GCR vs LNWR track plan characteristics

[1165Valour]

I'm in the planning stages for a Great Central layout depicting the LNWR's Manchester - Leeds line, had it been incorporated into the MS&LR instead of the LNWR. 

 

What unique MSLR/GCR track plan features should I take into account in my planning, as I turn an LNWR main line into a Great Central one?

[Compound2632]

The lines of both companies were built over many decades and ideas on what constituted a good wayside station layout evolved over time, so I think it will be dangerous to make generalisations.

 

I think your best bet will be to decide when this line was built and study a M&SL line of similar date. Here the NLS OS 25 inch maps online will be your friend - make sure to compare the earliest editions with later ones, showing developments. For a line built in the 1850s, adopting the rather distinctive style of the GC London Extension, built in the 1890s, would be a gross anachronism.

[t-b-g]

11 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

The lines of both companies were built over many decades and ideas on what constituted a good wayside station layout evolved over time, so I think it will be dangerous to make generalisations.

 

I think your best bet will be to decide when this line was built and study a M&SL line of similar date. Here the NLS OS 25 inch maps online will be your friend - make sure to compare the earliest editions with later ones, showing developments. For a line built in the 1850s, adopting the rather distinctive style of the GC London Extension, built in the 1890s, would be a gross anachronism.

 

I would agree with that completely. I would just avoid anything that looks like the London Extension. I wouldn't say that there is really anything that would be a truly specific to identify an earlier MS&LR or GCR track layout. Other than the line to London they were pretty generic. For a through station, I always think a loop accessed by a crossover using a trailing single slip is a fairly common and very typical arrangement and the MS&LR had plenty like that. Back in the day, facing points were avoided as much as possible and I would try to avoid including them unless necessary.

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

For a through station, I always think a loop accessed by a crossover using a trailing single slip is a fairly common and very typical arrangement and the MS&LR had plenty like that. Back in the day, facing points were avoided as much as possible and I would try to avoid including them unless necessary.

If you have a plan where a facing point appears necessary, you can often remove it by flipping the plan over to a mirror image.

[Compound2632]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

If you have a plan where a facing point appears necessary, you can often remove it by flipping the plan over to a mirror image.

 

I'm not convinced; that would almost certainly turn a trailing point somewhere else into a facing point.

 

The best thing to do is to copy a real track plan of your proposed area and period. That has the additional bonus that it can be correctly signalled!

 

(How often do we see a post asking for advice on signalling a layout when the track is down and ballasted but the plan is such that it can't be prototypically signalled  since it itself is unprototypical?)

[t-b-g]

55 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I'm not convinced; that would almost certainly turn a trailing point somewhere else into a facing point.

 

The best thing to do is to copy a real track plan of your proposed area and period. That has the additional bonus that it can be correctly signalled!

 

(How often do we see a post asking for advice on signalling a layout when the track is down and ballasted but the plan is such that it can't be prototypically signalled  since it itself is unprototypical?)

 

Stealing a real plan and using it in a fictional location is an excellent way of making such a place look believable. You can always shorten or reduce the number of long sidings to allow it to fit your available space but if you keep the pointwork and signals on the main lines as the real thing is, it is a very good way to plan a layout as far as I am concerned.

 

I always plan my layouts with the signalling as part of the design. You are quite right, if it is difficult to signal, it is probably not a realistic plan to start with.

[Steamport Southport]

Have a look at the Cheshire Lines (GCR/GCR/MR) route between Liverpool and Manchester for an equivalent line built in the same era.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire_Lines_Committee

 

Might seem like a Joint line, but many aspects seem to be pure MSLR/GCR to me. And there was quite a lot of LNWR about as well.

 

https://8dassociation.org/cheshire-lines-committee-clc/

 

 

Might give you some ideas at least.

 

 

Jason

[Buhar]

Apart from some favourite features like the Midland's use of single slips, it's the infrastructure, signals and buildings that point most effectively to the owning company.

 

Alan

[Compound2632]

30 minutes ago, Buhar said:

Apart from some favourite features like the Midland's use of single slips, it's the infrastructure, signals and buildings that point most effectively to the owning company.

 

I don't think the Midland's use of a single slip to combine a crossover with the trailing collection from a loop or siding on one side to the opposite running line was especially distinctive; leastways, one sees it often enough in the wayside station layouts of other companies.

 

The really distinctive features are at the level of the detail design of points and crossings - to replicate that one needs to be willing to build the track oneself, probably in one of the finer scales.

[bécasse]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The really distinctive features are at the level of the detail design of points and crossings - to replicate that one needs to be willing to build the track oneself, probably in one of the finer scales.

The LNWR, for example, was fond of using interlaced timbering on points (cheaper but more difficult to maintain) even well into the 20th century (Holywell Town for example) and which would be very distinctive on a model. I am not sure what the GC did at that period but photos of the London extension (whose construction was well recorded in photographs) should give clues.

[Flying Pig]

16 hours ago, GWRSwindon said:

I'm in the planning stages for a Great Central layout depicting the LNWR's Manchester - Leeds line, had it been incorporated into the MS&LR instead of the LNWR. 

 

 

Would it even have been built?  A scan of online sources suggests the MS&L was overburdened with projects on its formation and this might just have been one too many.   

 

However, assuming that hurdle was overcome, the line might have looked a little different.  Under the LNWR, the route was quadrupled in the 1890s, requiring the building of the Micklehurst Loop, a new double track bore at Standedge and the Leeds New Line.  It's hard to see the MS&L being able to finance these works at the same time as building the London Extension, so perhaps it would have remained double track.

[t-b-g]

15 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Would it even have been built?  A scan of online sources suggests the MS&L was overburdened with projects on its formation and this might just have been one too many.   

 

However, assuming that hurdle was overcome, the line might have looked a little different.  Under the LNWR, the route was quadrupled in the 1890s, requiring the building of the Micklehurst Loop, a new double track bore at Standedge and the Leeds New Line.  It's hard to see the MS&L being able to finance these works at the same time as building the London Extension, so perhaps it would have remained double track.

 

In the great "what if" world of model railways, not building a layout because the real thing wouldn't have happened would cull some real classics from our history. The GCR never considered a line to Buckingham for one.

 

If you are happy to rewrite such things, you can overcome all such objections. How about the MS&LR deciding to build a line to Leeds either instead of, or before the London Extension?

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, bécasse said:

The LNWR, for example, was fond of using interlaced timbering on points (cheaper but more difficult to maintain) even well into the 20th century (Holywell Town for example) and which would be very distinctive on a model. I am not sure what the GC did at that period but photos of the London extension (whose construction was well recorded in photographs) should give clues.

 

MS&LR drawings are available on oldpway.info. They are quite distinctive and have a number of unusual features such as various sleeper widths and check rails only 4 sleepers long.

[1165Valour]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

In the great "what if" world of model railways, not building a layout because the real thing wouldn't have happened would cull some real classics from our history. The GCR never considered a line to Buckingham for one.

 

If you are happy to rewrite such things, you can overcome all such objections. How about the MS&LR deciding to build a line to Leeds either instead of, or before the London Extension?

The thing is, this very nearly happened in our world. In a meeting at Huddersfield guild hall in 1845, William Aldam, Chairman of the Huddersfield & Manchester Railway & Canal Company, proposed a merger with the Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyne, and Manchester. However, shareholder Joseph Brook rose from his seat and denounced the idea and defeated the merger at the last minute.

 

I think the MS&LR would likely have been able to get the funds to build the line, as the H&MR&CC and LD&M already had some capital raised. As far as the Micklehurst line, Standege tunnel expansion, and Leeds New Line, that's more difficult to say.

 

Another thing to consider is that the MS&LR and GNR would collaborate on building lines in the West Riding.

 

 

 

Edited June 29, 2023 by GWRSwindon

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, GWRSwindon said:

The thing is, this very nearly happened in our world. In a meeting at Huddersfield guild hall in 1845, William Aldam, Chairman of the Huddersfield & Manchester Railway & Canal Company, proposed a merger with the Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyne, and Manchester. However, shareholder Joseph Brook rose from his seat and denounced the idea and defeated the merger at the last minute.

 

I think the MS&LR would likely have been able to get the funds to build the line, as the H&MR&CC and LD&M already had some capital raised. As far as the Micklehurst line, Standege tunnel expansion, and Leeds New Line, that's more difficult to say.

 

Another thing to consider is that the MS&LR and GNR would collaborate on building lines in the West Riding.

 

 

 

 

Most of my own layouts have been fictional ones, based on what might have happened if different decisions had been made at certain times. I find it gives me a freedom that copying a prototype in an accurate form never can. Nobody can ever say "That never ran there", or "You haven't got that in the right place, it should be nearer the other building". My current project is based on "What if" the Sheffield District Railway carried on with its original plan to build its own terminus in Sheffield. In reality, the abandoned the scheme when they obtained running powers into Sheffield Midland but I have read that they got as far as starting work on the first platform. So I am finishing the job for them.

 

I find these "alternative history" schemes most interesting. 

[1165Valour]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

Most of my own layouts have been fictional ones, based on what might have happened if different decisions had been made at certain times. I find it gives me a freedom that copying a prototype in an accurate form never can. Nobody can ever say "That never ran there", or "You haven't got that in the right place, it should be nearer the other building". My current project is based on "What if" the Sheffield District Railway carried on with its original plan to build its own terminus in Sheffield. In reality, the abandoned the scheme when they obtained running powers into Sheffield Midland but I have read that they got as far as starting work on the first platform. So I am finishing the job for them.

 

I find these "alternative history" schemes most interesting. 

As I'll be modelling a line which really exists, I don't have quite the same level of freedom, but I can't still have a bit of fun. 

 

It's quite interesting to trace how the history of the line would be altered, beginning in 1845 and working outwards. The LNWR had planned for the Birstall branch to be the beginning of a line to Bradford, but it was defeated in favor of the Great Northern. Here, the MS&LR and GNR may collaborate on building these lines. 

 

Later on, the GNR may become a tenant at Leeds New station along with the GCR and NER. The Midland may be willing to use the main station at Huddersfield if they build the West Riding line. Lay in a spur from Hyde North to Stalybridge, and you can run through trains from Liverpool Central to Leeds.

Edited June 29, 2023 by GWRSwindon

[1165Valour]

I'm also wondering if Leeds New station will still be built in 1869.