Bakewell - Peak District Line BR - Layout Views

[Alister_G]

That is really good news, Stan's Bakewell was superb, a real inspiration.

Watching this one with great interest, looking really good. great job!

Just prior to moving to Australia I walked the line from Monsal Dale, over the viaduct, through the tunnel to Millers Dale, this was in 1971. The track was gone I think? but the ballast was still in place, I wore desert boots with a thin sole, at the end of the walk, the soles of my feet were just two great big blisters. The views though were magnificent. This has to be one the most beautiful places anywhere(though being an ex-Derby lad I might be a tad biased), I remember watching steam on that line in the late fifties/early sixties.

Rgds............Mike 

 

Hi Mike, thank you very much for your comments.

 

I'm biased too, but I think you're right, the Peak line was and still is one of the most scenic in Britain, it's just a shame there's only little bits of it that remain with a railway in it.

 

Can I point you in the direction of RBE's layout as well, he's modelling Millers Dale in N gauge, and that's going to be absolutely stunning:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/68652-millers-dale-in-the-80s-br-peak-line-in-n/

 

Cheers,

 

Al.

[Alister_G]

This evening I've added the edging slabs to the Up platform, as I had done for the Down.

 

Here's how it looked before I started, the platform surface was already done some time ago:

 

 

Here's the slabs applied, and waiting for the Matt Sand to dry:

 

 

A couple of shots having applied the Black Green wash:

 

 

 

and a couple of shots with the platform back on the layout:

 

 

 

Here's a view from the footbridge, the station got knocked whilst I was positioning the camera, hence the gap between the surfaces on the Down platform:

 

 

Ooh, there's a train, let's get a closer shot.

 

A 3F drifts down the hill into the Up platform with a local stopping train from Buxton:

 

 

Thanks for looking,

 

Al.

[Alister_G]

A couple more quick photos,

 

The first taken from under the road bridge as the local stopper draws up:

 

 

and the second taken from the footbridge as the London express roars through:

 

Edited February 23, 2014 by acg_mr

[RBE]

Looking good Al.

[Guest bri.s]

Great modelling as usual .im going to be starting on my station platforms soon so a perfectly timed tutorial . Just wondering you've got stone edging ,what will the be using for the actual platform tops .

The pictures look great

 

Brian

[Alister_G]

Great modelling as usual .im going to be starting on my station platforms soon so a perfectly timed tutorial . Just wondering you've got stone edging ,what will the be using for the actual platform tops .

The pictures look great

 

Brian

 

Hi Brain, thank you.

 

I was wondering about a thin skim of Das modelling clay, but I'm not sure how effective that will be. Alternatively, I may just use a further layer of plasticard, and try to make the joins so they look like areas of tarmac.

[Andrew P]

Hi Al, some more great pics thanks for sharing them with us, Love the 3F coming through.

 

Andy.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Andrew P

[Rowsley17D]

A couple more quick photos,

 

The first taken from under the road bridge as the local stopper draws up:

 

working10.jpg

 

and the second taken from the footbridge as the London express roars through:

 

working12.jpg

 

Ahh! It's 1964 all over again!

[ChrisN]

Al,

What was the surface?  Have you read the thread where they used DAS as tarmac? I also understand that Wet & Dry does a good imitation.

[Jamiel]

Hi Al

 

When you mentioned Das clay, it reminded me of an excellent thread about using it to get a well trodden ash ballast look. Maybe not what you are looking to reproduce for your location, but it is worth a look, as it might help with filling the Code 100 track.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/25693-ner-ash-ballast/

It is exactly what I want for the old NER track look, and great for yards. It does take some time to work into the sleepers through. Another technique to add to your skill base though, ven if it isn't applicable here.

I took up a layout a couple of years ago (sadly after a friend's father in law died), and they had used Wet and Dry for the platform tops, and the road surfaces. It look sgood when weathered, but it does mean that you have areas of basically sand paper which isn't very nice to handle stock around. Railing something alongside a plaform using that can leave your knuckles a bit sore.

Wonder work on the layout as always, thank you for sharing.

Jamie

[Alister_G]

Al,

What was the surface?  Have you read the thread where they used DAS as tarmac? I also understand that Wet & Dry does a good imitation.

 

Hi Chris, yes the surface was tarmac, so that's what I'm aiming for.

[Alister_G]

Hi Al

 

When you mentioned Das clay, it reminded me of an excellent thread about using it to get a well trodden ash ballast look. Maybe not what you are looking to reproduce for your location, but it is worth a look, as it might help with filling the Code 100 track.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/25693-ner-ash-ballast/

 

It is exactly what I want for the old NER track look, and great for yards. It does take some time to work into the sleepers through. Another technique to add to your skill base though, ven if it isn't applicable here.

I took up a layout a couple of years ago (sadly after a friend's father in law died), and they had used Wet and Dry for the platform tops, and the road surfaces. It look sgood when weathered, but it does mean that you have areas of basically sand paper which isn't very nice to handle stock around. Railing something alongside a plaform using that can leave your knuckles a bit sore.

 

Wonder work on the layout as always, thank you for sharing.

 

Jamie

 

Hi Jamie, thanks very much, and thanks for the link, It's something I would like to try to fill in around the sleepers a bit, as you suggest.

 

I've seen the suggestion to use Wet and Dry for tarmac on a number of threads, and again it's something I will try, but  I think  I'll also have a go with DAS on the platform to see what it looks like.

 

Cheers mate,

 

Al.

[RBE]

Ive used wet and dry before but you need to use the very fine end of the range. 800 to 1200 grit. It does look good but it marks very easily as it sands anything it touches. Mainly your fingers and knuckles. Doesnt hurt but marks the surface as I said.

[Alister_G]

Ive used wet and dry before but you need to use the very fine end of the range. 800 to 1200 grit. It does look good but it marks very easily as it sands anything it touches. Mainly your fingers and knuckles. Doesnt hurt but marks the surface as I said.

 

Cheers Cav, that's worth knowing.

 

Not sure I want bloodstained platforms

 

If you paint it (the fine stuff) does it remove the abrasive quality to some extent?

[RBE]

Yes it would but also the reason for using it. If painting you may as well paint normal paper or card to suit.

[Alister_G]

Yes it would but also the reason for using it. If painting you may as well paint normal paper or card to suit.

 

Duh...

 

Good point, well made

[Alister_G]

I know you all like photos, so here's a few more, taken from angles I don't think you've seen before.

 

This one works best in colour:

 

 

This one, I couldn't make up my mind, so here's both:

 

 

 

The trees are new. They're just bare Woodland Scenics armatures, straight out of the box and bent to shape, no other work done to them. Cropping round them in Paintshop has made them look worse than they actually are, I think.

 

Here's a blow up from the last photo with no processing:

 

 

I've also added a piece of Hanging Basket Liner to the back (front) of the layout for photography purposes and a temporary backscene behind the station, to hide the jumble of jars, paint brushes and bags of scenic stuff...

 

Thanks for looking.

 

Al.

[LNER4479]

I know you all like photos, so here's a few more, taken from angles I don't think you've seen before.

 

This one, I couldn't make up my mind, so here's both:

 

working003.jpg

 

working005.jpg

 

Al.

Hi Al,

 

Great work with the main station building (as if your legions of fans saying so wasn't enough!). Some of the eye level shots round the station area are beginning to look fantastic.

 

I noticed the track issue reared its head a few posts ago. Obviously you know where my preference lies in the Code 100 debate. A couple of comments if I may?

 

The biggest single thing you can do to alter the appearance (of the track) from 'toy' to believable is to paint the stuff! I suspect you probably know this but, because of its very size, the application of a coat of Humbrol Matt 29 to the sides of the rails will make a huge difference.

 

Dare I also say that the ballast on the mainline requires some...er...more work?  Pix 2 and 3 in your above post do rather show this up (IMHO). I'm sure you'll have plenty of reference pix showing the mainline trackbed through Bakewell (I'm looking at Hudson page 109 at the moment). Ideally the ballast should be as level as possible and up to the sleeper tops - no more (a somewhat different appearance to how the ballast shoulder looks on Network Rail these days). Have you used 'OO' or 'N' gauge ballast btw? (the latter usually gives better results) Once you have this 'sorted', then I'm sure your expert eye for colour and tone will take it on from there to give it the weathered/used look (something I struggle with).

 

As always, comments made in the name of making something already good even better.

[Alister_G]

Hi mate,

 

Thanks very much for your comments as always.

 

I agree entirely, the ballasting looks pretty awful at the moment. I am using 2mm ballast, but you wouldn't think so looking at the photos, it's all clumped together horribly.

 

The cess and 6-foot were done using the "neat PVA first, ballast on top" method. and it looks far neater than the ballast on the main running lines which was done using the "ballast first, dilute PVA after" approach.

 

One of the reasons why I haven't made much progress this week is that having taken a number of photos, I'm aware of how bad the ballast is. I'm now debating how I go forward, whether to rip up both track and ballast and start again, but if I do that, is it worth moving to code75? Alternatively, do I just try and rescue the ballasting as well as I'm able...

 

Thoughts welcomed...

[Jason T]

Whether you go 75 or stick with 100 will depend to an extent what the age of your oldest (still required to be used) locos and rolling stock is because the older wheel standards will ride the chairs on Code 75.

 

If you can get the current ballast up without having to lift the track (or tidy up the ballast that is currently down) then you may be as well to stick with the code 100 and have a real good go at painting & weathering it. I was going to say that if you are happy with the ballast leave that too but from your above post, it sounds like you're not.p.

 

p.s. The paint the PVA / Copydex in with a small paintbrush is time consuming but as you've already found out, the end results are far better than splodging watered down PVA over everything. How could it not be?

[LNER4479]

I'm with Jason on trying to tidy up what you've already got. I find that that PVA, particularly if it was diluted, can be picked away at without doing any too terminal to the track (it is designed to stick to wood afterall, not so much plastic or metal!). Some of the stuff I did a year ago has actually come away of it's own accord following a couple of transportations. Try using a small screw driver to remove any pieces of ballast that are either stuck to the sides of the rails, tops of sleepers or any 'clumps' that are sticking up above sleeper top level. Once you've got it all back to below sleeper top level, then a careful (possibly localised) application of PVA, followed by no more  ballast than you need, should produce results.

 

Won't deny that it's time-consuming, painstaking work, but - hey - you're good at that; just look at that footbridge or station canopy!

Edited February 25, 2014 by LNER4479

[ChrisN]

Al,

I find this interesting as I will be using Peco code 100 and I thought that the copydex/PVA first would not give sufficient depth.  Phil Parker in thr BRM 'First Layout' supplement suggested laying it first then dribbling water along each side and allowing the whole ballast to soak before adding PVA, but it is probably too late for that now.

 

I would stick with what you have got and not rip it up.  Andy P has shown on several occasions that code 100 can look fine.

[Alister_G]

Hi Chris, thanks.

 

The "ripping it up" is probably more to do with starting the ballasting from scratch, really, it was just a thought that if I had already removed the track I might well replace it, but a few things militate against that:

 

1/ I can't afford to buy replacement code75 track and turnouts

 

2/ Some of my rolling stock would need new wheels, as they're quite old and have large flanges

 

3/ I can't afford new wheels

 

4/ I can't afford much of anything at the moment!!

 

So I'll be sticking with code 100 for now.

[JCL]

If I saw 100 and 75 side by side, I'd see the difference, but apart, I think I'd be hard pressed, especially once it's all weathered. A friend mentioned substituting isopropyl alcohol for the water when diluting PVA. I've not tried this myself as I've done no ballasting since it was mentioned, but it sounds interesting.

[Guest bri.s]

i was thinking have you thought about polyfilla for the platform surface mabe mix it with a little pva im going to do some messing with it for the platforms on Barnsley Central.

 

Brian