Manifold Valley Minerals

[Mark Forrest]

When it came to time to start thinking about baseboard design, my main objectives were to try to balance lightness and ease of handling with minimal baseboard joints.  In my experience, baseboard joints are the greatest source of trouble on an exhibition layout, so best avoided as much as possible.  

 

The main scenic board will measure 1435mm x 600mm (at widest).  At the left end, a further 300mm x 600mm board (with a curved frontage) finishes off the scene - its purpose is twofold.  Firstly, it increases the viewable length of the layout and allows viewers to look along the layout as well as the more traditional view from the front.  Secondly, it allows the layout to be extended in the future by replacing this board with a longer one. I'm thinking a further 1435mm board mirroring the shape of the first.  I'm hopeful that gives further longevity as I can add the extension if I feel the need to indulge in some track building.

 

To test out my ideas for board construction, I made this scale mock up:

 

In reality, the long letterbox slot in the back panel results in too much flex, especially as lighting supports will probably need to hang off this.  It's more likely to be two or three smaller access holes.

 

[Stubby47]

All very good and interesting,  but I do wish you'd put measurements in feet and inches...

 

I presume you want hidden sidings to reduce the overall layout length, but the FY stick/ headshunt is already (?) on a separate board.

I don't know if P4 rail takes fishplates, but when I use a FY stick I just have a spare piece of track that joins set-track-wise to the layout,  saves all the faffing about with alignment and copper sleepers.

 

I'm guessing a lot here as I've not seen your FY extension to the scenic trackplan.

Edited January 11, 2020 by Stubby47

[Mark Forrest]

4 hours ago, Stubby47 said:

All very good and interesting,  but I do wish you'd put measurements in feet and inches...

Not sure why I'd use such an inconvenient and outdated system of measurement instead of the SI unit 

 

The 1435mm scenic board is 4' 8 1/2" in old money.  All in, the scenic section comes in at just under 6'.

 

The kickback fiddle yard is more about saving depth than length.  It will be accessed through a sector plate.  This only needs two stops, aligned with the scenic tracks, or aligned with the hidden kickback.  I'll be using ordinary code 75 bullhead rail, so rail joiners would fit, although I can't remember the last time I used them.  Trust me, faffing around with copperclad sleepers is the least of my worries... 

[Mark Forrest]

With a reasonably good idea of what the track plan for the layout should look like, I've turned my attention to the scenic aspects.  From the outset, there have been two options up for consideration; an urban (or at least edge of town) scheme with industrial buildings along the rear or a more rural scene with the hidden kickback sidings beneath an embankment.

 

Those who have been paying attention may have noticed that I've not yet mentioned where the layout will be set.  Anyone who knows the previous layouts I've built or contributed to would be forgiven for assuming this would be yet another West Midlands/Black Country themed layout, however this time I want to do something a little different.

 

As I've mentioned in previous posts, I'm favouring a rural location for this layout.  I'm particularly attracted to either Shropshire or the Peak District as a possible setting, having spent quite a bit of time riding mountain bikes in these areas over the past couple of years.  

 

For a change, I'm keen to use stone for buildings and structures, rather than all that brick I've used before, so will need to pin down the location to ensure I'm using the correct type of stone.  For the time being though, beyond "somewhere in central England", I'm undecided whether I'm heading East or West of my native Staffordshire.

[sb67]

I like the look of your layout Mark so I'll follow this with interest. I was interested to read what you said about the location, that's something I was trying to get to grips with on my small layout. Do you know roughly what tone is generally used where?

Having always used brick I waned a south eastern theme for my layout but I'm making a stone/rock/chalk face for a backscene so at the moment I'm not sure where it's going to be.

[Mark Forrest]

1 hour ago, sb67 said:

I like the look of your layout Mark so I'll follow this with interest. I was interested to read what you said about the location, that's something I was trying to get to grips with on my small layout. Do you know roughly what tone is generally used where?

Having always used brick I waned a south eastern theme for my layout but I'm making a stone/rock/chalk face for a backscene so at the moment I'm not sure where it's going to be.

Thanks.

 

A map like this is a good starting point:

http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~imw/jpg-Geological-Maps/8GB-Old-Map-British-Isles.jpg

 

Not it that I can claim to fully understand all of it.

 

Beyond that I think it’s really just a case of getting out there and have a look at what stone is used where you want to set the layout, which is a good excuse to go out and explore.

 

 

 

[Alister_G]

1 hour ago, Mark Forrest said:

I'm particularly attracted to either Shropshire or the Peak District

 

A bit of Cromford and High Peak perhaps?

 

 

 

 

Go on...

 

Al.

[sb67]

Thanks Mark, as you say, good reason to go look at places. How are you getting on deciding what area you want to model?

[Alister_G]

10 minutes ago, Alister_G said:

A bit of Cromford and High Peak perhaps?

 

Actually Mark, take a look at Shallcross Yard, Whaley Bridge. It's a perfect subject for a layout, a single line entrance under a tight road bridge, large stone walls surrounding it, to hide your offscene sidings, and the exit to the yard no longer goes anywhere as the Shallcross incline which linked to the rest of the C&HPR was closed in 1892.

 

The yard remained open to mainline traffic until 1965 so you're not limited to the C&HPR locos (J94s etc) but just about anything LMS, LNWR or BR(M).

 

Al.

[Mark Forrest]

13 minutes ago, Alister_G said:

 

Actually Mark, take a look at Shallcross Yard, Whaley Bridge. It's a perfect subject for a layout, a single line entrance under a tight road bridge, large stone walls surrounding it, to hide your offscene sidings, and the exit to the yard no longer goes anywhere as the Shallcross incline which linked to the rest of the C&HPR was closed in 1892.

 

The yard remained open to mainline traffic until 1965 so you're not limited to the C&HPR locos (J94s etc) but just about anything LMS, LNWR or BR(M).

 

Al.

Thanks for that, the C&HPR in general and in particular Shallcross is very much on my radar, in fact this is currently open in another tab in my browser:

http://sutherland.davenportstation.org.uk/aaprint/wbr.html

 

As for Whaley Bridge itself, I don’t have space for it, but do like the canal shed:

 

[Mark Forrest]

32 minutes ago, sb67 said:

Thanks Mark, as you say, good reason to go look at places. How are you getting on deciding what area you want to model?

Still undecided, both have their pros and cons, some more days out with bike and camera required...

[Alister_G]

2 minutes ago, Mark Forrest said:

the C&HPR in general and in particular Shallcross is very much on my radar

 

Great minds...

 

I agree, if I had the space the canal shed would be a great subject to model. And you could use that lovely little bridge that leads to the incline, that you showed earlier.

 

Have you come across this video, by the way?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiCyDXG50qw

 

 

Al.

 

[Mark Forrest]

7 minutes ago, Alister_G said:

 

 

Have you come across this video, by the way?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiCyDXG50qw

 

 

Al.

 

I hadn’t, that’s the rest of this evening’s entertainment sorted, cheers!

[Andy Reichert]

Is "C" a double track main?

 

Andy

Edited January 13, 2020 by Andy Reichert
mis read diagram

[Mark Forrest]

9 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

Is "C" a double track main?

 

Andy

Those will join off scene to form the other end of the loop, then a single line is assumed to carry on to form a connection to the mainline a short distance away.

 

You raise an interesting point though; how to make it look like that is what happens to somebody who can only see the scenic section?

[Stubby47]

Don't have the lines parallel,  or add some equipment between them, like an old water crane or a phone to the 'box.

[Guest Jack Benson]

On 10 January 2020 at 14:16, Stubby47 said:

 

Maybe, but is there also an overbridge within a few hundred feet ?

 

Why, is it relevant? In fact, there is an occupation crossing just 100m distant.

 

[Mark Forrest]

20 hours ago, Jack Benson said:

Why, is it relevant? In fact, there is an occupation crossing just 100m distant.

 

Thanks for taking the time to post these photos. The scenario here is somewhat different to what I propose doing on my layout, not least because your example is a through route whereas I'm looking at a couple of sidings at the end of a goods line.  The relevance of the over bridge that Stu mentioned is that this is the most likely way of disguising the fiddle yard exit at the right end.

 

As I said before, there are examples where multiple rights of way cross the railway in close proximity for all sorts of reasons.  In the case of my layout though, I think Stu raised a valid point about not overdoing it with too many structures.

[Mark Forrest]

Exciting news; the layout has its first show booking!

I’ll be bringing the layout along to the SWAG day in Taunton, more info here:

Just to to manage expectations, it will be a long way from being a completed layout and will be there as a work in progress planning/construction demo.  As I’ve said before, I’m taking a relaxed approach to this build so am reluctant to give myself strict deadlines, however, I’m hoping to have the scenic baseboard with a mock up of buildings and structures in place and (with a bit of luck) have made a start on track laying by then.

 

[Mark Forrest]

I've been giving some thought to what a fictional history of the railway depicted on the layout might look like, here's what I have so far...

 

Early 1800s; tramway constructed to connect quarries (off scene, served by branch, front right) with a canal wharf (off scene, left) using horse drawn wagons. Loading platform to allow goods from the nearby mill grinding locally mined barytes to be loaded into wagons and transported to wharf.

 

Mid 1800s; traffic from the quarries increases, steam locos are introduced.  Bridge over river is found to be unstable, section between here and the canal wharf remains horse worked and this becomes a changeover point between horse and steam power.

 

1880s; branch forming a connection to a nearby LNWR line built, hillside (at rear of layout) excavated to accommodate additional sidings.  Most traffic is now despatched via LNWR line, the connection down to canal wharf falls out of use.  Mill is still powered by waterwheel.

 

1920-1950; traffic levels fluctuate and rolling stock gets more modern, but otherwise the pace of change is slow.  In 1930s a cement works opens served by the branch.

 

1950s; the mill closes, leaving the quarries and cement works as sources of traffic.

 

c.1970; cement works closes, line closed and track lifted.  Remaining traffic from quarries switches over to road.

[Stubby47]

An excellent synopsis,  but..  

 

would the original horse tramway have been laid to 'standard' gauge so early ?

 

Would there be remnants of the old tramway trackbed left visible when the steam locos arrived?

Edited January 15, 2020 by Stubby47

[Mark Forrest]

26 minutes ago, Stubby47 said:

An excellent synopsis,  but..  

 

would the original horse tramway have been laid to 'standard' gauge so early ?

 

Would there be remnants of the old tramway trackbed left visible when the steam locos arrived?

I hope you aren't suggesting I should adopt a weird track gauge of 4' 1 1/2" instead? 

 

 There are examples of tramways using various gauges between 4' and 5' earlier than that so I expect it would have been somewhere around that width.  The reference material I need to look up more specifics is 120 miles away from me tonight though.

 

I'd expect it would be close enough for most of the trackbed (and the bridge) to be reused without much need for change.  Perhaps (like on the C&HPR), I need to include the change from iron rail on stone sleeper blocks in the history at some point.

[Alister_G]

23 minutes ago, Stubby47 said:

would the original horse tramway have been laid to 'standard' gauge so early ?

 

It was my understanding that a lot of horse-drawn tramways used 4' 8'' - a width determined from the need to fit a horse between the shafts of the wagons. Certainly, Stephenson's early lines were at that gauge as a consequence of all the horse-drawn chaldron wagons having that dimension.

 

Al.

[Stubby47]

You wide gauge boys... 

 

I just thought that the remains of the old trackbed would make an interesting addition to the groundworks.

[Mark Forrest]

8 hours ago, Stubby47 said:

 

I just thought that the remains of the old trackbed would make an interesting addition to the groundworks.

It's a nice idea, it would be a good way of incorporating the history into the scene.  I suppose the problem is that faced with an existing trackbed of the tramway and the need to lay a railway along a similar course, it stands to reason that the tramway would simply disappear under the "new" railway; why go to the additional expense of engineering a new trackbed alongside the existing tramway?

 

Best I can come up with at this stage is that the now disused section to the left might still be laid in lighter section rail e.g. code 55 flat bottom as opposed to the code 75 bullhead used elsewhere.