Montague

For those of the weathering persuasion I recently discovered that , Dark Blue Grey and Leather from the Model Colour range are good substitutes for the long time humbrol enamel favourites of Tarmac and matt leather

Intesting - would it be possible to provide numbers for the paints you are referring to?

I find the 'German camouflage black brown' from the Vallejo Panzer aces range to be an excellent colour for general grime and also old rust.

May I resurrect this thread? Any more takers?

I would wait if I were you. I got cloudy (Woodland Scenics) water, but it became clear after one or two months!

Edit: Didn't read that the water had ran off the board...

Interesting discussion here. Adding coal drops are something which would cement the north east location but there were NE without them or it would be easy to imagine a situation where coal was handled in a nearby depot, just off-scene for instance, so it is not a must.

 

Just out of interest, what kind of space do you envisage for the scenic section?

 

Thanks,

David

Hi David - I have attached a rough sketch of the layout room - I believe the room is about 12 x 14 feet. Photo positions for the pictures above are marked on the sketch (but with mixed up numbers - photo position 1 is the second picture, and vice versa) .

Again, I very much appreciate your feedback. I am glad I held back and asked for guidance before starting to lay track even though my fingers were itching.

I have not been able to scan a new track plan, but I have attached two pictures of a possible arrangement (where the the red box is the station building, the card mockup in white the goods shed, black foam platform/loading bank and wagons/coaches placed where they could load and unload), according to my thoughts below:

- I do not want to 'commit' to NER territory yet - I could as well put the station in GN territory, for example - so no coal drops

- I would prefer not to have a switch back spur

- I have added a trap point by the entrance to the goods yard, but the run around loop, now disconnected from the yard, will be unprotected (looking at Masham, for example, the loop does not seem to have a trap - and by the way, the coal drops are smack in the middle of the station, just behind the platform! masham(alan_brown_collection5.1949)old4.jpg) (picture hosted at Disused Stations, I hope they don't mind me linking to it)

- I am undecided if I will make the spur with the coal wagons in the picture a dedicated coal siding with bins, or if I should follow Nicks advice, maybe making this spur another 'milage siding' 

- I will put a crane by the milage siding

- end loading will be done from the siding running parallel with the platform, where the tractor is in the picture

- I am undecided regarding cattle pens/animal loading bank - I guess I could make some arrangement on the dock

- I will either skip the provender store, or put a small one by one of the sidings

Looking on the three tracks between the platform and the loading bank - should I do a cross over instead? - can't see any use for such spur, though?

Just a couple of nagging thoughts, although I cannot find anything to fully justify them, but....

As I have asserted many times before, coal bins next to the track are actually very rare, especially in the north.  If there were any storage bins they would be away from the tracks, to let other users access any wagons on the siding, and, in this plan, to allow road vehicles to get to the coal easily. In mitigation, you have said it's a dedicated coal siding, but I suspect that if the traffic justified this, then the NER would have installed its beloved proper coal drops.  In the absence of such levels of traffic, the dealers at the station would have unloaded directly from the wagon onto their coal carts, with any remains left when the wagon has to be sent away being dropped on the ground to be cleared the next day.

Secondly, I feel the arrangement with the crane is not right.  Firstly it is shown on the loading bank which would limit the use of the bank for other purposes, and I can't see how the load it lifts off the railway wagon can be put onto a road vehicle, as such cranes had a limited radius of operation, and would be unlikely to lift a heavy load over the intervening track.  Secondly it is reached via the goods shed, which would probably require the use of a number of reach wagons as it is unlikely the loco would be allowed in the shed, and also would require the removal of any wagons being unloaded in the shed.  This arrangement would also mean that any authorised out-of-gauge load would need a second mobile crane brought to the station to deal with it.  I feel that the slightly hackneyed approach of having a ground based crane to the right of the goods shed would be the most practical and likely answer, although I am sure that there will be hundreds of contrary examples found to show I am talking total tommy-rot.

Excellent input, thank you very much.

One station that could be relevant inspiration would be Masham, maybe - http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/m/masham/ .

The kickback siding is not necessarily redundant.  

 

One good reason for it would be to have coal drops well away from the rest of the station.

 

If you keep your cattle dock on the lead line for the coal again you are not going to cause too many problems since cattle wouldn't be left for extended periods of time so the siding will not be occupied most of the time.  Only when loading cattle would the coal siding be inaccessible.

Thank you Jon - that was my thinking. The siding with the animal ramp will act as kind of a mileage siding but it is long enough to under normal circumstances be clear for 3-4 coal wagons, as long as the ramp is not in use. I will make a new plan which will give correct measurements.

There would need to be a catch point in the location that you have mentioned. 

 

It is possible that points 3 and 4 could be controlled from a local ground frame. Points 5 and 6 might also be controlled by a level next to the point by a shunter. This assumes that trains enter the loop and run round before shunting.

Excellent, thanks. So the catch (trap?) point would be 'inside' the loop, between point 1 and 2 - not by the entrance to the goods yard, between 2 and 5? 

I'm not sure that the siding from point 6 is a good idea.

 

To shunt it with a loco requires clearing of siding at the toe end of 6.  in reality, this would have been done with 'oss-power, but that's difficult to arrange in scale.

 

Also, having the siding makes the electrics slightly more difficult.

 

A small signal frame might be housed in a small hut which would be operated as and when required by the railway staff.  THese are "signal huts" rather than "signal boxes". An NER signal hut might be appropriate: - http://www.signalbox.org/gallery/ne/hammerton.php

I think I'll do away with the switchback then. Sorry, I don't understand "in reality, this would have been done with 'oss-power,"?

Great idea about the signal hut - I will definitely incorporate that one.

I'm not sure what size you have available, but it might guide your thoughts to look at some actual NER branch termini.  

 

Old Maps UK is your friend, best maps are 1:1250 but the 1:2500 are ok for general arrangements. The link will take you to the listing of plans for Wearouth, about the smallest and most conventional NER branch terminus I could find.  Select the 1921 1:2500 map, the station is just to the right.

 

Some railway publications contain trackplans, of varying quality. I'm not that familiar with NER subjects, but a quick mash up of wikipedia list of clsed lines, and looking at Old Maps uk seems to suggest that there weren't that many - compared to the GWR for example - and most of them had distinctive and somewhat odd trackplans, again compared to the conventional model railway branch terminus.  

 

Kickbacks are rare for traffic sidings, for the reasons outlined above and the lead from a goods yard will always be trapped to prevent anything straying into the path of an oncoming train.  The BoT was very insistent on that!

 

Coal drops - messy things - were unique to the NER on account of their plentiful 20T bottom door hoppers no doubt, and would be well away from other goods areas to avoid filth.

 

Not sure what cattle would be provided  for oop north, so again check a prototype for guidance.

 

Hope that helps, and show us how you get on!

Thank you very much. I will study those maps.

Unfortunately, I think I was a bit careless with my wording on the track plan above. Actually, the 'coal drops' should be 'coal siding' - I was thinking of having proper coal drops though in the larger through station.

And cattle - I blame on being non-native speaker - what I saw before me was an animal loading bank, with sheep as main passengers. Was sheep taken to a market like cattle? Or would it be plausible with sheep being sent for slaughter?

I will produce a new track plan where measurements are clearer.

I have base boards ready for a double track oval depicting a through station with a branch line to a terminus. My initial focus will be on the terminus to get a modelled area as soon as possible. I will aim for something reasonable correct for ca 1950 in the north eastern part of England. It will be freelanced, but I will use NER/LNER as a guide for station colours etc.

The terminus will be a small, rural market town/village with sparse passenger traffic (probably to be abolished within the coming decade), coal, animal feed, on market days cattle, parcels, and a few loads per week of agricultural machinery or other special loads. Outgoing traffic will be mostly agricultural products.

I have yet to decide if I will signal the branch line or not. I am leaning towards One engine in steam.

This is a draft of the track plan.

I would appreciate any input before I start to lay track, especially regarding.

1) Is the track plan reasonable? I do not like having a switch back, but I want to use more of the base board as the branch line will make a curve down/right to the junction town, behind the operator at the terminus (if you look down on the track as you do on the track plan).

2) I guess the question about signalling/one engine is steam mainly depends on if more than one train will ever have to work the branch on the same time?

3) if I choose One engine in steam, would it still be prototypical to have signal cabin (for an operator of points etc)?

4) The points are numbered for reference in the track plan. Which points would typically be controlled by point rodding from the signal cabin (or ground frame?), and which would be controlled by hand levers by the point?

5) Do I need any catch points, for example between point #1 and #2?

This might help ,Montague.

cheers

Peter

Thank you for directing me in this direction.

Do you put on the clay before assembling the walls? Do you make the pattern as the clay still is soft or do you wait until it is dry?

With regard to the level of detail, I would say no real difference between the two. I have both and they are both fine models.

 

Rob

And regarding mechanical/running qualities?

Thanks Rob!

Unfortunately, after having installed an ESU Sound decoder and having witnessed a puff of black smoke which would have made Seuthe proud my 4F pictured above doesn't run anymore. I'm not an electrics guru, but for some reason the loco won't run even if I revert to the former Lenz decoder or put in the blanking plug and try it on DC.

Howe's will send me a new decoder but I don't know if I dare put in the same loco. Therefore, I am considering buying either a new 4F (in LMS livery) or the 3F. As I understand it, the 'generic' 4F sound from Howe's is equally suitable for the 3F, and both have 21 pin decoders. To my question:

For those of you who own both the 3F and 4F - is there any differences between the locos regarding detailing or mechanicals? Is there any reason I would be disappointed in the 3F when comparing it to the 4F?

Thanks!

Yes, it is airbrushed with the 'Schackleton' Humbrol colours Matt black, Leather and Gunmetal, and then MIG Old rust and Black soot powders (the latter only in the tender).

I think it is a beautiful loco. I agree it is a bit loud though and slip quite easily, especially hauling a rake through the tight (about 21 inches radii) curves on my layout.

Thank you Andy and Giles,

 

I am far from reaching the scenic stages but I will remember this helpful advice for when hopefully that day comes, at least no one can question the choice of soil colour if it is the real thing.

 

ATB,

 

Martyn.

Just remember that the real thing will probably look darker on your layout than it does in natural lighting.