Millers Dale in the 80s - BR Peak Line in N

[RBE]

Its no worries. Its in there for anyone that wants to have a go. Its not the most complex plan and I'm sure that I could signal it well enough but as you say there are certain rules that the layman would not necessarily identify, especially if its a mixed signalling scheme.

 

Cav

[James]

Don't forget, it was an express route (and therefore quite a high priority for upgrades).

Just like much of Midland Mainline which remained traditionally signalled?!

 

Remember that semaphores aren't normally replaced wholesale without other major changes than enthusiasts either don't see or don't notice - complete replacement of mechanical signals is normally the result of a switch from Absolute Block to Track Circuit Block. AB lines can be rationalised by simply closing boxes and making the sections longer or replacing them with Intermediate Block Sections.

 

This is an 'express route' (mainline) in 2010 -

 

TPE Class 170, 170304 at Brough by JamesWells, on Flickr

 

Two signal boxes in view and one just out of sight round the corner!

 

For the most part semaphores remain (and there were more for the slows once) but the signal on the approach to the crossing is one of a small group which has been installed. It allows the signaller at Brough East SB to pull off without having to bring the train to a stand at the home board with the crossing open to road traffic - it's exact positioning wass, I think, determined by the length of an HST.

 

It's a good example of selective replacement of seamphores.

[RBE]

Good example that James. I'm very much edging to the mixed signalling approach. I think it would make things interesting provided we can operate them correctly. 

 

I've been playing with the track plan and I think I am going to settle on this. I have posted this in the signalling section but not everyone frequents that area so any comments on the revision of the loop area are welcome.

 

 

Cav

[beast66606]

The Midland mainline was all colour light aside from the Leicester gap by 1980.

[Fat Controller]

Good example that James. I'm very much edging to the mixed signalling approach. I think it would make things interesting provided we can operate them correctly. 

 

I've been playing with the track plan and I think I am going to settle on this. I have posted this in the signalling section but not everyone frequents that area so any comments on the revision of the loop area are welcome.

 

 

 

Cav

I'd have another look at the way the yard is laid out:

Firstly, most railways avoided facing entries into goods yard like the plague. The Railway Inspectorate were of the opinion that they were a Bad Thing, and would be unlikely to sanction them.

Secondly, the yard would be virtually impossible to shunt without a pilot, as any vehicles being picked up or set down would have to be in front of the train engine.

Would it be feasible for you to have the yard connection trail in at the other end of the station? Effectively, it would mean revrsing the way the station is laid out, with the station building at the left-hand end.

[beast66606]

I'd have another look at the way the yard is laid out:

Firstly, most railways avoided facing entries into goods yard like the plague. The Railway Inspectorate were of the opinion that they were a Bad Thing, and would be unlikely to sanction them.

Secondly, the yard would be virtually impossible to shunt without a pilot, as any vehicles being picked up or set down would have to be in front of the train engine.

Would it be feasible for you to have the yard connection trail in at the other end of the station? Effectively, it would mean revrsing the way the station is laid out, with the station building at the left-hand end.

 

Brian,

 

It's a modernised layout - by the 1960/70/80s I doubt facing points would be blacklisted - if they were then there are plenty of prototypes that would never have been opened.

 

Trains could arrive in the down bi-directional loop, with traffic for the yard at the tail, the train loco could run off, to the back, pull the wagons out and then propel into the yard, the opposite applying for departing traffic.

[beast66606]

 

For the most part semaphores remain (and there were more for the slows once) but the signal on the approach to the crossing is one of a small group which has been installed. It allows the signaller at Brough East SB to pull off without having to bring the train to a stand at the home board with the crossing open to road traffic.

 

 

 

I don't see the logic in this, you can pull off with the crossing open to the road, even though it's worked from the box ? - the box might as well be abolished then

[RBE]

Not really as that is how the yard was. There is no provision at all for coming in the other end. The prototype did have a trailing point and head shunt but I don't have room to do that without sacrificing the look of the layout. I fully intend to have a dedicated yard shunter as the yard is privately owned by a local distributor.

 

Facing points with a lock to enter the private yard ought to be doable.

 

Cav

[RBE]

Dave you posted as I was writing. Your explanation of entering the yard sounds good.

 

Cav

[richierich]

As a suggestion, you might want to consider what the signalling regulations stated for the time you believe the signalling was adjusted prior to your modelling period of the mid 1980s (possibly post Beaching if there was rationalisation of the track and hence signalling?). Another factor is the regional differences / interpretations, so therefore, Millers Dale would follow LMR or Midland practices. 

 

Regarding actuation, motorising semaphores would be better, whether via a servo or solenoid. Trying to replicate prototypical rodding and roping in N, I'd imagine would be a huge model engineering challenge.

 

Certainly as an aside without the scenics, you might want to consider a relay room next to box, if you go the TCB (Track Circuit Block). Bootham Box near York had one built on the side in 1947/8 (all demolished in 1989 when York IECC was commissioned), although the LMR might do things differently to the North East Region!

 

I'd certainly not rush your signalling design, it can make or break a layout to the trained eye. Where possible see if you can get some advice off a Signalling Design Engineer (I'm quite fortunate, I as work with quite a few).

[James]

I don't see the logic in this, you can pull off with the crossing open to the road, even though it's worked from the box ? - the box might as well be abolished then

The colour light signal in the photo is the inner home - I didn;t say you clear it with the crossing open.

 

Operation is clear the outer home, it shows a single yellow, and the 'distant' shows a double yellow and the inner home (the colour light in the photo on the approach to the crossing) is at red. Saves the signaller having to watch the board for the train to track and speeds up the train's approach into the platform. It also allows a relatively busy road (well at times due to British Aerospace using the road for access to be held up only for a minimum amount of time. They can end up with some nice long queues there at times!

 

Brough East's signals also incorporate Brough West's signals to a certain degree so its station limits are much greater than you'd expect on the Down.

Edited April 16, 2013 by James

[RBE]

As a suggestion, you might want to consider what the signalling regulations stated for the time you believe the signalling was adjusted prior to your modelling period of the mid 1980s (possibly post Beaching if there was rationalisation of the track and hence signalling?). Another factor is the regional differences / interpretations, so therefore, Millers Dale would follow LMR or Midland practices. 

 

Regarding actuation, motorising semaphores would be better, whether via a servo or solenoid. Trying to replicate prototypical rodding and roping in N, I'd imagine would be a huge model engineering challenge.

 

Certainly as an aside without the scenics, you might want to consider a relay room next to box, if you go the TCB (Track Circuit Block). Bootham Box near York had one built on the side in 1947/8 (all demolished in 1989 when York IECC was commissioned), although the LMR might do things differently to the North East Region!

 

I'd certainly not rush your signalling design, it can make or break a layout to the trained eye. Where possible see if you can get some advice off a Signalling Design Engineer (I'm quite fortunate, I as work with quite a few).

Hi Rich I wasnt planning on making working signal/point rodding. I would actuate them with servos or similar. I was referring to cosmetic rodding.

 

Cav

[richierich]

Hi Cav,

 

You could use Evergreen Strip for the rodding. Roping, well probably dark grey cotton thread maybe between microstrip posts, which hold the pullies. I've had a look in my photos from a site visit to a box (Gillberdyke) a few years ago, which shows both, which might be an aid?

 

Indeed this area was reduced from four to two tracks during BR rationalisation in I think 1986-88, so same period as your modelling, so shows BR installation practices of the time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 16, 2013 by richierich

[James]

 

My box!!!

[beast66606]

The nearest example of a resignalling to the actual location is Chinley, where one box was closed, one replaced with a new LMR 15 and the tracks were reduced from four to two - this was all controlled by a panel in Chnley (replacing Chinley North Junction), Romiley also received a panel around the same time closing Marple, Strines and Marple Wharf Junction (iirc) - so really if we assume all things being equal Millers Dale should have a BR LMR 15 box or an old Midland box controlling colour lights throughout the location.

[P.C.M]

Look forwards to seeing point rodding in 2mm Cav, Doing it in 4mm on Llanbourne was a real pain.  

 

I got some useful info on rules to follow when doing the point rodding from an old Railway Constructor and an MRJ article I will find out what issues and let you know if you want.

 

Cheers Peter.

[RBE]

Well Peter following Daves comments above I'm not sure whether to go Semaphore at all now, I'm planning on doing the Millers Dale Midland signal box so if anyone's got any good pics of that, that would be cool, can only find 1 on Google and its not that good a picture!!

 

I would be interested in the articles on rodding etc you mention though as I may add them yet.

 

Cav

[Marcus 37]

That could well be an interesting solution James. Keep the semaphores for the locations that remain true to the original trackplan and then where remodelling has taken place, loop and bay, add colour lights as the signals were replaced. Would that work in model form or am I gonna get a load of finger pointers giving it this   at exhibitions?  

 

Cav

Hi Cav

Great to see your stock coming along nicely. Personally I can't see any problem at all mixing up the signalling with semaphore and colour lights. If anything it will just add to the interest of the layout. There is certainly nothing un-prototypical about it. You only have to look at Banbury which is a real mix of the two signalling systems. In fact only a few years ago there were two brand new semaphores erected at the south end of the station which allowed upward moves towards London from platforms 1 and 3. The good thing is your layout is "what if" so you can basically do what you like. There are some good pictures of Banbury on the layout thread of the same name which shows the mixture of signalling.

Keep up the good work. 

Marcus

[Marcus 37]

Hi Cav

I have been looking through my photos of my trip up to Millers Dale last year. The two structures shown below I believe are both in the vicinity of the yard which may be of interest.

 

Old water tank which is which was on the left hand side looking towards Buxton and adjacent to the old lime stone kilns as shown below.

There are also the remains of some old lime stone kilns to the Bakewell end of the station but unfortunately I forgot to photograph these as I was to eager to get to the place pictured below. Looking on your plan this will need to be included as well.   

[RBE]

Thanks for those Marcus. The Kiln you have photographed would in my slightly altered world be the other side of the west outcrop tunnel so wont feature on my layout however the Kiln at the east end which is this one

 

 

will be added and is shown on my layout plan on page 3 (ish). Again in my slightly altered world there is a tunnel mouth just beyond where those children are cycling.

 

The anglers rest is just too far from the station area and viaducts to be within the bounds of the layout which is a shame.

 

Cav

Edited April 17, 2013 by RBE

[Marcus 37]

I must have to much time on my hands today as I'm spending far to much time on here. I was just reading your original post again and you were asking for suggestions about the possible traffic into the yard for local agriculture. Thinking about it the most obvious would be fertilizer traffic for keeping that grass nice and green. Plenty of Nitrogen needed in the peaks due to the amount of lime in the soil.
The other thing I thought about was Milk traffic. Although the six wheeled tankers had gone by the eighties DRS did a trial in the 90's using road tankers in piggyback wagons. you would just need to assume BR thought of it first. As you said in your original post palletised animal feed is another option which could be transported in Cargowaggons etc.

[Marcus 37]

Thanks for those Marcus. The Kiln you have photographed would in my slightly altered world be the other side of the west outcrop tunnel so wont feature on my layout however the Kiln at the east end which is this one

 

East kiln.jpg

 

will be added and is shown on my layout plan on page 3 (ish). Again in my slightly altered world there is a tunnel mouth just beyond where those children are cycling.

 

The anglers rest is just too far from the station area and viaducts to be within the bounds of the layout which is a shame.

 

Cav

That sounds a good idea as you can bring Litton tunnel and Chee Tor Number 1 tunnel closer to the station. This too will also add a bit of interest due to the two different profiles of the tunnels. Chee Tor being the more traditional profile.

 

 

[Alister_G]

Don't they look weird with the road markings, signs and lights!

 

Nice photos, really good.

[Marcus 37]

Don't they look weird with the road markings, signs and lights!

 

Nice photos, really good.

They certainly do. You wonder whats going to come out when you walk towards them. Headstone tunnel looks even stranger at the Bakewell end with a large metal cage erected to stop rocks falling on your head. There are more of my pictures of the Monsal trail here: http://marcussrailwayphotos.smugmug.com/Dis-usedRailwayWalks/Monsal-Trail/26184445_wgCvTP#!i=2177759775&k=GPqcXFS

 

I hope that eventually they'll extend the trail back towards Darley Dale through Haddon tunnel as that one is quite interesting and also quite long.

 

Must admit I have been following your layout as well which is looking good. Love the Peak District and hope to be back up soon. Normally stop in Bakewell in Melbourne House guest house.

[RBE]

So Peter is that any better?

 

 

Cav