Tortuga

So work has started on the baseboards. There’s not scope for much below track scenery - the prototype is on a slight embankment on the signal box side - so I’ve gone for flat 9mm ply as the baseboard surfaces. I think I’ll be able to incorporate the slight embankment with this set up, although it will be on the non-viewing side, so I’m a bit unsure if it’s worth it; thoughts appreciated! Anyhow, pictures! This is the frame for the main (6’) board. As the plan shows, the front edge is shorter to incorporate the curve into the traverser fiddle yard. While I’ve bought 9mm sheets of ply for the tops, the frames are made up of 3.5mm external grade ply and 9mm birch ply, all leftover from the interior work I carried out on my VW T2 Camper. Two pieces of 3.5mm sandwich short blocks of 9mm, leading to a strong and light frame. Below is the frame for the sector plate fiddle yard and the quarry. The base of the sector plate will be inset into the frame, so I’ll need to unscrew this and do a little more cutting before fitting the top. So there we are, up to date. As ever, thoughts/advice/requests for clarification greatly appreciated!

Just finished reading through this. Beautiful layout - I must have missed / forgotten it wasn’t EM at some point, so was really impressed to read it was OO. Just goes to show... Quick question; it’s in the Peak so the prototype used limestone for ballast, but what have you used on the layout and what did you do to avoid the ballast looking too uniform?

Apologies for the rash of ratings. I’ve read through this topic a couple of times and the photos of the track work just blows me away - not that everything else isn’t as equally impressive!

Hi there, I’ve managed to read through all 98 pages and would just want to say how much I’ve enjoyed following this thread so far. I got quite worried every time there was a major change, but you making all those choices have helped me with decisions regarding my own layout - particularly the choice of track! Keep up the excellent work and keep posting those videos - I’m kind of torn between DC and DCC myself, partly thanks to you!

One weighbridge equipped with avoiding rails would mean I could use both lines for loading and cut down on points... I’d also lose the headache of sorting out reliable gravity shunting... Quick query; would vans be weighed on a weighbridge (assuming they’re carrying bagged lime)?

Thanks Gordon, I forgot to add a trap/catch point on the line leading to the are/dep sidings; there should be one. From photos and signal box diagram of Briggs Sidings, both sidings leading to Hindlow Lime Works had trap/catch points operated by the signal box on the same leaver as the turnouts off the loop. I think there was a gradient up from Buxton as the signal box diagram shows a tiny curved line off the up main labelled as “S A C.Pt” - self actuating catch point (?) In reality, mainline locos appear to only have access to the yard and an ICI shunting loco was used to shuffle the wagons around (Thanks to PGH’s topic on limestone shunting locos of Tunstead, Industrial Layouts Thread for this information!). For my part I’ve assumed that there would be a pair of weighbridges (tare and loaded) either side of the loader and that shunting locos wouldn’t be allowed on them and that gravity would move the wagons from the avoiding line, over the tare weighbridge, under the loader and over the loaded weighbridge to be collected by the shunting loco. The loop would therefore have to be protected from runaways.

Thanks! So (with luck) here is the track plan; There was no way I could fit Briggs Sidings and Hindlow Lime Works (never mind Dowlow Lime Works) into the space I had, so I had to compromise. Main Lines, crossover, single slip and loop are all correctly arranged, but I cut out the access to Dowlow Works and considerably chopped back the number of sidings. Not surpringly radii have been altered to fit Peco Code 75 geometry (although I intend to narrow the gap between lines to a more prototypical 6’). I’ve also added the Loco/scrap siding so I can model an overgrown bufferstop; with the other end of the loop being hidden on the traverser, I’d’ve otherwise missed out on the opportunity! Traverser and sector plate are both 4’ long and the section between is 6’. The quarry buildings will be located in front of the sector plate, but I haven’t fully finalised the arrangement of sidings in this area yet. Thoughts, advice, requests for clarification, etc. greatly appreciated!

I’ve been following the development of this layout for a while; being from Leeds, it’s amazing to see a little slice of history (before my time) being recreated. It’s a shame it can’t be exhibited, but I understand why not! I have to say I admire your dedication, but every time the shed gains an extension, I wonder how long it will be before the shed is larger than your house?

Having browsed this forum for a while, I’ve finally decided to take the plunge and post up my own layout in the hope of advice and guidance! Gibbs Sidings has been a LONG time in the planning and has reached the ‘not quite fully planned, but baseboard construction has started stage’. Learning from numerous abortive or over complicated attempts, my aims for the layout are; Inclusion of a main line preferably double track - including running of long(ish) goods trains Goods dominated - including a quarry and ‘hands off’ loading Inclusion of an Inglenook shunting puzzle Realistic operation 1950s/60s timescale Ex-LMS/LNWR Accurate signalling OO Finescale - after much internal debate, I’ve settled on Peco Code 75; the thought of handbuilding track was given serious consideration, but I know if I’d gone down that route, I would’ve ended up with P4 Scale and been carefully measuring exact scale distances between sleepers and planning would never have been finished... Going for Code 75 allowed me to draw up a plan to scale and my other aims were more or less met by choosing Briggs Sidings on the former LNWR Buxton to Ashbourne line. Hmm. No idea how to post photos