Gibbs Sidings (ex-LNWR) 1954ish OO Gauge

[Tortuga]

Having browsed this forum for a while, I’ve finally decided to take the plunge and post up my own layout in the hope of advice and guidance!

Gibbs Sidings has been a LONG time in the planning and has reached the ‘not quite fully planned, but baseboard construction has started stage’. Learning from numerous abortive or over complicated attempts, my aims for the layout are;

Inclusion of a main line preferably double track - including running of long(ish) goods trains

Goods dominated - including a quarry and ‘hands off’ loading

Inclusion of an Inglenook shunting puzzle

Realistic operation

1950s/60s timescale

Ex-LMS/LNWR

Accurate signalling

OO Finescale - after much internal debate, I’ve settled on Peco Code 75; the thought of handbuilding track was given serious consideration, but I know if I’d gone down that route, I would’ve ended up with P4 Scale and been carefully measuring exact scale distances between sleepers and planning would never have been finished...

Going for Code 75 allowed me to draw up a plan to scale and my other aims were more or less met by choosing Briggs Sidings on the former LNWR Buxton to Ashbourne line.

 

Hmm. No idea how to post photos

[chuffinghell]

Having browsed this forum for a while, I’ve finally decided to take the plunge and post up my own layout in the hope of advice and guidance!

Gibbs Sidings has been a LONG time in the planning and has reached the ‘not quite fully planned, but baseboard construction has started stage’. Learning from numerous abortive or over complicated attempts, my aims for the layout are;

Inclusion of a main line preferably double track - including running of long(ish) goods trains

Goods dominated - including a quarry and ‘hands off’ loading

Inclusion of an Inglenook shunting puzzle

Realistic operation

1950s/60s timescale

Ex-LMS/LNWR

Accurate signalling

OO Finescale - after much internal debate, I’ve settled on Peco Code 75; the thought of handbuilding track was given serious consideration, but I know if I’d gone down that route, I would’ve ended up with P4 Scale and been carefully measuring exact scale distances between sleepers and planning would never have been finished...

Going for Code 75 allowed me to draw up a plan to scale and my other aims were more or less met by choosing Briggs Sidings on the former LNWR Buxton to Ashbourne line.

 

Hmm. No idea how to post photos

Click on the 'Browse...' button

 

Select the image you want to attach

 

Then click on 'Attach This File'

[Tortuga]

Thanks!

So (with luck) here is the track plan;

There was no way I could fit Briggs Sidings and Hindlow Lime Works (never mind Dowlow Lime Works) into the space I had, so I had to compromise. Main Lines, crossover, single slip and loop are all correctly arranged, but I cut out the access to Dowlow Works and considerably chopped back the number of sidings. Not surpringly radii have been altered to fit Peco Code 75 geometry (although I intend to narrow the gap between lines to a more prototypical 6’). I’ve also added the Loco/scrap siding so I can model an overgrown bufferstop; with the other end of the loop being hidden on the traverser, I’d’ve otherwise missed out on the opportunity!

Traverser and sector plate are both 4’ long and the section between is 6’. The quarry buildings will be located in front of the sector plate, but I haven’t fully finalised the arrangement of sidings in this area yet.

 

Thoughts, advice, requests for clarification, etc. greatly appreciated!

[Gordon A]

What loco moves the wagons from the Arr / Dep sidings to the Loading line?

 

Not sure what you are thinking but if the third - lower line is going to be used solely for access to Gibbs Sidings then why the trap / catch point?

If the third line can be potentially used as a passing siding or loop then an additional trap / catch point may be needed for the other sidings?

 

I like what you have drawn out. Looking forward to seeing it progress.

 

Gordon A

[Tortuga]

What loco moves the wagons from the Arr / Dep sidings to the Loading line?

 

Not sure what you are thinking but if the third - lower line is going to be used solely for access to Gibbs Sidings then why the trap / catch point?

If the third line can be potentially used as a passing siding or loop then an additional trap / catch point may be needed for the other sidings?

 

I like what you have drawn out. Looking forward to seeing it progress.

 

Gordon A

Thanks Gordon, I forgot to add a trap/catch point on the line leading to the are/dep sidings; there should be one. From photos and signal box diagram of Briggs Sidings, both sidings leading to Hindlow Lime Works had trap/catch points operated by the signal box on the same leaver as the turnouts off the loop. I think there was a gradient up from Buxton as the signal box diagram shows a tiny curved line off the up main labelled as “S A C.Pt” - self actuating catch point (?)

 

In reality, mainline locos appear to only have access to the yard and an ICI shunting loco was used to shuffle the wagons around (Thanks to PGH’s topic on limestone shunting locos of Tunstead, Industrial Layouts Thread for this information!).

 

For my part I’ve assumed that there would be a pair of weighbridges (tare and loaded) either side of the loader and that shunting locos wouldn’t be allowed on them and that gravity would move the wagons from the avoiding line, over the tare weighbridge, under the loader and over the loaded weighbridge to be collected by the shunting loco. The loop would therefore have to be protected from runaways.

[Gordon A]

Thanks for the reply.

 

Some weigh bridges were equipped with avoiding rails which allowed the loco to continue pushing or pull the wagons in the normal manner.

I don't know what distance the off set was.

 

Gordon A

[Tortuga]

One weighbridge equipped with avoiding rails would mean I could use both lines for loading and cut down on points... I’d also lose the headache of sorting out reliable gravity shunting...

Quick query; would vans be weighed on a weighbridge (assuming they’re carrying bagged lime)?

[Tortuga]

So work has started on the baseboards. There’s not scope for much below track scenery - the prototype is on a slight embankment on the signal box side - so I’ve gone for flat 9mm ply as the baseboard surfaces. I think I’ll be able to incorporate the slight embankment with this set up, although it will be on the non-viewing side, so I’m a bit unsure if it’s worth it; thoughts appreciated!

Anyhow, pictures! This is the frame for the main (6’) board. As the plan shows, the front edge is shorter to incorporate the curve into the traverser fiddle yard.

While I’ve bought 9mm sheets of ply for the tops, the frames are made up of 3.5mm external grade ply and 9mm birch ply, all leftover from the interior work I carried out on my VW T2 Camper. Two pieces of 3.5mm sandwich short blocks of 9mm, leading to a strong and light frame.

Below is the frame for the sector plate fiddle yard and the quarry. The base of the sector plate will be inset into the frame, so I’ll need to unscrew this and do a little more cutting before fitting the top.

So there we are, up to date. As ever, thoughts/advice/requests for clarification greatly appreciated!

[islander]

You mention automatic loading, then this http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/121045-white-peak-limestone-tarmacadam/ model briefly shows how it can be achieved and will provide great inspiration for modeling limestone quarrying in the Peak District. The guy who built this is a genius.

 

I have seen quite a few photographs on Flickr of the Hindlow area but I guess you might have seen those already. Coming from Idridgehay near Wirksworth I have an album on Flickr of photographs of Wirksworth yard that I have come across, which whilst not being Hindlow, might provide you with some inspiration.https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/51844670%40N07/albums/72157696326165005/&ved=2ahUKEwiq8uDQnKTcAhWoJ8AKHbT8Ak8QjjgwAHoECAMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw009ynkUjj0c6apZvUimTTP

Edited July 16, 2018 by islander

[Tortuga]

Thanks islander,

I’ve seen a couple of Rustons layouts while browsing and I quite agree, the guy IS a genius! That layout you linked to is one of several that persuaded me to post my efforts on here...

Haven’t seen any of those Flickr photos before - thanks for the link! That loader legitimatises my idea for mine...

[islander]

https://andrewstransport.smugmug.com/LesTindalls1970sBritishtrains/Wirksworth-quarry-1973/

 

I have just found these images of the conveyor fed loading area at Wirksworth, this was a massive structure, I have few photographs after closure before it was dismantled which I must get round to scanning some day.

 

 

I would love to be able to model Wirksworth but to really capture the place as I remember it in the early 80's you would need working lorries to load the Wagons of the dock.

[Gordon A]

One weighbridge equipped with avoiding rails would mean I could use both lines for loading and cut down on points... I’d also lose the headache of sorting out reliable gravity shunting...

Quick query; would vans be weighed on a weighbridge (assuming they’re carrying bagged lime)?

 

I would have thought bagged lime would be quantified by the number of bags filled to a consistent weight?

 

Gordon A

[Tortuga]

Islander; I’m going to find that second link most useful when I get round to building the loader!

Gordon A; that would make sense, wouldn’t it!

Right, so weighbridge with avoiding rails is looking like the best possibility, as that way I can have hoppers on both loading tracks. Will have to look into this in more detail...

[Tortuga]

I’ve just about completed the two baseboards; just need to finish off the frames on the angled end of the long board.

I’ve drawn out the plan onto the board to help with laying down cork underlay. I intend to use coachman’s technique for obtaining cant on the curves, but unfortunately I haven’t got any 1/16th cork as yet...

The edges of the base of the cutting and the embankment top (decided to incorporate this after all!) have been marked out, together with the locations of the signals. Distances to the edges of the earthworks have been determined using information from Bob Essery’s “Railway Signalling and Track Plans”, while the signal locations are also based on photos.

I’ve also made alterations to the track layout; the arrival and departure sidings are the middle pair of tracks located at the right hand end of the board and the “6 foot” between the down main and the loop has been increased to a scale 7’6” (2’6” less than it should be...)

The sector plate/quarry board has been finished with the dropped section ready for the sector plate. I intend to motorise this using a captive nut on a threaded bar, with additional bracing for this added to the underside. I have also yet to build the sector plate deck.

As always, suggestions, comments, advice or requests for clarification, gladly revcieved!

Edited July 19, 2018 by Tortuga

[Tortuga]

Not much to report. Both boards are now finished and I’ve got some 1/16” cork stuck down on the curves ready for sanding to achieve the cant. Oh, and the dropped section for the embankment has been cut...

[Tortuga]

Managed to sand the 1/16” cork down to form the super elevation on the curved sections. Following some advice from coachman I made sure that this avoided the point work.

Not sure how successful this will be, but we’ll see... And yes, the loop is also super elevated albeit to a very very slight degree...

Next stage was to lay the 1/8” cork. For the outer edges, ive used some pre-cut strips from Carr’s - no idea if they still make these, but they save the bother of chamfering the edges! 1/8” sheet cut into strips fills the gap between the chamfered strips.

Reference to Bob Essery’s book (referred to previously) indicates no cess between main lines, while the photographic evidence shows no cess between the main line and either the loop (save for the outer end, which hasn’t been modelled) or the entrances to the yard/quarry sidings.

And there we are; main lines and loop done with just the sidings to go!

[islander]

Have you seen this http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/77216-a-visit-to-wirksworth-and-hindlow-10101981/

 

I knew I had seen something about a visit to Hindlow but could not remember where for the life of me.

 

Anyway, I hope it is of some use to you if you have not come across it before.

Edited July 29, 2018 by islander

[Tortuga]

I haven’t come across that thread before either. Thanks for finding it for me there’s some useful shots of loading arrangements there.

The Hindlow referred to is the station to the north of where my layout is based - home of Beswicks Lime Works (also the name of the works to the north of the station) - while Hindlow Limeworks was located at Briggs Sidings. The naming of various works and stations along this section of line has been a source of confusion for me during my research!

[islander]

Tarmacs Hindlow quarry should really be called Sterndale Quarry, Dowlow quarry is more appropriately named being close to Dowlow farm.

 

Briggs sidings, who knows why they gave it that name?

[Tortuga]

Tarmacs Hindlow quarry should really be called Sterndale Quarry, Dowlow quarry is more appropriately named being close to Dowlow farm.

 

Briggs sidings, who knows why they gave it that name?

I always assumed it was the after the original owner of the lime works, like Beswicks Sidings between Hindlow Station and the branch off to Harpur Hill...

Confusingly, there’s also a Beswicks Sidings on the S&C...

[Tortuga]

Time for an update; I’ve finally finished laying the underlay for the sidings.

I realise it’s taken a while; firstly because I wasn’t happy with the planned pointwork - I’ve ended up swapping the arrival/departure sidings and loading sidings around, so the loading sidings are the pair closer to the front of the layout - and secondly due to the late arrival of my firstborn, Elizabeth! Despite getting used to Dad Duties and being frequently required for hugs, I’ve managed to find the odd moment here and there to do some work on the layout.

With the cork underlay down, my attention has turned to the turnouts. I’ve already explained my rationale behind using Peco Code 75 despite the sleeper spacing issue, but I have decided that they do need modifications to improve their appearance. There’s already been numerous posts on how to do this with standard points, so I’ve been working on modifying the single slip that forms the trailing crossover between up and down lines and the access to the loop from the down line.

Firstly the weird, angled sleepers and the long sleepers are removed from each end. I’ll use plastic card to replace these once the slip is in situ on the layout as it will ‘share’ timbers with the points either side of it.

Next the elongated double sleepers either side of the tie bar are trimmed down and cut to more clearly represent two sleepers side by side - I’ve no idea if this is prototypical, but it seemed to be the easiest thing to do without building a slip by hand! The tie bar is then “slimmed down” at the outer ends only as, due to the moulding of the tie bars, slimming down between the sleepers would seriously weaken them. The modified sleepers and tie bar are on the left, with the original structure on the right.

Next job is to work out how much rail needs removing to get the correct spacing between the up and down lines, but it might be worth getting an updated track plan up on here to make things a bit clearer... Watch this space!

[Tortuga]

Between Daddy Duties today, I managed to make more progress.

Before I finish modifying the slip, I also need to modify the asymmetric three way. In a way this is the linchpin for laying all the other trackwork and it’s another one I haven’t seen modified previously. Have to add, it was a post by Beast66606 on this forum that inspired me to have a go at modifying the points and to narrow to the correct 6’ way spacing.

So, first up the asymmetric 3-way “linchpin” point;

There are two sets of wide sleepers to narrow, two spring mechanisms to remove, two tie bars to slim down and several weird sleepers to get shot of. Firstly I dealt with the toe end by removing the spring mechanism and it’s attached wide sleeper and narrowed the other wide sleeper down

Then I slimmed down the tie bar. I was able to get this thinner than on the single slip as it’s a bit more solid underneath.

The second mechanism was removed in the same way. I had a go at trimming and sculpting the strange elongated chairs into something approximating something that matches the other chairs.

Again, I slimmed down the tie bar, although this time the result wasn’t as good - I’ll see how it holds up and strengthen it if it’s necessary...

Finally I removed the weird sleepers. I’ll replace the missing sleepers once the trackwork is all secured in place

I did start work on narrowing the 6’, but dinner, Beth and bathtime got in the way!

Edited August 13, 2018 by Tortuga

[Tortuga]

While Lil Beth is asleep on my arm, I’ve got a chance to update this thread! As previously mentioned I intended to narrow the gap between lines to the correct 6’ spacing.

Due to the difference in OO gauge track and reality, I worked out what the centre to centre measurement between parallel lines is and used that to decide the amount of rail that needed removing from the single slip and the wye on the up line. This turned out to be 33mm and a length of one rail was removed from opposite sides of both the slip and the wye leaving the sleepers in place.

Two sleepers were removed from the slip, leaving one chair for the remaining rail on the wye to lock into, while the sleepers and chairs on the wye were halved.

On reflection, I should have left two of the chairs on the wye whole in order to better secure the remaining rail on the slip, but hindsight is always 20/20! Once both turnouts are permanently secured in place, I can’t see there being a problem...

EDIT; forgot the final photo

Edited August 9, 2018 by Tortuga

[Tortuga]

Looking at the tie bars on that single slip, I’m not 100% happy. Given the position of the signal box relative to the slip at Briggs Sidings, I assume the slip would be operated from the side with the curved rail? If that’s the case, I’m guessing the tie bar doesn’t need to span the full width of the slip? Anyone out there able to help? I think I can do some more modification now I’ve worked out how to remove the spring, but I’ll need to do so before the slip gets secured in place as modifying needs doing from underneath.

[beast66606]

The tie bar holds the point blades in position, both to gauge and vertically, it can be trimmed back so it just performs if's function, with the blade hard over one way, trim the *opposite* piece of tie-bar which extends beyond the running rail, leave a few mm to be on the safe side and gently trim (file) back more after checking the point works smoothly, do this check after each cut and go slowly, track laying is not a quick job if you want it to work reliably.