Consequently if I have a simple trap point, and it does its job (operator error), then I have a derailment to attend to in an awkward place. Conversely, if I have a spur leading to a buffer stop then the loco simply hits the buffer stop and the operator (hopefully!) realises their error.

 

We have a similar arrangement on Grantham:

 

Happily, in this case it is per prototype. If the operator forgets to throw lever 22 (the crossover from the down relief - opposite the hut on the right) - it does happen! - then the loco heads into the spur and is stopped. In fact, it never reaches the buffer stop as these rails are never cleaned - it's just a blank, emergency spur, so the rails would never be shiny. In an exhibition environment, that's far more preferable than having a derailment close to the public edge of the layout. Although I'm not in an exhibition environment in the chapel, I feel that this arrangement would better suit the layout than a derailing trap point. I've already got one of those on the down (arrival) side - there's no choice in its case - and I suspect it's going to cause enough trouble as it is.

 

I've also realised that the link to the SRS file doesn't work directly. If you navigate your way around the website, the link I was attempting to post brings you to here:

So, as I was trying to show, what I have laid out is pretty accurate, in terms of being able to replicate the signalled moves. John - hopefully you can now see the trailing crossover, on the mainlines to the south of the junction. It would perform no useful function on my layout. I suspect it was just the standard emergency crossover to facilitate wrong line running in abnormal circumstances. It could, however, also have been used as an alternative way of getting a loco off shed (coming along the 'Third line' from top left). That would account for the additional shunt signal on the up goods bracket signal. That then brings a train out onto the up main, inside the stacked ground signals, and hence a set back along the down main towards Carlisle. This could have been used to get round any congestion at Carlisle No.12, where the main crossovers there would be a busy location, potentially blocked by shunting moves, etc. But, as I say, can't see the need for it in model form. That ship has sailed anyway, as the WCML tracks are already laid for keeps.

 

A final observation for now. Although the above plan is low-res, you can at least see that the trap point under discussion (No.10) does NOT work in correspondance with the main point (No.11); they were obviously seperate levers, with the necessary protection provided by the interlocking (11 reversed first presumably?). The trap point had a EFPL on it - I wonder if that was why? On the arrival (down) side, the trap point does work in correspondance (lever No.12) but there is a seperate FPL (No.13), as one would expect on a mainline. Interesting.

 

Hi Graham

 

My solution was to make a trap point from a short Peco point. It works in conjunction with the diesel stabling depot entry point. The steam locomotive yard has a similar arrangement.

A very rare occurrence at Sheffield Exchange station, two freight trains. On the L&Y line is the empty diesel tank wagon train and being held at the signal on the GNR line is the late running perishables van train. At the same time are two arrivals the Leeds to Sheffield via Barnsley  headed by a Jubilee, and Bradford to Sheffield via Wakefield and Doncaster with a Standard Five up front waiting for the perishables to clear the station throat.

[LNER4479]

Thanks for further comments, folks.

 

3 hours ago, Sasquatch said:

With the second arrangement that spur could come in handy doubling as a pilot stabling point. 

Vis. Down semi fast goods is held on the down main while the rear portion is detached and placed on the rear of another train waiting in one of the sidings. The cross over comes into its own but the pilot needs a resting point! 

If there's no pilot then none of that is relevant! 

 

All the shunting goes on at nearby Carlisle No.12 (Upperby Junction), much as you describe. No.13 box is all about getting the goods trains on and off the West Coast mainline - out of harm's way! From here, they access the through goods lines - aka the Carlisle avoiding lines. If the train isn't terminating at Upperby then it carries on through Bog Junc. into Dentonholme yard where it can be shunted in a similar manner. All safely out of the way of those pesky passenger trains.

 

2 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

My solution was to make a trap point from a short Peco point. It works in conjunction with the diesel stabling depot entry point. The steam locomotive yard has a similar arrangement.

Yes, Clive - I've done similar things in the past to create trap (protection) points. But I think I've decided what I'm going to do here on this occasion.

 

Yard pilots stabled at the far end of a shunting spur down at the extremity of a yard? Hmm ... not at any depots I've ever worked at! The 'Jocko' was always parked outside the messroom where the kettle was on. The Yard Supervisor's office was next door, ready to issue instructions for the next bit of shunting as required.

 

[LNER4479]

Meanwhile, trains are still running!

 

The Royal Scot on the Perth express heads through Bog Junction on the way back to Central.

 

Well, fancy that - a Royal Scot moment. Hornby renumbered 46159 awaits departure as the 46107 (to become 46136) approaches.

 

We haven't had a Central arrival shot recently, so here we go.

 

More soon.

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

Are you extending the Carlisle roof along into the corner?

It could go in a straight line to the back wall or curve a bit if that is more prototypical, and have railway walls and/or buildings ( I realise spurious ones) to act as a view blocker on the inside of the curve.

 

Mike.

[LNERGE]

Something for the wall sir?

[LNER4479]

Ooh - lovely 😍 Think I'm right I'm saying that No.5 was the largest box (140 levers) in the Carlisle area.

 

I suspect however that diagram is slightly too modern an era for me. Looks like some simplification / rationalisation compared to 1950s steam era.

 

Thanks for sharing, notwithstanding.

[5BarVT]

On 05/10/2023 at 11:27, LNER4479 said:

 

A final observation for now. Although the above plan is low-res, you can at least see that the trap point under discussion (No.10) does NOT work in correspondance with the main point (No.11); they were obviously seperate levers, with the necessary protection provided by the interlocking (11 reversed first presumably?). The trap point had a EFPL on it - I wonder if that was why? On the arrival (down) side, the trap point does work in correspondance (lever No.12) but there is a seperate FPL (No.13), as one would expect on a mainline. Interesting.

It’s all to do with it being a double junction and how that has ‘always’ been locked.  Run back protection in the days of unfitted freight means that 11 must be reverse before 12 can be pulled to go into D Goods or D Recep.  However, if the preceding Up train was a passenger, you don’t remove the trapping protection if the next move is to DG or DR.  Hence 10 needs to be separate so that the trapping is only removed for a move out to UG or 3rd line.

All very logical if you know what the answer is before you start!!!

Paul.