Barnoldswick (Barlick) Station - Trackplan

[Guest Kevin_T]

Hi,

 

I'm planning a first OO gauge/4mm scale layout based on the Barnoldswick branchline terminus (during transition from LMS to BR), measuring 12'x2' end-to-end. I've used AnyRail to produce the attached draft trackplan (track only), with reference to a post 1907 OS map. The goods yard and coal yard are both minus one siding. The track components (C&L) used in the plan are:

• 7x 10" turnouts
• 1x 3-way turnout (14", 6", 8")
• 1x 11" crossing
• Flexitrack

 

 

The second trackplan uses other AnyRail components to give an idea of what the setting may look like. The thick dotted lines represent where an embankment exists:

 

I'm planning on using an Ivatt 2-6-2T and 2-6-0, Fowler 3F 0-6-0 and Johnson 1P 0-4-4T for motive power.

 

As other newbies, I would also welcome advice and comment on what works from a prototype perspective. As important, where dimensions would prove problematic.

 

Many thanks in advance for your time and advice.

 

Kevin

Edited September 2, 2019 by Kevin_T
Amendment to topic title

[Joseph_Pestell]

I like this. It's an unusual  trackplan with lots of operating potential. I have looked at it myself in the past as a possible model.

 

My main concern is that you have compressed it a bit too much in length, especially the traverser. Even an extra six inches there would be valuable to be able to hang a van onto a two carriage passenger train.

[Flying Pig]

I think the goods yard on the middle board looks a little cramped too.  I'd have just a single overbridge and leave out the left hand crossover, using the traverser to complete the runround.  This would give you a few more inches to share between the traverser and the station section, in return for not much loss of scenic interest. You might still have to reduce the goods yard to two sidings though.

 

BTW how was the coal yard worked if the sidings were surrounded by embankments?

[Guest Kevin_T]

Thanks Joseph, that was a concern of mine too. In a previous iteration of the plan I had allowed a total length of 15'. This provided better capacity in the traverser (as you mention), more space between the two road bridges and a longer headshunt to accommodate, say, two coaches, rather than one, as per the prototype. Also, a bit more space in the sidings.

[Guest Kevin_T]

Hi Simon, thanks for your feedback. That is precisely what I was hoping for - rather than relying upon my tunnel vision of how I think things are. I was wondering if the two bridges together were overcooking things for little purpose.

 

Regarding the coal yard and sidings, these we quite shortened at the outset to about 100' each. Lack of capacity proved problematic and the sidings were increased in a couple of phases. (From Wikipedia) "...they were extended again in 1913 as near as they could be to Skipton Road. This extension was built on an embankment so advantage of this was taken to build coal drops with road access from Skipton Road."

 

I've not found much else on operations within the coal yard and sidings - yet. Another Wikipedia snippet... "The coal yard was one of the few places where the Midland Railway officially allowed its locomotives to tow wagons on an adjacent line by rope."

[Chris116]

The other posts have covered things very well in my opinion except for the points on the baseboard joints. If you don't want a disaster try to rework things so only plain track crosses the baseboard joints. I look forward to seeing progress on what looks like a very interesting plan. 

[Harlequin]

I have a couple of observations to add to the good points already made above:

 

The main platform line is on a loop off the main line. It would be more typical for the main line to run directly alongside the platform with the loop opposite and goods connections off that (but maybe your prototype says otherwise?). If you have stock with large overhangs turning against the platform face you might have clearance issues.

 

It’s very straight! Some curves would make traffic movements more interesting visually. (But again, maybe your prototype says otherwise?)

 

Edit: I've looked at a map and I think the main line does come in directly alongside the platform. I can also see that the layout was fairly straight but there are some subtle curves that you could accentuate if you wanted.

Edited February 21, 2019 by Harlequin

[Guest Kevin_T]

Thank you for the comment regarding baseboard joints Chris - makes perfect sense what you say.

 

Hi Harlequin, thank you for your feedback, the track layout at Barnoldswick is reflected correctly in the plan - one of the idiosyncrasies particular to the station. The dimensions point you made 're overhangs, I'll look into that.

 

As is the straightness of the branchline from where it leaves the junction with the Colne to Skipton main line. That said, I'm not averse to going off-piste if it would enhance visual interest.

 

My initial thought was to build as per plan A, then, after gaining experience on several fronts, develop the layout into an 'L' shaped configuration. But I'll give your suggestion some thought on its application.

 

Thanks to both of you for advice and observations - appreciated!

[tractionman]

I like your track plan, I'd mused on the same location and posted a version of it here, based on the historic OS plan too

 

In case it's of interest. 

 

Will be following your progress, I've just bought the LCut goods shed to start things off!

 

All the best, 

 

Keith 

 

 

 

[Harlequin]

Here is a tracing of a 1964 OS Map:

 

I'm pretty sure that the mainline runs directly into the platform on earlier maps in the same way. The goods yard and coal yard vary over time.

 

Edit: Whoops! That should have been 1:2500, of course!

Edited February 22, 2019 by Harlequin

[Guest Kevin_T]

Hi Harlequin, thanks for the 1964 OS map and your tracing. It clearly shows where I misread/made an assumption of the info relating to Barnoldswick in the Disused Stations website. The OS info there was truncated near the Rainhall Road bridge, and I had misread the fuzzy crossover there. So glad I put my draft trackplan out for review! Apologies for my earlier erroneous assertion.

 

Thanks for your link Keith, that's helpful in checking my understanding of the station, goods and coal yard areas.

[mdvle]

Even if you want to keep the track straight note how on Keith's design even just the slight rotation so it's not parallel with the edges help it visually.

[Guest Kevin_T]

In the next iteration of the draft track plan, I will be incorporating the advice and comments I have received. Such feedback is a valuable tool in the design process for me - thank you

[DCB]

On 21/02/2019 at 23:28, Harlequin said:

Here is a tracing of a 1964 OS Map:

 

I'm pretty sure that the mainline runs directly into the platform on earlier maps in the same way. The goods yard and coal yard vary over time.

 

Edit: Whoops! That should have been 1:2500, of course!

It looks like a couple of nice features of the prototype have been  lost in the model.  The long head shunt and the short siding in the goods yard which acts as an over run for the passenger platform.    Reversing the roads onto the traverser and reversing the crossover would help but a lot of the operational "fun" would be lost. 

[Guest Kevin_T]

Thanks for your comments David, I'm reworking the draft trackplan and it looks like I need to bite-the-bullet re adding an additional section. So, increasing the length to 15' from 12;  to enable a more proportionate representation of the headshunt between the two road bridges.

 

The continuation of the mainline, across the level crossing and pointwork to enable a loco to run round on the goods line, is incorporated in the top line of middle pair of sidings shown. Based on the changes shown in the OS maps from 1907 to post 1920. (Said that before re the mainline... but I had misconstrued what I thought I was looking at!)

[Harlequin]

Hi Kevin and tractionman,

 

I've got a couple of thoughts for you while you are redesigning.

 

I wondered if the crossover that leads to the upper coal sidings incorporated a slip or not. The maps show a simple diamond but you can't entirely trust them to show that sort of detail. It's unlikely to be a slip because it would be in the level crossing and it would be redundant because of the crossover just yards further down the line but these oddities do happen.

 

I couldn't find anything definitive but I did come across this site, which maybe you already know about: http://www.archive.oneguyfrombarlick.co.uk/www.oneguyfrombarlick.co.uk/forum_topic9fd0.html

There are some lovely stories about how the level crossing was operated during shunting and of trains crashing through the gates.

 

Apparently when two locos were needed on the staff-and-key controlled line they would double-head up to Barnoldswick and then one would be locked in the coal yard to maintain the one-engine-in-steam safety regulations.

 

 

Re. The layout design: The station is very long, especially with the goods headshunt. Rainhall road bridge creates a natural scenic break so you could ease the compression by modelling the station only from Rainhall bridge down but the facing crossover to the run round loop and the lengthy headshunt are up the line from that bridge. However that is not a problem because your traverser can take on the role of both features. (The main line and the loop would both exit the scene and both connect to the traverser.)

 

Normally I think it's preferable to have all station pointwork visible if possible but in this case I think having the (virtual) facing crossover off-scene would work fine because it would match reality: A loco disappearing under the bridge out of sight, maybe for some time, and re-appearing on the other line.

 

If you did that then you wouldn't have to model the second road bridge and Rainhall road bridge would no longer divide the scene up in a slightly awkward way.

Edited February 23, 2019 by Harlequin

[Guest Kevin_T]

Hi Harlequin

 

Thanks for your comments, certainly food for thought - ideally (for space and convenience) I'd like to remain inside a 12' layout length.

 

I was wondering about the diamond, and thought they opted for that to "protect" the mainline extension for loco movements?

[Guest Kevin_T]

Hi,

 

Here's the second draft of my proposed trackplan...

 

 

...taking into account the feedback provided. Comment welcome...

 

Thanks

 

Kevin

[Harlequin]

Hi Kevin,

 

That is a much more dynamic design and having the initial crossover off-scene works well. The angled line also bring the lines to the front of the boards allowing for more room for the traverser travel, and thus more storage roads. You can probably turn the lines parallel to the baseboards between the road bridge and the traverser to make the traverser easier to set up and more convenient to use.

 

The passenger/goods section of the station is pushed quite far forward and the goods yard is possibly squashed too much. You could overcome this by increasing the angle and turning the coal yard more towards the front than the prototype.

 

It would be great if the Station Road/Wellhouse Road level crossing intersected the diamond crossing - I think that's an essential part of the character of the prototype. And you could push the points leading to the goods shed up to start under Rainhall Road bridge like the prototype.

 

If you did those things then the goods yard would be wider and deeper and the balance between railway and scenery behind it would be better (I think).

 

Edited February 25, 2019 by Harlequin

[Guest Kevin_T]

Thanks for the feedback Harlequin - I'll feed them into the next iteration. Appreciate your time and help!

[Guest Kevin_T]

Hi Phil,

 

 

Taking into account your comments and another note to avoid baseboard joins in points... 

 

 

[tractionman]

I think you've nailed it there Kevin, the dimensions (10 foot scenic) is what I had worked it out as too--I have a 6-foot board and a 4-foot board, with the station on the 6 and coal yard on the 4. 

 

I'll watch with interest your work on the layout. The era I am after with mine is c.1920-40, so all LMS.

 

The link Harlequin posted above (on Saturday) is excellent, great pictures and record of the station, traffic and yards.

 

Thanks very much both for your inspiration, it might get me moving on my take on Barnoldswick!

 

all the best,

 

Keith

 

 

 

[Harlequin]

Hi Kevin,

 

Is there enough room for the goods shed?

 

How many roads on the traverser are you thinking of? That will determine the extent of movement of the traverser and so where the connecting lines need to be placed.

 

Would you mind if I had a go at drawing something up to see if what's in my head works? I would use Peco Streamline geometry because that's easiest for me but you could adapt it to C&L. I won't do anything if you'd prefer me not to.

 

[Guest Kevin_T]

Hi Phil, I'm thinking on 4 roads currently - no supporting evidence to support my thinking, more a "finger-in-the-air"

 

As to the Good shed, that along with the station building, is on my 'next tasks' list - using the photos in the disused stations website entry for Barnoldswick to determine dimensions and structural plans. I would then adjust the trackplan design to fit.

 

If you have the time and inclination to develop your ideas, I'd be interested to see the results.

 

Hi Keith, I reckon the advice and feedback I have received here in the past week has saved me a lot of potential frustration and wasted effort.

 

Other items I have on my 'next task' list include... decisions on wiring; control - to DCC or not; stick to OO or go S4/EM gauge (thinking I may be punching above my weight as a first-timer on that question).

 

Thanks guys

 

Kevin

[Guest Kevin_T]

Hi Keith and Phil,

 

Have either of you seen a rather mid-60s, grainy video of the line between Barnoldswick and Earby? If not, take a look at the following 'You Tube' link...  https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjJmrymo9rgAhWBUhUIHUzGAFMQwqsBMAB6BAgEEAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D0M1pfmAB3Eg&usg=AOvVaw25osAVLYgj55-L6LlSwrKD

 

...it was submitted in 2012,