Recreating St Bees station and a portion of the Cumbrian Coast line between 2017 and 2018

[TravisM]

I did have a rethink, and adapting @Harlequin Kings Tawton track plan, came up with this.  I just wonder if it's more interesting and operationally better?

 

 

[Chimer]

Much more operationally interesting to me, though I would suggest the siding at the station should be trailing off the top side of the loop, rather than facing off the lower line.

 

You do have course have the possibility of reversing trains in the turnback sidings by sticking a different loco on, leaving the original train engine to do the same thing for a subsequent departure.  You just have to decide whether you are picky enough to require a loco last seen heading towards  Barrow to next be seen heading towards Carlisle.  If you do, adding the two sidings shown in green in the schematic below would provide good places for locos to wait for their next turns (or switch them using a locolift).

 

 

 

[TravisM]

4 hours ago, Chimer said:

Much more operationally interesting to me, though I would suggest the siding at the station should be trailing off the top side of the loop, rather than facing off the lower line.

 

You do have course have the possibility of reversing trains in the turnback sidings by sticking a different loco on, leaving the original train engine to do the same thing for a subsequent departure.  You just have to decide whether you are picky enough to require a loco last seen heading towards  Barrow to next be seen heading towards Carlisle.  If you do, adding the two sidings shown in green in the schematic below would provide good places for locos to wait for their next turns (or switch them using a locolift).

 

 

 

 

Hi there,

 

I like what you have suggested regarding the hidden sidings/turnback sidings, and I'll have to give it some serious consideration, though the passenger trains would be either units, or if loco hauled, top & tailed or loco at one end & a DBSO at the other, so it would only work for nuclear trains.  As to the siding at St Bees, it's very short and hardly used, so it's there for scenic purposes really.

[Harlequin]

Is there enough pure scenic running length? The station takes up a significant portion of the circuit.

 

Is there enough room around the track to represent the Cumbrian coastal scenery?

 

Make the lifting section across the doorway just big enough to carry the track(s) across the gap if its not going to be scenic. That’s easier to build, easier to ensure alignment and easier to lift.

 

[TravisM]

17 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Is there enough pure scenic running length? The station takes up a significant portion of the circuit.

 

Is there enough room around the track to represent the Cumbrian coastal scenery?

 

Make the lifting section across the doorway just big enough to carry the track(s) across the gap if its not going to be scenic. That’s easier to build, easier to ensure alignment and easier to lift.

 

Hi Phil,

 

If I go for the St Bees option (plan nicked and adapted from your Kings Tawton plan…sorry 😝), then the scenic section will have to go as I don’t have enough space to do both.  Shame as it would be great to do St Bees, then the line south, along the coast.

[CKPR]

Looking at the proposed plan, I was wondering whether you could do away with a hidden section altogether by prototypically merging the station with the turnback sidings as per Whitehaven Bransty.  That way, you could use the original station area to model the dramatic coastal line around Parton (aka 'avalanche alley') or may be even keep it as St Bees.

Edited December 21, 2023 by CKPR

[TravisM]

3 hours ago, CKPR said:

Looking at the proposed plan, I was wondering whether you could do away with a hidden section altogether by prototypically merging the station with the turnback sidings as per Whitehaven Bransty.  That way, you could use the original station area to model the dramatic coastal line around Parton (aka 'avalanche alley') or may be even keep it as St Bees.

It’s a really interesting thought, but I feel I’d be limited to only two trains running on the layout, as I’d have nowhere to hide a third passenger or nuclear train.  Ideally, I’d like four trains with two being loco hauled, a Class 156 and a nuclear train.  I would also like to run my inspection saloon and test train from time to time.

 

I’m so, so tempted by the coastal route as scenery is stunning, so in the summer, I think I’m going to have to take a trip up there to get some pictures and make my decision before I start cutting wood.

[CKPR]

1 hour ago, jools1959 said:

It’s a really interesting thought, but I feel I’d be limited to only two trains running on the layout, as I’d have nowhere to hide a third passenger or nuclear train.  

What about having a hidden loop or sidings inside Corkickle tunnel ?

[TravisM]

3 hours ago, CKPR said:

What about having a hidden loop or sidings inside Corkickle tunnel ?

 

Somebody else has suggested two ramps and put the hidden sidings under the main layout.  The hatch, instead of a lifting or lift out, swing, so you can get two different levels.

[ISW]

On 11/12/2023 at 20:35, jools1959 said:

After a lot of soul searching and dis-satisfied with trying to model Sleaford East Junction, I've decided to go back to my original idea of the Cumbrian Coast line during 2017 and 2018, when it was the stomping ground for DRS Class 37's on passenger services, but I need some help with infrastructure etc.  I'm hoping to model the single line as goes along the coast as it's a space saver (I only have 8.5x7.5ft room), as well as quite picturesque, but at the time, was largely jointed track, but I believe large parts are now CWL so I can't check, but was it Bullhead or flat bottomed, or a combination?

I'd have thought you'd go for the Sellafield to Drigg section, where BNFL had/has sidings at both connected to the mainline. I know these quite well, having worked on their design and installation back in 1982. The trains were a lot more 'interesting' back then as well (in my opinion ..) as evidenced by this photo of Drigg station in August 1982:

 

BNFL had trains that shuttled between the 2 sites, taking low radiation waste to Drigg for dumping using skips (the ones for lorries) that could be transferred to/from rail wagons.

 

Ian

[TravisM]

2 hours ago, ISW said:

I'd have thought you'd go for the Sellafield to Drigg section, where BNFL had/has sidings at both connected to the mainline. I know these quite well, having worked on their design and installation back in 1982. The trains were a lot more 'interesting' back then as well (in my opinion ..) as evidenced by this photo of Drigg station in August 1982:

 

BNFL had trains that shuttled between the 2 sites, taking low radiation waste to Drigg for dumping using skips (the ones for lorries) that could be transferred to/from rail wagons.

 

Ian

 

It's still a possibility but it would still be set in the 2017/18 time period because of the stock I already have.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

The single track section between St Bees and Sellafield seems to have a character all of its own, and if you fancy single rather than double track then I suggest you go for it. It doesn't get the variety of traffic seen south of Sellafield, or found in times past, but I think it suits what you want to run. For a possible scenic break, you can look at Nethertown.

[TravisM]

I thought as I'm not that busy, there's nothing really special going on that I'm aware of 😁, I'd take several pictures of the two DRS loco hauled trains I'm hoping to run on the layout.  Sensible comments please.

 

Edited December 24, 2023 by jools1959
Spelling

[WCML100]

Just cane across this thread and following with interest! The push pull sets look great. I would definitely follow these up by purchasing some 68’s / 88’s, matching flask wagons and for sure some more variety passenger stock wise in the form of a couple of 156’s (as others gave mentioned maybe one in the RAF livery as it was s common feature, and even one in the standard northern white livery). 
 

Regarding your track layout, I would definitely model a section with a passing loop for operational interest. A single loop in the scenic section would get boring fairly quickly I imagine. Maybe do the old trick where the station is half on scene and half off? (Footbridge as the scenic break maybe?) - That way you save space and it can built into the storage sidings, whilst also meaning plenty of scenic space for the single track section for those ‘picturesque’ parts of the layout!

 

Just my two pence! Looking forward to see this progress 🙂

[TravisM]

1 hour ago, WCML100 said:

Just cane across this thread and following with interest! The push pull sets look great. I would definitely follow these up by purchasing some 68’s / 88’s, matching flask wagons and for sure some more variety passenger stock wise in the form of a couple of 156’s (as others gave mentioned maybe one in the RAF livery as it was s common feature, and even one in the standard northern white livery). 
 

Regarding your track layout, I would definitely model a section with a passing loop for operational interest. A single loop in the scenic section would get boring fairly quickly I imagine. Maybe do the old trick where the station is half on scene and half off? (Footbridge as the scenic break maybe?) - That way you save space and it can built into the storage sidings, whilst also meaning plenty of scenic space for the single track section for those ‘picturesque’ parts of the layout!

 

Just my two pence! Looking forward to see this progress 🙂

Thank you for your comments and I’ve already got a Dapol Class 68, and a Rails/Dapol Class 88 on order, as well as a Bachmann FNA and a set of Accurascale FNA-D’s.  I think that should represent the nuclear traffic, given the space I have.

 

 I’m going to get one of Realtrack’s recently released Northern Class 156’s in white livery and tempted to get the RAF liveried one as well, but as I want DCC & sound, that’s the best part of £500.  Huge chunk out of my baseboard budget!

 

I’m also struggling with the layout plan, but I’m constrained by space.  I can’t seem to find a happy medium as both the coast section and station have plus and minus points.

[Bittern]

I'd go for a looped 8 to get the extra scenic space. Depending on how you arrange the station scenery, you might be able to do it on the flat with hidden lines behind the cliffs, though your trains should have  no problem with much steeper gradients than you'll need and that would deconflict the two routes making it easier to automate the turnbacks and either interact with them via the signalling system (which might increase the operating interest in what is otherwise a very simple layout) or use simple alternating shuttles/JMRI/etc. to shuttle trains back and forth  while you watch the trains go by.

[TravisM]

Does anyone know if the line between St Bees and Sellafield is on a gentle falling gradient?  I'm wondering if I can put St Bees where it is and then have the line follow the coast, dropping down slowly and put Sellafield/hidden sidings underneath.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

It's pretty much flat. There's an almost imperceptible summit at Nethertown, and the steepest gradient on the entire section is the 1 in 361 climb out of St Bees. Here is the relevant page of the NR database:  https://www.railwaydata.co.uk/linefiles/route/?ELR=CBC1

[Bittern]

I had been thinking of arranging the slopes under the scenery, since the land rises steeply inside the curve at St Bees and your short trains can probably cope with unusually steep gradients, but that's on the wrong side of the line to view the coastal section from the sea and it's a long way across the river to the hill where the priory is.

[Harlequin]

Since the room is only 8.5’ by 7.5’ I doubt that a folded figure of eight would work. Assuming any station was level the track would be on a steep gradient everywhere else. Connections to storage sidings would be difficult.

 

Thats why I suggested two independent circuits on different levels.

[TravisM]

6 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Since the room is only 8.5’ by 7.5’ I doubt that a folded figure of eight would work. Assuming any station was level the track would be on a steep gradient everywhere else. Connections to storage sidings would be difficult.

 

Thats why I suggested two independent circuits on different levels.

 

Hi Phil,

 

I really liked the idea of two separate levels, but as I'm on limited budget since losing my job to ill health, and my wood butchery is exactly that, I'm going to have to pay someone like Tim Horn or White Rose to create my baseboards, so you can kiss the better part of £1000 - 1500 goodbye.  If I wanted two levels, it's probably double the price.

[TravisM]

People have suggested Sellafield station, with it's sidings and loco spur, so I had a go at drawing something and I know it's double track south of the station, but it's a compromise.  If anyone has any sensible ideas or suggestions, or happy to redraw it for me, happy to take their advice.

 

 

Edited December 27, 2023 by jools1959
Additional info

[Chimer]

Don't know about sensible 🙂

 

The thing that looks missing here is off-scene storage.  You can't have everything you want visible on the layout as drawn.  So can I offer the following just as a concept ...

 

The green line is your backscene.  Your visible railway therefore goes round the full 270 degree sweep without any strange junctions.  Trains run through the landscape once en route from Barrow to Carlisle, or whatever.  The single set of storage loops acts as both Barrow and Carlisle.  You can reverse trains there if you want.  The downside is accessing the storage sidings behind the backscene, which needs to be fairly low, and it might be worth narrowing the baseboard in front of it so you can get closer to reach over more easily (I made it 2'6" all round more or less at random).

 

As I said, it's just a concept - there are a million other ways of arranging storage loops behind the backscene, which all play off against the space you've got left for the visible railway, and a million and one ways of designing the visible railway itself.  But as it stands, you could probably fit in your latest Sellafield idea without too much difficulty.

 

Hope this helps.

 

 

 

[ISW]

2 hours ago, jools1959 said:

People have suggested Sellafield station, with it's sidings and loco spur

Which looked like my photo (below) back in 1982. A quick check on Google Streetmap shows just how much has changed!

 

View from the footbridge at Sellafield station, looking south:

 

Ian

[TravisM]

2 hours ago, Chimer said:

Don't know about sensible 🙂

 

The thing that looks missing here is off-scene storage.  You can't have everything you want visible on the layout as drawn.  So can I offer the following just as a concept ...

 

The green line is your backscene.  Your visible railway therefore goes round the full 270 degree sweep without any strange junctions.  Trains run through the landscape once en route from Barrow to Carlisle, or whatever.  The single set of storage loops acts as both Barrow and Carlisle.  You can reverse trains there if you want.  The downside is accessing the storage sidings behind the backscene, which needs to be fairly low, and it might be worth narrowing the baseboard in front of it so you can get closer to reach over more easily (I made it 2'6" all round more or less at random).

 

As I said, it's just a concept - there are a million other ways of arranging storage loops behind the backscene, which all play off against the space you've got left for the visible railway, and a million and one ways of designing the visible railway itself.  But as it stands, you could probably fit in your latest Sellafield idea without too much difficulty.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Hi there,

 

Thanks for your input, much appreciated but I think your plan in a lot of ways is very similar to my original plan, unfortunately, which is what I'm struggling with.