Bacup - Mills in the hills

[Physicsman]

Afternoon Jason.

 

It's been a while since I've been on here - nice to see a trackplan in post 793. I can't recall having seen one earlier in the thread. I'm assuming this is a fair representation of the prototype? If so, do you have photos of the signal placements?

 

I echo Billy's sentiments regarding signals. I've made a number of attempts to get to grips with the system, but I can't say I'd get more than 50% on an exam. Thankfully the plan of KL is very near to that of Kirkby Stephen, so I ought to be able to botch my way through - especially if I enlist Mike (Stationmaster)'s help. Send him a PM with your plan - you'll be amazed at what comes back.

 

Good to see you've recovered from your alcoholic antics last weekend. don't sozzle your brain too much - the Lunesters need your input!!

 

Jeff

[Steve Hewitt]

I've not got onto the baffling subject of signalling yet, but given that it is the approach to the station, would it need more than one doll to control access into the platforms, etc? At present, that is just an old Ratio one that I have randomly plonked down and I know (well, presume) it isn't right - some time soon I will need to learn how to make MSE ones and I'd best get them right

 

The one difference I have with real Bacup is that the signal at the end of the platforms had four dolls, as the junction was just beyond the signalbox, whereas in my attempt, the junction is assumed to be off stage so I presume that I would have just two dolls on the platform ends (e.g. a starter for wach platform) and then a junction signal further down the line? I know next to nothing about such things.

 

Here is an Anyrail version of the trackplan, accurate apart from that I used SMP and handbuilt turnouts rather than Peco. I don't want to get into signalling to a huge extent yet and will start a separate thread where I will be pestering you, Mike and countless others, but a starter for ten may be good

 

 

I don't ask much, do I :D

Jason,

 

Without doubt the best advice on signalling requirements will come from one or two of the (ex-)railwaymen on RMweb.

My knowledge is limitted to reading books in preparation for making models.

 

Steve. 

[Jason T]

Hi Steve, no worries; I fully intend to set up a separate thread so will pester those in the know in that

 

Hi Jeff,

 

it is a representation of the real location; if you compared it to the OS map (which I did use to work out the layout) then there are a few omissions, the main ones being the junction to Rochdale which should curve sharply left just after the signalbox, and the goods loop, which I could have fit in but the radius would have been very tight  (too tight), especially for the turnouts where it rejoined the main running lines. As such, the signal diagrams that I have are about as much use as a chocolate fireguard unfortunately.

 

A similar trackplan does appear in post no.1

[Andrew P]

Hi Jason,  did a post 15 or so mins ago but it is still floating about in outer space somewhere, hahaaaa

 

Anyway I have to say that I think this will inspire a lot of real modellers to try a real location, well done so far.

 

Old Lune.

[emt_911]

I echo Billy's sentiments regarding signals. I've made a number of attempts to get to grips with the system, but I can't say I'd get more than 50% on an exam.

 

 

That's one of the reasons I've gone for a depot. I don't think I'd even get close to 35%.

 

However, while still carrying on with Oxted Park, I'm looking for a real location to start long term planning for a modular layout. Partly down to you Jason.

 

Duncan

[hybridangel77]

thanks for the info on the plasticard jason. i have to say i love looking at your thread as your scratch building skills are brilliant and looking at what 

you are doing gives me more confidence in scratch building myself.if you have time take a look at my thread and tell me what you think of my layout 

and let me know if you have any advice!!!

 

cheers again

terry

[Jason T]

Cheers folks, your comments mean a lot to me, especially as I've done nothing like this before (my last layout was Peco Code 75, based on nowhere in particular, a few scratchbuilt buildings but none actually based on any real structures - with the exception of the station which was very loosely based on Wennington). I still don't think that what I am doing is anything special, I am just lucky in that I fell in love with that photo of Bacup I saw in the Past & Present book all those years ago, that it (with quite a few amendments) was achievable to an extent in the space I had and that Google Street View was invented

 

Seriously though, it has been said before many times but having an actual location to base your layout on pays dividends, from the trackplan, the operation and most importantly for me, the wealth of buildings that you can base your models on. For instance, if you were after scratchbuilding a small industrial building and had nothing to go on (e.g. no prototype), would you ever come up with anything like this odd place? It has a weird little bricked up cellar window, windows that look more like those you would find in a house, a fire escape (why does it need one?) that instead of dropping to the street goes round the corner to somewhere or other, doors that are much lower than the windows on the floor that you would expect it to be for, it's an old building but made in Stretcher Bond (but with random courses of headers for no apparent reason), other areas seem to have had the bricks replaced at some time, there is that drainpipe that drops diagonally down the side wall and then just stops, with the water cascading down the wall and it has a hipped roof. You really couldn't make it up but it is full of charm. In case you were wondering, it is on River Street in Bacup and overlooks the site of the former station.

 

 

Disclaimer: I am using the above for inspiration and my version will be very different (I only had English Bond brick in my Plastikard supply for starters). 

 

I have seen your thread Terry and am impressed, not least because you are not happy to just open a box and plonk structures on the layout but take a knife, glue, etc., to them, which is always going to win you points on here. I had seen the earlier version on Youtube and remember being impressed

 

For anyone wanting to have a go at scratchbuilding, I wrote the following step-by-step guide a while ago and whilst there may be quite a few steps, none of it is too difficult.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/40873-buildings-for-bacup/page-4&do=findComment&comment=850711

[Jason T]

Ok, so it's not really like the above building but you can see where I drew inspiration from. I have less of a frontage (on the road side) and a longer side to fill, so adapted it to become some kind of small engineering workshop-type-thing. Not got too far yet although I have built the former/box thing, added the SEF brickwork, cut out the windows and recessed the brickwork into all the window apertures. It'll look a bit better once I complete the other wall, add lintels and sills and get some paint on it (prior to windows being added, etc).

 

[aberdare]

Hi Jason

 

It looks as if you have plenty to keep you busy.

 

I like the idea of the triangular building and look forward to seeing how that turns out as It is always more common for all buildings to be either flat against or at right angles to the back edges of the layout.

 

I must admit I do like to look at unusual or tatty buildings to model, unfortunately my current garage fits the latter.

 

Oh! I see you have already progressed quite well, I feel guilty now about being on here. I'd better hurry up, get off and get some modelling done instead.

 

Jim

[emt_911]

Jason

 

I used your scratchbuilding step-by-step guide for the fuel bund on Oxted Park (Just waiting for the weather to be good enough to varnish).

 

I'm now starting on the depot and using a combination of George T's 2mm ply and your scratchbuildning techniques.

 

I believe that the main thing is if we show how as individuals approach something, it can give others confidence to have a go and produce something unique.

 

Duncan

[hybridangel77]

Cheers folks, your comments mean a lot to me, especially as I've done nothing like this before (my last layout was Peco Code 75, based on nowhere in particular, a few scratchbuilt buildings but none actually based on any real structures - with the exception of the station which was very loosely based on Wennington). I still don't think that what I am doing is anything special, I am just lucky in that I fell in love with that photo of Bacup I saw in the Past & Present book all those years ago, that it (with quite a few amendments) was achievable to an extent in the space I had and that Google Street View was invented

 

Seriously though, it has been said before many times but having an actual location to base your layout on pays dividends, from the trackplan, the operation and most importantly for me, the wealth of buildings that you can base your models on. For instance, if you were after scratchbuilding a small industrial building and had nothing to go on (e.g. no prototype), would you ever come up with anything like this odd place? It has a weird little bricked up cellar window, windows that look more like those you would find in a house, a fire escape (why does it need one?) that instead of dropping to the street goes round the corner to somewhere or other, doors that are much lower than the windows on the floor that you would expect it to be for, it's an old building but made in Stretcher Bond (but with random courses of headers for no apparent reason), other areas seem to have had the bricks replaced at some time, there is that drainpipe that drops diagonally down the side wall and then just stops, with the water cascading down the wall and it has a hipped roof. You really couldn't make it up but it is full of charm. In case you were wondering, it is on River Street in Bacup and overlooks the site of the former station.

 

 

Disclaimer: I am using the above for inspiration and my version will be very different (I only had English Bond brick in my Plastikard supply for starters). 

 

I have seen your thread Terry and am impressed, not least because you are not happy to just open a box and plonk structures on the layout but take a knife, glue, etc., to them, which is always going to win you points on here. I had seen the earlier version on Youtube and remember being impressed

 

For anyone wanting to have a go at scratchbuilding, I wrote the following step-by-step guide a while ago and whilst there may be quite a few steps, none of it is too difficult.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/40873-buildings-for-bacup/page-4&do=findComment&comment=850711

the web address you typed on the step by step guide on scratch building does not seem to work bud.oh and thanks for taking a look at my layout!

[Jason T]

Weird, it works for me. It is in the Scenery, structures & Transport sub-forum but if you click on my profile and then Threads started by (or whatever it is called) then you should be able to find it, and any other crap I have started : D

[LNER4479]

I've not got onto the baffling subject of signalling yet, but given that it is the approach to the station, would it need more than one doll to control access into the platforms, etc? At present, that is just an old Ratio one that I have randomly plonked down and I know (well, presume) it isn't right - some time soon I will need to learn how to make MSE ones and I'd best get them right

 

The one difference I have with real Bacup is that the signal at the end of the platforms had four dolls, as the junction was just beyond the signalbox, whereas in my attempt, the junction is assumed to be off stage so I presume that I would have just two dolls on the platform ends (e.g. a starter for wach platform) and then a junction signal further down the line? I know next to nothing about such things.

 

Here is an Anyrail version of the trackplan, accurate apart from that I used SMP and handbuilt turnouts rather than Peco. I don't want to get into signalling to a huge extent yet and will start a separate thread where I will be pestering you, Mike and countless others, but a starter for ten may be good

 

 

I don't ask much, do I :D

 

Hi Jason,

 

Slightly surprised that no-one has 'had a go' at suggesting some signals for you! I would put myself in the same category as Steve(AtBax) - I understand it from reading the principles (The Kitchenside & Williams guide to the subject was my introduction) and can sometimes/usually work out what is going on from studying a photo. However, rather than have a full go myself (coward!), I thought I'd post the following:

 

OK, so why have I posted a picture of Tornado at the Great Central Railway on a thread about Bacup? Well it occurred to be, when studying your trackplan, together with the comments about sighting of signals near bridges, that there are striking similarities between your track layout and that at the now double track layout at Loughborough (effectively a terminus station these days - well, at least for the time being!) and hence the potentially similar signalling arrangements.

 

The main bracket signal (to the left of Tornado) controls the entry of trains into the station arriving on the northbound (down?) line from Quorn (in your case out of your fiddle yard!) and could therefore give an indication of the type of signal you'd need (I'm trying not to be too 'absolute' here!). Like your layout, passenger trains have the choice of two platforms, either side of an island platform. The tallest (central) arm is therefore for the principal 'straight on' route into the old northbound platform (the equivalent of the bottom platform on your plan); the lower (right hand) arm is for a train to negotiate the crossover beyond the bridge and into the old southbound platform (the top platform on your plan). The interesting coincidence is the third main arm, ie the arm on the left, being the lowest of the three main arms. This signals a train into the loop alongside the old northbound platform at Loughborough; the equivalent on yours would be a goods train arriving into the bottom most road (from where presumably it could shunt in and out of your goods yard). The principle is therefore very simple - the signals simply read from left to right to match the left to right order of the choice of routes. The higher the arm, the more 'important' the route (sorry if that's too simplistic and therefore insulting?!)

 

Where it gets complicated/baffling are the smaller, subsidiary signals. The one below the main left hand arm is painted to indicate it being a 'calling on' signal. At this point I will have to profess that I am not fully certain of its role at Loughborough (so others please do correct me) but it could be that it allows a second train into the loop line when there is already a train in. In that case, the second train knows to proceed at caution and stop short of the train in front, ie it is not being allowed to travel the full length of the loop line (which is what the raising of the main arm indicates).

 

Meanwhile(!) to the right of Tornado are a stack of signals to allow a shunting move to take place from the southbound (up?) mainline. It is very likely that Tornado is undertaking just such a move. She is in forward gear so is clearly moving towards the photographer. Once fully past this signal post she will most likely have stopped and waited for the appropriate signal to be raised to indicate into which road to reverse back down into. They are arranged to read from top left to bottom right, hence if the top one was raised that would indicate that it would be going into the northbound loop line, mentioned above, ie the furthest left. If, at your Bacup, locos were to run forward under the bridge on the departure line before backing down (ie top right of your plan) then this would be the equivalent of this arrangement and some form of signal would be provided (although it could just as easily be a ground shunt signal as opposed to ones on a post).

 

The proximity of the bridge in the picture of Loughborough and the fact that these signals are this side of the bridge (which in your case would be in your fiddle yard!) well illustrates the points made earlier about signal sighting.

 

What I do know is that, although there were 'rules' in terms of signalling, there was considerable regional (and indeed pre-grouping) variation in how they were applied and I think the Loughborough picture well illustrates this (even though it's modern day preservation, HMRI were nonetheless involved in assessing and approving the installation for use). This is also one of the areas where driver's 'route knowledge' becomes such a critical factor. To 'sign' a route, a driver needs to know and understand all the signals on that route and what their meanings are. But provided it is understood by all and logical in application, then all should be well, hence the many variations that are to be seen.

 

Hope this helps (a bit!) or is at least of some interest.

Edited February 7, 2013 by LNER4479

[Jason T]

Thank you very much for providing that info, it's given me a fair bit to mull over and also, in the process, explained some of the basics of signalling. I have just had a look at the photos I have of Bacup (I can't put them up on here or anywhere else, as they are copyrighted) and the signal on the approach from Bury does indeed have three arms, with the two controlling access to the platforms being the same height and that into the loop being shorter. What's interesting is that they are lower quadrant (L&Y I presume) whereas every photo of the starter signal at the platform end is upper quadrant (LMS) - replaced at some point but as the photo with the lower quadrants in is pre-grouping (and is the only photo I have seen of that area), did that lovely signal remain or was it replaced? Another shot I have, taken in the 50's, shows the two arm signal controlling access into the station from the Rochdale branch and this is lower quadrant. 

 

Bizarrely, if I could have put the junction in (I wish......), it would have made the signalling easier

[LNER4479]

Happy to help... whilst being ever cautious of misleading (there really must be better signalling experts out there than me!).

 

Sounds though as if the three post bracket signal would be 'correct' for your situation. The two passenger arrivals signals being of equal height sounds like someone decided that both terminal platforms were of equal standing. The goods loop signal being at a lower height seems typical.

 

I'm interested to learn that the signal off the Rochdale branch had only two arms. This would seem to indicate that it was not possible for a goods train to arrive straight into the good loop (on the west side) from that (easterley) direction; therefore there would be some shunting back and forth to get such a train into (and presumably out of) the goods yard. That sounds like a classic railway 'compromise'. Signalling (and associated trackwork) is expensive stuff so perhaps they saved a few shekkels on the original installation and forever condemned those who had to operate the thing to undertake all the additional shunting down the years?!

 

The potential mix of signal types (ie upper or lower quadrant) comes as no surprise. The setting for my own project (1937) allows for a mix of types (as per the prototype photos), which I absolutely love (indeed it carried on post-war with a mix of colour lights and semaphores). Symptomatic I think of economic hardship when things were only replaced piecemeal as they wore out, rather than a systematic remodelling exercise. Great for the atmosphere and charm of a model, IMHO

Edited February 7, 2013 by LNER4479

[Andrew P]

Hi Jason, just popped in for a quick look and a catch up on Lunesters sites. looking good mate.

All the best

 

Andy

[Jason T]

This week, I have mostly been fiddling around with two new buildings, as seen a few days ago. Both have moved on quite a bit, with the shop being the furthest along but still not finished.

 

The shop needs the shop front section glazing and attaching, rear out-building (well, representation of as it is out of sight) attaching, slates putting on and painting, chimney pots and gutters. The below photo shows the shop front (since weathered) leaning up against the rest of the building rather than being glued in. Additionally, all stone edges have been touched up - the mortar courses all line up perfectly on this one. Also, for some mad reason, I painted the window frames in cream rather than just leave them white.

Oh, and the now required extra sections of retaining wall have been trimmed and painted, but need the sub-structure building.

 

The industrial building is much further behind. The shell (that the outer walls will be attached to) is finished and the outer walls themselves have all brick, lintels and sills attached, sprayed in primer, painted in brick colour and mortar added but I am far from happy with it so it's back to the drawing (painting) board with this one. In the photo, I have just popped the shell in it's respective location (needs trimming) and popped two of the walls in. The alley between the top house and the new building is a bit narrow but I don't really see that as an issue, especially as the brick structure is a later addition and the builders took as much land (and liberties) as they could. It may not get used yet though, jury is still out on this one.

 

As you can also see, I sprayed the bridge with grey primer. I think I am going to need to scribe narrower pavements for this road; these are to my 'main road' measurements rather than 'side road'

 

 

 

[bluebottle]

The row of houses tumbling down the slope is a delight to the eye! Oddly, I suspect that I'm going to miss that corner of 1:1 scale brickwork when it finally disappears from view...

 

Gordon

 

(Edit: signature)

Edited February 8, 2013 by bluebottle

[billyb_imp]

Jason

 

That row of terraced houses going down the hill look so true to life, they remind me of somewhere in my past, make just outside Holbeck in Leeds

[hybridangel77]

That row of houses does look the nuts my friend.So do you think its best to model a real life location to achieve the correct level of detail that we all try to achieve in this hobby?

 

terry 

[Jason T]

I have found it easier basing a layout on somewhere real, as it gives you the opportunity to look for actual buildings and use them for inspiration, and know that none of them should look out of place. I suppose it also helps in that you can look at a street, station, goods yard, etc, and see the purpose of why it was built or laid out in such a way, rather than (and I was guilty of this on my last layout) adding the features you want and then making excuses for them. In that respect, I did strike it lucky in that I found out that there was a grain mill in Bacup with it's own private sidings, down the Rochdale line and neath the goods shed. Light engines running to and from the shed would trip wagons to the mill. Perfect, as I built and love my Parkside Grain vans and I have a legitimate excuse for them, and for locos of all sizes to disappear off scene with them : D

[Andrew P]

Hi Jason, I know I have said it before but I just love that row of houses on the RISE, or FALL depending on where yo are standing,  fabulous mate, so Tetleys!!!

 

Old Lune.

[The Stationmaster]

Hi Steve, no worries; I fully intend to set up a separate thread so will pester those in the know in that

 

Hi Jeff,

 

it is a representation of the real location; if you compared it to the OS map (which I did use to work out the layout) then there are a few omissions, the main ones being the junction to Rochdale which should curve sharply left just after the signalbox, and the goods loop, which I could have fit in but the radius would have been very tight  (too tight), especially for the turnouts where it rejoined the main running lines. As such, the signal diagrams that I have are about as much use as a chocolate fireguard unfortunately.

 

A similar trackplan does appear in post no.1

A good first simple step would be to go along the lines you mention above and look at what was there at the real place (i.e the 12":1ft reality cos yours is also pretty real) and see what can come.  That way will help to capture the atmosphere of how it was compared with advice about how to do it which might not pick up any little local nuances and quirks.

 

It looks very straightforward to signal but I think it would help enormously to capture any local quirks - should there happen to be any.

[Mythocentric]

Hi Jason

 

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who suffers from the dreaded 'signalling syndrome', especially where the ex-L&Y lines were concerned given their penchant for signalling for every possible move that could be made regardless. A situation which remained largely unchanged until the introduction of track-rationalisation and colour light signals. Have you had a look at Tom Wray's book 'L&YR Signalling' available from the Society which should help. Otherwise, be afraid. Be very afraid!

 

Regards

 

Bill (Itinerant Coconutter)

[Jason T]

You know that feeling when you just aren't sure about something; you're not convinced it's wrong but deep down you know it's not right either?

I started to think that the brick building I started wasn't quite right, mainly because of the dimensions of it when placed in it's hole. So, I started to construct another building at the same time, not quite as long but for the same area, if you will. Instead of go for brick though, I decided I would stick with stone, although the 4mm dressed stone rather than 2mm this time.

 

I still wasn't sure so have kept working on both of these, including fitting Microstrip windows to the brick structure and Brassmasters etches to the stone one (yeah, I know; I had a few packets that I bought years ago, they are arched rather than square and I thought 'why not'), painted both in a cream colour and even glued the brick one together (I even added door frames and painted them in the same cream). I was just sat here wondering how I should configure the hipped roof on a basically square brick building (yep, it has no roof at all yet) when I finally decided not to use it. Thing is, I'm not 100% about the stone one either......

 

So, here is the brick one. Took a while to paint, I even went to the trouble of digging out some stretcher bond brick and painting it up to add to the bricked in cellar window. First shot is more orange than a satsuma who has been to the spray tan shop every day for six months....

 

 

Other than a missing window due to the width restrictions I was faced with, this isn't far off the front of the real building. The side wall with all the windows is from Imaginary Town though

 

 

And here is the stone building. No doors yet, and the opening sections of the windows are drying out at the moment, having being painted well before anything is glazed. The sides are quite obviously leaning against the box which will hold the whole structure rigid.

 

 

Now if anyone thinks they can put use to the brick structure, and remember that it was made with specific dimensions in mind (doorway is 76mm above the baseboard, building is angled to match the back edge of said board, etc) and that it needs a roof of some sort (a flat roof would be pretty easy to do), then you are welcome to it, for nowt. It's a pretty sturdy structure, but you could possibly trim it down to size.... (I wouldn't want to though)